United States

Department of Part 651

Agriculture
Agricultural Waste Management
Natural
Resources Field Handbook
Conservation
Service

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste

Management System
Component Design
Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Issued August 2009

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all

its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,
disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental
status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs,
reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from
any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro-
grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu-
nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should
contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a
complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800)
795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Acknowledgments

Chapter 10 was originally prepared and reprinted with minor revisions in

1996 under the direction of by James N. Krider (retired), national environ-
mental engineer, Soil Conservation Service (SCS), now Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). James D. Rickman (retired), environmental
engineer, NRCS, Fort Worth, TX, provided day-to-day coordination in the
development of the handbook. Authors for chapter 10 included L.M. “Mac”
Safley, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC; Carl DuPoldt (re-
tired), water quality specialist, NRCS, Chester, PA; Frank Geter (retired)
environmental engineer, NRCS, Chester, PA; Donald Stettler (retired), en-
vironmental engineer, NRCS, Portland, OR; and Timothy Murphy (retired),
assistant State conservation engineer, NRCS, Harrisburg, PA.

This version was prepared under the direction of Noller Herbert, Direc-
tor, Conservation Engineering Division, NRCS, Washington, DC. Revisions
to the chapter were provided by Darren Hickman, environmental engi-
neer, Central National Technology Support Center, NRCS, Fort Worth, TX;
Charles Zuller, environmental engineer, West National Technology Sup-
port Center, NRCS, Portland, OR; Bill Reck, environmental engineer, East
National Technology Support Center, NRCS, Greensboro, NC; Cherie LaF-
leur, environmental engineer, Central National Technology Support Center,
NRCS, Fort Worth, TX; and Peter Vanderstappen, agricultural engineer,
NRCS, Lebanon, PA. It was finalized under the guidance of Darren Hick-
man, national environmental engineer, NRCS, Conservation Engineering
Division, Washington, DC.

(210–VI–NEH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

10-ii (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management
System Component Design

Contents 651.1000 Introduction 10–1

(a) Planning considerations................................................................................ 10–1
(b) Selected alternative........................................................................................ 10–1
(c) Design, installation, and operation.............................................................. 10–1

651.1001 Production 10–2

(a) Roof runoff management.............................................................................. 10–2
(b) Runoff control................................................................................................. 10–5
(c) Air quality considerations............................................................................. 10–5

651.1002 Collection 10–6

(a) Alleys................................................................................................................ 10–6
(b) Gutters............................................................................................................. 10–9
(c) Slatted floors................................................................................................. 10–10

651.1003 Transfer 10–13

(a) Reception pits............................................................................................... 10–13
(b) Gravity flow pipes........................................................................................ 10–14
(c) Push-off ramps.............................................................................................. 10–14
(d) Pumps............................................................................................................ 10–14
(e) Equipment..................................................................................................... 10–16

651.1004 Storage 10–17

(a) Manure storage facilities for solids............................................................ 10–17
(b) Liquid and slurry manure storage.............................................................. 10–23

651.1005 Treatment 10–34

(a) Primary treatment........................................................................................ 10–34
(b) Secondary treatment.................................................................................... 10–38

651.1006 Utilization 10–73

(a) Nutrient management.................................................................................. 10–73
(b) Land application equipment........................................................................ 10–73
(c) Land application of municipal sludge........................................................ 10–74
(d) Bioenergy production.................................................................................. 10–74

651.1007 Mortality management 10–81

(a) Rendering and freezing................................................................................ 10–81
(b) Incineration................................................................................................... 10–81
(c) Gasification................................................................................................... 10–81
(d) Sanitary landfill............................................................................................. 10–81
(e) Burial.............................................................................................................. 10–81
(f) Composting................................................................................................... 10–81
(h) Emergency mortality management............................................................ 10–87

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–iii

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

651.1008 Safety 10–88

(a) Confined areas.............................................................................................. 10–88
(b) Aboveground tanks...................................................................................... 10–89
(c) Lagoons, ponds, and liquid storage structures......................................... 10–89
(d) Equipment..................................................................................................... 10–89
(e) Fences............................................................................................................ 10–89

651.1009 References 10–90

Appendices
Appendix A Blank Worksheets
Appendix B Rainfall Intensity Maps
Appendix C Runoff from Feedlots and Evaporation
Appendix D Design and Construction Guidelines for Waste
Impoundments Lined with Clay or Amendment-treated
Soil
Appendix E Synthetic Liners Guidelines

Tables Table 10–1 Recommended total daily flush volumes 10–7

Table 10–2 Flush tank volumes and discharge rates 10–7

Table 10–3 Minimum slope for flush alleys 10–7

Table 10–4 Criteria for siting, investigation, and design of liquid 10–25
manure storage facilities

Table 10–5 Operational data for solid/liquid separators (a); settling 10–36
basin performance (b)

Table 10–6 Characteristics of solid/liquid separators 10–37

Table 10–7 Sludge accumulation ratios 10–41

Table 10–8 Typical carbon to nitrogen ratios of common 10–59

composting amendments

Table 10–9 Volume factor if nitrogen source, such as poultry litter, 10–82
is used

Table 10–10 Animal mortality rates 10–84

Table 10–11 Broiler compost mix 10–85

10–iv (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figures Figure 10–1 Roof gutter and downspout 10–2

Figure 10–2 Diversion of clean water around feedlot 10–5

Figure 10–3 Scrap alley used in dairy barns 10–6

Figure 10–4 Dairy flush alley 10–7

Figure 10–5 Swine flush alley 10–7

Figure 10–6 Flush tanks 10–8

Figure 10–7 Flush and gravity flow gutters for swine manure 10–9

Figure 10–8 Gravity gutter for dairy manure 10–10

Figure 10–9 Shuttle-stroke gutter cleaner 10–11

Figure 10–10 Chain and flight gutter cleaner 10–11

Figure 10–11 Concrete gang slats 10–12

Figure 10–12 Reception pit for dairy freestall barn 10–13

Figure 10–13 Examples of gravity flow transfer 10–15

Figure 10–14 Push-off ramp 10–16

Figure 10–15 Solid manure stacking facilities 10–18

Figure 10–16 Roofed solid manure storage 10–19

Figure 10–17 Solid manure storage with picket dam 10–22

Figure 10–18 Cross section of waste storage pond without a watershed 10–23

Figure 10–19 Cross section of waste storage pond with watershed 10–24

Figure 10–20 Waste storage ponds 10–24

Figure 10–21 Layout of waste storage ponds 10–26

Figure 10–22 Aboveground waste storage tank 10–27

Figure 10–23 Belowground waste storage structure 10–27

Figure 10–24 Schematic of mechanical solid-liquid separators 10–35

Figure 10–25 Design aid to determine quantity of water to add to 10–38

achieve a desired TS concentration

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–v

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–26 Anaerobic lagoon cross section 10–39

Figure 10–27 Anaerobic lagoon loading rate (lb VS/1,000 ft3/d) (29) 10–40

Figure 10–28 Anaerobic lagoon recycle systems 10–42

Figure 10–29 Aerobic lagoon cross section 10–46

Figure 10–30 Aerobic lagoon loading rate (lb BOD /acre/d) (29) 10–47
5

Figure 10–31 Relation of dissolved oxygen saturation to water 10–52

temperature (clean water at 20 °C and sea level)

Figure 10–32 Relation of dissolved oxygen saturation to elevation 10–52

above mean sea level

Figure 10–33 Numeral values for Ot-20 at different temperatures 10–52

where O=1.024

Figure 10–34 Schematic of an oxidation ditch 10–53

Figure 10–35 Windrow schematic 10–54

Figure 10–36 Static pile composting schematic 10–55

Figure 10–37 In-vessel composting schematic 10–56

Figure 10–38 Compost mixture design flowchart 10–61

Figure 10–39 Composting temperature 10–69

Figure 10–40 Typical temperature rhythm of windrow method 10–69

Figure 10–41 Agricultural composting process flow 10–70

Figure 10–42 Two-stage, mixed tank anaerobic digester 10–75

Figure 10–43 Typical anaerobic digester types 10–76

Figure 10–44 Gas agitation in an anaerobic digester 10–76

Figure 10–45 Dead animal composting bin 10–83

Figure 10–46 Recommended layering for dead bird composting 10–85

10–vi (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management
System Component Design

State and Federal program requirements may impact

651.1000 Introduction current or potential activities and alternatives.

(3) Existing structure assessment and evalua-

Ideally, the by-products of agricultural operations
tion
would be immediately returned to the soil from where
Inventorying existing equipment and structures is an
they were generated. Unfortunately, this is usually not
possible or economically justifiable. By-products of important part of planning. Using available resources
animal operations such as manure are biologically and may reduce the cost of system installation, but con-
chemically active, often requiring intermediate steps strain the possible alternatives considered. An evalua-
before final utilization. In addition, land application of tion of the best alternative should consider both short-
manure is labor intensive and may be difficult or pro- and long-term costs of operation and maintenance.
hibited while the ground is frozen, crops are at certain
growth stages, or when the ground is saturated. Tem- (4) Vulnerability and risk
porary storage may reduce the potential for water pol- Operating a livestock facility creates an environmental
lution by allowing final utilization to occur at optimal risk for pollution. Climatic conditions and operating
times and by preventing runoff from entering ground procedures can lead to an accidental discharge into
water or surface water. However, the nutrient content surface waters. Foundation problems can result in
of manure degrades over time, requiring a balance seepage into subsurface waters. Location of a facility
between convenience and the economics of nutrient
is an extremely important consideration during the
utilization. Design considerations must include loca-
planning process to minimize exposure to vulnerability
tion, installation, and operation and maintenance.
and risk.
Possible alternatives for manure management are
available for any given agricultural operation. A ma- (b) Selected alternative
nure management system may consist of any one or
all of the following functions: production, collection,
Alternatives may consist of components like a piece
storage, treatment, transfer, and utilization. These
of equipment, such as a pump; a structure, such as a
functions are carried out by planning, applying, and
operating individual components. waste storage tank; or an operation, such as compost-
ing. A system should consist of the best combination
of the components that allows the flexibility needed to
(a) Planning considerations efficiently handle all forms of agricultural by-products
generated for a given enterprise. In addition, the
A successful manure management system must ad- components must be compatible and integrated within
dress production, operation, regulatory guidelines, and
the system. All components should be designed to
environmental considerations. The needs of the owner
be simple, manageable, and durable, and they should
and/or decisionmaker are also vital considerations.
The National Planning Procedures Handbook (NPPH) require low maintenance. In this chapter, components
describes the nine-step process for planning. are discussed under section headings that describe the
function that they are to accomplish.
(1) Landowner/decisionmaker desires
Input from the owner, operator, and/or decision-
maker is critical for success of any planned operation.
(c) Design, installation, and operation
Managerial ability and long-range plans, in addition to
Any facility must be designed and installed according
current resources, must be considered. Also, financial
considerations may determine the selected alternative. to locally acceptable engineering standards and regula-
tory requirements. Proper operation and maintenance
(2) Regulatory requirements are required to achieve desired results. The design
Local, State, and Federal regulations must be consid- must address the methods of production, collection,
ered at all stages. Environmental laws and specific storage, treatment, transfer, and utilization.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–1

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The area of a roof that can be served by a gutter and

651.1001 Production downspout system is controlled by either the flow
capacity of the gutter (channel flow) or by the capacity
of the downspout (orifice flow). The gutter’s capacity
Components that affect the volume and consistency may be computed using Manning’s equation. Design of
of agricultural waste produced are included in the a gutter and downspout system is based on the runoff
production function. Roof gutters and downspouts and from a 10-year frequency, 5-minute rainfall except that
diversion to exclude clean water from areas of waste a 25-year frequency, 5-minute rainfall is used for ex-
are examples of components that reduce the volume clusion of roof runoff from waste treatment lagoons,
of waste material that needs management. Fences and waste storage ponds, or similar practices.
walls that facilitate collection of waste confine the
animals, thus increase the volume. Rainfall intensity maps are in appendix 10B. Caution
should be used in interpolating these maps. Rainfall
probabilities are based on measured data at principal
(a) Roof runoff management weather stations that are mostly in populated re-
gions. The 10-year, 5-minute rainfall in the 11 Western
Roof runoff should be diverted from feedlots and States was based on NOAA Atlas 1, and that in the 37
manure storage areas unless it is needed for some Eastern States was based on the National Weather
use, such as dilution water for waste storage ponds or Service HYDRO 35. Both of these publications state
treatment lagoons. This can be accomplished by roof their limitations in areas of orographic effect. In the
gutters and downspouts with underground or open Western States, the 10-year, 5-minute rainfall generally
channel outlets (fig. 10–1). Roof runoff structures is larger in mountain ranges than in valleys. Rainfall
should be planned and designed according to NRCS in all mountain ranges could not be shown on these
Conservation Practice Standard 588, Roof Runoff maps because of the map scale and readability consid-
Structure. Gutters and downspouts may not be needed erations. Many of these differences were in the range
if the roof drainage will not come into contact with of 0.05 inch and fall within the contour interval of 0.10
areas accessible to livestock. inch.

Figure 10–1 Roof gutter and downspout

Waterway

Gutter

lot
ed
Fe noff
ru Downspout

Underground outlet

Transport pipe

Concrete channel
to waste storage pond

10–2 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

A procedure for the design of roof gutters and down- where:

2
spouts follows: Ar = area of roof served, ft
q = capacity of system, either qg or qd, whichever is
Step 1 Compute the capacity of the selected gut- 3
smallest, ft /s
ter size. This may be computed using Manning’s
P = 5-minute precipitation for appropriate storm
equation. Using the recommended gutter gradient
event, in
of 1/16 inch per foot and a Manning’s roughness
coefficient of 0.012, this equation can be ex-
This procedure is a trial and error process. Different
pressed as follows:
sizes of gutters and downspouts should be evaluated
q g = 0.01184 × A g × r 0.67 along with multiple downspouts to determine the best
gutter and downspout system to serve the roof area
where: involved.
3
qg = capacity of gutter, ft / s
Ag = cross-sectional area of gutter, in2
r = Ag / wp, in
wp = wetted perimeter of gutter, in
Step 2 Compute capacity of downspout. Using
an orifice discharge coefficient of 0.65, the orifice
equation may be expressed as follows:

q d = 0.010457 × A d × h 0.5

where:
3
qd = capacity of downspout, ft /s
Ad = cross-sectional area of downspout, in2
h = head, in (generally the depth of the gutter mi-
nus 0.5 in)
Step 3 Determine whether the system is con-
trolled by the gutter capacity or downspout capac-
ity and adjust number of downspouts, if desired.
qg
Nd =
qd
where:
Nd = number of downspouts

If Nd is less than 1, the system is gutter-capacity con-

trolled. If it is equal to or greater than 1, the system is
downspout-capacity controlled unless the number of
downspouts is equal to or exceeds Nd.
Step 4 Determine the roof area that can be
served based on the following equation:
q × 3, 600
Ar =
P

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–3

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Design example 10–1 Gutters and downspouts

Mrs. Linda Worth of Pueblo, Colorado, has requested Step 3 Determine whether the system is con-
assistance in developing an agricultural waste man- trolled by the gutter capacity or downspout
agement system for her livestock operation. The capacity and make adjustments to number of
selected alternatives include gutters and downspouts downspouts if desired. By inspection, it can be
3
for a barn having a roof with a horizontally projected determined that the gutter capacity (0.46 ft /s)
area of 3,000 square feet. The 10-year, 5-minute pre- exceeds the capacity of one downspout (0.17
3
cipitation is 0.5 inch. The procedure above is used to ft /s). Unless a larger downspout or additional
size the gutter and downspouts. downspouts are used, the system capacity would
be limited to the capacity of the downspout. Try
Step 1 Compute the capacity of the selected
using multiple downspouts. Determine number
gutter size. Try a gutter with a 6-inch depth and
required to take advantage of gutter capacity.
3-inch bottom width. One side wall is vertical,
and the other is sloping, so the top width of the qg
gutter is 7 inches. Note that a depth of 5.5 inches Nd =
is used in the computations to allow for 0.5 inch qd
of freeboard. 0.46
=
0.17
A g = ( 3 × 5.5 ) + (0.5 × 3.67 × 5.5 ) = 2.7
= 26.6 in 2 Nd is greater than 1; therefore, with one down-
wp = 3 + 5.5 + ( 3.67 + 5.5
2 2
)0.5 spout, the system would be downspout con-
trolled. With three, it would be controlled by the
= 15.1 in
gutter capacity, or 0.46 cubic feet per second.
Ag Use three downspouts to take full advantage of
r=
wp gutter capacity.
26.6 Step 4 Determine the roof area that can be
=
15.1 served based on the following equation:
= 1.76 in
q × 3, 600
q g = 0.01184 × A g × r 0.67 Ar =
P
= 0.01184 × 26.6 × 1.76 0.67 0.46 × 3, 600
=
= 0.46 ft 3 /s 0.5
= 3, 312 ft 2
Step 2 Compute capacity of downspout. Try a
3-inch-diameter downspout. This exceeds the roof area to be served; there-
fore, the gutter dimension selected and the three
H = depth of gutter − 0.5 in 2 downspouts with dimensions selected are okay.
= 5.5 in
2
 3
A d = 3.1416 ×  
 2
= 7.07 in 2
q d = 0.010457 × 7.07 × 5.5 0.5
= 0.17 ft 3 /s

10–4 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(b) Runoff control (c) Air quality considerations

Essentially all livestock facilities in which the animals Emissions of several pollutants from agricultural
are housed in open lots or the manure is stored in the waste management systems can also affect air quality,
open must deal with runoff. Clean runoff from land including particulate matter (dust), odors, and other
surrounding livestock facilities should be diverted gases. Proper planning, design, operation, and main-
from barns, open animal concentration areas, and ma- tenance of the agricultural waste management system
nure storage or treatment facilities (fig. 10–2). Runoff can help to alleviate these air quality impacts. Siting of
from feedlots should be channeled into manure stor- the system can significantly affect air quality. A ma-
age facilities. nure storage facility should be located as far as pos-
sible from neighboring homes. Local and State regula-
Appendix 10C presents a series of maps indicating the tory agencies usually require a minimum distance. In
amount of runoff that can be expected throughout the addition, the facility should utilize terrain, vegetation,
year for paved and unpaved feedlot conditions. Clean and meteorology to direct emissions away from near-
runoff should be estimated using information in chap- by housing. Livestock may be adversely affected by
ter 2 of the NRCS NEH 650, Engineering Field Hand- high concentrations of gases, especially during manure
book or by some other hydrologic method. agitation and pumping. Proper sanitation, housekeep-
ing, feed additives, and moisture control, as well as
Diversions are to be designed according to NRCS frequent removal and land application of manure from
Conservation Practice Standard 362, Diversion. Diver- buildings and storage facilities, can reduce emissions
sion channels must be maintained to remain effective. of dust, odors, and other gases, in addition to minimiz-
If vegetation is allowed to grow tall, the roughness ing fly production.
increases and the channel velocity decreases, caus-
ing possible channel overflow. Therefore, vegetation
should be periodically mowed. Earth removed by ero-
sion from earthen channels should be replaced. Unveg-
etated, earthen channels should not be used in regions
of high precipitation because of potential erosion.

Figure 10–2 Diversion of clean water around feedlot

Slope
Diversion

Collection
gutter

Waste storage pond

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–5

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(1) Scrape alleys and open areas

651.1002 Collection Two kinds of manure scrapers are used to clean al-
leys (fig. 10–3). A mechanical scraper is dedicated
to a given alley. It is propelled using electrical drives
Livestock and poultry manure collection often de- attached by cables or chains. The drive units are often
pends on the degree of freedom that is allowed the used to power two mechanical scrapers that are travel-
animal. If animals are allowed freedom of movement ing in opposite directions in parallel alleys in an oscil-
within a given space, the manure produced will be lating manner. Some mechanical scrapers are in alleys
deposited randomly. Typically, the manure must be col- under slatted floors.
lected for transportation to storage or treatment. Also,
A tractor scraper can be used in irregularly shaped
the design and operation of the facility affects whether
alleys and open areas where mechanical scrapers
the manure is collected as a solid, semisolid (slurry), cannot function properly. It can be a blade attached to
or liquid. For example, a scrape system will contain either the front or rear of a tractor or a skid-steer trac-
more concentrated manure, while a flush system may tor that has a front-mounted bucket.
produce a more dilute mixture.
The width of alleys depends on the desires of the pro-
Solid: (>20% solids content) Manure with higher solids ducer and the width of available equipment. Scrape al-
content is usually collected with a scraper or front-end ley widths typically vary from 8 to 14 feet for dairy and
loader and stored in a dry stack facility. The solids beef cattle and from 3 to 8 feet for swine and poultry.
content can be increased by drying and/or adding bed-
ding material.
(2) Flush alleys
Alleys can also be cleaned by flushing. Grade is criti-
cal and can vary between 1.25 and 5 percent. It may
Liquid: (<10% solids content) Liquid manure is usually
change for long flush alleys. The alley should be level
collected and transported by pumping into a storage perpendicular to the centerline. The amount of water
pond or lagoon. Dilution water or solids-liquid separa- used for flushing is also critical. An initial flow depth
tion is usually required to achieve the low solids con- of 3 inches for underslat gutters and 4 to 6 inches for
tent. open alleys is necessary.

Semisolid or slurry: (10–20% solids content) Fresh

manure is usually a semisolid. It can be pumped with a
large diameter manure pump or collected by a vacuum
pump. Solid-liquid separation may allow for easier
management of the solids and liquids separately.
Figure 10–3 Scrape alley used in dairy barns
Descriptions of components that provide efficient
collection of animal waste include paved alleys, gut-
ters, and slatted floors with associated mechanical and
hydraulic equipment follow. Return

Free stalls

(a) Alleys

Alleys are paved areas where the animals walk. They Clean
generally are arranged in straight lines between animal
feeding and bedding areas. On slatted floors, animal
hoofs work the manure through the slats into the al- Cross conveyer
leys below, and the manure is collected by flushing or to storage

scraping the alleys.

10–6 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The length and width of the flush alley are also factors. Table 10–3 Minimum slope for flush alleys (MWPS
Most flush alleys should be less than 200 feet long. The 1985)
width generally varies from 3 to 10 feet depending on
Underslat Open alley Open alley
animal type. For underslat gutters and alleys, chan-
alley narrow width wide width
nel width should not exceed 4 feet. The width of open (<4 ft) (>4 ft)
flush alleys for cattle is frequently 8 to 10 feet.
Initial flow 3.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 4.0 5.0 6.0
depth, in
Flush alleys and gutters should be cleaned at least
Slope, % 1.25 2.0 1.5 1.25 5.0 4.0 3.0
twice per day. For pump flushing, each flushing event
should have a minimum duration of 3 to 5 minutes, at a
flow rate between 5 and 10 feet per second.

Tables 10–1 and 10–2 indicate general recommenda- Figure 10–4 Dairy flush alley
tions for the amount of flush volume. Table 10–3 gives
the minimum slope required for flush alleys and gut-
ters. Figures 10–4 and 10–5 illustrate flush alleys. Gated
flush tank

Table 10–1 Recommended total daily flush volumes

(MWPS 1985)

Animal type Gal/head

Swine
Sow and litter 35
Pre-nursery pig 2
Nursery pig 4
Growing pig 10
Finishing pig 15 Reception
pit
Gestating sow 25
To storage or treatment
Dairy cow 100
Beef feeder 100

Figure 10–5 Swine flush alley

Table 10–2 Flush tank volumes and discharge rates

(MWPS 1985) Pen partition
Flush
tank
Initial flow Tank volume, Tank discharge Pump
depth, in gal/ft of gutter rate, gal/min/ft discharge,
width of gutter width gal/min/ft
of gutter
width
1.5 30 112 55
2.0 40 150 75 Flush alley
2.5 45 195 95
3.0 55 255 110
4.0 75 615 150
Reception pit
5.0 100 985 175
6.0 120 1,440 200 To treatment or storage

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–7

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Several mechanisms are used for flushing alleys. The point where the head pressure of the liquid overcomes
most common rapidly empties large tanks of water or the pressure of the air trapped in the siphon mecha-
use high-volume pumps. Several kinds of flush tanks nism. At this point the tank rapidly empties, causing
are used (fig. 10–6). One known as a tipping tank the desired flushing effect.
pivots on a shaft as the water level increases. At a cer-
tain design volume, the tank tips, emptying the entire Most flush systems use pumps to recharge the flush
amount in a few seconds, which causes a wave that tanks or to supply the necessary flow if the pump
runs the length of the alley.
flush technique is used. Centrifugal pumps typically
are used. The pumps should be designed for the work
Some flush tanks have manually opened gates. These
tanks are emptied by opening a valve, standpipe, pipe that they will be doing. Low volume pumps (10–150
plug, or flush gate. Float switches can be used to con- gal/min) may be used for flush tanks, but high volume
trol flushing devices. pumps (200 to 1,000 gal/min) are needed for alley
flushing. Pumps should be the proper size to produce
Another kind of flush tank uses the principle of a si- the desired flow rate. Flush systems may rely on re-
phon. In this tank, the water level increases to a given cycled lagoon water for the flushing liquid.

Figure 10–6 Flush tanks

Gal/ft of Tank dimensions in

tank length X Y L C D
40 18 36 30 15 1/2 14 1/2
30 18 33 24 12 1/2 13
24 18 30 20 10 1/2 12
16-gauge
steel metal
Y
2 by 2 by 1/8-in
angle

2 by 2 by 1/4-in angle
bracing around top
L 8 in
Slatted floor min.
C 1 3/4 in shaft
D
X
Flushed floor Sandfill
Tipping tank

Manually activated
Concrete or gate opening
steel tank mechanism

Tank

Gate is tire Hole

mounted on Tank
solid rim Bell
Intrusion
3 in downpipe
Trap
Tank with circular flush gate

Automatic siphon tank

10–8 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

In some parts of the country where effluent is recycled (1) Gravity drain gutters
from lagoons for flushwater, salt crystals (struvite) Deep, narrow gutters can be used in swine finishing
may form inside pipes and pumps and cause decreased buildings (fig. 10–7). These gutters are at the lowest el-
flow. Use of plastic pipe, fittings, and pumps that have evation of the pen. The animal traffic moves the waste
plastic impellers can reduce the frequency between to the gutter. The gutter fills and is periodically emp-
cleaning or replacing pipes and pumps. If struvite tied. Gutters that have Y, U, V, or rectangular cross-
formation is anticipated, recycle systems should be sectional shapes are used in farrowing and nursery
designed for periodic clean out of pumps and pipe. swine facilities. These gutters can be gravity drained
A mild acid, such as dilute hydrochloric acid (1 part periodically.
20 mole hydrochloric acid to 12 parts water), can be
used. A separate pipe may be needed to accomplish (2) Step-dam gutters
acid recycling. The acid solution should be circulated Step-dam gutters, also known as gravity gutters or
throughout the pumping system until normal flow gravity flow channels provide a simple alternative for
rates are restored. The acid solution should then be collecting dairy manure (fig. 10–8). A 6-inch-high dam
removed. Caution should be exercised when disposing holds back a lubricating layer of manure in a level,
of the spent acid solution to prevent ground or surface flat-bottomed channel. Manure drops through a floor
water pollution. grate or slats and flows down the gutter under its own
weight. The gutter is about 30 inches wide and steps
down to a deeper cross channel below the dam.
(b) Gutters
(3) Scrape gutters
Gutters are narrow trenches used to collect manure Scrape gutters are frequently used in confined stall
and bedding. They are often employed in confined stall dairy barns. The gutters are 16 to 24 inches wide, 12 to
or stanchion dairy barns and in some swine facilities. 16 inches deep, and generally do not have any bottom

Figure 10–7 Flush and gravity flow gutters for swine manure

Step
Alley
Slope gutter bottom
Gutter
Pen length
Optional emergency overflow
(use only if outlet is gas trapped)

Treated timber cover

over pit, with hole for
valve handle Insulation
(where needed)
Pen floor

Step Alley
manure
depth
max.

Bottom slope
Pen
length
Gutter

To storage

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–9

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

slope. They are cleaned using either shuttle-stroke or (c) Slatted floors
chain and flight gutter cleaners (figs. 10–9 and 10–10).
Electric motor driven shuttle stroke gutter cleaners Manure and bedding are worked through the slats by
have paddles that pivot on a drive rod. The drive rod the animal traffic into a storage tank or alley below.
travels alternately forward for a short distance and Most slats are constructed of reinforced concrete (fig.
then backwards for the same distance. The paddles 10–11); however, some are made of wood, plastic, or
are designed to move manure forward on the forward aluminum. They are manufactured either as individual
stroke and to collapse on the drive rod on the return units or as gangs of several slats. Common slat open-
stroke. This action forces the manure down the gut- ings range from 3/8 to 1 3/4 inches, depending on
ter. Shuttle stroke gutter cleaners can only be used on animal type. For swine, openings between 3/8 and 3/4
straight gutters. inch are not recommended.

Chain and flight scrapers are powered by electric mo- Slats are designed to support the weight of the slats
tors and are used in continuous loops to service one or plus the live loads (animals, humans, and mobile
more rows of stalls. equipment) expected for the particular facility. Rein-
forcing steel is required in concrete slats to provide
(4) Flush gutters needed strength.
Narrow gutters can also be cleaned by flushing. Flush
gutters are usually a minimum of 2 feet deep on the
shallow end. The depth may be constant or increase
as the length of the gutter increases. The bottom grade
can vary from 0 to 5 percent depending on storage re-
quirements and clean out technique. Flushing tanks or
high volume pumps may be used to clean flush gutters
(refer to the section on flush alternatives for alleys).

Figure 10–8 Gravity gutter for dairy manure

Cow
mat
A
Grate
30 in
recommended
Surface slopes 1-3%
Overflow Manure incline plus dam
dam height (6 in typical + 3 in
grates)
Liquid layer retained by dam Dam
Channel 2 ft
min.

Cross section along stalls Cross section AA

10–10 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–9 Shuttle-stroke gutter cleaner

Chain
Chain

Figure 10–10 Chain and flight gutter cleaner

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–11

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–11 Concrete gang slats

Isometric section A-A

10–12 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(a) Reception pits

651.1003 Transfer
Slurry and liquid manure collected by scraping,
gravity flow, or flushing are often accumulated in a
Manure collected from within a barn or confinement reception pit (fig. 10–12). Feedlot runoff can also be
area must be transferred to the storage or treatment accumulated. These pits can be sized to hold all the
facility. In the simplest system, the transfer component manure produced for several days to improve pump
is an extension of the collection method. More typi- efficiency or to add flexibility in management. Addi-
cally, transfer methods must be designed to overcome tional capacity might be needed for extra liquids, such
distance and elevation changes between the collection as milk parlor water or runoff from precipitation. For
and storage facilities. In some cases, gravity can be example, if the daily production of manure and parlor
used to move the manure. In many cases, however, cleanup water for a dairy is estimated at 2,500 gallons
mechanical equipment is needed to move the manure. and 7 days of storage is desired, then a reception pit
Transfer also involves movement of the material from that has a capacity of 17,500 gallons (2,500 gal/d × 7 d)
storage or treatment to the point of utilization. This is the minimum required. Additional volume should be
may involve pumps, pipelines, and tank wagons. Trans- allowed for freeboard emergency storage.
fer systems should be planned and designed in accor-
dance with NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 634, Reception pits are rectangular or circular and are of-
Waste Transfer. ten constructed of cast-in-place reinforced concrete or
reinforced concrete block. Reinforcing steel must be
added so that the walls withstand internal and external
loads.

Figure 10–12 Reception pit for dairy freestall barn

Earth storage basin

Check
valve

Manual
valves

Centrifugal
pump Agitation
nozzle Reception
pit

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–13

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Manure can be removed with pumps or by gravity. Gravity flow pipes should be designed to minimize
Centrifugal pumps can be used for agitating and mix- changes in grade or direction over the entire length.
ing before transferring the material. Both submersible Pipe slopes that range from 4 to 15 percent will work
pumps and vertical shaft pumps that have the motor satisfactorily, but 7 to 8 percent slope is preferable.
located above the manure can be used. Diluted ma- Excessive slopes allow separation of liquids and
nure can be pumped using submersible pumps, often solids and increase the chance of plugging. The type
operated with float switches. The entrance to recep- and quantity of bedding and the amount of milkhouse
tion pits should be restricted by guard rails or covers. waste and wash water added have an effect on the
flow characteristics and the slope needed in a particu-
Debris, such as pieces of metal and wood and rocks, lar situation. Straw bedding should be discouraged,
must sometimes be removed from the bottom of a especially if it is not chopped. Smooth, rounded transi-
reception pit. Most debris must be removed manu- tion from reception pit to pipe and the inclusion of an
air vent in the pipeline aid the flow and prevent plug-
ally, but if possible, this should be done remotely
ging.
from outside the pit. The pit should be well ventilated
before entering. If manure is in the pit, a self-contained
Figure 10–13 illustrates the use of gravity flow for
breathing apparatus must be used. Short baffles
manure transfer. At least two valves should be located
spaced around the pump intake can effectively guard
in an unloading pipe. Proper construction and opera-
against debris clogging the pump. tion of gravity unloading waste storage structures are
extremely important. Containment berms should be
In cold climates, reception pits need to be protected considered if the contamination risk is high downslope
from freezing. This can be accomplished by covering of the unloading facility.
or enclosing it in a building. Adequate ventilation must
be provided in all installations. In some installations,
hoppers and either piston pumps or compressed air (c) Push-off ramps
pumps are used instead of reception pits and centrifu-
gal pumps. These systems are used with semisolid ma- Manure that is scraped from open lots can be loaded
nure that does not flow readily or cannot be handled into manure spreaders or storage and treatment fa-
using centrifugal pumps. cilities using push-off ramps (fig. 10–14) or docks. A
ramp is a paved structure leading to a manure storage
facility. It can be level or inclined and usually includes
(b) Gravity flow pipes a retaining wall. A dock is a level ramp that projects
into the storage or treatment facility. Runoff should
Liquid and slurry manure can be moved by gravity if be directed away from ramps and docks unless it is
sufficient elevation differences are available or can be needed for waste dilution. Ramp slopes should not ex-
established. For slurry manure, a minimum of 2 feet of ceed 5 percent. Push-off ramps and docks should have
elevation head should exist between the top of the col- restraints at each end to prevent the scraping tractors
lection pit or hopper and the surface of the material in from accidentally going off the end.
storage when storage is at maximum design depth.
(d) Pumps
Gravity flow slurry manure systems typically use 18-
to 36-inch-diameter pipe. In some parts of the coun- Most liquid manure handling systems require one or
try, 4- to 8-inch-diameter pipe is used for the gravity more pumps to either transport or agitate manure.
transport of low (<3%) total solid (TS) concentration Pumps are in two broad classifications—displacement
waste. The planner/designer should exercise caution and centrifugal. The displacement group includes pis-
when specifying the 4- to 8-inch pipe. Smooth steel, ton, air pressure transfer, diaphragm, and progressive
plastic, concrete, and corrugated metal pipe are used. cavity pumps. The first two are used only for transfer-
Metal pipes should be coated with asphalt or plastic to ring manure; however, diaphragm and progressive
retard corrosion, depending upon the type of metal. All cavity pumps can be used for transferring, agitating,
joints must be sealed so that the pipe is water tight. and irrigating manure.

10–14 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–13 Examples of gravity flow transfer

Surface water
diversion
Moveable cover and
fixed bar grate Waste storage pond

Pipeline from
milking center

Collection Pave around

pit or hopper inlet

Discharge
Gravity flow pipe
transfer pipe
Pipe invert at
storage bottom Slope 2% ± Invert of discharge
pipe 1−2 ft below
pond bottom

Gravity flow transfer

Waste storage pond

Vertical safety shut-off valve
open during loading
Horizontal control valve
used to control loading
operation

Discharge pipe
Provide collection facility
downslope for spillage and
runoff
Retaining wall

Gravity flow from storage

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–15

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The centrifugal group includes vertical shaft, horizon- (e) Equipment

tal shaft, and submersible pumps. They can be used
for agitation and transfer of liquid manure; however, Other equipment used in the transfer of agricultural
only vertical and horizontal shaft pumps are used for by-product includes a variety of pumps including
irrigation because of the head that they can develop. chopper/agitator, centrifugal, ram, and screw types.
Elevators, pipelines, and hauling equipment are also
Pump selection is based on the consistency of the used. See Agricultural Waste Management Field Hand-
material to be handled, the total head to be overcome, book (AWMFH), 651.12 for information about specific
and the desired capacity (pumping rate). Pump manu- equipment.
facturers and suppliers can provide rating curves for a
variety of pumps.

Figure 10–14 Push-off ramp

Extend beyond backfill

Slope 1/4 in/ft

Pipe fencing
for security

Course Weep holes,

granular 10 in o.c.
fill

Floor slab for

concrete storage
facility

10–16 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

reduce excess moisture content. Open stacks can be

651.1004 Storage used in either arid or humid climate. Seepage and run-
off from dry stack facilities must be managed. Struc-
tures for open and covered stacks often have wooden,
Manure generally must be stored so that it can be used reinforced concrete or concrete block sidewalls.
when conditions are appropriate. Storage facilities for
manure of all consistencies must be designed to meet Some operations store the manure at the point of
the requirements of a given enterprise. generation. Examples of dairy facilities include dry
packs and hoop buildings. The amount of bedding
Determining the storage period for a storage facility is material often dictates whether or not the manure can
crucial to the proper management of a manure man- be handled as a solid. Poultry operations often store
agement system. If too short a period is selected, the and compost the litter in-place between flocks. Only
facility may fill before the material can be used in an part of the cake may be removed before the next flock
environmentally sound manner. Too long a period may is introduced to the building.
result in an unjustified expenditure for the facility and
loss of nutrient value. In some instances, manure must be stored in open
stacks in fields or within a feedlot. Runoff and seepage
Many factors are involved in determining the storage from these stacks must be managed to prevent move-
period. They include the weather, crop, growing sea- ment into streams or other surface or ground water.
son, equipment availability, soil, soil condition, labor Figures 10–15 and 10–16 show various solid manure
requirements, and management flexibility. Generally, storage facilities.
when nutrient utilization is by land application, a stor-
age facility must be sized so that it can store the ma- Design considerations—Storage facilities for solid
nure during the nongrowing season. A storage facility manure must be designed correctly to ensure desired
that has a longer storage period generally will allow performance and safety. Considerations include mate-
more flexibility in managing the manure to accommo- rials selection, control of runoff and seepage, neces-
date weather variability, equipment availability, equip- sary storage capacity, and proper design of structural
ment breakdown, and overall operation management. components such as sidewalls, floors, and roofs.
Storage facilities should be planned and designed in
accordance with NRCS Conservation Practice Stan- The primary materials used in constructing timber
dard 313, Waste Storage Facility. structures for solids storage are pressure-treated or
rot-resistant wood and reinforced concrete. These ma-
terials are suitable for long-term exposure to manure
(a) Manure storage facilities for solids without rapid deterioration. Structural grade steel
is also used, but it corrodes and must be protected
Storage facilities for solid manure include storage against corrosion or be periodically replaced. Simi-
ponds and storage structures. Storage ponds are earth- larly, high quality and protected metal fasteners must
en impoundments used to retain manure, bedding, and be used with timber structures to reduce corrosion
runoff liquid. Solid and semisolid manure placed into a problems.
storage pond will most likely have to be removed as a
liquid unless precipitation is low or a means of drain- Seepage and runoff, which frequently occur from
ing the liquid is available. The pond bottom and en- manure stacks, must be controlled to prevent access
trance ramps should be paved if emptying equipment into surface and ground water. One method of control
will enter the pond. is to channel any seepage into a storage pond. At the
same time uncontaminated runoff, such as that from
(1) Stacking facilities the roof and outside the animal housing and lot area,
Storage structures can be used for manure that will should be diverted around the site.
stack and can be handled by solid manure handling
equipment. These structures must be accessible for Concrete ramps are used to gain access to solid ma-
loading and hauling equipment. They can be open or nure storage areas. Ramps and floors of solid ma-
covered. Roofed structures are used to prevent or nure storage structures need to be designed so that

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–17

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

handling equipment can be safely operated. Ramp FR × WB × AU × D

slopes of 8 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter are BV =
BUW (eq. 10–2)
considered safe. Slopes steeper than this are difficult
to negotiate. Concrete pavement for ramps and stor- where:
age units should be rough finished to aid in traction. FR = volumetric void ratio (ASAE 1982) (values
Ramps need to be wide enough that equipment can be
range from 0.3 to 0.5)
safely backed and maneuvered.
WB = weight of bedding used for animal type,
Factors to consider in the design of storage facilities lb/AU/d
for solids include type, number and size of animals, BUW = bedding unit weight, lb/ft3
number of days storage desired, and the amount of
bedding that will be added to the manure. Equation Using the recommended volumetric void ratio of 0.5,
10–1 can be used to calculate the manure storage the equation becomes:
volume:
0.5 × WB × AU × D
VMD = AU × DVM × D BV =
(eq. 10–1) BUW
where:
VMD = volume of manure production for animal type Characteristics of manure and bedding are described
3
for storage period, ft in AWMFH, chapter 4. Other values may be available
AU = number of 1,000-pound animal units (AU) by locally or from the farmer or rancher.
animal type
DVM = daily volume of manure production for ani- Allowance must be made for the accumulation of pre-
3
mal type, ft /AU/d
cipitation that may fall directly into the storage. Con-
D = number of days in storage period
taminated runoff should be handled separately from a
The bedding volume to be stored can be computed solid manure storage facility. Uncontaminated runoff
using: should be diverted from the storage unit.

Figure 10–15 Solid manure stacking facilities

Timber or
concrete
Slope Slop bucking wall
e

Runoff to
Runoff to storage
storage

Barn cleaner to spreader or tractor stacking To storage and/or spreader from elevator stacker

10–18 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–16 Roofed solid manure storage

Engineered
roof
trusses

Stored Stored
solids solids

Timber
walls

Concrete
walls
Timber walls Concrete walls
with end access with end access

Mono-slope
roof

Stored
solids

Timber walls
with side access

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–19

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Design example 10–2 Waste stacking facility

Mr. Ralph Kilpatrick of Hoot Ridge, Kentucky, has ter 4, is entered on line 13. The bedding volume for
requested assistance in developing a manure manage- each animal type for the storage period is calculated
ment system. He selected an alternative that includes using equation 10–2 and entered on line 14. The total
solid manure storage for his Holstein dairy herd of 52 bedding volume (TBV) is the sum of the bedding vol-
heifers and 100 milking cows with an average milk ume for all animal types. Sum the calculated bedding
production of 75 pounds per day. His nutrient man- volume (BV) for each animal type and enter it on line
agement plan indicates the need for 90 days storage. 15.
He uses sawdust bedding for both the milking cows
and the heifers. Because of space limitations, the Waste volume—the total waste volume (WV) (line
storage can be no wider than 50 feet. He would prefer 16) is the sum of the total manure production (TVM)
that the facility be stacked no more than 7 feet high. and the total bedding volume (TBV). The storage
The structure will not be roofed, so stacking above width (WI) and height (H) can be adjusted for site
sidewalls will not be considered in design. Determine conditions and common building procedures (usually
the necessary volume and facility dimensions using
dimensions divisible by 4 or 8), so the length (line 17)
worksheet 10A–1.
is calculated by trial and error using the equation:
Manure production—the animal descriptions, aver- WV
age weight, and numbers are entered on lines 1 and L=
WI × H
2. The number of equivalent animal unit (AU) for
each animal type is calculated and entered on line 4.
A waste storage structure for solids should be de-
Daily manure production (line 4) is in table 4–5(b) of
signed to withstand all anticipated loads. Loadings
AWMFH, chapter 4. The number of days in storage
is entered on line 6. The manure volume (line 7) is include internal and external loads, hydrostatic uplift
calculated using equation 10–1. Add the calculated pressure, concentrated surface and impact loads, wa-
manure volume for each animal type (VMD), and ter pressure because of the seasonal high water table,
enter the sum (TVM) on line 8. and frost or ice pressure.

Wastewater volume—because this design example The lateral earth pressure should be calculated from
involves a waste stacking facility, it would not be ap- soil strength values determined from results of ap-
propriate to include wastewater in the storage facil- propriate soil tests. If soil strength tests are not
ity. Therefore, lines 9, 10, and 11 are not involved in available, the minimum lateral earth pressure values
estimating the waste volume for this example. indicated in the NRCS Conservation Practice Stan-
dard 313, Waste Storage Facility, are to be used.
Bedding volume—the weight of bedding used daily
per animal unit for each animal type found in table Timber sidewalls for storage structures should be
4–4 is entered on line 12. The bedding unit weight, designed with the load on the post based on full wall
which may be taken from table 4–3 in AWMFH, chap- height and spacing of posts.

10–20 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Worksheet 10A-1—Waste storage structure capacity design

Decisionmaker:
Ralph Kilpatrick
Date:
6/13/91
Site:
Hoot Ridge, KY
Animal units

1. Animal type Milkers Heifer 3. Number of animals (N) 100 52

2. Animal weight, lbs (W) 1,400 1,000 4. Animal units, AU = W xN =

_____ 140 52
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of daily manure production 7. Total volume of manure production for
per AU, ft 3/AU/day (DVM)= 1.7 0.9 animal type for storage period, ft 3
VMD = AU x DVM x D = 21,420 4,212
6. Storage period, days (D) = 90 8. Total manure production for storage period,3ft (TVM) 25,632

Wastewater volume
9. Daily wastewater volume per 11. Total wastewater volume for 0
AU, ft 3/AU/day (DWW) = storage period, ft3 (TWW)
10. Total wastewater volume for animal
description for storage period, ft 3
WWD = DWW x AU x D =
Bedding volume
12. Amount of bedding used daily
for animal type,
14. Bedding volume for animal type
for storage period, ft 3 (BV) =
1,628 604
lbs/AU/day (WB) =
3.1 3.1
BV= 0.5 x WB x AU x D
13. Bedding unit weight,
lbs/ft 3 (BUW) =
12 BUW
15. Total bedding volume for storage
period, ft 3 (TBV) =
2,232

Waste volume requirement

16. Waste volume, ft3 (WV) = TVM + TWW + TBV = _______________ 0

25,632 + _________________ 2,232
+ _________________ = 27,864

Waste stacking structure sizing

WV
79.6 (USE 84) 7
17. Structure length, ft L = _______ = WV =
19. Structure height, ft H = _______
WI x H L x WI
WV
18. Structure width, ft WI = ________ = 47.4 (USE 48)
LxH

Notes for waste stacking structure:

1. The volume determined (WV) does not include any volume for 2. The equations for L, WI, and H assume manure is stacked to average height equal
freeboard. It is recommended that a minimum of 1 foot of to the sidewall height. Available storage volume must be adjusted to account for
freeboard be provided for a waste stacking structure. these types of variations.

Tank sizing 22. Rectangular tank dimensions

20. Effective depth, ft. (EH) Total height, ft (H) = Selected width, ft (WI)=
Total height (or depth) of tank desired, ft (H)
SA =
Length, ft L = _____
Less precipitation for storage period, ft. – WI
(uncovered tanks only) 23. Circular tank dimensions
Less depth allowance for accumulated solids, ft – Total height, ft H =
(0.5 ft. minimum)
Less depth for freeboard (0.5 ft. recommended), ft – Diameter, ft DIA = (1.273 x SA)0 .5 =

Effective depth, ft (EH) = Notes for waste storage tank structure:

1. Final dimensions may be rounded up to whole numbers or to use
increments on standard drawings.
WV
21. Surface area required, ft 2 SA = ________ = 2. Trial and error may be required to establish appropriate dimensions.
EH

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–21

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(2) Picket dams The floor of the storage area using a picket dam should
Scraped manure that has considerable bedding added have slope of no more than 2 percent toward the
can be stored as a solid or semisolid in a picket dam dam. Picket dams should be made of pressure-treated
(also know as a picket fence) structure. However, timbers that have corrosion-resistant fasteners. The
precipitation can accumulate in the storage area if the openings in the dam should be about 0.75-inch-wide
manure is stored uncovered. The picket dam can also vertical slots. Figure 10–17 shows different aspects of
be used to drain runoff from the storage area while picket dam design.
retaining the solid manure and bedding within the stor-
age area. Any water drained should be channeled to a (3) Weeping walls
storage pond. The amount of water that drains from Flushed manure that contains significant amounts
the manure depends on the amount of precipitation
of bedding and sand can also be stored as a solid or
and the amount of bedding in the manure. Water will
semisolid in a weeping wall structure. A long, narrow
not drain from manure once the manure and water are
structure with one long, perforated wall allows sand to
thoroughly mixed. Picket dams will not dewater liquid
manure; bedding is essential to create void spaces for settle at the inlet end while solids tend to settle toward
drainage within the manure. the opposite end. The perforated wall (15–30% open-
ings) allows the liquids to drain into a channel and
The picket dam should be near the unloading ramp to be transferred for storage. Typically, these structures
collect runoff and keep the access as dry as possible. have concrete bottoms and access ramps or remov-
It should also be on the side of the storage area op- able walls for solids removal. Gravity dewaters the ma-
posite the loading ramp. Water should always have a nure and differential settling removes 60 to 70 percent
clear drainage path from the face (leading edge) of the of the sand. However, plugged perforations can be a
manure pile to the picket dam. significant operation and maintenance challenge.

