Carbon Stores, Fluxes, and Management Impacts at Redwood National and State Parks Mary Ann Madej, Joe Seney, and Phil van Mantgem

Transcription

1 Carbon Stores, Fluxes, and Management Impacts at Redwood National and State Parks Mary Ann Madej, Joe Seney, and Phil van Mantgem Redwood National Park

2 The National Park Service West Region Vision of Climate Change states that all PWR parks will estimate existing carbon stocks. We are addressing three key questions: 1. Where is the carbon in the system? 2. How much particulate carbon is leaving the system? 3. How might watershed restoration affect carbon storage? Soils Vegetation Rivers

3 1.Where is the carbon in the system? Soils Vegetation

4 Jedediah Smith Redwoods SP Del Norte Coast Redwood SP Mill Creek Purchase Prairie Creek Redwoods SP Lower Park Protection Zone Redwood National Park Survey area = 65,608 hectares

5 Soils: store significant amounts of organic carbon Dolason Soil (Ridgetop) SOC: 300 Mg/ha Atwell soil (Mid to lower slope) 100 Mg/ha Floodplain Soil 250 Mg/ha

6 Soil Organic Carbon Stock Soil Organic Carbon Stock Redwood National & State Parks and the Lower Park Protection Zone, California Total: 12 million Mg Range: 11 to 468 Mg/ha Soil Organic Carbon Metric Tonnes per Hectare greater than to to to to to to to 150 less than 120 Total of 13,900,000 metric tonnes of soil organic carbon stored in soils of Redwood National & State Parks, and the Lower Park Protection Zone (65,608 hectares) Assumptions: 1. Use soil survey data 2. Soil depth 2 meters or to bedrock 3. Surface organic horizons included Projection: UTM Zone 10; Datum NAD83 Soil Data Sources: Redwood National & State Parks Soil Survey Report Compiled by: Joe Seney Redwood National Park joe_seney@nps.gov Ü Pacific Ocean Del Norte County Humboldt County Kilometers 1:375,000 Oregon

7 Above-ground Carbon in Vegetation RNSP Veg. map NASA Northern California Standing Carbon from CASA model Legend Treated Road RNSP Boundary Residual Old-Growth Vegetation Alliance Oldgrowth Redwood Forest Second Growth Redwood/Douglas Fir Forest Second Growth Mixed Evergreen Forest Sitka Spruce Forest Encroached Douglas Fir Forest Second Growth Alder Forest Oak Woodland Bald Hills Prairie Coastal Prairie Riparian Vegetation Jeffrey Pine Woodland Knobcone Pine Forest Chaparral Coastal Coastline Redwood Creek Revegetated Bare Ground rnsp_outline polygon Legend Mg C ha -1 Treated Road RNSP Boundary Residual Old-Growth Vegetation Alliance Oldgrowth Redwood Forest Second Growth Redwood/Douglas Fir Forest Second Growth Mixed Evergreen Forest Sitka Spruce Forest Encroached Douglas Fir Forest Second Growth Alder Forest Oak Woodland Bald Hills Prairie Coastal Prairie Riparian Vegetation Jeffrey Pine Woodland Knobcone Pine Forest Chaparral Coastal Coastline Redwood = 737 * Douglas-fir = 153 Sitka spruce = 222 Red alder = 140 Redwood Creek Revegetated Bare Ground rnsp_outline polygon resolution: 1km RNP upslope forests > 250 Mg C ha -1 µ Miles *Van Pelt et al.: Mg C ha -1 In old-growth redwood

8 Above Ground Carbon Total: 17 million Mg (live and dead standing wood) More carbon storage in vegetation than in soil

9 1. Where is the carbon in the system? 2. How much particulate carbon is leaving the system? 3. How might watershed restoration affect carbon storage?

