The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20013280.tiff 4311 Hwy 66,Suite 4 Longmont,Colorado 80504 Off¢¢ (970)535-9318 Fax: (970)535-9854 111y11 nmert[ll Senices,LLC August 27, 2001 Trevor Jiricek Weld County Dept. of Public Health and Environment 1555 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Busker Dairy Dear Mr. Jiricek: Attached is a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan for Busker Dairy. Busker Dairy is submitting a Use by Special Review application for an expansion at the dairy. The attached plan has been developed by me or under my direct supervision to address the CAFO issues associated with the proposed expansion. Sincerely, "" s• REpl• r �ff_�' -IA �`. S-Z 7- O( s3Dt �� Eric W. Dunker, P.E. Environmental Engineer Attachment: Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan for Busker Dairy Your "Pro-Ag"Environmental Professionals 2001-3280 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 4311 Hwy 66.Suite 4, Longmont, CO 80504 BUSKER DAIRY 7678 Weld County Rd 17 Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Prepared by: AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 4311 Hwy 66, Suite 4 Longmont, CO 80504 August 8, 2001 Your "Pro Ag" Environmental Professionals AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 08.08.2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 CONTACTS AND AUTHORIZED PERSONS 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3 SITE DESCRIPTION 4 FACILITY 4 MAPS 4 STORMWATER AND PROCESS WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT 4 SURFACE RUNOFF 4 PROCESS WASTEWATER 5 POND MANAGEMENT 5 LAND APPLICATION OF STORMWATER/PROCESS WASTEWATER 6 Sustainability 6 FLOODPLAINS 6 SOLID MANURE MANAGEMENT 6 NUTRIENT UTILIZATION 7 SOIL TESTING 8 IRRIGATION WATER TESTING 8 MANURE, COMPOST AND STORM WATER TESTING 8 AGRONOMIC CALCULATIONS 8 RECORD KEEPING 9 LIMITATIONS 9 Appendix A 10 Appendix B 11 Appendix C 12 Appendix D 13 Appendix E 14 Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 2 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 08.08.2001 Introduction This Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP) has been developed and implemented to comply with requirements, conditions and limitations of the Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" 4.8.0 (5 CCR 1002-19). This CNMP outlines current site conditions, structures and areas requiring management of solid manure, stormwater run-off and process wastewater. This CNMP will be kept on-site and amended prior to any change in design, construction, operation or maintenance which significantly increases the potential for discharge of solid manure, stormwater run-off and process wastewater to waters of the State. This CNMP shall be amended if it is ineffective in controlling discharges from the facility. Below is the date of the last CNMP amendment: Amendment 1: Amendment 2: Busker Dairy will keep records relating to the CNMP onsite for a minimum of three years. Contacts and Authorized Persons Mr. Scott Busker Busker Dairy 7678 Weld County Rd 17 Fort Lupton, CO 80621 (303) 833-3317 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing and implementation, maintenance and revision of this CNMP are listed below: Scott Busker Owner (Name) (Title) (Name) (Title) Legal Description The legal description of Busker Dairy is: The North 1/2 of the Southwest 'A of Section 28, Township 2 North, Range 67 West, Weld County, Colorado. Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 3 AgPro Environmental Services,LLC 08.08.2001 Site Description Facility Busker Dairy is an existing dairy facility located one and one-half miles north of Highway 52 on Weld County Road 17. Dairy construction is industry-typical steel and wood posts, pipe and cable fence, concrete feed aprons and feed bunks, feed alleys and cow movement alleys, feed storage areas and associated storage structures and maintenance facilities, waste management and control structures. Busker Dairy plans to expand its milking and total capacity. The plan includes approximately 1,100 milk cows, 200 dry cows, and 150 replacement calves for a total of 1,450 head. Busker Dairy plans to add onto the existing milk parlor, add two milk-cow corrals and a dry-cow corral along with some calf huts and a small calf corral. The milk-cow corrals will be on the west side of Stanley Ditch and the calf facilities and dry-cow corral will be on the east side. Maps The maps described below are included in Appendix A. Topographic Map The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Busker Dairy, surrounding sites, topography and major drainages. Site Layout Map The Site Layout Map details the configuration of the expanded dairy. Soils Map The USDA Soil Survey map details the area's soil types. Also included are detailed soil descriptions. Stormwater and Process Wastewater Management Surface Runoff Busker Dairy will control stormwater on the west side of Stanley Ditch with a series of four retention ponds, three already existing and adding one on the south side. The east side will be controlled with a new pond constructed in the northeast corner of the property(see Site Layout Map in Appendix A). Busker Dairy will monitor the site and maintain appropriate diversion structures to ensure runoff enters the stormwater collection system. The 25-year, 24-hour storm event for the area east of Frederick, Colorado is 4.0 inches. Using the SCS runoff curve number 90 for un-surfaced lots and 97 for paved areas,the amount of runoff generated during a 25-year event is 8.46 acre-feet for the west side and 3.26 acre-feet for the east side. The 10-year, 10-day storm event for the area east of Frederick, Colorado is 4.3 inches. Using the SCS runoff curve number 90 for un-surfaced lots and 97 for paved areas, the amount of runoff generated during a 10-year event is 9.26 acre-feet for the west side and 3.57 acre-feet for the east side. These figures account for rainfall occurring directly on the pond surfaces. The retention structures on the west side of Stanley Ditch will have a total capacity of 27 acre- feet and the new pond on the east side will contain 6 acre-feet. The west side runoff will be forced into Ponds 1&2 on the north side and Pond 4 on the south side using runoff containment berms. The north side runoff will back up into the corrals at an average depth of 18 inches and Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 4 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 08.08.2001 over a surface area of approximately 2.8 acres, therefore, adding approximately 4 acre-feet of temporary storage during extreme events (see the Site Layout Map in Appendix A). Calculations for the 25-year and 10-year storms and pond capacities are in Appendix B. Process Wastewater Busker Dairy generates process wastewater within the milking parlor. It is estimated that Busker Dairy will generate a maximum of 2,200 gallons of process wastewater per day at maximum capacity. A table summarizes the process wastewater in Appendix B. Dairy parlor floors and walls, milking equipment, pipelines, and tanks are washed with fresh water. Wastewater flows via a pipe system into a solids separator next to Pond#2 and then into the main pond system. The proposed ponds will be designed and constructed to meet the 1/32 inch-per-day maximum seepage requirement in Section 4.8.4 of the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operation Control regulation. Upon completion of the wastewater retention ponds, the liners will be inspected and certified by a licensed professional engineer. Pond Management Busker Dairy's ponds are designed to take advantage of the area's high evaporation rate and therefore minimize the amount ever needed to pump. The west side will be set up so it is pumped to the east-side pond when necessary. Busker Dairy's pond system is nearly evaporative in function. Included in Appendix B are water balance tables that estimate the amount of stormwater/process wastewater required to pump out in order to keep the ponds at a level that will contain a 10-year, 10-day storm. The tables combine the volume of normal precipitation, runoff and process wastewater and account for the following: • Average monthly and 10-wettest years' precipitation values from local weather data • Average monthly lake-evaporation data from local weather data • Process wastewater generation rate of 2,200 GPD for the Main Dairy Area • Evaporation area equal to the surface area of the appropriate ponds at the appropriate depths • Dairy drainage area of 29.8 acres for the west part and 10.9 acres for the east • Runoff percentage from NRCS National Engineering Handbook • Trial-and-error pumping amounts from the east pond to maintain capacity for a 10-year, 10-day storm Four tables were generated; they are as follows: 1. Stormwater/Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation (Average Years) (Main Dairy Area) 2. Stormwater Accumulation Calculation (Average Years)(East Area) 3. Stormwater/Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation (10-Wettest Years) (Main Dairy Area) 4. Stormwater Accumulation Calculation (10-Wettest Years) (East Area) The first two tables show that under average weather conditions no pumping of wastewater is required from either side of the dairy. The last two tables show that minimal pumping is required to maintain volume for a 10-year, 10-day storm event. Only five out of ten years does the west side require pumping to the east side. Two out of the ten wettest years require pumping from the east side to the land application area. The two years requiring pumping from the east side are not consecutive and the amount of pumping required is small. The year with most amount of pumping required is the third year with 1.0 acre-feet of process wastewater/stormwater pumping required. Busker Dairy has approximately 12.8 acres of farm ground available for land application of wastewater. The land application area is located adjacent to the dairy south of the proposed dry cows and calf hut area. Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 5 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 08.08.2001 Land Application of Stormwater/Process Wastewater The few times that stormwater/process wastewater is required to be pumped, it will be pumped from the new east pond onto farm ground in accordance with the Colorado CAFO regulations, "tier two" land application requirements. Busker Dairy has, on site, adequate pumping equipment to dewater the lagoons. The primary application area for stormwater/process wastewater is farm ground south of the new dry cows and calf huts area consisting of approximately 12.8 acres. Table 1 below shows the land necessary to utilize nutrients from the year requiring the most pumping (3rd year in Table 4). The nitrogen content and losses are based on Colorado State Cooperative Extension Bulletin No. 568A, Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization. The calculation in Table 1 indicates that Busker Dairy requires approximately 10 acres of dryland corn or wheat to utilize the nitrogen contained in wastewater from the single wettest year of the 10-wettest years. Table 1: Land Application Requirements for Single Wettest Year during 10-Wettest Years Maximum pumping requirement( 1.00 A.F.),gallons 325,829 Total Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 1,303 `Total-N= 4 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 652 *NH3-N= 2 lbs./1,000 gal Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 652 Organic-N= 2 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation, lbs. 505 22.5% Flood-Irrigation loss* Organic-Nitrogen available 3rd year,lbs. 274 42% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-N" Nitrogen available to plants(PAN)yr.after yr., lbs. 779 Soil Organic Matter, % 1.0 Irrigation Water NO3 content, ppm n/a Native Residual NO3 in soil,ppm 5.0 Dryland Corn Sorghum Grasses Wheat Expected Yield(grain, Bu/acre;silage,tons/acre) 80 15 N/A 50 Based on CSU Extension N req.w/listed O.M.,soil N,&Irr.Water NO3, (lb./acre) 80 65 40 75 Bulletins#540,#544, Acres req. if effluent applied via flood irrigation 10 12 19 10 #538,&XCM-37 'Taken from CS U's Bulletin No.568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization During process wastewater application, Busker Dairy will monitor the system so that runoff of process wastewater does not occur. Busker Dairy will utilize the new east pond as a tail water structure during application by diverting tail water into the pond instead of around it. Busker Dairy does not apply process wastewater on frozen ground or during rainfall events. Sustain ability Note that the above calculation shows organic nitrogen mineralization and residual accumulation as if stormwater/process wastewater would be occurring on the same fields every year. The calculation utilizes an equilibrium mineralization rate for organic nitrogen of 42 percent. This represents the cumulative organic nitrogen released over three years. Therefore, the 10 acres required in the calculation would actually be less since application would not be anticipated every year. Floodplains AgPro Environmental Services, LLC, has reviewed the Weld County FEMA maps and determined that Busker Dairy is not within the floodplain. Solid Manure Management Busker Dairy manages solid manure through routine pen cleaning and maintenance. Pen density is managed to optimize the surface area and keep cows clean while maintaining solid, dry footing for livestock. Busker Dairy cleans pens at least monthly. Manure is removed and composted on site. Busker Dairy does not apply solid manure on its own property. If Busker Dairy chooses to Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 6 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 08.08.2001 utilize some of the compost produced on its own land it will do so utilizing "tier two" criteria in the state CAFO regulations. Table 2 below calculates the amount of manure produced and the associated nutrients on an "as excreted basis". In addition, `as-hauled' weight and compost produced is calculated accounting for predictable moisture losses. The calculations are based on NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, for various size dairy cattle and an average capacity of 1,100 lactating cows. Table 2:Solid Manure Produced and Associated Nutrients NRCS Ag Waste Management Field Handbook Moisture Manure Manure TS VS Nitrogen Prosphorus Potassium Number Wt./hd, (lbs./day/ (ft'/day/ (lbs./day/ (lbs./day/ (lbs./day/ (lbs./day/ (lbs./day/ Animal Type of Hd lbs. Total Wt.,lbs. (%) 1000#) 1000# 1000#) 1000#) 1000#) 1000#) 1000#) Milk Cows 1,100 1,400 1,540,000 87.5 80.0 1.30 10.00 8.50 0.45 0.07 0.26 Dry Cows 200 1,200 240,000 88.4 82.0 1,30 9.50 8.10 0.36 0.05 0.23 Heifers 75 450 33,750 89.3 85.0 1.30 9.14 7.77 0.31 0.04 0.24 Calves 75 200 15,000 89.3 85.0 1.30 9.14 7.77 0.31 0.04 0.24 Totals 1,450 1,828,750 Total Daily Production 147,024 2,377 18,126 15,413 795 122 467 Total Annual Production 53,663,669 867,742 6,615,835 5,625,667 289,997 44,439 170,565 Tons produced w/moisture content of 871% 26,832 Tons to apply w/moisture content of 46.0% 6,129 Tons of compost produced w/moisture content of 40.0% 5,516 Nutrient Utilization Nitrogen is the element that most often limits plant growth. Nitrogen is naturally abundant. However, it is the nutrient most frequently limiting crop production because the plant available forms of nitrogen in the soil are constantly undergoing transformation. Crops remove more nitrogen than any other nutrient from the soil. The limitation is not related to the total amount of nitrogen available but the form the crop can use. Most nitrogen in plants is in the organic form and is incorporated into amino acids. By weight, nitrogen makes up from 1 to 4 percent of harvested plant material. Essentially all of the nitrogen absorbed from the soil by plant roots is in the inorganic form of either nitrate or ammonium. Generally, young plants absorb more ammonium than nitrate; as the plant ages the reverse is true. Under favorable conditions for plant growth, soil microorganisms