United States
Environmental Protection
Agency

-------

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      Office of Water (4303T)
   1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC  20460
        EPA-821-R-03-004

-------

-------
Cost Methodology for the Final Revisions to the National Pollutant

    Discharge Elimination System Regulation and the Effluent

     Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
                          Christine Todd Whitman
                              Administrator  .....
                            G. Tracy Mehan III
                    Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
                              Sheila E. Frace
                  Director, Engineering and Analysis Division


                              Paul H. Shriner
                             Project Manager
                              Ronald Jordan
                           Technical Coordinator
                      Engineering and Analysis Division
                      Office of Science and Technology
                    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          Washington, D.C. 20460
                             December 2002

-------

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc., under the direction and
review of 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
 1.0
2.0
3.0
                                                                    Page

 INTRODUCTION	                   j_j
 1.1    Regulatory Options	      j_j
 1.2    Model Farm Descriptions 	          l_g
        1.2.1   Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations	'....'		i_g
        1.2.2   Dairies	                 J_JQ
        1.2.3   Veal Operations	.;...'          1-14
        1.2.4   Swine Operations	            1_15
        1.2.5   Poultry Operations	       1_19
 1.3    Key Terms	      j_22
        1.3.1   Size Groups	'	              l_23
        1.3.2  Frequency Factors	  1_23
    ' "•"  1.3.3  Manure and Waste	     1_26
 1.4    Organization of Report	  j_26
 1.5    References 	                            1-27

 COST MODEL STRUCTURE	           2-i
 2.1    Beef and Dairy Cost Model	               2-1
        2.1.1   Input Data to Cost Model	 2-4
        2.1.2   Technology Calculations	2-5
        2.1.3   Frequency Factors	  2-7
        2.1.4   Calculation of Weighted Costs	2-8
 2.2    Swine and Poultry Cost Model	     2-10
       2.2.1   Input Data to Cost Model	'...'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 2-13
       2.2.2   Technology Calculations	2-15
       2:2.3   Frequency Factors	           2-18
       2.2.4   Calculation of Weighted Costs	         2-20
 2.3    References  	                   2_2l

 DATA SOURCES	   *               3-1
 3.1    Summary of EPA's Site Visit Program  	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 3-1
 3.2    Industry Trade Associations  	\\      3.3
 3.3    U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)  		.!..'. 3-5
       3.3.1  National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)		3-6
       3.3.2  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)/National
             Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS)	3-10
       3.3.3  Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) 	3-13
       3.3.4  Agricultural Research Service (ARS)	3.14
       3.3.5  Economic  Research Service (ERS)	3.15
3.4    Literature Sources	                3_j5
3.5    National Climate Data Center (NCDC)	        ...   3.15
3.6    References	                            3-16

-------
r
                                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
                                                                                                Page
                4.0
INPUT DATA	-
4.1    Definition of Regions	  4-1
4.2    Definition of Size Groups	•• • '•	4-5
4.3    Farm Counts	•	4-5
      4.3.1  Farm Counts - Beef Feedlots	:	4-6
      4.3.2  Farm Counts - Dairies  ...		•>	4-9
      4.3.3  Farm Counts - Heifer Operations	4-12
      4.3.4  Farm Counts - Veal Operations	• • - 4-14
      4.3.5  Farm Counts - Poultry Operations	.. . .		• • • 4-16
      4.3.6  Farm Counts - Swine Operations  ..	• • • • • • • • 4-37
4.4   'Average Head .'.	.".'..	'.'.. -. 4-46
      4.4.1  Average Head - Beef Feedlots	4-46
      4.4.2  Average Head - Dairies	4-47
      4.4.3  Average Head - Heifer Operations	4-49
      4.4.4  Average Head - Veal Operations	4-49
      4.4.5  Average Head - Poultry Operations	4-50
      4.4.6  Average Head - Swine Operations	 4-55
4.5   Wastewater/Dilution Water	4-57
      4.5.1  Wastewater Generation at Dairies	4-58
      4.5.2  Wastewater Generation at Veal Operations 	4-62
      4.5.3  Wastewater and Dilution at Dry Poultry Operations	4-63
      4.5.4  Wastewater and Dilution at Swine
             and Wet Layer Operations	• • 4-64
4.6    Manure  Generation	4-65
       4.6.1  Manure Generation at Beef Feedlots,
             Heifer Operations, Dairies, and Veal Operations  	4-65
       4.6.2  Recoverable Manure Generation at Poultry Operations	4-68
       4.6.3  Recoverable Manure Generation at Swine Operations	 4-70
4.7    Precipitation Data and Runoff	4-71
       4.7.1  Precipitation Estimates	4-73
       4.7.2  Drylot Area Estimates	4-74
       4.7.3  Total Runoff	4-75
       4.7.4 Runoff Solids  		• • • 4-78
4.8    Crops and Agronomic Application Rates	4-79
4.9    Excess Manure,	4-80
       4.9.1  Beef and Dairy  	4-84
       4.9.2 Poultry and Swine	'•	4-86
4.10  Acres  	•	4-91
       4.10.1  Total Available Cropland Acres at Beef Feedlots,
              Dairies, Heifer and Veal Operations and  Category 1
              Swine and Poultry Acreage	4-92
       4.10.2 Swine and Poultry Operations	4-107
                                                           11

