New York Agriculture and Climate Change: Key Opportunities for Mitigation, Resilience, and Adaptation Final Report on Carbon Farming project for the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets 1 May 2020

Full text

1
New York Agriculture and Climate Change:
Key Opportunities for Mitigation, Resilience, and Adaptation
Final Report on Carbon Farming project for the
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
1 May 2020
Jenifer L. Wightman and Peter B. Woodbury
Cornell University
This%project%was%supported%by%the%State%of%New%York.%
The%opinions,%results,%findings%and/or%interpretations%of%data%contained%herein%are%the%responsibility%of%the%authors%
and%do%not%necessarily%represent%the%opinions,%interpretations%or%policy%of%the%State.%

2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Context ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Key Takeaways for Incorporating GHG mitigation from Working Lands into NYS policy ................................................................ 3
Priority Actions for Implementing GHG mitigating practices on NYS Agricultural Lands ................................................................ 4
Manure storage cover and flare ........................................................................................................................................................................ 5
Nitrogen management ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Livestock feed management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Woodland management .................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Activation of underutilized lands ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
A note on the need for Policy Analysis for determining appropriate Policy Levers for Agricultural GHG mitigation ....................... 7
Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Common GHG definitions in the Working Lands Context ................................................................................................................ 9
TABLE 1. Terms for Evaluating Mitigation Strategies ...................................................................................................................................... 9
METHODS .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Services .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Measurable .................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Achievable ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
TABLE 2: Global Warming Potential (GWP) of GHG relevant to agriculture ................................................................................................. 14
Realistic .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Time Frame .................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Comments on Units and GWP Conversions ................................................................................................................................... 15
MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES ..................................................................................................................................................................... 16
TABLE 3. GHG Mitigation Opportunities by Size & SMARTness .................................................................................................................... 16
Goals, Priorities and Ideas to Increase Adoption ............................................................................................................................................. 30
1. Develop policies to assist landowner adoption of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) mitigating practices. ................................................... 30
2. Expand technical support for landowner adoption of climate mitigating practices. ...................................................................... 32
3. Facilitate communication among landowners and land managers to share goals and BMP lessons learned. ............................... 32
4. Develop Markets (and market diversification) ................................................................................................................................ 33
5. Establish NYS-specific basic and applied research ........................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix A: Assumptions ............................................................................................................................................................. 35
Boundary 1: Items Not Assessed ..................................................................................................................................................................... 35
TABLE A1. Potential Mitigation Pathways Not Assessed in this report ........................................................................................................ 35
Boundary 2: Items assumed not to change to maintain system stability. ....................................................................................................... 37
TABLE A2. Behaviors, Systems, and Conditions that are Assumed to be Maintained .................................................................................. 37
Appendix B: Definitions .................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Permanence and Managing Risk ..................................................................................................................................................................... 39
TABLE B1. Sources of risk to permanence of GHG mitigation practices ........................................................................................................ 39
TABLE B2. Managing risk to permanence of GHG mitigation practices ........................................................................................................ 40
Verification: Thinking about rigor for GHG accounting as well as other state goals ....................................................................................... 41
Additionality .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Costs ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 44
The cost of mitigating a ton of CO2e .......................................................................................................................................................... 44
The cost of damages from emitting a ton of CO2e ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 45
Appendix C: Charting A Path Forward ........................................................................................................................................... 46
Vision ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Context & Definition: ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Alignment of Terms: Comparison of Definitions of Practices Across Platforms .............................................................................................. 46
TABLE C1. Comparing Best Management Practice Definitions from different sources to help Integrate Climate Mitigation into Existing
Agricultural Environmental Management Strategies. ................................................................................................................................... 46
Opportunities to Expand Working Land’s Role in Climate Mitigation ............................................................................................................. 50
TABLE C2. Existing NYS Policies and Ideas from other Leaders, States, Organizations ................................................................................ 50
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................................................................................................................... 63

3
Executive Summary
Context
Following the New York State (NYS) Department of Agriculture and Markets (AGM) mandate (2008 NYS Bill
S8148/ A10685), NYS fiscal year 2017-18 budget (S2004-D), and the Carbon Farming Act (A3281), this
project, administered through NYS AGM develops a scientifically based assessment of opportunities and
barriers to support climate adaptation and mitigation practices on working NYS agricultural lands.
Carbon Farming was defined as “the implementation of a land management strategy for the purposes of
reducing, sequestering, and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions on land used in support of a farm operation
and quantifying those greenhouse gas benefits”. We evaluated three key greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide,
CO2; methane, CH4; and nitrous oxide, N2O) associated with working lands and identified co-benefits including
water quality, profitability, adaptation to climate change, community relations, and energy, among others.
In an effort to assist NYS in meeting its ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation mandates, we developed a
SMART matrix to rank the most promising GHG mitigating strategies (Table 3). This matrix includes the
following elements:
(1) Services: co-benefits from activities that also mitigate GHG;
(2) Measurable: a state level quantification of the mitigation opportunity and the degree to which it is
verifiable;
(3) Achievable: a farm financial savings or financial support necessary to implement the mitigation practice;
(4) Realistic: ease or difficulty in implementation (e.g. number of stakeholders/acres needed to be engaged);
(5) Time Frame: the time scale over which the mitigation would occur and the degree to which the
mitigation is permanent or reversible.
Key Takeaways for Incorporating GHG mitigation from Working Lands into NYS policy
1) ACCOUNTING
a. The combined flux and permanence of all three agricultural GHGs (CO2, CH4 and N2O) must be
considered together when assessing working lands. The net GHG emissions over a specified time
period may help NYS frame what it considers a permanent mitigation (i.e. not easily reversible)
and verifiable from a given activity. Permanence and Verifiability are key elements for carbon
farming accounting.
b. For example: any effort to account for GHG mitigation by soil health practices will require
feasible, credible, and cost-effective GHG verification over time to ensure credit to soil organic
carbon stocks while also deducting the associated N2O emissions. Notably, agricultural systems
are governed by dynamic and complex processes that are easily reversible due to natural or
human activities such as weather, climate, and landowner management decisions. Thus, for
certain practices, permanence and verification are barriers to accounting for carbon farming.
2) OFFSETS
a. If NYS has agricultural working lands participate in market-based or cap-and-trade offset
programs with other sectors, it must determine the certainty of each practice for achieving ‘real,
permanent, additional, verifiable’ mitigation that does not cause ‘leakage’ across sector or state
boundaries.
b. For example: to implement, measure, and verify carbon farming practices are sufficiently robust
to count as agricultural GHG mitigation (either addressing within-sector emissions or qualifying
as an offset for emissions from another sector), NYS must decide whether to spend resources on
labor-intensive verification protocols (for rigorous cross-sector accounting) or to support farmers
to implement best management practices (whole system ecosystem services similar to current
water quality initiatives).

4
3) VERIFIED MITIGATION vs. IMPROVED FARM RESILIENCY
a. As agriculture includes diverse products, practices, and changes in land use and tenure, NYS will
need to balance its desire to maximize crediting from all farm practices against the costs of
implementation, burdens of accounting, verifying, and ensuring the mitigation benefit is not
reversed at a later date by subsequent activities.
b. For example: NYS might choose certain agricultural practices to participate in market-based
offsets because they are easily verifiable and permanent while also supporting less easily
accountable mitigation activities as co-benefits to other important initiatives such as soil health
or water quality.
4) COSTS
a. The social cost of carbon is an estimate of the dollar value of the total long-term damages caused
by emission of a metric ton of CO2. NYS must determine its social cost of carbon to consider
how future generations will be burdened by a changing climate.
b. Funds will need to be collected and directed to implement GHG mitigation activities.
c. We have identified practices which will save money for a farm (e.g. improved nitrogen
management or improved feed management), earn money in coming decades (e.g. woodland
management) or require upfront costs (e.g. manure storage cover + flare) but could participate in
robust offset programs funded by other sectors.
d. As discussed above, the degree to which verification and accounting is required adds costs that
must be considered.
5) OUTREACH NETWORK
a. NYS has a spatially distributed and robust technical assistance network (SWCD and CCE) with
various farm assistance programs through state, non-profit and other organizational capacity.
This existing network should be leveraged to further include GHG mitigation and outreach
programming.
b. For example: active water quality and soil health initiatives both target soil carbon and nitrogen
management for water resource protection as well as farm profitability. Improved soil carbon and
reduced nitrous oxide emission from improved nitrogen management practices are two co-
benefits that could be incorporated into existing farm visits and management plans for water
quality and soil health.
6) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
a. Stronger technical assistance is needed to overcome barriers in all aspects of Carbon Farming.
b. For example: measuring and analyzing GHG emission and mitigation potential from field
management practices over time, creating demonstration plots, developing educational materials
and tools, training educators, increasing peer-to-peer teaching, increasing agriculture and forest
sector communication, administering grants, developing policies, crafting incentives, etc.
Priority Actions for Implementing GHG mitigating practices on NYS Agricultural Lands
In the main report, Table 3 presents opportunities in order of the size of total statewide GHG mitigation
potential (largest technical potential first, smallest technical potential last). From that suite of practices, the
following five practices were selected for priority implementation because they are the most cost effective and
permanent opportunities using currently available technologies and realistic verification methods. These
opportunities have co-benefits that are synergistic with other NYS initiatives such as water quality, farm
profitability, and energy saving. To note, the 5th option, ‘Activation of underutilized lands’, offers a large
mitigation opportunity but deserves close scrutiny from a State planning perspective because it involves land-
use changes that would affect current and future generations of stakeholders.

5
Manure storage cover and flare
Context: Manure storage units have been installed across NYS to improve water quality by reducing daily
spread of manure. However, manure storage creates large amounts of methane (CH4), a potent GHG.
Benefit 1: By covering these storage units, NYS further ensures water quality by preventing extreme
precipitation from causing overflow and violations of State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES) permit and/or water quality.
Benefit 2: By capturing and flaring the methane created by these storage units, NYS addresses a point
source of GHG emission at a relatively low cost per unit of GHG mitigated (i.e. a low cost to society, but
not necessarily to an individual farm). This system provides an easy to verify and permanent emission
reduction with current technology and is practical because it requires participation of only a small group of
about 500 farms.
Opportunity: This opportunity engages ~500 farms, has the potential to easily verify and permanently mitigate
~1.29 Tg CO2e/yr at a cost of <$13 Mg CO2e (based on GWP of CH4 = 25).
Barriers: Has upfront costs; may require retrofitting as existing manure storage units may not be currently
suitable to receive a cover; current water quality policies to implement new manure storage units should be
revised to include a cover or include a design to retrofit a cover easily at a later date; milk prices might
affect whether farmers are able to take advantage of the cost-share system currently in place (see
incentives).
Incentives: Destroying methane addresses a potent Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP); “cover+flare”
systems are inexpensive from a Social Cost of Carbon perspective; there is existing NYS AGM Climate
Resilient Farming (CRF) cost share programming for “cover+flare” system expansion; there are farmers
who have covers and flares who can share their first-hand experience; some farms install covers simply to
reduce odors and improve neighbor relations.
Nitrogen management
Context: Nitrogen (N) is important for plant growth, but N that is not taken up by plants can result in nitrous
oxide (N2O) emissions, a potent GHG.
Benefit 1: Improving N use efficiency while maintaining or increasing yields will reduce emissions of
ammonia that causes air pollution and reduce nitrate leaching that causes water pollution.
Benefit 2: Improving the efficiency of nitrogen (N) fertilizer use can save money while maintaining or
increasing crop yields. This is accomplished by applying N fertilizers according the site-specific needs of a
field using the 4R principles (right source, right time, right rate, and right place).
Benefit 3: Because N2O is an extremely potent and long-lived GHG, small improvements in N management
result in GHG reduction at low cost.
Opportunity: This opportunity engages all farms and could be verified indirectly to mitigate ~0.2Tg CO2e/yr.
We estimate ¾ of this mitigation opportunity could be achieved by cost-savings on farm or <$10 Mg CO2e.
Barriers: Some farmers likely apply extra N as ‘insurance’ to avoid any yield penalty if growing conditions are
extremely favorable. However, the 4R principle guidelines have gained traction and have modest upfront
costs. The precision N-management systems have more upfront costs for tools, training technical assistance
and extending these skills to farms and fields but provide improved profitability and reduced N pollution to
watersheds and N2O emission to the atmosphere.
Incentives: Improving N use efficiency can save money or be inexpensive to implement making it a rational
decision for many farms. Farmers have support through NYS Soil and Water Conservation Districts
(SWCD) and Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) to improve N use efficiency. Incentives may be needed
to make more sophisticated precision management tools available along with proper training to education
and outreach organizations like SWCD and CCE staff who do farm site visits. Alternatively, N-industry
officials could subsidize tools and then function as carbon-credit aggregators but may have a conflict of
interest (sell more fertilizer versus gain more credit for climate mitigation).

6
Livestock feed management
Context: Increasing feed efficiency can often improve farm viability by improving production efficiency; this
reduces the CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions from feed production, livestock (enteric), and manure.
Benefit 1: Improved feed efficiency can lower costs and improve farm profitability.
Benefit 2: Improved feed efficiency can reduce water, air and GHG emissions from feed production,
enteric, and manure management system emissions.
Opportunity: This opportunity engages all dairy farms. We estimate this practice could be verified indirectly to
mitigate ~ 0.7 Tg of CO2e/yr. This practice could be implemented at a cost-savings to the farmer or would
require modest support for improved feed management planning and implementation.
Barriers: There are up-front and ongoing costs for improved diet planning, feed and forage management,
implementation, and sustaining implementation.
Incentives: Improves farm profitability. Reduces acres needed for feed production (beneficial leakage).
Training, support, and peer-to-peer sharing may make this practice a long-lived cultural norm.
Woodland management
Context: According to NYS AGM, more than 21% of agricultural land is wooded (~1.4 million acres),
providing an important carbon sink in NYS.
Benefit 1: Woodlands diversify the farm portfolio while providing wildlife habitat, improved water
quality, and other ecosystem services.
Benefit 2: Protecting, maintaining, and better managing woodlands on farms conserves and enhances an
important NYS carbon sink.
Opportunity: This opportunity engages 1.4 million acres currently owned by farmers. While we don’t have an
estimate of the total GHG mitigation potential for this opportunity, it represents a large sink that could be
managed better for long term profitability, forest health and improved carbon sequestration at a low cost
per unit of GHG mitigation.
Barriers: Improved GHG mitigation in woodlands requires decadal management but has 100-year or longer
carbon sequestration benefits. Requires upfront investment for a qualified forester to develop a
management plan, requires cost or labor to implement the plan and perform periodic maintenance. Policy
makers and Cooperative Extension often function in silos of ‘agriculture’ and ‘forestry’ when there may be
great benefit of sharing knowledge and strategy between these two important land types, landowners, and
land managers.
Incentives: Educating and supporting improved woodland management to defray implementation costs
improve farm profitability in the long term by increasing value of harvestable wood products. These
activities also increase total carbon sequestration if properly implemented.
Activation of underutilized lands
Context: There are ~1.7 million acres of underutilized or former agricultural lands in NYS that could be
activated (Wightman et al. 2015a) for purposes such as bioenergy production, solar arrays, and forestry (for
increased wood products and concomitant GHG mitigation by carbon sequestration and/or fossil fuel
displacement).
Benefit 1: Currently these lands provide a myriad of ecosystem services.
Benefit 2: If converted to forest, these lands could provide a very large new carbon sink for NYS. However,
these lands could also support other valuable GHG mitigating activities such as agroforestry, renewable
energy, perennial cropping systems, or increased livestock production.
Opportunity: This opportunity engages 1.7 million acres of idle or underutilized grass and shrub lands. If
converted to healthy growing forests, this land area could mitigate ~4.9 Tg CO2e/yr at a cost of ~$10-
$50/Mg CO2e.
Barriers: Afforestation requires substantial upfront investment and proper management to overcome pests and
establish a forest stand although over time it could increase landowner income. These lands are of variable

7
productivity, some are sloping, some are small parcels, and landowners have many goals for their land
besides commercial agriculture, forestry, or energy production. Therefore, not all of these lands will be
available and would also require a great deal of effort to mobilize the wide variety and large number of
landowners to invest in commercial enterprises.
Incentives: The mitigation value for this land represents a large opportunity (see Afforestation of idle
agricultural land in Table 3). Land use planning should be considered in any incentive program. With
upfront investment, proper management, and supply chain development, activities could increase landowner
income, but substantial incentives would likely be required.
A note on the need for Policy Analysis for determining appropriate Policy Levers for Agricultural GHG mitigation
This report was motivated by the idea that a policy lever such as a tax incentive would help farmers adopt
certain GHG mitigating practices. Adopting a beneficial practice is very different than accounting for the
quantity or quality of the mitigation practice to be compared to other mitigation strategies or to verifiably attain
state mandated GHG mitigation targets. This analysis provides a preliminary technical potential of GHG
mitigation for a range of practices to inform policy analysis. Additionally, we have identified co-benefits
associated with each practice and evaluated these practices with key terms important to policy analysis: Real,
Permanent, Verifiable and Leakage. We do not qualify if a practice is Additional, for reasons discussed in
Appendix B. While all of these criteria are important, our selected Priority Actions above were selected as being
both permanent and verifiable. How policy levers are designed to maximize practice implementation within the
larger state objectives is outside the scope of this report. Many criteria must be considered beyond the technical
potential and the co-benefits of the practices. For example, policy analysis should help to minimize gaming,
assess leakage among sectors or states, compare more rigorous additionality requirements to achieve real cross-
sector reductions, or evaluate payments that support bundling of diverse benefits of improved working land
practices. However, in listening to various stakeholders we have heard some relevant points listed below.
• A tax incentive is only useful if a farm is profitable enough to use this benefit implying this is only
helpful to more profitable farms.
• The existing cost-share program (e.g. NYS AGM Climate Resilient Farming (CRF) program had a
reduction of applications for manure covers + flare in years of low milk prices) and also seems to be
dependent on farm profitability.
• Advocating that farms spend dollars now on improved woodland management requires upfront
investment for establishment and maintenance and only becomes profitable decades later if there is
demand for wood products. While agricultural woodlands can be harvested intentionally for planned
events such as funding a child’s college education or a landowner’s retirement, they may also be
harvested sub-optimally and aggressively to provide immediate cash during difficult economic times.
• Advocating that land be put into trusts to ensure GHG mitigation may inhibit the ability of farms to
respond to social and economic shifts. Likewise, converting idle agricultural land into forests for more
permanent carbon sequestration inhibits the state’s ability to use that land to expand agricultural
production.
• Payments for ecosystem services or incentives for a system change (e.g. converting annual crops to
perennial crops or adding cover crops) require a commitment to sustain those payments and systems or
else some or all of the GHG mitigation may be lost.
• The economy of scale for small farms to participate in a given opportunity (e.g. buy new equipment to
implement a new practice that covers a small area) may be cost-prohibitive.
• Certain incentives to other sectors, such as programs to increase solar arrays could compete for high
quality agricultural land in close proximity to roads or transmission lines.
The above points are not exhaustive of issues associated with different policy levers – rather they illustrate that
NYS needs a framework for how it wants to engage its working lands for multiple benefits to society including
food, feed, fiber, and fuel production, improved water and air quality, rural economic vitality, recreation,

8
aesthetics, diversity, etc. While there are many ways to support farms, we have provided the rationale to
incentivize certain more permanent and verifiable GHG mitigation practices while identifying other practices
that are less permanent and verifiable as ‘directionally beneficial’ for GHG mitigation – a co-benefit that can be
bundled with other NYS objectives like initiatives to support regenerative agriculture.
Summary
As NYS endeavors to meet its ambitious climate mitigation goals and as agriculture adapts to a changing
climate, we recommend NYS prioritize the more permanent and easily verifiable GHG mitigating practices first
as they reduce GHG emissions with a reasonable degree of accountability. There are many opportunities for
farmers and other landowners to pro-actively mitigate GHG emissions, but it is critical that the flux of all three
GHGs (CH4, N2O and CO2) be considered together and that priority be given to more permanent mitigation
required to address climate change. For example, there is a push to sequester carbon in soil or in growing trees
but the former can be hard to verify and easily reversible while the latter can be easier to verify and more
permanent. There are two major categories of cost, 1) practice implementation and 2) practice verification
(including accounting, insurance, etc.). NYS will need to decide if it wants to implement more practices with
less stringent verification, or if it wants the agricultural sector to actively participate in cross-sector offsets
requiring more rigorous protocols to ensure real, verifiable and enforceable mitigation. Additional consideration
should be given to avoiding detrimental leakage as well as promoting beneficial leakage such as reducing
“upstream” emissions from fertilizer manufacturing that occurs outside NYS. There are also many competing
demands for NYS land, with trade-offs for increasing agricultural production versus bioenergy feedstock
production versus carbon sequestration. Above we have highlighted the top five best management practices
(BMPs) for immediate policy development that could be implemented in the next 2-5 years. Below in Table 3
we include a wide range of other opportunities worthy of further research or more critical consideration before
policy development.
Background
Twenty-five U.S. states and territories including New York State (NYS) participate in the US Climate Alliance
to deliver on commitments to the Paris Climate Agreement (as of 2020). New York is the 4th most populated
US State covering 54,000 square miles equivalent in size to countries such as Bangladesh, Greece, Uruguay, or
North Korea. Of that area, 25% is agriculture and 63% is forested. New York is positioned to be a leader in
combating climate change with ambitious GHG mitigation targets, including the passage of the Climate
Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) which requires 85% reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions from all sectors by 2050 (40% by 2030). This report identifies ways that working lands in NYS may
help meet the 2030 goals at low cost and with other benefits to help our farms, forests and communities thrive
in a changing climate.
Investing in conservation, restoration, and improved land management practices can increase carbon storage
and avoid GHG emissions. A recent study for the USA quantified 21 Natural Climate Solutions (NCS)
“pathways” such as improved forest management and improved agricultural practices that offer cost-effective
climate mitigation opportunities (Fargione et al. 2018). In this report, we identify mitigation pathways that we
believe are most promising for policy development by NYS to help meet its ambitious GHG mitigation goals,
either directly through GHG-specific policies, or indirectly as co-benefits associated with achieving other
benefits such as improved water quality, soil health, or increased renewable energy.
Every decision among the options presented is directly and indirectly a function of land-use and land-use
change. That is, the policies developed will have land use and social consequences. For example, if food waste
by end-users is reduced, less land is required for food production, freeing up land resources for other initiatives.
Improved transportation systems combined with higher density development will use some land but may also

