IDAHO
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING
OPERATIONS WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
Prepared for:
0. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
With Technical Assistance From:
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc,
1802 136th Place NE
Bellevue, Washington 98005
July 19, 1985
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS i
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
Background and Purpose 1
Report Organization 4
CHAPTER 2 - SOURCE ASSESSMENT 5
Historical Overview 5
A Statewide Perspective on Feedlots and Dairies 9
Study Area and Methodology 12
Source Quantification 13
Caldwell Area (Wieser to Glenn's Ferry) 14
Twin Falls Area (Glenn's Ferry to American 23
Falls)
Blackfoot Area (American Falls to Sugar City) 34
Miscellaneous Operations 42
Impact of Existing Sources 42
Potential Impacts from Confined Animal Feeding 45
Operations
Stream Segment Characterization and Priority 53
Segments
Groundwater Concerns 62
Priority Sources 66
CHAPTER 3 - INFLUENCE OF SOILS AND CLIMATE ON IMPOUNDMENT 71
PERFORMANCE
Overview of Study Area Soils 71
Overview of Study Area Climate 76
Climatic Influences on Runoff 77
Relationship of Complaints to Precipitation 86
CHAPTER 4 - BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND DESIGN CRITERIA 93
BMPs Effective in Water Pollution Abatement 93
Fencing 93
Runoff Diversion 93
Reducing Runoff Volumes 94
Reducing Land-Application Impacts 94
Existing BMP Utilization and Effectiveness 95
Existing System Design Criteria 98
Recommended Design Criteria 104
Containment Requirements 104
Operation and Maintenance Considerations 107
Recommended Management Plan Contents 109
-------
Page
CHAPTER 5 - NPDES GENERAL PERMIT APPROACHES 111
Existing General Permit Programs 111
Federally-Administered General Permits 112
State-Administered General Permits 115
Conclusions Concerning Existing General 117
Permits
Considerations in Issuing a General Permit for Idaho 118
Alternative Enforcement Approaches 121
Alternative 1: Intensive Public Participation 121
Program with Emphasis on Voluntary
Compiiance
Alternative 2: Voluntary Emphasis with 122
Financial and Technical Assistance
Alternative 3: Combined Voluntary and 123
Regulatory Emphasis
Alternative 4: Source "Declassification" 124
After BMP Implementation
Alternative 5: Upgrade Health Department 125
Requirements and Diversify Enforcement
REFERENCES 127
APPENDIX A - Precipitation Data
APPENDIX B - Characterization of Runoff from Idaho
Feedlots and Dairies
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
2-1 Number of Feedlots, Dairies, and Animals 10
Reported for the State of Idaho (1983)
2-2 Previously Permitted Operations in the 15
Caldwell Area
2-3 Confined Animal Feeding Operations Identified 18
by Aerial Survey in the Caldwell Area
2-4 Summary of Complaints Received by IDHW for 21
Confined Animal Operations in the Caldwell Area
(1973-1984)
2-5 Additional Dairies and Feedlots Potentially 22
Requiring Permits in the Caldwell Area
2-6 Relationship Between Permits, Impoundments, 24
and Complaints in the Caldwell Area
2-7 Previously Permitted Operations in the Twin 26
Falls Area
2-8 Confined Animal Feeding Operations Identified 27
by Aerial Survey in the Twin Falls Area
2-9 Summary of Complaints Received for Confined 33
Animal Operations in the Twin Falls Area
(1976-1984)
2-10 Additional Dairies and Feedlots Potentially 35
Requiring Permits in the Twin Falls Area
2-11 Relationship Between Permits, Impoundments, 36
and Complaints in the Twin Falls Area
2-12 Previously Permitted Operations in the Blackfoot 38
Area
2-13 Confined Animal Feeding Operations Identified by 40
Aerial Survey in the Blackfoot Area
2-14 Relationship Between Permits and Impoundments 43
in the Blackfoot Area
2-15 Status of Miscellaneous Operations Referred to 44
in IDHW Files
-------
Table Page
2-16 Waste Runoff From a Dairy Confinement Area 47
2-17 Waste Runoff From a Feedlot Confinement Area 48
2-18 Waste Runoff From a Dairy Cattle Yard and 49
Milking Center
2-19 Average Concentrations of Selected Parameters 50
Found in Direct Runoff from Feed Pens and
Discharge Water from Collection Ponds
2-20 Pollutant Concentrations in Runoff from a 50
Concrete Lot During a Single Storm Event
2-21 Reaction of a Stream to a Slug of Feedlot 52
Runoff Passing a Sampling Point
2-22 Designated Uses of Water Segments Within the 63
Caldwell, Twin Falls, and Blackfoot Study Areas
2-23 Number of Farms Identified by Survey as 65
Correlated to Receiving Water Segment
3-1 Selected Temperature Data for Southern Idaho 78
3-2 Selected Precipitation Data for Southern Idaho 79
3-3 Climatological Data Comparisons 80
3-4 Cumulative 3- and 4-Month Precipitation at 85
Boise, Idaho (1944-1983)
3-5 Estimated Evaporation Rates and Evaporation 87
Opportunity Factors
3-6 Precipitation Adjusted for Evaporation Using 88
Fall River Mills Rates and Evaporation
Opportunity Factors
3-7 Cumulative Precipitation and Net Precipitation 89
Adjusted for Evaporation for 3- and 4-Month
Wet Seasons in Boise, Idaho
3-8 Monthly Distribution of Feedlot and Dairy 91
Complaints Received in Boise and Twin Falls
(January, 1979 - March, 1984)
3-9 Number of Complaints with Antecedant Rainfall 91
Exceeding Average Rainfall
4-1 Comparison of Dairy Waste Management Plans 96
-------
LIST OP FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 General Location of the Study Area 3
2-1 Location of Upper Snake Basin Stream 54
Segments and Trend Monitoring Stations
2-2 Location of Southwest Idaho Basin Stream 55
Segments and Trend Monitoring Stations
2-3 Location of Bear River Basin Stream Segments 56
and Trend Monitoring Stations
2-4 Water Quality Index Values for Idaho's 58
Principal Rivers (1983)
2-5 High Priority Water Quality Problem Areas 59
2-6 Pollution Sources and General Trends in
Lake, River and Stream Segments 60
2-7 Location of the Snake Plain Ajuifer 67
2-8 Groundwater Problem Areas 68
3-1 Status of Idaho Soil Surveys 72
3-2 Major Landform Provinces of Idaho 74
3-3 Isopluvials of 10-Year, 24-Hour Precipitation 81
in Tenths of an Inch
3-4 Isopluvials of 25-Year, 24-Hour Precipitation 82
in Tenths of an Inch
4-1 Generalized Diagram of a Single- and Twin-Cell 99
Anaerobic Lagoon System
4-2 Generalized Diagram of an Aerobic Lagoon 100
System
4-3 Generalized Solids Removal System 108
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The USDA Statistical Reporting Service (SRS) estimates 2,500
dairies and 175 feedlots exist in Idaho. The great majority are
located along the Snake River and its tributaries. EPA aerial
surveys in this area have located and identified most of the
larger operations and many of the smaller ones as well. Both the
SRS and the aerial survey appear to greatly underestimate the
total number of operations. In some areas, the aerial survey is
estimated to have deleted or missed 50 to 90 percent of the
facilities. Some dairy concentration areas were not within the
survey flight path delineated by IDHW. A large number of
operations on the photo were also unidentified for various
reasons. Approximately 40-45% of those "missed" on the photos
were screened out by the size criteria. The other 55-60% were
overlooked because proximity of several small operations made
them appear as one, or because animals were on summer range at
the time of the survey (late April) and thus the operation did
not appear to be a feedlot.
Previous permits were generally issued only to operations
having a large number of animals. Most of the previously
permitted operations were feedlots because dairies are generally
much smaller and few contain over 200 animals. All but one of
the 68 previously permitted operations lie along the Snake River
and its tributaries; at least 2,000 smaller operations probably
occur here as well.
Some regional differences in distribution of feedlots and
dairies appear to exist. Distribution is primarily due to
climatic factors and soil differences which affect crop growing.
The Caldwell area contains most of the large feedlots as well as
numerous small dairies and feedlots. The Pbcatel1o-Blackfoot
area has approximately equal numbers of dairies and feedlots.
Nearly all are fairly small. Twin Falls contains by far the
greatest number of operations, and nearly all are small dairies.
Magic Valley, near Twin Falls, is the only location where the
number of operations appears to be rapidly increasing, primarily
due to migration from California. Other areas have few new
(post-1974) sources.
The average surveyed dairy covers approximately 6 acres and
contains between 50 and 200 animals. Feedlots tend to split
into two groups: those having an average of 51-200 animals and
those with >1,000 animals. They also tend to split into two size
groups: those averaging <10 acres and those averaging around 50
acres. Although dairies are normally smaller than feedlots, they
are often of greater concern as a group because of their large
numbers and because they produce daily process waste as well as
-------
contaminated stormwater runoff. Dairies often have no
impoundments of any kind; few of those that do are designed to
accommodate runoff. In contrast, facilities for feedlots are
constructed only for runoff containment.
A great number of both dairies and feedlots are located
along streambanks and canals, and a large number allow animals
direct access to the water. The number of dairies allowing
access to water varies from 31 percent in Twin Falls to 48 and 50
percent in Blackfoot and Caldwell, respectively. Feedlots show
similar values, with percentages ranging from 27 percent in Twin
Falls to 40 and 71 percent in the Caldwell and Blackfoot areas
respectively. While other operations impact waterways only when
runoff or facility overflow occurs, operations that allow cattle
access to water will produce a year-round impact.
Grade A dairies often cause fewer problems than grade B
dairies because grade A cleanliness requirements are more
stringent and require containment facilities (although facility
standards are not defined). The majority (70 percent) of
produced milk comes from grade B dairies, but there is a current
trend toward upgrading dairy status. This should produce some
water quality benefits as more farms construct containment
facilities to attain grade A status.
Nearly all river segments in the study area are classified
as having marginal quality (i.e., having moderate or intermittent
pollution). In all major drainage basins, nonpoint source
agricultural activity is considered the main factor in water
quality degradation, although for a number of reasons, direct
correlation between source and impact is difficult if not
impossible. An evaluation of aerial survey data supports this
conclusion; the stream segments having the highest numbers of
dairy and feedlot operations also tend to have the poorest water
quality.
There appears to be a downward trend in water quality over
the last few years. Stream segments considered to be high
priority segments in terms of dairy and feedlot impact within the
study area include Rock Creek, the lower portions of the Boise
and Payette Rivers, Big Wood and Little Wood Rivers, Mink and
Worm Creeks, Bear and Cub Rivers, and Deep and Cedar Draw Creeks.
Present and projected stream uses for stream segments in the
project area range from less sensitive uses, such as agricultural
supply and secondary contact recreation, to more sensitive uses,
such as salmon spawning and domestic supply. Except for water
supply, nearly all streams are protected for biota and contact
recreation as well as agricultural use.
In attempting to control surfacewater pollution, the
possibility of groundwater pollution should not be overlooked.
The area along much of the Snake River is under consideration as
a Sole Source Aquifer. Elevated nitrate levels already exist in
much of this area, and contamination from surface activities is a
11
-------
possibility in many areas where lava or porous substrate occur.
Because of the extensive use of this aquifer, activities above
the aquifer, particularly from Hagerman to Idaho Falls, should be
carefully regulated. This area contains many of -the most heavily
concentrated dairy areas in the state.
The previous permit program had minimal impact on
impoundment construction. The percentage of previously permitted
operations having impoundments is not greatly different from the
percentage of previously unpermitted facilities which have them.
Only 45 percent of the permitted operations and only 28 percent
of the total operations surveyed had impoundments of any kind.
Approximately 72, 84, and 76 percent of feedlots have no
impoundments in the Caldwell, Twin Falls, and Blackfoot regions,
respectively. The percentage of dairies without impoundments
shows more regional divergence, being 50, 64, and 91 percent,
respectively. The great majority of dairy impoundments are
designed only for process waste, not for runoff. Few
impoundments already constructed should be considered adequate to
protect water quality. Little effort appears to have been made
to contain run.off at all, much less meet EPA effluent
limitations. Whether operations having impoundments meet EPA
effluent limitations cannot be determined from the files or
survey data; individual site inspections would be necessary to
determine actual depth (and therefore volume) of the
impoundments. Discussions with local and state enforcement
personnel, however, indicate only a very small percentage of
facilities that do have impoundments adequately address runoff.
There are few enforcement tools, and a number of factors
contribute to enforcement problems. There are no well-defined
state mechanisms for enforcing proper waste facility design, no
requirements for plan review and approval, and no animal waste
regulations. The canal companies, local health departments, and
IDHW all have a limited degree of enforcement capability, but
many physical and political factors hamper enforcement
effectiveness.
Ideally, each farm should have a management plan that
contains BMPs. An evaluation of a limited number of existing
management plans indicates a wide variation in plan content.
This is due in some degree to the variety of agencies and
individuals that have been involved in plan design. In general,
the few plans reviewed (1978-80 vintage) seem to place more
emphasis on odors and manure utilization than on water pollution
control. For example, many plans provide no recommended pumping
dates, holding times, or other important operation and
maintenance factors, although they provide detailed calculations
on nutrient value of manure, crop types, and similar information.
Soil, rainfall, and climate all affect impoundment function
and design. In general, November through May is the wettest time
of the year. A significant proportion of the annual rainfall may
fall as snow, particularly in the eastern areas where elevation
is higher and temperatures are cooler. In winter, frozen ground
111
-------
often prevents infiltration of rain or meltwater. It also
prevents manure and runoff application on fields, resulting in
the need to store manure during this period. Frozen ground can
be expected for 2-3 months in the Caldwell and Twin Falls areas
and 3-4 months in Pocatello. Spring runoff from accumulated
snowfall, and even rainfall events spanning several days often
produce a runoff volume that exceeds 25-year, 24-hour storm
events (2.4, 2.8, and 2.1 inches for Caldwell, Twin Falls, and
Pocatello, respectively)
Design criteria must adequately protect water quality but
must not be so stringent as to place an excessive burden on the
farmer. Given the financial state of many farmers, every effort
should be made to attain this latter condition, perhaps by
emphasing containment volume but avoiding requirements of high
cost features such as concrete walls, liners, stainless steel
piping, etc.
Previous design criteria (25-year, 24-hour storm) have not
taken many factors into account. As a result, they do not
accurately reflect local conditions, water quality degradation
occurs, and impoundment functioning often does not meet the
intent of the regulations. Design criteria must account for
cumulative precipitation, frozen ground conditions, and wet-
weather holding periods. Permit conditions or design criteria
that focus only on the 25-yr, 24-hr, storm event will not be
adequate to protect water quality.
Analysis of complaint data showed no correlation between
daily rainfall events and complaints, but there was a strong
correlation between complaints and the cumulative precipitation
for 90- and 120-day intervals prior to the complaint. Weaker
correlations also exist for 7- and 30-day antecedent
precipitation. This supports the idea that design to contain
single 24-hour events is not sufficient. A 4-month holding
period is recommended.
Some volume adjustment can be made for evaporation, but the
average annual evaporation rate is not a realistic measure to use
because it is composed primarily of warm weather values (no
winter data exist in Idaho), and evaporation rates in winter (the
time when storage is needed) are much lower. Applying
evaporation opportunity factors to the expected rainfall for
months of winter storage produces a more realistic value.
The impoundment design criteria which appear to address the
effects of frozen ground and cumulative rainfall conditions
include design for a 120-day storage of runoff (based on an
average l-in-5 year winter for the months of storage) plus
storage of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and any process waste
produced. No pond exfiltration should be assumed, and
infiltration during frozen ground conditions should be assumed to
be nearly 0.
IV
-------
These criteria alone will not prevent all overflows,
particularly in very wet years, but they should perform
adequately under most conditions. Implementation of solids
separation should be encouraged (although not enforced) as it
will greatly reduce odors in the impoundment and COD loading
(should overflow occur). Proper maintenance, particularly
seasonal emptying of impoundments, is at least equally as
necessary as correct design. State personnel in all areas stress
this need. Requiring each farmer under the permit program to
submit a management plan would ensure that the farmer is aware of
maintenance procedures and other BMPS and would also increase the
chance of these practices being implemented.
NPDES General Permits have been issued for confined animal
operations in Arizona, Utah, South Dakota, and Montana. Each
program is implemented somewhat differently, but several
generalizations on General Permits are possible. A General
Permit will reduce initial paperwork and provide the appearance
of a more uniformly administered enforcement program. On the
other hand, a General Permit cannot cover all site-specific
situations, and there is a danger that sources may "get lost"
under a General Permit. General Permit issuance is feasible for
Idaho, but it should not be expected that its issuance will
automatically result in improved water quality or increase the
number of operators expressing interest in the program. The
effectiveness of any permit program ultimately depends on
approach and degree of enforcement pursued by both EPA and the
state, not on the form of the permit.
The regulations allow permit issuance under several
conditions. Permits are required for feedlots and dairies of
>1,000 or 700 animals, respectively. Feedlots and dairies of
>300 or 200 animals, respectively, that discharge to waterways
are also included in the regulations. The Appendix B regulations
also allow permitting of any operation causing a water quality
problem regardless of size. The sheer number of smaller
facilities having <200 animals indicate that any permit and
enforcement program aimed solely at the larger operations will be
of limited value in water quality improvement. The best way to
approach these smaller operations is probably to select and
concentrate on priority drainages where water quality is
impaired. Small farms essentially present almost a nonpoint
source effect; effective control will require individual follow
up and permit issuance if water quality improvement is to be
expected.
v
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background and Purpose
A large number of confined animal feeding operations
(primarily feedlots and dairies) are currently operating in
Idaho. Their numbers, locations, the type and number of their
treatment facilities, and the extent to which they cause water
quality degradation have not previously been well documented.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to regulate
discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations by the
Clean Water Act, P.L. 95-217, and regulations developed pursuant
to the Act. A number of the larger feedlots and dairies were
previously regulated by the EPA under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program in the mid and late
1970s. The majority of these permits expired in 1979, although
some were valid as late as 1982. The majority of these permitted
dischargers are still operational, although many have changed
ownership, expanded, or reduced their operation. Some have
ceased operation, and a number of others have been identified
which were either previously unpermitted or which have recently
become established.
The EPA has established Effluent Guidelines and Standards
for the feedlots point source category (Title 40, Part 412). As
defined by Appendix B of the NPDES Regulations, these apply to
large operations containing 1,000 or more slaughter steers and
heifers; 700 or more mature dairy cattle; 2,500 swine; 500
horses; 10,000 sheep; 55,000 turkeys; 100,000 laying hens or
broilers (with continuous flow water systems, or 30,000 with
liquid manure handling systems); 5,000 ducks; or combined
operations having 1,000 or more animal units. Under Appendix B
of the NPDES Regulations, these numbers can be decreased to 300
slaughter cattle, 200 dairy cattle, 750 swine, 150 horses, 3,000
sheep or lambs, 16,500 turkeys, 30,000 or 9,000 laying hens
(depending on the type of waste system), 1,500 ducks, or 300
animal units where either: 1) the pollutants are discharged into
navagible waters through a man-made ditch, flushing system, or
similar device; or 2) the pollutants are discharged directly into
waters of the United States which originate outside of and pass
over, across, or through the facility or otherwise come into
direct contact with animals confined in the operation.
In addition, under Section 122.23, any operation can be
designated a concentrated animal feeding operation on a case-by-
case basis upon determining that it is a "significant contributor
-------
of pollution" to waters of the United States. Smaller facilities
may therefore be regulated by permit as well. This possibility
is of importance to this study because dairies are extremely
numerous, a large number have no waste facilitiesf and the
majority contain less than 200 animals. In some areas, the
cumulative effect of these small operations has resulted in
severe water quality degradation.
As of July 1984, the guidelines specify that existing
facilities be required to meet Best Available Technology (BAT)
standards, which have a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event as the
principal design criteria. They prohibit discharges to waters
except when caused by a "chronic or catastrophic" rainfall event.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) also require this
criteria. Previously permitted facilities were normally designed
to meet Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT), i.e., to
contain processed waste plus runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour
rainfall event.
Over the last several years, the number of both feedlot and
dairy discharges, as well as the number of recorded complaints,
has increased dramatically in Idaho. While this increase can be
attributed to several factors, either singly or in combination,
one main cause of the discharges appears to have been increased
precipitation. A number of physical and climatic factors are
related to the discharge of a system during a wet period,
including whether the ground is frozen or not; amount, frequency,
and duration of precipitation; amount of snow on the ground; and
size and slope of the confinement area. All of these factors
affect the volume of precipitation actually becoming runoff and
entering an impoundment. Design requirements should permit an
impoundment to adequately function given these variables.
Management practices such as timing and frequency of impoundment
drawdown are also critical to proper functioning and overflow
prevention.
Several states, including South Dakota, Utah, Montana,
Oregon, and Arizona, have or are presently considering using
NPDES General Permits to regulate feedlots and dairies, rather
than issuing individual permits to each facility. The EPA is
presently considering the issuance of a General Permit in Idaho.
As a change in the permit process is now being considered, this
is an opportune time to review the appropriateness of impoundment
criteria and to clarify the impact of physical and climatic
variables on impoundment effectiveness.
A series of EPA aerial surveys has provided a variety of
site-specific information on confined animals operations along
the Snake River drainages where feedlots and dairies are most
concentrated. The majority of Idaho feedlots and dairies lie
within the survey area shown in Figure 1-1. For consistency,
this report confines its assessment to the same areas. it
assesses the number, type, and location of confined animal
feeding operations and the degree to which they actually or
potentially impact water quality. It also assesses the number of
-------
Caldwell
Boise
Idaho Falls
Blackfoot
Pocatello
Twin Falls
FIGURE 1-1, GENERAL LOCATION OF THE STUDY AREA
-------
potential permit holders and the extent to which BAT has
functioned adequately; examines the feasibility of a general
permit for Idaho; suggests design criteria for the general
permit; and identifies a management approach.
The information gathered by this study should be useful to
regulatory personnel and planners at both the state and federal
levels. Although the NPDES program in Idaho is managed by EPA,
personnel in the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW)
and district health departments are heavily involved in water
quality impacts of confined animal operations at the state and
local levels. An attempt has been made to include baseline
information which will aid in management and enforcement at all
regulatory levels.
Report Organization
Chapter 2 assesses the existing status of the feedlot and
dairy industry; provides a perspective on source types, numbers,
locations, and feedlot-related water quality problems; and
identifies water segments and sources of greatest concern.
Chapter 3 discusses the effect of soils and climate on feedlot
runoff and compliance and evaluates effects of such factors as
snowmelt, precipitation patterns, and infiltration. Chapter 4
addresses the use, type, and effectiveness of existing Best
Management Practices (BMPs) and the effectiveness of BPT in
general. It also suggests design criteria to be included in an
NPDES general permit. Chapter 5 assesses the feasibility of
issuing an NPDES general permit for Idaho, discusses approaches
to permit issuance and enforcement, and briefly discusses other
enforcement/compliance alternatives.
-------
Chapter 2
SOURCE ASSESSMENT
Although feedlots and dairies are scattered throughout
Idaho, the great majority of feedlot and dairy operations are
concentrated along the Snake River drainage in the Southwest
Basin, Bear River Basin, and Upper Snake Basin of southern Idaho.
This assessment concentrates on these areas and does not attempt
to study or quantify operations within the state as a whole. It
provides an overview of types and numbers of feedlots and
dairies, their waste facilities and management practices, and
factors influencing effectiveness of these waste facilities in
southern Idaho. The conclusions are believed applicable to the
entire state. In evaluating the current industry status and
projecting feasible solutions, it is important to understand the
historical, political, environmental, and economic factors
affecting feedlot and dairy operations. For this reason, a brief
overview and historical perspective are included here.
Historical Overview
Idaho has traditionally been an agriculturally-oriented
state. The majority of the attitudes, economic conditions, and
political forces revolve around and are integrated with
agricultural interests and activities. It is not within the
scope of this report to provide an in-depth socio-economic
analysis, but it is important to understand the impact and
relationship that these factors have on dairy and feedlot
operators. Without this understanding, it is unlikely that
workable management strategies can be devised or effectively
implemented. This section briefly summarizes some of the more
important factors influencing dairy and feedlot management and
regulation in general. Conditions in the individual study areas
are described in subsequent sections.
Feedlots differ from dairies in their geographical areas of
concentration, average size, and total numbers. The number of
animals in a feedlot can greatly exceed those found in a dairy,
but the U. S. Department of Agriculture Statistical Reporting
Service (SRS; Hasslen pers. comm.) estimates there are nearly 15
times as many dairies (2,500) in the state as feedlots (175).
Most of the large feedlots are centered in the Boise-Caldwel1
vicinity. There are relatively few in the other areas. In
contrast, dairies are concentrated in the vicinity of Twin Falls
and Blackfoot. Although they are of smaller size than feedlots
(generally <200 animals), sheer numbers make dairies a prime
concern in these areas.
-------
Much of the growing concern over dairies is due to a change
in both size and number of operations. The typical dairy of the
past was a family operation, having perhaps 60-90 animals. It
was operated for self sufficiency, and there was little impetus
for expansion. Most operations were built near canals or
waterways, which served both to provide water and remove wastes
(Ceilings pers. comm.).
Today's dairies are larger, with most having 150-200
animals. These are commercial operations, and they tend to
produce much greater waste volumes than the older operations
(Collings pers. comm.). Unlike feedlots, the number of dairies
has increased greatly over the last few years. The number of
dairy cows in Idaho increased by 23 percent between 1978 and
1982, with the majority of growth occurring in the Magic Valley
area (IDHW 1984a). Centered around Twin Falls and Wendell, Magic
Valley spans the area from Rupert to Bliss, extending northward
to Shoshone and southward to the Idaho border. It now contains
over 40 percent of the state's dairy herd (IDHW 1984a).
Many of the new dairymen are Dutch farmers who have moved
from California's Chino Valley. The chief attractions in Magic
Valley appear to be cheap land and feed costs and little
environmental regulation (Collings, Renk, McMasters pers. comm.).
Other conditions also differ, however. A combination of frozen
ground and snowmelt result in large volumes of spring runoff, a
situation not encountered in the drier climate of Chino Valley.
If this climatic factor is not taken into account when designing
waste lagoons, or if it is not alleviated by more frequent
pumping, discharges will occur. Failure to understand this
difference in climatic conditions may be one of several reasons
why waste systems fail.
Dairies are classified as grade A or grade B dairies. Grade
A dairy products are suitable for direct consumption, in forms
such as milk and cream. Grade B dairy products are used in
processed foods, such as cheese and ice cream. There is
substantial incentive for a dairy to achieve grade A status
because milk prices are higher for grade A milk (presently
approximately $12.50 versus $13.88 per hundred pounds of milk)
(Collings pers. comm.).
There tend to be fewer wastewater problems with grade A
dairies because these dairies require a permit and are inspected
by the Health Department. To obtain grade A status, a dairy is
required to have adequate wastewater disposal facilities.
Enforcement is still a problem, however, because "adequate"
facilities are not defined and Idaho regulations provide no
penalties for violations. The Pasteurized Milk Ordinance has
penalties, but dairies in Idaho do not operate under this
ordinance (Collings pers. comm.). The degree to which a grade A
dairy can be made to install environmentally sound wastewater
facilities is thus somewhat limited.
-------
Grade B dairies produce approximately 70 percent of the
milk. Although they are perfunctorily inspected by the
Department of Agriculture, they are very loosely regulated
because they are not required to obtain permits. Consequently,
it is very difficult for the Department to require anything.
Most dairy waste problems tend to be associated with grade B
dairies (Palmer, O'Rourke pers. comm.).
Unlike feedlots, dairies produce large amounts of process
wastewater on a year-round basis in addition to precipitation-
caused runoff from cowyards. Opinions concerning the relative
importance of runoff and process waste discharge vary with the
area and individual. Some state and local personnel feel the two
discharges are of approximately equal importance. Others feel
the process waste is far more important, and still others place
greater emphasis on the runoff. At present, if a dairy does have
waste facilities, they are often designed only for process waste.
Runoff containment has, for the most part, been essentially
ignored by both grade A and grade B dairies.
Canals have an important relationship to confined animal
operations in many areas. This appears to be particularly true
in the Magic Valley area, where over 1-million acres of farmland
are irrigated by over 3,000 miles of canals and laterals (IDHW
1984a). In this area, canals, rather than streams or rivers,
receive the majority of identified discharges. The one clear-cut
enforcement tool for dairy and feedlot discharges is related to
canals. Idaho Code Section 18.4301 "Interference with Ditches,
Canals, or Reservoirs" prohibits discharge of filth or other
materials or obstruction to the free flow of water. The canal
companies are generally reluctant to enforce this Section,
however, because the dairymen are stockholders in the canal
company (Hopson, Collings pers. comm.). Letters in the IDHW
files indicate at least two canal companies have occasionally
sent letters to violators, but there was little evidence of
serious follow up; the canal companies tend to look to IDHW or
the Health Department for enforcement (Hopson, Renk, Collings
pers. comm.).
Fish hatcheries may also come into conflict with waste
discharges from dairies and feedlots, particularly in the Twin
Falls vicinity. The Magic Valley area contains approximately 100
hatcheries and produces approximately 90 percent of the nation's
commercial trout (IDHW 1984a). Most are raised in individual
ponds using water from springs in the rocks or from streams and
canals. The direct discharge of wastewater and corral runoff has
caused fish kills. Although kills are relatively infrequent,
they are costly, as hundred or thousands of fish may be affected.
In addition, dairy wastes induce weed growth in canals. Weed
killer used to control this growth has also been responsible for
a number of documented fish kills. Hatcheries are located
primarily in Gooding County, with most near Hagerman and Buhl
(O'Rourke, McMasters pers. comm.).
-------
A number of other factors also contribute to both dairy and
feedlot enforcement problems. Just as there is no well-defined
state mechanism for ensuring proper design of a waste facility/
similarly there is no enforcement procedure for improperly
designed facilities. IDHW can review plans but is not required
to approve them, and animal waste regulations have not been able
to pass the legislature (McMasters pers. comm.). When systems
are properly designed, often they are designed primarily to serve
existing conditions rather than to meet requirements of a
farmer's long-range goals. A system designed for an existing
operation may therefore become undersized if the farm expands.
There is no local mechanism for ensuring farms that increase
their animal densities provide a corresponding upgrade in
facility size. A lack of regulation to prevent groundwater
pollution and a high percentage of absentee landlords are also
concerns.
A number of agencies provide technical assistance to dairy
and feedlot owners. The SCS provides technical assistance in
planning and designing to non-commercial dairies and feedlots.
The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS)
may provide up to $3,500 in direct financial assistance for cost-
sharing and the installation of BMPs.
The SCS-designed facilities function well when built
according to plan, but they can be quite expensive. The narrow
profit margin of the farmer often makes construction costs
prohibitive because the $3,500 in financial assistance may cover
only 5-10 percent of the expected cost for some facilities. Many
designed facilties are therefore never built. Other designs have
been structurally altered to cut costs, although when cost-
sharing is involved, facilities must be built to SCS
specifications. Although plan alteration may sometimes affect
efficiency, IDHW has reviewed some altered systems which are
simply dirt ponds with a cement floor and ramp. They appear to
function properly while reducing cost by 50 percent (Hopson
pers. comm.). In the late 1970s, both SCS and IDHW placed
greater emphasis on system design. The files indicate a
substantial decrease in facility design since about 1980, and
both IDHW and SCS personnel indicate design activity has slacked
off in recent years (Davidson, Hopson, James pers. comm.}.
The ASCS has provided 75:25 cost share assistance for water
quality projects under the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP). One
RCWP project presently operates in the Rock Creek area;
unfortunately, no new districts are being designated at present.
One problem with this type of program is that, like individual
systems, it tends to be effective only while the program
continues. Once the program ends, many people believe structural
maintenance tends to end and soon many of the benefits are lost
(Burkett pers. comm.).
Some local associations, such as the Wood River Resources
Association of Counties, also provide financial assistance to
local operators. Still another assistance program includes a
-------
computer program available through some of the county extension
agents. The program designs waste lagoons providing for 5-month
capacity with a 3-foot freeboard.
All IDHW districts identified the maintenance issue as
perhaps the greatest obstacle to water quality where wastewater
containment facilities already exist. Some regulators feel pond
sizing is relatively unimportant if the operator pumps the pond
as necessary to prevent overflow. Because climatic conditions
restrict pumping of facilities during winter months, designing to
allow sufficient storage volume for these periods is important;
but the maintenance aspect must not be overlooked. Operator
ignorance is not the reason discharges occur. Many operators
simply find pumping of lagoons an inconvenience. Water pollution
fines are rare, and if levied under state legislation, are small
and generally easier to accept than construction of additional
facilities or increased maintenance (Allred pers. comm.). Some
SCS personnel that work state-wide believe that, in general, more
awareness or concern exists in southern Idaho than in the
northern panhandle. This may be due in part to the greater
concentration of operations in the south and the resulting
increased emphasis on feedlots and darries by SCS and IDHW.
All agencies indicated one of the greatest problems is lack
of field personnel and inspectors. This is certainly both a
valid concern and an important issue which must be addressed. In
some cases, it is a very real constraint to enforcement; in
others, it may be a convenient excuse for lack of enforcement.
The personnel lack will become more evident if a functional
permit program is established. Increasing the involvement of
other agencies and groups, such as the district health
departments, would help to offset the manpower shortage in IDHW
and SCS.
A Statewide Perspective on Feedlots and Dairies
The aerial survey was not meant to identify or locate all
feedlots and dairies. It was designed to cover the areas of
greatest feedlot and dairy concentration and areas where animals
affect water quality. Because water quality problem areas do
exist outside of the study area, however, and because a general
permit would cover the entire state, it is important to develop a
statewide perspective on feedlots and dairies.
The USDA SRS (Hasslen pers. comm.) reports 175 beef feedlots
and approximately 2,500 dairies operating in Idaho in 1983.
Table 2-1 provides a breakdown of the feedlots and dairies by
size. SRS defines a feedlot as an operation having a holding
area and animals on feed for slaughter and bases the facility
size estimates on capacity not actual number of animals.
Operations tabulated are considered to be commercial operations.
It can be seen from the table that by far the largest number
of feedlots are operations of <1,000 animals. The large number
-------
Table 2-1. Number of Feedlots, Dairies, and Animals Reported
for the State of Idaho (1983)
FEEDLOTS
t ANIMALS NUMBER
<1,000
1,000-1,999
2,000-3,999
4,000-7,999
>8,000
TOTAL
120
16
15
11
175
DAIRIES
* ANIMALS NUMBER*
1-29
30-49
50-99
>100
65% [1,625]
11.8% [ 295]
16% [ 400]
10.7% [ 26]
102.5% ~2,500
* Statistics available for dairies record categories as percent
and estimate total number at approximately 2,500. Figures
in brackets are estimated.
SOURCE: Statistical Reporting Service (Hasslen pers. comm).
10
-------
of small operations identified by aerial survey indicates that
the number of feedlots within the SRS "<1,000" category is still
an underestimate; it is probable that many of the smaller
operations in this category have been missed, particularly those
in the <50 and 51-200 size ranges.
This assumption is supported by the fact that SRS also
reports a total of 890,000 beef cattle within the state during
1983. Using the SRS size class data, assuming each identified
feedlot contained the largest possible number of animals for its
size class (with those in the ">8,000" class counted as having
8,000), the total number of animals accounted for would be
approximately 400,000 (only 21 percent of the total). To account
for such a large number of animals, the 13 identified feedlots in
the largest size class must either have many more than 8,000
animals, or there are a large number of smaller operations that
have not been identified. It is most likely that many smaller
operations have been omitted.
It is difficult to equate results of the aerial survey with
the SRS information because size classes used by the two sources
differ. As the larger operations are more visible, however, it
is likely that the number of operations in the larger size
classes is more accurate than the number for smaller size
classes. The SRS identified a total of 55 feedlots having over
1,000 head. The aerial photo survey identified only 17
operations of this size. Either the remaining feedlots are
outside of the study area, they are within the area but were
missed by the survey, or they were included in the survey under
an incorrect size category. As the number of animals vary within
a feedlot throughout the year, this last possibility is quite
likely. The greatest discrepancy between survey and SRS data, as
expected, falls in the smallest size class.
The SRS reports dairies somewhat differently than feedlots.
The total number of dairies is estimated at approximately 2,500,
and the number of operations within a class is given as a
percentage rather than an actual number. As with feedlots, the
majority of dairy operations are in the smallest size class.
Using the percentage and estimated total number of dairies, over
1,600 dairies can be calculated as belonging in the 1-29 animal
size class. These figures seem to correspond to the aerial photo
information better than the feedlot figures.
The SRS reports 172,000 dairy cows within the state.
Assuming each dairy contained the maximum number of animals for
its size class (with those in the >100 class counted as having
100), the total number of animals accounted for would be
approximately 96,000 or 56 percent. Again, this seems to
indicate that either a large number of operations have been
missed by the SRS or that many of the 26 dairies within the
">100" class have a much larger number of animals than 100.
Regardless of the actual number, however, the large number of
operations identified has implications for water quality as well
as for the permit process. The sheer number of smaller
11
-------
facilities identified (probably a large underestimate in both the
aerial survey and the SRS data) indicates that any permit and
enforcement procedure aimed solely at the larger operations will
be of limited value in overall water quality improvement. These
small operations are so numerous they produce almost a nonpoint
source effect and contribute significantly to water quality
degradation. Any program developed must address these smaller
sources if significant improvement is to be expected.
Study Area and Methodology
As a first step in assessing the number and condition of
existing operations, EPA conducted aerial photographic surveys
(EPA 1984a, bfcr and EPA 1985) within the Southwest, Upper Snake,
and Bear River Basins and located in the general vicinity of
Caldwell, Twin Falls, and Blackfoot. The surveys concentrated
primarily on the Snake River and its tributary streams and rivers
because of the large number of operations located in this area.
The methodology for aerial survey coverage was somewhat different
in each of the three survey areas because of differences in
information available for each region. Results from the three
areas are therefore not totally comparable, but together they
provide a great deal of information on the distribution of
confined animal operations within southern Idaho. Over 20
counties are included in the survey area.
In all three surveys, operations were screened by size to
limit the number requiring greater depth of analysis. The
surveys included all dairies having more than 25 animals or
larger than 3 acres in size and all feedlots having more than 50
animals or larger than 10 acres. In the Blackfoot and Twin Falls
areas, criteria also included any operation where cattle had
direct access to water, regardless of size (Becker pers. comm.).
Although many of these operations are relatively small, they can
potentially cause severe water quality degradation if waste
management facilities are unsatisfactory. Their cumulative
impact can be substantial. Understanding the smaller operations
is critical in estimating magnitude of animal impact and
providing insight into management of the entire dairy and feedlot
industry.
EPA further assessed each screened source in the aerial
study by using stereoscopic analysis to determine water pollution
potential. The slope and direction of runoff, distance to
surface water, number and size of impoundments, feeding area
acreage, animal count, and access to surface water were
determined for each source. Drainage direction was determined
from photographic analysis and U. S. Geological Survey maps.
Owners were also identified by use of plat maps and property
records.
Information from EPA aerial surveys was used in assessing
and quantifying sources as part of this study. This information
was supplemented by information from the EPA NPDES permit and
12
-------
compliance files, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
(IDHW), district health department, and Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) files. Personal contact with various state and district
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) personnel, the district Health
Departments, IDHW technicians and engineers, and Conservation
District personnel also provided information on the current
status of individual operations, factors affecting construction
and enforcement of facilities, and the effectiveness of BPT and
other management practices on previously permitted facilities. A
literature review of relevant soil and climatic data was also
performed to provide baseline data for the development of design
criteria. A number of personal communications with EPA and state
personnel provided information on NPDES General Permits and
various management approaches.
