ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OF REGULATORY STRATEGIES FOR CONFINED
ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS IN IDAHO
Prepared for:
U. 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
September 30, 1985
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Over the past several months EPA, Region 10 has been
considering alternative means of regulating wastewater dis-
charges from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
in the State of Idaho under the Clean Water Act's (CWA)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) per-
mit program. Due to the fact that there are new source per-
formance standards for CAFOs, under Section 306 of the CWA,
EPA must comply with the requirements of the National Envi-
ronmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) as a part of its deci-
sion making process on the resulting NPDES permit.
This environmental assessment (EA) documents the envi-
ronmental analyses which EPA has completed as a part of its
NEPA environmental review and its development of a proposed
NPDES general permit that would regulate CAFOs in Idaho.
This executive summary briefly describes:
1. EPA's proposed action;
2. The water quality problems associated with the opera-
tion of CAFOs;
3. The alternatives considered in EPA's environmental and
regulatory review;
4. The environmental consequences of the alternatives; and
5. The steps which the environmental assessment and its
supporting studies suggest would be necessary to ade-
quately control CAFO related water pollution.
EPA's Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to issue an NPDES general permit to
regulate discharges from CAFOs in Idaho. A general permit
is a permit which regulates wastewater discharges from a
group or category of dischargers within a geographically
defined area. General permits are normally appropriate
where there are several dischargers in an area, with the
same or similar wastewater discharge characteristics, that
should be subjected to the same or similar effluent limita-
tions and permit conditions. The permit would apply to:
1. New and existing operations which discharge
wastewaters to navigable waters and which stable
or confine and feed or maintain for a total of 45
days or more in any 12-month period, more than the
S-l
-------
numbers of animals specified in any of the follow-
ing categories:
a. 300 slaughter and/or feeder cattle,
b. 200 mature dairy cattle (whether milked or
dry cows),
c. 750 swine, each weighing over 55 pounds,
d. 150 horses,
e. 3,000 sheep or lambs,
f. 16,500 turkeys,
g. 30,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facil-
ity has continuous overflow watering),
h. 9,000 laying hens or broilers (if the facil-
ity has a liquid manure handling system), or
i. 300 animal units (defined in the proposed
permit at Part I.F.2).
The proposed permit would prohibit the discharge of
process wastewater pollutants (principally animal wastes)
from CAFOs to navigable waters unless rainfall events,
either chronic or catastrophic, caused an overflow of these
wastes from a properly designed holding (treatment) facil-
ity- A properly designed waste holding facility would need
to be designed, constructed, and operated to contain:
1. All process generated wastewaters (and animal
wastes);
2. The runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event
for the location of the CAFO; and
3. Three inches of runoff from winter precipitation
accumulations.
In addition, the proposed permit would require the
implementation of best management practices to insure that
the animals are kept out of streams and that contaminated
surface runoff and other pollutants generated on-site will
not enter the waters of the United States or contaminate
groundwater.
CAFO Related Water Quality Problems
Animal waste contains several pollutants which can
affect water quality. The most common contaminants are
S-2
-------
suspended solids, organic (oxygen consuming) wastes,
bacteria, and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus compounds)-
These pollutants can cause several types of water quality
problems including:
o Organic materials decrease dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations, which may adversely affect aquatic
animal life. They decrease dissolved oxygen by
consuming it (exerting what is called biochemical
oxygen demand [BOD]) as they decompose. Chemical
substances in the wastes may exert chemical oxygen
demand (COD), which will also reduce DO concentra-
tions.
o Settling of manure particles in streambeds changes
the composition of the bottom and can destroy
spawning areas.
o Suspended particles may kill aquatic organisms by
suffocating them.
o Bacterial and viral concentrations may increase
and consequently lead to the spread of disease.
o Nitrogen compounds may kill aquatic organisms
through ammonia toxicity-
o Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds may cause
eutrophication of streams and lakes by increasing
aquatic plant growth, which can lead to reduced
flows, decreased light penetration, and fish
kills.
o Mobile nutrients, especially nitrates, may cause
groundwater contamination.
The available data, including the results of an aerial
survey conducted by EPA, indicates that several rivers in
Idaho are adversely affected by discharges from CAFOs. The
more seriously affected streams include:
o The Boise River from Caldwell to the mouth, the
Payette River from B.C. Dam to the mouth, and the
Snake River from Strike Dam to the Boise River:
The majority of the larger (over 200 animals)
CAFOs are located in these drainages. Many have
no impoundments.
o Upper Snake River Basin: Deep Creek, Big Wood
River, Little Wood River, Rock & Mud Creeks are
all heavily affected by smaller feedlots (under
200 animals).
S-3
-------
o Bear River Basin: The Bear and Cub Rivers and
Mink and Work Creeks are heavily affected by
smaller feedlots.
o Salmon River Basin: The Salmon River from Riggins
to the river's mouth, Rapid River, Whitebird
Creek, and Rock Creek are all affected by CAFOs.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The EA evaluates four basic alternatives:
1. No Action--Maintain the status quo-do not issue
new permits or replace/renew expired permits.
This would let current practices and the resulting
water quality degradation continue.
2. Issue individual permits for all CAFOs requiring a
permit.
3. Issue a General Permit (the proposed action).
4. Issue a General Permit that includes special pro-
visions for CAFO's in sensitive areas.
Environmental Consequences
No Action:
No permits would be issued and present conditions would
continue. Under these circumstances few waste facilities
would be constructed and water quality could be expected to
degrade further. These effects could be most pronounced in
the Southwest, Upper Snake, and Bear Creek River basins.
Many of these areas support threatened, endangered, or
priority fish species which could be adversely affected by
further water quality degradation. The indirect problems
associated with CAFO discharges including clogged irrigation
water intakes, weed growth in canals, fish kills, and fly
and odor problems could be expected to continue and, per-
haps, increase in severity.
General Permit (proposed action):
The proposed general permit would require many CAFOs to
install and maintain waste containment facilities. In addi-
tion, the permit would require that "solids, sludges, or
other materials removed by these treatment facilities" be
S-4
-------
disposed of in a manner which prevents their entering waters
of the U.S. or creating a health hazard.
These changes would result in a significant reduction
in the frequency of CAFO waste discharges to Idaho streams.
This should result in substantial improvements in the water
quality of these streams with corresponding improvements in
fish habitat. The magnitude of the actual improvements can-
not be calculated with currently available data. Similarly,
the indirect impacts identified in the No Action alternative
would be reduced to a significant degree.
The proposed permit, and the changes it would require,
would result in some impacts on the operators of CAFOs.
Existing operators would be required to either install or
expand their waste containment facilities and improve their
operating practices in ways that would keep animal wastes
out of the water. New operations would be required to take
similar steps. These actions will increase the capital and
operating costs incurred by CAFO operators. However, the
analysis suggests that, on a per head basis, these cost
increases should be relatively small.
Individual Permits:
Under this alternative permits wduld be written for
individual CAFOs. The terms and conditions of these indi-
vidual permits would be similar to the terms and conditions
of the proposed general permit. This would be similar to
the existing program, with similar results, unless EPA and
the state devoted significantly more staff to the task of
developing and issuing these individual permits. There
would be a corresponding increase in the administrative bur-
dens placed on CAFOs that were required to apply for indi-
vidual permits.
General Permit with Special Provisions for Sensitive Areas:
Under this alternative a general permit with terms like
that' of the proposed alternative would be issued. However,
the permit would identify sensitive„ streams or watersheds
where additional steps would be necessary. In these water-
sheds all operations, regardless of their size, identified
as causing water quality degradation would be required to
apply for coverage under the general permit. Also, in these
sensitive streams, EPA might require additional measures on
the part of individual operators to reduce the water quality
effects of their wastewater discharges.
Due to these additional measures in sensitive water-
sheds, this form of regulatory action would produce the
largest water quality benefits. It could also result in
S-5
-------
larger cost increases for CAFOs on these sensitive streams.
The magnitude of these potential increases has not been
quantified.
Conclusions
The proposed general permit could result in substantial
water quality improvements in Idaho's streams. It will cer-
tainly result in significant improvements over existing con-
ditions and is likely to produce better water quality than
individual permits due to its more efficient use of limited
EPA and state administrative resources. The general permit
would allow EPA to devote substantially greater resources to
enforcement. Consistent and firm enforcement of this per-
mit, as with any other permit, is essential to achieving the
desired water quality results.
The Environmental Assessment and the corresponding
water quality study make clear that a significant portion of
the problem on sensitive streams derives from the discharges
from CAFOs that are smaller than would be regulated under
the proposed general permit. For these streams (a substan-
tial portion of the state), those smaller sources must be
regulated in order to solve the water quality problems.
As a first step to solve this problem, EPA and state
personnel will be identifying smaller CAFOs, along sensitive
streams, that are "significant contributors of pollution to
waters of the United States." These CAFOs would be regu-
lated under the proposed general permit (they would be
required to apply for coverage) or under individual NPDES
permits.
S-6
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
History and Purpose of the Permit Program 1
Objective and Approach of the Permit Program 2
Report Organization 3
CHAPTER 2 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4
Current Status of Confined Animal Feeding Operations 4
Historical Overview 4
Size and Number of Operations 7
Existing Best Management Practices Utilization
and Effectiveness 13
Existing Systems and Design Criteria 16
Water Quality Impacts 18
Potential Impacts from Confined Animal
Feeding Operations 18
Water Quality Trends 26
High Priority and Sensitive Stream Segments 27
Segments Where Dairies and Feedlots Cause Water
Quality or Use Impairment 31
IDHW High Priority Segments 36
Segments with Wild and Scenic River Status 42
High Priority Aquaculture Areas 42
Segments with Species that are Threatened,
Endangered or of Special Concern 44
High Priority Groundwater Areas 46
CHAPTER 3 - ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE TO OWNERS
OF CONFINED ANIMAL OPERATIONS 54
Operational Considerations and Constraints
Related to Soils and Climate 54
Control and Treatment Technology Types 56
Economic Considerations 56
In-Process Technologies 57
Site Selection 57
Housekeeping Practices 61
Production Methods 65
Water Reuse and Conservation 67
-------
End-of-Process Technologies
Runoff Control
Composting
Activated Sludge
Oxidation Ditch
Waste Lagoons
Land Application
Alternatives Most Appropriate for Sensitive Areas
CHAPTER 4 - ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES AND
IMPACTS
Scope of the General Permit
Impacts of the General Permit Approach
Impacts of the Permit Conditions
Description of Permit Requirements and Criteria,
Environmental Impacts of the Permit Criteria
Impacts of the Criteria on Permit Administration
Impacts of the Criteria on Operators
Irreversible Impacts and Irretrievable
Commitment of Resources
CHAPTER 5 - ALTERNATIVE PERMIT APPROACHES
Alternative 1:
Alternative 2:
Alternative 3:
Alternative 4:
No-Action
Issue Individual Permits
Issue Only a General Permit
Issue a General Permit with
Special Provisions for
Sensitive Areas
REFERENCES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Aerial Survey Results and Previously
Permitted Facilities
Waste Characteristics
Climatological Information
General Permit
69
71
75
76
77
83
91
97
99
99
100
102
102
103
104
104
108
109
109
110
112
113
116
A-l
B-l
C-l
D-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Pa?e
2-1 Number of Feedlots, Dairies, and Animals
Reported for the State of Idaho (1983) 8
2-2 Comparison of Dairies and Feedlots Identified
by Aerial Survey in Southern Idaho 12
2-3 Comparison of Dairy Waste Management Plans 15
2-4 Waste Runoff From a Dairy Confinement Area 21
2-5 Waste Runoff From a Feedlot Confinement Area 22
2-6 Waste Expected From a Dairy Cattle Yard and
Milking Center 23
2-7 Average Concentrations of Selected Chemical
Parameters Found in Direct Runoff from Feed
Pens and in Discharge Water from Collection
Ponds 24
2-8 Pollutant Concentrations in Runoff from a
Concrete Lot During a Single Storm Event 24
2-9 Reaction of a Stream to a Slug of Feedlot
Runoff Passing a Sampling Point during a
Single Storm Event and Comparison to
Dry Weather Values 25
2-10 Number and Size of Farms Identified by Survey
as Correlated to Receiving Water Segment 34
2-11 IDHW Priority Water Segments by Basin 37
2-12 Designated Uses of Priority Water Segments in
Idaho 38
2-13 Wild and Scenic River Segments 43
2-14 Creeks, Springs, and Canals Supporting Fish
Hatcheries in South Central Idaho 45
2-15 Fish Species that are Endangered, Threatened
or of Special Concern in Idaho 47
2-16 Sensitive Stream Segments Summary 52
-------
Table Page
3-1 Partial Budget Format for Evaluating
Hypothetical Costs and Returns of a Dairy
Waste Management System 58
3-2 Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potash Available
to Crops from Dairy Waste per Animal Unit
for Alternative Handling Systems 63
3-3 Nitrogen, Phosphate and Potash Available
to Crops from Beef Waste, per Animal Unit
for Alternative Handling Systems 64
3-4 Comparsion of Annual Costs and Returns
for Alternative Waste Management Systems
for Cattle Feedlots (1978 Dollars) 68
3-5 End-of-Process Technology Classification 70
3-6 Comparison of Annual Fixed and Variable
Costs of Alternative Runoff Control
Systems (1985 Dollars) 74
3-7 Mass Balance Information for a 100-Cow
Dairy Operation Using Aerated Thermophilic
Digestion and Flotation 79
3-8 Relative Cost Factors and Benefits of
Alternative Treatment Technologies 80
3-9 Surface Area Requirements for Naturally
Aerated Lagoons 87
3-10 Volume and Aerator Size for Mechanically
Aerated Lagoons 88
3-11 Minimum Volume Required for Anaerobic Lagoons 89
3-12 Approximate Fertilizer (Nutrient) Value of
Manure 92
3-13 Comparison of Annual Fixed Costs per
Head of Dry Bulk and Aerobic Liquid Manure
Handling Systems for Commercial Beef Feedlots
in the Caldwell, Idaho, Area 95
3-14 Potential Value of Applied Beef Feedlot
Wastes 96
-------
Table
4-1 Comparison of Impoundments for Representative
Dairy and Feedlot Operations Under Old and
Proposed Runoff Containment Criteria 106
4-2 Projected Cost Impact on Dairy and Feedlot
Operators from Implementation of New Runoff
Criteria 107
5-1 Estimated Relative Impact Comparison of
Permit Program Alternatives 115
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Area Covered by the EPA Aerial Survey and
Considered to be the Greatest Feedlot
Concentration Area 11
2-2 Water Quality Index Values for Idaho's
Principal Rivers (1983) 28
2-3 High Priority Water Quality Areas 29
2-4 Pollution Spurces and General Trends in Lake,
River, and Stream Segments (1972-1982) 30
2-5 Major Drainage Basins in Idaho 33
2-6 Location of the Snake Plain Aquifer 50
2-7 Groundwater Problem Areas 51
3-1 Alternatives for Handling, Treatment, and
Disposal of Runoff-Carried Wastes 72
3-2 Generalized Diagram of a Moderately Complex
Activated Sludge Treatment Process 78
3-3 Diagram of a Basic Oxidation Ditch and
Integration with Additional Treatment
and Disposal Alternatives 82
3-4 Generalized Diagram of a Single- and
Twin-Cell Anaerobic Lagoon System 84
3-5 Generalized Diagram of an Aerobic Lagoon
System 85
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
History and Purpose of the Permit Program
The Clean Water Act (formerly the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act, PL 92-500), and its amendments (PL 95-217),
have as their objective "to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
Section 402 of the Act authorizes the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to issue permits to control discharge of pollu-
tants, and Section 306 requires establishment of performance
standards for feedlots. Effluent guidelines and standards
for the feedlots point source category are given in 40 CFR 412
and Appendix B of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) regulations (40 CFR 122).
In the mid 1970s, more than 70 NPDES permits were issued
for feedlots and dairies in Idaho. A few permits were later
canceled or the operations exempted, but most permits remained
valid until their expiration (between 1979 and 1982). The
EPA is now planning to update the permit program and is con-
sidering the issuance of an NPDES General Permit to replace
individual feedlot and dairy permits.
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.
In order for a General Permit to apply to new sources
(.i.e., sources established after February 14, 1974), the
-------
consequences of issuing a General Permit must be reviewed under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This report
therefore assesses the impact of a permitting program on both
the existing (pre-1974) and new (post-1974) sources.
Objective and Approach of the Permit Program
The overall objective of the feedlot and dairy permit
program is to achieve compliance with the federal pollutant
elimination goal of PL 92-500, as amended, through control of
discharges from confined animal feeding operations. The permit
program is implemented statewide, and the regulations allow for
enforcement of different-sized operations, depending on their
impact to state waters.
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 navigable 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 operations may therefore be regulated by permit as
well. This possibility is important in Idaho because dairies
are extremely numerous, a large number have no waste facilities,
and the majority contain fewer than 200 animals. In some areas,
the cumulative effect of these small operations has resulted
in severe water quality degradation.
Because of the large number of animal feeding operations
and their varying geographical concentrations, smaller opera-
tions may require enforcement in some areas but not others.
This assessment analyzes a variety of enforcement options avail-
able to EPA under the permit program.
-------
Report Organization
Chapter 2 assesses the current status of confined animal
feeding operations, describes the associated water quality
impacts, and identifies sensitive areas in the state where
additional protection or enforcement through the permit program
may be desirable. Chapter 3 briefly discusses treatment
options and economics for in-process and end-of-process
technologies and identifies those most appropriate for use in
sensitive areas. Chapter 4 analyzes alternative permitting
approaches available to EPA and assesses their impact on
the EPA, the farmer, and water quality. It also analyzes
impacts of the new permit criteria.
The EPA has recently completed an aerial photo-
graphic analysis of confined animal feeding operations located
along the Snake River drainages in southern Idaho from Caldwell
to Idaho Falls (EPA 1984 a,b,c and 1985). An assessment of
the feedlot and dairy industry identifying concentration areas
and impacts, assessing use of Best Practicable Control
Technology (BPT) or Best Available Technology (BAT), and
analyzing the potential use of a General Permit has also been
recently completed (Jones & Stokes Associates 1985) . These
studies have quantified the areas likely to be most affected by
the permit program. Much of the information from these
studies is used as background information for this report.
-------
Chapter 2
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Idaho has traditionally been an agriculturally-oriented
state. The majority of the attitudes, economic conditions, and
political forces revolve around and are integrated with agri-
cultural interests and activities. It is important to under-
stand the impact and relationship of factors on dairy and feed-
lot operators so that workable management strategies can be
devised and effectively implemented. This section briefly
describes the current status of feedlots and dairies and
summarizes some of the more important factors influencing dairy
and feedlot management and regulation in general.
Current Status of Confined Animal Feeding Operations
Historical Overview
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 (USDA) Statistical
Reporting Service (SRS) (Hasslen pers. comm.) estimates there
are nearly 15 times as many dairies (2,500) in the state as
feedlots (175) . In the southern portion of the state, most of
the large feedlots are centered in the Boise-Caldwell vicinity.
There are relatively few large feedlots in the other areas. In
contrast, dairies are more numerous in the vicinity of Twin
Falls and Blackfoot. Although they are of smaller size than
feedlots (generally fewer than 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 water-
ways, which served" both to provide water and remove wastes
(Ceilings pers. comm.). The tradition of placing wastes into
waterways goes back a long time and, until the 1960s, pushing
manure into waterways was often an accepted disposal practice.
Today's dairies are larger, with most having 150-200 ani-
mals. These are commercial operations, and they tend to produce
much greater waste volumes than the older operations (Ceilings
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 cheaper land and feed costs and little
environmental regulation (Collings, Renk pers. comm.). Other
conditions also differ, however. A combination of frozen ground
and melt water from accumulated snowfall result in large volumes
of spring runoff, a situation not encountered in the drier
freeze-free climate of the Chino Valley. If these climatic
factors are not taken into account by the farmer 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 human 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 vs. $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
provides penalties for infractions, 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 Depart-
ment 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 generating
-------
precipitation-caused runoff from cowyards. Opinions con-
cerning 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 run-
off. At present, if a dairy does have waste containment facil-
ities, 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 one million acres of farm-
land are irrigated by over 3,000 miles of canals and laterals
(IDHW 1984a). In this area, canals, rather than streams of
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 code section, however, because the dairymen are generally
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 followup; the canal companies
tend to look to IDHW or the Health Department for enforcement
(Hopson, Renk, Ceilings 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. Hatcheries are located primarily in Gooding
County, with most near Hagerman and Buhl (O'Rourke, McMasters
pers. comm.). 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. Dairy wastes may induce weed growth in canals.
IDHW files record several fish kills caused by chemical spills
which were possibly related to weed control, although the rea-
sons for use of the chemicals were not given.
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 state 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 that farms that increase their animal density also
provide a corresponding upgrade in facility size. A lack of
regulation to prevent groundwater pollution and a high percent-
age of absentee landlords is also of concern.
All IDHW districts identified lack of maintenance as per-
haps the greatest obstacle to protection of water quality
where wastewater containment facilities already exist. Because
climatic conditions restrict pumping of facilities during
winter months, designing to allow sufficient storage volume for
these periods is important. The maintenance aspect must
also be emphasized because any facility will overflow if
not pumped out occasionally. Operator ignorance is generally
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, fines are small
and generally easier to accept than construction of additional
facilities or increased maintenance (Allred pers. comm.).
Some Soil Conservation Service (SCS) personnel who 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 dairies by SCS and IDHW.
Size and Number of Operations
As discussed in Chapter 1, the regulations for con-
fined animal feeding operations cover a number of animal
raising categories including hog and poultry farms and
similar activities. Because these are so few in number, this
report concentrates 011 feedlots and dairies, which will make up
the vast majority of operations under the General Permit.
The USDA SRS 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. The SRS
defines a feedlot as an operation having a holding area and
animals on feed for slaughter. It bases the facility size
estimates on capacity rather than 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 fewer than 1,000 animals.
The large number of small operations identified by aerial
survey (EPA 1984 a,b,c and 1985) indicates that the number of
feedlots within the SRS "fewer than 1,000" category is still an
underestimate; it is probable that many of the smaller
-------
Table 2-1. Number of Feedlots, Dairies, and Animals Reported
for the State of Idaho (1983)
FEEDLOTS
* ANIMALS NUMBER
<1,000
1,000-1,999
2,000-3,999
4,000-7,999
>8,000
TOTAL
120
16
15
11
-13.
175
DAIRIES
* ANIMALS NUMBER*
1-29 65% [1,625]
30-49 11.8% [ 295]
50-99 16% [ 400]
XLOO 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: USDA Statistical Reporting Service (Hasslen pers. comm.)
-------
operations in this category have been missed, particularly those
in the fewer than 50 and 51-200 size ranges.
This assumption is supported by the fact that the 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 "more than
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 identi-
fied. 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 feed-
lots having over 1,000 head. The aerial photo survey
identified only 17 operations of this size. Either the
remaining feedlots are outside of the survey area, are within
the area but were missed by the survey, or were included in
the survey under an incorrect size category. As the number of
animals varies widely 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 feed-
lots. 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 small-
est 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 more than 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 "more than 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 facilities identified (proba-
bly 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 very limited value
in overall water quality improvement. These small opera-
tions 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 water quality improvement is to be
expected. The area of greatest feedlot and dairy concentration
occurs along the Snake River and its tributaries. This is the
area covered in detail by the EPA aerial surveys (Figure 2-1).
Previous permits were generally issued only to the larger
operations. 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 previously
permitted operations lie along the Snake River and its tribu-
taries (Figure 2-1):37, 20, and 10 were located in the Cald-
well, Twin Falls, and Blackfoot/Pocatello areas, respectively.
Only one permitted operation was located elsewhere (Salmon
area). At least 2,000 smaller operations probably occur
along the Snake River drainage as well.
There are some regional differences in distribution of
feedlots and dairies. Distribution is primarily due to
climatic factors and soil differences which affect crop
growing. The Caldwell area contains most of the large
feedlots and a number of small dairies and feedlots. The
Pocatello-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, arid nearly
all are small dairies. Magic Valley, near Twin Falls, is
the only location where the number of operations appears to
be increasing, primarily due to migration from California.
Other areas have few, if any, new (post-1974) sources.
Tables A-l through A-6 in Appendix A show previously per-
mitted sources and sources identified by the aerial survey for
the Caldwell, Twin Falls, and Blackfoot vicinities. They also
provide information on size, receiving waters, location,
number of animals, access, and impoundments. These three
areas are summarized and contrasted in Table 2-2.
The EPA surveys along the Snake River Plain identi-
fied approximately 300 dairies and feedlots. While these
surveys cannot speak for the whole state (or even for the
entire Snake River drainage, as many sources were missed and
small sources away from water were screened out) , the survey
contains a large enough sample to provide some relatively
useful statistics.
10
-------
Caldwell
Boise
Idaho Falls
Blackfoot
Pocatello
Twin Falls
FIGURE 2-1.
AREA COVERED BY THE EPA AERIAL SURVEY AND
CONSIDERED TO BE THE GREATEST FEEDLOT
CONCENTRATION AREA
11
-------
Table 2-2
. Comparison
of Dairies and
NUMBER PERCENT
AERIALLY WITHOUT
SURVEYED IMPOUNDMENTS
Caldwella
Dairies
Feedlots
Twin Falls
Dairies
Feedlots
Blackfoot/Pocatello
Dairies
Feedlots
5
25
155
45
33
34
40
72
64
84
91
76
Feedlots Identified
by Aerial Survey in Southern
PERCENT WITH AVERAGE
DIRECT ANIMAL SIZE OF
ACCESS TO WATER OPERATION
40
40
31
27
48
71
41/12. 5a
84/10. 5a
307 6.3°
46/ 6.8C
2
53/3.27°
AVERAGE SIZE
OF IMPOUNDMENT
(AC) (WHEN PRESENT)
/C 1.0 AC
/C 3.6 AC
1.4 AC
2.3 AC
0.6 AC,
2.6 AC0
Idaho
MOST COMMON
NUMBER
OF ANIMALS
200?
>1,000
51-200
51-200
51-200
51-200
Caldwell survey methodology differed from other areas by concentrating only on large operations. This
should not be considered an average sample for the area.
i
Excludes two operations where standing water is believed erroneously identified as impoundments.
c Averages for >20 AC and <20 AC operations.
SOURCE: Suiunarized from data in IDHW 1984a,b,c and 1985.
-------
The average surveyed dairy covers approximately 6 acres
and contains between 50 and 200 animals. The average
feedlot covers approximately 24 acres, but this is somewhat
misleading because feedlots tend to split into two groups:
those having an average of 51-200 animals and those with more
than 1,000 animals. They also tend to split into two size
groupings: those averaging fewer than 10 acres in size and
those averaging around 50 acres. Although dairies are normally
smaller than feedlots, they are 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 having impoundments are designed to accommodate
runoff. In contrast, facilities for feedlots are required
primarily only for runoff containment.
A great number of both dairies and feedlots are locat-
ed 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 approximately 31 percent
in Twin Falls to 48 arid 50 percent in Caldwell and
Blackfoot/Pocatello, respectively. Feedlots show similar
values, with percentages ranging from 27 percent in Twin
Falls to 40 and 71 percent in Caldwell and
Blackfoot/Pocatello, 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.
Existing Best Management Practices (BMP) Utilization and Effec-
tiveness
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 in
southern Idaho varies a great deal, however, depending on
individual farmer knowledge and concern, site-specific condi-
tions, 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. Conditions are
expected to be the same for other areas of the state as well.
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 have been 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 in southern Idaho, primarily
by indicating the presence or absence of fencing and impound-
ments. As BAT and BPT require containment of effluent and
runoff, a lack of compliance can be assumed if no impoundments
are present. The converse is not true, however; if
13
-------
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.
Very few facility plans were available; even for previously
permitted operations, only one set of plans was found. A
review of some of the more substantial plans for nonpermitted
facilities, although they are not recent and probably not a
representative sample, provides an indication of the varia-
bility of BMPs in use. Table 2-3 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 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 2-3 should not be considered representative of all
dairies, but the comparison does bring out several interest-
ing 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 drain-
age, and only two contained reference (either beneficial or
adverse) to potential impacts on surface water. 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 applica-
tion rate, location, timing, and nutrient content of the
manure were rather consistently mentioned; application proce-
dures and method of waste incorporation into the soil were
mentioned in only three cases. In both the problem assess-
ment 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.
14
-------
Table 2-'3 . Comparison of Dairy Waste Management Plans
!
