The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20031473.tiff ' ate. ) 11 r \ sr—. Ip �C`Z 52 51 .-i. .a. . 47 • 38 52 \4 /Y"-. J 56 52\ 566 • 51 52 37 37 lo¢ 58 51 z. . +, 4 .+ ._51 \°iy DI t; �j� 51 59 51 40 i.„•� .� 47•. 4 51I 30 57 `; / 51 51 51 '+ 59 46 ., 58 37 '_ 57 4151 I 58 + Y ; 58 � '� 163 47 +, • 1 j 3 i 52 II ! 46 � 37 59 51 36 : y + a8 1 - - 47 t .0:7" 47 m. 47 51 s i ;Y ...--•••• 58 51 4 gg l\ a +32 Z N. I `, .t 50 .Y I _ .0 38 37a • i i - 51 I i T . - • 37 37 F ^ 51 - 57 37 47 �. `,. vic5 f 79237 w l 6 ,ur ? y.51 47 sz 5 • 52 38 37 •••• 4 47 37 ill ato 52 38 38 C - 47 51 / 47 64 52 i T if re- ,. , 4.37 r; 4 37 3 4 38 ,. bit 51 12 / 51 I M n.� A / 32 �' o t DITCH 7IA 51 52 51 / 47 42: 38 it I 4 :C 64 64 50 37 �. ik +b _ -t f.. > 1 /47 47 3. R.65 v�' I R.64 w. 2003-1473 26 SOIL SURVEY shale is about 18 inches. Permeability is moderate. Availa- plication of barnyard manure and commercial fertilizer. ble water capacity is low. The effective rooting depth is keeping tillage to a minimum and utilizing crop residue 10 to 20 inches. Surface runoff is medium to rapid. and are important. the erosion hazard is moderate. In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, This unit is used as rangeland and wildlife habitat. The barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to potential native vegetation is dominated by alkali sacaton, winter wheat and is summer fallowed in alternate years western wheatgrass, and blue grama. Buffalograss, to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitation is sideoats grama, needleandthread. little bluestem, sedge, too low for beneficial use of fertilizer. winterfat, and fourw-ing saltbush are also present. Poten- Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til- tial production ranges from 800 pounds per acre in lage are needed to control soil blowing and water erosion. favorable years to 500 pounds in unfavorable years. As The potential native vegetation on this range site is range condition deteriorates, the mid grasses decrease dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue and forage production drops. Undesirable weeds and an- grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, nuals invade the site as range condition becomes poorer. and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential Management of vegetation on this unit should be based production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, Western wheatgrass, blue grama, alkali sacaton, sideoats and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, grama, little bluestem, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected the site as range condition becomes poorer. should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can Management of vegetation on this soil should be based be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. spring has proven most successful. Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats Rangeland wildlife, such as antelope, cottontail, and grama, blue grams, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested coyote, are best suited to this unit. Because forage wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected production is typically low, grazing management is needed should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can if livestock and wildlife share the range. Livestock water- be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be ing facilities also are utilized by various wildlife species. drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in The nearby cropland makes areas of this unit valuable as spring has proven most successful. escape cover for openland wildlife, especially pheasants. Windbreak and environmental plantings are generally Capability subclass VIe irrigated, VIe nonirrigated; Shaly not suited to this soiL Onsite investigation is needed to Plains range site. determine if plantings are feasible. 37—Nelson fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes. Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The This is a moderately deep, well drained soil on plains at cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked elevations of 4,800 to 5,050 feet. It formed in residuum pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can from soft sandstone. Included in mapping are small areas be developed by establishing areas for nesting and escape of soils that have sandstone at a depth of more than 40 cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- inches. tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- Typically the surface layer is light brownish gray fine ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- sandy loam about 9 inches thick. The underlying material land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be is light olive brown fine sandy loam. Soft sandstone is at attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, a depth of about 30 inches. managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water The underlying sandstone is the most limiting feature capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to of this soil. Neither septic tank absorption fields nor 40 inches. Surface runoff is slow to medium, and the ero- sewage lagoons operate properly. Site preparation for sion hazard is low. dwellings is more costly. Environmental and beautifica- This soil is suited to most of the irrigated crops com- tion plantings of trees and shrubs may be difficult to monly grown in the area, but it is somewhat restricted establish. This soil, however, does have good potential for because it is only moderately deep. A suitable cropping such recreational development as camp and picnic areas system is corn, corn for silage, barley, 3 to 4 years of al- and playgrounds. Capability subclass Ills irrigated, IVe falfa, and wheat. This soil is also well suited to irrigated nonirrigated; Sandy Plains range site. pasture. 38—Nelson fine sandy loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes. Row crops can be irrigated by furrows or sprinklers. This is a moderately deep, well drained soil on plains at ^Flooding from contour ditches and sprinkling are suitable elevations of 4,800 to 5,050 feet. It formed in residuum n irrigating close grown crops and pasture. Small heads derived from soft sandstone. Included in mapping are of water and short runs help to reduce erosion. Produc- small areas of soils that have sandstone at a depth of tion can be maintained with frequent irrigations and ap- more than 40 inches. WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 27 .-.Typically the surface layer is light brownish gray fine establish. This soil, however, does have good potential for dy loam about 8 inches thick. The underlying material such recreational development as camp and picnic areas is light olive brown fine sandy loam. Soft sandstone is at and playgrounds. Capability subclass IVe irrigated, VIe a depth of about 28 inches. nonirrigated; Sandy Plains range site. Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water 39—Nunn loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is a deep, capacity is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to well drained soil on terraces at elevations of 4,550 to 5,000 40 inches. Surface runoff is medium to rapid, and the ero- feet. It formed in mixed alluvium. Included in mapping sion hazard is moderate. are small, long and narrow areas of sand and gravel This soil is suited to limited cropping. Intensive deposits and small areas of soil that are subject to occa- cropping is hazardous because of erosion. The cropping sional flooding. Some small leveled areas are also in- system should be limited to such close grown crops as al- eluded. falfa, wheat, and barley. This soil is also suited to ir- Typically the surface layer of this Nunn soil is grayish rigated pasture. A suitable cropping system is 3 to 4 brown loam about 12 inches thick. The subsoil is light years of alfalfa followed by 2 years of corn and small brownish gray clay loam about 12 inches thick. The upper grain and alfalfa seeded with a nurse crop. Close grown crops can be irrigated from closely spaced part of the substratum is light brownish gray clay loam. The lower part to a depth of 60 inches is brown sandy contour ditches or sprinklers. Contour furrows or sprin- klers should be used for new crops. Applications of loam. nitrogen and phosphorus help in maintaining Permeability is moderately slow. Available water good produc- tion. capacity is high. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches The potential native vegetation on this range site is or more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue low. Thigrama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, • suit soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential • is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- tng corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favors- We years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, sugar beets, small grain, or beans. Few conservation prac- an"--and sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade tices are needed to maintain top yields. All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- t to as range condition becomes poorer. Management of vegetation on this soil should be based rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. :ion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. Windbreaks and environmental plantings of trees and grass, sideoats shrubs commonly grown in the area are generally well Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switch ;Tama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested suited to this soil. Cultivation to control competing wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected vegetation should be continued for as many years as should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can possible following planting. Trees that are best suited and Je seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be have good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern frilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in redcedar, ponderosa pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and pring has proven most successful. hackberry. The shrubs best suited are skunkbush, lilac, Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally Siberian peashrub, and American plum. tot suited. Onsite investigation is needed to determine if Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The lantings are feasible. cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can ropland areas provide wildlife habitat for ring-necked be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape heasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- e attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- wer. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. al and should be included in plans for habitat develop- This soil has fair to poor potential for urban develop- ent, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- ment. It has moderate to high shrink swell, low strength, nd wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be and moderately slow permeability. These features create problems in dwelling and road construction. Those areas tracted by developing livestock watering facilitioe. anaging livestock grazing, and reseeding whore needed. that have loam or sandy loam in the lower part of the The underlying sandstone is the most limiting feature substratum are suitable for septic tank absorption fields this soil. Neither septic tank absorption fields nor and foundations. Some areas are adjacent to streams and wagp� lagoons operate properly. Site preparation for are subject to occasional flooding. This soil has fair poten- t is more costly. Environmental and beautifica- tial for such recreational development as camp and picnic .antings of trees and shrubs may be difficult to areas and Playgrounds. Capability class I irrigated. 34 SOIL SURVEY or drilled into a firm, clean sorghum stubble. Seeding tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip c ^. early in spring has proven most successful. Brush vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigatio management can also help to improve deteriorated range. may be needed at the time of planting and during dr Windbreaks and environmental plantings are fairly well periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survivs suited to this soil. Blowing sand and low available water are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderos. capacity are the principal hazards in establishing trees pine. Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. Th. and shrubs. This soil is so loose that trees should be shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi planted in shallow furrows, and vegetation is needed an peashrub. between the rows. Supplemental irrigation may be needed Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil to insure survival. Trees that are best suited and have Ring-necked pheasant, mourning dove, and many non good survival are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern. game species can be attracted by establishing areas for redcedar, ponderosa pine, and Siberian elm. The shrubs nesting and escape cover. For pheasants, undisturbed best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberian nesting cover is essential and should be included in plan: peashrub. for habitat development, especially in areas of intensive Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. The agriculture. cropland areas provide favorable habitat for ring-necked Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area pheasant and mourning dove. Many nongame species can has resulted in urbanization of much of this Otero soil. be attracted by establishing areas for nesting and escape This soil has excellent potential for urban and recrea- cover. For pheasants, undisturbed nesting cover is essen- tional development. The only limiting feature is the tial and should be included in plans for habitat develop- moderately rapid permeability in the substratum, which ment, especially in areas of intensive agriculture. Range- causes a hazard of ground water contamination from land wildlife, for example, the pronghorn antelope, can be sewage lagoons. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. attracted by developing livestock watering facilities, Capability subclass Its irrigated. managing livestock grazing, and reseeding where needed. 51—Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes. This is a Few areas of this soil are in major growth and ur- deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,700 to banized centers. The chief limiting feature is the rapid 5,250 feet. It formed in mixed outwash and eolian permeability in the substratum, which causes a hazard of deposits. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that ground water contamination from seepage. Potential for have loam and clay loam underlying material. recreation is poor because of the sandy surface layer. Typically the surface layer is brown sandy loam about ^ Capability subclass IVe irrigated, VIe nonirrigated; Deep 12 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 60 Sand range site. inches is pale brown calcareous fine sandy loam. 50—Otero sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. This is a Permeability is rapid. Available water capacity is deep, well drained soil on smooth plains at elevations of moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or 4,700 to 5,250 feet. It formed in mixed outwash and eolian more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is deposits. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that low. have loam and clay loam underlying material. This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It Typically the surface layer is brown sandy loam about is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area. Land 12 inches thick. The underlying material to a depth of 60 leveling, ditch lining, and installing pipelines may be inches is pale brown calcareous fine sandy loam. needed for proper water application. Permeability is rapid. Available water capacity is All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or rigation is the most common. Barnyard manure and com- more. Surface runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard is mercial fertilizer are needed for top yields. low. In nonirrigated areas this soil is suited to winter wheat, This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It barley, and sorghum. Most of the acreage is planted to is suited to all crops commonly grown in the area, includ- winter wheat. The predicted average yield is 28 bushels ing corn, sugar beets, beans, alfalfa, small grain, potatoes, per acre. The soil is summer fallowed in alternate years and onions. An example of a suitable cropping system is 3 to allow moisture accumulation. Generally precipitaiton is to 4 years of alfalfa followed by corn, corn for silage, too low for beneficial use of fertilizer, sugar beets,small grain, or beans. Generally, such charac- Stubble mulch farming, striperopping, and minimum til- teristics as a high clay content or a rapidly permeable lage are needed to control water erosion. Terracing also substratum slightly restrict some crops. may be needed to control water erosion. All methods of irrigation are suitable, but furrow ir- The potential native vegetation on this range site is rigation is the most common. Proper irrigation water dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue management is essential. Barnyard manure and commer- grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, cial fertilizer are needed for top yields. and western wheatgrass are also prominent. Potential Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range `.ablishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 35 and switchgrass decrease and blue grama, sand dropseed, should be grown at least 50 percent of the time. Contour �..4 sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade ditches and corrugations can be used in irrigating close site as range condition becomes poorer. grown crops and pasture. Furrows, contour furrows, and Management of vegetation on this soil should be based cross slope furrows are suitable for row crops. Sprinkler on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- irrigation is also desirable. Keeping tillage to a minimum don. