First Name: | John |
---|---|
Last Name: | Hopkins |
Email Address: | ieh@cal.net |
Affiliation | California HCP Coalition |
Subject | Need for a Habitat Lands Conservation component |
Comment |
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on behalf of the California Habitat Conservation Planning Coalition, whose members include local government led conservation plans across the state, NGOs and businesses. The draft plan includes a very important natural resources component - "conservation and improved management strategies for achieving net climate benefits and long-term carbon sequestration on natural and work lands" (Figure ES-1 and Figure 10, page 28). It recognizes that "protection and sustainable management of these lands and resources to develop resilient carbon storage will be pivotal in meeting climate goals" (Page 3). It states that "Investment in resilient carbon storage across all land types is of particular importance"(Page 43). The Targets and Goals for the Second Investment plan (Figure 15, page 42) states "protect, restore and manage natural and working lands so they store carbon and provide net GHG benefits." These statements recognize the importance of natural lands in meeting state GHG goals, and that this includes all land types. However, the current natural resources components only address a subset of these lands. The components are Healthy Forests (forest health restoration, forest legacy and land conservation and urban forestry) (page A-7); Wetlands and Watershed Restoration (Delta and coastal wetlands, mountain meadows habitat and water efficiency on CDFW lands) (page A-7); and Agricultural Land Preservation (page A-4). Missing from this suite of actions is the preservation of Habitat Lands such as oak woodlands, chaparral, coastal scrub and desert lands, key areas for meeting the long-term GHG reduction targets. Creation of a Habitat Lands Conservation component, focused on the protection of lands threatened by conversion such as suburban development, needs to be a major item in the Second Investment Plan. These other habitats have very extensive stored carbon, especially soil carbon (Potter, 2010), much of which is lost when development conversion occurs. In addition, they are often ongoing carbon sinks, or can become carbon sinks through management measures. Scientific studies are increasingly showing the importance of these lands for addressing GHG levels. (See examples of recent scientific and technical findings below). Programs such as large landscape-scale Natural Community Conservation Plans and Habitat Conservation Plans offer excellent opportunities which the Second Investment Plan should use. These programs include development of preserve management plans, plus in perpetuity monitoring and management and are highly leveraged. They will allow for management that protects already stored carbon and maximizes opportunities for additional carbon sequestration. Comment on specific items in the draft Second Investment Plan Figure 2, page 6. Last item (carbon storage) Please add "and other natural lands" after "rangelands" Figure 16, page 45, third bullet item Please add " and fee title acquisition" after "conservation easements". There are various situations where natural lands important for carbon sequestration and threatened by development can only be protected by fee title easement. It is our understanding that there are concerns about whether fee title acquisition properly protects natural lands. In fact it does, at least with NCCPs and HCPs, as the acquisition process includes restrictions that protect the land in perpetuity and prohibit conversion. Also management plans and adaptive management programs for fee title acquisition lands will ensure protection of existing soil carbon and maximize future carbon sequestration. Some recent scientific and technical findings There have been measurements of carbon fluxes at a few California non-forest locations; grasslands, oak savanna, and southern California chaparral. In dry years, rangelands are often a carbon sink, absorbing more carbon than is emitted into the atmosphere by respiration. There is data showing that natural lands with woody vegetation, including oak woodlands an chaparral, are net carbon sinks. For example, Liu et. al. (2012) determine that grasslands and shrublands in Mediterranean climate California are a carbon sink ( -6.4 to +0.3 teragrams of carbon a year for the entire area). Silver (2009) and DeLonge et. al. (2014) state that California rangelands have the potential for considerable carbon sequestration in the soil. Baldocchi (2009) states that oak woodlands are carbon sinks ( - 92 +/- 43 gms carbon per square meter per year). A mature, 100 year old growth chamise chaparral stand was found to sequester 58 grams of carbon per square meter per year on average over a seven-year period (Luo et.al. 2007). Walter Oechel and colleagues at San Diego State University have conducted broader studies on Southern California Chaparral and concluded that chaparral ecosystems are a significant carbon sink. (Oechel, 2013) The loss of natural ecosystems is severe and ongoing. For example, Liu et al (2012) projected that 17 percent of the grassland and shrubland areas in California's Mediterranean climate region will be lost to conversion between 2005 and 2050. The major causes are urban/suburban/rural development and conversion to orchards and vineyards. Essentially all of the remaining coastal sage scrub habitat in southern California that is not protected as conservation land (primarily through Natural Community Conservation Plans) will be lost to suburban and rural development. All of these conversions will result in substantial release of CO2 into the atmosphere. For example, conversion of natural ecosystems to agricultural land results in loss of 25 to 50 percent of the original organic carbon (Lal, 2001). When natural and working lands are converted to urban / suburban or rural development there are two carbon impacts. The first is loss of vegetation and soil carbon from land clearing and grading. The second is long term increased carbon emissions by vehicles and other uses in the developed areas. For example, a recent UC Davis study if Yolo County shows that the annual carbon emissions level of urban lands is 219-fold higher than rangelands and 70-fold higher than irrigated croplands (Jackson et al, 2012). References Baldocchi D. (2009) Carbon and Water Exchange of an Oak-grass Savanna and Peatland Pasture Ecosystem. Berkeley Faculty Roundtable on Environmental Services in Rangeland Production systems. March 20 2009. University of California, Berkeley. DeLonge MS, Owen JJ and Silver WL. (2014) Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Opportunities in California Agriculture: Review of California Rangeland Emissions and Mitigation Potential. Nicholas Institute GGMOCA R 4. Durham, NC: Duke University Jackson L. et.al. (2012) Adaptation Strategies for Agricultural Sustainability in Yolo County, California. California Energy Commission Publication number: CEC-500-2012-032. Lal R. (2001) World Cropland Soils as a Source or Sink for Atmospheric Carbon, Advances in Agronomy. 71:145-191. Liu S. et. al. (2012) Baseline and Projected Future Carbon Storage and Greenhouse-Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of the Western United States. In Zhu S and Reed BC, eds. Baseline and Projected Future Carbon Storage and Greenhouse-Gas Fluxes in Ecosystems of the Western United States. Chapter 5. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1797. Reston VA. Luo H. et.al. (2007) Mature Semiarid Chaparral Ecosystems can be a Significant Sink for Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Global Change Biology. 13:386-396. Oechel W. (2013) The Effects of Climate Change: Elevated CO2, Climate Variability, and Fire, on the Functioning and Atmospheric Feedbacks of Chaparral of Southern California and the Desert of Baja California, Mexico. Powerpoint presentation. February 6 2013. www.otmed.fr/IMG/pdf/Walter_Oechel_06_February_2013.pdf Potter C (2010) The Carbon Budget of California. NASA Publications 81 http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nasapub/81 Silver WL, Ryals R and Eviner V. (2010) Soil Carbon Pools in California's Annual Grassland Ecosystems. Rangeland Ecology and Management. 63:128-136. |
Attachment |
Original File Name:
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2015-11-13 12:06:51 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.