United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (4303)
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-821-R-01-019
January 2001
&EPA Cost Methodology Report for
Beef and Dairy Animal Feeding
Operations
lll^ljpp^^
-------
Final
Cost Methodology Report
for Beef and Dairy
Animal Feeding Operations
Engineering and Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
January 2001
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed and approved for publication by the Engineering and
Analysis Division, Office of Science and Technology. This report was prepared by
Eastern Research Group, Inc., under the direction and review of Paul Shriner at the
Office of Science and Technology.
Neither the United States government nor any of its employees, contractors,
subcontractors, or other employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for any third party's use of, or the results
of such use of, any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this
report, or represents that its use by such a third party would not infringe on privately
owned rights.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Regulatory Options 1-1
1.2 Model Farms 1-5
1.3 Organization of Report 1-23
2.0 COST MODEL STRUCTURE 2-1
2.1 Technology Cost Modules 2-3
2.2 Frequency Factors 2-8
2.3 Output Data 2-9
3.0 INPUT DATA 3-1
3.1 Wastewater Generation 3-1
3.2 Manure Generation 3-7
3.3 Runoff 3-10
4.0 COST MODULES 4-1
4.1 Earthen Settling Basins 4-1
4.2 Concrete Gravity Settling Basins 4-12
4.3 Ponds 4-20
4.4 Lagoons 4-32
4.5 Underpit Storage Barns and Confined Manure Storage for New Dairy
Sources 4-45
4.6 Berms 4-55
4.7 Anaerobic Digestion with Energy Recovery 4-61
4.8 Concrete Pads 4-68
4.9 Groundwater Wells/Protection 4-79
4.10 Composting 4-82
4.11 Surface Water Monitoring 4-90
4.12 Nutrient-Based Land Application 4-93
4.13 Nutrient Management Planning 4-108
4.14 Center Pivot Irrigation 4-119
4.15 Transportation 4-124
5.0 FARM -WEIGHTINGFACTORS 5-1
5.1 Farm Type Factor 5-1
5.2 Manure Application Basis Factor 5-1
5.3 Category Factor 5-3
6.0 TRANSPORTATION COST TEST 6-1
6.1 Purpose of the Cost Test 6-1
6.2 Cost Test Methodology 6-2
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
7.0 MODEL FARM COSTS 7-1
7.1 Calculation of Unit Component Costs 7-1
7.2 Calculation of Weighted Costs 7-3
7.3 Calculation of Weighted Farm Costs 7-5
7.4 Final Model Farm Costs 7-7
REFERENCES
Appendix A: UNIT COMPONENT COSTS
Appendix B: TRANSPORTATION OPTION SELECTION
Appendix C: MODEL FACILITY COSTS
Appendix D: SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
IV
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1-1 Summary of Regulatory Options for Beef and Dairy Operations 1-3
1-2 Size Classes for Dairy Model Farms 1-11
1-3 Definition of Model Farm Regions 1-12
1-4 Number of Dairy Operations by Region 1-12
1-5 Size Classes for Beef Model Farms 1-16
1-6 Number of Beef Feedlots by Region 1-17
1-7 Size Classes for Veal Model Farm 1-19
1-8 Number of Veal Operations by Region 1-20
1-9 Size Classes for Heifer Model Farm 1-22
1-10 Number of Heifer Operations by Region 1-22
2-1 Waste Management Technologies for Dairy Operations by Regulatory
Option 2-5
2-2 Waste Management Technologies for Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations by
Regulatory Option 2-6
2-3 Waste Management Technologies for Veal Operations by Regulatory Option . 2-7
3-1 Milking Parlor Wastewater Generated at Dairies Using Hose Systems 3-2
3-2 Milking Parlor Wastewater Generated at Dairies Using Flush Systems 3-4
3-3 Wastewater Generation by Model Farm 3-7
3-4 Manure Production and Characteristics 3-8
3-5 Manure Generation by Model Farm 3-10
3-6 Drylot Area Required by Animal Type 3-11
3-7 Drylot Area Required by Animal Type Used in the Cost Model 3-12
3-8 Six-Month Runoff Volumes 3-13
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
3-9 25-year, 24-hour Runoff Values 3-14
4-1 Percentage of Beef Feedlots and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations Incurring
Earthen Basin Costs for All Regulatory Options 4-3
4-2 Design Parameters for Earthen Basins 4-4
4-3 Earthen Basin Volume by Model Farm for All Regulatory Options 4-9
4-4 Unit Costs for Earthen Basins 4-11
4-5 Percentage of Dairy and Veal Operations Incurring Concrete Settling Basin
Costs for All Regulatory Options 4-14
4-6 Concrete Basin Volume by Model Farm for All Regulatory Options 4-17
4-7 Unit Costs for Concrete Settling Basin 4-18
4-8 Percentage of Beef Feedlot and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations Incurring
Naturally-Lined Pond Costs for Options 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 4-22
4-9 Percentage of Beef Feedlot and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations Incurring
Lined Pond Costs for Options 3 and 4 4-23
4-10 Pond Storage Capacities at Beef Feedlot and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations
for Option 7 4-24
4-11 Percentage of Beef Feedlot and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations Incurring
Costs for Additional Naturally-Lined Pond Capacity for Option 7 4-25
4-12 Unit Costs for Storage Pond 4-30
4-13 Percentage of Dairies and Veal Operations Incurring Naturally-Lined
Lagoon Costs for Options 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 4-34
4-14 Percentage of Dairies and Veal Operations Incurring Lined Lagoon
Costs for Options 3 and 41 4-35
4-15 Lagoon Storage Capacities at Dairies for Option 7 4-36
4-16 Percentage of Dairies and Veal Operations Incurring Costs for Additional
Naturally-Lined Lagoon Capacity for Option 7 4-36
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
4-17 Unit Costs for Storage Lagoon 4-43
4-18 Dairy Operations Incurring Costs for Installation and Maintenance of
Underpit Storage for NSPS Option 8 4-47
4-19 Unit Costs for Underpit Storage 4-49
4-20 Underpit Storage Ventilation 4-50
4-21 Freestall Dimension Requirements for Mature Dairy Cows, Heifers,
and Calves 4-51
4-22 Feedlots Operations Incurring Costs for Installation and Maintenance
of Berms for All Regulatory Options 4-57
4-23 Space Requirements Assumed for Animals Housed on Drylots 4-58
4-24 Berm Perimeter by Model Farm for All Regulatory Options 4-59
4-25 Unit Costs for Constructing Berms 4-60
4-26 FarmWare Input Table 4-65
4-27 FarmWare Design Information 4-66
4-28 Percentage of Beef Feedlot, Stand-Alone Heifer Operations, Dairies, and
Veal Operations Incurring Concrete Pad Costs for All Regulatory Options . . 4-70
4-29 Unit Costs for Concrete Pad 4-77
4-30 Percentage of Beef Feedlots and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations, Dairies,
and Veal Operations Incurring Groundwater Monitoring Costs for
Options 3 and 4 4-80
4-31 Unit Costs for Composting 4-89
4-32 Number of Samples 4-92
4-33 Capital Costs for Surface Water Sampling 4-92
4-34 Annual Costs for Surface Water Sampling 4-93
vn
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
4-36 Percentage of Category 1, 2, and 3 Facilities 4-97
4-37 Crop Information 4-100
4-38 Total Crop Nutrient Requirements and Manure Application Rates 4-101
4-39 Category 1 and 2 Acreages 4-104
4-40 Percent Operations Requiring P-based vs. N-based Manure Management . 4-110
4-41 Percentage of Operations by Nutrient Application Type for
Options 2 through 8 4-111
4-42 Percentage of Facilities Incurring Center Pivot Irrigation Costs for
All Regulatory Options 4-121
4-43 Data Points for Center Pivot Irrigation Cost Curves 4-123
4-44 Percentage of Category 2 Operations Incurring Option 1 Transportation
Costs 4-127
4-45 Hauling Distances for Transportation 4-129
4-46 Rates for Contract Hauling for Category 2 Operations 4-130
5-1 Farm-Type Weighting Factors by Model Farm 5-2
5-2 Nutrient-Based Weighting Factors for Options 2 through 8 5-4
5-3 Category Weighting Factors 5-5
7-1 Component Costs for Option 2 Dairy, Large 1, Central 7-2
7-2 Component Costs for Option 2 That Vary by Nutrient Application Basis
Dairy, Largel, Central 7-2
7-3 Transportation Costs for Option 2 Dairy, Largel, Central Category 2
Operations 7-3
7-4 Weighted Component Costs for Option 2 Dairy, Largel, Central 7-4
7-5 Weighted Transportation Costs for Option 2 Dairy, Largel, Central
Category 2 Operations 7-5
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Page
7-6 Weighted Farm Costs for Option 2 Dairy, Large 1, Central 7-7
7-7 Model Farm Costs by Category Dairy, Large 1, Central 7-8
IX
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
1-1 Dairy Waste Management Systems 1-9
1-2 Beef and Heifer Waste Management System 1-14
1-3 Veal Model Farm 1-18
2-1 Flow Chart of General Cost Methodology 2-2
2-2 Components of Technology Cost Modules 2-4
4-1 Cross-Section of an Earthen Basin 4-4
4-2 Sloped Sides of Earthen Basin 4-9
4-3 Concrete Settling Design 4-15
4-4 Cross-Section of a Storage Pond 4-26
4-5 Cross-Section of an Anaerobic Lagoon 4-37
4-6 Cross-Section of Berm 4-58
4-7 Concrete Pad Design 4-72
4-8 Schematic of Groundwater Monitoring Wells 4-81
4-9 Windrow Composting 4-86
4-10 Schematic of Center Pivot Irrigation System 4-120
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
i.o INTRODUCTION
Section 301 (d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) directs EPA to periodically review
and revise, if necessary, effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated under CWA
Sections 301, 304, and 306. Animal feeding operations (AFOs) have been identified as a major
source of nutrients impairing surface water and groundwater in the United States; therefore, EPA
is reviewing and revising the existing effluent guidelines for AFOs.
For beef (including veal) and dairy (including heifer) animal feeding operations,
EPA collected data on the amount of manure and wastewater produced, the pollution control and
management practices in place, and current land-application practices at beef and dairy
operations. Based on these data, EPA identified possible new regulatory requirements that may
be imposed on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) through revision of the effluent
guidelines and standards. These new requirements are grouped into seven possible regulatory
options. This report describes the methodology used to estimate engineering compliance costs (in
1997 dollars) associated with installing and operating the various technologies and practices that
make up the seven regulatory options considered for beef and dairy operations.
Section 1.1 describes the regulatory options costed for beef and dairy operations,
Section 1.2 discusses the development of model farms used to determine compliance costs for
each option, and Section 1.3 presents the overall organization of the report.
1.1 Regulatory Options
EPA developed the following eight regulatory options for beef and dairy
operations:
Option 1 - Nitrogen-Based Application;
Option 2 - Phosphorus-Based Application;
Option 3 - Phosphorus-Based Application + Groundwater;
1-1
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Option 4 - Phosphorus-Based Application + Groundwater + Surface
Water;
Option 5 - Phosphorus-Based Application + Drier Manure;
Option 6 - Phosphorus-Based Application + Anaerobic Digestion;
Option 7 - Phosphorus-Based Application + Timing Requirements; and
Option 8 - Phosphorus-Based Application + Minimized Potential for
Discharge.
Options 1 through 7 were evaluated for Best Available Technology (BAT) regulatory options,
and Options 1 through 8 were evaluated for New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Table
1-1 presents the technology requirements of each regulatory option.
To determine the cost of complying with each option, EPA developed a
technology train that forms the basis of the cost estimate for each type of beef and dairy operation
under the BAT and NSPS options. The waste management technologies that make up the train
are based primarily on the animal type and the type of waste management practices in use;
specifically, these assumptions are typical for those larger farms most likely to be regulated.
Waste management practices determine the amount of manure waste and wastewater generated
that are used to size and cost various technologies or practices required by the regulatory options.
The waste management assumptions for each type of beef and dairy operation are summarized
below; these assumptions are typical for the larger farms that are most likely to be regulated:
BAT Options
Beef and stand-alone heifer feedlots house cattle on drylots. The manure
that deposits in the drylot is periodically scraped and stockpiled on site or
is transported to cropland on or off site. It is handled as a solid material.
Runoff from the feedlot operation is collected and stored in a waste storage
pond with capacity for the 25-year, 24-hour storm and 180 days storage.
Runoff is treated in a sedimentation basin before going to the storage pond.
Dairies with flush barns house the milking cows (both lactating and dry) in
freestall barns that are flushed twice daily while the cows are being milked.
The cows are milked in separate parlors that are flushed between milkings.
Flush water is collected in a central collection system and
1-2
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Table 1-1
Summary of Regulatory Options for Beef and Dairy Operations
Technology or Practice
Feedlot best management practices (BMPs), including stormwater diversions,
Mortality-handling requirements (e.g., rendering, composting)1
Nutrient management planning and recordkeeping (sample soils once every 3 years,
Land application limited to nitrogen-based agronomic application rates
Land application limited to phosphorus-based agronomic application rates where
No manure application within 100 feet of any surface water, tile drain inlet, or
Groundwater requirements, including assessment of hydrologic link, monitoring
Surface-water monitoring requirement, including 4 total grab samples upstream
and downstream of both feedlot and land application areas, 12 times per year. One
composite sample collected once per year at stockpile and surface impoundments.
Samples are analyzed for nitrogen, phosphorus, and total suspended solids.
Drier manure technology basis (covered lagoons for veal, composting)2
Anaerobic digestion
Timing requirements for land application
Diminished Potential for Discharge (underpit storage for heifers and dairy cows;
confinement barns for calves with covered storage; covered walkways and handling
areas at dairy operations; 100-year, 24-hour storm capacity requirement at beef and
stand-alone heifer operations, covered lagoon storage for veal.)
Option
1
/
/
/
/
/
Option
2
/
/
/
/
/
Option
3
/
/
/
/
/
/
Option
4
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Option
5
/
/
/
/
/
/
Option
6
/
/
/
/
/
/
Option
7
/
/
/
/
/
/
Option
8
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
'There are no additional compliance costs expected for beef and dairy operations related to mortality-handling requirements.
2Composting is included in Options 1 through 4 and Options 7 & 8 when expected to be the least costly method of handling manure.
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
transported to an on-site anaerobic lagoon, with capacity for the 25-year/
24-hour storm and 180 days storage. The wastewater may undergo solids
separation before going to the lagoon.
Immature animals (i.e., heifers and calves) are housed on drylots. The
manure that deposits in the drylot is periodically scraped and stockpiled on
site or is transported to cropland on or off site. It is handled as a solid
material. Runoff from the drylot is routed to the lagoon.
Dairies with scrape barns house the milking cows (both lactating and dry)
in freestall barns that are scraped daily. The scraped manure is stored on
site or is transported to cropland on or off site. The cows are milked in
separate parlors that are hosed down between milkings. Parlor hose water
is collected in a central collection system and transported to an on-site
anaerobic lagoon with capacity for the 25-year, 24-hour storm and 180
days storage. Wastewater may undergo solids separation before going to
the lagoon.
Immature animals (i.e., heifers and calves) are housed on drylots. Their
manure is handled as described under flush barns above.
Veal operations house the veal calves in confinement barns that are flushed
daily. The flush water is collected and stored in a central collection system,
usually a lagoon or a pit under the barn, until it is transported to cropland
on or off site. Storage lagoons are sized to hold 180-days storage.
NSPS Options
Beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations house cattle on drylots.
The manure that deposits in the drylot is periodically scraped and
stockpiled on site or is transported to cropland on or off site. It is handled
as a solid material. Runoff from the feedlot operation is collected and
stored in a waste storage pond with capacity for the 100-year, 24-hour
storm and 180 days storage. Runoff is treated in a sedimentation basin
before going to the storage pond.
Dairies house the milking cows (both lactating and dry) in freestall barns
with slatted floors, which allow the manure to drop directly into an
underpit storage area. The cows are milked twice daily in parlors that are
hose-cleaned between milkings. Hose-down water is collected in a central
collection system and transported to the confinement barn underpit storage
area. The underpit area is sized for 180 days storage.
1-4
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Heifers are also housed in freestall barns with 180-days of underpit storage.
Calves are housed in confinement barns, in which the manure and bedding
are scraped daily to an enclosed manure storage area adjacent to the barn.
The calf manure storage area is also sized for 180 days.
Cattle walkways and handling areas are covered to divert precipitation
from falling on the cattle areas and forming contaminated runoff.
Veal operations house the veal calves in confinement barns that are flushed
daily. The flush water is collected and stored in a central collection system,
usually a lagoon or a pit under the barn, until it is transported to cropland
on or off site. The lagoon is sized to hold 180-days storage. Lagoons are
covered to prevent direct precipitation from entering the lagoon.
There are other, less prevalent waste management systems used than those listed
here; however, the costs related to these systems are not significantly different for the purposes of
this analysis. Section 4.0 describes the components of the waste management system that form
the basis of the cost estimate for each type of animal operation.
1.2 Model Farms
For each regulatory option, EPA estimated the costs to install, operate, and
maintain specific techniques and practices. EPA traditionally develops either facility-specific or
model facility costs. Facility-specific compliance costs require detailed process information about
many, if not all, facilities in the industry. These data typically include production, capacity, water
use, wastewater generation, waste management operations (including design and cost data),
monitoring data, geographic location, financial conditions, and any other industry-specific data
that may be required for the analyses. EPA then uses each facility's information to determine how
the potential regulatory options will impact that facility and to estimate the cost of installing new
pollution controls.
When facility-specific data are not available, EPA develops model facilities to
provide a reasonable representation of the industry. Model facilities are developed to reflect the
1-5
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
different characteristics found in the industry, such as the size or capacity of an operation, type of
operation, geographic location, mode of operation, and type of waste management operations.
These models are based on data gathered during site visits, information provided by industry
members and their associations, and other available information. EPA estimates the number of
facilities that are represented by each model. Cost and financial impacts are estimated for each
model facility, then industry-level costs are calculated by multiplying model facility costs by the
number of facilities represented by each particular model. Given the amount and type of
information that is available for the beef and dairy industry, EPA has chosen a model-facility
approach to estimate compliance costs.
Model facilities, or model farms, are defined for beef feedlots, dairy operations,
stand-alone heifer operations, and veal operations based on size and regional location. The
development of each model farm, as well as the number of facilities by model farm, are described
in more detail below. All model farms reflect medium or large-sized animal operations.
1.2.1 Dairy Operations
EPA developed two model farms to represent medium and large-sized dairy
operations in the United States. The model farms are a complete flush dairy and a hose/scrape
dairy. The parameters describing the dairy model farms are developed from information from the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agriculture Statistics Service
(NASS), 1997 Agricultural Census data, data collected during site visits to dairy farms across the
country, meetings with USDA extension agents, and meetings with the National Milk Producers
Federation and Western United Dairymen. A description of the various components that make up
the model farms is presented below, with the sources of the information used to develop that
piece of the model farm.
1-6
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Housing
To determine the type of housing used at the model farm, the type of animals on
the farm must be considered. In addition to the mature dairy herd (including lactating, dry, and
close-up cows), there are often other animals on site at the dairy operation, including calves,
heifers, and bulls. The number of immature animals (i.e., calves and heifers) at the operation is
proportional to the number of mature cows in the herd and depends on the farm's management.
For example, the operation may house virtually no immature animals on site and obtain their
replacement heifers from off-site operations, or the operation could have close to a 1:1 ratio of
immature animals to mature animals. The percent of immature animals on site varies depending
on the size and location of the operation.
Typically, according to Census of Agriculture data, for dairies greater than 200
milking cows, the number of calves and heifers on site equals approximately 60% of the mature
dairy (milking) cows (USDA, 1997). EPA assumes that there are an equal number of calves and
heifers on site (30% each). Based on this information, a percentage of 30% of the mature cows is
used to estimate the number of calves on site, and another 30% of the mature cows is used to
estimate the number of heifers for the dairy model farm. The percentage of bulls is typically small
(USDA, 1997). For this reason, it is assumed that their impact on the model farm waste
management system is insignificant, and bulls are not considered in the dairy model farm.
The most common types of housing for mature cows include freestall barns, tie
stalls/stanchions, pasture, drylots, freestall barns, and combinations of these (Stull, 1998). Based
on site visits, most medium to large dairies (>200 mature dairy cattle) house their mature dairy
cows in freestall barns; therefore, it is assumed that mature dairy cows are housed in freestall
barns for the BAT and NSPS dairy model.
The most common types of calf and heifer housing are drylots, multiple animal
pens, and pasture (USDA, 1996a). Based on site visits, most moderate to large facilities use
1-7
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
drylots to house their heifers and calves; therefore, it is assumed that calves in hutches on drylots
and heifers in groups on drylots are the housing for calves and heifers at dairy operations under all
BAT scenarios and under NSPS Options 1 though 7. The size of the drylot for the model farm
was calculated using animal space requirements suggested by Midwest Plan Service (MWPS,
1995).
Under the NSPS Option 8, the model farm is required to eliminate the potential for
discharge; therefore, confinement barns are costed for heifer and calf housing to avoid
contaminated runoff from drylots.
Waste Management Systems
Waste is generated in two main areas at dairy operations: the milking parlor and
the housing areas. Waste from the milking parlor includes manure and wash water from cleaning
the equipment and the parlor after each milking. Waste from the confinement barns includes
bedding and manure for all barns, and wash water if the barns are flushed for cleaning. Waste
generated from the drylots includes manure and runoff from any precipitation that falls on the
drylot.
Based on site visits, most dairy operations transport their wastewater from the
parlor and flush barns to a lagoon for storage and treatment. A solid-separator (either gravity or
mechanical) is sometimes present before the lagoon to remove larger solids prior to the
wastewater entering the lagoon. Solids are removed from the separator frequently to prevent
buildup in the separator, and they are stockpiled on site. Solid waste scraped from a barn is
typically stacked on the feedlot for storage for later use or transport. Solid waste on the drylot is
often mounded on the drylot for the cows and is later moved for transport or land application.
Wastewater in the lagoon is held in storage for later use, typically as fertilizer onsite on cropland
either on or off-site. The waste management systems used for the BAT and NSPS Options 1
through 7 model dairy farm is shown in Figure 1-1.
1-8
-------
Flush Dairy
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Solids
Scrape/Hose Dairy
Solids
Milk Parlor
(Hose)
Drylot
Freestall
Barn
(Scrape)
Solids
> Separation ^ Laaoon ^. End Use
(sometimes ^ Lagoon ^- End Use
present)
A A
Runoff with 1.5% Solids
Solids
Figure 1-1. Dairy Waste Management Systems
1-9
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Under the NSPS Option 8, the dairy waste management system is contained in
three separate areas for each animal: the mature dairy cows and the heifers are housed in separate
confinement barns with underpit manure storage. All manure and wastewater generated in the
milking parlor is channeled to the mature cow manure storage pit. The manure pits provide
storage for the waste until the waste is land applied or transported off site. The calves at this
model farm are also housed in a confinement barn; however, the barn has a solid floor and the
manure waste is scraped to a covered storage area, where it is stored until the waste is land
applied or transported off site.
The amount of waste generated at a dairy depends on how the operation cleans the
barn and parlor on a daily basis. Some dairy operations clean the parlor and barns by flushing the
waste (a flush dairy); others use less water, hosing down the parlor and scraping the manure from
the barns (a hose/scrape dairy). The number of facilities that operate as a flush dairy or a
hose/scrape dairy is estimated from site visits. Both flush and hose/scrape dairy systems are
modeled as part of the model facility, and then the results of each are weighted and combined to
reflect the percentage of operations that are assumed to be flush verses hose/scrape.
Size Group
Size classes and average head were determined using 1997 Census of Agriculture
data and 1993-1997 National Agricultural Statistics Service data. Size groups were determined
based on these data, and were developed to correspond to current CAFO definitions. Published
Census of Agriculture data provide data for operations having 200 - 499 milk cows and 500-999
milk cows. To form the basis of EPA's 350 - 500 size group, EPA estimated that 70% of
operations in the 200 - 499 size group fall in the 200 - 349 size group, and 30% fall into the 350 -
500 size group. Further, to form the basis of EPA's 500 - 700 size group, EPA estimated that
60% of operations in the 500 - 999 Census of Agriculture size group fall in the 500-699 size
range, and the remainder have 700-1000 milk cows. Data collected during site visits that indicate
that dairies operate differently depending on their size and whether they are currently considered a
1-10
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
CAFO. For example, larger dairies tend to already have adequate lagoon storage, while
moderate-sized dairies may have only a small amount of lagoon storage. Also, because dairies
with greater than 700 mature dairy cows are already regulated under the current rule, it is
assumed for the cost model that these facilities are already in compliance for many components of
the proposed rule; therefore, three different size groups are used to model dairy operations with
greater than 200 head (mature dairy cows). For further detail on the calculation of the size
classes, see Eastern Research Group Memorandum Facility Counts for Beef, Dairy, Veal, and
Heifer Operations, 2000) The size groups are presented in Table 1-2.
Table 1-2
Size Classes for Dairy Model Farms
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Number of Mature Dairy Cows
200-350
350-700
>700
Average Number of Mature
Dairy Cows
235
460
1,419
REFERENCE: Eastern Research Group Memorandum Facility Counts for Beef, Dairy, Veal, and Heifer
Operations, 2000
Region
Data from site visits indicate that dairies in varying regions of the country have
different characteristics. These differences are primarily related to climate. For example, a dairy
in the Pacific region receives a larger amount of rainfall annually than a dairy in the Central
region; therefore, the Pacific dairy produces a higher amount of runoff to be contained and
managed. Because operating characteristics may change between regions, dairies are modeled in
five separate regions of the United States: Central, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Pacific, and South.
The Economic Research Service of USD A has developed 10 regions of the country for use in
grouping economic information. EPA originally planned to model costs using these 10 regions;
however, the National Agricultural Statistics Service required EPA to combine the ERS regions
1-11
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
to meet disclosure criteria for economic data. Therefore, the ten ERS regions were condensed
into the five regions used in this model because of similarities in animal production and manure
handling techniques. Table 1-3 presents the states that are contained within each region.
Table 1-3
Definition of Model Farm Regions
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
States Included in Region
AZ, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, OK, TX, UT, WY
CT, DE, KY, MA, MD, ME, NC, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, TN, VA, VT, WV
IA, IL, IN, KS, MI, MN, MO, ND, NE, OH, SD, WI
AK, CA, HI, OR, WA
AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, SC
Reference: Tetra Tech, 1999a.
In the Large 1 dairy size group, more than 80% of dairy operations are located in
the Central and Pacific regions. In the medium size groups, most operations are located in the
Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions. Table 1-4 presents the number of dairies in each region.
Table 1-4
Number of Dairy Operations by Region
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Region
Central
593
433
404
Mid-Atlantic
870
487
81
Midwest
943
497
90
Pacific
722
725
786
South
253
170
84
REFERENCE: Number of facilities were determined using 1997 Census of Agriculture data and
1993-1997 National Agricultural Statistics Service data. For further detail on the calculation of the
size classes, see Eastern Research Group Memorandum Facility Counts for Beef, Dairy, Veal, and
Heifer Operations, 2000)
1-12
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
EPA estimated the number of dairy operations by region using Census of
Agriculture data by state. Using the data with the regional classifications, the number of
operations per region were estimated for each EPA size group.
1.2.2 BeefFeedlots
EPA developed one model farm to represent medium and large beef feedlot
operations in the United States. The parameters describing the beef model farm are developed
from information from NASS, collected during site visits to beef feedlots across the country,
meetings with USDA extension agents, and meetings with the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association. The same model farm is used in all BAT and NSPS Options. A description of the
various components that make up the model farm is presented below, with the sources of the
information used to develop that piece of the model farm referenced.
Housing
The large majority of beef feedlot operations in the United States house the cattle
on drylots (USDA, 1995b). There is a small number of smaller operations that use confinement
barns at beef feedlots, but the vast majority use open lots and most new operations use open lots;
therefore, drylots are used as the housing for the beef model farm. The size of the drylot is
calculated using animal space requirements suggested by Midwest Plan Service (MWPS, 1995).
Waste Management System
Based on site visits, the drylot is the main area where waste is produced at beef
operations. Waste from the drylot includes solid manure, which has dried on the drylot, and
runoff, which is produced from precipitation that falls on the drylot and open feed areas.
1-13
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Most beef operations in the United States divert runoff from the drylot to a storage
pond (USDA, 1995b). A solids separator (typically an earthen basin) is sometimes present before
the pond to remove solids from the waste stream prior to the runoff entering the pond. Solid
waste from the drylot is often mounded on the drylot to provide topography for the cattle and is
later moved from the drylot for transportation off site or land application on site (USDA, 1995b).
The beef model farm was developed following these typical characteristics of beef
operations. Figure 1-2 presents the waste management system used as part of the beef model
farm.
Solids (98.5%)
Figure 1-2. Beef and Heifer Waste Management System
1-14
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Size Group
Size classes and average head were determined using 1997 Census of Agriculture
data and 1993-1997 National Agricultural Statistics Service data. Size groups were determined
based on these data and were developed to correspond to current CAFO definitions. Eight size
groups were used to develop the data for EPA's four size groups. The census of Agriculture size
groups are:
0 to 299 head
300 to 999 head
1,000 to 1,999 head
2,000 to 3,999 head
4,000 to 7,999 head
8,000 to 15,999 head
16,000 to 31,999 head
and 32,000 head and greater.
To calculate the average head for EPA's 500-1000 size group, EPA estimated that
98% of feedlots with less than 300 head have a capacity less than 100 head, and 99% of all
feedlots with less than 1,000 head have a capacity of less than 500 head. Data collected during
site visits that indicate that beef feedlots operate differently depending on their size and whether
they are currently considered a CAFO. For example, larger feedlots more frequently have solid
separators prior to a holding pond compared to medium-sized feedlots. Additionally, feedlots
with a capacity for more than 1,000 beef cattle are already regulated under the current rule;
therefore, it is assumed that these large feedlots are already in compliance for many components
of the proposed rule. To account for these differences, four different size groups were used to
model beef operations with greater than 300 animal units. The size groups are presented in Table
1-5.
1-15
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Table 1-5
Size Classes for Beef Model Farms
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Capacity of Feedlot
(Number of Head)
300-500
500-1000
1000-8000
> 8,000
Average Head
600
1,088
2,628
43,805
REFERENCE: Eastern Research Group Memorandum Facility Counts for Beef, Dairy, Veal, and Heifer Operations,
2000
For beef feedlots, the average number of cattle sold per year is used to determine
the capacity of the operation. The capacity of a feedlot is a combination of sales and the number
of turnovers per year plus inventory. A feedlot may have anywhere from 1 to 3.5 turnovers of its
herd per year. Most feedlots operate at 80 to 85% of their capacity, with an average of 1.5 to 2.5
turnovers per year. (USDA, 1999)
Region
Data from site visits to beef feedlots indicate that beef feedlots in varying regions
of the country have different characteristics. These differences are primarily related to climate.
For example, a beef feedlot in the Pacific region receives a larger amount of rainfall annually than
a beef feedlot in the Central region; therefore the Pacific feedlot produces a larger volume of
runoff to be contained and managed. Because operating characteristics may change between
regions to accommodate these climatological differences, beef feedlots are modeled in five
separate regions of the United States: Central, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Pacific, South, and
Midwest. These regions are defined in Table 1-6.
Approximately 95% of large beef feedlots are located in the Central and Midwest
regions (USD A, 1997). Almost 75% of medium feedlots are located in the Midwest region.
1-16
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Table 1-6
Number of Beef Feedlots by Region
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Region
Central
86
130
332
182
Mid-Atlantic
150
35
25
0
Midwest
685
810
1,236
217
Pacific
35
19
55
22
South
42
7
6
0
REFERENCE: For further detail on the calculation of the size classes, see Eastern Research Group
Memorandum Facility Counts for Be ef, Dairy, Veal, and Heifer Operations, 2000)
EPA estimated the number of beef feedlots by region and size group using 1997
Census of Agriculture and National Agriculture Statistics Service data by state. Using these data
with the regional classifications, the number of operations per region were estimated for each
EPA size group.
1.2.3
Veal Operations
EPA developed one model farm to represent medium and large veal operations in
the United States. The parameters describing the veal model farm are developed from information
collected during site visits to veal operations in Indiana and discussions with the American Veal
Association. A description of the various components that make up the model farm is presented
below, with the sources of the information used to develop that piece of the model farm
referenced.
Housing
Veal calves are generally grouped by age in environmentally controlled buildings.
The majority of veal operations in the United States utilize individual stalls or pens with slotted
1-17
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
floors, which allow for efficient removal of waste (Wilson, 1995). Because this type of housing is
the predominant type of housing used in the veal producing industry, individual stalls in an
environmentally controlled building is designated as the housing for the veal model farm.
Waste Management Systems
Based on site visits, the only significant source of waste at veal operations is from
the veal confinement areas. Veal feces are very fluid; therefore, manure is typically handled in a
liquid waste management system. Manure and waste that fall through the slotted floor are flushed
regularly out of the barn. Flushing typically occurs twice daily. Most veal operations have a
lagoon to receive and treat their wastewater from flushing, although some operations have a
holding pit system in which the manure drops directly into the pit. The pit provides storage until
the material can be land applied or transported off site. Wastewater in the lagoon is held in
storage for later use as fertilizer off site.
The veal model farm used in this cost methodology is developed from these
general characteristics. The animals are totally confined; therefore, the only source of wastewater
is from flushing the manure and waste from the barns. The BAT and the NSPS veal model farms
are identical. Figure 1-3 presents a diagram of the veal model farm waste management system.
Solids
Freestall
Barn (Flush)
>,
Solids
Separation
(sometimes
present)
>.
Lagoon
>
Y
End Use
Figure 1-3. Veal Model Farm
1-18
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Size Group
The veal industry standard operating procedures do not vary significantly based on
the size of the operation, according to data collected during site visits and discussions with the
American Veal Association (Crouch, 1999). Two size groups are used to model the industry to
account for two theoretical regulatory thresholds, as presented in Table 1-7:
Table 1-7
Size Classes for Veal Model Farm
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Size Range
300-500
>500
Average Head
400
540
REFERENCE: Eastern Research Group Memorandum Facility Counts for Beef, Dairy, Veal, and Heifer
Operations, 2000
For veal operations, the average number of calves on-site at a given time is used to
determine the capacity of the operation. (ERG Memorandum, 2000)
Region
The American Veal Association indicates that veal producers are located
predominantly in the Midwest and Central regions (Crouch, 1999); therefore, only these two
regions are modeled as part of the veal model farm.
The number of veal operations modeled in the United States is provided in Table
1-8.
1-19
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Table 1-8
Number of Veal Operations by Region
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Region
Central
5
3
Mid-Atlantic
1
1
Midwest
119
81
Pacific
0
0
South
0
0
REFERENCE: Number of operations were determined using 1997 Census of Agriculture data and
1993-1997 National Agricultural Statistics Service data. For further detail on the calculation of the
size classes, see Eastern Research Group Memorandum Facility Counts for Beef, Dairy, Veal, and
Heifer Operations, 2000)
1.2.4
Heifer Operations
EPA developed one model farm to describe medium and large stand-alone heifer
operations (also called contract heifer farms) in the United States. The parameters describing the
stand-alone heifer model farm are developed from meetings with the National Milk Producers
Federation and discussions with the Professional Heifer Growers Association. The same model
farm is used in all BAT and NSPS options. A description of the various components that make
up the model farm is presented below, with the sources of the information used to develop that
piece of the model farm.
Housing
Stand-alone heifer raising operations use two primary methods for housing the
animals. One method is to raise the heifers on pasture, and the second method is to raise the
heifers on confined drylots. Because this regulation only addresses confined operations, the heifer
model facility accounts for animals housed on drylots.
1-20
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Waste Management System
The drylot is the main area where waste is produced at heifer operations. Waste
from the drylot includes solid manure, which has dried on the drylot, and runoff, which is
produced from precipitation that falls on the drylot and feed areas.
Stand-alone heifer operations typically operate like beef feedlots (Cady, 2000). As
such, it is assumed that runoff from the drylot is channeled to a storage pond. A solids separator
(typically an earthen basin) is sometimes present before the pond. Solid waste from the drylot is
mounded on the drylot, and is later moved for transportation off site or land application on site.
Size Group
There is very little information available on the number of heifer operations raising
heifers in confinement. It is believed that most large heifer raising operations (greater than 1000
head) are confinement-based, while smaller operations are often pasture-based (Cady, 2000). The
average size of heifer grower operations ranges from 50 head to 25,000 head and varies
geographically. The average size of a heifer operation located west of the Mississippi River is
1,000 to 5,000 head, while the average size in the upper Midwest, Northeast, and South is 50 to
200 head. Nationally, the median size of a dairy heifer raising operation is approximately 200
head (Cady, 2000).
Because of the lack of information on the size distribution of confined heifer
operations, EPA chose to use three size groups which are consistent with the beef model farm
size groups, as presented in Table 1-9. The average head for each size group is calculated as the
median of the size group range.
1-21
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
Table 1-9
Size Classes for Heifer Model Farm
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Size Range
300-500 animals
500-1000 animals
>1000 animals
Average Head
400
750
1,500
Region
There is very little information on the location of heifer grower operations in the
United States; however, because they directly support the dairy industry, it is assumed that they
are concentrated in areas where the dairy industry is moving toward specialization (Bocher,
1999). It is estimated that heifer grower operations are located in four areas of the country: 70%
are managed in the west, 20% are managed in the south/southeast, 7% are managed in the
northeast, and 3% are managed in the upper Midwest.
The number of operations modeled for the heifer model farms is presented as Table
1-10.
Table 1-10
Number of Heifer Operations by Region
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Region
Central
25
250
180
Mid-Atlantic
0
0
0
Midwest
200
100
0
Pacific
25
150
120
South
0
0
0
REFERENCE: Number of operations were estimated using Best Professional Judgement and
discussions with Dr. Roger Cady (Cady, 2000). For further detail on the calculation of the size
classes, see Eastern Research Group Memorandum Facility Counts for Beef, Dairy, Veal, and
Heifer Operations, 2000)
1-22
-------
Section 1.0 - Introduction
1.3 Organization of Report
The following information is discussed in detail in this report:
Section 2.0 presents the structure of the cost model;
Section 3.0 discusses the cost model inputs;
Section 4.0 discusses the technology cost modules, which comprise the
regulatory options;
Section 5.0 discusses weighting factors, which represent which portion of
the industry currently has technologies or practices in place;
Section 6.0 discusses the cost test performed on the cost model and total
facility costs (category costs);
Section 7.0 provides an example of total model farm costs calculated for
one model farm and option; and
Section 8.0 presents references used to develop the cost model.
1-23
-------
Section 2.0 - Cost Model Structure
2.0 COST MODEL STRUCTURE
To generate industry compliance cost estimates associated with each regulatory
option for beef and dairy operations, EPA developed a computer-based cost model made up of
several individual cost modules. The cost model is executed on a personal computer and consists
of a collection of programs written in Visual Basicฎ and data tables created in Microsoftฎ
Access 97. Figure 2-1 presents a flow chart of the cost model methodology. The cost model
consists of several components, which can be grouped into four major categories:
Input data;
Technology cost modules;
Frequency factors (including farm weighting factors); and
Output data.
Each module calculates a specific piece of operational data (e.g., runoff) or
develops a design and cost for a specific waste management system component (e.g., an anaerobic
lagoon) based on model farm characteristics. Frequency factors are then applied to the
component costs to weight the costs by the estimated percentage of operations that already have
the component in place. Farm-weighting factors are applied to certain weighted component costs
to further weight these costs by the percentage of operations that operate in different ways (e.g.,
flush versus hose dairies). These weighted farm costs are then summed for each regulatory option
and model farm. Finally, a Transportation Cost Test evaluates several methods of transporting
waste off site, identifies the least expensive scenario, and outputs final costs for each model farm
and option. All costs are in 1997 dollars. The remainder of this section describes each of these
components. Input Data inputs to the cost model include information on the model farms, runoff,
wastewater generation, and manure generation, as described below: Model farm definitions -
Animal type, EPA regulatory option, farm type, size class, average number of head, region, and
number of operations that are represented by the model farm.
2-1
-------
Section 2.0 - Cost Model Structure
Farm-Weighting
Factors
Technology
Cost Modules
Component Costs
Weighted
Component Costs
Weighted Farm
Costs
Transportation
Cost Test
Model Farm Costs
Figure 2-1. Flow Chart of General Cost Methodology
2-2
-------
Section 2.0 - Cost Model Structure
Wastewater generation - Volume of milking parlor wastewater and barn
wastewater generated.
Manure generation - Amount and composition of manure generated at the
operation.
Runoff generation - Precipitation data (including average rainfall,
evaporation, and 25-year, 24-hour rainfall amounts) by model farm type
and region.
All of these data are fed to one input page, which contains all the design
information required for the subsequent cost modules. Section 3.0 discusses inputs to the cost
model in greater detail.
2.1 Technology Cost Modules
Each technology cost module calculates direct capital and annual costs for
installing and implementing a particular technology or practice. In some cases, the modules
calculate initial fixed costs that are not able to be amortized and operating and maintenance costs
that only occur every three years. In the summary of costs this is referred to as a "3-year
recurring cost".
For each regulatory option, the cost model combines a series of modules. Tables
2-1 through 2-3 present the waste management technology components (for dairy operations,
beef feedlots, and veal operations, respectively) that make up the basis for each option. Each
module manipulates the input data tables to generate costs to implement the technologies under
each regulatory option. Figure 2-2 presents the components of the technology cost modules, and
Section 4.0 discusses each cost module in detail.
Each regulatory option includes at least one module from Pretreatment,
Storage/Treatment, Pollution Prevention/Monitoring, and Waste Utilization/Transportation (see
Figure 2-2). Microsoftฎ Access 97 queries are used to create a module-specific input page that
selects only the input required to run the specific scenario of interest. For example, because
2-3
-------
Inputs
Pretreatment
Storage/
Treatment
Pollution
Prevention/
Monitoring
Waste Utilization/
Transportation
{
Section 2.0 - Cost Model Structure
Model Farm Definitions
Beef
Earthen Settling |
Basin I
Parlor/Barn
Manure 1
Dry Lot
Manure
Concrete Settling |
Basin J
Settled Solids
I
Storage
Ponds
Nutrient ^
Management
v Planning /
Anaerobic
[ Lagoons I
Anaerobic
I Digestion I
Liquid
jNutrient-Basedp
1 Application [
Surface Water
1 Monitoring J
\ [[[ /
Land Application
Transportation
I Composting
Solids
Groundwater
Monitoring
R
Unit Component Costs
-------
Section 2.0 - Cost Model Structure
Table 2-1
Waste Management Technologies for Dairy Operations by Regulatory Option
Technology or
Practice
Solids Separation
Anaerobic Treatment
Liquids Storage
Runoff Controls
On-Site Manure
Handling
On-Site Land
Application
Monitoring
Technology Cost Module
Concrete Basin
Naturally -lined Lagoon
Lined Lagoon
Anaerobic Digester
Additional Lagoon Capacity (for
land application timing
restrictions)
Underpit storage
Berms
Composting1
Concrete Pad
Nutrient Management Planning
Nutrient-Based Application
On-Site Irrigation
Groundwater Protection
Surface Water Monitoring
Off- Site Transportation
Regulatory Option
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
4
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
5
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
6
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
8
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
to
'EPA evaluated composting for Options 1 through 4, 6, and 7, but determined that it was not the least costly method of handling manure.
-------
Section 2.0 - Cost Model Structure
Table 2-2
Waste Management Technologies for Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations by Regulatory Option
Technology or
Practice
Solids Separation
Storage Pond
Runoff Controls
On-Site Manure
Handling
On-Site Land
Application
Monitoring
Technology Cost Module
Earthen Basin
Naturally -lined Pond
Lined Pond
Additional Pond Capacity (for
land application timing
restrictions)
Peak Design Storm =
25-year, 24-hour Capacity
Peak Design Storm =
100-year, 24-hour Capacity
Berms
Composting1
Concrete Pad
Nutrient Management Planning
Nutrient-Based Application
On-Site Irrigation
Groundwater Protection
Surface Water Monitoring
Off- Site Transportation
Regulatory Option
1
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
2
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
3
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
4
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
5
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
6
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
7
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
8
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
to
-------
Section 2.0 - Cost Model Structure
Table 2-3
Waste Management Technologies for Veal Operations by Regulatory Option
Technology or
Practice
Solids Separation
Anaerobic Treatment
On- Site Land
Application
Monitoring
Technology Cost Module
Concrete Basin
Naturally -lined Lagoon
180-day storage capacity
Lined Lagoon
180-day storage capacity
Nutrient Management Planning
Nutrient-Based Application
Groundwater Protection
Surface Water Monitoring
Off- Site Transportation
Regulatory Option
1
/
/
/
/
/
2
/
/
/
/
/
3
/
/
/
/
/
/
4
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
5
/
/
/
/
/
6
/
/
/
/
/
7
/
/
/
/
/
8
/
/
/
/
/
/
to
-------
Section 2.0 - Cost Model Structure
concrete pads are only required in groundwater-protection options, the input page for concrete
pads only includes the input data for Options 3 and 4. No costs are calculated for components
that are not included in the option.
Each module generates an intermediate output page, containing the capital, fixed,
annual, and recurring costs associated with that module. The output page also includes input data
so that it may be used as an input page to subsequent modules.
2.2 Frequency Factors
EPA determined the current frequency of existing waste management practices at
beef feedlots, dairies, and veal operations to estimate the portion of the operations that would
incur costs to comply with the new regulation. The frequency information is used to estimate
compliance costs for specific model farms for the regulatory options being considered. The
resulting weighted farm costs can be multiplied by the number of facilities represented by each
model to estimate industry-wide costs.
Currently, no publicly available information is available that can be used with a
high degree of confidence to determine what each frequency factor should be for each size class
within a given region. EPA, therefore, estimates frequency factors based on the sources below.
(Each source was considered along with its limitations.) See Appendix D for a discussion of the
supplemental analyses performed by EPA to assess the validity of this modeling approach.
EPA site visit information - This information is used to assess general
practices of beef feedlots, dairies, and veal operations and how they vary
between regions and size classes.
Observations from industry experts - Experts on beef and dairy animal
feeding operations were contacted to provide insight into operations and
practices, especially where data are limited or not publicly available.
