HomeMy WebLinkAbout20141972.tiff Long Meadow Farm, LLC
Mana, ement Plan
For
Nuisance Control
For
Long Meadow Farm, LLC
34600 CR 31
Greeley, CO 80631
Developed in accordance with
Generally Accepted Agricultural Best Management Practices
Prepared By
AG
PRO
AGPROfessionals
3050 67th Avenue, Suite 200
Greeley, CO 80634
January 2014
Long Meadow Farm,LL C
AGPROfessionals
Introduction
This supplemental Management Plan for Nuisance Control has been developed and implemented
to identify methods that Long Meadow Farm, LLC will use to minimize the inherent conditions
that exist in confinement feeding operations. This supplement outlines management practices
generally acceptable and proven effective at minimizing nuisance conditions. Neither nuisance
management nor this supplemental plan is required by Colorado State statute or specifically
outlined in the Colorado Confined Animal Feeding Operations Control Regulations. This is a
proactive measure to assist integration into local communities. Long Meadow Farm, LLC will
use these management and control practices to their best and practical extent.
Legal Owner, Contacts and Authorized Persons
Correspondence and Contacts should be made to:
Long Meadow Farm, LLC
34600 CR 31
Greeley, CO 80631
Office: (989) 640-0899
The individual(s) at this facility who is (are)responsible for developing the implementation,
maintenance and revision o . supplemental plan are listed below.
3S//g
(Name) (Title)
Charles Feldpausch Owner
(Name) (Title)
Legal Description
The confined animal feeding facility described in this NMP is located at:
Part of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 10, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6t P.M. being
Lot B of Recorded Exemption RE-2298.
Long Meadow Farm,LLC
AGPROfessionals
Air Quality
Air quality at and around confined animal feeding operations are 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
Long Meadow Farm will use. The manager shall closely observe pen conditions and attempt to
achieve a balance between proper dust and odor control.
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 the facility shall
use to control dust are:
1. Pen density
Moisture will be managed by varying stocking rates and pen densities. The animal's wet
manure and urine keep the surface moist and control dust emissions. Stocking rates will
be managed to minimize dust.
2. Regular manure removal
The facility will continue to conduct regular manure removal. Manure removal and pen
maintenance will be conducted as needed.
3. Water Trucks
Should nuisance dust conditions arise, water tanker trucks or portable sprinkling systems
may be used for moisture control on pens and roadways to minimize nuisance dust
conditions.
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.
Long Meadow Farm will use the methods and management practices listed below for odor
control:
3
Long Meadow Farm,LLC
AGPROfessionals
1. 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. Composting
Reduces volume, nutrients and minimizes odor and pests.
4. 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 Prado Dairy. 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.
If it is determined that nuisance dust and odor conditions persist, Long Meadow Farm may
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, Long Meadow Farm will install physical
or mechanical means such as living windbreaks and/or solid fences to further minimize nuisance
conditions from dust and odors.
Pest Control
Insects and Rodents
1. Regular manure removal and composting
Manure management removes both food sources and habitat
2. Reduce standing water
Standing water is a primary breeding ground for insects
3. Minimize fly habitat
Standing water, weeds and grass,manure stockpiles, etc., are all prime habitat for
reproduction and protection. Reduce or eliminate these areas where practical.
4. Weeds and grass management
Keep weeds and grassy areas to a minimum. These provide both protection and breeding
areas.
4
Long Meadow Farm,LLC
AGPROfessionals
5. Minimize stockpiles or storage of manure
Stockpiles of manure provide both breeding and protective habitat. Keep stockpile use to
a minimum.
6. Biological treatments
Parasitic wasps are excellent biological fly control and are widely used. The wasps lay
their eggs in fly larvae hindering fly reproduction.
7. Baits and chemical treatments
Due to environmental and workers' safety concerns, chemical treatments are a last line of
defense for insect control. Baits and treatments must be applied routinely. However,
they are very effective.
Rodent control at the facility is best achieved by minimizing spillage of feedstuffs around the
operation. Good housekeeping practices and regular feed bunk 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.
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 Long Meadow Farm will use to manage
insects and rodents are to first eliminate possible habitat and then reduce the available food
supply.
In the event it is determined nuisance conditions from pests such as flies and rodents persist,
Long Meadow Farm will initially increase the frequency of the housekeeping and management
practices outlined previously. If further action is necessary, Long Meadow Farm will increase
use of chemical controls and treatments, such as fly sprays, baits, and rodendicide for pest
control.
Mortality Management
Long Meadow Farm will maintain the timely removal and disposal of mortalities to a rendering
company. Records of disposal will be maintained and will be available for review upon request.
5
AGPROfessionals
DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE
Application Fee
Weld County USR Application
Prepared for
Long Meadow Farm, LLC
Long Meadow Farm, LLC
Weld County, CO
Preliminary Environmental System
Design
AG
PRO
3050 67th Avenue, Suite 200
Greeley, CO 80634
970-535-9318
Summary
This analysis covers the preliminary design recommendations for a waste management
system for a Special Use Permit for a new dairy facility in Weld County, Colorado. The
facility will be a livestock confinement operation, associated appurtenances for calves,
dairy heifers, dairy cattle, and associated operations, for a total of 5,000 head of cattle.
Therefore, the facility is subject to the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment(CDPHE)regulations 61 and 81. This preliminary report is intended to
show that the amendment will meet the requirements set forth in the regulations.
Project Description
The site is located in central Weld County approximately 2 miles west of the town of
Eaton, CO. The legal description of the site is the part of the northwest '/ of Section 10,
Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. Lot B RE-2298 and part of the Section
3, Township 6 North, Range 66 West of the 6th P.M. Lot C RE-3211. The facility will
have a designed capacity of approximately 5,000 animal units and include approximately
52 acres of containment area.
Design Objectives
The waste management plan for the Long Meadow Farm facility will consist of utilizing
the existing waste storage ponds in the west central portion of the property and the
existing pond located in the northeast corner of the facility which is currently sized to
contain all runoff from the existing facility area including the lot area, feed area, and barn
water generated during milking(8.8 gal/cow/day). A third pond will be constructed in the
west central area of the facility to contain all runoff from the proposed west heifer pens.
