boden creek ecological preserve - amazon s3 · boden creek ecological preserve . ... climate,...

Boden Creek Ecological Preserve

Project Design Document for the Climate, Community, Biodiversity Standards Alliance 2nd Edition Gold

Standard

July 14, 2010

2121 Eisenhower Avenue

Suite 200 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 USA

© Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC, 2010 of 1

Cover Photo: Station #6 Boden Creek Trail, April 3, 3008 03:47h, jaguar likely pair (Miller and Miller 2008). Table of Contents Table of Figures ..................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 5 List of Equations .................................................................................................................................... 6 Facts ........................................................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 8 Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................. 9 General Section .................................................................................................................................... 10

G1. Original Conditions in the Project Area ............................................................................. 10 G1.1. Project Area Location and Physical Parameters ......................................................... 10 G1.2. Types and Condition of Vegetation at the Project Area ............................................. 12 G1.3. Project Boundaries of the Project Area and the Project Zone ..................................... 16 G1.4. Carbon Stocks within the Project Area ....................................................................... 17 G1.5. Communities Located in the Project Zone .................................................................. 22 G1.6. Current Land Use and Land Tenure in the Project Zone ............................................ 26 G1.7. Current Biodiversity within the Project Zone ............................................................. 27 G1.8. Project site High Conservation Values ....................................................................... 30

G2. Baseline Projections ........................................................................................................... 32 G2.1. Baseline Land Use ...................................................................................................... 32 G2.2. Additionality ............................................................................................................... 34 G2.3. Carbon Stock Changes ................................................................................................ 35 G2.4. Baseline Communities ................................................................................................ 40 G2.5. Baseline Biodiversity .................................................................................................. 41

G3. Project Design and Goals ................................................................................................... 42 G3.1. Major Climate, Community and Biodiversity Objectives .......................................... 42 G3.2. Major Project Activities .............................................................................................. 42 G3.3. Location of Project Activities ..................................................................................... 43 G3.4. Time-frame and Project Accounting ........................................................................... 43 G3.5. Project Risks and Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... 43 G3.6. Maintenance of High Conservation Values ................................................................ 44 G3.7. Measures Taken to Enhance Climate, Community, Biodiversity Benefits ................. 44 G3.8. Stakeholder Involvement ............................................................................................ 44 G3.9. Publicizing the Public Comment Period ..................................................................... 45 G3.10. Conflict Resolution Tools ......................................................................................... 48 G3.11. Project Financial Support .......................................................................................... 48

G4. Management Capacity and Best Practices ......................................................................... 48 G4.1. Project Proponents ...................................................................................................... 48 G4.2. Technical and Management Expertise ........................................................................ 48 G4.3. Capacity Building ....................................................................................................... 49 G4.4. Community Employment Opportunities ..................................................................... 50 G4.5. Employment Laws ...................................................................................................... 50 G4.6. Employee Safety ......................................................................................................... 50 G4.7. Financial Health of the Implementing Organizations ................................................. 51


G5. Legal Status and Property Rights ....................................................................................... 52 G5.1. Local Laws and Regulations ....................................................................................... 52 G5.2. Documentation of Legal Approval ............................................................................. 53 G5.3. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent .............................................................................. 53 G5.4. Involuntary Relocations .............................................................................................. 54 G5.5. Illegal Activities .......................................................................................................... 54 G5.6. Carbon Rights ............................................................................................................. 54

Climate Section ..................................................................................................................................... 54 CL1. Net Positive Climate Impacts .......................................................................................... 54

CL1.1. Net Change in Carbon Stocks ................................................................................... 54 CL1.2. Net Change in Non-CO2 Gases ................................................................................. 55 CL1.3. Other GHG Emissions from Project Activities ......................................................... 55 CL1.4. Positive Net Climate Impact ..................................................................................... 55 CL1.5. Avoid Double-Counting ........................................................................................... 55

CL2. Offsite Climate Impacts ................................................................................................... 55 CL2.1. Types of Leakage ...................................................................................................... 55 CL2.2. Mitigation of Negative Offsite Impacts .................................................................... 55 CL2.3. Unmitigated Negative Offsite Climate Impacts ........................................................ 55 CL2.4. Unmitigated Negative Offsite Non-CO2 Climate Impacts ....................................... 56

CL3. Climate Impact Monitoring ............................................................................................. 56 CL3.1. Carbon Pool Selection and Monitoring .................................................................... 56 CL3.2. Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................ 57

Community Section ............................................................................................................................. 57 CM1. Net Positive Community Impacts ................................................................................... 57

CM1.1. Community Benefits ................................................................................................ 57 CM1.2. Impact on High Conservation Values ...................................................................... 58

CM2. Offsite Stakeholder Impacts ........................................................................................... 59 CM2.1. Potential Negative Offsite Stakeholder Impacts ...................................................... 59 CM2.2. Plans to Mitigate Potential Offsite Impacts ............................................................. 59 CM2.3. Unmitigated Offsite Impacts.................................................................................... 59

CM3. Community Impact Monitoring ...................................................................................... 59 CM3.1. Community Impact Monitoring Plan ....................................................................... 59 CM3.2. Community Impact on High Conservation Values .................................................. 60 CM3.1. Community Impact Monitoring Plan Development Commitment .......................... 60

Biodiversity Section ........................................................................................................................... 60 B1. Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts ...................................................................................... 60

B1.1. Biodiversity Impacts ................................................................................................... 60 B1.2. Impact on High Conservation Values ......................................................................... 61 B1.3. Species Used by the Project ........................................................................................ 61 B1.4. Exotic Species in the Project Area .............................................................................. 61 B1.5. Genetically Modified Organisms ................................................................................ 61

B2. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts .............................................................................................. 61 B2.1. Potential Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts ......................................................... 61 B2.2. Mitigation of Potential Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts .................................. 62 B2.3. Evaluation of Potential Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts .................................. 62

B3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring ......................................................................................... 62


B3.1. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Plan .......................................................................... 62 B3.2. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Effectiveness ........................................................... 64 B3.3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Implementation ....................................................... 64

Gold Level ............................................................................................................................................... 64 GL3. Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits ................................................................................... 64

GL3.1. Vulnerability ............................................................................................................. 64 Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix A: Land Use Study ............................................................................................................ 71 Appendix B: Hurricanes .................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix C: Biodiversity of BCEP .................................................................................................. 98 Table of Figures Figure 1: Location of Boden Creek Ecological Preserve (Green) and Project Zone (Red) in the Toledo District of Belize ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2: Comparison of Landsat TM images of BCEP. .............................................................. 13 Figure 3: Distribution of DBH by height class among 14 forest plots surveyed in 2008 ............. 14 Figure 4: Vegetation map of the Project property with data were derived from a Landsat TM image on April14, 2009 ................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 5: Project Area: Forest vs. Non-Forest Map ...................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Location of forest sample plots at BCEP ...................................................................... 20 Figure 7: Indian Creek Village Map by Sebastian Shol (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997) .. 24 Figure 8: Golden Stream Village Map by Louis Pop (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997) ...... 25 Figure 9: Station #6 Boden Creek Trail, April 3, 3008 03:47h, jaguar likely pair with inset photograph captured 30 seconds earlier (Miller and Miller 2008) ............................................... 28 Figure 10: Mesoamerican Biological Corridor with BCEP .......................................................... 31 Figure 11: Poster advertising CCB public stakeholder meetings April 10th, 2010 ...................... 47 Figure 12: Example of a proposed monitoring grid for bat acoustics and remote cameras on BCEP............................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 13: 1993 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala ..... 77 Figure 14: 2000 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala ..... 78 Figure 15: 2006 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala ..... 79 Figure 16: 2009 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala ..... 80 Figure 17: 1993 LULC classification within the reference area ................................................... 83 Figure 18: 2000 LULC classification within the reference area ................................................... 84 Figure 19: 2006 LULC classification within the reference area ................................................... 85 Figure 20: 2009 LULC classification within the reference area ................................................... 86 Figure 21: 1993 Forest versus Non Forest classification within the reference area ..................... 87 Figure 22: 2000 Forest versus Non Forest classification within the reference area ..................... 88 Figure 23: 2006 Forest versus Non Forest classification within the reference area ..................... 89 Figure 24: 2009 Forest versus Non Forest classification within the reference area ..................... 90 Figure 25: Impact risks of tropical storms and hurricanes over the past 100 years ...................... 94 Figure 26: Historical storm tracks impacting southern Belize ...................................................... 95 Figure 27: Impact of Hurricane Iris on southern Belize ............................................................... 96 Figure 28: Bat sampling locations at Project site ........................................................................ 103 Figure 29: Map showing location of small mammal trapping grids ........................................... 105


Figure 30: Jaguar at Station #13 Jungle Camp on BCEP December 14 2009 ............................ 111 Figure 31: Baird’s Tapir photographed at Station #11 near Jungle Camp on Dec. 15 2009 ..... 111 List of Tables Table 1: Land Use Land classification types based upon IPCC Standards .................................. 15 Table 2: UTM locations of forestry plots used to determine aboveground biomass (coordinates are in WGS 84 zone 16) ................................................................................................................ 19 Table 3: Summary of mean C stocks with 95% confidence interval in the Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest at BCEP ...................................................................................................................... 22 Table 4: Toledo District and Project Zone 2008 Midyear Population Estimates ......................... 23 Table 5: BCEP land registry information ..................................................................................... 27 Table 6: Species of Special Conservation Concern Documented on the Project Site .................. 29 Table 7: High Conservation Values on BCEP and Project Zone .................................................. 30 Table 8: Summary of variable used to calculate carbon stocks and changes at BCEP under the without project scenario ................................................................................................................ 38 Table 9: Without Project 2010-2029 summary of GHG emissions for baseline and with project 40 Table 10: Annual avoided emissions 2010 to 2029 ...................................................................... 40 Table 11: BCEP Project Timeline ................................................................................................. 43 Table 12: Employee Safety ........................................................................................................... 51 Table 13: Objectives of Biodiversity Monitoring ......................................................................... 62 Table 14: IUCN Endangered Species ........................................................................................... 64 Table 15: Spatial data sources and descriptions ........................................................................... 71 Table 16: LandSat acquisition dates and composite order ............................................................ 72 Table 17: Land cover class descriptions ....................................................................................... 73 Table 18: Explanatory factors used in CART 2009 ...................................................................... 74 Table 19: Explanatory Variables Used in CART - Back-date classification ................................ 75 Table 20: LULC error matrix for Southern Belize ....................................................................... 81 Table 21: FNF error matrix for Southern Belize .......................................................................... 81 Table 22: LULC error matrix for the reference area ..................................................................... 81 Table 23: FNF error matrix for reference area .............................................................................. 81 Table 24: Change matrix - LULC 1993 to 2009 ........................................................................... 91 Table 25: Change matrix - FNF 1993 to 2009 .............................................................................. 91 Table 26: Change matrix - LULC 1993 to 2000 ........................................................................... 91 Table 27: Change matrix - FNF 1993 to 2000 .............................................................................. 91 Table 28: Change matrix - LULC 2000 to 2006 ........................................................................... 92 Table 29: Change matrix - FNF 2000 to 2006 .............................................................................. 92 Table 30: Change matrix - LULC 2006 to 2009 ........................................................................... 92 Table 31: Change matrix - FNF 2006 to 2009 .............................................................................. 92 Table 32: Birds of special conservation concern documented on the Project site (adapted from Miller and Miller 2008) ................................................................................................................ 99 Table 33: Summary of bats documented on the Project site ....................................................... 101 Table 34: Small mammal captures at two locations in the vicinity of Indian Creek Lodge on the Project site. (adapted from Miller and Miller 2008) ................................................................... 104 Table 35: All mammalian species documented during each study on BCEP ............................. 106 Table 36: Jaguar captures on photo (Miller and Miller 2008 and St. Germain et al 2009) ........ 112


List of Equations Equation 1: Sample Size Equation Pearson et al 2005 ................................................................. 18 Equation 2: Three allometric equations from Pearson et al. (2005) for calculation of above ground biomass at BCEP .............................................................................................................. 21 Equation 3: Below ground biomass regression ............................................................................. 22


Facts Title of the Proposed Project Boden Creek Ecological Preserve Country Belize Nearest City Punta Gorda, Toledo District, Belize, CA Precise Coordinates Latitude 16019’03.62” N and Longitude 88048’47.00” W Technical Lead Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,

Conservation Management Institute (CMI) (http://www.cmiweb.org/)

Auditor SCS Forestry (http://www.scscertified.com/sitemap.php) Project Owner Boden Creek Ecological Preserve (BCEP) Project Developer Forest Carbon Offsets LLC (FCO)

(http://www.forestcarbonoffsets.net/) Project Contact Person Jeff Waldon Title Vice President Organization Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC Address 2121 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 200, Alexandria, Virginia

22314, USA Telephone Number +1 (540) 230-2854 Email [email protected] Carbon Project Quality Standard Climate, Community, Biodiversity Standard (CCB) 2nd

Edition CCB Project Lifetime 2010 to 2029


http://www.cmiweb.org/

http://www.scscertified.com/sitemap.php

http://www.forestcarbonoffsets.net/

Executive Summary

The Boden Creek Ecological Preserve project (“Project”) conserves 5,211 ha in Belize, Central America for a project period of 20 years. Boden Creek Ecological Preserve (BCEP) is the owner and manager of the property. BCEP leases the property to Belize Lodge and Excursions (BLE), allowing for co-benefits in ecotourism job creation. Extensive monitoring is proposed to address climate, biodiversity, and community impacts. Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Standard Gold Level is achieved by virtue of the significant biodiversity resources conserved on the property and the critical location of the property in the immediate watershed of the Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary. Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC (FCO) is the Project developer. The Conservation Management Institute (CMI) at Virginia Tech is the Project technical lead. Independent third party validation has been performed by SCS Forestry. The Project follows the carbon accounting principles of conservatism, accuracy, completeness, transparency, consistency, and relevance.

Validation under a carbon accounting standard such as the Voluntary Carbon Standard is planned.1 After this further step is successfully achieved, registration of voluntary emission reduction credits will be conducted with Markit Environmental Registry.2

1 Voluntary Carbon Standard Web Site: http://www.v-c-s.org/ 2 Markit Environmental Registry Web Site: http://www.markit.com/en/products/registry/environmental.page?


http://www.v-c-s.org/

http://www.markit.com/en/products/registry/environmental.page?

Acronyms

ABD Aboveground Biomass Density APAMO Association of Protected Areas Managers Organization BAPPA Belize Association of Private Protected Areas BCEP Boden Creek Ecological Preserve BLE Belize Lodge and Excursions BZE-CC Belize, of national concern for off-shore cays and coastal areas BZE-concern Belize, of national concern BZE-EN Belize, endangered BZE-VU Belize, of national concern and considered vulnerable CCBA Climate, Community, Biodiversity Standards Alliance CMI Conservation Management Institute, Virginia Tech DBH Diameter at breast height FCO Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC FFI Fauna and Flora International GIS Geographic Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System GSCP Golden Stream Corridor Preserve ha hectare(s) HCV High Conservation Values IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature, one or more levels of concern IUCN-EN International Union for the Conservation of Nature, endangered IUCN-LC International Union for the Conservation of Nature, least concern IUCN-NT International Union for the Conservation of Nature, near threatened IUCN-VU International Union for the Conservation of Nature, vulnerable km kilometer kph kilometer per hour LULC Land Use and Land Cover LULUCF Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry mm millimeter mtCO2e metric ton CO2 equivalent NGO Non-Governmental Organization NPAC National Protected Areas Commission PDD Project design document SRTM Shuttle Radar Topography Mission TIDE Toledo Institute for Development and Environment TNC The Nature Conservancy UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change VCS Voluntary Carbon Standard WGS World Geodetic System YCT Ya’axché Conservation Trust


General Section

G1. Original Conditions in the Project Area

G1.1. Project Area Location and Physical Parameters The property boundary consists of 5,211 ha of which 4,792 ha are considered the project area. The project area is completely available for aquaculture, industrial logging and commercial agriculture according to Belize’s national plans for agriculture3 and aquaculture development4 in the absence of finance from any carbon financing mechanism. The Project is situated at Latitude 16019’03.62” N and Longitude 88048’47.00” W in the Toledo District, Belize 23 km north of Punta Gorda, Belize (Figure 1: Location of Boden Creek Ecological Preserve (Green) and Project Zone (Red) in the Toledo District of Belize). The Project’s boundaries are defined by the 931 ha Pine Hill Mennonite Community, the 7,516 ha Seven Hills Estate, the 2,192 ha Manatee Creek Parcel, the 3,866 ha Golden Stream Parcel, and Indian Creek Village. The Boden Creek Ecological Preserve (BCEP) is a private preserve that owns the project site. BCEP was formed in October 2007. The BCEP property is leased to Belize Lodge and Excursions (BLE). BLE is an ecotourism enterprise with four eco-lodges and tourism packages that promote conservation, community development and the use of sustainable practices within BCEP. The Project is located at the foot of the Maya Mountains in the Toledo District of southern Belize, an isolated and sparsely populated district in Belize. Soils throughout the Project Area are derived from mudstones, sandstones limestone deposits. Soils are moderately shallow clays that are fairly well drained (Baillie 1993). The soils are underlain by flat-bedded mudstones with some minor sandstones and limestones. Most soils are clay and well-drained while calcium and magnesium are present. The soils are moderately acidic (Baillie 1993). The climate of Belize is characterized by two seasons: a rainy and a dry season. In Belize, most of the year’s rainfall occurs from June to November with a sharp transition, from dry to the rainy season for the Toledo District. Mean annual rainfall across Belize ranges from 1524mm in the north to 4064mm in the south. Except for the southern regions, the rainfall is variable from year to year. The average rainfall per month near the project site ranges from a low of 90 mm in March to a high of 750 mm in July5.

3 National Food and Agriculture Policy (2002-2020). Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.bz/PDF/Policy_Document.pdf accessed 1/21/2010. 4 National Aquaculture Zoning Plan for Belize: Schedule I (DRAFT). Available at http://www.coastalzonebelize.org/reports/draft_nationa_aquaculture_policy.pdf accessed 1/21/2010. 5 Belize National Meteorological Service.


http://www.agriculture.gov.bz/PDF/Policy_Document.pdf

http://www.coastalzonebelize.org/reports/draft_nationa_aquaculture_policy.pdf

Within the property boundary 4,792 ha of forest are available for conversion to agriculture which includes a one-chain buffer surrounding Boden Creek and Golden Stream (personal communication Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Belize). There are no regulatory constraints on conversion to agriculture.

Figure 1: Location of Boden Creek Ecological Preserve (Green) and Project Zone (Red) in the Toledo District of Belize6 6 Source: CIA World Factbook via the University of Texas (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/belize.html


G1.2. Types and Condition of Vegetation at the Project Area Natural and anthropogenic disturbances have influenced the structure and composition of vegetative communities in the Mayan lowlands of southern Belize for centuries. Anthropogenic disturbance associated with land clearing for agriculture has occurred since the early Classic (AD 400) period of Mayan civilization where parts of the BCEP were likely used for agriculture to support nearby early classic Mayan Nim Li Punit (Beach et al 2006). The legacy of Mayan land use may partially explain the relatively low tree diversity, compared to other similar bioclimatic regions, of Central American forests (Pérez-Salicrup 2004). In addition to ancient Mayan land use, recent land use dramatically altered the vegetation communities at BCEP. Prior to the formation of BCEP large portions of the project area were cleared for cattle, citrus and banana plantations while much of the remaining acreage was subjected to extraction of valuable timber species such as mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) and rosewood (Dalbergia stevesonii). The current condition and structure of the forested communities at BCEP have been significantly affected by hurricanes. Hurricanes and tropical storms occur within the Caribbean basin every year though the frequency of landfall varies greatly. The southern region of Belize has one of the lowest frequencies of hurricane landfall in the Caribbean with an average of one landfall every 23 years (Lugo et al. 2000). These interactions of disturbance (human and natural) with climate and edaphic factors are largely responsible for current types and condition of the vegetation found at BCEP. At a relatively coarse resolution Meerman and Sabido (2001) classified the overall vegetation “ecotype” for BCEP as “Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest.” Within this general ecotype Meerman and Sabido (2001) identified two “forested ecosystem types”, distinguished primarily by parent material and soils, predominant at BCEP:

• Tropical evergreen broad-leaved lowland forest on poor or sandy soils, and • Tropical evergreen broad-leaved lowland forest over lime rich alluvium.

In 2001 Hurricane Iris made landfall near Monkey River Town, Belize just north of BCEP and the surrounding Golden Stream corridor. A category 4 storm with winds exceeding 225 kph at the time of landfall, a storm as severe as Hurricane Iris is a relatively uncommon event. Meerman (2001), in an aerial survey post-Iris, estimated that the hurricane downed or damaged 75% -90% of the overstory trees in the two forested ecosystem types on BCEP (Figure 1: Comparison of Landsat TM images of BCEP: A) Pre-Hurricane Iris (10/01/2001), B) Post Hurricane Iris 10/17/2001, and C) Recent (4/14/2009). Note the near complete loss of canopy (green) between panels A and B).


