The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About992511.tiff DE PA RTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 ADMINISTRATION(970)304-6410 PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATION AND NURSING(970)304-6420 FAX(970)304-6416 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES(970)304-6415 FAX(970)304-6411 • COLORADO November 1, 1999 .' Philip Brink } ,O EnviroStock, Inc. 1597 Cole Boulevard, Suite 310 Golden, Colorado 80401 Re: Painted Prairie Farm, LLC, Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan Dear Mr. Brink: The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment (WCDPHE) has reviewed the Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan (the Plan) for the Painted Prairie Farm, LLC. The Plan is dated September 1999. We have also reviewed the supplementary information provided in your letter dated October 27, 1999. This letter is considered to be a part of the Plan. Based upon our review it appears that the Plan substantially complies with the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Control Regulations (CAFO Regulations) and the conditions of Amended Use by Special Review permit#587. As a result, the WCDPHE approves the Plan with the following conditions: 1) The facility shall maintain an on-site rain gauge, or other similar instrument, in order to monitor rainfall events that occur at the facility. Records of any precipitation event that occurs at the facility shall be maintained on the facility. Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at (970) 304-6415, extension 2209. Sincerely, - - Trevor Jiricek Supervisor Environmental Protection Services tjlcafolpaintedprairie cc: Julie Chester, W.C. Planning Department Derald Lang, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Les Hardesty, Painted Prairie Farms, LLC tS DEPARTMENTOF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT 1555 N. 17TH AVENUE GREELEY,COLORADO 80631 D - - ADMINISTRATION(970)304-6410 PUBLIC HEALTH EDUCATION AND NURSING(970)304-6420 FAX(970)304-6416 0 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES(970)304-6415 FAX(970)304-6411 COLORADO November 1, 1999 Phil Brink y , EnviroStock, Inc. '` 1597 Cole Boulevard, Suite 310 Golden, Colorado 80401 Subject: Painted Prairie Farm, LLC, Amended USR #587, Dust Abatement, Fly Control, and Odor Control Plans Dear Mr. Brink: The Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment (WCDPHE) has reviewed the Dust Abatement, Fly Control, and Odor Control Plans for the Painted Prairie Farm, LLC. The Plans are dated.September, 1999. The Plans were submitted to fulfill conditions of approval 2(E), 2(F), and 2(G), of amended USR #587. The WCDPHE has found all three (3) Plans to be adequate as submitted. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (970) 304-6415, extension 2209. Sincerely, Trevor Jiricek, MAES Supervisor Environmental Protection Services ljlcafo\pa i ntedpra i riedo g cc: Julie Chester, Weld County Planning Department Les Hardesty, Bearson Dairy, LLC , 597 Cole Blvd., Suite 310 Golden, Colorado 80401 N III RO Phone (303) 238-3501 1�■/1f��■ k! Fax (303) 238-3504 TWednesday, October 06, 1999 Wity Flan:'�is.g ��- Julie Chester eld CO Weld County OCT 0 . 1999 Weld Co. Admin. Offices 1400 North 17th Street n r F I ' Greeley, CO 80631 Subject: Hard-Le Holsteins, d.b.a. Painted Prairie Farms, LLC, Special Review Permit # 587 Dear Julie: Pursuant to our discussion yesterday,please find attached the Articles of Organization for Painted Prairie Farm, LLC. A copy has also been forwarded to Lee Morrison If you have any questions, please contact EnviroStock, Inc. at(303) 238-3501. Sincerely, Philip Br nk Environmental Analyst C: Lee Morrison, Weld County Attorney's Office Les Hardesty, Painted Prairie Farm, LLC Enclosure Mail to: Secretary of State For office use only Corporations Section 1560 Broadway,Suite 200 Denver,CO 80202 (303)894-2251 Fax(303)894-2242 MUST BE TYPED 19 1118641 M FILING FEE: 550.00 50. f; MUST SUBMIT TWO COPIES SECRETARY OF STATE Please include a typed SASE 06-22-1999 14:38:30 ARTICLES OF ORGANIZATION - �Fw I/We the undersigned natural person(s)of the age of eighteen years or more, acting as organizer(s) of a limited liability company under the Colorado Limited Liability Company Act, adopt the following Articles of Organization for such limited liability company: FIRST: The name of the limited liability company is: Painted Prairie Farm, L.L.C.. SECOND: Principal place of business:34600 County Road 31, Greeley, Colorado 80631 THIRD: The street address of the initial registered office of the limited liability company is: 34600 County Road 31, Greeley, Colorado 80631. The mailing address (if different from above) of the initial registered office of the limited liability company is: Same The name of its proposed registered agent in Colorado at that address is: Lester E. Hardesty FOURTH The management is vested in managers(check if appropriate) FIFTH: The names and business addresses of the initial manager or managers or if the management is vested in the members, rather than managers, the names and addresses of the member or members are: Lester E. Hardesty, member-manager SIXTH: The name and address of each organizer is: Lester E. Hardesty (Address above) Sherrill/R. Hardesty(Address above) if(4 ` r 'Lester E. Hardesty Sherrill R. Hardesty art awa -y • • STATE F COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF STATE I hereby certify that this is a true and 1.< oomplete copy of the document filed in this 9l11 r n4 ed itt cO to record i !R+'' _ File 1 / 11 17 Hi -.-747/,-;' t •- • \C %.L a .,.+m.�.n�.=....vwmn.+:,nos•A..(ie.,-�c...m.,..,y — arxua.w Flq . r:i- DATED I 111/4cLa deCt-16-Vt'd Ag te Wit %Int" 44t." 41 NE Hit By \-4 � .`,rte � �., 1597 Cole Blvd., Suite 310 Golden, Colorado 80401 NVIROPhone(303) 238-3501 1� Fax (303) 238-3504 TOCK,ftc. Monday, October 04, 1999 Julie Chester Weld County Weld Co. Admin. Offices 1400 North 17th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Subject: Hard-Le Holsteins, d.b.a. Painted Prairie Farms, LLC, Special Review Permit # 587 Dear Julie: The Board of Commissioners granted approval of Hard-Le Holsteins Site Specific Development Plan and Special Review Permit ft 587 on July 28, 1999, provided certain conditions were met prior to recording the plat. The attached Manure and Wastewater Management Plan, Nuisance Management Plan, site plan map, and accompanying information fully addresses the conditions outlined by the Board. The conditions are listed in the following pages, along with a brief summary of how each condition has been addressed and where it may be found among the accompanying documents. 1. The attached Development Standards for the Special Review Permit shall be adopted and placed on the Special Review Plat prior to recording the plat. The completed plat shall be submitted to the Weld County Planning Department within 60 days of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Recording the plat with the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office shall be done at the completion of all Conditions of Approval. 2. A. Subject: Prior to recording the plat: The facility shall demonstrate compliance with the Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control (CAFO) regulations and the additional requirements outlined below. This shall be demonstrated by submitting a Comprehensive Manure and Wastewater Management Plan (MMP) for a 1,850-head dairy to the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment for review and approval. Evidence of Weld County Health Department approval shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. This plan shall include, but not be limited to the following: (1). Subject: Demonstrate all manure stockpile areas and wastewater collection areas, conveyance, and retention facilities are adequately constructed and sized to handle a use-4537 Lb> t Ofr't-- 992511 pLoL) gq la it_ to twenty-five year, twenty-four hour storm event. This shall be conducted by a Registered Professional Engineer, in accordance with State regulations. Drainage area sizes, retention structure capacities, manure and wastewater production and stormwater runoff calculations are included in the attached revised Manure and Process Water Management Plan (MMP). (2). Subject: Demonstrate that any existing or proposed waste water retention structure has been, or will be, constructed in accordance with the criteria described in the CAFO Regulations. The demonstration shall be conducted by a Registered Professional Engineer. Construction of the additional wastewater retention pond on the southwest side of the facility has been completed. Liner material samples from the new pond were collected and analyzed by a consulting engineering company. Prior to construction, soil samples were collected inside the perimeter of the proposed lagoon and composited. An Atterberg limit test, minus 200 wash and a,falling head permeability test was conducted on the composite sample. The falling head test indicated a permeability of approximately 1 x 10-7 ctnisec within a compaction range of 95 to 98 percent. Following lagoon construction and liner compaction, the same engineering company collected a bulk sample of the liner material for field density testing. The field density test indicated the lagoon liner materials were compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum Proctor dry density at +/- 2 percent of the optimum moisture content, Based on the results of the laboratory and field-testing, the engineering company indicated the lagoon liner is adequate to meet the state requirements for maximum seepage rates. Specific comments of the engineering firm that performed the sampling and analyses are included in the accompanying documentation. (3) Subjeci:: A site map demonstrating the layout of the site. including locations of all pens, structures, feed storage areas, water courses through the property, manure storage areas, lagoons, etc. A site map showing the features listed above are included in the MMP. A 24"X 36" site map is also included among the accompanying documents. (4) Subjec:: A surface contour map which demonstrates all surface water control features on the site. This should include surveyed surface elevations, flow direction indication, run-on control features, etc. Surface contours showing surveyed elevation contour lines,flow directions, water control features such as culverts, retention structures and drainage area boundaries are shown on the site map included in the attached revised MMP. Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry 2 (5) Subject: Demonstration that the facility has the ability to manage and/or land-apply manure and wastewater at agronomic rates in accordance with the CAFO regulations. Wastewater and solid manure production calculations, wastewater pumping rates, and land-application rates are included in the revised MMP. (6) Subject: Demonstrate that adequate measures are in place to prevent any discharge except those which are allowed by the CAFO regulations. The MMP includes 25 year, 24-hour stormwater runoff calculations, daily and annual process wastewater production figures, and retention structure capacities. The MMP compares capacities required by CAFO with wastewater and stormwater retention structure capacities, and demonstrates no discharge will occur except as allowed by the CAFO regulation. (7) Subject: Other necessary measures which are required in order to comply with the CAFO regulations. Relevant CAFO regulations are addressed in the attached MMP. B. Subject: The facility shall demonstrate compliance with Section 47 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance. Issues delineated in Section 47 are addressed in Painted Prairie Farm Nuisance Management Plan, which is attached. The Nuisance Management Plan has been submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment for review and approval. C. Subject: In accordance with CAR), the applicant shall submit the facility's Manure and Wastewater Management Plan to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for review and comment. Evidence of approval by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. A copy of Painted Prairie Farm Dairy MMP has been submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment and Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for review and approval. Evidence of approval by the Weld County Department of Health and Environment will he forwarded to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. D. Subject: The applicant shall obtain ISDS permits from the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment, for any structure where people live, work, or congregate and insure that the structure contains an adequate, convenient, sanitary toilet and sewage disposal system in good working order. Any structure that will be served by a septic system and have a design hydraulic flow of greater than 3,000 gallons (according to Weld Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry 3 County ISDS Regulations) must receive approval from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment in accordance with the Regulations for the Site Application Process (5 CCR 1002-22). An ISDS permit has already been obtained for the septic system associated with the restrooms in the facility's milking barn. A copy of the ISDS permit pertaining to this septic system is attached. No additional commercial septic systems exist on the property. Septic systems associated with the two trailers that will be installed on the property will not generate nor be designed for a hydraulic flow of greater than 3,000 gallons. E. Subject: A Dust Abatement Plan shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment for review and approval. Evidence of approval by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. Methods Painted Prairie Farm will employ to control dust at the facility are described in facility's Nuisance Management Plan (NMP), which is attached. The NMP has been submitted to Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment Department for review and approval. F. Subject: A Fly Control Plan shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment for review and approval. Evidence of approval by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. Methods Painted Prairie Farm will employ to control flies at the facility are described in facility's Nuisance Management Plan (NMP), which is attached The NMP has been submitted to Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment Department for review and approval. G. Subject: An Odor Control Plan shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment for review and approval. Evidence of approval by the Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment shall be submitted to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. Methods Painted Prairie Farm will employ to control odor at the facility are described in the facility's Nuisance Management Plan (NMP), which is attached The NMP has been submitted to Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment Department for review and approval. H. Subject: The applicant shall enter into an agreement with Patina Oil and Gas Corporation regarding the relocation of flowlines and modification of wellheads or demonstrate that reasonable accommodation has been made. Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry 4 Painted Prairie Farms has acknowledged in writing the concerns of Patina Oil and Gas and will endeavor to continue to provide Patina Oil and Gas with reasonable accommodation in conjunction with oil and gas extraction activities at the facility. A copy of the correspondence indicated above is included with the attached materials. I. Subject: There are five existing accesses to the facility, two residential and three agricultural. The western access has a "Y" split. The eastern portion of the split shall be closed to minimize access points onto Weld County Road 72. The internal road access shall enter onto Weld County Road 72 at a ninety (90) degree angle to provide adequate sight distance in both directions. This access shall accommodate the two proposed residential structures designated on the plat. Hard-Le Holsteins has closed the eastern portion of the "Y" split and made the necessary adjustments to the access such that it now enters WCR 72 at an approximate 90 degree angle. The change is reflected on the attached site map. J. Subject: The cu-de-sac shall have a fifty (50) foot turn-around radius. The cul-de-sac that will be constructed when the two trailers are installed on the property and will have a turn around radius of fifty feet. K. Subject: The new internal roadway shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet wide to accommodate emergency equipment and two-way traffic. The new internal roadway will be constructed when the two accessory trailers are installed on the property will be twenty feet wide. L. Subject: Non-Conforming Use applications and permits will be established on the two accessory structures located on the property. As indicated during the Weld County Planning and Zoning Hearing, the two accessory structures referenced above have existed at the property since shortly after the turn of the century. A signed and notarized "Nonconforming Use Statement" is attached which verifies the existence of the two structures at the facility prior to/972. M. Subject: The plat shall be amended to delineate the following: 1) The existing and proposed landscaping indicated in the application materials. 