The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About991572.tiff NOTICE The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, on July 28, '1999, conditionally approved a Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Special Review Permit#587 for the property and purpose described below. Conditional approval of this plan creates a vested property right pursuant to Article 68 of Title 24, C.R.S., for a period of three years. DOCKET#: 99-52 APPLICANT: Lester and Sherrill Hardesty, Hard-Le Holsteins do Philip Brink, Enviro Stock 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW1/4 of Section 10, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado TYPE AND INTENSITY OF APPROVED USE: An Agricultural Services Establishment for a Livestock Confinement Operation (dairy for 1,850 head of cattle) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District SIZE OF PARCEL: 136 acres, more or less Failure to abide by the terms and conditions of approval will result in a forfeiture of the vested property right. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO DATED: August 4, 1999 PUBLISHED: August 7, 1999, in the Fort Lupton Press Affidavit of Publication STATE OF COLORADO County of Weld SS. I A. Winkler Riesel of said County of Adams being duly sworn,say that I am publisher of FORT LUPTON PRESS that the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation was printed and published in the town of FORT LUPTON NOTICE in said county and state that the notice of advertisement,of The board of County which the annexed is a true copy has been published in Commissioners of Weld said weekly newspaper for Counly,Calorado,anJUN2B. 1999.caMltiondly al W roved ONE consecutive weeks: that the notice was a Ste Specific Development published in the regular and entire issue of every number Plan arcl Amended Special of said newspaper during the period and time of RaviOA Permit YLBZ for the publication of said notice and in the newspaper proper and property and purpose not in a supplement thereof: that the first publication of described below, said notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper CondlRWnal approval of thk bearing the date of pion creates a vested to AUGUST 7, A.D. 1999 and the last property right pursuant or Arp 40d of three years...br publication thereof,in the issue of said newspaper,bearing a period of three yeah. date, DOCKET Y: W-LZ the 7th day of AUGUST 1999 that the APPLICANT: aid Wan and Sherrill HardekY• Hatl-Le Holsteins FORT LUPTON PRESS c/o Philp Brink,Ee SuR 0 11990 Giant Street,doL2lte YM has been published least f and cutieuninterruptedlyw Denver,Caoratlo 80233 during the periodeof at least fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior tose the first issue thereof to:containing saidnotice of action E0, To sh©NWI 6 4 or advertisement at above referred to: and thattssaid of North, Ran ID, Wee e newspaperidnotice was at the time foe that of the publications of North,Range 66el peak u the mid notice duly qualified for tna[ cuCone within the 6th a P.M., weld County, Notic of aner set entitled. "An Act s the Fees of Colorado Notices, Advertisements and P to Re and the t of Printersoc Publishersfl tthereof,with and to vis of Acts and TYPE AND INTENSITYOF Parts Acts in 1921, withthe Provisionsnt thereof, thisAct" APPROVEDUSE:SAn approved April 7, nd d and all amendments [March and Agriculturaltab ,rnen Livestock particularly as t approved by an act 19proved, March 30, Confinement 19 , a d an act approved May 13, 1931. Oonhnement Operation • he A I,ASUhultual Zae) In In the A((Agricultural)) Zane District `•-�'Y Sin OF PARCEL: 136 ecru. Publisher more or leg Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of Felt.. to abide by the terms and conditions Of AUGUST A.D. 1999 approval will result la o 1 / forfeiture of the reeked / properly right. BOARD OF COUNTY — w COMMISSIONERS Notary •C WELD COUNTY.COLORADO • P.O.BOX 12 DATED: August Y.1999 PubslAutl krt the FortLupton Press August 7.1999. FT. LUPTON. CO 80621 = ar pia�Sp 1, JAMIE YBARRA ? i l•cA`: "II Ca\-r' My Commission Expires opcemhar/-1, ^Ot NOTICE Pursuant to the zoning laws of the State of Colorado and Weld County Ordinances and Resolutions, a public hearing will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, at the time specified. If a court reporter is desired, please advise the Clerk to the Board, in writing, at least five days prior of the hearing. The cost of engaging a court reporter shall be borne by the requesting party. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if special accommodations are required in order for you to participate in this hearing, please contact the Clerk to the Board's Office at (970) 356-4000, Extension 4226, prior to the day of the hearing. The complete case file may be examined in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado. E-Mail messages sent to an individual Commissioner may not be included in the case file. To ensure inclusion of your E-Mail correspondence into the case file, please send a copy to charding@co.weld.co.us. DOCKET #: 99-52 DATE: July 28, 1999 TIME: 10:00 a.m. APPLICANT: Lester and Sherrill Hardesty, Hard-Le Holsteins % Philip Brink, Enviro Stock, Inc. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 REQUEST: A Site Specific Development Plan and Amended Special Review Permit #587 for an Agricultural Services Establishment for a Livestock Confinement Operation (dairy for 1,850-head of cattle) in the A (Agricultural) Zone District LEGAL DESCRIPTION: NW1/4 of Section 10, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 72, and east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 31 (See Legal Description for precise location.) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO DATED: July 14, 1999 PUBLISHED: July 17, 1999, in the Fort Lupton Press g EXHIBIT 991572 A7 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF COLORADO County of Weld SS. NOTICE I A. Winkler Riesel of said County of Adams being duly sworn,say that 1 am publisher of PtrnuonttalMxonMWlOWs of The State of Colorado and Weld County Ordinances and FORT LUPTON PRESS Resolutions,a public nearing that the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation will be held in the Chambers was printed and published in the town of of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld FORT LUPTON County Centennial Center, in said county and state that the notice of advertisement,of 915 10th Sheet, Flat Float, which the annexed is a true copy has been published in Greeley, Colorado, at the said weekly newspaper for time specified. itacourt reporter idessed, ONE consecutive weeks: that the notice was pMtaeaWNelhe CNrktothe Board,M witting,at least Bye published in the regular and entire issue of every number days pile alinehMBq.The of said newspaper during the period and lime of cost el engaging a court publication of said notice and in the newspaper proper and repadsssaut9ebornebyme not in a supplement thereof: that the first publication of requesting patty. In said notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper accordance with the bearing the date of As sedan with Disabilities JULY 17. A.D. 1999 and the last publication Act, I special thereof,in the issue of said newspaper,bearing date, aCCOmtrnotlatlonk ore tgeod in order to you Yo patldpate In this Mating, the 17th day of JULY 1999,that the aid per contact Inc Clerk to the Beard's office at (970) 350.400 ,Extension 4220.pier FORT LUPTON PRESS to the day of the heating. has been published continuously and uninterruptedly TM carpet*can Me during the period of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks may be examiledClh In the next prior to the first issue thereof containing said notice cedl a fleeoard or advertisement above referred to: and that said of County ConvnWbmeu, newspaper was at the time of each of the publications of Old County Centennial said notice duly qualified for that purpose within the Cents.91510111 Sheet.TWO meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal Fear.Greeley,Cdorads. F Notices, Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of Mall messages sent to an Printers and Publishers thereof,and to Repeal all Acts and Individual Commissioner/may Parts of Acts in Conflict with the Provisions of this Act" not be included In the cos approved April 7, 1921, and all amendments thereof, and tY.Toensute inclusion dyour particularly as amended by an act approved, March 30, E-MOB correspondence Into 192 n an act approved May 13. 1931. tee case file,pease sera a • coPY to chordng@co.weld.co.as. �p DOCKET*:99-52 ft....—V. DATE: July 28,1999 ublisher TIME: 10:00 a.m. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th die APPM: Y of Lesteerr a ANT Shenp HartlMty. Y A D 1999 Hard-Le Holsteins Philip Brink,Envlro Stock,Inc. 11990 Grant Street.Sate 402 Denver,Colorado 80233 REQUEST: A Site Specific and Development Plan and i Notary 1'c Amended Special Review X 12 Permit 45e7foranAgdcuNurd Services Establishment for a Livestock Confinement Operation (dairy for 1,650- head of cattle) in the A FT. LUPTON. CO 80621 (Agrcultutal)Zone Dbelct LEGAL DESCRIPTION: .4�En,��Y�„\ a NWI/4ofSeclIn 10,Township �'O`er-Y Uk�ik,, 6th Colorado.M..Range dWeddme SSA ll LOCATION: South of and i f le adjacent to Weld County of r JAMIE Road 72, and east of and t YBARRA : i flood aid Weld CountyLegal CP`• J Q 1 Description for precise tt ; OF C, • -- WELDCOg-NYIn ADO DATED: July 14.1999 Pubghed Inthe Fort Lupton My Commission Expires Pre Jury 17 199 9 ' Decernher 77 2001 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Hearing, Docket #99-52, was placed in the United States mail, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following property owners. DATED this 14th day of July, 1999. LESTER AND SHERRILL HARDESTY, MICHAEL AND BRENDA NELSON HARD-LE HOLSTEINS 14991 WELD COUNTY ROAD 72 15274 WELD COUNTY ROAD 72 GREELEY CO 80631 GREELEY CO 80631 LAURA GILL ENVIRO STOCK INC % MARJIE LEE ATTN PHILIP BRINK 6925 SOUTH PENNSYLVANIA 11990 GRANT STREET SUITE 402 STREET DENVER CO 80233 LITTLETON CO 80122 DON ANDERSON INC EDWARD AND MARBLE SCHNORR 16124 WELD COUNTY ROAD 74 FAMILY TRUST EATON CO 80615 15695 WELD COUNTY ROAD 72 GREELEY CO 80631 SILVIANO AND ELIDA MUNOZ 34211 WELD COUNTY ROAD 33 LYCO ENERGY CORPORATION GREELEY CO 80631 16688 NORTH CENTRA EXPRESSWAY SUITE 1600 RICHARD AND KAYE MONTERA DALLAS TX 75206 34283 WELD COUNTY ROAD 33 GREELEY CO 80631 PATINA OIL AND GAS % LOGAN AND FIRMINE INC BERNARD AND JOYCE ANDERSON 333 WEST HAMDEN AVENUE SUITE 3316 CANADIAN PARKWAY 740 FORT COLLINS CO 80524 ENGLEWOOD CO 80110 PATRICK AND CLAIRE MCNEAR PRIMA OIL AND GAS COMPANY 34499 WELD COUNTY ROAD 31 1801 BROADWAY SUITE 500 GREELEY CO 80631 DENVER CO 80202 GENE AND DONNA OBLANDER TAMCO INC 34645 WELD COUNTY ROAD 31 1632 36TH AVENUE COURT GREELEY CO 80631 GREELEY CO 80634 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING - LESTER AND SHERRILL HARDESTY, HARD-LE HOLSTEINS (AmUSR #587) PAGE 2 MASTERS LEASE CORPORATION 1055 WEST LAKE DRIVE BERWYN PA 19312 MARILYN SHOUSE 177 SOUTH 35C EAST OREM UT 84057 C% / Deputy Clerk to the Board NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Weld County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 15, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. for the purpose of considering a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal husbandry, or horticultural services on a fee or contract basis, including: Livestock Confinement Operations(a dairy for 1850 head of cattle) for the property described below. Approval of the request may create a vested property right pursuant to Colorado Law. CASE NUMBER: AmUSR-587 APPLICANT: Hard-Le Holsteins, do Lester Hadesty PLANNER: Julie Chester LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The NW4 of Section 10, T6N, R66W of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado. TYPE AND INTENSITY OF PROPOSED USE: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Permit for an Agricultural Service establishment primarily engaged in performing agricultural, animal . LOCATION: South of and adjacent to Weld County Road 72 and east of and adjacent to Weld County Road 31. SIZE: 136 acres, more or less The public hearing will be held in Room 210, Weld County Planning Department, 1555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado. Comments or objections related to the above request should be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services, 1:555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 