ENGINEERING REPORT/NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN IN SUPPORT OF PERMIT'MODIFICATION

(1)

ENGINEERING REPORT/NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

PLAN IN SUPPORT OF PERMIT'MODIFICATION

Prepared for: Douglas Walker

Walker and Sons Fanns II Jefferson County, Florida

Prepared by:

Michael Holloway, P.E. Consulting Engineer 8440 S.E. 16'' TeITace Ocala, Florida 34480 (352) 861-1172

(2)

... ..-. ... .-...

-

... ,,.. __ ... ____ ,.. ·-

_..._._..._._._...._..._~---·---·---I _..._._..._._._...._..._~---·---·---IDENT_..._._..._._._...._..._~---·---·---IF_..._._..._._._...._..._~---·---·---ICAT_..._._..._._._...._..._~---·---·---ION NUMBER:

II CHARACTERISTICS:

W ASTEW ATEll PERMIT

APPLICATIOJ'~

FORM 1

GENERAL INFC•RMATION

Facility ID FLA165352

INSTRUCTIONS: Complete the questions below to determine whether you need to submit any permit application forms to the Department of Environmental Protection. If you answer "yes" to any questions, you must submit this form and the supplemental form listed in the parenthesis following the question. Mark "X" in the blank in the third column if the supplemental form is attached. If you answer "no" to each question, you need not submit any of these forms. You may answer "no" if you activity is excluded fro permit requirements. See Section B of the instructions. See also, Section C of the instructions for definitions of the terms used here.

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

A. Is th.is facility a domestic wastewater facility which

results in a discharge to surface or ground waters? B. Does or will th.is facility (either existing or proposed)

include a concentrated animal feeding operation or aquatic animal production facility which results in a discharge to waters?

C. Does or will th.is facility (other than those describe in A. or B.)

discharge process wastewater, or non-process wastewater regulated by effluent guidelines or new source performance standards, to surface waters?

D. Does or will th.is facility (other than those described in A. or B.) discharge process wastewater to ground waters?

E. Does or will th.is facility discharge non-process wastewater, not regulated by effluent guidelines or new source performance standards,

to surface waters?

F. Does or will this facility discharge non-process wastewater to ground waters?

G. Does or will th.is facility discharge stormwater to surface waters? H. Is this facility a non-discharging/closed loop recycle system?

ill NAME OF FACILITY: (40 characters and spaces)

Walker andSons Farms II

DEP Form 62-620.910(1) 1-13 YES NO FORM ATTACHED

x

2B

x

(3)

IV FACILITY CONTACT: (A. 30 characters and spaces)

A. Name and Title (Last, first, & title) B. Phone (area code & no.)

Douglas Walker 850-997-6845

V FACILITY MAILING ADDRESS: (A. 30 characters and spaces; B. 25 characters and spaces)

A. Street or P.O. Box: P.O. Box 38

B. City or Town: Wacissa State: FL Zip Code: 32361

VI FACILITY LOCATION: (A. 30 characters and spaces; B. 24 characters and spaces; C. 3 spaces (if known);

D. 25 characters and spaces; E. 2 spaces; F. 9 spaces)

A. Street, Route or Other Specific Identifier: Count v Road 1 4 6

B. County Name: Jefferson C. County Code (if known):

D. City or Town: Monticello E. State: FL

I

F. Zip Code: 32344

VII SIC CODES: (4-digit, in order of priority)

1. Code#: 241 (Specify) Dairy 2. Code#: (Specify)

I

3. Code#: (Specify) 4. Code#: (Specify)

vm

OPERATOR INFORMATION: (A. 40 characters and spaces; B. 1 character; C. 1 character (if otl1er, specify); D. 12 characters; E. 30 characters and spaces; F. 25 characters and spaces; G. 2 characters; H. 9 characters)

A. Name: Walker and Sons Farm II

E. Street or P. 0. Box: P.O. Box 38 F. City or Town: Wacissa

IX INDIAN LAND: Is the facility located on Indian lands?

DEP Form 62-620.910(1) (Effective November 29, 1994)

1-14

B. Is the: name in VIII A. the owner? [8]Yes 0No

(specify) D. Phone No.:

Private 850-997-6845

G. State: FL

I

H. Zip Code: 32361

(4)

X EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS:

A. NPDES Permit No. B. UIC Permit No. C. Other (specify)

I

_D_._Othe<₍_speclly)

I

FLA 165352

XI MAP: Attach to this application a topographic map of the area extending to at least one mile beyond property boundaries. The map must show the outline of the facility, the location of each of its existing and proposed intake and discharge structures, each of its hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, and each well where

it injects fluids underground. Include all springs, rivers and other surface water bodies in the map area. See

instructions for precise requirements.

XII NATURE OF BUSINESS (provide a brief description)

Dairy Farm

XIII CERTIFICATION (see instructions)

I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this application and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those persons immediately responsible

for obtaining the information contained in tl1e application, I believe tl1at the information is true, accurate and

complete. I am aware that tl1ere are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.

Robert Douglas Walker

A. Name (type or print)

President

Official Title (type or print)

DEP Form 62-620.910(1)

B. Signature

05/21/03

C. Date Signed

(5)

FORM

2B

_,,,..._...__,..__.,., ... ~,..._..._ _________ ..,,,.,_,.._..._~

_

_,,

--

-

"'../'.. --~~---_,. _ _.--_ _....__..._.,,..._ _....__... _____

-WASTEWATER APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE FROM

CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS AND

AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITIES

I. GENERAL INFORMATION FACILITY I.D. Number FLA165352

A Type of Business B. Legal Description of Facility Location C. Facility Operation Status

~Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation _{Lat 30}_33'_10" _Long _{83 48'}_30"

(complete Items B,C, and Section II) _~_1._{Existing Facility} 0 Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production

Facility (complete Items B,C, and Section III)

₀

_2._P_roposed_Fac_ility

II. CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION CHARACTERISTICS

A Type & Number of Animals in Confinement & Housed under Roof B. No. of Acres for Confinement Feeding

1. Type 2. No. in Open 3. No. Housed under Roof C. If there is open confinement, has a runoff

Confinement diversion and control system been constructed?

Mature Dairy Cows 1,380 Part Time

₀

~ _{No (go to Section}Yes (complete Item _IV1,2, ₎ & 3 below) 1. What is the design basis for the control system?

a. 10-yr, 24-hr storm b. 25-yr, 24-hr stmm c. Other (specify inches & type)

Inches: Inches: 8.5 Inches: Type:

2. Report the nun1ber of acres of Acres: 5 3. Report the design safety factor I Safety Factor: 1.6

contributing drainage.

ill CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

A. For each outfall give the maximum daily flow, maximum 30-day flow, and

the long term average flow. 1. Outfall No.

D EP Form 62·620. 910(3)

(Effective November29, 1994)

a. Max. daily

2. Flow (gallons per day)

b. Max. 30-day c. Long term average

2B-5

B. Indicate the total number of ponds, raceways, and similar structures in your facility.

1. Ponds: 2. Raceways: 3. Other:

C. Provide the name of the receiving water and the source of

water used bv your facility.

1. Receiving Water: 2. Water Source:

(6)

FACILITY ID Number FLA16532

D. List the species offish or aquatic animals held and fed at your facility. For each species, give the total weight produced by your facility per year

in pounds ofharvestable weight, and also give the maximum weight present at any one time. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.

