Science, Faculty of
Resources, Environment and Sustainability (IRES), Institute for
DSpace
Díaz, Joaquín Gutiérrez
Forest carbon offset programs are widely used for climate change mitigation globally. With about 9% of the world’s forests, Canada retains a significant potential for forest carbon sequestration as a nature-based solution to climate change. Since much of this forestland is contained within British Columbia (BC), forest carbon offset programs have become particularly relevant for BC’s carbon neutrality. However, the efficacy of these programs in offsetting emissions depends on three constructs: (i) the long‐term stability of carbon storage (permanence) (ii) whether offset emissions are shifted elsewhere (leakage), and (iii) whether additional emissions are truly reduced relative to a counterfactual baseline (additionality). A thoughtful accounting protocol that mitigates the challenges posed by these constructs is necessary to accurately quantify carbon removals in any offset project. Research to date has assessed the design and feasibility of previous versions of BC's Forest Carbon Offset Program (FCOP) and other North American protocols but it has not directly addressed the most recent FCOP version, nor compared it to the previous version. This study examines the effectiveness of BC´s carbon offset protocols using a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the first (FCOP 1) and the latest version of FCOP (FCOP 2). To accomplish this, I conducted a structured comparison of the two protocols in how they approach the key ideas of permanence, leakage and additionality. Quantitatively, I developed a spreadsheet model to implement FCOP guidelines, and calculated credits across the two protocol versions, for a hypothetical Improved Forest Management (IFM) project, modeled after BC's Great Bear North and Central Carbon Sequestration Project. Qualitatively, the most impactful changes were then discussed with reference to scholarly literature. Results included a 17.8% decrease in offset credit totals in FCOP 2, compared to FCOP 1, for the hypothetical project, mostly due to changes in the protocols’ guidelines addressing carbon and methane quantification from Harvested Wood Products (HWPs) and changes in external land-shifting and harvest-shifting leakage calculations. The decrease in credit totals suggests that FCOP 2 is more conservative at estimating carbon sequestration in IFM projects, compared to its earlier version. Further, credit totals in FCOP2 were highly sensitive to key leakage-related assumptions. This variability in total offset credits should be considered when utilizing offsets as a key climate change mitigation solution.
BRITISH COLUMBIA´S NEW FOREST CARBON OFFSET PROGRAM: A PROTOCOL COMPARISON A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE in INTEGRATED SCIENCES by Joaquín Gutiérrez Díaz THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver April 2024 © Joaquín Gutiérrez Díaz, 2024 2 Abstract Forest carbon offset programs are widely used for climate change mitigation globally. With about 9% of the world’s forests, Canada retains a significant potential for forest carbon sequestration as a nature-based solution to climate change. Since much of this forestland is contained within British Columbia (BC), forest carbon offset programs have become particularly relevant for BC’s carbon neutrality. However, the efficacy of these programs in offsetting emissions depends on three constructs: (i) the long‐term stability of carbon storage (permanence) (ii) whether offset emissions are shifted elsewhere (leakage), and (iii) whether additional emissions are truly reduced relative to a counterfactual baseline (additionality). A thoughtful accounting protocol that mitigates the challenges posed by these constructs is necessary to accurately quantify carbon removals in any offset project. Research to date has assessed the design and feasibility of previous versions of BC's Forest Carbon Offset Program (FCOP) and other North American protocols but it has not directly addressed the most recent FCOP version, nor compared it to the previous version. This study examines the effectiveness of BC´s carbon offset protocols using a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the first (FCOP 1) and the latest version of FCOP (FCOP 2). To accomplish this, I conducted a structured comparison of the two protocols in how they approach the key ideas of permanence, leakage and additionality. Quantitatively, I developed a spreadsheet model to implement FCOP guidelines, and calculated credits across the two protocol versions, for a hypothetical Improved Forest Management (IFM) project, modeled after BC's Great Bear North and Central Carbon Sequestration Project. Qualitatively, the most impactful changes were then discussed with reference to scholarly literature. Results included a 17.8% decrease in offset credit totals in FCOP 2, compared to FCOP 1, for the hypothetical project, mostly due to changes in the protocols’ guidelines addressing carbon and methane quantification from Harvested Wood Products (HWPs) and changes in external 3 land-shifting and harvest-shifting leakage calculations. The decrease in credit totals suggests that FCOP 2 is more conservative at estimating carbon sequestration in IFM projects, compared to its earlier version. Further, credit totals in FCOP2 were highly sensitive to key leakage-related assumptions. This variability in total offset credits should be considered when utilizing offsets as a key climate change mitigation solution. 4 Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ 5 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 Carbon offsets in British Columbia ......................................................................................................... 11 FCOP 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 12 FCOP 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Research Question .................................................................................................................................. 14 Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 16 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 16 Hypothetical IFM Project ........................................................................................................................ 17 Spreadsheet Model Analysis ................................................................................................................... 18 Comparison and Sensitivity Analysis ....................................................................................................... 20 Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Carbon Storage in HWPs ......................................................................................................................... 22 Methane emissions from HWPs.............................................................................................................. 24 Leakage and additionality ....................................................................................................................... 25 Discussion.................................................................................................................................................... 27 Financial implications .............................................................................................................................. 30 Recommendations for future FCOP versions .......................................................................................... 31 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 32 Appendix I: GB Carbon and Harvest Data ................................................................................................... 38 Appendix II: HWP percentages ................................................................................................................... 40 Appendix II: Spreadsheet models ............................................................................................................... 41 5 List of Figures Figure 1 Issued offset units per project type in BC, self-made with BC´s Carbon Registry data ................ 13 Figure 2 Methodology overview ................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 4 Contribution of HWPs and ecosystem carbon to gross carbon sequestration across protocols . 24 List of Tables Table 1 Definitions of common challenges for forest-based offset projects.............................................. 10 Table 2 Summary of key assumptions in the spreadsheet model .............................................................. 20 Table 3 Summary of changes in total issued offsets across FCOP 1 and 2. ................................................ 22 Table 4 Market leakage calculation parameters for sequestration projects with moderate substitutability. ........................................................................................................................................... 26 6 Acknowledgement I acknowledge that this work was written on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territories of the Musqueam Nation, host to the University of British Columbia, a place that has become my home for the past five years, where I have immensely grown personally and academically. My gratitude goes many ways. Firstly, to my mother, Alma, for instilling in me the values I live by today and motivating me to become the best version of myself. To my sister, Fátima, for continuing to teach me how to be more patient and joyful. To my partner, Erick, for the unwavering support throughout my degree and for reminding me that for each intimidating challenge, there are countless conquered ones. And especially, to my supervisors Dr. Amanda Giang and Dr. Milind Kandlikar, for their motivating guidance and support. Being under their supervision has been a deeply enriching and inspiring privilege. 7 Introduction Forests make up the largest terrestrial carbon sink on the planet (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022) and their potential to impact the global carbon cycle and mitigate climate change is substantial (Richards& Huebner, 2012). Through photosynthesis, forests can capture CO2 and turn it into biomass, sequestering carbon in three significant pools: live biomass, fallen and dead wood as well as soil. However, forest carbon sequestration can be affected by both biophysical and socioeconomic factors (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022). Biophysical factors such as wildfire frequency, precipitation rates, and insect outbreaks can negatively impact carbon sequestration in forests (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022). Similarly, socioeconomic factors such as improvements in management practices (e.g. reducing the frequency of harvests), preventing the conversion of forested areas, increasing the utilization of long-lived Harvested Wood Products (HWPs) as well as increasing forest cover can enhance carbon sequestration in forests (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022). Besides their ability to sequester carbon, forests also provide valuable ecosystem services to their communities (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022). Forests can additionally enhance biodiversity, improve ecosystem resiliency and community wellbeing (Fankhauser et al., 2021). These positive effects have made them a widely discussed nature-based solution to climate change. By addressing the above-mentioned factors affecting forest carbon pools, forest carbon sequestration projects have the potential to bring net mitigation benefits, advance community-based biodiversity conservation, and empower Indigenous-led conservation efforts (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022). Containing about 9% of the world’s forests (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022) Canada has significant opportunities for forest-based climate change mitigation solutions, due to the size and extent of its forest cover. This high potential is reflected in Canada’s federal government commitment to utilizing nature-based solutions to meet a federal net-zero emissions target by 2050, to achieve the Paris 8 Agreement´s 1.5°C limit for global warming. Net-zero as a concept, requires that any emissions outside an allowed budget are balanced by removals into carbon sinks (Fankhauser et al., 2021) by a specific date. The term net-zero has become popular among governments and corporate climate goals, which besides their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction commitments, set a target date to become net-zero. A similar term, carbon-neutral, may differ from net-zero in scope and the timeline of emission reductions (Rogelj et al., 2021). However, I will not consider those differences for this research work and both terms will be used interchangeably. Ideally, to achieve carbon-neutral or net-zero targets, carbon emissions need to be minimized and removals need to be maximized. Although the reduction of carbon emissions should be the main component of this transition (Fankhauser et al., 2021), the potential of forest nature-based solutions for carbon sequestration has interested companies and governments widely. The quantification of forest carbon sequestration or 'negative carbon emissions' can result in offsetting units or credits. These units, depending on the type of forest project, can be utilized by nations and companies to fulfill their climate targets, particularly for GHG emission reductions that are costly and challenging to implement. Carbon offset projects sell credits to third parties who wish to reduce their carbon emissions to meet their voluntary or mandatory climate goals. Offset projects can be classified into three main categories: reforestation, improved forest management (IFM), and avoided land conversion. Of these, IFM projects are estimated to have the greatest cumulative and annual carbon sequestration potential at around 471.4 and 27.9 mega carbon tonnes /year (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022). Additionally, carbon offsets are distinguished by the type of market in which they are sold. Credits used to meet any government-enforced reduction in carbon emissions are sold in compliance markets, where buyers are required to purchase credits from often government-regulated projects. On the other hand, projects that produce offsets for independent buyers wishing to reduce their carbon emissions are sold in voluntary markets, that have little to no government regulation (Kollmuss et al., 2010). Projects that 9 sell credits in compliance markets have gained more attention among companies and governments as more nations worldwide have committed to reducing their carbon emissions as per negotiations such as the Paris Agreement to limit warming to 1.5 °C. Offset credits sold in compliance markets usually have more stringent carbon quantification measures compared to voluntary offsets, which have been criticized for over-crediting and not contributing to climate change mitigation (Badgley et al., 2022a). To guarantee the accuracy of forest carbon offsets—that is, ensuring that they genuinely capture the claimed amount of sequestered carbon—it is crucial to establish thorough quantification methods. Carbon quantification guidelines are usually established on protocols that provide guidelines and standards for carbon accounting. For compliance offsets, these protocols are usually designed by governmental organizations, ensuring the robust standardization of accounting measures for different types of offset projects. However, while standardized approaches for carbon accounting through protocols may be useful to reduce inaccuracy in project-based offset quantification approaches, inaccuracies at the protocol level may also lead to risks in systemic over-crediting of offsets. The effectiveness of carbon offset programs in capturing carbon emissions has been tied to specific challenges in the quantification of forest-based carbon pools. For any offset protocol to produce effective credits, challenges associated with compliance offsets need to be addressed within the protocol. Permanence of sequestered carbon, leakage, and additionality have been identified as areas of concern for forest-based offset projects (Richards & Huebner, 2012). The definition of each challenge, adapted from Richards & Huebner (2012) is provided in Table 1 below. 10 Table 1 Definitions of common challenges for forest-based offset projects, adapted from Richards & Huebner (2012) Challenge Definition Permanence The longevity of offset-issuing carbon removals by different forest carbon sinks and long-lived HWPs (e.g., construction lumber, furniture). It is particularly relevant to forest carbon projects because of their greater susceptibility to carbon reversal from forest sinks to the atmosphere, for instance through biophysical (e.g., forest fires, insect outbreaks) and socioeconomic factors (e.g., changes in land ownership, changes in harvesting practices). Leakage Market-Shifting (Indirect): Measure of whether carbon removals at the project site lead to increased emissions in other areas, through market mechanisms such as price changes. The reduction of supply for a determined good (e.g., timber) leads to a price increase that transmits information to producers and consumers to reach a new market equilibrium. Market leakage can be external or internal depending on whether the areas where it occurs are outside the project’s boundaries. Activity-Shifting (Direct): Measure of whether carbon removals at the project site lead to increased emissions in other areas from the direct displacement of activities to neighboring areas with similar forest characteristics. Activity leakage can be external or internal depending on whether the areas where it occurs are outside the project’s boundaries. Additionality Measure of whether a project would have not occurred without the offset revenue. A project that is truly additional, achieves emission reductions that are additional to counterfactual business-as-usual practices or natural processes in the given project area. 11 Carbon offsets in British Columbia The Canadian province of British Columbia (BC) has been recognized for its ambitious climate change mitigation goals within Canada and North America. Since 2008, through the Carbon Neutral Government Regulation, all public sectors have been required to purchase carbon offsets from approved projects to become carbon neutral in 2011 (Carbon Neutral Government Regulation, 2008). In the same year, the province enacted a carbon tax to be applied on all the end purchases of fossil fuels, which has increased to a price of $65 per carbon tonne as of April 2023 (Government of British Columbia, 2021). Although an equal carbon tax is now a federal requirement across provinces and territories, the province has additionally committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050, with respect to 2007 levels (Government of British Columbia, 2021). To achieve such reduction goals, in 2015 the province enacted the Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act (GGIRCA), a compliance regulatory framework that caps emissions in BC´s industrial facilities or sectors. Through this framework, companies emitting over 10,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) have the option of directly decreasing their GHG emissions or purchasing government-approved offset credits to comply with the regulations (Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act, 2014). Initially, in 2008, the BC government established the Pacific Carbon Trust, a crown corporation with the goal of purchasing offsets on behalf of the BC government. However, in 2013, the Pacific Carbon Trust was shut down and its responsibilities were transferred to the Ministry of Environment (Peterson St-Laurent et al., 2017). As of 2024, carbon offsets are regulated by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change through the BC Carbon Registry. The registry is regulated under the Greenhouse Gas Emission Control Regulation (GGERC) which establishes the reporting and monitoring requirements for project plans (BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2021). To 12 produce a BC Offset unit (equivalent to a tCO2e), carbon removal projects need to comply with regulations and requirements outlined in one of the government-approved offset protocols and be subject to independent verification. While BC offset units can be utilized by facilities and organizations regulated under GGIRCA and public sector entities, voluntary purchasers also have the option to use these credits to fulfill their individual climate change mitigation goals. This dual nature transforms BC's market into a hybrid one, accommodating both regulated and voluntary participants. The BC Carbon registry contains publicly available information on the issuance, transfer, and retirement of offset units. Under issuances, the registry lists all the credits that have been produced by various offset-producing project proponents. Lastly, development and maintenance guidelines are included in the BC Offset Protocol Policy document. Besides the Forest Carbon Offset Protocol (FCOP), which is in development, as of November 2023, other protocols include: Methane from Organic Waste Protocol, approved; Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) Protocol; Fuel Switch Offset Protocol (FSOP), in review (Greenhouse Gas Emission Offset Projects - Province of British Columbia, n.d). FCOP 1 FCOP establishes the guidelines and rules that proponents of forest carbon offset projects need to follow for their offsets to be sold at BC’s compliance market. A draft of FCOP 1 was internally presented in 2008 by BC’s Climate Action Secretariat and was first publicly published in November 2010, with a public review conducted until January 31, 2011. (Peterson St-Laurent et al., 2017). This process was led by the climate action secretariat, and interests of the Pacific Carbon Trust, and First Nations, and the Ministry of Forests (Peterson St-Laurent et al., 2017). In August 2011, the first version of FCOP was incorporated into the Carbon Neutral Government regulation, enabling all public sectors in BC to 13 become carbon neutral. The protocol outlined, besides broader quantification guidelines, the relevant carbon Sources, Sinks, and Reservoirs (SSRs) and equations for each forest-based offset project. After the end of the crediting period, forest sequestration projects are required to comply with a monitoring period, specifically a 100-year period during which a project proponent must monitor the project site to confirm that the project emission reductions (through forest and HWPs pools) are permanent (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2023). From 2009-2021, 11 million tCO2e or 87% of the issued offsets under the BC carbon registry originated from forest carbon sequestration projects (see Figure 1 below). Compared to other project types, forest sequestration projects stand out as a key component of BC´s carbon neutrality strategy. This emphasis corresponds to the vast forest resources contained within the province, with a significant portion of these being classified as old growth with one of the highest carbon sequestration rates on Earth (Government of British Columbia, 2021). Figure 1 Issued offset units per project type in BC, self-made with BC´s Carbon Registry data Share of issued BC offset units per project type(2009-2021) Energy EfficiencyFuel SwitchingOtherForest Sequestration 14 During this period, five sequestration projects were created following the guidelines established in FCOP 1. In 2015, this version of the protocol was withdrawn for revision. As of 2024, most offset credits generated from FCOP 1-approved projects have been bought by the BC government to satisfy its carbon neutrality objective, supplemented by minor purchases from the private sector. Even though a new final version of the protocol is expected to be established soon, older projects are allowed to continue selling credits under FCOP 1 under grandparenting provisions of GGIRCA (BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2021). FCOP 2 A draft of the second version of the protocol was published in 2021 and has undergone a review engagement process with significant stakeholders and technical experts. The first engagement period happened from March 30 to May 31, 2021, and a second engagement occurred from February 2 to April 7, 2023. According to the BC government, the latest draft of FCOP 2 reflects changes in BC legislation and best practices for