80631, before the above date or presented at the public hearing on June 15, 1999. Copies of the application are available for public inspection in the Department of Planning Services, 1:555 N. 17th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado 130631. Please call Jennifer Mehring at (970) 353-6100, Ext. 3540, or Fax # (970) 304-6498, prior to the day of the hearing so that reasonable accommodations can be made if, in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, you require special accommodations in order to participate in WAXED this hearing as a result of a disability. r til !E.E Marie Koolstra, Chair _ N-1 EXHIBIT Weld County Planning Commission IS1281619—To be published in the Fort Lupton Press. To be published one (1) time by June 2, 6 1999. Affidavit of Publication STATE OF COLORADO County of Weld ss. Weld 1 A. Winkler Riesel of said County of Adams being duly County Planning Dept. sworn,say that I am publisher of NOROE OP Pale NEARING The Weld County Planning FORT LUPTON PRESS CorrneNonweholdapublic JUN 08 1999 that the same is a weekly newspaper of general circulation hearing on Tuesday,June 15, was printed and published in the town of 1999, at 1:30 p.m. for the purposed considering a Site Specus Development Plan RECEIVED FORT LUPTON and Use by Special Review in said county and state that the notice of advertisement,of Halt for an Agricultural which the annexed is a true copy has been published in ServIce establishment said weekly newspaper for primarily engaged In perprrnng agricultural, anenel husbandry, or ONE consecutive weeks: that the notice was holetlMalservieesanafee published in the regular and entire issue of every number of esoeeet bash,including: of said newspaper during the period and time of LIwdeci Confinement publication of said notice and in the newspaper proper and Opapllans(a dairy for 1850 not in a supplement thereof: that the first publication of head of cattle) for the said notice was contained in the issue of said newspaper property described below. bearing the date of Approval of the request may JUNE 2. A.D. 1999 and the last publication crealeevestedproperlytght thereof,in the issue of said newspaper,bearing date, pursuant to Colorado law. CASE NUMBER:AmUSR.587 APPLICANT:Hard-Le Honeins, the 2nd day of JUNE 1999,that the aid c/o Lester Hadesly PLANNER: Julie Chester LEGAL DESCRIPTION:The N W 4 FORT LUPTON PRESS of Sclen 10,T6N.R66W of has been published continuously and uninterruptedly the Mt.P.M., Weld County, during the period of at least fifty-two consecutive weeks Coloratlo. next prior to the first issue thereof containing said notice TYPE AND INTENSITY OF or advertisement above referred to: and that said PROPOSED USE:Site Speclle newspaper was at the time of each of the publications of Development Plan and use said notice duly qualified for that purpose within the by Specs Review Perm}ta meaning of an act entitled. "An Act Concerning Legal an Agricultural Service Notices, Advertisements and Publications and the Fees of establishment pfimo4y engaged Printers and Publishers thereof,and to Repeal all Acts and In performing Parts of Acts in Conflict with the Provisions of this Act" egletlNral,ankral. approved April 7, 1921, and all amendments thereof, and LOCATION: South or and particularly as amended by an act approved, March 30, Ro an Weld County 1923, and an act approved May 13, 1931. Road 72 ant e9 any ascentWeld to County • Road SI. SIW wetYleomore Of kiss or lets brit hell peak 1R In Room 710 Weld Y Publisher County Planning Department 1555 N. litn Avenue,Greeley,Colorado. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of Comments of objections JUNE A.D. 1999 tetotd to the above"quoit should be submitted n witting — to the Weld County Department of Planning / _ / Services, 1555 N. 17th Avenue,Greeley,Colorado Notary Put' C or presented at Me public or Jun•lb 1999. P.O.BOX 125 Copses of the application' are available for public Inspec tion in the Department of Planning Services,IS66 N. FT. LUPTON. CO 80621 17th Avenue, Greeley. Colorado 80631. Please car JennlerMehringa(970)363E 6100.Ext.3540,or For 0(970) 304-6498.prior to the day of _y aaaaa the hearing so that ,‘\ r e a s o n a b l e �pRY PpB accommodations can be Q,. ..... made it,In accordance with jIe;,. *&% theAmeticanswltlOYabaM4 Act, you require special ' di !, •tl aecontnodatOmin order to ✓ • JAMIE participate In Mn hewing as a disability. YBARRA Marrieit Roodatra,Chak St��: j Q Weld County Planning It •• : `� Commission t1�F OF CO\-Q Published in the Fort Lupton `\\\\ate�� Press June 2,199,7 My Commission Expires December 27,2C31 c. The facility would continue to operate 24 hours per day in the milking parlor and related facilities as it does presently. Equipment operations, trucks, farming activities and maintenance activities other than emergencies will occur primarily during daylight hours. d. Most structures are currently in place. Proposed structures would include the addition of two (2) modular employee accessory dwellings, four cattle housing units, one new corral area, a feed storage area, and one wastewater and stormwater retention structure, with improvements made to existing drainage. Please refer to the site plan maps for existing and proposed structures. e. A maximum of 1,800 dairy cattle and up to 50 4-H and hobby animals, for a total of 1,850 animals. Hard-Le Holsteins -Animal Unit Table Animal Type Totals Milking Cows 960 Dry Cows/Close-ups 150 Heifers/Steers` (500 lbs. Avg.) 600 Calves and others 140 TOTAL 1,850 f. Typical vehicles accessing this site include feed and hay delivery trucks and semi-tractors and trailers, employee and owner vehicles, animal product vendors, and ag-related equipment. Semi- tractor tanker trucks will pick up milk on a daily basis. Operating equipment includes typical farming equipment, tractors, loaders and attachments, trucks, milking and milk handling equipment. Semi-Tractor Milk Truck 1-2/day Semi-Tractor Commodity truck 5/wk Commodity Farm Trucks 2/wk Hay Trucks, Semi-Tractors daily during hay season Harvest trucks for haylage and silage season Haylage-3 days/ 3 times/year Silage- 10 days/year Rendering truck—when needed g. Fire protection for this site is provided by Eaton Fire Protection District. Eaton Fire Protection District 2241"Street Eaton, CO 80615 (970) 454-3925 h. Domestic and livestock water, and water for milking systems is supplied by North Weld County Water District. Irrigation water is provided through a combination of shares of Larimer and Weld Irrigation Company, Windsor Reservoir and Canal Company, and Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. i. This site uses individual private septic facilities for residential and office wastewater. Copies of the Individual Sewage Disposal System permits for the dairy are included in the Sewage and Water section. j. Storage and warehousing are not proposed as the primary use of this site. Feedstuffs, livestock bedding, manure, equipment parts and supplies typical of farming activities are stored on site. 6. Over the past several years numerous trees have been planted to provide both wind and weather protection for the livestock, as well as a visual buffer from nearby roads. Windbreaks and privacy fencing has also been installed around some of the livestock housing areas. No additional landscaping is currently planned except as outlined in the Nuisance Management Plan. 7. Reclamation procedures include compliance with applicable regulations such as the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations to manage solid manure and stormwater runoff until all relative material is adequately removed. Should the facility be permanently discontinued under the current ownership, it would be marketed under applicable county planning and zoning regulations to its greatest and best use. �-� 8. Storm water drainage will be handled by a storm water retention pond, which will be constructed, maintained and operated in accordance with the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Regulations. Water from this pond will be used to irrigate farmground. 9. The proposed expansion is expected to be implemented over a period of approximately five years, and will take place as economic and other factors dictate the need for expansion and greater efficiency. Construction is expected to begin in the latter half of 1999. The performance of the commodity milk market will be the primary determinant of the speed and scope of this expansion. 10. Manure storage will continue to be located on the east side of the facility where runoff can be controlled and nuisance conditions minimized. Use of manure stockpiles will be minimized to reduce fly and insect concerns due to sanitary conditions required at dairy facilities. Stormwater and water from the milking facilities is stored in earthen structures designed to meet the requirements of the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Control Operations Regulations. Water from the retention structure is land applied to farmground at agronomic rates. Debris and solid waste are collected and disposed of by a contracted trash pick-up service on a routine schedule. Hazardous or solid waste storage is not proposed for this site. A portion of the solid manure is composted, sold and moved to offsite locations. The remaining solid manure, stormwater and agricultural wastewater will be collected for application to farmground at agronomic rates. Refuse is collected regularly by: Name of trash hauler: Waste Management, Inc. Address: 500 E. Vine Drive, Fort Collins, CO., 80524 Phone: (970) 482-6319 AI II WILLIS e.WELD COUNTY TAX NOV E , I EL" WFLLLOO1NTY:TREASURER P.O.BOX 458 R1318786 .GREELEY CO 80632-0458 1997 Taxes Due In 1998 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY jTAX AUTHORITY ,TAX LEVY ,,. t P LP ` GENERAL TAX 96NW4 I0866;(4R2D6L) WELD COUNTY 22.038 1676.65 - SCHOOL DIST RE2 43.436 3304.61 NCW WATER 1.000 . 76.08 NWC WATER 0.000 0.00 EATON FIRE 3.000 228.24 AIMS JUNIOR COL 6.322 480.98 WELD LIBRARY 1.449 0.040 107.20 • WEST GREELEY SOIL 0.414 31.50 Se No.25...In absence of Stole LegN4tlre Funding.4. 107.301 your Scllool General Fund Levy would have been TAX DISTRICT ACTUAL PROPERTY VALUE IS VALUATION OF LAND VALUATION IMPS OR PERS TOTAL VALUATION TOTAL LEVY FULL TAX 0226 305022 18890 57190 76080 77.619 590516 PARCEL* 080510000009 REAL 1st Half Tax DUE MARCH 2 2952.63 2nd Half Tax DUE JUNE 15 ' 2952.63 ore it vt.o4 WATER FEES ON THIS ACCOUNT * " 1, — i*o ✓1f� `� `' k33 1 5905.26 THE TREASUPWRI OFFICE IS D BY LAW TO SEND THE TAX NOTICE TO THE OWNER OF YOUR TAXES ARE PAID BY A • MORTGAGE COMP*I Y KEEP T SS Ig710E FOR YOUR RECORD.IF YOU HARDESTY LESTER E 8c SHERRILL R NEW OWNERSOLD O DR HIS RETURN TO PLEB SEFFOE FORWARD THIS NOTICE THE 15274 WELD CO RD 72 OPERTY SOLD' GREELEY,CO 80631 Please see reverse side of this form for additional Information. TAX NOTICE RETAIN TOP PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS. • re, n DRAN , Manure & Process Wastewater Management Plan Hard-Le Holsteins 15274 Weld County Rd 72 Greeley, CO 806331 Developed in accordance with the Colorado "Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" & Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared by VIRO TOCK,t.. 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 April 14, 1999 r^ Table of Contents 1.INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 PURPOSE 3 1.2 LEGAL OWNER, CONTACTS AND AUTHORIZED PERSONS 4 1.3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION 5 2. SITE DESCRIPTION 6 2.1 FACILITIES 6 2.2 SITE GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY 6 3.MAPS 7 3.1 LOCATION MAP-FIGURE 1 7 3.2 SITE MAP-FIGURE 2 8 4.STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 9 4.1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE 9 4.2 FLOOD PLAINS 9 4.3 DRAINAGE SCHEMATIC 10 4.4 FL.00DPLAIN MAP 11 5.STORMWATER RETENTION FACILITIES 12 6.RETENTION FACILITY DEWATERING 14 7.SOLID MANURE MANAGEMENT 14 8.IRRIGATION AND NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT 14 9.INSPECTIONS AND REVIEWS 15 10.FORMS 16 11.NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT REFERENCES 17 r 2 EIN 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 Hard-Le Holsteins is: 1. To describe stormwater and management practices 2. To describe solid waste(manure) management practices 3 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) 4 rens 1.3 Legal Description The confined animal feeding facility described in this MMP is located at: Dairy and Facilities: The NW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th principal meridian, Weld County, Colorado. 