The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20003155.tiff DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 Phone (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540, Fax (970)304-6498 USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION Application Fee Paid /HMO , £7O Receipt# Date 9 IC J (w Recording Fee Paid Receipt# Date Application Reviewed by: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (Please print or type, except for necessary signature) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA The W2 SE4 of Section 19, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. PARCEL NUMBER: 080519000005 (12 digit number-found on Tax I.D. Information or obtained at the Assessor's Office. Section 19, T6N, R66W-Total Acreage 80 acres, more or less Zone District A Overlay Zone N/A Property Address (if available) 12673 Weld County Road 66, Greeley, CO 80631 Proposed Use Expansion of an existing dairy—confined animal feeding operation SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT Name: Richard and Phyllis Podtburg Address: 12673 Weld County Road 66 City/State/Zip: Greeley, CO 80631 Business Telephone 303-686-7390 APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above) Name: AgPro Environmental Services, LLC—Thomas Haren Address: 6508 Weld County Road 5 City/State/Zip: Erie, CO 80516 Business Telephone: 303-746-0984 DEPART ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES USE ONLY Case# sSK — f "I1 k- Floodplain: o Yes o No Geologic Hazard: o Yes s f to I hereby state that all statements and plans submitted with the application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. i Rev: 1-27-97 Si., ure: Owner or Authoriz ent EXHIBIT ) - 2000-3155 September 7, 2000 Weld County Planning Department 1551 N. 17" Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 To Whom it May Concern, I have contracted with AgPro Environmental Services, TLC, to process all work related to an Amended Use by Special Review application filed at Weld County. Tom Haren, Eric Dunker, and Sharyn Frazer are authorized to represent Podtburg and Sons Dairy throughout this process. Sincerely, P rg and Sons airy EXHIBIT t USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW QUESTIONAIRE 1. Explain, in detail, the proposed use of the property The proposed use of this property is for an expansion of the existing dairy facility from 2000 head of cattle to 3000 head of cattle. The new construction will include new pens for 1000 head of cattle and related stormwater containment structures. This expansion will maximize the recently constructed milking parlor allowing for a more efficient use of the dairy facility. 2. Expain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. This use is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan through the preservation, enhancement and growth of agriculture. This facility was designed to protect prime farmland. The facility supports commercial and industrial uses directly related to or dependent upon agriculture. Efforts to preserve productive agriculture land include the maintenance, enhancement and growth of a viable, profitable agricultural business. The site is not located with a flood hazard zone, geologic hazard zone or airport overlay zone. The use is necessary in Weld County to preserve the agricultural economic base historically attributed to the area. Typically, dairy operations generate three times their gross sales into the local economy. 3. Explain how this proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance and the zone district in which it is located. This proposed expansion meets the intent of the agricultural zone district where the site is located. A livestock confinement operation is permitted in the A (Agricultural) zone district as a Use by Special Review. Public health, safety and welfare are protected through adherence to applicable county, state and federal regulations and requirements. Provisions to comply with applicable regulations and requirements are outlined in this application for expansion. 4. What type of uses surround the site? Explain how the proposed use is consistent and compatible with surrounding uses. The types of uses surrounding the site are primarily agricultural with some single-family residences. This proposed expansion is compatible with the surrounding area. 5. Describe, in detail, the following: a) How many people will use this site? The property owners, employees, maintenance workers, vendors, feed and product suppliers, veterinarians, milk truck drivers, in-state and out-of-state visitors will be using this site. b) How many employees are proposed to be employed at this site? Approximately 25 people may be employed at this site. c) What are the hours of operation? Dairy farms operate 24 hours every day, 365 days per year. Office hours include the day shift (8:00 a.m., to 4:00 p.m., evening shift (4:00 p.m., to 12:00 a.m., and night shift (12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.) Hours of operation are up to 24 hours per day in the milking parlor and related facilities. Equipment operations, trucks, farming activities and maintenance activities other than emergencies occur primarily during daylight hours. d) What type and how many structures will be erected(built) on this site? Construction will include the addition of livestock pens, fences and feedbunks for cattle and associated stormwater containment structures for the increased pen area. e) What type and how many animals, if any, will be on this site? Predominantly dairy cattle of various sizes and weights in total quantities not to exceed 3000 cattle. f) What kind(type, size, weight) of vehicles will access this site and how often? Most vehicles that access this site are employee's and owner's personal vehicles and semi-tractors and trailers. The dairy receives feedstuffs, forages and feed additives delivered in semi-trailers and trucks two to three times per day. Vendors and suppliers frequent the site in pick-up trucks and personal vehicles. g) Who will provide fire protection to the site? Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District services this site. h) What is the water source on the property? (Both domestic and irrigation). Water is provided to the site by North Weld County Water District. i) What is the sewage disposal system on the property? (Existing and proposed). An engineer-designed septic system is currently in place. A copy of the permit is included in this application. j) If storage or warehousing is proposed, what type of items will be stored? No commercial storage or warehousing exists on this site. Storage consists of concentrated commodities, feed, alfalfa hay, and bedding materials necessary to support the dairy operation. Chemicals and petroleum products required for the facility are stored in appropriate locations and include secondary containment where required. 6. Explain the proposed landscaping for the site? No additional landscaping is proposed. 7. Explain any proposed reclamation procedures when termination of the Use by Special Review activity occurs. Reclamation procedures include compliance with applicable regulations such as the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations to manage solid manure and stormwater runoff until all relative material is adequately removed. Should the facility be permanently discontinued under the current ownership, it would be marketed under applicable county planning and zoning regulations to its greatest and best use, 8. Explain how the stormwater drainage will be handled on the site. Storm water drainage is handled by a series of storage ponds, designed, maintained and operated in accordance with the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations. Water from these ponds is used to irrigate farmground. Specific details regarding stormwater management are outlined in the Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan. 9. Explain how long it will take to construct this site and when construction and landscaping is scheduled to begin. Construction will start as soon as possible and should take several months depending on weather and finances. 10. Explain where storage and/or stockpiles of wastes will occur on this site. Manure stockpiles, if used, are centrally located where runoff can be controlled and nuisance conditions minimized. Use of solid waste stockpiles will be minimized to reduce fly and insect concerns due to sanitary conditions required at dairy facilities. Stormwater and water from the milking facilities is stored in earthen structures designed to meet the requirements of the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. Solid manure, stormwater and dairy wastewater is collected for application to farmground at agronomic rates. Details of the manure management system are outlined in the Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan. AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 6508 Weld C ounty Rd 5,Erie,CO 80516 PODTBURG 8,SONs DAIRY 12673 WCR 66 Greeley, CO 80631 Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan Prepared by: AgPro Environmental Services, LLC September 5, 2000 Your "Pro-Ag"Environmental Professionals Podtburg&Sons Dairy 09.05.2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 OBJECTIVE 3 MANAGEMENT 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3 SITE DESCRIPTION 3 FACILITY 3 MAPS 3 Topographic Map 3 Site Layout 3 Figure 1 —Topographic Map 4 Figure 2 — Site Layout 5 ANIMAL OUTPUTS 6 ANIMAL UNITS 6 ANIMAL OUTPUTS 6 SOLID MANURE COLLECTION 6 STORM WATER COLLECTION 6 25-year, 24-hour Storm 7 PROCESS WASTEWATER 7 Ground Water Protection 7 LAND APPLICATION 7 BENEFICIAL USE OF MANURE AND/OR PROCESS WASTEWATER 7 EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF LAND APPLICATION SITES 8 LAND APPLICATION OF PROCESS WASTEWATER 8 9 TESTING 9 AGRONOMIC DETERMINATION RECORD KEEPING 10 LIMITATIONS 10 Appendix A 11 Appendix B 12 Appendix C 13 Appendix D 14 Appendix E 15 Podtburg&Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 2 Podtburg& Sons Dairy 09.05.2000 Introduction Objective This comprehensive nutrient management plan has been developed to comply with Colorado's Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation, 5 CCR 1002-81. It is designed to prevent discharge of manure or process wastewater to waters of the state. Should this plan be ineffective in preventing discharges, or if operational changes occur that will affect potential discharges, this plan shall be modified to reflect appropriate changes to ensure discharge potential is minimized. Podtburg & Sons Dairy will keep records associated with this plan for a minimum of three years. Management Podtburg & Sons Dairy is a family operation, owned and operated by the Podtburg family. Contacts should be made to: Jeff Podtburg Podtburg & Sons Dairy 12673 Weld County Rd 66 Greeley, CO 80631 Legal Description Podtburg & Sons Dairy is located on the West 'A of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6`h Principle Meridian, Weld County, Colorado. Site Description Facility Podtburg & Sons Dairy is located on approximately 80 acres of land northwest of Greeley, Colorado. It is on the northwest corner of the intersection of WCR 66 and 25.75. Dairy construction is typical for Colorado dairies; concrete feed bunks, free stall barns, corrals, cattle alleys, milking parlor, feed storage facilities and other ancillary facilities. Irrigated farm ground surrounds the facility. Podtburg & Sons Dairy plans to expand their milking herd from approximately 1,350 head to a maximum milking capacity of 2,000 head. Dry cows and heifers up to 500 pounds will add another 1,000 head. Cattle numbers fluctuate throughout the year as calves are born, and cattle are bought and sold. However, the average number of cattle at the facility is expected to be approximately 3,000 head. Maps The maps described below are included on the following pages. Topographic Map The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Podtburg & Sons Dairy, surrounding sites, topography and