Source Quantification
Because the study area lies within the jurisdiction of three
IDHW district offices, and because the aerial survey coverage and
methodology varied slightly with each survey, the sources are
discussed below by survey location. This division generally
corresponds to drainage basins and stream segments as well as to
IDHW district jurisdictions.
Several factors complicated data compilation and assessment.
A number of feedlots or dairies sometimes exist under the same
ownership, which has sometimes led to confusion in the records.
Simplot, for example, had six previously permitted operations,
all similarly named, and several are located in the same
vicinity. Analysis of file information relating to these
operations was hindered because local correspondence, complaints,
and inspection reports often did not provide permit numbers or
other sufficient information to allow identification of the exact
operation involved. In other cases, information was conflicting;
names did not match permit numbers for example. Name changes
were another confusing factor. Feedlots or dairies may exist in
files under two or more names because they have changed ownership
over the years or because they were alternately referred to by
owner's name and corporate name.
Even determining which facilities were previously permitted
proved unexpectedly complicated. A number of different permit
listings exist in various agency files. None was found to be
complete (the EPA listing was incomplete due to incorrect
computer coding of a SIC category). A number of operations
received permit numbers but were later exempted or the permit was
cancelled. After data and record compilation, 68 valid feedlot
and dairy permits were found to have been previously issued for
Idaho: 37, 20, and 10 for the Caldwell, Twin Falls, and
Blackfoot study areas, respectively. Only one operation was
located elsewhere (Salmon area), indicating that the area of
major concern has been largely covered by the survey, although
numerous smaller operations are scattered throughout the state.
IDHW file records indicate at least 11 other operations also
13
-------
received permits that were later exempted or cancelled. These
operations are included in this Chapter (Table 2-15) primarily as
an aid to state personnel in record and status clarification.
Nearly all of these are located in the Caldwell area.
The strong agricultural orientation and politics within the
state also affected the assessment to some degree. The
perception of dairies and feedlots varies widely from person to
person. Few people are neutral; either they view the industry as
having great impact on water quality and they are working
diligently to reduce impacts, or they tend to minimize the
impacts, take a more unconcerned approach to complaints and
enforcement, and assume that little change can be accomplished
because of the political climate. In the latter situation, there
tends to be little information available in files or voluntered
orally. In cases where the magnitude of the impact appears to be
understated, the aerial survey information helped to offset the
lack of information.
Caldwell Area (Wieser to Glenn's Ferrvl
The Caldwell area contains more than half of the previously
permitted operations, yet the aerial survey identified relatively
few operations compared to the other two regions. This is due
primarily to survey methodology, as the aerial survey area was
selected to focus on known feedlot and dairy problems, rather
than to provide blanket coverage of the entire region. Most
operations surveyed in the Caldwell area were large. That the
survey identified a smaller number of sources in this area does
not necessarily indicate a less severe problem; in fact, the
reverse situation may be true because the greatest number of
large operations exist here. In the other two study areas,
operations with access to surface water, regardless of size, were
included. If this were the case in the Caldwell area as well,
the total number of aerially surveyed operations would have been
much greater (Becker, Clark pers. comm.).
Sources Identified Through Permits and Aerial Survey. The
Caldwell area is the only study area where feedlots appear to
greatly outnumber dairies; nearly all of the larger previously
permitted feedlot operations are located here. The 30 feedlots
and seven dairies or poultry operations previously permitted for
the Caldwell area are shown in Table 2-2. The surveyed
operations (generally large operations only) appear to be widely
dispersed; Nampa and Caldwell contained five operations each,
followed by Payette, with three. Bruneau, Marsing, Meridian,
Emmett, Eagle, Wilder, Grandview, Parma, and Boise each contained
two; and Hammett, Homedale, Middleton, Wieser, Melba, and Notus
each contained one.
The aerial survey identified 25 feedlots, 5 dairies, and 1
poultry operation. Of these, 20 feedlots and 5 dairy or poultry
operations previously held permits. Approximately 33 percent of
the feedlots (10 operations) and 30 percent of the dairies (two
operations) previously permitted were thus not included in the
14
-------
Ul
Table 2-2. Previously Permitted Operations in the Cal dwell Area
PERMITTED FEEDLQTS
PERMIT
NJIMBEB
002307-8
002132-6
002147-4
002133-4
002214-4
002186-1
002593-3
002174-1
002272-1
002195-4
002472-4
002115-6
002211-4
002153-9
002154-7
002162-8
002163-6
002197-1
002228-4
002246-2
002300-1
002131-8
002471-6
002218-7
002216-1
EXPIRATION
DATE
6/13/79
6/21/79
6/21/79
5/28/79
6/21/79
5/28/79
—
6/21/79
6/20/79
6/21/79
6/2/82
5/28/79
6/4/79
6/21/79
6/21/79
6/21/79
6/21/79
6/21/79
6/21/79
6/21/79
6/13/79
6/11/79
6/2/82
6/21/79
10/31/79
HAMfifL
'Armour t Company
*Bivens Livestock Co.
•Bower Feedlot
*Bruneau Cattle Co.
*Clayne Cooper
(C. M. Ranch)
•Don McGhehey
(Theodore J. Stutz;
Mule Shoe Bar Ranch)
Drees Feedlot
Emmet t Feedlot, Inc.
(Holstein Heifer Ranch;
Emmet t Cattle Corp.)
•Farmer Cattle Co.
•George Ray Obendorf Feedlot
(Ray Obendorf Feedlot)
*H. H. Keirn Co., Ltd.
•Holbrook Ranches, Inc.
•I.O.N. Cattle Company, Inc.
•Idaho Feedlot Co.
•Idaho Feedlot Co.
Idaho Meat Packers, Inc.
*J. Howard Kent Beef Feedlot
(Kent Ranch Co.)
•Johnson Cattle Co. , Inc.
Lone Star Cattle Co., Inc.
P&B Feedlot, Inc.
•Quarter Circle DJ Ranch
R. L. Cattle Company
Richard D. Rutledge
•Simplot Feedlots, Inc. (13)
•Simplot Livestock Co.
(Simplot Feedlot 11)
ABEA
Nampa
Payette
Marsing
Bruneau
Emmet t
Hammett
Homedale
Emmet t
Marsing
Parma
Nampa
Bruneau
Hiddleton
Hieser
Star (Eagle)
Caldwell
Caldwell
Wilder
Nampa
Melba
Eagle
Nampa
Caldwell
Caldwell
Grandview
RECORDED
RECEIVING HATER COMPLAINTS
Boise R
(via Indian Cr)
Wieser R 12/13/83
(via L. Payette Canal)
Snake R 12/14/83
(via Ischam Drain)
Snake R
(via Jacks Cr)
Payette R
Snake R
Drainage ditch
Payette R "5/9/73
Snake R
(via Wilson Cr)
Snake R
Indian Cr
Snake R
(via Jack t Little
Jack Cr)
Boise R
Snake R
Boise R Numerous in 1974, 75, 76,
78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84
Boise R t Indian Cr
(via drains)
Boise R
(via Sidenberg Canal)
Snake R 2/12/79
Boise R
Snake R
Boise R
(via Foothill Ditch)
Boise R
(via drain canal)
Boise R 2/15/80
(via Hartley Gulch Cr)
Boise R 12/14/83; 2/13/84
(via ditch)
Snake R 3/30/84
(via canal)
-------
Table 2-2. Continued
PERMIT EXPIRATION
NUMBER DATE
002217-9
002458-9
00/2235-7
002196-2
002233-1
10/31/79
6/2/82
6/21/79
6/21/79
6/21/79
PERMITTED FEEDLQTS
A££A RECEIVING WATER
RECORDED
COMPLAINTS
Siraplot Livestock Co. (12)
•Tiegs Farm, Inc.
•Western States Cattle Company
Wilder Cattle Co.
Higby Cattle Co.
(Wright Cattle Company)
Boise
Nam pa
Not us
Wilder
Payette
Indian Cr
Boise R
Boise R
Payette R
(via Willow
Cr)
PERMITTED DAIRIES/POULTRY
002282-9
6/4/79
000040-0
002374-4
002447-3
002215-2
002219-5
002116-4
3/30/79
9/26/79
6/30/80
6/21/79
6/21/79
5/28/79
•American Dairy Heifers Payette
(Columbia R. Assoc.)
Boise Associated Dairies Boise
Dari Vest Farms, Inc. Parma
(Case Visser Dairy)
•Hank Vanderwey Dairy Farm Caldwell
•Simplot Poultry, Inc. Meridian
(dba Valley Storage Co.)
•Simplot Poultry, Inc. Meridian
(dba Intl. Cattle Exports)
•Triangle Dairy, Inc. Grandview
(Caldwell Dairy)
Snake R
(via Payette R)
Boise R
Snake R
Boise R
Lake Lowell
(via Ridenbaugh Canal)
Boise R
Snake R
(via Shoofly Cr)
5/6/75; 2/27/77; 12/12/78;
1/5/79; 2/26/79
6/29/83 (operational
problems)
Identified Volume 1 of the aerial survey (EPA 1984a).
Names in parentheses indicate previous name or other identifying name under which information exists in IDHW files.
SOURCES: EPA and IDHW files.
-------
Caldwell aerial photo survey. The survey did, however, identify
five additional feedlots and one additional dairy operation in
the survey area that were not previously permitted but which were
important enough to IDHW personnel to include in the survey.
Table 2-3 summarizes results of the aerial survey, gives
locations and receiving water segments, and indicates which
operations were previously permitted. Hundreds of smaller
feedlots and dairies are also present but not covered by the
aerial survey (Clark pers. comm.). It is assumed that most of
the permitted operations not identified in the survey still
exist, although some may be under different ownership.
Only 22 feedlots, dairies, and poultry operations having
over 200 animals were identified by aerial survey in the Caldwell
area. Only 11 had over 1,000 animals. Care should be taken,
however, not to overemphasize the importance of numbers or to
equate them too closely with expected impact. The number of
animals in an operation may vary widely, depending on whether
animals are being readied for market or whether they have just
been sold. Numbers also vary from year to year. It should also
be noted that the aerial survey occurred in the last half of
April. Animals are generally confined only from October or
November to April. If cattle or sheep were on BLM rangeland at
the time of the survey, the confinement areas would be empty.
This was true in the Twin Falls area (Morrison pers. comm.) and
may be the case in the Caldwell area as well. Numbers will thus
not provide a reliable indication of potential impact, except in
a relative sense as they compare to numbers in other areas if all
other factors are equal. Land slope, BMPs, location and many
other factors are also critical in determining the impact an
operation will have on receiving water.
Access of cattle to water is perhaps one of the most
critical factors in determining feedlot and dairy impact on water
quality. Thirteen of the 31 operations surveyed permit cattle to
have direct access to streams. This results in trampling of
streambanks, greatly increasing bank erosion. It also results in
direct input of manure to the water. Furthermore, permitting
access produces a year-round impact, unlike impacts from
overflowing facilities which are primarily rainfall related.
Cattle access to waterways for drinking water is established by
state law (Idaho Code section 42-113), and total elimination of
access would be difficult. It should be possible to restrict
access to much smaller areas, however, and to encourage fencing
and watering tank installation where possible.
..- Through Complaints. IDHW maintains
general files on feedlots and dairies, dating back in some cases
to 1973. These were reviewed to determine the sources, areas,
and times when water quality complaints were received (odor and
fly complaints were disregarded). Nearly 70 water quality-
related feedlot and dairy complaints were received by the Boise
IDHW district office from 1975 to June, 1984. Health departments
also receive complaints, but they are primarily related to flies
17
-------
Table 2-3. Confined Animal Feeding Operations Identified by Aerial Survey in the Caldwell Area
FEEDLQTS
SITE
00
1
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
12
IS
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
25
26
27
29
30
31
2
11
14
23
24
28
NAME*
Idaho Feedlot*
Bivens Livestock Co.*+
C. M. Ranch*
Hilltop Feedlot
George Obendorf*
Western States Cattle Co.*
Simplot Feedlote, Inc.**
Johnson Cattle Co., Inc.*
Bower Feedlot**
n
I.O.N. Cattle Company, Inc.
Kent Ranch Co.*
H. H. Kiem Company, Ltd;*
Armour t Company*
Tiegs Farms, Inc. II*
Tlegs Farms, Inc. 12
Idaho Feedlot Co.* +
Quarter Circle DJ Ranch*
Farmer Cattle Co.*
Hackler Feedlot
Simplot Livestock Co.* +
Bruneau Cattle Co.*
Hoi brook Ranches*
Don HcGhehey*
American Dairy Heifers II*
Owyhee
Hank Vandervey Dairy**
Simplot Poultry 11 (Poultry)*
Simplot Poultry 12 (Dairy)*
Triangle Dairy*
FEEDING
AREA (AC)
50
32
26
18
60
29
15
300
78
15
13
22
60
10
11
7
4
192
7
75
30
200
80
26
5
NO.
ANIMALS0
<50
>1000
201-700
201-700
>1000
<50
201-700
>1000
<50
>1000
201-700
<50
>1000
201-700
201-700
201-700
201-700
>1000
<50
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
<50
ANIMAL ACCESS/
RECEIVING PEN DISTANCE TO
WATER c WATERWAY (FT)
None
SWB 4201
SWB 340d
SWB 340
SWB 30
None
None
SWB 280
None
SWB 20
SWB 20 e
SWB 270
SWB 280
SWB 280f
Canal
Lk Lowell 9
Lk LowelK?)
Irg. ditch
Canal
SWB 20n
EWB 20(7)
Irg. ditch
SWB 103
SWB 10J(?)
SWB 10k
None/—
None/56
None/ 85
Direct access
None/570
None/1300
None/25
None/10
None/42
None/40
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
None/20
None/20
None/ 20
None/20
Direct access
None/10
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
None/10
Direct access
DAIRIES AND POULTRY
47
7
18
-
-
35
700-1000
51-200
201-700
< 50 (?)
<50
>1000
SWB 340
SWB 20
None
Riden. C.
Irg. ditch
SWB 201
Direct access
None/ 47
None/10
Direct access
Direct access
None/135
SLOPE1"
F
M/S
M
M/S
M/S
M
F
F
F
S
F/H
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F/M
F
F/M
F/H
F
M/S
F
F
F
F
IMPOUNDMENTS
(1. ACRES)
3; 1 AC
None
None
None
10 , 5 AC
None
3; 0.2 AC
16; 12 AC
None
None
Hone
None
3; 2.3 AC
None
None
None
None
4; 2.5 AC
None
7; 2 AC
None
None
None
None
None
3; 1.5 AC
1; 0.8 AC
1; 0.6 AC
None
None
None
LOCATION
Wieser
Payette
Homedale
Emmet t
Nyssa
Panna
Not us
Caldwell
Wilder
Marsing
Homedale
Middletoii
Caldwell
Nai.ipa
Na>.,pa
Naupa
Nai.ipa
Eagle
Eagle
Massing
Harsing
Grandview
Bruneau
Bruneau
Hammett
Payette
Homedale
Caldwell
Meridian
Meridian
Grandview
• • Permitted; + • Water quality complaint received by IDHW.
It should be noted that number of animals may vary substantially depending on time of year.
SWB 420 - Wieser R (Midvale to mouth)
SWB 40 - Snake R (Payette R - Brownlee Reservoir)
SWB 340 - Payette R (Black Canyon Dam to mouth)
SWB 30 - Snake R (Payette R to Boise R)
SWB 280 - Boise R (Caldwell to mouth)
-------
Table 2-3. Continued
SWB 270 - Boise R (Mile 50 : Vet St. Park - Caldwell)
SWB 20 - Snake R (Strike Dam to Boise R)
SWB 271 - Ten Mile Cr, Five Mile Cr
SWB 282 - Indian Cr (below Nam pa)
SWB 10 - Snake R (King Hill - Strike Dam).
d Via Big Willow Cr
e Via Jump Cr
£ Via Indian Cr
9 via New York Canal
h Via Reynolds Cr
1 Via Shoofly Cr
I Via Little Valley Cr
k Via Cold Spring Cr
1 Via L. Payette ditch
m F - flat; H - moderate (5-10 percent); S - Steep Old percent).
n Mistakenly identified as 'Steve Drees* feedlot in aerial survey report
SOURCES: EPA 1984a; IDBW files.
-------
and odor, not water quality. Complaints are summarized by year
and source in Table 2-4.
Several factors should be noted in reviewing information in
Table 2-4. First, the number of complaints is not necessarily an
indication of the magnitude of the water quality problem. For a
number of reasons, complaints are often not lodged, even though a
water quality problem may exist. Fear of offending a neighbor,
unobserved violations, lack of concern, resigned acceptance of a
problem, lack of personal impact, isolation of a source, or other
factors all combine to make complaint figures high underestimates
of the actual problem magnitude. Second, enforcement and
recording procedures were not well established in the early 1970s
and much file information for these years is incomplete or
absent.
A few sources cause repeated discharges. When several
complaints relate to one operation in a single year, only one
complaint is indicated in Table 2-4 because an attempt was made
to determine the number of operations generating complaints
within a year, rather than to determine the total number of
complaints. Some operations considered problems were corrected;
complaints in later years cannot be assumed to refer to the same
source that caused complaints in previous years. Files and
complaint information are not standardized and much information
is incomplete. It is therefore difficult to determine follow-up
action or consecutive discharges from a single facility because
each complaint does not have a separate file. Given all of the
above factors, data in Table 2-4 should be considered only in a
relative sense. Data do, however, indicate a rising number of
complaints, particularly over the last 4 years.
Approximately 55 percent of the complaints relate to "non-
identified operations", i.e., operations neither previously
permitted nor identified in the photo survey. Eight of the
operations received complaints in at least two different years,
and some appear to be chronic dischargers. A disproportionately
large number of complaints were for dairies. One reason for this
may be that dairies discharge at least milk-barn waste year-
round, and this discharge would more likely be noticed than
feedlot discharges, which tend to be precipitation related.
The complaint data indicate that most of the feedlots
causing problems (and therefore needing permits) appear to have
been identified in the Caldwell area. A number of dairies not
identified either through the survey or through a previous permit
create potential problems. Although some of these operations are
relatively small, they should be reviewed for permit
applicability because of past violations. Contact was made with
the IDHW personnel to determine the size and present status of
these operations where possible. A partial list of these non-
identified farms potentially requiring a permit is given in Table
2-5.
20
-------
Table 2-4.
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
Summary of Complaints Received by IDHW for
Confined Animal Operations in the Caldwell Area
(1973-1984)
COMPLAINTS FOR
FACILITIES IDENTIFIED BY
SURVEY OR PERMIT
FEEDLQT DAIRY
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
1
7
4
1
1
2
1
1
COMPLAINTS FOR
ADDITIONAL
FACILITIES
FEEDLOT DAIRY
1
2
1
1
3
3
1
2
2
4
6
3
6
SOURCE: IDHW files.
21
-------
Table 2-5. Additional Dairies and Feedlots Potentially
Requiring Permits in the Caldwell Areaa
NJ
to
Haines Bros.
Harold Boschma
Sieben Roukema
(or new owner)
Mike Miller
Van Beek Dairy
Beckman Feedlot
Stovers
Joe Zabala
JMK Farms
Ed Deboer
Jerry Tlucek
Holstein, Inc.
(formerly Stevens Dairy)
Theron Scott
Steve Drees
Gary Thomas
Wayne Russel
Steve Thayn
Gene Atkinson
LAST KNOWN
APPROXIMATE
SIZE
50
500
50-100
50
200
500
500
100-200
100-200
100-500
200
150
100-200
up to 4000
100
50-100
50-100
800
LOCATION
New Plymouth
Kuna
New Plymouth
New Plymouth
Payette County
Horseshoe Bend
New Plymouth
Boise
Meridian
Meridian
Melba
Black Cat
Meridian
Homedale
Emmett
Emmett
Emmett
Emmett
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Feedlot
Feedlot
Feedlot
Feedlot
Feedlot
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Feedlot
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Feedlot
As established from complaint files and discussions with state
enforcement personnel. These facilities are in addition to those
previously permitted or identified by photo-survey. This list
should not be considered a complete list.
-------
Table 2-6
summarizes the relationship between permits, impoundments, and
complaints for the Caldwell vicinity. It is worth noting from
Table 2-3 that approximately 72 percent of the surveyed feedlots
do not have impoundments, and 40 percent have direct access to a
waterway. Feedlots in the Caldwell area were primarily large
operations. If smaller operations had been included, the
percentages of farms having no impoundments and direct access
would probably be higher. Previous permitting had little impact
on impoundment construction in the Caldwell area. The percentage
of permitted operations with impoundments (32 percent) is
essentially equal to the percentage of unpermitted operations
which have them (33 percent).
Absence of an impoundment indicates little effort has been
made to contain runoff at all, much less meet BPT or BAT. Aside
from individual follow up of each permittee, the only stimulus
for construction of impoundments would have been a series of
complaints or chance observations made by enforcement personnel
at the time discharges occurred. For the reasons discussed
earlier, complaints are often not generated; and as discharges
are often brief and intermittant, they may not be witnessed by
enforcement personnel. Thus, a discharging operation often is
not recorded as a problem.
Permitted operations identified in the Caldwell aerial
survey showed an interesting divergence between dairies and
feedlots, although the number of feedlots and dairies is too
small for a good statistical sample. Overall, a much larger
percentage of previously permitted dairies and poultry operations
(50 percent) tended to have impoundments than feedlots (28
percent). It is unknown whether this is because dairy farmers
are more waste conscious; because the SCS in this area offers
assistance to dairies but not to feedlots, which are considered
to be commercial operations (Zollinger pers. comm.); because
dairies have a year-round discharge, which makes impoundments
more desirable; because the Health Department has worked with the
dairies; or whether a combination of factors is involved. It is
likely, however, that SCS involvement in dairies has played a
strong role in construction of impoundments in this area. Their
involvement in feedlots has played an important role in other
areas such as Colorado (Love pers. comm.) and could be of benefit
in the Caldwell area should their role be expanded to include at
least the smaller feedlot operations.
A high percentage of dairies (50 percent) do not restrict
access to water. This is one BMP that appears to have limited
emphasis. The use of BMPs and the content of facilities plans
are discussed in Chapter 4.
Twin Falls Area (Glenns Ferry to American Falls)
Although the Twin Falls area contains only about 30 percent
of the previously permitted operations, it has by far the largest
concentration of operations (primarily dairies) in the state.
23
-------
Table 2-6. Relationship Between Permits, Impoundments, and Complaints in the Caldwell Area
SURVEYED t SURVEYED k PERMITTED, TOTAL COMPLAINTS
PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED SURVEYED t PERMITTED UNPERMITTED WITH COMPLAINT (1977-1984)
PERMITTED PERM. NONPERM. IMPOUND. NO IMPOUND. IMPOUND. NO IMPOUND. IMPOUND. NO IMPOUND. PERK. NONPLW-i.
Beef
Feedlot 30 20 5 6 14 1
Dairy/
Poultry 7512 31
TOTAL 37 25 6 B 17 2
4 3 3 10 15
0 1 0 2 26
4 4 3 12 41
SOURCES: EPA permit files; EPA 1984a; IDHW files.
-------
The survey methodology for this area was different from that of
other areas. Because the IDHW regional office hoped to quantify
the problem and identify the areas of greatest density, the
survey provided blanket coverage of much of the area. In
contrast, the other surveys focused on areas of known problems or
dairy and feedlot concentrations. All other things being equal,
blanket coverage will result in a much larger number of
operations being identified. However, there is also a much
higher density of dairies per unit area in the Twin Falls area.
There are also more new (post-1974) sources.in the Twin
Falls region than in other areas, and they are primarily dairies.
As discussed previously, many of these are located in the fast-
growing Magic Valley area.
Sources Identified Through Permits and Aerial Photo Survey.
The Twin Falls area contains 16 previously permitted feedlots and
four previously permitted dairies, as shown in Table 2-7. The
total number and feedlot/dairy ratio of previously permitted
operations provides a false impression. By far the greatest
number of operations are dairies and the total number far exceeds
that of other study areas. IDHW personnel estimate approximately
2,000 dairies and feedlots in the area (McMasters pers. comm.).
Because the NPDES regulations generally required permits only for
facilities of >200 dairy cattle, most of the dairies were too
small to be permitted. The great majority of dairies are <200
animals.
Although few permitted sources exist, the aerial survey
identified 200 sources, nearly seven times the number identified
in the Caldwell and Blackfoot areas. Seven (possibley eight) of
the 20 permitted operations were covered by the aerial survey.
Table 2-8 summarizes results of the aerial survey, gives
locations and receiving water segments, and indicates which
operations were previously permitted.
Only 41 feedlots and dairies having over 200 animals were
identified in the Twin Falls survey. Only two feedlots and one
dairy contained over 1,000 animals. As with the Caldwell area,
however, care should be taken not to overemphasize the importance
of numbers obtained in the aerial survey. Many factors
contribute to produce variations (normally underestimates) of
actual animal numbers, and many factors other than the number of
animals will play a role in water quality impact. Groundtruthing
surveys indicate many of the animals may have been on BLM range
at the time of the survey (April). This contributed to
underestimations of both the number of animals and feedlot
operations.
There is a high density of dairies throughout much of the
Twin Falls area, but the highest concentrations north of the
Snake River (as identified in the survey) are located in the
vicinity of Wendell, Jerome, Gooding, Richfield, Shoshone, and
Hagerman, with scattered operations in Tuttle, Fuller, Rupert,
and other areas. South of the Snake River, the area of highest
25
-------
Table 2-7. Previously Permitted Operations in the
Twin Falls Area"
PERMITTED FEEDLOTS
PERMIT
NUMBER
002210-1
002313-2
002160-1
002164-4
002161-0
002241-1
002230-6
002234-9
002113-0
002288-8
002232-2
002224-1
002296-9
002190-3
002481-3
002280-2
002470-8
002483-0
002469-4
002220-9
EXPIRATION
DATE
6/7/79
6/6/79
6/4/79
6/11/79
6/6/79
6/4/79
6/11/79
6/11/79
6/4/79
6/7/79
6/11/79
5/28/79
6/6/79
6/4/79
8/31/82
6/11/79
6/2/82
8/31/82
6/2/83
10/31/79
NAME*
Albert Anderson 4 Sons
Blincoe Farms, Inc.
Burley Butte Custom Feedlot
Circle 4 Cattle Co.
D. M. Ranches, Inc. (Cattle)
D. M. Ranches, Inc. (Sheep)
(Darryl Manning)
France, Inc.
(Triangle Feedlot)
Hill Inc.
Interstate Feeders, Inc.
Jones Livestock Feed Co. , Inc.
Lynn Manning 4 Sons
Olmstead Cattle Co.
Robert Schenk
Russel G. Linstrom
Toone Ranches
Uhllg Feedlots, Inc.
K. V. Dairy, Inc.b
Shady Grove Dairies, Inc.
Stoker Dairy
Simplot Industries
(C 4 Y Farms)
AREA
Oakley
Paul
Burley
Jerome
Paul
Paul
Goodlng
Ehoshone
Malta
Eden
Paul
Twin Falls
Paul
Paul
Buhl
Hansen
PERMITTED
Hagennan
Hagerman
Burley
Malta
RECORDED
RECEIVING WATER COMPLAINTS
Snake R
(via Goose Cr)
Snake R
Snake R
Snake R
Snake R
Snake R
Big Wood R
Big Wood R
Snake R
(via Raft R)
Snake R
(via Goose Lk)
Snake R
(via Main Drain)
Snake R
(via Rock Cr)
Snake R
(via unnamed canal)
Snake R
(via unnamed canal)
Unnamed canal ,
Snake R
(via Main Canal)
DAIRIES
Snake R •
Blllingsley Cr •
Snake R
Raft R *
-
• Identified in Volume 3 or 4 of the aerial survey (EPA 1984c, 1985).
a Names in parentheses indicate previous name or other identifying name under which information exists
in IDHH files.
This dairy not included on EPA permit listing because of wrong computer entry code.
SOURCES: EPA and IDHW Files.
-------
Table 2-8. Confined Animal Feeding Operations Identified by Aerial Survey in the Twin Falls Area
FEEDLOTS/STOCKYARDS
K)
SITE
NO.
99
100
114
115
116
120
121
127
132
139
142
143
156
157
166
167
168
171
174
202
206
211
229
230
235
253
254
256
264
265
266
267
270
271
272
273
275
277
278
279
281
283
289
Mink
C. Adams
J. Patterson
J. Patterson
Arkoosh & Zidan
Wiseman
Gooding Stockyards
W. Fields
E. Morris
Ray Gardner
C. Edwards
Ernie Hegie+
Roy Vader
E. Radermacher
Richard Bateman
Tina lest
Pete Oneida
Jose Arrate
Dale Low (Stockyard)
Howard Harder
Leo Meyers
M. Guerry
Circle M Ranch
France Cattle Co. *
Larry Holtzen Cattle Co.
R. Chugg Livestock
G. C. Gould (Glendale Ranch)
A. S. Vickers
D. R. Cambell
E. Barnes
Uhlig Ranches*
Butte Farms *(?)
Blincoe Farms Inc.*
R. Llndstrom*
R. L. Bryant t H.A. Eager
Moorman Ranches
J. Chisholm
Sheep Sheo Ranches
Oxrango
R. Bobbins
F. Jouglard
J. Ituarte
Taylor Land Co.
FEEDING
AREA (AC)
3.5
2.0
0.75
13.0
10.0
7.0
14.0
10.0
5.0
2.0
2.5
9.0
5.5
5.0
0.5
8.0
2.0
12.0
3.5
1.0
1.8
17.0
8.9
110.5
11.0
25.0
5.7
2.9
7.3
56.6
26.9
7.5
36.5
25.3
24.3
17.5
45.0
83.9
54.0
13.2
43.8
27.0
24.0
NO.
ANIMALS"
51-200
51-200
51-200
>1,000
51-200
51-200
<50
51-200
201-700
<50
51-200
—
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
<50
51-200
51-200
201-700
>1,000
51-200
201-700
51-200
51-200
201-700
>1,000
701-1,000
201-700
—
201-700
51-200
—
—
—
—
—
—
51-200
—
RECEIVING
HATER0
USB 850
USB 850
USB 850
USB 850
USB 850
None
USB 850
None
Canal
USB 80
Curren Dit
None
None
None
USB 80
USB 871
USB 850
USB 850
None
USB 809
USB 809
USB 820
Lateral
None
None
None
None
USB 730
Lateral?
T F Main C
T F Main C
Lateral?
B-4 Canal
B-4 Canal
USB 60B
USB 60Bf
None
USB 60A
None
None
None
USB 60A
USB 520
ANIMAL ACCESS/
PEN DISTANCE
TO WATERWAY (FT)
Direct access
Direct access
7
40
50
1,000
30
20
Direct access
Direct access
285
4,200
85
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
270
420
Direct access
Direct access
760
50
40
40
2,000
Direct access
440
255
2,050
80
5,540
40
40
80
Direct access
20
40
40
40
10
10
585
SLOPED
F
M
F
F
f
F
S
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
F
M
F/M
F
M
M
F
F/M
M/S
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
IMPOUNDMENTS
(1. ACRES)
None
None
None
2, 2 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
7| 8.1 AC
None
None
None
None
None
1; 1.2 AC
2; 1.1 AC
None
2; 1.3 AC
None
2; 0.3 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
GENERAL
LOCATION
Gooding
Gooding
Gooding
Gooding
Gooding
Gooding
Gooding
Gooding
Tuttle
Hagerman
Hagerman
Hagarman
Hagerman
Hagerman
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Wendell
Wendell
Jerome
Jerome
Buhl
Twin Falls
Kirabecley
Hansen
Hansen
Hazel ton
Paul
Paul
Burley
Burley
Acequia
Rupert
Rupert
Rupert
Rupert
Rupert
Raft River
-------
Table 2-8. Continued
FEEDLQTS/ STOCKYARDS
SITE
MQ.
MAKE*
290 Taylor Land Co.
291 Howard Coniad
292 V. T. Geary
ANIMAL ACCESS/
FEEDING
AREA (AC)
10.4
61.3
2.7
NO.
ANIMALS"
701-1,000
701-1,000
RECEIVING
WATER0
USB 520(7)
Nonet?)
J Canal
PEN DISTANCE
TO WATERWAY (FT)
585
3,165
Direct access
SLQPEd
IMPOUNDMENTS
(ir ACRES)
None
1, 2.1 AC
None
GENERAL
LOCATION
Raft River
Hurley
Burley
DAIRIES
ANIMAL ACCESS/
SITE
NJ
00
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
117
118
119
122
123
124
125
126
128
129
130
131
133
134
135
136
137
138
140
141
144
N. H. Rasmussen
A. Keener
G. Kerner
Idaho Dairy farm
Lee Roy Parker
Ralph Riley
R. H. Johnson
R. H. Johnson
Cld Leaaaiz*
James Powell
Blaine Sorenson
Rod Pridnore
A. R. Sunnier
H. Boeslger
A. C. Sabala
M. Sabala
T. Binghaa
R. C. Zaplicke
0. Leavell
L. Graves
Faulkner Land t Livestock
R. Binghan
B. Noringer
F. Graves t sons
G. Hooper
Flrnage Co.
G. Coleman
A. Schilling
A. Schilling
B. Hilardes
B. Hilardes
Buckeye Ranch
V. I. Maveneamt
R. McCord
FEEDING
AREA (AC)
1.5
4.0
5.5
7.0
3.0
1.75
5.5
1.5
5.0
3.0
8.0
3.0
2.5
1.5
5.0
1.0
3.5
10.0
24.0
3.0
35.0
4.0
7.5
2.5
5.0
10.0
10.0
2.5
0.5
4.0
11.5
11.0
1.75
4.5
NO.
ANIMALS"
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
<50
<50
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
<50
51-200
201-700
51-200
<50
<50
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
<50
51-200
201-700
None
<50
51-200
RECEIVING
WATER0
USB 850
USB 850
USB 850
USB 871*
USB 871e
USB 871e
USB 871
USB 871
USB 871
USB 871
USB 871
USB 871
Canal
USB 850
USB 850
None
Pond
USB 871
None
None
None
None
None
None
Canal
Big Bend D
USB 840
None
Canal
Canal
None
USB 80
Curren Dit
None
PEN DISTANCE
TO WATERWAY (FT)
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
40
Direct access
?
Direct access
280
1,370
Direct access
Direct access
30
Direct access
Direct access
40
1,000
3,500
190
1,850
800
10
2,500
50
1,200
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
30
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
40
?
1,000
SLOPE*1
P
S
s
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
P
F
F
M
F
F
M
M
F
M
F
IMPOUNDMENTS
( 1 . ACRES)
None
1; 0.3 AC
None
2; 1.5 AC
None
None
2; 0.75 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
2; 0.25 AC
None
None
None
2; 0.25 AC
None
None
None
2; 0.5 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
GENERAL
LOCATION
Shoshone
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Richfield
Gooding
Gooding
Gooding
Gooding
Gooding
Gooding
Fuller
Tuttle
Tuttle
Gooding
Gooding
Tuttle
Tuttle
Hagerman
Hagerman
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Hagerman
Hagerman
Wendell
-------
Table 2-8. Continued
ro
SITE
NO. NAMBa
145 Vandenbucg Bros.
146 Bill Brandsma*
147 S. Goodhact
146 E. Clocca
149 R. Mathers
150 K. Tincate
151 Jensen & Mclntyre
152 B. Twamley
153 G. Bird
154 B. Andrews
155 J. Kening
158 B. Rictkirk
159 B. Rictkirk
160 L. Loper
161 R. Van Dyke
162 R. Van Dyke
163 R. Van Dyke
164 R. Neales
165 Shoemaker Bros.
169 William Harris
170 Jose Arrate
172 Farnsworth/Koeppen (2 dairies)
173 Alex Anchustegui
175 H. Patterson
176 H. Patterson
177 E. Thompson
178 Ed. Bubbard
179 Fox Canyon Livestock
180 Pete Veenstra
181 J. Dufree
182 Dew Dufree
183 E. A. Branch
184 H. Kearley
185 R. Crosby
186 Barry Goedhart+
187 Flamingo Dairy
188 Jim Pearson
189 T. sertek
190 Tom Pearson
191 Merle Engi
192 Mike Vierstra
193 Leonard Easterday
194 A. Barker
195 Howard Harder
196 Harry Bokma+
197 Harry Hoagland
198 Manuel Sausa Dairy*
199 Fred Kippas
200 Mike Donahue*
FEEDING
AREA (AC)
4.0
3.0
4.0
10.0
4.5
7.5
10.0
8.0
.5
1.0
2.5
6.0
18.0
6.5
5.0
3.5
23.0
5.5
4.0
Hone
1.5
4.0
0.5
9.5
4.5
12.0
10.0
26.0
10.0
3.0
3.75
10.0
1.0
10.0
17.4
3.5
1.8
1.1
1.5
5.5
3.6
7.8
3.7
11.1
6.9
15.0
1.5
1.0
4.4
NO.
ANIMALS"
<50
51-200
51-200
201-700
51-200
51-200
<50
51-200
<50
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
201-700
201-700
51-200
<50
<50
51-200
<50
51-200
51-200
<50
201-700
201-700
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
201-700
51-200
51-200
<50
51-200
<50
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
201-700
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
RECEIVING
UATERC
Canal
Canal
Canal
Canal
Canal
Canal
Canal
None
Canal
None
None
None
None
None
Canal
Canal
Canal
Canal
Canal
USB 850
USB 850
USB 850
USB 850
J Canal
None
Lateral (?)
None
Lateral (7)
Lateral*?)
None
None
None
None
Lateral
USB 740
USB 70
USB 810(7)
USB 810(7)
USB 810
USB 810
USB 809
USB 820
None
None
USB 820
USB 810
USB 810
USB 810(7)
USB 810(7)
ANIMAL ACCESS/
PEN DISTANCE
TO WATERWAY (FT)
Direct access
40
40
1,450
200
200
Direct access
660
Direct access
40
40
1,330
40
1,125
Direct access
Direct access
830
40
85
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
1,100
150
Direct access
900
80
20
310
1,865
Direct access
660
125
325
350
40
Direct access
940
1,760
600
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
40
40
40
300
55
SLQPEd
F
P
F
F
F
M
M
F
M
F
F
F
M
F
S
M
M
F
M
M
P
M
M
M
P
M
F
P
M
P
P
P
P
N
F/M
P
P
f
e
f
f
f
f
IMPOUNDMENTS
( 1 , ACRES)
1; 0.25 AC
2; 0.25 AC
2; 0.25 AC
1; 0.3 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
4; 6.0 AC
If 0.1 AC
2» 1.5 AC
None
None
None
None
None
2; 2.1 AC
None
None
None
1; 0.25 AC
None
1; 1.5 AC
None
None
3; 0.9 AC
2; 0.03 AC
2» 2.7 AC
None
None
2; 0.8 AC
GENERAL
LOCATION
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Shoshone
Jerome
Jerome
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
-------
Table 2-8. Continued
SITE
NO.
201
203
204
20S
207
208
209
210
212
213
214
21 5
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
231
232
233
234
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
24S
246
247
248
249
2SO
2S1
2S2
255
257
258
Bob Vlssec
D. Acgenback
Toone (Lone Tree)** (abandoned)
Curtis Brenden Dairy
Ken Lowman
John DeKruyf*
W. Shaffer
FHA Dairy (abandoned)
Wells Livestock
Rick Low man
J. H. Hoogland
John Schildner
W. J. Lamraer
Don Bothof+
W. K. Hert
B. and Z. Harrison
G. Arkoosh & Zidan
Kober Farms
Kober Farms
Howard Meyers
L. Jones
P. Hoi low ay
B. Vander Heer
D. Leerman
Hike Vierstra
Standing Hat Ranch
Ted Miller
Muddler Cattle Co.