Species Harvestable Weight (pounds)

Total Yearly Maximum

E. Report the total pounds of food fed during the calendar month of maximum feeding. Month: Pounds of Food: IV-A CERTIFICATIONS FOR NEW OR MODIFIIED FACILITIES

Th.is is to certify the engineering features of this pollution control project have been designed by me and found to be in confonnity with sound engineering principles, applicable to the treatment and disposal of pollutants characterized in the pennit application. There is reasonable

assurance, in my professional judgment, that the pollution control facilities, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge an

effluent that complies with all applicable statutes of the State of Florida and the rules of the Department. It is also agreed that the

undersigned, if authorized by the owner, will furnish the applicant a set of instructions for the proper maintenance and operation of the

pollution control facilities and, if applicable, pollution sources.

Signature

Michael P. Holloway

Nan1e (please type)

(Affix Seal)

Michael Holloway Consulting Engineer

Company Name Address 8440 SE 16th Terrace

Ocala FL 34480

Florida RegistrationNo.: PE0049005

Telephone No: 352-861-1172 Date: 05120103

I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person

or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the

best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false

information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Robert Douglas Walker

850-997-6845

DEP Form 62-620.910(3)

Name & Officient Title (type or print)

Telephone No. (area code & No. )

2B-6

Signature 05/21/03 Date Sigened:

(7)

CERTIFICATION PAGE

Facility: Walker and Sons Farms II

Owner: Douglas Wall<..er, President

Address: P.O. Box 38

Wacissa, Florida 32343 Telephone: (850) 997-3159

I have read the following Nutrient Management Plan/Engineering Report. I understand these

documents and will operate the facility so that it is within substantial compliance with these

docwnents and the Jaws of the State of Florida.

Douglas Walker, President Date

The attached Nutrient Management Plan/Engineering Report has been prepared by me or under my direct supervision and is intended to provide a design and operation that meets

current waste management laws for the State of Florida.

(8)

NUTRIENT AND WATER MANAGEMENT ... 25

Nitrogen Budget. ... 25

Water Balance ... 30

Phosphorous ... 33

(9)

STORMW ATER ... 35 GROUNDWA,-fER MONITORING ... 35 REFERENCES ... 42

APPENDIX A PERMIT MODIFICATION DETAILS ... A-1

APPENDIX B PIEZOMETER INSTALLATION DETAILS ... B-1 APPENDIX C POTABLE WELLS SURROUNDING DAIRY ... C-1

APPENDIX D HIA RETENTION POND DESIGN ... D-1 APPENDIX E SICK COW AREA RUNOFF CALCULATIONS ... E-1 APPENDIX F LAGOON INFORMATION ... F-1 APPENDIX G SPRAYFIELD DESIGN ... G-1

(10)

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE

1 Soils Properties ₆

2 Herd Makeup ₁₃

3 Waste Design Criteria ₂₆

4 Nitrogen Balance for Solids and Sprayfield ₂₇

5 Nitrogen Balance for Pastures

2

9

6 Water Balance ₃₁

(11)

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE

1

Location Map

2

Topographic Map

4

3

Site Map Showing Location of Soils 5

4

Piezometer Locations

9

5 Overall Facility Layout 11

6

Barn Layout

12

7

Exercise Lot Layout

15

8

Irrigation Well Connection

22

9

Monitor Well Locations

36

10

Monitor Well Construction

37

11 Potable Well Locations

39

12

Predicted Groundwater Flow Direction

40

13

Approximate Property Boundaries

41

(12)

INTRODUCTION

Udder Delite Dairy is an existing, semi-confinement and pasture dairy located in Jefferson County, Florida. The dairy was originally established in 1921 and was called Bassett's Dairy. It

was a pasture-based daily until 1990. In 1991 three free-stall barns were constructed and a majority of the cows were housed there and in associated adjacent exercise lots. In 1995 Bill Bassett applied for and received a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FD EP). The facility was effectively shut down for a period of time before the current operators leased the facility in 1998. The current operators applied for and received a modification and renewal of their permit in 2001. The modifications in the permit are at different stages of completion, with some only awaiting minor adjustments and others not begun at all. The current operators lease has expired, and Mr. Douglas Walker has agreed to purchase the facility from Mr. Bassett contingent upon the permit modifications described in this report. The proposed name of the facility will become Walker and Sons Farms II upon completion of this permit modification and transfer.

Tills facility is currently permitted for an annual average of 1,073 lactating daily cows. Almost all of the lactating cows are housed in three free-stall barns. Mr. Vv alker believes that more cattle can be added to each barn with little negative impact on the herd. Therefore, he wishes to increase the annual average lactating herd size to 1,200 lactating cows. Dry cows (annual average of 180 head) will be pastured just east of the site, while the remaining dry cows and heifers will be pastured off site. Tills report provides all the docmnentation to support an increase in this herd size. Tills report also supplies operation and maintenance information and is intended to replace the Certified NutTient Management Plan (CNMP) that is required under the current permit. A list of specific modifications to the current permit is included as Appendix A. . Tills report should be used as a starting guide only and an annual report that presents an overall dairy nutrient balance will be required. Future modifications to the facility operation may be required a'> a result of tllese annual reports. The annual reports will be reviewed by the Engineer of Record and tlle Department will be notified of any proposed changes to the operation. Tills NMP will be reviewed and modified at the time of the annual report and, if required, a permit modification request will also be forwarded to the Department. The Engineer should be contacted in tlle event conditions are encountered that are different from those described in this report. Tills design is based on docwnented animal waste excretion values, predicted losses, and predicted crop uptake.

LOCATION AND TOPOGRAPHY

Udder Delite Dairy is located approximately three miles northeast of Monticello, Florida off of County Road 146, in Township 2 North, Range 5 East, Section 22, Florida, as shown in Figure 1. The center of the facility is located at approximately latitude 30" 33' 1 O" longitude 83° 48' 30". All of the dairy facilities and associated land described in the Report is owned by Bassett Brothers, Inc and is contracted to be sold to Mr. Walker.

(13)

..__ 5

__

._

--~

-~-...___

__

8 19 FIGURE 1.

Site Location Map.

2

-

t

•

-~ J! l l

..

...._

(14)

As shown in Figure 2, the site has elevations ranging from about 90 feet above mean sea level (famsl) to almost 150 famsl. Slopes range from relatively flat to over 10 percent. The steepest portions of the proposed sprayfields and the dry cow pastures have existing terraces that will be maintained during future operations. Surface water runoff from the site flows to Wolf Creek and the swTounding swan1p. Wolf Creek flows south into the numerous swamps and eventually into the Aucilla River.

SOILS INFORMATION

Figure 3 shows the soils map as presented by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Jefferson County, Florida (1989). Table 1 sU111Inarizes important information taken from this soil survey.

A brief onsite soil investigation was conducted to verify the soil srnvey results. Eight soil borings were done, three near the existing free-stall barns, and five in potential sprayfield sites.

All of these pits showed fairly good correlation with the data from the soil survey. The majority of the site contains a surface layer of sandy clay to a depth of 2 to 5 feet rn1derlain by a layer of high clay content to a depth greater than 80 inches.