A fourth pond will be constructed on the north property across WCR 72 in the south east
corner to contain all runoff from the proposed manure and compost area. The ponds will
use a dedicated pump and pipeline to dewater to two pivots adjacent to the ponds. Water
will be applied to the cropped fields at agronomic rates as a fertilizer according to a
nutrient management plan that will meet state requirements. Manure will be composted
in the southeast corner of the north property.
Hydrology and Hydraulics
This waste management system is designed to contain the 10yr-10day storm event as
determined from the TAPS weather data. The required capacity was determined using
the spreadsheet 313Pond.XLS "RECTANGULAR WASTE STORAGE POND DESIGN
COMPUTATIONS"developed by NRCS State Conservation Engineer for Colorado,
John Andrews. The spreadsheet uses a monthly balance approach accounting for
AGPROfessionals Page 2 of 7 Long Meadow Farm
precipitation inputs as well as evaporation and pumped draw-downs during the summer
irrigation season for the outputs.
All contaminated water from the lot area as well as the composting area will be contained
in the new and existing storage ponds. All precipitation that does not fall directly on
these areas will be diverted away from the containment area.
The design storm is determined to be the 10yr-10day event for the Greeley, CO weather
station and corresponds to 4.2 inches of rainfall. With a lot area of 52 acres and an
NRCS curve number of 81, the runoff yield is 2.28 in,resulting in 16 acre-feet of runoff
including the precipitation falling directly onto the pond surface during the design storm.
The system is designed with a dedicated pump and pipeline to transfer the runoff to
existing center pivot sprinklers. The system is designed to be pumped frequently during
the irrigation season of May to July and must be kept below the working depth marked on
the staff gauge to ensure adequate storage capacity for runoff from the design storm.
Storage Pond
The new and existing storage ponds are predominantly rectangular in shape to fit into the
site constraints and will be lined with a compacted clay liner or synthetic to meet State
regulations. Spillways will be installed in the proposed ponds to provide a safe means of
overflow, as well as provide a means to measure any discharges. A means to minimize
erosion at the inlet will be installed on the bank of the pond wherever a delivery pipe is
located.
Diversions
All diversions will be sized and constructed to handle flows from the design storm event.
Conveyances will be in place to the pond to allow for transfer of water from the parlor.
All conveyance structures will be sized to handle the projected flows.
Dewatering
The waste storage pond will have a dedicated pump to dewater to the adjacent pivots
controlled by the owner. A pipeline will be installed and the wastewater mixed with
fresh water in the pipeline during irrigation.
Land Application
State and local regulations require that an animal feeding operation land apply
wastewater generated at the facility at agronomic rates (the rate which provides enough
nutrients to meet crop demand without applying excessive amounts of nutrients).
AGPROfessionals Page 3 of 7 Long Meadow Farm
Long Meadow Farm has four land application sites for wastewater application. They
include a 57 acre pivot, a 140 acre pivot, and two 25 acre pivots adjacent to the facility.
This totals 247 acres of irrigated land.
The new dairy will need to land apply approximately 44 acre-feet of wastewater yearly.
This number was determined by considering average monthly precipitation values from
local weather data, average monthly lake-evaporation data from local weather data, a
dairy drainage area of approximately 52 acres, runoff percentage from NRCS National
Engineering Handbook, estimated water use in the parlor, and trial-and-error pumping
amounts to maintain capacity in excess of a 10-year, 10-day storm event.
The table below shows the land necessary to utilize the nutrients from an average year's
pumping.
Land Application Requirements for Average Years'Stormwater&Process Water-Sprinkler Applied
Maximum pumping requirement( 43.6 AF.),gallons 14,215,911
Total Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 21,324 'Total-N= 1.5 lbs./1,000 gal
Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 14,216 *NH3-N= 1.0 lbs./1,000 gal
Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 7,108 Organic-N= 0.5 lbs./1,000 gal
Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation,lbs. 7,819 45.0% Sprinkler-Irrigation loss**
Organic-Nitrogen available 3rd year,lbs. 3,341 47% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-tsr
Nitrogen available to plants (PAN)yr.afteryr.,lbs. 11,159
Soil Organic Matter,%* 2.2
Irrigation Water NO3 content,ppm 5.0
Residual soil NO3(2 ft),ppm 11.0 Alfalfa Corn Silage
Expected Yield(grain,Bu/acre;silage,tons/acre) 6 25 Based on CSU Extension
N req.w/listed O.M.,soil N,&Irr.Water NO3,(lb./acre) 195 112 Bulletin#538�.565
Acres req.if effluent applied via sprinkler irrigation 57 100
*Taken from current facility's test results
**Taken from CSU's Bulletin No.568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization
The above table utilizes values from the existing facility. The facility needs 57 acres of
alfalfa, or 100 acres of corn silage, to utilize nutrients in the wastewater produced each
year.
Below is a table showing the land necessary to utilize nutrients from the runoff generated
during a 10-year, 10-day storm event. In order to dewater the 16.1 acre-feet of
wastewater generated in a 10-year 10-day storm event, and land apply at agronomic rates,
an additional 21 acres of alfalfa or 37 acres of corn silage are required.
AGPROfessionals Page 4 of 7 Long Meadow Farm
Land Application Requirements for 10-year, 10 day Storm Event
25-year,24-hour storm volume( 16.1 A.F.),gallons 5,229,552
Total Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 7,844 *Total-N= 1.5 lbs./1,000gal
Ammonium-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 5,230 *NH3-N= 1.0 lbs./1,000 gal
Organic-Nitrogen contained in liquid,lbs. 2,615 Organic-N= 0.5 lbs./1,000 gal
Ammonium-Nitrogen available after irrigation,lbs. 2,876 45.0% Sprinkler-Irrigation loss**
Organic-Nitrogen available 3rd year,lbs. 1,229 47% Equilibrium mineralization rate for organic-N'*
Nitrogen available to plants(PAN)yr.after yr.,lbs. 4,105
Soil Organic Matter,%* 2.2
Irrigation Water NO3 content,ppm 5.0
Residual soil NO3(2 ft),ppm 11.0 Alfalfa Corn Silage
Expected Yield(grain,Bu/acre;silage,tons/acre) 6 25 Based on CSU Extension
N req.wl listed O.M.,soil N,&Irr.Water NO3,(lb./acre) 195 112 Bulletin#538�.565
Acres req.if effluent applied via sprinkler irrigation 21 37
*Taken from current facility's test results
**Taken from CSU's Bulletin No.568A Best Management Practices for Manure Utilization
Land application calculations use organic nitrogen mineralization and residual
accumulation values typical when wastewater occurs on the same fields every year. The
previous tables indicate that the proposed dairy has enough available land to utilize
nutrients produced in the wastewater that they will generate.