major drainages. Site Layout The Site Layout details the configuration of the existing dairy along with well-marked proposed changes and additions. Podtburg& Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 3 Podtburg& Sons Dairy 09.05.2000 Animal Outputs Animal Units Table 1 below outlines the dairy animals on site and the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control regulation animal unit equivalency. Table 1 - Animal Units ANIMAL TYPE TYPICAL WT. NO. OF HEAD EQUIVALENCY ANIMAL (LBS.) FACTOR UNITS Milk Cows 1,400 2,000 1.4 2,800 Dry Cows 1,200 300 1.4 420 Heifers(<9 mos.) 500 700 0.7 490 Totals 3,000 3,710 Animal Outputs Table 2 below calculates the amount of manure produced and the associated nutrients on an"as excreted basis". In addition, compost weight 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 2,000 lactating cows. Table 2- Manure Production NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Moisture Manure Manure TS VS Nitrogen Prosphorus Potassium Animal Type Number of Hd WI/hd,lbs. Total WI,Ibs. 1%) (lbs/d/10004) (ft3/d/1000# (Ibs./d11000N) (Ibs.ld/1000#) (Ibs,/d11000#) (Ms M/1000#) (Ibs.ld/1000#) Milk Cows 2,000 1400 2,800.000 87.5 80.0 1.30 1000 850 045 007 026 Dry Cows 300 1,200 360,000 88.4 820 1.30 9.50 8.10 036 005 0.23 Heifers 700 500 350000 89.3 85 0( 1.30 9.14 777 0.31 0.04 024 Totals 3,000 3,510000 1,498 228 895 I Total Daily Production Total Annual Production) 1 103393,550 283,270 1 1,665,495 4,563 1 12,635.935 10,743,958 34,619 29,436 1 546,8071 832201 326602 Tons produced wl moisture content of(as excreeted) 88% 51,697 Tons produced(as hauled)wl moisture content of 46% 11,488 Tons Compost Produced w/moisture content of 40% 10,339 Solid Manure Collection Podtburg & Sons Dairy cleans corrals and stockpiles manure on site (see Figure 2— Site Layout). Some of the manure is also composted in the same area. Solid manure and/or compost is removed off site by others for use on their farms. Podtburg & Sons Dairy will keep records of how much compost or manure is removed off site. Stormwater Collection Podtburg & Sons Dairy protects surface water by containing storm water and process wastewater on the facility. Three ponds are utilized to control runoff from three separate areas of the dairy (see Figure 2—Site Layout). Stormwater and process wastewater containment structures are not located within a mapped 100-year floodplain. Podtburg&Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 6 Podtburg& Sons Dairy 09.05.2000 25-year,24-hour Storm The 25-year, 24-hour storm event for Podtburg & Sons Dairy is 3.40 inches. This event produces 2.36 inches of runoff for a total of 9.8 acre-feet of storm water. The amount of rain falling directly on the ponds is 2.3 acre-feet, making the total required storage capacity 12.1 acre- feet. The dairy will have 21.0 acre-feet of storage capacity when the expansion is complete. Calculations for the 25-year storm and pond capacities are in Appendix B. Process Wastewater Podtburg & Sons Dairy produces process wastewater from the milking parlor. Estimated maximum daily process wastewater generated is currently approximately 2,000 gallons per day. After expansion the estimated maximum daily process wastewater generation will be approximately 4,000 gallons per day. A table is included in Appendix B, which summarizes the process wastewater generation. Process wastewater flows out of the milk parlor into a concrete separator and then into the settling portion of Pond A. Pond A is designed to contain accumulations of process wastewater as well as storm water from a portion of the dairy. An additional cell is proposed for Pond A to accommodate the expansion (see Figure 2 — Site Layout). Adding a cell to the south will accommodate the additional process wastewater as well as the expanded drainage area. Ground Water Protection Ponds B and C are designed to only contain storm water. During construction, Ponds A, B and C were lined with low permeability material to meet the state CAFO standard for seepage. Pond A was lined with material to meet the seepage requirement of process wastewater ponds of 1/32 inch per day. Ponds B and C were lined to meet the seepage requirement of storm water ponds of inch per day. The quality of material used and the placement was supervised and certified by a Colorado registered professional engineer. The additional cell for Pond A will also be lined with low permeability material to meet the state CAFO standard for seepage at 1/32 inch per day. Land Application Beneficial Use of Manure and/or Process Wastewater Livestock manure and effluents are rich in plant available nutrients which can be valuable assets to crop producers. However, they can also be a source of both groundwater and surface water contamination if handled improperly. Livestock manure contains significant quantities of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, and smaller amounts of nutrients such as Calcium, Manganese, Magnesium, Zinc, Copper and Sulfur. Manure that is properly applied to cropland increases soil fertility, improves soil physical properties, and saves commercial fertilizer costs. Liquid effluents are composed primarily of water and have less impact on soil physical properties, but they also contain nutrients and other constituents that must be managed properly. The primary constituents of animal waste that may cause water quality problems include pathogenic organisms, nitrate, ammonia, phosphorus, salts, heavy metals and organic solids. Nitrate (NO3) is the most common ground water pollutant from fields that receive excessive rates of manure. Sound management practices such as this Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan are essential to maximize the agronomic and economic benefits of manure while reducing the risk of adverse environmental consequences. Podtburg& Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 7 Podtburg&Sons Dairy 09.05.2000 Evaluation and Treatment of Land Application Sites Land application sites for Podtburg& Sons dairy will consist of approximately 9 total acres in two fields. The southeast field is approximately 5.6 acres, and the southwest field is approximately 3.5 acres. The United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service soil survey of Weld County, Colorado (Southern Part) indicates the following soil characteristics. The fields slope predominantly south from 1-2%. Soil types and conditions are Kim loam and Olney fine sandy loam all of 1 to 3 % slopes. Soils Map and detailed descriptions are in Appendix A. Kim loam is a deep well drained soil on smooth plains and alluvial fans. Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Surface runoff is medium and the erosion hazard is low. In irrigated areas this soil is suited to crops commonly grown in the area, including corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, sugar beets, small grain, or beans. All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow irrigation is the most common. Manure and commercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. Olney fine sandy loam is a deep well drained soil. Permeability and available water capacity are moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or more. Surface runoff is medium and erosion hazard is low. When irrigated this soil is suited to crops commonly grown in the area. Manure and commercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. There are no potential surface water impacts from runoff from the land application sites. All land application areas irrigated via flood methods will include a tail water collection system to contain runoff. Land Application of Process Wastewater Ponds A, B and C are designed to maximize evaporation and therefore minimize land application requirements. Several tables were generated to estimate the amount of process wastewater/storm water necessary to pump in order to keep the ponds at a level that allows capacity for a 25-year, 24-hour storm. These tables are located in Appendix B. The tables account for the following: • Precipitation data for the ten wettest consecutive years in history for Greeley, CO • Average lake evaporation for Greeley, CO • Constant evaporation area with the settling ponds full and the main ponds one-half full • Process wastewater generation for Pond A of 4,000 gallons per day • Monthly pumping amounts to keep the ponds at a manageable level The tables show that pumping is only necessary during a few of the ten wettest years. Pond A system shows a maximum pumping amount of 1.6 acre-feet during Year#3, while Ponds B & C show maximum pumping totaling 1.55 acre-feet during Year#6. If pumping becomes necessary, the dairy has approximately 9 acres available for application of process wastewater/storm water. The acreage available is adjacent to the ponds and easily accessible. Podtburg & Sons Dairy will utilize "Tier Two" criteria from the state CAFO regulations for applying process wastewater. Table 3 below is generated to estimate the land required to assimilate the nitrogen from 1.6 acre- feet of storm water/process wastewater. The table utilizes values from CSU's Bulletin No. Podtburg& Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 8 Podtburg& Sons Dairy 09.05.2000 568A, Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization. Table 3 shows that Podtburg & Sons Dairy requires approximately 7 acres of corn to assimilate the nitrogen from 1.6 acre-feet of process wastewater. Table 3- Land Requirements for Process Wastewater Application Maximum pumping requirement( 1.60 A.F.),gallons 521,326 Total Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 2,085 "Total-N= 4 lbs 11,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 1,043 "NH3-N= 2 lbs./1,000 gal Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid, lbs. 1,043 Organic-N= 2 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation, lbs. 782 25% Flood Irrigation loss Organic-Nitrogen available 1st year, lbs. 438 42% equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-N Nitrogen available to plants(PAN) 1st r.,lbs. 1,220 Soil Organic Matter,% 1.0 Residual NO3 in soil,ppm 5.5 Corn Corn Silage Expected Yield(grain, Bu/acre:silage,tons/acre) 175 25 Based on CSU Extension N req.w/listed O.M.&residual soil N, lb./acre 177 157 Bulletin#538 Acres req. if effluent applied via flood irrigation 7 B "Taken from Table 4 of CSU's Bulletin No.568,4 Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization Testing The purpose of testing is to ensure that when manure and/or process wastewater is applied to land that the agronomic rate is not exceeded. Knowledge of nitrogen and other nutrients present in the soil and in the material applied to the soil, combined with specific crops and realistic yield goals are key for calculating appropriate manure and/or stormwater application rates. When it is anticipated that application of process wastewater will become necessary, Podtburg and Sons Dairy will test soil, manure, compost, process wastewater and irrigation appropriately according to the protocols in Appendix D. Agronomic Determination 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. Podtburg & Sons Dairy will perform agronomic calculations for each field before process wastewater is applied. Agronomic calculations take into account: • Crop to be grown • Realistic yield goal • Total nitrogen required to meet yield goal • Residual soil nitrate • Soil organic matter • Nitrogen content in irrigation water • Nitrogen credit from previous legume crop; and • Plant available nitrogen (PAN) in the process wastewater Forms for performing agronomic calculations are in Appendix E. One agronomic calculation sheet should be used for each field on which process wastewater is to be applied. In addition, • reference material from Colorado State Cooperative Extension is included in Appendix C. This reference material is to assist Podtburg & Sons Dairy making decisions pertaining to application of process wastewater. Podtburg& Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 9 Podtburg&Sons Dairy 