EPA-R2-72-129
November 1972
Environmental Protection Technology Series
Beef Cattle Feedlot
Site Selection
for Environmental Protection
**• S7^
S3ZZ
LU
CD
.
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were'established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
degradation from point and non-point sources of
pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.
-------
EPA-R2-72-129
November 1972
BEEF CATTLE FEEDLOT SITE SELECTION
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
R. Douglas Kreis and Lynn R. Shuyler
National Animal Feedlot Wastes Research Program
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
P.O. Box 1198
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
Project No. 13040 WRW
Program Element B12039
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS. OREGON 97330
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I Introduction 1
II Basic Considerations 3
III Practical Application 25
IV Selected Bibliography 29
V Appendices 35
iii
-------
FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Land Area Requirements for Disposal of Solid
Manure Wastes 11
2. Relationship of Feeding Site to Population Centers,
Wind Direction, and Odor Buffer Zone 14
3. Relationship of Up-drafts and Down-drafts to
Prevailing Winds in Mountainous or Hilly Areas 19
4. Typical Beef Feedlot Layout Incorporating Outmoded
Design Concepts 26
5. Typical Beef Feedlot Layout Incorporating Environment
Protecting Design Concepts 26
-------
INTRODUCTION
During the early development stages of the animal feeding industry,
there was little or no emphasis placed on pollution control. At that time,
the majority of livestock feeding units were located with disregard for
pollution potentials. In fact, many were located to take advantage of
natural drainage ways to transport solid and runoff-carried wastes to
the nearest stream. The cost of pollution control structures now required
at these sites can exceed the cost of changing sites. Recent awareness
of environmental degradation coupled with ever increasing sizes of
individual feedlots and related decreases in available land area for
wastes disposal have placed emphasis on the environmental hazards
associated with livestock feeding. Wastes handling and disposal prac-
tices have, in the past, resulted in pollution of surface ( and in some
instances ground) waters which in many cases were accompanied by
extensive environmental damage and fish kills.
Environmental pollution can be significantly reduced in the initial
planning stages by adequate facility planning, management, and, most
importantly, by proper site selection. Climatic, topographic, and
local weather extremes of the general area, selected with regard to
economic and market factors, should be considered when planning the
type of feeding facility. A site should then be selected which would
decrease the pollution potentials and be readily adapted to necessary
controls. Many of the natural and artificial pollution controls discussed
herein may initially appear costly; however, their long-range value
can result in considerable savings. The emphasis of this report is
placed on those basic considerations of site selection which are com-
patible with pollution control designs and which lessen the impact
of other environmental hazards. This report should be used when
locating a new facility or when modifying an existing feedlot. Many
of the concepts and ideas presented herein cannot be economically
superimposed on an existing operation. A more comprehensive treatise
-------
of animal wastes management may be obtained from the Beef Wastes
Management Manual which is in preparation and will, upon publication,
be available from the Environmental Protection Agency, National Animal
Feedlot Wastes Research Program.
-------
BASIC CONSIDERATIONS
Many considerations influence the selection of a feedlot site which
will be suitable for adequate pollution control and protection of the
surrounding environment. These considerations may be grouped into
six categories:
Regulations
Spatial Requirements
Topographic Features
Microclimates
Soils and Geologic structures
Social Considerations
Although these categories are interrelated, each will be discussed
individually.
Regulations
Laws written to protect each individual in our society have been passed
at nearly all levels of government. Regulations imposing responsibility
for the quality of the environment and the use of both renewable and
depletable resources have been imposed on all who use them. This
involvement has placed a responsibility for pollution control and environ-
mental enhancement on each individual and corporation presently
designing, developing, or managing a livestock feeding facility.
State and local regulations should be carefully studied for they will
in most instances affect feeding facility site selection. Several states
have placed restrictions on the minimum distance that a feedlot can
be located from surface water, residential dwellings, municipalities,
recreation areas, and arterial highways. Other states are considering
similar courses of action. Additional requirements now in effect
may include storm water runoff control facilities, structures for prevention
of ground water contamination, storage for solid and runoff-carried
wastes, and specified ultimate disposal procedures. In most cases,
these regulations are controlled by statutory permits issued through
appropriate agencies within state and/or local governments. A list
-------
of state agencies to be contacted is included at the end of this report.
Additional information concerning zoning and other local restrictions
may be obtained from the county officials serving the immediate district.
Spatial Requirements
The spatial needs of various livestock feeding units will vary with
the facility type and climate in which it is located. The total area
required for an integrated system may be determined as the sum of the
areas required for each of the following components:
1. The production area,
2. Extraneous storm water runoff diversion ditches,
3. Storm water runoff collection and retention structures,
4. Wastes storage, treatment, and ultimate disposal sites, and
5. Buffer zone around the feeding facility and/or ultimate
disposal site.
Estimates for the area needed by each component are:
1. The production area requirements can be based on the pen area.
Pen area designs vary from 20 to 200 square feet per animal. An addi-
tional 15 percent of the pen area is needed for alleyways, feed bunks,
and animal shipping and receiving docks. Mills, scales, office,
housing, driveways, and parking space require an additional tract
20 to 30 percent of the size of the pen area.
2. Extraneous storm water runoff diversion ditches are con-
structed to reduce the volume of contaminated runoff which must be
collected and disposed of or treated. Diversion ditches should be
constructed around all areas to prevent uncontaminated storm water
runoff from contacting manure and other pollutants. These are the
feeding, feed preparation and storage, solid manure storage, and
runoff wastes retention areas. The amount of extraneous storm water
runoff to be diverted may be reduced by selecting a site which has
a minimum of up slope drainage area. Nevertheless, overdesigning
the capacity of the diversion structures (where rain storms of high
intensity occur) could be an economical safety factor. In many areas
-------
these structures are built around covered facilities primarily to maintain
a dry wastehandling area near the facility. Runoff diversion structures
generally require an area which is less than or equal to five percent
of the total pen and runoff collection area.
3. Storm water runoff collection and retention structures
are designed to retain and provide temporary storage for all storm
water runoff which comes in contact with manure and other pollutants.
The size of these structures is dependent on the rainfall of the region
and resulting runoff from the facility. Smaller runoff control structures
may be used on a paved open feedlot more successfully than on an
unpaved lot having the same animal population, for increased animal
densities are possible on paved surfaces. Several states regulate
the size of sedimentation and retention ponds and the runoff retention
time in each structure. These structures should, in the absence of
regulation, be designed to retain all runoff resulting from the rainfall
from a 10-year 24-hour design storm or its equivalent. The area needed
for these structures will range from 2 to 15 percent of the total pen
area depending on structure depth and volume of rainfall resulting
from the design storm.