carbon accounting in forests consistent with those established by the International Standard Organization (ISO) and other international protocols (BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2021). Specific changes include the improvement of requirements for establishing baseline scenarios, and the simplification of accounting guidelines on leakage, carbon SSRs, and HWPs (BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2021). Research Question However, the accuracy and effectiveness of various forest-based carbon offset projects have been widely criticized by scholarly authors. Authors such as Badgley et al. (2022) have pointed out the overestimation of carbon removal from such programs due to the non-conservative (i.e., not erring on 15 the side of caution) determination of deforestation baseline scenarios that lead to the over-crediting of offset projects. Similarly, Peterson St-Laurent et al. (2017) have criticized the effectiveness of FCOP in supporting BC´s climate mitigation goals. As an example, in 2013, the Darkwoods forest carbon project was criticized by the BC Auditor General for systematic over-crediting (Office of the Auditor General of BC, 2013). Similarly, Indigenous groups have criticized FCOP´s participatory guidelines and economic involvement opportunities for Indigenous communities through large leakage deductions and strenuous bureaucratic requirements (British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, 2021). Lastly, authors such as Hope et al. (2021) have conducted a financial analysis on the economic feasibility of various offsetting protocols, including BC´s, reporting concerns about the protocols’ consideration of economic opportunities for project proponents. Although past research has presented cross-protocol comparisons, including the FCOP and other North American protocols (Foley et al., 2009; Richards & Huebner, 2012), these studies focus on earlier versions of the protocol and do not integrate quantitative and qualitative assessments. Additionally, little consensus exists on optimal protocol approaches for conservatively quantifying forest carbon sequestration (Hope et al., 2021), thus it is important to explore the changes of newly introduced credit quantification approaches in the BC context. Given the significant portion of Canadian forests in BC, it is important for the province to have comprehensive and accurate carbon accounting protocols. Thus, the aim of this proposed research will be to investigate : How effective is the latest version BC´s forest-based offset protocol at conservatively quantifying carbon sequestration in improved forest management projects? The objectives I will answer through this research work are the following: 16 - Identify the major changes that have an impact on carbon offset totals in FCOP 2, through a quantitative and qualitative comparison of its earlier version. - Identify key changes that lead to more conservative approaches to carbon accounting for BC-based projects, using a hypothetical project as a case study. - Suggest improvements for future versions of FCOP for increased conservativeness in its carbon accounting methodologies. Thus, my thesis will aim to compare BC´s FCOP calculation methodologies for IFM forest offset projects, identifying influential parameters and assumptions in the new version of the protocol, and suggest potential actions to increase its effectiveness in conservative carbon quantification. Methodology Overview To answer this research question, a quantitative and qualitative assessment of BC´s FCOP first and second versions was conducted, using a hypothetical IFM offset project as a case study. This assessment approach is done after similar work by Galik et al. (2009) and Hope et al. (2021)for carbon accounting in forest land. The hypothetical project was designed to serve as an illustrative example to highlight the implications of FCOP 2 guidelines for IFM projects. Figure 2 below shows an overview of the methodology employed for this research work, followed by a detailed explanation of the quantitative and qualitative methods followed. 17 Figure 2 Methodology overview Hypothetical IFM Project The hypothetical case study was based on BC´s Great Bear North and Central-Mid Coast Sequestration Project, (hereafter referred to as GB Project) which is expected to generate about 8.49 million tCO2e emission reductions from 2009 to 2039, with annual emission reductions ranging between ~ 193,000 to 365,000 tCO2e (Carbon Credit Corp, 2011). These are the most credits to have been produced by this date by any single forest sequestration project in the provincial offset program. The hypothetical project was designed to specifically resemble ecosystem carbon, harvest, species composition, and benefit-sharing agreement data stated in the GB Project Plan. The GB Project is an IFM – Logged to Protected Forest sequestration project, aiming to increase long-term carbon removals by protecting forest areas designated for commercial logging and reducing harvest levels in the project area (Carbon Credit Corp, 2011). Ecosystem carbon corresponding to the live biomass and dead organic matter as well as harvest data for both the baseline and project scenarios 18 was obtained from the GB Project Plan, refer to Appendix I for details (Carbon Credit Corp, 2011). The project encompasses 4.73 million hectares of land and freshwater, of which 1.92 million hectares is productive forest. The project’s productive forest is mostly composed of, yellow cedar (Callitropsis nootkatensis), western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) 55%, red cedar (Thuja plicata) 33%, balsam 7.5%, and sitka spruce 7.5% (Picea sitchensis)(British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range, 2007). While there are some species not considered in the above composition, the species mix was assumed to be representative of the GB Project forest area. This is similar to species composition estimates established in the “ APPENDIX G: BC TIMBER HARVESTING VOLUME BY SPECIES AND REGION “ in FCOP 1. The GB Project was jointly proposed by Coastal First Nations, namely the Nuxalk Nation, Wuikinuxv Nation, Metlakatla First Nation, Kitasoo/Xaixais First Nation, Heiltsuk Nation, and Gitga’at First Nation, all part of the umbrella group, the Great Bear Initiative Society (Carbon Credit Corp, 2011). The Great Bear Initiative, in conjunction with the BC government, manages and share economic benefits related to the project through established Atmospheric Sharing Agreements (ABSA). For the GB Project ABSA, 55% of the net-credit profit is allocated to the Great Bear Initiative, and the remainder 45% to the BC provincial government. Spreadsheet Model Analysis The hypothetical case study presented above was then quantitatively assessed against a series of spreadsheet models based on the guidelines established in FCOP 1 and 2 (see Appendix III for complete calculations) to identify the most impactful changes to credit totals. The models adhered to standard equations and values provided in FCOP 1 and 2 as well as the above-mentioned data from the hypothetical project. However, the estimation of parameters needed for the calculation of carbon storage and methane (CH4) emissions from HWPs was necessary, due to a lack of data accessibility in the 19 GB Project plan. Lastly, Table 2 below shows a summary of key assumptions needed for the development of the spreadsheet models, excluding those explicitly stated in FCOP 1 and 2. To account for carbon pools and methane emissions from HWPs, harvested wood volumes allocated to HWPs considered in FCOP were estimated from BC’s mill survey data. As per FCOP 1, the relevant HWPs are softwood lumber, hardwood lumber, softwood plywood, oriented strand board, non-structural panels, miscellaneous products, and paper. The 2008 historical mill survey report (BC Ministry of Forests, Personal Communication, February 2024) was used to calculate the share of total harvest volume allocations for each HWP, attempting to resemble the values established in the original GB Project calculations. This year's report was assumed to represent the share of harvest volumes allocated for different HWPs as it showed consistency with previous years' reports. The detailed allocation of harvest volumes is included in Appendix II. To determine the degree of sensitivity of credit totals to the changes introduced in FCOP 2, each isolated change in the total credit calculation was analyzed using the model until all modifications in FCOP 2 were accounted for. For each change, the percentage change relative to FCOP 1 credit totals was computed. The differences in offset credit totals resulting from the assessment of the hypothetical project against both FCOP versions helped identify which changes had the greatest impact on the total credits. Additionally, for leakage calculation purposes of the hypothetical project red cedar and cypress were identified as low substitutability woods (40% substitutability) and all other commercially harvested trees in the species mix were assumed substitutable (100% substitutability) (Carbon Credit Corp, 2011). Similarly, expected deforestation areas due to the foregone harvest for activity-shifting leakage were estimated through a productivity-to-area ratio relative to the baseline carbon data. Lastly, approaches to buffer quantification (meant to act as a withholding account in case of any unplanned carbon 20 reversals such as a forest fire) were not within the scope of this research work, and thus were assumed to be constant across both versions of the protocol. Table 2 Summary of key assumptions in the spreadsheet models Assumption Source Value Homogeneity of composition of leading species. (British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range, 2007) 55%, red cedar (Thuja plicata) 33%, balsam 7.5%, and Sitka spruce 7.5% (Picea sitchensis) Allocation of Harvested Wood into HWPs 2008 Mill survey report (BC Ministry of Forests and Range, Personal Communication, February 2024) 0 to 66% depending on the HWP. See Appendix II for a complete breakdown. Species substitutability FCOP 1 40% (Red Cedar) to 100% (Other species) Market Leakage for moderately substitutable wood FCOP 1 and 2 55.3% (FCOP 1) and 47.4% (FCOP 2). See Table 3 for the calculation breakdown. Buffer (Contingency account) (Carbon Credit Corp, 2011) 10% of net credits ABSA (Carbon Credit Corp, 2011) 45% to the BC provincial government and 55% to the Great Bear Society. Project Area (Carbon Credit Corp, 2011) 276,900 Hectares Comparison and Sensitivity Analysis A qualitative comparison was then performed on the most impactful changes to credit totals, introduced by FCOP 2, contextualizing the change trends in permanence, leakage, and additionality, with academic literature findings. Particular attention was given to the role of assumptions in the sensitivity of market and activity-shifting leakage calculations and credit totals. As mentioned above, an emphasis on the discussion of changes in approaches to addressing challenges within each FCOP version was chosen as they are helpful measures that are helpful to assess the effectiveness of an offset (Richards & Huebner, 2012). The results from both quantitative and qualitative analyses across protocols were then 21 used to identify areas of improvement within BC´s FCOP and suggest possible improvement strategies that can be applied to future iterations of the protocol. Results By assessing the hypothetical project against the spreadsheet models for both versions of the protocol, a total decrease of 17.8 %, from 5,129,903 to 4,217,710 tCO2e, of total issued credits was found. The significant decrease was mostly found to be caused by changes in FCOP guidelines addressing carbon and methane quantification from HWPs as well as changes in external land-shifting and harvest-shifting leakage calculations. Table 3 below shows a summary of the major factor changes and their partial contribution to credit total changes across both protocols. It is important to point out that different factor changes can influence each other (e.g., HWP quantification affects leakage), and that this is only reflected in the total change in issued credits at the bottom of Table 3. Overall, percentage changes were mostly negative, suggesting increased partial conservativeness in FCOP 2 compared to FCOP 1. For instance, changes such as the exclusion of HWPs in landfills as carbon sinks resulted in a decrease of 14.8%, from 5,129,903 to 4,368,715 tCO2e, in credit totals. Similarly, changes in leakage resulted in a decrease of 9.9%, from 5,129,903 to 4,624,510 tCO2e, in total issued credits compared to FCOP 1. On the other hand, the exclusion of HWP CH4 emissions in FCOP 2 resulted in a total credit increase of 9.5%, from 5,129,903 to 5,614,844 tCO2e, compared to FCOP 1. Additionally, other major changes in FCOP 2 included a simplification of equations and relevant SSRs for IFM projects, increasing the ease of credit computation for project proponents. 22 Table 3 Summary of changes in total issued offsets across FCOP 1 and 2 Category FCOP 1 FCOP 2 Change in variable (tCO2e) Pre-change Credits (tCO2e) Post-change Credits (tCO2e) Change in total issued credits Carbon storage in HWP Landfill + in-use In-use 4,974,593 to 781,307, an 84% decrease 5,129,903 4,368,715 -14.8% Emissions from HWP CH4 included CH4 not Included N/A 5,129,903 5,614,844 9.5% Leakage Market (External) Activity (External) + Market (External) 17,146,350 to 18,394,235, a 7 % increase 5,129,903 4,624,510 -9.9% Total (Considering all factor changes above) 5,129,903 4,217,710 -17.8% Carbon Storage in HWPs HWPs are recognized to be a significant part of forest carbon sequestration accounting frameworks and an effective mitigation strategy in Canada (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022). The production of HWPs requires less energy and produces lower emissions compared to other materials (e.g., steel, concrete), with the most carbon-intensive supply chain components for HWPs being the processing and transport (Ingerson, 2011). In particular, long-lived HWPs in use and in landfills have recently been shown to be major carbon sinks (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022; Ingerson, 2011), as they can store carbon for long periods of time. 23 In FCOP 1 both HWPs in use and landfills are considered significant carbon sinks; on the other hand, FCOP 2 only considers a 6% carbon permanence in HWPs in use and does not consider HWPs in landfills to be a significant sink of carbon due to the uncertainty associated with their disposal. This single change resulted in a decrease of 14.8%, from 5,129,903 to 4,368,715 tCO2e, of total issued credits. Similarly, in FCOP 1, the quantification of carbon storage from HWPs requires the specific tracing of harvested volumes. This is a complex task, due to the often large project area of forest sequestration projects and the complexity of following the supply chains for each HWP. Another challenge arises when determining the estimates of 100-year carbon permanence for different HWPs in use and landfills, which can greatly influence uncertainty in the calculation of credit totals, due to the internal variability of carbon stocks within the region (Smith James E., 2006). FCOP 2, on the other hand, provides a much simpler approach, assuming a blanket 6% carbon permanence value for a standard mix of HWPs (e.g., oriented strand board, hardwood lumber, paper; refer to Appendix II for a complete list of considered HWPs). While simpler, this new approach results in an 84% decrease of HWP carbon pools, from 4,974,593 to 781,307 tCO2e, in estimates for carbon stored in HWPs, reducing their contribution to credit totals. Figure 4 below shows the contribution of HWPs, and ecosystem sinks to gross carbon sequestration (i.e., before leakage, emission, and other subtractions). In addition to the above-mentioned decrease in total credits, it can be observed that HWPs in landfills accounted for 10% of the total carbon sequestration in FCOP 1, while HWPs in use retain half (from 10 % to 5 %) of their initial sequestration levels from FCOP 1 compared to FCOP 2. 24 Figure 3 Contribution of HWPs and ecosystem carbon to gross carbon sequestration across protocols Methane emissions from HWPs When meeting its end-of-life disposal, over half of the carbon stored in HWPs is estimated to be slowly released into the atmosphere due to anaerobic decomposition in the form of methane (Ingerson, 2011). Methane is a potent GHG, with considerably greater heat-trapping capacity than CO2, and is estimated to contribute a third of the global GHG emissions that induce climate warming (Wang et al., 2024). The quantification of CH4 emissions from HWPs in landfills can be a challenging task given the high degree of uncertainty in characterizing the long-term return of methane and the relatively recent implementation of capping and recovery practices in landfills worldwide (Ingerson, 2011). This uncertainty is consistent with FCOP 2 changes, where the exclusion of CH4 emissions in FCOP 2 results in a 9.5% increase, from 5,129,903 to 5,614,844 tCO2e, in the total issued credits, compared to FCOP 1. However, FCOP 1 acknowledges the inherent challenges in accurately estimating CH4 emissions from HWPs in landfills. The earlier version of the protocol considers an estimate of 80% collection and destruction of CH4 from the decay of HWPs in landfills, with the remaining 20% accounted for in the protocol reducing credit totals (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2017). The remaining portion of HWP CH4 emissions not factored in the protocol are assumed to be captured by increasing North American requirements for landfill gas collection and destruction systems in 25 landfills. Due to the same reason, CH4 emissions from the anaerobic breakdown of HWPs in landfills are no longer included in FCOP 2. While this choice contributes to the reduction of strenuous calculations in this new protocol version, the increase in total issued credits due to this individual change indicates a non-conservative change in FCOP 2. Leakage and additionality As mentioned in Table 1 above, leakage takes place when emission reductions due to a forest offset project lead to an increase in emissions elsewhere due to direct or indirect agents. Leakage and additionality are according to Filewod & McCarney (2023), “two sides of the same coin” (p.792). Projects that are truly additional inherently lead to leakage effects, as they displace market equilibrium. Given the difficulty in measuring beyond-boundary market leakage effects due to forest-based offset projects, especially for large forgone harvest supply amounts (Ingerson, 2011), assumptions play a key role in determining leakage discounts. While FCOP 1 only considers external market-shifting leakage, FCOP 2 also considers activity-shifting leakage for IFM projects, recognizing that any decrease in harvest volumes by IFM projects results in a certain level of activity-shifting to neighboring areas within the project. The individual changes in leakage calculations and their requirements for IFM projects in FCOP 2 result in an increase of 7%, from 17,146,350 to 18,394,235 tCO2e, in total leakage discounts. This increase in leakage naturally leads to a decrease of 9.9%, from 5,129,903 to 4,624,510 tCO2e, in total issued credits compared to FCOP 1, the second largest individual change in FCOP 2 credit totals. Besides the inclusion of external market leakage, changes in market-shifting leakage estimates also play a significant role in this change: FCOP 1 includes a moderate market leakage estimate of 55.3% for IFM projects, and FCOP 2 considers a lower estimate of 47.4%. The difference in this leakage 26 percentage is due to a change in the parameters needed for its calculation. Table 4 below shows a comparison of the values used in the calculation of the leakage estimates, based on Murray et al. (2004) formula, widely used across protocols to estimate market leakage from avoided forest harvest. Table 4 Market leakage calculation parameters for sequestration projects with moderate substitutability, taken from FCOP 1 and 2 FCOP 1 FCOP 2 e = 0.3420 e = 0.66 E = -0.1810 E = -0.55 CR = 1 CR = 1 CN = 1 CN = 1 Φ = 0.01 Φ = 0.01 γ = 0.8479 γ = 0.8719 % leakage = 55.3% % leakage = 47.4% Table 4 shows the parameters used for the leakage calculations for the hypothetical IFM project. Parameters include: elasticity of supply (e), elasticity of demand (E), carbon sequestration values (CN and CR), preservation parameter (Φ) (i.e. the market share of timber of the offset project), and the substitutability parameter (γ). A sensitivity analysis conducted through the spreadsheet models points out that the bolded parameters in the table have the most impact on leakage percentages. Namely, changes in the elasticity of supply and demand (e & E) and substitutability parameters (γ) can largely impact leakage calculation totals. For example, forest sequestration projects that prevent the logging of a highly substitutable (i.e. common) tree species are likely to have larger market-shifting leakage than those with less substitutable (i.e. uncommon) species. This is in line with findings from the academic literature, for instance, changes of 25% in elasticity parameters for FCOP 2 lead to a variation of leakage estimates from 58% to 78% (Filewod & McCarney, 2023). Although the substitutability parameter (γ) and elasticity of supply (e) value increases in FCOP 2, the elasticity of demand (E) decreases, leading to a conservative change across protocols. 