2) All oil and gas equipment located on the property. 3) The access points approved by the Weld County Department of Public Works. The plat has been amended to include the above referenced items. Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry 5 Please note that Hard-le Holsteins has recently incorporated and changed its name to Painted Prairie Farm, L.L.C. Certified verification of the facility's incorporation has been requested from the Office of the Secretary of State and will be forwarded. The information provided above, along with the attached site plan map, Manure Management Plan, Nuisance Management Plan, and other documentation, are intended to satisfy the conditions outlined by the Board prior to recording and finalizing. If you have any questions, please contact EnviroStock, Inc. at (303) 238-3501. Sincerely. Philip Brink Environmental Analyst C: Trevor Jiricek, Weld County Health Department Derald Lang, CDPII&E, Water Quality Control Commission Les Hardesty, Painted Prairie Farm, LLC Enclosures Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry 6 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 NVIROPhone (303) 457-4322 R Fax (303) 457-4609 TOCK,L. October 4, 1999 Doug Siple, Vice President Patina Oil and Gas Corporation 1625 Broadway, Suite 2000 Denver, Colorado, 80202 RE: Painted Prairie Farm, L.L.C., a.k.a. Hard-Le Holsteins Dear Mr. Siple: Pursuant to written and oral comments provided by Patina Oil and Gas in regard to Hard-Le Holsteins dairy expansion, please be advised that Painted Prairie Farm acknowledges the concerns of Patina Oil and Gas and will endeavor to provide your company with reasonable accommodation in conjunction with oil and gas extraction activities in the NE ' , NW '/, Section 10, Township 6 North, Range 66 West. Sincerely, /%7m44 K 7?%/G 4S A6 r - P4i'vt&Z /°,Q,4/R/E /A 44, Lie Philip Brink Environmental Analyst C: Julie Chester, Weld County Department of Planning Service Les Hardesty, Painted Prairie Farm, LLC Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 NVIROPhone (303) 457-4322 R Fax (303) 457-4609 T0CK,Use. Thursday, September 30, 1999 Trevor Jiricek Weld County Dept. of Public Health & Environment 1555 North 17'h Ave. Greeley, CO 80631 Subject: Hard-Le Holsteins, a.k.a. Painted Prairie Farm, LLC Lagoon Lining Material Testing Results Dear Trevor: Attached for your records are copies of the lagoon liner test results for Hard-Le Holsteins. Soils in the area of the proposed lagoon were tested for liner suitability prior to construction. After the lagoon was completed,the same engineering company completed field density testing of the lagoon liner. The falling head permeability test and field density testing indicated that the liner, as constructed, is adequate to meet the 1/32"per day (9.19x10-7) maximum seepage requirement indicated in the State CAFO regulation. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, #47/ Philip Brink Environmental Analyst ulie Chester, Weld County Department of Planning Services Encl: Lagoon Liner Material Evaluation, May 13, 1999 Construction Observation and Lagoon Liner Field Density Testing, Sept. 13, 1999 veld county i, - 4, OCT 05 1999 R ECEIr_. IN Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry t . EC= EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. May 13, 1999 Enviro Stock, Inc:. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 Attn: Mr. Phil Brink Re: Proposed Lagoon Lining Material Evaluation Hard-Le Holsteins Weld County, Colorado EEC Project No. 1995010A Mr. Brink: As requested, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) personnel have completed the evaluation of the in-situ materials at the locations of the proposed runoff storage lagoons at the Hard-Le Holsteins facility in Weld County, Colorado. An outline of the testing completed as a part of that project along with our laboratory test results are provided with this report. The Hard-Le Holsteins facility is located at 15274 Weld County Road 72 in Weld County, Colorado. The site is currently used as a livestock operation. Samples of both the existing lagoon liner materials and materials at the proposed lagoon locations were collected in the field EEC personnel. The composite samples for each existing lagoon were taken from the perimeter and the samples at the proposed lagoons were taken from several locations inside the proposed perimeters. Following visual classifications of the samples, the material sampled from the proposed west lagoon was chosen as the most representative of the samples. Laboratory testing on that sample included Atterberg limit tests, minus 200 wash, and a falling head permeability test. Results of those tests are indicated on the attached summary sheet. CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 2301 RESEARCH BOULEVARD, SURE 104 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80526 (970) 224-1522 (FAx) 224-4564 Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. EEC Project No 1995010A May 13, 1999 Page 2 The laboratory test results identify the proposed west lagoon site soil as a moderate plasticity sandy lean clay containing 66.9% of minus #200 sieve material. The permeability test indicated a permeability of approximately 1x10''cm/sec with compaction in the range of approximately 95 to 98% of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM Specification D-698). Based on results of the laboratory testing as outlined above, it is our opinion the in-place materials could be used as a low-permeability pond liner material. Based on the measured permeability rate of 1x1O' cm/sec, the material meets State regulation for waste storage lagoon liners, which sets a maximum permeability rate of 1/32" per day (9.19x10"' 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. Michae . Cotey, Project Manager Reviewed by: rd. S46 ego • ' '• tttt.•kr Lester Principal Engineer WELD COUNTY ROAD 72 EXISTING EXISTING SLUDGEPOND AGOON o S I- B-5 cc 6 B-4 B-6 5 C /,Ar PROPOSED EAST LAGOON • g_I B-3 B-2 ei? EXISTING DAIRY STRUCTURES PROPOSED WEST LAGOON I N N.T.S. HARD-LE HOLSTEINS-WELD COUNTY,COLORADO APRIL, 1999 EEC Project Number 1995010A HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL 1999 LOG OF BORING B-I RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET I OF I WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 4/1199 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: C CFA FINISH DATE 411199 AFTER DRILLING None SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACEELEV WA 24 HOUR NIA SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 N OU RC OD SAINTS -240 SWELL I TYPE (FEET ISLOWLTI) IPSFl I%) OCF) LL N I%I PRESSURE %Q 500 P3F 6'TOPSOIL - 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) AS _ _ 35 20 58.9 brown 2 3 4 -5 6 -7 SAND(SP) - brown SS 8 25 9 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) _ _ Grown 10 1-1 1-2 17 BOTTOM OF BORING - - 13 14 1-5 1-6 1-7 18 1-9 2-0 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 Earth Engineering Consultants HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL.t999 LOG OF BORING B-2 RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 411/99 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: es-CPA FINISH DATE 411199 AFTER DRILLING Nona SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACEELEV _ N/A 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION o x uU MC 00 ALMITS SWELL TYPE @EST/ (BLOWLR) men I%) ROM LL M 1%) PRESSURE %@ E00 PSF 6"TOPSOIL - _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) AS _ _ 36 20 116.9 brown 2 3 _4 -S 6 _ _ 7 CS -6 37 occasional clayey sand lenses _ _ 9 increased sand with depth — _ 10 11 1-2 12 BOTTOM OF BORING - - 13 1-4 1-6 1-6 1-7 18 1-9 2-0 2-1 2-2 23 2-4 2-5 Earth Engineering Consultants HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL.1999 LOG OF BORING B.3 RIG TYPE: CME4S SHEET 1 OF I WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 4/1/9 WHILE DRILLING Nona AUGER TYPE: C CFA FINISH DATE 4/1/99 AFTER DRILLING Nona SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 N Au Nc DO A41MTS -200 SWELL ITYPE (FEET) I19LOWSIFTI (PSF) I%) IPCF) LL M I%I PRESSURE % W e! PSF 6-TOPSOIL - _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) AS _ _ 36 20 86.9 brown 2 -3 4 -S -6 increased sand with depth -T 55 -8 35 _9 1-0 1-1 1-2 12'BOTTOM OF BORING _ _ 13 14 • 15 1-6 1-7 1-8 -19 20 21 2-2 23 2-4 25 Earth Engineering Consultants HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL.1999 LOG OF BORING BA RIG TYPE: CME4S SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 411199 WHILE DRILLING 7' AUGER TYPE: 4'CFA FINISH DATE 411/99 AFTER DRILLING __ T SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV NIA 5 DAYS A.B. 3.P SOIL DESCRIPTOR o N oU MC DO ' A41MITS .100 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (SLOWYFT) (P9q (%I inn LL % (%) PRESSURE %@ IOO PSF 6'.TOPSOIL _ _ SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) _ _ brown to dark grey 2 3 _4 5 6 -7 CS -8 18 9 1-0 11 1-2 12'BOTTOM OF BORING - _ 13 1-4 1-5 1-6 17 1-8 19 2-0 21 2-2 23 2-4 25 Earth Engineering Consultants HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL'1999 LOG OF BORING B-6 RIG TYPE: CME4S SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 411/99 WHILE DRILUNG AUGER TYPE: P CFA FINISH DATE 411/99 AFTER DRILUNG SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV WA 5 DAYS A.B. 25f SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 N DU MC DO ALUM Sao SWELL TYPE (PEST) (SLOWS/FT) (PST) RI MCP) LC N CAl PRESSURE Xe MM PSF 6''TOPSOIL _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) _ _ brown to grey 2 3 4 5 6 7 SS 8 32 9 10 1-1 1-2 1T BOTTOM OF BORING _ _ 13 1-4 is 1-6 17 1-8 19 2-0 2-1 22 2-3 24 25 Earth Engineering Consultants HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL,1999 LOG OF BORING 84 RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 441199 WHILE DRILLING S AUGER TYPE: P CFA FINISH DATE 4/1/99 AFTER DRILLING _. 9 SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV N/A 5 DAYS A.B. WA SOIL DESCRIPTION D N DU MC 00 RABAT'S .mo swat. TYPE (FEET) RL0w9M1T InFl (%) IPCFl LL n I'AI PRESSURE '%R Soo PIP 6'TOPSOIL _ _ 1 LEAN CLAY(CLi _ _ brown 2 3 _4 -S CLAYEY SAND(SC) 6 brown _ _ 7 CS -6 14 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) -9 brown _ 10 1-1 1-2 12 BOTTOM OF BORING _ _ 13 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-7 1-8 1-9 20 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 25 Earth Engineering Consultants • W cn 0 • o O 5` N N a co 2 E B O O a ai Cr) O O 0 N O o in ai o r• of d N II II U) • >. >. O o ui - -a o o 4k N n o tO CI) O I c g v (n Y a c di '.. i- 0 o w I- -. fA Z Z >. N w W O z d o wa a S Nw J -N-eloo ~ W CI) to 1- 121 O ;Li. Zw No to 3 Q � � o � � ca 1-, J N c W Ca 00 a .c • Q = om B U -, m n J a m m Q' 0 F-3 EL O LL e4 o0 Q c . o d = m 0 >, a C o co co co a0 ® Q C N ® O O L.. p o in cn U .. O j/ m IA .. N —0 . o E c - Illa) 16 J — - o-0 c E N 0I o 0 0 0 0 o r--. o n m Q O Z S� .J m W W W W W W o W it) o in IU in in o 0 0 N l`') a] N N r r Ll] U] O DeS/1113] N `Amigeawiad w w •EEC<EARTH ` G September 13, 1999 CONSULTANTS, INC. Enviro Stock, Inc. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 Attn: Mr. Phil Brink Re: Construction Observation and Testing Lagoon Lining Material Placement Hard-Le Holsteins Weld County, Colorado EEC Project No. 1995010A Mr. Brink: As requested, Earth Engineering Consultants,Inc. (EEC)personnel have completed the construction observation and field density testing of the low permeability lining materials placed at the new runoff storage lagoon at the Hard-Le Holsteins facility in Weld County, Colorado, A summary of the field and laboratory testing results are provided with this report. The Hard-Le Holsteins facility is located at 15274 Weld County Road 72 in Weld County, Colorado. The site is currently used as a livestock operation. In May, 1999, EEC personnel completed laboratory testing of the near surface materials in the area of the new runoff storage lagoon. The results of that testing were reported in a May 13, 1999 correspondence. The material tested at that time contained 66.9% of minus #200 sieve sized material. That material was compacted to 110.7 pcf(dry density) at 8.8% moisture content and exhibited a permeability rate (K) of approximately 1x10"7 cm/sec. On July 28 and July 29, 1999, EEC personnel completed field density testing of the newly placed runoff storage lagoon liner. A bulk sample of that material was collected for determination of the 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 1995010A September 13, 1999 Page 2 moisture-density relationship by the standard Proctor procedure (ASTM Specification D-698). 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 July for the Proctor test contained 92.9% of minus #200 sieve sized material. The Proctor maximum dry density was determined to be 105.5 pcf at optimum moisture content of 18.5%. The increased fines in the materials placed for the liner would reduce the permeability of those materials when compared to the coarser materials that were sampled in May. Results of the field density testing of the newly placed lagoon liner materials indicate those materials were placed to at least 95% of the maximum Proctor dry density at +/- 2% of optimum moisture content. The results of those tests are on the attached summary sheet. Based on results of the laboratory and field testing as outlined above, it is our opinion the newly placed materials will function as a low-permeability pond liner material. Based on the previously measured permeability rate of 1x10"' 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 (9.19x1.0-' 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 he of further service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Reieed.by:. ;: <,. • ' . c' L. '! Gt':' i q ! yT %%% ee Michae J. ley, E.I.T. LestFet o$'Y `ix\� irnre.: Project Manager Principal Engineer • • Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture-Density - - Relationship Testing 145 • Material Designation: 1995010A • -- Sample Location: Lagoon Liner-N.side 140 I ' s_a Description: Lean Clay w/Claystone _ Atlerberg Limits(ASTM D-43181 -' — Liquid Limit: 42 135 1 Plastic Limit: 20 __— ,. i Plasticity Index: 22 —_ _L_—— _ 13D — Percent Passing No.200 Sieve(ASTM C-117): 92.9% _ • — - Standard Proctor(ASTM 0-6981 -- - Maximum Dry Density: 105.5 • Optimum Moisture Content: 18.5% $ 125 i '• �- - a o - m120 Curves for 100%Saturation o. - --___ For Specific Gravity Equal to: w _— 9 c 2.80 o - — - ---- ---- 2.70 0- 115 • A. _ .- _-_--- -_ -_ 2.60 c _- ____ :_—._- —___ a, • Z+ 110 1C-5 — 100 95 90 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Percent Moisture Project: Flard-Le Holsteins Weld County,Colorado 7- r • Project No: 1995010A G lv. _ Date September, 1999 - I� . . , f aw a a a a a a ri . C 3-; c e� s s a In C) V, in in V, V, in vin 1 A a, a a a a a C. C <-4 N N N N N C " +I +1 +1 +1 +1 +I to .r. pp L 00 O O, V, O a in O O C7 sa a in a a a a m y • O O S 8 O O E O or [� N N V en en o NI a a a a O a O N Opp,, T — ••••• ti T O a0 O O d y r 3 N N N N N N O Z L u O o f• a a a a a a o 2. O 2. C C) C) C) C) C) C) z V. 2 V. IC CI a O O O 0 O 0 N Cl o '^ Zh C a O 00 r o a Y C I. - C C C C ti I. I-O C O O 0 C 0 0 3. •x 3 3 w m a z •v cA z h u- W c O. c c o O a taw Nw �i 3 3 x N K; ED z,„ E o 0 a, o "7 �'i 3; 3S a`� ) C u vi Z z z °' •- • o I. p u7 O V1 OLtj E : N r, N M V) ,Z. Y L O .� O o E E 2 C) cc CC CO CO a a C E E 4- NN N N N N Al r r n GIg es 71, a. O W - n O o- in 1ico r) ,O Cm F z — 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 NVIROB Phone (303) 457-4322 R Fax (303)457-4609 TOCK,I' Tuesday, September 28, 1999 Trevor Jiricek Weld County Dept. of Public Health& Environment 1555 North 17th Ave. Greeley, CO 80531 Subject: Manure and Wastewater Management Plan for Painted Prairie Farm (Dairy), LLC Dear Trevor: Attached for your review is a Manure and Process Wastewater Management Plan for Painted Prairie Farm Dairy. For your convenience, an additional copy of the MMP has been included for CSU Extension. A copy of the plan has also been submitted to Derald Lang of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Please advise me of any comments you may have regarding this plan. Sincerely, Philip Br4frSn( Environmental Analyst End: Painted Prairie Farm MMP Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry 11990 Grant Street,Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 NVIROPhone (303) 457-4322 R Fax (303)457-4609 TOCK,fre. Tuesday, September 28, 1999 Derald Lang Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment Water Quality Control Division 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver, CO 80222-1530 Subject: Manure and Wastewater Management Plan for Painted Prairie Farm (Dairy), LLC Dear Derald: Attached for your review is a manure management plan for Painted Prairie Farm Dairy. A copy of the plan has also been submitted to Weld County Department of Health and Environment. Please advise Eric Dunker or myself of any comments you may have regarding this plan. Sincerely, QG Philip Bri ik Environmental Analyst Encl: Painted Prairie Farm MMP Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry September 13, 1999 Weld County Planning Department 1555 N. 17'h Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Subject: Nonconforming Use Statement Pursuant to Condition of Approval 2L,in Amended Use by Special Review Permit #587, I, Les Hardesty, property owner, do hereby state that the two (2) accessory structures located on property described as the NW4 of Section 10, T6N, R66W of the 6`h P.M., Weld County, CO, were and have been located on the property prior to zoning requirements established in 1972. o J 011e/rd- Les �� G2 Hardesty 15274 Weld County Road 72 Greeley, CO 80631 tk WITNESS my hand and seal this--I it day of t /t-e> LL AL, 1999. .m • • Notary Public _ 4 N9T°��VB 1G �C) 3 �- - IJS�_�l. \._tQ-- Sr'i w6P INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT NO. G-90006. ;•'• . • • : _ :..,.. WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT . - NEW PERMIT _:; „ ,- ., }.. :' 4 :'EN'v II OIJMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES _ :�� ._�.. ...