9
reduce transportation emissions and reduce development of current agricultural lands. Increasing demand for
renewable energy may favor large-scale solar installations on prime agricultural land in place of biomass
derived forms of energy (food, feed, fiber, biofuel). We recommend that NYS take a bird’s eye view of how it
wants to use its finite land resource base over the next 100 years. We recommend an overarching assessment of
the quality and quantity of the land resource base so that policies can be set in place to navigate community
development (e.g. housing, roads), ensure ecosystem services (e.g. provision of clean water and air), evaluate
production from non-developed lands (e.g. activate idle lands), manage market and other forces that cause land
use change (e.g. agricultural land to forested land, housing, or renewable energy projects), and consider
agricultural intensification (e.g. double cropping, alley cropping, and agroforestry). Climate planning around
development, agriculture, forestry, and underutilized lands should have a land-use-planning component (not
addressed in this report), an inventory of emissions and emissions reductions from the land (for a preliminary
report see McDonnell et al. 2020 in press), and an assessment of feasibility for particular activities currently
achievable as well as those likely to be achievable in the near future (addressed in this report). During the last
century NYS has moved from being primarily agricultural to primarily forested (on a land area basis). However,
these agricultural lands that have returned to forest are often not actively managed and increased efforts to
provide information and assistance to landowners would be beneficial within Cooperative Extension and Soil
and Water Conservation District agendas. As agricultural and forested lands are deeply linked socially,
politically and geographically, we recommend an increase in Extension and outreach effort for the management
of forests in the same way we advocate the management of active agricultural land for the benefit of all.
Following the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYS AGM) mandate (2008 NYS Bill
S8148/A10685), NYS fiscal year 2017-18 budget (S2004-D), and the Carbon Farming Act (A3281), this
project, administered through NYS AGM develops a scientifically based assessment of opportunities and
barriers to support climate adaptation and mitigation practices on working NYS agricultural lands. Carbon
Farming was defined as “the implementation of a land management strategy for the purposes of reducing,
sequestering, and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions on land used in support of a farm operation and
quantifying those greenhouse gas benefits”. This report identifies the most promising on-farm practices that can
deliver Real, Permanent, and Verifiable GHG mitigation to assist NYS in meeting its ambitious GHG
mitigation goals. Where appropriate, we also point out issues of Leakage of emissions to other states or sectors
that result from market or policy forces. These terms modified from the most recent US EPA Climate Leaders
program (now discontinued) and other terms are defined in Table 1 below.
Common GHG definitions in the Working Lands Context
Below we give examples of common terms as they relate to dynamic and diverse working lands.
TABLE 1. Terms for Evaluating Mitigation Strategies
Term
Definition
Policy Implication (with a focus on agriculture)
Permanent
The GHG reductions must
be permanent or have
guarantees.
As mitigating climate change is a long-term project, a more
permanent mitigation practice is likely more easily verifiable (less
cost) and a payment for a more permanent practice will likely
ensure a quantitative reduction in GHG emissions. Because
working lands are constantly cycling nitrogen and carbon,
reversible or less permanent practices require return visits to a site
(increasing verification costs) to ensure a practice continues to
meet GHG mitigation goals.
Verifiable
GHG reduction
performance can be readily
and accurately quantified,
monitored and verified.
Verification safeguards the accounting of GHG mitigation within
and between sectors and for society. Some practices require more
resources to verify and therefore a practice that is inexpensive to
implement might be expensive to verify.

10
Real
The quantified GHG
reductions must represent
actual emission reductions.
Real avoids ‘gaming the system’. For example, a real reduction
does not intentionally increase baseline emissions to gain more
credit for mitigating, and also accounts for all three GHG to
properly assess net benefit from a practice.
Additional
The GHG reductions must
be surplus to regulation and
beyond what would have
happened anyway in the
absence of the practice or
in a business-as-usual
scenario.
NYS must define the boundaries for its own version of
additionality. It is important for identifying who pays for a change
in practice, who is paid, and who gets the accounting credit. A
practice with a high return on investment, or a practice with
multiple benefits may be in the landowners best interest even if it
is not currently a common practice. Defining additionality
including predicting what would have happened without a policy
is challenging (see Appendix B for discussion).
Leakage
Leakage means that a
change in emissions in one
location/sector induces
change in emissions in
another location/sector.
For example, reducing livestock production in NYS might reduce
in-state emissions, but induce increased livestock production
elsewhere, resulting in no net GHG benefit.
Further information is provided in the section titled ‘Measurable’
and in Appendix B.
Social
Cost of
Carbon
(SC-
CO2e)
The social cost of carbon is
an estimate of the dollar
value of the total long-term
damages caused by
emission of a metric ton of
CO2 (e.g., NAS 2017,
Hsiang et al. 2017).
Under the CLCPA, NYS is required to define its own SC-CO2e
value. How NYS funds a GHG mitigation practice is a separate
challenge. When possible, we provide estimates of the direct cost
to implement proposed mitigation activities on farms, not
including costs for verification, program management, etc. Our
priority ranking chose practices with low cost implementation,
high permanence, and high verifiability.
We evaluated three key greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, CO2; methane, CH4; and nitrous oxide, N2O, Table
2). We identified co-benefits including water quality, profitability, adaptation to climate change, community
relations, and energy, among others. Whenever possible, we estimated the size of the mitigation opportunity
state-wide, the number of stakeholders/acres etc. needed to accomplish the mitigation opportunity, and the farm
financial savings or additional costs to achieve the mitigation practice (Table 3). We also identified potential
barriers and incentives to implement the practice (Table 3).
To rank and prioritize the opportunities in Table 3, we used the “SMART” decision-making matrix for ranking
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for GHG-mitigation, where we defined SMART as:
S = Services: In addition to GHG mitigation, there are often other co-benefits or “ecosystem services”
provided by implementing a given BMP, as follows: Soil health, Community relations, Adaptation
to climate change, Profitability, Air quality, Water quality, Biodiversity, and Energy.
M = Measurable: The estimated statewide GHG mitigation potential from a practice qualified by the
degree to which it is Verifiable.
A = Achievable: The estimated direct cost of implementing a BMP.
R = Realistic: The amount of societal engagement (such as the number of acres, availability of
appropriate tools, or number of stakeholders) that must be enlisted to implement Real emission
reduction.
T = Time Frame: The time scale over which the mitigation would occur, qualified by the extent the
mitigation is reversible or Permanent.
RANK = We use the SMART categories to develop a ranking. We apply a star for each letter S, M, A,
R, T if the practice meets a threshold for that attribute. We recommend that 4 and 5-star practices are

11
high priority for policy development whereas practices with 2 or fewer stars we recommend be
developed further for second generation policy development.
Important aspects of GHG accounting include (1) beneficial or detrimental Leakage, (2) upstream or
downstream emissions, (3) emissions across land-use/sector/state boundaries, (4) permanence or reversibility,
and (5) the degree of verifiability (verifiable, reliable, or directionally beneficial). Notably, some directionally
beneficial BMPs may support statewide GHG mitigation goals, but they may be difficult to verify or have issues
with permanence, etc. In fact, NYS has robust soil health and water quality initiatives and many of these
directionally beneficial GHG mitigation strategies could be integrated into these and other initiatives (e.g.
renewable energy, air quality, etc.), while noting GHG mitigation as a co-benefit. That is, we have framed this
analysis both holistically and empirically to achieve the most real and permanent GHG benefit at low cost to
most effectively reduce GHG emissions and reduce the damage from climate change. Farms deliver many
important services to society and we highlight practices that provide healthy and profitable food, feed, fiber, and
fuel production along with environmental benefits including improved soil, air, and water quality.
To keep the main body of the report short and focused, we provide additional information in a series of
appendices. These appendices include (1) a list of baseline assumptions of what we did not evaluate [Appendix
A, Table A1], (2) what is assumed not to change [Appendix A, Table A2], (3) a section on definitions and
abbreviations [Appendix B], (4) how the Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) pathway definitions compare to the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) and SWCC Agriculture BMP Systems Catalog definitions
[Appendix B, Table B3], and (5) a list of tools, information sheets, resources, funding mechanisms, incentives
and other states’ programs and methodologies to spark a range of options for NYS policy makers to deploy an
expanded suite of GHG mitigation policies [Appendix C, Table C1].
Methods
Services
Services listed are based on probable co-benefits from a well-implemented practice. They are generically
defined, in order to include a broad categorization across a myriad of diverse practices. For example,
Community Relations for covering and flaring emissions from a manure storage unit means the cover greatly
reduces odors that drift onto neighboring properties, while Community Relations for reduced food waste means
reduced trash, pests, truck trips, etc.
Broadly defined, this suite of co-benefits that may apply to a given BMP are coded as follows:
• Soil health (e.g. increased soil organic matter, productivity, water retention or infiltration)
• Community Relations (e.g. decreased odor, increased recreational land)
• Adaptation to climate change (e.g. resilient to extreme weather, improved animal housing temperatures)
• Air quality (e.g. decreased exposure to volatile organic compounds or particulate matter)
• Profitability (e.g. cost-savings, increased productivity, etc.)
• Water quality (e.g. improved nutrient efficiency, improved watershed protection)
• Biodiversity (e.g. increased habitat, ecological diversity, or species diversity)
• Energy (e.g. energy efficiency, renewable energy opportunity, reduced purchase of energy intensive
products like synthetic nitrogen fertilizer)
Measurable
Measurable refers to a preliminary quantification of GHG mitigation potential at the State level (McDonnell et
al. 2020, in press). “Measurable” is meant to assist planners in understanding the scale of a potential mitigation
strategy. That being said, there are many competing uses for land, a wide variety of implementation practices,
and changing conditions for what is a viable industry for that land (for example, sold to developers, converted to

12
equine farms, leased to solar companies, converted to forest). As a result, the values listed are meant as a
technical potential for a limited range of actual land-uses and BMPs.
We define three different categories to qualify “measurable” from high to low verifiability as follows:
• Verifiable practices have direct tools and methodologies for real, measurable, and cost-effective
quantitative assessment.
• Reliable practices may have indirect tools or methodologies for quantification, may require collection
and assessment of many sequential steps in a supply chain, or may be real but quantitatively small. For
these reasons, formal verification is more difficult or costly.
• Directionally Beneficial practices may provide GHG benefit but are too small or variable to merit the
costs of formal verification, verification is too onerous and therefore too costly, or the mitigation from a
practice is easily reversible and potentially not a permanent practice.
To assist planners in understanding how well this technical potential can be tracked quantitatively for State level
inventory and accounting purposes, we selected three terms for ranking reliability for quantitative assessment.
Highest ranked practices labeled Verifiable have tools and methodologies that either track or can be tracked in a
practical and cost-effective manner. As one example, a manure storage unit cover and flare system equipped
with a meter and temperature sensor measures the gas flow and the flare effectiveness. As a second example, a
forest management project with healthy growing trees can be verified once per decade (visually or quantified by
measuring tree diameter and height and using standard allometric equations and factors to estimate stand
volume and carbon content). The second highest ranking for quantitative assessment is Reliable. Reliable
practices reliably reduce GHG emissions but may be calculated indirectly, require a large number of steps in a
supply chain requiring much work to quantitatively verify, or may be a small but certain practice that can be
evaluated simply with a site visit (trees planted as a riparian buffer can be visually verified to be still growing in
that particular place). Directionally Beneficial is a term applied to practices for which the benefit is too small to
merit the costs of formal verification, verification is too onerous and therefore too costly, or the mitigation from
the practice is easily reversible and potentially not a permanent practice therefore it receives the lowest ranking.
See also Time Frame and Appendix B for further discussion of Permanence. This is not intended as a final
judgement, but rather identifies a need for more consideration to meet rigorous accounting objectives. For
example, no-till or reduced tillage has many benefits for soil health, has a small technical potential for increased
soil carbon if performed in careful combination with residue management, fertilizer management, and crop
rotations, but it is not permanent and is very difficult to verify.
In general, “measurable” is the key component of our ranking system. A highly verifiable practice is a likely
candidate for state supported initiatives. A large and highly verifiable practice offers a meaningful state-scale
GHG mitigation opportunity. In contrast, a directionally beneficial practice is most likely best treated as a
GHG-mitigating co-benefit of a non-GHG state initiative. For example, no-till might best be considered a water
quality initiative or soil health initiative with a possible small or temporary co-benefit of GHG mitigation.
As NYS develops protocols for verification, some basic guidelines should be included. We present conceptual
guidelines here to help inform selection of practices that may contribute to NYS’s GHG mitigation goals.
Verification upholds the integrity and quality of the data reported. Standardizing verification procedures
promote relevance, completeness, consistency, accuracy, and transparency of emissions reductions reported by
project developers. Transparent processes ensure practices are real, additional, permanent, verifiable and
enforceable, compatible with other types of mitigation initiatives, support on-going monitoring, and minimize
the risk of invalid or double accounting.
We suggest that it is useful to support all practices that are directionally beneficial even if they are difficult,
expensive, or reversible. However, NYS needs to identify how it will prioritize actions and funding as the State
navigates implementation of GHG mitigation within the agricultural sector and among all sectors. There are

13
multiple types of cost including (1) developing state programs for implementation, (2) supporting education and
outreach, (3) implementing the actual practices, (4) verifying mitigation, and (5) overall accounting. The task
ahead is large; verification is a tool that is combined with a practice to determine its effectiveness with respect
to the state-wide goal of actual emissions reductions. All activities can be verified to some degree, but some
activities are easier to verify, reducing overall accounting costs.
Another important issue for GHG accounting and analysis of mitigation opportunities is “leakage”. Leakage
refers to a change in emissions implemented in one location that creates a change in emissions in another
location. If this other location is outside the boundary of the region analyzing its inventory, such as NYS, it can
greatly affect the interpretation of the efficacy of a GHG mitigation practice. For example, in response to one
state’s policy, a forest products company may place 1,000 acres of forest under a permanent conservation
easement preventing any harvest in order to sequester carbon. However, to meet the market demand for lumber,
the company may then increase production by harvesting 1,000 acres in another state. As shown in this
example, leakage occurs due to market forces and policies across state boundaries. The effect is that GHG
emissions are ‘leaked’ from one local farm, sector, or state and transferred to another site, industry, or
governing body. Analyzing across all locations, leakage can either increase total net GHG emissions
(detrimental leakage) or decrease total net GHG emissions (beneficial leakage). Detrimental leakage can be
illustrated occur across sectors, for example if reforesting NYS agricultural lands to sequester carbon results in
an increase of imported food grown on land in Pennsylvania, causing an increase of agricultural GHG emissions
there. An example of beneficial leakage would be policies that cause NYS farms to use less synthetic N
fertilizer (manufactured in Ohio), thus reducing the fossil fuels and associated GHG emissions used in Ohio to
make that synthetic N fertilizer. For this reason, we focus primarily on mitigation categories that reduce the
potential for detrimental leakage, and also point out when such leakage might occur.
Achievable
Achievable is a measure of cost/savings/investment for implementing a practice. Costs for implementation were
generally derived from Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) curves constructed from the available information in
the literature (many from Fargione et al. 2018). A marginal abatement cost curve represents the monetary cost
of achieving one additional ton of sequestered GHG or avoided GHG emissions and indicates the total quantity
of net GHG reductions that can be achieved at different price points such as $10, $50, and $100 per MT CO2e.
Scientists project that damages from climate change may cost society more than $100 per metric ton of
CO2 emitted: this is known as the “social cost of carbon” (for example, NAS 2017, Hsiang et al. 2017).
However, there is a very wide range of estimates for the social cost of carbon, and more recent literature that
accounts for more factors finds higher values (for example Moore et al. 2015). Furthermore, a price of $100 per
ton of CO2e is required to keep the 100-year average temperature from warming more than 2.5°C, and an even
higher cost would be required to meet the Paris agreement goal of less than 2.0°C. Therefore, spending up to
$100 per ton can be considered cost-effective for climate benefits. This proportion of the maximum potential
mitigation total is the best measure for understanding society’s ability to employ natural climate solutions as a
response to climate change. For some practices, the nationally averaged cost estimates (Fargione et al. 2018)
were down-scaled to the State level and are accessible here: https://nature4climate.org/u-s-carbon-mapper/.
Because NYS will have to consider its own definition of ‘affordability’ for GHG mitigation practices we have
simply indicated whether we think this measurable technical potential is achievable within this cost range (from
saving money to spending $100 per metric ton CO2e). It is important to note that other co-benefits such as
improved air quality, soil quality, and water quality also have financial benefits, even if they are difficult to
quantify; the total benefits of a practice should be considered, not just the GHG benefits. As the social cost of
carbon increases over time, NYS will need to decide if it wants to increase spending to make more-difficult-to-
verify practices, verifiable, or if it wants to expand support to farms to increase their directionally beneficial but
less verifiable practices. Drafting and implementing policies, educating, changing a practice, and verification all

14
cost money. As a practice moves away from ‘verifiable’ to ‘directionally beneficial’ the costs of verification go
up, reducing money available to implement new practices.
Note: Greenhouse Gas Accounting Issues
In July 2019 NYS Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) was signed by Governor
Cuomo. The CLCPA specifies that future analyses for NYS will use the 20-year Global Warming Potential
(GWP) from the IPCC AR5 report (2014). This means a large increase for the calculated impact from methane
(from 34 to 86) and a small decrease for nitrous oxide (298 to 268).
TABLE 2: Global Warming Potential (GWP) of GHG relevant to agriculture
GHG
GWP
(20-year time scale)
GWP
(100-year time scale)
Source
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
1
1
IPCC. AR5. 2014
Methane (CH4)
86
34
IPCC. AR5. 2014
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
268
298
IPCC. AR5. 2014
The analyses reported here and elsewhere generally use a 100-year GWP value of 25 (AR4 value) for methane.
Therefore, our estimates for methane related mitigation opportunities, presented are undervalued by a factor of
~three for calculations going forward under the CLCPA. This changes the accounting for methane-related
projects; it increases the amount of emissions and mitigation potential (by ~3-fold) and decreases the cost of
mitigation (by ~3-fold).
Realistic
Realistic refers to the scope of societal engagement required for the technical potential to make Real GHG
mitigation. Factors that impact realistic implementation include the number of acres that would need to be
involved to achieve a quantity of mitigation, the availability of appropriate tools to implement or verify a
practice, or the number of stakeholders that would need to be enlisted to actually implement Real emission
reductions.
Time Frame
The Time Frame is the time scale over which the mitigation would occur, qualified by the extent the mitigation
is reversible or Permanent. This can include a limit to the time of benefit (lifespan of required equipment) or
years before the benefit of a practice is fully realized across the participating lands, stakeholders, or
management practices for NYS benefit. For example, a practice may increase soil carbon if maintained and not
reversed but reach a new equilibrium after several decades with no further increase after that time. The time
scale is also affected by the GWP of different gases associated with a practice. Also, a specific practice may be
Permanent or Reversible over a particular time scale. When analyzing living biological systems like agriculture,
the idea of permanence is problematic. Here, we consider aspects including fossil fuels not emitted because a
tractor is more efficient, excess nitrogen that was not used thus reducing N2O emissions while maintaining
yields, acres committed to long term reserve with specific guarantees, or long-lived wood products harvested
from a well-managed forest to be among the permanent opportunities providing long-term benefit. Rapidly
reversible or short-lived sequestration would not be considered permanent and therefore not be considered a
strong candidate for a long-term mitigation potential. This permanence consideration is applied to all industries
(not just agriculture) and is an important concept for prioritizing and delivering the long-term GHG accounting
necessary for mitigating climate change. For more discussion about Permanence, please see Appendix B. Again,
less-permanent GHG mitigation practices might be best implemented as a co-benefit from an initiative focused
on other primary benefits such as soil-health or water quality.

15
Comments on Units and GWP Conversions
Units: For statewide quantitative assessment (seen in the column named Measurable in Table 3 below), we have
chosen to use the units of teragrams. One teragram (Tg) is 1 trillion grams equal to 1 million Mg (megagram) or
equal to 1 million metric tons. In contrast, we have chosen to use the unit of Mg (megagram, or metric ton = 1.1
US tons) for the cost of implementation (seen in the column defined as Achievable in Table 3 below) as this is
more appropriate for understanding the payment for implementation of a practice at a farm level and matches
the units of the Social Cost of Carbon.
Global Warming Potential (GWP): This analysis uses the 100-year GWP for N2O and CH4. In comparison to
the CLCPA mandate to use the 20-year GWP effectively means our reported values are nearly three-fold lower
for methane and slightly higher for nitrous oxide (see Table 2).

16
Mitigation Opportunities
TABLE 3. GHG Mitigation Opportunities by Size & SMARTness
PATHWAY
S
Services
M
Measurable
A
Achievable
R
Realistic
T
Time Frame
Definitions
Services are co-
benefits that
may apply to a
given practice:
• Soil Health
• Community
Relations
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Profitability
• Air Quality
• Water Quality
• Biodiversity
• Energy
A Measurable
quantity (Tg,
teragram CO2e) that
is technically
feasible in NYS,
ranked into three
categories of
verifiability from
high (1) to low
certainty (3):
• Verifiable (rank 1)
• Reliable (rank 2)
• Directionally
Beneficial (rank 3)
Achievable refers
to the relative cost
estimate for
implementing a
practice (0-$100/
Mg CO2e, where
Mg is megagram
or metric ton).
Note. These are
estimated costs to
implement, not
including cost to
measure, verify,
or account in
formal registries.
Realistic refers
to amount of
engagement
necessary to
activate a
mitigation
practice, such
as acres of
applicable
lands, number
of stakeholders
to be engaged,
or availability
of technical
tools.
Time Frame
refers to
lifespan of
infrastructure,
temporal limits
of mitigation
strategy
(saturation of
practice), and
short-and-long
term
effectiveness.
(indirectly a
measure of
Permanence)
NYS MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES, Larger Scale (1-5 Tg^ CO2e/yr)
^Tg (teragram) = 1 million Mg (megagram) or 1 million metric tons
3.1 Afforestation of idle or underutilized agricultural land
Increased carbon sequestration in above and below ground biomass and soils gained by converting non-forest
(<25% tree cover) to forest (>25% tree cover) in areas where forests are the native cover type.
Rank
****
Priority
Services
*
• Soil Health
• Community
Relations
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Profitability
• Biodiversity
• Energy
Measurable
*
-4.9 Tg^ CO2/yr
Rank 1:
Verifiable
Achievable
*
$10-50/Mg CO2e
or higher
Realistic
~1.7 million
acres (not
confident this is
realistic due to
significant
competing
uses, but
represents a
large mitigation
opportunity)
Time Frame
*
Decadal
With 100-year
impacts
Services. Services include a broad range of co-benefits: Soil Health, Community Relations (e.g. improved
recreational and aesthetic areas), Adaptation, Profitability, Biodiversity, Energy production potential from
forest management residues. However, loss of grass and shrub habitat also reduces habitat for species that
depend on such land cover.