generally convert ammonium to nitrate, so nitrates generally are more abundant when growing conditions are most favorable. Manure and process wastewater is most typically applied for fertilizers and soil amendments to produce crops. Generally, manure and process wastewater is applied to crops that are most responsive to nitrogen inputs. The primary objective of applying agricultural by-products to land is to recycle part of the plant nutrients contained in the by-product material into harvestable plant forage or dry matter. Another major objective in returning wastes to the land is enhancing the receiving soil's organic matter content. As soils are cultivated, the organic matter in the soil decreases. Throughout several years of continuous cultivation in which crop residue returns are low, organic matter content in most soil decreases dramatically. This greatly decreases the soil's ability to hold essential plant nutrients. Land application of Busker Dairy's stormwater/process wastewater to recycle valuable nutrients is a practical, commonly accepted best management practice given that fertilization rates are Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 7 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 08.08.2001 applicable and that deep soil leaching does not occur. Reference material from Colorado State University is included in Appendix C of this CNMP for use by the operator in making sound decisions pertaining to the land application of process wastewater and/or solid manure. Soil Testing The purpose of soil sampling is to ensure that the quantity of nutrients later applied to the soil will not lead to undesirable nutrient levels in the soil. Knowledge of nitrogen and other nutrients present in the soil, combined with specific crops and realistic yield goals, are key for calculating appropriate manure and/or stormwater application rates. Busker Dairy will test soil on land application areas annually, during years that land application of wastewater occurs, using protocol in Appendix D. Irrigation Water Testing Busker Dairy will test irrigation water once per year, during years that land application of wastewater occurs, using the protocol in Appendix D. Manure, Compost and Stormwater Testing Manure, compost and stormwater testing are essential components of a complete nutrient balance. The amount of nutrients in solid and liquid waste determines the amount that can be land applied agronomically. Busker Dairy will test stormwater/process wastewater and solid manure at least once per year following the protocol in Appendix D. Agronomic Calculations Agronomic rate is the rate at which plants will utilize nutrients while limiting the amount of nutrients that are lost via percolation through the soil or runoff. Busker Dairy will perform agronomic calculations for every field upon which wastewater or solid manure is applied. Agronomic calculations take into account: • The crop to be grown • Nitrogen content in irrigation water • A realistic yield goal • Nitrogen credit from previous legume crop; • Total nitrogen required to meet the yield and goal • Plant available nitrogen(PAN) in the • Residual soil nitrate wastewater • Soil organic matter Forms for performing agronomic calculation are in Appendix E. One agronomic calculation sheet is used for each field on which wastewater or solid manure is applied. In addition, reference materials from Colorado State Cooperative Extension is located in Appendix C, which includes nitrogen requirement information for corn, wheat and other crops commonly grown in Colorado. Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 8 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 08.08.2001 Record Keeping Busker Dairy will keep records per Table 3 (forms are in Appendix E): Table 3: Record Keeping Forms ITEM FORM USED FREQUENCY OF RECORDING Rainfall Precipitation Log Each event, or more frequently during intense or long-lasting storms Manure Removal Manure/Compost Daily during removal Removal Log Land Application Process Wastewater Several times per day during application of stormwater of Stormwater Application Log Pond Inspection Retention Basin Monthly Inspection Form Records will be kept with this CNMP for a minimum of three years. Limitations AgPro Environmental Services, LLC, has no control over the services or information furnished by others. This Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan was prepared and developed in accordance with generally accepted environmental consulting practices. This plan was prepared for the exclusive use of Busker Dairy and specific application to the subject property. The opinions provided herein are made based on AgPro Environmental Services, experience and qualifications, and represent AgPro Environmental Services' best judgment as experienced and qualified professionals familiar with the agriculture industry. AgPro Environmental Services, LLC, makes no warranty, expressed or implied. Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 9 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 08.08.2001 Appendix A • Topographic Location Map • Site Layout Map • Soils Map and Detailed Descriptions Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 10 AgPro Environmental Services. LLC 08.08.2001 Appendix B • 25-year, 24-hour, & 10-year, 10-day Storm Events and Pond Capacity Calculations • Table 1: Stormwater/Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation (Average Years) (Main Dairy Area) • Table 2: Stormwater Accumulation Calculation (Average Years) (East Area) • Table 3: Stormwater/Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation (10-Wettest Years) (Main Dairy Area) • Table 4: Stormwater Accumulation Calculation (10-Wettest Years) (East Area) • Process Wastewater Generation Table Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 1 I • • Busker°airy 25-year,24-hour,8 10-year, 10-day Storm Events and Pond Capacity Calculations Main Dairy Area East Area 24-year,24-hour event 10-year, 10-day event Main Main Area Area 25-year, 10-year, Grand Grand 24-hour 10-day North Portion South Portion Total North Portion South Portion Total event event Earthen Concrete Earthen Concrete Earthen Concrete Earthen Concrete Areas Areas Total Areas Areas Total Areas Areas Areas Areas Applicable Storm Event for Location,inches 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.30 4.00 4.30 SCS Runoff Curve Number (90 for unsurfaced lots) 90 97 90 97 90 97 90 97 90 90 (97 for surfaced lots) S(potential max retention after runoff begins),inchc 1.11 0.309 1.11 0.309 1.11 0309 1.11 0.309 1.11 1.i. Surface Area of Drainage Basins,acres 19.20 0.60 19.80 9.80 0.20 10.00 29.80 19.20 0.60 19.80 9.80 0.20 10.00 29.80 10.90 10.90 (Separate different drainage areas) (Include pens,alleys,mill areas.working areas,etc.) Inches of Runoff using SCS Runoff Curve Factor 2.92 3.65 2.92 3.65 3.20 3.95 3.20 3.95 2.92 3.20 Minimum Retention Capacity RequireAcre-Ft. 4.7 0.2 4.9 2.4 0.1 2.4 7.3 5.1 0.2 5.3 2.6 0.1 2.7 8.0 2.7 2.9 Cubic-Ft. 203,456 7,953 211,409 103,847 2,651 106,498 223,347 8,603 231,950 114,000 2,868 116,868 115,504 126,796 Surface Area of Retention Structures,Acres 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.8 Additional Volume Required,Acre-Ft. 0.59 0.57 0.64 0.62 0.61 0.66 Additional Volume Required,ft3 I 25,817 25,000 27,753 26,875 26,600 28,595 Total Retention Structure Volume Required,Acre-Ft. 5.45 3.02 8.46 5.96 3.30 9.26 3.26 3.57 Total Retention Structure Volume Required,ft3 I 237,225 131,498 259,703 143,743 142,104 155,391 Total Retention Structure Volume Available,Acre-Ft. 14.82 12.15 26.97 14.82 12.15 26.97 5,97 5.97 Excess or Diffenciency(-)of Available Vol.,Acre-Ft. 9.37 9.13 18.50 8.86 8.85 17.71 2.71 2.41 Lagoon Existing Existing Existing New Capacities Pond#1 Pond#2 Pond#3 Pond#4 Total New East Pond Area @ al Volume Depth(ft) depth(ft2) (ft) Length(Top-of-Berm)(feet) 200 175 170 375 0 58,089 Width(Top-of-Berm)(feet) 150 140 135 200 1 61,494 59,792 Liquid Depth(feet) 10 10 10 10 2 64,984 63,239 Slope(ft horizontaVI ft. vett 1 1 1 3 3 68,559 66,772 Freeboard(feet) 2 2 2 2 4 72,220 70,390 Liner Thickness(feet) 1 1 I 1 5 75,967 74,094 Totals (Cubic-Feet) 253,293 203,193 189,093 529,140 1,174,720 6 79,800 77,884 (Acre-Feet) 5.81 4.66 4.34 12.15 26.97 7 8 Surface Area @ Top-of-Berm 30,000 24,500 22,950 75,000 152,450 Total Volume,ft3 412,169 Surface Area @ Liquid Level. 28,616 23,256 21,746 68,244 141,862 Total Volume,A F. 9.46 Surface Area @ 1/2-full Dept 25,296 20,286 18,876 52,614 117,072 Vol.wl2'Freeboard,ft' 260,192 Surface Area @ Bottom,ft2 22,176 17,516 16,206 38,784 94,682 Vot.wl2'Freeboard,A . 5.97 Busker Dairy Table 1:Stormwater/Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation(Average Years)(Main Dairy Area) Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= 2,200 Pond Surface Area,ft'= 152,450 Evaporation Area,ft'= 126,232 15 Frecip.* Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Lake Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process-H2O Net Change Amt.Pumped Vol. In Lagoon Annual Pumped Month (inches) Runoff (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Inches)"' (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) Jan 0.40 5.0% 29.80 0.17 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.09 15.09 Feb 0.39 5.0% 29.80 0.16 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 0.01 15.10 Mar 1.10 5.0% 29.80 0.46 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.14 15.23 Apr 1.72 7.0% 29.80 0.80 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 0.13 15.37 May 2.48 16.0% 29.80 1.71 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 0.76 16.13 II Jun 1.76 13.0% 29.80 1.08 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (0.12) 16.01 - i Jul 1.13 12.0% 29.80 0,67 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.57) 15.44 Aug 1.26 11.0% 29.80 0.71 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.38) 15.05 Sep 1.24 13.0% 29.80 0.76 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.00) 15.05 Oct 1.35 10.0% 29.80 0.73 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 0.26 15.31 Nov 0.67 5.0% 29.80 0.28 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 0.09 15.41 Dec 0.47 5.0% 29.80 0.20 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.11 15.52 Jan 0.40 5.0% 29.80 0.17 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.09 15.61 Feb 0.39 5.0% 29.80 0.16 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 0.01 15.62 Mar 1.10 5.0% 29.80 0.46 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.14 15.76 Apr 1.72 7.0% 29.80 0.80 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 0.13 15.89 N May 2.48 16.0% 29.80 1.71 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 0.76 16.65 °t Jun 1.76 13.0% 29.80 1.08 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (0.12) 16.53 - w Jul 1.13 12.0% 29.80 0.67 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.57) 15.96 } Aug 1.26 11.0% 29.80 0.71 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.38) 15.58 Sep 1.24 13.0% 29.80 0.76 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.00) 15.58 Oct 1.35 10.0% 29.80 0.73 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 0.26 15.84 Nov 0.67 5.0% 29.80 0.28 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 0.09 15.93 Dec 0.47 5.0% 29.80 0.20 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.11 16.05 Jan 0.40 5.0% 29.80 0.17 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.09 16.13 Feb 0.39 5.0% 29.80 0.16 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 0.01 16.15 __ Mar 1.10 5.0% 29.80 0.46 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.14 16.28 Apr 1.72 7.0% 29.80 0.80 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 0.13 16.42 May 2.48 16.0% 29.80 1.71 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 0.76 17.18 rn at Jun 1.76 13.0% 29.80 1.08 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (0.12) 17.06 - w Jul 1.13 12.0% 29.80 0.67 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.57) 16.49 > Aug 1.26 11.0% 29.80 0.71 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.38) 16.10 Sep 1.24 13.0% 29.80 0.76 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.00) 16.10 Oct 1.35 10.0% 29.80 0.73 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 0.26 16.36 Nov 0.67 5.0% 29.80 0.28 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 0.09 16.46 Dec 0.47 5.0% 29.80 0.20 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.11 16.57 Jan 0.40 5.0% 29.80 0.17 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.09 16.66 Feb 0.39 5.0% 29.80 0.16 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 0.01 16.67 Mar 1.10 5.0% 29.80 0.46 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.14 16.81 Apr 1.72 7.0% 29.80 0.80 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 0.13 16.94 May 2.48 16.0% 29.80 1.71 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 0.76 17.70 trr 't Jun 1.76 13.0% 29.80 1.08 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (0.12) 17.58 - m Jul 1.13 12.0% 29.80 0.67 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.57) 17.01 Aug 1.26 11.0% 29.80 0.71 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.38) 16.63 Sep 1.24 13.0% 29.80 0.76 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.00) 16.63 Oct 1.35 10.0% 29.80 0.73 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 0.26 16.89 Nov 0.67 5.0% 29.80 0.28 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 0.09 16.98 Dec 0.47 5.0% 29.80 0.20 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.11 17.10 Jan 0.40 5.0% 29.80 0.17 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.09 17.18 Feb 0.39 5.0% 29.80 0.16 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 0.01 17.20 Mar 1.10 5.0% 29.80 0.46 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.14 17.33 Apr 1.72 7.0% 29.80 0.80 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 0.13 17.47 May 2.48 16.0% 29.80 1.71 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 0.76 18.22 in n Jun 1.76 13.0% 29.80 1.08 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (0.12) 18.11 - w Jul 1.13 12.0% 29.80 0.67 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.57) 17.53 > Aug 1.26 11.0% 29.80 0.71 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.38) 17.15 -- Sep 1.24 13.0% 29.80 0.76 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.00) 17.15 Oct 1.35 10.0% 29.80 0.73 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 0.26 17.41 Nov 0.67 5.0% 29.80 0.28 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 0.09 17.51 Dec 0.47 5.0% 29.80 0.20 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.11 17.62 Maximum Volume Pumped= - Average Volume in Pond= 16.44 Maximum Volume in Pond= 18.22 Precipitation for Longmont,CO,NOAA "SCS,National Engineering Handbook ""Evaporation for Longmont,CO,NOAA Busker Dairy -. Table 2:Stormwater Accumulation Calculation(Average Years)(East Area) Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= Pond Surface Area,ft'= 79,800 Evaporation Area,ft2= 61,494 1 Precip' Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Lake Evap Evap.Area Total Evap. Process-H20 Net Change Amt. Pumped Vol. In Lagoon Annual Pumped Month (inches) Runoff (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (inches)"' (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) Jan 0.40 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.06) 0.94 Feb 0.39 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.09) 0.85 Mar 1.10 5.0% 10.90 0.22 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.04) 0.81 Apr 1.72 7.0% 10.90 0.37 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.05) 0.76 _ May 2.48 16.0% 10.90 0.74 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.17 0.93 '° Jun 1.76 13.0% 10.90 0.48 5.80 1.41 0.68 (0.21SI ) 0.32 _ i Jul 1.13 12.0% 10.90 0.30 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.41) 0.32 Aug 1.26 11.0% 10.90 0.32 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.32) - Sep 1.24 13.0% 10.90 0.34 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.13) Oct 1.35 10.0% 10.90 0.33 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.00) - Nov 0.67 5.0% 10.90 