Figure 10–17 Solid manure storage with picket dam

Unloading
ramp

Drain to storage
pond

Flow
Loading ramp

Flow

Storage area

10–22 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(b) Liquid and slurry manure storage Storage ponds should provide capacity for normal
precipitation and runoff (less evaporation) during the
Liquid and slurry manure can be stored in storage storage period. Appendix 10C provides a method for
ponds or in aboveground or belowground tanks. Solids determining runoff and evaporation volumes. A mini-
separation of manure and bedding is a problem that mum of 1 foot of freeboard is provided.
must be considered in planning and design. Solids
generally can be resuspended with agitation before Inlets to storage ponds can be of any permanent mate-
unloading, but this involves a cost in time, labor, and rial designed to resist erosion, plugging, or, if freezing
energy. Another option allows solids to accumulate is a problem, damage by ice. Typical loading methods
if the bottom is occasionally cleaned. This requires a are pipes and ramps, which are described in AWMFH
paved working surface for equipment. 651.1003. Flow of material away from the inlet should
be considered in selecting the location of the inlet.
Earthen storage is frequently the least expensive
type of storage; however, certain restrictions, such Gravity pipes, pumping platforms, and ramps are
as limited space availability, high precipitation, water used to unload storage ponds. A method for removing
table, permeable soils, or shallow bedrock, can limit
solids should be designed for the storage pond. If the
the types of storage considered. Table 10–4 provides
contents of the pond will be pumped, adequate access
guidance on siting, investigation, and design consid-
must be provided to thoroughly agitate the material.
erations. Storage ponds are earthen basins designed
A ramp should have a slope of 8 to 1 or flatter and be
to store manure and runoff (figs. 10–18, 10–19, and
10–20). They generally are rectangular, but may be cir- wide enough to provide maneuvering room for unload-
cular or any other shape that is practical for operation ing equipment.
and maintenance. The inside slopes range from 1.5 to 1
(horizontal to vertical) to 3 to 1. The combined slopes Pond liners are used in many cases to compensate
(inside plus outside) should not be less than 5 to 1 for site conditions or improve operation of the pond.
for embankments. The soil, safety, and operation and Concrete, geomembrane, and clay linings reduce per-
maintenance need to be considered in designing the meability and can make an otherwise unsuitable site
slopes. The minimum top width of embankments shall acceptable. Table 10–4 provides criteria on selection
be in accordance with NRCS Conservation Practice between types of liners. See Appendix 10D, Geotechni-
Standard 313, Waste Stroage Facility; however, greater cal Design and Construction Guidelines for earthen
widths should be provided for operation of tractors, liner information. Also, see Appendix 10E, Synthetic
spreaders, and portable pumps. Liner Guidelines for nonearthen liner information.

Figure 10–18 Cross section of waste storage pond without a watershed

Freeboard (1.0 min.)

Depth of 25-year, 24-hour storm event on pond surface

Crest of spillway
Depth of normal precipitation less evaporation on the pond or other outflow
surface accumulated during the storage period device if used

Required volume Volume of manure (TVM), clean water (CW) Pumpdown stake
and wastewater accumulated (TWW)
during the storage period

Volume of accumulated solids (VSA)

for period between solids removal

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–23

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–19 Cross section of waste storage pond with watershed

Freeboard (1.0 min.)

Depth of the 25-year, 24-hour storm on the pond surface

Volume of runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour storm event Crest of spillway
(ROV) or other outflow
Volume of normal runoff accumulated during the storage period device if used
Depth of normal precipitation less evaporation on the pond
surface accumulated during the storage period
Pumpdown stake
Required volume Volume of manure (TVM), clean water (CW)
and wastewater accumulated (TWW)
during the storage period

Volume of accumulated solids (VSA)

for period between solids removal

*or other outflow device

Figure 10–20 Waste storage ponds

Inlet
pipe

Sump or anti-scour pad

1 ft min.
freeboard
Fence

X+Y>5 1
1 Y
X
Diversion

Cross-section
earth embankment

10–24 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

 Chapter 10
Table 10–4 Criteria for siting, investigation, and design of liquid manure storage facilities

Risk→ Very high High Moderate Slight

<1,500 ft from Does not meet Very High Risk criteria; Does not meet High Risk criteria; Does not meet Moderate Risk
public drinking AND Recharge areas for Sole Source aquifers; AND 600 to 1,000 ft from unconfined criteria;
water supply OR 100 to 600 ft from unconfined domestic domestic well (or where degree of AND >1,000 ft from
wells; water supply well (or where degree of aquifer confinement is unknown) or unconfined domestic well
OR <100 ft from aquifer confinement is unknown) or Class Class 1 stream; (or where degree of aquifer
any domestic well 1 stream OR <600 ft from unconfined confinement is unknown) or
Vulnerability or Class 1 stream nondomestic water supply well (or Class 1 stream;
↓ where degree of aquifer confinement AND >600 ft from unconfined
is unknown) or Class 2 stream nondomestic water supply
well (or where degree of
aquifer confinement is
unknown) or Class 2 stream

Very high
Large voids (e.g., karst, lava tubes, mine
shafts); Evaluate other storage alternatives
OR Highest anticipated ground water * (or properly seal well and reevaluate vulnerability)

Component Design
Agricultural Waste Management System
elevation within 5 ft of invert;
(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

OR <600 ft from improperly abandoned well* Evaluate other

storage
High alternatives Synthetic liner required Liner required Liner required
Does not meet Very High Vulnerability * (or properly seal * (or properly seal well and reevaluate * (or properly seal well and * (or properly seal well and
criteria: well and reevaluate vulnerability) reevaluate vulnerability) reevaluate vulnerability).
-6 3 2 -6 3
AND Bedrock (assumed fractured) within 2 vulnerability) No additional site characterization required Specific discharge <1×10 cm /cm /s Specific Discharge <1×10 cm /
2
ft of invert; No manure sealing credit cm /s
OR Coarse soils/parent material (Permeability Earthen liner design includes sampling No manure sealing credit
Group I soils as defined in AWMFH, always and testing of liner material Earthen liner design includes
including GP, GW, SP, SW); (Classification, Standard Proctor sampling and classification
OR Highest anticipated groundwater compaction, Permeability) testing of liner material
elevation is between 5 to 20 ft below invert; Published permeability data
OR 600 to 1,000 ft from improperly and construction method
abandoned well* specifications may be used
Moderate Further evaluate need for liner Further evaluate need for liner Further evaluate need for
-6 3 2
Does not meet High Vulnerability criteria; Specific discharge <1×10 cm /m /s Specific discharge liner
-6 3 2
AND Medium soils/parent material No manure sealing credit <1×10 cm /cm /s Specific discharge
-6 3 2
(Permeability Group II soils as defined in Earthen liner/no liner design includes No manure sealing credit <1×10 cm /cm /s
AWMFH, usually including CL-ML, GM, SM, sampling and testing of liner/in-place Earthen liner/no liner design includes No manure sealing credit
ML); Evaluate other material (Classification, Standard Proctor sampling and testing of liner/in-place Earthen liner/no liner design

Field Handbook
Agricultural Waste Management
Part 651
OR Flocculated or blocky clays (typically alternatives or compaction/in-place density, Remolded/ material (Classification, Standard includes sampling and
associated with high Ca); synthetic liner as Undisturbed sample Permeability) Proctor compaction/ in-place density, classification testing of liner/
OR Complex stratigraphy (discontinuous allowed Remolded/Undisturbed sample in-place material + in-place
layering); Permeability) density
OR Highest anticipated ground water Local regulations Published permeability data
elevation is between 21 to 50 ft below may apply and construction method
invert; specifications may be used
OR 600–1,000 ft from improperly abondoned Consult with area
well* engineer
Low Further evaluate need for liner Liner not required
-6 3 2 -6 3 2
Does not meet Moderate Vulnerability Specific discharge <1×10 cm /cm /s Specific discharge <1 x 10 cm /cm /s
criteria; No manure sealing credit Field classification and published permeability data may be used
AND Fine soils/parent material (Permeability Earthen liner/no liner design includes Construction method specifications may be used
Group III and IV soils as defined in AWMFH, sampling and testing of liner/ in-place Scarify and recompact surface to seal cracks and break down soil structure
usually including GC, SC, MH, CL, CH); material (Classification, Standard Proctor as appropriate
AND Highest anticipated ground water compaction/ in-place density, Remolded/
elevation is >50 ft below invert Undisturbed sample Permeability)
10–25

Scarify and recompact surface to seal

cracks and break down soil structure as
appropriate
*See local regulations
Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Concrete can be used to provide a wear surface if Tanks located beneath slatted floors can sometimes be
unloading equipment will enter the pond. used for temporary storage with subsequent discharge
into lagoons or other storage facilities. Recycled
Figures 10–21, 10–22, and 10–23 represent various lagoon effluent is added to a depth of 6 to 12 inches in
kinds of storage ponds and tanks. underslat pits to reduce tendency for manure solids to
stick to the pit floor. Manure and bedding are allowed
Liquid manure can be stored in aboveground (fig. 10-
to collect for several days, typically 1 to 2 weeks, be-
22) or belowground (fig. 10–23) tanks. Liquid manure
storage tanks are usually composed of concrete or fore the pits are gravity drained.
glass-lined steel. Belowground tanks can be loaded
using slatted floors, push-off ramps, gravity pipes or (1) Design considerations
gutters, or pumps. Aboveground tanks are typically Tank material types—the primary materials used to
loaded by a pump moving the manure from a reception construct manure tanks are reinforced concrete and
pit. Tank loading can be from the top or bottom of the glass-lined steel. Such tanks must be designed by a
tank depending on such factors as desired agitation, professional engineer and constructed by experienced
minimized pumping head, weather conditions, and contractors. A variety of manufactured, modular, and
system management. cast-in-place tanks are available from commercial sup-
pliers. NRCS concurs in the standard detail drawings
Storage volume requirements for tanks are the same
for these structures based on a review and approval
as those for ponds except that provisions are normally
made to exclude outside runoff from storage tanks of the drawings and supporting design calculations. A
because of the relative high cost of storage. Of course, determination must be made that the site conditions
if plans include storage of outside runoff, accommo- are compatible with the design assumptions on which
dation for its storage must be included in the tank’s the design is based. Structures can also be designed on
volume. an individual site-specific basis.

Figure 10–21 Layout of waste storage ponds

A
Paved 1 ft freeboard
access ramp
1 1
1.5 10
Optional paved 1
pump-out 100
Optional paved bottom location Cross section along ramp
(needed if unloaded with
bucket/scraper)

1 ft freeboard
Adequate for 1 10' 11'
maneuvering Paved access
1.5
1 ramp
50
p
access ram
Paved Cross section AA

A Note: Dimensions and slopes shown for example

purposes only.
Plan

10–26 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–22 Aboveground waste storage tank

Figure 10–23 Belowground waste storage structure

Pushoff
Slats ramp Fence

Concrete block
Cast in-place or precast
walls
concrete walls

Fence

Transfer Circular cast in-place

pipe or precast concrete
walls

Transfer
pipe

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–27

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Cast-in-place, reinforced concrete, the principal mate- critical storage period. If the pond does not have a
rial used in belowground tanks, can be used in above- watershed, the depth of the 25-year, 24-hour precipita-
ground tanks, as well. Tanks can also be constructed tion on the pond surface must be included. Appendix
of precast concrete panels that are bolted together. 10B includes a map giving the precipitation amount for
Circular tank panels are held in place with metal the 25-year, 24-hour precipitation. Frequently, storage
hoops. The panels are positioned on a concrete foun- ponds are designed to include outside runoff from wa-
dation or have footings cast as an integral part of the tersheds. For these, the runoff volume of the 25-year,
panel. Tank floors are cast in-place slabs. 24-hour storm must be included in the storage volume.

Other aboveground tanks are constructed of metal. Appendix 10C gives a procedure for estimating the
Glass-fused steel panels are widely used. Such tanks runoff volume from feedlots. The NRCS NEH 650, En-
are manufactured commercially and must be con- gineering Field Handbook, chapter 2, or by some other
structed by trained crews. Other kinds of metal panels hydrologic method may be used to estimate runoff
are also used. volumes for other watershed areas.

Sizing—storage ponds and structures should be sized (2) Design of sidewalls and floors
to hold all of the manure, bedding, washwater from The information on the design of sidewalls and
the milkhouse; flushing; and contaminated runoff that floors on solid manure storage material in AWMFH
can be expected during the storage period. Equation 651.1004(a) is applicable to these items used for liquid
10–3 can be used to compute the waste volume: manure storage. All possible influences, such as inter-
nal and external hydrostatic pressure, flotation and
WV = TVM + TWM + TBV (eq. 10­–3) drainage, live loads from equipment and animals, and
dead loads from covers and supports, must be consid-
where:
ered in the design.
WV = waste volume for storage period, ft3
TVM = total volume of manure for storage period, ft3
Pond sealing—storage ponds must not allow excess
(see eq. 10–1)
seepage. The soil in which the pond is to be located
TWW= total wastewater volume for storage period,
must be evaluated and, if needed, tested during plan-
ft3
3 ning and design to determine need for an appropri-
TBV = total bedding volume for storage period, ft
ate liner. Refer to AWMFH 651.07 for more detailed
(see eq. 10–2)
information on determining the need for and design of
liners.
Data on manure production are available in AWMFH,
chapter 4 or from the farmer or rancher. Appendix 10C
provides a method of estimating contaminated runoff
volume.

In addition to the waste volume, storage tanks must, if

uncovered, provide a depth to accommodate precipita-
tion less evaporation on the storage surface during the
most critical storage period. The most critical storage
period is generally the consecutive months that repre-
sent the storage period that gives the greatest depth of
precipitation less evaporation. Appendix 10C gives a
method for estimating precipitation less evaporation.
Storage tanks must also provide a depth of 0.5 feet for
material not removed during emptying. A depth for
freeboard of 0.5 feet is also recommended.

Storage ponds must also provide a depth to accom-

modate precipitation less evaporation during the most

10–28 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Design example 10–3 Storage tank

Mr. Bill Walton of Middlesburg, Tennessee, has calculated and entered on line 10. Add the wastewa-
requested assistance on a manure management ter volumes for each animal type and enter the sum
system. The selected alternative includes a below- (TWW) on line 11.
ground, covered, slurry storage tank for his Holstein
dairy herd. He has 75 heifers that are about 1,000 Bedding volume—bedding is not used in this ex-
pounds each and 150 milkers (average milk produc- ample. If bedding were used, however, its volume for
tion of 75 lb/d) that average 1,400 pounds. Bedding the storage period would be determined using lines
material is not used with these animals. Based on 12 through 15.
crop utilization of the nutrients, storage is needed
for 75 days. The critical storage periods are January Waste volume—WV is the total volume of waste
1 to March 15 and July 1 to September 15. The wash- material that will be stored including total manure
water from the milkhouse and parlor is also stored. (TVM), total wastewater (TWW), and total bedding
No runoff will be directed to the storage. Worksheet
volume (TBV). Provisions are to be made to assure
10A–1 shows how to determine the necessary vol-
that outside runoff does not enter the tank. In addi-
ume for the storage tank and several possible sets of
tion, if the tank is not covered, the depth of precipita-
tank dimensions. It also shows how to estimate the
tion less evaporation on the tank surface expected
total solids content of the stored material.
during the most critical storage period must be
Manure production—the animal type, average added to the depth requirements.
weight, and number are entered on lines 1, 2, and 3.
The equivalent 1,000-pound animal unit (AU) for the Total depth available—the desired depth is the total
animal type is calculated and entered on line 4. The planned depth based on such considerations as
daily volume of manure (DVM) production for each foundation condition, tank wall design, and standard
animal type is selected from table 4–5(b) and en- drawing depth available.
tered on line 5. The storage period (D) is entered on
line 6. The total manure volume (VMD) is calculated Surface area—the surface area (SA) (line 21) dimen-
for each animal type and entered on line 7. Add the sions are calculated using the equation for SA.
VMD for each animal type and enter the sum (TVM)
on line 8. Tank dimensions—because tanks are rectangular or
circular, various combinations of length and width
Wastewater volume—the daily milking center waste- can be used to provide the SA required. If the depth
water volume per animal unit description (DWW) is held constant, only one solution for the diameter
is selected from table 4–7 of AWMFH, chapter 4, of a circular tank is possible. The dimensions of
and entered on line 9. The wastewater volume for either shape can be rounded upward to match a stan-
the animal type for the storage period (WWD) is dard detail drawing or for convenience.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–29

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Worksheet 10A-1—Waste storage structure capacity design

Decisionmaker:
Bill Walton Date:
6/13/87
Site:
Middlesburg, TN
Animal units

1. Animal type Milkers Heifers 3. Number of animals (N) 150 75

2. Animal weight, lbs (W) 1,400 1,000 4. Animal units, AU = W xN =

_____
210 75
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of daily manure production 7. Total volume of manure production for
per AU, ft 3/AU/day (DVM)= 1.7 0.9 animal type for storage period, ft 3
26,775 5,063
VMD = AU x DVM x D =
6. Storage period, days (D) = 75 31,838
8. Total manure production for storage period, ft 3 (TVM)

Wastewater volume
9. Daily wastewater volume per 11. Total wastewater volume for
AU, ft 3/AU/day (DWW) = 0.6 0 storage period, ft 3 (TWW) 9,450
10. Total wastewater volume for animal
description for storage period, ft 3
WWD = DWW x AU x D = 9,450 0
Bedding volume
12. Amount of bedding used daily 14. Bedding volume for animal type
for animal type, for storage period, ft 3 =
lbs/AU/day (WB) =
0.5 x WB x AU x D
13. Bedding unit weight, VBD =
lbs/fb 3 (BUW) = BUW

15. Total bedding volume for storage 0

period, ft 3 (TBV) =

Minimum waste storage volume requirement

31,838 + _________________
16. Waste storage volume, ft 3 (WV) = TVM + TWW + TBV = _______________ 9,450 + _________________
0 = 41 ,288

Waste stacking structure sizing

WV
17. Structure length, ft L = _______ = WV =
19. Structure height, ft H = _______
WI x H L x WI
WV
18. Structure width, ft WI = ________ =
LxH

Notes for waste stacking structure:

1. The volume determined (WSV) does not include any volume for 2. The equations for L, WI, and H assume manure is stacked to average height equal
freeboard. It is recommended that a minimum of 1 foot of to the sidewall height. Available storage volume must be adjusted to account for
freeboard be provided for a waste stacking structure. these types of variations.

Tank sizing 22. Rectangular tank dimensions

20. Effective depth, ft. (EH)

Total height, ft (H) = 12 Selected width, ft (WI) = 28
Total height (or depth) of tank desired, ft (H)
12
SA =
Length, ft L = _____ 134 (USE 136)
Less precipitation for storage period, ft. – 0 WI
(uncovered tanks only) 23. Circular tank dimensions
Less depth allowance for accumulated solids, ft – 0.5 Total height, ft H = 12
(0.5 ft. minimum)
Less depth for freeboard (0.5 ft. recommended), ft – 0.5 Diameter, ft DIA = (1.273 x SA) 0.5 = 69.1 (USE 70)
Effective depth, ft (EH) = 11 Notes for waste storage tank structure:
1. Final dimensions may be rounded up to whole numbers or to use
increments on standard drawings.
WV
21. Surface area required, ft 2 SA = ________ = 3,753 2. Trial and error may be required to establish appropriate dimensions.
EH

10–30 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Design example 10–4 Storage pond

Mr. Joe Green of Silverton, Oregon, has requested type (WWD) is added, and the sum (TWW) is entered
assistance in developing a manure management sys- on line 11.
tem for his dairy. He has selected an alternative that
includes a storage pond component. He has a Hol- Clean water volume—in this example, no clean water
stein herd composed of 500 milkers weighing 1,400 is added. However, if clean water (CW) is added for
pounds with an average milk production of 75 pounds dilution, for example, the amount added during the
per day, 150 dry cows averaging 1,400 pounds; and storage period would be entered on line 12.
150 heifers averaging 1,000 pounds. He has a frees-
tall barn that has flush alleys. He uses foam pads Runoff volume—for this example, the storage pond
for bedding. The alternative selected includes land does not have a watershed and storage for runoff is
application. A storage period of 180 days is required not needed. However, storage ponds are frequently
for storage through the winter months of high pre- planned to include the runoff from a watershed, such
cipitation. A solid separator will be used to minimize as a feedlot. The ponds that have a watershed must
solid accumulation in the storage pond and to allow include the normal runoff for the storage period and
recycling of the flushwater. Water from the milkhouse the runoff volume for the 25-year, 24-hour storm. The
and parlor will be stored in the pond. Use worksheet runoff volume from feedlots may be calculated us-
10A-2 to determine the required capacity and size of ing the procedures in appendix 10C. For watersheds
the pond. or parts of watersheds that have cover other than
feedlots, the runoff volume may be determined using
Manure production—the animal type, average the procedure in chapter 2 of the NEH 651, Engineer-
weight, and numbers are entered on lines 1, 2, and 3. ing Field Handbook. The value for watershed runoff
The number of 1,000-pound animal unit (AU) for each volume (ROV) is entered on line 13. Documentation
animal type is calculated and entered on line 4. The showing the procedure and values used in determin-
volume of daily manure production (DVM) from table ing the volume of runoff should be attached to the
4–5(b) in AWMFH, chapter 4, is entered on line 5. The worksheet.
storage period (D) is entered on line 6. The manure
volume for the storage period for each animal type Volume of accumulated solids—this volume is to
(VMD) is then calculated and entered on line 7. The accommodate the storage of accumulated solids
total volume (TVM) is added and then entered on line for the period between solids removal. The solids
8. referred to are those that remain after the liquid has
been removed. An allowance for accumulated solids
Wastewater volume—in this example, only the waste- is required mainly for ponds used to store wastewa-
water from the milkhouse and parlor is accounted for ter and polluted runoff. Solids separation, agitation
in the waste storage volume requirements because before emptying, and length of time between solids
the alley flushwater is recycled. The daily wastewater removal all affect the amount of storage that must
volume per animal unit (DWW) from table 4-6 in AW- be provided. Enter the value for accumulated solids
MFH, chapter 4, is entered on line 9. The wastewater (VSA) on line 14. In this example, the solids from the
volume for each animal type for the storage period manure are separated and solids accumulation will
(WWD) is calculated using the equation and entered be minimal. No storage is provided for accumulated
on line 10. The wastewater volume from each animal solids. (Continued)

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–31

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Design example 10–4 Storage pond—Continued

Waste volume—the total waste storage volume (WV) Storage pond sizing—the storage pond is sized by
is determined by adding the total volume of manure trial and error for either a rectangular or circular
(TVM), total wastewater volume (TWW), clean water shaped pond by using the procedure on line 16.
added (CW), and volume allowance for solids accu-
mulation (VSA). Storage ponds that have a watershed Depth adjustment—the depth required for the stor-
must also include the normal runoff volume for the age volume with the selected pond dimensions must
storage period and the volume of the 25-year, 24-hour be adjusted by adding depth for the precipitation less
storm runoff (ROV). WSV is calculated on line 15. evaporation and the depth of the 25-year, 24-hour
The storage pond must be sized to store this volume storm on the pond surface. The minimum freeboard
plus additional depth as explained in “depth adjust- is 1 foot. The adjustment for final depth is made us-
ment.” ing line 17.

10–32 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Completed worksheet for Design example 10–4

Worksheet 10A-2—Waste storage pond design
Decisionmaker:
Joe Green Date:
10/4/90
Site:
Silverton, OR
Animal units

1. Animal type Milkers Dry Heifers 3. Number of animals (N) 500 150 150

2. Animal weight, lbs (W) 1,400 1,400 1,000 4. Animal units, AU = W xN =

_____ 700 210 150
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of manure production 7. Total volume of manure production for 214,200 31,752 24,300
per AU, ft 3/AU/day (DVM) = 1.7 0.84 0.9 animal type for storage period, ft 3
VMD = AU x DVM x D =
6. Storage period, days (D) = 180 8. Total manure production for storage period, ft 3 (TVM) 270,252

Wastewater volume
11. Total wastewater volume for
9. Daily wastewater volume per 0.6 0 0 storage period, ft 3 (TWW)
75,600
AU, ft 3/AU/day (DWW) =
10. Total wastewater volume for animal
description for storage period, ft 3
WWD = DWW x AU x D = 75,600

Clean water volume Runoff Volume

12. Clean water added during storage period, ft 3 (CW) 0 13. Runoff volume, ft3 (ROV) (attach documentation) 0
Includes the volume of runoff from the drainage area
Solids accumulation due to normal runoff for the storage period and the
runoff volume from the 25-year, 24-hour storm.
14. Volume of solids accumulation, ft 3(VSA) 0
Waste volume requirement
15. Waste volume, ft 3 (WV) = TVM + TWW + CW + ROV + VSA
270,252 + ___________
= ___________ 75,600 + ___________
0 0
+ ___________ 345,852
0 = ________________
+ __________
Pond sizing
16. Sizing by trial and error
3
Side slope ratio, (Z) = _______________ 345,852 ft 3
V must be equal to or greater than WV = ______________

Rectangular pond, Circular pond,

 4 × Z 2 × d3 
V=
 3 
( ) ( )
 + Z × BL × d + Z × BW × d + (BW × BL × d)
2 2
V=(1.05 x Z 2 x d 3 ) + (1.57 x W x Z x d 2 ) + (0.79 x W 2 x d)

Trial Bottom width Bottom length Depth* Volume Trial Bottom diameter Depth* Volume
no. ft (BW) ft (BL) ft (d) ft 3 (V) no. (DIA) ft (d) ft 3 (V)
1 100 500 6 367,392
2 100 450 6 331,992
3 100 450 6.2 345,286
4 100 455 6.2 348,963 ≈ WSV OK
* Depth must be adjusted in Step 17.

Depth adjustment
17. Depth adjustment
Add depth required to operate emergency outflow* +
Depth, ft (d) 6.2
Add depth of precipitation less evaporation + 2.3 Add for freeboard (1.0 foot minimum) + 1.0
(For the storage period)
Final depth 9.8
Add depth of 25-year, 24-hour storm + 0.3

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–33

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The cost of energy often makes the drying process

651.1005 Treatment unattractive.

(2) Solid/liquid separation

In many situations, manure treatment is necessary Animal manure contains material that can often be
before final utilization. Adequate treatment reduces reclaimed. Solids in dairy manure from animals fed
pollution potential of the manure through biological, a high roughage diet can be removed and processed
physical, and chemical processes using such compo- for use as good quality bedding. Some form of separa-
nents as lagoons, oxidation ditches, composting, and tion must be used to recover these solids. A mechani-
constructed wetlands. These types of components cal separator or settling basin is typically employed.
reduce nutrients, reduce pathogen counts, and reduce Separators are also used to reduce solids content and
total solids. Composting also reduces the volume of required storage volumes.
the material. Treatment may also include solids sepa-
ration, drying, and dilution that prepare the material Separators also facilitate handling of manure. For
for facilitating another function. By their nature, treat- example, solid separation can allow the use of conven-
ment facilities require a higher level of management tional irrigation equipment for land application of the
than that of storage facilities. liquids. Separation eliminates many of the problems
associated with the introduction of solids into stor-
age ponds and treatment lagoons by reducing solids
(a) Primary treatment accumulation and minimizing agitation requirements.
Separation facilities should be planned and designed
Primary treatment includes the physical processes in accordance with NRCS Conservation Practice Stan-
such as solids-liquids separation, moisture adjustment, dard 632, Solid/Liquid Waste Separation Facility.
and dilution. Although not required, primary treatment
is often followed by secondary treatment prior to stor- Mechanical separation—Several kinds of mechani-
age or land application. cal separators can be used to remove by-products
from manure (fig. 10–24). One kind commonly used is
(1) Drying/dewatering a screen. Screens are statically inclined or in continu-
If the water is removed from freshly excreted manure, ous motion to aid in separation. The most common
the volume to handle can be reduced. The process type of continuous motion screen is a vibrating screen.
of removing water is referred to as dewatering. In The TS concentration of manure to be processed by
the arid regions of the United States, most manure is a screen should be reduced to less than 5 percent.
dewatered (dried) by evaporation from sun and wind. Higher TS concentrations reduce the effectiveness of
Some nutrients may be lost in the drying process. the separator.

Dried or dewatered manure solids are often sold as A centrifuge separator uses centrifugal force to re-
a soil conditioner or garden fertilizer. These solids move the solids, which are eliminated from the ma-
may also be used as fertilizer on agricultural land. chine at a different point than the liquids. In addition,
They are high in organic matter and can be expected various types of presses can be used to force the liquid
to produce odors if moisture is added and the mate- part of the manure from the solid part.
rial is not re-dried or composted. Because the water
is removed, the concentrations of some nutrients and Several design factors should be considered when
salts will change. Dried manure should be analyzed selecting a mechanical separator. One factor is the
to determine the nutrient concentrations before land amount of liquid manure that the machine can pro-
application. cess in a given amount of time. This is referred to
as the “throughput” of the unit. Some units have a
In humid climates, dewatering is accomplished by add- relatively low throughput and must be operated for
ing energy to drive off the desired amount of moisture. a long time. Another very important factor is the TS
Processes have been developed for drying manure in content required by the given machine. Centrifuges
greenhouse-type facilities; however, the drying rate is and presses can operate at a higher TS level than can
dependent on the temperature and relative humidity. static screens.

10–34 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–24 Schematic of mechanical solid-liquid separators

Flat belt separator Roller-press separator

1
3 2 5
5 5
Liquid 4

4 6
Slurry
1
Solid Fiber 2
2
5
3 Liquid

1 Slurry input 1 Screening stage

2 Polyester mesh belt 2 Roller pressing stage
3 Press rollers 3 Screens
4 Rotary brush 4 Spring loaded press roller
5 Belt guide rollers 5 Brushes
6 Liquid collection trough

Vibrating screen separator Stationary inclined screen separator

Manure slurry Influent

Screen

Solids

Effluent

Screen

Motor

Solids

Effluent

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–35

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Consideration should be given to handling the sepa- available, would be that provided by the separator
rated materials. Liquid can be collected in a reception manufacturer. If that data is not available, the manu-
pit and later pumped to storage or treatment. The facturer or supplier may agree to demonstrate the
separated solids will have a TS concentration of 15 to separator with material to be separated. This can also
40 percent. While a substantial amount of nutrients is provide insight as to the effectiveness of the equip-
removed with the solids, the majority of the nutrients ment.
and salt remain in the liquid fraction. In many cases,
water drains freely from piles of separated solids. This If specific data on the separator is not available, tables
liquid needs to be transferred to storage to reduce 10–5 and 10–6 can be used to estimate performance
odors and fly breeding. characteristics. Table 10–5(a) gives data for separat-
ing different materials using different separators, and
Typically, solids must still be processed before they table 10–6 presents general operational characteristics
can be used. If they are intended for bedding, the ma- of mechanical separators.
terial should be composted or dried.
Settling basins—In many situations, removing
A planner/designer needs to know the performance manure solids, soil, and other material from runoff
characteristics of the separator being considered for from livestock operations is beneficial. The most com-
the type of manure to be separated. The best data, if mon device to accomplish this is the settling or solids

Table 10–5 Operational data for solid/liquid separators (a); settling basin performance (b)

(a) Operational data for solid/liquid separators

Animal type Separator TS concentration (%) % Retained in separated solids
Raw waste . . . Separated . . .
liquids solids TS VS COD N P
Dairy Vibrating screen
16 mesh 5.8 5.2 12.1 56 — — — —
24 mesh 1.9 1.5 7.5 70 — — — —
Decanter centrifuge
16-30 gal/min 6–8 4.9–6.5 13–33 35–40 — — — —
Static inclined
screen
12 mesh 4.6 1.6 12.2 49 — — — —
32 mesh 2.8 1.1 6.0 68 — — — —
Screw press 2–7 1–4 20–30 26–34 — — — —
Beef Static inclined
screen 4.4 3.8 13.3 15 — — — —
Vibrating screen 1–2 — — 40–50 — — — —
Swine Decanter centrifuge
3 gal/min 7.6 2.6 37 14 — — — —
Vibrating screen
2
22 gal/min/ft
18 mesh 4.6 3.6 10.6 35 39 39 22 26
30 mesh 5.4 3.5 9.5 52 56 49 33 34
Screw press 2–5 — 22–34 16–30 — — — —

10–36 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

separation basin. A settling basin used in association not restricted. Chemical additives are sometimes used
with livestock operations is a shallow basin or pond to aid differential settling by flocculation. Flocculants
that is designed for low velocities and the accumula- are outside the scope of this document. Table 10–5(b)
tion of settled materials. When the basin is positioned provides settling basin performance, wet basis.
between the source and the storage or treatment facili-
ties, settling will occur if the velocity of the liquid is (3) Dilution
below 1.5 feet per second. Dilution is often used to facilitate another function.
This process involves adding clean water or water that
Settling basins should have access ramps that facili- has less total solids to manure, resulting in a mixture
tate removal of settled material. Outlets from settling that has a desired percentage of total solids. A com-
basins should be located so that sediment removal is mon use of dilution is to prepare the manure for land

Table 10–5 Operational data for solid/liquid separators (a); settling basin performance (b)—Continued

(b) Settling basin performance (results in wet basis) (LPES 2001)

% removal from liquid
Manure Input solids, % Solids COD TKN N-org TP
Flushed dairy 3.83 55 (VS) 61 — 26 28
Dairy 1.1 65 — 40 — —
Poultry, beef, dairy, -1 45–76* 28–67* — — —
swine, horse
Feedlot runoff 1–3 40–64 — 84 — 80
Flushed swine 0.2 12 — 33 — 22
Feedlot runoff 1–3 13 — 0.7 — 0.3
* 10-minute setting time

Table 10–6 Characteristics of solid/liquid separators

(Barker 1986)

Characteristic Decanter Vibrating Stationary

centrifuge screen inclined
(%) screen
Typical screen — 20 mesh 10–20 mesh
opening
Maximum waste 8 5 5
TS concentration
Separated solids to 35 to 15 to 10
TS concentration
TS reduction* to 45 to 30 to 30
COD reduction* to 70 to 25 to 45
N reduction* to 20 to 15 to 30
P reduction* to 25 — —
Throughput to 30 to 300 to 1,000
(gal/min)
* Removed in separated solids

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–37

 Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

application using a sprinkler system. Figure 10–25 is a (2) Anaerobic lagoons

design aid for determining the amount of clean dilu- Anaerobic lagoons are widely accepted in the United
tion water required to lower the TS concentration. States for the treatment of manure. Anaerobic treat-
ment of manure helps to protect water quality by
(b) Secondary treatment reducing much of the organic concentration (BOD,
COD) of the material. Anaerobic lagoons also reduce
Secondary treatment includes biological and chemi- the nitrogen content of the material through ammonia
cal treatment such as composting, lagoons, oxidation volatilization and effectively reduce manure odors if
ditches, and vegetative treatment areas. This addition- the lagoon is managed properly. Anaerobic lagoons
al treatment step reduces the pollution potential prior should be planned and designed in accordance with
to land application by reducing the nutrient contents NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 359, Waste
of the material. Secondary treatment facilities should Treatment Lagoon.
be planned and designed in accordance with the ap-
plicable Conservation Practice Standards. Design—The maximum operating level of an anaero-
bic lagoon is a volume requirement plus a depth re-
(1) Amendments for treatment quirement. The volume requirement is the sum of the
Biological and chemical additives are sometimes following volumes:
used to alter the characteristics of manure and other
by-products of agricultural operations to facilitate • minimum treatment volume, ft3 (MTV)
secondary treatment. Use of these additives should be • manure volume, wastewater volume, and clean
in accordance with the NRCS Conservation Practice
water, ft3 (WV)
Standard 591, Amendments for Treatment of Agricul-
tural Waste. • sludge volume, ft3 (SV)

Figure 10–25 Design aid to determine quantity of water to add to achieve a desired TS concentration (USDA 1975)

40

30

20 Pe
rc
en
ts
oli
Percent solids resulting

ds
45 in m
4 an
30 0 ur
10 e
25
9
8 20
7 15
6
5 10

2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80
Gallons of water to add per cubic foot of material

10–38 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The depth requirement is the normal precipitation less Anaerobic waste treatment lagoons are designed on
evaporation on the lagoon surface. the basis of volatile solids loading rate (VSLR) per
1,000 cubic feet. Volatile solids represent the amount
Polluted runoff from a watershed must not be included of solid material in wastes that will decompose as op-
in a lagoon unless a defensible estimate of the volatile posed to the mineral (inert) fraction. The rate of solids
solid loading can be made. Runoff from a watershed, decomposition in anaerobic lagoons is a function of
such as a feedlot, is not included in a lagoon because temperature; therefore, the acceptable VSLR varies
loading would only result during storm events and be- from one location to another. Figure 10–27 indicates
cause the magnitude of the loading would be difficult, the maximum VSLRs for the United States. If odors
if not impossible, to estimate. As a result, the lagoon need to be minimized, VSLR should be reduced by 25
would be shocked with an overload of volatile solids. to 50 percent.

If an automatic outflow device, pipe, or spillway is The MTV represents the volume needed to maintain
used, it must be placed at a height above the maximum sustainable biological activity. The MTV for volatile
operating level to accommodate the 25-year, 24-hour solids (VS) can be determined using equation 10–4.
storm precipitation on the lagoon surface. This depth
added to the maximum operating level of the lagoon TVS
MTV =
establishes the level of the required volume or the VSLR (eq. 10–4)
outflow device, pipe, or spillway. A minimum of 1 foot
of freeboard is provided above the outflow and estab- where:
lishes the top of the embankment. Should State regu- MTV = minimum treatment volume, ft3
lation preclude the use of an outflow device, pipe, or TVS = total daily volatile solids loading (from all
spillway or if for some other reason the lagoon will not sources), lb/d
have these, the minimum freeboard is 1 foot above the VSLR = volatile solids loading rate, lb/1,000 ft3/d
top of the required volume. (from fig. 10–27)

The combination of these volumes and depths is il-

lustrated in figure 10–26. The terms and derivation are
explained in the following paragraphs.

Figure 10–26 Anaerobic lagoon cross section

Freeboard (1.0 min.)

Depth of 25-year, 24-hour storm event on lagoon surface

Crest of spillway
Depth of normal precipitation less evaporation on the lagoon or other outflow
drawdown

surface accumulated during the treatment period device (where

Max.

Max. operating permissible)

level Volume of manure, wastewater, and clean
water accumulated
Required volume during the treatment period (WSV)

Minimum treatment volume (MTV)

6 ft min.

Volume of accumulated sludge

for period between sludge removal events (SV)

Note: The minimum treatment volume for an anaerobic waste treatment lagoon is based
on volatile solids.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–39

 Chapter 10
10–40

Figure 10–27 Anaerobic lagoon loading rate (lb VS/1,000 ft3/d)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

An aer ob ic L a g o o n L o a d i ng R a t e (l b V S / 1 , 0 0 0 ft 3 / d ) (2 9 )
5 4 .5
4
3 .5

3.5
3
3

5.5
26083

3.5 3.5 4
4.5
5

Component Design
Agricultural Waste Management System
25001
CT
(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

5
5.
DE

6
6
6.5

Field Handbook
Agricultural Waste Management
Part 651
6.5
12033

12
FL

12 3 7
1. Loadi ng r ate s houl d be r educ ed 7
7 7 Appr ox i m atel y 50% w her e ( a) odor s m u s t
be m i ni m i z ed and ( b) i n m ountai nous a re a s .
2. Loadi ng r ate m ay be i nc r eas ed appr o x i ma t e l y
50% for dai r y and beef c attl e w as te w h e n t h e 12087

s ol i ds hav e been r em ov ed.

NOTE: SOURCE:
CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN INTERPOLATING THIS MAP NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PUBLICATIONS. MAP PREPARED USING 0 200 400 600 Mi
IN MOUNTAINOUS AREAS. LINES HAVE BEEN SMOOTHED IN AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHY
MOUNTAINOUS AREAS OF THE WESTERN STATES. GIS CENTER, FORT WORTH, TEXAS, 1995 REVISED JUNE 1995, 1005008
Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Daily VS production for various wastes can be deter- TS = total solids production per AU per day (lb/
mined using tables in AWMFH, chapter 4. If feed spill- AU/d)
age exceeds 5 percent, VSP should be increased by 4 SAR = sludge accumulation ratio (ft3/lb TS)
percent for each additional 1 percent spillage.
TS values can be obtained from the tables in AWMFH,
Waste volume (WV) should reflect the actual volume chapter 4. Sludge accumulation ratios (SAR) should
of manure, wastewater, flushwater that will not be be taken from table 10–7. An SAR is not available for
recycled, and clean dilution water added to the lagoon beef, but it can be assumed to be similar to that for
during the treatment period. The treatment period is dairy cattle.
either the detention time required to obtain the de-
sired reduction of pollution potential of the waste or The lagoon volume requirements are for accommoda-
the time between land application events, whichever tion of the MTV, the SV, and the waste volume for the
is longer. State regulations may govern the minimum treatment period. This is expressed in equation 10–7.
detention time. Generally, the maximum time between
land application events determines the treatment pe- LV = MTV + SV + WV (eq. 10–7)
riod because this time generally exceeds the detention
time required. where:
LV = lagoon volume requirement, ft3
WV = TVM + TWW + CW (eq. 10–5) MTV = minimum treatment volume, ft3 (see eq. 10–4)
SV = sludge volume accumulation for period
where: between sludge removal events, ft3 (see eq.
WV = waste volume for treatment period, ft3 10–6)
TVM = total volume of manure for treatment period, WV = waste volume for treatment period, ft3 (see
ft3 eq. 10–5)
TWW = total volume of wastewater for treatment
period, ft3 In addition to the lagoon volume requirement (LV), a
CW = clean water added during treatment period, ft3 provision must be made for depth to accommodate the
normal precipitation less evaporation on the lagoon
In the absence of site-specific data, values in AWMFH, surface; the 25-year, 24-hour storm precipitation; the
chapter 4, may be used to make estimates of the vol- depth required to operate the emergency outflow; and
umes. freeboard. Normal precipitation on the lagoon surface
is based on the critical treatment period that produces
As the manure is decomposed in the anaerobic la- the maximum depth. This depth can be offset to some
goon only part of the TS is reduced. Some of the TS is degree by evaporation losses on the lagoon surface.
mineral material that will not decompose, and some of This offset varies, according to the climate of the
the VS require a long time to decompose. These ma- region, from a partial amount of the precipitation to
terials, referred to as sludge, gradually accumulate in an amount in excess of the precipitation. Precipitation
the lagoon. To maintain the MTV, the volume of sludge and evaporation can be determined from local climate
accumulation over the period of time between sludge data.
removal must be considered. Lagoons are commonly
designed for a 15- to 20-year sludge accumulation pe-
riod. The sludge volume (SV) can be determined using
equation 10–6. Table 10–7 Sludge accumulation ratios (Barth 1985)

SV = 365 × AU × TS × SAR × T (eq. 10–6)

Animal type SAR

where: Poultry
Layers 0.0295
SV = sludge volume (ft3)
Pullets 0.0455
AU = equivalent 1,000-pound animal (live weight)
Swine 0.0485
T = sludge accumulation time (yr)
Dairy cattle 0.0729

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–41

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The minimum acceptable depth for anaerobic lagoons tion of the top of the settled embankment should be 1
is 6 feet, but in colder climates at least 10 feet is rec- foot above the maximum design water surface in the
ommended to assure proper operation and odor con- lagoon.
trol.
A lagoon should be constructed to avoid leakage and
The design height of an embankment for a lagoon potential ground water pollution. Care in site selec-
should be increased by the amount needed to ensure tion, soils investigation, and design can minimize
that the design elevation is maintained after settle- the potential for these problems. In cases where the
ment. This increase should not be less than 5 percent lagoon needs to be sealed, the techniques discussed in
of the design fill height. The minimum top width of the AWMFH, chapter 7 can be used. Figure 10–28 shows
lagoon should be in accordance with NRCS Conserva- two lagoon systems.
tion Practice Standard 359, Waste Treatment Lagoon.
If overtopping can cause embankment failure, an
The combined side slopes of the settled embankment emergency spillway or overflow pipe should be pro-
should not be less than 5 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). vided. A lagoon can have an overflow to maintain a
The inside slopes can vary from 1 to 1 for excavated constant liquid level if the overflow liquid is stored
slopes to 3 to 1 or flatter where embankments are in a waste storage pond or otherwise properly man-
used. Construction technique and soil type must also aged. The inlet to a lagoon should be protected from
be considered. In some situations, a steep slope may freezing. This can be accomplished by using an open
be used below the design liquid level, while a flatter channel that can be cleaned out or by locating the inlet
slope is used above the liquid level to facilitate main- pipe below the freezing level in the lagoon. Because of
tenance and bank stabilization. The minimum eleva- possible blockages, access to the inlet pipe is needed.

Figure 10–28 Anaerobic lagoon recycle systems

Flush tank

Pump Gutter
Reception pit

Lagoon,
Second stage
First stage

Recycle pipe
Room

Slats Overflow Recycle pump

Gutter

Gutter outlet
First lagoon Second lagoon

10–42 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Venting inlet pipes prevents backflow of lagoon gases some manner. The optimum pH is about 6.5. When pH
into the animal production facilities. falls below this level, methane-producing bacteria are
inhibited by the free hydrogen ion concentration. The
Sludge removal is an important consideration in the most frequent cause of low pH in anaerobic digestion
design. This can be accomplished by agitating the la- is the shock loading of organic material that stimulates
goon and pumping out the mixed sludge or by using a the facultative acid-producing bacteria. Add hydrated
drag-line for removing floating or settled sludge. Some lime or lye if pH is below 6.5. Add 1 pound per 1,000
pumps can remove sludge, but not deposited rocks, square feet daily until pH reaches 7.
sand, or grit. The sludge removal technique should be
considered when determining lagoon surface dimen- Lagoons are designed based on a given loading rate.
sions. Many agitation pumps have an effective radius If an increase in the number of animals is anticipated,
of 75 to 100 feet. Draglines may only reach 30 to 50 sufficient capacity to handle the entire expected
feet into the lagoon. wasteload should be available. The most common
problem in using lagoons is overloading, which can
Management—Anaerobic lagoons must be managed lead to odors, malfunctioning, and complaints. When
properly if they are to function as designed. Specific liquid removal is needed, the liquid level should not be
instructions about lagoon operation and maintenance dropped below the MTV plus SV levels. If evaporation
must be included in the overall waste management
exceeds rainfall in a series of dry years, the lagoon
plan that is supplied to the decisionmaker. Normally,
should be partly drawn down and refilled to dilute ex-
an anaerobic lagoon is managed so that the liquid level
cess concentrations of nutrients, minerals, and toxics.
is maintained at or below the maximum operating
Lagoons are typically designed for 15 to 20 years of
level as shown in figure 10–26. The liquid level is low-
sludge accumulation. After this time the sludge must
ered to the minimum treatment level at the end of the
treatment period. It is good practice to install markers be cleaned out before adding additional waste.
at the minimum treatment and maximum operating
levels. Sometimes operators want to use lagoon effluent as
flushwater. To polish and store water for this purpose,
The minimum liquid level in an anaerobic lagoon be- waste storage ponds can be constructed in series
fore wastes are added should coincide with the MTV. with the anaerobic lagoon. The capacity of the waste
If possible a lagoon should be put into service during storage pond should be sized for the desired storage
the summer to allow adequate development of bacte- volume. A minimum capacity of the waste storage
rial populations. A lagoon operates more effectively pond is the volume for rainfall (RFV), runoff (ROV),
and has fewer problems if loading is by small, frequent and emergency storm storage (ESV). By limiting the
(daily) inflow, rather than large, infrequent slug loads. depth to less than 6 feet, the pond will function more
nearly like an aerobic lagoon. Odors and the level of
The pH should be measured frequently. Many prob- ammonia, ammonium, and nitrate will be more effec-
lems associated with lagoons are related to pH in tively reduced.

