HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090242SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND U BY SPECIAL
REVIEW (USR) APPLICATION
•
FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE DATE RECEIVED:
RECEIPT # /AMOUNT # /$ CASE # ASSIGNED:
APPLICATION RECEIVED BY PLANNER ASSIGNED:
Parcel Number: 070726000013
Legal Description: Part of the East 1/2 of Section 26 Township 7N Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. Weld County, CO.
Flood Plain: None Zone District A (Agricultural) Total Acreage: 112 Acreage for USR: 55.3
Overlay District: None Geological Hazard: None
FEE OWNER(S) OF THE PROPERTY:
Name: Rusco Land and Cattle, LLC
Phone: (970) 834-1583
Address: 37905 WCR 35
City/State/Zip Code: Eaton, CO 80615
APPLICANT:
Name: Rusco Land and Cattle, LLC
AUTHORIZED AGENT (See Below: Authorization must accompany applications signed by Authorized Agent)
Name: Cody Hollingsworth, AGPROfessionals, LLC
Address: 4350 Highway 66, Longmont, CO 80504
• Phone: (970) 535-9318. Email: chollingsworth@agpros.com
PROPOSED USE: To apply for a Use By Special Review Permit for an expansion of an existing feeding operation
consisting for a total of 9,000hd, new pens, working areas, commodity area, feed mill, feed storage area and
associated storm water retention ponds.
I (We) hereby depose and state under penalties of perjury that all statements, proposals, and/or plans submitted with
or contained within the application are true and correct to the best of my (our)knowledge. Signatures of all fee owners
of property must sign this application. If an Authorized Agent signs, a letter of authorization from all fee owners must
be included with the application. If a corporation is the fee owner, notarized evidence must be included indicating that
the signatory has to legal authority to sign for the corporation.
5-5 -Orr
ignat re: Owner .r Authorized Agent Date
•
Oof
EXHIBIT
SiZ
• •
•
•
SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW (USR) QUESTIONNAIRE
The following questions are to be answered and submitted as part of the USR application. If
a question does not pertain to your use, please respond with "not applicable", with an
explanation as to why the question is not applicable.
1. Explain, in detail, the proposed use of the property.
The existing use of this property is a feedlot facility. This proposal is to obtain a new
special use permit for a 9,000 head livestock feeding facility. The livestock feeding
facility is located on one contiguous parcel totaling approximately 112 acres. Activities
will include feeding beef cattle; storing and processing feed; storing and maintaining
feeding equipment; and farming. Supporting infrastructure includes buildings and
corrals for livestock husbandry, equipment storage, maintenance facilities, waste
management control structures and employee housing. This proposal is to add new
corrals, supporting buildings and structures, and new storm water ponds.
The facility will be operated under applicable local, state and federal regulations. The
facility will also use standard and traditional operating procedures and best
management practices consistent for beef feedlots.
2. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code,
Chapter 22 (Comprehensive Plan).
Section 22-2-60 A.Goal.1 states "Conserve agricultural land for agricultural purposes
which foster the economic health and continuance of agriculture". 1. A.Policy 1.1
states "Agricultural zoning will be established and maintained and promote the
County's agricultural industry. Agricultural zoning is intended to provide areas for
agricultural activities and other uses interdependent upon agriculture."
The proposed use is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive plan through the
preservation, enhancement and growth of agriculture. The facility supports
commercial and industrial uses directly related to or dependent upon agriculture. The
proposed site is not located within a flood hazard zone, a geologic hazard zone or
airport overlay zone. The property use is necessary in Weld County to preserve the
agricultural economic base historically attributed to the area.
The proposed request is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plans
support of agricultural activities.
3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Code,
Chapter 23 (Zoning) and the zone district in which it is located.
•
•
•
•
This proposal meets the intent of the agricultural zone district where the site is located.
A livestock confinement operation exceeding four (4) animal units per acre are
permitted in the A (Agricultural) zone district as a Use -by -Special Review. Currently
there are four (4) similar uses in the area. Public health, safety and welfare are
protected through adherence to applicable county, state and federal regulations and
requirements and conditions of this permit.
4. What types of uses surround the site? Explain how the proposed use is consistent
and compatible with surrounding land uses.
Agricultural uses that surround this site are primarily crop farming and rural residential.
There are other confined animal feeding operations that surround this site. They are as
follows: a livestock feeding facility located approximately .8 miles west of this facility, a
livestock feeding facility approximately 1 mile southwest of this facility, and a Dairy
approximately 3.3 miles southwest of this facility. This proposal is compatible with the
surrounding agricultural uses and the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
5. Describe, in detail, the following:
a. How many people will use this site?
Currently there are 5 employees at this site.
b. How many employees are proposed to be employed at this site?
At full build -out there will be approximately 5 employees working at the site.
c. What are the hours of operation?
The facility will operate approximately 12 hours per day. Equipment operations,
trucks, farming activities and maintenance activities, other than emergencies,
will occur primarily during daylight hours.
d. What type and how many structures will be erected (built) on this site?