0.13 1.60 1.41 0.19 - (0.06) - Dec 0.47 5.0% 10.90 0.09 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.05) - Jan 0.40 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.06) Feb 0.39 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.09) - Mar 1.10 5.0% 10.90 0.22 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.04) - Apr 1.72 7.0% 10.90 0.37 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.05) - N May 2.48 16.0% 10.90 0.74 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.17 0.17 u Jun 1.76 13.0% 10.90 0.48 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.21) _ to -1.13 12.0% 10.90 0.30 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.41) - Aug 1.26 11.0% 10.90 0.32 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.32) - Sep 1.24 13.0% 10.90 0.34 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.13) - Oct 1.35 10.0% 10.90 0.33 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.00) - Nov 0.67 5.0% 10.90 0.13 1.60 1.41 0.19 - (0.06) - Dec 0.47 5.0% 10.90 0.09 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.05) - Jan 0.40 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.06) - Feb 0.39 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.09) - Mar 1.10 5.0% 10.90 0.22 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.04) Apr 1.72 7.0% 10.90 0.37 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.05) _ oo May 2.48 16.0% 10.90 0.74 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.17 0.17 103 u Jun 1.76 13.0% 10.90 0.48 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.21) at Jul 1.13 12.0% 10.90 0.30 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.41) - Aug 1.26 11.0% 10.90 0.32 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.32) - Sep 1.24 13.0% 10.90 0.34 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.13) - Oct 1.35 10.0% 10.90 0.33 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.00) - Nov 0.67 5.0% 10.90 0.13 1.60 1.41 0.19 - (0.06) - Dec 0.47 5.0% 10.90 0.09 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.05) - Jan 0.40 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.06) - Feb 0.39 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.09) - Mar 1.10 5.0% 10.90 0.22 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.04) _ Apr 1.72 7.0% 10.90 0.37 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.05) - May 2.48 16.0% 10.90 0.74 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.17 0.17 * Jun 1.76 13.0% 10.90 0.48 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.21) } Jul 1.13 12.0% 10.90 0.30 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.41) - Aug 1.26 11.0% 10.90 0.32 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.32) - Sep 1.24 13.0% 10.90 0.34 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.13) _ Oct 1.35 10.0% 10.90 0.33 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.00) - Nov 0.67 5.0% 10.90 0.13 1.60 1.41 0.19 - (0.06) - Dec 0.47 5.0% 10.90 0.09 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.05) - Jan 0.40 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.06) - Feb 0.39 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.09) - Mar 1.10 5.0% 10.90 0.22 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.04) - Apr 1.72 7.0% 10.90 0.37 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.05) - N May 2.48 16.0% 10.90 0.74 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.17 0.17 # Jun 1.76 13.0% 10.90 0.48 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.21) to Jul 1.13 12.0% 10.90 0.30 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.41) - Aug 1.26 11.0% 10.90 0.32 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.32) - Sep 1.24 13.0% 10.90 0.34 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.13) - • Oct 1.35 10.0% 10.90 0.33 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.00) - Nov 0.67 5.0% 10.90 0.13 1.60 1.41 0.19 - (0.06) - Dec 0.47 5.0% 10.90 0.09 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.05) - Maximum Volume Pumped= - Average Volume in Pond= 0.10 Maximum Volume in Pond= 0.94 'Precipitation for Longmont,CO,NOAA "SCS,National Engineering Handbook —Evaporation for Longmont,CO,NOAA Busker Dairy Table 3:Stormwater/Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation(10-Wettest Years)(Main Dairy Area) Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= 2,200 Pond Surface Area,k'= 152,450 Evaporation Area,ft2= 126,232 15 Precip.* Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Lake Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process-H20 Net Change Amt.Pumped Vol. In Lagoon Annual Pumped Month (inches) Runoff (Acres) (Acre-Ft) (inches)"' (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft) Jan 0.26 5.0% 29,80 0.11 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.03 15.03 Feb 0.15 5.0% 29.80 0.06 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 (0.09) 14.94 Mar 0.71 5.0% 29.80 0.30 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 (0.03) 14.91 W Apr 1.35 7.0% 29.80 0.63 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 (0.04) 14.88 rn May 6.86 16.0% 29,80 4.73 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 3.78 18.65 C- Jun 1.21 13.0% 29.80 0.74 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (0.45) 18.20 ak Jul 0.52 12.0% 29.80 0.31 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.93) 17,26 w Aug 1.35 11.0% 29,80 0.76 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.33) 16.93 ? Sep 0.11 13.0% 29.80 0.07 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.70) 16.24 Oct 2.14 10.0% 29.80 1.16 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 0.69 16.93 Nov 0.04 5.0% 29.80 0.02 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 (0.17) 16.76 Dec 0.88 5.0% 29.80 0.37 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.29 17.04 Jan 0.27 5.0% 29.80 0.11 1.20 2.90 0,29 0.21 0.03 17.08 Feb 0.26 5.0% 29.80 0.11 1.40 2,90 0.34 0.19 (0.04) 17.03 Mar 1.51 5.0% 29.80 0.63 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.31 17.34 Apr 1.94 7.0% 29.80 0.90 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 0.24 17.58 m May 4.31 16.0% 29.80 2.97 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 2.02 19.60 Jun 2.52 13.0% 29.80 1.55 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 0.35 19.95 CV Jul 0.48 12.0% 29.80 0.28 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.96) 18.99 a Aug 3.99 11.0% 29.80 2.25 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 1.16 20.15 > Sep 0.74 13.0% 29.80 0.45 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.31) 19.84 Oct 0.85 10.0% 29.80 0.46 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 (0.01) 19.83 Nov 1.92 5.0% 29.80 0.80 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 0.61 20.45 Dec 1.47 5.0% 29.80 0.61 1.20 2.90 0.29 0,21 0.53 20.98 Jan 1.13 5.0% 29.80 0.47 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.39 21.37 Feb 0.62 5.0% 29.80 0.26 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 0.11 21.48 - Mar 1.12 5.0% 29.80 0.47 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.14 21.62 o Apr 2.04 7.0% 29.80 0.95 3.60 2.90 0.87 0,20 0.28 0.20 21.70 rn May 4,25 16.0% 29.80 2.93 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 1.98 2.00 21.68 M Jun 0.04 13.0% 29.80 0.02 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (1.17) 20.51 2.20 u Jul 0.72 12.0% 29.80 0.42 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.82) 19.69 m Aug 0.93 11.0% 29.80 0.53 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.57) 19.12 r Sep 0.52 13.0% 29.80 0.32 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.44) 18.68 Oct 0.75 10.0% 29.80 0.40 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 (0.06) 18.62 Nov 0.15 5.0% 29.80 0.06 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 (0.12) 18.50 Dec 0.12 5.0% 29.80 0.05 1.20 2.90 0.29 0,21 (0.03) 18.46 Jan 0.17 5.0% 29.80 0.07 1.20 2.90 0,29 0.21 (0.01) 18.46 Feb 0.22 5.0% 29.80 0.09 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 (0.06) 18.40 Mar 2.34 5.0% 29.80 0.97 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.65 19.05 Apr 0.96 7.0% 29.80 0.45 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 (0.22) 18.83 m May 3.17 16.0% 29.80 2.18 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 1.23 20.06 Jun 0.28 13.0% 29.80 0.17 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (1.03) 19.04 Nu. Jul 0.95 12.0% 29,80 0.56 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.68) 18.36 w Aug 0.73 11.0% 29.80 0.41 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.68) 17.68 Sep 0.87 13.0% 29.80 0.53 4.00 2.90 0.97 0,20 (0.23) 17.45 Oct 0.28 10.0% 29.80 0.15 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 (0.32) 17.13 Nov 0.10 5.0% 29.80 0.04 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 (0.14) 16.99 Dec 0.66 5.0% 29.80 0.27 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.19 17.18 Jan 0.09 5.0% 29.80 0.04 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 (0.04) 17.14 Feb 0.15 5.0% 29.80 0.06 1,40 2.90 0.34 0.19 (0.09) 17.05 Mar 0.31 5.0% 29.80 0.13 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 (0.19) 16.86 tv Apr 0.10 7.0% 29.80 0.05 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 (0.62) 16.24 es May 3.62 16.0% 29.80 2.49 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 1.54 17.78 C- Jun 2.38 13.0% 29.80 1.46 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 0.26 18.05 * Jul 1.58 12.0% 29.80 0.93 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.31) 17.74 w Aug 1.22 11.0% 29.80 0.69 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.41) 17.33 - } Sep 2.53 13.0% 29.80 1.55 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 0.79 18.13 Oct 0.81 10.0% 29.80 0.44 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 (0.03) 18.10 Nov 0.39 5.0% 29.80 0.16 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 (0.02) 18.07 Dec 1.57 5,0% 29.80 0.65 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.57 18.65 Busker Dairy _ Table 3:Stormwater/Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation(10-Wettest Years)(Main Dairy Area) Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPO= 2,200 Pond Surface Area,ft°= 152,450 Evaporation Area,ft'= 126,232 15 Precip." Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Lake Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process-H2O Net Change Amt.Pumped Vol. In Lagoon Annual Pumped Month (inches) Runoff (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (inches)*** (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-FL) Jan 0.01 5.0% 29.80 0.00 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 (0.08) 18.57 Feb 0.11 5.0% 29.80 0.05 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 (0.10) 18.47 Mar 4.69 5.0% 29,80 1.95 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 1.63 20.10 M Apr 1.33 7.0% 29.80 0.62 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 (0.05) 20.05 m May 4.94 16.0% 29,80 3.40 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 2.45 0.80 21.70 • Jun 2.68 13.0% 29.80 1.65 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 0.45 0.45 21.70 1.50 u Jul 2.52 12.0% 29.80 1.49 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 0.25 0.25 21.70 Lei Aug 1.25 11.0% 29.80 0.71 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.39) 21.31 • Sep 0.30 13.0% 29.80 0.18 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.58) 20.73 Oct 0.05 10.0% 29.80 0.03 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 (0.44) 20.29 Nov 2.46 5.0% 29.80 1.02 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 0.84 21.13 Dec 0.57 5.0% 29.80 0.24 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.16 21.28 Jan 0.54 5.0% 29.80 0.22 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.14 21.43 Feb 0.31 5.0% 29.80 0.13 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 (0.02) 21.41 Mar 1.38 5.0% 29.80 0.57 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.25 21.66 e Apr 1.83 7.0% 29.80 0.85 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 0.19 0.15 21.70 m May 0.53 16.0% 29.80 0.37 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 (0.58) 21.11 Jun 1.46 13.0% 29.80 0.90 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (0.30) 20.81 0.15 u Jul 2.09 12.0% 29.80 1.23 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.01) 20.80 m Aug 1.49 11.0% 29.80 0.84 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.25) 20.55 • Sep 0.32 13.0% 29.80 0.20 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.57) 19.98 Oct 2.79 10.0% 29.80 1.51 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 1.04 21.02 Nov 0.11 5.0% 29.80 0.05 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 (0.14) 20.88 Dec 0.33 5.0% 29.80 0.14 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.06 20.94 Jan 0.59 5.0% 29.80 0.25 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.16 21.11 Feb 0.37 5.0% 29.80 0.15 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 0.00 21.11 Mar 0.89 5.0% 29.80 0.37 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.05 21.16 N Apr 2.13 7.0% 29.80 0.99 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 0.32 21.48 rn May 0.80 16.0% 29.80 0.55 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 (0.40) 21.08 Jun 1.50 13.0% 29.80 0.92 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (0.28) 20.81 - co at Jul 1.62 12.0% 29.80 0.96 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.28) 20.52 v Aug 0.04 11.0% 29.80 0.02 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (1.07) 19.45 > Sep 1.40 13.0% 29.80 0.86 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 0.10 19.55 Oct 0.74 10.0% 29.80 0.40 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 (0.07) 19.48 Nov 1.73 5.0% 29.80 0.72 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 0.54 20.02 Dec 1.28 5.0% 29.80 0.53 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.45 20.47 Jan 0.04 5.0% 29.80 0.02 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 (0.06) 20.40 Feb 0.32 5.0% 29.80 0.13 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 (0.02) 20.39 Mar 0.73 5.0% 29.80 0.30 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 (0.02) 20.37 m Apr 3.61 7.0% 29.80 1.68 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 1.01 21.38 2 May 1.94 16.0% 29.80 1.34 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 0.39 0.10 21.67 Jun 1.56 13.0% 29.80 0.96 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 (0.24) 21.43 0.10 at Jul 0.89 12.0% 29.80 0.52 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.71) 20.72 m Aug 1.15 11.0% 29.80 0.65 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.45) 20.27 } Sep 0.76 13.0% 29.80 0.47 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.30) 19.97 Oct 1.61 10.0% 29.80 0.87 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 0.40 20.38 Nov 1.57 5.0% 29.80 0.65 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 0.47 20.85 Dec 0.34 5.0% 29.80 0.14 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.06 20.91 Jan 0.58 5.0% 29.80 0.24 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.16 21.07 Feb 1.45 5.0% 29.80 0.60 1.40 2.90 0.34 0.19 0.45 21.52 Mar 1.00 5.0% 29.80 0.42 2.20 2.90 0.53 0.21 0.09 21.62 mR. Apr 1.09 7.0% 29.80 0.51 3.60 2.90 0.87 0.20 (0.16) 21.46 m May 2.08 16.0% 29.80 1.43 4.80 2.90 1.16 0.21 0.48 0.25 21.69 o Jun 2.53 13.0% 29.80 1.55 5.80 2.90 1.40 0.20 0.36 0.35 21.70 0.60 a Jul 0.46 12.0% 29.80 0.27 6.00 2.90 1.45 0.21 (0.97) 20.73 to Aug 1.17 11.0% 29.80 0.66 5.40 2.90 1.30 0.21 (0.43) 20.29 > Sep 0.58 13.0% 29.80 0.36 4.00 2.90 0.97 0.20 (0.41) 19.89 Oct 0.88 10.0% 29.80 0.48 2.80 2.90 0.68 0.21 0.01 19.89 Nov 1.28 5.0% 29.80 0.53 1.60 2.90 0.39 0.20 0.35 20.24 Dec 1.73 5.0% 29.80 0.72 1.20 2.90 0.29 0.21 0.64 20.88 Maximum Volume Pumped= 2.20 Average Volume in Pond= 19.53 Maximum Volume in Pond= 21.70 Precipitation for Longmont,CO,NOAA "SCS,National Engineering Handbook ***Evaporation for Longmont,CO,NOAA Busker Dairy Table 4:Stormwater Accumulation Calculation(10-Wettest Years)(East Area) Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= Pond Surface Area.ft°= 79,800 Evaporation Area,ft'= 61,494 0 Amt.from East Amt.Pumped Volume In Precip.- Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Lake Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process-H20 Net Change Side to LA Area Lagoon Annual Pumped Month (inches) Runoff (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (inches)"' (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) Jan 0.26 5.0% 10.90 0.05 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.09) - - Feb 0.15 5.0% 10.90 0.03 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.13) - - Mar 0.71 5.0% 10.90 0.14 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.12) - - E Apr 1.35 7.0% 10.90 0.29 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.13) - - m May 6.86 16.0% 10.90 2.04 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 1.48 - 1.48 Jun 1.21 13.0% 10.90 0.33 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.35) - 1.12 - a Jul 0.52 12.0% 10.90 0.14 6.00 1.41 0.71 . (0.57) - 0.56 `m Aug 1.35 11.0% 10.90 0.34 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.29) - 0.26 >- Sep 0.11 13.0% 10.90 0.03 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.44) - - Oct 2.14 10.0% 10.90 0.52 2.80 1.41 0.33 - 0.19 - 0.19 Nov 0.04 5.0% 10.90 0.01 1.60 1.41 0.19 - (0.18) - 0.01 Dec 0.88 5.0% 10.90 0.17 1.20 1.41 0.14 - 0.03 - 0.04 Jan 0.27 5.0% 10.90 0.05 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.09) - - Feb 0.26 5.0% 10.90 0.05 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.11) - - Mar 1.51 5.0% 10.90 0.30 2.20 1.41 0.26 - 0.04 - 0.04 E Apr 1.94 7.0% 10.90 0.42 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.00) - 0.04 rn May 4.31 16.0% 10.90 1.28 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.72 - 0.76 Jun 2.52 13.0% 10.90 0.68 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.00) - 0.76 - 4t Jul 0.48 12.0% 10.90 0.13 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.58) - 0.18 A Aug 3.99 11.0% 10.90 1.01 5.40 1.41 0.64 - 0.37 - 0.55 >- Sep 0.74 13.0% 10.90 0.20 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.27) - 0.28 Oct 0.85 10.0% 10.90 0.21 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.12) - 0.16 Nov 1.92 5.0% 10.90 0.38 1.60 1.41 0.19 - 0.19 - 0.35 Dec 1.47 5.0% 10.90 0.29 1.20 1.41 0.14 - 0.15 - 0.50 Jan 1.13 5.0% 10.90 0.22 1.20 1.41 0.14 - 0.08 - 0.58 Feb 0.62 5.0% 10.90 0.12 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.04) - 0.54 Mar 1.12 5.0% 10.90 0.22 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.04) - 0.50 E, Apr 2.04 7.0% 10.90 0.44 3.60 1.41 0.42 - 0.02 0.20 0.72 m May 4.25 16.0% 10.90 1.27 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.70 2.00 1.00 2.42 Jun 0.04 13.0% 10.90 0.01 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.67) - 1.75 1.00 4t Jul 0.72 12.0% 10.90 0.19 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.52) - 1.23 m Aug 0.93 11.0% 10.90 0.23 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.40) - 0.83 >- Sep 0.52 13.0% 10.90 0.14 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.33) - 0.50 Oct 0.75 10.0% 10.90 0.18 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.15) - 0.36 Nov 0.15 5.0% 10.90 0.03 1.60 1.41 0.19 - (0.16) - 0.20 Dec 0.12 5.0% 10.90 0.02 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.12) - 0.08 Jan 0.17 5.0% 10.90 0.03 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.11) - - Feb 0.22 5.0% 10.90 0.04 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.12) - - Mar 2.34 5.0% 10.90 0.46 2.20 1.41 0.26 - 0.20 - 0.20 Apr 0.96 7.0% 10.90 0.21 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.22) - - m May 3.17 16.0% 10.90 0.94 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.38 - 0.38 `- Jun 0.28 13.0% 10.90 0.08 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.61) - - - A Jul 0.95 12.0% 10.90 0.25 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.46) - - m Aug 0.73 11.0% 10.90 0.18 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.45) - - >- Sep 0.87 13.0% 10.90 0.24 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.24) - - Oct 0.28 10.0% 10.90 0.07 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.26) - - Nov 0.10 5.0% 10.90 0.02 1.60 1.41 0.19 - (0.17) - - Dec 0.66 5.0% 10.90 0.13 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.01) - - Jan 0.09 5.0% 10.90 0.02 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.12) - - Feb 0.15 5.0% 10.90 0.03 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.13) - - Mar 0.31 5.0% 10.90 0.06 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.20) - - N Apr 0.10 7.0% 10.90 0.02 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.40) - - m May 3.62 16.0% 10.90 1.08 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.51 - 0.51 Jun 2.38 13.0% 10.90 0.64 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.04) - 0.48 - WI u Jul 1.58 12.0% 10.90 0.41 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.29) - 0.18 `m Aug 1.22 11.0% 10.90 0.31 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.33) - - >- Sep 2.53 13.0% 10.90 0.68 4.00 1.41 0.47 - 0.21 - 0.21 Oct 0.81 10.0% 10.90 0.20 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.13) - 0.08 Nov 0.39 5.0% 10.90 0.08 1.60 1.41 0.19 - (0.11) - - Dec 1.57 5.0% 10.90 0.31 1.20 1.41 0.14 - 0.17 - 0.17 Busker Dairy Table 4:Stormwater Accumulation Calculation(10-Wettest Years)(East Area) init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= Pond Surface Area,fls= 79,800 Evaporation Area,ft2= 61,494 0 Amt.from East Amt.Pumped Volume In Precip.• Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Lake Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process-H2O Net Change Side to L A.Area Lagoon Annual Pumped Month (inches) Runoff (Acres) (Acre-Ft) (inches)"- (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-FL) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) Jan 0.01 5.0% 10.90 0.00 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.14) - 0.03 Feb 0.11 5.0% 10.90 0.02 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.14) - - Mar 4.69 5.0% 10.90 0.93 2.20 1.41 0.26 - 0.67 - 0.67 Apr 1.33 7.0% 10.90 0.29 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.14) - 0.53 m May 4.94 16.0% 10.90 1.47 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.91 0.80 2.24 - Jun 2.68 13.0% 10.90 0.73 5.80 1.41 0.68 - 0.04 0.45 0.30 2.43 0.55 u Jul 2.52 12.0% 10.90 0.66 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.05) 0.25 0.25 2.39 ro Aug 1.25 11.0% 10.90 0.32 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.32) - 2.07 > Sep 0.30 13.0% 10.90 0.08 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.39) - 1.68 Oct 0.05 10.0% 10.90 0.01 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.32) - 1.36 Nov 2.46 5.0% 10.90 0.49 1.60 1.41 0.19 - 0.30 - 1.66 Dec 0.57 5.0% 10.90 0.11 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.03) - 1.63 Jan 0.54 5.0% 10.90 0.11 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.03) - 1.60 Feb 0.31 5.0% 10.90 0.06 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.10) - 1.50 Mar 1.38 5.0% 10.90 0.27 2.20 1.41 0.26 - 0.01 - 1.51 ✓ Apr 1.83 7.0% 10.90 0.40 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.03) 0.15 1.63 m May 0.53 16.0% 10.90 0.16 4.80 1.41 0.56 - (0.41) - 1.23 - Jun 1.46 13.0% 10.90 0.40 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.29) - 0.94 - a Jul 2.09 12.0% 10.90 0.55 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.16) - 0.78 m Aug 1.49 11.0% 10.90 0.38 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.26) - 0.52 >- Sep 0.32 13.0% 10.90 0.09 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.38) - 0.14 Oct 2.79 10.0% 10.90 0.68 2.80 1.41 0.33 - 0.35 - 0.49 Nov 0.11 5.0% 10.90 0.02 1.60 1.41 0.19 - (0.17) - 0.32 Dec 0.33 5.0% 10.90 0.07 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.08) - 0.24 Jan 0.59 5.0% 10.90 0.12 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.02) - 0.22 _ Feb 0.37 5.0% 10.90 0.07 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.09) - 0.13 - Mar 0.89 5.0% 10.90 0.18 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.08) - 0.05 ;c Apr 2.13 7.0% 10.90 0.46 3.60 1.41 0.42 - 0.04 - 0.08 rn May 0.80 16.0% 10.90 0.24 4.80 1.41 0.56 - (0.33) - - • Jun 1.50 13.0% 10.90 0.41 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.28) - - - a. Jul 1.62 12.0% 10.90 0.42 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.28) - - ra Aug 0.04 11.0% 10.90 0.01 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.63) - - >- Sep 1.40 13.0% 10.90 0.38 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.09) - - Oct 0.74 10.0% 10.90 0.18 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.15) - - Nov 1.73 5.0% 10.90 0.34 1.60 1.41 0.19 - 0.15 - 0.15 Dec 1.28 5.0% 10.90 0.25 1.20 1.41 0.14 - 0.11 - 0.27 Jan 0.04 5.0% 10.90 0.01 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.13) - 0.13 Feb 0.32 5.0% 10.90 0.06 1.40 1.41 0.16 - (0.10) - 0.03 Mar 0.73 5.0% 10.90 0.14 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.11) - - m Apr 3.61 7.0% 10.90 0.78 3.60 1.41 0.42 - 0.36 - 0.36 m May 1.94 16.0% 10.90 0.58 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.01 0.10 0.47 - Jun 1.56 13.0% 10.90 0.42 5.80 1.41 0.68 - (0.26) - 0.21 - u Jul 0.89 12.0% 10.90 0.23 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.47) - - w Aug 1.15 11.0% 10.90 0.29 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.34) - - >- Sep 0.76 13.0% 10.90 0.21 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.26) - - Oct 1.61 10.0% 10.90 0.39 2.80 1.41 0.33 - 0.06 - 0.06 Nov 1.57 5.0% 10.90 0.31 1.60 1.41 0.19 - 0.12 - 0.19 Dec 0.34 5.0% 10.90 0.07 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.07) - 0.11 Jan 0.58 5.0% 10.90 0.11 1.20 1.41 0.14 - (0.03) - 0.09 Feb 1.45 5.0% 10.90 0.29 1.40 1.41 0.16 - 0.12 - 0.21 Mar 1.00 5.0% 10.90 0.20 2.20 1.41 0.26 - (0.06) - 0.15 Pi Apr 1.09 7.0% 10.90 0.24 3.60 1.41 0.42 - (0.19) - - m May 2.08 16.0% 10.90 0.62 4.80 1.41 0.56 - 0.06 0.25 0.31 o- Jun 2.53 13.0% 10.90 0.68 5.80 1.41 0.68 - 0.00 0.35 0.66 - k Jul 0.46 12,0% 10.90 0.12 6.00 1.41 0.71 - (0.59) - 0.07 Aug 1.17 11.0% 10.90 0.30 5.40 1.41 0.64 - (0.34) - - ji Sep 0.58 13.0% 10.90 0.16 4.00 1.41 0.47 - (0.31) - - Oct 0.88 10.0% 10.90 0.21 2.80 1.41 0.33 - (0.12) - - Nov 1.28 5.0% 10.90 0.25 1.60 1.41 0.19 - 0.07 - 0.07 Dec 1.73 5.0% 10.90 0.34 1.20 1.41 0.14 - 0.20 - 0.27 Maximum Volume Pumped= 1.00 Average Volume in Pond= 0.43 Maximum Volume in Pond= 2.43 Precipitation for Longmont,CO,N0AA "SCS,National Engineering Handbook "'Evaporation for Longmont,CO,N0AA Busker Dairy Process Wastewater Production No. of Water Gallons/ Washes Volume Type of Use Wash per Day (GPD) Bulk Tank (Automatic Wash) 175 1 175 Pipeline in Parlor 200 3 600 Miscellaneous Equipment 50 3 150 Parlor Floor Wash 200 3 600 Milk Floor 75 3 225 Total Daily Flow(GPD) 1,750 Design Factor 1.3 Design Flow(GPD) 2,200 Annual Flow(Acre-Feet) 2.46 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 08.08.2001 Appendix C • Colorado State University References • Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 12 Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization Bulletin 568A CoJute FxrPmm Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization Livestock manure and effluents are rich in plant available nutrients which can be valuable assets to crop producers. However, they also can be a source of both ground and surface water contamination if handled improperly. Livestock manure contains significant quantities of N, P, and K, and smaller amounts of nutrients such as Ca, Mg, Mn, Zn, Cu, and S. Manure that is properly applied to cropland increases soil fertility, improves soil physical properties, and saves fertilizer costs. Liquid effluents are composed primarily of water and have less This publication is intended to impact on soil physical properties, but they also contain nutrients and other provide general recommendations constituents that must be managed properly. and BMPs to assist in the sound The primary constituents of animal waste that may cause water quality management of animal waste as problems include pathogenic organisms, nitrate, ammonia, phosphorous, salts, a nutrient source for crops. These heavy metals, and organic solids. Nitrate (NO3) is the most common ground BMPs are necessarily general, as water pollutant from fields that receive excessive rates of manure. Ground water they cover operations utilizing monitoring has shown that NO3 contamination can be a problem in the vicinity manure from a variety of feeding of confined livestock feeding operations. Runoff from feedlots or manured fields operations. This document is not can also degrade the quality of surface water. In Colorado, state law prohibits any direct discharge of manure or animal intended to establish guidance to wastewater to either surface or ground water. Concentrated swine operations are meet any specific regulatory subjected to air and water quality provisions that among other things, require program in Colorado governing an approved nutrient management plan as a component of the operating permit. the application of animal waste These nutrient management plans are used to document that confined feeding and is not a substitute for corn- operations apply wastes at agronomic rates and in a manner which does not pliance with local, state or adversely impact air or water quality. The Colorado Confined Animal Feeding federal regulations. Table values Operations Control Regulation mandates that producers who confine and feed an for manure characterization given average of 1000 or more "animal units" for at least 45 days per year ensure that in the document are for planning no water quality impacts occur by collecting and properly disposing of animal purposes in lieu of documented manures, as well as stormwater runoff. Smaller feeding operations that directly site-specific values. discharge into state waters or are located in hydrologically sensitive areas may also fall under this regulation. Animal feeding operations are directed to employ Best Management'Practices (BMPs) to protect state waters. Nutrient Management Planning Sound management practices are essential to maximize the agronomic and economic benefits of manure while reducing the risk of adverse environmental consequences. Livestock producers do not intentionally put water quality at risk. The problems that occur are usually a result of inattention due to the need to focus limited management time on herd health and production. Virtually every regulatory and voluntary manure management approach now calls for producers to develop a Nutrient Management Plan. This plan documents approximately how much manure is produced and how it will be managed. At the core of these plans is the concept that manure will be applied at "agronomic rates" to crop lands. 1 ecable Yl1n The agronomic rate is a nutrient application rate �g .Iritjquiva e ,.. s ,nos ' based upon a field-specific estimate of crop needs and sir b ` , st, �Sr �„:••• • s (iii ;, �_ an accounting of all N and P available to that crop prior to manure (and/or fertilizer) application. Implicit Factor,NO- .g fi( within the agronomic rate concept is an application Slaughter and feed Cattle aiP rate that does not Lead to unacceptable nutrient losses. The agronomic rate is not something that can be directly obtained from a textbook or tables. Rather, it must be evaluated for each farm and field. Knowledge of manure or effluent nutrient content and residual soil nutrients is critical to determining how much can be safely applied so that the agronomic rate is not ex- ceeded. While producers were encouraged in the past to fertilize for maximum crop yields, now they must also consider the environmental risk of nutrient losses in determining how much manure to apply. By knowing the relationship between manure nutrient content, residual soil nutrients, and crop needs, wise decisions can be made such as where to spread manure, how much to spread, and on which nutrient to base the application rate. Long-range planning is fundamental to optimizing manure benefits while minimizing environmental concerns. The basic elements of a nutrient manage- ment plan are: 1. Estimates of manure and waste water production on the farm 2. Farm maps which identify manure stockpiles and lagoons, potential applica- tion sites and sensitive resource areas 3. Cropping information and rotation sequence 4. Soil, plant, water, and manure analyses 5. Realistic crop yield expectations 6. Determination of crop nutrient needs 7. Determination of available nutrient credits 8. Recommended manure rates, timing, and application methods 9. Plans for operation and maintenance of manure storage and utilization. Documentation of any manure to be sold, given away, or used for purposes other than as a soil amendment. If animal feed rations are modified to reduce nutrient content or volume of the waste as part of the management strategy, this also should be documented as part of the waste management plan. Advances have been made in recent years in feed formulation for reducing N and P excretion without reducing rate of gain. The "ideal protein concept" is a feeding method for monogastrics in which crude protein levels are reduced and amino acids are supplemented in order to reduce N excretion. For reduction of phosphorus excretion, adding phytase to the diet has been shown to increase P availability to hogs and chickens. Most of the research on nutritional approaches to reducing manure nutrient excretion has been done on monogastrics, but research is in progress on cattle feeding methods for this purpose. 