-------
5.0
            TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                   Page

4.11   References	4-107

TECHNOLOGY COST EQUATIONS	,	5-1
5.1    Earthen Settling Basins	5-1
       511.1  Technology Description	5-2
       5.1.2  Design	5-2
       5.1.3  Costs	5-9
       5.1.4  Results	5-10
5.2    Concrete Settling Basins	5-10
       5.2.1  Technology Description	 . .-. .T...... 5-11
       5.2.2  Design	5-11
       5.2.3  Costs	'	5-15
       5.2.4  Results  	5-18
5.3    Berms	,	5-18
       5.3.1  Technology Description	5-18
       5.3,2  Design	5-19
       5.3.3  Costs	5-22
       5.3.4  Results		 5-24
5.4    Lagoons		 5-25
       5.4.1  Technology Description	5-26
       5.4.2  Design of Anaerobic Lagoons
             at Dairies and Veal Operations	5-27
       5.4.3  Costs for Constructing a Dairy Lagoon	5-39
       5.4.4  Dairy Lagoon Results 	5-43
       5.4.5  Design of Lagoons and Evaporative Ponds for
             Swine and Poultry Operations	.	5-43
       5.4.6  Costs for Lagoons at Swine and Poultry Operations 	5-52
5.5    Ponds .	5-52
       5.5.1  Technology Description	5-53
       5.5.2  Design		5-54
       5.5.3  Costs	,	 5-63
       5.5.4  Results  	5-67
5.6    Nutrient Management	5-67
       5.6.1  Nutrient Management Plan Development
             and Associated Costs	5-67
       5.6.2  Soil Sampling	5-68
       5.6.3  Manure Sampling  	5-69
       5.6.4  Recordkeeping and Reporting	5-70
       5.6.5  Commercial Nitrogen Fertilizer	5-71
       5.6.6  Lagoon Depth Marker	5-71
       5.6.7  Establishment of Setback Areas	 5-72
       5.6.8  Manure Spreader Calibration	5-73

-------
            TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
                                                                    Page
5.7    Screen Solid-Liquid Separation for Swine Operations	5-74
       5.7.1  Technology Description and Design	5-75
       5.7.2  Costs	5-75
5.8    Land Application  	5-76
       5.8.1  Center Pivot Irrigation	5-77
       5.8.2  Traveling Gun Irrigation	5-79
       5.8.3  Beef and Dairy Irrigation Costs	5-81
5.9    Transportation	;	5-83
       5.9.1  Technology Description	 5-83
       5.9.2  Design and Costs of Contract Hauling	 5-85
       5.9.3  Design and Cost of Purchase Equipment
             Transportation Option	5-89
       5.9.4  Transportation Cost Test	5-94
       5.9.5  Results	5-96
5.10   Ground-Water Assessment and Monitoring	5-96
       5.10.1 Technology Description	,	5-96
       5.10.2 Design and Costs	5-97
       5.10.3 Results	5-100
5.11   Concrete Pads	5-100
       5.11.1 Description of Concrete Pads  	5-100
       5.11.2 Design	5-101
       5.11.3 Costs	5-107
       5.11.4 Results	5-109
5.12   Composting 	'	5-109
       5.12.1 Technology Description	: .	5-110
       5.12.2 Design	5-111
       5.12.3 Costs		-	5-116
       5.12.4 Results  	-	5-119
5.13   Anaerobic Digestion with Energy Recovery  	5-119
       5.13.1 Technology Description	5-120
       5.13.2 Design	-	5-122
       5.13.3 Costs	,	5-124
       5.13.4 Results  ..:	5-127
5.14   Litter Storage Sheds	5-127
5.15   Lagoon Covers	5-129
5.16   Feeding Strategies .	5-132
       5.16.1 Technology Description	5-132
       5.16.2 Costs	i	5-133
5.17   Options to Retrofit Swine and Wet Layer Systems
       to Dry Systems	5-139
       5.17.1 Lagoon Cleanout and Closure Costs 	:	5-140
       5.17.2 Retrofit to Scraper System	 5-141
                              IV