4. Wastes storage, treatment, and ultimate disposal sites
are of major concern when computing the area needs for beef animal
production units. The amount of acreage required for these uses
will depend on the volume and moisture characteristics of the wastes
generated, which in turn are dependent on the type of facility and
wastes management system design. Both runoff and solid manure
wastes are generated from open feedlots. On the other hand, wastes
generated from total confinement facilities are in the form of a slurry
which contains both manure and urine. The volume of these slurries
which must be treated or disposed of is controlled by the number of
animals on feed, type of feed, and in some instances by the volume
of dilution water added. The amount of solid manure wastes produced
in open feedlots is dependent on the number of animals, type of feed,
and pen surface moisture conditions; volume of runoff wastes originating
-------
from open feedlots is dictated by drainage area, amount and intensity
of precipitation, and pen surface conditions.
Wastes management facilities will be discussed according to moisture
characteristics as follows:
Runoff wastes
Solid manure wastes
Slurry wastes
Although the basic site selection concepts concerning waste management
are applicable to beef production facilities, the general precepts should
be considered for the whole of the animal production industry.
Runoff wastes control involves the integration of runoff retention and
storage structures with a treatment method and ultimately with a means
of disposal. The land area requirements of runoff retention have been
previously discussed.
Because of the extreme pollution potential of animal wastes, conven-
tional municipal waste treatment designs are not considered to be
economically feasible for use by beef cattle feedlot operators without
significant modifications.
Spray runoff treatment, a promising treatment method recently demon-
strated, may be used to treat runoff in areas where freezing conditions
exist for less than two months during the year. The land area needed
for this method ranges from 20 to 50 percent of the pen area plus an
additional 15 percent for a pretreatment storage structure.
Irrigation of crops, pasture, or wooded land is the most practical
means of runoff disposal in most climates. Desirable application rates
have been found to range from 4 to 8 inches per year. The land area
needed for irrigation of runoff is equal to the volume of runoff generated
from the feedlot annually divided by the appropriate application rate.
The spatial requirements of a runoff irrigation system must often include
a pre-irrigation storage pond to facilitate coordination of runoff appli-
cations with crop and soil moisture conditions and to avoid application
-------
of runoff to frozen or snow covered surfaces. The acreage required
for this storage pond will range from 0.1 to 0.3 times the pen area.
Maximum runoff disposal rates may be necessary during periods of
extreme weather conditions resulting in occasional crop damage. The
additional cost for ownership of the necessary real estate by the feedlot
operator may be justified to avoid conflicts.
Areas in the Western United States, where the moisture deficit (evapo-
ration minus precipitation) is greater than 10 inches, have a high
potential for using evaporation for ultimate disposal of liquid wastes.
An evaporation pond area of approximately one-third the size of the
total feedlot will be needed in a region of a 40-inch moisture deficit.
When considering this disposal method, the potential for ground water
contamination and other problems must also be investigated.
The following equations may be used to estimate the total area needed
to utilize runoff wastes management systems incorporating irrigation
or evaporation disposal techniques and spray runoff treatment methods.
These equations are based on the fact that: "A " equals the total
area for management of runoff wastes; "P" equals the area of the runoff
retention structure which is 0.02 to 0.15 times the total pen area in
acres; and "S," which is the additional storage area needed to manage
the disposal system, equals 0.05 to 0.15 times the pen area. Annual
runoff from feedlots may be 2 or 3 times that of adjacent cropland.
Annual runoff values for a specific location may be obtained from the
local office of the Soil Conservation Service or from a consulting engineer.
Irrigation Disposal
A = p , annual runoff s Q)
r * application rate a u;
Ar = 0.02 to 0.15(pen area) + a"4inQ g""°yf/r/r' + 0.05 to 0.15(pen area)
Spray Runoff Treatment
A = P + treatment area + S + emergency irrigation disposal area
A = 0.02 to 0.15(pen area) + 0.2 to 0.5 (pen area)
+ 0.05 to 0.15(pen area) + 0.1 to 0.2 (irrigation disposal area)
-------
Evaporation Disposal
annual runoff
A = P + ,
r moisture deficit
a-in. runoff/yr.
Ar = 0.02 to 0.15(pen area) + ^^ lake evap _ in>/yr rainfair
Example: Assume that one wishes to build a 10,000-head capacity
feedlot with 125 square feet per animal equaling 33 acres of pen area
including feed bunks, alleyways, etc. in a 30-inch rainfall area with
6 inches of annual runoff and a 10-inch moisture deficit (40-inches
evaporation per year). Considering the maximum space-consuming
conditions, the estimated land area requirement for irrigation disposal
using Equation (1) is 60 acres; for spray runoff treatment using Equation
(2) is 37 acres; and evaporation disposal using Equation (3) is 25 acres.
Irrigation Disposal
(1) Ar = 0.15(33) + ^|^- + 0.15(33) « 60 acres
Spray Runoff Treatment
(2) Ar= 0.15(33) + 0.5(33) + 0.1(33) +0.2(60) « 37 acres
Evaporation Disposal
(3) Ar = 0.15(33) + ^^- =< 25 acres
Solid manure wastes generated from animal feedlots are one of the
most critical wastes disposal problems confronting the animal feeding
industry. The lack of long-term site availability for solid manure
disposal can create an impassible obstacle to efficient feedlot operation.
Land application of solid manure, as it is with runoff, is the most prac-
tical method of disposal known to present technology. The selection of
a feedlot site should include extensive investigation of the land area
available for manure disposal.
Fewer problems will be encountered by the feedlot owner who owns
sufficient land area for manure disposal. However, total ownership of
disposal areas, especially with larger lots (5,000 to 10,000 head plus)
may not be practical, and firm advance commitments for manure disposal
8
-------
should be obtained before the first land purchase or construction dollar
is spent. These commitments, for example, may be in the form of land
leases with renewal options or cooperative contracts between feedlot
owners and grain growers which would be in the best interest of all
concerned parties. These may require grain growers to accept or
buy an allotment of manure in return for special grain prices or manure
hauling and spreading services.
The amount of land area needed for solid manure disposal is equal
to the amount of manure cleaned from the feed pens divided by the
application rate. The amount of beef cattle manure cleaned from feed
pens ranges, on a dry weight basis, from 6.5 to 12 pounds per day
per animal, depending on animal size, amount of roughage in the feed,
and the percentage of soil removed from the pen surface with the manure.
The amount of manure to be handled and the disposal land area may
be reduced by carefully cleaning the pens to leave from 2 to 3 inches
of manure packed on the pen surface, thus reducing the amount of
soil to be handled with the manure.
