W. Lee Daniels and Greg Evanylo

Utilization of Biosolids for Disturbed Land Rehabilitation

http://www.landrehab.org

A Better Title for Most of This!

How I spent my winters chasing nitrates around the Coastal Plain.

History and Background• Biosolids have been used at higher than

agronomic rates on coal mined lands in the Appalachians since the 1970’s. Bill Sopper (Penn State) pioneered the practice with assistance from Bob Bastian (EPA) and others.

• Early coal mined land research at Penn State and Va Tech (Haering et al. 2000) has confirmed the benefits of this practice and indicated a general lack of ground- and surface-water impacts.

Typical Appalachian Haul-Back Contour Mine

Controlled Overburden Placement (COP) plots ready for seeding in April, 1982

Surface treatment experiment; biosolids applied at 10, 25, 50 and 100 T/ac vs. topsoil and sawdust plots

COP in early June, 1982, after seeding and rainfall.

Results in Roberts et al. 1988 abc; Nash, 2012.

2008 Analysis – COP Experiment • Field Sampling

– Biomass and Litter– Soil 0-5 cm 5-25 cm

• Physical Properties– Rock Fragments, PSA, Texture

• Chemical Properties– pH and EC – Iron Oxides and Extractable P– Exchangeable Cations and CEC– Macro and Micronutrients– Soil Organic Matter– Total Soil Nitrogen – Total Soil Carbon– Organic C and Carbonate

• Stats– Fisher’s LSD – Paired T-test– Regression– Long Term Comparisons

2:1 SS:SiS prior to sampling in 2008.

Surface Amendment- Results-Biomass

Treatment 1982 1983 1984 1986 1987 1989 2008

Control 5.8cd 5.9c 0.9e 1.6c 1.1c 2.2a 2.5aTopsoil 30cm 5.8cd* 5.2c 1.7de 2.0c 1.7abc 3.6a 4.0a

Sawdust 112 Mg ha-1 3.7d 5.6c 2.8cd 2.4bc 1.4bc 2.8a 4.1a

Biosolids 22 Mg ha-1 3.9d 5.2c 2.7cd 2.6bc 1.7abc 2.4a 2.9a

Biosolids 56 Mg ha-1 7.7bc 10.1b 4.4bc 5.2ab 2.5ab 4.4a 3.8a

Biosolids 112 Mg ha-1 9.3ab 13.6ab 4.8b 7.2a 2.8a 4.6a 2.9a

Biosolids 224 Mg ha-1 10.7a 16.5a 7.5a 5.0ab 2.4ab 4.4a 2.7a

*Column Means followed by different letters by year are significantly different, P < 0.05 (Fisher's LSD)

-------------------------------------------Mg/ha-------------------------------------------

Table 31. Standing biomass production in select years between 1982 and 2008 on the herbaceous side of the Surface Amendment Experiment.

Surface Amendment

SA- 2008 Extractable P

CON B-22 B-56 B-112 B-224

Ph

osp

ho

rus

(m

g k

g-1)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0-5 cmY= 26.61+ 0.986x

R2= 0.789Prob > F= < 0.0001

Figure 32. Relationship between bicarbonate-extractable P vs. biosolids application rateat 0-5 cm in the Surface Amendment Experiment in 2008.

Note: Increases in Cu and Zn uptake by fescue occurred, but were below forage levels of concern. No other non-nutrient metals (e.g. Pb) showed a loading rate effect.

SA- SOM

Treatment Oct-82 1983 1984 1987 2008

Control 1.00a* 2.03a 2.24a 3.19a 8.93bcdTopsoil 30cm 0.95a 1.16b 1.36b 2.33a 7.69d

Sawdust 112 Mg ha-1 7.43d 9.33f 8.47f 7.27bc 8.67cd

Biosolids 22 Mg ha-1 2.08ab 3.24c 3.66c 5.53d 10.51abc

Biosolids 56 Mg ha-1 3.20b 5.05d 4.81d 7.92b 10.03abc

Biosolids 112 Mg ha-1 5.44c 6.42e 6.99e 6.64cd 10.93ab

Biosolids 224 Mg ha-1 6.03cd 6.72e 6.45e 7.14bc 11.21a

Table 51. Soil organic matter content of the surface (0-5 cm) layer of mine soils of the Surface Amendment Experiment sampled in 1982, 1983, 1984, 1987 and 2008.

----------%----------Surface Amendment

* Column means followed by different letters by different year are significantly different, P < 0.05 (Fisher's LSD)

Treatment

CON TS SD B-22 B-56 B-112 B-224

Carb

on

(Mg

ha-1

)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

C- Mg ha-1 5-25 cm C- Mg ha-1 0-5 cm C- Mg ha-1 Litter

b b

ab

b b

ab

a

Figure 48. Whole soil mass carbon for litter layer, surface and subsurface depths of mine soils of the Surface Amendment Experiment sampled in 2008.