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
6.0
7.0
                                                                                Page
8.0
       5.17.3 Retrofit to High Rise Hog Houses		5-144
       5.17.4 Retrofit to Hoop Houses	  5-145
 5.18   Recycling of Flush Water .	  5-146
 5.19   Sludge Cleanout	5-147
       5.19.1 Technology Description	5-148
 5.20   Surface Water Monitoring		5-150
       5.20.1 Practice Description	5-150
       5.20.2 Prevalence of the Practice in the Industry		  5-151
       5.20.3 Design	  5-151
       5.20.4 Costs			;	5-152
       5.20.5 Results  	5-153
 5.21   References	5-153

 FREQUENCY FACTORS	6-1
 6.1    Beef and Dairy Technology Frequency Factors	6-2
       6.1.1  Performance-Based Frequency Factors
             Based on USDA Data	6-3
       6.1.2  Other Performance-Based Frequency Factors	6-15
       6.1.3  Other Technology Frequency Factors  	6-16
 6.2    Beef and Dairy Nutrient Basis Frequency Factors	6-19
 6.3    Beef and Dairy Land Availability Frequency Factors	6-21
 6.4    Poultry and Swine Technology Frequency Factors  . .	6-25
 6.5    Poultry and Swine Nutrient Basis Frequency Factors	6-38
 6.6    Poultry and Swine Land Availability Frequency Factors	 6-40
 6.7    Ground Water Control Frequency Factors	6-42
 6.8    References	6.45

 EXAMPLE MODEL CALCULATIONS	7.1
 7.1    Beef and Dairy Model Farm Example Calculation	7-1
       7.1.1  Unit Component Costs	7-2
       7.1.2  Calculation of Weighted Component Costs	7-5
       7.1.3  Calculation of Weighted Farm Costs	7-7
       7.1.4  Final Model Farm Costs  	7-11
7.2    Swine and Poultry Model Farm Cost Example	7-12
       7.2.1  Unit Component Costs  	7-13
       7.2.2  Calculation of Adjusted Component Costs	7-20
       7.2.3  Calculation of Weighted Farm Costs
             by Nutrient Application Basis for Option 2  	7-27
       7.2.4  Final Model Farm Costs	7-28

SENSITIVITY ANALYSES  	8-1
8.1    Option 1A . . .	8_2
                                         v

-------
            8.2
            8.3
            8.4
            8.5
            8.6
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
                                                                            Page
      Cost Driver Analysis	8-3
      Option 2A	8-4
      Option 2B	,  . 8-5
      Applications to Frozen Ground	.. 8-6
      References	•	8-9
A
B
                 LIST OF APPENDICES

Unweighted Component Costs
Selected Transportation Option for Options 1 and 2 for Beef Feedlots, Dairies, and
Heifer Operations     .
Model Farm Costs for Options 1, 2 and 5
                                        VI

-------
                                  LIST OF TABLES

                                                                                Page

 1.1-1         Summary of Regulatory Options	1-4

 1.2.4-1       Model Swine Farms by Farm Type, Size, Region,
              and Waste Storage System	1_19

 1.2.5-1       Model Poultry Farms by Farm Type, Size, and Region	1-22

 1.3-1         Size Classes for Model Farms	1-23

 2.1-1         Beef and Dairy Model Farm Records	2-3

 2.1.2-1       Waste Management Technologies for Beef Feedlots, Dairies,
              and Heifer and Veal Operations  	2-5