The quantity of manure cleaned from a feedlot may be estimated by
using the following equation; where "M" equals tons of dry manure
per year:
., _ (animal days/yr.) (Ibs. manure produced/animal day)
factor to convert pounds to tons
,., _ 365 days/yr. (feedlot head capacity) (6.5 to 12 Ibs. manure/animal day)
= 2,0001 Ibs./ton
Example: Assuming that each animal produces a dry weight equivalent
of 12 Ibs. of manure daily, the solid manure cleaned from a 10,000 head
beef feedlot in one year according to equation (4) equals approximately
21,900 tons.
,„% x, 365(10,000)(12) ,, Qf.n . ,
(4) M = v 2^000 — = 21,900 tons/yr.
The application rate of solid manure ranges from 10 to 40 tons dry
weight per acre depending on the type of crops, soil types, and rain-
-------
fall amounts . The amount of land area required to dispose of solid
manure "A " is equal to the volume of manure to be disposed of
annually, "M" in tons per year, divided by the annual application rate
in tons per acre "R" or:
Example: Using the 21,900 tons of manure produced on a 10,000 head
capacity feedlot, which was estimated in the preceeding example, and
a 10 ton/acre/year manure application rate (Figure 1) the estimated
acreage required for manure disposal by using equation (5) is 2,190 acres,
(5) Am= =2, 190 acres
Frequent pen cleaning and disposal by direct application to crops
can eliminate the need for solid wastes storage . However , the seasonal
nutrient needs of crops and soil moisture conditions in wetter or colder
climates do not correspond to a systematic schedule of wastes disposal
by land application . The application of solid wastes to saturated or
frozen soils will, like feedlot runoff, create a contaminated storm run-
off problem from the disposal site . Thus , solid wastes storage is a
necessity in most climatic and agricultural regions . There is wide
variability in the factors which influence the land area needed for this
type of storage. In general, one should consider a storage area which
is approximately 15-20 percent of the feed pen area in size and which
is suitable for the construction of a storage structure which will
eliminate surface and ground water pollution .
Manure slurries are most commonly produced in total confinement
buildings with slotted floors and in concrete open feedlots with flush
type manure removal. Slurries are generally scraped, flushed, or
pumped from the pen area at regular intervals ranging from daily
to monthly . Thus , specially designed storage structures are a necessity
to maintain environmental quality between disposal periods .
10
-------
12000-
9000h
UJ
QC
4
V)
O
o
u.
o
v>
U)
IT
O
6000
3000
10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
NUMBER OF BEEF CATTLE
FIGURE 1. LAND AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR DISPOSAL OF SOLID MANURE WASTES
11
-------
Either deep lagoons or concrete tanks are used for storage. Tanks
should be covered to reduce odors and prevent children and animals
from becoming trapped in them; for a given storage volume, tanks
which have straight sidewalls require less area than lagoons, which
generally are designed with sloping sides. Mechanically aerated
oxidation ditches are also used for slurry manure storage and have
been successfully used directly under the slotted floor in hog confine-
ment buildings where they do not require additional land area. The
primary advantage of using this process is one of reducing odors.
The basic equations used to estimate spatial requirements for solid
manure disposal on cropland may be used in estimating the area needed
for slurry disposal. Manure slurries are a total composite of manure,
as excreted, without the changes caused by rainfall leaching. Soil
application rates, for this reason, should be reduced from the 10-40
tons per acre suggested for solid manure wastes to 10-20 tons per
acre. Additionally, the daily amount of manure produced is approximately
60 pounds per animal. The end result of the decreased application
rate and greater amount of manure to be handled is a significant in-
crease in the size of the disposal area.
The required amount of land for both solid and slurry wastes disposal
may be greatly reduced by increasing the rate and/or frequency
of application; however, this should be done only if the feeder has
control of the crops or the land either by leasing or through ownership.
This approach in some cases is uneconomical, but firm wastes disposal
agreements should be obtained from neighboring landowners before
the final decision is made on a site.
The distance that wastes must be hauled for disposal should be kept
to an economically feasible minimum. The economic break point for
hauling distance may be estimated as follows:
.F-L-S+M-M1
U H
12
-------
Where: D = maximum economic hauling distance; F = value of com-
mercial fertilizer with equivalent amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, and
potassium in one ton of manure in $/ton; L = loading costs in $/ton;
S = spreading costs in $/ton; H = hauling costs in $/ton/mile; and
M = price paid farmer by feedlot owner to accept manure in $/ton;
or M1 = price paid feedlot owner by farmer for manure in $/ton.
Example: Assume that the nutrient content of a ton of manure is
equivalent to four dollars worth of commercial fertilizer, that it costs
$0.35 per ton to load and $0.90 per ton to spread manure, that the
manure hauling can be contracted for $0.10 per ton/mile and that the
amount paid by the farmer to the feedlot owner for the manure is $1.50
per ton. Then according to equation (6) the maximum economical hauling
distance is 12.5 miles .
^N ™ $4.00- $0.35 - $0.90 - $1.50 $1.25 ._ c .,
(.b) U — i-n -in T = i>n -\ n ~ l^.O HlllCS
$0.10 per mile $0.10
A manure irrigation system for pumping a slurry or waste water for
field application costs about one-half as much as mechanically hauling
and spreading a slurry within one-half mile of the feeding facility.
Thus, a site with an area suitable for irrigating slurries within this
distance could result in considerable savings for manure disposal.
5. Buffer zone (green belt) around the feeding facility. The
basic purpose of developing a buffer zone is to reduce or eliminate the
probability of nuisance complaints from the general public. Feedlot
operations, in many states, have received nuisance complaints re-
sulting from odors produced on their facilities . Specifically, to mention
only a few, beef cattle feedlots in Arizona, Texas, and Kansas and a
hog feedlot in Missouri have received court decisions which were in
favor of the complainant; some decisions have resulted in cease and
desist orders.
Where odors may be of concern, the buffer zone can approximate
the configuration of an egg with the facility and all odor producing pro-
cesses centered near the small end (Figure 2). The actual orientation
13
-------
FIGURE 2. RELATIONSHIP OF FEEDING SITE TO POPULATION CENTERS,
WIND DIRECTION, AND ODOR BUFFER ZONE.
* size dependent on facility type, head capacity, and wastes management practice
-------
of the axis of the area is dependent upon the direction of the prevailing
wind. The size of the buffer zone, usually from 4 to 20 miles along
its long axis, is dependent on the size of the feeding operation and
type of manure management employed. Obviously, good drainage
and housekeeping practices coupled with a prompt disposal schedule
may significantly reduce the intensity of odors and thus reduce the
size of the buffer zone. In some locations zoning agreements may be
entered into with local governing bodies. Zoning may stipulate a
specific distance from the operation or a group of feeding operations
which is reserved for agricultural uses. Such agreements would
allow protection against legal action from residential and recreational
development after a feeding operation is established.