2-8
-------
Section 2.0 - Cost Model Structure
USDA/NASS - The data currently available from NASS are used to
determine the distribution of beef and dairy operations across the regions
by size class.
USD A/Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS)/National
Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) - This source provides
information on dairy practices, facility size, and waste system components
sorted by size class and region. These data have limited use due to the
small number of respondents in the size classes of interest.
State Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to AFOs
- This summary of state regulatory programs is used to estimate frequency
factors based on current waste-handling requirements that already apply to
beef and dairy operations in various states and in specific size classes.
2.3 Output Data
The cost model generates weighted component costs using the frequency factors
described in Section 2.3, and further weights these costs according to farm factors that indicate
farm type (e.g., flush dairies versus hose dairies), nutrient application (nitrogen- or phosphorus-
based application), and availability of crops on site (see section 4.14 for a detailed discussion).
This further weighting is described in Section 5.0.
The weighted farm costs are then used in a "cost test," described in Section 6.0, to
select the least costly transportation option. There are four transportation options considered:
hiring a contractor to haul manure; purchasing trucks to haul manure; composting to reduce the
volume of waste before hiring a contract hauler; and composting before using purchased trucks.
Total model farm costs are the sum of the weighted farm costs and the least costly transportation
option.
The cost estimates generated contain the following types of costs:
Capital costs - Costs for facility upgrades (e.g., construction projects);
2-9
-------
Section 2.0 - Cost Model Structure
Fixed costs - One-time costs for items that cannot be amortized (e.g.,
training);
Annual operating and maintenance (O&M) costs - Annually recurring
costs, which may be positive or negative. A positive O&M costs indicates
an annual cost to operate, and a negative O&M cost indicates a benefit to
operate, due to cost offsets;
Three-year recurring O&M costs - Operating and maintenance costs that
only occur once every three years; and
Annual fertilizer costs - Costs for additional commercial nitrogen fertilizer
needed to supplement the nutrients available from manure application.
These costs provide the basis for evaluating the total annualized costs, cost
effectiveness, and economic impact of the regulatory options proposed for the CAFOs industry.
Appendix C presents these model farm cost outputs.
2-10
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
3.0 INPUT DATA
The cost model uses three main types of input data, in addition to the model farm
information presented in Section 1.2, to calculate compliance costs for each model farm and
regulatory option. These input modules are: wastewater generation, manure generation, and
runoff.
3.1 Wastewater Generation
The cost model calculates the total amount of wastewater generated at dairies and
veal operations and uses it as input for the design of storage and treatment technologies.
Wastewater, as used in the cost model, includes water from flushing or hosing confinement barns
and milking parlors at dairies and veal operations. (Runoff and precipitation are calculated
separately in this model and are not included in the wastewater calculations.) Sections 3.1.1
through 3.1.4 describe the equations used to calculate the wastewater generated, and the different
wastewater sources present at hose dairies, flush dairies, and veal operations. No wastewater is
generated at beef operations because manure is handled as a solid.
3.1.1 Hose Dairies
The amount of wastewater generated at dairies includes wash water for equipment,
milking parlor floors, and holding area floors. The cost model assumes wastewater is generated
only in the milking parlor for hose dairies, because confinement barn waste is scraped without
using flush water. Table 3-1 lists the sources of milking parlor wastewater by size class for dairies
using hose systems.
3-1
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
Table 3-1
Milking Parlor Wastewater Generated at Dairies Using Hose Systems
Water Source
Bulk Tank-Manual1
Pipeline In Parlor1
Miscellaneous
Equipment1
Cow Preparation-
Manual2
Milkhouse Floor2
Parlor and Holding Area
Flush2
Units
gal/wash
gal/wash
gal/day
gal/wash-cow
gal/day
gal/milking
Small Operations
(< 200 Head)
40
75
30
0.5
20
40
Medium Operations
(200-700 Head)
35
100
30
0.375
15
30
Large
Operations
(> 700 Head)
30
125
30
0.25
10
20
1 Information taken from Midwest Plan Service - 7, Dairy Freestall Housing and Equipment, p78.
2 Information taken from Midwest Plan Service - 18, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook.
Based on site visits, dairies milk their cows either two or three times per day;
therefore, the cost model assumes each cow is milked an average of 2.5 times per day, and the
equipment is washed after each milking. The general parlor wastewater generation equation is
thus:
Parlor Wastewater (gal/day)
No. Washes * (Bulk Tank Rinse + Pipeline Rinse)
Day Wash Wash
Miscellaneous Equipment
No. Washes * Cow Preparation * Number of Cows
Day
Milkhouse Floor Wash
No. Milkings * Parlor and Holding Area Flush
Day
After plugging in the values from Table 3-1, and assuming the number of washes and milkings
equals 2.5, the total wastewater generated in the milking parlor for each size class is computed
using the following equations:
3-2
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
< 200 Head Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = [2.5 washes/day x (40 + 75 ) gal/wash] + 30 gal/day + [0.5
gal/wash-cow x 2.5 washes/day x Number of Dairy Cattle] + 20 gal/day + [40 gal/milking x
2.5 milkings/day]
Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = 437.5 gal/day + (1.25 gal/cow-day x Number of
Dairy Cattle)
200-700 Head Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = [2.5 washes/day x (35 + 100) gal/wash] + 30 gal/day +
[0.375 gal/wash-cow x 2.5 washes/day x Number of Dairy Cattle] + 15 gal/day + [30
gal/milking x 2.5 milkings/day]
Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = 457.5 gal/day + (0.9375 gal/cow-day x Number of
Dairy Cattle)
> 700 Head Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = [2.5 washes/day x (30 + 125) gal/wash] + 30 Gal/day + [0.25
gal/wash-cow x 2.5 washes/day x Number of Dairy Cattle] + 10 gal/day + [20 gal/milking x
2.5 milkings/day]
Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = 477.5 gal/day + (0.625 gal/cow-day x Number of
Dairy Cattle)
Only the mature herd is used to calculate the wastewater use in the parlor because the wastewater
use estimates are based on the number of animals passing through the parlor. Although the dairy
model farm includes calves and heifers in addition to the milking herd on site, these animals are
not counted in the milking herd count because they do not produce milk. To be conservative, all
mature dairy cattle, both lactating and dry, are used to calculate parlor wastewater.
3.1.2 Flush Dairies
Dairies using flush systems generate larger quantities of water than dairies using
hose systems. Table 3-2 lists the sources of wastewater by size class for dairies using flush
systems.
3-3
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
Table 3-2
Milking Parlor Wastewater Generated at Dairies Using Flush Systems1
Water Source
Bulk Tank- Automatic
Pipeline In Parlor
Miscellaneous
Equipment
Cow Preparation-
Automatic
Milkhouse Floor
Parlor and Holding Area
Flush
Units
gal/wash
gal/wash
gal/day
gal/wash-cow
gal/day
gal/day -cow
Small Operations
(<200 Head)
60
75
30
2
20
40
Medium Operations
(200-700 Head)
55
100
30
2
15
32.5
Large Operations
(>700 Head)
50
125
30
2
10
25
'Information was taken from Midwest Plan Service- 18, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook.
As with hose dairies, the cost model assumes each cow is milked 2.5 times per day,
and the equipment is washed after each milking. The general parlor wastewater generation
equation is thus:
Parlor Wastewater (gal/day)
= No. Washes * (Bulk Tank Rinse + Pipeline Rinse)
Day Wash Wash
+ Miscellaneous Equipment
+ No. Washes * Cow Preparation * Number of Cows
Day
+ Milkhouse Floor Wash
+ No. Milkings * Parlor and Holding Area Flush
Day
After plugging in the values from Table 3-1, the total wastewater generated in the
milking parlor for each size class is computed using the following equations:
3-4
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
< 200 Head Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = [2.5 washes/day x (60 + 75) gal/wash] + 30 Gal/day + [2
gal/wash-cow x 2.5 washes/day x Number of Dairy Cattle] + 20 gal/day + [40 gal/day-cow
x Number of Dairy Cattle]
Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = 387.5 gal/day + (45 gal/cow-day x Number of Dairy
Cattle)
200-700 Head Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = [2.5 washes/day x (55 + 100) gal/wash] + 30 gal/day + [2
gal/wash-cow x 2.5 washes/day x Number of Dairy Cattle] + 15 gal/day + [32.5 gal/day-
cow x Number of Dairy Cattle]
Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = 432.5 gal/day + (37.5 gal/cow-day x Number of
Dairy Cattle)
> 700 Head Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = [2.5 washes/day x (50 + 125) gal/wash] + 30 gal/day + [2
gal/wash-cow x 2.5 washes/day x Number of Dairy Cattle] + 10 gal/day + [25 gal/day-cow
x Number of Dairy Cattle]
Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) = 477.5 gal/day + (30 gal/cow-day x Number of Dairy
Cattle)
Only the milking herd is used to calculate the wastewater use in the parlor because
the wastewater use estimates are based on the number of animals passing through the parlor.
Although the dairy model farm includes calves and heifers in addition to the milking herd on site,
these animals are not counted in the milking herd count because they do not produce milk.
In addition to the milking parlor wastewater, water is used to flush the
confinement barns. The amount of water required is estimated at 100 gal/day-cow
(MWPS,1993). The amount of wastewater generated is calculated by the following equation:
Bam Wastewater (gal/day) =100 gal/day-cow x Number of Dairy Cattle
Because only the milking herd is housed in the confinement barn for the flush dairy model farm,
only the milking herd is counted in the number of dairy cattle.
3-5
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
3.1.3 Veal
Veal operations do not generate as much wastewater as dairies because there is no
milk parlor wastewater. Wastewater is generated at veal operations from flushing confinement
barns. It is estimated that the amount of water required is 100 gal/day-cow, the value provided
for beef feeders (MWPS, 1993); therefore, the wastewater generated from veal operations is
calculated from the following equation:
Bam Wastewater (gal/day) =100 gal/day-calf x Number of Veal Calves
3.1.4 Total Wastewater Generation
The equations listed in Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.3 require the average number of
animals as input. Table 1-2 lists the average number of head for each model farm (USDA, 1997;
for further discussion of the calculation of average head per model facility, see the ERG
Memorandum Facility Counts for Beef, Dairy, Veal and Heifer Operations, 2000). The total
wastewater generated is the sum of the wastewater generated from the confinement barn and
milking parlor.
Total Wastewater (gal/day) = Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) + Bam Wastewater (gal/day)
Table 3-3 shows the wastewater generation by model farm.
3-6
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
Table 3-3
Wastewater Generation by Model Farm
Animal Type
Dairy-Flush
Dairy-Hose
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Average Head
235
460
1419
235
460
1419
400
540
Parlor
Wastewater1
(gal/day)
9,245
17,683
43,048
678
889
1,364
0
0
Barn
Wastewater1
(gal/day)
23,500
46,000
141,900
0
0
0
40,000
54,000
Total
Wastewater
(gal/day)
32,745
63,683
184,948
678
889
1,364
40,000
54,000
'For the dairy model farm, only the mature herd is including in the calculation of wastewater generation. To be
conservative all mature dairy cattle, both lactating and dry, are used to calculate parlor wastewater.
3.2
Manure Generation
The amount of manure generated at beef feedlots, dairies, and veal operations is
also needed for the design of storage and treatment technologies. In addition to the volume
generated, the location of manure generation and collection affects the size and type of different
waste management components. The cost model calculates the amount of manure generated for
each model farm. Sections 3.2.1 through 3.2.3 describe the estimates of manure generated at beef
feedlots, dairies, and veal operations and the assumptions and equations used in the cost model.
3.2.1
Manure Estimates Per Animal
The cost model calculates the total amount of manure generated using manure
characteristics and the total number of animals on the beef feedlots, dairies, and veal operations.
Table 3-4 lists the assumptions used to approximate the manure generated. The moisture content
can be used to calculate the total solids content or total water content of the manure. In practice,
manure characteristics are variable; the values shown here reflect the best available data for
national estimates.
3-7
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
Table 3-4
Manure Production and Characteristics
Animal Type
Beef Cattle
Mature Dairy Cattle
Calves
Heifers
Veal Calves
Animal Weight
(Ibs)1
877
1350
350
550
275
Manure Production
((lb/day)/l,OOQ-lb
animal)
632
83. 52
65. 82
662
65. 82
Manure Density
(Ib/ft3)1
62
62
62
62
62
Manure Moisture
(percent)
883
873
985
875
984
'Information taken from the Beef and Dairy Industry Profile, 2000.
Information taken from Lander, 1998.
'Information taken from NCSU, 1994.
"Information taken from ASAE, 1993.
5Assume that heifers are equal to dairy cows and calves are equal to veal calves.
3.2.2
Manure Placement
The amount of manure generated is distributed among the different areas of the
operation. For beef feedlots, it is assumed that all manure is generated on the drylot. For dairies,
it is assumed that 85% of the manure is generated in the confinement barn and 15% is generated
in the milking parlor (USDA, 1992). For veal operations, it is assumed that all manure is
generated in the confinement barn. These estimates are based on the amount of time dairy cattle
typically spend in each facility.
3.2.3
Total Manure Generation
The cost model calculates the amount of manure generated in each area of the farm
using the following equations. Information in Table 3-4 is used for manure generation
information, and information in Table 1-2 is used to obtain the average number of head.
3-8
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
Beef Cattle, Calves, and Heifers
Manure = Average Head x Animal Weight (Ibs) x Manure Production ((lb/day)/l ,000-lb animal)
Mature Dairy Cattle
Milking Parlor Manure = 0.15 x Average Head x Animal Weight (Ibs) x Manure Production
((lb/day/1,000-lb animal)
Barn Manure = 0.85 x Average Head x Animal Weight (Ibs) x Manure Production ((lb/day/1,000-
lb animal)
Veal Calves
Barn Manure = Average Head x Animal Weight (Ibs) x Manure Production ((lb/day/1,000-lb animal)
Table 3-5 presents manure generation by model farm. Manure generation does not
vary by region.
3-9
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
Table 3-5
Manure Generation by Model Farm
Animal Type
Beef
Heifers
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Drylot
Manure1
(Ibs/day)
33,151
60,113
145,200
2,420,270
14,520
27,225
54,450
4,212
8,187
25,275
NA
NA
Milking Parlor
Manure
(Ibs/day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3,973
7,778
23,994
NA
NA
Barn Manure
(Ibs/day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
MA
NA
22,517
44,075
135,963
7,238
9,771
Total Manure
(Ibs/day)
33,151
60,113
145,200
2,420,270
14,520
27,225
54,450
30,702
60,040
185,232
7,238
9,771
NA - Not applicable.
'For dairy farms, drylot manure includes calf and heifer waste.
3.3
Runoff from drylots at beef, heifer, and dairy operations under Options 1 through
7 is added to the volume required for liquid storage at the operation. Runoff from the drylot
becomes contaminated with manure solids and must be collected to prevent clean surface water
from becoming contaminated. The cost model calculates the volume of runoff that must be
accommodated in the storage facility. Runoff is the only liquid waste to be stored at beef
feedlots. The cost model assumes calves and heifers at dairies are kept on drylots (under Options
1 through 7) while the mature dairy cattle are kept in confinement barns; therefore, the runoff
from the calf and heifer drylot is included in the dairy wastewater for these options. Veal cattle
are kept in confinement barns rather than drylots; therefore, it is assumed that contaminated
runoff is negligible.
3-10
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
3.3.1
Precipitation Runoff Estimates
The annual precipitation for each region is calculated using monthly precipitation
values from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC, 1999). The monthly data are summed to
obtain a yearly precipitation rate. Yearly rates were averaged by state and then by region. Annual
evaporation is estimated from a map of mean annual lake evaporation (MWPS, 1997). The net
annual precipitation is then calculated as the difference between annual precipitation and annual
evaporation. The monthly rainfall is also used to determine the net rainfall for the wettest six
months, which is used to size the lagoons and storage ponds. Rainfall depth for the 25-year, 24-
hour design storm and the 100-year, 24-hour design storm is estimated from map contour lines
(MWPS, 1997). The average net precipitation depth and the peak storm depth are used in the
cost model to estimate total drylot runoff and direct precipitation to storage ponds and lagoons.
3.3.2
Drylot Area Estimates
The area of the drylot is used to determine the runoff. Only runoff from the drylot
is considered to be contaminated with manure solids; therefore, it requires collection and storage.
Table 3-6 presents the range of drylot area for each animal type.
Table 3-6
Drylot Area Required by Animal Type1
Animal Type
Calves
Heifers
Beef Cattle
Area Required per Animal (ft2)
150-300
250-500
300-500
'Information taken from Midwest Plan Service - 6, Beef Housing and Equipment
Handbook for unpaved lots with mounds.
3-11
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
The cost model assumes the area required for each animal type equals the average
area of each range plus an additional 15% for storage and handling facilities and feed silage areas
(George, 1999). The following equation is used to calculate total drylot area per animal:
Dry lot Area (ftVanimal) = Average Area + (0.15 x Average Area)
Table 3-7 lists the calculated drylot areas used in the cost model. The total drylot
area for each model farm is calculated by multiplying the average area per animal type by the
average number of head at the operation, as shown in Table 1-2.
3.3.3
Table 3-7
Drylot Area Required by Animal Type Used in the Cost Model
Animal Type
Calves
Heifers
Beef Cattle
Area Required per Animal (ft2)
259
431
460
Total Runoff
The precipitation and area of the drylot are used to determine the total amount of
runoff from the drylot. The cost model assumes 40% of the total precipitation over the storage
period will run off a drylot that is 20% paved (Shuyler, 1999):
where:
= 0.4xpx A
R
P
A
Runoff volume (ft3)
Precipitation for the wettest six months (ft)
Drylot area (ft2)
Table 3-8 shows the volumes for the six-month runoff by model farm and by
region. The cost model uses these volumes to size settling basins, ponds, and lagoons.
3-12
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
Table 3-8
Six-Month Runoff Volumes
Animal Type
Beef
Stand-Alone
Heifer
Operations
Dairy (Heifers
and Calves)
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Wettest Six-Month Runoff (ft3) by Region
Central
61,180
110,940
267,970
4,466,650
38,238
71,695
143,391
10,783
21,107
20,830
Mid-
Atlantic
197,984
359,011
867,170
14,454,480
123,740
232,013
464,025
34,895
68,304
210,700
Midwest
103,040
186,846
451,320
7,522,780
64,400
120,750
241,500
18,161
35,549
109,660
Pacific
213,900
387,872
936,880
15,616,480
133,688
250,664
501,328
37,700
73,796
227,640
South
235,428
426,909
1,031,170
17,188,210
147,143
275,892
551,784
41,494
81,223
250,550
The cost model also calculates runoff volumes from the 25-year, 24-hour storm
(for Options 1 through 7) and the 100-year, 24-hour storm (for Option 8). The volume of runoff
for a single storm event is calculated using the equation below, which assumes the first half-inch
of rain is absorbed by the drylot (MWPS, 1993):
where:
= (P-0.5)/(12m/ft)xA
R
P
A
Runoff volume (ft3)
Precipitation in)
Drylot area (ft2)
Table 3-9 shows the runoff volumes for a 25-year, 24-hour storm by model farm
and by region, and Table 3-10 shows the runoff volumes for the 100-year, 24-hour storm by
model farm. The cost model uses these volumes to size settling basins, ponds, and lagoons.
3-13
-------
Section 3.0 - Input Data
Table 3-9
25-year, 24-hour Runoff Values
Animal Type
Dairy (Heifers
and Calves)
Heifers
Beef
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Runoff (ft3) by Region
Central
14,188
27,773
85,670
50,313
94,336
80,500
145,973
352,590
5,877,170
Mid-
Atlantic
19,863
38,882
119,940
70,438
132,070
112,700
204,363
493,630
8,228,040
Midwest
18,242
35,780
110,150
64,688
121,289
103,500
187,680
453,330
7,556,360
Pacific
38,511
75,383
232,540
136,563
256,055
218,500
396,213
957,030
15,952,320
South
30,403
59,513
183,580
107,813
202,148
172,500
312,800
755,550
12,593,938
Table 3-10
100-year, 24-hour Runoff Values
Animal
Dairy
Heifers
Beef
Size Group
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Central
18,242
35,708
110,150
64,688
121,289
242,578
103,500
187,680
453,330
7,556,363
Mid-Atlantic
24,728
48,403
149,314
87,687
164,414
328,828
140,300
254,411
614,514
10,243,069
Midwest
22,296
43,643
134,628
79,063
148,242
296,484
126,500
229,387
554,070
9,235,554
Pacific
46,618
91,253
281,494
165,313
309,961
619,922
264,500
479,627
1,158,510
19,310,704
South
34,457
67,448
208,061
122,188
229,102
458,202
195,500
354,507
856,290
14,273,129
3-14
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.0 COST MODULES
Cost modules calculate the direct capital and annual costs for installing, operating,
and maintaining a particular technology or practice for a beef feedlot, stand-alone heifer
operation., dairy operation, or veal operation. Each cost module determines an appropriate
design of the system component based on the characteristics of the model farm and the specific
regulatory option. Waste volumes generated in the wastewater, manure, and runoff input
modules described in Section 3.0 are used to size equipment and properly estimate the direct
capital costs for purchasing and installing equipment and annual operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs.
Estimates of capital and annual cost components are based on information
collected from vendors, literary references, EPA site visits, and/or estimates based on engineering
judgment. The following subsections describe each technology cost module used as a basis for
the regulatory options and specifically discuss the following:
Description of the technology or practice;
Prevalence of the technology or practice at animal feeding operations;
Design;
Costs; and
Results for component costs for the technology or practice.
Appendix A of this report contains output tables of capital and annual costs (in 1997 dollars) for
each cost module.
4.1 Earthen Settling Basins
Earthen settling basins are used at animal feeding operations to remove manure
solids, soil, and other solid materials from wastewater prior to storage (e.g., a pond) or further
treatment (e.g., a lagoon). In the cost model, earthen basins are used at beef feedlots and stand-
alone heifer operations to collect runoff. Because high wastewater flows from flushing operations
4-1
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
could cause erosion in the earthen basin, concrete settling basins, discussed in Section 4.2, are
used at dairies and veal operations to collect barn and milking parlor wastewater. An earthen
settling basin is costed for beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations for all regulatory
options.
4.1.1 Technology Description
An earthen basin is a shallow basin that is designed for accumulation of solids.
Earthen basins receive raw wastewater from beef feedlots. The basin allows solids to settle and
liquids to drain. Generally, the basin is designed to handle a wastewater flow velocity less than
1.5 feet per second, which is sufficiently slow enough to allow solids to settle. Periodic removal
of the accumulated solids is necessary; therefore, access to the earthen basin must be provided for
a frontend loader or tractor. (The costs for periodic solids removal is included in the annual costs,
which is presented as a percent of the total capital costs.) A properly designed settling basin is
capable of removing approximately 50% of the solids from the effluent (MWPS, 1987).
4.1.2 Prevalence of the Technology in the Industry
All regulatory options assume an earthen basin is required for collection of runoff
from beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations. It is assumed that dairies and veal
operations have concrete basins instead of earthen basins due to the higher flow of water from the
barn and parlor cleaning operations that enter the settling basin.
Not all beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations are expected to have in
place a properly sized settling basin. Some of these operations have no settling basin in place.
From site visits and NAHMS data, EPA estimated the percentage of operations that do not
currently have properly sized earthen basins in place. Table 4-1 lists the percentage of beef
feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations that would incur costs for earthen basins by size class
and region.
4-2
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-1
Percentage of Beef Feedlots and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations Incurring
Earthen Basin Costs for All Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Beef
Heifers
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Region
Central
67%
67%
60%
60%
67%
67%
60%
Midwest
67%
67%
60%
60%
67%
67%
60%
Mid-Atlantic
67%
67%
60%
60%
67%
67%
60%
Pacific
67%
67%
60%
60%
67%
67%
60%
South
67%
67%
60%
60%
67%
67%
60%
4.1.3
Design
Earthen basins are designed to capture runoff from the beef feedlot and are
rectangular in shape. The four sides are sloped at a 4:1 (horizontal:vertical) ratio to prevent
erosion and allow for front-end loader access to remove solids. Earthen basins are constructed of
soils which have a significant clay content (usually at least 10%). Figure 4.1-1 shows side views
of the basin.
The earthen basin is constructed by excavating part of the volume required and
building embankments to construct the remaining basin volume. The variables in Figure 4.1-1 are
defined as follows:
he = height of embankment
h = height (depth) of basin
we = width of embankment
wb = width at bottom of basin
ws = width at surface of basin
lb = length at bottom of basin
ls = length at surface of basin
4-3
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-2 summarizes the default design criteria used in the cost model.
Table 4-2
Design Parameters for Earthen Basins
Parameter
Total height (depth) required (h)
Side slopes (horizonal:vertical) (s)
Bottom width (wb)
Width of embankment (we)
Value
4 feet
4:1
12 feet
6 feet
Midwest Plan Service Structures and Environment Handbook, 1974
The remaining portion of this subsection describes the methods used to calculate the other basin
dimensions listed on Figure 4.1.
Earthen Basin Influent and Effluent Flows
The design volume of the earthen basin is based on the peak runoff entering the
basin, which is equal to the peak runoff from a 10-year/1 -hour storm event for all regulatory
options. Section 3.4 describes the details of the runoff calculation. In addition, it is assumed that
runoff contains 1.5% solids (MWPS, 1993); therefore, the total amount of water and solids
entering the earthen basin are calculated as follows:
Water Entering = (Peak) x ( 1 - 0.015)
Solids Entering = (Peak) x (0.015)
where:
Peak
Peak runoff during 10-y ear/1 -hour storm event
4-4
-------
W8
Excavated
Volume
wb
Width View
Excavated
Volume
Length View
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Backfill
with excavated
soil
Ground
Level
Backfill
with excavated
soil
Ground
Level
Figure 4-1. Cross-Section of an Earthen Basin
For the cost model calculations, it is assumed that earthen basins have a settling
efficiency of 50%, and the moisture content of the settled solids is 80 percent (Fulhage and Pfost,
1995). Solids separators can have a solids separation efficiency between 35% (for mechanical
separators) and 60% (gravity settling basins) (Fulhage and Phost, 1995); therefore, EPA
estimated that most solids separators used in this industry are settling basins, and used a settling
4-5
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
efficiency of 50%. The amount of water and solids in the settled solids and basin effluent are
calculated from the following equations:
Settled Solids = Solids Entering x 0.5
Water in Settled Solids = Settled Solids x [0.87(1-0.8 ) ]
Solids Exiting = Solids Entering - Settled Solids
Water Exiting = Water Entering - Water in Settled Solids
The above equations are used to calculate the amount of solids and water that leave the earthen
basin and enter a storage pond (see Section 4.3); these calculations are not used in calculating the
volume of the basin.
Earthen Basin Volume
The required volume of the basin is calculated from the following equation
(MWPS, 1987):
Volumebasin = Surface Area x h
where: Surface Area = Peak/4
h = Basin depth (Table 4-2 value)
Solids from the basin are removed frequently to prevent significant accumulation,
and therefore, accumulated solids are not included in the volume calculations. Table 4-3 presents
a summary of the earthen basin design volumes calculated for all regulatory options by model
farm.
4-6
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Earthen Basin Dimensions
For the cost model calculations, it is assumed that the earthen basin has four
sloped sides with a rectangular base. To determine the dimensions of the basin, the design volume
of the basin is used with the design parameters shown in Table 4-2. The following equation is
used to determine the length of the basin:
Volumebasm = '/2 h [Aj + A2 + (Al A2)ฐ5]
Volumebasm = Y2 h [lb Wb + ls Ws + (lbWblsWs)ฐ5]
where: Al = Area of the bottom base = lb Wb
A2 = Area of the top (surface area) = ls Ws
Earthen Basin Floor Surface Area
The surface area of the floor of the basin is calculated to determine the area for
compaction. The surface area includes the bottom area plus the area of the four trapezoids that
make up the sides of the basin. Figure 4-2 depicts the surfaces of the sloped sides.
The surface area of the sloped sides is calculated using the formula for the area of
a trapezoid.
Area of Side = '/2 HS (a + b)
where: HS = Height of the side (see equation below)
a = Bottom width (lb or wb)
b = Top width (ls or ws)
The height of the side is calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem,
HS = (h2 + (4h)2)ฐ5
4-7
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
The total surface area of the basin is:
Surface Areabasm = lb Wb + 2 [0.5 x HS (lb + ls) ] + 2 [0.5 x HS (wb + ws)]
Earthen Basin Excavation and Embankment Volumes
Earthen basins are constructed by excavating a portion of the necessary volume
and building embankments around the perimeter of the basin to make up the total design volume.
The cost model performs an iteration to maximize the use of excavated material used in
constructing the embankments that minimizes the costs for construction. The excavation volume
is represented by the following equation:
Volextacted = 0.5 (h-he) [lbwb + lsws + (lbwblsws)05]
The excavated soil is used to build the embankments. Because some settling of the soil will
occur, it is assumed that an extra 5% of volume is required. The embankment volume is
represented by the following equation:
Volemtataent = 2 [(1.05 hewe + s (1.05 he)2) (lb +2 sh)] + 2 [(1.05 hewe + (1.05 s)2 he2) (w + 2sh)]
The dimensions of the basin which yield the desired volume are calculated by the cost model.
4-8
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-3
Earthen Basin Volume by Model Farm for All Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Beef
Heifer
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Earthen Basin Volume (ft3) by Region
Central
858
3,078
8,077
141,617
777
1,848
4,121
Midwest
3,720
10,857
26,815
454,190
3,453
6,848
14,145
Mid-Atlantic
3,453
10,135
25,131
425,776
3,212
6,393
13,236
Pacific
2,410
7,329
18,315
312,123
2,250
4,575
9,601
South
6,046
17,192
42,157
709,936
5,645
10,964
22,351
NA - Not applicable. No regulatory options include this component for this model farm.
4-9
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Side View
HS
wh
HS
Surface of Sloped Side
Surface of Sloped Side
Figure 4-2. Sloped Sides of Earthen Basin
4-10
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.1.4 Costs
Capital costs for the construction and installation of the earthen basin consist of
mobilization, excavation, and compaction. The unit costs for each of these elements are listed in
Table 4-4.
The excavation cost is calculated from the following equation:
Excavation Cost = Excavation Unit Costs ($/yd3) x Volumeexcavated (ft3) / (27 ft3/yd3)
Table 4-4
Unit Costs for Earthen Basins
Unit
Backhoe mobilization
Excavating
Compaction
Cost
(1997 dollars)
$204.82/event
$2.02/yd3
$0.41/yd3
Source1
Means 1999 (022 274 0020)
Means 1999 (022 238 0200)
Means 1996 (022 226 5720)
'Information taken from Means Construction Data. The numbers in parentheses refer to the division number and line
number.
The total volume of soil that is compacted includes the surface area times a 1-foot
compaction depth plus the entire volume of the embankment because it is compacted as placed.
Volumecompacted (ft3) = [Surface Areabasm (ft2) x 1 ft] + Volumeembad:ment (ft3)
Compaction Cost = [Compaction Unit Costs ($/yd3) x Volumecompacted (ft3)/ (27 ft3/yd3)]
Total Capital Costs
The total capital cost for the earthen basin is calculated using the following
equation:
Capital Cost = Mobilization Cost + Excavation Cost + Compaction Cost
4-11
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Total Annual Costs
Based on best professional judgement, it is estimated that annual operating and
maintenance costs are 5% of the total capital costs.
Annual Cost = 0.05 x (Capital Cost)
4.1.5 Results
The cost model results for constructing an earthen basin are presented in Appendix
A, Table A-1.
4.2 Concrete Gravity Settling Basins
Concrete gravity settling basins, also called concrete sedimentation basins, are used
at animal feeding operations to remove manure solids, soil, and other solid materials from
wastewater prior to storage (e.g., a pond) or further treatment (e.g., a lagoon). In this cost
model, concrete settling basins are used at dairies to collect barn and milking parlor wastewater
because the higher wastewater flows could cause significant erosion in an earthen basin. A
concrete gravity settling basin is costed for all dairies for all regulatory options.
4.2.1 Technology Description
The settling basin is a shallow basin or pond that is designed for accumulation of
solids. The purpose of a settling basin is to slow wastewater flow sufficiently to allow solids to
settle and liquids to drain. In general, reducing the flow velocity to less than 1.5 feet per second
is sufficient to allow solids to settle. Access to the settling basin must be provided for periodic
removal of solids. Solids separators can have a solids separation efficiency between 30% (for
mechanical separators) and 60% (gravity settling basins)(Fulhage and Phost, 1995); therefore,
4-12
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
EPA estimated that most solids separators used in this industry are settling basins, and used a
settling efficiency of 50%.
Settling basins may be constructed from a variety of materials, including concrete.
Concrete construction offers the advantage of added durability and stability of side slopes. Also,
concrete construction facilitates the removal of solids with heavy equipment such as a front-end
loader, which may drive onto a concrete settling basin floor. A concrete basin design is also
advantageous in areas where soils are not suitable for earthen construction (e.g., areas where soils
have a high sand content). Concrete basins are preferable to earthen basins to prevent erosion
when high velocity wastewater flows are anticipated, such as at flush dairies.
4.2.2 Prevalence of the Technology in the Industry
Each regulatory option for dairies includes a concrete settling basin as part of the
waste handling and treatment system. Solids separation is used at dairies to increase the storage
volume available for wastewater in ponds and lagoons or to reduce the moisture content of the
waste to make it more suitable for transport, disposal, composting, and other uses, such as
bedding materials.
EPA expects that a percentage of dairies do not currently have a settling basin of
this type installed and estimates this percentage for costing purposes. Estimates of the frequency
of use of concrete settling basins at beef feedlots and dairies are made based on information
obtained from site visits and NAHMS data. It is assumed that beef feedlots do not require
concrete settling basins due the relatively low flow of wastewater which consists only of runoff
from the feedlot. It is assumed that veal operations do not require concrete settling basins due to
the low solids content of the waste. Table 4-5 lists the percentage of dairies that would incur
costs for concrete basins by size class and region.
4-13
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-5
Percentage of Dairy and Veal Operations Incurring Concrete Settling Basin
Costs for All Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Region
Central
80%
80%
67%
NA
NA
Midwest
80%
80%
67%
NA
NA
Mid-Atlantic
80%
80%
67%
NA
NA
Pacific
80%
80%
67%
NA
NA
South
80%
80%
67%
NA
NA
NA - Not applicable. No regulatory options include this component for this model farm.
4.2.3
Design
Wastes entering the concrete settling basin include manure from the mature dairy
cattle, wastewater from the milk parlor, and flush water from the freestall barns. A settling basin
is designed to handle peak wastewater flows (NRAES, 1989); for a dairy operation, the peak
flows are assumed to occur during the flushing of one freestall barn. Settling basin size is
dependent on the surface loading rate (i.e., the hydraulic load per unit of basin surface area) for
agricultural wastewater; basin depth may be adjusted to allow for solids accumulation. It is
assumed that wastewater flows to the settling basin via gravity.
The concrete settling basin design consists of a rectangular basin with a sloped
ramp for front-end loader access (see Figure 4-3). The basin is 3 feet deep, allowing for 1 foot of
solids accumulation. Rectangular concrete basins are typically designed with a 3:1 length-to-
width ratio (NRAES, 1989). The sloped access ramp forms one side of the basin; however,
additional length is required for the basin to have sufficient volume. The access ramp is sloped 1
inch fall per 1 foot run (MWPS, 1987). The concrete thickness is 6 inches (USDA, 1995c). The
sub-base for the concrete floor and access ramp is prepared with 6 inches of compacted gravel fill
4-14
-------
Concrete Settling Basin
Effluent
Basin
Influent
\-
4"
\
::: Concrete;;;;
:: : sand : :t
_ I Gravel.
(Base Cross-Section)
Figure 4-3. Concrete Settling Design
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4-15
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
and 4 inches of graded sand fill. The concrete is shaped with wooden forms and reinforced with
steel (#4 bars).
Concrete Basin Volume and Surface Area
The required area and volume of the basin are calculated from the Midwest Plan
Service (MWPS, 1987) formulas below.
Surface Area = Peak/4
Volume = Surface Area x h
where: h = Basin depth = 3 ft (Recommended depth is 2 feet plus depth
required for solids storage. Depth of solids should not exceed
1.5 feet; therefore, assume 1 foot.) (Pfost and Fulhage, 1995).
Using the Pythagorean Theorem,
Ramp Length = (h2 + run2)'72
where: Run = (h) (12 in/ft) (1 ft run/1 in fall)
Surface Area of Ramp = (Ramp Length) (Basin Width)
Volume Along Access Ramp = 0.5 (Fall) (Run) (Basin Width)
Additional basin length is needed to account for the slope of ramp.
Length = 0.5 x Run of Ramp
Lengthsettlil]g basin (including access ramp) = Theoretical Length + Additional Length
Lengthsettlll]gb,lsm (excluding access ramp) = Length of Basin - Run
Table 4-6 presents a summary of the concrete basin volumes calculated for flush
and hose dairies by size group. Note that the basin design does not vary by region or regulatory
option.
4-16
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-6
Concrete Basin Volume by Model Farm for All Regulatory Options
Animal Type
Dairy - Flush
Dairy - Hose
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Concrete Basin
Volume (ft3)
7,069
13,837
42,684
408
535
821
16,243
16,243
4.2.4
Costs
The capital costs for the construction and installation of the concrete settling basin
include mobilization of the backhoe used for excavation, excavation of soil, compaction of the
ground surface, hauling gravel and sand to the lot, purchasing the gravel and sand, grading the
sand, the form work, reinforcement, and concrete for the walls, slab (including reinforcement),
and finishing the slab. The unit costs for each of these components are presented in Table 4-7.
4-17
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-7
Unit Costs for Concrete Settling Basin
Unit
Backhoe mobilization
Excavating
Hauling of material
Compaction
Gravel fill (6")
Sand fill
Grading sand
Wall form work
Wall reinforcement bars
Ready mix concrete
Slab on grade
Finishing slab (concrete)
Cost
(1997 dollars)
$204.82/event
$2.02/yd3
$4.95/yd3
$0.41/yd3
$9.56/yd3
$48.55/yd3
$1.73/ft3
$4.90/ft2
$0.45/ft
$63.70/yd3
$116.29/yd3
$0.33/ft2
Source1
Means 1999 (022 274 0020)
Means 1999 (022 238 0200)
Means 1996 (022 266 0040)
Means 1996 (022 226 5720)
Means 1998 (022 308 0100)
Richardson 1996 (3-5 pi)
Means 1999 (025 122 11 00)
Building news 1998 (031 10.65)
Richardson 1996 (3 -5 p9)
Means 1998 (03 3 1260200)
Means 1999 (033 1304700)
Means 1999 (03 3 454 00 10)
1 For Means Construction Data, the numbers in parentheses refer to the division number and line
number.
The excavation cost is calculated from the following equations:
Volumeexcavated = Volumebasm + Volumeramp + Volumesubsurftce
Excavation Cost = Excavation Unit Costs ($/yd3) x Volumeexacavated (ft3) / (27 ft3/yd3)
The total volume to be compacted includes the surface area of the basin and the
ramp times a 1-foot compaction depth.
Volume,
'compacted
= [Surface Areabasm (ft2) + Surface Area (ft2)] (1 ft)
The total volume of gravel and sand needed is equal to the volume underneath the
settling basin and the ramp.
Volumegravel (yd3) = [Surface Areabasm (ft2) + Surface Area Ramp (ft2)] (0.5 ft) (1 yd3/27 ft3)
Volumesmd (yd3) = [Surface Areabasm (ft2) + Surface Area Ramp (ft2)] (0.33 ft) (1 yd3/27 ft3)
The volume of the material to be hauled includes the sand plus the gravel.
The concrete wall form work is calculated as follows:
4-18
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
rms ~~ AreasettHl]g basin + Areabasin e
Assuming that reinforcements are spaced every 12 inches along the length and
width of the basin;, the total length of reinforcement is calculated as follows:
einforcement = 2 bars/ft x [Surface Areabasm + Surface Arearmlp]
The concrete volume for the walls and slab are calculated as follows:
Volumeconcrete = Area^fc, x Concrete Thickness
Volumeconcreteslab = [Areafloor + Arearamp] x Concrete Depth
The area of concrete to be finished is:
Areaconcrete = [Areafloor + Area^]
Total Capital Costs
The cost for construction of the concrete settling basin is calculated by summing
the components above and multiplying them by the unit costs listed in Table 4-7. The total capital
cost is:
Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Hauling (sand and gravel) +
Gravel Fill + Sand Fill + Grading Sand + Walls (form work,
reinforcement, concrete) + Concrete Slab + Slab Finishing
Total Annual Costs
Based on best professional judgement, it is assumed that annual operating and
maintenance costs are 5% of the total capital costs based on best professional judgment.
Annual Cost = 0.05 x (Capital Cost)
4-19
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.2.5 Results
The cost model results for constructing a concrete gravity settling basin are
presented in Appendix A, Table A-2.
4.3 Ponds
Waste storage ponds are frequently used at animal feeding operations to contain
wastewater and runoff from contaminated areas. Manure and runoff are routed to the storage
pond where the mixture is held until it can be used for irrigation or can be transported elsewhere.
Solids settle to the bottom of the pond as sludge, which is periodically removed and land applied
on site or off site. The liquid can be applied to cropland as fertilizer/irrigation, used for dust
control, reused as flush water for animal barns, or transported off site. Section 4.14 discusses the
costs associated with transporting waste off site, including the solids and liquids. Ponds are
included in all regulatory options for beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations.
4.3.1 Technology Description
Storage ponds provide a location for long term storage of water and are
appropriate for the collection of runoff. Ponds are typically located at a lower elevation than the
animal pens or barns; gravity is used to transport the waste to the pond, which minimizes labor.
Although ponds are an effective means of storing waste, no treatment is provided. Because ponds
are open to the air, odor can be a problem.
Although ponds are not designed for treatment, there is some reduction of nitrogen
and phosphorus in the liquid effluent due to settling and volatilization. Influent phosphorus settles
to the bottom of the pond and is removed with the sludge. Influent nitrogen is reduced through
volatilization to ammonia. Pond effluent can be applied to cropland as fertilizer/irrigation, reused
4-20
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
as flush water for the animal barns, or transported off site. The sludge can also be land applied as
a fertilizer and soil amendment.
4.3.2 Prevalence of the Technology in the Industry
Storage ponds are appropriate for use at operations that collect runoff and do not
collect process water or manure flush water. Typically, beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer
operations operate in this manner and have storage ponds for runoff collection. All cost options
for beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations include a storage pond. Dairies and veal
operations typically operate lagoons to provide treatment for the barn and milking parlor flush
water; therefore, storage ponds are not costed for these operations. Ponds (and lagoons) costed
for Options 1 through 6 are designed with 180 days of storage. Option 7 requires compliance
with land application timing restrictions; therefore, storage capacity varies by region. Under
Options 3 and 4, storage ponds are required to have a liner to prevent seepage of wastewater into
groundwater.
Not all beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations are expected to have a
storage pond currently in place. EPA estimates (from site visits and NAHMS data) the
percentage of beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations that require the installation of a
pond. In addition, EPA estimates the number of feedlots that require a liner for Options 3 and 4
and the number of feedlots that require additional pond capacity under the Option 7 requirements.
Sections 4.3.2.1 through 4.3.2.3 detail the frequency factors used for storage ponds.
Naturally-Lined Ponds
Ponds without a synthetic or clay liner are currently more prevalent at beef feedlots
and stand-alone heifer operations than are lined ponds. For the model facilities, it is assumed that
all large beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations have a naturally-lined storage pond in
4-21
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
place. Table 4-8 presents the percentage of beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations that
would incur costs to install a naturally-lined pond.
Table 4-8
Percentage of Beef Feedlot and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations Incurring
Naturally-Lined Pond Costs for Options 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7
Animal
Type
Beef
Heifers
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Region
Central
50%
50%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
Mid-Atlantic
50%
50%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
Midwest
50%
50%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
Pacific
50%
50%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
South
50%
50%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
Lined Ponds
Options 3 and 4 require the implementation of groundwater protection measures.
Groundwater may be protected by installing a synthetic or clay liner in the storage pond. Ponds
lined with a synthetic or clay liner are not as prevalent at beef feedlots as naturally-lined ponds.
The cost model assumes that all storage ponds currently in place are naturally-lined and a fraction
of these operations will require a liner. The frequency factors for lined ponds represent the
percentage of operations that would require a liner due to the geography of the site (e.g., sandy
soil type or hydrologic links from ground water to surface water). Table 4-9 presents the
percentage of beef feedlot and stand-alone heifer operations that would incur costs for installing a
lined pond.
4-22
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-9
Percentage of Beef Feedlot and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations Incurring
Lined Pond Costs for Options 3 and 41
Animal
Type
Beef
Heifer
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Region
Central
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
Mid-Atlantic
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
Midwest
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
Pacific
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
South
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
'EPA, 1999
Naturally-lined ponds are also costed in Options 3 and 4. The number of beef
feedlot and stand-alone heifer operations incurring a cost for naturally-lined ponds represent the
operations that do not currently have ponds and are located in an area where the hydrogeologic
conditions do not favor seepage from the pond to surrounding areas.
Option 7 Naturally-Lined Ponds
Under Option 7, the storage pond capacity is determined based on manure land
application restrictions. These restrictions prohibit the application of manure on frozen, snow-
covered, or saturated soils. EPA estimates the number of days of storage capacity that are
required by region under this option, shown in Table 4-10 (for detailed information on the
determination for the number of storage days, see ERG, Inc. Methodology to Calculate Storage
Capacity Requirements Under Option 7 and Existing Capacity. 2000). Operations that do not
have a pond are costed for this full capacity, or a minimum of 180 days storage. The percentage
4-23
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
of beef feedlot and stand-alone heifer operations that incur the full naturally-lined pond cost are
presented in Table 4-8.
EPA also estimates the capacity of existing ponds, based on state regulations
(ERG, 2000c). Operations with existing ponds are costed for an additional pond to provide the
necessary storage capacity, as shown in Table 4-10. The percentage of beef feedlots that require
additional capacity are presented in Table 4-11.