___..- -» -.1 1517* 1 E,ThI AVENUE"C:OURT�GREELEY, CG ._..o0 63f- ::'� �`, ;� -'':'353063 VeYENT°'•2225,; a .. rd _ .:'G_lt, 3:,t • • ,:N :R HARDES'T Y, LESTER ADDRESS i5274•-WCR X7.2--�� .�r: .F;H '(303) 454-31 EATON • C:O 80ai5 -=Y' ._.-. ... . )DRESS OF PROPOSED SYSTEM 15274 WCR 72 EATONPROJECT NC. S004-3 . -CO 80615 :GAL DE b, rP7''IlligaOF 'SITE ^ • :NW►-i EEC 10 iuir 6 RNG 66 ;DDIVIST�3,�i� : Crum f-:-. .. ► :1' t� �,( - 7 - -;'�.1,•�,�'^ ••�� I_.U-i ,� BLOCK 0 FILING �� "_ TYPE : iCOMME_f� I4' .'.. DAIRY BARN :₹VICES` c=PERSONS T 3 BATHROOMS 1 -00 • LOT SIZE 80.00 ACRES BEDROOMS 0 BASEMENT F..._ MDING NO WATER SUPPLY NWCWF ' • 'PLICATToN =FEE $450.00 .. C 'D BY COFFEY, '"DIANNE • • • . , IGNED BY DUANE UN UH DATE 04/04/90 • DATE 04/0-1790'',. r90'' RCOLATION RATE 58-6 MIN PER INCH,. LIMITING ZONE 0 FEET TL TYPESUX-TI BLE • PERCENT GROUND SLOPE IX DIRECTION QUIRES ENGINEER DESIGN YES T' OM THE:,APPLICATION INFORMATION SUPPLIED AND THE ON•-SITE SGT₹-. ₹c. :;.COLATION DATA E FOLLOWING• MINIMUM INSTALUiTION SPECIFICATIONS :ARE REQUIRED : • SEPTIC TANK 1000 GALLONS, ABSORPTION TRENCH 507 SQ, FT. . ,, • . . :3* • AI ORP T 1ON• BED . 660 Sm. ,_T .' .'r-j- , THIS PERMIT IS S Ua ,.:ECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL TERMS AND INS . . . - :S PERMIT IS GRANTED T- A :.I:.'r TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION TO COMMENCE s THIS PERMIT BE REVOKED OR suS7'ENDED EY TNE WELD rOHNTY HEALTH DEPARTJENT FOR REASONS Er T 7:f IN THE WELD COUNTY ...ND.l't'.,.."'''^:L._ SEA-=. DISPOSAL SYSTEM EGUL^t ' I0��S INCLUDING . _Ui E TO MEET :i ANY TERM OR �_, :�'I':_Ii.s2'`F IMPOSED THEREON DURING TEMPORARY•' ,- !''tiAl':'- U₹'� FINAL C 'AL. THE IS C= ,-..:S' . .Er IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ... ' ' � _ 'S'T•ITt T E ',:. 'U�'fI�`•:-.I;r'N D': THE ' :;�=: l• •f,:::i'JT f f' I', ," -.-=r'._... . .... ..... ':.`{- LIABILITY FOR: THE FAILURE �'. OF THE A'GE. DISPOSAL. SYST_..... Cr . .t �t1':. ,ti f Y T C., /6o.4 e , - 27- 90 ej WEE POTTER . _ 04/ ':Y 90 - t9/7- (o - -Y-�jd 66 ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIA_IST DATE • S PERMIT-IS IS NOT TRANSFERABLE:;ABLE. AND SHALL' BECOME VOID IF SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION HAS ' COMMENCED WITHIN ONE YEAR OF ITS IS'S�!AN E. BEFORE ISSUING Fls:NAL• APPROVAL OF S PERMIT THE WELD COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE ADD:. NA' TERME AND COND T IGl_. , --!•t:: R._D MEET OUR E N CONTINUING BA— • �°'f—.�s_: �t�.s TO _ R:_.GUL. TIO� S =i;t A FINAL PERMIT A r 'i VA;.. IS CONTINGENT UPON THE FINAL rN F:.r...-T:i:Ott OF THE COM_. B Y . . _. . ..._ •r_D, SYSTEM . - i.�E:I»..i; � .:_.�'��"�' .a L:r L,••j..E D R=₹�'A!�� "i-�E r`!T. _ • TEM INSTALLER ALLER IN `: - ».f:.I�'; ENGINEER T v�...04,,.....K........ -._._ F f-7' NS..�,:.,��`��' r -r r DATE t C �o�� `V F. OF SYSTEM INSTALLED t:i»i._ L' / $ ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT DOES NOT IMPLY COMPLIANCE WITH_:,OTHER STATE, COUNTY • '._OCAL REGULATORY Of; BUILDING REQUIREMENTS, NOR SHALL IT ACT TO CERTIFY THAT • :CT SYSTEM WILL OPERATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE STATE, COUNTY. AND . ::,� hf::.GULATIONS ADOPTED P E 'w UAN T TO ARTICLE 10, TITLE 25, CRS =973, AS AMENDED, :PT FOR ,THE THE PURPOSE: OF ESTABLISHING FINAL APPROVAL OF AN INSTALLED.'SYSTEM .FOR LANCE OF-,`A LOCAL OCCUPANCY PERMIT PURSUANT TO CRS 1973 25--10='f 11,;-(21 . ` ",es• �r sp l 1 Y 'L .. .f ',-".`17.',.... 1. 1 ,f n Pfi6 y C.Lei i' root r • ( i A Cre ( ' -1 / /7 !$. i1!4t1 .�, ,:. � ,yon EEC 13, 1999 EARTH ENGINEERING September CONSULTANTS, INC. Enviro Stock, Inc. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 Attn: Mr. Phil Brink Re: Construction Observation and Testing Lagoon Lining Material Placement Hard-Le Holsteins Weld County, Colorado EEC Project No. 1995010A Mr. Brink: As requested, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) personnel have completed the construction observation and field density testing of the low permeability lining materials placed at the new runoff storage lagoon at the Hard-Le Holsteins facility in Weld County, Colorado. A summary of the field and laboratory testing results are provided with this report. The Hard-Le Holsteins facility is located at 15274 Weld County Road 72 in Weld County, Colorado. The site is currently used as a livestock operation. In May, 1999, EEC personnel completed laboratory testing of the near surface materials in the area of the new runoff storage lagoon. The results of that testing were reported in a May 13, 1999 correspondence. The material tested at that time contained 66.9% of minus #200 sieve sized material. That material was compacted to 110.7 pcf(dry density) at 8.8% moisture content and exhibited a permeability rate (K) of approximately 1x10"7 cm/sec. On July 28 and July 29, 1999, EEC personnel completed field density testing of the newly placed runoff storage lagoon liner. A bulk sample of that material was collected for determination of the CENTRE FOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 2301 RESEARCH BOULEVARD, SUITE 104 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80526 (970) 224-1522 (FAx) 224-4564 Earth Engineering.Consultants.Inc. EEC Project No 1995010A September 13, 1999 Page 2 moisture-density relationship by the standard Proctor procedure (ASTM Specification D-698). 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 July for the Proctor test contained 92.9% of minus #200 sieve sized material. The Proctor maximum dry density was determined to be 105.5 pcf at optimum moisture content of 18.5%. The increased fines in the materials placed for the liner would reduce the permeability of those materials when compared to the coarser materials that were sampled in May. Results of the field density testing of the newly placed lagoon liner materials indicate those materials were placed to at least 95% of the maximum Proctor dry density at +/- 2% of optimum moisture content. The results of those tests are on the attached summary sheet. Based on results of the laboratory and field testing as outlined above, it is our opinion the newly placed materials will function as a low-permeability pond liner material. Based on the previously measured permeability rate of 1x10"' 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' 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. Re veed by �GJQvb >?A.° � C _ Michael/J. (coley, E.I.T. Les Ofigir.E. Project Manager Principal Engineer Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. Summary of Laboratory Classification/ Moisture-Density Relationship Testing 145 — ---------- - — - - Material Designation: 1995010A -- - - - - - Sample Location: Lagoon Liner-N.side 140 — Description: Lean Clay w/Claystone A(lerberg Limits(ASTM D-43181 Liquid Limit: 42 135 — Plastic Limit: 20 - - - --- - - - - Plasticity Index: 22 130 — [Percent Passing d Standa? Prolctor(ASTM D-6981 92.9% ---- - - - - Maximum Dry Density: 105.5 -- - - - - -- - Optimum Moisture Content: 18.5% °O 125 - LL a 120 — Curves for 100%Saturation a - - -- -- - - ---—- - - - For Specific Gravity Equal to: 9 2.80 9 115 _ _. _. -- 2.70 W CD 2, 110 - 0 105 _ /• ` _. 1 100 - :: . 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Percent Moisture Project: Hard-Le Holsteins Weld County,Colorado /�► Project No: 1995010A (`I Date September, 1999 "iii ri w a. a. a. a. a a a CC - d e v ' S S In 7 a ON 6� 6° 6- N 6� O N N N N N N C +I +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 W u pp pp O 000 t" O, In O c, v) O O .O O O E" S A Off, O 0 0 co 0\ I .' ,D O N O L G M M V C M V Q y O O O O O O E A d N C 1t"-- N N Mm S tCy O, O, O O, O a, o N 4 N N — O 0, -••I h ..r 4" O O, O O O 3 � I N N N N N N O O . z 0 c x ¢ ¢ < ¢ ¢ -C tt a a` tJ N C) C) C) C) C) W 1O a 0 0 O O O O N a In o In z Q - 06 c - o G I A 0 c c 0 d I- L IO L. O E 0 0 O U a x 3 3 va va O z A Z (n 0 O.a w. `o `o c c ., a w u' 3 3 ,�Co v-, o o ;n v a o N M .a O? " O? v v = u „ 'x N o Zr. o islZ O: � © v. 2 C E 8 O C) 00 CO 00 CC O` o, c E E R N N N N N N fa N N N N N N c 01 O. L. a O U -- 0 t i N m 4 in ,D EEC EARTH ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. May 13, 1999 Enviro Stock, Inc. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 Attn: Mr. Phil Brink Re: Proposed Lagoon Lining Material Evaluation Hard-Le Holsteins Weld County, Colorado EEC Project No. 1995010A Mr. Brink: As requested, Earth Engineering Consultants, Inc. (EEC) personnel have completed the evaluation of the in-situ materials at the locations of the proposed runoff storage lagoons at the Hard-Le Holsteins facility in Weld County, Colorado. An outline of the testing completed as a part of that project along with our laboratory test results are provided with this report. The Hard-Le Holsteins facility is located at 15274 Weld County Road 72 in Weld County, Colorado. The site is currently used as a livestock operation. Samples of both the existing lagoon liner materials and materials at the proposed lagoon locations were collected in the field EEC personnel. The composite samples for each existing lagoon were taken from the perimeter and the samples at the proposed lagoons were taken from several locations inside the proposed perimeters. Following visual classifications of the samples, the material sampled from the proposed west lagoon was chosen as the most representative of the samples. Laboratory testing on that sample included Atterberg limit tests, minus 200 wash, and a falling head permeability test. Results of those tests are indicated on the attached summary sheet. 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 I995010A May 13, 1999 Page 2 The laboratory test results identify the proposed west lagoon site soil as a moderate plasticity sandy lean clay containing 66.9% of minus #200 sieve material. The permeability test indicated a permeability of approximately lx10"' cm/sec with compaction in the range of approximately 95 to 98% of standard Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM Specification D-698). Based on results of the laboratory testing as outlined above, it is our opinion the in-place materials could be used as a low-permeability pond liner material. Based on the measured permeability rate of 1x10-' cm/sec, the material meets State regulation for waste storage lagoon liners, which sets a maximum permeability rate of 1/32" per day (9.19x10' 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. Michael'l. Co ey, E.LT. Project Manager Reviewed by: 3 J' �!�r'r✓ ✓rte • .,eLester Nu Principal Engineer WELD COUNTY ROAD 72 EXISTING (/ EXISTING SLUDGE POND LAGOON ce B-5 CC S B-4 B-6 PROPOSED EAST • LAGOON ES I �Y B-3 B EXISTING DAIRY iti STRUCTURES PROPOSED WEST LAGOON 41 N N.T S. HARD-LE HOLSTEINS-WELD COUNTY,COLORADO APRIL, 1999 EEC Project Number 1995010A HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL,1999 LOG OF BORING B-1 RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 4/1/99 WHILE DRILLING None AUGER TYPE: C CFA FINISH DATE 4/1/99 AFTER DRILLING None SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR — NIA SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 N 00 MC 00 A41NITs -200 SWELL TYPE FEET) (SLOWS/TT) IPSFl (%) (PCF) LL M (%) PRESSURE %e(W PSF 6"TOPSOIL - — — 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY iI CL) AS _ _ 36 20 66.9 brown 2 3 4 5 6 _7_ SAND(SP) — — — brown SS 8 25 9 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) — brown 10 1- 1 1-2 12 BOTTOM OF BORING — — 13 14 1-5 1-6 1-7 18 19 2-0 2-1 22 2-3 2-4 2-5 Earth Engineering Consultants HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL,1999 LOG OF BORING B-2 RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 4/1199 WHILE DRILLING None A AUGER TYPE: 4'CFA FINISH DATE 411/99 AFTER DRILLING _— None SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION B N uU MC DO A-UMITS -200 SWELL TYPE (FEET) (BLOWSIFT) (PSF) 1%) (PCF) LL Pt 1%) PRESSURE % 500 PSF 6-TOPSOIL _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) AS _ _ 36 20 66.9. brown 2 3 _4 5 6 _ _ CS B 37 — occasional c:ayey sand lenses _ 9 Increased sand wit depth _ 10 I1 1-2 12'BOTTOM OF BORING _ _ 13 1-4 15 1-6 17 113 19 2-0 21 22 23 2-4 2-5 Earth Engineering Consultants HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL.1999 LOG OF BORING B-3 RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 4/1/99 WHILE DRILLING _ None _ AUGER TYPE: 4-CFA FINISH DATE 4/1/99 AFTER DRILLING None SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV N/A 24 HOUR N/A SOIL DESCRIPTION D x CU MC DD ♦4JMIT3 -x00 SWELL _ 1YPE (FEET) IBLOWSIFT) (PSF) (%) (PCF) LL % (%) PRESSURE % 500 PSF 6"TOPSOIL _ - I SANDY LEAN CLAY;CL) AS _ _ 36 20 66.9 _ brown 2 3 _4_ 6 increased Sand with depth -7 55 8 35 -9 1-0 1-1 1-2 12'BOTTOM OF BORING _ _ 13 1-4 1-5 -15 1-7 -18 1-9 2-0 21 22 2-3 2-4 2-5 Earth Engineering Consultants HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL,1999 LOG OF BORING 8-4 RIG TYPE: CMECS SHEET I OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 411/99 WHILE DRILLING 1' AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 411199 AFTER DRILLING T' SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACEELEV NIA 5DAYS A.B. 3.3' SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 N 00 Mc 00 AUWTS aoa SWELL TYPE (FEET) IBLOWSIFD (PSF) I%) MCI) LL PI (%I PRESSURE %q 300 PSF 6"TOPSOIL _ _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) _ _ brown to dark grey 2 -3 -a -5 6 _7_ CS -8 18 _9_ 1-0 11 1-2 12'BOTTOM OF BORING - - 13 1-4 1-5 16 1-] 18 19 2-0 2- 1 2-2 2-3 2-4 25 Earth Engineering Consultants HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL,1999 LOG OF BORING 8-5 RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 81/99 WHILE DRILUNG _ 3' AUGER TYPE: 4'CFA FINISH DATE 81/99 AFTER DRILUNG _ 3- SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV N/A 5 DAYS A.B. 2 8 SOIL DESCRIPTION 0 N 0M MC 00 A.UMN5 -200 SWELL TYPE (FEED (BLOWS(FT) (P59 (%) (PCF) U. R (Z) PRESSURE X e SOO PSF e 6"TOPSOIL - _ 1 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) _ _ brown to grey 2 3 4 5 6 SS -6 32 —, _9 10 -11 -12 1Z BOTTOM OF BORING - - 13 14 1-5 -16 17 18 -19 20 2- 1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 Earth Engineering Consultants HARD-LE HOLSTEINS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO PROJECT NO: 1995010A DATE: APRIL.1999 LOG OF BORING BE RIG TYPE: CME45 SHEET 1 OF 1 WATER DEPTH FOREMAN: START DATE 4/1/99 WHILE DRILLING E, AUGER TYPE: 4"CFA FINISH DATE 4/1/99 AFTER DRILLING E' SPT HAMMER: MANUAL SURFACE ELEV N/A 5 DAYS A.B. NIA SOIL DESCRIPTION D N DU MC 00 ALMITS -200 SWELL I TYPE (FEET) IBLOWSITTI IPSF) I%) IPCFI LL M 1%) PRESSURE %e SOO PSF 6"TOPSOIL - - 1 LEAN CLAY(CL) - _ brown 2 3 _4_ -5 CLAYEY SAND(SC I 6 brown _ _ CS 8 14 SANDY LEAN CLAY(CL) -9 brown _ _ 10 -1 12 12 BOTTOM OF BORING - - 13 1-4 -15 -16 1-7 _ 18 19 20 2-1 2-2 23 24 2-5 Earth Engineering Consultants U W (III a) o a) 0 0 0 0 CI CD — U U 4) o r 03 co o to m o Cr) r ai o r m a) N II II (/) T T o N O V V O ti O a) 6 d d O) O _ _ N CO V) m CO C r 1 n. 'C Uj H V o W H O n = y Z Z a) T u w fx Et z O V n O a) H J W o F- LU (% o a F— CO W N ^ }} Z o N a` F- O a) r 1a J J N c a al m O 0 2 7'^. c W W O U 0 2 J a m m d' G 5EC0 o S W Q co a) o CL x a 6 J in T p C o co co co ao B <[ 0 4 a) ® o LO o 0) cn a) J O r w- E 0) - m --I B ® O JJ a c E 'm o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 :' CO Q a) I 2 J op w w w w w w w w ) O in N O U) O a) r6 u ch c7 N N r '- LL') q CL [3as/wa] N `A;iiigeewJad c.) w Ill Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan Painted Prairie Farm, LLC 15274 Weld County Rd 72 Greeley, CO 80631 Developed in accordance with the Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared by NVIRO TOOK,[ , 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 September, 1999 • Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1. PURPOSE 2 1.2 LEGAL OWNER, CONTACTS AND AUTHORIZED PERSONS 3 1.3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3 2.. SITE DESCRIPTION 4 2.1 FACILITIES 4 2.2 Sim GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY 4 3. MAPS 5 3.1 LOCATION MAP-FIGURE 1 5 3.2 SITE LAYOUT MAP-FIGURE 2 5 4. