United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
            Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
            Laboratory
            Ada OK 74820
EPA-600/2-79-143
August 1979
              Research and Development
&EPA
Livestock Feedlot
Runoff  Control by
Vegetative  Filters

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING  SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development. US Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:

      1.  Environmental Health  Effects Research
      2.  Environmental Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological Research
      4   Environmental Monitoring
      5   Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6   Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  'Special" Reports
      9,  Miscellaneous Reports

This report  has been assigned  to the  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental 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.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia  22161.

-------
                                                  EPA-600/2-79-143
                                                  August 1979
 LIVESTOCK FEEDLOT RUNOFF CONTROL BY VEGETATIVE FILTERS
                           by

Dale H. Vanderholm, Elbert C. Dickey, Joseph A. Jackobs,
          Roger W. Elmore, and Sidney L. Spahr
                 University of Illinois
                 Urbana, Illinois  61801
                 Grant No. R804341-01-1
                     Project Officer

                    R. Douglas Kreis
                Source Management Branch
    Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
                  Ada, Oklahoma  74820
    ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
           OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   ADA, OKLAHOMA  74820

-------
                               DISCLAIMER

     This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                    11

-------
                                 FOREWORD
     The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the
quality of our environment.

     An important part of the agency's effort involves the search for
information about environmental problems, management techniques and new
technologies through which optimum use of the nation's land and water
resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare
of the American people can be minimized.

     EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search
through a nationwide network of research facilities.

     As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to:
(a) investigate the nature, transport, fate and management of pollutants
in groundwater; (b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating waste-
waters with soil and other natural systems; (c) develop and demonstrate
pollution control technologies for irrigation return flows, (d) develop
and demonstrate pollution control technologies for animal production
wastes; (e) develop and demonstrate technologies to prevent, control
or abate pollution from the petroleum refining and petrochemical in-
dustries, and  (f) develop and demonstrate technologies to manage pol-
lution resulting from combinations of industrial wastewaters or indus-
trial/municipal wastewaters.

     This report contributes to the knowledge essential if the EPA
is to meet the requirements of environmental laws that it establish
and enforce pollution control standards which are reasonable, cost
effective and provide adequate protection for the American people.
                                                  a
                                     William C. Galegar, Director
                                     Robert S. Kerr Environmental
                                       Research Laboratory
                                   iii

-------
                                ABSTRACT

     This research program was initiated with the overall objective of de-
termining if contaminated runoff from small livestock feedlots could be
successfully controlled by infiltration and treatment on vegetated field
areas  (vegetative filters).  A secondary objective was to develop standard
design criteria for vegetative filters.

     The vegetative filter can be described simply as a system in which a
vegetative area such as pasture, grassed waterway or even cropland is used
for treating runoff by infiltration, settling, dilution, filtration, and
absorption of pollutants.  Four full-scale vegetative filters were designed
and installed on feedlots in central and northern Illinois.  Two configur-
ations were used-channelized flow and overland flow.  After settling for
partial solids removal, runoff was applied directly to the filters and
allowed to flow from the inlet to the outlet section.  Monitoring included
measurement, sampling and analysis of influent runoff, effluent runoff,
runoff at intermediate points, ground water, soil, and forage produced on
the filter area.

     Runoff from most smaller rainfall events infiltrated completely, re-
sulting in no discharge.  Runoff from larger events partially infiltrated
and partially discharged.  Discharge samples analysis indicated a removal
of over 95 percent of nutrients and oxygen demanding materials in the
applied runoff on a mass balance basis and 80 percent removal on a concen-
tration basis.  Removal was found to be directly related to flow distance
or contact time with the filter.  Greater flow depths with channelized flow
required greater contact time or flow distance than did shallow overland
flow to achieve the same level of treatment.

     Design criteria were developed for overland flow and channelized flow
vegetative filters.  These include the basic philosophy that small runoff
events will be infiltrated and runoff from larger events will be allowed
to discharge after being treated to an acceptable degree.

     This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. R804341-01-1
by the departments of Agricultural Engineering, Agronomy, and Dairy Science,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign under the partial sponsorship
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  This report covers a period
from February 9, 1976 to May 8, 1978 and work was completed as of May 8,
1978.
                                   IV

-------
                               CONTENTS

Foreword	ill
Abstract	iv
Figures	vi
Tables	viii
Abbreviations and Symbols	   x
Acknowledgment	xi

  1.  Introduction 	   1
  2.  Conclusions	   3
  3.  Recommendations	   5
  4.  Experimental Procedures	   6
  5.  Results and Discussion	 .  .  16
  6.  Economics	59

References	62
Bibliography	64

-------
                                 FIGURES

Number                                                              Page

  1.  Location of vegetative filter systems studied	    7

  2.  Alternative configurations for vegetative filters used as
      a treatment for feedlot runoff	   8

  3.  System 1 - runoff collection and vegetative filter configu-
      uration	     9

  4.  System 2 - runoff collection and vegetative filter config-
      uration	   10

  5.  System 3 - runoff collection and vegetative filter config-
      uration	   11

  6.  System 4 - runoff collection and vegetative filter config-
      uration	   12

  7.  Rainfall-runoff relationship for a paved dairy feedlot
      (System 1)	    17

  8.  Nitrogen concentration changes with overland flow (System 1).  13

  9.  COD and solid concentration changes with overland flow
      (System 1)	20

 10.  Nitrogen concentration changes with channelized flow
      (System 3)	24

 11.  COD and solid concentration changes with channelized flow
      (System 3)	25

 12.  Nitrogen concentration changes with overland flow—curvi-
      linear regression (System 1)	  26

 13.  Nitrogen concentration changes with channelized flow—curvi-
      linear regression (System 3)	    27

 14.  Nitrogen concentration changes with channelized flow for an
      individual storm (System 4)	   30

 15.  COD and solid concentration changes with channelized flow for
      an individual storm (System 4)	  31
                                  VI

-------
Number                                                              Page

 16.  Dry matter yields at System 1	    33

 17.  Nitrogen uptake by the forage on System 1	    36

 18.  Phosphorus uptake by the forage on System 1	    37

 19.  Potassium uptake by the forage on System 1	    38

 20.  Nitrate nitrogen in the soil profile at System 1	    39

 21.  Available phosphorus in the soil profile at System 1	  40

 22.  Available potassium in the soil profile at System 1	    41

 23.  Nitrate nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a
      30-meter  (m) flow distance	44

 24.  Nitrate nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 120-m
      flow distance	    45

 25.  Nitrate nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 275-m
      flow distance	46

 26.  Nitrate nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 425-m
      flow distance	47

 27.  Total nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 30-m
      flow distance	48

 28.  Total nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 120-m
      flow distance	49

 29.  Total nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 275-m
      flow distance	50

 30.  Total nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 425-m
      flow distance	51

 31.  Approximate required channelized flow distances for various
      slopes and contact times	  54
                                  VII

-------
                                TABLES

Number                                                              Page
  1.  Constituent Concentrations in the Settling-Basin and
      Vegetative-Filter Effluent (System 1)	   19

  2.  Constituent Removal During the Study Period on a Mass-
      Balance Basis by Vegetative Filter Treatment of Feedlot
      Runoff (System 1)	   19

  3.  Constituent Concentrations in the Settling-Basin and Vege-
      tative Filter Effluent (System 2)	     22

  4.  Effluent Constituent Concentrations in the Vegetative Filter
      at Various Distances From the Settling Basin Discharge
      (System 3)	   23

  5.  Percent Constituent Reduction in the Basin Effluent at
      Various Locations in the  Vegetative Filter (System 3)....   28

  6.  Constituent Removal on a  Mass-Balance by Vegetative
      Filter Treatment of Feedlot Runoff for Three Storms  (System 3)   28

  7.  Constituent Concentrations in the Settling-Basin and the
      Vegetative Filter Effluent After a Flow Distance of 148 m
      (450 ft.)  (System 4)	29

  8.   Nutrient Uptake at System 1 at Various Cuttings	   34

  9.   Nitrogen Balance Sheet for the Vegetative Filter at System 1.  42

 10.   Ground Water Quality at the Vegetative Filter at System 1. .   52

 11.   Minimum Contact Times for Vegetative Filters Utilizing
      Channelized Flow for Various Feedlot Sizes	     55

 12.   Minimum Flow Lengths for  Vegetative Filters Utilzing Overland
      Flow and Having Various Slopes	56

 13.   Recommended Overland Flow Filter Areas with Various Soil Types
      (climatic  conditions should be similar to those of central
      Illinois	   57
                                 viii

-------
Number                                                              Page

 14.  Total Investment Costs, Operating Costs, and Percentage
      Difference Between the Vegetative Filter and Zero-Discharge
      Systems for Six Illinois Demonstration-Research Sites. ...   60
                                    IX

-------
                        ABBREVIATIONS  AND SYMBOLS
ABBREVIATIONS
BOD
COD
IEPA

ac
cm
et al.
ft
ft2
ft3
gal
g
ha
hr
SYMBOLS
pH

l.ON KC1

N03-N
NH3-N
°C
°F
biochemical oxygen demand
chemical oxygen demand
Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency
acre
centimeter
and others
foot, feet
square feet
cubic feet
gallon
gram
hectare
hour

positive hydrogen ion
concentration
1.0 normal potassium
chloride
nitrate-N, nitrate nitrogen
ammonia-N, ammonia nitrogen
degrees Celsius
degrees Fahrenheit
kg
Ib
1
m
m2
m3
mg
ml
mm
mt
ppm
sec
T
in

$
/
P
K
N
Cl
ymhos
y
to
kilogram
pound
liter
meter
square meter
cubic meter
milligram
milliliter
millimeter
metric ton
parts per million
second
ton
inch

dollar
per
phosphorus
potassium
nitrogen
chloride
micromhos
percent

-------
                             ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

     The authors gratefully acknowledge additional financial support for
this research from the Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality and the
Illiois Beef Industry Council.  Sampling equipment and laboratory services
were provided by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.  James F.
Frank, agriculture adviser with the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, was particularly supportive in initiating and conducting the re-
search.  Close communication and cooperation were maintained throughout the
study with Mr. Frank and with Southern Illinois University staff members
who were conducting a complementary study on vegetative filters.

     The help of Wayne Seifert in managing the University of Illinois Dairy
system and Steve Maddock and other field and laboratory technicians who
participated in this research is gratefully acknowledged.

     Soil Conservation Service personnel assisted in planning and designing
the experimental systems.

     Finally, the authors especially appreciate the assistance and coopera-
tion of the livestock producers and landowners involved in this study:
Kendrick Fesler, Barry; Phil Bradshaw, Griggsville; Roger Nordman, Oregon;
Merwin Ness, Big Rock; and Lawrence Strope, Aurora.
                                   xi

-------
                                 SECTION 1

                               INTRODUCTION

     Many areas of the country have significant numbers of livestock feed-
lots not subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit program.  Most are small feedlot facilities, but many of them
may have a potential water pollution problem due to uncontrolled runoff from
open lot areas.  Installation of a zero-discharge runoff-control system is
one alternative for solving the pollution threat at each of these locations.
This approach may be economically prohibitive for many of the smaller opera-
tions, however, even though the zero-discharge system is required by regula-
tion in several states.  A second alternative is to install a vegetative
filter system to adequately control the runoff so that a violation of water
quality standards will not occur in the case of storm runoff.  This alter-
native has the advantages of controlling the runoff at a lower cost than the
conventional zero-discharge system and at the same time requiring less man-
agement .

     The vegetative filter can be described simply as a system in which a
vegetative area such as pasture, grassed waterway, or even cropland is used
for treating runoff by settling, filtration, dilution, absorption of pollu-
tants, and infiltration.  Most early systems have been designed on the prem-
ise that all or a major portion of the feedlot runoff that does not infil-
trate  into the ground  in certain situations will be treated to such a degree
that it can be allowed to ultimately enter surface watercourses.  Pretreat-
ment of the feedlot runoff by some method such as settling is advisable.
While  systems of this  type are certainly not adaptable or practical for
every  situation, they  could provide successful, low-cost runoff control for
many feedlots.

     Much of the early use of the vegetative filter method has been for the
disposal of wastes from the canning industry.  Mather  (1969) reported re-
moval  of biochemical oxygen demand  (BOD) from cannery wastes of 94 to 99
percent during overland flow in a disposal area, although Bendixen et al.
 (1969) reported only 66 percent BOD removal.  Nitrogen removals of 61 to 94
percent and phosphorus removals of 39  to 81 percent have also been reported
in  these two studies.

     Some research has been conducted  using vegetative filters  for treatment
of  livestock wastes.   McCaskey et al.  (1971)  found a  renovating  effect  for
waste  water traveling  over a grassed surface in a thin layer but  did  not de-
termine the effect on  a quantitative basis.  In Ohio,  Edwards  et  al. (1971)
measured significant reductions  in the nutrient content  of feedlot runoff
after  the runoff  traversed a grassed waterway.  They  attributed this  reduc-

-------
 tion  to  the  deposition of  solids  in  the waterway  and  to  the  dilution  of
 feedlot  runoff by  surface  water from nearby  cropland.  Research  by  Kramer
 et al.   (1974) in  Kansas indicated that,  for the  beef feedlot  studied, the
 spray-runoff system of removal of BOD5 and total  suspended solids was pos-
 sibly adequate for discharge but  nutrient levels  could still be  too high for
 discharge  to be practical.