Problem Assessment Contents
Waste System Contents
Waste Utilization Contents
Plan 1 1980
(Pocatello
Dairy)
Plan 2 1979
(Pocatello
Dairy)
Plan 3 1977
(Pocatello
Dairy)
Plan 4 No date
(Pocatello
Dairy)
Plan 5a 1980
(Pocatello
Dairy)'
Plan 6 1980
(Pocatello
Hogs)
Plan 7 1982
(Twin Falls
Dairy)
S K§ 8 | H |
llHliiii isi li 1 1
-xxxxxx X--.4 mo. 3 times/ x - 185 (Area-
yr. no
depth)
xxx.xxxx -__4 mo. Pumped x Nov. 30
to June
sprinkler
x x--xxxx x x x 3 no. Pump x Winter 65 x
to
irrg.
ditch
xxxxxxx x--5 mo. Punp x 7-8 mo. 60
to
irrg.
ditch
x - x x 160
-x---x- x x - 4 no. Punp 72
to
honey
wagon
x x--xx-- xxx3 no. - x - 150 37,500
(Dec. 15 - f t
Mar. 15)
655
1 1 1
- As x
weather
permits
x May - x
Sept.
x - x
x In x
favor.
weather
x Between x
cuttings
X X
None
after
fall
period
g
1 1 1
Liquid Disc -
spread.
on./ Irrg. x
irrg.
- - x
x
X
X
Slurry - -
spread.
x Topic covered or alluded to in sane fashion.
- No indication topi': was considered.
Sane plan pages missing.
-------
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 implementa-
tion on feedlots 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 followup of these
facilities is made. This is beyond the scope of this
report. However, the presence of any impoundment, regard-
less of volume, indicates some degree of wastewater aware-
ness; these farmers may be using various BMPs in other areas
of feedlot management as well. In addition to lack of impound-
ments, approximately 38 percent of the operations in the
aerial survey do not restrict animal access to water.
It cannot be assumed that management practices not de-
scribed 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 as-
sumed that if a practice is not specified in a plan, there
is less chance of its implementation.
Existing Systems and Design Criteria
Many feedlots and dairies in Idaho currently experience
periodic wastewater containment problems. These problems are
intensified when the spring thaw follows a heavy winter snow-
fall, or when a warm spring rainfall rapidly melts the snowpack.
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 true today as well. The SCS will not design for
commercial operations, yet these operations, because of their
size and number, constitute the bulk of the problem.
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 operation and on whether they sell grade A or
grade B milk; grade A dairies have more stringent cleanli-
ness 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.
16
-------
Files of previously permitted facilities that have re-
ceived 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 some less stringent exceptions were
noted.
With one exception, the files contained no design crite-
ria 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 that is outside
the scope of this project. The aerial survey indicates
that although the previous permits required containment facili-
ties, impoundments were never constructed. As mentioned pre-
viously, only 45 percent of the permitted facilities and only
28 percent of the total operations surveyed had impoundments of
any type. Where impoundments do exist, their adequacy in many
cases is questionable. Other unpermitted facilities were never
required to have impoundments, although some do, particularly
if they are dairies, because of the daily waste volume
generated. It is unlikely that many of these sufficiently
address rainfall runoff containment.
Two major factors related to containment functioning
and/or enforcement were noted. First, the regulations
allow for discharges in "chronic" and "catastrophic" condi-
tions. 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 dischargers. For example, EPA corre-
spondence in compliance files for the Idaho Feedlot (Eagle)
states that the "Idaho Feedlot Company considers snow and ice
to qualify as a catastrophic event." As these conditions are
commonplace in Idaho, Idaho Feedlot Company's assumption seems
inadequate to meet the intent of the regulations.
The assumptions made in calculating the percent of
runoff.are a second factor related to impoundment effective-
ness. 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 an
infiltration of approximately 50 percent. This is unrealis-
tic, since much of the precipitation falls in winter when the
ground is frozen, and normal runoff values are not always
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
17
-------
infiltration rate that does not take these factors into account
will result in an inadequately-sized facility.
Based on plan review and discussions with IDHW engi-
neers, 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, contain-
ment areas often cannot be pumped out in winter, and waste
must be contained until fields or other disposal mechanisms are
available to accept it. 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.
Water Quality Impacts
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 potential water quality
impacts from all operations are similar (see Appendix B).
Animal waste contains a number of pollutants which
can impact water quality. The most commonly recognized contam-
inants are suspended solids and organics, bacteria, and
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus compounds). They have been
observed to cause a number of water quality problems:
o Organic materials decrease dissolved oxygen (DO) concen-
tration, which may impact aquatic fauna. They exert
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Chemical substances
may exert a chemical oxygen demand (COD), which will
also reduce DO concentrations.
o Solids affect aesthetics by causing coloration, turbid-
ity (opacity caused by suspended particles), and odor
problems.
o Settling of manure particles in streambeds changes the
substrate and destroys spawning areas.
o Suspended particles may kill aquatic organisms by
suffocation.
b Bacterial/viral concentrations increase potential spread
of disease and other public health concerns. Organisms
18
-------
such as Vibrio, Rotavirus, Salmonella, and others are
spread through dairy waste discharges.
o Nitrogen compounds may kill aquatic organisms through
ammonia toxicity.
o Nitrogen and phosphorus compounds may cause eutrophica-
tion of streams and lakes by increasing aquatic
plant growth, which leads to reduced flow, decreased
light penetration, and fish kills.
o Mobile nutrients, particularly nitrates, may cause
groundwater contamination. High nitrates pose a health
hazard to young babies, who are susceptible to
methemoglobinemia.
o Discharge to irrigation canals clogs irrigation intake
pipes and/or reduces the quality of water available to
irrigators.
o Discharge to canals increases growth of moss and
aquatic plants, decreasing flow efficiency and raising
canal maintenance costs.
These general impacts have all been noted in the study
area. Twin Falls IDHW compliance and enforcement files contain
reports linking animal waste to human disease, fish kills,
irrigation intake pipe blockage, nuisance weed growth in
canals, and water quality degradation. Weed growth great-
ly 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. Inadvertent diversion of
contaminated water into fish-bearing streams has resulted in
a number of documented fish kills, particularly in the Twin
Falls vicinity. These chemicals were possibly related to weed
control, although the reason for the chemical use was not
recorded.
Other nuisance and health impacts from dairies and feed-
lots 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 also 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,
19
-------
maintenance, and management practices are necessary to maintain
water quality-
Runoff from animal confinement areas and the overflow
of impoundments which often accompanies increased runoff are
the prime concern of the permit program. Tables 2-4 and 2-5
provide characteristics of cowyard runoff waste generally
expected for dairy cows and beef cattle. Table 2-6 provides
characteristics of waste generally expected from a cowyard and
milking center. 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
Idaho operations.
Although there are few Idaho runoff studies, a number of
researchers in other areas have reported runoff quality from
cattle feedlots. "Average" concentrations of pollutants in
direct runoff discharge and in water discharged from collec-
tion ponds are shown in Table 2-7. These measurements were
made in Texas, but the author believes them to be representa-
tive of other areas as well. While both discharges are still
high in solids, COD, and some other parameters, the increased
quality from the discharge pond indicates the value of impound-
ment construction. Laboratory analyses of runoff from Idaho
cattle operations show total coliform bacteria levels up to
1,300,000/100 ml BOD measurements of 650 mg/1, and turbidity up
to 508 NTU (Jones and Stokes Associates 1985) .
Runoff can be extremely concentrated and of high pollu-
tion potential. Pollutant concentrations are greatly affected
by amount and duration of a runoff event. "First flush"
runoff can be particularly high in pollutants. Table 2-8
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 2-9. 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. Unrestricted access allows animal impacts to become a
year-round problem, unlike impoundment discharges, which occur
primarily when excess precipitation or poor maintenance
cause an overflow. Unlike an impoundment discharge, unre-
stricted animal access produces essentially a nonpoint source
impact. It is important to understand and control this impact
20
-------
Table 2-4. Waste
PARAMETER
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry solids
Volatile solids
Suspended solids
pH
BODs
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
AVERAGE*3
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
Areaa
HIUIMUM
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 Assumes 200 square feet confinement/head and average animal weight of 1,300
pounds.
Estimated values.
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
N)
K)
Table 2-5. Waste Runoff from a Feedlot Confinement Areaa
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
—
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
—
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
Assumes a moderately sloped dirt yard allowing 200 square feet confinement/
head and average animal weight of 800 pounds.
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
I\J
U)
Table 2-6. 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 and
KG/ HEAD/DAY
(LB/ HE AD/ DAY)
MINIMUM
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
HO
No
No
No
NO
NO
HO
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
Ho
0
Ho
Ho
Ho
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
HO
No
No
HO
No
Ho
Mo
Ho
Ho
No
No
No
No
No
Ho
No
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
data
MINIMUM
NO
HO
HO
No
NO
No
NO
HO
NO
NO
NO
Ho
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
Ho data
No data
No data
MAXIMUM
Ho
Ho
No
No
Ho
Ho
No
No
No
No
Ho
Ho
Ho
No
Ho
_
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 2-7.
Average Concentrations of Selected Chemical
Parameters Found In Direct Runoff from Feed
Pens and in Discharge Water from Collection
Ponds
DIRECT RUNOFF
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1) 2201
Chemical Oxygen Demand (mg/1)
Total Solids (mg/1)
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
Organic Nitrogen (mg/1)
Total Phosphate (mg/1)
Ammonia (mg/1)
7210
11429
5526
228
70
108
DISCHARGE WATER
558
2313
3172
1875
64
38
50
SOURCE: Duffer and Kreis 1971, in Shuyler et al. 1973
Table 2-8. Pollutant Concentrations in Runoff from a
Concrete Lot During a Single Storm Event
TIME OF
COLLECTION3
11:35 p.m.
11:58 p.m.
12:25 a.m.
2:25 a.m.
PH
BOD COD NO NH3-N ORG-N ALKY
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
6.60 16,800 48,000 625
6.80 5,120 20,451 975
6.65 7,400 22,032 1,000
6.80 9,950 23,316 900
525
526
485
543
532
315
36
285
2,595
1,955
2,000
1,865
a Precipitation beginning 11:00 p.m., August 24, 1969
SOURCE: Texas Tech University 1970 in Shuyler et al. 1973
24
-------
Table 2-9.
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
Avg. Dry Weather
Values
WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS (MG/L)
DO BOD5 COD Cl NH3
8.4
29
11
a Fox Creek near Strong Cityf Kansas, November 1962
SOURCE: Smith and Miner 1964 In
Shuyler et al. 1973
0.06
13 hours
20 hours
26 hours
46 hours
69 hours
117 hours
7.2
0.8
5.9
6.8
4.2
6.2
8
90
22
5
7
3
37
283
63
40
43
22
19
50
35
31
26
25
12.0
5.3
-
0.44
0.02
0.08
25
-------
Table B-7. Dairy Cattle: Cow Yard-Runoff
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
kg/head/cm Runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
No Data
n
It
n
n
n
n
n
n
•
n
n
n
n
ii
n
Average
186e
(1040e)
184. 67e
(10317e)
1.49e
(8.32e)
0.707e
(3.95e)
No Data
n
0.279e
(1.56e)
0.652e
(3.64e)
0.782e
(4.37e)
0.029e
(0.16e)
No Data
n
O.Ole
(O.OBe)
0.063e
(0.35e)
No Data
n
Maximum
No Data
n
n
n
n
n
it
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
mg/1
Minimum
—
No Data
M
n
n
No Data
n
M
N
M
n
n
n
n
n
Average
—
992,000e
8,000e
4,000e
No Data
l,500e
3,500e
No Data
150e
No Data
H
80e
340e
No Data
M
Maximum
—
No Data
M
n
n
No Data
n
n
n
n
n
II
n
II
II
e - estimate
Animal weight: 590 kg average (1,300 Ibs average).
Area: 18.6 meter sq/head (200 ft sq/head).
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-8. Dairy Cattle: Free Stall Barn-Manure
and Bedding
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
36.7
(80.9)
27.8
(61.3)
4.1
(9.0)
3.39
(7.47)
5
0.776
(1.71)
3.27
(7.20)
0.286
(0.629)
0.143
(0.314)
0.041
(0.090)
0
0.033
(0.072)
0.0695
(0.153)
0.041
(0.090)
No Data
Average
42.9
(94.5)
34.7
(76.4)
8.2
(18)
6.95
(15.3)
7
0.899
(1.98)
5.72
(12.6)
0.695
(1.53)
0.225
(0.495)
0.138
(0.305)
0.082
(0.18)
0.041
(0.090)
0.143
(0.315)
0.0490
(0.108)
No Data
Maximum
52.2
(115)
47.2
(104)
14.3
(31.5)
13.1
(28.8)
9
1.23
(2.71)
12.3
(27.1)
1.43
(3.15)
0.327
(0.720)
0.245
(0.540)
0.16
(0.36)
0.16
(0.36)
0.266
(0.585)
0.0572
(0.126)
No Data
Animal weight: 590 kg average (1,300 Ibs average).
Percent confined: 90-
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-9- Dairy Cattle: Stall Barn-Manure and
Bedding
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
FH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
18.8
(41.4)
14.2
(31.3)
2.1
(4.6)
1.73
(3.82)
5
0.0396
(0.873)
1.67
(3.68)
0.146
(0.322)
0.0749
(0.165)
0.021
(0.046)
0
0.0167
(0.368)
0.021
(0.046)
0.021
(0.046)
No Data
Average
21.9 .
(48.3)
(17.8
(39.1)
4.2
(9.2)
3.55
(7.82)
7
0.459
(1.01)
2.92
(6.44)
0.355
(0.782)
(0.115
(0.253)
0.0708
(0.156)
0.042
(0.092)
0.021
(0.046)
0.0731
(0.161)
0.0251
(0.0552)
No Data
Maximum
26.5
(58.4)
24.0
(52.9)
7.31
(16.1)
6.67
(14.7)
9
0.627
(1.38)
6.27
(13.8)
0.731
(1.61)
0.167
(0.368)
0.125
(0.276)
0.0835
- (0.184)
0.0835
(0.184)
0.136
(0.299)
0.0292
(0.0644)
No Data
Animal weight: 590 kg average (1,300 Ibs average).
Percent confined: 46.
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-10. Dairy Cattle: Free Stall Barn-Liquid
Flush
Parameter
Total (wet Solids)
Moisture
*,
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
pH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
it
it
it
ii
»
n
it
n
u
ti
n
n
u
n
Average
284. 6e
(626. Oe)
279. 2e
(615. Oe)
5.162
(11.37)
No Data
n
0.885
(1.95)
No Data
»
0.228
(0.503)
0.138
(0.304)
No Data
it
II
*
n
n
Maximum
No Data
n
ti
••
it
it
n
.n
n
n
it
n
»i
ti
it
e - estimate
Animal weight: 590 kg average (1,300 Ibs average).
Percent confined: 100.
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-ll. Dairy Cattle: Free Stall Barn-Liquid
Storage-Slotted Floor
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids .
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/he ad/day)
Minimum
No Data
H
ii
ii
M
II
II
II
II
n
n
n
n
n
n
Average
43.5
(95.8)
38.3
(84.4)
5.162
(11.37)
No Data
n
0.885
(1.95)
No Data
n
0.228
(0.503)
0.0627
(0.304)
n
n
n
n
n
Maximum
No Data
1C
II
II
II
II
II
M
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
Animal weight: 590 kg average (1,300 Ibs average).
Percent confined: 100.
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-12. Dairy Cattle: Cow Yard-Yard Manure
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
n
n
n
H
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Average
5.897e
(12.99e)
1.67e
(3.67e)
4.23e
(9.32e)
2.92e
(6.43e)
No Data
0.499e
(l.lOe)
1.77e
(3.90e)
1.31e
(•2.89e)
0.133e
(0.292e)
No Data
N
0.063e
(0.140e)
0.095e
(0.211e)
"No Data
n
Maximum
No Data
n
' It
II
II
II
It
n
11
ti
H
II
H
II
ll
li
e - estimate
Animal weight: 590 kg average (1,300 Ibs average).
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-13. Dairy Cattle: Cow Yard-Milking Center 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
kg/head/day
(Ib/he ad/day)
Minimum
No Data
n
n
n
n
n
ii
n
H
n
n
n
it
n
»
n
Average
38.1
(84.0)
37.8
(83.2)
0.4
(0.8)
No Data
0.10
(0.22)
8.0
0.17
(0.38)
No Data
n
0.068
(0.15)
0.02
(0.05)
No Data
0.0068
(0.015)
No Data
n
t*
Maximum
No Data
n
ii
n
n
n
n
H
n
n
n
n
ii
ii
n
n
mg/1
Minimum
—
No Data
ii
n
n
'
No Data
n
it
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Average
—
990,500
9,530
No Data
. 2,620
4,530
No Data
n
1,790
596
No Data
179
No Data
••
ti
Maximum
—
No Data
n
n
• H
No Data
ti
n
n
n
n
ii
n
ii
n
Animal weight: 590"kg average (1,300 Ibs average).
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-14. Dairy Cattle: Free Stall Barn-Milking Center
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
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
n
If
II
n
M
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Average
15.3
(33.6)
15.2
(33.4)
0.077
(0.17)
No Data
0.04
(0.08)
8.0
0.059
(0.13)
No Data
No Data
0.0068
(0.015)
0.0020
(0.0044)
No Data
0.0009
(0.002')
No Data
n
n
Maximum
No Data
n
n
»
H
N
n
n
n
n
n
il
n
n
n
n
rag/1
Minimum
~
No Data
n
n
n
n
No Data
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
••
n
Average
~
995,000
5,060
No Data
2,380
No Data
3,870
No Data
No Data
446
131
No Data
60
No Data
ti
n
Maximum
^
No Data
n
M
11
It
No Data
n
it
n
it
n
M
"
n
n
Animal weight: 590 kg average (1,300 Ibs average).
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-15. Dairy Cattle: Stall Barn-Milk Room 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
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
it
n
it
n
H
it
it
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Average
7.63
(16.8)
7.54
(16.6)
0.059
(0.13)
No Data
0.005
(0.01)
8.0
0.005
(0.01)
No Data
M
0.00077
(0.0017)
0.000039
(0.000085)
No Data
0.000064
(0.00014)
No Data
ii
n
Maximum
No Data
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
mg/1
Minimum
—
No Data
«
n
n
-
No Data
n
ii
H
II
II
II
II
II
n
Average
—
988,000
7,740
No Data
595
-
5'95
No Data
H
101
5
No Data
8
No Data
n
N
Maximum
—
No Data
n
n
n
-
No Data
ii
n
n
n
n
M
ti
n
ti
Animal weight: 590 kg average (1,300 Ibs average).
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
APPENDIX C
Climatological Information
C-l
-------
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 FAIiS AREA
Averages, 8F
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
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
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,
59,
48,
35,
26.6
* Less than one-half
SOURCE: NOAA 1983a, b, and 1976
Daily
Max
32.4
38.6
45.8
56.8
67.7
77.6
8"8.6
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
19
17
38
123
Max Temp
32° and
Below
7
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
Min Tsro
32° and"
Below
27
24
24
13
2
0
0
0
2
12
22
28
154
Max Temp
32° and
Below
13
7
2
*
0
0
0
0
0
*
4
12
Min Tenp
32° and
Below
27
25
26
17
5
*
0
*
3
15
23
27
169
-------
Table 3-2. Selected Precipitation Data for Southern Idaho
BOISE AREA
Water
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct:
Nov
Dec
Average
Year
TWIN FALLS AREA
Water
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Average
Year
POCATELIO AREA
Water
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Average
Year
T - Trace
SOURCE: NOAA
Equivalent*
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
11.71
Equivalent,
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
9.29
Equivalent,
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
3.87
2.62
2.76
3.04
4.00
3.41
1.62
2.37
2.54
2.25
2.44
4.23
inches ,
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
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
1.48
1.00
1.65
1.27
1.51
2.24
0.94
1.61
1.74
0.76
0.88
1.16
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
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
7.3
3.7
1.9
0.7
0.1
T
T
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.9
5.8
21.5
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
18.6
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
21.4
25.2
11.9
8.0
4.0
T
T
0.0
0.0
2.7
8.8
26.2
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
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
8.5
13.0
6.4
7.2
4.0
T
T
0.0
0.0
1.7
6.5
6.7
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
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
-------
Table 3-3. Cllmatological Data Comparisons
AOII
Ave
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
^s*.ak.u.t.c vai
faces * °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. S
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 Tenp
32- and
Belcw
26
21
18
8
2
0
0
0
4
5
18
25
Twin Falls
Min Tenp
32* and
Below
27
24
24
13
2
0
0
0
2
12
22
28
Pocatello
Min Toip
32« and
Belcw
27
25
26
17
5
*
0
*
3
15
23
27
Year
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
-------
.49
10 0 10 20 30 10
IDAHO
FIGURE 3-3.
ISOPLUVIALS OF lO^YR 24-HR PRECIPITATION
IN TENTHS OF AN INCH
NOAA ATLAS 2, Volume V
Prepared by US. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Nation*! Weather Service, Office of Hydrology
Prepared for U.S. Department of A[ricuitur«.
Soil Conservation Service, Engineennf Division
-------
NOAA ATLAS 2, Volumt V
Prepared by U S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administral
National Weather Servicf, Office ol Hydrology
W:BO
r« \ I — \r>< ••'• \ »/-^Vv II r^
11 :_•••
-------
Table 3-4. emulative 3- and 4-Month Precipitation at Boise, Idaho (1944-1983)
3-Month Totals
Oct-Dec Nov-Jan Dec-Feb Jan-Mar Feb-Apr Mar-May
4-Month Totals
Oct-Jan Nov-Feb Dec-Mar Jan-»pr Feb-May
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
19S2
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
NuBber:
Average:
Hln:
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
S.82
3.83
4.06
0.75
4.53
1.66
3.54
3.05
5.93
4.76
6.66
3-Month
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
5.51
4.70
3.55
3.35
5.82
2.29
4.26
3.65
2.22
2.67
2.85
3. OS
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
Totals
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
Dec-Feb
39
4.08
1.31
6.45
1.32
1.74
5.02
4.35
2.78
3.81
2.65
5.63
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.- 3 5
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
3.38
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.S7
"6.92
Mar-Bay
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
<5.2S
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
Totals
Kov-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
6.88
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-Bar
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-Hay
39
4.66
2.26
8.40
1.59
2.53
-------
APPENDIX D
General Permit
D-l
-------
through management practices stipulated, if possible, in con-
junction with permit conditions.
Water quality degradation from animal confinement areas
occurs to the greatest extent 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.
Water Quality Trends
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 degrada-
tion in all three basins, it is difficult to correlate water
quality changes within 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 dis-
charges 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 rou-
tine 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. 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. 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 evaluates water quality in a .stream segment by use of
a Water Quality Index that provides a combined evaluation of
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, aesthetics, solids, radio-
activity, 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 indi-
vidual 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
26
-------
of the major river segments of the state in Figure 2-2.
Because water quality sampling was discontinued in 1983, no
current data are available, but there have likely been few
large changes.
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 Snake River area are clas-
sified 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 for 1983 and 1984 within the state river systems are
shown in Figure 2-3. 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 2-3A). One area, the Little Wood River, was removed
from the high priority listing.
In 1984, priority areas were again expanded (Figure
2-3B) to include the Portneuf River, the Payette River, the
Lower Wood River, and a number of new areas in the Salmon,
Clearwater and Panhandle Basins. The 1984 priorities have been
established based upon the realistic expectations of ability to
remedy a poor water quality condition in a segment. They
have altto included undesignated waterbodies, particularly
lakes and groundwaters. The priorities of 1984 thus do not
necessarily reflect the segments in each basin having the
poorest quality. Those considered so polluted that an extensive
effort would be needed to produce noticeable results have re-
ceived a lower priority.
Overall, a downward trend in quality appears to be indicat-
ed in both Idaho's lakes and rivers and streams over the past
decade. The pie charts in Figure 2-4 indicate water quality and
pollution sources for these waterbodies.
High Priority and Sensitive Stream Segments
Because a high number of small operations are often concen-
trated along certain river drainages, particularly in southern
Idaho, little water quality improvement will occur if the permit
is limited to only large operations. The great majority of
dairies are in the 50-200 size range. In some areas, these are
the largest operations found. Although these are below the
general 200-animal guidelines set by the Appendix B regula-
tions, their inclusion is authorized under Section 122.23 of
the regulations if they are found to be significant contributors
to pollution of waters of the United States, either by direct
27
-------
• WORST 3 CONSECUTIVE MONTHS
• ANNUAL AVERAGE WATER QUALITY INDEX
WOI VALUE
20 40 60 80 100
Lower Portneuf
* Lower Bruneau
S.F. Coeur d'Alene
* Lower Boise
* Rock Creek (Twin Falls Co.)
* Middle Snake
Coeur d'Alene
(Above S.F. Confluence)
Lower Snake
* Bear
Clearwater & Significant Tribs.
Salmon
Kootenai
St. Joe
* Weiser
* Upper Snake
Clark Fork/Pend Oreille
* Blackfoot
* Henry's Fork
*Payette. Incl. N. & S. Forks
• .
• m
• If
"- . '
- ,""•*- •' - ''
."' - -;-, ...
. , i' -7 *
ft ' "~
O"
_
-
rti t
w
• '; •- II Illllll Illl II
'' "-":;"> II 11 III
••-•"'^ Iy
.,,'.,; .;,,".°.M,.,,""~ a !!B'
• -^---.: iiifiiiir 1
-'V :;'S^
'' -', - -;->
' ">;" ?-:--.
" ~ ~, -' *":"
w
1 ^ ^'
'' •'' ' '• 1
II 1 ilillliilil Illlllll
ini
1
Acceptable * Marginal * Unacceptable *
Minimal or Intermittent or Moderate Severe Pollution
No Pollution Pollution
* IN STUDY AREA BASINS
FIGURE 2-2, WATER QUALITY INDEX VALUES FOR IDAHO'S PRINCIPAL
RIVERS (1983)
SOURCE: IDHW 1983A,
28
-------
SOUTHWEST
BASIN
PANHANDLE BASIN
CLEARWATER RIVER BASIN
A.
(1983)
IALMON RIVER BASIN
UPPER SNAKE
RIVER BASIN
BEAR RIVER
BASIN
SOUTHWEST
BASIN'
B.
PANHANDLE BASIN (1984)
CLEARWATER RIVER'BASIN
SALMON RIVER BASIN
UPPER SNAKE
IVER BASIN
BEAR RIVER
BASIN
FIGURE 2-3, HIGH PRIORITY WATER QUALITY AREAS
SOURCES: IDHW 1983A; IDHW 1984B
29
-------
25% degraded
(111,789AC)
10% unknown
(49,257AC)
65% maintained
(302,903AC)
Water Quality/Use Support (1972-1982)
in Idaho Lakes
1% improved
(88 mi)
4% degraded
(199 mi) ,
6% maintained
(428 mi)
Water Quality/Use Support (1972-1982)
in Rivers and Streams
98%
nonpoint
source
municipal
point source
Pollution Sources (1982)
Impacting Idaho Lakes
91%
nonpoint
source
6%
municipal
point source
3% industrial
point source
Pollution Sources (1982)
Impacting Idaho
Rivers and Streams
FIGURE 2-4. POLLUTION SOURCES AND GENERAL TRENDS IN LAKE,
RIVER, AND STREAM SEGMENTS
30
-------
discharge or by discharge via a ditch or other man-made device.
Because operations meeting this definition are so numer-
ous, across-the-board enforcement (or even an across-the-
board inventory of all sources within this size-class) is not
feasible with present manpower. Enforcement effort would
produce the greatest benefit if it is focused on selected
high-priority areas where water quality impact from dairies
and feedlots is greatest and on areas containing dairies and
feedlots that are considered sensitive for various reasons.
Emphasis should be placed on particular drainage basins
rather than initiating random enforcement or reacting only
to crisis situations. River segments are identified in
the Idaho Water Quality Standards. Each smaller segment
generally drains a particular area, and improvement will
be measurable within the segment if a concentrated effort is
made in the drainage. Concentration on.selected drainages will
also be more cost- and time-effective, will produce a more
impartial enforcement effort, and will result in better
public relations because farmers will not be singled out from
their neighbors.
A drainage may be considered a priority or sensitive
area for several reasons. Areas supporting unique resources,
areas of high value to aquatic resources or supporting sensi-
tive water quality uses, and areas where water quality and
beneficial uses are impaired because of feedlot or dairy dis-
charges may all be considered sensitive or high priority. A
drainage area may also be considered sensitive or priority
because of physical or geographical characteristics, such
as location above important groundwater resources or proximity
to population centers. Stream segments not meeting water quali-
ty standards, or segments where large concentrations of
dairies or feedlots have discharges and/or direct access to
the surface waters, should also be considered priorities. The
various possibilities for priority designation are described
below, and summarized as a group in Table 2-16.