2 Nutrient management plans are no longer just a good idea: they are essential for documenting proper stewardship and regulatory compliance. This publication is designed to help producers develop their own nutrient manage- ment plans in a relatively simple format. However, technical assistance is also available to producers from their local Certified Crop Adviser (CCA), Cooperative Extension agent or USDA NRCS conservationist. Manure Handling and Storage Livestock feedlots, manure stockpiles, runoff storage ponds, and treatment lagoons represent potential point sources of ground water contamination. Research has shown that active feedlots develop a compacted manure/soil layer, which acts as a seal to prevent leaching. When cleaning pens, it is very impor- tant to avoid disturbing this seal. Workers need to be trained to correctly use manure loading machinery to maintain a manure pack on the surface. In addition to maintaining the integrity of the "hard pan" under feedlot pens, it is critical to create and maintain a smooth pen surface that facilitates proper drainage and runoff collection. Pens should be designed with a 3 percent to 5 percent slope for optimum drainage. Low spots and rough surfaces should be filled and smoothed during pen cleaning. Abandoned feedlots have a Large potential to cause NO3 leaching as the surface seal cracks and deteriorates. For this reason, pens need to be thoroughly - cleaned and scraped down to bare earth prior to abandonment. Revegetation of the old pens is also important to help absorb excess soil nutrients and prevent erosion. Manure stockpiles should be located a safe distance away (at least 150 ft.) from any water supply and above the 100-year flood plain unless flood proofing measures are provided. Grass filter strips or sediment basins can be used to reduce solids and nutrients in runoff. For land with a slope of greater than 1 percent, plant a strip of a dense, sod-forming grass such as smooth brome or pubescent wheatgrass at Least 20 to 50 feet wide around the downhill side of any feedlot or manure stockpile to filter potential contaminants in runoff water. More precise filter strip seeding recommendations may be obtained from the local USDA-NRCS office. Liquid Effluent and Runoff Collection and Storage Storm water and wastewater runoff from feedlots can Liquid waste holding structure contain high concentrations of nutrients, salts, pathogens, and oxygen-demanding organic matter. Preventing storm water from passing across the feedlot surface by installing terraces or diver- "` —= sion channels above the feedlot is a BMP that can significantly reduce the volume of wastewater. Decreasing the active lot area can also help reduce the contaminants moved by storm water. _ - The criteria for waste water treatment lagoons and holding — ponds is stricter than for runoff containment ponds. Runoff containment ponds are necessary for Large feeding operations to hold excess wastewater until it can be land applied or evaporated. These should be constructed on fine-textured soils (such as silty clays, clay foams, or clay) with a lining of soil compacted to a 1 minimum thickness of 12 inches with an additional 18-30 inches of soil cover above the compacted soil. On coarse textured or sandy soils it may be necessary to import bentonite day or use synthetic liners or concrete. Seepage is required to be less than 0.25 inch/day if the pond contains runoff only. However, if the pond stores process wastewater, the seepage requirement is 0.03 inch/day. New holding facilities must be designed to contain the runoff from a 25-year, 24- hour storm event and should be located above the 100-year flood plain and at least 150 feet down gradient from any well. Do not site storage ponds or treatment lagoons in areas with a high water table (within 10 ft. of the bottom of the pond). The local USDA-NRCS office can provide help with pond or lagoon design. Manure Treatment There are numerous options for treating or processing manure such as composting, solid separation, aeration, anaerobic digestion, and constructed wetlands. A growing number of producers have become interested in manure treatment systems as a way to reduce volume and odor and enhance the value and acceptance of manure. Careful evaluation of the economic feasibility of a manure treatment system and discussion with a professional engineer is recommended before implementing a new treatment system. II Composting is a biological process in which microorganisms . "" F` ^•. I convert organic materials, such as manure, into a soil-like mate- c, I ' rial. During composting, some N is lost from the manure as NH3 gas. Most of the remaining N is tied up within stable organic compounds which will become slowly available to plants after soil - •, - application. Composted manure has less odor and is easier to haul a_ and store than raw manure because the volume and weight can be :. .• T reduced by as much as 50 percent. c. " ` . Solid separation is a viable treatment for wastewater from Cleaning pens milking parlors or hog operations. Settling basins or vibrating screens are used to remove solids from the wastewater resulting in reduced odor and less lagoon loading. This treatment requires an investment in equipment and maintenance, but improves the ease of handling the wastewater. Aeration of wastewater storage ponds increases the oxygen level in waste- water and reduces odors. Aeration can be achieved through mechanical means or through gas exchange with the air in large, shallow ponds. The disadvantages of aeration include high energy costs for mechanical aeration and additional maintenance expense. Anaerobic digestion is another treatment option in which manure is digested to produce energy for farm use or possibly for sale to a local power company. This treatment can require a large start-up investment and high maintenance, but significantly reduces manure odors because the treatment vessel is enclosed to capture gases. Maintenance costs can be offset by the use of the energy produced by the combustion of the gases. Constructed wetlands can be a useful manure treatment option because of high nutrient use of wetland plants and the denitrification process which transforms nitrate into gaseous nitrogen forms. The disadvantages include 4 - construction costs, the need for solid separation prior to wetland treatment, and the need to manage the wastewater discharged from the wetland. Developing a Nutrient Management Plan INMPI Worksheets to help develop a nutrient management plan can be found near the end of this publication. They are provided as a starting place to help producers establish sound manure management. Developing a plan is just the beginning. Implementation of the plan and follow up are required to best manage your operation. NMP Section 1. Nutrient and land Inventory Producers should start by calculating an estimate of total annual manure production at their operation so that they can determine how much ,p y.� cropland is needed for long term , , r application. There are several ways s. = ,•y 7. to develop this information; one <�. �� •. s r- �:"1' Y. �' method is described in the steps 1.= r,," below. Another method is to , - " actually weigh the manure removed • 4-; z? 'µ s e I': �, during pen cleaning. If your land x"^' base is inadequate to safely utilize ' 1 - s the total nutrients produced, arrangements should be made to apply the manure off-site. Steps for determining nutrient • ' , • ' inventory from manure production ? ' i� ` 4.. include: 1. Determine the average weight and number of livestock kept annually at the facility. 2. Determine annual manure .. production on a per animal 4' ;Ye- basis. (Tables 2 and 3 give - 12S estimates on an AU basis.) + ' ! 6 Rr �� ,.'` _. 1 - - i7- Y 3. Multiply average annual manure x. { production times average " number of animals to get total Boar Poi -xi " -- 2 ' manure production. Layer y .. a I. } Use manure analysis or Table 4 •••....;„_•••••e"”•-- 4. y z n , _ r to estimate nutrient content of Pullet b - Broiler manure. - 5. Multiply total manure production Turkey. 18.2 • ,�. by nutrient content per unit of Morse 14':1 • manure to determine annual Sheep 14.5 31 l_ nutrient production. luSs+area 193• r ante • k or r vt 'r7. � ? 1 nmrate- age feee } c k 5 r' ,d xtw ri . - ' Total all manure nutrients from the various sources tar . lagtndswine ad `+) f k on your farm to get an estimate of farm total nutrient a production (Worksheet 1 is provided at the end of this ASaMt`!W,yjrlar document as a template for these records). This figure :t.r4X4O ,..�; x E h ,.�, s,,vr�., ,.,� tau �' will be compared to estimated crop utilization figures yr r "r t � " on Worksheet 3. �" Estimating the volume of liquid swine manure • produced at large confined feeding facilities is con- ::- a founded by the addition of fresh water to the system for , • flushing waste from the animal housing units. Docu- a mented, operation-specific numbers or Table 3 can be used to estimate the volume of swine manure produc- lion on a liquid basis. To estimate total uid waste liquid c' 'hum ers ,•:.r.-, i>'�'.�- ` rsMrm�terrt. �„ q K 4 'c h '* r{ , _ YL • water available for land application, add the volume of fresh water used for flushing purposes to the calculated manure volume. This should give you total wastewater volume (excluding runoff) before any evaporation or digestion occurs. Evapora- tion figures for Colorado are available from local USDA-NRCS offices. ter; `i z <a 41. , ," a'•a - 1- 7t1P- Z.: .ors• r Str £"to y.N" t talculation 1. Estimation of total annual nutrient production froth a solid manure handling system._,_ Eampie 1af BeefFeedtot Mont 4 e J'- >� - F'^"Examplefeedlot has 2500,head on average year round the tattle come in weighing 500,•lbs each and leave r -4. �. «x,.�- � `L`' _ ,,.,.,w,jdvr. ea fl Yem ,y F, o c. •y: rd. t _ < �y G.. f . 4 livrg X200 b5 tRa l.1�ar _.. '" Step i Calculate average animal wer ht aa'f.�/��y`4y^ryyy�J+y"'x $}a' 4M1�.{JV V � p va bl T'�� ^fS' a-1.. !'. ,t.4 -v us{- S 4,a'} za5'ka 2 1�-'i n z fw k`iti� - .z•.4: :. Step 2 0btarn tabl value for manure rbdu on, f •U:N � p � ' •" ne da r100.4�`l s oi'a cep 7.9 ;2J1ergY rii . ,.' 'a"a '..1..A.,. ..+r•3f. a Fr t "� -i1`D Y'„ Step) Calcu to total annual manureproddu ono.opera ontC r � g ys Muttip1y1tat alue4 a oge nn may ht4mded V << ry �T r 8 lb/day/2000 b �fianimaix 856ll i - Olt matmrg layfammal u "� u r ;n4t,i,'..,,'Z'C 3° t tY •�Kf`a�...ri'•4'@f °r F`f•4'A,v r' 'l �. c ,.w '+s q-fC,,t� •�'ra ,`�F�s+�.. • • MLthptybytheum€ go&n eed e o � �r� er`� ��',,-��`� ��•;-..z. ° •$ , T4 tbs manure/dayxc 365 day jyear-2,700•lbs manure/year/animal • � • i :Muttip600, rm e'acya r ,.12,7001bs gnantiear.3 25003"ead- 6,750,it0{i" `ananurefyear a. z „c„4�.h.ovt i• s .a z . 'ice, ^X {"Y4a' a 71 ' l'V�'�h ,r",h°t p x r k Convert lbs to.tons dfvndrn m � ` a z ..,sr:�, •�' ' "Ss .`�' rSi`i+ +C -ki �t fr s;' a sto4 ""6750 000bs manure /year 3S₹ons irianure/yept ` — f f - ' _.� ate., ,.�� .,., ,� . . Step 4 Obtain manure analysis. Table 4):= 41: 23 W N/ton fi, 243b 3' 0 /toA z v t ' r: s.. _:' .2 5,..a,.... fro.•,.-4 .�,_. ` �r .. Step 5: Calculate-total annual-nutrient production: 231b:1N/ton x 3375 tons/yr .-77,6251b.=N/yr 24 lb. P203./ton x375.tons/yr--81,0001b. P2Ojyr 6 Calculation lb. Estimation of nutrient production from a liquid manure handling system. Example 1b:Swine Liquid Waste Example feeding operation has 5000 head on average year-round. The pigs come in weighing 50 lbs. each and leave weighing 250 lbs. each. They are fed a grain diet. Step 1: Calculate average animal weight (50 + 250)/2 = 150 lbs./head Step 2: . Obtain table value for liquid waste production (Table 3) 7.5 gal/day/1000 Lbs. of animal. Step 3: Calculate total annual manure production for the operation Multiply table value by average animal weight divided by 1000. 7.5 gal/day/1000 lbs. of animal x 150 lbs. - 1.125 gal manure/day/animal • Multiply by the number of days on feed/year. 1.125 gal manure/day x 365 days/year- 410 gal manure/year/animal Multiply by the number of head fed/year. 410 gal manure/year x 5000 pigs a 2,050,000 gal manure/year. Convert to 1000 gal by dividing by 1000. 2.050.000 gal manure/year= 2,050 thousand gal manure/year 1000 gal Step 4: Obtain liquid manure analysis (Table 4): 36 lb. N/1000 gal 27 lb. P2O5/1000 gal Step 5: Calculate total annual nutrient production: 36 lb.N/1000 gal x 2,050 thousand gat/year= 73,800 lb. N/yr. 27 lb. P205/1000 gal x 2,050 thousand gal/year 55,350 lb. P205/yr Step 6: Adjust for N loss as ammonia from system (Table 5) 73,800 lb. N/yr. x 50% volatilization - 36,900 lb. N/yr. Determining land Needs for tong Term Manure utoizatiun One of the first steps in developing a long term nutrient management plan is to determine if adequate land is available for utilization of the manure and effluent produced. If the land base is determined to be inadequate, arrange- ments must be made to reduce manure production or find alternatives to over- application. To estimate the minimum land base required, you need to know the annual manure production of your facility and have a manure sample analyzed for total N, P, and K. Then calculate the best estimate of annual nutrient removal on a per acre basis. For this calculation, use conservative estimates of annual crop nutrient removal and assume that all N and P in the manure is crop available unless you are using liquid effluents with known N volatilization rates. Total manure production divided by acceptable application rates (tons or gallons per acre) will give an estimate of the land base needed for safe manure utiliza- tion (Calculation 2). This is not the same calculation as is used for determining the agronomic rate of application for a specific field for a specific year. 1 m yr, ` y� Total N in manure is used to !?tt e 4 u�l -?1 flta£ ' '•i i•' 4 d• r r '€1 :e;y calculate an estimate of safe long At Ilur 3 y iH 4 x r i r TV', • term solid manure application kr. •f _ 77, 'sf.. s V 1 }, 0. rate because all of the applied N y z�j . that is not lost to leaching or trr' • + volatilization will eventually become available to the crop. J • Liquid wastes such as swine 3 ' • 4 effluent can have a large loss k t - component due to ammonia '. volatilization. Long term planning { j 4-*; for effluent applications should _. • . include conservative volatilization estimates to allow for uncertainty -- -. and lower than expected crop i nutrient uptake (See Table 5). .: } ; 4 Phosphorus lased Manure Plaeoied While manure applications in Colorado are most often based on Iry —q Av-� ` crop N needs, in certain situa- 4;17:-:11. { • r- it ' .eie ? O4,,i E,u 7 ' a � • • ! r 8 • mom'y � tions it is more appropriate to <;n-w Y rt•� base manure rates on crop P •,•r►� , '• " ra ice. • l requirement and manure P con- Dairy tent. Phosphorus is known to tom?, =s• - .