C A B

Figure 2: Comparison of Landsat TM images of BCEP: A) Pre-Hurricane Iris (10/01/2001), B) Post Hurricane Iris 10/17/2001, and C) Recent (4/14/2009). Note the near complete loss of canopy (green) between panels A and B BCEP Forest Composition and Structure Pre-Hurricane Iris Pre-Hurricane Iris data on the forest composition and structure are sparse and primarily sourced from Bowen-Jones (2001) and anecdotal communications with local residents. Prior to Hurricane Iris the forest on BCEP was recovering from the impacts of timber harvesting, clearing for banana and citrus plantations, and small scale (milpa) agriculture that occurred under previous ownership. Bowen-Jones (2001) characterized the vegetation as a mosaic of forest in various stages of regeneration. Bowen-Jones (2001) inventoried five 1 km transects to assess habitat structure to support a rapid biodiversity assessment. Detailed data on forest structure was not collected as part of the study, instead data was collected and reported as “diagrammatic representations”. The diagrammatic representations show forests with canopy broadleaf trees ranging from 10- 40m in height interspersed with different-sized forest openings comprised of small canopy and understory tree species. Though specific pre-Hurricane Iris structural data such as height, diameter at breast height (DBH) and other data are not available it is clear that the forested ecosystem types were substantially greater in height and basal area as compared to the current 2010 forested types. The most common canopy tree species consisted of yellow nargusta (Terminalia amazonia), yemeri (Vochysia hondurensis), cohune palm (Orbignya cohune), Pithecellobium spp., bitterwood (Vateria lundellii), bay leaf palm (Sabal morissinana), Acacia spp., bribri (Inga edulis), pigeon plum (Hirtella spp.), and wild craboo (Byrsonima crassifolia).


BCEP Forest Composition and Structure Post-Hurricane Iris In 2001 Hurricane Iris downed or damaged 75% -90% of the overstory trees in the two forested ecosystem types on BCEP (Meerman 2001). In 2008 a limited assessment of the forest structure showed that the 6-10 meter height class had the highest mean DBH (Figure 3: Distribution of DBH by height class among 14 forest plots surveyed in 2008). However these data likely overestimated the regrowth of the entire forest at BCEP since the goal of the study was to capture as many different habitat types, in terms of forest structure, as possible. As a result the data include small remnant mature forest patches along the Golden Stream and Boden creek that are not representative of the vast majority of the forests at BCEP. Nevertheless, these data demonstrate that though the forest is regenerating, it is still relatively short in stature and has lower average DBH compared to mature Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest. The composition of canopy trees was similar to pre-hurricane Iris with cohune palm (Orbignya cohune) and yellow nargusta (Terminalia amazonia) being the two most common species encountered in 2008. Emrick and Dorr (2008) identified 10 general cover types at BCEP and created a preliminary vegetation map using a 2003 Quickbird7 image which covered approximately 50% of BCEP. Two of the 10 types, Wet Tropical Broadleaf Forest and Mixed Cohune/Tropical Broadleaf Forest, accounted over 95% of the forested area at BCEP. During subsequent field investigations, observations of these boundaries corresponded poorly to the forested vegetation types. We determined that accurately mapping separate forest types in a young forest recovering from a series of disturbances would be difficult if not impossible. Therefore we classified the entire forested area at BCEP vegetation “ecotype” Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest (Meerman and Sabido 2001).

Figure 3: Distribution of DBH by height class among 14 forest plots surveyed in 2008 - note: DBH data also include cohune palm (Orbignya cohune) (Emrick and Dorr 2008) 7 For more information on Quickbird imagery: http://www.digitalglobe.com/index.php/85/QuickBird


http://www.digitalglobe.com/index.php/85/QuickBird

Table 1: Land Use Land classification types based upon IPCC Standards Land Use Land Classification Type

Hectares

Lowland Broad-Leafed Wet Forest 4,792 Forested Stream Buffer 48

Grassland 117 Wetland 24 Water 16

Settlements 92 Cropland 122

Total 5,211

Figure 4: Vegetation map of the Project property with data were derived from a Landsat TM image on April14, 2009


G1.3. Project Boundaries of the Project Area and the Project Zone Project boundaries are shown in Figure 3: Project Area: Forest vs. Non-Forest Map. The Project is bounded on the north by the Southern Highway where past land use included citrus, banana and various agricultural activities. These areas of BCEP were replanted with native tree seedlings when the property was purchased. These areas are excluded from the Project because of methodological and accounting concerns, but will continue to contribute to the carbon sequestration value of the property for the life of the Project. There is a slight discrepancy, approximately 209 ha, between the recorded deeds for the property and the property boundary used in the GIS. This discrepancy was handled by removing 209 ha from the forest class of the analysis. The Project Zone includes the Pine Hill Mennonite Community, Indian Creek Village, and Golden Stream Village. The Project Zone is defined as the Project Area plus the land within the boundaries of the adjacent communities and properties affected by the Project and these communities and lands include Golden Stream Village, Indian Creek Village, Pine Hill Mennonite Community, and the YCT lands to the northeast.

Figure 5: Project Area: Forest vs. Non-Forest Map

Golden Stream Village Indian Creek

Village

Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary

Pine Hill Mennonite Property


G1.4. Carbon Stocks within the Project Area The approach to measuring carbon stock in the Project was based upon the “Sourcebook for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Projects” (Pearson et al 2005). These methods comply with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2006 Guidelines for National GHG Inventories for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use. Emrick and Dorr (2008) identified 10 general cover types at BCEP and created a preliminary vegetation map using a 2003 Quickbird image that covered approximately 50% of BCEP. Two of the 10 types, Wet Tropical Broadleaf Forest and Mixed Cohune/Tropical Broadleaf Forest, accounted for over 95% of the forested area at BCEP. During subsequent field visits it was determined that these boundaries corresponded poorly to the forested vegetation types. As a result we concluded that accurately mapping separate forest types in a young forest recovering from a series of disturbances would be difficult if not impossible. Therefore we classified the entire forested area at BCEP as Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest (Meerman and Sabido 2001). Thus, for the purposes of assessing carbon stocks at BCEP we classified the landscape into one of the six Land Use Land Cover classes (Forest Land, Crop Land, Grass Land, Wetlands, Settlements and Other Land) defined by IPCC (Table 4, figure 4).8 Carbon Pools The carbon pools selected for measurements were the above ground tree (> 5cm diameter at breast height) and below-ground biomass. Lianas, down or standing dead wood, or leaf litter were not measured, which resulted in a conservative estimation of carbon stocks. No extractive forestry operations are allowed thus negating the need to measure the forest products carbon pool. Sample size and Plot Allocation In 2008, data on forest structure and density were collected as a part of a pilot study to assess the vegetative cover types and habitat structure of the forests at BCEP (Emrick and Dorr 2008). We used the data collected by Emrick and Dorr (2008) to determine “preliminary” mean C tons/ha.9 Carbon stock data was calculated using published allometric equations found in Pearson et al (2005). From these data we used the Winrock International Sample Size Calculator10 to calculate the appropriate sample size for the baseline carbon stock assessment using a 20% precision level and a 90 % confidence interval (Equation 1: Sample Size Equation Pearson et al 2005).

8 http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html. 9 Because the objective of the Emrick and Dorr (2008) project was to assess a wide range of different forest habitat types; three plots were located in forest habitats (e.g. remnant mature riparian forest and cleared trail corridors) that were not representative of the overall Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest. Therefore the data from these plots were excluded from the sample size calculation. 10 http:// www.winrock.org


Equation 1: Sample Size Equation Pearson et al 2005

Where:

• E = allowable error or the desired half-width of the confidence interval. Calculated by

multiplying the mean carbon stock by the desired precision, • • t = the sample statistic from the t-distribution for the 95 percent confidence level. t is

usually set at 2 as sample size is unknown at this stage, • Nh = number of sampling units for stratum h ( = area of stratum in hectares/area of the

plot in hectares), • n = number of sampling units in the population (n = Σ Nh) • sh = standard deviation of stratum h.

Data we used to calculate sample size (from 2008 pilot study):

• E= 0 .2 * 56.89 (tons C / ha) • t = 1.645 • Nh= 0.04 ha • sh=28.24

The sample size required to achieve the desired precision and confidence was 20 forest inventory plots. However, to ensure that the full range of variability was captured in the ‘Forest Land’ – the Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest - class on the Project site, a total of 26 forest inventory plots were allocated. Plots were randomly allocated within the ‘Forest Land’ land-use and land cover (LULC) class using geographic information systems (GIS) and identified by specific XY coordinates (Figure 4: Location of forest sample plots at BCEP and Table 2: UTM locations of forestry plots used to determine aboveground biomass (coordinates are in WGS 84 zone 16)). However, due to high rainfall events during the field season 5 plots were inaccessible due to flooding. These plots were: 6, 11, 15 (originally allocated approximately south of current locations), 21, and 22 (originally allocated north east of the current locations). We allocated these inaccessible plots using a passable trail as a transect and randomly choosing 5 points along the trail, then randomly choosing an azimuth and distance (between 50 and 750 m from the trail) to locate the plot. Plot ID was randomly assigned to each location.


Table 2: UTM locations of forestry plots used to determine aboveground biomass (coordinates are in WGS 84 zone 16)

Plot ID X coordinate Y coordinate 1 307223 1801041 2 310014 1804373 3 306734 1805336 4 309546 1799665 5 310373 1803894 6 305126 1800216 7 307018 1803584 8 307918 1805047 9 307806 1804326 10 306569 1801938 11 307239 1800066 12 310192 1803071 13 307140 1801838 14 308038 1805429 15 305784 1800156 16 307517 1805715 17 309332 1802438 18 308703 1805334 19 307561 1806108 20 307594 1799864 21 304106 1800663 22 304949 1800058 23 308801 1804441 24 311735 1803043 25 312012 1803278 26 312003 1802413


Figure 6: Location of forest sample plots at BCEP Field Measurements The methods for measuring the carbon pools at BCEP were based on the Sourcebook for Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry Projects (Pearson et al 2005). Because destructive sampling was not practical to measure above ground carbon stocks, published allometric equations were used to determine aboveground biomass based upon the DBH of hardwood trees and the height of palms. The following forest inventory techniques were used to collect the appropriate data (Pearson et al 2005).


Once forest inventory plots were allocated, a field crew, comprised of three CMI staff and 2 local guides employed by BLE, navigated to the plot locations using global positioning system (GPS). Data collection was based on a nested circular plot design described in Pearson et al (2005). All trees 5 - 20 cm DBH were tallied within a 4 meter radius of the plot center, all trees 20 - 50 cm DBH were tallied within a 14 meter radius of plot center and all trees > 50 cm DBH were tallied within 20 meter radius from plot center. Palms were selected for height measurements based upon the same criteria. Each tree was named to species with the help of the local guides, if possible, the DBH recorded and placed into one of the following height classes:

• (A) 0 - 1 meter • (B) 1 - 3 meters • (C) 3 - 6 meters • (D) 6 - 10 meters • (E) 10 - 20 meters • (F) 20 + meters.

Every tree tallied was tagged and given a unique ID number for future monitoring. Raw data were entered in a spreadsheet for data summaries and carbon calculations. Carbon Stock Calculations Three separate allometric equations were used to calculate above ground biomass using the field data collected (Equation 2: Three allometric equations from Pearson et al. (2005) for calculation of above ground biomass at BCEP). Equation #2.1 was used for tropical hardwoods in areas receiving > 4000 mm of annual rainfall, Equation #2.2 was used for Cecropia spp, and equation #2.3 was used for all species of palm. Equation 2: Three allometric equations from Pearson et al. (2005) for calculation of above ground biomass at BCEP

General Classification Species Group Equation Maximum DBH or

Height

Equation #2.1 Wet (>4000mm rainfall) General

Biomass = 21.297 – 6.953 *

DBH + 0.740 * DBH2

112cm

Equation #2.2 Cecropia spp

Cecropia species

Biomass = 12.764 + 0.2588 * DBH2.0515

40cm

Equation #2.3 Palms Palms(asai and pataju)

Biomass = 6.666 + 12.826 * height0.5 *

ln(height)

33 meter maximum height11

(Ht. Classes E and F)

Equation #2.4 Palms (motacu) Biomass= 23.487 + 41.851 * ln(height)2

11 meter maximum height

(Ht. classes A,B, and C)

11 Allometric equations for palms are based upon height.


The measurement of below-ground biomass is a time consuming and difficult task. However there are effective and accurate regression equations that allow calculation of below-ground biomass from above ground biomass. For below-ground biomass, the following regression equation from Pearson et al (2005) was used (Equation 3: Below ground biomass regression). Equation 3: Below ground biomass regression

Below Ground Biomass BB = exp(-1.0587 +0.8836 x ln ABD)

• Where BB= belowground biomass density, and ABD= aboveground biomass density

As previously discussed, we considered the entire forest within the project area as a single stratum (i.e. Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest). Table 3: Summary of mean C stocks with 95% confidence interval in the Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest at BCEP summarizes the C stocks for this strata at BCEP. In addition to the summary of total carbon in biomass, we converted this figure to CO2 equivalent by multiplying the total C biomass stocks by 44/12. Table 3: Summary of mean C stocks with 95% confidence interval in the Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest at BCEP Year (n=26)

Mean Above Ground Biomass (C mt /ha)

Mean Below-ground Biomass (C mt /ha)

Mean Total Biomass (C mt /ha)

Mean mt CO2e/ha

2009 44.33 (+/- 10.78) 9.72 (+/- 2.09) 54.06 (+/- 12.87) 198.21 (+/-47.17)

G1.5. Communities Located in the Project Zone With 22,960 km² of territory and 307,899 people (2008 estimate), the population density of Belize is the lowest in the Central American region. However, the country's population growth rate, 2.15% (2009 estimate), is the highest in the region.12 Belize has a diverse society, composed of many cultures and languages. Although Creole and Spanish are also widely spoken among the populace, Belize is the only country in Central America where English is the official language. There are three communities located in the Project Zone. The communities are Indian Creek Village, Golden Stream Village, and Pine Hill Mennonite Community. The three communities do not reside in the Project area (Figure 1: Location of Boden Creek Ecological Preserve (Green) and Project Zone (Red) in the Toledo District of Belize).

12 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bh.html.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belizean_Creole_language

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bh.html

Table 4: Toledo District and Project Zone 2008 Midyear Population Estimates13

Total Male Female

% Toledo District rural

populationToledo District 30,100 15,000 15,1000 Punta Gorda Town

5,400 2,600 2,800

Toledo District Rural

24,700 12,400 12,300 100%

Indian Creek Village

447 (1997 estimate)

(no data available)

(no data available)

~2%

Golden Stream Village

304 (1997 estimate)

(no data available)

(no data available)

~1%

Pine Hill Mennonite Community

500 (2010 estimate, pers.

communication)

(no data available)

(no data available)

~2%

Indian Creek Village is a 100% Ke’kchi Maya village recognized by the Belize government as a community in 1969 (Figure 5: Indian Creek Village Map by Sebastian Shol). Indian Creek Village citizens originally migrated to Indian Creek Village from Laguna Village. Few jobs are available to the community beyond traditional milpa farming with the exception of working at BCEP and BLE. The population of Indian Creek Village is estimated at 447 individuals in 1997 (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997). This is roughly 2% of Toledo District’s rural population (Table 4: Toledo District and Project Zone 2008 Midyear Population Estimates).14 The village is a collection of Ke’kchi Mayan houses stretched along the Southern highway in close proximity to the Project. Indian Creek Village has a school with grades 1-8 and several churches. The Mayan archaeological site Nim Li Punit is within Indian Creek Village. Directly south of Indian Creek Village is BCEP. The community members of Indian Creek Village self-identify as 37% Catholic and 63% other Christian religions (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997). According to personal interviews and official correspondence, Indian Creek Village has never traditionally used the BCEP property for hunting, medicinal plant collecting, or other activities. All hunting has traditional occurred west and north of the village (Steinberg 1998).

13 http://www.statisticsbelize.org.bz/services.asp 14 http://www.statisticsbelize.org.bz/dms20uc/dm_tree.asp?pid=6


http://www.statisticsbelize.org.bz/services.asp

http://www.statisticsbelize.org.bz/dms20uc/dm_tree.asp?pid=6

Figure 7: Indian Creek Village Map by Sebastian Shol (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997) Golden Stream Village is a 53% Ke’kchi Maya / 47% Mopan Maya village recognized by the Belize government as a community around 1986 (Figure 6: Golden Stream Village Map by Louis Pop (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997)). Golden Stream Village citizens originally migrated to Golden Stream Village from Pueblo Viejo and Santa Cruz in two waves – in 1970 and in 1985. Few jobs are available to the community beyond traditional milpa farming with the exception of working at BCEP and BLE. The population of Golden Stream Village was estimated at 317 individuals in 200015. This is roughly 1.7% of Toledo District’s rural population (Table 4: Toledo District and Project Zone 2008 Midyear Population Estimates).16 The village is a collection of Ke’kchi and Mopan houses stretched along the Southern highway about 44 kilometers north of Punta Gorda. Golden Stream Village has a school built in 1996. Livelihoods include milpa farming, raising animals, hunting and fishing. Traditional hunting areas are in the mountains north of Golden Stream Village (Steinberg 1998). Besides holding Mayan religious beliefs, the community members of Golden Stream Village self-identify as 12% Catholic and 88% other Christian religions (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997). According to personal interviews and official correspondence, Golden Stream Village has never used the BCEP property for hunting, medicinal plant collecting, or other activities.

15http://celade.cepal.org/cgibin/RpWebEngine.exe/PortalAction?&MODE=MAIN&BASE=CPVBLZ2000&MAIN=WebServerMain.inl. 16 http://www.statisticsbelize.org.bz/dms20uc/dm_tree.asp?pid=6


http://celade.cepal.org/cgibin/RpWebEngine.exe/PortalAction?&MODE=MAIN&BASE=CPVBLZ2000&MAIN=WebServerMain.inl.

http://celade.cepal.org/cgibin/RpWebEngine.exe/PortalAction?&MODE=MAIN&BASE=CPVBLZ2000&MAIN=WebServerMain.inl.

http://www.statisticsbelize.org.bz/dms20uc/dm_tree.asp?pid=6

Figure 8: Golden Stream Village Map by Louis Pop (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997) Both the Indian Creek Village and the Golden Stream Village are traditional Mayan communities. These communities have a traditional chief that is called an Alcalde, or notch winic or pohlil kah (Mopan) or mamah or ruj’il (Ke’kchi) (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997). The Alcalde system is similar to a traditional Mayan village council system.17 The Alcalde manages community conflicts, judges misdeeds, and assembles the community for religious ceremonies and community events such as village cleanings, maintenance, and construction projects. The Alcalde manages the communal lands of the Maya. This is the typical land management regime for the Maya of southern Belize. The Pine Hill Mennonite Community is reclusive and interacts minimally with others from outside their community. The community is a Kleine Gemeinde Mennonite community. It is a recent Mennonite settlement, begun in 1996, located on a privately owned block west of BCEP. The Pine Hill community migrated south from Barton Creek in the Cayo District. The Pine Hill Mennonite Community includes many houses, barns, a circular lumber mill powered by eight horses, cheese production facilities and a dairy industry, honey, cattle ranching, fields for hay, and wood working facilities (Pers. Comm. Gabriel Thoumi). The community is considering future expansion including coffee and chocolate production and small scale production of goat’s

17 http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan023193.pdf


cheese.18 The population of the Pine Hill Mennonite Community is roughly 500 or 2% of the Toledo District (Table 4: Toledo District and Project Zone 2008 Midyear Population Estimates). The Pine Hill Mennonite Community bases their convictions on a framework that minimizes modernistic trends living simply and in nonconformity to the world. Similar to their brethren at Upper Barton Creek, “They did not own any equipment with motors and did not use electricity. They opposed education above elementary school and the influence of worldly literature. They believed in strict discipline and religious teaching for children and also practiced strict discipline among adults to avoid "erring doctrines" and carnal-mindedness. Members were accepted from any nationality but only upon evidence of a change of heart and life. They did not smoke or drink, they dressed plainly, and the men wore beards. They farmed on a small scale using horses, producing vegetables, cattle, honey, etc.”19 G1.6. Current Land Use and Land Tenure in the Project Zone The Toledo District is a region with significant ecotourism potential because of its large areas of undisturbed habitat, excellent populations of tropical birds and charismatic megafauna, high concentration of protected areas, and low population density. The land use within the Project Area directly impacts the health of the Port Honduras Marine Reserve, a UN World Heritage Site coral reef/mangrove system that supports a large part of the ecotourism potential of the district. Currently there are two protected areas east of the Project. These are the Golden Stream Parcel 3,866 ha owned by YCT and Manatee Creek Parcel 2,192 ha owned by Golden Stream Conservation Group, with YCT being majority shareholder at 57%. Together these two parcels comprise the Golden Stream Corridor Preserve (GSCP). The GSCP was developed in 1998 by FFI and BLE because the region was under significant threat from industrial logging, citrus cultivation and shrimp farming. Forming a key component of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor20, the area contains 300 recorded tree species, a diverse assemblage of mammals including threatened species such as jaguar and Baird’s tapir, and 40% of Belize’s bird species21. The Golden Stream watershed drains directly into the Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary, which is managed by TIDE. Land use change in the Golden Stream watershed and nearby watersheds has been identified by the World Resources Institute (2005) as a risk factor for reef habitats. This is an area that represents one of the last major links in Central America of lowland tropical broadleaf forest connecting the marine environment with the terrestrial, an area of nearly 485,623 ha of nationally protected lands.22 There are no ongoing property disputes with the Project property. Copies of the independent searches are available from the Project Developer and have been reviewed by the auditor. 18 Newspaper of the Toledo Chapter of the Belize Tourism Industry Association, Toledo Howler, August 2009, Year 3, Issue 1 19 Friesen, Heinrich P. "Upper Barton Creek Colony, Belize." Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1989. Web. 29 March 2010. http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/U64.html 20 See http://www.tbpa.net/case_10.htm for more information regarding the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. 21 See http://www.fauna-flora.org/goldenstream.php Fauna and Flora International. 22 http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/environmental-governance/map-478.html.


http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/N651ME.html

http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/D5789ME.html

http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/U64.html

http://www.tbpa.net/case_10.htm

http://www.fauna-flora.org/goldenstream.php

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/environmental-governance/map-478.html

The Mayan villages of southern Belize including both Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village are currently involved in a court case in Belize to seek officially titling of their customary land rights based on the book Maya Atlas: The Struggle to Preserve Maya Land in Southern Belize. According to all involved (personal communication with stakeholders and governmental officials), the Maya of southern Belize have no stated interest in the BCEP property, which is owned fee simple with clear property title as evidenced by the independent title search (Table 5: BCEP land registry information).23 Table 5: BCEP land registry information

Title Ha Registry Date

Recorded Title Search Completed Block 131A 213 Surveyors Plan

Book No. 7, Folio 75

November 28, 2000

August 5, 2009

Block 131 2,881 Surveyors Plan Book No. 4, Folio 54

November 28, 2000

August 5, 2009

Whitney block 2,117 Entry No. 10573, Register 15

February 19, 2004

December 31, 2008. Deed of Conveyance on file.