Table 4-10
Pond Storage Capacities at Beef Feedlot and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations
for Option 7
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Required Storage
Capacity (days)
180
225
225
135
45
Existing Storage
Capacity (days)
50
80
190
30
45
Additional Pond
Capacity Costed (days)
130
145
35
105
0
Reference: ERG, Methodology to Calculate Storage Capacity Requirements Under Option 7 and Existing Capacity. Memorandum
to EPA. 2000)
4-24
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-11
Percentage of Beef Feedlot and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations Incurring
Costs for Additional Naturally-Lined Pond Capacity for Option 7
Animal
Type
Beef
Heifer
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
large 1
Region
Central
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
Mid-Atlantic
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
Midwest
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
Pacific
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
South
50%
50%
100%
100%
50%
50%
100%
4.3.3
Design
The cost model assumes only direct runoff or runoff that has gone through the
settling basin enters the storage pond. Runoff will contain a portion of manure solids from the
beef drylots. Ponds are typically constructed by excavating a pit and using the excavated soil to
build embankments around the perimeter. An additional 5% is added to the required height of the
embankments to allow for settling. The sides of the pond are sloped with a 1.5:1 or 3:1
(horizontal:vertical) ratio. Considerations are also made to avoid groundwater and soil
contamination. Options 1, 2, and 5 through 7 assume the bottom and sides of the pond are
constructed of soil that is at least 10% clay compacted with a sheepsfoot roller. Under Options 3
and 4, some facilities will require additional groundwater protection; therefore, a synthetic liner is
included in the lagoon costs in addition to a compacted clay liner.
Storage ponds are designed using the following steps:
1) Determine the necessary pond volume. Storage ponds are designed to
contain the following volumes (see Figure 4-4):
4-25
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Freeboard
Depth of runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event
Depth of normal precipitation less evaporation
Runoff from normal precipitation
Sludge volume
Source: Agricultural Waste Handbook
Figure 4-4. Cross-Section of a Storage Pond
Sludge Volume: Volume of accumulated sludge between clean-outs
(depends on the type and amount of animal waste);
Runoff: The runoff from drylots for normal and peak precipitation;
Net Precipitation: Annual precipitation minus the annual
evaporation;
Design Storm: The depth of the peak storm event; and
Freeboard: A minimum of one foot of freeboard.
2) Determine the dimensions and configuration of the pond, depending on the
regulatory option.
3) Determine the costs for constructing the pond, using the dimensions
calculated in step 2.
Determination of Pond Volume
The pond volume is determined by the following equation:
Pond Volume = Sludge Volume + Runoff + Net Precipitation + Design Storm + Freeboard
The determination of each volume is discussed below.
4-26
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Sludge Volume
The amount of sludge that accumulates between pond cleanouts varies based on
the type and amount of animal waste. As manure decomposes in the pond, portions of the total
solids do not decompose. A layer of sludge accumulates on the floor of the pond, which is
proportional to the quantity of total solids that enter the pond. The sludge accumulation period is
equal to the storage retention time of the pond. The rate of sludge accumulation is 0.0729 ft3/lb
(USD A, 1992).
Sludge Volume = 0.0729 ft3/lb x Runoff Solids (Ib)
Runoff
The amount of runoff entering the pond is determined from the average monthly
precipitation amounts, using the wettest six-month consecutive period to calculate the average
"wet" precipitation over the storage period. The amount of runoff is determined by adjusting the
six-month wet precipitation to the required number of days of storage for the option. New ponds
are costed under Options 1 through 6 for 180 days of storage. Option 7 storage requirements are
presented in Table 4-10. In addition, the runoff contribution to the pond is reduced by the
amount of water retained by the solids that settle out in the basin. The solids entering the earthen
basin are 1.5% of the total runoff, while the solids entering the pond are 50% of the basin solids:
Settled solids pond,mfluent = Runoff x 0.015 x 0.5
For the model calculations, it is assumed that settled solids have a moisture content
of 80 percent; therefore, the runoff entering the pond is:
Runoff pondiMuent = [(Runoff 6 mo./180 days) x Required Storage Days] - [Settled Solids x 0.87(1-0.8)]
4-27
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
The peak storm runoff is also included. Section 3.3 describes the details of the
precipitation and runoff calculations.
Net Precipitation
The pond depth is increased to allow for direct net precipitation, calculated as the
average precipitation minus the average evaporation over the storage period. The precipitation
data are extracted from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric's National Climate Data Center
web site (NCDC, 1999), and the evaporation data are extracted from Midwest Plan Service
publications. The net precipitation contribution to the pond depth is equal to:
Net Precipitation = Average Precipitation - Average Evaporation
Design Storm
The depth of the peak storm event is added to the depth of the pond to account for
direct precipitation. For Options 1 through 7, this peak storm event is the 25 year/24-hour storm.
For Option 8, the peak storm event used is the 100 year/24-hour storm. Precipitation information
for these storms was also extracted from the NCDC database.
Peak Precipitation =25-Year/24-Hour Precipitation or 100-year, 24-hour Precipitation
Freeboard
A minimum of one foot of freeboard is added to the depth.
Dimensions and Configuration of Pond
The pond is designed in the shape of an inverted frustum, containing the required
volume. The depth of the pond is set as follows:
4-28
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
h = 10 feet + Net Precipitation + Freeboard (1 foot) + peak precipitation depth
The initial depth of the pond is set at 10 feet, based on discussions with industry
consultants. The slope of the sides is set at 3 ft/ft. The width is solved by iteration, knowing the
pond volume and the other variables in the equation. See Section 4.1.3 for the methodology in
determining pond dimensions and configurations.
Pond Liners
For Options 3 and 4, ponds are designed with a liner for those operations located
in areas requiring groundwater protection. The liner consists of clay soil with a synthetic liner
cover. The dimensions of the liner are equal to the surface area of the floor and sides of the pond.
4.3.4 Costs
The construction of the storage pond includes a mobilization fee for the heavy
machinery, excavation of the pond area, compaction of the ground and walls of the pond, and the
construction of conveyances to direct runoff from the drylot area to the storage pond. Table 4-12
presents the unit costs used to calculate the capital and annual cost for constructing storage
ponds.
4-29
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-12
Unit Costs for Storage Pond
Unit
Mobilization
Excavation
Compaction
Conveyance
Clay Liner
Synthetic Liner
Cost
(1997 dollars)
$205/event
$2.02/yd3
$0.41/yd3
$7,644/event
$0.24/ft2
$1.50/ft2
Source
Means 1999(0222740020)'
Means 1999 (022 238 0200)1
Means 1996(0222265720)'
ERG, 2000
George, 1999
Tetra Tech, 2000
1 Information taken from Means Construction Data. The numbers in parentheses refer to division and
line numbers.
The calculations for the costs associated with these items are shown below:
Excavation
To calculate the pond excavation costs, the volume of material that is excavated is
first calculated, as described in Section 4.1.3. The excavated material is expected to be used to
construct embankments around the pond, which will provide additional storage other than that
volume which is excavated; therefore, the excavated volume is not equal to the pond volume; it is
equal to the pond volume minus the storage that the embankments provide.
The excavation cost is calculated with the following equation:
Excavation = $2.02/yd3 x Volumeexcavated (ft3) / (27 ft3/yd3)
Compaction
To calculate compaction costs, the volume for compaction is calculated, as
described in Section 4.1.3. The compaction cost is calculated with the following equation:
4-30
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Compaction = $0.41/yd3 x Volumecom ted (ft3) / (27 ft3/yd3)
Liners
To calculate liner costs, the surface area of the basin floor and sidewalls is
calculated, as described in Section 4.1.3. The liner cost includes both a clay and synthetic liner,
and is calculated using the following equations:
Clay Liner = $0.24/ft2 x Surface Area
Synthetic Liner = $1.50/ft2 x Surface Area
Total Capital Costs
The total capital cost for construction of the naturally-lined storage pond is
the following:
Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Conveyance
The total capital cost for construction of the lined clay pond is the following:
Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Conveyance + Clay Liner + Synthetic
Liner
Total Annual Costs
Based on best professional judgement, annual operating and maintenance costs for
both naturally-lined and lined storage ponds are estimated at 5% of the total capital costs.
Annual Cost = 0.05 x (Capital Cost)
4-31
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.3.5 Results
The cost model results for constructing a naturally-lined storage pond, a
synthetically-lined storage pond, and additional ponds for extra capacity (Option 7) are presented
in Appendix A, Tables A-3, A-4, and A-5, respectively.
4.4 Lagoons
Anaerobic lagoons are used at dairies and veal operations to collect process water
and flush water, which contain manure waste. Anaerobic microbiological processes promote
decomposition, thus providing treatment for wastes with high biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), such as animal waste. Manure, process water, and runoff are routed to the lagoon where
the mixture undergoes treatment. New lagoons also provide storage capacity until the waste can
be applied to cropland as fertilizer/irrigation or transported off site. Section 4.14 discusses the
costs associated with transporting waste off-site, including solids and liquids. Lagoons are
included in all regulatory options for dairies and veal operations, except Option 6 which replaces
the lagoon with an anaerobic digester (see Section 4.6).
4.4.1 Technology Description
Anaerobic lagoons provide storage for animal wastes while decomposing and
liquefying manure solids. Anaerobic processes degrade high BOD wastes into stable end products
without the use of free oxygen. Nondegradable solids settle to the bottom as sludge, which is
periodically removed. The liquid is applied to on-site cropland as fertilizer/irrigation, or it is
transported off site. The sludge can also be land applied as a fertilizer and soil amendment.
Anaerobic lagoons can handle high pollutant loading rates while minimizing manure odors.
Properly managed lagoons have a musty odor.
4-32
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Lagoons reduce the concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus in the liquid
effluent. Phosphorus settles to the bottom of the lagoon and is removed with the lagoon sludge.
Approximately 70 to 80% of the influent nitrogen is reduced through volatilization to ammonia.
Anaerobic lagoons offer several advantages over other methods of storage and
treatment. Anaerobic lagoons can handle high loading rates and provide a large volume for long
term storage of liquid wastes. Lagoons treat the manure by reducing nitrogen and phosphorus in
the effluent. Lagoons allow manure to be handled as a liquid. Lagoons are typically located at a
lower elevation than the animal barns; gravity is used to transport the waste to the lagoon, which
minimizes labor.
4.4.2 Prevalence of the Practice in the Industry
Anaerobic lagoons are appropriate for use at operations that collect high BOD
waste, such as milking parlor flush or hose water and flush barn water. Typically, dairies and veal
operations operate in this manner and have lagoons for wastewater storage. The cost model
assumes all dairies and veal operations require anaerobic lagoons and beef feedlot and stand-alone
heifer operations require a storage pond. Lagoons costed for Options 1 through 6 are designed
with 180 days of storage. Option 7 requires compliance with land application timing restrictions;
therefore, storage capacity varies by region. Lagoons may also require a liner to prevent seepage
of wastewater into groundwater.
Not all dairy operations are expected to have a lagoon currently in place. EPA
estimates the percentage of dairies that would require the installation of a lagoon based on site
visits and NAHMS data (USDA, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b). In addition, EPA estimates the number
of dairies and veal operations that require a liner for Options 3 and 4 and the number of facilities
that require additional lagoon capacity under Option 7. Based on site visits, EPA assumes all
veal operations have sufficient storage, such as lagoons, currently in place. Sections 4.4.2.1
through 4.4.2.3 detail the frequency factors used for lagoons.
4-33
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Naturally-Lined Lagoons
Naturally-lined lagoons are more prevalent at dairies and veal operations than
synthetically-lined lagoons. For this cost model, it is estimated that all large dairies and veal
operations have a naturally-lined lagoon in place. Table 4-13 presents the percentage of dairy
and veal operations that would incur costs for installing a naturally-lined lagoon.
Table 4-13
Percentage of Dairies and Veal Operations Incurring Naturally-Lined Lagoon
Costs for Options 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7
Animal
Type
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Region
Central
10%
10%
0%
0%
0%
Mid-Atlantic
10%
10%
0%
0%
0%
Midwest
10%
10%
0%
0%
0%
Pacific
10%
10%
0%
0%
0%
South
10%
10%
0%
0%
0%
NA - Not applicable. No regulatory options include this component for this model farm.
Lined Lagoons
Options 3 and 4 require the implementation of groundwater protection measures.
Groundwater can be protected by installing a synthetic or clay liner in the lagoon. Ponds lined
with a synthetic or clay liner are not as prevalent in dairies or veal operations compared to
naturally-lined ponds. The cost model assumes that all lagoons currently in place are naturally-
lined and that a fraction of these operations will require additional lining protection. The
frequency factors for synthetically-lined lagoons represent the percentage of operations that
would require additional lining protection due to the geography of the site (e.g., sandy soil type or
hydrologic links from groundwater to surface water). Table 4-14 presents the percentage of dairy
and veal operations that would incur costs for installing a synthetically-lined lagoons.
4-34
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-14
Percentage of Dairies and Veal Operations Incurring Lined Lagoon
Costs for Options 3 and 41
Animal
Type
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Region
Central
13%
13%
13%
0%
0%
Mid-Atlantic
24%
24%
24%
0%
0%
Midwest
27%
27%
27%
0%
0%
Pacific
12%
12%
12%
0%
0%
South
22%
22%
22%
0%
0%
'EPA, 1999
Naturally-lined lagoons are also costed in Options 3 and 4. The number of
operations incurring a cost for naturally-lined lagoons represent the operations which are located
in an area where the soil has a sufficiently high clay content to act as an impermeable barrier. The
percentage of dairy and veal operations incurring costs for naturally-lined lagoons in Options 3
and 4 is calculated by subtracting the frequency factor for synthetically-lined ponds (Table 4-13)
from the frequency of naturally-lined ponds for Options 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 (Table 4-14).
Option 7 Naturally-Lined Lagoons
Under Option 7, additional lagoon capacity is required due to manure application
restrictions. These restrictions prohibit the application of manure on frozen, snow-covered, or
saturated soils. EPA estimates the number of days of storage capacity that are required by region
under this option (ERG, 2000c). These capacities are presented in Table 4-15. It is assumed that
veal operations currently have sufficient storage capacity. Operations that do not have a lagoon
are costed for this capacity, or a minimum of 180 days storage. The percentage of dairies that
incur the full lagoon cost are presented in Table 4-13.
4-35
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
EPA also estimates the capacity of existing lagoons, based on state regulations
ERG, 2000c). Operations with existing lagoons are costed for an additional lagoon to provide the
necessary storage capacity as shown in Table 4-15. It is assumed that veal operations have
sufficient capacity. The percentage of dairy and veal operations that require additional capacity
are presented in Table 4-16.
Table 4-15
Lagoon Storage Capacities at Dairies for Option 7
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Required Storage
180
225
225
135
45
Existing Storage
60
30
90
30
30
Additional Pond
120
195
135
105
15
Reference: ERG, Methodology to Calculate Storage Capacity Requirements Under Option 7 and Existing Capacity.
Memorandum to EPA. 2000)
Table 4-16
Percentage of Dairies and Veal Operations Incurring Costs for Additional
Naturally-Lined Lagoon Capacity for Option 7
Animal
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Region
Central
10%
10%
100%
0%
0%
Midwest
10%
10%
100%
0%
0%
Mid-Atlantic
10%
10%
100%
0%
0%
Pacific
10%
10%
100%
0%
0%
South
10%
10%
100%
0%
0%
4.4.3
Design
Anaerobic lagoons are designed based on volatile solids loading rates (VSLR).
Volatile solids represent the amount of wastes that will decompose. Anaerobic lagoons are
4-36
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
typically at least 6 to 10 feet in depth, although 8 to 20 foot depths are not unusual. Deeper
lagoons require a smaller surface area, allow less area for volatilization, provide a more thorough
mixing of lagoon contents by rising gas bubbles, and minimize odors. Lagoons are typically
constructed by excavating a pit and building berms around the perimeter. The berms are
constructed with an extra 5% in height to allow for settling. The sides of the lagoon are typically
sloped with a 2:1 or 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) ratio.
Considerations are also made to avoid groundwater and soil contamination.
Options 1,2, 5, 6, and 7 assume the bottom and sides of the lagoon are constructed of soil that is
at least 10% clay compacted with a sheepsfoot roller. Options 3 and 4 require additional
groundwater protection; therefore, operations that are located in areas of high risk for
groundwater contamination are costed for installation of a synthetic liner over a compacted clay
liner.
Lagoons are designed for the cost model using the following steps:
1) Determine the necessary storage volume of the lagoon. Lagoons are
designed to contain the following volumes (see Figure 4-5):
Sludge Volume: Volume of accumulated sludge between cleanouts
(depends on the type and amount of animal waste);
Minimum Treatment Volume: Volume necessary to allow anaerobic
decomposition to occur;
Manure and Wastewater: Milk parlor and flush barn wastewater
and manure and runoff from drylots;
Net Precipitation: Annual precipitation minus the annual
evaporation;
Design Storm: The depth of the peak storm event;
Freeboard: A minimum of one foot of freeboard; and
Runoff.
4-37
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Freeboard
Depth of runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event
Depth of normal precipitation less evaporation
equire \ Manure and wastewater volume (including runoff)
Minimum treatment volume
Sludge volume
Source: Agricultural Waste Handbook
Figure 4-5. Cross-Section of an Anaerobic Lagoon
2) Determine the dimensions of the lagoon, given the required storage volume
depending on the regulatory option.
3) Determine the costs for constructing the lagoon, using the dimensions
calculated in step 2.
Determination of Lagoon Volume
The lagoon volume is determined by the following equation:
Pond Volume = Sludge Volume + Minimum Treatment Volume + Manure and Wastewater + Runoff
+ Net Precipitation + Design Storm + Freeboard
The determination of each volume is discussed below.
Sludge Volume
The amount of sludge that accumulates between lagoons cleanouts varies based on
the type and amount of animal waste. As manure decomposes in the lagoon, portions of the total
4-38
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
solids do not decompose. A layer of sludge accumulates on the floor of the lagoon, which is
proportional to the quantity of total solids that enter the lagoon. The sludge accumulation period
is equal to the storage retention time of the lagoon. The rate of sludge accumulation is 0.0729
ft3/lb solids for dairy cattle (USDA, 1992).
Sludge Volume (ft3) = 0.0729 ft3/lb x (Separator Solids (Ib) + Runoff Solids (lb))
Minimum Treatment Volume (MTV)
The minimum treatment volume is based on the volatile solids loading rate (VSLR)
which varies with temperature. The minimum treatment volume is calculated using the influent
daily volatile solids loading from all sources, and a regional volatile solids loading rate per 1,000
cubic feet. The quantity of volatile solids (VS) entering the lagoon is calculated in the following
equation:
Separated VS Into Lagoon = Manure VS - (Manure VSxQ.50)
Therefore, the minimum treatment volume is calculated as follows:
MTV = Daily Volatile Solids x 1000 / VSLR
The VSLR varies by region because the rate of solids decomposition in anaerobic lagoons is a
function of temperature (USDA, 1992).
Manure and Wastewater Volume
Lagoons are designed to store manure and wastewater that is generated over a
specific period of time, typically 90 to 365 days. Retention times used in the cost model are
discussed above.
4-39
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
All of the manure and wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the dairy parlor or
flush barn is washed to a concrete settling basin before it enters the lagoon (see Section 4.2). To
calculate the influent to the lagoon over the storage period, the daily effluent from the separator is
multiplied by the number of days of storage required. It is assumed that the barn flush water is
recycled back to the barns from the lagoon; therefore, only one storage volume of barn flush
water is added to the total influent over the whole storage period. It is assumed that the settling
basin has a 50% solids removal efficiency, and the removed solids have a moisture content of 80
percent (based on best professional judgement). The following equations are used to calculate the
influent to the lagoon:
Separator Water Into Lagoon = (Parlor Wash + Bam Wash + Manure Water) x Storage Days
Separator Water Out of Lagoon = Bam Wash x (Storage Days - 1)
Separator Water Into Lagoon for Storage =[ (Parlor Wash + Bam Wash + Manure Water) x Storage
Days] - (Bam Wash x (Storage Days - 1))
Separated Solids Into Lagoon = Manure Solids - (Manure Solidsx 0.50)
Net Precipitation
The lagoon depth is increased to allow for the annual precipitation minus the
annual evaporation. The precipitation data are extracted from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association's National Climate Data Center (NCDC) web site, and the evaporation
data are extracted from Midwest Plan Service publications. The net precipitation contribution to
the lagoon depth is equal to:
Net Precipitation = Six-Month Precipitation - Six-Month Evaporation
Design Storm
The depth of the peak storm event is added to the depth of the lagoon. This
information is also extracted from the NCDC web site.
4-40
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Peak Precipitation =25-year/24-hour Storm or 100-year, 24-hour Storm Precipitation
Freeboard
A minimum of one foot of freeboard is added to the depth.
Runoff
The amount of runoff entering the lagoon is determined by scaling the six-month
wet precipitation to the required number of days of storage for the option. Options 1 through 6
assume 180 days of storage are necessary for new lagoons. Option 7 storage requirements are
presented in Table 4-15. The peak storm runoff is also included in the storage requirements.
Section 3.3 describes the details of the precipitation and runoff calculations.
The runoff solids make up 1.5 % of the total runoff from the drylot (MWPS,
1993).
Runoff solids^)lnfluent = Runoff x 0.015
Dimensions and Configuration of the Lagoon
The lagoon is designed in the shape of an inverted pyramid with a flat top,
containing the required volume. The depth of the lagoon is set as follows:
h = 10 feet + Net Precipitation + Freeboard (1 foot)
The slope of the sides (H) is set at 3 ft/ft. The width is solved by iteration,
knowing the lagoon volume and the other variables in the equation. See Section 4.1.3 for the
methodology on determining lagoon dimensions and configurations.
4-41
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Lagoon Liners
For Options 3 and 4, lagoons are designed with a synthetic liner for those
operations located in areas requiring groundwater protection. The costs assume that clay is
brought on site in a truck (locally) and applied as a slurry to the lagoon basin. The liner system
consists of clay soil with a synthetic line cover.
4.4.4 Costs
The construction of the storage lagoon includes a mobilization fee for the heavy
machinery, excavation of the lagoon area, compaction of the ground and walls of the lagoon, and
the construction of conveyances to direct runoff from the drylot area to the storage lagoon. Table
4-17 presents the unit costs used to calculate the capital and annual cost for constructing the
storage lagoon.
4-42
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-17
Unit Costs for Storage Lagoon
Unit
Mobilization
Excavation
Compaction
Flush Wash Conveyance
Hose Wash Conveyance
Clay Liner (shipped & installed)
Synthetic Liner (installed)
Cost
(1997 dollars)
$205/event
$2.02/yd3
$0.41 /yd3
$ll,025/system
$7,644/system
$0.24/ft2
$1.50/ft2
Source
Means 1999 (022 274 0020)1
Means 1999 (022 238 0200)1
Means 1996 (022 226 5720)1
ERG, 2000
ERG, 2000
George, 1999
Tetra Tech, 1999
'Information taken from Means Construction Data. The numbers in parentheses refer to division and line numbers.
The calculations for the cost associated with these items are shown below:
Excavation
To calculate the lagoon excavation costs, the volume of material that is excavated
is first calculated, as described in Section 4.1.3. The excavated material is expected to be used to
construct embankments around the lagoon, which will provide additional storage other than that
volume which is excavated; therefore, the excavated volume is not equal to the lagoon volume.
Instead, it is equal to the pond volume minus the storage that the embankments provide.
The excavation cost is calculated with the following equation:
Excavation = $2.02/yd3 x Volumeexcavated (ft3) / (27 ft3/yd3)
4-43
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Compaction
To calculate compaction costs, the volume for compaction is calculated, as
described in Section 4.1.3. The compaction cost is calculated using the following equation:
Compaction = $0.41/yd3 x Volumecompacted (ft3) / (27 ft3/yd3)
Liners
To calculate liner costs, the surface area of the basin flow and sidewalls is
calculated, as described in Section 4.1.3. The liner cost includes both clay and synthetic liners,
and is calculated using the following equations:
Clay Liner = $0.24/ft2 x Surface Area
Synthetic Liner = $1.50/ft2 x Surface Area
Total Capital Costs
The total capital cost for construction of the naturally-lined storage lagoon is the
following:
Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Conveyance
The total capital cost for construction of the lined storage lagoon is the following:
Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Conveyance + Clay Liner + Synthetic
Liner
Total Annual Costs
Based on best professional judgement, annual operating and maintenance costs are
estimated at 5% of the capital costs.
Annual Cost = 0.05 x (Capital Cost)
4-44
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.4.5 Results
The cost model results for constructing a naturally-lined lagoon, a synthetically-
lined lagoon, and additional lagoons for extra capacity (Option 7) are presented in Appendix A,
Tables A-6, A-7, and A-8, respectively.
4.5 Underpit Storage Barns and Confined Manure Storage for New Dairy
Sources
Option 8, considered for new sources, requires "zero discharge with no overflow
provision" for dairy operations. The technology basis for this option assumes all animals must be
confined and all animal waste must be covered. Underpit storage barns are costed for housing
mature dairy cows, and a complete barn and underpit storage system is costed for housing heifer
cows on site at the dairy.
Calf barns may be used at animal feeding operations to confine the calves separate
from the more mature animals. Barns with underpit storage are not practical for calves because of
their smaller hoof size and bedding requirements; therefore, a barn with individual stalls is
assumed for calf housing. Typically, the manure is moved out of the barn and stored outside the
barn, where it is exposed to precipitation and will produce contaminated runoff. The NSPS
regulatory option for dairies requires that there is no potential for discharge; therefore, to reduce
the quantity of manure that is exposed to the environment, dairies under the NSPS option are
costed for a calf barn with adjacent covered manure storage.
4.5.1 Technology Description
In an underpit storage system, a freestall barn contains a slatted floor, where the
animals deposit waste. The waste is manipulated through the floor slats to the storage pit
underneath by the hooves of the animals. The storage pit is designed to hold manure and
wastewater for sufficient time to allow for land application or transportation of the waste. This
4-45
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
method of manure management can eliminate the need for outdoor storage, such as a lagoon or
pond. These outdoor storage facilities that are exposed to the elements have the potential to
overflow under extreme precipitation events, such as the 25-year, 24-hour storm event.
Calf barns with covered storage are a pollution prevention measure. For this cost
model it is assumed that calves are typically kept on open drylots. Precipitation falling on the
drylot comes into contact with manure and then runs off the drylot. Completely confining the
animals in a barn and then storing the scraped manure in adjacent covered manure storage reduces
this potential for discharge by eliminating contaminated runoff from the calf drylot.
4.5.2 Prevalence of the Technology in the Industry
Estimates of the percentage of dairies that do not currently have underpit storage
in place are based upon NAHMS, USDA data, and site visits. It is assumed that only 1 to 8
percent of operations currently have underpit storage systems in place (for additional detail,
please see ERG, Inc. Development of Frequency Factors Used in the Beef and Dairy Cost
Methodology, 2000). The Midwest and Mid-Atlantic region have the highest percentage of
operations with underpit storage.
Table 4-18 presents an estimate of feedlot operations that will incur costs for
installing underpit storage systems based on regional location.
4-46
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-18
Dairy Operations Incurring Costs for Installation and Maintenance of
Underpit Storage for NSPS Option 8
Animal
Type
Dairy
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Region
Central
95%
95%
95%
Midwest
92%
92%
92%
Mid-Atlantic
92%
92%
92%
Pacific
95%
95%
95%
South
99%
99%
99%
Reference: USDA and NAHMS; for further detail see ERG, Inc. Development of Frequency Factors Used in the Beef and
Dairy Cost Methodology, 2000
4.5.3
Design
At a dairy operation, there are two types of underpit storage barns designed (one
for the mature cattle and one for the heifers) and one type of calf barn designed. Each of these
barns are designed to hold waste generated over a six-month period.
Mature Dairy Cattle Barn with Underpit Storage
Under baseline conditions, it is assumed that a dairy operation will install freestall
barn housing as part of building a new operation; therefore, no costs are included in the NSPS
costs related to the construction of a new freestall barn. It is also assumed (under baseline
conditions) that a dairy operation will install either a flush system or a scrape system to clean out
waste from the barn; therefore, the NSPS costs include the cost for the underpit storage system
minus the cost of the flush or scrape system. Additionally, NSPS costs include manure storage
pit ventilation.
The NSPS freestall barn is designed with a slatted floor, where the cows work the
manure into a storage pit underneath the barn. Because the manure is kept in the same building as
the animals, and toxic gases will tend to move into the housing area, extra ventilation is required
4-47
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
for this type of waste handling system. These gases are removed from the building by
constructing an exhaust air duct from the pit to exhaust fans. The estimated requirements for
ventilation in the manure pit are not more than the winter minimum ventilation rate for that
animal. Higher volumes of air tend to dry the manure on the slots and clog the floor (Zulovich,
1993). The winter minimum ventilation rate for mature dairy cows is 50 cfm (MWPS, 1997).
Heifer Barns with Underpit Storage
Under baseline conditions, it is assumed that a dairy operation will house heifers on
drylots; therefore, the complete cost for constructing a freestall barn as well as the underpit
storage with ventilation is include in the NSPS costs.
The freestall barn contains a slatted floor, where the heifers work the manure into
a storage pit underneath the barn. The size of the barn is determined using barn space
requirements for a heifer per head. The space required per head is 21.9 ft2 (Hilne, 1999).
Ventilation is required for the heifer manure pit, as discussed for the mature dairy
cows. The winter minimum ventilation rate assumed for heifer cows is 25 cfm (MWPS, 1997).
Calf Barn with Manure Storage
The calf barn contains individual pens with a manure scrape system. The manure is
scraped into an adjacent manure storage area, kept under a roof. The manure storage area is
calculated from the number of calves and the amount of manure generated over a 180-day storage
period, using the BAT cost methodology used to size concrete pads. The freestall space required
for a calf is 14 ft2 per head. The calf area plus the manure storage area was used to size the calf
barn. It is assumed the dairy will use natural ventilation for the calf barn.
4-48
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.5.4
Costs
The costs for underpit storage consist of three elements: the manure pit, the
ventilation for the manure pit, and the confinement barn.
Manure Pit Costs
Costs to construct and operate an underpit storage system as well as costs for flush
and scrape operations are provided in Table 4-19. These costs are used to estimate the costs for
underpit storage for heifers and dairies. The underpit storage system costed for the heifer barn is
estimated at the full cost provided in Table 4-19, since it is assumed that heifers do not currently
have a waste management system. The underpit storage system costed for dairies is offset by the
cost for the type of waste management system that is typical for dairy operations, either a scrape
system or a flush system.
Table 4-19
Unit Costs for Underpit Storage
Barn type
Fully Slatted Pit Under Bam
Scraper to Cross-Gutter & Gravity
Flow to Earthen Storage
Flush System to Cross Gutter and
Gravity Flow to Earthen Storage
Capital Costs
(Cost per 100 cows)
1995 Canadian
Dollars1
$127,000
$83,400
$58,000
1997 U.S.
Dollars2
$90,134
$59,190
$41,164
Annual Costs
(Cost per 100 cows)
1995 Canadian
Dollars1
$11,700
$7,500
$6,200
1997 U.S.
Dollars2
$8,304
$5,322
$4,400
'Data extracted from Animal Agriculture and the Environment: Nutrients, Pathogens, and Community Relations (NRAES-96).
Conversion to U.S. dollars is 0.677 x Canadian Dollars (conversion from on 08/23/00.) Conversion
from 1995 U.S. dollars to 1997 U.S. Dollars from Means 1999.
4-49
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Manure Pit Ventilation
The manure pit must be ventilated to ensure that toxic gases do not build up in the
housing level of the barn. The estimated requirements for ventilation in the manure pit is equal to
the winter minimum ventilation rate for barn housing for that animal (Zulovich, 1993). The cost
for ventilation for six various sized fans was taken from Means, 1999 for chilled water air
handling units. A polynomial regression was performed on these data to develop a relationship
between fan capacity and costs. The resulting equation to calculate the capital costs is the
following:
Capital Cost
2.0 x lO'06 * (Flow Rate)2 + 0.6641 * (Flow Rate) + 2,255
where: Flow Rate is in cubic feet per minute
Data Source: Means 1999 (157 125 1100-2100)
Costs are in 1999 dollars.
Table 4-20 presents the winter minimum ventilation rates and costs for dairy cows
and heifer manure pits.
Table 4-20
Underpit Storage Ventilation
Animal
Mature Dairy Cow
Heifer
Winter Minimum Ventilation
Rate (cfm)/headl
50
25
1999 U.S.
Dollars/head
$2,288
$2,272
1997 U.S.
Dollars/head2
$2,217
$2,202
'Midwest Plan Service, 1997
2 Conversion from 1999 U.S. dollars to 1997 U.S. Dollars from Means 1999.
4-50
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Confinement Barn Costs
Confinement barn costs are included in the dairy operation NSPS costs for the
heifer and calf animals. Under baseline conditions, these animals are assumed to be confined on a
drylot; therefore the full costs to construct that heifer and calf barns are included as part of the
NSPS costs. Costs for a barn for mature dairy cattle are not included in the NSPS costs, since it
is assumed that the facility will construct a barn under baseline conditions.
The costs to construct a freestall barn for mature dairy cows is estimated at $1,722
per head (NMPF, 2000). To convert this unit cost into the cost to construct a barn for heifers and
calves, the estimated freestall barn dimensions per cow for a mature dairy cow, heifer, and calf are
used to ratio the cost per head. Table 4-21 presents the dimensions recommended for barns for
these animals.
Table 4-21
Freestall Dimension Requirements for
Mature Dairy Cows, Heifers, and Calves
Animal
Dairy cows
Heifers
Calves
Dimension
Width
(ft)
3.83
3.25
2.25
Length
(ft)
8.25
6.75
4.08
Area
(ft2)
31.6
21.9
9.2
Source
MWPS-7
PDHGA Proceedrngs, 1999
PDHGA Proceedings, 1999
The cost to construct the heifer freestall barn is estimated using the following equation:
Cost per Heifer (2000$) =
$1,722* 21.9 ft2 731.6 ft2
$1,193
4-51
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
The cost to construct the calf freestall barn is composed of two parts: the living area and the
manure storage area. The cost for the living area of the barn is calculated using the following
equation:
Cost per Calf (2000$) = $1722 * 9.2 ft2/31.6ft2
$501
The cost for the manure storage area is calculated by determining the required area of the manure
storage area, and then using the unit barn cost ($1722/31.6 = 54.5 per square feet) to estimate the
construction cost.
Excreted volume of manure per calf over the storage area:
Weight of Manure per Calf = Rate * Average Weight * Storage Days
65.81b * 350 Ib * 180 days
day-lOOOlb animal
= 4,145 Ib per animal
Volume of Manure per Calf = 4,1451bs/(62 lb/ft3)
= 67 cubic feet per animal
Estimated volume of bedding per animal (weight and density of bedding was taken
from the Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, USDA 1992):
Weight of bedding per calf = Rate * Average Weight * Storage Days
Day-lOOOlb
22 * 350 * 180 days
Day-lOOOlb animal
= 170.1 Ib per animal
Volume of bedding per calf = 170.1 Ib * 50% void space / (6 lb/ft3)
= 14.2 cubic feet per animal
Total calf manure and bedding storage requirement over the storage period:
Total volume = manure volume + bedding volume
(67 ft3 + 14.2 ft3) per animal
= 81 ft3 per animal
Assuming the maximum depth of the pile is 10 feet and the pile is parabolic in
shape, the following equation provides the base diameter of the pile:
4-52
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Diameter
square root 8 * volume
PI * depth
square root
8 * 81
3.14* 10
= 4.54 feet per animal
Assuming a square area, the area per animal required for manure storage is:
4.54 ft* 4.54 ft
= 20.6 square feet per animal
Using the estimated value for cost per square foot of $54.5/square feet, the
estimated cost for the manure storage area is:
= 20.6 square feet * $54.5 per square feet
$ 1,123 per calf (2000 $)
Total Capital Costs
The NSPS cost to construct an underpit storage system for a mature dairy cow
confinement barn is equal to the difference between the cost to construct a new underpit storage
system with associated ventilation and the cost to construct a flush or scrape manure removal
system. The NSPS cost to construct an underpit storage system for heifers at a dairy operation is
equal to the cost to construct the manure pit, (see Table 4-19), the cost of ventilation, and the
cost for the confinement barn itself. The NSPS cost for a calf barn is equal to the cost of the barn
and the cost for adjacent manure storage.
Mature Dairy Manure Pit (would-be flush system)
Mature Dairy Manure Pit (would-be scrape system)
Heifer Manure Pit System
(Manure Pit - Flush System) + Ventilation
$90,134/100 cows - $41,164/100 cows +
$2,217/cow
$2,707/cow
(Manure Pit - Scrape System) + Ventilation
$90,134/100 cows - $59,190/100 cows +
$2,217/cow
$2,526/cow
Manure Pit System + Ventilation + Barn
$90,134/100 cows + $2,202/head +
$l,193/head * 0.9689 (1997$/$2000$)
4-53
-------
Calf Bam and Adjacent Storage
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
$4,259/heifer
(Combined with the assumption that there are 0.3 heifers
per cow in this model)'.
$4,259* 0.3 per cow
= $ 1,278 per mature cow
= Calf Bam + Manure Storage Area
($501+$1123 per calf)*
0.9689(1997$/2000)
$l,573/calf
((Combined with the assumption that there are 0.3 heifers
per cow in this model)'.
$1,573 * 0.3 per cow
= $472 per cow
Therefore, the total capital cost for the zero discharge dairy option is equal to:
Total Capital Cost (would-be flush system)
Total Capital Cost (would-be hose system)
($2,707 + $1278 + $472 ) per cow
$4,457 per cow
($2,526 + $1278 + $472 ) per cow
$4,276 per cow
Total Annual Costs
The annual NSPS cost for an underpit storage system for a mature dairy cow
confinement barn is equal to the difference between the cost to operate a new underpit storage
system with associated ventilation and the cost to operate a flush or scrape manure removal
system. The NSPS cost to operate an underpit storage system for heifers at a dairy operation is
equal to the cost to operate the manure pit, the cost for ventilation, and the cost to maintain the
confinement barn itself. The estimated cost of maintaining and operating the calf barn is
considered to be effectively the same as the cost for maintaining the drylot under the baseline
condition: therefore, no annual costs are calculated for the calf barn.
Mature Dairy Manure Pit
(would-be flush system)
(Manure Pit - Flush System) + Ventilation
$8,304/100 cows - $4,400/100 cows +0.05 * $2,217/cow
$238/cow
Mature Dairy Manure Pit
(Manure Pit - Scrape System) + Ventilation
4-54
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
(would-be scrape system) = $8,304/100 cows - $5,322/100 cows+0.05 * $2,217/cow
$141/cow
Heifer Manure Pit System = Manure Pit System + Ventilation + Barn
$8,304/100 cows + 0.05 * ($2,202/head + $l,193/head)
$253/heifer
(Combined with the assumption that there are 0.3 heifers per cow in this model)'.
$253 * 0.3 per cow
= $76 per cow
Therefore, the total annual cost for the zero discharge dairy option is equal to:
Total Annual Cost (would-be flush system) = ($238 + $76 ) per cow
$314 per cow
Total Annual Cost (would-be hose system) = ($141 + $76 ) per cow
$217 per cow
4.5.5 Results
The cost model results for constructing and maintaining the underpit storage
systems and calf barns at dairies are presented in Appendix A, Table A-24.
4.6 Berms
Berms are used at beef feedlots and dairies to contain storm water runoff and
process water that fall within the animal handling and feeding areas and to divert storm water that
falls outside these areas. Because the handling and feeding areas contain manure, runoff from
these areas needs to be contained and diverted to a waste management storage facility (e.g. a
lagoon or a pond). Berms surrounding the handling and feeding area provide this containment by
acting as a physical barrier between the containment area and adjacent "clean" land. Berms are
costed for all beef feedlots and dairies for all regulatory options. Because veal operations are
conducted indoors, berms are not costed for veal operations because they are assumed to be
indoor operations.
4-55
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.6.1 Technology Description
Berms are earthen structures that channel clean runoff away from pollutant sources
and divert runoff that falls within the area containing pollutant sources. Runoff that falls within
the containment area may become contaminated from contact with animal, feed, and fecal matter
deposited in the feedlot or handling area. This runoff is diverted by the berms to a waste
management storage facility (e.g., a pond or lagoon).
4.6.2 Prevalence of the Technology in the Industry
Estimates of the percentage of beef feedlots and dairies that do not have berms
currently in place were based upon best professional judgment by industry experts and regional
data. Under all regulatory options, beef feedlots and dairies are required to contain any runoff
collecting in potentially contaminated areas. It is assumed that all large operations have berms
currently in place because runoff controls are required under the existing regulation. In addition,
a small percentage of medium operations are estimated to have runoff diversions in place. The
Midwest region is estimated to have a higher percentage of operations with runoff diversions
because of specific regulatory language in that region.
Table 4-22 presents an estimate of feedlot operations that will incur costs to install
berms based on regional location.
4-56
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-22
Feedlots Operations Incurring Costs for Installation and Maintenance of
Berms for All Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Beef and
Heifers
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Region
Central
90%
90%
0%
0%
90%
90%
0%
NA
NA
Midwest
85%
85%
0%
0%
85%
85%
0%
NA
NA
Mid-Atlantic
90%
90%
0%
0%
90%
90%
0%
NA
NA
Pacific
90%
90%
0%
0%
90%
90%
0%
NA
NA
South
90%
90%
0%
0%
90%
90%
0%
NA
NA
NA - Not applicable. No regulatory options include this component for this model farm.
Reference: ERG, 1999 site visits and ERG Memorandum, 2000
4.6.3
Design
The design of a berm system for a specific operation depends on the number of
animals that are contained on a drylot. The feedlot area is dependent upon the number of animals
contained on drylots at the facility.
The cost model assumes berms are constructed as a 3-foot high, 6-foot wide
compacted soil mound that surrounds the feedlot and handling areas. Figure 4-6 depicts the
cross-section of the berm assumed for this cost model.
The area of the cross-section of the berm is calculated using the following
equation:
where:
Area berm = 2/3 x b x h
b = Base width (6 feet)
h = Total height (3 feet)
4-57
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Figure 4-6. Cross-Section of Berm
The total length of the berm system varies according to the number of animals
contained on drylots. The area required for each animal varies by animal type, because different
sized animals require a different amount of space. Table 3-6 provides the recommended area per
animal for a drylot, not including handling and storage areas. For this cost model, the average
area per animal on a drylot is calculated using the ranges presented in Table 3-6, and adding 15%
for handling areas. The actual drylot area per animal that is used in the cost model is provided in
Table 4-23.
Table 4-23
Space Requirements Assumed for Animals Housed on Drylots1
Animal Type
Beef cattle
Mature dairy cattle
Heifers
Calves
Drylot Area
(ftVanimal)
400
400
375
225
Handling Area
(ftVanimal)
60
60
56
34
Total Area
(ftVanimal)
460
460
431
259
'REFERENCE: MWPS, 1993; George, 1999.
4-58
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
The total perimeter of the berm is calculated as follows:
L = 4 x (Areafฃ
where:
L
Areafee(jiot
Head
x Head)0 5
Total perimeter (length of four sides of a square area)
(feet)
Total area of drylot and handling areas per animal (ft2)
(Table 4-23 value)
Average Head (Table 1-2 value)
Table 4-24 presents a summary of the perimeter of the berm calculated for all
model farms. Note that the berm design does not vary by region or regulatory option.
Table 4-24
Berm Perimeter by Model Farm for All Regulatory Options
Animal Type
Beef
Heifers
Dairy (Heifers and
Calves)
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Berm Perimeter (ft)
2,101
2,830
4,398
17,956
1,661
2,274
3,216
882
1,234
2,168
NA
NA
NA - Not applicable. No regulatory options include this component for this model farm.
4-59
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.6.4 Costs
To construct the berm, the volume of material to construct the berm is excavated
along the perimeter of the containment area. The excavated soil is mounded to form the berm and
the soil is compacted. The following table presents unit costs for constructing the berm.
Table 4-25
Unit Costs for Constructing Berms
Unit
Compaction
Excavation
Cost
(1997 Dollars)
$0.41/yd3
$2.02/yd3
Source1
Means 1996 (022 226 5600)
Means 1999 (022 23 8 0200)
'Information taken from Means Construction Data and Means Construction Data. The numbers in parentheses refer to
the division number and line number. Different years were selected for the different components based on consultation
with industry experts and best professional judgement.
The total volume of the berm is calculated using the following equation:
Volume bemlsystem = Areabenn x L x 1.25 x 1.05
where: Area beml = Cross-sectional area of berm (square feet)
L = Total length of berm around containment area (feet)
1.25 = Factor accounting for volumetric expansion on soil for cut/fill
(George, 1999b)
1.05 = Factor accounting for 5% settling after compaction
Compaction Cost = $0.41/yd3 x Volume
27 ft3/yd3
Excavation Cost = $2.02/yd3 x Volume
27 ft3/yd3
4-60
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Total Capital Cost
The total capital cost, therefore, is $2.43 per cubic yard of berm. To convert this
cost to a cost per foot, the volume is divided by the berm area, taking into account the factors for
expansion and settling as follows:
Capital Cost = Cost/Linear Foot = $2.43/yd3 x 2/3 x 6 x 3 x 1.25 x 1.Q5 = $1.41/ft
27 ft3fyd3
The cost of $1.41 per linear foot of berm is the cost included in the cost model.
Total Annual Costs
Based on best professional judgement, the total annual cost for berm maintenance
is estimated at 2% of the total capital costs.
Annual Cost = 0.02 x (Capital Cost)
4.6.5 Results
The cost model results for constructing and maintaining berms at beef feedlots and
dairies are presented in Appendix A, Table A-9.
4.7 Anaerobic Digestion with Energy Recovery
Anaerobic digesters are sometimes used at animal feeding operations to
biologically decompose manure while controlling odor and generating energy. Anaerobic
digestion with energy recovery is used as the cost basis for Option 6. Under this option, only
large dairies are costed for installation of a digester.
4-61
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.7.1 Technology Description
Anaerobic digestion is the decomposition of organic matter in the absence of
oxygen and nitrates. Under these anaerobic conditions, the organic material is stabilized and is
converted biologically to a range of end products including methane and carbon dioxide.
Anaerobic treatment reduces BOD, odor, ammonia emissions, pathogens, and generates biogas
(methane) that can be used as a fuel. The methane-rich gas produced during digestion may be
collected as a source of energy to offset the cost of operating the digester. Liquid and sludge
from the system are applied to on-site cropland as fertilizer/irrigation or are transported off site.