At this time there are no new buildings planned. Existing buildings, pens, and
commodity areas will remain, and new pens will be constructed to house the
intended 9,000 head.
e. What type and how many animals, if any, will be on this site?
The applicant is requesting 9,000 head of beef cows.
f. What kind (type, size, weight) of vehicles will access this site and how often?
•
•
•
Typical vehicles accessing this site include feed and hay delivery trucks, semi-
tractor/trailer, employee and owner vehicles, animal product vendors, and ag-
related equipment. Operating equipment includes typical farming equipment,
tractors, loaders and attachments. The following numbers are estimates
anticipated upon the renovation of the site.
Commodity Trucks: 4 per/day
Manure: 5/day
Livestock transportation — 4/day
Rendering Truck — when needed.
Employees — Daily
Services, Venders, and Visitors
g. Who will provide fire protection to the site?
Eaton Fire Protection District.
h. What is the water source on the property? (Both domestic and irrigation).
j•
Water for the livestock feeding facility domestic water is provided by one well
with attached permit, and one North Weld county water district tap. There is
currently no irrigation water on the subject property.
What is the sewage disposal system on the property? (Existing and proposed).
Sewage disposal for the homes and parlor are septic systems as evidenced by
the accompanying permits.
If storage or warehousing is proposed, what type of items will be stored?
Storage and warehousing are not proposed as the primary use of this site.
Feed, livestock bedding, manure, equipment parts, and supplies typical of
farming activities will be stored on site.
6. Explain the proposed landscaping for the site. The landscaping shall be separately
submitted as a landscape plan map as part of the application submittal.
There is no further landscaping planned at this time.
7. Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Use by Special
Review activity occurs.
Reclamation procedures include compliance with applicable state regulations to
manage solid manure and stormwater runoff until all relative material is adequately
removed. Should the facility be permanently discontinued for use as a livestock
feeding facility, it would be marketed under applicable county planning and zoning
regulations to its greatest and best use.
8. Explain how the storm water drainage will be handled on the site.
Storm water drainage will be handled by the current wastewater retention structures,
and berms. These berms and storm water ponds will be redesigned and enlarged to
handle the additional capacity needed for this expansion. All stormwater retention
structures will be designed to meet required federal, state and local regulations.
Specific details regarding storm water management are outlined in the Nutrient
Management Plan.
9. Explain how long it will take to construct this site and when construction and
landscaping is scheduled to begin.
Construction of the additional pens will begin immediately upon approval of the Use by
Special Review permit; it will take approximately 2 years to complete the plan.
10. Explain where storage and/or stockpile of wastes will occur on this site.
•
•
The manure produced at the facility will be hauled off and provided to local farmers.
Storm water and wastewater will be collected into wastewater retention structures. All
storm water structures are designed to meet all required regulations. No hazardous
material storage is proposed for this site. Stormwater and wastewater will be
periodically land applied at agronomic rates. Details of the manure management
system are outlined in the Nutrient Management Plan. Debris and refuse will be
collected and removed by a local trash service, such as Waste Management or BFI.
• •
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Nutrient Management Plan For USR
GENERAL INFORMATION:
Name of Facility: _Rusco Land and Cattle, Dalton Facility
Facility Physical Location: 37905 WCR 35, Eaton
PRODUCTION AREA SECTION:
A. STORAGE OF MANURE AND PROCESS WASTEWATER - 61.17(8)(cXi)
The CAFO will ensure adequate storage of manure and process wastewater, including procedures to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the
impoundments and tanks.
The following procedures will be followed by the facility:
(A)
(B)
Except during the designed storm event, manure and process wastewater stored in impoundments and terminal tanks will be
removed as necessary to maintain a minimum of two feet of freeboard, or Department -approved alternative freeboard.
Whenever the design capacity of impoundments and tanks is less than the volume required to store runoff from the X 25 -Year, 24 -
Hour Storm, I i Chronic Storm or Cl 100 -Year, 24 -Hour Storm the structures will be dewatered to a level that restores the required
capacity once soils on a land application site have the water holding capacity to receive process wastewater.
Process Wastewater Storage Information:
I. Impoundment/Tank/Drainage
Basin ID
2. Total Capacity Required to
Hold all Wastes Accumulated
During the Storage Period
(acre-feet)
3. Total Capacity Required to
Contain Storm Event Runoff
and Direct Precipitation
(acre-feet)
4. Total Capacity Available (acre-feet)
Proposed Lagoon
2.96
8.76
11.49
Manure Storage Information:
I. Manure Storage Area ID
2. Amount of Manure Produced
(tons/year)
3. Total Amount of Non -pen Area Manure Storage
Available (tons)
In Pen Storage
9146 @ 32% moisture
None
Check here X if excess manure is transferred
Check here X if manure is stockpiled in pen
RECORDKEEPI NG REOLUREMENT.:
to a third party.
area.
storm event, manure
of two (2) feet of freeboard,
and process wastewater stored in impoundments and terminal tanks is
except where the operator has requested and the Ag Program bas approved
and tanks is less than the volume requited to store runoff from the designed
required capacity once soils on a land application site have the water holding
1) Documentation that except during the designed
removed as necessary to maintain a minimum
an alternative freeboard level.