17
Measurable. Verifiable. We estimated mitigation potential (McDonnell et al. 2020 in press) by combining area
estimates from Wightman et al. (2015) and average growth of maple-beech-birch forest stands from Smith et al.
(2006). Carbon sequestration in a growing forest can be verified by visual inspection & measurements of trees.
Achievable. Upfront and middle term costs based on national average values from Fargione et al. (2018). Long
term financial gain possible if managed properly and wood markets are available in the future.
Realistic. Real but maybe not Realistic. While afforestation provides a significant and real opportunity for
short-and-long term mitigation benefits, this scale of opportunity assumes all current shrub and scrubland
(878,170 ac) as well as all miscellaneous herbaceous land (870,997 ac) is converted to forest (Wightman et al,
2015, revised). This is the technical potential but achieving it depends on landowner adoption to actively
establish forest on underutilized agricultural land and then maintain it for long periods such as 100 years; As
there are a myriad of competing interests for land use, this number represents an upper limit as much of this
land could be used for other products such as renewable energy (below) and other uses.
Time Frame. Permanent. While a timely and important mitigation quantity and quality, afforestation of
underutilized agricultural lands also makes a return to agricultural production difficult. GHG benefit is
predicated on commitment to long-term forest growth/management. If this land is properly managed as forest
for 100 years, it should be considered a Permanent mitigation opportunity.
Barrier: It is highly unlikely that this technical potential will be achieved. One barrier is the large number of
individual landowners with different goals for how this land should be managed. Another barrier is that perhaps
it is not in the best interest of NYS to afforest all of this land area as it could have other important uses such as
growing biomass for food, feed, bioenergy, etc. The technical potential listed above will likely only be
achieved if there are significant incentives to make afforesting (and maintaining for long periods such as 50-
100 years despite other potential land uses such as selling to a developer) hard to resist. Research of land
suitability for competing uses should be evaluated to identify areas especially suitable for afforestation versus
land-uses such as increased pasture or hay production, solar energy siting, etc. If converted to forest for
example, this land requires a large upfront investment and proper management to establish a forest stand,
although these activities will likely increase landowner income over time. This mitigation strategy depends on
the ability to establish native species, including obtaining plants and/or seed, planting, managing weeds,
diseases, pests and herbivores, particularly deer. If forest growth rates on idle lands in NYS are limited by
establishment costs, herbivory or other factors, it may be difficult or costly to achieve the mitigation potential
estimated herein.
Incentive: With upfront investment, proper management, and product development, activities will increase
landowner income. This practice is real, permanent, verifiable and is an excellent candidate for trading, tax-
relief, reimbursement, or other kinds of policy incentives. We recommend stronger technical assistance, further
research into addressing pests for successful forest stand development, and financial support for implementing
this and other types of practices on this underutilized land. With a smart plan in place that identifies and
supports priority areas of afforestation, this opportunity could be implemented within the decade, sustaining
benefits over the next 100 years if managed well. Combined with existing woodlands on farms, we believe that
farmers, with support for the long-haul, could be excellent stewards, managing forests as they manage other
crops.
Caveat: Clearing forest land to make ‘new’ agricultural land is an energy intensive process. We recommend
NYS consider the other uses for this ‘idle agricultural land’ such as increased agricultural production before
choosing to advocate an afforestation policy.

18
3.2 Manure Storage Cover and Flare
Retrofitting liquid manure storage with cover & flare so that methane produced is captured and combusted.
Rank
*****
Priority
Services
*
• Community
Relations
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Air Quality
• Water Quality
Measurable
*
-1.29 Tg CO2/yr
Rank 1: Verifiable
Achievable
*
$13/Mg CO2e
(based on GWP
of CH4 = 25)
Realistic
*
~ 500 farms
and current
technology
(high
confidence)
Time Frame
*
Annual but
with 100-year
impact
(system
lifespan of 10-
20 yrs)
Services. Services include: Community Relations (odor reduction), Adaptation (prevents overflow in extreme
weather events), Air Quality (Volatile Organic Compounds, VOCs), Water Quality (improved timing of land
application) with the potential for energy self-sufficiency (not included) if methane is used for energy
displacement (heat, electricity, transport fuel) in an Anaerobic Digester System (ADS).
Measurable. Verifiable. A cover system that comes with a flare and meter is a verifiable way to assess
quantity of methane burned. However, the amount of methane released if there are leaks in the system, or due
to management operations may not be easily tracked. The value is based on a GWP for CH4 of 25 and is
modified from Wightman & Woodbury (2016) to include other large livestock farms beyond dairy (McDonnell
et al. 2020 in press).
Achievable. Achievable. Cost $13/Mg CO2e with GWP of 25 for CH4 (and conservatively assumes a 10-year
life span for the system, Wightman & Woodbury 2016). Using the CLCPA mandated 20-year GWP of 86, this
practice will cost ~1/3 of the $13/Mg CO2e.
Realistic. Real. This opportunity provides short-and-long term mitigation benefits with current technology.
The majority of this Measurable opportunity could be achieved by targeting the 493 CAFOs (in 2017),
involving a limited group of stakeholders.
Time Frame. Permanent. While this opportunity has upfront costs (we previously estimated $100,000-300,000
per farm based on a 10-year lifespan and 100-year GWP, Wightman & Woodbury 2016), the very real,
measurable, verifiable, and permanent mitigation of CH4 could be realized inexpensively per Mg CO2e with
multiple co-benefits to farmers. Listed as annual (for a system lifespan operating 10-20 years), the long-term
benefits of destroying methane (a short-lived climate pollutant, SLCP) is meaningful for addressing the high
Global Warming Potential (GWP) of methane (compare 20-yr GWP = 86 with 100-yr GWP = 34 values, IPCC,
2013). This objective has a large 10 to 20-year immediate benefit that is also significant on a 100-year timeline.
Barriers: Has high upfront costs per farm; may require retrofitting as existing manure storage units may not be
currently suitable to receive a cover; current water quality policies to implement/install new manure storage
units should be revised to include a cover or include a design to retrofit a cover easily at a later date; milk
prices will likely affect whether farmers are able to take advantage of the cost-share system currently in place
(see incentives).
Incentives: This mitigation system is real, permanent, verifiable, and is an excellent candidate for offset
trading, grant, tax-relief, reimbursement or other kinds of policy incentives. Destroying methane addresses a
potent Short-Lived Climate Pollutant (SLCP); “cover+flare” systems are inexpensive from a Social Cost of
Carbon perspective; there is existing NYS AGM Climate Resilient Farming (CRF) cost share programming for
“cover+flare” system expansion; there are farmers who have covers and flares to share their first-hand
experience; some farms put on covers simply to address odor to improve neighbor relations. With the relatively
low upfront cost of manure storage cover and flare systems (relative to many GHG mitigating activities as well

19
as anaerobic digestion systems (ADS) for generating electricity), and the manageable number farms involved,
we feel this opportunity could be fully applied in <5 years with an ambitious and comprehensive program. If
energy prices increase dramatically, cover & flare systems could be converted to ADS.
Caveats: It should be noted that for the US Climate Alliance, this opportunity falls under the SLCP initiative
rather than the Natural and Working Lands (NWL) initiative. It should also be noted that the 2019 Climate
Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) was signed into law by Governor Cuomo, specifying that
the 20-year GWP be used. As the 20-yr GWP for methane is 86, this indicates the emission would be ~3x
greater resulting in a mitigation cost per Mg CO2e would be approximately 3x lower than listed above.
3.3 Reduce Food Waste
Food waste occurs throughout the food system (farms through supply chains including pre- & post-consumer).
Rank
*
Services
*
• Community
Relations
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Profitability
• Air Quality
• Water Quality
• Energy
Measurable
-1.19 Tg CO2/yr
Rank 3:
Directionally
Beneficial
Achievable
Cost savings
throughout the
supply chain
Realistic
Everyone
(supply and
demand)
Time Frame
Annual
Services. Services include: Community Relations, Adaptation, Profitability, Air quality, Water Quality, and
Energy. This community benefit includes reduced trash, rats, odor, truck trips, landfill space, etc. All the co-
benefits occur due to increasing efficiency and thereby decreasing the emissions from the food system.
Measurable. Directionally Beneficial but not easily Verifiable. Reducing food waste is a sensible initiative for
a myriad of co-benefits but is difficult to measure/verify. However, benefits will be real, meaningful and cost-
beneficial up and down the supply chain and assumes a 50% decrease in current food waste. We developed this
preliminary “placeholder” estimate based on a USEPA estimate of 31% food waste (Buzby et al. 2014) and a
USEPA mitigation goal of half of that value by year 2030, applied to all agricultural emissions (McDonnell et
al. 2020 in press). This estimate does not include reduced emissions from landfills, hauling, etc., but rather
includes the reduction in emissions from agriculture to produce the food. The purpose of this preliminary
estimate is to draw attention to this important issue, more rigorous analysis is needed to better quantify the
opportunities at various steps in the food system.
Achievable. Every increase in efficiency in this supply/demand chain saves money for producers, processors,
retailers, consumers, and municipal waste managers.
Realistic. Real but difficult to make Realistic. This practice requires nearly every member of society to
participate which makes it a difficult but real opportunity, probably realized most efficiently at the supply-side
of the chain with market forces assisting on the demand side of the chain (with probable complications for low
income individuals).
Time Frame. Annually Permanent, but reversible behavior. This practice is likely slow to realize its potential
but would provide holistic social benefit in the near and long term. Requires significant education/outreach and
system wide evaluation. While we list this benefit as annual (i.e. culture can easily reverse its improved
behavior), we feel there are various trends (like New York City composting campaigns such as “Zero waste by
2030”) leading to longer term and measurable methods for keeping food waste out of landfills reducing
methane production, and returning nutrients to the land. Combined with upstream initiatives that improve

20
efficient production and distribution, this could also make more land available for other purposes or could
reduce food imports to the State with “beneficial leakage” reducing global GHG emissions.
Barriers: This initiative requires more research, will require significant outreach, and is likely difficult to
measure and verify. While we think this is a fantastic holistic opportunity, it requires a systems strategy and
more research on both quantification at different points in the food system as well as approaches for effective
implementation. As this opportunity requires a cultural shift, cultural reversal or other issues make this difficult
to consider as a long term, measurable solution until the cultural shift is steady.
Incentives: This initiative is good for everyone. Improved food system efficiency provides permanent
mitigation for any annual accomplishments. It also reduces the land area needed to grow our food, allowing
this land to be used for other constructive purposes. It is possible this issue could be solved by market-induced
efficiency and consumer awareness.
NYS MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES, Smaller Scale (<1 Tg^ CO2e/yr) or Size To Be Determined (TBD)
^Tg (teragram) = 1 million Mg (megagram) or 1 million metric tons
3.4 Renewable Energy
Renewable energy includes wind and solar energy production on farmland.
RANK
***
Priority
Services
*
• Community
Relations
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Air Quality
• Profitability
• Energy
Measurable
*
Large (TBD)
Rank 1: Verifiable
Achievable
TBD
Realistic
TBD
Realistic
proposition,
requires
proximity to
the grid
(infrastructure),
with land-use
impact
(leakage),
reflecting
policy and
market forces.
Time Frame
*
Annual
(for the life of
the system)
Services. Services include: Community Relations (development), Adaptation, Air Quality, Profitability, and
local sources of renewable Energy for farm or grid.
Measurable. Verifiable. Metered system.
Achievable. Invest, then Earn. This opportunity has significant potential to cause detrimental leakage and
given how this initiative intersects with NYS mandate of 100% clean power by 2040, there will be significant
land-use/land-change implications. Whether wind, solar, biomass, or reforestation (see above), this opportunity
is ideally limited to the area of underutilized lands and not prime farmland, but siting is likely to be strongly
determined by access to electrical transmission lines, roads, etc. Even on underutilized lands there is
competition with other opportunities of increased agricultural production, reforestation, recreation, hunting,
equine, etc. However, cost to connect with the grid must be included.
Realistic. Real. While there is real mitigation, landowners will need meaningful decision support to identify
what is right for them in the near-and-long term life of the system. While a completely realistic opportunity to

21
support, market forces (e.g. driven by policies to achieve the 100% carbon-free power by 2040) might strongly
influence land-use decisions for NYS.
Time Frame. Permanent. Upfront costs, but measurable and real benefit for the life of the system.
Barriers: Grid connection proximity will strongly influence where renewable energy projects are installed,
which could remove valuable agricultural land from production.
Incentives: Renewable energy is a Real, Measurable, Verifiable, and Permanent opportunity with multiple co-
benefits. That said, how it is implemented within the agricultural sector as well as for landowners in general
must be seriously considered. There is an urgent need for assessment of opportunities and land-use
considerations as the electric sector is targeted to be 100% clean power by 2040. Therefore, landowners must
receive unbiased information and support for navigating private industry initiatives, such as leasing large tracts
of land for large scale solar installations. Leakage considerations, landowner compensation, and education on
contracting needs to be developed immediately.
Caveat: This opportunity needs to be balanced with land use changes (development, forestry, habitat, etc.) as it
competes with other uses for the finite land area in the state (see afforestation mitigation opportunity 3.1
above). This opportunity could also cause detrimental leakage by displacing current agricultural production and
its concomitant emissions outside NYS. This is an example of how initiatives to reduce emissions from the
energy sector impacts the agricultural sector. Also, in GHG accounting, energy production falls under the
energy sector not the agriculture sector, so cross-communication between sectors is required for GHG policy
and accounting purposes.
3.5 Woodland Management
Farms have a variety of woodlands (agroforestry systems, forest systems). According to the NYS Office of the
Comptroller (2019) 21% of agricultural land (6,866,171 acres) is woodland (1.4 million acres). Changes in
management practices to increase net forest carbon sequestration could alter species composition, stand
structure, and stand density.
Rank
****
Priority
Services
*
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Profitability
• Water Quality
• Biodiversity
• Energy
Measurable
*
Large (TBD)
Rank 1-2:
Verifiable &/or
Reliable
Achievable
*
TBD
Invest then Earn
Realistic
1.4 million
acres owned by
farmers trained
to manage
working lands
Time Frame
*
Decadal
with 100-year
impact.
Services. Services include: Adaptation to Climate Change, Water quality, Profitability, Biodiversity and
Energy. Notably, if woodlands are converted to non-forest uses it would cause substantial GHG emissions.
Current wooded areas provide significant cultural and environmental services so maintaining them is a
significant defensive strategy for maintaining current sequestration and supporting state GHG mitigation goals.
Measurable. Verifiable and/or Reliable. If woodland is actively managed for long-lived timber products,
maintaining and optimizing woodland management can be Verifiable. Depending on the practice, woodland
managed for silvopasture or agroforestry may be a reliable source of improved GHG mitigation and other
benefits.
Achievable. Improved woodland management will likely increase greenhouse gas mitigation and profitability.
However, poor harvest practices due to difficult economic times or particular life events (retirement, college

22
tuition, medical bills), if not planned and implemented properly, can reduce the GHG mitigation benefit. While
woodlands could be managed to maximize carbon sequestration, the cost of doing so may be difficult for some
farmers to afford without financial support. However, improved woodland management is a very achievable
opportunity. Likewise, investing in new products through agroforestry will likely have upfront costs with
subsequent income from the sale of new products.
Realistic. Real. While this practice is real, and there are significant amounts of land available, the profitability
will be a function of timber or agroforest product markets. Also, parcel size will often be small in a ‘forest
management’ perspective, making it a lower priority for a farmer to consider or a forester to manage for
profitability. That being said, farmers are great land and product managers and improving woodland
management could provide multiple benefits to landowners and society.
Time Frame. Permanent if active forest management, likely permanent if agroforestry. If viewed like other
cropping systems and managed accordingly, this opportunity could fit well within a long-term plan for farm
viability as long as investment capital and wood product markets are available.
Barriers: Improved management requires management every decade but has carbon sequestration benefits for
more than 100 years. Requires upfront investment for a qualified forester to develop and implement a
management plan. A national survey of farms that own woodlands indicated only 30% of these landowners
have a forest management plan (Huff 2019). Notably this value is similar to forest-only private landowners. So
while policy makers and Cooperative Extension tend to function in silos of ‘agriculture’ and ‘forestry’, there
may be great benefit of sharing knowledge and strategies between these two important land types, landowners,
and land managers to increase forest management plans across all privately owned forests.
Incentives: Improved management could be a verifiable, real, and permanent increase in mitigation potential.
Educating and supporting improved management and defraying implementation costs could improve farm
profitability in the long term by increasing the value of harvested wood products. These activities also increase
total C sequestration if properly implemented.
Caveat: The most important opportunity is to keep healthy growing woodlands as woodlands so as not to lose
the carbon sequestered in the trees and soils. Alternatively, woodland management for agroforestry products
may also be considered. See afforestation section for related information content.
3.6 Cover Crops (including double crops)
Planting grasses, legumes, and forbs in the fallow season between main crops increases the overall annual
vegetative cover with potential soil carbon sequestration and other benefits.
Rank
*
Services
*
• Soil Health
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Profitability
• Water Quality
Measurable
-0.85Tg CO2/yr
Rank 3:
Directionally
Beneficial
Achievable
$10/Mg CO2e
(likely higher if
not double
cropping)
Realistic
>1.9 million
acres
Time Frame
Annual, circa
30-year limit of
soil carbon
increase, prone
to reversibility/
impermanence
Services. Services include: Soil Health, Adaptation to extreme weather (water retention during drought and
erosion prevention during extreme precipitation), Profitability, especially if the crop is harvested, and improved
Water Quality due to nutrient and sediment retention.
Measurable. Directionally Beneficial, not easily verifiable. While one can measure increases in soil carbon, it
is a labor-intensive and costly process and therefore difficult to verify at most sites. There is also potential for

23
increased N2O emission if legumes and N fertilizer are not carefully managed (benefit more likely when paired
with nutrient management). There is the potential for decreased yield of the main crop without careful
management. This estimate is from a disaggregation of a national estimate to NYS (Fargione et al. 2018 and
state-level web site derived from it, McDonnell et al. 2020 in press).
Achievable. Cover cropping may be indirectly beneficial by improving soil health while double cropping may
garner an increase of saleable product for a farm while contributing to beneficial leakage. Invest and likely earn
if cover crops become double cropping systems or if soil health benefits are cost effective. While achievable
across NYS cropland, states like MD (~$60/ac), IL and IA ($5 discount for crop insurance/ac) have been
subsidizing adoption of this practice. We recommend this as a soil health initiative with a co-benefit of possible
GHG reduction, rather than as a primary GHG mitigation initiative. Careful management is required to avoid
reducing yield of the main crop and to manage N cycling especially with leguminous cover crops. 96% of this
mitigation potential could be achieved for <$10/MgCO2e.
Realistic. While realistic to implement if appropriately funded, it may not be real, and a new soil carbon
steady-state will be achieved after some decades with no further SOC sequestration. This practice also interacts
with current and future tillage, nutrient, and residue management. Requires training and incentives (e.g. MD).
If suitable species are identified for double cropping, profitability would increase.
Time Frame. Easily Reversible and therefore not Permanent. While this practice in principle can help
sequester carbon in the soil as part of a suite of soil carbon sequestration practices, events such as extreme
rainfall, sale of the farm to another entity, etc. can quickly reverse decades of carbon sequestration in a few
years. We do not consider this to be a Permanent practice, but it is important for soil health, adaptation, and
water quality benefits.
Barriers: There is substantial uncertainty in this potential mitigation for three reasons: 1) potential for
increased N2O emission especially with leguminous cover crops exceeding the benefits from the c-
sequestration; 2) potential for a cover crop to decrease yield of the subsequent crop if not managed correctly
and discounting the GHG mitigation per unit product; 3) the uncertainty and impermanence of increasing soil
carbon by means of cover cropping. All of these points make verification difficult. Additionally, some of this
potential has already been achieved in NYS and should therefore be counted as a reduction of current
emissions rather than a new mitigation potential.
Incentives: Because of the many co-benefits, this objective is better viewed as a water quality and farm
viability initiative with GHG mitigation as a minor co-benefit.
3.7 Feed Management
Manipulating and controlling the quantity and quality of available nutrients, feedstuffs, or additives fed to
livestock and poultry to reduce enteric emissions of CH4 and reduce the Volatile Solid (VS) and nitrogen (N)
available in manure so to reduce CH4 and N2O production in manure management systems.
RANK
***
Priority
Services
*
• Soil Health
• Air Quality
• Profitability
• Water Quality
• Energy
Measurable
-0.7 Tg CO2/yr
Rank 2:
Reliable
Achievable
*
Cost savings
Realistic
Applicable to
most farms (but
a focus on
ruminant
systems)
Time Frame
*
Daily with
100-year
impact
Services. Services include: managing the N for Soil Health, increased Profitability as animals are making more
product through more efficient metabolism of feed, Air Quality benefits from reduced volatilized C and N,

