Riparian Vegetation Monitoring - GreenLine Method
Beginning in the mid 1940's, rangeland condition and trend was routinely measured on US Forest Service lands using a score card technique often referred to as the Parker 3-Step. This technique included collecting measurements of plant cover as well as reference photographs showing the general area sampled as well as more detailed close-up photos of the actual plots sampled. These photos proved to be so useful in documenting vegetation change that the cover measurements were gradually phased out, leaving the photos as the primarily data collected today. Photo monitoring is rapidly spreading to other users such as ranchers and environmentalists who want a quick, inexpensive, but reliable way to document vegetation change over time. Although simple in concept, use of paired photos taken at different times to detect plant community change, requires strict attention to detail to ensure that the photos are really comparable.
....Livestock can be a valuable tool for rangeland, pasture, watershed, park, and other land managers. Sometimes called Targeted Grazing or Prescription Grazing, controlled herbivory by livestock can be used to control weeds, promote forest regeneration, reduce fire fuel hazards, clear brush, and improve wildlife habitat. Livestock owners are selling environmental services, not harvesting forage for livestock production. So, they charge a fee. It is important to project success that vegetation be monitored during grazing so that proper distribution and degree of grazing are applied, and that follow-up monitoring be done to document the actual degree to which environmental goals are achieved. Monitoring is, therefore, a fundamental part of Targeted Grazing Management.
Trading Carbon Credits from Western Rangelands
Dr. Steven H. Sharrow
Professor – Rangeland Ecology and
Management
Oregon State University
Landowners
in the western U.S. are being approached by aggregators and traders who are
seeking to contract carbon sequestration credits in anticipation of national
greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations that may substantially increase demand and
prices over those of the current voluntary U.S. market. The U.S. did not sign the Kyoto Protocol
regulating emissions of greenhouse gases. However, 34 states have adopted or
are adopting their own GHG regulations. Most will use cap-and trade systems to
first stabilize, then reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4)
emissions that are believed to be contributing to global warning. Cap and trade
systems work by establishing a quota (the cap) of allowable emissions
(credits). These emission credits may be distributed either directly to current
emitters or may be sold to the highest bidder at open auction. Emitters with
extra credits may sell them while those needing additional credits may either
buy them or may create them by reducing emissions of other unregulated emitters
or by recapturing and sequestering the pollutant. For instance, under Oregon’s
current GHG program, power plants have met the required 17% CO2 emissions
reduction by sponsoring mitigation projects such as planting riparian forest
along the Deschutes River to capture and store carbon, and by installing newer
more energy efficient heating systems in local schools. Forests, pastures, and
rangelands store large amounts of carbon in vegetation and soil organic matter.
Additional carbon stored as a result of changed land management may be sold if
the amount sequestered can be adequately estimated and if assurances that it
will remain sequestered are credible. The major U.S. market for trading carbon
credits is the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). It sells large diversified
carbon contracts to businesses and other large users through an open auction
process. The CCX will accept and sell carbon sequestration credits from forest,
permanent grassland, and rangeland projects. The amount of carbon sequestered
is estimated from computer models of specific land management practices within
Natural Resource Conservation Service Land Resource Regions. Most land owners
will probably need to join others through an “aggregator” in order to offer
sufficient total carbon offset credits to interest the CCX in brokering their
contracts. Aggregators may be commercial firms or existing local organizations
such as woodland owners associations, soil conservation districts, or watershed
councils. Once carbon credits are verified by CCX, they are auctioned off and
the proceeds are distributed. Typically, the CCX retains 20% of contracted
credits as a contingency reserve. The CCX takes 5% commission, the aggregator
typically takes 10-15% commission, and the landowner gets the remaining 80-85%
of the money. Auction prices of credits vary with supply and demand. Currently,
the price is about $2/ton of CO2. This would yield about 24
cents/acre/year for well managed Eastern Oregon rangeland. It is generally
expected that the price will rise significantly if U.S. government regulation
imposes a cap and trade system. However, the price will vary with the cap set,
mitigation techniques allowed to offset emissions, proportion of cap emissions
issued directly to current emitters, and other regulatory details. Terrestrial carbon sequestration projects on
forests, pastures, and rangelands will have to compete favorably with other
allowed mitigations. In Oregon, these alternatives have included increased
energy efficiency projects, renewable energy, materials substitution, and
transportation efficiency projects. This makes future prices for carbon credits
very hard to accurately predict.