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. and utilizing crop residue help to control erosion. Main- Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats tailing fertility is important. Crops respond to applica- grama, blue grama, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested tions of phosphorus and nitrogen. wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected The potential native vegetation on this site is should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can dominated by sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, and blue be seeded into a clean, firm stubble, or it can be drilled grama. Needleandthread, switchgrass, sideoats grama, into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in spring has and western wheatgrass are also prominent 'Potential proven most successful. production ranges from 2,200 pounds per acre in favora- Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally ble years to 1,800 pounds in unfavorable years. As range suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in condition deteriorates, the sand bluestem, sin&reedgrass, establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- and switchgrass decrease, and blue grams, sand dropseed, tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of and sand sage increase. Annual weeds and grasses invade vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation the site as range condition becomes poorer. may be needed at the time of planting and during dry Management of vegetation on this soil should be based periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The Sand bluestem, sand reedgrass, switchgrass, sideoats shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- grams, blue grams, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested an peashrub. wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can Ring-necked pheasant, mourning dove, and many non- be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble, or it can be game species can be attracted by establishing areas for drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in nesting and escape cover. For pheasants, undisturbed spring has proven most successful. nesting cover is essential and should be included in plans Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally f x•-1,abitat development, especially in areas of intensive suited to this soil. Soil blowing, the principal hazard in ulture. establishing trees and shrubs, can be controlled by cul- Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area tivating only in the tree row and by leaving a strip of has resulted in urbanization of much of this Otero soil. vegetation between the rows. Supplemental irrigation This soil has excellent potential for urban and recrea- may be needed at the time of planting and during dry tional development. The only limiting feature is the periods. Trees that are best suited and have good survival moderately rapid permeability in the substratum, which are Rocky Mountain juniper, eastern redcedar, ponderosa causes a hazard of ground water contamination from pine, Siberian elm, Russian-olive, and hackberry. The sewage lagoons. Lawns, shrubs, and trees grow well. shrubs best suited are skunkbush sumac, lilac, and Siberi- Capability subclass IIIe irrigated, IVe nonirrigated: an peashrub. Sandy Plains range site. Wildlife is an important secondary use of this soil. 52—Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes. This is a Ring-necked pheasant, mourning dove, and many non- deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,700 to game species can be attracted by establishing areas for 5,250 feet. It formed in mixed outwash and eolian nesting and escape cover. For pheasants, undisturbed deposits. Included in mapping are small areas of soils that nesting cover is essential and should be included in plans have loam and clay loam underlying material. Also in- for habitat development, especially in areas of intensive eluded are small areas of soils that have sandstone and agriculture. shale within a depth of 60 inches. Rapid expansion of Greeley and the surrounding area Typically the surface layer of this Otero soil is brown has resulted in urbanization of much of this Otero soil. sandy loam about 10 inches thick. The underlying material The soil has excellent potential for urban and recreational to a depth of 60 inches is pale brown calcareous fine development. The only limiting feature is the moderately sandy loam. rapid permeability in the substratum, which causes a Permeability is rapid. Available water capacity is hazard of ground water contamination from sewage moderate. The effective rooting depth is 60 inches or lagoons. Lawns. shrubs, and trees grow well. Capability more. Surface runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is subclass IIIe irrigated. VIe nonirrigated; Sandy Plains ow. range site. This soil is used almost entirely for irrigated crops. It 53—Otero sandy loam. 5 to 9 percent slopes. This is a s suited to the crops commonly grown in the area. deep, well drained soil on plains at elevations of 4,700 to ,ial grasses and alfalfa or close growing crops 5.250 feet. It formed in mixed outwash and eolian WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, SOUTHERN PART 39 small grain or irrigated pasture. This soil has severe orates, the mid grasses decrease and forage production strictions and requires very careful management. Most drops. Undesirable weeds and annuals invade the site as rigation methods are suitable, but the length of runs range condition becomes poorer. should be short to prevent overirrigation. Light, frequent Management of vegetation on this soil should be based irrigations are best. Barnyard manure and commercial on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- fertilizer are needed for normal yields. tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. The potential native vegetation is dominated by alkali Western wheatgrass, blue grama, alkali sacaton, sideoats sacaton, western wheatgrass, and blue grams. Buf- grama, little bluestem, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested falograss, sideoats grama, needleandthread, little wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected bluestem, sedge, winterfat, and fourwing saltbush are also should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can present. Potential production ranges from 800 pounds per be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble or it can be acre in favorable years to 500 pounds in unfavorable drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in years. As range condition deteriorates, the mid grasses spring has proven most successful ,kW!. decrease and forage production drops. Undesirable weeds Windbreaks and environmental plantingsii'ie generally and annuals invade the site as range condition becomes not suited to this soil. Onsite investigation is needed to poorer. determine if plantings are feasible. Management of vegetation on this soil should be based Rangeland wildlife, such as antelope, cottontail, and on taking half and leaving half of the total annual produc- coyote, are best suited to this soil. Because forage produc- tion. Seeding is desirable if the range is in poor condition. tion is typically low, grazing management is needed if Western wheatgrass, blue grama, alkali sacaton, sideoats livestock and wildlife share the range. Livestock watering grama, little bluestem, pubescent wheatgrass, and crested facilities also are utilized by various wildlife species. wheatgrass are suitable for seeding. The grass selected This soil has poor potential for urban and recreational should meet the seasonal requirements of livestock. It can development. The chief limiting feature is the shallow be seeded into a clean, firm sorghum stubble or it can be depth to shale. Capability subclass VIe irrigated, VIe drilled into a firm prepared seedbed. Seeding early in nonirrigated; Shaly Plains range site. spring has proven most successful. 60-Shingle-Renohill complex, 3 to 9 percent slopes. Windbreaks and environmental plantings are generally This gently sloping to moderately sloping map unit is on not suited to this soil. Onsite investigation is needed to plains, hills, and ridges at elevations of 4,600 to 4,750 feet. determine if plantings are feasible. The Shingle soil makes up about 65 percent of the unit, angeland wildlife, such as antelope, cottontail, and and the Renohill soil about 25 percent. About 10 percent --dote, are best suited to this soil. Because forage produc- is Tassel fine sandy loam. The Shingle soil occupies the tion is typically low, grazing management is needed if steeper, convex parts of the landscape, and the Renohill livestock and wildlife share the range. Livestock watering soil occupies the less steep, slightly concave positions. facilities also are utilized by various wildlife species. The Shingle soil is shallow and well drained. It formed This soil has poor potential for urban development. The in residuum from calcareous shale. Typically the surface chief limiting feature is the shallow depth to shale. Capa- layer is grayish brown loam about 6 inches thick. The un- bility subclass IVs irrigated, VIs nonirrigated; Shaly derlying material is light yellowish brown clay loam. Cal- Plains range site. careous clayey shale is at a depth of about 18 inches. 59—Shingle loam, 3 to 9 percent slopes. This is a shal- Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is low, well drained soil on upland hills and ridges at eleva- low. The effective rooting depth is 10 to 20 inches. Sur- tions of 4,850 to 5,200 feet. It formed in residuum from face runoff is medium to rapid, and the erosion hazard is shale. Included in mapping are some small outcrops of moderate. shale and sandstone. The Renohill soil is moderately deep and well drained. Typically the surface layer is grayish brown loam about It formed in residuum from shale. Typically the surface 4 inches thick. The underlying material is light yellowish layer is grayish brown clay loam about 9 inches thick. The brown clay loam about 10 inches thick. Shale is at a depth subsoil is grayish brown and pale brown clay loam about of about 16 inches. 14 inches thick. The substratum is clay loam. Shale is at a Permeability is moderate. Available water capacity is depth of about 32 inches. low. The effective rooting depth is 10 to 20 inches. Sur- Permeability is slow. Available water capacity is face runoff is medium to rapid, and the erosion hazard is moderate. The effective rooting depth is 20 to 40 inches. moderate. Surface runoff is rapid, and the erosion hazard is The potential native vegetation on this soil is moderate. dominated by alkali sacaton, western wheatgrass. and This unit is used for rangeland and wildlife habitat. The blue grama. Buffalograss, sideoats grama. needle- potential native vegetation on the Shingle soil is andthread. little bluestem. sedge, winterfat. and founving dominated by alkali sacaton. western wheatgrass. and saltbusn are also present. Potential production ranges blue grama. Buffalograss, sideoats grama, needle- "'� X00 pounas per acre in favorable years to 500 andthread, little bluestem, sedge, winterfat, and founving s in unfavorable years. As range condition deteri- saltbrush are also present. Potential production ranges AGPROfessionals, LLC 02.17.2003 Appendix B • 25-year, 24-hour&10-year, 10-day storm and pond capacity calculations • Weighted Runoff Percentage • Process Wastewater/Stormwater Accumulation Table—Main Area • Process Wastewater/Stormwater Accumulation Table—New Area—2000 Cows • Process Wastewater/Stormwater Accumulation Table—New Area— 1500 Cows • Process Wastewater/Stormwater Accumulation Table—New Area— 1000 Cows • Process Wastewater Production—Varying Milk Cow Populations • Manure Production and Associated Nutrients • Land Application for Design Storms • Land Application for Average Years' Precipitation—Varying Milk Cow Populations JF Cattle Comprehensive Manure&Wastewater Management Plan 12 JF Cattle-Pond Volumes 25-Year, 24-Hour& 10-Year, 10-Day Storm Events and Pond Capacity Calculations 25-year, 24-hour storm amount taken off of NOAA ATLAS 2, 25-year,24-hour event Volume Ill-Isopluvials of 25-yr,24-hr precipitation map, and Existing Feedlot Area Proposed New Area within the immediate area of the facility. Earthen Concrete Earthen Concrete Areas Areas Total Areas Areas Total Grand Total Applicable Storm Event for Location,inches 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 SCS Runoff Curve Number (90 for unsurfaced lots) 90' 97 90 97 I (97 for surfaced lots) S(potential max retention after runoff begins),inches 1.11 0.31 1.11 0.31 Surface Area of Drainage Basins,acres 61.40 3.60 65.00 10.10 0.50 10.60 75.60 (Separate different drainage areas) 65.00 10.60 (Include pens,alleys,mill areas, working areas,etc.) Inches of Runoff using SCS Runoff Curve Factor 1.98 2.66 1.98 2.66 Minimum Retention Capacity Required,Acre-Ft. 10.15 0.80 10.95 1.67 0.11 1.78 12.73 Surface Area of Retention Structures,Acres' 5.32 3.37 8.69 'Additional Volume Required,Acre-Ft. _ 1.33 0.84 2.17 _ Total Retention Structure Volume Required,Acre-Ft. 12.28 2.62 14.90 Total Retention Structure Volume Available,Acre-Ft. 20.82 16.30 37.13 Excess Retention Structure Volume Available,Acre-Ft. 8.54 13.68 22.22 Lagoon Capacities North Pond(Existing) Middle Pond(Expanded) Proposed South Pond 1 Surface Surface Surface Area Incremental Area @ Incremental Area @ Incremental Depth(ft) @ depth(ft2) Volume(ft3) depth(ft2) Volume(ft3) depth(ft2) Volume(ft3) 0 17,635 88,311 102,319 1 22,707 20,171 97,811 93,061 107,489 104,904 2 27,953 25,330 107,465 102,638 112,777 110,133 3 33,374 30,664 117,274 112,370 118,184 115,481 4 38,968 36,171 127,236 122,255 123,708 120,946 5 44,737 41,853 137,352 132,294 129,351 126,530 6 50,680 47,709 147,622 142,487 135,112 132,232 7 56,797 53,739 158,045 152,834 140,991 138,052 8 63,088 59,943 168,623 163,334 146,989 143,990 Total Volume,ftf 315,578 1,021,272 992,266 Total Volume,A.F. 7.24 23.45 22.78 Vol.w/2'Freeboard,ft3 201,897 705,105 710,225 Vol.w/2'Freeboard,A.F. 4.63 16.2 16.3 10-year, 10-day storm amount taken from NRCS calculated 10-year,10-day event data of 10-year events according to Colorado General CAFO Existing Feedlot Area Proposed New Area Permit requirements, and from the nearest station to the Earthen Concrete Earthen Concrete facility(Greeley, CO) Areas Areas Total Areas Areas Total Grand Total Applicable Storm Event for Location,inches 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21 4.21 SCS Runoff Curve Number (81 for unsurfaced lots)* 81 94 81 94 (94 for surfaced lots)* S(potential max retention after runoff begins),inches 2.35 0.638 2.35 0.638 Surface Area of Drainage Basins,acres 61.40 3.60 65.00 10.10 0.50 10.60 75.60 (Separate different drainage areas) (Include pens,alleys,mill areas, working areas,etc.) Inches of Runoff using SCS Runoff Curve Factor 2.30 3.53 2.30 3.53 Minimum Retention Capacity Required, Acre-Ft. 11.76 1.06 12.82 1.94 0.15 2.08 14.91 Surface Area of Retention Structures,Acres 5.32 3.37 8.69 'Additional Volume Required,Acre-Ft. 1.87 1.18 3.05 Total Retention Structure Volume Required,Acre-Ft. 14.69 3.27 17.96 Total Retention Structure Volume Available,Acre-Ft. _ 20.82 _ 16.30 37.13 Ncess Retention Structure Volume Available,Acre-Ft. 6.13 13.04 19.17 Men from Table 2-3 8 of NRCS publication"Technical Release 60, Design of Earth Dams and Reservoirs",adjusted curve numer from 24 hours to 10 days. AGPROfessionals, LLC 1 of 10 Eric W. Dunker, P.E. JF Cattle-Wtd Runoff% Weighted Percenta e Runoff-Main Area Percent Percent Earthen Percent Covered Percent Weighted Month Area Runoff Area Runoff %Runoff Jan 94.5 5.0% 5.5 21% 5.88% Feb 94.5 5.0% 5.5 18% 5.72% Mar 94.5 5.0% 5.5 25% 6.10% Apr 94.5 8.0% 5.5 37% 9.60% May 94.5 17.0% 5.5 48% 18.71% Jun 94.5 15.0% 5.5 45% 16.65% Jul 94.5 14.0% 5.5 41% 15.49% Aug 94.5 13.0% 5.5 40% 14.49% Sep 94.5 13.0% 5.5 43% 14.65% Oct 94.5 11.0% 5.5 40% 12.60% „..... Nov 94.5 5.0% 5.5 25% 6.10% Dec 94.5 5.0% 5.5 25% 6.10% Weighted Percenta e Runoff-New Area Percent Percent Earthen Percent Covered Percent Weighted Month Area Runoff Area Runoff %Runoff Jan 95.3 5.0% 4.7 21% 5.75% Feb 95.3 5.0% 4.7 18% 5.61% Mar 95.3 5.0% 4.7 25% 5.94% Apr 95.3 8.0% 4.7 37% 9.36% May 95.3 17.0% 4.7 47% 18.41% Jun 95.3 15.0% 4.7 45% 16.41% Jul 95.3 14.0% 4.7 41% 15.27% Aug 95.3 13.0% 4.7 40% 14.27% Sep 95.3 13.0% 4.7 43% 14.41% Oct 95.3 11.0% 4.7 40% 12.36% Nov 95.3 5.0% 4.7 25% 5.94% Dec 95.3 5.0% 4.7 25% 5.94% AGPROfessionals, LLC 2 of 10 Eric W. Dunker, P.E. JF Cattle-Avg Yrs.