24
improved Water Quality by reduced N in manure, and Energy savings by reducing feed and associated energy
used in production.
Measurable. Reliable. As this is indirect measurement, we consider this to be a reliable practice at reducing
the availability of volatile solids (VS) and N that end up in the manure, thus reducing the potential to create
CH4 and N2O in manure management systems. See Veltman et al. (2018) and McDonnell et al. (2020 in press).
Achievable. This mitigation practice is low to no cost and may even make farms more financially viable.
Improved feed efficiency improves production and/or profitability and there is evidence of this occurring
already in NYS.
Realistic. Real. Farmers are already doing this to some extent, but there is still room for improvement. To fully
achieve the mitigation estimate listed, it requires a comprehensive training of all farmers to use feed
management tools. Peer-to-Peer communication might be the most effective way to advance this cost-saving
and pragmatic opportunity.
Time Frame. Annually Permanent, but reversible behavior. Management to reduce enteric and manure CH4
production and decreased N2O production in the manure has real impact on near and long term GHG
mitigation.
Barriers: Employing this pragmatic practice has up-front costs for education, improved diet planning, feed and
forage management, implementation, and sustaining implementation.
Incentives: This mitigation system is indirect but real and permanent. It is an excellent candidate for
improving farm viability with many co-benefits. Reduces acres needed for feed production (beneficial
leakage). With its cost savings, this may be a great candidate for peer-to-peer learning, resulting in a long-lived
cultural norm.
Caveat: The 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA) was signed into law by
Governor Cuomo, NYS, stipulating use of the 20-year GWP (AR5, where methane GWP= 86), making the
methane mitigation contribution of this assessment significantly larger (calculation presented uses AR4 100-
year GWP = 25 for methane).
3.8 Alley Cropping
Carbon sequestration gained by planting wide rows of trees with a companion crop grown in the alleyways
between the rows (applicable to <10% of agricultural area)
RANK
***
Services
*
• Soil Health
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Profitability
• Air Quality
• Water Quality
Measurable
*
-0.67 Tg CO2/yr
Rank 1-2:
Verifiable &/or
Reliable
Achievable
$50-100/Mg
CO2e
Realistic
Up to 10% of
current row
crops or
~350,000 ac
Time Frame
*
Decadal
Services. Services include: Soil Health, Adaptation, Air Quality, Water Quality, and possible increased
Profitability.
Measurable. Verifiable and/or Reliable. This practice was quantified assuming use of 10% of cropland area
with increased carbon sequestration in the alley trees but may reduce total production of the field (presenting
potential detrimental leakage, depending on what the crop/tree is and how it affects the total yield). This
opportunity can be readily verified with visual inspection or measurements of trees. Verification should include

25
productivity of the row and tree crops. Fargione et al. (2018) estimated the C balance for this category at the
national scale, and subsequently dis-aggregated this national estimate to the state level
(https://nature4climate.org/u-s-carbon-mapper/). 80% of this mitigation potential could be achieved at
<$50/MgCO2e (McDonnell et al. 2020 in press).
Achievable. There are upfront costs and a learning curve for this practice because it is very rare in NYS and
the Northeast. If the trees are crops there is potential for increased income if markets are available.
Realistic. While the opportunity is Real provided no yield loss by the companion crop, it is not clear what
fraction of cropland might be realistically engaged because there is very little experience with it in NYS.
Time Frame. If sustained, this is a Permanent opportunity for sequestering carbon in trees with long term
benefit.
Barriers: This initiative requires more research into combinations of species, effective management, pilot
projects, field trials, demonstration plots and market analysis before a farm is likely to adopt this practice.
Incentives: This is a potentially permanent and easily verifiable practice but may impact production of
traditional row crops. This proposed change in practice calculated for 10% of all cropland area could be a
verifiable practice but the cropping systems need further research and development in NYS. Therefore, this
opportunity needs more research to identify systems that support farm profitability and assess leakage issues.
3.9 Replace Annuals with Perennials
Replacing annual crops with perennial crops has many potential benefits for soil health and can increase C
storage in agricultural soils, but it may be difficult to find perennial crops with equal value as annual crops.
RANK
**
Services
*
• Soil Health
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Water Quality
• Energy
Measurable
*
-0.62 Tg CO2/yr
Rank 2-1:
Reliable &/or
Verifiable
Achievable
TBD
Realistic
Real but not
realistic.
Applied to
160,000 acres
of ‘retired’ corn
silage land due
to increased
feed/milk
production
efficiency
Time Frame
Circa 30-year
maximum,
easily
reversible.
Services. Services include: Soil Health, Adaptation to extreme weather, improved Water Quality, and Energy
if perennial bioenergy feedstock is produced.
Measurable. Reliable and/or Verifiable. Like alley cropping, depending on yields and objectives, perennial
replacement may cause leakage, depending on whether the perennial crop has the same yield and/or value as
the annual crop. This practice can be verified visually combined with models and/or measurements of soil
carbon sequestration. It should however include yield and value of both perennial and annual crops. The
mitigation value was calculated using published land area projected to become available due to ongoing
increases in the yields of major crops and by increased dairy production efficiency (Wightman et al. 2015).
These lands could be used for perennial crops while maintaining total current annual crop production. The
annual increase in soil C storage that would occur if these lands were converted to perennial crops was
estimated (Wightman et al. 2015, Woodbury et al. 2007, McDonnell et al. 2020 in press).
Achievable. Planting of carefully selected perennial crops will have upfront costs that are intended to be paid
back over the long term, depending on yields and value of the perennial crop.

26
Realistic. Real but maybe not currently realistic. Depending on the perennial crop and the end use (e.g. grain
crops for food/feed or short-rotation willow for bioenergy) varieties that are applicable and profitable in NYS
require further evaluation, therefore this very meaningful and real mitigation strategy for NYS agriculture
requires further research and development to assure farm viability. Substituting perennial forage acres (e.g.,
long-term, intensively managed grass hay) for annual forage crops acres (e.g., corn silage) on livestock farms is
perhaps the most proven example of this practice in NYS.
Time Frame. Perennials with 10-year or 30-year cycle of re-planting provide a meaningful opportunity to
build and sequester soil carbon if maintained as perennials. While significantly more permanent than reduced
tillage practices, re-planting every 10 to 30 years will likely be required to maintain yields and to take
advantage of new cultivars.
Barriers: This initiative requires more research into profitable perennial species, effective management, pilot
projects, field trials, demonstration plots and market analysis before a farm is likely to convert current cropland
to a perennial system. Alternatively, careful use of double crops and cover crops, especially if over-seeded
could provide some of the benefits without the risks of perennial crops.
Incentives: This is a potentially permanent (though reversible) proposed change in practice on up to 10% of all
cropland area and could be a verifiable practice but the cropping systems need further research and
development in NYS. Fundamentally this is an important opportunity and we encourage funding for more
research into perennial cropping system development.
3.10 Crop Nutrient Management (N fertilizer reduction)
Avoided N2O emissions due to more efficient use of nitrogen fertilizers and avoided upstream emissions from
energy-intensive synthetic fertilizer manufacture.
RANK
***
Priority
Services
*
• Soil Health
• Profitability
• Air Quality
• Water Quality
• Energy
Measurable
-0.2 Tg^ CO2/yr
Rank 2:
Reliable
Achievable
*
77% of potential
opportunity could
cost less than
$10/Mg CO2e
Realistic
Virtually all
farmers
Time Frame
*
Annual
implementation
with long term
benefit
Services. Services include: Soil Health, Profitability in many cases, Air Quality, Water Quality, and Energy
savings by reducing the energy-intensive production of synthetic N fertilizer (beneficial leakage).
Measurable. Reliable. As this is an indirect measurement (reduce N applied while maintaining crop yields),
this is a reliable and meaningful mitigation strategy to reduce N2O that can be indirectly verified (combining
crop yield and N-use data) using farmer self-reported or fertilizer sales data. We considered four improved
management practices combined: 1) reduced whole-field application rate, 2) switching from anhydrous
ammonia to urea, 3) improved timing of fertilizer application, and 4) variable application rate within field. We
estimated the mitigation value by disaggregating our published national estimate for NYS (Fargione et al. 2018
and web site, and McDonnell et al. 2020 in press).
Achievable. This reduction is a function of 4 different and integrated practices; some practices will save the
producer money while some practices will cost the producer money to implement. 77% of this mitigation
potential could be achieved at <$10/MgCO2e.
Realistic. This practice is real and realistic as it is relatively inexpensive and easy to implement but to fully
achieve the mitigation estimate listed, it requires a comprehensive training of all farmers in the use of
sophisticated nutrient management tools and in some cases new equipment and data collection.

27
Time Frame. Annually Permanent. Given the long lifespan of N2O in the atmosphere and its relative potency,
these annual activities have century long implications and merit implementing as soon as possible, especially
considering the low cost or cost savings and the other environmental benefits.
Barriers: Farmers are often assumed to apply extra N as ‘insurance’ to avoid any yield penalty. The 4R
principle guidelines have gained traction and have modest upfront costs. The precision N-management systems
have more upfront costs for tools, training technical assistance and extending these skills to farms and fields.
Indirectly verifiable and permanent as long as crop yield is maintained, which is feasible if tools are
implemented correctly.
Incentives: This is a low cost or cost savings opportunity for a persistent annual dependence on N for crop
systems with substantial co-benefits. While this includes all farmers (and landowners with yards and golf-
courses, etc.), this objective dovetails nicely with existing water quality initiatives, and can be integrated into
established Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) education/outreach/peer-training, Soil and Water
Conservation Districts (SWCD), and Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) field agents and protocols. More
sophisticated tools may need incentives to be made available with proper training to education and outreach
organizations like SWCD and CCE staff who do site visits. Alternatively, the N-industry officials could
subsidize tools and then function as carbon-credit aggregators but may have a conflict of interest (sell more
fertilizer or gain more credit for climate mitigation).
3.11 Riparian Buffers
An area of predominantly trees and/or shrubs located adjacent to and up-gradient from watercourses or water
bodies. If planted with trees, it is also a long-term form of carbon sequestration (albeit on a small area).
RANK
***
Services
*
• Soil Health
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Water Quality
• Biodiversity
Measurable
Small
Rank 2:
Reliable
Achievable
*
Expensive, but
supported by
existing water
quality initiatives
Realistic
Small discrete
areas
<13,000 ac
total
Time Frame
*
Decadal for
forested buffer
Services. Services include: Soil Health, Adaptation to extreme precipitation, Water Quality, and Biodiversity.
Measurable. Reliable. While riparian buffers will likely be a measurable opportunity (making it technically
verifiable) the scale of the opportunity is relatively small suggesting that perhaps this is dealt with as a co-
benefit associated with water quality initiatives. However, despite the high cost and the relatively small area, if
placed in sensitive locations, buffers can help manage nutrients from a much larger uphill area of cropland. We
have estimated the GHG mitigation potential on a per-area basis, but it is not clear how much additional area
could be brought into buffers to provide new GHG mitigation.
Achievable. Currently there are initiatives to support planting riparian buffers (e.g. Trees for Tributaries, see
Appendix C for other opportunities). So perhaps there is sufficient funding to address this modest but
meaningful mitigation through existing means, making it very achievable with existing policy.
Realistic. Real but possibly not realistic. While riparian buffers offer real benefits, sometimes it may not be
realistic as this land is often very productive and profitable making it difficult to switch. According to Pape et
al. (2016), there may be as many as 13,000 acres of riparian buffer area in NYS.
Time Frame. If trees are planted and maintained properly during the early years, then they are very likely to
last for many decades.

28
Barriers: Often riparian buffers are on very productive lands making it difficult to convince a landowner to
convert.
Incentives: This is a potentially permanent and verifiable practice that impacts very specific and small areas
already covered by a NYS water quality initiative. We suggest it continue in this way, offering GHG mitigation
as a small but reliable co-benefit.
3.12 Biochar
Biochar is produced by pyrolysis and is essentially charcoal that can be incorporated into soils where it lasts
much longer than adding other carbon sources such as crop residue.
Rank
*
Services
*
• Soil Health
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Water Quality
Measurable
TBD
Achievable
TBD
Needs more
research
Realistic
Real but needs
more research
and
demonstrations
to be
considered
realistic
Time Frame
As biochar is
difficult to
break down, it
has the
potential to
store C in the
soil. However
the system of
converting
biomass to char
(vs. other use)
needs to be
seriously
considered
Services. Services include: increased soil carbon with likely Soil Health benefits, possibly improved Air
Quality if pyrolysis produces energy in place of more polluting combustion technologies, and improved Water
Quality by its ability to ‘soak up” excess nutrients in soil.
Measurable. The potential for biochar to sequester carbon depends on the supply of suitable biomass
feedstocks (competing uses), the energy to process, the cost, etc. At this time, while it is possible to estimate
the amount of biochar applied and the average time it takes to break down, it has the potential for tying up soil
nutrients, thus requiring a farmer to add energy-intensive new nutrients. While promising as a reliable and
verifiable method of storing carbon, more research is needed to compare and develop systems that provide net
energy gains while improving nutrient management and cropping system performance.
Achievable. While Achievable, this practice requires more research and pilot studies before receiving
incentives as a statewide initiative for GHG mitigation.
Realistic. Real but needs demonstrations to be Realistic. While biochar is a long-term storage of carbon
making it a real opportunity for sequestering carbon, it has not been demonstrated to be realistic and
cost/energy effective for many farms.
Time Frame. While biochar promises long-term sequestration, it requires more research analyzing the whole
system (from feedstock to field bioenergy and nutrient management) before receiving incentives to apply this
potential GHG mitigation practice across the State.
Barriers: Biochar is a new concept for NYS that has not yet been demonstrated to be realistic and cost
effective for many farms. Additionally, it is unclear that pyrolysis of biomass to biochar is the most effective
use of that biomass (from an energy or GHG lifecycle standpoint). More research is needed on assessing the

29
system-wide costs and benefits of pyrolysis of biomass to create a long-lasting carbon sink and to improve
nutrient management and reduce water pollution.
Incentives: Biochar is a long-term storage of carbon making it a real opportunity for sequestering carbon more
permanently in soil. However, system development, pilot projects, field trials, demonstration plots and market
analysis must be completed before it is applied as a greenhouse gas mitigation strategy. Fundamentally this is
an important idea and we encourage funding for more research into the costs/benefits of biochar systems.
3.13 Reduced Tillage/No Tillage
Minimizing soil disturbance and increasing the amount crop residue on the soil surface.
Rank
*
Services
*
• Soil Health
• Adaptation to
Climate
Change
• Profitability
• Air Quality
• Water Quality
• Energy
Measurable
Rank 3:
Directionally
Beneficial
Achievable
TBD
Realistic
TBD
Time Frame
30-year
maximum,
easily
reversible.
Services. Services include: Soil Health, Adaptation, Profitability Air Quality, Water Quality, and modestly
reduced Energy from reduced labor and equipment use.
Measurable. Directionally Beneficial. While improved soil carbon is beneficial for many reasons, reduced
tillage needs to be practiced with addition of residues or cover crops to reliably increase soil carbon. Also, no-
till can increase soil N2O emissions at least in the short term. Due to the large GWP of N2O, small increases of
N2O emissions can negate large amounts of mitigation from soil carbon-sequestration. In addition, given that it
is difficult to measure flux in N2O, and difficult to verify tillage practices, this practice is difficult to measure
and verify.
Achievable. A change in this practice may not be an achievable way of mitigating GHG emissions without
substantial discounting because subsequent tillage can quickly reverse the soil carbon sequestration.
Realistic. Possibly Real/Realistic. Soil carbon is important for soil health and supports climate adaptation,
productivity, and resiliency measures that make this an important BMP from a farm-management perspective
but should not be prioritized as a GHG mitigation strategy until after other more permanent and verifiable
practices are supported.
Time Frame. Easily Reversible. Like gains from cover crops, soil carbon gains from reduced tillage are easily
reversible and therefore not permanent. While this practice in principle can help sequester carbon in the soil as
part of a suite of management practices, subsequent tillage can quickly reverse decades of C-sequestration in a
few years. Therefore, it should not be considered a permanent GHG mitigation practice, though it can have soil
health benefits.
Barrier: The reversible nature of soil carbon makes it difficult to verify. The change in practice may increase
carbon storage but also increase the much more potent N2O emissions potentially negating the soil carbon
benefit. Natural and human events can quickly reverse the gains in soil carbon that took decades to build. All
of these points make verification difficult.

30
Incentive: Like cover crops, reduced tillage has multiple soil health co-benefits making it better suited
primarily for water quality, soil health, and farm viability initiatives (with a small and reversible GHG
mitigation co-benefit).
In summary, we feel that agriculture could mitigate its own greenhouse gas emissions, but only with a
substantial effort including afforestation of 1.7 million acres of idle and underutilized former agricultural land.
However, a few key points need to be stressed.
1) Agriculture is a living system based on the active cycling of carbon and nitrogen while providing many
key products for our society. However, given that it is a complex system, in certain situations it may be
very difficult to quantify greenhouse gas benefits on the time scales necessary for climate change
mitigation.
2) Many social forces (market, aesthetics, history) affect how land is currently used and how it will be used
in the future. As this land is mostly privately owned, it will be very difficult to ensure that efforts to
mitigate emissions today will continue for decades in the future with changes in ownership and land-use.
3) The more verifiable and permanent GHG mitigation practices using currently available technologies
were ranked as priority activities for developing near-term policy. This ranking was employed because it
means more money can be spent implementing real and permanent practices than spent on verifying and
ensuring less permanent practices. This does not mean other practices cannot also be developed in the
future or that other practices do not have merit for a myriad of other reasons. Our highest ranked
practices cover a range of small and large farmers as well as other landowners, have relatively low costs
compared to the social cost of carbon, and have the necessary real, permanent and verifiable attributes
suitable to accounting and fiduciary responsibility.
4) Below, we have outlined a range of activities that could assist in developing the next generation of
priority actions.
Goals, Priorities and Ideas to Increase Adoption
This section is meant as a brainstorm of ideas that NYS could consider for increasing adoption of greenhouse
gas mitigation opportunities.
1. Develop policies to assist landowner adoption of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) mitigating practices.
1.1. Identify a portfolio of landowner mitigation practices that anyone can voluntarily do now.
1.2. Identify opportunities to integrate greenhouse gas management into current state statutes and programs
related to land, water, and nutrient management. Such opportunities can include integrating climate
change policy initiatives with existing initiatives focused on water quality, soil health, forestry, smart
growth, grid infrastructure development, and land fragmentation policies, among others.
1.3. Identify a portfolio of landowner mitigation practices that NYS will actively pursue that accomplish
Real, Additional, Verifiable, and Permanent GHG mitigation and then establish appropriate funding to
meet the needs of each practice and participating stakeholders.
1.4. Continue New York’s participation in the U.S. Climate Alliance including allocating Agency staff time
and travel funding to participate in national and regional meetings, including the following.
1.4.1. “Natural and Working Lands” (NWL) component (https://www.usclimatealliance.org/nwlands/)
1.4.2. “Short-Lived Climate Pollutants” (SLCP) component https://www.usclimatealliance.org/slcp
1.5. Continue to network with other states to learn from and share initiatives, policies, tools,
education/outreach programs, and other forms of communication across sectors, private and public
agents, administrators, educators, and landowners.
1.6. Expand NYS departmental capacity to facilitate use of existing tools, policies, and outreach as well as
develop new efforts.
1.6.1. Increase collaboration between legislative branches and administration to implement
programming and at-large capacity building.

31
1.6.2. Expand staff/capacity of the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Office of
Climate Change to bolster programming, formal and informal education, increase stakeholder
engagement, assist stakeholders in applying for grants/opportunities, administer and oversee
practice implementation, increase capacity for developing verification protocols and
documenting mitigation results.
1.6.3. Expand NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets (AGM) office staff/capacity to facilitate
similar activities described for DEC but include administration and effective implementation of
practices either internally or by supporting more Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD)
field staff to assist landowners. Increase education and outreach to inform, advocate, and
implement practices effectively.
1.6.4. Expand capacity for applied research and extension by funding programs at the Land Grant
University (Cornell) as well as other relevant programs within the SUNY system to survey
landowners/stakeholders, expand research initiatives, and support sound decision making and
implementation with research-based guidelines. Such funds should be budgeted as additional
funds not already dedicated to current programs/agencies.
1.6.5. Increase communication between agricultural initiatives and forest initiatives to increase
landowner decision making capacity for both sectors as well as to engage a broader group of
landowners beyond commercial producers, such as horse farmers, owners of idle agricultural
lands, owners who rent to farmers etc.
1.6.6. Integrate climate mitigation planning into existing land and water management programs and
guidelines such as standards (e.g., comprehensive nutrient management plans, NRCS
conservation planning), planning, technical assistance, and cost share programs.
1.6.7. Consider developing a team of regional policy makers, members in the department of taxation,
and other groups to work across disciplines to identify the most effective methods (funding
streams, finance levers, etc.) and support for implementing specific practices that provide GHG
mitigation benefits, focusing on the highly ranked opportunities analyzed above.
1.7. Develop a comprehensive plan to integrate soil health, water quality, land-use change, forest
management, renewable energy, and GHG mitigation initiatives across land-use types and at different
scales for implementation (landowner, municipal, regional, and state).
1.7.1. Create resource maps to support local and regional decision-making, for example (1) identify the
highest quality idle lands that should be encouraged to return to farming, (2) assess slope and
aspect to identify suitable solar siting or reforestation locations that do not compete with the best
cropland, (3) map existing energy infrastructure with nearby land resources that could produce
biomass feedstock production for Combined Heat & Power (CHP) plants, proximity to
appropriate locations on the electrical grid, etc.
1.7.2. Review existing policies to identify possible trade-offs between environmental quality initiatives
and solutions to address multiple goals. For example, increased liquid storage of manure on
farms regulated by the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permits to protect water
quality has increased the methane emissions, but a cover & flare system can greatly reduce
methane emissions. Consider aggressively incentivizing cover and flare systems to all applicable
manure storage units on CAFO permitted farms. While not feasible to make it a permit
requirement given the strict water quality focus of the CAFO permits and the limitations on
covering manure for barns using sand bedding, current incentive structures (e.g., as in Track 1 of
the Climate Resilient Farming Program) could be significantly expanded to expedite cover and
flare systems on all applicable CAFO regulated farms.
1.7.3. Consider smart growth approaches to increase in-fill development and urban density, reduce road
expansion, increase transportation efficiency, and conserve valuable agricultural and forest
working land resources.