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 8 4.1 NORTHEAST SIDE 9 4.2. SouniwEsT SIDE 9 4.3 PROCESS WASTEWATER 9 4.4 LAND APPLICATION OF WASTEWATER 9 4.5 GRADING AND DRAINAGE 10 4.6 FLOOD PLAINS 11 5. SOLID MANURE MANAGEMENT 12 5.1 MATURE PRODUCTION 12 5.2. NUPRIENT CALCULATIONS 13 5.3 NUTRIENT UTILIZATION 13 5.3.1 Soil Testing 13 5.3.2 Manure Testing 14 5.3.3 Wastewater Testing 15 5.3.4 Irrigation Water Testing 16 6. AGRONOMIC CALCULATIONS 17 6.1 REC ORD KEEPING 17 7. INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS 18 8. FORMS 19 1 1. Introduction This Manure and Process Wastewater Management Plan (MMP) has been developed and implemented to comply with requirements, conditions and limitations of the Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" 4.8.0 (5 CCR 1002-19). The intent of this regulation is to prevent the discharge of manure or process wastewater from concentrated animal feeding operations into waters of the State and to encourage beneficial use on agricultural land. This MMP outlines current site conditions, structures and areas requiring management of solid manure, stormwater runoff and process wastewater. This MMP will be kept on site and amended prior to any change in design, construction, operation or maintenance which significantly increases the potential for discharge of solid manure, stormwater runoff and process wastewater to waters of the State. This MMP shall be amended if it is ineffective in controlling discharges from the facility. Below is the date of the last MMP amendment: Amendment 1: Amendment 2: Amendment 3: Amendment 4: All records relating to the MMP will be kept on site for a minimum of three years. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Plan for Painted Prairie Farm is to: 1. Describe manure and wastewater management practices, and calculate manure and wastewater quantities generated at the dairy. 2. Describe nutrient management practices, and nutrient accounting procedures. 3. Develop record-keeping system to document environmental compliance. 2 1.2 Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons The legal owner of The property located at 15274 WCR 72, Greeley, CO is: Lester E. and Sherrill R. Hardesty Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. Les Hardesty 15274 WCR 72 Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 454-3635 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this MMP are listed below: Les Hardesty Owner (Name) (Title) Sherrill Hardesty Owner (Name) (Title) (Name) (Title) 1.3 Legal Description The dairy described in this MMP is located at: The NW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th principal meridian, Weld County, Colorado. 3 2. Site Description 2.1 Facilities Painted Prairie Farm is owned by Lester and Sherrill Hardesty. The maximum capacity of the dairy is 1,850 animals. The subject property is shown on Figures 1 and 2. The dairy is bordered on the north by WCR 72 and on the west by WCR 31. Farmground and pasture are the primary forms of land use surrounding the dairy, with a few interspersed residences. The existing dairy is an open lot and freestall configuration with concrete feedbunks and aprons, fenced corrals, alleys, scale, milking barn and feed storage and loading areas. Runoff at the dairy is bi- directional, flowing either northeast or southwest into retention structures. The stormwater and process wastewater retention infrastructure includes both retention ponds arid berms, and is designed to meet regulatory standards for volume requirements and seepage limitations. The stormwater and wastewater are used for irrigating adjacent pasture and/or farmground in an agronomic manner as required by State regulations. 2.2 Site Geology and Hydrology Based on United States Geologic Survey information, the geology of the area is unconsolidated surficial deposits and rocks of quaternary age, specifically, older gravels and alluviums (pre-Bull Lake age). According to United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, soil survey maps of Weld County, the predominant near-surface soil near the dairy is classified as Otero sandy loam. The Otero soil is a deep, well-drained soil formed on smooth plains in mixed outwash deposits. The surface is a sandy loam. The underlying material is a calcareous fine sandy loam. The soils have rapid permeability. Their available water holding capacity is moderate. Depth to water in the alluvial aquifer is approximately ± 25 feet. Surface water in the area generally flows south toward the Cache la Poudre River Basin. Tie dairy is not located in the 100-year flood plain. 4 3. Maps 3.1 Location Map - Figure 1 The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Painted Prairie Farm, surrounding sites, topography and major drainages. 3.2 Site Layout Map - Figure 2 The Site Layout Map shows the configuration of the pens, office, milking barn, feed mill, roads and stormwater and wastewater retention structures. 5 Figure 1 - Topographic Map i �� •.0 8 1 I c \'‘ei N. j 1 la T •, i.RM2 ,8 . " �I �I Q �I 85 • JY I 1 �\ C` J • I I T .. \v( I 1 SITE _ 1 e-' • _ e J • 46211 Jer/' �: 1... r\'} 4.84000, (. woo O \' /. s 8 1 >tor •• 40°3 T -.� 986. c 9 • "� I�eso • 11 hool r�� . --- e5/. _ — __ - ---se • —• 4,73 4B/6 \� 10'10 "82 \ 1- 4 � 15 •e14 • 420 0 e� • - 4764 / : 'j FEET . •.. .. ' Zr sN y6•� O • ._ 4752 I=� ' r CANAL 61 6 Figure 2 - Site Layout SSS q _ _ v _tt \ '�r! - - - ' __I _ IOYin / 1 n I�l Q,i / / M i t N. �r r _ t � j‘ `� t� c�1, t —�/ _/ t �� ) ii '`� . / / 1� � / - e -I l s aad — nu nr \ „ ,.. Wier ( ua�o�'Mais�en o, q4 a N, va oe art 7 4. Stormwater Management A diagonal drainage boundary runs roughly southeast across the dairy directing stormwater runoff toward either the northeast retention pond or southwest pond. The north drainage area covers approximately 19 acres and the south basin covers about 16 acres. The milking barn is located at the top of the drainage divide and process wastewater is directed to the southwest retention pond via gravity flow. Stormwater from the northeastern pond can be pumped into the southwestern pond. Table 1, below, shows the calculations of the minimum capacity required to contain a 25-year, 24--hour storm event for both drainage areas, and the capacities of the retention ponds and berm. The wastewater retention ponds are managed to maintain two (2) feet free-board capacity. The ponds are dewatered periodically to supply water and nutrients for irrigation of native grassland and farmground. In the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm, the ponds will be dewatered within fifteen (15) days to regain their original holding capacity Table 1 - Runoff Calcs & Retention Pond Capacity _ Painted Prairie Farm Dairy-Stormwater runoff volumes and Lagoon Capacity Calculations _ 25-year,24-hour storm NE SIDE SW SIDE BOTH SIDES Pond Berm including Berm 25-year,24-hour Storm Event for the Location,inches 3.20 3.20 3.20 SCS Runoff curve#factor 1.11 1.11 1.11 90 for unsurfaced lots I factor 1.11 Total number of acres in facility drainage area 19 16 35 Separate different drainage areas I _ Include ens, alleys,mill areas, working areas etc. � Inches of runoff given SCS Runoff Curve Factor 2.36 2.36 2.36 Minimum Retention Capacity Required,Acre-FL 3.74 3.15 6.88 _ I Gallons 1,217,585 1,025,335 2,242,920 Surface Area of Retention Structure,Acres 0.21 1.93 2.13 • Additional volume required for rain on pond surface,Acre-Ft. 0.06 0.51 0.57 Additional volume required for rain on pond surface,gallons 17,952 167,552 185,504 Total Retention Structure Volume Required,Acre-Ft. 3.79 3.66 7.45 Total Retention Structure Volume Required, Gallons 1,235,537 1,192,887 2,428,424_ Lagoon Capacity I _ Length(Top of Benn)(feet) 150 1030 350 Width(Top of Berm)(feet) 60 240 240 _ Liquid Depth(Feet) 8 2 6 Slope(ft.horizontal/1 ft. vertical) 2 1 4 Freeboard(feet) 2 0 2 Liner Thickness(feet) 1 1 _ Totals (Cu.Ft.) 36,971 500,940 373,152 - (Gallons) 276,541 3,747,000 2,791,178 - -- (Acre-FL) 0.85 11.5 8.6 21 8 • 4.1 Northeast Side A wastewater retention pond and earthen berms provide runoff containment on the northeast side of the facility. The earthen berm extends approximately 1,030 feet • along the north side of the pens, then turns south near the northeast corner of the property and runs south approximately 240 feet. The 25-year, 24-hour stormwater runoff capacity required in the northeast area is 3.8 acre-feet. The retention structure holds approximately 0.85 acre-feet. The earthen berm backs water to an approximate average depth of 2 feet over a 5.7-acre area, providing approximately . 11.5 acre-feet of additional storage. Following a significant runoff event, stormwater on the northeast side is pumped to the southwest pond. 4.2 Southwest Side The southwest pond drains approximately 16 acres. The amount of storage needed to contain a 25-year, 24-hour storm, including rainfall on the pond surface is approximately 3.7 acre-feet. The pond has a capacity of 8.6 acre-feet, or 4.9 acre- feet more storage than needed for the southwest side. The surplus capacity is used to hold process wastewater and stormwater de-watered from the northeast side. 4.3 Process Wastewater The facility produces approximately 0.6 acre-feet of process wastewater per month, or about 7.2 acre-feet annually. Process wastewater is diverted to the southwest pond. 4.4 Land Application of Wastewater Stormwater/process wastewater is periodically pumped from the existing retention ponds onto farm ground in accordance with 'tier two'of the state CAFO regulations. Over 100 acres of adjacent farmground owned by Painted Prairie Farm is available for land application. Table 2 below shows the land necessary to utilize nutrients from a 25-year, 24-hour storm. The nitrogen content and losses are based on Midwest Plan Service publication No. 18, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. The calculation in Table 2 indicates that Painted Prairie Farm Dairy requires between 20 and 31 acres of alfalfa or alfalfa grass to utilize the nitrogen that is contained in runoff generated from a 25-year, 24-hour storm. Table 2 - Land required for 25-year, 24-hour storm Volume of 25-yr.,24-hr.storm event,gallons 2,242,920 Total Nitrogran contained in liquid,lbs. 8,972 Taal-N-arl/1000gal-50%Organic-N Ammonium.Nitrogen lost during Irrigation,lbs. 785 Na'load(17.5%loss) Nitrogen In Manure after application,lbs. 8,187 Nitrogen available to plants 1st yr.(PAN),lbs. 5,047 (30%minaralualcn rats for organic-N) Corn Wheat Alfalfa Corn Silage Alfalfa Grass Based on CSU Extension Bulletin#XCM-174 150 Bulacre 40 Bulacre 4 ton/acre :ro wedtons/acre 4 tonlacre 185 55 25O 213 164 N req.(20 Ib. res.N In aoip(88%N efficiency),Ib./acre 24 31 Acres req.if effluent applied via flood irrigation 27 92 20 9 4.5 Grading and Drainage Precipitation runoff, process water, urine and other drainage from the facility is directed toward the wastewater ponds by surface grading. Water from the northeast retention infrastructure is diverted to the southwest pond via a pump and piping. The corrals are graded such that the ground surface slopes approximately one (1) to two (2) percent toward the ponds. Drainage ways are designed to transport the estimated stormwater runoff volume from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. In addition, stormwater/process wastewater generation tables in the appendix estimate the average annual amount of stormwater necessary for land application to maintain the retention structures' volume at a manageable level. The calculation table shows that annual land application of approximately eight acre-feet of stormwater will maintain a manageable level in the retention structures. The five-year stormwater accumulation table accounts for the following. ❑ Average monthly precipitation values from local weather data ❑ Average monthly pan-evaporation data from local weather data ❑ Evaporation area equal to the surface area of the containment structures when '/ full a A 0.8,5 conversion factor for converting pan evaporation to lake evaporation ❑ Dairy drainage area of 35 acres ❑ Runoff percentage from NRCS National Engineering Handbook ❑ Process wastewater generation rate of 6,472 GPD after expansion ❑ Trial-and-error monthly pumping amounts to keep the retention basins total volume at a manageable level Table 3 below shows the land necessary to utilize the nutrients from eight acre-feet of wastewater in accordance with tier two of the state CAFO regulations. The nitrogen content and losses are based on Midwest Plan Service publication No. 18, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. The calculation in Table 3 indicates that Painted Prairie Farm Dairy requires between 23 and 36 acres of alfalfa or alfalfa grass land to utilize the nitrogen contained in 8 acre-feet of stormwater. Table 3 - Land Required for Average Years' Stormwater Average Year,land Application Requirements Avg.Year Pawing reoremert F.),(8 A gallons 2,606,630 Total Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs 10,477 ma-rkaulmopl-W%orgi ic-N Aanariun Nitrogen lost dosing inigation,lbs. 912.32 venom r of(17.5%loss)Nitrogen in INarase alter irrigation,lbs 9,514 t1trogen av blade to parts 14 yr.(PAN),lbs 5,655 ( nineaeabon reefaa6minM Can W eat Alfalfa Can Silage Alfalfa Gass Eased on CSU Extension aullelin#XCM-174 150 Siam40 Buracre 4[Sagomvetbrada:re 4 briarsN req.(20lb res.N In sal)(66%Ndhrdary),mlaae 185 55 250 213 164 Acesrec if Oust applied via flood inigtion 32 107 23 28 10 4.6 Flood Plains As per the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations, dairy waste management structures such as ponds and manure stockpiles are not to be located within a prescribed 100 year flood plain without adequate flood proofing measures. The existing dairy is not located in a 100-year flood plain. Manure stockpiles will be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. 11 5. Solid Manure Management 5.1 Manure Production Painted Prairie Farm Dairy has a maximum permitted capacity of 1,850 animals. The average capacity is usually less. Table 4 (below) is based on Midwest Plan Service publication No. 18, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook page 2.1. These manure production numbers are based on the maximum capacity at the dairy and are used as a basis for figuring the amount of nutrients produced. Table 4 - Manure Production PAINTED PRAIRIE FARM DAIRY-Manure Production I Manure Manure TS VS Nitrogen P205 K20 Per Midwest Plan Service pbs.) (cu.ft.) (lbs.) 0bs.) pbs.) pbs.) 0ba.) Production()%/day-HD) 120 1.94 16.8 14.0 0.595 0.24 0.48 %o-Ma,4C Davy Cane 41451 1,400a each Total Daily Production 115,200 1,862 16,128 13,440 571 230 Total Annual Production 42,048,000 679.776 5,886,720 4,905,600 208,488 84,096 168,192 _ Production(XX/day-HD) 86.0 1.39 12.0 10.0 0.425 0.17 0.34 15o cry cows 131.0pa(4t Total Daily Production 12,900 209 1,800 1,500 64 26 61 Total Annual Production 4,708,500 76,103 657,000 547,500 23,269 9,308 18,615 - Production QWday-HD) 43.0 0.69 6.00 5.00 0.213 0.09 0.17 400 aep500ne,r M.4en @ Total Daily Production 17,200 276 2,400 2,000 85 36 68 5000 each Total Annual Production 6,278,000 100,740 876,000 730,000 31,098 13,140 24,820 -- Production Q0(/day-HD) 22.0 0.35 3.00 2.50 0.105 0.04 0.09 200 seers&ethers 0 zs2506ch each Total Daily Production 4,400 70 600 500 21 8 18 Total Annual Production 1,600,000 25,550 219,000 182,500 7,738 2,920 6,570 Production(IX/day-HD) 13.0 0.21 1.80 1.50 0.064 0.03 0.05 040 calves a anon 0 1500 each Total Daily Production 1,820 29 252 210 9 4 7 Total Annual Production 664,300 10,731 91,980 76,650 3,270 1,533 2,555 - Production(Wday-HD) 284 5 40 33 1 1 1 Tau Mee"Piesectla, Total Daily Production 151,520 2,446 21,180 17,650 750 304 605 Total Annual Productior 55,304,800 892,900 7,730,700 6,442,250 273,868 110,997 220,752 Solid manure is managed through routine corral maintenance. Animal density per corral is controlled to optimize the surface area and feed bunk space while maintaining solid, dry footing for livestock. Corrals are harrowed on a routine basis. Solid manure from the operation is routinely collected, sold or given to area farmers, and land applied. A portion of the manure is also composted. Painted Prairie Farm will analyze its manure at least once per year. The analysis results will be provided to farmers receiving the manure for their own nutrient accounting purposes. Analysis results wil also be retained by Painted Prairie Farm in order to document environmental compliance. It takes several seasons to properly create adequate corral mounds. Dairy corral surfaces are compacted by the livestock forming a 4" to 6" "hardpan" layer that easily sheds water and provides for minimal infiltration. This common practice virtually eliminates deep percolation of manure nutrients beneath the dairy corral area. 12 5.2 Nutrient Calculations Table 4 indicates the amount of manure produced and subsequent amount of the three primary nutrients, N, P and K. These are the total nutrients produced and end up being divided into two sources, the solid manure on the pen surface and the liquid runoff in the retention ponds. The total nutrients in both sources cannot exceed the total produced as shown in Table 4. The calculations are also conservative because they are based on an average capacity of 1,850 head, which is the maximum capacity. The average capacity will be less than 1,850 head. 5.3 Nutrient Utilization Nitrogen is a naturally abundant plant nutrient. However, it is the nutrient most frequently limiting crop production, because the plant available forms of nitrogen in the soil are constantly undergoing transformation. Crops remove more nitrogen than any other nutrient from the soil. The limitation is not related to the total amount of nitrogen available but the form the crop can use. Most nitrogen in plants is in the organic form and is incorporated into amino acids. By weight, nitrogen makes up from one to four percent of harvested plant material. Essentially all of the nitrogen absorbed from the soil by plant roots is in the inorganic form of either nitrate or ammonium. Generally, young plants absorb more ammonium than nitrate, as the plant ages the reverse is true. Under favorable conditions for plant growth, soil microorganisms ordinarily convert ammonium to nitrate, so nitrate is usually more abundant when growing conditions are most favorable. Manure is most typically applied as fertilizer and soil amendment for crop production. Generally, manure is applied to crops that are most responsive to nitrogen inputs, such as the crops listed in Tables 2 and 3. The primary objective of applying agricultural by-products to land is to recycle the valuable nutrients contained within manure and enhance the receiving soil's organic matter content. Soil organic matter declines as a result of cultivation. During several years of continuous cultivation in which crop residue returns are low, organic matter content in most soil decreases dramatically. This greatly decreases the soil's ability to hold essential plant nutrients. Land application of the dairy manure is a practical, commonly accepted best management practice, given that fertilization rates are applicable and that deep soil leaching does not occur. Both scenarios are easily managed and preventative measures are taken using soil and manure sample data, simple agronomic calculations and appropriate record keeping. These procedures are discussed in detail in the sections that follow. 