As indicated in the table below, the facility will house an average of 5,000 head of cattle
and will generate 25,347 tons of manure annually(as hauled). Solid manure will be
given away to area farmers for beneficial use by their crops.
Table 4:Solid Manure Produced and Associated Nutrients
ASAE D384.1-Dec 2001 Moisture Manure Manure TS VS Nitrogen Bosphorus Potassium
Animal Number Wt./hd, Total Wt., (lbs./day/ (ft'/day/ (lbs./day/ (lbs./day/ (lbs./day/ (lbs.I day/ (lbs./day/
Type of Hd lbs. lbs. (%) 1000#) 1000# 1000#) 1000#) 1000#) 1000#) 1000#)
Mlk Cows 2,500 1,500 3,750,000 86.0 86.0 1.40 12.0 10.0 0.45 0.094 0.29
Dry Cows 315 1,200 378,000 86.0 86.0 1.40 12.0 10.0 0.45 0.094 0.29
F6efers 1,850 1,000 1,850,000 86.0 86.0 1.40 12.0 10.0 0.45 0.094 0.29
calves 335 750 251,250 86.0 86.0 1.40 12.0 10.0 0.45 0.094 0.29
Totals 5,000 6,229,250
Total Daily Production 535,716 8,721 74,751 62,293 2,803 586 1,806
Total Annual Production 195,536,158 3,183,147 27,284,115 22,736,763 1,023,154 213,726 659,366
Manure produced w/moisture content of 86.0% 97,768 tons
Manure as hauled w/moisture content of 46.0% 25,347 tons
Conclusions
The proposed waste management system design for the expansion of Long Meadow
Farms has been designed in accordance with current CDPHE regulations, Weld County
requirements and current industry standards. The system has been designed to
adequately convey, store and land apply the expected runoff from normal precipitation
events as well as the 10-year 10-day design storm. The design is preliminary in nature
and subject to change as a result of the planning, permitting, and final design process.
AGPROfessionals Page 5 of 7 Long Meadow Farm
8
C
C J £j (j CV 11�N C•Q •(NIPRRSt�7, Hi lLJ
O 3(7)Q 444
Qpy4j (Ny Q co Q R
O (YS O 0
Z —i- O
>> o �a R '"'M(�.fNNC c�i
Cg - P.
,
i �.jn. C/>> Nggg
�p�p 1�
N Q o Qu) Q333 Nc� t~r Ol�t� v NMBN In
M 1" J» O .- N m V .=!
N N co
Z Fr t k'70 3 , � . coca).- .=h--cc c�i oc ,—,,
c
z mO
J
coof a
(/) ZU) o o= E '9� 888^88�80A"88
111 ellWQ y o = � O 666 co oo(^cco ni 6c q
2 r.,r. Q O °' a
° �� a (n J
w I.- = m N" 8§§8§888 88p p8 Sp g
O I >Z .E , WZ dJ ,5000808`88 ,'O OO -
Q U . g O . ¢ oo 6 c 66!660000
`�/ z S F, W m.
Q in )Cg O g 8 O 5 C 1- C' N-O ti ti CO in N CO CO N.
O 1`'^10 T O('1 C°1r N)C' (D I� N
c Q W ci o Cf c E c° rn r`O CO I N 0 t0 O
O M O p e. c')C c O Nh0.7 c c,N m
7C a- yl V�I w U..�a O O 6 O.- ..-I616 6 O
U c� CO 6
ai 2 !W! - -i — 0 _ I I
m m I-• i v m o d 1D▪ E > m In c°m Lo o c)to,co p)lDp cn o
10 10 d W �! S(na � Q w1cn rn-z oc In ,-C, in .- mc>
a a i OJ_O . O O U — .. N< I[)fD tD tD V O d
0 2 $ g
o _
0 'W i cn 2 3 c c Ln!'. rnIco:alb O'O 'n
Y ▪ o ti LC,o O�o r-•o m c()
w O H _ ¢ N N V 0:5 O co Q V't(O ci N N
J` ,Jjam� J M "or �8:F.18,."1 IM O C) Cpps)Co)Oi g�CppOj to
n § §R§§N i cV O) r`
CT U O O OO O G O O O C O N
C J Q N(V C.• CV CV of of CV CV N CV N
W .2« `D
CO 40 a c M n Q�j Qg Q�,Q�j Q�j S�j v� y O m r i O f O I O I O I O O I O I O . 'C N �` ` N N
Z
O U
- z ¢ C))¢ 00666o60000o = zfa ¢a a¢ .-.
O
c7 g rn o E a * .5.Gs o c c o
a. 6 I
W O O Hi
§i gTD Q r6 CW 1f2rD cD C7 M CO N V' ct cu o o� �- U c8'o(�• c"",$ 1�v wa N Z Cn . cc ¢o o c i.••: .=O C Cc O rnW ===
_.00 a c o a c, ., Cl s
IL din W 41 (n . ,W oI,- CO OD -Vi 8g°)g 8 m Z '^ E c E
V) 3:.c c' Q } 2� o `n 8'ar n� l�iv�i� � a c',
a� o @ @ o „ m .