32
2. Expand technical support for landowner adoption of climate mitigating practices.
2.1. Expand funding for Technical Support for Landowner Adoption of identified practices.
2.1.1. Expand outreach component of Climate Resilient Farming (CRF) component of the state AEM
framework (https://www.nys-soilandwater.org/programs/crf.html).
2.1.2. Expand administration component of CRF to advertise to prospective landowners to increase
participation, assist prospective landowners in applying for opportunities, and expand SWCD
training on these identified opportunities.
2.2. Increase financial support for land-based climate mitigation activities.
2.2.1. Expand current NYS DEC and NYS AGM/SWCC cost-share and technical assistance programs.
2.2.2. Increase funding to assist landowners to apply for, implement, and report on practices
implemented (fill out proposals/measure impacts).
2.3. Increase knowledge of GHG mitigation practices by Field Educators.
2.3.1. Identify and train agents across NYS that implement other State goals (i.e., water quality
initiatives, etc.), to be able to also assess GHG mitigation strategies with these existing practices.
2.3.2. Support grant opportunities through organizations like the NY Farm Viability Institute for on-
farm climate mitigation research, trials, and demonstration.
2.3.3. Increase the dialogue between field agents and landowners on the importance of GHG
mitigation.
2.3.4. Consider training Field Educators to become 3rd party evaluators for NYS functioning as a kind
of aggregator that assesses mitigation quality and quantity resulting from practice
implementation.
3. Facilitate communication among landowners and land managers to share goals and BMP lessons learned.
3.1. Foster cooperation and information sharing among stakeholders.
3.1.1. Facilitate SWCD, Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE) and forestry managers to work together
holistically and regionally.
3.1.2. Provide venues, panels, and pilot studies for outreach and education.
3.1.3. Create peer-to-peer initiatives to share challenges and benefits of land management practices.
3.1.4. Promote discussions of unintended consequences, identify barriers to use of improved practices,
raise awareness, establish case-studies of failures and successes, identify gaps in knowledge,
promote a shared goal of climate mitigation as part of environmental stewardship among all
stakeholders.
3.1.5. Acknowledge existing good practices and synergies among practices.
3.2. Build on the progress of the statewide efforts such as the Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
(CNMP), Carbon Farm Plans (CFP), etc. to provide a platform for sharing information, planning,
events, resources, and priorities for land managers to help meet climate mitigation goals.
3.3. Formalize a committee of stakeholders (universities, agencies, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), farmer organizations, businesses) focused on increasing adoption of climate mitigation
practices that are beneficial for agriculture and society at large. The committee will:
3.3.1. Define climate mitigation and adaptation goals and identify approaches for improving health,
resilience and carbon capacity of NYS soils, reduce methane emissions from animal agriculture,
reduce nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, conserve prime farmland and maintain existing
woodlands, and increase energy conservation and efficiency as well as renewable energy where
feasible.
3.3.2. Identify challenges and opportunities for implementing climate mitigation opportunities in both
rural and urban areas, (for example, reducing food waste throughout the entire food system).
3.3.3. Oversee analysis of opportunities for integrating climate mitigation into current programs and
statutes related to soil, water, air, energy, and nutrient management.

33
3.3.4. Provide leadership and coordination in promoting climate mitigation assessment and
management.
3.3.5. Promote and facilitate outreach, applied research, demonstrations, and farmer-to-farmer
communication.
3.3.6. Facilitate communication and raise awareness with policy makers and potential funders.
3.3.7. Integrate farm nutrient management planning and NGO/industry initiatives such as “NY-4R
Nutrient Stewardship Program”.
3.4. Support a survey and analysis of the following topics:
3.4.1. Detailed farm practices, for example: (1) how do you manage your manure, (2) how do you
manage your wooded areas, (3) how do you manage nitrogen fertilizer, (4) what percent of your
land is used for horses, (5) if you have idle land – why is it idle, etc. These could be incorporated
into new and existing AEM Tier 1 and 2 worksheets.
3.4.2. Landowner participation in quantifiable and qualitative GHG mitigation opportunities to identify
leaders, identify barriers to implementation, and encourage these leaders to share information
with peers.
3.4.3. Anticipated future use of their land, for example (1) transfer to family members, (2) sell to a
developer, (3) lease to solar industry, (4) lease to a young farmer, (5) obtain conservation
easements, (6), expansion farming operation, etc.
4. Develop Markets (and market diversification)
4.1. Identify methods and mechanisms for increasing sales resulting from expanded farm activities for
existing and new crops, for example double cropping, woodland/silvopasture, or conversion of annual
to perennial crops.
4.2. Identify energy initiatives that assist farms to use or produce renewable energy that both protects high
quality agricultural lands and provides adequate financial return.
4.3. Facilitate availability of resources related to climate mitigation opportunities for agribusiness ventures
such as low-cost loans, technical assistance, equipment rental, risk management for implementing GHG
mitigation practices, etc.
4.4. Facilitate farm diversification of products and mitigation strategies to buffer against and adapt to
changing climatic conditions.
4.5. Consider how existing infrastructure could be improved (grid, rail, slaughterhouses, bioenergy
processing, wood product processing) to increase farmer participation in new initiatives, efficiency of
production, or add value to raw resources.
5. Establish NYS-specific basic and applied research
5.1. Conduct a quantitative survey of land resources across the state and identification of critical barriers.
5.1.1. Include a special focus on underutilized lands.
5.1.1.1. Characteristics and best practices across diverse parcels.
5.1.1.2. Economics of the use of underutilized lands.
5.1.2. Plans for land preservation and easement, open space, transportation, watershed management,
energy.
5.2. Policy Impacts
5.2.1. Land use change resulting from energy and GHG policies.
5.2.2. Renewable energy contracting and policy analysis of impact of renewable energy initiatives on
active and idle agricultural land.
5.2.3. Planning for local and regional energy production.
5.2.3.1. Siting from both resource and demand perspectives (proximity to electrical grid, highway,
urban demand, value of land for agriculture, etc.).

34
5.2.3.2. Other environmental benefits or issues (e.g. particulate matter emissions, etc. from
renewable energy or farm activities).
5.2.3.3. Promote circular economies and use of co-products, (e.g. industries that use waste heat sited
next to CHP).
5.3. Suitable cropping systems and system analysis.
5.3.1. Perennial crops suitable for efficient bioenergy systems.
5.3.2. Perennial crops for food and feed production.
5.3.3. Double crops for winter and fallow periods of working cropland.
5.3.3.1. Cultivar selection, crop rotation, and cropping system planning.
5.3.3.2. Integrating cover crops, double crops, and reduced tillage into cropping systems.
5.3.4. Food waste analysis and mitigation research throughout entire food systems.
5.3.5. Managing livestock feed, manure, and production efficiency.
5.3.6. Cultivars/species that may maintain yields under changing conditions (temperature, precipitation,
pests).
5.3.7. Pyrolysis/Biochar
5.3.7.1. Life cycle analysis of costs and benefits of different biochar systems including soil, air, and
water quality, energy production and economic viability.
5.3.7.2. Nutrient storage and release dynamics for working croplands.
5.3.7.3. Supply of biomass and efficiency of conversion to useful energy.
5.3.8. Actively managing woodlands and forests.
5.3.9. Agroforestry/Silvopasture/AlleyCropping/Wooded Riparian Buffers
5.3.9.1. Changes in production (reduced yield per acre or diversified yield per acre).
5.3.9.2. Species selection for productivity, co-benefits, adaptability.
5.3.9.3. Short term vs. long term planning and management.
5.3.9.4. Product utilization/marketing, developing New York supply chains.
5.4. Economic feasibility of:
5.4.1. GHG mitigation opportunities.
5.4.2. Options for using idle and underutilized lands for livestock vs. reforestation vs. bioenergy vs.
crops.
5.4.3. GHG accounting and verification protocols.
5.5. On-farm demonstrations and field trials.
5.6. Identify gaps and opportunities in technology (e.g., digital agriculture), farm equipment (e.g., for small
scale application and vegetable crops, or specialized equipment for tillage and cover crop management,
such as roller-crimpers).

35
Appendices
Appendix A: Assumptions
Boundary 1: Items Not Assessed
This table is meant to illustrate topical areas, system pathways, and/or potential opportunities we did not assess
for this report. There were multiple reasons why we did not assess them, some were outside the scope of this
analysis which focused on agricultural land, some did not seem to have a significant opportunity at this time,
some had insufficient data or resources to analyze, or some practices identified globally are not applicable to
NYS. Some of these topics are listed, along with the rationale for not including them, in Table A1.
TABLE A1. Potential Mitigation Pathways Not Assessed in this report
Name of
Pathway
Explanation
Notes
Avoided
Forest
Conversion
Outside the scope of
our analysis, but an
important opportunity.
Improved
Forest
Management
Outside the scope of
our analysis, but an
important opportunity.
SUNY ESF (via CAFRI) will be analyzing this opportunity from 2019
to 2021.
Grassland
Restoration
Refers to restoring
grassland from tilled
agriculture. We have
included this category
in our “annual to
perennial” category.
See also afforestation for restoration of native ecosystems from
underutilized agricultural land.
Windbreaks
Small opportunity
(uncommon practice),
but see Alley
Cropping and other
agroforestry
opportunities.
NYS windbreak instructions:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/9394.html
Urban
Reforestation
Outside the scope of
our analysis, but an
important opportunity
with multiple co-
benefits.
NYS DEC urban forest benefits.
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4957.html
See also economic analysis by Kroeger et al. (2018)
<https://www.vibrantcitieslab.com/resources/where-the-people-are-
current-trends-and-targeted-investment-opportunities-to-mitigate-
pollution-and-heat-island-effects/>
Seagrass
Restoration
Outside the scope of
our analysis, but an
important opportunity
with multiple co-
benefits.
Please see this NYS DEC Map for location of opportunities.
Tidal
Wetland
Restoration
Outside the scope of
our analysis, but an
important opportunity
with multiple co-
benefits.
Please see NYS DEC wetland restoration objectives
https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/31879.html

36
Improved
Lime
Management
Small opportunity
while maintaining
production because
lime is required for
most agricultural
production on acidic
soils.
Lime has an important role for N management and crop productivity.
Improved
Grazing
Small opportunity for
GHG mitigation but
has other co-benefits.
Legumes in
Pasture
It is unclear if it offers
real GHG mitigation
but has other benefits
for farms to consider.
Legumes in pasture are suitable for soil health initiatives but more
research is needed before counting this practice as a GHG mitigation
opportunity.
Improved
Rice
n/a
NYS does not produce rice.
Fire
Management
n/a
Over the last 25 years, on average NYS had 217 fires burning 2,103
acres per year (for context, NYS has 18.9 million acres of non-federal
forested lands)
Improved
Plantations
Outside the scope of
our analysis.
While there has been a history of forest plantations in NYS for many
purposes (https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/4982.html), they have mostly
been phased out. However, there are some new bioenergy feedstock
plantations of short-rotation woody crops in NYS.
Pest
Management
While pest impacts are
important to the
economy, climate
adaptation and
mitigation, we do not
include it.
See Table A2 below.
Horse Land
While land associated
with equine activities
is quite large, we do
not include it here
because it is not clear
what GHG mitigation
opportunities are
feasible.
Ropel, S. and B. Smith (2007). New York Equine Survey 2005. Albany,
NY, New York Agricultural Statistics Service: 54.
Peatland/
Muckland
Restoration
There are an estimated
30,000 acres of highly
productive muck soils
(Histosols) in NYS in
vegetable production:
we do not include this
opportunity because it
might remove these
valuable lands from
agricultural
production.
Histosols are soils with very high organic matter than form in wetlands,
including both peat and muck soils (also called “black dirt” in NYS).
When drained they can be highly productive agricultural soils.
However, because of this drainage, Histosols typically have much
higher GHG emissions than other croplands. There may be opportunities
such as controlled drainage to reduce emissions while maintaining
production that are worth exploring in the future.

37
Energy
Conservation
& Efficiency
Outside the scope of
our analysis, but an
important opportunity.
There are many ways
that farms can save
money, time, energy
and GHG through
energy efficiency
improvements, but
they are usually
accounted for in other
sectors (e.g. heating,
electricity &
transportation fuel
sectors)
We do however indicate when energy conservation, efficiency, or
production potential is a potential co-benefit for a GHG mitigating
practice. This is an important topic in NYS due to rapid expansion of
solar installations and some expansion of wind installations.
Boundary 2: Items assumed not to change to maintain system stability.
In our analysis we assume that certain behaviors, systems, and conditions are maintained. For example, we
assume there are not changes to land-use between sectors or that climate conditions (precipitation, temperature,
pests) do not radically change our current production systems. These are summarized in Table A2.
TABLE A2. Behaviors, Systems, and Conditions that are Assumed to be Maintained
Topic Area
Assumption
Importance to GHG mitigation and accounting
Current
Agricultural Land
We assume that active agricultural
land remains in agriculture in the
future.
Maintaining current agricultural production avoids
detrimental leakage that would occur if production
decreases and food and feed imports from outside
NYS increase.
Current Forest
Land
We assume that forestland remains
forest.
Forests are a very large source of ongoing C
sequestration in NYS.
Responsiveness to
Changes in Pest
Management
Changes in temperature and
precipitation may lead to increased
pest problems and increased
challenges for pest management,
but we do not analyze this topic.
If a pest causes serious damage to a crop or tree
species, there may be serious losses to carbon
sequestration and current production with effects on
GHG emissions.
Responsiveness to
Changes in
Extreme Weather
During coming decades, changes in
climate will increasingly affect
many management choices
including crop and cultivar
selection, irrigation, and pest
management. We do not analyze
this topic.
Like pests (see above), choosing appropriate
varieties that are well suited to changing climate
conditions has implications for how we currently
(and in the future) account for GHG emissions and
mitigation from agricultural activities.

38
Appendix B: Definitions
There are several words and phrases that are used in specific ways in relation to climate mitigation and
adaption. The most recent definition for framing offset programs for the electric sector (US EPA Climate
Leaders Program, 2018, now discontinued, https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/climate-leadership-awards-
frequent-questions) is as follows:
• Real: The quantified GHG reductions must represent actual emission reductions that have already
occurred.
• Additional: The GHG reductions must be surplus to regulation and beyond what would have happened
in the absence of the practice or in a business-as-usual scenario based on a performance standard
methodology.
• Permanent: The GHG reductions must be permanent or have guarantees to ensure that any losses are
replaced in the future.
• Verifiable: The GHG reductions must result from practices whose performance can be readily and
accurately quantified, monitored and verified.
These words and phrases are important as they help ensure the overall accounting of GHG with respect to the
collective goal of mitigating emissions within and across sectors (within and across states). As there are many
stakeholders involved, a strong commitment to these criteria will help inform boundaries of implementation
(farm level, state level, federal level) as well as legal accountability (across farm practices, sectors, c-trading
regimes, policy, accounting systems).
Below, we illustrate these terms with respect to the manure storage cover+flare practice:
1. Real: The quantified GHG emission reduction must represent actual emission reductions.
a. For example, methane captured and destroyed with a manure storage cover and flare is real,
because a meter can measure the amount of methane destroyed by a flare.
b. It will not measure the methane that it does not flare, but it will measure the volume of methane
that is actually captured and destroyed at the flare.
c. Complication, if a farm amends their manure by adding materials (such as whey from yogurt
production), this is intentional methane production and must be evaluated to determine if a credit
should be granted to a farm that intentionally increases its methane production. This may be
considered ‘gaming’, or it may be providing other ecosystem services (such as producing more
biogas that could be combusted in a generator to produce electricity).
2. Permanent: The GHG emission reductions must be permanent and must be backed by guarantees in the
event that they are reversed (e.g., re-emitted into the atmosphere).
a. For example, the carbon in CH4 that is flared to CO2 is permanent. Once CH4 has been oxidized
to CO2, it is 34 (or 86 on a 20-year time scale) times less potent a GHG than CH4.
b. Please see section on “Permanence and Managing Risk” as applicable to the responsibilities of
policy makers, below.
3. Verifiable: The GHG emission reductions must result from practices whose performance can be readily
and accurately quantified, monitored, and verified.
a. For example, manure covers with flare are equipped with digitally reporting meters for
measuring the amount of methane produced and the temperature of the flare indicating its
combustion effectiveness. The gas flow which passes a cold flare will not count as mitigation.
b. Please see section on rigor of GHG verification (below) in the context of other state goals
(currently existing or in development).

39
4. Additional: The practice-based GHG emission reductions must be beyond what would have happened
anyway or in a business-as-usual scenario (not driven because of another regulatory requirement, an
improvement in production efficiency, or other requirements).
a. For example, farms have been installing manure storage units to protect water quality as per
CAFO regulations. While there are other benefits to covering a manure storage (reducing odors,
reducing manure hauling, reducing SPDES violations from extreme weather events etc.), there is
currently no regulation to flare. Thus, adding a flare, meter etc. is an additional project.
b. Please see below for a detailed discussion about Additionality as a policy decision.
Another very important topic is leakage.
1. Leakage: Leakage refers to an emissions reduction strategy implemented in one location that creates an
increase or decrease of emissions in another location. If this other location is outside the boundary of
the region being analyzed, such as NYS, it can greatly affect the interpretation of the efficacy of a GHG
mitigation practice (on a global scale).
a. For example, a lumber company in NYS may place 1,000 acres of forest under permanent
conservation easement preventing any harvest in order to sequester carbon. However, to meet the
market demand for lumber, another company may deforest 1,000 acres outside NYS. In this
example, detrimental leakage occurs due to market forces, but can occur by many mechanisms
including policies. The result is that GHG emissions from a local farm, sector, or State are in
effect transferred to another location outside the boundary of the policy initiative.
b. Analyzing across all locations, leakage can cause either increased total GHG gas emissions
(detrimental leakage) or decreased total GHG emissions (beneficial leakage).
Permanence and Managing Risk
As described above, Permanence refers to GHG emission reductions that must be backed by guarantees in the
event that they are reversed (e.g., re-emitted into the atmosphere). The Coalition on Agricultural Greenhouse
Gases (C-AGG, 2010) developed a useful synopsis for managing risk of permanence. We have summarized and
modified their work in table format below. Table B1 lays out the source of the risk and the ability of landowners
and or policy makers to control this risk. For example, neither landowners nor policy makers have much control
over natural disaster impact on GHG mitigation practices, but both have significant agency within socio-
economic terms. Table B2, lays out mechanisms to help transparently address risks of reversal for GHG
mitigation practices.
TABLE B1. Sources of risk to permanence of GHG mitigation practices
Source of
Risk*
Description
Landowner
Control
Policy
Control
Natural
Loss by disease, drought, flooding, insects, wildfire, wind, other
natural disasters
low
low
Socio-
Political
Loss by changing regulatory policy, political instability, or social
unrest, or leakage
low
high
Technical
Loss if technologies or practices used fail to maintain carbon stocks
or mitigate GHG as expected
low
low to
high
Financial
Financial failure of an organization may lead to dissolution of
agreements and change of management activities (a farm goes
bankrupt and agreements are dissolved)
low to
high
low to
high
Socio-
Economic
Higher-value alternative land uses, and rising opportunity costs can
lead to a change of management activity or plans.
high
high
* This table is adapted from C-AGG (2010) and attempts to illustrate the limitations of the technical potential
described here-in.