Enough space should be allowed around the facility to act as a "green
belt." The size of this area need not be expansive but should be large
enough for a shelter belt or visual improvement vegetative plantings.
Some of this area will be the same as that used for waste disposal
or other feedlot operations. The concept is especially important in
areas where the operation may be seen from major arterial highways.
Topographic Features
Topography (lay of the land) plays an important role in two respects
for selection of a feeding site. The slope and natural drainage to
surface waters of any given parcel of land governs its value as a
feeding site. Land which is too flat may be poorly drained, and poor
drainage results in sloppy pen conditions and increased probability
for ground water contamination. On the other hand, surface runoff
is difficult to control on land with extreme gradients.
The second role that topography plays in site selection is basically
one of economics. Feeding facilities are readily adaptable to sites
which for topographical reasons are marginal for most intensive farming.
Because of the marginal classification these lands often are priced at
a much lower dollar value than is land used for intensive farming. The
15
-------
rugged topography of these sites may create a need for a large amount
of earth moving; however, there are earth moving requirements
associated with all feeding sites regardless of topography. Additional
earth moving costs should be balanced against the lower land costs.
Topographical quadrangle maps in the 7.5 or 15 minute series are
available for most of the United States from the United States Geological
Survey. Accurate information concerning the contour of the land and
its location with respect to water courses, access routes, residential
and recreational areas may be obtained by careful inspection of these
maps. Preliminary planning layouts may be made for several different
sites on topographical maps before making final site selection decisions.
After selecting a site, a topographical survey with a contour interval
of 1 or 2 feet would expedite the detailed designing of the facility and
processes.
During the evaluation of the topographic suitability of sites, one
should eliminate all those which do not meet, or cannot be adapted to
meet, the following constraints:
1. A minimum of land uphill which will contribute extraneous runoff.
2. A slope for the feed pens with a 2 to 6 percent gradient. Sloppy
pen conditions may occur with less than 2 percent pen slope, and uncon-
trollable runoff may occur with greater than 6 percent pen slope.
3. Space with suitable slope and deep soils for construction of
runoff collection and storage facilities.
4. An area used for manure storage, having soil, bedrock, and
a deep groundwater table which is located away from natural drainage
channels.
5. A dry feedlot access route which may be easily maintained for
manure removal during all weather conditions. Access roads through
low wet areas or with steep gradients will cause manure removal problems
during wet and freezing weather.
6. A low gradient site for runoff disposal which is located away
from natural drainage areas.
16
-------
Not all of the above constraints will apply to total confinement and
certain other facility designs, but each should always be considered
when appropriate.
A final topographical consideration for site selection is the location
of a facility with respect to surface waters. Several states have set
control requirements based on specific distances or have developed
mathematical formulae which are to be followed when locating near
surface waters. This distance will not remove the pollution potential
to a surface water course since travel in a drainage channel will not
significantly treat the pollutants in the feedlot runoff. In the absence
of regulations, a realistic consideration is the selection of a site over
which enough control can be exerted to prevent accidental contact
of manure and waste water runoff with surface waters.
Microclimates
As discussed earlier, the site selection decisions associated with climate
are mainly those related to the type of facility and the wastes handling
method. However, the microclimate (ambient climatic or environmental
conditions of a specific locale) of a prospective site may have some
bearing on its acceptability. Three aspects of the microclimate of
a locale are worthy of consideration. These are extremes in wind
conditions, solar radiation, and precipitation.
Depending on major climatic conditions, wind affects the operation
of a feeding facility in many ways. Too much wind causes dusty pen
conditions in dry climates and drifting snow. Inaccessibility and
adverse comfort indexes can lead to reduced feed conversion efficiencies
in cold climates. In a few instances too little wind can cause animal
discomfort in hot and humid areas and may contribute to sloppy pen
conditions in cooler areas because of decreased evaporation potentials.
Prevailing wind direction is an important factor to consider in any
locale when predicting possible sources of odor complaints. Additionally,
17
-------
in mountainous areas, updrafts and downdrafts should be considered
in the prediction of possible odor complaints (Figure 3) . Wind may
be controlled to a certain degree by selecting a site with natural wind
protection from vegetative shelter belts or natural land forms. In
the North artificial windbreaks have been successfully constructed
along the windward side of feed pens in the absence of natural protection.
Solar radiation not only affects the productive efficiencies of animals
but is an important factor in the efficiency of waste management and
pollution control facilities. The evaporation potential from a wet manure
surface is determined by humidity, air movement, and solar radiation.
Solar radiation may be controlled to a certain degree by selecting
a site with the desired amount of shade or desired placement with
respect to the sun's travel. Additional shade may be provided artifi-
cially . Feedlots located on northern or eastern slopes receive less
intense sunlight, thus reaching maximum temperatures for shorter
periods during the day than those located on southern or western
slopes. Thus, feedlot sites on northern and eastern slopes are more
desirable in warmer climates but require more shelter for the animals
in colder climates. In warmer climates this location requires less
control of the animal's environment. In colder climates the situation
is reversed, and operations should be placed on southern or western
slopes to obtain maximum temperature benefits for animal comfort.
In these locations proper placement may extend the northerly range
of wastes handling, treatment, and disposal processes which have
minimum temperature (freezing) constraints.
Precipitation is more important in selection of the general region than
it is in selection of a specific locality for location of a feedlot; however,
in some regions rainfall may vary considerably (as much as 10 to
15 inches annually) over a very short distance. Snowfall amounts
may also vary greatly in a short distance; thus when locating in northern
climates, care should be exercised to determine snowfall amounts
of local areas so that localities which are snowbond a portion of the
18
-------
Figure 3. Relationship of Up-drafts and Down-drafts to Prevailing
Winds in Mountainous or Hilly Areas
year may be avoided. This point may be insignificant for most of
the country and yet unquestionably important for specific localities
which characteristically have large variance in annual precipitation.
The localized climate surrounding a feeding site does not affect the
performance of animals fed in total confinement facilities. Accessibility
is an important consideration of the effects of local climate on these
facilities. Sites typified by drifting snow or dust and/or prolonged
periods of wet or damp soil conditions tend to limit waste removal
access; these should be avoided.
Soils and Geologic Structures
Soil types and the underlying geologic structure of each potential
feeding site should be examined to insure maximum protection from
19
-------
groundwater pollution. Highly permeable loose soils, shallow soils
over fractured bedrock, and shallow water tables should be avoided in
pen areas, runoff and solid manure storage pits, and field disposal
sites receiving high runoff and manure application rates. Contamination
of groundwater is hazardous not only from the bacteriological standpoint
but also from the threat of nitrate poisoning or methemoglobinemia (an
oxygen-deprived condition in infants sometimes referred to as blue
babies) which is caused by excessive amounts of nitrates in drinking
water supplies. This malady afflicts livestock and humans (especially
small children and pregnant mothers) .