5 �.-. 2. Site Description 2.1 Facilities Hard-Le Holsteins is owned by Lester and Sherrill Hardesty. The subject property is shown on Figures 1 and 2. The average annual working capacity of Hard-Le Holsteins is 640 animals. The dairy is bordered on the north by WCR 72 and on the west by WCR 31. Farmground and pasture surround the property on the three remaining sides. The existing dairy is an open lot and freestall configuration with concrete feedbunk areas and aprons,fenced corrals, alleys, office and feed storage areas, and loading areas. Proposed improvements include three cattle housing units, two additional corral areas, one wastewater retention structure, and a feed storage area. The capacity of the existing dairy and the new additions is 1,850 animals, with updated provisions for waste management and nuisance control. Corrals are graded for proper drainage. The additional wastewater retention structure will be located on the southwest side of the facility, and will be designed to meet regulatory standards for volume requirements and seepage limitations. The stormwater and wastewater are used for irrigating adjacent farmground in an agronomic manner as required by current State regulations. 2.2 Site Geology and Hydrology The following geologic and hydrologic discussion is based on EnviroStock, Inc. 's review of United States Geologic Survey Maps. 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 at 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 generally flows south toward the Cache la Poudre River Basin. The dairy is not located in the 100-year flood plain. Figure 4 shows the floodplain map of the area. 6 re" 3. Maps 3.1 Location Map - Figure 1 The Topographical Location Map shows the location of Hard-Le Holsteins, surrounding sites, topography and major drainages. r 7 — - '--"-4.5.54'--Thu-ir-a:”.--- :'' :i3;t:frAC. '' - -ur•c..._2_.••-;-.(--- \Lt..'`''+'- •-•:\-:*\\\.....':•7"' •\)--i^-:-1- \ :L-1r ....-'- '• II )1)) N..., 1 T.7 N. --\---..-`-- 1 e, \ 1 I 1 k r . 1/ b::) o 9 \ 4 . / • i "II : :'t.... — . LI) 4;II 4846 •'• I 4893 1 a n I 1 D • 1 n ' 1 n . 111. woo. . n 1\ ) a % 5 I o •1 5 n I 1 , \ • o 22.4 4 / 1 14.u___ ___ 3 \.. Nix RM 2• • *I 's. 4485 : I I , •, . , \ / • 1 I , , • . i .. .• ;I 1 a 7PihI, . , I • . -58* • 44: ( ........b\i Ili . . . . . , 1484000ILN I . iniana7 ) I \... .. • i Iree, % ' • \.. as i • -...) . 40301 \\\--•- \ 1 1 I II -- -a • • . \ - Iiiitil - 43 r., .r. •... .% • 73 .1,4 , rr>41\1*.,< . . • . ,, 4 ± 14 • I Oil•;2:30. ' , . • - . • To .1. .. r )...--.... A0 . 4764 . a • . , ,J.: - , WI L 47 • 4481 1••• . ei 1 \-‘,.:1 fa . is °pair 0 2 II §Reservoir . ,la • 0 peer... .. . . . C.) . . - • . . • 21. rtt„ • . 22 - .... ess 3.2 Site Maps -Figures 2 & 3 Figure 2 shows the configuration of the existing site layout. Figure 3 details the proposed site layout, including the corrals, structures, and stormwater and wastewater retention system to be added. 8 w� ALN i� 00V 0103 ' I103 0132 "11'd HID 3H1 40 LSiM 99 30N -9`Ytl ! Y•'••• _ Me vy S GO%MI Iwow9 'HLHON 9 dINSNM01 '01 NOLL03S!0 V/l LS2NHLMON 3N1 NI 03LVDO — a I:—I i 'b ill b�� YrrM A2IV0 ALS30NYH 531 a0! LL1L I NVId 3$1NIVLJO 311S En. AL ice-3 MEW a — -- bit . ^‘ I`i _._. _ _. _ t— J I p4I f N f / .7, r/7 . 1 I , Cr I IT ‘ f ff , 1 •�✓�/ /, i i , ,C / .< /i \Ci -7/ i iti, , itl‘_, I 7.- / g 1l • bra~ / e� zo •it ^ ® / _ .*�` <r, a — jn z < d 8 1 I pk _\1. ".A (7cod i � L , r `,. L� j _ Z itic l l,� \`� , I / , ` O x F s e W zN Lu i1 � \ /` / a0 i �/ hi � o 0 0 O J • M�' 1 I II i °F IPi Y; bia i51 I�..N,N evil hil .a aNww. I �KO9 �,� OOIHOl00'AINOOO O13M"II'd NW 3H1 10 1S3M 99 30411V I VP=� 1�� 'HA ON'NON 9 dIHSNNOI 'Ot NOUJ3S 10 PI t 153NH1dON 3Ni NI O31001 y i-_ ' E. IN��S SS* ANIPO Ai$30YVH$31 d04 �. IL I_I Meld 3OVNIY0IO MIS m 3 L-4i-3 7110L9 WI MI 10 rilok II I I Imn a. to 44_1— / — 7 0 eLP7 _— , ' D p I` y \ /N ` _ / l / N 1 N 1.4:T.,,,%4 tab. • , %\s401 4 i 1 Ft , e 44*/ . NIS cr 0 r 1.1`S • / - - (re --- —4 V * LU `\�, 11;40,1 / �� e \ O1 p 3 F ALL _ i_ ° � � �`� �� 1I V I 1- e I I r T \N N I hi) hi • I Y II Ili ! ill ±i' l �I 1 R 0. 101 ¢ tail _ „e w.I _ 1 0� 4. Stormwater Management The stormwater and wastewater management plan for the dairy includes provisions for a drainage system, conveyance facilities and stormwater retention ponds and incorporates methods for managing stormwater runoff and solid wastes. Due to the semi-arid conditions of northeastern Colorado, very little stormwater run-off management is necessary at this site. The primary water source into the stormwater retention ponds is from stormwater runoff from the facility surfaces. 4.1 Grading and Drainage The facility's grading and drainage is toward the wastewater retention ponds. A drainage schematic is show in figure 4.3. Process wastewater and some stormwater is directed toward wastewater retention structures located on the northeast side of the facility. The remaining stormwater runoff will be directed via surface grading to a wastewater retention pond on the southwest side of the facility. The corrals will be graded such that the ground surface slopes downward approximately one (1)to two (2) percent. Drainage ways will be designed to transport the estimated stormwater runoff volume from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. 4.2 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 daily is not located in a 100-year flood plain. Manure stockpiles will be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. 9 �.. 4.3 Drainage Schematic r 10 w=M a.��•• OGY 0103 'ALNNOO • O13% "VId N19 3HI JO 193N 99 3ONra -SA /01 se.yy•9�91�_ 900 'NLMON 9 dIHSNM01 '01 NOLLO3S JO Ph E3A LLdON 3HL NI mica, �_ a]__] Ian LL$30dVH 931 d0J 1G1_t ' d - a7il0 Win aA1 Meld 3VVNIVLIO 3115 - 3 J-;—] MN o III 110 IPS lI illL.J 7 , o ash i„.. lir!-"--C. 1 11 I — t1.— "%i% 4 41 I I I I I I II ik.4\...... I * g0 I 6 ; o - ® , 4 ffo IL— up CcI✓/4 R A O SI- j I 1 \ ere/./ W y U 3 i I ` 0 �� ----= F - Q O I ETZI l Q0P ---- o 1 \ ._ / s N I1 4 O N F 011 . a I / / �'li g Z � , / / / a . a 0 aIII all A I 1 1 4 t 1 1 r^ 1y Rhce Rd 6 all il Assn. Lops. q ^ 1 r, /'` 4.4 Floodplain Map 11 NOV. -03 98 ;ILE) . ii 57 e-k71.00L, .:‘,SL, 1/4,c,P. SUS fiN., P. u 11 i . :-.,-.:;:?:.,:.•':;-.: , . \ . 1 siltaXt: i ('—' t t;itretg... : -3-It4.:,,,, 28 27 26 lit4C.1.44.1:._ \ 1)1) g • iF -\ ' i 1 L_ ide GREAT WESTIN, --1—er-% , 1 1 i 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i '--1 , 1 1 111-1, 1 v -., GATES HURRICH i TUBER 'N\ 3.4 \ ("N \ _ ... 11I \41 . . 111\ I ..., \ • -- __\a\\\ \ 2 . ..........l... .. . . \ . (I) ..._\ (--\ 1 _ 19 16 nolo= . •• u., lo 15 1411 1------ 5. Stormwater Retention Facilities Design criteria for the stormwater retention pond to contain stormwater runoff from the facility is outlined below. Calculations for the necessary retention capacity were based on the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event in the vicinity of Eaton, Colorado, with a minimum of two feet of freeboard for t 35 acre dairy facility„ including the alleys and processing areas. The retention facilities are maintained to contain the following volumes: 1. Runoff volume from open lot surfaces, plus 2. Runoff volume from areas between open lot surfaces and the retention facility, plus 3. Process generated wastewater including (1)volume of wet manure that will enter the retention facility and(2)other water such as drinking water that enters the facility. The area of the cattle corrals, processing and feeding areas of the existing facility is approximately t 35 acres. The 25 year, 24 hour storm event for the Eaton area is 3.4 inches. Using SCS runoff soil cover complex curve number 90 for unpaved lots per the"Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulation" 4.8.0 (5 CCR 1002-19, section 4.8.3 (B)(3), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology, total runoff is calculated below: (3.4 inches- (0.2 x 1.11 SCS complex curve #90 S value))2 = 2.36 inches of runoff 3.4 inches + (0.8 x 1.11 SCS complex curve #90 S value) 2.36 inches x 35 acres x R/12;,, = 7 acre/ft. runoff capacity retention required for existing operations Capacity for the current stormwater and process water storage system is t 1 acre/feet on the northeast side of the facility. The wastewater retention structure to be constructed on the southwest side of the facility will have a capacity oft 8.5 acre-feet. Total storage capacity for the facility will be approximately 9.5 acre-feet. Upon completion of the new retention structure, wastewater from the milking parlor will be diverted to the southwest pond, and the northeast wastewater system will receive only stormwater runoff. An earthen berm will be constructed along the north side of the northeast drainage area to contain stormwater runoff in excess of± 1 acre/feet. The berm will parallel WCR 72 and will create additional capacity of approximately 11.5 acre-feet. Additionally, stormwater from the lagoon on the northeast side will be routinely pumped to the southwest structure to maintain the northeast lagoon in a dewatered state. The retention ponds will have adequate capacity to contain the estimated runoff from the exposed surface of the facility from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and wastewater generated at the facility, The proposed wastewater retention pond will be designed to meet requirements in Section 4.8.4 of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Control regulation of /32 inch per day maximum seepage limitation. Upon completion of the new wastewater retention pond, the 12 liner will be inspected and certified by a licensed professional engineer with results forwarded to the state regulatory authority. When the new retention structure is completed, the facility will have 1.3 times the necessary stormwater and process wastewater capacity. With the addition of the earthen berm along the northeast side, the facility will have approximately 3 times the necessary stormwater and process wastewater capacity. Stormwater runoff volumes and wastewater/ stormwater retention capacity calculations are included in the appendix. The wastewater retention ponds will be managed to maintain a two (2) foot free-board capacity. The ponds will be dewatered periodically to supplywater 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. 13 liner will be inspected and certified by a licensed professional engineer with results forwarded �., to the state regulatory authority. When the new retention structure is completed, the facility will have 1.3 times the necessary stormwater and process wastewater capacity. With the addition of the earthen berm along the northeast side, the facility will have approximately 3 times the necessary stormwater and process wastewater capacity. The wastewater retention ponds will be managed to maintain a two (2) foot free-board capacity. The ponds will be 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. r 13 n t. 6. Retention Facility Dewatering Lagoon water is applied for irrigation to approximately± 100 acres of adjacent farmground owned and or managed by Hard-Le Holsteins. A PTO-driven pump and an electric pump is used to transfer water and to dewater the retention ponds onto farmground. 7. Solid Manure Management 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. As typical with dairy management, solid manure in the corrals is mounded to allow proper stormwater drainage, eliminate low spots and ponding, providing dry, high ground for livestock comfort. 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. 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. Once a proper"hard pan" is developed and adequate corral mounds constructed, solid manure will be composted and sold, or applied to farmground at agronomically beneficial rates through arrangements and contracts with local farmers. 