Total ha 5,211 We have reviewed the Mayan Atlas, and the Project does not fall within the disputed areas. This potential dispute is not relevant to the project. The Pine Hill Mennonite Community owns their property in fee simple and are actively seeking to expand their property either onsite or to another region (Pers. Comm. Gabriel Thoumi) to increase coffee and chocolate production and small scale production of goat cheese.24 The Pine Hill Mennonite Community has received permission to build and maintain a road on BCEP’s property to more easily access their property from the Southern Highway. Relationships between BCEP and the Pine Hill Mennonite Community are good. The road to the Mennonite community is maintained by the Mennonites and made available by the project as a courtesy to a neighbor. There are no written agreements for use of the right-of-way. This sort of arrangement is common within Belize, and contributes to improved neighbor relations. The Mennonite community does not have a legal claim to use the right-of-way. G1.7. Current Biodiversity within the Project Zone An initial biodiversity study was conducted and documented in 2001 (Bowen-Jones 2001) which focused on conducting a base-line assessment of the biodiversity BCEP, concentrating on threatened, charismatic, and indicator taxa, and their distribution within the watershed, to provide key biological information for conservation management. A two-year biodiversity assessment 23 http://www.amandala.com.bz 24 Newspaper of the Toledo Chapter of the Belize Tourism Industry Association, Toledo Howler, August 2009, Year 3, Issue 1


http://www.amandala.com.bz/

was conducted from 2007 - 2009 (Miller et al 2009, and Miller and Miller 2008). This assessment focused on small mammals, medium - large mammals, bats, and birds. This was a follow up to the initial 2001 study (Bowen-Jones 2001) which also focused on faunal biodiversity. For a detailed description of methods and results see Appendix C. These biodiversity assessments resulted in the documentation of 84 species of mammals occurring on the Project site. Of the 84 species of mammals documented, 15 are listed at various levels of special conservation concern. Twelve of these mammals are listed by the International Union of for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) (Table 6: Species of Special Conservation Concern Documented on the Project Site). The Project site is one of the few coastal habitats remaining in Belize maintaining a population of jaguars (Figure 9: Station #6 Boden Creek Trail, April 3, 3008 03:47h, jaguar likely pair with inset photograph captured 30 seconds earlier (Miller and Miller 2008)]) and ocelot (Miller and Miller 2008).

Figure 9: Station #6 Boden Creek Trail, April 3, 3008 03:47h, jaguar likely pair with inset photograph captured 30 seconds earlier (Miller and Miller 2008) A total of 210 bird species were documented on BCEP. Eighteen of these bird species also carry special concern status. Among them, the yellow-headed parrot (Amazona oratrix) is listed as IUCN-Endangered. Two IUCN reptiles were detected on the property. Morelet’s crocodile (Crocodylus moreletii) were observed anecdotally by project staff. Central American river turtle (Dermatemys mawii) was observed by Bowen-Jones (2001).


Table 6: Species of Special Conservation Concern Documented on the Project Site Family Common name Scientific name Status Emballonuridae Least sac-winged bat Balantiopteryx io IUCN-VU Mormoopidae Ghost-faced bat Mormoops megalophylla BZ-concern Big naked-backed bat Pteronotus gymnonotus BZ-concern Phyllostomidae Underwood's long-tongued bat Hylonycteris underwoodi BZ-concern Vespertilionidae Van Gelder's bat Bauerus dubiaquercus IUCN-NT Cebidae Yucatan black howler monkey Alouatta pigra IUCN-EN Geoffroy’s spider monkey Ateles geoffroyi IUCN-EN Tapiridae Baird's tapir Tapirus bairdii IUCN-EN Tayassuidae Collared peccary Pecari tajacu IUCN-LC White-lipped peccary Tayassu pecari IUCN-NT Trichechidae West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus IUCN-VU Felidae Ocelot Leopardus pardalis IUCN-LC Jaguarundi Puma yagouaroundi IUCN-LC Jaguar Panthera onca IUCN-NT Puma Puma concolor IUCN-LC Podicipedidae Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps BZE-CC Anhingidae Anhinga Anhinga anhinga BZE-CC Great blue heron Ardea Herodias BZE-VU Snowy egret Egretta thula BZE-VU Threskiornithidae White ibis Eudocimus albus BZE-VU Anatidae Black-bellied whistling duck Dendrocygna autumnalis BZE-VU Muscovy duck Cairina moschata BZE-EN Green-winged teal Anas crecca BZE-VU Blue-winged teal Anas discors BZE-VU Lesser scaup Anas affinis BZE-VU Rallidae Ruddy crake Laterallus ruber BZE-CC Purple gallinule Porphyrio martinica BZE-VU Recurvirostridae Black-necked stilt Himantopus mexicanus BZE-CC Brown-hooded parrot Pionopsitta haematotis BZE-VU Yellow-headed parrot Amazona oratrix IUCN-EN Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica BZE-CC Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis BZE-CC Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus BZE-CC Crocodylidae Morolet’s crocodile Crocodylus moreletii IUCN-LR Dermatemydidae Central American river turtle Dermatemys mawii IUCN-EN


G1.8. Project site High Conservation Values An evaluation of HCVs was performed (Table 7: High Conservation Values on BCEP and Project Zone). Table 7: High Conservation Values on BCEP and Project Zone High Conservation Values Project Description 8.1. Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values; a. Protected areas b. Threatened species c. Endemic species d. Areas that support significant concentrations of a species during any time in their lifecycle (e.g. migrations, feeding grounds, breeding areas).

Fifteen IUCN listed species are known to occur on the site. Multiple other species of concern are documented on the site.

8.2. Globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape-level areas where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance;

Project site resides within the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor.25 Project site within “Hot Spot” declared by Conservation International.26 Project site drains directly into Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary and unique coral reef habitat designated as World Heritage site by UNESCO.27

8.3. Threatened or rare ecosystems;

Coral reef ecosystems are threatened by a variety of water quality stressors and water pH changes resulting from global climate change.

8.4. Areas that provide critical ecosystem services (e.g., hydrological services, erosion control, fire control);

None noted.

8.5. Areas that are fundamental for meeting the basic needs of local communities (e.g., for essential food, fuel, fodder, medicines or building materials without readily available alternatives); and

None noted.

8.6. Areas that are critical for the traditional cultural identity of communities (e.g., areas of cultural, ecological, economic or religious significance identified in collaboration with the communities).

Nim Li Punit archaeological site.

This project addresses multiple High Conservation Values in the form of threatened species (8.8.b) and globally and regionally significant large landscape-level areas where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance (8.2) plus protection of the Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary which encompasses notable coral reef habitat at risk from water quality degradation (WRI 2005) and global climate change (8.3). The threatened species are listed in Table 6: Species of Special Conservation 25 http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/environmental-governance/map-478.html 26 http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/mesoamerica/Pages/default.aspx 27 UNESCO: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/764



http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/mesoamerica/Pages/default.aspx

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/764

Concern Documented on the Project Site. The project helps comprise the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor,28 and is a part of the Mesoamerican “Hot Spot” for biodiversity as determined by Conservation International29 (Figure 8: Mesoamerican Biological Corridor with BCEP).

BCEP

Figure 10: Mesoamerican Biological Corridor with BCEP30 Threatened and Endangered Ecosystems: Project site drains directly into the Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary. Water quality impacts (agricultural chemical and sediment runoff) from the “without project” scenario would have significant deleterious effects on important coral (WRI 2005) habitat. Nim Li Punit is within the project zone but not within the Project area. Nim Li Punit is an archaeological site managed as a tourist attraction and research site. Nim Li Punit, in Indian Creek Village, was rediscovered in 1976 (Adams and Hammond 1982). Nim Li Punit lies approximately 5 km off the Southern Highway, near the villages of Indian Creek and Golden

28 http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/environmental-governance/map-478.html 29 http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/mesoamerica/Pages/default.aspx 30 http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/environmental-governance/map-478.html





Stream.31 Nim Li Punit is a small Maya site known for its many stele, erected between 721 and 790 A.D. (Hammond 1976). Nim Li Punit inherited its name from a carving on the longest of the site's twenty-six stele, depicting a figure wearing a large headdress. In the Maya Ke’kchi language, Nim Li Punit means "the big hat". The ecotourism activity at the Project will enhance visitation at Nim Li Punit.

G2. Baseline Projections

G2.1. Baseline Land Use The financial situation of the enterprise is in question due to rising costs and highly variable bookings by visitors as confirmed by independent review of the current BLE financial statements. Failure of the ecotourism venture would necessarily result in a land use strategy change to increase profits i.e. conversion of the forest to an agricultural crop, or liquidation of the assets of the company and sale of the land. Purchase by another conservation group is unlikely due to the availability of much lower cost, larger areas available for sale both in Belize and elsewhere in the world. Purchase by another ecotourism operator is possible and likely for the lodges, but unlikely for the BCEP property as a whole due to the added burden of conservation and management cost imposed by such a large property. National plans prioritize this area for additional aquaculture32 and agricultural development in the Toledo District33. There is anecdotal evidence of verbal offers to buy the land for agricultural conversion. Given that the property is near the Southern Highway, in close proximity to large citrus and banana operations, and that no more profitable economic use is available, it is a reasonable assumption that the most likely fate of the property is clearing for citrus or some other agricultural crop. Some of the alternative land uses are more likely and pose a much larger deforestation threat than others. The following is a “ranking” of the five most likely alternative land uses that would result in deforestation. Each of the alternative land uses are widely recognized based on available scientific literature, as deforestation drivers locally, regionally and nationally (FAO 2003). Conversion to Agriculture Conversion to agriculture is the most likely alternative land use scenario and is the most pervasive driver for deforestation and land use change in the project area. Agricultural products could include cattle, citrus, bananas, aquaculture, cacao, rice, etc. The conversion of forestland in Belize to agriculture is both a national and regional trend. The FAO (2003) estimated that by1989 about 217,241 hectares, or about 10%, of the national land area had been converted from 31 http://www.southernbelize.com/nimli.html 32 Belize National Aquaculture Development Plan (DRAFT): http://www.coastalzonebelize.org/reports/draft_nationa_aquaculture_policy.pdf 33 Agricultural Development Management and Operational Strategy (ADMOS) (TCP/BELIZE/2003A) http://www.agriculture.gov.bz/PDF/Agricultural_Development_Management_and_Operational_Strategy.pdf


http://www.southernbelize.com/nimli.html

http://www.coastalzonebelize.org/reports/draft_nationa_aquaculture_policy.pdf

http://www.agriculture.gov.bz/PDF/Agricultural_Development_Management_and_Operational_Strategy.pdf

forest to agricultural land. Furthermore, by the first half of the 1990’s 25,000 hectares of forested land were being lost yearly due to conversion to agricultural land (FAO 2003).

A regional analysis of land use change was performed to support this project (see Appendix A for full report). The analysis found that at the start of the historical reference period (1993), there were 110,493 ha of forest within a regional reference area. By 2009 there were only 94,662 ha of forest in the reference area, 15,831 fewer ha. Most deforestation took place between 2006 and 2009 and was due to cropland expansion. The majority of cropland expansion took place in the northern portion of the reference area, close to Independence Town but there was also extensive cropland expansion immediately west of the project area. In total, 15% of the forest within the reference area was lost to deforestation, mostly due to cropland expansion.

Locally BCEP is bordered and in close proximity to several farms involved in the production of banana, citrus, and cattle. The owner has indicated that some of these landowners expressed an interest in buying portions of BCEP in order to expand their operations. Furthermore, the previous owners of BCEP operated a citrus, banana and cattle operation on the project site which ceased only after the current owner purchased the property (Bowen-Jones 2001).

Conversion of Forest Land to Settlements The second most likely alternative land use in our analysis would be expansion of settlements and conversion of forestland to support the expansion. Population in the Toledo district has been steadily increasing and is a driver of deforestation through the need to expand and create settlements to accommodate a larger population. The increase in population is attributed to immigrants coming from politically unstable, neighbouring countries and internal movements of the population. Population has increased steadily since the 1980’s varying widely with a current rate of 3% (Moore 2007). Illegal Logging of Timber for Commercial Use The third most likely alternative land use leading to deforestation would be illegal logging. This land use would be particularly relevant if an absentee landowner purchased the property. Illegal logging has become a significant problem in Belize and approximately 60% of all logging in Belize is illegal (Young 2008). Of the 60,145 m3 of wood processed in 1999, 39% was harvested illegally (FAO 2005). The potential for illegal logging at BCEP is exacerbated because of the close proximity of the Southern Highway thus providing an all weather transportation link (Chomitz and Gray 1996). Logging of Timber for Local and Domestic Use The fourth most likely alternative land use leading to deforestation is timber harvesting for domestic use. Our analysis indicated that this alternative land use would be a low impact driver of deforestation in the project area. Local people use several different forest products and have been doing so sustainably for hundreds of years. The Toledo district ethnically is predominately Mayan, with the highest percentage (65%) of Mayans in Belize (Levasseur and Oliver 2000). Although Mayans may use harsh methods for clearing farmland (slash and burn) there is little


evidence they harvest substantial amounts of wood for commercial use (Levasseur and Oliver 2000). Purchase of the Land to Operate Ecotourism Lodges The fifth and least likely alternative land use would be the purchase of BCEP by a different owner to operate the ecotourism lodges. If the economics of the current operation is not sufficient to support the current ecotourism lodges it would be unlikely to change sufficiently to allow a different landowner to succeed. Commercializing the value of the avoided CO2 emissions will provide the capital required to keep the ecotourism operation solvent in the off season. Based on analysis of road access and topography, 100% of the property could and likely would be converted to some form of agricultural use. Upland areas are more likely to be converted to citrus. Lowland areas are most likely to be converted to tilapia or shrimp aquaculture. Riparian areas of Belize are much more likely to be converted than upland areas (Young 2008), and the project site includes a large component of riparian areas. Due to a lack of spatial data of adequate resolution, this greater rate of deforestation in riparian areas is ignored making the estimates of deforestation pressure even more conservative. Recent conversion of property throughout the district is evident for both citrus and aquaculture.

G2.2. Additionality Without the Project, financial stability for the project will not be achieved, and the land is likely to be sold and converted to aquaculture and/or citrus or pasture. Successful commercialization of the emission reduction credits from the project will make the entire project financially sustainable. Project financial accounts were made available to the auditor to confirm the financial stability issue. This presumption is based on surrounding land use and land use history. Based on remote sensing analysis, significant deforestation has been taking place primarily for citrus and aquaculture and to a lesser extent pasture. With an increasing population both in Belize and the world, food demand should increase not decrease, and pressure to deforest the region will continue. Other competing land uses that do not involve deforestation are notably absent. The project team conducted an exhaustive law review including:

• Belize Private Forests (Conservation) Act, Chapter 217, Revised Edition 2000. o This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner

under the authority of the Law Revision Act, Chapter 3 of the Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 1980 - 1990.

• Forests Act, Chapter 213, Revised Edition 2003. o This is a revised edition of the Subsidiary Laws, prepared by the Law Revision

Commissioner under the authority of the Law Revision Act, Chapter 3 of the Substantive Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 2000.

• Forest Fire Protection Act, Chapter 212, Revised Edition 2000. • Water and Sewage Act, Chapter 222.


o Defines riparian protection as “that the flow of the stream does not fall below the minimum quantity necessary to secure the interest of public health and the protection of the rights of riparian and other land-owners.” (p. 46)

• Water Industry Act, Chapter 222. • Belize Agricultural Health Authority Act, Chapter 211. • Fisheries Act, Chapter 210. • Timber Industry Act, Chapter 341. • Land Utilization Act, Chapter 188.

o The Minister may, for the better utilization of land, make regulations- to demarcate areas, water catchment areas or watersheds and prohibiting

the clearing of any vegetation within those areas; to provide for such other measures as may be required to prevent soil

erosion; restricting the construction of buildings within stipulated distances from

the middle line of any road or street; to demarcate specific areas as development areas and to stipulate the type

of development that will be permitted within those areas; for the clearing of any forest or the felling of any trees; and to provide for all such other things as may be necessary for the better

carrying out of the provisions of this Part of the Act. • Citrus (Processing and Production) Act, Chapter 277.

From this analysis and based on personal communication with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment and the Belize Forest Department, it is clear that the BCEP property is easily converted legally to a citrus plantation. The only caveat is that there must be a one-chain riparian buffer on either side of Golden Stream and Boden Creek (Pers. Comm. Gabriel Thoumi). G2.3. Carbon Stock Changes In order to estimate potential carbon stock changes over the life of the project, a detailed description of a plausible and realistic ‘without project’ scenario is required. Based upon our analysis of alternative land use scenarios (section G2.1) the conversion to agriculture is the most likely land use in the without project scenario. Under the without project scenario there would be 4,792 ha of forest land available for conversion. Without Project Scenario The without project scenario assumes that without the income from a carbon offset project the ecotourism venture at BCEP will fail. Failure of the ecotourism venture would likely result in the liquidation of the assets of the company and sale of the land. The most likely land use for BCEP under the without project scenario is conversion to agriculture. In the Toledo district of Belize and more importantly in the project zone, citrus /banana plantations and pasture land are the most common agricultural land uses (FAO 2003). In addition the land that BCEP occupies was identified as being suitable for aquaculture. Thus conversion would not likely be to a single type of agriculture but a combination of citrus/ banana plantations, pasture, aquaculture and


small milpas. Under previous ownership there was a mix of all these types of agriculture occurring on the property (Bowen-Jones 2001). Rate of Deforestation and Agricultural Conversion Deforestation in Belize is a growing concern among many governmental and nongovernmental organizations and many consider it as the number one conservation threat facing Belize (Young 2008). Until the 1960’s Belize had the highest relative forest cover of any Central American country. However, during the latter half of the 20th century large-scale agriculture (bananas, citrus, and sugarcane) overtook forestry as the primary driver of economic activity and hence deforestation (Young 2008). Recently large scale aquaculture operations (shrimp, tilapia) have increased rapidly causing increased deforestation in the coastal areas of Belize. Many studies have attributed tropical deforestation to a single factor when in reality there are multiple underlying ultimate causes working at a range of spatial and temporal scales (Geist and Lambin 2002). Nevertheless, Geist and Lambin (2002) in a meta-analysis identified agricultural expansion as accounting for 96% of deforestation cases even if the ultimate causation varied. In the early 1980’s Belize had a deforestation rate of 0.2% per year, abruptly increasing in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s to approximately 1.2-1.5% (, Lopez and Scoseria 1996). The FAO (2005) estimated that by 1989 Belize had lost over 10% of the original forest cover. Furthermore, FAO (2005) estimated that 5% of the secondary forests in the Toledo district, where BCEP is located, will be cleared for perennial export crops (primarily bananas and citrus) by 2012. Belize is currently experiencing a yearly deforestation rate almost double that of Central America (Young 2008) with a currently estimated deforestation rate of 2.3% (Wyman and Stein 2010). However, deforestation rates in some areas such as riparian zones, are > than 13% annually (Young 2008) Fate of Forest Resources Lost to Agricultural Conversion Using a conservative deforestation rate of 2.3% per year over 20 years in the without project scenario, 2,204 ha will be converted from forestland to some form of agriculture. The standard practice in Belize for conversion of forest to agricultural lands is to remove valuable timber species and then bulldoze and burn the remaining trees. However, because the forest at BCEP was devastated by Hurricane Iris and is in early stages of recovery (see section G1.2) there are few if any trees that are of merchantable size and quality available for harvest. Therefore, under the without project scenario the entire forest would be cleared, piled and burned. Estimate of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Loss in the Without Project Scenario In order to estimate GHG loss und the without project scenario the following variables were required:

• Area of forest available for conversion, • Baseline carbon stocks, • Forest growth/biomass/carbon accumulation annual rates, • Maximum carbon stocks for secondary tropical forest in Belize,


• Deforestation/conversion rates, • Allocation of deforestation among agro-ecosystems, and • Carbon stocks in agro-ecosystems.