HYDROGEOLOGY

Regional Geology

].W. Yon (1966) issued a Bulletin on the Geology of]efferson Corn1ty. This report shows that in the area of Udder Delite Dairy, the Miccosukee Formation is present from approximately 110 feet above mean sea level (famsl) to the surface. Underlying the Miccosukee Formation is the Hawthorn Formation to approximately 60 fa.ms! and below that is the St. Marks Formation underlain by Suwannee Limestone. The Miccosukee

Formation is described as consisting of moderately sorted, coarse to fine grained, varicolored, clayey, quartz sand; and montmorillonitic, kaolinitic, varicolored, sandy clays. The Bulletin further describes the Formation as being heterogeneous in nature, and quite frequently the sands are cross bedded, and also contain cross bedded thin laminae of white to light gray clay. The Bulletin describes the Hawthorn Formation as consisting of pale olive, light greenish gray, yellowish gray, light gray, and moderate yellow, sandy, wa,'-'Y, phosphatic clay that may contain phosphor:ite grains and clayey quartz sands.

Potentiometric maps of the srnface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer (Healy 197 5, Barr 1987, and Barr 1992) show the potentiometric surface of the Aquifer to be about 55 N GVD in 197 4 and 1985 and about 48 NGVD in 1990. All maps indicate a southwesterly flow direction at a gradient of approximately one foot per mile.

(15)

~

ffi

Scale in Feet FIGURE 2. Topographic Map. Revised 6/30/03

(16)

.0 >-..o.~

"

"'

oO Q::::: ~~ l!l<IJ

"'

CD l?>

"

0 l!) I 0

~

Scale in Feet 400 800 FIGURE 3. Soils Map. Revised 6/30/03 KEY 4 5 6 11,12,55 13,14,15 16 17,18 20 21 5

Surrency Fine Sand 22,45 Plummer Fine Sand Fuquay Fine Sand ₂₃ _Pelham_Fine_Sand Dothan Loamy Fine Sand ₃₆ _{Pamilco Dorovan}_Muck_s Lucy Loamy Fine Sand _31,32 _{Faceville Fine Sandy}_Loam Orangeburg Sandy Loam ₃₃ _{Leefield Fine}_Sand Blanton Fine Sand ₃₈ _{Miccosukee Fine Sandy}_Loam Troup Fine Sand

39,46 Cowarts Loamy Fine Sand Albany Sand

42 Faceville Loamy Fine Sand Bonifay Fine Sand

·---NPDES Permitted Areas - • - · . 35' Buffer From Drainage Ditches 1111111111111111111 50' Buffer From Property Lines

(17)

Table 1. Soil Properties

Soil Soil Percent Hydrologic Depth to high Type of high Depth

Number Name Slope Group water table water table of horizon Permeability

% % (ft) (in) (in/hr)

4 Surrency fine sand D +1-0.5 Apparent 0-26 2.0-20

26-80 0.6-2.0

5 Fuquay fine sand 0 to 5 B 4.0-6.0 Perched 0-37 6.0-20

37-43 0.6-2.0 43-80 0.06-0.2

11 Lucy loamy fine sand 0 to 5 A >6.0 0-34 6.0-20 34-42 2.0-6.0

42-80 0.6-2.0

12 Lucy loamy fine sand 5 to 8 A >6.0 0-26 6.0-20

26-80 0.6-2.0

13 Orangeburg sandy loam 2 to 5 B >6.0 0-7 20-60

7-34 0.6-2.0 low 34-80 0.6-2.0

14 Orangeburg sandy loam 5 to 8 B >6.0 0-9 2.0-6.0 9-16 0.6-2.0 low

16-80 0.6-2.0

15 Orangeburg sandy loam 8 to 12 B >6.0 0-5 2.0-6.0 5-26 0.6-2.0 low 26-80 0.6-2.0

16 Blanton fine sand 0 to 5 A 5 0-6.0 Perched 0-63 6.0-20 63-80 0.6-2.0 18 Troup fine sand 5 to 8 A >6.0 0-50 6.0-20 50-80 0.6-2.0

20 Albany sand c 1.0-2.5 Apparent 0-55 6.0-20 55-60 2.0-6.0 60-80 0.6-2.0

21 Bonifay fine sand 0 to 5 A 4.0-5.0 Perched 0-48 6.0-20 48-52 0.6-2.0

(18)

52-80 0.2-0.6

Soil Properties Continued:

Soil Soil Percent Hydrologic Depth to high Type of high Depth

Number Name Slope Group water table water table of horizon Permeability

% % (ft) (in) (in/hr)

22 Plummer fine sand B/D 0-1.5 Apparent 0-69 2.0-20.0

69-80 0.6-2.0

24 Fuquay fine sand 5 to 8 B 4.0-5.0 Perched 0-35 >6.0

35-80 0.06-0.2

32 Faceville fine sandy loam 5 to 8 B >6.0 0-4 6.0-20

4-80 0.6-2.0 low

33 Leefield fine sand c 1.5-2.5 Apparent 0-32 6.0-20 32-63 0.6-2.0 63-80 0.2-0.6 38 Miccosukee fine sandy loam c 3.5-6.0 Apparent 0-9 2.0-6.0

9-37 0.2-2.0 low

37-50 2.0-6.0 50-80 0.2-0.6 39 Cowarts loamy fine sand 2 to 5 c >6.0 0-13 2.0-6.0

13-36 0.2-2.0 low

36-80 0.06-0.6 42 Faceville loamy fine sand 8 to 12 B >6.0 0-10 6.0-20

10-16 0.6-2.0 16-80 0.6-2.0 46 Cowarts loamy fine sand 5 to 8 c >6.0 0-4 2.0-6.0

4-8 0.6-2.0 low

8-40 0.2-2.0 40-80 0.06-0.6 55 Lucy loamy fine sand 8 to 12 A >6.0 0-33 6.0-20

(19)

Onsite Investigation

Figure 4 shows the location of three piezometers that were installed onsite January 23 through

January 25, 1995. A five-foot continuous sampler was used during the drilling process to take

continuous samples during drilling. Results of the continuous sampling, as well as construction

details of the piezometers, are included in this report as Appendix B. It should be noted that

after the boring for piezometer 2 was completed, the hollow stem auger came apart below

ground and the hole had to be abandoned. Therefore, piezometer 2 is actually installed

approximately ten feet north of the boring hole. It should also be noted that samples from the

auger flights indicated that the Hawthorne Formation was not encountered during the actual

installation of piezometer 2.

As can be seen from the drilling logs, the onsite conditions seem to indicate that the

Miccosukee Formation was encow1tered from the surface to elevations of 57, 49, and below 36

famsl. The Hawthorne Formation was encountered in two of the holes at 57 and 49 famsl.

This is very consistent to the results reported in the literature, except that the Hawthorne

Formation was much deeper than reported.

Water levels measured in the wells are also reported in Appendix B, and are shown graphically

on Figure 4. If it is assumed that the piezometers a.re in a confined aquifer, the water levels

indicate a northwesterly flow direction at a gradient of approximately 0.3 feet per l 00 feet.

This is inconsistent with published regional data for the Floridan Aquifer. This, a.long with the

fact that no limestone was encountered during the drilling indicate that the piezometers are not

installed in the Floridan Aquifer. If it is assumed that the aquifer is w1confined, the water level

data, a.long with the topognphy, indicate that the flow direction is towards the wastewater

storage ponds. It would be logical to assume that flow from other portions of the dairy would

follow sinUla.r flowpaths, with surficia.l aquifer water flowing towards Wolf Creek and the

surrounding swamp.

Sinkholes

Due to the deep depth to limestone at this site, sinkhole formation is unlikely. However, as in

all of North Florida., sinkhole formation is always possible. There are no known sinkholes

onsite at this time. Under the proposed management, any sinkholes that develop will be

reported to FDEP and filled with soil including a compacted clay layer from 4 to 7 feet below

t,>Tound surface.