-WB(Existing Area) Process Wastewater and Stormwater Accumulation Table(Main Area) Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= - Pond Surface Area,ft°= 231,711 Evaporation Area,n2= 131,185 0 Precip'I Percent Runoff Area I Total Runoff I Lake Evap.I Evap,Area I Total Evap.I Process-H2O I Net Change I Amt.Pumped I Vol.In Lagoon Annual Pumped Month I(inches) Runoff (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (inches)"' (Acres) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-Ft.) (Acre-FL) (Acre-Ft) Jan 0.49 5.9% 65.0 0.37 1.35 3.01 0.34 - 0.03 0.03 Feb 0.37 5.7% 65.0 0.28 1.58 3.01 0.40 - (0.12) - Mar 1.13 6.1% 65.0 0.87 2.48 3.01 0.62 - 0.25 0.25 Apr 1.80 9.6% 65.0 1.73 4.05 3.01 1.02 - 0.72 0.97 May 2.51 18.7% 65.0 3.66 5.40 3.01 1.36 - 2.30 3.27 Jun 1.85 16.7% 65.0 2.49 6.53 3.01 1.64 - 0.85 4.12 - Jul 1.43 15.5% 65.0 1.83 6.75 3.01 1.69 - 0.14 4.26 Aug 1.14 14.5% 65.0 1.40 6.08 3.01 1.53 - (0.13) 4.13 Sep 1.17 14.7% 65.0 1.45 4.50 3.01 1.13 - 0.32 4.45 Oct 0.99 12.6% 65.0 1.11 3.15 3.01 0.79 - 0.32 4.77 Nov 0.81 6.1% 65.0 0.63 1.80 3.01 0.45 - 0.17 4.95 Dec 0.45 6.1% 65.0 0.35 1.35 3.01 0.34 - 0.01 4.96 Jan 0.49 5.9% 65.0 0.37 1.35 3.01 0.34 - 0.03 4.99 Feb 0.37 5.7% 65.0 0.28 1.58 3.01 0.40 - (0.12) 4.87 Mar 1.13 6.1% 65.0 0.87 2.48 3.01 0.62 - 0.25 5.13 Apr 1.80 9.6% 65.0 1.73 4.05 3.01 1.02 - 0.72 5.84 May 2.51 18.7% 65.0 3.66 5.40 3.01 1.36 - 2.30 2 6.14 Jun 1.85 16.7% 65.0 2.49 6.53 3.01 1.64 - 0.85 0.85 6.14 3.70 Jul 1.43 15.5% 65.0 1.83 6.75 3.01 1.69 - 0.14 0.15 6.13 Aug 1.14 14.5% 65.0 1.40 6.08 3.01 1.53 - (0.13) 6.01 Sep 1.17 14.7% 65.0 1.45 4.50 3.01 1.13 - 0.32 0.2 6.12 Oct 0.99 12.6% 65.0 1.11 3.15 3.01 0.79 - 0.32 0.3 6.15 Nov 0.81 6.1% 65.0 0.63 1.80 3.01 0.45 - 0.17 0.2 6.12 Dec 0.45 6.1% 65.0 0.35 1.35 3.01 0.34 - 0.01 6.13 Jan 0.49 5.9% 65.0 0.37 1.35 3.01 0.34 - 0.03 6.17 Feb 0.37 5.7% 65.0 0.28 1.58 3.01 0.40 - (0.12) 6.05 Mar 1.13 6.1% 65.0 0.87 2.48 3.01 0.62 - 0.25 0.15 6.15 Apr 1.80 9.6% 65.0 1.73 4.05 3.01 1.02 - 0.72 0.75 6.12 May 2.51 18.7% 65.0 3.66 5.40 3.01 1.36 - 2.30 2.3 6.12 Jun 1.85 16.7% 65.0 2.49 6.53 3.01 1.64 - 0.85 0.85 6.12 4.85 Jul 1.43 15.5% 65.0 1.83 6.75 3.01 1.69 - 0.14 0.1 6.16 Aug 1.14 14.5% 65.0 1.40 6.08 3.01 1.53 - (0.13) 6.03 Sep 1.17 14.7% 65.0 1.45 4.50 3.01 1.13 - 0.32 0.2 6.15 Oct 0.99 12.6% 65.0 1.11 3.15 3.01 0.79 - 0.32 0.35 6.12 Nov 0.81 6.1% 65.0 0.63 1.80 3.01 0.45 - 0.17 0.15 6.15 Dec 0.45 6.1% 65.0 0.35 1.35 3.01 0.34 - 0.01 6.16 Jan 0.49 5.9% 65.0 0.37 1.35 3.01 0.34 - 0.03 6.19 Feb 0.37 5.7% 65.0 0.28 1.58 3.01 0.40 - (0.12) 6.07 Mar 1.13 6.1% 65.0 0.87 2.48 3.01 0.62 - 0.25 0.2 6.13 Apr 1.80 9.6% 65.0 1.73 4.05 3.01 1.02 - 0.72 0.7 6.14 May 2.51 18.7% 65.0 3.66 5.40 3.01 1.36 - 2.30 2.3 6.14 Jun 1.85 16.7% 65.0 2.49 6.53 3.01 1.64 - 0.85 0.85 6.14 4.90 Jul 1.43 15.5% 65.0 1.83 6.75 3.01 1.69 - 0.14 0.15 6.13 Aug 1.14 14.5% 65.0 1.40 6.08 3.01 1.53 - (0.13) 6.01 Sep 1.17 14.7% 65.0 1.45 4.50 3.01 1.13 - 0.32 0.2 6.12 Oct 0.99 12.6% 65.0 1.11 3.15 3.01 0.79 - 0.32 0.3 6.15 Nov 0.81 6.1% 65.0 0.63 1.80 3.01 0.45 - 0.17 0.2 6.12 Dec 0.45 6.1% 65.0 0.35 1.35 3.01 0.34 - 0.01 6.13 Jan 0.49 5.9% 65.0 0.37 1.35 3.01 0.34 - 0.03 6.17 Feb 0.37 5.7% 65.0 0.28 1.58 3.01 0.40 - (0.12) 6.05 Mar 1.13 6.1% 65.0 0.87 2.48 3.01 0.62 - 0.25 0.15 6.15 Apr 1.80 9.6% 65.0 1.73 4.05 3.01 1.02 - 0.72 0.75 6.12 May 2.51 18.7% 65.0 3.66 5.40 3.01 1.36 - 2.30 2.3 6.12 Jun 1.85 16.7% 65.0 2.49 6.53 3.01 1.64 - 0.85 0.85 6.12 4.85 Jul 1.43 15.5% 65.0 1.83 6.75 3.01 1.69 - 0.14 0.1 6.16 Aug 1.14 14.5% 65.0 1.40 6.08 3.01 1.53 - (0.13) 6.03 Sep 1.17 14.7% 65.0 1.45 4.50 3.01 1.13 - 0.32 0.2 6.15 Oct 0.99 12.6% 65.0 1.11 3.15 3.01 0.79 - 0.32 0.35 6.12 —. Nov 0.81 6.1% 65.0 0.63 1.80 3.01 0.45 - 0.17 0.15 6.15 Dec 0.45 6.1% 65.0 0.35 1.35 3.01 0.34 - 0.01 6.16 Maximum Volume Pumped= 4.9 Average Volume in Pond= 5.44 Maximum Volume In Pond= 6.19 'Precipilaion for Greeley.CO "SCS,National Engineering Handbook —Evaporation for Greeley,CO,NRCS AGPROfessionals,LLC 3 of 10 Eric W. Dunker,P,E. 0—. , JF Cattle-Avg Yrs.-WB(Process-2000Cows) `1 Process Wastewater and Stormwater Accumulation Table(New Area-2000 Milk Cows) Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= 13,334 Pond Surface Area,ft2= 146,989 Evaporation Area,ft2= 123,000 5 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 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 1.27 1.11 6.11 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 1.15 0.90 7.01 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 1.27 1.06 8.07 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 1.23 0.93 9.00 May 2.51 18A% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 1.27 1.11 10.11 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 1.23 0.48 10.59 4.95 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 1.27 0.28 10.87 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 1.27 0.30 11.17 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 1.23 0.65 11.82 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 1.27 0.91 4.95 7.78 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 1.23 1.07 8.86 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 1.27 1.10 9.96 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 1.27 1.11 11.07 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 1.15 0.90 11.97 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 1.27 1.06 13.03 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 1.23 0.93 0.90 13.06 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 1.27 1.11 1.10 13.07 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 1.23 0.48 0.50 13.05 9.90 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 1.27 0.28 0.30 13.03 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 1.27 0.30 0.30 13.03 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 1.23 0.65 0.60 13.07 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 1.27 0.91 6.20 7.79 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 1.23 1.07 8.86 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 1.27 1.10 9.96 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 1.27 1.11 11.08 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 1.15 0.90 11.97 ,•--- Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 1.27 1.06 13.04 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 1.23 0.93 0.95 13.02 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 1.27 1.11 1.10 13.03 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 1.23 0.48 0.45 13.06 9.90 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 1.27 0.28 0.30 13.03 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 1.27 0.30 0.30 13.04 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 1.23 0.65 0.65 13.03 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 1.27 0.91 6.15 7.80 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 1.23 1.07 8.87 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 1.27 1.10 9.97 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 1.27 1.11 11.09 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 1.15 0.90 11.98 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 1.27 1.06 13.04 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 1.23 0.93 0.90 13.07 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 1.27 1.11 1.15 13.04 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 1.23 0.48 0.45 13.07 9.90 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 1.27 0.28 0.30 13.04 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 1.27 0.30 0.30 13.04 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 1.23 0.65 0.65 13.04 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 1.27 0.91 6.15 7.80 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 1.23 1.07 8.88 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 1.27 1.10 9.98 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 1.27 1.11 11.09 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 1.15 0.90 11.99 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 1.27 1.06 13.05 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 1.23 0.93 0.95 13.03 May 2.51 18A% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 1.27 1.11 1.10 13.04 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 1.23 0.48 0.45 13.07 9.90 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 1.27 0.28 0.30 13.05 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 1.27 0.30 0.30 13.05 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 1.23 0.65 0.65 13.05 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 1.27 0.91 6.15 7.81 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 1.23 1.07 8.89 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 1.27 1.10 9.99 Maximum Volume Pumped= 9.90 Average Volume in Pond= 11.26 Maximum Volume in Pond= 13.07 'Precipilaion for Greeley,CO "SCS,National Engineering Handbook ***Evaporation for Greeley,CO,NRCS AGPROfessionals, LLC 4 of 10 Eric W. Dunker, P.E. JF Cattle-Avg Yrs.-WB(Process-1500Cows) '^ Process Wastewater and Stormwater Accumulation Table(New Area-1500 Milk Cows) Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= 10,005 Pond Surface Area,ff2= 146,989 Evaporation Area,ft2= 123,000 5 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 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.95 0.80 5.80 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 0.86 0.61 6.41 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 0.95 0.75 7.15 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 0.92 0.62 7.78 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 0.95 0.80 8.57 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 0.92 0.17 8.74 0.30 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 0.95 (0.04) 8.70 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 0.95 (0.01) 8.69 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 0.92 0.34 9.03 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 0.95 0.60 0.30 9.33 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 0.92 0.77 10.09 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.95 0.78 10.88 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.95 0.80 11.67 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 0.86 0.61 12.28 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 0.95 0.75 13.03 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 0.92 0.62 0.60 13.05 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 0.95 0.80 0.80 13.05 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 0.92 0.17 0.15 13.07 6.15 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 0.95 (0.04) 13.03 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 0.95 (0.01) 13.02 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 0.92 0.34 0.30 13.06 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 0.95 0.60 4.30 9.35 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 0.92 0.77 10.12 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.95 0.78 10.90 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.95 0.80 11.70 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 0.86 0.61 12.31 „_.. Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 0.95 0.75 13.06 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 0.92 0.62 0.65 13.03 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 0.95 0.80 0.80 13.03 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 0.92 0.17 0.15 13.05 6.20 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 0.95 (0.04) 13.01 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 0.95 (0.01) 12.99 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 0.92 0.34 0.30 13.03 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 0.95 0.60 4.30 9.33 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 0.92 0.77 10.10 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.95 0.78 10.88 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.95 0.80 11.68 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 0.86 0.61 12.29 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 0.95 0.75 13.03 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 0.92 0.62 0.60 13.06 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 0.95 0.80 0.80 13.05 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 0.92 0.17 0.20 13.03 6.15 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 0.95 (0.04) 12.98 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 0.95 (0.01) 12.97 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 0.92 0.34 0.25 13.06 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 0.95 0.60 4.30 9.36 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 0.92 0.77 10.13 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.95 0.78 10.91 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.95 0.80 11.71 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 0.86 0.61 12.32 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 0.95 0.75 13.06 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 0.92 0.62 0.65 13.04 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 0.95 0.80 0.80 13.03 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 0.92 0.17 0.15 13.05 6.20 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 0.95 (0.04) 13.01 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 0.95 (0.01) 13.00 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 0.92 0.34 0.30 13.04 ,---. Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 0.95 0.60 4.30 9.34 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 0.92 0.77 10.10 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.95 0.78 10.89 Maximum Volume Pumped= 6.20 Average Volume in Pond= 11.39 Maximum Volume in Pond= 13.07 'Predpitaion for Greeley,CO "SCS,National Engineering Handbook "'Evaporation for Greeley,CO,NRCS AGPROfessionals, LLC 5 of 10 Eric W. Dunker, P.E. JF Cattle-Avg Yrs.-WB(Process-1000Cows) Process Wastewater and Stormwater Accumulation Table(New Area-1000 Milk Cows) Init.Volume Process Water Generated,GPD= 6,670 Pond Surface Area,ft'. 146.989 Evaporation Area,ff'= 123,000 8 Predp.* 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 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.63 0.48 8.48 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 0.57 0.32 8.80 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 0.63 0.43 9.23 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 0.61 0.32 9.55 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 0.63 0.48 10.03 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 0.61 (0.13) 9.89 - Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 0.63 (0.36) 9.53 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 0.63 (0.33) 9.20 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 0.61 0.03 9.23 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 0.63 0.28 9.51 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 0.61 0.46 9.97 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.63 0.47 10.44 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.63 0.48 10.92 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 0.57 0.32 11.25 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 0.63 0.43 11.67 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 0.61 0.32 11.99 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 0.63 0.48 12.47 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 0.61 (0.13) 12.33 1.05 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 0.63 (0.36) 11.97 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 0.63 (0.33) 11.64 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 0.61 0.03 11.68 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 0.63 0.28 1.05 10.91 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 0.61 0.46 11.37 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.63 0.47 11.83 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.63 0.48 12.31 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 0.57 0.32 12.64 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 0.63 0.43 13.07 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 0.61 0.32 0.35 13.03 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 0.63 0.48 0.45 13.06 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 0.61 (0.13) 12.93 2.45 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 0.63 (0.36) 12.57 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 0.63 (0.33) 12.24 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 0.61 0.03 12.27 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 0.63 0.28 1.65 10.90 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 0.61 0.46 11.36 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.63 0.47 11.83 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.63 0.48 12.31 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 0.57 0.32 12.63 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 0.63 0.43 13.06 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 0.61 0.32 0.35 13.02 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 0.63 0.48 0.45 13.05 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 0.61 (0.13) 12.92 2.45 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 0.63 (0.36) 12.56 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 0.63 (0.33) 12.23 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 0.61 0.03 12.26 Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 0.63 0.28 1.65 10.89 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 0.61 0.46 11.35 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.63 0.47 11.82 Jan 0.49 5.8% 10.6 0.16 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.63 0.48 12.30 Feb 0.37 5.6% 10.6 0.12 1.58 2.82 0.37 0.57 0.32 12.62 Mar 1.13 5.9% 10.6 0.38 2.48 2.82 0.58 0.63 0.43 13.05 Apr 1.80 9.4% 10.6 0.66 4.05 2.82 0.95 0.61 0.32 0.30 13.07 May 2.51 18.4% 10.6 1.11 5.40 2.82 1.27 0.63 0.48 0.50 13.04 Jun 1.85 16.4% 10.6 0.79 6.53 2.82 1.54 0.61 (0.13) 12.91 2.45 Jul 1.43 15.3% 10.6 0.59 6.75 2.82 1.59 0.63 (0.36) 12.55 Aug 1.14 14.3% 10.6 0.46 6.08 2.82 1.43 0.63 (0.33) 12.22 Sep 1.17 14.4% 10.6 0.48 4.50 2.82 1.06 0.61 0.03 12.25 '...