Z o o J c ?¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.o co w a a > c Q > a7 a
o m 'tea C� 'o goo 0 c, .F. c orn cm
_ u� y�p�C"pp p pp pp p a�? a CJ c S of p_CO
Q Z (n 9'a' L (7 N A 51PANOi8CO S(O ti UO MC7<,, ,E•
� .r CD a. Gy r
� TD < OJ coo.=cv.- 66666 Fa ' c O.1 c B
? w= ' rL c W =C.,
o ' 8 --1-�o(9i ~ e c c o c m o m
O a Z 1�cQ c� gg o w n ` 75
a2
U mm 2 0 'c o 6.- .:. Es—
v Q ra W Lm � '2 m a� O y 0
Q O ¢6 O 6 6 6 6 0 6 6 6 o o d (,,) Q L •O V (�a �j.� t
Z coW J K IY Q C — N O C C O L E — C \E
_ pO(�pp � 0, r el R,
p pw Z C0
W 'O U(-)
w .. lq �,,,, .- v LL t C7 M N Q (+')CO ° U C r'
o.cc�i. �n. MAPS c . � z ,.)0' a v y I-- g
CI �c >= Xi 'aS' Q >a , 0666,-.-.=000ccio r- Oa N p c., o E
ZO H Q ▪ V CO I I a N O` C
0 m Z m` c r d m i 4 c' v I ,.---
,z
• =g
0. Q c� Ti o e aocoi^cc.,c4,r-ac�a-8o to w . c
W 3 m f- c� .Q oio6 4.6 66066.6 m w v -§
< c� • o a �>
Q 2 I Ly 0 as o I I 0. 8. CO 2 ,c CO d .c ,c
0. U .. 3 { p cor Z vcAi accoo > e. c Q
�• r,-, aQ g• g 'CL pNrncn r� rnmooc- N0, O w , ai(v
O Ql a C C Q O o [O O p O C") I� V••,' O O p o W CV Q (V
J O m Qi g O Q O W C 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O O 0 N Q O 6
y C J J Q
W C a>cc 2 O IR '.=a W :_-_,
Q—
of C e (n . 3.Q.(22n ., I J =ova o E o f a eK m o r
O O ,0 0c� CL
,0 C� _nL �M�.m'c�n�ma`r a'm �v `~. J E c o E c o �'o 0'm
Q cc ca •.5 ;c L a d o o'- .-csi .-.- .- .= 000 a .��> > �> = CC � CL
U O (n j �'iU ��_ tc a .V Z yc`v o z
ao Z .L.T.. m o
0. Qcp $¢ Q 2NcY 2 $$ Z g _c co
q o E () LAJ '.. UlnNo c3 O2Q a 0
J a N O L ` u N ,p N N O 6. f�`O a>
ry%
- - Cu cU —`-' 6 y6,.:-.ice l0
Ur 0
N u  a _ - J c, V zl p p m
Z
I--
(...)
W
Cr
West Pond
Bottom Width: 286.0 Inside Top Width: 350
Bottom Length: 176.0 Inside Top Length: 240
Design Depth: 6.0 Total Depth: 8
Freeboard: 2.0 ft. Design Surface Area: 84,000 sq.ft.
Inside Slope: 4 H:1V Available Storage Volume: 8.57 Acre-ft
Evaporation Area: 50,336 sq.ft. Freeboard Volume: 3.64 Acre-ft
Seepage Rate: 0.000 inches/day Total Volume: 12.21 Acre-ft
Seepage Area: 53156 sq.ft.
NE Pond
Bottom Width: 20.0 Inside Top Width: 60
Bottom Length: 110.0 Inside Top Length: 150
Design Depth: 8.0 Total Depth: 10
Freeboard: 2.0 ft. Design Surface Area: 9,000 sq.ft.
Inside Slope: 2 H:1V Available Storage Volume: 0.85 Acre-ft
Evaporation Area: 2,200 sq.ft. Freeboard Volume: 0.38 Acre-ft
Seepage Rate: 0.000 inches/day Total Volume: 1.22 Acre-ft
Seepage Area: 3272 sq.ft.
Concrete Push Pit
Bottom Width: 236.0 Inside Top Width: 240
Bottom Length: 1026.0 Inside Top Length: 1,030
Design Depth: 2.0 Total Depth: 2
Freeboard: 0.0 ft. Design Surface Area: 247,200 sq.ft.
Inside Slope: 1 H:1V Available Storage Volume: 11.23 Acre-ft
Evaporation Area: 0 sq.ft. Freeboard Volume: 0.00 Acre-ft
Seepage Rate: 0.000 inches/day Total Volume: 11.23 Acre-ft
Seepage Area: 244664 sq.ft.
New North Pond
Bottom Width: 77.0 Inside Top Width: 125
Bottom Length: 352.0 Inside Top Length: 400
Design Depth: 4.0 Total Depth: 6
Freeboard: 2.0 ft. Design Surface Area: 50,000 sq.ft.
Inside Slope: 4 H:1V Available Storage Volume: 3.15 Acre-ft
Evaporation Area: 27,104 sq.ft. Freeboard Volume: 2.11 Acre-ft
Seepage Rate: 0.000 inches/day Total Volume: 5.26 Acre-ft
Seepage Area: 28852 sq.ft.
New West Pond
Bottom Width: 50.0 Inside Top Width: 130
Bottom Length: 480.0 Inside Top Length: 560
Design Depth: 8.0 Total Depth: 10
Freeboard: 2.0 ft. Design Surface Area: 72,800 sq.ft.
Inside Slope: 4 H:1V Available Storage Volume: 7.77 Acre-ft
Evaporation Area: 24,000 sq.ft. Freeboard Volume: 3.09 Acre-ft
Seepage Rate: 0.000 inches/day Total Volume: 10.87 Acre-ft
Seepage Area: 28304 sq.ft.
ALL PONDS FOR AREA?
Freeboard: ft. Design Surface Area: 463,000 sq.ft.
Inside Slope: H:1V Available Storage Volume: 32 Acre-ft
Evaporation Area: 103640.0 sq.ft. Freeboard Volume: 9 Acre-ft
Seepage Rate: 0.0 inches/day Total Volume: 41 Acre-ft
Seepage Area: 358248 sq.ft.