WATER WELL INVENTORY

A list of potable within a mile of the daily site was requested and received from the Northwest

Florida. Water Management District in 1995 and is provided in Appendix C. There has been

ve1y little development in the area since 1995, however the location and use of these wells has

not been verified and the list may contain some errors. A new irrigation well to provide extra

irrigation to the spra.yfield sites may be added at a later date. The existing wells serving the

(20)

.D >-.o.~ C')"' oO Mt= -_{t'- (/)}Q) (/)

"'

en lO "'" 0 l() I 0

~

Scale in Feet 400 800 FIGURE 4_ Piezometer Locations. Revised 6/30/03 9

· - --- --NPDES Permitted Areas

- · - • 35' Buffer From Drainage Ditches

111111111111111111 50' Buffer From Property Lines - - - 200' Buffer from Dwelling

(21)

milk/feed barn will be serving less than 25 people on a regular basis; therefore they will not be considered public supply wells by'FDEP standards. Figure 11, located at the end of this report,

shows the location of all potable wells within 500 feet of the dairy.

FACILITY LAYOUT AND MANAGEMENT

Overall Operation

Figme 5 shows the overall facility layout, including the delineated production area, which

encompasses approximately 58 acres. Figme 6 details the barn layout, including the locations

of the clean water ditch and the production water transport ditch. The majority of the dairy facilities will remain unchanged. Changes to the facilities include installing both the effluent pwnp and the HIA retention area pwnp, completing some concrete curbing around the barn area, installing a staff and rain gauge, and building up the second stage waste storage pond to the elevation indicated in this report. The irrigation system designed by NRCS and approved by FDEP in the last permit revision is substantially complete, but has not been tested due to the la.ck of the pwnp. The HIA retention (it is really a detention area) pond is also

substantially complete and only awaits the installation of the transfer pump. The piping for the

pump outlet is already installed.

The lactating cows will be divided into seven herds. A hospital area will also be available for

sick cows. Herds 1 through 6 will be located in the three free-stall barns shown in Figure 5.

Herd 7 will be located in the pastures to the north and west of the free-stall barns. Table 2

summarizes the make-up of each herd. As shown in the Table, a majority of the manme

generated on the dairy will be handled through the lagoon system. The pastured dairy cows will consist of both regular milking cows as well as pot cows. The regular milking pasture cows will generally consist of cows that may be prone to foot problems or otherwise seem to produce

better on a pasture system. The pastures wiJJ be cross-fenced for easier herd management, but the cows will be managed so that the annual average cow nwnbers of each sub-pastme are

balanced.

As can be seen on Figure 2, the dairy facilities sit on top of a hill with natural fall to the

two-stage lagoon. Figure 6 shows that a majority of the area around the milking facilities and

holding barns is concreted and naturally flows either directly into the first-stage lagoon or into a

concrete sump located near tl1e solids separator. The wastewater from the swnp is pwnped over an AG-Pro Static Screen Solids Separator and the solids a.re dispersed witl1 an auger system for storage w1til they can be used on some of tl1e farm fields or moved off-site. The

effluent flows by gravity through a PVC pipe to the first-stage lagoon. Wastewater from the first- stage lagoon gravity flows through a metal drop culvert from the first-stage to the second-s tage la.goon.

(22)

0 400 800

Pivot Sprayfield 1

FIGURE 5.

Overall Facility Layout. Revised 6/30/03

GeurialArea

Solids/Drycows

NPDES Permitted Areas • • - 1 35' Buffer From Drainage Ditches 111111111111111 50' Buffer From Property Lines

- - - 200' Buffer from Well

8

Well with 200' Buffer

(23)

N

~

Scale in Feet 0 100 200 (Approximate) FIGURE 6. Barn Layout. Revised 6/30/03 7/6/03 bb H5045/Bassett Dairy

(24)

Table 2. Herd Make-up and Manure Deposition:

Percent Manure Deposited:

Herd Number of Location To Lagoon To

Number Cows S~stem Pasture

1 186 North Half of Barn 1 100% 0%

2 186 South Half of Barn 1 100% 0%

7 78 Pastures 35% 65%

sick 6 sick cow area 100% 0%

total 1200 Lactating Cows

Dry 180 Pasture 0% 100%

(25)

An effluent irrigation pump is used to pump effluent through the pipelines that run to the sprayfields to evenly distribute nutrients for plant uptake.

Water from the HIA will be collected in the HIA retention pond that was designed by NRCS as shown in Figure 7. The design calculations for this pond were prepared by Sandy Means, P.E. and were approved by FDEP with the permit renewal. Permission was granted by Ms. Means to include the calculations for reference in this report (Appendix D). The transfer pump for this pond will be installed within 60 days of approval of this permit modification. The pump shall have a minimum of 480 gallon per minute capacity with 179 feet total dynamic head (TDH). The pond is designed to have 3.14 acre-feet of storage capacity. Stormwater from the pond shall be pumped to the concrete alleyway at the closest holding barn, where the stormwater can then flow on to the waste treatment lagoon via concrete alleyways. The pond will be pumped down w1til empty immediately following storm events.

The cows in herds 1 through 6 will receive feed in both the free-stall barns and the feed barn located just north of the milking barn. The pastmed animals will receive feed in both the feed barn and in the pastmes. Cows will be milked two times a day.

Milking Parlor

The milking parlor consists of three, double-8 herringbone milk pits, three associated udder wash/holding areas with electronic crowd gates, and exit travel lanes. The area around the milk pits is, and will continue to be, cleaned after each herd with a one-inch hose. The udder wash/holding area is fairly self-cleaning due to the udder wash sprinklers and will only be hosed down once a day with a 1.5-inch hose. Each udder wash/holding area contains a.bout 40 impact sprinklers protected by metal housings.

A separate room is used for chemical storage. The only chemical that is stored in large enough quantities that it could enter the waste management system is chlorine that is used to clean the milk collection and storage system. This is biodegradable and would not pose any problems if it were introduced into the system in the quantities stored at the farm. The chlorine is stored in plastic barrels with pump tops. Due to the pump tops, it is unlikely that spills would occur. There will be no other large quantities of chemicals stored where tbey could enter the waste stream in the event of spills. Small quantities of medicine for cow treatment will be used in the barn, and will be wiped up if a spill does occur. Any unused chemicals that need to be

disposed of will either be given back to the supplier or taken to the County hazardous disposal site for proper disposal.

Feed and Holding Barns

The feed barn is located just north of the milking parlor and is surrounded by other holding barns. The feed barn will be used to feed all of the cows at different times of the year and will be washed down with a 1.5-inch hose once a day. Some of the rw1off water from the udder wash systems flows through this barn and will keep it relatively clean throughout the day. The

(26)

Transfer Pump

·-···:···_:::::::.:"'···('v

. ...- Fencehne :

r

!

EL1

Free-Stall Barn 1

EL2

·

:;::;iiGi~~~if

..

.

i EL3 ~-·--··· Free-Stall Barn 2 EL4 ... :::Jr.\.~.~!'!~!! ... . ELS Free-Stall Barn 3 : •

E~G

Runoff

r?

L.

..

.

..

.

...

.

..

.

..

.

...

.

...

.

...

.

...

....

..

~

...

.

..

...

.

..

.

....