8. Irrigation and Nutrient Management Nitrogen is the element that most often limits plant growth. Nitrogen is naturally abundant. However, it is the nutrient most frequently limiting crop production because the plant available forms of nitrogen in the soil are constantly undergoing transformation. Crops remove more nitrogen than any other nutrient from the soil. The limitation is not related to the total amount of nitrogen available but the form the crop can use. Most nitrogen in plants is in the organic form and is incorporated into amino acids. By weight, nitrogen makes up from 1 to 4 percent of harvested plant material. Essentially all of the nitrogen absorbed from the soil by plant roots is in the inorganic form of either nitrate or ammonium. Generally young plants absorb more ammonium than nitrate; as the plant ages the reverse is true. Under favorable conditions for plant growth, soil micro- organisms generally convert ammonium to nitrate, so nitrates generally are more abundant when growing conditions are most favorable. Manure and lagoon effluent is most typically applied as fertilizer and soil amendments to produce crops or forage. Generally, manure and lagoon effluent are applied to crops that are most responsive to nitrogen inputs. 14 r � * The primary objective of applying agricultural by-products to land is to recycle part of the plant nutrients contained in the by-product material into harvestable plant forage or dry matter. Another major objective in returning wastes to the land is enhancing the receiving soil's organic matter content. As soils are cultivated, the organic matter in the soil declines. Throughout several years of continuous cultivation in which crop residue returns are low, organic matter content in most soil decreases dramatically. This greatly reduces the soils ability to hold essential plant nutrients. Land application of the Hard-Le Holsteins stormwater and wastewater recycles valuable nutrients and 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 taken using soil, manure and wastewater sample data, simple agronomic calculations and appropriate record keeping. Any land application of manure or stormwater onto land owned or managed by Hard-Le Holsteins may be supplemented by commercial fertilizers. This application system is consistent with"Tier Two" land application at agronomic rates as defined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control regulation. Methods and references for nutrient uptake calculations from Appendix D and Appendix E of the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control regulation are included on the following pages along with a standardized form for nutrient accounting. These records will be maintained on-site for three years. 9. Inspections and Reviews The authorised 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 MMP. P P � 1 I 15 10. Forms These forms will be used for record keeping and maintenance at the Hard-Le Holsteins facility: • Manure Removal Log • Manure Application Log • Wastewater Application Log • Retention Facility Inspection Report • Preventative Maintenance Log • Manure Management Record Sheet (Agronomic Evaluation) r^ 16 EnviroStock, Inc. Apr-99 SOLID MANURE REMOVAL LOG (Record manure removal data every day that manure is hauled.) (For manure taken off feedyard property) SITE NAME: Hard-Le Holsteins YEAR: 1999 Date Person Taking Manure Pounds per #of Loads Total Amount Taken Load (tons) • r n r1 EnviroStock, Inc. Apr-99 SOLID MANURE APPLICATION LOG (Record manure application data every day that manure is hauled.) FIELD NAME: Hard-Le Holsteins YEAR: Date Person Applying Manure Pounds #of Field Acres Crop Pounds per Load Loads Name in to be per Acre Field Grown Applied • • /^ PTh Emir°Stock, Inc. Apr-99 /^ WASTEWATER APPLICATION LOG (Record manure application data every day that manure is applied.) FIELD NAME YEAR: 1999 Date Person Applying Gallons Amount Acres Crop to Gallons per Manure being of time in Field be Acre pumped pumped Grown Applied re", tures EnviroStock, Inc. Apr-99 WASTEWATER POND INSPECTION FORM (Complete this form on approximately the same day each month.) Fill out each category using"Y"for Yes,"N"for N,or"NA"for Not Applicable. If you answer"NO"to a question,provide details in the comment section below the table. SITE NAME: Hard-Le Holsteins DAY/MONTH: YEAR: 1999 1 a a Embankment free of visible seepage. Embankment showing no signs of cracking. Vegetation growing on embankment Vegetation mowed where applicable. Erosion controls in place if required. Interior slope free of erosion. • Exterior slope free of erosion. Water level measurement device in place&working. Minimum freeboard of 2'present Manure pumping equipment is functional. Rain gauge in place and functional. Trees excluded within root zone distance. Holes or signs of rodent damage. Fence in place and well maintained. Other: Other. Other. Other Comments: (genaturel (orint name) (date) r, rs EnviroStock, Inc. Apr-99 Preventive Maintenance Log (Complete this form on a quarterly basis.) SITE NAME:: Hard-Le Holsteins DATE: YEAR: 1999 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 N/A COMMENTS Flow Line Drained before freezing temperatures. Breaks or cracks? Flow line operational. Other tr.` 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 Comments: r (signature) (print name) (date) EnviroStock, Inc. Apr-99 Agronomic Determination Sheet (Solid Manure) EXAMPLE FORM � e`f�' cc Crop to be Planted: Year: N Requirement 1. Expected yield (Past 5 year average + 5%): Ru/A 2. Total N needed to achieve expected yield: 150 x 1.2 = 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: 1 ppm x 2.7= lbs.N/A (PPMNO.,Nx 2.7=lbs./AF of water) 5. Soil organic matter credit (from soil test): 2.3% OM x 30= 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. Toi:al 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%ofammonium-N—65%oforganic-NJ ex: 21 lbs 1V/ton— (7 lbs NH4-Nx 5%)— (14 lbs org.-Nx 65%) =21 lbs N/ton—0.35 lbs 1VH4-N—9.1 organic-N=11.55 lbs PAN 9. Maximum manure application rate: ton/A ((Line 2—Line 7)/Line 8) 180—91.7/11.5 =2.46 tons per acre t^ east EmiroStock, Inc. Apr-99 Agronomic Determination Sheet (Liquid Manure) EXAMPLE FORM x S f ( £ , f: z. • a'l£a3s2 s — , • c z . y" ? � °3 to z m' 9�' ^,',.r r� Y 'd P s f s 7 3£' � t t{ fix E Crop to be Planted: Year: N Requirement 1. Expected yield (Past 5 year average +5%): 150 Bu/A 2. Total N needed to achieve expected yield: 150 x 1.2= 180 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 =61bs.N/ton N Credits 3. Residual soil nitrate (from soil test): 20 lbs.N/A 4. Nitrogen Credit from Irrigation water: 1 ppm x 2.7= 2.7 lbs. N/A (PPMNO3Nx 2.7=lbs./AF ofwater) 5. Soil organic matter credit (from soil test): 2.3% OM x 30= 69 lbs. N/A (Credit 30 lbs.Nper%OM) 6. Nitrogen credit from previous legume crop: 0 lbs. N/A (Refer to Extension Service Bulletins in Appendix) 7. Total Nitrogen Credits (sum lines 3, 4, 5 and 6) 91.7 lbs. N/A Calculation 8. Plant Available Nitrogen(PAN) in manure: 11.5 lbs. N/I000 gal (Total N(from manure test)—5%of ammonium-N—65%of organic N) 9. Maximum manure application rate: 7.6 1000 gallA ((Line 2—Line 7)/Line 8) r � 11. Nutrient Management References 17 Table 3.Nitrogen removed in the harvested part of selected Colorado crops Crop Dry weight Typical %N in dry Ibfbu yield/A harvested material Grain crops Barley 48 80 bu 1.82 2 tons straw 0.75 Corn 56 150 bu 1.61 3.5 tons stover 1.11 Oats 32 60 bu 1.95 1.5 tons straw 0.63 Rye 56 30 bu 2.08 1.5 tons straw 0.50 Sorghum 56 60 bu 1.67 3 tons stover 1.08 Wheat 60 40 bu 2.08 1.5 tons straw 0.67 Oil crops . • Canola 50 35 bu 3.60 3 tons straw 4.48 /"'` Soybeans 60 35 bu 6.25 2 tons stover 2.25 Sunflower 25 I,l00lb 3.57 2 tons stover 1.50 Forage crops Alfalfa 4 tons 2.25 Big bluestern 3 tons 0.99 Birdsfoot trefoil 3 tons 2.49 Bromegrass 3 tons 1.87 Alfalfa-grass 4 tons • 1.52 Little bluestem 3 tons 1.10 • Orchardgrass 4 tons 1.47 • Red clover 3 tons 2.00 Reed canarygrass 4 tons 1.35 Ryegrass 4 tons 1.67 Switchgrass 3 tons 1.15 Tall fescue 4 tons 1.97 Timothy 3 tons 1.20 Wheatgrass 1 ton 1.42 Continued on next page r J r Table 3.Nitrogen removed in the harvested part of selected Colorado crops(continued) Crop - %dry matter Typical yield/A(tons) To N in dry harvested material Silage crops Alfalfa haylage 50 10 wet/5 dry 2.79 Com silage 35 20 wet/7 dry 1.10 Forage sorghum 30 20 wet/6 dry 1.44. Oat haylage 40 10 wet/4 dry 1.60 Sorghum-sudan 50 10 wet/5 dry 1.36 Sugar crops Sugar beets 20 0.20 Turf grass Bluegrass 2 2.91 Bentgrass 2 3.10 Vegetable crops : • Bell peppers 9 0.40 r • Beans,dry 1 . 3.13 Cabbage 20 0.33 Carrots 13 0.19 Celery 27 0.17 Cucumbers 10 0.20 Lettuce(heads) 14 0.23 Onions 18 0.30 Peas 2 3.68 Potatoes 14 0.33 Snap beans 3 0.88 Sweet corn 6 0.89 Sweet potatoes 7 0.30 • Adapted from USDAAgricultural Waste Management Field Handbook,1992. r-. . ., Calculation 1.Nitrogen uptake Calculation 2.Maximum loading rates of manure Example: 1501bu/A corn x 56 lb/bu=8,400 lb grain/A 1. Example manure analysis(beef feedlot manure,wet 8,400lb/A x 1.61 %N= 135 lb N/A in grain weight basis;data from sample analysis) (from Table 3) Dry matter 20.0% Total N 1.0% Assuming fertilizer N is 66%efficient: NH;N 3,000.0 mg/kg 135 lb N x 100/66=205 lb N required/A NO3-N 10.0 mg/kg Be sure to subtract N available from soil,irrigation water, P205 0.2% and organic matter before determining final N requirement. IC20 0.5% is Z. Available N in manure Total N = 1.09c If manure is applied at the maximum rate,additional NO3-N = 10 mg/kg/10,000=.001%N fertilizer N should not be applied.Maximum rate is based .001%N x 20(1b/ton)/%=.02 lb NON/ton upon a one-time application.If yearly application of manure NH4 N =3,000 mg/kg/10,000=0.3%N is made,credit should be given to the N mineralized from 0.3%N x 20(lb/ton)/%=6.0 lb N/ton manure manure applied during the two previous years. • Organic N =Total N-(NOs N+NHS I� Manures with high moisture and low N content = I Ago-(.001% N+N =N) require high tonnages to meet crop N requirements.This 0.70%N x 20(%/tong 0.70% may result in application of excessive salts and P.Therefore, = 14(l /t N/ton �, for land receiving frequent manure applications,it is 14.0 lb .0.3lb5 Organic n N/ton manure(from 2 . recommended that approximately half of the crop N N/ton x9.3lb NOr mi ec N/ton /yava(romle Tablein first i requirement should be met from manure and the other half N=4.9 lb Organic N+ • from commercial N fertilizer.This will minimize the Available .02 lb Ora N+6.0 lb NH4 N potential for salt problems or excessive P buildup. = 10.92 lb N/ton manure Evaluating Sufficiency of Land Base 3. Available Pin manure for Application P202 =0.2%x 20(lb/ton)/% =41b P205/ton manure Livestock producers should determine if they have 4. CropN requirement-Refer to Guide to Fertilizer adequate land for application of manure produced.If the land base is determined to be inadequate,arrangements must Recommendations in Colorado(Bulletin XCM 37),or a be made to apply manure to other crop lands.To calculate a . current soil test report. • conservative estimate of the minimum land base required,' Example:N required for 150 bu corn crop=205 lb N/A you need to know the total manure production of your (from Calculation 1)Subtract N credits from other sour, facility and have a manure sample analyzed for N,P,and K such as soil NO3,legume crop,irrigation water NO3. (Table 4).Then determine the best estimate of annual crop If 205 lb additional N required for expected yield, nutrient removal and divide by total pounds of N per ton of Maximum manure loading rate=(205 lb N/AY manure.This will give you an estimate of the acceptable (10.9 lb available N/ton manure)= 18.8 tons manure/A application rate in tons of manure per acre.Total manure 5. Phosphorous supplied by manure production divided by acceptable tons per acre will give the 18.8 tons manure/A x 4 lb P202/ton manure=75 lb P2C minimum land base for annual manure application rates (Calculation 3). Conversion factors: p x 23=P 0 ppm=mg/kg ppm+10,000=% K x 1.2=1�20 ��• %nutrient x 20=lb nutrient/ton j . . (as' Total N can be used to calculate a conservative surface runoff.Delayed incorporation may be acceptable on estimate of safe continuous manure application, as all N will level fields if sunlight decomposition of pathogens or NH3 eventually become available.However,the most precise volatilization is desired.If fresh manure is not incorporated method of calculating long-term application rates requires a within 72 hours after application,more than 30%of the calculation of decay rate over a period of three to four years. NH4 N may be lost to volatilization.The rate of volatiliza- Computer software is available to help make this calcula- tion increases in warm,dry,windy conditions. don.Phosphorus loading should also be considered in determining an acceptable long-term loading rate.In general,P loading is not a primary concern in Colorado Calculation 3.Land base for long-term manure disposal because of the large capacity for P fixation