Segments Where Dairies and Feedlots Cause Water Quality or Use
Impairment
The IDHW Water Quality Index formerly provided a way
to prioritize streams based on actual monitoring data. While
river monitoring data are not current (the most recent is mid
1983), IDHW considers 1983 values fairly representative of
current conditions (Sheppard pers. comm.). While this index
allows a qualitative comparison of stream segment quality,
it does not indicate the sources responsible for degradation.
Prioritizing dairy and feedlot enforcement action, based only on
segment quality, will not ensure stream improvement if the
majority of the pollution is caused by other sources. An
alternative is to prioritize water segments in terms of
potential pollution from feedlots and dairies. This can
31
-------
be done by analyzing the condition, number, and size of
animal confinement areas which drain to each stream segment.
Six major drainage basins exist within the state (Figure
2-5). The aerial survey covered a large portion of the
three southern basins (Southwest Idaho, Upper Snake, and Bear
River Basins) . Animal confinement data for many (but not all)
segments along Snake River drainages in these basins are thus
available. No similar aerial surveys are presently available
for other areas of the state. The survey cannot be expected
to 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 observed draining to a particular river
segment.
The sources draining to river segments within the three
basins covered by the aerial survey are summarized by size and
number in Table 2-10. As the aerial survey did not include
many sources, this table underestimates numbers. Nevertheless,
it provides some relative information by which to compare
river segments in the Upper Snake, Southwest Idaho, and Bear
River Basins of southern Idaho, the areas where dairies and
feedlots are most concentrated.
Southwest Idaho Basin. The aerial survey in the Southwest
Idaho Basin indicates segment SWB 280 (Boise River from
Caldwell to mouth), segment SWB 340, (Payette River from B.C.
Dam to mouth) and segment SWB 20 (Snake River from Strike Dam
to the Boise River) to be the most potentially impacted
by dairies and feedlots. 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 the 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- These segments have respective water quality
indices of 67.20 (very poor; severely polluted) 37.00
(fair; moderately polluted) and 31.30 (fair; moderately
polluted) (IDHW 1984c).
Upper Snake Basin. The aerial survey in the Upper Snake
Basin indicates Deep Creek (USB 810) , the Big Wood (USB
850) , and Little Wood Rivers (USB 871) to be most potentially
impacted by feedlots and dairies, although a great number of
sources were missed in this region. Cedar Draw creek, al-
though not shown by the aerial survey to have an abnormally
large number of dairies and feedlots, is estimated to have 20
percent of its impact from these sources (IDHW 1985c). Rock and
Mud Creeks (USB 510 and USB 800) are also heavily impacted
(McMasters pers. comm.), and all five of these-creeks should be
32
-------
Coeur d'Alene R.
Clearwater R.
S. Fk. Clearwater/Ef.
Salmon R.
S. Fk. Salmon R.
Payette R.
Boise R.
Snake R.
Bruneau R.
Owyhee R.
-Coeur d'Alene R
St. Joe R.
N. Fk. Clearwater R.
Lochsa R.
Selway R.
Middle Fk. Salmon R.
E. Fk. Salmon R.
Henry's Fk
Snake R.
Blackfoot R
Portneuf R
Bear R.
FIGURE 2-5. MAJOR DRAINAGE BASINS AND RIVERS IN IDAHO,
33
-------
SEGMENT
NUMBER
Table 2—10. Number and Size of Farms Identified by Survey as Correlated to Receiving Water Segment
FARM SIZE
<50 51-200 201-700 701-1000 >1000
Caldvell Survey Area
SWB 420 Weiser R (Midvale-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 SO-Vet State Park)
SWB 10 Snake R (King Hill-Strike Dam)
Twin Falls Survey Area
USB 520 Raft R (Source-mouth)
USB 60A Snake R (Minikoka Dam-Hey/Bur Br)
USB 60B Snake R (Hey/Bur Br-Milner Dam)
USB 70 Snake R (Milner Dam-Buhl)
USB 730 Rock Cr (Rock Cr City-mouth)
USB 740 Cedar Draw (Source-mouth)
USB 810 Deep Cr (Source-mouth)
USB 820 Salmon Falls Cr (ID/NV border-mouth)
USB 850 Big Wood R (Source-Magic Res)
USB 80 Snake R (Buhl-King Hill)
USB 871 Little Wood R (Source-Richf ield)
USB 840 Billincjsley Cr (Source-mouth)
Blackfoot Survey Area
USB 30 Snake R (Roberts-Am Falls Res)
USB 40 Snake R (Am Falls Res)
USB 411 Marsh Cr (Source-mouth)
BB 471 Little Malad R (Source-mouth)
BB 410 Mink Cr (Source-mouth)
BB 430 Worm Cr (Source-lD/UT border)
BB 450A Cub R (Mapleton-Franklin)
BB 30 Bear R (Soda Sp-UPL Tailrace)
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.
34
-------
considered priority. These segments had water quality indices
of 49.10 (poor; polluted), 7.30 (very good) and 13.70 (good;
minimally polluted), respectively (IDHW 1984c) .
Bear River Basin. The aerial survey in the Bear River
Basin indicates the Bear and Cub Rivers (BB 30 and BB 450A)
and Mink and Worm Creeks (BB 410 and BB 430) receive heavy
dairy and feedlot impact in this basin. This agrees with IDHW
information supplied through personal communications. Degra-
dation in these areas results from a cumulative impact of numer-
ous small sources. These areas should be considered priority
areas for feedlot and dairy concerns. Water quality index
values for these segments were 22.60 (fair; moderately pollut-
ed) 27.60 (fair) 28.50 (fair) and 50.00 (poor), respectively
(IDHW 1984c).
The more northern areas of the state, which contain
the "Salmon, Clearwater, and Panhandle Basins were not
aerially surveyed, so a comparison of stream segments based
on actual number and size of operations cannot be made.
Information for these basins was obtained from discussions
with IDHW and other agency personnel as well as available
literature.
Salmon River Basin. Although no aerial survey data are
available for the Salmon River Basin, IDHW personnel believe
dairies and feedlots are of little relative concern. The high
water quality supports one of the last wild anadromous
fisheries in the contiguous United States. Impacts in the
basin are primarily caused by mining, silviculture, and
recreation. The IDHW water quality status report (1984c) does
indicate, however, that many feedlots are concentrated along
Rapid River, Whitebird Creek, Rock Creek and the Salmon River
from Riggins to the mouth. These segments should be con-
sidered as priority segments for feedlot and dairy wastes within
the basin, at least until impacts can be quantified. Water
quality index values for these segments were 8.50 (very good)
34.00 (fair, moderately polluted) and 77.90 (very poor; severely
polluted) respectively (IDHW 1984c) (no ranking was available
for the Salmon River segment).
Clearwater Basin. Although no aerial survey data are
availablefor the Clearwater Basin, Lindsay Creek (CB 210) and
Tammany Creek (CB 110) are specifically known to be impacted by
dairies and feedlots. Most operations in these areas are quite
small. Areas in drainages along the Palouse River are also
affected by cattle, but these are primarily free-ranging cattle
(Moeller pers. comm.). Priority in this basin should be placed
on Lindsay and Tammany Creeks. Water quality index values for
these segments were 75.00 and 79.30, respectively (both very
poor; severely polluted).
Panhandle Basin. In the Panhandle Basin, there are scat-
tered feedlot and dairy operations, but no areas that are
35
-------
particularly impacted by dairies and feedlots. Silviculture and
other activities are of much greater concern. No priority
areas, based on dairy or feedlot impact, are identified at
present.
IDHW Designated High Priority Segments
The river segments in each drainage basin that are con-
sidered of highest priority by IDHW are listed in Table 2-11.
Uses .protected for general and future use in these segments are
indicated in Table 2-12. The IDHW high priority segment desig-
nations include segments having both high water quality (which
should be maintained) and poor water quality (which should be
improved). Factors considered by IDHW in designating a priority
stream segment include: the potential for stream cleanup; the
historical uses of a segment; the maintenance or enhancement of
beneficial uses, such as recreation, wildlife or fish habitat/-
the degree to which an area is threatened by ongoing or future
development; and other factors. Within some basins, dairy and
feedlot discharges are responsible for little or no impact. But
future sources should be evaluated with the priority designation
in mind to ensure water quality is not degraded. The IDHW
priority list varies slightly from year to year, depending on
needs, funding, ongoing restoration projects, water quality, and
other factors.
Upper Snake Basin. River segments within the Upper Snake
Basin support a number of beneficial uses, including domestic
and agricultural water supply, recreation, coldwater fisheries,
and salmonid spawning (IDHW 1983b). Overall water quality in
this basin is rated fair by IDHW (1984b) . The pollutants of
greatest threat to these 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.
IDHW has identified eight priority river segments (and two
groundwater areas) within the Upper Snake Basin: Deep, Cedar
Draw, Billingsley, and Rock Creeks; the Portneuf River; and
Magic and Island Park Reservoirs (IDHW 1984b). Groundwaters
include the Snake River Aquifer and groundwater in Cassia and
Twin Falls Counties. The river segments were designated high
priority for various reasons, including maintenance and im-
provement of water quality and protection of aquatic resource
values. Many of these segments are also listed as being
"special resource waters" in the Idaho Water Quality Standards.
Deep and Cedar Draw Creeks (USB 810, 740) are heavi-
ly impacted by dairy wastes, which cause an estimated 20 per-
cent of the impacts (IDHW 1984b). Rock Creek (USB 730) quality
is also heavily impacted by dairy wastes. Billingsley Creek
(USB 840; also considered a special resource water) has an
outstanding recreational and fisheries value. Nutrients
36
-------
Table 2-11. IDHW Priority Water Segments by Basin
BEAR RIVER BASIN
BB 430 Worm Creek
BB 471 Little Malad
BB 4503 Cub River
BB 10 Bear River
BB 120 Bear Lake and Outlets
UPPER SNAKE BASIN
(Twin FalIs)
USB 840 BilI ings ley Creek
USB BIO Deep Creek
USB 740 Cedar Draw Creek
USB 660 Magic Reservoir
USB Groundwater; Cassia and
Twin Falls Counties
(Pocatello)
USB Snake River Aquifer
USB 420 Portneuf River
USB 410 Portneuf River
USB 510 Rock Creek
USB 220 Island Park Reservoir
SOUTHWEST BASIN
SWB 270 Boise River
SWB 324 N.F. Payette River
SWB 310 S.F. Payette River
SWB 340 Payette River
SWB 233 Jordan Creek
SALMON BASIN
SB'
SB
SB
SB
SB
(Pocatel lo)
421 Blackbird Creek
430 Panther
310 Lemhi River
120 E.F. Salmon River
110 Yankee Fork
(Boise!
SB 511 EFSF Salmon River
SB 441 Monumental Creek
CLEARWATER BASIN
CB 154 Pot latch River
C8 141 Lawyers Creek
CB 151 Big Canyon Creek
CB 156 Lapwal Creek
CB --- Moscow Aquifer
PANHANDLE BASIN
PB 20P Lake Pend Orel lie
PB 30P Lake Coeur d'Alene
PB 430S Hayden Lake
PB 420S Twin Lekes
PB 340P Priest Lake (East side
and tributaries)
SOURCES OF IMPACTS
NONPOINT SOURCES
Irrigated Agriculture
30? f
201
10?
20*
60?
60',
20%
50-40*
20?
30?
50?
50%
10*
£
S
-»-
D
U
U
O)
<
^
c
n
1
70?
70?
90?
20?
5?
30*
JO?
40?
50?
10?
35?
30?
40?
30?
75?
Grazing
40?
75?
15?
10?
10?
15?
20?
50?
40?
10?
40?
10?
40?
50?
40?
5?
5?
5?
20?
£
•+-
3
JU
>
in
10?
10?
15?
5?
\0%
10?
10?
01
c
c
Z
10?
40?
100?
100?
30?
90?
75?
95?
5?
10?
75?
Road Construction
10?
1 J?
80?
20?
10?
25?
5?
5?
30?
15?
10?
General Construction
10?
5?
5?
20?
20?
90?
5?
5?
10?
5?
100?
Urban Runoff
*
10?
IOJ
5?
5?
5?
25*
a
at
S.
V)
Q
0
+•
in
IQ
*
1C
D
•o
in
§.
5?
5?
15?
5?
/b?
75?d
c
o
«3
V
U
OT
o
e
-o
£
5?
10?
5?
5?
1
•*-
o
I0?b
20?f
I0?c
20?b
20?b
I0?o
30?b
30?b
I0?e
5?
5?
90? *
POINT
SOURCES
Municipal
15?
10?
10?
20?
40?
10?
5?
5?
51
Industrial
50?a
5?a
I0?a
I00?a
50-70Ja
5?
5?
a - Land ApplIcation
b - Feed lots and Dairies
c - Fish Hatcheries
d - Subsurface Sewage Disposal
e - Natural Channel Instability
f - Upstream Sources
37
-------
Table 2-12. Designated Uses of Priority Water Segments in Idaho
DOMESTIC AGRICULTURAL COLDWATER SALMONID PRIMARY SECONDARY SPECIAL
WATER SUPPLY WATER SUPPLY BIOTA SPAWNING CONTACT REC. CONTACT REC. RESOURCE
BB 430 Worm Cr
BB 471 Little Malid R
BB 450B Cub R
BB 10 Bear R
BB 120 Bear Lk & Outlets
USB 840 Billingsley Cr
USB 810 Deep Cr
USB 740 Cedar Draw Cr
USB 860 Magic Res
USB — Groundwater; Cassia
& Twin Falls Co.'s
USB Snake R Aq
USB 420 Portneuf R
USB 410 Portneuf R
USB 510 Rock Cr
USB 220 Island Pk Res
SWB 270 Boise R
SWB 324 NF Payette R
SWB 310 SF Payette R
SWB 340 Payette R
SWB 233 Jordan Cr
SB 421 Blackbird Cr
SB 430 Panther Cr
SB 310 Lsnhi R
SB 120 EF Salmon R
SB 110 Yankee Fk
SB 511 EFSF Saliuon R
SB 4411 Monumental Cr
CB 154 Potlatch R
CB 141 Lawyers Cr
CB 151 Big Canyon Cr
CB 156 Lapwai Cr
CB Moscow Aq
PB 20P Lk Pend Oreille
PB 30P Lk Coeur a'Alene
PB 430S Hayden Lk
PB 42OS Twin Lks
PB 340P Priest Lk (east
side & tributaries)
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BEAR RIVER BASIN
(x)
(x)
X
X
UPPER SNAKE BASIN
X
X
X
X
(x)
X
X
X
SOUTHWEST BASIN
X
X
(x)
X
X
SALMON BASIN
(x)
X
X
X
X
X
X
CLEARWATER BASIN
X
X
X
X
PANHANDLE BASIN
X
X
X
X
X
(x)
(x)
X
X
X
X
-
(x)
X
X
X
(x)
X
(x)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(x)
X
X
X
(x)
X
x Protected for general use.
(x) Protected fo'r future use.
- Groundwater
Uses shown are for Big Creek, the receiving waters.
SOURCE: IDHW 1983b, 1984b.
(x)
(x)
X
X
(x)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
38
-------
are a problem present in this creek. Any feedlots and
dairies are likely to aggravate this problem, although live-
stock impacts are primarily from pasturing, not dairies or
feedlots.
The Portneuf River (USB 410, 420; also designated a spe-
cial resource water) is considered good fisheries habitat
but is impacted by dryland agriculture and grazing. There are
also some dairy and feedlots in the upper and lower reaches
(Torf pers. comm.). Island Park Reservoir (USB 220) has
outstanding water quality and is also a source for Henry's
Fork, a "blue ribbon" trout fishery. It also supports
waterfowl and a variety of recreational and habitat uses,
including support of cutthroat trout in some areas.
Magic Reservoir (USB 860) is an important recreational
area presently impacted by various agricultural activities,
including irrigated and dryland farming and grazing, as
well as road construction and other activities.
Southwest Basin. River segments in the Southwest Basin
support recreational activity, coldwater fisheries, and
salmonid spawning, as well as domestic use (IDHW 1983b).
Overall water quality in this basin is rated fair by IDHW
(1984b). Both, point and nonpoint sources contribute to use
impairment, although it is believed that agricultural activi-
ty is the primary cause of degradation and that the
greatest potential water quality benefits would result from
improvement of agricultural management practices (IDHW 1983b).
IDHW has identified five high priority segments within
this basin: the Boise and Payette Rivers (SWB 280, 340),
North and South Fork Payette (SWB 324, 310), and Jordan Creek
(SWB 233) . The Boise and Payette are designated as high pri-
orities because they are heavily impacted by irrigated agricul-
ture, runoff, and a number of other sources. Feedlots and
dairies are responsible for an estimated 30 percent of the
impact in both rivers (IDHW 1984b). Of the two, the Boise
has higher priority with IDHW (Sheppard pers. comm.). The
North Fork and South Fork Payette were both considered high
priority segments because of existing impacts to these seg-
ments. The North Fork has highest priority primarily because
of citizen concern and involvement. The drainage is
heavily grazed, and the receiving water (Cascade Reservoir)
already has some nutrient and bacterial problems. Approxi-
mately 80 percent of the impact to th'e South Fork is
caused by road construction. This segment is of less priori-
ty than the North Fork. Jordan Creek was designated as a
priority segment because it supports a fishery and is impacted
by many sources, including grazing arid mining. This segment
has lowest priority of the five segments chosen from this
basin (Sheppard pers. comm.).
39
-------
Bear River Basin. River segments in the Bear River Basin
supportanumberoF beneficial uses, including agricultural
water supply and contact recreation (IDHW 1983b). Uses of
greatest concern are fishing and recreation. Water quality in
this basin is rated poor (IDHW 1984b). IDHW has identified
five high priority segments in this basin: Worm Creek (BB
430); the Little Malad (BB 471) , Cub (BB 450B) , and Bear Rivers
(BB 410) ; and Bear Lake (BB 120) . These were designated
because of the existing water quality concerns and their
use as recreational areas. All of these rivers have dairy
and feedlot impacts. The Cub River is the only high priority
segment IDHW indicates as having impact from these sources
(Table 2-11), but the aerial survey and discussions with state
personnel indicate dairy and feedlot impact is considerable on
these other segments as well.
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. Bear Lake is
the focal point for recreation and fishing in the basin. In
1983, a Clean Lakes Project was completed for Bear Lake, and
three-state funding is being sought to implement a basin manage-
ment plan to improve water quality in the drainage.
Water quality entering the basin at the Wyoming-Idaho
border is affected by sediment, high turbidity, and phosphorus
levels. Nitrates from natural springs and municipal discharges,
and bacteria from agricultural drainage and municipal discharges
both increase in downstream segments of the basin. The drainage
has naturally high dissolved solids levels compared to other
basins because of salt springs near Preston. Although point
sources include municipal effluent from Preston and Soda
Springs, the major water quality impact comes from agricultural
pollution (IDHW 1981, 1983a). Seasonal highs of bacteria,
sediment, turbidity, and phosphorus correspond to periods of
runoff.
Salmon River Basin. River segments in the Salmon River
Basin support a number of beneficial uses, including domestic
water use, recreational activity, and fisheries (IDHW 1983b).
Water quality in this basin is generally very good, although
mining impacts have destroyed fisheries in several segments
(IDHW 1983a). Seven river segments are currently considered
priority segments by IDHW: Blackbird, Panther, and Monumental
Creeks (SB 421, 430 and 441); the Yankee Fork (SB 110); the East
Fork South Fork Salmon River (SB 511); the Lemhi River (SB 310)
and East Fork Salmon River (SB 120). Impacts in these segments
are caused by nonpoint sources, particularly mining, grazing,
and irrigated agriculture. Recreational impacts also elevate
bacterial levels in the middle and main forks of the Salmon
River. The priority listing (IDHW 1984b) notes no segments
where impact can be specifically attributed to dairies and
feedlots.
40
-------
Many waters in the Salmon River Basin are also considered
special resource waters because of their high quality. The
Lemhi River drains to the Salmon River (parts of which are
designated as a Wild and Scenic River). It is considered a high
priority segment because it is a historical source for
anadromous fish habitat, and it is presently impacted by
irrigated agriculture and grazing. The East Fork Salmon is
considered high priority because of grazing and mining impacts.
The East Fork South Fork is designated as a priority segment
because it is impacted by a stibnite mine at the headwaters, as
well as road construction. Monumental Creek is newly designated
as a high priority segment. Yankee fork is also impacted by
both mining and road construction. It supports steelhead and
salmon spawning and provides a corridor into the wilderness
area. Several mines are also located in the area. Blackbird
and Panther Creeks were historical salmon habitat, and both are
impacted primarily by mining. Of these, Panther Creek probably
has more potential for restoration. Dairies and feedlots are
presently of little concern in these segments (Torf pers.
comm.) .
Clearwater Basin. River segments in the Clearwater Basin
support a number o~f uses, including domestic and agricul-
tural water supply, contact recreation, and coldwater biota
(IDHW 1983b). Overall water quality in this basin is
considered generally good, although nonpoint sources and
municipal discharges in the lower drainage have some impact
(IDHW 1983a). IDHW has identified four high priority stream
segments and one groundwater area in this drainage: the
Potlatch River and Lawyers, Big Canyon, and Lapwai Creeks (CB
154, 141, 151 and 156). All are primarily impacted by dryland
agriculture and various other sources. The Moscow Aquifer
is also considered a priority area in this basin. This
drainage supports both hatchery and wild anadromous fisheries
and is an important recreation area as well. The latest IDHW
water quality report notes no high priority areas presently
impacted by dairies and feedlots.
Big Canyon Creek is presently the object of a large
three-district planning project. It contains excellent steel-
head and Chinook potential. It is also threatened by poten-
tial impacts from timber harvesting. The Lapwai Creek has
high recreational and anadromous fish value. The Nez Perce
Indians also have a hatchery at the mouth. The creek
drains to Winchester Lake, considered a special resource
water because of its fisheries value (IDHW 1984b). The
Potlatch River is considered high priority because it drains
directly into Granite Reservoir and has anadromous fishery
potential. This is of lower priority than some of the other
segments because it is so badly degraded, and it will be diffi-
cult to clean it (Holler pers. comm.). Cattle account for
less than 5 percent of the impacts. Lawyers Creek is impacted
by dryland agriculture, road construction, and several
41
-------
other sources. It is also of lower priority than segments such
as Big Canyon or Lapwai (Moller pers. comm.).
Panhandle Basin. River segments in the Panhandle Basin
have some of the highest water quality in the state. They
support a number of varied uses, including salmonid spawning,
domestic and agricultural water supply, coldwater biota, and
contact recreation (IDHW 1983b). Overall water quality in the
basin is considered to be good to excellent (IDHW 1983a, 1984b).
IDHW has identified five high priority segments (all lakes) in
this basin: Pend Oreille, Coeur d'Alene, Hayden, Twin, and
Priest Lakes (PB 20p, 30p, 430s and 340p). Mining, silvi-
culture, dryland agriculture, construction, and residual waste
disposal are the primary impacts on these waterbodies.
These lakes are all considered high priority for preserva-
tion purposes because of their high water quality, recrea-
tional value, and fish habitat (Van Curen, Beckwith pers.
comm.). Dairy and feedlot impacts are very low in this
basin, and no streams (high priority or otherwise) were
identified as having great impact from these sources
(Beckwith pers. comm.).
Segments with Wild and Scenic River Status
Several rivers within the state have been accorded Wild
and Scenic River status under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
PL 90-542 as amended. Many others are presently considered
as potential additions. These segments should be considered
as sensitive areas. Few dairies or feedlots impact these
areas at present, but effort should be made to ensure that
future operations do not decrease water quality. Present
and proposed Wild and Scenic segments are located in the
panhandle, Clearwater, Salmon River and Southwest Idaho basins.
Their status and areas of designation are listed in Table 2-13.
High Priority Aquacultural Areas.
Aquaculture generally requires high quality water having
dissolved oxygen levels sufficiently high (generally above 5
mg/1) to support fisheries. Dairy and feedlot wastes can
drastically reduce dissolved oxygen levels, and discharges
from these operations have been noted to cause fish kills.
Because of the concentrated nature of hatcheries, large
numbers of fish would be impacted if a discharge were to
affect the hatchery water source.
There are 24 state-owned and 3 federally-owned hatcheries
in Idaho, in addition to a large number of privately
owned operations. The majority of the state hatcheries re-
ceive their water from springs or wells and are not likely to be
affected by feedlot or dairy discharges. Only a few are
dependent on stream water. These include state hatcheries at
Hagerman (using Riley and Tucker Creeks), Ashton (Black
42
-------
Table 2-13. Wild and Scenic River Segments
PRESENTLY DESIGNATED
Clearwater, middle fork:
Kooskia upstream to Lowell
Lochsa River from the Selway junction upstream to Powell
Ranger Station
Selway River from Lowell upstream to its origin
Salmon, middle fork:
Origin to confluence with the main Salmon River
Rapid:
Headwaters of the main stem to the national forest boundary
West fork from the wilderness boundary to the confluence
with the main stem (wild river)
Snake:
Hells Canyon Dam downstream to Pittsburgh Landing (wild
river)
Pittsburgh Landing downstream to the eastern extension of
T5N, R47E, Si (scenic river)
Saint Joe:
Above the confluence of the North Fork to Spruce Tree
Campground (recreational river)
Above Spruce Tree Campground to Saint Joe Lake (wild river)
Salmon:
Main river from mouth of the North Fork downstream to Long Tom
Bar (recreational and wild segments)
POTENTIAL ADDITIONS
Bruneau - entire main stem
Moyle - Canadian border to confluence with the Kootenai River
Priest - entire main stem Saint Joe - entire main stem Salmon
- town of North Fork to confluence with the Snake River Snake
- from eastern extension to T5N, R47E, SI downstream to Asotin
43
-------
Springs), Pahsimeroi (Pahsimeroi River); Sawtooth (upper
Salmon River), Oxbow (Snake River), McCall (Payette River),
Mullen (S.F. and little N.F. Coeur d'Alene), Rapid River
(Rapid River) and the East and South Fork Traps (Salmon River).
Federal hatcheries at Davorshak and Kooskia obtain water from
the Clearwater River and Clear Creek, respectively
(Huffaker pers. comm., IDHW Hatchery inventory forms). All
hatcheries except for the Hagerman hatchery are located in
central and Northern Idaho, where feedlots and dairies
are less concentrated.
The majority of private trout hatcheries are located in
the upper Snake Basin in southern Idaho. This area produces 90
percent of the nation's commercial trout. Of the 94 opera-
tions permitted there, 47 obtain their source water from
springs or seeps. The remaining half obtain water from canals
or creeks. This latter group is most susceptible to impacts
from dairy or feedlot discharges. Table 2-14 lists creeks
and canals supplying water to hatcheries, the number of
hatcheries on each creek, and the production capacity.
Although all streams supporting aquaculture projects should be
considered priority areas, Riley, Billingsley, and Box Canyon
creeks and Alpheus, Crystal and Niagara springs are particu-
larly important because they support such a high potential
production. Pospisil Drain, Briggs, Cedar Draw, Deep,
Cassiz and Slaughterhouse creeks, and Three, Weatherby, Saddle,
Tupper, Curren and Tucker springs also support large potential
production.
Segments with Species that are Threatened, Endangered or of Spe-
cial Concern
There is one endangered fish species in Idaho - the sock-
eye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) which is restricted in
range to Redfish Lake, to the east of Boise. Two threatened
groups, the "summer" and "fall" chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha)
are approaching endangered status. These are found in the
Snake River below Shoshone Falls. Nineteen species are also
designated as being species of special concern by the Department
of Fish and Game. These include the white sturgeon, turbot,
twelve species and subspecies in the trout family (salmon,
trout, Cisco, whitefish), the leatherside chub, three sculpin
species, and the sand roller. Most are restricted in range to
small areas. Five species (Bear Lake Cutthroat, Bear Lake
Whitefish, Bonneville Cisco, Bonneville whitefish, and
Bear Lake sculpin) are restricted in range to Bear Lake (BB
120) . The Wood River sculpin and Leatherside chub are
restricted in range to the Wood River. The sand roller is
restricted to the Clearwater River near Lewiston, the turbot
to the Kootenai River, the Snake River cutthroat to the South
Fork Snake, the Bonneville cutthroat to Preuss, Giraffe and
Dry Creeks, the Sunapee Trout to Alpine lakes in the Sawtooth
Range, and the Shoshone sculpin to the Snake River aquifer
44
-------
Table 2-14. Creeks, Springs, and Canals Supporting Fish
Hatcheries in South Central Idaho
WATERBODY
Deep Cr.
Silo Cr.
Mud Cr.
Pospisil Dr.
I. Coulee
Crystal Sp.
Cedar Draw
Coulees 1-3, 14
L Q Coulee
Alpheus Cr.