27 Discussion Overall, FCOP 2 showed a more conservative carbon quantification approach compared to its earlier version, due to the exclusion of HWPs in landfills as a carbon sink and the inclusion of external activity-shifting leakage for the hypothetical project. However, changes such as the exclusion of CH4 emissions from HWPs and reductions in external market-shifting leakage default estimates for moderately substitutable wood species indicate non-conservative changes. It is worth pointing out that the results are likely to change depending on the assumptions made for the hypothetical project. For example, when assessing against FCOP 2 guidelines, changes such as a more diverse species composition containing more substitutable tree species, cannot only slightly affect carbon storage estimates for distinct HWPs but also significantly lead to increases in leakage discounts. Nonetheless, the close resemblance of the IFM project to real-life projects, such as the GB Project, can serve as an illustrative example to identify future potential implications of the changes introduced by FCOP 2. A thorough discussion on the implications of both types of changes in the protocols’ effectiveness at measuring carbon sequestration are discussed below. The inclusion of HWPs in forest sequestration quantification protocols can significantly change the sequestration benefits of IFM projects (Council of Canadian Academies, 2022). The exclusion of HWPs in landfills and its effect on credit totals indicates a more stringent accounting approach in FCOP 2. By excluding HWPs in landfills in FCOP 2, more attention can be given to in-use HWPs and their role as a significant carbon sink. This focus on carbon permanence in HWPs in use continues to be reflected in FCOP 2, which considers a default value of carbon permanence of 6% in a standard HWP mix, compared to FCOP 1 which results in carbon stored in HWPs to be reduced by half. Although this blanket quantification approach reduces the opportunity for overestimation of carbon sequestration at the individual project level, it can also introduce uncertainty at the protocol level. Determining the 28 permanence of carbon after a standard 100-year period can carry significant uncertainty as to the actual length of use of HWPs (Ingerson, 2011) due to several factors such as supply chain and tracing complexity. For example, while forest carbon pools at project sites can be monitored for reversals, off-site tracking of long-term carbon storage is far more difficult, as it depends on consumer behavior (Ingerson, 2011). Thus, the accuracy of carbon permanence in HWPs in use defaults at the protocol level can be questioned. For instance, similar estimates for carbon permanence in HWPs in use in the United States are about 1% (Ingerson, 2011), which is significantly lower than the 6% established in FCOP 2. Additionally, Ingerson’s findings (2011) suggest that a large portion of this carbon 100-year permanence can be either negligible or equal to the emissions associated with the production of long-lived HWPs, namely from processing and transport emissions. Similarly, the exclusion of CH4 emissions from FCOP 2 resulting in an increase in total-issued credits highlights room for increasing conservativeness in future FCOP versions. The uncertainty mentioned in FCOP 2, aligns with scholarly literature studies that report estimates for collection and destruction of CH4 to be largely underestimated worldwide (Maasakkers et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2024). For instance, Wang et al. (2024) report an underestimation of up to 200% in landfills globally, highlighting the importance for methane consideration in HWP accounting in forest offset protocols. Although methane recovery practices are becoming more common, determining their effectiveness in overall climate change mitigation has proven hard (Wang et al., 2024). To give a comprehensive consideration of HWPs across their life cycles, not only during their use phase, an estimate of these CH4 emissions could be factored into FCOP’s credit accounting approaches for increased conservativeness. By factoring the associated emissions from the decay of HWPs into the accounting framework, a more 29 comprehensive approach can be given to HWPs, considering their end-of-life fate and increasing the overall conservativeness of FCOP. The high sensitivity of credit totals to leakage changes highlights the impact of assumptions in establishing a truly accurate sequestration quantification in forest sequestration projects. Based on the assessment of the hypothetical project, the inclusion of external activity-shifting leakage and changes in external market-shifting leakage estimates led to significant changes in credit totals. Assumptions behind the estimation of leakage factors such as carbon sequestration values for IFM projects were mentioned to be “difficult/impossible” to determine (Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2017, p.125). Market parameters used in leakage calculations need to accurately describe the measured market system. However, this is a difficult endeavor, as these parameters aim to describe consumer behaviours that are not stable over time due to time and space variability (Filewod & McCarney, 2023). On the other hand, activity-shifting leakage estimates can also play a huge role in the overall leakage discount. For instance, expected deforestation estimates from foregone harvest can vary considerably depending on the method and assumptions followed. The difficulty in determining these parameters for leakage calculations highlights the intrinsic counterfactual nature of forest offsets and their difficulty in producing accurately quantified credits. Additionally, changes over time in these parameters add another layer of difficulty in determining accurate leakage estimates and the computation of total credits used for climate mitigation. Illustratively, FCOP 2’s reduction of default market leakage percentages for IFM projects with moderately substitutable species indicates a decrease in conservativeness in its quantification approaches. This decrease is inconsistent with findings presented by Filewod & McCarney (2023), which suggest that market leakage is severely underestimated in current forest sequestration protocols. 30 Financial implications Forest carbon offsets in BC have supported the creation of a conservation economy led by environmentalists and First Nations (Peterson St-Laurent et al., 2017), however, forest sequestration projects are also severely limited by financial constraints. Although the decrease in offset credits observed across FCOP 1 and 2 suggests an overall increase in conservativeness, a reduced number of credits produced under FCOP 2’s accounting framework is highly likely to affect the future financial plausibility of forest sequestration projects. First Nations groups have expressed concerns about the financial plausibility of forest carbon offset projects, especially regarding changes in leakage approaches making forest carbon projects “un-economic”, affecting spill-over benefits from offset projects to communities developing this project. (British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, 2021). The importance of ensuring both the environmental (i.e., accurate mitigation) and financial viability of forest carbon offsets can be exemplified by the lack of afforestation projects in BC. To date, no afforestation projects have been implemented in BC, due to FCOPs’ current financing system based on ex-post payments (i.e. paid after the offset is generated) and lack of economic competitiveness against other activities (Peterson St-Laurent et al., 2017). With carbon offset prices expected to likely increase in Canada (Hope et al., 2021), project proponents may be able to obtain net benefits due to higher prices of offset units. However, further research needs to be conducted on whether future offset price increases can balance the reduced financial plausibility derived from FCOP 2´s increased conservativeness. Although BC’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy states that forest carbon offset projects are “typically large enough in size to achieve economies of scale and to overcome validation, verification, and monitoring costs. ” (2021, p.7), authors such as Hope et al. (2021) and Ruseva et al., (2017) have pointed out key financial limitations for IFM projects in Canada. Namely, low 31 net present values (NPV) in IFM projects that choose to continue harvesting practices, pointing out tradeoffs between levels of participation and the quality of offsets. Despite the wide implementation of IFM projects, guidelines addressing potential cost-effectiveness issues of forest sequestration projects are non-existent in protocols (Pan et al., 2022). Results from this research work suggest that even though new IFM projects assessed against FCOP 2 are likely to be more conservative than when assessed against FCOP 1, credit totals from IFM projects can be highly sensitive to assumptions for leakage estimates. Given that leakage deductions can be the differential factor for determining whether a forest offset project can be financially viable for project developers (BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, 2021; British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, 2021), careful attention must be given to the leakage assumptions used by project developers. Thus, this variability needs to be integrated into climate policy, especially when treating offset credits as a direct equivalent of GHG reductions for climate change mitigation. Recommendations for future FCOP versions Informed by the results of this research work, the following key recommendations for future iterations of FCOP are listed below. These are potential pathways to maximize the benefits of forest-based offset programs as a nature-based solution to climate change. - Adhere to upper-bound market leakage factors established in FCOP 1 to avoid the use of low leakage estimates, ensuring the conservativeness in the issuance of future offset credits. - Incorporate restrictions on the magnitude of supply reductions achieved by IFM projects, to minimize large market leakage effects. 32 - The quantification methodology of FCOP should include CH4 emissions from land-filled HWPs to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the HWPs' life cycle, particularly considering the uncertainty in recovery rates in landfills. This can be achieved by incorporating specific BC-based landfill data to determine emission rates, such as FCOP 1’s blanket rate of 20% or higher. - Incorporate protocol-level incentives for companies to choose direct GHG emission reductions over the purchase of credits, to prevent delayed climate action due to offset purchase, exploring other non-offsetting benefits from forest-based projects. - Introduce incentives at the protocol level to gradually encourage the prioritization of direct GHG emissions instead of sole offset purchases, exploring alternative benefits of forest projects in climate change mitigation. Conclusion The difficulty in obtaining accurate offset credits is aligned with the “unfixable” nature of forest-based credits pointed out by authors such as Romm (2023). The high sensitivity of forest offset projects to assumptions in leakage factors calculations further suggests that the conservativeness of forest carbon offsets can be highly variable and that the effectiveness of offset credits as a reliable GHG mitigation strategy needs to be reconsidered. However, the pressing nature of limiting our carbon emissions makes it important to maximize the solutions available to us. As pointed by Fankhauser et al., (2021, p. 18). “ [The] environmental integrity of carbon offsets will be problematic, unless quality standards are upgraded and scrupulously enforced” Thus, adequate offset policies can be a useful side tool for advancing broad sustainability goals, provided credits are used with moderation and not as a key mitigation tool. Authors such as 33 Filewod & McCarney, (2023) have suggested protocol design changes to address leakage-related issues, such as the exclusion of offsets from the compliance market whenever their mitigation comes from reducing the supply of harvested wood. An overreliance on carbon offsets as a primary climate change mitigation tool can turn offsets into “ a license to pollute” and discourage actual reductions in carbon emissions (Romm, 2023, p.8 ) – especially the most challenging ones. In contrast to other solutions such as carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), which are not yet deployable at large scales, nature-based solutions such as forest carbon offsets, not only show potential for carbon removal but also make positive contributions to biodiversity and community well-being. Thus, moving forward, it is important to know how to best utilize forest-based crediting in BC to advance overall sustainability and biodiversity goals, not solely as a mitigation strategy. 34 References British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range. (2007). North Coast Timber Supply Area Rationale for Allowable Annual Cut (AAC) Determination. https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/HTS/external/!publish/Timber_Supply_Review/TSA/North_Coast_21/TSR_2007/AAC_Rationale/21ts07ra.pdf Badgley, G., Freeman, J., Hamman, J. J., Haya, B., Trugman, A. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., & Cullenward, D. (2022a). Systematic over-crediting in California’s forest carbon offsets program. Global Change Biology, 28(4), 1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.15943 Badgley, G., Freeman, J., Hamman, J. J., Haya, B., Trugman, A. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., & Cullenward, D. (2022b). Systematic over-crediting in California’s forest carbon offsets program. Global Change Biology, 28(4), 1433–1445. https://doi.org/10.1111/GCB.15943 BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (2021). British Columbia Greenhouse Gas Offset Protocol FOREST CARBON OFFSET PROTOCOL VERSION 2.0. Discussion. British Columbia Assembly of First Nations. (2021). British Columbia Assembly of First Nations Submission to: BC Climate Action Secretariat on the DRAFT BC FOREST CARBON OFFSET PROTOCOL VERSION 2.0. https://www.bcafn.ca/sites/default/files/docs/reports-presentations/BCAFN%20FCOP_2021-06-18_FINAL.pdf Carbon Credit Corp. (2011). The Great Bear (North and Central-mid Coast Forest Carbon Project). https://carbonregistry.gov.bc.ca/br-reg/public/bc/project.jsp?project_id=104000000012798 Carbon Neutral Government Regulation (2008). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/392_2008 CCA (Council of Canadian Academies). (2022). Nature-Based Climate Solutions. https://www.cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Carbon-Sinks_EN_Final.pdf Fankhauser, S., Smith, S. M., Allen, M., Axelsson, K., Hale, T., Hepburn, C., Kendall, J. M., Khosla, R., Lezaun, J., Mitchell-Larson, E., Obersteiner, M., Rajamani, L., Rickaby, R., Seddon, N., & Wetzer, T. (2021). The meaning of net zero and how to get it right. Nature Climate Change 2022 12:1, 12(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01245-w Filewod, B., & McCarney, G. (2023). Avoiding carbon leakage from nature-based offsets by design. One Earth, 6(7), 790–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ONEEAR.2023.05.024 Foley, T. G., Richter, D. de B., & Galik, C. S. (2009). Extending rotation age for carbon sequestration: A cross-protocol comparison of North American forest offsets. Forest Ecology and Management, 259(2), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FORECO.2009.10.014 Galik, C. S., Mobley, M. L., & de Richter, D. B. (2009). A virtual “field test” of forest management carbon offset protocols: The influence of accounting. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 14(7), 677–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11027-009-9190-9/FIGURES/4 35 Government of British Columbia. (2021). Clean BC Roadmap to 2030. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/climate-change/action/cleanbc/cleanbc_roadmap_2030.pdf Greenhouse gas emission offset projects - Province of British Columbia. (n.d.). Retrieved November 18, 2023, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/climate-change/industry/offset-projects Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act (2014). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/14029_01 Hope, E. S., Filewod, B., McKenney, D. W., Lemprière, T. C., Hope, E., McKenney Great, D., & Filewod, B. (2021). ARTICLE A financial analysis of four carbon offset accounting protocols for a representative afforestation project (southern Ontario, Canada). Can. J. For. Res, 51, dx. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2020-0183 Ingerson, A. (2011). Carbon storage potential of harvested wood: Summary and policy implications. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16(3), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11027-010-9267-5/FIGURES/3 Kollmuss, A., Lazarus, M., Lee, C., LeFranc, M., & Polycarp, C. (2010). Handbook of carbon offset programs: Trading systems, funds, protocols and standards. Handbook of Carbon Offset Programs: Trading Systems, Funds, Protocols and Standards, 1–240. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849774932/HANDBOOK-CARBON-OFFSET-PROGRAMS-ANJA-KOLLMUSS-MICHAEL-LAZARUS-CARRIE-LEE-MAURICE-LEFRANC-CLIFFORD-POLYCARP Maasakkers, J. D., Varon, D. J., Elfarsdóttir, A., McKeever, J., Jervis, D., Mahapatra, G., Pandey, S., Lorente, A., Borsdorff, T., Foorthuis, L. R., Schuit, B. J., Tol, P., Van Kempen, T. A., Van Hees, R., & Aben, I. (2022). Using satellites to uncover large methane emissions from landfills. Science Advances, 8(32), 9683. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIADV.ABN9683/SUPPL_FILE/SCIADV.ABN9683_SM.PDF Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (2017). Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, Version 1.0. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/other-docs/forest-carbon-offset-protocol.pdf Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy. (2023). Forest Carbon Offset Protocol, Version 2.0. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/climate-change/offsets/offsets-portfolio/fcop_20_draft_2023.pdf Murray, B. C., McCarl, B. A., & Lee, H. C. (2004). Estimating leakage from forest carbon sequestration programs. Land Economics, 80(1), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.2307/3147147 Office of the Auditor General of BC. (2013). An Audit Of Carbon Neutral Government. www.bcauditor.com Pan, C., Shrestha, A., Innes, J. L., Zhou, G., Li, N., Li, J., He, Y., Sheng, C., Niles, J.-O., & Wang, G. (2022). Key challenges and approaches to addressing barriers in forest carbon offset projects. Journal of Forestry Research, 33, 1109–1122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-022-01488-z 36 Peterson St-Laurent, G., Hagerman, S., & Hoberg, G. (2017). Emergence and influence of a new policy regime: The case of forest carbon offsets in British Columbia. Land Use Policy, 60, 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2016.10.025 Richards, K. R., & Huebner, G. E. (2012). Evaluating protocols and standards for forest carbon-offset programs, Part A: additionality, baselines and permanence. Carbon Management, 3(4), 393–410. https://doi.org/10.4155/CMT.12.38 Romm, J. (2023). Are carbon offsets unscalable, unjust, and unfixable-and a threat to the Paris Climate Agreement? https://bpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/web.sas.upenn.edu/dist/0/896/files/2023/06/OffsetPaper7.0-6-27-23-FINAL2.pdf Ruseva, T., Marland, E., Szymanski, C., Hoyle, J., Marland, G., & Kowalczyk, T. (2017). Additionality and permanence standards in California’s Forest Offset Protocol: A review of project and program level implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 198, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2017.04.082 Smith James E., H. L. S. , S. K. E. , B. R. A. (2006). United States Department of Agriculture Methods for Calculating Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Carbon with Standard Estimates for Forest Types of the United States The Authors Methods for Calculating Forest Ecosystem and Harvested Carbon with Standard Estimates for Forest Types of the United States Contents. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne Wang, Y., Fang, M., Lou, Z., He, H., Guo, Y., Pi, X., Wang, Y., Yin, K., & Fei, X. (2024). Methane emissions from landfills differentially underestimated worldwide. Nature Sustainability 2024, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01307-9 37 38 Appendix I: GB Project Carbon and Harvest Data 39 40 Appendix II: HWP percentages 41 Appendix III: Spreadsheet models 4 GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tEmissions from project Sources 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 100,577 PE_HWP_CH4,t Total Project Emissions of GHG j from PEi identified in Table3 during calendar year t. Expressed in tonnes. Calculated in eq 29. 15,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 4,789 GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the project during reportingperiod t.108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 100,577 GHGj, PEi,tProject emissions of GHGj, in tonnes, from SSP PEi during reportingperiod t. PEi shall only include emissions sources deemed relevantbased on the requirements of Section 3.6. PEi shall be calculated basedon the requirements of Section 4.3.Only CH4 (PE15) is considered 5 ∆GHGj, Baseline, t Total Baseline Emissions or removals by GHG 4,044,397 3,960,349 3,924,339 3,929,586 3,851,798 3,850,877 3,871,227 3,672,098 3,571,188 3,505,323 3,505,076 ∆GHGj, Baseline, tThe total emissions or removals of GHGj, in tonnes, occurring in thebaseline during reporting period t as compared to the baseline.Removals area expressed as a negative number, and emissions as apositive number. transformed to tCO2 4,044,397 3,960,349 3,924,339 3,929,586 3,851,798 3,850,877 3,871,227 3,672,098 3,571,188 3,505,323 3,505,076 ΔGHGj, Baseline ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in baseline forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Input GB Data Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly. Table 50 Input976,036 953,114 943,293 944,724 923,509 923,258 928,808 874,500 846,979 829,016 835,411 GHGj, Baseline HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in baseline HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.eq. 7.2 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 582,770 GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the baseline during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 6 transformed to tCO2 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 140,868 6 GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tEmissions from baseline Sources 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 140,868 PE_HWP_CH4,t Total Baseline Emissions of GHG j from PEi identified in Table3 during calendar year t. Expressed in tonnes. Calculated in eq 29.27,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 6,708 GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the baseline during reportingperiod t.148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 140,868 GHGj, PEi,tProject emissions of GHGj, in tonnes, from SSP BEi during reportingperiod t. PEi shall only include emissions sources deemed relevantbased on the requirements of Section 3.6. PEi shall be calculated basedon the requirements of Section 4.3.Only CH4 (PE15) is considered 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 186,866 177,679 187,933 201,625 207,179 178,756 181,821 177,030 171,862 182,534 170,636 173,102 189,151 180,458 158,418 160,979 156,675 162,692 161,181 - 461,398 438,714 464,031 497,839 511,553 441,373 448,942 437,110 424,351 450,702 421,324 427,413 467,039 445,575 391,155 397,479 386,853 401,708 397,977 - 415,258 394,842 417,628 448,056 460,398 397,236 404,048 393,399 381,916 405,632 379,191 384,672 420,335 401,018 352,040 357,731 348,167 361,537 358,180 - 1,081,644 1,030,916 1,087,533 1,163,140 1,193,808 1,036,863 1,053,789 1,027,330 998,796 1,057,467 991,768 1,005,386 1,094,002 1,046,001 924,301 938,443 914,680 947,900 939,558 - 228,392 217,163 229,695 246,431 253,219 218,480 222,226 216,370 210,054 223,098 208,555 211,570 231,184 220,560 193,622 196,752 191,492 198,845 196,999 - 46,140 43,871 46,403 49,784 51,155 44,137 44,894 43,711 42,435 45,070 42,132 42,741 46,704 44,558 39,116 39,748 38,685 40,171 39,798 620,247 592,202 623,502 665,300 682,255 595,490 604,847 590,220 574,445 606,765 570,444 577,972 626,963 600,426 533,146 540,964 527,827 546,192 541,581 - 1,081,644 1,030,916 1,087,533 1,163,140 1,193,808 1,036,863 1,053,789 1,027,330 998,796 1,057,467 991,768 1,005,386 1,094,002 1,046,001 924,301 938,443 914,680 947,900 939,558 1,081,644 1,030,916 1,087,533 1,163,140 1,193,808 1,036,863 1,053,789 1,027,330 998,796 1,057,467 991,768 1,005,386 1,094,002 1,046,001 924,301 938,443 914,680 947,900 939,558 - 2,387,098 2,383,960 2,341,771 2,223,151 2,150,547 2,138,803 2,069,598 2,039,069 2,022,045 1,974,529 1,893,180 1,880,970 1,762,834 1,741,014 1,679,714 1,654,612 1,648,419 1,572,732 1,528,101 3,468,743 3,414,876 3,429,304 3,386,290 3,344,355 3,175,666 3,123,387 3,066,399 3,020,841 3,031,996 2,884,948 2,886,356 2,856,836 2,787,015 2,604,015 2,593,056 2,563,099 2,520,632 2,467,659 2,387,098 2,383,960 2,341,771 2,223,151 2,150,547 2,138,803 2,069,598 2,039,069 2,022,045 1,974,529 1,893,180 1,880,970 1,762,834 1,741,014 1,679,714 1,654,612 1,648,419 1,572,732 1,528,101 2,387,098 2,383,960 2,341,771 2,223,151 2,150,547 2,138,803 2,069,598 2,039,069 2,022,045 1,974,529 1,893,180 1,880,970 1,762,834 1,741,014 1,679,714 1,654,612 1,648,419 1,572,732 1,528,101 564,979 564,123 552,617 520,266 500,465 497,262 478,388 470,062 465,419 458,602 436,416 433,086 400,867 394,916 378,198 371,352 369,663 349,021 336,849 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 - - 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 3,468,743 3,414,876 3,429,304 3,386,290 3,344,355 3,175,666 3,123,387 3,066,399 3,020,841 3,031,996 2,884,948 2,886,356 2,856,836 2,787,015 2,604,015 2,593,056 2,563,099 2,520,632 2,467,659 3,468,743 3,414,876 3,429,304 3,386,290 3,344,355 3,175,666 3,123,387 3,066,399 3,020,841 3,031,996 2,884,948 2,886,356 2,856,836 2,787,015 2,604,015 2,593,056 2,563,099 2,520,632 2,467,659 825,502 810,811 814,746 803,015 791,578 745,572 731,314 715,772 703,347 712,710 672,606 672,990 664,939 645,897 595,988 592,999 584,829 573,247 558,800 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 - 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 Check Eq Parameters Description Notes 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Total (tCO2e)X 1 ΔCO2enet,t Net Project Emission Reductions and/or Removals Enhancements in tCO2e ( CFN)minus ABSA, Followed FCOP Order of Substraction 99,353 111,244 118,545 133,048 130,177 138,627 178,872 148,572 137,795 141,349 147,872 161,355 152,172 162,421 176,109 181,661 153,248 156,312 151,523 146,357 157,157 145,263 147,729 163,771 155,081 133,049 135,610 131,308 137,322 135,811 - 4,368,714.77 ΔCO2enet,tProject Reduction of CO2e achieved by the Project Proponentduring calendar year t as compared to the Baseline. A netincrease in Project Reduction is expressed as a positivenumber. Expressed in tCO2e.Minus Leakage 245,316 274,677 292,704 328,515 321,424 342,289 441,660 366,844 340,235 349,009 365,117 398,408 375,733 401,040 434,837 448,545 378,391 385,957 374,130 361,375 388,042 358,675 364,762 404,373 382,917 328,517 334,839 324,216 339,066 335,337 - ABSA Percentage of credits shared with BC government 55%ΔCO2enet,tProject Reduction of CO2e achieved by the Project Proponentduring calendar year t as compared to the Baseline. A netincrease in Project Reduction is expressed as a positivenumber. Expressed in tCO2e.Minus buffer 220,784 247,209 263,434 295,663 289,282 308,060 397,494 330,160 306,212 314,108 328,605 358,567 338,159 360,936 391,353 403,691 340,552 347,361 336,717 325,238 349,238 322,807 328,286 363,936 344,625 295,665 301,355 291,795 305,159 301,803 - Leakage Percentage Standard FCOP 1 for Coatal BC 55.3%ΔGHGnet,tNet incremental Emission Reductions and RemovalsEnhancements of CO2e before Risk of Reversal deductions,achieved by the Project during calendar year t as compared tothe Baseline. Expressed in tCO2e. A net increase in EmissionReductions and Removals Enhancements is expressed as apositive number. Determined using Equation 2.598,133 663,818 704,148 784,261 768,399 815,075 1,037,382 870,009 810,481 830,109 866,662 941,139 890,411 947,028 1,022,635 1,053,303 896,358 913,284 886,825 858,291 917,691 851,991 865,609 954,225 906,225 784,525 798,667 774,903 808,123 799,782 - Buffer Percentage 10%ABSA 121,431 135,965 144,889 162,615 159,105 169,433 218,622 181,588 168,416 172,759 180,733 197,212 185,988 198,515 215,244 222,030 187,304 191,049 185,194 178,881 192,081 177,544 180,557 200,165 189,544 162,616 165,745 160,487 167,838 165,992 - GWP_CH4Global Warming Potential specified by the BC governmentfor GHG j.21Contingency Account 24,532 27,468 29,270 32,851 32,142 34,229 44,166 36,684 34,024 34,901 36,512 39,841 37,573 40,104 43,484 44,855 37,839 38,596 37,413 36,138 38,804 35,867 36,476 40,437 38,292 32,852 33,484 32,422 33,907 33,534 - MWCH4 Molecular weight of CH4. 