- Oct 0.99 12.4% 10.6 0.39 3.15 2.82 0.74 0.63 0.28 1.65 10.88 Nov 0.81 5.9% 10.6 0.27 1.80 2.82 0.42 0.61 0.46 11.34 Dec 0.45 5.9% 10.6 0.15 1.35 2.82 0.32 0.63 0.47 11.81 Maximum Volume Pumped= 2.45 Average Volume in Pond= 11.64 Maximum Volume in Pond= 13.07 'Predpitaion for Greeley,CO "SCS,National Engineering Handbook ***Evaporation for Greeley,CO,MRCS AGPROfessionals, LLC 6 of 10 Eric W. Dunker, P.E. JF Cattle-Process Water Process Wastewater Production Process Wastewater Production No.of' Water No. of Water Gallons/ Washes Volume Gallons/ Washes Volume Type of Use Wash per Day (GPD) Type of Use Wash per Day (GPD) Bulk Tank(Automatic Wash) 200 1 200 Bulk Tank(Automatic Wash) 200 1 200 Pipeline in Parlor 200 3 600 Pipeline in Parlor 200 3 600 Miscellaneous Equipment 200 3 600 Miscellaneous Equipment 200 3 600 Parlor Floor Wash 200 3 600 Parlor Floor Wash 200 3 600 Parlor Floor Flush 1,500 10 15,000 Parlor Floor Flush 1,026 9 9,234 Milk Floor 100 3 300 Milk Floor 100 3 300 Total Daily Flow(GPD) 17,300 Total Daily Flow(GPD) 11,534 Design Factor 1.16 Design Factor 1.16 Design Flow(GPD) 20,000 Design Flow(GPD) 13,334 Annual Flow(Acre-Feet) 22.40 Annual Flow(Acre-Feet) 14.94 Design Flow(GPD/Cow @ 3000 Cows) 6.67 Design Flow(GPD/Cow @ 2000 Cows) 6.67 Process Wastewater Production Process Wastewater Production No.of Water No. of Water Gallons/ Washes Volume Gallons/ Washes Volume Type of Use Wash per Day (GPD) Type of Use Wash per Day (GPD) Bulk Tank(Automatic Wash) 200 1 200 Bulk Tank(Automatic Wash) 200 1 200 Pipeline in Parlor 200 3 600 Pipeline in Parlor 200 3 600 Miscellaneous Equipment 200 3 600 Miscellaneous Equipment 200 3 600 Parlor Floor Wash 200 3 600 Parlor Floor Wash 200 3 600 Parlor Floor Flush 706 9 6,354 Parlor Floor Flush 385 9 3,465 Milk Floor 100 3 300 Milk Floor 100 3 300 Total Daily Flow(GPD) 8,654 Total Daily Flow(GPD) 5,765 Design Factor 1.16 Design Factor 1.16 Design Flow(GPD) 10,005 Design Flow(GPD) 6,670 Annual Flow(Acre-Feet) 11.21 Annual Flow(Acre-Feet) 7.47 Design Flow(GPD/Cow @ 1500 Cows) 6.67 Design Flow(GPD/Cow @ 1000 Cows) 6.67 • AGPROfessionals, LLC 7 of 10 Eric W. Dunker, P.E. r. JF Cattle-Manure&Nutrients ^. Current Conditions NRCS Agncultural Waste Management Field Handbook Moisture Manure Manure TS VS Nitrogen Prosphorus Potassium Animal Type Number of Hd Wt./nq lbs. Total WI..lbs. (%) (lbs.Id/10004) (fl'/d/10004 (lbs./d/10001) (lbs./d/10001) (lbs./d/ (lbs./d/ (lbs./d/ 10004) 10004) 10001) Heifers 2,810 1,200 3,372,000 89.3 85.0 1,30 9.14 7.77 0.31 0.04 0.24 Heifers 2,810 1,000 2,810,000 88.4 59.1 0.95 8.78 6.04 0.31 0.11 0.24 Heifers 2,810 500 1,405,000 87.0 58.2 0,93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0.10 0.20 Calves 2,810 200 562,000 87.0 58.2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0,10 0.20 Totals 11,240 8,149,000 Total Daily Production 567,170 8,882 64,703 55,781 2,507 641 1,877 Total Annual Production 207,017,196 3,242,080 23,616,617 20,360,178 914,880 233,848 685,134 Tons produced w/moisture content of 88% 103,509 Tons to apply w/moisture content of 46% 23,002 New Conditions with 500 Milk Cows NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Moisture Manure Manure TS VS Nitrogen Prosphorus Potassium Animal Type Number of Hd WI.md.lbs. Total Wt.,lbs. (%) (Ibs./d/10004) (fl'/d/10004 (lbs./d/10004) (lbs./d/10004) (Ibe./d/ (Ibs./d/ (Ibs./d/ 10041 100011 10001) Milk Cows 500 1,400 700,000 87,5 80.0 1.30 10.00 8.50 0.45 0.07 0.26 Heifers 2,635 1,200 3,162,000 89.3 85.0 1.30 9.14 7.77 0.31 0.04 0.24 Heifers 2,635 1,000 2,635,000 88.4 59.1 0.95 8.78 6.04 0.31 0.11 0.24 Heifers 2,635 500 1,317,500 87.0 58.2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0.10 0.20 Calves 2,635 200 527,000 87.0 58,2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0,10 0.20 Totals 11,040 7,641,500 Total Daily Production 531,848 8,329 60,674 52,307 2,350 601 1,760 Total Annual Production 194,124,666 3,040,171 22,145,831 19,092,196 857,903 219,285 642,466 Tons produced w/moisture content of 88% 97,062 Tons to apply w/moisture content of 46% 21,569 New Conditions with 1,000 Milk Cows NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Moisture Manure Manure TS VS Nitrogen Prosphorus Potassium Animal Type Number of Hd WI./hd,lbs. Total Wt., be. (%) (lbs./d/10004) (fl'/d/10001 (lbs./d/10004) (lbs./d/10004) (Ibs./d/ (Ibs. d/ (Ibs./d 109 0. 1000 111004) „_. Milk Cows 1,000 1,400 1,400,000 87.5 _ 80.0 1.30 10.00 8.50 0.45 0..07 0.26 Heifers 2,460 1,200 2,952,000 89.3 85.0 1.30 9.14 7.77 0.31 0.04 0.24 Heifers 2,460 1,000 2,460,000 88.4 59.1 0.95 6.78 6.04 0.31 0.11 0.24 Heifers 2,460 500 1,230,000 87.0 58.2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0.10 0.20 Calves 2,460 200 492,000 87.0 58.2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0.10 0.20 Totals 10,840 7,134,000 Total Daily Production 496,526 7,776 56,644 48,833 2,194 561 1,643 Total Annual Production 181,232,136 2,838,262 20,675,045 17,824,213 800,927 204,721 599,797 Tons produced w/moisture content of 88% 90,616 Tons to apply w/moisture content of 46% 20,137 New Conditions with 1,500 Milk Cows NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Moisture Manure Manure TS VS Nitrogen Prosphorus Potassium Animal Type Number of Hd Wt./hd,lbs. Total Wt.,lbs. (%) (lbs./d/10004) (e'/d/10004 (lbs./d/10001) (lbs./0/10001) (Ibs./d/ (Ibs./d/ (Ibs./d/ 100041 1000 1000.1 Milk Cows 1,500 1,400 2,100,000 87.5 80.0 1.30 10.00 8.50 0.45 0..07 0.26 Heifers 2,285 1,200 2,742,000 89.3 85.0 1.30 9.14 7.77 0.31 0.04 0.24 Heifers 2,285 1,000 2,285,000 88.4 59.1 0.95 6.78 6.04 0.31 0.11 0.24 Heifers 2,285 500 1,142,500 87.0 58.2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0.10 0.20 Calves 2,285 200 457,000 87.0 58.2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0.10 0.20 Totals 10,640 6,626,500 Total Daily Production 461,204 7,223 52,614 45,360 2,038 521 1,526 Total Annual Production 168,339,606 2,636,353 19,204,260 16,556,230 743,950 190,158 557,129 Tons produced w/moisture content of 88% 84,170 Tons to apply w/moisture content of 46% 18,704 New Conditions with 2,000 Milk Cows NRCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook Moisture Manure Manure TS VS Nitrogen Prosphorus Potassium Animal Type Number of Hd WI./hd,lbs. Total WI.,lbs. (%) (tbs.Id/10001) (fl'/d/10W4 (lbs./d/10004) (lbs./d/10001) (Ibs. d/ gbs./d)/ (lbs./d/ 1000 1900 10001 Milk Cows 2,000 1,400 2,800,000 87.5 80.0 1.30 10.00 8.50 0..45 0..07 0.26 Heifers 2,110 1,200 2,532,000 89.3 85.0 1.30 9.14 7.77 0.31 0.04 0.24 Heifers 2,110 1,000 2,110,000 88.4 59.1 0.95 6.78 6.04 0.31 0.11 0.24 Heifers 2,110 500 1,055,000 87.0 58.2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0.10 0.20 Calves 2,110 200 422,000 87.0 58.2 0.93 7.54 6.41 0.30 0.10 0.20 Totals 10,440 6,119,000 ... Total Daily Production 425,882 6,670 48,585 41,886 1,882 481 1,409 Total Annual Production 155,447,076 2,434,444 17,733,474 15,288,248 686,974 175,594 514,460 Tons produced w/moisture content of 88% 77,724 Tons to apply w/moisture content of 46% 17,272 AGPROfessionals,LLC 8 of 10 Eric W.Dunker,P.E. JF Cattle-Land App-Wastewater Land Application Requirements for 25- ear,24-hour Storm Event 25-year,24-hour storm volume( 14.90 A.F.),gallons 4,856,084 Total Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 19,424 -Total-N= 4.0 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 9,712 'NH3-N= 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 9,712 Organic-N= 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation,lbs. 5,342 45.0% Sprinkler-Irrigation loss' Organic-Nitrogen available 3rd year,lbs. 4,079 42% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-N' Nitrogen available to plants(PAN)yr.after yr.,lbs. 9,421 Soil Organic Matter,% 1.0 Irrigation Water NO3 content,ppm 5.0 Residual NO3 in soil,ppm 10.0 Com Corn Silage Expected Yield(grain,Bu/acre;silage,tons/acre) 175 25 Based on CSU Extension N req.w/listed O.M.,soil N,&Irr.Water NO3,(lb./acre) 120 101 Bulletin#538 Acres req.if effluent applied via sprinkler irrigation 78 93 1.5 A.F./Acre Irrigation water assumed -Taken from CSU's Bulletin No.568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization Land Application Requirements for 10-year, 10-day Storm Event Maximum pumping requirement( 17.96 A.F.).gallons 5,850,435 Total Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 23,402 •Total-N= 4.0 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 11,701 *NH3-N= 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 11,701 Organic-N= 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation,lbs. 6,435 45.0% Sprinkler-Irrigation loss* Organic-Nitrogen available 3rd year,lbs. 4,914 42% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-N' Nitrogen available to plants(PAN)yr.after yr.,lbs. 11,350 Soil Organic Matter,% 1.0 Irrigation Water NO3 content,ppm 5.0 Residual NO3 in soil,ppm 10.0 Corn Corn Silage Expected Yield(grain,Bu/acre;silage,tons/acre) 175 25 Based on CSU Extension N req.w/listed O.M.,soil N,&lrr.Water NO3,(lb./acre) 120 101 Bulletin#538 Acres req.if effluent applied via sprinkler irrigation 94 112 1.5 A.F./Acre Irrigation water assumed 'Taken from CSU's Bulletin No.568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization AGPROfessionals, LLC 9 of 10 Eric W. Dunker, P.E. JF Cattle-Land App-Wastewater Land Application Requirements for Avera e Years'Stormwater&Process Water-2000 Cows Maximum pumping requirement( 14.80 A.F.),gallons 4,822,266 Total Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 19,289 'Total-N= 4.0 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 9,645 *NH3-N= 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 9,645 Organic-N= 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation,lbs. 5,304 45.0% Sprinkler-Irrigation loss' Organic-Nitrogen available 3rd year,lbs. 4,051 42% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-N• Nitrogen available to plants(PAN)yr.after yr.,lbs. 9,355 Soil Organic Matter,% 1.0 Irrigation Water NO3 content,ppm 5.0 Residual NO3 in soil,ppm 10.0 Corn Corn Silage Expected Yield(grain,Bu/acre;silage or grass,tons/acre) 175 25 Based on CSU Extension N req.w/listed O.M.,soil N,&Irr.Water NO3,(lb./acre) 120 101 Bulletin#538 Acres req.if effluent applied via sprinkler irrigation 78 93 1.5 A.F./Acre Irrigation water assumed 'Taken from CSU's Bulletin No.566.4 Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization Land Application Requirements for Avera e Years'Stormwater&Process Water-1500 Cows Maximum pumping requirement( 11.10 A.F.),gallons 3,816,700 Total Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 14,467 *Total-N= 4.0 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 7,233 •NH3-N= 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 7,233 Organic-N= 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation,lbs. 3,978 45.0% Sprinkler-Irrigation loss' Organic-Nitrogen available 3rd year,lbs. 3,038 42% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-NI' Nitrogen available to plants(PAN)yr.after yr.,lbs. 7.016 Soil Organic Matter,% 1.0 Irrigation Water NO3 content,ppm 5.0 Residual NO3 in soil,ppm 10.0 Corn Corn Silage Expected Yield(grain,Bu/acre;silage or grass,tons/acre) 175 25 Based on CSU Extension N req.w/listed O.M.,soil N,&Irr.Water NO3,(lb./acre) 120 101 Bulletin#538 Acres req.if effluent applied via sprinkler irrigation 58 69 1.5 A.F./Acre Irrigation water assumed 'Taken from CSU's Bulletin No.568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization Land Application Requirements for Avera e Years'Stormwater&Process Water-1000 Cows Maximum pumping requirement( 7.35 A.F.),gallons 2,394,842 Total Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 9,579 •Total-N= 4.0 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 4,790 'NH3-N= 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 4,790 Organic-N= 2.0 lbs./1,000 gal Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation,lbs. 2,634 45.0% Sprinkler-Irrigation loss' Organic-Nitrogen available 3rd year,lbs. 2,012 42% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-N' Nitrogen available to plants(PAN)yr.after yr.,lbs. 4,646 Soil Organic Matter,% 1.0 Irrigation Water NO3 content,ppm 5.0 Residual NO3 in soil,ppm 10.0 Com Corn Silage Expected Yield(grain,Bu/acre;silage or grass,tons/acre) 175 25 Based on CSU Extension N req.w/listed O.M.,soil N,&Irr.Water NO3,(lb./acre) 120 101 Bulletin#538 Acres req.if effluent applied via sprinkler irrigation 39 46 1.5 A.F./Acre Irrigation water assumed 'Taken from CSU's Bulletin No.568.4 Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization AGPROfessionals, LLC 10 of 10 Eric W. Dunker, P.E. AGPROfessionals, LLC 02.17.2003 Appendix C • Pond Liner Certifications • Floodplain Maps r JF Cattle Comprehensive Manure&Wastewater Management Plan 13 ESE EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. February 14, 2001 AgPro Environmental Services, LLC 4311 Highway 66, Suite 4 Longmont, Colorado 80504 Attn: Mr. Eric Danker Re: Lagoon Lining Evaluation J.F. Cattle Eaton, Colorado EEC Project No. 1995010E Mr. Dunker: As requested, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) personnel have completed an evaluation of the in-situ lining for the runoff storage lagoon at the J.F. Cattle feedlot operation near Eaton, Colorado. An outline of the testing completed as a part of that project, along with results of our field and laboratory testing are provided with this report. The J.F. Cattle feedlot is located at the intersection of Weld County Road 47 and Weld County Road 74 near Eaton, Colorado. In September 1999, EEC personnel completed a preliminary evaluation of the proposed lagoon liner materials. At that time, falling head permeability tests were performed on samples of the native silty sand and on a blend of the native silty sands and cow manure. Based on those test results, we recommended a blend of 33% manure and 67% native silty sand be used to develop a low- permeability lagoon liner. The results of those tests were sent to your attention on September 13, 1999. CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 2301 RESEARCH BOULEVARD, SUITE 104 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 60526 (970) 224-1522 (FAx) 224-4564 Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No 1995010E February 14, 2001 Page 2 In January 2001, EEC personnel visited the site to perform field density tests in the completed runoff storage lagoon liner and collect samples of the in-situ materials for laboratory testing. The composite sample for the lagoon liner was taken from the bottom of the existing lagoon. Laboratory testing on the composite sample included a falling head permeability test. Results of that test are indicated on the attached summary sheet. Visual observations of the in-situ lagoon liner material identify the liner as a compacted blend of manure and silty sand. Hand-augered borings advanced in the bottom of the lagoon indicated the depth of compacted materials appeared to extend approximately 12" to 18"below the bottom of the lagoon. Field density tests performed on the in-place liner materials indicate those materials were compacted to within the range of 101 pcf to 107 pcf dry density. The laboratory falling head permeability test indicated a permeability of approximately 4x10-7 cm/sec at a compaction of approximately 101 pcf dry density. Based on results of the laboratory testing as outlined above, it is our opinion the lagoon liner materials as placed are suitable for use as a low-permeability pond liner. Based on the measured permeability rates, the in-situ materials meet State of Colorado regulation for waste storage lagoon liners, which sets a maximum permeability rate of 1/32"per day(9.19x10-7 cm/sec). We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. 6 41 fiat Michael J. Coley, E.I.T. L t E. Project Manager Principal Engineer ) ) ) PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS J.F. CATTLE-IN-SITU BLENDED MATERIAL Material Description: Brown Lean Clay with Sand and Organics Liquid Limit: -- Plasticity Index: -- % Passing#200 Sieve: -- Beginning Moisture: 21.4% Dry Density: 101.4 pcf Ending Moisture: 22.2% 8.2E-07 NOTE: 1/4"per day= 7.35(10$)cm/sec 7.2E-07 1/32"per day =9.19(10'')cm/sec N 6.2E-07 fA ta 5.2E-07 A 4.2E-07 r co 3.2E-07 2.2E-07 a 1.2E-07 2.0E-08 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Elapsed Time [sec] EEC Project Number: 1995010E Date: January 2001 EE G .. C4,14 E4E'C January 8, 2002 EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INc. Ag-Pro Environmental Services, LLC 4311 Highway 66, Suite 4 Longmont, Colorado 80504 Attn: Mr. Eric Dunker Re: Construction Observation and Testing Lagoon Lining Material Placement J.F. Cattle Weld County, Colorado EEC Project No. 1995010E Mr. Dunker: As requested, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) personnel have completed construction observation and field and laboratory testing of the low permeability lining materials placed at the new runoff storage lagoons at the J.F. Cattle facility near Eaton in Weld County, Colorado. A summary of the field and laboratory testing results are provided with this report. In November 2001, EEC personnel completed field density testing of the newly placed runoff storage lagoon liner at the new lagoon. A bulk sample of that material was collected for determination of the moisture-density relationship by the standard Proctor procedure (ASTM Specification D-698) and completion of a laboratory permeability test. The results of both the laboratory testing and the field testing of the newly placed liner materials are included on the attached summary sheets. The material collected in November of 2001 was a brown sandy lean clay. The standard Proctor maximum dry density was determined to be 112.0 pcf at optimum moisture content of 14.0%. The field density test results of the newly placed lagoon liner material were at least 95% of the maximum Proctor dry density at f2% of optimum moisture content. The results of those tests are shown on the attached summary sheet. CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 2301 RESEARCH BOULEVARD, SUITE I 04 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80526 (970) 224-1522 (FAX) 224-4564 "Pa*, Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No. 1995010E January 8, 2002 Page 2 A laboratory falling head permeability test was conducted in general accordance with ASTM D-5856 on a representative portion of the bulk sample compacted to 105.3 pcf, or approximately 94% of the material's standard Proctor maximum dry density. The results of that test, which are indicated on the attached summary sheet, indicate the material has a permeability of 5.1 x 1e cm/sec at that density. Based on results of the laboratory and field testing as outlined above, it is our opinion the newly placed materials will function as low-permeability pond liner materials. Based on the measured permeability rate of 5.1x10-7 cm/sec, it is our opinion the in-place material meets State regulation for waste storage lagoon liners, which sets a maximum permeability rate of 1/32"per day(9.19x10"7 cm/sec). We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this report, or if we can be of further service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Reviewed by: Op RE�Isr.: p• . 