Forest Area The area of Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest available for conversion under the without project scenario is 4,792 hectares. This figure is based upon Landsat TM data obtained in April 2009 and represents the total forest areas minus a 1 chain buffer along perennial streams. An additional 209 ha was removed from consideration to account for the discrepancy between the title acreage and the GIS boundary file. Baseline Carbon Stocks To measure GHG loss in the without project scenario we used the same carbon pools assessed in section G1.4 (above and below ground biomass) as our baseline C stocks. The mean carbon pool in 2009 was 54.06 C tons/ha (Table 8: Summary of variable used to calculate carbon stocks and changes at BCEP under the without project scenario). Forest Growth/Biomass/Carbon Accumulation Annual Rates A critical factor in calculating changes in carbon pools under the without project scenario is the recovery of the forest from the impact of Hurricane Iris. Recovering secondary tropical forests have long been recognized to have high growth/carbon accumulation rates and rapidly fix key nutrients in the above and belowground biomass (Vitousek and Stanford 1986, Vitousek 1991, Gariguata and Ostertag 2001). Published rates of carbon accumulation and/or growth rates for young secondary Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest specifically for Belize are not available. However, Gariguata and Ostertag (2001) in a review of neotropical forest succession studies, reported above biomass accumulation rates of up to 100 t/ha over a 15 year period or a 6.7% accumulation rate /year. Hughes et al. (1999) in a study conducted in the Los Tuxtlas region of Mexico, calculated mean yearly above ground biomass accumulation for a series of different aged secondary tropical forests. This study is particularly pertinent to carbon accumulation rates at BCEP because:

• The general vegetation composition of the communities is similar to those of BCEP. • The ages of the forest stands used in their study encompass the age distribution of the forest at BCEP over the entire project (i.e. space for time substitution). • Environmental variables (soils, bedrock geology, and climate) and land use history are similar to BCEP.

Using the data from Hughes et al (1999) the average annual aboveground biomass accumulation rate for secondary tropical forests of all ages was 6.3%/year. Because southern Belize has substantially higher rainfall compared to the Los Tuxtlas region of Mexico the 6.3% rate was determined to be an appropriate and conservative figure to estimate biomass accumulation within the project area.


Maximum Carbon Stocks for Secondary Tropical Forest in Belize The published steady state maximum for carbon stocks in tropical forest in southern Belize is 318 C tons/ha (Gibbs et al 2007). Deforestation/Conversion Rates Under the without project scenario, BCEP would undergo deforestation to clear land for the likely agricultural conversions. Because data on individual parcel agricultural conversion rates for the Toledo district is not available, we used the widely recognized and conservative country wide deforestation rate of 2.3% as our annual conversion rate under the without project scenario. Allocation of Deforestation/Conversion among Agro-Ecosystems As discussed previously, under the without project scenario, forest cover at BCEP would be converted to mixed agricultural uses. The conversion of tropical forest to mixed agriculture (i.e. citrus/banana plantations, pasture) does not result in a complete loss of carbon from the ecosystem. Each new agro-ecosystem will fix carbon albeit at a much lower rate compared to tropical forest. The one exception would be aquaculture where carbon fixation would be minimal. As opposed to citrus plantations, conversion to aquaculture will result in a 100% loss of carbon from the ecosystem. In the land cover change analysis performed in support of this project, see Appendix A, approximately 95% of the agricultural land use was distributed among citrus/banana plantations, pasture and milpas and 5% to aquaculture. Thus we maintained the same ratio in allocating the deforestation rates among the two agro-ecosystem types. We allocated the 2.1% of the deforestation to citrus/banana plantations, pasture and milpas and 0.2% to aquaculture based on the regional patterns. Carbon Stocks in Agro-Ecosystems Of the terrestrial agro-ecosystems citrus plantations fix the most carbon. The FAO (2005) reported than under ideal conditions in Belize citrus plantations can reach a maximum carbon stock of 25 tons C/ha for high yielding citrus plantations. The other terrestrial agro-ecosystems had substantially lower maximum carbon stocks. For the purposes of this project aquaculture is considered to be a net emitter of carbon. Table 8: Summary of variable used to calculate carbon stocks and changes at BCEP under the without project scenario

Variable Rate/ Data Notes/References/Data Sources

Hectares of forest available for conversion

BCEP

4792 hectares forest (Lowland

Broad Leafed Wet Forest)

Boundary data obtained from: http://www.biodiversity.bz/mapping/warehouse/. Classes were based upon IPCC (2006) guidelines.

Hectares and classes determined from Landsat data. 209 ha removed from forest class to account for


discrepancy between GIS boundary and title acreage. 48 ha removed for stream buffer.

Baseline C stocks 54.06 C tons/ha Based upon forestry plots inventoried in 2009. Used

allometric equations in Pearson et al (2005) to calculate C stocks.

Forest growth rates 6.3%/year

Research Los Tuxtlas region of Mexico showed an aboveground biomass accumulation rate of 6.3%

(calculated from table 4) in secondary tropical forest very similar to those of the project area

(Hughes et al 1999).

Maximum C Stocks 318 tons C/ha Steady state maximum for southern Belize (Gibbs et al 2007)

Deforestation/Conversion Rate 2.3%/year

We chose the relatively conservative nationwide rate (FAO 2005, Wyman and Stein 2010). We allocated the 2.3% loss evenly over the 20 year

accounting period. Allocation of

Deforestation/Conversion Rate

2.1% citrus and 0.2% aquaculture

We allocated the 2.1% of the deforestation to citrus and 0.2% to aquaculture based on the regional

patterns identified in the region.

Citrus maximum carbon stock 25 tons C/ha

Based on the literature and a very conservative assumption that citrus plantations grow to maturity

at inception for the purpose of modeling.

Without Project Changes in Carbon Stocks We developed a basic model to estimate without project (i.e. baseline) carbon stock changes using the following steps and assumptions:

• Step1: Identify carbon pools. We used the carbon pools identified and carbon stocks calculated from field data assessments (G1.4) and used this figure (54.06 C tons/ha) as our 2010 starting point.

• Step 2: Choose appropriate deforestation/conversion rate. We chose the published countrywide rate of 2.3% (FAO 2005, Wyman and Stein 2010).

• Step 3: Allocate deforestation rate. We allocated the 2.1% of the deforestation to citrus/banana plantations, pasture and milpas and 0.2% to aquaculture based on the regional patterns.

• Step 4: Determine and apply growth rates (i.e. Carbon accumulation) for each class. The growth rate for forest biomass was determined from regional published research (6.3%). The conversion from Lowland Broad Leafed Wet Forest to citrus does not result in a 100% loss of carbon from the ecosystem. Because reliable data on the carbon accumulation/growth rates of citrus are not available for Belize we assume that the acreage converted to citrus immediately reaches the maximum published carbon stocks of 25 tons/ha . We assumed a 100% loss of carbon from aquaculture.

• Step 5: Baseline Carbon stocks at the end of the 20 year accounting period = 2009 total carbon stocks (see section G1.4) * (tropical forest growth rate – reduction in forested hectares from conversion to agriculture) + (Citrus carbon stock * % increase in ha of citrus).


Table 9: Without Project 2010-2029 summary of GHG emissions for baseline and with project

The average predicted annual loss over 20 years equals 64,916 mtCO2e (Table 9: Ex ante 2010-2029 summary of GHG emissions for baseline and with project and Table 10: Annual avoided emissions 2010 to 2029). Table 10: Annual avoided emissions 2010 to 2029

Year Without Project Final Carbon Stocks (C

tons)

With Project total (C Tons)

Difference between With and Without

Project carbon stocks (C tons)

Avoided emissions (mt

CO2e)

Forest Agri-

culture Aqua-culture Total

2010 269,042 2,516 0 271,558 275,376 3,818 13,999 2011 279,259 5,032 0 284,291 292,725 8,434 16,925 2012 289,696 7,547 0 297,243 311,166 13,923 20,128 2013 300,339 10,063 0 310,402 330,770 20,368 23,630 2014 311,173 12,579 0 323,752 351,608 27,856 27,457 2015 322,181 15,095 0 337,276 373,760 36,484 31,636 2016 333,340 17,611 0 350,951 397,307 46,356 36,196 2017 344,627 20,126 0 364,753 422,337 57,584 41,169 2018 356,013 22,642 0 378,655 448,944 70,289 46,587 2019 367,465 25,158 0 392,623 477,228 84,604 52,489 2020 378,948 27,674 0 406,622 507,293 100,671 58,912 2021 390,419 30,190 0 420,608 539,252 118,644 65,900 2022 401,831 32,705 0 434,536 573,225 138,689 73,498 2023 413,131 35,221 0 448,353 609,338 160,986 81,755 2024 424,261 37,737 0 461,998 647,727 185,729 90,724 2025 435,153 40,253 0 475,406 688,534 213,128 100,462 2026 445,734 42,769 0 488,502 731,911 243,409 111,031 2027 455,921 45,284 0 501,205 778,022 276,817 122,495

Without Project C stocks (baseline)

LULC 20 year total C tons for Project area

Forest land 7,458,891

Citrus plantations 528,318

Total 7,987,209

With Project change in C stocks Forest land 10,462,699

Net total change in C stocks/ha 2,475,490

Total GHG avoided emissions over 20 years (mtCO2e)

1,298,324


2028 465,622 47,800 0 513,422 827,037 313,615 134,927 2029 474,736 50,316 0 525,052 879,140 354,088 148,403

7,987,209 10,462,699 2,475,490 1,298,324 G2.4. Baseline Communities In the without-Project scenario, BCEP would sell the property which would most likely lead to rapid conversion to citrus and/or aquaculture. The most substantial direct impact of the baseline scenario would be a substantial reduction in number and quality of jobs with a near total loss of jobs for women. BLE employs over 30 individuals from the local villages at present and with successful implementation of the new plan that number should be maintained over the life of the project. The without project scenario is expected to increase the quantity of chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides used on the BCEP property. Since the BCEP property forms part of the local water board district for both Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village, converting the BCEP property to citrus and aquaculture would most likely have an adverse impact on the local communities’ health, and was identified as a concern by local communities during stakeholder meetings. Water quality impacts from citrus and aquaculture are well documented problems for coral reef health (WRI 2005), and a healthy reef is necessary for the substantial tourism industry in the district (WRI 2005). G2.5. Baseline Biodiversity Without the Project, this property will in large part be converted to agriculture further endangering IUCN species of concern (Table 6: Species of Special Conservation Concern Documented on the Project Site). Biodiversity loss will be substantial including all the species of concern, plus all the large mammals. Clearing the property will result in significant landscape level fragmentation limiting species interchange along a large portion of coastline. Impacts to the reef will be substantial and all negative (WRI 2005). Ending property patrols and ending restrictions on hunting will result in an increase in hunting of large animals like Baird’s tapir and others that form a prey base for large cats.

In addition to species of concern, all bats occurring on or around the BCEP are providing critical ecosystem services. If there is habitat conversion, key pollinators, seed dispersers and insect predators will be lost. This would impact the entire Golden Stream Corridor area. These ecological services are critical for natural forest and habitat regeneration after natural disaster such as Hurricane Iris.

The deforestation predicted to occur in the baseline scenario will in all likelihood not encompass the entire property, but the fragmentation, reduction in patch size, and additional hunting pressure will have profoundly deleterious effects on the entire property.


G3. Project Design and Goals

G3.1. Major Climate, Community and Biodiversity Objectives The goal of the project is to contribute to the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor by developing BCEP as a carbon sink while maintaining the biodiversity values of the BCEP property and enhancing the local economic environment with sustainable livelihoods in eco-tourism. The climate objective is to avoided emissions from deforestation during the Project timeframe. The community objective is to provide jobs. The biodiversity objective is to conserve habitat for species of concern plus rare coastal jaguar and ocelot populations and protect water quality for Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary.

G3.2. Major Project Activities The major project activities are:

• partner with BLE to conduct ecotourism activities at the site to generate income for expenses of maintaining and managing the property,

• control access to site through regular patrols, • continue to interact with the local communities, and • monitor results.

The Project will use carbon financing to avoid the threat of conversion to citrus, pasture, and/or aquaculture. A successful and financially stable BCEP will provide livelihoods both for management of the property and through the ecotourism operations conducted by BLE. These livelihoods are badly needed in the local communities. Financial stability means that the taxes can be paid, and all the other activities necessary to maintain and protect the property are sustainable. The primary activity for management of the property is patrols and interaction with local communities. These activities ensure the long term protection of the climate and biodiversity values of the project by preventing illegal hunting and harvesting of timber. A substantial monitoring program will be undertaken by BCEP. The monitoring protocol and baseline study will be designed and initially conducted by staff of the Conservation Management Institute (CMI) at Virginia Tech. CMI conducted the initial studies at BCEP and has significant field experience in Belize.


G3.3. Location of Project Activities Project activities will occur over the entire property. Community outreach will happen both on site and in the villages. Patrols will occur primarily on the borders. Monitoring will occur at fixed plots (Figure 3: Project Area: Forest vs. Non-Forest Map). G3.4. Time-frame and Project Accounting The timeframe of the CCBA Project extends from 2010 through 2029 (Table 11: BCEP Project Timeline). The Project is expected to begin in 2010 and final verification will take place the year after the project ends in 2029. This project will be validated using the CCBA protocol “Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Project Design Standards Second Edition”. Plans also include a validation against an appropriate methodology for carbon accounting approved by the Voluntary Carbon Standard. Table 11: BCEP Project Timeline

Milestone 2007-2009 2010 2015 2020 2025 2029 2030

BCEP Formed Survey Work Conducted CCBA Project Validation VCS Project Validation Initial financing Deed Restriction First Verification Second Verification Third Verification Project End Fourth Verification

G3.5. Project Risks and Mitigation Measures Risks to the project from instability in the Government or a change in leadership at BCEP or BLE are considered minimal. In any case, BCEP has agreed to a deed restriction for the life of the project to ensure permanence. To the best of our knowledge no oil or mineral resources occur on the project site and exploration for mineral resources is not occurring nor is it expected to occur. If oil or gas is discovered on the site, it would belong to the Government of Belize. Similar sites in Belize where oil extraction is taking place have minimal above ground disturbance. Section 26 paragraph 6 of the National Petroleum Act states:

“(6) Subject to this Act, where, in the course of conducting petroleum operations pursuant to a contract, the rights of the owner or lawful occupier


of any land are disturbed or damage to any crops, trees, buildings, stock, works or other property thereon is caused, the contractor is liable to pay the owner or lawful occupier fair and reasonable compensation in respect of the disturbance or damage according to the respective rights or interests of the owner or lawful occupier concerned. The amount of compensation payable shall be determined by agreement between the parties or if the parties are unable to reach agreement or the agreed compensation is not paid, the matter may be treated in accordance with the Arbitration Act.”

Based on this, the contractor for the Government extracting the oil would be responsible for compensating the owner of the credits for any reversals suffered as a result of the oil extraction process. The greatest natural risk to the Project is a direct hit by a hurricane. Hurricane Iris struck the Project site directly in 2001 resulting in a massive blow down of trees. Therefore, this area is currently in a state of ecological regeneration as is much of the Toledo District likewise impacted in this natural cycle. A detailed discussion of hurricane history and likely impacts may be found in Appendix B. G3.6. Maintenance of High Conservation Values The primary strategy for maintaining High Conservation Values is protection through patrolling and managing the property for existing high quality habitats with no reduction in forest cover. The only high conservation value for community is the government owned and operated Nim Li Punit archaeological site which is not on the project property. Indirectly, maintenance of the ecotourism operation will improve visitation at the Nim Li Punit site, making the government more likely to take appropriate measures to protect the site. No enhancement of HCVs is required or anticipated. G3.7. Measures Taken to Enhance Climate, Community, Biodiversity Benefits BCEP intends for this Project to be a focal point for sustainable eco-tourism activities demonstrating how carbon sequestration, biodiversity enhancement, and sustainable community development can be achieved effectively, equitably, and efficiently. Because of the Project’s profile within Belize it is expected that the Project will act as a catalyst for other projects regionally. Discussions with the Belize Association of Private Protected Areas (BAPPA) triggered by this PDD have already resulted in discussions regarding additional conservation projects throughout Belize. G3.8. Stakeholder Involvement BCEP has actively engaged local stakeholders in designing the CCB Project with various onsite consultations. Members of the local communities are the primary employees of BCEP participating in permanent sample plot measuring, setting up remote large mammal camera traps, setting up acoustic recording devices, conducting forest patrols, educating other local community


members about forest protection, and engaging in other knowledge transfer activities. Stakeholder involvement has been solicited formally and informally over a period of time so as to inform stakeholders about the BCEP Project and so as to receive their feedback.

• Information posted on the website (http://www.belizelodge.com/home.html) since late February.

• Direct email and phone contact with Belize economic specialist Dr. Jim Bass. • Direct email and phone contact with Belize ecology specialists Dr. Miller and Mrs.

Miller. • Held meeting with management representatives from TIDE, YCT, and Golden Stream

Corridor and Alcaldes and representatives from Indian Creek and Golden Stream March 17, 2010, 5pm to 8pm.

• Direct email and phone contact culminating in meeting with the Belize Association for Private Protected Areas (BAPPA) on March 19, 2010 in Belize City, Belize.

• Visited Indian Creek Village, and sharing the CCB Project PDD with the Indian Creek Village and hosted public meetings at Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village, April 10th, 2010 (Figure 9: Poster advertising CCB public stakeholder meetings April 10th, 2010). Indian Creek Village meeting had 31 attendees with formal representation from the Indian Creek Village Parent Teacher Association, primary school, water board, Chairman, Secretary, Vice President, and Alcalde. Golden Stream Village meeting had 9 attendees with formal representation including the Alcalde, Chairmen, and others.

• Displayed for all clients of BLE at Indian Creek eco-lodge entrance point since late February.

• Displayed and shared with all BLE employees and their community members through printed materials and presentations with staff stakeholder meeting attended by 7 local women and 16 local men and local men and local women in managerial positions on Wednesday March 17th, 2010 at 5pm.

• The PDD was made available on the CCBA webpage and open to public comments (http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html) beginning February 12, 2010.

• Public meetings held at Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village, April 10th, 2010 (Figure 9: Poster advertising CCB public stakeholder meetings April 10th, 2010).

• Direct personal meetings with the Alcalde, Chairman, Secretary, and Vice President from the villages of Indian Creek and Golden Stream.

The plan for continuing involvement by the local communities includes regular public meetings held in the villages by a staff member of BCEP hired for that role. G3.9. Publicizing the Public Comment Period BCEP publicized its CCBA Project for public comment online through the following avenues:

• Information posted on the website (http://www.belizelodge.com/home.html) since late February.

• Direct email and phone contact with Belize economist Dr. Jim Bass. • Direct email and phone contact with Belize ecologists Dr. Miller and Mrs. Miller.


http://www.belizelodge.com/home.html

http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html

http://www.belizelodge.com/home.html

• Held meeting with management representatives from TIDE, YCT, and Golden Stream Corridor and Alcaldes from Indian Creek and Golden Stream March 17, 2010, 5pm to 8pm. In attendance were 14 local leaders.

• Direct email and phone contact culminating in meeting with the Belize Association for Private Protected Areas (BAPPA) on March 19, 2010 in Belize City, Belize.

• Visited Indian Creek Village, and sharing the CCB Project PDD with the Indian Creek Village and hosted public meetings at Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village, April 10th, 2010 (Figure 9: Poster advertising CCB public stakeholder meetings April 10th, 2010). Indian Creek Village meeting had 31 attendees with formal representation from the Indian Creek Village Parent Teacher Association, primary school, water board, Chairman, Secretary, Vice President, and Alcalde. Golden Stream Village meeting had 9 attendees with formal representation including the Alcalde, Chairmen, and others.

• Displayed for all clients of BLE at Indian Creek eco-lodge entrance point since late February.