09.05.2000 Record Keeping Podtburg & Sons Dairy will keep records per Table 3 (forms are in Appendix E): Table 4- 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 Compost Removal Manure/Compost Daily during removal Removal Log Land Application Process Wastewater Several times per day during application of process wastewater of Process Application Log Wastewater Pond Inspection Retention Basin Monthly Inspection Form Limitations AgPro Environmental Services, LLC has no control over the services or information furnished by others. This Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan was prepared, based on, and developed in accordance with, generally accepted environmental consulting practices. This plan was prepared for the exclusive use of Podtburg & Sons 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. Podtburg& Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 10 Podtburg& Sons Dairy 09.05.2000 Appendix B • 25-year, 24-hour storm and retention basins capacity calculation • Wettest Years' Stormwater/Process Wastewater Generation Tables • Process Wastewater Generation Table Podtburg& Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 12 Podtburg&Sons Dairy 25-year, 24-hour Storm Event and Pond Capacity Calculations 25-year, 24-hour event Area'A' Area'B' Area'C' Total Applicable Storm Event for Location,inches 3.40 3.40 3.40 3.40 SCS Runoff Curve Number 90 90 90 90 (90 for unsurfaced lots) (97 for surfaced lots) Surface Area of Drainage Basins,acres 27,3 19 3.5 49.8 (Separate different drainage areas) (Include pens, alleys,mill areas, working areas, etc.) 2.36 2 2.36 6.3 .36 Inches of Runoff using SCS Runoff Curve Factor 2.36 .3 Minimum Retention Capacity Required, Acre-Ft. 5.4 3.7 7 29,984 426,627 Cubic-Ft. 233,874 162,7 Surface Area of Retention Structures,Acres 4.7 2.7 0.6 8.0 Additional Volume Required, Acre-Ft. 1.3 0.8 0.2 2.3 Additional Volume Required,ft3 58,253 32,753 7,650 98,657 Total Retention Structure Volume Required,Acre-Ft. 6.7 4.5 0.86 12.1 Total Retention Structure Volume Required,ft3 292,127 195,523 37,634 525,283 Total Retention Structure Volume Available,Acre-Ft. 14.0 5.7 1.33 21.0 Lagoon Settling for Pond A Settling for Capacities Pond A Pond A Secondary Pond B Pond B Pond C Total Length(Top-of-Berm)(feet) 200 440 240 200 480 300 Width (Top-of-Berm) (feet) 50 240 375 50 220 90 Liquid Depth (feet) 3.5 3.5 3.5 3 2.5 3 Slope(ft. horizontal/1 ft. vertical) 3 3 3 3 3 Freeboard(feet) 1 2 2 1 2 2 Liner Thickness (feet) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Totals (Cubic-Feet) 21,644 317,951 268,469 19,506 230,873 57,834 916,276 (Acre-Feet) 0.50 7.3 6.2 0.45 5.3 1.33 21.0 Surface Area @ Top-of-Berm,ft2 10,000 105,600 90,000 10,000 105,600 27,000 348,200 Surface Area @ Liquid Level,ft2 8,536 97,584 82,764 8,536 97,344 22,464 317,228 Surface Area @ 1/2-full Depth,ft2 6,147 90,806 76,669 6,475 92,330 19,251 291,679 Surface Area @ Bottom,ft2 3,979 84,249 70,794 4,576 87,429 251,027 502,054 Dirt Work Calculations Settling for Pond A Settling Pond A Pond A Secondary for Pond B Pond B Pond C Total Length (Top-of-Berm) (feet) 206 446 246 206 486 306 Width (Top-of-Berm) (feet) 56 246 381 56 226 96 Liquid Depth (feet) 5.5 6.5 6.5 5 5.5 6 Slope (ft. horizontal/1 ft. vertical) 3 3 3 3 3 3 Freeboard(feet) 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 Liner Thickness (feet) 1 1 1 1 1 1 Totals (Cubic-Feet) 37,939 591,065 499,171 36,095 508,316 116,154 1,788,739 (Cubic-Yards) 1,405 21,891 18,488 1,337 18,827 4,302 66,250 Podtburg&Sons Dairy Stormwater&Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation(10-Wettest Years)-Area'A' Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GP D= 4,000 Pond Surface Area.ft'= 205,600 Evaporation Area,ft'= 170,136 4 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-Ft.) Jan 0.50 5.0% 27.3 0.25 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.19 4.19 Feb 0.13 5.0% 27.3 0.07 1.58 3.91 0.51 0.34 (0.10) 4.09 Mar 0.09 5.0% 27.3 0.05 2.48 3.91 0.81 0.38 (0.38) 3.71 Apr 1.83 7.0% 27.3 1.01 4.05 3.91 1.32 0.37 0.06 3.77 May 5.22 17.0% 27.3 4.07 5.4 3.91 1.76 0.38 2.69 6.47 u Jun 1.37 15.0% 27.3 1.01 6.53 3.91 2.13 0.37 (0.75) 5.71 - S.°) Jul 0.70 13.0% 27.3 0.48 6.75 3.91 2.20 0.38 (1.33) 4.38 } Aug 0.53 12.0% 27.3 0.35 6.08 3.91 1.98 0.38 (1.25) 3.14 Sep 0.00 13.0% 27.3 - 4.5 3.91 1.46 0.37 (1.10) 2.04 Oct 1.96 10.0% 27.3 1.22 3.15 3.91 1.03 0.38 0.57 2.61 Nov 0.18 5.0% 27.3 0.09 1.8 3.91 0.59 0.37 (0.13) 2.48 Dec 1.06 5.0% 27.3 0.54 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.48 2.96 Jan 0.38 5.0% 27.3 0.19 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.13 3.10 Feb 0.06 5.0% 27.3 0.03 1.58 3.91 0.51 0.34 (0.14) 2.96 Mar 2.90 5.0% 27.3 1.47 2.48 3.91 0.81 0.38 1.04 4.00 Apr 1.67 7.0% 27.3 0.92 4.05 3.91 1.32 0.37 (0.03) 3.97 May 4.47 17.0% 27.3 3.49 5.4 3.91 1.76 0.38 2.11 6.08 N u Jun 3.53 15.0% 27.3 2.59 6.53 3.91 2.13 0.37 0.84 6.92 0.50 v Jul 0.39 13.0% 27.3 0.27 6.75 3.91 2.20 0.38 (1.55) 5.37 > Aug 3.89 12.0% 27.3 2.59 6.08 3.91 1.98 0.38 0.99 6.37 Sep 0.94 13.0% 27.3 0.65 4.5 3.91 1.46 0.37 (0.45) 0.5 5.42 Oct 0.94 10.0% 27.3 0.58 3.15 3.91 1.03 0.38 (0.06) 5.36 Nov 1.89 5.0% 27.3 0.96 1.8 3.91 0.59 0.37 0.74 6.10 Dec 1.11 5.0% 27.3 0.56 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.50 6.60 Jan 1.44 5.0% 27.3 0.73 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.67 7.27 Feb 0.66 5.0% 27.3 0.33 1.58 3.91 0.51 0.34 0.16 0.2 7.24 Mar 1.87 5.0% 27.3 0.95 2.48 3.91 0.81 0.38 0.52 0.5 7.26 Apr 2.26 7.0% 27.3 1.25 4.05 3.91 1.32 0.37 0.30 0.3 7.26 May 2.49 17.0% 27.3 1.94 5.4 3.91 1.76 0.38 0.57 0.6 7.22 m Jun 0.85 15.0% 27.3 0.62 6.53 3.91 2.13 0.37 (1.13) 6.09 1.60 w Jul 0.61 13.0% 27.3 0.42 6.75 3.91 2.20 0.38 (1.40) 4.69 r Aug 0.65 12.0% 27.3 0.43 6.08 3.91 1.98 0.38 (1.17) 3.53 Sep 0.55 13.0% 27.3 0.38 4.5 3.91 1.46 0.37 (0.72) 2.81 Oct 0.36 10.0% 27.3 0.22 3.15 3.91 1.03 0.38 (0.42) 2.39 Nov 0.45 5.0% 27.3 0.23 1.8 3.91 0.59 0.37 0.01 2.40 Dec 0.11 5.0% 27.3 0.06 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 (0.00) 2.40 Jan 0.33 5.0% 27.3 0.17 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.11 2.51 Feb 0.11 5.0% 27.3 0.06 1.58 3.91 0.51 0.34 (0.11) 2.39 Mar 2.23 5.0% 27.3 1.13 2.48 3.91 0.81 0.38 0.70 3.10 Apr 1.05 7.0% 27.3 0.58 4.05 3.91 1.32 0.37 (0.37) 2.73 May 5.36 17.0% 27.3 4.18 5.4 3.91 1.76 0.38 2.80 5.53 a Jun 0.67 15.0% 27.3 0.49 6.53 3.91 2.13 0.37 (1.26) 4.26 - w Jul 2.74 13.0% 27.3 1.89 6.75 3.91 2.20 0.38 0.07 4.34 > Aug 0.78 12.0% 27.3 0.52 6.08 3.91 1.98 0.38 (1.08) 3.26 Sep 0.67 13.0% 27.3 0.46 4.5 3.91 1.46 0.37 (0.63) 2.62 Oct 0.60 10.0% 27.3 0.37 3.15 3.91 1.03 0.38 (0.27) 2.35 Nov 0.30 5.0% 27.3 0.15 1.8 3.91 0.59 0.37 (0.07) 2.29 Dec 0.43 5.0% 27.3 0.22 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.16 2.44 Jan 0.22 5.0% 27.3 0.11 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.05 2.50 Feb 0.06 5.0% 27.3 0.03 1.58 3.91 0.51 0.34 (0.14) 2.36 Mar 0.47 5.0% 27.3 0.24 2.48 3.91 0.81 0.38 (0.19) 2.17 Apr 0.18 7.0% 27.3 0.10 4.05 3.91 1.32 0.37 (0.85) 1.32 May 2.91 17.0% 27.3 2.27 5.4 3.91 1.76 0.38 0.89 2.21 N 4. Jun 3.20 15.0% 27.3 2.35 6.53 3.91 2.13 0.37 0.59 2.80 - a10i Jul 1.95 13.0% 27.3 1.34 6.75 3.91 2.20 0.38 (0.47) 2.33 r Aug 0.89 12.0% 27.3 0.59 6.08 3.91 1.98 0.38 (1.01) 1.33 Sep 2.14 13.0% 27.3 1.47 4.5 3.91 1.46 0.37 0.38 1.71 Oct 0.89 10.0% 27.3 0.55 3.15 3.91 1.03 0.38 (0.09) 1.61 Nov 0.35 5.0% 27.3 0.18 1.8 3.91 0.59 0.37 (0.04) 1.57 Dec 0.28 5.0% 27.3 0.14 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.08 1.66 Podtburg&Sons Dairy Stormwater&Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation(10-Wettest Years)-Area'A' Init.Volume Process Water enerTotal GP n = 4,000vap Pvand Area Total ft°= 205,600 Evaporation Area,ft'= 170,136 4 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 0.05 5.0% 27.3 0.03 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 (0.03) 1.62 Feb 0.02 5.0% 27.3 0.01 1.58 3.91 0.51 0.34 (0.16) 1.46 Mar 2.74 5.0% 27.3 1.39 2.48 3.91 0.81 0.38 0.96 2.42 Apr 3.41 7.0% 27.3 1.88 4.05 3.91 1.32 0.37 0.93 .36 May 5.06 17.0% 27.3 3.95 5.4 3.91 1.76 0.38 2.57 5.93 co * Jun 3.68 15.0% 27.3 2.70 6.53 3.91 2.13 0.37 0.95 6.88 v Jul 1.81 13.0% 27.3 1.25 6.75 3.91 2.20 0.38 (0.57) 6.31 } Aug 0.50 12.0% 27.3 0.33 6.08 3.91 1.98 0.38 (1.27) 5.04 Sep 0.26 13.0% 27.3 0.18 4.5 3.91 1.46 0.37 (0.92) 4.12 Oct 0.16 10.0% 27.3 0.10 3.15 3.91 1.03 0.38 (0.55) 3.58 Nov 2.29 5.0% 27.3 1.16 1.8 3.91 0.59 0.37 0.94 4.52 Dec 0.83 5.0% 27.3 0.42 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.36 4.88 Jan 0.46 5.0% 27.3 0.23 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.17 5.06 Feb 0.99 5.0% 27.3 0.50 1.58 3.91 0.51 0.34 0.33 5 39 Mar 1.78 5.0% 27.3 0.90 2.48 3.91 0.81 0.38 0.48 7 Apr 2.68 7.0% 27.3 1.48 4.05 3.91 1.32 0.37 0.53 6.40 6.17 May 1.48 17.0% 27.3 1.15 5.4 3.91 1.76 0.38 (0.22) 6.17 - 'Z Jun 2.38 15.0% 27.3 1.75 6.53 3.91 2.13 0.37 (0.01) v 4.96 Jul 0.88 13.0% 27.3 0.61 6.75 3.91 2.20 0.38 (1.21) } 496 Aug 1.33 12.0% 27.3 0.89 6.08 3.91 1.98 0.38 (0.71) Sep 0.19 13.0% 27.3 0.13 4.5 3.91 1.46 0.37 (0.97) 3.28 Oct 292 10.0% 27.3 1.81 3.15 3.91 1.03 0.38 1.17 4.25 Nov 0.05 5.0% 27.3 0.03 1.8 3.91 0.59 0.37 (0.19) 4.25 Dec 0.50 5.0% 27.3 0.25 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.19 Jan 0.93 5.0% 27.3 0.47 13 4 455 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.41 Feb 0.06 5.0% 27.3 0.03 1.58 3.91 0.51 0.34 4.72 4 (0.14)Mar 025 50 4.42 27.3 0.13 2.48 3.91 0.81 0.38 (0.30) 4.53 Apr 1.91 7.0% 27.3 1.06 4.05 3.91 1.32 0.37 0.11 May 097 170% 27.3 0.76 5.4 3.91 1.76 0.38 (0.62) 3.93.91 co u Jun 1.83 15.0% 27.3 1.34 6.53 3.91 2.13 0.37 (0.41) 3.36 III Jul 2.44 13.0% 27.3 1.68 6.75 3.91 2.20 0.38 (0.14) 2.07 > Aug 0.47 12.0% 27.3 0.31 6.08 3.91 1.98 0.38 (1.29) 2.07 Sep 1.80 13,0% 27.3 1.24 4.5 3.91 1.46 0.37 0.14 Oct 1.05 10.0% 27.3 0.65 2.22 5 3.15 3.91 1.03 0.38 0.01 2 22 Nov 1.76 5.0% 27.3 0.89 1.8 3.91 0.59 0.37 0.67 Dec 1.02 5.0% 3.36 % 27.3 0.52 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.46 Jan 0.20 5.0% 27.3 3.40 0.10 1.35 3:91 0.44 0.38 0.04 3.37 Feb 0.27 5.0% 27.3 0.14 1.58 3.91 0.51 0.34 (0.03) Mar 0.19 5.0% 27.3 0.10 2.48 3.91 0.81 038 (0.33) 3.37 Apr 1.55 7.0% 27.3 0.86 4.05 3.91 1.32 0.37 (0.09) 2.94 May 1.72 17.0% 27.3 1.34 5.4 3.91 1.76 0.38 (0.04) 2.91 o, = Jun 1.63 15.0% 27.3 1.20 6.53 3.91 2.13 0.37 (0.56) 2.35 1. v Jul 0.83 13.0% 27.3 0.57 6.75 3.91 2.20 0.38 (1.24) 5 } Aug 0.40 12.0% 27.3 0.27 6.08 3.91 1.98 038 (133) - Sep 0.63 13.0% 27.3 0.43 4.5 3.91 1.46 0.37 (0.66) S2 Oct 1.87 10.0% 27.3 1.16 3.15 3.91 1.03 O 3 0.38 0.52 9 52 Nov 1.16 5.0% 27.3 0.59 1.8 3.91 0.59 0.37 0.37 0 0 Dec 0.33 5.0% 27.3 0.17 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.11 Jan 0.33 5.0% 27.3 0.17 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 1,08 0.11 10 Feb 1.52 5.0% 27.3 0.77 1.58 3.91 0.51 0.34 0.60 1.70 Mar 1.24 5.0% 27.3 0.63 2.48 3.91 0.81 0.38 0.20 1.91 Apr 1.11 7.0% 27.3 0.61 4.05 3.91 1.32 0.37 (0.34) 1.57 3 57 o May 3.85 17.0% 27.3 3.00 5.4 3.91 1.76 0.38 1.63 2.2 0 u Jun 1.13 15.0% 27.3 0.83 6.53 3.91 2.13 0.37 (0.93) m Jul 0.94 13.0% 27.3 0.65 6.75 3.91 2.20 0.38 (1.17) 1. 7 > Aug 1.03 12.0% 27.3 0.69 6.08 3.91 1.98 0.38 (0.91) 0.19 Sep 0.42 13.0% 27.3 0.29 4.5 3.91 1.46 0.37 (0.81) Oct 0.92 10.0% 27.3 0.57 3.15 3.91 1.03 0.38 (0.07) Nov 1.63 5.0% 27.3 0.83 1.8 3.91 0.59 0.61 0.37 0.61 Dec 0.88 5.0% 27.3 0.45 1.35 3.91 0.44 0.38 0.39 161 0 Maximum Volume Pumped= 1.6 Average Volume in Pond= 3.49 Maximum Volume in Pond= 7.27 'Precipitation for Greeley,CO,NOAA "SCS,National Engineering Handbook "`Evaporation for Greeley,CO.NOAA Podtburg&Sons Dairy Stormwater&Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation(10-Wettest Years)-Area'B' Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= - Pond Surface Area,ft'= 115,600 Evaporation Area,ft2= 100,866 0 Precip." Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Pan 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 0.50 5.0% 19 0.15 1.35 2.32 0.26 - (0.11) (0.11) Feb 0.13 5.0% 19 0.04 1.58 2.32 0.30 - (0.27) - Mar 0.09 5.0% 19 0.03 2.48 2.32 0.48 - (0.45) - Apr 1.83 7.0% 19 0.61 4.05 2.32 0.78 - (0.17) - May 5.22 17.0% 19 2.56 5.4 2.32 1.04 - 1.52 0.4 1.12 '; Jun 1.37 15.0% 19 0.63 6.53 2.32 1.26 - (0.63) 0.49 0.40 w Jul 0.70 13.0% 19 0.30 6.75 2.32 1.30 - (1.00) - ? Aug 0.53 12.0% 19 0.22 6.08 2.32 1.17 - (0.96) - Sep 0.00 13.0% 19 - 4.5 2.32 0.87 - (0.87) - Oct 1.96 10.0% 19 0.74 3.15 2.32 0.61 - 0.14 0.14 Nov 0.18 5.0% 19 0.05 1.8 2.32 0.35 - (0.29) - Dec 1.06 5.0% 19 0.32 1.35 2.32 0.26 - 0.06 0.06 Jan 0.38 5.0% 19 0.11 1.35 2.32 0.26 - (0.15) - Feb 0.06 5.0% 19 0.02 1.58 2.32 0.30 - (0.29) - Mar 2.90 5.0% 19 0.87 2.48 2.32 0.48 - 0.39 0.39 Apr 1.67 7.0% 19 0.55 4.05 2.32 0.78 - (0.23) 0.17 May 4.47 17.0% 19 2.19 5.4 2.32 1.04 - 1.15 0.2 1.11 Jun 3.53 15.0% 19 1.62 6.53 2.32 1.26 - 0.36 0.3 1.17 0.50 w Jul 0.39 13.0% 19 0.17 6.75 2.32 1.30 - (1.14) 0.04 Y Aug 3.89 12.0% 19 1.60 6.08 2.32 1.17 - 0.43 0.46 Sep 0.94 13.0% 19 0.40 4.5 2.32 0.87 - (0.47) - Oct 0.94 10.0% 19 0.36 3.15 2.32 0.61 - (0.25) - Nov 1.89 5.0% 19 0.57 1.8 2.32 0.35 - 0.22 0.22 Dec 1.11 5.0% 19 0.33 1.35 2.32 0.26 - 0.07 0.29 Jan 1.44 5.0% 19 0.43 1.35 2.32 0.26 - 0.17 0.47 Feb 0.66 5.0% 19 0.20 1.58 2.32 0.30 - (0.11) 0.36 Mar 1.87 5.0% 19 0.56 2.48 2.32 0.48 - 0.08 0.44 Apr 2.26 7.0% 19 0.75 4.05 2.32 0.78 - (0.03) 0.41 May 2.49 17.0% 19 1.22 5.4 2.32 1.04 - m 0.18 0.59 'e Jun 0.85 15.0% 19 0.39 6.53 2.32 1.26 - (0.87) - - w Jul 0 61 13.0% 19 0.26 6.75 2.32 1.30 - (1.04) - > Aug 0.65 12.0% 19 0.27 6.08 2.32 1.17 - (0.91) - Sep 0.55 13.0% 19 0.23 4.5 2.32 0.87 - (0.63) - Oct 0.36 10.0% 19 0.14 3.15 2.32 0.61 - (0.47) - Nov 0.45 5.0% 19 0.14 1.8 2.32 0.35 - (0.21) - Dec 0.11 5.0% 19 0.03 1.35 2.32 0.26 - (0.23) - Jan 0.33 5.0% 19 0.10 1.35 2.32 0.26 - (0.16) - Feb 0.11 5.0% 19 0.03 1.58 2.32 0.30 - (0.27) - Mar 2.23 5.0% 19 0.67 2.48 2.32 0.48 - 0.19 0.19 Apr 1.05 7.0% 19 0.35 4.05 2.32 0.78 - (0.43) - May 5.36 17.0% 19 2.63 5.4 2.32 1.04 - 1.59 0.4 1.19 # Jun 0.67 15.0% 19 0.31 6.53 2.32 1.26 - (0.95) 0.23 0.40 w Jul 2.74 13.0% 19 1.17 6.75 2.32 1.30 - (0.13) 0.10 > Aug 0.78 12.0% 19 0.32 6.08 2.32 1.17 - (0.85) - Sep 0.67 13.0% 19 0.29 4.5 2.32 0.87 - (0.58) - Oct 0.60 10.0% 19 0.23 3.15 2.32 0.61 - (0.38) - Nov 0.30 5.0% 19 0.09 1.8 2.32 0.35 - (0.26) - Dec 0.43 5.0% 19 0.13 1.35 2.32 0.26 - (0.13) - Jan 0.22 5.0% 19 0.07 1.35 2.32 0.26 - (0.19) - Feb 0.06 5.0% 19 0.02 1.58 2.32 0.30 - (0.29) - Mar 0.47 5.0% 19 0.14 2.48 2.32 0.48 - (0.34) - Apr 0.18 7.0% 19 0.06 4.05 2.32 0.78 - (0.72) - May 2.91 17.0% 19 1.43 5.4 2.32 1.04 - N 0.38 0.38 * Jun 3.20 15.0% 19 1.47 6.53 2.32 1.26 - 0.21 0.59 - w Jul 1.95 13.0% 19 0.83 6.75 2.32 1.30 - (0.47) 0.12 > Aug 0.89 12.0% 19 037 6.08 2.32 1.17 - (0.81) - Sep 2.14 13.0% 19 0.91 4.5 2.32 0.87 - 0.05 0.05 Oct 0.89 10.0% 19 0.34 3.15 2.32 0.61 - (0.27) - Nov 0.35 5.0% 19 0.11 1.8 2.32 0.35 - (0.24) - Dec 0.28 5.0% 19 0.08 1.35 2.32 0.26 - (0.18) - Podtburg&Sons Dairy Stormwater&Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation(10-Wettest Years)-Area B' Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= Pond Surface Area,ft2= 115,600 Evaporation Area,ft2= 100,866 0 Precip.* Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Pan 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 0.05 5.0% 19 0.02 1.35 2.32 0.26 - (0.25) - Feb 0.02 5.0% 19 0.01 1.58 2.32 0.30 - (0.30) - 0.34 Mar 2.74 5.0% 19 0.82 2,48 2.32 0.48 - 0.34 Apr 3.41 7.0% 19 1.13 4.05 2.32 0.78 - 0.35 0.69 May 5.06 17.0% 19 2.48 5.4 2.32 1,04 - 1.44 1 1.13 co '* Jun 3.68 15.0% 19 1.69 6.53 2.32 1.26 0.43 0.4 1.16 1.40 w Jul 1.81 13.0% 19 0.77 6.75 2.32 1.30 - (0.53) 0,63 >' Aug 0.50 12.0% 19 0,21 6.08 2.32 1.17 - (0.97) Sep 0.26 13,0% 19 0.11 4.5 2.32 0.87 - (0.76) - Oct 0.16 10.0% 19 0.06 3.15 2.32 0.61 - (0.55) Nov 2.29 5.0% 19 0.69 1.8 2.32 0.35 - 0.34 0.34 Dec 0.83 5.0% 19 0.25 1,35 2.32 0.26 .. 0.34(0.01)Jan 0.46 5.0% 19 0.14 1.35 232 0,26 - (0.12) 0.31 Feb 0.99 5.0% .. 0.20 19 0.30 1.58 2.32 0.30 (0.01)Mar 1.78 5.0% 19 0.53 2.48 0.26 2,32 0.48 - 0.06 Apr 2.68 7.0% 19 0,89 4.05 2.32 0.78 - 0.11 0.36 May 1.48 17.0% 19 0,73 5.4 2.32 1.04 - (0.32) 0.05 * Jun 2.38 15.0% 19 1.09 6.53 2.32 1.26 (0.17) w Jul 0.88 13.0% 19 0,38 6.75 2.32 1.30 - (0.93) - } Aug 1.33 12.0% 19 0,55 6.08 2.32 1.17 - (0.63) Sep 0.19 13.0% 19 0.08 4.5 2.32 0.87 - (0.79) Oct 2.92 10.0% 19 1,11 3.15 2.32 0.61 - 0.50 0.50 Nov 0.05 5.0% 19 0.02 1.8 2.32 0.35 - (0.33) 0.17 7 0. Dec 0.50 5.0% 19 0.15 1,35 2.32 0.26 - (0.11) 0.08 Jan 0.93 5.0% 19 0,28 1.35 2,32 0.26 - 0.02 Feb 0.06 5.0% 19 0.02 1.58 2.32 0.30 - (0.29) - Mar 0.25 5.0% 19 0.08 2.48 2.32 0.48 - (0.40) - Apr 1.91 7.0% 19 0.63 4.05 2.32 0.78 - (0.15) - May 0.97 17.0% 19 0.48 5.4 2.32 1.04 - (0,57) co °k Jun 1.83 15.0% 19 0.84 6.53 2.32 1.26 (0.42) w Jul 2.44 13.0% 19 1.04 6.75 2.32 1.30 - (0.26) - r Aug 0.47 12.0% 19 0.19 6.08 2.32 1.17 - (0.98) - Sep 1.80 13.0% 19 0.77 4.5 2.32 0.87 - (0.10) Oct 1.05 10.0% 19 0.40 3.15 2.32 0.61 - (0.21) Nov 176 5.0% 19 0,53 1.8 2.32 0.35 - 0.18 0.18 Dec 1.02 5.0% 19 0,31 1.35 2.32 0.26 - 0.05 0.23 Jan 0.20 5.0% 19 0.06 1.35 2.32 0.26 - (0.20) 0.03 Feb 0.27 5.0% 19 0.08 1.58 2.32 0.30 - (0.22) - Mar 0.19 5.0% 19 0.06 2,48 2.32 0.48 - (0.42) - Apr 1.55 7.0% 19 0.51 4.05 2.32 0.78 - (0.27) May 1.72 17.0% 19 0.84 5,4 2.32 1.04 - (0.20) m a* Jun 1.63 15.0% 19 0.75 6.53 2.32 1.26 (0.51) w Jul 0.83 13.0% 19 0.35 6.75 2.32 1.30 - (0.95) - T Aug 0.40 12.0% 19 0.16 6.08 2.32 1.17 - (1.01) - Sep 0.63 13.0% 19 0.27 4.5 2.32 0.87 - (0.60) - 0.10 Oct 1.87 10.0% 19 0.71 3.15 2.32 0.61 - 0.10 0.10 Nov 1.16 5.0% 19 0.35 1,8 232 0.35 - 0.00 Dec 0.33 5,0% 19 0.10 1.35 2.32 0,26 - (0.16) - Jan 0.33 5.0% 19 0.10 1.35 2.32 0.26 - (0.16) - 0.15 Feb 1.52 5.0% 19 0.46 1.58 2.32 030 - 0.15 Mar 1.24 5,0% 19 0.37 2.48 2.32 0.48 - (0.11) 0.05 Apr 1.11 7,0% 19 0.37 4.05 2.32 0.78 - (0.41) - o May 3.85 170% 19 1,89 5.4 2,32 1.04 - 0.85 0.1 0.75 u Jun 1.13 15.0% 19 0.52 6.53 2.32 1.26 - (0.74) 0.00 0.10 w Jul 0.94 130% 19 0.40 6.75 2,32 1.30 - (0.90) r Aug 1.03 12,0% 19 0.42 6,08 2.32 1.17 (0.75) Sep 0.42 13.0% 19 0.18 4.5 2.32 0.87 - (0.69) - Oct 0.92 10.0% 19 0.35 3.15 232 0.61 - (0.26) - 0.14 Nov 1.63 5.0% 19 0.49 1.8 2.32 0.35 - 0.14 Dec 0.88 5.0% 19 0.26 1.35 2.32 0,26 - 0.00 0.15 Maximum Volume Pumped= 1.4 Average Volume in Pond= 0.16 Maximum Volume in Pond= 1.19 Precipitation for Greeley,CO,NOAA `"SCS,National Engineering Handbook ""Evaporation for Greeley,CO,NOAA Podtburg&Sons Dairy Stormwater&Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation(10-Wettest Years)-Area'C' Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPO= - Pond Surface Area.ft'= 27,000 Evaporation Area ft'= 19.251 0 Frecip.* Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Pan 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 0.50 5.0% 3.5 0.03 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.02) (0.02) Feb 0.13 5.0% 3.5 0.01 1.58 0.44 0.06 - (0.05) - Mar 0.09 5.0% 3.5 0.01 2.48 0.44 0.09 - (0.09) - Apr 1.83 7.0% 3.5 0.13 4.05 0.44 0.15 - (0.02) - _ May 5.22 17.0% 3.5 0.53 5.4 0.44 0.20 - 0.33 0.33 u Jun 1.37 15.0% 3.5 0.13 6.53 0.44 0.24 - (0.11) 0,22 - to- Jul 0.70 13.0% 3.5 0.06 6.75 0.44 0.25 - (0.19) 0.03 Aug 0.53 12.0% 3.5 0.05 6.08 0.44 0.22 - (0.18) - Sep 0.00 13.0% 3.5 - 4.5 0.44 0.17 - (0.17) - Oct 1.96 10.0% 3.5 0.16 3.15 0.44 0.12 - 0.04 0.04 Nov 0.18 5.0% 3.5 0.01 1.8 0.44 0.07 - (0.05) - Dec 1.06 5.0% 3.5 0.07 1.35 0.44 0.05 - 0.02 0.02 Jan 0.38 5.0% 3.5 0.03 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.02) - Feb 0.06 5.0% 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.44 0.06 - (0.05) - Mar 2.90 5.0% 3.5 0.19 2.48 0.44 0.09 - 0.10 0.10 Apr 1.67 7.0% 3.5 0.12 4.05 0.44 0.15 - (0.03) 0.07 N May 4.47 17.0% 3.5 0.45 5.4 0.44 0.20 - 0.25 0.33 * Jun 3.53 15.0% 3.5 0.34 6.53 0.44 0.24 - 0.10 0.42 i Jul 0.39 13.0% 3.5 0.03 6.75 0.44 0.25 - (0.21) 0.21 Aug 3.89 12.0% 3.5 0.34 6.08 0.44 0.22 - 0.11 0.32 Sep 0.94 13.0% 3.5 0.08 4.5 0.44 0.17 - (0.08) 0.24 Oct 0.94 10.0% 3.5 0.08 3.15 0.44 0.12 - (0.04) 0.20 Nov 1.89 5.0% 3.5 0.13 1.8 0.44 0.07 - 0.06 0.26 Dec 1.11 5.0% 3.5 0.07 1.35 0.44 0.05 - 0.02 0.28 Jan 1.44 5.0% 3.5 0.10 1.35 0.44 0.05 - 0.05 0.33 Feb 0.66 5.0% 3.5 0.04 1.58 0.44 0.06 - (0.01) 0.31 Mar 1.87 5.0% 3.5 0.12 2.48 0.44 0.09 - 0.03 0.35 Apr 2.26 7.0% 3.5 0.16 4.05 0.44 0.15 - 0.01 0.36 m May 2.49 17.0% 3.5 0.25 5.4 0.44 0.20 - 0.05 0.41 # Jun 0.85 15.0% 3.5 0.08 6.53 0.44 0.24 - (0.16) 0.25 - iii Jul 0.61 13.0% 3.5 0.05 6.75 0.44 0.25 - (0.19) 0.06 Aug 0.65 12.0% 3.5 0.06 6.08 0.44 0.22 - (0.17) - Sep 0.55 13.0% 3.5 0.05 4.5 0.44 0.17 - (0.12) - Oct 0.36 10.0% 3.5 0.03 3.15 0.44 0.12 - (0.09) - Nov 0.45 5.0% 3.5 0.03 1.8 0.44 0.07 - (0.04) - Dec 0.11 5.0% 3.5 0.01 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.04) - Jan 0.33 5.0% 3.5 0.02 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.03) - Feb 0.11 5.0% 3.5 0.01 1.58 0.44 0.06 - (0.05) - Mar 2.23 5.0% 3.5 0.15 2.48 0.44 0.09 - 0.06 0.06 Apr 1.05 7.0% 3.5 0.08 4.05 0.44 0.15 - (0.07) - May 5.36 17.0% 3.5 0.54 5.4 0.44 0.20 - 0.34 0.34 * Jun 0.67 15.0% 3.5 0.06 6.53 0.44 0.24 - (0.18) 0.17 - Iris Jul 274 13.0% 3.5 0.25 6.75 0.44 0.25 - (0.00) 0.16 Aug 0.78 12.0% 3.5 0.07 6.08 0.44 0.22 - (0.16) 0.01 Sep 0.67 13.0% 3.5 0.06 4.5 0.44 0.17 - (0.11) - Oct 0.60 10.0% 3.5 0.05 3.15 0.44 0.12 - (0.07) - Nov 0.30 5.0% 3.5 0.02 1.8 0.44 0.07 - (0.05) - Dec 0.43 5.0% 3.5 0.03 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.02) - Jan 0.22 5.0% 3.5 0.01 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.04) - Feb 0.06 5.0% 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.44 0.06 - (0.05) - Mar 0.47 5.0% 3.5 0.03 2.48 0.44 0.09 - (0.06) - Apr 0.18 7.0% 3.5 0.01 4.05 0.44 0.15 - (0.14) - in May 2.91 17.0% 3.5 0.29 5.4 0.44 0.20 - 0.10 0.10 # Jun 3.20 15.0% 3.5 0.31 6.53 0.44 0.24 - 0.06 0.16 - Jul 1.95 13.0% 3.5 0.17 6.75 0.44 0.25 - (0.07) 0.09 Aug 0.89 12.0% 3.5 0.08 6.08 0.44 0.22 - (0.15) - Sep 2.14 13.0% 3.5 0.19 4.5 0.44 0.17 - 0.03 0.03 Oct 0.89 10.0% 3.5 0.07 3.15 0.44 0.12 - (0.04) - Nov 0.35 5.0% 3.5 0.02 1.8 0.44 0.07 - (0.04) - Dec 0.28 5.0% 3.5 0.02 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.03) - Podtburg&Sons Dairy Stormwater&Process Wastewater Accumulation Calculation(10-Wettest Years)-Area'C' Init.Volume Process Water Generated.GPO= - Pond Surface Area.ft2= 27,000 Evaporation Area.ft'= 19,251 0 Precip.' Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Pan 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 0.05 5.0% 3.5 0.00 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.05) - Feb 0.02 5.0% 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.44 0.06 - (0.06) - Mar 2.74 5.0% 3.5 0.18 2.48 0.44 0.09 - 0.09 0.09 Apr 3.41 7.0% 3.5 0.25 4.05 0.44 0.15 - 0.10 0.19 May 5.06 17.0% 3.5 0.51 5.4 0.44 0.20 - o 0.31 0.05 0.45 4* Jun 3.68 15.0% 3.5 0.35 6.53 0.44 0.24 - 0.11 0.1 0.46 0.15 a 1.) Jul 1.81 13.0% 3.5 0.16 6.75 0.44 0.25 - (0.09) 0.37 > Aug 0.50 12.0% 3.5 0.04 6.08 0.44 0.22 - (0.18) 0.19 Sep 0.26 13.0% 3.5 0.02 4.5 0.44 0.17 - (0.14) 0.05 Oct 0.16 10.0% 3.5 0.01 3.15 0.44 012 - (0.10) - Nov 2.29 5.0% 3.5 0A5 1.8 0.44 0.07 - 0.09 0.09 Dec 0.83 5.0% 3.5 0.05 1.35 0.44 0.05 - 0.01 0.09 Jan 0.46 5.0% 3.5 0.03 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.02) 0.07 Feb 0.99 5.0% 3.5 0.07 1.58 0.44 0.06 - 0.01 0.08 Mar 1.78 5.0% 3.5 0.12 2.48 0.44 0.09 - 0.03 0.11 Apr 2.68 7.0% 3.5 0.19 4.05 0.44 0.15 - 0.04 0.15 May 1.48 17.0% 3.5 0.15 5.4 0.44 0.20 - (0.05) 0.10 x Jun 2.38 15.0% 3.5 0.23 6.53 0.44 0.24 - (0.01) 0.09 a) Jul 0.88 13.0% 3.5 0.08 6.75 0.44 0.25 - (0.17) - } Aug 1.33 12.0% 3.5 0.12 6.08 0.44 0.22 - (0.11) - Sep 0.19 13.0% 3.5 0.02 4.5 0.44 0.17 - (0.15) - Oct 2.92 10.0% 3.5 0.24 3.15 0.44 0.12 - 012 0.12 Nov 0.05 5.0% 3.5 0.00 1.8 0.44 0.07 - (0.06) 0.06 Dec 050 5.0% 3.5 0.03 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.02) 0.04 Jan 0.93 5.0% 3,5 0.06 1.35 0.44 0.05 - 0.01 0.05 Feb 0.06 5.0% 3.5 0.00 1.58 0.44 0.06 - (0.05) - Mar 0.25 5.0% 3.5 0.02 2.48 0.44 0.09 - (0.07) - Apr 1.91 7.0% 3.5 0.14 4.05 0.44 0.15 - (0.01) May 0.97 17.0% 3.5 0.10 5.4 0.44 0.20 - OD (0.10) x Jun 1.83 15.0% 3.5 0.17 6.53 0.44 0.24 - (0.07) ar Jul 2.44 13.0% 3.5 0.22 6.75 0.44 0.25 - (0.03) - > Aug 0.47 12.0% 3.5 