Anaerobic digesters are specially designed tanks or concrete basins that can
anaerobically decompose volatile solids in the manure to produce biogas. Manure and/or process
wastewater may be routed to these digesters for storage and treatment. Depending on the waste
characteristics, one of the following main types of anaerobic digesters may be used:
Plug flow;
Complete mix; and
Covered lagoon.
Plug flow digesters are applicable for wastes with high (>10%) solids content, while covered
lagoons are appropriate for wastes with low (<2%) solids content. Complete mix digesters are
used for wastes with a solids content between 2 and 10 percent. The plug flow and the complete
mix digesters are applicable in virtually all climates as they use supplemental heat to ensure
optimal temperature. Covered lagoons generally do not use supplemental heat and are most
effectively used in warmer climates (USEPA, 1996b).
A plug flow digester is a constant volume, flow through long tank with a gas-tight
expandable cover. Manure waste is added to the digester daily, slowly pushing the older manure
plugs through the tank. Average manure retention times range from 15 to 20 days. The gas-tight
4-62
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
cover maintains anaerobic conditions inside the tank and collects the biogas through attached
pipes (USEPA, 1997c).
A complete mix digester is a heated, constant volume, mechanically-mixed tank
with a gas-tight collection cover. Manure waste is preheated and added daily to the digester,
where it is intermittently mixed to prevent formation of a crust and to keep solids in suspension.
Average manure retention times range from 15 to 20 days. The gas-tight cover maintains
anaerobic conditions inside the tank and collects the biogas through attached pipes. The heat
generated by burning the collected biogas is used to heat the digester (USEPA, 1997b).
A covered lagoon digester is the simplest type of methane recovery system. This
digester consists of two basins, one of which is topped with a gas-tight cover. This floating
impermeable cover is typically made of high density polyethylene (HDPE) or polypropylene. The
cover may be designed as a "bank-to-bank" cover, which spans the entire lagoon surface with a
fabricated floating cover, or as a "modular" cover, in which the cover is comprised of smaller
sections. Biogas collects under the cover and is recovered for use in generating electricity. The
second basin is uncovered and is used to store effluent from the digester. Often, manure waste is
treated through a solids separator prior to the covered lagoon digester to ensure the solids content
is less than 2 percent (USEPA, 1996b).
Selection of the type of digester is dictated by the percent solids expected in the
manure waste. For this cost model, dairies that operate flush cleaning systems are costed for the
use of a covered lagoon system following a settling basin, while dairies that operate scrape
systems are costed for the use of a complete mix digester following a settling basin. The design of
the digester and methane recovery system is based on the AgSTAR FarmWare model (EPA,
1997a). The design and cost of the concrete settling basins are discussed in Section 4.2.
4-63
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.7.2 Prevalence of the Technology in the Industry
In the United States, as of 1998 there were about 94 digesters that were installed
or were planned for working dairy, swine, and caged-layer poultry operations (Lusk, 1998). Of
these 94 digesters, more than 60% of plug flow and complete mix digesters and 12% of the
covered lagoon digesters have failed (Lusk, 1998). Many of these failures were of systems
constructed prior to 1984; since that time, more simplified digester designs have been
implemented which have greatly improved reliability. Very few dairy operations in the United
States have operable digesters with energy recovery.
For purposes of costing Option 6, it is assumed that no large dairies currently
operate a digester with energy recovery. As mentioned previously, digesters are not being costed
for medium sized dairies or for beef feedlots and veal operations.
4.7.3 Design
Inputs to the FarmWare model are based on the model farm characteristics for a
large dairy, as discussed in Section 3. The FarmWare model requires input data on the livestock
type, number of animals, geographic location, method of manure collection, and the type of waste
management system. Tables 4-26 summarizes the inputs used for both the covered lagoon and
complete mix digesters. User-selected input values are noted with the letter "S" in brackets, [S].
Default input values that are selected are noted with an [S,d].
The representative region used for the large dairy is Tulare County, California.
The farm has 1,419 cows, 426 heifers, and 426 calves in free stalls. The farm is evaluated with
two types of waste management systems, as shown below in Table 4-26:
4-64
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-26
Farm Ware Input Table
Input Data
Type of Digester
Covered Lagoon Digester
Climate Data
County, State
Rainfall
Recommended Minimum Lagoon HRT
Recommended Maximum Lagoon Loading
25-yr, 24-hr Storm
Annual Runoff Unpaved
Annual Runoff Paved
Annual Evaporation
Complete Mix Digester
Tulare, California [S]
Determined by Farm Ware [S,d]
42
days
101bVS/l,OOOcuft
3.5
inches
23% of precipitation
50% of precipitation
55 inches
Farm Type
Farm Type
Farm Size (Farm Number)
Manure Collection Method
Waste Treatment System
Pretreatment
Dairy: Freestall [S]
1,419 milking cows [S]
426 heifers [S]
426 calves [S]
Flush parlor/
Flush freestall bam [S]
Flush parlor/
Scrape freestall barn [S]
Methane recovery lagoon [S]
Settling basin [S]
N/A
[S] = User selected input
[d] = default input
Based on the input data provided, FarmWare calculates the influent and effluent
waste to and from the digester and the specific design and operating parameters. With the herd
size given as 1,419 milking cows, 426 heifers, and 426 calves, the FarmWare model calculates a
total manure generation of about 185,000 Ib/day. With an average VS production of 8.5 Ib/day
per 1,000 pounds of animal, the FarmWare program estimates a total VS production of nearly
20,000 Ib/day. The model also generates the design specification for each system as shown in
Table 4-27:
4-65
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-27
Farm Ware Design Information
Design Information
Type of Digester
Covered Lagoon Digester
Complete Mix Digester
Waste Characteristics
Amount of Influent Manure (Ib)
Rainfall (Ib)
Amount Digested (Ib)
Effluent (Ib)
1,656,696
14,883
23,642
1,647,937
239,325
NA
76,285
163,040
Design Parameters
Hydraulic Retention Time (days)
Depth (ft)
Dimension (ft)
Freeboard (ft)
Slope (hor/ver)
Total Volume
42
20
284 x 284
1
2
1,200,218
20
20
73.8 diameter
1
NA
85,664
NA- Not applicable.
4.7.4
Costs
FarmWare calculates the cost to construct the digester, with or without energy
recovery equipment. Option 6 costs were calculated including the cost for energy recovery
equipment, as well as an additional 15% of the capital costs estimated by FarmWare to account
for contingency items.
The biogas that is collected during the digestion process may be used to produce
electricity and propane. FarmWare allows the user to assign a unit value for electricity to estimate
the amount of cost savings the farm would receive by recovering biogas for energy use. For
Option 6 costs, a national average unit price for electricity of 7.4 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) is
used (USDOE, 1998).
4-66
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
The model also allows the user to assign a dollar value for benefits such as odor
and pathogen reduction. For the Option 6 costs, no dollar value is assigned for these benefits.
Covered Lagoon System
For this cost model, it is assumed that the cows spend 4 hours per day in the
milking parlor and 20 hours per day in the barn, and the heifers and calves spend 24 hrs/day in
drylots. The milking parlor and the barn use a flush system for manure removal, and the
wastewater is sent to a covered anaerobic lagoon through a settling basin. The manure from the
feed apron and the drylots is scraped and applied to cropland.
The total lagoon digester volume is calculated to be about 1,200,000 cubic feet.
With a lagoon depth of 20 feet, the linear surface dimensions are estimated to be 284 feet by 284
feet, representing a total area of about 80,656 square feet that requires an industrial fabric cover,
such as FIDPE. Table 4-26 presents the design information for the covered lagoon digester, as
determined by the FarmWare model.
The capital cost of a primary digester lagoon with cover is $110,000 and the
engine generator is $80,000. Other engineering costs total $25,000. The total capital cost is
$215,000. Annual costs include the FarmWare estimated operating savings, water costs for
dilution water, and an estimated 15% of the total capital costs. The net annual operating cost is
estimated to be ($52,779) per year (i.e., a net savings). This annual operating cost does not
reflect additional potential decreases in transportation costs, due to the reduction in solids a
digester causes. (Transportation costs are considered in section 4.14 of this report).
Complete Mix Digester System
For this cost model, it is assumed that the cows spend 4 hours per day in the
milking parlor which uses a flush system for manure removal and 20 hours per day in the freestall
4-67
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
barn, and the heifers and calves spend 24 hrs/day in drylots. The wastewater from the milking
parlor goes through a mix tank before going to the complete mix digester. The manure in the
freestall barn and the drylots is scraped and field applied.
The total digester volume is calculated to be about 86,000 cubic feet. With a
digester depth of 20 feet, the diameter is estimated to be 74 feet, with a total area of 4,300 square
feet. Table 4-26 presents the design information for the complete mix digester, as determined by
the FarmWare model.
The capital costs for the complete mix digester is $128,000, the mix tank is
$26,000, and the engine generator is $198,000. Other engineering costs total $25,000. The total
capital cost is $377,447. Annual costs include the FarmWare estimated operating savings, water
costs for dilution water, and an estimated 15% of the total capital costs. This annual operating
cost does not reflect potential decreases in transportation costs, due to the reduction in solids a
digester causes. (Transportation costs are considered in section 4.14 of this report.) The net
annual operating cost is estimated to be -$92,209 per year (i.e., a net savings).
4.7.5 Results
The cost model results for constructing anaerobic digesters with methane recovery
at large dairies are presented in Appendix A, Table A-10.
4.8 Concrete Pads
Animal feeding operations sometimes use pads made of concrete or other similarly
impervious material to provide a temporary storage surface for solid and semi-solid wastes that
would otherwise be stockpiled directly on the feedlot. These wastes include solids separated from
the waste stream in a solids separator and manure scraped from drylots and housing facilities.
4-68
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.8.1 Description of Concrete Pads
The pads provide a centralized location for the operation to accumulate excess
manure for later use (e.g. bedding, land application, or transportation off site). A centralized
location for stockpiling the waste also allows the operation to better control stormwater runoff
(and potential associated pollutants). Rainwater that comes into contact with the waste is
collected on the concrete pad and is directed to a pond or lagoon, thereby preventing it from
being released on the feedlot. Additionally, the pad provides an impermeable base to minimize or
prohibit seepage of rainfall leaching through the waste and infiltrating the soil underneath the
waste.
The pad serves as a pollution prevention measure. The waste is not treated once it
is on the concrete pad; however, through the regular handling of the waste, the nitrogen loadings
in the waste will decrease due to volatilization, and both nitrogen and phosphorus may run off the
pile into ponds or lagoons after storm events. Pathogen content, metals, growth hormones, and
antibiotics loadings are not expected to decrease significantly on the concrete pad.
4.8.2 Prevalence of the Practice in the Industry
Based on observations during site visits, only a small number of beef feedlots,
dairies, and veal operations have concrete pads, and that number varies by region and not by
animal type or size group. Table 4-28 presents the estimate of facilities that do not currently have
concrete pads in place for storage of manure solids.
4-69
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-28
Percentage of Beef Feedlot, Stand-Alone Heifer Operations, Dairies, and Veal
Operations Incurring Concrete Pad Costs for All Regulatory Options1
Animal
Type
Beef and
Heifers
Dairy
Veal
Size
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Region
Central
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
Midwest
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
Mid-Atlantic
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
Pacific
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
South
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
'EPA, 1999
Concrete pads are included in Options 3 and 4 for the protection of groundwater.
The frequencies shown in Table 4-28 reflect the percentage of operations that are located in areas
that would require groundwater protection. The model assumes that very few operations have
impermeable pads in place, and all facilities in groundwater protection areas are costed for a
concrete pad.
4.8.3
Design
The design for the concrete pad varies according to the type of waste stored on the
pad. For dairies that flush the manure, the waste targeted for the concrete pad includes the settled
solids from the settling basin, including flushed manure from mature dairy cows in the milking
parlor and flush barns. The concrete pad design has two walls to assist in containing the waste,
and the maximum height of the manure pile is 4 feet due to the semi-liquid state of the waste.
Bucking walls are 3.5 foot walls used to help contain semi-liquid manure on the concrete pad.
4-70
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
For dairies that hose and scrape the manure, the wastes targeted for the concrete
pad are the settled solids from the settling basin and the scraped manure from the barn, including
bedding. The concrete pad design has two bucking walls, and the maximum height of the manure
pile is 4 feet due to the semi-liquid state of the waste.
For beef feedlot and stand-alone heifer operations, the waste targeted for the
concrete pad is the scraped manure from the drylots, including bedding. The concrete pad design
has no bucking walls, and the maximum height of the manure pile is 15 feet, because the manure
is dryer and can be stacked more easily.
Concrete pads are 6 inches thick, and contain reinforced concrete to support the
weight of a loading truck. The concrete pad is underlain by 6 inches of gravel and 4 inches of
sand. Additionally, the sides of the concrete pad are sloped, which will divert stormwater runoff
from the pile to the on-site waste management system, such as a lagoon or a pond. Bucking walls
are 8-inches thick and 3 feet to 4 feet tall, and made with reinforced concrete. Figure 4-7 presents
the detail of these specifications (MWPS, 1998; USDA, 1995c).
The design of the concrete pad is primarily based on the volume of waste that is
costed for storage. First, the dimensions of the waste pile are calculated, assuming that the pile is
in the shape of a paraboloid (see Figure 4.7). Then, using the waste pile dimensions, pad
dimensions are calculated.
Dimensions of the Waste
To estimate the volume of waste the pad must store over the storage period, the
following parameters are needed: the storage period, the volume of waste, the volume of bedding
in the waste, the moisture content of the waste, and the unit weight of the waste.
4-71
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Top View
Base Cross Section
Concrete Pad
(L+10)
'f
6"
t
4"
6"
| Reinforced
! Concrete
Pad
i Sand
Gravel
Bucking walls
Bucking Wall Cross Section
Assumed Shape of Manure
Pile for Sizing Pad
8" concrete wall
Reinforced w/#4 bars
16" o.c. Both ways
Space #4 bar
L anchors, 16" o.c.
KiKii-Sj Sifc v,
3'6"
Paraboloid of Revolution
L2 = length of base pile
L= length of top of pile
D= depth of pile
Figure 4-7. Concrete Pad Design
4-72
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
BeefFeedlots and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations
For beef feedlots and stand-alone heifer operations, the model assumes that all
cattle are kept on drylots. These lots are periodically scraped, and the manure is removed to the
stockpile. Some of the manure solids are lost in the runoff from the feedlot (runoff contains 1.5%
solids (MWPS, 1993) before the waste is stockpiled. For Options 3 and 4, which require
groundwater protection, drylot wastes are stockpiled on a pad. Because beef waste on the drylot
is fairly dry, the maximum stacking height assumed for the stockpile is 15 feet. The model
assumes that the necessary waste storage period for beef waste is 90 days.
Manure scraped from drylots includes bedding. Bedding is assumed to have a unit
weight of 6 Ib/ft (USD A, 1992). For this cost model, it is assumed that 2.7 pounds of bedding are
used per 1,000-lb animal per day. The volume of bedding collected from the drylot is calculated
by the following equation:
Bedding = Average Head x 2.7 Ib bedding x Animal Weight x ff x 0.50
1,000-lb animal 6 Ib
where: Average Head = Table 1-2 value
Animal Weight = Table 3-4 value
0.50 = The void ratio of the bedding
The maximum volume of beef feedlot waste stored on the concrete pad is
calculated as follows:
Volumetopad = Drylot Manure x 90 days / (62 Ib/ft3)+ Bedding * 90 days - Runoff Solids
where: Runoff Solids = 0.015 x 90-day Runoff (see Section 3.4.3)
Hose Dairies
For hose dairies, the model assumes that the milking cows are kept in confinement
barns 85% of the day and in the milking parlor 15% of the day (USD A, 1992). Manure deposited
4-73
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
in the milking parlor is hosed down and sent to a concrete gravity settling basin (see Section 4.2).
For Options 3 and 4, which require groundwater protection for some operations, the separated
solids are stockpiled. The settling efficiency of the basin is estimated to be 50% (i.e., the settling
basin removes 50% of the solids from the waste). The moisture content of excreted dairy manure
is 87.2 percent (Lander,et.al, 1998). Settled solids are assumed to enter the stockpile at 65%
moisture (NCSU, 1993). Manure deposited in the confinement barns is scraped along with the
bedding and also stockpiled on the pad. Waste from heifers and calves is deposited and remains
on a drylot. Because dairy waste from the settling basin is fairly wet, the maximum stacking
height assumed for the stockpile is 4 feet. The model assumes that the necessary waste storage
period for dairy waste is 180 days.
The maximum volume of hose dairy waste stored on the concrete pad is calculated
as follows:
Volumetopad = Barn Manure x (180 days / (62 Ib ft3) + Bedding * 180 days + Separated Solids
where: Separated Solids = Milking Parlor Manure x 180 days / (62 lb/ft3) x (1-0872) / (1-
0.65) x Efficiency
Efficiency = 0.50
Flush Dairies
For flush dairies, the model assumes that the milking cows are kept in confinement
barns 85% of the day and in the milking parlor 15% of the day (USD A, 1992). Manure deposited
in the confinement barns and the milking parlor is flushed to a concrete gravity settling basin (see
Section 4.2) (Because of the configuration of the flush alleys, no bedding is assumed to be
flushed with the manure.) For Options 3 and 4, which require groundwater protection for some
operations, the separated solids are stockpiled on a concrete pad. The model uses a settling
efficiency of 50% (i.e., the settling basin removes 50% of the solids from the waste). The
moisture content of excreted dairy manure is 87.2 percent. Settled solids are assumed to enter the
stockpile at 65% moisture. Waste from heifers and calves on drylots is not moved to the
stockpile. Because dairy waste from the settling basin is fairly wet, the maximum stacking height
4-74
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
assumed for the stockpile is 4 feet. The model uses a 180-day storage period for dairy waste is
180 days.
The maximum volume of flush dairy waste stored on the concrete pad is calculated
as follows:
Volumeto pad= Separated solids
where: Separated Solids = (Bam Manure + Milking Parlor Manure) x 180 days /
(62 lb/ft3) x (1-0.872) / (1-0.65) x Efficiency
Shape of the Stockpile
The shape of the stockpile is assumed to be parabolic, as shown in Figure 4.7.
Using the volume calculated for each animal and farm type and the assumed maximum depth, the
shape of the stockpile at maximum concrete pad capacity is calculated as shown in the following
equation:
L22)
Assume L! = 0.5xL2
L _
9
to pad
1.25 x n x D
As shown in Figure 4.7-1, L2 is the bottom diameter of the pile. Assuming the concrete pad is
square, its minimum dimensions are L2 x L2.
4-75
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Dimensions of Concrete Pad
To account for walking and moving equipment around the pile, 10 feet are added
to the minimum dimensions; therefore, the concrete pad dimensions are determined using the
following equation;
Area = (L2+10)x(L2 + 10)
The perimeter of the area is then:
Perimeter = (L2 + 10) x 2 + (L 2 + 10) x 2
The walls for the pad run the length of two sides of the pad. The walls are 3 feet 6
inches high and 8 inches thick, built with concrete reinforced with #4 bars, 16 inches o.c. both
ways. Figure 4.7-1 presents a cross-section of the bucking wall design. The equation for
calculating the volume of concrete needed to construct the bucking walls is:
Wall Volume = 2 x ((L2+ 10) x 3.5 x 8 / 12)
4.8.4 Costs
The following unit costs are used to calculate the capital and annual costs for
constructing the concrete pad:
4-76
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-29
Unit Costs for Concrete Pad
Unit
Compaction
Gravel Fill
Sand Fill
6" Concrete Pad
Concrete Finishing
Concrete Bucking Walls
Sand Grading
Hauling Gravel and Sand
Cost
(1997 dollars)
$0.41/yd3
$9.56/yd2
$48.55/yd3
$116.29/yd3
$0.33/ft2
$300.41/yd3
$1.73/ft3
$4.95/yd3
Source1
Means 1996 (022 226 5720)
Means 1998 (022 308 0100)
Richardson 1996, (3-5 pi)
Means 1999 (033 1304700)
Means 1998 (03 3 454 00 10)
Means 1999 (033 1306200)
Means 1999 (025 122 1100)
Means 1998 (022 266 0040)
'For information taken from Means, the numbers in parentheses refer to the division number and line number.
Concrete Pad Costs
The costs for the concrete pad include the compaction of the ground surface,
hauling gravel and sand to the lot, purchasing the gravel and sand, grading the sand, constructing
the 6-inch pad, and finishing the concrete on the 6-inch pad. These calculations are shown below:
Compaction (to 12 inches) = $0.41/yd3 x Pad Area (ft21 x 1 ft
27 ft3fyd3
Hauling Cost for Sand and Gravel = (Gravel volume + Sand volume') x $4.95/yd3
27 ft3fyd3
Volume of Gravel for 6-inch Layer = Pad Area (ft2) x 6 in
12 in/ft
Volume of Sand for 4-inch Layer = Pad Area (ft2) x 4-inch
12 inches/ft
Gravel Cost = Gravel (ft3)/ft x $9.56/yd2/0.5 ft2 x 1 yd2/9 ft2
Sand Cost = Sand (ft3) x $48.55/yd3 x 1 yd3/27 ft3
Grading Sand = Sand (ft3) x $1.737 ft3
Six Inch Pad = Pad Area (ft2) x $116.29/yd3 x 0.5 ft/yd3 x 1 yd3/27 ft3
4-77
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Concrete Finishing = Pad Area(ft2) x $0.33/ft2
Bucking Wall Costs
The cost for bucking walls is the volume of the bucking walls multiplied by the
cost per cubic yard. (This cost is only added for dairies.)
Walls Cost = Wall Volume (ft3) x $300.41/yd3 x 1 yd3/27 ft3
Total Capital Costs
The cost for construction of the concrete pad (and walls, if applicable) is
calculated using the following equation:
Capital Cost = Compaction + Hauling + Gravel + Sand + Grading Sand + 6-inch Pad + Concrete
Finishing + Bucking Walls
Total Annual Costs
Based on best professional judgement, annual costs are estimated at 2% of the
total capital costs based on best professional judgment.
Annual Cost = 0.02 x Capital Cost
4.8.5 Results
The cost model results for constructing a concrete pad are presented in Appendix
A, Table A-ll.
4-78
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.9 Groundwater Wells/Protection
Storing or treating animal waste at or below the ground surface has the potential
to contaminate groundwater. Groundwater wells may be used at animal feeding operations to
monitor groundwater contamination. Groundwater well installation and associated monitoring is
costed for all model farms under Options 3 and 4 where there is a hydrologic link between
groundwater and surface water.
4.9.1 Technology Description
Manure and waste that infiltrates into the soil, and is not taken up by crops, may
contaminate underlying aquifers with nutrients, bacteria, viruses, hormones, and salts. Irrigation
of manure may also contaminate aquifers with salt and high levels of total dissolved solids.
Groundwater wells can be installed to monitor for these pollutants.
Geologic conditions, as well as the elevation and shape of the water table, vary
based on region. A hydrogeologic site investigation should occur prior to well installation to
determine site conditions and to determine the number and location of samples as well as the
sampling depth. See Section 4.12 for more information on establishing a hydrologic link between
groundwater and surface water.
4.9.2 Prevalence of the Technology in the Industry
Groundwater protection, including the installation of monitoring wells, is included
in Options 3 and 4. Only a portion of beef feedlot and stand-alone heifer operations, dairies, and
veal operations are expected to be located in areas where there is a hydrologic link of
groundwater to surface water. The percentage of operations that need groundwater monitoring is
based on soil and landscape site factors that indicate a potential of groundwater contamination
(USEPA, 1999). Table 4-30 presents an estimate of operations that will incur groundwater
4-79
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
monitoring costs based on regional location. It is assumed that no operations have groundwater
programs in place; therefore all operations located in these areas are costed for the installation of
wells.
Table 4-30
Percentage of Beef Feedlots and Stand-Alone Heifer Operations, Dairies, and
Veal Operations Incurring Groundwater Monitoring Costs for
Options 3 and 41
Animal
Type
Beef and
Heifers
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Region
Central
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
13%
Midwest
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
27%
Mid-Atlantic
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
24%
Pacific
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
12%
South
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
22%
'EPA, 1999
4.9.3
Design and Costs
The design for the groundwater wells does not vary according to animal type or
size of facility. Wells will be installed only by facilities where a hydrologic link has been
established (see Section 4.12). Each facility determined to have a hydrologic link will install four
50-foot groundwater monitoring wells, one up-gradient and three down-gradient from the manure
storage facility, as shown in Figure 4-8.
4-80
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Top of casir
\
////////
Groundwater -"""""^
monitoring
well
(up-gradient)
ig
V
~?
///
5
ji
Manure
storage facility
(manure stockpile)
Ground /
surface ^-"""""""^ ^~~~~~~-*^
'/////////////////////////
Groundwater
monitoring
well
(down-gradient)
Water table
V
///
5
--_,
)
///////
0'
t
Figure 4-8. Schematic of Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Total Capital Costs
Capital costs for well installation include well drilling at $21 per foot, well casing
at $2 per foot for the upper 30 feet, well screening of the lower 20 feet at $3 per foot, and gravel
for the entire 50 feet at $1 per foot. A protective casing for each well head is valued at $120. A
bailer, which samples water from the well, costs $35 and can be used to test all the wells on the
farm. Groundwater well installation data are compiled from two sources (Schultes, 1999;
USEPA, 1998).
To determine baseline concentrations, an initial groundwater sample is required for
each well in the first year after installation to determine baseline concentrations ($85 per well,
including 1 hour of labor at $10 per hour and $75 for laboratory analyses of the water sample for
total coliform, fecal coliform, nitrate-N, ammonia-N, chloride, and total dissolved solids).
Subsequent groundwater monitoring costs are incurred as annual costs (two samples per well per
year), with two samples per well taken in the first year in addition to the initial samples.
4-81
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Capital Cost = 4 Wells x [Well Drilling + Well Casing + Well Screening + Gravel +
Well Head Protection] + Bailer + Initial Sampling
4 Wellsx[($21/ft x 50 ft) + ($2/ft x 30 ft) + ($3/ft x 20 ft) + ($l/ft x 50 ft)
+ $120] + $35 + (2 samples x $85/sample x 4 wells)
$6,075
Total Annual Costs
Groundwater monitoring operational and maintenance (O&M) costs are estimated
at 2% of capital costs. Additional annual costs include two samples per year for each well, with 1
hour of labor required for each sample at $10 per hour and $75 per sample for laboratory analyses
(REFERENCE); therefore, the total annual cost for groundwater monitoring is $801.50.
Annual Cost = Sampling + O&M + Labor
[4 wells x ($75/sample x 2 samples)] + (0.02 x Capital Cost) -
(1 hr/sample x 4 Wells x 2 samples/well x $10/hr)
$801.50
4.9.4 Results
The cost model results for installing groundwater monitoring wells are $6,075 for
capital costs and $801.50 for annual costs for each model facility, regardless of animal type or
region, as shown in Appendix A, Table A-12.
4.10 Composting
Composting is used at animal feeding operations to biologically stabilize and dry
waste for use as a fertilizer or soil amendment. Composting reduces the weight and moisture
content of manure, which can lower transportation costs. Composting is evaluated as a method
of handling animal waste on site for all regulatory options.
4-82
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.10.1 Technology Description
Composting is an aerobic process in which microorganisms decompose organic
matter into heat, water, carbon dioxide, and a more stable form of organic matter (compost).
Composting results in a relatively uniform, dry, odorless end product that can be used as a soil
amendment. The initial volume, weight, and particle size of raw materials is reduced during the
composting process. The elevated temperatures in the interior of properly operated compost piles
kill weed seeds, pathogens, and fly larvae.
Because composting is an aerobic process, a continuous supply of oxygen must be
available for the microorganisms to break down the organic matter. Aeration can be
accomplished either by natural convection and diffusion or forced aeration. Aeration reduces the
chance of the pile becoming anaerobic. Anaerobic decomposition is slower and produces
compounds with strong odors. Aerating the pile also helps to remove excess heat and trapped
gases from the composting pile.
Composting time and efficiency are affected by the amount of oxygen, the energy
source (carbon) and amount of nutrients (nitrogen) in the raw materials, the moisture content, and
the particle size and porosity of the materials. The proper balance of carbon, nitrogen, and
moisture should be present in the initial compost mix. Moisture levels should be in the range of
40 to 65 percent. Water is necessary to support biological activity; however, if the moisture
content is too high, water displaces air in the pore spaces and the pile can become anaerobic.
Moisture content gradually decreases during the composting period. The carbon to nitrogen ratio
(C:N) should be between 20:1 and 40:1. If the C:N ratio is too low, the carbon is used before all
the nitrogen is stabilized and the excess nitrogen can volatilize as ammonia and cause odor
problems. If the ratio is too high, the composting process slows as nitrogen becomes the limiting
nutrient. Manure typically needs to be mixed with drier, carbonaceous material to obtain the
desired moisture and C:N levels.
4-83
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
The length of time required for composting depends on the materials used, the
composting management practices, and the desired compost characteristics. Compost is judged
to be complete by characteristics related to its use and handling such as C:N ratio, oxygen
demand, temperature, and odor. A curing period of about one month follows composting.
Resistant compounds, organic acids, and large particles are further decomposed during the curing
period.
4.10.2 Prevalence of the Technology in the Industry
The frequency of occurrence of composting operations at beef feedlots and dairies
is not known. Although many operations stockpile manure, a true composting operation is rare.
For all regulatory options, the cost model compares the cost of composting waste to traditional
storage and transportation options. For Options 1 through 4, and 6 through 7, the cost model
selects composting if it is the lowest cost option. In Option 5, composting is costed for all beef
feedlots and dairies.
4.10.3 Design
Windrow composting systems are designed for use at beef feedlots and dairies.
Manure and other raw materials are formed into windrows and periodically turned. The size and
shape of the windrow depends on the type of turning equipment used by the site. The cost model
assumes that sites use a tractor attachment for turning made by Valoraction, Incorporated
(NRAES, 1992) (see Figure 4-9). This type of windrow turner is capable of turning windrows 10
feet wide by 4.2 feet tall. Windrow composting requires less labor and equipment than other
types of composting and allows greater flexibility with respect to location and composting
amendments.
Beef feedlots are capable of composting the manure collected from the drylots.
Because dairies use flush and hose systems, dairy waste is too wet for composting; however, the
4-84
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
manure from calves and heifers kept on drylots at dairies can be composted. Separated solids
from sedimentation basins can also be added to the compost pile.
Volume of Manure
The composting cost module calculates the volume of waste transferred to the
compost pile from drylots and from settling basins.
Drylots
For this model, it is assumed that all beef cattle and dairy calves and heifers are
kept on drylots. Waste from confined barns where mature dairy cattle are housed is typically too
wet for effective composting. Manure from drylots is periodically scraped and moved to the
compost pile. The amount of manure generated (as-excreted) is calculated using the information
and equations in Section 3.2. The volume of manure collected from the drylot is less than the as-
excreted volume because the manure moisture content decreases on the drylot. Because the
volume of solids in the as-excreted manure is the same as in the collected manure, the volume of
manure collected from the drylot can be calculated using a mass balance on solids by the
following equation:
Volume Solids collected= Volume Solidsexcreted
Volume Solids = Total Volume * (1 - Moisture)
Volumecollected (1 - Moisturecollected) = Volumeexcreted (1 - Moistureexcreted)
Volumecollected = [Volumeexcreted (1 - Moistureexcreted)] / (1 - Moisturecollected)
4-85
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Tractor-
f Windrow
Turning
Equipment'
Figure 4-9. Windrow Composting
4-86
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
It is estimated that manure collected from the drylot has a moisture content of 35.4% (Sweeten, et
al., 1995). The values of the parameters used to compute the volume of manure are contained in
the manure reference table and cost run information in the cost model.
Some of the manure solids that accumulate on drylots are lost in the runoff from
the feedlot before the waste is composted; therefore, the solids lost in runoff are subtracted from
the total volume of manure. The amount of solids lost in runoff is estimated at 1.5% of the total
drylot runoff (MWPS, 1985).
Separated Solids
Option 5 requires the addition of separated solids from the settling basin to the
compost pile. Because wastes from dairy flush barns have a high moisture content, they are
generally not composted; however, the settled solids from sedimentation basins can be added to
the compost pile. Therefore, a fraction of the manure from mature dairy cattle barns is added to
the compost pile after some drying has occurred. For beef feedlots, only runoff enters the
sedimentation basins, therefore, a fraction of the solids entering the basin as runoff is added to the
compost pile.
For dairies, the amount of separated solids is calculated by computing the amount
of manure generated and multiplying by the settling efficiency of 50% (see Section 4.1). For beef
feedlots, the additional volume added to the compost pile from the settling basin is the annual
solids in runoff multiplied by the settling efficiency.
Volume Reduction
One of the major benefits of composting is waste volume reduction, which can
reduce transportation costs. Finished compost is estimated to contain 30.8% moisture (Sweeten
4-87
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
et.al., 1995). This moisture content is used in the following equation to determine the weight of
finished compost:
Final Weight = Initial Weight x (1- Initial Moisture) / (1- Final Moisture)
Compost Recipe
As stated in Section 4.9.1, manure must be mixed with composting amendments to
obtain the proper C:N ratio and moisture content. The cost model assumes wheat straw is used
as the composting amendment. Wheat straw has a moisture content of 10% and a C:N ratio of
130. Manure collected from drylots has a moisture content of 35.4 percent. The carbon content
is calculated from the volatile solids composition of manure. It is estimated that manure has a
volatile solids composition of 564.6 Ib/ton (Sweeten, et al. 1995). The carbon content is
calculated using the following equation:
Carbonmmure = Volatile Solidsmanure / 1.8
= 564.6/1.8 = 314
(USDA, 1992)
The nitrogen content of manure is estimated to be 25.71 Ib/ton (Sweeten, et al. 1995). The
carbon and nitrogen contents are converted to a percent basis. The C:N ratio of the manure is
calculated using the percent composition and the volume of manure. Wheat straw and water are
added to the compost mix until the C:N ratio is between 25:1 and 40:1 and the moisture content
is between 40 and 65 percent. The cost model simulates this method in the composting cost
module, performing an iteration to determine the proper mix of manure, wheat straw, and water.
4.10.4 Costs
Capital costs for composting includes turning equipment and thermometers to
monitor the pile temperature. Annual costs include the labor to turn the pile and any required
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
composting amendment (in this case, wheat straw). Table 4-31 presents the 1997 unit costs for
these items.
Table 4-31
Unit Costs for Composting
Unit
Windrow turning equipment
(Valoraction 510 rotary drum turner
tractor attachment)
Thermometers
Turning labor
Wheat straw
Cost (1997)
$8,914
$242. 27 (for set of two)
$2.69/ton
$72.68/ton
Source
On-Farm Composting Handbook,
NRAES-54
Omega Engineering
On-Farm Composting Handbook,
NRAES-54
Case's Agworld.com
Total Capital Costs
The following equation is used to calculate the composting capital cost:
Capital Cost
Windrow Turning Equipment + Thermometers
$8,914+ $242.27
The total capital costs for composting is $9,156.27.
Total Annual Costs
The volume of wheat straw required is used to determine the cost of the
composting amendments. The total volume of the compost pile is used to calculate the labor
costs for turning. The following equation is used to calculate the composting annual cost
(Sweeten et al, 1995):
Annual Cost = ($2.69/ton x Volumecollected) + ($72.68/ton x Volumewheatstaw)
+ ($1.75/100cf x Volumewater) - ($1.70 x Selling Weight/2000)
4-89
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
There is some reduction in manure solids expected as a result of composting;
however, with the addition of the carbon amendments, the weight of compost to be transported or
land applied is not significantly different than that manure which is not composted. These
differences are calculated in the cost model, however, and they are considered in calculating
transportation costs, described in Section 4.14.
4.10.5 Results
The cost model results for composting at each model farm are presented in
Appendix A, Table A-13.
4.11 Surface Water Monitoring
Option 4 requires animal feeding operations to monitor nearby water bodies for
contaminants.
4.11.1 Practice Description
Surface water monitoring is used to evaluate the nutrient loading of waterways
near animal feeding operations. The primary purpose of this monitoring is to determine the
effectiveness of implemented technologies and practices at preventing contamination of surface
water. Possible sources of excess loading include uncontained runoff and lagoon overflow during
peak storm events.
The best time to monitor the effectiveness of runoff control systems is immediately
following storm events; therefore, sampling events are not scheduled in advance. Animal feeding
operations are costed for sampling water bodies going through or adjacent to feeding operations
immediately following storm events, up to 12 times per year.
4-90
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.11.2 Prevalence of the Practice in the Industry
It is assumed that beef feedlots, dairies, and veal operations do not have surface
water monitoring programs in place, therefore, the cost model assigns the cost of surface water
monitoring to every operation evaluated under Option 4. Note that Option 4 is the only option in
the cost model that includes surface water monitoring.
4.11.3 Design
The design for surface water monitoring is based on the sampling program and
includes monitoring at the surface impoundment (pond or lagoon) and the stockpile. The
requirements of the sampling program are:
Twelve sampling events per year at surface water bodies;
One sampling event per year at the lagoon or pond and at the stockpile;
Four grab samples and one quality assurance (QA) sample per sampling
event (Table 4-32 shows the total number of samples over a one-year
period);
Sampling will coincide with rain events in excess of 0.5 inches
precipitation; and
Analysis of each sample for nutrients (nitrite, nitrate, total Kjeldahl
nitrogen, total phosphorus) and total suspended solids (TSS).
An alternative analysis considered ambient monitoring for metals (zinc, arsenic,
copper), BOD5, and biological organisms (fecal coliforms, enterococcus, salmonella, and
escherichia coli). Due to high costs and limited holding times for BOD and pathogen samples,
these parameters were not costed for Option 4. EPA believes the uncertainty of precipitation
events prevents the CAFO owner from being prepared to rapidly sample; therefore, accurate
sample collection and shipping would be very difficult for these additional constituents.
4-91
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.11.4
Table 4-32
Number of Samples
Number of sampling events per year
Number of samples per sampling event (4 grab + 1 QA)
Total annual samples
12
5
60
Costs
Initial cost estimates, shown in Table 4-33, include training, coolers, and reusable
sampling equipment. Annual costs, shown in Table 4-34, include sterile containers and sampling
supplies for each sampling event, labor costs associated with sampling, sample overnight
shipment, and lab processing fees.
Table 4-33
Capital Costs for Surface Water Sampling
Description
Training (8 hr)
Course fee
Misc. other costs (15% of labor)
Coolers (2)
Sampling equipment (pipet, etc.)
Unit Cost
$10/hr
$40
--
$30/cooler
$200
Total Capital Cost
Capital Cost
$80
$40
$12
$60
$200
$392
4-92
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-34
Annual Costs for Surface Water Sampling
Description
250-mL bottles (2 per sample)
500-mL bottles (1 per sample)
Overnight shipping (30-lb cooler)
Misc. supplies and transportation
Laboratory costs
Sample collection (2 hrs/sampling event)
QA & recordkeeping (1 hr/sampling event)
Unit Cost
$2/bottle
$2.70/bottle
$60/sampling event
$30
$79/sample
$10/hr
$10/hr
Total Annual Cost
Annual Cost
$240
$162
$720
$30
$4,740
$240
$120
$6,252
REFERENCE: Tetra Tech 1999a
4.11.5
Results
The cost model results for the surface water monitoring option do not vary
between animal type, region, or size group. The capital cost for surface water monitoring is
$392, and the annual cost is $6,252, as shown in Appendix A, Table A-14.
4.12
Nutrient-Based Land Application
Cattle manure is a valuable source of plant nutrients and organic matter and is
commonly applied to the land for use as a fertilizer and soil conditioner. Applying too much
manure to the land, however, can harm crop growth, contaminate soil, cause surface and
groundwater pollution, and waste nutrients. The regulatory options evaluated require facilities to
limit the application of manure nitrogen (for all Option 1 facilities and for some Option 2-8
facilities) or manure phosphorus (for some Option 2-8 facilities) to a rate based on the agronomic
requirements of the crops. Depending on the amount of manure generated at beef feedlots,
dairies, and veal operations, the amount of land available for manure application, the specific
4-93
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
crops that are grown, and the expected crop yields, operations may or may not have sufficient
land on site to apply all of their manure.
4.12.1 Practice Description
Land application of manure should be planned to ensure that the proper amounts
of all nutrients are applied in a way that minimizes risks to water quality and public health. This
can be accomplished by developing and implementing a permit nutrient plan (PNP), described in
Section 4.12. As part of the PNP, operations calculate and use manure application rates that are
sufficient to meet, but not exceed, the nutrient needs of agronomic crops. Under Option 1, the
manure application rates are based on the nitrogen requirements of the crops, and under Options
2-7, the manure application rates are based on the phosphorus requirements of the crops in areas
with high soil phosphorus levels and on the nitrogen requirements of the crops everywhere else.
(See Section 4.12 for a discussion of the breakout of nitrogen- versus phosphorus-based
application.) Crops need more nitrogen than phosphorus; however, animal manure tends to have
a low nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratio. This means that applying manure at a crop's agronomic
requirement for nitrogen results in applying more phosphorus than is needed by the crop.
Conversely, applying manure at a crop's agronomic requirement for phosphorus results in a need
for supplemental application of commercial nitrogen fertilizer.
Accurate estimates of the amount of manure available for land application and the
composition of that manure are essential for developing appropriate manure application rates.
The amount of manure generated at an operation is directly linked to the number of animals
maintained at the operation; however, because the composition of manure changes as it ages, the
amount collected and applied to the land is often much less than the amount of manure generated
by the animals. Applying cattle manure to the land at agronomic application rates also requires a
good perspective of appropriate crop rotations (e.g., the growing of a sequence of crops to
optimize yield, crop quality, and maintaining or improving soil productivity), expected crop yields,
and crop nutrient requirements. An appropriate application rate can be calculated using the
4-94
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
nutrient availability of the manure and the crop requirement for the nutrient having the highest
priority (nitrogen or phosphorus).
Restricting manure application to an agronomic application rate for nitrogen and
phosphorus will reduce nutrient runoff and leaching. This restriction, however, will result in the
need to transport excess manure nutrients off site for many facilities (described in Section 4.14).
Because most crops do not need as much phosphorus as nitrogen, an agronomic phosphorus-
based application scenario will result in the purchasing and application of commercial nitrogen
fertilizer. Conversely, an agronomic phosphorus-based application scenario will result in a
reduction in purchased commercial phosphorus fertilizer.
4.12.2 Prevalence of the Practice in the Industry
Fewer operations have sufficient land to apply their manure at agronomic
phosphorus rates than agronomic nitrogen rates. To estimate the number of operations that incur
transport costs due to insufficient on-site land, EPA used data from USDA for three categories of
facilities:
Category 1: Facilities with sufficient land to land-apply all of their generated manure at
appropriate agronomic rates. No manure is transported off site.
Category 2: Facilities without sufficient land to land-apply all of their generated manure at
appropriate agronomic rates. The excess manure after agronomic application is
transported off site.
Category 3: Facilities without any available land for manure application. All of the manure is
transported off site regardless of the regulatory options considered by EPA.
Based on site visit observations, it appears that most veal operations have
sufficient land to agronomically apply all of their manure; therefore, EPA assumes that all veal
operations are in Category 1 for all regulatory options.
4-95
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
EPA's estimate of the number of Category 1, 2, and 3 beef and dairy operations is
developed from a 1999 USDA analysis (Kellogg, 2000). In this analysis, USDA used 1997
Census of Agriculture data to estimate the manure production at livestock facilities. As part of
this analysis, USDA estimated the number of confined livestock operations that produce more
manure nutrients than they can land-apply on their available cropland and pasture lands at
agronomic rates for nitrogen and phosphorus (i.e., Category 2 facilities) and the number of
confined livestock operations that do not have any available cropland or pastureland (i.e.,
Category 3 facilities). Applying the percentage of these facilities estimated by USDA to the total
number of beef and dairy livestock operations (shown in Table 1-4), EPA estimates the number of
Category 1, 2, and 3 facilities for nitrogen-based application and for phosphorus-based
application. The estimate of Category 1, 2, and 3 facilities by animal type and size class is
presented in Table 4-36.
4-96
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-36
Percentage of Category 1, 2, and 3 Facilities
Animal Type
Size Class
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Nitrogen-Based Agronomic Application
Beef
Dairy and Heifer
Operations
Veal
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
84%
84%
68%
8%
50%
50%
27%
100%
100%
9%
9%
21%
53%
36%
36%
51%
0%
0%
7%
7%
11%
39%
14%
14%
22%
0%
0%
Phosphorus-Based Agronomic Application
Beef
Dairy and Heifer
Operations
Veal
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
62%
62%
22%
1%
25%
25%
10%
100%
100%
31%
31%
67%
60%
61%
61%
68%
0%
0%
7%
7%
11%
39%
14%
14%
22%
0%
0%
Under Option 1, all facilities are expected to apply manure on a nitrogen basis;
therefore, the percentage of facilities in each category is equal to the nitrogen-based application
percentages shown in Table 4-36. Under Options 2 through 8, some operations are expected to
apply manure on a nitrogen basis, while others are expected to apply manure on a phosphorus
basis. Section 4.12 describes the nitrogen- and phosphorus-based management in more detail.
In addition, all Category 1 and 2 beef and dairy operations that implement
phosphorus-based applications will be required to purchase and apply commercial nitrogen
4-97
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
fertilizer for Options 2 through 8. Commercial fertilizer is required because manure applied on a
phosphorus basis will not meet the crops' nutrient requirements for nitrogen. Because it is
assumed that Category 3 operations do not have any cropland, these operations do not require
commercial fertilizer.
4.12.3 Methodology
The cost model performs a number of calculations to determine for each model
farm the acreage that is available to land-apply manure and the amount of manure requiring off-
site transportation. These acreage calculations are performed for both nitrogen-based and
phosphorus-based application scenarios. The model performs the following steps:
1. The model calculates the acreage for Category 1 facilities using agronomic
application rates as inputs. (No manure is transported off site.)
2. The model calculates the acreage for Category 2 facilities using the average
excess nutrients per operation as an input. The excess nutrients are
converted to equivalent weight of manure, and this weight is transported
off site.