10 Protected Old-Growth Redwood Forest Upper Prairie Recently Logged Private Timberlands Lower Prairie Middle Prairie Gaging station Little Lost Man Redwood Creek at Orick

11 Gaging Station in Prairie Creek Basin Gage hut Boom holds turbidity probe and pumps suspended sediment samples

12 Automatic sediment sampling

13 Organic concentration (mg/l) How to estimate carbon export: Step Organic Matter Concentration vs. Turbidity, Little Lost Man Creek R² = Turbidity (NTU)

14 Example: Annual Hydrograph and Turbidigraph RNSP data

15 Annual Carbon Export, based on Fine Particulate Organic Matter Gaging Station Transport MgC/km 2 /yr Old-Growth Redwood Upper Prairie Creek Lower Prairie Creek Little Lost Man Creek Redwood Creek (70% logged) Low sample size, no turbidity data 80% of carbon transport occurred in 5% of the time (high flows)

16 Fraction of Total Sediment Yield Composed of Organics Gaging Station Carbon Yield (Mg/km 2 /yr) Annual Sediment Yield (Mg/km 2 /yr) Organic Content of Yield (%) Upper Prairie Lower Prairie Little Lost Man Redwood Creek (70% logged) _ _ Water Years

17 1. Where is the carbon in the system? 2. How much particulate carbon is leaving the system? 3. How might management (restoration) affect carbon dynamics? Forest Management: See Session 2B - Silviculture Old-growth Second-growth Second-growth: thin

18 In 1978, Redwood National Park inherited hundreds of miles of abandoned roads. Began road removal program. What is the carbon footprint of road decommissioning?

19 Road Removal

20 Roads in the Redwood Creek Basin 425 km of roads removed

21 So what s the carbon footprint of road decommissioning? Carbon Costs: Diesel consumption and CO 2 emissions Forest clearing Soil Loss Carbon Savings Revegetation of bare road prisms Prevention of soil erosion Soil carbon development Examined 135 RNSP project reports and contracts

22 Step 1. Carbon Emissions Diesel consumption: Heavy equipment

23 Gasoline consumption: Truck transportation to and from field sites

24 Step 2: Quantify loss of vegetation Some vegetation is cleared during road removal

25 Road decommissioning clears trees from road alignment

26 Wood is placed in excavated stream crossings

27 Wood is also placed on outsloped road benches

28 Step 3: Quantify loss of soil carbon by rehab: Some soil loss through post-treatment erosion Incision in newly excavated stream crossing

29 Carbon Savings: Step 1: Quantify revegetation

30 Mapping treated road prisms Alder growth on restored road prism, 5 years post-treatment Alder growth on restored road prism, 10 years post-treatment

31 Step 2: Quantify carbon savings from preventing road-related landslides through road decommissioning

32 Landslides strip soil and wood (carbon) from hillslopes and deliver them to river channels We compared landslide rates on treated vs. untreated roads.

33 Erosion Rates from Logging Roads Erosion (m3/km of road) Treated Roads Untreated Roads Upper Slope Mid- Slope Lower Slope Weaver Regional road inventories

34 Step 3: Quantify soil organic carbon accumulation How quickly does carbon accumulate in treated road prisms? Recently ripped (decompacted) road surface with negligible soil organic carbon Moist redwood forest (~500 Mg/ha)

35 Soil sampling: 915 soil samples were collected from 366 sites (roads and forests) At 5, 20 and 50 cm depth Spanned 32 years of road treatments

36 Used step-wide regression to model Soil Organic Carbon content Many variables: Lithology, age and type of vegetation, distance from ocean, aspect, elevation, type of road treatment, age of treatment, and more.

37 Soil Organic Carbon (%) Development of Soil Carbon Following Road Restoration 6 5 Old-growth forest Second-growth forest (~50 years old) Years Since Road Treatment Example from north-facing slope on schist bedrock

38 Road Decommissioning: Carbon costs: 23,000 Mg C Carbon savings (as of 2009): 72,000 Mg C Net C savings to date: 49,000 Mg C More C will be stored in road prisms in the next few decades.

39 Some Perspectives Old-growth forests (#1) and soils (#2) are largest carbon stores in RNSP. In streams draining old-growth forest, 1/4 to 1/3 of the suspended sediment load is organic carbon (carbon export). Road restoration has carbon costs, but carbon savings are higher in the long run.

40 Some Pubs Madej, MA Export of fine particulate organic carbon from redwood-dominated catchments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 40(11): Madej, MA, Seney, J. and van Mantgem, P Effects of road decommissioning on carbon stocks, losses, and emissions in north coastal California. Restoration Ecology. Vol. 21: Seney, J. and Madej, MA Soil carbon storage following road removal and timber harvesting in redwood forests. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 40(15): van Mantgem P, Madej, MA., Seney, J, Deshais J Estimating ecosystem carbon stocks at Redwood National and State Parks. Park Science. Vol 30:1:20-26

41 Questions?