of most Colorado Example: Beef feedlot with 150 steers at 1,000 lb each soils.It is recommended that manure be applied on a Total manure produced = 11.5 tons/yr/1,000lb rotational basis to fields going into a high N use crop such animal(from Table 4) as irrigated corn or forage.In situations where a field is 11.5 ton x 150 animals = 1,725 tons/yr loaded with very high amounts of residual NO3,alfalfa is a good scavenger crop to remove deep NO3. - 150 bu corn/A • crop x 1.35 lb N/bu = 200 lb N/A Manure Application Total N in manure = 10 lb/ton . Surface applied manure should be incorporated as 200 lb N/A = 20 tons manure/A soon as possible to reduce odor and nutrient loss by volatil- 10 lb N/ton ir ization or runoff.The risk of surface loss is reduced by 1,725 tons/yr = 86 A minimum injection application under the soil surface,but still may 20.tons/A land base -muse problems on sloping or erosive fields.In general, manure application should be avoided an frozen or saturated fields,unless very level(less than 1%slope),to avoid • Table 4. Typical manure and nutrient production by livestock calculated on an"as excreted"basis per 1,000 pounds of animal Animal Raw manure/1,000 lb animal N P305 • ISO (lb/day) (tons/yr) (gaVyr) ----------(lb/day/1,000lb animal) -- Beef cow 60 11.5 2,880 0.34 0.27 • 0.31 Dairy cow 82 15.0 3,610 0.36 0.10 0.27 Broilers 80 14.5 3,500 1.10 0.78 0.55 Horse 50 9.0 2,160 0.28 0.12 0.23 • Lamb 40 7.0 1,680 0.45 0.16 0.36 (' Swine(grower) 63 11.5 2,800 0.42 0.37 0.26 .brkey 43 8.0 1,880 0.74 0.64 0.64 Source:USDA,Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook 1992.Actual amount and content may vary significantly with age,feed ration. breed,and handling. • n Approximate nutrient credits'from various manure sources(calculated on a wet weight basis) qe Available nutrients in lb/ton Manure Moisture First year Second year Third year N P205 N N Beef feedlot 48 10 8 3 2 with bedding 50 10 10 3 2 lagoon sludge nw1.000 gal 89 36 15 10 5 Dairy without bedding 82 6 2 1 1 with bedding 79 6 2 1 1 lagoon sludge awt,aoogai' 92 16 10 3 2 Swine without bedding 82 8 5 1 1 with bedding 82 6> 4" 1 1 lagoon sludge nwi.000gab 96 38 15 9 4 Sheep • without bedding 72 8 6 3 2 � g with bedding 72. 7 5 2 2 Horses ' with bedding 54 6 2 2 1 . Poultry without litter 55 28 26 2 1 with litter • 25 ' 43. 25 5 2 deep pit(compost) 24 52 ' 35 6 3 • Turkeys • ' • without litter 78 20 .11 2 1 • with litter 71 15 9 • 2 , 1 'Values given an:approximations only.Analysis of manure and soil is the only accurate way to determine nutrient loading rates due to the wide range variability in nutrient content caused by source,moisture,age,and handling. IN credit assumes all NHeN and NO3 N is available during the first crop season.Organic N becomes available slowly over a longer period of dint F. year N credit assumes manure is incorporated and littfe•volitiration occurs.P credit assumes 60%of the P is available In the first year.P credit thereat should be determined by soil testing. • • Values derived from Colorado State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin 552A.Utilization of Animal Manure as Fertilizer,1992. r . n p This plan was prepared in general accordance with the Agreement for Services between Hard- ., Le Holsteins and EnviroStock, Inc. (ES). This report was prepared based on and developed in accordance with generally accepted environmental consulting practices. It has been prepared for the exclusive use of Hard-Le Holsteins for specific application to the subject project. The opinions provided herein are made on the basis of ES's experience and qualifications and represent ES's best judgment as experienced and qualified professionals familiar with the agriculture industry. ES makes no warranty, expressed or implied. • 18 APPENDIX r f 19 n r 1.6 iv) al §cK „ q � E in N in �- / 20§ 1 a @ © I _ . 10 § �! § k \ § (§ Kta cif al q . $ ! !i. Ptomw , _ 9 e 011 ci 0.al % � - \ K§ /k , r a § , INI ei a) co x ! \ a . O , \0 2 ¢ ■ . § � v � n � - , $ 0 C') N / N. § t so40 > k kfk � 2 � 0 §� / m ei / in c . k 2 / � $ • r •- N 01 § 7Rƒ f § � , a O . � � k � § ei § ' " | r CD N \ Pa § � m � � ~ � / , = « _ � If # ® tz � - � l � � ® 0 ! a 0 6u0 a § / = i | \ 12 a I ) A ! ° § kt it § 22 § ) ii 0 40 I i i8c .3 cc1\ - - _ I a » ■ § I$ $ ff ■ ■ 1 Pin iafa - 2 « _ t • > % 7.1 $ � § . � z.t Ei!Ht k.k� LI I ; 7 $ . _ _ ■ � 2 ! ` f ■ 1 § § 7l 7k ! \ - k E aatee •) | a a ■ �§3 . ! » $ I � akii! k ) • � k � � � �kf % I ka § � Co7 S. CD e5 - $ \« U. ! _ • Hard-Le Holstd NE side-Stormwater Generation Calculatioi )verage Values) pond mi Process Wastewater,GPD= - Surface area of Pond,re= 9,066 Middle area of Pond,fF= 5,300 0.4 Precip.' Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Pan Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process H2O Net Change Amt Pumped Vol.In Lagoon Month (inches) Runoff' (Acres) (Acre-Ft) Inches)'" (Acres) (Acre-FL) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-FL) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft) Jan 0.76 3.0% 19 0.05 0 0.12 - - 0.05 0.45 /.."-N Feb 0.08 5.0% 19 0.01 0 0.12 - - 0.01 0.46 Mar 0.94 5.0'% 19 0.09 1.32 0.12 0.01 - 0.08 0.54 Apr 0.67 12.5'% 19 0.14 4.32 0.12 0.04 - 0.11 0.64 May 2.46 22.0'% 19 0.90 5.45 0.12 0.05 - 0.85 1.00 0.50 Jun 1.65 22.0'% 19 0.60 8.43 0.12 0.06 - 0.55 1.00 0.04 Jul 2.55 20.0'% 19 0.85 7.23 0.12 0.06 - 0.79 0.50 0.33 Aug 0.65 18.0% 19 0.20 6.34 0.12 0.05 - 0.14 - 048 Sep 1.75 16.0% 19 0.47 4.93 0.12 0.04 - 0.43 0.50 0.41 OM 0.45 16.0% ' 19 0.12 3.23 0.12 0.03 0.09 0.50 Nov 0.41 5.0% 19 0.04 2.23 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.52 Dec 0.00 3.0% 19 - 0 0.12 - - - 0.52 . • Jan 0.76 3.0% ' 19 0.05 0 0.12 - - 0.05 0.57 Feb 0.08 5.0% 19 0.01 0 0.12 - - 0.01 0.58. Mar 0.94 5.0% 19 0.09 • 1.32 0.12 0.01 - 0.08 0.66 Apr 0.67125% 19 0.14 4.32 0.12 0.04, - 0.11 0.76 May 2.46 22.0% 19 0.90 5.45 0.12 0.05 - 0.85 1.00 0.82 Jun 1.65.22.0% 19 0.60 6.43 0.12 0.06 - 0.55 1.00 0.17 Jul 2.55 20.0'% 19 0.85 7.23 0.12 0.06 - 0.79 0.50 0.45 • Aug 0.65 18.0% 19 0.20 6.34 0.12 0.05 - 0.14 0.60 Sep 1.7516.0% 19 0.47 493 0.12 0.04 - 0.43 1.00 0.03 Od 0.45 16.0% 19 0.12 3.23 0.12 0.03 - 0.09 ( 0.12 Nov 0.41 5.0% 19 0.04 2.23 0.12 0.02 - 0.02 0.14 Dec 0.00 3.0% 19 - 0 0.12 - - - 0.14 Jan 0.76 3.0% 19 0.05 0 0.12 - - 0.05 0.19 Feb 0.08 5.0% 19 0.01 0 0.12 - - 0.01 0.20 Mar 0.94 5.0% 19 . 0.09 .1.32 0.12 0.01 - 0.08 0.28 Apr 0.6712.5% 19 0.14 4.32 0.12 0.04 - 0.11 0.39 May 2.46 22.0% 19 0.90 5.45 0.12 0.05 - 0.85 1.00 0.24 Jun 1.65 22.0!% 19 0.60 6.43 0.12 0.06 - 0.55 0.50 0/9 Jul 2.55 20.0!% 19 0.85 7.23 0.12 0.06 - 0.79 1.00 0.08 Aug 0.85 18.0% 19 0.20 6.34 0.12 0.05 - 0.14 0.22 Sep 1.75 16.0% 19 0.47 4.93 0.12 0.04 - 0.43 0.50 0.15 Oct 0.45. 1604 19 0.12 3.23 0.12 0.03 - 0.09 0.24 Nov 0.41 5.01% 19 0.04 2.23 0.12 0.02 - 0.02 0.26 Dec 0.00 3.01% 19 - 0 0.12 - - - 0.26 Jan 0.76 3.01% 19 0.05 0 0.12 - - 0.05 0.31 Feb 0.08 54% 19 0.01 0 0.12 - - 0.01 0.32 Mar 0.94 5.014 19 0.09 1.32 0.12 0.01 - 0.08 040 Apr 0.67 12.514 19 0.14 4.32 0.12 0.04. - 0.11 0.51 May 2.46 22.014 19 0.90 5.45 0.12 0.05 - 0.85 1.00 0.36 Jun 1.65 22.014 19 0.60 6.43 0.12 0.06 - 0.55 0.50 0.41 Jul 2.65 20.014 19 0.85 7.23 0.12 0.06 - 0.79 1.00 0.20 Aug 0.65 18.0% 19 0.20 6.34 0.12 0.05 - 0.14 0.34 Sep 1.7516.0% 19 0.47 4.93 0.12 0.04 - 0.43 0.50 0.27 Od 0.45 16.0% 19 0.12 3.23 0.12 0.03 - 049 0.36 Nov 0.41 5.014 19 0.04 2.23 0.12 0.02 - 0.02 0.38 Dec 0.00 3.0% 19 - 0 0.12 - - - 0.38 Jan 0.76 3.01% 19 0.05 0 0.12 - - 0.05 0.43 Feb 0.06 5.016 19 0.01 0 0.12 - - 0.01 0.44 Mar 0.94 5.0% 19 0.09 1.32 0.12 0.01 - 0.08 0.52 Apr 0.67 12.5% 19 0.14 4.32 0.12 0.04 - 0.11 0.63 May 2.46 22.0% 19 0.90 5.45 0.12 0.05 - 0.85 1.00 0.48 �.,,� Jun 1.65 22.0% 19 0.60 6.43 0.12 0.06 - 0.55 1.00 0.03 Jul 2.55 20.0% 19 0.85 7.23 0.12 0.06 - 0.79 0.50 0.32 Aug 0.65 18.0% 19 0.20 8.34 0.12 0.05 - 0.14 0.46 Sep 1.75 16.0% 19 0.47 4.93 0.12 0.04 - 0.43 0.50 0.39 Oct 0.45 16.096 19 0.12 3.23 0.12 0.03 - 0.09 0.49 Nov 0.41 5.0% 19 0.04 2.23 0.12 0.02 - 0.02 0.51 Dec 0.00 3.0% 19 - 0 0.12 - - - 0.51 *Precipitation for Grrley,CO,NOAA,1996 "SCS,National Engineering Handbook "'Evaporation for Ft Collins.CO,NOAA Hard-Le Holsteins-f side-Stormwater Generation Calculation(Averadalues) pond-middle(A/F) Process Wastewater,GPO• 6A72 Surface area of Pond,fl14 69,775 Middle area of Pond,Itf• 57,319 4 Preclp.• Percent Runoff Area Total Runoff Pan Evap. Evap.Area Total Evap. Process H10 Net Change Ant Pumped Vol.In Lagoon Monet (Inches) Runoff^ (Acres) (Acre-Ft) (Inthmy" (Acres) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft) (Acre-Ft) Jan 0.76 3.0% 16 0.13 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.75 4.75 ( Feb 0.08 5.0% 16 0.02 0 1.32 - 0.56 0.57 5.32 Mar 0.94 5.0% 16 0.19 1.32, 1.32 0.12 0.62 0.68 6.00 Apr 0.67 12.5% 16 0.20 4.32 1.32 0.40 0.60 0.39 6.39 May 2.46 22.0% 16 ' 1.05 5.45 1.32 0.51 0.62 1.16 1.50 6.05 Jun 1.65 22.0% 16 0.70 6.43 1.32 0.60 0.60 0.70 2.00 4.75 Jul 2.55 20.0% 16 1.02 7.23 1.32 0.67 0.62 0.96 2.00 3.72 Aug 0.65 18.0% 18 0.24 6.34 1.32 0.59 0.62 0.27 1.50 2.48 Sep 1.75 16.0% 18 0.61 4.93 1.32 0.46 0.60 0.74 1.00 2.23 Oct 0.45 18.0% 16 0.16 3.23 1.32 0.30 0.62 0.47 2.70 Nov 0.41 5.0% 18 0.08 2.23 1,32 0.21 0.80 0.47 3.17 Dec 0.00 3.0% 16 - 0, 1.32 - 0.82 0.62 3.78 Jan 0.76 3.0% 16 0.13 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.75 4.53 Feb 0.08 5.0% 16 0.02 0 1.32 - 0.56 0.57 5.10 Mar 0.94 5.0% 16' 0.19 1.32 1.32 0.12 0.62. 0.68 5.78 Apr 0.67 12.5% 16 020 4.32 1.32 0.40 0.60 0.39 8.18 May 2.46 22.0% 16 1.05 5.45 1.32 0.51 0.62 1.16 1.50 5.84 Jun 1.65 22.0% 16 '0.70 6.43 1.32, 0.60 0.60 0.70 2.00 4.54 Jul 2.55 20.0% 16 1.02 723 1.32 0.67 0.62 0.96 2.00 3.50 Aug 0.65 18.0% 18 024 6.34 1.32 0.59 0.62 0.27 1.50 227 Sep 1.75 16.0% 18 0.61 4.93 1.32 0.46 0.60 0.74 1.00 2.01 Oct 0.45 18.0% 16 0.16 323 1.32 0.30 0.82 0.47 2.48 Nov 0.41 5.0% 16 0.08 223 1.32 0.21 0.60 0.47 2.95 Dec 0.00 3.0% 16 - 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.82 3.57 Jan 0.76 3.0% 18 0.13 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.75 4.31 Fab 0.08 5.0% 18 0.02 0, 1.32 - 0.56 0.57 4.89 Mar 0.94 5.0% 16 0.19 1.32 1.32 0.12 0.82 0.68 5.57 Apr 0.67 12.5% 16 0.20 4.32 1.32 0.40 0.80 0.39 5.98 May 2.48 22.0% 16 1.05 5.45 1.32 0.51 0.62 1.18 1.50 5.62 (01-11 Jun 125 22.0% 18 0.70 8.43 1.32 0.60 0.60 0.70 2.00 4.32 Jul 2.55 20.0% 18 1.02 - 7.23 1.32 0.67 0.82 0.96 2.00 3.28 Aug 0.85 18.0% 18 024 8.34 1.32 0.59 0.62 027 1.50 2.05 Sep 1.75 16.0% 16 0.61 4.93 1.32 0.46 0.60 0.74 1.00 1.79 Oct 0.45 18.0% 18 0.16 3.23 1.32 0.30 0.62 0.47 226 Nov 0.41 5.0% 18 0.08 2.23 1.32 0.21 0.60 0.47 2.73 Dec 0,00 3.0% 18 - 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.62 3.35 Jan 0.76 3.0% 18 0.13 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.75 4.10 Feb 0.08 5.0% 16 0.02 0 1.32 - 0.56 0.57 4.87 Mar 0.94 5.0% 18 0.19 1.32 1.32, 0.12 0.62 0.88 5.35 Apr 0.67 12.5% 18 0.20 4.32 1.32 0.40 0.80 0.39 5.75 May 2.46 22.0% 18 1.05 5.45 1.32 0.51 0.82 1.18 1.50 5.40 Jun 1.85 22.0% 16 0.70 8.43 1.32, 0.60 0.60 0.70 .2.00 4.10 Jul 2.55 20.0% 16 1.02 7.23 1.32 0.87 0.62 0.96 2.00 3.07 Aug 0.65 18.0% 16 0.24 8.34 1.32 0.59 . 0.62 027 1.50 1.83 Sap 1.75 18.0% 16 0.61 4.93 1.32 0.46 0.80 0.74 1.00 1.58 Oct 0.45 18.0% 18 0.16 3.23 1.32 0.30 0.82 0.47 2.05 Nov 0.41 5.0% 18 0.08 2.23 1.32 0.21 0.60 0.47 2.52 Dec 0.00 3.0% 16 - 0 1.32 - 0.82 0.62 3.13 Jan 0.76 3.0% 18 0.13 0, 1.32 - 0.82 0.75 3.88 Fab 0.08 5.0% 16 0.02 0 1.32 - 0.56 0.57 4.45 Mar 0.94 5.0% 16 0.19 1.32 1.32 0.12 0.62 0.68 5.13 Apr 0.67 12.5% 18 0.20 4.32 1.32_ 0.40 0.60 0.39 5.53 May 2.46 222% 16 1.05 5.45 1.32 0.51 0.62 1.16 1.50 5.19 Jun 1.65 22.0% 16 0.70 6.43 1.32 0.60 0.60 0.70 2.00 3.89 Jul 2.55 20.0% 16 1.02 7.23 1.32 0.67 0.62 0.96 2.00 2.85 Aug 0.65 18.0% 18 024 6.34 1.32 0.59 0.62 027 1.50 1.82 Sep 1.75 16.0% 16 0.61 4.93 1.32 0.46 0.80 0.74 1.00 1.36 (/"'. Oct 0.45 16.0% 18 0.16 3.23 1.32 0.30 0.62 0.47 1.83 Nov 0.41 5.0% 16 0.08 2.23 1.32 0.21 0.60 0.47 2.30 Dec 0.00 3.0% 16 - 0 1.32 - 0.62 0.62 2.92 'Precipitation for Greery,CO,NOM,1996 "SCS,National Engineering Handbook '"Empomdon for Ft Collins,CO,NOM n /- ' Hard-Le Holsteins Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 r Management Plan for Nuisance Control A Supplement to the Manure & Process Wastewater Manasement Plan ' for Hard-Le Holsteins 15274 Weld County Road 72 Greeley, Colorado 80631 fr'` Developed in accordance with Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices Prepared By §FIVIRO TOCK,t4. . 