Design example 10–5 Anaerobic lagoon

Mr. Oscar Smith of Rocky Mount, North Carolina, has lagoon pumping. During this time, the net precipita-
requested assistance in developing an agricultural tion should be 2 inches, based on data from appen-
waste management system for his 6,000 pig finishing dices 10B and 10C. He wants to use the lagoon for at
facility. The alternative selected includes an anaero- least 5 years before removing the sludge. Worksheet
bic lagoon. The animals average 150 pounds. The 10A–3 is used to determine the necessary volume for
25-year, 24-hour storm for the area is 6 inches (appen- this lagoon.
dix 10B). Mr. Smith needs 180-day intervals between

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–43

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Completed worksheet for Design example 10–5

Worksheet 10A-3—Anaerobic lagoon design

Decisionmaker:
Oscar Smith Date:
6/13/90
Site:
Rocky Mount, NC
Animal units

1. Animal type Growers 3. Number of animals (N) 6000

2. Animal weight, lbs (W) 150 WxN =
4. Animal units, AU = _____ 900
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of daily manure production 7. Total volume of manure production for animal
per AU, ft 3/AU/day (DVM)= 1.1 type for treatment period, ft 3
VMD = AU x DVM x D = 178,200 178,200
6. Treatment period, days (D) = 180
8. Total manure production for treatment period, ft 3(TVM)

Wastewater volume
9. Daily wastewater volume per 11. Total wastewater volume for
AU, ft 3/AU/day (DWW) = treatment period, ft 3 (TWW)
0
10. Total wastewater volume for animal
description for treatment period, ft 3
WWD = DWW x AU x D =

Clean water volume

12. Clean water added during treatment period, ft 3 (CW) 0
Waste volume
13. Waste volume for treatment period, ft 3 WV = TVM + TWW + CW = 178,200 0
__________ + ____________ 0
+ ___________ 178,200
= ____________

Manure total solids

14. Daily manure total solids production, lbs/AU/day (MTS) = 6.5 16. Total manure
total solids production,
15. Daily manure total solids production for animal type, lbs/day
5,850 lbs/day (TMTS) = 5,850
MTSD = MTS x AU =

Manure volatile solids

17. Daily manure volatile solids production per AU, lbs/AU/day (MVS) = 5.4
18. Daily manure volatile solids production for animal type per day, lbs/day MVSD = AU x MVS = 4860
19. Total manure volatile solids production, lbs/day (TMVS) 4860
Wastewater volatile solids
20. Daily wastewater volatile solids production, lbs/1000 gal (DWVS) =
21. Total wastewater volatile solids production for animal type, lbs/day

DWVS x DWW x 7.48

WVSD = __________________ =
D x 1,000

22. Total wastewater volatile solids production, lbs/day (TWVS) = 0

Total volatile solids (manure and wastewater)

23. Total daily volatile solids production, lbs/day TVS = TMVS + TWVS =
4860
________________ 0
+ ________________ 4860
= _____________

Minimum treatment volume 25. Minimum treatment volume, ft 3

24. Selected lagoon VS loading rate, lbs VS/1,000 3ft(VSLR) = 6 TVS x 1000
MTV = _________________ ( 4860 ) x 1000
= __________________ 810,000
= ____________
VSLR ( 6 )

Sludge volume requirement 28. Sludge volume requirement, ft 3

26. Sludge accumulation ratio, ft 3/lb TS (SAR) =
0.0485 SV = 365 x TMTS x T x SAR
27 Sludge accumulation period, years (T) = 5 = 365 x ( 5,850 )( 5 )( 0.0485 )= 517,798
Minimum lagoon volume requirement
29. Minimum lagoon volume requirements, ft 3
(MLVR) = MTV + SV + WV = 810,000 + __________________
____________________ 517,798 178,200
+ __________________ 1,505,998
= ____________________

10–44 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Completed worksheet for Design example 10–5—Continued

Worksheet 10A-3—Anaerobic lagoon design—Continued

Lagoon sizing 2 3
(4 x Z x d )
V = _________________ + ( Z x BL x d ) + ( Z x BW x d2 ) + ( BWx BL x d )
2
30. Sizing by trial and error
3
2
Side slope ratio, (Z) = ____________ 1,505,998 ft 3
V must be equal to or greater than MLVR = ______________

Trial Bottom width Bottom length Depth* Volume

no. ft (BW) ft (BL) ft (d) ft3 (V)
1 150 1000 8 1,349,931
2 150 1100 8 1,482,731
3 150 1125 8 1,515,931 ∼ MLVR

* Depth must be adjusted in Step 31.

Depth adjustment
31. Depth adjustment

Depth, ft (d)
8

Add depth of precipitation less evaporation on lagoon surface + 0.6

(for the treatment period)

Add depth of 25-year, 24-hour storm + 0.5

Add for freeboard (1.0 foot minimum) +

1.0

Final depth 10.1

32. Compute total volume using final depth, ft 3 (use equation in step 30) 1,969,995

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–45

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(3) Aerobic lagoons accommodate the normal precipitation less evapora-

Aerobic lagoons can be used if minimizing odors is tion on the lagoon surface, the 25-year, 24-hour storm
critical (fig. 10–29). These lagoons operate within a precipitation on the lagoon surface, and freeboard.
depth range of 2 to 5 feet to allow for the oxygen en- Should State regulations not permit an emergency
trainment that is necessary for the aerobic bacteria. outflow or for some other reason one is not used,
the minimum freeboard is 1 foot above the top of the
The design of aerobic lagoons is based on the amount required volume. Figure 10–29 demonstrates these
of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) added per day. volume depth requirements.
If local data are not available, use the BOD5 values
from the tables in AWMFH, chapter 4. Figure 10–30 Aerobic lagoons need to be managed similarly to
shows the acceptable aerobic loading rates for the anaerobic lagoons in that they should never be over-
United States in pounds BOD5 per acre per day. The loaded with oxygen demanding material. The lagoon
lagoon surface area at the average operating depth is should be filled to the minimum operating level, gener-
sized so that the acceptable loading rate is not ex- ally 2 feet, before being loaded with waste. The maxi-
ceeded. mum liquid level should not exceed 5 feet. The water
level must be maintained within the designed operat-
Even though an aerobic lagoon is designed on the ing range. Sludge should be removed when it exceeds
basis of surface area, it must have enough capacity the designed sludge storage capacity. Aerobic lagoons
to accommodate the waste volume (WV) and sludge should also be enclosed in fences and marked with
volume (SV). In addition, depth must be provided to warning signs.

Figure 10–29 Aerobic lagoon cross section

Freeboard (1.0 min.)

Depth of 25-year, 24-hour storm event on lagoon surface

Crest of spillway
Depth of normal precipitation less evaporation on the lagoon or other outflow
Max. surface accumulated during the treatment period device (where
Required operating permissible)
volume level Volume of manure, wastewater, and clean Max.
5 ft max.
2 ft min.

water accumulated (WSV) drawdown

during the treatment period

Volume of accumulated sludge

for period between sludge removal events (SV)

Note: An aerobic waste treatment lagoon has a required minimum surface area based on BOD5

10–46 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

 Chapter 10
Figure 10–30 Aerobic lagoon loading rate (lb BOD5/acre/d)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

Aerobic Lagoon Loading Rate (lb BOD5/ acre/d) (29)

40 35
30
25
20

25
20

45
26083

25 25 30
35
40

Component Design
Agricultural Waste Management System
(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

25001
CT

45
DE

50
50
55

Field Handbook
Agricultural Waste Management
Part 651
55
12033

60
FL

50 20 60
Lagoons tr eati ng ani m al m anur e
60 60 or other w as tes w i th a hi gh 60
C OD /BOD 5 r ati o w i l l often be
aer obi c onl y near the s ur fac e.
12087

NOTE: SOURCE: 0 200 400 600 Mi

CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN INTERPOLATING THIS MAP NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PUBLICATIONS. MAP PREPARED USING
IN MOUNTAINOUS AREAS. LINES HAVE BEEN SMOOTHED IN AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHY AND GIS
MOUNTAINOUS AREAS OF THE WESTERN STATES. CENTER, FORT WORTH, TEXAS, 1995 REVISED JUNE 1995, 1005009
10–47
Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Design example 10–6 Aerobic lagoon

Mr. John Sims of Greenville, Mississippi, has request- bic lagoon to treat the waste from his 50,000 caged
ed assistance on the development of an agricultural layers, which have an average weight of 4 pounds.
waste management system. He has requested that Completed worksheet 10A–4 shows the calculations
an alternative be developed that includes an aero- to size the lagoon for this design example.

10–48 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Worksheet 10A-4—Aerobic lagoon design

John Sims
Decisionmaker: Date:
11/16/90
Site:
Greenville, MS
Animal units
Caged
Layers 3. Number of animals (N)
50,000
1. Animal type

2. Animal weight, lbs (W) 4 4. Animal units, AU = W xN =

_____ 200
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of daily manure production 7. Total volume of manure production for
per AU, ft 3/AU/day (DVM) = 0.93 animal type for treatment period, ft 3
VMD = AU x DVM x D = 33,480
6. Treatment period, days (D) = 180 33,480
8. Total manure production for treatment period, ft 3 (TVM)

Wastewater volume
9. Daily wastewater volume per 11. Total wastewater volume for
AU, ft 3/AU/day (DWW) = treatment period, ft3 (TWW) 0
10. Total wastewater volume for animal
description for treatment period, ft 3
WWD = DWW x AU x D =

Clean water volume

12. Clean water added during treatment period, ft 3 (CW) 0
Waste volume
13. Waste volume for treatment period, ft 3 WV = TVM + TWW + CW = ____________ 0
33,480 + _____________ 0
+______________ 33,480
= _______________

Manure total solids

14. Daily manure total solids production, lbs/AU/day (MTS) = 15 16. Total manure total solids production,
lbs/day (TMTS) = 3000
15. Daily manure total solids production for animal type, lb/day
MTSD = MTS x AU = 3000
Manure 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
17. Daily manure BOD5 production per AU, lbs/AU/day (MBOD) = 3.3
18. Daily manure BOD5 production for animal type per day, lbs/day MBOD = AU x BOD = 660
19. Total manure production, lbs/day (TMBOD) 660
Wastewater 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
20. Daily wastewater BOD5 production, lbs/1000 gal (DWBOD) =
=
21. Total wastewater BOD5 production for animal type, lbs/day

(DWBOD x TWW x 7.48)

WBOD = ______________________ =
D x 1,000

22. Total wastewater BOD5 production, lbs/day (TWBOD) =

0

TOTAL BOD5 (manure and wastewater)

23. Total daily production, lbs/day TBOD = TMBOD + TWBOD = 660
________________ 0
+ ________________ 660
= _____________

Minimum treatment surface area 25. Minimum treatment surface area, acres
24. Selected lagoon BOD5 loading rate, lbs BOD5 /acre (BODLR) = 50 TBOD
MTA = _____________ ( 660 )
= __________________ = 13.2
____________
BODLR ( 50 )

Sludge volume requirement 28. Sludge volume requirement, 3ft

26. Sludge accumulation ratio, ft3/lb TS (SAR) = 0.0295 SV = 365 x TMTS x T x SAR
27 Sludge accumulation period, years (T) = 5 = 365 ( 3000 )( 5 )( 0.0295 )= 161,513
Minimum lagoon volume requirement
29. Minimum lagoon volume requirements,3ft
MLVR = SV + WV = 161,513 + ____________
____________ 194,993
33,480 = _____________

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–49

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Worksheet 10A-4—Aerobic Lagoon Design—Continued

Lagoon sizing
30. Sizing by trial and error:

4
Side slope ratio, (Z) = ________________

194,993 ft 3
V must be equal to or greater than MLVR = _______________

13.2
SA must be equal to or greater than MTA = _______________ acres

Rectangular lagoon:

d must be less than 5 feet

(BL + 2Zd)(BW + 2Zd)

SA= _______________________
43,560

Trial Bottom width Bottom length Depth* Volume Surface area

no. ft (BW) ft (BL) ft (d) ft 3 (V) acres (SA)

1 500 1000 0.5 251,503 11.6

2 600 1000 0.5 301,603 13.9
3 570 1000 0.5 286.573 13.2 OK

* Depth must be adjusted in Step 31

Depth adjustment
31. Depth adjustment

Depth , ft (d)
0.5

Add depth of precipitation less evaporation on lagoon surface + 0.5

(for the treatment period)

Add depth of 25-year, 24-hour storm + 0.6

Add for freeboard (1.0 foot minimum) + 1.0

Final depth 2.6

32. Compute total volume using final depth,3 ft

(use equation in step 30) 1,524,828

10–50 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(4) Mechanically aerated lagoons For the purpose of minimizing odors, aerators should
Much of this material was taken directly from tech- transfer from 1 to 2 pounds of oxygen per pound of
nical notes on the design of mechanically aerated BOD5. Even a limited amount of oxygen transfer (as
lagoons for odor control (USDA SCS 1980). little as 1/3 lb O2/lb BOD5) reduces the release of vola-
tile acids and accompanying gases. For design purpos-
Aerated lagoons operate aerobically and are depen- es, use 1 pound of oxygen per pound of BOD5 unless
dent on mechanical aeration to supply the oxygen local research indicates a higher value is needed.
needed to treat waste and minimize odors. This type
of design is used to convert an anaerobic lagoon to an Aerators are tested and rated according to their clean
aerobic condition, or as an alternative, to a naturally water transfer rate (CWTR) or laboratory transfer rate
aerated lagoon that would otherwise need to be much (LTR), whichever term is preferred. The resulting val-
larger. Mechanically aerated lagoons combine the ue is given for transfer at standard atmospheric pres-
small surface area feature of anaerobic lagoons with sure (14.7 lb/in2), dissolved oxygen equal to 0 percent,
relative odor-free operation of an aerobic lagoon. The and water at 20 degrees Celsius. The actual transfer
main disadvantages of this type of lagoon are the en- rate expected in field operation can be determined by
ergy requirements to operate the mechanical aerators using equation 10–8.
and the high level of management required.
FTR = CWTR ×
(B × C ) − DO × O
dc t − 20
×a
The typical design includes 1 pound of oxygen trans- Csc
ferred to the lagoon liquid for each pound of BOD5
(eq. 10–8)
added. The TS content in aerated lagoons should be
where:
maintained between 1 and 3 percent with dilution wa-
FTR = lb O2 per horsepower-hour transferred
ter. The depth of aerated lagoons depends on the type
under field conditions
of aerator used. Agitation of settled sludge needs to be
avoided. As with naturally aerobic lagoons, consider- CWTR = clean water transfer rate in lb per horse-
ation is required for storage of manure and rainfall. power-hour transferred under standard
laboratory conditions
Two kinds of mechanical aerator are used: the surface B = salinity-surface tension factor. It is the ra-
pump and the diffused air system. The surface pump tion of the saturated concentration in the
floats on the surface of the lagoon, lifting water into wastewater to that of clean water. Values
the air, thus assuring an air-water mixture. The dif- range from 0.95 to 1.0.
fused air system pumps air through water, but is gener- Cdc = O2 saturation concentration at design con-
ally less economical to operate than the surface pump. ditions of altitude and temperature (mg/L)
from figures 10–31 and 10–32
(i) Lagoon loading DO = average operating O2 concentration
Lagoon loading should be based on 5-day BOD5 or (mg/L). The recommended value of DO
carbonaceous oxygen demand (COD). NRCS designs can vary from 1 to 3 depending on the ref-
on the basis of BOD5. The tables in AWMFH, chapter 4 erence material. A value of 1.5 should be
show recommended BOD5 production rates, but local considered a minimum. For areas where
data should be used where available. minimizing odors is particularly critical, a
DO of 2 or more should be used.
(ii) Aerator design t = design temperature (°C)
Aerators are designed primarily on their ability to O = temperature correction factor; values
transfer oxygen (O2) to the lagoon liquid. Of secondary range from 1.024 to 1.035
importance is the ability of the aerator to mix or dis- a = ratio of the rate of O2 transfer in the
perse the O2 throughout the lagoon. Where the aerator wastewater to that of clean water. Gener-
is intended for minimizing odors, complete mixing is ally taken as 0.75 for animal waste
not a consideration except as it relates to the surface Csc  = saturation concentration of O2 in clean
area. water, 20 °C and sea level (9.17 mg/L)

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–51

 Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Unless local information supports using other values, Figure 10–33 provides a quick solution to the term
the following values for calculating field transfer rates Ot-20, where O is equal to 1.024. Designs for both sum-
should be used: B=1.0, DO=1.5, O=1.024, a=0.75, and mer and winter temperatures are often necessary to
Csc = 9.17. determine the controlling (least) transfer rate.

Figure 10–31 Relation of dissolved oxygen saturation to Figure 10–33 Numeral values for Ot-20 at different tem-
water temperature (clean water at 20 °C peratures where O=1.024
and sea level)
1.5
15
DO Saturation (ppm)

1.0

(1.024)TÐ20
10

0.5
0 10 20 30 35 ºC
5
0 10 20 30 35 ˚C 32 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 ºF
Water temperature
32 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 ˚F
Water temperature

Figure 10–32 Relation of dissolved oxygen saturation to

elevation above mean sea level

10,000
Elevation

5,000

msl
60 70 80 90 100
Percent of dissolved oxygen saturation at mean sea level

10–52 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Having calculated FTR, the next step is to determine The shallow, continuous ditch generally is in an oval
horsepower requirements of aeration based on loading layout. It has a special aerator spanning the chan-
rates and FTR as calculated above. Horsepower re- nel. The action of the aerator moves the liquid waste
quirements can be estimated using equation 10–9.
around the channel and keeps the solids in suspen-
BOD5 sion. Because of the need for continuous aeration, this
HP =
FTR × HO (eq. 10–9) process can be expensive to operate. Oxidation ditch-
es should only be designed by a professional engineer
where:
HP = horsepower familiar with the process.
BOD5 = 5-day BOD loading of waste, lb/d
5
HO = hours of operation per day The range of loading for an oxidation ditch is 1 pound
of BOD5 per 30 to 100 cubic feet of volume. This pro-
Most lagoon systems should be designed on the basis vides for a retention time of 30 to 70 days. Solids accu-
of continual aerator operations. mulate over time and must be removed by settling. The
TS concentration is maintained in the 2 to 6 percent
The actual selection of aerator(s) is a subjective pro-
range, and dilution water must be added periodically.
cess and often depends on the availability of models in
the particular area. In general, multiple small units are
preferred to one large unit. The multiple units provide If oxidation ditches are not overloaded, they work
better coverage of the surface area, as well as permit well for minimizing odors. The degree of manage-
flexibility for the real possibility of equipment failure ment required, however, may be more than desired
and reduced aeration. by some operators. Daily attention is often necessary,
and equipment failure can lead to toxic gas generation
(5) Oxidation ditches
soon after the aerators are stopped. If the ditches are
In some situations, sufficient space is not available for
a lagoon for treating animal waste, and odor control properly managed, they can be effective in reducing ni-
is critical. One option for treating animal waste under trogen to N2 through cyclic aerobic/anaerobic periods,
these circumstances is an oxidation ditch (fig. 10­–34). which allows nitrification and then denitrification.

Figure 10–34 Schematic of an oxidation ditch

Sludge trap Slotted floor building over oxidation ditch

Discharge

Rotor

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–53

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(6) Composting Windrow method—the windrow method involves the

Composting is the aerobic biological decomposition of arrangement of compost mix in long, narrow piles or
organic matter. It is a natural process that is enhanced windrows (fig. 10–35). To maintain an aerobic condi-
and accelerated by the mixing of organic waste with tion, the compost mixture must be periodically turned.
This exposes the decomposing material to the air and
other ingredients in a prescribed manner for optimum
keeps temperatures from getting too high (>170 °F).
microbial growth.
The minimum turning frequency varies from 2 to 10
days, depending on the type of mix, volume, and ambi-
Composting converts an organic waste material into ent air temperature. As the compost ages, the frequen-
a stable organic product by converting nitrogen from cy of turning can be reduced.
the unstable ammonia form to a more stable organic
form. The end result is a product that is safer to use The width and depth of the windrows are limited only
than raw organic material and one that improves soil by the type of turning equipment used. Turning equip-
fertility, tilth, and water holding capacity. In addition, ment can range from a front-end loader to an auto-
composting reduces the bulk of organic material to be matic mechanical turner. Windrows generally are 4 to
spread; improves its handling properties; reduces odor, 6 feet deep and 6 to 10 feet wide.
fly, and other vector problems; and can destroy weed
Some advantages and disadvantages of the windrow
seeds and pathogens. Composters should be planned
method include:
and designed in accordance with NRCS Conservation
Practice Standard 317, Composting Facility. Advantages:

Composting methods—Descriptions of three basic • rapid drying with elevated temperatures

methods of composting—windrow, static pile, and in- • drier product, resulting in easier product han-
vessel—follow. dling

Figure 10–35 Windrow schematic

Concave to Normal
collect moisture curvature
(if needed)

4-6 ft

Adjust for size

6 ft
6-10
ft

10–54 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

• ability to handle high volumes of material The dimensions of the static pile are limited by the
amount of aeration that can be supplied by the blow-
• good product stabilization ers and the stacking characteristics of the waste. The
compost mixture height generally ranges from 8 to 15
• low capital investment
feet, and the width is usually twice the depth. Individ-
ual piles generally are spaced about a half the distance
Disadvantages:
of the height.
• not space efficient
With forced air systems, air movement through the pile
• high operational costs occurs by suction (vacuum) or by positive pressure
• piles should be turned to maintain aerobic con- (forced) through perforated pipes or tubing. A filter
ditions pile or material is normally used to absorb odor if air
is sucked through the pile (fig. 10–36).
• turning equipment may be required
Some advantages and disadvantages of the static pile
• vulnerable to climate changes
method include:
• odors released on turning of compost
Advantages:
• large volume of bulking agent might be re-
quired • low capital cost
• high degree of pathogen destruction
Static pile method—the static pile method consists
• good odor control
of mixing the compost material and then stacking
the mix on perforated plastic pipe or tubing through • good product stabilization
which air is drawn or forced. Forcing air through the
compost pile may not be necessary with small com- Disadvantages:
post piles that are highly porous or with a mix that • not space efficient
is stacked in layers with highly porous material. The
• vulnerable to climate impacts
exterior of the pile generally is insulated with finished
compost or other material. In nonlayered operations, • difficult to work around perforated pipe unless
the materials to be composted must be thoroughly recessed
blended before pile placement. • operating cost and maintenance on blowers

Figure 10–36 Static pile composting schematic

Fan or blower Filter pile for

absorbing odor

Screening compost
Compost Water trap for
condensate

Perforated pipe

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–55

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

In-vessel method—the in-vessel method involves the • potential for heat recovery dependent on sys-
mixing of manure or other organic waste with a bulk- tem design
ing agent in a reactor, building, container, or vessel
(fig. 10–37) and may involve the addition of a con- • can be designed as a continuous process rather
trolled amount of air over a specific detention time. than a batch process
This method has the potential to provide a high level
of process control because moisture, aeration, and Disadvantages:
temperature can be maintained with some of the more
sophisticated units. • high capital cost for sophisticated units
• lack of operating data, particularly for large
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of the in-
systems
vessel method include:
• careful management required
Advantages:
• dependent on specialized mechanical and elec-
• space efficient
trical equipment
• good process control because of self-contain-
ment • potential for incomplete stabilization

• Protection from adverse climate conditions • mechanical mixing needs to be provided

• good odor control because of self-containment • less flexibility in operation mode than with
and process control other methods

Figure 10–37 In-vessel composting schematic

To odor
control

Infeed
conveyor

Compost Airflow direction

Discharge
screws

Aeration
Discharge conveyor piping

10–56 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Method selection—The composting method must Climate—in extremely wet climates, the static pile
fit the individual farm operation. Highly sophisticated and aerated composting methods may become too
and expensive composting operations are not likely wet to compost properly unless measures are taken
to be a viable option for small farming operations. to protect the compost from the weather. In very cold
Some factors to consider when selecting the particular climates, the composting process may slow in the win-
method of composting include: ter. Sheltering the compost pile from the wind helps
to prevent a slowdown in the composting process.
Operator management capability—the management The windrow and static pile methods are the most
capability of the operator is an important consider- vulnerable to freezing temperatures because they are
ation when selecting the right composting method. exposed to the elements. All methods may perform
Even simple composting methods require that the unsatisfactorily if the organic waste and amendments
operator spend additional time in monitoring and ma- are initially mixed in a frozen state.
terial handling. The operator should fully understand
the level of management that is required. The windrow Cost—composting capital and operating costs vary
method generally is the simplest method to manage, considerably depending on the degree of sophistica-
but requires additional labor for periodically turning tion. The windrow method generally has the least capi-
the compost mix. The static pile is generally next in tal cost, but also has the most operational costs. The
complexity because of having to maintain blowers and in-vessel method usually has the highest initial capital
work around perforated pipe. In-vessel composting cost, but the lowest operational cost.
can be the simplest or the most difficult to manage,
depending on the sophistication of the system. Siting and area considerations—The location of
the composting facility is a very important factor in a
Equipment and labor availability—consider what successful compost operation. To minimize material
equipment is available for loading, unloading, turning, handling, the composting facility should be located
mixing, and hauling. The windrow method requires ex- as close as possible to the source of organic waste. If
tra equipment and labor to periodically turn the rows. land application is the preferred method of utilization,
All methods require some type of loading and unload- the facility should also be located with convenient ac-
ing equipment. cess to the land application sites. Several other impor-
tant considerations when locating a compost facility
Site features—if a limited amount of space is avail- follow.
able, the static pile or in-vessel method may be the
only viable composting alternatives. Proximity to Wind direction—improperly managed compost fa-
neighbors and the appearance of the compost opera- cilities may generate offensive odors until corrective
tion may make the windrow and static pile methods actions are taken. Wind direction and proximity to
unattractive alternatives. If the only composting site neighbors should be considered when locating a com-
has limited accessibility, the static pile or in-vessel posting facility.
method should be considered because of less mix-
ing requirements. Siting considerations are discussed Topography—avoid locating composting facilities on
more fully in the siting and area considerations section steep slopes where runoff may be a problem and in
that follows. areas where the composting facility will be subject to
inundation.
Compost utilization—if the compost is to be market-
ed commercially, a composting method that produces Ground water protection—the composting facility
a predictable, uniform product should be considered. should be located downgradient and at a safe distance
Because of varying climatic conditions, the windrow from any wellhead. A roofed compost facility that is
method may not produce a predictable end product. properly managed should not generate leachate that
Sophisticated in-vessel methods provide the most pro- could contaminate ground water. If a compost facility
cess control; therefore, they produce the most uniform is not protected from the weather, it should be sited to
and predictable product. minimize the risk to ground water.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–57

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Area requirements—the area requirements for each yard waste with the waste products of the agricultural
composting method vary. The windrow method re- operations.
quires the most land area. The static pile method
requires less land area than the windrow method, but Finished compost has also been successfully used as
more than the in-vessel method. The pile dimensions a bedding material for livestock. Because composting
also affect the amount of land area necessary for generates high temperatures that dry out and sterilize
composting. A large pile that has a low surface area to the compost, the finished product is generally accept-
total volume ratio requires less composting area for a able as a clean, dry, bedding material.
given volume of manure, but it is also harder to man-
age. The size and type equipment used to mix, load, Compost mix design—Composting of organic
and turn the compost should also be considered when waste requires the mixing of an organic waste with
sizing a compost area. Enough room must be provided amendment(s) or bulking agent(s) in the proper pro-
in and around the composting facility to operate equip- portions to promote aerobic microbial activity and
ment. In addition, a buffer area around the compost growth and to achieve optimum temperatures. The
site should be considered if a visual barrier is needed following must be provided in the initial compost mix
or desired. In general, given the pile dimensions, a and maintained during the composting process:
compost bulk density of 35 to 45 pounds per cubic feet
• a source of energy (carbon) and nutrients (pri-
can be used to estimate the surface area necessary for
marily nitrogen)
stacking the initial compost mix. To this area, add the
amount of area necessary for equipment operation, • sufficient moisture
pile turning, and buffer.
• sufficient oxygen for an aerobic environment
Existing areas—to reduce the initial capital cost, ex- • a pH in the range of 6 to 8
isting roofed, concrete, paved, or gravel areas should
be used if possible as a composting site. The proper proportion of waste, amendments, and
bulking agents is commonly called the recipe.
Compost utilization—Finished compost is used in
a variety of ways, but is primarily used as a fertilizer A composting amendment is any item added to the
supplement and soil conditioner. Compost improves compost mixture that alters the moisture content, C:N
soil structure and soil fertility, but it generally con- ratio, or pH. Many materials are suitable for use as a
tains too low a quantity of nitrogen to be considered composting amendment. Crop residue, leaves, grass,
the only source of crop nitrogen. Nutrients in finished straw, hay, and peanut hulls are just some of the ex-
compost will be slowly released over a period of years, amples that may be available on the farm. Others, such
thus minimizing the risk of nitrate leaching and high as sawdust, wood chips, or shredded paper and card-
nutrient concentrations in surface runoff. For more board, may be available inexpensively from outside
information on land application of organic material, sources. Table 10–8 shows typical C:N ratios of com-
see AWMFH, chapter 11. mon composting amendments. The C:N ratio is highly
variable, and local information or laboratory values
A good quality compost can result in a product that should be used whenever possible.
can be marketed to home gardeners, landscapers,
vegetable farmers, garden centers, nursery/green- A bulking agent is used primarily to improve the abil-
houses, turf growers, golf courses, and ornamental ity of the compost to be self-supporting (structure)
crop producers. Generally, the marketing of compost and to increase porosity to allow internal air move-
from agricultural operations has not provided enough ment. Wood chips and shredded tires are examples of
income to completely cover the cost of composting. If a bulking agent. Some bulking agents, such as large
agricultural operations do not have sufficient land to wood chips, may also alter the moisture content and
spread the waste, marketing may still be an attractive C:N ratio, in which case they would be both a bulking
alternative compared to hauling the waste to another agent and a compost amendment.
location for land spreading. Often, compost operators
generate additional income by charging municipalities Compost design parameters—to determine the recipe,
and other local governments for composting urban the characteristics of the waste and the amendments

10–58 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Table 10–8 Typical carbon to nitrogen ratios of common composting amendments

Material C:N ratios Material C:N ratios

Alfalfa (broom stage) 20 Pine needles 225–1000
Alfalfa hay 12–18 Potato tops 25
Asparagus 70 Poultry manure (fresh) 6–10
Austrian pea straw 59 Poultry manure (henhouse litter) 12–18
Austrian peas (green manure) 18 Reeds 20–50
Bark 100–130 Residue of mushroom culture 40
Bell pepper 30 Rice straw 48–115
Breading crumbs 28 Rotted manure 20
Cantaloupe 20 Rye straw 60–350
Cardboard 200–500 Saw dust 300–723
Cattle manure (with straw) 25–30 Sawdust (beech) 100
Cattle manure (liquid) 8–13 Sawdust (fir) 230
Clover 12–23 Sawdust (old) 500
Clover (sweet and young) 12 Seaweed 19
Corn and sorghum stover 60–100 Shredded tires 95
Cucumber 20 Soil organic matter 10–24
Dairy manure 10–18 Soybean residues 20–40
Garden wastes 20–60 Straw 40–80
Grain rice 36 Sugar cane (trash) 50
Grass clippings 12–25 Timothy 80
Green leaves 30–60 Tomato leaves 13
Green rye 36 Tomatoes 25–30
Horse manure (peat litter) 30–60 Watermelon 20
Leaves (freshly fallen) 40–80 Water hyacinth 20-30
Newspaper 400–500 Weeds 19
Oat straw 48–83 Wheat straw 60-373
Paper 173 Wood (pine) 723
Pea vines (native) 29 Wood chips 100–441
Peat (brown or light) 30–50 *For further information on C:N ratios, see AWMFH, chapter 4.
Pig manure 5–8

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–59

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

and bulking agents must be known. The character- moisture content, amendments are added to adjust the
istics that are the most important in determining the moisture content. The C:N ratio is again checked, and
recipe are moisture content (wet basis), carbon con- the process may be repeated. After a couple of itera-
tent, nitrogen content, and the C:N ratio. If any two of tions, the mixture is normally acceptable. Figure 10–38
the last three components are known, the remaining is a mixture design process flow chart that outlines
one can be calculated. the iterative procedure necessary in determining the
compost recipe.
Carbon to nitrogen (C:N) ratio—the balance
between carbon and nitrogen in the compost The iterative process of the compost mix design can
mixture is a critical factor for optimum microbial be summarized to a series of steps to determine the
activity. After the organic waste and the compost compost mix design. These steps follow the mixture
ingredients are mixed together, microorganisms design process flowchart shown in figure 10-38.
multiply rapidly and consume carbon as a food
source and nutrients to metabolize and build pro- Step 1 Determine the amount of bulking agent
teins. The C:N ratio of the compost mix should be to add. The process normally begins with deter-
maintained for most compost operations between mining whether or not a bulking agent is needed.
25 and 40 to 1. If the C:N ratio is low, a loss of ni- The addition of a bulking agent is necessary if
trogen generally occurs through rapid decomposi- the raw waste cannot support itself or if it does
tion and volatilization of ammonia. If it is high, the not have sufficient porosity to allow internal air
composting time increases because the nitrogen movement. A small field trial is the best method to
becomes the limiting nutrient for growth. determine the amount of bulking agent required.
To do this, a small amount of raw waste would
Moisture—microorganisms need moisture to be weighed and incremental quantities of bulking
convert the carbon source to energy. Bacteria would be added and mixed until the mix has the
generally can tolerate a moisture content as low structure and porosity desired. The wood chips,
as 12 to 15 percent; however, with less than 40 bark, and shredded tires are examples of bulking
percent moisture, the rate of decomposition is agents commonly used.
slow. At greater than 60 percent moisture, the pro-
cess turns from one that is aerobic to one that is Step 2 Calculate the moisture content of the
anaerobic. Anaerobic composting is less desirable compost mix. After the need for and quantity of
because it decomposes more slowly and produces bulking agent have been determined, the moisture
putrid odors. The finished product should result in content of the mixture or raw waste should be
a material that has a low moisture content. calculated. AWMFH, chapter 4 gives typical val-
ues for moisture content (wet basis) of excreted
pH—generally, pH is self-regulating and is not manure for various animals. Because water is
a concern when composting agricultural waste. often added as a result of spillage from waterers
Bacterial growth generally occurs within the and in the cleaning processes, raw waste that is to
range of pH 6.0 to 7.5, and fungi growth usually be composted may have significantly higher mois-
occurs within the range of 5.5 to 8.5. The pH var- ture content than that of “as excreted” manure. If
ies throughout the compost mixture and during the amount of water added to the manure can be
the various phases of the composting process. The determined, the moisture content of the mix can
pH in the compost mixture is difficult to regu- be calculated using equation 10–11, ignoring the
late once decomposition is started. Optimum pH inappropriate terms.
control can be accomplished by adding alkaline or
acidic materials to the initial mixture. In addition to extra water, feed spillage and bedding
material can constitute a major part of the raw waste
Compost mix design process—the determination of to be composted. The moisture content for each addi-
the compost mix design (recipe) is normally an itera- tive can be determined individually and used to deter-
tive process of adjusting the C:N ratio and moisture mine the moisture content of the entire mix (equation
content by the addition of amendments. If the C:N 10–11). A sample of the raw waste (including the
ratio is out of the acceptable range, then amendments bedding, wasted feed, and water) can also be taken,
are added to adjust it. If this results in a high or low weighed, dried, and weighed again to determine the

10–60 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–38 Compost mixture design flowchart

Compost Mixture Design Flow Chart

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

Is the Determine
addition the percent Determine the
of a bulking No
Begin moisture C:N ratio of
agent of the the compost mix.
necessary? compost mix.

Yes

Determine by
field trial the Is the percent Is the C:N
moisture between Yes Yes Compost
amount of ratio between recipe complete
bulking agent 40 and 60 25 and 40?
to add. percent?

No No

Determine the Determine the

amount of amount of
amendment to amendment to
add to correct add to correct
moisture content. C:N ratio.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–61

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

moisture content of the mix. Using this procedure the content of the compost mix is acceptable. It is
moisture content can be calculated as follows: generally best to begin the composting process
when the moisture content is closer to 60 percent
Wet weight − Dry weight because the process of composting elevates the
Mi = × 100
Wet weight temperature and reduces moisture.
(eq. 10–10)
If the moisture content of the compost mix is
where: above 60 percent, the addition of an amendment
Mi = percent moisture content (wet basis)
is necessary to lower the moisture content at or
below 60 percent. Straw, sawdust, wood chips,
Note: To avoid confusion and repetition, the combi-
nation of “as excreted” manure, bedding, water, and and leaves are commonly used.
bulking agent will be referred to as the “compost mix.” Equation 10–12 can be used to determine the
amount of amendment to add to lower or raise the
The general equation for the moisture content of the moisture content of the compost mix.
compost mix is as follows. (The equation may contain
variables that are not needed in every calculation.) Wmb × ( M mb − M d )
Waa =
(W
w × M w ) + ( Wb × M b ) + ( Wa × M a ) (M d − M aa )
(eq. 10–12)
+ H2O
MM = 100
Wm where:
Waa = wet weight of amendment to be added
(eq. 10–11)
Wmb = wet weight of mix before adding in amend-
where:
Mm = percent moisture of the compost mixture ment
(wet basis), eq. 10–10 Mmb = percent moisture of mix before adding
Ww = wet weight of waste (lb) amendment
Mw = percent moisture content of waste (wet ba- Md = desired percent moisture content of mix
sis), eq. 10–10 (wet bases)
Wb = wet weight of bulking agent (lb) Maa = moisture content of amendment added
Mb = percent moisture content of bulking agent
wet basis), eq. 10–10 Note: Equation 10–12 can be used for the addition
Wa = wet weight of amendment (lb) of water by using:
Ma = moisture content of amendment (wet basis)
H2O = weight of water added (lb) = G × 8.36, where M aa = 100% for water
G = gallons of water
Wm = weight of the compost mix (lb) including wet Step 3 Calculate the C:N ratio. The C:N ratio for
weight of waste, bulking agent, amendments, the compost mix is calculated from the C:N ratios
and added water of the waste, bulking agents, and amendments.
Typical values for various selected agricultural
Step 2 (continued) Determine the amount of
wastes are shown in AWMFH, chapter 4. The C:N
amendment to add, if any, to the compost mix
ratios for various waste products and amendments
that will result in final moisture content that is
between 40 and 60 percent. If the moisture con- are also shown in table 10–9. The C:N ratios not
tent of the compost mix is less than 40 percent, reported in the literature can be estimated from
adding an amendment is necessary to raise the the amount of fixed solids (amount of ash left
moisture content to an acceptable level. Water is after organic matter is burned off) or the volatile
the amendment that is generally added to raise solids and the nitrogen content. Equations 10–13
the moisture content, but an amendment that has and 10–14 are used to estimate the C:N ratio from
higher moisture content than the desired moisture the fixed or volatile solids.

10–62 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

100 − % FS Wc = % C × Wdry
%C = (eq. 10–17a)
1.8 (eq. 10–13a)

VS Wc = C : N × Wn
Wc = (eq. 10–17b)
1.8 (eq. 10–13b) where:
Wdry = dry weight of material in question
% C Wc
C:N = =
% N Wn The dry weight of material can be calculated using
(eq. 10–14)
equation 10–18.
where:
100 − M wet
%C = percent carbon (dry basis) Wdry = Wwet ×
%FS = percent fixed solids (dry basis) 100eq. (10–18)
Wc = dry weight of carbon where:
VS = weight of volatile solids Wwet = wet weight of material in question
C:N = carbon to nitrogen ratio Mwet = percent moisture content of material (wet
%N = percent total nitrogen (dry basis) basis)
Wn = dry weight of nitrogen Step 3 (continued): Determine the amount of
amendment, if any, to add to the compost mix that
Typical values for nitrogen content of manure are will result in an initial C:N ratio that is between 25
reported in AWMFH, chapter 4, and typical values and 40. If the C:N ratio calculated in step 3 is less
for percent nitrogen (dry basis) for many agricul- than 25 or more than 40, the type and amount of
tural crops are reported in AWMFH chapter 6. The amendment to add to the compost mix must be
C:N ratio and nitrogen content of manure and of determined. For a compost mix that has a C:N ra-
other amendments are highly variable. Using local tio below 25, an amendment should be added that
values for C:N ratios and nitrogen or testing of the has a C:N ratio higher than the desired C:N ratio.
compost constituents is highly recommended. The For a compost mix that has a C:N ratio of more
general equation for estimating the C:N ratio of than 40, an amendment must be added that has a
the compost mix is given by equation 10–15. C:N ratio that is less than the desired C:N ratio.
Equation 10–19 or 10–20 can be used to calculate
W + Wcb + Wca the weight of amendment to add to achieve a
R m = cw
Wnw + Wnb + Wna desired C:N ratio.
(eq. 10–15)
where: Wnm × (R d − R mb ) × 10, 000
Waa =
Rm = C:N ratio of compost mix Naa × (100 − M aa ) × (R aa − R d )
Wcw = weight of carbon in waste (lb)
(eq. 10–19)
Wcb = weight of carbon in bulking agent (lb)
Wca = weight of carbon in amendment (lb)
N m Wmb × (100 − M mb ) × (R d − R mb )
Wnw = weight of nitrogen in waste (lb) Waa =
Wnb = weight of nitrogen in bulking agent (lb) Naa × (100 − M aa ) × (R aa − R d )
Wna = weight of nitrogen in amendment (lb) (eq. 10–20)
where:
The weight of carbon and nitrogen in each ingre- Wnm = weight of nitrogen in compost mix (lb)
dient can be estimated using the following equa- Rd = desired C:N ratio
tions: Rmb = C:N ratio of the compost mix before adding
amendment
Wn = % N × Wdry
(eq. 10–16a) Naa = percent nitrogen in amendment to be added
(dry basis)
Wc Raa = C:N ratio of compost amendment to be
Wn =
C:N (eq. 10–16b) added

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–63

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Nm = percent nitrogen in compost mix (dry basis) Wcw + Wcb + Wca

Mmb = percent moisture of compost mix before add- Wnd = − ( Wnw + Wnb + Wna )
Rd
ing amendment (wet basis), equation
(eq. 10–21)
10–10
where:
Wnd = dry weight of nitrogen to add to mix
For a compost mix that has a C:N ratio of more than
40, a carbonless amendment, such as fertilizer, can be After the amount of an amendment to add has been
added to lower the C:N ratio to within the acceptable determined to correct the C:N ratio, the design pro-
range. In this special case, the following equation can cess then returns to step 2. If no change is necessary
be used to estimate the dry weight of nitrogen to add in steps 2 and 3, the compost mix design process is
to the mix: complete.

Design example 10–7 Compost mix—bedding

A dairy farmer wishes to compost the waste gener- Nitrogen production = 0.71 lb/1,000 lb/d (from
ated from the herd in the barn. The waste is scraped AWMFH, chapter 4, table
daily from the barn and contains straw as a bedding 4–5(b))
material, but no extra water is added. Straw is the Volatile solids = 11 lb/1,000 lb/d (from
cheapest and most abundant source of a high C:N AWMFH, chapter 4, table
ratio amendment on the farm. The 100-cow Holstein 4–5(b))
herd is in the barn for an average of 6 hours. The
Step 1 Bulking agent. A sample of the manure
average weight of a cow is 1,200 pounds with an aver-
was stacked, and the manure appeared to have
age milk production of 75 pounds per day. Ten 60-
sufficient porosity to allow air movement and had
pound bales of straw (chopped) are added daily for
the ability to support itself. Therefore, the addi-
bedding. No bulking agent is necessary to improve
tion of a bulking agent is not necessary.
the compost porosity or structure. Determine the de-
sign mix for the compost operation on a daily basis. Step 2 Determine the moisture content of the
waste. To determine the quantity of waste:
Given:
Manure in barn:
Wheat straw:
120 AU × 108 lb/d × 0.25 = 3, 240 lb
Moisture content = 15% (estimated)
C:N ratio = 80 (from table 10–9)
Weight of straw added daily:
Percent N = 0.67% (from AWMFH, chap-
ter 6) 10 bales × 60 lb = 600 lb
Manure:
Number of cows = 100 Weight of manure and straw (Wm):
Size of cows = 1,200 lb
Number of AU = 100 × 1,200/1,000 = 120 10 bales × 60 lb = 600 lb
Moisture content = 87% (from AWMFH, chapter
Using equation 10–11, determine the moisture
4, table 4–5(b))
content of manure plus straw.
Manure production = 108 lb/d/1,000 lb (from
AWMFH, chapter 4, table
4–5(b))
( 3, 240 × 87 ) + (600 × 15)
Fraction in barn = 6 h/24 h = 0.25 Mm = 100 × 100 = 76%
( 3, 240 + 600)

10–64 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Design example 10–7 Compost mix—bedding—Continued

Step 2 (continued) Using equation 10–12, C:N ratio of manure:

determine the amount of straw to add to bring
183.3
the moisture content of the compost mix to 60 = 8.6
percent. 21.3

3, 840 lb × (76% − 60% ) Determine C:N ratio of mixture (equation 10–15).

Waa = = 1, 365 lb
60% − 15% 183.3 + 896
C:N = = 33.2
New weight of compost mix: 21.3 + 11.2

Wm = 3, 840 lb + 1, 365 = 5, 205 lb A compost mix that has a C:N ratio of 33 is in the
acceptable range, but for purposes of this exam-
Step 3 Determine the C:N ratio of the compost ple, continue step 3.
mix. Determine the carbon and nitrogen content Step 3 (continued) Determine the type and
of the straw. amount of amendment to add to bring the C:N
Total weight of straw: ratio of the mix to 30:1. To lower the C:N ratio, an
amendment with a C:N ratio that is less than the
600 + 1, 365 = 1, 965 lb
desired final C:N ratio is necessary. Fresh manure
that has a C:N ratio of 10.5 could be collected
Straw dry weight (equation 10–18): outside the barn, or fertilizer could be added to

1,965 ×
(100 − 15) = 1, 670 lb the mix. The farmer would like to see both alter-
natives.
100
Weight of nitrogen in current compost mix:
Weight of nitrogen in straw:
21.3 + 11.2 = 32.5 lb
Wna =
(0.67 × 1, 670 lb) = 11.2 lb
100 Dry weight of manure (equation 10-18):

Weight of carbon in straw (equation 10–17b) :

3, 240 ×
(100 − 87 ) = 421 lb
100
Wca = 11.2 × 80 = 896 lb
Percent nitrogen in manure:
Determine the carbon and nitrogen content in
manure. 21.3
× 100 = 5.1%
Weight of volatile solids in barn: 421

120 AU × 11 lb/d/AU × 0.25 = 330 lb Pounds of manure to add to bring mix to 30:1 (us-
ing equation 10–19):
Weight of carbon in manure (using equation
10–13b): 32.5 × ( 30 − 33 ) × 10, 000
Waa =
330 lb 5.1 × (100 − 87 ) × ( 8.6 − 30 )
Wcw = = 183.3 lb
1.8 = 687 lb

Weight of nitrogen in manure: Pounds of nitrogen to add to bring compost mix

to 30:1 (using equation 10–21)
Wnw = 120 AU × 0.71 × 0.25 = 21.3 lb
183.3 + 896
Wnd = − ( 21.3 + 11.2)
30
= 3.5 lb

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–65

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Design example 10–7 Compost mix—bedding—Continued

Adding 3.5 pound of nitrogen is easier than add- The final compost mix consists of the following:
ing 687 pounds of manure, so the obvious choice
• Manure and bedding scraped from the barn:
is to add nitrogen. If the farmer chooses to add
3,840 lb
nitrogen, no further calculations are necessary,
because the moisture content of the mix is not • Additional straw to correct moisture: 1,365 lb
changed with the addition of nitrogen. The design
• Nitrogen added to lower C:N ratio: 3.5 lb
process would continue with step 2 if another
type of amendment was added that resulted in a
change in the moisture content of the manure.