2) Documentation that whenever the available capacity of impoundments
storm event, the structures shall be dewatered to a level that restores the
capacity to receive process wastewater.
B. MORTALITY MANAGEMENT — 61.17(8)(c)(ii)
The CAFO will ensure proper management of animal mortalities to ensure that they are not disposed of in a liquid manure, stonn water, or process
wastewater storage system that is not specifically designed to treat animal mortalities.
Method of Animal Mortalities Handling
1 Composting
X Rendering
!I Burial
I I Other:
(check all that are applicable):
RECORDA'EEPIA'G REOUIREMEN7:
NMP for Rusco Land and Cattle
Operated by Producer's Feedyard
4/28/08
1
1) Documentation that ensures the proper management of animal mortalities to ensure that they are not disposed of in a liquid manure, storm water-,
or process wastewater storage system that is not specifically designed to treat animal mortalities.
C. CLEAN WATER DIVERSION — 61.17(8)(c)(iii)
The CAFO will ensure that clean water resulting from the X 25 -Year, 24 -Hour Stonn, : I Chronic Storm or ' ' 100 -Year, 24 -Hour Storm is diverted
from the production area.
Clean water diversions used (check all that are applicable):
Location Used:
X 13enns North, West, South
L Channels
X Natural Topography East
tl Other
I?E('ORUA'EEPING REOUIREAIENT:
I) Documentation that clean water is diverted from the designed storm event from the production area.
D. PREVENTION OF DIRECT CONTACT OF ANIMALS WITH WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES — 61.17(8)(c)(iv)
The CAFO will prevent direct contact of confined animals with surface waters.
Waters of the 11.S. means, in part:
a) All waters... susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce...;
b) Ali interstate waters...;
c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands' (including
wetlands adjacent to waters identified in (a) through (e) of this definition), sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural
ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters:
I) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes;
2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or
3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes...;
d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition2; and
e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition.
r Wetlands means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
2 Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in
40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. This exclusion applies only to manmade bodies
of water which neither were originally created in waters of the United States (such as disposal area in wetlands) nor resulted from the impoundment
of waters of the United States.
I. Do waters of the U.S. flow through the reduction area? X Yes U No
2. Do the animals have access to waters of the United States? a Yes X No
3. If yes, list the measures used to prevent direct contact (e.g. fencing) of animals with waters of the United States:
Animals are confined in corrals
RECORDA'EEPING REOUIREMENT:
1) Documentation that there is prevention of direct contact of confined animals with waters of the United States.
storage
[
X
X
f
X
fl
n
RE('ORDKEEPING
E. CHEMICAL AND OTHER CONTAMINANT HANDLING — 61.17(8)(c)(v)
The CAFO will ensure chemicals and other contaminants handled on -site are not disposed of in any manure, storm water, or process wastewater
system unless specifically designed to treat such chemicals and other contaminants.
Check all that are applicable:
U Chemicals are used and empty containers are disposed of in accordance with manufacturer's guidelines
X Chemicals are not stored in a room with a floor drain that discharges outside
, Where are chemicals stored:
_Shop
Storage is covered
Storage has secondary containment - fuel tanks
1 Chemicals are stored in proper containers
Where are chemicals disposed: _Not in wastewater ponds
No chemicals are used at the facility
Other:
REOL'IREAIEA'T:
1) Documentation that chemicals and other contaminants bandied on -site are not disposed of in any manure, storm water, or process wastewater
storage system unless s ecificall desi ed to treat such chemicals and other contaminants.
NMP for Rusco Land and Cattle
Operated by Producer's Feedyard
4/28/08
2
LAND APPLICATION SECTION:
If manure or process wastewater will be applied to a land application site, check the box here and go to Part (F): X
If neither manure nor process wastewater will be applied to a land application site or be transferred to a third party, check the box here and go to Part (M): I.,
If neither manure nor process wastewater will be applied to a land application site, but one or both will be transferred to a third party, check the box here
and go to Part (G) then to Part (M): i.
F. CONSERVATION PRACTICES— 61.17(8)(c)(vi)
The CAFO will identify and implement site -specific conservation practices to control runoff of pollutants to surface water.
I. Conservation Practices for Land Application Sites
Please indicate where any of the following best management practices are being implemented to control runoff of pollutants to surface water:
Conservation Practice:
Land Application Site ID Where Practice is Implemented (for land
application sites where surface water is located in or down -gradient of
the site):
Buffer
Setback
Conservation Tillage
Constructed Wetland
Infiltration Field
Grass Filter
Terrace
Tail Water Pit
Process wastewater is not allowed to reach end of field
Field I & 2
Other (describe l:
2. The facility will also implement the following conservation practices:
(A) Solid manure will be incorporated as soon as possible after application, unless the application site has perennial vegetation or is no -tilled
cropped, or except where the nutrient management plan adequately demonstrates that surface water quality will be protected where manure is not
so incorporated.