� ° ^ cause surface water degradation, Poultry a even at very low concentrations. • Ammonia fraction ""` '' �9 w When P from runoff enters lakes planning purposes ogly� o accurately d, S'`� and streams, it accelerates the pLien"" ,arc r growth of algae and other aquatic b Application conversion factor 1ti�1�00`gaPz'2715—lb./acre inch. 2nclirdes'runoff water. weeds. As these plants flourish, • *These values are•deti ed'from the USDA Agricultural Waste Management field Handbook, 1992 oxygen and light become limiting —.woe iv rh_ A bmnik pt� a t -. r •u a e "3?tF"o ;•. t. to the survival of more desirable species and the natural food • chain is disrupted. Excessive manure applications to cropland have been shown to result in P movement to water and subsequent degradation. Manure management plans should consider P loading when runoff from a field is likely to enter sensitive water bodies. In addition, if the soil test shows that extractable P is in the "high" or "very high" range and P movement is likely, manure should be applied at rates based on crop P removal. For planning purposes, all of the P in the manure should be considered crop available in these cases. The consequence of P based management for a producer is that more land is required to safely utilize the manure. Site Assessmtut The final aspect of the land and resource inventory is an assessment of the manure storage and utilization sites. Site maps of the farm and feeding opera- tion are an important part of any nutrient management plan. Obtain aerial maps 1 from your local NRCS office or develop your own maps if necessary. Identify manure storage facilities, fields receiving manure, and any wells, surface water or shallow ground water. These maps can help you identify sensitive resource areas such as surface water bodies that might receive runoff from your farm. Appropriate BMPs such as buffer areas, set backs, reduced application rates, or application timing limitations may be identified as a part of these maps. To determine the pollution potential at your site, the following questions need to be considered: Manure and wastewater storage site evaluation 1. Is the soil texture coarse (sandy with low amounts of clay).. 2. Is the depth to ground water less than 50 feet in the t: r vicinity of manure storage? 5zkiti F,f ry z, 3. Have recent well water analyses indicated that local ground water NO3-N levels are increasing? � •�' 4. Is the horizontal distance of the feedlot to surface water • bodies (creeks, ponds, drainage ditches, etc.) or wellheads less than 150 feet? 5. Does runoff from the feedlot surface leave your property? -' 6. Does seepage from runoff storage ponds exceed .25 in/ f" day? fict _ 7. Does seepage from lagoons exceed .03 in/day? Very .q-d. ",- 8. Is manure stored within the 100 year flood plain? . .xxr 9. Do runoff storage ponds lack the capacity to handle runoff e-gro volumes from a 25 year, 24-hour storm? Manure utilization site evaluation 1. Do you tack sufficient land to use all of the nutrients in manure produced on your farm? �ayf v .- 2. Do any fields receiving manure havegreater than a 1% a; CalculatronT2,'Detennmir Viand a ":ion slope and tittle surface residue? term Manure atspo al5ased 3. Do any fields have a history of more than 5 consecutive w•.A r..§. ' `"�' years of manure application? Exam feedlot�ppiiat � 4. Is excess water from irrigation or precipitation available vested4forgrain Average. me.�s; " for runoff or teaching? Usmg-estiMatedirrelovallmtirt a 1e ° 5. Is manure applied at rates greater than the agronomic Caleiilataortatdetast ` °a� rate? 1)Trop matrrerrtaemoval,;. jf a 6. Is there surface water or a well immediately downhill from 37S-bu comjacrex 56•ib any field which receives manure? -grain/acre?on harvestdneditasi c _. 7. Has it been more than one year since you soil sampled to 3;1306- t sjram/actek•1 69`tl /f ed' determine nutrient levels in fields where manure will be gram 158ib ,N emoved/acre f' applied? 2)4.and needs9 from Calculataon,3p , If the answer to any one of these questions is yes, or if 77,625 ilic.11 from manure.erbdOetit40581b. you are unsure about the answer, manure storage or applica- N removed Jacre-.491acre metnmumlagd tion at your site may degrade water quality. The local USDA- base NRCS office can help you answer questions you are unsure about. Your nutrient management plan should address any 'Tfu'sulculationdoesnotiietermmetfieagronomrc-rattof application because it assumes nowolatt'Iualaon at#ring- problem areas identified in the questions above. Manure rates or other N tosses or medics. 4 ^'vim may need to be adjusted downward and all appropriate BMPs . employed where water resources i ab - •' d ,--vi �� :- FYI }A 4 �i, g ; I" F--^, > _� i ^� ^r � 7-", are at risk. Additionally, it may be t], �, • . 1.-.4'..1--2L:41a " e. F f , helpful to periodically test wells ;yj c ;,,,I ti:. - ' near Livestock operations and ae t � ��c�r'e r i. , . manured fields for NO3 and A /. --- r• °-r A 4- i , r .;'{1-�kI ` t„ k. bacterial contamination to determine if management prac- . ;y; i; tices are sufficiently protecting ' water quality. ` • . NMP Section 2. Determination ` • of Agronomic Rates for Crop Production s ` Determine agronomic rate of — manure or effluent application for c : each field by assessing crop nutrient needs, available nutrient r ••,a, , r_ • credits, and nutrients in the manure. Worksheet 2 at the end a-. •c ` ' of this document is provided as a r : ,;-• • template for this portion of your ` n "- •, - �{ j � ,�• nutrient management plan. Fill ., A. '; out one copy of Worksheet 2 for each field. An explanation of each n section is provided below. 1 field Information • w�sA4 . Each field has specific ee 115 ` I 1 a. ; T,.J a nutrient requirements that will i F' M '''''‘.4? F Y t ,, . ,.,4s••ar „ ,•• t -e , vary from year to year. Begin your ' a x • ' � determination of agronomic rates r ' ' sr^ ... gM by filling out 1 copy of Worksheet Sr ,,,r. '" or • ` - 2 for each field that receives Brome t -,, -- g ' � •..`-^�"�" -- manure. Note the soil texture or Alfalfa grass " rK . kc'.m xW . . -�i�r,... s- ;r ii soil name of each field. Sandy Littl'e-bti ester eee soils may require special consider- L„,Qtchbrdgrassss _44-4 l'.....:=-„, •15 , ',4,..;-. :- ation to avoid nutrient Leaching. RedadoteL. . --‘;3#ons 216- Clay soils may be more prone to L. iee -canarygrass__ "_ ' 4`taris- 1.4 0.18"' runoff. These considerations are . F-Lityegrass:- ,,,ark;,-• 4tons:.. v13• 4121 - ' important in a sound nutrient " .'•`4 .-.. `T'!""0r7*- Li.,. aF management plan. Previous crop 1, in- r-: z '- Nr ..-�._ grown is important because you _--Timoth " , > `v` r-" may need to add more nutrients Wheatg : :err/: , t> . ' to help with residue breakdown or d from the USDA Agricultura s =- Management field Handbook. less nutrients due to N-fixation, depending on the rotation a = a I. , s-. sequence. Manure applications icRi from the previous year can also 11 upply significant amounts of = K ��, ` a nutrients in the current year due Tab . fan - µ % � inc f.,-, -1'.- ''i •- Y,-;:!,-.7.1/2,_' -f 3, to the mineralization process. Tocr°�cIF-',.„4 _complete your records, attach the qtr°, 1 , ,�wr. yA7 I ' , most recent soil and manure ,++ ,. is ` c,,a,-i ,a, ltd' L . ` ^,, I . Y analysis reports to the field s -°` v -- " , ` ; F information sheet. $41,e r"r -, ;/':: f-,< t ,rrx 5 "f < fi . Soil, manure,water and Plant Sampling , 7F,r , '_,t' and Analysis `:` ' - A current soil test is needed ) "� a '"`{' a ' ;2teilr,+' ::.? , Fa 1 -*r r for each field receiving manure or s e' ;, w =+`; s ka`` ` iij r, F , effluent to determine residual soil k n ti y�i « Fr r s tit [t z ;. NO extractable P and soil e ,, ',,._ organic matter content. Soil '- "w' ' .. ` < d ', ,, sampling for agronomic rate J determination should occur once , Xy� - � ', a year. More frequent sampling t "mss may be needed to track N utiliza- `� -' lion and movement in the soil ...`1,:'-:1;11;",;_,:_,, rxicir ; r profile. Shallow soil samples (1 foot or less) are needed to R l€4aRiMaTr7 �, ` . 9' a CI evaluate crop P, K and other s ?M° -f.o- � a nutrient needs. Deeper rootzone s a' + e soil samples (generally 4 to 6 ft. 'r deep) should be collected after Cele { ` w+ `a r crop harvest and prior to any Cu manure or effluent application to ` evaluate residual soil NO . Soil Onions Lettuce ( a` ° ' . ,_; "a r•?, �f'. . = i �,�I_ 3.7 r sampling below the active . l Peas rootzone (>6 ft. for most annua - Potatoes 14 0.3 crops, >10 ft. for hay crops) may be needed occasionally to docu- Snaplieans 3 0.9 0.26 ment that nutrients are not Sweet corn 6 0.9 0 24 leaving the crop rootzone. To get -4-4,44,0.6,0.:10,4.-heliSD -lcaltuta _ a good, representative soil , F E p•. „n,_, y •• Nutnerge°rrte rrc3,;. sample, it is recommended that a cutrief e ` ^ ' minimum of 1 soil core per 10 -.�- acres or at least 10 cores on fields 40 acres or smaller be collected to form the composite sample for each depth increment. Samples should be thoroughly mixed and either air-dried or delivered to the lab immediately. In situations where effluent or manure is applied in the fail after crop _ harvest, NH, in the animal waste may not be converted to NO3 prior to spring soil sampling. Additionally, fields with long manure histories may also have a significant amount of NH4 in the rootzone due to increased mineralization rates. NH, is available to crops and should be credited as part of the N budget in these particular situations. 11 Manure is an extremely variable " t4. " r `ri' material whether in solid or liquid form. A representative manure sample is critical for a reliable analysis. A mini- " ' mum of six sub-samples should be taken and mixed together for analysis. When sampling a solid manure stock- Cn pile, remove the crust, and use a bucket .,,. auger or a sharpshooter (a narrow t shovel) to core into the pile as deeply as possible. Walk around the pile, and m s' - t a ,, k take samples from all sides. Deliver the ' . i.a��+"�,`.- ,,-f .1 Mfr, sample to the lab immediately or if t P� immediate delivery is not possible freeze the sample in a freezer-type heavy-duty plastic bag. Manure samples --.'0 • should be analyzed by a reputable laboratory for moisture content, total N, NH4 and total P at the minimum. Metals, micronutrients and E.C. are also :,..iii- ; on + •1 i recommended analytes. When sampling a liquid manure or . •`x _ wastewater, there are several ways of sampling. You can sample from the lagoon directly with a water grab sampler (be sure to walk or boat around _ •/454 the lagoon and get a minimum of six 4.-,..,,,-„,-,..— samples) or you can sample from a ..€ valve inserted in the irrigation line or " from cups placed in the field where the ,r ; i ,, effluent is irrigated onto the land. Store -A •r e '`1 -i+ -• , the sample in a plastic jar in a cooler or -;4-; t ,, freezer and deliver to the lab immedi- N 2 :"* r ' ately. - Irrigation water should be ana- lyzed for NO3 credit, especially when shallow ground water is pumped for irrigation. These lab reports, along with a current manure analysis, should be attached to your nutrient management plan. When plant tissue tests are used to determine in-season fertilizer needs, they should also accompany the plan. See Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 0.520 for informa- tion on analytical laboratories. Crop Nutrient Neel Plant nutrient need depends upon the crop, growing conditions, and actual yield. The crop rotation will determine nutrient needs and nutrient carryover from the previous crop. In some cases, such as a three year stand of alfalfa, nutrient applications are based on more than one year of production. Table 6 12 indicates approximate N and P content of dry harvested crops. This information can be used to estimate actual crop nutrient removal. Due to inherent ineffi- ciencies in plant uptake, fertilization rates often include an additional amount to compensate for these losses. Tables 7 and 8 contain current Colorado State University fertilization suggestions for selected Colorado crops; information on other crops can be obtained from your local Cooperative Extension office. Realistic Yield Expectations The expected crop yield is the basis for determining how much N and P fertilizer will be needed. Generally, the higher the yield expectation the higher the nutrient requirement. Over-estimating potential crop yield will result in over application of fertilizer or manure. For this reason, producers are encouraged to base yield expectations on a docu- mented 5 year field average plus an additional 5 percent for above average growing conditions. Each :?.(2T r.:°° & w ''rA!c�z i field should have a yield history and • , r expectation. .' ::1-1x9 [ Determining Total Nutrient Needs Crop nutrient needs are deter- mined using your yield expectations K - and table values for fertilizer rates or uz crop nutrient removal values. Most soil laboratories will also give rr fertilizer recommendations with soil ' per,`' , • �"eu ' test results. Be sure you understand s N/ or -. q •s the lab's fertilizer recommendation ti ' • 4'° u • " , } philosophy to be sure it is compat- ible with the production and envi- ronmental goals of your operation. In some cases, fertilizer appii- _ . �. -.: `; ^� . y �!: s cation rates will need to be adjusted � ) above or below the standard table sr {' '• b t ` d l 'r" —� values. Examples of these situations M ��w t;t !)] ,T� l , 7 would be 1) where high amounts of crop residue remain, increasing N K • " < ` ' � � need by up to 30 lb./acre, 2) where a A rt`'i ' starter fertilizer is needed due to a7 • t ,31';;I-.- LW it,.tt t i ,y• cool soils, 3) where alfalfa is to be ¢ ' maintained for more than 3 years, fj r ; a -r.t " .t,.,".73,5a' .-` - • ale, �rt� �.r-,4 .&..4,.-it i ..-. and 4) when manure has been R . ..A ",c— . yr . r'., applied in the previous year. Other situations may exist that justify • -A ° • - manure rate adjustments. If so, n oft s layer. F document these adjustments on your : .K • 3• • Add •r•wbtract i. 4 b -e low /A nutrient management plan. Thudable§Ase'3'N1 upo1 ., 44- 't'ae ' _ N rate.T9 x yreltloal.;�tons/,A �rpm'sD „3D3c ._s a 13 Available N and P in Mann - S '' The total amount of N in manure is not plant available in the rt`•y ;a• 1 ,r-}.. : first year after application due to the slow release of N tied up in 011L il €5 'P'.' organic forms. Organic N becomes available to plants when soil microorganisms decompose organic compounds such as proteins, � 'E- ' , -c and the N released is converted to NH,. This process, known as • mineralization, occurs over a period of several years after manure ,: application. The amount mineralized in the first year depends upon manure source, soil temperature, moisture, and handling. In a general, anywhere from 15 percent to 55 percent of the organic N Sfr in manure becomes available to the crop in the first year after : application depending upon climate and management factors. " - .; °+ A.' Nitrogen availability can be estimated as a fraction of the total N �C v, N content of manure or as a fraction of the organic N content. ;w 4 s Organic N is usually determined by subtracting the NH4and„ r NO33 - - " ,-,:, from the total N content of the manure. This approach is more accurate when reliable NH, content and NH3 volatilization numbers "• are available. Mineralization of N from applied manure will continue to provide nutrients to the soil system for several years after application. This f rt u Y ,r ,, ' t. additional N must be accounted for in the abl> .5 r � C x' a'; + r --- ii , nutrient management plan if manure will be applied again to the same field within three years. Mineralization credit for the second and third years after application should be based upon a fraction of this initial organic N content (Table 9). Alter- natively, annual soil sampling for residual soil NO3-N, NH,-N and organic matter can be used to estimate mineralization credit in subsequent years. Phosphorus contained in manure is -c usually considered to be entirely plant ,N available in the first year after application. In reality, some fraction of the P is tied-up . } . - in forms that are not immediately available • ® I a4,0E-0.471p, ..