      Sievers et al.   (1975) used  a grassed waterway type of  vegetative fil-
 ter to treat anaerobic swine lagoon  effluent.  Willrich  and  Boda (1976) also
 treated  swine lagoon effluent with sloping grass  strips.  Open feedlot run-
 off-treatment systems have been reported  by  Sutton et al.   (1976) and Swan-
 son et al.   (1975).  While the degree of  treatment observed  varied, all
 these studies indicated that this method—vegetative  filters—was effective
 and potentially a  satisfactory treatment  method.  No  uniform design criteria
 have  evolved from  these studies,  however, and variable performance  has made
 environmental authorities  hesitate to give blanket approval  to this concept.

      A study was begun in  Illinois in 1975 to evaluate vegetative filter
 systems  and,  if feasible,  to develop design  criteria  for them.   This  work
 was designed to determine  whether the vegetative  filter  system would  ade-
 quately  control the feedlot runoff so that a violation of water  quality
 standards  would not occur  in the  case of  storm runoff.   The  objectives of
 the research reported here were as follows:

      a.  To  determine whether vegetative  filters  are  a feasible  alternative
         for management of feedlot runoff.
      b.  To  identify the vegetative  filter system configuration  most  likely
         to  be successful  for the range of conditions  encountered.
      c.  To  develop design standards and  management recommendations for
         successful vegetative filter systems.

      The research  was conducted on four full-scale field systems installed
 on beef, dairy, and swine  lots.   Two types of systems  were studied, the
 channelized  flow system and the overland  flow system.  The channelized flow
 system can have various configurations such  as a  graded  terrace  channel,
 grassed waterway,  or something else.  In  general, it  is  a system in which
 the flow is  concentrated in a relatively  narrow channel.  One  of the  chan-
 nelized flow systems studied was  a graded terrace system traversing the
 hillside several times in  a serpentine fashion.   The other channelized flow
 system had one section of  graded  terrace  channel  followed by a section of
 grassed waterway.

     The overland  flow system refers to a situation in which the flow is
not concentrated but rather occurs as shallow sheet flow over  a  relatively
wide area.

     Several grass varieties and  various  configuration of pretreatment and
 distribution systems were  tested.   The study  continued for over  two years
 and was conducted  year-round.

-------
                                 SECTION 2

                                CONCLUSIONS

     Vegetative  filters are an effective means of removing nutrients, sol-
ids, and oxygen-demanding materials from feedlot runoff before discharge.
The observed reductions of these constituents by the filter systems under
study were over  80 percent on a concentration basis and over 95 percent on
a mass-balance basis.

     Bacteria levels in feedlot runoff are not greatly reduced by using the
vegetative filter.  High levels of fecal coliform and fecal streptococcus
were found both  in the effluent from the filter areas and in the effluent
from control areas, on which no runoff or manure had been applied.

     Effluent discharged from vegetative filters during large runoff events
may not meet current standards for stream quality.  However, the discharge
rates are usually relatively low, occur during periods of high stream flow
and, therefore,  have high dilution rates, which results in negligible effects
on stream quality, especially as compared with the uncontrolled discharges
from open feedlots.

     Overland flow is more effective than channelized flow for removal of
pollutants from  runoff.  This is reflected in the recommended design crite-
ria, which specify much greater contact times for channelized flow systems
to achieve equivalent treatment equivalent to that of overland flow systems.
Vegetation kill  in the channel bottom may become a problem with channelized
flow systems.

     Some increase in nutrient levels in soil and ground water under vegeta-
tive filter areas was observed.  This increase was variable and generally
small, although  additional study is needed to determine if this could be a
problem on a long term basis.

     Vegetative  filters in the study produced high yields of forage which
was used for livestock feed.

     A comparison of orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass,  and reed canarygrass
showed that all were satisfactory in overland flow systems, and only small
differences were observed in yields and effectiveness as a cover.  Since
reed canarygrass is somewhat better in yield, tolerance, to both wet and
dry conditions and adaptability to high fertility, it appears to be the best
grass for most situations.

-------
     The acceptance of the vegetative filter system by farmers is much bet-
ter than their acceptance of the runoff control systems having a holding
pond.  Thus, the vegetative filter is likely to be adopted by smaller feed-
lots much more readily than the conventional systems, resulting in a reduc-
tion of pollution problems associated with feedlot runoff.

-------
                                 SECTION 3

                              RECOMMENDATIONS

     Vegetative filters should be designed so that the runoff from most
smaller precipitation events will infiltrate into the soil.  To accomplish
this, soil type and filter area should be major design considerations.

     Vegetative filters should be designed to adequately treat runoff from
large precipitation events so that it can be safely discharged.  Flow con-
tact time (time of travel) should be the major design variable for this fac-
tor.

     Since vegetative filter systems may not adapt well to every situation,
when planning a system, both the conventional holding-pond system and the
vegetative filter system should be considered, and the selection should be
based on site-specific factors.

     When planning a vegetative filter system, especially where daily load-
ing  (such as from a milking center) is anticipated, establishing a second
filter area should be considered.  This would allow alternating use and give
a chance for periodic system recovery and drying.

     Because of excessive sizes of vegetative filters required and a lack of
monitoring data for large systems, these systems cannot yet be recommended
for  feedlots with a capacity of approximately 500 beef animal units or more.
Vegetative filters have been reported successful on larger feedlots in other
geographic areas and may  later be recommended for large feedlots in this
area if proved satisfactory by additional research.

     Before widespread installation of vegetative filter systems can be re-
commended, the concept of discharge from these systems will need to be re-
viewed and approved by pollution  control agencies.  Since  this and other
recent studies have reported favorable results, approval is recommended.

     Additional research  is needed  to verify the results reported for other
conditions and for long term operation under a wide variety of conditions.
This would also permit refinement of the design criteria.  Specific areas  of
study should include a comparison of trapezoidal  (flat bottom) and parabolic
channels, especially with regard  to reducing vegetation kill  in  the channel;
a  study of the long-term  effects  on soil and ground water; and the develop-
ment of reliable distribution  systems.

-------
                                  SECTION 4

                           EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

 FIELD INSTALLATIONS

      Four feedlots in which the vegetative filters adapt well to the physi-
 cal situation and appear to have a reasonable chance of providing a success-
 ful method for managing feedlot runoff were selected for study.  One of
 these systems was installed on the University of Illinois dairy farm, where
 construction and management could be carefully controlled and observed and
 where data could easily be collected.  The other three systems were located
 adjacent to commercial livestock production facilities.  The locations of
 the vegetative filter systems studied are shown in Figure 1.  While some
 advisory control was exercised in these situations, the management was pri-
 marily up to the cooperating farmers.  This arrangement provided the research
 team with an opportunity to evaluate the manageability of these on-farm
 systems as well as the efficiency of both the on-farm and the carefully con-
 trolled system at the University of Illinois.

     The basic system consists of a settling facility, a distribution com-
ponent, and the vegetative filter area, as shown in Figure 2.  The runoff
from each storm event went directly to the filter area.  Similar concrete
settling basins were used at all four locations, but each vegetative filter
was quite different (Figures 3-6).

      At the University of Illinois dairy facility  (System 1), effluent from
 the settling basin was pumped by an automatic pump (controlled by the water
 level) through a gated irrigation-pipe distribution system, spreading the
 effluent on three field plots.  One grass species was seeded on each plot.
 Three different grass species were evaluated—reed canarygrass, bromegrass,
 and orchardgrass.  Each plot was surrounded by a berm to prevent any outside
 drainage water from entering the plot area and to keep any applied effluent
 and rainfall from escaping at any point other than the controlled plot out-
 let.   The control plot, planted to bromegrass, received no effluent applica-
 tions.  The 12 m wide by 91 m long (40 ft  by 300 ft ) plots have a relative-
 ly low slope, approximately 0.5 percent.  The flow over the plots was intend-
 ed to approximate sheet or overland flow.  The ratio between the vegetative
 filter area and the feedlot area is approximately 1:1.

      System 2 in northwest Illinois, was also an overland flow type and was
 installed to control the runoff from a beef feedlot with a capacity of ap-
 proximately 450 cattle.  Due to the total size of the operation, an NPDES
 permit written to allow the use of a vegetative filter area was obtained.
 This was strictly a gravity-flow system, with runoff passing through the
 settling basin and distributed across the upper end of a sloping vegetated

-------
FESLER
 SWINE
System 4
                                             NORDMAN
                                              BEEF
                                             System 2
                                               STROPE
                                                BEEF
                                               System 3
CHAMPAIGN-
 URBANA
  U  Of I
   Dairy

  System I
       Figure 1.  Location of vegetative filter systems studied.

-------
oo
                                       SETTLING
                                        BASIN
                                                                   GRASSED AREA
            GRASSED  TERRACE
                          CHANNELIZED FLOW
                                                   OVERLAND  FLOW
            X

Figure 2.  Alternative configurations for vegetative filters used
                                                           as a treatment for feedlot runoff.

-------

Figure 3.  System 1 - runoff collection and vegetative filter configuration.

-------
Figure 4.  System - 2 runoff collection and vegetative filter configuration.

-------
Figure 5.  System 3 - runoff collection and vegetative filter configuration.
                                     11

-------
Figure 6.  System 4 - runoff collection and vegetative filter configuration.
                                     12

-------
area.  At first, runoff was distributed through perforated plastic pipe 15.2
cm (6 in )  in diameter; later, rigid plastic pipe was split to form a weir.
The vegetative filter area was seeded predominantly to a fescue mixture.
Since the soil in the filter is sandy, a filter, lot area ratio of 0.7:1 was
used.  The constructed flow length was 61 m (200 ft ).

     System 3 was located in northern Illinois on a beef feedlot with a
capacity of 500 cattle.  The runoff was directed through a concrete settling
basin and then to a vegetative area of the channelized flow (graded terrace)
type, patterned after the serpentine waterway system studied by Swanson et
al.  (1975).  The terrace channel was approximately 564 m (1,850 ft ) long
and had a parabolic cross-section with a top width of 8.5 m (28 ft )  and a
depth of 0.5 m  (3 ft ).  The channel slope was 0.25 percent.

     System 4, in western Illinois, was on an uncovered swine-finishing fa-
cility with a capacity of 480 animals.  The runoff from the feedlot passed
through a concrete settling basin and entered a vegetated terrace channel
seeded with garrison grass.  The runoff traversed 152 m  (500 ft ) of terrace
channel and 457 m (1,500 ft ) of grassed waterway before reaching a defined
watercourse.  The terrace channel slope was 0.25 percent.  The waterway
slope was approximately 2 percent.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

     A recording rain gage collected rainfall data at each site.  For System
1, the quantity of runoff applied to plots was calculated from records of
elapsed pumping time and pump calibration curves.  The amount of applied run-
off in System 3 was measured by means of an H-flume and a water-stage recor-
der located where the settling basin effluent enters the terrace channel.
The applied runoff quantities were estimated for Systems 2 and 4 by using
rainfall data and previously developed rainfall-runoff relationships for
feedlots in Illinois, as reported by Dickey and Vanderholm (1977).

     Each study site was equipped with automatic sampling devices capable of
taking 24 discrete 550 ml  (1 pint) samples.  In addition, three composite
type automatic samplers were used in sampling the vegetative filter effluent
at System 1.  Each of these samplers had a back-flushing cycle between each
sampling event.  At each automatic sampler location, H-type flumes with
stage recorders were used to measure the flow rate of effluent at the sam-
pling  site   At each automatic sampler location, H-type flumes with stage
recorders were used to measure the flow rate of effluent at the sampling
site.

     Flow-activated automatic water samplers were used to obtain filter out-
flow samples whenever discharge occurred.  These units were usually set to
take a sample of 500 milliliter at intervals of 45 minutes as long as the
discharge continued.  Whenever possible during runoff events, the automatic
samples were augmented by grab sampling at several points along the length
of the flow.  Grab samples of the runoff entering the filters were also
taken periodically.  Samples were later analyzed for chemical and microbio-
logical quality.
                                      13

-------
     Extensive soil sampling was conducted at all  four  sites during the
study to determine the effects of the runoff application on the  location of
soil nutrients.  On System 1, each plot was divided  into four equal-length
segments, and six soil cores were composited to make one sample  from each
segment on three occasions during the two-year treatment period:  April 1976,
before the treatment began; November 1976, the end of the first  treatment
period; and November 1977, the end of the experiment.   Soils of  System 1
were sampled at the following depths:  0-5 cm  (0-2 in ), 5-10 cm (2-4 in ),
10-20 cm  (4-8 in ), 20-30 cm  (8-12 in ), 30-46 cm  (12-18 in ), and 46-61 cm
 (18-24 in ).  Samples were analyzed for pH, total N, NC^-N, available P and
K, and conductivity.  Groundwater samples were taken periodically and ana-
lyzed for chemical quality.