(B) Process wastewater to furrow- or flood -irrigated land application sites will be applied in a manner that prevents any process wastewater runoff
into surface waters.
(C) When process wastewater is sprinkler -applied, the soil water holding capacity of the soil will not be exceeded.
(D) Process wastewater will not be applied to either frozen or flooded (i.e., saturated) land application sites.
(E) Manure or process wastewater will not be land -applied within 150 feet of domestic water supply wells, and within 300 feet of community
domestic water supply wells.
RECORDKEEPI VG REQUIREMENT:
1) Documentation that site -specific conservation practices have been identified and implemented to control runoff of pollutants to surface water.
G. SAMPLING & TESTING OF MANURE, PROCESS WASTEWATER, AND SOIL — 61.17(8)(c)(vii) land associated parts of a CAFO permit(
The CAFO will identify protocols for appropriate sampling and testing of manure, process wastewater, and soil.
Manure
Process Wastewater
Soil
Frequency of
Sampling:
X Annually
(If analyses are conducted
more frequently than
X Annually
(If analyses are conducted
more frequently than
For nitrate - As often as necessary to meet the
application rate calculation requirements:
(indicate frequency) _'early
annually, the analyses must
be kept on -site for 5 years.)
annually, the analyses must
be kept on -site for 5 years.)
For phosphorus - minimum of once every 5 years or as
necessary to meet the transport risk assessment
requirements
Analyzed for:
Total Nitrogen, Ammonia (as
N), Nitrate (as N), and Total
Phosphorus
Total Nitrogen, Ammonia
(as N), Nitrate (as N), and
Total Phosphorus
Nitrate - to necessary depth zone(s):
Phosphorus - top one -foot
Sampling
Protocol Used:
X CSU Cooperative
Extension (CE) 568 A
X CSUCE 568 A
X CSUCE 568 A
[l Other CSUCE Publication
(please cite):
[:I Adjacent State CE Publication
(please cite):
Testing Protocol
Used:
P CSUCE
X Adjacent State CE
(please cite): Olsen Lab,
MDA certified
X USEPA Method
-' Department -approved
Method (requested in
writing)
X "Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3, Chemical
Methods"
i Department -approved Method (requested in
writing)
NMP for Rusco Land and Cattle
Operated by Producer's Feedyard
4/28/08
3
•
H. NUTRIENT Ill IDGET INFORMATION —61.17(8)(c)(x)(A)(VI)
Nutrient Budget Information:
Crop:
Manure and Process Wastewater Application Rate
Calculated:
Description of Method (calculation/table) to be Used:
Corn
X CSUCE Published Fertilizer Suggestions
rl Adjacent State CE -Published Fertilizer Suggestions
I I CNMP Method that meets USDA-NRCS standards
.: CO NRCS NMP guidelines
I.) Department -approved Method
35+(7.5*YG)-(8*ppm NO3(ave 2ft)-(0.85*YG*%OM)-
previous manure application credits -plow down legume
credit
Tables 7A-8 CSU Bulletin #568A
Alfalfa
X CSUCE Published Fertilizer Suggestions
I Adjacent Slate CE -Published Fertilizer Suggestions
CI CNMP Method that meets USDA-NRCS standards
r. CO NRCS NMP guidelines
I I Department -approved Method
(((YG*2000)*(% Protein/6.5)*(0.6))/0.66) (3.6*ppm NO3
(2ft)-(30* % OM) -previous manure application credits
CSU Soil Publication #0.565
I I CSUCE Published Fertilizer Suggestions
C' Adjacent State CE -Published Fertilizer Suggestions
LJ CNMP Method that meets USDA-NRCS standards
rt CO NRCS NMP guidelines
ri Department -approved Method
I I CSUCE Published Fertilizer Suggestions
I J Adjacent State CE -Published Fertilizer Suggestions
CI CNMP Method that meets USDA-NRCS standards
El CO NRCS NMP guidelines
Department -approved Method
o CSUCE Published Fertilizer Suggestions
o Adjacent State CE -Published Fertilizer Suggestions
I7 CNMP Method that meets USDA-NRCS standards
LI CO NRCS NMP guidelines
rt Department -approved Method
LI CSUCE Published Fertilizer Suggestions
i i Adjacent State CE -Published Fertilizer Suggestions
tl CNMP Method that meets USDA-NRCS standards
LI CO NRCS NMP guidelines
Ci Department -approved Method
Describe how realistic yield goals will be determined:
Last 5 years + 5% unless year was affected by severe drouaht.pest invasion, or under fertilization.. Until a 5 year history can be established averaec values
fbr_the area will be used as determined by client,
RECORDKEEPI.NG REOL/IREAMENT:
1) Documentation of the identification of protocols for appropriate sampling and testing of manure, process wastewater, and soil.
NMP for Rusco Land and Cattle
Operated by Producer's Feedyard 4/28/08
4
I. LAND APPLICATION— 61.17(8)(c)(viii)
The CAFO will establish protocols to land apply manure or process wastewater in accordance with site specific nutrient management
practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the manure or process wastewater.