W. McCaughey
M. Bishop
Calvin DeKruyf
Gary Bothof
Ted Baar (Double Dipper Dairy)*
L. Andressen
A. Reliance
H. Van Beck
J. Jackson
H. Vander Meer
Bob Morris
Irene Vander Vegt-K?)
Marion Vanden Bosch
Reisman
J. Tolman
Drew Critzer
V. Bishop
Larry Vander Vegt +(?)
Prank Dores (abandoned)
A. Drolaw
Robert and Dale Sandigar
FEEDING
AREA (AC)
1.2
3.4
2.8
10.0
3.0
4.5
6.3
2.0
32.7
2.8
5.8
9.1
5.5
7.4
6.0
3.0
10.0
4.0
3.5
18.7
9.3
14.0
11.5
18.5
11.0
4.3
IS. 4
10.8
2.0
2.7
13.2
7.3
16.5
12.5
16.0
16.0
4.7
15.9
5.0
13.9
4.7
4.5
3.4
5.9
4.5
17.0
3.2
5.8
6.8
NO.
ANIMALSJ
<50
51-200
— .
201-700
<50
51-200
51-200
51-200
—
201-700
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
<50
51-200
51-200
51-200
201-700
201-700
201-700
201-700
701-1,000
201-700
51-200
201-700
51-200
51-200
51-200
201-700
51-200
201-700
201-700
201-700
201-700
51-200
201-700
51-200
51-200
<50
201-700
51-200
201-700
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
RECEIVING
WATER0
Low Line C
USB 809 (?)
USB 809 (?)
USB 809
Low Line C
USB 809(?)
Low Line C
None
USB 820
None
None
USB 810
USB 810
USB 810
None
USB 740
None
None
None
None?
None
Lateral?
Lateral?
Lateral?
None
None
Lateral
None
None
None
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral
None
None
None
None
Lateral?
L Canal
Lateral
Lateral
Lateral?
Lateral?
D-5 Ditch
USB 740
Lateral?
Lateral?
Lateral
USB 740£
ANIMAL ACCESS/
PEN DISTANCE
TO WATERWAY (FT)
645
Direct access
235
1,935
40
10
920
85
20
425
85
65
20
65
310
Direct access
40
230
40
140
1,460
Direct access
80
80
145
2,520
650
80
1,300
675
60
325
80
40
880
320
60
640
40
Direct access
Direct access
520
Direct access
855
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
850
20
SLOPED
F
f
t
M -
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
P
F
F/M
F
P
F
F
P
F
S
P
M
M
M
P
F
F
P
F
P
F
P
P
F
F
t
P/M
P/M
F
F
F/M
P
P
H
P
F
F
F
IMPOUNDMENTS
( 1 . ACRES)
None
None
2; 0.5 AC
1; 0.9 AC
2> 1.8 AC
1) 1.8 AC
None
None
None
2; 2.8 AC
None
1; 0.2 AC
None
2; 0.9 AC
1; 3.5 AC
None
None
1; 1.0 AC
None
None
1; 0.3 AC
None
2; 1.5 AC
2; 0.8 AC
3) 3.0 AC
None
3; 3.5 AC
1; 1.0 AC
None
None
1; 3.5 AC
1; 1.2 AC
7; 2.8 AC
3; 1.5 AC
3; 4.0 AC
None
None
2; 1.0 AC
None
3; 2.25 AC
None
None
1; 0.5 AC
2; 1.8 AC
None
Ij 2.3 AC
1; 0.6 AC
None
2; 0.5 AC
GENERAL
LOCATION
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Buhl
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Wendell
Wendell
Wendell
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Jerome
Buhl
Jerome
Buhl
Filer
Filer
-------
Table 2-8. Continued
ANIMAL ACCESS/
SITE
NO. UAM£a
259
260
261
262
263
268
269
274
276
280
282
284
285
286
287
288
293
294
295
296
297
298
a
b
c
Stan Nunes Dairy
J. Hoogland (formerly Alneida)
Clyde Wright
FEEDING
NO.
RECEIVING
AREA (AC1 ANIMALSb WATER0
8.0
5.8
3.3
Classic Dairy (Bud Vierstra) + (?) 10.8
Rosco Wagner
G. stoker +(?>
Darryl Manning*
K. and J. Hay den
Walcott Ranches
Ivan Haskel
Barbara Studer
E. Lind
A. Brim
L. Funk (Riviera Farms, Inc.)
C. H. Hi saw
Simplot Industries*
R. Garrett*
S. Aired
R. D. Zollinger
C. Williams
M. Payne
F. Robinson
* - Permitted) + » Hater quality
It should be noted that number of
USB 80 - Snake R (Buhl - Kino Hi
3.0
13.5
14.8
4.5
5.2
8.4
5.1
5.2
3.6
5.5
1.9
26.0
5.2
1.0
4.S
12.3
4.9
7.8
complaint
animals
11)
51-200
51-200
51-200
201-700
<50
— -
201-700
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
201-700
51-200
51-200
51-200
>1,000
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
received by
USB 740£
Low Line C
Low Line C
USB 730£
USB 730
None
None
None
Lateral?
Main S C
A Canal
Main S C
None
USB 520
None
Lateral?
Snipe Gul
None
USB 60An
None
H Canal
H Canal
IDHH.
PEN DISTANCE
TO WATERWAY (FT)
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
40
85
20
40
30
40
Direct access
20
Direct access
165
160
180
Direct access
20
Direct access
Direct access
450
1,300
20
may vary substantially depending on time of :
M
F
F
F
S
M/S
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
S
F
F/M
F
F
M
F
F
F
USB 810 - Deep Cr (Source - mouth)
USB 820 - Salmon Falls Cr (ID/NV border - mouth)
USB 840 - Billlngsley Cr (Source - mouth)
USB 850 - Big Wood R (Source - Magic Res)
USB 871 - Little Wood R (Source - Richfield)
USB 70 - Snake R (Milner Dam - Buhl)
USB 730 - Rock Cr (City - mouth)
USB 740 - Cedar Draw Cr (Source - mouth)
USB 60A - Snake R (Hinidoka Dam - Heyburn/Burley Bridge)
USB 60B - Snake R (Heyburn/Burley Bridge - Milner Dam)
USB 520 - Raft R (Source - mouth)
F - Flat; M - Moderate (5-10 percent); S - Steep O10 percent)
Via Jim Burns Slough
Via lateral
Via Mud Cr
Via Duck Cr
IMPOUNDMENTS
(1. ACRES)
None
3; 2.1
None
2; 3.0
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
3; 0.4
1; 0.2
None
1; 0.4
3; 4.0
3; 3.0
None
1; 0.1
None
1; 0.1
None
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
AC
GENERAL
LOCATION
Filer
Filer
Filer
Twin Falls
Twin Palls
Rupert
Paul
Acequia
Acequia
Rupert
Rupert
Declo
Raft River
Raft River
Raft River
Raft River
Burley
Hurley
Burley
Burley
Burley
Burley
SOURCES: EPA 1984b; EPA 1985; Morrison pers. coram.
-------
concentration appears to be Buhl. It should be emphasized,
however, that these numbers include only operations identified in
the aerial survey and probably greatly underestimate total
operations. Some concentration areas were also missed entirely.
Flight lines for the survey were determined by IDHW, and
screening criteria were applied during interpretation that
limited interpretation to feedlots >50 head or 10 acres and
dairies >25 head or 3 acres unless animals were allowed direct
access to water (Becker pers. comm.). The IDHW has identified 74
additional operations from photos in the EPA Volume 3 report that
were overlooked or not identified in the survey for various
reasons. Some operations were too small, and were screened out
during interpretation. IDHW estimates 40-45 percent of those not
identified in the photos were omitted because they did not pass
the screening criteria (Morrison pers. comm.). Other operations
were located so close together that two operations were
identified as one. Still others had cows on pasture at this time
and were therefore not identified as feedlots during
interpretation.
In addition to the deletions and omissions, several
important areas were omitted entirely in the aerial survey
coverage. One of the most obvious was Jerome County. Of the
approximately 130 dairies in Jerome, only 3-5 were noted in the
survey. Two notable operations missed in the Jerome area include
a 9000 head feedlot and a 2000 head dairy (Morrison pers. comm.).
Four areas containing numerous dairies missed by the aerial
survey include: 1) areas having absence of lava rock directly to
the south of Wendell, 2) two areas due east of Shoshone, and 3)
an area northeast of Richfield (Morrison, All red, Davidson pers.
comm.). Because so many operations were screened out or missed
by the survey, IDHW and health department personnel indicate that
the numbers in the survey should be considered as estimates
representing from 50 to as low as 10 percent of the actual number
of total operations present.
Approximately 27 and 31 percent of feedlots and dairies,
respectively, appear to allow animals direct access to water. In
contrast to the other study areas, however, a large number of
these operations access canals and laterals rather than streams
or rivers. In such a situation, although direct waste placement
is possible, sedimentation caused by trampling may be somewhat
reduced. Eighty-four and 64 percent of feedlots and dairies,
respectively, show no evidence of impoundments.
Sources Identified Through Complaints. The IDHW field
office in Twin Falls was the primary source of complaint
information. The local health departments also provided
complaint information, although most of their complaints were
related to odor and flies. Nearly 80 water quality-related
complaints for dairies and feedlots were received by the Twin
Falls IDHW field office from 1976 to December 1984. These are
summarized in Table 2-9. For the many reasons discussed
previously in the Caldwell section, this is certainly a great
32
-------
Table 2-9. Summary of Complaints Received for Confined
Animal Operations in the Twin Falls Area
(1976-1984)
COMPLAINTS FOR
FACILITIES IDENTIFIED BY COMPLAINTS FOR
SURVEY OR PERMIT ADDITIONAL FACILITIES
FEEDLQT DAIRY FEEDLOT DAIRY
1 18 5 69
SOURCE: IDHW files.
33
-------
underestimate of actual discharges, although the data indicate an
increasing number of complaints over time, particularly since
1980. This can be attributed to increased precipitation, rising
public awareness, and to some extent, an increased number or
operations.
Complaints received have been primarily for dairies, with
the exception of five feedlot complaints and three beaver farm
and hog raising operation complaints in 1981. Only four
permitted operations received a complaint. Three of the four
were dairies. A number of other unpermitted dairies identified
in the aerial survey received complaints. Fifteen of the dairy
operations received complaints in at least two different years,
and some appear to be chronic dischargers.
The great majority of the complaints relate to non-
identified operations, i.e., those neither previously permitted
nor identified in the photo survey. Although the majority of
these dairies contain <200 cattle, cumulatively they have a heavy
impact on surface waters and canals. These dischargers can and
should be re-investigated and included in the permit when
applicable.
Contact was made with the IDHW personnel to determine status
of the operations where possible. Table 2-10 lists some of the
non-identified farms in the Twin Falls area potentially requiring
permits.
Status of Previously Permitted Operations. Table 2-11
summarizes the relationship between permits, impoundments, and
complaints for the Twin Falls area. It can be seen from the
table that only 31 percent of the total operations surveyed have
impoundments of any kind. Feedlots lag behind dairies; only 16
percent of the feedlots (compared to 36 percent of the dairies)
have constructed holding facilities. The previous work of the
SCS in design of dairy facilities is probably one major reason
for this difference. Of the permitted operations surveyed in the
Twin Falls area, five of the eight (62%) had impoundments and
three (38%) did not.
It should not automatically be assumed that presence of an
impoundment indicates correct sizing or compliance with BPT or
BAT. It is not possible to determine correct sizing from aerial
photos alone because volume of the impoundment, not just surface
area, determines capacity. As noted earlier also, the primary
deterrent to a discharge is not size but maintenance. If there
is no regular pumping of an impoundment, discharges will
eventually occur.
Blackfoot Area (American Falls to Sugar City)
Although the Blackfoot area contains only about 15 percent
of the permitted feedlots and dairies, survey methodology allowed
identification of a large number of medium-sized operations.
Survey methodology for Blackfoot was somewhat a mixture of that
34
-------
t_n
Table 2-10. Additional Dairies and Feedlots Potentially
Requiring Permits in the Twin Falls Areaa
NAME
Ralph 01 instead
Aurora Capital Dairy
Henry Jones
Ralph Nipper
Doug Benson
Cecil Hilt
C. Edwards
John Bucher
John Koning
Jack Nelson
LAST KNOWN
APPROXIMATE
SIZE
2-700
1500
2000-7000
100
500
300
4-700
500
200
200
LOCATION
Twin Falls
Hazel ton
Hazel son
Buhl
Gooding Co.
Gooding Co.
Hagerman
Wendell
Wendell
Jerome
J^££
Dairy
Dairy/Feedlot
Feedlot
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Feedlot
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
a As established from complaint files and discussions with state
personnel. These facilities are in addition to those
previously permitted or identified by aerial survey. This
should not be considered a complete list.
-------
CO
Table
2-11. Relationship
Between
PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED
PERMITTED PERM. NONPERM
Beef
Feedlot/
Stockyard
Dairy
TOTAL
16 5
4 3
20 8
41
15
192
Permits, Impoundments, and
SURVEYED t
PERMITTED
IMPOUND. NO IMPOUND.
3 2
2 1
5 3
Complaints in
the Twin
SURVEYED t
UN PERMITTED
IMPOUNpn NO IMPOUND.
4
54
58
37
97
134
Falls Area
SURVEYED & PERMITTED,
WITH COMPLAINT
IMPOUND. NO IMPOUND.
.
1
1
TOTAL COMPLAINTS
(1977-1984)
PERM. NDNPERM.
.
3
3
5
84
89
SOURCES] EPA permit filesj EPA 1984c; EPA 1985; IDHH files.
-------
used in the Twin Falls and Caldwell areas; a number of known
concentration areas were flown rather than attempting coverage of
the entire area, but emphasis was placed on entire areas rather
than individual known operations. This methodology resulted in
identification of a much larger number of small dairies than in
the Caldwell area.
Discussions with IDHW, district health department, and SCS
personnel indicate dairies are the main problem in the Blackfoot
region. Feedlots are less numerous and generally small. A few
are found on the Snake and Rainbow Rivers; all are older sources.
Most dairies are also existing (pre-1974) sources. The area of
greatest concentration occurs in Franklin County. The main water
quality problem areas are Mink and Worm Creeks, tributaries to
the Bear River and the Cub River (Hopson pers. comm.). Marsh
Creek is another area where agricultural sources are a great
problem, but the problem is sediment, not animal confinements
(Curtis pers. comm.). IDHW estimates perhaps 50 dairies and 10
feedlots in this area, with only three having likelihood of
affecting surface water (Hopson pers. comm.).
Approximately 30 operations have facility plans filed with
the IDHW office. Many plans were developed in the mid to late
1970s; there is nothing recent. Other priorities have resulted
in IDHW relying more on SCS for plan development, but IDHW
recognizes that this does not appear to be working well.
SCS provides help to feedlots as well as dairies in this
area. Facilities for previously permitted operations were
normally designed to contain runoff from a 2-inch rainfall,
although occasionally they were designed for 1.5 inches. The SCS
in this area uses actual runoff or generally assumes a 1-inch
runoff, whichever is greater, and designs for a 10-year storm
with a recommended minimum 90-day holding capacity (Curtis pers.
comm.) .
Sources Identified Through Permits and Aerial Survey. Ten
feedlots were previously permitted for the Blackfoot area (Table
2-12). No dairies were permitted. Only seven of the ten
permitted operations were identified in the aerial survey.
Although very few of the operations were identified in the
survey, it is known that the remaining three previously permitted
operations are not within the survey area*(Hopson pers. comm.).
If the same ratio holds true for unpermitted operations, probably
at least 30 percent of the existing operations were not covered
by the survey. As in the case of Twin Falls, a number of dairies
actually on the photos of the survey area were screened out or
not identified for various reasons.
Although all of the larger operations (700 animals or more)
were identified, animal numbers within a facility may fluctuate
greatly over time. Feeding-area size, drainage, and other
factors may be a better (or at least equally valid) method of
determining potential impacts or screening for potential permit
holders.
37
-------
U)
00
Table 2-12. Previously Permitted Operations in the Blackfoot Area
PERMIT
NUMBER
002298-5
002167-3
002291-8
002227-6
002186-5
002226-8
002117-2
002140-7
002171-7
002221-7
EXPIRATION
DATE
6/13/79
6/4/79
6/13/79
6/11/79
5/28/79
6/4/79
6/4/79
5/28/79
5/28/79
6/4/79
UAJIE*.
Arnold Feedlot
•Clement Brothers Livestock
(Lyle Taylor)
Hyer Cattle Co.
•Harris-Idaho, Inc.
(Harding Livestock t Land)
Lenard A. Schritter Feedlot
•Louis Skaar and Sons, Inc.
• Meyers Brothers Feedlot B, Inc.
•Sand Ridge Feeding Co.
•Snake River Cattle Co., Inc.
•Spur Cattle Co.
PERMITTED FEEDLOTS
AREA
Idaho Falls
Me nan
Shelley
Blackfoot
Aberdeen
Roberts
Sugar City
Blackfoot
American Falls
Roberts
PERMITTED DAIRIES
RECORDED
RECEIVING WATER COMPLAINTS
Snake R
(via Sand Cr)
Snake R
Snake R
Snake R
Snake R
Snake R
N Fork Teton R
Blackfoot R
Snake R
Snake R
- 0 -
Identified in Volume 2 of the aerial survey (EPA 1984b).
Names in parentheses indicate previous name or other identifying name under which information exists
in IDWH files.
SOURCES: EPA and IDHH files.
-------
Table 2-13 summarizes results of the aerial survey, gives
facility locations and receiving water segments, and indicates
which operations were previously permitted.
Although few permitted sources exist, the aerial survey
identified 67 sources, nearly twice the number of operations
identified in the Caldwell area but only approximately one-third
of those in the Twin Falls region. Also, in contrast to the
Caldwell or Twin Falls areas, where the great majority of the
surveyed operations were either feedlots or dairies, equal
numbers of feedlots and dairies were found. The aerial survey in
Blackfoot identified 33 feedlots, 33 dairies, and one
slaughterhouse. In contrast to feedlots of the Caldwell area,
however, most feedlots in Blackfoot are small (fewer than 200
animals). Operations tend to show a rather clumped distribution,
with the greatest numbers found in the Lago-Thatcher vicinity and
Franklin-Mapleton area. Small clusters are found in Aberdeen,
Mink Creek, Preston, Malad City, and at other scattered
locations.
Approximately 71 and 48 percent of the identified feedlot
and dairy operations, respectively, allowed cattle access to
water. Many of these are in the 200-700 animal size category.
This practice allows a heavy, year-round impact on streams
through both streambank erosion and direct placement of manure.
To protect streambanks, consideration should be given to fencing
and stock-watering tank placement, particularly in areas where
water quality is poor. Percentage of farms having direct access
to water is higher in the Blackfoot area than any of the other
study areas.
Sources Identified Through Cc-mpJ..aj..n.t.g. The IDHW field
office in Pocatello places low priority on dairies and feedlots
(Hopson pers. comm.) and the office does not log complaints in
their files. Correspondence in the files sometimes indicates
indirectly, however, that complaints were received.
Approximately 10 such references were noted, going back to 1974.
The district health department also receives sporadic complaints,
mainly for dairies and primarily in Caribou and Franklin Counties
(Palmer pers. comm.). Feedlot complaints to the health
department tend to be primarily for odors and flies, not water
quality concerns.
As stated previously, the number of complaints does not
reliably indicate the number of discharges that have occurred,
except in a relative sense. Insufficient information exists in
the state files to determine the status of complaints in this
region. Existing information does suggest the majority of
complaints are likely to be against dairies and the number has
probably increased in the last few years. This area is probably
of less overall concern than Twin Falls simply because of fewer
operations. Some areas, such as the Bear and Cub River
tributaries, require concentrated effort to improve water
quality.
39
-------
Table 2-13. Confined Animal Feeding Operations Identified by Aerial Survey In the Blackfoot Area
FEEDLOTS/SHEEP RAISING
SITE
32
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
44
45
46
47
48
50
51
52
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
66
67
75
76
80
81
84
85
88
33
35
42
43
49
53
54
NAMK»
Meyers Brothers Feedlots, Inc.
Hoaghland Farms
Clement Brothers Livestock**
Spur Cattle Co.*
Harris-Idaho, Inc.*
Sand Ridge Feeding Co.*
Beck Feedlot
Wan Iregogen
Albert Borah
Ferrel Palmer
Morgan Anderson
Clarence Schroeder
Clarence Schroeder
Snake River Cattle Co., Inc.*
Roger Whitnak
David Harris
Morgan Harris
Morgan Harris
Currigan Brothers
F. M. Deschamps
Ferron Burke
Perron Burke
Charles Izatt
Dick Smith
Valero Bennett
Floyd Toone
Rockwood
Christenson
Bert Hheatley
Monty Noser
Lloyd Christensen
Hoaghland Farms
L. Skaar t Sons*
William Lehman
Otto Klasen
Robert Shroeder
FEEDING
AREA (AC)
26
1.7
16
50
47
1.1
10
1.0
3
3.1
1.0
3.5
2.0
90
6
3
2
7
3
5.2
9.3
2
12
3.3
1.5
0.5
2
1.4
1
0.5
2.8
1.3
0.3
1.7
1
0.75
3
1.5
0.75
4.5
2.1
NO.
ANIMALS
>1000
<50
201-700
701-1000
>1000
51-200
201-700
201-700
1000
201-700
51-200
None
None
None
51-200
51-200
<50
201-700
51-200
<50
None
<50
<50
None
<50
<50
51-200
51-200
<50
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
<50
RECEIVING
HATER0
Canal
None
USB 30
USB 30
None
None
USB 40
Lat. C.
None
None
None
None
H. L. C.
None
None
USB 411
BB 471
BB 471
BB 471
Devils Cr
Unnamed
BB 30d
BB 30d
BB 30e
BB 30e
BB 30d
BB 30d
BB 30d
BB 30d
BB 410
BB 410
BB 430
BB 430
BB 450
DAIRIES
None
None
H.L. C.
None
H.L. C.
USB 411?
USB 411^
ANIMAL ACCESS/
PEN DISTANCE TO
WATERWAY (FT)
None/ 20
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
None/215
None/1400
None/130
None/10
None/20
None/1750
None/105
Direct access
Direct access
None/1970
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
None/10
None/ 25
None/15
Direct access
Direct access
Direct access
None/30
Direct access
,Q£Eb
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
M
F
F
H
S
F/M
M/S
M
F/S
F
M
F
F
F
F
H
F/S
F/S
F
F
F
F
M
F
M
F
M
IMPOUNDMENTS
(I/ ACRES)
2; 1.3 AC
None
4> 5 AC
10; 28 AC
10; 13 AC
None
4; 1.5 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
12} 7.2 AC
None
1; 0.2 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
1; 0.3 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
LOCATION
Sugar City
Me nan
Me nan
Lewisville
Moreland
Blackfoot
Aberdeen
Aberdeen
Aberdeen
Aberdeen
Aberdeen
Falrview
Fairview
Am. Falls
Borah
McCaramon
Mai ad City
Maiad City
Hal ad City
Mai ad City
Mai ad City
Lago
Lago
Lago
Lago
Lago
Lago
Thatcher
Thatcher
Mink Cr.
Mink Cr.
Preston
Preston
Franklin
Sugar City
Me nan
Aberdeen
Aberdeen
Fairview
McCammon
McCammon
-------
Table 2-13. Continued
SITE
HAM£*
64
65
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
77
78
79
82
83
86
87
89
90
Ql
v±
92
7&
93
94
95
96
97
98
a
b
c
Trout Creek Dairy
Allen Rudd
Horace Wright
Marvin Prescott
Harris Mickelson
Clark Mickelson
Daniel Mickelson
Elvin Hubbard
Lynn Turner
Christenson
Christenson
Christenson
Bob Landhardt
Erickson Brothers
Gayle Moser
Lloyd Christensen
Lloyd Christensen
Lloyd Christensen
Stanton Hawkes
Kenneth Hawkes
Walter Knapp
William Wright
William Wright
William Wright
+ » Slaughterhouse; *
F - Flat; M - Hoderatt
USB 30 - Snake R (Rol
USB 40 - Snake R (Am.
USB 411 - Marsh Cr (S<
BB 471 - Little Mala,
BB 410 - Mink Cr (Soi
BB 430 - Worm Cr (Soi
FEEDING
AREA (AC)
6
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
2.5
1.5
3
1.5
3
4.5
0.5
0.5
1.6
1.3
1.3
0.5
0.6
0.6
3.1
0.2
2.4
7.5
1.4
3.7
NO.
ANIMALS
51-200
<50
51-200
<50
51-200
<50
51-200
51-200
<50
51-200
51-200
51-200
<50
51-200
51-200
<50
<50
<50
51-200
<50
201-700
<50
<50
51-200
51-200
51-200
RECEIVING
WATER0
BB 30d
BB 30d
BB 30e
BB 30
BB 30d
BB 30d
BB 30d
BB 30C
Canal
BB 410
BB 410
BB 410
BB 430
None
BB 430
BB 450
BB 450
BB 450
BB 450
Cub C.
BB 450
BB 450
BB 450
BB 450
Unnamed
None
ANIMAL ACCESS/
PEN DISTANCE TO IMPOUNDMENTS
WATERWAY (FT) SLOPE" ( 1 /ACRES)
Direct access None
Direct access None
None/30 None
None /I 800 None
None/145 None
None/240 1; 0.7 AC
Direct access None
Direct access M None
None/35 S None
Direct access S None
None/10 M None
Direct access F None
Direct access F/S None
None/115
None/ 10
None/10
Direct access
None/ 55
Direct access
None/385
Direct access
None/220
None/ 93 5
Direct access
Direct access
None/90
1; 0.2 AC
None
None
None
None
1; 1 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
d
e
t
9
Permitted.
S " Steep.
rts - Am. Falls Res,
Falls Res.)
(Source - mouth)
ilad R (Source - mouth)
[Source - mouth)
[Source - ID/UT border)
BB 450A - Cub R (Mapleton - Franklin)
BB 30 - Bear R (Soda Sp. - UPL Tailrace)
Via Trout Cr
Via Whiskey Cr
Via Burton Cr
Via Unnamed stream
LOCATION
Lago
Lago
Lago
Lago
Lago
Lago
Lago
Thatcher
Thatcher
Mink Cr.
Mink Cr.
Mink Cr.
Preston
Preston
Preston
Franklin
Franklin
Franklin
Franklin
Franklin
Franklin
Franklin
Franklin
Franklin
Franklin
Franklin
SOURCE: EPA 1984c and Morrison, pers. corara.
-------
Because of the lack of complaint information and lack of
identification for operations located by the aerial survey, it is
difficult to determine the dairies and feedlots potentially
requiring permits in the Blackfoot area. It is likely that most
operations in Blackfoot that should have a permit would require
it because of their water quality impact, not their size.
Status of Previously Permitted Operations. Table 2-14
summarizes the relationship between permits and impoundments for
the Blackfoot area. Eight of the 34 feedlots/slaughterhouses
(24%) photographed had impoundments. Although the aerial survey
indicates five of the seven previously permitted feedlots have
impoundments, it is likely that some of these, in actuality, have
none. Spur Cattle Company and Harris-Idaho, for example, are
identified as having 50 and 47 acres of feeding area,
respectively, with 28 and 13 acres identified as "impoundments."
It seems more likely that these large areas are merely standing
water which appears as impoundments in the photo. While this
arrangement probably protects river water quality to some extent,
it appears to be more of a beneficial accident than an attempt to
implement BMP.
None of the dairies in the Blackfoot area has ever been
issued a permit. Only three of the 33 had impoundments of any
type. As dairies generally produce milkroom washwater year-
round, the presence of an impoundment or treatment facility of
some type is of somewhat greater importance than it is for
feedlots.
Miscellaneous Operations
During data collection, a number of other operations having
permit numbers were identified in the permit files. Several
operations were issued a number and later determined to be exempt
from the permit requirements. Others received a permit which was
later cancelled. Only one permitted operation (Victorio Co.) was
not previously listed as it is located far to the north of the
study area. Status of these miscellaneous facilities throughout
the state is given in Table 2-15 primarily as an aid to state
record keeping.
Impact of Existing Sources
Water quality data for stream segments in the study area was
reviewed to determine areas where agricultural pollution is of
most concern and to identify areas of poor water quality.
Sources were also assessed in terms of their pollution potential,
based on information in the aerial photo survey, complaint file
information, and contacts with SCS and IDHW field personnel.
42
-------
Table 2-14. Relationship Between Permits, Impoundments, and Complaints in the Blackfoot Area
•t-
U>
PREVIOUSLY SURVEYED SURVEYED t
PERMITTED PERM. NONPERM. IMPOUND.
Beef
Feedlot 10 7 27 5
Dairy/
Poultry 0 0 33
TOTAL 10 7 60 5
SURVEYED t SURVEYED & PERhilTTED, TOTAL COMtLAINTS
PERMITTED UNPERMITTED WITH COMPLAINT3 (1977-1984) a
NO IMPOUND. IMPOUND. NO IMPOUND. IMPOUND. NO IMPOUND. PERM. NONPERM.
23 24 ND ND ND ND
3 30 ND ND ND ND
2 6 54
a Could not be determined due to lack of complaint records at regional IDHW office.
SOURCES: EPA permit files; EPA 19B4b; IDHW files.
-------
PERMIT
NUMBER
Table 2-15. Status of Miscellaneous Operations Referred to in IDHW Files
NAME AREA
002467-8
002389-2
002421-0
002229-2
002208-0
002283-7
002158-0
002225-0
002317-5
002318-3
002146-6
002114-8*
STATUS
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Cancelled
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Cancelled
(1/4/79)
(3/4/76)
Expired (5/28/79)
Blincoe Farms, Inc.
Circle C Ranch Co.
Donald K. Van Buren
Garrerd Land and Cattle Co.
J. R. Simplot Co.
H & A Land & Cattle, Inc.
Houghland Farms, Inc.
Quentin Murdock
Snake River Farms
Twins Falls Livestock Commission
Treasure Valley Heifer Co.
(Holstein Heifer Ranch
McGill Unit)
Victorio Co.
Twin Falls
Shoshone
Springfield
Star
Salmon
(discharge
to Lemki R)
Previously permitted operation lying outside of the study area,
-------
Potential Impacts From Confined Animal Feeding Operations
Wastes generated by individual feedlots and dairies vary
depending on the type of operation, the extent to which wastes
may include bedding, barn, stall, or milkroom waste and the
degree to which these mix with runoff water. On a per capita
basis, dairy cows also generate greater quantities of waste than
beef cattle, although water quality impacts from all operations
are similar.
Animal waste contains a number of pollutants which can
impact water quality. The most commonly recognized contaminants
are suspended solids and organics, bacteria, and nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorus compounds). They have been observed to
cause a number of water quality problems:
• Organic materials decrease dissolved oxygen
concentration, which may impact aquatic fauna.
• Solids affect aesthetics by causing coloration,
turbidity, and odor problems.
• Settling of manure particles in streambeds changes the
substrate and destroys spawning areas.
• Suspended particles may kill aquatic organisms by
suffocation.
• Bacterial/viral concentrations increase potential
spread of disease and other public health concerns.
Organisms such as iLibjLlQ, EfliaJZirjLS, ialjafiJielJL^, and
others are spread through dairy waste discharges.
• Mobile nutrients, particularly nitrates, may cause
groundwater contamination. High nitrate levels pose a
health hazard to young children, who are susceptible to
metherooglobinemia.
• Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds may kill aquatic
organisms through ammonia toxicity.
• Nitrogen compounds may cause eutrophication of streams
and lakes by increasing aquatic plant growth, which
leads to reduced flow, decreased light penetration, and
fish kills.
• Discharge to irrigation canals clogs irrigation intake
pipes and/or reduces the quality of water available to
irrigators.
• Discharge to canals increases growth of moss and
aquatic plants, decreasing flow efficiency and raising
canal maintenance costs.
45
-------
These general impacts have all been noted in the study area.
Twin Falls IDHW complaint and enforcement files contain reports
linking animal wastes to human disease in at least one instance,
and linking discharges to fish kills, irrigation intake pipe
blockage, nuisance weed growth in canals, and water quality
degradation in several others. Weed growth greatly increases
canal operational costs, and it is also responsible for an
additional secondary aquatic impact. Chemicals such as xylene
and acrolein, used to control algal growth in canals, are also
extremely toxic to fish. Contaminated water resulted in a number
of documented fish kills, particularly in the Twin Falls
vicinity. Several fish kills have been recorded caused by
chemicals often used in canals for weed control, although reason
for the use of the chemicals was not given.
Other nuisance and health impacts from dairies and feedlots
include generation of odors, flies, and occasionally fugitive
dust. Although these are normally of less ecologic importance,
people appear more willing to complain about these impacts than
water quality impacts, perhaps because they are more directly
affected by them.
A number of poor management practices may result in water
quality degradation. Inadequate control of runoff from animal
confinement areas, poor manure storage and handling practices,
field application of manure at improper times or during wet
weather, or seepage from storage areas to canals, ditches, or
streams all contribute to the impact of manure on waterways.
Properly constructed facilities and proper operation,
maintenance, and management practices are necessary to maintain
water quality.
The prime concern of this study is runoff from animal
confinement areas and the overflow of impoundments which often
accompanies increased runoff. Tables 2-16 and 2-17 provide
characteristics of cowyard runoff waste generally expected for
dairy cows and beef cattle. Table 2-18 provides characteristics
of waste generally expected from a cowyard and milking center.
Amount of actual runoff will vary depending on the on-site
conditions, but these tables provide a general idea of the kinds
and concentrations of pollutants expected from many operations in
the study area.
Laboratories analyses of runoff from Idaho operations show
coliform levels up to 1,300,000/100 ml, BOD of up to 650 mg/1,
and turbidity up to 508 NTU (Appendix B). These analyses are
probably representative of runoff quality, but few, if any,
actual runoff studies have been made in Idaho. There are a
number of researchers in other areas who have reported runoff
quality from cattle feedlots, however. "Average" concentrations
of pollutants in direct runoff discharge and water discharged
from collection ponds are shown in table 2-19. These
measurements were made in Texas, but the author believes them to
be representative of other areas as well. While both discharges
are still high in solids, COD, and some other parameters, the
46
-------
Table 2-16. Waste
PARAMETER
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry solids
Volatile solids
Suspended solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Total potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Runoff from a Dairy Confinement
LB/ HEAD/ INCH RUNOFF
MINIMUM
NO
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
NO
No
NO
No
No
No
NO
No
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
AVERAGE13
1,
1,
No
NO
No
No
No
NO
040.0
031.7
8.32
3.95
data
data
1.56
3.64
4.37
0.16
data
data
0.08
0.35
data
data
MAXIMUM
NO
NO
No
No
NO
NO
No
NO
NO
No
No
No
NO
No
No
No
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
Area3
MINIMUM
No
NO
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
No
No
NO
No
No
No
NO
No
—
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
mg/1
AVERAGE
-
992,000
8,000
4,000
No data
No data
1,500
3,500
No data
150
No data
No data
80
340
No data
No data
MAXIMUM
No
NO
NO
NO
No
NO
NO
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
No
No
-
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
a
b
Assumes 200 square feet confinement/head and average animal weight of 1,300
pounds.
Estimated values.
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
CD
Table 2-17. Waste Runoff from a Feedlot Confinement Area3
LB/ HEAD/INCH^ RUNOFF
PARAMETER
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry solids
Volatile solids
Suspended solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Total phosphorus
MINIMUM
^m
1,024.4
6.24
3.95
1.04
5.1
1.04
3.12
2.08
0.02
0
0
0.01
AVERAGE
1,040.0
1,031.7
8.32
4.16
2.6
7.6
1.56
3.64
4.37
0.16
0.06
0.03
0.08
MAXIMUM
J
1,034.4
15.0
8.32
5.20
9.4
6.23
31.2
7.8
0.14
0.52
0.12
0.22
MINIMUM
—
985,000
6,000
3,800
1,000
1,000
3,000
2,000
20
0
0
14
mg/1
AVERAGE
—
992,000
8,000
4,000
2,500
1,500
3,500
4,200
150
60
25
80
MAXIMUM
_
994,000
15,000
8,000
5,000
5,000
20,000
7,500
1,100
500
120
200
a Assumes a moderately sloped dirt yard allowing 200 square feet confinement/
head and average animal weight of 800 pounds.
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
*>•
Table 2-18. Waste
PARAMETER
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry solids
Volatile solids
Suspended solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen
Nitrate nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Total potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Expected from a Dairy Cattle Yard ana
KG/ HEAD/DAY
(LB/ HE AD/ DAY)
MINIMUM
No
No
No
No
No
NO
No
No
No
No
No
NO
NO
No
NO
NO
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
AVERAGE*3
NO
No
NO
No
0
No
NO
NO
84.0
83.2
0.8
data
0.22
8.0
0.38
data
data
0.15
0.05
data
.015
data
data
data
MAXIMUM
No
NO
NO
No
NO
No
No
NO
No
No
NO
No
No
NO
NO
NO
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
MINIMUM
No
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
No
No
NO
No
No
NO
NO
NO
NO
_
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
Milking Center3
mg/1
AVERAGE
_
990,500
9,530
No data
2,620
No data
4,530
No data
No data
1,790
596
No data
179
No data
No data
No data
MAXIMUM
No
NO
NO
NO
No
No
NO
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
_
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
Assumes average dairy cow of 1,300 Ibs and (presumably) a 200 square foot
confinement area/head.
Although the source does not so indicate, it is presumed that values for
this table are estimates, as is the case with those of similar format within
the same report.
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table 2-19. Average Concentrations of Selected Chemical
Parameters Found In Direct Runoff from Feed
Pens and in Discharge Water from Collection
Ponds
DIRECT RUNOFF DISCHARGE WATER
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1) 2201 558
Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1) 7210 2313
Total Solids (mg/1) 11429 3172
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1) 5526 1875
Organic Nitrogen (mg/1) 228 64
Total Phosphate (mg/1) 70 38
Ammonia (mg/1) 108 50
SOURCE: Duffer and Kreis 1971, in Shuyler et al. 1973
Table 2-20. Pollutant Concentrations in Runoff from a
Concrete Lot During a Single Storm Event
TIME OF pH BOD COD NO NHo-N ORG-N ALKY
COLLECTION3 (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
11:35 p.m. 6.60 16,800 48,000 625 525 532 2,595
11:58 p.m. 6.80 5,120 20,451 975 526 315 1,955
12:25 a.m. 6.65 7,400 22,032 1,000 485 36 2,000
2:25 a.m. 6.80 9,950 23,316 900 543 285 1,865
a Precipitation beginning 11:00 p.m., August 24, 1969
SOURCE: Texas Tech University 1970 jjj Shuyler et al. 1973
50
-------
increased quality from the discharge pond indicates the value of
impoundment construction.
Runoff can be extremely concentrated and of high pollution
potential. Runoff concentrations are greatly affected by amount
and duration of a runoff event. "First flush" runoff can be
particularly high in pollutants. Table 2-20 indicates the change
in pollutant levels in runoff over time.
The high BOD levels are one reason for fish kills, as they
deplete the dissolved oxygen levels in the receiving water. The
reaction of a stream to a slug of feedlot runoff passing a
sampling point in the stream is shown in table 2-21. The time
for the stream to regain sufficient oxygen levels can be quite
long, depending on a number of factors including waste breakdown
and stream characteristics.
