The Marin Carbon Project
CARBON FARMING:
Increasing Carbon Capture on
California’s Working Lands
Jeff Creque
Carbon Cycle Institute
<jcreque@carboncycle.org>
Nicasio Native Grass Ranch
The Global Challenge for Agriculture
Atmospheric CO 2 (ppmv)
400
390
380
370
360
350
340
330
320
310
Year
Remember van Helmont’s Willow?
479
Measured effect of deviation-amplifying positive feedbacks resulting from anthropogenic
forcing of atmospheric C, with hypothetical effect of deviation-amplifying positive
feedbacks resulting from soil organic C increases at global scale
“T” factor: managing for equilibrium
Annually, 1.8 billion tons of soil are lost from cropland. 120 million acres
of cropland are eroding at a rate greater than T. (NRCS 2011).
C factor: managing for change
(and help stop climate destabilization)
If all cropland were managed for C (SCI>0), US soil loss would
decline by at least 1.29 billion tons, NRCS, 2011.
(at 1% SOC, that is 12.9 M tons of C, or 47 MT CO2e/yr).
(SCI = Soil Conditioning Index)
“The most practical way to enhance soil
health today is to promote better
management of soil organic matter or
carbon. In short, we should go beyond T
(tolerable soil loss) and manage for C
(carbon)…” NRCS, 2011
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_organic_matter/som.html
Can management measurably increase
soil carbon;
and what happens if we succeed?
Results: Above-ground production (forage) has exceeded controls by
40-70% every year following the single ½” compost application in
2008
control
compost
Aboveground Net Primary
Production (g m-2)
1000
750
500
250
0
1
2009
2
2010
3
2011
Year
4
2012
Ryals and Silver 2012
Compost increased soil C
(above compost C alone)
Pre-treatment
2009
2010
2011
Ryals et al. 2013
Models suggest that the C increase effect persists for 30-100 years
→
Ryals et al 2013
California Rangelands Carbon Sequestration Potential
With Compost Additions
23 million hectares (57 million acres) of rangeland in California: 67% (38
million acres) is grasslands and pastures.
(Without avoided methane emissions)
At a rate of 0.5 Mg C ha-1 y-1
= 28 MMT(Tg) CO2e y-1
At a rate of 1 Mg C ha-1 y-1
= 56 MMT(Tg) CO2e y-1
At a rate of 3 Mg C ha-1 y-1
= 169 MMT (Tg) of CO2e y-1
Units:
Mg = Metric ton
MMT(Tg)= Million metric
tons
CO2e = CO2 equivalents
•Livestock
~ 15 MMT CO2e y-1
•Commercial/residential
~ 42 MMT CO2e y-1
•Electrical generation
~112 MMT CO2e y-1
Emissions data: CA GHG Inventory 2010
Compost also increased soil moisture….
Soil Volumetric Water Content
(%)
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
compost
5
control
0
Jun 09 Aug 09
Oct 09
Dec 09
Feb 10
Apr 10
Jun 10
Sep 10
Nov 10
UCSFREC, Browns Valley, Ryals and Silver 2013
Carbon Farm Planning and
Implementation
Implementation Activities
• Identify demonstration C-Farms and
conduct farm assessments, including
soil sampling (2013).
• Apply compost on rangelands at scale
(2013)
• Develop list of other carbon beneficial
NRCS practices, plus;
• Complete 3 C-Farm Action Plans
• Calibrate GHG accounting models with
COMET-Farm/CSU and C-Farm data.
• Provide C-Farm permit assistance,
technical expertise, implementation
funding and monitoring assistance.
• Implement C-Farming workshops for
farmers and ranchers (2015)
• Confirm roles of project partners and
scalability to other counties.