Design example 10–8 Compost mix—grass straw

A grass seed farmer wishes to compost straw from Manure weight:

rye grass seed harvest. A nearby dairy operation has
agreed to furnish fresh manure for 2 weeks. Deter- 560 AU × 108 lb/d/AU × 14 d = 846, 720 lb
mine the compost mixture design.
Moisture content (Mm) of straw and manure (eq.
Given: 10–11):

Rye grass straw:

(1, 200, 000 × 7 ) + ( 846, 720 × 87 )
100 × 100 = 40%
Amount = 600 tons 1, 200, 000 + 846, 720
Moisture content = 7%
N per ton = 6 lb The 40 percent moisture content of the mix is
C:N ratio = 100:1 between 40 and 60 percent; for purposes of this
exercise, add water to bring the moisture content
Manure: to 50 percent.
Number of cows = 400 Step 2 (continued) Using equation 10–12, de-
Size of cows = 1,400 lb termine the amount of water to add to bring the
Number of AU = 400 × 1,400/1,000=560 moisture content to 50 percent (Waa).
Manure production = 108 lb/d/1,000 lb
Nitrogen production = 0.71 lb/d/1,000 lb (1, 200, 000 + 846, 720) × ( 40 − 50) = 409, 344 lb
Volatile solids = 11 lb/d/1,000 lb
50 − 100
Percent moisture = 87%
409, 344
= 49,141 gal
Step 1 No bulking agent is needed to improve 8.33
structure or porosity.
Step 3 Determine C:N ratio of the straw and
Step 2 Determine moisture content of rye grass manure mix. Determine the amount of carbon
straw and manure mixture. and nitrogen in the rye straw:
Straw weight: Nitrogen in straw:
600 tons × 2, 000 lb/ton = 1, 200, 000 lb Wna = 600 ton × 6 lb/ton=3,600 lb

10–66 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Design example 10–8 Compost mix—grass straw—Continued

Carbon in straw (eq. 10–17b): C:N ratio of straw and manure mix (eq. 10–15):
360, 000 + 47, 911
Wca = 100 × 3,600 lb = 360, 000 lb = 51 : 1
3, 600 + 4, 453
Determine the amount of carbon and nitrogen in
A C:N ratio of 51:1 is more than the maximum
the manure.
recommended of 40:1. The compost mix needs
Nitrogen in manure (use AWMFH, chapter 4 more nitrogen.
values for N):
Step 3 (continued) Determine the amount of
560 AU × 0.71 × 14 d = 5, 566 lb commercial nitrogen to add to the mix to bring
the C:N ratio to 40:1.
Assume a 20 percent loss of nitrogen in handling
Amount of nitrogen to add (eq. 10–21):
manure. Nitrogen left in manure:
360, 000 + 47, 911
Wnw = 5, 566 ×
100 − 20
= 4, 453 lb Na = − ( 3, 600 + 4, 453 )
100 40
= 2,145 lb
Weight of volatile solids in manure (use AWMFH,
chapter 4 values): The final design mix is:
560 AU × 11 × 14 d = 86, 240 lb Rye grass straw = 600 tons
Manure (14 days) = 423.4 tons
Carbon in manure (using eq. 10–13b): Commercial nitrogen = 2,145 lb
86, 240 lb
Wcw = = 47, 911 lb
1.8

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–67

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Composting operational considerations—The enheit, the compost is in the thermophillic stage. For
landowner/operator should be provided a written set complete pathogen destruction, the compost tempera-
of instructions as a part of the waste management ture must exceed 135 degrees Fahrenheit.
plan. These instructions should detail the operation
and maintenance requirements necessary for success- The compost temperature will decline if moisture or
ful composting operation. They should include the oxygen is insufficient or if the food source is exhaust-
compost mix design (recipe), method or schedule of ed. In compost methods where turning is the method
turning or aerating, and instructions on monitoring the of aerating, a temperature rhythm often develops with
compost process and on long-term storage compost. the turning of the compost pile (fig. 10–40).
The final use of the compost should be detailed in the
Waste Utilization Plan. Moisture—the moisture content of the compost mix-
ture should be monitored periodically during the pro-
Composting time—one of the primary composting cess. Low or high moisture content can slow or stop
considerations is the amount of time it takes to per- the compost process. High moisture content generally
form the composting operation. Composting time var- results in the process turning anaerobic and foul odors
ies with C:N ratio, moisture content, climate, type of developing. High temperature drives off significant
operation, management, and the types of wastes and amounts of moisture, and the compost mix may be-
amendments being composted. For a well managed come too dry, resulting in a need to add water.
windrow or static pile composting operation, the com-
posting time during the summer months ranges from Odor—the odor given off by the composting opera-
14 days to a month. Sophisticated in-vessel methods tion is a good indicator of how the compost operation
may take as little as 7 days to complete the compost- is proceeding. Foul odors may mean that the process
ing operation. In addition to the actual composting has turned from aerobic to anaerobic. Anaerobic
time, the amount of time necessary for compost curing conditions are the result of insufficient oxygen in the
and storage should be considered. compost. This may be caused by excessive moisture in
the compost or the need for turning or aerating of the
Temperature—consideration should be given to how compost.
the compost temperature is going to be monitored.
The temperature probe should be long enough to pen- Compost process steps—The composting operation
etrate a third of the distance from the outside of the generally follows these steps (fig. 10–41):
pile to the center of mass. The compost temperature
should be monitored on a daily basis if possible. The Step 1 Preconditioning of materials (as needed).
temperature is an indicator of the level of microbial Grinding or shredding of the raw material may be
activity within the compost. Failure to achieve the necessary to increase the exposed surface area of
desired temperatures may result in the incomplete de- the compost mixture to enhance decomposition
struction of pathogens and weed seeds and can cause by microorganisms.
fly and odor problems. Step 2 Mixing of the waste with a bulking agent
or amendment. A typical agricultural composting
Initially, the compost mass is at ambient temperature; operation involves mixing the raw waste with a
however, as the microorganisms multiply, the tempera- bulking agent or amendment, or both, according
ture rises rapidly. to a prescribed mix or design. The prescribed mix
should detail the quantities of raw waste, amend-
The composting process is commonly grouped into
ments, and bulking agents to be mixed. The mix-
three phases based on the prominent type of bacteria
ing operation is generally done with a front-end
present in the compost mix. Figure 10-39 illustrates
loader on a tractor, but other more sophisticated
the relationship between time, temperature, and com-
methods can be used.
post phase. If the temperature is less than 50 degrees
Fahrenheit, the compost is said to be in the psychro- Step 3 Aeration by forced air or mechanical
phillic stage. If it is in the range of 50 to 105 degrees turning. Once the materials are mixed, the com-
Fahrenheit, the compost is in the mesophillic stage. If posting process begins. Bacteria begin to multiply
the compost temperature exceeds 105 degrees Fahr- and consume carbon and free oxygen. To sustain

10–68 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–39 Composting temperature

Heating Temperature plateau Substrate depletion

Thermophillic
(conversion)

105°
Temperature °F

Mesophillic
(degradation)

50°

Psychrophillic
(maturation)

2 to 3 days 2 to 14 days Several days to weeks

Time

Figure 10–40 Typical temperature rhythm of windrow

method
Typical Temperature Rhythm of Windrow Method

160
Compost temperature

140

120

100 Compost turned

80
5 10 15 20
Days

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–69

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–41 Agricultural

Agricultural composting
Composting process
Process flow
Flow Schematic Diagram

Bulking agent
Raw waste and/or
amendment

Mixing of
ingredients

Moisture Forced
Compost adjustment
turning aeration
(as needed)

Drying Bulking agent

Curing (as needed) recovery
(as required)

Storage
(as needed)

Land
application Marketing Other

10–70 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

microbial activity, air must be added to the mix to Step 8. Storage (as needed). Finished compost
re-supply the oxygen to the compost pile. Air can may need to be stored for a period of time during
be added by simply remixing or turning the com- frozen or snow-covered conditions or until the
post pile. With more sophisticated methods, such compost product can be marketed. If possible,
as an aerated static pile, air is forced or sucked finished compost should be covered to prevent
through the compost mix using a blower. The leaching or runoff.
pounds of air per pound of volatile matter per day
generally range from 5 to 9. Given in percentage, (7) Vegetated treatment areas
the optimum oxygen concentration of the compost A vegetated treatment area is a wide, flat area of
mixture ranges from 5 to 15 percent, by volume. vegetation used for removing suspended solids and
An increase of oxygen beyond 15 percent gener- nutrients from concentrated livestock area runoff and
ally results in a decrease in temperature because other liquid by-products of agricultural operations.
of greater air flow. Low oxygen concentrations The vegetated areas are designed with adequate length
generally result in anaerobic conditions and slow and limited flow velocities to promote filtration, depo-
processing times. Inadequate aeration results in sition, infiltration, absorption, adsorption, decomposi-
anaerobic conditions and increased odors. Odor is tion, and volatilization of contaminants. Consideration
an excellent indicator of when to turn and aerate a must be given to hydraulic as well as contaminant
compost pile. loading.
Step 4. Moisture adjustment (as needed). Water
should be added with caution because too much Vegetated treatment areas rely on nutrient uptake to
moisture can easily be added. A compost mix that remove nitrates and other nutrients that are in solu-
has excessive moisture problems does not com- tion, since these constituents are very mobile in water.
post properly, appears soggy and compacted, and Soils are used to infiltrate the liquid faction. Provision
is not loose and friable. Leachate from the com- for rest periods between loadings is recommended.
post mixture is another sign of excessive moisture In cases where a large volume of runoff is expected,
conditions. settling basins are needed above the treatment area.
Clean water must be diverted from the treatment area.
Step 5. Curing (optional). Once the compost op-
Installation and maintenance are critical.
eration is completed, it can be applied directly to
the field or stored and allowed to cure for a period
of months. During the curing process, the compost The total treatment area should be designed to match
temperature returns to ambient conditions and the crop nutrient uptake from the runoff or volume of wa-
biological activity slows down. During the curing ter runoff with soil infiltration capacity. Typically, the
phase, the compost nutrients are further stabi- nutrient balance approach is the limiting design sizing
lized. The typical curing time ranges from 30 to 90 method. Uniform flow across the vegetated slope is re-
days, depending on the type of raw material and quired, possibly requiring shaping and other methods
end use. for distributing flow, in addition to field maintenance
to limit erosion and channeling.
Step 6. Drying (optional). Further drying of the
compost to reduce weight may be necessary if NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 635, Vegetated
the finished compost is to be marketed, hauled Treatment Area, gives more detailed planning con-
long distances, or used as bedding. Drying can be siderations and design criteria. Also, see AWMFH,
accomplished by spreading the compost out in 651.0605(c) for additional information. If State or local
warm, dry weather or under a roofed structure government has restrictions on the use of vegetated
until a sufficient quantity of moisture evaporates. treatment areas, the requirements must be met before
Step 7. Bulking agent recovery (as needed or re- design and construction. This is especially true if the
quired). If such bulking agents as shredded tires or outflow from the treatment area will flow into a stream
large wood chips are used in the compost mixture, or waterway. Unless permitted by State regulations,
they can be recovered from the finished compost agricultural runoff treatment by a vegetated treatment
by screening. The recovered bulking agents are area is not sufficient to allow discharge to surface
then reused in the next compost mix. water.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–71

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(8) Constructed wetlands ment. However, in many rural areas, this is not pos-
A constructed wetland is a shallow treatment system sible.
that uses aquatic vegetation and microorganisms to
reduce nutrients, organic matter, and suspended solids Septic tank systems designed for specific soil condi-
in runoff from agricultural operations. Constructed tions are typically used for treating human waste in
wetlands treatment systems can utilize subsurface areas not served by municipal treatment facilities.
flow, surface flow, or a combination of these two
processes. A natural or constructed subsurface barrier Most home sewage systems rely on anaerobic decom-
is used to control seepage. The design and operating position in septic tanks with the resulting effluent be-
parameters include hydraulic retention, cell depth and ing discharged into a leaching field. Some conditions,
size, substrate composition, and recycling require- such as a high water table, require that the septic
ments. system be constructed above ground in mounds. Hu-
man waste is not to be stored or processed in animal
Subsurface flow systems utilize submerged flow waste management facilities because of the potential
through a permeable medium, reducing odor prob- for disease transmission.
lems. Examples are root-zone systems, rock-reed-
filters, and vegetated submerged bed systems. Typical Landowners should contact local health authorities
media includes soil, sand, and gravel or crushed rock. for design requirements and permit information before
installing treatment systems for human waste. NRCS
Surface flow systems are similar to natural wetlands, does not design human waste management systems,
utilizing shallow water flowing over a soil surface. but some States have extension specialists or environ-
Vegetation and aerobic bacteria provide nutrient re- mental engineers that can assist in designing suitable
duction. Surface flow systems should be planned and systems.
designed according to NRCS Conservation Practice
Standard 656, Constructed Wetland, which gives more
detailed planning considerations and design criteria.
Also, see NEH 637, Environmental Engineering, Chap-
ter 3, Constructed Wetland (NEH637.0305) for addi-
tional information.

Reciprocating flow systems (RECIP) are designed to

create alternating surface and subsurface flow be-
tween paired wetland cells. By using fill and drain, the
environment alternates between aerobic and anaero-
bic conditions, allowing oxidation and reduction to
occur. Organic decomposition occurs through nitri-
fication/denitrification, phosphorus removal, sulfate
reduction, and limited methanogenesis.

If State or local government has restrictions on the use

of constructed wetlands, the requirements must be
met before design and construction. This is especially
true if the outflow from the wetland will flow into a
stream or waterway. Unless permitted by State regula-
tions, agricultural runoff treatment by a constructed
wetland is not sufficient to allow discharge to surface
water.

(9) Human waste management

If at all possible, human waste should be treated in
municipal facilities designed to provide proper treat-

10–72 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

• weather and soil conditions

651.1006 Utilization • availability of land and equipment
• stage of crop growth
Utilization is a function in a manure management
system employed for a beneficial purpose. The typical A schedule of manure application should be prepared
method is to apply the manure to the land as a source in advance. It should consider the most likely periods
of nutrients for plant growth and of organic matter when application is not possible. This can help in de-
to improve soil tilth and water holding capacity and termining the amount of storage, equipment, and labor
to help control erosion. The vast majority of manure needed to make application at desired times. NRCS
produced in the United States is applied to cropland, Conservation Practice Standard 590, Nutrient Manage-
pasture, and hayland. Manure properly managed and ment, gives more detailed planning considerations and
applied at the appropriate rates and times can sig- design criteria.
nificantly reduce the amount of commercial fertilizer
needed for crop production.
(b) Land application equipment
Manure and other by-products of agricultural opera- Manure is land applied using a variety of equipment.
tions can also be used directly as fuels for energy pro- The kind of equipment used depends on the TS con-
duction or converted to generate biogas. In addition, centration of the material. If the manure handles as a
by drying or composting, the material can be used for solid, a box spreader or flail spreader is used. Solids
bedding or potting material. Solid and liquid separa- spreaders are used for manure from solid manure
tion increase available alternatives for utilization. structures and for the settled solids in sediment ba-
sins.
(a) Nutrient management Slurry manures are applied using tank wagons or flail
spreaders. Some tank wagons can be used to inject
Manure should be applied at rates where the nutrient the material directly into the soil. Slurry spreaders are
requirements of the crop to be grown are met. Concen- typically used for manure that is stored in above or
tration of nutrients in the manure should be known, belowground storage structures, earthen storage struc-
and records on manure application rates should be tures, and sometimes lagoons.
maintained.
Manure that has a TS concentration of less than 5
Between the time of manure production and the time percent can be applied using tank wagons, or it can
of application, nutrient concentrations can vary widely be irrigated using large diameter nozzles. Irrigation
because of storage, dilution, volatilization, settling, is used primarily for land application of liquids from
drying, or treatment. To accurately use manure, rep- lagoons, storage ponds, and tanks. Irrigation systems
resentative samples of the material to be land applied must be designed on a hydraulic loading rate, as well
should be analyzed for nutrient content. Before ap- as on nutrient utilization.
plication rates can be computed, the soil in the fields
where manure will be applied should be analyzed and Custom hauling and application of manure are becom-
nutrient recommendations obtained. This information ing popular in some locations. This method of utiliza-
should indicate the amount of nutrients to be applied tion reduces the amount of specialized equipment
for a given crop yield. needed by the owner/operator. NRCS Conservation
Practice Standard 634, Waste Transfer, gives more
Scheduling land application of wastes is critical. Sev- detailed planning considerations and design criteria.
eral factors must be considered:
• amount of available manure storage
• major agronomic activities such as planting and
harvesting

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–73

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(c) Land application of municipal sludge percent CH . The amount of CH generated depends
4 4
on the livestock type, frequency of waste collection,
Municipalities in the United States treat wastewater waste handling method, and climate. Pure methane is
biologically using anaerobic or aerobic processes. a highly combustible gas that has an approximate heat-
These processes generate sludge that has agronomic ing value of 994 British thermal units (BTU) per cubic
value as a nutrient source and soil amendment. Land foot. Biogas can be burned in boilers to produce hot
application of sludge is currently recognized as accept- water, in engines to power electrical generators, and in
able technology; however, strict regulations and prac- absorption coolers to produce refrigeration.
tices must be followed.
The most frequent problem with anaerobic digestion
systems is related to the economical use of the biogas.
(d) Bioenergy production The biogas production rate from a biologically stable
anaerobic digester is reasonably constant; however,
Bioenergy can be produced from commonly used ma- most on-farm energy use rates vary substantially. Be-
terials on the farm such as crops, animal excretions, cause compression and storage of biogas is expensive,
and by-products from food processing. The conver- economical use of biogas as an on-farm energy source
sion process into solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels can be requires that farm use must closely match the energy
separated into three broad categories: thermochemi- production from the anaerobic digester. Additionally,
cal, biochemical, and agrochemical processes. Ther- environmental conditions can directly affect biogas
mochemical processes include direct combustion, production efficiency.
liquefaction, gasification, and pyrolysis. Biochemical
processes include hydrolysis-fermentation and an- Because of the presence of hydrogen sulfide, biogas
aerobic digestion. Agrochemical processes include the may have an odor similar to that of rotten eggs. Hydro-
crushing of seed crops and the extraction of the oil for gen sulfide mixed with water vapor can form sulfuric
fuel, such as biodiesel and heating oil. The products acid, which is highly corrosive. It can be removed from
from these processes include such items as biogas, biogas by passing the gas through a column of iron-
methanol, ethanol and biodiesel oils. impregnated wood chips or adding air to the digester
headspace area. Water vapor can be removed by con-
(1) Anaerobic digestion densers or condensate traps. Carbon dioxide can be
An anaerobic digester used for biogas production is removed by passing biogas through lime water under
considered a utilization function component because high pressure.
the manure is being managed for use even though
further management of the digester effluent is re- Biogas can be used to heat the slurry manure in the
quired. Anaerobic digestion is the process of storing digester. From 25 to 50 percent of the biogas is re-
liquid manure in an air-tight vessel to be decomposed quired to maintain a working digester temperature of
by microbes into methane, carbon dioxide, hydrogen 95 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on the climate and
sulfide, and water vapor as gaseous by-products. This the amount of insulation used. Belowground digesters
biological conversion process has a number of advan- require less insulation than those aboveground. En-
tages. Fresh manure has high moisture content (about gines can burn biogas directly from digesters; how-
80%), making it unsuitable for most thermochemical ever, removal of hydrogen sulfide and water vapor is
processes; the high content of lignin makes it unat- recommended.
tractive for fermentation to ethanol or other products.
Additionally, the process offers the potential for onsite If digested solids are separated from digester effluent
energy production and odor reduction. and dried, they make an excellent bedding material. A
brief period of composting may be necessary before it
Biogas, the product of anaerobic digestion, is typically is used.
made up of 55 to 65 percent methane (CH ), 35 to 45
4
percent carbon dioxide (CO ), and traces of ammonia Anaerobic digestion in itself is not a pollution control
2
(NH ) and hydrogen sulfide (H S). Although biogas can practice. Digester effluent must be managed similarly
3 2
range from approximately 55 to 80 percent CH , biogas to undigested manure by storing in storage ponds
4
generated from animal manures is typically around 65 or treating in lagoons. Initial start-up of a digester is

10–74 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

critical. The digester should be partly filled with water Design procedure—Because of the safety issues
(50–75% full) and brought to temperature using an and economic and operational complexities involved,
auxiliary heater. Feeding of the digester with manure NRCS assistance on biogas production is generally
should increase over a period of 3 to 6 weeks start- limited to planning and feasibility. The information
ing with a feeding rate of about 25 percent of full feed presented here is intended for that type of assistance.
(normal operation). Interested farmers and ranchers should be advised to
obtain other assistance in the detailed design of the
Biogas production rates can be measured using spe- facility.
cially designed corrosion resistant gas meters. These
rates and carbon dioxide levels are good indicators of The guidelines presented here are based on digestion
digester health during start-up. Several simple tests of manure in the mesophillic temperature range (about
can be used in the field to determine carbon dioxide. 95 °F) and may be subject to change as a result of ad-
ditional research and experience. They provide a basis
The potential amount of biogas produced from animal for considering biogas production facilities based on
manure can be theoretically or empirically estimated. current knowledge as part of a waste management
At a minimum, laboratory testing of animal manure to system.
determine the chemical oxygen demand (COD) and
TS contents should be conducted when considering Several digester types are used (figs. 10–42, 10–43,
anaerobic digestion as a treatment alternative. This 10–44). The mixed tank is a concrete or metal cylindri-
information can be used to estimate potential biogas cal vessel constructed aboveground. If the manure is
production and to evaluate applicable anaerobic di- highly liquid (low TS), the digester must be periodical-
gester configurations. The volume of biogas generated ly mixed to get complete digestion. This can be done
from the anaerobic digestion of manure can be theo- mechanically using a mechanical mixer, recirculating
retically predicted based on the COD of the manure digestion liquid, or pumping biogas into the bottom
and the COD to CH conversion efficiency. If the COD sludge to remix the contents of the digester.
4
is not available, VS content can be used to estimate
potential methane production. NRCS Conservation Another digester, known as the plug flow, is used for
Practice Standard 366, Anaerobic Digester, gives more relatively thick manure (12–14% TS), such as dairy ma-
detailed planning considerations and design criteria. nure. The manure is introduced at one end and theo-

Figure 10–42 Two-stage, mixed tank anaerobic digester

Digester roof
Biogas
Gas outlet inlet Effluent outlet
Inlet for gas
agtiation
Gutter cleaner Secondary
chamber

Primary Heated
Ram pump chamber
Digester wall

Insulation

Gas diffuser
Auger outlet

Gravel and sand removal auger

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–75

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–43 Typical anaerobic digester types

Mixed type digester Two stage digester

Effluent
out
Effluent
out Slurry
in

Slurry
in

Plug flow digester

Slurry Effluent
in out

Figure 10–44 Gas agitation in an anaerobic digester

Gas
pump

Slurry level

Diffuser

10–76 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

retically moves as a plug to the other end. However, if by pumping characteristics and should seldom go
the TS content of the influent manure is too low, the above 12 percent solids.
manure will channel, the actual retention time will be
Step 3 Determine effective digester volume. A
reduced, and the biogas yield will diminish.
hydraulic detention time of 20 days is suggested.
This time appears to be about optimum for effi-
Biogas production is dependent upon the animal
cient biogas production. The daily digester inflow
species, type of digester used, storage and handling
in cubic feet per day can be determined using
losses, collection methods, and feed management. For
equation 10–24.
any digester, the influent must be managed for consis-
tency in frequency of feeding. For this to happen, the TMTS × 100
rations fed and manure management must be consis- DMI =
DDSFC × 62.4 (eq. 10–24)
tent. Some manure requires preprocessing before it
where:
enters the digester. For example, poultry manure must
DMI = daily manure inflow, ft3
be diluted to about 6 percent TS to allow grit to settle
TMTS = total manure total solids production,
before the manure is pumped into the digester. Grit
ft3/d
material is very difficult to remove from digesters. All
DDSFC = desired digester input total solids con-
digesters must be periodically cleaned. The frequency
centration, %
of cleaning can vary from 1 to 4 years.
The necessary digester volume in cubic feet can
Step 1 Determine manure production. Manure
be determined using equation 10–25.
production can be based on the tables in AWMFH,
chapter 4 or on reliable local data. The following DEV = DMI × 20 (eq. 10–25)
data will be needed:
where:
DEV = digester effective volume, ft3
Volume of manure produced = —ft3/d
20 = recommended detention time, d
Wet weight of manure produce = —lb/d
Step 4 Select digester dimensions. Optimum di-
Total solids (TS) = —lb/d
mensions of the liquid part of the digester volume
Volatile solids (VS) = —lb/d have not been established. The digester should
Percent solids (TS/wet weight) = —% be longer than it is wide to allow raw manure to
enter one end and digested slurry to be withdrawn
Fresh manure is desirable for digestion. Charac-
at the other. An effectively operating digester has
teristics of beef feedlot manure must be deter-
much mixing by heat convection and gas bubbles.
mined for each operation.
Sufficient depth should be provided to preclude
Step 2 Establish TS concentration for digester
excessive delay at start-up because of the oxy-
feed. TS concentrations considered desirable as
gen interchange at the surface. A combination
input to the digester can range from about 6 to 12
of width equal to about two times the depth and
percent. The following are guidelines:
length equal to about four times the depth is a
realistic approach. Other proportions of width and
Dairy manure 10 to 12%
length should work equally well. For the purpose
Confined beef manure 10 to 12% of discussion assume:
Beef feedlot manure 8 to 10%
0.33
(after settling grit)  DEV 
H=
Swine manure 8 to 10%  8 
Chicken manure 7 to 9% WI = 2 × H
These percentages may need to be adjusted to L = 4×H
eliminate scum formation and promote natural where:
mixing by the gas produced within the mass. If H = height, ft
scum forms, a small increase in percent solids WI = width, ft
may be desirable. This increase may be limited L = length, ft

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–77

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Dimensions should be adjusted to round numbers water tubes within the digester can serve this
to fit the site and provide economical construc- purpose.
tion.
Other considerations—Biogas is difficult to store
Step 5 Estimate potential biogas production. because it cannot be compressed at normal pres-
Biogas production is dependent on manure de- sures and temperatures. Storage pressures above 250
composition within the digester. Biogas produc- pounds per square inch are rarely used. Because of
tion from manure may vary significantly from the these reasons, biogas usage is generally planned to
estimates that follow. Animals fed a high roughage match production and, thus, eliminate the need for
ration produce less biogas than those fed a high storage.
concentrate ration. Also, solids separation can sig-
nificantly affect biogas production. Finally, volatile The most common use of biogas is the production of
solids reduction may vary from 30 to 60 percent, electricity using an engine-generator set. The thermal
depending upon management and animal charac- conversion efficiency is about 25 percent for this type
teristics. of equipment. The remainder of the energy is lost as
heat. Heat exchangers can be used to capture as much
Estimated VS reductions are:
as 50 percent of the initial thermal energy of the biogas
from the engine exhaust gases and the engine cool-
Dairy 35%
ing water. This captured heat can sometimes be used
Beef 40% onsite for heating. Some of it must be used to maintain
Swine 50% the digester temperature.
Poultry 55%
Effluent from anaerobic digesters has essentially the
Estimated daily biogas production rates are: same amount of nutrients as the influent. Some of
the organic nitrogen will be converted to ammonia,
Dairy 10 ft3/lb VS destroyed making it more plant available, but more susceptible
Beef 10 ft3/lb VS destroyed to volatilization unless the liquid is injected. Only a
little volume is lost by processing the manure through
Swine 12 ft3/lb VS destroyed
an anaerobic digester. For manure requiring dilution
Poultry 11 ft3/lb VS destroyed before digestion, the amount of liquid to be stored and
Biogas production per day is estimated by multi- handled actually increases as compared to the original
amount of manure.
plying the percent volatile solids reduction times
the estimated daily biogas production rate times
the daily volatile solids input. Biogas production
in cubic feet per day would be:

Dairy 3.5 × daily VS input

Beef 4 × daily VS input
Swine 6 × daily VS input
Poultry 6 × daily VS input Design example 10–9 Biogas digester
Initial start-up of a digester requires a period of
time for anaerobic bacteria to become acclimated Mr. Joe Sims of Hamburg, Pennsylvania, has re-
and multiply to the level required for optimum quested assistance on development of a manure
methane production. If available, sludge from a management system for his 100 Guernsey milk
municipal anaerobic digester or another anaerobic cows that weigh an average of 1,200 pounds. He
manure digester can be introduced to speedup has requested that an alternative be developed that
the start-up process. The digester contents must includes an anaerobic digester to produce methane
be maintained at about 95 degrees Fahrenheit for gas. Determine the approximate size of the digester
continuous and uniform biogas production. Hot using worksheet 10A–5.

10–78 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Worksheet 10A-5—Anaerobic digester design

Decisionmaker:
Joe Sims Date:
6/13/89
Site:
Hamburg, PA
Animal units

1. Animal type Milkers 3. Number of animals (N) 100

2. Animal weight, lbs (W) 1200 4. Animal units, AU = W xN =

_____ 120
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of daily manure production 7. Total daily manure production volume, ft 3/day (TMP) 204
per AU, ft 3/AU/day (DVM)= 1.7
6. Total volume of daily manure production for animal type, ft 3/day

MPD = AU x DVM
204

Manure total solids

8. Daily manure total solids production, lbs/AU/day (MTS) = 14 10. Total manure total
solids production,
9. Daily manure total solids production for animal type, lb/day
1680 lbs/day (TMTS) = 1680
MTSD = MTS x AU =

Manure volatile solids

11. Daily manure volatile solids production per AU, lbs/AU/day (MVS) =
11
12. Daily manure volatile solids production for animal type per day, lbs/day MVSD = AU x MVS = 1320
13. Total manure volatile solids production, lbs/day (TMVS) 1320

Percent solids Digester feed solid concentration

14. Percent solids, % (PS) 15. Desired digester feed solids concentration, % (DDFSC) =
( 1680 ) x 100
TMTS x 100 = _____________________
PS = ____________ = 13.2 12.0
TMP x 62.4 ( 204 ) x 62.4

Daily manure inflow Digester effective volume

16. Daily manure inflow, ft 3 17. Digester effective volume, ft 3
DEV = DMI x 20 = ( 224.4 ) x 20 = 4,488
( 1680 ) x 100
TMTS x 100 = _____________________
DMI = ____________ = 224.4
DDFSC x 62.4 ( 12 ) x 62.4

Digester dimensions 16.2

19. Digest width, ft WI = 2 x H = 2 x ( 8.08 ) =
18. Digester depth, ft
0. 33
H= 
DEV 0.33 
= 
( 4,488 ) = 8.08 20. Digest length, ft L = 4 x H = 4 x ( 8.08 ) = 32.3
 8  8 
 

Estimated energy production

21. Biogas per unit (VS), ft 3/lb (BUVS) = 3.5 23. Estimated energy production BTU/day
EEP = EBP x 600 = (4620) x (600 ) = 2,772,000
22. Estimated biogas production ft/day 3
EBP = BUVS x TMVS = ( 3.5 ) x ( 1320 ) = 4,620

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–79

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(2) Thermochemical conversion requirements. Part of the energy budget must be used
Anaerobic digestion may have a thermal efficiency to dry the manure to 15 to 20 percent moisture.
as low as 30 percent, since only the methane portion
of biogas is available for energy conversion. Ther- (iii) Gasification
mochemical energy conversion efficiency may be Gasification is a form of pyrolysis to optimize gas
double that of anaerobic digestion, since all hydrocar- production at temperatures between 1100 and 1800 de-
bon compounds are converted to fuel. Thermochemi- grees Fahrenheit. The gas (syngas) is primarily carbon
cal conversion uses pressure or heat to decompress monoxide, hydrogen, methane, and some light weight
biomass to produce energy. Examples include incin- hydrocarbons. By-products of gasification include
eration (burning with excess air to produce heat), liquids (tars, oils, and other condensates) and solids
pyrolysis (thermal treatment in little to no air, produc- (char and ash). Syngas can be used in internal combus-
ing pyrolysis oil and biogas), gasification (thermal tion engines or used to produce methanol. Combustion
treatment using high temperatures in little to no air to of syngas result in the same end products as produced
produce biogas), and liquefaction (thermal conversion by direct combustion of solids, but with improved pol-
of a slurry to produce oils and char). Some processes lution control, conversion efficiencies, and easier fuel
may require air emission permits, depending upon lo- storage and handling. Internal combustion engines can
use their own pollution control systems to minimize
cal regulations.
by-products.
(i) Incineration
(iv) Liquefaction
Incineration is the direct combustion of dry manure
Liquefaction is the conversion of manure slurry to
(15–20% moisture) to produce heat without generating
hydrocarbon oils and tars using pressures up to 200
intermediate fuel gases, liquids, or solids. Tempera-
atmospheres and temperatures between 390 and 900
tures range between 1500–3000 degrees Fahrenheit.
degrees Fahrenheit. Typical processing time is mea-
Combustion requires the simultaneous processes of
sured in minutes. Products of liquefaction can be con-
heat and mass transport, pyrolysis, gasification, igni- verted to hydrocarbon fuels and chemicals similar to
tion, and burning, with fluid flow. Usually excess air those produced from petroleum. Pyrolysis and direct
is supplied to ensure maximum fuel conversion. Com- liquefaction differ in the operating conditions and end
bustion produces heat, carbon dioxide, water vapor, products. Additionally, drying of manure is not a limit-
and ash, with the heat typically used for steam produc- ing factor in liquefaction.
tion. However, incomplete combustion can produce
pollutants like carbon monoxide, particulate matter,
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Additionally,
nitrogen and sulfur compounds in the dry manure and
other reactions caused by the high combustion tem-
peratures can lead to emissions of oxides of nitrogen
and sulfur (NOx and SOx).

(ii) Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is a low oxygen process that operates at tem-
peratures between 390 and 1100 degrees Fahrenheit to
produce liquids, gases, and solids from manure. Py-
rolysis oils can be used as boiler fuel or refined similar
to crude oil. Solids can be used similar to charcoal.
Combustion of pyrolysis liquids and gases result in the
same end products as produced by direct combustion
of solids, but with improved pollution control, conver-
sion efficiencies, and easier fuel storage and handling.
Minimal oxygen requirements reduce the formation
of pollutants. The process can also be optimized for
the production of liquids or gases, depending upon job

10–80 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(c) Gasification
651.1007 Mortality management
Using carcasses to generate energy and mineral ash
are an attractive alternative. A burner heats a combus-
Every livestock and poultry facility experiences loss of tion chamber at temperatures between 1100 and 1800
animals by death. Mortality management involves hy- degrees Fahrenheit. Carcasses are placed in the com-
gienic, environmental, and aesthetical considerations bustion cham­ber with low to no oxygen. The gener-
to deal with carcasses in a timely, safe, and nonof- ated gases go from the combustion chamber to the
fensive manner. Although many methods of mortality gasification cham­ber as fuel to the gasification unit.
management are available, local and State regulations The resulting ash is sterile, with bio-available minerals
will often restrict the locally available options. Mor- such as phosphorous, calcium, and magnesium. Also,
tality management facilities should be planned and the system may have sufficient capacity for multiple
designed in accordance with NRCS Practice Standard units to be used for catastrophic losses. However, air
316, Animal Mortality Facility. emission permits may be required, depending upon
local regulations.
Utilization of the nutrients and energy contained in
the dead animals should be given first consideration. (d) Sanitary landfill
Rendering and composting of dead animals both result
in by-products that can recycled. Gasification can Sanitary landfills are disposal sites for solid waste.
provide energy to reduce the energy requirements of They are designed, constructed, and operated to be
combustion. If utilization is not viable, consideration environmentally safe. Although one of the simplest
can be given to disposal by incineration or burial. methods of disposal, landfill sites often restrict the
items can be placed in the landfill.
(a) Rendering and freezing
(e) Burial
Rendering provides a method to recycle the nutrients
in the carcass, usually as an ingredient in pet food. A common method for onsite dead animal disposal is
Because of the need to minimize decomposition, the burial for anaerobic decomposition. The burial sites
carcass needs to be transported to a rendering facility need to be at least 150 feet downgradient from any
within 24 hours. Decomposition can be minimized by ground water supply source. Sites that have highly
preservation using freezing or fermentation. Freez- permeable soils, fractured or cavernous bedrock, and
ing requires large custom-built or commercial freezer a seasonal high water table are not suitable and should
boxes to preserve dead animals until they can be be avoided. In no case should the bottom of the burial
pit be closer than 5 feet from the ground water table.
picked up for delivery to the rendering plant. Although
Surface water should be diverted from the pit.
expensive, freezing minimizes pathogen transfer
between farms. Fermentation requires grinding the
carcass and adding carbohydrates for preservation by (f) Composting
fermentation.
The disposal of dead animals is a major environmen-
tal concern. Composting can be an economical and
(b) Incineration environmentally acceptable method of handling dead
animals. This process produces little odor and de-
Burning carcasses at elevated temperatures provides stroys harmful pathogens. Composting of dead poultry
an effective method of waste disposal. Ashes generat- is the most common process. The process does apply
ed from a properly operating incinerator do not pose a equally well to other animals. Several universities have
pollution problem or an insect vector. However, costs developed criteria for successfully composting whole
of equipment and fuel in addition to potential odor and large animals. For more information on composting
air pollution, are significant design challenges. animal mortality, refer to the NRCS National Engineer-

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–81

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

ing Handbook, Part 637, Environmental Engineering, (2) Sizing mortality composting facilities
Chapter 2, Composting. A typical mortality composting facility consists of two
stages. The first stage, also called the primary com-
Composting of dead animals should be considered poster, is made up of equally sized bins in which the
when: dead animals and amendments are initially added and
allowed to compost. The mixture is moved from the
• a preferred use, such as rendering, is not avail-
first stage to the second stage, or secondary digester,
able
when the compost temperature begins to decline. The
• the mortality rate as a result of normal animal second stage can also consist of a number of bins, but
production is predictable it is most often one bin or concrete area or alley that
allows compost to be stacked with a volume equal to
• sufficient land is available for nutrient utiliza- or greater than the sum of the first stage bins.
tion
• State or local regulations permit dead animal The design volume for each stage should be based on
composting peak disposal requirements for the animal operation.
The peak disposal period normally occurs when the
• other disposal methods are not permitted or animals are close to their market weight. The volume
desired for each stage is calculated by multiplying the weight
of dead animals at maturity times a volume factor. The
• marketing of finished compost is feasible volume factor (VF) can vary depending upon typical
animal weight, type of composter, local conditions,
(1) Special planning considerations and expeiences. Table 10–9 can be used to estimate
Because composting of dead animals is similar in VF.
many ways to other methods of composting, the same
siting and planning considerations apply. These con- Equation 10–22 can be used to calculate the volume
siderations will not be repeated here. Composting of for each stage in the compost facility.
dead animals does, however, have unique problems
that require special attention. M VF
Vol = B × ×W×
T 100 (eq. 10–22)
Many States and localities regulate the disposal of
dead animals. A construction permit may be required where:
before installation of the facility begins, and an oper- Vol = volume required for each stage (ft3)
ating permit may be necessary to operate the facility. B = number of animals
The animal producer is responsible for procuring all M = percent normal mortality of animals for the
necessary permits to install and operate the facility. entire life cycle expressed as percent
T = number of days for animal to reach market
The size of the animals to be composted should be weight (d)
considered when planning a compost facility. Larger W = market weight of animals (lb)
animals require additional equipment, labor, and han- VF = volume factor
dling to cut the animals into smaller pieces to facili-
tate rapid composting. In lieu of dissecting carcasses,
Table 10–9 Volume factor if nitrogen source, such as
longer composting times can be used. poultry litter or manure, is used

Dead animal composting facilities should be roofed Carcass size (lb) Volume factor
to prevent rainfall from interfering with the compost   0–4 1.0–2.5
operation. Dead animal composting must reach a   4–10 3.0
temperature in excess of 130 degrees Fahrenheit for a
10–25 5.0
minimum of 5 days to destroy pathogens. The addition
25–300 10.0
of rainfall can elevate the moisture content and result
300–750 14.0
in a compost mix that is anaerobic. Anaerobic com-
posting takes much longer and creates odor problems. 750–1,400 20.0

10–82 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Note: M/T is used to estimate the percentage of dead Information provided by the animal producer/opera-
animals to be composted at maturity. Other estimators tor should be used whenever possible. Table 10–10
or field experience may be more accurate. gives typical mortality rates, growth cycle, and market
weights for animals and poultry.
The number of bins required for the first and second
stages can be estimated to the nearest whole number Mix requirements—rapid composting of dead animals
by dividing the total volume required by the volume of occurs when the C:N ratio of the compost mix is main-
each bin (eq. 10–23). tained between 10 and 20. This is considerably lower
than what is normally recommended for other types of
Total 1st stage volume ( ft 3 ) composting. Much of the nitrogen in the dead animal
# Bins =
Volume of single bin ( ft 3 ) mass is not exposed on the surface; therefore, a lower
eq. (10–23) C:N ratio is necessary to ensure rapid composting with
elevated temperatures. If the dead animals are shred-
Bins are typically 5 feet high, 5 feet deep, and 8 feet ded or ground up, a higher C:N ratio of 25:1 would be
across the front. The width across the front should be more appropriate. The initial compost mix should have
sized to accommodate the equipment used to load and a C:N ratio that is between 13 and 15. As composting
unload the facility. To prevent spontaneous combus- proceeds, nitrogen, carbon, and moisture are lost.
tion and to allow for ease of monitoring, a bin height Once composting is complete, the C:N ratio should be
of no more than 6 feet is recommended. The depth between 20 and 25. A C:N ratio of more than 30 in the
should also be sized to accommodate the equipment initial compost mixture is not recommended because
used. excessive composting time and failure to achieve the
temperature necessary to destroy pathogens may
A high volume to surface area ratio is important to result.
insulate the compost and allow the internal tempera-
ture to rise. The bin height and depth should be no less The moisture content of the initial compost mixture
than half the width. Shallow bins are easier to unload should be between 45 and 55 percent, by weight, to
and load; therefore, the bin depth should be no more facilitate rapid decomposition. An initial moisture
than the width. Figure 10–45 is an example of a dead content of more than 60 percent would be excessively
animal composting bin. moist and would retard the compost process. The
most common problem in dead animal composting
Mortality rates vary considerably because of climate is the addition of too much water. Depending on the
and among varieties, species, and types of operation. mass of dead animals and the moisture content of the

Figure 10–45 Dead animal composting bin

eep
8 ft wide 5 ft d
Pressure-treated
lumber

Compost
materials
5 ft high

Manure
Dead Each
animals layer
Straw

Manure

Concrete pad
(drawing not to scale)

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–83

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

amendments, water may not need to be added to the the initial mix should have enough porosity to allow
initial mix. Because water is relatively dense com- air movement into and out of the compost mix. This
pared to the compost mix, the addition of a little water can be accomplished by layering dead animals and
can raise the moisture content of the mix consider- amendments in the mix. For example, a dead poultry
ably. Even though water may not need to be added to compost mix would be layered with straw, dead birds,
the initial mix, it is advisable to have a source of water and manure or waste cake from the poultry houses.
available at the compost site for temperature control.
Layers of such high porosity material as straw, wood
chips, peanut hulls, and bark allow lateral movement
Composting of dead animals should remain aerobic
of air in the compost mix. Figure 10–46 is an example
at all times throughout the process. Anaerobic condi-
tions result in putrid odors and may not achieve tem- of commonly recommended layering of manure, straw,
peratures necessary to destroy pathogens. Foul odor and dead poultry.
during the compost process indicates that the compost
process has turned anaerobic and that corrective ac- Table 10–11 is a typical recipe for composting dead
tion is needed. These actions will be addressed later. birds. The ingredients are presented by volume as well
To prevent the compost process from going anaerobic, as weight.

Table 10–10 Animal mortality rates

Animal type Mortality rate Growth cycle Cycles Market weight

Poultry type (%) (d) (per year) (lb)
Broiler 4.5–5.0 42–49 5.5–6.0 4.2
Roaster
female 3 42 4 4.0
male 8 70 4 7.5
Laying hen 14 440 0.9 4.5
Breeding hen 10–12 440 0.9 7–8
Breeder male 20–25 300 1.1 10–12
Turkey female 5–6 95 3 14
Turkey male 9 112 3 24
Swine, farrow—prewean 11 20 10
Swine, farrow—nursery to 60 lb 2.6 47 35
Swine, grower/finisher 6 119 2.5 210
Swine, sow and gilt <250 lb 2.5
Swine, sow and gilt 250–500 lb 3
Swine, sow and gilt >500 lb 3.7
Beef cattle (>500 lb) 1.2
Beef calf 3.3
Dairy cattle (>500 lb) 2.8
Dairy calf 6.4
Horse <20 years old 1.2
Horse >20 years old 10.2
Horse, foal (less than 30 days) 4.9
Sheep, all causes 6.2
Sheep, nonpredator 3.9
Lamb, all causes 10.1
Lamb, nonpredator 5.5

10–84 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10–46 Recommended layering for dead bird

Recommended composting
Layering for Dead Bird Composting

4-in manure cap

Manure

Repeat Chickens
layer

Straw

Manure

Repeat
layer Chickens

Straw
Manure is always
Manure placed on top of
carcasses

6-8 in of manure to
Chickens keep carcasses away
First from sidewalks
layer
only
Straw

Manure 6-12 in

Concrete

Table 10–11 Broiler compost mix

Ingredient Volume Weight

(parts) (parts)
Straw 1.0 0.1
Broiler 2.0 1.0
Manure 2.0 1.5
Water* 0.5 0.75
* More or less water may be necessary
depending on the moisture content of
the straw and manure.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–85

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Research and evaluation on composting dead animals peratures near the edge of the compost pile will not be
other than poultry is limited. The differences between sufficient to destroy these elements. The edge of the
livestock and poultry as related to composting are compost stack in the first stage may remain an incuba-
insignificant except for the size of the animal to be tion area for fly larvae and allow the survival of the
composted and the density of skeletal material. Large more heat-resistant pathogens.
birds, such as turkeys, have been successfully compos-
ted. If large animals are to be composted, they should Removing the compost from the first stage and
be cut into no larger than 15-pound pieces and be cut restacking in the second stage mixes and aerates the
in a manner to maximize surface exposure. Large ani- compost. The compost that was on the edge of the
mal composting is a promising technology, but it is not compost pile is mixed with the internal compost mate-
well documented. Caution is advised. rial, and subsequently is exposed to temperatures in
excess of 130 degrees Fahrenheit in the second stage
Operational considerations—efficient and rapid stack.
composting requires careful control of the C:N ratio,
percent moisture and aerobic conditions, and the The internal temperature of the compost in the first
internal temperature of the compost mix. A deficiency and second stages should be monitored on a daily ba-
in any of these three areas retards and possibly inhib- sis. The compost should be moved from the first stage
its the composting process achieving temperatures too to the second stage when the internal temperature of
low for pathogen destruction. Careful planning and the first stage compost begins to decline. This gener-
monitoring is required to ensure that the process is ally occurs after 5 to 7 days.
proceeding as expected.
If internal temperatures fail to exceed 130 degrees
The landowner/operator should be provided a writ- Fahrenheit in the first or second stages of the com-
ten set of instructions as a part of the waste manage- poster, the compost material should immediately be in-
ment plan that detail the operation and maintenance corporated if land applied or remixed and composted
requirements necessary for successful dead animal a second time.
composting. The instructions should include compost
mix design (recipe), method or schedule of when to Excessively high temperatures are also a danger in
unload the primary digester (first stage) and load the dead animal composting because spontaneous com-
secondary digester (second stage), methods to moni- bustion of the compost material can occur when the
tor the compost process, and information on long-term compost temperature exceeds 170 degrees Fahrenheit.
compost storage. The final utilization of the compost If the temperature exceeds 170 degrees Fahrenheit,
should be detailed in the waste utilization plan. the compost should be removed from the bin and
spread out in a uniform layer no more than 6 inches
Temperature is an important gauge of the progress of deep. Water should be used, if necessary, to further
the composting operation. After initial loading into cool the compost. Once the temperature has fallen
the first stage, the compost temperature should peak to a safe level, the compost can be restacked. Adding
between 130 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit in 5 to 7 days. moisture to the compost should retard the biological
The same is true for when the compost is moved and growth and reduce the temperature. Excessive ap-
stacked in the second stage. Elevated temperatures plications of water stop the process and can cause
are necessary to destroy the fly larvae, pathogenic bac- anaerobic conditions to develop. The compost mix
teria, and viruses. The two-stage process maximizes should be rehydrated to a moisture content of 55 to 65
the destruction of these elements. percent, by weight, to reduce excessive temperatures.

When the compost is initially loaded into the compost Anaerobic conditions may develop if the initial poros-
bin, the internal temperature begins to rise as a result ity of the compost mix is too low, excessive amounts
of bacterial activity. Maximum internal temperatures of water are added to the mix, or the C:N ratio is
within the first stage should exceed 130 degrees Fahr- excessively low. Odor generally is a good indicator of
enheit within a few days. Although internal compost anaerobic conditions. If foul odors develop, the reason
temperatures rise to a level necessary for the destruc- for the odor problem must be identified before correc-
tion of pathogenic organisms and fly larvae, the tem- tive action can be taken. Anaerobic conditions may

10–86 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

be the result of any one or a combination of excessive Incineration and gasification will combust the carcass,
moisture, low porosity, or low C:N ratio. kill pathogens, and produce ash high in phosphorus
and magnesium. However, fuel costs and availability of
facilities are limiting factors.
(h) Emergency mortality management

Catastrophic mortality can occur for many reasons

like fire, heat stress, inadequate ventilation, poison-
ing, diseases, and bioterrorism. An effective disease
control and carcass disposal strategy is critical. Any
animal feeding operation should have an emergency
action plan for catastrophic mortality. Planning for
a catastrophic event should include a study of local
regulations specifying acceptable methods for dis-
posal. Planning and preparation should also include
identification of sites for disposal and obtaining insur-
ance to cover the resultant costs.

(1) Biosecurity concerns

Carcass disposal is a major concern for biosecurity.
Both disease control and environmental impacts are
major considerations. Should a major disease outbreak
occur, disposal of slaughtered animals requires large
investments of time and space in an isolated environ-
ment. Transportation options are usually very limited.
Current disease control policies usually require isola-
tion and immediate mass slaughter to control a disease
outbreak. Vaccination in conjunction with later slaugh-
ter can provide additional time and reduce immediate
disposal requirements, but create tradeoffs between
carcass disposal and disease control.

(2) Available options

Alternatives for carcass disposal for catastrophic mor-
tality traditionally use normal mortality management
facilities. However, these facilities may have limited
availability and limited capacity.

Burial of catastrophic mortality shall be timed to mini-

mize the effects of bloating during early stages of the
decay process. When permitted by State law, mortality
shall remain uncovered or lightly covered until bloat-
ing has subsided. Some topsoil should be stockpiled to
re-grade the disposal site after the ground has settled
and the decay process is largely completed.

