Specified gas emitters regulation : additional guidance for interpretation of the quantification protocol for tillage system management for carbon offsets in Alberta

2008·0.76 MB·English

by  Alberta. Alberta Environment

Specified Gas Emitters Regulation
Additional Guidance for
Interpretation of the
Protocol for
Quantification
Tillage System ^Ianagement
FOR Carbon Offsets Alberta
in
February 2008 /dbcria
ENVIRONMENT
Version 1
TillageSystemsProtocolGuidance
Disclaimer:
The information provided inthis document is intended as guidance only andis subjectto
revisions as learnings andnew information comes forward as part ofacommitmentto
continuous improvement. This document is not a substitute forthe law. Please consultthe
SpecifiedGasEmittersRegulation andthe legislation forallpurposes ofinterpreting and
applying the law. Inthe eventthatthere is a differencebetweenthis document andtheSpecified
GasEmittersRegulation or legislation, theSpecifiedGasEmittersRegulation orthe legislation
prevail.
Any comments, questions, or suggestions regardingthe content ofthis documentmaybe directed
to:
EnvironmentalAssurance
Alberta Environment
10thFloor, Oxbridge Place
9820 - 106th Street
Edmonton, Alberta, T5K2J6
E-mail: [email protected]
ISBN: 978-0-7785-7338-8 (Printed)
ISBN: 978-0-7785-7339-5 (On-line)
Copyright in this publication, regardless offormat, belongs to HerMajesty the Queen inright of
the Province ofAlberta. Reproduction ofthispublication, inwhole orin part, regardless of
puipose, requires the priorwrittenpermission ofAlberta Environment.
© HerMajesty the Queen in rightofthe Province ofAlberta, 2008
Page
i
TillageSystemsProtocolGuidance
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background 1
2.0 Identification of Protocol Areas 2
3.0 Definitions ofTillage Activity 3
4.0 Guidance on Specific Management Scenarios 4
5.0 References 6
List of Figures
FIGURE 1.1 Protocol Areas forCarbon Change Coefficients inAlberta 2
List of Tables
TABLE 1.1 Definitions ofTillage Systems in the Parklandl andDry
Prairie ProtocolAreas 3
Pageii
TillageSystemsProtocolGuidance
1.0 introduction and Background
This document is forprojectdevelopers who are using the Alberta Tillage SystemManagement
protocol to developprojects forgreenhouse gas (GHG) emissionremoval. Itprovides further
guidance on howto interpret complexmanagement scenarios encountered inreducedtillage
systems in Alberta.
The Alberta Tillage SystemManagementprotocol quantifies rates ofsoil carbon
sequestration resulting from agricultural projects where there is apractice change from
reducedtillage managementrelative to abaseline condition offulltillage. The protocol
was developed aroundquantificationmethods thatwere designedto achieve acceptable
levels ofassurance, asprescribedbythe Alberta Offset System for Greenhouse Gases
(Alberta Environment, 2007).
The science-based quantificationmethods developedbyAgriculture andAgri-Food Canada
(AAFC) to meet Canada’s GHGreportingrequirementunderthe UNFCCC wereusedto identify
coefficients to calculate annualrates ofcarbon sequestrationwithtillage management changes
from full tillage (FT) to eitherreducedtillage (RT) orno tillage (NT), basedonmeasured
changes in levels ofsoil organic carbon (McConkey et al. 2006). Reductions innitrous oxide
emissions from soils as aresult ofchanges intillage management (Rochette etal. 2006) were
also included. The protocol also includes GHG emissionreductions associatedwith changes in
energyuse as aresult ofchanges intillage managementthatderived fromthe GHGModel Farm
(Helgason etal. 2005). The results ofmeasurements and simulationmodellingwere averaged
across largerreporting zones to accommodate differences in site and management conditions, as
itwas assumed thatthe average represents the bestregional value foruse in greenhouse gas
reporting and quantification. The resulting coefficients were adopted as the defaultvalues inthe
Alberta Tillage SystemManagementprotocol.