40
Standards define the things that will be measured to gain market entry and how they will be measured. A highly
measurable, verifiable, real, and permanent mitigation practice will have greater value and be easier to track. A
practice that is less measurable, more difficult to verify, with potential reversibility will be more difficult and
costly to track. The desire to maximize crediting farm practices must be weighed against the costs of
implementation and the accounting burdens of verification. Likewise, upfront costs/crediting needs to be
balanced with assessing risks into the future to ensure against future reversals for a specified period of time
(sometimes called a permanence or a liability period).
Below in Table B2 is a list of mechanisms for addressing risk from an insufficient ability to measure, track and
verify and/or accommodate conditions that may cause a reversal of mitigation.
TABLE B2. Managing risk to permanence of GHG mitigation practices
Mechanism
for
Averting
Risk*
Description
Consideration
Discounting
Discounting the potential mitigating potential by
using a risk value to address the probability of
carbon loss or reversal over a timeframe.
The disadvantage is certain projects may
outperform but receive no credit, not
rewarding innovative project managers.
Buffering
A portion of mitigation potential may be placed
into a buffer reserve established over the term of
the project and if no loss or reversal has occurred
at the end of the term, the project manager is
awarded the buffer. For example, if a project is
quantified to address 100 Mg CO2e over 4 years,
a portion (say 20 Mg CO2e) could be set aside,
resulting in the landowner receiving payment of
20 Mg CO2e per year (instead of 25 Mg CO2e/yr).
At the end of the 4th year, if all went as planned
and the buffer was not needed to ensure project
effectiveness, the landowner receives a final
payment of 20 Mg CO2e. If, however, the project
did not meet its mitigation potential, the buffer is
not converted to a payment.
Assessing risk and assigning a required
buffer value on a project-by-project basis
may be time-consuming and burdensome
for project owners and system
administrators.
Pooling of
similar
practices
A program-wide pooled buffer account is
maintained at all times by an administrator. All
projects submit the same relative amount to the
pool. All projects receive an average benefit at
the end of the pooling period. Benefits and
liabilities are thus shared among participants.
Regular monitoring and recalibration of
buffer withholding percentages can be used
to adjust the size of the pooled buffer
account based on actual loss experience.
Pooling of
diverse
practices
A farm-scale or regional portfolio of different
GHG mitigation opportunities is pooled (for
discounting, buffering or self-insuring purposes),
diversifying the risk of reversal by any one type
of project in the portfolio.
As above.
Insurance
A farm or group of landowners may purchase
private insurance to cover the risk of loss or
reversal of GHG mitigation.
Assessing risk and underwriting the
insurance mechanisms on a project-by-

41
project basis could be costly and time-
consuming.
Temporary
Liability
Easements or project implementation agreements
may legally require landowners to take actions
that maintain carbon stocks or mitigation rates
over a predefined time period.
A long-term easement may offer the best
chance to maximize project crediting while
ensuring that no intentional reversals
occur. But few landowners may be willing
to make long-term agreements.
Setting
Term
Credits
A commitment period (“term”) is defined for
maintaining carbon stocks. At the end of the term,
the project landowner must either renew the
commitment for another term or the credits issued
to the project must be replaced.
Responsibility for replacing the credits at
the end of the term is generally assigned to
the final buyer of the credits. Liability for
any reversals that occur prior to the end of
a term is generally assigned to the
landowner.
* Adapted from C-AGG (2010)
While Table B2 suggests a number of ways to reduce the risk of reversal by natural and human activities, an
underlying concept to defining each of these issues is the timeframe of the accruing benefits and the timeframe
of reversibility. For example, it can take 30 years to reach a new steady-state value of soil carbon after
implementing a practice and that gain can be reversed in just a few years of tillage. Additionally, one should
consider the timeframe of the GWP potency such as short-lived methane or long-lived nitrous oxide, relative to
carbon sequestration. These things taken together inform prioritization of activities to advance Real,
Measurable, Verifiable, and Permanent mitigation, anticipating intentional (socio-economic conditions) and
unintentional (extreme weather) reversals.
Verification: Thinking about rigor for GHG accounting as well as other state goals
Verification is intended to help assure that practices are both Real and Permanent (see definitions above).
Verification is defined as the “GHG emission reductions must result from projects whose performance can be
readily and accurately quantified, monitored, and verified.”
The point of verification is accurate accounting from implemented activities. Verification upholds the integrity
and quality of the data reported. Standardizing verification procedures promotes relevance, completeness,
consistency, accuracy, and transparency of emissions reductions data reported by project developers.
Transparent processes ensure projects are real, additional, permanent, verifiable and enforceable, compatible
with other types of projects, support on-going monitoring, and minimize risk of invalid or double accounting. In
this report, we apply the term Verifiable to practices that have robust and practical verification tools and
methodologies. As mentioned above, one example is a manure storage unit cover and flare system equipped
with a meter and temperature sensor that measures the gas flow and the flare effectiveness for documenting
permanent destruction of methane. Another example is a forest management project with healthy growing trees
that can be visually verified overtime for permanence or quantified by measuring tree diameter and height and
using standard published allometric equations and factors to estimate stand volume and carbon content.
However, not all practices on farms have such a straightforward method for being ‘readily and accurately
quantified, monitored and verified’. Farms are complex living systems and greenhouse gases move in all
directions making accurate and complete assessment of all GHG difficult to accurately monitor. We ranked
activities as “verifiable” if their verification methods were direct and likely cost-effective. The second highest
ranking term we use is Reliable. Reliable practices reliably reduce GHG emissions but may either be calculated
indirectly, or across a large number of steps in a supply chain requiring much work to quantitatively verify, or
may be a small but certain practice that can be evaluated simply with a site visit (trees planted as a riparian
buffer can be visually verified to be healthy and growing). The lowest ranking term for verification is

42
Directionally Beneficial. Directionally Beneficial is applied to practices for which the benefit is too small or
uncertain to merit the costs of formal verification, or verification is too onerous and therefore too costly, or a
practice is easily reversible and potentially not a permanent practice (see also the discussion on Permanence in
this Appendix). For example, no-till and reduced tillage have many benefits for soil health, with a small
technical potential for increased soil carbon if performed continuously over the long term in careful
combination with residue management, fertilizer management, and crop rotations, but it is not permanent and is
very difficult to verify. However, as verification methods and tools develop in the future, the current ranking of
practices in Table 3 could change.
A highly verifiable practice is a suitable candidate for state supported initiatives to support the GHG mitigation
goals. A large and highly verifiable category offers a meaningful state-scale GHG mitigation opportunity. In
contrast, a directionally beneficial practice is most likely best considered a GHG-mitigating co-benefit of some
other state initiative. For example, no-till might best be considered a water quality initiative or soil health
initiative with a possible small or impermanent co-benefit of GHG mitigation. Remember, verification is an
accounting tool to support progress towards meeting a particular GHG mitigation goal. Verification costs
money to implement and NYS should consider how it wants to prioritize spending. NYS may decide to support
only highly verifiable and permanent GHG practices or direct money on implementing more directionally
beneficial (not currently verifiable) practices that may also help meet other environmental goals such as clean
air and clean water.
Additionality
Additionality is defined as “the project-based GHG emission reductions must be beyond what would have
happened anyway or in a business-as-usual scenario”. To discuss additionality we need to define subsidies,
offsets, baseline and ‘business as usual’. The following text combines ideas from several key sources
(Gillenwater 2012, UNFCCC CDM Methodological Tool Version 7 2017, Claassen 2014).
A subsidy is intended to influence behavior but does not guarantee that a practice would not have occurred
without the subsidy. An offset is intended to reduce GHG by some mechanism in one location to make up for
GHG emissions elsewhere. An advantage of offsets is that markets can be used to help implement the most
cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions. Offsets allow for trading credits to achieve compliance in emission
limits. However, for an offset to achieve its purpose, in must be Extra, Surplus, or Additional – in other words,
it must be done specifically for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions that would not have happened anyway.
This ‘extra/surplus/additional’ value must be relative to a baseline or reference scenario and it must account for
the differences in regulations and baseline requirements across sectors (for example, agriculture vs. electric) to
ensure a net reduction from the system as a whole.
Developing a meaningful baseline or reference scenario is challenging for several reasons. First, a change in
behavior in the future can happen for all kinds of reasons, not just the policy being evaluated (for example, a
government policy could provide cost-share to afforest abandoned agricultural land. Alternatively, a 3rd party
investor might approach that same landowner to lease the abandoned agricultural land to grown short rotation
willow for a local bioenergy plant). Second, actors may provide misinformation in order to qualify or increase
the benefits (gaming the system, free riders). Third, actors that have already begun a practice may not get credit.
Fourth, a single behavior may be influenced by multiple factors, many of which are independent of the specific
policy initiative. For example, a farmer might install a manure cover and flare system on a liquid storage unit to
reduce odors specifically to improve neighbor relations, independent of the GHG mitigation benefit. Fifth, if a
historical baseline is used, such as the year 1990, it is not possible to determine changes that would have
happened anyway from changes that may have occurred in response to a GHG policy. Sixth, if a future
business-as-usual scenario is used, it must make many assumptions about future behavior, land use, and
economic conditions.

43
A 1990 baseline is used by the national reporting under the United Nations Framework Climate Convention
(UNFCC) as well as NYS’s recently enacted Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). In
such cases, any changes in GHG emissions are compared to the 1990 baseline. However, comparison to such a
historical year baseline does not distinguish between reductions that would have occurred without any policy or
management interventions from those that would not. For example, since 1990 there have been increases in the
efficiency of both crop and livestock production, so that fewer GHG emissions occur for a given amount of
food produced. However, these changes are due to market forces and ongoing efforts by farmers and others to
improve production practices and improve economic returns, not to reduce GHG emissions. Thus, they
happened anyway, not due to any GHG policy or management.
In this way, a practice that improves profitability may not be considered additional, since it might happen
anyway. That is, a farm might implement a practice because it makes good financial sense through market-
based mechanisms and therefore does not need State support to implement. Many of the GHG mitigation
practices outlined in this report are now being done by some landowners/farmers in the State for reasons other
than GHG mitigation. Such practices include improved N-use efficiency or managing woodlands/forests for
high quality timber production in the future. The State could incentivize these practices for rural economic
development and conservation purposes. The column “Achievable” in Table 3 is intended to illustrate the
financial elements of implementing a practice in the current context.
New York has a long history of providing various forms of support to landowners to improve rural livelihoods,
ensure healthy products, and protect air and water quality. To increase greenhouse gas mitigation, NYS could
facilitate peer-to-peer training – taking advantage of the small percentage of farms that have already
implemented a practice. Support for peer-to-peer training may be all that is required to achieve wider adoption
of the practice throughout the state. NYS could also consider bundling or stacking multiple benefits together.
However, when GHG benefits are bundled with other benefits, it can be much harder to determine that they are
additional since the main benefit may be for water quality or some other purpose. In such cases, GHG benefits
might best be viewed as co-benefits to some other main benefit. For this reason, in this report, the first column
labeled “Services” in Table 3 provides a list of co-benefits associated with practices to help guide these kinds of
bundled initiatives.
Many factors make it difficult to define agricultural practices as additional in NYS and elsewhere. For example,
New York has supported farmer adoption of many Best Management Practices to achieve water quality
improvements. Such support has included education and outreach, incentives, and cost-sharing. These practices
have had both positive and negative impacts on GHG emissions. Below are 2 examples illustrating the
complexity for determining the Additionality.
Example 1: The “Trees for Tributaries” program is designed to improve water quality but may also have
reduced net GHG emissions by sequestering carbon in trees. However, if it removes agricultural land
from production, it may also cause land elsewhere to be converted to agricultural production, which may
cause GHG emissions elsewhere due to indirect land use change (detrimental leakage). Plus, because
riparian buffers are already being supported to improve water quality, the concomitant GHG mitigation
from the growing trees may not be considered ‘additional’ GHG mitigation.
Example 2: In recent decades, CAFO regulations to improve water quality have increased the number
of long-term liquid manure storage units in NYS doubling the manure-based GHG emissions from the
dairy herd. Covering the storage unit and flaring methane from currently uncovered liquid storage
greatly reduces GHG emissions. There are benefits to simply covering liquid manure storage units
including odor control, reduced rainwater hauling costs, and reduced SPDES overflow violations. If
covered for these reasons, adding a flare and meter would likely be considered additional if implemented
as a GHG mitigation strategy. However, if odor control, rainwater hauling, and SPDES violations are

44
not of particular concern for a farm and would not be adopted with a GHG policy, the entire manure
cover+flare system could be considered additional. If however, one installed an Anaerobic Digester
System (ADS) to generate electricity with the goal of maximizing methane production for maximal
energy generation, this increased methane production and destruction should not be considered
‘additional’ GHG mitigation, because it is extra methane being produced to create electricity. This is
important because if the digester system is not carefully designed and monitored for leaks and for
emissions from digestate the net GHG emissions could actually increase rather than decrease compared
to a baseline of a liquid storage unit and a baseline of GHG from current electricity production.
A rigorous definition of ‘additionality’ should be applied to any policy lever where a credit is given for
supplying a public good or service to ‘offset’ a harm caused elsewhere. For example, if carbon sequestration in
newly planted forests is to be used to offset GHG emissions from fossil fuel combustion for electricity
generation, then the carbon sequestration should meet a rigorous definition of additionality. This report does not
to specify whether or not a practice is “Additional” because it requires too many assumptions about the baseline
and what constitutes “business as usual”. Defining and quantifying additionality is fundamentally a policy
decision. At this time, it is unclear how NYS will define additionality for agricultural GHG mitigation practices.
Additionality is meant to be a companion to assist in the ‘credibility’ of an offset, ensuring the mitigation is a
surplus from one sector making it a Real reduction. Evaluation of additionality is also important for conserving
the limited funds available to implement GHG mitigation strategies that quantifiably deliver the publicly funded
good of mitigating climate change.
Costs
The cost of mitigating a ton of CO2e
Costs for implementing a practice that mitigates a ton of CO2e are generally derived by estimates from Marginal
Abatement Cost (MAC) curves constructed from the available information in the literature. A marginal
abatement cost curve represents the monetary cost of achieving one additional ton of sequestered GHG or
avoided GHG emissions and indicates the total quantity of net GHG reductions that can be achieved at different
price points such as $10, $50 and $100 per metric ton CO2e. It is a curve because there is usually a range of
costs for implementing the same practice in different situations such as different farms. In this report, many
such MAC estimates are from Fargione et al. (2018), which are national estimates down-scaled to the State
level and are available online: https://nature4climate.org/u-s-carbon-mapper/.
The cost of damages from emitting a ton of CO2e
The Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) “is a measure, in dollars of the long-term damage done by a ton of carbon
dioxide emission in a given year. … [It] is meant to be a comprehensive estimate of climate change damages
and includes changes in net agricultural productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood
risk, and changes in energy system costs, such as reduced costs for heating and increased costs for air
conditioning (US EPA 2017 from their discontinued web page). There is a very wide range of estimates for the
social cost of carbon, and more recent literature that accounts for more factors finds higher values (for example
Moore et al. 2015). The estimated price of $100 per ton of CO2 is required to keep the 100-year average
temperature from warming more than 2.5°C, and an even higher cost would be required to meet the Paris
agreement goal of less than 2.0°C. Therefore, spending up to $100 per ton can be considered cost-effective for
climate benefits alone (e.g. NAS 2017, Hsiang et al. 2017). Estimates can also be made of the social cost of
methane and of nitrous oxide. However, these estimates are not as well developed as those for CO2. Therefore
we converted methane and nitrous oxide by their global warming potential (GWP) to CO2e and frame estimates
relative to the $100 per metric CO2e.
New York will have to consider its own definition of ‘affordability’ for GHG mitigation practices across
different GHG gases, sectors, and degrees of permanence and verifiability, etc. We have simply indicated

45
whether we think this measurable technical potential is achievable within this cost range (ranging from saving
money to spending $100 per metric ton CO2e). Just as there are multiple impacts from CO2, CH4 and N2O, there
are multiple co-benefits from the proposed BMPs such as improved air quality, soil quality, and water quality.
These activities have financial benefits that are often difficult to quantify. Just as we should aspire to account
for the total costs of CO2, CH4 and N2O, we should also aspire to account for the total benefits of implementing
a practice (not just the GHG benefits).
As NYS develops its own ‘social cost of carbon (or methane or nitrogen)’ and the financial benefits of GHG-
sensitive BMPs on working lands, NYS will also need to decide what proportion of available funds will be
spent on implementing practices versus verifying and ensuring practices. Does NYS want to allocate spending
to focus on improved verification, or to implement directionally beneficial practices that are less verifiable, but
provide other benefits? Nearly all policies, programs, and practices cost money and if the SCC is $100, what
percentage of that amount should be spent on drafting and implementing policies, educating and training,
implementing and recording a practice on farm, verifying, ensuring permanence, and registering mitigation for
accounting? As a project moves away from easily verifiable and permanent to directionally beneficial and
reversible the costs of verification go up, reducing money available to implement new practices.
Abbreviations
ADS: Anaerobic Digester System
AEM: Agricultural Environmental Management (a program of NYS AGM)
BMP: Best Management Practice
C: carbon
CAFO: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
CAFRI: Climate and Applied Forestry Research Institute
CCE: Cornell Cooperative Extension
CH4: methane
CHP: Combined Heat and Power
CLCPA: Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act
CNMP: Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans
CO2: carbon dioxide
CO2e: carbon dioxide equivalent
CRF: Climate Resilient Farming
EPF: Environmental Protection Fund
g: gram
GHG: Greenhouse Gas
GWP: Global Warming Potential
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Mg: Megagram = metric ton
MT: metric ton
MMt CO2e y-1: Million metric tons of CO2equivalents per year
N: nitrogen
N2O: nitrous oxide
NCS: Natural Climate Solutions
NGO: non-governmental organization
NRCS: Natural Resource Conservation Service
NWL: Natural and Working Lands
NYS: New York State
NYS AGM: New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
NYS DEC: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
NYS SWCC: New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee

46
RGGI: Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
SLCP: Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
SWCD: Soil and Water Conservation Districts
Tg: Teragram = million metric tons
VOC: Volatile Organic Compound
VS: Volatile Solids
Appendix C: Charting A Path Forward
Vision
New York State is a recognized leader in agricultural production, water and air quality stewardship, and is
leading on land-based climate change mitigation. To continue leading and protecting our strong and dynamic
agricultural and forest economies, we imagine policy makers, academics, private companies, and citizens
working together to protect natural resources and biodiversity, improve resilience to extreme weather, and
mitigate greenhouses gas emissions that cause climate change.
Context & Definition: Following the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets (AGM) mandate (2008 NYS
Bill S8148/A10685), NYS fiscal year 2017-18 budget (S2004-D), and the Carbon Farming Act (A3281), this
project, administered through NYS AGM, develops a scientifically based assessment of opportunities and
barriers to support climate adaptation and mitigation practices on working NYS agricultural lands. Carbon
Farming was defined as “the implementation of a land management strategy for the purposes of reducing,
sequestering, and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions on land used in support of a farm operation and
quantifying those greenhouse gas benefits”.
Alignment of Terms: Comparison of Definitions of Practices Across Platforms
Table C1 combines three existing platforms to help integrate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for soil,
water, and climate change. Specifically, it compiles the terms defined in (1) Natural Climate Solutions (NCS,
Griscom et al. 2017, Fargione et al. 2018), (2) NRCS Field Office Technical Guides, and (3) the NYS Soil and
Water Conservation Committee (SWCC) Agricultural Best Management Practice Systems Catalog (revised
2016). The objective of this table is to help leverage existing water quality and soil health practices to
incorporate relevant GHG mitigation.
TABLE C1. Comparing Best Management Practice Definitions from different sources to help Integrate Climate
Mitigation into Existing Agricultural Environmental Management Strategies.
SWCC Agricultural BMP Systems Catalog: Prescribed Rotational Grazing System
A prescribed grazing management system using 5 or more paddocks for a grazing season, alternating
paddocks to allow for forage vigor and re-growth. Livestock graze for no more than 7 days before they are
rotated to another paddock.
Source
Name
Definition
NCS
Grazing
Optimization
Increase of soil carbon sequestration due to grazing optimization on
rangeland and planted pastures. Grazing optimization prescribes a decrease in
stocking rates in areas that are overgrazed and an increase in stocking rates in
areas that are under-grazed, the net result of increased forage offtake and
livestock production.
NRCS 528
Prescribed
Grazing
Managing the harvest of vegetation with grazing and/or browsing animals
with the intent to achieve specific ecological, economic, and management
objectives.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps528.pdf

47
NRCS 512
Forage
Biomass
Planting
Establishing adapted and/or compatible species, varieties, or cultivars of
herbaceous species suitable for pasture, hay, or biomass production.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps512.pdf
SWCC Agricultural BMP Systems Catalog: Feed Management System
The continual process of providing adequate, not excess, nutrients to dairy animals through the integration of
feeding and crop management to reduce nutrient excretion in manure and nutrient accumulation in soil, lower
potential pollution risks to water and air resources, and improve farm profitability.
Source
Name
Definition
NRCS 592
Feed
Management
Manipulating and controlling the quantity and quality of available nutrients,
feedstuffs, or additives fed to livestock and poultry.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps592.pdf
SWCC Agricultural BMP Systems Catalog: Manure & Agricultural Waste Treatment System
A system for the mechanical, chemical or biological treatment of agricultural wastes.
or
SWCC Agricultural BMP Systems Catalog: Waste Storage & Transfer System
A system design for the collection, transfer, and/or storage of agricultural livestock and recognizable process
waste.
Source
Name
Definition
NCS
Improved
Manure
Management
Avoided CH4 emissions from dairy and hog manure. Emissions reductions
were estimated for improved manure management on dairy farms with over
300 cows and hog farms with over 825 hogs.
NRCS 317
Composting
Facility
A structure or device to contain and facilitate an aerobic microbial ecosystem
for the decomposition of manure and/or other organic material into a final
product sufficiently stable for storage, on farm use and application to land as
a soil amendment.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps317.pdf
NRCS 590
Nutrient
Management
Managing the amount (rate), source, placement (method of application), and
timing of plant nutrients and soil amendments.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps590.pdf
NRCS 367
Roofs and
Covers
A rigid, semi rigid, or flexible manufactured membrane, composite material,
or roof structure placed over a waste management facility, agrichemical
handling facility, or an on-farm secondary containment facility.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps367.pdf
NRCS 313
Waste Storage
Facility
An agricultural waste storage impoundment or containment made by
constructing an embankment, excavating a pit or dugout, or by fabricating a
structure.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps313.pdf
NRCS 632
Waste
Separation
Facility
A filtration or screening device, settling tank, settling basin, or settling
channel used to partition solids and/or nutrients from a waste stream.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps632.pdf
NRCS 629
Waste
Treatment
The use of unique or innovative mechanical, chemical or biological
technologies that change the characteristics of manure and agricultural waste.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps629.pdf
SWCC Agricultural BMP Systems Catalog: Nutrient Management System - Cultural
Managing the amount (rate), source, placement (method of application), and timing of plant nutrient and soil
amendment applications for efficient use by crops and reduced losses to the environment. If applicable, this
can include addressing the issues from farmstead areas as it relates to non-point sources of pollutants.
Source
Name
Definition

48
NCS
Cropland
Nutrient
Management
Avoided N2O emissions due to more efficient use of nitrogen fertilizers and
avoided upstream emissions from fertilizer manufacture. Four improved
management practices were considered: 1) reduced whole-field application
rate, 2) switching from anhydrous ammonia to urea, 3) improved timing of
fertilizer application, and 4) variable application rate within field.
NRCS 590
Nutrient
Management
Managing the amount (rate), source, placement (method of application), and
timing of plant nutrients and soil amendments.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps590.pdf
SWCC Agricultural BMP Systems Catalog: Soil Conservation System - Cultural
Cultural soil conservation systems employ management-based measures such as crop rotation, tillage,
mulching, cover cropping, and/or other practices according to a soil conservation plan to control soil erosion,
reduce run-off and enhance soil health.
Source
Name
Definition
NCS
Cover Crops
Soil carbon sequestration gained by growing a cover crop in the fallow
season between main crops. The benefit of using cover crops on the five
major crops in the U.S. (corn, soy, wheat, rice, and cotton) that are not
already growing cover crops was quantified.
NCS
Alley
Cropping
Carbon sequestration gained by planting wide rows of trees with a
companion crop grown in the alleyways between the rows (applicable to
<10% of cropland).
Wightman &
Woodbury
Replace
Annuals with
Perennials
Replacement of annual crops with perennial crops will increase soil carbon
and increase N use efficiency but may affect yields and value of the
harvested crop and so the cropping systems must be carefully selected.
NCS
Legumes in
Pastures
Increase of soil carbon sequestration due to sowing legumes in planted
pastures. Restricted to planted pastures and to where sowing legumes would
result in net sequestration after taking into account potential increases in N2O
emissions from the planted legumes.
NCS
Biochar
Increased soil carbon sequestration by amending agricultural soils with
biochar, which converts non-recalcitrant carbon (crop residue biomass) to
recalcitrant carbon (charcoal) through pyrolysis. The source of biochar
production was limited to crop residue that can be sustainably harvested. It
was assumed that 79.6% of biochar carbon persists on a time scale of >100
years and that there are no effects of biochar on emissions of N2O or CH4.
NRCS 340
Cover Crops
Grasses, legumes, and forbs planted for seasonal vegetative cover.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps340.pdf
NRCS 585
Strip Cropping
Growing planned rotations of erosion-resistant and erosion-susceptible crops
or fallow in a systematic arrangement of strips across a field.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/585_NY_CPS_Stripcrop
ping_2019.pdf
NRCS 512
Forage and
Biomass
Planting
Establishing adapted and/or compatible species, varieties, or cultivars of
herbaceous species suitable for pasture, hay, or biomass production.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps512.pdf
NRCS 329
Residue and
Tillage
Management
(No-Till)
Limiting soil disturbance to manage the amount, orientation and distribution
of crop and plant residue on the soil surface year around.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps329.pdf
NRCS 345
Residue and
Tillage
Managing the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and other plant
residue on the soil surface year-round while limiting soil-disturbing activities