16GHGj, Leakage, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted from affected carbon pools duringreporting period t. Determined in Section 4.4. Only relevant for j =CO2; otherwise, set to zero.p 114 sets equivalencies. Calculated in row 97 , Equal to g28 North Credits comparison v2352,818 389,141 411,443 455,746 446,974 472,786 595,722 503,165 470,246 481,100 501,545 542,731 514,678 545,987 587,798 604,757 517,967 527,327 512,695 496,916 529,648 493,317 500,847 549,852 523,308 456,008 463,828 450,687 469,058 464,445 MWCO2 Molecular weight of CO2. 44X 2 ΔGHGnet,t Net project emission reductions and removal enhancements by GHG 598,133 663,818 704,148 784,261 768,399 815,075 1,037,382 870,009 810,481 830,109 866,662 941,139 890,411 947,028 1,022,635 1,053,303 896,358 913,284 886,825 858,291 917,691 851,991 865,609 954,225 906,225 784,525 798,667 774,903 808,123 799,782 25,619,491 MWC Molecular weight of carbon. 12ΔGHGnet,tThe net incremental emission reductions and removal enhancementsof GHGj, in tonnes, achieved by the project during reporting period t ascompared to the baseline. A net increase in emission reductions andremoval enhancements is expressed as a positive number.Turned difference in emissions between project and baseline to positive values598,133 663,818 704,148 784,261 768,399 815,075 1,037,382 870,009 810,481 830,109 866,662 941,139 890,411 947,028 1,022,635 1,053,303 896,358 913,284 886,825 858,291 917,691 851,991 865,609 954,225 906,225 784,525 798,667 774,903 808,123 799,782 - fC,wood Fraction of the dry mass of wood, excluding bark,that is carbon.0.5 ΔGHGProject,t Total Emissions or Removals of CO2e occurring in the Project during calendar year t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 3.2,928,681 2,778,949 2,702,609 2,627,743 2,565,817 2,518,220 2,316,264 2,284,507 2,243,125 2,157,633 2,147,174 2,036,363 2,033,225 1,991,036 1,872,416 1,799,812 1,788,068 1,718,863 1,688,334 1,671,310 1,648,829 1,567,480 1,555,270 1,437,134 1,415,313 1,354,014 1,328,912 1,322,719 1,247,032 1,202,401 wdf,s Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55% 0.47 ΔGHGBaseline,tTotal Emissions or Removals of CO2e occurring in the Baseline during calendar year t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 53,526,815 3,442,767 3,406,757 3,412,004 3,334,216 3,333,295 3,353,645 3,154,516 3,053,606 2,987,741 3,013,835 2,977,502 2,923,635 2,938,064 2,895,050 2,853,114 2,684,426 2,632,146 2,575,159 2,529,601 2,566,519 2,419,471 2,420,879 2,391,359 2,321,538 2,138,539 2,127,579 2,097,622 2,055,155 2,002,183 wdf,s Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30% 0.35 ? 3 ΔGHGProject,t Total Project Emission Reductions or Removals by GHG 2,928,681 2,778,949 2,702,609 2,627,743 2,565,817 2,518,220 2,316,264 2,284,507 2,243,125 2,157,633 2,147,174 2,036,363 2,033,225 1,991,036 1,872,416 1,799,812 1,788,068 1,718,863 1,688,334 1,671,310 1,648,829 1,567,480 1,555,270 1,437,134 1,415,313 1,354,014 1,328,912 1,322,719 1,247,032 1,202,401 wdf,s Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 0.43 ΔGHGProject,t The total emissions or removals of GHGj, in tonnes, occurring in theproject during reporting period t. Removals area expressed as anegative number, and emissions as a positive number.Transformed to tCO2e 2,928,681 2,778,949 2,702,609 2,627,743 2,565,817 2,518,220 2,316,264 2,284,507 2,243,125 2,157,633 2,147,174 2,036,363 2,033,225 1,991,036 1,872,416 1,799,812 1,788,068 1,718,863 1,688,334 1,671,310 1,648,829 1,567,480 1,555,270 1,437,134 1,415,313 1,354,014 1,328,912 1,322,719 1,247,032 1,202,401 wdf,s Wood density factor for balsam 7.5% 0.40 R ΔGHGj, Project ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in project forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.GB Data, Edited to consider annual differences in carbon stocks directly809,100 768,264 747,444 727,026 710,137 697,156 642,077 633,416 622,130 598,814 595,200 564,979 564,123 552,617 520,266 500,465 497,262 478,388 470,062 465,419 458,602 436,416 433,086 400,867 394,916 378,198 371,352 369,663 349,021 336,849 %CH4,LFGMolar % CH4 in landfill gas. Typically, 50% of the anaerobicallydegraded carbon is assumed to be released as CH4, with the remainder released as CO20.50 GHGj, Project HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in project HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 - 1,965,654 HWP FactorThe proportion of CO2 remaining after harvest, forproducts used in North America and offshore.Assumed to be 6% permanently sequestered for astandard mix of products after 100 years.6%GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the project during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 4. transformed to tCO2 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 - Carbon Fraction in useCarbon fraction landfillsDistribution Percentage X 4GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tEmissions from project Sources 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 m_Softwood Lumber 0.234 0.405 66% *Obtained from "mill percentages" spreadsheet PE_HWP_CH4,t Total Project Emissions of GHG j from PEi identified in Table3 during calendar year t. Expressed in tonnes. Calculated in eq 29. 15,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 m_Hardwood lumber 0.064 0.49 0%GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the project during reportingperiod t.108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 m_Softwood Plywood 0.245 0.4 3%GHGj, PEi,tProject emissions of GHGj, in tonnes, from SSP PEi during reportingperiod t. PEi shall only include emissions sources deemed relevantbased on the requirements of Section 3.6. PEi shall be calculated basedon the requirements of Section 4.3.Only CH4 (PE15) is considered m_Oriented Strand board 0.349 0.347 3%X 5 ∆GHGj, Baseline, t Total Baseline Emissions or removals by GHG 3,526,815 3,442,767 3,406,757 3,412,004 3,334,216 3,333,295 3,353,645 3,154,516 3,053,606 2,987,741 3,013,835 2,977,502 2,923,635 2,938,064 2,895,050 2,853,114 2,684,426 2,632,146 2,575,159 2,529,601 2,566,519 2,419,471 2,420,879 2,391,359 2,321,538 2,138,539 2,127,579 2,097,622 2,055,155 2,002,183 m_Non-structural Panels 0.138 0.454 3%∆GHGj, Baseline, tThe total emissions or removals of GHGj, in tonnes, occurring in thebaseline during reporting period t as compared to the baseline.Removals area expressed as a negative number, and emissions as apositive number. transformed to tCO2 3,526,815 3,442,767 3,406,757 3,412,004 3,334,216 3,333,295 3,353,645 3,154,516 3,053,606 2,987,741 3,013,835 2,977,502 2,923,635 2,938,064 2,895,050 2,853,114 2,684,426 2,632,146 2,575,159 2,529,601 2,566,519 2,419,471 2,420,879 2,391,359 2,321,538 2,138,539 2,127,579 2,097,622 2,055,155 2,002,183 m_Misellaneous Products 0.003 0.0518 12%R ΔGHGj, Baseline ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in baseline forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Input GB Data Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly. Table 50 Input976,036 953,114 943,293 944,724 923,509 923,258 928,808 874,500 846,979 829,016 835,411 825,502 810,811 814,746 803,015 791,578 745,572 731,314 715,772 703,347 712,710 672,606 672,990 664,939 645,897 595,988 592,999 584,829 573,247 558,800 m_paper 0 0.151 12%GHGj, Baseline HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in baseline HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.eq. 7.2 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 2,746,960 fproduction loss,kThe fraction of wood mass lost as residuals / waste during productionof HWP k.BC Default of 25%0.25GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the baseline during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 6 transformed to tCO2 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 X 6 GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tEmissions from baseline Sources 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 - PE_HWP_CH4,t Total Baseline Emissions of GHG j from PEi identified in Table3 during calendar year t. Expressed in tonnes. Calculated in eq 29.27,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 %LFG CollectionThe % of generated CH4 that is captured and destroyed by a landfill gascollection system. See Appendix B: Determining LFG CollectionEfficiency for additional discussion of this parameter.0.8GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the baseline during reportingperiod t.148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 OXOxidation factor for the landfill cover layer, expressed as thepercentage of CH4 that is oxidized to CO2 as it passes through the coverlayer.0.1GHGj, PEi,tProject emissions of GHGj, in tonnes, from SSP BEi during reportingperiod t. PEi shall only include emissions sources deemed relevantbased on the requirements of Section 3.6. PEi shall be calculated basedon the requirements of Section 4.3.Only CH4 (PE15) is considered fDiscard non landfill, solid woodThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperHWPs).0.33x 7.1 𝑇𝑃𝑅8,t GHGs from Harvested Wood Products 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 - fDiscard non landfill, paperThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperHWPs).0.66𝑇𝑃𝑅8,t Mass of CO2 stored in Project HWPs during calendaryear t. Expressed in tCO2e. 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 - GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extracted fromthe Project Site during calendar year t destined for usein North America and offshore. Expressed in tCO2e.Determined using Equation 8. 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 - HWPfactThe proportion of CO2 remaining after harvest, forproducts used in North America and offshore.Assumed to be 6% permanently sequestered for astandard mix of products after 100 years.Constant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 8.1 GrossHWPCO2,t Gross Mass of Carbon in Harvested Wood Products 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 - GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tCO2e. 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 - RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extracted fromthe Project Site during calendar year t. Expressed intonnes dry Biomass. Determined using Equation 9. 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 - fC,wood Fraction of the dry mass of wood, excluding bark,that is carbon.Constant Φ -0.0807-807%63.401 65.166-1.765 % Maybe change this to increase in MWCO2 Molecular weight of CO2. Constantγ -0.18-456%63.401 45.54517.856 %MWC Molecular weight of carbon. Constant29.1 GHGCH4,PE15/BE15,t PE15/BE15 harvested wood products and residuals anaerobic decay (Project) 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 - GHGCH4,PE15/BE15,tEmissions of CH4 from anaerobic decay of landfilled HWPs harvested inyear t over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced.5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 GHGCH4,decay,tMass of CH4 generated from HWPs harvested in year t decaying inlandfill over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced, asdetermined in Equation 30 or Equation 32, depending on approach28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 - %LFG CollectionThe % of generated CH4 that is captured and destroyed by a landfill gascollection system. See Appendix B: Determining LFG CollectionEfficiency for additional discussion of this parameter.See Constant TableOXOxidation factor for the landfill cover layer, expressed as thepercentage of CH4 that is oxidized to CO2 as it passes through the coverlayer.See Constant Table30.1 GHGCH4,decay, t HWP methane generation from decay in landfill for Project (Default Approach) Page 119 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 GHGCH4,decay, tMass of CH4 generated from HWPs harvested in year t decaying inlandfill over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced.28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate woodDefault proportion from eq 9 below 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 fC, in-use, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in-use after 100yearsSee Constant TablefC, non-landfill, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that have been discarded butnot sent to landfill after 100 years. Calculated in Equation 31, below.See Constant TablefC, in landfill, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in landfill after100 years.See Constant Table%CH4,LFGMolar % CH4 in landfill gas. Typically, 50% of the anaerobicallydegraded carbon is assumed to be released as CH4, with the remainderreleased as CO268.See Constant TableMWCH4 Molecular weight of CH4. See Constant TableMWC Molecular weight of carbon. See Constant Table31.1 fC, non-landfill, k HWP methane generation from decay in landfill for Project (Default Approach) Atemporal. See values belowfC, non-landfill_Softwood Lumber 0.253 fC, non-landfill_Hardwood lumber 0.309 fC, non-landfill_Softwood Plywood 0.249 fC, non-landfill_Oriented Strand board 0.215 fC, non-landfill_Non-structural Panels 0.284 fC, non-landfill_Misellaneous Products 0.329 fC, non-landfill_paper 0.660 fC, in-use, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in-use after 100years.See Constant TablefDiscard non landfill, kThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperSee Constant TableX RWBiomass,t Roundwood Biomass (Project)Own Calculations. Not in FCOP 1 but needed641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tonnes of dry Biomass.641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 R vol,sVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Input GB Data 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 vol, HemVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55%389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 vol,CdrVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30%158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 vol,SprcVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 vol,BlsmVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for balsam 7.5%45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 x 7.2 𝑇𝑃𝑅8,t GHGs from Harvested Wood Products (Baseline) 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 - 𝑇𝑃𝑅8,t Mass of CO2 stored in Project HWPs during calendaryear t. Expressed in tCO2e. 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 - GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extracted fromthe Project Site during calendar year t destined for usein North America and offshore. Expressed in tCO2e. 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 - HWPfactThe proportion of CO2 remaining after harvest, forproducts used in North America and offshore.Assumed to be 6% permanently sequestered for aConstant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 8.2 GrossHWPCO2,t Gross Mass of Carbon in Harvested Wood Products (Baseline) 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 - GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tCO2e. 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 - RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extracted fromthe Project Site during calendar year t. Expressed intonnes dry Biomass. Determined using Equation 9. 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 - fC,wood Fraction of the dry mass of wood, excluding bark,that is carbon.ConstantMWCO2 Molecular weight of CO2. ConstantMWC Molecular weight of carbon. Constant29.2 GHGCH4,PE15/BE15,t PE15/BE15 harvested wood products and residuals anaerobic decay (Baseline) 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 - GHGCH4,PE15/BE15,tEmissions of CH4 from anaerobic decay of landfilled HWPs harvested inyear t over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced.7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 GHGCH4,decay,tMass of CH4 generated from HWPs harvested in year t decaying inlandfill over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced, asdetermined in Equation 30 or Equation 32, depending on approach39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 - %LFG CollectionThe % of generated CH4 that is captured and destroyed by a landfill gascollection system. See Appendix B: Determining LFG CollectionEfficiency for additional discussion of this parameter.See Constant TableOXOxidation factor for the landfill cover layer, expressed as thepercentage of CH4 that is oxidized to CO2 as it passes through the coverlayer.See Constant Table30.2 GHGCH4,decay, t HWP methane generation from decay in landfill for Baseline (Default Approach) Page 119 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 GHGCH4,decay, tMass of CH4 generated from HWPs harvested in year t decaying inlandfill over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced.39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate woodDefault proportion from eq 9 below 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 fC, in-use, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in-use after 100yearsSee Constant TablefC, non-landfill, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that have been discarded butnot sent to landfill after 100 years. Calculated in Equation 31, below.See Constant TablefC, in landfill, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in landfill after100 years.See Constant Table%CH4,LFGMolar % CH4 in landfill gas. Typically, 50% of the anaerobicallydegraded carbon is assumed to be released as CH4, with the remainderreleased as CO268.See Constant TableMWCH4 Molecular weight of CH4. See Constant TableMWC Molecular weight of carbon. See Constant Table31.2 fC, non-landfill, k HWP methane generation from decay in landfill for Baseline (Default Approach) Atemporal. See values belowfC, non-landfill_Softwood Lumber 0.330 fC, non-landfill_Hardwood lumber 0.330 fC, non-landfill_Softwood Plywood 0.330 fC, non-landfill_Oriented Strand board 0.330 fC, non-landfill_Non-structural Panels 0.330 fC, non-landfill_Misellaneous Products 0.330 Constants Carbon Permanence from Table 11 FCOP 1HWP Methane calculationsChange in Variable Change in leakage percentage - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,0002009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037tCO2-eYearYearly Offset Credit Totals for Hypothetical ProjectΔGHGnet ,tΔGHGProject,t ΔGHGBaseline,tfC, non-landfill_paper 0.660 fC, in-use, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in-use after 100years.See Constant TablefDiscard non landfill, kThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperHWPs)See Constant TableX RWBiomass,t Roundwood Biomass (Baseline)Own Calculations. Not in FCOP 1 but needed876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tonnes of dry Biomass.876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 R vol,sVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Input GB Data 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 vol, HemVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55%532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 vol,CdrVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30%216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 vol,SprcVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 vol,BlsmVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for balsam 7.5%61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 34 GHGCO2,Leakage,t ; PP10 affected emissions (leakage) Page 119 352,818 389,141 411,443 455,746 446,974 472,786 595,722 503,165 470,246 481,100 501,545 542,731 514,678 545,987 587,798 604,757 517,967 527,327 512,695 496,916 529,648 493,317 500,847 549,852 523,308 456,008 463,828 450,687 469,058 464,445 - GHGCO2, PP10, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted from affected carbon pools duringreporting period t. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.352,818 389,141 411,443 455,746 446,974 472,786 595,722 503,165 470,246 481,100 501,545 542,731 514,678 545,987 587,798 604,757 517,967 527,327 512,695 496,916 529,648 493,317 500,847 549,852 523,308 456,008 463,828 450,687 469,058 464,445 - GHGCO2, Land UseShifting, t (L1)Total increase in project emissions due to land use shifting leakagefrom all affected carbon pools during reporting period t. See Section4.4.1.1 for details.N/A in this protocolGHGCO2, HarvestShifting, t (L2)Total increase in project emissions due to harvest shifting leakage fromall affected carbon pools during reporting period t. See Section 4.4.1.2for detailsTwo approaches in FCOP 1. See page 137352,818 389,141 411,443 455,746 446,974 472,786 595,722 503,165 470,246 481,100 501,545 542,731 514,678 545,987 587,798 604,757 517,967 527,327 512,695 496,916 529,648 493,317 500,847 549,852 523,308 456,008 463,828 450,687 469,058 464,445 - X 36 ∆GHGCO2,Carbon Pools, tNet Change in forest Carbon Pools Transformed to CO2 612,099 677,783 718,113 798,226 782,364 829,041 1,051,347 883,975 824,446 844,074 880,774 955,251 904,523 961,140 1,036,746 1,067,414 910,470 927,395 900,937 872,403 931,729 866,030 879,648 968,264 920,264 798,563 812,706 788,942 822,162 813,820 ΔGHGj, Project ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in project forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly809,100 768,264 747,444 727,026 710,137 697,156 642,077 633,416 622,130 598,814 595,200 564,979 564,123 552,617 520,266 500,465 497,262 478,388 470,062 465,419 458,602 436,416 433,086 400,867 394,916 378,198 371,352 369,663 349,021 336,849 ΔGHGj, Baseline ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in baseline forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly. Table 50 Input976,036 953,114 943,293 944,724 923,509 923,258 928,808 874,500 846,979 829,016 835,411 825,502 810,811 814,746 803,015 791,578 745,572 731,314 715,772 703,347 712,710 672,606 672,990 664,939 645,897 595,988 592,999 584,829 573,247 558,800 X 37 ∆GHGCO2, HWP Pools, t Net Change in HWPs Transformed to CO2 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 781,307 GHGj, Project HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in project HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.row 16 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 1,965,654 GHGj, Baseline HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in baseline HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.row 26 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 2,746,960 38 %leakage External Harvest Shifting % leakge from external harvest shifting. Parameters in red have a higher impact on leakage calculations. Not representative of yearly values0.6517 0.4604 0.1751 e Supply price elasticity. GB choses same value 0.3420 0.3420 0.3420 E Demand price elasticity. 0.1810- 0.1810- 0.1810- C_NCarbon sequestration reversal per unit of harvest from the non-reserved forest."Imposible to define a C_N Value" FCOP 11.