Carbon Stores, Fluxes, and Management Impacts at

Redwood National and State Parks

Mary Ann Madej, Joe Seney, and Phil van Mantgem

Redwood National Park

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

1.Where is the carbon in the system?

Soils Vegetation

Jedediah Smith Redwoods SP

Del Norte Coast Redwood SP

Mill Creek Purchase

Prairie Creek

Redwoods SP

Redwood National Park

Lower Park Protection Zone

Survey area = 65,608 hectares

Soils: store significant amounts of organic

carbon

Dolason Soil

(Ridgetop)

Atwell soil

(Mid to lower slope)

Floodplain Soil

SOC: 300 Mg/ha 250 Mg/ha100 Mg/ha

Soil Organic Carbon Stock

Total: 12 million Mg

Range: 11 to 468 Mg/ha

Assumptions:

1. Use soil survey data2. Soil depth 2 meters or to

bedrock3. Surface organic horizons

included

Soil Organic Carbon StockRedwood National & State Parks and

the Lower Park Protection Zone, California

Ü0 9 184.5 Kilometers

1:375,000

Soil Organic Carbon

Metric Tonnes per Hectare

greater than 400

350 to 400

300 to 350

250 to 300

200 to 250

175 to 200

150 to 175

120 to 150

less than 120

Projection: UTM Zone 10; Datum NAD83Soil Data Sources: Redwood National & State Parks Soil Survey ReportCompiled by: Joe Seney Redwood National Parkjoe_seney@nps.gov

Del Norte County

HumboldtCounty

Oregon

Pacific Ocean

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)

Above-ground Carbon in Vegetation

0 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.80.35Miles

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

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

µ

resolution: 1km

RNP upslope forests > 250 Mg C ha-1

http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/casa/index.html

NASA Northern California Standing

Carbon from CASA model

RNSP Veg. map

Mg C ha-1

Redwood = 737 *

Douglas-fir = 153

Sitka spruce = 222

Red alder = 140

*Van Pelt et al.: 970-2600 Mg C ha-1

In old-growth redwood

Above Ground Carbon

Total: 17 million Mg(live and dead

standing wood)

More carbon storage in

vegetation than in soil

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?

Protected

Old-Growth

Redwood

Forest

Recently

Logged

Private

Timberlands

Gaging

station

Redwood Creek at Orick

Upper

Prairie

Lower

Prairie

Little Lost Man

Middle

Prairie

Gaging Station in Prairie Creek Basin

Boom holds turbidity probe and pumps suspended sediment

samples

Gage

hut

Automatic

sediment

sampling

R² = 0.678

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Org

an

ic c

on

ce

ntr

ati

on

(m

g/l)

Turbidity (NTU)

Organic Matter Concentration vs. Turbidity,

Little Lost Man Creek

How to estimate carbon export: Step 1

Example: Annual Hydrograph and Turbidigraph

RNSP data

Annual Carbon Export, based on

Fine Particulate Organic Matter

TransportGaging Station MgC/km2/yr

Old-Growth Redwood

Upper Prairie Creek 1.6 - 2.7

Lower Prairie Creek 2.6 – 4.2

Little Lost Man Creek

2.5 – 4.2

Redwood Creek(70% logged)

Low sample size, no

turbidity data

80% of

carbon

transport

occurred in

5% of the

time

(high flows)

Fraction of Total Sediment Yield

Composed of Organics

Gaging Station Carbon Yield

(Mg/km2/yr)

Annual Sediment

Yield (Mg/km2/yr)

Organic Content of Yield (%)

Upper Prairie 1.6 - 2.7 8 – 12 20 - 33

Lower Prairie 2.6 – 4.2 7 - 20 18 - 23

Little Lost __Man

2.5 – 4.2 10 - 30 13 - 25

Redwood Creek(70% logged)

_ 200 - 1060 _

Water Years 2006 - 2011

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?

Second-growthOld-growth Second-growth: thin

Forest Management:

See Session 2B - Silviculture

In 1978,

Redwood

National Park

inherited

hundreds of

miles of

abandoned

roads. Began

road removal

program.

What is the carbon footprint of road decommissioning?

Road Removal

Roads in the Redwood Creek Basin

1978 2010

425 km of roads removed

So what’s the carbon footprint of road decommissioning?

Carbon Costs:• Diesel consumption and CO2 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

Diesel consumption:

Heavy equipment

Step 1. Carbon Emissions

Gasoline consumption:

Truck transportation to and from field sites

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

Road decommissioning

clears trees from road

alignment

Wood is placed in excavated

stream crossings

Wood is also placed on outsloped road benches

Step 3: Quantify loss of soil carbon by rehab:

Some soil loss through post-treatment erosion

Incision in newly excavated stream crossing

Carbon Savings:Step 1: Quantify revegetation

Alder growth on restored road prism,

5 years post-treatment

Alder growth on restored road prism,

10 years post-treatment

Mapping treated road

prisms

Step 2: Quantify carbon savings from

preventing road-related landslides through

road decommissioning

Landslides strip

soil and wood

(carbon) from

hillslopes and

deliver them to

river channels

We compared landslide rates on

treated vs. untreated roads.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Erosion

(m3/km

of road)

Upper

Slope

Lower

Slope

Weaver

Treated

Roads

10 135550

Erosion Rates from Logging Roads

Untreated

Roads

4700

1500

175

Regional road

inventories

Mid-

Slope

How quickly does

carbon accumulate

in treated road

prisms?

Step 3: Quantify soil organic carbon

accumulation

Recently ripped (decompacted) road

surface with negligible soil organic carbon

Moist redwood

forest (~500 Mg/ha)

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

Many variables: Lithology, age and type of vegetation, distance from

ocean, aspect, elevation, type of road treatment, age of treatment, and

more.

Used step-wide regression to model

Soil Organic Carbon content

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

So

il O

rga

nic

Ca

rbo

n (

%)

Years Since Road Treatment

Old-growth

forest

Second-growth forest

(~50 years old)

Development of Soil Carbon

Following Road Restoration

Example from north-facing slope on schist bedrock

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.

• 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.

Some Perspectives

• Madej, MA. 2015. Export of fine particulate organic carbon from redwood-dominated catchments. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 40(11): 1533-1541.

• Madej, MA, Seney, J. and van Mantgem, P. 2013. Effects of road decommissioning on carbon stocks, losses, and emissions in north coastal California. Restoration Ecology. Vol. 21:4. 439-446.

• Seney, J. and Madej, MA. 2015. Soil carbon storage following road removal and timber harvesting in redwood forests. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 40(15):2084-2092.

• van Mantgem P, Madej, MA., Seney, J, Deshais J. 2013. Estimating ecosystem carbon stocks at Redwood National and State Parks. Park Science. Vol 30:1:20-26

Some Pubs

Questions?