49
Management
(Reduced Till)
used to grow and harvest crops in systems where the field surface is tilled
prior to planting.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/345_NY_CPS_Residue_
and_Tillage_Management-Reduced_Till_2017.pdf
SWCC Agricultural BMP Systems Catalog: Riparian Buffer System
An area of grasses, sedges, rushes, ferns, legumes, forbs, shrubs, and/or trees tolerant of intermittent flooding
or saturated soils located adjacent to and up-gradient from waterbodies.
Source
Name
Definition
NRCS 391
Riparian
Forest Buffer
An area of predominantly trees and/or shrubs located adjacent to and up-
gradient from watercourses or water bodies.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps391.pdf
NRCS 342
Critical Area
Planting
Establishing permanent vegetation on sites that have, or expected to have,
high erosion rates, and on sites that have physical, chemical, or biological
conditions that prevent the establishment of vegetation with normal
seeding/planting methods.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps342.pdf
NRCS 390
Riparian
Herbaceous
Cover
Grasses, sedges, rushes, ferns, legumes, and forbs tolerant of intermittent
flooding or saturated soils, established or managed as the dominant
vegetation in the transitional zone between upland and aquatic habitats.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps390.pdf
NRCS 612
Tree and
Shrub
Establishment
Establishing woody plants by planting seedlings or cuttings, by direct
seeding, and/or through natural regeneration.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps612.pdf
NRCS 490
Tree and
Shrub Site
Preparation
Treatment of areas to improve site conditions for establishing trees and/or
shrubs.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps490.pdf
Suggested category to add to the SWCC Agricultural BMP Systems Catalog: Woodland Management
Not currently listed in the NYS Soil and Water Conservation Committee Agricultural Best Management
Practice Systems Catalog (revised 2016)
Source
Name
Definition
NCS
Afforestation
Increase of carbon sequestration in above and belowground biomass and soils
gained by converting non-forest (<25% tree cover) to forest [>25% tree
cover] in areas of the conterminous U.S. where forests are the native cover
type. To safeguard food production, most cropland and pasture was not
included. The carbon sequestration mitigation benefit in conifer-dominated
forests was reduced to account for albedo effects.
NCS
Natural Forest
Management
Changes in timber management practices to increase net forest carbon
sequestration (mixed native species forests under private ownership).
NCS
Avoided
Forest
Conversion
Emissions of CO2 avoided by avoiding anthropogenic forest conversion. To
estimate the rate of conversion (i.e. to another land use), forest clearing in the
conterminous U.S. from 2000 to 2010 was calculated and then avoided
carbon emissions from above and below ground biomass that are specific to
each region and forest type was calculated. Forest loss due to fire or pests
was not included. The benefit of avoided conversion in conifer-dominated
forests was reduced to account for their albedo effects.
NRCS 666
Forest Stand
Improvement
The manipulation of species composition, stand structure, or stand density by
cutting or killing selected trees or understory vegetation to achieve desired
forest conditions or obtain ecosystem services.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/nyps666.pdf

50
Opportunities to Expand Working Land’s Role in Climate Mitigation
Table C2 is a preliminary listing of existing opportunities and methodologies identified by a wide range of
stakeholders and agencies with respect to climate change mitigation opportunities for agriculture. This listing
provides resources for identifying new policy options or expanding existing policies based on what has been
done in other states or sectors. Additionally, this listing can stimulate ideas for how mitigation opportunities
could be implemented (e.g. an equipment sharing program). A recent publication about innovations by State
Governments using funding sources and finance tools regarding land conservation practices might help inform
what financial levers are appropriate for specific practices (see Feldman et al. 2019).
TABLE C2. Existing NYS Policies and Ideas from other Leaders, States, Organizations
Resource Type
Name of
Organization/
Opportunity
Description and URL
General Resources
Organization
North East
USDA
Climate Hub
<https://www.climatehubs.oce.usda.gov/hubs/northeast>
Organization
NE Climate
Adaptation
Science Center
<https://necsc.umass.edu/northeast-climate>
Technical Assistance
NRCS
Technical Assistance for mitigation projects (NRCS Technical
Standards and Tools are relevant and available for most areas of
management listed throughout this Table)
<https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/progra
ms/technical/>
Education Materials
NYS AEM
Tier II
worksheet
Tier 2 Environmental Assessment Worksheets, including
Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Opportunities | pdf
Education Materials
NYS AEM
GHG
Information
Sheets
#1 Introduction to Farm & Forest GHG Mitigation | pdf
#2 Dairy Manure Storage & GHG Mitigation | pdf
#3 Liquid Manure Quantitative Methane Destruction|pdf
#4 Energy Efficiency & GHG Mitigation | pdf
#5 Nitrogen Fertilizer Management & GHG Mitigation | pdf
#6 Soil Carbon Management & GHG Mitigation | pdf
#7 Forest Management & GHG Mitigation | pdf
#8 Glossary of GHG Mitigation Terms | pdf
Education/outreach
materials
Agricultural
carbon trading
Somewhat outdated but still informative tools on carbon-credits
http://agcarbontrading.org/learn/
Climate Action Reserve - http://www.climateactionreserve.org
Education/outreach
materials
Wightman &
Woodbury
The authors articles, presentations, and outreach materials.
<http://blogs.cornell.edu/woodbury/>
Education/outreach
materials
CSF – climate
smart farming
Technical assistance, decision support tools
http://climatesmartfarming.org/
Education
Small farms
program
Agroforestry, reduced tillage, clean energy
<http://smallfarms.cornell.edu/>
NYS grants
NYS Climate
Resilient
The goal of the Climate Resilient Farming Program is to reduce the
impact of agriculture on climate change (mitigation) and to

51
Farming
(CRF)
Program
increase the resiliency of New York State farms in the face of a
changing climate (adaptation). Soil and Water Conservation
Districts use the Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM)
Framework to plan and assess their environmental risks.
<https://www.nys-soilandwater.org/programs/crf.html>
NYS grants
NYS Climate
Resilient
Farming,
Round 5
The fifth round of grants are funded through the State's
Environmental Protection Fund (EPF). The EPF for Fiscal Year
2019-2020 has $4.5 million for Climate Resilient Farming program
projects. Contact NYS AGM for the schedule of the next round of
proposals.
Through the Climate Resilient Farming grant program, County Soil
and Water Conservation Districts apply for the competitive grants
on behalf of farmers. Projects can focus on reducing carbon
footprints, saving energy, improving soil health, increasing
irrigation capacity, and emphasizing water management to mitigate
the effects of drought as well as heavy rainfall and flooding on
crops and livestock.
Examples of projects eligible for funding are:
• Methane reduction tactics, such as using manure storage
cover and methane flare systems.
• Water management practices, such as stream bank
stabilization, streamside forested buffers, and irrigation water
systems.
• Soil health practice systems, including cover crop planting,
conservation tillage and managed rotational grazing.
NYS grants
Empire State
Development
(ESD, new
farmer grants)
Keeping land in agriculture requires new farmers taking over from
farmers that are retiring. This grant fund helps beginning farmers
improve farm profitability through one or both of the following
goals: (1) Expanding agricultural production, diversifying
agricultural production, and/or extending the agricultural season;
(2) Advancing innovative agricultural techniques that increase
sustainable practices such as organic farming, food safety,
reduction of farm waste, and/or water use.
Grants range from 150k to 500k. The program has provided more
than $4.19 million to farmers since 2014.
<https://esd.ny.gov/new-farmers-grant-fund-program>
NYS grant
Open Space
Funding from
the
Environmental
Protection
Fund (EPF)
Created in 1993, the New York State Environmental Protection
Fund (EPF) provides mechanisms for open space conservation and
land acquisition.
• Title 7 allocates funds to the Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation for purchase of land to be included in the Forest
Preserve, State Parks, the State Nature and Historical
Preserve, State Historic Sites, Unique Areas and other
categories.
• Title 9 provides funds for local governments and not-for-
profit organizations to purchase park lands or historic
resources as well to develop and preserve these resources.
Within the Adirondack and Catskill Parks the Department of

52
Environmental Conservation administers the Title 9 grant
program through the Division of Lands and Forests, Bureau of
Public Lands.
<https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5071.html>
NYS grants, general
Environmental
Protection
Fund (EPF)
general grants
page
Competitive grants for environmental protection and improvement
are available for municipalities, community organizations, not-for-
profit organizations and others. EPF budget is historically at the
highest level of $300 million.
<https://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/grants.html>
NYS municipality
grants
Climate Smart
Communities
(CSC)
The Climate Smart Communities (CSC) Grant program was
established in 2016 to provide 50/50 matching grants to cities,
towns, villages and counties of the State of New York and
boroughs of New York City for eligible climate adaptation and
mitigation projects.
<http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/109181.html#CSC>
NYS field trials/pilot
projects
Soil C
Carbon
farming trials
(Hudson)
Hudson Carbon established 13 testing sites at three farms in the
Hudson Valley <https://www.hudsoncarbon.com/>
Biochar
Biochar and
compost
Cornell Biochar and compost facility:
<https://www.climatehubs.oce.usda.gov/hubs/northeast/project/cor
nell-biochar-and-compost-facilities>
Forest Management
NYS forest
experiment
station
Arnot Forest trials and teaching station,
<http://blogs.cornell.edu/arnotforest/>
Perennial Grain
Kernza
Perennial
Grain Trials
(NYS)
Intermediate wheatgrass is a long-lived, rhizomatous perennial
grass. The Cornell Sustainable Cropping Systems Lab initiated a
long-term experiment in August 2014 at the Cornell Musgrave
Research Farm in Aurora, NY in collaboration other researchers
across the US. The objectives of this experiment are to: 1)
determine the effects of harvesting forage on Kernza grain yields
and profitability, and 2) evaluate Kernza grain and forage yields
over time across multiple environments.
<https://blogs.cornell.edu/whatscroppingup/2016/12/05/perennial-
grain-crop-production-in-new-york-state/>
Perennial bioenergy
Perennial
grass
(bioenergy)
Yield trials: <https://plbrgen.cals.cornell.edu/research-
extension/forage-project/multistate-project-ne-1010/>
Bioenergy case study
Biomass
energy case
studies
Case studies from around NYS.
<http://ccetompkins.org/energy/renewable-
energy/biomass/biomass-energy-case-studies-1>
Perennial willow
SUNY ESF -
willow
Short rotation woody crops (willow) biomass trials and information
<https://www.esf.edu/willow/projects.htm>
Field Crop Nutrient
Management
(including nitrogen)
Research
Cornell
University
Nutrient
Management
Spear Program
The vision of the Cornell University's Nutrient Management Spear
Program is to assess current knowledge, identify research and
educational needs, conduct applied, field and laboratory-based
research, facilitate technology and knowledge transfer, and aid in
the on-farm implementation of beneficial strategies for field crop

53
nutrient management, including timely application of organic and
inorganic nutrient sources to improve profitability and
competitiveness of New York State farms while protecting the
environment.
<http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/>
Nitrogen Management
See Cornell Spear
Program, above
Precision Adaptive N
Management Tool
Adapt-N
An example of an online tool for precision nutrient management
<http://www.adapt-n.com/>
Implementation
Protocol
Climate
Action
Reserve
Nitrogen Management Project Protocol to provide guidance on
how to quantify, monitor, and verify greenhouse gas emission
reductions from improving nitrogen use efficiency in crop
production.
<https://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/nitrogen-
management/>
Agricultural Retailer
and Service Provider
Certification Program
for Nutrient
Management
NY 4R
Nutrient
Stewardship
Program
This 4R Nutrient Stewardship Certification Program encourages
agricultural retailers, service providers and other certified
professionals to adopt proven best practices through the 4Rs, which
refers to using the Right Source of Nutrients at the Right Rate and
Right Time in the Right Place. < https://www.nysaba.com/4r-ny>
NYS legislation
2008 NY State
Bill
S8148/A10685
Section 1. Subdivisions 3 and 4 of section 150 of the agriculture
and markets law, as added by chapter 136 of the laws of 2000, are
amended to read as follows: "AEM (Agricultural Environmental
Management) plan" means a document prepared or approved by a
certified AEM planner and accepted by a participating farmer
which documents a course of action for the environmental
management of a farm operation, including, but not limited to,
measures to abate and control agricultural nonpoint source water
pollution, air pollution and other adverse environmental impacts
from farm operations through the implementation of best
management practices, in a way which maintains the viability of
the farm operation. An AEM plan may also include measures to
address greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and renewable
energy related to farm operations.
Climate
Leadership
and
Community
Protection Act
(CLCPA)
S6599/A8429
<https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2019/s6599>
Title: An act to amend the environmental conservation law, the
public service law, the public authority law, the labor law and the
community risk and resiliency act, in relation to establishing the
New York state climate leadership and community protection act,
signed 2019.
Purpose: To establish the New York State Climate Leadership and
Community Protection Act to adopt measures to put the state on a
path to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by
2050.
Food Donation
and Food
Effective January 2022, large generators of food scraps (on average
2 tons per week or more) must donate excess edible food and

54
Scrap
Recycling Act
2019
recycle all remaining food scraps if they are within 25 miles of an
organic material recycler.
Soil Health
NYS Roadmap
New York Soil
Health
Roadmap
“Identifies key policy, research and education efforts to overcome
barriers to adoption of soil health practices by farmers.” The
Roadmap was developed by New York Soil Health, an initiative
coordinated by Cornell University. The Roadmap also “identifies
strategies for integrating soil health goals with state priorities
focused on environmental issues such as climate change and water
quality.” (IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/NYsoilhealth>
Cornell Soil Health
Testing Laboratory
Soil Health
Training
Manual and
Testing
Services
The Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health (CASH) manual
identifies constraints to biological and physical soil functioning.
This information then guides land managers in making targeted
management decisions to plan and implement systems of soil
health management practices to alleviate identified constraints and
maintain healthier soils. <https://soilhealth.cals.cornell.edu/>
For a fee, the lab also offers comprehensive soil health testing
services and provides field-specific information on constraints in
biological and physical processes, in addition to standard soil
nutrient analysis <https://soilhealth.cals.cornell.edu/testing-
services/>
Tool
Cover Crop
Decision Tool
Online tool to help you quickly narrow the choices of cover crop
< http://covercrop.org/cover-crop-decision-tool>
Education materials
NE cover crop
council
Specific to NYS <http://northeastcovercrops.com/states/new-
york/>
Riparian Buffers
Key Source materials:
https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/106345.html
NYS Financing
State:
Agricultural
Nonpoint
Source
Abatement
and Control
Program
(AgNPS)
NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets’ competitive grant
program helps farmers reduce water pollution by providing
technical and financial assistance to implement best management
practices. Projects incorporating riparian buffers receive priority
scoring.
NYS Financing
State:
Green
Innovation
Grant Program
(GIGP)
NYS Environmental Facilities Corporation’s program provides
funding for municipal green infrastructure practices, including
riparian buffers.
NYS Financing
State:
Trees for
Tributaries
DEC’s Saratoga Tree Nursery program provides landowners,
municipalities and conservation organizations with free technical
assistance and low- or no-cost native trees and shrubs to plant
along streams.
NYS Financing
Water Quality
Improvement
Program
DEC’s competitive grant program funds municipal projects that
reduce polluted runoff, improve water quality, and restore aquatic

55
(WQIP)
habitats. Riparian buffers on non-agricultural land are a priority
practice eligible for funding.
NYS Financing
Local:
Catskill
Stream Buffer
Initiative
(CSBI)
Providing private landowners throughout the west of Hudson River
watershed with individualized assistance and financial support to
protect and improve streamside properties.
NYS Financing
Local:
Upper
Susquehanna
Coalition
(USC)
Riparian
Buffer
Program
Providing technical assistance and funding to landowners in the
NY headwaters of the Chesapeake Bay watershed for conservation
practices, including riparian buffers.
Federal Financing
Conservation
Reserve
Enhancement
Program
(CREP)
Agricultural landowners are eligible to receive financial payments
from U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service
Agency (FSA) to remove streamside farmland from production and
plant forests or grass buffers.
Federal Financing
Debt for
Nature (DFN)
Program
Farmers with loans from the USDA-FSA may qualify for loan
cancellation in exchange for implementing conservation practices,
like riparian buffers.
Federal Financing
Environmental
Quality
Improvement
Program
(EQIP)
USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) EQIP
program providing financial and technical assistance to farmers to
implement conservation practices, including riparian buffers, on
farmland and non-industrial (not used for wood products) private
forestland.
Forest Management
Communication Tools
Tools for
Engaging
Landowners
Effectively
(TELE)
TELE can help you convince more landowners to adopt a desired
behavior, whether that’s harvesting timber, permanently
conserving land, or anything in between.
<https://www.engaginglandowners.org/>
All NYS
families with
at least 10
acres of
woodland
197,000 Private woodland owners steward 9.3 million acres in
NYS, of which 27% are associated with farms or ranches. 96% of
these landowners are considered Prime Prospects (have good
stewardship attitudes but are not highly engaged in managing).
16% say they plan to sell their land in 5 years or at any time if the
price is right. <https://www.engaginglandowners.org/landowner-
data/find-profiles?region=97>
Pilot/Demonstration
site
NYS Forest
Experiment
station
Arnot Forest trials and teaching station,
<http://blogs.cornell.edu/arnotforest/>
Education
Forest
Connect
Connect woodland users to the knowledge and resources needed to
ensure sustainable production and ecological function on private
woodlands. <http://blogs.cornell.edu/cceforestconnect/>

56
Tax Exemption
NYS DEC
Forest Tax
Law-480a
Any owner of forest land and any tract of forest land is eligible if it
consists of at least 50 contiguous acres. An owner must first decide
if he or she is willing to commit land to the production of forest
crops and to follow a management plan, prepared by a forester and
approved DEC, for the next succeeding ten years beginning each
year that they receive a tax exemption. This decision can be made
only after an analysis of the investments required by the plan,
income from forest product sales, and associated stumpage.
<https://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5236.html>
Agroforestry
Information
Cornell Small
Farms
Tools and resources to help woodlot owners start farming their
forests
< https://smallfarms.cornell.edu/projects/agroforestry/>
Silvopasture
Silvopasture
network
Network for sharing resources related to silvopasture
<http://silvopasture.ning.com/>
Peer-to-peer training
Master Forest
Owners
(MFO)
network
140 experienced and highly motivated volunteer MFOs are
available statewide, ready to assist neighbor woodland owners with
the information needed to start managing their woodlands, through
free site visits to landowner properties. All MFOs are graduates of
a 4-day training program, where they learn about sawtimber and
wildlife management, woodland economics, and ecology.
<http://blogs.cornell.edu/ccemfo/>
Implementation
Protocol
Climate
Action
Reserve
The Forest Project Protocol (FPP) provides guidance for the
development of forest carbon projects. The FPP addresses
eligibility and accounting requirements for the calculation of
emissions removals and reductions associated with reforestation,
improved forest management, and avoided conversion projects.
https://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/forest/
Offset
RGGI
“U.S. forest offset projects sequester carbon through three project
types that increase and/or conserve forest carbon stocks, increasing
the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, or reducing or preventing
the emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere.”
<https://www.rggi.org/allowance-tracking/offsets/offset-
categories/forestry-afforestation>
Manure Management
Educational Materials
Dairy Manure Storage & GHG Mitigation | pdf
Liquid Manure Quantitative Methane Capture/Destruction | pdf
Implementation
Protocol
Climate
Action
Reserve
The Livestock Project Protocol provides guidance to calculate,
monitor, report, and verify GHG emission reductions associated
with installing a manure biogas control system for livestock
operations, such as dairy cattle and swine farms.
<https://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/us-
livestock/>
State plan
NYS methane
reduction plan
Initiative to incorporate methane reduction into New York State
programs related to manure management
<https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/mrpfinal.pdf>
Offset
RGGI
Avoided Agricultural Methane by “projects (that) capture and
destroy methane from animal manure and organic food waste using
anaerobic digesters” <https://www.rggi.org/allowance-
tracking/offsets/offset-categories/agricultural-methane>

57
Applied Research,
Educational/Extension
Materials, and Tools
Cornell PRO-
DAIRY –
Dairy
Environmental
Systems
Program
Applied research, extension materials, and tools for dairy facility
and manure management environmental engineering solutions
<https://prodairy.cals.cornell.edu/environmental-systems/>
Applied Research,
Educational/Extension
Materials, Land Grant
University Guidelines
for Field Crops, and
Tools
Cornell
University
Nutrient
Management
Spear Program
The vision of the Cornell University's Nutrient Management Spear
Program is to assess current knowledge, identify research and
educational needs, conduct applied, field and laboratory-based
research, facilitate technology and knowledge transfer, and aid in
the on-farm implementation of beneficial strategies for field crop
nutrient management, including timely application of organic and
inorganic nutrient sources to improve profitability and
competitiveness of New York State farms while protecting the
environment.
<http://nmsp.cals.cornell.edu/>
Enteric Fermentation
and Dairy Feed
Management
Case Study
Precision Feed
Management
Case study
Yates County, NY <https://projects.sare.org/sare_project/lne11-
308/>
Information Sheet
Info Sheet
Feeding Strategies During Challenging Times
<https://prodairy.cals.cornell.edu/sites/prodairy.cals.cornell.edu/fil
es/shared/documents/Feeding%20Strategies%20During%20Challe
nging%20Times.pdf>
Fact Sheet
2008 fact sheet
General Concepts, but not specific to climate change,
<https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/36721/dec15
.pdf;sequence=1>
Forage Analysis
Dairy One
Forage Analysis, <https://dairyone.com/>
Renewable Energy
NE and NYS
RGGI
proceeds
(Revenue is
invested via
NYSERDA,
e.g. to support
Clean Energy
Fund and
Clean Energy
for Agriculture
items)
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is the first market-based
regulatory program in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. RGGI is a cooperative effort among the states of
Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and
reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector. Following a
comprehensive 2012 Program Review, the RGGI states
implemented a new 2014 RGGI cap of 91 million short tons. The
RGGI CO2 cap then declines 2.5 percent each year from 2015 to
2020. The RGGI CO2 cap represents a regional budget for CO2
emissions from the power sector.
Pursuant to rules and regulations promulgated by NYSERDA and
the NYS DEC, NYSERDA is responsible for administering
periodic auctions for the sale of the emissions allowances. The
proceeds from the sales of these allowances will be used by
NYSERDA to administer energy efficiency, renewable energy,