 2.2.1-1       Swine and Poultry Model Farm Input Records	2-16

 3-1           Number of Site Visits Conducted by EPA for the
              Various Animal Industry Sectors	3-2

 4.1-1         Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) Production Regions	4-2

 4.1-2         Key Regions Modeled by Animal Sector	4.4

 4.2-1         Size Classes for Model Farms3 	4.5

 4,3.1 -1       Number of Potential Beef CAFOs by EPA Size Class
              From the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database	4-7

 4.3.1-2       Percentage of Beef Feedlots by Region and
              Census of Agriculture Size Category	4.7

 4.3.1-3      Number of Beef Feedlots by Region and Size Class	4-8

 4.3.1-4      Percentage of Beef Facilities That Are Expected to Be CAFOs	4-9

 4.3.2-1       Number of Potential Dairy CAFOs by EPA Size Class
             from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database	4-10

 4.3.2-2      Percentage of Dairies by Region and
             Census of Agriculture Size Category	 4.10

4.3.2-3       Number of Dairies by Region and Size Class	4-11
                                         vn

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
                                                                                Page
4.3.2-4       Percentage of Dairies That Are Expected to Be CAFOs	.	 4-11

4.3.3-1       Number of Potential Heifer CAFOs by EPA Size Class
             from the 1997 "Census of Agriculture Database	4-12

4.3.3-2       Percentage of Heifer Operations by Region and Size Class	4-13

4.3.3-3       Number of Heifer Operations by Region and Size Class 		4-14

4.3.3-4       Percentage of Heifer Operations That Are Expected to Be CAFOs	4-14

4.3.4-1       Number of Potential Veal CAFOs by EPA Size Class
             from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database	4-15

4.3.4-2       Percentage of Veal Operations by Region and Size Class  	4-15

4.3.4-3       Number of Veal Operations by Region and Size Class	4-16

4.3.4.4       Percentage of Veal Operations That Are Expected to Be CAFOs	  4-16

4.3.5-1       Number of Layer Operations by EPA Size Class from
              the 1997 Census of Agriculture .Database	• • 4-17

4.3.5-2       Number of Layer Operations by Size Class and Region
             from 1997 Census of Agriculture Database	4-18

4.3.5-3       Reorganized Layer and Pullet Operation Counts	4-18

4.3.5-4      Reorganized Distribution of Dry Layer, Wet Layer,
             and Pullet Operations by Region	4-19

4.3.5-5      Reorganized Distribution of Dry Layer, Wet Layer,
             and Pullet Operations		4-20

4.3.5-6      Intermediate Layer Operation Counts by Sector, Size Class,
             and Region	4-22

4.3.5-7       Final Layer Operation Counts by Sector, Size Class,
              and Region	4-23

4.3.5-8       Final Layer Operation Counts by Sector, Size Class,
                                          vui

-------
                            LIST OF TABXLES (Continued)

                                                   ••-••••                          Page

              and Modeled Region	4-24

 4.3.5-9       Percentage of Layer Operations That Are
              Expected to Be CAFOs	 4-24

 4.3.5r10      Percentage of Dry Layer Operations That Are    '   ..
              Expected to Be CAFOs	4-25

 4.3.5-11      Number of Turkey Operations by Size Class from
              1997 Census of Agriculture Database .	 4-25

 4.3.5-12      Number of Turkey Operations by Size Class and Region
              from 1997 Census of Agriculture Database		4-26

 4.3.5-13      Reorganized Turkey Operation Counts	 4-27

 4.3.5-14      Final Turkey Operation Counts by Size Class and Region	4-27

 4.3.5-15      Final Turkey Operation Counts by Size Class
              and Modeled Region	:.... 4-28

 4.3.5-16      Percentage of Turkey Operations That Are
              Expected to Be CAFOs	4_28

 4.3.5-17      Number of Broiler Operations as Provided by USDA NRCS (2002)
              Based on Analyses of 1997 Census of Agriculture Database	4-29

 4.3.5-18      Intermediate Number of Broiler Operations Based on Location,
              Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based
              Application of Manure	4-32

 4.3.5-19      Intermediate Number of Broiler Operations Based on Location,
              Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based
              Application of Manure	4.33

 4.3.5-20      Final Number of Broiler Operations Based on Region, Land Availability Category,
              Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based Application of Manure	4-34