0.04 6.08 0.44 0.22 - (0.18) - Sep 1.80 13.0% 3.5 0.16 4.5 0.44 0.17 - (0.00) - Oct 1.05 10.0% 3.5 0.08 3.15 0.44 0.12 - (0.03) - Nov 1.76 5.0% 3.5 0.12 1.8 0.44 0.07 - 0.05 0.05 Dec 1.02 5.0% 3.5 0.07 1.35 0.44 0.05 - 0.02 0.07 Jan 0.20 5.0% 3.5 0.01 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.04) 0.03 Feb 0.27 5.0% 3.5 0.02 1.58 0.44 0.06 - (0.04) - Mar 0.19 5.0% 3.5 0.01 2.48 0.44 0.09 - (0.08) - Apr 1.55 7.0% 3.5 0.11 4.05 0.44 0.15 - (0.04) May 1.72 17.0% 3.5 0.17 5.4 0.44 0.20 - an i° Jun 1.63 15.0% 3.5 0.16 6.53 0.44 0.24 - (0.08) Oa) Jul 0.83 13.0% 3.5 0.07 6.75 0.44 0.25 - (0.17) - } Aug 0.40 12.0% 3.5 0.03 6.08 0.44 0.22 - (0.19) - Sep 0.63 13.0% 3.5 0.06 4.5 0.44 017 - (0.11) - Oct 1.87 10.0% 3.5 0.15 3.15 0.44 0.12 - 0.04 0.04 Nov 1.16 5.0% 3.5 0.08 1.8 0.44 0.07 - 0.01 0.05 Dec 0.33 5.0% 3.5 0.02 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.03) 0.02 Jan 0.33 5.0% 3.5 0.02 1.35 0.44 0.05 - (0.03) - Feb 1.52 5.0% 3.5 0.10 1.58 0.44 0.06 - 0.04 0.04 Mar 1.24 5.0% 3.5 0.08 2.48 0.44 0.09 - (0.01) 0.03 Apr 1.11 7.0% 3.5 0.08 4.05 0.44 0.15 - (0.07) - o May 3.85 17.0% 3.5 0.39 5.4 0.44 0.20 - 0.19 0.19 `; Jun 1.13 15.0% 3.5 0.11 6.53 0.44 0.24 - (0.13) 0.06 - w Jul 0.94 13.0% 3.5 0.08 6.75 0.44 0.25 - (0.16) } Aug 1.03 12.0% 3.5 0.09 6.08 0.44 0.22 - (0.13) Sep 0.42 13.0% 3.5 0.04 4.5 0.44 0.17 - (0.13) Oct 0.92 10.0% 3.5 0.07 3.15 0.44 0.12 - (0.04) Nov 1.63 5.0% 3.5 0.11 1.8 0.44 0,07 - 0.04 0.04 Dec 0.88 5.0% 3,5 0.06 1.35 0.44 0.05 - 0.01 0.05 Maximum Volume Pumped= 0.15 Average Volume in Pond= 0.08 Maximum Volume in Pond= 0.46 'Precipitation for Greeley,CO,NOAA •*SCS,National Engineering Handbook "'Evaporation for Greeley,CO,NOAA Podtburg & Sons Dairy Process Wastewater Production Current Proposed No. of Water No. of Water Gallons/ Washes Volume Gallons/ Washes Volume Type of Use Wash per Day (GPD) Wash per Day (GPD) Bulk Tank (Automatic Wash) 60 1 60 60 2 120 Pipeline in Parlor 125 3 375 250 3 750 Miscellaneous Equipment 75 1 75 75 1 75 Parlor Floor 200 3 600 400 3 1200 Milk Floor 50 1 50 50 1 50 Holding Pen (Urine) 200 1 200 400 1 400 Total Daily Flow(GPD) 1,360 2,595 Design Factor 1.5 1.5 Design Flow(GPD) 2,000 4,000 Annual Flow(Acre-Feet) 2.24 4.48 Podtburg& Sons Dairy 09.05.2000 Appendix C • Colorado State University References Podtburg& Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 13 Best Management Practices For Manure Utilization Bulletin 566A University Cooperative Extension 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. intended to establish guidance to In Colorado, state law prohibits any direct discharge of manure or animal meet any specific regulatory wastewater to either surface or ground water. Concentrated swine operations are 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 com- 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 wilt be managed. At the core of these plans is the concept that manure will be applied at "agronomic rates" to crop lands. 1 The agronomic rate is a nutrient application rate "gable tit #tllit equiva _°t" ' ' r ^ t ,� based upon a field-specific estimate of crop needs and d stei'z +Mr „ an accounting of all N and P available to that crop prior , - resha,}Q=, to manure (and/or fertilizer) application. Implicit Factor gg , " "' • within the agronomic rate concept is an application Slaughter and Feed Cattle, ..5 rate that does not lead to unacceptable nutrient losses. 1 0 1,iikQesalli 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 Liquid waste holding structure Storm water and wastewater runoff from feedlots can 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 i.- .. • 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 clay 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. < act r i" Composting is a biological process in which microorganisms "" 4 convert organic materials, such as manure, into a soil-like mate- s dal. 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 rt: and store than raw manure because the volume and weight can be reduced by as much as 50 percent. 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 INMP] 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 44 av e cropland is needed for long term • 1 � application. There are several ways ti to develop this information; one . method is described in the steps below. Another method is to actually weigh the manure removed during pen cleaning. If your land .`. base is inadequate to safely utilize •-:2„,;;; M r ftr 1 • [ r the total nutrients produced, arrangements should be made to apply the manure off-site. Steps for determining nutrient inventory from manure production include: 1. Determine the average weight and number of livestock kept ¢. annually at the facility. _ 2. Determine annual manure production on a per animal basis. (Tables 2 and 3 give +1. •tir a F 6 - estimates on an AU basis.) ! ,t`f ' ., r 3. Multiply average annual manurer L r,. production times average number of animals to get total manure production. Layer ,. 4. Use manure analysis or Table 4 Pullet am4 �� .< Fr • xE r i to estimate nutrient content of Broiler manure. �� Turkey 18.2 14,4 5. Multiply total manure production '",.> Horse 14.1 by nutrient content per unit of Sheep 14.5 31 manure to determine annual nutrient production. tuEstare-adapted flem therOSOA.-Asifrutturat Waste t4anageweot4ieh landbook or epresept ffam rado sampi ial #6i ioil o m5p tbammal age, feed.cation.-breed andtrandling .4 ,„,t n 5 �? t"zit '�� Total all manure nutrients from the various sources on your farm to get an estimate of farm total nutrient ? r '' a production (Worksheet 1 is provided at the end of this „, jjfI 4, r T (1 r F- document as a template for these records). This figure r5 z} will be compared to estimated crop utilization figures aisttc, ": on Worksheet 3 '�• '";: 'F,rt -� �' , • �� -' Estimating the volume of liquid swine manure 73.*-141" su5N • kr ca ',II produced at large confined feeding facilities is con- i 3 founded by the addition of fresh water to the system for flushing waste from the animal housing units. Docu- mented, operation-specific numbers or Table 3 can be used to estimate the volume of swine manure produc- er v , rm ater ~ tion on a liquid basis. To estimate total liquid waste 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. Calculation 1. Estimation of total annual nutrient production from a solid manure handling system. Example 1a:Beef Feedlot Manure Example Feedlot has.2500 head on.average year-round. The cattle come in weighing 500 lbs.each and leave weighing 1 001b3 each.T� sa rain it Step 1 Calculate average animal weight 1200)72-850 lb§tsii , ₹ r Step 2 Obtain table value for manure production (Table ) a , y 4,4 8 7 t1/day/b 0.Q 11,$h of ammat `ever r tl ₹ Step 3 Calculate total annual manure produCWon for operation Multipy table 'aloe by average animal weight divided by 1000' 8.7 lb/day/1000 lbs of animal x 650 lbs.-17,4 lb5 manure/day/animal Multiply by the number of days-o 7.4 lbs. manure/day x 365 days/year= 2,700 lbs. manure/year/animal Multiply by thenumberhead fed/year 2,700 lbs. manure/year x 2500 head 6,75©,000 bs. manure/yeas Convert lbs. to tons b dividing by 2000.r 6,750,000 lbs.manure (year— 3375 tons manure`/yeaf 2000 lbstny Step 4: Obtain manure analysis (Table 4): 23 lb. N/ton 24 lb.P205/ton Step 5: Calculate total annual nutrient production: 23 lb.N /ton x 3375 tons/yr. = 77,625 lb. N/yr. 24 lb. P205/ton x 3375 tons/yr.a 81,000 lb.'P205/yr 6 Calculation lb. Estimation of nutrient production from a liquid manure handling system. Example 1b:Swine Liquid Waste Example feeding operation has 500O 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 tbs. of animal x 150 tbs. = 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 gat manure/year x 5000.pigs = 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. P205/1000 gal Step 5: Calculate total annual nutrient production: 36 lb. N /1000 gat x 2,050 thousand gal/year= 73,800 lb. N/yr. 27 lb. P205/1000 gal x 2,050 thousand gat/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 long Term Manure Ittilizatien 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 Pin 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 +• Total N in manure is used to 4 � ° »t� "4 s „ , 3 7_ calculate an estimate of safe long ure it term solid manure application `-` rate because all of the applied N z . that is not lost to leaching or �•< " volatilization will eventually become available to the crop. Liquid wastes such as swine ' effluent can have a large loss component due to ammonia � `� volatilization. Long term planning 3f f sK i for effluent applications should € a include conservative volatilization "'. t estimates to allow for uncertainty and lower than expected crop I. • _ nutrient uptake (See Table 5). Vit` ₹ }'w • Phosphorus Based Manure Planning While manure applications in Colorado are most often based on st. 95 -. crop N needs, in certain situa- . . fa aera , 9`. 7 � � M � tions it is more appropriate to � A � j ' ! :- d base manure rates on crop P fiDai r '' -`+ requirement and manure P con- Dairy . !°T'�" tent. Phosphorus is known to s ,y,._+m a rY . . >- cause surface water degradation, poultry' ti l ' even at very low concentrations. „ When P from runoff enters lakes ' Ammonia fraction c - , ; ; ,�-�rrt�"'. rib: , planning purposes only„rn I .Yo accurately dete 4.100..rr�' and streams, it accelerates the fraction. _ growth of algae and other aquatic b Application conversion factor:lb/1,°000 gatx'27.15 a lb./acre inch. weeds. As these plants flourish, Includes runoff water. " •These values are derived from the USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, 1991 oxygen and light become limiting —and aremodrfed wit101-P° 'te to the survival of more desirable 7,,tiJtr eit>.rntn o '' R 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 Assessment 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 B 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)? Fi•.- 2. Is the depth to ground water less than 50 feet in the I ' f ' )1 F ` ` " T . vicinity of manure storage? It r. 3. Have recent well water analyses indicated that local ground water NO3-N levels are increasing? r. 4. Is the horizontal distance of the feedlot to surface water . bodies (creeks, ponds, drainage ditches, etc.) or wellheads ,' less than 150 feet? ..r e e 5. Does runoff from the feedlot surface leave your property? 6. Does seepage from runoff storage ponds exceed .25 in/ day? , " r t , 7. Does seepage from lagoons exceed .03 in/day? 2` 8. Is manure stored within the 100 year flood plain? .. 9. Do runoff storage ponds lack the capacity to handle runoff � .421i n . volumes from a 25 year, 24-hour storm? Manure utilization site evaluation 1. Do you lack sufficient land to use all of the nutrients in manure produced on your farm? 2. Do any fields receiving manure have greater than a 1% Calculation L.Determining land`base for tong slope and little surface residue? term manure'disposabbased On!crop 41 needs.* 3. Do any fields have a history of more than 5 consecutive years of manure application? Example= Feedlot applies inanure et tontbars 4. Is excess water from irrigation or precipitation available vested for grain. Average yieldis ,175>bujacre. for runoff or leaching? Using estimated N removal from Table 6 and 5. Is manure applied at rates greater than the agronomic Caleulationlladatat} ,, rate? 1) Crop nutrient removal(from Table 6)•„ 6. Is there surface water or a well immediately downhill from 175 bu corn/acre x 56lb.fbu a 9,8001b• any field which receives manure? grain/acre on harvest dried basis 7. Has it been more than one year since you soil sampled to 9,800 lb.grain/acre x 1.6%liar dry harvested determine nutrient levels in fields where manure will be grain = 158 Lb. N removed/acre applied? 