5.3.1 Soil Testing The purpose of soil sampling is to ensure that the quantity of nutrients later applied to the soil will not lead to undesirable nutrient levels in the soil. With knowledge of how much nitrogen and other nutrients are present in the soil, combined with a 13 specific crop and a realistic yield goal, an appropriate manure application quantity can be determined. Painted Prairie Farm Dairy will use a qualified laboratory for both soil and manure samples. The same laboratory will be used year-after-year. The laboratory will typically supply field information sheets, soil sample containers as well as the proper instructions. In the absence of laboratory-supplied sample bags, sterile plastic bags should be used. A typical soil sample will consist of one pound of soil. Routine sail sampling will be done each spring to fields owned by Painted Prairie Farm that will be receiving manure that spring and/or the coming fall, and to fields that had manure applied the previous year. The sampling will be done before manure or fertilizer application, and before planting. Each field should be sampled separately. Sampling points are to be marked on a field map, which is to scale. These maps should be used to mark the sampling points as well as where and how much manure is applied each year. A sampling point should encompass approximately ten acres and should be evenly distributed across a field. If a field is ten acres or less, two sampling points should be marked. Use a cori ig tool to collect the samples. Push the coring tool down and collect the samples in the 0-24" horizon. One composite sample from each 80 acres of field size should be collected and sent to the laboratory. Each composite sample should include 8-12 different sampling points across the 80-acre parcel. The 8-12 sub- samples should be taken in an "X" or "Z" pattern. The sampling pattern should be marked on a field map along with the sampling date and the name of the sampler. The composite soil sample(s) should be placed in the container(s) provided by the laboratory. Each sample should be marked with the date, sample identification and samplers name, i.e. 03/24/2000, Painted Prairie Farm Field #01 N-40 Acres, Painted Prairie Farm, Les Hardesty. A chain-of-custody form should be filled out and sent with the samples (a chain-of-custody form is provided in the Appendix). The soil samples should be kept cool and dry, and sent to the laboratory as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. The following parameters at a minimum need to be evaluated: Nitrate-N Organic Matter pH Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) 5.3.2 Manure Testing Manure testing is an essential component of a complete nutrient balance. The amount of nutrients in manure determines the amount that can be land applied safely. The laboratory will typically supply manure sample containers. Solid manure container; will be plastic bags, and liquid manure containers will be plastic bottles. 14 Solid manure will be tested at least once per year. Solid manure should be sampled in a manner that will give the most representative sample possible. This can be accomplished by randomly sampling several piles of manure throughout the dairy. At least four sub-samples should be taken and then mixed together in a plastic bucket to make one composite sample. A representative sample should not contain excessive amounts of dirt, moisture or other foreign material. During manure application, a few representative loads per day should be weighed to determine an average weight per load. Solid manure samples should be placed in sterile plastic bags provided by the laboratory. The bags should be filled fairly full and sealed well, with as little air space as possible (if a lot of air space is allowed, then some of the ammonium will volatilize and the test will not be accurate). The samples should be marked with the date, sample identification and samplers name. A chain-of-custody form should be filled out and sent with the samples (a chain-of-custody form is provided in the Appendix}. The manure samples need to be kept cool and sent to the laboratory as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. The samples need to remain cool during shipping (pack in ice). The samples need to arrive at the laboratory in a cool state within 48 hours of sampling. If the samples will not arrive at the laboratory within 48 lours, then they should be frozen and shipped so they arrive at the laboratory in the frozen condition. The following parameters at a minimum should be evaluated: Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Ammonia-N pH Total Solids Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) 5.3.3 Wastewater Testing Liquid manure should be tested each time that it is applied. At least four sub- samples should be taken. The four sub-samples should be mixed and one composite sample submitted for testing. The sub-samples should be taken from each of the four sides of the applicable pond. Each sub-sample should be taken from at least 12", and preferably 18", below the surface. Liquid manure samples should be placed in sterile bottles provided by the laboratory. The bottle should be filled completely, with no air space (if air space is allowed, then some of the ammonium will volatilize and the test will not be accurate). The samples should be marked with the date, sample identification and samplers name. A chain- of-custody form should be filled out and sent with the samples (a chain-of-custody farm is provided in the Appendix). The manure samples need to be kept cool and sent to the laboratory as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. The samples need to remain cool during shipping (pack in ice). The samples need to arrive at l:he laboratory in a cool state within 48 hours of sampling. If the samples will not arrive at the laboratory within 48 hours, then they should be frozen and shipped so they arrive at the laboratory in the frozen condition. The following parameters at a minimum should be evaluated: 15 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Ammonia-N pH Total Solids Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) Wastewater from the retention basins will normally be applied to the available acreage close to the dairy. The dairy will have pump available at all times in order to dewater the retention basins within 15 days of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. 5.3.4 Irrigation Water Testing Irrigation water should be tested at least once per year. The most appropriate time to test irrigation water is at the peak of the irrigation season. The same laboratory that is used to test the soil and manure should be used to test the irrigation water. The laboratory will typically provide sample bottles for testing water. The irrigation water should be tested after the ditch has been running for several days. Collect the sample as it leaves the tube before it comes in contact with soil. Fill the sample bottle to the indicated line, or about 4/5ths full if the bottle is unmarked. Keep the sample cool and ship it to the laboratory as soon as possible and by the fastest method available. The samples need to arrive at the laboratory in a cool state within 48 hours of sampling. The following parameters at a minimum should be evaluated: Nitrate-Nitrogen pH 16 6. Agronomic Calculations The "agronomic rate" refers to the rate that nutrients, such as wastewater or manure can be applied to and utilized by plants without running off or leaching. Agronomic calculations should be made for every field before manure is applied. Agronomic calculations take into account: • the crop to be grown • a realistic yield goal • total nitrogen required to meet the yield goal • residual soil nitrate • soil organic matter • nitrogen content in irrigation water • nitrogen credit from previous legume crop; and • plant available nitrogen (PAN) in the manure Forms for performing agronomic calculations are provided in the Appendix. One agronomic calculation sheet should be used for each field owned by Painted Prairie Farm on which manure is applied. In addition, reference material from the Colorado State Cooperative Extension is located in the Appendix, which includes nitrogen requirement information for corn, wheat and other crops commonly grown in Colorado. 6.1 Record Keeping The quantity of manure or wastewater each field receives should be recorded on the Solid or Liquid Manure Application Logs. These forms are included in the Appendix. Each year, the land application site map will be marked as to where soil samples were taken and where and how much manure and wastewater was applied. Soil and manure testing results will also be retained along with the appropriate chain-of- custody forms. These records associated with manure and nutrient management at the dairy will be kept with this Manure Management Plan. Precipitation should also be tracked and recorded on the Rainfall Log (this form is provided i n the Appendix). The Rainfall Log will be kept with this MMP. 17 7. Inspections and Reviews The authorized person(s) will inspect the retention facilities, equipment and material handling areas for evidence of or potential for problems resulting in manure or wastewater entering waters of the State. Appropriate corrective actions will be taken immediately and properly documented. Management controls will be inspected routinely for integrity and maintenance. Reports of these evaluations will be inserted into this NIMP. Date nitials Notes J L J a 8 S 18 8. Forms These forms will be used for record keeping and maintenance at Painted Prairie Farm Dairy: • Manure Removal Log • Manure Application Log • Wastewater Application Log • Retention Facility Inspection Report • Preventative Maintenance Log • Precipitation Log • Agronwmic Determination Sheets for manure, wastewater, and irrigation water (where applicable) • Chain of Custody Forms • Nuisance Control Check List 19 EnviroStock, Inc. Sep-99 SOLID MANURE REMOVAL LOG (Record manure removal data every day that manure is hauled.) (For manure taken off feedyard property) SITE NAME: YEAR: Date Person Taking Manure Tons per Load # of Loads Total Amount Taken (tons) EnviroStock,Inc. Sep-99 SOLID MANURE APPLICATION LOG (Record manure application data every day that manure is hauled.) SITE NAME: YEAR: Date Perron Applying Manure Pounds #of Field Acres Crop Pounds per Load Loads Name in to be per Acre Field Grown Applied EnviroStock,Inc. Sep-99 WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG (Record manure application data every day that manure is applied.) FIELD#: YEAR: 1999 Date Person Applying Gallons Amount of Acres in Crop to be Gallons per Wastewater being time Field Grown Acre Applied pumped pumped - i • EnvireStock,Inc. Sep-99 RETENTION STRUCTURE INSPECTION REPORT (Complete this form on approximately the same day each month.) SITE NAME: DATE: YEAR: BASIN NUMBER OR LOCATION(if applicable): YES NO N/A Embankment free of visible seepage. Embankment showing no signs of cracking. Vegetation growing on embankment. Vegetation mowed as applicable. Erosion controls in place if required. Interior slope free of erosion. Exterior slope free of erosion. Water level device in place and functioning. Minimum freeboard of 1' present. Manure pumping equipment is functional. Rain gauge in place and functional. Trees excluded within root zone distance. No signs of rodent damage. Fence in place and well mended. Other: Other: Other: Other: • Comments: (signature) (print name) (date) EnviroStock,Inc. Sep-99 Preventive Maintenance Log (Complete this form on a quarterly basis.) SITE NAME: DATE: YEAR: YES NO N/A COMMENTS Motors of Dewatering Equipment Electrical panel enclosed and free of trash. All components are free of rodent nests. Motors operational. Other YES NO N/A COMMENTS Valves Valves operational. Other YES NO I N/A COMMENTS Flow Line Drained before freezing temperatures. Breaks or cracks? Flow line operational. Other YES NO N/A COMMENTS Diversions & Culverts Diversions free of visible seepage. Diversions free of burrowing animals. Culverts not plugged. Other YES NO N/A COMMENTS Other Preventative Maintenance General Continents: (signature) (print name) ( te) EnviroStock,Inc. Sep-99 RAINFALL LOG (Record rainfall after each rainfall event.) SITE NAME: RAIN GAUGE LOCATION: YEAR: BEGINNING ENDING RAINFALL DATE TIME DATE TIME (inches) Total Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual Total (in.) EnviroStock,Inc. • Sep-99 Agronomic Determination Sheet (Liquid Manure) f ', „may O,`••8�2.' ,3Q:�ca.�F'a�:. .v.:7>.�"p I'` a,L.'O�`S";`}:'^: .M1' `.. y'� `Y.6.3 yl`g,D:`,,'�`j O a" ^'• ll,�4 .Y. � L:'"�.':..�'',C; .astr "fr x '?ar s». " ' . ` ;`.. , of ee <.A. ^ ti' .'" f , ,`° ."' @&� Fes% ai p3c<f 3A ., . : n., .....<. F3v . ..3.,1/4&,,..-' .< `tO Qb„e nlpa ,..r�^.b_O:'h,0 q......iRO n ,G 't`...ii N. : r,q t..^'Z..'. Crop to be Planted: Year: N Requirement 1. Expected yield (Past 5 year average + 5%): Bu/A 2. Total N needed to achieve expected yield: lbs./A (Expected yield(Bu/A)x crop factor(lbs. N/Bu)) Crc p factors: Corn = 1.2, Wheat=2.5,Malt Barley =1.5, Feed Barley = 1.7, Oars = 1.3, Rye =25 and Sugar Beets = 6 lbs. N/ton N Credits 3. Residual soil nitrate (from soil test): lbs. N/A 4. Nitrogen Credit from Irrigation water: lbs. N/A (PF'MNO3-Nx 2.7 =lbs./AF of water) 5. Soil organic matter credit (from soil test): _lbs. N/A (Credit 30 lbs. Nper%OM) 6. Nitrogen credit from previous legume crop: _lbs. N/A (Refer to Extension Service Bulletins in Appendix) 7. Total Nitrogen Credits (sum lines 3, 4, 5 and 6) lbs. N/A Calculation 8. Plant Available Nitrogen(PAN) in manure: lbs. N/1000 gal (Total N(from manure test)—5%ofammonium-N— 65%of organic-N) 9. Maximum manure application rate: _1000 gal/A ((Line 2—Line 7)/Line 8) S.>dt',ff.;:<. .N3eo`S_.o-,:..saWaT, `^i£b".ta ^r �.:'..: es. <:.. ..:. .: ."r: .r4{a;:'p•iti>q A. enje b' �a�ryo oki FLft 3 P t N 8 ➢,, iz: B 3 3 : D . :..` ,p49- 4444:4444:e Y. AVAISOWSSAVIlataakeeei0 F Y 9 .I.F:F ireftgainegageftigatigateeThito"VanitinPrnektr". EnviroStock,Inc. Sep-99 Agronomic Determination Sheet(Solid Manure) • s<` z :EE.£ MF a u 1\+ k qty. Kbbyb�£ Crop to be Planted: Year: N Requirement 1. Expected yield (Past 5 year average + 5%): Bu/A 2. Total N needed to achieve expected yield: lbs./A (Expected yield(Bu/A)x crop factor(lbs. NBu)} Crop factors: Corn = 1.2, Wheat =2.5,Malt Barley = 1.5, Feed Barley = 1.7, Oats =1.3, Rye =2.5 and Sugar Beets = 6 lbs. N/ton N Credits 3. Residual soil nitrate (from soil test): lbs. N/A 4. Nitrogen Credit from Irrigation water: lbs. N/A (PPAd NO3-Nx 2.7 =lbs./AF of water) 5. Soil organic matter credit (from soil test): lbs. N/A (Credit 30 lbs. Nper%OM) 6. Nitrogen credit from previous legume crop: _Ibs. N/A (Refer to Extension Service Bulletins in Appendix) 7. Total Nitrogen Credits (sum lines 3, 4, 5 and 6) lbs. N/A Calculation 8. Plant Available Nitrogen (PAN) in manure: _lbs. N/ton (Total N(from manure test)-5%of ammonium-N-65%of organic-N) 9. Maximum manure application rate: ton/A ((Line 2—Line 7)/Line 8) • >_ E ¢„„••��yyA�,,<a«. $EEtEh¢2kek,kd 2t. 