The activity definitions forNT, RT and FT thatwere usedto develop the defaultcoefficients
were based on consultations withtillage andannual crop systemexperts across Canadato
identify andresolve management scenarios and issues relatedto tillage systems. The results ofa
numberofpilotprojects andmonitoringprograms were used, including tillage surveys
conductedby the Prairie FarmRehabilitation Administration (PFRA) Branch ofAgriculture and
Agri-Food Canada andthe Pilot Emissions Reductions, Removals, and Learnings (Environment
Canada 2004) initiative, as outlinedbythe Soil Management Technical Working Group
(SMTWG, Haak et al. 2006).
Furtherclarifications and adaptations ofthe activity definitions were neededto address
conditions specific to Alberta. Experts on tillage andmanagementpractices in Alberta
consulted with members ofthe SMTWG, as well as AAFC developers ofthe default coefficients,
to arrive atthe criteria listed in this guidance document.
Page 1
TillageSystemsProtocolGuidance
2.0 Identification of Protocol Areas
The scientific communitywidely recognizes the Parkland and Dry Prairie regions ofAlberta as
being distinct ecoregions forawide variety ofagricultural interpretations (e.g. cropping systems,
yield). Since the GHGremoval coefficients were similarwithin, but differedbetweenthese
regional areas, the regions wereusedto determine the appropriate protocol areas foruse in the
Tillage SystemManagementprotocol. Theboundarybetweenthe protocol areas is based on the
following criteria:
1) Soil zone: The Black-DarkBrown soil zone boundary is an importantdemarcation ofsoil
organic matterlevels andthuspotentials to sequesteroremitcarbon, basedupon
management.
2) Moisture regime: The boundary coincides with the-300 Climatic Moisture Index
(precipitationminus evapotranspiration).
3) Historicalprecedence: Crop and fertilizerrecommendations, research analysis and
coefficients have historicallybeen separatedby soil zone boundaries.
Theprecise location ofthis boundaryhas been identifiedusingAlberta’s digital soils database
(AGRASID, Brierly etal. 2001) and is illustrated inFig. 1. Forthepurposes ofthis protocol, the
boundary is consideredto be the fence-line onthe Dry Prairie side ofthe quartersections that
representtheboundary. The quarter sections ofthe boundary are consideredto be inthe
Parkland andthe adjacent quarters towardthe drierpart oftheprovince (usually south oreast)
are considered inthe Dry Prairie zone.
Figure 1. Protocol areas forcarbon change coefficients in Alberta. Theboundarybetween Dry
Praire and Parklandprotocol areas is the Black-DarkBrown soil zoneboundary. The Peace
RiverLowland ecoregion is consideredtobe part ofthe Parklandprotocol area (not shown.)
Page2
TillageSystemsProtocolGuidance
3.0 Definitions of Tillage Activity
A fundamental variable in any tillage system impactupon soil organic carbon is the degree of
soil disturbance that occurs. Since the intent ofthis protocol is to sequestercarbon inthe soil,
managementneeds to be adjustedto accommodate the identified level ofsoil disturbance in
orderto qualify. The tillage activity definitions outlined inTable 1 are designedtobe clearly
understood, and feasible forproducerimplementation, proponentmonitoring, andthirdparty
verification.
Table 1: Definitions oftillage systems in the Parkland' and Dry Prairie protocol areas.
Tillage System CroppedLandPeriod ^ Fallow Period ^
No Till Up to twopasses with low-disturbance openers (up No cultivations
to 38%) ^ orone pass with a slightlyhigher
disturbance opener(up to 46%) to apply seed,
fertilizerormanure discretionary tillage ofup to
10% ^ no cultivation
,
Reduced Till Soil disturbance to apply seed, fertilizer, ormanure One to two
exceeds no till definition and/orone cultivation in cultivations
fall orspring
Full Till More than one cultivationbetweenharvest and More thantwo
subsequent seeding ifno fallow inthatperiod, or, cultivations
more than three cultivations betweenharvestto
subsequent seeding iffallow
Notes:
* ThePeaceRiverLowlandecoregioniscontainedwithintheParklandzone.