• Displayed and shared with all BLE employees and their community members through printed materials and presentations with staff stakeholder meeting attended by 7 local women and 16 local men and local men and local women in managerial positions on Wednesday March 17th, 2010 at 5pm.

• The PDD was made available on the CCBA webpage and open to public comments (http://www.climate-standards.org/projects/index.html) beginning February 12, 2010.

• Public meetings held at Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village, April 10th, 2010 (Figure 9: Poster advertising CCB public stakeholder meetings April 10th, 2010).

• Held meeting with YCT leadership Monday April 12, 2009 in Punta Gorda.


Figure 11: Poster advertising CCB public stakeholder meetings April 10th, 2010


G3.10. Conflict Resolution Tools The BAPPA has tentatively agreed to serve as an independent 3rd party in country to receive and document grievances related to the CCB project. BAPPA will tentatively serve as a mediator keeping all parties informed of the status of grievances and their resolution. A record of grievances and their resolution will be a part of the monitoring process for future verifications. Stakeholder grievances related to employment will be handled according to Belizean law through the Belize Labor Department. G3.11. Project Financial Support Primary expenses are to stabilize the ecotourism operation, pay for patrols, and pay for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and community monitoring expenses. A complete financial plan was made available to the auditor.

G4. Management Capacity and Best Practices

G4.1. Project Proponents BCEP is the Project proponent. BCEP has hired FCO to develop the strategy, implementation, and monitoring of the carbon credits generated by this Project. FCO has hired CMI Virginia Tech to collect initial data, develop the monitoring protocol and conduct the baseline study for the monitoring program. Supporting documents are available by contacting FCO. BLE is the partner actually conducting the ecotourism enterprise. Decisions on implementation of the Project activities are the responsibility of the BCEP board. FCO will be a member of the BCEP board at least through 2014. G4.2. Technical and Management Expertise The key technical skills to implement the project are:

• The business skills required to successfully run a large and complex ecotourism operation,

• The managerial skills to manage the property effectively, • The diplomatic skills to successfully interact with the local communities, and • The technical skills to conduct monitoring on a periodic basis.

The leadership team at BLE and BCEP have over a decade of experience working in Belize on this project already and have adequate to superb skills in managing the property and the ecotourism operation. A large component of that management team consists of local Mayan individuals trained by BCEP/BLE. The Director of BCEP is Ken Karas. Mr. Karas has over 12


years experience in Belize and was the founder of BLE and BCEP. Mr. Karas has extensive experience in developing and managing the ecotourism operation in Belize. The diplomatic skills needed to successfully work with the local communities will be bolstered by the addition of a staff member dedicated to interacting with the villages and other stakeholders. This staff member will be a local Mayan community member who has the capacity to translate, on a daily basis, into Ke’kchi and Mopan Mayan languages. This staff member needs to understand the local community organization and power centers and have the communication and listening skills necessary to present the Project in a non-threatening and educational manner. Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC managerial experience is considerable with current biographies available at www.forestcarbonoffsets.net. Conservation Management Institute (CMI) serves as technical support for project design and monitoring. CMI is a research center within the College of Natural Resources at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA. CMI has extensive experience in monitoring protocol development and implementation for natural resources throughout North America with additional experience in Belize, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, and Nepal. CMI successfully conducted the most recent biodiversity studies on the property (Miller and Miller 2008, Emrick and Dorr 2008). Training of local BCEP staff in monitoring techniques has already taken place and will continue. G4.3. Capacity Building BCEP/BLE will employ and train local staff from Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village and other villages in the following roles:

• Rangers and patrols • Assisting forest carbon data collection • Assisting biodiversity data collection • Ecotourism services • Accounting • Personnel Management • Maintenance

BCEP employs local people within its operation. The local community is almost entirely Mayan, a minority ethnic group in Belize representing 11% of Belize’s population according its 2000 census.34 The Project also increases female labor force participation locally by focusing on hiring female head-of-households. Furthermore, this Project has increased knowledge transfer across the public and private sectors within Belize focusing on carbon sequestration. BCEP will serve as an example to the Belize Association of Private Protected Areas (BAPPA) to

34http://celade.cepal.org/cgibin/RpWebEngine.exe/PortalAction?&MODE=MAIN&BASE=CPVBLZ2000&MAIN=WebServerMain.inl.


http://www.forestcarbonoffsets.net/

http://celade.cepal.org/cgibin/RpWebEngine.exe/PortalAction?&MODE=MAIN&BASE=CPVBLZ2000&MAIN=WebServerMain.inl

http://celade.cepal.org/cgibin/RpWebEngine.exe/PortalAction?&MODE=MAIN&BASE=CPVBLZ2000&MAIN=WebServerMain.inl

demonstrate to them how carbon sequestration, biodiversity protection, and sustainable local economic development can co-exist within both the private and public sectors. G4.4. Community Employment Opportunities The Project will employ individuals from the local communities patrolling and monitoring the Project Area. Employment opportunities will be advertised. Employment at BCEP will follow Belize labor law and codes. Women and underrepresented minorities will be encouraged to apply for the positions. Employees will be chosen based on capacity to meet the needs of BCEP so as BCEP can perform its business mission. G4.5. Employment Laws BCEP will follow all applicable labor laws under Belize Labour Act Chapter 297, Labour Act 297S – Subsidiary Act, and Belize International Labour Organization Conventions Act Chapter 304:01 Revised Edition 2003.35 BCEP is obliged, under Belizean laws to follow appropriate safe labor practices toward the prevention of injuries in the workplace. Additionally BCEP will comply with all other applicable local, district, and national workplace standards. Belize has the following relevant labor laws:

• International Labour Organization Conventions Act, • Labour Act, • Labour (Subsidiary Laws), • Protection Against Sexual Harassment Act, • Protection Against Sexual Harassment Commencement Act Order, • Public Safety Act, • Trade Unions Act, • Trade Unions Regulations, • Trade Unions and Employers Organizations (Registration, Status and Recognition) Act,

and • Trade Unions and Employers Organizations (Registration, Status and Recognition) Act

(Commencement) Order. Employees are made aware of their legal rights when they sign a contract to work for BCEP. Currently, BCEP employees are expected to be paid according to Belize labor standards and in a timely manner according to Belize labor standards. A plan is in place, and disclosed to the auditors, to use income from this project to buffer cash flow issues for payroll which has been the source of complaints in the past. G4.6. Employee Safety All local, district, and national workplace standards will be met at the moment of hiring of each staff member. Local regulations and safety concerns will be discussed with each employee with

35 www.belizelaw.org.


http://www.belizelaw.org/

an emphasis on guaranteeing workplace safety according to Belizean law. 36 Each employee signs a work contract that certifies that safety information has been communicated. Safety information is available in Table 12: Employee Safety. Table 12: Employee Safety Hazard Safety Strategy and Equipment Snake bite First aid training.

Adequate boots. Radios. Minimum 2 person crews.

Poachers Radios. Minimum 2 person crews.

Boat accidents Radios. Personal flotation devices.

Vehicle accidents Radios. Machete cuts First aid training.

First aid kit. Radios. Minimum 2 person crews. Eye protection. Adequate boots.

Chainsaw cuts First aid training. First aid kit. Radios. Minimum 2 person crews. Eye and ear protection. Chaps. Adequate boots.

G4.7. Financial Health of the Implementing Organizations Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC (FCO) is a United States registered private limited liability company and, as such, is governed by the corporation laws of the United Sates which ensure that, at all times, the company remain financially solvent and able to meet its liabilities. FCO is owned by independent shareholders of good standing and has a Board of Directors. It is sufficiently capitalized to ensure completion of the Project. More information about FCO is available on the FCO web site at http://forestcarbonoffsets.net. Carbon financing received after contractual obligations will fund BCEP to pay for the management and monitoring activities. A management and financial plan was made available to the auditors.

36 http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jbzlab.html.


http://forestcarbonoffsets.net/

http://www.lowtax.net/lowtax/html/jbzlab.html

G5. Legal Status and Property Rights G5.1. Local Laws and Regulations BCEP complies will comply with all applicable local, district, and national labor standards. BCEP follows all applicable environmental laws including the Belize Environmental Protection Act Chapter 328, Revised Edition 2000.37 Belize has the following relevant labor laws:

• International Labour Organization Conventions Act, • Labour Act, • Labour (Subsidiary Laws), • Protection Against Sexual Harassment Act, • Protection Against Sexual Harassment Commencement Act Order, • Public Safety Act, • Trade Unions Act, • Trade Unions Regulations, • Trade Unions and Employers Organizations (Registration, Status and Recognition) Act,

and • Trade Unions and Employers Organizations (Registration, Status and Recognition) Act

(Commencement) Order. The project team conducted an exhaustive law review for the PDD:

• Belize Private Forests (Conservation) Act, Chapter 217, Revised Edition 2000.

o This is a revised edition of the law, prepared by the Law Revision Commissioner under the authority of the Law Revision Act, Chapter 3 of the Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 1980 - 1990.

• Forests Act, Chapter 213, Revised Edition 2003. o This is a revised edition of the Subsidiary Laws, prepared by the Law Revision

Commissioner under the authority of the Law Revision Act, Chapter 3 of the Substantive Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 2000.

• Forest Fire Protection Act, Chapter 212, Revised Edition 2000. • Water and Sewage Act, Chapter 222.

o Defines riparian protection as “that the flow of the stream does not fall below the minimum quantity necessary to secure the interest of public health and the protection of the rights of riparian and other land-owners.” (p. 46)

• Water Industry Act, Chapter 222. • Belize Agricultural Health Authority Act, Chapter 211. • Fisheries Act, Chapter 210.




• Timber Industry Act, Chapter 341. • Land Utilization Act, Chapter 188.

o The Minister may, for the better utilization of land, make regulations- to demarcate areas, water catchment areas or watersheds and prohibiting

the clearing of any vegetation within those areas; to provide for such other measures as may be required to prevent soil

erosion; restricting the construction of buildings within stipulated distances from

the middle line of any road or street; to demarcate specific areas as special development areas and to stipulate

the type of development that will be permitted within those areas; for the clearing of any forest or the felling of any trees; and to provide for all such other things as may be necessary for the better

carrying out of the provisions of this Part of the Act. • Citrus (Processing and Production) Act, Chapter 277.

From this analysis and based on personal communication with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment and the Belize Forest Department, it is clear that the BCEP property could easily be converted legally to a citrus plantation. The only caveat is that there must be a one-chain riparian buffer on either side of Golden Stream and Boden Creek (personal communication with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, Belize). There are no property disputes within the Project Area per personal communication with the Belize Forestry Department and the legal resources assisting with the claims of the 38 Mayan villages of southern Belize. G5.2. Documentation of Legal Approval FCO warrants that all actions and documentation for the Project establishment as a carbon sequestration Project have and will be met. Private legal documents have been shared with the verifier upon the auditor’s request. Deeds have been reviewed and read by the auditor. The Mayan Atlas has been reviewed. The Project does not encroach upon community property. Even though the property is privately held and no approvals are required from the Government of Belize or the local communities, verbal support of the local village leadership (the Alcaldes) has been secured. G5.3. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent BCEP owns the property fee simple. Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property. A completed independent title search has been conducted. The Project does not encroach upon private property, community property, or government property. According to the Belize Forestry Ministry and the Maya Atlas (Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997), the property has not been associated with any Maya communal land claims.


G5.4. Involuntary Relocations The project proponents have verified by direct observation that the Project site does not have human inhabitants other than staff and visitors to the eco-lodges. Moreover, Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC has observed that the Project does not involve the relocation or inward migration of any people. G5.5. Illegal Activities Project activities include regular patrols to address illegal hunting, timber poaching, or wood gathering. These regular patrols have been occurring since 2002 and because of this, have assisted with improving the local biodiversity onsite. According to local residents of Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village, the regular patrols of BCEP have resulted in improved hunting for animals that then enter the communal properties of the two villages (personal communication). A recent reduction in cash flow has led to a reduction of patrols. Carbon financing is expected to allow a return to previous patrol frequency. G5.6. Carbon Rights Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC has a legally binding agreement with the landowner which transfers management of the environmental service rights of the property. The agreement also sets out the obligations and responsibilities placed on the landowners for the duration of the Project. BCEP follows all applicable environmental laws including the Belize Environmental Protection Act Chapter 328, Revised Edition 2000.38 Belize ratified the Kyoto Protocol September 26, 2003. BCEP title proof is available if requested from the Department of Land and Surveys, Market Square, Belmopan, Belize (Table 5: BCEP land registry information). Climate Section

CL1. Net Positive Climate Impacts CL1.1. Net Change in Carbon Stocks Section G2.3 provides detailed discussion of the assumptions and data used to calculate changes in carbon stocks for the baseline scenario and with project scenario. In summary, over the course of the project we estimate that there will be ex ante (2010 – 2029) avoided emissions of 1,298,324 mtCO2e of GHG.




CL1.2. Net Change in Non-CO2 Gases The Project does not expect the impact of non-CO2 gases to account for more than a 5% increase or decrease in the Project’s overall greenhouse gas impact. Carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas emitted when a forest is cleared. Other gases such as methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are also emitted during deforestation, but in significantly lower quantities than CO2). When compared to CO2, the methane and nitrous oxide emissions from deforestation account for significantly less of the total potential of global warming effect from deforestation (Houghton 2005). CL1.3. Other GHG Emissions from Project Activities No other GHG emissions as previous mentioned are considered within the Project activities. CL1.4. Positive Net Climate Impact According to Sections CL1.1 and CL1.2 the contribution of the Project toward climate change mitigation by GHG emission reduction is evident. Belize is a deforesting nation, and this project avoids deforestation. CL1.5. Avoid Double-Counting All of the Project’s emission reductions will be registered and held by an independent public third-party registry to insure property accounting. There is no national carbon accounting registry for Belize.

CL2. Offsite Climate Impacts CL2.1. Types of Leakage Leakage caused by the project at BCEP is expected to be minimal and have no discernible effects on offsite GHG emissions or decrease sequestration. The current owners have owned the property since 2000. Prior to the initiation of project activities BCEP was managed as a private nature preserve with activities such as hunting, fuel wood gathering, “milpa” farming and wood product harvesting eliminated. As a result there are no activities that are being displaced as a result of the project and thus no negative offsite impacts. CL2.2. Mitigation of Negative Offsite Impacts There are no foreseen negative offsite climate impacts. CL2.3. Unmitigated Negative Offsite Climate Impacts


As described above, the Project has and will continue to create additional positive climate benefits within the community. Offsite negative climate impacts are expected to be zero. On the contrary, the most likely result of the project is that more landowners conduct similar projects thereby increasing the climate benefits of the project. CL2.4. Unmitigated Negative Offsite Non-CO2 Climate Impacts As described above, the Project has no significant non-CO2 emissions in either the “with-” or “without-Project” scenario.

CL3. Climate Impact Monitoring CL3.1. Carbon Pool Selection and Monitoring The goal of the climate monitoring for BCEP is insure that estimates of carbon stocks and GHG emissions are accurate and updated. We based the calculation of differences in GHG emissions on the growth rate of the recovering forests, the deforestation rate, and carbon stocks calculated from field data in 2009. We have two objectives for the monitoring plan at BCEP: Objective 1: Update Forest Growth Rates and Carbon Stocks In 2009 we measured the above ground biomass (standing live tree) pool and interpolated the below ground biomass using accepted regression equations (see section G1.4). The above ground biomass was calculated using allometric equations based on the size of hardwood trees >5cm DBH and the height of palms. Data was collected in the field using nested fixed area plots. Each individual tree inventoried was tagged and given a unique ID for future monitoring. Each plot will be revisited at maximum of every 5 years. All of the tagged trees will be re-assessed and the DBH and height measured. The resultant data will be used to recalculate growth rates and above ground carbon stocks. These data will be compared to the estimated values and adjustments made to the growth rates and carbon stocks as required. The below ground biomass will be recalculated using accepted regression equations based upon the updated above ground biomass data. Objective 2: Updated Deforestation Rates The deforestation rate used in our estimation of GHG emissions was the relatively conservative national rate of 2.3%. We calculated deforestation rates from a reference area surrounding the BCEP Project Area. However these data were highly variable and not sufficient to model future rates. Other published rates indicated deforestation rates as high as 13%. In order improve the accuracy of estimated GHG emissions we will continue to monitor deforestation rates within the reference area and review all new published rates that are applicable to the project. Deforestation will be monitored on an annual basis and incorporated into our estimations of GHG emissions.


CL3.2. Monitoring Plan Forest Carbon Offsets, LLC and their partners are committed to expanding on the above monitoring and create a full detailed monitoring plan within twelve months of validation and to make that plan available to the public. Carbon pools selected are above-ground and below-ground biomass. Other potential pools are minor and would only add to the total climate benefit of the project. Community Section

CM1. Net Positive Community Impacts CM1.1. Community Benefits BCEP is an organization that places people and communities at the center of sustainability, and to meet this goal, BCEP will work directly with the local Mayan communities to provide employment opportunities and training opportunities assisting and aiding long-term economic and cultural continuity of the communities of Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village. The metric for long-term net positive community impacts is employment levels/livelihoods. This is the most important and most direct benefit to the communities within the Project Zone which are Golden Stream Village and Indian Creek Village. BCEP has followed the strategy described in the National Poverty Elimination Plan 2007-2011 (Mendoza and Hyde 2007) for the Toledo District, Belize, by developing private sector non-farm rural labor employment opportunities that provide specific skill training in the following roles:

• Business management (e.g. labor allocation, scheduling, planning, payroll, supplies, regulation compliance)

• Ecotourism services • Rangers and patrols • Assisting forest carbon data collection • Assisting biodiversity data collection

In 2002, the poverty rate for Toledo stood at 79% indicating the population was below the national poverty line of US$643.74 (Mendoza and Hyde 2007). The Project will focus on alleviating local poverty levels through “green” sustainable business employment. Under the baseline scenario, the conversion of the BCEP property to citrus would result in a small number of short term low-paying agricultural jobs planting and maintaining the citrus trees (Medina 1997). At harvest time, a larger number of migrant laborers would be employed (Medina 1997). The citrus farm would be the major employer for members of the local


community by providing them non-skilled seasonal employment (Moberg 1990, Moberg 1996, Moberg 1997). This is countered by the much higher pay and greater stability offered by tourism jobs as proposed in the with project scenario. In addition to the overall positive economic impact of the with project scenario on the local community in Indian Creek and Golden Stream at large, the Project employs a number of women. Employment of non-migrant women in agriculture and particularly citrus is rare (Moberg 1991). Using a metric that focuses on jobs aligns the Project’s goals directly with two of the key pillars of the National Poverty Elimination Action Plan 2007-2011 that is 1) promoting private sector investment and employment and 2) improving the fit between available skills and private sector demand. The without-Project scenario assumes the community members of Indian Creek Village and Golden Stream Village would primarily become seasonal citrus workers. According to Moberg 1990:

“The citrus industry makes its most intensive use of labor during the harvest season from October to March. During this time, local labor supplies are insufficient for the amount of fruit in need of harvesting, and thousands of foreign workers (primarily Guatemalans and Salvadorans) are admitted to Stann Creek district (next to Toledo District) to complete the harvest. Processors contend that these hiring practices are necessary because Belizeans are unwilling to work at prevailing wage rates for harvest labor.”

One source of complaints in the past at BCEP/BLE has been late payment of wages. This is being addressed by the project by means of a payroll fund that can be used to stabilize income when the ecotourism operation goes through unstable periods. This will also be addressed by a method of electronic payments so delays in handling paper checks are eliminated. The BCEP leadership has also committed to a program of supporting high school scholarships. The high school in this area of Belize requires a tuition payment for attendance. While this is not envisioned as a metric of the project, successfully stabilizing the financial situation will allow BCEP to provide several scholarships per year for deserving students. Initial discussions with the principal of the high school have been conducted with the idea of having the principal administer to program. This program would only be instituted if BCEP is financially successful. Pine Hill Mennonite Community is also within the Project Zone yet they remain in relative self-imposed isolation. BCEP provided an informal right-of-way easement for the Pine Hill Mennonite Community to cross BCEP property allowing the community access to the local market.39 CM1.2. Impact on High Conservation Values

39 Friesen, Heinrich P. "Upper Barton Creek Colony, Belize." Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1989. Web. 29 March 2010. http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/U64.html


http://www.gameo.org/encyclopedia/contents/U64.html

The only community HCV identified is the Nim Li Punit archaeological site. This site is in the Project Zone, but not in the Project area. This site is owned and operated by the Government of Belize. The with project scenario will result in significant increases in visitation by tourists, and presumably a higher likelihood that the Government of Belize will maintain and protect the site. Looting of archaeological sites is still a problem in Belize. The without project scenario would not have a direct negative impact on the HCV, but a reduction in visitation would not be good for future allocations of resources to the site by the Government of Belize. CM2. Offsite Stakeholder Impacts CM2.1. Potential Negative Offsite Stakeholder Impacts The Project is not expected to have negative social impacts on the communities outside of the Project Area. CM2.2. Plans to Mitigate Potential Offsite Impacts It is not expected that the Project will negatively impact any of offsite communities. In the case of any potential negative impacts, representatives of the impacted community will bring it to the attention of the conflict resolution coordinator. CM2.3. Unmitigated Offsite Impacts No unmitigated social or economic impacts are expected from the Project.