'jo56s: F [yam . ° �,•. V • i g 3572 % ' Michael J. Coley, P.E. Lester L. Litton, P.E. Project Manager Principal Engineer ENGINEERING CONSULTANT " SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS Compliance With Field Test Results e a Approximate Test Location/Notes H E-2 Project Specifications Test Elev.; Material Percent Dry O `m a (P/F) Date 2 > umber Lift No. (Proctor) Moisture Density U Moisture %Comp. 1 11!18 New Lagoon Bottom-West side FG A 15.9% 107.2 1.9% 56% Pass Pass 2 11!18 New Lagoon Bottom-South Side FG A 14.3% 112.0 0.3% 100% Pass Pass 3 11/18 New Lagoon Bottom-East side FG A 13.8% 109.8 -0 2% 98% Pass Pass 4 '1118 New Lagoon Bottom-North Side FG A 12.2% 108.0 -1.8% 96% Pass Pass 5 '1/18 New Lagoon Bottom-Middle PG A 16.0% 106.7 2.0% 95% Pass Pass - I I i _ � I _ I I _ I � 1 L I 1 ( I I i r I I l r i I Proctor Designation A Maximum Dry Density(pcf) 112.0 Optimum Moisture Content(%) 14.0% Required Moisture Variance OMC+/-2% Required Percent Compaction 95% Laboratory Method D-698 s , Project:JF Cattle Project No:1995010E Location:Weld County,Colorado Date:November 2001 ESE Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture-Density Relationship 145 !!!fit!!! Material Designation: 1995010E.A !!lptltll Sample Location: New Lagoon Liner Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay 140 Atterberg I imits(ASTM D-43181 !!�! !! �!► Liquid Limit: —Plastic Limit: -- 135 !!!!!!!!!p!. !••nnnn Plasticity Index: — Percent Passing No.200 Sieve(ASTM C-117): N/A 130 'Standard Prnctnr(ASTM 0-8981 Maximum Dry Density: 112.0 pcf o Optimum Moisture Content: 14.0% u 125 U !!!!N!tl!!!!! I `fl Curves for 100%Saturation `m 120 !!!!!!!!!!!!!►�!�\!. For Specific Gravity Equal to: 2.80 g• 115 !!!!H!!!!!!!!!►��rr 2.70 2.60 c• 110 105 100 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!►��!!r�� !!!!!!!�!!!!!!!!!!!H!!�!\\!ice!► 95 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!�!!!!!!!!��!►�!� 90 !!!!!!!!!I�!!!!!!!!!!!!I�!!!U!!►\UU\! 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Percent Moisture Project: JF Cattle Weld County,Colorado Project No: 1995010E Date November 2001 • 'EC PERMEABILITY TEST RESULTS JF CATTLE -NEW LAGOON Material Description: Brown Sandy Lean Clay Liquid Limit: -- Plasticity Index: -- % Passing#200 Sieve: -- Beginning Moisture: 18.1% Dry Density: 105.3 pcf Ending Moisture: 24.6% 1.9E-06 NOTE: 1/4"per day = 7.35(10'6)cm/sec 1/32" per day = 9.19(10') cm/sec 1.7E-06 V N 1.5E-06 - _. . . 1.3E-06 1.1E-06 r 9.1E-07 E7.1E-07 - • a 5.1E-07 3.1E-07 - 1.1E-07 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Elapsed Time [sec] EEC Project Number: 1995010E Date: December 2001 • ) ) ) T 7 N /"t APPROXIMATE SCALE `f�/{� 1000 0 1000 FEET T 6 N Gi I IIII NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM 1JF CTTLE FIRM ZONE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP WELD COUNTY, 6 COLORADO UNINCORPORATED AREA PANEL 495 OF 1075 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT FRINTE DI • I I i ' \ COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER / El \ 080266 0495 C J MAP REVISED: SEPTEMBER 28, 1982 : , / federal MMIwIrw management aAln reeje This is an official copy of a portion of the above referenced flood map It was extracted using EMIT On-Line. This map does not reflect changes or amendments which may hate been made subsequent to the date on the title dock. For the latest product information about National Flood Insurance Program food maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at wens.msc.fema.gov AGPROfessionals, LLC 02.17.2003 Appendix D • Colorado State University References • JF Cattle Comprehensive Manure& Wastewater Management Plan 14 r a .,_ 1 x - ,rh et:{) �y r t> "toe'+2+I T 'e t. 'J3i.1xl : 3 1 Etsn' lt' z w y r te4 L - 1 4 rfi �S4ji,'7.-rak� .40 kr"' a A 5,14: -.44 + L r40 .4Y1 1. r r? w.>-t i4 rt ,e , , SY st ! { r _ t .y 1 0" jFS"tlt";:? "R vrr 1-54 W.t-i, t-t 1/4tZWX ' vl� 173 r a ) 4 t�'t (r r ti` • t r ,i ,4'wVrr�,ri Tr f# o- '„, 24,t,i-p , ' ; Jtt �N',,'a +L. w y $•rk` T�it �+ . -, ( f ( t ",f , ,r. ti, �xtr y r tr l�.lr'' n'� �{�t i v-ed�� rY� �`G�,6ai'*-�4'{' ,a-''� k Y ,� �T'. t 1 t t�• 4 9,•.c aP' f !r j' , a ''h} r r' t '�Tr c r M17 t+ r , ° it y. i' a� an s �,�j��Yl7- Em w. er{! � a 4 r 1 "r '°t-„y ii° -.'a`a,,.�r r+ 'r'° � t 7= '4a 4 r7 t' 4:41 ti, e-rr,e4r 'V a+''x �� "P S h s d- A�+' Fyt �4, 11• i'-et t x 5. ,:+. 1` Lry. . ."r+,4 . 1)•!V*��rr/J x�`-37'',;'. ° .' "'"-Liyr);^4,: t-tse a.t"7''*;s �(j i au;Ii tt "' ^x )`e:it"k' c ;,' -1" F-J- ' '2: '4." r.. r 1 2{.'GR,44,Gr��aMY .WrA a ri af�4. t v tr`.�^IP�F.5r X. +,^:..'a arr}' r• k' �.I� l 3-r r k` Jar % 't S4 ,�4�.. '.a' �1a� rI"'4'aA , .atvS,ggc'"t rq !' " 7 ".tg fir»�C r ?-k X < ! 7, F'l..r r _,. v. , T.. 9Fici a!F"'tV a `EV3. ,; erirk r r`'Kr.1�J ♦\,54.L r rrePti2,451 r .y' ! `3- ;..f r ^ A. ?: it - �;? 7' ,�{V', " z '•� a4 n � Srr^t��i�s-:.S.y{a>•'5/K'Yhd`4.1 t i J�t4�t,A i"p•H • r��+� 1 .r.A. JV Y -e a 'k"t'�r-?7- 'y r e °.a?.' 'C t'i u.w"7 'tta t' \fir a' ! .'at i t ! t i n `1 r 4� .r ! . y ` ". t �A r,,:r�zh r taa � r � [ +�. +,,..�r e 1,Yr r �y � t "y �� gTrJ t K B 1 ' ,`rl.'X if.uz t?p W..lt,ra f, �,r7Y 4r JJ.- A .., ' ) ft .rt N.�f ! , t r a �� s,. rrI a+ ,' rt 4 17 t a t r,i'b r2` v u a \ r a`r wu •m �t . . 'fs-.f -.-?e,.t4' l�:-;' ar t >ci -. , t 1r•4‘c9;24.14:.;S ,{,r f L z t h !rr& Sliy..€ �r.d u W r-s r xir ✓ �. �. SS t• "' r�,s fld l v r.i! � 4 "f �rl` j 7� '`e F j'�.' � .✓n'',• f i 'rW .. k 5 3 «: n ., r ^: '^' FE`,ia—� +,"in wy,\T� ��k+1r�,' � Stiyr�. S `C' l h��l} t 2�"hF'�& ,„ It � wt �� 5 *7:' Y'I�;ra':A. J♦r !. `ti^4- ro t .rG .. \ r 6 to r2 ti. a V . tp a9- d S j 5 .Y' S y4. )^f' ' ' r. ¢rs C. y, v 4r ^7 ( 1 ^k+UM 6r ! � r �'",+..'.Y�n. k\ -.� } �!' ° r fir. `�S! 7 Ls. ! • t f ,,�y`' rJ '' i t p 4 -, r ti ° •--4A1 44 1 ° p3 i� Szi r4t5r1' YrYtrr +yc 13titi9l { 1 n r r '-'140,4:1101W7 wr�3 I.t r %t 1`Nta• ♦ cc. . 1 , 1 1� L veyi }A. t 2 r.(„ t a ,w --Fai +• � Ts"r: RJt W-.C F,,,y wkyi r G f :1 r` et ' 'x Act r r _. + ,. - p +1.. P hi 'l3 e�1e c," F gr{y, r 1" e �iMC < ,.r s g.} ! a. NY let° e �1 C.5�•.". t`wJj'yi�°r - ry d< ! r"rN r j'.^ \a 1,e�,, d ah' 'a % .r�s".� '.! a n #,. 4trr• t rtyn , >rh F rt "4-WSr^' r.. a Ft>°4 ✓.A l "s2Nsyba d'.'19 ter �rL rhf w l 4 A 0-.44r t J' .,, P Y 3-wur i•r f { S"L"i F r .'!42. I N ffl , .^}°FYd yAt SAC 111"-ai�1/4 e" 4-"N,+^per-� a °3-yo-�� ;`:vi^• "ai.t ;yS} x . _t,;, �1 h to 3�0'5 r'r' 1 r .• 1 r "vyy.�\ p�.�y �`�., tya " jt,r r+Y o. iv-, : Nt. .14 w•! ad 4._yt J Z ! i T {..rr "'u'r '�1 0 `"t,x ttty� r� "tag r';1\E 41i.:7;‘,-,32%)7:7,..:..t �' i r b. . .°� �E'��r� 4 �#' K Yi"'r ' ° J r rn y A � � J [I r A, An lv tY n tr▪ 4�. ♦ry.' �TTiI, �, 47 ) ,r 0 t S litru.1'. S- L rieg�t C �`hiuE r t .?. y�.,. vj r H"I - '' '47;2 ^r!''+Lk vs ( �i >< n yr''T'�" r a4`:` '',".pr.-.3;1•:!,�' ,Ga. r T! e ,,,,,,4,4„/„.„,,,,,..„2„.„ ,r:, » s t. rt.r4 e'L),�y. .4[4^•.141^' x,','1,it. hrd' F pc.?"✓ a. t 'N r% eG� ' ' 4'i rpM W ,4,��'�' :1„ft. Sr`r 4r ,- m-c.w i, r+ t s. 1- . ri a 'Y%F '1 a" 1 `�faa'IS (� 1 F �'.ysAe"4.��+.'�"j�''s�pj' i- 4„2„,`�. 3 a,1$t Irk y� Yr4`�31 ° L :v t• ¢ °''V. 'PIL + a'� a`'y.) tiy .rt`r aNt'r x3-- t' �.. 1 z�"4Tt�v 143- .oyy 1 ,:::- . P71, '�, rill; >nYma+. ',r r ry `� y`. 'lx , I .! .4.4Iii 1 Vim. ; ++4'P' itt,` ` '. 'h tire)�.. 6...0t` Ck t_.✓'m -y ,,'''+t m ti Y, 41.4.: ��7t}ri t ",fgf '741'`+'Y-47 ', y r� 7 ' , NI.) a 1... t„Yrm `J1izL j-,, v i`yn# � a '.e F '4. ai �+ • 1 i. S"i �. a ^5'e 3-17 u p ihN.. r a g� Y N .ti 1�' a£ '?'ft �r,t+R"if' -:i' y� nt'+r4 43�` .�4' tr ,�f5 [4 N Pj1 ` +1<36j��ll yi" tr I! .,,"1 S!g Pircit lit§}. 4 t i3 r y 3t +R F t:per r tr Ix`TJ." •t tk t ,iii. KiA"..{�. Ir Y K. .-,1 rhr l S :,,h1,..,r�,,! • r -'C a q • d r1'. M i'`1P k N' t 4*T" 1" dry..+ °'^.+y:'. f W r s • $� JttatlY'�+' �+' 4 b- ! . l'+ !3� r , r-e.r �1-r t , ,�p.,i eE . a ... ":„. t. ..f 2� ar .hCa 1 .1 l'?I VF� .! Y ..'.."-*A.•17 it r r 1 � ��r 1� (3-y L ��M �3 .H.,��}Cr1a{r' 'r.Y.>}?' 4 r ' r : Yr t ri 4 ! `°'v�r Nx ✓ S- t . t li .. i 7 *Ya,�q./.F''xi. �lr,4u.5ry a tr•d, v -.. F a N,r Y r .r ty-a,t ri y !r �t -ste ' � f �"f ^sE w 5 • u. ao•x Y ' 6�4� 4ar 61 , `, a t a• t+ `_ "yt T �L 04'1 SQ � 'dE (�$„er .4511 AT" 0.[ S,° r}I YC's.4�,t k54Iw7 r 1 i/c . 4',(..:1:416...,...,,',-,-`, ♦ �x "J 'aii' 4441,..t� iLW 1 NGr'fg'�� '.1^ 1 w .. 3y ^ a4a!'' '` , r rv.,.?4, � t b $ p t' T t Ffyi [r9Ci r i.„E.. �•'1.:•1- ,;:r :T 1-1 r;K, f :. .� ..{ +k ''. k'an ':: �, r.[i 'I..,1 i irkt 4 c` :71'a ' tM rd, ,+,7:4• ° A` > -" •r t r 3- X d E'1 )p t w lea .. �d'- {{ r3- t d�r • t ♦ tR'a t.[ r 1'14". ' '{.. ♦ +.r Y Y!- P tiT0.�tt7e iitoc '1311/ni T + 1 xI ., °EY + ay 1� ttli !S'y t r I .. 4 .C.ni-. r' it ♦ t IT plT - a k T w .r,tt r} r' V .}I M S .,,S"r.Fr' 1 . I n J y, • ilr v gl'r 1 ',S IG r. -I t x',t+ ° 'f' wi ,y'° r r v.. ..• >E ,i"'Fr 6 1 \ to t s.' Yn 4 •A';‘,, i tes .41 ° WC 'ry(r'' it -.L. P! I. -t` 'r�' Sst1rkti i�A( +c r; ,.`tt-�.titi�p 4i 4;r. ,r'qt E Ze "aaYir C."' ...i.; rr$+ ae"d .t. itc.1 $^r ": > i7 .,a ,; r 4 e! '11`• g 7e n *we' »,7 r .yi it• .'}$ 7u2. 3-!''}r 'k".�'• Y S'i "•}, • ,,ra,Y G ' t'li rrr�r r"r Y} h E,• Y i Y ,:(4 7,,,-7.: al' , ' 3- r - .t yc 44,1 �y� Sr 1 !�' : t 't a dam!{' in M+41,1 day. T-74.. r7 , .�,. , .1 ,_ :a"1/4,„.,,,,44,44,14 : 1' 444,re r rrh -eh ,+ PS 3 1�t� ; '`v'S°' „'Wit- intuit t, eAs° �',10. ! y+- rT▪.tit'; a+Y71 KV t ... t4w ,.4 M'E• l r'Jt tn,�+.4,t,"ir l,.X! -0 11'-1P�`*, ¢ t ti7+a. 44.r u { !Y ! i:- ¢ �a1't 0 .� P S .r n'llr! f li t 'r 42,+'+'Y%'r_V�Y�'�' -t ?f,1F3 t qy.y,'� ��'�.:. t 'h `741 , nt 't 1111N r )�5tg1 i t.2,'?,4 1S:11Y^Y' 1- T"-13,. 4flk lr '_"^_" rR' �y� �i aft ✓" Y 1 .t c �“"'' 'I'"` �. %'' ° rh ''� 3 }1^s)ti ai,"i '' h R +her S1��orff'`w '' rY.r. tYE 'G., :, - ^ Sit" .{ f-t" Y '1„?' �Fx�W �!.��'t t �t � y aH ✓� ;.t,,...,-., M ^ 1 9 �a ki � },• ,vri 4� +rs '^''t4Ltiy50aa''r ?;'F r�u i1n Y —e+" -d tl, �rY 5 S; fen r , Myyseriw l�5� F!r• �, •F••-d'T r y, {,.- .1q3 Ljy'.+:!. t /b i T,2.p t 5 h w .", }IV,MtT.r it.- F��l�r r�L,`.. fyr_r°+`.;:.„_ ...., �ks�i>),apry.M1yrats US ',�,v„v„{" 6 ✓ j 'e3- -- .. t, .---e.. - 1 '1.'' ,. ^T"rr-t' 6' r -ax -� -cs-. - 1S .yt � r^ r ,tj „, 3 .,- vrt .w 'J.. x T•s v.4.aw. to+4 M1T--124$4. 14.3-3 4 x3.4 a`,:Tht•. _ .rc *—'• • r k•,,. - 't, - :, 1:5!P.sr,t+` 1L.M N3- °� yw 4� 4tk ry IbY arc +.Mte4. 4iii,; ,r, xN:�lr dmJge� : i6. • „ C' -`�r.r, i ,r T. 6 1y "•ti 'Zl "'der qt r -w +°.' r 2'eyr ••n r �^Nii'a'��'0'e 'z� .'Y�' •a '.5,+'>d �T"M1r_{ tv 7.M° a!`,44 "S A� '. +'e" w. -'t'fs>• iU.1'^,l� AtY, 4"'s" _ "` 'rElti>.A1oy'o+w+•r�. i�.r'_ —+'�F — ", —a^ vi C r' !y7'�...• r.. —rem:.rs�t _..... �i. ... eSh.Lr+� i]t• :.. .n. _rirt� rAS _., r..�...' • _ rT r. •ryl 1 YtirF bp_ ...r x .,��vee"` ft' 1. ...N t } .0.t r .� r' Y d ' '!xC7 r'Efn ✓�y ' . " n" fly 5i U." :''e �;s'lsin'411w.r kg. 'z. n .�,� s '1dn.R+S—> t Yz1j 4 f��ta�{ .rn ' I + J ' x*F ," y n'r"ir s]t -Ya ra " [.I^�'T •r. 2-a+. ,3 w 9.. cr �T��4 n 1 • 'et°" ' eb_ ,.�',p .Srl trif?.�Ku'� : ar ' .•.-,,,,� ": ° a+r- a k •. ,� yrgw' + ' i r ." �i 4 j� k! .-t' t�1 Sa 7 II r r r �: Lr #.r, .�yr.C 11�,Y,r'K\!.. u K a b�r ° F '#� ° .! 'n f # t, ✓ %'tvr. >r r r r 2.r'."Y 444 i:14614�,�s H•i4A4 PEI: : ;R3 .YY_+5. e.d.4%."f.,-.1><.^.S.... k..At.. #,` t rla. 3,. '4 L.-4.. d.., J .r._. r.- - .`�. f1/27 4aa1v;'/. F i ` py to/ WI ,,, 44 F' Best Management Practices For Manure Utilization Bulletin 5BBA ,.. Corrado th [university Cooperative Extension Best Management Practices for r=- Manure Utilization '.L Livestock manure and effluents are rich in plant available nutrients which can be valuable assets to crop producers. However, they also can be a source of both ground and surface water contamination if handled improperly. Livestock manure contains significant quantities of N, P, and K, and smaller amounts of nutrients such as Ca, Mg, Mn, Zn, Cu, and S. Manure that is properly applied to cropland increases soil fertility, improves soil physical properties, and saves fertilizer costs. Liquid effluents are composed primarily of water and have less This publication is intended to impact on soil physical properties, but they also contain nutrients and other provide general recommendations constituents that must be managed properly. and BMPs to assist in the sound The primary constituents of animal waste that may cause water quality management of animal waste as problems include pathogenic organisms, nitrate, ammonia, phosphorous, salts, a nutrient source for crops. These heavy metals, and organic solids. Nitrate (NO3) is the most common ground BMPs are necessarily general, as water pollutant from fields that receive excessive rates of manure. Ground water they cover operations utilizing monitoring has shown that NO3 contamination can be a problem in the vicinity manure from a variety of feeding of confined livestock feeding operations. Runoff from feedlots or manured fields operations. This document is not can also degrade the quality of surface water. In Colorado, state law prohibits any direct discharge of manure or animal intended to establish guidance to .-�astewater to either surface or ground water. Concentrated swine operations are meet any specific regulatory ,ubjected to air and water quality provisions that among other things, require program in Colorado governing an approved nutrient management plan as a component of the operating permit. the application of animal waste These nutrient management plans are used to document that confined feeding and is not a substitute for corn- operations apply wastes at agronomic rates and in a manner which does not pliance with local, state or adversely impact air or water quality. The Colorado Confined Animal Feeding federal regulations. Table values Operations Control Regulation mandates that producers who confine and feed an for manure characterization given average of 1000 or more "animal units" for at least 45 days per year ensure that in the document are for planning no water quality impacts occur by collecting and properly disposing of animal purposes in lieu of documented • manures, as well as stormwater runoff. Smaller feeding operations that directly site-specific values. discharge into state waters or are located in hydrologically sensitive areas may also fall under this regulation. Animal feeding operations are directed to employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect state waters. Nutrient Management Planning Sound management practices are essential to maximize the agronomic and economic benefits of manure while reducing the risk of adverse environmental consequences. Livestock producers do not intentionally put water quality at risk. The problems that occur are usually a result of inattention due to the need to focus limited management time on herd health and production. Virtually every regulatory and voluntary manure management approach now calls for producers to develop a Nutrient Management Plan. This plan documents approximately t-v,v much manure is produced and how it will be managed. At the core of these ..ns is the concept that manure will be applied at "agronomic rates" to crop ,ands. 1 �„ : The agronomic rate is a nutrient application rate ,n Table 1-: t um Animat equiva xwu , � *_, lency factors far Cplorado - based upon a field-specific estimate of crop needs and a `, Uvestock Typez:-'1'.:f:',--Anima t4lTUmt ,. -" CAF '" an accounting of all N and P available to that crop prior K r,,t.`s -; lci Equivale'ricy'— "TIiTsho(d,. ,.., to manure (and/or fertilizer) application. Implicit Factor Number,- . within the agronomic rate concept is an application Slaughter and Feed Cattle -1 o-'"r"'� "`'ri,b00`` rate that does not lead to unacceptable nutrient losses. iFr^Herses t+4-i '` 1.0 1 Qtp „ The agronomic rate is not something that can be Mature"2DatryCattEe` {y,1- r° I5ia directly obtained from a textbook or tables. Rather, it 1S5rnne (>55+,.(bs}� „ tb [pZ OOf4 r must be evaluated for each farm and field. Knowledge l'iheepV,"4r kf` 4 xr2tftta iti,AaePeog` of manure or effluent nutrient content and residual soil i, Turke S � ".04,: migiut 1 ` ,i g4 50Q0� 1 ? nutrients is critical to determining how much can be y T a tv Chukense(brotlet of layer)41,,0 QL�}'a25T00,00g safely applied so that the agronomic rate is not ex- rT s4 4 f,i o �F y.4>Ay sf Nre elcil' 1,iF R•41,-- ay c..Nd� t 1, .