Where composting is used for catastrophic mortality

disposal, the operation and maintenance plan should
identify the most likely compost medium, possible
compost recipes, operational information, and readily
available equipment.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–87

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

and methane (CH4). The gases produced under anaero-

651.1008 Safety bic conditions and the requirements for safety because
of these deadly gases are described in AWMFH, chap-
ter 3. Because of the importance of safety consider-
Much of this material was taken from the publication ations, the following repeats and elaborates on these
Safety and Liquid Manure Handling (White and safety requirements.
Young 1980).
Ammonia is an irritant at concentrations below 20
Safety must be a primary consideration in managing parts per million. At higher levels it can be an asphyxi-
animal waste. It must be considered during planning ant.
and designing of waste management system com-
ponents, as well as during the actual operation of Carbon dioxide is released from liquid or slurry ma-
handling wastes. The operator must be made aware nure. The rate of release is increased with agitation
of safety aspects of any waste management system of the manure. High concentrations of carbon dioxide
components under consideration. Accidents involving can cause headaches and drowsiness and even death
waste management may be the result of: by asphyxiation.
• poor design or construction
Hydrogen sulfide is the most dangerous of the manure
• lack of knowledge or training about compo- gases and can cause discomfort, headaches, nausea,
nents and their characteristics and dizziness. These symptoms become severe at con-
• poor judgment, carelessness, or lack of mainte- centrations of 800 parts per million for exposures over
nance 30 minutes. Hydrogen sulfide concentrations above
800 parts per million can lead to unconsciousness and
• lack of adequate safety devices, such as shields, death through paralysis of the respiratory system.
guard rails, fences, or warning signs
Methane is also an asphyxiant; however, its most dan-
The potential for an accident with waste management gerous characteristic is that it is explosive.
components is always present. However, accidents do
not have to happen if components are properly de- Several rules should be followed when dealing with
signed, constructed, and maintained and if all persons manure stored in poorly ventilated environments:
involved with the components are adequately trained
and supervised. • Safety equipment can include air packs and
face masks, nylon line with snap buckles,
First aid equipment should be near storage units and safety harness, first-aid kits, flotation devices,
lagoons. A special, easily accessible area should be safety signs, and hazardous atmosphere test-
provided for storing the equipment. The area should ing kits or monitors. All family members and
be inspected periodically to ensure that all equipment employees should be trained in first-aid, CPR
is available and in proper working condition. The techniques, and safety procedures and policies.
telephone numbers of the local fire department and/or The following material discusses specific safety
rescue squad should be posted near the safety equip- considerations.
ment and near all telephones. • Do not enter a manure pit unless absolutely
necessary and only then if the pit is first
ventilated, air is supplied to a mask or a self-
(a) Confined areas
contained breathing apparatus, a safety harness
and attached rope is put on, and there are two
Manure gases can accumulate when manure is stored
people standing by.
in environments that do not have adequate ventila-
tion, such as underground covered waste storage • If at all feasible, construct lids for manure pits
tanks. These gases can reach toxic concentrations and or tanks and keep access covers in place. If an
displace oxygen. The four main gases are ammonia open, ground-level pit or tank is necessary, put
(NH3), carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a fence around it and post “Keep Out” signs.

10–88 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

• Do not attempt without assistance to rescue access is not restricted. Floating crusts can appear
humans or livestock that have fallen into a capable of supporting a person’s weight and provide
manure storage structure or reception pit. a false sense of security. Tractors and equipment can
fall or slide into storage ponds or lagoons if they are
• Move all the animals out of the building, if
operated too close to them. The following rules should
possible when agitating manure stored beneath
be obeyed:
that building. If the animals cannot be removed,
the following steps should be taken: • Rails should be built along all walkways or
– If the building is mechanically ventilated, ramps of open manure storage structures.
turn fans on full capacity when beginning to • Fence around storage ponds and lagoons, and
agitate, even in the winter. post signs reading “Caution­­Manure Storage
– If the building is naturally ventilated, do (or Lagoon).” The fence keeps livestock and
not agitate unless there is a brisk breeze children away from the structure. Additional
blowing. The animals should be watched precautions include a minimum of one lifesav-
when agitation begins, and at the first sign ing station equipped with a reaching pole and a
of trouble, the pump should be turned off. ring buoy on a line.
The critical area of the building is where the • Place a barrier strong enough to stop a slow-
pumped manure breaks the liquid surface moving tractor on all push-off platforms or
in the pit. If an animal drops over because ramps.
of asphyxiation, do not try to rescue it. Turn
off the pump, and allow time for the gases to • If manure storage is outside the livestock build-
escape before entering the building. ing, use a water trap or other device to prevent
gases in the storage structure from entering the
• Do not smoke, weld, or use an open flame in building, especially during agitation.
confined, poorly ventilated areas where meth-
ane can accumulate.
• Keep electric motors, fixtures, and wiring near
(d) Equipment
manure storage structures in good condition.
All equipment associated with waste management,
such as spreaders, pumps, conveyors, and tractors,
(b) Aboveground tanks can be dangerous if improperly maintained or oper-
ated. Operators should be thoroughly familiar with the
Aboveground tanks can be dangerous if access is not operator’s manual for each piece of equipment. Equip-
restricted. Uncontrolled access can lead to injury ment should be inspected frequently and serviced as
or death from falls from ladders and to death from required. All guards and safety shields must be kept in
drowning if someone falls into the storage tank. The place on pumps, around pump hoppers, and on ma-
following rules should be enforced: nure spreaders, tank wagons, and power units.
• Permanent ladders on the outside of
aboveground tanks should have entry guards (e) Fences
locked in place or the ladder should be
terminated above the reach of individuals. Fences are an important component in some agricul-
• A ladder must never be left standing against an tural waste management systems. They are planned
aboveground tank. and designed in accordance with Conservation Prac-
tice Standard 382, Fencing. As they apply to agricul-
tural waste management, fences are used to:
(c) Lagoons, ponds, and liquid storage
• Confine livestock so that manure can be more
structures efficiently collected.
Lagoons, ponds, and liquid storage structures present • Exclude livestock from surface water to pre-
the potential for drowning of animals and humans if vent direct contamination.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–89

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

• Provide the necessary distance between the

fence and surface water to be protected for the 651.1009 References
interception of lot runoff in a channel, basin,
or other collection or storage facility located
above the lot. Alpert, J.E. 1987. Composting process and operations.
University of Massachusetts. On-farm Compost-
• Reduce the lot area and thus reduce the volume ing Conference. E&A Environmental Consultants.
of lot runoff to be collected or stored. Sloughton, MA.
• Exclude livestock from hazardous areas such
as waste storage ponds. Alpert, J.E. 1987. Windrow and Static Pile Composting.
University of Massachusetts, On-farm Composting
• Allow management of livestock for waste utili- Conference. E & A Environmental Consultants.
zation purposes. Sloughton, MA.
• Protect vegetative filters from degradation by
livestock. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE).
1982. Solid and liquid manure storages. Engineer-
ing Practice 393. Agricultural Engineering Year-
book. St. Joseph, MI. pp 303–305.

Barker, J.C. 1986. Course notes from agricultural

waste management class, North Carolina State
University. Raleigh, NC

Barth, C.L. 1985a. The rational design standard for an-

aerobic livestock lagoons. Proceedings of the Fifth
International Symposium on Agricultural Wastes.
ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. pp. 638–646.

Barth, C.L. 1985b. Livestock waste characterization­–a

new approach. Proceedings of the Fifth Interna-
tional Symposium on Agricultural Wastes. ASAE.
St. Joseph, MI. pp 286–294.

Bartlett, A. Windrow composting of poultry and horse

manure with hay. White Oak Farm. Belchertown,
MA.

Barton, T.L., and R.C. Benz. 1990. Composting poultry

carcasses. MP 317. Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Arkansas. Fayetteville, AR.

Bos, R.E. 1974. Dewatering bovine manure. M.S. The-

sis, Agric. Eng. Dept., The Pennsylvania State
University. University Park, PA.

Brinton, W. n.d. Agricultural and horticultural applica-

tions of compost. Woods End Research Labora-
tory. Mount Vernon, ME.

10–90 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Brinton, W.F., Jr. 1990. Agricultural waste management Eccles, C., and E.I. Stentiford. 1987. Microcomputers
and composting. Woods End Research Laboratory. monitor static pile performance. Biocycle, The JG
Amer. Soc. Agron., NE An. Meet., University of Press, Inc. Emmaus, PA. pp. 42–45.
New Hampshire. Durham, NH.
Ely, J.F., and E.L. Spencer. 1978. The composting al-
Brinton, W.F., and M.D. Seekins. 1988. Composting ternative waste disposal in remote locations. Res.
fish by-products—A feasibility study. Tiem & Tide Dept. Appalachian, MT.
RC&D. Waldoboro, ME.
Fairbank, C.W. 1974. Energy values. Agricultural En-
Calhoun, G.D. 1982. Personal communication. DeLa- gineering, ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. Sept. issue.
val, Agric. Div. Kansas City, MO.
Fulford, B. Composting dairy manure with newspaper
Cassidy, J.M. (n.d.) Agricultural regulations for Mas- and cardboard. The New Alchemy Institute. Fal-
sachusetts compost products. Bur. Farm Prod., mouth, MA.
Massachusetts Dept. Food and Agric.
Geiger, J.S. Composting with dairy and horse manure
Cathcart, T.P., D.W. Lipton, F.W. Wheaton, R.B. Brins- and fish wastes. Appleton Farms. Ipswich, MA.
field, D.G. Swartz, and I.E. Strand. Composting of
Glerum, J.C., G. Klamp, and H.R. Poelma. 1971. The
blue crab waste. University of Maryland. College
separation of solid and liquid parts of pig slurry. In
Park, MD. Pub. No. UM–SG–Ts–84–01.
Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abate-
ment. ASAE. St. Joseph, MI. pp. 345–347.
Cathcart, T.P., F.W. Wheaton, and R.B. Brinsfield. 1986.
Optimizing variables affecting composting of blue
Graves, R.E., and J.T. Clayton. 1972. Stationary sloping
crab scrap. University of Maryland. College Park,
screen to separate solids from dairy cattle manure
MD.
slurries. ASAE Paper 72–951. St. Joseph, MI. 16 pp.
Cheremisinoff, P.N., and R.A. Young. 1975. Pollution
Graves, R.E., et al. 1986. Manure management for en-
engineering practice handbook. Ann Arbor Sci. vironmental protection. PA Dept. Env. Resources.
Pub., Inc. Ann Arbor, MI. pp 788–792. Harrisburg, PA.

Clark, J.W., W. Viessman, Jr., and M.J. Hammer. 1971. Guest, R.W. 1984. Gravity manure handling. NRAES/
Water supply and pollution control. Int. Textbook NDPC 27.10, Agric. Eng. Dept., Cornell University.
Co. Scranton, PA. pp 579–584. Ithaca, NY. 4 pp.

Commonwealth Marketing and Development. 1988. Hansen, R.C., and K.M. Mancl. 1988. Modern compost-
Midcoast compost project market study. Portland, ing, a natural way to recycle wastes. The Ohio
MA. State University. Columbus, OH.

Costa, C.A. 1987. Introduction: Why consider compost- Haug, R.T., and L.D. Tortorici. 1986. Composting pro-
ing. MA Dept. Food and Agric., On-farm Compost- cess design criteria. Biocycle, Nov/Dec 1986 issue.
ing Conf., University of Massachusetts. Amhurst, The JG Press, Inc. Emmaus, PA
MA.
Hegg, R.O., R.E. Larson, and J.A. Moore. 1981. Me-
Eberhardt, D.L., and W.O. Pipes. 1972. Composting ap- chanical liquid-solid separation in beef, dairy,
plications for Illinois. IIEQ Doc.No. 73–5, IL Inst. and swine waste slurries. Transactions of ASAE
Environ. Qual. 24(1):159–163. St. Joseph, MI.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–91

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Higgins, A.J. 1990. Engineering parameters for the Morse, D.E., K. Friendshuh, M. Hanks, R. Iwan, and
selection of compost bulking agents. ASAE, NAR D. Schmidt. 2001. Composting animal mortalities.
83–207. St. Joseph, MI. Agricultural Development Division. Minnesota
Department of Agriculture. St. Paul, MN.
Holmberg, R.D., D.T. Hill, T.J. Prince, and N.J. Van
Dyke. 1982. Solid-liquid separation effect on physi- Murphy, D.W. 1988. Composting of dead birds. Dept.
cal properties of flushed swine waste. ASAE Paper Poultry Science 67, supplement 1 (1988):124. Uni-
82–4081. St. Joseph, MI. 26 pp. versity of Maryland. Princess Anne, MD.

Jones, D.D., D.L. Day, and A.C. Dale. 1971. Aerobic Nessen, F. 1989. Present and future composting regula-
treatment of livestock wastes. University of Illi- tion in Massachusetts. MA. Dept. Environ. Qual.
nois Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 737. Urbana-Champaign, and Eng.
IL. 55 pp.
New Hampshire Department of Agriculture. 1989.
Keener, H. M., D.L. Elwell, and M.J. Monnin. 2000. Good neighbor guide for horse-keeping: Manure
Procedures and equations for sizing of structures management. USDA Ext. Serv. Pub. No.
and windrows for composting animal mortalities. 89–EWQI–1–9186.
Applied Engineering in Agriculture 16(6):681–692.
Ngoddy, P.O., J.P. Hayser, R.K. Collins, G.D. Wells,
Kilmer, V.J. 1982. Handbook of soils and climate in and F.A. Heider. 1971. Closed system waste man-
agriculture. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.
agement for livestock water pollution control.
Research Series, USEPA Project 13040DKP. Wash-
Kuter, G. 1987. Commercial in-vessel composting of ag-
ington, DC.
ricultural wastes. Int. Process Sys. Lebanon, CT.
North Carolina State University. 1980. Earthen liquid
Laliberty, L. 1987. Composting for a cash crop. Farm
manure storage basin with access ramp. Agric.
Res. Ctr. Putnam, CT.
Ext. Serv. Raleigh, NC.
Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship
(LPES) Curriculum. 2001. Midwest Plan Service Parsons, R.A. 1984. On-farm biogas production.
and USEPA. MacLean, A.J, and F.R. Hore. 1974. NRAES–20. NE Reg. Agric. Eng. Serv., Cornell
Manures and compost. Canada Dept. Agric. Pub. University. Ithaca, NY. 38 pp.
868.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Re-
McKinney, R.E. 1962. Microbiology for sanitary en- sources. 1990. Assessment of field manure nutrient
gineers. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY. pp. management with regards to surface and ground
260–265. water quality. Harrisburg, PA

Mezitt, R.W. 1985. Composting for the nursery industry. Plovanich C.J. n.d. In-vessel composting of cattle and
Weston Nursery, Inc. Hopkinton, MA. swine manure. Revere Copper and Brass, Inc.
Rome, NY.
Midwest Plan Service. 1985. Biological treatment. Liv-
est. waste fac. handb. MWPS–18. Iowa State Uni- Plovanich, C.J. n.d. In-vessel composting overview.
versity. Ames, IA. Revere Copper and Brass, Inc. Rome, NY.

Millar, C.G., L.M. Turk, and H.D. Foth. 1965. Funda- Poincelot, R.P. 1975. The biochemistry and method-
mentals of soil science. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ology of composting. CT Agric. Exp. Stat. New
New York, NY. Haven, CT.

10–92 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Rynk, R. 1987. On-farm composting: The opportunities, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
benefits and drawbacks. Eng. Notes, University of Health Inspection Service. 2001. Part I: Reference
Massachusetts. Amhurst, MA. of swine health and management in the United
States, 2000. National Animal Health Monitoring
Rynk, R. 1988. On-farm composting: The process and System. Fort Collins, CO. #N338.0801.
methods. Eng. Notes, University of Massachusetts.
Amhurst, MA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. 2005. Sheep and lamb
Rynk, R. 1989. Composting as a dairy manure man- nonpredator death loss in the United States, 2004.
agement technique. Dairy Manure Mgt. Symp. USDA–APHIS–VS,CEAH, National Animal Health
NRAES–31. Syracuse, NY. Monitoring System. Fort Collins, CO. #N445.0906

Rodale, J.I. 1975. The complete book of composting. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
Rodale Books, Inc. Emmaus, PA. Health Inspection Service. 2006. Cattle and calves
death loss in the United States, 2000.
Rodale, J.I. 1968. The encyclopedia of organic garden- USDA–APHIS–VS, CEAH. Fort Collins, CO.
ing. Rodale Books, Inc. Emmaus, PA. pp 151–153. #N446.0606.
Safley, L.M., Jr., and W.C. Fairbank. 1983. Separation U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant
and utilization of manure solids. Proceed. Sec. Health Inspection Service. 2007. Trends in equine
Natl. Dairy Housing Conf., ASAE. St. Joseph, MI.
mortality, 1998–2005. USDA–APHIS–VS, CEAH.
pp. 77–91.
Fort Collins, CO. #N471-0307.
Salvato, J.A., Jr. 1982. Environmental engineering and
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser-
sanitation. Wiley Interscience. John Wiley & Sons,
vice. 1980. Design of mechanically aerated lagoons
INC. New York, NY. pp 403–406.
for odor control. Tech. Notes. Portland, OR. 9 pp.
Shutt, J.W., R.K. White, E.P. Taiganides, and C.R. Mote.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
1975. Evaluation of solids separation devices. In
Service. 1981. Tentative guidelines for methane
Managing livestock wastes, ASAE. St. Joseph, MI.
pp. 463–467. production by anaerobic digestion of manure.
National Bulletin No. 210–1–13. Washington, DC.
Simpson, M. 1987. Economics of agricultural compost- 7 pp.
ing. Bureau of Solid Waste Disposal. Amherst, MA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Munici-
Singley, M.E. 1983. Preparing organic materials for pal sludge management: Environmental factors.
composting. ASAE Paper NAP 83–208. St. Joseph, EPA 430/9–77–004, USEPA. Washington. DC.
MI.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Design
Small Farm Energy Project Newsletter. 1979. Compost- manual—Constructed wetlands and aquatic plant
ing of farm manure. Issue No. 17. Center for Rural systems for municipal wastewater treatment.
Affairs. Lyons, NE. EPA/625/1–88/022. Washington, DC.

Sweeten, J. M. 1979. Manure Management for Cattle U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. In-vessel
Feedlots. L–1094, Texas Agricultural Extension composting of municipal wastewater sludge.
Service, Texas A&M University. College Station, USEPA Summary Rep. No. EPA/625/8–89/016.
TX. 6 pp. Washington, DC.

Sweeten, J.M. 1988a. Composting manure and sludge. University of Delaware, College of Agricultural Scienc-
L–2289, Texas Agricultural Extension Service, es, Agricultural Experiment Station. 1989. Dead
Texas A&M University. College Station, TX. 4 pp. poultry disposal. Newark, DE

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10–93

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

University of Tennessee. 1977. Covered dry stack

manure storage. Agric. Ext. Serv., Plan No. T4029,
University of Tennessee. Knoxville, TN.

White, R.K., and D.L. Forster. 1978. Evaluation and

economic analysis of livestock waste management
systems. EPA/2–78–102. USEPA. Ada, OK. 302 pp.

White, R.K., and C.W. Young. 1980. Safety and liquid

manure handling. OH Coop. Ext. Serv., AEX 703.
Ohio State University. Columbus, OH. 3 pp.

Woods End Research Laboratory. Compost standards

for MaDEQE. Mount Vernon, ME.

Wright, R.E. Assoc., Inc. 1990. Assessment of field ma-

nure nutrient management with regards to surface
and ground water quality. PA Dept. Environ. Re-
sourc. Harrisburg, PA.

10–94 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

651.1050 Appendix 10A—Blank

worksheets

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

 Worksheet 10A-1—Waste storage structure capacity design
Decisionmaker:
Chapter 10 Date:
Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Site: Field Handbook

Animal units

1. Animal type 3. Number of animals (N)

2. Animal weight, lbs (W) 4. Animal units, AU = W xN =

_____
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of daily manure production 7. Total volume of manure production for
per AU, ft3/AU/day (DVM)= animal type for storage period, ft3
VMD = AU x DVM x D =
6. Storage period, days (D) =
8. Total manure production for storage period, ft3 (TVM)

Wastewater volume
9. Daily wastewater volume per 11. Total wastewater volume for
AU, ft3/AU/day (DWW) = storage period, ft3 (TWW)
10. Total wastewater volume for animal
description for storage period, ft3
WWD = DWW x AU x D =
Bedding volume
12. Amount of bedding used daily 14. Bedding volume for animal type
for animal type, for storage period, ft 3 BV =
lbs/AU/day (WB) =
0.5 x WB x AU x D
13. Bedding unit weight, VBD =
lbs/fb 3 (BUW) = BUW

15. Total bedding volume for storage

period, ft 3 (TBV) =

Minimum waste storage volume requirement

16. Waste storage volume, ft3 (WV) = TVM + TWW + TBV = _______________ + _________________ + _________________ =

Waste stacking structure sizing

WV
17. Structure length, ft L = _______ = WV =
19. Structure height, ft H = _______
WI x H L x WI
WV
18. Structure width, ft WI = ________ =
LxH

Notes for waste stacking structure:

1. The volume determined (WV) does not include any volume for 2. The equations for L, WI, and H assume manure is stacked to average height equal
freeboard. It is recommended that a minimum of 1 foot of to the sidewall height. Available storage volume must be adjusted to account for
freeboard be provided for a waste stacking structure. these types of variations.

Tank sizing 22. Rectangular tank dimensions

20. Effective depth, ft. (EH) Total height, ft (H) = Selected width, ft (WI) =
Total height (or depth) of tank desired, ft (H)
SA =
Length, ft L = _____
Less precipitation for storage period, ft. – WI
(uncovered tanks only) 23. Circular tank dimensions
Less depth allowance for accumulated solids, ft – Total height, ft H =
(0.5 ft. minimum)
Less depth for freeboard (0.5 ft. recommended), ft – Diameter, ft DIA = (1.273 x SA)0.5 =

Effective depth, ft (EH) = Notes for waste storage tank structure:

1. Final dimensions may be rounded up to whole numbers or to use
increments on standard drawings.
21. Surface area required, ft2 WV
SA = ________ = 2. Trial and error may be required to establish appropriate dimensions.
EH

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996) 10A–1

 Worksheet 10A-2—Waste storage pond design
Decisionmaker:
Chapter 10 Date:
Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Site: Field Handbook

Animal units

1. Animal type 3. Number of animals (N)

2. Animal weight, lbs (W) 4. Animal units, AU = W xN

_____ =
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of manure production 7. Total volume of manure production for
per AU, ft3/AU/day (DVM)= animal type for storage period, ft3
VMD = AU x DVM x D =
6. Storage period, days (D) = 8. Total manure production for storage period, ft3 (TVM)

Wastewater volume
9. Daily wastewater volume per 11. Total wastewater volume for
AU, ft3/AU/day (DWW) = storage period, ft3 (TWW)
10. Total wastewater volume for animal
description for storage period, ft3
WWD = DWW x AU x D =

Clean water volume Runoff volume

12. Clean water added during storage period, ft3 (CW) 13. Runoff volume, ft3 (ROV) (attach documentation)
Includes the volume of runoff from the drainage area
Solids accumulation due to normal runoff for the storage period and the
runoff volume from the 25-year, 24-hour storm.
14. Volume of solids accumulation, ft3 (VSA)

Minimum waste storage volume requirement

15. Waste storage volume, ft3 (WSV) = TVM + TWW + CW + ROV + VSA

= ___________ + ___________ + ___________ + ___________ + __________ = ________________

Pond sizing
16. Sizing by trial and error

Side slope ratio, (Z) = _______________ V must be equal to or greater than WSV = ________________ ft3

Rectangular pond, Circular pond,

 4 × Z 2 × d3 
V=
 3 
( ) ( )
 + Z × BL × d + Z × BW × d + (BW × BL × d) V=(1.05 x Z x d ) + (1.57 x W x Z x d ) + (0.79 x W x d)
2 2 2 3 2 2

Trial Bottom width Bottom length Depth* Volume Trial Bottom diameter Depth* Volume
no. ft (BW) ft (BL) ft (d) ft 3 (V) no. (DIA) ft (d) ft 3 (V)

* Depth must be adjusted in Step 17.

Depth adjustment
17. Depth adjustment

Depth, ft (d) Add depth required to operate emergency outflow* +

Add depth of precipitation less evaporation + Add for freeboard (1.0 foot minimum) +
(For the storage period)
Final depth
Add depth of 25-year, 24-hour storm +

10A–2 (210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

 Worksheet 10A-3—Anaerobic lagoon design
Decisionmaker: Date:
Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Site:
Field Handbook

Animal units

1. Animal type 3. Number of animals (N)

2. Animal weight, lbs (W) WxN =

4. Animal units, AU = _____
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of daily manure production 7. Total volume of manure production for animal
per AU, ft3/AU/day (DVM)= type for treatment period, ft3
VMD = AU x DVM x D =
6. Treatment period, days (D) =
8. Total manure production for treatment period, ft 3 (TVM)

Wastewater volume
9. Daily wastewater volume per 11. Total wastewater volume for
AU, ft3/AU/day (DWW) = treatment period, ft3 (TWW)
10. Total wastewater volume for animal
description for treatment period, ft3
WWD = DWW x AU x D =

Clean water volume

12. Clean water added during treatment period, ft 3 (CW)

Waste volume
13. Waste volume for treatment period, ft3 WV = TVM + TWW + CW = __________ + ____________ + ___________ = ____________

Manure total solids

14. Daily manure total solids production, lbs/AU/day (MTS) = 16. Total manure
total solids production,
15. Daily manure total solids production for animal type, lbs/day
lbs/day (TMTS) =
MTSD = MTS x AU =

Manure volatile solids

17. Daily manure volatile solids production per AU, lbs/AU/day (MVS) =

18. Daily manure volatile solids production for animal type per day, lbs/day MVSD = AU x MVS =

19. Total manure volatile solids production, lbs/day (TMVS)

Wastewater volatile solids

20. Daily wastewater volatile solids production, lbs/1000 gal (DWVS) =
21. Total wastewater volatile solids production for animal type, lbs/day
DWVS x DWW x 7.48
WVSD = __________________ =
D x 1,000

22. Total wastewater volatile solids production, lbs/day (TWVS) =

Total volatile solids (manure and wastewater)

23. Total daily volatile solids production, lbs/day TVS = TMVS + TWVS = ________________ + ________________ = _____________

Minimum treatment volume 25. Minimum treatment volume, ft3

24. Selected lagoon VS loading rate, lbs VS/1,000 ft3 (VSLR) = TVS x 1000 ( ) x 1000 = ____________
MTV = _________________ = __________________
VSLR ( )

Sludge volume requirement 28. Sludge volume requirement, ft3

26. Sludge accumulation ratio, ft 3/lb TS (SAR) = SV = 365 x TMTS x T x SAR
27 Sludge accumulation period, years (T) = = 365 x ( )( )( )=

Minimum lagoon volume requirement

29. Minimum lagoon volume requirements, ft3
(MLVR) = MTV + SV + WV = ____________________ + __________________ + __________________ = ____________________

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996) 10A–3

 Worksheet 10A-3—Anaerobic lagoon design—Continued
Lagoon sizing
Chapter 10 by trial and error Z 2 x d 3 )+ (ZWaste
V= ( 4 x Agricultural d 2 ) + (Z x BWSystem
x BL xManagement x d 2 ) + (BWPartx 651
BL x d)
30. Sizing
3
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook
Side slope ratio, (Z) = ____________ V must be equal to or greater than MLVR = ____________ ft3

Trial Bottom width Bottom length Volume

Depth*
no. ft (BW) ft (BL) ft 3 (V)
ft (d)

* Depth must be adjusted in Step 31.

Depth adjustment
31. Depth adjustment

Depth, ft (d)

Add depth of precipitation less evaporation on lagoon surface +

(for the treatment period)

Add depth of 25-year, 24-hour storm +

Add for freeboard (1.0 foot minimum) +

Final depth

32. Compute total volume using final depth, ft3 (use equation in step 30)

10A–4 (210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

 Worksheet 10A-4—Aerobic lagoon design
Decisionmaker: Date:
Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Site:
Field Handbook

Animal units

1. Animal type 3. Number of animals (N)

WxN
4. Animal units, AU = _____ =
2. Animal weight, lbs (W)
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of daily manure production 7. Total volume of manure production for
per AU, ft3/AU/day (DVM) = animal type for treatment period, ft3
VMD = AU x DVM x D =
6. Treatment period, days (D) =
8. Total manure production for treatment period, ft3 (TVM)

Wastewater volume
9. Daily wastewater volume per 11. Total wastewater volume for
AU, ft3/AU/day (DWW) = treatment period, ft3 (TWW)
10. Total wastewater volume for animal
description for treatment period, ft3
WWD = DWW x AU x D =

Clean water volume

12. Clean water added during treatment period, ft3 (CW)

Waste volume
13. Waste volume for treatment period, ft3 WV = TVM + TWW + CW = ____________ + _____________ +______________ = _______________

Manure total solids

14. Daily manure total solids production, lbs/AU/day (MTS) = 16. Total manure total solids production,
lbs/day (TMTS) =
15. Daily manure total solids production for animal type, lb/day
MTSD = MTS x AU =

Manure 5-day biochemical oxygen demand

17. Daily manure BOD5 production per AU, lbs/AU/day (MBOD) =

18. Daily manure BOD5 production for animal type per day, lbs/day MBOD = AU x BOD =

19. Total manure production, lbs/day (TMBOD)

Wastewater 5-day biochemical oxygen demand

20. Daily wastewater BOD5 production, lbs/1000 gal (DWBOD) =

21. Total wastewater BOD5 production for animal type, lbs/day

(DWBOD x TWW x 7.48)

WBOD = __________________ =
D x 1,000

22. Total wastewater BOD5 production, lbs/day (TWBOD) =

TOTAL BOD5 (manure and wastewater)

23. Total daily production, lbs/day TBOD = TMBOD + TWBOD = ________________ + ________________ = _____________

Minimum treatment surface area 25. Minimum treatment surface area, acres
24. Selected lagoon BOD5 loading rate, lbs BOD5/acre (BODLR) = TBOD
MTA = _____________ ( )
= __________________ = ____________
BODLR ( )

Sludge volume requirement 28. Sludge volume requirement, ft3

26. Sludge accumulation ratio, ft3/lb TS (SAR) = SV = 365 x TMTS x T x SAR
27 Sludge accumulation period, years (T) = = 365 ( )( )( )=

Minimum lagoon volume requirement

29. Minimum lagoon volume requirements, ft3
MLVR = SV + WV = __________ + __________ = ___________

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996) 10A–5

Worksheet 10A-4—Aerobic Lagoon Design—Continued
Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Lagoon sizing Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook
30. Sizing by trial and error:
Side slope ratio, (Z) = ________________

V must be equal to or greater than MLVR = _______________ ft3

SA must be equal to or greater than MTA = _______________ acres

Rectangular lagoon:

d must be less than 5 feet

(BL + 2Zd)(BW + 2Zd)

SA= _______________________
43,560

 4 × Z 2 × d3 
V=
 3 
( 2
) ( 2
)
 + Z × BL × d + Z × BW × d + (BW × BL × d)

Trial Bottom width Bottom length Depth* Volume Surface area

no. ft (BW) ft (BL) ft (d) ft3 (V) acres (SA)

* Depth must be adjusted in Step 31

Depth adjustment
31. Depth adjustment

Depth , ft (d)

Add depth of precipitation less evaporation on lagoon surface +

(for the treatment period)

Add depth of 25-year, 24-hour storm +

Add for freeboard (1.0 foot minimum) +

Final depth

32. Compute total volume using final depth, ft3

(use equation in step 30)

10A–6 (210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

 Worksheet 10A-5—Anaerobic digester design
Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System
Date: Part 651
Decisionmaker:
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook
Site:

Animal units

1. Animal type 3. Number of animals (N)

2. Animal weight, lbs (W) WxN =

4. Animal units,,AU = _____
1000

Manure volume
5. Daily volume of daily manure production 7. Total daily manure production volume, ft3/day (TMP)
per AU, ft3/AU/day (DVM)=

6. Total volume of daily manure production for animal type, ft3/day

MPD = AU x DVM

Manure total solids

8. Daily manure total solids production, lbs/AU/day (MTS) = 10. Total manure total
solids production,
9. Daily manure total solids production for animal type, lb/day
lbs/day (TMTS) =
MTSD = MTS x AU =

Manure volatile solids

11. Daily manure volatile solids production per AU, lbs/AU/day (MVS) =

12. Daily manure volatile solids production for animal type per day, lbs/day MVSD = AU x MVS
=
13. Total manure volatile solids production, lbs/day (TMVS)

Percent solids Digester feed solid concentration

14. Percent solids, % (PS) 15. Desired digester feed solids concentration, % (DDFSC) =
TMTS x 100= _____________________
PS = ____________ ( ) x 100 =
TMP x 62.4 ( ) x 62.4

Daily manure inflow Digester effective volume

16. Daily manure inflow, ft3 17. Digester effective volume, ft3
DEV = DMI x 20 = ( ) x 20
TMTS x 100 = _____________________
DMI = ____________ ( ) x 100 = =
DDFSC x 62.4 ( ) x 62.4

Digester dimensions
19. Digest width, ft WI = 2 x H = 2 x ( )
18. Digester depth, ft =
( )
0.33

 DEV 
0.33
 
H =  =  = 20. Digest length, ft L= 4xH =4x( )
 8   8  =
 
Estimated energy production
21. Biogas per unit (VS), ft3/lb (BUVS) 23. Estimated energy production BTU/day
= EEP = EBP x 600 = ( ) x (600 )
22. Estimated biogas production ft3/day =
EBP = BUVS x TMVS = ( )x( )
=

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996) 10A–7

Chapter 10
Worksheet 10A-6—Monthly precipitation minus evaporation
Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Decisionmaker: Component Design Date: Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook
Site:

Annual FWS Evaporation (FWS) = inches

Monthly Monthly portion of Monthly Monthly precipitation

Month precipitation annual evaporation evaporation less evaporation
MP (inches) MPAE (percent) ME (inches)* MPLE (inches)

January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December

*ME = FWS x MPAE

Storage or treatment period, days (D) =

months =

Critical successive months

Monthly precipitation Monthly precipitation

Month less evaporation Month less evaporation
MPLE (inches) MPLE (inches)

Total

10A–8 (210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

651.1060 Appendix 10B—Rainfall

Intensity Maps

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

 Chapter 10
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

Figure 10B-1
10-year 24-hour rainfall (inches)

3.5
3

3.5
4
26083 3

CT

3 6
(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

5
USE NO 5

3.

Component Design
Agricultural Waste Management System
AA ATL
A
WESTE S 2 MAPS FO
RN STA R 11
TES
4
3
5 DE

6 6
3.5
7
5

7 6 6
4

7
3 4
7

Field Handbook
Agricultural Waste Management
Part 651
12033
8

3 FL

9
3.5 10
5 9
9 10
4
6 8 7
NOTE:
CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN INTERPOLATING THIS MAP
IN MOUNTAINOUS AREAS. LINES HAVE BEEN SMOOTHED IN Rainfall iso-line 8 12087

MOUNTAINOUS AREAS OF THE WESTERN STATES. Rainfall iso-line (depression)

7
SOURCE:
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PUBLICATIONS. MAP PREPARED USING 200 400
0 600 Mi
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHY AND GIS
CENTER, FORT WORTH, TEXAS, 1995 REVISED JUNE 1995, 1004822
10B–1
10B–2

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

Figure 10B-2
25-year 24-hour rainfall (inches)

3.5 3.5 4

4
26083

5
6.5

3.5
6 CT
25001

6.5
(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

4 6
5

3.5 4
6 DE

7
7

5 8
6
8.5

7 6 7
9
7 8

9 9
3.5 12033

10
12
FL
10
11
4 6 10
11
5
7 10 8
NOTE:
CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN INTERPOLATING THIS MAP 9 11
IN MOUNTAINOUS AREAS. LINES HAVE BEEN SMOOTHED IN 12087

MOUNTAINOUS AREAS OF THE WESTERN STATES. 8 9 10

SOURCE:
9
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PUBLICATIONS. MAP PREPARED USING 0 200 400 600 Mi
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHY AND
GIS CENTER, FORT WORTH, TEXAS, 1995 REVISED JUNE 1995, 1004823
 Chapter 10
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

.20
.30
.20 .30 Figure 10B-3
.30 10-year 5-minute rainfall (inches)
.30 .40 .50 .55
.55

.30 .30
26083
.45

.30

.30
CT
(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

.50 .45

Component Design
Agricultural Waste Management System
.50
.20
.30
.30 .55

.30 DE

.4
.20
.4 .3

.30
.60
.60
.30 .40
.50

Field Handbook
Agricultural Waste Management
Part 651
.60 .65
.50
12033

.50
FL

.55 .60
.70

NOTE:
CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN INTERPOLATING THIS MAP
Rainfall iso-line .70
IN MOUNTAINOUS AREAS. LINES HAVE BEEN SMOOTHED IN 12087

MOUNTAINOUS AREAS OF THE WESTERN STATES. Rainfall iso-line (depression)

SOURCE: .65
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PUBLICATIONS. MAP PREPARED USING 0 200 400 600 Mi
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHY AND GIS CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS, 1995 REVISED JUNE 1995, 1005773
10B–3
10B–4

U .S . D E P A R T ME N T OF AGRICULTURE S O I L C O N S E R V A TI O N S E R V I C E
FIGURE 10B-3a
10-YEAR 5-MINUTE RAINFALL (INCHES)
ALASKA

BARROW ARCT
IC
OC
EA
N

DEAD
r HORSE
ive
Co l vi l l e R
POINT HOPE

K
0

O
0.1

T
ak Rive
at

Z
r ARCTIC

o
VILLAGE

B
N

U
E
K obuk Riv

S
e

O
r

U
N
SHUNGNAK FORT YUKON

D
n
ko
(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

Yu
CIRCLE Ri
ve
NO NOME
r
RT TANANA LIVENGOOD 0 50 100 150 200 MILES
GAMBELL ON NULATO Tana EAGLE ALBERS EQUAL AREA PROJECTION
S O na
U N D FAIRBANKS
RUBY
CHICKEN
BIG DELTA 0.1
5

r
ST LAWRENCE

ve
TOK Rive
ISLAND r

Ri
JUNCTION

Y uk o n
iver SLANA 0.2
MCGRATH

er
R 0

iv
A

tna
NABESNA
E

C
kokwim COPPER CENTER

op
S

us

S usi
PALMER

pe
CHITINA
K
G

r R.
ANCHORAGE
IN

BETHEL
VALDEZ Y
WA
R

WHITTIER AG
CORDOVA SK
AU
E

SEWARD NE
B

JU
HOMER YAKUTAT
0 .1 0 0
RG
DILLINGHAM
MONTAGUE 0.2 BU
ISLAND RS
TE
OF ALASKA PE
5 LF
0.1 20
U 20
0 0.
G 0. ELL
0.1 ANG
SITKA WR

5 KODIAK
0.1 5 25
0.1 KODIAK OC E A N 0. KETCHIKAN
IC 30
CIF 0.
PA
COLD BAY
20

0. 25
0.

0. 25
DS
I SLAN ATKA
IAN NDS
ALEUT ALEUTIA
N ISLA
0
0.2 25
0. 5
0.2

ALEUTIAN ISLANDS—CONTINUED
SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONNEL
NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHY AND GIS CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS FE B R U A R Y 1 9 9 4 1 0 0 7 9 1 2
 Chapter 10
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
FIGURE 10B-3b
10-YEAR 5-MINUTE RAINFALL (INCHES)

ST. JOHN ISLAND

ST. THOMAS ISLAND
CULEBRA

.8
.9 1.0
1.1
TE

ISABELA ARECIBO MANATI

ES

RIO PIEDRAS MONA ISLAND

RO

RIO GRANDE PUERTO RICO

ATLANTICO VIEQUES
NO

SAN JUAN NORESTE

SAN SEBASTIAN NORTE
INA S COROZAL 1.2 ST. CROIX
CULEBR UTUADO
CIBUCO CAGUAS
(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

.8 OESTE CAONILLAS
LOCATION MAP

Component Design
Agricultural Waste Management System
MAYAGUEZ TORRECILLAS
ESTE
TURABO
1.2 TORITO 1.1
HUMACAO
SAN GERMAN R E
SU N
C JUANA DIAZ
PO GUAYAMA
SUROESTE CARIBE
SUDESTE
1.1 .6
1.0 .9 .8 .8
.9 1.1 .9 1.0 .8
1.0 1.1 .8
.9 .8
PUERTO RICO

ST. THOMAS ISLAND ST. JOHN ISLAND

.9 .7
.8 .8 .6
.7 .9

1.1 .7

Field Handbook
Agricultural Waste Management
Part 651
.67 .9
.6
.6
MONA ISLAND CULEBRA ISLAND VIEQUES ISLAND .6
ST. CROIX ISLAND

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES
0 5 10 15 20 MILES

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONNEL.
NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHY AND GIS CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS FEBRUARY 1994 1007913
10B–5
10B–6

U .S . D E P A R T ME N T OF AGRICULTURE S O I L C O N S E R V A TI O N S E R V I C E
FIGURE 10B-3c
10-YEAR 5-MINUTE RAINFALL (INCHES)
KAUAI

KILAUEA
N IIH AU MOLOK A I
HANALEI OA H U MA U I

1.2 1.2 LA N A I H A W A II
KAPAA
1.0 1.4 K A H OOLA W E
0.6
0.8 1.0
0.6 0,4 0.8
LIHUE
KEKAHA
No
Data ELEELE 1.0 LOCATION MAP
KOLOA PAP
AAL
OA 1.2
KAUAI WA
(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

NIIHAU IM
EA

0.4

0.6 0.8 0.8

1.0
HOOLEHUA HALAWA
MAUNA LOA
HONOKAHUA
1.4
HILO
HONOKOWAI
1.0 PAUWELA
0.4
KU

MOLOKAI 1.2
LU

LAHAINA
KAHULUI
0.6
AI

0.6
W

0.6 1.4
1.0
LANAI
CITY 0.5 KULA
KEALAKEKUA

0.8 0.3
HANA

KAHUKU
0.8
0.6
LANAI
1.0
WAHIAWA 0.4
1.0 1.0
No Data MAUI
PE
WAIANAE
AR
L C 1.2 L
A
I TY A
H
KAHOOLAWE P
A

WAIMANALO

EWA BEACH

U 0.8
HAWAII
UL 0.6
N OL
HO 0.6

OAHU 0.6
0.6
SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONNEL
NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHY AND GIS CENTER, 0 10 20 30 40 MILES
FORT WORTH, TEXAS FE B R U A R Y 1 9 9 4 1 0 0 7 9 1 4
 Chapter 10
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

Figure 10B-4
.30 25-year 5-minute rainfall (inches)
.30
.35
.40 .45
.45
.50 .55 .60 .65 .65
.35 .60 .50
.55 .45
26083

.50

.55
.60
.65
CT
25001 .70
(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

Component Design
Agricultural Waste Management System
DE

.40 .75

Field Handbook
Agricultural Waste Management
Part 651
.45
12033
.80
.50
FL

.55
.60

.80
NOTE: .65 Rainfall iso-line
CAUTION SHOULD BE USED IN INTERPOLATING THIS MAP
IN MOUNTAINOUS AREAS. LINES HAVE BEEN SMOOTHED IN Rainfall iso-line (depression) 12087

MOUNTAINOUS AREAS OF THE WESTERN STATES. .70

.75
SOURCE:
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PUBLICATIONS. MAP PREPARED USING 200 400
0 600 Mi
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHY AND GIS
CENTER, FORT WORTH, TEXAS, 1995 REVISED JUNE 1995, 1004819
10B–7
This page intentionally left blank.
Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

651.1070 Appendix 10C—Runoff

From Feedlots and Evaporation

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(a) Runoff Design example 10C-2—Runoff from an earth

feedlot
Runoff must be handled if feedlots or other compo-
nents of the livestock production unit are exposed to Determine the runoff to be expected from an earth
the weather. Contaminated runoff should be collected feedlot near Dallas, Texas, for the period October to
in settling basins and storage ponds. March.

A paved or surfaced feedlot typically has a runoff Month Precip. —— Runoff ——

curve number (RCN) of about 97; an RCN of 90 is (inches) % (inches)
representative of an unpaved or unsurfaced feedlot.
Based on these RCN’s, the amount of runoff from Oct. 3.18 36 1.14
feedlots can be estimated as a percentage of the pre- Nov. 2.60 27 0.70
cipitation that is expected over a period of time. Dec. 2.34 24 0.56
Jan. 1.96 20 0.39
Figures 10C–1 and 10C–2 describe for the continental Feb. 2.57 20 0.51
United States the percentage of annual precipitation Mar. 3.04 22 0.67
that will occur as runoff from unsurfaced and surfaced
feedlots, respectively. Figures 10C–3 through 10C–14 Total 3.97
describe the percentage of monthly precipitation that
will occur as runoff from unsurfaced feedlots. Figures
10C–15 through 10C–26 describe the percentage of (b) Evaporation
monthly precipitation that will occur as runoff from
surfaced feedlots. Storage and treatment facilities require an allowance
for precipitation less evaporation for the most critical
Other available sources give the annual or monthly design period. For example, for a 90-day storage
precipitation data to which the runoff percentages are period, an allowance for storage is planned using the
applied. One such source is "Climatography of the three successive months that result in the greatest sum
United States No. 81 (by state) Monthly Normals of of precipitation less evaporation that is critical.
Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling
Degree Days, 1941–70," prepared by the U.S. Depart- Some ponds or structures, especially those containing
ment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmo- dairy manure and straw bedding, develop a crust on
spheric Administration, Environmental Data Service. the surface, and evaporation may be limited. This will
Another source available in many counties is the local vary among areas and individual farms. For a conser-
soil survey, which contains a section on climatic data. vative design when crusting is anticipated, the allow-
ance evaporation in the pond sizing can be omitted.
The runoff percentage from figures 10C–1 through
10C–26 is multiplied by the precipitation from the Local records are almost always available for the
corresponding time period to determine the amount of average monthly precipitation for each month of the
runoff. This is the runoff volume (ROV) value used in year. Local records may also be available for average
several of the worksheets in chapter 10. monthly evaporation. If evaporation data are not
readily available, however, the annual free water
surface evaporation (shallow lake evaporation) may
Design example 10C-1—Runoff from a be determined using figure 10C–27. Monthly free water
concrete feedlot surface evaporation may be determined using table
Determine the annual runoff from a concrete feedlot 10C–1, which gives the approximate mean monthly
near Portland, Oregon. From the reference cited, the percent of the annual evaporation for selected stations
mean annual precipitation is 37.6 inches. From figure in the continental United States.
10C–2, the annual runoff is 49 percent of the precipita-
tion. Therefore, the annual ROV = (37.6 in. x 0.49) = Table 10C–1 was developed for use in obtaining
18.4 inches. monthly evaporation for selected stations from annual
Class A pan evaporation maps. This table is to be used

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996) 10

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

on free water surface maps. Although the information • The total precipitation less evaporation depth
in this table is not completely correct, the monthly that must be accommodated in the waste
percentages are adequate for estimating free water storage pond is the sum of monthly values for
surface evaporation. Several other factors prevent an September through February.
exact correlation between evaporation from waste
storage ponds and lagoon surfaces and Class A pan
evaporation. Factors causing differences include
effects of salinity, coloration, and floating surface
material, such as bedding, on evaporation rates.

Worksheet 10A–6 can be used to determine the

monthly precipitation less evaporation value for each
month.

Design example 10C-3

Mr. Austin Peabody of Rocky Mount, North Carolina,
has selected an alternative for an agricultural waste
management system that includes a waste storage
pond. Designing the depth of the pond requires that an
allowance for containing the precipitation evaporation
minus evaporation for the storage period be deter-
mined. Using worksheet 10A–6, determine the precipi-
tation less evaporation value to use for a 180-day
storage period.

• The annual FWS evaporation (FWS) is

selected from figure 10C–27.

• The monthly precipitation (MP) values are

selected from local data.

• The monthly portion of annual evaporation

(MPAE) is determined using the appropriate
station in table 10C–1.

• The monthly evaporation (ME) is computed by

the equation:
ME = FWS x MPAE

• The monthly precipitation less evaporation

(MPLE) is determined by the equation:
MPLE = MP – ME

• The 180-day storage period is about 6 months;

therefore, the successive 6 months that are
critical are determined by inspection. For this
example, the storage period is September
through February.