3. The model calculates the amount of manure generated at Category 3
operations using the manure generation information as inputs. All manure
at Category 3 operations is transported off site.
After calculating the amount of manure requiring transportation, the cost model
calculates the amount and cost of commercial nitrogen fertilizer required at Category 1 and 2
operations under a phosphorus-based application scenario.
Estimation of Available Cropland Acreage
Data on the amount of land available to facilities for land application of manure are
limited; therefore, the following assumptions are used in the cost model:
4-98
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
By definition, Category 1 operations are defined as having a
sufficient amount of land; therefore, EPA assumed that, at a
minimum, the available land equaled the amount of land required to
agronomically land-apply all of the manure generated at the
operation on either a nitrogen- or a phosphorus-basis.
Category 2 operations have the same amount of land as the
Category 1 operations minus the acreage required to agronomically
land-apply the excess manure nutrients. The amount of excess
manure nutrients at Category 2 operations is obtained from the
1999 USDA analysis of manure production.
Category 3 operations have no available land. The following
subsections detail the calculation of agronomic application rates and
category acreages for the model farms.
Agronomic Application Rates
Agronomic application rates are calculated using crop yields, crop uptakes, and
crop utilization factors. Representative crops were identified for each model farm by contacting
USDA state cooperative extension services. These crops vary by region and animal type.
Because veal operations are located predominantly in the Midwest, EPA developed only one set
of crop assumptions for veal that reflect the Midwest region. Crop nutrient requirements are
calculated by multiplying the expected crop yields (obtained from state cooperative extension
services or Census of Agriculture data) by the crop uptake (Lander, 1998) for both nitrogen and
phosphorus.
Crop Nitrogen Requirements (Ib/acre) = Crop Yield (tons/acre) x Crop Uptake (Ib/ton)^^.^^
Crop Phosphorus Requirements (Ib/acre) = Crop Yield (tons/acre) x Crop Uptake (lb/ton)phosphorus
Table 4-37 presents the representative crops, crop yields, crop uptakes, and crop
nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) requirements for all animal types by region. Crops are not
expected to vary significantly based on the size of the animal operation.
4-99
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-37
Crop Information
Animal
Type
Beef
Dairy/ Heifer
Veal
Region
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-
Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
All
(based on
Midwest)
Crops
Corn-silage
Hay
Corn-silage
Alfalfa
Corn-silage
Alfalfa
Corn-silage
Alfalfa
Winter wheat
Corn-silage
Hay
Rye
Corn-silage
Hay
Corn-silage
Hay
Corn-silage
Hay
Corn-silage
Alfalfa
Winter wheat
Corn-silage
Hay
Rye
Corn-silage
(50% of crop)
Soybeans
(50% of crop)
Winter
wheat
(100% of crop)
CropYield
(tons/acre)
20
3
27
6
20
6
24
8
18
17
2
3
20
o
3
17
2
17
2
24
8
18
17
2
o
3
138
(bu/acre)
42
(bu/acre)
46
(bu/acre)
Crop Uptake
Nitrogen
7.1
25.6
7.1
0
7.1
0
7.1
0
0.03
7.1
19.8
0.03
7.1
25.6
7.1
19.8
7.1
19.8
7.1
0
0.03
7.1
19.8
0.03
0.8
(Ib/bu)
3.6
(Ib/bu)
1.0
(Ib/bu)
Phosphorus
1.1
4.5
1.1
4.7
1.1
4.7
1.1
4.7
0.01
1.1
15.3
0.01
1.1
4.5
1.15
15.3
1.1
15.3
1.1
4.7
0.01
1.1
15.3
0.01
0.2
(Ib/bu)
0.4
(Ib/bu)
0.2
(Ib/bu)
Crop Requirement (Ib/ton)
Nitrogen
142
77
191
0
142
0
170
0
0.5
121
40
0.1
142
77
121
40
121
40
170
0
1
121
40
0.1
110
150
47
Phosphorus
21
13
28
28
21
28
25
38
0.1
18
31
0.02
21
13
18
31
18
31
25
38
0.1
18
31
0.02
21
15
9
When more than one crop is grown on the land, the total crop nutrient requirement
for that land is equal to the sum of the individual crop nutrient requirements.
4-100
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
The cost model estimates that 70% of the nitrogen and 100% of the phosphorus in
cattle manure that is applied to the land is available for crop uptake and utilization over time
(Lander, 1998); therefore, the agronomic application rate is calculated as the total crop nutrient
requirement divided by the appropriate utilization factor.
Nitrogen-Based Manure Application Rate (Ib/acre)
Phosphorus-Based Manure Application Rate (Ib/acre) =
Total Crop Nitrogen Requirements
(Ib/acre) 770%
Total Crop Phosphorus
Requirements (Ib/acre)/100%
These agronomic application rates for nitrogen- and phosphorus-based application scenarios are
used as inputs to the cost model. Table 4-38 presents the total crop nutrient (nitrogen and
phosphorus) requirements and manure application rates (nitrogen and phosphorus) for all animal
types by region.
Table 4-38
Total Crop Nutrient Requirements and Manure Application Rates
Animal
Type
Beef
Dairy
Veal
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
All
Total Crop Requirements (Ib/acre)
Nitrogen
219
191
142
171
160
219
160
160
171
160
102
Phosphorus
34
57
49
63
49
34
49
49
63
49
27
Manure Application Rate (Ib/acre)
N-Based
312
274
203
244
229
312
229
229
244
229
146
P-Based
34
57
49
63
49
34
49
49
63
49
27
4-101
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Category 1 Acreage
Category 1 acreages are calculated using the agronomic application rates, number
of animals, manure generation estimates, nutrient content of the manure, and manure
recoverability factors:
Category 1 Acreage = Animal Units (Alls') x Manure Generation (tons/AID x Nutrient Content Clbs/ton manure") x Recoverabilitv Factor
Agronomic application rate (Ib/acre)
EPA defines recoverability factors as the percentage of manure, based on solids content, that
would be practical to recover. Recoverability factors are developed for each region using USDA
state-specific recoverability factors, and are based on the assumption that the decrease in nutrient
values per ton of manure mirrors the reduction in solids content of the recoverable manure
(Lander, 1998).
Category 2 Acreage
Category 2 acreages are calculated using Category 1 acreages, the estimate of
excess manure from USDA's analysis, and acres required to land-apply excess manure:
Average Excess Nutrients (Ibs/yr) = Excess Nutrients (Ibs/yr)/Number of Category 2
Facilities
Excess Acreage = Average Excess Nutrients (Ibs/yr)/Agronomic
Application Rate (Ib/acre)
Category 2 Acreage = Category 1 Acreage - Excess Acreage
Table 4-39 presents Category 1 and 2 acreages by animal type, size group, and region.
Category 3 Acreage
Category 3 acreages, by definition, are zero.
4-102
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Amount of Manure Requiring Off-Site Transportation
The amount of manure transported off site varies by animal type, region, category,
and composting use:
Category 1 Manure Transported Off Site (tons) = 0
Category 2 Manure Transported Off Site (tons) = Excess Nutrients (lbs)/Nutrient Content of Manure (Ibs/ton)
Category 3 Manure Transported Off Site (tons) = Total Manure Generated (tons)
4-103
-------
Table 4-39
Category 1 and 2 Acreages
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Category 1 Acreages
N-Based
49
52
71
65
63
134
142
192
176
170
325
344
464
426
411
5,413
5,734
7,741
7,098
6,851
23
28
31
31
24
P-Based
292
165
189
163
192
794
448
514
444
523
1918
1081
1243
1073
1264
31,974
18,027
20,713
17,881
21,077
128
80
88
71
69
Category 2 Acreages
N-Based
44
47
63
58
56
104
107
145
137
128
154
149
201
207
178
3,438
3,480
4,697
4,570
4,157
18
20
23
23
16
P-Based
265
148
170
148
173
658
365
419
370
426
1094
581
667
623
679
20,234
10,892
12,516
11,470
12,735
90
53
61
51
42
4-104
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-39 (Continued)
Animal Type
Heifer
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
All
All
Category 1 Acreages
N-Based
44
52
58
57
45
87
105
115
115
91
55
71
78
66
61
108
139
152
130
120
335
427
468
401
369
100
100
P-Based
240
150
164
134
129
479
300
328
268
258
200
133
146
102
115
391
260
285
200
224
1,206
802
879
616
692
100
100
Category 2 Acreages
N-Based
38
45
50
50
37
82
97
107
107
83
42
53
60
50
43
36
39
53
37
20
82
82
123
77
24
-
-
P-Based
202
123
137
113
102
441
273
301
247
232
163
107
120
82
89
138
81
106
62
45
236
112
189
86
3
-
-
4-105
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Once the amount of manure requiring off-site transportation is calculated, the
model determines how much of the manure is solid versus liquid using manure generation rates
and percent solid content of the manure as generated and as aged. These calculations vary by
animal type (i.e., beef, dairy, calf, heifer) and operating systems (i.e., flush versus hose systems at
dairies). Total available solid manure is calculated by summing the solid portion of the manure
excreted from the animals that does not enter a separator as well as the solids obtained from the
solid separator. Total available liquid waste is calculated by summing the amount of liquid in the
lagoons or ponds.
Available Solidsmanure db/yr) = Animal Units (ALT) x Manure Generation Rate db/AU/yr) * % Soli
% Solid Contentsgeclmmure
leparated solids
Available Solidssepar.ltor (Ib/yr) = Solids from Solid Separator db/yr) x % Solid Content
% Solid Content^ mmure
Total Available Solids (Ib/yr) = Available Solidsmanure (Ib/yr) + Available Solidssep!lr.llor (Ib/yr)
Total Available Liquid (Ib/yr) = (Pond Liquid (ftVyr) + Lagoon Liquid (ftVyr)) x Density (lb/ft3)
After calculating the total available solids and liquid waste for Category 2
operations, the model compares the amount of total available solids to the manure being
transported off site (excess manure). If the total available solids is greater than the amount of
excess manure, only solid waste is transported off site. If the total available solids is less than the
amount of excess manure, solid and liquid waste are transported off site. The equations below
demonstrate the algorithm used in the cost model to determine how much solid and/or liquid
waste is generated:
Transportation of Solid Waste Only: Total Available Solids > Excess Manure
Amount of Solid Waste Transported = Excess Manure
Transportation of Solid and Liquid Waste: Total Available Solids < Excess Manure
Amount of Solid Waste Transported = Total Available Solids
Amount of Liquid Waste Transported = Excess Manure -Total Available Solids
All solid and liquid waste generated at Category 3 operations is transported off
site; however, there is no additional cost for this transportation, as EPA has assumed that these
4-106
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
operations are already removing their manure because they have no cropland available.
Transportation costs for Category 1 and 2 operations are discussed in Section 4.14.
4.12.4 Costs
In a phosphorus-based application scenario, the amount of manure applied to the
land does not supply enough nitrogen to the crops; therefore, additional nitrogen will be applied in
the form of commercial fertilizer. No capital costs are calculated because EPA assumes
operations already own appropriate equipment. Annual costs are equal to the cost to purchase
commercial nitrogen fertilizer.
The amount of commercial nitrogen fertilizer required at Category 1 and 2
operations under a phosphorus-based application scenario depends on the crop acreage and the
nutrient content of the manure. The amount of nitrogen required by the crops is calculated from
the crop type and the acreage. Then, the amount of nitrogen that would be incidentally applied in
the manure under a phosphorus-based application scenario is calculated. The difference between
these two quantities equals the amount of commercial nitrogen fertilizer that needs to be
purchased.
Feitilizei^^ (Ibs) = Acreage x (Nitrogen-Based Manure Application Rate (Ib/acre) -
Phosphorus-Based Manure Application Rate (Ib/acre))
Using average United States commercial fertilizer prices paid by farmers in 1997
for ammonium nitrate and urea, EPA estimates that the cost of commercial nitrogen fertilizer is
$0.12/lb (Fertilizer Institute, 2000).
Annual costs = $0.12 x Nitrogen
ihosphoras-based scenario
4-107
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.12.5 Results
The cost model results for the purchase of commercial nitrogen fertilizer are
presented in Appendix A, Table A-17.
4.13 Nutrient Management Planning
Nutrient management planning is a process for preventing excess application of
manure nutrients on cropland and thereby minimizing the release of nutrients to groundwater and
surface water. Manure nutrients are applied to the land in the form of solid manure and lagoon
and pond effluent. Excess application is prevented by developing and abiding by appropriate
manure application rates that are designed to add only the nutrients required by the planned crops
at the expected yields. These rates may be based on nitrogen levels (N-based application),
phosphorus levels (P-based application), or other nutrients. Nutrient management may also
minimize releases of nutrients by specifying the timing and location of manure application.
4.13.1 Practice Description
Nutrient management planning is a site-specific activity that varies depending on
the conditions at each operation. A Permit Nutrient Plan (PNP) is developed by a certified
nutrient management specialist and implemented by trained and certified personnel. Each plan
includes the following components:
Name and address of the operation owner and manager;
Description of the operation including operation type, facility map, facility
capacity, number of animals produced or housed annually, and amount of
manure produced;
An analysis of manure and cropland soil to determine the nutrient content
of manure to be land-applied and the existing cropland soil nutrient
content;
4-108
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Calculation and documentation of the manure application rates that are
applicable to a specific site;
An assessment of the entire feedlot and cropland areas to assess
groundwater links to surface water (this activity includes an evaluation of
soil leaching and permeability index);
Assessment of manure storage and handling practices and identification of
best management practices, including the installation of a lagoon depth
marker, to protect surface water and groundwater;
Other site-specific management activities such as the cessation of crop
production in setback areas of a water body (e.g., stream, lake, etc.);
Requirements for the calibration of manure spreaders; and
Recordkeeping requirements (including manure, land application, manure
transfer, and crop records).
Implementation of the PNP serves as a pollution prevention measure and reduces the nutrients
released to surface water and groundwater.
4.13.2 Nitrogen-based vs. Phosphorus-based Management
Nitrogen-based (N-based) management has been practiced and advocated by farm
advisers for many years; however, the rapid growth and intensification of crop and animal farming
in many areas has created regional and local imbalances in phosphorus inputs and outputs. The
imbalances are caused by the high phosphorus content of animal manure. By applying manure on
a nitrogen basis, farmers are significantly over applying the amount of phosphorus needed by the
crop. On average, only 30% of the phosphorus in fertilizer and feed input to farming systems is
output in the form of crop and animal produce. The remaining 70% of phosphorus either builds
up in the soil, or is lost via runoff and erosion. The potential for phosphorus surplus increases
when farming systems change from cropping to intensive animal production. Phosphorus
accumulation on farms has built up soil phosphorus levels that often exceed crop needs. Today,
there are serious concerns that agricultural runoff (surface and subsurface) and erosion from high
4-109
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
phosphorus soils may be major contributing factors to surface water eutrophication. This
phosphorus loss can lead to significant off-site economic impacts, which in some cases occur
many miles from the sources of phosphorus (Sharpley et. al.,1999)
EPA uses information from a USD A survey of agricultural soils analyzed by state
soil test laboratories in 1997. This information identifies those states with <25%, 25%-50%, and
>50% of samples testing "high" or greater than "high" for phosphorus. This "high" rating is
state-specific and may range from 50 to 150 ppm. EPA assumes that a percentage of feedlot
facilities in each state require P-based manure management vs. N-based manure management
using the soil test data results. EPA's assumptions are shown in Table 4-40
Table 4-40
Percent Operations Requiring P-based vs. N-based Manure Management
Percentage of Samples
Testing "High" or Above
For Phosphorus (by State)
>50%
25-50%
<25%
Percentage of Operations Likely
to Require P-Based Manure
Management
60
40
0
Percentage of Operations Likely
to Require N-Based Manure
Management
40
60
100
Sharpley et al., 1999.
EPA used USD A Census of Agriculture and NASS data to determine the number
of facilities of each model farm in every state in the United States. Then, the percentages in Table
4-40 were used to calculate the number of facilities that are likely to require N-based agronomic
application rates verses P-based agronomic application notes for each model farm and each state.
The state data were used to calculate the total number of facilities in each region that require N-
based application verses P-based application. The results of these calculations provides the
percentage of operations that require N-based verses P-based application in each region, for each
model farm. (For additional detail on these calculations, see ERG, 2000g.) The results are
presented in Table 4-41.
4-110
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-41
Percentage of Operations by Nutrient Application Type for
Options 2 through 8
Animal Type
Beef
Heifers
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1 and
Medium 2
Large 1 and Large2
Medium 1 and
Medium 2
Large 1
Medium 1 and
Medium 2
Large 1
All
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
S"iith
P-based
37%
29%
12%
60%
51%
48%
34%
7%
60%
36%
45%
47%
42%
60%
25%
31%
53%
39%
60%
43%
45%
47%
42%
60%
25%
31%
53%
39%
60%
43%
45%
47%
42%
_
N-based
63%
71%
88%
40%
49%
52%
66%
93%
40%
64%
55%
53%
58%
40%
75%
69%
47%
61%
40%
57%
55%
53%
58%
40%
75%
69%
47%
61%
40%
57%
55%
53%
58%
_
4-111
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.13.3 Prevalence of the Practice in the Industry
While some of the components of a PNP may currently be in place or practiced at
animal feeding operations, EPA has assumed that 100% of the facilities impacted by this practice
need to develop a site-specific PNP under all regulatory options.
4.13.4 Design and Costs
The components of a PNP are discussed above and include:
Nutrient management training and certification;
Manure sampling;
Soil sampling;
Assessment of crop field/groundwater links to surface water;
Lagoon depth marker with periodic inspections;
Identification of setback areas;
Development of the PNP report (including calculation of application rates);
Manure spreader calibration; and
Recordkeeping and reporting.
The costs for developing and implementing these PNP components are estimated
using the assumptions and equations outlined below.
Nutrient Management Training and Certification
The costs for training and certification of personnel to implement the PNP includes
a course fee, labor for missed work, and miscellaneous other direct costs. EPA assumes that the
training and certification are conducted once for the owner/operator of the farm and every three
years for the employee that actually applies the waste to the field. A fee of $25 for a 4-hour
course offered by state land grant universities is estimated based on certification testing costs from
4-112
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
various state extension services. The cost model assumes that an additional 4 hours of studying
are required, and the time missed from work to attend the course and study are compensated at a
rate of $20 per hour for the owner/operator and $10 per hour for the employee (Tetra Tech,
2000a). EPA estimates that miscellaneous other direct costs, such as travel to attend the course,
are 15% of the cost of labor for missed work. The initial cost for training and certification does
not vary with the size or type of facility (i.e., the cost is the same for each model facility). The
labor cost is calculated as follows:
Course Cost = $25
Labor Cost = Course + Studying
4 hr + 4 hr
8 hr x $/hr
Miscellaneous Costs = 0.15 x (8 hr x $/hr)
The owner/operator is expected to take this class once; therefore, the cost is an initial cost that
will not recur, and can be considered a capital cost. This cost is:
Capital Cost = $25 + 8 hr x $20/hr + 0.15 x (8 hr x $20/hr)
$209
The farm worker is also expected to take this class only once. However, field workers and
laborers are assumed to have a turnover of every three years, and a new worker would need to be
trained as a replacement. Therefore, this cost is a recurring three year cost:
3-Year cost = $25 + 8 hr x $10/hr + 0.15 x (8 hr x $10/hr)
$117
4-113
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Manure Sampling
EPA assumes that manure sampling and analysis are conducted each application
season, and the only initial cost is the construction of a bailer to sample liquid/slurry lagoon or
storage pond waste. The bailer is assumed to cost $30 (Tetra Tech, 2000a) and can be
constructed with PVC pipe and a cork on the end attached to a string to obtain a sample through
the entire lagoon or pond. EPA assumes that the equipment required to collect solid samples
(e.g., scoops and pails) is currently owned by the facility.
Capital/Initial Costs = $30
Collection time is estimated to take one hour per sample. The sample collection
labor rate is $10 per hour, and the cost per sample is assumed to be $40 (Tetra Tech, 2000a).
Though EPA only requires one sample annually, EPA assumed that manure is sampled once
before each application period and that all model farms have at least two crops requiring manure
application each year. Therefore, EPA assumes that a total of four samples per operation are
collected (two dry samples from stockpiled solids and two aqueous samples from a lagoon or
storage pond). The annual costs do not vary by model farm and are calculated as follows:
Annual Costs
Collection
Analyses
Annual Costs
Collection + Analyses
(Number of Samples) x (Time for Collection) x (Hourly Wage)
4 Samples x 1 hr/Sample x $10/hr
$40
(Number of Samples) x (Cost/sample)
4 Samples x $40/Sample
$160
$40+ $160
$200
4-114
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Soil Sampling
EPA assumes that soil sampling occurs once every three years per operation. Two
sets of costs are developed for each model farm for soil analysis: N-based costs and P-based
costs. These costs are based on the collection of one soil sample for every 50 acres of cropland.
Soil sampling costs include the purchase of a soil auger and annual costs to collect
and analyze soil samples. EPA assumes an auger cost of $25, a collection time of 1 hour per
sample, an hourly wage of $10, and an analysis cost of $10 per sample. The cost for soil sample
collection and analysis is calculated as follows:
Capital/Initial Cost = $25
Cost for Sample Collection = (No. of Samples Collected) x (1 hr/Sample) x ($10/hr)
No. of Samples Collected = Available Acres/(50 Acres/Sample)
Cost for Sample Analysis = (No. of Samples Collected) x ($10/Sample)
Annual Costs = 0.4 x Available Cropland Acres (See Section 4.11 for
available acreage calculations.)
(Tetra Tech, 2000)
Assessment of Crop Field/Groundwater Links to Surface Water
Because the assessment of crop field and groundwater links to surface water
requires professional expertise, EPA estimates a $55-per-hour pay rate for this activity.
Assessment activities include a limited review of local geohydrology, topography, proximity to
surface waters, and current animal waste management practices. EPA estimates that the
assessment activities would require 2 days of work at the operation, 2 days of office work, and 2
days to compile the data into a final report. In addition, EPA assumes that a farmhand spends 8
hours assisting in the assessment. EPA estimated that miscellaneous expenses, including travel
time, photocopying, purchasing, maps, and report generation are 15% of total costs. This one-
time assessment does not vary with the size or type of operation; therefore, the cost is the same
4-115
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
for each model farm. The one-time labor cost does not vary by model farm and is calculated as
follows:
Professional Labor Cost = (Time at Operation + Time in Office + Final Report Time) x Labor Wage
= [(2 Days x 8 hr/day) + (2 Days x 8 hr/day) + (2 Days x 8 hr/day)] x $55/hr
= 48 hrs x $55/hr
= $2,640
Farmhand Labor Cost = (Time Assisting) x Labor Wage
= (1 Days x 8 hr/day) x $10/hr
= 8hrsx$10/hr
The miscellaneous expenses are 0.15 x $2,720 = $408; therefore, the total cost for assessment of
cropfield/groundwater links to surface water is $2,720 + $408 = $3,128 per model farm.
Lagoon Depth Marker with Periodic Inspections
Adequate manure storage capacity is critical for successful nutrient management
planning. A permanent lagoon or pond depth marker helps to determine if sufficient capacity
exists at any given time. A lagoon or pond depth marker can be constructed by using PVC pipe,
fittings, and cement. The pipe must be long enough to reach the bottom of the lagoon and extend
above the freeboard, and will be incrementally marked to measure water level. EPA assumed a
cost of $30 to build and install lagoon/pond depth markers.
Capital/Initial Cost = $30 + Labor
Periodic visual inspections are performed to ensure that sufficient capacity exists at
the lagoons and ponds. The annual labor cost of visual inspection does not vary by model farm,
and is calculated as follows:
Annual Cost = 15 minutes/week x 52 weeks/year x $10/hr x 1 hr/60 minutes
= $130 per year
4-116
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Setback Costs
Runoff control for fields used for manure application can be achieved by creating
setback areas along the fields adjacent to streams, tile drain inlets, and sinkholes. EPA assumes
there would be a cost to an operation if setback areas were required around a stream. EPA
assesses a cost to the operation for that land that is taken out of crop production.
To determine the setback area, the ratio of stream length to land area is calculated
based on national estimates of land area (3.0 million square miles of land in the contiguous United
States (ESRI, 1998) and stream miles (3.5 million miles of steams (Tetra Tech, 2000a). This ratio
is converted to miles per acre (0.00144 mile of stream per acre of land). The amount of setback
land needed is then calculated by multiplying the average acres of cropland for each model farm
by the ratio of stream miles per acre of land. (See Section 4.11 for information on cropland
acreages.) EPA assumes that the farm is square and that the stream runs through the middle of
the farm. The width of the setback area (on both sides of the stream) is estimated to be 100 feet
based on information collected from a total of 914 filter strip projects in 28 states with an average
cost of $106.62/acre (1999 dollars; USEPA, 1993). The net loss of tillable land for establishment
of a setback is estimated at 3.5% of the cropland (0.00144 mile of stream/acre x 5,280 feet/mile x
200 ft2 of buffer/ft of stream length divided by 43,560 ft2/acre). Thus, the cost for the setback
was estimated at $3.22/acre of total cropland. (Tetra Tech, 2000a.)
Development of the Nutrient Management Plan
EPA assumes that developing and updating a nutrient management plan occurs
every 3 years. The costs to develop and implement the plan vary by size and type of operation.
EPA estimates that it costs $5 per available acres to develop the PNP.
PNP Cost = $5 x Available Acres (Tetra Tech, 2000a)
Available acres for each model farm is determined by the Land Program described in Section 4.11.
4-117
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Manure Spreader Calibration
EPA assumes one-time costs for manure spreading of $500 for the purchase of
two scales.
Capital/Initial Cost = $500
Annual costs include two calibrations each for two spreaders per operation (one
dry spreader and one liquid/slurry spreader). EPA assumes that operations spread both liquid and
solid manure. EPA also assumes it takes 2 hours per calibration at $10 per hour. The costs
associated with manure spreader calibration do not vary with the size or type of operations, and
the costs are the same for each model farm. The annual costs are calculated as follows:
Annual Costs = (No. of Calibrations) x (Time per Calibration) x (Hourly Wage)
= 4 Calibrations x 2 hrs/Calibration x $10/hr
Recordkeeping and Reporting
Monthly recordkeeping and reporting requirements include recording animal
inventories, manure generation, field application of manure (amount, method, location,
incorporation), manure and soil analysis, visual inspections, manure spreader calibration
worksheets, and manure application worksheets. EPA assumes that 3 hours per month are
required to perform field operations, 3 hours per month are required to prepare the monthly
write-up, and one 8-hour day is required to prepare an annual report on animal inventories,
manure generation, and overall manure application to the farm. EPA estimates that miscellaneous
other direct costs are 10% of the labor cost, which is assumed to be $10/hour. EPA assumed that
the annual cost for recordkeeping and reporting does not vary significantly with the size or type of
operation. The total labor cost per year is calculated as follows:
Labor Costs = (Field Observations + Monthly Write-up + Annual Report) x Labor Wage
[(3 hr/mo x 12 mo/yr) + (3 hr/mo x 12 mo/yr) + (8 hr)] x $10/hr
80hr/yrx $10/hr
$800/yr
4-118
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
The miscellaneous expenses are 0.10 x $800 = $80; therefore, the total cost for recordkeeping
and reporting is $800 + $80 = $880 per model facility.
4.13.5 Results
The cost model results for N-based and P-based PNP implementation are
presented in Appendix A, Tables A-15 and A-16, respectively.
4.14 Center Pivot Irrigation
Center pivots are a method of precisely irrigating virtually any type of crop over
large areas of land. This technology is more expensive than other methods of irrigation, and
therefore, costs included for center pivot irrigation are conservative as land application costs. A
center pivot can effectively distribute liquid animal waste and supply nutrients to cropland at
agronomic rates since there a high level of control available. The center pivot design is flexible
and can be adapted to a wide range of site and wastewater characteristics. Center pivots are also
advantageous because they can distribute the wastewater quickly, uniformly, and with minimal
soil compaction. In a center pivot, an electrically driven lateral assembly extends from a center
point where the water is delivered, and the lateral circles around this point, spraying water. A
center pivot irrigation system is costed for all operations with cropland under all regulatory
options.
4.14.1 Technology Description
A center pivot generally uses 100 to more than 150 pounds of pressure per square
inch (psi) to operate, which requires a 30- to 75-horsepower motor. The center pivot system is
constructed mainly of aluminum or galvanized steel and consists of the following main
components:
4-119
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Pivot: The central point of the system around which the lateral assembly rotates.
The pivot is positioned on a concrete anchor and contains various controls for
operating the system, including timing and flow rate. Wastewater from a lagoon,
pond, or other storage structure is pumped to the pivot as the initial step in
applying the waste to the land.
Lateral: A pipe and sprinklers that distribute the wastewater across the site as it
moves around the pivot, typically 6 to 10 feet above the ground surface. The
lateral extends out from the pivot and may consist of one or more spans depending
on the site characteristics. A typical span may be from 80 to 250 feet long,
whereas the entire lateral may be as long as 2,600 feet.
Tower: A structure located at the end point of each span that provides support for
the pipe. Each tower is on wheels and is propelled by either an electrically driven
motor, a hydraulic drive wheel, or liquid pressure, which makes it possible for the
entire lateral to move slowly around the pivot.
A schematic of a center pivot irrigation system is provided in Figure 4-10.
Storage
Pump
Figure 4-10. Schematic of Center Pivot Irrigation System
4-120
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.14.2
Prevalence of the Technology in the Industry
All regulatory options are based on the installation of irrigation equipment at beef
and dairy operations that land-apply waste on site (i.e., Category 1 and 2 facilities). ERG
developed frequency factors for center pivot irrigation based on the frequency factors for an
unlined pond or lagoon. ERG assumed that if a facility has an unlined pond or lagoon on site, the
facility would also already have some method of land application equipment to land apply the
wastewater from this lagoon. The frequency factors do not vary by region. A center pivot
irrigation system is costed for operations that do not currently have irrigation equipment.
Because center pivot irrigation is typically more expensive than other methods of land application,
the costs incurred for a model farm for land application are conservative. Veal operations are not
costed for center pivot irrigation because they are assumed to have sufficient storage capacity and
therefore the necessary irrigation equipment. Estimates of facilities that do not currently have
center pivot irrigation systems are summarized in Table 4-42.
Table 4-42
Percentage of Facilities Incurring Center Pivot Irrigation Costs for All
Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Heifers
Beef
Dairy
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Region
Central
5%
50%
0%
5%
50%
0%
0%
10%
10%
0%
Mid-Atlantic
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
10%
10%
0%
Midwest
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
10%
10%
0%
Pacific
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
10%
10%
0%
South
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
10%
10%
0%
4-121
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.14.3 Design
The center pivot is designed specifically for each operation, based on wastewater
volume and characteristics, as well as site characteristics such as soil type, parcel geometry, and
slope. The soil type (i.e., its permeability and infiltration rate) affects the selection of the water
spraying pattern. The soil composition (e.g., porous, tightly packed) affects tire size selection as
to whether it allows good traction and flotation. Overall site geometry dictates the location and
layout of the pivots, the length of the laterals, and the length and number of spans and towers.
Center pivots can be designed for sites with slopes up to approximately 15%, although this
depends on the type of crop cover and methods used to alleviate runoff. The costs developed in
Section 4.13.4 assume a regular-shaped parcel (square), a water requirement of 7 gallons per
minute per acre, and 1,000 operating hours per year.
4.14.4 Costs
Costs for a center pivot irrigation system are based largely on total acres irrigated;
this is the only variable used to determine costs. Annual and capital costs for center pivots were
derived from cost curves created from data available at a vendor web site
(http://www.Zimmatic.com). Irrigated acres of 61, 122, and 488, which are listed on the website,
are plotted on the x-axis and costs (capital and annual) are plotted on the y-axis. Capital costs
include the pivot, lateral, towers, pumps, piping, generator and power units, and erection. Annual
costs include power consumption and routine maintenance of mechanical parts. The costs for
each of these points are shown in Table 4-43.
4-122
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-43
Data Points for Center Pivot Irrigation Cost Curves
Irrigated acres
61
122
488
Capital Costs
$58,741
$64,130
$122,414
Annual Costs
$3,453
$5,616
$11,559
Total Capital Costs
A polynomial curve with a regression coefficient of 1 is drawn through the capital
cost points. The resulting curve is used to estimate costs for the various acreages in the cost
model. The equation is:
y = 0.166x2 + 57.958x + 54588
where:
y
x
Capital Cost
Irrigated Acreage
Total Annual Costs
A logarithmic curve with a regression coefficient of 0.9947 is drawn through the
annual cost points. The resulting curve is used to estimate costs for various acreages in the cost
model. The equation is:
where:
y = 3954 In (x)-13033
y
x
Annual Cost
Irrigated Acreage
4-123
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.14.5 Results
The cost model results for implementing center pivot irrigation at beef feedlots and
dairies are presented in Appendix A, Table A-13.
4.15 Transportation
Animal feeding operations use different methods of transportation to remove
excess manure waste and wastewater from the feedlot operation. The costs associated with
transporting excess waste off site are calculated using two methods: contract hauling waste or
purchasing transportation equipment. For all regulatory options, both methods of transportation
are evaluated. The least expensive method for each model farm and regulatory option is chosen
as the basis of the costs.
4.15.1 Technology Description
Many animal feeding operations use manure waste and wastewater on site as
fertilizer or irrigation water on cropland; however, nutrient management plans (discussed in
Section 4.12) require that facilities apply only the amount of nutrients agronomically required by
the crop. When a facility generates more nutrients in their manure waste and wastewater than can
be used for on-site application, they must transport the remaining manure waste and wastewater
off site.
The amount of excess waste that requires transport is dependent on the nutrient
basis used for land application. Option 1 requires that animal waste be applied on a nitrogen basis
to cropland, and Options 2 through 8 require application on a phosphorus basis. In general, the
amount of waste transported off site increases under a phosphorus-based application option. The
methodology used to determine the amount of excess waste at beef feedlots and dairies is
discussed in Section 4.11.
4-124
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Manure is transported as either a solid or liquid material. The cost model assumes
that solid waste is transported before liquid waste because it is less expensive to haul solid waste.
This assumption means that operations apply liquid manure (i.e., lagoon and pond effluents) to
cropland on site before solid waste.
Contract Hauling
One method evaluated for the transport of manure waste off site is contract
hauling. In this method, the operation hires an outside firm to transport the excess waste. This
method is advantageous to facilities that do not have the necessary capacity to store excess waste
on site or the cropland acreage to agronomically apply the material. In addition, this method is
useful for operations that do not generate enough excess waste to warrant purchasing their own
waste transportation trucks. Contract haulers can also transport waste from multiple operations.
Purchase Equipment
Another method evaluated for the transport of manure waste off site is to purchase
transportation equipment. In this method, the operation owner is responsible for purchasing the
necessary trucks to haul the waste to an off-site location. Depending on the type of waste
transported, a solid waste truck, a liquid tanker truck, or both types of trucks are required. In
addition, the owner is responsible for determining a suitable location to transport the waste, as
well as all costs associated with loading and unloading the trucks, driving the trucks to the off-site
location, and maintaining the trucks.
4.15.2 Prevalence of Practice in the Industry
Beef feedlots and dairies are divided into three categories, as discussed in Section
4.11. Category 1 operations have sufficient cropland to agronomically apply all of their generated
waste on site. Category 2 operations do not have sufficient cropland and may only agronomically
4-125
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
apply a portion of their generated waste. Category 3 operations have no cropland and must
already transport all of their waste off site.
The number of operations in each category depends on the nutrient application
requirements, because more land is required for nitrogen-based application than for phosphorus
based application. Therefore, a given facility may have adequate land to apply all of their waste
under Option 1 (the N-based scenario) and would therefore be a Category 1 facility; however,
under Options 2 though 8 (P-based scenarios) the same facility may only have enough land to
apply a portion of their waste, causing the facility to fall into Category 2.
In determining costs associated with transportation, costs for each category under
both an N-based and P-based application option are calculated. Category 1 and 3 operations will
not incur any new transportation costs due to any of the regulatory options. Category 2
operations, however, do incur costs to transport excess manure off site under all regulatory
options.
In addition, some operations are located in states that already require them to
apply manure to cropland on an agronomic nitrogen basis; therefore, these operations will not
incur additional transportation costs under Option 1. Table 4-44 presents the percentage of
Category 2 operations in each region and size group that incur transportation costs for Option 1.
Category 2 operations that are required to apply at phosphorus-based agronomic rates incur
transportation costs for Options 2 through 8.
4-126
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Table 4-44
Percentage of Category 2 Operations Incurring
Option 1 Transportation Costs
Animal
Beef
Heifers
Dairy
Veal
Size
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Region
Central
100%
100%
15%
15%
100%
100%
47%
100%
100%
47%
0%
0%
Mid-Atlantic
100%
79%
20%
20%
83%
83%
69%
83%
83%
69%
0%
0%
Midwest
100%
100%
9%
9%
100%
100%
31%
100%
100%
31%
0%
0%
Pacific
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
0%
0%
South
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
50%
100%
100%
50%
0%
0%
4.15.3
Design and Costs of Contract Hauling
considered:
In determining costs for the contract hauling option, three major factors are
1)
2)
3)
Amount of waste transported;
Type of waste transported (semi-solid or liquid); and
Location of the operation.
4-127
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Additional factors that relate to these three major factors include:
Hauling distance;
Weight of the waste;
Rate charged to haul waste ($/ton-mile); and
Percentage of operations in each region and category that incur transport
costs.
Using these factors, the cost model uses the following three steps to determine
costs for a model farm:
1) Determine constants, based on region, animal type, and waste type;
2) Determine the weight of the transported waste, accounting for water losses
during storage or composting; and
3) Determine the annual waste transportation costs.
Each of these steps is explained in detail below.
1) Determine constants, based on region, animal type, and waste type
Constants used in this evaluation include the hauling distance, the moisture content
of stockpiled manure, the moisture content of composted manure, and the hauling rate ($/ton-
mile).
Hauling Distance
Because Category 1 and 3 operations do not require additional hauling under the
regulatory options, their haul distance is set to zero. The one-way hauling distance for a Category
2 operation, depends on the region in which it is located. The one-way hauling distance considers
the size of the county, whether the county has a potential for excess manure nutrients, and the
proximity of other counties that have a nutrient excess. (For more details, see Revised
Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations. Tetra Tech, 2000.) In
4-128
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
determining counties with nutrient excess, all major animal types were counted. (Analysis based
on Kellogg, 2000.) Table 4-45 presents the Category 2 hauling distances by region.
Table 4-45
Hauling Distances for Transportation
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
One-Way Hauling Distance (miles) for Category 2
N-Basis
11.0
5.5
6.5
12.5
6.0
P-Basis
16.5
30.5
10.0
21.5
14.5
REFERENCE: For detailed information on the calculation of one-way hauling
distances, see Revised Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Type
Operations. Tetra Tech, 2000.
Moisture Content of Waste
Based on available information, it is estimated that the moisture content of
stockpiled manure is assumed to be 35.4% and the moisture content of composted manure is
assumed to be at 30.8% (Sweeten, et.al., 1995).
4-129
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Hauling Rate
Based on information obtained from various contract haulers, the $/ton-mile rate
for liquid and solids wastes for Category 2 operations is estimated and presented in Table 4-46.
Table 4-46
Rates for Contract Hauling for Category 2 Operations
Type of Waste
Solid ($/ton-mile)
Liquid ($/ton-mile)
N-Based Application
0.24
0.53
P-Based Application
0.15
0.10
REFERENCE: For additional detail on the calculation of contract hauling rates, see Methodology to Calculate Contract
Hauling Rates for Beef and Dairy Cost Model. Eastern Research Group, Inc. 2000.
2) Determine the weight of the transported waste.
The methods used to calculate the amount of waste that is transported off site are
described in Section 4.11.3.2.
3) Determine the annual cost of transporting the waste each year.
The annual cost of hiring a contractor to haul the waste is based on the amount of
waste (in either semi-solid or liquid form), the distance traveled, and the haul rate. The following
equation incorporates both the solid and liquid annual hauling costs:
Annual Cost = (Weight of Solids x Solid Hauling Rate x Hauling Distance Romld-triP) +
(Weight of Liquids x Liquid Hauling Rate x Hauling Distance Romld-triP)
There are no capital costs associated with contract hauling.
4-130
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
4.15.4 Design and Cost of Purchase Equipment Transportation Option
In determining costs for the purchase truck transportation option, three major
factors are considered:
1. Amount of transported waste;
2. Type of waste transported (semi-solid or liquid); and
3. The location of the operation.
Additional factors that relate to these three major factors include:
Hauling distance;
Number of hauling trips required per year;
The waste volume;
Average speed of the truck;
Cost of fuel;
Cost of maintenance;
Cost of purchasing the truck;
Cost for labor for the truck driver; and
Percentage of facilities in each region and category that incur transport
costs under the proposed regulatory options.
Using these factors, the cost model completes the following six steps to determine
costs for a model farm:
1. Determine constants, based on region, animal type, and waste type;
2. Determine the weight of the waste transported, accounting for water losses
during storage or composting;
3. Determine the number of trucks and number of trips required to haul all of
the waste each year;
4. Determine the number of hours required to transport waste each year;
5. Determine the purchase cost for the trucks required to transport the waste;
and
6. Determine the annual cost to transport the waste.
Each of these steps is explained in detail below.
4-131
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
1) Determine constants, based on region, animal type, and waste type
Constants used in this evaluation include the hauling distance, the average speed of
the truck, the moisture content of stockpiled manure, the moisture content of composted manure,
the hours spent hauling per day, the loading and unloading time, the fuel rate, the maintenance
rate, the hourly hauling rate, the volume of waste the truck can haul, and the purchase price of the
truck.
Hauling Distance
The one-way hauling distance for an operation depends on the region in which it is
located and what category operation is being evaluated. For each region, the average distance the
waste must be hauled varies according to regional factors. These distances are presented in Table
4-47.
Average Speed
The average speed of the truck is estimated to be 35 miles per hour (USEPA,
1996a).
Moisture Content of Waste
Based on available information, it is estimated that the moisture content of
stockpiled manure is 35.4 percent, and the moisture content of composted manure is 30.8%
(Sweeten, et.al., 1995.)
4-132
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Working Schedule
For this cost model it is estimated that one laborer requires 25 minutes to load and
unload the truck and hauls waste for 7 hours per day (USEPA, 1996a).
Fuel Rate
The diesel fuel is estimated to cost $1.35 per gallon. (Jewell, 1997)
Maintenance Rate
The estimated maintenance rates for liquid and solid waste trucks are $0.63 per
hauling mile and $0.50 per hauling mile respectively (Jewell, 1997; USEPA, 1996b)
Labor Rate
The rate used in this model for the laborer to load, unload, and haul the waste is
$10 per hour.
Capacity and Prices of Trucks
The size of the solid waste trucks vary, depending on the amount of waste that is
hauled. The standard sizes and purchase prices for solid waste trucks used in the cost model are:
7-cubic-yard truck = $91,728
10-cubic-yard truck = $137,593
15-cubic-yard truck = $183,457
25-cubic-yard truck = $241,054
(Merle Kelly Ford, 1999)
4-133
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
The size of the liquid waste trucks also varies, depending on the amount of waste
that is hauled. The standard sizes and purchase prices for liquid waste trucks used in the cost
model are:
1,600-gallon truck = $84,262
2,500-gallon truck = $ 113,061
4,000-gallon truck = $140,792
(Klein Products of Kansas, 1999)
2) Determine the weight of the waste transported.
The methods used to calculate the amount of waste transported are described in
Section 4.11.3.2.
3) Determine the number of trips required to haul all of the waste per year
To determine the number of trips per year required to haul all of the waste, the
following calculations are performed. First, the size of the truck is determined. Then, the
maximum possible number of trips per year is calculated, given the hauling schedule and the
number of days the truck is available for transport per year. A test is then performed to see if the
truck size selected is large enough to transport all of the waste requiring transport within the time
frame calculated as the maximum number of trips per year. If the truck is not large enough, then
the cost model assumes that multiple trucks are purchased, and recalculates the equations based
on the larger capacity.
The equation for the maximum number of trips per year is:
Maximum trips/yr = (Haul Schedule x Haul Days')
(Truck Loading Time + Truck Unloading Time + Truck Haul Time)
The capacity of the truck is determined through an iterative process that
substitutes the size of the truck (10 CY, 15 CY, and 25 CY) and the number of trucks (1 or 2)
into the following equation until the number of trips per year is greater than the maximum number
of trips per year:
4-134
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Number of trips/yr = Solid Waste (].. Coll,
lected) -
(Number of Trucks x Capacity of Truck)
The equation for the actual number of trips per year is the following:
Actual trips/yr = Solid Waste ( collected)
(Number of Trucks x Capacity of Truck)
Note: The number of trucks is rounded up to the nearest whole number.
4) Determine the number of hours required to transport waste each year
The number of hours required to transport all of the waste each year is based on
the hauling time, the loading and unloading time, and the actual number of hauling trips per year,
as shown below:
Transport Hours = (Truck Loading Time + Truck Unloading Time + Truck Haul Time) x Number of Trips
5) Determine the purchase cost of the trucks required to transport the waste
The purchase cost of the truck(s) depends on the number of trucks needed and the
cost for that size of truck, as shown below:
Purchase Cost = Number of Trucks x Cost of Truck
6) Determine the annual cost to transport the waste
The annual operating and maintenance cost for owning and operating the trucks is
based on the fuel spent, the maintenance rate per mile driven, and the labor costs. This is
calculated for both the liquid waste transport and the solid waste transport. The equation for the
annual cost is the following:
4-135
-------
Section 4.0 - Cost Modules
Annual Cost = (Maintenance Rate x Hauling Distance ^^4.^ x Number of Trips + Transport
Hours x Labor Rate + Hauling Distance Romld.trip x Number of Trips / Fuel Rate)
Number of Trucks
4.15.5 Results
The cost model results for contract hauling manure waste when applying on a
nitrogen or a phosphorus basis are presented in Appendix A, Tables A-20 and A-21, respectively.
The cost model results for purchasing equipment to transport manure waste off site when
applying on a nitrogen or a phosphorus basis are presented in Appendix A, Tables A-22 and A-23,
respectively.
4-136
-------
Section 5.0 - Farm-Weighting Factors
5.0 FARM -WEIGHTING FACTORS
This section discusses three types of farm-weighting factors that are applied to the
weighted component costs to generate weighted farm costs. The weighting factors are based on
the farm operation: farm type, manure application basis, and category. These farm-weighting
factors reflect the number of operations within a model farm for each type of operation.