2) Land needs(from Calculation la): If the answer to any one of these questions is yes, or if 77,625 Lb.'N from manure production / 158 lb. you are unsure about the answer, manure storage or applica- N removed/acre 491 acre minimum land tion at your site may degrade water quality. The local USDA- base NRCS office can help you answer questions you are unsure *This calculation does not determine the agronomic rate of about. Your nutrient management plan should address any application because it assumes no volatilization, leaching problem areas identified in the questions above. Manure rates or other N tosses or credits. may need to be adjusted downward and all appropriate BMPs 9 { • emptoyed where water resources Wyk " ,.,x; yVa'_,` t Jay y` 4F rl �. ,,1^' T * .',T 'Tab !` J { . ' 1a h ar r ',4s 3x; z : ii-A,F are at risk. Additionally, it may be - ,, m , ,t'Tr r.., T flr M ' ° + , helpful to periodically test wells x � -fitt i 'r F. Cro7,7:1:11 a f". ,5 p ft • ' ;"4"";-•, near Livestock operations and .:,,+ `r 4 a , V. e '' ;» -.4,.,,,.i.-,t.4-11-.7...,-;. ...z.-4' '` "r` f₹ manured fields for NO3 and g itff; ,. , l4 t/t' s •-4 bacterial contamination to 0,4 o c �<� a ' x R" ;r a" determine if management prac- protecting P l '''+' '' +ii :,,; , p}a e ;; Li C` ','T t tires are sufficiently protecting - water quality. ≥�Yrt>+ r r .. t �'i :_ .p , ,, s+-a A^ , '4112..14.:.:44,:. 4 �'- NMP Section 2. Determination R .17,";.,3":¢ '.1 ii'' Axe F A r tr litt 333rd yYY$ } ;' 4 x� of Agronomic Rates for Crop 7_ ! ' r Production = SM� ,•&� � + +: )l.,,,,- ° - � n Determine agronomic rate of ` , i ;. ": 3. � -.5' manure or effLuent application for .:, � , ., 4 is I :., - c g . ;' r each field by assessing crop e r '''''''''''''"‘'-;•7"‘'t nutrient needs, available nutrient -iii-, 'SrS3 44,kzlraxw - .- -XI iF+`F, ' $ t, - :t - ', Credlt5, and nutrients inthe .1 L` r , Ti"% manure. Worksheet 2 at the end 4ey r r 4: 1.} , F;f+ oef this document is provided as a , 1 a Jr;;; template for this portion of your i` i4` rte, , y "� ,,L� , r� '''ii tc,tc,y nutrient management plan. Fill ' " at t ,,, � a. $.;..03•4'' t. I t.• VP* , r,, out one copy of Worksheet 2 for rt v r x z '" x "t' .a each field. An explanation of each �s�b4Vtw` , "+'r " i 'kk ,4xr" f 'f ' y r section is provided below. r t r ` Field Information yT` 3 1ij...144:11,;(4•71'`:". ..;; Each field has specific :7+.e,y Y �. i+.e 4,yy�,. �, q+ 4.��.. #` ` + ` nutrient requirements that will _ 1' �'r i.'-'';I: n -,4-.'-.-h .,r vary from year to year. Begin your l , , 15' 4f T:.r', ",ash determination of agronomic rates a 1-".;‘..:6; , `H' s Its lc': by filling out 1 copy of Worksheet Bir .& ;' + fa§ .x r�4iir"i 17' '' p� i' 't 4 2 for each field that receives A.Bromeg • - r t;.."1.1/A-,rq--T u ....13:,,l, . ' ', : ' , ' manure. Note the soil texture or Alfalfa rass c ° - soil name of each field. Sandy 9 + • ftrk C1 _ , Little bluestem ",r 2e1^..' tsE , . soils may require special consider- orchardgrass . s 1.5 ck :" ation to avoid nutrient leaching. Red clover 3 tons 2.0 '" "' Clay soils may be more prone to Reed canarygrass 4 tons 1.4 0.18 runoff. These considerations are Ryegrass 4 tons 1.7 0.27important in a sound nutrient '" —yc '` � • O1f1 management plan. Prevous crop svnte Bras• ...i50 -..« ., 'r" ' 1' ` r� ,. "t,' T,, „ grown is important because you rt t ►e 'f Timothy, , A -, p<e t n .tit, .e may need to add more nutrients Wheatgrasgd& ----6* - � �+ ' .B"� to help with residue breakdown or less nutrients due to N-fixation, -Ada ted from the USDA Agricultural` r Management field Handbook. depending on the rotation cat ells nl ,n sequence. Manure applications 1 �' from the previous year can also is o supply significant amounts of r '' Tabi 8 l trtrient contePt oftfik harvested p nutrients in the current year due cro {co ntl` "'111.: t to the mineralization process. To44*,,,,,„..,,"' i , ?" rH complete your records, attach the crop Dry nr � �� :,,,,.I.-„,-:::::1;:i:-,P. most recent soil and manure „ , 11k 1 to ° nt ''.z. analysis reports to the field , ` tt <� �� .4 r '-'7 a , r,� ate` ~3�.x. # � "�i �� information sheet. � ' �,M` 1' , tv .'°iy ;- ev,,,,,,.,-.-745-41.t,:,,� 1 '* a �+�> 494. iT`�7 i" RL �sI� O ""y - 5 � 4 Soil, Manure,Water and Plant Sampling s * z nx , } and Analysis rake t O i A current soil test is needed Alfa ihw ,,,991,r0" 30 w4 4 : �: , for each field receiving manure or OPih> o p� bu t 2O w 4 44 4, a _ effluent to determine residual soil �x a�` � a ..�y G � � � r �'�� r Forage 5Qr9 r !x '° c k. NO3, extractable P and soil r FwT 4 �yI T l 4 qi� y�F`� „ P � 4 .,,..- .Y. Fr�y4, Y awn, '�uy¢�T„0.3,174,,-,..r4„,` Yk .JF ! W3{. . Ci^ frt'�•. organic matter content. Soil * Oa�� y r is tr �d }' .-.3;,:...,,i,,--. � �'r4 c q sy L. sampling for agronomic rate r SurgB['yR 4 - ,,I ` ' fit 44 ' -. ` t? �' if' determination should occur once R a of ' y , e 7 c eartIk et'x '.eY- „,r ,a 5"5 . sf' 2 e �} x $ �# � h ^ye needed to track N utza- Blue " a d 'xr ` t lion and movement in the soil 9 '' r,x r ' ,2x y > r.,Berth ,rt .� x p r✓f`a ;? 'IN S F y , 4 profile. Shallow soil samples (1 yegetab � v �. terr r . . foot or less are needed to 3; �a;y *�z O 12 Bell peppetrs m 9 ;1-'4... it evaluate crop P, K and other Beads` iy � N �;;_ . ' 0 45 R nutrient needs. Deeper rootzone Cabbd �xf��4a&tOr�- N ' '� ��' f I��4•c+p,3 2.9.45i',4 soil samples (generally 4 to 6 ft. „: 't p,2 •4 a,, deep) should be collected after rp 2 4-4.,� '' Celeray z f + i crop harvest and prior to any �T' t �!yr `: n` ;t ` - x" Cucumbers„, e kx 473 r`,4fi ry 4, r 6 i< s manure or effluent application to r Nr "" ;' l,,"7 Lettuce (Meads ",r ,� 4 /r, r r `. . vw., .', �' evaluate residual soil NO3. Soil y' ,. f.3 Onions —la' z �r. t .: sampling below the active Peas '44 i , it' 3.7 rootzone (>6 ft. for most annual Potatoes 14 0.3 ,;',.-e. ,1).:06-'' '"'f '1.:06—'' crops, >10 ft. for hay crops) may Snap beans 3 0.9 0.26 be needed occasionally to docu- Sweet corn 6 0.9 0.24 ment that nutrients are not leaving the crop rootzone. To get Adapted from the USDA Agricultural wasteManageperit field Handboo( r m, a good, representative soil * Typical yields are for irrigated production unless noted otherwise.• ,. ; sample, it is recommended that a ** Nutrient contents are on a harvest dried basis and do not need to be corrected for moisture content except for silage and haylage. r 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 fall after crop harvest, NH4 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 NH, in the rootzone due to increased mineralization rates. NH4 is available to crops and should be credited as part of the N budget in these particular situations. 11 Manure is an extremely variable ill9�# �r +,+•a� P �, ` ' s . material whether in solid or liquid form. �c c • `ty` l �! ,+• ", ;FP ! A representative manure sample is r h critical for a reliable analysis. A mini- '-' ' •. ''!` mum of six sub-samples should be ° c' , • taken and mixed together for analysis. When sampling a solid manure stock- pile, remove the crust, and use a bucket s i auger or a sharpshooter (a narrow ₹� shovel) to core into the pile as deeply �' • o as possible. Walk around the pile, and take samples from all sides. Deliver the 4�-t�` n� x sample to the lab immediately or if ' " " mmediate '43"'- delivery is not possible, a , '%`: .7... .} ! ,� . ,t •.�` freeze the sample in a freezer-type heavy-duty plastic bag. Manure samples ;- - should be analyzed by a reputable laboratory for moisture content, total N, NH and total P at the minimum. ygg t'-; � , ? 7"1,i j 7 k,' * • T. Metals, micronutrients and E.C. are also on } t `c ++ } j" 5 �� recommended analytes. 10;01. zt:' , � s ' �H � ,� . When sampling a liquid manure or 3 il • xi ' , 4 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 r' ^' the lagoon and get a minimum of six Ym • " samples) or you can sample from a r valve inserted in the irrigation line or b : r> , -' " from cups placed in the field where the r `41. effluent is irreas gated onto the land. Store t a � _/A or iv • the sample in a plastic jar in a cooler or 1prm g " freezer and deliver to the lab immedi- Nr'a# . .,:-;-2-6:•I''''..:41.,'"± SDm • ,, -, w + ately.- r •••-.3-31 .-.c....,..- r- Irrigation water should be ana- ; --,A1-17:',..,14..,',.e.:;,.:. a •s„� °r '3-...' • lyzed for NO3 credit, especially when shallow ground water is pumped for r gation. These lab reports, along with a current manure analysis, should be attached to your nutrient management plan. When plant tissue tests are used to irdetermine 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 Neetl 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, nut Tent 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 + � Ys " • ' C� � r Z .� ' 1r ` • average growing conditions. Each t a � , , L r1'rid r 9 3 � °s iZ 1*t;: 4T ,. tr41 field should have a yield history and o f 147 irt expectation. ♦ t e ti 2 {t" Ottr6 _ �K . Determining Total Nutrient Needs Crop nutrient needs are deter- a a `f e} ,CU-s mined using your yield expectations y, y aC a' a .: € and table values for fertilizer rates or '' �� ./7: r � �; , ;�, �� •a ,,_ crop nutrient removal values. Most �'� .i>1 " `` ai ;" ¢ ' r� soil laboratories will also give � e m fertilizer recommendations with soil 1 7- �'� r , Ti ��`� . W" ,.1 N A for 1 ' s. "�. ow 80 bu/A test results. Be sure you understand 4 r,:gc c x / y N � the lab's fertilizer recommendation u. `" N ra^Mi - " olA.. Ptti ym 011N - fo ' �°a, '2 ' philosophy to be sure it is compat- xA ible with the production and envi- ronmental goals of your operation. In some cases, fertilizer appli- 4* gsointeau ,43Sontext. getn -p aboandatable l k Y S b values. Examples of these situations + Soil N N ' p )* Soil Argap ciNatter,% , would be 1) where high amounts of t ' " ki"b ``^ % t"4, ?r� crap residue remain, increasing N 'lis fertll>zE r " w need by up to 30 lb./acre, 2) where a 1; ; 4 starter fertilizer is needed due to [' "' �yo { W cool soils, 3) where alfalfa is to be fr ?" s.1:: maintained for more than 3 years, r. and 4) when manure has been 25a$fl a,r � • 70 40 " 0'1'.> applied in the previous year. Other • 30 0 0 situations may exist that justify >36'r` fr- *_-<, 0 O 0 manure rate adjustments. If so, document these adjustments on your 'Average concentration of NO3-11(ppm)in to.2 soil layer. Add of subtract 9 lb.N/A for every ton above or below 30 ton/A. nutrient management plan. This table uses the formula: N rate= [9 x yield goal(tons/A)] - [8 x ppm soil N0,-N]-{30 x yield goal x 100.M.] 13 1.4.. w_;� 4.- Available N and P in Manure 'bete• •t1 ' TM}" The total amount of N in manure is not plant available in the teat �� ft,, � � #„ t�"�. �- �, first year after application due to the slow release of N tied up in sed r , l 'r. 4 f, , organic forms. Organic N becomes available to plants when soil 4' .i z'""‘",:—.4.1"7-4-",:e',.'1.P-0-1-0 .$,4---,'-',� i microorganisms decompose organic compounds such as proteins, a ,: itfi6 & ft3*n. ^`4 and the N released is converted to NH4. This process, known as Cr-4 Nye.-' r, H-4; mineralization, occurs over a period of several years after manure • ` t` rs r , ,it'" '‘,41(* application. The amount mineralized in the first year depends t 1,� * it '* *.; upon manure source, soil temperature, moisture, and handling. In o - ` general, anywhere from 15 percent to 55 percent of the organic N .„4„,..„‘„ '-t, r >r,„3„4.",-,,‘,/,,•:. ' t in manure becomes available to the crop in the first year after v 85 r faa application depending upon climate and management factors. .;.+.,„_:,....-7,,f,.:.., . '�`; � t w PP p 9 P 9 3 " , . . Nitrogen availability can be estimated as a fraction of the total N ntr• i � « ,, ;n “ii,soil - content of manure or as a fraction of the organic N content. lSif *� a „ Organic N is usually determined by subtracting the NH4 and NO, ' (, y x ` '' from the total N content of the manure. This approach is more 1::34, : ,,, - s<r ' t ° ,4 accurate when reliable NH4 content and NH3 volatilization numbers 4 .. v. 4 ' . are available. Mineralization of N from applied manure wilt continue to provide nutrients to the soil system for several years after application. This `s " ` r, ° `°s ` ` ' . ' suesik,' additional N must be accounted for in the ' ablg$.S E� �. ka o- a 4 AP, v,04,.,4.