 4.3.5-21       Final Number of Broiler Operations Based on Region, Land Availability Category,
              Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based Application of Manure	 4-35

4.3.5-22       Final Number of Broiler Operations Based on Modeled Region,
                                          IX

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
4.3,5-23



4.3.5-24

4.3.6-1


4.3.6-2



4.3.6-3



4.3.6-4


4.3.6-5


4.3.6-6



4.3.6-7



4.3.6-8

4.4.1-1


4.4.2-1
                                                                  Page

Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based
Application of Manure	4-36

Final Number of Broiler Operations Based on Modeled Region,
Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based
Application of Manure	4-36
Percentage of Broiler Operations That Are Expected to Be CAFOs
4-37
Number of Swine Operations as Provided by USDA NRCS (2002)
Based on Analyses of 1997 Census of Agriculture Database	 4-39

Intermediate .Number of Swine Operations Based on Location,
Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based
Application of Manure	•	4-40

Intermediate Number of Swine Operations Based on Location,
Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based
Application of Manure	4-41

Final Number of Swine Operations Based on Region, Land Availability
Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based Application of Manure	4-42

Final Number of Swine Operations Based on Region, Land Availability
Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based Application of Manure	4-43

Final Number of Swine Operations -Based on Modeled Region,
Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based
Application of Manure	4-44

Final Number of Swine Operations Based on Modeled Region,
Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based
Application of Manure	4-44

Percentage of Swine Operations That Are Expected to Be CAFOs	4-45

Number of Fattened Cattle at Potential CAFOs by EPA Size Class
 from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database	4-46

 Number of Dairy Cows at Potential CAFOs by EPA Size Class
 from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database	4-48
                                          x

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

                                                                                  Page

 4.4.3-1       Average Head for Heifer Model Farm .'.'.-	4.49

 4.4.4-1       Average Head for Veal Model Farm	4_$0

 4.4.5-1       Layer Facility Demographics from the 1997 Census of Agriculture
              Database ,	  4.51

 4.4.5-2       Average Head Count for Layer Operations	 4-52

 4.4.5-3       Turkey Facility Demographics from the 1997 Census of Agriculture
             'Database ....'	_  4.53

 4.4.5-4       Final Number of Broilers per Operation Based on Modeled Region,
              Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based
              Application of Manure	,	4-54

 4.4.5-5       Final Number of Broilers per Operation Based on Modeled Region,
              Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based
              Application of Manure	4.55

 4.4.6-1       Final Number of Swine per Operation Based on Modeled Region,
              Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based
              Application of Manure	        4.55

 4.4.6-2       Final Number of Swine per Operation Based on Modeled Region, Land
              Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based
              Application of Manure	.;.....	4-57

 4.5.1-1       Milk Parlor Wastewater Generated at Dairies Using Hose Systems	4-58

 4.5.1-2       Milk Parlor Wastewater Generated at Dairies Using Flush Systems	4-60

 4.5.1-3       Wastewater Generation by Dairy Model Farm	4-62

 4.5.2-1        Wastewater Generation by Veal Model Farm	4-63

 4.6.1-1        Cattle Manure Production and Characteristics	 4-66

4.6.1-2       Cattle Manure Generation by Model Farm	4.57

4.6.2-1       Poultry Manure Characteristics Used to Calculate Nutrient Production	4-68
                                          XI

-------
                                               (Continued)

                           ...._.	  . ...—-™~,-. ,..,—.•• ,„',   .   • ,,:	Page

4.6.2-2       Poultry Regional Recovery Factors for Manure  	4-69

4.6.2-3       Example of Weighted Averaging Method for Manure
             Recovery Factor	4-69

4.6.3-1       Swine Manure Characteristics Used to Calculate Nutrient Production	4-71

4.6.3-2       Swine Regional Recovery Factors for Manure	4-71
                    [_                              _            .      _,	  	
4.7.1-1       Precipitation Estimates	 .".'	,-•••'	4-74