Large-Scale Application of Biosolids plus Woodchips @ 160 T/Ac on Rocky Spoils in 1989

At these loading rates, you add > 3000 kg per ha total N and > 1000 kg per ha total P

Over a five-year period, a 300 acre application of 65 T/ac of biosolids + woodchips (C:N = 30) had no effect on ground water NO3 or metal levels.

In fact, NO3 levels were highest before application due to the use of NH4NO3 explosives!

Results in Haering et al. 2000

Powell River Project area 10 years after application with biosolids.

19-year old mine soil that received biosolids treatment in 1989. A horizon is 5 inches thick and exhibits well developed granular structure.

Mine soil pedon 15 feet away from previous soil that did not receive biosolids.

History and Background

In 1995, the State of Virginia Dept. of Mines, Minerals, and Energy developed guidelines for the application of biosolids to coal mined lands (VDMME, 1995) with Virginia Tech’s assistance. These guidelines capped loading rates at 35 T/Ac (dry) for biosolids cake and at 50 T/Ac when the C:N ratio of the applied product was 25:1 or greater.

History and Background

Application of higher than agronomic rates of biosolids to very gravelly and coarse-textured mine soils with shallow ground water regimes within the Chesapeake Bay watershed raised significant regulatory concerns with regard to long-term effects on nutrient loadings to ground water

Shirley Plantation Experiment

At Shirley, we evaluated a range of biosolids loading rates (1x to 7x) agronomic rate of 14 Mg/ha with and without added sawdust (to adjust the applied C:N ratio to approximately 20:1) on a reclaimed gravel mined soil between 1996 and 1999. The mine soils utilized had been reclaimed for ten years and were in rowcrop production.

Land application of municipal biosolids to large experimental plots at Shirley in April 1996.

Biosolids cake (C:N = 8) land-applied on gravel mine at 42 Mg/ha.

Results in Schmidt et al. (2001) & Daniels et al. (2003)

Wheat response to biosolids on unmined control plots at Shirley Plantation one year after application.

Sampling from zero-tension lysimeter @ 1 m.

Well!

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Nitr

ate

Nitr

ogen

(pp

m)

09/20/96 11/21/96 02/27/97 01/14/98 04/15/98

Date Measured

No Fert Fert

1.0x biosolids 3.0x biosolids

5.0x biosolids 7.0x biosolids

Figure 1. Shirley PlantationLysimeters:Biosolids

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Nitr

ate

Nitr

ogen

(pp

m)

09/20/96 11/21/96 02/27/97 01/14/98 04/15/98

Date Measured

No Fert Fert

1.0x bio+sd 3.0x bio+sd

5.0x bio+sd 7.0x bio+sd

Figure 2. Shirley PlantationLysimeters:Biosolids + Sawdust

Nitrate-N leached over two seasons without sawdust added:Treatment Total-N Applied NO3-N Lost % App.

---------------- kg/ha -------------------

Control 0 5.9 c N.A.

Fertilized 269 7.6 2.8

1X Biosolids 626 19.2 3.1

3X Biosolids 1252 37.4 3.0

5X Biosolids 3130 28.2 0.9

7X Biosolids 4382 59.8 1.4

Nitrate-N leached over two seasons with sawdust added:Treatment Total-N Applied Nitrate-N Lost % App.

---------------- kg/ha -------------------

Control 0 5.9 c N.A.

Fertilized 269 7.6 2.8

1X + Sawdust 626 4.9 0.8

3X + Sawdust 1252 7.6 0.6

5X + Sawdust 3130 58.4 1.9

7X + Sawdust 4382 31.9 0.7

Findings at Shirley• Root zone leachates (@ 75 cm) showed

enhanced nitrate-N leaching potentials the first winter after biosolids application that were directly related to loading rate and C:N ratio.

• Treatment effects were only noted the first winter after a spring application.

• Four adjacent shallow ground-water wells showed no effects of the loadings.

Mattaponi R.

Adjacent Agricultural

Fields

Site Description

• Aylett Sand & Gravel mined in eastern King William County, Virginia (N37o 50.1' W77o 7.6'), immediately adjacent to the Mattaponi River.

• Mined approximately 5 m of the Late Pleistocene sand and gravel unit (Tabb Formation)

Aylett Sand & Gravel Mine in October 1998

Results in Daniels et al. (2002)

Western portion of site in April of 1999 following fall 1998 application of mixed PVSC and Blue Plains biosolids at 78 and 34 Mg/ha, respectively.

Overall Hydrology and Water Quality

• Groundwater flows from agricultural fields bounding the eastern portion of the site, under the site, and towards the Mattaponi River.