„4 nutrient management plan if manure will O it S,' . + I - '-",' ,' tr, ? be applied again to the same field within *- ' < -f "?”1", three years. Mineralization credit for the 1 .4,.„,,,,,, i r,, 4,W r yy ' -l't ^, , i.tg° , -� second and third years after application T4� i . w" should be based upon a fraction of this �� r IX r + ^h g"y ,l <<t a / ' ' 1. , "; '.4, initial organic N content (Table 9). Alter- 4 ob ---: , natively, annual soil sampling for residual ''''''''''''''4—' '! + soil NO3-N, NH -N and organic matter can ' r ,s , • be used to estimate mineralization credit a` , t �.�"" ., ,�• r t ' . , „� in subsequent years. � `, "'`: r 14 , s s f ' Phosphorus contained in manure is • `° 4"!! ,�5) ,l,Y ,, r- i./:- to 4. < , y.M a a ., f, � � t,� $ s ,.�� t 'a �, usually considered to be entirely plant -,,,,,,t,,,,, ' � x r , dti. available in the first year after application. ,44 -..4.1,:°-1;1•,‘,,,,,i;:-,' ', ,k l ti j " r'r4'd � ' t ,v In reality, some fraction of the P is tied-up z �v , ,- a ' i��f^' �4 ` ��,,?:,-74' 15. ✓ ti } -.4%14'f �t •�4 in forms that are not immediately available R"!+ 1 'T' 42 i ' f * to plants. If soil test P is in the "low to 1 �.` w E 1 7 ,z�'� x ,�u'ft�. b•,e --111111111‘,- '' . ' ',' medium" range and the soil is high in lime 4 t y , za4j t .� i",T T , p s o e" " r content, it may be appropriate to assume '''' S. a "3--3•1 -e „' ,1 ., ' that only 80 percent of the P will be plant 4 s,an• ' ,,,'".`‘4"...r # A . ' w ' . * available in the first year. y u y':'5-.r2�r t a4 i +y Ni4 tr i+ � l &,.„¢ !e.x tegu ,a a § ,, . ` Volatilization losses new stanr a -4 s' 4, Surface applied manure should be i establishe' , rtf t.- , �� 0 `° incorporated as soon as possible to reduce Band application rates for row crops are half of the suggested brbatlCas"trate. odor and minimize nutrient toss by volatil- ization and runoff. The risk of surface loss 14 is reduced by injectiony3 application under the 5 <� soil surface, but less still sou ova a may occur on sloping or '�� ` ' , erosive fields. Delayed incorporation may be t z� �, � , acceptable on level o � fields if erosion control or sunlight decomposi- + , tion of pathogens is desired. If solid manure ' = a•' is not incorporated • - - ,��` >� • � ;. t within 72 hours after �r� � -45 application, much of the a �t �` y' , e;,;. + NH -N fraction may be hx x lost to volatilization • „r;.. (Table 10). The rate of r• x� " :tabs rr ` " volatilization increases Poultry under warm, dry, or r + ' , , - windy conditions. r. Volatilization losses Adapted from USDA Ag Was + �``•� 2 . from liquid effluents can result in large N losses, • since much of the N in Lr$� n t k t effluents is in the NH4 Table : ']Ip� a i , ° `i��;�"��'"''fir+t�Y'`-�.. '�1� form, which is easily �dys a % r a+ tali.'' converted to ammonia ,Ax, gas. An accurate predic- "i1C . u f`• • tion or measurement of the amount of N volatil ° p gy x k ized from liquid manures is difficult to obtaina'a ° � 1,1' i'3'ff i ' , because both the application method and , � � ",e •*M lr' the ambient climate will V45V,1 ij° �' fe:.y- 1- ,x � � „� tic`s �v ' determine the rate of -.*,s � ` upon +� rcatwn.�pg hg P n U S+ . flux. Additionally, ""Souicer'-M 'W r ' ,• accurate measurement of NH, content of manure is confounded by a high degree of variability in NH4 concentration in the manure stockpile. The current scientific literature reports tosses 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 Calculation 3. Estimating irrigation water N credit exceeds the subsequent crop N requirement, no additional Example: N credit from 17 inches of irrigation water containing 10 ppm NO3 N effluent, manure, or commercial N fertilizer should be applied. 17 inches/A x (2.7 lb. N/acre foot) x (10 ppm NO3-14) = 38 lb. N/A Nutrient CrediS 12 inches/acre foot Residual soil NO3, irrigation water, soil organic matter, and previous legume crops all contrib- ute N to the growing crop. The N Y contribution from these sources 114 tro�".it 1,1t,' i #t i t . must be credited in order to make f` accurate fertilizer and manure recommendations. Use soil and ; water test data and the informa- r s d t y R lion in Table 11 to estimate these r- " credits. In some cases, these 3': credits may entirely satisfy crop t ° ct- needs and no additional manure ,. fi' 31 .r w^^ or fertilizer is required. A starter at:"/::"40.11..16-1/4-'` +� fertilizer may be all the supple- , ` rSal‘ tim rate a e e • mental fertilizer that is justified .�1 hes � �"�°'��`e�"`N � � 4s ,�J��a� ' ,�� - in these cases in order to en- i a km 24", w u ," hance seedling vigor if the crop is 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. NO3-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 Nz 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. Recommended Nutrient Application Rate 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 16 rate. This can be satis- fied by manure, fertilizer, Calculation 4. Determining agronomic rate of manure application. or a combination of Example 4a. Beef feedlot manure broadcast applied and inco rated immedia p P ►p� tellf . both. Manure application rate based upon N requirement. In general, manure Step 1: Calculate available N in manure and effluent application N content of manure = 231b. total N/ton inducting 3' lb ,•NH, N/ton should be avoided on �. (from Table 4) frozen fields unless a Available N = 35°/o availability x site specific analysis ( 7 N/ton 7 lb. NHy-N/ton) +7 lb. Ntlranfm,� m 3�able 8) shows that runoff will = 12 lb. available N/ton manure" " not occur. Effluent or Step 2: Determine crop N requirement ` manure should not be ex. soil contains 1.5% organic matter and 6 ppm residual soitNO2-N applied to any soil that N required for 175 bu corn crop= 185 ib. N/acre (front Table 7a) '" "' is saturated or has a Step 3:Subtract N credits from other sources. snow pack ofgreater f p ex. 25 tb. NO,-N (in 2-4 foot subsoil sample) . than one inch. Addition- ally, animal waste should 185 ib. N required- 25 lb. subsoil N �,� ,:� = 160 lb.N needed not be applied to soils Step 4: Calculate agronomic manure rate. • that are frequently = (160 lb. N/acre) /(12 lb,,available N/ton manare) flooded, as defined by • ; = 13 tons manure/acre the National Cooperative Step 5: Calculate phosphorus supplied by manure (based on N rate) Soil Survey, during the 13 tons manure/acre x 24 lb. P205/ton-manure . period when flooding is = 312 lb. P20/acre supplied by manure' expected to occur. Manure is most Manure application rate based upon P requireme „toms r 3 valuable as a nutrient Step 1: Calculate available P in manure source if it is applied as Total P205 = 24 lb. P205/ton(from Table4) close to planting as Available P205 = 80% availability x 24 lb.134p5/ton manure. possible. However, = 19 tb. available P205/ton manure - manure with a high salt Step 2: Determine crop P requirement content may affect ex. NaHCO3 extractable P = 6 ppm (low range) and soil time content is-high germination and seedling p required for 175 bu corn crop= 80 lb. P205(from Table 8) growth of sensitive Step 3:Determine agronomic manure rate crops, such as beans. If = (80 lb. P205/acre) / (19 lb. available P205/ton fall application is manure) necessary in order to = 4 tons manure/acre clean out manure storage Step 4: Calculate nitrogen supplied by manure (based on P rate) areas, try to wait until 4 tons manure/acre x 23 lb.total N/ton manure after soil temperature is = 92 lb. total N/acre supplied by manure. less than 50°F to reduce organic N and NH, conversion to NO3. If irrigation equipment is available to apply liquid manure, the best practice is to apply manure in frequent, tight 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 NH4 N = 50% volatilization x 3 lb. NH N/1000 gal effluent (from Table 10) = 1.5 lb. available NH4-N/1000 gal 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 ex. soil contains 1.5% organic matter and 6 ppm residual soil NO2-N N required for 175 bu corn crop = 185 lb. N/acre (from Table 7a) Step 3: Subtract N credits from other sources. ex. 25 lb. NO3-N in 2-4 foot subsoil samples 185 lb. N required - 25 lb. subsoil N = 160 lb. 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. P205/1000 gal effluent x 27.15 = 163 lb. P205/acre supplied by effluent * Multiply lb/1000 gal effluent by.27.15 to convert to lb./acre inch. Effluent application rate based upon P requirement Step 1: Calculate available P in effluent Total P205 = 2 Lb. P205/1000 gal effluent (from Table 4) Available P205 = 80% availability x 2 lb. P205/1000 gat effluent 1.6 tb. available P205/1000 gal effluent =43 lb. available P205/acre inch effluent* Step 2: Calculate crop P requirement ex. NaHCO3 extractable P = 6 ppm (low range) and soil lime content is high P required for 175 bu corn crop = 80 lb. P205/acre (from Table 8) Step 3: Determine agronomic effluent 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 N supplied by manure * Multiply lb/1000 gal effluent by 27.15 to convert to lb./acre inch. 18 Volatilization t Livestock Feed f VS, Potential Collection I I Runoff from Lot Apply to Land �° 4; il STORAGE ° Nutrient peg, a ° ° ° ° 0 ° o ° Use ' Jr'p.,/ a a a o o a o m 0 +4 > o O D ° o , Potential ° O ° ° 0 Q 9 °` o D p ° O cDo d Leaching O 0O O D^/o� o o °per 3 Potential is vii- . opto Pc, (33'ogo 100. z96, b-(GROUNDWATER o 1'8; 2 ;® o = ° ©°6 ° tar p ° o CJ��-� rm o _pi 11, �m i,at, ,. 114 le p©+°��Q l� \eoQ aUF o`a...� i,�0®`.."0"-1-Y.7" :-�a®eop.-no " a 0, o oral O�0 y /p y0 %f ° � OAw OOO ( PO• OO°n �®j®0OObN 31 D. ��®� O O.GSA <�/ O., a®ODo uoo ' ©scc) ®° ®6[b,/,4/loc�`�o (10 90 )i\(04 o�, r ® 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 Operation and Maintenance 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 Calibration 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 Monitoring 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. 20 Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization Guidance Principle: Collect, store, and apply animal manures properly to optimize efficiency white 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. 21 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 property 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 fitter 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 as manure-soil seal 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 welts. 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. 6. 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 Podtburg& Sons Dairy 09.05.2000 Appendix D • Soil Testing Protocol • Process Wastewater/Stormwater Testing Protocol • Solid Manure Testing Protocol • Irrigation Water 'Vesting Protocol Podtburg& Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LW I4 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Sep-00 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 Sep-00 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. • I lave 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 Sep-00 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. • lithe 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 pl 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, t.I.C Sep-00 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. • Pill 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: pl I Nitrate-N Podtburg& Sons Dairy 09.052000 Appendix E • Rainfall Log • Agronomic Determination Sheet (Process Wastewater) • Agronomic Determination Sheet (Solid Manure) • Process Wastewater Application Log • Solid Manure Application Log • Manure and/or Compost Removal Log • Pond/Lagoon Inspection Form Podtburg& Sons Dairy CNMP AgPro Environmental Services, LLC IS AgPro Environmental Services, I.I.C Sep-00 PRECIPITATION LOG (Record precipitation utter each event&frequently during events if rainfall is intense or lbr long duration.) Facility Name: ---- .