     Soil samples from System 3 were taken in April  and November 1976 and
November 1977 from four depths:  0-15 cm  (0-6 in ),  15-30 cm  (6-12 in ),
30-46 cm  (12-18 in ), and 46-61 cm  (18-24 in ).  Sampling was conducted at
four positions over the length of the channel:  30 m  (100 ft  ),  120 m (400
ft ), 275 m  (900 ft ), and 425 m  (1,400 ft ) from the effluent discharge
point.  At each sampling position, four cores were composited from the bot-
tom of the channel to form one sample, and three were composited from each
side of the channel about 1.5-1.8 m (5-6 ft ) from the  centerline to form
another sample.

     At all locations, forage from the filters was harvested as  hay or hay-
lage and used for cattle feed.  On System 1, a forage yield measurement was
taken on each segment before harvesting.  To estimate yields, an area 0.9 x
6.1 m (3 x 20 ft ), representative of the segment, was  harvested.  Forage
green weights for each sampled area were obtained in the field and 500-1,000
gram (g) (18-35 oz ) samples were taken to determine moisture percentage and
nutrient content.  These samples were oven dried at 66°C (centigrade)
(150°F) until constant weights were attained; these weights were used with
the sample green weights to determine field dry matter.  Samples were then
ground and analyzed for total organic N, P, and K.  Samples were extracted
with 1.0 N KC1 and analysis procedures were as given by Bremner  (1965) and
 Peck,  T.R.  (1978). (Personal Communication Concerning  Liquid Fire Digestion
Technique Used in the Agronomy Soil Testing Lab, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign.)

     Water samples from System 1, which were obtained both by manual sampling
and automatic sampling, were taken directly to the laboratory for refrigera-
tion.  Samples to be used for bacteria and BOD determination were obtained
manually in sterile bottles furnished by the Illinois Environmental Protec-
tion Agency  (IEPA) and taken directly to the IEPA  laboratory in  Champaign,
which is only a short distance from the research site.

     Samples obtained at outlying sites were collected  by part-time local
assistants immediately after storm runoff events.  Either immediately or
after a short period of refrigerated storage, these samples were shipped in
styrofoam cartons by United Parcel Service to the Agricultural Engineering
Department Laboratory,  where they were analyzed for chsrr.ical quality only.
Normal time in shipment was one day.
                                    14

-------
     Water samples from all sites were analyzed for ammonia-N, total
Kjeldahl N, solids, chloride,COD, total P and K, and conductivity.  Filter
influent and effluent samples from System 1 were analyzed for fecal coliform,
fecal streptococcus, and BOD.   All chemical analyses of water samples were
according to procedures outlined in Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water
and Waste  (USEPA, 1974), except that nitrogen analyses were determined by
the method described by Bremer  and Keeney  (1965).  Analyses for bacteria
were according to the methods of the American Public Health Association
(1971).
                                    15

-------
                                  SECTION 5

                           RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 RAINFALL AND RUNOFF

      Rainfall data,  elapsed  pumping times,  and  pump  calibration  curves  were
 used  to calculate  the  rainfall-runoff relationship for  System 1,  as  shown  in
 Figure  7.   Supportive  data obtained on System 3 were used for comparative
 purposes but were  not  adequate  for inclusion  in this report.   The rainfall-
 runoff  relationship  found  in this study compares quite  favorably  with pre-
 vious results reported by  Dickey  and Vanderholm (1977),  although  those  data
 were  from paved beef lots  rather  than a paved dairy  lot.   The calculated re-
 gression line intercepts the abscissa at 3.11 millimeters (mm)  (0.12 in ),
 which indicates that runoff  would be expected after  approximately 3.11  mm
 (0.12 in )  of rainfall.

      The rainfall-runoff data were  substituted  into  the  equation  used by the
 Soil  Conservation  Service  for estimating runoff volume  (Schwab et al.,  1966)
 to obtain an appropriate runoff curve number  for concrete-paved dairy feed-
 lots  in  Illinois.  That equation  is
                   Q = (I-0.2S)2/ (I  + 0.8S)
             where  Q = direct surface runoff, in
                   I = storm rainfall,  in
                   N = arbitrary  curve number varying from 0  to 100
                   S = (1000/N)-10
 The average  N  value, calculated from the data from the 19 events  where  run-
 off did  occur, was 96.7 and  the range was 95.0  to 99.9.   This indicates that
 the selection  of a runoff  curve number near 97  would be  appropriate  when
 using the Soil Conservation  Service  method to estimate runoff volumes from
paved dairy  lots in  regions  having climatic conditions similar to those in
 central  Illinois.  Similarly, a runoff curve  number  of 90 (Dickey and Vander-
holm, 1977)  would be appropriate  for  paved beef feedlots.  The smaller  curve
number,   and  thus lower runoff volumes,  for beef feedlots  is due to the  fact
that dairy lots are  normally  cleaned  more frequently than beef lots.  With a
lower frequency of lot cleaning,  the  beef lots  will  accumulate a  manure pack
that retains a larger amount  of rainfall,  thus  resulting  in lower runoff
volumes.

FILTER TREATMENT EFFICIENCY

     Evaluation of the overland flow  vegetative  filter at System  1 indicates
good performance in  treatment of runoff.  During  the monitoring period
 (April 1976 to September 1977) there were 19  effluent discharges  from the
filter area.  The average ammonia-N concentration in  the  vegetative  filter
effluent was 18.5 mg/1(Figure 8) and  the  average  concentration of total

                                     16

-------
    70
   60
ac
id
I-  50
Ul
   40
o

oc
    30
    20
    10
               .5
                       RAINFALL- INCHES


                       1.0       1.5       2.0
2.5
           RUNOFF (mm) = [ RAIN (mm) X .9031 ]- 2.805


           RUNOFF   (in) = [ RAIN   (in ) X .9Q3l] - .1105
              r =  0. 975


              19   events
             10     20     30     40     50     60

                     RAINFALL - MILLIMETERS
3.0
                                                            2.5
                                                            20 (O
                                                               LU
                                                               X
                                                               o



                                                            1.5  I
                                                            1.0 CC
                                                            0.5
                                                      70
    Figure 7.   Rainfall-runoff relationship for a paved dairy feedlot

               (System  1).
                                 17

-------
  ui
  o
  o
  o:
          2001—
             OVERLAND  FLOW


                SYSTEM  I



 TOTAL  KJELDAHL-N  • [ DIST.  (m) * -1.423] + 145.5


     A     A       = [PIST.  (ft.) It - .4338J + 145.5

                 r =  0.947


       AMMONIA -N  * [ DIST.  (m ) » - .65681 + 56.8

           O        r                  *

                   * [ DIST.  (ff) * -  .2002] +56.8


A                r «  0.880
      meters


      feet
                                              200
                                                                300
                              FLOW  DISTANCE
Figure 8.   Nitrogen  concentration changes with overland flow  (System 1.)
                                 18

-------
solids was 996 mg/l(Figure 9). Concentrations of these and other constituents
are shown in Table 1.   In general, the concentrations measured in the filter
effluent represented a reduction of about 80 percent in the constituent con-
centrations present in the settling-basin effluent as applied to the filter
area.  However, the quantity of filter effluent was considerably less than
the quantity of basin effluent, primarily because of the amount of infiltra-
tion that occurred in the filter area.  The filter effluent volume was
413 m3 (14,576 ft3), while the filter area received 2,453 m3 (86,666 ft3)
of feedlot runoff.  On a mass-balance basis, the vegetative filter reduced
the amount of constituents applied in the basin effluent by about 96 percent
as shown in Table 2.  Ammonia-N had the greatest reduction, showing a remov-
al of 97.7 percent; total solids had the least reduction, a removal of 95.5
percent.
TABLE 1. CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SETTLING-BASIN
FILTER EFFLUENT
(SYSTEM 1)

AND VEGETATIVE-
--
Concentrations (mg/1)

Constituent
NH3-N
Total kjeldahl nitrogen
Total solids
COD
P
K
Settling basin
effluent
134
300
3,697
4,224
64.1
665
Vegetative
filter effluent
18.5
59.6
996
616
14
168
Percent
reduction
86.2
80.1
73.1
85.4
78.2
74.7
Number of  samples              33
TABLE 2.  CONSTITUENT REMOVAL DURING THE STUDY PERIOD ON A MASS-BALANCE
          BASIS BY VEGETATIVE FILTER TREATMENT OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF (SYSTEM 1)
Effluent quantity

Constituent

NH3-N
Total kjeldahl
Total solids
COD
P
K
Settling
basin
kg
329
nitrogen 736
9,069
10,361
157
1,631


Ib
725
1,622
19,993
22,843
347
3,596
Vegetative
filter
kg Ib
7.62 16.8
24.6 54.2
411 906
254 561
5.76 12.7
69.4 153
Percent
removal

97.7
96.7
95.5
97.5
96.3
95.7
 Effluent volumes
                                      19

-------
                               OVERLAND  FLOW

                                    SYSTEM   I
         3,000
                     TOTAL SOLIDS

                         A	A
                               = [OIST.  (m)  * -22.70] + 2,483


                                 [OIST.  (ft)  * - 6.920]+ 2,483
                                      r »  0.959
 Ul
 Q


 UJ
 O

 X
 O
 u
 I **
 i  -
 o  E
 O
 z
V)
Q

_l
O
to
apoo
     m»t«rs

       feet
        1.000 —
                            100               200

                               FLOW DISTANCE
                                                        300
 Figure 9.  COD and solid concentration changes with overland flow

            (System 1).
                                20

-------
     As determined by the limited number of BOD measurements, the BOD levels
in the basin effluent were reduced by 86 percent.  The filter discharge had
an average BOD concentration of 165 mg/1.

     Illinois stream standards (Illinois Pollution Control Board, 1973)
specify an upper limit of 1.5 mg/1 for ammonia and 1,000 mg/1 for total dis-
solved solids.  The average ammonia-N concentration discharged from System 1
exceeded this level.  Discharge rates from System 1 were low, however, aver-
aging 1.70 I/sec (0.45 gal/sec or 0.06 ft3/sec) with a maximum observed dis-
charge of 10.8 I/sec (2.84 gal/sec or 0.38 ft3/sec).   Since this flow rate
is quite small relative to many receiving stream flow rates during storm
events, it is likely that adequate dilution would occur in most situations
so that stream standards would not be violated.

     Samples obtained for bacterial analysis from the vegetative filter at
System 1 averaged 5.75 x 10^ fecal coliforms per 100 ml in the control-plot
effluent receiving no waste, 1.05 x 10  per 100 ml in the treated plot
effluent, and 1.25 x 10^ per 100 ml in the applied lot runoff.  Fecal strep-
tococcus averaged 1.8 x 103 per 100 ml from the control plot, 1.1 x 105 per
100 ml in the treated-plot effluent, and 1.6 x 106 per 100 ml in the applied
lot runoff.  From this we see that the bacteria levels are quite high in the
vegetative filter discharge but also are quite high in the discharge from
the control plot, on which no waste had been applied.  This  is consistent
with a previous study  (Dornbush et al., 1974), which found high levels of
fecal coliforms and fecal streptococcus in runoff  from agricultural land to
which no animal waste had been applied.

     Figures 8 and 9 clearly show decreases in constituent concentrations as
the basin effluent traversed the vegetative filter at System 1.  The data
points on Figures 8 and 9 are averages of grab samples obtained during seven
different runoff events.  The figures also illustrate that a flow distance
of 104 m  (340 ft ) would reduce the average constituent concentrations in
the effluent from the vegetative filter at System  1 to levels approaching
zero.

     Performance of the vegetative filter at System 2, also  an overland flow
type, was similar to that of System 1; the quality of the vegetative filter
effluent from System 2 would also not meet Illinois Stream Standards for
ammonia.  Several factors contributed to the relatively high constituent
concentrations in the vegetative filter  effluent from System 2.  Concentra-
tion differences between Systems 1 and 2, shown  in Tables 1  and  3, were pri-
marily due to differences in animal populations and frequency of lot clean-
ing.  The animal population in System 1 averaged 100 dairy cows, while Sys-
tem 2 had approximately 500 beef cattle.  The  lot  size in System 1 was about
1.4 times larger than that of System 2, so System  2 had an animal density
approximately 7 times that of System 1.  In addition, since  System 1 was a
dairy, it was cleaned frequently—daily, when  possible.  The beef feedlot  in
System 2 was thoroughly cleaned every three or four months.  Thus, there were
much higher constituent concentrations in the  feedlot runoff entering  the
settling basin at System 2 than in System 1.
                                      21

-------
      Another factor causing higher nutrient concentrations in the filter ef-
 fluent of System 2 is related to the operation of the settling basin.   Gen-
 erally, the setting basin at System 2 was cleaned infrequently, which  meant
 both a loss of settling capacity overall and almost no effective settling
 capacity during some storm events.  Because of later expansion of the  lot,
 the constructed capacity of the settling basin was about 20 percent below
 current design recommendations.  All of these factors contributed to exces-
 sive concentrations of constituents in the settling basin effluent for Sys-
 tem 2.  As a result, the upper end of the vegetative filter at System  2 be-
 came a shallow but effective settling area, trapping large amounts of  manure
 solids.