%.„.4,:",5";.'„? to plants. If soil test P is in the "low to `prP`et .r ' medium" range and the soil is high in lime e content, it may be appropriate to assume �i+ that only 80 percent of the P will be plant available in the first year. leg _ C" ; Ielatfizatiee losses new stan. "'' a- ; Surface applied manure should be establishe+ " =:D _—s incorporated as soon as possible to reduce '.Hand application rates forTOW crops are half of the suggested broa.".A .- . - ,., odor and minimize nutrient loss by volatit- ization and runoff. The risk of surface loss 14 s reduced by injection application under the ab soil surface, but loss still a ou oV''sj ' r .-_ may occur on sloping or erosive fields. Delayed = --' . incorporation may be J' a acceptable on level fields if erosion control or sunlight decomposi- tion of pathogens is 4h. desired. If solid manure '.n , is not incorporated tr0,- , -' ,-, within 72 hours after ;# �'"' T ,<7 application, much of the wr. rf NH„-N fraction may be '� se lost to volatilization ,1+4x4,- (Table 10). The rate of ►r ` er volatilization increases poultry; _ under warm, dry, or windy conditions. _. Volatilization losses Adapted from USDA-Ag Wa i. - r.- v r�r from liquid effluents can - - result in large N losses, since much of the N in effluents is in the NH4f " , , ;�S i' ,. ' form, which is easily 1 converted to ammonia •r c- F•. gas. An accurate predic- ',3}. •u r `i .- A' lion or measurement ofa the amount of N volatil- ized from liquid manures el 2$ is difficult to obtain 3-'-r r -" ` • `: "'~ Y • because both the x' rc v ,Cf; , application method and x-g-stcz '4rEykr. a -., z-: - ii' _Aar. -- the ambient climate will 't ,a r}illrfo • • �'�- " 'S' • V„�" determine the rate of � ,('�f' "` g upon +t°`-- w" flux. Additionally, `Sour w� r ' : '`tr . accurate measurement of NH, content of manure is confounded by a high degree of variability in NH, concentration in the manure stockpile. The current scientific literature reports losses from sprinkler applied effluents from 10 percent to over 80 percent of the ammonia fraction. For planning purposes, 20 percent to 30 percent of the ammonia can be assumed lost to volatilization during cool season application, while 40 percent to 60 percent may be assumed lost from the soil surface during summer applications. The amount of loss can be reduced by prompt incorpora- tion. In any case, post-season soil testing will provide feedback on how much N is in the soil system after the crop is harvested. If residual N in the rootzone 15 romirin,,,.. ,, ,. azi ,, . r'" rt ' , exceeds the subsequent crop N G'lculabon3 Estimating1Rnggaflonwa vaunt: `' L requirement, no additional � ��W� a "+.tn a , - ' ` W 'r ' ' effluent, manure, or commercial N a"m te; bafl moms- chgsdof tm, onem --�6 Sri 43IMu ice' fertilizer should be applied. 17 ,nc, A A > ,l .acreloot a,(1O ppm'2I = 38'ii 1/A ` - Nutrient Credits a. yx,��ciLp. 3 - - t _ `` Residual soil NO3, irrigation nLlii BCf;Pg DO r ._ .,v- :-: w tA- ``°. t:;ftgelI 3 „m,lai, ,-_ `C water, soil organic matter, and previous legume crops all contrib- ute N to the growing crop. The N �• contribution from these sources eil , ,..K_ • must be credited in order to make I V" ^ accurate fertilizer and manure recommendations. Use soil and water test data and the informa- tion in Table 11 to estimate these �� credits. In some cases, these �t. sr , "" credits may entirely satisfy crop a s ,r .c needs and no additional manure �= r 30"Wal • •2 Is, or fertilizer is required. A starter er ✓" , -. - - n. �, "- fertilizer may be all the supple- • - ' • -.7.,r.— , -, K T fr�( f?1 iT .a mental fertilizer that is justified -- """` -1 ' " in these cases in order to en- ,- r i. " " hance seedling vigor if the crop is n... seeded in cool soils. Irrigation water containing NO3 can supply N to the crop since it is applied and taken up while the crop is actively growing. Water tests for NO3-N should be taken periodically during the irrigation season to accurately calculate this credit. Multiply p.m. NO,-N by 2.7 lb./acre foot times the amount of irrigation water consumptively used by the crop prior to the mid-reproductive stage (in acre feet) to determine lbs. N/acre applied in the irrigation water. Inexpensive quick tests are available for on-farm water testing. If a water sample is taken for laboratory analysis, it should be kept refrigerated, but not frozen, until it gets to the lab. Legume crops can be a very significant source of plant available N due to bacterial N2 fixation in root nodules. Plowing down a good stand of alfalfa may release more than 100 lbs. of N per acre in the first year after plowdown. The amount of N credit given for legumes depends upon the crop, stand, and degree of nodulation. A minimum of 30 lbs. of N/acre should be credited in the first year after any legume crop (Table 11). Total all available nutrient sources from soil testing, irrigation water, legumes and any other organic amendments to determine the total nutrient credit. Due to the difficulty of accurately assessing these credits, be sure to scout fields for nutrient sufficiency during the vegetative growth stages. Recommeeded Nutrient Applicatiu late Once you have analyzed crop needs, nutrient credits, and manure nutrient content, you can determine manure application rates. Total crop nutrient need minus total nutrient credits will equal the recommended nutrient application 1i rate. This can be satisr wz s >T1;1,1°'° _ Calculation 4 Detenmmgg agronomic rate ofinanu e• ra ',� fled by manure, fertilizer _ . _ .. . ' },, 4- ti115, or a combination of '- ` i " q Example 4a Beef feedlot manure bm dcast o `L. f d I .-4i• Fi�C C ' ` _ both. r Ant v t# v t .t-s-^+"'s � 1,Li D Manure a Ucafion ratebased u on N re urremerifi yy * In general, manure pp• - . " _ p q„�r� , ,,,,i�1„`". s - , Step 1▪ Calculate tnfrna�ure- 2341 oraiN n�nc -,I14.7-„,--.9,:n-,-r r .- should be avoided on tv , c n* s 5.,5aY 7 '4%ff•:1b • � '' R x S t r frozen fields unless a t 4 W Yr f ila6 N� y 35% a-Ife.. 0i ra.c ,` I --, z -1.. site specific analysis oj✓`{ei 1 i iila. rfsA- . Fi ilotN O • li whj t' i' 4 it" fk shows that runoff will '"'-w.'� 3 3 � ; girl `m tl t' r a6"7�.t 122 U1-.8�7 o t c11 .. r. S.:"t�tti'r$1 not occur. Effluent orr k = r 4 , Step 2.▪Detenmrie�.rop�i- egmreme rigt. , manure should not be -> 4w'°` % 's 'C t t¢.≥y3. a s t �}� ex Solt cor rns'i �o rrganrc sn tter aai5 i i Kk,r,,i, r i., applied to any soil that x .. ': bni K �"t Y r -4 F -N required.x.n75ibu tom tiop .3c;ib a „ti t is saturated or has a ?"'•"r ^*"f ,V a N cre i`t�' 4.7k ? ^ } 4r .. fl ? Step 3 SubtraaE N aeditsrom otberxou �*. ? ✓ y X �� Y w v' w 3 3 snow pack of rester. .��` �''�" ''" �' �„3:,r�K" � ' 9 : �`"��'eiF.� r25�b ,N© Nay 's�so��a "� � s � 4 than one inch. Addition' ddition "" "x`.'"'^ ' ` 3 ''.�`"+: " s.e`,`'�S it '!" t' -,y' h , [� " 38*. N ie urre . r 5"db s ibspl�;' a - ally, animal waste should l -r`- c4 �, - �'� ` - .f # not be applied to soils r " ca }r Y i� . 'a -il� -^s .. " - Stp+, Calculate agronomic manure raie0 f i -� , < ie that are frequently ;'sr . ,-- i f.- (160Th 1f'aare J..t ,1- t i' flooded, as defined by w k,;7 r ,. ,,38t0> anure/.ao , ' a i fit'; the National Cooperative ^'....—i n t F v�� Step 5 Calculate phosphorus supplied by manure,,- r+n ve, Soil Survey, during the ., ��13 tons manureja'ciex 241b,��-0s�t°A 2.mane ��y t`4 �i ° �'8 FN� period when flooding is . ,r yy ^t�3 -Ry+ i, 312-t 'Y0 acresuc ft. .: .F j zn .. expected to occur. ,rc%1` rr+ a _. ,,} -sswr,* WYg , %r.a> S'^r mow„ Y S .lzi v; r w x-.R.r,•, Manure is most Manure applicafion Tate base iron quiremeii t r valuable as a nutrient =' zStep 1 calculate availabte7.in man �` ''g source if it is applied as 7 7otatP .i,4 '-24 1r'.i o2 L rm' r a f•,- period close to planting as ;d varlabte�Q K 80%availabilityx2 e i ;� *, i s V '+u+{i>-4, f-i 'a 2 �.'ef x.,M,f "'* * a `i , G S possible. However, t a-i r i9,lli.,,variablel'1) r 4. a C-watt, aF•-.i's.. �" , �';��° .rs�.r manure with a high salt Step2 Determine crop fErequrremerit ru , „ content may affect zx N!!.., extractable P {i ppm {lowxange� ands I� , , Y�r� germination and seedlin 3 9 x< , > 1 f. required fior395 bu•corn xrpp-80dti. iti.;tvmm Y� r.growth of sensitive • 4m Ste 3 Determine a ronomrc manure-rate,� -mil# a 'r crops, such as beans. If • - {801b l3=fls/ac're) /{i?1 availab s �' - s fall application is - .• y h ,y $m --' '. �.�- �y rac °"ate i y+'T * , necessary in order s. x 4.tons manurefacre d t , ,t ; clean out manure storage Step 4 Calculate nitrogen supplied by manure (based nn.P r teej --ttw `z,, '_ areas, try to wait until d tons manure%acre x 23 lb•.total Nf'#on manwe z� "� after soil temperature is - 92 lb.totaiN/acxesup byananur '' less than 50°F to reduce -' ,...i•-•,•-•=: organic N and NH4 conversion to NO3. If irrigation equipment is available to apply liquid manure, the best practice is to apply manure in frequent, light applications during the growing season to match crop uptake patterns and nutrient needs. If manure is applied at the maximum rate based upon crop N needs, additional fertilizer N should not be applied. Maximum rate is based upon a one- time application. If yearly application of manure or effluent is made, lower rates 11 Calculation 4. Determining agronomic rate of manure application, continued. Example 4b. Swine effluent from a two stage anaerobic lagoon Effluent application rate based upon N requirement Step 1: Calculate available N in effluent -N content of.manure = 4 lb. total N/1000 gal including 3 lb. NH4- N/1000 gal (from Table 4) Available NI-14N = 50% volatilization x 3 lb. NH4-N/1000 gal effluent(from Table 10) =1.5 lb. available NH-N/1000 gat effluent = Available organic N =1 lb organic N x 40% mineralization (Table 9) = 0.4`lb.:available organic N Total available N = 1.5 lb. NH4-N+0.4 lb organic N = 1.9 lb.available N/1000 gal effluent =-52 lb. available N/acre inch* _ Step 2: Determine crop N requirement G;' ex. soil contains-1.5%organic matter and 6 ppm residual soil NO=N N required for 175 bu corm crop j851b •N/acre(from Table 7a) Step 3: Subtract N credits from other sources ex. " 25 lb.N0a N'in 2-4-foot subsoil samples 185 1b. N required - 25 lb.subsoil N --1b0-1b.N needed Step 4: Determine agronomic effluent rate. —'(160 lb. N/acre)/(52 lb. available N/acre inch effluent) = 3 inches-effluent/acre (to be applied in 2 or more applications) Step.5: Calculate phosphorus supplied by effluent(based on N rate) -3 acre inches effluent x 2 lb,P20/1000 gat-effluent 27:15 163 lb P20 /acresupplied by effluent . Multiply lb/1000 gal effluent by 27.15 to convertto lb./acre ITICil Effluent application rate based upon P!requirement Step 1: Calculate available P in effluent• :Total P205 -2 lb. P20/1000 gal effluent(from Table 4) Available P2O5 —80% availability x 21b P205/1000 gal effluent - 1.6 lb. available P20/1000 gal effluent 43 lb available'PZOjacre inch effluent* • Step 2: Calculate crop P requirement ex. NaHCO3 extractable P = 6 ppm (tow range) and soil lime contentis high P required for 175 bu corn crop 80 lb. 13.20/aae (from Table 8) Step 3: Detennine'agronomiceffluent rate. ▪ (80 lb. P205/acre)/ (43 lb. available P205/acre inch effluent) —2 acre inches of total effluent/acre for this crop year (To be applied in.2 or more applications) Step 4: Calculate nitrogen supplied by effluent manure (based on P rate) 2 acre inches effluent/acre x 52 lb. available N/acre inch - 104 lb.available Nsupplied by manure • Multiply tb/1000 gal effluent by 27.15 to convert to lb./acre inch. II Volatilization 1 Livestock Feed ,I__ a I i nit Collection Potential from Lot - ' I att Runoff Apply to Land /: 0 STORAGE //° ° °° Nutrient , , a Use o 0 0 D 0 a Potential o D o D 0 ° ' i g' o D ° O 0Do ° Leaching _° o a a D o ° a o° °o a Potential © ° a 00 . ems, ,o© ° OA , �.aof Leaching A .. gyp. „, m .�.pQ �. q o• p `n. ® a'r ORtlr SA1— oo off' 000 0 oaf`® .a0ci \tot-to O,yQ�® ov��3a 0 o� vPT�` T(�.� \. , • 040 ! `k•.• �0 �Ty • '�. ,. ' 4.R �'GROUNDWATER•:sY , �D , 00y m v.vq�l� /n.C�l o� .r ♦ �. „ \a, c ---,-r i A� rm4y ?QS o -. 1 Or `'C / �y°.. •��t'' Tr iA �`+b'vrar � u ib Q > i °, i° .,� :.®, a:o a s ti. "i. ' ° • �. a:4a,z) _ i are recommended and annual soil sampling is needed to track soil N and P levels. If soil N, P or E.C. increases significantly over time, manure use should be discontinued until nutrients in the rootzone decline below crop response thresholds. NMP Section 3. Nutrient Use Summary Operative ad Maldivian Farm-wide accounting of manure and fertilizer application is the final aspect of a nutrient management plan. This is important to help document a balance between manure production and utilization. Worksheet 3 is provided to help record annual application data. After tallying total nutrient application, you can evaluate nutrient sufficiency or excess on the farm by comparing these numbers to manure production on Worksheet 1. A number of other items should be assessed on an annual basis as a part of nutrient management planning. These include equipment calibration, soil tests, and monitoring water quality near the operation. Accurate record keeping is an essential component of any manure manage- ment program. Keeping accurate records allows managers to make good 19 decisions regarding manure and nutrient applications. Additionally, these records provide documentation that you are complying with state and local regulations to protect Colorado's water resources. All operators should maintain records of nutrient management plans for at least three years. Spreader Carotin The value of carefully calculating manure application rates is seriously diminished if manure spreaders are poorly calibrated. Proper calibration is essential in order to apply manure correctly. Manure spreaders discharge at widely varying rates, depending on travel speed, PTO speed, gear box settings, discharge openings, and manure moisture and consistency. Calibration requires measurement of manure applied on a given area. To check spreader calibration, you must know the field size. Secondly, count the number of loads of manure applied to the field. Weigh at least three of the loads, and calculate the average weight. Finally, multiply the number of loads by the average weight, and then divide by the field acreage. This provides you the average application rate per acre for the field. Adjust the spreader or ground speed as necessary to achieve the desired rate. Remember to recheck the calibration whenever a different manure source with a new moisture content or density is applied. Using good equipment and the proper overlap distance will ensure better nutrient distribution and help avoid "hot spots" or areas with nutrient deficiency. (See Colorado State University Cooperative Extension fact sheet 0.561 for more information on spreader calibration.) Follow Up and Moduli Determining agronomic rates of manure or effluent application is not an exact science. Climactic, soil, and management factors influence crop nutrient uptake, mineralization rate, volatilization and overall nutrient availability. Producers must continue to monitor crop yields, as well as soils within and below the rootzone, to determine what adjustments are needed each year in the operating plan to continue protecting water quality. 21 Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization Guidance Principle: Collect, store, and apply animal manures properly to optimize efficiency while protecting water quality. To select manure BMPs that achieve water quality goals and the greatest net returns for your operation, consider: • most suitable practices for your site and management constraints • need to protect sensitive resources and areas General BMPs 3.1 Develop a nutrient management plan for your operation that includes: 1. Estimates of manure production on your farm 2. Farm maps which identify manure stockpiles, potential application sites and sensitive resource areas 3. Cropping information 4. Soil, plant, water, and manure analysis 5. Realistic crop yield expectations 6. Determination of crop nutrient needs 7. Determination of available nutrient credits 8. Recommended manure rates, timing, and application methods 9. Operation and maintenance plans 3.2 Base manure application rates on crop phosphorus (P) needs IF soil test P is in the high or very high category, the field drains to any sensitive surface water body, AND P movement is likely. In most other cases, appli- cation rates may be based on crop N needs. 