Basic Data and Drawings
• Aerial view
• Topographic map
• Soils map
• Soil survey engineering properties
• Proposed Drawing
AGPROfessionals Page 7 of 7 Long Meadow Farm
Long Meadow Farm
Aerial View
',iv �r T n�1y
yeti `•
•
..; r. _ r ..may .,b Lia
.,�Oiler • .... ... ... .... ..
. . . . ...
... ..:.. .. ..,r ." wr .h
.. . .
rf -
1 r r
St
* try Ft r r --,
' 'r t•' 1'
:'f f; r rr';•rr; rr; :' '`••..,�—
M
i ____, .' .A., of
romp. „p_ii
,f, "~ i r a ,r k
tl -J I'. • ' -. _,.. , . ...., ,it--7..„
,........ ,„,, , , . 1 I .,:c
•
i..
i
, •
. 4
7.7...1. ,! .
r:... .�—�� - ,Ill _ r-i
II
1
8 1 L I 9 I S I I £ I Z l i
ooai=-i awes`. — ��" —' --� ���` t ' p
1 r O
918 /
■i 4 C ` __� , FL V n ••• •tea
r 4f, 1 °; 1 ° --� `y -- .0 a • 470917•a j off,.- �.- o oo _ ; 1
:.L33HS 3 '` \ I •`�� �� .% �` `\.` �,l �ti` ,` •
_
\ -\:\ Ifill
, t\ \ ( ,... - •.„,_ [ N.---N T 1 i 6
OINC'',�
�-098 -- - \_", ��'. \ t\ \� °49 k ',.__,_
(---,,,J 1 ,,—..s. .
--....., , \—\----N\
\. ,. \—
. .- -:).• ( \s,
Ci no • as
O O a - -. 6S8; -- - --� T 0LB7 \ ` a
' T Q �, IT • �11`
,� ►rj •r J . I. I . \ ,__
-- --.., 0\
• /.-- .)
7 /. - \ \ \
f,..--\
. : I , ,_ ._. ( ... _ . ..___, \I ) \
, .._._,/ .
)
7-\ -•\.__) / ,..)) .-� •
I� �o� / �- \.--" �Il. ‘• ) C..,3
I , • 1 -. „ (/
•
.: , I ‘) \---1 ... li •'--...) al ,/.,./ ) „/• '''j t- 7/ i ,i
•
I , • : ' / \y
(-N- . ) /
•
, -- ,
C ....__ . . /Lea — '`, • O•-‘,i, 9-" ME 79r\ I
u, < o 11::1(/ .r"----------) •• \
r \ ,, D 1(- i / -----••
./r ----- ----___/
. rif -9:_i-d • -., --..._ \
•
•
\ . .. 5\\\\N'-'''''s•.N,N g
a" a . C---i--). -..________ --------'.._ ,
/
\\ \ .-.., ,
C.\ \ N\ \ '\ .. I • I.,. N \ \ \
. I / r-
RI ' . ' 1- - -- •— • \- - ' Z Wei '/•IN
.. 6 \... eit5II \ . li 9 CS \K\
.. \\Z .. • ..,....,,,:ii.,.:,!-..
CI I ` oo �� �� o i' k�\ I II
i III o
! ' \\ *--- CP • al \ \ .''')
revt ♦ r' IIAly0 01.11,1110 ' -7 . . -„, A ., . i c5).1 .,,,..\\
11511)%3 uto '' i -—\ I )vp..a tq Nq An tlti •
• •`\ / ' I 1 1 \ ` • l 11 ,
I IV. •
.0:b:awt 3LVO X 8 I L I 9 5 I 4 I £ 1 Z I I r
3 Custom Soil Resource Report 3
Soil Map
g
519000 519200 519400 519600 519800 520000 520200
40°31'6"N -. 1. -.. I l. �`'t� q 40°31'6'N
wil -7 ,'
J_/ X4.1.
r„..." --: ',.._
, .' \par_
\.
1 , f•I h '. w
p _n IIA
I. 1 , .�1 ,f YY .y: Y , ,
C7 -
r I kg +� a" •
--01444,724 `ii
R 10,
., - 44,\ ,-. 's i
S i ..ti 37 4 ` ` 8
ti�� � A ::
32 , 4-
a, ��:
• F •'' §f
dit
j 3 iii '' ':',1,-0.
Y �)'
( 32
8 ` . ': 1 4 8
."
i 33
1 4
40°30'4"N .,, = .A I _1_+. ._. .. .-sa' 40°30'4"N
519000 519200 519400 519600 519800 520000 520200
3 3
Map Scale:1:9,280 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet o
Meters
N 0 100 200 400 600
Feet
A
0 450 9600 2700
Map projection:Web Mercator 00 Comer coordinates:WGSBA1 Edge tics:LfTM Zone 13N WGSB4
8
Custom Soil Resource Report
N Soil Map rA
4
S
519000 519200 519400 519600 519800 520000 520200
40°31•6"N 5z _ - I - - 1 - 40°31'6"N
, )) §
c
P
i 1
t 1.17 a, -k.--,-..\ H'.
i,.�i sp
,a
� 4w 4 j
ill 52\� • r:
to „ -- \ *iiw..t,"" _
'
} \ _
• Neliiii.
gig �7y��� �t'y
4._
r _
I � 24R{I
t r '�I
"'af 40, _
rytty I t ►y
N. •
it 37 33 S
't , 7
32 4 , .,
=Y 7 ,
47' i\ W
., -l., . „I. , fq ,4
1I''.''- ''. - 'a--t
"
` I a 6 _ #,
32
4
I
33
4.7 44
[ . .
40°30.4"N I ._.. �I�
.I'..-. 40°30'4'N
519000 519200 519400 519600 519800 520000 520200
3 3
WMap Scale:1:9,280 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet.