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C_RCarbon sequestration per unit of (forgone) harvest gained bypreserving the reserved forest.1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Φ The “preservation” parameter. This is the ratio of timber supply beingset aside for the offset project (quantity QR) to the timber supplyoutside the offset area (quantity QN). The ratio can be represented as0.0100 0.0907 0.0907 γThe “substitution” parameter. A parameter introduced into thereferenced leakage equation to take into account specialty woods (i.e.the degree to which a particular HWP can be substituted for another).1.0000 0.7200 0.2700 39 Φ Preservation Parameter (Market share of project)Not a big effect on the leakage calculation. According to FCOP 1, an estimate of 0.01 can be used for a 0.0100 0.0907 0.0907 QRQuantity of harvestable timber (m3) to be claimed on upcoming projectverification.6,132,500 QN Quantity of harvestable timber supply (m3) remaining in the market. Data available from TSA's AAC 556,350 40 γ Weighted Substitution ParameterThe fewer substitutes (e.g, cedar) the more likely leakage is lower. 1.0000 0.7200 0.2700 T_WH (Tree type i’s share of project’s total marketable tree volume)Make up of Western Hemlock in project 55%TWC Make up of Western Cedar in project 30% 0.12T_WS Make up of white spruce in project 7.5% 0.075T_BLSM Make up of balsam in project7.5% 0.075S_i Substitutability of tree type I, Cedar is 40% substitutable , other trees are 100% substitutableX 41 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tHarvest Shifting emissions (leakage) Option 1Option 1 (Based on total changes in forest carbon pools )352,818 389,141 411,443 455,746 446,974 472,786 595,722 503,165 470,246 481,100 501,545 542,731 514,678 545,987 587,798 604,757 517,967 527,327 512,695 496,916 529,648 493,317 500,847 549,852 523,308 456,008 463,828 450,687 469,058 464,445 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to harvest shifting leakage fromall affected carbon pools during reporting period t.352,818 389,141 411,443 455,746 446,974 472,786 595,722 503,165 470,246 481,100 501,545 542,731 514,678 545,987 587,798 604,757 517,967 527,327 512,695 496,916 529,648 493,317 500,847 549,852 523,308 456,008 463,828 450,687 469,058 464,445 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to internal harvest shiftingleakage during reporting period t.N/A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ∆GHGCO2,Carbon Pools, tThe net incremental mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored by theproject in forest carbon pools (excluding HWPs) during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 36612,099 677,783 718,113 798,226 782,364 829,041 1,051,347 883,975 824,446 844,074 880,774 955,251 904,523 961,140 1,036,746 1,067,414 910,470 927,395 900,937 872,403 931,729 866,030 879,648 968,264 920,264 798,563 812,706 788,942 822,162 813,820 ∆GHGCO2, HWP Pools, tThe net incremental mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored inproject HWPs harvested during reporting period t that will endure fora period of 100 years as compared to the baseline. Calculated in25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 GHGCO2, Land UseShifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to land use shifting leakagefrom all affected carbon pools during reporting period t. Calculated inEquation 35.N/A%LeakageExternalHarvest ShiftingTotal increase in project emissions due to external harvest shiftingleakage during reporting period t, expressed as a percentage of the netremovals to be achieved by the project from forest and HWP carbonConstantCheck Eq Parameters Description Notes 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Total (tCO2e)X 1 ΔCO2enet,t Net Project Emission Reductions and/or Removals Enhancements in tCO2e ( CFN)minus ABSA, Followed FCOP Order of Substraction 140,674 152,565 159,866 174,369 171,498 179,948 220,193 189,893 179,116 182,670 189,627 203,110 193,926 204,176 217,863 223,415 195,003 198,067 193,277 188,111 198,695 186,801 189,266 205,309 196,619 174,587 177,147 172,845 178,859 177,349 - 5,614,844.28 ΔCO2enet,tProject Reduction of CO2e achieved by the Project Proponentduring calendar year t as compared to the Baseline. A netincrease in Project Reduction is expressed as a positivenumber. Expressed in tCO2e.Minus Leakage 347,343 376,704 394,731 430,542 423,452 444,316 543,687 468,872 442,262 451,036 468,214 501,505 478,830 504,137 537,934 551,642 481,488 489,054 477,227 464,472 490,604 461,237 467,324 506,935 485,479 431,079 437,401 426,779 441,628 437,899 - ABSA Percentage of credits shared with BC government 55%ΔCO2enet,tProject Reduction of CO2e achieved by the Project Proponentduring calendar year t as compared to the Baseline. A netincrease in Project Reduction is expressed as a positivenumber. Expressed in tCO2e.Minus buffer 312,609 339,034 355,258 387,488 381,106 399,884 489,318 421,984 398,036 405,932 421,392 451,355 430,947 453,724 484,140 496,478 433,339 440,148 429,504 418,025 441,544 415,113 420,592 456,242 436,931 387,971 393,661 384,101 397,465 394,109 - Leakage Percentage Standard FCOP 1 for Coatal BC 55.3%ΔGHGnet,tNet incremental Emission Reductions and RemovalsEnhancements of CO2e before Risk of Reversal deductions,achieved by the Project during calendar year t as compared tothe Baseline. Expressed in tCO2e. A net increase in EmissionReductions and Removals Enhancements is expressed as apositive number. Determined using Equation 2.777,054 842,738 883,068 963,181 947,319 993,996 1,216,302 1,048,930 989,401 1,009,029 1,047,458 1,121,936 1,071,207 1,127,824 1,203,431 1,234,099 1,077,155 1,094,080 1,067,621 1,039,087 1,097,549 1,031,850 1,045,468 1,134,084 1,086,083 964,383 978,525 954,762 987,982 979,640 - Buffer Percentage 10%ABSA 171,935 186,469 195,392 213,118 209,609 219,936 269,125 232,091 218,920 223,263 231,766 248,245 237,021 249,548 266,277 273,063 238,337 242,082 236,227 229,914 242,849 228,312 231,325 250,933 240,312 213,384 216,513 211,255 218,606 216,760 - GWP_CH4Global Warming Potential specified by the BC governmentfor GHG j.21Contingency Account 34,734 37,670 39,473 43,054 42,345 44,432 54,369 46,887 44,226 45,104 46,821 50,151 47,883 50,414 53,793 55,164 48,149 48,905 47,723 46,447 49,060 46,124 46,732 50,694 48,548 43,108 43,740 42,678 44,163 43,790 - MWCH4 Molecular weight of CH4. 16GHGj, Leakage, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted from affected carbon pools duringreporting period t. Determined in Section 4.4. Only relevant for j =CO2; otherwise, set to zero.p 114 sets equivalencies. Calculated in row 97 , Equal to g28 North Credits comparison v2429,711 466,034 488,337 532,639 523,867 549,680 672,615 580,058 547,139 557,993 579,244 620,430 592,378 623,687 665,497 682,457 595,666 605,026 590,395 574,615 606,945 570,613 578,144 627,148 600,604 533,304 541,125 527,983 546,354 541,741 MWCO2 Molecular weight of CO2. 44X 2 ΔGHGnet,t Net project emission reductions and removal enhancements by GHG 777,054 842,738 883,068 963,181 947,319 993,996 1,216,302 1,048,930 989,401 1,009,029 1,047,458 1,121,936 1,071,207 1,127,824 1,203,431 1,234,099 1,077,155 1,094,080 1,067,621 1,039,087 1,097,549 1,031,850 1,045,468 1,134,084 1,086,083 964,383 978,525 954,762 987,982 979,640 31,015,242 MWC Molecular weight of carbon. 12ΔGHGnet,tThe net incremental emission reductions and removal enhancementsof GHGj, in tonnes, achieved by the project during reporting period t ascompared to the baseline. A net increase in emission reductions andremoval enhancements is expressed as a positive number.Turned difference in emissions between project and baseline to positive values777,054 842,738 883,068 963,181 947,319 993,996 1,216,302 1,048,930 989,401 1,009,029 1,047,458 1,121,936 1,071,207 1,127,824 1,203,431 1,234,099 1,077,155 1,094,080 1,067,621 1,039,087 1,097,549 1,031,850 1,045,468 1,134,084 1,086,083 964,383 978,525 954,762 987,982 979,640 - fC,wood Fraction of the dry mass of wood, excluding bark,that is carbon.0.5 ΔGHGProject,t Total Emissions or Removals of CO2e occurring in the Project during calendar year t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 3.3,415,764 3,266,032 3,189,692 3,114,826 3,052,900 3,005,303 2,803,347 2,771,590 2,730,208 2,644,716 2,598,485 2,487,675 2,484,536 2,442,347 2,323,727 2,251,123 2,239,379 2,170,174 2,139,646 2,122,621 2,067,927 1,986,578 1,974,368 1,856,232 1,834,411 1,773,112 1,748,010 1,741,817 1,666,130 1,621,499 wdf,s Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55% 0.47 ΔGHGBaseline,tTotal Emissions or Removals of CO2e occurring in the Baseline during calendar year t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 54,192,818 4,108,771 4,072,760 4,078,007 4,000,219 3,999,299 4,019,649 3,820,519 3,719,609 3,653,745 3,645,943 3,609,610 3,555,743 3,570,172 3,527,158 3,485,222 3,316,534 3,264,254 3,207,267 3,161,709 3,165,476 3,018,428 3,019,836 2,990,315 2,920,495 2,737,495 2,726,535 2,696,579 2,654,111 2,601,139 wdf,s Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30% 0.35 ? 3 ΔGHGProject,t Total Project Emission Reductions or Removals by GHG 3,415,764 3,266,032 3,189,692 3,114,826 3,052,900 3,005,303 2,803,347 2,771,590 2,730,208 2,644,716 2,598,485 2,487,675 2,484,536 2,442,347 2,323,727 2,251,123 2,239,379 2,170,174 2,139,646 2,122,621 2,067,927 1,986,578 1,974,368 1,856,232 1,834,411 1,773,112 1,748,010 1,741,817 1,666,130 1,621,499 71,524,175 wdf,s Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 0.43 ΔGHGProject,t The total emissions or removals of GHGj, in tonnes, occurring in theproject during reporting period t. Removals area expressed as anegative number, and emissions as a positive number.Transformed to tCO2e 3,415,764 3,266,032 3,189,692 3,114,826 3,052,900 3,005,303 2,803,347 2,771,590 2,730,208 2,644,716 2,598,485 2,487,675 2,484,536 2,442,347 2,323,727 2,251,123 2,239,379 2,170,174 2,139,646 2,122,621 2,067,927 1,986,578 1,974,368 1,856,232 1,834,411 1,773,112 1,748,010 1,741,817 1,666,130 1,621,499 wdf,s Wood density factor for balsam 7.5% 0.40 R ΔGHGj, Project ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in project forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.GB Data, Edited to consider annual differences in carbon stocks directly809,100 768,264 747,444 727,026 710,137 697,156 642,077 633,416 622,130 598,814 595,200 564,979 564,123 552,617 520,266 500,465 497,262 478,388 470,062 465,419 458,602 436,416 433,086 400,867 394,916 378,198 371,352 369,663 349,021 336,849 %CH4,LFGMolar % CH4 in landfill gas. Typically, 50% of the anaerobicallydegraded carbon is assumed to be released as CH4, with the remainder released as CO20.50 GHGj, Project HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in project HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the project during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 4. transformed to tCO2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Carbon Fraction in useCarbon fraction landfillsDistribution Percentage X 4GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tEmissions from project Sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Lumber 0.234 0.405 66% *Obtained from "mill percentages" spreadsheet PE_HWP_CH4,t Total Project Emissions of GHG j from PEi identified in Table3 during calendar year t. Expressed in tonnes. Calculated in eq 29. 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Hardwood lumber 0.064 0.49 0%GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the project during reportingperiod t.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood 0.245 0.4 3%GHGj, PEi,tProject emissions of GHGj, in tonnes, from SSP PEi during reportingperiod t. PEi shall only include emissions sources deemed relevantbased on the requirements of Section 3.6. PEi shall be calculated basedon the requirements of Section 4.3.Only CH4 (PE15) is considered m_Oriented Strand board 0.349 0.347 3%X 5 ∆GHGj, Baseline, t Total Baseline Emissions or removals by GHG 4,192,818 4,108,771 4,072,760 4,078,007 4,000,219 3,999,299 4,019,649 3,820,519 3,719,609 3,653,745 3,645,943 3,609,610 3,555,743 3,570,172 3,527,158 3,485,222 3,316,534 3,264,254 3,207,267 3,161,709 3,165,476 3,018,428 3,019,836 2,990,315 2,920,495 2,737,495 2,726,535 2,696,579 2,654,111 2,601,139 m_Non-structural Panels 0.138 0.454 3%∆GHGj, Baseline, tThe total emissions or removals of GHGj, in tonnes, occurring in thebaseline during reporting period t as compared to the baseline.Removals area expressed as a negative number, and emissions as apositive number. transformed to tCO2 4,192,818 4,108,771 4,072,760 4,078,007 4,000,219 3,999,299 4,019,649 3,820,519 3,719,609 3,653,745 3,645,943 3,609,610 3,555,743 3,570,172 3,527,158 3,485,222 3,316,534 3,264,254 3,207,267 3,161,709 3,165,476 3,018,428 3,019,836 2,990,315 2,920,495 2,737,495 2,726,535 2,696,579 2,654,111 2,601,139 m_Misellaneous Products 0.003 0.0518 12%R ΔGHGj, Baseline ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in baseline forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Input GB Data Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly. Table 50 Input976,036 953,114 943,293 944,724 923,509 923,258 928,808 874,500 846,979 829,016 835,411 825,502 810,811 814,746 803,015 791,578 745,572 731,314 715,772 703,347 712,710 672,606 672,990 664,939 645,897 595,988 592,999 584,829 573,247 558,800 m_paper 0 0.151 12%GHGj, Baseline HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in baseline HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.eq. 7.2 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 23,195,310 fproduction loss,kThe fraction of wood mass lost as residuals / waste during productionof HWP k.BC Default of 25%0.25GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the baseline during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 6 transformed to tCO2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17,489,946 X 6 GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tEmissions from baseline Sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PE_HWP_CH4,t Total Baseline Emissions of GHG j from PEi identified in Table3 during calendar year t. Expressed in tonnes. Calculated in eq 29.2- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %LFG CollectionThe % of generated CH4 that is captured and destroyed by a landfill gascollection system. See Appendix B: Determining LFG CollectionEfficiency for additional discussion of this parameter.0.8GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the baseline during reportingperiod t.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OXOxidation factor for the landfill cover layer, expressed as thepercentage of CH4 that is oxidized to CO2 as it passes through the coverlayer.0.1GHGj, PEi,tProject emissions of GHGj, in tonnes, from SSP BEi during reportingperiod t. PEi shall only include emissions sources deemed relevantbased on the requirements of Section 3.6. PEi shall be calculated basedon the requirements of Section 4.3.Only CH4 (PE15) is considered fDiscard non landfill, solid woodThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperHWPs).0.33X 7.1 GHGCO2, HWP, t (Project) CO2 storage in HWP pools (Default Approach) 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 fDiscard non landfill, paperThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperHWPs).0.66GHGCO2, HWPin-use, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs areproduced in the same year that the wood is harvested). 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 GHGCO2, HWPin landfill,Mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in landfilledproject or baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 yearsafter production.291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 X 8.1 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, t (Project) CO2 storage in the in-use HWP pool (Default Approach) 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 GHGCO2, HWP, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored in project or baseline HWPsharvested during reporting period t that will endure for a period of 100years157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs areproduced in the same year that the wood is harvested).157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate woodDefault proportion from eq 9 below 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 9.1 GHGCO2, HWP landfill, t (Project) CO2 storage in the landfill HWP pool (Default Approach) 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 GHGCO2, HWP, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored in project or baseline HWPsharvested during reporting period t that will endure for a period of 100years291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 GHGCO2, HWPlandfill, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs areproduced in the same year that the wood is harvested). 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate wooddensity for each species l must be used and justified by the proponent(see below the table for default values).Default proportion from eq 9 below 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 X RWBiomass,t Roundwood Biomass (Project)Own Calculations. Not in FCOP 1 but needed641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tonnes of dry Biomass.641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 R vol,sVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Input GB Data 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 vol, HemVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55%389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 vol,CdrVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30%158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 vol,SprcVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 vol,BlsmVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for balsam 7.5%45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 X 7.2 GHGCO2, HWP, t (Baseline) CO2 storage in HWP pools (Default Approach) 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs areproduced in the same year that the wood is harvested). 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 GHGCO2, HWPin landfill,Mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in landfilledproject or baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 yearsafter production.398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 X 8.2 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, t (Baseline CO2 storage in the in-use HWP pool (Default Approach) 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 GHGCO2, HWP, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored in project or baseline HWPsharvested during reporting period t that will endure for a period of 100years215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs areproduced in the same year that the wood is harvested). 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate wooddensity for each species l must be used and justified by the proponentDefault proportion from eq 9 below 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 X 9.2 GHGCO2, HWP landfill, t (Baseline) CO2 storage in the landfill HWP pool (Default Approach) 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 GHGCO2, HWP, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored in project or baseline HWPsharvested during reporting period t that will endure for a period of 100years398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 GHGCO2, HWPlandfill, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs are 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate woodDefault proportion from eq 9 below 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 0m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 X RWBiomass,t Roundwood Biomass (Baseline)Own Calculations. Not in FCOP 1 but needed876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tonnes of dry Biomass.876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 R vol,sVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Input GB Data 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 vol, HemVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55%532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 vol,CdrVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30%216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 vol,SprcVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 vol,BlsmVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for balsam 7.5%61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 34 GHGCO2,Leakage,t ; PP10 affected emissions (leakage) Page 119 429,711 466,034 488,337 532,639 523,867 549,680 672,615 580,058 547,139 557,993 579,244 620,430 592,378 623,687 665,497 682,457 595,666 605,026 590,395 574,615 606,945 570,613 578,144 627,148 600,604 533,304 541,125 527,983 546,354 541,741 - GHGCO2, PP10, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted from affected carbon pools duringreporting period t. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.429,711 466,034 488,337 532,639 523,867 549,680 672,615 580,058 547,139 557,993 579,244 620,430 592,378 623,687 665,497 682,457 595,666 605,026 590,395 574,615 606,945 570,613 578,144 627,148 600,604 533,304 541,125 527,983 546,354 541,741 - GHGCO2, Land UseShifting, t (L1)Total increase in project emissions due to land use shifting leakagefrom all affected carbon pools during reporting period t. See Section4.4.1.1 for details.N/A in this protocolGHGCO2, HarvestShifting, t (L2)Total increase in project emissions due to harvest shifting leakage fromall affected carbon pools during reporting period t. See Section 4.4.1.2for detailsTwo approaches in FCOP 1. See page 137429,711 466,034 488,337 532,639 523,867 549,680 672,615 580,058 547,139 557,993 579,244 620,430 592,378 623,687 665,497 682,457 595,666 605,026 590,395 574,615 606,945 570,613 578,144 627,148 600,604 533,304 541,125 527,983 546,354 541,741 - X 36 ∆GHGCO2,Carbon Pools, tNet Change in forest Carbon Pools Transformed to CO2 612,099 677,783 718,113 798,226 782,364 829,041 1,051,347 883,975 824,446 844,074 880,774 955,251 904,523 961,140 1,036,746 1,067,414 910,470 927,395 900,937 872,403 931,729 866,030 879,648 968,264 920,264 798,563 812,706 788,942 822,162 813,820 ΔGHGj, Project ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in project forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly809,100 768,264 747,444 727,026 710,137 697,156 642,077 633,416 622,130 598,814 595,200 564,979 564,123 552,617 520,266 500,465 497,262 478,388 470,062 465,419 458,602 436,416 433,086 400,867 394,916 378,198 371,352 369,663 349,021 336,849 ΔGHGj, Baseline ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in baseline forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly. Table 50 Input976,036 953,114 943,293 944,724 923,509 923,258 928,808 874,500 846,979 829,016 835,411 825,502 810,811 814,746 803,015 791,578 745,572 731,314 715,772 703,347 712,710 672,606 672,990 664,939 645,897 595,988 592,999 584,829 573,247 558,800 X 37 ∆GHGCO2, HWP Pools, t Net Change in HWPs Transformed to CO2 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 - 4,974,593 GHGj, Project HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in project HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.row 16 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 12,515,353 GHGj, Baseline HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in baseline HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.row 26 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 17,489,946 38 %leakage External Harvest Shifting % leakge from external harvest shifting. Parameters in red have a higher impact on leakage calculations. Not representative of yearly values0.6517 0.4604 0.1751 e Supply price elasticity. GB choses same value 0.3420 0.3420 0.3420 E Demand price elasticity. 0.1810- 0.1810- 0.1810- C_NCarbon sequestration reversal per unit of harvest from the non-reserved forest."Imposible to define a C_N Value" FCOP 11.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C_RCarbon sequestration per unit of (forgone) harvest gained bypreserving the reserved forest.1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Φ The “preservation” parameter. This is the ratio of timber supply beingset aside for the offset project (quantity QR) to the timber supplyoutside the offset area (quantity QN). The ratio can be represented as0.0100 0.0907 0.0907 γThe “substitution” parameter. A parameter introduced into thereferenced leakage equation to take into account specialty woods (i.e.the degree to which a particular HWP can be substituted for another).1.0000 0.7200 0.2700 39 Φ Preservation Parameter (Market share of project)Not a big effect on the leakage calculation. According to FCOP 1, an estimate of 0.01 can be used for a 0.0100 0.0907 0.0907 QRQuantity of harvestable timber (m3) to be claimed on upcoming projectverification.6,132,500 QN Quantity of harvestable timber supply (m3) remaining in the market. Data available from TSA's AAC 556,350 40 γ Weighted Substitution ParameterThe fewer substitutes (e.g, cedar) the more likely leakage is lower. 