5.1 Farm Type Factor
For all dairy model farms, two types of dairy operations are costed: a flush dairy
and a hose dairy. There are six cost modules that generate different costs depending on whether
the dairy operates as a flush or hose operation. These modules are: concrete gravity settling
basin, lagoons, anaerobic digesters, concrete pads, center pivot irrigation, and transportation. As
described in Section 4.0, these component costs are computed separately for both flush and hose
dairies and adjusted based on frequency factors that indicate the use of the component in the
industry as a whole. Then, these results are weighted by the "farm-type factor." This factor
reflects the number of operations within a model farm that operate as flush versus hose dairies.
For beef and veal operations, only one type of operation is costed; therefore, the
farm-type factor for each of these model farms is 100 percent.
Table 5-1 presents the farm-type factors used in the cost model for each model
farm. These factors are based on data collected by EPA during site visits at operations across the
United States and from communications with industry experts.
5.2 Manure Application Basis Factor
Under all regulatory options considered, all operations are required to implement
nitrogen-based agronomic application rates when applying animal waste or wastewater.
5-1
-------
Section 5.0 - Farm-Weighting Factors
Table 5-1
Farm-Type Weighting Factors by Model Farm
Animal Type
Beef/Veal/Herfer
Dairy
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
Smith
Flush
Frequency
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50%
25%
25%
50%
50%
50%
25%
25%
50%
50%
75%
50%
50%
75%
7S%
Hose
Frequency
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
50%
75%
75%
50%
50%
50%
75%
75%
50%
50%
25%
50%
50%
25%
9S%
Beef/Veal/Heifer
Frequency
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA - Not applicable.
5-2
-------
Section 5.0 - Farm-Weighting Factors
Under Options 2 through 8, however, operations that are located in areas with certain site
conditions (e.g., phosphorus-saturated soils) are required to follow more stringent phosphorus-
based agronomic application rates.
There are four cost modules that generate different costs dependent on whether
the facility uses nitrogen- or phosphorus-based agronomic application rates. These modules are
nutrient management planning, nutrient-based manure application, center pivot irrigation, and
transportation. As described in Section 4.0, these component costs are computed separately for
both nitrogen- and phosphorus-based application and adjusted based on frequency factors that
indicate the use of the component in the industry. Then, these results are weighted by the
"nutrient-based application factor." This factor reflects the number of operations within a model
farm that require nitrogen-based application rates versus phosphorus-based application rates.
For Option 1, all operations are costed for nitrogen-based application. Table 5-2
presents the nutrient-based application factors used in the cost model for Options 2 though 7.
Section 4.12 describes the development of these factors.
5.3 Category Factor
As described in Section 4.11, all operations fall into one of three categories
depending on the amount of on-site cropland available for manure application. Category 1
operations have sufficient land to apply on site all manure waste and wastewater generated.
Category 2 operations do not have sufficient land to apply on site all manure waste and
wastewater generated. Category 3 operations have zero cropland available for on-site application
and irrigation. Category acreages and the number of operations that fall into each category are
calculated based on the type of nutrient-based application that is required.
5-3
-------
Section 5.0 - Farm-Weighting Factors
Table 5-2
Nutrient-Based Weighting Factors for Options 2 through 8
Animal Type
Beef
Dairy /Heifer
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium2
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Midwest
Mid-Atlantic
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
Sruith
Nitrogen Weighting
63%
71%
88%
40%
49%
63%
71%
88%
40%
49%
52%
93%
66%
40%
64%
52%
66%
93%
40%
64%
55%
53%
58%
40%
75%
55%
53%
58%
40%
75%
69%
47%
61%
40%
57%
55%
53%
58%
40%
7^%
Phosphorus
37%
29%
12%
60%
51%
37%
29%
12%
60%
51%
48%
7%
34%
60%
36%
48%
34%
7%
60%
36%
45%
47%
42%
60%
25%
45%
47%
42%
60%
25%
31%
53%
39%
60%
43%
45%
47%
42%
60%
9^%
Note: Option 1 assumes that all operations apply on a nitrogen-basis; therefore,
factor is zero. The above table applies to Options 2 through 8.
the nitrogen weighting factor is 100% and the phosphorus weighting
5-4
-------
Section 5.0 - Farm-Weighting Factors
There are four cost modules that generate costs based on the amount of on-site
cropland that is available: nutrient management planning, nutrient-based manure application, on-
site irrigation, and transportation. As described in Section 4.0, these component costs are
computed separately for each category (and whether nitrogen- or phosphorus-based application is
required). Then, these results are weighted by the "category factor." This factor reflects the
number of operations within a model farm that fall into each category based on whether nitrogen-
based or phosphorus-based application rates are required.
Table 5-3 presents the category factors used in the cost model. Option 1 uses only
nitrogen-based factors, while Options 2 though 7 use a combination of both nitrogen- and
phosphorus-based factors. Section 4.11 describes the development of these factors.
Table 5-3
Category Weighting Factors
Animal Type
Beef/Heifer
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Nitrogen-Based Application
Category
1
84%
84%
68%
8%
50%
50%
27%
100%
100%
Category
2
9%
9%
21%
53%
36%
36%
51%
0%
0%
Category
3
7%
7%
11%
39%
14%
14%
22%
0%
0%
Phosphorus-Based Application
Category
1
62%
62%
22%
1%
25%
25%
10%
100%
100%
Category
2
31%
31%
67%
60%
61%
61%
68%
0%
0%
Category
3
7%
7%
11%
39%
14%
14%
22%
0%
0%
5-5
-------
Section 6.0 - Transportation Cost Test
6.0 TRANSPORTATION COST TEST
When evaluating costs to transport waste off site, purchasing a truck to transport
waste and hiring a contractor to haul waste are two scenarios considered for the model beef
feedlot or dairy. Because the weight and volume of the manure directly impact the transportation
costs, each scenario is also considered with composting the waste prior to hauling and without
composting. This section discusses the test used to determine which scenario is least costly for
each model farm.
6.1 Purpose of the Cost Test
When animal feeding operations are unable to apply all of their waste on site at the
appropriate agronomic rate, the waste is transported off site to a location where the waste is
applied at the agronomic rate. EPA considered two methods of off-site transport: 1) hiring a
contractor to haul the waste; or 2) purchasing a truck to move the waste without third-party
assistance (see Section 4.14). In addition, animal feeding operations can choose to compost their
waste before hauling to reduce the weight and volume of the waste and to improve the quality of
the end product (see Section 4.9). It is assumed that operations will choose the transportation
and composting pair that is least expensive. To determine which method a beef feedlot, dairy, or
veal operation will choose, a cost test is performed that compares the costs annualized over 10
years.
For each model farm that transports waste off site under Options 1 through 4, and
6 through 8, it is assumed that the operation uses one of four transportation scenarios:
1. Composting with contract haul;
2. Composting with purchase truck;
3. No composting with contract haul; and
4. No composting with purchase truck.
For Option 5, only transportation scenarios with composting are considered.
6-1
-------
Section 6.0 - Transportation Cost Test
6.2 Cost Test Methodology
The transportation scenario that is costed for each operation is the scenario that is
the least costly when annualized over 10 years. To determine this, each transportation scenario is
costed separately. The cost for each transportation scenario is then added to the weighted farm
costs to create four possible model farm costs, with capital costs and annual costs. Each of these
is annualized, using the following equation:
A(n) = P x I x (1 +1)" / [(1 + I)n - 1] + A
where: A(n) = Annualized cost over n years
P = Capital cost
I = Interest rate
n = Number of years
A = Annual cost
The least expensive annualized cost of the four transportation scenarios is selected as the
preferred scenario. Appendix B presents the transportation scenario selected for each model farm
for each option.
6-2
-------
Section 7.0 - Model Farm Costs
7.0 MODEL FARM COSTS
The total model farm costs are calculated using the weighted component costs, the
weighted farm costs, and the results of the cost test. This section presents an example of this
calculation for the following model farm for Option 2:
Animal type = Dairy;
Size class = Largel; and
Regional location = Central.
The costs presented in this example represent the expected costs for this model farm as of the
Summer 2000 cost analysis. Appendix C presents the model farm costs (in 1997 dollars) for each
regulatory option.
7.1 Calculation of Unit Component Costs
The first step in the cost calculation is the generation of costs for each component
included in the regulatory option. Table 7-1 presents component costs that do not vary by
nutrient application basis (i.e., nitrogen- versus phosphorus-based application). The costs are
presented for both flush and hose dairies for this model farm and option. Table 7-2 presents
component costs that do vary by nutrient application basis. Finally, Table 7-3 presents the
component costs for the four transportation scenarios considered for both flush and hose dairies.
7-1
-------
Section 7.0 - Model Farm Costs
Table 7-1
Component Costs for Option 2
Dairy, Largel, Central
Component
Concrete Basin
Berms
Composting
Lagoon
Flush Dairy
Capital
$129,802
$3,057
$9,157
$178,526
Annual
$2,596
$61
$7,939
$8,926
Hose Dairy
Capital
$5,563
$3,057
$9,157
$97,701
Annual
$111
$61
$7,939
$4,885
Table 7-2
Component Costs for Option 2 That Vary by Nutrient Application Basis
Dairy, Largel, Central
Component
Nutrient
Management
Planning
Manure
Application
Commercial
Fertilizer
Application
Type of
Cost
Fixed
Annual
3 -year
Recurring
Capital
Annual
Capital
Annual
Nitrogen-Based Application
Category
1
$1,980
$2,040
$3,034
$92,633
$9,956
$0
$0
Category
2
$1,006
$1,474
$1,184
$60,457
$4,391
$0
$0
Category
3
$690
$1,290
$600
$0
$0
$0
$0
Phosphorus-Based Application
Category
1
$5,333
$3,991
$9,341
$365,922
$15,021
$0
$41,216
Category
2
$1,599
$1,819
$2,301
$77,512
$8,571
$0
$8,049
Category
3
$690
$1,290
$600
$0
$0
$0
$0
7-2
-------
Section 7.0 - Model Farm Costs
Table 7-3
Transportation Costs for Option 2 Dairy, Largel, Central
Category 2 Operations1
Farm Type
Flush Dairy
Hose Dairy
Transportation
Scenario
Purchase Truck
Contract Haul
Purchase Truck
(composted manure)
Contract Haul
(composted manure)
Purchase Truck
Contract Haul
Purchase Truck
(composted manure)
Contract Haul
(composted manure)
Nitrogen-Based Application
Capital
$373,312
$0
$373,312
$0
$373,312
$0
$373,312
$0
Annual
$32,440
$100,997
$32,363
$100,957
$28,093
$77,074
$27,787
$76,878
Phosphorus-Based Application
Capital
$373,312
$0
$373,312
$0
$373,312
$0
$373,312
$0
Annual
$49,058
$32,106
$48,955
$32,069
$43,017
$26,878
$42,606
$26,694
'Category 1 operations do not incur transportation costs because they have sufficient land to apply all waste on site, and
Category 3 operations do not incur transportation costs because they are already assumed to transfer all waste off site.
7.2
Calculation of Weighted Costs
The component costs are then weighted to reflect the percentage of operations that
already have some components in place. The following equation is used to weight the component
costs:
Costwel hted = Cost nent x (1 - Frequency Factor)
where:
Costwelghted
^-OSlcomponent
Frequency Factor =
= Weighted component cost
= Component cost (from Table 7-1)
Percentage of operations that have component in place
Table 7-4 presents the weighted component costs for components that do not vary
by nutrient application basis. The two components that vary by nutrient application basis (nutrient
management planning and commercial fertilizer application) have a frequency factor of zero,
meaning that no operations have the components in place; therefore, the weighted component
costs are equal to the unweighted component costs presented in Table 7-2. Table 7-5 presents
7-3
-------
Section 7.0 - Model Farm Costs
weighted component costs for each of the four transportation scenarios for both flush and hose
dairies.
Table 7-4
Weighted Component Costs for Option 2
Dairy, Largel, Central
Component
Concrete Basin
Berms
Composting
Lagoon
Frequency Factor
33%
100%
0%
100%
Flush Dairy
Capital
$86,967
$0
$9,157
$0
Annual
$1,739
$0
$7,939
$0
Hose Dairy
Capital
$3,727
$0
$9,157
$0
Annual
$74
$0
$7,939
$0
7-4
-------
Section 7.0 - Model Farm Costs
Table 7-5
Weighted Transportation Costs for Option 2
Dairy, Largel, Central
Category 2 Operations1
Farm Type
Flush Dairy
Hose Dairy
Transportation
Scenario
Purchase Truck
Contract Haul
Purchase Truck
(composted manure)
Contract Haul
(composted manure)
Purchase Truck
Contract Haul
Purchase Truck
(composted manure)
Contract Haul
(composted manure)
N-Based
Frequency
Factor2
53%
53%
53%
53%
53%
53%
53%
53%
Nitrogen-Based
Application
Capital
$175,457
$0
$175,457
$0
$175,457
$0
$175,457
$0
Annual
$15,247
$53,806
$15,211
$53,780
$13,014
$40,174
$12,846
$40,037
Phosphorus-Based
Application
Capital
$175,457
$0
$175,457
$0
$175,457
$0
$175,457
$0
Annual
$23,057
$89,543
$23,009
$89,505
$19,954
$69,095
$19,729
$68,890
'Category 1 operations do not incur transportation costs because they have sufficient land to apply all waste on site, and Category 3
operations do not incur transportation costs because they are already assumed to transfer all waste off site.
2 No frequency factor is applied to P-based application scenarios because it is assumed that no facilities currently apply their waste on a
P-basis.
7.3
Calculation of Weighted Farm Costs
Some weighted component costs vary depending on the type of farm operation and
the type of application basis. The first farm-weighting factor applied adjusts the dairy weighted
component costs for the percentage of operations that are flush dairies or hose dairies. The farm-
type weighting factor applied is based on the regional location of the farm and does not vary by
component. The following equations are used to weight the dairy component costs:
7-5
-------
Section 7.0 - Model Farm Costs
Costwelghted)flush = Costwelghted x (Farm-Type Werghtrng Factorflush)
Costwdghtedjhose = Costwdghted x (Farm-Type Werghtrng Factorhose)
where: Costwdghted = Weighted component cost
Farm-Type Weighting Factorflush = Percentage of operations that are flush dairies
Farm-Type Weighting Factorhose = Percentage of operations that are hose dairies
For the example model farm, EPA estimates that 75% of the operations are flush dairies and 25%
of the operations are hose dairies.
The second farm-weighting factor applied adjusts the weighted component costs
for the type of nutrient-based application used. Because all operations are required to land-apply
using a nitrogen-based application rate under Option 1, the weighted farm costs are equal to the
weighted component costs. For Options 2 though 8, the number of operations that require
phosphorus-based application are estimated, as described in Section 4.12. To calculate costs
weighted by application method, the component costs must be proportioned between the number
of nitrogen-based operations and phosphorus-based operations. The following equation
calculates the weighted cost for Category 1 operations.
Weighted Category 1 Cost - [(Cat 1 Facs(N) * Catl(N)Cost) + (Cat 1 Facs(P) * Catl(P)Cost)]
[Cat 1 Facs(N) + Cat 1 Facs(P)]
where: Cat 1 Facs (N) = Number of Category 1 operations that apply on
nitrogen basis
Cat 1(N) Cost = Weighted unit component cost, Category 1, nitrogen-
based application
Cat 1 Facs (P) = Number of Category 1 operations that apply on
phosphorus basis
Cat 1(P) Cost = Weighted unit component cost, Category 1,
phosphorus-based application
Table 7-6 presents the weighted farm costs for the example model, including the selected least-
cost transportation scenario.
7-6
-------
Section 7.0 - Model Farm Costs
Table 7-6
Weighted Farm Costs for Option 21
Dairy, Largel, Central
Component
Concrete Basin
Berms
Composting2
Lagoon
Nutrient Management
Planning3
Commercial Fertilizer
Application
Category 1
Capital
$66,157
$0
$9,157
$0
$1,068
$0
Annual
$1,323
$0
$7,939
$0
$950
$5,880
Category 2
Capital
$66,157
$0
$9,157
$0
$1,600
$0
Annual
$1,323
$0
$7,939
$0
$1,989
$3,015
Category 3
Capital
$66,157
$0
$9,157
$0
$304
$0
Annual
$1,323
$0
$7,939
$0
$568
$0
Selected Transportation Scenario
Purchase Truck
$0
$0
$0
$64,844
$0
$0
oss are wege y arm ype ose versus us an y appcaon ass nrogen versus posporus.
2Composting costs were not selected as part of the model farm costs.
3Nutrient management planning capital costs are fixed costs; 3-year recurring costs are also incurred, but are not shown
in this table.
7.4
Final Model Farm Costs
The weighted farm costs are summed and annualized for each of the transportation
scenarios, and the least costly scenario is selected. Table 7-7 presents the weighted farm costs
selected for the model farm. These costs are summed to generate the final model farm capital,
fixed, annual, and 3-year recurring costs by category. Commercial fertilizer costs are listed as a
separate cost item in the model farm result tables presented in Appendix C.
7-7
-------
Section 7.0 - Model Farm Costs
Table 7-7
Model Farm Costs by Category
Dairy, Largel, Central
Component
Capital
Annual
Fixed
3-Year
Recurring
Category 1
Lagoon
Berms
Concrete Basin
Nutrient Management Planning
Selected Transportation Scenario: Contract Haul
Total Model Farm Costs
Commercial Fertilizer Application
$0
$0
$66,157
$0
$0
$66,157
$0
$0
$0
$1,323
$950
$0
$2,273
$4,122
$0
$0
$0
$1,068
$0
$1,068
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,753
$0
$1,753
$0
Category 2
Lagoon
Berms
Concrete Basin
Nutrient Management Planning
Selected Transportation Scenario: Purchase Truck
Total Model Farm Costs
Commercial Fertilizer Application
$0
$0
$66,157
$0
$0
$66,157
$0
$0
$0
$1,323
$1,989
$43,719
$47,031
$5,473
$0
$0
$0
$1,600
$0
$1,600
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,169
$0
$2,169
$0
Category 3
Lagoon
Berms
Concrete Basin
Nutrient Management Planning
Selected Transportation Scenario: Purchase Truck
Total Model Farm Costs
Commercial Fertilizer Application
$0
$0
$66,157
$0
$0
$66,157
$0
$0
$0
$1,323
$568
$0
$1,891
$0
$0
$0
$0
$304
$0
$304
$0
$0
$0
$0
$264
$0
$264
$0
7-8
-------
REFERENCES
American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). Engineering Practices and Data: Manure
Production and Characteristics. St. Joseph, Michigan. 1999.
Bloomberg.com. Cross Currency Rates.
November 7, 2000.
Bocher, Lori Ward. Custom Heifer Grower... Specialize in Providing Replacements for Dairy
Herd.. Hoards Dairyman. 1999.
Building News. Home Builder's 1998 Costbook. 6th Edition. 1998.
Cady, Dr. Roger. Telephone conversation with Dr. Roger Cady, Monsanto Company and
Founder of the Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association. February 18, 2000.
Case's Ag-world.com The Haymarket. Website marketplace. December 13, 2000.
Crouch, A. Telephone conversation with Alexa Crouch., American Veal Association. October 14,
1999.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) Development of Frequency Factors Used in the Beef and
Dairy Cost Methodology. Internal memorandum. 2000a.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. Facility Counts for Beef, Dairy, Veal, and Heifer Operations.
Memorandum by Deborah Bartram, Eastern Research Group, Inc. to the Feedlots Rulemaking
Record. 2000b.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. Methodology to Calculate Storage Capacity Requirements Under
Option 7 and Existing Capacity. Internal memorandum. 2000c.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. Methodology to Calculate Contract Hauling Rates for Beef and
Dairy Cost Model. Internal memorandum. 2000d.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. Methodology to Cost Conveyances for Feedlots. Internal
Memorandum. 2000e.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. Methodology to Cost Digesters for Dairies. Internal Memorandum.
2000f.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. Methodology for Weighted Costs and Facilities. Calculation Sheet.
February 22, 2000g.
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI)Z)ato &Maps CD No. 2: United States
(Detailed). Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA. 1998.
-------
Fertilizer Institute. U.S. Average Fertilizer Prices Paid by Farmers. Facsimile received from The
Fertilizer Institute. February, 2000.
Fulhage, Charles D. and Donald L. Pfost. Settling Basins and Terraces for Dairy Waste.
University of Missouri-Columbia, Department of Agricultural Engineering. 1995.
George, John. Telephone discussion regarding drylot areas and clay liners. September 1999.
Hilne, Robert J. Retrofitting Existing Facilities for the Young Heifer. Proceedings from the 3rd
Annual Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association. March 1999.
Jewell, W.J., P.E. Wright, N.P. Fleszar, G. Green, A. Safmski, A. Zucker. Evaluation of
Anaerobic Digestion Options for Groups of Dairy Farms in Upstate New York. Department of
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Cornell University. June 1997.
Kellogg, Robert et. al. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland
to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the U.S.. 2000
Klein Products of Kansas, Inc. Facsimile to Indra Mitra of Eastern Research Group. August,
1999.
Lander, C.H. D. Moffitt, and K.Alt, Nutrients Available from Livestock Manure Relative to Crop
Growth Requirements. Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working Paper 98-1. 1998.
Lusk, P. Methane Recovery from Animal Manures: a Current Opportunities Casebook. 3rd
Edition. NREL/SR-25145. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, Colorado. 1998.
Means, R.S. Building Construction Cost Data. 56th Annual Edition. 1999.
Means, R.S. Building Construction Cost Data. 56th Annual Edition. 1998.
Means, R.S. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 10th Annual Edition. 1996.
Merle Kelly Ford, Inc. Facsimile to Indra Mitra of Eastern Research Group. August, 1999.
Midwest Plan Service (MWPS). Dairy Free stall Housing and Equipment. MWPS-7. 6th Edition.
1997.
Midwest Plan Service. Beef Housing and Equipment Handbook. Fourth Edition, MWPS-6. Iowa
State University. Ames, Iowa. November 1995.
Midwest Plan Service. Structures and Environment Handbook, MWPS-1. Iowa State University.
Ames, Iowa. 1987.
Midwest Plan Service. Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. Second Edition. MWPS-18. Iowa
State University. Ames Iowa. April 1993.
-------
National Climate Data Center (NCDC). Normal Monthly Precipitation, 1961-1990. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1999.
National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF). Telephone discussion between Michelle DeCaire,
Eastern Research Group, and Carissa Itle, NMPF. August, 2000.
North Carolina State University (NCSU). Draft of Swine and Poultry Industry Characterization,
Waste Management Practices and Modeled Detailed Analysis of Predominantly Used Systems.
1998.
North Carolina State University. Draft Swine and Poultry Industry Characterization, Waste
management Practices and Model Detailed Analysis of Predominantly Used Systems. Prepared
for Environmental Protection Agency (WA 1-27). September 30, 1998.
North Carolina State University. Livestock Manure Production and Characterization in North
Carolina. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. 1993.
Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service (NRAES). Animal Agriculture and the
Environment: Nutrients, Pathogens, and Community Relations. Proceedings from the Animal
Agriculture and the Environment North American Conference (NRAES-96), December 1996.
Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service. Liquid Manure Application Systems Design
Manual. Dougherty, Mark, Larry Geohring, and Peter Wright. National Regional Agricultural
Engineering Service. 1989.
Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service. On-Farm Composting Handbook. Rynk,
Robert (editor).NRAES-54. Ithica, New York. 1992.
Omega Engineering, The Temperature Handbook. Omega Engineering, Inc. 1999.
Richardson Engineering Services, Inc. Process Plant Construction Estimating Standards. Volume
1. Sitework, Piping, Concrete. 1996.
Schultz, A.C., Inc. Personal communication. February, 1999.
Sharpley, A.N., T. Daniel, T. Sims, J. Lemunyon, R. Stevens, R. Parry. Agricultural Phosphorus
andEutrophication. ARS-149. United States Department of Agriculture: Agricultural Research
Service. July, 1999.
Shuyler, Lynn. E-mail correspondence regarding feedlot area and runoff coefficients. September
9, 1999.
Stull, Carolyn E. et al., eds. Animal Care Series: Dairy Care Practices. 2nd ed, Dairy
Workgroup. University of California Cooperative Extension. June 1998.
Sweeten, JohnM. and Stephen H. Amosson. Total Quality Manure Management. Texas Cattle
Feeders Association. June 1995.
-------
Tetra Tech, Inc. Costs Associated with surface water sampling. Memorandum to Paul Shriner
(EPA). December 17, 1999a.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Cost Model for Swine and Poultry Sectors. May 2000a.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Costs of Storage, Transportation, and Land Application of Manure. February
1999b.
Tetra Tech, Inc. Revised Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations.
Memorandum to Paul Shriner (EPA), January 7, 2000b.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. National Animal
Health Monitoring System, Part I: Feedlot Management Practices. 1995a.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
National Animal Health Monitoring System, Swine '95: Part I: Reference of 1995 Swine
Management Practices. 1995b.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. National Animal
Health Monitoring System, Swine '95: Part II: Reference of 1995 Grower/Finisher Health and
Management, 1996a.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), Part 1:
Reference of 1996 Dairy Management Practices. 1996b.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. National Animal
Health Monitoring System, Part III: Reference of 1996 Dairy Health and Health. 1996c.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture, 1991.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Statistical
Bulletin 952. Milking Cows and Production: Final Estimates 1993-1997. 1999.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Agricultural
Waste Management Field Handbook, National Engineering Handbook (NEH), Part 651. 1992.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Conservation
Practice Standard: Waste Storage Facility Code 313, April 1995c.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Monthly Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Report with State
Distributions. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-826. 1998.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agstar Handbook: A Manual for Developing Biogas
Systems at Commercial Farms in the United States. EPA 430-B-97-015. Office of Air and
Radiation. July 1997a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agstar Technical Series: Complete Mix Digesters. EPA
430-F-97-004. Office of Air and Radiation. February 1997b.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agstar Technical Series: Covered Lagoon Digesters.
EPA 430-F-96-007. Office of Air and Radiation. March 1996a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agstar Technical Series: Plug Flow Digesters. EPA 430-
F-97-006. Office of Air and Radiation. February 1997c.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources
of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA840-B-92-002. Office of Water. 1993.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Identification of Acreage of U.S. Agricultural Land with
a Significant Potential for Siting of Animal Waste Facilities and Associated Limitations from
Potential of Groundwater Contamination-draft. Office of Water. Sobecki, T.M., and M. Clipper.
December 15, 1999
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Process Design Manual: Land Application of
Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage. USEPA Report Number: EPA/625/R-95/001. Office of
Research and Development. Washington, D.C. 1996b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Site Visit Report to Iowa and Minnesota. Prepared by P.
Shriner. May 1998.
Wilson, Lowell L., Carolyn L. Stull, and Tammy L. Terosky. Scientific Advancements and
Legislation Addressing Veal Calves in North America. In: Veal Perspectives to the Year 2000,
Proceedings of an International Symposium. LeMans, France. September 12 and 13, 1995.
Zimmatic, Inc. Cost Estimate for Center Pivot Irrigation Systems. http://www.Zimmatic.com.
1999.
Zulovich, Joseph M. Ventilation for Warm Confinement Livestock Buildings. Department of
Agricultural Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia. Columbia, Missouri, October 1993.
htto://muextensi on.missouri.edu/xolor/agguides/agengin/gQ 1107.htm
-------
Appendix A
UNIT COMPONENT COSTS
-------
Table A-l
Facility Costs for the Installation and Maintenance of Earthen Settling Basins
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
SizeClass
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Capital
1,449
4,107
6,284
2,901
3,868
20,397
64,748
101,037
44,590
60,717
739
1,843
2,742
1,342
1,741
565
1,274
1,858
952
1,210
887
2,309
3,474
1,665
2,181
515
1,122
1,619
845
1,069
413
792
1,103
622
758
Annual
72
205
314
145
193
1,020
3,237
5,052
2,230
3,036
37
92
137
67
87
28
64
93
48
60
44
115
174
83
109
26
56
81
42
53
21
40
55
31
38
A-l
-------
Table A-2
Facility Costs for the Installation and Maintenance of Concrete Settling Basins
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
Capital Costs
129,802
129,802
129,802
129,802
129,802
5,563
5,563
5,563
5,563
5,563
48,098
48,098
48,098
48,098
48,098
4,214
4,214
4,214
4,214
4,214
55,192
55,192
55,192
55,192
55,192
27,457
27,457
27,457
27,457
27,457
3,560
3,560
Annual Costs
2,596
2,596
2,596
2,596
2,596
111
111
111
111
111
962
962
962
962
962
84
84
84
84
84
1,104
1,104
1,104
1,104
1,104
549
549
549
549
549
71
71
A-2
-------
Table A-2 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Capital Costs
3,560
3,560
3,560
42,711
42,711
42,711
42,711
42,711
Annual Costs
71
71
71
854
854
854
854
854
A-3
-------
Table A-3
Facility Costs for the Installation and Maintenance of Naturally-Lined Storage
Ponds
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Deef
seef
seef
seef
Deef
rleifers
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
Capital Costs
11,156
29,126
32,741
33,178
17,459
64,717
174,057
191,663
195,723
104,311
6,829
16,880
18,897
19,106
10,289
13,047
20,863
22,353
22,509
15,769
7,874
19,927
22,258
22,220
12,036
12,662
19,626
20,920
21,170
15,084
11,680
Annual Costs
558
1,456
1,637
1,659
873
3,236
8,703
9,583
9,786
5,216
341
844
945
955
514
652
1,043
1,118
1,125
788
394
996
1,113
1,111
602
633
981
1,046
1,059
754
584
A-4
-------
Table A-3 (Continued)
Animal
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Capital Costs
17,013
17,948
18,158
13,562
Annual Costs
851
897
908
678
A-5
-------
Table A-4
Facility Costs for the Installation and Maintenance of Lined Storage Ponds
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Capital Costs
163,854
357,619
398,420
388,521
231,650
985,160
2,660,936
3,068,854
2,888,413
1,531,647
108,549
218,378
240,376
237,247
147,775
90,789
176,263
192,512
190,959
121,923
121,543
250,679
276,077
271,600
167,614
85,876
163,431
177,780
177,579
114,107
73,092
133,304
143,887
144,460
95,417
Annual Costs
8,193
17,881
19,921
19,426
11,583
49,258
133,047
153,443
144,421
76,582
5,427
10,919
12,019
11,862
7,389
4,539
8,813
9,626
9,548
6,096
6,077
12,534
13,804
13,580
8,381
4,294
8,172
8,889
8,879
5,705
3,655
6,665
7,194
7,223
4,771
A-6
-------
Table A-5
Facility Costs for Installation and Maintenance of Storage Ponds Under
Timing Restriction Option (7)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
3eef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Capital Costs
9,535
25,031
-
22,081
6,613
54,441
147,507
-
131,017
35,415
5,905
14,414
-
13,037
4,406
12,276
21,628
11,504
17,868
14,631
6,444
21,179
5,105
15,075
10,082
12,058
17,966
-
17,029
11,114
11,150
17,527
10,752
15,011
12,747
Annual Costs
477
1,252
-
1,104
331
2,722
7,375
-
6,551
1,771
295
721
-
652
220
614
1,081
575
893
732
322
1,059
255
754
504
603
898
-
851
556
558
876
538
751
637
A-7
-------
Table A-6
Facility Costs for the Installation and Operation of Naturally-Lined Lagoons
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Capital Costs
178,526
243,680
230,354
246,279
214,675
97,701
162,570
148,663
162,674
135,937
81,821
105,344
101,789
107,001
94,564
39,987
63,592
59,049
63,863
53,495
53,779
66,833
65,255
68,715
60,273
26,261
39,324
37,349
40,114
33,590
Annual Costs
8,926
12,184
11,518
12,314
10,734
4,885
8,128
7,433
8,134
6,797
4,091
5,267
5,089
5,350
4,728
1,999
3,180
2,952
3,193
2,675
2,689
3,342
3,263
3,436
3,014
1,313
1,966
1,867
2,006
1,679
A-8
-------
Table A-7
Facility Costs for Installation and Operation of Synthetically-Lined Lagoons
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Capital Costs
1,138,237
1,265,246
1,240,824
1,292,016
1,231,811
568,738
700,696
625,611
702,280
690,558
600,007
669,878
671,111
692,829
640,565
273,988
343,060
326,421
356,636
327,399
419,505
468,805
476,732
490,340
444,591
192,006
240,710
237,946
255,757
223,837
Annual Costs
56,912
63,262
62,041
64,601
61,591
28,437
35,035
31,281
35,114
34,528
30,000
33,494
33,556
34,641
32,028
13,699
17,153
16,321
17,832
16,370
20,975
23,440
23,837
24,517
22,230
9,600
12,036
11,897
12,788
11,192
A-9
-------
Table A-8
Facility Costs for Installation and Operation of Lagoons Under Timing
Restriction Option (Option 7)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Capital Costs
218,448
338,146
104,693
233,980
258,523
100,546
146,116
84,957
125,094
129,289
98,241
149,433
48,578
106,450
112,856
42,583
61,634
36,879
54,117
52,799
63,626
95,831
34,229
69,950
72,614
28,462
40,618
25,159
35,908
34,272
Annual Costs
10,922
16,907
5,235
11,699
12,926
5,027
7,306
4,248
6,255
6,464
4,912
7,472
2,429
5,322
5,643
2,129
3,082
1,844
2,706
2,640
3,181
4,792
1,711
3,498
3,631
1,423
2,031
1,258
1,795
1,714
A-10
-------
Table A-9
Facility Costs for Installation and Maintenance of Berms for Runoff Control
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Flush
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
South
South
Pacific
Pacific
MrdWest
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
South
South
Pacific
Capital Costs
6,201
6,201
6,201
6,201
6,201
25,317
25,317
25,317
25,317
25,317
3,057
3,057
3,057
3,057
3,057
3,057
3,057
3,057
3,057
3,057
3,990
3,990
3,990
3,990
3,990
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
Annual Costs
124
124
124
124
124
506
506
506
506
506
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
61
80
80
80
80
80
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
A-ll
-------
Table A-9 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Hose
Hose
Flush
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Pacific
MrdWest
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
South
South
Pacific
Pacific
MidWest
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Capital Costs
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
1,740
2,963
2,963
2,963
2,963
2,963
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
1,244
Annual Costs
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
59
59
59
59
59
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
A-12
-------
Table A-10
Facility Costs for the Installation and Operation of Anaerobic Digestion with
Methane Recovery
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Region
MrdWest
Pacific
Central
South
MidAtlantic
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Farm Type
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Capital
377,447
377,447
377,447
377,447
377,447
214,353
214,353
214,353
214,353
214,353
O&M
(64,434)
(64,434)
(64,434)
(64,434)
(64,434)
(52,779)
(52,779)
(52,779)
(52,779)
(52,779)
A-13
-------
Table A-ll
Facility Costs for Installation and Maintenance of Concrete Pads
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
Capital Costs
188,492
185,344
184,482
184,978
187,529
2,904,786
2,854,341
2,840,533
2,848,472
2,889,352
92,996
92,996
92,996
92,996
92,996
42,336
42,336
42,336
42,336
42,336
82,506
81,165
80,798
81,009
82,096
34,996
34,996
34,996
34,996
34,996
16,935
16,935
Annual Costs
3,770
3,707
3,690
3,700
3,751
58,096
57,087
56,811
56,969
57,787
1,860
1,860
1,860
1,860
1,860
847
847
847
847
847
1,650
1,623
1,616
1,620
1,642
700
700
700
700
700
339
339
A-14
-------
Table A-ll (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Region
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
Capital Costs
16,935
16,935
16,935
2,689
2,689
2,689
2,689
2,689
601
699
720
708
637
651
797
828
811
704
47,961
47,202
46,994
47,114
47,729
20,257
20,257
20,257
20,257
20,257
10,255
10,255
10,255
10,255
10,255
570
Annual Costs
339
339
339
54
54
54
54
54
12
14
14
14
13
13
16
17
16
14
959
944
940
942
955
405
405
405
405
405
205
205
205
205
205
11
A-15
-------
Table A-ll (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Capital Costs
639
653
645
595
2,276
2,276
2,276
2,276
2,276
Annual Costs
13
13
13
12
46
46
46
46
46
A-16
-------
Table A-12
Facility Costs for Installation and Operation of Groundwater Monitoring
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
Central
Central
Capital Costs
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
Annual Costs
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
A-17
-------
Table A-12 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Region
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MrdWest
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MrdWest
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
Capital Costs
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
Annual Costs
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
A-18
-------
Table A-12 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Capital Costs
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
6,075
Annual Costs
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
802
A-19
-------
Table A-13
Facility Costs for Implementing and Performing Composting
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Capital Costs
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
Annual Costs
1,614,871
1,401,589
1,400,238
1,402,053
1,438,485
96,884
84,086
84,005
84,114
86,312
40,125
34,812
34,778
34,823
35,741
22,135
19,198
19,179
19,204
19,720
7,939
4,223
1,548
2,849
7,140
7,939
4,223
1,548
2,849
7,140
2,584
1,377
A-20
-------
Table A-13 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Capital Costs
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
9,157
Annual Costs
504
931
2,324
2,584
1,377
504
931
2,324
1,320
707
261
484
1,190
1,320
707
261
484
1,190
485
485
485
485
485
559
559
559
559
559
298
298
298
298
298
A-21
-------
Table A-14
Facility Costs for the Implementation and Execution of Surface Water
Monitoring
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MrdWest
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
Central
Capital Costs
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
Annual Costs
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
A-22
-------
Table A-14 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Farm Type
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Flush
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
Capital Costs
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
Annual Costs
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
A-23
-------
Table A-14 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Capital Costs
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
Annual Costs
6,252
6,252
392
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
6,252
A-24
-------
Table A-15
Facility Costs for Implementation of Nutrient Management Planning
N-Based Application
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
SizeOass
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
FarmType
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Region
Pacific
MidAtlantic
South
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
South
Central
Pacific
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Central
South
Pacific
MidWest
South
Pacific
Central
MidAtlantic
Gate go ryl Costs
Capital
2,330
2,014
2,272
2,476
1,941
22,767
30,494
27,068
21,531
28,019
994
1,098
975
1,052
1,063
1,429
1,345
1,368
1,206
1,237
Annual
2,244
2,061
2,211
2,329
2,018
14,134
18,630
16,636
13,415
17,190
1,467
1,527
1,456
1,501
1,507
1,720
1,671
1,684
1,590
1,608
Recurring
3,685
3,100
3,567
3,961
2,962
42,133
56,680
50,234
39,812
52,032
1,169
1,369
1,143
1,286
1,302
1,994
1,820
1,871
1,573
1,635
Category2Costs
Capital
1,487
1,264
1,375
1,464
1,283
14,089
18,774
16,695
13,927
18,285
971
1,067
956
1,025
1,040
1,248
1,183
1,217
1,090
1,102
Annual
1,754
1,624
1,689
1,740
1,635
9,085
11,811
10,602
8,991
11,527
1,454
1,510
1,445
1,485
1,494
1,615
1,577
1,597
1,523
1,530
Recurring
2,091
1,671
1,881
2,060
1,717
25,809
34,627
30,712
25,512
33,710
1,118
1,307
1,097
1,230
1,251
1,650
1,522
1,589
1,358
1,374
Category3Costs
Capital
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
to
-------
Table A-15 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
SizeClass
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
FarmType
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Region
Pacific
MidAtlantic
Central
MidWest
South
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Pacific
Central
MrdWest
South
MidAtlantic
Pacific
Central
MidWest
MidAtlantic
South
South
MidAtlantic
Central
MidWest
Pacific
Category! Costs
Capital
2,234
2,334
1,980
2,492
2,111
902
963
925
944
990
1,191
1,106
1,275
1,152
1,225
2,234
1,980
2,492
2,334
2,111
925
963
902
990
944
Annual
2,188
2,246
2,040
2,338
2,117
1,413
1,449
1,427
1,438
1,465
1,581
1,532
1,630
1,559
1,601
2,188
2,040
2,338
2,246
2,117
1,427
1,449
1,413
1,465
1,438
Recurring
3,495
3,690
3,034
3,982
3,270
1,005
1,107
1,036
1,082
1,164
1,533
1,379
1,707
1,461
1,599
3,495
3,034
3,982
3,690
3,270
1,036
1,107
1,005
1,164
1,082
CategorylCosts
Capital
986
1,006
1,006
1,164
782
852
894
856
883
921
832
829
894
767
840
986
1,006
1,164
1,006
782
856
894
852
921
883
Annual
1,462
1,474
1,474
1,566
1,344
1,384
1,409
1,386
1,402
1,424
1,373
1,371
1,409
1,335
1,377
1,462
1,474
1,566
1,474
1,344
1,386
1,409
1,384
1,424
1,402
Recurring
1,158
1,184
1,184
1,497
764
897
974
903
959
1,031
871
866
974
744
882
1,158
1,184
1,497
1,184
764
903
974
897
1,031
959
Category3Costs
Capital
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
to
-------
Table A-15 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
SizeClass
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
FarmType
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Pacific
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
South
MidWest
Pacific
MidAtlantic
South
Central
MidAtlantic
Central
MidWest
South
Pacific
Central
MidAtlantic
South
MidWest
Pacific
South
Pacific
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Category! Costs
Capital
1,191
1,106
1,225
1,275
1,152
1,133
1,133
1,094
1,040
1,025
798
779
809
782
809
859
890
863
913
909
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
Annual
1,581
1,532
1,601
1,630
1,559
1,548
1,548
1,525
1,494
1,485
1,353
1,342
1,359
1,344
1,359
1,389
1,406
1,391
1,420
1,418
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
Recurring
1,533
1,379
1,599
1,707
1,461
1,435
1,435
1,363
1,251
1,230
805
759
820
764
820
908
969
933
1,020
1,015
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
CategorylCosts
Capital
832
829
840
894
767
1,102
1,102
1,063
1,010
1,006
767
759
779
752
779
836
863
832
883
883
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,373
1,371
1,377
1,409
1,335
1,530
1,530
1,507
1,476
1,474
1,335
1,330
1,342
1,326
1,342
1,375
1,391
1,373
1,402
1,402
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
871
866
882
974
744
1,374
1,374
1,302
1,190
1,184
744
733
759
723
759
877
933
871
959
959
600
600
600
600
600
Category3Costs
Capital
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
-------
to
oo
Table A-15 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
SizeClass
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
FarmType
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
South
Pacific
MidWest
MidAtlantic
Central
Category! Costs
Capital
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
Annual
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
Recurring
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
CategorylCosts
Capital
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
600
600
600
600
600
Category3Costs
Capital
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
600
600
600
600
600
-------
Table A-16
Facility Costs for Implementation forNutrient Management Planning
P-Based Application
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Region
Pacific
MidAtlantic
South
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
South
Central
Pacific
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Central
South
Pacific
MidWest
South
Pacific
Central
MidAtlantic
Category 1 Costs
Capital
4,821
4,852
5,557
5,476
8,075
70,098
80,439
81,841
123,796
69,535
1,641
1,783
2,376
1,803
1,633
2,669
2,704
2,399
3,747
2,415
Annual
3,694
3,711
4,121
4,074
5,586
41,670
47,687
48,502
72,912
41,343
1,843
1,926
2,271
1,937
1,839
2,441
2,462
2,285
3,069
2,294
Recurring
8,373
8,434
9,761
9,613
14,486
131,210
150,670
153,293
232,245
130,154
2,378
2,650
3,767
2,696
2,368
4,320
4,387
3,818
6,349
3,838
Category 2 Costs
Capital
3,089
2,927
3,304
3,258
4,902
42,626
48,879
49,722
78,595
44,852
1,576
1,710
2,272
1,726
1,576
2,303
2,330
2,115
3,223
2,095
Annual
2,686
2,591
2,811
2,784
3,741
25,688
29,326
29,816
46,614
26,983
1,805
1,884
2,211
1,893
1,805
2,229
2,244
2,119
2,764
2,108
Recurring
5,104
4,807
5,514
5,432
8,521
79,506
91,270
92,864
147,191
83,697
2,270
2,511
3,567
2,552
2,270
3,628
3,685
3,275
5,365
3,249
Category 3 Costs
Capital
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
to
VO
-------
Table A-16 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Region
Pacific
MidAtlantic
Central
MidWest
South
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Pacific
Central
MrdWest
South
MidAtlantic
Pacific
Central
MidWest
MidAtlantic
South
South
MidAtlantic
Central
MidWest
Pacific
Category 1 Costs
Capital
3,062
3,778
5,333
4,074
3,354
1,460
1,202
1,133
1,083
1,252
1,460
2,195
1,787
1,552
1,691
3,062
5,333
4,074
3,778
3,354
1,133
1,202
1,460
1,252
1,083
Annual
2,670
3,086
3,991
3,259
2,840
1,738
1,588
1,548
1,518
1,617
1,738
2,166
1,928
1,792
1,872
2,670
3,991
3,259
3,086
2,840
1,548
1,588
1,738
1,617
1,518
Recurring
5,068
6,410
9,341
6,969
5,621
2,055
1,568
1,435
1,328
1,656
2,055
3,423
2,655
2,219
2,486
5,068
9,341
6,969
6,410
5,621
1,435
1,568
2,055
1,656
1,328
Category 2 Costs