Meters
N 0 100 200 400 600 d
Feet
7V
0 450 900 1800 2700
AMap pnljetbon:Web Menatnr Garr 000rdlnates:WGS84 Edge tics:IJTM Zone 13N WGS84
8
USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource
Department of Cooperative Soil Survey,
Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for
4
NRCS States Department of Agriculture and other Weld County
Federal agencies, State
Natural agencies including the
Resources Agricultural Experiment C o I o ra d o,
Conservation Stations, and local
Service participants Southern Part
- .,. , ,;e' a ,. .- . , pp,,.... , . ..„, .„-,,,,,\ .
41‘..4:
, kc 4s.,
! .,
N !tr r - ? .. /
4, ,! M.0 '� , l n�' ..:.1.‘:-
y t 1,.. ,, ,, L -:- !I-1).r.: 1 F.,. :".........., ...yr _ _. ......,.....__., _ .
--.1-7-4-.....
t II
,Y ' ' ,tit'. 0IPPr 41"; 1 : '
/
id e �. /1 _
''', -. ., —7;7--!..� _ _ r ' ,e• ,.Nip.mum— �:4 - 1 r fry �
. 0,p,,
I �_
P., 7 !"' j t`tf a,i , ,441111
c p., ....
--- 41.1"''''' _._ __
,,..
: , 6, . ,
,:. ,.
r,,
i i
,....,_=...
i 1 — 1
1 i i I i i I�
D 8,000 n
ili
March 13, 2014
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They
highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about
the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many
different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners,
community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also,
conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal,
and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,protect,or enhance
the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties
that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.The information
is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on
various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying
with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning,onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases.
Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering applications. For
more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center(http://
offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as septic
tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to basements or
underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States Department
of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural
Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil
Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where
applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual
orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an
individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited
bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means
2
for communication of program information(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)should
contact USDA's TARGET Center at(202)720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400
Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272
(voice)or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
3
Contents
Preface 2
How Soil Surveys Are Made 5
Soil Map 7
Soil Map 8
Legend 9
Map Unit Legend 10
Map Unit Descriptions 10
Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part 12
4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded 12
24—Fort Collins loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 13
32—Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 14
33—Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 15
37—Nelson fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 16
47—Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 17
51—Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 18
52—Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes 19
References 21
4
How Soil Surveys Are Made
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous areas
in a specific area.They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous areas and
their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and limitations
affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length, and shape of
the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and native plants; and
the kinds of bedrock.They observed and described many soil profiles.A soil profile is
the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The profile extends from the
surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the soil formed or from the
surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is devoid of roots and other
living organisms and has not been changed by other biological activity.
Currently,soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource areas
(MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share
common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water resources,
soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey areas typically
consist of parts of one or more MLRA.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that is
related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the area.
Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind of
landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and miscellaneous
areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific segments of the
landform,a soil scientist develops a concept,or model,of how they were formed.Thus,
during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict with a considerable
degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a specific location on the
landscape.
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented by
an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to verify
predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries.
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them to
identify soils.After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units).
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character of
soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile.After the soil
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the
5
Custom Soil Resource Report
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and
research.
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that have
similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a unique
combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable
proportions.Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components of
the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes
the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such landforms and
landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the development of
resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite investigation is
needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape, and
experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the soil-
landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at specific
locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller number of
measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. These
measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color, depth to
bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for content of
sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil typically vary from
one point to another across the landscape.
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties.
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests.Soil scientists interpret
the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed characteristics
and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the soils under different
uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through observation of the soils
in different uses and under different levels of management. Some interpretations are
modified to fit local conditions, and some new interpretations are developed to meet
local needs. Data are assembled from other sources, such as research information,
production records, and field experience of specialists. For example, data on crop
yields under defined levels of management are assembled from farm records and from
field or plot experiments on the same kinds of soil.
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on such
variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over long
periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, soil
scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will have
a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict that a
high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date.
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
identified each as a specific map unit.Aerial photographs show trees,buildings,fields,
roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
6
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of soil
map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
7
O ≤ O) O N 8N C
O - C
N'p=CO W �p V p t.") E
N 7 N t` • O ` U co N -Ai ,- a N
r q
ro cvco) co m .2— cd 2O y� c a a aa)) co
c) `3 E. .py E wcco aa) CcaE w E 3 N co,E
a O. Cr)7 C cor C 2 Nca. oi — U a)
Z co d 6.co N .gym., w lC C � 'C.. a) f0 co co O co CV U . N
O p. I.D. 3 0 CCa aco
�i a�iU o cav y y `oE Q LLU .
a _ Z C
p C E O d C 7 d N d 17.-
co Q P. N t-' o N
p _ a' QyE Vyw � � ov on o gym «:
Q m as O.= . Noon acatm to oc a cczN0
It 5 ur E ≤a v c°'i o o d .o 1-,i N y 0 as d as o Qa
O O
>, CCI> wLL a) p L d 'CO II L" o co �' co o N D a• N
Z c 2 cL° ow °y dam ? o.) � E o cc a.
t y�Ea
O. O o a) C C m Ce.c aa)i co aa)i a) O... If— A C1° a a m A
E o c m o as m a ao va v E a �' a o y E
< U E ay ny m m � aNi o•E co N � > .6 co to c aMi
Lo as o ca > Z E a as c' ;° co a) ° N ° c
en m E co EEc a � L as • o,a) co .—m E' E om c
m "6,E, m oo c � ao a m o m m"-• ti a) hoc CO E o � ca
7 [n C Ct �`@ C7 a) ... 17
C CS V) V C y,Ca •E C .c C co :ti=_ J c 7 G 03
o o) ccEw a) = moc - 6a°) � 2E m . nl m t�a �
V) C N N N ` a VN U C Ln J C.CD (n y EE) .y.. 0• d as
o
a3 c
y 1O N a) a) 7 a) G O..(3.7(5
.W.. U h > .0 r- 2 m
— Z f° dEasE
H W E neon a E U) 0 m a-aaz 2 F= coca r°n `o ON H v E `o
O
a
a)
CC
a)
2
7
O
N
N
c
O
U) N
P.'.. N
E ai C N .c
O o. ci U Lx
)) co m V _co co N co
O
l.
