The Carbon
Consideration
What Role Does Atmospheric
Carbon Play in Stream Restoration
Decision-Making, and How Much
Should it?
Mid-Atlantic Stream
Restoration Conference
Baltimore, Maryland
October 31, 2013
Why do we care?
Typical Stream Restoration Goals
•
•
•
•
•
•
Improve water quality
Reduce erosion
Improve aquatic habitat
Protect infrastructure
Aesthetics
Other special interests
All stream restoration projects are
not created equal.
How do the “Carbon Footprints” of a rural and
urban restoration project compare?
Rural Restoration
Barshinger Creek, York County,
Pennsylvania
Urban Restoration
Unnamed Tributary to Red Hill
Branch, Howard County, Maryland
• 2,109 linear feet of restoration.
• Existing condition – open
pasture, severe bank erosion,
lateral migration throughout,
significant downcutting at
downstream end.
• Watershed condition – mostly
agricultural and wooded,
scattered housing, some
commercial.
• Restoration measures –
channel grading, log vanes,
stone toe, sod matting with log
spurs, step-pools, live stakes.
• 6 acres of buffer planting.
• 2,129 linear feet of restoration.
• Existing condition – mature
forest, bed and bank erosion
due to changes in flow regime
from urbanization.
• Watershed condition – single
family homes on mid-size lots,
some forest, some commercial.
• Restoration measures – bank
grading, stone toe, imbricated
walls, step-pools, riffle
structures.
• Reforestation of cleared stream
valley.
Rural Stream Restoration Project - CO2 Emissions
Contributions
Diesel on-site
Fuel for on-site equipment
Total diesel on-site
Diesel transportation
Staff to and from site
Equipment mob and demob
Stone delivery
Log delivery
Coir matting delivery
Plant delivery
Total diesel transportation
Gasoline on-site
Fuel for on-site gas powered equipment
Total gasoline on-site
Gasoline transportation
Staff to and from site
Total gasoline transportation
Stone production
Avg. values for quarried stone
Total stone production
Log production
Assumes cut w/in 25 miles of loading site
Total log production
Geotextile production
Silt fence
Geotextile fabric
Total geotextile production
Total CO2 emissions
Gallons
268
CO2/Gallon
22.38
Lbs CO2 Emitted
5997.84
Total Lbs CO2 Emitted
5997.84
190
64
392
128
16
8
798
22.38
22.38
22.38
22.38
22.38
22.38
15
17.68
4252.20
1432.32
8772.96
2864.64
358.08
179.04
17859.24
265.20
265.20
34
17.68
601.12
601.12
Tons
390
Gallons Fuel/Ton
3.98
Gallons
1552.24
CO2/Gallon
22.38
Lbs CO2 Emitted
34739.10
34739.10
Quantity
Gallons Fuel/Log
Gallons
CO2/Gallon
Lbs CO2 Emitted
19
2.5
47.5
17.68
839.80
839.80
Square Feet
1935
1600
lbs/SF
0.022
0.042
Lbs
42.57
67.2
Lbs CO2/Lb
0.29
0.29
Lbs CO2 Emitted
12.35
19.49
31.83
60334.14 Lbs
30.17 Tons
Rural Stream Restoration Project - CO2 Sequestration (25 Yrs)
Attenuation
Quantity
Lbs CO2/Year
Years
Lbs CO2
Absorbed
Trees
1402
16.56
25
580555.45
Shrubs
700
0.83
25
14493.18
Live Stakes
2805
0.83
25
58076.25
Tree and shrub planting
Total tree and shrub planting
Total CO2 Sequestration
Total Lbs CO2
Absorbed
653124.89
653124.89 Lbs
326.56 Tons
Rural Stream Restoration Project
Carbon Balance:
• Total CO2 Emissions:
• Total CO2 Sequestration*:
• CO2 Balance:
*Assumes 25 years of forest growth
Enough to offset the average annual CO2 emissions
of 0.62 Americans every year
Or 39 Kenyans
30.2 Tons
(326.6) Tons
(296.4) Tons
(11.86) Tons/Year
Urban Stream Restoration Project - CO2 Emissions
Contributions
Diesel on-site
Fuel for on-site equipment
Total diesel on-site
Diesel transportation
Staff to and from site
Equipment mob and demob
Debris removal
Stone delivery
Topsoil delivery
Stream substrate delivery
Coir matting delivery
Plant delivery
Total diesel transportation
Gasoline on-site
Fuel for on-site gas powered equipment
Total gasoline on-site
Gasoline transportation
Staff to and from site
Total gasoline transportation
Forest removal
Acres
Acres of mature forest removed (assumes
40% CO2 remains in storage)
1.45
Total forest removal
Stone production
Tons
Avg. values for quarried stone
2822
Total stone production
Geotextile production
Square Feet
Silt fence
288
Geotextile fabric
7632
Orange construction fence
17636
Clearwater diversion fence
3681
Total geotextile production
Total CO2 emissions
Gallons
3549
CO2/Gallon
22.38
Lbs CO2 Emitted
79426.62
Total Lbs CO2 Emitted
79426.62
506
162
96
2213
203
535
6.5
5
3726.5
22.38
22.38
22.38
22.38
22.38
22.38
22.38
22.38
32
17.68
11324.28
3625.56
2148.48
49526.94
4543.14
11973.30
145.47
111.90
83399.07
565.76
565.76
303
17.68
5357.04
5357.04
CF/Ac.