11990 Grant Street, Suite 402 Denver, Colorado 80233 February, 1999 r` Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry' r"••, Hard-Le Holsteins Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 Table of Contents Introduction_ 32 Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons 32 Legal Description 32 Dust 33 Odor 34 Pest Control_ 35 Insects and Rodents 35 References _ 36 l 'Serving Environmental Needs of the livestock Industry' etaN Hard-Le Holsteins Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 Introduction This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented to identify methods Hard-Le Holsteins 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 Hard-Le Holsteins. Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons The legal owners of Hard-Le Holsteins are Lester E. and Sherrill R. Hardesty Correspondence and Contacts should be made to: Mr. Les Hardesty 15274 WCR 72 reas( 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 '''4 of section 10, township 6 north, range 66 west of the 6`h principal meridian, Weld County, Colorado. Serving Environmental Needs of the livestock Industry' Hard-Le Holsteins ^ 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 Hard-Le Holsteins will use. The manager shall closely observe pen conditions and attempt to achieve a balance between proper dust and odor controL Additional reference information on odor and dust control as guidance to the dairy manager is attached in section "References". Dust Dust from pen surfaces is usually controlled by intensive management of the pen surface by routine cleaning and harrowing of the pen surface. The purpose of intensive surface management is twofold;to keep cattle clean and to reduce pest habitat. The best management systems for dust control involve moisture management. Management methods Hard-Le Holsteins shall use to control dust are: 1. Pen density Moisture will be managed by varying stocking rates and pen densities. The animals wet manure and urine keep the surface moist and control dust emissions. Stocking rates in new f portions of the facility will be managed to minimize dust. 2. Regular manure removal Hard-Le Holsteins will conduct regular manure removal Typically, manure removal and pen maintenance will be conducted several times per month. 3 Sprinkler systems Sprinkler systems, timed appropriately, are an effective method for keeping dairy surfaces moist. Dairy cattle produce significant moisture through urine and feces. Pens surfaces are extensively maintained for cattle health and milk quality purposes. Hard-Le Holsteins is not planning a sprinkler dust control system for this facility. 4 Water Trucks Should nuisance dust conditions arise,water tanker trucks or portable sprinkling systems will be used for moisture control on pens and roadways to niinimitr nuisance dust conditions. Serving Environmental Needs oldie livestock Industry' Hard-Le Holsteins Envirostock, Inc-Project 24042-1-99 Odor Odors result from the natural decomposition processes that start as soon as the manure is excreted and continue as long as any usable material remains as food for microorganisms living everywhere in soil, water and the manure. Odor strength depends on the kind of manure, and the conditions under which it decomposes. Although occasionally unpleasant,the odors are not dangerous to health in the quantities customarily noticed around animal feeding operations and fields where manure is spread for fertilizer. Hard-Le Holsteins will use the methods and management practices listed below for odor control: I. Establish good pen drainage Dry manure is less odorous than moist manure. The dairy will conduct routine pen cleaning and surface harrowing to reduce standing water and dry or remove wet manure. 2. Regular manure removal Reduce the overall quantity of odor producing sources. The dairy will conduct routine pen cleaning and harrowing several times per month. 3. Reduce standing water Standing water can increase microbial digestion and odor producing by-products. Proper pen maintenance and surface grading will be conducted by the dairy to reduce standing water. The stormwater ponds will be dewatered regularly in accordance with the Manure and Wastewater Management Plan for Hard-Le Holsteins. No chemical additives or treatments of the stormwater ponds for odor control are planned. Research to date indicates poor efficacy, if any,of these products. 4 Land application timing Typically air rises in the morning and sinks in the evening. Hard-Le Holsteins will consider weather conditions and prevailing wind direction to minimize odors from land application. Typically, land applications will be timed for early mornings. If Weld County Health Department determines nuisance dust and odor conditions persist, Hard- Le Holsteins will increase the frequency of the respective management practices previously outlined such as pen cleaning surface grading and pen maintenance. Additionally, if nuisance conditions continue to persist beyond increased maintenance interval controls, Hard-Le Holsteins will install physical or mechanical means such as living windbreaks and/or solid fences to further minimize nuisance conditions from dust and odors. r^ . 'Serving Environment&Needs of the Livestock Industry Hard-Le Holsteins 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 Hard-Le Holsteins will use to manage insects and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat and then,reduce the available food supply. Hard-Le Holstein;will control flies by: I. Regular manure removal Manure management removes both food sources and habitat 2. Reduce standing water Standing water is a primary breeding ground for insects 3 Minimize fly habitat Standing water,weeds and grass,manure stockpiles,etc.are all prime habitat for reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical. Weeds and grass management Keep weeds and grassy areas to a minimum. These provide both protection and breeding areas. /^, , 5. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure Stockpiles of:manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. 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 Hard-Le Holsteins is best achieved by minimising spillage of feedstuffi around the operation. Good housekeeping practices and regular feedbamk cleaning, site grading and maintenance are used to reduce feed sources. Rodent traps and chemical treatments are effective control methods and will be used as necessary. In the event Weld County Health Department determines nuisance conditions from pests such as flies and rodents persist, Hard-Le Holsteins will initially increase the frequency of the housekeeping and management practices outlined previously. Iffurther action is necessary, Hard-Le Holsteins will increase use of chemical controls and treatments, such as fly sprays, baits and Rodendicide for pest control. 'Serving Envkonmentai Needs of the Livestock Industry Hard-Le Holsteins Envirostock,Inc-Project 24042-1-99 r^ References These references are provided as a resource to Weld County Health Department and Hard-Le Holsteins for making nuisance control decisions for the facility. These references represent the latest and most modem management and scientific information to date for control of nuisance conditions for the livestock feeding industry. am% Serving Environmental Needs of the Livestock Industry' • P'� 1 4 Percent of°potation - Dust Control - • 1oo Dust can threaten not only the health of cattle eo rzs �� (Franzen, 1984)and people,but can also compromise a a • feedyard's ability to continue to operate.The major source of a dust in the feedyard comes from the pens;however,dust also 40 36 can come from roads,service areas,and feed processing. Generally,the peak time for dust occurs around sunset,when 20 s __ y and cattle become more active. _ ,- ... .... ....... the temperature starts to cool ° ` ` .a .r �- a`. o`,• The best way to control dust is through proper pen y.� �A` 5` 4- design and maintenance of surface moisture levels. Routine `'� �` so``� $yam cleaning of pen surfaces also helps to minimize dust 4, problems.A recent survey(Figure 1)suggests that most Figure 1:Dust control practices on beef feedyards use a mechanical scraper as the main tool in their dust control strategies. - feedlots of 1,000 or more bead Keep the loose manure layer less than one inch deep and pen moisture between'. ` 25 and 35 percent:Too much moisture'will increase odor and fly problems;too •;*'• little moisture will promote difficulties with dust. -. . ' • .. Pen size and shape dictate the type of water-distribution system to use.For • - example,large,deep pens probably require fence line sprinkling systems,while Fenceline.vs.Mobile Sprinklers shallow pens may favor mobile equipment.Selecting a sprinkling system assumes • The decision to install fen<:eline • 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,maintenance,depreciation,and shelter from the wind and may largely contain any'fugitive dust. labor. The permanent feneline sprinkling There are numerous surface,amendments and chemical agents being system Initially.iti However,e approach u),boo evaluated for dust control.Fly ash looks-:promising,and other compounds that have per pen e inna continuedhe labor expense Is minimal once the system . been considered include sawdust,apple umice,Ugno sulfate,and gypsum I is operational.Drain the System in the fall nprevent freezing,although dust can still Stocking Rate• ated through stocking rate•changes. be a problem in the winter. Surface moisture can be man , Mobile equipment.is expensive:A used However, linear-bunk space;water tro gh space,and pen square footage may be 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 alteredbyyIIncrepasii g the numberc of and operating expenses. For a medium- head per pen-or by reducing pen squat totaB do of above average to.large•sized feedyarr there may not be Temporary fencing also gives flexibility during pe r • enough time to haul water to raise the lyretipitatron -c . - x } pen moisture: Manipulating the stocking rate of•feedyard pens to control the emount of.. "feces and urine produced per pen is:ari ecoititdcat dust..e0f of Strategy Know the area and.weight per animal.For example, a 1,009-pound steer allocated to:125,' ' square.feet of pen space produces about 28 Inches of moisture per year or 0.08 Odor Control inches per day(fable 2). Offensive odors from feedlots are Table 2:Manure moisture production in cattle_feedlots(Sweeten,No.7045) intimately.related to manure Average Animal Spacing(sq tt/hd) management. If you are Siting a new - 75 100' - 125 150 115 feedlot, select an isolated location Animal size(avg Ibs/hd) Moisture(in/day) downwind from neighbors with an 05 .04 03.' 03 A2. adequate and well-drained land base. 400 05 06 05 04 .0s 11 x ua, 06 AS-„ 44; . Design the feedlot to accommodate ' 600 , .06 quent scraping,and keep manure y 13 - kt0 og .07 ♦� Y 120-0: • L 'Y 1)� Yi. 1 AH.5:: }ti e ••' stockpiles dry aril covered'When 120o v r ` " 1 1e manure is applied to land,the timing ekl;i delisity h a signlflcant influence on the animal arid' acrid placement of f1gLdor sire can 6e `` deterirtines the managed to reduce odor concerns.: environmental periortnanCe a feediiit Stock ng density Part gnsurface Cie add moisture though Feces:: • average moisture content oEt)><e pe; Applyably manure when a n. wind is calm and urine to the_peris each day h w uch moisture is desirable - - � Detemiinirig 9 m p corpora in the soon as and 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 couuttions. Cattle size and rations also Two of the most common methods of will influence moisture balance and the corresponding appropriate stocking rate. -pure removal are the wheeled front- :Typical pen stocking densities in Colorado are between 150 ft2 and 300 ft2 per loader and the box scraper. Both animal.Increase stocking density during warmer,dry periods,and reduce density effective. The box 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 more 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(3)maintaining the integrity of the A combination of cattle density, sprinkling, spraying, and precipitation 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 problems. loader, the operator must shift gears four Each has advantages and disadvantages. It is important to have a plah in place times while manipulating the bucket. and start prior to the time dust is a serious problem. Remember, water application ' This is most likely to result in an is minimized by removing loose manure and dust from pens in a timely manner. irregular pen surface at best or damage to the protective"hard pan.",A Manure Removal loaderomeinoion of wheeled frremoval and The removal of accumulated manure reduces odors,controls fly larvae,and scraper too major manure ag a would for annal cleaning effective and ading minimizes feedlot osurface is an important factor in good animal health and a healthy be compromise. firm,dry 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 ;e--`•; • 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 producer with flexibility in land application so that land application timing can be 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 thathow much torage camanurepacity is you expect your livestock to produce, and be sure flood plain. your Use grassed filter strips below stockpiles Table 3.Manure production per 1,000-pound animal. to reduce runoff volume by settling As Excreted Dry Matter Basissolids and removing nutrients. Beef Cattle 11 5 tons/yr(88%water) 1.38 tons/yr Soil sample downhill fromstockpiles to Dairy Cattle 1.80 tons/yrattle 15.0 tons/yr(88%water)monitor nitrate buildup. 