V of O C c a7 _ N a
d O. O J N N .x.. O p .C
a Co V) ai E 3 C O_' K O_
c y 'U a1 N 2' .:4
is N
co Zoo > 3 0 tp d rn o 2 m JU �
3 a <
CI
m C
7
W ! w C Yil
• O
(..9 3 ►. m
W
J
a N
c
a w
2 a E o
• a « a m a. P
a N N of t N i n
:: c c c i a n 3 m 2 ° a
m 3 N _
C• CO CO co '" Y, d D. O O_ T o t a W N > N0 U) ?, W N
O N N d ( EC .c O a,m O O
M N O o o C G t W O ! > C > W C y E C C > C V 0
E ¢ co co v) c m m U U C9 C9 J co 2 2 2 a� ex co co 0) co co co
2a
= W D 1i'(S1 X
c x co
Q co
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Weld County,Colorado,Southern Part(CO618)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
4 Aquolls and Aquepts,flooded 6.5 2.3%
24 Fort Collins loam, 1 to 3 percent 8.9 3.1%
slopes
32 Kim loam,1 to 3 percent slopes 50.6 17.8%
33 Kim loam,3 to 5 percent slopes 7,0 2.5%
37 Nelson fine sandy loam,0 to 3 29.4 10.3%
percent slopes
47 Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 22.4 7,9%
percent slopes
51 Otero sandy loam,1 to 3 percent 133.6 47.0%
slopes
52 Otero sandy loam,3 to 5 percent 25.7 9.1%
slopes
Totals for Area of Interest 284.0 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils
or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along with the
maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils.On the landscape,
however,the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability
of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some observed properties may extend
beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic
class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic
classes.Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes
other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management.These are called contrasting,or dissimilar,components.They generally
are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the scale used.
Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas are identified
by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a given area, the
contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit descriptions along with
10
Custom Soil Resource Report
some characteristics of each.A few areas of minor components may not have been
observed, and consequently they are not mentioned in the descriptions, especially
where the pattern was so complex that it was impractical to make enough observations
to identify all the soils and miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the usefulness
or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate pure taxonomic
classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that
have similar use and management requirements. The delineation of such segments
on the map provides sufficient information for the development of resource plans. If
intensive use of small areas is planned, however, onsite investigation is needed to
define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions. Each
description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil properties
and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer,all the soils of a series have major horizons
that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness, salinity,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the basis of such
differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas shown on the
detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase commonly
indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example,Alpha silt loam, 0
to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.The
pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar in all
areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present or
anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered practical
or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The pattern and
relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar. Alpha-
Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas that
could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion of
the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform.An area can be
made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made up
of all of them.Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil material
and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part
4—Aquolls and Aquepts, flooded
Map Unit Setting
Elevation: 3,600 to 4,700 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 16 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F
Frost-free period: 100 to 165 days
Map Unit Composition
Aquolls and similar soils: 55 percent
Aquepts, flooded, and similar soils:25 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Description of Aquolls
Setting
Landform: Depressions, drainageways, plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Recent alluvium
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to high
(0.06 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 6 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Maximum salinity: Slightly saline to moderately saline(8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0
Available water capacity: Low(about 4.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Land capability classification (irrigated):6w
Land capability(nonirrigated):6w
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site: Salt Meadow(R067BY035CO)
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches:Variable
8 to 60 inches: Stratified sandy loam to clay
Description of Aquepts, Flooded
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Recent alluvium
12
Custom Soil Resource Report
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Poorly drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to high
(0.06 to 6.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table:About 6 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: Frequent
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Maximum salinity.'Slightly saline to moderately saline (8.0 to 16.0 mmhos/cm)
Sodium adsorption ratio, maximum: 5.0
Available water capacity: Low(about 4.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding
or not frequently flooded during the growing season
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6w
Land capability(nonirrigated):6w
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
Ecological site:Wet Meadow(R067BY038CO)
Typical profile
0 to 8 inches:Variable
8 to 60 inches: Stratified sandy loam to clay
Minor Components
Haverson
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Thedalund
Percent of map unit.' 10 percent
24—Fort Collins loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation:4,500 to 5,050 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 10 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature:46 to 52 degrees F
Frost-free period: 130 to 170 days
Map Unit Composition
Fort coffins and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components:20 percent
Description of Fort Collins
Setting
Landform: Plains, terraces
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material:Alluvium and/or modified by thin eolian deposits
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline(0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: High (about 10.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Land capability classification (irrigated):2e
Land capability(nonirrigated):4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO)
Typical profile
0 to 7 inches: Loam
7 to 11 inches: Clay loam
11 to 60 inches: Fine sandy loam
Minor Components
Stoneham
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Olney
Percent of map unit: 7 percent
Otero
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
32—Kim loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation:4,900 to 5,250 feet
Mean annual precipitation.' 13 to 17 inches
Mean annual air temperature:46 to 52 degrees F
Frost-free period: 125 to 150 days
Map Unit Composition
Kim and similar soils: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Kim
Setting
Landform:Alluvial fans, plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability(nonirrigated):4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO)
Typical profile
0 to 12 inches: Loam
12 to 40 inches: Loam
40 to 60 inches: Fine sandy loam
Minor Components
Otero
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
