Utilization of Biosolids for
Disturbed Land Rehabilitation
W. Lee Daniels and Greg Evanylo
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
Results in Roberts et al. 1988 abc; Nash, 2012.
COP in early June, 1982, after seeding and rainfall.
2008 Analysis – COP Experiment
•
Field Sampling
–
–
•
Physical Properties
–
•
Rock Fragments, PSA, Texture
Chemical Properties
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Biomass and Litter
Soil 0-5 cm 5-25 cm
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
Table 31. Standing biomass production in select years between 1982 and 2008 on
the herbaceous side of the Surface Amendment Experiment.
Treatment
1982
1983
1984
1986 1987
1989 2008
-------------------------------------------Mg/ha----------------------------------Surface Amendment
Control
Topsoil 30cm
Sawdust 112 Mg ha-1
Biosolids 22 Mg ha-1
Biosolids 56 Mg ha-1
Biosolids 112 Mg ha-1
Biosolids 224 Mg ha-1
5.8cd
5.8cd*
3.7d
3.9d
7.7bc
5.9c
5.2c
5.6c
5.2c
10.1b
0.9e
1.7de
2.8cd
2.7cd
4.4bc
1.6c
2.0c
2.4bc
2.6bc
5.2ab
1.1c
1.7abc
1.4bc
1.7abc
2.5ab
2.2a
3.6a
2.8a
2.4a
4.4a
2.5a
4.0a
4.1a
2.9a
3.8a
9.3ab
10.7a
13.6ab
16.5a
4.8b
7.5a
7.2a
5.0ab
2.8a
2.4ab
4.6a
4.4a
2.9a
2.7a
*Column Means followed by different letters by year are significantly different, P <
0.05 (Fisher's LSD)
140
120
Phosphorus
(mg kg-1)
100
80
SA2008
Extractable
P
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.
60
40
0-5 cm
Y= 26.61+ 0.986x
R2= 0.789
20
Prob > F= < 0.0001
0
CON
B-22
B-56
B-112
B-224
Figure 32. Relationship between bicarbonate-extractable P vs. biosolids
application rateat 0-5 cm in the Surface Amendment Experiment
in 2008.
SA- SOM
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.
Treatment
Oct-82
1983
1.00a*
0.95a
7.43d
2.08ab
3.20b
5.44c
6.03cd
2.03a
1.16b
9.33f
3.24c
5.05d
6.42e
6.72e
Surface Amendment
Control
Topsoil 30cm
Sawdust 112 Mg ha-1
Biosolids 22 Mg ha-1
Biosolids 56 Mg ha-1
Biosolids 112 Mg ha-1
Biosolids 224 Mg ha-1
1984
----------%---------2.24a
1.36b
8.47f
3.66c
4.81d
6.99e
6.45e
1987
2008
3.19a
2.33a
7.27bc
5.53d
7.92b
6.64cd
7.14bc
8.93bcd
7.69d
8.67cd
10.51abc
10.03abc
10.93ab
11.21a
* Column means followed by different letters by different year are significantly different, P < 0.05
(Fisher's LSD)
60
a
50
Carbon
(Mg ha-1)
40
ab
b
b
CON
TS
ab
b
b
B-22
B-56
30
20
10
0
SD
B-112
B-224
Treatment
C- Mg ha-1 5-25 cm
C- Mg ha-1 0-5 cm
C- Mg ha-1 Litter
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 coarsetextured mine soils with shallow ground
water regimes within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed raised significant
regulatory concerns with regard to longterm 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.
Results in Schmidt et al. (2001) & Daniels et al. (2003)
Biosolids cake (C:N = 8)
land-applied on gravel
mine at 42 Mg/ha.
Wheat response to biosolids on unmined control plots
at Shirley Plantation one year after application.
Well!
Sampling from
zero-tension
lysimeter @ 1 m.
Nitrate Nitrogen (ppm)
Figure 1. Shirley Plantation
Lysimeters:Biosolids
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
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
Nitrate Nitrogen (ppm)
Figure 2. Shirley Plantation
Lysimeters:Biosolids + Sawdust
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
09/20/96
11/21/96
02/27/97
01/14/98
Date Measured
No Fert
Fert
1.0x bio+sd
3.0x bio+sd
5.0x bio+sd
7.0x bio+sd
04/15/98
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
groundwater 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
Note: no effects on metals
in GW for surface app.
National drinking water standard
Virginia groundwater standard
IMS1
IMS2
IMS3
IMS4
IMS5
IMS6
14
12
8
6
4
2
date
1/10
7/09
1/09
7/08
1/08
7/07
1/07
7/06
1/06
7/05
1/05
7/04
1/04
7/03
1/03
7/02
0
1/02
Nitrate-N (mg/L)
10
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, convtill
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.