1.0000 0.7200 0.2700 T_WH (Tree type i’s share of project’s total marketable tree volume)Make up of Western Hemlock in project 55%TWC Make up of Western Cedar in project 30% 0.12T_WS Make up of white spruce in project 7.5% 0.075Constants Carbon Permanence from Table 11 FCOP 1HWP Methane calculations - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,0002009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037tCO2-eYearYearly Offset Credit Totals for Hypothetical ProjectΔGHGnet,tΔGHGProject,t ΔGHGBaseline,tT_BLSM Make up of balsam in project7.5% 0.075S_i Substitutability of tree type I, Cedar is 40% substitutable , other trees are 100% substitutableX 41 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tHarvest Shifting emissions (leakage) Option 1Option 1 (Based on total changes in forest carbon pools )429,711 466,034 488,337 532,639 523,867 549,680 672,615 580,058 547,139 557,993 579,244 620,430 592,378 623,687 665,497 682,457 595,666 605,026 590,395 574,615 606,945 570,613 578,144 627,148 600,604 533,304 541,125 527,983 546,354 541,741 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to harvest shifting leakage fromall affected carbon pools during reporting period t.429,711 466,034 488,337 532,639 523,867 549,680 672,615 580,058 547,139 557,993 579,244 620,430 592,378 623,687 665,497 682,457 595,666 605,026 590,395 574,615 606,945 570,613 578,144 627,148 600,604 533,304 541,125 527,983 546,354 541,741 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to internal harvest shiftingleakage during reporting period t.N/A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ∆GHGCO2,Carbon Pools, tThe net incremental mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored by theproject in forest carbon pools (excluding HWPs) during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 36612,099 677,783 718,113 798,226 782,364 829,041 1,051,347 883,975 824,446 844,074 880,774 955,251 904,523 961,140 1,036,746 1,067,414 910,470 927,395 900,937 872,403 931,729 866,030 879,648 968,264 920,264 798,563 812,706 788,942 822,162 813,820 ∆GHGCO2, HWP Pools, tThe net incremental mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored inproject HWPs harvested during reporting period t that will endure fora period of 100 years as compared to the baseline. Calculated in164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 GHGCO2, Land UseShifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to land use shifting leakagefrom all affected carbon pools during reporting period t. Calculated inEquation 35.N/A%LeakageExternalHarvest ShiftingTotal increase in project emissions due to external harvest shiftingleakage during reporting period t, expressed as a percentage of the netremovals to be achieved by the project from forest and HWP carbonConstantCheck Eq Parameters Description Notes 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Total (tCO2e)X 1 ΔCO2enet,t Net Project Emission Reductions and/or Removals Enhancements in tCO2e ( CFN)minus ABSA, Followed FCOP Order of Substraction 114,430 124,669 130,956 143,445 140,972 148,249 182,903 156,812 147,532 150,592 155,984 167,549 159,672 168,463 180,204 184,967 160,595 163,223 159,115 154,684 164,076 153,854 155,973 169,761 162,292 143,357 145,558 141,861 147,029 145,731 - 4,624,509.82 ΔCO2enet,tProject Reduction of CO2e achieved by the Project Proponentduring calendar year t as compared to the Baseline. A netincrease in Project Reduction is expressed as a positivenumber. Expressed in tCO2e.Minus Leakage 282,543 307,826 323,349 354,185 348,080 366,046 451,613 387,190 364,277 371,832 385,145 413,701 394,251 415,959 444,949 456,707 396,531 403,021 392,876 381,935 405,127 379,887 385,119 419,162 400,722 353,969 359,402 350,273 363,035 359,830 - ABSA Percentage of credits shared with BC government 55%ΔCO2enet,tProject Reduction of CO2e achieved by the Project Proponentduring calendar year t as compared to the Baseline. A netincrease in Project Reduction is expressed as a positivenumber. Expressed in tCO2e.Minus buffer 254,289 277,043 291,014 318,767 313,272 329,441 406,452 348,471 327,850 334,649 346,630 372,331 354,826 374,363 400,454 411,037 356,878 362,719 353,588 343,742 364,614 341,899 346,607 377,246 360,650 318,572 323,462 315,246 326,731 323,847 - Leakage Percentage Standard FCOP 1 for Coatal BC 47.4%ΔGHGnet,tNet incremental Emission Reductions and RemovalsEnhancements of CO2e before Risk of Reversal deductions,achieved by the Project during calendar year t as compared tothe Baseline. Expressed in tCO2e. A net increase in EmissionReductions and Removals Enhancements is expressed as apositive number. Determined using Equation 2.282,543 307,826 323,349 354,185 348,080 366,046 451,613 387,190 364,277 371,832 385,145 413,701 394,251 415,959 444,949 456,707 396,531 403,021 392,876 381,935 405,127 379,887 385,119 419,162 400,722 353,969 359,402 350,273 363,035 359,830 - Buffer Percentage 10%ABSA 139,859 152,374 160,058 175,322 172,299 181,193 223,549 191,659 180,317 184,057 190,647 204,782 195,154 205,900 220,250 226,070 196,283 199,495 194,473 189,058 200,538 188,044 190,634 207,485 198,357 175,215 177,904 173,385 179,702 178,116 - GWP_CH4Global Warming Potential specified by the BC governmentfor GHG j.21Contingency Account 28,254 30,783 32,335 35,419 34,808 36,605 45,161 38,719 36,428 37,183 38,514 41,370 39,425 41,596 44,495 45,671 39,653 40,302 39,288 38,194 40,513 37,989 38,512 41,916 40,072 35,397 35,940 35,027 36,303 35,983 MWCH4 Molecular weight of CH4. 16- MWCO2 Molecular weight of CO2. 44X 2 ΔGHGnet,t Net project emission reductions and removal enhancements by GHG 282,543 307,826 323,349 354,185 348,080 366,046 451,613 387,190 364,277 371,832 385,145 413,701 394,251 415,959 444,949 456,707 396,531 403,021 392,876 381,935 405,127 379,887 385,119 419,162 400,722 353,969 359,402 350,273 363,035 359,830 11,418,543 MWC Molecular weight of carbon. 12ΔGHGnet,tThe net incremental emission reductions and removal enhancementsof GHGj, in tonnes, achieved by the project during reporting period t ascompared to the baseline. A net increase in emission reductions andremoval enhancements is expressed as a positive number.Turned difference in emissions between project and baseline to positive values282,543 307,826 323,349 354,185 348,080 366,046 451,613 387,190 364,277 371,832 385,145 413,701 394,251 415,959 444,949 456,707 396,531 403,021 392,876 381,935 405,127 379,887 385,119 419,162 400,722 353,969 359,402 350,273 363,035 359,830 - fC,wood Fraction of the dry mass of wood, excluding bark,that is carbon.0.5 ΔGHGProject,t Total Emissions or Removals of CO2e occurring in the Project during calendar year t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 3.3,307,216 3,157,484 3,081,144 3,006,278 2,944,352 2,896,755 2,694,798 2,663,041 2,621,659 2,536,167 2,497,909 2,387,098 2,383,960 2,341,771 2,223,151 2,150,547 2,138,803 2,069,598 2,039,069 2,022,045 1,974,529 1,893,180 1,880,970 1,762,834 1,741,014 1,679,714 1,654,612 1,648,419 1,572,732 1,528,101 wdf,s Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55% 0.47 ΔGHGBaseline,tTotal Emissions or Removals of CO2e occurring in the Baseline during calendar year t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 54,044,397 3,960,349 3,924,339 3,929,586 3,851,798 3,850,877 3,871,227 3,672,098 3,571,188 3,505,323 3,505,076 3,468,743 3,414,876 3,429,304 3,386,290 3,344,355 3,175,666 3,123,387 3,066,399 3,020,841 3,031,996 2,884,948 2,886,356 2,856,836 2,787,015 2,604,015 2,593,056 2,563,099 2,520,632 2,467,659 wdf,s Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30% 0.35 L1Net increase in Project Emissions due to Activity Leakagefrom all affected carbon Reservoirs during calendar year t.Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 25.164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 18,394,235 wdf,s Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 0.43 L2Net increase in Project Emissions due to Market Leakagefrom all affected carbon Reservoirs during calendar year t.Expressed in tCO2e. Determined in Section 8.3.2.290,198 312,954 326,926 354,681 349,186 365,357 442,374 384,388 363,765 370,565 382,923 408,626 391,119 410,659 436,751 447,335 393,172 399,013 389,882 380,034 400,721 378,003 382,712 413,354 396,756 354,675 359,565 351,348 362,835 359,950 wdf,s Wood density factor for balsam 7.5% 0.40 ? 3 ΔGHGProject,t Total Project Emission Reductions or Removals by GHG 3,307,216 3,157,484 3,081,144 3,006,278 2,944,352 2,896,755 2,694,798 2,663,041 2,621,659 2,536,167 2,497,909 2,387,098 2,383,960 2,341,771 2,223,151 2,150,547 2,138,803 2,069,598 2,039,069 2,022,045 1,974,529 1,893,180 1,880,970 1,762,834 1,741,014 1,679,714 1,654,612 1,648,419 1,572,732 1,528,101 68,498,951 %CH4,LFGMolar % CH4 in landfill gas. Typically, 50% of the anaerobicallydegraded carbon is assumed to be released as CH4, with the remainder released as CO20.50 ΔGHGProject,t The total emissions or removals of GHGj, in tonnes, occurring in theproject during reporting period t. Removals area expressed as anegative number, and emissions as a positive number.Transformed to tCO2e 3,307,216 3,157,484 3,081,144 3,006,278 2,944,352 2,896,755 2,694,798 2,663,041 2,621,659 2,536,167 2,497,909 2,387,098 2,383,960 2,341,771 2,223,151 2,150,547 2,138,803 2,069,598 2,039,069 2,022,045 1,974,529 1,893,180 1,880,970 1,762,834 1,741,014 1,679,714 1,654,612 1,648,419 1,572,732 1,528,101 Project Area (Ha) Sum of project scenario timber harvesting land base for north and Central 276,900.00 R ΔGHGj, Project ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in project forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.GB Data, Edited to consider annual differences in carbon stocks directly809,100 768,264 747,444 727,026 710,137 697,156 642,077 633,416 622,130 598,814 595,200 564,979 564,123 552,617 520,266 500,465 497,262 478,388 470,062 465,419 458,602 436,416 433,086 400,867 394,916 378,198 371,352 369,663 349,021 336,849 59,008,821.67 GHGj, Project HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in project HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 12,515,353 Carbon Fraction in useCarbon fraction landfillsDistribution Percentage GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the project during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 4. transformed to tCO2 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 - 3,025,224 m_Softwood Lumber 0.234 0.405 66% *Obtained from "mill percentages" spreadsheet - - m_Hardwood lumber 0.064 0.49 0%X 4GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tEmissions from project Sources 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 m_Softwood Plywood 0.245 0.4 3%PE_HWP_CH4,t Total Project Emissions of GHG j from PEi identified in Table3 during calendar year t. Expressed in tonnes. Calculated in eq 29. 15,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 m_Oriented Strand board 0.349 0.347 3%GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the project during reportingperiod t.108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 108,548 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 100,577 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 93,398 m_Non-structural Panels 0.138 0.454 3%GHGj, PEi,tProject emissions of GHGj, in tonnes, from SSP PEi during reportingperiod t. PEi shall only include emissions sources deemed relevantbased on the requirements of Section 3.6. PEi shall be calculated basedon the requirements of Section 4.3.Only CH4 (PE15) is considered m_Misellaneous Products 0.003 0.0518 12%X 5 ∆GHGj, Baseline, t Total Baseline Emissions or removals by GHG 4,044,397 3,960,349 3,924,339 3,929,586 3,851,798 3,850,877 3,871,227 3,672,098 3,571,188 3,505,323 3,505,076 3,468,743 3,414,876 3,429,304 3,386,290 3,344,355 3,175,666 3,123,387 3,066,399 3,020,841 3,031,996 2,884,948 2,886,356 2,856,836 2,787,015 2,604,015 2,593,056 2,563,099 2,520,632 2,467,659 m_paper 0 0.151 12%∆GHGj, Baseline, tThe total emissions or removals of GHGj, in tonnes, occurring in thebaseline during reporting period t as compared to the baseline.Removals area expressed as a negative number, and emissions as apositive number. transformed to tCO2 4,044,397 3,960,349 3,924,339 3,929,586 3,851,798 3,850,877 3,871,227 3,672,098 3,571,188 3,505,323 3,505,076 3,468,743 3,414,876 3,429,304 3,386,290 3,344,355 3,175,666 3,123,387 3,066,399 3,020,841 3,031,996 2,884,948 2,886,356 2,856,836 2,787,015 2,604,015 2,593,056 2,563,099 2,520,632 2,467,659 fproduction loss,kThe fraction of wood mass lost as residuals / waste during productionof HWP k.BC Default of 25%0.25R ΔGHGj, Baseline ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in baseline forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Input GB Data Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly. Table 50 Input976,036 953,114 943,293 944,724 923,509 923,258 928,808 874,500 846,979 829,016 835,411 825,502 810,811 814,746 803,015 791,578 745,572 731,314 715,772 703,347 712,710 672,606 672,990 664,939 645,897 595,988 592,999 584,829 573,247 558,800 85,049,470.00 GHGj, Baseline HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in baseline HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.eq. 7.2 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 17,489,946 GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the baseline during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 6 transformed to tCO2 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 4,227,688 %LFG CollectionThe % of generated CH4 that is captured and destroyed by a landfill gascollection system. See Appendix B: Determining LFG CollectionEfficiency for additional discussion of this parameter.0.8X 6 GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tEmissions from baseline Sources 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 - OXOxidation factor for the landfill cover layer, expressed as thepercentage of CH4 that is oxidized to CO2 as it passes through the coverlayer.0.1PE_HWP_CH4,t Total Baseline Emissions of GHG j from PEi identified in Table3 during calendar year t. Expressed in tonnes. Calculated in eq 29.27,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 fDiscard non landfill, solid woodThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperHWPs).0.33GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the baseline during reportingperiod t.148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 148,421 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 140,868 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 133,480 fDiscard non landfill, paperThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperHWPs).0.66GHGj, PEi,tProject emissions of GHGj, in tonnes, from SSP BEi during reportingperiod t. PEi shall only include emissions sources deemed relevantbased on the requirements of Section 3.6. PEi shall be calculated basedon the requirements of Section 4.3.Only CH4 (PE15) is considered X 7.1 GHGCO2, HWP, t (Project) CO2 storage in HWP pools (Default Approach) 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs areproduced in the same year that the wood is harvested).157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 4,385,202 GHGCO2, HWPin landfill,Mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in landfilledproject or baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 yearsafter production.291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 8,130,151 X 8.1 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, t (Project) CO2 storage in the in-use HWP pool (Default Approach) 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 4,385,202 GHGCO2, HWP, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored in project or baseline HWPsharvested during reporting period t that will endure for a period of 100years157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs are157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 157,346 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 145,790 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 135,384 m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate woodDefault proportion from eq 9 below 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 9.1 GHGCO2, HWP landfill, t (Project) CO2 storage in the landfill HWP pool (Default Approach) 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 GHGCO2, HWP, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored in project or baseline HWPsharvested during reporting period t that will endure for a period of 100years 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 GHGCO2, HWPlandfill, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs are 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 291,718 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 270,295 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 251,002 m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate woodDefault proportion from eq 9 below 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 29.1 GHGCH4,PE15/BE15,t PE15/BE15 harvested wood products and residuals anaerobic decay (Project) 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 - GHGCH4,PE15/BE15,tEmissions of CH4 from anaerobic decay of landfilled HWPs harvested inyear t over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced.5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 5,169 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,789 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 4,448 GHGCH4,decay,tMass of CH4 generated from HWPs harvested in year t decaying inlandfill over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced, asdetermined in Equation 30 or Equation 32, depending on approach28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 - %LFG CollectionThe % of generated CH4 that is captured and destroyed by a landfill gascollection system. See Appendix B: Determining LFG CollectionEfficiency for additional discussion of this parameter.See Constant TableOXOxidation factor for the landfill cover layer, expressed as thepercentage of CH4 that is oxidized to CO2 as it passes through the coverlayer.See Constant Table30.1 GHGCH4,decay, t HWP methane generation from decay in landfill for Project (Default Approach) Page 119 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 GHGCH4,decay, tMass of CH4 generated from HWPs harvested in year t decaying inlandfill over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced.28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 28,716 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 26,608 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 24,708 m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate wooddensity for each species l must be used and justified by the proponentDefault proportion from eq 9 below 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 423,967 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 392,831 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 364,792 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 20,482 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 18,978 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 17,623 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 77,295 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 71,618 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 66,507 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 78,470 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 72,708 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 67,518 fC, in-use, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in-use after 100yearsSee Constant TablefC, non-landfill, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that have been discarded butnot sent to landfill after 100 years. Calculated in Equation 31, below.See Constant TablefC, in landfill, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in landfill after100 years.See Constant Table%CH4,LFGMolar % CH4 in landfill gas. Typically, 50% of the anaerobicallydegraded carbon is assumed to be released as CH4, with the remainderreleased as CO268.See Constant TableMWCH4 Molecular weight of CH4. See Constant TableMWC Molecular weight of carbon. See Constant Table31.1 fC, non-landfill, k HWP methane generation from decay in landfill for Project (Default Approach) Atemporal. See values belowfC, non-landfill_Softwood Lumber 0.253 fC, non-landfill_Hardwood lumber 0.309 fC, non-landfill_Softwood Plywood 0.249 fC, non-landfill_Oriented Strand board 0.215 fC, non-landfill_Non-structural Panels 0.284 fC, non-landfill_Misellaneous Products 0.329 fC, non-landfill_paper 0.660 fC, in-use, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in-use after 100years.See Constant TablefDiscard non landfill, kThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperSee Constant TableX RWBiomass,t Roundwood Biomass (Project)Own Calculations. Not in FCOP 1 but needed641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 32,760,894.83 RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tonnes of dry Biomass.641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 R vol,sVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Input GB Data 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 vol, HemVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55%389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 vol,CdrVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30%158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 vol,SprcVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 vol,BlsmVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for balsam 7.5%45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 X 7.2 GHGCO2, HWP, t (Baseline) CO2 storage in HWP pools (Default Approach) 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs are215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 6,128,229 GHGCO2, HWPin landfill,Mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in landfilledproject or baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 yearsafter production. 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 11,361,717 X 8.2 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, t (Baseline CO2 storage in the in-use HWP pool (Default Approach) 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 6,128,229 GHGCO2, HWP, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored in project or baseline HWPsharvested during reporting period t that will endure for a period of 100years 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 GHGCO2, HWPin-use, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs areproduced in the same year that the wood is harvested). 