      Representative samples of the settling basin effluent at System 2 were
 not obtained.  Consequently, the effluent from the settling basin at System
 2,  after traversing the first few feet of filter, was assumed to be similar
 to  the effluent at System 3, also a beef feedlot.  The relative percentage
 of  constituent concentration reductions obtained at System 2 are shown in
 Table 3.  The constituent concentrations in the vegetative filter effluent
 of  System 2 generally represent about a 70 percent reduction of the concen-
 trations in the settling basin effluent.

      Using the relationships between concentrations and distances developed
 for System 1 (Figures 8 and 9)  and the 61 m (200 ft)  flow distance of  System
 2,  the projected concentration reduction for constituents in the settling
 basin effluent after traversing System 2 would be about 65 percent. This
 projected concentration reduction after 61 m (200 ft )  of flow is close to
 the 70 percent reductions shown in Table 3.  The comparison between the con-
 centration reductions at Systems 1 and 2 indicates that overland flow  vege-
 tative filters can achieve substantial and consistent concentration reduc-
 tions under a wide range of management conditions.

      Although a mass-balance of measurement of nutrient removal was not con-
 ducted on System 2,  there were a large number of rainfall events for which
 there was no vegetative filter discharge, indicating that removal of constit-
 ents in the settling basin effluent on a mass-balance basis would be greater
 than the 70 percent reduction on a concentration basis.

TABLE 3.  CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SETTLING-BASIN AND VEGETATIVE-
          FILTER EFFLUENT  (SYSTEM 2)

Concentrations (mg/1)
Constituent
NH3-N
Total kjeldahl nitrogen
Total solids
COD
Settling basin
effluent
608
1,122
12,777
14,288
Vegetative
filter effluent
173
324
4,710
2,691
Percent
reduction
71.5
71.1
63.1
81.1
 Number of samples                3*            69
 *Taken from System 3,  also a beef feedlot.
                                      22

-------
     Because the vegetative filter at System  3 was of the channelized  flow
type, sample location was flexible, and automatic sampler locations were
changed occasionally to evaluate the vegetative  filter performance at  various
flow distances.  During the 1976 sampling period, the automatic  sampler lo-
cation was  305 m  (1,000 ft ) downslope from the  settling basin discharge.
In 1977, two samplers were positioned at 229  m  (750  ft ) and  at  381 m  (1,250
ft ) from the basin discharge until mid summer,  after which time the sampler
at 229 m  (750 ft ) was moved to 533 m  (1,750  ft  ) from the discharge.

     The average constituent concentrations of the effluent at the four dif-
ferent sampler locations at System 3 are shown in Table 4.  As illustrated
in Figures  10 and  11 there is a linear decrease  in the constituent concentra-
tions as the settling basin effluent traverses the vegetative filter at Sys-
tem 3.  The percentage of concentration reduction at the System  3 sampling
points are  listed  in Table 5.  Comparing these percentage reductions with


TABLE 4.   EFFLUENT CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE VEGETATIVE FILTER AT
          VARIOUS DISTANCES FROM THE SETTLING BASIN DISCHARGE (SYSTEM 3)

Distance from basin discharge
meters : 0
feet
Constituent
NH3-N
Total Kjeldahl
Total solids
COD
P
: 0
229
750
305
1,000
Concentration
608
nitrogen 1,222
12,777
14,288
-
362
566
7,699
7,413
115
226
439
5,248
5,661
105
381
1,000
(mg/1)
218
379
5,603
4,660
64.3
533
1,750

101
190
2,590
2,001
-

Number of  samples           3    79         69     121        48

 those in Systems 1 and 2 (Tables  1 and 3) shows that a vegetative filter
 utilizing channelized flow must be considerably longer than an overland flow
 system to achieve the same reduction.  For example,  the overland flow sys-
 tems have about a 70 percent concentration reduction after 91 m (300 ft )  of
 flow, while the channelized flow system requires about 427 m (1,400 ft )  of
 flow distance to achieve a similar reduction.

      Using the regression equations shown in Figures 10 and 11 and assuming
 the filter discharge should meet the current stream quality standards for
 Illinois  (1.5 mg/1 NH3~N and 1,000 mg/1 solids), we can calculate that the
 length of the vegetative filter at System 3 should be 648 m (1,975 ft ).
 The assumption is this calculation is that the concentration reduction will
 continue at the same rate regardless of length; however, this is not entirely
 correct.  Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the nitrogen decrease with flow dis-
 tance for both Systems 1 and 3, respectively.  A curvilinear regression
 was used to fit the nitrogen data.  With both systems, the fit obtained with
 the curvilinear regression is better than the straight-line regression, as
 indicated by the r values.  In practice, this means that the pollutant con-
 centrations approach a background level  (and the stream standards) asympto-
 tically, and excessive flow distances would be required to meet the  stan-
 dards.  As noted previously however, the discharge rates are small and only
 minimal dilution would be required to meet the standards.

                                      23

-------
       1,200
                    CHANNELIZED  FLOW


                         SYSTEM  3




         TOTAL  KJELDAHL -  N « [ DIST.  (m) *-1.7461+1,045
                    *                          J

            A             • [DIST.  (ft) * -.5322]* 1,045


                         r = 0.976

               AMMONIA - N * [ DIST. (m ) * - .96461+ 582

                ——O

                          = [DIST.  (ft)* - .2940J+582


                         r « 0.981
 0>

 E
UJ
e>
o
oc.
800
     fett
                            FLOW  DISTANCE
  Figure  10.  Nitrogen concentration changes with channelized flow

             (System 3).
                               24

-------
o

<
2
UJ
o



I

X
o
       12,000
       epoo
o
(O
o
H-
       4,000
     m«t«rrt


      fMt
                               CHANNELIZED FLOW


                                    SYSTEM  3
                    TOTAL SOLIDS


                        A	A
                  *  [OIST.  (m)  *- 18.93] +12263



          "A      «  [OIST.  (ft) *- 5.769]+12,263


                 r »  0.979


          COD     •  [DIST.(m)  *  - 23.08]+13,483



          O	O  .  [oiST.  (ft) *  - 7.02 9]+ 13483


                 r •  0.984
                                           A



                                           O
100


 I	
                                               I
                            600               1200


                               FLOW DISTANCE
                                            1,800
  Figure 11.   COD and  solid concentration changes with channelized flow

              (System  3).
                                  25

-------
                        OVERLAND FLOW
                            SYSTEM  I
              TOTAL KJELDAHL-N « ( I 60 M .98253 )DIST (m)
      200
                 A	A
  • (160 )( .99464
r  * .983
                    AMMONIA -N « (63.4) (.97648 )°'ST(m)
                              8 (63.4){.99277 )
                            r « .971
                                              DIST(ft)
                       100
                                       200
                        FLOW  DISTANCE
                                                        3OO
Figure 12.  Nitrogen concentration changes with overland flow—curvi-
           linear regression (System 1).
                             26

-------
                         CHANNELIZED FLOW

                               SYSTEM 3
        1,200
                TOTAL KJELDAHL-N = <||7I ) (  .99676)'


                    A	A
                          DIST (m)
           =  (M7I ) ( .99901 )


        r  =  .993


AMMONIA-N  =  (667 H.9967O )
DIST (ft)





DIST(m)
        800
     UJ
     e>
     o
     a:
       400 —
      meters


      feet 0
                                 =  (667 ) (.99899 )


                                r =  .980
                                                 OIST(ft)
                          600              i^QO


                          FLOW DISTANCE
                                    1*00
Figure 13.  Nitrogen concentration changes with channelized flow—curvi-

           linear regression  (System 3).
                                27

-------
     Mass-balance studies were conducted  for  three relatively  large rainfall
events at System 3 during 1977.  The  three  storms totaled  17.4 cm  (6.84  in  )
of rainfall.  Using  the average  concentrations presented in Table  4 and  the
flow volumes measured  for each storm, mass  balances were calculated for  four
constituents.  The total quantities of  constituents applied to the vegeta-
tive filter at System  3 during the three  storms  are listed in  Table 6.   Ta-
ble 6 also lists the percentage  of constituent removals at various flow  dis-
tances from the settling basin.  Generally, about 30 percent of  the constit-
uents were removed in  the first  229 m (750  ft )  of flow, with  the  next 152 m
 (500 ft  ) removing an  additional 50 percent.  The last 152 m  (500  ft  ) of

TABLE 5.   PERCENT CONSTITUENT REDUCTION IN THE BASIN EFFLUENT AT VARIOUS
          LOCATIONS IN THE VEGETATIVE FILTER  (SYSTEM 3)
Distance from
meters :
feet:
229
750
305
1,000
basin discharge
381
1,250
533
1,750
Constituent
NH3-N
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total solids
COD
P
40.5
49.6
39.2
49.2
-
62.9
60.9
59.0
60.4
16.0
64.2
66.3
56.2
67.4
48.6
83.4
83.1
79.7
86.0
—
TABLE 6.  CONSTITUENT REMOVAL ON A MASS-BALANCE BASIS BY VEGETATIVE FILTER
          TREATMENT OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF FOR THREE STORMS (SYSTEM 3)

Constituent
NH,-N
Total Kjeldahl
Total solids
COD
Effluent
quantity of
basin mete
feet
kg
200
nitrogen 370
4,212
4,710
9
10
Flow distances
rs:
Ib
441
815
,283
,380
229
750
24
35
23
34

.3
.8
.4
.0
381
1,250
Average
80
81
75
81

533
1,750

percent removal
.0 92.3
.2 92.2
.6 90.7
.8 93.5

 vegetative  filter removed approximately 12 percent of the constituents,  so
 that  the  resulting total  constituent removal for System 3 was about 92 per-
 cent  on a mass  balance basis.

      The  low removal rates at  the upper end of the vegetative filter at  Sys-
 tem 3 reflect an inherent problem with a channelized flow system that has a
 parabolic cross section.   Even during large runoff events, the flow width in
 the waterway seldom exceeds 1.5 m (5 ft ), primarily because of the control-
 led outflow from the settling  basin.  Since the basin effluent contains  a
 large amount of nutrients and  solids, the grass in the waterway bottom has
                                      28

-------
been killed in a 0.3 - 0.9 m  (1-3 ft ) width for about 90 m  (295 ft ). Be-
yond the killed area, the vegetation has been stunted for approximately
another 150 m  (492 ft ).  Nutrients, solids, and water from most small run-
off events are deposited or infiltrated in the waterway segment where the
vegetation is killed or stunted.  A waterway with a larger flow width(such as
a flat bottom) might help distribute the basin effluent more evenly and per-
haps alleviate the vegetation kill that is due to excessive nutrients and
water in the narrow channel bottom.

     The mass-balance calculations indicate that the removal rates at System
3 are somewhat lower than the removal rates of System 1  (Tables 2 and 6).
Extending the vegetative filter to the previously calculated length of 648 m
(1,975 ft ) should result in constituent removals of near 97 percent.  Even
though discharges from the vegetative filter at System 3 also do not meet
Illinois stream standards for ammonia and total dissolved solids, the mass-
balance calculations show that a high degree of treatment occurs.  The mass
balances were calculated for only three storm events.  However, during the
17-month study period (May 1976-October 1977) only about 10  storm events
resulted in discharges from the vegetative filter at System  3.  Effluent
from the waterway traversed another 150 m (492 ft ) of nearly level cropland
before reaching a receiving stream.  For the three storm events mentioned,
only 15.4 kg  (34 Ib) of ammonia-N was discharged from the vegetative  filter.
Assuming this number is representative of the other severi^raj.nfall events
(which were of about the same magnitude), the total annual ammonia-N dis-
charge onto adjacent cropland from System 3 would he about 51.3 kg  (113 Ib).
     The channelized flow vegetative  filter at System 4 performed somewhat
better than at System 3.  As  indicated in Table 7, the average constituent
concentration  reduction after 148 m  (450 ft ) of flow distance was about 86
percent.  System 3 however, had only  a 45 percent reduction  after 229 m
(750 ft ) of  flow.  The lowest concentration reduction observed with  System
4 was for total solids, which was reduced only 78.7 percent.  As with the
other systems, the quality of discharge from the vegetative  filter does not
meet existing  standards for discharge into receiving streams.  However, at
System 4, the  graded terrace  discharges into an existing grass waterway.
Figures 14 and 15 show  the constituent concentration decrease for System 4
as the effluent traverses the vegetative filter, including the additional
grass waterway.  These  decreases, although for only one  runoff event, are
similar to the decreases observed for Systems 1 and 3  (Figures 8-13).  For


TABLE 7.   CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SETTLING BASIN AND VEGETATIVE
          FILTER EFFLUENT AFTER A FLOW DISTANCE OF 148 M (450 FT.) (SYSTEM 4)

                                        Concentrations(mg/1)	
                           Settling basin      Vegetative     Percent
 Constituent                  effluent	filter effluent   reduction(%)
NH3-N
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total solids
COD
478
1,081
7,010
11,063
70.6
120
1,492
871
85.2
88.9
78.7
92.1

Number of samples
12
115

                                      29

-------
                    CHANNELIZED  FLOW

                          SYSTEM  4

                         STORM OF  3/12/77
    160
    120
 O>

 6
Id  80
O
O
tr
    40
 A	A   TOTAL KJELDAHL-N

           AMMONIA -N
 meters
               100
          200
           300
400
 feet  0
300
600      900     I.2OO      1,500

 FLOW  DISTANCE
 Figure 14.  Nitrogen concentration changes with channelized flow for an

         individual storm (System 4).
                         30

-------
          30001—
       UJ
       o
      LU
      (D
      X
      O
      O
          2000
      CO   ipQO
      o
      CO
meters •
feet 0
                           CHANNELIZED FLOW
                                SYSTEM 4
                                STORM OF  3/12/77
-A  TOTAL SOLIDS
    COD
                    300
 600      900      1^00
 FLOW  DISTANCE
                                                     1,500
Figure 15.  COD and solid concentration changes with chamelized flow for
          an individual storm (System 4).
                              31

-------
the storm of March 12, 1977 on System 4, the approximate concentration re-
duction after 152 m  (500 ft ) of flow was about 55 percent; after 320 m
(1,050 ft ) of flow, the constituent concentrations were reduced by nearly
90 percent.