4.7.2-1       Drylot Area Required by Animal Typea	• • 4-74

4.7.2-2       Drylot Area Required by Animal Type Used in the Cost Model	4-75

4.7.3-1       Six-Month Runoff Volumes	,	4-76

4.7.3-2       25-Year, 24-Hour Rainfall Event Runoff Values . •	j... 4-77

4.7.3-3        10-Year, 10-Day Rainfall Event Runoff Values	4-78

4.8-1        Beef and Dairy Crop Information	4-81

4.8-2        Total Crop Nutrient Requirements and Manure Application Rates	 4-83

4.9.1-1        USDA Data on Manure Production at Livestock Facilities	 4-85

4.9.1-2        Excess Manure Estimates by Animal Type and Size Class	  4-86

4.9.2-1        On-Farm Acreage for Category 2 Layer and Turkey Operations	4-89

4.9.2-2        On-Farm Acreage with Manure Applied for Category 2
              Broiler Operations  	4-90

4.9.2-3        On-Farm Acreage with Manure Applied for Category 2
              Swine Operations ....:	4-91

4.10.1-1      Category 1 and 2 Total Acreages
              for Beef Feedlots, Dairies, Heifer and Veal Operations
              Option2	4-95
 4.10.1-2
Evapotranspiration Rate	•	4-99
                                           Xll

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
 4.10.1-3

 4.10.1-4

 4.10.1-5

 4.10.1-6


 4.10.1-7  .


 5.1.2-1

 5.1.2-2

 5.1.3-1

 5.2.2-1

 5.2.3-1

 5.3.2-1

 5.3.2-2


 5.3.3-i

 5.4.2-1

 5.4.3-1

 5.4.5-1

 5.4.5-2


5.4.5-3
                                                                     Page


 1996 Average Regional Precipitation	 . A-S>9

 Regional Soil Permeability	.  .. 4-100
         • '''      '''                                    : -
 Days of.Irrigation	     4-101

 Maximum Design Hydraulic Loading Rate Based on: Annual            :
 Permeability Evaluation	....:...	 4-102

 Minimum Number of Acres Required to Apply All Liquid at the
 Hydraulic Loading Rate Under Option 2	4-104

 Design Parameters for Earthen Basins	5.4

 Earthen Basin Volume by Model Farm for All Regulatory Options	5-6

 Unit Costs for Earthen Basins	.muT  ..... 5-9

 Concrete Basin Volume by Model Farm for All Regulatory Options ....... 5-14

 Unit Costs for Concrete Settling Basin	5.15

 Space Requirements Assumed for Animals Housed on Drylots	 5-20

 Berm Perimeter by Beef and Dairy Model Farm for
 All Regulatory Options		5.21

 Unit Costs  for Constructing Berms	5-23

 Lagoon Storage Capacities  at Dairies for Option 7	  5-36

 Unit Costs  for Storage Lagoon	5.40

 Chronic Rainfall Amounts for Option 1A for Swine and Poultry  .	5-45

Relationships Among Depth, Side Slope, Volume, And Bottom
Width of Lagoons	,	5.43

Depth and Side Slopes for Lagoons and Evaporative Ponds	5-49
                                         xui

-------
                            LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
                                                                                 Page
5.5.2-1       Pond Storage Capacities at Beef Feedlot and Heifer Operations
             for Option 7	• • • 5"57

5.5.3-1       Unit Costs for Storage Pond	5'64

5.6.5-1       Retail Cost of Nitrogen Fertilizer	5'71

5.8.3-1       Costs for Data Points from Center Pivot Irrigation Cost Curves	5-81

5.8.3-2       Costs for 250-gpm Liquid Applicators	 • • - • •	5'82

5.9.2-1       Hauling Distances for Transportation	5-87

5.9.2-2       Rates for Contract Hauling for Category 2 and 3 Beef Feedlots
             andDairies	5'88

5.9.2-3       Hauling Rates for Category 2 and 3 Swine and Poultry Operations	5-88

5.11.3-1     Unit Costs for Concrete Pad	5-108

5.12.3-1     Unit Costs for Composting	5-117

5.13.2-1     FarmWare Input Table	5'123

5.13.2-2     FarmWare Design Information	5-124

5.13.3-1     Digester Costs for Swine 	5-127

5.15-1        Manufacturer-Suggested Costs of Lagoon Covers for l/2- Acre Lagoons ... 5-131

5.16.2-1      Feeding Strategy Costs for Swine and Poultry  	• • 5-134

5.16.2-2      Crop Nutrient Uptake	5-136

5.20-1        Number of Samples	5'152

5.20-2        Capital Costs for Surface Water Sampling	5-152

 5.20-3        Annual Costs for Surface Water Sampling  	5-153

 6.1.1-1       Correlation of EPA Beef Model Farm Components and
              USDA Representative Farm Components	 6-7
                                           xiv