The facility will implement the following protocols:
(A) No application of manure or process wastewater will be made to a land application site at a rate that will exceed the
capacity of the soil and the planned crops to assimilate nitrate -nitrogen within 12 months of the manure or process
wastewater being applied.
(B) Manure and process wastewater shall be applied as uniformly as possible with properly calibrated equipment.
I ) Method(s) of manure application? spreader truck
2) Method(s) of process wastewater application? flood/furrow
3) Is nutrient application equipment calibrated at least annually? ❑ Yes X No
RE('ORDREEP/NO REOLI/REA/ENT:
I) Documentation that protocols have been established for land application of manure or process wastewater in accordance with site -
specific nutrient management practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the manure or process
wastewater.
J. PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN TRANSPORT— 61.17(8)(c)(x)(A)
Application rates for manure and process wastewater applied to land application sites will minimize phosphorus and nitrogen transport
from the sites to surface waters and will be in accordance with the following standards:
(I)
An initial assessment of the potential for phosphorus and nitrogen transport risk to surface water will be made prior to
manure or process wastewater being applied to an application site. There is currently no published tool suitable for
assessing nitrogen transport risk. Phosphorus and nitrogen transport risk assessment will be made using the Colorado
Phosphorus Index Risk Assessment.
The following flow chart will be used to determine whether or nota phosphorus risk assessment must be completed
fora land application sites:
Will animal manure or other organic
nutrients be applied to this site?
YES
•
Is soil test P greater than:
10 ppm AB-DTPA; 30 ppm Bray P I; 40
ppm Mehlich 3, or; 20 ppm Olsen
(NaHCO3)
YES
•
Can storm water runoff or irrigation
tailwater reach a surface water body?
(Continuous or intermittent stream,
irrigation ditch, lake, or wetland, etc.)
YES
V
Complete a Colorado Phosphorus Index
Risk Assessment for this site.
NO —�
NO --I*
NO —�
A Colorado Phosphorus Index
Risk Assessment is not
required for this site.
A -Colorado Phosphorus Risk
Assessment is not required for
this site. Base organic nutrient
application rates on crop
nitrogen requirements.
A Colorado Phosphorus Risk
Assessment is not required for
this site. Base organic nutrient
application rates on crop
nitrogen requirements.
NMP for Rusco Land and Cattle
Operated by Producer's Feedyard 4/28/08
5
•
•
J. PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN TRANSPORT - 61.17(8)(e)(x)(A) (continued)
On sites for which the facility must complete a Colorado Phosphorus Index Risk Assessment, the following best management
practices will be incorporated, if applicable:
(A) Phosphorus -based manure and process wastewater application rates will be made to an application site where the risk of
off -site phosphorus transport is scored as high.
(B) No application of manure or process wastewater will be made to a land application site where the risk of off -site
phosphorus transport is rated as very high. (Where the initial assessment of a land application site is scored as very high,
the facility has a three-year period within which to manage the site for the purpose of lowering the phosphorus transport
risk assessment rating to high or less. During this period, manure or process wastewater may be applied to the site at either
nitrogen- or phosphorus -based rates.)
(C) No application of manure or process wastewater will be made to a land application site where the risk of off -site nitrogen
transport to surface water is not minimized.
(D) Where a multi -year phosphorus application was made to a land application site, no additional manure or process
wastewater will be applied to the same site in subsequent years until the applied phosphorus has been removed from the
site via harvest and cm. removal.
After an initial assessment is made of potential for phosphorus and/or nitrogen transport from a land application site to surface water,
additional assessments will be made at the following frequency, whichever is sooner:
Both phosphorus and nitrogen transport risk
Every 5 years
Where a crop management change has occurred
For phosphorus - Assess within I year after such a change would
reasonably result in an increase in the transport risk assessment
score.
For nitrogen - Assess within 1 year after such a change would
reasonably result in the nitrogen transport to surface water not
being minimized.
Where a phosphorus transport risk assessment score was very
high
Assess phosphorus transport risk within 6 months of intending to
apply manure or process wastewater, except where the initial
assessment is scored as very high, then there shall be a three-year
period within which to manage the site for the purpose of
lowering the phosphorus transport risk assessment rating to high
or less. During this period, manure or process wastewater may
be applied to the site at either nitrogen- or phosphorus -based
rates.
Where a nitrogen transport risk assessment reveals that nitrogen
transport to surface water is not minimized
Assess nitrogen transport risk within 6 months of intending to
apply manure or process wastewater.
K. INSPECT LAND APPLICATION EQUIPMENT-61.17(8Xc)(x)(C)
The CAFO will periodically inspect equipment used for land application of manure or process wastewater for leaks.
The facility will inspect land application equipment at the following frequencies:
( I ) Annually (within the six month period prior to the first application of manure or process wastewater); and
(2) At least once daily when process wastewater is being applied
L. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS -- 61.17(8)(c)(x)(D)
The CAFO will not apply manure and process wastewater:
(I) Closer than 100 feet to any down -gradient surface waters, open tile line intake structures, sinkholes, agricultural
wellheads, or other conduits to surface waters unless one of the following is implemented:
(II) 35 -foot vegetated buffer to any down -gradient water of the U.S., open tile intake structures, sinkholes,
agricultural wellheads, or other conduits to waters of the U.S. where applications of manure, litter, or
process wastewater are prohibited.