- _ Year: _ Rain Gauge Location: Date Time Time Elapsed Beg. Reading End Reading Total Rainfall L Continents: — - AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Sep-00 Agronomic Rate Determination Sheet - Process Wastewater Application Reference material needed:Soil test data,process wastewater test data and CSU Bulletin No. 5684 1. Field Information: Crop Crop year Number of Acres Soil name/texture Previous crop 2. Nitrogen Need: N (lb./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 goals%O M]. Corn Silage: N-rate =35+17.5 x yield goal(tons/acre)]-[8 x ppm soil NO3-NJ-[0.85 x yield goal x%O.A.1.1 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 *lf 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(Ib./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 /1-h)] + [dx eJ) lb./1000 gal g) Recommended manure application rate (a -12 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 Sep-00 Agronomic Rate Determination Sheet - Solid Manure Application Reference material',ceded:Soil test data,manure lest data and('.SL/Bulletin No. 5689 1. Field Information: Crop Crop year Number of Acres Soil name/texture Previous crop 2. Nitrogen Need: N (lb./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 - 11.2.v yield goal(hit ucre)l /8 x ppm roll NO3-N1 -10.14 x_yield goals %O-:141. Corn Silage: V-rale 35 I [7.5 x yield goal(tons'ocreil -/8x ppm soil,NO, tit 10.85 s.yield goals%O.IL) 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 (I 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 solid manure lb./ton d) Expected mineralization rate for Organic-N - e) Organic-N available from solid manure lb./ton I) Total available N ([c x /I-h/J + [dx eJ) lb./ton g) Recommended manure application rate (a=f) ton/acre 5. Post-Growing Season Follow-Up Actual crop yield (ho/acre,ton/acre,etc.)Total irrigation water applied inches/acre or Acre-feet/acre Supplemental fertilizers applied: lbs. N/acre Total solid manure applied tons/acre Prepared by: Date: AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Sep-00 PROCESS WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG (Rccord manure application data several times per day when applying process wastewater.) Facility Name: Year: Field I.D.: Crop: Water GPM reached Changed Time Meter Gallons Pressure Initials of Date Time being water Elapsed Reading Pumped @ Pump end of setting? Person pumped rows? (Y/N)�' Pumping (YIN) r 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 4 :fron,Agronomic Rate Determination Sheet-Process Wastewater Application) (5) Plant Available Nitrogen Applied: lb./Acre/(Line 4 *Line 3) =10001 AgPro Environmental Services,LLLC Sep-00 SOLID MANURE APPLICATION LOG (Record manure application data every day when applying solid manure.) Facility Name: Year: Field I.D.: Crop: Of loads Average tare-weight Total pounds Total tons Tons per Initials of Date hauled of loads hauled(lbs.) hauled hauled acre applied Person Applying Calculation: (1) Total Tons Applied: (2) Total Acres in Field: (3) Tons per Acre Applied: [Line l _Line 2] (4) Plant Available Nitrogen in Solid Manure: lb./ton[Line 41 rom Agronomic Rate Determination Sheet—Solid Manure Application] (5) Plant Available Nitrogen Applied: lb./Acre /Line 4 *Line 3] AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Sep-00 MANURE and/or COMPOST REMOVAL LOG (to track manure and/or compost removed from facility by others) Facility Name: Year: Date # Of loads Average tare-weight Total weight Total weight Person hauled of loads hauled (lbs.) hauled(lbs.) hauled (tons) hauling L Comments: AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Sep-00 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: PODTBURG & SONS DAIRY _ _ _ o. ,. - — - —— AWLS COWS Lx COWS lASS COWSCOWS oM cows IMILK ,a K �n,1 «L, I I I 1 CO 1 1 ,.C-1 u .W e pa .,m., o .w^l''/. I L...a ,o o o m^° ° — — — n m C _ "°""` ww a_ o"`" .r,a.:,w,me-, ..-.. � me OwniACS MILK cows wI wo,cows w - SCo ws ��.Nn e.w.-rFm N. _I nrry 0 I FREE STALL I o , I FREE STILL i, r L J I' `,"{ a R. 11 e n I/ 1 3 ..A I R,.' I ooaoL 1 — L- -- J rur smwet 1e COMPOST RR1".I _ - ,! r I - <i1'/tip{ . I �� LK cc-s MI" I "I.1" o y COWS n L / WELD COUNTY ROAD 25.75 LEGEND cc PROPOSED ADDITIONS PROPERTY BOUNDARY ci - - DIRECTION OF FLOW - m DRAINAGE DITCH o LAND APPLICATION AREAS o DRAINAGE BOUNDARY II L 0 PODTBURG & SONS DAIRY -- — n.-cows �,.row mix ccws ,.n.cows ass-cows e K,.t I I co I 1 co 1 I ool I ° .m,e .m.g °C 41 L. cow. ....coWnsrw.� p ^ "Cows°I v,.LGwt y G°NS 1< Miu .e..e J Jf.,Ms,«�..-rs rest STALL o � o �- l °, mirs o ° x rs.°.dry • • a owrrow, ��s� s,O�,CE J °wsMr, - - > ...a. ''''''-'•• - WELD COUNTY ROAD 25.75 LEGEND o PROPOSED ADDITIONS PROPERTY BOUNDARY D DIRECTION OF FLOW - DRAINAGE DITCH - I8 Z LAND APPLICATION AREAS DRAINAGE BOUNDARY A0 cu cu S Manazement Plan For Nuisance Control A Supplement to the Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan For Podtburg & Sons Dairy 12673 Weld County Road 66 Greeley, CO 80631 Developed in accordance with Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 6508 WCR 5 Erie, Colorado 80516 August 29, 2000 Podtburg&Sons Dairy AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Introduction This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods Podtburg & Sons Dairy, will use to minimize the inherent conditions that exist in confinement feeding operations. This supplement outlines management practices generally acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. Neither nuisance management nor this supplemental plan is required by Colorado State statute or specifically outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. This is a proactive measure to assist integration into local communities as required by Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Section 47—Livestock Feeding Performance Standards. These management and control practices, to their best and practical extent, will be used by Podtburg & Sons Dairy. Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Podtburg& Sons Dairy Jeff Podtburg !2673 WCR 66 Greeley, CO 80631 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below. Jeff Podtburg Owner (Name) (Title) Legal Description The confined animal feeding facility described in this NMP is located in: The W'h of the SE'/< of Section 19, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. 2 Podtburg& Sons Dairy AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Air Quality Air quality at and around confined animal feeding operations is affected primarily from the relationship of soil/manure and available moisture. The two primary air quality concerns at dairies are dust and odor. However, the management practices for dust or odor control are not inherently compatible. Wet pens and manure produce odor. Dry pens are dusty. The two paragraphs below outline the best management practices for the control of dust and odors that Podtburg & Sons Dairy will use. The manager shall closely observe pen conditions and attempt to achieve a balance between proper dust and odor control. Additional reference information on odor and dust control as guidance to the dairy manager is attached in section "References". Dust Intensive management of the pen surface by routine cleaning and harrowing of the pen surface usually controls dust from pen surfaces. The purpose of intensive surface management is twofold; to keep cattle clean and to reduce pest habitat. The best management systems for dust control involve moisture management. Management methods Podtburg & Sons Dairy shall use to control dust are: I. Pen density Moisture can be managed by varying stocking rates and pen densities. The animal's wet manure and urine keep the surface moist and control dust emissions. 2. Regular manure removal Podtburg & Sons Dairy will continue to conduct regular manure removal. Typically, pens are cleaned, conditioned and maintained as needed. Manure is removed routinely and pens are harrowed several times per week. 3. Pen Sprinkling Should nuisance dust conditions arise, pen sprinkling may be used for moisture control on pens and internal roadways to minimize nuisance dust conditions. 3 Podtburg&Sons Dairy AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Odor Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is excreted and continue as long as any usable material remains as food for microorganisms. Odor strength depends on the kind of manure, and the conditions under which it decomposes. Although occasionally unpleasant, the odors are not dangerous to health in the quantities customarily noticed around animal feeding operations and fields where manure is spread for fertilizer. Key practices Podtburg & Sons Dairy may use to control odor are: 1. Establish good pen drainage Dry manure is less odorous than moist manure. Maintaining good pen drainage can be achieved by regular cleaning in pens and under fences. The dairy will conduct routine pen cleaning to reduce standing water and remove wet manure. 2. Regular manure removal Reduce the overall quantity of odor producing sources. The dairy will conduct routine pen cleaning and conditioning as needed. 3. Reduce standing water Standing water can increase microbial digestion and odor producing by-products. Proper pen maintenance and surface grading will be conducted by the dairy to reduce standing water. The wastewater ponds will be dewatered as needed in accordance with the Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan for Podtburg & Sons Dairy. 4. Composting Proper composting turns manure into a nearly odorless, pathogen-free product that is valuable for soil conditioning. Podtburg & Sons Dairy will maximize manure composting on the land area available for that purpose. 5. Land application timing Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. Podtburg & Sons Dairy will consider weather conditions and prevailing wind direction to minimize odors from land application. Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings. 4 Podtburg& Sous Dairy AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Pest Control Insects and Rodents Insects and rodents inhabit areas that 1) have an adequate to good food supply and 2) foster habitat prime for breeding and living. Key practices Podtburg & Sons Dairy may use to manage insects and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat, and then reduce the available food supply. The dairy will work to control flies by applying one or more of the following practices as needed: 1. Regular manure removal Manure management removes both food sources and habitat 2. Reduce standing water Standing water is a primary breeding ground for insects 3. Minimize fly habitat Standing water, weeds and grass, manure stockpiles, etc., are all prime habitat for reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical. 4. Manage weeds and grass Keep weeds and grassy areas to a minimum. These provide both protection and breeding areas. 5. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keep stockpile use to a minimum. 6. Biological treatments Parasitic wasps are excellent biological fly control and are widely used. The wasps lay their eggs in fly larvae hindering fly reproduction. 7. Baits and chemical treatments Due to environmental and worker's safety concerns, chemical treatments are a last line of defense for insect control. However, they are very effective. Baits and treatments must be applied routinely. 5 Podtburg&Sons Dairy igPro Environmental Services, LLC Dead Animals Mortality is an unfortunate and unavoidable part of animal husbandry. Dead animals can produce offensive odors, attract scavengers, and create deleterious conditions. Property and timely disposal of dead animals prevents nuisance conditions from occurring. Key practices Podtburg & Sons Dairy may use to handle and dispose of dead animals are: 1• Expedient removal from pens Dead animals will be removed from pens daily and relocated to an area(s) away from the pens. 2. Commercial Rendering Company removal A commercial rendering company will remove dead animals. References These references are provided as a resource to Weld County Health Department and Podtburg & Sons Dairy for making nuisance control decisions for the facility. These references represent the latest and most modern management and scientific information to date for control of nuisance conditions for the livestock feeding industry. 6 Hello