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 215,144 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 204,194 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 193,485 I think this is included in SSP 8 and this formula is for SSP 15m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate woodDefault proportion from eq 9 below 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 X 9.2 GHGCO2, HWP landfill, t (Baseline) CO2 storage in the landfill HWP pool (Default Approach) 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 GHGCO2, HWP, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored in project or baseline HWPsharvested during reporting period t that will endure for a period of 100years398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 GHGCO2, HWPlandfill, tMass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, that remains stored in in-use projector baseline HWPs harvested in reporting period t, 100 years afterproduction (note: it is assumed in this protocol that HWPs areproduced in the same year that the wood is harvested).398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 398,876 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 378,575 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 358,721 Should these be multiplied by -1 or not m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate wooddensity for each species l must be used and justified by the proponent(see below the table for default values).Default proportion from eq 9 below 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 Made them positive to stay consistent with FCOP 2m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 7034407.408m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 Constants Carbon Permanence from Table 11 FCOP 1HWP Methane calculations - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,000 4,500,0002009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037tCO2-eYearYearly Offset Credit Totals for Hypothetical ProjectΔGHGnet,tΔGHGProject,t ΔGHGBaseline,t29.2 GHGCH4,PE15/BE15,t PE15/BE15 harvested wood products and residuals anaerobic decay (Baseline) 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 - GHGCH4,PE15/BE15,tEmissions of CH4 from anaerobic decay of landfilled HWPs harvested inyear t over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced.7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 7,068 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,708 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 6,356 GHGCH4,decay,tMass of CH4 generated from HWPs harvested in year t decaying inlandfill over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced, asdetermined in Equation 30 or Equation 32, depending on approachused..39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 - %LFG CollectionThe % of generated CH4 that is captured and destroyed by a landfill gascollection system. See Appendix B: Determining LFG CollectionEfficiency for additional discussion of this parameter.See Constant TableOXOxidation factor for the landfill cover layer, expressed as thepercentage of CH4 that is oxidized to CO2 as it passes through the coverlayer.See Constant Table30.2 GHGCH4,decay, t HWP methane generation from decay in landfill for Baseline (Default Approach) Page 119 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 GHGCH4,decay, tMass of CH4 generated from HWPs harvested in year t decaying inlandfill over a 100 year period since the HWP was produced.39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 39,265 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 37,267 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 35,312 m_Softwood LumberDry mass, in tonnes, of harvested wood, minus bark, harvested inreporting period t that will be processed into HWP k. Where quantitiesof harvested wood are available in volume, units, an appropriate wooddensity for each species l must be used and justified by the proponentDefault proportion from eq 9 below 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 579,703 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 550,200 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 521,345 m_Hardwood lumber Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Oriented Strand board Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Non-structural Panels Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 28,006 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 26,581 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 25,187 m_Misellaneous Products Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 105,688 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 100,309 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 95,048 m_paper Dry mass of harvested wood that will be processed into HWP (see left) 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 107,295 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 101,834 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 96,494 fC, in-use, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in-use after 100yearsSee Constant TablefC, non-landfill, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that have been discarded butnot sent to landfill after 100 years. Calculated in Equation 31, below.See Constant TablefC, in landfill, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in landfill after100 years.See Constant Table%CH4,LFGMolar % CH4 in landfill gas. Typically, 50% of the anaerobicallydegraded carbon is assumed to be released as CH4, with the remainderreleased as CO268.See Constant TableMWCH4 Molecular weight of CH4. See Constant TableMWC Molecular weight of carbon. See Constant Table31.2 fC, non-landfill, k HWP methane generation from decay in landfill for Baseline (Default Approach) Atemporal. See values belowfC, non-landfill_Softwood Lumber 0.330 fC, non-landfill_Hardwood lumber 0.330 fC, non-landfill_Softwood Plywood 0.330 fC, non-landfill_Oriented Strand board 0.330 fC, non-landfill_Non-structural Panels 0.330 fC, non-landfill_Misellaneous Products 0.330 fC, non-landfill_paper 0.660 fC, in-use, kThe fraction of carbon in HWPs of type k that remain in-use after 100years.See Constant TablefDiscard non landfill, kThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperHWPs)See Constant TableX RWBiomass,t Roundwood Biomass (Baseline)Own Calculations. Not in FCOP 1 but needed876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tonnes of dry Biomass.876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 R vol,sVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Input GB Data 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 vol, HemVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55%532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 vol,CdrVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30%216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 vol,SprcVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 vol,BlsmVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for balsam 7.5%61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 34 GHGCO2,Leakage,t ; PP10 affected emissions (leakage) Page 119 454,637 495,040 519,846 569,123 559,366 588,077 724,816 621,866 585,251 597,324 622,022 667,943 636,665 671,574 718,191 737,100 640,332 650,768 634,454 616,861 652,340 611,880 620,267 674,839 645,279 570,332 579,041 564,407 584,865 579,728 - 18,394,235 GHGCO2, PP10, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted from affected carbon pools duringreporting period t. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.454,637 495,040 519,846 569,123 559,366 588,077 724,816 621,866 585,251 597,324 622,022 667,943 636,665 671,574 718,191 737,100 640,332 650,768 634,454 616,861 652,340 611,880 620,267 674,839 645,279 570,332 579,041 564,407 584,865 579,728 - 18,394,235 GHGCO2, Land UseShifting, t (L1)Total increase in project emissions due to land use shifting leakagefrom all affected carbon pools during reporting period t. See Section4.4.1.1 for details.N/A in this protocol 164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 - 7,034,407 GHGCO2, HarvestShifting, t (L2)Total increase in project emissions due to harvest shifting leakage fromall affected carbon pools during reporting period t. See Section 4.4.1.2for detailsTwo approaches in FCOP 1. See page 137290,198 312,954 326,926 354,681 349,186 365,357 442,374 384,388 363,765 370,565 382,923 408,626 391,119 410,659 436,751 447,335 393,172 399,013 389,882 380,034 400,721 378,003 382,712 413,354 396,756 354,675 359,565 351,348 362,835 359,950 - 11,359,828 25 L1 Activity Leakage 164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 - 3348069L1Net increase in Emissions or reduction in Removals fromall affected carbon Reservoirs during each calendar year t.Expressed in tCO2e164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 - ΔGHGCO2, InternalActivity Leakage,tActivity Leakage caused by shifts in deforestation fromselected SSRs to affected SSRs owned or controlled by theProject Proponent during each calendar year t. Expressedin tCO2e. Determined in Section 8.3.1.1N/AΔGHGCO2, ExternalActivity Leakage,tActivity Leakage caused by shifts in deforestation fromselected SSRs to affected SSRs that are not owned orcontrolled by the Project Proponent during each calendaryear t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined in Eq 27, Section 8.3.1.2.164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 - 27 ΔGHGCO2, External External Activity Leakage (Not in Project Plan) 164,439.09 182,085.15 192,919.63 214,441.83 210,180.54 222,720.13 282,442.29 237,478.04 221,485.87 226,758.81 239,098.91 259,316.88 245,545.93 260,915.44 281,439.98 289,765.25 247,160.42 251,755.05 244,572.45 236,826.48 251,619.41 233,876.89 237,554.51 261,485.82 248,523.03 215,657.09 219,476.31 213,058.78 222,030.05 219,777.33 ∆GHGCO2,External ActivityLeakage,tNet decrease in Project Reduction due to External ActivityLeakage during each calendar year t. Expressed in tCO2e.164,439.1 182,085.1 192,919.6 214,441.8 210,180.5 222,720.1 282,442.3 237,478.0 221,485.9 226,758.8 239,098.9 259,316.9 245,545.9 260,915.4 281,440.0 289,765.3 247,160.4 251,755.0 244,572.5 236,826.5 251,619.4 233,876.9 237,554.5 261,485.8 248,523.0 215,657.1 219,476.3 213,058.8 222,030.1 219,777.3 - ∆T(PR1 to PR7),tEmissions and Removals by Project live and dead forestcarbon Reservoir (excluding HWPs) during each calendaryear t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 4.Taken from eq36 parameters below 2,966,700 2,816,968 2,740,628 2,665,762 2,603,836 2,556,239 2,354,282 2,322,525 2,281,143 2,195,651 2,182,400 2,071,590 2,068,451 2,026,262 1,907,642 1,835,038 1,823,294 1,754,089 1,723,561 1,706,536 1,681,541 1,600,192 1,587,982 1,469,846 1,448,025 1,386,726 1,361,624 1,355,431 1,279,744 1,235,113 - ∆T(BR1 to BR7),tEmissions and Removals by Baseline live and dead forestcarbon Reservoir (excluding HWPs) during each calendaryear t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined in Eq, 24Section 8.2.1.Taken from eq36 parameters below 3,578,799 3,494,751 3,458,741 3,463,988 3,386,200 3,385,279 3,405,629 3,206,500 3,105,590 3,039,725 3,063,174 3,026,841 2,972,974 2,987,402 2,944,388 2,902,453 2,733,764 2,681,485 2,624,497 2,578,939 2,613,270 2,466,222 2,467,630 2,438,110 2,368,289 2,185,289 2,174,330 2,144,373 2,101,906 2,048,933 - HaProject Site Area of the Project. Expressed in hectares (ha). Taken from constant table aboveHadeforestedhectares,tArea of deforestation expected outside the Project Site and notowned or controlled by the Project Proponent in each calendaryear t. Expressed in hectares (ha). Area needed per Carbon Tonne (Ha/tCO2)* Delta_HWPCO2, Assuming I am using forests similar tot the area 74,388.64 74,388.64 74,388.64 74,388.64 74,388.64 74,388.64 74,388.64 74,388.64 74,388.64 74,388.64 75,168.56 75,168.56 75,168.56 75,168.56 75,168.56 75,168.56 75,168.56 75,168.56 75,168.56 75,168.56 74,778.60 74,778.60 74,778.60 74,778.60 74,778.60 74,778.60 74,778.60 74,778.60 74,778.60 74,778.60 - Area needed per Carbon Tonne (Ha/tCO2) Based on Baseline 0.172 GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t (Project)Expressed in tCO2e.Transformed harvest volumes to CO21,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t (Baseline)Expressed in tCO2e.Transformed harvest volumes to CO21,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 Delta_HWPCO2 Difference between harvested volumes in terms of carbon 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 X 36 ∆GHGCO2,Carbon Pools, tNet Change in forest Carbon Pools Transformed to CO2 612,099 677,783 718,113 798,226 782,364 829,041 1,051,347 883,975 824,446 844,074 880,774 955,251 904,523 961,140 1,036,746 1,067,414 910,470 927,395 900,937 872,403 931,729 866,030 879,648 968,264 920,264 798,563 812,706 788,942 822,162 813,820 - ΔGHGj, Project ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in project forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly2,966,700 2,816,968 2,740,628 2,665,762 2,603,836 2,556,239 2,354,282 2,322,525 2,281,143 2,195,651 2,182,400 2,071,590 2,068,451 2,026,262 1,907,642 1,835,038 1,823,294 1,754,089 1,723,561 1,706,536 1,681,541 1,600,192 1,587,982 1,469,846 1,448,025 1,386,726 1,361,624 1,355,431 1,279,744 1,235,113 - ΔGHGj, Baseline ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in baseline forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly. Table 50 Input3,578,799 3,494,751 3,458,741 3,463,988 3,386,200 3,385,279 3,405,629 3,206,500 3,105,590 3,039,725 3,063,174 3,026,841 2,972,974 2,987,402 2,944,388 2,902,453 2,733,764 2,681,485 2,624,497 2,578,939 2,613,270 2,466,222 2,467,630 2,438,110 2,368,289 2,185,289 2,174,330 2,144,373 2,101,906 2,048,933 - X 37 ∆GHGCO2, HWP Pools, t Net Change in HWPs Transformed to CO2 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 - 4,974,593 GHGj, Project HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in project HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.row 16 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 449,064 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 416,085 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 386,386 12,515,353 GHGj, Baseline HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in baseline HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.row 26 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 614,019 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 582,770 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 552,206 17,489,946 38 %leakage External Harvest Shifting % leakge from external harvest shifting. Parameters in red have a higher impact on leakage calculations. Not representative of yearly values0.4737 0.4604 0.5228 e Supply price elasticity. GB choses same value 0.6600 0.3420 0.3420 E Demand price elasticity. 0.5500- 0.1810- 0.1810- C_NCarbon sequestration reversal per unit of harvest from the non-reserved forest."Imposible to define a C_N Value" FCOP 11.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C_RCarbon sequestration per unit of (forgone) harvest gained bypreserving the reserved forest.1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Φ The “preservation” parameter. This is the ratio of timber supply beingset aside for the offset project (quantity QR) to the timber supplyoutside the offset area (quantity QN). The ratio can be represented as0.0100 0.0907 0.0907 γThe “substitution” parameter. A parameter introduced into thereferenced leakage equation to take into account specialty woods (i.e.the degree to which a particular HWP can be substituted for another).0.8719 0.7200 0.8200 39 Φ Preservation Parameter (Market share of project)Not a big effect on the leakage calculation. According to FCOP 1, an estimate of 0.01 can be used for a good provincial estimate. 0.09 is used by GB0.0100 0.0907 0.0907 QRQuantity of harvestable timber (m3) to be claimed on upcoming projectverification.6,132,500 QN Quantity of harvestable timber supply (m3) remaining in the market. Data available from TSA's AAC 556,350 40 γ Weighted Substitution ParameterThe fewer substitutes (e.g, cedar) the more likely leakage is lower. 0.8719 0.7200 0.8200 T_WH (Tree type i’s share of project’s total marketable tree volume)Make up of Western Hemlock in project 55% 0.55TWC Make up of Western Cedar in project 30% 0.12T_WS Make up of white spruce in project 7.5% 0.075T_BLSM Make up of balsam in project7.5% 0.075S_i Substitutability of tree type I, Cedar is 40% substitutable , other trees are 100% substitutableX 41 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tHarvest Shifting emissions (leakage) Option 1Option 1 (Based on total changes in forest carbon pools )290,198 312,954 326,926 354,681 349,186 365,357 442,374 384,388 363,765 370,565 382,923 408,626 391,119 410,659 436,751 447,335 393,172 399,013 389,882 380,034 400,721 378,003 382,712 413,354 396,756 354,675 359,565 351,348 362,835 359,950 11,359,828 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to harvest shifting leakage fromall affected carbon pools during reporting period t.290,198 312,954 326,926 354,681 349,186 365,357 442,374 384,388 363,765 370,565 382,923 408,626 391,119 410,659 436,751 447,335 393,172 399,013 389,882 380,034 400,721 378,003 382,712 413,354 396,756 354,675 359,565 351,348 362,835 359,950 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to internal harvest shiftingleakage during reporting period t.N/A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ∆GHGCO2,Carbon Pools, tThe net incremental mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored by theproject in forest carbon pools (excluding HWPs) during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 36612,099 677,783 718,113 798,226 782,364 829,041 1,051,347 883,975 824,446 844,074 880,774 955,251 904,523 961,140 1,036,746 1,067,414 910,470 927,395 900,937 872,403 931,729 866,030 879,648 968,264 920,264 798,563 812,706 788,942 822,162 813,820 ∆GHGCO2, HWP Pools, tThe net incremental mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored inproject HWPs harvested during reporting period t that will endure fora period of 100 years as compared to the baseline. Calculated inEquation 37.164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 164,955 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 166,685 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 165,820 GHGCO2, Land UseShifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to land use shifting leakagefrom all affected carbon pools during reporting period t. Calculated inEquation 35.N/A 164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 %LeakageExternalHarvest ShiftingTotal increase in project emissions due to external harvest shiftingleakage during reporting period t, expressed as a percentage of the netremovals to be achieved by the project from forest and HWP carbonpools relative to the baseline over the reporting periodConstantCheck Eq Parameters Description Notes 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 Total (tCO2e)X 1 ΔCO2enet,t Net Project Emission Reductions and/or Removals Enhancements in tCO2e ( CFN)minus ABSA, Followed FCOP Order of Substraction 100,941 111,180 117,467 129,956 127,483 134,759 169,414 143,323 134,043 137,103 142,353 153,918 146,041 154,833 166,573 171,336 146,964 149,593 145,484 141,053 150,516 140,294 142,413 156,201 148,732 129,797 131,998 128,301 133,469 132,171 - 4,217,709.84 ΔCO2enet,tProject Reduction of CO2e achieved by the Project Proponentduring calendar year t as compared to the Baseline. A netincrease in Project Reduction is expressed as a positivenumber. Expressed in tCO2e.249,236 274,519 290,042 320,878 314,773 332,739 418,306 353,883 330,971 338,525 351,489 380,045 360,595 382,303 411,292 423,051 362,875 369,365 359,220 348,279 371,645 346,406 351,638 385,681 367,241 320,488 325,921 316,791 329,553 326,349 - ABSA Percentage of credits shared with BC government 0.6 ΔCO2enet,tProject Reduction of CO2e achieved by the Project Proponentduring calendar year t as compared to the Baseline. A netincrease in Project Reduction is expressed as a positivenumber. Expressed in tCO2e.Minus buffer 224,313 247,067 261,038 288,790 283,295 299,465 376,476 318,495 297,873 304,673 316,340 342,041 324,535 344,073 370,163 380,746 326,587 332,428 323,298 313,451 334,481 311,765 316,474 347,113 330,517 288,439 293,329 285,112 296,598 293,714 - Leakage Percentage Standard FCOP 1 for Coatal BC 0.5 ΔGHGnet,tNet incremental Emission Reductions and RemovalsEnhancements of CO2e before Risk of Reversal deductions,achieved by the Project during calendar year t as compared tothe Baseline. Expressed in tCO2e. A net increase in EmissionReductions and Removals Enhancements is expressed as apositive number. Determined using Equation 2.249,236 274,519 290,042 320,878 314,773 332,739 418,306 353,883 330,971 338,525 351,489 380,045 360,595 382,303 411,292 423,051 362,875 369,365 359,220 348,279 371,645 346,406 351,638 385,681 367,241 320,488 325,921 316,791 329,553 326,349 - Buffer Percentage 0.1 ABSA 123,372 135,887 143,571 158,835 155,813 164,706 207,062 175,172 163,830 167,570 173,987 188,122 178,494 189,240 203,590 209,410 179,623 182,835 177,814 172,398 183,964 171,471 174,061 190,912 181,784 158,641 161,331 156,812 163,129 161,543 - GWP_CH4Global Warming Potential specified by the BC governmentfor GHG j.21.0 Contingency Account 24,924 27,452 29,004 32,088 31,477 33,274 41,831 35,388 33,097 33,853 35,149 38,005 36,059 38,230 41,129 42,305 36,287 36,936 35,922 34,828 37,165 34,641 35,164 38,568 36,724 32,049 32,592 31,679 32,955 32,635 - MWCH4 Molecular weight of CH4. 16.0 - MWCO2 Molecular weight of CO2. 44.0 X 2 ΔGHGnet,t Net project emission reductions and removal enhancements by GHG 249,236 274,519 290,042 320,878 314,773 332,739 418,306 353,883 330,971 338,525 351,489 380,045 360,595 382,303 411,292 423,051 362,875 369,365 359,220 348,279 371,645 346,406 351,638 385,681 367,241 320,488 325,921 316,791 329,553 326,349 MWC Molecular weight of carbon. 12.0 ΔGHGnet,tThe net incremental emission reductions and removal enhancementsof GHGj, in tonnes, achieved by the project during reporting period t ascompared to the baseline. A net increase in emission reductions andremoval enhancements is expressed as a positive number.Turned difference in emissions between project and baseline to positive values249,236 274,519 290,042 320,878 314,773 332,739 418,306 353,883 330,971 338,525 351,489 380,045 360,595 382,303 411,292 423,051 362,875 369,365 359,220 348,279 371,645 346,406 351,638 385,681 367,241 320,488 325,921 316,791 329,553 326,349 - fC,wood Fraction of the dry mass of wood, excluding bark,that is carbon.0.5 ΔGHGProject,t Total Emissions or Removals of CO2e occurring in the Project during calendar year t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 3.3,037,230 2,887,498 2,811,158 2,736,292 2,674,365 2,626,768 2,424,812 2,393,055 2,351,673 2,266,181 2,247,750 2,136,940 2,133,801 2,091,612 1,972,992 1,900,388 1,888,644 1,819,439 1,788,911 1,771,886 1,742,226 1,660,878 1,648,668 1,530,531 1,508,711 1,447,412 1,422,310 1,416,117 1,340,429 1,295,799 wdf,s Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55% 0.5 ΔGHGBaseline,tTotal Emissions or Removals of CO2e occurring in the Baseline during calendar year t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 53,675,236 3,591,189 3,555,178 3,560,425 3,482,637 3,481,717 3,502,067 3,302,937 3,202,027 3,136,163 3,154,703 3,118,370 3,064,503 3,078,931 3,035,918 2,993,982 2,825,293 2,773,014 2,716,027 2,670,468 2,699,999 2,552,951 2,554,359 2,524,839 2,455,018 2,272,018 2,261,059 2,231,102 2,188,635 2,135,662 wdf,s Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30% 0.4 L1Net increase in Project Emissions due to Activity Leakagefrom all affected carbon Reservoirs during calendar year t.Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 25. 164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 - wdf,s Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 0.4 L2Net increase in Project Emissions due to Market Leakagefrom all affected carbon Reservoirs during calendar year t.Expressed in tCO2e. Determined in Section 8.3.2. 224,331 247,087 261,059 288,814 283,318 299,489 376,506 318,521 297,898 304,698 316,365 342,068 324,561 344,101 370,193 380,777 326,614 332,455 323,324 313,477 334,508 311,791 316,499 347,141 330,543 288,462 293,352 285,135 296,622 293,738 - wdf,s Wood density factor for balsam 7.5% 0.4 ? 3 ΔGHGProject,t Total Project Emission Reductions or Removals by GHG 3,037,230 2,887,498 2,811,158 2,736,292 2,674,365 2,626,768 2,424,812 2,393,055 2,351,673 2,266,181 2,247,750 2,136,940 2,133,801 2,091,612 1,972,992 1,900,388 1,888,644 1,819,439 1,788,911 1,771,886 1,742,226 1,660,878 1,648,668 1,530,531 1,508,711 1,447,412 1,422,310 1,416,117 1,340,429 1,295,799 %CH4,LFGMolar % CH4 in landfill gas. Typically, 50% of the anaerobicallydegraded carbon is assumed to be released as CH4, with the remainder released as CO20.5 ΔGHGProject,t The total emissions or removals of GHGj, in tonnes, occurring in theproject during reporting period t. Removals area expressed as anegative number, and emissions as a positive number.Transformed to tCO2e 3,037,230 2,887,498 2,811,158 2,736,292 2,674,365 2,626,768 2,424,812 2,393,055 2,351,673 2,266,181 2,247,750 2,136,940 2,133,801 2,091,612 1,972,992 1,900,388 1,888,644 1,819,439 1,788,911 1,771,886 1,742,226 1,660,878 1,648,668 1,530,531 1,508,711 1,447,412 1,422,310 1,416,117 1,340,429 1,295,799 HWP FactorThe proportion of CO2 remaining after harvest, forproducts used in North America and offshore.Assumed to be 6% permanently sequestered for astandard mix of products after 100 years.0.1 R ΔGHGj, Project ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in project forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.GB Data, Edited to consider annual differences in carbon stocks directly809,100 768,264 747,444 727,026 710,137 697,156 642,077 633,416 622,130 598,814 595,200 564,979 564,123 552,617 520,266 500,465 497,262 478,388 470,062 465,419 458,602 436,416 433,086 400,867 394,916 378,198 371,352 369,663 349,021 336,849 Project Area (Ha) Sum of project scenario timber harvesting land base for north and Central 276,900.0 GHGj, Project HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in project HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 - GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the project during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 4. transformed to tCO2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Carbon Fraction in useCarbon fraction landfillsDistribution Percentage *Obtained from "mill percentages" spreadsheet GHGj, Leakage, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted from affected carbon pools duringreporting period t. Determined in Section 4.4. Only relevant for j =CO2; otherwise, set to zero.p 114 sets equivalencies. Calculated in row 97 , Equal to g28 North Credits comparison v2m_Softwood Lumber 0.234 0.405 66%X 4GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tEmissions from project Sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Hardwood lumber 0.064 0.49 0%PE_HWP_CH4,t Total Project Emissions of GHG j from PEi identified in Table3 during calendar year t. Expressed in tonnes. Calculated in eq 29. 