Because it may be considerable, the impact of animal access
to waterways should not be overlooked when assessing impacts of
confined animal operations on water quality. Streambank
trampling greatly increases erosion and downstream sedimentation
of spawning areas and other aquatic habitat. Animal access also
allows direct placement of manure into the water. Animal impacts
thus become a year-round problem, unlike impoundment discharges
which occur primarily when excess precipitation or poor
maintenance cause an overflow. Unlike an impoundment discharge,
unrestricted animal access produces essentially a nonpoint source
impact. It is important to understand and control the impact
through management practices, stipulated if possible, in
conjunction with permit conditions.
Water quality degradation from animal confinement areas
occurs primarily in winter and spring. During these periods,
there is increased precipitation while soils are either likely to
be frozen or saturated. Both conditions decrease soil
infiltration capacity. Greater runoff quantities are likely to
be generated, but less than normal amounts of water can be
retained on site. If rains occur when snow is present, meltwater
will further increase runoff volume. Under such conditions,
runoff may even exceed rainfall volume.
Animal manure has traditionally been viewed primarily as
waste, or more recently, as a pollutant. While the polluting
aspects of improperly managed wastes are obvious, it should not
be overlooked that on the average, a 1,000 pound cow can produce
up to 135 pounds of nitrogen, 58 pounds of phosphorus, and 87
pounds of potassium per year (ADA SCD 1982). When viewed in this
light, manure becomes a resource which can reduce farmer costs
when used properly. Developing a waste management system is the
key to effective use of these nutrients; it will benefit both the
farmer and the environment. To be effective, farm management
planning and use of BMPs should be tailored to meet individual
farmer needs. Elements of a management plan are discussed in
Chapter 4.
51
-------
Table 2-21. Reaction of a Streama to a Slug of Feedlot
Runoff Passing a Sampling Point during a Single
Storm Event and Comparison to Dry Weather
Values
TIME
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS (MG/L)
DO BOD5 COD Cl NH3
Avg. Dry Weather
Values
8.4
29
11
a Fox Creek near Strong City, Kansas, November 1962
SOURCE: Smith and Miner 1964 In
Shuyler et al. 1973
0.06
13
20
26
46
69
117
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
hours
7
0
5
6
4
6
.2
.8
.9
.8
.2
.2
8
90
22
5
7
3
37
283
63
40
43
22
19
50
35
31
26
25
12.
5
0
0
0
0
.3
-
.44
.02
.08
52
-------
Stream Segment Characterization and Priority Segments
The study area lies within three of the six major drainage
basins in Idaho: the Upper Snake Basin and Bear River Basin, in
the southeast, and the Southwest Basin to the west. The Upper
Snake Basin is the largest basin in the state, covering at least
portions of 22 counties. It drains approximately 28,400 mi^ and
includes all of the Snake River drainages from the Montana and
Wyoming border on the east to King Hill, west of Twin Falls (IDHW
1981). It includes the major population centers of Idaho Falls,
Pocatello, Twin Falls, and the Burley-Heyburn-Rupert area. Until
1983, IDHW maintained 13 trend monitoring stations in the basin,
seven on the Snake River and one each on the tributaries of
Henry's Fork, the Blackfoot River, the Portneuf River, Rock
Creek, Salmon Falls Creek, and the Malad River. Monitoring was
discontinued as a large amount of data was already available, few
changes were being noted, and analysis is costly (Shepard pers.
comm.). Location of trend monitoring stations and river segments
within the basin are shown in Figure 2-1. Both the Twin Falls
and a portion of the Blackfoot study area lie within this basin.
The Southwest Basin covers at least parts of 12 counties and
drains approximately 19,250 mi2. It includes all of the Snake
River drainages from King Hill, on the Upper Snake Basin
boundary, to the Salmon River confluence (IDHW 1981). Some of
the state's most highly industrialized areas lie within this
basin, including Boise, Meridian, Nampa, and Caldwell. Until
1983, IDHW maintained three trend monitoring stations on the
Snake River and one each on the Boise, Wieser, Payette, and
Bruneau River tributaries. Location of water quality trend
monitoring stations and river segments are shown in Figure 2-2.
The Caldwell survey area lies within this basin.
The Bear River Basin is the smallest hydrologic basin in the
state. It includes portions of six counties in the southeastern
portion of the state and drains 2,695 mi2. The Idaho portion of
the Bear River is the northernmost portion of the Great Basin,
eventually draining into the Great Salt Lake. Drainages include
the Bear and Malad Rivers and several creeks. The basin includes
Bear Lake on the Idaho-Utah border and the towns of Soda Springs,
Malad City, Montpelier, and Preston. The major economic base in
the basin is agricultural, and major land uses in the basin
include rangeland (50 percent), non-irrigated cropland (30
percent), and woodland (20 percent). Until 1983, IDHW maintained
three water quality trend monitoring stations in the basin,
located on the Bear River at Soda Springs, Preston, and the
Wyoming border (IDHW 1981). Location of the monitoring stations
and river segments are shown in Figure 2-3. A portion of the
Blackfoot study area lies within this basin.
The IDHW has not sampled trend monitoring stations since
September, 1983, so more recent data is unavailable. Although
IDHW generally acknowledges that agricultural sources are
primarily responsible for water quality degradation in all three
basins, it is difficult to correlate water quality changes within
53
-------
iA
I .7 \ IDAHO
I V. ~ "~
UPPER SNAKE BASIN
l.MIWAILfl'?
SOURCE: IDHW 1981.
FIGURE 2-1, LOCATION OF UPPER SNAKE BASIN STREAM SEGMENTS AND TREND MONITORING STATIONS
-------
SOUTHWEST IDAHO BASIN
w
I I IDAHO
. 4 V HYPSPLCGJC
I—^.~-X BASINS
FIGURE 2-2,
SOURCE: IDHW 1981,
LOCATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO BASIN STREAM SEGMENTS AND TREND
MONITORING STATIONS
55
-------
BEAR RIVER BASIN
FIGURE 2-3, LOCATION OF BEAR RIVER BASIN STREAM SEGMENTS AND
TREND MONITORING STATIONS
SOURCE: IDHW 1981,
56
-------
a river segment to feedlot or dairy impoundment discharges and
runoff. Data concerning input from various other types of
sources, particularly nonpoint source activities, are scarce/-
runoff or impoundment discharges are often brief events, and
river sampling occurred only once a month (and probably during
good weather, when possible). For example, a large number of
feedlot runoff complaints were received on May 17, 1982; the
monthly routine river monitoring scheduled on May 15 did not, of
course, record any impact. A number of individual discharges
have been sampled and analyzed; quality of discharges leaving
farms has thus been documented, and a few laboratory reports are
provided in Appendix B. But a lag time often exists before
discharges impact a waterway. Many operations discharge first to
a canal or creek; few actually discharge directly to a major
river segment. Discharges may be noticeable only to immediate
neighbors. In addition, in areas where flow is closely
regulated, use for power generation, irrigation diversion, and
agricultural return flows all help to mask actual changes in
water quality.
IDHW eval uates water qual ity in the basins by use of a Water
Quality Index that provides a combined evaluation of temperature,
dissolved oxygen, pH, aesthetics, solids, radioactivity, fecal
coliform bacteria, nutrients (trophic level), and organic and
inorganic toxicity. Actual measured values for these 10
parameters are compared to water quality criteria, normalized,
and summed to produce the index value. This index makes a
relative quality comparison of individual stream segments
possible. It also establishes various pollution standards against
which individual river segments can be compared. The index
values for 1983 are shown for all of the major river segments of
the state in Figure 2-4.
Water quality in the Snake River is very high as it enters
the Upper Snake Basin; but as the river flows westward through
the Southwest Basin, bacterial densities, nutrients, suspended
solids, and turbidity increase. Elevated summer temperatures
also become a problem (IDHW 1983a). Nearly all of the river
segments within the study area are classified as having marginal
annual water quality (moderate or intermittent pollution), and a
few, such as the Portneuf River, lower Boise River, and Rock
Creek, fall into the unacceptable (severe pollution) range. High
priority problem areas within the state river systems are shown
in Figure 2-5. It should be noted that in 1983, the 1982
priority areas map was expanded to include three new high-
priority areas located in the Bear River Basin, the Salmon River
Basin, and the southern part of the Panhandle Basin (Figure 2-
5a). One area, the Little Wood River, was removed from the high
priority listing. In 1984, priority areas were again expanded
(Figure 2-5b) to include the Portneuf River, the Payette River,
the Lower Wood River, and a number of new areas in the Salmon
River, Clearwater River, and Panhandle Basin. Assuming the same
criteria are used annually to develop IDHW's priority areas, a
progressive downward trend in water quality appears to be
occurring. This is borne out by IDHW data (Figure 2-6) .
57
-------
Lower Portneuf
* Lower Bruneau
S.F. Coeur tfAlene
* Lower Boise
* Rock Creek (Twin Fills Co.)
* Middle Snake
Coeur
-------
SOUTHWEST
BASIN
PANHANDLE
BASIN
CLEARWATER RIVER BASIN
A.
(1983)
SALMON RIVER BASIN
UPPER SNAKE
RIVER BASIN
EAR RIVER
BASIN
SOUTHWEST
BASIN
• PANHANDLE
BASIN
CLEARWATER RIVER BASIN
B.
(1984)
SALMON RIVER BASIN
UPPER SNAKE
RIVER BASIN
BEAR RIVER
BASIN
FIGURE 2-5, HIGH PRIORITY WATER QUALITY AREAS
SOURCES: IDHW 1983A; IDHW 1984B
59
-------
25% degraded
(111,789AC)
10% unknown
(49,257AC)
municipal
point source
65% maintained
(302,903AC)
Water Quality/Use Support (1972-1982)
in Idaho Lakes
Pollution Sources (1982)
Impacting Idaho Lakes
1 % improved
(88 mi)
4% degraded
(199 mi)
6% maintained
(428 mi)
91%
nonpoint
source
6%
municipal
point source
3% industrial
point source
Water Quality/Use Support (1972-1982)
in Rivers and Streams
Pollution Sources (1982)
Impacting Idaho
Rivers and Streams
FIGURE 2-6, POLLUTION SOURCES AND GENERAL TRENDS IN LAKE,
RIVER, AND STREAM SEGMENTS
60
-------
River segments within the Upper Snake Basin (Blackfoot and
Twin Falls study areas) support a number of beneficial uses,
including domestic and agricultural water supply, recreation,
cold-water fisheries, and salmonid spawning. Overall water
quality in this' basin is rated as fair by IDHW. The only
portions of the study area in this basin considered high priority
by IDHW are the Rock Creek area southeast of Twin Falls and Deep
and Cedar Draw Creeks. Eight priority segments exist within the
entire basin, although dairies and feedlots appear to have
significant (estimated 20%) impact only in Deep and Cedar Draw
Creeks (IDHW 1985b). The pollutants of greatest threat to the
beneficial uses are bacteria, nutrients, and solids, all of which
are generated by animal wastes. Within this basin, the
progressive westward degradation is caused primarily by
agricultural activities.
Many river segments in the Southwest Basin (Caldwell study
area) support recreational activity, cold-water fisheries, and
salmonid spawning, as well as domestic water use. Water quality
in this basin is rated fair by IDHW. The portions of the study
area in this basin considered high priority by IDHW are the lower
Boise River, one of the poorest quality segments in the state
(IDHW 1983a), and the Payette River. Five priority segments
exist within the entire basin, but only the Boise and Payette
Rivers appear to have significant dairy and feedlot impact (IDHW
1984b). Both point and nonpoint sources contribute to use
impairment, although it is believed that agricultural activity is
the primary cause of degradation and that the greatest potential
water quality benefits would result from improvement of
agricultural management practices (IDHW 1983b).
River segments in the Bear River Basin (southern portion of
the Blackfoot study area) support a number of beneficial uses
including agricultural water supply and contact recreation. Uses
of greatest concern are fishing and recreation. Water quality in
this basin is rated poor by IDHW. Three of the five high priority
segments in this basin fall within the study area. These include
Worm Creek, the Little Malad River, and the Cub River. Because
the Bear River is the major tributary to Bear Lake, it directly
affects water quality in the lake, and nutrient and sediment
loading are of concern. In 1983, a Clean Lakes Project was
completed for Bear Lake and 3-state funding is being sought to
implement a basin plan to improve water quality in the drainage
area.
Water quality at the Wyoming-Idaho border is affected by
sediment and high turbidity and phosphorous levels. Nitrates
from natural springs and municipal discharges, and bacteria from
agricultural drainage and municipal discharges, both increase in
downstream segments. The drainage has naturally high dissolved
solids levels compared to those of other basins because of salt
springs near Preston. Although point sources include municipal
effluent from Preston and Soda Springs, the major water quality
61
-------
impact comes from agricultural pollution (IDHW 1981, 1983a).
Seasonal highs of bacteria, sediment, turbidity, and phosphorous
correspond to periods of runoff. Table 2-22 summarizes present
and future protected beneficial uses for water segments within
the three drainage basins.
The water quality index provides one way to prioritize water
segments based on existing data. It is also possible to
prioritize water segments in terms of potential pollution. This
can be done by analyzing the condition, number, and size of
animal confinement areas which drain to various stream segments.
This method cannot assess impact with complete accuracy; many
small dairies and feedlots not included in the aerial survey may
cumulatively have significant impact. Certain areas do seem to
warrant greater concern than others, however, based solely on the
number of operations draining to a particular river segment. The
sources draining to river segments within the three basins are
summarized by size and number in Table 2-23. As the aerial
survey did not include many sources, this table underestimates
numbers but nevertheless provides some relative information by
which to compare river segments.
In the Caldwell area, segment SWB 280 (Boise River from
Caldwell to mouth) and segment SWB 20 (Snake River from Strike
Dam to the Boise River) appear to be the most potentially
impacted. The majority of the larger (over 200 animal) farms are
located within these drainages. Many have no impoundments and
often allow direct animal access or lie within short distance of
a waterway. This finding tends to support IDHW's index values
and their contention that the lower Boise is one of the worst
water quality segments in the state. It also tends to support
the assumption that control of agricultural sources in general
within these segments should be a priority.
In the Twin Falls area, Deep Creek (USB 810), the Big Wood
(USB 850), and Little Wood Rivers (USB 871) appear to be
priorities although a great number of sources were missed in this
region. The Bear and Cub Rivers (BB 30 and BB 450A) appear to be
of greatest concern in the Blackfoot area, followed by Mink and
Worm Creeks (BB 410 and BB 430). This agrees with IDHW
information supplied through personal communications.
Degradation in these areas results from a cumulative impact of
numerous small sources.
Groundwater Concerns
In considering feedlot and dairy waste management options,
surfacewater pollution should not be the only concern. The Snake
River Plain Aquifer underlies much of the Snake River. It
discharges via numerous springs in the area between Hagerman and
Twin Falls. Many of these springs support aquaculture projects
such as trout hatcheries. Citizens of Hagerman have petitioned
the EPA to designate the aquifer (primarily in the area from
Hagerman eastward to approximately St. Anthony) as a Sole Source
Aquifer. This designation would require any federal projects in
62
-------
U)
Table
SEGMENT
NUMBER
SWB 10
SWB '20
SWB 210
SWB 260
SWB 271
SWB 280
SWB 282
SWB 30
SWB 340
SWB 420
USB 520
USB 60A
USB 60B
USB 70
USB 730
USB 740
USB 810
USB 820
USB 80
USB 850
2-22. Designated Uses of Water Segments
DOMESTIC
WATERS SUPPLY
Snake River *
(King Bill-Strike Dam)
Snake River *
(Strike Dam-Boise R)
Reynolds Creek
(Source-mouth)
Boise River
(Mile 50 -Cal dwell)
Ten Mile and Five Mile
Creeks (Source-mouth)
Boise River
(Caldwell-mouth)
Indian Creek
(Below Sugar Cr, Nam pa)
Snake River
(Payette R-Bolse R)
Payette River *
(Black Canyon Dam-mouth)
Wieser River
( Hi dv ale-mouth)
Raft River
(Source-mouth)
Snake River
(Hinldoka Dam-Bey/Bur Br)
Snake River
(Hey/Bur Br-Milner Dam)
Snake River
(Milner Dam-Buhl)
Rock Creek
(Rock Creek City-mouth)
Cedar Draw
(Source-mouth)
Deep Creek
(Source-mouth)
Salmon Falls Creek
(ID/NV border-mouth)
Snake River
(Buhl-King Bill)
Big Wood River *
(Source-Magic Res)
Within the Caldwell, Twin Falls, and
CALDWELL
AGRICULTURAL
SUPPLY
*
*
•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
TWIN FALLS
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
It
*
*
AREA
COLD
WATER SALMONID
BIOTA SPAWNING
* (*)
(*) (*)
* *
* (*)
(*) (*)
(*) (*)
(*)
(*) (*)
t *
(*) (*)
_&££&
* *
* *
(Warm
water
biota)
* *
* t
t t
* *
4 *
* *
* *
Blackfoot Study Areas
PRIMARY SECONDARY
CONTACT CONTACT
RECREATION RECREATION
* *
(*)
* *
• *
*
* *
(*) •
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
* *
(*) *
*
*
* *
* *
* *
SPECIAL
RESOURCE
WATER3
*
*
-------
Table 2-22. Continued
SEGMENT
NUMBER
USB 671
USB 840
USB 30
USB 40
USB 411
BB
30
BB 410
BB 430
BB 4SOA
BB 471
WATERS
Little Wood River
(Source-Richf ield)
Billingsley Creek
(Source-mouth)
Snake River
(Roberts-Am Falls Res)
Snake River
(American Falls Res)
Marsh Creek
(Source-mouth)
Bear River
(Soda Sp-UPL Tailrace)
Mink Creek
(Source-mouth)
Worm Creek
(Source-ID/UT border)
Cub River
(Mapleton-Franklin)
Little Malad River
(Source-mouth)
DOMESTIC
SUPPLY
*
*
*
AGRICULTURAL
SUPPLY
*
*
BLACKFQQT
*
*
*
*
*
•
COLD
WATER SALMONID
JUQXA SPAWNING
t *
*
_AB£A
* *
*
(*) (•)
* •
* *
(*) (*)
PRIMARY SECONDARY
CONTACT CONTACT
RECREATION RECREATION
* *
* *
* *
* *
(*) *
* •
* •
(*) «
SPECIAL
RESOURCE
WATER3
*
(*)
(*)
Special Resource Hater: Recognized by IDHW as needing intensive protection to (a) preserve outstanding or unique
characteristics or (b) to maintain current beneficial use.
* • Protected for general use.
(*) - Protected for future use.
SOURCE: IDHW 1983b.
-------
SEGMENT
NUMBER
Table 2-23. Number and Size of Farms Identified by Survey as Correlated to Receiving Water Segment
FARM SIZE
<50 51-200 201-700 701-1000 >1000
Caldwell Survey Area
SWB 420 Weiser R (Hidvale-mouth)
.SWB 340 Payette R (Black Canyon Dam-mouth)
SWB 30 Snake R (Payette R-Boise R)
SWB 280 Boise R (Caldwell-mouth)
SWB 20 Snake R (Strike Dam-Boise R)
SWB 270 Boise R (Mile 50-Vet State Park) 1
SWB 10 Snake R (King Hill-Strike Dam) 1
Twin Palls Survey Area
USB 520 Raft R (Source-mouth)
USB 60A Snake R (Minikoka Dam-Hey/Bur Br)
USB 60B Snake R (Bey/Bur Br-Milner Dam)
USB 70 Snake R (Milner Dam-Buhl)
USB 730 Rock Cr (Rock Cr City-mouth) 1
USB 740 Cedar Draw (Source-mouth) 1
USB 810 Deep Cr (Source-mouth) 2
USB 820 Salmon Falls Cr (ID/NV border-mouth)
USB 850 Big Wood R (Source-Magic Res) 3
USB 80 Snake R (Buhl-King Bill) 2
USB 871 Little Wood R (Source-Richfield) 2
USB 840 Billingsley Cr (Source-mouth)
Blackfoot Survey Area
USB 30 Snake R (Roberts-Am Falls Res) 1
USB 40 Snake R (Am Falls Res)
USB 411 Marsh Cr (Source-mouth)
BB 471 Little Mai ad R (Source-mouth) 3
BB 410 Mink Cr (Source-mouth) 2
BB 430 Worm Cr (Source-ID/UT border) 1
BB 450A Cub R (Mapleton-Franklin) 6
BB 30 Bear R (Soda Sp-UPL Tailrace) 7
1
2
1
1
1
2
7
1
12
6
10
1
Note: Although 298 operations were identified by the aerial survey, many (particularly in the Twin
Falls area) discharge to canals or ditches which appear to have no discharge to creeks or
rivers. These operations are omitted from this table.
65
-------
A
the area above the aquifer to undergo extensive review for
possible impacts on the aquifer. In response to this petition,
the Governor's Office requested that instead of federal
designation, EPA allow the state to take an active role in
aquifer protection. EPA is presently delaying further processing
on the Sole Source designation, and the state has agreed to
develop an aquifer protection plan that would go beyond the
protective mechanism provided by a Sole Source designation. A
planning strategy for the groundwater management plan is now in
preparation. Initial problem solving and a proposal should be
completed by October, 1985. Federal agencies in the area have
also voluntarily agreed to submit their projects for review,
although the designation is not in effect (Mullen pers. comm.).
Regardless of whether the aquifer eventually receives Sole
Source status or whether it is managed under a state protection
plan, its significance as a water source should be considered in
evaluating activities occurring above it, particularly where
underlying lava or other porous formations allow relatively rapid
and unfiltered entrance of surface water into the aquifer. The
absence of containment facilities in many feedlots and dairies
presently causes surfacewater pollution. However, constructing
inadequately sealed containment facilities may result in
groundwater pollution, particularly by nitrates. Groundwater
pollution is generally much more difficult to clean up than
surfacewater pollution. In determining the correct management of
feedlot and dairy wastes, both surface and groundwater concerns
must be considered.
At present, the impact of existing facilities on groundwater
has not been quantified, and it is difficult to distinguish the
impact of septic tanks and feedlots. It is known that nitrate
levels are elevated above background levels, although at least 95
percent of the wells are still below the public health standard
of 10 mg/1. Perhaps 70 wells have nitrate levels of 12-15 mg/1
(Brower pers. comm.). The aquifer location and groundwater
problem areas are shown in Figures 2-7 and 2-8. Both the
Rathdrum-Prairie and the proposed Snake River Plain Sole Source
aquifer show some evidence of contamination. Septic tanks are
the primary cause in the former, and both septic tanks and
agricultural wastes are believed to affect the latter. A USGS
study is presently underway to determine the extent to which
various sources contribute to contamination (Shook pers. comm.).
Priority Sources
A large number of facilities are potential candidates for
permits. These include many of the previously permitted
facilities (Tables 2-2, 2-7, and 2-12), many of the large
operations identified by aerial survey (Tables 2-3, 2-8, and
2-13), and the additional sources identified through complaints
or other mechanisms (Tables 2-4 and 2-9).
Previously permitted sources should be considered
priorities, particularly those that have received complaints
66
-------
HEVXDA
VTAJ4
FIGURE 2-7, LOCATION OF THE SNAKE PLAIN AQUIFER
SOURCE: MULLEN PERS, COMM,
67
-------
*%*
A
D
A
<£*> \
Agricultural contamination
Elevated Heavy metals
Septic tank contamination
Reported petroleum problems
Septic tanks
Spills other than petroleum
Impoundments
Land disposal of wastewater
Landfills
Proposed Sole Source Aquifer
FIGURE 2-8, GROUNDWATER PROBLEM AREAS
SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM IDHW 1984B, SHOOK PERS, COMM,
68
-------
and/or have no impoundments, such as Bivens Livestock and Bower
Feedlot in Caldwell. The status and ownership of the following
previously permitted sources should be particularly reassessed,
as the operations were not identified in the aerial survey and
little is known about their present condition.
Sources to evaluate in the Caldwell area:
Emmett Feedlot (Emmett)
Idaho Meat Packers (Caldwell)
Lone Star Cattle Co. (Nampa)
P&B Feedlot (Melba)
R. L. Cattle Co. (Nampa)
Richard Rutledge Cattle Co. (Caldwell)
Simplot Livestock (Boise)
Wilder Cattle Co. (Wilder)
Higby Cattle Co. (Payette)
Boise Assoc. Dairies (Boise)
Dari Vest Farms (Parma)
Sources to evaluate in the Twin Falls area:
• All previously permitted sources (Table 2-7) should be
reassessed, as none were identified in the aerial
survey.
Sources to evaluate in the Blackfoot area:
• Arnold Feedlot (Idaho Falls)
• Hyer Cattle Company (Shelley)
• Louis Skaar and Sons, Inc. (Roberts)
All sources along the river segments considered high
priority by IDHW should also be considered priority sources,
regardless of size. Stream segments of concern were identified
in the previous section. Sources along these segments can be
obtained from Tables 2-3, 2-8, and 2-13. The aerial survey
provides some individual information on water pollution potential
in terms of size, access, and impoundments, but individual
inspections of sources along these key stream segments are needed
to really determine individual on-site conditions. Many of these
are relatively small sources, but they can be permitted under the
regulations because of their water quality impact. The above
list is by no means meant to be all-inclusive. It is merely a
starting focal point.
69
-------
70
-------
Chapter 3
INFLUENCE OF SOILS AND CLIMATE ON IMPOUNDMENT PERFORMANCE
Overview of Study Area Soils
Soils normally have an important relationship to quantity
and quality of surface water runoff and runoff impact on adjacent
water bodies. The soil type is a major factor in determining the
degree to which precipitation will infiltrate or shed as
stormwater runoff. Infiltration capacity can be particularly
important in sizing of impoundments where runoff is to be
contained. In animal confinement areas, however, the
relationship between infiltration capacity and soil texture or
type tends to be obscured by several factors. Animals compact
the soil, and animal manure tends to clog soil pores and seal the
surface layer, retarding water infiltration. During much of the
winter, frozen ground also prevents infiltration of rain
(McCollum pers. comm.). Given the combined effect of these
factors on most soils, the majority of water falling on a
confined animal feeding area during winter is likely to run off.
In conditions where rainfall also results in snowmelt, runoff may
even exceed the measured precipitation. In times of unfrozen or
unsatuiated ground, soils will play a greater role in runoff,
particularly if they are sandy soils which allow more rapid
infiltration.
Proper facility design requires site-specific knowledge of
both surface soils and subsoil. Soil type and texture can vary
greatly from place to place within a small area, and several
hundred soil types exist within the state. It is not within the
scope of this project to discuss all possible site-specific
conditions. This section therefore provides a generalized
overview of soils expected in the study area, as taken from the
general soils maps (USDA 1984a) and selected county soil survey
general planning maps for selected parts of the study area.
Idaho soil surveys have not been completed for many
geographical areas. Figure 3-1 shows areas where soil surveys
are available. Only a limited number of county soil surveys are
available in the study area. These include Ada, Gem, Madison,
Jefferson, Bonneville, and Bigham Counties and parts of Canyon,
Owyhee, Cassia, Minidoka, Elaine, and Lincoln Counties. A
generalized state soils map showing major soil subgroups is also
available. Because the subgroups are differentiated primarily by
formation and development, each subgroup includes all types of
textures. This map is of limited value in planning, but it does
71
-------
SOIL SURVEYS
PUBLISHED OR
MAPPING COMPLETED
* -HS?* "i""'"^-" - -
FIGURE 3-1. STATUS OF IDAHO SOIL SURVEYS
SOURCE: U, S, DEPT, OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
1984B
72
-------
provide some insight into topography and areas expected to
support confined animal operations.
The state contains four major landform provinces (Figure
3-2). The fourth province is further subdivided into six
sections. The majority of the study area (and the animal feeding
operations) lies within two sections of the Columbia Intermontane
Province (Eastern Snake River Plain and Malheur-Boise-King Hill
sections) and the Basin and Range Province.
The Eastern Snake River Plain section is the largest
landform section in the study area, and it covers most of the
Twin Falls and Blackfoot areas. It is a lava-filled basin about
60 miles wide, generally following the Snake River and extending
from near the Montana border to the western boundary of Twin
Falls County. The major soil groups in this section are
Aridisols (light-colored soils found in areas of low
precipitation), Mollisols (dark-surfaced soils, often with high
amounts of organic materials, found beneath grass), and Entisols
(relatively immature soils which lack horizons and have remained
in place only for short periods). The main parent material
sources for soils in this area include: 1) Quaternary deposits
(alluvium [river deposits], basin fill, outwash, floodplain and
terrace gravels, loess, lacustrine [lake] and glacial deposits,
and some active sand dunes); and 2) lava deposits and basalt
flows (USDA 1984a).
This section contains the State's only area of xeric mesic
Vertisols, located in the northern half of Gooding and Lincoln
Counties. These soils are dominated by swelling clays. The
majority of dairies lie to the south of this area.
The region to the south of Blackfoot, which includes the
Bear Lake Basin, contains large areas of Mollisols. This area is
primarily a mixture of cold soils on mountains formed in
Quartzite, rhyolite, and limestone residuum, colluvium
(heterogeneous deposits), and alluvium with some volcanic
influence; cold soils on mountains formed in loess and in
residuum and alluvium from sandstone, limestone, and shale; and
soils on plateaus formed in loess, silty alluvium, and some
volcanic ash.
In the Blackfoot vicinity, soils in the northwest Bingham
area (lying to the north and west of Moreland and Springfield)
are primarily a Pancheri-Polatis association. These soils are
found on basalt plains, are well drained, deep and moderately
deep, nearly level to moderately sloping, and have a medium-
textured surface layer. The Declo-Fingal association occurs in
the Springfield and Aberdeen areas. These soils are found on
lake terraces, are nearly level to strongly sloping, deep, well
and moderately well drained, and have a medium- or moderately-
coarse textured surface layer (USDA 1973). Many dairies are
located in these areas.
73
-------
fr
IK"
•H.t'r-fJu
*Ki''''-^
.^S/.* >J&
>->«-«£«$
-"•v'^%
.^^S^^
^> -'I'.I^rX
Landform Provinces
1 Northern Rocky Mountain Province - extends over most of
central Idaho and is characterized by high, mature
mountains-and deep interrnontane valleys.
2 Middle Rocky Mountain Province • typified by two landforms:
(1) the heavily forested Yellowstone Plateau of volcanic
origin, and (2) the complexly folded and faulted ranges on the
extreme southeastern corner.
3 Basin and Range Province - characterized by sub-parallel.
block-faulted mountains separated by open valleys.
4 Columbia Intermontane Province - characterized by complex
structure, nearly horizontal sheets of basalt, and block-fault
mountains.
4A Eastern Snake River Plain section - a lava-filled structural
and topographic basin about 60 miles wide.
4B Malheur-Boise-King Hill Section - characterized by thick
lacustrine and ftuviatile sediments that are extensively
interbedded with basalt flows.
4C Owyhee Uplands Section - a high plateau (5000 feet) of older
lavas, lower elevation deserts, and some higher mountains
(6000 feet).
4D Seven Devils Section - an elevated mountainous mass cut by
the deep canyons of the Snake and Salmon Rivers.
4E Tri-State Upland Section - a gently undulating plateau of
3000 to 5000 feet elevation, underlain by Columbia River
basalt flows.
4F Palouse Hills Section - rolling, asymmetrical hills that
commonly rise 20 to 80 feet.
FIGURE 3-2, MAJOR LANDFORM PROVINCES OF IDAHO
SOURCE: USDA 1984A
74
-------
Moreland and Blackfoot are located in the Bannock-Bock
association, which is characterized by nearly level to moderately
sloping, well drained deep soils having a medium-textured surface
layer. The Bingham soil survey does not indicate suitability for
sewage lagoon use, but most soils in this area have 40 or more
inches of moderately permeable soil over basalt (Poncheri and
Polatis) or gravel (Bannock and Bock). Fingal soils have a water
table less than 4 feet from the surface.
No soil surveys are yet available for the Twin Falls-Jerorae-
Wendell area. The closest areas surveyed are western Cassia
County and Minidoka County. Because soils vary so greatly from
area to area, it is unwise to extrapolate data from one area to
another. However, soils in the Twin Falls area are known to be
approximately 75-80 percent Portneuf silt loam about 40 inches
deep. This soil is well drained, has 0-2 percent slopes, and is
moderately permeable. In the Wendell area, where most of the
dairies are concentrated, the surface layer is more sandy, and
infiltration is more rapid (McCollum pers. comm.).
The Basin and Range Province, the second landform province,
is located from the Snake River floodplain south to the Utah
border, and from the Blackfoot reservoir west to approximately
Heyburn. It covers the southern portion of the Blackfoot study
area to the west of Bear Lake. This area is characterized by
sub-parallel block-faulted mountains separated by open valleys.
Major parent material sources for this area include: 1) basalts;
outwash, floodplain, and terrace gravels; lacustrine, eolian, and
glacial surficial cover; till, moraines, and shoreline deposits;
2) volcanics, welded tuff, ash, and flow rock; 3) granitic
plutons; and 4) marine and clastic sediments and dolomitic
limestone (USDA 1984a). No individual soil surveys have been
completed for this area.
The Malheur-Boise-King Hill section, the third landform
area, covers most of the Caldwell study area. It includes
lowlands on both sides of the Snake River from the Oregon border
to approximately the west end of Twin Falls County, plus lower
portions of the Boise and Payette Rivers and much of the Bruneau
River Basin. This area is characterized by thick lacustrine and
fluviatile sediments extensively interbedded with basalt flows.
Major soils groups include Aridisols, Entisols, and Mollisols.
Major parent material sources for this area include: 1) outwash,
floodplain, and terrace deposits; lava-dammed silt and clay beds;
alluvium; a small sand dune area; and 2) basalt flows, welded
tuff, ash, and granitic plutons. In the Caldwell area, soils on
low terraces and floodplains along the lower Boise and lower
Payette Rivers are characterized as aquic mesic Aridisols formed
in recent alluvium.
In the Boise area of Ada County, soils along the Boise River
on floodplains and drainageways are primarily Notus, Moulton, and
Falk series. These are poorly drained, nearly level, and very
deep soils. Soils found along creeks, such as Tenmile and Indian
Creeks, include Power, Aerie Haplaquepts, and Jenness. These
75
-------
soils are nearly level to sloping, both poorly and well drained,
and very deep. The majority of the soils in the remainder of Ada
County, in areas such as Meridian and Orchard, are well drained
and moderate to very deep. Prevalent associations include the
Tenmile-Chilcott-Kunaton (level to very steep, well drained,
shallow to deep, gravelly, silt and silt clay loams); the
Chilcott-Kunaton-Sebree association (nearly level to sloping,
well drained, shallow, and moderately deep) both found on basalt
plains and high alluvial terraces; the Power-McCain-Purdam
association (well drained, nearly level to sloping, moderately
and very deep soils) found on basalt plains and low alluvial
terraces; and several others (USDA 1980). The SCS rates a large
proportion of these as "severe" in terms of sewage lagoon use.
Many have wetness or seepage problems (including Aerie
Haplaquepts, Power, Notus, Moulton, and Falk soils) or a cemented
hardpan (Chilcott, Kunaton, Sebree, and Purdam).
A bit to the east at Caldwell, Canyon County soils along
creeks and rivers and at Nampa are primarily the Moulton-Brom-
Baldock association. These are somewhat poorly drained and
moderately well drained, fine, sandy-to-silt loams in lowlands.
On lake terraces and alluvial fans of Wilder and Marsing, the
Greenleaf-Nyssaton-Garbutt association of well-drained silt loams
occurs. In Sunnyslope and along both sides of the Snake River,
the Turbyfill-Cencove-Feltham association is most prevalent.
These soils are well drained and somewhat excessively drained,
fine, sandy loams located on fans and terraces. They are
generally rated "moderate" or "severe" in terms of use for sewage
lagoons. Many, such as Moulton, are permeable; others like
Nyssaton or Peltham, have moderate to steep slopes. Still
others, such as Baldock, have a seasonal high water table at a
depth of 3-4 feet. Most are rated as "good" for agricultural
drainage, as many are sloping or sandy.
Overview of Study Area Climate
The climate of the study area has a significant influence on
the water resources of the study area in terms of stream flow,
groundwater recharge, stormwater runoff, and surface water
quality.
The study area is a semi-arid region that is dependent on
irrigation water from surface and groundwater sources. The Snake
River and its tributaries, as well as extensive groundwater
reserves, have enabled agriculture to become widely established
in spite of the dry climate.
Occasional rainstorms and seasonal snowmelt can cause
substantial runoff and can be a causative factor in the discharge
of manure-laden water from feedlot and dairy yards, and in the
overflow of impoundments in both types of operations. Proper
feedlot and dairy facility design requires an understanding of
the climatic influences on the design and operation of these
facilities.
76
-------
For the purposes of this report, the study area climate can
be characterized by the selected precipitation and temperature
data shown in Tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 and by the 10-year, 24-
hour and 25-year, 24-hour precipitation isopluvial maps shown in
Figures 3-3 and 3-4.
The western area, as represented by Boise, is the most
temperate portion of the study area. It is influenced by air
masses from the Pacific as well as atmospheric developments from
other directions. A mild upland continental type of climate
occurs in summer, tempered by cloudy or stormy but mild
temperature winters. Average temperatures vary widely from year
to year, yet day-to-day changes are comparatively small for an
inland area.
Summer hot periods seldom last more than a few days; maximum
temperatures exceed 100°F an average of three times a year. Cold
periods tend to last longer: in January 1949, Boise had 16 days
with minimum temperatures of 0° or lower.
Precipitation falls mostly as rain, although from November
to April a significant portion may fall as snow. November
through May constitutes the wettest portion of the year; summers
are relatively dry. Within the study area, precipitation may
increase substantially in foothill and mountain areas due to the
orographic effects of the terrain. Most of the dairies and
feedlots covered in this study are in the river valley areas.
The precipitation data in Table 3-2 are representative of
conditions found in the valleys.
Moving eastward through the study area, elevations increase
from 2,100 feet at the Oregon border to 2,700 feet at Boise,
3,700 feet at Twin Falls, and 4,500 feet at Pocatello and
Blackfoot. The climate grows cooler and loses some of the
tempering offered by Pacific air masses. A comparison of averge
monthly minimum temperatures for Boise, Twin Falls, and Pocatello
illustrates this well (Table 3-1). Average dates for last and
first frosts are May 6 and October 12 for Boise, and May 4 and
October 5 for Pocatello. Mean precipitation decreases into the
Twin Falls area and then increases slightly near Pocatello. The
proportion of precipitation falling as snow increases markedly at
Pocatello, reflecting the cooler temperatures. A frost depth of
1-2 feet is common in the winter.