'YAK" , M yEC' 3 Sa a.. ,..:.... .. : , :AEa '.a:. ._,S.',,. ... ..< a:^.rn Av`<ic':� EnviroStock,In c. Sep-99 </2 C 4) E E C U 1-, I I I S 1 1 Sulfate d pH Cation Exchange Capacity 8 c Magnesium a Calcium T :Potassium 74 Olsen-Phosphorus Bray-Phosphorus th Organic Matter , Ammonium-Nitrogen Nitrate-Nitrogen I Total Nitrogen Preservative Sample Container Type Number of Samples I I Ek .g• r m Cl) yz 40 d a o S Q N F N EFa } a N 9.+ C/) L 4 r a a ii a O `/ Grab Compo o siteAc°4 U ct c cn ;, c 0v � c C - •,- -to O o I I U a) v = � +' r` d a G N N `S .3' a 3 4 EnviroStock,Inc. Sep-99 N H O N G O a Zinc t t F Copper y Sulfur0 a Magnesium O cG Calcium T pH T Potassium -, Phosphorus I Solid Matter Ammonium-Nitrogen Nitrate-Nitrogen I Total Nitrogen Preservative Sample Container Type Number of Samples it T . e e y rn II) v. „ t eE t a n M E n n _o t a a F F tt c m 5, ea 2 W Vl c I. P. k. aa" Z O O C R N Grab Campo •rnme' t.+ site oC▪ A r4 } y Cet, g nr V W o 1 2 w N U o E o .. to i a` 3 .o v Li r d cl. I a (�J L @ 3 v� Ti Ti EnviroStock,Inc. Sep-99 .- C C 0) E E o U I _ s t t ZincI j o Copper 4) aa o Sulfur y y c Magnesium 0 o cG Calcium a, pH Potassium Phosphorus I S Solid Matter % a Ammonium-Nitrogen 0 Nitrate-Nitrogen .. i Total Nitrogen — Preservative Sample Container Type Number of Samples A - a 13) bt f. U b v a t �t E V c I T co qC CI) O' ,12 V 9 du E !C'-Jy' O % F,, 4 t L 4. O y 0. 0 It N Grab rs Z+0 site G O Compo ^o' Q r CC ^ i+ R3 7 "ai u CA WO O a 0 7 a.h. .. U � iz C " 3 y i =C t;:,1 d 4 € . V tn • E I 3 C4 — V c# EnviroStock, Inc. Sep-99 Nuisance Control Check List (to be filled out weekly) Site Name:_ Date: Yes No N/A Action Action needed needed before next within one week? month? Are there any manure stockpiles inside the barns? Are automatic feeders working properly? Are there any deposits of feed within the barns? _ Are automatic waters working properly? Is there any standing water within the barns? Are the ventilation inlets clear and free of dust? Is the inside of the barns clean and neat? Has manure been pumped into the basin this week? Did the pumped manure enter the basin below water line? Is odor coming off the basin? Was manure applied to land this week? Was manure applied over the weekend or a holiday? Was manure applied by knifing or immediately injected? Is there any standing water outside the barns? _ Are weeds and grass on site more than 4 inches tall? Is there any spilled feed inside or outside the barns? Have rodent control measures been taken this week? Other: Other: Other: Comments and Corrective Action to take: • (Signature) (Print name) (Date) Management Plan for Nuisance Control A Supplement to the Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan for Painted Prairie Farm, LLC 15274 Weld County Road 72 Greeley, Colorado 80631 Developed in accordance with Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By NVIRO TOCK,fne,. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 September, 1999 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" Painted Prairie Farm, I_LC Envirosfock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 Table of Contents Introduction 2 Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons 2 Legal Description 2 Dust _ 3 Pest Control 5 Insects and Rodents 5 Dead Animals 6 References 7 "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" I Painted Prairie Farm, I-LC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 Introduction This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods Painted Prairie Farm will use to minimize the inherent conditions that exist in confinement feeding operations. This supplemental plan outlines management practices generally acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. Neither nuisance management nor this supplemental plan is required by Colorado State statute or specifically outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. This is a proactive measure to assist integration into local communities as required by Weld County Zoning Ordinance, Section 47 - Livestock Feeding Performance Standards. These management and control practices, to their best and practical extent, will be used by Painted Prairie Farm. Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons The legal owners of Painted Prairie Farm are Lester E. and Sherrill R. Hardesty Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. Les Hardesty 15274 WCR 72 Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 454-3635 The individual(s) at this facility who is (are) responsible for developing the implementation, maintenance and revision of this supplemental plan are listed below: Les Hardesty Owner (Name) (Title) Sherrill Hardesty Owner (Name) (Title) Legal Description The confined animal feeding facility described in this NMP is located at: The northwest % of section 10, township 6 north, range 66 west of the 6th principal meridian, Weld County, Colorado. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 2 Painted Prairie Farm, L.LC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 Air Quality Air quality at and around confined animal feeding operations is affected primarily from the relationship of soil/manure and available moisture. The two primary air quality concerns at dairies are dust and odor. However, the management practices for dust or odor control are not inherently compatible. Wet pens and manure produce odor. Dry pens are dusty. The two paragraphs below outline the best management practices for the control of dust and odors that Painted Prairie Farm may use. The manager will closely observe pen conditions and attempt to achieve a balance between proper dust and odor control. Additional reference information on odor and dust control as guidance to the dairy management is attached in section "References". Dust Dust from pen surfaces is usually controlled by intensive management of the pen surface by routine cleaning and harrowing of the pen surface. The purpose of intensive surface management is twofold; to keep cattle clean and to reduce pest habitat. The best management systems for dust control involve moisture management. Management options available to Painted Prairie Farm for the control of dust are: 1. Pen density Moisture can be managed by varying stocking rates and pen densities. The animals wet manure and urine keep the surface moist and control dust emissions. 2. Regular manure removal Painted Prairie Farm will conduct regular manure removal. Typically, pens are conditioned cleaned, conditioned and maintained as needed. Manure is removed at least annually and taken by area farmers or applied to land owned by Painted Prairie Farm. 3. Pen Sprinkling Should nuisance dust conditions arise, water tanker trucks or portable sprinkling systems may be used for moisture control on pens and internal roadways. No additional dust control measures are planned. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 3 Painted Prairie Farm, I_LC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 Odor Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start after manure is excreted and continues as long as any usable material remains as food for microorganisms. Odor strength depends on the kind of manure, and the conditions under which it decomposes. Although occasionally unpleasant, the odors are not dangerous to health in the quantities customarily noticed around animal feeding operations and fields where manure is spread for fertilizer. Key practices Painted Prairie Farm may use to control odor are: 1. Establish good pen drainage Dry manure is less odorous than moist manure. Maintaining good pen drainage can be achieved by regular cleaning in pens and under fences. The dairy will conduct routine pen cleaning to reduce standing water and remove wet manure. 2. Regular manure removal Manure removal reduces the overall quantity of odor producing sources. The dairy will conduct routine pen cleaning and conditioning as needed. 3. Reduce standing water Standing water can increase microbial digestion and odor producing by-products. Proper pen maintenance and surface grading will be conducted by the dairy to reduce standing water. The wastewater ponds will be dewatered regularly in accordance with the Manure and Wastewa`er Management Plan for Painted Prairie Farm. No chemical additives or treatments of the stormwater ponds for odor control are planned. Research to date indicates these products have little, if any, effectiveness. 4. Composting Proper composting turns manure into a nearly odorless, pathogen-free product that is valuable for soil conditioning. Painted Prairie Farm will maximize manure composting on the land area available for that purpose. 5. Land application timing Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. Painted Prairie Farm will consider weather conditions and prevailing wind direction to minimize odors from land application. Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 4 Painted Prairie Farm, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 Pest Control Insects and Rodents Insects and rodents inhabit areas that 1) have an adequate to good food supply and 2) foster habitat prime for breeding and living. Key practices Painted Prairie Farm may use to manage insects and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat, and then reduce the available food supply. The dairy will work to control flies by applying one or more of the following practices as needed: 1. Remove manure regularly Manure management removes both food sources and habitat. 2. Reduce standing water Standing water is a primary breeding ground for insects. 3. Minimize fly habitat Standing water weeds and grass, manure stockpiles, etc. are all prime habitat for reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical. 4. Manage weeds and grass Keep weeds to a minimum and regularly mow grassy areas. Tall weeds and grass provide both protection and breeding areas. 5. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keeps stockpile use to a minimum. 6. Biological treatments Parasitic wasps are excellent biological fly control and are widely used. The wasps lay their eggs in fly larvae hindering fly reproduction. 7. Baits and chemical treatments Due to environmental and worker's safety concerns, chemical treatments are a last line of defense for insect control. However, they are very effective. Baits and treatments must be applied routinely. Rodent control at Painted Prairie Farm is best achieved by minimizing spillage of feedstuffs around the operation. Good housekeeping practices and regular feedbunk cleaning, site grading and maintenance are used to reduce feed sources. Rodent traps and chemical treatments are effective control methods and will be used as necessary. "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 5 Painted Prairie Farm, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 Dead Animals Modality is an unfortunate and unavoidable part of animal husbandry. Dead animals can produce offensive odors, attract scavengers, and create deleterious conditions. Proper and timely disposal of dead animals prevents nuisance conditions from occurring. Key practices Painted Prairie Farm may use to handle and dispose of dead animals are: 1. Expedient removal from pens Dead animals will be removed from pens daily and relocated to an area(s) away from pens. 2. Commercial Rendering Company removal Dead animals will be removed by a commercial rendering company when possible and economically feasible. 3. Burying Animals will be buried at least two feet underground in accordance with state requirements "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 6 Painted Prairie Farm, LLC Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 References These references are provided as a resource to Painted Prairie Farm for making nuisance control decisions for the facility. These references represent the latest and best management practices "Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry" 7 Percent of opelntlons Dust Control _ loo Dust can threaten not only the health of cattle so 7z�""- ' ws (Franzen, 1984)and people,but can also compromise a •••:•r:•'r::'r:•:{v r _._..... ; _:: :: :::t� ==:=�:�'� . ::•:-::.c:::-::<• feedyard's ability to continue to operate.The major source of dust in the feedyard comes from the pens;however,dust also 40U ss.s. can come from roads,service areas,and feed processing. Generally,the peak time for dust occurs around sunset,when 20th• e temperature starts to cool and cattle become more actlne. oF `_❖ e� o`, The best way to control dust is through proper pe 4, `m.s`s \y �t. design and maintenance of surface moisture levels.Routine SQ il° eo�`p we''' cleaning of pen surfaces also helps to minimize dust e� problems.A recent survey(Figure 1)suggests that most he ain tool in their ntrol strategies. Figure 1:oust control practices on beef feedyards u se manuse a re layer less thannical scraper as tonerinch deep and pen dust moisture between • feedlots of 1,000 or more head:. - 25 and 35 percent Too much moisture will increase odor and fly problems,too .r.'" little moisture will promote difficulties with dust. -- Pen size and shape dictate the type of water-dislribt(tion system to use. Fdr Fenceline.vs.Mobile Sprinklers example;large,deep pens probably require fence-line sprinkling systems,while shallow pens may favor mobile equipment.Selecting a sprinkling system assumes The decision to install fenceline that the feedyard has adequate amounts of water beyond drinking water needs. sprinklers versus acquiring mobile Wind breaks also may be used to'control or capture fugitive dust.Fast- equipment is a tradeoff between initial growing poplar trees planted along the perimeter of the feedyard will provide cost,labo maintenance, depreciation,and shelter from the wind and may largely contain any fugitive,dust. labor. The permanent fenreline sprinkling There are numerous surface amendments and chemical agents being system nlly. mayel,approach u 1d evaluated for dust control.Fly ash looks promising,and other compounds that hat per pen initially.However, continued labor expense is minrrrial once the system been considered include sawdust, aPP le urnice,ligno sulfate, and gypsum. . is operational. Drain the system in the fall r •oprevent freezing, although dust can still Stocking Rate be a problem in the winter. Surface moisture canbe mater r of ghate erobgh and pen square footage may be Mobile equipment is expensive:A used However,linear bunk spa , 8,000-gallon tanker may exceed$60,000 limiting and may preclude increasing the stocking rate enough to achieve the initial cost,plus it will require a driver desired pen moisture.The stocking rate can be altered by increasing the number fiber' and operating expenses. For a medium- head per pen-or by reducing pen square'footegee> o> above-average to large-sized teedyard,there may not be Temporary fencing also gives flexibility during p t _ o t 1 enough.time to haul crire�to rase the' precipitation ns to control the amount o pen moisture. Manipulating the stocking rate of feedyard pe _ Know t feces and urine produced per pen is:an eeonornical durst-control sErategy., area and weight per animal.For example, a 1,000-pound steer allocated to 125 square feet of pen spade produces about 28 inches of moisture per year or 0.08 inches per day(sable 2). Odor Conti©1 Offensive odors feedlots are Table 2:Manure moisture production in nttte feeedvrage e a Animal Spacing eten, 5) ft/hd' intimately related to manure t25 150 175 management. If you are siting a new 75 100 Moisture(in/day) feedlot, select an isolated location Animal size(avg,bs/hd) downwind from neighbors with an 03 400 - 08 06 .05 04 • adequate and well-dra'ned land base. • 600 ' IIg 96 OS ..04F ' - Design the feedlot to accommodate .. tt :. 800 20 08 07 06 . frequent scraping and keep manure tao0 13 �&{ 16. 12 :i �' t. stockpiles dry and cov red: When 1200 • , ,k .