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

1 Andrew Trlica and Sally Brown University of Washington

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

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

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

5 Coal Mine, Washington Restored in the 1980s

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

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

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

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

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

11 Pennsylvania – Historic Site

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

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

14 Three separate sites Data consistent across sites

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

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 Yard waste Biosolids Total = 1.12 Mg CO 2

17 Nutrient Value- 318 kg CO 2 per dry Mg S. Plantkg per Mg CO 2 conversion factorkg CO 2 per Mg N P K

18 GHG balance for a biosolids program

19 GHG balance for a hectare of land?

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

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

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

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

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

25 Final Results

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

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

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

Sally Brown University of Washington Phone: (206)