$ x ,� * a,�t,�v v:,, ceeded. While producers were encouraged in the past to r Foryoung`stoc� less than 50% aft- du(C weigh reduc xhe"ab,pve; i;,: factorsby'one,halfry `,'t';ifri lT r z aiw�'" ' fertilize for maximum crop yields, now they must also :.':` «7rrt.141. aff-t 3�1's^`a =.^urw-r 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 paanning 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. 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 NOE leaching as the surface seal cracks and deteriorates. For this reason, pens need to be thoroughly gleaned and scraped down to bare earth prior to abandonment. Revegetation of e old pens is also important to help absorb excess soil nutrients and prevent erosion. Manure stockpiles should be located a safe distance away (at least 150 ft.) from any water supply and above the 100-year flood plain unless flood proofing measures are provided. Grass filter strips or sediment basins can be used to reduce solids and nutrients in runoff. For land with a slope of greater than 1 percent, plant a strip of a dense, sod-forming grass such as smooth brome or • pubescent wheatgrass at least 20 to 50 feet wide around the downhill side of any feedlot or manure stockpile to filter potential contaminants in runoff water. More precise filter strip seeding recommendations may be obtained from the local USDA-NRCS office. liquid Effluent and Runoff Collection and Storage Storm water and wastewater runoff from feedlots can liquid waste holding structure contain high concentrations of nutrients, salts, pathogens, and .� oxygen-demanding organic matter. Preventing storm water from - ,�--- passing across the feedlot surface by installing terraces or diver- sion channels above the feedlot is a BMP that can significantly y.� , reduce the volume of wastewater. Decreasing the active lot area � n • can also help reduce the contaminants moved by storm water. The criteria for waste water treatment lagoons and holding J✓. ., ponds is stricter than for runoff containment ponds. Runoff ainment ponds are necessary for large feeding operations tom ,' .id excess wastewater until it can be land applied or evaporated. These should be constructed on fine-textured soils (such as silty ` ,•clays, clay loam .: s, or clay) with a lining of soil compacted to a v .:,,-e c")4--. r , 3 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 :tee a r I= treatment system. Composting is a biological process in which microorganisms convert organic materials, such as manure, into a soil-like mate- :` 'r rial. During composting, some N is lost from the manure as NH3 • -! gas. Most of the remaining N is tied up within stable organic compounds which will become slowly available to plants after soil l� '' z�d "' - application. Composted manure has less odor and is easier to haul ..{ �' and store than raw manure because the volume and weight can be � ,. reduced by as much as 50 percent. v `� air 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 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 [NMI 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 muchiii ' "' +,` ,�^ rxr p °te r "Ri "Nye TMi grit4 4kin cropland is needed for long term Table 2 Salid manure p rod uction by,hvestock cal=culated on a wet wetghtc p basis at the time of tand apphcatiort c '1 " , M `i.� rrfi ' application. There are several ways rY film r, _ w �% ;.,'29:-.{--i:-•'^ " r• �. etle �' .�' U{PYf r,kJ.v 5u«J C„Lt '� ! 1 i 5,",Y to develop this information; one Animal Type , s �i ;rte ' Manure Production �' . .,• MManure Mor tore i method is described in the steps 4 <', - 3t ' it q` grw.b,` e..g w°N' *" f t.0; o �' 'W w.:4,1.,-,4/O..,..,," ' tk i gt ttt•x"r i7`ti `"' t �i2 H !Content;' fd_a.1 below. Another method is to .,- r , ,r x4n,rs, ,,� A .a , " a,r..,c ,may ,,,r,„, s ,rii, ,,y: actually weigh the manure removed Y" 4raVA(lba/day4300o.I6s oMarv?ma[ } . :&;.time ofspreadmg) k.) du ing pen cleaning. If your land .Doi "gfte iO,Vtf ej rY, ` i,i x�' y` `2,r- kr 3, y yr";'- <„irte*�a n ry, r i � ! M ilr;" �r�� 'CI 1 ��il:W a ;�r��°�'�I w'"�'1+v'"'k r �1'n y��`'�'��' base is inadequate to safely utilize , Lcttings'dgZ9 ,,iire. ,t ,; 4bx5 48� ry ° . m .e ,f.v"r`` , 4 �Y 6 ,t, '��t'21 ,:,..YR461``r"5yv>2rAt•+d,. D Cow x _ e total nutrients produced, THeifer 'x`4„.rtt" M4ilfi-" ,v, 1, - ' r, 4{."e � ,e ,r arrangements should be made to , c 4 �* ` r= `rya', •t1' t �y4 °as`n g Beef 7,iig i�r `"l" ,ik wii' VAa s A 1+. s, A a apply the manure off-site. C7„, „�wv"' Ar , ti,^ ..4 �'d „s s" "iRa*t 't Feeder yearling(T50 110Q fb}+ >•�w�,-e a fir, Mz t' v Steps for determining nutrient +r r, ,2r I s5 High forage diet t l r 10 • q i , j: + 32,ts l; ', , inventory from manure production < i. r'� ' i ` r *k , H'i ever diet ,4 4 8 7 i k ax e€ta 3eitii . include: g g�atsh, _ ,i " -�v }ii,2,n i,pic--tag ''mil' ,"v �, { A 45Q 750 Cb'y tr i 32,. 1. Determine the average weight ,Caws d nk `VI jk H*.,ijid, tti{� 5,, 1QJt j x , x c ' 32,s , and number of livestock kept '•"'r"₹„�y�i' ' i, �” } ;,, ,< ^nix+; :•c +',r >�, h`9 annually at the facility. *:veal M.Mr\ ,Y.:rya J X 2 8 n{S ..„''ftv 17 ,s�«..46 I'-�r• Swine r ,{d1 �. w+e 'reiV4 ,it,i yA''}R;taveii '4l1k C.v.—.•-• -4, _ 2. Determine annual manure ,Y� � Nursig/nuisery pig (0 40 lbs 21,6 .50.7, 7 ,.yt X52O"'` •� R production on a per animal x r r r' fi:3u .J ai ;.,Grower (40 2Z0nlbs}' J a 12 9 {,"vi `.. i:I.,,'t`;51 y i 'y" ° ' basis. (Tables 2 and 3 give y. -4f �, a Replacement gilt ' ` Sl,.i x _ t. estimates on an AU basis.) 4 sr 6�7s y rr l a u Sow (gestating) s y,,,,..:4:51 ,{ 4!` 51 3. Multiply average annual manure ,3 w, Sow ([agitating),,,. ,cu, K' ^i.H12 ZS f )T .51! ztt4S' E production times average — ,^��" , r,; , P*�j�`',4 number of animals toget total Boar ;:—rte.s', rs f£,xt's,F 3 g iii0' y -,„fft eTM,iA516 fzik ,$; 9 t Y 4 Y h,' r r kr k manure production. Poultry, t,t* i{s a Y ,,, *• a•x n+ ,,.,. ��Ij ' P .l•iii R� f (�. ,S 4� V `•l 25J.... +. 1'a't, s,iY�.L:1!��t y 'w .- .-:,f faa,r.v, 4. Use manure analysis or Table 4 Layer C "P v i4Q Pulletii‘ r ,; ^ G ;' 119 Q •r: ibtl », °wt'47..2 « i..a1" to estimate nutrient content of �<„_ ct- � ",,,.�. 3„ , ; : 5, iiir t Broiler _,,,. aW rill• a manure. y.a... 5. Multiply total manure production Turkey 18.2 • • e}s ..- by nutrient content per unit of Horse • 14.1 Z2 ,oap-w1 manure to determine annual Sheep 14.5 . 31 nutrient production. ,.;These values are adapted from the USDA'Agncu(CgraLWaste=Managements Fielt.Handbook or "'. represent data from Colorado sampling Manure production and 'mdrsture witLvary with.animal:, age, feed ration, breed and handling. ,.'� 5 Total all manure nutrients from the various sources 'Table 3. Liquid swine manure o production n e a wt awy �x , on your farm to get an estimate of farm total nutrient weignt'basis production (Worksheet 1 is provided at the end of this r� >`1 - t` `4 document as a template for these records). This figure Swore Type, ManureaEroductione„c t rx " h e r al da 1000 lbs of,ammaLt "j will be compared to estimated crop utilization figures Nursirtgnursery pig (Q 4Q Lbs ) Yy12 8,r F �"ir 'x , on Worksheet 3. M Estimating of liquid swine manure Grower (40 220 tbs.): the volume q Replacement gilt"` l ¢�'f-xrvrt a4 0 "" r�"` r produced at large confined feeding facilities is con *'E` ,,!rr' "TM�° founded by the addition of fresh water to the system for ;r Sow (gestating) „wtor " it 3 3 y ; ¢'" V,,'.._ flushing waste from the animal housing units. Docu- Sow (Lactating) 7 2 -,.ea xi***“..;) mented, operation-specific numbers or Table 3 can be Boar " used to estimate the volume of swine manure produc- These numbers do not include wash water or storm water that may ton on a liquid basis. To estimate total liquid waste be added to holding faahtres - ' � .I 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 la: Beef Feedlot Manure Example Feedlot has 2500 head on average year round.'The cattle come in weighing 500 lbs. each and Leave • weighing 1200 lbs. each:They are fed a grain diet ';,,,;a , Step 1: .Calculate average animal weight. , (500 +. 1200)/2 = 850 Lbs./head ,, Step 2: :Obtain table value for manure production (Table 2) ) '8.7 lb/day/I000 lbs. of'animal (feeder, high energy diet) • ` ' Step 3: Calculate total annual manure production for operation • • Multiply table value by average animal weight divided by 1000. 8.7 Lb/day/1000 lbs. of animal x lbs 7.4 lbs. manure/day/animal ' Multiply by the number of days on feed/year 7.4 lbs. manure/dayic 365 daYs/year;:lr 2,700 lbs. manure/year/animal Multiply by the number of head fed/year. 2,700 lbs. manure/year x 2500 head = 6,750,000 lbs. manure/year. Convert lbs. to tons by dividing by 2000 6,750,000 lbs. manure/near= 3375 tons manure /year 2000 lbs./ton 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. = 81,000 lb. P=05/yr • Calculation lb. Estimation of nutrient production from a liquid manure handling system. Example 16: Swine Liquid Waste Example feeding operation has 5000 head on average year-round. The pigs come in weighing 50 lbs:'each and leave weighing 250 lbs. each. They are fed a grain diet. Step 1: Calculate average animal weight (50 + 250)/2 = 150 lbs./head Step 2: Obtain table value for liquid waste production (Table 3) 7.5 gal/day/1000 lbs. of animal Step 3: Calculate total annual manure production for the operation Multiply table value by average animal weight divided by 1000. 7.5 gal/day/1000 lbs. of animal x 150 lbs. = 1.125 gal manure/day/animal Multiply by the number of doys on feed/year. 1.125 gal manure/day x 365 days/year = 410 gal manure/year/animal Multiply by the number of head fed/year. 410 gal manure/year x 5000 pigs = 2,050,000 gal manure/year. Convert to 1000 gal by dividing by 1000 2,050,000 eal 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 gal x 2,050 thousand gal/year= 73,800 lb. N/yr. 27 lb. P205/1000 gal x 2,050 thousand gal/year = 55,350 lb. P205/yr Step 6: Adjust for N loss as ammonia from system (Table 5) 73,800 lb. N/yr. x 500/0 volatilization = 36,900 lb. N/yr. Determining land Needs for Long Term Manure Utilization One of the first steps in developing a long term nutrient management plan is to determine if adequate land is available for utilization of the manure and effluent produced. If the land base is determined to be inadequate, arrange- ments must be made to reduce manure production or find alternatives to over- application. To estimate the minimum land base required, you need to know the annual manure production of your facility and have a manure sample analyzed . for total N, P, and K. Then calculate the best estimate of annual nutrient removal on a per acre basis. For this calculation, use conservative estimates of annual crop nutrient removal and assume that all N and P in the manure is crop available unless you are using liquid effluents with known N volatilization rates. Total manure production divided by acceptable application rates (tons or gallons #9.25 acre) will give an estimate of the land base needed for safe manure utiliza- (Calculation 2). This is not the same calculation as is used for determining .ie agronomic rate of application for a specific field for a specific year. .M i T.TT"'A ^^Y er"^f, YF ware= <.. ,' + 5 `W , , ae s.+ y pt r R + :zJyrf Total N in manure is used to Table 4: Approximate nutrient composltton of vanous types of animal i. ' calculate an estimate of safe long re'et rime of land application `. 5 �` iy s¢y # a term solid manure application m ; + r .R, ' rate because all of the applied N Type of,manure Malstlire TotaLN� NHaaN PZOs r KO *{ s"' Content {ter« �°ss ';s ° S 4 r that is not lost to leaching or •^n`i3 ' eML's„. volatilization will eventually • + .°s t 3'• r 6 *"ti2 iopvL l a .�+ .s�+"pw^a-'" i.a 3, rP� Solid handling systems S, � + * +t� , r-3 i y , , , � become available to the crop. •e re-+ � ,f .ca d'"�^'+t7Y-•lr; .-o ,411 w�+61¢ 24.'s ^ i ' Liquid wastes such as swine ,Swine r SZ�- 0_ yr, rr t " 9 effluent can have a large loss Beef O4 component due to ammonia Dairy Cattle 46 + 13 ^; Irv, t j164t4 34 � Shee f* < 31Y �` 2g1 S . �t� 26 vFst{x3 volatilization. Long term planning p i for effluent applications should Chickens Without litter ,; 55 4 r33.a,�h X26: . 4 �.4 34� °F, With litter f ZS" • Sfi' 3fi ` 45 i' 34 include conservative volatilization Turkeys Without litter • 78:"+{ 27 :' a ' 17;-, ' '20 ', 17 ? estimates to allow for uncertainty •With:;Utter 71; 20 ._ + 13 16 a+13 ad and lower than expected crop Horses Without bedding • 22=▪ 19 ',4+r 4,M'ti'3'14 h"r� 3� nutrient uptake (See Table 5). ]' 000 gat Phosphorus Based Manure Planning Liquid Handling Systems u x u' r rn$ ` %£ While manure applications in Swine Liquid plt _v. 96 Colorado are most often based on ?jar*'"-*" rt t, ' "yt crop N needs, in certain situa- Single-stage anaerobic 99•M a 1i 7T = 6 2-' 7 ( t� tions it is more appropriate to Two stage anaerobic 99 4 ,+ 3 2 ,; .* base manure rates on cro P Beef Lagoon' 99 ° f5 p d requirement and manure P con- Dairy Cattle Liquid pit ▪ 92 24 " 12f, y 18 ≥r Z9�!R Lag oon° 99; 4 , 4n '� 10 tent. Phosphorus is known to Poultry Liquid pit 8T:" s 80 - ' ` g64 ' cause surface water degradation, even at very low concentrations. • Ammonia fraction cart vary significantly acresshme and systems. Numbers grvert are for` * When P from runoff enters lakes planning purposes only, manure analysis is needed to accurately determine ammonia PTM and streams, it accelerates the fraction. ... , ' ^! ° Application conversion factor: lb/1,000 gal x 27.15 - lb./acre inch. x" ^d4 g ''1 growth of algae and other aquatic • Includes runoff water. weeds. As these plants flourish, • These values are derived from the USDA Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, 1992'y oxygen and light become limiting and are modified with data collected from Colorado feeding.operations when possible "' to the survival of more desirable Nutrient composition of manure will varywrth.age breed feed rationsandmanure.handling ...yW. 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 ram 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)? w` a `z '•.Tn•^,S ."1"f ^.. r� 2. Is the depth to ground water less than 50 feet in the Table,5 ApproxrmafeJnitrogen l�o+sYtL+ sammo3nJ9i)a'�: � 1 Sto`r .%,?;flt. ' X0.1 ols.7 p. vicinity of manure storage? during handling and storager k 5 Y 1 ; 3. Have recent well water analyses indicated that local a*„x;, ,4-1441,7,*1,k,2� ground water NO3-N levels are increasing? System c, Estimated NH N Coss- , tgi 9 g h .r ta4 i}6 c:PF i4t. 4. Is the horizontal distance of the feedlot to surface water ,� a i7 r : % F� w k"c ";ea bodies creeks, ponds, drainage ditches, etc. or wellheads �So[id �% ra p ��.gy � "�y -"' ( P g } "''U4 �"- �5 flue "rw. less than 150 feet? 1 Daily scrape aid haul^ ,. I5 35ti , u 5. Does runoff from the feedlot surface leave your property? anrepa�ck stf M7.20`tdFF� � 6. Does seepage from runoff storage ponds exceed .25 in/ k Open lot +4 s Fi��y+r,�r� �at4a 0%-� days Liquid ' arsr Does seepage from lagoons exceed .03 in/day? Lgoon, G 70 80 9 &w t , • a , �� Is manure stored within the 100 year flood lain? S, Anaiebic'pit- a GT, 15'80' u „i.i V, P " 9. Do runoff storage ponds lack the capacity to handle runoff Above ground storage ' , 10 30 volumes from a 25 year, 24-hour storm? Source •.MWPs 18 livestock.Waste Faahtres,Hand600k�, "{•ci r� Manure utilization site evaluation W_ ,: , 4.w at: w � �r ' r "-'-l' jj 1. Do you lack sufficient land to use all of the nutrients in manure produced on your farm? =a; Y 2. Do any fields receiving manure have greater than a 1% Calculation 2..Determining land base for Determining slope'and little surface residue? term manure disposaibased on crop N needs.* 3. Do any fields have a history of more than 5 consecutive years of manure application? Example: Feedlot applies manure to corn bar 4. Is excess water from irrigation or precipitation available vested for grain: Average yield is 175 bu/acre >`i .] for runoff or leaching? Using estimated N removal from Table 6 and 5. Is manure applied at rates greater than the agronomic Calculationla;data -� rate? 1) Crop nutrient removaC(from Table r6) w 6. Is there surface water or a well immediately downhill from 175 bu corn/acre x 56 lb./bu = 9;800 tb ° 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% N in 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 at your site may degrade water quality. The local USDA- base S 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 losses or credits. . may need to be adjusted downward and all appropriate BMPs 9 i i� °..1' i uw -n _.?T ,,�..^ .r-' _x-�s+7-,•--.ar&raa 4t�t.yt Fable 7a Suggested nitrogen,appli anon.rates forfimgated corn:' -" Manure is an extremely variable xG 6 l s s , material whether in solid or liquid form. grain} (1.75 bu/A) based_on soil N0a N and organic matter contentH .4,....,„;::::.,.......,.-.;7.-.;,51 A representative manure sample is }Soil NO3 N (ppm• )' : =,r C SoiC OrgamcMatter(%),' t � } t, ".4 f? critical for a reliable analysis. A mini- +`rr a :;« a.�,` o '1 0 _ -1 1 2 0 , 7-t`'>20�lw , mum of six sub-samples should be "' a ig t '` ' by c "_, � ' }`: taken and mixed together for analysis. v f r Fertnbze.Hate (lb N(A) -�5 : 9 o '6 , ,,,�7P210i�,*P,c ,Y ' 185 = ,a°4, ' 16S 'a When sampling a solid manure stock- ":n.1. ' " ,. ' 4K "`.'1160 : :' ,1i* 135 � "'r 4'15 t.; pile, remove the crust, and use a bucket )�13 :18 }',x + ?t( -4» sl y.`-"� � I10�} �' �'�' °�, gS », � t +�': auger or a sharpshooter (a narrow %,.:19)."-,24 a ;g , k , i,x� ct , ha' x 65 y "� ".' r X60 „ i- k*•�35 �Y. ++ . sx+15/ca ' shovel) to core into the pile as deeply ->24 , "w'"-10 r„r 0 r+ ., rfr� Y tr,0,r : i as possible. Walk around the pile, and '' take samples from all sides. Deliver the `Average concentration of N01 N (ppm)ii,q,0 to 2 ft soil layer .