(III) Alternative compliance practices to the 100 -foot setback with prior approval of the Department.
Please describe:
Compliance Practice Implemented
1(1), (II) or (III) abovcl:
Land Application Site ID Where
Practice is Implemented:
Down -gradient Surface Waters
Open Tile Line Intake Structure
Sinkholes
Agricultural Wellheads
1
Field I & 2
Other Conduits to Surface Waters
NMP for Rusco Land and Cattle
Operated by Producer's Feedyard 4/28/08
6
M. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I certify under penalty of low that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information. including the possibility offine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
A. NAME AND OFFICIAL TITLE (PRINT OR TYPE)
B. PHONE NUMBER
C. SIGNATURE
D. DATE SIGNED
NMP for Rusco Land and Cattle 7
Operated by Producer's Feedyard 4/28/08
• Rusco Land and Cattle •
Producers Feedyard
Land Requirements, USR
Land Application Requirements for 25 -year, 24 -hour Storm Event
5 -year, 24 -hour storm volume( 8.8 A.F.), gallons
Total Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs.
Ammonium -Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs.
Organic -Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs.
Ammonium -Nitrogen available after irrigation, lbs.
Organic -Nitrogen available 3rd year, lbs.
Nitrogen available to plants (PAN) yr. after yr., lbs.
Soil Organic Matter, %
Irrigation Water NO3 content, ppm
Residual NO3 in soil, ppm
Expected Yield (grain, Bu/acre; silage, tons/acre)
N req. w/ listed O.M., soil N, & lrr. Water NO3, lb./acre)
Acres req. if effluent applied via flood irrigation
'Taken from CSU's Bulletin No. 568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization
2,854,260
11,417
1.0
5.0
10.0
5,709
5,709
4,453
2,398
6,850
'Total -N = 4.0 lbs./1,000 gal
*NH3-N = 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal
Organic -N = 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal
22.0% Flood -Irrigation loss'
42% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic -N`
Alfalfa
Corn Silage
6
207
25
101
33
68
Based on CSU Extension
Bulletin #538 & #0.565
Land Application Requirements for 10 -year, 10 -day Storm Event
Maximum pumping requirement ( A.F.), gallons
Total Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs.
Ammonium -Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs.
Organic -Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs.
Ammonium -Nitrogen available after irrigation, lbs.
Organic -Nitrogen available 3rd year, lbs.
Nitrogen available to plants (PAN) yr. after yr., lbs.
IPgation Water NO3 content, ppm
1.0
5.0
Residual NO3 in soil(ave 2 ft), ppm
Expected Yield (grain, Bu/acre; silage, tons/acre)
N req. w/ listed O.M., soil N, & Irr. Water NO3, lb./acre)
Acres req. if effluent applied via sprinkler irrigation
"Taken from CSU's Bulletin No. 568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization
10.0
'Total -N =
`NH3-N =
Organic -N =
4.0 lbs./1,000 gal
2.0 lbs./1,000 gal
2.0 lbs./1,000 gal
45.0% Sprinkler -Irrigation loss`
42% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic -N*
Alfalfa
Corn Silage
6
185
25
101
Based on CSU Extension
Bulletin #538 & #0.565
Land Application Requirements for Average Years' Stormwater & Process Water
Maximum pumping requirement ( 8.6 A.F.), gallons
Total Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs.
Ammonium -Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs.
Organic -Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs.
Ammonium -Nitrogen available after irrigation, lbs.
Organic -Nitrogen available 3rd year, lbs.
Nitrogen available to plants (PAN) yr. after yr., lbs.
Soil Organic Matter, %
Irrigation Water NO3 content, ppm
Residual NO3 in soil (ave 2 ft), ppm
Expected Yield (grain, Bu/acre; silage or grass, tons/acre)
N req. w/ listed O.M., soil N, & lrr. Water NO3, lb./acre)
Acres req. if effluent applied via flood irrigation
*Taken from CSU's Bulletin No. 568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization
2,805,386
11,222
5,611
5,611
4,376
2,357
6,733
1.0
5.0
10.0
'Total -N = 4.0 lbs./1,000 gal
*NH3-N = 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal
Organic -N = 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal
22.0% flood -Irrigation loss*
42% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic -N"
Alfalfa
Corn Silage
6
185
25
101
36
67
Based on CSU Extension
Bulletin #538 & #0.565
•
AGPROfessionals, LLC 4/28/08
it Organic Matter,
•
a
C
w a
m T'
0
0
•
TRAPEZOIDAL WASTE STORAGE POND DESIGN COMPUTATIONS
Cr LC 0 C C
tO .4i
H pa 0
ctV ry aV ,p 0
0
15 a- 715 — 6 0 8 E `m a
d
p E E J E LL �' m v m a a
m = E u
m 0 N N$ to y
m aw
POND DESIGN VOLUME
a o a c d
ovoor orb45 4
0
0
U'
K
0
g
CD LIr L N CO sr L d O O O O O
6 0 d'
5 O d
t
0
F-
0
0
R
>-
0
e
c
_ 3
E
0
s'
C
Lt -
0 0
p LO
0 9 o0
0 6
NI CO OS
0 0 co co
0 orvry
LIS
o
co co
S
SS
O
0
S
co
88
8
8
S
8
0
S
8A
L 8.