E Coulee
Slaughterhouse Cr.
Rock Cr.
Riley Cr.
Stoddard Cr.
Birch Cr.
Billingsley Cr.
Saddle & Tupper Sp.
Three Sp. & Weatherby Sp.
Spring Cr. Sp.
Curren Sp.
Hewitt Sp.
Tucker Sp.
Box Canyon Cr.
Clear Sp.
Briggs Sp.
Niagara Sp.
Cassiz Cr.
NUMBER. OF
HATCHERIES
2
2
2
4
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
4
1
1
5
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
PRODUCTION
CAPACITY (LBS/YR)
384,000
192,000
480,000
498,000
108,000
4,560,000
684,000
24,000
216,000
2,556,000
192,000
360,000
?
2,352,000
180,000
120,000
4,135,200
840,000
876,000
108,000
480,000
192,000
420,000
3,600,000
7
840,000
2,280,000
360,000
Forty-seven additional hatcheries obtain their water from
unnamed springs, seeps or wells.
SOURCE: Twin Falls IDHW fish rearing inventory forms.
45
-------
springs. Some discrete river stocks of the steelhead may be in
the "threatened" status, although it ranges throughout all of
the river drainages. The white sturgeon is found only in the
Kootenai drainage and in the Snake River below Shoshone Falls.
The Bull trout is present in the majority of the major drainages
(IDFG 1981). A listing of fish species that are endangered,
threatened or of special concern in Idaho is given in Table
2-15.
The areas discussed above that are restricted range for
threatened, endangered or sensitive species should be
considered priority areas because of the potential impact
wastes from these operations can have on fisheries.
High Priority Groundwater Areas
In considering feedlot and dairy waste management and
impact options, surface water pollution should not be the only
concern. The Panhandle Basin contains a portion of the Spokane
Valley - Rathdrum Prairie Sole Source Aquifer, and a proposed
Sole Source Aquifer; the Snake River Plain aquifer underlies
much of the Snake River in southern Idaho. The Snake River
plain small aquifer 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 approxi-
mately St. Anthony) as a Sole Source Aquifer. This designation
would require any federal projects in 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 desig-
nation, EPA allow the state to take an active role in aquifer
protection. EPA is presently delaying further processing on
the Snake Plain 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 proposed projects for review, although the
designation is not in effect (Mullen pers. comm.).
Regardless of whether the Snake Plain 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 forma-
tions allow relatively rapid and unfiltered entrance of surface
water into the aquifer.
46
-------
COMMON NAME
STURGEONS
-White sturgeon
CODFISHES
-Burbot
TROUTS
Table 2-15. Fish Species that are Endangered,
SCIENTIFIC NAME ™,.m,r.l
Acipenser transmontanus
Lota lota
SC
-Chinook salmon, "spring"
-Chinook salmon, "summer"
-Chinook salmon, "fall"
-Sockeye salmon
-Steelhead trout
-Redband trout
-Sunapee trout
-Westslope cutthroat
-Bonneville cutthroat
-Bear Lake cutthroat
-Snake River (fine spot)
cutthroat
-Bear Lake whitefish
-Bull trout (Dolly Varden)
-Bonneville cisco
-Bonneville whitefish
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Oncorhynchus nerka
Salmo gairdneri
Salmo sp.
Salvelinus alpinus
aureolis Bean
Salmo clarki lewisi
Salmo clarki Utah
Salmo clarki ssp.
Salmo clarki ssp.
Prosopium abyssicola
Salvelinus confluentus
Prosopium gemmiferum
Prosopium spilonotus
SC
T
T
E
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
1,2
1,2
1,2
1,3
1,2
6
6
1,2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
MINNOWS
-Leatherside chub
Snyderichthys copei
SC
Threatened or of Special Concern in Idaho
THREATS2 COMMENTS
1,6 Additional impoundment of present range could change
status to "threatened"
1,6 Restricted range - Kootenai River
1,2,3,4,5 Approaching "endangered" status
1,2,3,4,5 Approaching "endangered" status
1,3,5,6 Restricted range - Redfish Lake
1,2,3,4,5 Some discrete river stocks may be in "threatened"
status
Restricted range; status unknown
Restricted range - alpine lakes in Sawtooth range
Sensitive to habitat modification and fishing
Restricted range - Preuss Creek, Giraffe Creek,
Dry Creek
Restricted range - Bear Lake
Restricted range - South Fork Snake River
Restricted range - Bear Lake
Only native fish of this genus. Present in Idaho
only as wild, native stocks.
Restricted range - Bear Lake
Restricted range - Bear Lake
Restricted range - Wood River; status unknown
-------
Table 2-15. Fish Species that are Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern in Idaho (continued)
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS1 THREATS2 COMMENTS
SCULPINS
-Bear Lake sculpin Cottus extensus SC 6 Restricted range - Bear Lake
-Shoshone sculpin Cottus greenei SC 6 Restricted range - Snake River aquifer springs;
status unknown
-Wood River sculpin Cottus leiopomus SC 6 Restricted range- Wood River; status unknown
TROUT-PERCHES
-Sand roller Percopsis transmontana SC 6 Restricted range - Clearwater River near Lewiston
E - Endangered Species: Any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
T - Threatened Species: Any likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion
of its range.
SC- Species of Special Concern: Species whose restricted range, specific habitat requirements and/or low population numbers makes
them vulnerable to elimination from the state if adverse impacts on habitat or populations occur.
1 - The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.
2 - Overutilization for commercial, sporting, scientific, or educational purposes.
OQ 3 - Disease or predation.
4 - The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.
5 - Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.
6 - Other (peripheral, restricted range, etc.).
SOURCE: IDFG 1981.
-------
Because this aquifer extends over such a large area
and feedlots and dairies are ubiquitous in this region, there
seems little to be gained by listing all stream segments where
dairies and feedlots could produce potential impacts.
Groundwater impacts should be a consideration for all opera-
tions along the Snake River. The absence of containment
facilities in many feedlots and dairies presently causes
surface water pollution, but constructing inadequately sealed
containment facilities may result in increased groundwater
pollution, particularly by nitrates. A preventative approach
is particularly important for groundwater, since groundwater
pollution is generally much more difficult to clean up than
surface water pollution. In determining the correct
management of feedlot and dairy wastes, both surface
and groundwater concerns must be considered on a site-specific
basis.
At present, the impact of existing facilities on ground-
water has not been quantified, and it is difficult to distin-
guish the impact of septic tanks and feedlots. It is known
that nitrate levels are elevated above background levels,
although nitrate concentrations in 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 location of the Snake Plain aquifer and
groundwater problem areas throughout the state are shown in
Figures 2-6 and 2-7. The recharge areas for many groundwater
sources are not well known (Levinski pers. comm.).
As seen from the above discussion, stream segments may
be considered sensitive or high priority for preservarion
reasons (presence of hatcheries, sensitive species, high recre-
ational or habitat value); because of governmental
priorities or designations (wild and scenic rivers or
IDHW high priority areas); or because poor water quality
already impacts uses. Permitting activity is expected to be
of greater importance in the areas where dairies and feedlots
produce the greatest water quality impacts.
In the more pristine areas, although dairies and feedlots
do not currently affect water quality to a great extent, effort
should be made to retain existing high quality by ensuring that
waste facilities for all present and future sources are properly
constructed.
Table 2-16 summarizes the sensitive segments by basin,
provides the reasons for their sensitive status, and indicates
segments suggested for priority under the permit program.
49
-------
it" v • • j / -M'"1
Laautii- jioAHol^ i | i\
MEVXOA.
FIGURE 2-6, LOCATION OF THE SNAKE PLAIN AQUIFER
SOURCE: MULLEN PERS, OWI,
50
-------
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 2-7. GROUNDWATER PROBLEM AREAS
SOURCE: ADAPTED FROM IDHW 198/4B, SHOOK PERS, COMM,
51
-------
Table 2-16. Sensitive Stream Segments Summary
SEGMENT
Southwest Basin
Boise R. (SWB 270, 280)
Payette R. (SWB 340)
NF and SF Payette (SWB 310, 324)
Jordan Cr. (SWB 233)
Snake River (SWB 20)
Upper Snake Basin
Deep Cr. (USB 810)
Big and Little Wood
(USB 830, 871)
Rock Cr. (USB 730)
Mud Cr. (USB 800)
Cedar Draw Cr. (USB 740)
Billingsley Cr. (USB 840)
Portneuf R. (USB 410, 420)
Riley Cr. (USB 830)
Magic & Is. Park Res.
(USB 860, 220)
Bear River Basin
Bear R. (BB 30, 10)
Cub R. (BB 450A, B)
Bear Lake (BB 120)
Mink Cr. (BB 410)
Worm Cr. (BB 430)
Little Malad R. (BB 471)
Salmon River Basin
Rapid R. (SB 611)
Whitebird Cr. (SB 710)
Rock Cr. (SB 810)
REASONS FOR SENSITIVE STATUS
Feedlot/dairy impacts;
IDHW priority (270 wastes)
Feedlot/dairy impacts; fish hatchery
IDHW priority (wastes)
IDHW priority (wastes)
IDHW priority (habitat £ impacts)
Feedlot/dairy impacts
Feedlot/dairy impacts; IDHW priority
(wastes); hatcheries
Feedlot/dairy impacts
Feedlot/dairy impacts
Feedlot/dairy impacts
Feedlot/dairy impacts; hatcheries; IDHW
priority (wastes)
Hatcheries; IDHW priority (rec. & habitat
value); dairy/feedlot impacts
IDHW priority (wastes)
Hatcheries
IDHW priority/rec. and habitat value
Feedlot/dairy wastes (30); IDHW priority
(10; rec. and wastes)
Feedlot/dairy wastes; IDHW priority (450B;
rec. & wastes)
IDHW priority (rec., wastes); limited range
for several sp. of concern
Feedlot/dairy wastes
Feedlot/dairy wastes; IDHW priority (rec.
and quality)
IDHW priority (rec. & wastes)
Feedlot/dairy concentrations; W/S river;
hatcheries
Feedlot/dairy concentrations
Feedlot/dairy concentrations
HIGHEST
PERMITTING
PRIORITY
*
*
52
-------
Table 2-16. Sensitive Stream Segments Summary (continued)
SEGMENT
Salmon River Basin (continued)
Salmon R. (SB 70)
Blackbird Cr. (SB 421)
Panther Cr. (SB 430)
Monumental Cr. (SB 441)
Yankee fork (SB 110)
EFSF Salmon R. (SB 511)
Lemki R. (SB 120)
MF Salmon R. (SB 440)
SF Salmon R. (SB 510)
Pahsimeroi R. (SB 210)
Clearwater Basin
Lindsay Cr. (CB 210)
Tammany Cr. (CB 110)
Potlatch R. (CB 154)
Lawyers Cr. (CB 141)
Big Canyon Cr. (CB 151)
Lapwai Cr. (CB 156)
Clearwater R. (CB 120, 121, 130)
Snake R. (CB 310)
Panhandle Basin
SF Coeur d'Alene (PB 130)
NF Coeur d'Alene (PB 120s)
Kootenai drainage
St. Joe R. (PB )
Pend Oreille lake (PB 20p)
Coeur d'Alene lake (PB 30p)
Hayden'lake (PB 430s)
Twin lake (PB 420s)
Priest lake (PB 340p)
REASONS FOR SENSITIVE STATUS
Feedlot/dairy concentrations
IDHW priority (impacts & habitat)
IDHW priority (impacts & habitat)
IDHW priority (habitat)
IDHW priority
IDHW priority (impacts)
IDHW priority (impact); hatcheries
W/S river
Hatcheries
Hatcheries
Feedlot/dairy wastes
Feedlot/dairy wastes
IDHW priority (habitat)
IDHW priority (impacts)
IDHW priority (habitat, threats)
IDHW priority (rec., habitat, hatchery)
W/S river
W/S river
Hatcheries
Hatcheries
Species of concern
W/S river
IDHW priority (rec., habitat)
IDHW priority (rec., habitat)
IDHW priority (rec., habitat)
IDHW priority (rec., habitat)
IDHW priority (rec., habitat)
HIGHEST
PERMITTING
PRIORITY
Unnumbered segments in this basin which are considered sensitive because they are source
waters for hatcheries include Cassiz, Slaughterhouse, and Box Canyon Creeks and numerous
springs.
53
-------
Chapter 3
ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES AVAILABLE TO OWNERS
OF CONFINED ANIMAL OPERATIONS
Operational Considerations and Constraints
to Soils and Climate
Soils normally have an important relationship to quantity
and quality of surface water runoff and runoff impact on adja-
cent water bodies. The soil type is a major factor in determin-
ing 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 con-
tained. 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,
most of the water falling on a confined animal feeding area
during winter is likely to run off. In conditions where
rainfall also results in snowmelt, runoff due to the rainfall
event may even exceed the measured precipitation. In times of
unfrozen or unsaturated ground, soils will play a greater role
in reducing runoff absorption, particularly where sandy soils
allow more rapid infiltration. Proper facility design requires
site-specific knowledge of both surface soils and soil profile
because soil type and texture can vary greatly from place to
place within a small area.
Proper design and operation of a feedlot and dairy facility
also require an understanding of climatic influences. Both
single and chronic rainfall events can wash accumulated manure
from feedlots and dairy yards and cause overflow of impound-
ments. Snowmelt, especially combined with a warm spring rain or
even average rainfall on frozen ground, often causes manure-
laden water to run from feedlots and dairies into streams,
canals, or onto adjacent properties.
The various relevant climatic factors affecting facility
containment include:
o Rainfall duration, intensity, and cumulative total;
54
-------
o Presence of frozen ground, accumulated snow, or thawed
but saturated soil;
o Temperature, particularly as related to potential for
snowmelt or thaw conditions; and
o Evaporation of rain or accumulated snow.
Operational factors specific to the feedlots and dairies
that interrelate with these factors include the level of wastes
in impoundments, the ability of fields to accept waste deposi-
tion, and the routes for surface drainage within the operation.
In Idaho, cumulative precipitation is especially important
during winter. Impoundments cannot be pumped out onto fields
because manure-laden water cannot percolate 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 the Pocatello-Blackfoot area (around December
through February) that may be expected to have frozen ground.
Normal runoff would total about 4 inches for a 3-month period in
Boise, and 4 inches also for a 4-month period in Pocatello.
During this period, some evaporation will occur, particu-
larly where precipitation remains as snow. However, a year with
heavy precipitation can 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.
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 rate is determined by the surface area avail-
able for liquid or ice crystals to convert to water vapor, as
well as by a wide range of climatic factors including tempera-
ture, 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 col-
lected in an impoundment, where the evaporation will be limited
to the relatively small surface area of the pond. If precipita-
tion 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.
55
-------
Because frozen ground, cumulative precipitation, evapora-
tion, and other climatic factors have such a great effect on
runoff and runoff storage, they should be considered when evalu-
ating the function and utility of control and treatment tech-
nologies. These factors and their impact on containment pond
design are also discussed in greater detail in Jones & Stokes
Associates (1985) .
Control and Treatment Technology Types
A number of control and treatment technologies are avail-
able to the operator of a confined animal feeding operation.
These include both in-process and end-of-process technologies.
In-process technologies refer to operational and physical
aspects of an operation and their associated impacts on waste
management. These include feed formulation, water utilization,
housekeeping practices, site selection, and production methods.
Physical facilities associated with waste collection and stor-
age, such as pen design, cleaning procedures, underfloor manure
storage pits, and manure stockpiling, are also considered in-
process technologies. In contrast, end-of-process technologies
involve the treatment of wastes or contaminated runoff after
they leave the operation. In general, end-of-process tech-
nologies will have greater impact on receiving water than in-
process technologies, and they will also have greater implica-
tions in sensitive areas.
Economic Considerations
Economically, two general approaches to waste management
are available to feedlot and dairy operators. Manure and con-
taminated runoff can be collected, treated, and disposed of as
waste, or they can be used as a productive resource. By viewing
animal wastes as a productive resource, increased costs of
storage and handling the waste material can be offset, either
partially or entirely, by savings on other production costs such
as fertilizer. In addition to its value as fertilizer, manure
can be used as a feed supplement or to produce methane gas.
Important factors influencing an operator's decision on
which waste management approach to pursue include the operator's
planning horizon, the availability and cost of capital, and the
type of farming operation. If, for example, a farmer's opera-
tion includes only dairy farming and the farmer's planning
horizon is short-term (e.g., five years), investment in facil-
ities and equipment required to handle and store animal wastes
may not be cost effective because, without crops for land
application, the fertilizer value of the manure to the farmer
would be limited. Consequently, disposal may represent the
operator's best option.
56
-------
For the profit-minded operator, the waste management deci-
sion is based on cost minimization criteria. Some farmers will
find collection, storage, and land application of manure econom-
ically feasible because of the positive returns associated with
its nutrient value. In other cases, the additional capital
investment, labor, and management required to use manure as a
productive resource will exceed the benefits, and disposal would
represent the less costly approach.
To identify the operator's most cost-effective approach,
cost data need to be assembled in a format appropriate for
analyzing and comparing net costs. A partial budget format in
which all costs associated with changes in operation are iden-
tified and represented as annual costs, provides an appropriate
format. An example of a partial budget format is presented in
Table 3-1. This format can be used to analyze the cost implica-
tions of selective control and treatment systems. In the fol-
lowing analysis, important cost factors associated with each
control and treatment technology are identified to provide a
framework to select system components for evaluation.
In-Process Technologies
The main types of better known in-process technologies are
discussed below, the process is described, and advantages and
disadvantages to farmers are discussed in terms of economic and
operational considerations. Applicability in sensitive areas is
also discussed, and where appropriate, status and reliability of
the process are given.
Site Selection
Description. Because effluent generation (particularly in
open-lot operations) is greatly dependent on climate and other
environmental factors, EPA (1974) considers site selection to be
an in-process control technology for confined animal operations.
A good site can make the difference between an operation that is
properly and efficiently run and one that causes continual
environmental problems and difficulties for the operator. If
water pollution is to be controlled economically, adequate
consideration must be given to factors affecting waste and
runoff control during site selection (Ada/Canyon 1977) . Geolo-
gy, climate, surface, groundwater, and topography are all impor-
tant considerations.
Groundwater pollution from impoundments is a possibility in
areas where subsurface geology is porous or contains cracks and
fissures that allow waste percolation. Lava outcrops can be a
problem from the groundwater perspective because of the incom-
plete formation of an impermeable organic mat that may occur in
these areas. This allows surface water and wastes to flow
through cracks and fissures and contaminate groundwater (Gilmour
57
-------
Table 3-1. Partial Budget Format for Evaluating
Hypothetical Costs and Returns of a Dairy
Waste Management System
ITEM
Additional capital outlays:
Settling channel construction
Storage pond construction
8-in. standpipe
Subtotal
Salvage value
Fixed investment to be amortized at 12
percent for 7 years
Annual fixed costs:
Fixed investment x amortization factor
(0.2191)
Annual operating costs :
Labor at $3.50/hr.
Fuel at $l/gal. + 15 percent for oil and
lubricants
Total annual operating costs
Total increase in annual costs
Return from manure as plant nutrients
Net change in annual costs
OPTION
Dollars
470.00
2,100.00
100.00
2,670.00
1,335.00
1,335.00
292.50
7.00
9.20
16.20
308.70
219.00
+89.70
The costs and returns associated with adding a settling
channel and collection pond to current facilities.
Costs for scraping settling channel.
SOURCE: USDA 1981.
58
-------
et al. 1975). Southern Ada and Canyon Counties, areas around
Twin Falls, and other localized regions are of concern in this
regard. Selecting a site in outcrop areas may result in addi-
tional expense to the operator if wastes are to be managed
properly. In areas with shallow, usable groundwater and porous
soils, pond sealants, pond liners or other measures may be
necessary to prevent seepage. These can be quite expensive
depending on pond size and the type of measures used.
Population growth is an unpredictable factor that causes
potentially serious siting problems in areas such as the Boise
River Valley. One of the most important considerations near
urbanized areas is the dominant wind direction in relation to
nearby population centers. Appropriate distance for siting will
depend upon whether the operation is upwind or downwind from the
population. While choice of location in relation to urban areas
may have little direct relevance to water pollution, which is
the main concern of this report, odor and nuisance complaints
can cause problems for the owner and his neighbors alike.
Climate also has important effects on facility siting. A
change in altitude may have great effects on the amount of time
ground remains frozen (thus preventing land application of
manure and necessitating retention of greater runoff quan-
tities) . The ratio of precipitation falling as rain or snow,
the evaporation rate, and other factors also affect impoundment
volume. Precipitation falling as snow will remain on the lot
surface and provide a larger surface area (and longer time) for
evaporation than rainfall, which runs off immediately, collects
in a pond, and presents a relatively small surface area for
evaporation. Wind direction and degree of wetness both affect
the odor impacts of an operation on nearby communities.
Location of surface water, land slope, and surface drainage
patterns will determine the impact that runoff from a feedlot or
dairy will have on surface water. They will also determine the
extent to which an operator should modify his site topography
to: 1) prevent adjacent land drainage from becoming contami-
nated as it flows through his property, and 2) prevent his own
runoff from affecting nearby waters. Slope is important to
promote proper drainage and prevent standing water. It also
affects the speed (and erosive capacity) of runoff water and the
direction of flow. Steep slopes should be avoided because they
facilitate erosion, make design and construction of catchment
basins more difficult, and prevent development of the imper-
meable organic mat that prevents infiltration of organic matter
into the soil (Gilmour et al. 1985) . The limit of acceptable
slope varies among authorities. Gilmour et al. suggest a 12
percent slope as a maximum. EPA (no date) states that 8 percent
is an "absolute maximum." This latter number is perhaps the
more realistic.
Land spreading of manure is the major ultimate disposal
mechanism. Confinement operations should be located in
59
-------
agricultural areas to facilitate finding suitable areas for
manure disposal. The expected growth of residential areas or
other major developments should also be considered when
selecting a site to avoid future use conflicts and odor, fly,
and nuisance complaints.
Established feedlots and dairies cannot easily change sites
unless an expansion (or reduction) in operation size is planned.
At that time, careful consideration of the specific characteris-
tics of various parts of the property should be made to decide
which areas should be chosen for expansion or removed from use.
Established operations can mitigate for undesirable charac-
teristics and improve upon a poorly selected site. For exam-
ple, grading to achieve a slight slope and/or to fill in low
spots will allow open lots to drain and dry quickly- Land can
also be graded to divert and direct runoff to containment ponds
for treatment and storage. At least a 2 percent slope is recom-
mended for feedlots (EPA 1974) .
Water running through open cattleyards, whether as a stream
or as sheet drainage from adjacent property, is undesirable.
These situations should either be avoided in site selection, or
mitigations should be provided by fencing, diverting flow, or
shielding streams from cattle impact. Diverting runoff entering
from adjacent property will prevent its contamination and reduce
the volume of runoff requiring containment, thus lowering lagoon
construction costs. Location within a floodplain is also haz-
ardous; potential expense and physical and environmental prob-
lems caused by flooding can be significant. A confinement area
should be located at least 100 yards (if possible) from a
stream, canal, or drainage channel (Ada/Canyon 1977) .
The degree to which each of these factors is important is
highly site-specific and cannot be generally predicted. This is
one reason a farm management plan should be completed for each
operation, so that site-specific concerns can be identified and
mitigating measures can be adopted.
Impacts on Farmers. The advantage in choosing a good site
is obvious. Good on-site drainage, proper slope, and absence of
off-site drainage or streamflow through the cattleyard will
reduce the need for farmer mitigation measures and thus-reduce
farmer costs. The degree to which a farm site will require
mitigation depends primarily on site-specific factors that are
difficult to generalize. For example, shallow soils with under-
lying lava or bedrock will require shallower impoundments which,
in turn, require larger surface area and more land. The amount
of grading required to prevent off-site drainage and to direct
on-site drainage to a containment pond depends on the degree and
direction of the natural land slope. Advantages to having a
well-drained and well-chosen site include drier land, healthier
cattle, and less chance of environmental violations with the
resulting imposition of restrictions or mitigation measures.
60
-------
The selection of a poorly located site can significantly
increase waste management costs for an operator. A poorly
located site may require construction of diversion facilities to
reduce runoff from adjacent properties or excavation of an
impoundment area larger than otherwise needed to store runoff.
If shallow soils also are located on the site, an even larger
impoundment area would be required, resulting in additional
construction costs.
For an operator with space limitations, the need for a
larger impoundment may result in less area available for agri-
cultural production, thereby reducing annual revenues. With
minimum area requirements of 70-400 ft /animal in unpaved feed-
lots, any significant increase in impoundment area could sub-
stantially reduce annual revenues.
As an example, a site is selected for a 3,000-head feedlot
operation. If the pond area needed to contain all runoff is
estimated at 93,300 ft (approximately 2.14 acres) (see Table
4-1), assuming adequate soil depth, the depth of the pond would
be approximately 12 feet. If shallow soils restrict the pond
depth to 6 feet, the surface area required for the impoundment
would be doubled. Assuming there is no available space for the
impoundment other than the cattleyard, and an area requirement
of 200 ft /head (unpaved lot), the feedlot operation would need
to be reduced by approximately 466 head to accommodate the
impoundment area. This would represent a 15 percent decrease in
production.
Other potential costs associated with improperly located
sites include grading and excavation costs estimated at
$1.00/yd to construct ponds and diversions for runoff, and
fending costs at $1.00 to $1.25 per linear foot to restrict
cattle from stream areas (Zollinger pers. comm.).
Application in Sensitive Areas. Because site selection so
directly affects water quality, this control technology is very
important in sensitive areas, particularly where water quality
is presently high and prevention, rather than restoration, is
the reason for a sensitive area designation. New operations
should be carefully sited to avoid generating runoff or waste
discharges. Existing operations should institute mitigations to
ensure containment of all waste and runoff and to prevent direct
animal contact with streams within or adjacent to the property.
Housekeeping Practices
Description. Housekeeping practices, such as frequency and
method of manure removal, can have significant effects on the
total wasteload as well as on fly and odor problems. Manure
often seals the surface of cattleyards and the bottom of la-
goons, preventing water infiltration. Cleaning procedures that
leave a thin layer of manure provide a barrier to infiltration
61
-------
and help prevent groundwater contamination. Removal of this
layer will improve infiltration and result in cleaner pens, but
it will also produce a larger volume of waste, which may in-
crease spreading costs and increase the potential for
groundwater pollution. If manure is scraped and stockpiled,
storage in areas protected from rainfall and drainage is neces-
sary. This will decrease pollution generated by the manure pile
and facilitate its spreading as dry manure.
The interval between corral or pen cleanings can also
affect both volume of wastes and cost. Longer intervals between
cleanings allow greater biodegradation of wastes to occur. This
decreases total waste volume, but increases the solids loading
in runoff events. A 6-month cleaning of yard wastes can result
in a decrease of 20 percent total solids and can decrease water
content from 85 percent to 30 percent (EPA 1974) .
The degree and frequency of equipment cleaning and mainte-
nance will affect the amount of water use. It will also offset
the indirect loss of water through equipment leakage, particu-
larly from equipment such as continuous overflow waterers.
Impacts on Farmers. Solids separation prior to containment
will reduce impoundment volume and decrease both odor and COD of
wastes in the pond. Frequent equipment cleaning will disrupt
fly life cycles, reducing fly populations. The interval most
cost effective for cleaning depends on a number of factors,
including waste disposal methods, distance between the gen-
eration and waste application site, cost of application equip-
ment, and other factors.
Depending upon the operator's approach to waste management,
housekeeping practices will provide a different array of costs
and benefits to the operator. For operators whose approach to
waste management is disposal, good housekeeping practices such
as regular cleaning of livestock areas and equipment can signif-
icantly reduce flies and objectionable odors. This not only
benefits the operator but, for feedlots and dairies near
residences, may reduce the potential for complaints that could
lead to more costly mitigation. In addition, regular cleaning
and maintenance may reduce treatment costs for certain types of
treatment technologies.
For operators who utilize waste material as a resource,
good housekeeping practices, such as regular removal of manure,
can affect the resource value. As shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3,
solids separation can significantly increase the nutrient value
of waste material. The economic returns from utilization of
this resource (which are discussed in more detail in the 'follow-
ing Land Application section) can offset the additional storage
and handling costs associated with good housekeeping practices.