     The data for Systems 3 and 4 indicate that for equivalent treatment
longer flow lengths are needed when channelized flow is used than when over-
land flow is used.


FORAGE AND SOILS

     Dry matter yields of System 1 are illustrated in Figure 16 for each
plot for the two-year period of the study.  Production ranged  from slightly
greater than  2 MT/ha per year  (0.95T/ac/yr) in 1976 to greater than 16MT/ha
(7.48T/ac/yr) in  1977.  Total annual production was greater in 1977 than in
1976 for the effluent-treated plots; the grass stand at the beginning of the
test period was less than optimum, and only two cuttings were taken during
the first year to allow dense stand development before winter.  Total annual
yields for both years were greater in the treated plots than in the untreat-
ed (control) plot.  This would be expected, considering the large quantity
of nutrients applied to the treatment plots in contrast to none in the check,
and the greater amount of water that the treated plots received (runoff from
the feedlot plus normal rainfall).  Yields from treated plots were high re-
lative to results of variety tests (Graffis et al., 1978).  Analyses of var-
iance were conducted on dry matter production data for each year.  The four
treatments-orchardgrass, smooth bromegrass, reed canarygrass, and the con-
trol, smooth bromegrass - were compared, as were the four plot-segment pos-
sitions relative to the distribution pipe.  The position of plot segment had
no significant effect on dry matter production in either year.

     Single-degree-of-freedom comparisons in the 1976 analysis indicated that
the treated smooth bromegrass plot had significantly higher yields than the
control, that orchardgrass was similar to smooth bromegrass, and that reed
canarygrass did not differ from orchardgrass and smooth bromegrass in dry
matter production (Figure 16).  The 1977 analysis of variance indicated
that, again, the treated smooth bromegrass plot was superior to the check
and that orchardgrass was not different from smooth bromegrass; however,
reed canarygrass had significantly greater production than orchardgrass and
smooth bromegrass (Figure 16).

     Reed canarygrass, although not as widely used in Illinois as orchard-
grass and smooth bromegrass, has attributes that make it more suited to the
environment in this experiment; its natural habitat is poorly drained, wet
areas;  nevertheless, it is also one of the more drought-tolerant grasses and
can utilize high fertility.   Although somewhat less palatable than the other
species considered here, it appears to be theoretically and practically the
best grass to use in a situation where there is occasional waterlogging with
high-nutrient solution.
                                    32

-------
ORCHARDGRASS
SMOOTH BROMEGRASS
REED CANARYGRASS
CONTROL- SMOOTH
   BROMEGRASS
ORCHARDGRASS
SMOOTH BROMEGRASS
REED CANARYGRASS
CONTROL- SMOOTH
   BROMEGRASS
                      DRY  MATTER  YIELD -
                   o
                  10
           mt/ha
           15
                                              T
             1976
                             1977
tl
                           I
I
I
                   02*68
                       DRY  MATTER  YIELD- t/ac
            Figure 16.  Dry matter yields at System 1.
                         33

-------
     Levels of nutrient uptake as determined by forage analysis are present-
ed in Table 8.  Grasses in treated plots removed 4 to 6 as much as N, P, and
K as did the check plot over the two-year experimental period.  Percentage
nitrogen in forage from the treated plots averaged 2.7, whereas the check
was about half that level at 1.4.  Crude protein level for the check, 8.8
percent, is somewhat low; 16.9 percent in the treatment is considered a
reasonable amount.  The variation in pounds of N removed between cuttings is
largely a factor of dry matter production differences.  Phosphorus uptake
differences between cuttings (Table 8) were also dependent on yield varia-
tions.  Average phosphorus compositions were 0.29 and 0.23 percent in the
treated and check plots, respectively, neither of which was abnormally low.

     Variations in forage yield were reflected in potassium uptake at differ-
ent cuttings as with the other two nutrients discussed above.  Check plot
levels averaged 2 percent.  Concentrations in treated plots averaged 3.4
percent, ranging up to 4.6 percent.  Although potassium levels of this
nature are not unusual, they do indicate what is termed luxury consumption,
the tendency of plants to absorb amounts of a nutrient far in excess of
actual  nutritional requirements. Heath et al. (1973) mentioned that a po-
tassium level of two to three percent is generally adequate for the physio-
logical processes in forages; anything above this is of no value nutrition-
ally to animal consumers, and,  except in very high yield situations, any
increment above this should be considered wasteful absorption by the plant.
        TABLE  8.  NUTRIENT UPTAKE AT  SYSTEM 1 AT VARIOUS CUTTINGS

1976
Nutrient 1

Treatment


Check


Treatment


Check



N
P
K
N
P
K
N
P
K
N
P
K

44.8
4.0
48.4
26.5
3.8
32.5
40.0
3.6
43.2
23.6
3.4
28.9
2
kg/ha
97.4
11.8
124.5
17.7
2.4
21.9
Ib/ac
86.9
10.5
111.1
15.8
2.1
19.5
1977
1

165.1
17.5
230.7
3.5
2.8
27.0
147.8
15.7
205.8
3.1
2.5
24.1
2

91.8
10.1
117.5
18.0
1.8
16.1
81.9
9.0
104.9
16.1
1.6
14.4
3

78.2
9.0
87.7
8.7
1.1
8.9
69.8
8.0
78.2
7.8
1.0
7.9
Total
uptake

478.0
52.5
608.9
74.4
11.9
106.3
426.4
46.8
543.3
66.4
10.6
94.8
                                     34

-------
 In this project,  however,  the  goal  was  to  increase  nutrient uptake  as  much
 as possible and luxury  consumption  of any  nutrient  was  advantageous.

      Nutrient uptake  in relation  to distance  from the effluent  discharge
 pipe is shown in Figures 17-19.   The check plot consistently had consider-
 ably less  uptake  of all nutrients,  N, P, and  K.   A  similar  trend of uptake
 is evident in all three graphs:   an increase  from the first to  second  plot
 segment, a decrease at  the  third, and another increase  to the fourth.   In
 the treatment plots orchardgrass  displayed lower  uptakes of N and P than did
 smooth  bromegrass and reed  canarygrass  and had a  generally  lower uptake of
 K.   An  overall decrease in  orchardgrass nutrient  uptake was observed as dis-
 tance from the distribution pipe  increased.   The  smooth bromegrass  treatment
 plot had higher uptakes of  all three nutrients in the third segment of the
 plot with  lower uptake  nearer  the distribution pipe and in  the  fourth  seg-
 ment.   The reason for this  is  not obvious.  Smooth  bromegrass generally had
 higher  uptakes of the three nutrients than orchardgrass and lower uptakes
 than reed  canarygrass.   In  addition to  generally  taking up  more N,  P,  and
 K  than  the other  species, reed canarygrass displayed a  generally decreasing
 trend of N and K  uptake with increasing distance  but an increasing  trend of
 P  removal.   It is clear that the application  of runoff  with high nutrient
 concentrations on the treatment plots increased total nutrient  removal of
 the grasses.   Generally, a  slight decrease in nutrients removed was percep-
 tible from the beginning to the end of  the filter.

     Soil  analyses for  System  1 are  presented  in  Figures 20-22.   These
 figures, based on the average  value  of  the  three  treatment  plots jand the
 actual  control plot data, indicate  the  respective levels of the various soil
 constituents  at various  depths in the soil profile.  Data for each  of  the
 three sampling dates  are also  presented.

     Nitrate  is a very  mobile  soil  nutrient whose concentration at  any given
 time  is closely related  to  biotic and abiotic  components of the soil ecosys-
 tem;  for this  reason, much  variation is expected  in soil nitrate levels.
 Soil nitrate-N data (Figure 20) indicate that  at  the first  sampling the
 treatment  plots had higher  nitrate  concentrations than  the  control  plot,
 possibly because  of leveling, past history, etc.  This  is a minor problem
 since the  primary concern is the possible  accumulation  of nutrients in  the
 soil profile over time.  There are  several observations of  importance,  how-
 ever, including differences between  treatment  and check.  Treated plots had
 greater nitrate concentrations at all levels  than did the check  in  the  fall
 of both 1976 and  1977.   This would be expected, considering  the  large
 amounts of nitrogen applied in the runoff.  Fall  1976 levels  were generally
 lower than the  other  two sampling periods  in both treatment and  control
plots.  In the  check, nitrate  levels were  fairly  constant throughout the soil
profile, but in the treatment plots  they continually decreased  to the maxi-
mum depth  sampled.  This indicates that nitrates  are being  leached  throughout
 the soil profile.  The concentration rapidly approached the check at the 60-
cm  (24-in.) level, with  leaching probably responsible for the reduced  concen-
 tration at lower  levels.
                                     35

-------
600
 o>



 I
    400
UJ
^^^
^^r
H
Q.



UJ

O  200
Q?
         FLOW DISTANCE

                    150
  - ft
        O  ORCHARDGRASS

        A  BROMEGRASS

        *  REED CANARYGRASS

        D  CONTROL
               I
I
              30         60

         FLOW  DISTANCE  - m
           300
                                            O
                                            O
                                        400
                                             I

                                            UJ
             200
                  o
                  CL
           90
 Figure 17.  Nitrogen uptake by the forage on System 1.
                    36

-------
a:
O

a.
en
o
      FLOW DISTANCE - ft

0                150
    60
    40
     20
            O  ORCHARDGRASS
     A  BROMEGRASS
        REED CANARYGRASS
            D  CONTROL
                                        300
                                           60
                                           40
                                    20
       0          30          60          90


             FLOW DISTANCE - m

     Figure 18.  Phosphorus uptake by the forage on System 1,
                                               u
                                               o
                                               £



                                                I


                                               LU
CO

tr
o

o.

8
                       37

-------
    600
 I

Ld
*

h- 400
Q_
CO
O
Q. 200
             FLOW  DISTANCE - ft

                        150
             (637)
O  ORCHARDGRASS
            A  BROMEGRASS
*  REED CANARYGRASS
            D  CONTROL
                  30         60

             FLOW  DISTANCE -  m
                             300
                                           600
                               400
                                    o
                                    O
                                    .a


                                     I

                                    UJ
V)
                               200
                                                O
                             90
      Figure 19.  Potassium uptake by the forage on System 1.
                        38

-------
           SOIL NITRATE  NITROGEN - PPM

        0            5            10
      20
  o  40

   I
  UJ
  o
  Jf
  oc
Q.

g  20
     40
     60
I
                         15
             TREATMENT
                                               6
                                               12
                           18
                              UJ
                              o
                              *  SPRING,  1976

                              0  FALL,   1976

                              A  FALL,   1977
                               CHECK



                              J	
                          6
                                                  o
                                                  cr
                              0.
                              UJ
                              o
                                               12
                                               18
        0           5            10

           SOIL  NITRATE  NITROGEN - PPM
                                               24
                         IS
Figure 20.  Nitrate nitrogen  in the soil profiLe at System 1.
                            39

-------
       60
                   AVAILABLE  PHOSPHORUS
                           Ib/ac
                             100
                               *  SPRING  1976 —

                               0  FALL   1976

                               A  FALL   1977
                                          200
                 AVAILABLE  PHOSPHORUS
                          kg /ha
Figure 21.  Available phosphorus in the  soil profile at System 1.