Climatic Influences on Runoff
Both single and chronic rainfall events can wash accumulated
manure from feedlots and dairy yards and cause overflow of
impoundments. Snowmelt, especially combined with a warm spring
rain or even average rainfall on frozen ground, can also cause
manure-laden water to run from feedlots and dairies into streams,
canals, or adjacent properties. It is necessary to quantify the
likelihood and duration of the events that can cause these
77
-------
Table 3-1. Selected Temperature Data for Southern Idaho
BOISE AREA
Averages,
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Average
Year
TWIN FALLS AREA
Averages,
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Average
Year
POCATELLO AREA
Averages,
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Average
Year
Monthly
29.9
36.1
41.4
48.6
57.4
65.8
74.6
72.0
63.2
51.9
39.7
32.0
Daily
Max
37.1
44.3
51.8
60.8
70.8
79.8
90.6
87.3
77.6
64.6
49.0
39.3
Daily
Min
22.6
27.9
30.9
36.4
44.0
51.8
58.5
56.7
48.7
39.1
30.5
24.6
Monthly
29.4
34.4
39.3
47.6
57.0
64.5
72.7
70.4
60.5
50.0
38.8
30.8
Daily
Max
38.2
44.2
51.1
61.1
71.5
79.8
90.4
88.1
77.6
65.5
49.9
39.5
Daily
Min
20.6
24.6
27.4
34.0
42.4
49.1
55.0
52.7
43.4
34.6
27.7
22.0
Monthly
23.8
29.5
35.5
44.6
54.0
62.5
71.2
68.9
59.2
48.1
35.2
26.6
Daily
Max
32.4
38.6
45.8
56.8
67.7
77.6
88.6
86.0
75.7
62.8
45.6
35.3
Daily
Min
15.1
20.4
25.2
32.3
40.3
47.3
53.8
51.7
42.7
33.3
24.8
17.9
Max Temp
32° and
Below
10
3
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
Min Temp
32° and
Below
26
21
18
8
2
0
0
0
*
5
18
25
19
17
# of Days
Max Temp
32° and
Below
13
7
2
*
0
0
0
0
0
*
4
12
38
123
# of Days
Max Temp
32° and
Below
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
Min Temp
32° and
Below
27
24
24
13
2
0
0
0
2
12
22
28
154
Min Temp
32° and
Below
27
25
26
17
5
3
15
23
27
169
* Less than one-half
SOURCE: NOAA 1983a, b, and 1976
78
-------
Table 3-2. Selected Precipitation Data for Southern Idaho
BOISE AREA
Water Equivalent, inches
Monthly
Average
Jan 1.64
Fob 1.07
Mar 1.03
Apr 1.19
May 1.21
Jun 0.95
Jul 0.26
Aug 0.40
Sep 0.58
Oct 0.75
Now 1.29
Dec 1.34
Average
Year 11.71
TWIN FALLS AREA
Hater Equivalent, inches
Monthly
Average
Jan
Feb
Max
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Average
Year
1.14
0.73
0.79
0.84
1.06
0.96
0.21
0.35
0.47
0.62
0.98
1.14
9.29
Max
Month
3.87
2.62
2.76
3.04
4.00
3.41
1.62
2.37
2.54
2.25
2.44
4.23
Sn
24 Hr
Record
1.48
1.00
1.65
1.27
1.51
2.24
0.94
1.61
1.74
0.76
0.88
1.16
cwfall, inches ....
Monthly
Average
7.3
3.7
1.9
0.7
0.1
T
T
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.9
5.8
Max
Month
21.4
25.2
11.9
8.0
4.0
T
T
0.0
0.0
2.7
8.8
26.2
24 Hr
Record
8.5
13.0
6.4
7.2
4.0
T
T
0.0
0.0
1.7
6.5
6.7
21.5
Max
Month
3.22
1.86
1.59
2.35
2.92
2.82
0.56
2.77
2.33
2.46
2.27
3.89
Sri
24 Hr
Record
0.85
0.75
1.27
1.05
1.42
0.88
0.54
0.87
0.65
0.98
0.78
1.21
owfall, inches ....
Monthly
Average
5.7
2.8
2.3
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.3
4.9
Max
Month
17.1
15.0
12.5
4.5
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
7.0
16.0
24 Hr
Record
8.0
5.0
9.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
3.0
9.0
18.6
PQCATEliO AREA
Water
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Average
Year
T • Trace
SOURCE i NOAA
Bouivalcnt t
Monthly
Average
1.13
0.86
0.94
1.16
1.20
1.06
0.47
0.60
0.65
0.92
0.91
0.96
10.86
1983a, b.
inches ,
Max
Month
3.24
1.51
2.95
3.30
3.29
3.30
1.84
3.98
3.43
2.56
2.84
3.39
and 1976
24 Hr
Record
0.97
0.67
0.90
1.25
1.67
1.08
0.98
1.16
1.13
1.82
0.85
0.94
Monthly
Average
10.2
5.7
5.8
4.4
0.5
T
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.9
4.3
8.9
41.8
Max
Month
28.1
16.3
15.4
15.5
5.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
2.0
12.6
11.5
33.7
24 Hr
Record
10.1
6.1
7.3
10.0
5.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
2.0
8.0
6.8
9.5
79
-------
Table 3-3. Cllmatological Data Comparisons
ion
Ave
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
peiauue uui
F&G&H *F*
xat^cB f * •
Boise
Monthly
29.9
36.1
41.4
48.6
57.4
65.8
74.6
72. Q
63.2
51.9
39.7
32.0
Twin Falls
Monthly
29.4
34.4
39.3
47.6
57.0
64.5
72.7
70.4
60.5
50.0
38.8
30.8
Pocatello
Monthly
23.8
29.5
35.5
44.6
54.0
62.5
71.2
68. 9
59.2
48.1
35.2
26.6
Boise
Daily
Min
22.6
27.9
30.9
36.4
44.0
51.8
58.5
56.7
48.7
39.1
30.5
24.6
Twin Falls
Daily
Min
20.6
24.6
27.4
34.0
42.4
49.1
55.0
52.7
43.4
34.6
27.7
22.0
Pocatello
Daily
Min
15.1
20.4
25.2
32.3
40.3
47.3
53.8
51.7
42.7
33.3
24.8
17.9
Boise
Min Temp
32' and
Below
26
21
18
8
2
0
0
0
*
5
18
25
Twin Falls
Min Imp
32* and
Below
27
24
24
13
2
0
0
0
2
12
22
28
Pocatello
Min Temp
32" and
Below
27
25
26
17
5
*
0
*
3
15
23
27
Year
Precipitation Data ,
Water Equivalent (inches) ...r
Boise Twin Falls
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Monthly
Average
1.64
1.07
1.03
1.19
1.21
0.95
0.26
0.40
0.58
0.75
1.29
1.34
Monthly
Average
1.14
0.73
0.79
0.84
1.06
0.96
0.21
0.35
0.47
0.62
0.98
1.14
Pocatello
Monthly
Average
1.13
0.86
0.94
1.16
1.20
1.06
0.47
0.60
0.65
0.92
0.91
0.96
Snowfall
Boise
Monthly
Average
7.3
3.7
1.9
0.7
0.1
T
T
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.9
5.8
(inches) .....
Twin Falls
Monthly
Average
5.7
2.8
2.3
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.3
4.9
Pocatello
Monthly
Average
10.2
5.7
5.8
4.4
0.5
T
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.9
4.3
8.9
123
154
169
Year
11.71
9.29
10.86
21.5
18.6
41.8
* Less than one-half
T Trace
SOURCE: NOAA 1983a, b, and 1976
80
-------
discharges in order to develop adequate criteria for design and
operation of impoundments.
The various relevant climatic factors include:
• rainfall duration, intensity, and cumulative total;
• antecedent conditions, including presence of frozen
ground, accumulated snow, or thawed but saturated soil;
• temperature, particularly as related to potential for
snowmelt or thaw condition; and
• evaporation of rain or accumulated snow.
Operational factors specific to the feedlots and dairies
that inter-relate with these factors include the level of wastes
in impoundments, the ability of fields to accept waste
deposition, and the routes for surface drainage within the
operation.
Past impoundment designs have been based on retention of the
expected runoff from a 10-year (or 25-year), 24-hour rainfall
event: that is, the amount of rainfall within 24 hours that is
likely to be exceeded on the average only once in 10 years (or
once in 25 years). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA 1973) has published isopluvial maps for such
events for Idaho showing the rainfall in tenths of an inch, as
shown in Figures 3-3 and 3-4. For a 10-year frequency, 24-hour
rainfall event, about 2 inches would be expected at Boise, 1.4
inches at Twin Falls, and 1.8 inches at Pocatello. For the 25-
year, 24-hour rainfall event, Boise could expect 2.4 inches, Twin
Falls 1.8 inches, and Pocatello 2.1 inches. Because most
impoundment designs have assumed infiltration of the rainfall
would occur, actual storage capacity is normally much less than
the actual expected event. This is discussed further in
Chapter 4.
In Idaho, cumulative precipitation is especially important
during winter. Impoundments cannot be pumped out onto fields
because manure-laden water cannot be incorporated into the frozen
soil. Temperature data indicate there is a 2-3 month period in
Boise and Twin Falls (around December and January) and a 3-4
month period in Pocatello-Blackfoot area (around December through
February) that may be expected to have frozen ground. Normal
precipitation would total about 4 inches for a 3-month period in
Boise and for the same 4-month period in Pocatello.
During this period, some evaporation would occur,
particularly where precipitation remains as snow. However, a
year with heavy precipitation could deposit a substantial
quantity of snow which remains as a progressively-accumulating
reservoir of "latent runoff" during the winter. In 1983, for
example, a total of 5.63 inches of precipitation fell from
January through March at Boise.
83
-------
Maximum month precipitation ranges up to 4.23 inches at
Boise, 3.89 inches at Twin Falls, and 3.98 inches at Pocatello.
During January, which has the lowest minimum temperatures and the
greatest likelihood of frozen ground, maximum monthly
precipitation of 3.2-3.9 inches can occur at each of the
locations. Thus, it can be seen that precipitation and snowmelt
conditions in the study area could easily combine to cause runoff
exceeding that from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event even
without an intense 24-hour rainfall.
In designing for the volume of precipitation that facilities
should be able to retain without discharge, several factors
should be considered including: impermeability of frozen ground,
maximum month precipitation near the end of winter, accumulated
snow from prior months, evaporation, and thaw conditions
resulting in runoff of essentially all of the stored water with
little or no percolation. This suggests a runoff of at least 2-4
inches, depending on location and on how the factors are applied.
To evaluate long-term retention requirements for containment
facilities, precipitation data for Boise were analyzed to
identify the average cumulative rainfall for 3- and 4-month
periods during winter when runoff retention would be required.
These months also encompass the months having the highest number
of complaints (December-May). Forty years of records (1944-1984)
were examined and cumulative precipitation for various monthly
groupings was determined from Boise rainfall data. Results are
shown in Table 3-4. The average cumulative rainfall for 3- and
4-month periods averages around 3-4 inches and 5 inches,
respectively.
Evaporation will reduce the amount of precipitation that
accumulates on the ground or is stored in retention ponds. The
evaporation rate varies greatly on a seasonal basis. Using an
average annual evaporation rate when designing impoundments can
produce unrealistic results because most of the evaporation data
are for irrigation months, which have high evaporation rates.
Winter months, when runoff storage is required, tend to have much
lower evaporation rates.
Evaporation data for winter months in southern Idaho were
sought unsuccessfully. Evaporation pans freeze in winter, so
data are not recorded. Because irrigators are the main users of
evaporation data, and because there is no irrigation in winter,
there has been little public demand for winter determinations.
Evaporation data for winter months were available for the
Fall River Mills station in northern California, an area similar
to southern Idaho in elevation, latitude, and climate. Summer
evaporation data for Idaho do not vary greatly from the summer
data at Fall River Mills; this is an indication that winter data
for the two areas are also likely to be similar. The evaporation
data for Fall River Mills are also consistant with literature
84
-------
Tfcble 3-4. emulative 3- and 4-Month Precipitation at Boise, Idaho (1944-1983)
3-tlonth Totals
Oct-Dec Nov-Jan Dec-Feb Jan-Har Feb-Apr Har-May
4-Month Totala
Oct-Jan Nov-Feb Dec-Mar Jan-Apr Feb-May
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
Nuiber:
Average:
Illn:
Max:
Std Dev:
Var:
3.12
4.37
4.02
4.11
3.81
3.28
4.14
5.87
1.35
2.57
2.47
4.39
3.50
3.31
2.41
1.65
2.74
3.61
3.14
4.42
5.73
2.40
3.30
1.81
4.15
3.00
4.21
•4.48
3.54
5.82
3. S3
4.06
0.75
4.53
1.66
3.54
3.05
5.93
4.76
6.66
3-Honth
Oct-Dec
40
3.64
0.75
6.66
1.30
1.68
3.78
5.12
3.41
2.74
3.25
4.61
5.38
S.51
4.70
3.55
3.35
5.82
2.29
4.26
3.65
2.22
2.67
2.85
3.05
5.89
8.41
2.93
4.50
1.82
6.95
6.23
5.44
6.10
4.04
6.02
2.97
3.56
0.88
6.69
3.59
3.60
3.95
6.38
4.69
Totala
Nov-Jan
39
4.28
0.88
8.41
1.59
2.52
4.35
4.92
1.80
3.05
4.28
4.30
6.01
4.83
5.84
2.79
2.84
5.30
3.60
5.36
3.24
3.60
2.05
2.67
3.08
3.67
6.39
2.15
3.25
2.79
6.45
5.94
4.06
4.69
3.35
4.24
4.92
4.09
1.31
6.33
3.73
3.59
3.71
5.68
4.85
Oec-Feb
39
4.08
1.31
6.45
1.32
1.74
5.02
4.35
2.78
3.81
2.65
5.83
4.87
4.41
5.76
2.84
2.14
3.47
5.03
3.85
3.04
4.46
3.01
3.04
3.04
3.29
3.63
2.14
2.21
3.00
4.76
5.21
4.19
4.56
2.21
3.51
5.13
3. 52
2.08
5.30
3.61
4.99
4.98
4.- 35
5.63
Jan-flar
39
3.88
2.08
5.76
1.09
1.20
4.40
3.33
2.80
4.37
2.62
3.65
4.15
4.25
3.93
2.17
3.86
2.92
5.14
4.42
1.90
3.56
2.81
2.96
3.56
2.18
3.55
1.94
2.19
2.92
2.61
2.27
2.55
3.03
2.56
2.83
6.07
3.63
1.62
5.27
3.28
4.63
5.71
3.72
6.25
Feb-Apr
39
3.48
1.62
6.25
1.15
1.31
4.44
2.57
3.36
3.70
1.30
3.83
2.93
4.21
5.03
2.57
4.91
4.19
6.21
4.56
2.95
3.03
2.15
5.09
2.71
3.75
4.04
1.53
2.33
1.46
2.11
2.70
2.15
2.44
2.88
2.27
4.33
2.78
2.85
4.13
3.36
7.11
5.64
2.57
6.92
Har-May
39
3.52
1.30
7.11
1.40
1.96
4.21
5.74
4.52
4.92
3.93
5.81
5.80
7.11
4.70
3.66
3.79
6.56
4.54
4.68
3.74
2.98
3.16
4.61
4.27
6.88
8.62
3.21
4.79
2.24
7.65
6.87
6.25
6.63
4.68
7.17
4.42
5.55
1.40
6.90
3.59
5.10
4.25
7.35
6.43
4-Month
Oct-Jan
39
5.10
1.40
8.62
1.59
2.52
5.95
6.43
3.85
4.32
5.30
5.70
7.54
6.63
6.19
4.10
3.78
6.73
4.01
6.17
4.28
3.96
3.87
3.62
4.75
6.08
8.72
3.66
4.85
3.68
7.95
6.53
6.09
7.01
4.46
6.68
5.59
4.87
1.45
8.19
4.79
4.89
4.97
7.92
5.95
Totala
Nov-Feb
39
5.42
1.45
8.72
1.54
2.36
6.11
6.59
3.64
4.47
4.76
6.31
7.06
6.86
6.76
3.99
3.23
5.69
5.87
5.93
4.32
4.99
3.44
3.94
3.29
4.31
6.82
2.75
3.62
3.50
6.71
6.98
5.56
6.19
4.00
5.74
6.84
4.81
2.17
7.76
4.21
5.73
6.47
7.07
7.55
Dec-Mar
39
5.28
2.17
7.76
1.48
2.18
5.49
4.70
3.30
5.18
2.74
6.18
5.81
5.49
7.28
3.26
5.18
5.09
6.18
5.79
3.23
4.89
3.23
3.96
4.69
4.64
6.44
2.75
3.68
3.35
6.11
6.14
4.59
5.18
3.70
4.18
6.66
5.12
2.27
7.64
5.21
6.19
6.91
5.14
7.92
Jan-Apr
39
5.01
2.27
7.92
1.40
1.95
6.61
3.88
3.82
5.28
3.35
4.92
5.09
5.33
6. 52
3.12
5.34
5.10
7.93
6.47
3.58
4.77
3.35
5.86
4.41
3.94
4.35
2.26
2.68
3.32
3.11
3.00
2.80
3.35
3.30
2.93
6.95
4.09
3.42
5.63
4.56
8.40
6.66
4.11
8.18
Feb-N»y
39
4.66
2.26
8.40
1.59
2.53
85
-------
estimates of 1-2 inches of evaporation (technically sublimation)
per month from snowpack (Meinzer 1942).
Evaporation rate is determined by the surface area available
for liquid or ice crystals to convert to water vapor, as well as
by a wide range of climatic factors including temperature,
relative humidity, and wind velocity. In winter, rain and
melting snow will have less opportunity to infiltrate the soil
because of frozen ground. Most water will run off and be
collected in an impoundment, where the evaporation will be
limited to the relatively small surface area of the pond. If
precipitation remains on the corral area as snow, it will sublime
from the entire watershed area. Trampling and compaction of
snow, and waste deposition by animals, will reduce evaporation to
some degree and may also hasten thawing.
All of these processes are complex and difficult to predict
numerically. A simplified approach to determining evaporation of
snow during 3- and 4-month winter periods was attempted because
evaporation from snowpack will reduce the amount of water
ultimately requiring retention. This evalaution assumes that in
winter a high percentage of precipitation will fall as snow; as
such, this precipitation has a greater opportunity for
evaporation than it would have if concentrated in an impoundment
as runoff. An "evaporation opportunity" factor, expressed as a
percent of the expected precipitation, was estimated for each
winter month, based on temperature data and assumed probability
of precipitation falling as snow in a given month. These
estimated evaporation opportunity values are shown in Table 3-5.
The net water available for runoff from snowmelt for the
previously described cumulative 3- and 4-month periods was then
estimated by multiplying the assumed pan evaporation data times
the evaporation opportunity factor and subtracting this product
from the historic monthly rainfall values. The 39 complete years
of record were adjusted for evaporation to determine the number
of inches of precipitation available as runoff. Appendix Table
A-l shows the precipitation values adjusted by month on a yearly
basis. Table 3-6 summarizes the results of this analysis in
terms of 3- and 4-month cumulative precipitation. It can be seen
from Table 3-6 that 3-month cumulative precipitation adjusted for
evaporation ranges from 1-1.6 inches, depending on the period
evaluated. Cumulative 4-month totals range around 2 inches.
Table 3-7 contrasts average cumulative precipitation with the
precipitation adjusted to reflect estimated evaporation.
Relationship of Complaints to Precipitation
Complaint records were reviewed to identify possible
correlations between complaints and precipitation. Between
January 1, 1979, and March 31, 1984, a total of 107 complaints
involving wastewater or manure discharges were tabulated. Fly,
odor, and dust complaints were excluded. Fifty-seven complaints
86
-------
Table 3-6.
Precipitation Adjusted for Evaporation Using Fall River Hills Rates
and Evaporation Opportunity Factors
3-Hontn Totals
Oct-D«c Xov-Jan D*c-F*b Jan-Har Feb-Apr Har-Hay
1-Month Total*
Oct-Jan Nov-Feb Dec-Kar Jan-Apr Feb-ltay
1944
1945
1946
1947
1946
1949
19SO
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1966
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
I960
1981
1962
1963
0.62
.90
.56
.65
.34
.00
.65
3.40
0.14
0.59
0.23
1.92
1.65
1.22
0.45
0.16
0.62
1.19
1.29
1.95
3.65
0.51
1.14
0.00
1.66
0.94
1.74
2.06
1.07
3. 35
1.69
1.81
0.00
2.45
0.06
1.20
0.66
3.46
2.29
4.23
3-Honth
0.62
2.12
l.OS
0.27
1.26
1.79
2.36
2.51
2.35
0.59
0.41
2.82
0.00
1.45
0.65
0.20
0.62
0.04
0.67
2.69
5.41
0.51
1.50
0.00
3.95
3.64
2.44
3.10
1.04
3.02
0.85
0.78
0.00
3.69
0.65
0.72
0.95
3.38
1.69
Totala
1.34
1.87
0.00
0.52
2.24
1.43
2.96
1.76
2.79
0.29
0.41
2.39
0.66
2.31
0.61
0.86
0.14
0.04
0.64
1.46
4.06
0.00
0.90
0.60
3.45
3.64
1.41
1.78
0.93
1.58
2.41
1.04
0.00
3.26
0.94
0.66
0.69
2.63
1.60
1.75
1.04
0.72
0.62
0.99
2.32
1.63
1.10
2.65
0.08
0.19
1.04
1.81
1.09
0.20
1.15
0.41
0.15-
0.64
1.33
1.76
0.00
0.36
0.60
2.37
2.74
1.29
1.40
0.01
0.60
2.36
0.61
0.00
1.99
0.94
1.66
1.71
1.04
2.32
1.75
0.60
0.72
1.37
0.99
0.92
1.22
1.25
1.13
0.06
2.22
0.80
2.14
1.97
0.00
0.95
0.41
0.25
1.47
0.53
1.99
0.00
0.65
0.80
0.53
0.11
0.38
0.36
0.67
0.38
3.07
1.03
0.00
2.27
0.92
1.63
2.75
0.75
3.25
2.28
0.55
1.17
1.16
0.16
1.59
0.46
1.69
2.71
0.46
3.12
2.40
3.69
2.59
1.11
0.91
0.27
2.57
1.10
1.71
2.21
0.00
0.65
0.00
0.53
0.26
0.38
0.38
0.63
0.36
1.81
0.78
1.23
1.83
1.46
4.59
3.12
0.27
4.40
OctDec Kov-Jan D«c-F«b Jan-K.r Feb-Apr Kar-May
Xuaber:
Average:
Kin:
Rax:
Std Dcv:
Var:
40
1.49
0.00
4.23
l.OS
1.10
39
1.61
0.00
5.41
1.30
1.70
39
1.46
0.00
4.08
1.09
1.19
39
1.16
0.00
2.74
0.78
0.61
39
1.09
0.00
3. 25
0.64
0.70
39
1.46
0.00
4.59
1.19
1.42
0.62
2.14
1.56
1.65
1.34
2.39
2.36
3.51
2.35
0.59
0.41
2.96
1.65
1.45
0.65
0.35
0.82
1.19
1.29
3.28
5.41
0.51
1.50
0.00
4.05
3.66
2.65
3.10
1.08
3.57
1.69
2.17
0.0,0
3.69
0.65
1.62
0.95
3.75
2.83
<-Honth
1.94
2.37
1.05
0.79
2.26
1.83
3.46
2.57
2.79
0.59
0.41
2.62
0.66
2.31
0.65
0.86
0.96
0.04
1.31
2.69
5.41
0.51
1.50
0.60
3.95
3.64
2.44
3.10
1.04
3.02
2.41
1.04
0.00
4.13
i.OO
0.96
O.S5
3.66
1.69
Totala
1.98
2.42
0.72
0.62
2.24
2.32
2.96
2.71
2.79
0.37
0.41
2.39
1.61
2.31
0.61
1.75
1.04
0.72
1.37
0.99
2.32
1.75
1.36
i.35
0.06
2.40
1.63
2.14
2.21
0.20
1.15 1.15
0.41
0.19
0.64
1.48
4.08
0.00
0.90
0.80
3.45
3.64
1.79
2.16
0.93
1.96
3.21
1.04
0.00
3.59
0.94
1.66
2.33
2.90
3.36
Oct-Jan Nov-Feb Dec-War
39
1.95
0.00
5.41
1.27
1.60
39
1.90
0.00
5.41
1.26
1.63
39
1.78
0.00
4.08
1.13
1.27
0.41
0.25
1.47
1.85
3.74
0.00
1.00
0.80
2.69
2.84
1.29
1.40
0.67
0.60
3.07
1.39
0.00
3. 51
1.72
2.06
2.81
1.04
3.79
Jan-Apr
39
1.62
0.00
3.79
1.05
1.10
3.39
0.60
1.17
1.71
1.15
1.62
1.59
1.76
3.15
0.46
3.12
2.40
4.36
3.4S
1.11
1.59
0.41
2.57
1.75
1.71
2.21
0.00
0.65
0.80
0.53
0.26
0.38
0.38
0.83
0.38
3.38
1.03
1.23
2.27
1.63
4.63
j.:2
0.75
4.61
Feb-Key
39
1.76
0.00
4.63
1.27
1.6J
88
-------
Table 3-5. Estimated Evaporation Rates and Evaporation Opportunity Factors
EVAPORATION RATESa
JAN ££B .MAE AEB HAX JUN JUL AilG .SEE OCT NOV £££ J£QT_AL
1.26 1.51 2.8 4.12 5.72 7.07 8.61 7.74 5.38 3.01 1.67 1.08 49.97
ESTIMATED EVAPORATION OPPORTUNITY FACTORS13
-J JAN ££B MAE AEB HAY JliN JILL Ailfi .£££ OCT NOV £££
0.9 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.6 0.8
a
Inches of evaporation for Fall River Mills, CA (Lat. 41°21', Long. 121°49
and elevation 3,348 ft).
Based on temperature data and the estimated probability of precipitation
remaining on the ground as snow.
-------
00
VD
Table 3-7. Cumulative Precipitation and Net Precipitation Adjusted for
Evaporation for 3-Month and 4-Month Wet Seasons at Boise, Idaho
CUMULATIVE PRECIPITATION3
AVERAGE 3-MONTH PERIOD AVERAGE 4-MQNTH PERIOD
Minimum 0.75 1.40
Maximum 8.41 8.72
Average 3.81 5.09
80th Percentileb 4.95 6.60
NET PRECIPITATION ADJUSTED FOR EVAPORATION
AVERAGE 3-MONTH PERIOD AVERAGE 4-MONTH PERIOD
Minimum 0 0
Maximum 5.41 5.41
Average 1.37 1.80
80th Percentileb 2.29 3.03
a
b
Averages derived from Table 3-4.
Represents a l-in-5-year winter.
-------
originated in the Twin Falls area, 49 in the Caldwell area, and 1
in Pocatello. The complaints were distributed by month as shown
in Table 3-8.
In reviewing daily rainfall records for the complaint
period, only two rainfall events in Boise were of sufficient
magnitude to approach or exceed the 10-year, 24-hour rainfall
events: August 13, 1979 (1.61 inches), preceded the day before
by 0.01 inches and followed the day after by 0.04 inches) and
April 30-May 1, 1983, when 2.02 inches fell in a 48-hour period.
No complaints were recorded during the 3 weeks following either
of these storms. For 1983, this is surprising, as antecedant
rainfall had been heavy: 6.5 inches and 4.9 inches for the
preceding 120- and 90-day periods. Reasons for the lack of
complaints following these storms are not clear. Possibly the
high volume of runoff from the entire watershed diluted the flows
and reduced visibility of the discharges, or local recognition of
the unusual conditions led to tacit acceptance of discharges
under such conditions. Perhaps many impoundments were also newly
emptied in April before the storm.
A comparison of complaint dates with corresponding daily
rainfall data shows complaints are often generated on days having
only small amounts of precipitation. The records reveal no
correlation between complaints and high intensity storms measured
at Boise. Although existing impoundment design criteria
emphasize the 10-year or 25-year, 24-hour rainfall events,
recorded complaints do not immediately follow intense storms.
The highest rainfall volume recorded on the day of a complaint
was 0.50 inches, and the highest for a day prior to a complaint
was 0.66 inches. These are significantly less than the 10-year
or 25-year, 24-hour rainfall events, which both exceed 2 inches.
Because impoundments cannot be emptied after each rainfall event,
cumulative rainfall would be expected to have a greater impact on
discharges than single rainfall events.
To determine the impact of cumulative precipitation and also
to obtain some idea of the necessary holding period from the
complaint perspective (as opposed to the holding requirements
imposed by frozen ground), daily rainfall for the period of
record was tabulated together with cumulative rainfall for
periods of 7, 30, 90, and 120 days prior to (but excluding) the
complaint date. The number of complaints preceded by above-
average rainfall conditions for each of the periods is shown in
Table 3-9. Tables for the individual periods are provided in
Appendix A, Tables A-2 through A-5. The strongest correlations
between complaints and antecedant rainfall exist for the 90- and
120-day rainfall periods. The period of record for this analysis
was short (5 years); and in all of the years except 1979,
rainfall was above average. Thus, the results of Table 3-9 may
not be statistically significant. Nevertheless, these
tabulations and comparisons support the development of design
criteria for cumulative (3-4 months) rainfall retention rather
than short-term (24-hour), single-event retention period.
90
-------
Table 3-8. Monthly Distribution of Feedlot and Dairy
Complaints3 Received in Boise and Twin Falls
(January, 1979 - March, 1984)
MONTH NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS
Jan 9
Feb 19
Mar 20
Apr 19
May 9
Jun 8
Jul 1
Aug 2
Sep 2
Oct 2
Nov 5
Dec
Total 107
Does not include odor or dust complaints.
Table 3-9. Number of Complaints with Antecedent Rainfall
Exceeding Average Rainfall
AVERAGE
RAINFALL NUMBER
FOR OF
PERIOD PERIOD COMPLAINTS5
7 days 0.30 in. 47
30 days 1.29 in. 55
90 days 3.85 in. 68
120 days 5.09 in. 71
From a total of 107 tabulated complaints.
91
-------
92
-------
Chapter 4
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND DESIGN CRITERIA
BMPs Effective in Water Pollution Abatement
A comprehensive surfacewater pollution abatement strategy
should focus on three areas: eliminating or regulating animal
access to water; reducing, eliminating or controlling release of
wastes and stormwater runoff into surface waters; and minimizing
overland transport of land-applied wastes. Both water pollution
regulations and abatement strategies tend to focus primarily on
impoundments, as opposed to reducing animal access or runoff of
land-applied manure from fields. Land application of wastes is
indirectly related to containment facility design, however.
Because climatic factors prevent manure application on fields
during winter, there is a need to size impoundments to accomodate
waste storage during this period.
A number of existing manuals describe BMPs that can reduce
water pollution from confined animal operations. All BMPs will
not be applicable to each operation, and the use of any
particular BMP will depend on site-specific conditions. A few
general BMPs, taken primarily from ODA (1982), are discussed
briefly below.
Fencing
Installation or relocation of fences can be used to decrease
water pollution in several ways. Fences can:
• prevent animals from trampling streambanks and entering
surface waters;
• restrict animals from flooded areas;
• provide a space between the lot and surfacewater for
runoff interception and storage;
• provide an area for waste treatment facilities; and
• decrease the lot area, thus reducing runoff volume.
Runoff Diversion
Constructing facilities to intercept and divert runoff water
from adjacent areas before it can enter a confinement area will
93
-------
reduce the required storage volume. Diversion can be
accomplished by:
o relocating waterways that flow through the lot;
o constructing berms, ditches, or other barriers above
the lot to intercept runoff from adjacent areas;
o installing gutters and downspouts to intercept roof
runoff; and
o installing water bars, cattle guards, or other
facilities to intercept runoff flowing down roadways.
Reducing Runoff Volume
In addition to water diversion, runoff volume, and therefore
storage volume, can be reduced in several ways, including:
o roofing various areas, particularly manure piles or
feeding areas, to exclude precipitation;
o improving the lot surface to allow support of a denser
animal population and reduction of the lot area;
o minimizing water use for cooling and cleaning or
flushing manure; and
o reusing milking parlor washwater for washing stalls.
Reducing Land-Application Impacts
Reducing pollutant transport from land-applied wastes can be
accomplished by:
o applying at a time when the soil is able to absorb
most, if not all, of the liquid portions so runoff is
unlikely to occur;
o applying immediately prior to soil incorporation;
o using vegetated buffer strips along field edges;
o using practices that minimize soil erosion;
o applying at a rate that will not harm plants but will
allow maximum soil absorption;
o installing water-tight pipe crossings over streams when
piping to manure guns;
o converting open ditches to subsurface drains to
minimize runoff transport to watercourses; and
94
-------
• installing a tailwater pump-back facility if wastes are
distributed via a surface irrigation system.
Existing BMP Utilization and Effectiveness
A large number of existing manuals describe BMPs for both
operation and maintenance of animal waste containment facilities.
The degree to which these practices are used varies a great deal,
however, depending on individual farmer knowledge and concern,
site-specific conditions, the degree of farmer interaction with
SCS or other agencies, and the degree of detail and specificity
of any waste facility plans which have been prepared.
Contacting individual farmers to determine site-specific use
of BMPs is beyond the scope of this project. It is possible,
however, to provide a general overview of the types of practices
which are being recommended and some indications as to their use
by reviewing facility plans and talking to agency personnel. The
aerial survey also provides some very limited information on BMP
use, primarily by indicating the presence or absence of fencing
and impoundments. As BAT and BPT require containment of effluent
amd runoff, a lack of compliance can be assumed if no
impoundments are present. The converse is not true however; if
impoundments are present, compliance with BPT or BAT cannot be
assumed because the photos do not indicate the depth of the
impoundments and the containment volume can therefore not be
calculated.
It was hoped that facilities plans would provide information
on BMPs, but very few facility plans were available even for
permitted operations. EPA permit files contained none, and
compliance files contained only one dairy facility plan and no
plans for feedlot facilities. SCS files contain a number of
small dairy facility plans, but the SCS is reluctant to allow
release of plans because they contain confidential information.
In addition, in many areas the emphasis on design of facility
plans for feedlots and dairies has decreased over the last few
years; few recent plans are available. The IDHW Boise office
files contained no plans of any kind. The IDHW Twin Falls office
had no plans of permitted facilities and few for other
facilities. A number of dairy plans for nonpermitted operations
were found in the IDHW Pocatello office files, but all were
developed in 1980 or earlier and none were for permitted
facilities.
A review of some of the more substantial plans, although
they are not recent and probably not a representative sample,
provides an indication of the variability of BMPs in use. Table
4-1 summarizes and contrasts the contents of seven of the more
detailed dairy plans obtained from IDHW and SCS files. The plans
were reviewed for three types of information that would relate to
management practices: problem identification and background
95
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of Dairy Waste Management Plans
Problem Assessment Contents
Plan 1 1980
(Pocatello
Dairy)
Plan 2 1979
(Pocatello
Dairy)
Plan 3 1977
(Pocatello
Plan 4 No date
(Pocatello
Dairy)
Plan 5 1980
(Pocatello
Dairy)
Plan 6 1980
(Pocatello
Hogs)
Plan 7 1982
(TWin Falls
Dairy)
Waste System Contents
Haste Utilization Contents
g
M
2 Z 2 10 U
-xxxxxx x - - _ 4 mo. 3 times/ x - 185 (Area-
yr. no
depth)
xxxxxxx _ _ _ 4 mo. Punped x Nov. - 30
to June
sprinkler
x X--XXKX xxx3 mo. Ptnp x Winter 65 x
to
irrg.
ditch
xxxxxxx x--5 mo. Pump x 7-8 mo. 60
to
irrg.
ditch
x - x x 160
-x---x- xx-4 mo. Pump 72
to
honey
wagon
1, L 1 1 1 li
- As x Liquid Disc
weather spread.
permits
x May - x Oil./ Irrg. x
Sept. irrg.
x - x - - x
x In x - - x
favor.
weather
x Between x - - x
cuttings
X X - - X
x x - -
xxx 3 mo.
(Dec. 15 -
Mar. 15)
150 37,500
ft3
None
after
fall
period
Slurry
spread.
x Ttipic covered or alluded to in sore fashion.
- No indication topic was considered.
Seme plan pages missing.
-------
information, waste management system details, and waste
utilization. If a plan contained any reference, however oblique
or inadequate, to a particular topic, the topic was considered to
be a part of the plan.
Because so few plans were available, the plans compared in
Table 4-1 should not be considered representative of all dairies,
but the comparison does bring out several interesting points.
For one thing, the plans varied widely in content and detail. In
problem assessment statements, only two of the seven plans
mentioned anything that could indicate groundwater contamination
was ever considered. Only three plans contained comments related
to the possibility of offsite drainage, and only two contained
reference (either positive or negative) to potential impacts on
surfacewater. Six plans mentioned soil types; five mentioned
crops or acreage; and four made reference to air pollution,
winds, or other odor-related factors.
In describing the waste management system, all but one plan
mentioned a holding period (periods varied from 3-5 months); but
only one (the most sophisticated) specified expected months of
the holding period, and a fall date by which the pond should be
empty. All plans mentioned the number of animals, but only two
indicated rainfall runoff contribution and waste pit volumes, and
only four included waste volume calculations.
In describing waste utilization practices, the application
rate, location, timing, and nutrient content of the manure were
rather consistently mentioned; application procedures and method
of waste incorporation into the soil were mentioned only in three
cases. In both the problem assessment and waste practices,
greater emphasis appeared to be placed on air pollution and
manure utilization than on water pollution control, as evidenced
by less detail concerning manure containment at the dairy or
after field application.
The aerial photos indicate that a large percentage of
dairies and feedlots have not constructed impoundments of any
kind. Only 32 percent of the dairies (62 of the 193 surveyed)
and 21 percent of the feedlots (22 of 104 surveyed) show evidence
of impoundments. The degree of BAT implementation on operations
having impoundments is unknown. No plans are available in the
files, and the aerial survey indicates only surface area of the
impoundments, not depth. Without the ability to calculate
impoundment volume, use of BPT or BAT cannot be confirmed unless
individual follow up of these facilities is made. This is beyond
the scope of this work. However, the presence of any
impoundment, regardless of volume, indicates some degree of
wastewater awareness; these farmers may be using various BMPs in
other areas of feedlot management as well. In addition to lack
of impoundments, approximately 38 percent of the operations in
the aerial survey do not restrict animal access to water (see
Chapter 2).
97
-------
It cannot be assumed that management practices not described
in a plan are not being used by the farmer. conversely/
describing practices in a plan does not necessarily ensure their
implementation. But it can probably be assumed that if a
practice is not specified in a plan, there is less chance of its
implementation. The first step in effective water pollution
control, irrespective of the permit system used, is ensuring
farmer awareness by development of waste management plans that
provide specific BMPs in the form of operation and maintenance
guidelines. In the final analysis, proper operation of an
undersized facility will likely outweigh the benefits of a
correctly designed facility that is never pumped or maintained.
The intent of a management plan should not be to establish
control over each detail of the farmer's operation. Rather, it
should be used to help build farmer awareness of water quality
factors in his operation and to provide him with operational
guidance when questions arise. If appropriate management
practices are described in a site-specific plan, there is a much
greater chance that they will be used when needed.
Existing System Design Criteria
Many feedlots and dairies in Idaho currently experience
periodic wastewater containment problems. These problems are
intensified when spring thaw follows a heavy winter snowfall.
Containment systems, when present, generally consist of a pond or
pit at the lower end of a feedlot, allowing drainage water to
enter by gravity flow. Many systems have been designed by the
SCS as well as by IDHW personnel and private contractors.
Although the SCS is generally considered a major source of
expertise, the Twin Falls IDHW estimated that only 10 percent of
the systems present in 1981 were SCS-designed (Renk 1981). This
is likely to be equally true today as well. The SCS will not
design for commercial operations, yet these operations, because
of their size and number, constitute the main problems. The Twin
Falls IDHW has therefore assisted in designing a number of
facilities. Other IDHW offices appear less active in design
work, although all have been involved to some degree.
Systems may be aerobic or anaerobic. Generalized anaerobic
and aerobic facilities are shown in Figures 4-1 and 4-2. Aerobic
ponds are simple to operate and maintain. Summer warm spells and
resulting difficulties in maintaining oxygen levels are the
greatest problem. Frequently, a system is adequate for 11 months
per year but not for hot periods in July or August when wastes
decompose rapidly and oxygen is depleted.