Lbs wood
Lbs carbon
Lbs CO2 emitted
7955
318182
152727.36
151200.09
Gallons Fuel/Ton
3.98
Gallons
11231.84
CO2/Gallon
22.38
Lbs CO2 Emitted
251368.60
151200.09
251368.60
lbs/SF
0.022
0.042
0.0375
0.011
Lbs
6.336
320.544
661.35
40.491
Lbs CO2/Lb
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
Lbs CO2 Emitted
1.84
92.96
191.79
11.74
298.33
571615.50 Lbs
285.81 Tons
Urban Stream Restoration Project - CO2 Sequestration (25 Yrs)
Attenuation
Quantity
Lbs CO2/Year
Years
Lbs CO2 Absorbed Total Lbs CO2 Absorbed
Trees
471
16.56
25
195036.82
Shrubs
234
0.83
25
4844.86
Live Stakes
1992
0.83
25
41243.45
Tree and shrub planting
Total tree and shrub planting
Total CO2 sequestration
241125.14
241125.14 Lbs
120.56 Tons
Urban Stream Restoration Project
Carbon Balance:
• Total CO2 Emissions:
• Total CO2 Sequestration*:
• CO2 Balance:
*Assumes 25 years of forest growth
Equivalent to the average annual
CO2 emissions of 8.7 Americans
Or a whole bunch of
Kenyans
285.8 Tons
(120.6) Tons
165.2 Tons
Conclusions
• Urban stream restoration projects use more
energy than rural projects.
• Agricultural settings offer more opportunities
for carbon sequestration.
• Clearing forest creates large amount of CO2,
and it takes a long time to make up for it with
new plantings.
• In any setting, using materials found on site
reduces emissions (and costs…).
• More research is needed.
Considerations
• Effectiveness at attaining meaningful ecological lift
must be evaluated when considering highly energy
intensive projects.
• Site selection – focus efforts on sites where true
“carbon sinks” can be created using minimal energy.
• Strike early – look for opportunities to arrest
degradation at early stages in urbanized settings.
• Think outside of the channel –can buffer plantings or
stormwater management retrofits benefit the system
more than highly energy intensive channel work?
• Climate change could create stream change.
References
1. How Much Carbon Dioxide is Produced by Burning Gasoline and Diesel Fuel. U.S. Energy Information
Administration, accessed 10/07/2013 from www.eia.gov.
2. Boden, T.A., G. Marland, and R.J. Andres. 2013. Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions.
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy,
Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A. doi 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2013
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2010.html.
3. Durrenberger, M. December 13, 2012. Tree Math: Solar Panels vs. Trees, What’s the Carbon Trade-off?
Accesses 10/01/13 from http://newenglandcleanenergy.com/.
4. Sampson, Neil and D. Hair. Forest Management Opportunities for Mitigation of Carbon Emissions. Forests
and Global Change, Vol. 2.
5. Methods for Calculating Forest Ecosystem and Harvest Carbon with Standard Estimates for Forest Types of
the United States. United States Department of Agriculture: Forest Service, 2006.
6. Energy and Environmental Profile of the U. S. Mining Industry. U. S. Department of Energy. Accessed
10/12/2013 at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/resources/mining/pdfs/stone.pdf.
7. Fisk, U. (March 15, 2007). Umbra on Oil and Gas [web log post]. Accessed 10/12/2013 at
http://grist.org/article/plastics/.
8. Silverman, D. Energy Units and Conversions. Accessed 10/01/13 at
http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/units.html.
9. Trees and Carbon. ESA 21 – Environmental Science Activities for the 21st Century. Accessed 10/21/2013 at
http://esa21.kennesaw.edu/activities/trees-carbon/trees-carbon.pdf.