Other potential economic effects relate to water usage and
impoundment requirements. Although water usage associated with
62
-------
Table 3-2. Nitrogen, Phosphate and Potash Available to
a
Crops from Dairy Waste per Animal Unit for
Alternative Handling Systems
NUTRIENTS AVAILABLE TO CROPS
PER ANIMAL UNIT (LBS/YR)
SYSTEM NITROGEN PHOSPHATE POTASH
(P205) (K20)
Solid handling, daily spread 124 76 149
Solid handling, uncovered storage
surface spread 143 76 141
Solid handling, covered storage,
soil incorporated 179 76 149
Solid handling, uncovered storage,
soil incorporated 170 76 141
Solid handling, storage in
loafing shed, surface spread 107 76 141
Liquid handling, storage,
surface spread 116 76 149
Liquid handling, storage,
soil incorporated 149 80 158
Liquid, flush, lagoon, irrigate 32 42 100
Liquid, flush, solid separation,
lagoon, irrigate 26 34 80
Solid handling, open lot
storage, surface spread 76 71 141
a One animal unit = 1400 Ib cow.
Average assumed production from 1400 Ib cow:
210 Ib/yr N, 84 Ib/yr P205 and 166 Ib/yr K20.
Q
Injected or plowed down the day of spreading.
SOURCE: EPA 1978.
63
-------
Table 3-3. Nitrogen, Phosphate and Potash Available to
Crops from Beef Waste, per Animal Unita for
Alternative Handling Systems
LBS/YEAR AVAILABLE TO CROPS
PER ANIMAL UNIT (LBS/YR)
SYSTEM
Feeders (1000 Ib)
Unpaved lot, shelter, solid
handling
Paved lot, shelter, solid
handling
Unpaved lot, no shelter, solid
handling
Total shelter, slotted floor
liquid handling
Total shelter, slotted floor
liquid handling, injection
Paved lot, shelter, flushing,
lagoon, irrigation
Stockers (500 Ibs)
Pastured on winter wheat
Cow-Calf (1250 Ibs)
Pasture year around
Pasture, winter in unpaved lot,
solid handling
Pasture, winter in paved lot,
shelter, solid handling
NITROGEN
53
58
45
68
88
19
23
98
77
80
PHOSPHATE
(P2o5)
64
64
46
82
86
46
22
100
85
85
POTASH
(K20)
80
80
64
95
101
64
26
114
100
100
One animal unit: feeder at 1000 Ibs, 2 stockers at 500 Ibs,
cow-calf at 1250 Ibs.
Production of nutrients per year (Ibs):
1000 Ib feeder animal
500 Ib stocker
1250 Ib cow-calf
SOURCE: EPA 1978.
N
124
62
131
P2°5
91
45
100
K2°
106
53
114
64
-------
good housekeeping practices would increase water supply costs
and impoundment requirements, these increases are likely to be
more than offset by the volume reductions from solids separa-
tion.
Application in Sensitive Areas. Housekeeping practices
probablyhavelessimpactonsurrounding areas than other in-
process technologies, assuming required control technologies are
in place to intercept runoff. If containment structures are
marginal (or inadequate), more frequent cleaning will decrease
solids content and improve the impoundment's ability to contain
the runoff, as well as improving quality of runoff.
Production Methods
Description. Production methods will affect waste quality,
type, and volume. Beef cattle production and dairies may use
either open lots (paved or unpaved) or housed lots. Housed
lots, in turn, may have either slotted or solid floors. While
the amount of waste produced per animal will not vary, the
amount of other wastes, including bedding, washwater, and runoff
volume, will vary greatly depending on the type of facility
used.
Open lots provide limited protection for the cattle (and
for the ground surface). Because they are uncovered, they
generate a volume of contaminated runoff proportional to the
surface area of the lot and the condition of the lot surface.
Paved lots will prevent water infiltration, resulting in nearly
100 percent runoff of precipitation, but they also allow an
equal number of animals to be contained in a smaller yard area,
which reduces the total area generating runoff.
2 Cattle in unpaved feedlots are generally provided, 70-400
ft /animal; paved lots generally provide more than 90 ft /animal
(EPA 1974). Because the soil in an unpaved feedlot is compacted
and sealed by manure, water infiltration is often poor. In this
situation, an unpaved lot may generate more total runoff than an
operation of equal animal numbers on a paved lot simply because
the difference in infiltration is not sufficient to offset the
advantage of the reduced surface area. In 1974, an estimated 96
percent of all beet cattle were in open dirt lots. The number
of paved lots was fewer than 1 percent (EPA 1974). This figure
has probably changed little in the last decade because paving is
expensive.
Housed facilities that keep the animals continually under a
roof may have dirt, paved, or slotted floors. Slotted floor
structures have either a shallow pit below the floor that is
cleaned daily or a deep pit where waste is stored. For liquid
cleaning systems, sufficient water is needed to permit dilution
of the manure and allow pumping. For semisolid systems, tractor
or loader access to the pits must be provided or under-floor
65
-------
alley scrapers can be installed that remove the manure and
convey it to external storage areas.
Solid floor structures may use bedding to absorb moisture
and keep wastes solidified. Storage for manure is provided by
maintaining high ceilings. Sloped floor systems may also be
used. In these systems, the floor is sloped toward gutters,
slotted floors, or other collection facilities and cattle move-
ment gradually works manure toward the collection area, where it
is removed by scraping or flushing (PDER 1975) .
Animal densities in housed,,facilities are quite high, with
animals having fewer than 30 ft /animal. In 1974, only about 4
percent of the cattle operations were housed, with nearly equal
numbers having solid and slotted floors. Of those having slot-
ted floors, the deep pit predominated (EPA 1974). In contrast
to feedlots nationwide, approximately 75 percent of dairies
restrain their animals to a barn at least part of the time, and
the number is greater in cold areas.
Advantages and Disadvantages to Farmers. One advantage of
a housed facility is the ability to control or virtually elimi-
nate the generation of contaminated runoff, thus decreasing the
volume required for containment. This may be offset to varying
degrees, however, by the additional volume of washwater and
bedding generated. Use of a housed facility allows a farmer to
increase his animal density above that which would otherwise be
possible on an open lot. This could be important for operations
of limited land area. The costs of such an operation can be
very high, and this is likely to offset many of the advantages.
Depending on soil conditions, paved lots may allow a de-
crease in containment pond volume for a given number of animals
because of the increased animal densities which are possible;
but paving is expensive, and it is likely to cost more to pave a
lot than to construct a somewhat larger conrainment facility
unless land is quite expensive.
Costs of most waste disposal systems for concentrated
animal feeding operations of less than 1,000 animal units exhib-
it economies of scale (EPA 1978) . That is, as production in-
creases, per-unit waste disposal costs decrease. This principle
can be illustrated by considering two feedlot operations of
100-head and 400-head capacity. Because the investment in
equipment, such as manure scrapers, loaders, and spreaders would
be nearly equivalent for the two operations, costs per head on
the 400-head lot would be smaller than for the 100-head lot. In
general, smaller operations will incur a greater cost burden per
head for waste disposal systems than larger operations.
In addition to economies of scale, other important produc-
tion cost factors relate to whether the operation is housed or
open and, if open, whether the lot is paved or unpaved. An EPA
study (1978) on livestock waste management systems evaluated
66
-------
annual costs of representative systems for different herd sizes
and types of operations. The results of this analysis are
summarized in Table 3-4.
As shown in Table 3-4, annual costs per head for waste
management for the totally housed operation exceed costs for the
open operation, whether paved or unpaved lots. Assuming 50
percent usage of nutrients, the annual cost differential between
the fully housed and the unpaved, partially sheltered operation
is $32.04 per head for the 100-head capacity operation and
$20.91 per head for the 700-head capacity operation. Costs for
runoff control are not included and all costs are presented in
1978 dollars.
It should be noted that, unlike feedlct operations, dairy
operations in general have less potential to return a profit on
the waste disposal system because of the higher investment
required for waste system facilities (EPA 1978).
Application in Sensitive Areas. As with other in-process
technologies, the real impact on surface waters is most depen-
dent upon the end-of-process technology used. If proper dis-
posal facilities are not constructed, the impact of housed
facilities on sensitive areas could be worse than that of open
lots, as the density of animals would be greater. With proper
disposal facilities, whether the operation is open lot or
housed, there should be little or no direct impact on water
quality.
Water Reuse and Conservation
Description. Volume of water use can have a great impact
on wastelagoon sizing. It is considered to be the largest
variable in feedlot waste loads, primarily because of the varia-
tion in use practices. Many dairies use water to flush wastes
from stalls or barns and/or add water to wastes so that they may
be pumped to storage tanks or lagoons and reduce handling.
Water reuse will reduce the storage volume needed. As climatic
characteristics in Idaho normally require storage of 4 months or
more, water reduction or reuse could substantially decrease
required containment volume. As reuse requires installation of
additional equipment, where water is abundant and cheap, it may
not be economical to practice this. For some confined animal
operations, particularly swine and poultry, the possibility of
spreading disease through reuse of water has been a concern,
although experiments have not substantiated this (EPA 1974) .
Impacts on Farmers. One primary advantage of water reduc-
tion is the need for a smaller waste containment pond because
less water will be generated. Waste flushing is practiced
primarily by dairies; feedlot owners will have little opportuni-
ty to practice reuse, although water conservation through repair
of leaking watering equipment or other measures can be used to
reduce water volumes.
67
-------
en
oo
Table 3-4. Comparison of Annual Costs and Returns for Alternative Waste Management Systems for Cattle Feedlots
(1978 dollars)
RETURNS TO NUTRIENTS
WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM/
HERD SIZE
Dry lot, partial shelter,
paved, solid spread
- 100 head
- 400 head
- 700 head
Dry lot, partial shelter^
unpaved, solid spread
- 100 head
- 400 head
- 700 head
Total shelter, fully slotted, .
liquid spread, 90-day storage
- 100 head
- 400 head
- 700 head
Representative design for cold
2 •
50% USAGE
AVAILABLE NUTRIENTS
(1)
14.40
14.40
14.40
14.00
14.00
14.00
17.57
17.57
17.57
humid and cool humid
100% USAGE OF
AVAILABLE NUTRIENTS
(2)
(Dollars per
28.80
28.80
28.80
28.00
28.00
28.00
35.14
35.14
35.14
climatic regions.
t , .
VARIABLE
COSTS
(3)
FIXED
COSTS
(4)
NET SYSTEM
AT 50% USAGE
OF NUTRIENTS
(l)-(3)-(4)
RETURNS
AT 100% USAGE
OF NUTRIENTS
(2)-(3)-(4)
Animal Year)
4.93
4.32
4.85
3.14
2.53
2.57
10.14
9.91
11.40
m m t 1
16.94
9.29
8.48
11.12
5.85
5.15
39.72
22.59
20.80
-7.47
0.78
1.07
-0.25
5.62
6.28
-32.29
-14.93
-14.63
6.93
15.18
15.47
13.75
19.62
18.53
-14.72
2.64
2.94
SOURCE: EPA 1978.
-------
The amount of water use has the greatest immediate effect
on pond sizing; a larger pond is required as the wastewater
volume is increased, and larger ponds are more expensive.
Because of sanitation requirements, the potential for water
use reduction through conservation is limited in dairies. One
dairy process in which appreciable reductions in water usage may
be achieved is livestock washing. Based on a recent study by
the Midwest Plans Service (1985), water requirements to wash
livestock average 1-4.5 gallons per washing per cow. Assuming
twice daily washings, a 400-head dairy farm would use between
800-3,600 gallons of washwater daily.
If it is assumed that the lower rate represents the minimum
amount achievable through conservation, an operator currently
using the maximum rate could reduce daily water consumption by
2,800 gallons. Assuming 100 percent runoff from the cow washing
area, this decrease in water usage would reduce the excavation
requirements for the impoundment area by an estimated 1,677 yd .
At an assumed cost of $1.00/yd , the savings in excavation costs
would be approximately $1,700.
Application in Sensitive Areas. The most direct benefits
of this practiceareeconomicbenefits resulting from reduced
containment volume. As long as a containment pond is properly
sized, use of this technology will have little effect on sensi-
tive areas.
End of Process Technologies
In contrast to in-process technologies, end-of-process
technologies involve the treatment of wastes or contaminated
runoff after they leave the operation. These include such
practices and technologies as composting, land application, and
runoff control, as well as activated sludge, oxidation pits,
settling basins, and lagoons.
The EPA (1974) divides end-of-process technologies into
categories of complete treatment (i.e., producing a product
either capable of entire reuse on the feedlot or one that is
readily marketable) and partial treatment (i.e., producing
residue, waste, or polluted water that is neither readily mar-
ketable nor completely usable on-site). Descriptions of the
following technologies are taken in large part from this docu-
ment.
A large number of end-of-process technologies for manure
and runoff are shown in Table 3-5. The great majority of these
are still experimental and will not be discussed further. Land
application, dehydration, and composting are the primary non-
experimental, complete treatment options for manure; oxidation
ditches and activated sludge are partial treatment options that
will require additional treatment of some type. Runoff
69
-------
Table 3-5. End-of-Process Technology Classification
TECHNOLOGY
Land Utilization
Ccmpost and Sell
Dehydration
(Sell or Feed)
Conversion to
Industrial Products
Aerobic SCP Production
Aerobic Yeast Production
Anaerobic SCP Production
Feed Recycle
Oxidation Ditch
(Spread or Feed)
Activated Sludge
Wastelage
Anaerobic Fuel Gas
Fly Larvae Production
Biochemical Recycle
Conversion to Oil
Gasification
Pyrolysis
Incineration
Hydrolysis
Chemical Extraction
Runoff Control
Barriered Landscape System
Lagoons for Treatment
Evaporation
Trickling Filters
Spray Runoff
Rotating Biological
Contactor
Water Hyacinths
Algae
APPLICATION
MANURE RUNOFF
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
FUNCTION
COMPLETE PARTIAL
CONTAINMENT TREATMENT TREATMENT BPT
X X
X X
X X
(Sell)
X
X
X
X
X
X X
(Spread)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X XX
X XX
X
X
X
X
X
STATUS
BAT EXPERIMENTAL
X
(Feed)
X
X
X
X
X
X
(Feed)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
containment and lagoons are nonexperimental, partial treatment
options for runoff. Land utilization is the only complete
treatment option for runoff.
Runoff Control
Description. There are many options for handling, treat-
ment, and disposal of runoff-carried wastes as shown in Figure
3-1. Because this is an incomplete treatment process, however,
additional disposal procedures are necessary- System components
include the drainage system, collection and transport drains,
the containment area, and an ultimate disposal method (probably
land disposal). In some cases, solids separation or settling
equipment may also be included. Proper impoundment functioning
also requires routine maintenance, including pumping at appro-
priate times when capacity is reached.
Land contouring to direct flow and diversion of uncontam-
inated roof runoff are both potential ways of controlling on-
site runoff. The degree to which these control efforts are
required will vary greatly depending on site-specific charac-
teristics.
The need for construction of facilities to divert and
direct on-site runoff to containment facilities can be minimized
or precluded by proper site selection, but diversion may be
required to prevent off-site runoff from entering the site and
becoming contaminated. Berms, ditches, or other structures may
be constructed to divert runoff around the property. This will
decrease the size of required runoff containment facilities and
correspondingly decrease costs and land area required for con-
tainment structures. Quality and quantity of runoff will vary
greatly depending on the amount of precipitation and solids,
type and age of the animals, type of housing, and other factors.
A number of factors influence these conditions, including animal
density, topography, soils, climate, rainfall duration and
frequency, and lot size.
For Idaho, where frozen ground requires waste containment
for several months during the winter, runoff retention for a 1-
in-5 year winter plus a 25-year, 24-hour storm has been deter-
mined necessary to contain runoff and prevent discharge of
impoundments. Given local rainfall conditions for a 4-month
winter holding period and adjusting for evaporation in the Boise
area, this is equivalent to containing a net runoff of approxi-
mately 4 inches (Jones & Stokes Associates 1985). This amount
will vary slightly, depending on location.
Size and volume of the impoundment will vary, depending on
the area to be drained and subsurface site characteristics. In
areas near Twin Falls, for example, an underlying lava formation
limits impoundment depth to about 4 feet. In these situations,
surface area of the impoundment must be increased to meet volume
71
-------
Precipitation
I '
I Runoff
I Pen Drainage 1
[Collection Drains
[continuous Flow] [Batch J
1
jttling Basins
i
itch |
Broad
Basin
Terraces
Low
Slope
Ditch
— i
^Solids Remova^-
1
Irrigation
Detention
Resevoir
I
i
Anaerobic
Lagoon
Evaporation!
Pond 1
i
Series of
Anaerobic
Lagoons
-Tsolids Removalj Playa
Aerobic
Lagoon
I Irrigation!
| Evaporatio'nf
FIGURE 3-1. ALTERNATIVES FOR HANDLING, TREATMENT, AND
DISPOSAL OF RUNOFF-CARRIED WASTES,
SOURCE: EPA 1974,
72
-------
requirements. The actual volume required will vary with site-
specific conditions, but an approximate idea of the volume can
be obtained for visualization purposes. The aerial survey data
indicate the average dairy in southern Idaho to be approximately
6 acres. Containment of 4 inches of net runoff over 6 acres
would require a storage volume of approximately 651,000 gallons
or 91,000 ft . This could be contained by an impoundment rough-
ly 95 ft x 95 ft x 10 ft deep (approximately 0.25 acre in sur-
face area at this depth). Additional volume would be required
to contain process waste. A 4-foot depth would require a sur-
face area of about 150 ft x 150 ft, or slightly over 0.5 acre.
Status and Reliability. Runoff control mechanisms are
fairly simple and easily constructed. Technology is also flexi-
ble enough to be used in a wide variety of situations. Its
reliability is well established and design data are readily
available.
Impacts on Farmers. Controlling runoff from adjacent lands
has many advantages, particularly in decreasing the volume of
containment facilities. This not only reduces construction
costs but also requires less land and reduces spreading costs
and time. Controlling on-site runoff will help the feedlot
remain drier and may prevent some erosion, depending on the site
characteristics.
The major cost for runoff control derives from construction
of the holding pond (EPA 1974). Costs to construct dikes,
berms, diversion ditches, and settling basins are small by
comparison. As previously reported, current (1985) excavating
costs are estimated at $1.00/yd .
Runoff control options may consist of either grass
infiltration systems or detention/irrigation systems. Of these
two types, the detention/irrigation system is generally more
costly to the farmer (EPA 1978) . The cost disadvantage of the
detention/irrigation system is more evident for the small
operator because of economies of scale associated with these
systems.
Although the cost impact will vary from site to site,
annual runoff control system costs for different representative
dairy and cattle operations are presented for comparative pur-
poses in Table 3-6. As shown, estimated fixed costs for deten-
tion/irrigation systems, however, are higher only for dairy
operations. Significant economies of scale also are evident
from the data in Table 3-6.
Application for Sensitive Areas. Because of its flexibil-
ity, thistechnologyiseasilymade applicable to sensitive
areas. In areas of porous soils where groundwater contamination
is a concern, a clay or manufactured liner, although costly, can
be added to the impoundment to prevent seepage. The size of the
impoundment can be adjusted to meet additional needs if
73
-------
Table 3-6. Comparison of Annual Fixed and Variable Costs of Alternative
Runoff Control Systems (1985 dollars3)
RUNOFF CONTROL SYSTEMS
BASE WASTE MAN-
AGEMENT SYSTEM DETENTION/IRRIGATION GRASS INFILTRATION
OPERATION/CAPACITY
Dairyb
FIXED VARIABLE
FIXED VARIABLE
- 50-head capacity 53.41 79.52
- 100-head capacity 42.64 69.88
- 200-head capacity 31.41 49.18
Cattle0
100-head capacity
400-head capacity
700-head capacity
19.29
11.66
8.05
2.93
1.84
1.94
FIXED VARIABLE
2.66 .72
2.09 .53
3.03 .26
18.28
9.62
8.47
5.15
4.15
4.21
12.45
3.58
2.80
1.20
.97
1.58
2.45
.67
.62
1.20
.97
1.58
All original cost data adjusted to 1985 dollars by the Nationwide Consumer
Price Index.
Free stall open lot with tractor scrape, and daily surface spread.
° Dry unpaved lot with partial shelter and solids spread.
SOURCE: EPA 1978.
-------
expansion of animals or space is desired. Because maintenance
is critical to proper functioning of runoff control systems, a
management plan specifying pumping dates and ultimate disposal
methods is important, particularly in sensitive areas; operators
must monitor their systems to ensure that overflow does not
occur. Eliminating off-site runoff will also help prevent
overflow of containment facilities, which are normally not sized
to contain off-site runoff.
Composting
Description. Composting is considered a complete treatment
technology that allows decomposition of organic wastes, such as
manure and bedding, and produces carbon dioxide, ammonia, water
vapor, and humus, which is usable as a soil conditioner. A
number of definitions for composting exist, depending on the
viewpoint of the observer. In biologic terms, Toth and Gold
(1971) define it as "the process involving conversion of organic
residues into lignoprotein complexes (humus) via thermophilic
organisms under optimum moisture and aeration conditions."
Because it is accomplished primarily by aerobic microorganisms,
-che process is slow and incomplete without sufficient aeration.
Manure can be composted in several ways. Aerated compost
and turned-compost windrows are two commonly used methods.
Manure, bedding, woodchips, and similar material scraped from
pens or solids settling areas are spread in 3- to 4-foot-high
windrows or placed in tanks and bins. The material is
periodically aerated by mechanically turning the windrow or
pumping air through the tank. During decomposition,
temperatures may reach up to 175°F. As a large amount of heat
is generated, the pile will dry out and decomposition will cease
if adequate moisture is not maintained. A moisture content of
40-60 percent should be maintained during the process to prevent
formation of anaerobic conditions (leading to odors) and to
maintain normal processing times. Rainfall in uncovered
operations may make process control more difficult and leach
soluble constituents from the pile. Windrowing requires
approximately 30 days; forced aeration in tanks allows process
completion in 7-14 days.
Status and Reliability. Commercial composting technology
has been Tn use for a number of years. Aeration is a more
recent development, but it has also been demonstrated to func-
tion well. The system is simple and reliable if handled proper-
ly, although finding an adequate market for the product can be
difficult in some areas.
Impacts on Farmers. Composting of manure requires solids
separation.Many dairies already practice waste separation, and
this would require little change in their existing procedures.
Removal of solids will decrease the volume and increase the
quality of waste entering the treatment facility. Size of the
75
-------
containment pond can be reduced if solids are removed, thus
somewhat reducing construction costs and land area required for
the containment pond. It may also thin wastes sufficiently to
allow spray application. Production of compost will not reduce
the need to dispose of liquid waste and runoff. It will also
require a recipient who can make use of the compost. If present
wastes are already disposed of via pumping and spreading as a
slurry, composting, although it will reduce waste volume, may
merely add one more step for the farmer.
Solids separation for composting at dairy and feedlot
operations typically requires a front-end loader. For a 400-
head feedlot, the capital investment for a front-end loader is
estimated at $4,440, based on adjusted cost figures from an EPA
study (1978) . On an annual basis, the amortized cost per animal
would be approximately $3.30. Composting also requires addi-
tional labor to maintain proper conditions of the compost pile;
the amount of labor is dependent upon the type of process used.
By separating solids for composting, the size of the runoff
containment pond for a 400-head feedlot, for example, could be
reduced by an estimated 1,419 yd , thereby resulting in a
savings of about $1,400 in excavation costs. This calculation
is based on an assumed daily manure generation rate of 0.6 ft ,
80 percent runoff reduction, excavation requirements of 32
percent greater than volume requirements, and excavation costs
of $1.00/yd .
The principal use of the composted product is as a soil
amendment. The current market value of so.il aids sold in bulk
in the Boise area is approximately $14/yd (Hillside Nurseries
pers. comm.). For a farmer to realize returns from the
composted product, demand for the product, either on site or
locally (to minimize handling costs), would be required.
Application in Sensitive Areas. Both runoff and odors are
potentialproblemsassociatedwith composting. If composted
properly, odors should not be a problem. If windrows are ex-
posed to rainfall, runoff similar in composition to cattleyard
runoff will be produced. This can result in quality problems
for adjacent waterways and streams. In sensitive areas, runoff
from compost windrows should be carefully controlled or com-
posting limited to aerated methods in bins where water can be
more closely controlled. Concerns related to land application of
compost are discussed under the Land Application section.
Activated Sludge
Description. Activated sludge is considered a partial
treatment technology for manure wastes, so an ultimate disposal
process will be needed. The process is generally defined as
bacterial digestion that occurs in an aerated tank. The process
components vary depending on local needs, ranging from a simple,
76
-------
single tank and floating aerator, plus evaporation pond, to more
complex processes, such as those used in municipal treatment.
These may contain mixed-liquor tanks, clarifiers, flotation
tanks, chlorination tanks, and sludge drying beds. A more
complex, complete system is shown in Figure 3-2. Sludge and
effluent may be land applied. An example of the reduction in
BOD, COD, nitrogen, and other parameters for a 100-animal dairy
operation is given in Table 3-7. While site-specific variation
in each operation will occur, this provides a general indication
of what is to be expected from some types of activated sludge
systems.
Status and Reliability. Because the activated sludge
process can be somewhat complex, plant malfunctions can be
relatively frequent in animal-waste processing. The process
provides treatment in all weather conditions, and variations
have been used for treatment of both feedlot runoff and dairy
operations.
Impacts on Farmers. The advantages of an activated sludge
system includegreatFeduction in BOD and other pollutants in
the wastewater, as well as a reduced need for land application.
The primary disadvantages are the cost and the need for some
continual oversight to spot potential problems and avoid system
upsets.
As indicated in Table 3-8, the capital investment required
for activated sludge systems is high. Because this technology
clearly exhibits economies of scale, investment in these systems
is likely to be cost effective only for large-scale operations.
Other conditions, e.g., significant space limitations, accessi-
bility of capital, and high premium on environmental benefits
would also need to exist for a farmer to select this treatment
technology based on cost minimization criteria.
Because activated sludge systems typically provide more
advanced treatment of waste materials, the value of the result-
ing sludge product is limited. The product will have minimal
nutrient value and may exhibit less of the desirable soil
amending properties (e.g., filtering and water retention) than
are associated with composted products.
Application in Sensitive Areas. The main drawback to use
of this processmayBethepossibility for plant malfunction
that would lead to discharge of poorly treated wastes to local
rivers or canals. Should this occur, however, the discharge
quality is still likely to be better than that of untreated
wastes.
Oxidation Ditch (Aeration Ditch or Pasveer Ditch)
Description. The oxidation ditch is essentially a modified
form of the activated sludge process. It is an aerobic waste
77
-------
INFLUENT
WASTE
DRYING
BED
CHEMICAL
PRECIPITANT
A A A A A A
I
CHLORINATION
TANK
SETTLING
TANK
|
PERIODIC
SLUDGE
RECYCLE
LIQUID
EFFLUENT
FIGURE 3-2, GENERALIZED DIAGRAM OF A MODERATELY COMPLEX
ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PROCESS
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table 3-7. Mass Balance Information for a 100-Cow Dairy Operation
Using Aerated Thermophilic Digestion and Flotation
INPUT
OUTPUT
WASTE COMPONENT
OR SOURCE
Milkhouse
Manure
Liquid
Fibrous Matter
Total
BOD
COD
Organic Nitrogen
SOURCE: EPA 1974,
L/DAY
(GAL /DAY)
2,540
(670)
4,540
(1,200)
— >—
7,080
(1,870)
—
--
_._
KG /DAY
(LB/DAY)
2,550
(5,620)
4,585
(10,100)
__
7,135
(15,720)
98
(215)
128
(281)
9
(20)
L/DAY
(GAL /DAY)
--
3,140
(830)
300
(80)
3,440
(910)
--
— .
KG /DAY
(LB/DAY)
—
__
3,170
(6,980)
300
(670)
3,470
(7,650)
5.2
(11.5)
10.6
(23.3)
2.7
(6)
79
-------
oo
o
Table 3-8. Relative Cost Factors and Benefits of Alternative
TREATMENT METHOD
Activated Sludge
Oxidation Ditch
Waste Lagoons
- Aerobic
- Anaerobic
LAND
REQUIREMENTS
low
low/mod.
high
rood/high
CAPITAL
INVESTMENT
high
mod/high
rood/high
moderate
LABOR
REQUIREMENTS
low
low
moderate
moderate
ENERGY
COSTS
high
high
high
low
Treatment
POTENTIAL
PRODUCT
RETURNS
low
low
low
low
Technologies
POTENTIAL
WATER QUALITY
BENEFITS
high
high
moderate
moderate
-------
treatment system with extended aeration. For a given situation,
an oxidation ditch will normally require more land than an
aerated lagoon because it is shallower. This would not neces-
sarily be the case in areas underlain by shallow lava layers, as
in the Twin Falls vicinity, where these layers often limit
lagoon depth to 3-4 feet.