Capital
1,021
1,121
1,599
1,418
702
1,318
1,102
1,033
1,006
1,152
929
1,221
1,098
863
1,002
1,021
1,599
1,418
1,121
702
1,033
1,102
1,318
1,152
1,006
Annual
1,483
1,541
1,819
1,713
1,297
1,655
1,530
1,489
1,474
1,559
1,429
1,599
1,527
1,391
1,471
1,483
1,819
1,713
1,541
1,297
1,489
1,530
1,655
1,559
1,474
Recurring
1,225
1,400
2,301
1,958
616
1,784
1,374
1,241
1,184
1,461
1,041
1,594
1,369
933
1,179
1,225
2,301
1,958
1,400
616
1,241
1,374
1,784
1,461
1,184
Category 3 Costs
Capital
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
-------
Table A-16 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Pacific
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
South
MidWest
Pacific
MidAtlantic
South
Central
MidAtlantic
Central
MidWest
South
Pacific
Central
MidAtlantic
South
MidWest
Pacific
South
Pacific
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Category 1 Costs
Capital
1,460
2,195
1,691
1,787
1,552
1,953
1,722
1,845
1,683
2,534
998
1,183
1,029
956
963
1,614
1,268
1,187
1,321
1,206
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
Annual
1,738
2,166
1,872
1,928
1,792
2,025
1,890
1,962
1,868
2,363
1,469
1,577
1,487
1,445
1,449
1,828
1,626
1,579
1,657
1,590
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
Recurring
2,055
3,423
2,486
2,655
2,219
2,977
2,547
2,773
2,475
4,059
1,174
1,522
1,235
1,097
1,107
2,342
1,676
1,528
1,789
1,573
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
Category 2 Costs
Capital
929
1,221
1,002
1,098
863
1,849
1,641
1,741
1,583
2,388
894
1,037
925
852
886
1,468
1,164
1,083
1,217
1,125
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,429
1,599
1,471
1,527
1,391
1,964
1,843
1,902
1,810
2,278
1,409
1,492
1,427
1,384
1,404
1,742
1,566
1,518
1,597
1,543
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
1,041
1,594
1,179
1,369
933
2,778
2,378
2,573
2,281
3,802
974
1,246
1,036
897
964
2,065
1,497
1,328
1,589
1,425
600
600
600
600
600
Category 3 Costs
Capital
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
-------
Table A-16 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
South
Pacific
MidWest
MidAtlantic
Central
Category 1 Costs
Capital
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
Annual
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
Recurring
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
1,318
Category 2 Costs
Capital
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
600
600
600
600
600
Category 3 Costs
Capital
690
690
690
690
690
Annual
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
Recurring
600
600
600
600
600
to
-------
Table A-17
Facility Cost for Purchase of Commercial Nitrogen Fertilizer for P-based Application
Options
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
Category 1 Annual
Cost
65,557
28,840
28,060
23,854
23,424
1,092,738
480,715
467,728
397,614
390,444
14,967
6,584
6,406
5,446
5,348
27,141
11,940
11,617
9,876
9,698
41,216
17,794
15,359
13,697
19,500
6,826
2,947
2,544
2,268
3,229
13,361
Category 2 Annual
Cost
37,388
15,482
15,064
13,845
12,575
691,519
290,458
282,611
255,057
235,914
14,036
6,143
5,977
5,115
4,989
22,473
9,726
9,463
8,217
7,900
8,049
2,494
57
1,920
4,201
5,581
2,373
1,970
1,826
2,655
4,731
A-33
-------
Table A-17 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Category 1 Annual
Cost
5,768
4,979
4,440
6,321
41,216
17,794
15,359
13,697
19,500
6,826
2,947
2,544
2,268
3,229
13,361
5,768
4,979
4,440
6,321
16,376
6,644
5,735
5,959
7,281
4,367
1,772
1,529
1,589
1,942
8,188
3,322
2,867
2,979
3,641
Category 2 Annual
Cost
1,787
997
1,376
2,340
8,049
2,494
57
1,920
4,201
5,581
2,373
1,970
1,826
2,655
4,731
1,787
997
1,376
2,340
15,084
6,048
5,139
5,500
6,685
3,075
1,176
933
1,130
1,346
6,896
2,726
2,271
2,520
3,045
A-34
-------
Table A-17 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Category 1 Annual
Cost
4,440
4,440
4,440
4,440
4,440
1,772
1,772
1,772
1,772
1,772
Category 2 Annual
Cost
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A-35
-------
Table A-18
Facility Costs for Installation and Operation of Center Pivot Irrigation
N-Based Application
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
SizeClass
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
FarmType
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Category 1 Costs
Capital
90,958
94,169
106,450
109,403
117,220
5,232,209
5,844,793
8,243,068
8,829,320
10,450,472
59,786
60,203
61,503
61,772
62,597
65,335
66,165
69,238
69,931
71,835
92,633
109,603
98,577
104,522
118,070
58,278
59,540
58,741
59,136
60,119
Annual
9,836
10,061
10,765
10,906
11,244
20,958
21,186
21,889
22,029
22,372
3,985
4,244
4,931
5,055
5,406
6,333
6,562
7,274
7,411
7,755
9,956
10,916
10,338
10,667
11,278
2,812
3,822
3,221
3,533
4,193
Category 2 Costs
Capital
67,450
66,909
70,164
73,698
72,944
2,215,942
2,266,608
3,164,107
3,786,350
3,989,077
59,377
59,704
60,887
61,237
61,862
62,411
62,690
64,726
65,644
66,482
60,457
60,457
56,476
60,035
64,228
57,315
58,126
57,387
57,901
58,663
Annual
6,883
6,753
7,456
8,053
7,936
19,163
19,211
19,914
20,288
20,397
3,709
3,931
4,625
4,803
5,096
5,331
5,443
6,152
6,421
6,645
4,391
4,391
415
4,142
5,994
1,746
2,666
1,839
2,435
3,156
A-36
-------
Table A-18 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
SizeClass
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
FarmType
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Category 1 Costs
Capital
62,784
65,851
63,933
64,928
67,233
60,887
62,504
61,237
63,449
63,449
56,476
56,476
56,476
56,544
56,544
57,460
58,051
57,532
58,431
58,508
Annual
5,480
6,478
5,897
6,213
6,831
4,625
5,369
4,803
5,728
5,728
415
415
415
545
545
1,930
2,590
2,019
2,953
3,022
Category 2 Costs
Capital
56,890
57,101
56,476
56,960
58,126
60,457
61,772
60,542
62,690
62,690
56,476
56,476
56,476
56,476
56,476
57,030
57,532
56,960
57,901
57,901
Annual
1,136
1,453
415
1,245
2,666
4,391
5,055
4,439
5,443
5,443
415
415
415
415
415
1,350
2,019
1,245
2,435
2,435
A-37
-------
TableA-19
FacilityCostsforlnstallationandOperationofCenterPivotlrrigation
P-BasedApplication
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
SizeClass
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
FarmType
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Category 1 Costs
Capital
776,420
311,222
393,064
307,898
383,108
171,615,632
55,044,868
75,020,000
54,166,140
72,473,784
111,820
79,031
85,202
78,752
84,437
205,259
113,870
130,306
113,046
128,235
365,922
207,842
174,186
153,280
233,791
72,820
65,233
63,449
62,227
66,588
Annual
16,855
14,588
15,207
14,559
15,140
27,981
25,715
26,333
25,683
26,264
11,016
8,751
9,372
8,719
9,303
13,368
11,105
11,717
11,070
11,649
15,021
13,408
12,825
12,365
13,770
7,917
6,303
5,728
5,254
6,672
Category 2 Costs
Capital
316,669
144,297
170,474
155,125
167,098
69,190,160
20,379,386
27,714,600
22,558,476
26,783,932
106,450
76,700
82,191
76,700
81,604
164,596
97,858
109,403
98,758
108,016
77,512
63,162
56,476
60,800
71,472
68,446
62,690
61,061
60,457
63,933
Annual
14,635
12,133
12,750
12,409
12,679
26,171
23,723
24,341
23,927
24,272
10,765
8,469
9,088
8,469
9,029
12,625
10,295
10,906
10,349
10,841
8,571
5,624
415
4,579
7,693
7,108
5,443
4,715
4,391
5,897
A-38
-------
Table A-19 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
SizeClass
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
FarmType
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Category 1 Costs
Capital
102,628
80,879
75,900
72,820
84,589
120,437
86,915
80,591
82,044
91,457
64,726
60,287
59,377
59,540
60,974
78,060
67,017
64,827
65,335
68,558
Annual
10,567
8,954
8,365
7,917
9,317
11,370
9,520
8,923
9,074
9,873
6,152
4,294
3,709
3,822
4,670
8,637
6,779
6,183
6,333
7,132
Category 2 Costs
Capital
65,748
60,372
57,532
58,820
62,597
112,431
82,782
76,969
79,031
87,073
61,149
58,126
57,315
57,976
58,741
73,069
64,228
62,227
63,257
65,644
Annual
6,449
4,343
2,019
3,286
5,406
11,043
9,147
8,503
8,751
9,533
4,759
2,666
1,746
2,513
3,221
7,956
5,994
5,254
5,659
6,421
A-39
-------
Table A-20
Costs for Contract Hauling
N-Based Application
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
SizeClass
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
FarmType
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
EPAOption
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Category2Costs
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
45,623
22,812
24,885
51,845
26,959
396,351
198,176
216,192
450,399
234,208
191
95
104
217
113
2,264
1,132
1,235
2,573
1,338
100,997
50,498
55,089
114,769
59,680
4,537
2,269
2,475
5,156
2,681
Category3Costs
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A-40
-------
Table A-20 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
SizeClass
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
FarmType
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
EPAOption
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Category2Costs
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
28,813
14,407
15,716
32,742
17,026
77,074
38,537
42,040
87,584
45,544
576
288
314
654
340
21,058
10,529
11,486
23,930
12,443
512
256
279
582
302
1,848
924
1,008
2,100
2,781
512
256
279
582
Category3Costs
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A-41
-------
Table A-20 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
SizeClass
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
FarmType
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
EPAOption
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Category2Costs
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
2,216
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
45,457
22,729
24,795
51,656
26,861
393,583
196,792
214,682
447,254
232,572
178
89
97
202
105
2,195
1,098
1,197
2,494
1,297
100,957
50,479
55,068
Category3Costs
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A-42
-------
Table A-20 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
SizeClass
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
FarmType
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
EPAOption
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Category2Costs
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
114,724
59,657
4,531
2,265
2,471
5,149
2,677
28,800
14,400
15,709
32,728
17,018
76,878
38,439
41,933
87,361
45,428
543
272
296
617
321
20,995
10,497
11,452
23,857
12,406
478
239
261
543
282
1,823
911
Category3Costs
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A-43
-------
Table A-20 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
SizeClass
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
FarmType
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtl antic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
EPAOption
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Category2Costs
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
994
2,071
2,777
478
239
261
543
2,209
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Category3Costs
Capital
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A-44
-------
Table A-21
Costs for Contract Hauling
P-Based Application
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
EPA Option
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
232,520
232,520
232,520
232,520
232,520
627,728
648,498
648,498
648,497
648,498
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
Annual
17,367
11,075
11,647
19,083
12,219
134,312
92,488
97,372
147,895
102,256
306
201
211
335
220
2,457
1,609
1,686
2,689
1,763
32,363
20,486
21,565
35,603
22,645
3,210
2,089
2,191
3,515
2,293
Category 3 Costs
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-45
-------
Table A-21 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
EPA Option
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
204,789
204,789
204,789
232,520
204,789
373,312
317,850
373,312
373,312
373,312
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
204,789
175,990
175,990
204,789
175,990
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
Annual
13,781
8,835
9,284
10,215
9,734
27,787
25,366
18,600
30,543
19,519
845
554
581
924
607
10,946
9,962
10,447
12,012
10,933
791
519
544
865
569
1,597
1,042
1,093
1,748
2,387
791
519
544
865
Category 3 Costs
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-46
-------
Table A-21 (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Farm Type
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
EPA Option
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
no
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
175,990
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
232,520
232,520
232,520
232,520
232,520
652,376
648,498
578,218
674,624
585,634
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
373,312
373,312
373,312
Annual
1,985
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17,647
11,260
11,840
19,389
12,421
135,971
94,083
90,273
149,728
94,843
332
218
228
363
238
2,559
1,676
1,756
2,800
1,836
32,440
20,536
21,618
Category 3 Costs
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-47
-------
Table A-21 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
EPA Option
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
373,312
373,312
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
204,789
204,789
204,789
232,520
204,789
373,312
317,850
373,312
373,312
373,312
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
204,789
175,990
175,990
204,789
175,990
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
175,990
Annual
35,686
22,700
3,235
2,106
2,208
3,543
2,311
13,807
8,851
9,302
10,243
9,752
28,093
25,567
18,811
30,877
19,739
896
588
616
980
644
11,048
10,029
10,517
12,124
11,006
867
570
597
948
624
1,648
1,076
Category 3 Costs
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-48
-------
Table A-21 (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
EPA Option
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
175,990
175,990
175,990
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
1,128
1,804
2,406
867
570
597
948
2,003
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Category 3 Costs
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-49
-------
Table A-22
Costs for Purchase-Truck Transportation
N-Based Application
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
EPA Option
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
232,520
232,520
232,520
232,520
232,520
627,728
648,498
648,498
648,497
648,498
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
Annual
17,367
11,075
11,647
19,083
12,219
134,312
92,488
97,372
147,895
102,256
306
201
211
335
220
2,457
1,609
1,686
2,689
1,763
32,363
20,486
21,565
35,603
22,645
3,210
2,089
2,191
3,515
2,293
Category 3 Costs
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-50
-------
Table A-22 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
EPA Option
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
204,789
204,789
204,789
232,520
204,789
373,312
317,850
373,312
373,312
373,312
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
204,789
175,990
175,990
204,789
175,990
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
Annual
13,781
8,835
9,284
10,215
9,734
27,787
25,366
18,600
30,543
19,519
845
554
581
924
607
10,946
9,962
10,447
12,012
10,933
791
519
544
865
569
1,597
1,042
1,093
1,748
2,387
791
519
544
865
Category 3 Costs
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-51
-------
Table A-22 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Farm Type
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
EPA Option
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
175,990
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
232,520
232,520
232,520
232,520
232,520
652,376
648,498
578,218
674,624
585,634
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
373,312
373,312
373,312
Annual
1,985
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
17,647
11,260
11,840
19,389
12,421
135,971
94,083
90,273
149,728
94,843
332
218
228
363
238
2,559
1,676
1,756
2,800
1,836
32,440
20,536
21,618
Category 3 Costs
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-52
-------
Table A-22 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MrdWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
EPA Option
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
373,312
373,312
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
204,789
204,789
204,789
232,520
204,789
373,312
317,850
373,312
373,312
373,312
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
204,789
175,990
175,990
204,789
175,990
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
175,990
Annual
35,686
22,700
3,235
2,106
2,208
3,543
2,311
13,807
8,851
9,302
10,243
9,752
28,093
25,567
18,811
30,877
19,739
896
588
616
980
644
11,048
10,029
10,517
12,124
11,006
867
570
597
948
624
1,648
1,076
Category 3 Costs
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-53
-------
Table A-22 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtl antic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
EPA Option
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
175,990
175,990
175,990
91,728
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
1,128
1,804
2,406
867
570
597
948
2,003
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Category 3 Costs
Capital
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Annual
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
A-54
-------
Table A-23
Costs for Purchase Truck Transportation
P-Based Application
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Farm Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
IPA Option
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
34,878
63,570
232,520
232,520
18,431
34,878
63,570
232,520
232,520
18,431
105,582
179,544
676,188
773,109
55,249
91,728
72,465
91,728
91,728
91,728
175,990
139,032
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,457
257,585
186,656
373,312
115,727
Annual
2,705
8,146
16,296
22,379
1,516
2,705
8,146
16,296
22,379
1,516
27,947
62,880
168,011
232,096
11,420
377
491
342
464
263
2,642
3,451
2,396
3,259
1,841
23,009
56,867
22,088
60,905
10,360
Category 3 Costs
Capital
55,997
74,662
373,312
373,312
33,598
55,997
74,662
373,312
373,312
33,598
97,275
164,314
593,114
600,037
58,365
175,990
294,917
373,312
373,312
204,789
232,520
294,917
373,312
373,312
317,850
175,457
257,585
186,656
373,312
115,727
Annual
3,304
40,053
102,015
96,722
2,515
3,304
40,053
102,015
96,722
2,515
52,054
652,673
1,665,249
1,575,580
40,398
10,649
36,189
23,317
22,102
9,566
9,123
65,547
42,252
40,067
17,356
48,445
240,132
76,790
157,437
25,995
A-55
-------
Table A-23 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
rfeifers
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
IPA Option
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
175,990
146,072
175,990
175,990
175,990
232,520
263,816
232,520
232,520
204,789
175,457
257,585
186,656
373,312
115,727
175,990
146,072
175,990
175,990
175,990
204,789
192,992
204,789
204,789
204,789
13,759
18,346
91,728
91,728
8,256
175,990
139,032
175,990
175,990
Annual
3,326
4,579
3,013
4,108
2,309
12,652
25,995
11,417
15,739
12,882
20,025
49,373
19,235
52,945
9,041
894
1,225
811
1,102
624
14,855
14,747
13,434
18,409
10,235
195
430
1,181
1,604
82
3,263
4,271
2,957
4,028
Category 3 Costs
Capital
373,312
309,849
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
309,849
373,312
373,312
373,312
96,251
257,585
186,656
373,312
72,081
175,990
169,975
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
263,816
232,520
232,520
175,990
55,997
74,662
373,312
373,312
33,598
232,520
294,917
204,789
204,789
Annual
20,786
57,276
30,348
31,199
16,815
39,966
110,277
58,429
60,040
32,363
6,084
42,172
15,147
29,193
3,146
4,738
14,968
12,696
12,316
4,803
7,524
26,334
10,868
10,541
7,979
5,283
21,506
46,345
51,918
2,502
11,091
26,764
9,819
10,201
A-56
-------
Table A-23 (Continued)
Animal
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Farm Type
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
South
Pacific
MidWest
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
IPA Option
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
Composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
175,990
91,728
72,465
91,728
91,728
175,990
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
232,520
317,850
204,789
232,520
232,520
733,951
941,594
637,545
808,109
704,287
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
175,990
373,312
373,312
373,312
Annual
3,902
1,302
1,697
1,181
1,604
3,348
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
18,411
41,351
17,107
22,843
16,638
188,600
318,298
128,435
234,962
170,071
2,391
3,952
1,667
2,949
2,168
49,058
82,585
33,492
Category 3 Costs
Capital
373,312
373,312
294,917
204,789
373,312
373,312
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
648,498
860,020
648,498
622,713
615,297
317,850
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
Annual
16,393
20,811
45,777
11,342
28,485
34,564
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
46,341
300,537
52,338
185,971
168,884
750,705
4,929,165
854,344
3,060,627
2,777,155
22,218
96,610
16,806
59,728
54,254
243,947
787,530
196,384
A-57
-------
Table A-23 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
IPA Option
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
No composting
Category 2 Costs
Capital
373,312
373,312
232,520
317,850
204,789
232,520
232,520
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
204,789
232,520
175,990
204,789
204,789
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
61,032
44,269
12,727
31,376
12,906
15,833
11,485
42,456
71,270
29,078
52,747
38,340
14,704
17,732
14,098
18,219
13,298
-
-
-
-
-
Category 3 Costs
Capital
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
373,312
-
-
-
-
-
Annual
365,580
348,907
84,528
271,876
67,954
125,859
120,197
172,147
567,221
139,857
267,156
254,292
55,897
183,912
45,367
86,548
82,407
-
-
-
-
-
A-58
-------
Table A-24
Costs for the Implementation of Underpit Storage and Covered Storage
NSPS Option 8
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Capital Costs
6,497,370
6,497,370
6,497,370
6,497,370
6,497,370
6,257,558
6,257,558
6,257,558
6,257,558
6,257,558
2,149,126
2,149,126
2,149,126
2,149,126
2,149,126
2,071,387
2,071,387
2,071,387
2,071,387
2,071,387
1,126,858
1,126,858
1,126,858
1,126,858
1,126,858
1,087,143
1,087,143
1,087,143
1,087,143
1,087,143
Annual Costs
290,344
290,344
290,344
290,344
290,344
281,121
281,121
281,121
281,121
281,121
94,122
94,122
94,122
94,122
94,122
91,132
91,132
91,132
91,132
91,132
48,084
48,084
48,084
48,084
48,084
46,556
46,556
46,556
46,556
46,556
A-59
-------
Appendix B
TRANSPORTATION OPTION SELECTION
-------
Table B-l
Transportation Scenario by Model Farm
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Size Class
>8000
>8000
>8000
>8000
>8000
1000-8000
1000-8000
1000-8000
1000-8000
1000-8000
300-500
300-500
300-500
Option 1
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 2-4
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 5
Compost Purchase
Option
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Purchase
Option
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Option 6
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 7
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 8
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
td
-------
Table B-l (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Region
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Size Class
300-500
300-500
500-1000
500-1000
500-1000
500-1000
500-1000
>700
>700
>700
>700
>700
200-350
200-350
200-350
Option 1
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 2-4
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 5
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Option 6
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 7
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 8
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
-------
Table B-l (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Size Class
200-350
200-350
350-700
350-700
350-700
350-700
350-700
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
>1000
300-500
300-500
300-500
Option 1
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 2-4
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 5
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Option 6
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 7
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Option 8
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
-------
Table B-l (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Region
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Size Class
300-500
300-500
500-1000
500-1000
500-1000
500-1000
500-1000
>500
>500
>500
>500
>500
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
Option 1
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Option 2-4
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Option 5
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
Compost Contract
Haul
No Compost
No Compost
No Compost
No Compost
No Compost
No Compost
No Compost
Compost
No Compost
No Compost
No Compost
Option 6
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Option 7
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Option 8
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Contract Haul Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
Purchase Option
-------
Appendix C
MODEL FACILITY COSTS FOR BAT AND NSPS
-------
Table C-l
Model Farm Costs for EPA Regulatory Option 1
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Group
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Region
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
Category
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
J
Number of
Facilities
226
70
37
17
5
3
840
260
136
37
12
6
4
1
1
15
96
71
0
0
0
Average
Head
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
43805
43805
43805
43805
43805
43805
Capital
Costs
869
869
869
2,464
2,464
2,464
2,321
2,321
2,321
1,741
1,741
1,741
3,771
3,771
3,771
12,238
664,614
12,238
38,849
687,347
38,849
Fixed Costs
1,941
1,283
190
2,014
1,264
190
2,476
1,464
190
2,330
1,487
190
2,272
1,375
190
21,531
13,927
190
22,767
14,089
190
Annual
O&M
2,061
47,302
1,253
2,184
24,559
1,333
2,445
28,815
1,326
2,331
53,685
1,297
2,399
26,763
1,399
14,027
145,574
1,822
16,077
105,111
3,152
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
2,962
1,717
600
3,100
1,671
600
3,961
2,060
600
3,685
2,091
600
3,567
1,881
600
39,812
25,512
600
42,133
25,809
600
o
-------
Table C-l (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Group
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Category
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Number of
Facilities
17
115
85
2
12
9
0
0
0
109
206
89
22
41
18
24
46
20
212
401
173
23
43
18
Average
Head
43805
43805
43805
43805
43805
43805
43805
43805
43805
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
1419
Capital
Costs
36,430
622,064
36,430
26,754
701,378
26,754
60,622
638,840
60,622
66,157
439,469
66,157
45,347
45,347
45,347
45,347
45,347
45,347
66,157
439,469
66,157
66,157
66,157
66,157
Fixed Costs
30,494
18,774
190
28,019
18,285
190
27,068
16,695
190
1,980
1,006
190
2,334
1,006
190
2,492
1,164
190
2,234
986
190
2,111
782
190
Annual
O&M
20,451
108,476
3,032
18,527
162,592
2,548
19,667
103,905
4,241
3,364
34,150
2,533
3,153
46,898
2,117
3,245
55,084
2,117
3,511
37,270
2,533
3,440
54,494
2,533
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
56,680
34,627
600
52,032
33,710
600
50,234
30,712
600
3,034
1,184
600
3,690
1,184
600
3,982
1,497
600
3,495
1,158
600
3,270
764
600
p
to
-------
Table C-l (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Group
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MrdWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MrdWest
Category
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
Number of
Facilities
109
12
9
29
3
2
680
73
57
16
2
1
6
1
0
217
156
61
244
175
68
249
179
70
Average
Head
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
1088
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
Capital
Costs
40,168
38,706
7,501
46,348
44,611
13,266
45,620
42,943
9,702
49,009
46,865
14,043
49,496
47,240
14,877
31,721
31,426
28,581
26,056
25,400
21,117
25,046
24,363
20,003
Fixed Costs
1,206
1,090
190
1,237
1,102
190
1,429
1,248
190
1,368
1,217
190
1,345
1,183
190
1,106
829
190
1,225
840
190
1,275
894
190
Annual
O&M
5,024
6,719
1,477
5,445
5,939
1,766
5,981
6,658
1,593
5,984
7,974
1,804
5,944
6,524
1,846
2,560
27,117
1,964
2,732
13,629
1,854
2,734
15,789
1,801
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,573
1,358
600
1,635
1,374
600
1,994
1,650
600
1,871
1,589
600
1,820
1,522
600
1,379
866
600
1,599
882
600
1,707
974
600
o
-------
Table C-l (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Size Group
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Category
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Number of
Facilities
363
261
102
85
61
24
3
0
0
1
0
0
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
210
23
18
Average
Head
460
460
460
460
460
460
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
750
750
750
Capital
Costs
34,281
33,882
31,034
33,730
33,357
30,533
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
37,198
36,983
8,468
Fixed Costs
1,191
832
190
1,152
767
190
1,075
690
190
1,075
690
190
1,075
690
190
1,075
690
190
1,075
690
190
859
836
190
Annual
O&M
2,769
30,648
2,087
2,706
15,809
2,062
1,514
1,290
1,210
1,514
1,290
1,210
1,514
1,290
1,210
1,514
1,290
1,210
1,514
1,290
1,210
2,730
2,938
1,586
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,533
871
600
1,461
744
600
1,318
600
600
1,318
600
600
1,318
600
600
1,318
600
600
1,318
600
600
908
877
600
-------
Table C-l (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Group
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Category
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
Number of
Facilities
0
0
0
84
9
7
126
14
11
0
0
0
122
38
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
82
25
13
Average
Head
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
Capital
Costs
41,877
41,618
12,851
39,428
39,125
10,174
42,674
42,409
13,458
42,754
42,468
13,988
532
532
532
1,386
1,386
1,386
1,308
1,308
1,308
999
999
999
Fixed Costs
890
863
190
913
883
190
909
883
190
863
832
190
1,025
1,006
190
1,094
1,063
190
1,133
1,102
190
1,133
1,102
190
Annual
O&M
3,297
3,252
1,806
3,395
5,300
1,674
3,520
3,827
1,836
3,053
2,927
1,863
1,511
2,012
1,237
1,594
1,833
1,279
1,613
1,898
1,275
1,598
2,161
1,260
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
969
933
600
1,020
959
600
1,015
959
600
933
871
600
1,230
1,184
600
1,363
1,302
600
1,435
1,374
600
1,435
1,374
600
-------
Table C-l (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Group
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
Category
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
Number of
Facilities
0
0
0
72
8
6
126
14
11
575
62
48
29
3
2
35
4
3
297
213
83
435
313
122
Average
Head
1500
1500
1500
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
235
235
235
235
235
235
Capital
Costs
2,084
2,084
2,084
37,279
37,095
8,366
40,380
40,195
11,355
39,249
38,928
9,479
41,387
41,113
11,859
41,550
41,278
12,101
20,442
20,394
17,528
17,832
17,726
13,367
Fixed Costs
1,040
1,010
190
879
859
190
890
871
190
963
933
190
940
913
190
933
906
190
902
852
190
963
894
190
Annual
O&M
1,598
1,859
1,314
2,930
2,897
1,563
3,204
3,088
1,712
3,772
3,630
1,622
3,699
3,675
1,738
3,646
3,501
1,750
2,024
4,499
1,681
2,142
2,798
1,616
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,251
1,190
600
954
908
600
969
943
600
1,107
1,046
600
1,076
1,020
600
1,046
1,010
600
1,005
897
600
1,107
974
600
o
-------
Table C-l (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Size Group
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Category
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Number of
Facilities
472
339
132
361
260
101
127
91
35
21
2
2
0
0
0
168
18
14
21
2
2
0
0
0
Average
Head
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
17,220
17,110
12,711
21,924
21,863
18,968
21,593
21,526
18,656
35,474
35,474
7,236
38,395
38,395
10,157
36,618
36,584
8,346
38,887
38,853
10,615
39,071
39,071
10,833
Fixed Costs
990
921
190
944
883
190
925
856
190
779
759
190
798
767
190
809
779
190
809
779
190
782
752
190
Annual
O&M
2,154
2,961
1,585
2,157
4,972
1,753
2,115
3,400
1,737
1,877
3,714
1,538
2,035
2,941
1,684
2,017
4,716
1,596
2,129
4,146
1,707
2,059
3,049
1,718
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,164
1,031
600
1,082
959
600
1,036
903
600
759
733
600
805
744
600
820
759
600
820
759
600
764
723
600
-------
Table C-l (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Group
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
o
6
i
i
i
i
i
Number of
Facilities
5
0
0
1
0
0
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
152
13
801
22
3
Average
Head
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
2628
2628
2628
2628
2628
Capital
Costs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20,155
47,073
14,357
45,036
3,771
Fixed Costs
1,075
690
190
1,075
690
190
1,075
690
190
1,075
690
190
1,075
690
190
3,352
2,420
2,548
3,144
2,778
Annual
O&M
1,514
1,290
1,210
1,514
1,290
1,210
1,514
1,290
1,210
1,514
1,290
1,210
1,514
1,290
1,210
3,846
4,650
3,089
4,970
2,693
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,318
600
600
1,318
600
600
1,318
600
600
1,318
600
600
1,318
600
600
5,612
3,862
4,096
5,216
4,521
o
I
OO
-------
Table C-2
Model Farm Costs for EPA Regulatory Option 2
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Facilities
152
13
801
22
3
143
9
299
27
2
37
3
136
6
1
8
-
16
1
-
103
Average
Head
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
Capital
Costs
869
2,464
2,321
1,741
3,771
869
2,464
2,321
1,741
3,771
869
2,464
2,321
1,741
3,771
12,238
38,849
36,430
26,754
60,622
387,507
Fixed Costs
3,352
2,420
2,548
3,144
2,778
3,985
2,298
1,811
2,812
2,614
190
190
190
190
190
32,110
25,630
30,960
34,574
30,666
46,972
Annual
O&M Costs
2,882
2,420
2,487
2,805
2,693
16,029
13,469
23,912
23,255
17,620
1,253
1,333
1,326
1,297
1,399
20,182
17,743
20,722
22,341
21,761
109,774
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
5,612
3,862
4,096
5,216
4,521
6,797
3,621
2,713
4,583
4,214
600
600
600
600
600
59,719
47,522
57,556
64,367
57,004
87,690
o
-------
Table C-2 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
2
2
2
2
o
6
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
-
116
13
-
71
-
85
9
-
65
116
557
25
31
15
23
80
8
8
6
10
48
2
3
Average
Head
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
38,849
580,585
26,754
60,622
12,238
38,849
36,430
26,754
60,622
41,488
41,610
39,795
43,854
44,360
45,174
42,861
40,581
44,588
45,668
8,366
11,355
9,479
11,859
12,101
Fixed Costs
24,601
21,138
35,006
29,544
190
190
190
190
190
1,162
991
1,005
1,139
1,148
1,429
1,098
1,064
1,204
1,258
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
161,515
103,312
305,125
201,385
1,822
3,152
3,032
2,548
4,241
4,162
3,791
3,973
4,770
4,728
5,584
4,628
4,329
5,390
5,479
1,563
1,712
1,622
1,738
1,750
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
45,589
39,075
65,170
54,892
600
600
600
600
600
1,485
1,160
1,185
1,448
1,458
1,981
1,366
1,293
1,561
1,671
600
600
600
600
600
o
I
O
-------
Table C-2 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Number of
Facilities
99
27
659
13
5
22
5
94
4
1
9
2
57
1
0
88
15
18
132
17
227
49
52
481
Average
Head
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
Capital
Costs
61,325
51,874
48,199
60,336
62,761
72,897
54,889
49,580
60,737
64,706
7,501
13,266
9,702
14,043
14,877
66,157
45,347
45,347
66,157
66,157
66,157
45,347
45,347
66,157
Fixed Costs
1,974
1,510
1,543
1,910
1,935
2,518
1,683
1,585
1,969
2,080
190
190
190
190
190
2,458
2,759
2,795
2,530
2,382
1,228
1,075
1,281
1,010
Annual
O&M Costs
6,535
6,130
6,225
7,261
7,253
9,190
7,945
7,304
9,068
8,673
1,477
1,766
1,593
1,804
1,846
3,642
3,401
3,422
3,683
3,598
67,770
42,794
33,491
65,545
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
3,018
2,145
2,206
2,894
2,935
4,040
2,470
2,283
3,001
3,213
600
600
600
600
600
3,933
4,491
4,554
4,057
3,783
1,603
1,314
1,709
1,203
o
-------
Table C-2 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Category
2
3
o
J
3
o
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Number of
Facilities
49
89
18
20
173
18
230
333
372
253
111
280
415
438
368
107
83
122
132
101
35
168
186
196
Average
Head
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
460
460
460
Capital
Costs
66,157
66,157
45,347
45,347
66,157
66,157
20,653
17,964
17,349
21,991
21,627
20,717
17,932
17,328
21,954
21,592
17,528
13,367
12,711
18,968
18,656
32,299
26,402
25,392
Fixed Costs
742
190
190
190
190
190
1,064
1,037
1,060
1,004
955
1,122
1,019
1,048
971
919
190
190
190
190
190
1,422
1,368
1,411
Annual
O&M Costs
35,267
2,533
2,117
2,117
2,533
2,533
2,193
2,241
2,244
2,229
2,150
3,741
3,035
2,824
3,676
3,212
1,681
1,616
1,585
1,753
1,737
2,818
2,872
2,863
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
690
600
600
600
600
600
1,310
1,249
1,294
1,187
1,093
1,412
1,214
1,268
1,121
1,025
600
600
600
600
600
1,972
1,872
1,959
o
-------
Table C-2 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
Category
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Number of
Facilities
254
74
205
233
231
370
72
61
68
70
102
24
83
-
-
48
-
78
-
-
58
-
20
-
Average
Head
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
Capital
Costs
34,450
33,815
31,683
25,547
24,548
33,949
33,376
28,581
21,117
20,003
31,034
30,533
532
1,386
1,308
999
2,084
532
1,386
1,308
999
2,084
532
1,386
Fixed Costs
1,306
1,209
1,057
937
1,006
902
802
190
190
190
190
190
1,372
1,202
1,152
1,325
1,139
2,038
1,485
1,247
1,548
1,378
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
2,873
2,756
17,230
13,359
10,818
17,367
13,303
1,964
1,854
1,801
2,087
2,062
1,713
1,657
1,624
1,710
1,656
2,295
2,052
1,929
2,565
2,222
1,237
1,279
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,757
1,569
1,289
1,060
1,192
993
812
600
600
600
600
600
1,881
1,565
1,472
1,798
1,439
3,139
2,092
1,646
2,205
1,890
600
600
-------
Table C-2 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
o
6
3
o
6
i
i
i
i
i
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Facilities
-
13
-
19
-
163
18
-
4
-
23
6
-
2
-
14
2
-
190
-
81
106
-
43
Average
Head
1,500
1,500
1,500
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
750
750
750
750
750
750
Capital
Costs
1,308
999
2,084
36,722
38,836
36,821
39,674
39,701
37,038
38,877
36,946
39,481
39,399
7,236
10,157
8,346
10,615
10,833
40,313
42,915
39,888
44,488
44,339
42,350
Fixed Costs
190
190
190
901
844
829
890
858
945
841
825
869
830
190
190
190
190
190
1,088
978
951
1,065
1,004
1,259
Annual
O&M Costs
1,275
1,260
1,314
2,816
2,511
2,218
3,037
2,818
4,782
5,176
3,368
4,530
3,590
1,538
1,684
1,596
1,707
1,718
3,877
3,833
3,605
4,499
4,039
7,144
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
600
600
600
990
890
858
971
909
1,076
878
847
931
859
600
600
600
600
600
1,341
1,133
1,090
1,308
1,191
1,672
-------
Table C-2 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
2
2
2
2
o
6
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
-
12
33
-
18
-
7
11
-
5
1
119
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
43,575
40,362
44,653
44,527
8,468
12,851
10,174
13,458
13,988
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fixed Costs
1,039
990
1,086
1,028
190
190
190
190
190
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
690
690
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
4,862
4,101
5,442
4,789
1,586
1,806
1,674
1,836
1,863
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,262
1,160
1,349
1,228
600
600
600
600
600
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
-------
Table C-2 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
O
6
1
81
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
Capital
Costs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fixed Costs
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
690
690
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
o
-------
Table C-3
Model Farm Costs for EPA Regulatory Option 3
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Facilities
152
13
801
22
3
143
9
299
27
2
37
o
3
136
6
1
8
-
16
1
-
103
Average
Head
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
Capital
Costs
43,694
126,820
109,638
67,590
127,811
43,694
126,820
109,638
67,590
127,811
43,694
126,820
109,638
67,590
127,811
460,625
1,249,800
1,116,166
658,940
1,276,807
835,894
Fixed Costs
5,760
5,101
5,601
5,250
5,424
3,985
2,298
1,811
2,812
2,614
190
190
190
190
190
34,915
28,569
34,059
37,208
33,588
46,972
Annual
O&M Costs
4,466
7,645
6,693
5,602
7,953
17,613
18,694
28,118
26,053
22,880
2,837
6,558
5,532
4,094
6,659
33,080
61,283
54,907
45,465
66,488
122,672
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
5,612
3,862
4,096
5,216
4,521
6,797
3,621
2,713
4,583
4,214
600
600
600
600
600
59,719
47,522
57,556
64,367
57,004
87,690
o
-------
Table C-3 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
2
2
2
2
o
6
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
-
116
13
-
71
-
85
9
-
65
116
557
25
31
15
23
80
8
8
6
10
48
2
3
Average
Head
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
1,249,800
1,660,321
658,940
1,276,807
460,625
1,249,800
1,116,166
658,940
1,276,807
53,321
76,294
70,522
62,755
79,171
57,007
77,544
71,308
63,489
80,479
20,199
46,039
40,207
30,760
46,912
Fixed Costs
24,601
21,138
35,006
29,544
190
190
190
190
190
3,344
3,394
3,847
2,623
2,917
1,429
1,098
1,064
1,204
1,258
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
205,056
137,496
328,249
246,112
14,720
46,693
37,216
25,671
48,969
4,643
5,328
5,280
5,616
6,282
6,065
6,164
5,636
6,237
7,032
2,044
3,249
2,929
2,584
3,304
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
45,589
39,075
65,170
54,892
600
600
600
600
600
1,485
1,160
1,185
1,448
1,458
1,981
1,366
1,293
1,561
1,671
600
600
600
600
600
o
I
OO
-------
Table C-3 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Number of
Facilities
99
27
659
13
5
22
5
94
4
1
9
2
57
1
0
88
15
18
132
17
227
49
52
481
Average
Head
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
Capital
Costs
84,414
117,418
106,151
95,342
128,175
95,986
120,433
107,532
95,744
130,120
30,590
78,810
67,654
49,050
80,290
205,246
296,252
322,071
212,269
321,901
205,246
296,252
322,071
212,269
Fixed Costs
4,156
3,913
4,385
3,394
3,704
2,518
1,683
1,585
1,969
2,080
190
190
190
190
190
5,140
4,966
5,324
4,540
4,827
1,228
1,075
1,281
1,010
Annual
O&M Costs
7,481
9,039
8,690
8,828
10,172
10,137
10,855
9,770
10,635
11,592
2,424
4,675
4,059
3,371
4,766
10,396
15,660
16,925
10,808
16,037
74,524
55,052
46,995
72,669
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
3,018
2,145
2,206
2,894
2,935
4,040
2,470
2,283
3,001
3,213
600
600
600
600
600
3,933
4,491
4,554
4,057
3,783
1,603
1,314
1,709
1,203
o
-------
Table C-3 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Category
2
3
o
J
3
o
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Number of
Facilities
49
89
18
20
173
18
230
333
372
253
111
280
415
438
368
107
83
122
132
101
35
168
186
196
Average
Head
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
460
460
460
Capital
Costs
321,901
205,246
296,252
322,071
212,269
321,901
58,077
87,351
91,593
62,841
98,010
58,142
87,319
91,573
62,804
97,975
54,953
82,754
86,955
59,818
95,039
86,664
126,691
135,126
Fixed Costs
742
190
190
190
190
190
3,284
3,204
3,356
2,791
3,636
1,122
1,019
1,048
971
919
190
190
190
190
190
3,642
3,535
3,708
Annual
O&M Costs
47,706
9,287
14,376
15,621
9,657
14,972
4,014
5,634
5,868
4,225
5,882
5,562
6,428
6,448
5,673
6,944
3,501
5,009
5,209
3,749
5,469
5,515
7,877
8,336
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
690
600
600
600
600
600
1,310
1,249
1,294
1,187
1,093
1,412
1,214
1,268
1,121
1,025
600
600
600
600
600
1,972
1,872
1,959
o
to
o
-------
Table C-3 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
Category
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Number of
Facilities
254
74
205
233
231
370
72
61
68
70
102
24
83
-
-
48
-
78
-
-
58
-
20
-
Average
Head
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
Capital
Costs
92,200
141,772
86,048
125,836
134,282
91,699
141,332
82,947
121,406
129,738
88,784
138,490
17,194
63,166
48,366
34,401
64,315
17,194
63,166
48,366
34,401
64,315
17,194
63,166
Fixed Costs
3,093
3,890
1,057
937
1,006
902
802
190
190
190
190
190
3,781
3,883
4,206
3,431
3,786
2,038
1,485
1,247
1,548
1,378
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
5,742
8,116
19,928
18,365
16,291
20,237
18,662
4,662
6,860
7,274
4,956
7,421
2,609
4,861
4,107
3,437
4,872
3,191
5,256
4,412
4,293
5,438
2,132
4,483
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,757
1,569
1,289
1,060
1,192
993
812
600
600
600
600
600
1,881
1,565
1,472
1,798
1,439
3,139
2,092
1,646
2,205
1,890
600
600
-------
Table C-3 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
o
6
3
o
6
i
i
i
i
i
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Facilities
-
13
-
19
-
163
18
-
4
-
23
6
-
2
-
14
2
-
190
-
81
106
-
43
Average
Head
1,500
1,500
1,500
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
750
750
750
750
750
750
Capital
Costs
48,366
34,401
64,315
44,768
66,364
59,466
54,895
67,532
45,084
66,404
59,591
54,702
67,230
15,282
37,684
30,991
25,836
38,664
51,275
81,183
70,809
65,502
83,247
53,312
Fixed Costs
190
190
190
3,083
3,248
3,671
2,375
2,627
945
841
825
869
830
190
190
190
190
190
3,270
3,381
3,793
2,550
2,773
1,259
Annual
O&M Costs
3,758
2,987
4,531
3,216
3,883
3,346
3,796
4,206
6,546
5,422
5,767
6,498
4,978
1,939
3,057
2,724
2,466
3,106
4,488
5,862
5,281
5,607
6,090
6,051
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
600
600
600
990
890
858
971
909
1,076
878
847
931
859
600
600
600
600
600
1,341
1,133
1,090
1,308
1,191
1,672
-------
Table C-3 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
2
2
2
2
o
6
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
-
12
33
-
18
-
7
11
-
5
1
119
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
81,842
71,283
65,666
83,435
19,431
51,119
41,096
34,472
52,896
250
455
524
228
432
250
455
524
228
432
250
455
524
228
432
Fixed Costs
1,039
990
1,086
1,028
190
190
190
190
190
2,795
2,733
2,889
2,326
3,421
690
690
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
8,370
7,263
6,550
6,840
2,197
3,834
3,350
2,944
3,913
1,519
1,523
1,524
1,519
1,523
1,295
1,299
1,300
1,295
1,299
1,215
1,219
1,220
1,215
1,219
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,262
1,160
1,349
1,228
600
600
600
600
600
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
-------
Table C-3 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
O
6
1
81
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
Capital
Costs
1,085
1,996
2,259
998
1,847
1,085
1,996
2,259
998
1,847
1,085
1,996
2,259
998
1,847
Fixed Costs
2,795
2,733
2,889
2,326
3,421
690
690
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
1,624
1,717
1,743
1,616
1,701
1,400
1,493
1,519
1,392
1,477
1,320
1,413
1,439
1,312
1,397
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
o
to
-------
Table C-4
Model Farm Costs for EPA Regulatory Option 4
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Facilities
152
13
801
22
3
143
9
299
27
2
37
3
136
6
1
8
-
16
1
-
103
Average
Head
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
Capital
Costs
44,086
127,212
110,030
67,982
128,203
44,086
127,212
110,030
67,982
128,203
44,086
127,212
110,030
67,982
128,203
461,017
1,250,192
1,116,558
659,332
1,277,199
836,286
Fixed Costs
5,760
5,101
5,601
5,250
5,424
3,985
2,298
1,811
2,812
2,614
190
190
190
190
190
34,915
28,569
34,059
37,208
33,588
46,972
Annual
O&M Costs
10,718
13,897
12,945
11,854
14,205
23,865
24,946
34,370
32,305
29,132
9,089
12,810
11,784
10,346
12,911
39,332
67,535
61,159
51,717
72,740
128,924
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
5,612
3,862