Present trends in some states are directed toward regulating the amount
of infiltration or percolation from pen surfaces and liquid wastes
impounding structures . An example is the maximum of 0.1 acre foot
per acre per year which was recently proposed by one South Central
state. Sites selected on heavy soils (fine-particled, expanding, or
tight soils) with a low infiltration or seepage rate are, in most cases,
ideal for construction of wastes retention and storage structures.
The seepage from a structure may be determined, before use, by filling
it with unpolluted water, allowing several days to sufficiently saturate
or wet the underlying soils, and then measuring the amount of water
loss minus class A pan evaporation (lake evaporation on large structures)
Seepage tests may be run, for purposes of site selection, on smaller
scale by the use of small test ponds if a test pond bottom is at the same
soil depth desired for the full scale structure.
In the absence of suitable soil conditions, soil sealing or concrete
or asphalt liners can be included in the design of these structures
for 300 dollars and up per acre. The advantage realized in careful
site selection is, for this reason, of economic importance.
The depth of the water table is also important. A shallow aquifer
is more vulnerable to contamination and should be avoided. In areas
20
-------
with fluctuating shallow water tables, concrete manure storage pits
and confinement buildings designed with solid bottom manure pits may
shift from their original position and suffer damage ultimately resulting
in contamination of the aquifer.
Shallow water tables are also vulnerable to contamination when the
land is irrigated with large amounts of pollutant-rich runoff waters;
this damage is especially serious in areas of glacial till and within the
flood plains of rivers, where water tables may be only inches below
the surface and the soils are generally sandy or gravelly alluvium.
Social Considerations
Concern for environmental protection has resulted in state regula-
tions and court actions which frequently lead to great expense for
compliance. These actions have forced many feedlots to change their
methods of operation, and a few have had to reestablish at a more suit-
able site or go out of business. Environmental controls have not only
been placed on surface and ground water pollution but have included
odor nuisances. Feedlots have had restraints placed on them solely
on the basis of odor complaints from their neighbors.
Strong demands for increased meat production and improved meat
quality from the general public do not offset the attendant problems
with any lessened demand for environmental improvement. Animal
production units seldom yield any monetary benefits directly to the
complainants, who will not accept disagreeable odors around their
residences, places of work, or recreational areas. In many cases
odors may become such a nuisance to individuals that life patterns
and established transporation routes are changed to avoid them. This
circumstance is not unique to the animal feeding industry but is observed
in a great many industrial operations such as oil and gas production,
slaughter houses, chemical and plastics manufacturing, etc. All
of these industries are feeling the effects of public pressure to eliminate
nuisances created by odors, sound, and unsightliness.
21
-------
The successes of odor control efforts utilizing chemical deodorizers
and odor masking agents have, in most cases, been questionable. In
many cases, where application of chemicals have masked odors, the
measures were temporary and the odors of some of the chemicals were
as disagreeable as the manure odors. Perfumed aerosols have been
used with some success for short distances in Southwestern states;
however, the odors of manure are generally more persistent than the
aerosols tested and are easily detected long distances from the source.
The best odor controls are, at present, a policy of good housekeeping
coupled with proper pen design and the careful selection of the feeding
site. Regular manure removal and disposal and very short runoff
retention times can significantly reduce the amount of odor produced. A
minimum pen slope of 2 percent enhances adequate drainage and reduces
sloppy pen conditions and resulting odors. Manure slurry storage in
oxidation ditches produces less odor than anaerobic storage pits. In
the Northeast, anaerobic storage pits have been covered to reduce the
amount of odor.
Recent years have seen the successful advance of programs for "national
beautification." In short, these programs require the use of privacy
fences to conceal such unsightly places as junk yards, dumps, freight
yards, and salvage yards from public view. In the forseeable future
unsightliness and noise emitting from livestock feeding operations
may bring about public initiated court actions. The selection of a
site with vegetative shelter belts and/or land formations suitable for
visual concealment purposes or of one located a sufficient distance
from highways may prevent problems which do not yet exist.
The selection of a site should include consideration of prevailing wind
direction, of distance from residential areas and public gathering
places, and of the attitudes of immediate neighbors . Agreements for
free manure application and/or a steady market for neighbors' grain
or hay in return for freedom from nuisance complaints may have merit.
22
-------
Zoning may be used effectively in some areas to prevent the encroach-
ment of residential, shopping, and recreational areas. A very expen-
sive but positive approach to zoning would be the purchase of enough
land to create a buffer zone between the animals and society.
The task of co-existing with society will be resolved by locating a
site which is remote from the greatest possible number of potential
complainants, by isolation through controlling as much surrounding
area as possible, and by public relations. Advertising the benefits
of feeding operations over personal discomforts may not make manure
smell any better, but it may help make the odor more acceptable. In
most cases, informing the public of the various pollution controls that
are being used on the facility to enhance environmental quality will
improve the image of feeding operations and animal production units.
23
-------
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Changes in the attitudes and interests of the people of this and many
nations over the world have aroused a much needed awareness of
our surroundings and the heritage that we are leaving behind for
future generations. This awareness has created a need for changes
in the ways that industry and agriculture dispose of their wastes.
Early in the past decade, wastes disposal practices which were re-
commended as acceptable included locating feeding sites on steep slopes
and near streams or lakes for natural drainage and disposal of runoff
wastes in surface waters. Recommended manure disposal practices
included filling ravines and ditches, from which the manure eroded
away and washed into the streams. Little concern existed for contami-
nation of ground water supplies except where obvious damage would
occur to the water supply for the feeding facility.
A typical beef feedlot layout is depicted in Figure 4. The wastes
management design used here may have been a recommended practice
as late as ten years ago. The extent of environmental unbalance which
was created by the various practices utilized in this operational plan
was in reality unnecessary but economical. Relocation of the facility
on the same site and seven changes of minor economic significance
(which included addition of a few wastes handling and management
facilities) could have eliminated most of the hazards to the environment.
The same beef feedlot relocated on the same site is depicted in
Figure 5. This operation was planned with the use of the present
environment protecting concepts of site selection and wastes management.