                            40

-------
       20
   O  40

    I
   O
   Jf
   «*
   O
   o:
    z
    h-
    Q.
       60
       20
       40
       60 Is
                  AVAILABLE  POTASSIUM

                         Ib/oc

                          1000
             2000
                0
   TREATMENT
                                               12
                 18
*  SPRING,  1976

0  FALL,   1976

A  FALL,   1977
                                  CHECK
                 24

                 0
9   E
    a
                                                12
                                                18
            J-J24
         0              1000              2000
                 AVAILABLE  POTASSIUM

                          kg/ha


Figure 22.  Available potassium in the soil profile at System 1.
                           41

-------
     Figure 21 represents the phosphorus soil-analysis data.  It is apparent
that phosphorus levels in both the check and treatment plots are quite high.
Given the close proximity of the dairy feedlot and the fact that phosphorus
is relatively unleachable and not luxuriently consumed, these concentration
levels can be justified.  With these characteristics of phosphorus in mind,
it seems likely that the differences in concentration between the treatment
and check below 10 cm (4 in ) are due to initially nonuniform experimental
areas.  This is evident when the two lines for spring 1976 are contrasted.
Available phosphorus levels in the first 60 cm (24 in) of the soil did not
increase in the treated plots; no evidence for phosphorus movement in the
soil profile is apparent.

     Soil concentrations of available potassium are high in both treatment
and check plots(Figure 22). The trend in treatment plots is one of decreasing
available K with increasing soil depth, indicating that some K is moving
through the profile.  Potassium is generally leached less than nitrate and
more than phosphorus.

     A total nitrogen balance sheet is presented in Table 9.  Total N in the
top 60 cm (24 in)  of soil was highest in the third segment of the treatment
plots and check plots in the spring of 1976.  Fall 1977 data followed this
same trend in the treatment plot but not in the control.  N removal by the
plants was generally constant down the length of the plots, with the treat-

  TABLE 9.  NITROGEN BALANCE SHEET FOR THE VEGETATIVE FILTER AT SYSTEM 1
Flow
distance
m
11.4
34.3
57.2
80.0
ft
37.5
112.5
187.5
262.5
m
11.4
34.3
57.2
80.0
ft
37.5
112.5
187.5
262.5
Soil N,
spring 1976

12,478
14,934
18,717
18,313

11,131
1.3,322
16,695
16,336

8.175
10,957
17,705
17,465

7,293
9,774
15,794
15,580
N
applied in
basin effluent
kg/ha -
2,2000
2,200
2,200
2,200
Ib/a
1,963
1,963
1,963
1,963
kg/ha -




Ib/a




Soil N,
fall 1977
treatment
13,145
13,394
19,109
18,602

11,726
12,840
17,046
16,594
control
7,339
6,689
7,840
11,112

6,547
5,967
6,994
9,913
N
removed
by plants

485
441
529
458

433
393
472
409

95
126
90
115

85
112
80
103
N
unaccounted
for

1,048
2,300
1,280
1,453

935
2,052
1,142
1,296

741
4,142
9,775
6,237

661
3,695
8.720
5,564
                                    42

-------
ment plots removing around four times as much as control.  The last column
gives the amounts of N that are unaccounted for.  These losses are probably
the result of a combination of factors, including leaching, denitrification,
and volatilization.  More variation and higher values in this parameter are
noted in the control plot than in the treatment plots.

      Soil nitrate-nitrogen data for System 3 are presented in Figures 23-26.
The data for the first sampling position, 30 m  (100 ft )  from the effluent
discharge point, are shown in Figure 23, the second position, 120 m (400
ft ), in Figure 24; and so on to the last position, 425 m  (1,400 ft ), near
the end of the channel.  The upper graph in each figure represents the soil
samples taken from the center of the channel, and the lower graph, samples
from the sides; the three lines in each graph correspond to the three samp-
ling dates.

      Nitrate levels in the channel bottom show decreasing trends with in-
creasing depths through the soil profile at two sampling positions on two
sampling dates, that is 30 m  (100 ft ) and 275 m  (900 ft ) during the fall
of 1976 and 1977.  These exceptions indicate nitrate is being leached through
the profile.  There is no such trend in the other graphs.  A few general ob-
servations, however, can be made:  fall 1976 levels of nitrate-nitrogen are
consistently higher than at the other sampling dates and are considerably
higher at the 425 m (1,400 ft ) position in both the channel side and bot-
tom.  Nitrate is a notoriously unstable soil component; its concentration is
dependent on interactions of abiotic and biotic factors as mentioned above.
The variance in the fall of 1976 data from that at the other two is probably
a product of these interacting facets of the soil ecosystem.

      A trend in the fall 1976 channel side data, however, should be pointed
out:  nitrate-nitrogen levels tend to be higher in the mid-part of the soil
profile samples than in the extremes.  This trend could perhaps be attributed
to lateral movement of nitrate nitrogen from the major part of the channel.
With the exception of the channel bottom at 30 and 275 m  (100 and 900 ft )
mentioned above, spring 1976 and fall 1977 data are very similar; their con-
centrations are low and vary little through the profile.  Apparently with
nitrate varied considerably among sampling dates, an inspection of total N
in the soil profile would perhaps be more informative.

      Total nitrogen at different soil levels, at four sampling positions,
and at the channel bottom and side is shown in Figures 27-30. With a few ex-
ceptions, total nitrogen concentrations decrease from the  soil surface to 60
m  (24 in ) in both the channel bottom and sides.  The similarity between the
spring 1976 and the fall 1977 samplings in most cases appears to imply the
absence of N movement or accumulation during the course of the experiment.
Increased levels of total N are noted in the fall 1976 sampling at
the 275m and 425 m  (900 - 1,400  ft ) distances  (Figures 29 and 30);
these increases were not found in either of the other samplings.  Erratic
fluctuations in fall 1976 data at 30 m  (100 ft  ) are also  apparent and again
are not repeated.  Total N levels are noticeably higher at the  30 and 425
m positions than at either the 120 or 275 m positions in both  the channel
bottom and sides.  Explanations for this might  center around  the  site itself;


                                      43

-------
                SOIL NITRATE  NITROGEN - ppm
                       10
                      20
30
40
         E
         o
         UJ
         O

         Si
         CO  60
         O
         tr.
         U.
        0.
        UJ
        o
  20
            4O
            60
     T?
                         O SPRING, 1976


                         A FALL, 1976


                         * FALL, 1977




                       CHANNEL BOTTOM
                                                  6
                                                  12
          18
                                                  24
                       CHANNEL  SIDE
                       I
                      I
 I
      I

     LJ
     O

     S.
     or

     CO
              o
              a:
                                            UJ
                                            o
                                                   12
                                                  18
                                        24
Figure 23.
    0        10      20       30      40


     SOIL  NITRATE  NITROGEN - ppm


Nitrate  nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at
flow distance.
                                                      a 30 m
                              44

-------
E
o

I


LJ
O
     tr.
     O
     QL
     U.
     ft
     O
            SOIL NITRATE  NITROGEN -  ppm


          0        10       20       30       40
        20
        40
        so

        40
         60 fc=
                   I
                  f
                               ANNEL BOTTOM
                                              12
                                              18
                                         I


                                        LJ
                                        O
                             CHANNEL  SIDE
        O SPRING, 1976


        A FALL, 1976


        *FALL, 1977
                  I
                                        
-------
              SOIL  NITRATE  NITROGEN  - ppm
                               CHANNEL BOTTOM
                              O SPRING.  1976

                              A FALL, 1976

                                FALL, 1977
Figure 25.
 601=
   0        10       20      30      40

     SOIL NITRATE NITROGEN  - ppm

Nitrate  nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 275 m flow
distance.
                    46

-------
              SOIL NITRATE NITROGEN  - ppm
       E
       o
       UJ
       O

       2

       (T
                     30
          20
          40
                   60


                   T
                               90
120

  0
               \
    I

   >*
          60 t.


           0
       o
       o:
       u.
£j  20
          40
          60
                 \
                   \
                        CHANNEL BOTTOM
                                                12
                                                18
                                          UJ
                                          tr.


                                      24  CO
                               CHANNEL  SIDE
                    O SPRING,  1976




                    A FALL, 1976



                    * FALL, 1977
                      I
                    I
                                I
                                          Q.

                                          UJ

                                          O
                                       12
                                      24
Figure 26.
   0       30      60       90       120



    SOIL NITRATE  NITROGEN  - ppm



Nitrate nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 425 m

flow distance.
                             47

-------
                20
                40
             I


            Ld
            o:
            Z)  60
            cn


            2

            §
            X


            Q_
            LJ

            Q
                40
                60
                         TOTAL  NITROGEN  - %


                           .1        .2        .3
                            I
I
                  I
                                      CHANNEL BOTTOM
                                                       12
                            18
                               UJ
                               O

                               if
            O SPRING, 1976

            A FALL,  1976

            I FALL,  1977
  CHANNEL  SIDE


I         I
                            24



                            0
                            •
                               o
                               (£
                               U_
                               Q.

                               LJ
                                                       12
                                                       18
                                                      24
                  0        .1        .2        .3        .4



                        TOTAL NITROGEN -  %


Figure 27.  Total nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 30 m  flow

          distance.


                                48

-------
        £
        o
       U
       O
       1
       o
       (T
       L_
       Q_
       LJ
       O
                    TOTAL  NITROGEN - %

                      • 10       .20       .30       .40
           20
 40
 60


  0
 20
           40
            60
            I
                               I
                              I
                                 CHANNEL BOTTOM
                                                  12
                                                   18
                        O SPRING, 1976

                        A FALL,  1976

                        •» FALL,  1977
 CHANNEL  SIDE

I	I
                                           UJ
                                           O
                   24 (7)

                   0  2
                     O

                     U.


                   •  £
                     Ou

                   <  2


                   12
                                                  18
                      .1        .2        .3


                   TOTAL  NITROGEN -  %
                                      .4
Figure 28.
Total nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 120 m

flow distance.
                             49

-------
E

O

I


UJ
O
     CO


     2
     O
     or
     a.
     LJ
     o
                  TOTAL  NITROGEN  - %


                    .10      .20      .30      .40
         20
         40
         60
    20
         40
         60
                    I
                               CHANNEL BOTTOM
                                                12
                                                 18
                                                24
 I

LJ
O

2
CK

CO
                           O SPRING, 1976

                           A FALL,  1976

                           * FALL,  1977
                          CHANNEL  SIDE

                         	I
                                             O
                                             a:
CL
UJ
o
                                                12
                                                18
                                                24
                    .1        .2        .3


                 TOTAL  NITROGEN  -  %
                                         .4
Figure 29.  Total nitrogen in the soil profile at System 3 at a 275 m


          flow distance.
                             50

-------
E
O

I

UJ
O
O

-------
that is, the fact that the system was constructed on a hillside.  And soil
types, N composition, etc. are bound to vary from one spot to another.  Soil
displacement resulting from the channel construction also could contribute
to total N variation.  No major changes in total N appear to have occurred.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY

     PVC pipes, 1.91 cm (0.75 in )  in diameter, were installed in auger holes
in the vegetative filter at System 1.  The auger holes were approximately
2.3m  (7.5 ft )  deep with 3 holes being located in each of the four plots at
System 1.  Sand was packed around the bottom of the pipe, which had been
slotted, and the hole was backfilled with tight clay.  Groundwater samples
obtained with a vacuum pump were analyzed by the methods previously outlined.
Depth to groundwater was not measured.

     Constituent concentrations in groundwater under the vegetative filter
at System 1 are listed in Table 10.  Generally, there are increased nitrogen
concentrations in the groundwater beneath both the plots having feedlot run-
off applications and the check plot, which did not receive any runoff.  The
total salt content of the groundwater, as indicated by electrical conducti-
vity measurements, also generally increased on both the test and check plots
during the study period.  However,  the chloride concentration in groundwater
under the test plots increased during  a period of unusually low rainfall
events and then decreased to previous levels as rainfall increased during
the fall of 1977.  The chloride concentration in the check plots remained
nearly constant throughout the sampling period.

     For the constituents measured, there was a trend of increased concen-
trations in the groundwater beneath the vegetative filter at System 1 as
more feedlot runoff was applied.  This increasing trend was observed in both
the check plot and test plots, indicating a possible movement of groundwater
from the treatment plot to the check plot area.  A check plot located farther
away from the area receiving feedlot runoff would possibly have not reflected
the concentration changes occuring in groundwater beneath the vegetative fil-
ter at System 1.  Although the increased concentrations could indicate a
possible contribution from the applied runoff, it should be noted that in a


    TABLE 10.   GROUNDWATER QUALITY  AT THE VEGETATIVE FILTER AT SYSTEM 1

Date
Constituent
NH3-N
(mg/1)
N03-N
(mg/1)
Cl
(mg/1)
Conductivity
(umhos /cm)
6/76
test
check
test
check
test
check
test
check
0.
0.
6.
2.
44.
45.
1,065
895
54
98
40
08
3
3


7/76
1.
1.
5.
0.
65.
51.
602
522
47
05
82
86
9
2


8/76
0.
0.


214
57.
746
665
32
13
-
-

5


7
3


116
60
664
665
5/77
.54
.38
-
-

.5


10/77
7
5
40
32
50
45
4,803
2,471
.59
.22
.3
.5
.3
.3


                                     52

-------
previous study by Kendrick (1977) nitrogen levels in outlets from tiles
draining nearby cropland had NC^-N levels ranging from 12 to 40 mg/1.  The
observed nitrogen levels in the groundwater below the vegetative filter were
of the same general magnitude as found in local field tile drainage from land
receiving commercial fertilizer.