^Croppedlandperiodappliestothemanagementcyclethatterminatesatharvest,(e.g.harvesttoharvestisthe
croppedlandperiod). Thisincludeslandpreparationforseedingwhichmayoccurinthepreviousfall.
^Fallowperiodextendsfromharvestforonefullyeartothenextfall.
Percentagevaluesassociatedwithopenersarebasedonmaximumopenerwidth(e.g. 5 inchopenersactually
measure5.5 inches)dividedbytheshankspacingoftheimplement.
^Additionaloperationswithharrows,packers,orsimilarnon-soildisturbingimplementsareaccepted. Wherea
secondlowsoildisturbanceoperationisperformeditisnormallyforinjectionoffertilizerormanure.
^Discretionarytillageofupto 10%meansthatupto 10%ofthesurfaceareaofasingleagriculturalfieldmaybe
cultivatedtoaddressspecificmanagementissues. Theseareasaredeterminedonanannualbasis,meaningthat
specificareasmaychangefromyeartoyear.
Page3
TillageSystemsProtocolGuidance
4.0 Guidance on Specific Management Scenarios
Since annual cropping systems are complex, additional guidance is provided forthe variety of
management scenarios thatoccurinAlberta. It is importantto rememberthatthe objective is to
determine the appropriate tillage system: NT, RT, orFT.
1) The timing ofnitrogen fertilizeris not quantified inthis protocol. Applying fertilizerin
the fall may qualify forNT ifboththe fertilization and subsequent seeding operationboth
involved low disturbance openers, e.g. meets the firstpartofthe definition in (Table 1).
2) Fall seeding also qualifies forNT ifitmeets the disturbance criteria. However, these
criteria applyto amuchnarrowerperiod oftime between harvest andthe subsequent
seeding shortlythereafter.
3) Most sweeps wouldnot qualify asNT, because there is normally greaterthan46%
disturbance.
4) Tillage definitions applyto the normal harvestyear forthe crop. This would applyto fall
seeded crops orsituations when weatherdelays harvesttothe following spring.
5) Carbon accumulation is deemedto be on acalendaryearbasis forthe yearinwhichthe
crop is harvestedorthe land is fallowed, eventhoughtillage definitions relate to the
cropped landperiod.
6) The carbon sequestrationpotential ofperennial crops is not quantifiedwithin this
protocol. Tillage practices associatedwith seedingperennials into annual crop stubble in
the spring orfall will qualify ifdisturbance is within the constraints ofthe tillage
definitions (Table 1). Tillage definitions also applywhenperennials are rotatedbackinto
annual crops. Iftheperennial crop is terminated and immediately seededto an annual
crop in fall or spring, applythe coefficient forthe currentyear. Ifthe perennial crop is
terminated inthe spring, fallowed andthen seeded inthe fall orthe next spring, apply
coefficients fortwoyears-the first as a fallowyearandthe second as a seedingyear. If
theperennial crop is terminatedbetween June 15 andAugust 1 andthe next crop is
seeded the following spring, apply coefficients for 1.5 years -the first as apartial fallow
yearwiththe coefficientreducedby one half, andthe secondyearas a seedingyear.