33—Kim loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation.'4,900 to 5,250 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 17 inches
Mean annual air temperature:46 to 52 degrees F
Frost-free period: 125 to 150 days
Map Unit Composition
Kim and similar soils.' 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Kim
Setting
Landform:Alluvial fans, plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape. Linear
Parent material: Mixed eolian deposits derived from sedimentary rock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 9.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability(nonirrigated):4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Loamy Plains (R067BY002CO)
Typical profile
0 to 12 inches: Loam
12 to 40 inches: Loam
40 to 60 inches: Fine sandy loam
Minor Components
Otero
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
37—Nelson fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation:4,800 to 5,050 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 13 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature:48 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 145 to 190 days
Map Unit Composition
Nelson and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
16
Custom Soil Resource Report
Description of Nelson
Setting
Landform: Plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Residuum weathered from sandstone
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature:20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock
Drainage class: Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to high
(0.06 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: Low(about 3.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Land capability classification (irrigated):4e
Land capability(nonirrigated):4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Ecological site: Sandy Plains (R067BY024CO)
Typical profile
0 to 9 inches: Fine sandy loam
9 to 30 inches: Fine sandy loam
30 to 34 inches:Weathered bedrock
Minor Components
Thedalund
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Olney
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
47—Olney fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation:4,600 to 5,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 11 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature:46 to 54 degrees F
Frost-free period: 125 to 175 days
Map Unit Composition
Olney and similar soils: 85 percent
17
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor components: 15 percent
Description of Olney
Setting
Landform: Plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Mixed deposit outwash
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 2.00 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 15 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity.' Moderate(about 7.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil
erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability(nonirrigated):4c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Sandy Plains (R067BY024CO)
Typical profile
0 to 10 inches: Fine sandy loam
10 to 20 inches: Sandy clay loam
20 to 25 inches: Sandy clay loam
25 to 60 inches: Fine sandy loam
Minor Components
Zigweid
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Vona
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
51—Otero sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation:4,700 to 5,250 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature:48 to 52 degrees F
Frost-free period: 130 to 180 days
18
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Composition
Otero and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Description of Otero
Setting
Landform: Plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Eolian deposits and/or mixed outwash
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil
erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability(nonirrigated):4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Sandy Plains (R067BY024CO)
Typical profile
0 to 12 inches: Sandy loam
12 to 60 inches: Fine sandy loam
Minor Components
Kim
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Vona
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
52—Otero sandy loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
Elevation:4,700 to 5,250 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 12 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature:48 to 52 degrees F
19
Custom Soil Resource Report
Frost-free period: 130 to 180 days
Map Unit Composition
Otero and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Description of Otero
Setting
Landform: Plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Eolian deposits and/or mixed outwash
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class:Well drained
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 10 percent
Maximum salinity.' Nonsaline to very slightly saline(0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Land capability classification(irrigated): 3e
Land capability(nonirrigated):4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Ecological site: Sandy Plains (R067BY024CO)
Typical profile
0 to 12 inches: Sandy loam
12 to 60 inches: Fine sandy loam
Minor Components
Kim
Percent of map unit: 12 percent
Vona
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
20
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO).2004.
Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling and
testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard 02487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W.,and L.M.Vasilas,editors.Version 6.0,2006. Field indicators of hydric soils
in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999.Soil taxonomy:A basic system of soil classification for making
and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture,Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/main/national/
landuse/forestry/pub/
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
21
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?ci d=nres 142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,the
Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 296.
http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
22
IDS aaS00aa X 8 —� L �— 9 S b £ —�-- -Z —--l
— I .g. o
4VNVd MaaY3W'JNO7 .00E=.t IBNJS `��`` ...../
� •1'�
S � � •/
i PI
:133HS 3__M
4
a a!
nz aA
-, ;lam-
i \ .1::
rb ^ V3aV NIVW 2JOj Z
Cn) NIISV8- 30VNIV210 -�/ ! N
1, ,
�� 6, \ ,
�., 00'09,..r.,. . 0C
O — Q�1D1 M]dp / l %
- 'l ,� .6.41.
B Ir/ • 101 N7d0`a 4' o
t.
V3aV NIVW 3H1 803 83H13001 ti . � a lmx3uo\J °
0300V 38V Z NISVB-8f1S �CJ 9.4 � �• x.
I--1 ONV L NIISV8—EMS—:310N ,. �� l \ �'`N"...��
.: ./'� S� 7a O , m0n alumaaa ^` -- — e
,� — -_ µ `ti % �. 0 t �_
u
^' !` ]] N3e 101 N3e0 NU 101 x340 x3d 101 H3d0 }
V38V NIVW 80J l 5 ,�ti \\'''' ti 5600—a3
NIISV8-ens 3wNlvaa L. ,. �'. — — sdi .,:or, i ��� ,9'
�` 5 . .� a g.•
• - - -i :'!: O 'I .0.00{ ,
-��.� .I 'n3J'lnT HMO-
. O ' o'ooL •000' ,0'00'
�L`, %� •
. }�a NU l01 x340 N3d 101 N3e0 N3e l0,N3e0 �+
•
` c `" —Q � �` i ONOd ONV SN3d 1S3M
000e
_r �, ' : "t�"�3 °0S u 1 °°°9 M3N a03 NIISV8 3OVNIV21O
11 1,1,,
r - Tri �g '� i
diTalila
.0.00)2°N ';''6;-' / i� 1
S'73 ‘614 •
sx ■■
CA rte„ g N3d 101 N3d0 o NOd 101 NOdD
VI I.'
�� o
w�
p\ sled also.
0 O MS y 11 1 ,
Nee 101 N3e0 o Nee 101 N3e0
`1
O
W n z — —
o
%. o 0 I
.OI
00 L1 I
n ,0'OtL ` }/} \ .0'OtL 4
ONOd ONV SN3d H1NON
M3N ti0.i NIISVB 30VNIV80
lIDe soma)
V V
10.00IIEI Wry .IS
l',4110110 CV :MN
,,. R I L 9 5 — b 1 r X
}\ GPROfessiona1s , LLC
DEVELOPERS OF AGRICULTURE
Long M eadow Farm
Waste M anagement Plan
There will be no storage of wastes on this site. Any wastes produced from employees will be
contained in a dumpster and hauled off regularly by a sanitation service such as Northern
Colorado Disposal, 337 E 8th St, Greeley, CO 80631, (970) 353-4090. Chemicals stored onsite
will be used and stored in accordance with manufacture recommendations. Should chemical
releases or spills occur, those spills and releases will be reported as required by state and federal
law. Should this Waste Handling Plan be revised or amended, Weld County Department of Public
Health and Environment will be notified in writing.
ENGINEERING, SURVEYING, PLANNING & CONSULTING
4350 Highway 66 ?Longmont,CO 80504
970.535.9318/office ?970.535.9854/fax? www.agpros.com
Hello