Because it is considered a partial treatment process, an
ultimate disposal process will be required for effluent from
oxidation ditches. The oxidation ditch has an elongated shape
with a central partition to direct waste flow in a continuous
open channel. An aeration rotor at the surface circulates ditch
contents and supplies oxygen (Figure 3-3A). Other components
may be added as shown in Figure 3-3B. Velocities in the ditch
should be maintained at 1-1.5 ft/sec to minimize solids set-
tling. The area for an oxidation ditch is only 5-10 percent of
that needed for an oxidation pond (Loehr 1971) . Aerobic bac-
teria are used to degrade the organic materials to carbon
dioxide and water as the main products. BOD reductions of 80-90
percent have been obtained (Loehr 1971).
Oxidation ditches may be in-house or external ditches. The
in-house ditches are located beneath slotted floor facilities
and "take advantage of the continuous and uniform waste loading
to the unit, the controlled temperature in the confinement
building, and the continual mixing and aeration to produce a
near-ideal biological waste treatment process" (Loehr 1971) . In
these situations, the amount of water volume used to flush the
wastes can be reduced, resulting in a smaller treatment system.
The external ditch is separate from the waste production site,
uncovered, shallow, and exposed to ambient temperatures.
For oxidation ditches with continuous overflow,- an aerated
lagoon (to prevent odors) can be installed to accept wastes
prior to final discharge or treatment. This discharge can be
integrated with crop management.
Status and Reliability. This waste system is one of the
easiest and simplest to maintain. Start-up is the most critical
time; up to 12 weeks are reported necessary for a ditch to
acclimatize to the loading. Oxidation rates also drop consid-
erably as freezing is approached. Because wastes are pumped in,
they may be added intermittently. Loehr (1971) reports "shock
loading" may cause foaming and inefficiency. In contrast, EPA
(1974) states that the systems are "reliably insensitive to
batch loading." Foaming (particularly at start-up), humidity
(in confined areas), odors, and rotor maintenance are all
potential problems; but generally, this approach is considered
low in odors, low in manual labor, and convenient for the
operators (EPA 1974) . Prolonged power outages could disrupt the
system.
Impacts on Farmers. Although effluent from this system
would still require disposal, this system would provide improved
-------
ROTOR
A.
Liquid
B.
OXIDATION
OITCH
ALTERNATIVES FOR
SUBSEQUENT
TREATMENT AND
uAuni twn
FINAL
DISPOSAL
FIGURE 3-3, DIAGRAM OF A BASIC OXIDATION DITCH (A) AND
INTEGRATION WITH ADDITIONAL TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES (B)
SOURCE: LOEHR 1971.
82
-------
effluent quality, and would require minimal farmer maintenance.
It has a relatively high initial construction cost and continu-
ing electrical costs (Taylor 1970) .
Similar to activated sludge systems, capital investment in
the oxidation ditches is relatively high with high on-going
energy costs (Table 3-8). The land requirements for oxidation
ditches are likely to be moderate, which could affect production
and revenue generation potential of operations with space limi-
tations.
Potential environmental benefits from oxidation ditch
treatment systems are high because of good effluent quality.
The value of the sludge product periodically removed from the
ditch, however, would be minimal. The relatively low labor
requirements to maintain the system will offset, to some extent,
the reduced savings on product return.
Application to Sensitive Areas. This method produces
effluent with BOD reductions of 80-90 percent. While the prod-
uct still requires disposal, any runoff resulting from land
application of sludge would be of much higher quality, thus
reducing impacts. This method would also be useful in areas
where groundwater contamination is a concern. The land area
required is somewhat larger than would be necessary for a normal
retention pond; but in locations where lava beds lie close to
the surface, normal retention ponds must have a large surface
area anyhow because their depth is often restricted. These
areas are also prone to groundwater contamination; thus, both
surface and groundwater might benefit from such a system.
Waste Lagoons
Description. Lagoons are considered a partial treatment
process. Waste lagoons are excavated ponds that provide biolog-
ical treatment for wastewater arid/or manure. Often they may be
used in conjunction with a settling basin that removes solids
before effluent enters the lagoon. This will extend life of the
lagoon between cleanouts, and make solids removal easier because
the basin can be designed to facilitate cleanout. For maximum
decomposition to occur in a lagoon, animal waste needs to be
diluted with 6-10 times its volume of water (Taylor 1970).
Lagoons are in common use and may be naturally aerated, aerobic,
or anaerobic. Generalized diagrams of anaerobic and aerobic
waste lagoons are shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5.
Naturally aerated ponds (oxidation ponds) are shallow, with
sizing based on surface area and BOD, because oxidation occurs
only in the upper 18 inches of the pond. Oxidation ponds sup-
port algae and bacteria, and climatic conditions must favor
algae growth and introduction of oxygen. These ponds require
light, warmth, and wind for optimum functioning. Bacteria in
the pond decompose the wastes and use oxygen provided by the
83
-------
'2' freeboard
Annual precipitation less evaporation
and 25-year, 24-hour storm
^Spi
41 Crest
/flf
Stop
Dilution Volume or Lot Runoff,
whichever is greater
Livestock Wastes
Pumping
Minimum Design Volume fa
Single Cell - Anaerobic Lagoon
Constant
6" freeboard-
Annual precipitation
less evaporation &
25-yr, 24-hr storm
On Both Cells
Dilution Volume
Spillway
Crest
Elevation
Inlet—S
\
Kin Design Volume y^"
^Pumping
Pumping
STAGE I
Wastes.
\ Minimum Design Volur
Do not count net rain on second stage as
part of dilution volume.
STAGE II
Treatment Storage & Treatment
Twin Cell - Anaerobic Lagoon
FIGURE 3-4, GENERALIZED DIAGRAM OF SINGLE- AND TWIN-CELL
ANAEROBIC LAGOON SYSTEM
SOURCE: ODA 1982,
84
-------
«__lli^_^
2' freeboard
V >
\Depth of annual precipitation less evaporation + 25-yr, 24-hr prfecip. /
\ 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 3-5. GENERALIZED DIAGRAM OF AN AEROBIC.LAGOON SYSTEM
.SOURCE: ODA 1982,
85
-------
algae. The algae, in turn, use carbon dioxide and products of
the bacterial waste metabolism. Because of their shallow depth,
oxidation ponds require a large area and are more economical in
areas where land is inexpensive. Surface area requirements for
naturally aerated lagoons treating various types of animal
wastes are shown in Table 3-9. Because of the high BOD of
livestock waste, the surface area required for these ponds may
be too great to be practical for treatment, but they can be a
feasible way to provide further treatment of effluent from
anaerobic or mechanically aerated lagoons (Hermanson 1975).
In aerobic lagoons, oxygen is provided mechanically and
dispersed throughout the pond by a compressed air diffuser or
floating aerator, so these lagoons may be fairly deep. Depths
of 15-20 feet may be used satisfactorily- A mechanical aerator
providing oxygenation capacity 1.5 times the daily BOD loading
is the minimum size recommended for continuous operation
(Hermanson 1975). Volume and aerator size for mechanically
aerated lagoons is shown in Table 3-10.
Anaerobic lagoons are also deep ponds, but they contain no
dissolved oxygen. Because no energy is required, they are
generally cheaper than aerobic lagoons. The anaerobic lagoon
can decompose more organic matter for a given lagoon volume than
the aerobic lagoon. They also require less land area than a
naturally aerated lagoon because depth is not restricted by
light penetration or oxygen needs. They should be built as deep
as possible, with a small surface area. A detention time of 50
days or more is required for the best reduction of organic
solids. Minimum volume for anaerobic lagoons based on type of
animal is shown in Table 3-11.
Deeper lagoons with smaller surface areas provide a more
favorable and stable environment for methane bacteria, minimize
odors, require less land area, and encourage better mixing of
lagoon contents by rising gas bubbles (Hermanson 1975) . The
anaerobic lagoon contains two bacterial groups that sequentially
convert the wastes first to organic acids and then to methane
and carbon dioxide. Odor can be a problem with anaerobic ponds.
Assistance in design can be obtained from a number of sources,
including IDHW, SCS, extension agents, and others. Anaerobic
lagoons may be followed by an aerobic lagoon to remove addition-
al BOD loading.
In areas of excessive soil permeability, an impermeable
seal or liner may be necessary to prevent groundwater contamina-
tion from waste lagoons. IDHW recommends permeability be limit-
ed to one-quarter inch/day (Ada/Canyon 1977) .
Status and Reliability. All types of lagoons are commonly
used as a partial treatment process. All may experience serious
upsets requiring a number of weeks to overcome. An overabun-
dance of algae may disturb balance in the oxidation pond, and
aerobic systems become anaerobic and produce odors if the
86
-------
Table 3-9. Surface Area Requirements for Naturally Aerated Lagoons
BOD SURFACE AREA/LB NO. OF HEAD/
(LB/DAY) OF ANIMAL (SQ FT) SURFACE ACREa
Poultry (4-lb chicken) 0.014 3.0 3,570
Hog (200-lb hog) 0.42 1.8 10
Beef (1,000-lb animal) 1.6 1.4 31
Dairy (1,400-lb cow)b 2.2 1.4 23
a Based on 50 Ibs of BOD/lagoon acre/day- The values can be adjusted
for other BOD loading rates.
b Values in this table assume the entire manure production enters the
lagoon. If dairy cows are on pasture, however, manure will come only
from the milking parlor and holding pens. Then 0.3 sq ft of lagoon
surface/Ib of cow or 100 cows/acre of lagoon will be adequate.
SOURCE: Hermanson 1975.
87
-------
Table 3-10. Volume and Aerator Size for Mechanically Aerated Lagoons
VOLUME/ANIMAL VOLUME/IB OF- AERATOR SIZE2
(FT ) LIVESTOCK (FT ) (HEAD/HP)
Poultry (4-lb chicken) 3 0.75 3,660
Hog (200-lb hog) 200 1.00 120
Beef (1,000-lb animal) 750 0.75 32
Dairy (1,400-lb cow)D 1,750 1.25 23
a Based on 1.5 times the daily BOD loading and aerator output of 3.2 Ibs of
oxygen/HP/hr. If a loading factor of 2 times the daily BOD loading is
desired, multiply number of head/HP by 0.75.
Values in this table assume the entire manure production enters the lagoon.
If dairy cows are on pasture, however, manure will cone only from the
milking parlor and holding pens. Then 350 cu ft of lagoon can be used for
each 1400-lb cow, or the manure from 100 cows weighing 1400 Ibs each can
be used/aerator HP.
SOURCE: Hermanson 1975.
88
-------
Table 3-11. Minimum Volume Required for Anaerobic Lagoons
VOLUME/LB OF., VOLUME/ANIMAL
LIVESTOCK LIVESTOCK (FT ) (FT )
Poultry 3 12 (4 Ib chicken)
Hog 2 400 (200 Ib hog)
Beef 2 2,000 (1,000 Ib animal)
Dairya 2 2,800 (1,400 Ib cow)
a Values in this table assume the entire manure production
enters the lagoon. If dairy cows are on pasture, however,
manure will come only from the milking parlor and holding
pens. Then 550 ft of lagoon will be sufficient for each
1,400 Ib cow.
SOURCE: Hermanson 1975.
89
-------
aerator ceases to function. Anaerobic lagoons may become acidic
and produce odors if they receive too much waste at one time
(EPA 1974) . Failures can be traced to improper design,
construction, and management (Hermanson 1975) . Overloading is
the most common cause of problems (Ada/Canyon 1977).
Impacts on Farmers. General advantages of lagoons include:
low labor requirements, provision of long-term storage to allow
field spreading at appropriate times and reduction of fly prob-
lems. The initial investment is lower than for a liquid manure
system with field spreading. General disadvantages include:
need for periodic sludge removal, potential for odors, potential
groundwater pollution, provision of mosquito habitat, and poten-
tially greater use of water than alternative waste-handling
systems (Hermanson 1975) . The main advantages of an anaerobic
system or oxidation pond over an aerobic pond are the lack of
energy required and the simplicity of the system to construct.
Disadvantages include strong odors during agitation, pumping,
hauling, and field spreading. Flies and insects may also be a
problem (Taylor 1970). All three types will require minimal
operation, although some maintenance and pumping will be neces-
sary, and proper disposal of the waste products, probably by
land application, is necessary.
Although the initial investment to develop waste lagoons is
relatively low, the value of the residual product is also low
and potential water quality benefits are not as significant as
with more advanced treatment technologies. If land area is
limited, size requirements, especially for aerobic lagoons,
could substantially affect production and revenue generation of
an operator.
As previously identified, excavation costs are the princi-
pal cost.,item in constructing waste lagoons and are estimated at
$1.00/yd . The excavation costs to construct mechanically
aerated lagoons for feedlot operations are estimated to range
from $800 for a 60-head dairy to $9,000 for a 700-head opera-
tion. Other potential costs associated with construction of
waste lagoons include sealing or glazation (estimated at
$1.00/ft ) to protect groundwater from contamination and fencing
(estimated at approximately $1.00-$!.25/lin. ft.). Mechanically
aerated lagoons also will require investment in aerators.
Application in Sensitive Areas. In areas near population
centers, land is often more expensive, and odors are more of a
problem. In these areas, aerated lagoons are preferable to
anaerobic lagoons (which may produce more odors) or oxidation
ponds (which require more land) . Use of these treatment pro-
cesses will provide improved solids, dewatering, reduced solids
volume, and odor reduction of solids spread on cropland (EPA
1974) . As such, they would be preferable to simple detention
ponds in sensitive areas where population centers make odors a
problem.
90
-------
Land Application
Description. Land application is probably the most practi-
cal final placement for farm manure and contaminated runoff.
Land application of wastes has been illustrated schematically by
EPA (1974) as:
Evaporation and Volatilization
of Organics and Inorganics
Animal Wastes \ Land \ Harvested
\
/
_ _
from Feedlots / - : - / Crop
\!/
Seepage and Runoff
of Nutrients
No generalizations concerning waste input or output are possible
because site-specific conditions vary greatly- They affect not
only waste content, but the extent to which waste will remain on
the land and be utilized or will be lost by seepage, runoff, or
evaporation. Land application of wastes may be approached from
either the fertilization/ irrigation aspect or merely as a means
of waste disposal.
While 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 that suits the individual farmer's needs
is the key to effective use of these nutrients and will benefit
both the farmer and the environment. Approximate fertilizer
value of manure for various animals is provided in Table 3-12.
When applying wastes for fertilization purposes, the
application rate must be geared to requirement of the crop where
it will be applied, and the application restricted to that
providing optimum crop growth. Where application is made
primarily for waste disposal, application rates may be higher.
Gilmour et al. (1975) suggest runoff disposal to agricultural
land should not exceed 2-4 inches per acre on a sustained
year-after-year basis because excessive application could reduce
crop yields.
Manure can be applied to the land in either solid or liquid
form. Solids spreading, liquid spreading (for thick but pump-
able wash slurries), and irrigation (for thin waste slurries)
are the major types of application. Solid manure contains less
water than liquid manure, so it can be stockpiled and then
loaded onto a manure spreader, spread on the fields, and incor-
porated into the soil by plowing or other means. Liquid manure
systems utilize storage ponds or tanks to contain the material
91
-------
Table 3-12. Approximate Fertilizer Nutrient Value of Manure
NUTRIENTS IN MANURE
NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS POTASSIUM
ANIMAL LB/TON LB/TON LB/TON
Dairy cattle 11 2 10
Beef cattle 14 4 9
Swine 10 3 8
Horses 14 2 12
Sheep 28 4 20
Poultry 31 8 7
SOURCE: SCS Agricultural Waste Management Field Manual in
Ada/Canyon 1977.
92
-------
until needed. Liquid spreading and hauling may be accomplished
by the same piece of equipment, such as tank trucks or trailers
with built-in spreaders, unless the transport distance is great.
Liquid spreading equipment may vary from gravity-feed piping or
ditches to high pressure pumps. Removal and application of
liquid wastes can be combined in some cases by pumping directly
from containment ponds to irrigation systems for field applica-
tion. Liquid manure may be placed by surface spreading, soil
injection, plow-cover furrow methods, or irrigation. The in-
jection method and the plow-furrow cover method both result in
the material being placed 6-8 inches below the soil surface,
which reduces the opportunity for both odors and flies (Klausner
et al. 1971) .
The rate of application depends on the manure moisture
content, type of animal waste, amount of bedding, amount of dirt
incorporated with the waste (if pens are scraped), stockpiling
or treatment methods prior to application, and other factors.
Incorporating the manure into the soil as soon as possible
after spreading is important both to immobilize the manure
constituents and to minimize flies and odors. Where it cannot
be incorporated, it should be spread on fields having the great-
est amount of plant material to reduce erosion and increase
retention time on the surface. Losses, particularly by runoff
and seepage, can be minimized by proper site selection and
management practices, such as appropriate application times,
rates, and incorporation methods, as well as tailwater collec-
tion and contour plowing.
Land application solely for disposal, as opposed to fertil-
ization, is less common. Some potential problems can also
result (EPA 1974) :
o Crop response problems from salt toxicity
o Lack of equipment capable of applying large volumes of
waste
o Odor and fly control problems
o Reduced economic value of the wastes as fertilizer
o Improper nutrient balance
o Increased application costs
o Excess nitrate for given moisture levels.
Status and Reliability. Land disposal is considered a
complete waste treatment. The concept of land application for
fertilization has been used successfully for many years, and
reliability is considered excellent. Use of land for disposal
93
-------
has a shorter history and is more questionable if practiced on
income-producing cropland (EPA 1974) .
Impact on Farmers. One advantage of land application to
the farmer is that the material applied improves soil tilth and
reduces the need for expensive fertilizers. Application tech-
nology is also flexible, and application can be made in a vari-
ety of ways depending on farmer needs and equipment. Manure may
contain high concentrations of soluble salts that reduce yields
of some crops, adversely affect soil structure, and reduce soil
permeability. Care must be taken to ensure proper application
rates, particularly in the more arid regions (Gilmour et al.
1975). Ammonia toxicity and nitrate and bacterial leaching can
also be problems associated with land application, depending on
the location.
The fertilization/irrigation approach to land application
provides greater potential for the farmer to minimize waste
management costs than the disposal-only approach. The net cost
of using manure to provide crop nutrients, however, depends to a
large extent on local and site-specific conditions including the
type of soil for application, crop management approach, climate,
and local economics.
Different types of equipment are needed for land applica-
tion systems depending upon the methods of storage, handling and
application. For handling and application of solids, investment
in additional equipment generally includes a front-end loader
and box spreader. For liquid systems, equipment needs generally
include storage facilities and a tank truck or wagon/sprinkler-
system for application.
As indicated in Table 3-13, significant differences in
annual fixed costs are likely to occur for dry manure and liquid
manure handling systems. Although data on operating costs are
limited because of considerable site variability, the higher
annual fixed costs of liquid manure systems may be offset to
some extent by lower operating costs. The effects of economics
of scale on average fixed costs are also evident from the data
in Table 3-13.
The principal benefits of land application of animal wastes
are potential savings on the use of fertilizer as indicated in
Table 3-14. The current market value of the three key fertiliz-
er components of manure - nitrogen, phosphate, and potash - is
$0.17, $0.56, and $0.25 per pound, respectively (Moffett pers.
comm.). Based on average amounts available per ton of manure,
the potential values to farmers of applying the manure resource
to crops can be estimated. It should be recognized that the
values presented in Table 3-14 represent 100 percent utilization
of the manure's nutrient value and that nutrient losses will
occur as a result of handling, storage, and processing methods.
(Refer to Tables 3-2 and 3-3 for nutrient losses associated with
different processing methods.)
94
-------
Table 3-13. Comparison of Annual Fixed Costs Per Head of
Dry Bulk and Aerobic Liquid Manure Handling
Systems for Commercial Beef Feedlots in the
Caldwell, Idaho Areaa
ONE TIME FEEDLOT CAPACITY
TYPE OF SYSTEM 500 HEAD 3000 HEAD 10,OOP HEAD
Dry Bulk Handling System
- Diversion Ditches $ 0.34 $ 0.14 $ 0.08
- Catchment Ponds 4.08 2.11 1.42
- Loader/Spreader 5.32 4.70 2.83
TOTAL ($/head) $ 9.74 $ 6.95 $ 4.33
Aerobic Liquid Handling System
- Paving, Gutters, Pipe $13.63 $12.79 $11.69
- Lagoons6 6.58 6.58 6.58
- Pumps, Wagons,^Sprinklers 5.66 1.71 .76
- Ditches, Ponds 1.59 .80 .54
TOTAL ($/head) $27.46 $21.88 $19.57
a All original cost data adjusted to 1985 dollars by the
Nationwide Consumer Price Index.
Earth construction, minimum of two square feet cross-sectional
area, seven-eighths of perimeter maximum length.
2.5 inch-24 hour rainfall runoff capacity, earth construction.
25 square feet pavement per head, 21 square feet.per space per
head; excess is support area.
150 cubic feet storage capacity/head annual volume.
Support area surface runoff control facilities.
SOURCE: Gilmour et al. 1975.
95
-------
Table 3-14. Potential
Fertilizer Benefit
Value of Applied
CONTENT/
TON MANURE
Nitrogen/ ton 4 Ibs. N
Phosphate/ton 4 Ibs. P20c
Potash/ ton 9 Ibs. K20
Fertilizer Value/ton manure
Physical Benefit
Increased Water
Retention/ton (1%/T)
Increased Organic
Matter Content/ ton
Physical Value/ton manure
Total Potential Value of
Beef Feedlot
PRICE/
POUND
$ .17
.56
.25
$.007b
.500b
Applied Beef Manure/ton:
Wastes
POTENTIAL
VALUE
$ .68
2.24
2.25
$5.17
0.507
$5.67
a Current market value (from Moffitt pers. comm.)
b SOURCE: Gilmour et al. 1975
96
-------
Other benefits of land application of manure include a
potential increase in water retention capability of the soil and
the addition of organic matter. As shown in Table 3-14, the
value of these benefits was estimated at $.007 and $.50 per ton,
respectively, by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Gilmour et
al. 1975) on land disposal in the Caldwell, Idaho area.
The disposal-only approach to land application of animal
wastes may provide some residual value to the farmer even if
applied to land currently not in production. Improved soil
conditions will provide opportunities for future crop produc-
tion.
Application to Sensitive Areas. Surface and subsurface
flow of water is the primary transport mechanism for manure from
fields to waterbodies. To prevent runoff, application must be
done at a time when the soil can absorb liquids, and it must be
followed rapidly by soil incorporation. Application to frozen
ground or saturated soil should be avoided. Land application
should be practiced on flat lands, where runoff velocity and
volume are naturally reduced, and application rates should be
geared to the capacity of crops and soil to assimilate it.
Diversion ditches and other practices to intercept surface water
runoff can also be used. If these factors and practices are
considered, and site-specific factors are taken into account
when developing a land disposal plan, water pollution potential
from land application can be substantially reduced and use of
land application in sensitive areas should be acceptable. In
areas of very permeable soils, where shallow groundwater exists,
surface irrigation should be avoided. Overhead irrigation can
minimize the danger of groundwater contamination (Gilmour et al.
1975). Spreading on land adjacent to watercourses may be re-
stricted, depending on site-specific slope, soil, and climatic
conditions. Restriction distances of 50-500 feet have been
recommended by various governmental agencies (Ada/Canyon 1977).
Alternatives Most Appropriate for Sensitive Areas
As long as proper end-of-process technologies are employed,
in-process technologies will generally have little effect on
water quality in sensitive areas. The one exception to this may
be site selection because of the far-reaching effects of topog-
raphy and climate on nearly every aspect of the operation.
For existing farms in sensitive areas, developing mitiga-
tion measures for undesirable site characteristics is very
important. For future sources, careful site selection is a must
if water quality is to be protected.
The end-of-process technologies can all be appropriate in
sensitive areas to varying degrees, depending on site-specific
characteristics arid individual farmer needs. Runoff control is
a must for all operations. Land application is one of the few
97
-------
complete treatment options available. It is effective for both
manure and runoff, although it must be carefully suited to the
individual site conditions to assure runoff does not occur.
Composting, although a complete treatment process for manure,
will not deal with runoff from the manure site or from the
cowyard in general. Lagoons, oxidation ditches and activated
sludge processes are valuable in reducing BOD and other pollu-
tants, but as incomplete processes, a final disposition of
effluent is needed. They must also be maintained to achieve
optimum performance and prevented from overflowing, if water
quality is to be protected.
98
-------
Chapter 4
ASSESSMENT OF REGULATORY IMPACTS
As discussed previously, EPA issued approximately 70 indi-
vidual permits in the 1970s which have now expired. EPA pro-
poses to issue a General Permit to replace and to cover other
operations not previously permitted. This chapter assesses
impacts of two aspects of the proposed permit: use of a General
Permit (as opposed to use of individual permits) and impacts of
the permit criteria.
Scope of the General Permit (Preferred Option)
The NPDES permit regulations are applicable to all
operations found to produce significant water quality degrada-
tion. Regulations cover essentially three groups of
operations: 1) large operations of more than 1,000 beef or
more than 700 dairy cattle), 2) operations having more than 300
beef or more than 200 dairy cattle that discharge to or have
contact with a ditch or waterway, and 3) smaller operations,
identified on a case-by-case basis when they are found to be
causing a pollution problem. Because of the large number of
smaller operations, this third group causes the majority of
the water quality problems, and an enforcement program encom-
passing all these groups is considered necessary if significant
water quality improvement is to be expected and water quality
standards are to be met (Jones & Stokes Associates 1985) .
Limiting the permit coverage to the larger operations in the
first two groups will produce little water quality improvement,
particularly in the Twin Falls and Blackfoot areas, where the
great majority of the operations are small (fewer than 200
animals).
The permit will therefore be required of all dairies and
feedlots containing more than 700 and 1,000 animals, respec-
tively, and all dairies and feedlots with more than 200 and 300
animals, respectively, that discharge to or have contact with
a ditch or waterway. Under this preferred option, smaller
operations contributing to water quality degradation will also
be asked to apply for General Permit coverage or submit an NPDES
application for an individual permit on a case-by-case basis,
as they are identified. Because of their large numbers, effort
will be concentrated on operations in the priority drainages
identified in Chapter 2 (Table 2-16), particularly those most
severely impacted by dairy and feedlot wastes.
99
-------
Based on the aerial survey, previous permitting activity,
and conversations with numerous state and county personnel,
operators in the first two categories are likely to number
approximately 200. An additional 200-400 of the smaller dairy
and feedlot owners could eventually be asked to apply for permit
coverage. The actual number affected will depend on the degree
of effort devoted to this time by IDHW, which in turn depends on
manpower, priorities, water quality conditions in the various
stream segments, and numerous other factors. This option is
believed to provide the greatest flexibility for EPA because it
takes advantage of the benefits of a General Permit, but also
allows the option of individualized permits on a case-by-case
basis as needed.
Impacts of the General Permit Approach
The concept of a General Permit for Idaho feeding opera-
tions is not new. A General Permit was proposed in 1981 but
was never finalized. The permit would have 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 exclusion of an opera-
tion from the General Permit when more stringent permit
limitations were desirable. 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) .
The proposed permit system will cover the same categories.
Under a General Permit, feedlot and dairy owners falling
under the categories established in the permit would have to
notify EPA of their intent to be covered under the General
Permit. The General Permit would establish a set of discharge
criteria that would apply generally across-the-board to all
operations under the permit. During review of the plan, addi-
tional site-specific conditions could be included in the permit
as necessary for water quality protection. Individuals request-
ing coverage would have to submit a Notice of Intent to the
director within 30 days of permit issuance and an operating plan
within 60 days of the effective date of the permit. Individuals
falling under scope of the permit but not covered by the permit
would not be authorized to discharge, and would be in violation
should a discharge occur.
This procedure would preclude the need for EPA to draft and
issue numerous individual permits, and would greatly decrease
time required for permit issuance. Likewise, permit application
requirements would be simplified for the applicant, and burden-
some mandatory inspections would also be eliminated.
100
-------
Because the General Permit and individual permits would
contain essentially the same requirements, the primary impact
related to permit type is expected to be administrative, assum-
ing enforcement efforts are equal under both permit types. For
the issuing agency and the operators covered by the General
Permit, issuance of a General Permit is expected to reduce time
and effort expended. No negative impacts to the agency, owners,
or environment are expected. Jones & Stokes Associates (1985)
has assessed General Permit programs for confined animal
feeding in other states and makes several general
conclusions concerning the use and feasibility of General
Permits for confined animal operations in Idaho:
o Permit conditions under a General Permit may be
identical to those of individual permits, but EPA and
state personnel agree that General Permits reduce
paperwork. During the application phase of a program,
they eliminate time-consuming review of individual
applications by the permitting agency and 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 enforcement emphasis of the permitting agency,
rather than the form of the permit used.
o The paperwork reduction frees time that can often be
used for higher priority activities, such as inspec-
tions. This can be a particularly important aspect of
a General Permit where manpower is limited.
o Once understood by the agricultural community, feedlot
General 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.
o A General Permit provides at least the framework for a
more uniformly-administered program and less arbitrary
enforcement.
o A 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.
o 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 and
implements an inspection program and compliance monitor-
ing.
o A General Permit cannot cover all site-specific
situations. Some individual permits may still be
101
-------
necessary if complete water quality protection is
required or if an operation has a variety of
discharges.
o 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 where EPA program head-
quarters are located out of state. In such a
situation, strong support and encouragement of state
enforcement efforts is valuable.