CM3. Community Impact Monitoring CM3.1. Community Impact Monitoring Plan To measure the socio-economic impacts of the with-Project scenario, the monitoring metric will be annual employment of local community personnel in annual work-hours actualized for the Project and measured against the without Project scenario. Monitoring data will include payroll records, annual audits, and records maintained by the Belize Labor Department. Comparisons will be made between project metrics and the most recent Toledo District census40 to determine the number of full-time-equivalent jobs that pay at least 2.5 times the poverty rate with 100% timely payroll according to the Belize Labor Act. This metric will be compared to the number of potential jobs provided by citrus plantations.

40 2002 Belize Poverty Assessment Report 2004. National Human Development Advisory Committee, Government of Belize. http://www.statisticsbelize.org.bz/dms20uc/dm_filedetails.asp?action=d&did=13


CM3.2. Community Impact on High Conservation Values The only HCV identified is the Nim Li Punit archaeological site. Since the project has no control or direct input to the operations of the site monitoring will simply consist of a confirmation that the site is still in existence. CM3.1. Community Impact Monitoring Plan Development Commitment Within twelve months of Project validation a monitoring plan will be developed and implemented according to CM3.1.

Biodiversity Section

B1. Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts B1.1. Biodiversity Impacts The biodiversity objective for the Project is to maintain existing biodiversity and HCVs to the extent possible barring set backs from natural processes. With Project Scenario The with project scenario presumes that with proper protection of the site, the exceptional existing biodiversity of the site will be maintained. By providing patrols to eliminate hunting and illegal removal of tree cover, existing populations and habitat will remain on the site. Any potential impacts to populations or habitat will be from natural causes only. The existing biodiversity including multiple HCVs are described in detail in Appendix C. The following surveys were conducted:

• Bats: Bats are excellent indicators of forest health. • Large-medium mammals: Apex predators are keystone predators that indicate ecosystem

health. Mid-size mammals are important contributors to seed dispersal and as prey for apex predators.

• Birds: Surveys for birds were included to identify potential populations of IUCN listed species and to get an overview of the bird fauna. A full bird survey was not conducted.

• Anecdotal Observations: Anecdotal observations of other species were noted. Without Project Scenario The without project scenario presumes that the property is in large part converted to agricultural uses removing all native habitat from approximately half the property in one large block. Patrols


to eliminate hunting and illegal removal of forest cover would not occur, and expectations are that significant negative impacts to hunted species and predators that rely on hunted species would result. Habitat for forest species is unavailable in agricultural habitats (citrus, aquaculture, and pasture), and while some species do occur in agricultural settings, there is little or no overlap in the biodiversity of the forest and the biodiversity of agricultural fields/plantations. Based on extensive review of the literature, and in the professional opinion of the biologist on staff41, there is little value in documenting this well known difference. B1.2. Impact on High Conservation Values The with project scenario will maintain existing HCVs by means of regular patrols. This project addresses multiple High Conservation Values (Table 7: High Conservation Values on BCEP and Project Zone) in the form of threatened species (8.8.b) and globally and regionally significant large landscape-level areas where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance (8.2) plus protection of the Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary which encompasses World Heritage Site coral reef habitat at risk from water quality degradation (WRI 2005) and global climate change (8.3). The nature of the project, forest conservation and ecotourism, should result in enhancing ecosystem services (G1.8.4) by virtue of preventing the removal of natural vegetation. Maintenance of natural vegetation is required to secure populations of 15 IUCN species (Table 6: Species of Special Conservation Concern Documented on the Project Site). Maintenance of natural vegetation will be required to secure Mesoamerican Biological Corridor and Conservation International “Biodiversity Hotspot”. B1.3. Species Used by the Project No species are being used by this Project since this Project protects a natural native forest.

B1.4. Exotic Species in the Project Area There are no exotic species used in the Project Area.

B1.5. Genetically Modified Organisms The Project will not use any genetically modified organisms in its operations.

B2. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts B2.1. Potential Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts The Project does not anticipate any offsite negative biodiversity impacts. Offsite impacts will be positive since larger habitat and forest areas will improve the long-term viability of populations offsite. Avoiding conversion to citrus or aquaculture also avoids release of sediment and agricultural chemicals into waterways and the Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary. 41 Personal Communication, Jeff Waldon, Certified Wildlife Biologist.


B2.2. Mitigation of Potential Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts If any negative impact is identified, the BCEP team and the community representative will address such problems with fast and effective solutions. The issue will be discussed and mitigation actions will be designed.

B2.3. Evaluation of Potential Negative Offsite Biodiversity Impacts The Project does not anticipate any offsite negative biodiversity impacts. Most offsite impacts will be positive since larger habitat and forest areas will improve the long-term viability of populations offsite. Avoiding conversion to citrus or aquaculture also avoids release of sediment and agricultural chemicals into waterways and the Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary.

B3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring B3.1. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Plan The initial plan for biodiversity metrics is described in Table 13: Objectives of Biodiversity Monitoring. Table 13: Objectives of Biodiversity Monitoring Taxa Why Method Analysis Bat Species Assemblage

Assessment of ecosystem health and ecological processes

Sampling array of remote acoustical detectors

Diversity indices, species richness, species heterogeneity, species evenness, and relative activity indices

Medium-Large Mammal Assemblage

Assessment of ecosystem health, and investigation of “Empty Forest Syndrome” by human over-hunting pressures.

Sampling array of camera traps (15-20 stations minimum of 750 trap nights)

Diversity indices, species richness, species heterogeneity, species evenness, relative trap success, and population size analysis for individually identifiable species (e.g. jaguar)

Opportunistic observations of avian and mammalian IUCN listed species

Document presence absence of additional IUCN species of concern

Time constrained expert searches focused on target species in appropriate habitats during appropriate seasons.

Continued presence/absence documentation of species of global concern.


Without project biodiversity will be determined through published habitat associations and professional opinion from qualified biologists. A full biodiversity monitoring plan will be prepared and made public within 12 months of validation. Proposed locations of biodiversity permanent monitoring sites follows in Figure 12: Example of a proposed monitoring grid for bat acoustics and remote cameras on BCEP.

Figure 1: Example of a proposed monitoring grid for bat acoustics and remote cameras on BCEP


B3.2. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Effectiveness The primary strategy used to maintain the biodiversity HCVs is to protect the property through patrols. The monitoring metric is presence/absence of the biodiversity HCVs. Loss of an IUCN species is not necessarily considered a failure of the project if that loss is not linked to anthropomorphic factors like hunting. Maintenance of forest cover (as determined by permanent plots and satellite imagery) and the habitats within the forest is the responsibility of the project. Monitoring of selected biodiversity HCVs will be conducted and is expected to be 100% effective at determining presence/absence of those HCVs. B3.3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Implementation A full monitoring plan as described in section B3.1. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring Plan will be initiated within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate this plan and the results of monitoring. This monitoring plan will be made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders for public comment. Once approved, the plan will be executed on Boden Creek Ecological Preserve for the initial monitoring period. The same repeatable methodologies will be followed up again at least every 5 years by qualified trained biologists from the date of registration with the CCBA.

Gold Level

GL3. Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits GL3.1. Vulnerability Project site protects habitat for at least five endangered IUCN endangered species detected and multiple species globally, nationally, or locally rare and endangered (Table 14: IUCN Endangered Species). Project site protects water quality for the Port Honduras Marine Sanctuary and World Heritage Site coral reef system. Project site is within the Mesoamerica Biodiversity Hotspot as identified by Conservation International42. See Appendix C for details. Table 14: IUCN Endangered Species Common name Scientific name Status Baird's tapir Tapirus bairdii IUCN-EN Yucatan black howler monkey Alouatta pigra IUCN-EN Geoffroy’s spider monkey Ateles geoffroyi IUCN-EN

42 See Mesoamerica Biodiversity Hotspot available at http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/mesoamerica/Pages/default.aspx accessed 1/21/2010.



Yellow-headed parrot43 Amazona oratrix IUCN-EN Central American river turtle44 Dermatemys mawii IUCN-EN

43 Note: Yellow-headed parrot habitat is successional and declining on the property due to natural processes. It is unlikely that Yellow-headed parrot will be found on the property throughout the project period. 44 Observed by Bowen-Jones (2001). Monitoring is not envisioned for this species due to technical and budgetary constraints. Anecdotal observations will be recorded.


Literature Cited Adams, R. E. W. and N. Hammond. 1982. Maya Archaeology, 1976-1980: A Review of Major Publications. Journal of Field Archaeology, 9: 487-512. Baillie, I.C., Wright, A.C.S., M. A. Holder, and E. A. FitzPatrick. 1993. Revised Classification of the Soils of Belize. NRI Bulletin 59. Chatham, UK: Natural Resources Institute. Beach T., N. Dunning, S. Luzzadder-Beach, D.E. Cook and J. Lohse. 2006. Impacts of the ancient Maya on soils and soil erosion in the central Maya Lowlands. CATENA 65(2) pp 166-178. Bowen-Jones, E. 2001. Belize Lodge Excursions Biodiversity Assessment. Fauna and Flora International. Chomitz, K.M., and D. A. Gray. 1996. Roads, Land Use, and Deforestation: A Spatial Model Applied to Belize. The World Bank Economic Review 10.3: (487-512). Congalton, R.G. 1991. A Review of Assessing the Accuracy of Classifications of Remotely Sensed Data. Remote Sensing of Environment 37:35-46 De Vries, G.W., M.F. Haines, S.B. Hufnagel, A.K. Laird, K.D. Rearick, and O.E. Salas. 2003. Enhancing Collaboration for Conservation in Southern Belize. MSc Thesis, University of Michigan. Emrick, V.R. and J. Dorr. 2008. Preliminary Assessment of the Vegetative Cover Types and Habitat Structure of the Boden Creek Reserve, Toledo District, Belize. Draft Report Virginia Tech Conservation Management Institute. 12 pages. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2003. Belize; Facing the Climate Change. Central american series on forest and climate change. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/AD438E/AD438E00.HTM Accessed 05 January 2010. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2005. National Report : Belize. Latin American Forestry Sector Outlook Study Working Paper. http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/j4051b/j4051b00.htm Accessed 06 January 2010. Frangi, J. L. and Lugo, A. E. 1998. A Flood Plain Palm Forest in the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico Five Years After Hurricane Hugo. Biotropica 30: 339-348. Geist, H. J. and E. F. Lambin. 2002. Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation. Bioscience 52:143-150. Gibbs, H. K., S. Brown, J.O. Niles, J.A. Foley, and M. Herold. 2007. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: Making REDD. Environmental Research Letters 2(4), Institute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, UK.


http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/006/AD438E/AD438E00.HTM

http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/j4051b/j4051b00.htm

Guariguata, M.R. and R. Ostertag. 2001. Neotropical secondary forest succession: Changes in structural and functional characteristics. Forest Ecology and Management 148: 185-206. Hammond, N. 1976. A New Maya Ceremonial Centre in Belize. lLN Archaeology Section 2919 pp. 49-50. Hughes, R.F., et al, 1999. Biomass, carbon, and nutrient dynamics of secondary forests in a humid tropical region of Mexico. Ecology 80, 1892–1907. Houghton, R. A. 2005. Tropical deforestation as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Moutinho, P. & Schwartzman, S. eds. Tropical deforestation and climate change. Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia - IPAM; Environmental Defense. Belém, Pará, Brasil. 131 pp. Hutto R. L., S. M. Pletschet, and P. Hendricks. 1986. A fixed-radius point count method for nonbreeding and breeding season use. The Auk 103:593-602. Jenson, J.R. 2005. Introductory Digital Image Processing: A Remote Sensing Perspective, 3rd Ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ. Jones, G., D. S. Jacobs, T. H. Kunz, M.R. Willig, P. A. Racey. 2009. Carpe noctem: the importance of bats as bioindicators. Endangered Species Research: 8: 93-115. Konrad, H. W. 1996. Caribbean Tropical Storms Revista Mexicana del Caribe1: 98-130. Kunz, T. H., and A. Kurta. 1988. Capture Methods and Holding Devices. Pages 1-29 in T. H. Kunz, editor. Ecological and Behavioral methods for the study of bats. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC. Levasseur, V. and Oliver, A. 2000. The farming system and traditional agroforestry systems in the Maya community of San Jose, Belize. Agroforestry Systems 49: (275-288). Lopez, R., and C. Scoseria. 1996. Environmental sustainability and poverty in Belize: a policy paper. Environment and Development Economics 1: (289-307). Lugo, A. E., et al. 2000. Effects and outcomes of Caribbean hurricanes in a climate change scenario. Science of the Total Environment 262: 243-251. Markham, B.L., and J.L. Barker. 1986. Landsat MSS and TM post-calibration dynamic ranges, exoatmospheric reflectances and at-satellite temperatures. EOSAT Technical Notes, August 1986. Medellin, R.A., M. Equiua, and M. A. Amin. 2000. Bat diversity and abundance as indicators of disturbance in Neotropical Rainforests. Conserv. Biol. 14: 1666–1675.


Medellin, R.A., and O. Gaona. 1999. Seed dispersal by bats and birds in forest and disturbed habitats of Chiapas, Mexico. Biotropica 31: 478–485. Medina, L.K. 1997. Development Policies and Identity Politics: Class and Collectivity in Belize. American Ethnologist 24: 148-169. Meerman, J.C. 2001. A first assessment of damage to terrestrial ecosystems in Southern Belize as caused by Hurricane Iris of October 8, 2001. Pp. 1-8. Meerman, J. and W. Sabido. 2001. Central American Ecosystems: Belize. Programme for Belize, Belize City. 2 volumes 50 + 88 pp. Meerman, J.C. and W. Sabido. 2001. Central America Ecosystems Map: Belize. CCAD/World Bank/Programme for Belize. Version 20060405 Mendoza, P.B. and Y.S. Hyde. 2007. (Belize) National Poverty Elimination Action Plan (NPEAP) 2007—2011. http://www.belize.gov.bz/public/Data/9112715241671.pdf Miller, B. W. 2009. A Risk Assessment of the Bats of Belize, Phase I, in the context of the Selva Maya Region. Neotropical bat project and the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund, Research Paper Report. Number: 1-236. Miller, B.W. and C, M. Miller. 1992. Field data for birds of Golden Stream, Medina Bank and Forest Hill, Bladen. Pers. Comm. Miller, B. W. and M. J. St. Germain 2009. Results of acoustic bat surveys at Boden Creek Ecological Preserve December 2009. Miller, C. M. 2000. Corridor Use in an Agricultural Landscape at Gallon Jug, Belize, Central America. Masters thesis. University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, Kent, U,K, Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology.104 pp. Miller, C. M. 2003. Jaguar Track Measurements: Investigation of a Potential Survey Method. WCS Belize Terrestrial Program Technical Report. 13pp. Miller, C. M. 2005a. Jaguar Density in La Selva Maya. WCS Belize Terrestrial Program Technical Report. 13 pp. Miller, C. M. 2005b. Jaguar Density in Gallon Jug Estate, Belize. WCS Belize Terrestrial Program Technical Report. 23 pp. Miller, C. M. 2006. Jaguar Density in Fireburn, Belize. WCS Belize Terrestrial Program Technical Report. 11 pp. Miller, C. M. and Miller, B. W. 2008. Status Report on Belize Lodge & Excursions Property including Boden Creek Ecological Reserve. 20 pp.


http://www.belize.gov.bz/public/Data/9112715241671.pdf

Moberg, M. 1990. Class Resistance and Class Hegemony: From Conflict to Co-optation in the Citrus Industry of Belize. Ethnology 29: 189-207. Moberg, M. 1991. Citrus and the State: Factions and Class Formation in Rural Belize. American Ethnologist, 18: 215-233. Moberg M. 1996. Myths that divide: immigrant labor and class segmentation in the Belizean banana industry. Am. Ethnol. 23:311-30. Moberg M. 1997. Myth of Ethnicity and Nation: Immigration, Work and Identity in the Belize Banana Industry. Knoxville: Univ. Tenn. Press. Moore, M.L. 2007. An examination of contributing factors to land use/land cover change in southern Belize and the use of satellite image analysis to track changes. Master’s thesis, Iowa State University. O'Farrell, M. J. and Miller, B. W. 1999. Use of vocal signatures for the inventory of free-flying Neotropical bats. Biotropica 31: 507-516. Pearson T., S. Walker and S. Brown. 2005. Sourcebook for land use, land-use change and forestry projects. Winrock International and the BioCarbon Fund of the World Bank. Pérez-Salicrup, D. R., S.A. Schnitzer, F.E. Putz. 2004. Community ecology and management of lianas. Forest Ecology and Management 190(1) pp 118. Reid, F. A. 1997. A Field Guide to the Mammals of Central America and Southeast Mexico. Oxford University Press. Sampaio, E.M. et al. 2003. A Biodiversity Assessment of Bats (Chiroptera) in a Tropical Lowland Rainforest of Central Amazonia, Including Methodological and Conservation Considerations. Studies on Neotropical Fauna and Environment Vol. 38(1); pp. 17-31. Steinberg, M.K. 1998. Mopan Maya Forest Resources in Southern Belize. Geographical Review, 88: 131-137. St Germain, M. J., V. R Emrick, B. W.Miller, K. Hassouna, and R. M. Schneider. 2009. Biodiversity and Community Monitoring of the Boden Creek Ecological Preserve, Toledo District, Belize. Tanner, E. V. J., Kapos, V. and Healey, J. R. 1991. Hurricane Effects on Forest Ecosystems in the Caribbean. Biotropica 23: 513-521. Toledo Maya Cultural Council 1997. Maya Atlas: The Struggle to Preserve Maya Land in Southern Belize. Toledo Maya Cultural Council and Toledo Alcaldes Association. North Atlantic Books, PO Box 12327, Berkeley, CA 94712. 151 pp.


USGS. 2006. Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics 2001 (MRLC2001) Image Processing Procedure. Revised 01/09/2006. http://landcover.usgs.gov/pdf/image_preprocessing.pdf Vaughan, T. A., J. M. Ryan, N. J. Czaplewski. 2000. Mammalogy 4th edition, Saunders College Publishers, 750pp. Wolffsohn, A. 1967. Post-Hurricane Forest Fires in British Honduras The Commonwealth Forestry Review 46: 233-238. WRI 2005. Belize Coastal Threats Atlas. Published by the World Resources Institute, 10 G Street NE, Washington, DC 20002, USA. Vitousek, P. M. 1991. Can planted forests counteract increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide? Journal of Environmental Quality 20:348–354. Vitousek, P. M., and R. L. Stanford, Jr. 1986. Nutrient cycling in moist tropical forest. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17:137–167. Wyman, M. S., & Stein, T. V. 2010. Modeling social and land-use/land-cover change data to assess drivers of smallholder deforestation in Belize. Applied Geography.30: 329-342. Young, C. 2008. Belize's Ecosystems: Threats and Challenges to Conservation in Belize. Tropical Conservation Science 1.1: (18-33).