\··L__

FIGURE 7. Exercise Lot. Remove Curb Scale in Feet ~ 0 50 100

\J!:Q)

(27)

holding barns will be used to hold cows prior to milking, to separate out dry or sick cows, or

for other miscellaneous purposes. A majority of the time these barns will only be washed once

a week using 1.5-inch hoses. A small portion of concrete curbing is missing from the alleyway

joining these holding barns with the free-stall barns. This curbing iNill be replaced within 30

days of approval of this modification.

Commodities Area

The commodities area consists of two large horizontal silos for silage and a covered barn for

other feed ingredients. The barn is enclosed on three sides and the roof is slanted away from

the opened side. The silage will be packed into the silos and then covered with plastic to

preserve the feed quality. This plastic will also act to prevent storm water from contacting the

silage. Mr. Walker is a very efficient manager and expects all of his facilities to be kept neat

and orderly. The feed area will be no exception. All of the dry feed ingredients will be kept

swept into their respective bens, and silage will only be uncovered as it is fed. Any old silage

vvi.ll be hauled off-site immediately and the entire feed area will be kept free of uncovered

feedstuff. No storm water should come in contact with any commodities. None of this area is

being changed as a result of this modification request.

Free-Stall Barns

Each free-stall barn will hold 372 cows, separated into two herds. The free-stalls will be

maintained on a regular basis and are bedded with sand covered with Bed-Less cloth liners.

Each barn has a center feed alley and water troughs throughout the barn. Cooling misters and

fans are used dw-ing warm times to provide extra cooling for the cows. These systems are

designed to provide evaporative cooling from the cow's body so that only a portion of the water

from these misters enters the waste stTeam. The barns are flushed at least once a day with

recycled water pumped from the second-stage lagoon. Runoff water from the barn roofs is

collected with a gutter system and transferred to a ditch located just east of the travel lane. The

water from this ditch is not contaminated and runs through an unlined ditch to the swamp

surrow1ding Wolf Creek.

Exercise Lots

Each side of the free-stall barns has an associated exercise lot. These Jots are necessary to help

alleviate potential foot problems, and to provide the cows with room to exercise and pursue

other bovine activities, such as mounting when in heat. Figure 7 shows the Jot layouts and

numbering systems. Each Jot is composed of high clay content fill-dirt that has been shaped to

provide as much surface water runoff as possible. The Jots will be maintained by scraping and

reshaping when required, including replacing any soil that has become too high in organic

content to serve as an adequate base. Keeping these Jots in good shape is essential to provide

adequate drainage. This, in tum, will provide good waste collection while offering a good

(28)

sw-face for the cows to walk on. It is anticipated tl1at the amoW1t of time the cows spend in the barns versus the time spent in the exercise lots will vary tremendously with time of year,

breeding cycle, and weather conditions.

Sick Cow Area

'The sick cow area is located just east of the free-stall barns as sho\<im on Figure 6. This area contains two ditches, one that contributes to the lagoon water and one that transports roof rW1off from the free-stall barns. The western most ditch collects the water from the barn roofs (through gutters and underground pipes). This ditch is located at lne highest elevation of this area. The rest of the sick cow area drains to the east, and enters the eastern collection ditch, which travels through a pipeline under the travel lane and emerges just prior to the solids separating area. None of this area is being changed from the existing condition as a res ult of this permit modification. The area includes approximately 0.2 acres of open concrete and a small holding barn. This area is partially vegetated and all of tl1e runoff from the 25-yr, 24-hr storm will be captured and transported to the lagoon system. Since there is a large amoW1t of concrete and partial vegetation, it is estimated that up to 6 lactating cows can be accommodated in this area without any adverse environmental impacts. This area could also be used as a calf raising area or for other purposes in the futw-e. The runoff calculations for this area, including

TR-55 output and a check of an existing culvert capacity are presented in Appendix E.

Mortality

As with all animal operations, dead animals are expected from time to time. Although Mr. Walker believes in taking great care of his animals, old age and disease will take approximately a couple cows per week. These cows will be buried in the area shown on Figure 5. This area was chosen because the soil smvey indicates that the area has a water table greater than six feet below groW1d surface. The dead cows will be buried in individual holes or in a long trench. If individual holes are used, the hole will be dug, the dead cow will be placed in the hole and the hole will immediately be covered by a minimum of tl1ree feet of soil. If a !Tench system is used, a long trench will be dug. Most of the dirt from the trench will be placed uphill of the trench. This will act as a large berm and will prevent any sw-face water from entering into the trench. This temporary berm will extend aroW1d both ends of the open !Tench and will be greater than one foot in height. As dead cows are placed in the trench, each carcass will immediately be covered on all sides by a minimum of three feet of soil. All dead animals shall be buried as required by the Florida Department of Agricultw-e and Consumer Services

(FDACS) rules. If tl1ese rules change in the future, this plan may have to be modified to follow those rules. Since sw-face water will be prevented from entering the burial pits, no further permitting action for this practice should be required.

(29)

Static Screen Separator

An Ag-Pro Static screen separator and associated distribution auger is located as shown on

Figure 6. All water draining from the free-stall barns, holding barns, milking parlor, feed barn,

sick cow area, and other concrete areas, drains into a sump just east of the separator. The

water is pumped over the static screen where solids are separated and piled on a concrete pad

that drains back to the sump. The effluent flows into the first- stage lagoon through a PVC pipe. In the event of long-term power failure, the effluent would fill the sump and flow to the

northeast into the first-stage lagoon through an earthen ditch. A very small portion of the

concrete area surrounding the northern most holding barn also flows into the lagoon through

this same ditch. The ditch will be maintained to capture all of the flow coming to it and

transport it to the first-stage lagoon.

Solids from the separator will either be given away to third parties or be spread on the pastmes

east of the facility and on the land between the sprayfields (see Figure 5). The main solids area

will also house the dry cows. This area contains 82 acres that is divided into many pastmes.

Solids will be spread evenly over the entire pastme area, or individual pastures will be

numbered and the solids going to individual areas will be recorded. Since dry cows are grazing

on this area as well as the solids, care must be taken that the total nitrogen load not exceed 250

pow1ds of nitrogen per acre per year. Solids areas 2 and 3 contain approxin1ately 20 acres.

Again, the total loads to these areas should not exceed the potential nitrogen crop uptake. If

the areas are triple cropped like the sprayfield or planted in a bermudagrass/winter crop

rotation, the uptake will be substantially higher than for the pastures, but should still be limited

to 350 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year, w1less uptake results can justify an increase. Testing of the solids for nitrogen and phosphorus content should occur eve1y quarter. The

number of loads, size of load, and destination (field on-site or third persons name) should be

documented. If the solids are provided to a third party, the name and contact information for

that person should be documented. Once the solids are provided to the third party, Mr.

Walker no longer has control of those solids, and is not responsible for any environmental

damage they might cause. The latest sample results from the solids should be provided to the

third party so that they can apply the solids at agronomic rates.

Lagoons

A preliminaiy investigation was conducted to determine if there was enough evidence to

indicate if the existing lagoons should be considered sealed. As discussed previously, and

presented in Appendix B, three piezometers were drilled (including continuous sampling)

arow1d the existing lagoons. Based on the information obtained during these drilling events,

FDEP determined that the lagoons should be considered sealed. A copy of the FDEP

response letter is included in Appendix F.