10C–2 (210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Completed worksheet for design example 10C–3

Worksheet 10A-6 – Monthly precipitation minus evaporation

Decisionmaker: Date:
Austin Peabody
Site:

Annual FWS Evaporation (FWS)= 39 inches

Monthly Monthly portion of Monthly Monthly precipitation

Month precipitation annual evaporation evaporation less evaporation
MP (inches) MPAE (percent) ME (inches)* MPLE (inches)

January 3.53 3 1.17 2.36

February 3.71 5 1.95 1.76
March 3.49 8 3.12 0.37
April 3.50 10 3.90 -0.40
May 3.61 12 4.68 -1.07
June 4.47 13 5.07 -0.60
July 5.58 13 5.07 0.51
August 4.45 12 4.68 -0.23
September 3.95 9 3.15 0.44
October 2.79 7 2.73 0.06
November 2.24 5 1.95 0.29
December 3.49 3 1.17 2.32
*ME = FWS x MPAE

Storage or treatment period, days (D) =

180

months = 6

Critical successive months

Monthly precipitation Monthly precipitation
Month less evaporation Month less evaporation
MPLE (inches) MPLE (inches)

SEPT 0.44
Oct 0.06
NOV 0.29
DEC 2.32
JAN 2.36
FEB 1.76
Total
7.2 inches

(210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996) 10C–3

Chapter 10 Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Table 10C–1 Adjusted approximate mean monthly free water surface evaporation for selected stations

Station name Lat. Long - —————————————— Percent of annual ——————————

—— May Nov
thru thru
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Oct Apr

Fairhope, AL 30°32' 87°55' 4 5 7 10 12 13 12 11 9 8 5 4 65 35

Bartlett Darn, AZ 33°49' 111°381 3 4 6 9 12 14 14 11 10 8 5 4 69 31
Bacus Ranch, CA 34°57' 118°11' 3 3 7 9 11 14 15 15 10 7 3 3 72 28
Sacramento, CA 2 3 6 8 12 15 16 15 11 7 3 2 76 24
Wagon Wheel Gap, CO 37°48' 106°58' 14 16 14 12 11 7 74 26
Hartford, CT 3 3 6 10 13 14 15 14 9 6 4 3 71 29
Tantiami Trail, FL 25°45' 80°50' 5 6 9 10 11 10 11 10 9 8 6 5 59 41
Experiment, GA 33°16' 84°17' 4 5 7 10 12 13 13 11 9 7 5 4 65 35
Moscow, U of 1, ID 46°44' 116°58' 7 12 14 19 18 12 6 81 19
Pocatello, ID 2 2 6 8 12 15 19 14 11 6 3 2 77 23
Ames, IA 42°00' 98°39' 10 15 16 15 13 9 8 3 76 24
Toronto Darn, KS 37°45' 95°56' 2 3 7 10 13 13 15 14 9 8 4 2 72 28
Tribune, KS 38°28' 101°46' 9 12 14 16 14 10 7 73 27
Madisonville, KY 37°19' 87°29' 11 13 14 14 13 10 8 72 28
Urbana, IL 40°06' 88°14' 9 13 15 15 14 10 7 4 75 25
Woodworth S. F., LA 31°08' 92°28' 3 4 7 9 12 13 13 13 9 8 5 4 68 32
Caribou, ME 46°52' 68°01' 2 3 5 8 15 16 16 14 9 7 3 2 77 23
Rochester, MA 41°47' 70°55' 8 13 15 15 13 9 5 70 30
E.Lansing Hort Fin, MI 42°43' 84°28' 9 14 15 16 14 10 6 2 75 25
Scott, MS 33°36' 91°05' 3 4 7 10 13 14 13 12 9 7 5 3 68 32
Weldon Spr. Fin, MO 38°42' 90°44' 10 12 14 14 13 11 8 4 72 28
Bozeman Agr. C., MT 45°40' 111°09' 8 12 14 19 17 10 6 78 22
Medicine Ck Darn, NE 40°23' 100°13' 10 12 14 15 14 11 8 74 26
Boulder City, NV 35°59’ 114°51' 3 4 6 9 12 14 15 13 10 7 4 3 71 29
Topaz Lake, NV 38°41' 119°02' 8 12 14 16 14 11 7 3 74 26
Elephant Bte Dam, NM 33°09' 107°11' 3 4 8 11 14 15 12 11 8 7 4 3 67 33
El Vado Dam, NM 36°36' 106°44' 10 10 15 14 15 12 9 6 71 29
Aurora Res Fin, NY 42°44' 76°39' 13 15 17 14 10 7 76 24
Chapel Hill, NC 25°55' 79°06' 3 5 8 10 12 13 13 12 9 7 5 3 66 34
Wooster Exp Sta, OH 40°47' 81°36' 9 13 15 15 14 10 7 74 26
Canton Dam, OK 36°05' 98°36' 3 4 7 10 11 13 14 14 9 7 5 3 68 32
Detroit Pwr. Hse, OR 44°43' 122°15' 1 2 4 7 12 15 22 18 11 5 2 1 83 17
Redfield, SD 44°53' 98°23' 10 13 15 17 16 11 7 79 21
Neptune, TN 36°19' 87°11' 2 4 7 11 12 14 14 13 9 7 4 3 69 31
Grapevine, TX 32°58' 97°03' 3 4 7 9 10 12 15 14 10 7 5 4 68 32
Welasco, TX 26°09' 97°48' 4 5 7 9 11 11 13 13 10 7 6 4 65 35
Utah Lake, UT 40°22’ 111°54' 6 9 13 15 18 15 11 7 79 21
Templeau Darn, Wl 44°00' 91°26' 14 16 16 14 10 8 78 22
Heart Mountain, WY 44°41' 108°57' 7 13 14 16 15 10 6 74 26

Source: Adapted from Evaporation Atlas for the Contiguous 48 United States, NOAA Technical Report NWS 33, Table 3-Adjusted mean monthly
Class A pan evaporation for selected stations, 1956-70.

10C–4 (210-VI-AWMFH, rev. 1, Amend. 31, July 1996)

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

ANNUAL RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90)
AS PERCENT OF MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-1
10
20
10 10

10 15
15
15 15
20
15

25
30 20
25
15
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

15

30

25

25

25
30

30
20 33
10 10
15

15
15
35
20 31
25
30
30 37 31 34
Albers Equal Area Projection 34
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
35 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS

30

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
10C–5

REVISED MARCH 1991 1004857

10C–6

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

ANNUAL RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-2
50
4030
30 40
40 30 30
35
40 45

50
45

60
50 55
60

60
55
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

60

35 58
50
65
60

65
40 55
35
40
45

40 65
45 40
63
63
45 67
50 62
55
60
62 67 65 65
Albers Equal Area Projection

65 0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004858
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

JANUARY RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-3
10
20

10
30 15

20

10
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

20
15
30 20

20 25 20

25

25
20
10
32
20

24
30 25
24 30
30
10
Albers Equal Area Projection
15 25 30
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
20

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
10C–7

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991

REVISED MARCH 1991 1004857
10C–8

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

FEBRUARY RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-4

20 10

10
15

10

30 20
10 25

30
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

10 25

15 20

20
25 25

25
30 20
20
10

38 25
35
10 30
15 35 38
25
25 30 Albers Equal Area Projection

400 MILES
20 0
0
50 100
100 200
200
300 400
300
500 600 700 25
KILOMETERS
30

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004857
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

MARCH RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-5
20 10

30
10

20 15

20
23
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

10
15 23
20
23

20

25

23

25
10
10

10
10 30
40 35 30
15 3035 40 35
15 25
20 40
Albers Equal Area Projection
30
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
15 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
40 35

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
10C–9

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991

REVISED MARCH 1991 1004857
10C–10

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

APRIL RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
10 FIGURE 10C-6
20

10
20 10
10 15
12
20 15

20
12 10
25

20 10
15
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

25
20

20
25
20

30 25

10
35 30
35

35
45 30
40
30
10 25 40 35 30
15 45
35
20 30 30
Albers Equal Area Projection

0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
30 30

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004857
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

APRIL RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-7
10
10

15 15
15
15
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

20

25

30 30
25
35

10
15
20
40 35
25 30 40
30 30
35
Albers Equal Area Projection
35 40
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS 40
35

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
10C–11

AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004834
10C–1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

JUNE RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-8
10
10
15
20 15
20

15
20 20

20

10 20
30
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

10 25
25

30

35

35

10

35
15
30 33
50 40 33
25 35
20 35
Albers Equal Area Projection 39
35 50 0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS 39

40

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004835
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

JULY RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-9
10
30

10
30
20 18
10

25
20
18
20
20
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

25
30 20
30

30

35 35
10

35

20 30
30 35
25 45

Albers Equal Area Projection

45 30
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES 26
35 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
26

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
10C–13

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991

REVISED MARCH 1991 1004836
10C–14

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

AUGUST RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-10
10

10 15 20
20 20 20 20

20
25 25
20
22 30
35

20 20

22
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

40
10
10 30

23

40

10

25
15
35
35 30
35 30
20 30 35
25
Albers Equal Area Projection

35 0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004828
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

SEPTEMBER RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-11
20 10

10 20
20
20 25
20

20
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

30
35
17

20
30 25

40
10
35
50

20

50

45
45

40
40

45 40
34 32
20 35 40
25 30 40
Albers Equal Area Projection
32
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES

40 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS

34

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
10C–15

AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004837
10C–16

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

OCTOBER RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-12
20 10

10

15
20
30
15 25
15 15 30
20
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

30
25
20

35
30

20
38
35

10 10 35
35

15
40 33 40
20
35 48
25 44
30
Albers Equal Area Projection 33
48
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
40
40

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004838
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

NOVEMER RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-13
20 10

15
20
10
12

35
25
30
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31,4/92)

12

35 15

20

20 25
30
30

35

10 30
10

10

35 30
30
10
15 30
35
30 Albers Equal Area Projection 35
20
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
25
35

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
10C–17

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991

REVISED MARCH 1991 1004839
10C–18

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

DECEMBER RUNOFF
FROM UNSURFACED FEEDLOTS (CN-90) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-14
20 10

15

20

35
10 25
10

10
35
15
25
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

20

20 20

25
30

20

10

25

10
35 35
30
15 Albers Equal Area Projection

0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES 30 25

25 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS

20

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004840
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

JANUARY RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-15
45
55 35 30
25 20
15 10
10 15 35
60 35 40
20 45
40 50
40
65
25 35
22
25 30 55
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

35
20 40
55
45
65
60 25 22 50
55 55
55
45 45 60

25

55

35 55
35 30

35 55
60
60
35 65
60 65
55
Albers Equal Area Projection
55
50 0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS

60
45

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
10C–19

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991

REVISED MARCH 1991 1004841
10C–20

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

FEBRUARY RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-16
45
35 25
20
15 10

25 10 15
40
20 40 45

25
55 50
60 40
65 30 55
40
25 60
25 35
40
65
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

30
60 35

55 45
50
55

20
45

40 25 55

35 55

60
30
70 68 65 60
35 45
40 50 68 70
65
55 60 Albers Equal Area Projection
52 60
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004842
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

MARCH RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-17
40 35
25
20
35
20 25 30 30
45 30 40
45
55

60 50
35 55
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

58
40
60 45 58
35
55
50
20
55
45 25 52
30 52

45
55

55

35
30
35
60
65
40 70 68 65
50 65 70 60
45 55 60 68
Albers Equal Area Projection

0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES 60

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
65

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
10C–21

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991

REVISED MARCH 1991 1004843
10C–22

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

APRIL RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-18
40 35
50
35 35 28
28
40
35 40 40 45
50 40
20 40 50

50
45
40
55
40 60
50

60
25
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

50

55
55

55

60

40
60
35
65
40

73 65
45 70
63 70 65
50 73
55 65
63 60
Albers Equal Area Projection 60
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
60

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004844
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

MAY RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-19
35
40
35

40 45
45 45 45
50

45
45

40 45
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

50 55

35
55
30
55

55

60
30
25 60
55
68

35
30
35

40
62
45
50 68 65
62 65
70
55 60 70
70
Albers Equal Area Projection

0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
68
65 70
65

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
10C–23

AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004844
10C–24

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

JUNE RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-20
35
40 30 30 35
40

50 50
50

40 55
55 50
30 60
35
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

30 60

60
30
65

40
65

65 75 70
50 60 65
55 65
Albers Equal Area Projection
75
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS

70

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004846
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

JULY RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-21
40

35 40
40 50
55 50
30 50

30
55
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

60

30 60
30
20
65

20

65
20
68
35

30
35 68
40 60
40 40 62
50 65 64
70 62
60
55 65

Albers Equal Area Projection

62
70 0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
10C–25

AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004847
10C–26

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

AUGUST RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-22
40
35
40
25 50
55 55 50

55 55

50
60
55 65
30
30

30 60
70
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

30

56 70
10
35

63
70

10
40
30

62
50 60

65 65
55 60 68
Albers Equal Area Projection
68
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS 62 60

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004848
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

SEPTEMBER RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-23
45
50 35
30 50
30
35 40 45 50
50
50 50 55

60
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

40
50 65

45 35

50

35 55

60
70
75
68
40
50 45
75

40 45

65
70
64
70
50 70
60
55 65 75
68
64
75 Albers Equal Area Projection

0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
68
70

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
10C–27

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991

REVISED MARCH 1991 1004849
10C–28

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

OCTOBER RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-24
50 40 30
40
30 40 30 50
30 40
45

50
55

60
50 45 60
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

30 65
55
45
40
60
60
69

65
50 63
50
65
40

40
65

65
70
70
50 65
55 60
70 65
Albers Equal Area Projection

0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS 70

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004850
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

NOVEMBER RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-25
50 40
60 30
40 25
20 45
20 50
25 30
40 55
40
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

40 60

30 45
60 50

60
55
60
60 65
50

65

60

56

40 30 25
25 56

65
3040 45 65
60
55 60
Albers Equal Area Projection
50 62
0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
62

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
10C–29

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991

REVISED MARCH 1991 1004851
10C–30

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

DECEMBER RUNOFF
FROM CONCRETE FEEDLOTS (CN-97) AS
PERCENT OF MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION
FIGURE 10C-26
50
60 40 30
20
10 40
10 20
50
55

30 40
35 35

30 35
35 40
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

40

60

30

30 58 60
60
50
50
60

40 35

68
45 45 35

65
35 65
40
60
Albers Equal Area Projection

0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES 55

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
50
60

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991
REVISED MARCH 1991 1004852
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE

ANNUAL
FREE WATER SURFACE EVAPORATION
FIGURE 10C-27

20
WE STE RN STATES
EAS TER N STATES
30 INT ERVALS
INT ERVALS

40 34 32 30 28
20
40
40 36
38
30 30 28
30 28
40
26
30 26 28
40 40 30
42
(210-VI-AWMFH, Amend. 31, 4/92)

40 44 28
28
26
40
40 48 30
46
30
32
40 34
50 50 50
48 38
30 36
50 52
40 40 36 32
50 34
56
50 40 28
50 60 38
38
60
70 50 64
70 60
70 66 40
80

68 44
90 50 36
60 60 70
38 42
60 70 36
70 72 44
70
80 42
70 60

60 48
70 80
76 42
64 76 44
6872 72 46

48 44
70
68 60 56 52
Albers Equal Area Projection

0 50 100 200 300 400 MILES

66 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 KILOMETERS
48
64

SOURCE:
DATA PROVIDED BY SCS FIELD PERSONEL. MAP PREPARED USING
AUTOMATED MAP CONSTRUCTION. NATIONAL CARTOGRAPHIC CENTER,
10C–31

FORT WORTH, TEXAS 1991

REVISED MARCH 1991 1004856
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Appendix 10D
Design and Construction
Guidelines for Waste
Impoundments Lined with Clay or
Amendment-treated Soil

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Design and Construction Guidelines
for Impoundments Lined with Clay or
Amendment-treated Soil
Introduction on relatively clean sands and gravels, and these soils
always require a liner as described in the following
sections.
Waste storage ponds and treatment lagoons are used
in agricultural waste management systems to protect Animal waste storage ponds designed prior to about
surface and ground water and as a component in a 1990 assumed that seepage from the pond would be
system for properly utilizing wastes. Seepage from minimized by the accumulation of manure solids and a
these structures has the potential to pollute surface biological seal at the foundation surface. Figure 10D–1
water and underground aquifers. The principal factors shows one of these early sites, where the soils at grade
determining the potential for downward and/or lateral were somewhat permeable sands. Monitoring wells
seepage of the stored wastes are the: installed at some sites with very sandy soils showed
• permeability of the soil and bedrock horizons that seepage containing constituents from the pond
near the excavated limits of a constructed was still occurring even after enough time had passed
waste treatment lagoon or waste storage pond that manure sealing should have occurred.

• depth of liquid in the pond that furnishes a driv- This evidence caused U.S. Department of Agriculture
ing hydraulic force to cause seepage (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) engineers to reconsider guidance on suitable
• thickness and permeability of horizons be-
soils for siting an animal waste storage pond. In the
tween the boundary of the lagoon bottom and
late 1980s guidance was developed that designs should
sides to the aquifer or water table
not rely solely on the seepage reduction that might
occur from the accumulation of manure solids in the
In some circumstances, where permitted by local and/
bottom and on the sides of the finished structure. That
or State regulations, designers may consider whether
initial design document was entitled “South National
seepage may be reduced from the introduction of ma-
Technical Center (SNTC) Technical Guide 716.” It sug-
nure solids into the reservoir. Physical, chemical, and
gested that if any of four site conditions were present
biological processes can occur that reduce the perme-
at a proposed structure location, a clay liner or other
ability of the soil-liquid interface. Suspended solids
method of reducing seepage would be used in NRCS
settle out and physically clog the pores of the soil
designs. A few revisions were made, and the document
mass. Anaerobic bacteria produce by-products that
was re-issued in September 1993.
accumulate at the soil-liquid interface and reinforce
the seal. The soil structure can also be altered in the
process of metabolizing organic material.

Chemicals in waste, such as salts, can disperse soil, Figure 10D–1 Animal waste storage pond constructed be-
which may also be beneficial in reducing seepage. Re- fore the implementation of modern design
guidelines
searchers have reported that, under some conditions,
the seepage rates from ponds can be decreased by
up to an order of magnitude (reduced 1/10th) within
a year following filling of the waste storage pond or
treatment lagoon with manure. Manure with higher
solids content is more effective in reducing seepage
than manure with fewer solids content. Research
has shown that manure sealing only occurs when
soils have a minimal clay content or greater. A rule of
thumb supported by research is that manure sealing
is not effective unless soils have at least 15 percent
clay content for monogastric animal generated waste
and 5 percent clay content for ruminant animal gener-
ated waste (Barrington, Jutras, and Broughton 1987a,
1987b). Manure sealing is not considered effective

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

NRCS was reorganized in 1994, and guidance in old of magnitude reduction will be achieved. The follow-
SNTC documents was not part of the revised docu- ing criteria should be used in assessing the adequacy
ment system of the Agency. Consequently, the 716 of a compacted clay liner system:
document was revised considerably, and the revised
material was incorporated into appendix 10D of the • When credit for a reduction of seepage from
Agricultural Waste Field Management Handbook manure sealing (described later in the docu-
(AWMFH) in October 1998. This 2008 version of appen- ment) is allowed, NRCS guidance considers
dix 10D continues to update and clarify the process of an acceptable initial seepage rate to be 5,000
designing an animal waste storage pond that will meet gallons per acre per day. This higher value
NRCS-specified engineering design criteria and stated used for design assumes that manure sealing
specified permeability requirements. will result in at least a half order of magnitude
reduction in the initial seepage. If State or local
regulations are more restrictive, those require-
General design considerations ments should be followed.
• If State or local regulations prohibit designs
Limiting seepage from an agricultural waste storage from taking credit for future reductions in seep-
pond has two primary goals. The first is to prevent age from manure sealing, then NRCS recom-
any virus or bacteria from migrating out of the stor- mends the initial design for the site be based
age facility to an aquifer or water source. The second on a seepage rate of 1,000 gallons per acre per
is to prevent the conversion of ammonia to nitrate in day. Applying an additional safety factor to this
the vadose zone. Nitrates are very mobile once they value is not recommended because it conserva-
are formed by the nitrification process. They can then tively ignores the potential benefits of manure
accumulate significantly in ground water. The National sealing.
drinking water standard for nitrate is 10 parts per mil-
lion, and excessive seepage from animal waste storage
One problem with basing designs on a unit seepage
ponds could increase the level of nitrates in ground
value is that the approach considers only unit area
water above this threshold. Other constituents in the
seepage. The same criterion applies for small and large
liquid manure stored in ponds may also be potential
contaminants if the seepage from the pond is unac- facilities. More involved three-dimensional type analy-
ceptably high. ses would be required to evaluate the potential impact
of seepage on ground water regimes on a whole-site
Defining an acceptable seepage rate is not a simple basis. In addition to unit seepage, studies for large
task. Appendix 10D recommends an allowable seepage storage facilities should consider regional ground wa-
quantity that is based on a historically accepted tenet ter flow, depth to the aquifer likely to be affected, and
of clay liner design, which is that a coefficient of per- other factors.
meability of 1×10–7 centimeters per second is reason-
able and prudent for clay liners. This value, rightly or The procedures in appendix 10D to the AWMFH pro-
wrongly, has a long history of acceptability in design vide a rational approach to selecting an optimal com-
of impoundments of various types, including sanitary bination of liner thickness and permeability to achieve
landfills. a relatively economical, but effective, liner design. It
recognizes that manipulating the permeability of the
Assuming that a typical NRCS waste impoundment has soil liner is usually the most cost-effective approach to
a maximum liquid depth of 9 feet, a compacted clay reduce seepage quantity. While clay liners obviously al-
liner thickness of 1 foot, and a one order of magnitude low some seepage, the limited seepage from a properly
reduction in seepage due to manure sealing effects, designed site should have minimal impact on ground
the resulting seepage associated with this historically water quality. Numerous studies, such as those done
accepted permeability rate is about 1×10-6 centimeters by Kansas State University (2000), have shown that
per second, or about 9,240 gallons per acre per day. waste storage ponds located in low permeability soils
However, the NRCS no longer recommends basing de- of sufficient thickness have a limited impact on the
sign decisions on the assumption that a full one order quality of ground water.

10D–2 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

If regulations or other considerations require that unit shows a concrete-lined excavated pond, and figure
seepage be less than 500 gallons per acre per day (1/56 10D–4 shows an aboveground concrete tank. Above-
inch per day), synthetic liners such as high-density ground tanks may be also constructed of fiberglass-
polyethylene (HDPE), linear low-density polyethylene
lined steel. NRCS has significant expertise in the
(LLDPE), ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM),
selection, specification, and construction of sites using
or geosynthetic clay liners (GCL), concrete liners, or
aboveground storage tanks may be more feasible and these products in addition to clay liners. Guidance on
economical and should be considered. Figure 10D–2 these other technologies is contained in other chapters
shows a pond lined with a synthetic liner, figure 10D–3 of the AWMFH.

Figure 10D–2 Pond with synthetic liner (Photo credit Figure 10D–4 Aboveground storage tank for animal
NRCS) waste (Photo credit Mitch Cummings,
Oregon NRCS)

Figure 10D–3 Excavated animal waste storage pond with

concrete liner (Photo credit NRCS)

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–3

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Progressive design seepage, aesthetics, or other considerations. Many

geomembrane suppliers may be able to provide rough
cost estimates based on the size and locale of the site.
Waste storage ponds and waste treatment lagoons are In estimating the cost of a compacted clay liner, one
usually designed with specific objectives that include should evaluate the volume of compacted fill involved
cost, allowable seepage, aesthetics, and other consid- in a liner of given thickness. Table 10D–1 illustrates
erations. Designs are usually evaluated in a progres- a cost comparison for different thicknesses of com-
sive manner, with less costly and simple methods pacted clay liners. If methods other than compacted
considered first, and more costly and complex meth- clay liners are used, higher unit costs may apply (table
ods considered next. These design concepts should 10D–2).
generally be considered in the order listed to provide
the most economical, yet effective, design of these
structures. The following descriptions cover details
on design and installation of these individual design
measures.
• The least expensive and least complex design
is to locate a waste impoundment in soils that Table 10D–1 Cost comparisons of design options for
have a naturally low permeability and where compacted clay liner
horizons are thick enough to reduce seepage
to acceptable levels. The site should also be Thickness Number of Assumed cost Unit cost
of compact- cubic yards of of compacted of stated
located where the distance to the water table ed liner fill per square fill, per cubic thickness
conforms to requirements of any applicable (ft) foot yard liner
regulations. (yd3) ($) ($/ft2)

• Soils underlying the excavated boundaries of 1.0 0.037037 3.00–5.00 0.11–0.19

the pond may not be thick enough or slowly 1.5 0.055555 3.00–5.00 0.17–0.28
permeable enough to limit seepage to accept-
ably low values. In this case, the next type of 2.0 0.074074 3.00–5.00 0.22–0.37
design often considered is a liner constructed
3.0 0.111111 3.00–5.00 0.33–0.56
of compacted clay or other soils with appropri-
ate amendments. This type of liner may be con-
structed with soils from the excavation itself
or soil may be imported from nearby borrow
sources. If the soils require amendments such
as bentonite or soil dispersants, the unit cost of Table 10D–2 Cost comparison for other design options
the compacted liner will be significantly higher
than for a liner that only requires compaction Liner type Unit costs ($/ft2)
to achieve a satisfactorily low permeability. Geosynthethic 0.50–1.25
• A synthetic liner may be used to line the im- Concrete, reinforced 7.50–8.00
5 inches thick
poundment to reduce seepage to acceptable
levels. Various types of synthetic materials are
available.
• A liner may be constructed of concrete, or a
concrete or fiberglass-lined steel tank can be
constructed above ground to store the wastes.

A useful tool in comparing design alternatives is to

evaluate unit costs. Benefits of alternatives may then
be compared against unit costs to aid in selecting
a design alternative. Benefits may include reduced

10D–4 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Soil properties describe the effect of desiccation on the perme-

ability of compacted clay liners.

The permeability of soils at the boundary of a waste • While not considered in the USCS, the chemical
storage pond depends on several factors. The most composition of soils with clay content strongly
important factors are those used in soil classification affects permeability. Soils with a preponder-
systems such as the Unified Soil Classification System ance of calcium or magnesium ions on the clay
(USCS). The USCS groups soils into similar engineer- particles often have a flocculated structure that
ing behavioral groups. The two most important factors causes the soils to be more permeable than
that determine a soil’s permeability are: expected based simply on percent fines and
• The percentage of the sample which is finer PI. Soils with a preponderance of sodium or
than the No. 200 sieve size, 0.075 millimeters. potassium ions on the clay particles often have
The USCS has the following important catego- a dispersive structure that causes the soils to
ries of percentage fines: be less permeable than soils with similar values
of percent fines and PI. The NRCS publication
– Soils with less than 5 percent fines are the
TR–28, Clay Minerals, describes this as follows:
most permeable soils.
– Soils with between 5 and 12 percent fines In clay materials, permeability is also in-
are next in permeability. fluenced to a large extent by the exchange-
able ions present. If, for example, the Ca
– Soils with more than 12 percent fines but (calcium) ions in a montmorillonite are
less than 50 percent fines are next in order replaced by Na (sodium) ions, the per-
of permeability.
meability becomes many times less than
– Soils with 50 percent or more fines are the its original value. The replacement with
least permeable. sodium ions reduces the permeability
• The plasticity index (PI) of soils is another in several ways. For one thing, the so-
parameter that strongly correlates with perme- dium causes dispersion (disaggregation)
ability. reducing the effective particle size of the
clay minerals. Another condition reduc-
When considered together with percent fines, a group- ing permeability is the greater thickness
ing of soils into four categories of permeability is
of water adsorbed on the sodium-saturat-
possible. The following grouping of soils is based on
ed montmorillonite surfaces which di-
the experience of NRCS engineers. It may be used
minishes the effective pore diameter and
to classify soils at grade as an initial screening tool.
Estimating permeability is difficult because so many retards the movement of fluid water.
factors determine the value for a soil. For in situ soils, • Alluvial soils may have thin laminations of silt
the following factors, in addition to percent fines and or sand that cause them to have a much higher
PI, affect the permeability of the natural soils: horizontal permeability than vertical perme-
ability. This property is termed anisotropy and
• The dry density of the natural soil affects the
should be considered in flow net analyses of
permeability. Soils with lower dry densities
seepage.
have higher percentage of voids (porosity) than
more dense soils. • Other types of deposits may have structure
• Structure strongly affects permeability. Many resulting from their mode of deposition. Loess
clay soils, particularly those with PI values soils often have a high vertical permeability
above 20, develop a blocky structure from resulting from their structure. Glacial tills may
desiccation. The blocky structure creates pref- contain fissures and cracks that cause them
erential flow paths that can cause soils to have to have a permeability higher than might be
an unexpectedly high permeability. Albrecht expected based only on their density, percent
and Benson (2001) and Daniel and Wu (1993) fines and PI of the fines.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–5

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The grouping of soils in table 10D–3 is based on the Permeability of soils

percent passing the No. 200 sieve and PI of the soils.
Table 10D–4 is useful to correlate the USCS groups to
one of the four permeability groups. Table 10D–5 shows an approximate range of estimated
permeability values for each group of soils in table
10D–3. The ranges are wide because the classification
Table 10D–3 Grouping of soils according to their esti-
system does not consider other factors that affect the
mated permeability. Group I soils are the permeability of soils, such as the electrochemical na-
most permeable, and soils in groups III and ture of the clay in the soils. Two soils may have similar
IV are the least permeable soils percent finer than the No. 200 sieves and PI values
but have very different permeability because of their
Group Description different electrochemical makeup. The difference can
I Soils that have less than 20 percent passing a No. easily be two orders of magnitude (a factor of 100).
200 sieve and have a PI less than 5 The most dramatic differences are between clays that
II Soils that have 20 percent or more passing a No. have a predominance of sodium compared to those
200 sieve and have PI less than or equal to 15. with a preponderance of calcium or magnesium. High
Also included in this group are soils with less
calcium soils are more permeable than high sodium
than 20 percent passing the No. 200 sieve with
fines having a PI of 5 or greater soils.
III Soils that have 20 percent or more passing a No.
200 sieve and have a PI of 16 to 30 Table 10D–5 summarizes the experienced judgment of
IV Soils that have 20 percent or more passing a No.
NRCS engineers and generally used empirical correla-
200 sieve and have a PI of more than 30 tions of other engineers. The correlations are for in
situ soils at medium density and without significant
structure or chemical content. Information shown in
Table 10D–4 Unified classification versus soil permeabil- figure 10D–5 is also valuable in gaining insight into the
ity groups 1/ probable permeability characteristics of various soil
and rock types.
Unified Soil Soil permeability group number and
Classification occurrence of USCS group in that soil Some soils in groups III and IV may have a higher per-
System
Group Name
I II III IV meability than indicated in table 10D–5 because they
contain a high amount of calcium. High amounts of
CH N N S U
calcium result in a flocculated or aggregated structure
MH N S U S
in soils. These soils often result from the weathering
CL N S U S
ML N U S N
CL–ML N A N N
GC N S U S
GM S U S S
GW A N N N Table 10D–5 Grouping of soils according to their esti-
mated permeability. Group I soils are the
SM S U S S most permeable and soils in groups III and
SC N S U S IV are the least permeable soils.
SW A N N N
SP A N N N Group Percent PI Estimated range of
fines permeability, cm/s
GP A N N N
1/ ASTM Method D–2488 has criteria for use of index test data to Low High
classify soils by the USCS. I < 20 <5 3×10 –3
2
A= Always in this permeability group
≥ 20 ≤ 15
N= Never in this permeability group II 5×10–6 5×10–4
S= Sometimes in this permeability group (less than 10 percent of < 20 ≥5
samples fall in this group) III ≥ 20 16 ≤ PI ≤ 30 5×10–8 1×10–6
U= Usually in this permeability group (more than 90 percent of
samples fall in this group) IV ≥ 20 > 30 1×10–9 1×10–7

10D–6 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

of high calcium parent rock, such as limestone. Soil occur through cracks that can develop when the soil
scientists and published soil surveys are helpful in is allowed to dry. These soils possess good attenua-
identifying these soil types. tion properties if the seepage does not move through
cracks in the soil mass. Soils with extensive desicca-
High calcium clays should usually be modified with tion cracks should be disked, watered, and recom-
soil dispersants to achieve the target permeability pacted to destroy the structure in the soils to provide
goals. Dispersants, such as tetrasodium polyphos- an acceptable permeability. The depth of the treatment
phate, can alter the flocculated structure of these soils required should be based on design guidance given in
by replacement of the calcium with sodium. Because the section Construction considerations for com-
manure contains salts, it can aid in dispersing the pacted clay liners.
structure of these soils, but design should not rely on
manure as the only additive for these soil types. High plasticity soils like those in group IV should
be protected from desiccation in the interim period
Soils in group IV usually have a very low permeability. between construction and filling the pond. Ponds with
However, because of their sometimes blocky struc- intermittent storage should also consider protection
ture, caused by desiccation, high seepage losses can for high PI liners in their design.

Figure 10D–5 Permeability of various geologic material (from Freeze and Cherry 1979)

cm3/cm2/s (cm/s)
101 1 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8
ft3/ft2/d (ft/d)
105 104 103 102 101 1 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5
ft3/ft2/min(ft/min)
101 1 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8
gal/ft2/d (gal/ft2/d)
105 104 103 102 101 1 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4
m3/m2/day (m/d)
104 103 102 101 1 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5
relative permeability

Very high High Moderate Low Very low

Representative materials
Soil Clean gravel Clean sand, clean sand Fine sand, silty sand Silt, clay, and sand-silt- Massive clay, no
types (GP) and gravel mixes (GW, and gravel mixes (SP, SM, clay mixes, organic silts, soil joints or
GP, SW, SP, SM) GM, GW–GM, GP–GM, organic clays (GM, GC, other macropores
SW–SM, SP–SM) SM, SC, MH, ML, ML–CL, (CL, CH)
OL, OH, GW–GC, GC–GM,
SW-SC, SP–SC, SC–SM)

Any soil mass with joints, cracks or other macroporosity

Rock Cavernous and karst limestones Limestones, dolomites, Interbedded sandstones, Most massive
types and dolomites, permeable basalts clean sandstones siltstones, and shales rocks, unfractured
and unweathered
Fractured igneous and metamorphic rocks

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–7

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

In situ soils with acceptable simple method of providing a liner for a waste storage
structure is to improve a layer of the soils at the exca-
permeability vated grade by disking, watering, and compacting the
soil to a thickness indicated by guidelines in following
For screening purposes, NRCS engineers have deter- sections. Compaction is often the most economical
mined that if the boundaries of a planned pond are method for constructing liners if suitable soils are
underlain on the sides and bottom both by a minimum available nearby or if soils excavated during construc-
thickness of natural soil in permeability groups III tion of the pond can be reused to make a compacted
or IV, the seepage from those ponds is generally low liner. Soils with suitable properties can make excellent
enough to cause no degradation of ground water. This liners, but the liners must be designed and installed
assumes that soils do not have a flocculated structure. correctly. Soil has an added benefit in that it provides
Unless State regulations or other requirements dictate an attenuation medium for many types of pollutants.
a more conservative method of limiting seepage, it NRCS Conservation Practice Standard (CPS) 521D,
is the position of NRCS that special design measures Pond Sealing or Lining Compacted Clay Treatment,
generally are not necessary where agricultural waste addresses general design guidance for compacted clay
storage ponds or treatment lagoons are constructed in liners for ponds.
these soils, provided that:
If the available soils cannot be compacted to a density
• at least 2 feet of natural soil in groups III or IV and water content that will produce an acceptably
occur below the bottom and sides of the lagoon low permeability, several options are available, and
• the soils are not flocculated (high calcium) described in the following section. The options involve
soil additives to improve the permeability of the soils
• no highly unfavorable geologic conditions, such and adding liners constructed of materials other than
as karst formations, occur at the site natural soils.
• the planned depth of storage is less than 15 feet Treat the soil at grade with bentonite or a soil
Ponds with more than 15 feet of liquid should be evalu- dispersant—Designers must be aware of which
ated by more precise methods. If the permeability and amendment is appropriate for adding to specific soils
thickness of horizons beneath a structure are known, at a site. In the past, bentonite has been inappropri-
the predicted seepage quantities may be estimated ately used to treat clay soils and soil dispersants have
more precisely. In some cases, even though a site is inappropriately been used to treat sands with a small
underlain by 2 feet of naturally low permeability soil, clay content.
an acceptably low seepage rate satisfactory for some
State requirements cannot be documented. In those The following guidelines are helpful and should be
cases, more precise testing and analyses are suggest- closely followed.
ed. The accumulation of manure can provide a further • When to use bentonite—Soils in groups I and
decrease in the seepage rate of ponds by up to 1 order II have unacceptably high permeability because
of magnitude as noted previously. If regulations permit they contain an insufficient quantity of clay or
considering this reduction, a lower predicted seepage the clay in the soils is less active than required.
can be assumed by designers. A useful rule of thumb is that soils amenable
for treatment with bentonite will have PI values
less than 7, or they will have less than 30 per-
Definition of pond liner cent finer than the No. 200 sieve, or both.
Bentonite is essentially a highly concentrated
Compacted clay liner—Compacted clay liners are clay product that can be added in small quanti-
relatively impervious layers of compacted soil used ties to a sand or slightly plastic silt to make it
to reduce seepage losses to an acceptable level. A relatively low in permeability. CPS 521C, Pond
liner for a waste impoundment can be constructed in Sealing or Lining Bentonite Treatment, covers
several ways. When soil alone is used as a liner, it is this practice. NRCS soil mechanics laboratories
often called a clay blanket or impervious blanket. A have found it important to use the same type

10D–8 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

and quality of bentonite planned for construc- that concrete serves as an excellent floor from which
tion in the laboratory permeability tests used to scrape solids. It also provides a solid support for
to design the soil-bentonite mixture. Both the equipment such as tractors or loaders.
quality of the bentonite and how finely ground
the product is before mixing with the soil will Geomembranes and GCLs are the most impervious
strongly affect the final permeability rate of the types of liners if designed and installed correctly.
mixture. It is important to work closely with Care must be exercised both during construction
both the bentonite supplier and the soil testing and operation of the waste impoundment to prevent
facility when designing treated soil liners. punctures and tears. The most common defects in
these liners arise from problems during construction.
• When to use soil dispersants—Soils in
Forming seams in the field for geomembranes can
groups III and IV may have unacceptably high
require special expertise. GCLs have the advantage
permeability because they contain a prepon-
derance of calcium or magnesium on the clay of not requiring field seaming, but overlap is required
particles. Unfortunately, field or lab tests to to provide a seal at the seams. Geomembranes must
determine when soils are likely to have this contain ultraviolet inhibitors if exposed to sunlight.
problem are not available. High calcium soils Designs should include provision for protection from
often occur when parent materials have exces- damage during cleaning operations. Concrete pads,
sive calcium. Many soils developed from weath- double liners, and soil covering are examples of pro-
ering of limestone and gypsum may have this tective measures. Figure 10D–6 shows an agricultural
problem. See the section Design and construc- waste storage facility with a geomembrane liner with
tion of clay liners treated with soil dispersants, ultraviolet inhibitors.
for more detail. Some States require the routine
use of soil dispersants in areas that are known
to have high calcium clay soils. When a liner should be considered
Use of concrete or synthetic materials such as
geomembranes and geosynthetic clay liners A constructed liner may be required if any of the con-
(GCLs)—Concrete has advantages and disadvantages ditions listed are present at a planned impoundment.
for use as a liner. A disadvantage is that it will not flex
to conform to settlement or shifting of the earth. In ad- Proposed impoundment is located where any
dition, some concrete aggregates may be susceptible underlying aquifer is at a shallow depth and not
to attack by continued exposure to chemicals con- confined and/or the underlying aquifer is a do-
tained in or generated by the waste. An advantage is mestic or ecologically vital water supply—State or
local regulations may prevent locating a waste storage
impoundment within a specified distance from such
features. Even if the pond bottom and sides are under-
lain by 2 feet of naturally low permeability soil, if the
depth of liquid in the pond is high enough, computed
Figure 10D–6 Agricultural waste storage impoundment seepage losses may be greater than acceptable. The
lined with a geomembrane (Photo credit
NRCS) highest level of investigation and design is required
on sites like those described. This will ensure that
seepage will not degrade aquifers at shallow depth or
aquifers that are of vital importance as domestic water
sources.

Excavation boundary of an impoundment is un-

derlain by less than 2 feet of suitably low perme-
ability soil, or an equivalent thickness of soil
with commensurate permeability, over bedrock—
Bedrock that is near the soil surface is often fractured
or jointed because of weathering and stress relief.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–9

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Many rural domestic and stock water wells are devel- high quality rock, such as an intact shale, is less risky
oped in fractured rock at a depth of less than 300 feet. than if the thin layer occurs over fractured or fissured
Some rock types, such as limestone and gypsum, may rock. If the site is underlain by many feet of intermedi-
have wide, open solution channels caused by chemi- ate permeability soil, that site could have equivalent
cal action of the ground water. Soil liners may not be seepage losses as one underlain by only 2 feet of low
adequate to protect against excessive leakage in these permeability soil.
bedrock types. Concrete or geomembrane liners may
be appropriate for these sites. However, even hairline Some bedrock may contain large openings caused by
openings in rock can provide avenues for seepage to solutioning and dissolving of the bedrock by ground
move downward and contaminate subsurface water water. Common types of solutionized bedrock are
supplies. Thus, a site that is shallow to bedrock can limestone and gypsum. When sinks or openings are
pose a potential problem and merits the consideration known or identified during the site investigation, these
of a liner. Bedrock at a shallow depth may not pose areas should be avoided and the proposed facility lo-
a hazard if it has a very low permeability and has no cated elsewhere. However, when these conditions are
unfavorable structural features. An example is massive discovered during construction or alternate sites are
siltstone. not available, concrete or geosynthetic liners may be
required, but only after the openings have been prop-
Excavation boundary of an impoundment is erly cleaned out and backfilled with concrete.
underlain by soils in group I—Coarse grained soils
with less than 20 percent low plasticity fines gener-
ally have higher permeability and have the potential Specific discharge
to allow rapid movement of polluted water. The soils
are also deficient in adsorptive properties because
of their lack of clay. Relying solely on the sealing Introduction
resulting from manure solids when group I soils are
encountered is not advisable. While the reduction in One way to require a minimal design at a site is to re-
permeability from manure sealing may be one order quire a minimum thickness of a given permeability soil
of magnitude, the final resultant seepage losses are for a natural or constructed liner. An example of this
still likely to be excessive, and a liner should be used would be to require that a clay liner constructed at a
if the boundaries of the excavated pond are in this soil waste storage pond should be at least 1 foot thick, and
group. the soil should have a coefficient of permeability of
1×10–7 centimeters per second or less.
Excavation boundary of an impoundment is
underlain by some soils in group II or prob- However, using only permeability and thickness of a
lem soils in group III (flocculated clays) and boundary horizon as a criterion ignores the effect of
group IV (highly plastic clays that have a blocky the depth of liquid on the predicted quantity of seep-
structure)—Soils in group II may or may not require age from an impoundment. Using this approach would
a liner. Documentation through laboratory or field mean that the same design would be used for a site
permeability testing and computations of specific with 30 feet of water as one with 8 feet of water, for
discharge (unit seepage quantities) is advised. Higher instance. A more rational method for stating a limit-
than normal permeability can occur when soils in ing design requirement is to compute seepage using
group III or IV are flocculated or have a blocky struc- Darcy’s law for a unit area of the pond bottom.
ture. These are special cases, and most soils in groups
III and IV will not need a liner provided the natural A rational method of comparing design alternatives at
formation is thick enough to result in acceptable pre- a given site is needed. Such a method allows design-
dicted seepage quantities. ers to evaluate the effect of changing one or more of
the design elements in a site on the predicted seepage
These conditions do not always dictate a need for a quantities. This document presents methods for com-
liner. Specific site conditions can reduce the potential puting the term “specific discharge” to use in compar-
risks otherwise indicated by the presence of one of ing alternatives and to document a given design goal
these conditions. For example, a thin layer of soil over for a site. Specific discharge is defined as unit seepage.

10D–10 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

It does not reflect the total seepage from a site, but • The thickness of low permeability soil at the
rather provides a value of seepage per square unit area excavation limits of the pond—For design, the
of pond bottom. thickness of the soil at the bottom of the pond
is often used because that is where seepage is
This document uses calculations of specific discharge likely to be highest. In some cases, however,
to compare design alternatives and to determine if a seepage from the sides of the pond may also
given design meets regulatory requirements and guide- be an important factor. Seepage from the sides
lines. In some cases, the total seepage from a pond of ponds is best analyzed using finite element
may be of interest, particularly for larger ponds in flow net programs. In some cases, rather than a
highly environmentally sensitive environments. single horizon, multiple horizons may be pres-
ent.
In those cases, more elaborate three-dimensional seep-
• The depth of liquid in the pond—The depth of
age computations using sophisticated finite-element
liquid at the top of the reservoir when pumping
computer programs may be warranted. It is outside
should commence is normally used.
the scope of this document to describe these types of
analyses. Specialists who are experienced in using the • The coefficient of permeability of the soil
complex software used for these computations should forming the bottom and sides of the pond—In
be consulted. layered systems, an average or weighted per-
meability may be determined as shown in figure
The parameters that affect the seepage from a pond 10D–7.
with a natural or constructed clay liner are:
• The size of the pond—The total bottom area
and area of the exposed sides of the pond hold-
ing the stored waste solids and liquids.

