1. The Truth about Ecological Revitalization - Case Studies and Tools to Improve your Cleanups Sally Brown, University of Washington Carbon Sequestration and Life Cycle Analysis

2. 1 Andrew Trlica and Sally Brown University of Washington

3. 2 Restoration Sites  No soil or highly contaminated soil  Disruption of process of carbon accumulation/cycling

4. 3 How you restore  Use of organic amendments  Will accelerate process  But are changes in soil carbon persistent?

5. 4 Soil Carbon: Restoration Andrew Trlica Funded by Environmental Credit Corp, Jim Ellis, King County

6. 5 Coal Mine, Washington Restored in the 1980s

7. 6 Centralia, Washington Coal Mine Restoration  52 Mg of C per hectare above conventional  0.25 Mg C per Mg biosolids

8. 7 Highland Valley Copper, British Columbia 6 – 8 years old

9. 8 Highland Valley Copper, British Columbia Coal Mine Restoration  40 Mg of C per hectare  0.3 Mg C per Mg amendment

10. 9 Pennsylvania Coal Mines – Control NPK applied, 20 years ago

11. 10 Pennsylvania Coal Mines – Biosolids 128 Mg ha applied, 27 years ago

12. 11 Pennsylvania – Historic Site

13. 12 That means…  190 Mg of CO 2 per hectare  0.9 Mg CO 2 per Mg biosolids

14. 13 RMI Topsoils, New Hampshire Gravel pit restoration - 5 years old  87 Mg of C per hectare  0.15 Mg C per Mg amendment

15. 14 Three separate sites Data consistent across sites

16. 15 Biosolids- carbon credits for more than just soil C accumulation

17. 16 CCX Draft protocol CH 4 avoidance to compost facilities Default Projected Yields of Waste Streams Diverted from Landfilling BE CH4SWDSy (C0 2 e/wet ton waste diverted) Waste typeYear 1Year 2Year 3Total Food waste 0.280.230.190.7 Yard waste 0.110.10.090.3 Biosolids 0.050.040.030.12 Total = 1.12 Mg CO 2

18. 17 Nutrient Value- 318 kg CO 2 per dry Mg S. Plantkg per Mg CO 2 conversion factorkg CO 2 per Mg N70.13.96278 P22.51.7640 K0.221.20

19. 18 GHG balance for a biosolids program

20. 19 GHG balance for a hectare of land?

21. 20 LCA for 1 ha in Pacific Northwest  Compared  Conventional restoration  Restoration with organics (biosolids)  Low density development  Used data on soil carbon from our sampling  Biosolids sent to dryland wheat as alternative

22. 21 Housing  1,000 people per km 2  Structure size 2,521 ft 2  3.86 homes per ha  Road 0.43 ha/ha  Open space 0.47 ha

23. 22 LCA Results  Home and road construction and maintenance emissions dwarf biosolids tranpsort emissions

24. 23 Transport  Under our baseline modeling assumptions the haul distance would need to be greater than 30 times the baseline assumption to eliminate the net sink effect in the whole conventional reclamation scenario

25. 24 Sequestration  Sequestration potential is greatest with biosolids restoration  Due to increased  SOM  Tree biomass

26. 25 Final Results

27. 26 Additional Considerations  Rain and runoff  1 ha over 30 year period 646 ML of water  53% impervious cover  30% of rainfall = surface discharge  194 ML of water will require treatment

28. 27 Additional Considerations  Recreation  2009 tourism =$14.2 billion  37% camped, hiked or backpacked  Assume 1% of tourism $$ result of access to outdoor activities  354 k ha forested land in King County  Over 30 year period, each ha =$31,000

29. 28 Conclusions  Using broader perspective further confirms benefits of restoration  Organics in restoration makes benefits one better

30. Sally Brown University of Washington Phone: (206) 616-1299 Email: slb@u.washington.edu