The first-stage lagoon (see Figure 5) is approximately 10.5 acres with an average depth of six

feet and will be used as a treatment lagoon only. A constai1t water elevation will be maintained

to allow proper ai1aerobic treatment to occw-, thus providing no storage volmne for storm

(30)

events. An existing metal drop culvert connects the first-stage to the second-stage lagoon. This culvert maintains the water level in the first-stage at approximately two feet below the top of berm. A concrete emergency spillway also exists on the berm between the first and

second-stage, providing emergency water transfer in the event the metal culvert becomes clogged while still maintaining over one foot of free board in the first stage lagoon. The only maintenance that will be required on the first-stage lagoon will be the periodic cleaning of sand and sediment that might accumulate at the inflow points to the lagoon and the maintenance of the culvert leading to the second-stage lagoon. Since the lagoon is such a large size, the sediment at the inflows only needs to be cleaned when it begins to adversely affect the water flow into the lagoon. Once these solids have been removed, they should be spread on the areas indicated on Figure 5 or given to a third party. The number of loads, size of loads, date and location of spreading or third party receiver should be recorded for each cleanout event. A representative sample should be analyzed for TKN. Since a majority of these solids a.re

e:\.'Pected to be sand or other heavy particles, the nutrient content is e:\.'J)ected to be very small. This, along with the infrequent cleanout of the lagoon, will have minimal effect on the overall nutrient balance. Any of the solids areas can be used for the spreading of the la.goon clean-out material provided that the total application of nitrogen from all somces stays below 250 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year for the pastures and 350 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year for the other cropland.

Results from a lagoon survey are also presented in Appendix F. The top of berm results indicate that the berm for the second-stage la.goon is above 89.52 NGVD, except for one area on the southwest side that was found to be 88.84 NGVD. The berm on the southwest side of the la.goon, approximately 315 feet northwest of the west intersection of the first and

second-stage lagoon, will be built up to an elevation greater than 89.52 NGVD. This will allow the design elevation of the berm to become 89.5 NGVD.

Based on the above design elevation, the second-stage la.goon has about a month and a half of storage/detention capacity above the storage required for the 25-yr, 24-hr storm event (see the

Water Balance Section of this report). Therefore, the lagoon will be periodically pwnped to maintain adequate storage and provide the spra.yfield crops with nutrients. This will be accomplished by the use of an inigation system that will extract effluent from the lagoon and deliver it to the 130 acres of sprayfields that have been constructed. A staff gauge for the second stage lagoon will be constructed of PVC pipe that is notched with a saw and painted or marked with permanent marker. A mark shall be located at elevation 86.9 (maximum normal opera.ting level) and 89 .5 (top of berm) as detennined by Delta Land Surveyors. Delta land surveyors are licensed in the State of Florida and will be responsible for determining the location of the mark once the post has been set. It will be necessary to periodically clean the gauge and re-paint or re-mark it. The permanent saw cuts will allow this to be preformed

"'~thout requiring the sw-veyor's assistance each time.

The water level in the second-stage lagoon should be maintained below this level of 86.9 in order to provide adequate storage in the event of the 25-yr, 24-hr storm event. The lagoon system should not be used as a water storage system. As a general rule, it should be kept pumped down as much as possible. Regardless of conditions, wastewater should be pumped

(31)

to the sprayfield, before it is allowed to overtop the berm. During severe storm events, it is more desirable to spread the waste over a saturated sprayfield, than it is to allow a direct discharge into waters of the State.

An emergency spillway is not required for this project. The existing berm is well established and well vegetated. Erosion of the berm is not expected to occur, even in the event of an overflow. The lagoon system is very large, providing a great degree of buffering before an overtopping event would occur. The berm is also very long and flat. This will allow for sheet flow over the berm as opposed to a concentrated flow that could cause erosion. Sheet flow once eve1y twenty five years over a well vegetated berm that is only about four feet high posses very minimal concern for any structural erosion of the berm. Weekly inspections should be made of the berm to assure structural integrity. Areas of animal boroughs, dead or dying vegetation, or other signs of distress should be fixed immediately.

Sprayfield

The original design and layout of the Sprayfield that was done by NRCS is included as Appendix G. This design was modified in this report due to the fact that part of the NRCS system was not on land owned by Mr. Bassett (proposed to be sold to Mr. Walker). The installed center pivot and installed buried pipe locations for the traveling gun system remained unchanged, and Mr. Bassett has indicated that they were constructed according to the plans in Appendix G. The layout of the traveling gw1 hose and reel will be all that is changed from the above design. The areas of irrigation and the numbering of the sprayfields are shown on Figure 5. Over 130 acres of irrigated land is planned (over 60 acres from the pivot and over 70 acres from the traveling gun; exact acreages will be determined with As-built survey).

Although only 100 acres is required for distribution of nitrogen, wastewater shall be distributed evenly over the entire sprayfield area in order to maintain an adequate water balance and to provide maximum crop uptake. An average of one-quarter inch per week of wastewater will sprayed on the fields. There is an intermittent stream running between the new spray area 2 and 5. A 35-foot vegetative buffer area will be left around this stream.

Effluent irrigation management is primarily associated with scheduling of irrigation events. Effluent irrigation scheduling is very flexible, but must meet the following minimum

constraints:

1. The water level in the storage lagoon must not be allowed to exceed the stormwater and freeboard storage stage (86.9 NGVD), w11ess associated with very extreme storm

events.

2. Wastewater shall be evenly distributed over the entire sprayfield areas.

3. The effluent shall not be applied in any manner or at any time such that surface runoff may occur (try to avoid spraying during rain events).

4. The pivot and traveling gun cannot be used at the same time.

5. At least one of the mainline valves shall be opened while the pump is running.

(32)

6. The irrigation system should be inspected weekly. The nozzles should be checked for

blockage, and the air relief valves, check valves, and pressure release valves should also be checked.

According to the NRCS design, a pwnp station will be established on the berm between the

first and second cells of the lagoon. The pwnp is designed to service both the center pivot

irrigation system and the traveling fun irrigation system. This pump must have an operating cw"Ve that will allow it to operate at 960gpm@ 280 ft. TDH and 480 gpm @ 333ft. TDH. The center pivot system and d1e traveling gun system are designed to work independently, not at the same time.

The center pivot system is designed to supplement irrigate 62 acres. This pivot is designed as an 850 ft. long non-towable sequencing gw1 pivot operated at 70 psi. The traveling gun system is designed to supplemental irrigate over 70 acres. The traveling gun system utilizes a Nelson

200 series or equivalent with a 1.4 inch taper bore nozzle with part circle capability. The sprinkler must have the capability of 480 gpm with a wetted diameter of 417 ft. at 70 psi nozzle

pressure.

In order to maximize crop production, a fresh water irrigation well may be installed to provide supplemental iJTigation for the sprayfield crops. If installed, the new fresh water irrigation well

will be connected to the pipeline as shown on Figure 8. Isolation valves will have to be placed at the effluent pwnp station. Both pumps should be equipped wid1 high-pressure cutoff switches set at 160 psi to prevent system damage in the event that valves are not correctly

operated.