-denstty;has -sig:.:.;" t tnfltience on the anitriat and manure is e applied to land,the timing a . yrin determines th ata aged to re a the or con erns.. ' environmental performance ofa feedlot StocSung density p y through fete' managed to reduce odor concerns: Apply manure when the wind is calm, average moisture content of the pecs'surface`ghow�ludh moisture u desirable preferably in the morning, and and urine to the pens each day_Determining incorporate it is soon as possible- - requires Careful observation.This decision varies with management'style and • Front-end Loaders vs. Box Scrapers experience with the specific site and climatic cot tuitions. Cattlesize sand rations rnse.lso will influence moisture balance and the corresponding appropriate Two r the most common methods front-of :Typical pen stocking densities in Colorado are between 150 ft2 and 300 ft2 per -pura removal the e the wheeled fanimal.Increase stocking density during warmer,dry periods,and reduce density loader The box box raraper. Both a effective. scraper or other during wet or cool seasons.For both odor and dust control, the choice of stocking scraping devices,such as a paddle density should achieve a balance between a pen surface that is too dry versus one scraper or road grader,are mare that is too wet. If this management goal is not achieved, more elaborate and effective at(1)providing a smooth pen expensive methods,such as sprinkling systems for dust control or frequent manure surface that facilitates proper drainage removal for odor control,will be necessary. and precipitation and(2)maintaining the integrity of the A combination of cattle density, sprinkling, spraying, P P compacted protective seal or`hard pan" may need to be used, since cattle density alone may not be enough to control under feedlot pens. • dust, especially in areas with high evaporation rates. Pens with light-weight feeder A wheeled front-end loader requires an cattle,high winds(high evaporation), and low precipitation are at greatest risk for experienced operator. For each bucket dust problems. of manure accumulated with a wheel . There are numerous options to consider when attacking dust p problems. loader, the operator must shift gears four Each has advantages and disadvantages. It is important mp nrta plait in application times while manipulating the bucket. and start prior to the time dust is a serious p Remember,t a water timely ppmalca ii • This is most likely to result in an is minimized by removing loose manure and dust from pens irregular pen surface at best or damage to the protective'hard pan.'A Manure Removal combination of a wheeled front-end loader for major manure removal The removal of accumulated manure reduces odors, controls fly larvae,and scraper for final cleaning and d and a grading minimizes the potential for surface and groundwater contamination.Maintaining a would be an effective compromise. firm,dry feedlot surface is an important factor in good animal health and a healthy environment. Frequency of manure removal also varies widely depending on size of lot and pen stocking rate. However, a thorough pen cleaning once per year is an absolute minimum. Most feedyards clean and prepare a pen prior to receiving new or "fresh" cattle. A feedyard operated year round typically replaces cattle or "turns a pen" 2.5 times per year and conducts pen maintenance as frequently, weather permitting.Dairies also are concerned with animal health, comfort, and cleanliness. Some dairies harrow their pens daily with good results in both environmental and animal health benefits. While this is labor intensive for feedlots, it does indicate that pen cleaning as frequently as feasible for your • specific operation is good management. Stockpile Location and Management Having adequate storage area to handle the quantity of manure production has many benefits. Primarily, adequate storage area provides the cen be producer with flexibility in land application so that land application timing Stockpile Management determined by labor availability, weather and field conditions, and crop nutrient Locate stockpile areas away from needs rather than by lack of storage space.Use the information in Table 3 to watercourses and above the 100-year calculate al how much mcapacity is adequate. your livestock to produce, and be sure flood plain. that Use grassed filter strips telow stockpiles Table 3.Manure production per 1,000-pound animal. to reduce runoff volume by settling As excreted Dry Matter Buis solids and removing nutrients. Cattle 11.5 tons/yr(88%water) 1.38 ton�•r Beef Cattle 15.0 tons/yr(880/9 water) 1.80 tons/yr Soil sample downhill from stockpiles to Dairy 7.3 tons/yr(75%water) 1.82 tons/yr monitor nitrate buildup. ;icy)) Locate manure stockpiles at least 150 The more control a feedlot manager has over the facility's manure feet downstream from any well. handling, the more likely nutrients will be conserved and beneficially used. Protect wellheads with grassed buffer Composting manure requires additional land and equipment, but may be areas. advantageous where markets are available (see Spencer and Tepfer, 1993). Insect Control Land-base Calculation . Feedlot pen maintenance a nd manure Feedlot operators should have an adequate land base to spread their management also play an important role ' manure.If land base is inadequate, arrange to apply manure to other cropland or in insect control Insect pests stress prepare to market it for composting or garden use.Sample the manure and cattle and can greatly reduce provide the laboratory analysis to manure users so that they can apply the manure performance. Insects reproduce and at agronomic rates. mature in wet areas such muddy First, a feedlot operator must know how much manure nitrogen(N) is ` as pens, wet manure piles, aid wet spots produced. Multiply the number of head by the tons produced(Table 3)to around waterers and feediunks. One determine how much manure is produced. Multiply the tonnage by the lb N/ton i area cgmmonly overlooked in pen that manure(Cable 1)to calculate how many pounds N are available for land maintenance is manure b.rild-up directly application.Next,calculate how much crop removal there will be per acre. Multii under fence rows and adjacent to the expected yield by the average N content of the harvested crop to determine l' Thos areas waterers and feed bunks. removal by the crop. Finally,divide the pounds N produced in the manure by the These areas are not readily accessible pounds N used by the crop per acre.The result is the acreage required as a land with heavy equipment and require small base for your feedlot. equipment and/or manual labor. However, they are significant breeding areas for insects. Keeping pens clean Runoff Management and Collection and dry will reduce insect populations, • Pens designed for good drainage(minimum of 3 percent slope from apr enhance performance,and minimize a to back of pen with adequate mounds)help manage excess moisture.The prima feedlot's reliance on chemicals and goals of runoff management are to divert water from flowing across the feedlot c other costly insect-control methods. storage area and prevent direct runoff from the feedlot:or the stock-piled mama into.waterways.Runoff cart be diverted by digging ditches and building berms._C of the primary principles of runoff management is to keep clean water clean. In other words,direct clean water away from manure,whether manure is already Resources stockpiled or still in the feedlot.Decreasing the volume of water used reduces th Follett,R.H.,and R.L.Croissant. 1990. potential for runoff, so minimizing water waste from inefficient waterers and Use of manure in crop production.Fact sprinklers not only saves money,but reduces runoff hazard. sheet no.0.549.Colorado State Collect and store all wastewater and storm water runoff from pens. It a _ University Cooperative Extension. be treated and discharged, or it can be applied to cropland as a source of water Franzen,Do Associated984. ne Particle and nutrients. If it is applied to cropland,the irrigation application rate must be • Concentration Associated with than the infiltration rate, so that runoff does not occur from the cropland. ono Pneumonia Incidence in Feedlot Cattle. animals out of watercourses to eliminate direct deposition of manure into water iivi. Colorado State University;Fort Runoff solids can be removed by directing the runoff through filter strips or gra• Collins, CO. waterways or by using a sediment basin to settle the solids out. Removing solid! NAHMS. 1995.Environmental from the runoff will reduce odors and prevent the pond from filling up with soli Monitoring by Feedlots. Centers for EpManagement of Runoff Holding Ponds logy USDA:APHIS:and Animal Health. g VS. N167. 1194. Seal storage ponds and lagoons to prevent seepage. Seepage is requir by law to be less than 1/4 inch per day if the pond contains stormwater runoff Spencer, W.,and D. Tepfer. 1993. only, but the seepage requirement is line than 1/32 inch per day if the pond s' Economics of composting feedlot manure.Fact sheet no. 3.762.Colorado processing wastewater(for example, manure flushed from a milking parlor) in State University Cooperative Extension. addition to stormwater runoff.Seepage can be reduced by several methods, ar manure itself has an ability to seal soil surfaces over time. Compact soil to a Sweeten,/.M.Feedlot dust control. minimum 12-inch thickness.Take soil type into consideration during site selec Cattleman's Library: Stocker-Feeder Locate ponds in the most impervious soil available. Soils must be loams or cla Section no.7045. Texas Agricultural compact well. Low permeability materials may be required in sandier soils. Extension Service. installing synthetic plastic impermeable liners or adding clay(bentonite)are a I the ways to reduce seepage from runoff holding ponds. Prohibit access of live to pond banks in order to maintain the seal.Wastewater holding ponds must i sited a safe distance from wells, a minimum of 150 feet downstream. '1•G.Davis. Colorado State University Cooperative Extension soil specialist and associate professor,soil a•nd crop sciences; ` T.L.Stanton,Cooperative.Extension feedlot Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension A.RewctssofM director of Cooperative 0,114,in coo C specialist and professor,.animal sciences;and with the US.Department of Agriculture, T.Haren,Director of Natural Resources, State University,Fort Collins,Colorado.Cooperative Extension programs are available to all wit e_,__--I-r..-'-e__de,,e«n,4atinn_ discrimination. • i' . C B-5011 Texas Ag ricultural Extension Service Odor and Dust From Livestock Feedlots John M.Sweeten* This report discusses the relationship of livestock animal density,but essentially integrates these production to air pollution and assesses the technoI- factors al tng a th�of atvegetationridsoils)into a single occurs ogy and from livestock maragement practices which can e reduce where manure production and/or animal traffic pollution from and poultry operations. are high. Van Dyne and Gilbertson(1978)estimated the total collectable(economically recoverable)manure 1nIntensiveAriii11C1i from all livestock and poultry production to be 52 Production Systems million tons per year(drymatterbasis).Theper- ycentages from various species were:dairy cattle 39 percent;feeder cattle 31 percent;hogs 11 per- • cent;laying hens 6 percent;broilers 5 percent; The major types of livestock and poultry produc- sheep 3 percent;turkeys 2 percent;and other 3 don facilities,their design and the manure manage- percent. - ment systems associated with them are described These manure production estimates are based on in several reports (MWPS,1987;U.S.EPA,1973; an engineering standard adopted by the Americar White and F arster,1978;Foster and Mayrose, Society of Agricultural Engineers(ASAE,1976) 1987).Roofed or total confinement facilities are which defines constituent production per unit common for poultry and swine and to a lesser weight of live animal.These standard values were extent,dairy and beef production National Re- recently updated to reflect current research data search Council, 1979).However,open feedlots (ASAE,1988).In most cases,average values of dr) (non-roofed t are most commonly used for beef manure and nutrients(pounds per day per 1,000 cattle production.They are also widely used for pounds liveweight)were revised upward. dairy,swine and sheep production in the south- western Uni,tedStates. Cattle feedlots Intensive livestock production systems are re- garded as "animal feeding operations:The U.S. The United States has 9A million beef cattle in fee EPA defines such operations(for purposes of lots,avenging 850 pounds per head liveweight water pollution control)as areas where animals are Each animal that is fed in a normal 130-to 150-da "stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a fattening att ninble ma sode produces solids. about out equals 2 dry ton of l total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period, and...crops,vegetation,forage growth or post- tons of collected manure per year per head of fee harvest residues are not sustained in the normal lot capacity.The animal spacing per head varies growing season over any portion of the lot or facil- cording to rainfall and temperature,slope and ity" (U.S.E?A,1976).The definition is not specific other factors.For example,there are 100 to 125 as to animal species,type of confinement facility or eet per head in the desert southwest wh E theres less rifthan 10 inches of annual rainfall;17 f 200 tral square Great Plaint s where therer head in e is15 to 25 inches o e southern and cen " Extension Agricultural Engineer,The Texas A&M University - 5ystem • • rain per year,and 300 to 400 square feet per head manure storage tanks beneath slotted floors and in the eastern and northern Great Plains where anaerobic lagoons used for manure storage and there is 25 to 35 inches per year.Most cattle feed- treatment are important odor sources. lots are concentrated in the southern and central When open feedlot surfaces become wet,particu- Great Plains. larly in warm weather,anaerobic decomposition • , Most of the manure deposited on the feedlot sur- occurs over a large surface area for the evolution of face is compacted by cattle into a manure pack of odorous gases(National Research Council,1979). 35 to 50 percent moisture content(wet basis).At Feedlot odor problems are most frequent in warm, higher moisture contents odors can develop,espe- humid areas and in feedlots constructed where Qty in warrn weather.Such odors maybe a nun- there is inadequate drainage or poor drying condi- sance to employees and downwind neighbors. lions. Cattle hooves may pulverize surface manure dur- Animal manure odor is comprised of gaseous com- ing prolonged dry weather to only 10 to 25 percent pounds that are the intermediate and final prod- moisture.When surfaces are excessively dry,as is . ucts of biodegradation,and includes these groups: often the case in and areas of Arizona,California ammonia and amines;sulfides;volatile fatty adds; and Texas,there is a potential for dust problems alcohols;aldehydes;mercaptans;esters;and car- . (National Research Council,1979). bonyls(Table 1)(Ashbacher,1.972;Miner,1975; Dust from cattle feedlot surfaces,alleys and roads Barth et al,1984;ASAE,1987;National Research can annoy neighbors,irritate feedlot employees, Council,1979). possibly impair cattle performance and create a Table 1. Compounds From the traffic hazard on adjacent highways (Sweeten, mpn DecompositionResultingFrom 1982).The amo'ant of dust produced is affected by • feedlot area,cattle density in pens,wind speed and Livestock and Poultry Manure precipitation and evaporation patterns(Peters and Alcohols Amines Blackwood,1977). Methylarnine Ethylamine ` Adds mnetnplamine Odors from livestock feeding Butyric Diethylanune operations Acetic Propionic Esters Isobutvric Although odors from livestock feeding facilities lsovaleric are sometimes an annoyance,odorous gases are Fixed Gases ••'•not toxic at concentrations found downwind.How- Carbonyls xed Gases de(odorless) ever,nuisance lawsuits can threaten the survival of Methane(odorless) Ammonia an operation(George et a1.,1985),and livestock Sulphur compounds producers need to control the evolution of odorous Hydrogen Sulfide compounds (Miner,1975;National Research Coun- Dimethyl Sulfide Nitrogen Heterocycles Diethyl Sulfide Indole dl, 1979). Methylmercap2m Odorous gases arise from feed materials (food-pro- ' Disulfides S'aatole cessirig wastes and fermented feeds),fresh manure and stored or decomposing manure (National Re- search Council,1979).The odor from fresh manure Concentrations of these compounds are usually is generally less objectionable than that from an- low and downwind from feedlots.However,some aerobically decomposing manure.Fresh manure may exceed olfactory threshold values znd create a has large quantities of ammonia,but little of the nuisance. other decomposition products that have the most There is almost universal acceptance of sensory objectionable characteristics.Odorous compounds approaches,using trained human panelists,for which develop in manure treatment facilities area the measurement of odor.However,the instru- on of the material as excreted, the biologic re- ments and techniques used in sensory odor meas- actio actions occurring in the material and the configura- urement may vary.Odor measurement techno- tion.of the storage or treatment unit logy applicable to livestock operations includes i Roofed confinement facilities usually have signifi- determining: cant odor potential because of the high animal den- Concentrations of specific compounds sity involved, the large amount of manure in(Na- (ammonia,hydrogen sulfide,volatile organic storage and tale limited rate of air exchange h adds,etc); tional Research Council,1979).Manure-covered surfaces (e.g.,building floors and animals), • a Dilutions to threshold with a dynamic forced- Elam et al.