The pen area has been moved onto the more level land, which has clay
soil underlaid with a solid dolomite rather than the sandy soil and
cavernous limestone which is present on the hill slope. The new site
is located away from the small creek and takes advantage of the vege-
tative shelter belt both as shield against cold north winds and as a
visual screen from the road. A ditch to divert extraneous drainage
25
-------
FIGURE 4. TYPICAL BEEF FEEDLOT LAYOUT INCORPORATING OUTMODED
DESIGN CONCEPTS
FIGURE 5. TYPICAL BEEF FEEDLOT LAYOUT INCORPORATING ENVIRONMENT
PROTECTING DESIGN CONCEPTS
26
-------
has been constructed around the pen area, and runoff collection ponds
have been added all the way across the lower end of the pens. The
runoff from the collection ponds is pumped into a holding pond, from
which it is distributed onto a pastured area with a large irrigation gun
or metered onto a spray runoff treatment slope. The pens are cleaned
regularly and the manure is temporarily stored or immediately hauled
away and disposed of on agricultural land.
The actual application of good site selection principles is a matter
of common sense and the ability to apply existing state regulations.
There are no standard numerical guidelines and mathematical formulae
applicable to each site selection in every part of the country. This
report has been a compilation of the major site selection considerations
which are representative of a large percentage of facility designs and
most geographic locations. Professional assistance from consulting
engineers and/or the governmental agencies listed in the appendices
may be needed to solve unique site selection problems.
27
-------
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Climatic
1. Blair, T. A., Climatology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood,
Cliffs, New Jersey (1942).
2. Bond, T. E., R. L. Givens, and S. R. Morrison, Comparative
Effects of Mud, Wind and Rain on Beef Cattle Performance,
Paper No. 70-406, ASAE (July 1970).
3. Esmay, M. L., Principles of Animal Environment, The AVI
Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, Connecticut (1969).
4. Givens, R. L., "Height of Artificial Shades for Cattle in the
Southeast," Trans, of the ASAE, No. 3, pp. 312-313 (1965).
5. Givens, R. L., et al., "Influence of Feedlot Pen Design and
Winter Shelter of Beef Cattle Performance," Calif. Agr. ,
No. 22, pp. 6-7 (Feb. 1968).
6. Grussing, Don, "Shelter Pay—?" Feedlot, No. 12, pp. 30-32
and 34-35 (Feb. 1970).
7. Henderson, H. E. , and M. R. Geasler, Effect of Environment
and Housing on the Performance of Feedlot Cattle Under
Midwest Conditions. Midwestern Sectional Meeting, American
Society of Animal Science, Chicago, Illinois (Nov. 29, 1968).
8. Hoffman, M. P., and H. L. Self, "Shelter and Feedlot Surface
Effects on Performance of Yearling Steers," Jour, of Animal
Sci., No. 31, pp. 967-972 (Nov. 1970).
9. Kelly, C. F., "Effects of Thermal Environment on Beef Cattle,"
Agr. Engr., No. 41, pp. 613-614 (Sept. 1960).
10. Kohler, M. A., T. J. Nordenson, and D. R. Baker, Evapo-
ration Maps for the United States, Technical Paper No. 37,
Weather Bureau, U. S . Department of Commerce, Washington,
D. C. (1959).
11. Miller, R. F., "Space Requirements and Dust Control for
Feedlot Cattle," Calif. Agr., No. 16, pp. 14-15 (Dec. 1962).
12. Nelson, G. L., "Effects of Climate and Environment on Beef
Cattle," Agr. Engr., No. 40, pp. 540-544 (Sept. 1959).
29
-------
13. Pratt, G. L., "Confinement Beef Housing for Air and Water
Pollution Control in Cold Climates," Conference of General
Collaborators from North Central Agricultural Experiment
Station, Northern Utilization Research and Development
Division, Peoria, Illinois (Mar. 23-24, 1970).
14. Two to Ten Day Precipitation for Return Periods of 2 to 100
Years in the Contiguous United States, Technical Paper No. 49,
Weather Bureau, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.
(1965).
Legal Aspects
15. Bernard, H., "Effects of Water Quality Standards on the
Requirements for Treatment of Animal Wastes," Animal Wastes
Management. Cornell University Conference on Agricultural
Wastes Management, Syracuse, New York (1969).
16. Fish, H., "Water Pollution Prevention Requirements in Relation
to Farm-waste Disposal," Proceedings of Symposium on Farm
Wastes, Paper 6, University of Newcastle, pp. 38-43 (1970).
17. Hannah, H. W., "Possible Defenses Against Nuisance Complaints,"
Poult. Dig., p. 601 (Dec. 1970).
18. Happer, L., "Supreme Court Upholds Judgements in HBI Case,"
Mo. Ruralist, p. 12 (Jan. 23, 1971).
19. King, D. R., "Environmental Pollution Now and in the Years
Ahead," Animal Wastes Management, Cornell University Con-
ference on Animal Wastes Management, Syracuse, New York
(1969).
20. Levi, D. R., Pork Producers and Pollution: Legal Aspects,
Agr. Econ. Paper No. 1970-6, University of Missouri-
Columbia (1970).
21. Levi, D. R. , and J. C. Holstein, "Stockmens-Liability Under
the Missouri Nuisance-Law," Science and Tech Guide, Univer-
sity of Missouri-Columbia Ext. Div., Agr., Econ. File.
22. Levi, D. R., "Legal-Aspects Pertaining to Environmental
Regulations in Pork-Production," American Pork Congress,
Des Moines, Iowa (Mar. 3, 1971).
23. Miner, J. R., "Raising Livestock in the Urban Fringe," Agr.
Engr., 51, (12), pp. 702-703 (Dec. 1970).
30
-------
24. Moorman, R., Jr., "Controlling Odors from Cattle Feedlots
and Manure Dehydration Operations," Air Pol. Cont. Assn.
Jour.. Vol. 15, pp. 34-35 (1965). ~
25. Paulson, D. J., "Commerical Feedlots - Nuisance, Zoning,
and Regulations," Washburn Law Jour., 6, pp. 493-507
(1967).
26. Schwiesow, W. F., "State Regulations to Livestock Feedlot
Design and Management December 1970," Bulletin 42-189,
USDA, ARS (April 1971).
27. Stubblefield, T. M., "Problems of Cattle Feeding in Arizona
as Related to Animal-Waste Management," Proceedings National
Symposium on Animal Waste Management, ASAE Sp-0366,
pp. 120-122 (1966).
28. Walker, W. R., "Legal-Restraints on Agricultural-Pollution,"
Relationship of Agriculture to Soil and Water Pollution, Cornell
University Conference on Agricultural Waste Management,
Syracuse, New York (1970).
Pollutional Effects
29. Duffer, W. R., R. D. Kreis, and C. C. Harlin, Effects of
Feedlot Runoff on Water Quality of Impoundments, Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Research Series,
Report No. 16080GG07/71 (1971).
30. Law, J. P., Jr., and H. Bernard, "Impact of Agricultural
Pollutants on Water Uses," Trans, of ASAE. Vol. 13, (4)
pp. 474-478 (July-Aug. 19701!