3.3 Apply commercial N and P fertilizer to manured fields only when soil available N and P from manure application does not satisfy crop needs. 3.4 Cease effluent application if crop is destroyed during growing season. Plant winter cover crops to scavenge excess nutrients when crop uptake is lower than expected due to hail or other yield limitations. 3.5 Maintain nutrient management plans and actual manure and fertilizer management records on file a minimum of three years or the duration of your crop rotation, if longer than three years. 3.6 Scout fields for nutrient deficiencies/sufficiency throughout the season in order to identify and correct problems that may limit economic crop yields. 71 Manure Application BMPs 3.7 Incorporate manure as soon as possible after application to minimize volatilization losses, reduce odor, and prevent runoff. 3.8 Apply manure uniformly with properly calibrated equipment. 3.9 Time liquid manure applications to match crop nutrient uptake patterns in order to minimize the opportunity for NO3 leaching on coarse textured soils. Effluent application amounts must not exceed the soil water holding capacity of the active rootzone. Several light applications of liquid manure during the growing season are better than a single heavy application. 3.10 Limit solid manure application on frozen or saturated ground to fields not subject to runoff. Liquid effluent should not be applied to frozen or saturated ground. 3.11 Create a buffer area around surface water and wells where no manure is applied to prevent the possibility of water contamination. 3.12 Plant permanent vegetation strips around the perimeter of surface water and erosive fields to catch and filter nutrients and sediments in surface runoff. 3.13 Apply manure on a rotational basis to fields that will be planted to high N use crops such as corn or forage. Long-term annual applications to the same field are not recommended, except at low rates. Manure Collection and Storage BMPs 3.14 Locate manure stockpiles, lagoons, and ponds a safe distance from all water supply wells. Manure stockpiles, lagoons, and runoff collection ponds should be located on areas not subject to leaching and must be above the 100 year flood plain, unless adequate flood proofing structures are pro- vided. 3.15 Inspect lagoons and liquid manure storage ponds regularly to ensure seepage does not exceed state and local restrictions. 3.16 Divert runoff from pens and manure storage sites by construction of ditches or terraces. Collect runoff water from the lot in a storage pond; minimize Solid manure application runoff volume by diverting runoff water from crossing the feedlot. • 3.17 Clean corrals as frequently as possible to maintain a firm, dry corral surface with the loose manure layer less than one inch deep and pen moisture content between 25 percent to 35 percent. Avoid mechanical disturbance of the manure-soil seat when cleaning feedlots. Create a smooth surface with a 3 percent to 5 percent slope when scraping lots. - . . 3.18 Scrape feedlots or manure storage areas down to bare earth and revegetate after they are permanently abandoned. 22 ,nutrient Management Plan Guidelines 1. Using Worksheet 1, determine the approximate nutrient inventory from manure production on your farm. If you use manure but do not produce any on your farm go to Worksheet 2. 2. Attach farm maps identifying fields receiving manure, waste storage facilities and natural resource areas of special concern, such as streams, groundwater recharge areas, wetlands, public or private drinking water wells. 3. Fill out 1 copy of Worksheet 2 per field identifying: • cropping sequence • yield expectations • crop nutrient needs • nutrient credits • planned manure and or fertilizer rates • note any special management needed to protect natural resource areas of special concern. 4. Attach soil tests, manure analysis, irrigation water tests, and plant tissue analysis used to determine proper nutrient rates. 5. Use Worksheet 3 to document whole farm nutrient use. J. Attach information on feed management to reduce nutrients, manure treat- ment to reduce nutrient content or volume, and land management practices used to modify manure loading rates. If other manure utilization options are used, such as composting or sale to other producers, document amount of manure diverted annually. 7. Indicate who prepared forms and date them. 8. Nutrient management plan should be reviewed and evaluated annually. 23 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 08.08.2001 Appendix D • Soil Testing Protocol • Process Wastewater/Stormwater Testing Protocol • Solid Manure Testing Protocol • Irrigation Water Testing Protocol • Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 13 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Jul-0 I Soil Testing Protocol • Use a qualified laboratory. (Olsen's Agricultural Laboratory, Inc., McCook, NE) • Utilize the same lab annually. • The lab typically supplies field information sheets, soil sample containers as well as the proper instructions. In the absence of supplied sample bags, use sterile plastic bags. • A typical soil sample consists of one pound of soil. • Sample soil each spring, fields that will have manure applied that spring and/or the coming fall, and fields that had manure applied the previous year. • Sample soil before manure or fertilizer application, and before planting. • Sample each field separately. • Mark sampling points on a field map that is to scale. Use the same maps to mark where and how much manure is applied each year. • A sampling point should encompass no more than ten acres and should be evenly distributed across a field. If a field is ten acres or less, then two sampling points should be marked. • Use a coring tool to collect the samples. Collect samples from the 0-24" horizon in one- foot increments. Collect one composite sample from each 80 acres of field size. Each composite sample should include 8-12 different sampling points across the 80-acre parcel. Take the 8-12 sub-samples in an "X" or"Z" pattern. Mark the sampling points on the field map along with the sampling date and the name of the sampler. • Place sub-samples in clean buckets. When all sub-samples have been collected, mix well. Take care to keep each horizon separate and clean the buckets well between composite sampling events. • Place the composite soil samples in the containers provided by the lab. Mark each sample with the date, sample identification and samplers name. Complete a chain-of- custody form and send it with the samples. • Keep the soil samples cool by packing in ice, and send to the lab as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. • Have the laboratory evaluate the soil samples for the following parameters at a minimum: Nitrate-N Organic Matter pH Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Jul-01 Process Wastewater / Stormwater Testing Protocol • Use a qualified laboratory. (Olsen's Agricultural Laboratory, Inc., McCook, NE) • Utilize the same lab annually. • The lab typically supplies plastic sample containers. • A typical process wastewater/ stormwater sample consists of 250 ml to one liter. • Test process wastewater/ stormwater at least once per year or every time wastewater is land applied. • Take at least three sub-samples. Mix them together and submit one composite sample to the lab. • Sample wastewater from each pond or basin that will be utilized for land application. Take the sub-samples from different sides of the retention basin. Take each sub-sample from at least 12 inches, and preferably 18 inches, below the surface. • Place the composited wastewater samples in the containers provided by the lab. • Fill the bottles completely, with no air space (if air space is allowed, then some of the ammonium will volatilize and the test will not be accurate). • Mark each composite sample with the date, sample identification and samplers name. Complete a chain-of-custody form and send it with the samples. • Keep the samples cool by packing in ice, and send to the lab as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. Make sure the samples will arrive at the lab in a cool state within 48 hours of sampling. • If the samples will not arrive at the lab within 48 hours, then freeze them and ship them so they arrive at the lab in the frozen condition. • Have the laboratory evaluate the process wastewater samples for the following parameters at a minimum: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Ammonia-N pH Total Solids Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Jul-01 Solid Manure Testing Protocol • Use a qualified laboratory. (Olsen's Agricultural Laboratory, Inc., McCook, NE) • Utilize the same lab annually. • The lab typically supplies plastic bags as sample containers. • A typical solid manure sample consists of one to five pounds. • Test solid manure at least once per year. • Sample solid manure in a manner, which will give the most representative sample possible. Accomplish this by randomly sampling several stockpiles of manure throughout the feedlot/dairy. Take at least four sub-samples and mix them together in a large plastic bucket to make one composite sample. • Do not collect excessive amounts of dirt; manure that is wet, or other foreign material. • Place the composite manure samples in the sterile plastic bags provided by the lab. Fill the bags full and seal well, with as little air space as possible (if air space is allowed, then some of the ammonium will volatilize and the test will not be accurate). • Mark samples with the date, sample identification and samplers name. Complete a chain- of-custody form and send it with the samples. • Keep the samples cool by packing in ice, and send to the lab as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. Make sure the samples will arrive at the lab in a cool state within 48 hours of sampling. • If the samples will not arrive at the lab within 48 hours, then freeze them and ship them so they arrive at the lab in the frozen condition. • Have the laboratory evaluate solid manure samples for the following parameters at a minimum: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Ammonia-N pH Total Solids Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) During solid manure application, weigh several truckloads per day to determine an average weight per load. AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Jul-01 Irrigation Water Testing Protocol • Use a qualified laboratory. (Olsen's Agricultural Laboratory, Inc., McCook, NE) • Utilize the same lab annually. • The lab typically supplies plastic bottles as sample containers. • A typical water sample consists of 100 ml to one liter. • Test irrigation water at least once per year. • Test irrigation water at the peak of the irrigation season. • If using ditch water, take the sample after the ditch has been running for several days. Take the sample at a relatively clear spot in the ditch about mid-depth. • If utilizing well water, take the sample after the well has been running for several days. Take the sample from a spigot near the well. Allow the water to run from the spigot at least five minutes before sampling. • Fill the sample bottle to the indicated line and cap it. • Mark samples with the date, sample identification and samplers name. Complete a chain- of-custody form and send it with the samples. • Keep water samples cool by packing in ice, and send to the lab as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. Make sure the samples will arrive at the lab in a cool state within 48 hours of sampling. • Have the laboratory evaluate irrigation water samples for the following parameters at a minimum: pH Nitrate-N AgPro Environmental Services. LLC 08.08.2001 Appendix E • Rainfall Log • Agronomic Determination Sheet (Process Wastewater) • Process Wastewater Application Log • Manure and/or Compost Removal Log • Pond/Lagoon Inspection Form Busker Dairy Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan 14 AaPro Environmental Services, LLC Jul-01 PRECIPITATION LOG (Record precipitation after each event&frequently during events if rainfall is intense or for long duration.) Facility Name: Year: Rain Gauge Location: Date Time Time Elapsed Beg. Reading End Reading Total Rainfall Comments: AgPro Environmental Services. LLC Jul-01 Agronomic Rate Determination Sheet - Process Wastewater Application Reference material needed.Soil test data,process wastewater test data and CSU Bulletin No.568A 1. Field Information: Crop Crop year Number of Acres Soil name/texture Previous crop 2. Nitrogen Need: N (1b./acre) a) Expected yield (avg. of last 5 yrs.+5%) (bu/acre,ton/acre,etc.) b)Nitrogen recommendations from Tables 7a-7e in CSU Bulletin No.568A (or use one of the following formulas for corn or corn silage) Corn:N-rate =35 +[1.2 x yield goal(bu/acre)]—[8 x ppm soil NO3-N]-[0.14 x yield goal x%O.M]. Corn Silage:N-rate=35+[7.5 x yield goal(tons/acre)]—[8 x ppm soil NO3-N]-[0.85 x yield goals%O.M.J c) Special nitrogen need above recommendations d) Total nitrogen need 3. Nitrogen Credits: N (lb./acre) a) Residual soil nitrate credit* (3.6 lb. N per ppm NO3-N (1 ft. sample)) b) Irrigation water credit(2.7 lb. N pr acre-foot x ppm NO3-N) c) Organic matter credit* (30 lbs. N per% O.M.) d) Previous legume crop (see Table 11 in CSU Bulletin No. 568A) e) Other: f) Total nitrogen credit *If not included in 2b above. Do not use N credits twice, i.e. from Tables 7a-7e and here. 4. Recommended Nitrogen Application Rate: Nitrogen a) Total nitrogen need minus Total nitrogen credit(lb./acre) b)Expected Ammonium-N volatilization c)NH4-N available from process water lb./1000 gal d) Expected mineralization rate for Organic-N e) Organic-N available from process water lb./1000 gal f) Total available N ([c x (I-b}J + [d x el) lb./1000 gal g) Recommended manure application rate (a +j) 1000 gal/acre 5. Post-Growing Season Follow-Up Actual crop yield (bu/acre,ton/acre,etc.)Total irrigation water applied inches/acre or Acre-feet/acre Supplemental fertilizers applied: lbs. N/acre Total process water applied 1000 gal/acre Prepared by: Date: AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Jul-01 PROCESS WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG (Record manure application data several times per day when applying process wastewater.) Facility Name: Year: Field I.D.: Crop: Water Changed GPM reached Initials of Time Meter Gallons Pressure water Date Time being end of Person Elapsed Reading Pumped pumped @ Pump rows? {YIN)? Pumping (Y/N) • Calculation: (1) Total Gallons Pumped: (2) Total Acres in Field: (3) Gallons per Acre Pumped: [Line I _Line 2] (4) Plant Available Nitrogen in Effluent: lb./1000 gal [Line 4ffrom Agronomic Rate Determination Sheet-Process Wastewater Application] (5) Plant Available Nitrogen Applied: lb./Acre[(Line 4 *Line 3) =1000] AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Jul-01 MANURE and/or COMPOST REMOVAL LOG (to track manure and/or compost removed from facility by others) Facility Name: Year: # Of loads Average tare-weight Total weight Total weight Person Date hauled of loads hauled (lbs.) hauled (lbs.) hauled (tons) hauling Comments: AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Jul-0 Pond/Lagoon Inspection Form (Inspect ponds/lagoons monthly.) Facility Name: Pond Name: Person Performing Inspection: Date: Item Yes/No Follow-Up Date Follow-Up Initials Needed? Y/N Completed 2 feet freeboard existing? 25-year/24-hour capacity available? Visible bank erosion? Visible seepage on sides or base? Rodent burrows or holes? Trees, stumps or roots on dike? Inlet clear and erosion free? Sludge/Solids accumulation present? Other: Other: Other: • Comments: Hello