Typical anaerobic farm ponds are not covered. The result is
often odors, scum buildup, and a generally unappealing
appearance. Recently, new designs have been tested that provide
anaerobic ponds with a floating cover and recover methane gas for
use in boilers for process water heating or in engine generators
for power generation. Usually, the anaerobic pond is followed by
98
-------
'2' freeboard
Start
Annual precipitation less evaporation
and 25-year, 24-hour storm
Crest
Pumping
Stop
Dilution Volume or Lot Runoff,
whichever is greater
Livestock Wastes
Pumping
^ Minimum Design Volume /^
F
M
m
rr
Single Cell - Anaerobic Lagoon
Constant \^
6" freeboard
Annual precipitation
less evaporation &
25-yr, 24-hr storm
On Both Cells
Dilution Volume-
Spillway
Crest
Elevation =V
\
Min Design Volume
STAGE I
Wastes-^\
% Minimum Design Volun
Do not count net rain on second stage as
part of dilution volume.
STAGE II
N Pumping
Pumping
Treatment Storage & Treatment
Twin Cell - Anaerobic Lagoon
FIGURE 4-
GENERALIZED DIAGRAM OF SINGLE- AND TWIN-CELL
ANAEROBIC LAGOON SYSTEM
SOURCE: ODA 1982,
99
-------
2' freeboard
\Depth of annual precipitation less evaporation + 25-yr, 24-hr precip. /
\ Dilution Volume /
\ Livestock Waste Volume /
\ Minimum Design Volume /
\. Sludge Accumulation Volume* /
*THE VOLUME OF LONG-TERM SLUDGE ACCUMULATION TO EXPECT CAN
BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF 1 FT3 OF SLUDGE FOR EACH 20
TO 30 LBS OF VOLATILE SOLIDS,
FIGURE 4-2, GENERALIZED DIAGRAM OF AN AEROBIC LAGOON SYSTEM
SOURCE: ODA 1982.
100
-------
an aerobic pond for aeration prior to disposal. The benefits of
such a system often justify the additional cost. Ideal
temperatures for anaerobic systems are 95-98°F; reactions are
slowed with the decreasing temperatures. Cold winters will
affect use of this system in Idaho, although if warm washdown
water enters the pond, the cold temperature can be offset
somewhat.
Waste containment facilities should be sized to contain
animal wastes, process wastes, and runoff. Wastes from feedlot
operations are similar to those from dairies, except that dairies
have additional daily wastewater from the milking operation.
Individual dairy waste volumes vary considerably depending on the
mechanics of the individual operation and on whether they sell
grade A or grade B milk; grade A dairies have more stringent
cleanliness standards, which increase water use. Even within
grade A or grade B dairies, washing procedures vary
significantly. Daily waste volume will also vary depending on
whether milking is done two or three times per day.
The number of animals, animal waste volumes, and total yard
area are also important factors in determining both dairy and
feedlot waste volume. In beef feedlots, the volume of waste
produced per animal depends on animal size. An animal's weight
may almost double from start to finished animal. Sheep feedlots
are similar to beef feedlots, although waste values per animal
differ somewhat.
In considering runoff, confined feedlots or poultry-housing
waste ponds are the easiest to design. They also require less
containment volume since there is no runoff flow into the pond
(assuming that gutters and downspouts are provided to prevent
roof drainage from entering the pond).
Files of previously permitted facilities that have received
complaints were reviewed to determine the required design
criteria and actual facility construction specifications.
Effluent limitations information in the files indicated most
older systems were required to design for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm, although there were some exceptions noted. The Simplot
(Grandview) permit allowed discharge for precipitation events
greater than 1.0 inch in 24 hours, and the Simplot No. 2 permit
allowed discharge for precipitation events greater than 1.5
inches. Permit limitations for the Rutledge, Johnson, Idaho,
Emmett, Bower, and Bivens feedlots and the Vanderway Dairy were
all listed as requiring design for a 2-inch storm.
With one exception, the files contained no design criteria
for any of the permitted facilities. It was therefore not
possible to determine actual pond design volumes or dimensions
short of conducting actual site visits, a task outside the scope
of this project. The aerial survey indicates that, although the
permits required containment facilities, many facilities were
never constructed. As mentioned previously, only 45% of the
permitted facilities and only 28% of the total operations
101
-------
surveyed had impoundments of any type. Where impoundments do
exist, in many cases, their adequacy is questionable.
Two major factors related to containment functioning and/or
enforcement were noted. First, the regulations allow for
discharges in "chronic" and "catastrophic" conditions. As the
regulations do not define these conditions, instituting legal
enforcement measures against discharging facilities becomes
difficult. These conditions have been interpreted differently by
different people and in different areas, and the lack of a clear-
cut definition provides a loophole for many discharges. For
example, 1979 correspondence in the EPA compliance files for
Idaho Feedlot Co. (Eagle) states that the "Idaho Feedlot Co.
considers snow and ice to qualify as a catastrophic event." As
these conditions are commonplace in Idaho, Idaho Feedlot C'o.'s
assumption seems inadequate to meet the intent of the
regulations.
Some states, including Montana and Utah, consider a
"chronic" event to occur whenever the cumulative rainfall within
a 15-day period exceeds the rainfall expected for a 25-year, 24-
hour storm (Hildon, Schuman pers. comm.). This definition is a
somewhat more realistic approach, as it acknowledges the
cumulative nature of the rainfall problem; but as most farmers
need to hold runoff for at least a 4-month period, use of this
definition would result in nearly continuous "chronic
discharges." If design criteria address the cumulative nature of
runoff, and emphasis is placed on construction of approved
facilities, there will be little need for EPA to define a chronic
and catastrophic condition for enforcement purposes. Any facility
built to design criteria should, by definition, meet normal
conditions.
The assumptions made in calculating the percent of runoff
are a second factor related to impoundment effectiveness. A
number of factors including slope, soil characteristics,
infiltration, and other characteristics are normally used in
determining expected runoff. In the past, design calculations
for runoff have sometimes assumed a nearly 50 percent
infiltration. In the Boise area, for example, design for a 2-
inch rainfall has often assumed a runoff of approximately 0.9
inches. Because much of the precipitation falls in winter when
the ground is frozen, normal runoff values are not appropriate.
When considering the sealing and compaction that also occur in
feedlots, it should be assumed that little infiltration is
possible during winter. Using an unrealistic infiltration rate
that does not take these factors into account will result in an
inadequately sized facility.
There has been some debate regarding design for a 10-year,
24-hour storm versus a 25-year, 24-hour storm, but the difference
between these storms is generally less than 0.4 inches.
Neighboring states and the EPA guidelines presently require
design for a 25-year storm event.
102
-------
Based on plan review and discussions with IDHW engineers,
SCS personnel, and others, existing systems appear to be
adequately designed for animal wastes but are often overloaded
due to rainfall/snowmelt runoff or excess solids accumulation in
the pond. As discussed previously in Chapter 3, containment
areas often cannot be pumped out in winter. Cumulative rainfall
of several days or weeks often routinely exceeds the volume
expected from a single 25-year, 24-hour storm event. As a
result, a 25-year, 24-hour design volume is inadequate to prevent
overflow of containment structures even when such a storm does
not occur. Recently IDHW designs in the Twin Falls area have
addressed runoff by including capacity for a period of normal
winter rainfall (or snow equivalent) plus a 25-year, 24-hour
storm (Burkett pers. comm.). This represents a storage of about
3 inches for the Twin Falls area. Even this number may be an
underestimate because the SCS runoff numbers do not account for
frozen ground (which should be treated almost like a paved
surface). Three to four inches is perhaps a better number for
the Twin Falls area (Burkett pers. comm.). SCS designed systems
have focused on 25-year storm events and have not included normal
winter rainfall.
The analyses in Chapter 3 (Table 3-7) estimate 3 inches
represent approximately an 80th percentile (5-year winter) value
for precipitation runoff from frozen ground over a 4-month
period, with 5.4 inches as the maximum expected value. These
estimates incorporate the evaporation assumptions described in
Chapter 3 and include no infiltration allowance, because of the
potential for frozen ground. Designs accomodating runoff
expected from the 5-year winter would need to allow storage for
about 3 inches of runoff, with the once in 10-year winter
requiring about 3.6 inches. A l-in-5 yr winter was chosen
instead of an average winter because precipation would be
expected to exceed that of an average winter one out of every two
winters, thus resulting in frequent discharges. A l-in-5 yr
winter would not prevent all overflows but would perform
adequately under most conditions without posing unduly large
storage requirements.
Another approach to runoff storage has been proposed by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. This approach determines storage
based on a 25-year frequency, wet-winter period. Runoff from the
25-year winter can be expected to total about 4 inches, assuming
Boise precipitation rates, a 4-month retention period, and the
methodology described in Chapter 3 for estimating evaporation
losses. Under these criteria, the winters of 1979-80 and 1982-83
equalled or exceeded the 25-year winter. The 1982-83 period
included the April 30-May 1, 1983 storm when 2.02 inches of rain
fell within 2 days at Boise.
The evaluations presented earlier in this chapter address
the volume of precipitation that must be retained during the cold
months when the ground may be frozen and land application of
manure-laden runoff is not possible. The volume of runoff has
been numerically approached by estimating precipitation,
103
-------
evaporation, and percolation. The evaluations tend to focus on a
net runoff value near 4 inches. This value approximates a 5-year
winter plus a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event and also
approximates the 25-year winter. A net 4-inch storage is also
consistent with observations on pond effectiveness in the Twin
Falls area (Burkett pers. comm.).
Recommended Design Criteria
This section discusses only criteria for sizing containment
ponds. Design criteria for treatment and ultimate disposal are
described in other references and are not necessary for the
purpose of this report.
Based on the aerial survey, the average Idaho dairy contains
between 50 and 200 animals, including milkers, dry cows, bull(s),
and replacement heifers. The average dairy cowyard area is
approximately 6 acres. Feedlots appear to be either relatively
small or quite large, with few of intermediate size. The average
feedlot area is approximately 24 acres but feedlots are better
expressed by two figures: those having 50-200 animals and an
area of about 10 acres, and those having >1000 animals and
perhaps 50 acres or more.
Design criteria should be flexible enough to apply to a
variety of different environmental conditions and yet reasonable
enough to be affordable and achievable by the feedlot owner.
There are many management practices described by the University
of Idaho (Taylor 1970), the USDA (1975b), the State of Oregon
(ODA 1982), and the U. S. EPA (1972). Most practices are only
guidelines that should be used but not required by regulation.
Containment requirements, however, should be regulated, and
solids removal should be strongly encouraged. Runoff containment
is a necessity if significant impact on water quality is to be
expected.
Containment Requirements
Impoundments should be sized to provide storage volume able
to contain the following: winter runoff commencing with the last
practical pumpout date in the late fall or winter through the
first practical purapout date in the spring (not less than 120
days); runoff from a once in 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event;
solids, including manure and sediments, that may be carried by
runoff; and freeboard of at least 2 feet. Volume may be
decreased by estimated evaporation from the pond surface. No
allowance for percolation or exfiltration from the pond should be
made. The following sections detail these criteria.
Holding Period. Based on temperatures, precipitation, and
complaint data from Chapter 3, a holding period of at least 120
days of winter runoff should be incorporated into each pond
design. In some areas such as Pocatello, the holding period may
need to be longer; the actual period should be determined
104
-------
considering the waste disposal method employed, the latest
practical impoundment pumpout date in the spring, and local
climatic factors.
Containment Volume.
•RliH2.£f. Containment volume should be determined by
standard hydrologic methods, using the tributary area to the
impoundment; estimated precipitation values; runoff coefficients
that assume frozen ground or paved surfaces; evaporation of
snowfall consistent with duration on the ground and local winter
season evaporation data (or Chapter 3 estimates); NOAA
precipitation data; and NOAA rainfall intensity maps for the 25-
year, 24-hour storm.
The volume may be determined by assuming runoff from frozen
ground equivalent to a once in 5-year winter for the required
holding period, plus runoff of a 25-year, 24-hour storm. Runoff
for a l-in-5 yr winter can be calculated using local rainfall
data for the period of record and applying evaporation rates and
factors (Table 3-5). Alternatively, the impoundment may be sized
for runoff from a 25-year winter for months of the holding
period. Either method should result in a total runoff of about 4
inches for most areas of southern Idaho.
The total volume (and percent) of runoff varies with slope
and soil type. Storm frequency also affects the amount of runoff
because it determines the amount of soil moisture prior to the
storm. Both the Corps of Engineers (Gilmour et al. 1975) and the
SCS (USDA 1975b) have procedures for determining runoff, but the
SCS procedure was developed specifically for small watersheds and
is a better source for determining cattleyard runoff. Runoff is
determined based on a specific hydrologic soil group rating,
condition of the surface, slope, length of flow, and previous
moisture accumulation. With this procedure, runoff can
accurately be predicted; but frozen ground must be taken into
account, preferably calculated as nearly impervious surface. Use
of an 87 curve number for dirt or a 95 curve number for concrete
will provide a conservative estimate (Moffitt pers. comm.)
Waste Flows and .Solids. Pond design should include the
volume of waste flows from the feeding operation, including
washdown water and all other waste sources diverted to the
impoundment. The wastes conveyed by rainfall and snowmelt
runoff, as well as allowance for sediment from disturbed soils,
should be included in the impoundment capacity. Waste flow
calculations depend on individual operational activities and may
be determined from a number of sources, such as the Oregon Animal
Waste Installation Guidebook or other acceptable sources.
The volume of solids included in the design should encompass
more than 1 year's inflow unless the managment plan for the
operation clearly embodies solids removal as a normal management
practice.
105
-------
Volume allowances for solids and sediments entrained in
runoff will vary depending on the steepness of slopes in contact
with animals, on soil types, and on animal density.
Freeboard. Freeboard on the pond should be 2 feet
above a normal pond level. The infrequent times when this level
is attained should not be critical to berm stability. A
concrete-lined or rock-lined spillway or a pipeline must be
provided so that the pond berra does not erode and fail. This is
necessary for those infrequent times when the expected volume is
exceeded.
Evaporation. The pond volume computation should also
allow for evaporation during winter months. Values used should
be conservative, i.e., reflecting local winter rates as opposed
to annual average rates, because evaporation in winter tends to
be low. Estimated values in Chapter 3 may be used if other local
data are unavailable.
Exfiltration. The pond volume should not be adjusted
for exfiltration. The degree to which exfiltration from a
containment pit can be assumed is controversial. The literature
basically supports the idea that dairy or feedlot waste
relatively high in solids will seal a containment area,
particularly if soils are sandy loam or finer in texture (WSU
1975, Moffit pers. comm., Taylor 1970). Sealing occurs both by
mechanical infiltration that plugs pores of the soil and by
biological sealing at the soil interface where water infiltration
would occur. The biological sealing is essentially the result of
an anaerobic process; each time the pond is emptied and exposed
to air, this biological seal will require time to become re-
established. If some water is allowed to remain in the pit, the
seal will be kept (Moffett pers. comm.). In most soil
conditions, such as clay loam soils, sealing is effective. If
the pond is located on a porous soil or over a lava formation,
groundwater contamination may occur. This is a particularly
important consideration in areas overlying useable aquifers, such
as those along the Snake River. Of the nutrients present in
wastes, phosphorus and ammonia nitrogen are generally of less
concern, but nitrate nitrogen is very mobile and leaches easily
with water through underground flow. Fortunately, nitrate
nitrogen concentrations are normally very low and neither the
wastes nor the treatment processes convert ammonia nitrogen to
nitrate nitrogen.
Pond liners would prevent groundwater contamination but
because of the financial burden they impose on the farmer, they
should only be required in areas where soils are porous and
sealing does not occur or where water supplies are likely to be
impacted. There should also be 5-10 feet of separation between
groundwater and the pond bottom as a safety factor where
possible. In the Twin Falls area, a basalt layer located
approximately 4 feet below ground surface limits below-ground
impoundment depths to approximately 3 feet, while allowing 1 foot
of cover above the basalt (Burkett pers. comm.). A hardpan layer
106
-------
at 4 feet depth in parts of Ada and Owyhee Counties limits depth
of impoundments in some areas near Boise as well, although the
average depth of impoundments in that area is 7-10 feet (Sheppard
pers. comm.). Most impoundments in the Pocatello-Blackfoot
region are 6-8 feet deep (Hopson pers. comm.). Some seepage will
not be detrimental unless it enters nearby streams. Distance to
the stream and soil type will both affect the degree to which
seepage enters streams.
Operation and Maintenance Considerations
Proper facility design is only one aspect of pollution
control. It must be coupled with proper system maintenance to be
effective. Emptying procedures are probably the most vital
aspects of proper maintenance if discharges are to be averted.
Because a holding period of several months is required in winter,
ponds should be emptied prior to the onset of this holding
period, normally by around November 1-15 and again in spring when
conditions are appropriate for field application. Soil
incorporation and crop utilization of manure should be important
aspects of manure management plans under most circumstances.
Provisions should be made to minimize the volume of runoff
entering containment facilities by routing runoff generated on
adjacent areas away from the feedlot, removing roof drainage,
reusing water or reducing water usage, or through other BMPs
described. Also, under certain geologic conditions when lots
have been leveled by excavation, a portion of a hillside
subsurface seepage may add to flow quantities. For operations
having this condition, a subsurface drain can be provided to
route subsurface flow around the lot.
As stated earlier, solids decrease pond capacity, add to
organic loadings, and can lead to odors. Solids removal from
ponds is difficult because of the need to dry out the pond to
allow equipment access. Removing solids prior to storage will
lengthen pond life and storage capacity, result in less costly
solids removal, and improve quality of discharge by greatly
reducing COD levels should overflow of containment facilities
occur.
The most economical solids removal system consists of a
shallow concrete containment structure with a slope of 0.5-1
percent (Taylor 1970) (Figure 4-3). The alternative is a
mechanical solids separation system that requires power and
greater maintenance. On the downstream end of this system,
screens and boards with openings reduce flow velocities but allow
liquid to pass through. Solids are deposited on a concrete slab.
After the solids deposition reaches a predetermined level (1-2
feet), solids are removed with a tractor and loader to disposal
areas or (during wet weather) to a manure containment area.
Solids should be removed for disposal as soon as field conditions
permit. With this system, a concrete ramp into the pond for
solids removal is unnecessary.
107
-------
DRYING RAMP FOR SOLIDS
PUSHED FROM SETTLING AREA
REMOVABLE SCREENS
EFFLUENT FROM
ANIMAL ENTERS HERE
DRAIN TO POND
FIGURE 4-3. GENERALIZED SOLIDS REMOVAL SYSTEM
SOURCE: TAYLOR, .1970
108
-------
A few recent designs have provided for solids removal prior
to the liquid entering the pond. In one instance, dairy waste is
treated by a vibrating screen to remove solids. The most common
design provides a concrete pad with a low slope and shallow sides
with a screen or porous dam on the downstream end. This allows
liquid to continue into the pond while retaining solids (Renk
pers. comm.).
Odor control during summer months depends on rapid manure
removal and conditions of aerobic ponds. Odors from aerobic
ponds can be minimized by increasing aeration. If the pond is
part of an irrigation system, supplemental fresh water is often
needed. During these periods, fresh water addition can also
reduce odors.
Maintenance of solids removal equipment consists primarily
of cleaning as often as possible. Solids removal facilities must
be cleaned or they will not work properly. Screens or porous
materials downstream of solids removal ponds must also be cleaned
regularly to be effective. Cleaning should be weekly, or more
frequently if storm conditions persist.
Recommended Management Plan Contents
To adequately address water quality concerns, each farmer
under the permit should be required to develop and submit a waste
management plan that describes not only the waste containment
facility but also the proposed BMPs that will be used. Factors
specifically related to water pollution control which should be
understood by the farmer and normally specified in each waste
facility plan include:
• Drainage area, soils, and topography.
• Expected rainfall and expected runoff (inches).
• Process waste volume, if any.
• Holding period required.
• Present and future expected herd size.
• Total required impoundment volume (not area).
• Date by which facility should be empty prior to the
start of winter.
• Identification of final manure disposition site (land
and crops available for waste disposal).
• Impoundment emptying procedure.
• Application rate and application time periods.
109
-------
Method of manure incorporation into the soil, where
applicable.
Indication that surface and groundwater contamination
potential have been considered in relation to surface
and subsurface permeability, water tables, and distance
to surfacewater.
Indication of streambank protection (where applicable)
either through preventing animal access to streams or
by limiting and protecting the access area to minimize
the impact.
110
-------
Chapter 5
NPDES GENERAL PERMIT APPROACHES
Under EPA regulations (40 CFR 122.28), EPA may issue a
General Permit to a category of point sources within the same
geographic area if the sources:
1. are involved in the same or substantially similar
operation;
2. generate and discharge the same types of waste;
3. require the same permit effluent limitations and/or
operating conditions;
4. require similar monitoring requirements; and, in the
opinion of the Director of the NPDES program, are more
appropriately controlled under a General Permit than an
individual permit.
As with individual NPDES permits, violation of a General Permit
condition constitutes a violation enforceable under Section 309
of the Clean Water Act.
General Permits can cover new sources (i.e., sources
established after February 14, 1974) if National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requirements are satisfied prior to their
inclusion in the permit.
This chapter describes existing NPDES General Permit
programs for concentrated animal feeding operations both in
states where the NPDES program is EPA-administered and in states
where the program enforcement has been delegated to a state
agency. The feasibility of a General Permit for Idaho is
discussed in light of experiences in other states and the
particular circumstances which exist in Idaho. Several
alternative enforcement approaches are also discussed.
Existing General Permit Programs
EPA has ultimate responsibility for the NPDES program but
has, in many instances, delegated authority for program
implementation to individual states. EPA-administered NPDES
General Permits for concentrated animal feeding operations are in
effect for Utah, South Dakota, and Arizona, and a state
administered program using General Permits is in effect for
Montana. Oregon has also considered using a General Permit,
111
-------
although present feeling is somewhat against its use.
Implementation mechanisms, permit requirements, implementation
philosophy, and enforcement procedures vary from state to state
and, to some extent, between state-delegated and EPA-administered
programs. Individual state programs are discussed briefly below
in terms of observed problems and benefits to both enforcement
agency and operators. Variations in management which may apply
to an Idaho permit program are also discussed.
Federally-Administered General Permits
Arizona. EPA Region 9 favored use of a General Permit in
Arizona because it believed that it would be easier to manage one
General Permit than many individual permits. Concentrated
feeding operations were considered a good category for a General
Permit because the effluent limitation regulations are
relatively simple. The primary stimulus that caused General
Permit issuance was the desire to avoid re-issuing individual
permits for 21 operations that were approaching their expiration
dates (Lincroft pers. comm.).
Arizona's General Permit was finalized on October 16, 1984.
The General Permit lists all of the individual operations covered
and is restricted to the 21 previously-permitted operations; it
does not include new operations. New sources are required to
notify the EPA Regional Administrator within 90 days of the
permit's effective date, or not less than 180 days prior to
beginning operation. They may be eligible for coverage under the
General Permit after complying with environmental assessment
requirements under the regulations. Effluent limitations for new
sources are the same as those in the General Permit.
The issuance of a General Permit, as opposed to individual
permits, will probably make little difference in overall Arizona
water quality. The number of permitted sources does not appear
likely to increase; there is little reason for farmers to request
General Permit coverage unless they are inspected and a violation
is found. This does not appear probable, as Arizona does not
place a high priority on inspections; even individual permits
were never inspected (Lincroft pers. comm.}. Because of the dry,
warm climate, there are also likely to be few occasions when
excessive rainfall conditions occur similar to those in Idaho.
There has been little farmer reaction to the General Permit.
This is not surprising; all farmers included in the General
Permit previously held individual permits, and the discharge
requirements of the Arizona General Permit are somewhat less
stringent. For example, General Permit discharge requirements
allow farmers to visually monitor their discharge volume, rather
than maintain expensive, seldom-used monitoring equipment.
The Arizona permit limitations prohibit process waste
discharge (including stormwater runoff) except in the case of a
25-year, 24-hour storm. The General Permit fact sheet indicates
these limitations are based on effluent guidelines for Best
112
-------
Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for the feedlots
Point Source Category. As with BPT and BAT, BCT is a zero
discharge limit. The permit covers discharges of manure and
other solid and liquid wastes as well as chemicals from dipping
vats and pest and parasite control facilities.
EPA Region 8 has issued General Permits for both Utah
and South Dakota. There were several reasons for their issuance.
General Permits were issued for concentrated animal feeding
operations primarily as a test case because no General Permits of
any kind had been issued in Region 8, and there was concern over
the possibility of "losing track" of individual sources under a
General Permit. It was also hoped that the General Permit could
be used as a publicity tool to increase SCS and ASCS assistance
in obtaining voluntary compliance and that it would increase
compliance from small operators. The avoidance of individual
permit re-issuance was also a consideration in adopting a General
Permit.
As a test case for a General Permit, the feedlot permit
"failed badly because the bureaucracy would not allow the permit
to function." It required 1.5 years to issue the permit.
Procedural issues, conflicting views on interpretation of
requirements, and requests for demonstrations of detailed cost
justifications slowed the process (Fisher pers. comm.).
<
The Utah General Permit has been effective since May 31,
1983. Content of the General Permit is identical to that of the
individual permits. Twelve operations were previously permitted.
Approximately 100 operations are presently being regulated to
some degree under the General Permit. The switch to a General
Permit appears to have had minimal effect on water quality
compliance. Some gains were made in the Bear Creek area, but
this was through increased enforcement efforts and not the
result of the General Permit per se (Fisher pers. comm.}.
Permit conditions are essentially identical to those of the
Arizona permit. The permit uses a BCT discharge standard based
on effluent guidelines in 40 CFR 412, the Feedlot Point Source
Category, and prohibits discharge except as the result of a 25-
year, 24-hour storm event.
Initial reactions to the Utah program are viewed somewhat
differently by EPA and state personnel. EPA personnel indicated
farmer reaction was slight, as informational mailings to
agricultural groups produced few comments (Fisher pers. comm.).
In contrast, individuals in the Utah Bureau of Water Quality,
perhaps because of their closer contact with the farmers,
described a "violent reaction" by the farmers in the beginning.
This was apparently due to farmer misunderstanding. Many farmers
thought the General Permit was a new program; once they
understood the primary change was a reduction in paperwork and
that the program would not be essentially different from the
existing program, it was accepted with little problem (Hildon
pers. comm.). No fees are involved.
113
-------
South Dakota. The South Dakota General Permit has been in
effect since July 29, 1982. The farmers have had no problems
with the new system, and it has generally reduced paperwork for
permit issuance. Approximately 90 individually permitted
operations became covered under the General Permit after their
individual permits expired. Additional operations have been
identified primarily as the result of complaints. Using the
General Permit has had little affect on either the breadth or
degree of enforcement because the state has always concentrated
primarily on problem sites, and the individual permits were
always somewhat of a formality. The fact that the NPDES program
is not state-delegated, however, is recognized as affecting
enforcement. EPA generally wants to evaluate sources before
beginning enforcement, which slows the process greatly unless
enforcement proceedings are instituted under state laws (Fisher
pers. co mm.).
Like the Arizona and Utah permits, South Dakota requires
containment of all process-generated waste plus runoff from a 25-
year, 24-hour rainfall event. It also states that land areas
utilized and operated under the authority of the permittee for
the disposal or storage of manure or other wastes shall be
isolated to prevent pollutants from such materials from entering
waters of the United States. Discharges from dipping vats and
pest or parasite control units are also covered by the permit.
It differs from the other permits, however, in that it also
states that "diffused drainage of natural precipitation on
agricultural land resulting from a %nonpoint source1 is not
subject to conditions of the permit ..."
There is no permit application process used in either Utah
or South Dakota because EPA Region 8 believes that if a facility
is in compliance with the permit requirements, then a permit is
not required under the NPDES Appendix B regulations (Fisher pers.
comm.). These regulations define animal feeding operations but
then paradoxically state, "provided, however, that no animal
feeding operation is a concentrated animal feeding operation as
defined above, if such animal feeding operation discharges only
in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event" (Appendix B to
part 122). That is, if an operation is in compliance with the
permit requirements, it ceases to be considered a confined
feeding operation. If no violations are noted, a feedlot is
considered in compliance and therefore not in need of a permit.
Both EPA and the state believe that the main advantage of
the General Permit is that it is more equitable and easier to
apply. Thousands of feedlots exist. Under the individual permit
system, generally only those who voluntarily applied were
permitted; many operations that should have been permitted were
not, although any operation noted to fall under the regulations
can be required to obtain a permit. The General Permit provides
the appearance of less arbitrary enforcement by providing a more
uniformly-administered program under a broader-based structure.
The permit requirements cover all operations and can therefore be
applied to any specific situation. The "cosmetic value" of the
114
-------
General Permit is primarily valuable only if little or no
enforcement is intended.
In practice, EPA monitoring and enforcement have been
minimal for operations in South Dakota. EPA keeps no list of
operations falling under the permit (Fisher pers. comm.). The
state maintains some files and carries out some inspections.
Health and SCS districts also provide information on operations
which should be monitored (Hildon pers. comm.).
The main negative aspect of the general South Dakota permit
is the difficulty in tracking individual sources. It is
difficult to schedule compliance inspections as there are more
sources, and there is less pressure for inspections because
compliance schedules are not defined under a General Permit
(Bower pers. comm.). Operations in South Dakota may also change
greatly from year to year; number of cattle in a single operation
may vary by an order of magnitude, and operations often close and
re-open or change ownership. Under individual permits, this
situation often made information in permit files obsolete by the
time of permit renewal. It also makes present record keeping and
tracking of individual operations under a General Permit more
difficult (Bower pers. comm.).
State-Administered General Permits
In Montana, EPA Region 8 delegated NPDES
enforcement responsibility to the State Department of Health and
Environmental Science in 1975. The state has used a MPDES
(Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) General Permit
to regulate animal feeding operations since 1982. It turned to a
General Permit primarily to streamline the permit process and
reduce paperwork. The farmers also benefit to some extent
because permit issuance is faster. They have been otherwise
unaffected (Schuman pers. comm.).
Under the Administrative Rules of Montana, EPA-issued NPDES
permits serve as MPDES permits until their date of expiration.
The permit prohibits discharge of process wastewater except in
case of a 25-year, 24-hour storm (or a like amount falling in any
15-day period which is considered to be a "chronic" or
"catastrophic" condition as specified in the regulations).
Enforcement capability has not changed under the General
Permit because the system which has been instituted allows the
agency to keep close track of the individuals. The Montana
system appears to take advantage of the reduced paperwork
requirements under the General Permit process while maintaining
the individuality of the sources that exist under the individual
permit system. Dischargers are required to apply on a regular
MPDES form, are reviewed, and then are notified if they qualify
for inclusion under the General Permit. Permittees are logged in
and a separate file is maintained for each facility. All files
are kept together in one location and can be inspected like
regular permits. Delegation of enforcement to the states
115
-------
probably allows greater control than can be achieved under an
EPA-administered program because the states may have a better
feel for the local situation (Schuman pers. comm.).
Oregon. In Oregon, the Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) was delegated management of the NPDES program several
years ago by EPA Region 10. ODEQ has not issued a General Permit
for animal feeding operations but is presently considering the
possibility. Oregon is included for discussion here because it
has had extensive experience with other NPDES General Permits and
because it is known for its environmental consciousness. It may/
therefore, be expected to provide a conservative approach to
General Permits as they relate to water quality.
Oregon has issued General Permits for a wide variety of
activities including cooling water discharges, water treatment
plant backwash, fish hatcheries, log ponds, gold mines (no
discharge), sewer maintenance activities, oily-water runoff,
seafood processing, gravel mining (no discharge), and land
disposal and subsurface treatment systems. Overall, General
Permits have worked well for these activities. Budget
constraints limit inspection personnel and are one reason ODEQ
has instituted some types of General Permits. The primary
problem with these General Permits has been providing adequate
notice to individuals to induce them to get a permit (Baton pers.
comm.).
Issuance of a General Permit has not totally eliminated
individual permits; some individuals prefer to keep their own
permit, particularly when a facility has more than one type of
activity or discharge. If a facility does not meet all General
Permit requirements, the department may also prefer to maintain
an individual permit so that special attention can be paid to
particular aspects of the operation.
Oregon General Permits are typically more stringent than
individual permits, and any proposed General Permit for feedlots
would be expected to be stringent also (Baton pers. comm.). This
is primarily true because the permit is not tailored to address
individual sites or to provide site-specific water quality
protection. The Department therefore attempts to write a General
Permit that covers all potential situations which may arise in
different operations. Because of concern that a General Permit
for feeding operations could not adequately cover all situations,
it may be difficult for Oregon to ever institute a General Permit
for these sources (Baton pers. comm.).
Oregon believes issuance of a General Permit generally tends
to affect enforcement to some extent. Under individual permits,
operations are tracked for compliance with at least yearly
inspections for minor discharges, while major discharges may be
inspected up to 3 or 4 times a year depending on the source.
Under a General Permit, there would probably be fewer inspections
because of time constraints (Baton pers. comm.).
116
-------
Issuing a General Permit has one distinct local disadvantage
for ODEQ: it results in a monetary loss to the state.
Individual permits presently require a compliance inspection fee,
while General Permits do not. Fees vary, but most feedlot
compliance inspection fees average approximately $100. Major
sources may run as high as $425. Oregon is considering attaching
a compliance inspection fee to General Permits as well and may
revise 1985 permits to include a fee (Baton pers. coram.).
Conclusions Concerning Existing General Permits
After review of the existing General Permits for animal
feeding operations, several generalizations can be made:
• Both EPA and state personnel agree that General Permits
reduce paperwork for the permitting agency by
eliminating time-consuming review of individual
applications. In some states, depending on local
procedures, they can also reduce industry's burden in
applying for and obtaining a permit. The degree to
which compliance and inspection paperwork is generated
or reduced depends primarily on the emphasis of the
enforcing agency, rather than the form of the permit
used.
• The paperwork reduction frees time that can often be
used for higher priorities, such as inspections. This
can be a particularly important aspect where manpower
is limited.
• Once understood by the agricultural community, general
feedlot permits have been well accepted. In no case,
however, have the General Permits varied to any great
degree from the individual permit requirements. Should
this occur, farmer acceptance may be less enthusiastic.
• The General Permit provides at least the appearance of
a more uniformly-administered program with less
arbitrary enforcement.
• The General Permit will not automatically result in
improved water quality, nor is it likely to increase
the number of operators that express interest in the
program.
• General Permit effectiveness depends on state and
federal attitudes concerning enforcement. It also
depends on the degree to which the permitting agency
establishes and maintains a good tracking system which
includes inspections and compliance monitoring.
• A General Permit cannot cover all site-specific
situations. Some individual permits may still be
117
-------
necessary if complete water quality protection i
required or if the operation has a variety o
discharges.
• The possibility exists that the enforcement agency will
lose track of individual sources under a General
Permit. This is particularly possible under a
federally-administered program and/or where EPA program
headquarters are located out of state. In such a
situation, strong support and encouragement of state
enforcement efforts is valuable. In Idaho, the EPA
Idaho Operations Office can provide a valuable local
presence.
• State-administered programs generally allow closer
monitoring and better enforcement than federally-
administered ones, as federally-administered programs
tend to be both physically and emotionally farther
removed from actual interaction with the operations.
Considerations in Issuing a General Permit for Idaho
The concept of a General Permit for Idaho feeding operations
is not new. A General Permit was proposed in 1981 but was never
finalized. The proposed permit allowed for issuance of
individual permits where potentially severe water quality impacts
existed. It would also have allowed the state and areawide 208
planners to request a facilities exclusion from the General
Permit where more stringent permit limitations were desirable.
The permit specified initial limitations and conditions based on
BPT guidelines, with final limitations based on BAT guidelines
and required by July, 1983. The permit was intended to apply to
beef cattle feedlots (SIC 0211), hog feedlots (SIC 0213), sheep
and goat feedlots (SIC 0214), general livestock (SIC 0219), dairy
farms (SIC 0241), poultry farms (SIC 0251-0254 and 0259), and
animal specialties (SIC 0271).
Based on information from other states, a General Permit is
feasible for Idaho. There are a few potential benefits to any
General Permit, including the reduction in paperwork for both EPA
and the farmer, and the appearance of a more uniformly
administered program.
As discussed above, agency approaches and policies,
magnitude of confined feeding operation impact, and attitude
toward enforcement vary widely from state to state and region to
region. The enforcement approaches and attitudes taken by EPA
and the state, not the form of the permit itself, will be the
ultimate determiner of the program's success.
Until recently, interest in enforcement of NPDES permit
requirements for Idaho operations has been minimal. This is
evidenced by the fact that although many operations have been
permitted for nearly 10 years, most still do not have
118
-------
impoundments of any kind. Unless a committment to greater
enforcement activity is made, this situation should not be
expected to change under a General Permit. Experience with other
states indicates changing to a General Permit will not, in
itself, result in water quality improvement. A General Permit
may, in fact, result in losing track of some sources,
particularly if enforcement is not initiated at the state level.
Like other permits, a General Permit is only as effective as its
enforcement.
In many aspects, the situation in Idaho appears similar to
that of South Dakota. Both states are basically agricultural;
both have less than 100 large previously-permitted operations and
hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller operations. Neither state
has been delegated NPDES enforcement responsiblity and neither
has an EPA regional headquarters within the state. As in South
Dakota, Idaho farms vary greatly in number of animals from year
to year, and they frequently change status or ownership. To some
extent, the results of implementing an Idaho General Permit are,
therefore, likely to resemble those of South Dakota unless
additional management policies or strategies are implemented.
The presence of the Idaho Operations Office is expected to
provide a valuable local EPA presence.
Several levels of implementation and enforcement are
possible as can be seen from the existing permits. At one
extreme, Arizona lists previously permitted operations in the
General Permit and ignores all of the others. The low number
(21) indicates that only large operations, probably those over
1,000 animals, fall under the permit. At the other extreme, the
Montana permit covers a large number of operations, treating each
operation almost as if it had a separate permit. Dischargers are
notified to apply, and an individual file is maintained for each
operation.
The General Permit regulations are broad enough to include
nearly any size of operation if it is found to produce
significant water quality degradation. Essentially, the General
Permit may cover three categories of operations. Various
enforcement possibilities exist: 1) permit only the largest
operations (>1,000 beef or 700 dairy cattle), 2) also permit
operations having >300 beef or 200 dairy cattle that discharge to
or have contact with a ditch or waterway, and 3) add smaller
operations to the first two categories on a case-by-case basis if
they are found to be causing a pollution problem. Because there
is a large number of smaller operations, and because smaller
operations cause the majority of the water quality problems, a
more comprehensive enforcement using this third option would be
preferable. Limiting the permit coverage to operations
previously permitted or to those having over 1,000 animals will
produce little water quality improvement, particularly in the
Twin Falls and Blackfoot study areas.
Personnel limitations have caused IDHW to prioritize their
enforcement. Present priorities of the Twin Falls office (and
119
-------
apparently of other areas as well) are complaints, followed by
discharges to live streams, and lastly by discharges to canals
(Renk pers. comnu). If the General Permit is to function as more
than a mere piece of paper, it will be important to at least
initiate contact with all of the operations in the first and
second categories as well as known smaller problem dischargers.
To avoid losing track of sources under an Idaho General
Permit, an application form (no matter how abbreviated) should be
obtained from each source being covered by the permit. A listing
or file can then be established for each identified source. This
at least sets the stage for follow up on improvements to
individual operations as time allows. Operations identified in
the aerial survey and in Chapter 2 of this report can help to
establish the initial group of permit holders. A systematic
identification and enforcement effort that includes source
tracking and follow-up inspections, particularly in known water
quality problem areas, will be important if any water quality
improvement is to be expected.
Because of the large number of sources, establishing an
enforcement system similar to that which Colorado uses for their
individual permit program may be appropriate for Idaho. In
Colorado, once a source has implemented acceptable BMPs that meet
permit criteria, the file is essentially inactivated. In an area
with numerous sources and limited manpower, this allows
enforcement personnel to focus on the important sources and keeps
the 'active1 sources to a manageable number. The one caveat with
this approach is that a correctly designed facility will not
prevent water pollution unless properly maintained. For these
'inactive1 files, a form letter could be issued each fall by IDHW
reminding operators to pump their facilities. This would keep
the IDHW role active in the minds of the operators and likely
prevent some discharges as well.