31. Resnik, A. V., and J. M. Rademacher, "Animal-Waste Runoff -
A Major Water-Quality Challenge," Water Quality Management
Problems in Arid Regions, USDI (Oct. 1970).
32. Scalf, M. R., W. R. Duffer, and R. D. Kreis, Characteristics
and Effects of Cattle Feedlot Runoff, 25th Annual Purdue
Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette, Indiana (May 1970).
31
-------
Social Aspects
33. Agricultural Waste in an Urban Environment, Conference
Proceedings, New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Trenton,
New Jersey (Sept. 1970).
34. Alexander, R. M. , "Social Aspects of Environmental Pollution,"
Agr. Sci. Rev., Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 9-18 (1971).
35. Fairbank, W. C., Waste Disposal Problems in Highly Populated
Areas, Extension Agricultural Engineering, University of
California, Riverside, California (1970).
36. Miner, J. R., "Environment's Challenge: Acceptance as a
Neighbor or Rejection as a Nuisance," Feedlot, No. 13,
pp. 14-15, 34 (May 1970).
37. Proceedings of Farm Animal Waste and By-Product Management
Conference, University Extension, University of Wisconsin
(Nov. 1969).
Soils and Groundwater
38. Lehman, O. R., B . A. Stewart, and A. C. Mathers, Seepage
of Feedyard Runoff Water Impounded in Playas, Bulletin
Mp-944, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas (Feb. 1970).
39. Mathers, A. C., and B. A. Stewart, Nitrogen Transformation
and Plant Growth as Affected by Applying Large Amounts of
Cattle Feedlot Wastes to Soil, USDA, ARS, SWCRD, Southern
Plains Branch, Bushland, Texas (1970).
40. Mielke, L. N., et al., "Groundwater Quality and Fluctuation
in a Shallow Unconfined Aquifer Under a Level Feedlot,"
Relationship of Agriculture to Soil and Water Pollution, Cornell
University Conference on Agricultural Waste Management,
Syracuse, New York (1970).
41. Stewart, B. A., et al., "Nitrate and Other Water Pollutants
Under Fields and Feedlots," Jour. Env. Sci. and Tech.,
No. 1, pp. 736-739 (1967).
General Information
42. Bates, D. W., andL. K. Lindor, The Influence of Housing on
Gains of Beef Cattle in Five Different Structures, ASAE Paper
No. 70-902 (Dec. 1970).
32
-------
43. Beef Handbook, Housing and Equipment, Midwest Plan Service,
Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa (1968) .
44. Butchbaker, A. F., et al., Evaluation of Beef Waste Manage-
ment Alternatives, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
Oklahoma. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution
Control Research Series, Report No. 13040FXG10/71 (In press).
45. George, R. M., et al., The Missouri Approach to Animal
Wastes Management, Bulletin MP 232/71/1M, Missouri Water
Pollution Board and Extension Division, University of Missouri,
Columbia (1971).
46. Gilbertson, C. B ., et al., The Effect of Animal Density and
Surface Slope on Characteristics of Runoff, Solid Wastes and
Nitrate Movement on Unpaved Beef Feedlots, Bulletin SB 508,
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln (1970).
47. Hanson, R. W., Livestock Waste Disposal and Water Pollution
Control, Bulletin 4802, Cooperative Extension Service, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado (Oct. 1971).
48. Loehr, R. C., Pollution Implications of Animal Wastes—A
Forward Oriented Review, Robert S. Kerr Water Research
Center, FWPCA, USDI, Ada, Oklahoma (1968).
49. Mahoney, G. W. A., G. L. Nelson, and S . A. Ewing,
"Performance of Experimental Close-Confinement (Caged)
Cattle Feeding Systems," Trans, of the ASAE, No. 12, pp.
631-633 and 637 (1969).
50. Olson, E. A., Waste Management for Feedlots, Bulletin E. C.
71-785, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln (1971).
51. Shuyler, L. R. , Design for Feedlot Waste Management—Using
Feedlot Waste, Continuing Education Seminar, Kansas
Engineering Society, Topeka (Jan.23, 1969).
52. Spahr, S. L., "Animal Waste Disposal Becomes a More
Difficult Problem," 111. Res.. Vol. 12: 4, pp. 4-5 (1970).
53. Structures and Environment Handbook, Midwest Plan Service,
Ames, Iowa (Sept. 1970).
33
-------
54. Thomas, R. E. , J. P. Law, Jr. , and C. C. Harlin, "Hydrology
of Spray-Runoff Wastewater Treatment," Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Division, Proceedings of American Society of
Civil Engineer, Vol. 96, pp. 289-298 (Sept. 1970).
55. Wells, D. M., et al., Control of Water Pollution from South-
western Cattle Feedlots, Fifth International Conference on
Water Pollution Research, San Francisco, California (July 1970).
34
-------
APPENDICES
Current research findings concerning animal wastes management,
treatment, and disposal may be obtained by contacting:
The Environmental Protection Agency, National Animal Feedlot Wastes
Research Program, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Box 1198, Ada, Oklahoma 74820 or Agricultural and Marine Pollution
Control Section, Applied Science and Technology Branch, Office
of Research and Monitoring, Washington, D. C. 20460.
The state and local offices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Cooperative Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, and Agri-
cultural Research Service.
Climate and rainfall data may be obtained by request to the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau Technical Papers from
the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington 25, D. C. Microclimatic conditions may be obtained
from local offices of the U.S. Weather Bureau.
Topographic maps may be obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey,
Denver Distribution Section, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado
80225, for those areas which lie west of the Mississippi River,
and from the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington Distribution Section,
Washington, D. C. 20242, for those areas which lie east of the
Mississippi River.
Information concerning state regulations and permits may be obtained
from the following state agencies:
Alabama. The Water Resources Division, Alabama Geological
Survey; State Department of Public Health; Water Improvement
Commission; Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries;
State Office Building, Montgomery, Alabama 36104.
Alaska. State Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environ-
mental Health, Pouch H, Juneau, Alaska 99801.
35
-------
Arizona. The Arizona Livestock Sanitary Board, Capitol Annex-
Room 322. Phoenix, Arizona 85007. The Sanitation Division, State
Health Department, 4019 N. 33rd Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85029.
Arkansas. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology,
8001 National Drive, Little Rock, Arkansas 72209.
California. The California Resources Agency, State Water Resources
Control Board, 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, California 95814.
Colorado. The Water Pollution Control Division, State Department
of Health, 4210 East llth Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80220.