3;,eep 7.3 tons/yr(75% t 82 water) tons/yr r 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 and 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 as muddy First, a feedlot operator must know how much manure nitrogen(N)is pens, wet manure piles, and wet spots produced. Multiply the number of head by the tons produced(fablet3e to lb N/ton in around waterers and feedbunks. One determine how much manure Is produced.Multiply the tonnage by •• area commonly overlooked 1n pen that manure(Table 1)to calculate how many pounds N are available for land maintenance is manure build-up directly application. Next, calculate how much crop removal there will be per acre. Multipl under fence rows and adjacent to the expected yield by the average N content of the harvested crop to determine N Ties 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 apro enhance performance,and minimize a to back of pen with adequate mounds)help manage excess moisture.The primary feedlot's reliance on chemicals and goals of runoff management are to divert water from flowing across the feedlot or other costly insect-control methods. storage area and prevent direct runoff from the feedlot or the stock-piled manure ' in to.waterways.Runoff can be diverted by digging ditches and building berms.On 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 the 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. meet no.0.549.Colorado State Collect and store all wastewater and storm water runoff from pens.It car University Cooperative Extension. be treated and discharged, or it can be applied to cropland as a source of water • D. and nutrients. If it is applied to cropland, the irrigation application rate must be lc Franzen,D 1984..Airborne Particle Concentration Associated with than the infiltration rate, so that runoff does not occur from the cropland. Fence 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 grass Collins,CO. waterways or by using a sediment basin to settle the solids out. Removing solids from the runoff will reduce odors and prevent the pond from filling up with solids NAHMS. 1995.Environmental Monitoring by Feedlots.Centers for Matta ement of Runoff Holding Ponds Epidemiology and Animal Health. g USDA:APHIS:VS.N167. 1194. Seal storage ponds and lagoons to prevent seepage.Seepage is require( Spencer, W.,and D. Tepfer. 1993. by law to be less than 1/4 inch per day if the pond contains stormwater runoff.. only,but the seepage requirement is lox(than 1/32 inch per day if the pond sto Economics of composting feedlot processing wastewater(for example, manure flushed from a milking parlor)In State U. vacs ty Cooperative no. Conran.lorado addition to stormwater runoff.Seepage can be reduced by several methods,and • State University Extension. manure itself has an ability to seal soil surfaces over time. Compact soil to a Sweeten,j.M.Feedlot(lust control. minimum 12-inch thickness.Take soil type into consideration during site selecti' Cattleman's Library:Stocker-Feeder Locate ponds in the most impervious soil available. Soils must be loams or clays 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 fe the ways to reduce seepage from runoff holding ponds. Prohibit access of livest to pond banks in order to maintain the seal.Wastewater holding ponds must b( sited a safe distance from wells, a minimum of 150 feet downstream. V.C.Davis.Colorado State University Cooperative Extension soil specialist and associate professor,soil and crop sciences; in cooper T.L.Stanton,Cooperative Extension feedlot Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension lan A.RewctssofMay director of June30,1 Extension,, erz Col specialist and professor,animal sciences;and with the U.S.Department of Agriculture, T.Harem,Director of Natural Resources, State University,Fort Collins,Colorado.Cooperative Extension programs are available to all with( Colorado Cattle Feeders Association. discrimination. • 1 ' Texas Agricultural Extensi >: on 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 technol- factors(an l the absen with ce oate vegetationridoil )which into a single occurs ogy and management and poultry can reduce where manure production and/or animal traffic pollution from livestock and poultry operations. are high. Van Dyne and Gilbertson(1978)estimated the total collectable(economically recoverable)manure /� Intensive Animal from all livestock and poultry production to be 52 • Production Systems million tons per year(dry matter basis).The per- y centages 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 tion facilities,their design and the manure manage- percent. meet 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 American White and Forster,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 dry (non-roofed)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 United States. Cattle feedlots Intensive livestock production systems are re- garded as"animal feeding operations."The U.S. The United States has 9.4 million beef cattle in feed- EPA defines such operations(for purposes of lots,averaging 850 pounds per head liveweight water pollution control)as areas where animals are Each animal that is fed in a normal 130-to 150-day "stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a fattening period produces about 1 dry ton of col- total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period, lectable manure solids.This equals about 2 dry and...cops,vegetation,forage growth or post- tons of collected manure per year per head of feed- harvest residues are not sustained in the normal lot capacity.The animal spacing per head varies ac growing season over any portion of the lot or fall- cording to rainfall and temperature,slope and ity" (U.S.EPA,1976).The definition is not specific other factors.For example,there are 100 to 125 as to animal species,type of confinement facility or squarfeet per head in the desert southwest where there is less than 1inches of annual rainfall;175 tc — 200 square feet per head In the southern and cen- • ion Agricultural Engineer,The Texas A&bt University Systemtral Great Plains where there is 15 to 25 Inches of - ._ .. ___.n-n-...Cr"Nnn Tins r . . • rain per year,and 300 to 400 square feet per head manure storage tanks atseb fbeneath e slottedst floor and and in the eastern and northern Great Plains where anaerobic are important odorr manure sources. there is 25 to 35 inches per year.Most cattle feed- P 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 sir- 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 daily in warm weather.Such odors may be a nui- there is inadequate drainage or poor drying condi- sance to employees and downwind neighbors. dons. 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 arid 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 gable 1)(Ashbacher,1972;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 impart cattle performance and aeate a . traffic hazard on adjacent highways(Sweeten, Table 1. Compounds Resulting From the 1982).The amount of dust produced is affected by Anaerobic Decomposition of feedlot area,cattle density in pens,wind speed and Livestock and Poultry Manure precipitation and evaporation patterns(Peters and Alcohols Amines r, Blackwood,1977). Methylamtne Ethylemine Odors from livestock feedingAdds Trimethylmme Butyric Diethylan ine operations Acetic Propionic utyric Eaten • • Although odors from livestock feeding facilities lsbovaal are sometimes an annoyance,odorous gases are Fixed Gases not toxic at concentrations found downwind.How- Carbonyls Carbo Dioxide(odorless) ever,nuisance lawsuits can threaten the survival of Methane(odorless) an operation(George et a1.,1985),and livestock compoundsAmmonia p Sy en5ulfide Hpdn8 producers need to control the evolution of odorous . compounds (Miner,1975;National Research Coun- Dsmethyl Sulfide N�g'nlieterocycles . ci1,1979). Diethyl Sulfide e • Methylmercaptan Odorous gases arise from feed materials(food-pro- Disulfides Skatole cessing 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 and aeate 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 are a the measurement of odor.However,the instru- actio on of the material as the biologic re- meats and techniques used in sensory odor meas- actions occurring in the material and the configure- urement may vary.Odor measurement techno- lion of the storage or treatment unit. logy applicable to livestock operations includes Roofed confinement facilities usuallynifi-have sig determining: cant odor potential because of the high animal den- a Concentrations of specific compounds sity involved,the large amount of manure in (ammonia,hydrogen sulfide,volatile organic storage and the limited rate of air exchange(Na- acids,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 olfactometer 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 butanol olfactometer)that matches periods.Peak particulate concentrations,which the ambient odor intensity. were collected between 7:00rand d:0 14,200.m., ed from 1,946 to 35,536 µg per line odl r states standardsand baed municipalities have property- per m3.Lowest concentrations occurred in early line odor thods( Sweet on, these and other mess- moing and were only 130 to 250 mg per m3 in urement methods(Sweeten,1988). some feedlots. • The odor caused by anaerobic decomposition of swine manure was measured by Meyer and Con- Algeo et al.(1972)measured total suspended par- verse ticlates in 24-hour samplings both upwind and verse(1981),who found that hydrogen sulfide and downwind in 25 California feedlots(Table 2).Net ammonia concentrations8prethigher at 73 respectively,s p21 particulate concentrations(downwind minus up- than at 60 d gr es F.Innt Europeane at re sedarch( F ind)for a 24-hour period ranged from 54 to 1,268 1 8 degrees remission research(Kieran- pg per m3.The average value for all 25 feedlots be houses s it,the odor stored manure increased was 654+376 µg per m3.Upwind concentrations fold with a each 18 degree manure a tempera- averaged 25 percent of the downwind ture for i8 degree risen in manure dons.Both upwind and downwind particulate lev- morand, four timesincluding greater i summere than in els usually exceeded the U.S.EPA ambient more than. ssinswere 73tpr rc than h air-quality standards for TSP. • winter.Emissions were with partially slottedlo with Table 2. Summary of 24-Hour Particulate i fully slotted floors than partially floors. (rSP) Concentrations In the same study,odor intensity observations Cattle Feedlots lions at 25 CaliforniaC1972r. were made with scentometers both upwind and downwind of feedlots.Upwind odor intensities Net wind ,r"`. were usually in the range of 0 to 2 dilutions to ' Downwind Upwindn) minus Downwind %; threshold,while downwind concentrations aver- (s U p) • aged 13 to 49 dilutions to threshold. 