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Softwood Plywood 0.245 0.4 3%GHGj, Project EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the project during reportingperiod t.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m_Oriented Strand board 0.349 0.347 3%GHGj, PEi,tProject emissions of GHGj, in tonnes, from SSP PEi during reportingperiod t. PEi shall only include emissions sources deemed relevantbased on the requirements of Section 3.6. PEi shall be calculated basedon the requirements of Section 4.3.m_Non-structural Panels 0.138 0.454 3%X 5 ∆GHGj, Baseline, t Total Baseline Emissions or removals by GHG 3,675,236 3,591,189 3,555,178 3,560,425 3,482,637 3,481,717 3,502,067 3,302,937 3,202,027 3,136,163 3,154,703 3,118,370 3,064,503 3,078,931 3,035,918 2,993,982 2,825,293 2,773,014 2,716,027 2,670,468 2,699,999 2,552,951 2,554,359 2,524,839 2,455,018 2,272,018 2,261,059 2,231,102 2,188,635 2,135,662 m_Misellaneous Products 0.003 0.0518 12%∆GHGj, Baseline, tThe total emissions or removals of GHGj, in tonnes, occurring in thebaseline during reporting period t as compared to the baseline.Removals area expressed as a negative number, and emissions as apositive number. transformed to tCO2 3,675,236 3,591,189 3,555,178 3,560,425 3,482,637 3,481,717 3,502,067 3,302,937 3,202,027 3,136,163 3,154,703 3,118,370 3,064,503 3,078,931 3,035,918 2,993,982 2,825,293 2,773,014 2,716,027 2,670,468 2,699,999 2,552,951 2,554,359 2,524,839 2,455,018 2,272,018 2,261,059 2,231,102 2,188,635 2,135,662 m_paper 0 0.151 12%R ΔGHGj, Baseline ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in baseline forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Input GB Data Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly. Table 50 Input976,036 953,114 943,293 944,724 923,509 923,258 928,808 874,500 846,979 829,016 835,411 825,502 810,811 814,746 803,015 791,578 745,572 731,314 715,772 703,347 712,710 672,606 672,990 664,939 645,897 595,988 592,999 584,829 573,247 558,800 fproduction loss,k The fraction of wood mass lost as residuals / waste during productionof HWP k.BC Default of 25%0.25GHGj, Baseline HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in baseline HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.eq. 7.2 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the baseline during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 6 transformed to tCO2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X 6 GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tEmissions from baseline Sources - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - %LFG CollectionThe % of generated CH4 that is captured and destroyed by a landfill gascollection system. See Appendix B: Determining LFG CollectionEfficiency for additional discussion of this parameter.0.8PE_HWP_CH4,t Total Baseline Emissions of GHG j from PEi identified in Table3 during calendar year t. Expressed in tonnes. Calculated in eq 29.2- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OXOxidation factor for the landfill cover layer, expressed as thepercentage of CH4 that is oxidized to CO2 as it passes through the coverlayer.0.1GHGj, Baseline EmissionSources, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted by the baseline during reportingperiod t.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - fDiscard non landfill, solid woodThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperHWPs).0.33GHGj, PEi,tProject emissions of GHGj, in tonnes, from SSP BEi during reportingperiod t. PEi shall only include emissions sources deemed relevantbased on the requirements of Section 3.6. PEi shall be calculated basedon the requirements of Section 4.3.Only CH4 (PE15) is considered fDiscard non landfill, paperThe mass fraction of HWPs of type k that are not sent to landfill whendiscarded (assumed by Smith et al, 2006 to be (1 – 0.67) = 0.33 for alldiscarded solid wood HWPs and (1 – 0.34) = 0.66 for discarded paperHWPs).0.66x 7.1 𝑇𝑃𝑅8,t GHGs from Harvested Wood Products 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 - 𝑇𝑃𝑅8,t Mass of CO2 stored in Project HWPs during calendaryear t. Expressed in tCO2e. 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 - GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extracted fromthe Project Site during calendar year t destined for usein North America and offshore. Expressed in tCO2e.Determined using Equation 8. 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 - HWPfactThe proportion of CO2 remaining after harvest, forproducts used in North America and offshore.Assumed to be 6% permanently sequestered for astandard mix of products after 100 years.Constant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 8.1 GrossHWPCO2,t Gross Mass of Carbon in Harvested Wood Products 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 - GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tCO2e. 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 - RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extracted fromthe Project Site during calendar year t. Expressed intonnes dry Biomass. Determined using Equation 9. 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 - fC,wood Fraction of the dry mass of wood, excluding bark,that is carbon.ConstantMWCO2 Molecular weight of CO2. ConstantMWC Molecular weight of carbon. ConstantX RWBiomass,t Roundwood Biomass (Project)Own Calculations. Not in FCOP 1 but needed641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tonnes of dry Biomass.641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 641,180 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 594,092 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 551,687 R vol,sVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Input GB Data 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,506,000 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,395,400 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 1,295,800 vol, HemVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55%389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 389,301 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 360,711 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 334,964 vol,CdrVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30%158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 158,130 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 146,517 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 136,059 vol,SprcVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 48,569 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 45,002 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 41,790 vol,BlsmVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for balsam 7.5%45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 45,180 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 41,862 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 38,874 x 7.2 𝑇𝑃𝑅8,t GHGs from Harvested Wood Products (Baseline) 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 - 𝑇𝑃𝑅8,t Mass of CO2 stored in Project HWPs during calendaryear t. Expressed in tCO2e. 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 - GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extracted fromthe Project Site during calendar year t destined for usein North America and offshore. Expressed in tCO2e.Determined using Equation 8. 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 - HWPfactThe proportion of CO2 remaining after harvest, forproducts used in North America and offshore.Assumed to be 6% permanently sequestered for astandard mix of products after 100 years.Constant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 8.2 GrossHWPCO2,t Gross Mass of Carbon in Harvested Wood Products (Baseline) 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 - GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tCO2e. 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 - RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extracted fromthe Project Site during calendar year t. Expressed intonnes dry Biomass. Determined using Equation 9. 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 - fC,wood Fraction of the dry mass of wood, excluding bark,that is carbon.ConstantMWCO2 Molecular weight of CO2. ConstantMWC Molecular weight of carbon. ConstantX RWBiomass,t Roundwood Biomass (Baseline)Own Calculations. Not in FCOP 1 but needed876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 RWBiomass,tDry mass of the delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t.Expressed in tonnes of dry Biomass.876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 876,704 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 832,086 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 788,446 R vol,sVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Input GB Data 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 2,059,200 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,954,400 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 1,851,900 vol, HemVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Hemlock 55%532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 532,303 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 505,212 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 478,716 vol,CdrVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for Western Cedar 30%216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 216,216 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 205,212 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 194,450 vol,SprcVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for white spruce 7.5% 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 66,409 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 63,029 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 59,724 vol,BlsmVolume of delivered roundwood in m3 of speciess, extracted from the Project Site during calendaryear t. Expressed in m3.Wood density factor for balsam 7.5%61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 61,776 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 58,632 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 55,557 34 GHGCO2,Leakage,t ; PP10 affected emissions (leakage) Page 119 388,770 429,172 453,979 503,256 493,499 522,209 658,948 555,999 519,384 531,456 555,464 601,385 570,107 605,016 651,633 670,542 573,774 584,210 567,896 550,303 586,127 545,668 554,054 608,627 579,067 504,119 512,829 498,194 518,652 513,515 - 16,407,857 GHGCO2, PP10, tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, emitted from affected carbon pools duringreporting period t. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.388,770 429,172 453,979 503,256 493,499 522,209 658,948 555,999 519,384 531,456 555,464 601,385 570,107 605,016 651,633 670,542 573,774 584,210 567,896 550,303 586,127 545,668 554,054 608,627 579,067 504,119 512,829 498,194 518,652 513,515 - 16,407,857 GHGCO2, Land UseShifting, t (L1)Total increase in project emissions due to land use shifting leakagefrom all affected carbon pools during reporting period t. See Section4.4.1.1 for details.164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 - 7,034,407 GHGCO2, HarvestShifting, t (L2)Total increase in project emissions due to harvest shifting leakage fromall affected carbon pools during reporting period t. See Section 4.4.1.2for detailsTwo approaches in FCOP 1. See page 137224,331 247,087 261,059 288,814 283,318 299,489 376,506 318,521 297,898 304,698 316,365 342,068 324,561 344,101 370,193 380,777 326,614 332,455 323,324 313,477 334,508 311,791 316,499 347,141 330,543 288,462 293,352 285,135 296,622 293,738 - 9,373,449 25 L1 Activity Leakage 164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 - L1Net increase in Emissions or reduction in Removals fromall affected carbon Reservoirs during each calendar year t.Expressed in tCO2eΔGHGCO2, InternalActivity Leakage,tActivity Leakage caused by shifts in deforestation fromselected SSRs to affected SSRs owned or controlled by theProject Proponent during each calendar year t. ExpressedN/AΔGHGCO2, ExternalActivity Leakage,tActivity Leakage caused by shifts in deforestation fromselected SSRs to affected SSRs that are not owned orcontrolled by the Project Proponent during each calendar164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 - 27 ΔGHGCO2, External External Activity Leakage (Not in Project Plan) 164,439.09 182,085.15 192,919.63 214,441.83 210,180.54 222,720.13 282,442.29 237,478.04 221,485.87 226,758.81 239,098.91 259,316.88 245,545.93 260,915.44 281,439.98 289,765.25 247,160.42 251,755.05 244,572.45 236,826.48 251,619.41 233,876.89 237,554.51 261,485.82 248,523.03 215,657.09 219,476.31 213,058.78 222,030.05 219,777.33 - ∆GHGCO2,External ActivityLeakage,tNet decrease in Project Reduction due to External ActivityLeakage during each calendar year t. Expressed in tCO2e.164,439.1 182,085.1 192,919.6 214,441.8 210,180.5 222,720.1 282,442.3 237,478.0 221,485.9 226,758.8 239,098.9 259,316.9 245,545.9 260,915.4 281,440.0 289,765.3 247,160.4 251,755.0 244,572.5 236,826.5 251,619.4 233,876.9 237,554.5 261,485.8 248,523.0 215,657.1 219,476.3 213,058.8 222,030.1 219,777.3 - ∆T(PR1 to PR7),tEmissions and Removals by Project live and dead forestcarbon Reservoir (excluding HWPs) during each calendaryear t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined using Equation 4.2,966,700 2,816,968 2,740,628 2,665,762 2,603,836 2,556,239 2,354,282 2,322,525 2,281,143 2,195,651 2,182,400 2,071,590 2,068,451 2,026,262 1,907,642 1,835,038 1,823,294 1,754,089 1,723,561 1,706,536 1,681,541 1,600,192 1,587,982 1,469,846 1,448,025 1,386,726 1,361,624 1,355,431 1,279,744 1,235,113 - ∆T(BR1 to BR7),tEmissions and Removals by Baseline live and dead forestcarbon Reservoir (excluding HWPs) during each calendaryear t. Expressed in tCO2e. Determined in Eq, 24Section 8.2.1.3,578,799 3,494,751 3,458,741 3,463,988 3,386,200 3,385,279 3,405,629 3,206,500 3,105,590 3,039,725 3,063,174 3,026,841 2,972,974 2,987,402 2,944,388 2,902,453 2,733,764 2,681,485 2,624,497 2,578,939 2,613,270 2,466,222 2,467,630 2,438,110 2,368,289 2,185,289 2,174,330 2,144,373 2,101,906 2,048,933 - HaProject Site Area of the Project. Expressed in hectares (ha). Taken from constant table aboveHadeforestedhectares,tArea of deforestation expected outside the Project Site and notowned or controlled by the Project Proponent in each calendaryear t. Expressed in hectares (ha).Area needed per Carbon Tonne (Ha/tCO2)* Delta_HWPCO2, Assuming I am using forests similar tot the area74,389 74,389 74,389 74,389 74,389 74,389 74,389 74,389 74,389 74,389 75,169 75,169 75,169 75,169 75,169 75,169 75,169 75,169 75,169 75,169 74,779 74,779 74,779 74,779 74,779 74,779 74,779 74,779 74,779 74,779 - Area needed per Carbon Tonne (Ha/tCO2) Based on Baseline 0.172 GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t (Project)Expressed in tCO2e.Transformed harvest volumes to CO21,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,175,496 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,089,168 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 1,011,426 GrossHWPCO2,tMass of tCO2e in delivered roundwood extractedfrom the Project Site during calendar year t (Baseline)Expressed in tCO2e.Transformed harvest volumes to CO21,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,607,291 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,525,491 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 1,445,485 Delta_HWPCO2 Difference between harvested volumes in terms of carbon 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 431,796 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 436,323 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 434,059 X 36 ∆GHGCO2,Carbon Pools, tNet Change in forest Carbon Pools Transformed to CO2 612,099 677,783 718,113 798,226 782,364 829,041 1,051,347 883,975 824,446 844,074 880,774 955,251 904,523 961,140 1,036,746 1,067,414 910,470 927,395 900,937 872,403 931,729 866,030 879,648 968,264 920,264 798,563 812,706 788,942 822,162 813,820 ΔGHGj, Project ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in project forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly2,966,700 2,816,968 2,740,628 2,665,762 2,603,836 2,556,239 2,354,282 2,322,525 2,281,143 2,195,651 2,182,400 2,071,590 2,068,451 2,026,262 1,907,642 1,835,038 1,823,294 1,754,089 1,723,561 1,706,536 1,681,541 1,600,192 1,587,982 1,469,846 1,448,025 1,386,726 1,361,624 1,355,431 1,279,744 1,235,113 ΔGHGj, Baseline ForestPools, tThe difference in mass of GHGj, in tonnes, stored in baseline forest carbon pools(excluding HWPs) at the end of reporting period t. Determined inSection 4.2.1. Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.Edited to consider annual diferences in carbon stocks directly. Table 50 Input3,578,799 3,494,751 3,458,741 3,463,988 3,386,200 3,385,279 3,405,629 3,206,500 3,105,590 3,039,725 3,063,174 3,026,841 2,972,974 2,987,402 2,944,388 2,902,453 2,733,764 2,681,485 2,624,497 2,578,939 2,613,270 2,466,222 2,467,630 2,438,110 2,368,289 2,185,289 2,174,330 2,144,373 2,101,906 2,048,933 X 37 ∆GHGCO2, HWP Pools, t Net Change in HWPs Transformed to CO2 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 781,307 GHGj, Project HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in project HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.row 16 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 70,530 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 65,350 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 60,686 1,965,654 GHGj, Baseline HWP Pools,tThe mass of GHGj, in tonnes, transferred to and stored in baseline HWPcarbon pools during reporting period t. Determined in Section 4.2.2.Only relevant for j = CO2; otherwise, set to zero.row 26 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 96,437 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 91,529 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 86,729 2,746,960 38 %leakage External Harvest Shifting % leakage from external harvest shifting. Parameters in red have a higher impact on leakage calculations. Not representative of yearly values0.4737 0.4604 0.1751 e Supply price elasticity. GB choses same value 0.6600 0.3420 0.3420 E Demand price elasticity. 0.5500- 0.1810- 0.1810- C_NCarbon sequestration reversal per unit of harvest from the non-reserved forest."Imposible to define a C_N Value" FCOP 11.0000 1.0000 1.0000 C_RCarbon sequestration per unit of (forgone) harvest gained bypreserving the reserved forest.1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 Φ The “preservation” parameter. This is the ratio of timber supply beingset aside for the offset project (quantity QR) to the timber supplyoutside the offset area (quantity QN). The ratio can be represented as 0.0100 0.0907 0.0907 γThe “substitution” parameter. A parameter introduced into thereferenced leakage equation to take into account specialty woods (i.e.the degree to which a particular HWP can be substituted for another).0.8719 0.7200 0.2700 39 Φ Preservation Parameter (Market share of project)Not a big effect on the leakage calculation. According to FCOP 1, an estimate of 0.01 can be used for a 0.0100 0.0907 0.0907 QRQuantity of harvestable timber (m3) to be claimed on upcoming projectverification.6,132,500 QN Quantity of harvestable timber supply (m3) remaining in the market. Data available from TSA's AAC 556,350 40 γ Weighted Substitution ParameterThe fewer substitutes (e.g, cedar) the more likely leakage is lower. 0.8719 0.7200 0.2700 T_WH (Tree type i’s share of project’s total marketable tree volume)Make up of Western Hemlock in project 55%TWC Make up of Western Cedar in project 30% 0.12T_WS Make up of white spruce in project 7.5% 0.075T_BLSM Make up of balsam in project7.5% 0.075S_i Substitutability of tree type I, Cedar is 40% substitutable , other trees are 100% substitutableX 41 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tHarvest Shifting emissions (leakage) Option 1Option 1 (Based on total changes in forest carbon pools )224,331 247,087 261,059 288,814 283,318 299,489 376,506 318,521 297,898 304,698 316,365 342,068 324,561 344,101 370,193 380,777 326,614 332,455 323,324 313,477 334,508 311,791 316,499 347,141 330,543 288,462 293,352 285,135 296,622 293,738 9,373,449 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to harvest shifting leakage fromall affected carbon pools during reporting period t.224,331 247,087 261,059 288,814 283,318 299,489 376,506 318,521 297,898 304,698 316,365 342,068 324,561 344,101 370,193 380,777 326,614 332,455 323,324 313,477 334,508 311,791 316,499 347,141 330,543 288,462 293,352 285,135 296,622 293,738 GHGCO2,Harvest Shifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to internal harvest shiftingleakage during reporting period t.N/A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Constants Carbon Permanence from Table 11 FCOP 1HWP Methane calculations - 500,000 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 3,500,000 4,000,0002009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037tCO2-eYearYearly Offset Credit Totals for Hypothetical ProjectΔGHGnet,tΔGHGProject,t ΔGHGBaseline,t∆GHGCO2,Carbon Pools, tThe net incremental mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored by theproject in forest carbon pools (excluding HWPs) during reportingperiod t as compared to the baseline. Calculated in Equation 36612,099 677,783 718,113 798,226 782,364 829,041 1,051,347 883,975 824,446 844,074 880,774 955,251 904,523 961,140 1,036,746 1,067,414 910,470 927,395 900,937 872,403 931,729 866,030 879,648 968,264 920,264 798,563 812,706 788,942 822,162 813,820 ∆GHGCO2, HWP Pools, tThe net incremental mass of carbon dioxide, in tonnes, stored inproject HWPs harvested during reporting period t that will endure fora period of 100 years as compared to the baseline. Calculated inEquation 37.25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 25,908 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,179 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 26,044 GHGCO2, Land UseShifting, tTotal increase in project emissions due to land use shifting leakagefrom all affected carbon pools during reporting period t. Calculated inEquation 35.N/A 164,439 182,085 192,920 214,442 210,181 222,720 282,442 237,478 221,486 226,759 239,099 259,317 245,546 260,915 281,440 289,765 247,160 251,755 244,572 236,826 251,619 233,877 237,555 261,486 248,523 215,657 219,476 213,059 222,030 219,777 %LeakageExternalHarvest ShiftingTotal increase in project emissions due to external harvest shiftingleakage during reporting period t, expressed as a percentage of the netremovals to be achieved by the project from forest and HWP carbonpools relative to the baseline over the reporting periodConstantCategory FCOP 1 FCOP 2Change in variable (tCO2e)Credits Before Credits AfterChange in total issued credits Carbon storage in HWP Landfill + in-use In-use4,974,593 to 781,307 a 84% decrease 5,129,903 4,368,715 -14.84%Emissions from HWP CH4 Included CH4 Not Included N/A 5,129,903 5,614,844 9.45%Leakage Market (External)Activity-shifting (External) + Market (External)17,146,350 to 18,394,235 a 7 % increase 5,129,903 4,624,510 -9.85% 5,129,903 4,217,710 -17.78%Gross Sequestration per sinkFCOP 1 FCOP 2Ecosystem Carbon 26,040,648.33 26,040,648.33 HWPs in use 1,743,027.03 - HWPs in landfills 3,231,566.33 - Total 31,015,241.70 26,040,648.33 Total-20.00%-15.00%-10.00%-5.00%0.00%5.00%10.00%15.00% Carbon storage in HWPEffects of individual protocol changes to issued credits Carbon storage in HWPEmissions from HWPLeakageTotalEcosystem Carbon 84%HWPs in use6%HWPs in landfills10%FCOP 1Ecosystem Carbon 100%HWPs in use0%HWPs in landfills0%FCOP 2
Graduating Project
eng
Unreviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Undergraduate
University of British Columbia. ENVR 449
British Columbia's new Forest Carbon Offset Program : A protocol comparison
Text