7) Since some research supports the fact that irrigation will increase soil organic carbon
levels in drierregions (Liebig et al. 2005), the Parklandprotocol area coefficientwillbe
used forirrigated landwithin the Dry Prairie protocol area. Touse the Parkland
coefficients in lands underirrigation in the Dry Prairie region, project developers should
only apply the Parkland soil organic carbon (SOC) andN2O coefficients, andnotthe
energy coefficients. The rationale is that irrigated soils withinthe Dry Prairie region will
have a highermetabolismbecause ofthe extra additions ofcarbon (higheryields thus
more biomass) andnitrogen inputs (fertilizer+biomass) approaching those ofthe
Parkland region. As forthe assurance factor, it is appropriate to applythe Dry Prairie
assurance factorin the irrigated Dry Prairie, to the Parkland SOC coefficient inthis
circumstance. The Energy coefficient appliedunderirrigatedDry Prairie remains the
same as the Dry Prairie-projectdevelopers shouldnot apply the Parkland energy
coefficient, since energy coefficients are derivedindependentofC andN methodologies.
The use ofirrigation within the Parklandprotocol areawillnot affectthe coefficient since
there are no datato support increased soil organic carbon due to irrigation within this
region.
Page4
TillageSystemsProtocolGuidance
8) Ifa crop mustbe reseeded, orifa coverorgreenmanure crop is seeded, theNT
coefficient applies ifone additional low-disturbance operationmeets the definition ofNT.
Iftillage is usedto incorporate acovercrop orgreen manure, the definitions provided in
Table 1 mustbe applied andmayresult in aRT orFT designation.
9) The addition ofsoil carbon throughthe application ofmanure is notquantifiedwithinthis
protocol. Although manure applications arepermitted, theymustadhere to the
definitions ofsoil disturbance that are outlined in Table 1 in orderto qualify asNT orRT.
10) The occurrence ofinter-row tillage to control weeds during the growing season in annual
row crops such as comresults in a FTtillagepractice.
Page5
TillageSystemsProtocolGuidance
5.0 References
AlbertaEnvironment. 2007. AlbertaOffset System forGreenhouse Gases (Available at:
http://environment.alberta.ca/documents/Guidance Document Alberta Offsets.pdf
AccessedJan. 23, 2008).
Brierly, J. A., T.C. Martin andD.J. Spiess. 2001. Agricultural Region ofAlberta Soil Inventory
Database (AGRASID 3.0). Soil Landscape User’s Manual. Available at:
http://wwwl.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/sag6903 Accessed Jan. 23,
.
2008).
Environment Canada. 2004. PilotEmissions Reductions, Removals, and Learnings Initiative
(PERRL): Proponents Application Manual Version4.0.
Environment Canada, 2005. Offset System forGreenhouse Gases, Technical Background
Document.
Haak, D., with Soil ManagementTechnical Working Group forCanada’s GHG Offset System.
2006. Tillage System DefaultCoefficientProtocol based on Canada’s Offset System for
Greenhouse Gases Technical Background Document(DRAFT).
Helgason, B.L.; Smith, E. 2005. GHGFarm: An assessmenttool forestimatingnetgreenhouse
gas emissions from Canadian farms. Agriculture andAgri-FoodCanada.
ISO 14064-3, 2006. Greenhouse gases — Part 3: Specification with guidance forthe validation
andverification ofgreenhouse gas assertions. Available at:
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso catalogue/catalogue tc/catalogue detail.htm?csnumber=3870
0. AccessedJan. 23, 2008).
McConkey, B.G., BrierleyA., Martin, T., Vandenbygaart, A., Angers, D., Smith, W. 2006.
National Inventory ofC Change forAgricultural Soils in Canada, NCGAVS.
Liebig, M.A., J.A. Morgan, J.D. Reeder, B.H. Ellert, H.T. Gollany, and G.E. Schuman. 2005.
Review: Greenhouse gas contributions and mitigationpotential ofagriculturalpractices
innorthwestern USA andwestern Canada. Soil & Tillage Research. 83:25-52.
Rochette, P., Worth, D., Lemke, R., McConkey, B., Desjardins, R., Huffman, E., Pennock, D.,
Brierley, A., Yang, J., Gameda, S., Hutchinson, J. 2006. National Inventory ofN2O
Emissions fromAgricultural Soils in Canada, NCGAVS.
Page6
Digitized by the Internet Archive
2016
in
https://archive.org/details/specifiedgasemit00albe_42