Figure 10D–7 Conversion of permeability in layered profile to single value

D1; k1

D2; k2 d

D3; k3

Permeability of underlying horizon is

>>permeability of overlying horizons

d
k average =
D1 D2 D3
+ +
k1 k 2 k 3

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–11

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Example 10D–1 shows how to convert a multiple layer Definition of specific discharge
system into a single equivalent permeability. Using this
method allows a designer to compute specific dis-
charge when several horizons of constructed or natu- The term “specific discharge” has been coined to
ral soils occur below a site. denote the unit seepage that will occur through the
bottom of a pond with a finite layer of impervious soil.
Specific discharge is the seepage rate for a unit cross-
Example 10D–1 sectional area of a pond. It is derived from Darcy’s law
The excavated pond is underlain by 15 feet of soil as follows. First, consider Darcy’s law.
consisting of three different horizons (fig. 10D–8). The
thickness and permeability of each horizon is shown in Q= k×i×A
the sketch. Compute the average vertical permeability
of the 15 feet of soil. For a pond with either a natural or constructed liner,
the hydraulic gradient is the term i in the equation, and
it is defined in figure 10D–9 as equal to (H+d)/d.
Figure 10D–8 Idealized soil profile for example 10D–1
Given:
The Darcy’s law for this situation becomes:
H+d
Q= k× ×A
H=18 ft d
where:
Q = total seepage through area A (L3/T)
D1 =3 ft; k1=0.003 ft/d
k = coefficient of permeability (hydraulic
D2=5 ft; k2=0.03 ft/d d=15 ft conductivity) (L3/L2/T)
D3=7 ft; k3=0.3 ft/d
i = hydraulic gradient (L/L)
H = vertical distance measured between
Solution
the top of the liner and top of the
liquid storage of the waste impound-
d ment (fig. 10D–9) (L)
k average =
D1 D2 D3 d = thickness of the soil liner (fig. 10D–9) (L)
+ +
k1 k2 k3 A = cross-sectional area perpendicular to
flow (L2)
15 L = length
k average = = 0.0126 ft/d
3 5 7 T = time
+ +
0.003 0.03 0.3

Figure 10D–9 Definition of terms for clay liner and seepage calculations

Water surface in structure

i=Gradient=(H+d)/d
H

kf >kb

Clay liner kb d

kf

10D–12 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Rearrange terms: per acre per day, acre-feet per acre per day, or acre-
Q k( H + d ) inches per acre per day.
=
A d (L/T) To illustrate a typical computation for specific dis-
charge, assume the following:
By definition, unit seepage or specific discharge, is
Q÷A. The symbol ν is used for specific discharge: • A site has a liquid depth of 12 feet.
• The site is underlain by 2 feet of soil that has
k( H + d )
ν= a coefficient of permeability of 1×10–6 centi-
d (L3/L2/T) meters per second (assume that a sample was
obtained at the grade of the pond and sent to a
Specific discharge may be confused with perme- laboratory where a flexible wall permeability
ability because the units are the same. In the metric test was performed on it).
system, specific discharge and permeability are often
expressed in units of centimeters per second. The • Compute the specific discharge, ν. First, the
coefficient of permeability may be converted
actual units are cubic centimeters of flow per square
to units of feet per day by multiplying the given
centimeter of cross section per second, but this re-
units of centimeters per second by 2,835.
duces to centimeters per second. Specific discharge is
different than permeability because specific discharge
is an actual flow rate of liquid through a cross section
( )
k = 1 × 10 -6 cm/s × 2, 835 = 0.002835 ft/d
of a soil mass, whereas permeability is a property of
the soil mass itself. Permeability is independent of the Then, the specific discharge ν is computed as
hydraulic gradient in a particular site, whereas spe- follows:
cific discharge accounts for both permeability of the
H+d
soil and the gradient causing the flow, as illustrated in ν= k×
figure 10D–9. Because hydraulic gradient is dimension- d
less, the units of specific discharge and permeability 12 + 2
= 0.002835 ×
are then the same. 2
≅ 0.02 ft 3 /ft 2 /d
Because specific discharge expressed as L/T has the ≅ 0.02 ft/d
same units as velocity, specific discharge is often
misunderstood as representing the average rate or
Conversion factors for specific discharge are given in
velocity of water moving through a soil body rather
table 10D–6.
than a quantity rate flowing through the soil. Because
the water flows only through the soil pores, the actual
cross-sectional area of flow is computed by multiply-
ing the soil cross section (A) by the porosity (n). The
seepage velocity is then equal to the unit seepage or
specific discharge, ν, divided by the porosity of the
soil, n. Seepage velocity = (ν/n). In compacted liners, Table 10D–6 Conversion factors for specific discharge
the porosity usually ranges from 0.3 to 0.5. The result
is that the average linear velocity of seepage flow is
two to three times the specific discharge value. The To convert from To units of Multiply by
units of seepage velocity are L/T. 3 2 3 2
ft /ft /d in /in /d 12
ft3/ft2/d gal/acre/d 325,829
To avoid confusion between specific discharge and in3/in2/d gal/acre/d 27,152.4
permeability, one possibility is to use different units in3/in2/d cm3/cm2/s 2.94×10–5
for specific discharge than for the coefficient of per- cm3/cm2/s gal/acre/d 9.24×108
meability. Common units for permeability are recom-
cm3/cm2/s in3/in2/d 34,015
mended to be in feet per day or centimeters per sec-
cm3/cm2/s ft3/ft2/d 2,835
ond. Units for specific discharge should be in gallons

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–13

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

To convert the computed specific discharge in the ex-

ample into units of gallons per acre per day and cubic
( )
k = 1 × 10 -6 cm/s × 2, 835 = 0.002835 ft/d
inches per square inch per day (in/d), use conversion
factors given in table 10D–6. Then, the specific discharge ν is computed as
follows:
• 0.02 foot per day×325,829 ≅ 6,500 gallons per acre
per day H+d
ν= k×
d
• 0.02 foot per day×12 = 0.24 cubic inch per square
inch per day 15 ft + 2 ft
= 1.42 × 10 −4 ft/d ×
2 ft
A variety of guidelines have been used and regulatory
≅ 0.0012 ft 3 /ft 2 /d
requirements stated for specific discharge. Usually,
guidelines require the specific discharge for a given ≅ 0.0012 ft/d
waste storage structure to be no higher than a stated
value. The following example demonstrates the unit Converting this into units of gallons per acre per day:
seepage that will result from a typical size animal 0.0012 ft/d × 325, 829 ≅ 393 gal/acre/d
waste storage lagoon or storage pond with 2 feet of
either very good natural soil or a very well construct-
ed, 2-foot-thick clay liner in the bottom of the lagoon. Table 10D–7 lists typical specific discharge values
A practical lower limit for the assumed permeability used by State regulatory agencies. Requirements vary
of a compacted clay or a very good natural liner is a from State to State. Individual designers may regard
coefficient of permeability equal to 5×10–8 centimeters minimum requirements as too permissive. Some States
per second. This is based on considerable literature permit a designer to assume that the initial computed
on field and laboratory tests for compacted clay liners seepage rate will be reduced in the future by an order
used in sanitary landfills. of magnitude by taking credit for a reduction in perme-
ability resulting from manure sealing. Although the
The specific discharge for this ideal condition follows, State or local regulations should be used in design for
assuming: a specific site, the NRCS no longer recommends as-
suming that manure sealing will result in one order of
• The pond has a liquid depth of 15 feet.
magnitude reduction. A more conservative assumption
• The site is underlain by 2 feet of soil (either a described previously allows an initial seepage rate of
natural layer or a constructed clay liner) that 5,000 gallons per acre per day, which for the assumed
has a coefficient of permeability of 5×10–8 cen- typical site dimensions of 9 feet of liquid and 1 foot
timeters per second thickness of liner, assumes a one half order of magni-
• Compute the specific discharge, ν. First, the tude reduction.
coefficient of permeability is converted to units
of feet per day by multiplying the given units of
centimeters per second by 2,835. Then, Design of compacted clay liners

If a site does not have a sufficient thickness of in situ

low permeability soil horizons to limit seepage to an
acceptably low value, a clay liner may be required.
Table 10D–7 Typical requirement for specific discharge Some State regulations may also require a constructed
used by State regulatory agencies
clay liner regardless of the nature of the in situ soils
Example specific Equivalent value in
at a site. Regulations sometimes require a specific
discharge value gallons per acre per day thickness of a compacted soil with a documented
permeability of a given value. An example of this is
1/56 in3/in2/d 485
a State requirement that a waste storage pond must
1/8 in3/in2/d 3,394
have in the bottom and sides of the pond at least 2 feet
1/4 in3/in2/d 6,788
of compacted clay with a documented coefficient of
1×10–6 cm3/cm2/s 924 permeability of 1×10–7 centimeters per second.

10D–14 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Clay liners may also be designed based on a stated seepage is advisable, that rate should be used in
allowable specific discharge value. Computations computations. It is seldom technically or economi-
may be performed as detailed in following sections cally feasible to meet a design specific discharge
to determine a design that will meet a design specific value of less than 500 gallons per acre per day
discharge goal. using compacted clay liners or amendment-treated
soil liners. To achieve lower values of unit seepage
usually requires synthetic liners, concrete liners,
or aboveground storage tanks.
Detailed design steps for clay liners
Step 5—If the computed specific discharge meets
design objectives, the site is satisfactory without
The suggested steps for design of a compacted clay or
additional design and may be designed and con-
amendment-treated liner are:
structed.
Step 1—Size the impoundment to achieve the Step 6—If the computed specific discharge at the
desired storage requirements within the available site does not meet design objectives, use either
construction limits and determine this depth or method A or method B shown in following sec-
the height, H, of storage needed. tions to design a compacted clay liner or a liner
with soil amendment.
Step 2—Determine (from a geologic investiga-
tion) the thickness and permeability of horizons of Notes to design steps:
natural clay underlying the bottom of the planned
excavated pond. Investigate to a minimum of 2 • The calculated thickness of the soil liner re-
feet below the planned grade of the pond or to quired is sensitive to the relative values of soil
depths required by State regulations, if greater. If permeability and the assumed allowable spe-
natural low permeability horizons at least 2 feet cific discharge value.
thick or an equivalent thickness of soil with dif- • The best and most economical way to reduce
ferent permeability do not underlie the site, as- the required liner thickness is by reducing the
sume that a compacted clay liner (with or without soil’s permeability. Liner permeability may be
amendments) will be constructed. The liner may reduced by compacting soils to a higher degree,
be constructed of soils from the excavation if they compacting them at a higher water content,
are suitable for use, or soil may be imported from and by using an appropriate additive such as
a nearby borrow source. bentonite or soil dispersants.
Step 3—Measure or estimate the permeability • By using higher compaction water contents and
of the natural horizons or the compacted liner compacting soils to a high degree of saturation,
planned at the site. Use procedures shown in ex- permeability often can be reduced by a factor
ample 10D–1 to obtain a weighted permeability for of 1/100.
the natural horizons.
• The liner soil must be filter compatible with the
Step 4—Compute the specific discharge using natural foundation upon which it is compacted.
the values of head in the pond and thickness Filter compatibility is determined by criteria in
of natural horizons and their equivalent perme- NEH 633, chapter 26. As long as the liner soil
ability in the specific discharge equation. If State will not pipe into the foundation, the magnitude
or local regulations provide a required value for of hydraulic gradient across the liner need not
allowable specific discharge, design on the basis be limited.
of those regulations. Currently, State regulations
• Filter compatibility is most likely to be a sig-
for specific discharge range from a low of about
nificant problem when a liner is constructed di-
500 gallons per acre per day (1/56 inch per day)
rectly on top of very coarse soil, such as poorly
to a high of about 6,800 gallons per acre per day
graded gravels and gravelly sands.
(1/4 inch per day). If no regulations exist, a value
of 5,000 gallons per acre per day may be used. If • The minimum recommended thickness of a
a designer feels that more conservative limiting compacted clay liner is given in CPS 521D. The

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–15

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

minimum thickness varies with the depth of liner is exposed. CPSs address this important
liquid in the pond. consideration.
• Clay liners constructed by mixing bentonite • Federal and State regulations may be more
with the natural soils at a site should have a stringent than the design guidelines given, and
minimum thickness shown in CPS 521C. These they must be considered in the design. Exam-
minimum thicknesses are based on construc- ples later in this section address consideration
tion considerations rather than calculated of alternative guidelines.
values for liner thickness requirement from the
specific discharge equations. In other words,
if the specific discharge equations indicate a Two methods for designing constructed
7-inch thickness of compacted bentonite-treat- clay liner
ed liner is needed to meet suggested seepage
criteria, the CPS 521C could dictate a thicker Two methods for designing a clay liner are available.
liner. That guidance should be considered in In method A, designers begin with an assumed or
addition to the specific discharge computations. required value for allowable specific discharge. Using
the depth of liquid storage in the pond and known or
• Natural and constructed liners must be protect-
estimated values of the liner’s coefficient of perme-
ed against damage by mechanical agitators or
ability, a required thickness of liner is computed. If the
other equipment used for cleaning accumulated
value obtained is unrealistic, different values for the
solids from the bottom of the structure. Lin-
liner permeability are evaluated to determine what val-
ers should also be protected from the erosive
forces of waste liquid flowing from pipes during ues produce a desirable thickness of liner. CPSs also
filling operations. CPSs provide guidance for determine minimum liner thicknesses.
protection.
In method B, designers begin with a desired thickness
• Soil liners may not provide adequate confi- of liner and an assumed or required value for specific
dence against ground water contamination discharge. Using the depth of liquid storage in the
if foundation bedrock beneath the pond con- pond and the desired thickness of liner, a required
tains large, connected openings. Collapse of coefficient of permeability for the liner is computed.
overlying soils into the openings could occur. If the value obtained is unrealistic, different values for
Structural liners of reinforced concrete or the liner thickness are evaluated to determine what
geomembranes should be considered because values produce an achievable permeability. Coordinat-
the potential hazard of direct contamination of ing with soil testing laboratories is helpful in evaluat-
ground water is significant. ing alternatives that can provide the required perme-
• Liners should be protected against puncture ability for the liner.
from animal traffic and roots from trees and
large shrubs. The subgrade must be cleared of Each of these methods is illustrated with detailed
stumps and large angular rocks before con- design examples as follows:
struction of the liner.
Method A—Using assumed values for the coefficient
• If a clay liner (or a bentonite-treated liner) is of permeability of a compacted clay based on labo-
allowed to dry, it may develop drying cracks or ratory tests of the proposed liner soil, compute the
a blocky structure. Desiccation can occur dur- required thickness of a liner to meet the given specific
ing the initial filling of the waste impoundment
discharge design goal. In the absence of more restric-
and later when the impoundment is emptied for
tive State regulations, assume an acceptable specific
cleaning or routine pumping. Disking, adding
discharge of 5,000 gallons per acre per day.
water, and compaction are required to destroy
this structure created by desiccation. A protec- The required thickness of a compacted liner can be
tive insulating blanket of less plastic soil may determined by algebraically rearranging the specific
be effective in protecting underlying more plas- discharge equation, as follows. Terms have been previ-
tic soil from desiccation during these times the ously defined.

10D–16 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

k×H Using English system units, substituting the given

d= values for H and k, assuming an allowable specific
ν−k
discharge, ν, of 0.010417 foot per day, then
Note: If the k value assumed for the liner is equal to or
greater than the assumed allowable specific discharge, 0.00184 ft/d × 12 ft
d= = 2.6 ft
meaningless results are attained for d, the calculated 0.010417 ft/d − .00184 ft/d
thickness of the liner in the last equation. The reason
is that the denominator would be zero, or a negative CPS 521D requires a pond with a depth of water of 12
number. Another way of stating this is that the allow- feet to have a minimum thickness liner of 1 foot, so the
able specific discharge goal cannot be met if the liner 2.6 foot requirement governs.
soils have k values equal to or larger than the assumed
allowable specific discharge, in consistent units. Note Method B—Using a given value for depth of liquid in
also that CPS 521D has requirements for minimum the pond, assumed values for the thickness of a com-
thickness of compacted clay liners. If the computed pacted clay based on construction considerations, CPS
value for the required thickness is less than that given 521D requirements, State regulations, or the prefer-
in CPS 521D, then the values in the CPS must be used. ence of the designer, compute the required permeabili-
ty of a liner to meet the given specific discharge design
goal. In the absence of more restrictive State regula-
Example 10D–2—Design a clay liner using
tions, assume an acceptable specific discharge of 5,000
method A
gallons per acre per day. The required permeability of
Given:
a compacted liner can be determined by algebraically
Site design has a required depth of waste liquid, H, in
rearranging the specific discharge equation as follows.
the constructed waste impoundment of 12 feet. A soil
Terms have been previously defined.
sample was obtained and submitted to a soil mechan-
ics laboratory for testing. A permeability test on a sam- ν×d
ple of proposed clay liner soil resulted in a permeabil- k=
H+d
ity value of 6.5×10–7 centimeters per second (0.00184
ft/d) for soils compacted to 95 percent of maximum If the computed value for the required permeability is
Standard Proctor dry density at a water content 2 less than 5×10–8 centimeters per second (1.4×10–4 ft/d),
percent wet of optimum. The State requirement for the NRCS engineers’ experience is that lower values are
site requires a specific discharge no greater than an not practically obtainable and a thicker liner or syn-
eighth of an inch per day. Compute the required thick-
thetic liners should be used to achieve design goals.
ness of liner to be constructed of soil having the stated
permeability that will achieve this specific discharge.
Example 10D–3—Design a clay liner using
Solution: method B
First, convert the required specific discharge into the Given:
same units as will be used for the coefficient of perme- Site design has a required depth of waste liquid, H, in
ability. Using values for permeability of feet per day, the constructed waste impoundment of 19 feet. CPS
convert the stated eighth of an inch per day specific 521D requires a liner that is at least 18 inches (1.5 feet)
discharge requirement into feet per day. To convert, thick. The site is in a State that allows NRCS design
divide an eighth by 12 to obtain a specific discharge guidance of 5,000 gallons per acre per day to be used
requirement of 0.010417 foot per day. It is given that in the design. The NRCS guidance assumes that ma-
the k value at the design density and water content is nure sealing will reduce this seepage value further and
0.00184 foot per day. Calculate the required minimum no additional credit should be taken.
thickness of compacted liner as follows:
Solution:
The equation for required d is: Step 1 First, convert the required specific dis-
charge into the same units as will be used for the
k×H coefficient of permeability. Using values for per-
d=
ν−k meability of feet per day, convert the stated 5,000

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–17

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

gallons per acre per day specific discharge require- A loose layer thickness of 6 inches may be needed for
ment into feet per day. To convert using conversions some tamping rollers that have larger pad type feet
shown in table 10D–6, divide 5,000 by 325,829 to that do not penetrate as well.
obtain a specific discharge requirement of 0.0154
foot per day. The thickness of liner is given to be 1.5 Method of construction
feet. Calculate the required coefficient of permeabil-
ity of the compacted liner as follows: Several methods are available for constructing a clay
liner in an animal waste impoundment. Each has its
ν×d
k= advantages and disadvantages as described in follow-
H+d ing sections. A designer should consider the experi-
ence of local contractors and the relative costs of the
Using English system units, substituting the given
methods in selecting the most appropriate design for a
values for H of 19 feet and for d of 1.5 feet, assum-
given site. The thickness of the planned soil liner, haul
ing an allowable specific discharge, ν, of 0.0154 distance, planned side slopes for the pond, and other
foot per day, then: factors also guide a designer’s decision on the best
.0154 ft/d × 1.5 ft method to use.
k=
19 ft + 1.5 ft
= 1.1 × 10 −3 ft/d Bathtub construction
This method of construction consists of a continuous
Convert to centimeters per second by dividing by thickness of soil compacted up and down or across
2,835. the slopes. Figure 10D–10 shows the orientation of
1.1 × 10 −3 ft/d the lifts of a compacted liner constructed using this
k= method, as contrasted to the stair step method, which
2, 835
is covered next. Figure 10D–11 shows two sites where
k = 4.0 × 10 −7 cm/s the bathtub method of construction is being used.

This construction method has the following advan-

Step 2—The designer should coordinate testing
tages over the stair-step method:
with a laboratory to determine what combinations
of degree of compaction and placement water • The layers of compacted clay are oriented
content will result in this value of permeability or perpendicular to flow through the liner in this
less. Design of the 1.5-foot-thick liner may proceed method. If the lifts making up the liner are not
with those recommendations. bonded well, the effect on seepage is minor,
compared to the stair-step method.
• This method lends itself to constructing thinner
lifts, which is more economical.
Construction considerations for
compacted clay liners The bathtub construction method has the following
disadvantages compared to the stair-step method:
Thickness of loose lifts • Side slopes must be considerably flatter than
for the stair-step method, creating a pond with
The permissible loose lift thickness of clay liners a larger surface area. A pond with a larger sur-
depends on the type of compaction roller used. If a face area has to store more precipitation falling
tamping or sheepsfoot roller is used, the roller teeth on it, which could be considered an extra cost
should fully penetrate through the loose lift being com- of the method.
pacted into the previously compacted lift to achieve • To permit equipment traversing up and down
bonding of the lifts. A loose lift thickness of 9 inches is the slopes, slopes must be an absolute mini-
commonly used by NRCS specifications. If the feet on mum of 3H:1V. Shearing of the soil by the equip-
rollers cannot penetrate the entire lift during compac- ment on steeper slopes is a concern. To prevent
tion, longer feet or a thinner lift should be specified. shearing of the compacted soil, the slopes of

10D–18 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10D–10 Methods of liner construction (after many compacted liners in ponds constructed
Boutwell 1990) using this method use 4H:1V slopes so that
Bathtub construction equipment will exert more normal pressure on
the slope than downslope pressure.

Stair-step construction
The stair-step method of construction is illustrated in
Seepage figure 10D–10. Construction of the liner consists of
perpendicular compacting lifts of soil around the perimeter of the
liner in a stair-step fashion, finishing the job by shaving
off some of the side liner and placing it in the bottom
Stair-step construction of the pond. This method of construction is required if
the side slopes of the pond are any steeper than about
3H:1V. Advantages of this method of construction are:
• A thicker blanket, measured normal to the
slope, will result compared to the bathtub
method of construction (fig. 10D–10). This is a
positive factor in seepage reduction.
• It allows steeper side slopes, and thus the
surface area of the pond exposed to rainwater
Figure 10D–11 Bathtub construction of clay liner (photo accumulation is smaller than a bathtub con-
courtesy of NRCS Virginia (top) and
NRCS Nebraska (bottom))
struction would permit.
• The thicker blanket reduces the impact of
shrinkage cracks, erosive forces, and potential
mechanical damage to the liner.
• Ponds constructed with this method are deeper
for a given volume of waste than ponds con-
structed with the bathtub method, which favors
anaerobic processes in the pond.

Disadvantages of the method are:

• This method may be more expensive than the
bathtub method because the liner on the sides
of the pond are thicker.
• Flow is parallel to the orientation of the layers
forming the compacted liner on the pond sides.
If care is not taken to obtain good bonding
between lifts, seepage through the interface
between lifts could be higher than expected.
• Contractors may be less familiar with this
method of operation of equipment.
In the stair-step method of construction, the pond is
first excavated. Borrow soil is then imported with
a truck or scraper and spread in thin lifts (8 to 9 in
thick) prior to compaction. Figure 10D–12a shows the
first layer being constructed on the sides of the pond.
This pond used a bentonite application. Each lift of

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–19

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

soil is compacted with a sheepsfoot roller to obtain Figure 10D–12 Stair-step method (Photo credit John
the desired dry density at the specified water con- Zaginaylo, PA, NRCS)
tent (fig. 10D–12b). The interior liner is constructed
(a)
by bringing up lifts the full depth of the pond. Photo
10D–12c provides an overview of the stair-step process
of constructing a clay liner in an animal waste stor-
age pond. After the sides are constructed, some of the
liner is shaved off and used to construct a liner in the
bottom of the pond (fig. 10D–12c).

Soil type
Soils in groups III and IV are the most desirable for
constructing a clay liner (table 10D–3). Some soils in
group II may also be good materials for a clay liner,
but definitely require laboratory testing to document
their permeability characteristics. Soils in group I
always require bentonite to form a liner with accept-
ably low permeability. Some soils in group II may also
require bentonite to be an acceptable material for a
liner. Some soils in groups III and IV require a soil dis- (b)
persant to create an acceptably low permeability.

Classification
The most ideal soils for compacted liners are those in
group III. The soils have adequate plasticity to provide
a low permeability, but the permeability is not exces-
sively high to cause poor workability. Group IV soils
can be useful for a clay liner, but their higher plasticity
index (PI greater than 30) means they are more sus-
ceptible to desiccation. If clay liners are exposed to
hot dry periods before the pond can be filled, desicca-
tion and cracking of the liner can result in an increase
in permeability of the liner. A protective layer of lower
PI soils is often specified for protection of higher PI
clay liners to prevent this problem from developing.
(c)
Highly plastic clays like those in group IV are also
difficult to compact properly. Special effort should be
directed to processing the fill and degrading any clods
in high plasticity clays to prevent this problem.

Size of clods
The size and dry strength of clay clods in soil prior to
compaction have a significant effect on the final qual-
ity of a clay liner. Soil containing hard clayey clods is
difficult to break down and moisten thoroughly. Add-
ing water to the soil is difficult because water pen-
etrates the clods slowly. High speed rotary pulverizers
are sometimes needed if conditions are especially
unfavorable. If soils containing large clay clods are

10D–20 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

not treated properly, the resultant permeability will Natural water content of borrow
be much higher than might otherwise be true. Figure
10D–13 shows the structure that results from com- The water content of soils used to construct a clay
pacting soils containing clods that are not adequately liner is the most important factor in obtaining a low
broken down. permeability liner for a given soil. If soils are too dry,
they cannot effectively be compacted to a condition
where their structure is acceptable and their perme-
ability may be higher than desirable. Compacting a soil
Figure 10D–13 Macrostructure in highly plastic clays at the proper water content creates a structure that
with poor construction techniques (from is most favorable to a low permeability. Adding water
Hermann and Elsbury 1987)
to compacted clay liners is an additional expense that
Micropermeability must be considered. A good rule of thumb is that it re-
quires about 3.2 gallons of water to increase the water
content of a cubic yard of compacted soil by 1 percent.

Dry conditions in the borrow

If soils in the borrow area are dry, several problems
Macropermeability may need to be addressed. If the soils are clays with
relatively high plasticity (PI values greater than about
20), they are likely to be very cloddy when excavated.
Water is slow to penetrate the clods and compaction
is less likely to degrade clods if enough time has not
elapsed between adding the water and compaction.
More descriptions follow in subsequent sections, and
figure 10D–13 illustrates how clods left in the compact-
Intermediate situation
ed fill will likely cause the soil to have a higher than
expected permeability.

If the water content of borrow soils is more than 3 or

4 percent drier than required for specified compaction
conditions, consideration should be given to wetting
the soils in the borrow prior to construction. Adding
Key large amounts of water during processing on the fill is
Remolded clod
difficult and inefficient. Sprinklers can be set up in the
Partially remolded clod borrow some time before construction is planned and
Totally remolded clod then time will allow water to soak into the soils more
thoroughly.

Macrovoid Wet conditions in the borrow

If the natural water content of the borrow soil is sig-
nificantly higher than optimum water content, achiev-
ing the required degree of compaction may be difficult.
A good rule of thumb is that a soil will be difficult to
compact if its natural water content exceeds about 90
percent of the theoretical saturated water content at
the dry density to be attained. The following proce-
dure can help to determine if the soils in the borrow
are too wet for effectively compacting them.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–21

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Step 1 Measure the natural water content of the their water content by more than 2 or 3 percent
soil to be used as a borrow source for the clay with normal effort. It may be more practical to
liner being compacted. delay construction to a drier part of the year when
Step 2 Compute the highest dry density to which the borrow source is at a lower water content. In
the soil can be compacted at this water content some cases, the borrow area can be drained sev-
using the following equation, which assumes that eral months before construction. This would allow
the highest degree of saturation achievable is 90 gravity drainage to decrease the water content to
percent:
an acceptable level.
62.4
Achievable γ dry lb/ft 3 = Step 5 Another way of examining this problem
wn % 1
+ is to assume that soils must be compacted to 95
90 Gs
percent of their Standard Proctor (ASTM D698)
where: dry density and then compute the highest water
wn(%) = natural water content of borrow soils, % content at which this density is achievable. Com-
Gs = specific gravity of the soil solids (dimen- monly, soils are difficult to compact to a point
sionless) where they are more than 90 percent saturated.
The following equation is used to determine the
Specific gravity values are obtained by ASTM Stan-
highest feasible placement water content at which
dard Test Method D854. An average value for spe-
cific gravity is often assumed to be 2.68. However, the dry density goal is achievable:
soils with unusual mineralogy may have values
significantly different. Soils with volcanic ash may 90(%)  62.4 1 
Highest placement w(%) = × − 
have specific gravity values as low as 2.3, and soils 100  γ dry lb/ft
3
G s 
with hematite in them may have values as high as
3.3, based on NRCS laboratory results.
Example 10D–4—Compute the achievable dry
Step 3 Perform a Standard Proctor (ASTM
density of a potential borrow source
D698) compaction test on the same soil and de-
termine the maximum dry density value. Compute Given:
the achievable degree of compaction by dividing A borrow source is located and found to be in a desir-
the computed value of achievable dry density by able group III type soil. The soil has 65 percent finer
the maximum Standard Proctor dry density. than the No. 200 sieve and a PI of 18. The soil was sam-
Step 4 If the computed achievable degree of pled and placed in a water tight container and shipped
compaction is less than 95 percent, then drying to a soils laboratory. The natural water content of the
of the sample will probably be required. In rare soil was measured to be 21.8 percent. The lab also
cases, compaction to a lower degree, such as 90 performed a specific gravity (Gs) test on the soil, and
percent of Standard Proctor, at higher water con- measured a value of 2.72. A Standard Proctor Test was
tents will achieve an acceptably low permeability. performed on the sample and values for maximum dry
Laboratory tests should be performed to evaluate
density of 108.5 pounds per cubic foot and an optimum
whether a lower degree of compaction will result
water content of 17.0 percent were measured.
in an acceptable permeability value.
Note: The experience of NRCS engineers is that Solution:
when the natural water content of a soil is more The maximum degree of compaction of this soil at the
than 4 percent above optimum water content, it
measured water content. If the soil is too wet to be
is not possible to achieve 95 percent compaction.
Computations should always be performed, as compacted to 95 percent of maximum standard Proc-
this rule of thumb sometimes has exceptions. In tor dry density, how much will it have to be dried to
most cases, drying clay soils by only disking is achieve compaction to 95 percent of maximum den-
somewhat ineffective, and it is difficult to reduce sity?

10D–22 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

62.4 Placement of lifts

Achievable γ dry lb/ft 3 = Individual lifts of soil usually consist of an equipment
wn % 1
+ width (often about 8 to 10 feet wide) layer of soil
90 Gs
about 6 inches thick, after compaction. These lifts
62.4 should be staggered to prevent preferential flow along
Achievable γ dry lb/ft 3 = = 102.3 lb/ft 3
21.8% 1 the inter-lift boundaries. Figure 10D–14(a) shows the
+
90 2.72 preferred way of offsetting the lifts. Figure
10D–14(b) shows a method that should be avoided.
Next, compute the achievable degree of compaction Bonding between the 6-inch lifts is also important so
by dividing the achievable dry density by the maxi- that if water does find its way down the boundary be-
mum Standard Proctor dry density, expressed as a tween two lanes of compacted soil that it cannot flow
percentage. The achievable degree of compaction is laterally and find the offset boundary.
then equal to 102.3 divided by 108.5×100=94.3 percent.

Now, determine how wet the sample could be and Macrostructure in plastic clay soils
still achieve 95 percent compaction. Ninety-five per-
cent of the maximum Standard Proctor dry density is Clods can create a macrostructure in a soil that re-
0.95×108.5=103.1 pounds per cubic foot. Substitute sults in higher than expected permeability because of
this value into the equation given: preferential flow along the interfaces between clods.
Figure 10D–13 illustrates the structure that can result
90  62.4 1  from inadequate wetting and processing of plastic clay.
Highest placement w % = × − 
100  γ dry lb/ft
3
G S  The permeability of intact clay particles may be quite
low, but the overall permeability of the mass is high
90  62.4 1  because of flow between the intact particles.
Highest placement w% = × − = 21.4%
100  103. 1 lb/ft
3
2. 72 

This computation confirms the rule of thumb given Dry density and optimum water content
that it is difficult to achieve 95 percent degree of com-
paction if the natural water content is greater than 4 Compaction specifications for most earthfill projects
percent above optimum. The stated value for optimum normally require a minimum dry density (usually ref-
water content is 17.0 percent, so the rule of thumb erenced to a specified compaction test procedure) and
says that if the natural water content exceeds 21.0 an accompanying range of acceptable water contents
percent, achieving 95 percent degree of compaction (referenced to the same compaction test procedure).
will be difficult. This method of fill specification is usually based on en-

Methods of excavating and processing

clay for liners
Figure 10D–14 Construction methods to limit interlift
preferential flow paths
Clods in borrow soil
(a) Lanes for lift placement should be staggered to
If borrow soils are plastic clays at a low water content, prevent preferential flow at sides of lifts. Bonding
the soil will probably have large, durable clods. Disk- of lifts is also important to prevent flow along
poorly bonded lifts.
ing may be effective for some soils at the proper water
content, but pulverizer machines may also be required.
To attain the highest quality liner, the transported fill
should be processed by adding water and then turned (b) Lanes for lift placement that are not staggered
allows preferential flow at sides of lifts.
with either a disk or a high-speed rotary mixer before
using a tamping roller. Equipment requirements de-
pend on the strength and size of clods and the water
content of the soil.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–23

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

gineering property tests such as shear strength, bear- This time the same soil is compacted to a significantly
ing capacity, and permeability. When permeability is higher density at a significantly lower water content.
the primary engineering property of interest, as would This is labeled point 2 in the figure 10D–15.
be the case for a compacted clay liner, an alternative
type of compaction specification should be consid- Laboratory tests can be used to establish the boundary
ered. The reason for this is a given permeability value conditions and arrive at a window of acceptable densi-
can be attained for many combinations of compacted ties and water contents for a clay liner. Figure 10D–16
density and water contents (Daniels and Benson 1990). shows how a different structure results between soils
Figure 10D–15 illustrates a window of compacted dry compacted wet of optimum and those compacted dry
density and water content in which a given permeabil- of optimum water content. It also illustrates that soils
ity could be obtained for an example soil. The prin- compacted with a higher compactive effort or energy
ciples involved can be illustrated as follows. have a different structure than those compacted with
low energy.
Assume that a given soil is being used to construct a
clay liner for an animal waste impoundment. A moder-
Mitchell (1965) was instrumental in explaining how
ately plastic silty clay classifying as CL in the USCS is
the permeability of clay soils is affected by the con-
used. In case 1, the soil being obtained from a nearby
ditions under which they were compacted. Figure
borrow area has a relatively high natural water con-
tent. The contractor elects to use lighter construction 10D–17 illustrates results of one series of experiments
equipment that applies a relatively low energy in com- summarized in the study. Two samples of a soil were
pacting the soil. The result is the soil is compacted to compacted using different energy at different water
a condition where the compacted density is relatively contents and their permeability was measured. Soil
low and the placement water content is relatively high. C was compacted using higher energy, like that used
This is labeled as point 1 in the figure 10D–15. In case when a heavy sheepsfoot roller passed over each
2, the same soil is being used, but the site is being con- compacted lift multiple times. Soil B was compacted
structed in a drier time of year. The contractor elects using a lower energy, equating to a smaller roller with
to use a larger sheepsfoot roller and apply more pass- a smaller number of passes used in the compaction
es of the equipment to achieve the desired product. process.

Figure 10D–15 Range at acceptable moisture/density for Figure 10D–16 Effect of water content and compactive
a typical clay liner effort on remolding of soil structure in
clays (from Lambe 1958)
High-energy Moderately
compaction flocculated
curve
Zero air voids structure
(100 percent saturation)
2 Very
dispersed
structure
C Medium-energy
compaction High
Locus of curve
compactive
Dry density

optimum
water effort
Compacted density

contents B
Moderately
Low
dispersed
Shaded area compactive
structure
is acceptable effort
combinations A
of density and Low-energy
water compaction 1 Highly flocculated
curve
structure
Water content, %
Molding water content

10D–24 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

 Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The curves show the relationship between the per- Percent saturation importance
meability of the compacted soil and the compaction Benson and Boutwell (2000) studied the correlation
water content, for the two energies used. The follow- between field measured permeability values on com-
ing general principles are seen: pacted liners with laboratory measured values. The
study found that when soils were compacted at drier
• The permeability of the low energy soil (curve
water contents, even if a high density were obtained,
B) is high unless the compaction water con-
that correlation between field and lab permeability test
tent is significantly wet of optimum. Very high
values was poor. The study found good correlation
permeability results for compaction dry of
when soils were compacted at relatively higher water
optimum.
contents. Clods in clay soils are probably not broken
• The permeability of the higher energy soil down as well at lower compaction water contents
(curve C) is relatively high for water contents which explains the higher permeability in the field.
less than optimum. In lab tests, breaking down clods and obtaining test
specimens without a structure is easier than done with
Lambe (1958) explains how the energy used and the field compaction procedures.
water content of the soil at the time of compaction
affect the permeability of the soil by creating structure The conclusions of Benson and Boutwell’s research
in the soil. Figure 10D–16 summarizes his explanation were that if a designer is going to rely on laboratory
of how different soil structures results from these two permeability tests to predict the permeability of a com-
factors. Soils compacted with higher energy (heavier pacted clay liner, the following rules of thumb apply.
equipment and numerous passes of the equipment)
at a higher water content have a dispersed structure. • Soils should generally be compacted wet of the
This structure creates very small plate-shaped voids line of optimums. The line of optimums is illus-
that are resistant to water flow. Soils that are com- trated in figure 10D–15. It is the locus of opti-
pacted with lower energy and/or lower water contents mum water content values for a given soil for a
have a flocculated structure. This structure involves range of compactive energy. A soil compacted
larger voids that are more conducive to water flow. with a low energy (like that resulting from a
small sheepsfoot roller), curve A in figure
10D–15, will have a relatively low maximum
density and high optimum water content. A soil
compacted with a high energy (like that result-
Figure 10D–17 Plot showing effect of molding water ing from using a large heavy tamping roller),
content on permeability (Mitchell 1965) curve C in figure 10D–15, will have a high value
for maximum density and a low value of opti-
10 -4 mum water content. The line of optimums is
the locus of points connecting the values of op-
10 -5 timum water content. Remember that optimum
Opt w, percent
Permeability, cm/s

B
water content depends on the energy used and
for each curve
that Standard Proctor (ASTM D698) is only one
10 -6 standard type of compaction test. ASTM D1557,
Opt w, percent the modified energy test is also used for design
for each curve of some clay liners.
10 -7
• Eighty percent of field tests of dry density and
C
water content should plot to the right of the
10 -8
line of optimums if the field permeability is
Molding water content, % expected to reflect the same values obtained in
laboratory testing.
• The average water content of all quality control
tests should be from 2 to 4 percent wetter than
the line of optimums as defined.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–25

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Energy level of compaction that have more square, larger area projections. The
longer teeth on the older style sheepsfoot rollers are
The relationship of maximum dry density and opti- better at remolding plastic clay soils that are wet of
mum water content varies with the compactive energy optimum water content, and they are better at de-
used to compact a soil. Higher compactive energy grading clods in the soils (fig. 10D–18). The modern
results in higher values of maximum dry unit weight tamping-type rollers are effective in compacting soils
and lower values of optimum water content. Lower at a drier water content when high bearing capacity
compactive energy results in lower values of maxi- is needed, like soils being compacted for highway
mum dry unit weight and higher values of optimum subgrades (fig. 10D–19). The older style of sheepsfoot
water content. Because optimum water content varies roller compactors are better suited for compaction to
with the energy used in compaction, its nomenclature achieve low permeability.
can be misleading. The optimum water content of a
soil varies with the particular energy used in the test to
measure it. Total weight of roller
To attain penetration of the specified loose lift, the
Compactive energy is a function of the weight of the roller weight must be appropriate to the specified
roller used, thickness of the lift, and number of passes thickness and the shape of the roller projections. Many
of the roller over each lift. Rollers should be heavy modern rollers are too heavy to compact soils that are
enough to cause the projections (teeth or pads) on the more than 1 or 2 percent wet of optimum water con-
roller to penetrate or almost penetrate the compacted tent. When the specified compaction water content is 2
lift. Enough passes must be used to attain coverage percent or more wet of optimum water content, lighter
and break up any clods. Additional passes do not com- rollers are essential. Permeability of clays is minimized
pensate for rollers that are too light. by compaction at water contents wet of optimum.

Roller size is often specified in terms of contact pres-

Speed of operation
sure exerted by the feet on sheepsfoot or tamping
Heavy rollers operated at excessive speed can shear
rollers. Light rollers have contact pressures less than
the soil lifts being compacted, which may result in
200 pounds per square inch, while heavy rollers have
higher permeability. Close inspection of construction
contact pressures greater than 400 pounds per square
operations should indicate if this problem is occurring,
inch.
and adjustments to equipment or the mode of opera-
Limited data are available for various sizes of equip- tion should then be made.
ment to correlate the number of passes required to
attain different degrees of compaction. Typically, from Vibratory versus nonvibratory sheepsfoot and
4 to 8 passes of a tamping roller with feet contact tamping rollers
pressures of 200 to 400 pounds per square inch are Some sheepsfoot and tamping rollers have an added
required to attain degrees of compaction of from 90 to feature, a vibratory action. This feature can usually be
100 percent of maximum Standard Proctor dry density. activated or deactivated while soils are being compact-
However, this may vary widely with the soil type and ed. Vibratory energy adds little to the effectiveness
weight of roller used. Specific site testing should be of these rollers when the soils being compacted are
used when possible. clays. At the same time, the vibration of the equipment
is not usually detrimental. One condition in which the
vibratory energy of this type of equipment might be
Equipment considerations detrimental is when a clay liner is being constructed
on a subgrade of low plasticity silts or sands that are
Size and shape of teeth on roller saturated. The vibration of the equipment often causes
Older style sheepsfoot-type projections on rollers are these types of foundation soils to become dilatant as
best suited for compacting clay soils to achieve the they densify, and the water expelled in this process
lowest possible permeability. They are better suited can create a trafficability problem. For this reason,
than the modern style rollers called tamping rollers when subgrade soils are saturated low plasticity silts

10D–26 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

and sands, the vibratory action of the compaction Freeze-thaw and desiccation
equipment should be disabled.
Freeze-thaw
Vibratory smooth-wheeled rollers Compacted clay liners may become damaged when the
Vibratory smooth-wheeled rollers are well suited to liner is exposed during freezing weather. Articles by
compacting bentonite-treated liners. They should Kim and Daniel (1992) and Benson and Othman (1993)
not be used for compacting clay liners, however. The describe the effects of freezing on clay liners and how
smooth surface of the roller results in poor bond- the damage resulting from freezing may be permanent.
ing between lifts and can cause problems like those Laboratory tests show that permeability rates may
shown in figure 10D–14. The load distribution of the increase by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude (100–1,000
rollers also causes the top of a lift to be compacted times). Freeze-thaw damage is more likely to affect the
well but the bottom of the lift not as well, when fine- side slopes of a clay-lined pond than it will the bottom
grained soils are being compacted. A vibratory smooth of the pond after it is filled. If freeze-thaw damage is
wheeled roller is shown in figure 10D–20. regarded as likely to increase the permeability of the

Figure 10D–18 Longer style of teeth preferable for com- Figure 10D–20 Smooth-wheeled steel roller compactor
pacting soils for clay liner

Figure 10D–19 Modern type of tamping roller less well

suited for compacting soils for clay liner

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–27

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

soils on the side slopes of the pond, a thicker liner Bentonite type and quality
or protective cap of cover soil should be considered.
The extra cost of freeze-thaw protection may cause a Several types of bentonite are mined and marketed
designer to consider a synthetic liner alternative for for use in treating soils to produce a low permeability
reasons of economy and confidence in the low perme- liner. The most effective type of bentonite (less vol-
ability of the synthetic liner. For instance, Minnesota ume required per cubic foot of treated soil) is finely
designs often include the use of GCL liners for this ground sodium bentonite that is mined in the area of
reason. northeast Wyoming, southeast Montana, and western
South Dakota. This sodium bentonite is derived from
weathered volcanic ash. Sodium bentonite is a smec-
Desiccation
tite clay composed primarily of the mineral montmoril-
Compacted clay liners may also be damaged when
lonite (Bentofix 2007). It has the ability to swell up to
the liner is exposed during hot, dry weather after
10 to 15 times its dry natural volume when exposed
construction and before the pond is filled. Desiccation
to water. Other types of bentonite, usually calcium
may also occur during periods the pond is emptied. Ar-
bentonite are also mined and marketed for treating
ticles by Daniel and Wu (1993) and Kleppe and Olson
soils. These types of bentonites are less active (less
(1985) describe factors that affect desiccation. Using
free swell potential) and more volume of bentonite per
the sandiest soil available that will be adequately im-
treated cubic yard of soil will be required to produce a
permeable is helpful. Compacting the soil as dense and
target permeability than would be required if sodium
dry as practical while still achieving the design perme-
bentonite were used.
ability goal is also helpful. Protective layers must be at
least 12 inches thick to be effective, and even thicker
Two methods of evaluating a bentonite source being
layers may be needed for more plastic clay liners,
considered for use as an additive for a liner has high
those with PI values of 30 or higher.
swell properties exist. They are:

• Determine the level of activity based on its

Design and construction of Atterberg limit values as determined in a soil
bentonite amended liners testing laboratory. High-quality sodium benton-
ite has LL values greater than 600 and PI values
greater than 550.
When soils at grade of an excavated pond are low plas-
ticity sands and silts in groups I or II of table 10D–3, an • High-quality sodium bentonite has a free swell
unlined pond will result in unacceptably high seepage value of 22 milliliter or higher, based on experi-
losses. Several design options are normally considered ence of NRCS engineers and generally accepted
for this situation. The options are listed as follows in guidance. An ASTM Standard test method to
order of increasing cost: evaluate the free swell potential of bentonite
is used to verify the quality of bentonite used
• Clay soils suitable for a clay liner are located in in GCL liners and is also suitable for evaluat-
a nearby borrow area and imported to the site ing bentonite proposed for a liner being con-
to construct a compacted clay liner. CPS 521D structed using CPS 521C. The ASTM method is
applies to this practice. D5890. A summary of the method follows.

• Soils from the excavation and at the excavated — Prepare a sample for testing that consists
subgrade are treated with bentonite to create a of material from the total sample that is
compacted liner with the required permeability smaller than a No. 100 sieve.
and thickness. CPS 521C applies to this prac- — Partially fill a 100-milliliter graduated cylin-
tice. der with 90 milliliters of distilled water.
• The pond may be lined with geosynthetic, a — Add 2 grams of bentonite in small incre-
GCL, or lined with concrete. An aboveground ments to the cylinder. The bentonite will
storage tank is also an option. sink to the bottom of the cylinder and

10D–28 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

swell as it hydrates. Wash the sides of the ommendations. Fineness for use in treating liners
cylinder and fill to the 100-milliliter level. for waste impoundment can also be specified by an
acceptable bentonite by supplier and designation, or
— After 2 hours, inspect the hydrating ben-
equivalent. An example specification is Wyo Ben type
tonite column for trapped air or water
Envirogel 200, CETCO type BS–1, or equivalent.
separation in the column. If present, gently
tip the cylinder at a 45-degree angle and
roll slowly to homogenize the settled ben-
tonite mass. Design details for bentonite liner
— After 16 hours from the time the last of The criteria given in CPS 521C, Pond Sealing or Lining,
sample was added to the cylinder, record Bentonite Treatment, provide minimum required liner
the volume level in milliliters at the top of thicknesses for various depth of liquids.
the settled bentonite. Record the volume
of free swell, for example, 22 milliliters CPS 521C provides guidance on rates of application
free swell in 24 hours. of bentonite for preliminary planning purposes or
where the size and scope of the project does not war-
Figure 10D–21 shows an excellent quality bentonite rant obtaining samples and having laboratory tests
reaction to the test. It has a free swell of about 27 mil- performed. These preliminary recommended rates of
liliters. application are based on using high-quality sodium
bentonite that is finely ground. The CPS 521C includes
Bentonite is furnished in a range of particle sizes for a table that shows a range of recommended applica-
different uses. Fineness provided by the bentonite tion rates which vary with the type of soil being treat-
industry ranges from very finely ground, with most ed. Higher rates of application are needed for coarse,
particles finer than a No. 200 sieve, to a granular form, clean sands and lower rates for silts. The table shows
with particles about the size of a No. 40 sieve. Labora- a recommended application rate expressed in pounds
tory permeability tests have shown that even though of bentonite per square foot per inch of liner to be
the same bentonite is applied at the same volumetric built. For example, a typical rate of application for a
rate to a sample, a dramatic difference in the resulting relatively clean sand would be about 0.625 pounds per
permeability can occur between a fine and a coarse square foot per inch of compacted bentonite-treated
bentonite. It is important to use in construction the liner. The most up-to-date CPS 521C should always be
same quality and fineness as was used by the soils consulted for recommended rates, in case they have
laboratory for the permeability tests to arrive at rec- changed since this document was written.

Figure 10D–21 Free swell test for bentonite ASTM D5890 For planning purposes, using these recommended
rates, the amount of bentonite needed for a job can
be estimated. For example, assume that a pond is to
be constructed with an area of the sides and bottom
totaling one acre. Assume that considering the planned
depth of water in the pond, a design has been formu-
lated that calls for a 1-foot-thick bentonite-treated
liner and that an application rate of 0.625 pounds per
square foot per inch is needed. The total amount of
bentonite required per square foot will be

0.625 lb/ft 2 × 12 in/ft = 7.5 lb

of bentonite per square foot. For an acre of pond area,

the total amount needed will be
7.5 lb/ft 2 × 43, 560 ft 2 /acre = 326, 700 lb
= 163 tons

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–29

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The cost of bentonite is affected strongly by freight, of 21 feet. The State requirement for the location is
and the further a site is from the area of the United a specific discharge no greater than one-fifty-sixth of
States where bentonite is produced, the more costly an inch per day of seepage. Assume the soils at grade
it will be. Better unit prices are available for larger have been tested and found to be suitable for ben-
quantities. tonite treatment. Find the minimum thickness liner
required according to CPS 521C, and determine the
Remember that the preliminary rates of application required permeability to meet this specific discharge
provided in CPS 521C assume that finely ground high- requirement.
swell sodium bentonite is used. If plans anticipate that
a lower quality bentonite with a free swell less than First, consult CPS 521C to determine the minimum
about 22 milliliters or a coarsely ground bentonite required thickness. Assume the current CPS requires a
may be used, laboratory testing is required to estab- liner that is 18 inches thick (1.5 ft).
lish a rate of application that will create a suitably
low permeability. Design using the specific discharge Convert the specified unit seepage rate (specific dis-
approach will establish what the target permeability charge) of one-fifty-sixth of an inch per day into the
value should be. same units as will be used for permeability (centime-
ters per second). To convert, use conversion values
The recommended procedure to arrive at a design for shown in table 10D–6, multiply:
a bentonite-treated liner then is as follows:
1
ν= in/d × 2.94 × 10 −5 = 5.25 × 10 −7 cm/s
Step 1 Obtain a sample of the soil to which the 56
bentonite is to be added. Have the sample tested
in a soils laboratory to determine its basic index The thickness of the liner and depth of liquid in the
properties, including percent fines and plasticity. pond must also be converted to metric units. To con-
Step 2 Have a standard Proctor (ASTM D698) vert the liner thickness of 18 inches to centimeters,
test performed to determine the maximum dry multiply by 2.54, which equals a liner thickness, d, of
density and optimum water content. 45.72 centimeters. The liquid depth, H, of 21 feet is
equal to
Step 3 From the preliminary design of the site,
determine the depth of water in the structure. Use H = 21 ft × 12 in/ft × 2.54 cm/in = 640.1 cm
CPS 521C to determine the minimum thickness of
liner required. Using the equation described previously, solve for the
required permeability:
Step 4 Using given or assumed values for al-
lowable specific discharge, compute the required ν×d
k=
permeability of the bentonite-treated liner. H+d
Step 5 Coordinate with a soils laboratory on 5.25 × 10 −7 cm/s × 45.72 cm
k= = 3.5 × 10 −8 cm/s
testing to determine what degree of compac- 640.1 cm + 45.72 cm
tion, water content, and rate of application of the
proposed additive is required to obtain this perme- The designer should coordinate with a soils labora-
ability. Consider whether high quality (free swell > tory to determine how much bentonite of given quality
22 mL) is being used and whether finely ground or is required to obtain this low a permeability. In the
coarsely ground bentonite is proposed. experience of NRCS engineers, relying on this low a
permeability means that construction quality control
Step 6 Design the final liner based on the results
must be excellent and all the procedures and materials
of step 5.
used are of highest quality. Seldom should designs for
clay liners rely on a design permeability much lower
Example 10D–5—Design of a bentonite-treated than 5×10–8 centimeters per second. A designer might
liner want to proceed with this design but require a slightly
Given: thicker liner (24 in) to provide additional assurance of
A waste storage pond is planned with a depth of liquid obtaining the design specific discharge.