4,096
5,216
4,521
6,797
3,621
2,713
4,583
4,214
600
600
600
600
600
59,719
47,522
57,556
64,367
57,004
87,690
o
to
-------
Table C-4 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
2
2
2
2
3
3
o
J
3
o
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
Number of
Facilities
-
116
13
-
71
-
85
9
-
65
116
557
25
31
15
23
80
8
8
6
10
48
2
3
Average
Head
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
1,250,192
1,660,713
659,332
1,277,199
461,017
1,250,192
1,116,558
659,332
1,277,199
53,713
76,686
70,914
63,147
79,563
57,399
77,936
71,700
63,881
80,871
20,591
46,431
40,599
31,152
47,304
Fixed Costs
24,601
21,138
35,006
29,544
190
190
190
190
190
3,344
3,394
3,847
2,623
2,917
1,429
1,098
1,064
1,204
1,258
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
211,308
143,748
334,501
252,364
20,972
52,945
43,468
31,923
55,221
10,895
11,580
11,532
11,868
12,534
12,317
12,416
11,888
12,489
13,284
8,296
9,501
9,181
8,836
9,556
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
45,589
39,075
65,170
54,892
600
600
600
600
600
1,485
1,160
1,185
1,448
1,458
1,981
1,366
1,293
1,561
1,671
600
600
600
600
600
o
to
-------
Table C-4 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Number of
Facilities
99
27
659
13
5
22
5
94
4
1
9
2
57
1
0
88
15
18
132
17
227
49
52
481
Average
Head
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
Capital
Costs
84,806
117,810
106,543
95,734
128,567
96,378
120,825
107,924
96,136
130,512
30,982
79,202
68,046
49,442
80,682
205,638
296,644
322,463
212,661
322,293
205,638
296,644
322,463
212,661
Fixed Costs
4,156
3,913
4,385
3,394
3,704
2,518
1,683
1,585
1,969
2,080
190
190
190
190
190
5,140
4,966
5,324
4,540
4,827
1,228
1,075
1,281
1,010
Annual
O&M Costs
13,733
15,291
14,942
15,080
16,424
16,389
17,107
16,022
16,887
17,844
8,676
10,927
10,311
9,623
11,018
16,648
21,912
23,177
17,060
22,289
80,776
61,304
53,247
78,921
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
3,018
2,145
2,206
2,894
2,935
4,040
2,470
2,283
3,001
3,213
600
600
600
600
600
3,933
4,491
4,554
4,057
3,783
1,603
1,314
1,709
1,203
o
to
-------
Table C-4 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Category
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
3
1
1
1
Number of
Facilities
49
89
18
20
173
18
230
333
372
253
111
280
415
438
368
107
83
122
132
101
35
168
186
196
Average
Head
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
460
460
460
Capital
Costs
322,293
205,638
296,644
322,463
212,661
322,293
58,469
87,743
91,985
63,233
98,402
58,534
87,711
91,965
63,196
98,367
55,345
83,146
87,347
60,210
95,431
87,056
127,083
135,518
Fixed Costs
742
190
190
190
190
190
3,284
3,204
3,356
2,791
3,636
1,122
1,019
1,048
971
919
190
190
190
190
190
3,642
3,535
3,708
Annual
O&M Costs
53,958
15,539
20,628
21,873
15,909
21,224
10,266
11,886
12,120
10,477
12,134
11,814
12,680
12,700
11,925
13,196
9,753
11,261
11,461
10,001
11,721
11,767
14,129
14,588
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
690
600
600
600
600
600
1,310
1,249
1,294
1,187
1,093
1,412
1,214
1,268
1,121
1,025
600
600
600
600
600
1,972
1,872
1,959
o
to
oo
-------
Table C-4 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
Category
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
o
J
3
Number of
Facilities
254
74
205
233
231
370
72
61
68
70
102
24
83
-
-
48
-
78
-
-
58
-
20
-
Average
Head
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
Capital
Costs
92,592
142,164
86,440
126,228
134,674
92,091
141,724
83,339
121,798
130,130
89,176
138,882
17,586
63,558
48,758
34,793
64,707
17,586
63,558
48,758
34,793
64,707
17,586
63,558
Fixed Costs
3,093
3,890
1,057
937
1,006
902
802
190
190
190
190
190
3,781
3,883
4,206
3,431
3,786
2,038
1,485
1,247
1,548
1,378
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
11,994
14,368
26,180
24,617
22,543
26,489
24,914
10,914
13,112
13,526
11,208
13,673
8,861
11,113
10,359
9,689
11,124
9,443
11,508
10,664
10,545
11,690
8,384
10,735
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,757
1,569
1,289
1,060
1,192
993
812
600
600
600
600
600
1,881
1,565
1,472
1,798
1,439
3,139
2,092
1,646
2,205
1,890
600
600
-------
Table C-4 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Facilities
-
13
-
19
-
163
18
-
4
-
23
6
-
2
-
14
2
-
190
-
81
106
-
43
Average
Head
1,500
1,500
1,500
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
750
750
750
750
750
750
Capital
Costs
48,758
34,793
64,707
45,160
66,756
59,858
55,287
67,924
45,476
66,796
59,983
55,094
67,622
15,674
38,076
31,383
26,228
39,056
51,667
81,575
71,201
65,894
83,639
53,704
Fixed Costs
190
190
190
3,083
3,248
3,671
2,375
2,627
945
841
825
869
830
190
190
190
190
190
3,270
3,381
3,793
2,550
2,773
1,259
Annual
O&M Costs
10,010
9,239
10,783
9,468
10,135
9,598
10,048
10,458
11,434
11,674
10,748
11,541
11,999
8,191
9,309
8,976
8,718
9,358
10,740
12,114
11,533
11,859
12,342
12,303
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
600
600
600
990
890
858
971
909
1,076
878
847
931
859
600
600
600
600
600
1,341
1,133
1,090
1,308
1,191
1,672
-------
Table C-4 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
2
2
2
2
3
3
o
J
3
o
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
o
J
3
o
J
3
Number of
Facilities
-
12
33
-
18
-
7
11
-
5
1
119
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
82,234
71,675
66,058
83,827
19,823
51,511
41,488
34,864
53,288
642
847
916
620
824
642
847
916
620
824
642
847
916
620
824
Fixed Costs
1,039
990
1,086
1,028
190
190
190
190
190
2,795
2,733
2,889
2,326
3,421
690
690
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
14,622
13,515
12,802
13,092
8,449
10,086
9,602
9,196
10,165
7,771
7,775
7,776
7,771
7,775
7,547
7,551
7,552
7,547
7,551
7,467
7,471
7,472
7,467
7,471
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,262
1,160
1,349
1,228
600
600
600
600
600
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
-------
Table C-4 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
o
J
3
o
J
3
o
J
Number of
Facilities
3
1
81
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
Capital
Costs
1,477
2,388
2,651
1,390
2,239
1,477
2,388
2,651
1,390
2,239
1,477
2,388
2,651
1,390
2,239
Fixed Costs
2,795
2,733
2,889
2,326
3,421
690
690
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
7,876
7,969
7,995
7,868
7,953
7,652
7,745
7,771
7,644
7,729
7,572
7,665
7,691
7,564
7,649
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
o
00
to
-------
Table C-5
Model Farm Costs for EPA Regulatory Option 5
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Facilities
152
13
801
22
3
143
9
299
27
2
37
3
136
6
1
8
-
16
1
-
103
Average
Head
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
Capital
Costs
10,026
11,621
11,478
10,897
12,927
10,026
11,621
11,478
10,897
12,927
10,026
11,621
11,478
10,897
12,927
21,395
48,006
45,587
35,911
69,779
382,306
Fixed Costs
3,352
2,420
2,548
3,144
2,778
3,985
2,298
1,811
2,812
2,614
190
190
190
190
190
32,110
25,630
30,960
34,574
30,666
46,972
Annual
O&M Costs
100,067
86,435
89,251
86,829
86,609
113,155
97,417
110,595
107,079
101,415
98,439
85,349
88,090
85,321
85,314
1,639,971
1,418,158
1,466,719
1,422,903
1,420,514
1,728,577
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
5,612
3,862
4,096
5,216
4,521
6,797
3,621
2,713
4,583
4,214
600
600
600
600
600
59,719
47,522
57,556
64,367
57,004
87,690
o
00
-------
Table C-5 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
2
2
2
2
o
6
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
-
116
13
-
71
-
85
9
-
65
116
557
25
31
15
23
80
8
8
6
10
48
2
3
Average
Head
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
48,006
647,503
35,911
69,779
21,395
48,006
45,587
35,911
69,779
50,645
50,767
48,951
53,011
53,517
54,331
52,018
49,737
53,744
54,824
17,522
20,512
18,636
21,016
21,257
Fixed Costs
24,601
21,138
35,006
29,544
190
190
190
190
190
1,162
991
1,005
1,139
1,148
1,429
1,098
1,064
1,204
1,258
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
1,560,703
1,556,128
1,702,393
1,598,328
1,621,611
1,403,567
1,449,029
1,403,110
1,402,994
18,957
16,579
17,186
17,559
17,501
20,368
17,404
17,535
18,165
18,243
16,358
14,500
14,835
14,527
14,522
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
45,589
39,075
65,170
54,892
600
600
600
600
600
1,485
1,160
1,185
1,448
1,458
1,981
1,366
1,293
1,561
1,671
600
600
600
600
600
o
00
-------
Table C-5 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Number of
Facilities
99
27
659
13
5
22
5
94
4
1
9
2
57
1
0
88
15
18
132
17
227
49
52
481
Average
Head
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
Capital
Costs
70,481
61,030
57,355
69,492
71,918
82,054
64,046
58,737
69,894
73,863
16,658
22,423
18,859
23,200
24,033
75,314
54,504
54,504
75,314
75,314
75,314
54,504
54,504
75,314
Fixed Costs
1,974
1,510
1,543
1,910
1,935
2,518
1,683
1,585
1,969
2,080
190
190
190
190
190
2,458
2,759
2,795
2,530
2,382
1,228
1,075
1,281
1,010
Annual
O&M Costs
46,776
40,912
42,149
42,047
41,994
49,374
42,667
43,191
43,783
43,369
41,719
36,548
37,518
36,591
36,588
31,227
43,339
44,823
27,480
26,422
101,067
82,623
70,773
82,352
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
3,018
2,145
2,206
2,894
2,935
4,040
2,470
2,283
3,001
3,213
600
600
600
600
600
3,933
4,491
4,554
4,057
3,783
1,603
1,314
1,709
1,203
o
00
-------
Table C-5 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Category
2
3
o
J
3
o
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
Number of
Facilities
49
89
18
20
173
18
230
333
372
253
111
280
415
438
368
107
83
122
132
101
35
168
186
196
Average
Head
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
460
460
460
Capital
Costs
75,314
75,314
54,504
54,504
75,314
75,314
29,810
27,120
26,505
31,147
30,784
29,874
27,089
26,485
31,111
30,749
26,685
22,524
21,867
28,124
27,813
41,456
35,559
34,549
Fixed Costs
742
190
190
190
190
190
1,064
1,037
1,060
1,004
955
1,122
1,019
1,048
971
919
190
190
190
190
190
1,422
1,368
1,411
Annual
O&M Costs
52,255
30,119
42,055
43,518
26,329
25,358
9,121
11,362
11,488
8,737
8,546
11,680
12,131
11,734
9,214
10,397
8,608
10,736
10,829
8,261
8,133
16,367
20,721
20,955
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
690
600
600
600
600
600
1,310
1,249
1,294
1,187
1,093
1,412
1,214
1,268
1,121
1,025
600
600
600
600
600
1,972
1,872
1,959
o
00
-------
Table C-5 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
Category
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Number of
Facilities
254
74
205
233
231
370
72
61
68
70
102
24
83
-
-
48
-
78
-
-
58
-
20
-
Average
Head
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
Capital
Costs
43,606
42,972
40,840
34,704
33,704
43,106
42,533
37,738
30,274
29,160
40,191
39,690
9,689
10,542
10,465
10,156
11,241
9,689
10,542
10,465
10,156
11,241
9,689
10,542
Fixed Costs
1,306
1,209
1,057
937
1,006
902
802
190
190
190
190
190
1,372
1,202
1,152
1,325
1,139
2,038
1,485
1,247
1,548
1,378
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
15,601
15,270
30,979
31,154
30,870
30,278
25,792
15,513
19,703
19,893
14,815
14,576
2,199
2,142
2,110
2,195
2,141
2,768
2,522
2,398
3,002
2,679
1,722
1,765
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,757
1,569
1,289
1,060
1,192
993
812
600
600
600
600
600
1,881
1,565
1,472
1,798
1,439
3,139
2,092
1,646
2,205
1,890
600
600
-------
Table C-5 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
o
6
3
o
6
i
i
i
i
i
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Facilities
-
13
-
19
-
163
18
-
4
-
23
6
-
2
-
14
2
-
190
-
81
106
-
43
Average
Head
1,500
1,500
1,500
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
750
750
750
750
750
750
Capital
Costs
10,465
10,156
11,241
45,878
47,993
45,978
48,831
48,858
46,194
48,034
46,103
48,638
48,556
16,393
19,314
17,503
19,772
19,990
49,469
52,072
49,044
53,644
53,495
51,507
Fixed Costs
190
190
190
901
844
829
890
858
945
841
825
869
830
190
190
190
190
190
1,088
978
951
1,065
1,004
1,259
Annual
O&M Costs
1,761
1,745
1,800
3,114
2,809
2,516
3,335
3,116
5,055
5,467
4,933
4,798
3,868
1,836
1,982
1,893
2,005
2,016
4,435
4,392
4,163
5,057
4,598
5,962
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
600
600
600
990
890
858
971
909
1,076
878
847
931
859
600
600
600
600
600
1,341
1,133
1,090
1,308
1,191
1,672
-------
Table C-5 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
2
2
2
2
o
6
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
-
12
33
-
18
-
7
11
-
5
1
119
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
52,731
49,519
53,809
53,684
17,625
22,008
19,331
22,615
23,145
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fixed Costs
1,039
990
1,086
1,028
190
190
190
190
190
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
690
690
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
5,380
4,638
5,952
5,317
2,145
2,364
2,233
2,394
2,421
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,262
1,160
1,349
1,228
600
600
600
600
600
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
-------
Table C-5 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
O
6
1
81
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
Capital
Costs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fixed Costs
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
690
690
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
o
-k
o
-------
Table C-6
Model Farm Costs for EPA Regulatory Option 6
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Facilities
152
13
801
22
3
143
9
299
27
2
37
3
136
6
1
8
-
16
1
-
103
Average
Head
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
Capital
Costs
869
2,464
2,321
1,741
3,771
869
2,464
2,321
1,741
3,771
869
2,464
2,321
1,741
3,771
12,238
38,849
36,430
26,754
60,622
387,507
Fixed Costs
3,352
2,420
2,548
3,144
2,778
3,985
2,298
1,811
2,812
2,614
190
190
190
190
190
32,110
25,630
30,960
34,574
30,666
46,972
Annual
O&M Costs
2,882
2,420
2,487
2,805
2,693
16,029
13,469
23,912
23,255
17,620
1,253
1,333
1,326
1,297
1,399
20,182
17,743
20,722
22,341
21,761
109,774
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
5,612
3,862
4,096
5,216
4,521
6,797
3,621
2,713
4,583
4,214
600
600
600
600
600
59,719
47,522
57,556
64,367
57,004
87,690
o
-------
Table C-6 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
2
2
2
2
o
6
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
Number of
Facilities
-
116
13
-
71
-
85
9
-
65
116
557
25
31
10
48
2
3
15
23
80
8
8
6
Average
Head
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
38,849
580,585
26,754
60,622
12,238
38,849
36,430
26,754
60,622
41,488
41,610
39,795
43,854
44,360
11,355
9,479
11,859
12,101
45,174
42,861
40,581
44,588
45,668
8,366
Fixed Costs
24,601
21,138
35,006
29,544
190
190
190
190
190
1,162
991
1,005
1,139
1,148
190
190
190
190
1,429
1,098
1,064
1,204
1,258
190
Annual
O&M Costs
161,515
103,312
305,125
201,385
1,822
3,152
3,032
2,548
4,241
4,162
3,791
3,973
4,770
4,728
1,712
1,622
1,738
1,750
5,584
4,628
4,329
5,390
5,479
1,563
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
45,589
39,075
65,170
54,892
600
600
600
600
600
1,485
1,160
1,185
1,448
1,458
600
600
600
600
1,981
1,366
1,293
1,561
1,671
600
o
-k
to
-------
Table C-6 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
Number of
Facilities
99
27
659
13
5
22
5
94
4
1
9
2
57
1
0
88
15
18
132
17
227
49
52
481
Average
Head
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
Capital
Costs
61,325
51,874
48,199
60,336
62,761
72,897
54,889
49,580
60,737
64,706
7,501
13,266
9,702
14,043
14,877
321,284
341,247
341,247
321,284
321,284
321,284
341,247
341,247
321,284
Fixed Costs
1,974
1,510
1,543
1,910
1,935
2,518
1,683
1,585
1,969
2,080
190
190
190
190
190
2,458
2,759
2,795
2,530
2,382
1,228
1,075
1,281
1,010
Annual
O&M Costs
6,535
6,130
6,225
7,261
7,253
9,190
7,945
7,304
9,068
8,673
1,477
1,766
1,593
1,804
1,846
(39,295)
(40,410)
(40,389)
(39,253)
(39,339)
30,562
4,346
(5,383)
27,515
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
3,018
2,145
2,206
2,894
2,935
4,040
2,470
2,283
3,001
3,213
600
600
600
600
600
3,933
4,491
4,554
4,057
3,783
1,603
1,314
1,709
1,203
o
-------
Table C-6 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Category
2
3
o
J
3
o
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Number of
Facilities
49
89
18
20
173
18
230
83
122
132
101
35
333
372
253
111
280
415
438
368
107
168
186
196
Average
Head
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
460
460
460
Capital
Costs
321,284
321,284
341,247
341,247
321,284
321,284
20,653
17,528
13,367
12,711
18,968
18,656
17,964
17,349
21,991
21,627
20,717
17,932
17,328
21,954
21,592
180,161
188,664
187,653
Fixed Costs
742
190
190
190
190
190
1,064
190
190
190
190
190
1,037
1,060
1,004
955
1,122
1,019
1,048
971
919
1,422
1,368
1,411
Annual
O&M Costs
(4,907)
(40,403)
(41,694)
(41,694)
(40,403)
(40,403)
2,193
1,681
1,616
1,585
1,753
1,737
2,241
2,244
2,229
2,150
4,998
4,249
3,922
4,843
4,188
(6,133)
(7,555)
(7,564)
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
690
600
600
600
600
600
1,310
600
600
600
600
600
1,249
1,294
1,187
1,093
1,412
1,214
1,268
1,121
1,025
1,972
1,872
1,959
o
-------
Table C-6 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
Category
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
Number of
Facilities
254
74
205
233
231
370
72
61
68
70
102
24
83
-
-
48
-
78
-
-
58
-
20
-
Average
Head
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
Capital
Costs
182,312
181,678
179,546
187,808
186,809
181,811
181,238
176,444
183,378
182,265
178,897
178,395
532
1,386
1,308
999
2,084
532
1,386
1,308
999
2,084
532
1,386
Fixed Costs
1,306
1,209
1,057
937
1,006
902
802
190
190
190
190
190
1,372
1,202
1,152
1,325
1,139
2,038
1,485
1,247
1,548
1,378
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
(6,078)
(6,195)
10,865
5,610
2,649
10,904
6,331
(6,987)
(8,572)
(8,625)
(6,864)
(6,889)
1,713
1,657
1,624
1,710
1,656
2,295
2,052
1,929
2,565
2,222
1,237
1,279
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,757
1,569
1,289
1,060
1,192
993
812
600
600
600
600
600
1,881
1,565
1,472
1,798
1,439
3,139
2,092
1,646
2,205
1,890
600
600
-------
Table C-6 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
o
6
3
o
J
3
o
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Number of
Facilities
-
13
-
2
-
14
2
-
19
-
163
18
-
4
-
23
6
-
190
-
81
106
-
43
Average
Head
1,500
1,500
1,500
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
750
750
750
750
750
750
Capital
Costs
1,308
999
2,084
7,236
10,157
8,346
10,615
10,833
36,722
38,836
36,821
39,674
39,701
37,038
38,877
36,946
39,481
39,399
40,313
42,915
39,888
44,488
44,339
42,350
Fixed Costs
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
901
844
829
890
858
945
841
825
869
830
1,088
978
951
1,065
1,004
1,259
Annual
O&M Costs
1,275
1,260
1,314
1,538
1,684
1,596
1,707
1,718
2,816
2,511
2,218
3,037
2,818
4,782
4,049
3,368
4,530
3,590
3,877
3,833
3,605
4,499
4,039
5,440
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
990
890
858
971
909
1,076
878
847
931
859
1,341
1,133
1,090
1,308
1,191
1,672
-------
Table C-6 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
2
2
2
2
o
6
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
-
12
33
-
18
-
7
11
-
5
1
119
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
43,575
40,362
44,653
44,527
8,468
12,851
10,174
13,458
13,988
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fixed Costs
1,039
990
1,086
1,028
190
190
190
190
190
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
690
690
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
4,862
4,101
5,442
4,789
1,586
1,806
1,674
1,836
1,863
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,262
1,160
1,349
1,228
600
600
600
600
600
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
-------
Table C-6 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
O
6
1
81
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
Capital
Costs
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fixed Costs
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
690
690
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M Costs
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
o
-k
oo
-------
Table C-7
Model Farm Costs for EPA Regulatory Option 7
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Size Group
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Facilities
152
13
801
22
3
8
-
16
1
-
88
15
18
132
17
99
27
659
13
5
168
Average
Head
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
460
Capital Costs
20,155
47,073
14,357
45,036
3,771
128,183
297,158
105,992
287,781
60,622
273,999
349,278
280,372
290,359
168,524
78,618
66,676
55,271
74,817
62,761
109,228
Fixed Costs
3,352
2,420
2,548
3,144
2,778
32,110
25,630
30,960
34,574
30,666
2,458
2,759
2,795
2,530
2,382
1,974
1,510
1,543
1,910
1,935
1,422
Annual
O&M
3,846
4,650
3,089
4,970
2,693
25,979
30,658
24,200
35,392
21,761
14,034
18,597
15,173
14,893
8,716
7,400
6,870
6,578
7,985
7,253
6,665
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
5,612
3,862
4,096
5,216
4,521
59,719
47,522
57,556
64,367
57,004
3,933
4,491
4,554
4,057
3,783
3,018
2,145
2,206
2,894
2,935
1,972
o
-------
Table C-7 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Group
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Number of
Facilities
186
196
254
74
3
1
81
-
-
190
-
81
106
-
83
-
-
48
-
65
116
557
25
31
Average
Head
460
460
460
460
540
540
540
540
540
750
750
750
750
750
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
400
400
400
400
400
Capital Costs
136,137
108,918
119,249
74,211
-
-
-
-
-
40,313
42,915
39,888
44,488
44,339
532
1,386
1,308
999
2,084
41,488
41,610
39,795
43,854
44,360
Fixed Costs
1,368
1,411
1,306
1,209
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,088
978
951
1,065
1,004
1,372
1,202
1,152
1,325
1,139
1,162
991
1,005
1,139
1,148
Annual
O&M
8,359
7,039
7,112
4,776
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
3,877
3,833
3,605
4,499
4,039
1,713
1,657
1,624
1,710
1,656
4,162
3,791
3,973
4,770
4,728
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,872
1,959
1,757
1,569
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
1,341
1,133
1,090
1,308
1,191
1,881
1,565
1,472
1,798
1,439
1,485
1,160
1,185
1,448
1,458
-------
Table C-7 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Group
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
Category
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of
Facilities
230
333
372
253
111
19
-
163
18
-
5
1
119
-
-
143
9
299
27
2
103
-
116
13
Average
Head
235
235
235
235
235
400
400
400
400
400
540
540
540
540
540
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
Capital Costs
20,653
17,964
17,349
21,991
21,627
36,722
38,836
36,821
39,674
39,701
-
-
-
-
-
20,155
47,073
14,357
45,036
3,771
503,452
297,158
650,147
287,781
Fixed Costs
1,064
1,037
1,060
1,004
955
901
844
829
890
858
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
1,075
3,985
2,298
1,811
2,812
2,614
46,972
24,601
21,138
35,006
Annual
O&M
2,193
2,241
2,244
2 229
2,150
2,816
2,511
2,218
3,037
2,818
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
1,514
16,993
15,699
24,514
25,420
17,620
115,571
174,430
106,790
318,176
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,310
1,249
1,294
1,187
1,093
990
890
858
971
909
1,318
1,317
1,317
1,318
1,318
6,797
3,621
2,713
4,583
4,214
87,690
45,589
39,075
65,170
o
-------
Table C-7 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Size Group
Large2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Category
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of
Facilities
-
227
49
52
481
49
22
5
94
4
1
205
233
231
370
72
-
-
-
-
-
43
-
12
Average
Head
43,805
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
460
460
460
460
460
540
540
540
540
540
750
750
750
Capital Costs
60,622
273,999
349,278
280,372
290,359
168,524
90,190
69,691
56,652
75,218
64,706
108,613
135,282
108,074
118,748
73,771
-
-
-
-
-
42,350
43,575
40,362
Fixed Costs
29,544
1,228
1,075
1,281
1,010
742
2,518
1,683
1,585
1,969
2,080
1,057
937
1,006
902
802
690
690
690
690
690
1,259
1,039
990
Annual
O&M
201,385
78,162
57,990
45,242
76,755
40,386
10,055
8,685
7,658
9,792
8,673
21,077
18,846
14,994
21,607
15,323
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
1,290
7,144
4,862
4,101
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
54,892
1,603
1,314
1,709
1,203
690
4,040
2,470
2,283
3,001
3,213
1,289
1,060
1,192
993
812
600
600
600
600
600
1,672
1,262
1,160
o
(^
to
-------
Table C-7 (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Veal
Veal
Size Group
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
Category
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Number of
Facilities
33
-
78
-
-
58
-
15
23
80
8
8
280
415
438
368
107
4
-
23
6
-
-
-
Average
Head
750
750
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
400
400
400
400
400
235
235
235
235
235
400
400
400
400
400
540
540
Capital Costs
44,653
44,527
532
1,386
1,308
999
2,084
45,174
42,861
40,581
44,588
45,668
20,717
17,932
17,328
21,954
21,592
37,038
38,877
36,946
39,481
39,399
-
-
Fixed Costs
1,086
1,028
2,038
1,485
1,247
1,548
1,378
1,429
1,098
1,064
1,204
1,258
1,122
1,019
1,048
971
919
945
841
825
869
830
690
690
Annual
O&M
5,442
4,789
2,295
2,052
1,929
2,565
2,222
5,584
4,628
4,329
5,390
5,479
3,741
3,035
2,824
3,676
3,212
6,146
4,049
3,368
4,530
4,359
1,290
1,290
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,349
1,228
3,139
2,092
1,646
2,205
1,890
1,981
1,366
1,293
1,561
1,671
1,412
1,214
1,268
1,121
1,025
1,076
878
847
931
859
600
600
-------
Table C-7 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Size Group
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
Category
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
-
-
-
37
3
136
6
1
71
-
85
9
-
89
18
20
173
18
9
2
57
1
0
61
Average
Head
540
540
540
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
460
Capital Costs
-
-
-
20,155
47,073
14,357
45,036
3,771
128,183
297,158
105,992
287,781
60,622
273,999
349,278
280,372
290,359
168,524
24,794
28,068
16,774
28,524
14,877
105,511
Fixed Costs
690
690
690
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M
1,290
1,290
1,290
2,217
3,563
1,928
3,462
1,399
7,619
16,067
6,510
15,599
4,241
12,925
17,313
13,868
13,743
7,652
2,342
2,506
1,947
2,528
1,846
5,811
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
o
-------
Table C-7 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Group
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
68
70
102
24
-
-
-
-
-
18
-
7
11
-
20
-
-
13
-
6
10
48
2
3
Average
Head
460
460
460
460
540
540
540
540
540
750
750
750
750
750
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
400
400
400
400
400
Capital Costs
130,852
103,530
115,834
70,929
-
-
-
-
-
8,468
12,851
10,174
13,458
13,988
532
1,386
1,308
999
2,084
8,366
11,355
9,479
11,859
12,101
Fixed Costs
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M
7,341
5,978
6,327
4,081
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,586
1,806
1,674
1,836
1,863
1,237
1,279
1,275
1,260
1,314
1,563
1,712
1,622
1,738
1,750
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
-------
Table C-7 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Group
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Central
MidAtlantic
MidWest
Pacific
South
Category
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Number of
Facilities
83
122
132
101
35
2
-
14
2
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
235
235
235
235
235
400
400
400
400
400
540
540
540
540
540
Capital Costs
17,528
13,367
12,711
18,968
18,656
7,236
10,157
8,346
10,615
10,833
-
-
-
-
-
Fixed Costs
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
190
Annual
O&M
1,681
1,616
1,585
1,753
1,737
1,538
1,684
1,596
1,707
1,718
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
1,210
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
o
-------
Table C-8
Model Farm Costs for EPA Regulatory Option 8
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Region
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
Category
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Number of
Facilities
152
143
37
13
9
3
801
299
136
22
27
6
3
2
1
8
103
71
-
-
-
Average
Head
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
2,628
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
Capital
Costs
1,659
1,659
1,659
3,922
3,922
3,922
3,961
3,961
3,961
2,470
2,470
2,470
5,107
5,107
5,107
13,028
388,297
13,028
40,307
40,307
40,307
Fixed Costs
3,352
3,985
690
2,420
2,298
690
2,548
1,811
690
3,144
2,812
690
2,778
2,614
690
32,110
46,972
690
25,630
24,601
690
Annual
O&M Costs
2,986
16,133
1,438
2,612
13,662
1,606
2,703
24,128
1,622
2,901
23,352
1,473
2,870
17,796
1,655
20,286
109,878
2,006
17,935
161,707
3,425
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
5,612
6,797
600
3,862
3,621
600
4,096
2,713
600
5,216
4,583
600
4,521
4,214
600
59,719
87,690
600
47,522
45,589
600
o
-------
Table C-8 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Size Class
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Large2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Category
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Number of
Facilities
16
116
85
1
13
9
-
-
-
65
15
6
116
23
10
557
80
48
25
8
2
31
8
3
Average
Head
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
43,805
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
600
Capital
Costs
38,070
582,226
38,070
27,483
27,483
27,483
61,958
61,958
61,958
49,643
57,322
11,883
49,340
51,877
17,058
46,893
48,681
14,596
54,218
55,967
18,871
54,467
57,339
18,567
Fixed Costs
30,960
21,138
690
34,574
35,006
690
30,666
29,544
690
1,399
1,837
690
1,144
1,324
690
1,161
1,273
690
1,363
1,489
690
1,378
1,573
690
Annual
O&M Costs
20,939
103,528
3,328
22,437
305,221
2,724
21,937
201,561
4,497
5,337
6,922
1,869
5,090
6,020
2,182
5,234
5,702
2,079
6,095
6,826
2,213
6,079
6,952
2,248
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
57,556
39,075
600
64,367
65,170
600
57,004
54,892
600
1,936
2,750
600
1,449
1,791
600
1,486
1,692
600
1,862
2,105
600
1,899
2,264
600
o
I
-------
Table C-8 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MrdWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MrdWest
Category
1
2
3
1
2
o
5
i
2
3
1
2
o
3
i
2
3
1
2
o
5
i
2
3
1
2
o
J
Number of
Facilities
99
22
9
27
5
2
659
94
57
13
4
1
5
1
0
88
227
89
15
49
18
18
52
20
Average
Head
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,088
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
Capital
Costs
64,745
76,318
10,921
56,766
59,782
18,158
53,059
54,441
14,563
67,653
68,055
21,361
68,670
70,615
20,786
6,306,619
6,306,619
6,306,619
6,146,236
6,146,236
6,146,236
6,174,845
6,174,845
6,174,845
Fixed Costs
1,974
2,518
690
1,510
1,683
690
1,543
1,585
690
1,910
1,969
690
1,935
2,080
690
2,458
1,228
690
2,759
1,075
690
2,795
1,281
690
Annual
O&M Costs
6,770
9,426
1,793
6,494
8,309
2,209
6,603
7,682
2,051
7,686
9,494
2,310
7,658
9,078
2,331
283,589
347,717
282,560
278,075
317,468
276,871
279,541
309,611
278,317
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
3,018
4,040
600
2,145
2,470
600
2,206
2,283
600
2,894
3,001
600
2,935
3,213
600
3,933
1,603
600
4,491
1,314
600
4,554
1,709
600
o
-------
Table C-8 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Category
1
2
3
1
2
o
5
i
2
3
1
2
o
3
i
2
3
1
2
o
5
i
2
3
1
2
o
J
Number of
Facilities
132
481
173
17
49
18
230
280
83
333
415
122
372
438
132
253
368
101
111
107
35
168
205
61
Average
Head
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
1,419
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
460
460
460
Capital
Costs
6,313,518
6,313,518
6,313,518
6,667,534
6,667,534
6,667,534
1,105,290
1,105,354
1,102,165
1,090,736
1,090,704
1,086,139
1,093,061
1,093,040
1,088,423
1,108,294
1,108,257
1,105,271
1,184,840
1,184,805
1,181,869
2,084,763
2,084,147
2,081,046
Fixed Costs
2,530
1,010
690
2,382
742
690
1,064
1,122
690
1,037
1,019
690
1,060
1,048
690
1,004
971
690
955
919
690
1,422
1,057
690
Annual
O&M Costs
283,970
345,831
282,900
300,282
331,951
299,297
48,861
50,409
48,429
48,717
49,511
48,172
48,882
49,461
48,303
48,975
50,422
48,579
52,470
53,532
52,137
93,265
107,677
92,491
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
4,057
1,203
600
3,783
690
600
1,310
1,412
600
1,249
1,214
600
1,294
1,268
600
1,187
1,121
600
1,093
1,025
600
1,972
1,289
600
o
a\
o
-------
Table C-8 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Region
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MrdWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MrdWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Category
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Number of
Facilities
186
233
68
196
231
70
254
370
102
74
72
24
83
78
20
-
-
-
-
-
-
48
58
13
Average
Head
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
460
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
1,500
Capital
Costs
2,041,316
2,040,460
2,036,031
2,048,995
2,048,151
2,043,607
2,088,898
2,088,397
2,085,482
2,218,038
2,217,599
2,214,756
1,322
1,322
1,322
2,844
2,844
2,844
2,949
2,949
2,949
1,728
1,728
1,728
Fixed Costs
1,368
937
690
1,411
1,006
690
1,306
902
690
1,209
802
690
1,372
2,038
690
1,202
1,485
690
1,152
1,247
690
1,325
1,548
690
Annual
O&M Costs
92,088
102,576
91,151
92,529
100,484
91,547
93,413
107,908
92,708
99,320
109,867
98,706
1,818
2,400
1,421
1,849
2,244
1,552
1,841
2,146
1,572
1,806
2,661
1,436
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,872
1,060
600
1,959
1,192
600
1,757
993
600
1,569
812
600
1,881
3,139
600
1,565
2,092
600
1,472
1,646
600
1,798
2,205
600
-------
Table C-8 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Size Class
Large 1
Large 1
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
Category
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Number of
Facilities
-
-
-
19
4
2
-
-
-
163
23
14
18
6
2
-
-
-
190
43
18
-
-
-
Average
Head
1,500
1,500
1,500
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
750
750
750
750
750
750
Capital
Costs
3,421
3,421
3,421
38,801
39,117
9,315
41,912
41,953
13,232
40,029
40,155
11,555
43,531
43,338
14,472
43,211
42,909
14,343
43,111
45,149
11,267
46,931
47,590
16,867
Fixed Costs
1,139
1,378
690
901
945
690
844
841
690
829
825
690
890
869
690
858
830
690
1,088
1,259
690
978
1,039
690
Annual
O&M Costs
1,832
2,398
1,571
2,985
4,950
1,787
2,784
4,322
2,037
2,513
3,663
1,970
3,290
6,177
2,040
3,104
3,875
2,083
4,081
5,645
1,871
4,153
5,182
2,206
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,439
1,890
600
990
1,076
600
890
878
600
858
847
600
971
931
600
909
859
600
1,341
1,672
600
1,133
1,262
600
-------
Table C-8 (Continued)
Animal
rfeifers
rfeifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
rleifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Region
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Category
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Number of
Facilities
81
12
7
106
33
11
-
-
-
5
-
-
1
-
-
119
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
750
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
Capital
Costs
43,872
44,347
14,159
49,983
50,148
18,953
48,917
49,105
18,566
790
790
790
1,458
1,458
1,458
1,640
1,640
1,640
729
729
729
1,337
1,337
1,337
Fixed Costs
951
990
690
1,065
1,086
690
1,004
1,028
690
1,075
690
690
1,075
690
690
1,075
690
690
1,075
690
690
1,075
690
690
Annual
O&M Costs
3,939
4,435
2,088
4,833
5,777
2,250
4,377
5,127
2,281
1,618
1,394
1,394
1,706
1,482
1,482
1,730
1,506
1,506
1,610
1,386
1,386
1,690
1,466
1,466
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,090
1,160
600
1,308
1,349
600
1,191
1,228
600
1,318
600
600
1,317
600
600
1,317
600
600
1,318
600
600
1,318
600
600
-------
Table C-8 (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Size Class
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Medium2
Region
Central
Central
Central
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidAtlantic
MidWest
MidWest
MidWest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Category
1
2
o
6
i
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Number of
Facilities
o
J
-
-
1
-
-
81
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Average
Head
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
540
Capital
Costs
790
790
790
1,458
1,458
1,458
1,640
1,640
1,640
729
729
729
1,337
1,337
1,337
Fixed Costs
1,075
690
690
1,075
690
690
1,075
690
690
1,075
690
690
1,075
690
690
Annual
O&M Costs
1,618
1,394
1,394
1,706
1,482
1,482
1,730
1,506
1,506
1,610
1,386
1,386
1,690
1,466
1,466
3-Year
Recurring
O&M Costs
1,318
600
600
1,317
600
600
1,317
600
600
1,318
600
600
1,318
600
600
o
-------
Appendix D
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
-------
APPENDIX D: RESULTS OF THE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
The model-farm approach which was used in the Beef and Dairy Cost Model
provides the average cost a facility is projected to incur under the proposed regulatory options.
EPA recognizes that this approach may underestimate or overestimate the projected costs for
facilities that are on the extreme ends of applicability. For example, some facilities may already
meet the proposed regulatory requirements; therefore, those facility costs will be zero.
Alternatively, some facilities may currently meet very few of the proposed regulatory
requirements; therefore, these operations will incur costs that are much higher than the average
model facility cost.
To evaluate the significance of these issues, EPA performed sensitivity analyses
on the cost model to evaluate the major drivers for the model farm costs and to compare the
average model farm cost to the maximum cost a farm may incur for the proposed regulatory
options. EPA performed two sensitivity runs: the first to compare the effects of nitrogen-based
nutrient management verses phosphorus-based nutrient management on the costs; the second to
compare the effects of groundwater monitoring requirements on the costs.
Nutrient Application Basis Analysis:
Under the proposed regulatory options, a facility will be required to follow either
nitrogen-based nutrient management or phosphorus-based nutrient management. More cropland
is required to land apply manure waste at agronomic phosphorus-based rates than nitrogen-
based rates; therefore, phosphorus-based nutrient management incurs more costs for land
application, irrigation, nutrient management planning, and off-site transportation of manure
waste than nitrogen-based nutrient management.
To evaluate the significance of the nutrient application basis on the costs, a
sensitivity analysis was performed on Option 2. Option 2 costs are based on a combination of
nitrogen-based and phosphorus-based nutrient management, and are also the basis for the costs
in Options 3 through 8. To perform this analysis, the frequency of facilities that would be
D-l
-------
located in a phosphorus-based nutrient management area was set to 100 percent (no facilities
were costed under the nitrogen-based management scenario.)
Because more cropland is required for phosphorus-based application, operations
that are Category 1 operations under nitrogen-based nutrient management may be reclassified as
a Category 2 operation under phosphorus-based nutrient management. That is, a facility with
enough land to apply all of the manure waste on site under nitrogen-based application may not
have enough land to apply all of their manure waste on site under phosphorus-based nutrient
management. Because of this, the most dramatic comparison of the effects of changing the
agronomic basis from nitrogen to phosphorus is seen by comparing the results of Option 1 (N-
Based Application), Category 1 facilities to the sensitivity run Option 2A (P-based Application),
Category 2 facilities.
Comparing these results shows a general 200 to 500% increase in the costs from
Option 1, Category 1 to Option 2A, Category 2 for most model farms. This increase is due to
the following factors:
Shift of facilities from Category 1 to Category 2 (thereby
incurring transportation costs);
A portion of Category 2 facilities under N-based application are
assumed to not incur transportation costs, while they do incur
these costs under P-based application; and
Larger acreage for phosphorus-based facilities, requiring more
irrigation costs, soil sampling; and nutrient management planning.
Table D-l presents the results of this analysis.
Groundwater Protection Option Analysis
Under the proposed regulatory Options 3 and 4, facilities will be required to
assess if they are located in hydro-geologically sensitive areas and to implement groundwater
protection if manure waste is stored or land applied on soil that has a hydrologic link to
D-2
-------
groundwater. If the facility has such a link, then the facility must take measures to ensure
groundwater protection, including synthetically lining surface impoundments (e.g., lagoons and
ponds), providing an impervious surface upon which to store dry manure, installing groundwater
wells, and performing annual monitoring of these wells. If the facility is not located in a hydro-
geologically sensitive area, then the facility does not incur any of these groundwater protection
costs other than the hydro-geologic evaluation.
To evaluate the significance of the groundwater protection requirement on the
costs for Options 3 and 4, a sensitivity analysis was performed on Option 3. Option 3 was
selected to perform this evaluation because the basis for the costs in Option 3 is identical to the
Option 2 costs (phosphorus-based application), with the addition of the groundwater protection
costs; therefore, a direct comparison can be made between the costs for a facility with no
groundwater protection requirements and a facility with these requirements by setting the
groundwater frequency factors to 100%.
Facilities costed for Option 3 A are those facilities where the groundwater
assessment was found to be positive (all groundwater protection costs are included), and
facilities costed for Option 3B are those where the groundwater assessment was found to be
negative (no groundwater protection costs are included). The results show that a facility that
incurs 100% of the groundwater protection costs incurs capital and annual O&M costs an order
of magnitude higher than those facilities that do not incur groundwater protection costs. This
increase is due to the following factors:
Installation and monitoring of 4 groundwater wells;
Installation and maintenance of concrete pad for manure storage; and
Installation and maintenance of synthetic and clay lining for lagoons and
ponds.
The results of this analysis are provided in Table D-2.
D-3
-------
Table D-l
Option 2 Sensitivity Analysis
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Man
type
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Option
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
GW
Link
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NM
basis
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Region
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
Category
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
Facilities
86
2
101
97
263
122
51
48
43
80
11
11
127
392
335
866
956
817
280
220
187
66
31
248
201
Size ID
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Head/Bird
2628
43805
600
1088
2628
43805
600
1088
2628
43805
600
1088
1419
235
460
1419
235
460
1419
235
460
1500
400
750
1500
Farm Size
1818
30917
388
704
1050
19752
365
585
28
463
6
11
815
140
274
135
113
89
7
1
2
349
95
178
322
Cropland
1790
30455
382
693
1022
19289
358
573
0
0
0
0
808
139
272
128
112
86
0
0
0
334
91
171
308
Capital
1035
13803
61893
98749
1035
13803
59672
82186
1035
13803
10852
9746
66157
21718
34281
66157
21578
33141
66157
18409
30086
922
40126
46655
922
Fixed
7581
117947
2161
3357
4624
74957
2069
2897
190
190
190
190
3801
1224
1736
1183
1121
1023
190
190
190
1977
1040
1348
1874
O&M
5351
70199
7794
9581
7126
83854
7779
10043
1262
1900
1672
1589
4423
2429
3174
33143
3134
10924
2533
1725
2040
2085
4249
5779
2553
3 yr Rec
13558
221240
3363
5615
7997
140346
3190
4750
600
600
600
600
6459
1603
2567
1526
1406
1222
600
600
600
3022
1254
1840
2823
Syr
Rec
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fert
Savings
-59149
1017804
-12028
-21812
-33753
-644468
-11276
-18043
0
0
0
0
-22532
-3931
-7695
-3741
-3184
-2513
0
0
0
-9247
-2568
-4816
-8515
-------
Table D-l (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Man
type
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Option
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
GW
Link
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
NM
basis
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Region
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
C/S/P
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
Category
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
1
1
2
Facilities
16
124
33
4
28
277
2
518
524
845
130
259
262
139
85
58
59
17
453
247
116
1106
603
38
254
138
0
124
62
0
Size ID
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Large2
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Head/Bird
400
750
1500
400
750
2628
43805
600
1088
2628
43805
600
1088
2628
43805
600
1088
1419
235
460
1419
235
460
1419
235
460
1500
400
750
1500
Farm Size
67
150
15
4
7
1268
21176
286
518
693
12979
268
425
28
463
6
11
849
141
275
159
115
96
7
1
2
330
88
165
303
Cropland
64
143
0
0
0
1240
20713
280
507
665
12516
261
413
0
0
0
0
843
140
273
153
114
94
0
0
0
315
84
157
288
Capital
38948
45059
922
9446
11762
2324
36430
52968
73423
2324
36430
51579
63544
2324
36430
11046
10093
45347
17976
26756
45347
17781
25161
45347
13031
20547
1345
39550
45384
1345
Fixed
935
1241
190
190
190
5463
80439
1768
2641
3252
48879
1696
2280
190
190
190
190
3934
1228
1740
1277
1128
1051
190
190
190
1902
1014
1295
1798
O&M
4726
6016
1256
1649
1751
4183
49509
7015
8622
3555
38836
6948
8755
1326
3032
1686
1612
4084
2480
3204
23273
2946
9898
2117
1600
1827
2062
4151
5650
2120
3 yr Rec
1054
1638
600
600
600
9589
150670
2620
4267
5419
91270
2485
3587
600
600
600
600
6704
1613
2572
1694
1418
1276
600
600
600
2880
1205
1734
2681
Syr
Rec
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Fert
Savings
-1792
-4040
0
0
0
-23531
-390444
-5483
-9943
-12632
-235914
-5115
-8100
0
0
0
0
-18692
-3091
-6051
-3392
-2517
-2070
0
0
0
-6979
-1859
-3485
-6383
-------
Table D-l (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Man
type
0
0
0
0
0
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
Option
2A
2A
2A
2A
2A
GW
Link
N
N
N
N
N
NM
basis
P
P
P
P
P
Region
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
MW/MA
Category
2
2
3
3
3
Facilities
62
31
0
14
7
Size ID
Medium 1
Medium2
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium2
Head/Bird
400
750
1500
400
750
Farm Size
61
138
15
4
7
Cropland
57
130
0
0
0
Capital
38451
43958
1345
9230
11482
Fixed
910
1191
190
190
190
O&M
4286
5810
1277
1639
1738
3 yr Rec
1006
1544
600
600
600
Syr
Rec
0
0
0
0
0
Fert
Savings
-1263
-2889
0
0
0
-------
Table D-2
Option 3 Sensitivity Analysis
Animal
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Man
Type
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Option
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
-------
Table D-2 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Man
Type
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Option
3A
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3A
3A
-------
Table D-2 (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Man
Type
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Option
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
-------
Table D-2 (Continued)
Animal
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Man
Type
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Option
3A
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3B
3A
3A
-------
Table D-2 (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Man
Type
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Operation
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Option
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
3A
------- |