To avoid identification problems and confusion where many
sources are under the same ownership, it would be advisable to
assign clearly different names to each source and use them
consistently on all report forms. Development of standardized
complaint and inspection forms which require a definite set of
information would also help to ensure the recording of all
pertinent information and would facilitate data retrieval when
original personnel may no longer be present.
An effort should also be made to enlist greater cooperation
and involvement from the American Dairy Association, Cattle
Feeders Association, district health departments, and SCS (whose
role appears to have declined in recent years). Some progress in
this direction has recently been made in the Twin Falls area
through the establishment of an advisory committee composed of
IDHW, ASCS, SCS, dairymen, health department personnel, and
others. Although newly established, it is hoped that it will
result in increased awareness and cooperation among the involved
groups. Establishment of a similar committee in each IDHW region
may be appropriate, since sources, problems, and personnel differ
120
-------
in each region. It may also be appropriate to include a
representative from EPA on the committee.
Alternative Enforcement Approaches
EPA has several regulatory alternatives available. It can
issue individual permits; it can issue a General Permit with one
set of conditions that apply statewide; it can issue both a
General Permit and individual permits; or it can issue a General
Permit that specifies additional criteria for operations located
in sensitive areas. These sensitive areas might be stream
segments where existing water quality is poor; areas where large
concentrations of feedlots and dairies exist; areas with high
resource value or sensitive uses; or areas where groundwater
pollution is of greatest concern. These areas were partially
addressed in Chapter 2. Regardless of the option adopted, there
are a number of enforcement strategies or approaches that can be
taken once a permit (in whatever form) has been issued. Several
of these have been used elsewhere fairly successfully.
A number of organizations and agencies are involved in dairy
and feedlot regulation or management. Most of the enforcement
approaches discussed below involve a greater degree of
involvement by these groups or by the industries themselves.
Alternative 1: Intensive Public Education Program With Emphasis
on Voluntary Compliance
This approach could be used with either type of permit/ or
with no permits at all, at least for smaller operations. The
Jackson County Soil and Water Conservation District in Oregon has
successfully used this approach with small «50head) CAFOs. The
area is somewhat different than Idaho because many of the farms
are small: approximately 50 percent of the agricultural land and
90 percent of the ownership in the Bear Creek Basin are parcels
of 20 acres or less. Management practices affecting runoff "are
generally inferior to those on large commercial farms" (Jackson
SWCD 1980). However, there are also some similarities. The
number of farmers in the basin was considered too large to be
reached on a one-to-one technical assistance program, so the
Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District has concentrated on
a totally voluntary program. Regulatory options were not
considered feasible by the ODEQ because of the large number of
small operators. (Moore pers. comm.).
The program is based upon a massive education effort that
includes workshops, farm tours, a quarterly farm newsletter (with
a mailing list derived from letters, phone calls, and sign-up
sheets), news releases and interviews on TV and radio, slide
shows, civic group talks, and displays at county fairs. It is
coupled with monitoring of sites to determine priorities and
evaluate progress. The following 5-year planning, implementation
and evaluation sequence was developed:
121
-------
• Select drainages for concentrated action.
• Evaluate farms and assign priorities for plans and BMP
implementation.
• Establish monitoring sites and sampling schedules.
• Develop methods to evaluate and document BMP
effectiveness.
• Review and evaluate progress annually, and change the
5-year plan as needed (Jackson SWCD 1980).
Implementing a plan and education effort such as this on a
state-wide basis would require some decentralization to be
efficient. Perhaps dividing the state into units corresponding
to the conservation districts would be the most likely strategy
for implementation.
Under a voluntary approach, farmers may develop a more
positive attitude than with a regulatory approach. Many
regulatory personnel in Idaho believe that such a voluntary
"carrot" approach may work better than the regulatory "stick."
Education is an important aspect of any program because there is
a lack of manpower in IDHW (McMasters, Hopson pers. comm.) and in
the conservation districts as well.
There are several reasons why a totally voluntary approacn
such as this one would probably not work well for much of the
state. For one thing, a massive educational effort requires a
great deal of sustained manpower, which may be a problem. There
is also a need for continual education of new farmers,
particularly in areas where numbers are growing rapidly, such as
Twin Falls.
The aerial photo survey shows that even under a regulatory
system, large numbers of previously permitted operations showed
no impoundment construction although containment facilities were
specifically required in the permit. Over 10 years have elapsed
since the first permits were issued, but the industry as a whole
does not seem inclined to police itself or provide voluntary
compliance. There seems little reason to believe this situation
will change in the near future. Many of the farms in Idaho are
large and control facilities can be expensive. A larger amount
of "carrot" may be necessary.
Alternative 2; Voluntary Emphasis with Financial and Technical
Assistance
A voluntary approach that is coupled with financial and
technical assistance has been used with success in Coos Bay,
Oregon, and is also possible for Idaho. It could be strictly
voluntary (for small farms) or used with either type of permit.
122
-------
The Coos Bay drainage is heavily agricultural and contains a
number of large dairy operations. The Bacterial Water Quality
Management Plan (Coos Bay CWQC 1983) provides an approach that
supplements voluntary compliance with both agricultural expertise
and special funds to assist in BMP implementation. The Soil and
Water Conservation District Work Plan prioritizes district areas
needing improvement and encourages use of a set of BMPS adopted
by the State Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Both the
SCS and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) have
agreed to assist the Coos Bay Conservation District in
identifying and correcting problems upon request, and the Oregon
State University Cooperative Extension Service encourages farmers
to review their management practices. The Coos Bay Conservation
District applied for "special ACP project funds" from the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) to
assist farmers in the designated priority areas.
To a certain extent, this approach exemplifies the current
Idaho situation. Idaho is one of the few states with an
agricultural cost share program. IDHW has an agricultural grant
program associated with the water pollution control fund. It may
provide 75 percent cost share up to $50,000 per farm for the
installation of BMPs (Moore pers. comm.). A number of other
self-help or funding programs are available also, as discussed
briefly in Chapter 2. Although this approach may provide
assistance to some individual farms, it may not be feasible
statewide, as funding is not sufficient given the large number of
operations. Some priority areas could benefit, however.
Additional conservation district personnel might also be
required.
Alternative 3: Combined Voluntary and Regulatory Emphasis
A combined voluntary and regulatory approach is presently
used in Tillamook County, Oregon. Like southern Idaho, the
County contains a dense concentration of dairies in proximity to
waterbodies supporting quality-sensitive uses. Their approach to
dairy waste management, as outlined in the Tillamook Fecal Waste
Management Plan (ODEQ and TWQC 1981), is a two-phased strategy.
The first phase is voluntary and the second mandatory. The
voluntary phase involves monitoring of stream quality,
accompanied by an aggressive educational program and assistance
by the local soil and water conservation districts to help
farmers develop effective Waste Management Plans and correct
situations referred by complaints. A Water Quality Committee,
Annual Evaluation Committee, and the Conservation District
annually review the plan's progress to determine its
effectiveness and to decide whether the mandatory phase is
necessary. The mandatory enforcement phase can be implemented at
the district, watershed, or individual level. To implement the
mandatory compliance phase, the Conservation District notifies
the state Division of Soil and Water Conservation that they
cannot handle the problem (districts have no enforcement
capability), and the ODEQ then enforces state water pollution
regulations. Because ODEQ is represented on both Water Quality
123
-------
and Annual Evaluation Committees, the agency is constantly
involved in review and decision making (Pedersen pers. comm.)-
One advantage of this plan is the flexibility to implement
the mandatory enforcement phase at several levels, depending on
problem severity. Enforcement by the state allows local
conservation districts to maintain a good working relationship
with the farmer and may also facilitate cleanup, as the
relationship between the state and the violator is more
impersonal. The Oregon plan is working well without the need for
large-scale phase-two implementation (Pedersen pers. coram.). One
disadvantage of this strategy is that violations are corrected
after-the-fact rather than prevented. Water quality therefore
depends on the success of educational programs and willingness of
new farmers to incorporate BMPs while an operation is still in
the planning stage.
In Idaho, certain drainage areas could be designated for
phase-two implementation based on the water quality of adjacent
stream segments, farm density, and proximity to streams.
Enforcement could be concentrated on sensitive stream segments or
areas where water quality is poorest. Like the previous
alternatives, this approach could be used with either type of
permit. Given the personnel limitations, a prioritizing approach
is probably advisable regardless of the permit type.
Alternative 4; Source "Declassification" After BMP Implementation
This enforcement alternative is used statewide in Colorado
to manage confined feeding operations under individual permits.
In Colorado, EPA Region 8 delegated NPDES enforcement
responsibility to the State Department of Health in 1975.
Colorado approaches regulation of feeding operations in a
slightly different manner than many other states. An attempt is
made to regulate all operations. As there are "several thousand"
in the northeast section of the state alone, continued individual
follow up is a lower priority than other problems (Love pers.
comrn.). The Department requires all operators to work with SCS
and to construct detention facilities. Colorado regulations
require existing facilities to design for a 10-year, 24-hour
storm and new operations to design for a 25-year, 24-hour storm.
Regulations also require the operator to provide and operate a
waste disposal system capable of restoring these retention
requirements within 15 days of a precipitation event unless
impeded by inclement weather. A written certificate is required
from SCS, and the system is inspected to ensure it has been
constructed. Once a system is built to contain runoff from a 25-
year storm event, the file is inactivated and no further follow-
up occurs because the state interprets the Appendix B regulations
to mean that the operation is no longer classified as an animal
feeding operation. A few enforcement actions have been
necessary. The SCS works with both feedlots and dairies, and its
involvement is the primary reason the program works wel 1 (Love
pers. comm.).
124
-------
The SCS in Colorado has been responsible for design of
perhaps 75 percent of the facilities but recently has preferred
to work mainly with smaller operators (3,000 head or less;
Chuckel pers. comm.). In Idaho, SCS involvement has been more
limited. Some districts, such as in the Caldwell area, generally
avoid dealing with feedlots. Also, their designs are often "too
well done"; state IDHW and SCS personnel in all three of the
study areas indicate that the cost of such a well-designed system
is often prohibitive. Many designed plans are thus never built
or are altered to cut costs. If specifications are not followed,
cost sharing cannot be provided. As the SCS involvement was felt
to be crucial to success of the Colorado program, providing a
workable program in Idaho would probably involve several changes
such as increasing the number of SCS personnel and perhaps
determining ways to cut construction costs without sacrificing
facility design integrity. This seems possible; as discussed
previously, design changes which reduced costs by 50 percent were
still found to be functional in Pocatello (Hopson pers. comm.).
Alternative 5; Upgrade Health Department Requirements and Diver-
sify Enforcement.
The district health departments are required to inspect all
grade A dairies. Part of the requirements for a grade A dairy
include a proper waste disposal system. Present enforcement is
sometimes lax, but regulations concerning these systems presently
lack both penalties and a description of an acceptable waste
system. If regulations were strengthened to include these
omissions and a greater effort toward enforcement were made by
the health departments by cancelling permits and downgrading
dairies to grade B for noncompliance, much of the problem in the
Twin Falls and Blackfoot study areas might be controlled.
Many dairies presently have impoundments, but they are
inadequately sized. To assure water quality protection, it would
be necessary to ensure that facility design included volume of
runoff and that a maximum number of cattle/acre were stipulated
for each farm. This would assure facilities do not become
undersized if a farmer expands his herd. Although this would not
control feedlots or grade B dairies, there are few feedlots in
the Twin Falls and Blackfoot regions.
One disadvantage of this alternative is that it would be of
limited benefit in the Caldwell area, which contains the majority
of the large feedlots and also has some of the poorest water
quality in the state. Because of their numbers and because they
are often the more marginal facilities, grade B dairies are a
problem in all three study areas. It would be necessary for
another agency or group, such as IDHW, to assume responsibility
for the feedlots (and grade B dairies) on an individual permit.
This enforcement method seems cumbersome. Regardless of the
enforcement system selected, the ability of these organizations
to help EPA and IDHW to achieve compliance, particularly in the
southcentral and southwestern portions of the state, should be
recognized and their involvement encouraged.
125
-------
Regardless of whether a General Permit or individual permits
are used and what mixture of "carrot and stick" is chosen,
tracking of individual sources is believed to be a must if the
system is to function well. Furthermore, because of the lack of
manpower at state and local levels, prioritization of areas and
sources is believed important. Areas and sources of greatest
concern are discussed in Chapter 2.
126
-------
REFERENCES
Literature Cited
Ada Soil Conservation District. 1982. Livestock waste. March
Newsletter. Meridian, ID.
Coos Bay Citizens Water Quality Committee, Coos Bay Water
Quality/Shellfish Technical Advisory Committee, and Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality. 1983. Coos Bay drainage
basin bacterial water quality management plan. 86 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1972. Cattle feedlots and the
environment. Region 10, Seattle, WA.
„ 1974. Development document for proposed
effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance
standards for the feedlots point source category. EPA 440/1-
73/004. 318 pp.
. 1984a. Aerial photographic analysis of confined
animal feeding operations: Caldwell area, Idaho. April, 1984.
Vol. 1. TS-AMD-84076a. EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems
Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 55 pp.
. I984b. Aerial photographic analysis of confined
animal feeding operations: Twin Falls area, Idaho. April,
1984. Vol. 3. TS-AMD-84076c. EPA Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
. 1984c. Aerial photographic analysis of confined
animal feeding operations: Blackfoot area, Idaho. April,
1984. Vol. 2. TS-AMD-84076b. EPA Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 69 pp.
. 1985. Aerial photographic analysis of confined
animal feeding operations: Twin Falls area, Idaho. April,
1984. Vol. 4. TS-AMD-84076. EPA Environmental Monitoring
System Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 99 pp.
Gilmour, C. M., S. M. Beck, J. H. Milligan, L. L. Mink, R. L.
Reid, A. A. Araji, and R. E. Taylor. 1975. Users manual for
selection of feedlot sites and land disposal of feedlot manure.
Contract DACW 68-73-C-0202. U. S. ACOE, Walla District. 47
pp.
Graham, W. G., and L. J. Campbell. 1981. Groundwater resources
of Idaho. Idaho Department of Water Resources. Boise, ID.
100 pp.
127
-------
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environment.
1984a. Dairies can impact Idaho's water. Clean Water
Newsletter, Spring 1984. Boise.
. 1984b. Idaho environmental quality profile, 1984.
Boise. 33 pp.
. 1984c. Idaho water quality status report, 1984
. 1983a. Idaho environmental quality profile, 1983.
Boise. 31 pp.
. 1983b. Idaho water quality standards and waste-
water treatment requirements.
. 1981. Idaho water quality status report, 1980.
40 pp.
Jackson Soil and Water Conservation District. 1980. Five-year
work plan, agricultural water quality/ Bear Creek Basin,
Jackson Co., OR. 33 pp.
Martin, S. B. 1983. Groundwater quality management plan for
Idaho. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of
Environment. Boise.
Meinzer, 0. (ed.). 1942. Physics of the earth - IX. Hydrology.
Dover Publications, Inc., New York, NY.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1983.
Precipitation frequency atlas of the western United States.
Volume V-Idaho.
1976. Climatography of the United States, no. 20.
Climate of Twin Falls, Id.
1983a. Local climatological data: Annual summary
with comparable data. Pocatello, Id.
1983b. Local climatological data: Annual summary
with comparable data. Boise, Id.
Oregon Department of Agriculture, Division of Soil & Water
Conservation. 1982. Oregon animal waste installation
guidebook. 226 pp.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Tillamook Water
Quality Committee. 1981. Tillamook Bay drainage basin fecal
waste management plan.
Renk, R. 1981. Memorandum to Mike Smith on Al's program
guidance on review of SCS design animal waste treatment.
January 5.
128
-------
Shulyer, L.R.f D. M. Farmer, R.D. Kreis, and M.E. Hula. 1973.
Environment protecting concepts of beef cattle feedlet wastes
management. Project #20AOY-05. EPA, Corvallis, OR.
Taylor, R. 1970. The Idaho livestock producer and the pollution
problem. University of Idaho. Miscellaneous Series 11.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1971. Soil survey of Canyon area, Idaho.
. 1973. Soil survey of the Bingham area, Idaho. 123
pp.
1975a. Urban hydrology for small watersheds.
Technical Release No. 55.
1975b. Agricultural waste management field
manual.
. 1980. Soil survey of Ada County, Idaho. 327 pp.
1984a. General soil map and landform provinces of
Idaho. Map.
. 1984b. Status of soil surveys. Map.
Washington State University. 1975. Lagoons for livestock and
poultry waste. College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension
Service. Extension Bulletin 655. 14pp.
Whitehead, R. L., and D. J. Parliman. 1979. A proposed
groundwater quality monitoring network for Idaho. USGS open
file report 79-1477. Boise, ID. 67 pp.
Pelsonal Communications
All red, W. 1984. Department of Health, Jerome, ID. Dairy
concerns in Jerome and Gooding. Meeting, December 13.
Baton, L. Chief of Permits Management, Water Quality Division.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Discussion of
general permits in Oregon. Telephone conversation, October 19.
Becker, D. 1984. Lockheed Engineering and Management Co., Inc.,
Las Vegas, NV. Aerial survey techniques. Telephone
conversation, October.
Bower, J. 1984. Resource Specialist. South Dakota Department
of Water and Natural Resources. Information on the South
Dakota general permit. Telephone conversation, October 26.
129
-------
Brower, C. 1985. Senior Water Quality Analyst. Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, Boise. Groundwater
information. Telephone conversation, March 15.
Burkett, G. 1985. Environmental Engineer. Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare, Twin Falls. Impoundment design. Telephone
conversation, March 15.
Chuckel, R. 1984. Colorado Department of Health, Permits
Section. Information on the Colorado feedlot permits.
Telephone conversation, December 5.
Clark, W. 1984. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Boise.
Feedlots in Gem and Valley Counties. Telephone conversation,
October 1.
Col lings, T. 1984. District Environmentalist. Idaho Department
of Health, Gooding. Dairy impacts. Meeting, December 13.
Curtis, D. 1984. Conservationist. Soil Conservation Service,
Pocatello, ID. Dairy impacts. Meeting, December 11.
Davidson, R. 1984. Soil Conservation Service, Jerome, ID.
Dairy concerns. Meeting, December 13.
Fisher, M. 1984. EPA Region 8, Denver, CO. Discussion of
general permits for Utah and South Dakota. Telephone
conversation, October 19.
Hasslen, D. 1984. U. S. Department of Agriculture Statistical
Reporting Service. Data on number of feedlots, dairies, and
cattle in Idaho. Telephone conversation, December 7.
Hildon, D. 1984. Utah State Department of Health, Water Quality
Division. Utah general permits information. Telephone
conversation, October 26.
Hopson, G. 1984. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare. Dairy
and feedlot issues in the Pocatello region. Meeting, December
10.
James, T. 1984. Lincoln County Soil Conservation Service.
Dairy Waste Plans. Meeting, December 13.
Lincroft, A. 1984. EPA Region 10, NPDES Section, San Francisco,
CA. Information on the general permit for Arizona feedlots.
Telephone conversation, October 19.
Love, J. 1984. Colorado State Department of Health, Permits
Section. Discussion on feedlot permits in Colorado. Telephone
conversation, October 23.
McCollum, E. 1985. Twin Falls Soil Conservation Service Field
Office, Twin Falls, ID. Soils in the Twin Falls area.
Telephone conversation, January 10.
130
-------
McMasters, M. 1984. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Twin
Falls. Dairy concerns. Meeting, December 12.
Moffitt, D. 1985. Western National Technical Center, Soil
Conservation Service. Portland, OR. State of the art design
criteria. Telephone conversation, April 2.
Moore, E. 1984. EPA Region 10, Seattle, WA. Animal waste
management. Telephone conversation, June.
Morrison, R. 1984. Agricultural Technician. Idaho Department
of Health & Welfare, Twin Falls. Dairies and feedlots in the
Twin Falls vicinity. Meeting, December 12.
Mullen, B. 1985. Drinking Water Section, EPA Region 10,
Seattle, WA. Sole Source Aquifer designation and the Snake
River plain aquifer. Telephone conversation, March 18. Memo,
March 22.
Newbeisner, M. 1984. Conservationist. Soil Conservation
Service, Twin Falls, ID. Dairies in the Twin Falls area.
Meeting, December 12.
O'Rourke, P. 1.984. Environmental Health Specialist. South
Central District Health Department, Twin Falls, ID. Dairies.
Meeting, December 12.
Palmer, J, 1984. Idaho Department of Public Health, Pocatello.
Dairies in the Pocatello area. Meeting, December 11.
Pedersen, B. 1984. District Conservationist. Soil Conservation
Service, Tillamook, OR. Animal waste management. Telephone
conversation, June 25.
Renk, R. 1984. Environmental Engineer. Idaho Department of
Health & Welfare, Twin Falls. Feedlot and dairy concerns.
Meeting, December 12.
Schuman, F. 1984. Head of Permits. Montana State Department of
Health & Environmental Science. Discussion regarding feedlot
general permit for Montana. Telephone conversation, October
23.
Sheppard, C. 1985. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare,
Division of Environment, Boise. Impoundment design. Telephone
conversation, March 26.
Shock, G. 1985. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Central
Office. Boise. Groundwater contamination problems. Telephone
conversation July 2.
Zollinger, L. 1984. Soil Conservation Service, Boise, ID. SCS
activities regarding feedlots and dairies. Telephone
conversation, December 5.
131
-------
APPENDIX A
Precipitation Data
-------
Table A-l. Precipitation Adjusted for Evaporation Using Fall River Mills Rates
and Evaporation Opportunity Factors
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954-
1955
195S
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
197O
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
I960
1981
1982
0
0
0.23
O
0
O
1.39
0.52
O.1O
2.21
0
0.18
1.O3
0
0.23
0.19
0.19
O
0
O
1.32
1.75
0
0.35
O
2.36
2.73
0.90
1.01
O.OO
0.21
0
0.35
O
1.23
O.79
O.42
O.O6
0.28
0.14
1.11
0.25
0
0.52
O.99
O.O3
1 . 10
O.O6
0.43
O
O
O
0.66
0.85
O
0.68
O. 14
O
O.64
0
0
O
0
O.80
0
O
0
0
0
0
1.56
0.25
O
O.44
0. 14
0.23
O
0.48
0
O.64
0.55
0.72
0.3
O
O.89
0
0.93
O
O.O8
O
0
1.15
O
O
0.27
O.27
0.15
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0.38
0.38
0
0.36
O.8
O
0
0.31
0
1.02
1.64
0.27
2
O
O
0
0
2
O
0
1
O
0
0
1
O
O
O
O
0
O
1
0
0
1
.09
0
0
O
.54
0
0
.11
.25
.69
0
.21
.79
.32
. 11
0
O
O
.09
.82
.52
.98
0
.64
0
.52
. 10
0
0
.66
0
.70
.77
O
.51
.77
.37
.10
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
2
1
1
O
2
0
1
0
O
O
O
1
0
3
O
O
.63
O
.44
.33
.15
.69
.36
.50
.01
.37
.90
.60
.21
.47
. 1O
.63
O
.32
.27
. 18
.22
0
0
0
O
.15
O
0
.16
0
.30
0
.22
0
.70
. 19
.37
O
2.O4
0.78
0.13
0.8
1.57
0.37
0.92
0.7
1. 1
1.22
1.1
0.63
O.8
0.25
2.94
0.27
O.O1
0.55
O.12
1.9
2
1 .2
O.01
1.07
0.6
2
1.72
1.58
0.9
O. 19
0.6
0.78
1.66
1 .26
0.56
0.18
0.58
0.77
0.35
O.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
O.
O.
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0.
0.
0.
0.
O.
0 .
0.
1 .
0.
O.
O.
O.
0.
1.
06
07
O4
0
08
O
O4
29
15
O
OS
39
15
0
48
O
95
25
04
0
41
25
06
O5
0
02
28
12
21
07
53
82
15
41
48
01
03
23
62
0
0.08
0.26
0.05
0.05
0.12
0.52
O.O7
O
0.12
O.24
O
O.O8
0
0.53
O.64
0.83
0.21
0. 12
O.64
O.53
0.88
O.O1
0
2.37
O
0.1
0.18
0.05
O.O3
0.22
O.48
0.95
0.73
O.24
1 .81
0
0.13
0.19
0.16
0.44
0. 16
0.8
0.31
0.19
0.92
O.01
0.05
0.02
O.08
0.12
O.O2
0.06
0.12
2. 54
0.29
0.79
0.4
0.75
0.7
0.55
0.19
O.S8
0.1
0.68
1
0.64
1 . 11
O.82
0
0.01
2. 11
1.2
0.89
0.04
1.59
0.36
1.38
0
O.01
0.50
1.57
O.07
0.59
0
0.99
O
0
O
0.13
1.64
0
O
O. 15
0
1.15
0.61
0.38
O
0
O
O
O.09
0.03
0.2O
0
0.03
0.54
0.84
1.38
0
O
O
0.89
O
O.36
1. 13
0.59
0.50
1 .04
0.26
0.01
0.39
0.52
0.79
O
0.30
0
O.42
0
0
0.03
0
0.81
O
0.66
1.40
1.32
0.50
0.59
0
O.49
O
1.02
1 .31
0.1O
1.43
O
O
O
O.85
O.O5
0.29
0.25
1.23
O.O9
0.22
1.37
0
O
1.24
0
1.32
1 .60
0.13
0.28
0.22
1.35
0
1.21
0.41
O
O
O.O3
0
0.15
2.32
0
O.54
0
1.08
0.90
0.50
0.76
0.92
1.36
0.84
O.42
0
1.59
0
0
0.62
1.85
1.05
5
6
3
4
5
2
7
6
3
7
2
6
6
5
e
4
4
3
4
6
1O
7
1
2
5
6
7
5
4
5
3
7
7
7
5
5
8
8
6
.32
.66
.19
.66
.06
.83
.27'
.59
.30
.32
.16
.37
.14
.88
.21
.91
.69
.41
.54
.99
.33
.36
.41
.70
.56
.54
.84
.89
.74
.30
.64
.28
.26
.28
.73
.66
.34
.14
.87
1983 0.53 0.2O 1.58 1.46 1.35 O.17 1.16 O.28 O.65 O 0.86 3.36 11.64
-------
TAS^E A-2: COKP'-AINT DATA SCSTEI IK DSDEr. OF 7-l-AY AKTECEL-ENT
Da-e
28-Kay-80
24-Mar-81
25-Mar-8l
12-Jan-7S
13-Dec-83
14-Dec-83
i2-Dec-83
21-Dec-81
14-Mar-83
ll-Apr-79
18-«ar-83
16-Feb-82
15-Mar-83
20-Kar-84
26-Jan-82
28-Jan-82
13-«ay-80
22-Mar-82
05-Jan-84
27-Jan-84
28-Nov-83
OS-Dec-82
25-Kar-82
24-Kar-82
16-Feb-84
16-Feb-79
15-Feb-79
13-Apr-82
05-Kar-81
12-Apr-82
18-Dec-8i
28-Apr-83
04-Mar-83
14-Apr-62
14-Oct-83
13-Feb-84
14-Nov-83
12-May-82
28-Feb-80
17-May-82
Ol-Jun-81
10-Jun-81
29-Mar-79
14-Mar-84
05-Dec-79
25-Apr-79
09-JuI-81
26-Feb-82
13-Mar-84
26-Feb-79
30-f!ar-84
18-Apr-79
23-!lar-83
Dai^y
Preci?
0.24
0.21
0.49
0.14
0.33
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.08
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.04
0.26
0.14
0.02
0.05
0.20
0.01
0.07
0.02
0.13
0.02
O.C2
0.08
7-Day
Precip
2.18
1.66
1.68
1.45
1.30
1.20
1 . 19
1.18
1.17
1.12
1.02
1.00
0.95
0.93
0.85
0.7S
0.79
0.73
0.65
0.59
0.58
0.54
0.54
0.54
0.52
0.49
0.49
•0.48
0.46
0.44
0.43
0.43
0.36
0.35
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.31
0.31
0.28
0.27
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.17
0.17
30-Day
Precip
3.52
2.14
2.14
1.62
2.96
3.16
2.98
2.46
2.20
1.62
1.79
2.12
2.17
1.4S
1.95
2.01
1.91
1.36
3.64
1.42
1.72
1.62
1.27
1.28
1.11
0.98
0.98
1.61
1.46
1.57
1.60
1.39
1.40
1.56
0.97
0.91
0.88
0.43
1.29
0.34
0.93
1.15
0.70
0.79
1.49
1.84
0.73
1.60
0.99
1.05
1.43
1.63
1.84
90-Day
Precip
6.85
5.46
5.46
1.73
4.80
5.01
4.66
5.00
6.21
4.65
5.74
7.50
6.17
5.95
6.51
6.59
5.30
6.90
7.31
7.11
2.95
4.77
6.73
6.85
V7.07
3.63
3.63
4.82
4.49
4.78
4 . 09
4.90
5.37
4.82
1.28
7.14
2.04
3.94
4.61
3.18
5.64
5.45
3.63
5.72
3.07
3.51
3.74
6.89
5.92
3.88
4.76
3.32
5.89
120-Day
Precip
8.14
6.33
6.17
1.78
4.99
5.20
4.85
5.01
" 7.21
4.99
7.21
7.73
7.23
- 7. 86
7.28
7.33
fr.25
8,01
7.31
8. 08
3.13
.4.95
7-. 55
.. -, 7 . 66
7.63
4.30
4'. 30
7.66
5.41
7.69
4.22
6.44
6.10
7.56
2.53
7.43
2.16
5.21
4.86
5.21
6.64
6.88
4.61
7.34
4.88
5.23
6.18
8.19
7.33
4.55
7.53
5.08
6.81
# of
Complain*.:
u <«i
cl
cl
ul
tl,cl
c2
cl
cl
tl
tl
tl
cl
tl
" 1 C1
cl
Ql
cl
L. 4.
t.^
C. A.
1.1
L, i
* "
t2
U J.
L.1
c2
1 1
cl
t2
U A
12
*.i
ci
tl
cl
tl
tl
tl
c4
tl
tl
tl
cl
tl.ci
ci
tl
tl
tl
cl
cl
cl
cl
Using Boise Idaho precipitation data.
-------
TABLE A-2; COMPLAINT DATA SORTED IX ORDER OF 7-DAY ANTECEDENT PRECIPITATION
Date
08-Apr-80
20-Oct-83
22-Feb-83
21-Mar-83
25-Jun-79
22-Mar-83
06-Apr-ai
12-Mar-84
12-Feb-79
24-Feb-83
09-Feb-83
05-Jan-7S
29-Jun-83
16-Jun-83
17-Apr-79
li-Dec-79
15-Feb-80
07-Nov-79
li-reb-8I
09-Jan-8tt
10-Feb-84
07-Sep-79
19-Apr-8i
22-Aug-82
24-Jun-80
li-Nov-8I
iO-Nov-81
23-Jan-Sl
20-Sep-79
i8-Apr-83
29-Jun-81
06-May-82
26-Apr-82
22-Apr-8G
17-Apr-81
20-Aug-80
20-Apr-80
04-Feb-84
29-Jun-79
21-Apr-80
Daily
Precip
0.02
0.05
O.li
0.09
0.03
0.10
0.04
0.02
0.08
0.45
0.50
0.04
7-Day
Precip
0.17
0.16
0.15
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.11
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
c.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30-Day
Precip
1.86
0.97
1.21
1.79
0.18
1.79
2.42
0.88
0.66
1.18
0.92
0.28
0.17
0.08
1.53
1.50
o.so
1.54
1.23
3.29
0.79
1.81
2.45
0.11
1.74
0.25
0.38
1.13
0.15
1.35
1.02
0.56
0.88
0.39
2.44
0.00
0.67
0.77
0.18
0.39
90-Day
Precip
4.95
1.28
5.59
5.84
3.30
5.84
5.08
5.84
3.17
5.61
• 4.80
1.73
4.75
5.59
3.22
3.08
3.83
3.39
3.98
7.30
6.92
2.00
5.11
2.00
5.47
1.46
1.46
2.83
1.86
4.96
3.64
3.65
3.84
3.73
5.09
2.79
3.73
6.98
3.06
3.73
120-Day
Precip
5.67
2.53
6.99
6.92
3.83
6.85
6.33
7.38
3.84
6.95
6.12
2.60
7.28
7.39
4.98
4.89
5.21
3.39
4.28
7.31
7.29
2.00
6.24
2.42
7.42
1.46
1.46
3.06
2.00
6.52
6.40
4.90
5.90
5.41
6.22
5.12
5.62
7.43
3.76
5.45
# of
Complaints
cl
4. ".
U X
tl
Cl
tl
tl
tl
tl
Cl
c2
tl,cl
cl
cl
tl
cl
cl
ci
cl
ti
cl
tl
cl
cl
4- *
I. .1.
cl
tl
tl
». n
V- i
cl
cl
u 1
ti
ti
cl
tl
tl
cl
tl
cl
cl
Usinq Boise Idaho precipitation data.
-------
TAB;_E A-S: CC.W.?LAIKT DATA SORTED IN ORDER OF SO-DAY ANTECEDENT ?HEC:?:TAT:«
Daze
05-Jan-64
28-May-80
09-Jan-84
14-Dec-83
!2-Dec-83
13-Dec-83
21-Dec-8I
i9-Apr-8i
17-Apr-8I
06-Apr-8l
14-Mar-83
15-Mar-83
25-Mar-81
24-Mar-8i
i6-Feb-82
28-Jan-82
26-Jan-S2
13-May~80
08-Apr-80
23-Har-83
25-Apr-79
07-Se?-79
21-Mar-83
22-Mar-83
18-Mar-83
24-Jun-8C
28-NOV-63
18-Apr-79
09-Dec-82
ll-Apr-79
12-Jan-79
13-Apr-82
26-Feb-82
18-Dec-81
12-Apr-82
14-Apr-82
07-Nov-79
17-Apr-79
ll-Dec-79
20-Mar-84
05-Dec-79
05-Mar-81
30-«ar-84
27-Jan-84
04-Kar-83
28-Apr-83
22-Mar-82
18-Apr-83
28-Feb-80
24-Kar-82
25-Mar-82
il-Feb-81
22-Feb-83
Daily
frecip
0.49
0.14
0.21
0.33
0.45
0.02
0.01
0.24
0.06
O.OS
0.08
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.08
0.05
0.26
0.04
0.05
0.10
0.02
0.14
0.01
0.02
0.02
7-Day
Precip
0.65
2.18
0.03
1.20
1.1S
1 . 30
1.18
0.02
0.00
0.12
1.17
0.99
1.68
1.68
1.00
0.79
0.85
0.79
0.17
0.17
0.23
0.02
0.15
0.13
1.02
0.01
0.58
0.17
0.54
1.12
1.45
0.48
0.23
0.43
0.44
0.35
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.93
0.23
0.46
0.18
0.59
0.36
0.43
0.73
0.00
0.31
0.54
0.54
0.03
0.15
30-Day
Precip
3.64
3.52
3.29
3.16
2.98
2.96
2.46
2.45
2.44
2.42
2.20
2.17
2.14
2.14
2.12
2.01
1.95
1.91
1.86
1.84
1.84
1.81
1.79
1.79
1.79
1.74
1.72
1.63
1.62
1.62
1.62
1.61
1.60
1.60
1.57
1.56
1.54
1.53
1.50
1.49
1.49
1.46
1.43
1.42
1.40
1.39
1.36
1.35
1.29
1.28
1.27
1.23
1.21
90-Day
Precip
7.31
6.85
7.30
5.01
4.66
4.80
5.00
5.11
5.09
5.08
6.21
6.17
5.46
5.46
7.50
6.59
6.51
5.30
4.95
5.89
3.51
2.00
5.84
5.84
5.74
5.47
2.95
3 . 32
4.77
4.65
1.73
4.82
6.89
4.09
4.78
4.82
3.39
3.22
3.08
5.95
3.07
4.49
4.76
7.11
5.37
4.90
6.90
4.96
4.61
6.85
6.73
3.98
5.59
120-Day
Precip
7.31
8.14
7.31
5.20
4.85
4.99
5.01
6.24
6.22
6.33
7.21
7.23
6.17
6.33
7.73
7.33
7.26
6.25
5.67
6.61
5.23
2.00
6.92
6.85
7.21
7.42
3.13
5.08
4.95
4.99
1.78
7.68
8.19
4.22
7.69
7.56
3.39
4.98
4.89
7.86
4.88
5.41
7.53
8.08
6.10
6.44
8.01
6.52
4.88
7.68
7.55
4.28
6.99
# of
Complaints
u. iL
"t-il
ci
c2
cl
ti,cl
cl
ci
4_ J.
t_ L
ti
^ i
cl
ci
cl
cl
cl
ci
Ci
ci
ci
ci
ci
C. ri.
ti
cl
tl
ci
l_ i
tl
"u j.
tl
* '<
u ^
1 1
t2
cl
cl
cl
cl
IP
ti,cl
cl
cl
tl
ti
t2
tl
cl
tl
t2
-1
*• i
tl
Using Boise Idaho precipitation data.
-------
TABLE A-3:
Date
24-Feb-83
iO-Jun-81
23-Jan-8i
16-Feb-84
26^Feb-79
29-Jun-81
13-Mar-84
15-Feb-79
16-Feb-7S
14-Oct-83
20-Oct-83
01-Jun-8i
09-Feb-83
13-Feb-84
26-Apr-82
12-Mar-84
14-Nov-83
14-Mar-84
10-Feb-84
04-Feb-84»
09-Jul-8i
29-Mar-79
20-Apr-80
12-Feb-75
i5-Feb-80
06-Kay-82
12-May-82
22-Apr-80
21-Apr-SO
10-Nov-SI
17-Kay-82
05-Jan-79
li-Nov-81
25-Jun-79
29-Jun-79
29-Jun-83
20-Sep-79
22-Aug-82
16-Jun-83
20-Aug-80
CQKPLAIN'
Daily
Precip
0.02
0.50
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.20
0.11
0.13
0.08
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.07
T DATA SORTED.IN ORDER OF 30-DAY ANTECEDENT' PHECIPITAT:
7-Day
Precip
0.10
0.27
0.00
0.52
0.20
0.00
0.49
0.49
0.32
0.16
0.27
0.10
0.32
0 . 00
0.11
0.32
0.24
0.02
0.00
0.23
0.24
0.00
0.11
0.04
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
6.09
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.02
0.07
0.00
30-Day
Precip
1.18
.15
.13
.11
,05
1.02
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.97
0.97
0.93
0.92
0.91
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.79
0.79
0.77
0.73
0.70
0.67
.66
.60
0,
0.
0.56
0.43
0.
0.
0.
C.
39
39
38
34
0.28
0.25
0.18
0.18
0.17
0.15
0.11
0.08
0.00
90-Day
Precip
5.61
5.45
2.83
.07
.88
.64
.92
3.63
3.63
.28
.28
.64
,80
,14
.84
.84
7.
3.
3,
5.
1,
1,
5.
4.
7.
3.
5.
3.
3.
2.04
5.72
6.92
6.96
.74
.63
3.73
3.17
3.83
3.65
3.94
3.73
3.73
1.46
3.18
1.73
1.46
3.30
3.06
4.75
1.86
2.00
5.59
2.79
L20-Day # of
Precip .Complaints
6.95 c2
6.88 tl
06
63
55
6.40
7.33
4.30
4.30
2.53
2.53
6.64
6.12
7.43
5.90
7.38
2.16
7.34
7.29
7.43
6.18
4.61
5.62
3.84
5.21
4.90
5.21
5.41
5.45
1.46
5.21
2.60
,46
,83
,76
,28
.00
.42
.39
i,
3,
3.