58
and/or innovative carbon abatement programs, and to cover the
costs to administer such programs.
NYS
NYSERDA
clean energy
fund (CEF)
Supporting farms, for example greenhouse lighting efficiency.
<https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Clean-Energy-Fund>
NYS plan
NYSERDA,
Clean Energy
for Agriculture
Task Force
The Clean Energy for Agriculture Task Force—an assembly of
farmers, universities, agriculture organizations, and others—is
helping identify and prioritize clean energy opportunities for New
York State’s agriculture sector. The resulting Clean Energy for
Agriculture Task Force Strategic Plan identifies initiatives to cut
energy costs and accelerate the use of clean energy by the more
than 35,000 farms across the State.
<https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Publications/Clean-Energy-
for-Agriculture-Task-Force-Strategic-Plan>
NYS policy/research
need
Solar
contracting
Achieving Large-Scale Solar in New York State: What are the
Research & Information Needs?
<https://cardi.cals.cornell.edu/sites/cardi.cals.cornell.edu/files/shar
ed/RPB-April2018.pdf>
Grant
USDA- Rural
Development
Rural Energy for America Program Renewable Energy Systems &
Energy Efficiency Improvement Guaranteed Loans & Grants.
Grants of $20,000 or less for renewable energy project or
efficiency projects. Applicants must be “Agricultural producers
with at least 50% of gross income coming from agricultural
operations, or Small businesses in eligible rural areas.
<https://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/rural-energy-
america-program-renewable-energy-systems-energy-efficiency>
Grass Bioenergy
Grass pellet
field research
and appliance
testing
Grass pellets as a low-tech, small-scale, environmentally friendly,
renewable energy system that can be locally produced, locally
processed and locally consumed.
<http://forages.org/index.php/grass-biofuels>
Developing Markets
Federal
Office of
Environmental
Markets
Carbon markets
<https://www.usda.gov/oce/environmental_markets/carbon.htm>
CA Offset Registry
Climate
Action
Reserve
(CAR)
<https://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/california-compliance-
projects/>
Voluntary Offset
Registry
Climate
Action
Reserve
(CAR)
<https://www.climateactionreserve.org/about-us/voluntary-
offsets/>
Carbon Market
IndigoAg
Soil carbon market, <https://www.indigoag.com/for-
growers/indigo-carbon>
Carbon Market
Nori
Carbon marketplace (launching 2020) < https://nori.com/about>

59
Other
State/Organization
Initiatives
State Initiative
California
Healthy Soils
Initiative
“launched by then Governor Jerry Brown in his 2015 inaugural
address and recognized and funded by the legislature in 2016 with
enactment of Senate Bill 859. The initiative includes 7 state
agencies addressing different aspects of healthy soils on the state’s
public lands, private farms and ranches, and in programs ranging
from composting and water management to carbon storage for
green-house gas mitigation. The California initiative is a
comprehensive approach to implementing a soil health strategy.”
(IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/CAinitiative>
State Initiative
Hawaii
Carbon
Farming Task
Force
“In 2017, Hawaii enacted HB 1578, which created a Carbon
Farming Task Force to identify agriculture or aquaculture activities
and best practices that provide soil health and carbon sequestration
benefits and could be used to establish a carbon farming
certification. The 13-member Task Force is to make
recommendations to the legislature including pro-posed legislation.
The Task Force has until December 2022, to provide a preliminary
report to the legislature.” (IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/HItaskforce>
State Initiative
Nebraska
Healthy Soils
Task Force
“Legislative Bill 243 (2019) was enacted to create a Healthy Soils
Task Force appointed by the Governor to “develop a
comprehensive healthy soils initiative for the State of Nebraska,”
develop a comprehensive action plan to carry out the initiative, and
develop a timeline to improve soil health in Nebraska within five
years of the completion of the action plan. The legislation gives the
Task Force until January 2021 to complete its work. The new law
includes components of the action plan, including consideration of
outreach and financial incentives needed. The bill passed on a 43-0
vote in April 2019.” (IWLA 2019)
<http://bit.ly/NEtaskforce>
Agency Programs
Maryland
Healthy Soils
Program
“Maryland House Bill 1063 was enacted in 2017, establishing the
Maryland Healthy Soils Program to increase biological activity and
carbon sequestration in the state’s soils by promoting practices
based on emerging soil science. It requires the Maryland
Department of Agriculture (MDA) to provide farmers with
education, technical assistance and, subject to available funding,
financial incentives to implement farm management practices that
contribute to healthy soils. The bill did not include additional
funding, but the Department has implemented the new law with
existing resources, building on the Department’s support of
Maryland’s soil conservation districts. The Department
collaborated with the Healthy Soils Consortium to identify
practices that are most effective in improving soil health and
building soil carbon stocks. MDA will create a menu of Maryland-
specific practices, determine metrics and tools to quantify soil
carbon, and provide incentives to encourage climate friendly soil
practices. The Department is also examining existing programs to
find ways to promote soil health co-benefits. The bill was passed

60
by overwhelming votes in the Senate and House of Delegates.”
(IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/MDhealthysoils>
Agency Programs
New Mexico
Healthy Soil
Program
“New Mexico HB 204, enacted in 2019, creates the Healthy Soil
Program in the state Department of Agriculture “to promote and
support farming and ranching systems and other forms of land
management that increase soil organic matter, aggregate stability,
microbiology and water retention to improve the health, yield and
profitability of the soils of the state.” The new program includes a
healthy soil assessment and education program, and a grants
program. The assessment and education program provide education
and outreach to farmers, a baseline soil health assessment,
development of a network of soil health champions, and public
education. Grants may help cooperative extension, soil and water
conservation districts, Indian tribes, and local governments provide
technical assistance to producers and landowners. The legislature
provided $455,000 to implement the bill and for research on soil
health monitoring.” (IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/NMhealthysoil>
Agency Programs
Connecticut
Regenerative
Agriculture
Program
“Connecticut Committee Bill 6647 (2019) would require the
Commissioner of Agriculture to establish a regenerative agriculture
program, adopt rules to define “regenerative agriculture,” and
provide state standards for minimum carbon and water content that
would apply to grants awarded by the Commissioner to encourage
regenerative agriculture. As of April 2019, the bill remained in
committee.” (IWLA 2019) < bit.ly/CTRegen>
Agency Programs
Massachusetts
Healthy Soils
Program
“Massachusetts bill S.438 (2019) would establish a healthy soils
program that would optimize climate benefits by providing loans,
grants, research, technical assistance, educational material, and
outreach to farmers whose management practices will contribute to
healthy soils and result in net long-term on-farm greenhouse gas
benefits. The bill would establish a Massachusetts Healthy Soils
Program Fund, and provide funding for the program. The bill
would also incorporate soil health concepts into several other
sections of statute, and includes definitions for “healthy soils” and
“healthy soils practices”. As of April 2019, the bill remained in
committee.” (IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/MAhealthysoils>
Agency Programs
Iowa Soil
Health
Monitoring
“Iowa HF 102 (2019) would establish a statewide soil resource
health and recovery monitoring system to collect data on soil
health parameters like nutrient retention capacity, structure,
stability, erosion, water retention, and habitat for earthworms and
soil microbes. The system would be housed in the state Department
of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, in cooperation with Iowa
State University. The Department and University would submit a
report to the legislature every two years on the state of Iowa’s
soils, including recommendations to sustain and improve soil
resources and proposed legislation or rules changes. As of April
2019, the bill remained in committee.” (IWLA 2019)
<http://bit.ly/IAmonitoring>
Agency Programs
Illinois
Sustainable
5 Year Farmer Transition Program
STAR Program

61
Agricultural
Partnership
Precision Conservation Management
Advanced Soil Health Training
https://ilsustainableag.org
Soil Health Tools
Illinois STAR
“The Champaign County, Illinois, Soil and Water Conservation
District created Saving Tomorrow’s Agriculture Resources
(STAR) as a free tool to help farmers and landowners assess their
nutrient and soil loss practices at a field level. The STAR
evaluation assigns points for each nutrient management, cropping,
tillage, and soil conservation activity on each field. Each field
earns one to five stars based on the points awarded, allowing
farmers to see how their conservation system compares to other
farmers and to best management practices. The District gives
farmers and landowners a menu of strategies they can use to boost
their STAR rating. Soil and water conservation districts in other
Illinois counties and other states are adapting the STAR tool to
their soils and circumstances”. (IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/ILstar>
State Incentives
$75/acre cover crop
Maryland
Agricultural
Water Quality
Cost-Share
Program
“Grants to farmers to offset seed, labor, and equipment costs
associated with conservation practices, especially planting cover
crops. Cost-share rates vary from year to year, but in recent years
farmers have received up to $75 an acre to plant cover crops.
Participating farmers can also receive attractive field signs to help
educate the public on ways agriculture is protecting the
Chesapeake Bay. The program is a major factor in cover crops
being planted on more than half of eligible Maryland cropland,
rates higher than any other state. Funding is provided by the
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund and the Chesapeake and
Atlantic Coastal Bays Trust Fund. Maryland provided $34 million
in cost-share grants to farmers in FY 2017.” (IWLA 2019)
<http://bit.ly/MDcostshare>
State Incentives
$25/acre 1st yr cover
crop
$15/acre 2nd yr cover
crop
Iowa Cover
Crop Cost
Share
“The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
provides cost-share for farmers who adopt no-till, strip till,
nitrogen inhibitor, or cover crop practices. $3.8 million in funding
from the Iowa Water Quality Initiative was provided in fiscal year
2017, but demand for the cost-share far exceeds available funding.
Farmers can receive $25 per acre for first-time users of cover
crops, or $15 per acre for returning users.” (IWLA 2019)
<http://bit.ly/IAcostshare>
State Incentives
$5 per acre discount
on crop insurance for
cover crops
Iowa Crop
Insurance
Discount
“The Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship
(IDALS) funds the $5 per acre discount on federal crop insurance
for farmers who plant cover crops. Funds come from the Iowa
Water Quality Initiative. The discount is provided through the crop
insurance companies that service federally subsidized crop
insurance policies in Iowa. It is not available to farmers who are
receiving cost-share for planting cover crops through the USDA
suite of conservation programs or Iowa’s own state cost-share
program. The discount (or lack of one) shows up on a line of the
crop insurance invoice that farmers pay, which has helped
stimulate interest in cover crops from farmers who view the
invoice and see there is a discount they are not getting. IDALS

62
reports that 700 farmers enrolled nearly 170,000 acres of cover
crops in the program in the first year of the demonstration project.”
(IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/IAcovercropinsurance>
State Incentives
$20 per acre for single
species cover crops
$45 per acre for multi-
species cover crops
Nebraska
Cover Crop
Payments
“Nebraska LB 729 (2019) would provide incentives for farmers to
plant cover crops of $20 per acre for single-species cover crops, or
$45 per acre for multi-species cover crops. The funds would be
made available in target watersheds, focusing first on watersheds
with high nitrate runoff, and for farms within 2.5 miles of a
waterway. The bill does not provide a specific funding source, but
identifies federal, state, and local grants and other funds designated
for the purpose. As of April 2019, the bill remained in committee.”
(IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/NEpayments>
50% property tax
exemption for
cropland planted
to cover crops
Iowa Property
Tax
Exemption
“Iowa House Study Bill 78 (2019) would provide a 50% property
tax exemption for cropland planted to cover crops. The exemption
would be applied on an annual basis to the cropland planted to
cover crops that year, and landowners could apply for the
exemption every year. The Department of Agriculture and Land
Stewardship would have authority to inspect property to ensure
compliance with the law. In Iowa, property taxes fund schools and
other local government entities. The bill remained in committee as
of April 2019.” (IWLA 2019)
<http://bit.ly/IApropertytax>
Fertilizer
62¢ per ton fertilizer
fee
Fertilizer and
Pesticide Fees
“Wisconsin has a fertilizer tonnage fee charged for commercial
fertilizers, currently 62¢ per ton. The proceeds support
agrichemical management, fertilizer research, outreach, nutrient
and pest management, and agricultural chemical cleanup. Iowa
created a Groundwater Protection Fund in 1987 which receives
money from pesticide dealer license fees, pesticide registration
fees, and a fee for fertilizer sales based on the percentage of
nitrogen in the product, using 75¢ per ton of 82% nitrogen fertilizer
as the base. Nebraska has a state buffer strip program funded by
proceeds from fees assessed on registered pesticides.” (IWLA
2019)
Soil Health Initiative
on Public Land
California
Healthy Soils
Initiative
“Through this initiative, California’s Department of General
Services is committed to improving soil health by demonstrating
best practices in building soil organic matter in urban landscaping
on state land, including the park grounds surrounding the State
Capitol in Sacramento.” (IWLA 2019)
Soil Health Initiative
on Public Land
State Land
Rented for
Agricultural
Purposes
“Illinois HB 2819 (2019) was introduced to allow the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources to require the establishment of
soil health practices on state-owned land used for agricultural
purposes.” (IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/ILlandrent>
Update
Conservation District
laws
Illinois
Conservation
District
Authority
“Illinois Senate Bill 1980 (2019) would amend the state’s Soil and
Water Conservation Districts Act to add “soil health” to the
declared purpose of the state’s 97 soil and water conservation
districts. It includes a definition of “soil health” and would allow
districts to initiate and conduct soil health activities. Those powers
include surveys, investigations, research, development of
comprehensive plans, entering into agreements with other entities,

63
and making machinery and equipment available to landowners or
farmers within the district. As of April 2019, the legislation had
passed the state Senate on a 56-0 vote and was pending in the
House of Representatives.” (IWLA 2019) <http://bit.ly/ILdistrict>
Soil health workshops
Connecticut
RC&D Soil
Health
Initiative
“The Connecticut Resource Conservation & Development District
has a long-running series of workshops on soil health, in
partnership with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service. Held twice a year, the workshops include hands-on
demonstrations, a soil pit, and a rainfall simulator. Conservation
districts in other states host similar soil health workshops, featuring
soil health experts, presentations from farmers, and tours of
working farms using soil health practices.” (IWLA 2019)
<http://bit.ly/CTinitiative>
Equipment Sharing
Cover crop Roller
Crimper
South Jersey
RC&D Roller
Crimper
“South Jersey Resource Conservation & Development Council
serving southern New Jersey acquired a roller-crimper which it
loans out to area farmers who want to try it out as a method of
terminating cover crops. Cover crops have typically been
terminated using chemicals such as glyphosate, but that poses a
problem for organic growers and substantial costs for other
growers. Roller-crimpers, invented by the Rodale Institute (below),
can be used as an alternative to (or in addition to) chemical burn-
down. Agencies, organizations, or cooperatives could acquire and
rent out or loan roller-crimpers to farmers to encourage the use of
cover crops, as many have done with seed drills to encourage
adoption of no-till farming.” (IWLA 2019)
Literature Cited
Buzby, J.C., Hodan Farah Wells and J. Hyman. 2014. The Estimated Amount, Value, and Calories of
Postharvest Food Losses at the Retail and Consumer Levels in the United States. USDA, Economic Research
Service, Washington, D.C. p. 39.
Claassen, R., J. Horowitz, E. Duquette, K. Ueda. 2014. Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation and
Regulatory Offset Programs – A report summary from the Economic Research Service for United States
Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/45244/48525_err170.pdf, accessed
20 March 2020.
CLCPA – Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. 2019. (S6599, A08429) to amend the
Environmental Conservation Law with Article 75, https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/ENV/A75,
accessed 20 March 2020.
Coalition of Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (C-AGG) 2010. Carbon and Agriculture: Getting Measurable
Results. https://www.c-agg.org/wp-content/uploads/CAGMR_complete_new.pdf, accessed 10 July 2019
Fargione, J.E., S. Bassett, T. Boucher, S.D. Bridgham, R.T. Conant, S.C. Cook-Patton, et al. 2018. Natural
climate solutions for the United States. Science Advances 4. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aat1869.
Feldmann, J., V. Gauthier, M. Monast, M. Rupp, and B. Aasmundstad. 2019. Innovative State-Led Efforts to
Finance Agricultural Conservation. Environmental Defense Fund, National Association of State Departments of

64
Agriculture. <https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/documents/innovative-state-led-efforts-finance-
agricultural-conservation.pdf>
Gillenwater, M. 2012. What is Additionality – a white paper for the GHG Management Institute,
http://ghginstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/content/GHGMI/AdditionalityPaper_Part-1(ver3)FINAL.pdf,
accessed 20 March 2020.
Griscom, B.W., J. Adams, P.W. Ellis, R.A. Houghton, G. Lomax, D.A. Miteva, et al. 2017. Natural climate
solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114: 11645-11650. doi:10.1073/pnas.1710465114.
Huff, E.S., K. Floress, S.A. Snyder, Z. Ma, S. Butler. 2019. Where farm and forest meet: Comparing National
Woodland Owner Survey respondents with and without farmland. Land Use Policy.
https://www.fs.fed.us/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2019/nrs_2019_huff_001.pdf, accessed 20 March 2020.
Hsiang, S., R. Kopp, A. Jina, J. Rising, M. Delgado, S. Mohan, et al. 2017. Estimating economic damage from
climate change in the United States. Science 356: 1362-1368. doi:10.1126/science.aal4369.
Isaak Walton League of America (IWLA). 2019. State and Local Soil Health Strategies – Building Soil Health
Policies from the Ground Up https://www.iwla.org/docs/default-source/conservation-docs/agriculture-
documents/state-soil-health-policies.pdf?sfvrsn=2, accessed 10 July 2019.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex
and P.M. Midgley (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY.
Kroeger, T., R.I. McDonald, T. Boucher, P. Zhang and L. Wang. 2018. Where the people are: Current trends
and future potential targeted investments in urban trees for PM10 and temperature mitigation in 27 U.S. Cities.
Landscape and Urban Planning 177: 227-240. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.014.
McDonnell, T. C., P. B. Woodbury, J. L. Wightman, G. M. Domke, C. M. Beier, C. Trettin, and T.J. Sullivan.
2020. Sources and Sinks of Major Greenhouse Gases Associated with New York State’s Natural and Working
Lands: Forests, Farms, and Wetlands. NYSERDA Report Number 20-06, New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority Albany, NY.
Moore, F. C., and D. B. Diaz. 2015. Temperature impacts on economic growth warrant stringent mitigation
policy. Nature Climate Change 5:127-131.
NAS. 2017. Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide. National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC p. 281.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) Field Office Technical Guide, Section III –
Conservation Management Systems and Quality Criteria (CropLand) Codes. 2008.
https://efotg.sc.egov.usda.gov/references/public/NY/ny3psgs_crop.pdf], accessed 10 July 2019.
New York State Comptroller, Office of Budget and Policy Analysis. A Profile of Agriculture in New York
State. August 2019. https://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/economic/agriculture-report-2019.pdf
New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. 2014, updated December 2016. Agricultural Best
Management Practice System Catalogue.

65
Pape, D., J. Lewandrowski, R. Steele, D. Man, M. Riley-Gilbert, K. Moffroid, and S. Kolansky. 2016.
Managing Agricultural Land for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation within the United States. Report prepared by ICF
International under USDA Contract No. AG-3144-D-14-0292.
Ropel, S. and B. Smith (2007). New York Equine Survey 2005. Albany, NY, New York Agricultural Statistics
Service: 54.
Smith, J.E., L.S. Heath, K.E. Skog and R.A. Birdsey. 2006. Methods for Calculating Forest Ecosystem and
Harvested Carbon with Standard Estimates for Forest Types of the United States. USDA Forest Service,
Northeastern Research Station. p. 216.
UNFCCCC – United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) Methodological Tool – Combined tool to identify the baseline scenario and demonstrate additionality,
version 07.0, https://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/PAmethodologies/tools/am-tool-02-v2.2.pdf/history_view.
Accessed 20 March 2020.
US EPA, Climate Leadership Program 2018. US EPA Climate Leaders Program, 2018, now discontinued,
https://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/climate-leadership-awards-frequent-questions, Accessed 1 February
2020.
US EPA, U.S. 2030 Food Loss and Waste (FLW) Reduction Goal. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-
management-food/united-states-2030-food-loss-and-waste-reduction-goal#goal, Accessed 10 July 2019.
US EPA, The Social Cost of Carbon, 2017. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-
carbon_.html, Accessed 1 February 2020.
Veltman, K., C.A. Rotz, L. Chase, J. Cooper, P. Ingraham, R.C. Izaurralde, et al. 2018. A quantitative
assessment of Beneficial Management Practices to reduce carbon and reactive nitrogen footprints and
phosphorus losses on dairy farms in the US Great Lakes region. Agricultural Systems 166: 10-25.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.07.005.
Wightman, J.L., Z.U. Ahmed, T.A. Volk, P.J. Castellano, C.J. Peters, S.D. DeGloria, et al. 2015. Assessing
Sustainable Bioenergy Feedstock Production Potential by Integrated Geospatial Analysis of Land Use and Land
Quality. BioEnergy Research 8: 1671-1680. doi:10.1007/s12155-015-9618-x.
Wightman, J.L. and P.B. Woodbury. 2016. New York Dairy Manure Management Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Mitigation Costs (1992–2022). Journal of Environmental Quality 45: 266-275.
doi:10.2134/jeq2014.06.0269.
Woodbury, P.B., L.S. Heath and J.E. Smith. 2007. Effects of land use change on soil carbon cycling in the
conterminous United States from 1900 to 2050. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 21: Art. No. GB3006