DESIGN CRITERIA FOR VEGETATIVE FILTERS

     Based on calculated flow velocities and verified by observation, approx-
imately two hours are required for the basin effluent to travel the 91 m
(300 ft) flow distance for the System 1 overland flow vegetative filter
during large runoff events.  About five hours are required for the effluent
to traverse the channelized flow vegetative filter at System 3.  With vege-
tative filters, the major nutrient removal mechanisms are thought to be set-
tling, filtration by the vegetation, and absorption on soil and plant mate-
rials.  For these to be effective removal mechanisms, flow velocity is an
important variable affecting pollutant removal.  Thus, a major design cri-
terion affecting the quantity of pollutants removed is the flow time, or
contact time, required for applied runoff to travel the length of the filter.
This contact time is a direct function of flow distance, flow velocity,
slope, and other factors.

     Data from both the overland flow and channelized flow vegetative filters
suggest that pollutant removal efficiencies above approximately 95 percent
may not be practical to achieve with these systems because of the excessive
filter size requirements beyond that level.  The two hour contact time
associated with System 1 is adequate to remove slightly over 95 percent of
the pollutants, while the five-hour contact time associated with System 3
should remove about 92 percent of the pollutants.  Although mass removals
were not developed for System 4, the calculated 1.5 hour contact time for
the 148 m  (450 ft ) flow distance was sufficient to remove about 86 percent
of the pollutants on a concentration basis.

     Given these pollutant removals and the associated contact times, a con-
tact time of two hours is recommended as the minimum for any vegetative fil-
ter system.  For the channelized flow vegetative filters, contact times must
be increased as the size of the  feedlot increases.  On the basis of the data
from Systems 3 and 4, the minimum two hour contact time would be appropriate
for System 4, but System 3 would need a contact time of approximately six
hours to have a comparable reduction in pollutants.  The size of the feed-
lot at  System  3 is 2,508 m2  (27,000 ft 2) , while the lot size at System 4
is approximately 836 m2  (9,000  ft 2).  Thus, it appears that for each addi-
tional  465 m2  (5,000 ft 2) of  lot area an additional hour of contact time
is required.  Table 11 lists various lot sizes and the contact  times re-
quired  for vegetative filters utilizing channelized  flow.

     Manning's equation as described by Schwab et al.  (1966),  and  the mini-
mum contact  times were used to  calculate minimum flow  lengths  for  channel-
ized  flow  vegetative filters having various  slopes;  these  flow lengths  are
shown in Figure 31.  As illustrated, the  flow  lengths  for  a vegetative  fil-
ter utilizing  channelized  flow would be very large  on  lot  sizes larger than
0.4 ha  (1  ac).  It  should  be noted  that  the  contact times  shown are for a

                                      53

-------
   6000
bJ 4000
CO
O


o
H-  2000
         '1500
         1000
          500
       oi-   o
s    «
*•    E
                                 1.0                  2.0
                             SLOPE - PERCENT
Figure 31.  Approximate required channelized flow distance for various
          slopes and contact times.
                                54

-------
specific design flow, which was relatively high; at lower flows, velocity
would be lower and contact time higher.

     The values shown in Figure 31 were calculated using a design flow
depth of 15.2 cm (6 in )  and a parabolic channel shape.  The somewhat ar-
bitrary selection of this flow depth was based on the assumption that a
15.2 cm (6 in ) flow depth is about the maximum at which any filtration by
channel vegetation would be effective.  In the systems studied, peak flow
from a one year recurrence interval, two hour duration design storm would
normally exceed this flow depth, but temporary storage in the settling basin
and restricted basin outlet flow resulted in no channel flow depths of over
15.2 cm (6 in ) during the study period.  For larger feedlots with higher
peak flows, exceeding the design channel flow depth can be avoided by pro-
viding temporary storage and controlled discharge with a settling basin or
by widening the channel sufficiently to handle larger peak flows without
excessive depths.


TABLE 11.  MINIMUM CONTACT TIMES FOR VEGETATIVE FILTERS UTILIZING CHANNEL-
           IZED FLOW FOR VARIOUS FEEDLOT SIZES
Lot
m2
929
1,394
1,858
2,323
size
ft ^
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Minimum
hr
2
3
4
5
contact time





     Because of uncertainities in predicting  infiltration in a channelized
flow situation, infiltration has not been  included as a design variable.
However, it was commonly observed on Systems  3 and 4 that runoff from smal-
ler storms was completely  infiltrated.  This  benefited total system perfor-
mance  in that the  total quantity of nutrients discharged was zero in these
events.  As contact  times  become larger with  the  larger lot sizes, infiltra-
tion and dilution  influence system performance; since larger lots were not
observed in this study, however, these additional effects were not evaluated.
The design criteria  presented may be adequate for large lots also, but with-
out further study  the  recommendations in this report must be limited to lots
in the size range  observed.

     Overland flow vegetative filters do not  appear to require longer con-
tact times as the  feedlot  size increases,  although total filter size is de-
pendent upon lot area, as  the following design procedures indicate.  Addi-
tional contact time  is probably helpful, however.  Therefore, the two-hour
contact time is the  recommended criterion  for determining minimum filter
length for overland  flow filters.  Again using Manning's equation  (Schwab et
al., 1966) and the two-hour contact time we developed a set of minimum  flow
lengths for overland flow  vegetative filters  with various slops.  These
lengths are presented  in Table 12.  Because of  low velocities,  leveling,  and
maintenance problems,  slopes of less than  0.5 percent should be used with
                                     55

-------
 TABLE 12.  MINIMUM FLOW LENGTHS FOB VEGETATIVE FILTERS UTILIZING OVERLAND
            FLOW AND HAVING VARIOUS SLOPES3

Slope
%
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
Flow
m
91.4
113
131
160
185
227
262
length
ft
300
372
430
526
608
744
860

aDesign flow depth is 1.3 cm(0.5 in ).The assumed Manning's roughness co-
 efficient is 0.3.

caution.  Slopes of more than 4 percent should not be used because of high
velocities, reduced filter effectiveness, and possible erosion.  The minimum
recommended length for any vegetative filter using overland flow is 91.4 m
(300 ft.).

     Infiltration, settling, filtration, and adsorption are important in re-
moving pollutants in the overland flow vegetative filters.  Thus, the second
phase in the design of overland flow vegetative filters is to develop the
total size criterion.

     The recommended procedure for this is based on allowing runoff from most
small storms to completely infiltrate the soil in the vegetative filter area,
resulting in no discharge.  Runoff from larger storms would be allowed to
discharge.  The infiltration rate and soil type are the factors that deter-
mine how much runoff could be handled by infiltration during a given time,
so the recommended filter area is partly a function of soil type.

     The required overland flow filter area is also a function of storm size.
If filters can be allowed to discharge several times annually, the size of
the infiltration area should be designed in terms of a storm size having a
short recurrence interval.  From our initial experience, a one-year recur-
rence interval seems suitable.  Since the filter length should provide for a
minimum contact time of two hours, selecting a two-hour storm duration is
also  recommended.  This allows the runoff to flow over the complete length
of the filter before rainfall ceases.  Storm events larger than the one year-
two hour event or storms occurring when the vegetative filter is saturated
would result in a discharge.  The two-hour contact time would provide
adequate treatment so that the filter discharge would not cause a signifi-
cant pollution hazard for the receiving stream.

      For central Illinois the one year-two hour rainfall event is 40.6 mm
(1.6 in ).  A typical medium-textured silt loam soil in central Illinois
(Drummer silt loam, maximum cover) has an infiltration rate of 38.1 mm/hr.
(1.5 in /hr ).   Using the one year-two hour storm event and typical infiltra-
tion rates, the overland flow vegetative filter area required to handle both

                                     56

-------
the direct rainfall on the filter and the feedlot runoff from System 1 would
be 0.44 ha (1.09 ac ).  The approximate ratio of required filter area to
feedlot area for System 1 is 1:1.  Thus, when sizing filters in areas with
rainfall and soil characteristics similar to those of System 1, the overland
flow vegetative filter should be about the same as the feedlot area.  Table
13 lists the minimum overland flow filter area to lot area ratios for various
soil types when climatic conditions are similar to those in central Illinois.

      With the two-hour contact time dictating the flow distance and with a
ratio of 1:1 for the filter area to feedlot area, the general vegetative fil-
ter configuration is thus specified.  One other recommended criterion is a
minimum flow width.  Observations and management practices indicate that a
vegetative filter utilizing overland flow should be at least 6.1 m  (20  ft )
wide.  Although there is no maximum width, the distribution of the basin
effluent across the top of the filter area could become a problem at widths
greater than 30.5 m  (100 ft ) unless pressure distribution systems are  used.


 TABLE 13.  RECOMMENDED OVERLAND FLOW FILTER AREAS WITH VARIOUS SOIL TYPES
            (CLIMATIC CONDITIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE OF CENTRAL ILLINOIS)
Soil

Silty clay loam
Silt loam
Sandy loam
Infiltration
mm/hr
30.5
38.1
43.2
Rate
in /hr
1.2
1.5
1.7
Minimum filter area

1.6
1.0
0.7

x lot
x lot
x lot

area
area
area

       The following example illustrates use of the proposed design criteria
 for overland flow vegetative filters.   Assume a central Illinois paved dairy
 lot of approximately 0.2 ha (0.5 ac)  with a capacity of 50 animals.  The
 adjacent field area has a slope of one percent.  The soil is a silty clay
 loam with an infiltration rate of 30.5 mm/hr (1.2 in /hr ).  (information on
 infiltration rates can usually be found in state irrigation guides and soils
 handbooks for local areas.)  The rainfall for the one year-two hour storm is
 40.6 mm  (1.6 in ).

       Step 1.  Find the required flow distance.
                From Table 10, the required minimum distance should be 131 mm
                     (430 ft ).
       Step 2.  Find the required filter area
                From Figure 2 lot runoff =  (40.6 mm x .9031) - 2.805
                                         =  33.86 mm  (1.33 in )
                Runoff volume = 0.2 ha x 33.86 mm = 6.77 ha-mm  (0.65 ac-in)

       The filter's infiltration capacity  (1C) must equal or exceed the volume
 to be infiltrated  (VR)  for proper filter operation.  So:

                Volume  to be infiltrated (VR)  = lot runoff volume + rainfall
                                                on the filter area
                                       57

-------
              Filter infiltration capacity  (1C) = infiltration rate x storm
                                                  duration x infiltration
                                                    area
                                                  (Recall that 1C = VR )

              30.5 mm/hr x 2 hr x filter area = 6.77 ha.mm + (filter area x
                                                40.6 mm)

              61 mm x filter area - 40.6 mm x filter area = 6.77 ha-mm

              20.4 mm x filter area = 6.77 ha-mm

              filter area = 6.77 = 0.33 ha  (0.8 ac)
                            20.4

     Step 3.  Specify filter area dimensions.

              Filter length x width = area

              Use minimum length of 131 m (300 ft )

              131 m x width = 0.33 ha = 3,238 sq m

              width = 24.7 m (81 ft )

     Thus, the required minimum overland flow filter size for this example
is 24.7 m (81 ft ) wide by 131 m (430 ft ) long.  If desired, the filter
width could be reduced and the length increased to obtain the same area, as
long as a minimum filter width of 6.1 m (20 ft ) is maintained.  The total
filter size may be increased, too, if specific site conditions make a higher
degree of treatment advisable.
                                    58

-------
                                 SECTION 6
                                 ECONOMICS

     There was no attempt in this study to develop a comparison of investment
and operating costs between vegetative filter systems and conventional zero-
discharge systems. However, in a cooperating study, Lybecker (1977) utilized
cost data from the four systems included in this study and also two other
systems to make a cost comparison.  For the vegetative filter systems,
actual cost data were available for all the systems.  For the zero-discharge
systems, actual cost data were used, as well as cost estimates from the
Soil Conservation Service for zero-discharge systems at the vegetative filter
locations.

     Table 14 contains a summary of the cost information developed by Lybeck-
er.  For the dairy and beef systems, the vegetative filter system investment
costs ranged from 75 to 90 percent of the zero-discharge system costs.  Since
management requirements are minimal for vegetative filters, the comparison
on that basis was even better.  For the systems at hog facilities, a large
difference was shown, but there seems to be some question as to the accuracy
of the estimated cost for the zero-discharge systems.

     It is clear from these figures that vegetative filter systems are less
expensive to construct and maintain.  In many situations, farmers can con-
struct much of the vegetative filter systems themselves, which would result
in additional savings over those shown.