Good farming practices and healthy crops are essential to the performance of the waste

management system. A variety of crops may be grown on the sprayfields, and any combination of crops is allowable, provided that there is nearly continuous growth on the sprayfields, and

the nitrogen uptake is adequate to ensure a nitrogen balance. Crops will generally consist of one of two rotations. The first possible rotation would be to establish a high-uptake

bermudagrass in some on the sprayfields and then overplant with ryegrass in the winter months. It is anticipated d1at tlus rotation will be used on sprayfields 3 and 4 since they are already established in bermudagrass. It is anticipated that sprayfields 1,2, and 5 will follow the second main rotation, which will consist of com, sorghum, and ryegrass. A.11 of these crops will

probably be cut for silage. Having two different crop rotations is obviously beneficial due to the fact that you can spray on one while performing har"Vesting or planting operations on the other. Substitutions to the above rotation must be approved by ar1 agronomist or engineer ar1d the substitute crop must have the same or greater uptake potential as d1e crop it is replacing. As shown and referenced in the Nitrogen Budget section of the report, the predicted uptake potentials are based on IFAS recommendations, including specific uptakes provided by Dr. Jerry Kidder (IFAS professor). A large amow1t of conservatism has been built into the NMP

since the potential uptakes used are less than those predicted by I<jdder, and the actual

anticipated nitrogen application rate is well less than the generally accepted lirnit of 420 pow1ds of nitrogen per acre per year. Also as mentioned in the Nitrogen Budget section of the Report,

(33)

N N

Fresh Water Irrigation Well and Pump

FIGURE 8.

Vacuum Breaker

Irrigation Well Connection. Check Valve Vacuum Breaker Low Pressure Drain Pressure Gauge 1- - - -7' min.----... Air Release Valve

~i~l*li

These thrust blocks may not be required if restrained metal pipe is used.

3'

l

Irrigation Pipeline NOTTO SCALE 5120103 bb H5045/Bassett Dairy Thrust Block

(34)

to add commercial fertilizer will be based on the predicted plant available nitrogen of the applied waste. This decision will be made be an agronomist or engineer based on sample results and crop conditions. It is very important to maintain a healthy crop in order to provide adequate nutrient uptake. An unhealthy or stunted crop provides very little nutrient uptake.

The sprayfields should be kept in an optimal growth potential by maintaining healthy crops tlu-ough cultivation or the application of selective herbicides. Pests should be check for on a regular basis, and infestations should be controlled with appropriate pesticides. It is not

anticipated that the animal manure will supply all of the necessary nutrients for optimal crop growth, and soil tests should be done at least annually to determine appropriate application rates of required nutrients

Accurate records of amount of application per sprayfield area should be kept to verify that

nutrients are being spread evenly across all the fields. Application rates should be determined by recording rw1 times and associated pressures during all effluent irrigation events. Pwnp

curves supplied by the manufacturer, as well as gw1 elevation and length of pipe travel will be used to determine actual application rates. A system should be set in place to evenly distribute the waste across all the areas of tl1e sprayfields. The notes should .include the date, run time, pressure, and field covered. If a system cannot be devised to cover all areas evenly (by keeping

the gw1/pivot set at the same speed and covering the entire area in sequence), individual areas witl-Un the sprayfield must be nwnbered and each record must contain which section received

tile wastewater. Effluent samples should be collected at least quarterly and analyzed for TKN

and phosphorus. These results will be used to determine the nitrogen and phosphorus load to

the sprayfields. If possible, and allowed under FDEP standard operating procedures, composite samples should be collected and preserved over a longer time period for a more accurate representation of the nitrogen and phosphorus content of the waste stream. Records

should be kept of all planting and harvesting activities, including a tissue analysis of all

harvested crops and an estimate of tonnage of crops removed. The records should also

include the dates of all activities and any commercial fertilizer applications. At least once every five years soil samples shall be taken and analyzed for phosphorus ..

Pastures

Pastures, with low cow densities and almost complete vegetative coverage, are not covered

under NPDES permit regulations. However, in tile interest of environmental stewardship,

proper pasture management and stocking rates for lactating cows will be obse1ved. An annual average lactating cow density of 2.2 cows per acre will be supported on the pastures just nortll

of the free-stall barns. The pasture areas may be sub-divided as desired, but no section shall exceed the arumaJ average density given above. Lactating cows that are pastured will be fed in

the pasture, in tile feed barn, or in both places, depending on the time of the year. Shade and

water will also be provided to tl1e cows in the pasture. The feed arid shade will be moved often enough to prevent significant high intensity areas from developing witllin the pasture. Water ~~11 not be moved unless a significant high intensity area develops which cannot be corrected by

(35)

'

fenced out until vegetation can be re-established. An existing concrete travel lane will be used to move the cows from the pasture to the milking area.

Dry cows will also be kept in non-permitted pastures east of the dairy facilities. Up to 180 dry cows will be kept on this pasture that will also be used for solids spreading. The pastures will

be sub-divided, but the overall stocking rate will be evenly distributed. Although the projected numbers are thought to be accurate, the load on the pasture can be adjusted between dry cows and solids so long as the total nitTogen application rate does not exceed 250 lb-N/ac/yr.

The pastures should be kept in an optimal growth potential by maintaining the grass stand through mowing or the application of selective herbicides. It is not anticipated that the animal manure will supply all of the necessary nutrients for optimal grass growth, and soil tests should be done at least annually to determine appropriate application rates of required nutrients During the winter months, rye, ryegrass, Japanese Millet, Ledino Clover, or other small grain will be drilled over the bermudagrass as soon as significant cold weather has caused the

bermudagrass to become dormant. In order to assure a good winiter crop, it may be necessary to remove excess bermuda ground cover by cutting, burning, or applying a selective herbicide.

Site Access

An existing dirt access road leads to the main dairy facilities. Additional dirt roads allow access to most other parts of the facility.

Setbacks

Figure 5 also shows the required setbacks. Setbacks should be a minimum of 50 feet from all property lines and a minimum of 35 feet of vegetative buffer from surface creeks or ditches. The center pivot irrigation system is already in existence and it appears that there will only be a small setback on the northern side where the pivot comes close to the road. However, this should be acceptable due to the fact that the topography from the road falls towards the south and the dairy property continues on the north side of the road (C-138 cuts through the dairy property). The topography will prevent any surface water from entering the road ditch and there are no neighbors to adversely affect, so the reduced setback should be allowed. Setbacks on the traveling gun system will be followed by the farmer when laying out the hose for each irrigation run. The farmer will have to set the hose and the stops on the gun to prevent wastewater from being applied closer than 50 feet from the property lines or 35 feet from streams or ditches. All of the houses and churches near the sprayfields except one are served by the dairy water supply and have no potable wells of their own. The one house that has a potable well has a 200-foot buffer shown around that well

(36)

Inspections and Record Keeping

Weel<ly inspections of all the areas around the barn (including the two ditches in the sick cow area), the la.goons, the waste distribution system (pump. pipeline route, pivot and traveling gun), the dead cow burial area, and the commodities area will be conducted and the person that conducted the inspection will write his initials and an estimate of the level of the pond based on the staff gauge. Daily inspection will be ma.de by the person bringing the cows to the barn of all of the water lines and cooling lines. Any lea.ks that a.re found will be fixed immediately and that maintenance activity will be noted on the dairies records.

The Florida. Department of Environmental Protection Standard Opera.ting Procedures (SOPs) will be followed when collecting all samples. Dairy personnel trained to follow the SOPs or a hired consultant that is experienced in water quality sampling will collect all samples. As indicated under the spra.yfield section of the report, effluent TKN and phosphorus samples will be collected at least quarterly and soil test from ea.ch field will also be analyzed for phosphorus

at least every five years. Lab reports from sampling will include the test methods used, and all

reports will be kept on file. Weather conditions, including rainfall, will be noted around application events. The Engineer of Record will provide training days for farm personnel upon request.