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
                                                                                  Page
 6.1.1-2       Correlation of EPA Dairy Model Farm Components and
              USDA Representative Farm Components	."'.'. ..  6-8

 6.1.1-3       Percentage of EPA Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations in
              USDA Regions	6-9

 6.1.1-4       Percentage of EPA Dairies in USDA Regions	6-10

 6.1.1-5       Percentage of Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations .Incurring
              Earthen Basin Costs for All Regulatory Options   	6-11

 6.1.1-6       Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies Incurring
              Costs to Install and Maintain Berms for All Regulatory Options	 . 6-12

 6.1.1-7       Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies Incurring
              Costs for Liquid Land Application for All Regulatory Options	6-13

 6.1.1-8       Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies Incurring
              Costs for Nutrient Management Planning for All Regulatory Options	6-14

 6.1.2-1       Frequency Factors Identified from Literature and
              Used to Calculate Low, Medium, and High Frequency Factors for
              Beef and Dairy Cost Model 	'.	6-16

 6.1.3-1       Percentage of Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, Dairies, and
              Veal Operations Incurring Costs to Install a Naturally Lined Pond
              or Lagoon			6-18

 6.1.3-2       Percentage of Category 2 Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and
              Dairies Incurring Costs for Transporting Excess Manure and
              Waste Off Site  	6-19

 6.2-1          Percentage of Nitrogen-Based and Phosphorus-Based Application
              Facilities	 6-22

6.3-1   «       Percentage of Category 1, 2, and 3 Facilities Using Nitrogen- and
              Phosphorus-Based Applications	6-24

6.4-1          Illustration of Method to Calculate Frequency Factors from
              Weighted Averages	6-27
                                          xv

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
                                                                                Page
6.4-2         Broiler Frequency Factors: Percent of High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)
             Performance Facilities By Region That Already Incur Costs	6-29

6.4-3          Turkey Frequency Factors: Percent of High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)
             Performance Facilities That Already Incur Costs	6-30

6.4-4         Layer Frequency Factors: Percent of High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)
             Performance Facilities That Already Incur Costs	6-31

6.4-5         Swine Farrow-to-Finish Operations (Lagoon and Evaporative Lagoon)
             Frequency Factors: Percent of High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)
             Performance Facilities That Already Incur Costs	6-32

6.4-6         Swine Farrow-to-Finish Operations (Deep Pits) Frequency Factors:
             Percent of High (H), Medium (M), Low (L) Performance Facilities
             That Already Incur Costs	• •	•	6-33

6.4-7          Swine Grow/Finish Operations (Lagoon and Evaporative Lagoon)
              Frequency Factors: Percent of High (H), Medium (M), Low (L)
              Performance Facilities That Already Incur Costs	6-34

6.4-8         Swine Grow/Finish Operations (Deep Pits) Frequency Factors:
              Percent of High (H), Medium (M), Low (L) Performance Facilities
              That Already Incur Costs  . .:	6-35

6.5-1          AFO Nutrient Management Planning Basis by Animal Sector and
              Region Based on Percentage of Agricultural Soils Analyzed by Soil Test
              Laboratories in 1997 That Tested High or Above for Phosphorus	6-40

6.6-1         Percentage of Category 1, 2, and 3 Operations for Layers and Turkeys ..... 6-41

6.2-1         Percentage of Facilities Incurring Ground Water Costs
              Under Option 3 A/3B	6'42

6.2-2         Percentage of Beef Feedlots, Dairies, and Heifer Operations
              Incurring Ground Water Costs Under Option 3C/3D 	6-44

 7.1.1-1       Component Costs for Option 2 That Do Not Vary by
              Nutrient Application Basis Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central 	7-3

 7.1.1-2       Component Costs for Option 2 That Vary by
              Nutrient Application Basis Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central	7-4
                                          xvi

-------
                             LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
 7.1.1-3

 7.1.2-1


 7.1.2-2



 7.1.3-1



 7.1.3-2


 7.1.3-3


 7.1.4-1


 7.2-1



 7.2-2


 7.2-3


 7.2-4  ,



7.2-5


7.2-6 i
                                                                      Page