Quantifying C-Farm Impacts
The COMET-Farm Tool
(http://cometfarm.nrel.colostate.edu)
has potential to allow a relatively rapid and thorough
assessment of the greenhouse gas benefits of
Integrated Carbon Farms
Working with CSU’s NREL to use and refine the methods and models
behind the COMET-Farm tool to:
1)calculate the greenhouse gas benefits of proposed practices for our three
demonstration carbon farms and;
2)Develop a rapid-assessment on-farm conservation practice carbon
capture planning tool:
COMET-Planner Tool
(http://comet-planner.nrel.colostate.edu)
Three of 21 land management practices currently being
applied on three carbon farms in Marin County are being
evaluated using COMET-Farm:
Utilizing compost in rangeland management to increase
production and increase soil organic carbon.
Implementing agroforestry systems that meet multiple
conservation goals while sequestering atmospheric carbon in
woody plants and soils.
Implementing conservation grazing strategies to increase
plant production and increase soil organic carbon.
NB: only added N was accounted for in this scenario; no soil
water or soil O2 enhancement from SOM increases was included
in the model.
Grazing had a synergistic effect with Compost in the model.
In this scenario, a site was heavily grazed from
1880- 2012. At 2013, grazing became moderate, and fertilizer or compost (or
control) was applied. This scenario illustrates the synergistic effect of “stacking”
C-beneficial practices in the C-Farm context.
Marin County Carbon Farm Planning
NRCS Practices
Critical Area Planting (342)
Riparian Herbaceous Cover (390)
Riparian Forest Buffer (391)
Forage and Biomass Planting (512)
Prescribed Grazing (528)
Hedgerow Planting/ Windbreak/ Shelterbelt Est. / Vegetative Buffer (422/380/601)
Mulching (Compost Application) (484)
Range Planting (550)
Silvopasture: Establish Trees & Native Grasses (381/612)
Anaerobic Digester (366)
Nutrient Management (590)
Residue and Tillage Management/No–Till system/Strip Till/ Direct Seed (329)
Filter Strip (393)
Streambank Protection (580)
Wetland Enhancement (659)
Conservation Cover (327)
Wetland Restoration (657)
Field Boarder (386)
Grassed Waterway (412)
Alley Cropping (311)
Additional NRCS Practices Supportive of On-Farm
Carbon-Sequestration in Marin
Compost Facility (317)
Fencing / Access Control (382/ 472)
Grazing Management Plan (110)
Water Development: Livestock Pipeline/ Water Facility (516,614)
Structure for Water Control (587)
Grade Stabilization Structures (410)
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan
Potential Revenue Sources for Rangeland Compost Practice
State Incentives
Federal
Conservation
Funds
Carbon Market
($15/ton)
Supply Chain
and Cost
Savings
CEQA and Local
GHG Mitigation
We have developed a market protocol for compost application to rangelands,
approved by American Carbon Registry and under review by BAAQMD
Policy and Economic Supports for Carbon Farming
Regional
BAAQMD: Approval of
Rangeland Compost
Protocol for CEQA+
State
ARB AB32
Scoping Plan
Update
CalRecycle Waste
Sector Plan
(compost
incentives)
Natural
Resources
Agency
(Natural and
Working Lands)
Bay Area IRWMP:
2014+ Priorities
(Climate)
AB32 Cap
and Trade
Program
Approval of
Rangeland
Compost
Protocol
Investment
Plan
Rangeland
Compost
Protocol
American
Carbon
Registry
CAPCOA
Bay Area
Regional
Climate
Adaptation
Natural
Resources
Agency:
Climate
Adaptation
Proportion of Costs Associated with Compost Application
Total Cost of $40.00/ton
Monitoring before
Compost Addition
5%
Monitoring after
5%
Costs of Other Climate Mitigation
Strategies:
Project
Validation
13%
Alternative Transportation (bike lanes)
$109.80/ton
Energy Conservation
$121.04/ton
Solar PV
$344.46-562.50/ton
Compost Addition
51%
GHG Offset
Assertion
18%
(Napa County Planning Division, 2012)
Securing Credits
8%
Questions?
www.marincarbonproject.org
Photo: http://restlesspilgrim.net