-r sample to the lab immediately or if Add or subtract 1 lb.'N/A for every bushel aboveor below 175 bu/A. a�- "•-This table uses bile formula _ may rN ,, ,,. _a r - immediate delivery is not possible, NOrat 35 + [1.2 x yield goal(bu/A)] [8'x ppm_sml NOl Nj [0 i2 x y'etd}goalix ; freeze the sample in a freezer-type 1 ;) heavy-duty plastic bag. Manure samples 1 y 1', ti 'Ii tr�� N n.y * y y g 1 „ "'„"" '"""""" -`"` — :Sic.;�•-� %�" - should be analyzed by a reputable laboratory for moisture content, total to i ...r r r k : �+ a N, NH4 and total P at the minimum. Table.7b. Suggested nitrogen application rates forirrigated corn *jlI Metals, micronutrients and E.C. are also silage (30 tons/A), based 'an soil N0;N and organic Matter content..-; recommended analytes. Soil NO -N. mMatter.,.(• , �r When sampling a liquid manure or a (ppm)". Soit Organic /,) ':F " , wastewater, there are several ways of t 0 1.-0'..:'-4..i;;;'.);`;'I:1.7;"Fer 2 0 ' >2 Q ° " l! sampling. You can sample from the tilizer'rate (lb N/ )/A t. �'l + y�rt .j lagoon directly with a water grab 0 - fi° 225 200 185" :r sampler (be sure to walk or boat around 7 -. 12 170 145 ' r 125 't ' " 13 - 18 the lagoon and get a minimum of six 125 300 S' 75' 44:7:11 samples) or you can sample from a 19 - 24 75 SO ,; 30 is , ' ' ci valve inserted in the irrigation line or • 25 0 .\';'9' 4' . Q ' d` from cups placed in the field where the '.Average concentration of,NO (ppm) in 0 to 2 fisoil layer., effluent is irrigated onto the land. Store Add or subtract 6 lb.'N/A for every ton aboveor below 30 ton/A. - the sample in a plastic jar in a cooler or .This table uses the formula: 1 freezer and deliver to the lab immedi- N rate - 35 + [7.5 xyield.goal 'tons A [8 x ppm soil N0, N] [0.85 x yield goatx i atel ( / )1 - %,0.M.]• J y. Irrigation water should be ana- _., lyzed for NO) credit, especially when shallow ground water is pumped for irrigation. These lab reports, along with a current manure analysis, should be attached to your nutrient management plan. When plant tissue tests are used to determine in-season fertilizer needs, they should also accompany the plan. See Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Fact Sheet 0.520 for informa- tion on analytical laboratories. Crop Nutrient Need Plant nutrient need depends upon the crop, growing conditions, and actual yield. The crop rotation will determine nutrient needs and nutrient carryover from the previous crop. In some cases, such as a three year stand of alfalfa, nutrient applications are based on more than one year of production. Table 6 12 ;ndicates approximate N and P content of dry harvested crops. This information _an 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. Healistic 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 } '`` ' ' " 7" 'r" f n+ s>'; +Y ` f4x* k s* s r Table 7c. Suggested nitrogen application rates forirngated sorghum average growing conditions. Each grain.(80 bp/A), based on soil nitrate and organicrrraercontenttt a, field should have a yield history and l F • ' `Kir r u expectation. *f waaw w < Soil NOa N (ppm) Solt OrgarplcMatter% ,r, ta,"°�u � ::.',.-:.6.,;5,,,':;.;]*'..r; v ♦ t i f °' rtY WM `4x 4 �p OVA Determining Total Nutrient Needs .y, 'r a ,y� t r"i'r;f4c +K, z 4?4 74 0 p rriA 1� 2 0 map >42 l 44 • +'+Ali.a. Y s b "j1 'vS ��' s e^1rt � H r,. x �.a Crop nutrient needs are deter- ,. ¢ jrTh M. k htletii lFzetiral;e"4lb �A),,' mined using your yield expectations 0 3 , S > + 7 b 4 , ° 1 .A .i1 ':t . '}. 11.,i�z 4.y*.. p, 4e�' ,y it , and table values for fertilizer rates or 4 6 n M1 50 s x N 15 + -.t' p isrz z z at s i+ .6.2 rs. -40 rop nutrient removal values. Most a + r , w$ ,, t' >9 h t5 t v °i ail laboratories will also give > ,.. 0 ,0�,. .r „ 17• + fertilizer recommendations with soil -.‘",!..Average concentration of NO N:(ppm) m 0.to'P ft sor :7",tiayera,,'ivr/:°,`t ' e s yz+�2, .,71 test results. Be sure you understand Add or subtract 125_[6 N/A for every 10 bushels above or<below 80 bu/A r ,rr the lab's fertilizer recommendation This table uses the formula . ' :,^'y)'" ".; =f. philosophy to be sure it is compat- N rate=[1 25 x yield.goal (bu/A)T [8 x ppmsoit NO}Nj.1[030 xt°°/0'.`M k` l,,u 'ala y,, ible with the production and envi- 1 "" mow. w- �- -" ronmental goals of your operation. In some cases, fertilizer appli- -n -; 7_ Al.p, u zx r , o i , Table 7d Suggested nitrogen application rates forvngated 1Y, sorghum< ' cation rates will need to be adjusted 9 Ldp P,i..:. _..•Yti� above or below the standard table adage (30 tons/A), based on soil riitrate and oni rgac matter contenff values. Examples of these situations a '> 4 r: would be 1) where high amounts of Soil NOS-N (ppm)* .i" Y Snit OrgAmsMatter %a ireift �s. t" crop residue remain, increasing N -,.'..“,""•,t.,'6,•:0-': 1 0+ '', "� 11=2 0 :;°>2 0Atl �hje.i{ fertiliser rate ([b' N/A) 22 ` . tit. need by up to 30 lb./acre, 2) where a 0 - 6 y, , ". - g.1,° starter fertilizer is needed due to 230 2t)0 t 1180� 'r,,•�$° cool soils, 3) where alfalfa is to be 13 1812-`. i xj 190 ~ T4,w;.2'.�16C-^+^xir,�rr'$r140�,� "�*,,`p„ maintained for more than 3 years, 150 A ° A 20 ZOfF�.-r , 19 - 24 ° xAf , Yu. °ems° '., a and 4) when manure has been 11018 "� F60 °r, ,• 25 - 30 70 =uMW 40 '$•-�, rr20 w ' applied in the previous year. Other 31 - 36. 30 4-, ..0: ,r, .:'x+"O, ,..-q z situations may exist that justify >36 0 x °x'0 r At `" 1.0t....:,.'4 manure rate adjustments. If so, n. cument these adjustments on your * Average concentration of N0,-N (ppm) m 0 to 2 ft soil layer r a , ,rient management plan. Add or subtract 9 lb.N/A for every ton above or below 3a ton/A =1 This table uses the formula: - N rate— [9 x yield goal (tons/A)] [8 x ppm:so'[NO-3-NI--[30 Lx yield goal x r°0 M ] - 13 P: j1., rr ,b,�" _ "" ;7 ° ll Available N and Pin Manure , , able_,e Suggested m.trogen application t,_ The total amount of N in manure is not plant available in the a'rates'foi rngated grasses (4. tons/acre) 1 ,�, , � � f , n first year after application due to the slow release of N tied up in based o t soil nitrate content , a,, a' '', `; organic forms. Organic N becomes available to plants when soil 44 +N , a ,� + microorganisms.decompose organic compounds such as proteins, tSoitNO N' fi Fertlizer Rate 11 `7:::::\F",_-.?:::':12-,4,,q4::::..1 -7t.:.<: ...-`;t} 75,',, 4 1 � lIr N/A} ttfk" and the N released is converted to NH4. This process, known as 1 mineralization, occurs over a period of several years after manure f 0 ? 15, `� '^ l fl d"-r• ti 185 iz44+i ua`ki i -. application. The amount mineralized in the first year depends #c-7 '1 4sy�'�,4 i2.1 a 11 ;tA` 160 „, T . `,y.y 3, upon manure source, soil temperature, moisture, and handling. In ^13 16 1 "77 Ri. s. .1135 , `.tt ..y, P p g. 19 24" ,i ,1 r 110 +." a. general, anywhere from 15 percent to 55 percent of the organic N i '"•. 4- £ r ° -., ;a: } •in manure becomes available to the crop in the first year after ,�25; 30 a4 ryt V ,�� K85 aq : " ,any ,. application depending upon climate and management factors. '",->3D .F J YY:^- OS , a w xt*%. } x."4 r Nitrogen availability can be estimated as a fraction of the total N Concentration of NOr N (ppm)`„in the top foot of soil content of manure or as a fraction of the organic N content. Add Or subtract4o lb. N/A for everyton/acre above or Organic N is usually determined by subtracting the NH and NO below 4tons/A :t' ' , r ' from the total N content of the manure. This approach�is more 3 Use [heaame N rates for grass legume m xturesyr., Yx " containing less than 25% legumes. ii, , pI accurate when reliable NH4 content and NH3 volatilization numbers ^tk r S • _=°--�+ are available. Mineralization of N from applied manure will continue to provide nutrients to the soil system for several years after application. This }: ^ g'� " ` � 1p '"l `�" 4 r"' �'i,'# °i7t additional N must be accounted for in the Table 8 Suggested broadcast P application rates (lbs PZOJacre) ; 3 nutrient management plan if manure will t' : i ,'','- 4 l��J,.: °NaHCD P , eyvR „ t, , °i be applied again to the same field within :;[,4 iv ) F qik a..+. n;^4, y ,,A '' a e P yr F• L :: l r-;,7 f (ppm) — three years. Mineralization credit for the ' 0 6 7 14 15 22 ▪ >22 second and third years after application lbs°;P'0s/acre ' ' r Y should be based upon a fraction of this Corn,,irrigated ec, 80 ., 40 " 0 u 0; '; initial organic N content (Table 9). Alter- and'drylandt. r t,i ..d„4„E natively, annual soil sampling for residual • j•Dry Beans 80 40 ,x0 0: , i soil NO,-N, NH4-N and organic matter can Sorghum 80 40 'l ' - 0 ': 0 be used to estimate mineralization credit Potatoes 240 180 'a 120 60 in subsequent years. Sugarbeets i;` 100 75 ,i 4 550,;!:; ▪ 0 j Phosphorus contained in manure is ''Sunflowers 80,-:`,!.! `40 ., 'J` 0 • 0 usually considered to be entirely plant ,Wheat ,71',.,;;:....,...),.....-.-_,. 80 `le 40 ?o .'=' 0" available in the first year after application. as•Alfalfa, irrigated In reality, some fraction of the P is tied-up .new stand '. ' 200 150 50 0;' in forms that are not immediately available established ` 100 75 _ 0�_,_s • 0 to plants. If soil test P is in the "low to Alfalfa, dryland medium" range and the soil is high in lime Y `;new stand 6Q • 40 •- r 0 01" ' content, it may be appropriate to assume established 45 30 ' 0 0 that only 80 percent of the P will be plant .'Grass and grass available in the first year. legume mixtures ' Volatilization Losses new stand 80 40 0 0 Surface applied manure should be established 80 40 0 •, ._0. . incorporated as soon as possible to reduce Band application rates for row crops are half of the suggested broadcastrate. odor and minimize nutrient loss by volatil- ization and runoff. The risk of surface loss 14 is reduced by injection m �� n' '3 y ' i,;S yi s+ y i`. Table 9. A roximatepercent of or amc N mineralized from vanous manure', application under the PP g g , 0,« , , ,.Sirix a,,",)'i tt sources over three earsM �u�+r soil surface, but loss still , Y ; , , , �,eik •a,,x,>.,P.,r.�'fi• s,+�„� �a R .� �,�"�'� r„ ,� may occur on sloping or ,y x, uk F Manure Source r '. _ Mr , Percent of organic N Avar[able't,°i°3 erosive fields. Delayed " { ;-r w, at ; 7 incorporation may be .„ .. ,/s? " •1 •year + wt,i i▪i2"ayear•t' ",{3;byer F acceptable on level • 1 i!1 b:z. £^'t e a xj yi en .1 n ",� / , Beef and dairy cattle xa I' 7+ T r 1rown�Fc1,^�-' :( fields if erosion control f .▪ ; f , "" � " sig ,` frA a 'e or sunlight decompose Sr t l v 2i , 'w _ 77 Ia¢�' ' 4 ry,714w4 f? ''3•t.' Tz7r.„t. ' }s'2 k"y ' solid (without hedding) 30 40 ct NwTO iS 02, rwl tion of pathogens is , 'fi`'* , .a' {. i! +J +a n rovn, +7 1 Liquid (anaerobic) C25-35 +t' acs'5 10 _ ' it , desired. If solid manure '��. `)r w r�t „t, , { �j2 Tw .Swine� � ;�i J � y *" „` f r p 4yM„ '}xcv�a'. ,�{"�!a,,,� � �w�ik�^ is not incorporated e- r � K 5 ` f.' Ty n i 'P ' , " . +x >�Mtl` r r� wa is solid • , ,�,.i 45-55"1.fS.Y 3^81 fr S2✓ 7 � within 72 hours after1735-45 . „2.t9 J 'sg Y�r, �x ;` +� liquid (anaerobe) x 4 9 nn m r e q 2 " application, much of the ,, i ATM r '"' 4Sheep , ''�... $ , r g\y:t o ., r�' ;^ X ,.i.7 al*3-'+ ' +'7M1 NH,-N fraction may be '" ,r :s" t'r`y ;.� - a -+°r ;" ; I'd k 20 30 10 15 ',--.',/,.5-10 .,.... lost to volatilization ' a' "( , , .r ! . ,,, Ti •Horse a ,' rsar (Table 10). The rate of � ks "u . ' x a solid with beddin ' _ "` volatilization increases " ( 9) 15 25 r F 5 l0; r �s,Lzi2 ,e�)..'-^.,x1 Poultry J, e• Pre„ rye ! Pt .., ` r,..,;,r4„t3 , under warm, dry, or ;<u # „0�yy x F .3a solid (without litter) • 30 40 R10 1 "tea, 5 T ° : windy conditions. a, „�.'.-� .,. ..�::. ..;.;. .,. r..:.� u ,I,r :yap.., .s.a�,.:.'ti�.,;�a.� yRy, .M, Volatilization losses Adapted from USDA Ag Waste Manag'Iment FieldHandbook 1992and othersources '' 'fR r»i3.ts%'U-r fv i-. �.. z xx•. i from liquid effluents can ...... —" �� result in large N losses, .ince much of the N in " .;• r -.,7:::1:-.777,77.77-f.gr.',/;;;M:77.77•277.713-71;TAVAP4 . ti 7777,7.•, -3 1 r i ,•,� tip.; a-NyY,s'. effluents is in the NH4 ,Table 10.'Approximate percentage of ammonia lost to volatiUzatiarr within four form, which is easily days after application . ' converted to ammonia • gas. An accurate predic- Application Method Type of Waste ,.Estimated NH3 Loss" tt r,1 lion or measurement ofC'r to the Atmosphere* the amount of N volatil s ized from liquid manures Broadcast w thout cultivation • solidiS 30 ir, , " Broadcast with immediate cultivation ' solid or li uid " ` 1 '5kr M is difficult to obtain q s * because both the Injection .. .` liquid :: .:?70::-.32'..,:1"..,);;:i..1.„1:2.:4j � application method and Sprinkler irrigation liquid :....-i,-. O:;.'.'. 25 - 65 the ambient climate will -.:..Values reflect loss under each application method. determine the rate of Losses vary widely depending upon conditions at time of application. e Xr flux. Additionally, Source-MW?S-18, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbookj.,,.7,,:,,,,::: 1Yd ii accurate measurement of . _... NH, content of manure is confounded by a high degree of variability in NH, concentration in the manure stockpile. The current scientific literature reports losses from sprinkler applied effluents from 10 percent to over 80- percent of the ammonia fraction. For planning purposes, 20 percent to 30 percent of the ammonia can be assumed lost to volatilization during cool season application, while 40 percent to 60 percent may be assumed lost from the soil surface during - -^mmer applications. The amount of loss can be reduced by prompt incorpora- ,n. 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 exceeds the subsequent crop N 'Calculation 3. Estimating irrigation water N credit requirement, no additional Example: N credit from 17 inches of irrigation water containing 10 ppm NO -N ): effluent, manure, or commercial N o-: - fertilizer should be applied. 17 inches/A `'' x' (2:7 lb. N/acre foot) x' (10 ppm NO3-N) :738 lb N/A Nutrient Credits Residual soil NO3, irrigation •12 inches/acre foot 4 • ;t water, soil organic matter, and previous legume crops all contrib- ute N to the growing o crop. The q N > +3 T 7 r ;re me Mfrs 4545, . `k� t, pn`itP contribution from these sources Table 11 Nitrogeg 9 'r `n credits for crop ;requirementsN, .1's ka� arm must be credited in order to make •Source N Credit` a./ 4≥ t, r N a accurate fertilizer and manure Sail orgamc matter' 30 lb'N per °P°tiOM <; P i,s recommendations. Use soil and Residual soil nitrate' 3 6 lb Niper ppm NO; N (1 fE; sample)sO water test data and the informa- -'Irrigation.water,. n,` 2 7 lb M'per""acre foot x ppm• . NO3 M t " tion in Table 11 to estimate these Previous alfalfa crap r „ y �: r42. ` •,,o' ,+ �" ▪ credits. In some cases, these >80% stand y * 100 140'lb Nacre credits may entirely satisfy crop 60 80% stand A;s 60-10a'l6 N/acrei � rr � � 5 'r{ needs and no additional manure <60% stand - 30-60 lb..,N/acreo-°. � , y ` ,s. or fertilizer is required. A starter Other previous legume crop , 30 lb M acre fertilizer may be all the supple- Previous manure'or effluent `Mt r, Vanes by"source, rate and time (Table 9), „i mental fertilizer that is justified ▪ in these cases in order to en- • These credits are factored in N rates given in tables 7a 7e,and should not be used twice 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 N2 fixation in root nodules. Plowing down a good stand of alfalfa may release more than 100 lbs. of N per acre in the first year after plowdown. The amount of N credit given for legumes depends upon the crop, stand, and degree of nodulation. A minimum of 30 lbs. of N/acre should be credited in the first year after any legume crop (Table 11). Total all available nutrient sources from soil testing, irrigation water, legumes and any other organic amendments to determine the total nutrient credit. Due to the difficulty of accurately assessing these credits, be sure to scout fields for nutrient sufficiency during the vegetative growth stages. 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 wilt equal the recommended nutrient application 16 -ate. This can be satis- led by manure, fertilizer, Calculation 4. Determining agronomic rate of manure application." or a combination of Example 4a. Beef feedlot manure broadcast applied and incorporated immediately , 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 = 23 Lb. total N/ton including 7 lb: NH< N/ton" should be avoided on (from Table 4) frozen fields unless a • Available N =.35% availability x (23 lb /total N/ton manure site specific analysis 7 lb. NH4-N/ton) + 7lb.:NH N/ton (from•Table 8) shows that runoff will = 12 W. available N/ton manure not occur. Effluent or Step'2: Determine crop N requirement manure should not be ex. soil contains 1.50/0 organic matter,and 6 ppm residual soil NO2 N applied to any soil that N required for 175 bu corn crop = 185 lb. N/acre (from Table 7a) is saturated or has a Step 3: Subtract N credits from other sources. snow pack of greater et 25.lb. NO3-N (in 2-4 foot subsoil sample) than one inch. Addition- 185 lb. N required - 25 lb. subsoil N ally, animal waste should •• lb N needed r , =Y60 _ not be applied to soils Step 4:Calculate agronomic manure rate that are frequently = (160 lb. N/acre) / (12 lb` available NJton manure) 'l 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 • eriod when flooding is 312 lb. P205/acre supplied by manure .xpected to occur. Manure is most Manure application rate based upon P:requirement: • valuable as a nutrient 'Step 1: Calculate available P in manure source if it is applied as Total,P205 = 24 lb. P205/ton (from. Table 4) close to planting as Available P205 = 80% availability x 24 lb. P205/ton manure possible. However, 19 lb. 