w w'
S
0
0
8
co
IN
sr
LIS
OD
LO
00
Csi
Lri
CO
ed
ILO
OS
LAS
sIL
--p 3
H c
C
0.1
03
cri
3
S
S
G
Q
0
S
8
8
0
S
0
S
0
S
m
C
S
8
0
S
8
S
a
8
a
LIS
N-
CO
N-
CO
tO
0
CO
K
a
LO
OS
CO
0
0
C
C
s
a
a
0
8
S
0
0
0
0
0
LIS
CO
OD
co
K
w
w'
EN
oLL
co
n E
CO ILO
0 CO
CO
N
CO
0
CO
O
2
ov
rn 01
0
0
o
r
Pond Volume v. De
'OWOIOA
2
0
rn
0
0
Z
a
C,
0
N
N
if
O
2
0
0
LL
re
N
N
0
a
0)
Q
9
W
0
m
Q
a
0
a
N
Q
Y
W
W
0
co
I
G
a'
8
if
S
a
a`
S
G
C
2
F
Z
a
CO
C
E
O
C
ua
0 0-
8
CO
O¢
O
E
act
.@ e
n
01
P.
c
0
U
0
et
a? FN
C
O 8
6
2
F
2
U
CO
tt
2
C
a
CO
C
a
a
C
CO
C
•
•
•
Management Plan
For
Nuisance Control
A Supplement to the
Nutrient Management Plan
For
Producers Feedyard
37905 WCR 35
Eaton, CO 80615
Developed in accordance with
Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices
Prepared By
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
4350 Hwy 66
Longmont, CO 80504
April 2008
• •
Producers
A gPro Environmental Services, LLC
Introduction
•
•
•
This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented
to identify methods Producers, will use to minimize the inherent conditions that exist in
confinement feeding operations. This supplement outlines management practices generally
acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. Neither nuisance
management nor this supplemental plan is required by Colorado State statute or specifically
outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. This is a
proactive measure to assist integration into local communities. These management and control
practices, to their best and practical extent, will be used by Producers.
Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons
Correspondence and Contacts should be made to:
Russ Moss
Rusco Land and Cattle, LLC
37905 WCR 39
Eaton, CO 80615
The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation,
maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below.
Russ Moss Owner
(Name) (Title)
Legal Description
The confined animal feeding facility described in this NMP is located at:
Part of the East %Y of Section 26, T7N, R66W, of the 6`h P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
2
• •
Producers
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
Air Quality
Air quality at and around confined animal feeding operations are affected primarily from the
relationship of soil/manure and available moisture. The two primary air quality concerns at
dairies are dust and odor. However, the management practices for dust or odor control are not
inherently compatible. Wet pens and manure produce odor. Dry pens are dusty. The two
paragraphs below outline the best management practices for the control of dust and odors that
Producers will use. The manager shall closely observe pen conditions and attempt to achieve a
balance between proper dust and odor control.
Dust
Dust from pen surfaces is usually controlled by intensive management of the pen surface by
routine cleaning and harrowing of the pen surface. The purpose of intensive surface
management is twofold; to keep cattle clean and to reduce pest habitat. The best management
systems for dust control involve moisture management. Management methods Producers shall
use to control dust are:
• 2. Regular manure removal
Producers will continue to conduct regular manure removal. Manure removal and pen
maintenance will be conducted as needed.
1. Pen density
Moisture will be managed by varying stocking rates and pen densities. The animals wet
manure and urine keep the surface moist and control dust emissions. Stocking rates in
new portions of the facility will be managed to minimize dust.
•
3. Sprinkler systems
Sprinkler systems, timed appropriately, are an effective method for keeping Feedlot
surfaces moist. Feedlot cattle produce significant moisture through urine and feces. Pens
surfaces are extensively maintained for cattle health.
4. Water Trucks
Should nuisance dust conditions arise, water tanker trucks or portable sprinkling systems
may be used for moisture control on pens and roadways to minimize nuisance dust
conditions.
Odor
Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is
excreted and continue as long as any usable material remains as food for microorganisms living
everywhere in soil, water and the manure. Odor strength depends on the kind of manure, and the
conditions under which it decomposes. Although occasionally unpleasant, the odors are not
dangerous to health in the quantities customarily notices around animal feeding operations and
fields where manure is spread for fertilizer.
3
• •
Producers
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
Producers will use the methods and management practices listed below for odor control:
1. Establish good pen drainage
Dry manure is less odorous than moist manure. The feedlot will conduct routine pen
cleaning and surface harrowing to reduce standing water and dry or remove wet manure.