NUTRIENT AND WATER MANAGEMENT

Nutrient design para.meters used in this report are based on ASAE (1989), NRCS (1994), and Van Hom (1991) and are presented in Table 3. Nutrient losses a.re also based on a variety of sources including Elliot (1990), Nordstedt (1994), Van Hom (1994), and design experience of the author. Although the data presented below is believed to be accurate, all values given should be considered start-up values. Future management a.djustrnents may have to be ma.de based on actual operational data.

Nitrogen Budget

Table 4 provides a nitrogen balance for the entire collection system, solids application area and spra.yfield. Anticipated percent losses are shown for ea.ch segment of the collection system, as well as an absolute daily balance showing the a.mount of nitrogen entering and leaving ea.ch phase of the collection system. The overall expected nitrogen losses based on literature values and design e:x.'Perience that correlates to data ta.ken previously from this site. The data from this site is presented in Appendix F (Lagoon Information). This information includes two spreadsheets for estimated water use and nitrogen production for herd sizes of 1,150 and 700 cows. These were the number of cows housed at the dairy from 1991 to early 1994 and from early 1994 to 1995, respectively. Ea.ch table corresponds with a sampling event that had results for total nitrogen from the second stage lagoon. As can be seen the losses seemed to remain

(37)

Table 3. Waste Management System Design Parameters.

Average Size of Dairy Cow: 1400 lbs

Manure production per 1000 pound cow per day:

Weight: Volume: Total Solids: Total Volatile Solids: Total Nitrogen: 8005

(1) ASAE, 1989 (2) NRCS, 1994 (3) Van Horn, et al., 1991

ASAE(1) NRCS(2) 86 80 10.4 9.7 12 10 10 8.5 0.45 .43-.50 1.6 1.6 Value Used VanHorn(3 1000 lb cow 100 90 12.1 11 11.5 11.5 9.6 9.6 .47 -.55 0.53 1.53 1.6 26 Value used per cow 126 lbs 15.4 gallons 16.1 lbs 13.4 lbs 0.74 lbs 2.24 lbs

(38)

Table 4. Nitrogen Balance for Solids and Sprayfield:

Number of cows contributing 100% to lagoon system 1122 (372 in each barn and 6 in the sick cow lot)

Number of pastured cows 78

(Contributing 30% or 7.5 hours per day of waste to lagoon system -this is assuming worst case of three times a day milkings)

Solids Area

Total Nitrogen deposited in lagoon catchment:

Losses in Barn

Total Nitrogen input to solid separator

Removal of N with solids:

Total Nitrogen input to first stage lagoon:

Losses in first stage lagoon:

Total Nitrogen input to second stage lagoon:

Losses in second stage lagoon:

Total Nitrogen going to sprayfield:

Losses in Sprayfield:

Effluent Nitrogen available to crop in sprayfield:

Net N loss not including sprayfield loss

Total Net N loss:

Uptake of Sprayfield

Required sprayfield size

Actual application rate on 130 acres

Anticipated nitrogen content in solids

Dry cow solids area

Nitrogen from dry cows (see Table 5)

Design Application rate for pasture

Available application to dry cow pastures

Remaining N after application to dry cow pasture

Area to be used for spreading solids only (solids 2 and 3)

Anticipated application rate from solids

850 lbs/day 15% -127.48 lbs/day 722.40 lbs/day 5% -36.12 lbs/day 686.28 lbs/day 70% -480.40 lbs/day 25% 25% 82% 86% 205.89 lbs/day -51.47 lbs/day 154.41 lbs/day -38.60 lbs/day 115.81 lbs/day 42,271 lbs/yr 420 lbs/ac 101 ac 325 lbs-N/ac/yr 36.12 lbs/day 13, 184 lbs/yr 79 acres 146 lbs-N/ac/yr 250 lbs-N/ac/yr 104 lbs-N/ac/yr 8,230 lbs-N/yr 4,954 lbs-N/yr 20 ac 248 lb/ac/yr

(39)

relatively constant in both samples, providing some good level of assurance that they provide a

very reasonable starting point. As pointed out in the Introduction section of the report, these values are starting guides only and may have to be adjusted based on annual sampling results.

Additional losses are expected in the sprayfield due to the spraying of the waste, which will

enhance ammonia volatilization.

A large amount of research has been conducted on plant nitrogen uptake. Results (Kidder, 1990) indicate that irrigated Coastal Bermudagrass is capable of uptakes to 500 lb N/acre per

year, wheat, oats, or rye to 90 lb N/acre per crop, corn to 260 lb N/acre per crop and sorghum

to 200 lb N/acre per crop. Under non-irrigated conditions Coastal Bermudagrass has rates to

450 lb N/acre per year and wheat, oats, or rye has uptakes to 70 lb N/acre per crop. IFAS

(1990) recommends application rates of 240 lb N/acre per crop of irrigated corn (30,000 plants/ac), 150 lb N/acre per crop of sorghum, and 70 to 130 lb N/acre per crop of small grains or cool season annual grasses. The above recommendations are consistent with dry matter and

protein yields reported by local farmers.

As shown on Table 4, the predicted uptake rates from cow waste nutrients for the sprayfields has been estimated at 420 lb N/acre per year. The literature values for uptake presented above for the anticipated crop rotations (see Sprayfield section of this report) well exceed the 420 lb N/acre per year that the nitrogen balance is based on. This will allow for a decrease in uptakes due to non-ideal conditions without detrimental effects to the environment. Since the

wastewater will be spread on 130 acres, actual application rate is only ell.'J)ected to be 325

pounds of nitrogen per acre per year.

Solids areas 2 and 3 will also have crops grown on them. In order to provide flexibility to the

farmer, it will be left optional which crops a.re grown in these areas. It is anticipated that a triple crop or a bermuda.grass/winter crop rotation will be used. If this is the case, up to 350 pow1ds

of nitrogen per a.ere can be applied to this land. If the farmer decides to plant different crops,

he must check with the engineer or an agronomist to assure that the applied nitrogen is less than the potential uptake of the crops planted. Computer modeling and grow1dwa.ter sampling (Holloway, 1991) have shown the proposed crop rotations to adequately protect the

groundwater from exceeding standards.

Table 5 contains the nitTogen balance for the lactating and dry cow pastures. The potential uptake for the grass is again conservative compared to the literature values presented above.

The decreased uptake rate is due to the fact that the grass is being grazed as opposed to

mechanical harvest for hay or greenchop. Nitrogen losses from fresh manure dropped by

animals in the pastures were assumed to be fifty percent based on a variety of sources and

experience, including Elliot (1990), Nordstedt (1994), and Van Horn (1994). Variations in

stocking rates or solids application rates a.re allowed provided that they are supervised by an agronomist or engineer and the nitrogen application rates stay below the nitrogen removal rates.

Additional commercial nitrogen applications may be necessary at times to insure that a healthy

crop is maintained. Nitrogen fertilizer should be applied very carefully and in small amounts

(40)

Table 5. Nitrogen Balance for Pastures

Design nitrogen uptake potential for non-irrigated permanent,

continuous pasture for site conditions at Bassett Dairy

Nitrogen produced per cow per year

Estimated percentage of manure deposited in pasture

(assume 2 milkings a day for conservative design)

(assume amount of manure corresponds to amount of time)

Amount of nitrogen deposited in

ENGINEERING REPORT/NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLAN IN SUPPORT OF PERMIT'MODIFICATION