10D–30 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Considerations for protective cover passes should be in directions perpendicular to each

other. This encourages a more homogeneous mixture.
CPS 521C recommends considering the addition of a
protective soil cover over the bentonite-treated com- Another construction consideration is the moisture
pacted liner in waste impoundments. There are several condition of the soil into which the bentonite is to be
reasons why a soil cover should be provided: mixed. Unless the soil is somewhat dry, the bentonite
will most likely ball up and be difficult to thoroughly
• Desiccation cracking of the liner after con- mix. Ideally, bentonite should be spread on a relatively
struction and prior to filling is a significant dry soil, mixed thoroughly, then watered and com-
problem because the bentonite used in treat- pacted.
ment is highly plastic.
• Desiccation cracking of the liner on the side Depending on the type of equipment used, tearing of
slopes may occur during periods when the im- the liner during compaction can occur on slopes of
poundment is drawn down for waste utilization 3H:1V or steeper. Compacting along, rather than up
or sludge removal. Desiccation cracking would and down slopes, could be unsafe on 3H:1V or steeper
significantly change the permeability of the side slopes. For most sites, slopes of 3.5H:1V or 4H:1V
liner. Rewetting generally does not completely should be considered.
heal the cracks.
Bentonite-treated liners are often constructed in lifts
• Bentonite-treated liners are generally thinner that are 4-inch compacted thickness. Liners should
than compacted clay liners. Because the liner be designed in multiples of 4 inches for this reason.
is thin, it can be more easily damaged by ero- Often, the first layer of bentonite-treated soil is the soil
sion from rainfall and runoff while the pond exposed in the bottom of the excavation. By applying
is empty. Rills in a thin liner provide a direct bentonite to the exposed grade, disking it in to a depth
pathway for seepage. of about 6 inches, and compacting it, the first layer
• Over excavation by mechanical equipment dur- is formed. Subsequent lifts are formed by importing
ing sludge removal can damage the liner. A min- loose fill adequate to form additional 4-inch-thick lifts.
imum thickness of 12 inches measured normal
to the slope and bottom is recommended for a
protective cover. The protective cover should
be compacted to reduce its erodibility.

Construction specifications for bentonite Figure 10D–22 Pulvermixer (high-speed rotary mixer)
liner (Photo credit Stacy Modelski, NRCS)

The best equipment for compacting bentonite-treated

liners is smooth-wheeled steel rollers, as shown in fig-
ure 10D–20. Crawler tractor treads are also effective.
Sheepsfoot rollers that are often used in constructing
clay liners are not as effective. CPS 521C specifies
that for mixed layers, the material shall be thoroughly
mixed to the specified depth with disk, rototiller, or
similar equipment. In addition, intimate mixing of the
bentonite is essential to constructing an effective liner.
If a standard disk is used, several passes should be
specified. A high-speed rotary mixer is the best method
of obtaining the desired mix (fig. 10D–22). A minimum
of two passes of the equipment is recommended to as-
sure good mixing. When multiple passes of equipment
are used for applying and mixing the bentonite, the

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–31

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Design and construction of clay Example 10D–6—Steps in design of a disper-

sant-treated liner
liners treated with soil Assume for the purposes of this example that a soil
dispersants has been tested at a site and found to be a flocculated
clay with an unacceptably high permeability. The
designer chooses to evaluate a soda ash-treated liner.
Previous sections of this appendix caution that soils Consult the current CPS 521B for guidance on applica-
in groups III and IV containing high amounts of cal- tion rates for soda ash. Assume that the current CPS
cium may be more permeable than indicated by the suggests an application rate of 15 pounds of soda ash
percent fines and PI values. Groups III and IV soils per 100 square feet of liner for each 6-inch-thick lift of
predominated by calcium usually require some type finished liner. Next, assume that based on the depth
of treatment to serve as an acceptable liner. The most of water in the pond that the CPS 521B requires a
common method of treatment to reduce the perme- total liner thickness of 12 inches. Then, because each
ability of these soils is use of a soil dispersant additive 6-inch-thick lift requires 15 pounds of soda ash per
containing sodium. 100 square feet, the total amount of soda ash required
for this example would be 30 pounds of soda ash per
100 square feet. The most up-to-date CPS 521B should
Types of dispersants always be consulted for recommended rates, in case
they have changed since this document was written.
The dispersants most commonly used to treat high cal-
cium clays are soda ash (Na2CO3) and polyphosphates. The recommended rates of application of dispersants
in CPS 521B are based on the most up-to-date infor-
The two most common polyphosphates are tetraso-
mation from the NRCS soils testing laboratories. The
dium pyrophosphate (TSPP), and sodium tripolyphos-
rates are in general conservative, and if a designer
phate (STPP). Common salt (NaCl) has been used in
wanted to evaluate lower rates of application, samples
the past, but it is considered less permanent than other should be obtained and sent to a laboratory for docu-
chemicals and is not permitted in the current CPS menting the efficacy of lower rates. If this procedure is
521B. NRCS experience has shown that usually about followed, the following steps are usually implemented.
twice as much soda ash is required to effectively treat
a given clay when compared to the other two disper- Step 1 Obtain a sample of the soil to which the
sants. However, because soda ash is often less expen- dispersant is to be added. Have the sample tested
sive, it may be the most economical choice in many in a soils laboratory to determine its basic index
applications. properties, including percent fines and plasticity.
Step 2 A standard Proctor (ASTM D698) test is
performed to determine the maximum dry density
Design details for dispersant-treated clay and optimum water content.
liner
Step 3 From the preliminary design of the site,
determine the depth of water in the structure and
CPS 521B, Pond Sealing or Lining, Soil Dispersant,
use CPS 521B to determine the minimum thick-
provides minimum thicknesses of liners using the
ness of liner required.
dispersant-treated layer method, based on the depth
of liquid in the pond. CPS 521B provides guidance on Step 4 Using given or assumed values for al-
approximate rates of application of soil dispersants lowable specific discharge, compute the required
based on testing performed by the NRCS laboratories. permeability of the dispersant-treated liner.
Rates provided in the CPS are in terms of pounds of Step 5 Coordinate with a soils laboratory on
dispersant required per 100 square feet for each 6-inch testing to determine what degree of compac-
layer of liner. The total amount of dispersant per 100 tion, water content, and rate of application of the
square feet is then equal to the number of -inch lifts in proposed additive is required to obtain this perme-
the completed liner multiplied by the rate per lift. ability. Consider local practice and consult sup-

10D–32 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

pliers to determine the relative costs of soda ash quire special effort or unusual amounts of additive. At
versus polyphosphates. the same time, seldom should designs for dispersant-
treated clay liners rely on a design permeability much
Step 6 Design the final liner based on the results
lower than 5×10–8 centimeters per second. A designer
from previous steps.
should proceed with this design specifying the applica-
tion rate recommended by the soils lab and a 1.5-foot-
Example 10D–7—Comprehensive example for a
thick liner to obtain the design specific discharge.
dispersant-treated liner
Given:
A waste storage pond is planned with a depth of liquid
of 18 feet. The State requirement for the location is a Construction specifications for a disper-
specific discharge no greater than 2,000 gallons per sant-treated clay liner
acre per day of seepage. Assume the soils at grade
have been tested and found to require dispersant The best equipment for compacting clays treated with
treatment. Assume that the current CPS 521B requires dispersants is a sheepsfoot or tamping type of roller.
a minimum liner thickness of 1.5 feet. The example CPS 521B specifies that the material shall be thorough-
problem is to determine what permeability is required ly mixed to the specified depth with a disk, high speed
to meet the stated specific discharge requirement. rotary mixer, or similar equipment. Because small
quantities of soil dispersants are commonly used,
Solution: uniform mixing of the dispersants is essential to con-
First, the required specific discharge value, which is structing an effective liner. If a standard disk plow is
given in units of gallons per acre per day has to be used, several passes should be specified. A high-speed
converted the same units that will be used for required rotary mixer is also essential to obtain a thorough mix-
permeability. Assume that permeability will be ex- ture of the dispersant with the clay being amended.
pressed in centimeters per second, so use table 10D–6 Figure 10D–23 shows this type of equipment. At least
to convert the value of 2,000 gallons per acre per day two passes of the equipment is recommended to as-
to centimeters per second as follows: sure good mixing.

2, 000 gal/acre/d Other construction considerations are also important.

ν= = 2.2 × 10 −6 cm/s
9.24 × 10 8 Using the bathtub method of construction on slopes of
3H:1V or steeper can cause tearing of the liner during
Next, convert the liner thickness and depth of liquid
compaction and reduce the effectiveness of compac-
from units of feet to centimeters:

d = 18 in × 2.54 cm/in = 45.72 cm

H = 18 ft × 12 × 2.54 cm/ft = 548.64 cm

Figure 10D–23 High-speed rotary mixer used to mix
Using the equation described previously, solve for the dispersants into clays (Photo credit Jody
Kraenzel, NRCS)
required permeability:
ν×d
k=
H+d
2.2 × 10 −6 cm/s × 45.72 cm
=
548.64 cm + 45.72 cm
= 1.7 × 10 −7 cm/s

The designer should coordinate with a soils laboratory

to determine how much soil dispersant of the desired
type is required to obtain this low a permeability. In
the experience of NRCS engineers, obtaining this value
of permeability using a soil dispersant should not re-

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–33

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

tion equipment. Slopes as flat as 3.5H:1V or 4H:1V Uplift pressures beneath clay
should be considered for this factor alone, for bathtub
type construction. blankets
Current CPSs usually require a liner thicker than 6 A clay blanket may be subject to uplift pressure from a
inches. A liner generally can be satisfactorily con- seasonal high water table in the foundation soil under-
structed in a series of lifts by mixing in the required neath the clay liner. The uplift pressure in these cases
amount of soil dispersant to a 9-inch-thick loose depth can exceed the weight of the clay liner, and failure in
and then compacting it to the 6 inches. Thicker liners the clay blanket can occur (fig. 10D–24). This problem
should be constructed in multiple lifts, with the final is most likely to occur during the period before the
compacted thickness of each lift being no greater than waste impoundment is filled and during periods when
6 inches. the impoundment may be emptied for maintenance
and cleaning. Figure 10D–25 illustrates the parameters
involved in calculating uplift pressures for a clay blan-
ket. The most critical condition for analysis typically
occurs when the pond is emptied. Thicker blankets
to attain a satisfactory safety factor should be used if
they are required.

Figure 10D–24 Failure of compacted liner from uplift forces below clay blanket (Photo credits NRCS, TX)

Figure 10D–25 Uplift calculations for high water table

and clay blanket (from Oakley 1987)

Water level in pond

z
d Water
bearing
stratum
α

Clay liner Middle of water

bearing stratum

10D–34 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The factor of safety against uplift is the ratio of the pres- Figure 10D–26 Uplift conditions caused by temporary
sure exerted by a column of soil to the pressure of the flood stage outside lagoon (Photo credit
NRCS, WA)
ground water under the liner. It is given by the equation:
Temporary flood level
γ sat × d × cos (α )
FS = Clay liner
z × γ water Flood plain surface Differential
hydrostatic
where: head
d = thickness of liner, measured normal to the
slope
α = slope angle
γ = unit weight or density of water
water
γ = saturated unit weight of clay liner
sat
z = vertical distance from middle of clay liner
to the seasonal high water table

A factor of safety of at least 1.1 should be attained.

The safety factor can be increased by using a thicker
blanket or providing some means of intercepting the
ground water gradient and lowering the potential head
behind the blanket. Often, sites where seasonal high
water tables are anticipated designs include a perim-
eter drain to collect the water and prevent this type of
damage. Another option is a concrete structure above
ground.

Another situation where a clay liner may be damaged

from hydrostatic pressure is one where a site is located
in a flood plain of a stream or river. The site may have
to be built above ground level in this location to avoid
a seasonal high water table. Figure 10D–26 illustrates
the problem that may occur that must be considered
by designers. A temporary flood condition in the flood
plain can subject the agricultural waste impoundment
to a differential head when the pond is empty. The
pond could be empty shortly following construction or
it could be empty to apply waste to crops. Uplift pres-
sure may cause piping of sandy horizons underlying the
site and boils, and sloughing of side slopes can occur
as shown in figure 10D–26. The photo shows a clay-
lined animal waste impoundment where the clay liner
was damaged from excessive hydrostatic uplift forces
caused by temporary storage of flood waters outside
the embankment. The liner must be thick enough to
resist predicted buoyant forces if it is possible for the
pond to be empty or near empty during a flood. Drains
will be ineffective because in a flood, outlets will be
submerged.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–35

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Perimeter drains for animal waste Figure 10D–27 Typical drain installations using single
filter with well-screened collector pipe
storage ponds
(a)

When a high water table is anticipated and uplift HDPE

liner
pressures are anticipated, one approach to solving
the problem is to install a drain around the pond. The
drain may completely encircle the pond if a designer
anticipates a general elevated water table in the site ASTM C33 sand
vicinity. At other sites with a more sloping ground sur-
face, the perimeter drain may only be installed on the Slotted pipe with
side(s) of the impoundment where the elevated water slots sized no larger
than No. 20
table is anticipated. Drains may be used both for clay
liners and geosynthetic liners.

Drains usually are constructed by

• digging a trench to the depth needed to draw
down the water table
• placing a perforated or slotted drainage pipe
(b)
• surrounding the drain with granular material
HDPE
that is compatible with both the slot size in liner
the pipe and the gradation of the surrounding ASTM
C33
foundation soils sand
Pipes with small slots that are compatible with a filter
sand like ASTM C–33 are preferred to avoid having to
use two filter gradations. If pipes with larger perfora-
Slotted pipe with
tions are used, they should be surrounded with gravel slots sized no larger
to prevent particles from moving into the pipe. Figure than No. 20
10D–27 (a, b, and c) show typical installations where
a single filter and perforated pipe is used. Another
approach to installing a drain is to dig a trench, line it
Dig trench drain to near bottom of
with geotextile, and after putting a slotted collector pond—may require an access trench to
pipe in the trench, filling it with gravel. Figure 10D–28 permit doing this (see fig. 10D−27c)
shows this type of installation.

Several types of drain pipe may be used. One type is a (c)

low strength corrugated pipe with slots or perforations HDPE
surrounded by a filter envelope of granular material. liner
Figure 10D–29 is an example of this type of collector
Access trench backfilled
pipe. If a higher strength pipe is required, figure 10D– with semi-pervious material
30 shows another type of pipe that is sometimes used
for these types of installations. ASTM
C33
sand

Illustrated access trench construction to permit installing

deeper trench drain. Access trench filled with semi-pervious
soil to limit infiltration of surface runoff.

10D–36 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10D–28 Perforated collector pipe installed the Figure 10D–30 Corrugated drainage pipe with slots,
gravel envelope with trench lined with doubled walled pipes may be specified if
geotextile higher strengths are needed

Figure 10D–29 Low-strength perforated drainage tubes

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–37

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Soil mechanics testing for accepted method of permeability testing is by ASTM

Standard Test Method D5084, Measurement of Hydrau-
documentation lic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a
Flexible Wall Permeameter. Figure 10D–31 shows the
Laboratory soil testing may be required by regula- equipment used for performing the test.
tions for design, or a designer may not choose to rely
on correlated permeability test values. The NRCS Contact the labs for more detailed information on
National Soil Mechanics Center Laboratories have documentation needed and for procedures for submit-
the capability to perform the necessary tests. Similar ting samples.
testing is also available at many commercial labs. The

Figure 10D–31 Equipment used for performing ASTM D5084

Molding a sample for a flexible wall permeability test Disassembled mold with compacted specimen

Molded sample after dissembling mold

Preparing sample in cell for flexible wall permeability test

10D–38 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

If the only tests requested are gradation and Atterberg Other methods for documenting
limit tests, smaller samples are needed. The size of
sample that should be submitted depends on the grav- liner seepage
el content. The following recommendations should be
adhered to: Performing density/water content tests during con-
struction is a generally accepted method of document-
Estimated gravel content Sample moist weight ing that a clay liner has been constructed according to
of the sample 1/ (lb) specifications. If the liner is found to meet the require-
(%)
ments of the compaction specifications, the assump-
0–10 5 tion is that the permeability values documented from
10–50 20 laboratory testing on samples that were compacted
>50 40 at the specified density and water content will be
achieved. In some cases, no additional documentation
1/ The sample includes the gravel plus the soil material that
passes the No. 4 sieve (approx. 1/4-inch mesh). is required. In other cases, regulations require obtain-
ing samples of the completed liner and performing
permeability tests on them. Figure 10D–32 shows one
If gradation analysis, Atterberg limits, compaction, and way that a Shelby tube type of sample may be obtained
permeability testing are requested, considerably larger without mobilizing a drilling rig. The Shelby tube used
samples are required. When all these tests are needed, is typically a standard tube with a 3-inch outside diam-
the sample size should be as follows: eter and 2 7/8-inch inside diameter. This size sample
can be placed directly in a flexible wall permeameter
Estimated gravel content Sample moist weight for testing, after extrusion in the laboratory.
of the sample 1/ (lb)
(%)
Another method for obtaining a sample of a compact-
0–10 50 ed clay liner is with a drive sampler like that shown in
10–50 75 figure 10D–33.
>50 100
1/ The sample includes the gravel plus the soil material that
passes the No. 4 sieve (approx. 1/4-inch mesh).

Submitting samples at their natural water content is Figure 10D–32 Shelby tube sample being obtained with
important so designers can compare the natural water backhoe bucket used to force tube into
content to reference compaction test values. Samples clay liner (Photo credit Jody Kraenzel,
should always be shipped in moisture proof containers NRCS, NE)
for this reason. The best container for this purpose is
a 5-gallon plastic pail commonly obtained in hardware
stores. These pails have tight fitting lids with a rubber
gasket that ensures maintenance of the water content
in the samples during shipping. These 5-gallon pail
containers are much more robust and less likely to be
damaged during shipment than cardboard containers.

If designs rely on a minimum degree of compaction

and water content to achieve stated permeability goals
in a clay liner, testing of the clay liner during construc-
tion may be advisable to verify that design goals have
been achieved. Field density and water content mea-
surements are routinely made using procedures shown
in NEH, Section 19, Construction Inspection.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–39

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10D–33 Obtaining undisturbed sample of com- In the situation where a storage pond was constructed
pacted clay liner using thin-walled drive several years before documentation on quality of
cylinder
construction and permeability was required, studies
are sometimes made in an attempt to measure seepage
losses directly. One approach that has been used was
developed by researchers at Kansas State University.
This approach involves installing precise water level
monitoring devices and evaporation stations. Seepage
losses can be estimated by carefully monitoring the
levels in the pond during periods when no waste is
introduced into the pond and no rainfall occurs. After
estimating the amount of evaporation, and subtracting
that from the total decline in the level of the pond dur-
ing that period, seepage loss can be estimated. Figure
10D–34 shows equipment for measuring evaporation
in a pond.

Figure 10D–34 Equipment used to monitor evaporation

at an agriculture waste storage lagoon.
Measurements are used in total lagoon
seepage evaluations.

10D–40 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Summary ness of the soil liner can be varied to provide

an acceptable specific discharge.

• The reduction in the quantity of seepage that • The guidelines provided for design of clay
occurs as manure solids accumulate in the liners in this appendix provide designers with
bottom and on the sides of storage ponds and the tools to evaluate the probable unit seepage
treatment lagoons is well documented. How- or specific discharge through a clay liner. The
ever, manure sealing is not effective for soils methods presented allow a designer to deter-
with a low clay content. Its effectiveness is not mine what treatment is required to achieve
accepted by all designers and cannot be used in specific discharge or permeability goals.
the designs of storage ponds by some State and • Methods provide designers with the ability to
local regulations. evaluate the effect of changes in a proposed
• Soils can be divided into four permeability design on the estimated unit seepage rate.
groups based on their percent fines (percent • As additional research becomes available, prac-
finer than the No. 200 sieve) and plasticity tice standards and guidance in this document
index (PI). Soils in groups III and IV may be may warrant revision.
assumed to have a coefficient of permeability
of 1×10–6 centimeters per second or lower un-
less they have an unusual clay chemistry (high
calcium), or they have a very blocky structure. References
• Group I soils will generally require a liner. Soils
in group II will need permeability tests or other Albrecht, B.A., and C.H. Benson. 2001. Effect of desic-
documentation to determine whether a desir- cation on compacted natural clays. In J. of Geo-
able permeability rate can be achieved for a technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
particular soil. pp. 67–75.

• If natural clay blankets are present at a site Barrington, S.F., P.J. Jutras, and R.S. Broughton. 1987a.
below planned grade of an excavated pond, The sealing of soils by manure: I. Preliminary in-
the seepage rate should be estimated based on vestigations. Canadian Agric. Eng. 29(2):99–103.
measured or estimated permeability values of
the low permeability horizons beneath the liner Barrington, S.F., P.J. Jutras, and R.S. Broughton. 1987b.
and above an aquifer. If the estimated seepage The sealing of soils by manure: II. Sealing mecha-
rate is less than that given in NRCS guidance nisms. Canadian Agric. Eng. 29(2):105–108.
or State regulations, no special compacted
liner may be required. If the soils at grade are Benson, C.H., and G.P. Boutwell. 2000. Compaction
not of sufficient thickness and permeability to conditions and scale-dependent hydraulic con-
produce a desirably low seepage rate, a liner ductivity of compacted clay liners. In Construct-
should be designed to achieve the seepage rate ing and Controlling Compaction of Earth Fills.
that is the design goal. ASTM STP 1384, D.W. Shanklin, K.R. Rademach-
• Guidance is given on factors to consider wheth- er and J.R. Talbot, eds. American Society for
er a constructed liner may be required. Four Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
conditions are listed in which a liner should
definitely be considered. Benson, C.H., and M. Othman. 1993. Hydraulic con-
ductivity of compacted clay frozen and thawed
• Allowable specific discharge values are dis-
in situ. In J. of Geotechnical Engineering, Amer.
cussed and guidance is provided on reasonable
Soc. of Civil Eng. Vol 119, No. 2. pp. 276–294.
values to use for design when other regulatory
requirements are not specified.
Boutwell, G., and C.L. Rauser. 1990. Clay liner con-
• Flexibility is built into the design process. The struction. Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng./Penn DOT
depth of the liquid, the permeability, and thick- Geotechechnical Seminar. Hershey, PA.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10D–41

Appendix 10D Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Daniel, D.E. 1993. Compacted clay liners and covers Oakley, R. 1987. Design and performance of earth-lined
for arid sites. In J. of Geotechnical Engineer- containment systems. Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng.
ing, Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng., Vol. 119, No. 2. pp. Conf. Geotech. Prac. Waste Disposal, p. 117–136.
223–237.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Daniel, D.E., and C.H. Benson. 1990. Water content- Conservation Service. 1994. Guide for deter-
density criteria for compacted soil liners. In mining the gradation of sand and gravel filters.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Amer. Soc. National Engineering Handbook, Part 633, Chap-
of Civil Eng., Vol. 116, No. 12. pp. 1811–1830. ter 26.

Daniel, D.E., and Yung-Kwang Wu. 1993. Compacted U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
clay liners and covers for arid sites. In J. of Geo- Service. 1970. TR–28 Clay Minerals.
technical Engineering, Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng.,
Vol. 119, No. 2, pp. 223–237.

Ham, J.M., and T.M. Desutter. 1998. Seepage losses

from swine-waste lagoons: a water balance of
study. Evaluation of Lagoons Containment of
animal waste. Kansas State University. Manhat-
tan, KS. 3.2–3.19

Hermann, J.G., and B.R. Elsbury. 1987. Influential fac-

tors in soil liner construction for waste disposal
facilities. Proc. Geotechnical Practice for Waste
Disposal. Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng., Ann Arbor, MI.
pp. 522–536.

Kansas State University. 2000. Animal waste lagoon

water quality study. Ham, J.M., L.N. Redd, and
C.W. Rice. Manhattan, KS.

Kim, W., and D. Daniel. 1992. Effects of freezing on

hydraulic conductivity of compacted clay. In J.
Geotechnical Engineering, Amer. Soc. of Civil
Eng., Vol. 118, No. 7.

Kleppe, J.H., and R.E. Olson. 1985. Desiccation crack-

ing of soil barriers. ASTM Special Technical
Publication 874, Hydraulic Barriers in Soil. Phila-
delphia, PA. pp. 263–275.

Lambe, T.W. 1958. The structure of compacted clay. In

J. of the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division,
Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng., Vol. 84, No. Soil Mechan-
ics 5, pp. 1654–1 to 1654–34.

Mitchell, J.K., D.R. Hooper, and R.G. Campanella. 1965.

Permeability of compacted clay. J. Soil Mechan-
ics and Foundation Div., Amer. Soc. of Civil Eng..
Vol. 91, No. 4. pp. 41–65.

10D–42 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Appendix 10E
Synthetic Liner Guidelines
Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10E Synthetic Liners Guidelines

Synthetic liners • site geology

• site ground water conditions
Although compacted clay liners are the most common
type of liners for manure impoundment structures, a • use of cover soil
storage pond or lagoon may require a synthetic liner • availability of experienced installers
for the following reasons:
• temperature during construction
• locating an acceptable clay material is not pos- • regulations
sible
• costs
• transporting an acceptable clay is too expen-
sive Material flexibility and ease of installation and qual-
• using soil additives such as bentonite for sandy ity control are independent of the site characteristics
soils or a dispersant for higher permeability and location. Availability of experienced installers and
clays is too expensive regulations are independent of the specific site charac-
teristics, but are location dependent.
• using a reasonably thick compacted clay liner
will not provide required seepage control Materials such as PVC, EPDM, PP, and RPP can be de-
livered to the site in panels of a fourth acre to greater
• using a synthetic liner is required by local regu-
in size. Pond liners of less than a half acre can often be
lations
installed with one field seam.

The flexibility of the material allows larger panels to

Synthetic liner materials be delivered to the site. Flexible materials such as
PVC, EPDM, PP, RPP, and GCL are much easier to
NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 521A, Pond work with and install in an anchor trench and around
Sealing or Lining—Flexible Membrane, provides the corners. The more flexible materials may also conform
minimum criteria for pond liners constructed of syn- to small undulations in the subgrade and reduce stress
thetic materials. The standard describes the accept- concentration in these areas.
able liner types and the minimum recommended thick-
ness of each type of material. The standard covers two
types of liners: geomembranes and geosynthetic clay
liners (GCL). A GCL consist of bentonite embedded
between two geosynthetic materials. Geomembranes Table 10E–1 NRCS minimum criteria for liners
are plastic or rubber liners. These NRCS criteria are
shown in table 10E–1.
Type Thickness Type
HDPE 40 mil Geomembrane
LLDPE 40 mil Geomembrane
Material selection
PVC 30 mil Geomembrane
Selection of a geosynthetic liner material should GCL 0.75 lb/ft (bentonite) Geosynthetic clay liner
consider several factors. In most cases, any of the EPDM 45 mil Geomembrane
liner materials included in the NRCS practice standard PP 40 mil Geomembrane
could perform adequately, but some may be preferred RPP 36 mil Geomembrane
over others or be more economical. Factors to con- 1 mil =1/1000 of an inch
sider, although not comprehensive, are: HDPE =High density polyethylene
LLDPE =Linear low density polyethylene
PVC =Polyvinyl chloride
• pond size GCL =Geosynthetic clay liner
EPDM =Synthetic rubber
• material flexibility
PP =Polypropylene
• ease of installation and quality control RPP =Reinforced polypropylene

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Due to the relatively small size of most NRCS waste of all geomembranes is restricted during extremely
pond applications, large installers may not be interest- high temperatures.
ed in NRCS projects. The ease of installation, seaming,
and quality control of a material may allow installation State regulations may require a particular type of liner
by a less experienced installer or even farm labor un- material. If such State regulations exist, the required
der the direction of one experienced installer. Patching liner material should be used or equivalent substitute
and repair of some liners, such as EPDM and GCL, are proposed to the regulatory agency.
often completed by the land owner.
Cost of the materials is always a consideration. All
Locating an animal waste pond in areas of known factors being equal, the liner materials have relatively
sinkholes is not recommended. Consider having the similar total cost, including materials and installation.
site checked by using ground penetrating radar to Liners that are covered will have the added cost of
identify any potential sinkhole areas. If sinkholes or placing the cover material.
karst terrain exist in an area, a geomembrane liner
with sufficient strength and elongation properties is
recommended to withstand some foundation move- Synthetic liner installation
ment. Reinforced geomembranes provide significantly
more strength than unreinforced geomembranes. The Installation of the liner is often the most critical point
use of heated seams rather than chemical or adhesive in the life of the liner. Installation involves subgrade
seams is also recommended. preparation, proper handling and storage, placement,
seaming, completion of the anchor trench, and place-
The presence of ground water near the base of the ment of cover soil, if required.
liner can uplift the liner and cause significant dam-
age. The use of cover soil provides some resistance to Subgrade preparation should include excavation or
uplift from a high ground water table. A collection and earthfill to the proper grade, removing any large and
drainage system may also be considered to dewater sharp objects, removing particles greater than 3/8-inch
the foundation and soils surrounding the liner. for geomembranes and a half inch for GCLs, remov-
ing soft material to provide a uniformly compacted
Cover soil is required to be placed on PVC liners and base, and smoothing the surface with a rubber tired or
GCLs. Current PVC liners are susceptible to UV deg- steel wheel roller, if necessary. Geotextile padding, as
radation and must be covered, while GCLs require shown in figure 10E–1, or soil padding and drains, if
a normal load on the liner to develop its low perme- required, should be placed before the liner.
ability once it is hydrated. Cover soil must be free of
sharp or large particles, 3/8-inch for geomembranes
and a half inch for GCLs. When cover soil is placed on
the side slopes of ponds, a slope of 3H to 1V or flat- Figure 10E–1 Geotextile padding
ter is typically recommended to maintain the soil on
the slope without sliding down the slope on top of the
liner. The friction between the cover soil and the liner
may also be tested and evaluated to determine a stable
side slope.

Installers in a geographic area may be more experi-

enced with one material than another. In the recent
years, experienced installers have traveled to rural and
remote areas to install liners. The installation often
takes 1 to 2 days once the subgrade is prepared.

Most geomembrane materials are stiffer in cooler tem-

peratures. Less flexible materials, such as HDPE, are
very difficult to handle in cold temperatures. Seaming

10E–2 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Prior to placement of the liner, the proposed material wooden pallets) and stacked no more than two to
should be compared to the specifications. A certifi- three rolls high, as shown in figure 10E–2. Panels of
cate from the liner manufacturer is typically provided material should be shipped and stored on a pallet, as
which details the properties of the proposed liner. shown in figure 10E–3, and should not be stacked un-
Labels should be on each roll or panel identifying the less contained within a crate.
manufacturer and material product name.
Rolls of material should be unloaded with a spreader
The liner material should be shipped, handled, and
stored in a manner to prevent damage. The liner mate- bar or other method that provides support to the full
rial should be protected from puncture, dirt, grease, length of the roll. Figures 10E–4 and 10E–5 show
excessive heat, or other damage. GCLs should be simple methods of providing this support. A spreader
protected from moisture to prevent premature hydra- bar with lift cables is often used in place of the equip-
tion. Rolls should be stored on a smooth surface (not ment bucket.

Figure 10E–2 Stacked rolls Figure 10E–4 Unloading a roll

Figure 10E–3 PVC Panel prepared for shipment Figure 10E–5 Unloading a roll with steel pipe through
core

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10E–3

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The liner should be placed to minimize slack and folds, Figure 10E–7 Stationary pull
but loose enough to allow thermal contraction. It
should then be positioned to achieve the proper over-
lap for seaming. The liner should be positioned with
the seams up and down the slope, as shown in figure
10E–6, rather than across the slope. Rolls are posi-
tioned using the “stationary pull,” as shown in figure
10E–7 or the “moving roll pull,” as shown in figure
10E–8. Liners delivered in large panels must be unfold-
ed as shown in figure 10E–9 and “floated” into place by
one person every 10 to 15 feet along the perimeter of
the liner. The liner is floated into place on a pillow of
air as shown in figure 10E–10. The liner should extend
beyond the top of the slope to provide enough material
for a proper anchor trench as shown in figure 10E–11.
Following proper positioning of the liner, sand bags
are recommended to ballast the liner against move-
ment and uplift due to wind.

Proper seaming includes cleaning the area to be

seamed, conducting the seaming with the proper meth-
od and according to the manufacturer’s recommenda-
tions, inspection, and testing of all the seams. Seaming
methods and seam testing are described in more detail
in the following sections.

An anchor trench is constructed around the perimeter

of the pond to prevent the liner from sliding down the
slope, prevent surface runoff from getting beneath the

Figure 10E–6 Seams up and down the slope Figure 10E–8 Moving roll pull

10E–4 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

liner, and reduce uplift and wind damage. The trench subgrade. To reduce stress on the liner, the trench
is typically 18 to 24 inches deep, 12 to 24 inches in should be backfilled during the cooler part of the day.
width, and located 3 feet from the top of the slope, as The liner should extend down the side and across the
shown in figure 10E–12. The anchor trench backfill bottom of the anchor trench. The corners of the an-
must not damage the liner. The backfill for the anchor chor trench should be rounded, rather than squared, to
trench must have the same particle size limit as the reduce concentration of stresses at the corner.

Figure 10E–9 Unfolding large panels Figure 10E–11 Liner extending into anchor trench

Figure 10E–10 Floating liner into place Figure 10E–12 Anchor trench details (Source: Poly-Flex,
Inc., 1995)

Slope

Soil backfill

>1.5 ft

3 ft
1.5 ft
Slope

Soil backfill

>1.5 ft

3 ft
1.5 ft

2 ft

1.5 ft
Alternative anchor

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10E–5

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Seaming methods EPDM seams are considered adhesive seams and may
consist of a 3-inch inseam tape or a 5- to 6-inch cover
Geomembranes are seamed using several methods. strip. The materials for the cover strip are more expen-
Table 10E–2 identifies the available seaming methods sive than the inseam tape but provide a better seam
for the various liner materials. with less time, skill, and effort. The cover strip is often
preferred by liner installers.
The primary method of seaming HDPE, LLDPE, RPP,
and PP liners should be dual track hot wedge welds. A dual track hot wedge weld creates two seams with
Extrusion welds are recommended for repairs, T- an air channel in between them, as shown in figures
seams, appurtenances and other details. Hot air fusion
10E–13 and 10E–14. The seaming process melts the
or solvent (also known as chemical fusion) welds may
surface of the adjoining areas of the liner and fuses
also be used on RPP or PP liners. A contact adhesive
them together with dual rollers. The air channel can
is not recommended for HDPE, LLDPE, RPP, or PP
liners. be pressurized to allow seam integrity tests. Calibrated
equipment and an experienced welder are required
PVC liners may be seamed by hot air fusion, solvent to weld a good seam. The temperature and speed of
(chemical), or by an adhesive. Dual track hot air fu- seaming must be balanced to create a good weld.
sion welds are recommended when possible for PVC This is the most common seaming method for HDPE,
liners. LLDPE, and PP.

Table 10E–2 Geombrane seaming methods

Material Extrusion Hot air Hot wedge Solvent Contact adhesive

PVC X X X
PP or RPP X X X X
(not recommended)
HDPE X X X X
(not recommended)
LLDPE X X X X
(not recommended)
EPDM X

Figure 10E–13 Dual track hot wedge or air weld

4 in
Fusion weld Fusion weld
area area

Air channel
Liners Squeeze-out

10E–6 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Extrusion welding is similar to welding steel. The liner experienced welder are required to weld a good seam.
is heated by hot air and a ribbon of molten polymer The temperature and speed of seaming must be bal-
(same polymer as the liner) is extruded to the edges of anced to create a good weld. Hot air welders are avail-
the adjacent panels, patches, or seams as shown in fig- able in hand held or automated models. Since it is very
ure 10E–15. Extrusion welding is essentially the only difficult to control the temperature of the liner with
method to seam HDPE and LLDPE patches for repairs, the hand held models, automated welders are recom-
pipe boots, and other details. The surface of the area
mended. The dual track hot air weld is becoming the
to be welded should be ground, as shown in figure
most common seaming method for PVC and is often
10E–16, no more than 15 minutes prior to welding and
no more than 10 percent of the thickness of the liner used to weld PP and RPP.
shall be ground.
Solvents (chemically welded seams) are created by
Hot air welding may be a single or dual track hot air use of a liquid solvent which “melts” the surface of the
weld. The dual track hot air weld creates two seams geomembrane material followed by applying pressure
with an air channel in between them just as the dual with a roller. Once the solvent dissipates, the weld is
track hot wedge weld. Calibrated equipment and an fused.

Figure 10E–14 Dual track hot wedge welder (Source: Figure 10E–16 Grinding for an extrusion weld
Poly-Flex, Inc., 1995)

Figure 10E–15 Extrusion weld

Fillet extrusion bead

3 in min.

Liners

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10E–7

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Adhesive seams are created by applying the adhesive GCL seams are constructed with a 6-inch overlap,
between the overlap of adjacent panels with a brush as shown in figure 10E–17. Seams typically require a
or other approved method. Pressure is then applied quarter pound of powder bentonite per foot of seam.
to the seam to provide adequate contact between the Some manufacturers have developed products that
panels. This type of seam is used primarily on EPDM have the bentonite exposed near the edge. Additional
liners with some use on PVC and PP. bentonite at the seam is not required on these prod-
ucts. The critical aspect of GCL seaming is to have
The rate at which geomembrane seaming may be ac- sufficient cover soil over the seam prior to hydration
complished is presented in table 10E–3. PVC, PP, and of the bentonite. If the bentonite at the seam hydrates
EDPM liners require one to two seams on a typical without a load, it will not develop the low permeability
animal waste pond. HDPE/LLDPE requires a seam ev- required for an adequate seam.
ery 20 to 25 feet. Fortunately, the seaming rate for hot
wedge and extrusion welds is relatively fast.
Seam testing

Seams may be nondestructively field tested by various

methods. Standard methods are available for air chan-
nel test (ASTM D 5820), air lance test (ASTM D 4437),
Table 10E–3 Geomembrane seaming rates or a vacuum box test (ASTM D 5641). Double-track hot
wedge and hot air seams are typically tested by an air
channel test. Vacuum box tests are performed on all
Method Typical rate extrusion welds and may be used on PP chemical fu-
Extrusion 100 ft/h sion welds. Due to the flexibility of PVC, vacuum box
Hot air 50 ft/h tests often give false indications of a good seam. Air
Hot wedge 300 ft/h lance tests are performed on single-track fusion welds,
Solvent (chemical) 300+ ft/h chemical fusion welds, and adhesive PVC seams and
Adhesive 400+ ft/h
EPDM seams. Air lance tests may also be used on PP
chemical fusion seams.

Figure 10E–17 Typical GCL seam

>150 mm

Lightweight polyester
backing

10E–8 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

The air channel test is conducted in accordance Destructive seam testing is often not required on the
with ASTM D 5820 and illustrated in figure 10E–18. seams of animal waste storage pond liners. Destruc-
The test pressure varies based on the material type tive seam testing is recommended on trial seams to be
and thickness. The typical test pressures for 40 mil conducted once or twice daily. A trial seam and test
HDPE, LLDPE, and PP; 30 mil PVC; and 40 mil PVC involves welding a seam that is not part of the actual
are 25 to 30 pounds per square inch, 15 to 25 pounds
per square inch, and 20 to 30 pounds per square inch,
respectively. The associated allowable pressure drops Figure 10E–19 Air lance test
over a 5-minute period are 4 pounds per square inch, 5
pounds per square inch, and 4 pounds per square inch,
respectively.

An air lance test is conducted in accordance with

ASTM D 4437 and illustrated in figure 10E–19. The test
includes applying air pressure of 50 pounds per square
inch through a 3/16-inch nozzle along the entire length
of the seam. The nozzle is maintained no more than 2
inches from the seam. Defects in the seam will flutter
under pressure, and small defects will whistle as the
pressurized air passes through the defect.

A vacuum box test is used to test extrusion welded

seams and is conducted in accordance with ASTM D
5641 and illustrated in figure 10E–20. The seam to be
tested is covered with soap and water and the vacuum
box is placed over the area to be tested. A vacuum of
4 to 8 pounds per square inch is applied to the box and
the area being tested in observed for bubbles which
will appear to unbonded areas.

Figure 10E–18 Air channel test Figure 10E–20 Vacuum box test

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10E–9

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

pond liner, cutting specimens with a device similar to A pipe penetration through a GCL included excavation
that shown in figure 10E–21, and testing the specimen of a 3- to 4-inch-deep notch around the penetration,
in both peel and shear using a field tensiometer, as which is filled with powder or granular bentonite.
shown in figure 10E–22. This is overlain by a GCL with a hole for the pipe with
a quarter pound of bentonite per square foot of area
between the GCL liner and GCL collar, as shown in
Appurtenances figure 10E–24.

Appurtenances for animal waste pond synthetic liners The common methods of attachment to structures
include pipe penetrations, attachment to structures, include mechanical attachments, embed channel, or
vents, and liner protection. Appurtenances should adhesives.
always be designed to prevent damage to the liner dur-
ing installation or operation. Mechanical attachments to concrete structures should
consist of concrete anchor bolts, neoprene gaskets,
Pipe penetrations may be a pipe boot, concrete collar/ flat metal bar (batten strip), washers, and nuts. All
pad, or bentonite (for GCLs). A pipe boot should be metal components should be stainless steel or alumi-
fabricated from the same material as the liner and fas- num. A typical detail is shown in figure 10E–25.
tened to the pipe and liner in a manner to prevent leak-
age, such as shown in figure 10E–23. Fastening to the An embed channel is a channel-shaped section of the
pipe includes a neoprene gasket and metal bands or same material as the liner that is embedded in the con-
clamps to secure the boot to the pipe. Use of stainless crete while the concrete is still wet. Adjacent channels
steel bands/clamps is recommended. A sealant applied should be extrusion welded to prevent gaps between
at the downstream edge of the boot to pipe connection the channel sections. The geomemebrane is welded to
is also recommended. the embed channel with a continuous extrusion weld
as shown in figure 10E–26. Embed channels are avail-
Concrete collars are often used for large pipe pen- able for HDPE, LLDPE, and PP.
etrations where a pipe boot is not practical. Use of a
sealant between the pipe and concrete collar is recom-
mended.

Figure 10E–21 Test specimen cutter Figure 10E–22 Field tensiometer (Source: Poly-Flex,
Inc., 1995)

10E–10 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10E–23 Pipe boot (Source: CETCO)

Extrusion weld (typical)

Stainless steel
banding

Closed cell
neoprene
gaskets

See detail
below

Compacted subgrade
Concrete
collar

Closed cell Pipe

neoprene
gaskets Liner
Stainless
steel
Detail: mouth of pipe banding

Figure 10E–24 GCL pipe penetration (Source: Poly-Flex,

Inc.)

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10E–11

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10E–25 Typical mechanical attachment (Source: Poly-flex, Inc.)

3/8 by 3 1/2 in SS
concrete anchor SS nut

Closed cell SS washer

neoprene gasket
1/4 by 2 in SS flat bar
Neoprene to
concrete adhesive

Concrete
collar

1/2 by 1 in slot, typ.

1/4 by 2 in SS flat bar

3 in 6 in

Figure 10E–26 Embed channel

Extrusion field weld

Poly-flex liner

Concrete

PEC
polyethylene embeded channel

10E–12 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Liner protection from maintenance equipment such leaks within the liner. Where this is a concern, liner
as agitators and pumps is often provided by concrete vents should be considered. Vents should be installed
ramps, a geotextile pad, or an additional liner. A detail above the normal water line to prevent waste from
of a concrete ramp is shown in figure 10E–27. entering the vent. Vents are typically spaced 30 to 50
feet around the entire perimeter of the liner. Covered
Gas may build up beneath a liner due to a rising wa- and uncovered vents are shown in figures 10E–28 and
ter table, organic soil or waste beneath the liner, or 10E–29.

Figure 10E–27 Concrete ramp

A A

Manure pond plan view

Geotextile under concrete
(N.T.S.)

2 ft

Pour concrete dry enough to prevent 3 ft X

sloughing down slope. Use only plastic 1 ft by 6 in
concrete. Do not rod.
12 oz geotextile if required by rough or
yielding subgrade (optional)
Compacted
T subgrade

Rebar only. Do not use mesh, use flat

foot plastic rebar chairs. Fully tie all
rebar splices. Do not puncture liner
with rebar.

Y
60 mil
HDPE liner
Section A–A

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10E–13

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Figure 10E–28 Uncovered liner vent Any observed damage should be repaired immediately.
Burrowing rodents that could damage the liner should
be removed from the area.

Any vents should be clear and the flaps free to release

any gases beneath the liner. Vent covers that are miss-
ing or damaged should be replaced. Operation of the
pond should insure that the waste level never rises to
an elevation that would allow waste to enter the vents.

All failed seams should be repaired by installing a cap

strip over the entire length of the failed seam. Cap
strip should consist of the same material as the liner
and extend beyond the failed seam a minimum of 6
inches. A repaired seam is shown in figure 10E–30. A
failed seam on HDPE, LLDPE, or PP may be repaired
by extrusion welding along the entire length of the
seam. Small defects in EPDM liners may be repaired
Figure 10E–29 Covered liner vent with a cover strip that extends a minimum of 4 inches
beyond the damaged area. The cut edges of rein-
forced patches must be sealed with an extrudant to
prevent wicking of waste through the reinforcement.

If a GCL is damaged, the area should be completely

exposed and all soil removed from the top of the GCL.
A GCL patch should extend a minimum of 12 inches
beyond the damaged area. Granular bentonite should
be placed between the patch and liner at a rate of 1
pound per 2 square feet of area covered to minimum
width of 6 inches.

Maintenance and repairs

Figure 10E–30 Liner repair
Successful performance of animal waste pond liners
requires some maintenance and often requires repair.
The visible portions of the liner should be inspected
for tears, punctures, or other damage. The interface of
the liner with inlets, outlets, ramps, or other appurte-
nances should also be inspected. The level of the pond
should be monitored to prevent overflow. Each time
the pond is pumped down, a visual inspection of the
entire liner is recommended. If the pond is agitated,
special precautions should be taken in the area of the
agitator. Ballooning of the liners indicates the pres-
ence of gas beneath the liner which is often the result
of leaks.

10E–14 (210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009)

Appendix 10E Agricultural Waste Management System Part 651
Component Design Agricultural Waste Management
Field Handbook

Example

A half acre (total bottom and sides area) AWSP is to The site soils contain some gravel. Removal of par-
be constructed at a site where the soils are classified ticles over 3/8 inch and sharp particles is required to
as SP and SM with some gravel in accordance with prevent damage of the liner. An altenative to remov-
the Unified Soil Classification System. The excavated ing all the gravel is to include a nonwoven geotextile
soils will not be used as cover soil. The depth of or sand padding beneath the liner.
the pond is 10 feet. The depth to the seasonal high
ground water is 10 feet. The site is located in a rural The seasonal water table is near the bottom of the
area several hours from experienced installers and pond. Design should consider constructing approxi-
geomembrane welders. The landowner does not effi- mately 2 feet of the pond above the ground to raise
ciently separate solids from the waste and applies the the bottom of the pond above the water table. This
waste to adjacent fields twice a year. will affect the design of the site considerably because
a wider berm will be needed for equipment access
Since the site soils consist of sandy materials, con- and the anchor trench. A perimeter trench may also
struction of a compacted clay liner would require be an alternative to keep the water table from im-
importing clay materials. Geosynthetic liners that pacting the liner.
require cover soil such as PVC and GCL should not be
considered first. Materials such as HDPE, LLDPE, and The rising water table may induce gas pressure
PP that require special welding procedures for seams beneath the liner. Since the site soils consist of sand,
should not be considered first. the addition of a geotextile to allow migration of gas
to the sides is not necessary. Vents above the high
Materials such as EPDM, PVC, and GCL are best water line along the perimeter of the pond should be
suited for installation by less experienced installers. installed.
Due to the flexibility of EPDM, PP, RPP and PVC, the
materials could be delivered in large panels requiring The landowner does not separate solids and will
only one field seam. Since the excavated soils will pump liquid from the pond. Equipment access ramps
not be used for cover soils, obtaining cover soil from and pads should be installed to allow access of an
another source would be an additional expense for agitator and pumps. A fence around the pond is
PVC and a GCL. The EPDM and PP liners do not have required by the practice standard. A safety ladder
to be covered and should be the first considered. should be considered to allow escape upon acci-
dental entry. A staff gage should be used to indicate
The NRCS Conservation Practice Standard 521A, when the pond should be emptied. Diversions should
Pond Sealing or Lining—Flexible Membrane, lists the be designed to keep all possible surface water runoff
minimum thickness of the acceptable geosynthetic out of the pond.
liner materials. The NRCS practice standard mini-
mum thickness for EPDM is 45 mil and for PP is 40
mil. A GCL is also allowed.

(210–VI–AWMFH, Amend. 31, August 2009) 10E–15