2. Regular manure removal
Reduce the overall quantity of odor producing sources. The feedlot will conduct routine
pen cleaning and harrowing several times per month.
3. Reduce standing water
Standing water can increase microbial digestion and odor producing by-products. Proper
pen maintenance and surface grading will be conducted by the feedlot to reduce standing
water.
The stormwater ponds will be dewatered regularly in accordance with the Manure and
Wastewater Management Plan for Producers. No chemical additives or treatments of the
stormwater ponds for odor control are planned. Research to date indicates poor efficacy,
if any, of these products.
4. Land application timing
Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. Producers will consider
weather conditions and prevailing wind direction to minimize odors from land
application.
If it is determined that nuisance dust and odor conditions persist, Producers may increase the
frequency of the respective management practices previously outline such as pen cleaning,
surface grading and pen maintenance. Additionally, if nuisance conditions continue to persist
beyond increased maintenance interval controls, Producers will install physical or mechanical
means such as living windbreaks and/or solid fences to further minimize nuisance conditions
from dust and odors.
Insects and rodents inhabit areas that 1) have an adequate to good food supply and 2) foster
habitat prime for breeding and living. Key practices Producers will use to manage insects and
rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat and then reduce the available food supply.
Producers will control flies by:
Pest Control
Insects and Rodents
1. Regular manure removal
Manure management removes both food sources and habitat
•
4
Producers
AgPro Environmental Services, LLC
2. Reduce standing water
Standing water is a primary breeding ground for insects
3. Minimize fly habitat
Standing water, weeds and grass, manure stockpiles, etc., are all prime habitat for
reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical.
4. Weeds and grass management
Keep weeds and grassy areas to a minimum. These provide both protection and breeding
areas.
5. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure
Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keep stockpile use to
a minimum.
6. Biological treatments
Parasitic wasps are excellent biological fly control and are widely used. The wasps lay
their eggs in fly larvae hindering fly reproduction.
7. Baits and chemical treatments
Due to environmental and worker's safety concerns, chemical treatments are a last line of
defense for insect control. Baits and treatments must be applied routinely. However,
they are very effective.
Rodent control at Producers is best achieved by minimizing spillage of feedstuffs around the
operation. Good housekeeping practices and regular feedbunk cleaning, site grading and
maintenance are used to reduce feed sources. Rodent traps and chemical treatments are effective
control methods and will be used as necessary.
In the event it is determines nuisance conditions from pest such as flies and rodents persist,
Producers will initially increase the frequency of the housekeeping and management practices
outlines previously. If further action is necessary, Producers will increase use of chemical
controls and treatments, such as fly sprays and baits and Rodendicide for pest control.
5
REFERRAL LIST
•
•
Name: Rusco Land & Cattle, LLC
County
Attorney
x Health Department
x Extension Office
_Emergency Mgt Office - Ed Herring
Sheriffs Office
x Public Works
_Housing Authority
_Airport Authority
x Building Inspection
x Code Compliance Ann
x Kim Ogle (Landscape Plans)
_Lin (Addressing Change of Zone)
Ambulance Services
State
x Div. of Water Resources
_Geological Survey
_Department of Health
_Department of Transportation
_Historical Society
Water Conservation Board
Oil & Gas Conservation Commission
Division of Wildlife
South Hwy 66 (Loveland)
x North Hwy 66 (Greeley)
Division of Minerals/Geology
Soil Conservation Districts
Big Thompson/ FTC
_Boulder Valley/Longmont
_Brighton/SE Weld
Centennial
x Greeley/West Greeley
Platte Valley
West Adams
Little Thompson
Federal Government Agencies
_US Army Corps of Engrs
x USDA -APHIS Vet Service
Federal Aviation Admin (Structures
over 200 ft or w/in 20000 ft of Pub
Airport
Federal Communications Comm
Towns & Cities
Ault
Berthoud
_Brighton
Dacono
Eaton
Erie
Evans
Firestone
_Fort Lupton
Frederick
_Garden City
Gilcrest
Greeley
Grover
Hudson
Johnstown
Keenesburg
_Kersey
LaSalle
Lochbuie
Longmont
Mead
Milliken
_New Raymer
Northglenn
Nunn
Pierce
Platteville
x Severance
Thornton
x Windsor
Counties
Adams
Boulder
Broomfield
Larimer
Other
_School District RE -
_Central Colo. Water
_Left Hand Water
_Ditch Company
_Art Elmquist (MUD Area)
Case # USR-1675
Fire Districts
Ault F-1
Berthoud F-2
_Briggsdale F-24
_Brighton F-3
Eaton F-4
Fort Lupton F-5
Galeton F-6
Hudson F-7
Johnstown F-8
LaSalle F-9
_Mountain View F-10
Milliken F-11
Nunn F-12
Pawnee F-22
Platteville F-13
_Platte Valley F-14
_Poudre Valley F-15
_Raymer F-2
_Southeast Weld F-16
_Union Colony F-20
Wiggins F-18
x Windsor/Severance F-17
Commissioner
x Oschner
Hello