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 lime 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, light applications during the growing season to match crop uptake patterns and nutrient needs. If manure is applied at the maximum rate based upon crop N needs, .,.ditional 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 ,y 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..NI-14-N/1000 gat effluent (from Table 10) , = 1.5 lb. available NH.-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 gal effluent = 1.6 lb. 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 y Feed Fx'1).�� Il t1, II vi-i-- , � fjl^'� Collectionirt , Potential from Lot '— I � . lj'" Runoff Apply to Land tt Jr /°° 00`r SSTORAGE Nutrient �. 'f ', p a 000Ic7 o a Use QQeO Div 0o o ° Potential o06,1/4.1° o o "op a °o o 0 a c. ° Lea aching o 0ac 00o a 3 Potential ;a o o4aa ° 'bo° oq o ®O 0 , is os�tio oo oO4o a o gooa °os-n Leaching a . ® s o 00 o & 0 0 oQ °C oc a•' o O o 0 0O � Qocp0LJo(�7j\ ‘y°oQo aQ 0p0oo p-QoO� ooQo�op� 0000ncD °0°�°DJoGOc©Q�,� r.� goeso o begoa/ O0 T1 ra0�G'1)°V 0 PoV ) t q,OC)ego° '0o Y O�� I oF �c0VPdo CGROUNDWATEF?do oot �°e� � �a of 'GV .vC), a Q °o �orw,oUOpQ i•. oO v o -oOp Q: ��00 0 0 0 I r O i p e ©`'b o0 y0Q, OUQ tGo `,poo -dpo,co�o O. �� ; LI, aoa 0�0iOt Onc�1X00 © 0OO O°tie (0ac�c oh . aoo a coc.,0 no ,,P-) n V,no^O 61C�� 74 2,Ch 0� no aAon nE7l\e 0O n 000 0°c 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 Ilse 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 ,sts, 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.) fallow 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. 79 Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization Guidance Principle: Collect, store, and apply animal manures properly to optimize efficiency while protecting water quality. To select manure BMPs that achieve water quality goals and the greatest net returns for your operation, consider: • most suitable practices for your site and management constraints • need to protect sensitive resources and areas General BMPs 3.1 Develop a nutrient management plan for your operation that includes: 1. Estimates of manure production on your farm 2. Farm maps which identify manure stockpiles, potential application sites and sensitive resource areas 3. Cropping information 4. Soil, plant, water, and manure analysis 5. Realistic crop yield expectations 6. Determination of crop nutrient needs 7. Determination of available nutrient credits 8. Recommended manure rates, timing, and application methods 9. Operation and maintenance plans 3.2 Base manure application rates on crop phosphorus (P) needs IF soil test P is in the high or very high category, the field drains to any sensitive surface water body, AND P movement is likely. In most other cases, appli- cation rates may be based on crop N needs. 3.3 Apply commercial N and P fertilizer to manured fields only when soil available N and P from manure application does not satisfy crop needs. 3.4 Cease effluent application if crop is destroyed during growing season. Plant winter cover crops to scavenge excess nutrients when crop uptake is lower than expected due to hail or other yield limitations. 3.5 Maintain nutrient management plans and actual manure and fertilizer management records on file a minimum of three years or the duration of your crop rotation, if longer than three years. 3.6 Scout fields for nutrient deficiencies/sufficiency throughout the season in order to identify and correct problems that may limit economic crop yields. 21 (�1ti.L IE��'' Itr Manure Application BMPs , l 3.7 Incorporate manure as soon as possible after application to minimize ' volatilization tosses, reduce odor, and prevent runoff. j „ 3.8 Apply manure uniformly with properly calibrated equipment. 3.9 Time liquid manure applications to match crop nutrient uptake patterns in order to minimize the opportunity for NO3 leaching on coarse textured soils. Effluent application amounts must not exceed the soil water holding capacity of the active rootzone. Several light applications of liquid manure l during the growing season are better than a single heavy application. I+ 3.10 Limit solid manure application on frozen or saturated ground to fields not subject to runoff. Liquid effluent should not be applied to frozen or saturated ground. 3.11 Create a buffer area around surface water and wells where no manure is applied to prevent the possibility of water contamination. 3.12 Plant permanent vegetation strips around the perimeter of surface water and erosive fields to catch and filter nutrients and sediments in surface runoff. 3.13 Apply manure on a rotational basis to fields that will be planted to high N use crops such as corn or forage. Long-term annual applications to the same field are not recommended, except at low rates. Manure Collection and Storage BMPs 3.14 Locate manure stockpiles, lagoons, and ponds a safe distance from all water supply wells. Manure stockpiles, lagoons, and runoff collection ponds should be located on areas not subject to leaching and must be above the 100 year flood plain, unless adequate flood proofing structures are pro- vided. 3.15 Inspect Lagoons and liquid manure storage ponds regularly to ensure seepage does not exceed state and local restrictions. 3.16 Divert runoff from pens and manure storage sites by construction of ditches or terraces. Collect runoff water from the lot in a storage pond; minimize Solid manure application runoff volume by diverting runoff water from crossing the feed lot. .I 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 Ufa, ! percent to 35 percent. Avoid mechanical disturbance of the ;am a � W.$ w ,� .:i,.' manure-soil seal when cleaning feedlots. Create a smooth aitritipamilrj ? mss' t;3 surface with a 3 percent to 5 percent slope when scraping lots. ". .r 3.18 Scrape feedlots or manure storage areas down to bare earth Vtr* u,r:' 0..--" trit,"tsc.- 4".4 and revegetate after they are permanently abandoned. 22 Nutrient Management Plan Guidelines 1. Using Worksheet 1, determine the approximate nutrient inventory from manure production on your farm. If you use manure but do not produce any on your farm go to Worksheet 2. 2. Attach farm maps identifying fields receiving manure, waste storage facilities and natural resource areas of special concern, such as streams, groundwater recharge areas, wetlands, public or private drinking water wells. 3. Fill out 1 copy of Worksheet 2 per field identifying: • cropping sequence • yield expectations • crop nutrient needs • nutrient credits • planned manure and or fertilizer rates • note any special management needed to protect natural resource areas of special concern. 4, Attach soil tests, manure analysis, irrigation water tests, and plant tissue analysis used to determine proper nutrient rates. 5. Use Worksheet 3 to document whole farm nutrient use. 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 Worksheet 1. Determination of Nutrient Inventory from Manure Production • Livestock Average Average Average Total Manure Analysis' Total Nutrient Type Animal Manure Number Manure Production' Weight' Production Animals Production' Total Total Per Animal' Per Year N P,0 N P10s —1000 gal— —1000 gal— --lb/1000 gal-- or or or --tons-- --tons-- --lb/ton-- . Total • Notes: Prepared by: Date: ' Average animal weight should be based on the average over the entire year. Average production per animal should be on an as-applied basis. See Tables 2 and 3 for guidelines. ' Total manure production is determined by multiplying Average Manure Production per animal by the average number of animals per year. • Manure analysis will be lbs of nutrients (Total N and P,)) per 1000 gal or per ton. In lieu of lab analysis, use values in Table 4. ' Multiply total manure production by manure analysis Co determine total nutrient production. Worksheet 2. Determination of Manure Application Rates for Field: (Field ID) 1. Field information Crop Crop year Number of acres • Soil name/texture Previous crop 2. Nutrient need N P205 lb./acre a) Expected yield b) Nutrient recommendations from soil test report c) Special nutrient need above test recommendations d) Total nutrient need' 3. Nutrient credits N P205 lb./acre a) Residual soil credit' b) Irrigation water credit c) Organic matter credit' d) Previous legume crop e) Mineralization from previous manure applications f) Other: g) Total nutrient credit 'If not included in 2b above. 4. Recommended nutrient application rate N P205 a) Total nutrient need minus Total nutrient credit (lb./acre) b) Expected NH3-N volatilization a/a NH4-N available from manure lb./ton or lb/1000 gal c) Expected mineralization Organic N available from manure lb./ton or lb/1000 gal d) Total available N lb./ton or lb/1000 gal e) Recommended manure application rate (tons/acre) or (1000 gal/acre) or (acre inch) 5. Post season follow-up Actual crop yield Total irrigation water applied (inches/acre) Supplemental fertilizers applied lbs N/a Total manure applied (tons/acre) or (1000 gal/acre) lbs P205 /A Prepared by: Date: Worksheet 3. Whale Farm Nutrient Use Summary for Crop Year: • Field Size Crop Recommended Manure Total Additional Nutrient Application Manure Fertilizer Application Rate Applied Applied Rate —tons/acre— Per Field' ' —acres— or —tons— —lb/acre- -1000 gal/acre— or —lb/acre— —gallons— N P105 N P70• • Whole Farm Total Manure Applied Total manure applied is calculated by multiplying field size (acres) by manure application rate. Prepared by: Date: • AGPROfessionals, LLC 02.17.2003 r Appendix E • Soil Testing Protocol • Process Wastewater/Stormwater Testing Protocol • Solid Manure Testing Protocol • Irrigation Water Testing Protocol r IF Cattle Comprehensive Manure& Wastewater Management Plan 15 AgPro Environmental Services,LLC Feb-03 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 Feb-03 Process Wastewater / Stormwater Testing Protocol • Use a qualified laboratory. (Olsen's Agricultural Laboratory, Inc., McCook, NE) • Utilize the same lab annually. • The lab typically supplies plastic sample containers. • A typical process wastewater/ stormwater sample consists of 250 ml to one liter. • Test process wastewater/stormwater at least once per year or every time wastewater is land applied. • Take at least three sub-samples. Mix them together and submit one composite sample to the lab. • Sample wastewater from each pond or basin that will be utilized for land application. Take the sub-samples from different sides of the retention basin. Take each sub-sample from at least 12 inches, and preferably 18 inches, below the surface. • Place the composited wastewater samples in the containers provided by the lab. • Fill the bottles completely, with no air space (if air space is allowed, then some of the ammonium will volatilize and the test will not be accurate). • Mark each composite sample with the date, sample identification and samplers name. Complete a chain-of-custody form and send it with the samples. • Keep the samples cool by packing in ice, and send to the lab as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. Make sure the samples will arrive at the lab in a cool state within 48 hours of sampling. • If the samples will not arrive at the lab within 48 hours, then freeze them and ship them so they arrive at the lab in the frozen condition. • Have the laboratory evaluate the process wastewater samples for the following parameters at a minimum: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Ammonia-N pH Total Solids Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Feb-03 Solid Manure Testing Protocol • Use a qualified laboratory. (Olsen's Agricultural Laboratory, Inc., McCook, NE) • Utilize the same lab annually. • The lab typically supplies plastic bags as sample containers. • A typical solid manure sample consists of one to five pounds. • Test solid manure at least once per year. • Sample solid manure in a manner, which will give the most representative sample possible. Accomplish this by randomly sampling several stockpiles of manure throughout the feedlot/dairy. Take at least four sub-samples and mix them together in a large plastic bucket to make one composite sample. • Do not collect excessive amounts of dirt; manure that is wet, or other foreign material. • Place the composite manure samples in the sterile plastic bags provided by the lab. Fill the bags full and seal well, with as little air space as possible (if air space is allowed, then some of the ammonium will volatilize and the test will not be accurate). • Mark samples with the date, sample identification and samplers name. Complete a chain- of-custody form and send it with the samples. • Keep the samples cool by packing in ice, and send to the lab as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. Make sure the samples will arrive at the lab in a cool state within 48 hours of sampling. • If the samples will not arrive at the lab within 48 hours, then freeze them and ship them so they arrive at the lab in the frozen condition. • Have the laboratory evaluate solid manure samples for the following parameters at a minimum: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Ammonia-N pH Total Solids Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) During solid manure application, weigh several truckloads per day to determine an average weight per load. AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Feb-03 Irrigation Water Testing Protocol • Use a qualified laboratory. (Olsen's Agricultural Laboratory, Inc., McCook, NE) • Utilize the same lab annually. • The lab typically supplies plastic bottles as sample containers. • A typical water sample consists of 100 ml to one liter. • Test irrigation water at least once per year. • Test irrigation water at the peak of the irrigation season. • If using ditch water, take the sample after the ditch has been running for several days. Take the sample at a relatively clear spot in the ditch about mid-depth. • If utilizing well water, take the sample after the well has been running for several days. Take the sample from a spigot near the well. Allow the water to run from the spigot at least five minutes before sampling. • Fill the sample bottle to the indicated line and cap it. • Mark samples with the date, sample identification and samplers name. Complete a chain- of-custody form and send it with the samples. • Keep water samples cool by packing in ice, and send to the lab as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. Make sure the samples will arrive at the lab in a cool state within 48 hours of sampling. • Have the laboratory evaluate irrigation water samples for the following parameters at a minimum: pH Nitrate-N AGPROfessionals, LLC 02.17.2003 Appendix F • Agronomic Determination Sheets • Precipitation Log • Manure and/or Compost Removal Log • Process Wastewater Application Log • Pond/Lagoon Inspection Form JF Cattle Comprehensive Manure& Wastewater Management Plan 16 AgPro Environmental Services,LLC Feb-03 Agronomic Rate Determination Sheet - Process Wastewater Application Reference material needed:Soil test data,process wastewater test data and CSU Bulletin No.568.4 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 goal x%O.M). Corn Silage:N-rate=35+[7.5 x yield goal(tons/acre)]—[8 x ppm soil NO3-N]-[0.85 x yield goal x %O.M] 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: 0 Total nitrogen credit *If not included in 2b above. Do not use N credits twice, i.e. from Tables 7a-7e and here. 4. Recommended Nitrogen Application Rate: Nitrogen a) Total nitrogen need minus Total nitrogen credit(lb./acre) b)Expected Ammonium-N volatilization c)NH4-N available from process water lb./1000 gal d) Expected mineralization rate for Organic-N e) Organic-N available from process water lb./1000 gal O Total available N ([c x [1-b)J + [dx eJ) lb./1000 gal g)Recommended manure application rate (a +J) 1000 gal/acre 5. Post-Growing Season Follow-Up Actual crop yield (bu/acre,ton/acre, etc.)Total irrigation water applied inches/acre or Acre-feet/acre Supplemental fertilizers applied: lbs.N/acre Total process water applied 1000 gal/acre Prepared by: Date: AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Feb-03 PRECIPITATION LOG (Record precipitation after each event&frequently during events if rainfall is intense or for long duration.) Facility Name: Year: Rain Gauge Location: Date Time Time Elapsed Beg. Reading End Reading Total Rainfall r-� Comments: AgPro Environmental Services,LLC Feb-03 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 J Comments: AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Feb-03 PROCESS WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG (Record manure application data several times per day when applying process wastewater.) Facility Name: Year: Field I.D.: Crop: Water Changed GPM reached Initials of Date Time Time Meter Gallons being Pressure end of water Person Elapsed Reading Pumped pumped @P°mp rows? setting? Y/N) Pumping (Y/N) Calculation: (1) Total Gallons Pumped: (2) Total Acres in Field: (3) Gallons per Acre Pumped: [Line 1 +Line 2] (4) Plant Available Nitrogen in Effluent: lb./1000 gal [Line 4f from Agronomic Rate Determination Sheet-Process Wastewater Application] (5) Plant Available Nitrogen Applied: lb./Acre [(Line 4 *Line 3) +1000] AgPro Environmental Services, LLC Feb-03 Pond/Lagoon Inspection Form (Inspect ponds/lagoons monthly.) Facility Name: Pond Name: Person Performing Inspection: Date: Item Yes /No Follow-Up Date Follow-Up Initials Needed? Y/N Completed 2 feet freeboard existing? 25-year/24-hour capacity available? Visible bank erosion? Visible seepage on sides or base? Rodent burrows or holes? Trees, stumps or roots on dike? Inlet clear and erosion free? Sludge/Solids accumulation present? Other: Other: Other: Comments: Hello