7.
2.
2.
7.
5.12
tl
tl
cl
tl
tl
c2
tl
tl
tl
tl
tl.cl
C1
tl
tl
tl
cl
tl
cl
cl
tl
tl
cl
cl
tl
c4
cl
tl
ti
cl
cl
cl
tl
tl
tl
Boise Idaho precipitation data.
-------
TA3L.E A-4:
:•>!': OF 90-JAY ANTECEDENT
Date
l6-Feb-82
05-Jan-84
09-Jan-84
13-Feb-84
27-Jan-84
i6-Feb-84
04-Feb-84
10-reb-84
22-Mar-82
26-Feb-82
28-Kay-80
24-Kar-82
25-Mar-82
28-Jan-82
26-Jan-82
14-Mar-83
15-Kar-62
20-Mar-84
13~Kar-84
23-Kar-tt3
21-Mar-83
12-Mar-84
22-Kar-83
I8-Kar-83
14-Mar-S4
Ol-Jun-81
24-Feb-83
22-Feb-83
i6-Jun-83
24-Jun-80
25-Xar-81
24-Kar-81
iO-Jun-8I
04-Kar-83
13-May-80
19-Apr-81
17-Apr-81
OS-Apr-Si
14-Dec-83
21-Dec-81
18-Apr-83
08-Apr-80
28-Apr-83
14-Apr-82
13-Apr-82
09-Feb-83
i3-Dec-83
12-Apr-82
09-Dec-82
30-Mar-64
29-Jun-83
12-Dec-83
ll-Apr-79
Daily
Precip
0.06
0.20
0.01
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.02
0 . 0 '-
0.02
O.li
0 . 05
o . : o
0.13
0.02
0.24
0.02
0.02
0.45
0.49
0.33
0.14
0.05
0.03
0.21
0.04
0.14
0.05
7-J.3V
Precip
1 . 00
0.65
0.03
0.32
0.59
0.52
0.00
0.02
0.73
0.23
2.18
0.54
0.54
0.79
O.So
1.17
0.9S
0.93
0.22
G..7
0.15
O.il
0.13
1.02
0.24
0.27
0.10
.0.15
0 . 07
0.01
1 .68
1.68
0.27
0.36
0.79
0.02
0.00
0.12
1.20
1.18
0.00
0.17
0.43
0.35
0.48
0.10
1.30
0.44
0.54
0.18
0.09
1.19
1.12
30-Day
Precip
2.12
3.84
3.29
0.91
1.42
1.11
0.77
0.79
1.36
1.60
3.52
1.28
1.27
2.01
1.S5
2.20
2.17
1.49
0.9S
1.84
i.79
0.88
1.79
1.79
0.79
0.93
1.18
1.21
0.08
1.74
2.14
2.14
1.15
1.40
1.91
2.45
2.44
2.42
3.16
2.46
1.35
1.86
1.39
1.56
1.61
0.92
2.96
1.57
1.62
1.43
0.17
2.98
1.62
90-Day
Precip
7.50
7.31
7.30
7.14
7.11
7.07
6.98
6.92
6.90
6.89
6.85
6.85
6.73
6.59
6.51
6.21
6.17
5.95
5.92
5.89
5.84
5.84
5.84
5.74
5.72
5.64
5.61
5.59
5.59
5.47
5.46
5.46
5.45
5.37
5.30
5.11
5.09
5.08
5.01
5.00
4.96
4.95
4.90
4.82
4.82
4.80
4.80
4.78
4.77
4.76
4.75
4.66
4.65
120-Day
Precip
7.73
7.31
7.31
7.43
8.08
7.63
7.43
7.29
8.01
8.19
8.14
7.68
7.55
7.33
7.26
7.21
7.23
7.86
7.33
t .61
6.92
7.38
6.85
7.21
7.34
6.64
6.95
6.99
7.39
7.42
6.17
6.33
6.88
6.10
6.25
6.24
6.22
6.33
5.20
5.01
6.52
5.67
6.44
7.56
7.68
6.12
4.99
7.69
4.95
7.53
7.26
4.85
4.99
* 3f
Contplaini.
cl
U4.
Cl
ci
ti
L.1
ti
ti
ti
ti
t2
*-,
t^.
ti
ci
C-
t X
"C _
ip
I. .»
cl
C.L
L. —
ti
T ~_
ci
ti
c2
* i
+• "
• <- *
ci
cl
ci
* •'
*. -
u -i.
cl
cl
tl
J> "1
U J.
c2
ci
cl
ci
t2
cl
tl
ti.ci
tl.cl
t2
U A
ci
cl
cl
ti
Using Boise Idaho precipitation data.
-------
TABLE A-4: COMPLAINT DATA SORTED IN ORDER Or 30-DAY ANTECEDENT FF.ECIP'TATIC
Date
28-reb-SC
05-Kar-81
IB-Dec-Bl
ll-Feb-8i
12-May-82
26-Feb-79
26-Apr-82
15-Feb-80
09-Jul-81
22-Apr-60
21-Apr-80
20-Apr-80
06-Kay-82
29-Jun-81
15-Feb-79
29-Kar-79
16-Feb-79
25-Apr-79
07-Nov-79
18-Apr-79
25-Jun-79
17-Apr-79
17-Kay-82
12-Feb-75
il-Dec-79
05-Dec-79
29-Jun-79
2S-Nov-83
23-Jan-81
20-Aug-80
14-Nov-83
07-Sep-79
22-Aug-82
20-Sep-79
12-Jan-79
05-Jan-79
lO-Nov-81
ll-^Nov-8i
14-Oct-83
20-Oct-83
Precip
0.01
0.26
0.02
0.02
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.05
0.02
0.50
7-Day
Precip
0.31
0.46
0.43
0.03
0.31
0.20
0.00
0.04
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.49
0.24
0.49
0.23
0.04
0.17
0.13
0.07
0 . 28
0.11
0.07
0.23
0.00
0.58
O.OG
0.00
,0 . 32
0.02
0.02
0.00
1.45
0.09
0.00
0.00
!0.32
0.16
30-Day
Precip
1.29
1.46
1.60
1.23
0.43
1.05
0.88
0.60
0.73
0.39
0.39
0 .67
0.56
1.02
0.98
0.70
0.98
1.84
1.54
1.63
0.18
1.53
0 . 34
0.66
1.50
1.49
0.18
1.72
1.13
0.00
0.88
1.81
0.11
0.15
1.62
0.28
0.38
0.25
0.97
0.97
90 -Day
Precip
4.61
4.49
4.09
3.98
3.94
3.88
3.84
3.83
3.74
3.73
3.73
3.73
3.65
3.64
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.51
3.39
3 . 32
3.30
3.22
3.18
3.17
3.08
3.07
3.06
2.95
2.83
2.79
2.04
2.00
2.00
1.86
1.73
1.73
1.46
1.46
1.28
1.28
120-Day
Precip C(
4.88
5.41
4.22
4.28
5.21
4.55
5.90
5.21
6.18
5.41
5.45
5.62
4.90
6.40
4.30
4.61
4.30
'5.23
3.39
5.08
3.83
4.98
5.21
3.84
4.8?
4.88
3.76
3.13
3.06
5.12
2.16
2.00
2.42
2.00
1.78
2.60
1.46
1.46
2.53
2.53
P- OI
jiriplaint
- •:
cl
i. j.
tl
tl
cl
ti
cl
tl
ci
cl
cl
tl
tl
c2
j- '
tl
cl
ci
cl
1 1
cl
C4
cl
cl
ti,c;
cl
tl
tl
L. L
1 1
cl
t.1
cl
I- i
cl
tl
tl
tl
tl
Using Boise Idaho precipitation data.
-------
i-i A-5: CO*?LA:N;T DATA SCS.HJ IN CEDES OF IZO-DAY ANTECEDENT ?SE-::?:TAT::.\
Da.fr
26-Feb-82
28-May-8G
27-Jan-84
22-Mar-82
20-Mar-84
16-Feb-82
12-Apr-82
24-«ar-82
13-Apr-82
16-Feb-84
14-Apr-82
25-Mar-82
30-«ar-84
04-Feb-84
13-Feb-64
24-Jun-80
16-Jun-83
12-Mar-84
14-Mar-84
28-Jan-82
13-Mar-84
05-Jan-84
09-Jan-84
10-Feb-84
29-Jun-e3
26-Jan-82
15-Mar-83
18-«ar-83
14-Kar-83
22-Feb-83
24-Feb-83
21-Kar-83
10-Jun-81
22-Kar-83
23-Mar-83
Ol-Jun-81
18-Apr-83
28-Apr-83
29-Jun-81
06-Apr-81
24-Mar-81
13-May-80
19-Apr-8i
17-Apr-81
09-Jul-81
25-Mar-81
09-Feb-83
04-Kar-83
26-Apr-82
08-Apr-80
20-Apr-80
21-Apr-80
05-Kar-81 ^
Daily
Precip
0.06
0.04
0.01
0.05
0 . 20
O.li
0.13
0.06
0.02
0 . OS
0.08
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.05
0.14
0.45
0.24
0.03
0.02
7-Day
Precip
0.23
2.1B
0.59
0.73
0.93
1.00
0.44
0.54
0.48
0.52
0.35
0.54
0.18
0.00
0.32
0.01
0.07
0.11
0.24
0.79
0.22
C.65
0.03
0 ."02
0.09
0.85
0.99
1.02
1.17
0.15
•0.10
0.15
0.27
0.13
0.17
0.27
0.00
0.43
0.00
0.12
1.68
0.79
0.02
0.00
0.23
1.68
O.iO
0.36
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.46
30 -Day
Precip
1.60
3.52
1.42
1.36
1.49
2.12
1.57
1.28
1.61
i.ii
1.56
-1.27
1.43
0.77
0.91
1.74
0.08
0.88
0.79
2.01
0.99
3.8
-------
TABLE A-5: COMPLAINT DATA SORTED IN ORDER OF 12C-DAY ANTECEDENT PRECIPITATION
Date
22-Apr-80
25-Apr-79
17-May-82
15-Feb-80
12-May-82
14-Dec-83
20-Aug-80
18-Apr-79
21-Dec-81
ii-Apr-7S
13-Dec-83
17-Apr-79
09-Dec-82
06-May-82
li-Dec-73
05-Dec-79
28-Feb-80
12-Dec-83
29-Mar-79
26-Feb-79
'16-Feb-79
i5-Feb-79
ll-Feb-81
18-Dec-8i
12-Feb-79
25-Jun-79
29-Jun-79
07-NOV-79
28-Nov-83
23-Jan-81
05-Jan-79
20^0ct-83
14-Oct-83
22-Aug-82
14-Nov-83
20-Sep-79
07-Sep-79
12-Jan-79
ll-Nov-81
lO-Nov-81
Daily
Precip
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.49
0.08
0.33
0.05
0.21
0.10
0.01
0.14
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.2S
0.09
0.02
0.50
7-Day
Precip
0.00
0.23
0.28
0.04
0.31
1.20
0.00
0.17
1.18
1.12
1.30
0.07
0 . 54
0.00
0.07
0.23
0.31
1.19
0.24
0.20
0.49
0.49
0.03
0.43
0.11
0.13
0.00
0.04
0.5S
0.00
0.09
0.16
0.32
0.02
0.32
0.00
0.02
1.45
0.00
0.00
30-Day
Precip
0.39
1.84
0.34
0.60
0.43
3.16
0.00
1.63
2.46
1.62
2.96
1.53
1.62
0.56
1.50
1.49
1.29
2.98
0.70
1.05
0.98
0.98
1.23
1.60
0.66
0.18
0.1S
1.54
1.72
1.13
0.28
0.97
0.97
0.11
0.88
0.15
1.81
1.62
0.25
0.38
90-Day
Precip
3.73
3.51
3.18
3.83
3.94
5.01
2.79
3.32
5.00
4.65
4.80
3.22
4.77
3.65
3.08
3.07
4.61
• 4.66
3.63
3.88
3.63
3.63
3.98
4.09
3.17
3.30
3.06
3.39
2.95
2.63
1.73
1.28
1.28
2.00
2.04
1.86
2.00
1.73
1.46
1.46
120-Day
Precip
5.41
5.23
5.21
5.21
5.21
5.20
5.12
5.08
5.01
4.99
4.99
4.98
4.95
4 . 90
4.89
4.88
4.88
4.85
4.61
4.55
4.30
4.30
4.28
4.22
3.84
3.83
3.76
3.39
3.13
3.06
2.60
2.53
2.53
2.42
2.16
2.00
2.00
1.78
1.46
1.46
# of
Complaints
cl
ci
c4
cl
ti
c2
tl
cl
cl
tl
tl . ci
cl
ti
ti
cl
ti,ci
•£ '
ci
ti
ci
4- 1
L. .£.
cZ
tl
tl
ci
tl
ci
cl
ti
1 1
ci
ti
tl
ti
ti
cl
ci
tl
ti
tl
Using B°ise Idaho precipitation data.
-------
APPENDIX B
Characterization of Runoff
from Idaho Feedlots and Dairies
-------
COPY DISTRIBUTION BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY LAB\AME (Check
wim* • rvnot, Hmuni.ng TMI M( U Q ^ '8D BUREAU OF LABORATORIES oc.ldw.ll
C.-.-» L.bor.,0,, WATER QUALITY REPORT H f"u> f *'""
!'"; ' """" °u Bu'"u
lOOBRO) P TOC
NUTRIENTS (mg/L)
(00610) CI T, Ammonia as N ... _.
(Onfitl) f-| T Nitrite as N ,
(006PO) n T Nitrate as N
(00630) D T ND2 + NOg as N
MINERALS (mg/L)
(009001 D "»'Hn««s as CaCO3
(OOV3) D T Al"-»ii"ity « rar.03
(OW5) D Bicarbonate A"- « Car.r>3
(OCH30) D Ctrhnnal* Allr as CaCO-)
(00927) D Magnesium
'
(00956) D Sihca ai SiO2 ^
( ) Q Othfr M'«fr»'i
MISCELLANEOUS
(00076) D Turhirtity (NTUt . ,_.„
(00720) D Total Cyanirtf (f"g/L)
RETURN TEST RESULTS TO
Nam*
Adorvti
* 1
-p«^wmF.)U
Date Submitted (Yr.. Mo.. Dtfty f *- 3t *- ^ • ' ^ ^
Submitted Bv /-^~~-£ * KJ > 'i '. /'
• \— - ' • ^.
PURPOSE OF SAMPLE (Cheek on.)
D Intensive Survey D Trend
[~] Compliance P Other
STORET RESIDUE (mg/L)
CM.
(OOSOO) P Total Residue
(00530) O Non-Filterable
Residue (105° C)
(Suspended Solids!
(80154) O Non-Filterable
Residue (110" C)
( ) P Other Residue
TRACE METALS (ug/L)
DISSOLVED METALS
(01075) D Cadmium, Dissolved
(fltfUO) P Copper, Dissolved
101 MB) P Iron, Dissolved
(Oina<>) P Lead, Dissoved
(01056) O Manganese, Dissolved
mpqm p Memiry, Dissolved
(010R5) n Nickel, Dissolved _. __
(nimi) p Silu.r, Dissolved
(01090) P Zinc Dissolved
( ) P Oth.r
( 1 P Oth.r
TOTAL METALS
(010371 P Chromium +6
1010.14) P Chromium, Total
(01(143) P Copper, Total
(OlfUII P Iron, Total
(01051! n Lead. Total ,._
(01 OSS) D Manrjane«», Total
(7100n| P M.rrurv. Tolal
(010(57) n N«-lr«l, Tma
(01077) P Rilv.,, Total
(01097) PI 7inc, Tntal _.
( ) P Other
( | P Other
///l/^O n D, nrl.H // \A /yO
Chemist I t }'jL>iA~r {<* '- 0 '
-------
HWH-0258
-' " IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFAR-"
BUR J OF WATER QUALITY —BUREAU OF LABOF.
COLIFORM DENSITY TESTS
ifllES
STORET No.
NPDES No.
Date of Collection ^ . •" ~>
? / (YR| / (MOI ^ (DAY)
Time of Coll'"'""" 1 L- 1 O feeoth(Ft or Ml
Type of S
D VVastev
D Compo
D Surface
Purpose <
D Intensi
QComplii
Est. Count
ample (check appropriate boxes)
water D Raw D Final D Clorinated D Grab
"iilfV B^fjin FnH i Ij
j water D Cross Composite ^\\ij'-' J A -^
)f Sample / . l^lli>'''' ^ " L,^/
/e survey D Trend / \P \,u^ i/vV" \^/
ince D Other / ' '
Samaimilii^^ 0 ^ ^
&r** t n^ /< '/ .ci^i^rr ;
Date Submitted
$~ ! (YR) 1 (MOI 7 ^ (DAYI
Submitted by -, •) /
/.-r *. /^ "^ x-:~ f^i ; >- x ^_ . ^- y , ^_ _^
Uate Completed — , f^ / Date Reported Microbiolodsi • „ H. — -•— - " 7) »
J *~ £ 1 u I J "7 / (X / t f ^ " a *- F*^ * n
Fill the bottle to the neck. LEAVE AIR SPACE AT THE TOP.
-------
3»Y DISTRIBUTION
hite • Person Requesting Test
»iry • Laboratory
j.Water Quality Bureau (Storet)
oltfinrod • Extra As Needed
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY - BUREAU OF LABORATORIES
COLIFORM DENSITY TESTS
See Back For Instructions
^n OF SAMPLE (Check Appropriate Boxes)
(yVittiwater D Raw D Final D Chlorinated Q Grab
] Composite: Begin End
^Surface Water D Cross Composite D Depth Integrated
JBPOSE OF SURVEY
] Intensive Survey D Trtnd
PRESERVED SAMPLES SUBMITTED
B^Cooled. 4' C- D Sodium Thiotulfate
+ 1 - TOTAL COLIFORM (MF)
STORET Code (31501)
LAB NAME (Check One)
D Boise
D Caldwell
D Coeur d'Alene
D Idaho Falls
D Lewiston
D Pocatello
D Twin Falls
j v,uniH"-"- 3«\w '"•»•/ JTM., riffiti r~*
iMPLE TAKEN FROM (Checl^Approp'riate Boxes)
] Spring D Creek D River D Reservoir D
J STP D Industrial D Well Strain D
LOCATION
00116- ^
iferi^jtT
•00116-
Q*A-g> d)
•OOT16-
•00116-
•00116-
•00116-
•00116-
,•00116
I
i
100116-
1P0116-
00116
STORET
NO.
-
2 • FEC/
STOF
Like 3 • FEC/
, STOF
Lagoon
NPDES
NO.
COPIES OF RESULTS TO
"""jUof^jQ
Address ff
GO/ /2fc^*Vtv*—
City, State, ZIP ^_^ _^ — ^
DATE
(Yr.Mo.Day)
*«/*
*«n.
Set UP Dity
i^> /y 2^/^c
TIME
24 Hr.
Clock
13.
13/0
DEPTH
Meters
Circle
DM
DBM
DVM
DtJ
DBM
DVk(
DM
DBM
DVM
DM
OBM
DVM
DM
DBM
DVM
DM
DBM
DVM
DM
DBM
DVM
DM
OBM
DVM
DM
OBM
OVM
DM
DBM
OVM
DM
DBM
DVM
+
1
4-
1
2
t
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
VL COLIFORM (MF)
»ET Code (31616)
a STREP fMF)
iET Code (31679)
Est.
Count
I*/
Of
tof
1X10*
/X/e>f
-
Remark^ /
•Intensive Survey Section ~*-»^^- frjjt. l>r
OIL
/X
X
NO.
MLS
/0C
KK>
Date SuBmitted (Yr.Mo.Day)
Collected By
COUNT
/ ' £> &£>(*>/
•>
&C0on
/3&OGCO
-» J
.. OHW
OFFICE
USE
f
..croBlolc^^,
JUN
1 RlQ«q
-------
,.-v i.Mr«arv WATER QUALITY REPORT ft f™ ?.*;""
. .witar QU.II.V But.*, (Stoml CHEMICAL REPORT a L~«t.n
d»nrod • E«ir« n needed 3^ Btek For |nlln)et|on, D ^J^jJ^
.nBCTHfi
124 Mr. Clock! Circtl On. DM OBM DVr.
TYPE OF SAMPLES (Cheek eppteprlate boxes)
1 Wastewiter Q Rtw D Flnil D Chlorinated
j Grab D Cross Composite O D-pth Integrated
SAMPLE TAKEN FROM (Check am)
] Spring O Creek D Rl«' D Reservoir D *•'
; Uke IJT Lagoon O STP D Industrla D Drilt
PRESERVED SAMPLES SUBMITTED
1, Cooled. 4« C D HN03
roRET DEMAND (mr/LI
~ v, Cn 11
vnin) Xl lOBa;(t-it: 1 {-0 ' f
mum V MiefLe-i //5&
«n»BO) D TOC
NUTRIENTS (mt/L)
«VHO| D T Ammonia « N
IM1«I n T Nitrite- N
KViTn) D T Nltratu n N
tMOni fl T NO? * Nfrj ai N
XTS?*) f~| T K|«lrJahl Nltr™pn n N
XKfiSI P T Phoiohonii as P
MINERALS (mej/LI
109001 p HarctaaaaaaCaOV) ,
1O410) n T AlkaHnltvaiCaCO)
XM25) n Bicarbonate Alk. n CaCfV)
KM30) n Carbonate Alk. n CaCO^
M916I n Calcium
XJ927) O Maonnium
X1979) D Sorlium
1O937) D Pntattlum
X«40I H Chlorirl.
X»5tl n FluorMa
W94SI n Sulohate n SO4
X»56I D Silica es SO7
) 0 Other Mineral!
MISCELLANEOUS
300761 D Turbidity INTLH
D0720) n Total Cvanide Imq/l 1
XI1 16) D Intensive Survey N"
RITURN TtST RESULTS TO
d«prjf lArftru
?>^ ' r^ *p ^ h«. B..IH,,.
TRACE METALS (ut/L)
(01030) O Chromium OlUolweri
(010401 (I CnpP", Dlmolved
(0104B) O Iron, DlMoLed ...
(01049) r) La«<, DlMolverJ
101058) ("I Manganete, Dinalved
(71R90) Q Mercury, Dleialveri . ._
(0108SI (~| Nickel. Dlnolved
(010751 D Slvar, Dliiolvarf ,
(010901 n Zinc. Dissolved
( ) n n'h"
I 1 n Other
TOTAL METALS
(01002) Q Artenle, Total
(01027) n Cadmium Total
(01032) (~1 Chromium +6
(01034) Q Chromium Total
101042) n Conner Total
(010451 n Iron Total
101051) n Lead Total
(01 085) Q Manpneaa, Total .....
(71900) d Mercurv. Totil
(01087) n Nickel, Tntal
(01077) n Silver, Total
(01092) n Zinc. Total
( ) D Other
I I H Other —
__ . — .. V^f\.
ni DEC 2 SWAT
o •- >N Uc
EfWIRONrVIc "•'MoH II
-------
HWH-0268
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND WELFARE
BURE OF WATER QUALITY - BUREAU OF LABORA^IES
COLIFORM DENSITY TESTS
Type of Sample (check appropriate boxes)
pQrVastewater D Raw D Final O Clorinated BGrab
D Composite: Begin. ~ '
3 Surface water Q Cross Composite
Purpose of Sample
D Intensive survey O Trend
^Compliance 1j£)ther
Sample taken from (check one)
O Spring D Creek a River D Reservoir
O Lake ^ Lagoon D STP O Industrial
Preserved Samples Submitted
J4 cooled, 4°C
SS.Sodium thiosulfate
ESI. Count
(3lV
,me S..OP
Date Set Up
STORET Code
01)
D Total Coliform (MF)
STORET Code (31 61 6)
W Fecal Coliform (MF)
StORET Code (31679)
D Fecal Strep (MF)
D Fecal Coliform (MPN)
OIL
0MLS
Count
«MLS
IOC
n
l
Count
DIL
#MLS
Count
Available only by prior
request for clorinated
wastewater.
'
Remarks
Fill the bottle to the neck, LEAVE AIR SPACE AT THE TOP.
-------
Wh.i. . Pt.1,™ Reoutit.nl Ten BUREAU OF LABORATORIES / V Q c!iTw.ll
c"-'y L"°"""Y WATER QUALITY REPORT _^^ft Sf~"'«!u""
•,n..w.,.raMii.vBur»u«.onn> CHEMICAL REPORT ^^^^ D L.*«'«
Goldtmod.E.tr..,n.edtd Se. B.ck Fo, In.t.ucl.on. ^T^ N Q '""'""'
»- - • •> D Twin Filtt
CTODFTMn D.bctu— -(a. -r» £«— »-P
wpnteN,,
Pltf r» rVllertuin (V. Mo , D.yl
124 Hr Clockl Circlt Ont DM DBM DVM
^* TYPE OF SAMPLES (Cheek ippropriitt boxed
H'wiitewlter D B«w D F'"*1 D Chlorinlled
D Grab D Crosi Composite D Depth Integrated
SAMBkE TAKEN FROM (Check one)
D Spring QCreek D River O Reservoir D Well
C Like D Ligoon D STP D Induttriil D Drain
PRESERVED SAMPLES SUBMITTED
D Cooled. V C D HNOs
n Hi$04 n N.OM n other.
CTORET DEMAND (mfl/L)
Co*. ,
(omio) PT BODjlEirS'efl^. 1 ^^TD
inm-w |-| COD LOW L.v.1
(nnrun( p^-^ Ui^, I .».^947*«r) ?,7_P
IOQ8ROI n TOC
NUTRIENTS Imj/LI
(nO«10| D T AmmonliMN ._.
rnneisi n T Nit.pteMN
(nnR9n| n T Ni""« •« N
mnSMI n T NOj + NO-} n N
,nnfi9<;i n T Ki.ldlhl Nitrn^n .1 N
I0088S) n T- Pho.Dhorut « P
MINERALS (mg/L)
I009MI O M..rin«i •• C.C01 _
1004131 H TAIk.linitv.iC.C03
' (0042SI n Ble.rbnn.te Alk. « C.CO<)
(004301 R C.rbon.t« *lk. n C.CO,
IOD9I8I H Calelum
1009271 n M.gnMium
(009291 n Sodium
1009371 n PntM.iu.TI
1009401 C) Olo.irf«
009S1I n Fluorine „
0004 si n &,iph>»Msn^
70956) PI Silica H SiO?
) 0 Other Miner.li •
MISCELLANEOUS
1720) n Totil Cvinidt (m0/LI
116) O Intentive Survey No.
RETURN TEST RESULTS TO
-7 e.Z~l-,44- Kne.
0 a»x inc.
Sin* |2l»C*«*
•,u ^i/c, rr> |g»33o/
Sampling Point Location ffjfffff \£^f}l/* -°-f
n,t. s,,hmitt«<(Vr Mo n.«l // /j?.o /f5(O
Submitted Bv J5AMPLE (Check one)
n Intensive Survey D Trend
STORET RESIDUE (mg/LI
Cod.
(005001 n Totll Reiidue
(00530) G Non-Filterable
Residue DOS' C)
(Suipended Solidil ^
/~
(701001 n Fllt««bl« Rinidue
(801 54) O Non-Filterable
Residue (110° C)
( ) n 0">» R~ld"« ,.
TRACE METALS (ug/L)
DISSOLVED METALS
(01020) Q Boron Djccolved
(0102SI O e»dmium. niuolv.rl
(01030) O Chromium Dlstolved
(010401 HI Copper Diuo ued
(010461 n Iran Di»olved
(0104B) n L««) Diiiolved
1010561 H M.noHMie, Diisolved
(71P.BOI n Mercury, Ditiolved
I0106SI n Nickel, Ditiolved
101074) O Silver, Diuolved .
101090) n Zinc. Diisolved
( 1 n Other
( 1 n Other
TOTAL METALS
(01002) n Arunle ToMl
101022) n Baron Tot.l
(010271 HI CMlmium TnU>
(01032) G Chromium + fl
(010341 n Chromium Tat.1
(01O42) G Copper, Tot.l
(01045) H Iron, Tonl
(01051) n Le.d Tot.l
101055) O M.r.o.ne>e. Toul
(71900) G Mereurv. Tot.1
(01067) H Nickel, Tot.l
(010771 D Silver Tot.l
(01092) n Zinc Tot.l \
I 1-^, Other r^\/Ufl_r»>. /V)VlNkv"vV)
( I n Other
D.te Comaleted ll-2$~tf D.te Banonerf //*ZO~-?£?
1 I ^ ' ' rr-3 t
Chemiit V_JJ «— >-j-.-»<» CT Vr,
Remcrks:
-------
Oepertment of t
.STRIBU1.0N _ BUREAU OF W,
.. • Ptnon Rraunting Twt BUREAU OF L
-"nery . Ubor.torv
Pink . W.,., QU.II,, 8ur..u IS.or.,1 WAIuc.?,^'
Goldtnrod - Extn n nmed UHEMICA
SM Bick fa
STORET No
NPDES No
DIM of Collection (Yr.. Mo., Diy) £tJt~ i~~ 2-1
Time of Collection llCS> n.pih IMet.nl
174 Mr. Clock! are|. On. DM MM OVM
TYPE OF SAMPLES (Check epproprlete boxeil
SWeiteweter Q Rew Q Finel D Chlorineted
Cl Grib D Crou CompMite Q Depth Integreted
n Composite: Begin End
SAMPLE TAKEN FROM (Check one)
D Spring D Creek O River D Reurvoir D Well
D Uke D Legoon D STP Q Induitrlel /JSToriln
., PRESERVED SAMPLES SUBMITTED
J8sC_ooled, 4- C D HN03
D H7SO4 n NeOH H Other
rrourr DEMAND (mf/L)
CM*
(003101 fr" BOD^Ifat: 7CO \ 3. 71
100335) n COD Low Lev.
(003401 D High L""*1
(00880) n TOC
NUTRIENTS (me/LI
1008101 ("I T. Ammooi. n N
IOOS1SI ("I T. Nitrite e«N
(OOflOT) O T Nllret. n N
(nneioi [~| T NO; * Nn^ « N
(00675) D T K|Bltffhl Nirrngan M N
MINERALS (m»/L)
(OOOflS) d *P Cntvrtii«»ne« Ilimhm/Cml
(OOflOO) Cl U«rHn— . x fj iJj^^ ' "
Submitted Bv y>v^-^ ,r_f_n-xi ^
PURPOSE OF'SAMPLE (Check one)
Q Inteniive Survey D Trend
j^Complience O Other
STORET RESIDUE (mf/L)
Code
1005001 n Tot.l R«!du« ,
(00630) S(f Non-Filtenble
/^ Reiidue (IDS' C)
• isu,p«*.d solid,) ^ZttaT)
(7IMOO) C) Fll«.r.bl. R^ldu.
(80164) a Non-Flltereble
Reiidue (110* C)
(Suip. Sediment)
TRACE METALS (ue/LI
DISSOLVED METALS
(01020) D Boron Dlttalved
(Q104A) PI ''O". ni..nlv«d _.
(OlfUQ) D ' '•*. 0!««ol««d
(01065) Q Nickel, Dino'ved
(dinon) p Tliw, Dlnohnd
f 1 D Other
TOTAL METALS
(01027V D Ctdm'i'f", Total
(01034) D Chi>"»»um. Tftlal
(01ft4?) D OTP-', T""1
(nifU<;| (1 Iron, Totil _
(010511 Q U»d, Total .
(01055) D Mangirww, Total _
(719ftft| Q ki.n-i.rY, Tnl-l
(01067) D Nfrhtf T^"1
-------
f DISTRIBUTION
lw • Ptnon Requeuing Tut
• Laboratory
Pink • W«t«f Quality Bumu (Storttl
Goldenrod • Exm m rtMdtd
wepsrtmeni 01 nerntn at rtetTire
BUREAU OF WATER QUALITY
BUREAU OF LABORATORIES
WATER QUALITY REPORT
CHEMICAL REPORT
Set Back For Inttructtonf
LAB NAUE ICMck Or»>
Ol
STORETNo..
NPDES No. _
Dite of Collection (Yr.. Mo.. Day) .
Time of Collection.
2. 7
(24 Hr. Clock!
. Depth (Meters)
QrcKOiw DM DOM OVM
TYPE OF SAMPLES (Check appropriate boxes)
^Wasteweter n Raw D Final D Chlorinated
D Grab D Cross Composite Q Depth Integrated
D Composite: »«?" End
SAMPLE TAKEN FROM (Cheek one)
D Spring O Creek O River Q Reservoir
O Lake Q Lagoon O STP D Industrial
PRESERVED SAMPLES SUBMITTED
ffCooled. 4* C D HNOs
U H2S04 D NeOH D Other
D Well
BTORtT
Gak
(003101 )^_
(00335) O
(00340) 0
(00680) O
(00810) O
(00615) D
(00820) D
(00830) D
(00625) O
(00665) O
(00869) D
(70507) O
(00096) D
100900) D
(00410) D
(00425) D
(004301 D
(00916) D
(00927) D
(00929) D
(00937) D
(00940) O
(OO9S11 O
(009451 D
(00956) Q
( ) D
DEMAND (mt/L)
J-73
COD Low Level
High Level
TOC
NUTRIENTS (rnt/LI
T. Arnmonl* e» N _^^_
T. Nitrite • N
T. Nitrite M N
T. NOj + NO3 a N
T. Kieldihl Nitrogen « N .
T. Phoiphonj* n P ^^__
T. Hvdrolyzeble Phaephonn m P.
Ortho Phoiphtte « P _^^_
MINERALS (m«/L)
So. Condueanee (umhoi/cm).
Hirdnen « CiCOs
T. Alkelinitv •• CeCOs
Bicarbonite Alk. ti CiCO3
Cerbonete Alk. a
Udum
Megnmium
Sodium ^__^
Poteaium
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulphite es S04
Silio n S02 ^
Other Minenll
(000761
(00403) D
(00720) O
(00116) D
MISCELLANEOUS
Turbidity (NTU)
pH ISU)
Total Cyanide (mg/L)
Intensive Survey No. _
RETURN TUT MUULTS TO
At C
'
-------
Cenerv • Uboretor, WATER OUAl ITY RFPDRT D Coeur d'Alene
hnk . we* Quern, 8unMU ,,„«, CHEMICAL REPORT R "*° '""
GoUtmod.Extri., needed CHEMICAL REPORT D Lewrnor,
See Bick For Initructiom U Hoeetello
D Twin Ftlll
STORETNo
NPDES No
Dit* of Collection (Yr., Mo.. Diy)
Time of Collection D»pth (Metera)
124 Hr. Clock! Circle One DM DBM DVM
TYPE OF SAMPLES (Check epproprlete boxet)
D WwttwMer O Riv» D Find D Chlorinited
D Grib D Crou Compoiitt D Oepth Integrated
D ComrxMite: Benin End
SAMPLE TAKEN FROM (Check one)
O Spring Q Creek Q River Q Reterroir O'Well
D Like D L»goon O STP D Industrie! Q Driin
PRESERVED SAMPLES SUBMITTED
D Cooled. 4« C Q HNOs
D H7SO4 O NlOH H Other .
rrORFT DEMAND tntf/D
Cade
(00310) n BOD5(E«: 1
(00335) r>-~COD Low Le«l V/tJO
(003401 n * ^foh k'enl
(0068O) I") TOC
NUTRIENTS (mg/L)
(nOfiini Q T Ammoni. X N
10081 SI n T. Nitrite, «iN
(00850! O T Nitrete « N
(00625) O T Kjflriehl Nitroq^in n N
MINERALS (mg/L)
(00900 1 O HiTtn«fi if r^rOj — ,
(01W*0) D T A"'*li»itY -• C»^f>3
(00425) D Birtrhonatr AJk as CaCOa —
(001 TO) O rrfNr*"** *lfc *«C«Cf>5
(00t?7) G Mtfnm'^m
(OOS45) O Sulphate as SO4 —
(00956) D SMca as SiO2
( J O Other Mineral!
MISCELLANEOUS
(00076) D Turhirirty (NTU) _
~~ HFTUHH TtST HESULTS TO
"""" V.,- k'etftr
Mdrm ,•— ,-• rp ^^ / f ~) f
c t,- ^
PURPOSE OF SAMPLE (Check one)
D Intensive Sunto^ Q Trend
PI Camnlienee (Ti-Other . „ ,
STORET RESIDUE (mg/LI
Carfe
(OOSOO) n Totil Reiidue .
(00530) O Non-Filtenble
Reiidue (105* C)
(Sulpended Solidj)
(70300) D Filterable Reiidue ._ . „
(80154) Q Non-Filnnble
Reiidue (110° C)
( ) ft Other Reiidu. ...
TRACE METALS (uo/LI
DISSOLVED METALS
(010*0) fl ' •«*. f»innl»ed ...
(71«10) (1 "••""V 01«"J"d
(nines) Q M:^I»I, Dinniv^
(nin74) p «l«or, Dinnlmri
(Otnoo) ("I T'ne. OhtolMrf . .
TOTAL METALS
(010??) G Boron Tort'
(01027) D Catfmium Total
(01032) n Chromium, + 6
(0104?) n CftpP»r. TrtMl . - . .
(oio^D n ifftrf Tft*fi
(01055) O ManQBnew, Total
(71900) D Mercury. Total
Ph.mi.t \JJ ^-'-^-^^ /^-XvJU^
— i Remarks:
-------
While Vnion Reoumllne Tail WR1
Cenwy. Laboratory WAT,
•ink - Vhjwr Quality turaeu (SwnKl Q
Goldvnrod • Extra m needed ,
e^-noer u^
(24 Mr. Clock) Drd« Ont DM OB*
TYPE OF SAMPLES (Check appropriate boxes)
D Weitewater J| Rew D Final D Ch'lorlnatei
H Grab D Cross Composite O Depth Integrate
SAMPLE TAKEN FROM (Cheek one)
D Spring D Creek O "Iyer D Reseryolr C
D Uke O Ugoon Q STP D Industrial Jj
PRESERVED SAMPLES SUBMITTED
JB Cooled. 4* C D HN03
D HjS"< Q NrflH D OMW .. .
STOHCT DEMAND (ma/L)
(00310) n BOD«j(fet:. 1
(009351 f) COD ln« L.v.1 _,, . ._
(GOBDOI (1 TOC ,_.. ... ,..
NUTRIENTS (mf/L)
(008101 n T. Ammonia aiN _.... _
(008151 (1 T. Nitrite- N .... ...
(008701 n T- Nitrate m N ,
(008301 D T. NO? + NO! at N , ,
100875) fl T- ">ldahl Nitrogen « N
(OO865) Q T. Phosohonji at P
(7O5O7) Q Ortho Phnphate H P
MINERALS (imj/L)
(009001 PI Hardness as CaCOf . . , . __ ......
1004101 n T. Alkalinity as CaCC-)
(00425) G Bicarbonate Alk. a> CaCOj
1004301 R Carbonate Alk. M CaCO) .. ..
1009181 PI Calcium
(009771 H Maaneilum
(00929) fj Sodium
1009371 n Poranlum
(OOB4O) n Chloride
1009511 n Fluoride
(009451 n Sulohate as SO,
(00956) n Silica as SO?
1 1 PI Other Mineral! .
MISCELLANEOUS
(00076) d Turbidity (NTUI
(00403) n oH (SUI
(007201 D Total Cyanide (ma/L)
(001161 D Intensive Survey Nn
• ETUP.N Tf ST RESULTS TO
HV. \J •\«i« aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaj
imm ^TalM V "^ rXllrnaiilA
n.- «..h«l~x (Vr u. V,YI **••-. W P"^ ->3
e.fl_lM_
------- |