Appendix A: Land Use Study45 Methods and Materials

Preprocessing Various datasets were used to assess historical land change in Southern Belize (Table 15: Spatial data sources and descriptions). Landsat TM and ETM+ were the primary sources for land cover classification. Additionally, RapidEye and WorldView1 fine spatial resolution imagery were used for training purposes. Ancillary data from the Biodiversity and Environmental Resource Data System of Belize was also used as training data. Landsat TM and ETM+ data from path/row 019/049 were acquired for all Land Use and Land Cover classification (LULC) dates (Table 15: Spatial data sources and descriptions and Table 16: LandSat acquisition dates and composite order). The imagery was clipped to encompass the spatial extent of the southern borders of Belize and the upper boundary of the Landsat scene, with a 5 km buffer into Guatemala. To ensure that identical objects had the same spectral response across all dates, Landsat TM and ETM+ images were converted to at-satellite reflectance and radiometrically corrected to the top of the atmosphere utilizing models standardized by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (Markham and Barker 1986, USGS 2006). Table 15: Spatial data sources and descriptions Source Data Type Spatial

Resolution Spectral Bands

Wavelength Range

USGS LandSat TM 30 meter Blue 0.45 – 0.52 μm USGS LandSat TM 30 meter Green 0.52 – 0.60 μm USGS LandSat TM 30 meter Red 0.63 – 0.69 μm USGS LandSat TM 30 meter NIR 0.76 – 0.90 μm USGS LandSat TM 30 meter SWIR 1.55 – 1.75 μm USGS LandSat TM 30 meter SWIR 2.08 – 2.35 μm USGS LandSat E TM+ 30 meter Blue 0.45 – 0.515 μm USGS LandSat E TM+ 30 meter Green 0.525 – 0.605 μm USGS LandSat E TM+ 30 meter Red 0.63 – 0.69 μm USGS LandSat E TM+ 30 meter NIR 0.75 – 0.90 μm USGS LandSat E TM+ 30 meter SWIR 1.55 – 1.75 μm USGS LandSat E TM+ 30 meter SWIR 2.09 – 2.35 μm Rapid Eye Rapid Eye 5 meter Blue 440 – 510 μm Rapid Eye Rapid Eye 5 meter Green 520 – 590 μm Rapid Eye Rapid Eye 5 meter Red 630 – 685 μm Rapid Eye Rapid Eye 5 meter Red-edge 690 – 730 μm Rapid Eye Rapid Eye 5 meter NIR 760 – 850 μm Digital Globe World View1 0.5 meter pancromatic

45 Final Report, Southern Belize Multi-date Historical Land Cover For BLE Reference Area by www.MDAFederal.com


Table 16: LandSat acquisition dates and composite order

LULC Date Sensor Path / Row Acquisition Date 1993 LandSat 4 TM 019 / 049 1993-03-17* 1993 LandSat 5 TM 019 / 049 1991-03-04 1993 LandSat 4 TM 019 / 049 1992-12-11 1993 LandSat 4 TM 019 / 049 1992-06-02 1993 LandSat 4 TM 019 / 049 1990-11-20 2000 LandSat 5 TM 019 / 049 2000-01-24* 2006 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2006-03-21* 2006 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2005-02-14 2006 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2005-01-13 2006 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2006-04-06 2006 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2007-04-25 2006 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2005-08-25 2009 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2009-04-14* 2009 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2008-11-21 2009 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2008-11-05 2009 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2009-03-29 2009 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2009-06-01 2009 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2009-10-23 2009 LandSat 7 ETM+ 019 / 049 2009-09-05

*Primary acquisition date Belize is an area frequently covered with clouds due to its tropical climate. Therefore, cloud reduced composite images were constructed using Classification and Regression Tree (CART) techniques for three of the four time periods. In areas of clouds, cloud shadows, and/or SLC-off data gaps from Landsat 7 ETM+, spectral values were generated and substituted based on numerical relationships within analogous, cloud-free pixels from different images of the same relative time period (Table 16: LandSat acquisition dates and composite order). The pixel values were not merely substituted by CART but rather rule sets were developed to generate new digital number values. Classification Training data were established from various sources including ground truth field work, fine spatial resolution satellite imagery, and ancillary data. Ground truth was performed in the lowlands between Independence Town and Punta Gorda in October 2009. Points were collected mostly along Southern Highway by visual interpretation. Other points were established according to land cover and land use information provided by a local guide. RapidEye and WorldView1 images collected in 2009 were utilized for fine spatial resolution imagery interpretation (Table 16: Spatial data sources and descriptions). Ancillary data acquired from the Biodiversity and Environmental Resource Data System of Belize (www.biodiversity.bz) was


http://www.biodiversity.bz/

used to distinguish land cover and vegetation types, specifically Ecosystems (Meerman and Sabido 2001). Once the training data were established, 25% of the data were separated as validation data leaving 75% for calibration. The data were divided utilizing a random stratification sampling method. Eight final classes were used to distinguish LULC within Southern Belize: Forest, Grassland, Cropland, Wetland, Settlements, Aquaculture, Water, and Clouds/NoData (Table 17: Land cover class descriptions). CART analysis was used to classify the 2009 scene. CART is a powerful form of statistical analysis and is a very effective tool in land cover classification. CART operates by recursively splitting the data until end points, or terminal nodes, are achieved using preset criteria. CART analyzes all explanatory (independent) variables and determines the binary division of a single explanatory variable that best reduces deviance in the response (dependent) variable, or training data. In imagery based land cover classification, explanatory variables consist of spectral and ancillary data and can be qualitative or quantitative. Table 17: Land cover class descriptions Class # LULC Class Description 1 Forest Includes broad leaf forest and needle leaf forest: trees > 3

meters in height, canopy closure > 50% 2 Grassland Includes needle leaf savanna, herbaceous grasses, and shrub /

scrub 3 Cropland Agriculture including large scale plantations, subsistence

farms, pastures, and cleared plots 4 Wetland Includes herbaceous and mangrove areas where the water

table is at or near the surface for a substantial portion of the growing season

5 Settlements Developed areas and settlements that are at least 30 meter wide including roads and cleared plots

6 Aquaculture Shrimp ponds 7 Water All water bodies greater than or equal to 0.08 ha (1 TM pixel) 8 Clouds / No data Areas where no land cover interpretation is possible due to

clouds, cloud shadows, and / or satellite or transmission malfunction

Various independent variables were used to guide the 2009 classification (Table 18: Explanatory factors used in CART 2009). Spectral data including the visible and infrared bands and a vegetation index were used. Due to the tendency of a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to saturate in tropical, heavily forested areas, a Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI) was employed (Jenson 2005). Elevation data from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) were utilized along with aspect and slope. Spatial and textural attributes were created using a segmentation technique. Segmentation is a process in which pixels are grouped that share a homogenous spectral similarity, as determined by user-defined thresholds.


Table 18: Explanatory factors used in CART 2009 Band # Variable Description 1 Aspect Cardinal direction at a given pixel 2 SRTM Elevation 3 Soil Adjusted Vegetation Index (SAVI) 4 Cloud Matrix 5 LandSat Band 1 – visible blue 6 LandSat Band 2 – visible green 7 LandSat Band 3 – visible red 8 LandSat Band 4 – near infrared (NIR) 9 LandSat Band 5 – shortwave infrared (SWIR) 10 LandSat Band 7 – shortwave infrared (SWIR) 11 Spatial attribute – compact Shape measure, most compact is

circle (1/pi) 12 Spatial attribute – convexity 13 Spatial attribute – elongation Ratio of major axis to minor axis 14 Spatial attribute – form factor Comparison of area to square of

total perimeter 15 Spatial attribute – number of holes 16 Spatial attribute – rectangular fit How well the shape is described

by a rectangle 17 Texture range Average data range of region

inside a kernel 18 Slope Degree of inclination 19 Terrain complexity Elevation change 20 Terrain difference Relief

Once the 2009 imagery was classified via CART, manual edits were performed in order to fine-tune misclassifications. Misclassification was most prevalent in the cropland versus settlements classes due to the very similar spectral signature of barren agricultural plots to the barren settled areas and roads. Land Cover Updates The land cover classification produced for 2009 served as the baseline for subsequent land cover classification. Land cover back-date classifications to circa 2006, 2000, and 1993 were facilitated using Cross Correlation Analysis (CCA). The LULC for 2009 was used as the baseline for 2006, 2006 for 2000, and 2000 for 1993 respectively. CCA is a patented change detection procedure (U.S. patent No. 5,719,949) that is used primarily to determine and map land cover changes. CCA overcomes many limitations of conventional change detection methods. Its strength and uniqueness are the ability to accurately detect change between disparate input data sets (source, sensor, and resolution independent) that have not been


acquired under necessarily similar conditions. CCA performs well regardless of seasonal differences because former class boundaries are summarized with new class signatures to determine the relationship between pixel values and a feature class. There is no reliance on direct pixel value comparison between the different scenes. The comparison is the difference between the observed value in one date of image and the expected value at that location in the other image based on the mean of values stratified by statistical clustering. This approach isolates change, or reduces change detection artifacts better than conventional change detection procedures. CCA uses a recent multi-spectral image with a thematic land cover map in a three-step process. First, a statistically clustered early date image is superimposed on a recent multispectral image. For all spectral classes, all pixels falling within a particular class zone are collected to determine the “expected” class average spectral response and standard deviation. In the second step, a Z-score is calculated for each pixel in the recent multi-spectral image. The Z-score measures the distance exhibited by an individual member of a population from the central tendency of the population. A high Z-score occurs wherever a pixel appears very different from the majority of pixels in its cluster class. These spectral outliers are often the result of land cover changes. Conversely, a low Z-score occurs wherever a pixel appears similar to the class average and is unlikely to be associated with land cover changes. The spectral distance a pixel exhibits from the mean value in a raw scene stratified by a particular cluster from another date of imagery yields the Z-score for that pixel. It is the value that is compensated for by the standard deviation, thus only the significantly distant pixels are likely to be identified as change. The third step is a manual subjective determination of the threshold value for change using the Z-score layer. Threshold values are assigned to the Z-scores to determine the Z-score at which land cover change is likely to have occurred between the two image dates. Once the threshold values are determined, a binary change map is produced. The binary change map for each pair-wise combination was used as a mask for each preceding land cover classification. Only the areas that showed change were classified using CART. For the back-date classifications the explanatory variables included the spectral bands of Landsat, elevation data and derivatives, and SAVI (Table 19: Explanatory Variables Used in CART - Back-date classification). Areas of no change were assigned the LULC class in the previous classification. Table 19: Explanatory Variables Used in CART - Back-date classification Band #1 Variable Description 1 Aspect Cardinal direction at a given

pixel 2 SRTM Elevation 3 Soil Adjusted Vegetation

Index (SAVI)

4 Cloud Matrix 5 LandSat Band 1 – visible blue


6 LandSat Band 2 – visible green

7 LandSat Band 3 – visible red 8 LandSat Band 4 – near

infrared (NIR) Elevation

9 LandSat Band 5 – shortwave infrared (SWIR)

10 LandSat Band 7 – shortwave infrared (SWIR)

11 Slope Degree of Inclination 12 Terrain Complexity Elevation Change 13 Terrain Difference Relief

Accuracy Assessment Once the reference area was established, accuracy assessment was performed using 2009 imagery on both Forest versus Non Forest (FNF), and LULC classes for the reference area and all of Southern Belize. Overall accuracy and the commission and omission errors were determined according to Congalton (1991) (Table 21: LULC error matrix for Southern Belize, Table 22: FNF error matrix for Southern Belize, Table 23: LULC error matrix for the reference area, Table 24: FNF error matrix for reference area). Results An eight class LULC classification was produced for Southern Belize for all four dates: 1993, 2000, 2006, and 2009 (Figure 11: 1993 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala, Figure 12: 2000 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala, Figure 13: 2006 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala, and Figure 14: 2009 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala). All classes except forest were combined to produce the non forest class. Overall accuracy for the 2009 LULC in Southern Belize was 87.7% with a Kappa statistic of 0.844 (Table 20: LULC error matrix for Southern Belize. Overall accuracy for the 2009 FNF in Southern Belize was 93.8% with a Kappa of 0.847 (Table 21: FNF error matrix for Southern Belize). The overall accuracy of the 2009 LULC within the reference area was 95.8% with a Kappa of 0.931 (Table 22: LULC error matrix for the reference area). The overall accuracy of the 2009 FNF within the reference area also was 95.8% with a Kappa of 0.916 (Table 23: FNF error matrix for reference area).


Figure 13: 1993 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala The black outline represents the Project area. The red outline within the inset shows the spatial extent in comparison to the mainland of Belize.


Table 20: LULC error matrix for Southern Belize

Table 21: FNF error matrix for Southern Belize

Table 22: LULC error matrix for the reference area

Table 23: FNF error matrix for reference area

The reference area consists of only forest outside of the project area at the onset of the historical reference period in 1993. Therefore, any land cover change outside of the project area is deforestation or a transition to another land cover class other than forest. In 1993, within the project area, there were 868 ha of land cover other than forest (855 ha of cropland, 1 ha of


grassland, and 12 ha of settlements or cleared land) (Table 24: Change matrix - LULC 1993 to 2009 and Figure 14: 2009 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala). There as a citrus grove and logging roads present within the project area at the beginning of the historical reference period. By 2009, almost all of the areas classified as a non forest class within the project boundary had returned to forest (Figure 13: 2006 LULC classification of Southern Belize with a 5km buffer into Guatemala and Figure 17: 2006 LULC classification within the reference area, Table 24: Change matrix - LULC 1993 to 2009 and Table 26: Change matrix - FNF 1993 to 2009). At the start of the historical reference period, there were 110,493 ha of forest within the reference area. By 2009 there were only 94,662 ha of forest in the reference area, 15,831 fewer ha (Table 24: Change matrix - LULC 1993 to 2009 and Table 25: Change matrix - FNF 1993 to 2009). Most deforestation took place between 2006 and 2009 (Table 31: Change matrix - FNF 2006 to 2009), and was due to cropland expansion (Table 24: Change matrix - LULC 1993 to 2009, Table 26: Change matrix - LULC 1993 to 2000, Table 28: Change matrix - LULC 2000 to 2006, and Table 30: Change matrix - LULC 2006 to 2009). The majority of cropland expansion took place in the northern portion of the reference area, close to Independence town. There was also extensive cropland expansion west of the project area. In total, 15% of the forest within the reference area was lost to deforestation, mostly due to cropland expansion. Figure 15: 1993 LULC classification within the reference area, Figure 16: 2000 LULC classification within the reference area, Figure 17: 2006 LULC classification within the reference area, Figure 18: 2009 LULC classification within the reference area, Figure 19: 1993 Forest versus Non Forest classification within the reference area, Figure 20: 2000 Forest versus Non Forest classification within the reference area, Figure 21: 2006 Forest versus Non Forest classification within the reference area, and Figure 22: 2009 Forest versus Non Forest classification within the reference area demonstrate the reference areas for the Project.


Figure 17: 1993 LULC classification within the reference area


Figure 21: 1993 Forest versus Non Forest classification within the reference area


Figure 64: 2009 Forest versus Non Forest classification within the reference area Table 24: Change matrix - LULC 1993 to 2009, Table 25: Change matrix - FNF 1993 to 2009, Table 26: Change matrix - LULC 1993 to 2000, Table 27: Change matrix - FNF 1993 to 2000, Table 28: Change matrix - LULC 2000 to 2006, Table 29: Change matrix - FNF 2000 to 2006, Table 30: Change matrix - LULC 2006 to 2009 and Table 31: Change matrix - FNF 2006 to 2009 represent change over the historical reference period. The grayed out cells represent areas of persistence.


Table 24: Change matrix - LULC 1993 to 2009

Table 25: Change matrix - FNF 1993 to 2009




Appendix B: Hurricanes 46

A review of storm tracks from the last 100 years (Konrad 1996) and recent updated information from the National Hurricane Center in Miami suggest that the Project is in a lower range of risk from the impact of hurricane force winds While the Project does lie in an area of relatively low risk from hurricanes and tropical storms, historically there have been many hurricanes that peripherally impacted the southern coastal regions of Belize (Figure 24: Historical storm tracks impacting southern Belize and Figure 23: Impact risks of tropical storms and hurricanes over the past 100 years). The data supplied by the National Hurricane Center provides the dates, names and estimated wind speeds and category of each of these storms. Recorded storms for the southern area of Belize range from 1906 to 2007 with 12 tropical storms and 10 hurricanes. The hurricanes have comprised 6 Category 1, 3 Category 2 and a single Category 4 which was Hurricane Iris in 2001. Meerman (2001) summarized the impact and damage of ecosystems due to Hurricane Iris:

“What was immediately obvious that the level of destruction within the affected area was dependent on the type of ecosystem. Most severely damaged were the lowland broadleaf forests, particularly near the coast. Hill forests were usually severely damaged on the windward side while seemingly unaffected on the leeward side. Savannas and pine forests appeared to be affected least of all, with most pine trees (Pinus caribaea) still standing and having a more or less intact crown. Other “tree” species with apparently a great resistance to the wind forces exerted here include the Palmetto (Acoelorraphe wrightii) and seemingly green and intact stands of this species stood out very clearly in savanna regions all along the coast. Another species with a great resistance appears to be the Royal Palm (Roystonea regia), although entirely leafless in the Monkey River area, most boles of these palms were still standing. Damage was most dramatic in the broadleaf forests especially near the coast where wind forces were apparently highest.”

46 This appendix is adapted from Miller and Miller 2008 unless otherwise noted.


Figure 25: Impact risks of tropical storms and hurricanes over the past 100 years


Figure 76: Historical storm tracks impacting southern Belize47

47 BCEP lands indicated in red. Figure adapted from data provided by US NOAA Coastal Services Center http://csc-s-maps-q.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/download.jsp.


http://csc-s-maps-q.csc.noaa.gov/hurricanes/download.jsp

Figure 87: Impact of Hurricane Iris on southern Belize48 Although much can be made of Hurricane Iris’ (October 2001) impact on BCEP (Figure 25: Impact of Hurricane Iris on southern Belize), it is, in fact, a natural occurrence. On October 4, 1945 an un-named Category 1 hurricane passed directly over the current Project landscape. A case can be made that all of Belize and the Caribbean coastal areas of Mexico are in a state of regeneration from hurricanes throughout history. Tree species such as the mahogany are considered “hurricane dependant” with new seedlings generally sprouting in open areas after blow downs from such storms, while most mature trees can withstand the strong winds with the buttressed trunks. In recent years there have been many studies on the impact of hurricanes on tropical forests and their biota and recovery rates. Frangi and Lugo (1998) found that five years after Hurricane Hugo stuck the Luquillo Mountains of Puerto Rico that delayed tree mortality was twice as high as instantaneous tree mortality after the storm and affected dicotyledonous trees more than it did palms. Regeneration of trees, palms, and tree ferns was influenced by a combination of factors including hydroperiod, light, and space. Their data also suggested that the areas near river

48 Reprinted from Meerman 2001.


channels were the most favorable for plant regeneration. This should be the case along Golden Stream and the Project site. While the recovery of forest ecosystems from hurricanes depends on a combination of seedling growth and re-sprouting of canopy trees (Tanner et al. 1991), one of the biggest impacts of hurricanes in Belize has been the post-hurricane related forest fires (Wolffsohn 1967). Since Hurricane Iris occurred seven years ago, there have been no subsequent fires to sweep the Project site. While today the vegetation clearly reflects the impact of Hurricane Iris, there is every reason to believe that the forests around the Project site are recovering in a normal manner.49

49 Verl Emrick, per BCEP commission.


Appendix C: Biodiversity of BCEP

The Boden Creek Ecological Preserve is located at the foot of the Maya mountains in Belize’s southern-most Toledo District. Of all the districts in Belize, Toledo is the most isolated and sparsely populated. Boden Creek Ecological Preserve is a large part of Golden Stream watershed with Golden Stream running into the sea on its north boundary. This watershed is one of six that empty into the Port of Honduras Marine Sanctuary and is highly diverse in fauna and flora (Bowen-Jones 2001, DeVries et al. 2003). The Project also is within the Mesoamerica Biodiversity Hotspot as identified by Conservation International50. According to Miller and Miller (2008):

“The corridor is unique in all of Central America as a swath of largely intact contiguous habitat including the Maya Mountains, lowland broadleaf forest, and mangroves extending to the sea, without the fragmentation that occurs, particularly in coastal areas with burgeoning development. This area has been known as the Maya Mountains Marine Corridor by local non-governmental organization (NGO) - TIDE and partner international NGO, The Nature Conservancy. This strategic location also makes it an important linkage in the region wide La Selva Maya and Belize Biological Corridor initiatives which seek to forge and maintain a biodiversity corridor the length of Mesoamerica.”

Natural and anthropogenic disturbance have influenced the structure and composition of vegetative communities of the Mayan lowlands for centuries. Hurricanes and tropical storms occur within the Caribbean basin every year though the frequency of landfall varies greatly. The southern region of Belize has one of the lowest frequencies of hurricane landfall in the Caribbean with an average of one landfall every 23 years (Lugo et al. 2000). In 2001 Hurricane Iris, a category 4 storm, made landfall near Monkey River Town, Belize just north of BCEP and the surrounding Golden Stream corridor. With winds exceeding 225 kph at the time of landfall, a storm as severe as Iris is a relatively uncommon event, and the hurricane severely damaged much of the forest within BCEP. Due to a massive blow down of trees, BCEP is currently in a state of ecological regeneration as is much of the Toledo District likewise impacted in this natural cycle. Since Hurricane Iris occurred nine years ago, there have been no subsequent fires on the Project site. While today the vegetation clearly reflects the impact of Hurricane Iris, the flora and fauna of the lowland forests are adapted to hurricane disturbance and are believed to be recovering in a normal manner (Miller and Miller 2008). Anthropogenic disturbance associated with land clearing for agriculture has occurred since the early Classic (AD 400) period of Mayan civilization where parts of the BCEP were likely used for agriculture to support nearby early classic Mayan Nim Li Punit. Like much of Belize, this area has had a recent past which includes various types of exploitation, such as banana farming, traditional uses by the local Maya communities and others. According to Bowen-Jones (2001):

“The central portion of the BLE (BCEP) property…was cleared for cattle ranching by the El Salvadoran company that owned it in the late 1960s and 70s …

50 See Conservation International http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/mesoamerica/Pages/default.aspx accessed 1/21/2010.