654 s Mean Dust emissions from livestock sstd.Devia- 4-437 1116 :376 feeding operations on Range: I® sa • In 1971,the U.S.EPA(1987)defined primary and M„ ,umm 1I® 460 1,268 secondary ambient air-quality standards for total or limita- suspended particulate matter(rSP1. cited ma The primary peters and Blackwood(1977) ) standards were set at 260 µg per m for a 24-hour Pons in these results: average,not to be exceeded more than once per year,with an annual geometric mean of 75 µg per a All sampling was performed in the dry sea- m3.Secondary standards were set at 150 pg per m3 son;and for a 24-hour sampling period,not to be exceeded a Details such as feedlot size,cattle number,more than once per year. dis- tances from samplers to feedpens and climate Effective July 31,1987,the U.S.EPA replaced TSP conditions were not reported. as the indicator(PM-10)for the ambient standards using the California data from in favor of a new indicator that includes only those Algeo et al.Nevertheless,using (1972,Peters and Blackwood(1977) particulates with an aerodynamic particle diameter developed what they considered to be worst-case 1987).less thane equalw to a nominalreplaceda rem the 2.EPA, ro ections for cattle feedlots.According to their primaryThe new s standard with PM-10 24-hoour projections feedyards with more than 500 head, 1TSP ; )replaced a annual geometric is at 140 square feet per head,would emit more mean pg with an r hmti the n standard than 100 tons of particulates per year,not includ- an arithmetic mean PM-10 standard of in the feedmill. 50 µg per m3;and 3)replaced the secondary TSP g treatment �' standard with 24-hour and annual PM-10 stand- Based on Peters and Blackwood's(1977) ards that are identical to the primary standards. of the California data,the U.S.EPA published semi These standards,of course,apply to livestock sion factors(AP-42)for cattle feedlots as being feeding operations. crude estimates at best(US.EPA,1986). These emission factors were based on the assume- too 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 tion that feedlots would generate 280 pounds of t. particulatesper dayper 1,000 head,and 27 tons of _ HNd Pnso - 050-914 6.91 particulates per 1,000 head fed.Other emissionsr. cs0.z,1 Ill factors were similarly written for ammonia,amines eo — and total sulfur compounds. • - ' The U.S.EPA emission factors ignored the major iR — - climatic differences among cattle feeding regionseel - of California,the Great Plains and the Midwest. 5 — S. Both total rainfall and seasonality of rainfall are a fi — 1 different.'Also,California has less than 4 percentLs of the United States cattle on feed,as compared to 4€ .a — 1 11 i - Texas and Nebraska which combined have 40 _ i percent. — _ To obtain a broader data base,dust emissions were I measured at three cattle feedlots in Texas,ranging 20 — t • in size from 17,000 to 45,000 head.Measurements - were made on 15 occasions in 1987 to determine — - _' both the total suspended particulates(TSP)and the I I I I 1 I I 11 1 1 1 particulates below 1011m aerodynamic particle size o S 6. o n ,� a n (PM-10)(Sweeten et al.,1988).Net feedlot dust con- ea Cl al : R e s = = R « E centrations(downwind'minus upwind)ranged Ancdynamic diameter wm) from 16 to 1,700 µg per m3 and avenged 412±271 µg per m3(which is 37 percent less than the earlier Fioun r. torsion volumeimamain of feedlot 0 dust pandas an d' wnd sampan California data).Dust concentrations were gener- on Oars 0 High o..d1,1.s,a and a iEnand Pal tr,r4 and rs). C' ally highest in early evening and lowest in early (Swann and Pam.t.r222) morning,and upwind concentrations averaged 22 percent of downwind concentrations. Using Iwo types of PM-10 sampler(Wedding and g avera on lured high volume samplers averaged Anderson-321A),the PM-10 dust concentrations captured g P • were 19 to 40 percent,respectively,of mean TSP 14.2µm downwind and 12.3µm upwind of feedlots concentrations.There was good correlation be- (Sweeten and Parnell,1989).Thirty-three percent •..tween PM-10 and TSP concentrations with r2= of the downwind TSP were smaller than l0µm, 0.634 and 0.85E for Wedding and Anderson's while 40 percent of upwind TSP was smaller than 321-A samplers,respectively(Sweeten et al.,1988). 10µm. Mean particle sizes of feedlot dust were 8.5 to 122 mm on a population basis,while respirable dust (below 2µm)represented only 2.0to4.4 percent of Air Pollution Control total dust on a particle volume basis(Hebner and Parnell,1988). Methods 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 sur- 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 l0µm and 66 percent were smaller than 10µm. moisture content of 20 to 30 percent was needed Mass median diameters(MMD)of dust particles for dust controL Particulate concentrations • (24-hour averages)increased from 3,150 to 23,300 Frequent manure collection by flushing,cable µg per m3 when daily water sprinkling was terms- scraping or pit drainage recharge helps absorb odorous gases and elimate anaerobic storage condi- nated for 7 days. tions in confinement buildings(Korsmeyer et al., Sweeten et al.(1988)found that feedlot dust con- 1981;Meyer and Converse,1981;Raabe et al.,1984). ` centrations decreased with increasing moisture Biochemicals for odor control include masking content in the top 1 inch of feedlot surface,al- agents,counteractants,digestive deodorants, though odor intensity(dilutions to threshold)in- chemical deodorants,adsorbents and feed adds- ' messed.moisture n equations indicated thatcethe lives(Ritter,1980).Digestive deodorants are the (wetmanure moisture needs surface 26 to manure 1 percent most widely used.They must be added frequently 41 percentce atn the loose in der ando 35 to to allow selected bacteria to become predominant. feedlot du t a allowable depthleTSPin order ofo control Potassium permanganate(100-500 ppm),hydrogen per m3.allowable limits 150 and peroxide(100-125 ppm)and chlorine are oxidizing 260 µg chemicals capable of controlling hydrogen sulfide emissions. Controlling odor emissions. et at(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 e m I f aeration, er aGw�s nchlorination and e at(two io- digestion or biochemical treatment(2)capture and • treatment of odorous gases using covered storage duced odors from liquid swine manure with pits or lagoons,soil incorporation,soil abs od onr determined ammonia p that ate,zeo andites(Miner ind Stroh (1976) beds or filter fields,or packed beds;and(3) 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 on and atmospheric stability data(Sweeten,1988). an outside manure storage pit,tank or lagoon is an Manure Treatment Controlled anaerobic diges- effective means of odor control because it reduces tion of liquid swine manure at 90 degrees F re- the ventilation rate and hence the rate of odor emis- duced the odor emission rate by 90 percent as file sion. However,v coversigidoverslargeeexpensive,e and flex- , . compared to pit-stored slurry(IQarenbeek,1985). e Anaerobic digestion also reduced the time for odor subject to photodegradation and wind damage. dissipation from 72 hours to 24 hours. Wet scrubbers that involve spraying exhaust air Anaerobic lagoons must have adequate capacity with water or oxidizing chemicals are widely used (i.e.,low loading rate)to produce relatively little for industrial and food processing plant odors,and 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;Humenik and Overcash,1976; odor concentration with wet scrubbing of exhaust Sweeten et al.,1979;ASAE,1990). from a swine house,although captured dust formed a sludge which made It difficult to recircu- Mechanicaltsorlagoons of liquid manure inoxidationtol late the scrubbing water.Schirz(1977)cited prob- methodhs ( lagoons is al.,1975;Jones odor conat,trol lems with the dogging of spray nozzles when Aerating only the kofthird or hlfof swinet 1971).go scrubbing with recycled water,and biological trea Aerating only the top or half lagoon ment was required.Licht and Miner(1978)built a contents proved successful and reduced power re- horizontal cross-flow,packed bed wet scrubber fc quirements as compared with complete m'vdng a swine confinement building and achieved 50 an limited aeration at al.,of liquid C swineee eanut al. e without used90 percent removal of particulates larger than 1 limited of manure a and 5 microns,respectively;and ammonia reduc- measurable dissolved oxygen residual and re- don of 8 to 38 percent and an 82 percent reductio duced odor as compared to non-aerated storage. of odor intensity. Phillips et al. (1979)rapidly reduced hydrogen nil- A odor intensd-bed dry scrubber filled with a zeolite fide and methanol emisions fromnd swine manure (dinoptilolite)reduced ammonia emissions from pounds an such ,but phenolslese volatilepr and less.Aeration offensive u cum- poultry house by 45 percent initially,but efficien such spreadingas persisted. just only percentdays oebllker prior to land could reduce odors from droppedr0). to 15 in (K • field application. '1'N p °, 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 tally biodegrades organic gases(Bohn,1972). livestock odors. r. Lindvall et al. (1974)determined that soil in9ection 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 Characteristic. doted odor by 67 to 95 percent. ASAE Data D384,American Society of Agricultural Soil filters with perforated pipe in a shallow soil Engineers,St.Joseph,MI,1 p. bed have proved effective for scrubbing odors ASAE.1988.Manure Production and Characteristic. from exhaust air.Kowalewsky(1981)removed 52 ASAE Data D384.1,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., swine confinement building using a soil filter rys C.J.Elam,A.Martinez and T.Westing;1972 tem.Prokopand Bohn(1985)reported 99.9 percent Feedlot Air,Water and Soil Analysis:Bulletin D, attle odor reduction when a oil lter was used to treat How to Associanhol tion,Ba Pollution.CA,JunCallfoe.7 p. Feeders Association Bakersville, June.75 p. high intensity odors in exhaust from rendering plant Soddy of Agricultural Engineers.1987.Con- plant cookers.Soil filters require a moderately fine- trol of Manure Odors.ASAE EP-379,Agricultural textured soil,suffident moisture and a pH of 7 to Engineers yearbook of Standards,American Society 8.5.The land area required is 2,500 to 4,600 square of Agricultural Engineers,St.Joseph,Ml,pp.405.06 feet per 1,000 cfm,depending upon the air flow Andre,P D.198S.Sprinklers solved this feedlot dust rate(Prokop and Bohn,1985).Sweeten et al.(1988) problem.Beef prink: e7rs 2,74, this f r i 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 Animals.Paper No.7 -153,Presented at 65th • a 114-acre sand filter field to scrub air from a pouf- Annual Meeting of Air Pollution Control Assoda- try manure composting operation. lion Pittsburgh,PA Odor dispersion.The farther odorous gases travel Barth,C.L.1985.A Rational Design Standard for Anaero downwind from their source the more theydi- bit Livestock Waste Lagoons,In:Agricultural are Waste:Utilization and Management,Proceedings o! luted,depending on atmospheric turbulence and the 5th International Symposium on Agricultural odorant reactions.An odor panel observed a 90 Wastes,American Society of Agricultural Engineers percent reduction in odor intensity,as determined St.Joseph,MI,pp.638-647. by a matching butanol olfactometer(Sorel et al., Barth,CL,LF.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.Tram.ASAE,27:859-64. Atmospheric dispersion models are sometimes Bohn,H.1972.Soil Absorption of Air Pollutants.J.En used to predict the travel of odor emissions(Janni, ron.Quality,1372-377. 1982)and the impact on communities.However, Carroll,J.J.,Dunbar,J.R,Givens,ILL.,et al.1984.Sppri� n�- the use of dispersion models is limited to short dis- keg for dust suppression in a cattle feedlot Calico, . tances and to nonreactive odorous gases(National nil Agriculture(March):12.13. Research Council,1979).One or more versions of Converse,J.C.,D.L.Day,J.T.Pfeffer and B.A.Jones.l9T. the Gaussian diffusion model are used in most Aeration with ORP Control to Suppress Odors End regulatory applications.The prediction models re- ted from Liquid Swine Manure System.In:Live- quire that atmospheric stability,wind speed and stock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement odor emission rates are known. Proceedings of International Symposium on Live- Based inpart on dispersion model results,required stock Wastes,American Society of Agricultural Eng Pneers,St.Joseph MI,pp.267-271. minimum separation distances for livestock feed- ing operations(based on number of head)have Elam,C J.,Alego,J.W.,Westing,T.,et 31.1971.Measure t ( been developed for swine facilities in the Nether- went and control of feedlot particulate matter.Bull lands(fQarenbeek 1985)and for cattle feedlots in tin C.How to Control Feedlot Pollution.California Australia (QDPI,1989).These relationships are Cattle Faders Association,Bakersville,CA, anuar being used to determine the size of operation that Posted.and W.Mayrose.1987.Pork Industry Hand- should be allowed in a particular location.The book Cooperative Extension Service,Purdue Uni- versity,West Lafayette,DI Hello