(1971)collected feedlot dust samples in- choice olfz ctometer or scentometer,and side 65 pens at 10 California feedlots,using a Sta- plex high-volume air sampler and operating in a Equivalent concentration of butanol vapor 1-to 3-hour increments.during 24-hour sampling • (using a b steno'olfactometer)that matches periods.Peak particulate concentrations,which the ambient odor intensity. were collected between 7:00 and 10:00 aged 14,200 m.,ranged from 1,946 to 35,536 µg per Severalodor states da andr s based an he have property- per m3.Lowest concentrations occurred in early morning and were only 130 to 250 mg per m3 in line stane.azds based on these and other meal- Pg urement methods(Sweeten,1988). some feedlots. . The odor caused by anaerobic decomposition of Algeo et al.(1972)measured total bo�uupended d and er- swine manure was measured y Meyer and Con- ticulates in 24-hour sampling upwind ammoniaverse(n co whocen found that hydrogen sulfide and downwind in 25 California feedlots(Table 2).Net concentrations percent were, at 73 degrees egr F articulate concentrations(downwind minus up- than wind)for a 24-hour period ranged from 54 to 1,268 percent and 1'l8 percent higher at 73 F µg per m3.The avenge value for all 25 feedlots be 1985),t th degrees F. emissionI European r fromch(Ine s ho s stthe odor yto rate fromswine was 654+376 µg per m3.Upwind concentrations houses with anaerobically 18 degree stored manure increased avenged 25 percent of the downwind concentra- 20fold for each in ventilation rise in manure tempera- dons.Both upwind and dovmwind particulate 1ev- mreand,four in s greater inrate summer than influences,was els usually exceeded the U.S.EPA ambient more than four times greater summer than in air-quality standards for TSP.• winter.Emissionswerewthpart 73 iallyslotr withTable 2. Summary of 241-Hour Particulate fully slotted floors thanwithpartiallyslottedfloors. (TSP) Concentrations at California In the same study,odor intensity observations Cattle Feedlots (tiger t 25 al19ifo 2). were made with feedlots. scentometers both upwind and downwind of feedlots.Upwind odor dilutions to (n=25) (n=24) minus Upwind threshold,while downwind concentrations aver- (n=24) aged 13 to 49 dilutions to threshold. Mean 636 206 654 Dust emissions from livestock , Std.Devia- +437 _llfi 1376 6on feeding operations Mange:• 100 s; Maximum 460 1,268 In 1971,the U.S.EPA(1987)defined primary and Maximum 1599 secondary ambient air-quality standards for total q cited ma or limita- suspended;articulate matter(f SPI.The primary peters and Blackwood(1.77) 1 standards were set at 260 µg per m9 for a 24-hour dons in these results: average,not to be exceeded more than once per was performed in the dry year,with z.n annual geometric mean of 75 µgper3 a All sampling P sea- m3.Secondary standards were set at 150 µg per m son;and for a 24-hour sampling period,not to be exceededa Details such as feedlot size,cattle number, d more than once per year. tances from samplers to feedpens and china Effective July 31,1987,the U.S.EPA replaced TSP conditions were not reported. a the indicator(PM-10) for the ambient standards Nevertheless, the California data from in favor of a new indicator that includes only those Nevertheless, o et al.(1972),,using Peters and Blackwood(1977) (U.S.EPA developed what they considered to be worst-cas particulates with an aerodynamic mil particle diameter developed for cattle feedlots.According to then 1987)lessthane ewsttnanom)replaced 1a m e primary The new standard:with1) PM-1 the 24-hour projections feedyards with more than 500 head, uger 5P ;standard)replaced a annual standard of at 140 square feet per head,would emit more 150 µg per an;2)thmti thePM-10 geometric than 100 tons of particulates per year,not includ mean with arithmetic mean standard of ing the feedmill. 50 µg per m3;and 3)replaced the secondary TSP . Based on Peters and Blackwood'((1977) treatmc , standard with 24-hour and annual PM-10 stand- of the California data,the U.S.EPA published e These s that are identical of ut she primary i livestock stas sion factors(AP-42)for cattle feedlots as being These standards,a of course,apply to crude estimates at best(U.S.EPA,1986). feeding o aerations. These emission factors were based on the assump- 100 I II lion that feedlots would generate 280 pounds of I I II Nvd v , particulates per day per 1,000 head,and 27 tons of S 3-9.S1 s.„ o particulates per 1,000 head fed.Other emissions cso-211 211 - factors were similarly written for ammonia,amines so T and total sulfur compounds. • • • ' The U.S.EPA emission factors ignored the major e climatic differences among cattle feeding regions E I, of California,the Great Plains and the Midwest. 60 4 : kk Both total rainfall and seasonality of rainfall are 8 t different'Also, California has less than 4 percent •: 1- j of the United States cattle on feed,as compared to af. Texas and Nebraska which combined have 40 -.Ii percent. I t To obtain a broader data base,dust emissions were it measured at three cattle feedlots in Texas,ranging 20 T in size from 17,000 to 45,000 head.Measurements of were made on 15 occasions in 1987 to determine both the total:suspended particulates(TSP)and the I I I I I I I I II I I particulates below 10µm aerodynamic particle size ° o S. o u r N K co .- `= - r r (PM-10)(Swee ten et a1.,1988).Net feedlot dust con- _ H ©. ' e centrations (downwind minus upwind)ranged Mr=dynalnic teamster Win) from 16 to 1,7(10 µg per m3 and averaged 412±271 µg per m3(which is 37 percent less than the earlier Figure 1. pms,tmive volume Imam d teedld dust panicles of given size on Glurs d High Vatting and P1.410 ra nplers:downwind campy California data).*Dust concentrations were genet- Hedbu A.C and a(Experrnents 11.14 and 1s). ally highest in early evening and lowest in early (Sweeten and Panel.1989.) morning,and upwind concentrations averaged 22 percent of downwind concentrations. • Using Iwo typ es of PM-10 sampler(Wedding and captured on high averaged Anderson-321A),the PM-10 dust concentrations cat downwind high and volume samplers m up averaged of feedlots were 19 to 40,percent,re goo ly,of mean TSP (Sweeten and Parnell,1989).Thirty-three percent concentrations.There was n good correlation be- of the downwind TSP were smaller than 10µm, 0. 34 andP 0.8 and TSP concentrations ns with r2= while 40 percent of upwind TSP was smaller than 0.634 0.SSS for Wedding and Anderson's 321-A samplers,respectively(Sweeten et al.,1988). 10µm. Mean particle sizes of feedlot dust were 8.5 to 12.2 mm on a population basis,while respirable dust y (below 2µm)represented only 2.0 to 4.4 percent of Air Pollution Control total dust on it particle volume basis(Hebner and Methods Pamell,1988). When the Wedding sampler was used for PM-10 measurements,feedlots were below the new EPA standard,and.peak concentrations did not coincide Controlling dust with the expected early evening peaks caused by cattle activity.Hence,comparatively little of the Feedlot dust is usually controlled by sprinkling sus actual feedlot manure dust may have been faces with water at strategic times and in proper captured in Wedding's instruments. amounts(Andre,1985;Gray,1984;Simpson,1970; Analysis with a Coulter Counter showed aerody- Sweeten,1982).Carroll et al. (1974)compared two namic particle size distribution curves for TSP and feedlots,one unsprinkled and the other sprinkled PM-10 samplers (Figure 1) (Sweeten and Parnell, each day on a schedule of:2 hours on,21/2 hours 1989).The PM-10 sampler over-sampled particles off and 11/2 hours on.He reported that sprinkling larger than 10µm,since 34 percent of the particles reduced dust emissions by at least half. trapped on the PM-10 sampler filters were larger Elam et al. (1971)reported that feedlot manure • than 10µm and 66 percent were smaller than 10µm. moisture content of 20 to 30 percent was needed Mass mediar diameters (MIvID)of dust particles for dust control. Particulate concentrations • • (2A-hour averages)increased from 3,150 to 23,.300 Frequent manure collection by flushing.cable µg per m3 when daily water sprinkling was termi- scraping or pit drainage recharge helps absorb odorous gases and elimate anaerobic storage condi- natedfor 7 days. condi- tions in confinement buildings(Korsmeyer et al., Sweeten et al.(1988)found that feedlot dust con- 1981;Meyer and Converse,1981;Raabe et a1.,1984). centrations decreased with.increasing moisture Biochemicals for odor control indude masking content in or the 1intensity inch offeedlot surface,threshold) agents,counteractants,digestive deodorants, though odor s equations indicated toatthe in- chemical deodorants,adsorbents and feed addi- - manor creased.Regression equations that fives(Ritter,1980).Digestive deodorants are the manure is) intthe needs tu fa a manure6 to 1 percent most widely used.They must be added frequently(wet41 percent ce ire the loose depth ep in der cod ro to to allow selected bacteria to become predominant. 4e dlo dust a allowable o Tin order ofo control Potassium permanganate(100-500 ppm),hydrogen feedlot to TSP limits 150 and• peroxide(100-12.5 ppm)and chlorine are oxidizing 260 µg per m3. chemicals capable of controlling hydrogen sulfide emissions. Controlling odor emissions. et al.(1981)significantly reduced odors Odor control methods for livestock facilities in- from anaerobic swine manure slurry with four dude: (1)manure treatment-aeration,anaerobic treatments -aeration, c chlorLindination ne and (two io- digestion or biochemical treatment;(2)capture and chemical treatment o. odorous gases using covered storage duced odors from liquid swine manure with pits or lagoons,soil incorporation,soil absorption ammonia persulfate,and.Miner and Stroh(1976) beds or filter fields,or packed beds;and(3)odor determined that zeolites(clinoptilolite and dispersion,accomplished by selecting a site that is erionite)were somewhat effective in reducing far enough away from neighbors and that takes ad- odors from a dirt-surfaced cattle feedlot. vantage of topography,wind direction frequency Odor capture and treatment.Installing a cover or and atmospheric stability data(Sweeten,1988). an outside manure storage pit,tank or lagoon is a Manure Treatment Controlled anaerobic diges- effective means of odor control because it reduces N. lion of liquid swine manure at 90 degrees F re- the ventilation rate and hence; the rate of odor em duced the odor emission rate by 90 percent as sion.However,rigid coven are expensive,and fit able membrane covers overlarge surfaces are • Anaerobic d d digestion pit-stored slurry ce the time for19 odor subject to photodegradation and wind damage. digestion also reduced the dissipatior.from 72 hours to 24 hours. Wet scrubbers that involve spraying exhaust air Anaerobic lagoons must have adequate capacity with idatiol and food processing chemicals t are widely use (i.e.,low loading rate)to produce relatively little for odor.Design criteria have been developed based some researchers have adapted them to livestock on the volatile solids loading rate,which is propor- confinement buildings.Van Geelen and Van Der tional to the volume per pound of liveweight Hoek(1977)obtained an 88 percent reduction in (Barth,1985;Hurnenik and Overcash,1976; odor r a swn house, concentration ath hwet scrubbing poure dust of Sweeten et al.,1979;ASAE,1990). formed a sludge which made it difficult to recur Mechanical aeration of liquid manure in oxidation late the scrubbing water.Schirz(1977)cited prof method hs or lagoons is al.,1975;Jones odor al.,1971). lems with the dogging of spray nozzles when a only the top fthird swinet wi lagoon scrubbing with recycled water,and biological tr Aerating proved v or half u ed ment was required.Licht and Miner(1978)built contents successful and reduced power re- horizontal cross-flow,packed-bed wet scrubber quirements as compared with complete mixing a swine confinement building and achieved 50 ( a et al.,1975).Converse et al.(1971)used 90 percent removal of particulates larger than 1 limited aeration of liquid swine manure without a and 5 microns,respectively,and ammonia reds measurable dissolved oxygen residual and re- lion of 8 to 38 percent;and an 82 percent reduc duced odor as compared to non-aerated storage. of odor intensity. Phillips e t al. (1979)rapidly reduced hydrogen sul- A odor intens dry scrubber filled with a zeolite fide and methanol emissions from swine manure (drooped-bed)reduced ammonia emissions fro by aerati on,but less volatile and less offensive corn- poultry house by 45 percent initially,but efficio pounds such as phenols persisted.Aeration justoeblil prior to land spreading could reduce odors from dropped to only 15percent in 18 days(K - field application. The soil is an excellent odor scrubbing medium be- research base is not yet well enough developed to cause it chemically absorbs,oxidizes and aerobi- support heavy reliance on dispersion models for cally biodegrades organic gases(Bohn,1972). livestock odors. Lindvall et al. (1974)determined that soil injection reduced odor emissions(measured as dilutions to threshold)from liquid swine manure by 90 to 99 References • • , percent as compared to surface spreading.Odor from a soil-injected manure site was about the - same as from a nonmanured soil surface.Disk har- rowing or plowing of surface spread manure re- ASAE.1976.Manure Production and Characteristics. re- duced odor by 67 to 95 percent ASAE Data 13384,American Society of Agricultural Soil filters W h perforated pipe in a shallow soil Engineers,St.Joseph MI,1 p. bed have proved effective for scrubbing odors ASAE.1988.Manure Production and Characteristics. from exhaus:air.Kowalewsky(1981)removed 52 ASAE Data 13384.1,American Society of Agricul- to 78 percent of the ammonia and 46 percent of the tural Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,4 p. organic constituents from ventilation air from a Alego,J.W.,C.J.Elam,A.Martinez and T.Westing:1972 swine confinement building using a soil filter sys- Feedlot Air,Water and Soil Analysis:Bulletin D, tern.Prokop and Bohn(1985)reported 99.9 percent How to Control Feedlot Pollution.California Cattle odor reduction when a soil filter was used to treat Feeders Association,Bakersville,CA,June.75 p. high intensity odors in exhaust from rendering ��Society of Agricult rral Engineers.1987.plant cookers.Soil filters require a moderately fine- Con- trol of Manure Odors.ASAE EP-379,Agricultural textured soil,sufficient moisture and a pH of 7 to Engineers Yearbook of Standards,American Societ 8.5.The land,area required is 2,500 to 4,600 square of Agricultural Engineers,St Joseph,MI,pp.405-0e feet per 1,000 cfm,depending upon the air flow Andre,PD.1985.5 Sprinklers solved this feedlot dust rate (Prokop and Bohn,1985).Sweeten et al.(1988) problem.Beef(Feb):70-72,74,79-81. ( measured a 95 to 99 percent reduction in ammonia emissions and a 30 to 82 percent reduction in odor Aschbacher,P.W.1972.Air Pollution Research Needs intensity(matching butanol concentrations)using with AnnualAnimals.Paper No.ir 72-153,llution Presented d at 65th - - a 114-acre sand filter field to scrub air from a poul- Me g try manure composting operation. lion,Pittsburgh,PA Odor dispersion.The farther odorous gases travel Bart Mc CL 1985.A Rational Design Standard for Livestock Waste Lagos per` In:Agricultural downwind from their source the more they are di- Waste:Utilization and Management,Proceedings c luted,deper ding on atmospheric turbulence and the 5th International Symposium on Agricultural odorant reactions.An odor panel observed a 90 Wastes,American Society of Agricultural Engineer percent reduction in odor intensity,as determined St.Joseph,MI,pp.638-647. by a matching butanol olfactometer(Sorel et al., Barth,CL,12.Elliot and S.W.Melvin.1984.Using 1983),over a.distance of half a mile downwind Odor Control Technology to Support Animal Agri- from a cattle feedlot in Texas (Sweeten et aL,1983). culture.Trans.ASAE,27:859-864. Atmospheric dispersion models are sometimes Bohn.FL 1971 Soil Absorption of Air Pollutants.J.Env' used to predict the travel of odor emissions(Lanni, ton.Quality,1:372-377. 1982)and th.e impact on communities.However, Carroll,J,J„Dunbar,J.R.,Givens,FL,et a1.1984.Sprin the use of dispersion models is limited to short dis- Wing for dust suppression in a cattle feedlot.CAW( tances and to nonreactive odorous gases (National nia Agriculture(March):12-13. Research Ccrunci1,1979).One or more versions of Converse,J.C.,D.L.Day,J.T.Pfeffer and B.A.Jones.197 the Gaussian diffusion model are used in most Aeration with ORP Control to Suppress Odors Em regulatory applications.The prediction models re- ted from Liquid Swine Manure System.In:Live- quire that atmospheric stability,wind speed and stork Waste Management and Pollution Abatemer odor emission rates are known. Proceedings of International Symposium on Live- stock Wastes,American Society of Agricultural En Based in past on dispersion model results,required nets,St.Joseph,MI,pp.267-271. minimum separation distances for livestock feed- Dam,C ,Ale go, W.,Westing,T.,C.al.1971.MeasurE feed- ing operations (based on number of head)have J g ,J went and control of feedlot particulate matter.Bul been developed for swine facilities in the Nether- tin C.How to Control Feedlot Pollution.California lands(IQarenbeek.1985)and for cattle feedlots in Cattle Feeders Association,Bakersville,CA,Janus Australia ((1DPI,1989).These relationships are and K. Mayrose. Pork Industry being used to determine the size of operation that Poste,J. 5 Hand- should be allowed in a particular location.The kook.Cooperative Extension Service,Purdue Uni- versity,West Lafayette,IN _ Hello