Impacts of the Permit Conditions
Description of Permit Requirements and Criteria
Previous permits required that existing facilities meet
Best Practicable Control Technology (BPT), i.e., contain
process waste plus runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour rainfall
event. They prohibited discharges to waters except when
caused by a "chronic or catastrophic" rainfall event. New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) require containment of
process waste plus runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall
event. The actual difference between these storms in many areas
is less than 0.4 inch. Both requirements have been found
insufficient in many colder states because they do not
take frozen ground and the need to store cumulative winter
rainfall into account. Some states require up to 5 or 6 months
of storage capacity for times when manure cannot be spread
onto fields (EPA 1974) . In Idaho, climatic conditions
indicate at least a 4-month holding period is necessary
(Jones & Stokes Associates 1985) . This is consistent with SCS
and IDHW plans, which normally require holding periods of 3-6
months depending on location.
The proposed permit will require facilities to accommo-
date process waste, runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm
event, and 3 inches of runoff (no absorption), which is approxi-
mately equal to runoff expected from 4 months of winter runoff
as expected from a 1- in 5-year winter. For operations along
the Snake River drainages, when adjustment is made for evapora-
tion, this is equivalent to designing for a net runoff of ap-
proximately 4 inches. See Jones & Stokes Associates (1985) for
an in-depth discussion deriving these criteria.
The permit also requires the following best management
practices to control and abate runoff discharges:
1. Flowing surface waters (rivers, streams, and canals)
will be prohibited from contact with animals confined
within the operation;
102
-------
2. Waste disposal by land application will not create a
public health hazard and must comply with all state land
application regulations;
3. Solids, sludges, or other materials removed by treatment
of wastewaters must be disposed of in a manner that
prevents their entering waters of the United States; and
4. Wastes from dipping vats, pest and parasite control
units, and similar facilities must be disposed of in a
manner that prevents their entering waters of the United
States.
Within 6 months of permit issuance, an operating plan will
be required from each operation covered by the permit. The plan
will establish practices to be followed in operating the facili-
ty, diverting and controlling runoff, and in dewatering, re-
moval, and disposal of solids. An additional description of the
plan is provided in the General Permit (Appendix D).
Environmental Impacts of the Permit Criteria
Past criteria required only containment of a 25-year
storm and did not take the need for storage of cumulative pre-
cipitation into account. An analysis of cumulative precipita-
tion for the Boise area indicated that cumulative precipita-
tion often exceeds the volume expected from a 25-year, 24-hour
storm event (Jones & Stokes Associates 1985). As a result,
feedlot and dairy discharges are common, even from
impoundments constructed to contain a 25-year storm
(climatologic data for representative areas along the Snake
river are shown in Appendix C).
Under the proposed permit criteria, discharges from proper-
ly constructed feedlots or dairy operations would be limited
to times when precipitation during the 3- to 4-month holding
period is greater than that expected for a 1- in 5-year winter
(a 20 percent possibility) that also experiences a 25-year, 24-
hour storm (a 4 percent possibility). Discharges will still
occur occasionally in very heavy precipitation years, partic-
ularly if recommended management practices, such as pumping,
are not followed prior to onset of winter; but the number
and frequency of discharges should be greatly reduced.
Impacts of dairy and feedlot discharges are described in
Chapter 2. If facilities are constructed to meet the new
criteria, in areas where dairies and feedlots are the prima-
ry sources of impact, significant water quality improvement
in streams and canals will be noted. It is impossible to
predict the exact degree to which improvement will occur,
because it will be dependent upon the amount of waste reduc-
tion, the amount of receiving water flow, pollutant contri-
butions from different types of sources, and other factors.
103
-------
The reduction in discharges will affect a number of water
quality parameters. Dissolved oxygen levels should rise, and
BOD, nutrient, bacteria, and sediment levels should be reduced.
This, in turn, should provide benefits for aquatic wildlife,
result in cleaner canals and irrigation water for irrigators,
and reduce the potential for fish kills, clogged irrigation
equipment, weed growth in canals, and eutrophication of stream
segments. Benefits should be most obvious in winter and
spring, because these are the months in which the greatest
number of discharges generally occur.
Impacts of the Criteria on Permit Administration
The impacts on EPA permit personnel from any permit issu-
ance will depend primarily on the type of permit issued, the
number of operations included in the permit, and the aggressive-
ness of the enforcement program, rather than on the stringency
of the criteria themselves. An exception may occur if permit
requirements are lengthy and involve numerous reviews by en-
forcement personnel. As all permits will contain permit crite-
ria of some type, the revision in permit criteria themselves
should pose little or no additional administrative burden on
EPA.
Impacts of the Criteria on Operators
The permit criteria will require a greater amount of runoff
to be contained than was required under the previous permit.
This will produce both positive and negative impacts on farmers.
The criteria will result in much more effective containment,
and there will be positive impacts from the decrease in dis-
charges. The decrease in discharges will result in cleaner
water for other farmers and irrigators using canals impacted by
upstream wastes. There will be less overflow of manure
onto neighboring properties, which will reduce fly and odor
problems, and reduce the health hazard accompanying manure
overflows. There will also be less ill will and problems be-
tween neighbors if manure can be contained on-site.
The major impact on farmers will be economic, because the
new criteria will require an increase in holding capacity.
Operators will need to enlarge existing facilities or construct
new facilities somewhat larger than those which were previous-
ly required. Increased size will require additional land for
containment, unless existing facilities are deepened. In
regions such as parts of the Twin Falls area, where lava beds
limit depth of existing impoundments to 3-4 feet, any contain-
ment expansion will mean an increased surface area will be
necessary. (Shallow impoundments will allow greater natu-
ral oxidation to occur, however, and this will produce a
better quality of waste.)
104
-------
It is often more difficult to enlarge an existing im-
poundment than to construct a new one. Few operators presently
construct holding ponds for runoff, and process waste ponds are
often fenced to prevent entrance of runoff water. In these
cases, construction of a new, separate pond only for runoff may
be the easiest method of compliance.
The degree to which impoundment size must be increased
will depend upon the size of existing facilities in terms of
both number of animals and size of the area generating runoff.
*
The containment volumes required under the old and the
newly proposed criteria are estimated in Table 4-1 for four dif-
ferent-sized dairy and two different-sized feedlot operations.
As presented, feedlot operators would be required to increase
the impoundment capacity by over 160 percent for both small and
large-scale operations. The percentage volume increase for
dairy operators would be considerably less, ranging from approx-
imately 27 percent to 108 percent.
Excavation costs for impoundment expansions under the new
criteria are estimated in Table 4-2. For dairy operations, the
cost impact on farmers would be approximately $2,000 to $2,600
for a 6-acre facility and approximately $5,000 to $6,600 for a
15-acre facility, based on the assumptions in Table 4-1. For
feedlot operations, the cost impact is estimated at between
$3,300 and $4,400 for a 10-acre facility and between $16,600 and
$22,000 for a 50-acre facility.
Based on a 14 percent amortization rate, the annual fixed
cost increase to dairy operators for pond expansion would be
approximately $300 for a small (6-acre) operation, and $700 for
a large (15-acre) operation. Feedlot operators would incur
additional annual fixed expenses of approximately $560 and
$2,500, respectively, for small (10-acre) and large (50-acre)
facilities.
For dairy and feedlot operations that presently provide no
containment of runoff, the cost impact will be significantly
higher than the dollar amount indicated in Table 4-2. Under
these circumstances, the operator would be required to excavate
the total volume indicated under the "New Criteria" category in
Table 4-2. In addition to excavation costs (estimated at be-
tween $.75 and $1.00/yd ), the operator also would likely incur
costs for related improvements, such as ditches or other diver-
sion facilities.
For operations with space constraints where an increase in
depth of existing impoundment areas is not possible, compliance
with the new runoff criteria may require that the area presently
used for livestock production be reduced. As discussed in the
Site Selection section of Chapter 3, the capacity of a
3,000-head teedlot would need to be reduced by approximately 440
head (assuming requirements of 200 sq ft/head) to accommodate
105
-------
Table 4-1. Comparison of Impoundments for Representative Dairy and Feedlot
Operations Under Old and Proposed Runoff Containment Criteria
Case
Nuaber
1
£
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Type
Facility
Feedlot
Feedlot
Feedlot
Feedlot
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size
flcres
10
10
50
50
•6
6
6
6
6
6
15
15
Total Type
Runoff
Head Wash Criteria
£00 N/A
£00 N/fl
3,000 N/fl
3,000 N/fl
60 Hand
60 Hand
£00 Sprinkler
200 Sprinkler
400 Sprinkler
400 Sprinkler
700 Sprinkler
700 Sprinkler
Old
New
Old
New
Old
New
Old
New
Old
New
Old
New
Precip.
Runoff
54,450
145, £00
£72,250
726,000
32,670
87, 128
3£,670
87, 1£0
32,670
87, 120
81,675
217,600
Waste
Volume
N/fl
N/fl
N/A
N/fl
13,810
13,810
46,032
46,032
92,064
92,064
161,112
161,112
flctive Stor-
Uash age Volume
Pond
Side
Pond
flrea
Pond
flrea
Volume (Cubic Ft) Length* (Sq. Ft.) (flcres)
N/A
N/fl
N/fl
N/fl
2,688
2,868
37,219
37, £19
74,439
74,439
130, £67
130, £67
54,450
145, £00
£72,250
726,000
49,367
103,617
115,921
170,371
199,173
£53,6£3
373,054
509, 179
98
148
195
305
94
128
134
158
170
169
££5
£59
9,539
21,626
36,022
93,298
6,606
16,354
17,971
25,092
28,788
35,684
50,534
67,171
0.22
0.50
0.67
2.14
0.20
0.36
0.41
0.58
0.66
0.62
1.16
1.54
Excavation Excavation
Volume Volume
Percent
Increase
(Cubic Ft) (Cubic Yds) in Volume
72,048
190,637
357,768
957,467
65,447
136,413
152,255
223,686
261,547
333,224
490,744
670,593
2,666
7,061
13,251
35,462
2,424
5,05£
5,639
6,285
9,687
12,342
16,176
£4,837
164.63*
167. 6£*
106.43*
46. 9£*
£7.48*
36.65*
Assumptions:
Total Depth - Feet 1£
Sol ids/Inactive Storage - Feet £
Freeboard - Feet 1
Sideslopes 2:1
Surface Runoff - Old Criteria - Inche 1.5
Surface Runoff - New Criteria - Inche 4
Beef Cow Effluent - CF/Cow/Day (800# 0.8
Dairy Cow Effluent - CF/Cow/Day (1400 1.92
Dairy - Hand Washing - CF/Cow/Day 0.40
Dairy - Sprinkler Washing - CF/Cow/Da 1.55
Retention Period - Months 4
* Side of Sauare Pond
-------
Table 4-2. Projected Cost Impact on Dairy and Feedlot Operators fron
Implementation of New Runoff Criteria
Excavation Volume (Yd )
TYPE OF
OPERATION/
CAPACITY
Dairy
60 head
200 head
400 head
700 head
Feedlot
200 head
3,000 head
FACILITY
SIZE
(ACRES)
6
6
6
15
10
50
DID
CRITERIA
2,668
13,251
NEW
CRITERIA
7,061
35,462
CHANGE
2,424
5,639
9,687
18,176
5,052
8,285
12,342
24,837
2,628
2,646
2,655
6,661
4,393
22,211
COST ,
IMPACT^
$1,971-2,628
$1,984-2,646
$1,991-2,655
$4,995-6,661
$3,294-4,393
$16,658-22,211
Based on assumptions identified in Table 4-1.
2 "
Includes only excavation costs, estimated at $0.75 and $1.00/yd"
107
-------
the impoundment requirements without increasing pond depth. An
impact of this magnitude would have a significant effect on the
economic viability of the feedlot operation.
In summary, the extent to which an operator would be im-
pacted from implementation of the new runoff criteria greatly
depends on site-specific conditions. Although all operators
will incur excavation costs to expand existing areas, or to
develop new impoundment areas, it would appear that only a small
number of operators would need to reduce production capacity to
meet the new runoff criteria. The availability of financial
assistance through existing federal and state programs will help
to minimize the cost impact on the farmer.
Irreversible Impacts and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Because groundwater contamination is more difficult to
rectify than surface water contamination, great care should be
taken to assure that reducing surface water contamination is not
accomplished at the expense of the groundwater quality. Each
impoundment must be designed with site-specific characteristics
in mind to ensure that pollution is minimal. Impoundments that
are designed incorrectly (i.e., those in porous areas that
are not sealed) could become channels facilitating entrance of
pollutants to the groundwater. This would be particularly
critical along the Snake River, above the Rathdrum prairie
aquifer, and in other localized areas that support quality
groundwater. Should contamination occur, aquifer cleanup would
be very difficult.
A certain monetary commitment will also be involved in
impoundment construction and other on-site improvements,
although the improvements would be reversible.
108
-------
Chapter 5
ALTERNATIVE PERMIT APPROACHES
Chapter 4 described the preferred permit approach, which
combined the issuance of a General Permit for larger operations,
with the inclusion of smaller operations on a case-by-case basis
through use of either individual permits or by incorporation
under the General Permit, depending upon the individual situa-
tion and needs. This chapter describes and briefly analyzes
alternative approaches to the permitting process.
Several alternative permitting approaches are possible for
feedlot and dairy regulation in Idaho. These include:
o Maintain status quo (no action)
o Issue individual permits
o Issue a General Permit
o Issue a General Permit that requires special provisions
for farms in sensitive areas
These alternatives are discussed below in terms of
their impact on the environment, on the operators, and on the
EPA administrative burden. Much of the environmental benefit
derived from any permit system will depend on the level of
enforcement pursued by EPA. Evaluation of the environmental
impact for the permit options below assumes an equal enforce-
ment effort for all alternatives.
Alternative 1; No Action
Description. This alternative would essentially main-
tain the status quo. No permits would be issued and
present conditions would continue. Few waste facilities
will be constructed. New source operations will continue to
increase in number, and most will not have proper containment
facilities. Few existing operations will upgrade their facil-
ities. Water quality will remain poor or degrade further. In
addition, EPA will not be meeting its responsibilities under
the Clean Water Act, and water quality standards violations will
continue to occur.
Some facility design and construction activities are
being encouraged by IDHW and SCS, and this would be
expected to continue; but the number of operations affected
109
-------
directly by these efforts and the number that construct proper
facilities (i.e., those successfully containing runoff) is quite
low. Enforcement or mitigation activities are generally initi-
ated by complaints or "crisis" situations. As a result,
facility construction is scattered among various drainage ba-
sins. In some cases, special programs are instituted through a
Rural Clean Water Program Grant or state water pollution control
funds, such as the project underway in the Rock Creek
drainage, but these programs are generally localized in scope
and few in number because of limited funding.
Environmental Impacts. Water quality improvement in
most river segments where feedlots and dairies presently exert
heavy impact will remain poor. In areas such as the Magic
Valley, where the number of new sources is increasing, water
quality in rivers and canals will continue to degrade. This
effect will be most prominent in the Southwest, Upper Snake,
and Bear River Basins and probably some areas of the Clear-
water Basin as well. Many of these areas support threatened,
endangered, or priority fish species. The indirect problems
associated with dairy and feedlot discharges including
clogged irrigation water intakes, weed growth in canals, fish
kills from manure and weed-reducing chemicals, and fly and
odor problems will continue.
Administrative Impacts. This alternative will produce
no additionaladministrative burden on EPA, and conditions
will remain as at present. Under this alternative, state and
local agencies, such as IDHW, the canal companies, district
health departments, SCS, and others, because of their local
involvement and presence, will be forced to continue accepting
most of the burden dealing with discharging operations,
although there are inadequate legal mechanisms at the state
level for the effective control of these operations.
Impacts to Operators. There will be no new impacts
to operators under this alternative.
Alternative 2; Issue Individual Permits
Description. Under this alternative, individual per-
mits would be issued for each facility, as was previously done.
Each facility would be required to submit an NPDES application
form for review and approval, and individual permit numbers,
reporting and monitoring requirements, and management prac-
tices would be established for each applicant. Facilities
would be inspected at various intervals. Two potential
permitting scenarios are possible under this alternative.
Permits could be issued for all feedlots and dairies of more
than 1,000 and 700 animals, respectively, and for all operations
of more than 300 and 200 animals, respectively, where operations
discharge directly to a waterway or canal. A second option
would be to also include those operations that cause signifi-
110
-------
cant degradation to waters regardless of their size, as
allowed by the Appendix B regulations. The first option
would involve permitting approximately 200 operations; the
second would involve issuance of perhaps 200-400 additional
permits. Permit conditions and requirements would be essen-
tially the same as those under Alternative 3 and most
operations under Alternative 4 (described in the previous sec-
tion) .
Environmental Impacts. Some positive environmental im-
pact s~wouTd~Eeexpecte3From the reestablishment of any permit
system. The degree of environmental benefit derived would
depend primarily on the number of permits issued, the location
of the permitted facilities, and the degree to which enforce-
ment of the permit conditions is aggressively pursued. If
only larger operations are included on the present program,
the only area likely to benefit would be the area near
Caldwell, which contains the majority of the large feedlot
operations. To be effective in most areas, smaller operations
must be included, particularly in areas experiencing signifi-
cant impact from dairies and feedlots in the Twin Falls and
Pocatello/Blackfoot areas.
The number of permitted operations would be in-
creased several fold over the previous permitting effort if
operations fewer than 300 cattle or fewer than 200 dairy cows
are included. Unless a significant difference in manpower or
other factors were noted, results would likely be little dif-
ferent from the previous permit program. In fact, because of
the increased number of permitted operations, even less time
for actual enforcement would be available. An individual
permit program would likely become a paper exercise with little
environmental benefits if a large number of smaller op-
erations is included. If the smaller operations are omitted,
the program will not address the main source of the prob-
lems. Thus, neither system will provide maximum efficiency.
Administrative Impacts. This alternative would place a
moderate-to-heavyburdenon EPA enforcement personnel. An
NPDES application form would be required that would
necessitate the lengthy process of application review, compli-
ance monitoring, and inspections. Because of manpower
limitations, time which could be better spent on other matters
would be spent on such tasks as application review and ap-
proval.
Impact to Operators. Experience in other states
have indicatedthattFe application procedures for individual
permits can be somewhat more involved and time consuming than
those under a General Permit. Other impacts to operators
would not differ from those of a general permit, as the same
requirements and criteria would apply. As with other permit
alternatives, the number of operators impacted would depend on
how many of the smaller operators were permitted. Economic
111
-------
impacts would be similar to those of Alternative 3, but
less than those for many operators under Alternative 5.
Alternative 3; Issue Only a General Permit
Description. Under this alternative, a General Permit
would be issued for the entire state. Operations regulated
under the permit would consist of feedlots of more than 1,000
and dairies of more than 700 cows, and feedlots of more than
300 and dairies of more than 200 cows that discharge directly
to waterways and canals. The permit would not list names of
permittees, but individual files would be established for each
operation.
EPA would require all operators in the above categories to
submit an application form requesting inclusion in the General
Permit. Feedlot operations of fewer than 300 animals and
dairies of fewer than 200 animals would be added on a
case-by-case basis, as operations causing degradation were
encountered. The permit would require submission of an
abbreviated application form and would require each operator
under the permit to develop a management plan and restrict
access as required under Alternative 2.
This alternative is somewhat limited in flexibility be-
cause one set of permit conditions cannot deal effectively
with all site-specific situations that may arise. For maximum
efficiency, a single General Permit would be required to contain
a great deal of detail to ensure water quality protection in
all cases. Alternatively, if it were more general, it
would likely be insufficient to ensure water quality protection
in all cases. Given the wide range in size of operations and
production methods, the lack of flexibility would produce
benefits for both the operators and the environment.
Environmental Impacts. As stated earlier, environmen-
tal impacts of any alternative will depend primarily on
the aggressiveness of enforcement and degree of involvement of
EPA personnel. Because a general permit would free the EPA of
some additional paperwork, personnel could more effectively
utilize their time working on actual mitigation measures. The
resulting beneficial impact on environmental quality would be
somewhat greater than expected under individual permits.
Without individualized site-specific permits for the smaller
operations (less than 300 animal feedlots and less than 200
animal dairies), the potential for water quality improvement
will be somewhat reduced because the smaller operations are so
numerous and widespread.
Administrative Impacts. This alternative would impose
the least administrative burden of all alternatives except for
the No Action alternative. Application and compliance
monitoring procedures could be streamlined, resulting in less
112
-------
paperwork and allowing time to be spent on other matters of
greater priority.
Impacts to Operators. Experience in other states indi-
cates theoperators'application time and effort would be
reduced somewhat under a General Permit. The number of
operators affected would be little different than under
the other alternatives. Economic impacts would remain essen-
tially the same as for Alternatives 2 and 3 but less than that
for some of the operators under Alternative 5.
Alternative 4: . Issue a General Permit with Special Provisions
for Sensitive Areas
Description. In this alternative, a statewide Gener-
al Permit would cover all feedlot and dairy operations of more
than 1,000 and 700 animals, respectively, and all operations
of more than 300 and more than 200 animals, respectively, that
discharge directly to waterways or canals. The permit would
also list a number of sensitive areas (Section 3) and would be
required for all operations identified as causing water quality
degradation within these areas. Operations within these
sensitive areas would be subjected to additional criteria on a
case-by-case basis as segment-specific and operation-
specific conditions warranted. Permit requirements might in-
clude the need for alternative technology, a more detailed
management plan, or additional runoff controls. As a result,
some might experience additional costs, outlays, or loss of
productivity in order to meet water quality requirements.
Environmental Impacts. This alternative would be expect-
ed toprovidethe best water quality protection of all
the alternatives because it would minimize the routine paper-
work of EPA, allowing the limited EPA staff to use their time
in the most productive manner, and provide potentially more
complete control in sensitive areas. It would ensure enforce-
ment proceeded on a drainage-wide basis, which would be more
effective than scattered enforcement, and it would draw atten-
tion to the sensitive areas. Identification of these sensitive
areas could also make certain drainages less attractive to
future sources because of the sensitive area designation
and the resultant need for additional or more stringent
control requirements.
Administrative Impacts. Burden to EPA personnel would
be low-to-moderate under this alternative. Although the use
of a General Permit would decrease the application and
compliance paperwork, inclusion of all operations in the
sensitive areas could require substantial additional time,
depending on the EPA treatment of these areas. To be effec-
tive in sensitive areas, some site-specific measures are needed,
although much of the burden for development of these measures
113
-------
can be placed upon the operator by requiring a site-specific
management plan.
Impacts to Operators. Impacts to operators should be
little different than tor other alternatives with the possible
exception of operators located in the sensitive area drain-
ages. These operators could, on a case-by-case basis, be
required to provide additional process control or technology to
decrease impact from their operation. These sensitive area
drainages would include both those designated from a
preservation standpoint (and presently with few dairies or
feedlots) and those drainages presently heavily impacted by
dairy and/or feedlot wastes. Sensitive or priority drain-
ages were discussed in Chapter 3. At a minimum, those
drainages experiencing heavy impact from dairies and
feedlots would be considered as sensitive.
This alternative would be likely to affect the larg-
est number of farmers, as all those within a sensitive area
would be potentially subject to any conditions required. Eco-
nomic impacts would vary somewhat, depending on site-specific
conditions and additional technology required.
Economic impacts for 6- and 15-acre dairies and 50- and
10-acre feedlots were discussed in Chapter 4. Economic impacts
of alternative process and control technologies, which could be
applicable in some sensitive area situations, were also
discussed in general terms.
Table 5-1 summarizes and contrasts the four alterna-
tive permitting strategies and the preferred alternative de-
scribed in Chapter 4 in terms of relative impact to environment,
the operators, and EPA administrative burden.
114
-------
Table 5-1. Estimated Relative Impact Comparison of
Permit Program Alternatives
ALTERNATIVE
Combined general and
individual permits
(preferred action)
1 (No action)
2 (Individual
permits)
3 (General Permit)
4 (General Permit/
sensitive areas)
BENEFICIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT
Moderate-high
Negative impact
Low
Moderate
Moderate-high
OPERATOR
IMPACT
Moderate
None
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate-high
EPA
ADMINISTRATIVE
BURDEN
Moderate
None
High
Low
Moderate-high
115
-------
REFERENCES
Literature Cited
Ada/Canyon Waste Treatment Management Committee. 1977. Dairy
farm and feedlot waste treatment management plan. Ada and
Canyon counties, Idaho. Technical memoranda. Canyon
Development Council and Ada Planning Association.
Ada Soil Conservation District. 1982. Livestock waste. March
Newsletter. Meridian, ID.
Department of Agriculture. 1981. Managing Animal Wastes:
guidelines for decision making. ERS-671.
Drost, B. W., and H. R. Seitz. 1978. Spokane Valley -
Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer, Washington and Idaho. U. S.
Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Open file
report 77-829. Tacoma, VIA. 79 pp.
Environmental Protection Agency. 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.
. 1984a. Aerial photographic analysis of
conrined animal feeding operations: Caldwell area, Idaho.
April 1984. Vol. 1. TS-AMD-84076a. EPA Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV. 55 pp.
1984b. Aerial photographic analysis of
confinedanimal 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
confinedanimal feeding operations: Blackfoot area,
Idaho. April 1984. Vol. 2. TS-AMD-84076b. EPA
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV.
69 pp.
. 1978. A manual on evaluation and economic analysis
oflivestock waste management systems. EPA-600/2-78-102.
Ada, OK.
. 1974. Development Document for effluent
limitations guidelines and new source performance standards
for the feedlots point source category. EPA-440/l-74-004-a.
318 pp.
116
-------
. No Date. Cattle feedlots in the Pacific Northwest.
Region 10, Seattle. GPO 958-624.
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.
Hammond, R. E. 1974. Ground-water occurrence and movement
in the Athol area and the northern Rathdrum Prairie,
northern Idaho. Idaho Department of Water
Administration. Water Information Bulletin No. 35. 19 pp.
Hermanson, R. E. 1975. Lagoons for livestock and poultry
waste. Washington State University Extension Bulletin 655.
Pullman. 14 pp.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1981 (?). Fisheries
management plan 1981-1985. Boise, ID. 234 pp.
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare, Division of Environment.
1984a. Dairies can impact Idaho's water. Clean Water
Newsletter, Spring 1984a. Boise.
. 1984b. Idaho environmental quality profile,
1984. Boise. 33 pp.
. 1984c. Idaho Water Quality Status Report. 1984.
83 pp.
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.
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1985. Idaho confined
animal feeding operations assessment. Prepared for USEPA
Region 10, Seattle, WA.
Klausner, S. D., P. J. Zwerman, and T. W. Scott. 1971.
Land disposal of manure in relation to water quality. Pp.
36-45 in D. C. Ludington, ed., Agricultural wastes: Principles
and guidelines for practical solutions. Cornell University
Conference on Agricultural Waste Management. Syracuse, NY.
Loehr, R. C. 1971. Liquid waste treatment. III. The
oxidation ditch. Pp. 72-78 in D. C. Ludington, ed.,
Agricultural Wastes: Principles and guidelines for practical
117
-------
solutions. Cornell University Conference on Agricultural
Waste Management. Syracuse, NY.
Midwest Plans Service. 1985. Livestock Waste Facility Hand-
book. Second edition. Iowa State University.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 1975 (?) .
Manure management for environmental protection. Bureau of
Water Quality Management publication No. 43. Harrisburg, PA.
72 pp.
Renk, R. 1981. Memorandum to Mike Smith on Al's program
guidance on review of SCS design animal waste treatment.
January 5.
Shuyler, L., D. M. Farmer, R. D. Kreis, and M. E. Hula. 1973.
Environment protecting concepts of beef cattle feedlot wastes
management. NERC, U. S. EPA, Corvallis, OR.
Taylor, R. 1970. The Idaho livestock producer and the
pollution problem. University of Idaho. Miscellaneous Series
11.
Toth, S. J., and B. Gold. 1971. Composting. Pp. 115-120 in
D. C. Ludington, ed., Agricultural wastes: Principles and
guidelines for practical solutions. Cornell University
Conference on Agricultural Waste Management. Syracuse, NY.
van der Leeden, F., L. A. Cerrillo, and D. W. Miller. 1975.