This firm sold the property to a logger from North America (Whitney) who owned the land during the 1980s and up until 1998. He extended the clearance of land near the road (for citrus and banana) whilst using it as a base for his logging operations throughout the Golden Stream watershed, his sawmill was located on modern-day BLE (BCEP). This period of time profoundly affected the ecosystem because Whitney logged most of the land to varying degrees driving access roads east and south…”

Current land use practices are concentrated on sustainable use and preservation. Land use has shifted from exploitative to minimal impact via ecotourism through Belize Lodge and Excursions and the preservation of BCEP. BCEP continues to protect the property from hunting and settlement incursions with regular patrols and has engaged in an ambitious tree planting effort. Multiple field surveys have occurred on the BCEP property with high biodiversity quantitative and qualitative results. Initial biotic descriptions were conducted by Bowen-Jones (2001). These were then followed by Miller and Miller 2008 and Miller et al. 2009. The following describes the high quality of the biodiversity documented on the BCEP property. Birds Survey Bowen-Jones (2001) conducted a series of five diurnal transects and maintained a list of incidental observations to record the avian biodiversity on BCEP. Miller and Miller (2008) conducted fixed radius point counts along BCEP trails and roads. At 100 meter intervals, the survey team stopped and counted birds detected by either sight or sound within a 25 meter radius51 for a 5 minute period. Additional species observed by St. Germain throughout the property were recorded during other site visits in November 2007, May 2008, October 2009, and December 2009 (St. Germain et al. 2009). St Germain documented 66 species through incidental observations in 2009 (St. Germain et al. 2009), Miller and Miller (2008) documented 210 species and Bowen-Jones (2001) recorded 178 species. A total of 247 bird species were recorded at BCEP between all three surveys. Of the 247 species, 159 are resident species that are present all year in Belize and 18 are under one or more categories of conservation concern. Sixty-two species are migrants that use BCEP seasonally. Most of these of Neotropical migrants, that is, migrating from North America to Belize. Two are Austral migrants, coming from South America to Belize. Eighteen species are of conservation concern, based either on IUCN international designations or national recognized guidelines. (Table 32: Birds of special conservation concern documented on the Project site). Table 32: Birds of special conservation concern documented on the Project site (adapted from Miller and Miller 2008) Family Common name Scientific Name Concern Status

Podicipedidae Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps BZE-CC Winter - mig

51 A technique described in Hutto et al. 1986.


Anhingidae Anhinga Anhinga anhinga BZE-CC Resident Ardeidae Great blue heron Ardea herodias BZE-VU Winter -

mig Snowy egret Egretta thula BZE-VU Winter -

mig Threskiornithidae White ibis Eudocimus albus BZE-VU Resident Anatidae Black-bellied whistling

duck Dendrocygna autumnalis

BZE-VU Resident

Muscovy duck Cairina moschata BZE-EN Resident Green-winged teal Anas crecca BZE-VU Winter -

mig Blue-winged Teal Anas discors BZE-VU Winter -

mig Lesser scaup Anas affinis BZE-VU Winter -

mig Rallidae Ruddy crake Laterallus ruber BZE-CC Resident Purple gallinule Porphyrio martinica BZE-VU Resident Recurvirostridae Black-necked stilt Himantopus

mexicanus BZE-CC Winter -

mig Psittacidae Brown-hooded parrot Pionopsitta

haematotis BZE-VU Resident

Yellow-headed parrot Amazona oratrix IUCN-EN

Resident

Parulidae Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

BZE-CC Winter - mig

Northern waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis

BZE-CC Winter - mig

Carnalidae Rose-breasted grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus

BZE-CC Winter - mig

Bat Survey Bats are critical contributors to mammalian biodiversity, particularly in the neotropics. Nine families occur in the New World, six of these only occur in the Neotropics. Approximately 28% of all bat species occur in the Neotropics. In Belize, 76 species representing eight families are known or suspected to occur and comprise the majority of the terrestrial mammal diversity. The sheer number of individuals and the myriad of food habits represented further support the significant contribution by this group to Neotropical ecosystems (O’Farrell and Miller 1999). Most importantly bats provide critical ecosystem services as pollinators, seed dispersers and insect predators. Due to these critical contributions bats play in ecosystem dynamics their populations and community structure often respond quickly to landscape disturbance (Medellin et al 2000 and Medellin and Gaona 1999). Bats have enormous potential as bioindicators: they show taxonomic stability, population trends can be monitored, short- and long – term affects on populations are measurable, and their distribution is global (Jones et al 2009). Therefore accurate


assessments of even the common and widespread species, is important to determine the health of an ecosystem. For documentation of species diversity for bats various capture and acoustical detection methods have been used. Surveys targeted flight corridors, creeks, perennial road ruts, wildlife ponds, and other potential foraging areas and major cover types on BCEP (Kunz and Kurta 1988). The trapping efforts by Bowen-Jones (2001) used 38mm mesh low bag mist nets52. Miller and Miller (2008) and Miller (2009) used mist nets and 4.3 m3 forest size harp traps53, to capture free-flying individuals. No trapping was undertaken by St. Germain et. al. in 2009. Bats can be identified to species by their ultrasonic echolocation call emitted while engaged in free-flying activities (Sampaio, E.M. et al. 2003 and O’Farrell and Miller 1999). The Anabat system54 provides an efficient and easily implemented method for collecting bat data. This technique is effective at both the ecosystem and landscape level. This equipment is programmable, facilitating the surveillance of populations remotely for an extended period of time. Both (Miller and Miller 2008) and (Miller and St. Germain 2009) used an array of detectors for the simultaneous examination of multiple locations while reducing observer biases. To date 51 of the 78 bat species known to occur in Belize have been documented (Miller 2009, Miller and Miller 2008, Bowen-Jones 2001, and St. Germain et. al. 2009) at the Project site (Table 33: Summary of bats documented on the Project site). Known bat surveillance locations in the Project site are depicted in Figure 26: Bat sampling locations at Project site. Table 33: Summary of bats documented on the Project site

Family Scientific Name Common Name Emballonuridae Balantiopteryx io Least sac-winged bat Diclidurus albus Northern ghost bat Peropteryx kappleri Greater dog-like bat Peropteryx macrotis Lesser dog-like bat Rhynchonycteris naso Long-nosed bat Saccopteryx bilineata Greater white-lined bat Saccopteryx leptura Lesser white-lined bat Molossidae Cynomops mexicanus Mexican dog-faced bat Eumops underwoodi Underwood's bonneted bat Molossus molossus Pallas's mastiff bat Molossus rufus Black mastiff bat Molossus sinaloae Allen's mastiff bat Nyctinomops laticaudatus Broad-eared free-tailed bat Mormoopidae Mormoops megalophylla Peter's ghost-faced bat Pteronotus davyi Davy's naked-backed bat

52 Avinet Inc. Dryden, New York: http://www.avinet.com/ 53 Faunatech Austbat, Bairnsdale, Victoria, Australia: http://www.faunatech.com.au/ 54 Titley Electronics: http://www.titley.com.au/


http://www.avinet.com/

http://www.faunatech.com.au/

http://www.titley.com.au/

Pteronotus gymnonotus Big naked-backed bat Pteronotus parnellii Common mustached bat Pteronotus personatus Wagner's mustached bat Natalidae Natalus mexicanus Mexican funnel-eared bat Noctilionidae Noctilio leporinus Greater bulldog bat Phyllostomidae Artibeus intermedius intermediate fruit-eating bat Artibeus jamaicensis Jamaican fruit-eating bat Artibeus lituratus great fruit-eating bat Artibeus phaeotis Pygmy fruit-eating bat Artibeus watsoni Thomas' fruit-eating bat Carollia perspicillata Seba’s short-tailed bat Carollia sowelli Sowell's short-tailed bat Chiroderma villosum Shaggy-haired bat Chrotopterus auritus Wooly false vampire Desmodus rotundus Common vampire bat Glossophaga commissarisi Brown long-tongued bat Glossophaga soricina Common long-tongued bat Hylonycteris underwoodi Underwood's long-tongued bat Lonchorhina aurita Tomes' long-eared bat Micronycteris microtis Common big-eared bat Mimon crenulatum Striped spear-nosed bat Platyrrhinus helleri Heller's broad-nosed bat Sturnira lilium Yellow-shouldered bat Tonatia brasiliense Pygmy round-eared bat Tonatia evotis Davis’ round-eared bat Tonatia saurophila Stripe-headed round-eared bat Uroderma bilobatum Common tent-making bat Vampyressa pusilla Little yellow-eared bat Vepertilionidae Bauerus dubiaquercus Van Gelder’s bat Eptesicus furinalis Argentine brown bat Lasiurus blossevillii Red bat Lasiurus ega Southern yellow bat Lasiurus intermedius Northern yellow bat Myotis elegans Elegant myotis Myotis keaysi Hairy-legged myotis Rhogeessa aeneus Yucatan yellow bat

Totals Species 51


Figure 98: Bat sampling locations at Project site


Small Mammal Survey Small mammals include all terrestrial herbivores, omnivores and carnivores less than ~ 1 kg (~2lbs). Most of these species are considered extremely important because the act as both consumers of plant and insect materials and as valuable food source for other vertebrates ((Vaughan et.al. 2000)). A small mammal live-trapping study was conducted from February 28 to March 22, 2008 by B. M. Miller with Rex Medlin and Tom Risch from Arkansas State University (Miller and Miller 2008). Small mammals were surveyed using standard open wire mesh traps and Sherman box traps placed on the ground and in trees (Miller and Miller 2008). Species were identified using (Reid 1997). Locations of the survey are depicted in (Figure 27: Map showing location of small mammal trapping grids). A total of 2,348 trap nights resulted in the capture of 5 species of small mammals. Forty-one captures representing five species (Table 34: Small mammal captures at two locations in the vicinity of Indian Creek Lodge on the Project site) from the combined trapping efforts. The majority (46.3%) of the captures were of the hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) followed by the Mexican mouse opossum (Marmosa mexicanus) (29.3%) the big-eared climbing rat (Ototylomys phyllotis) (14.6%), the gray four-eyed opossum (Philander opossum) and the Couse’s rice rat (Oryzomys couesi). Table 34: Small mammal captures at two locations in the vicinity of Indian Creek Lodge on the Project site. (adapted from Miller and Miller 2008)

Species Captures Recaptures Male Female

Unidentified Gender

Middle Trail Lagoon

Marmosa mexicanus 12 6 12 0 12 0 Oryzomys couesi 1 0 0 1 0 1 Ototylomys phyllotis 6 2 4 1 1 6 0 Philander opossum 3 1 3 0 3 0 Sigmidon hispidus 19 1 12 6 1 7 12


Figure 109: Map showing location of small mammal trapping grids55 55 Sites A & B during 2008 surveys in relation to the Bowen-Jones (2001) transects


Medium-Large Mammals Survey Medium to large sized mammals include all terrestrial herbivores, omnivores and carnivores greater than ~ 1 kg (~2lbs). Many of these mammalian species are considered keystone species and may have a profound influence on the balance of organisms in a particular ecosystem. Introduction or removal of species, or changes in population densities, can have drastic cascading effects on the equilibrium of many other populations in the ecosystem. Mammals were monitored by direct sightings, capture (i.e., camera trapping), and indirect sign (e.g., tracks, scat, vocalizations, skeletal material) as part of focused sampling on established trails and during visits to sites. Bowen-Jones (2001) recorded mammalian detections along 5 diurnal transects and through 4 remote camera stations. Miller and Miller (2008) monitored 10 paired camera traps56 with a minimum of 150 meters spacing between each station. In 2009, St. Germain monitored an additional 6 paired station with digital Reconyx RC8557 where a minimum of 1 km spacing was used as well as a maintained list of observations (St. Germain et al 2009) With the remote cameras, St. Germain documented 5 species at 6 stations over 22 trap nights. These species include: jaguar (Panthera onca) - (Figure 28: Jaguar at Station #13 Jungle Camp on BCEP December 14 2009), tapir (Tapirus bairdii) (Figure 29: Baird’s Tapir photographed at Station #11 near Jungle Camp on December 15 2009 and the Baird’s tapir is considered Endangered by IUCN (IUCN-EN), Agouti (Dasyprocta punctata), nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcintus), and common opossum (Didelphis sp.). Additional species documented through observation include: ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi), paca (Agouti paca), Yucatan black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra), spider monkey (Ateles pigra) white-lipped peccary (Tayassu pecari), tayra (Eira Barbara), and Yucatan squirrel (Sciurus yucatanensis). Miller and Miller (2008) had the added documentation of brocket deer (Mazama americana), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). To date a total of 83 mammalian species have been documented on BCEP (Table 35: All mammalian species documented during each study on BCEP). This total includes all bats and small mammals as well. Table 35: All mammalian species documented during each study on BCEP

Family Common

Name Scientific

Name T&E

Bowen Jones 2001

Miller Miller 2008

St. Germain 2009

Didelphidae Common opossum

Didelphis marsupialis x x

Mexican mouse opossum

Marmosa Mexicana x x

Gray four-eyed opossum

Philander opossum x x

56 Trail Master, Goodson & Associates, Lenexa, KS, USA: http://www.trailmaster.com/ 57 Reconyx, Inc. Holmen, Wisconsin, USA: http://www.reconyx.com/


http://www.trailmaster.com/

http://www.reconyx.com/

Myrmecophagidae Tamandua Tamandua Mexicana x x

Dasypodidae Naked-tailed armadillo

Cabassous centralis x x

Nine-banded armadillo

Dasypus novemcintus x x

Emballonuridae Least sac-winged bat

Balantiopteryx io

IUCN- VU x

Northern ghost bat Diclidurus albus x

Greater dog-like bat

Peropteryx kappleri x x

Lesser dog-like bat

Peropteryx macrotis x x

Long-nosed bat

Rhynchonycteris naso x x x

Greater white-lined bat

Saccopteryx bilineata x x

Lesser white-lined bat

Saccopteryx leptura x x

Molossidae Mexican dog-faced bat

Cynomops mexicanus x x

Underwood’s bonneted bat

Eumops underwoodi x

Pallas’s mastiff bat

Molossus molossus x x

Black mastiff bat Molossus rufus x x

Allen’s mastiff bat

Molossus sinaloae x

Broad-eared free-tailed bat

Nyctinomops laticaudatus x x

Mormoopidae Peter’s ghost-faced bat

Mormoops megalophylla

BZ-concern x x

Davy’s naked-backed bat Pteronotus davyi x x

Big naked-backed bat

Pteronotus gymnonotus

BZ-concern x x

Common mustached bat

Pteronotus parnellii x x x

Wagner’s mustached bat

Pteronotus personatus x x

Natalidae

Mexican funnel-eared bat

Natalus mexicanus x

Noctilionidae Greater bulldog bat

Noctilio leporinus x

Phyllostomidae Intermediate Artibeus x x


fruit-eating bat intermedius

Jamaican fruit-eating bat

Artibeus jamaicensis x x

Great fruit-eating bat

Artibeus lituratus x x

Pygmy fruit-eating bat

Artibeus phaeotis x

Thomas’ fruit-eating bat Artibeus watsoni x x

Seba’s short-tailed bat

Carollia perspicillata x x

Sowell’s short-tailed bat Carollia sowelli x x

Shaggy-haired bat

Chiroderma villosum x

Wooly false vampire

Chrotopterus auritus x x

Common vampire bat

Desmodus rotundus x x

Brown long-tongued bat

Glossophaga commissarisi x

Common long-tongued bat

Glossophaga soricina x

Underwood’s long-tongued bat

Hylonycteris underwoodi

BZ-concern x

Tomes’ long-eared bat

Lonchorhina aurita x

Common big-eared bat

Micronycteris microtis x

Striped spear-nosed bat

Mimon crenulatum x

Heller’s broad-nosed bat

Platyrrhinus helleri x

Yellow-shouldered bat Sturnira lilium x

Pygmy round-eared bat

Tonatia brasiliense x

Davis’ round-eared bat Tonatia evotis x

Stripe-headed round-eared bat

Tonatia saurophila x x

Common tent-making bat

Uroderma bilobatum x x


Little yellow-eared bat

Vampyressa pusilla x x

Vespertilionidae Van Gelder’s bat

Bauerus dubiaquercus

IUCN-NT x

Argentine brown bat

Eptesicus furinalis x x x

Red bat Lasiurus blossevillii x

Southern yellow bat Lasiurus ega x x

Northern yellow bat

Lasiurus intermedius x

Elegant myotis Myotis elegans x x

Hairy-legged myotis Myotis keaysi x x

Yucatan yellow bat

Rhogeessa aeneus x x

Cebidae

Yucatan black howler monkey Alouatta pigra

IUCN-EN x x x

Spider monkey Ateles geoffroyi

IUCN-EN x x x

Canidae Gray fox

Urocyon cinereoargenteus x x

Procyonidae White nosed coati Nasau narcia x

Kinkajou Potos flavus x Mustellidae Tayra Eira Barbara x x

River otter Lontra longicaudis x

Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata x

Felidae Puma Puma concolor IUCN-

LC x

Ocelot Leopardus pardalis

IUCN-LC x x x

Jaguarundi Herpailurus yagouaroundi

IUCN-LC x x

Jaguar Panthera onca IUCN-

NT x x x

Tapiridae Baird's tapir Tapirus bairdii IUCN-

EN x x x

Tayassuidae Collared peccary Pecari tajacu

IUCN-LC x

White-lipped Tayassu pecari IUCN- x x x


peccary NT

Cervidae Red brocket deer

Mazama americana x x

White-tailed deer

Odocoileus virginianus x x

Sciuridae Deppe's squirrel Sciurus deppei x

Yucatan squirrel

Sciurus yucatanensis x x

Muridae Marsh rice rat Orzomys couesi x

Big-eared climbing rat

Ototylomys phyllotis x

Hispid cotton rat

Sigmodon hispidus x

Erethizontidae Mexican porcupine

Sphiggurus mexicanus x

Dasyproctidae Paca Agouti paca x x x

Agouti Dasyprocta punctata x x


Figure 30: Jaguar at Station #13 Jungle Camp on BCEP December 14 2009

Figure 31: Baird’s Tapir photographed at Station #11 near Jungle Camp on December 15 2009 and the Baird’s tapir is considered Endangered by IUCN (IUCN-EN) Of the 7 species captured on camera, the tapir (Figure 29: Baird’s Tapir photographed at Station #11 near Jungle Camp on December 15 2009 and the Baird’s tapir is considered Endangered by IUCN (IUCN-EN)) is particularly noteworthy since it is listed as IUCN Endangered and seems to be commonly encountered and conspicuous at BCEP, particularly along the streams during dry season. Trails and sign of the white-lipped peccary which is also listed by IUCN as near threatened, were also often encountered although no photographs were taken. The paca is normally under hunting pressure so it can be considered a positive sign that it was observed during this study suggesting good protection of the area.

Jaguar are found on the site and are also listed by IUCN as near threatened. The photo depicting two jaguars (Figure 7: Station #6 Boden Creek Trail, April 3, 3008 03:47h, jaguar likely pair with inset photograph captured 30 seconds earlier (Miller and Miller 2008)) suggest a courting pair since one individual is a male also portrayed in two other (right profile) jaguar photos (Table 36: Jaguar captures on photo ). There are also three left profile photos depicting a male jaguar, likely the same individual. He was active throughout the time the cameras operated (February-



May 2008) indicating that BCEP is likely part of his core territory (Miller, C. 2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2006). A fourth series of photographs was captured of this individual on December 12 2009 along a trail near the road to Pine Hill in the south of BCEP further confirming the longevity and size of his core range (St. Germain et al 2009). An additional individual (Figure 28: Jaguar at Station #13 Jungle Camp on BCEP December 14 2009) and one unknown were photographed at several locations and times in the vicinity of Jungle Camp in the gallery forests associated with the Golden Stream Corridor (St. Germain et al 2009). Table 36: Jaguar captures on photo (Miller and Miller 2008 and St. Germain et al 2009)

Station Date Time Individual Comments 6 2/23/2008 22:42 Likely Male 1 Left profile 6 2/26/2008 1:38 Male 1 Right profile 8 4/1/2008 6:24 Likely Male 1 Left profile 6 4/3/2008 3:47 Unknown Female?

6 4/3/2008 3:47 Male 1 Plus unknown above

1 5/1/2008 20:57 Likely Male 1 Left profile 2 5/12/2008 1:13 Male 1 Right profile 4 12//12/2009 23:48 Male 1 Left profile 10 12/14/2009 18:44 Unknown ID Head shot 11 12/14/2009 20:35 Jaguar 3 Right/left profiles 13 12/14/2009 23:19 Jaguar 3 Right/left profiles 10 12/16/2009 03:38 Jaguar 3 Right profile

Herptofauna: Amphibians and Reptiles Bowen-Jones (2001) maintained a record of amphibian and reptile species encountered through transects, mist nets, camera traps, and observations. They documented a total of 15 species Two species carry a special conservation status the Morelet’s Crocodile (Crocodylus moreletii) – IUCN – Lower Risk/conservation dependent and the Central American river turtle (Dermatemys mawii) – IUCN-EN. The Morelet’s Crocodile was also observed on BCEP by St. Germain et al 2009. Additional Species of Conservation Concern Furthermore, because of water quality protection provided by the project site, it is important to note that important habitat of the Antillean West Indian Manatee (T. m. manatus) – IUCN-Vu, will benefit by the protection of the Project. Manatees have been observed at or nearby the project site by BCEP/BLE staff.

boden creek ecological preserve - amazon s3 · boden creek ecological preserve . ... climate,...

Documents