• Groundwater discharge into the ponds and springs on-site is notable, particularly in the winter and spring.

Overall estimated ground-water flow regime for Sept., 1999. Flow paths in the spring were similar.

Heads in m AMSL

Overall Hydrology and Water Quality Results

• No treatment effects were seen on ammonium levels, and EC results mirrored nitrate-N levels, so we will focus on the nitrate-N data sets

• Significant nitrate-N appears to be entering the site via ground-water flow from the upgradient agricultural fields

Overall Hydrology and Water Quality Results

• Of the 11 well clusters installed within the treated area boundary, only three showed significant NO3-N

elevations, even though the vast majority of them were either directly under or downgradient from biosolids treated areas

• Nitrate-N levels in two wells (SW 1 and 3) directly adjacent/downgradient to areas receiving the 3X biosolids slowly increased in the fall of 1999, peaked around 40 to 50 mg/L in late winter/early spring of 2000 (Fig. 5), dropped under (10 mg/L) by May 2000, and remained < 2 mg/L through the winter of 2001.

Well upgradient from all biosolids applications.

Overall Conclusions

• The long-term ground water monitoring data for this site also appear to indicate that the background addition of NO3-N from

offsite agricultural sources is significantly greater over time than any short-term effects from reclamation related biosolids utilization

Mineral sands mining in VA and NC will disturb > 3000 ha; much will be prime farmlands

Iluka Resources Project• Large (> 2000 Ac) mineral sands mining

operation in upper Coastal Plain.

• Lime-stabilized biosolids were applied to 20 Acre mining pit reclaimed without topsoil in August of 2002. Loading rate was 35 T/Ac.

• Water quality monitored monthly at 6 groundwater wells and 2 surface water discharge points for 10+ years.

Lime stabilized biosolids being applied at 78 Mg/ha

date

1/0

2

7/0

2

1/0

3

7/0

3

1/0

4

7/0

4

1/0

5

7/0

5

1/0

6

7/0

6

1/0

7

7/0

7

1/0

8

7/0

8

1/0

9

7/0

9

1/1

0

Nitra

te-N

(m

g/L

)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

National drinking water standardVirginia groundwater standardIMS1IMS2IMS3IMS4IMS5IMS6

Note: no effects on metals in GW for surface app.

Row crop plots with numbers and treatments

Topsoil strip after grading and disking in April 2005.

Results in Orndorff et al. 2011.

35 T/Ac Biosolids

2005 Corn Yields (bu/ac)

Topsoil/Lime/NPK 61 c*

Tails + Biosolids: 174 a

Tails + Lime + NPK: 136 b

Unmined adjacent: 224

County Average: 98

(2000 – 2005)

Adjacent prime farmland – Orangeburg Soil with same management as plot area.

*Yields within experiment followed by different letters were different at p > 0.01

Topsoil yields were reduced by compaction and heavy crusting. Are these “problems” typical of the topsoil replacement process?

Harvested (non-topsoiled) mined land in Fall 2005

Winter Wheat in May 2006

2006 Wheat Yields (bu/ac)

Topsoil/Lime/NPK 64

Tails + Biosolids: 73

Tails + Lime + NPK: 61

Unmined adjacent: 103

County Average: 53

(2000 – 2005)

Adjacent prime farmland – Orangeburg Soil with same management as plot area.

Winter Wheat on Carraway-Winn

Farm in May of 2006

Treatment 2007 Corn Yield(bu/acre)

2008 Wheat Yield(bu/acre)

Biosolids, no-till 55 c 84 ab

Biosolids, conv-till

58 c 93 a

Control 117 b 69 c

Topsoil 116 b 73 bc

Unmined Control 159 a

Compacted Area 51

Typical profile in biosolids amended plot three years after application (2007)

Light colored materials at 70 cm + are pure sandy tailings.

Orange blocky layer in mid profile is layer of high slimes “sandwiched” between tailings below and mixed slimes+tailings above.

Overall Conclusions

Biosolids have been used successfully across a range of coal, sand, and mineral sands mines in the USA and worldwide at high rates (35 to > 100 T/Ac) at much lower cost to operators than conventional applications of lime, organic matter and inorganic fertilizers.

Significant metal uptake (other than micros like Cu and Zn) and/or migration to groundwater has not been noted for over 10 years at multiple monitoring locations.

Overall Conclusions

Overall, these data support our earlier findings that while application of biosolids at higher than agronomic rates will lead to an ephemeral (first winter) leaching loss of NO3-N, that the impact to

ground water is highly localized, small in magnitude, and relatively short lived.

Overall Conclusions

In general, biosolids applications to mined lands at higher than agronomic rates have significant positive long term effects on SOM, plant available P, micronutrients, aggregation, water holding, invading plant diversity and a number of other quantifiable parameters.