Groundwater pollution problems in the northwestern United
States. EPA 660/3-75-018. 361 pp.
Personal Communications
Allred, W. 1984. Department of Health, Jerome, ID. Dairy
concerns in Jerome and Gooding. Meeting, December 13.
Beckwith, M. 1985. Division of Environment, Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare, Coeur d'Alene, ID. High priority
segments in the Panhandle Basin. Telephone conversation, May
10.
Brower, C. 1985. Senior Water Quality Analyst. Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, Boise, ID. Groundwater
information. Telephone conversation, March 15.
Collings, T. 1984. District Environmentalist. Idaho Depart-
ment of Health, Gooding, ID. Dairy impacts. Meeting,
December 13.
118
-------
Hasslen, D. Idaho Statistical Reporting Service. 1984. Data
on number of feedlots, dairies, and cattle in Idaho.
Telephone conversation, December 7.
Hillside Nurseries. 1985. Boise, ID. Soil amendment costs.
Telephone conversation, July 1.
Hopson, G. 1984. Idaho Department of Health & Welfare,
Pocatello, ID. Dairy and feedlot issues in the Pocatello
region. Meeting, December 10.
Huffaker, Steve. 1985. Biologist. Idaho Department of Fish
and Game, Boise, ID. Water sources for state and federal
hatcheries. Telephone conversation, May 29.
Levinski, C. 1985. Water Quality Specialist. Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare, Boise, ID. High
priority segments and special resource waters of the
Southwest Basin. Telephone conversation, May 9.
McCollum, E. 1985. Twin Falls Soil Conservation Service
Field Office, Twin Falls, ID. Soils in the Twin Falls
area. Telephone conversation, January 10.
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. Animal Wastes. Tele-
phone conversation, July 3.
Moller, J. 1985. Division of Environment, Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare, Lewiston, ID. High priority segments in
the Clearwater Basin. Telephone conversations, May 9 and 10.
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.
O'Rourke, P. 1984. Environmental Health Specialist. South
Central District Health Department, Twin Falls, ID. Dairies.
Meeting, December 12.
Palmer, J. 1984. Idaho Department of Public Health,
Pocatello, ID. Dairies in the PocatelLo area. Meeting,
December 11.
Renk, R. 1984. Environmental Engineer. Idaho Department
of Health & Welfare, Twin Falls, ID. Feedlot and dairy
concerns. Meeting, December 12.
119
-------
Sheppard, c. 1985. Division of Environment, Idaho Department
of Health" & Wel'fare, Boise, ID. High priority segments
in the Southwest Basin. Telephone conversation, May 10.
Torf, M. 1985. Division of Environment, Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare, Pocatello, ID. High priority waters in
the Upper Snake, Salmon, and Bear River Basins. Telephone
conversations, May 9 and 10.
Van Curren, P. 1985. Division of Environment, Idaho Depart-
ment of Health and Welfare, Coeur d'Alene, ID. High priority
segments in the Panhandle Basin. Telephone conversation,
May 9.
Zollinger, L. 1985. Soil Conservation Service, Boise, ID.
Waste treatment technologies. Telephone conversation, July 5.
120
-------
APPENDIX A
Aerial Survey Results and Previously Permitted Facilities
A-l
-------
Table A—1. Previously Permitted Operations in the Caldwell Area
PERMITTED FEEDLOTS
NAME8
*Arroour & Company
•Blvens Livestock Co.
•Bower Peedlot
*Bruneau Cattle Co.
*Clayne Cooper
(C. M. Ranch)
*Don HcGhehey
(Theodore J. Etutz;
Mule Shoe Bar Ranch)
Drees Feedlot
Emmett Feedlot, Inc.
(Holstein Heifer Ranch;
Emmett Cattle Corp.)
*Farmer Cattle Co.
•George Ray Obendorf Feedlot
(Ray Obendorf Feedlot)
*H. H. Keim 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 tl)
PERMIT
HJlttB£B
002307-8
002132-6
002147-4
002133-4
002214-4
002188-1
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
AREA
Nampa
Payette
Harsing
Bruneau
Emmett
Hammett
Homedale
Emmett
Harsing
Parma
Nampa
Bruneau
Middleton
Kieser
Star (Eagle)
Caldwell
Caldwell
Wilder
Nampa
Melba
Eagle
Nampa
Caldwell
Caldwell
Grandview
RECORDED
RECEIVING WATER COMPLAINTS
Boise R
(via Indian Cr)
Wieser R 12/13/63
(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 & Little
Jack Cr)
Boise R
Snake R
Boise R Numerous in 1974, 75, 76,
78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84
Boise R & 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 A—1. 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
Simplot Livestock Co. (12)
*Tiegs Farm, Inc.
*We stern States Cattle Company
Wilder Cattle Co.
Higby Cattle Co.
(Wright Cattle Company)
PERMITTED FEEDLQTS
ABEA RECEIVING WATER
RECORDED
COMPLAINTS
Boise
Nampa
Not us
Wilder
Payette
Indian Cr
Boise R
Boise R
Payette R
(via Willow Cr)
PERMITTED DAIRIES/POULTRY
002282-9 6/4/79 *Araerican Dairy Heifers Payette
(Columbia R. Assoc.)
000040-0 3/30/79 Boise Associated Dairies Boise
002374-4 9/26/79 Dari Vest Farms, Inc. Parma
(Case Visser Dairy)
002447-3 6/30/80 *Hank Vanderwey Dairy Farm Caldwell
002215-2 6/21/79 *Simplot Poultry, Inc. Meridian
(dba Valley Storage Co.)
002219-5 6/21/79 *Simplot Poultry, Inc. Meridian
(dba Intl. Cattle Exports)
002116-4 5/28/79 *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.
-------
Table A-2. Confined Animal Feeding Operations Identified by Aerial Survey in the Caldwell Area
FEEDLOTS
SITE
- NO.
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
26
27
29
30
31
NAME8
Idaho Feedlot*
Bivens Livestock Co.*+
2
11
14
23
24
28
C. H. Ranch*
Hilltop Feedlot
George Obendorf*
Western States Cattle Co.*
Eimplot Feedlots, Inc.*+
Johnson Cattle Co., Inc.*
Bower Feedlot*+
n
1.0.N. Cattle Company, Inc.*
Kent Ranch Co.*
H. H. Kiem Company, Ltd;*
Armour & Company*
Tiegs Farms, Inc. tl*
Tiegs Farms, Inc. 12
Idaho Feedlot Co.*+
Quarter Circle DJ Ranch*
Farmer Cattle Co.*
Hackler Feedlot
Simplot Livestock Co. *+
Bruneau Cattle Co.*
Holbrook Ranches*
Don McGhehey*
American Dairy Heifers II*
Owyhee
Hank Vanderwey Dairy**
Eimplot Poultry II (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.
ANIMALSb
<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 20e
SWB 270
SWB 280
SWB 280f
Canal
Lk Lowell?
Lk Lowell (?)
Irg. ditch
Canal
SWB 20n
SWB 20(7)
Irg. ditch
SWB 10^
SWB 103(7)
SWB 10k
None/--
None/56
None/ 85
Direct access
None/ 570
None/1300
None/ 2 5
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
SLOPE"
F
M/S
H
M/S
M/S
M
F
F
F
S
F/M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F/M
F
F/M
F/M
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
If 0.8 AC
If 0.6 AC
None
None
None
LOCATION
Wieser
Payette
Homedale
Emmet t
Nyssa
Parma
Notus
Caldwell
Wilder
Marsing
Homedale
Middleton
Caldwell
Naiapa
Na.;,pa
Nai.ipa
Nai.ipa
Eagle
Eagle
Massing
Marsing
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.
EWB 420 - Wieser R (Midvale to mouth)
SWB 40 - Snake R (Payette R - Brownlee Reservoir)
SWB 340 - Payette R (Black Canyon Dam to mouth)
Sh'B 30 - Snake R (Payette R to Boise R)
SWB 280 - Boise R (Caldwell to mouth)
-------
Table A—2. Continued
SWB 270 - Boise R (Mile 50 : Vet St. Park - Caldwell)
EWE 20 - Snake R (Strike Dam to Boise R)
SHE 271 - Ten Mile Cr, Five Mile Cr
SWB 282 - Indian Cr (below Nampa)
SWB 10 - Snake R (King Hill - Strike Dam).
d Via Big Willow Cr
^ Via Jump Cr
f Via Indian Cr
9 Via New York Canal
? Via Reynolds Cr
1 Via Shoofly Cr
3 Via Little Valley Cr
" Via Cold Spring Cr
1 Via L. Payette ditch
m F = flat,- M •= moderate (5-10 percent); S = Steep (>10 percent).
n Mistakenly identified as "Steve Drees" feedlot in aerial survey report
SOURCES: EPA 1984a; IDHW files.
-------
Table
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
A-3. Previously Permitted Operations in the
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
NAHEa
Albert Anderson & 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 & Sons
01 instead Cattle Co.
Robert Schenk
Russel G. Linstrom
Toone Ranches
Uhlig Feedlots, Inc.
K. V. Dairy, Inc.b
Shady Grove Dairies, Inc.
Stoker Dairy
Simplot Industries
(C t Y Farms)
Twin Falls Area*
PERMITTED FEEDLOTS
AB£A
Oakley
Paul
Burley
Jerome
Paul
Paul
Gooding
Shoshone
Malta
Eden
Paul
Twin Falls
Paul
Paul
Buhl
Hansen
PERMITTED DAIRIES
Hagerman
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)
Snake R •
Billingsley 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 IDHW files.
This dairy not included on EPA permit listing because of wrong computer entry code.
SOURCES: EPA and IDHW Files.
-------
Table A~4.confined Animal Feeding Operations Identified by Aerial Survey in the Twin Falla Area
FEEDLOTS/STOCKYARDS
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. Lindstrom*
R. L. Bryant & W.A. Eager
Moorman Ranches
J. Chisholm
Sheep Sheo Ranches
Oxrango
R. Robbins
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
_HA1£BC
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 80S
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
?
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
£I1QPJBd
f
M
F
F
F
F
S
F
F
F
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
S
F
F
F
M
F
F
M
F/M
F
M
M
F
F/M
M/S
F
F
F
F
F
M
M
IMPOUNDMENTS
(In Af*RES)
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
Kiraberley
Hansen
Hansen
Hazel ton
Paul
Paul
Burley
Burley
Acequia
Rupert
Rupert
Rupert
Rupert
Rupert
Raft River
-------
Table A-4. Continued
SITE
NQ.
NAME3
290 Taylor Land Co.
291 Howard Conrad
292 V. T. Geary
FEEDLQTS/STOCKYARDS
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
ANIMAL ACCESS/
PEN DISTANCE
TO WATERWAY (FT)
585
3,165
Direct access
SLQPEd
f
M
f
IMPOUNDMENTS
(tr ACRES)
None
1; 2.1 AC
None
GENERAL
LOCATION
Raft River
Burley
Burley
DAIRIES
ANIMAL ACCESS/
SITE
NO, NAME8
101 N. W. Rasmussen
102 A. Kerner
103 G. Kerner
104 Idaho Dairy Farm
105 Lee Roy Parker
106 Ralph Riley
107 R. W. Johnson
108 R. W. Johnson
109 Cid Lesaraiz+
110 James Powell
111 Blaine Sorenson
112 Rod Pridfflore
113 A. R. Sumner
117 W. Boeslger
118 A. C. Sabala
119 M. Sabala
122 T. Bingham
123 R. C. Zaplicke
124 0. Leavell
125 L. Graves
126 Faulkner Land & Livestock
128 R. Bingham
129 B. Noringer
130 F. Graves & Sons
131 G. Hooper
133 Firraage Co.
134 G. Coleman
135 A. Schilling
136 A. Schilling
137 B. Hilardes
138 B. Hilardes
140 Buckeye Ranch
141 V. I. Mavenearat
144 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 B50
USB 850
USB 850
USB 871e
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
SLOPS'*
p
s
S
M
M
M
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
M
P
P
F
P
F
F
F
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 A-4. Continued
SITE
NO. HAM£a
145 Vandenburg Bros.
146 Hill Brandsraat
147 S. Goodhact
146 E. Ciocca
149 R. Mathers
150 K. Tincate
151 Jensen & Mclntyre
152 H. Twaraley
153 G. Bird
154 B. Andrews
155 J. Kening
158 H. Rictkirk
159 H. 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 Aerate
172 Farnsworth/Koeppen (2 dairies)
173 Alex Anchustegui
175 H. Patterson
176 W. Patterson
177 E. Thompson
178 Ed. Hubbard
179 Fox Canyon Livestock
180 Pete Veenstra
181 J. Dufree
182 Dew Dufree
183 E. A. Branch
184 H. Kearley
185 R. Crosby
186 Harry Goedhart+
187 Flamingo Dairy
188 Jim Pearson
189 T. Sertek
190 Tom Pearson
191 Herle 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
6.0
.5
1.0
2.5
6.0
18.0
6.5
5.0
3.5
23.0
5.5
4.0
None
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
WATER0
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 (?)
Lateral!?)
None
None
None
None
Lateral
USB 740
USB 70
USB 810 (?)
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
SLOPEd
F
P
f
F
F
H
M
F
H
F
F
F
M
F
S
H
M
F
M
H
F
H
H
M
F
H
F
F
H
F
F
F
F
H
F/M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
IMPOUNDMENTS
(lr ACRES)
1; 0.25 AC
2; 0.25 AC
2; 0.25 AC
I; 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
1; 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
2i 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 A-4. Continued
SITE
NO.
201
203
204
205
207
208
209
210
212
213
214
215
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
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
255
257
258
Bob Visser
0. Acgenback
Toone (Lone Tree)-*-* (abandoned)
Curtis Bcenden Dairy
Ken Lowman
John DeKruyf+
W. Shaffer
FHA Dairy (abandoned)
Wells Livestock
Rick Lowman
J. W. Hoogland
John Schildner
W. J. Lammer
Don Bothof+
W. K. Hert
B. and Z. Harrison
G. Arkoosh & Zidan
Kober Farms
Kober Farms
Howard Meyers
L. Jones
P. Holloway
H. Vander Meer
D. Leerman
Mike 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+(?)
Marion Vanden Bosch
Reisman
J. Tolman
Drew Critzer
V. Bishop
Larry Vander Vegt -H?)
Frank 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
15.4
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.
ANIMALS^*
<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 740f
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
SliQSE
F
F
F
M _
F
F
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
F/H
F
F
F
F
F
F
S
F
M
M
M
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F/H
F/M
F
F
F/M
F
F
M
F
F
F
F
IMPOUNDMENTS
(*f 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
1; 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 A-4. Continued
ANIMAL ACCESS/
SITE
NO. JlAM£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 (AC> ANIMALS0 WATER0
8.0
5.8
3.3
Classic Dairy (Bud Vierstra)+(?) 10.8
Rosco Wagner
G. Stoker + (?)
Darryl Manning*
K. and J. Hayden
Walcott Ranches
Ivan Haskel
Barbara Studer
E. Lind
A. Brim
L. Funk (Riviera Farms, Inc.)
C. H. Hisaw
Simplot Industries*
R. Garrett*
S. Aired
R. D. Zollinger
C. Williams
M. Payne
F. Robinson
* = Permitted; + =« Water quality
It should be noted that number of
USB 80 - Snake R (Buhl - King 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
4.5
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 740f
Low Line C
Low Line C
USB 730f
USB 730
None
None
None
Lateral?
Main S C
A Canal
Main S C
None
USB 520
None
Lateral?
Snipe Gul
None
USB 60Ah
None
H Canal
U 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
P
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 - Billingsley 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 (Minidoka Darn - 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 (>10 percent)
Via Jim Burns Slough
Via lateral
Via Mud Cr
Via Duck Cr
IMPOUNDMENTS
(fr ACRES)
None
3; 2.1 AC
None
2; 3.0 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
3; 0.4 AC
1; 0.2 AC
None
1; 0.4 AC
3; 4.0 AC
3; 3.0 AC
None
1; 0.1 AC
None
1; 0.1 AC
None
GENERAL
LOCATION
Filet
Filer
Filer
Twin Falls
Twin Falls
Rupert
Paul
Acequia
Acequia
Rupert
Rupert
Declo
Raft River
Raft River
Raft River
Raft River
Burley
Bucley
Burley
Burley
Burley
Burley
SOURCES: EPA 1984b; EPA 1985; Morrison pers. comm.
-------
Table A-5. Previously Permitted Operations in the Blackfoot Area
PERMIT
HlfflBEB
002298-5
002187-3
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
MUE?.
Arnold Feedlot
•Clement Brothers Livestock
(Lyle Taylor)
Hyer Cattle Co.
•Harris-Idaho, Inc.
(Harding Livestock & Land)
Lenard A. Schritter Feedlot
•Louis Skaar and Sons, Inc.
• Meyers Brothers Feedlots, Inc.
•Sand Ridge Feeding Co.
*Snake River Cattle Co., Inc.
*Spur Cattle Co.
PERMITTED FEEDLOTS
AEEA
Idaho Falls
Henan
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 IDHH files.
SOURCES: EPA and IDHW files.
-------
Table A-6. Confined Animal Feeding Operations Identified by Aerial Survey in the Blackfoot Area
FEEDLOTS/SHEEP RAISING
SITE
-NO.
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
Meyers Brothers Feedlots, Inc.*
Hoaghland Farms
Clement Brothers Livestock**
Spur Cattle Co.*
Harris-Idaho, Inc.*
Sand Ridge Feeding Co.*
Beck Feedlot
Nan Iregogen
Albert Horsh
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
Ferron Burke
Charles Izatt
Dick Smith
Valero Bennett
Floyd Toone
Rockwood
Christenson
Bert Wheatley
Monty Moser
Lloyd Christensen
Hoaghland Farms
L. Skaar & Sons*
William Lehman
Otto Klasen
Robert Shroeder
FEEDING
AREA (AC)
26
1.7
16
50
47
1.1
10
1.0
3
3.1
i.O
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
1000
51-200
201-700
201-700
<50
51-200
201-700
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
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 4119
USB 4119
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
£EEb
P
F
F
F
f
F
F
F
F
P
M
M
P
F
M
F
F
M
S
F/M
M/S
M
F/S
F
M
F
F
F
F
M
F/S
F/S
F
P
P
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
Fairview
Fairview
Am. Falls
Borah
McCaramon
Malad City
Mai ad City
Malad City
Malad City
Malad 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 A~6. Continued
SITE
NO.
HAMJB8
64
65
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
77
78
79
82
83
86
87
89
90
Q1
y±,
00
3 £.
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 = Moderat
USB 30 - Snake R (Ro
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 30J
BB 30d
BB 30°
BB 30d
BB 30f
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
WATERWAY (PT)
Direct access
Direct access
None/ 30
None/1800
None/145
None/240
Direct access
Direct access
None/ 3 5
Direct access
None/10
Direct access
Direct access
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
SLOPED
e
f
p
M
P
F
P
M
S
S
M
P
P/S
P
P
F
F
M
P
P
P
P
F
F
F
t
IMPOUNDMENTS
None
None
None
None
None
1; 0.7 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
1; 0.2 AC
None
None
None
None
1; 1 AC
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
LOCATIQM
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
Permitted.
S = Steep.
(Roberts - Am. Falls Res.)
USB 40 - Snake R (Am. Falls Res.)
Marsh Cr (Source - mouth)
Little Halad R (Source - mouth)
Mink Cr (Source - mouth)
Worm Cr (Source - ID/UT border)
USB 411
BB 471
BB
BB
410
430
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
SOURCE: EPA 1984c and Morrison, pers. comm.
-------
APPENDIX B
Waste Characteristics
B-l
-------
Table B-l. Beef Cattle: Dirt-Moderate Slope-Runoff
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
- kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
—
183.40
(1024.4)
1.11
6.24
0.707
(3.95)
0.186
(1.04)
5.1
0.186
(1.04)
0.558
(3.12)
0.372
(2.08)
0.004
(0.02)
0
0
0.002
(0.01)
0.004
(0.02)
0.01
(0.07)
0.01
(0.07)
Average
186.16
(1040.0)
184.67
(1031.7)
1.49
(8.32)
0.745
(4.16)
0.47
(2.6)
7.6
0.279
-(1.56)
0.652
(3.64)
0.782
(4.37)
0.029
(0.16)
0.01
(0.06)
0.005
(0.03)
0.01
(0.08)
0.063
(0.35)
0.018
(0.10)
0.043
(0.24)
Maximum
-
185.16
(1034.4)
2.79
(15.0)
1.49
(8.32)
0.931
(5.20)
9.4
1.12
(6.23)
5.58
(31.2)
1.4
(7.8)
0.204
(0.14)
0.093
(0.52)
0.022
(0.123)
0.039
(0.22)
0.2
(0.9)
0.021
(0.12)
0.1
(0.7)
mg/1
Minimum
-
985,000
6,000
3,800
1,000
1,000
3,000
2,000
20
0
0
14
20
70
65
Average
—
992,000
8,000
4,000
2,500
1,500
3,500
4,200
' 150
60
25
80
340
95
230
Maximum
—
994,000
15,000
8,000
5,000
5,000
20,000
7,500
1,100
500
120
200
900
120
700
Animal Weight: 360 kg average (800 Ibs average!
Area: 18.6 meter sq/head (200 ft sq/head).
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-2. Beef Cattle: Dirt-Steep Slope-Runoff
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
kg/head/cm runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
-
210.0
(1175.0)
1.6?
(903)
0.813
C*.5V
0.215
(1.20)
5.1
0.215
(1.20)
0.643
(3.59)
0.428
(2.39)
0.0041
(0.023)
0
0
0.00206
(0.0115
0.00412
(0.0230
0.0144
(0.0805
0.0144
(0.0805
Average
214.08
(1196.0)
212.29
(1186.0)
1.71
(9.57)
0.856
(^.78)
0.535
(2.99)
7.6
0.320
(1.79)
0.750
(4.19)
0.900
(5.03)
0.0329
(0.184)
0.012
(0.069)
0.00^74
(0.0265)
0.0185
(0.104)
0.0721
(0.403)
0.0206
(0.115)
0.0494
(0.276)
Maximum
-
213.01
(1190.0)
3.20
(17.9)
1.71
(9.57)
1.07
(5.98)
9.4
1.29
(7.18)
6.43
(35.9)
1.61
(8.97)
0.234
(1.31)
0.107
(0.598)
0.00618
(0.0345)
0.0453
(0.253)
0.186
(1.04)
0.0247
(0.138)
0.144
(0.805)
mg/1
Minimum
-
982,750
- 9,200
4,370
1,150 .
1,150
3,450
2,300
23
0
0
16
23
81
75
Average
-
990,800
9,200
4,600
2,.875
1,725
4,025
4,830
173
69
29
92
391
109
265
Maximum
-
990,800
17,250
9,200
5,750
5,750
23,000
8,625
1,265
575
138
230
1,035
138
805
Animal Weight: 360 kg average (800 Ibs average)
Area: 18.6 meter sq/head (200 ft sq/head).
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-3. Beef Cattle: Paved Lot-Runoff
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
kg/head/inch runoff
(Ib/head/inch runoff)
Minimum
—
45.795
(255.88)
0.569
(3.18)
0.279
(1.56)
0.093
(0.52)
5.5
0.093
(0.52)
0.23
(13.)
0.186
(1.04)
0.02
(0.1)
0.0047
(0.026)
0
0.002
(0.01)
0.002
(0.01)
0.004
(0.02) .
Sodium 0.005
(0.03)
Average
46.54
(260.0)
45.982
(255.84)
0.745
(4.16)
0.387
(2.16)
0.279
(1.56)
6.6
0.15
(0.83)
0.331
(1.85)
0.358
(2.00)
0.052
(0.29)
0.01
(0.08)
0.02
(0.09)
0.005
(0.03)
0.02
(0.09)
0.005
(0.03)
0.021
(0.12)
Maximum
_
45.61
(254.8)
0.93
(5.2)
5.93
(3.12)
0.47
(2. -6)
7.5
0.558
(3.12)
1.86
(10.4)
0.70
(3.9)
0.073
(0.41)
0.023
(0.13)
0.0558
(0.312)
0.01
(0.08)
0.075
(0.42)
0.00?
(0.04)
0.045
(0.25)
mg/1
Minimum
«•
980,000
12,000 '
6,000
"*
2,000
2,000
5,000
4,000
370
100
0
20
30
80
120
_L
Average
_
984,0.00
20,000
8,300
6,000
3,200
7,100
7,700
1,100
325
360
110
350
100
450
Maximum
^
988,000
160,000
12,000
10,000
12,000
40,000
15,000
1,580
500
1,200
305
1,600
140
950
Animal Weight: 360 kg average (800 Ibs average)
Area: 4.6 meter sq/head (50 ft sq/head).
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-4. Beef Cattle: Slotted Floor-Deep Pit Manure
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
ph
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Diethylstilbestrol
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
No Data
No Data
l.Oe
(2.3e)
0.82e
(1.8e)
5.1e
0.2e
(0.5e)
0.91e
(2.0e)
0.2e
(0.5e)
0.03e
(0.07e)
Oe
No Data
0.02e
(O.OSe)
0.03e
(0.07e)
0.009e
(0.02e)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
Oe
Average
19.6e
(43. 2e)
16. 7e
(36. 7e)
3.0e
(6.5e)
1.6e
(3.5e)
5.8e
0.3e
(0.6e)
l.le
(2.4e)
0.95e
(2.1e)
O.lle
(0.25e)
0.04e
(0.09e)
No Data
0.03e
(0.07e)
O.OSe
(0.19e)
0.02e
(0.04e)
0.04e
-(0.09e)
Oe
Maximum
29. le
(64. Oe)
25. 3e
(55. 7e)
5.81e
(12. 8e)
3.2e
(7.0e)
7.6e
0.73e
(1.6e)
2.0e
(4.4e)
1.3e
(2.8e)
O.le
(0.3e)
0.05e
(0.12e)
0.02e
(0.04e)
0.03e
(0.07e>
0.09e
(0.02eJ
0.020e
(0.045e)
0.082e
(O.lSe)
Trace
e - estimate
Animal weight: 360 kg average (800 Ibs average).
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-5. Beef Cattle: Fresh Manure-Slotted Floor/
Shallow Pit Manure
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD.
J
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
-
Magnesium
*
Sodium
Diethylstilbestrol
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
18.2
(40.0)
14.5
(32.0)
1.9
(4.3)
1.4
(3.0)
7.2
0.4 '
(0.8)
0.73
(1.6)
0.59
(1.3)
0.073
(0.16)
0.03
(0.07)
0.01
(0.03)
0.03
(0.06)
0.073
(0.016)
0.018
(0.039)
0.02
(0.05)
—
Average
21.8
(48.0)
18.5
(40.8)
3.3
(7.2)
2.6
(5.8)
7.3
0.45
(1.0)
1.6
(3.5)
0.77
(1.7)
0.12
(0.263)
0.04
" (0.08)
0.017
(0:038)
0.031
(0.068)
0.0831
•(0.183)
0.0192
(0.0192)
0.0365
' (0.0803)
-
Maximum
29.1
(64.0)
25.3
' (55.7)
5.81
(12.8)
3.2
(7.0)^
7:6
0.73
(1.6)
2.0
(4.4).
' 1.3
(2.8)
0.14
(0.30?)
0.04
(0.09)
0.02
(0.04)
0.03
(0.07)
0.091
(0.20)
0.020
(0.020)
0.082
(0.18)
Trace
Animal weight: 360 kg average (800 Ibs average).
SOURCE: EPA 1974.
-------
Table B-6.
Beef Cattle:
and Bedding
Housed-Solid Floor-Manure
Parameter
Total (wet solids)
Moisture
Dry Solids
Volatile Solids
PH
BOD5
COD
Ash
Total Nitrogen
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Total Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
kg/head/day
(Ib/head/day)
Minimum
5.77e
(12. 7e)
2.6e
(5.7e)
3.2e
(7.0e)
1.6e
(3.5e)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
Average
7.63e
(16. 8e)
3.Se
(8.4e)
3.8e
(8.4e)
1.8e
(4.0e)
7.3e
0.4e
(0.-7e)
l.le
(2.5e)
2.0e
(4.4e)
0.082e
(0.18e)
0.03e
(0.07e)
O.Ole
(0.03e)
0.031
(0.068e)
0.183e
(0.183e)
O.OlSe
(0.042e)
0.04e
(O.OSe)
Maximum
20. 2e
(44. 4e)
16. 5e
(36. 4e)
9.08e
(20. Oe)
^2.5e
(5.5e)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
e - estimate
Animal weight: 360 kg average (800 Ibs average)
SOURCE: EPA 1974
------- |