OPERATOR EVALUATION

     The success of any pollution control system is highly dependent upon
the attitude of the operator.  If the operator likes the system initially,
he is more willing to provide the necessary management and maintenance to
make it work properly.  Without exception, the private operators involved
in the study preferred the vegetative filter concept to a system with holding
pond and pumping equipment.  Their reasons for this included:
 1.  The land is not removed from production completely; instead it still
        produces a useful forage.
 2.  A grassed area is preferable in appearances and offers less odor poten-
        tial than holding pond.
 3.  Labor and equipment to empty a holding pond are not required.
     The research sites are frequently visited by  other livestock producers,
and these attitudes were found to be quite common.  After the  first year of
the study, the operator of System 4 installed an identical vegetative filter
for a new livestock facility he was building.  Because of reactions of this
type, it is apparent that the vegetative  filter concept is acceptable to
livestock producers.  Widespread adoption of this  method can be  expected  if
it is approved by state environmental authorities  and  if uniform design and

                                     59

-------
TABLE 14.  TOTAL INVESTMENT COSTS, OPERATING COSTS AND PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE
           BETWEEN THE VEGETATIVE FILTER AND ZERO DISCHARGE SYSTEMS FOR SIX
           ILLINOIS DEMONSTRATION-RESEARCH SITES
Feedlot
Vegetative
filter ($)
  costs
Zero discharge
    ($)
  costs
Zero discharge costs
as a percent of vege-
tative filter costs
SIU-C~Dairy
85 head
Investment costs      8,302
Operating costs       1,103

U of I—Dairy
83 head
Investment costs      6,746
Operating costs         844

Strope—Cattle
700 head
Investment costs      8,960
Operating costs         958

Nordman—Cattle
425 head
Investment costs      7,920
Operating costs         874

Fesler—Hogs
450 head
Investment costs      2,617
Operating costs         299

Bradshaw—Hogs
800 head
Investment costs      5,986
Operating costs         648
               9,190
               1,386
               8,103
               1,111
               9,823
               1,656
              10,725
               1,333
              13,055
               1,916
              11,453
               1,882
                         111
                         125
                         120
                         132
                         110
                         173
                         134
                         153
                         500
                         640
                         191
                         290
Source:  Lybecker (1977)

construction criteria are available.

RECOMMENDED MANAGEMENT

     After operating and observing the systems in the study for over two
years, we developed a set of recommended management criteria.  The following
criteria are relatively simple and should help maintain system performance
as well as prolong system life:
                                     60

-------
Clean the accumulated solids from settling basin frequently so that settling
effectiveness is not impaired and outlet clogging problems will be reduced.
Frequency of lot cleaning will affect settling basin cleaning requirements.

If necessary, clean accumulated solids from the filter area near the inlet
area annually.

If possible, cut and remove forage from the filter area at least once a
year or more.  By thus removing nutrients, this helps in reducing the rate
of nutrient accumulation in the filter area.

Avoid cutting and harvesting when the filter area is very wet, so that
equipment traffic will not form cuts that interfere with flow and develop
into  wet spots.

Do not remove forage late in the fall.  Instead, cut early enough that the
filter will go into winter with a good forage growth to aid in treating win-
ter and spring runoff.

If forage growth or soil analysis indicates excessive levels of salt or
other constituents after several years of operation, consider changing the
filter location to allow recovery of the filter to full productivity.
                                     61

-------
                               REFERENCES

Bendixen, T.W., R.D. Hill, F.T. DuByne and G.G. Robeck. Cannery Waste
         Treatment by Spray Irrigation - Runoff.  Journal Water Pollution
         Control Federation 41{3):  385-391, 1969.

Bremner, J.M. Total Nitrogen.  In:  Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2 Chemi-
         cal and Microbiological Properties.  Agron.  No. 9, ASA Madison,
         Wise.,1965.  pp. 1149-1178.

Bremner, J.M. and D.R. Keeney.  Steam Distillation of Ammonium, Nitrate, and
         Nitrite.  Analytica Chemica Acta 32:  485-495

Dickey, E.G. and D.H. Vanderholm.  Feedlot Runoff Holding Ponds-Nutrient
         Levels and Related Management Aspects. Jour, of Env. Qual. 6,  (3):
         307-312, 1977.

Dornbush, J.N., J.R. Andersen, and L.L. Harms.  Quantification of pollutants
         in Agricultural Runoff.  EPA-660/2-74-005.  U.S. Enviornmental
         Protection Agency, Washington D.C.,1974.  149 pp.

Edwards, W.M., F.W. Chichester and L.L. Harrold.  Management of Barnlot Run-
         off to Improve Downstream Water Quality, In: Proceedings of the
         Int. Symposium on Livestock Wastes.  ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,1971.
         pp. 48-50.

Graffis, D.W., D.A. Miller, J.J. Faix, and E.R. Hawkins. April, 1971.  For-
         age Crops Variety trials, Illinois, 1977.  Illinois Agric. Exp.
         Stn. Publication AG-2015,1978.

Heath, M.E., D.S. Metcalfe, and R.F.Barnes. Forages:  The Science of Grass-
         land Agriculture, 3rd edition.  Iowa State Univ. Press. Ames,
         Iowa,1973.

Kendrick, R.F. Nitrate and Chloride Movement in the Soil Profile Due to Land
         Application of Dairy Manure.  unpublished M.S. Thesis, Library.
         Univ of II. at Urbana-Champaign, 1977.  122 pp.

Kramer, J.A., D.E. Eisenhauer, R.I. Lipper and H.L. Manges.  A Spray-Runoff
         System with Recirculation of Treating Beef Cattle Feedlot Runoff.
         ASAE Paper No. MC-74-301, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,  1974.

Lybecker, D.  Comparative Surface Runoff Control System Investment and Oper-
         ting Costs for Six Illinois Demonstration-Research Sites.  Paper
         presented at Southern II. Univ. Liquid Livestock Waste Disposal
         Field Day, Dept. of Ag. Ind. Southern II. Univ., Carbondale, 1977.

                                    62

-------
Mather, R.J., Editor.  An Evaluation of Cannery Waste Disposal by Overland
         Flow Spray Irrigation.  Publications in Climatology,  C.W. Thorn-
         thwaite Associates, Vol. XXII, No. 2.,1969.

McCaskey, T.A., G.H. Rollins, and J.A. Little.  Water Quality of Runoff from
         Grassland Applied with Liquid, Semi-liquid and Dry Dairy Waste.  In:
         Proceedings of the Int. Symposium on Livestock Wastes.  ASAE, St.
         Joseph, Michigan, 1971.  pp.239-242.

Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes.  EPA-625/6-74-003.  U.S.
         Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.,1974.  298 pp.

Schwab, G.O., R.K. Frevert, T.W. Edminster, and K.K. Barnes.  Soil and Water
         Conservation Engineering.  John Wiley and Sons,  Inc., New York,
         2nd edition, 1976. 683 pp.

Sievers, D.M., G.B. Garner, and E.E. Picket.  A Lagoon-Grass Terrace System
         to Treat Swine Waste.  In:Proceedings of the 3rd Int. Symposium  on
         Livestock Wastes.  ASAE Publ. PROC-275.  ASAE, St. Joseph, Michi-
         gan, 1975.  pp. 541-543.

American Public Health Association.  Standard Methods for the Examination of
         Water and Wastewater.  New York,  13th edition,   1971.   769 pp.

Sutton, A.L., D.D. Jones, and M.C. Brumm.  A Low Cost Settling Basin and  In-
         filtration Channel for Controlling Runoff From an Open  Swine Feed-
         lot.  ASAE Paper No. 76-4516, ASAE, St. Joseph.  Michigan,  1976.

Swanson, N.P., C.L. Linderman, and L.N. Mielke.  Direct Land Disposal of
         Feedlot Runoff. In:Proceedings of the 3rd Int. Symposium on Live-
         stock Waste, ASAE Pub. PROC-275.  ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,  1975.
         pp. 255-257.
                                    63

-------
                               BIBLIOGRAPHY

Butler, R.M., E.A. Myers, J.N. Walter, and J.V. Husted.  Nutrient Reduction
         in Wastewater by Grass Filtration.  ASAE Paper No.  74-4024, ASAE,
         St. Joseph, Michigan,  1974.

Eisenhauer, D.E. Treatment and Disposal of Cattle Feedlot Runoff Using a
         Spray-Runoff Irrigation System.  Unpublished M.S. thesis, Manhat-
         tan, Kansas. Kansas State University Library,  1973

Eisenhauer, D.E., R.I. Lipper and H.L. Manger.  Experience With a Spray-
         Runoff System for Treating Beef Cattle Feedlot Runoff.  ASAE Paper
         No. MC-73-302, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,  1973.

Feedlots Point Source Category - A development Document for Effluent Limita-
         tions Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards.  EPA-440/1-
         74-004-a.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.»
         1974 302 pp.

Koelliker, J.K. and J.R. Miner.  Use of Soil to Treat Anaerobic Lagoon Ef-
         fluent:  Renovation as a Function of Depth and Application Rate.
         Transactions of the ASAE.  13:469-499,  1970.

Kreis, R.D., M.R. Scalf, and J.F. McNabb.  Characteristics of Rainfall Run-
         off from a Beef Cattle Feedlot.  EPA-RZ-72-061.  U.S. Environmen-
         tal Protection Agency, Washington D.C., 1972.  43 pp.

Law, J.P., R.E. Thomas, and L.H. Myers.  Nutrient Removal From Cannery
         Wastes by Spray Irrigation on Grassland.  Water pollution Control
         Research Series.  16080—11/69.  Federal Water Pollution Control
         Administration. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C.>
         1969.

Lindley, J.A.  Grass Filtration Beds for Disposal of Milking Center Waste.
         Univ. of Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin WWD-.
         Storrs, Connecticut,  1973.

Nye, J.D., D.D. Jones and A. Sutton.  Settling as a Method for Pretreating
         Feedlot Runoff.  InrProceedings of the 1974 Purdue Agricultural
         Waste Conference, West Lafayette, Indiana,  1974.
                                    64

-------
Overcash, M.R. and F.J. Humenik.   Agriculturally related pretreatment Land
         Applications Systems.   In:Proceedings Second National Conference
         on Complete Wateruse.   American Institute of Chemical Engineering,
         Chicago, Illinois,  1975.

Sopper, W.E.  Crop Selection and Management Alternatives-Perennials.   In
         Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges
         and Effluent on Land.   Champaign, Illinois,  1973.   pp. 143-154.

Thomas, R.E.  Feasibility of Overland Flow Treatment of Feedlot Runoff.
         EAP-660/2-74-062.  U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Washing-
         ton D.C., 1974.  28 pp.

Thomas, R.E. K. Jackson, and L. Penrod.  Feasibility of Overland Flow for
         Treatment of Domestic Wastewater.  EPA-660/2-74-087.  U.S.
         Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C., 1974. 78 pp.

Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application.  Volume  II.  Washington
         D.C., 1973.  249 pp. U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.

Willrich, T.L., and J.O. Boda.  Overland Flow Treatment of Swine Lagoon
         Effluent.  ASAE Paper No. 76-4515, ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan,
         1976.
                                     65

-------
                                   TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                            (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
 1. REPORT NO.
    EPA-600/2-79-143
                                                            3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION" NO.
 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
                                                            5. REPORT DATE
    LIVESTOCK  FEEDLOT RUNOFF CONTROL BY VEGETATIVE
    FILTERS
                                                         August 1979 issuing date
                                                        6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
 7. AUTHORisiDale  Vanderholm, Elbert C. Dickey,  Joseph A.
 Jackobs, Roger W.  Elmore, Sidney L. Spahr
                                                        8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
   Departments  of  Agriculture, Engineering,  Agronomy,
   Dairy Science,  University of Illinois,  Urbana,
   Illinois  61801
                                                        10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                                                         1BB770
                                                        11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                                                          R804341-01-1
 12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
   Robert  S.  Kerr Environmental Research  Laboratory
   Office  of Research and Development
   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
   Ada,  Oklahoma 74820
                                                        13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
                                                        Final   2/9/76 - 5/8/78
                                                        14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                                                       EPA-600-15
 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
 16. ABSTRACT
   Vegetative filters were  installed to treat runoff  from two beef feedlots,  one dairy
   lot, and one swine feedlot  in central Illinois.  Two  configurations were used-chan-
   nelized flow and overland flow.   Runoff underwent  settling for partial  solids re-
   moval and was then applied  directly to vegetative  filter area.  Runoff  from  most
   smaller rainfall events  infiltrated completely, resulting in no discharge.   Runoff
   from larger events partially infiltrated and partially discharged.  Discharge sample
   analysis indicated a removal of  over 95 percent of nutrients and oxygen demanding
   materials on a mass balance basis and over 80 percent reduction on a concentration
   basis when compared to runoff applied to the filter area.  Discharge rates were very
   low and minimal dilution was necessary to meet state  water quality standards.   Design
   criteria were developed  for overland flow and channelized flow systems.  The proposec
   criteria would completely infiltrate runoff from small storm events and provide ad-
   equate treatment for discharge during larger events.
 7.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
                                          b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS  C. COSATI Field/Group
water quality
runoff
manur e
feedlot runoff
vegetative  filter
animal wastes
                                                                          68D
 8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

  RELEASE TO PUBLIC
                                          19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
                                           UNCLASSIFIED
                         21. NO. OF PAGES

                                 78
                                          2O. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
                                           UNCLASSIFIED
                                                                     22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
                                            66
                                                                   *U.S. OOVtRHMENt PBIKIIHO OFWf 1979 -657-060/5374

-------