Connecticut. The Dairy Division, and The Water Resources Commis-
sion, State Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, 165 Capitol
Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut 06115. State Department of Health,
79 Elm Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06115.
Delaware. Water Resources Section, Division of Environmental
Control, Department of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Building,
Dover, Delaware 19901.
Florida. The State Department of Air and Water Pollution Control,
315 S. Calhoun Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. The Division of
Health, State Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Box 210,
Jacksonville, Florida 32201.
Georgia. The Industrial Waste Section, Georgia Water Quality Board,
and the Georgia Department of Public Health, 47 Trinity Avenue, S .W.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30334.
Hawaii. Hawaii State Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378,
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Idaho. Water Pollution Control Section, Environmental Improvement
Division, Idaho Department of Health, Statehouse, Boise, Idaho 83701.
Illinois. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 215 S. First
Street, Champaign, Illinois 61820.
Indiana. Industrial Waste Disposal Section, Indiana State Board of
Health, 1330 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206. State
Department of Natural Resources, State Office Building, 100 N. Senate
Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204. The Air Pollution Control
Division, State Board of Health, 1330 W. Michigan Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206.
36
-------
Iowa. The Iowa Water Pollution Control Commission, Department
of Health, Lucas State Office Building, Des Moines, Iowa 50319. The
Iowa Natural Resources Council, Grimes State Office Building, Des
Moines, Iowa 50319. The Environmental Engineering Service, Iowa
State Health Department, Lucas State Office Building, Des Moines
Iowa 50319.
Kansas. The Division of Environmental Health, Kansas State
Department of Health, and the Livestock Sanitary Commission, Animal
Health Department, State Office Building, Topeka, Kansas 66612.
Kentucky. The Kentucky Water Pollution Control Commission; the
Water Pollution Division and the Solid Waste Division, Kentucky Depart-
ment of Health, 275 E. Main Street, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. The
Division of Livestock Sanitation, Kentucky Department of Agriculture,
Capitol Annex Building, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.
Louisiana. The Louisiana Stream Control Commission, P.O.
Drawer FC, University Station, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803. The
Louisiana Livestock Sanitary Board, P.O. Box 44003, Capitol Station,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70800. The Louisiana State Department of
Health, State Office Building, P.O. Box 60630, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70160.
Maine. Site Selection Program, Maine Environmental Improvement
Commission, State House, Augusta, Maine 04330.
Maryland. The Maryland Department of Water Resources, State
Office Building, Annapolis, Maryland 21404.
Massachusetts. The Water Pollution Control Division, Department
of Natural Resources, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02202.
Michigan. The Water Resources Commission, Department of Natural
Resources, Steven T. Mason Building, Lansing, Michigan. The Air
Pollution Control Section, Division of Engineering, State Department of
Public Health, 3500 N. Logan, Lansing, Michigan 48914.
Minnesota. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 717 Delaware
Street, S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440.
Mississippi. Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Commission,
P. O. Box 827, Jackson, Mississippi 39205.
Missouri. The Missouri Water Pollution Board and the Division of
Health, State Department of Public Health and Welfare, 112 West High,
P.O. Box 154, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101.
37
-------
Montana. The State Department of Health, Helena, Montana 59601.
Nebraska. The Nebraska Water Pollution Control Council, State
Department of Health, State House Station, Lincoln, Nebraska 68509.
Nevada. Bureau of Environmental Health, Division of Health, State
Department of Health and Welfare, 201 S. Fall Street, Carson City,
Nevada 89701.
New Hampshire. The State Department of Water Supply and Pollution
Control, Prescott Park, 105 Loudon Road, Concord, New Hampshire 03301.
The Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Welfare, 61 S.
Spring Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301.
New Jersey. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
P.O. Box 1390, John Fitch Plaza, Trenton, New Jersey 08625.
New Mexico. The Environmental Services Division, State Department
of Health and Social Services, and the Environmental Improvement Agency,
P. O. Box 2348, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501.
New York. Bureau of Industrial Waste, Division of Pure Waters,
Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York 12201.
New York State Department of Health, 845 Central Avenue, Albany, New
York 12206.
North Carolina. Water Quality Division, State Department of Water
and Air Resources, P. O. Box 27048, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.
North Dakota. The Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,
Environmental Health and Engineering Services, State Department of
Health, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501.
Ohio. The Ohio Department of Health and the Ohio Water Pollution
Control Board, P.O. Box 118, Columbus, Ohio 43216.
Oklahoma. Regulatory Services Division, Oklahoma State Department
of Agriculture, 122 Capitol Building, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105.
Sanitation Division, Environmental Health Services, Oklahoma State
Department of Health, 3400 North Eastern, Oklahoma City, Oklahom 73105.
Oregon. The State Department of Environmental Quality, State
Office Building, 1400 S.W. 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97201.
Pennsylvania. The State Department of Environmental Resources,
P.O. Box 2351, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120.
38
-------
Rhode Island. Environmental Health Services, State Department of
Health, State Office Building, Providence, Rhode Island 02903.
South Carolina. The South Carolina Pollution Control Authority
Owen Building, 1321 Lady Street, P. O. Box 11628. Columbia, South'
Carolina 29211.
South Dakota. The South Dakota Committee on Water Pollution
State Office Building No. 2, Pierre, South Dakota 57501. State Depart-
ment of Health, State Capitol, Pierre, South Dakota 57501.
Tennessee. Division of Stream Pollution Control, Tennessee Depart-
ment of Public Health, Cordell Hull Building, Nashville, Tennessee 37219.
Texas. The Texas Water Quality Board, 1108 Lavaca Street, Austin,
Texas. The Texas State Department of Health, 1100 W. 49th Street,
Austin, Texas 78756. The Texas Air Control Board, 320 E. 53rd Street,
Austin, Texas. The Texas Animal Health Commission, Sam Houston
Building, Austin, Texas.
Utah. The Water Pollution Committee, Division of Health, State
Department of Social Services, 44 Medical Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84113.
Vermont. The State Department of Agriculture and the Agency of
Environmental Conservation, Montpelier, Vermont 05602.
Virginia. The Pollution Abatement Division, Virginia Water Control
Board, P. O. Box 11143, Richmond, Virginia 23230.
Washington. State Department of Agriculture, General Administration
Building, P.O. Box 218, Olympia, Washington 98501. The Water Resources
Division, State Department of Ecology, General Administration Building,
Olympia, Washington 98501.
West Virginia. The Sanitary Engineering Division, State Department
of Health, Charleston, West Virginia 25305. The Division of Water
Resources, Department of Natural Resources, Charleston, West
Virginia 25305.
Wisconsin. The Department of Natural Resources, Box 450,
Madison, Wisconsin 53701.
Wyoming. The Division of Health and Medical Services, State Depart-
ment of Health and Social Services, State Office Building, Cheyenne,
Wyoming 82001.
39
------- |