•   Transportation Costs for Option 2 Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central  	7-5

   Percentage of Operations Assumed to Have Equivalent Technology
   InPlace Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central  	7.5
                  ='. \ii-~.
   Weighted Component Costs for Option 2 That Do Not Vary by
   Nutrient Application Basis and Land Availability Category
   Medium Performance, Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central	  7.7

   Weighted Component Costs for Option 2 That Vary by
   Nutrient Application Basis and Land Availability Category
   Medium Performance, Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central	7-8

   Land Availability Category Frequency Factors
   Dairies, Large 1	 . ..	7.9
  Weighted Farm Costs for Option 2
  Medium Performance, Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central
7-11
  Model Farm Costs by Category
  Medium Performance, Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central	7-12

  Component Costs for That Do Not Vary by Option, Facility Category, or
  Manure Nutrient Application Basis
  Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic	7-15

  Component Costs for Facilities that Land Apply Manure On-Site
  Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic	7-15

  Component Costs for That Do Not Vary by Facility Based on Head Count
  Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic	7-16

  Component Costs for Options 1 and 2 That Vary by Facility
  Based on Acreage (Category 1 and 2 only)
  Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic	7-17

  Component Costs That Are Unique to Category 2 Facilities Options 1 and 2
  Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic	7-19

  Percent Operations Assumed to Have Equivalent Technology In Place
  Swine Grow-Finish Operations with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic
  Region	                     7-21
                                         xvu

-------
                           LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
                                                                               Page
7.2-7         Adjusted Component Costs That Do Not Vary by Option, Facility
             Category, or Manure Nutrient Application Basis Swine Grow-Finish with
             Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic	7-22

7.2-8         Adjusted Component Costs for Option 2 That Do Not Vary for Facilities
             That Land Apply Manure On Site
             Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic	7-23

7.2-9         Adjusted Component Costs That Vary by Facility
             Based on Head Count
             Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic ..	7-24

7.2-10       Adjusted Component Costs by Performance Level for Options 1
             and 2 That Vary by Facility Based on Acreage (Category 1 and 2 only)
             Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large ,1, Mid-Atlantic .	7-25

7.2-11       Adjusted Component Costs That are Unique to Category 2 Facilities
             Options 1 and 2, Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic . . 7-26

7.2-12       Assumed Nutrient Land Application Frequency For
             Total Facilities For Key Swine Regions Under Option 2	7-27

7.2-13       Final Weighted Costs for Large 1 Grow-Finish Swine Operations
             With Lagoons in the Mid-Atlantic Region Under Options 1 and 2	 7-29
 8.2-1
Results of Cost Driver Analysis	8-4
                                         XVlll

-------
                                  LIST OF FIGURES
                                                                                 Page
 1.1-1 :        Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) Production Regions . . .............. . . 1-7




 1.2.1^1       Beef and Heifer Model Farm Waste Management System . ............ . . 1-10




 1.2.2-1       Dairy Model Farm Waste Management Systems .................. .... 1-13




 1.2.3-1       Veal Model Farm Waste Management System  ....................... 1-15




 1.2.4-1       Swine Model Farm Waste Management System ........... ... ........ 1-17




 1.2.5-1       Poultry Model Farm Waste Management System  ........ ... .  . ........ 1-21




 2.1-1         Flow Chart of General Cost Methodology  ........................... 2-2




 2.1.2-1       Components of Technology Cost Modules . . : ........ ....... ....... . ; 2-6




 2.2-1         Flow Chart of Swine and Poultry Cost Model ........................ 2-12




 2.2.2-1       Practices Included Under Option 2A, Phosphorus-Based Management  : . . . 2-19




 5.1.2-1       Cross-Section of an Earthen Basin ............ . ........... ......... 5-3




 5.1.2-2       Sloped Sides of Earthen Basin  ............ . .......... ............. 5-8




 5.2.2-1       Concrete Settling Design .......................................  5_13




 5.3.2-1       Cross-Section of Berm ............ .............. . ......... ' .....  5.19




 5.4.2-1       Cross-Section of an Anaerobic Lagoon .............................  5-29




 5.4.2-2       Volatile Solids Loading Rate (Source: USD A, 1996)  ................. .  5-32




 5.4.5-1        Frustrum  [[[  5.45




 5.5.2-1        Cross-Section of a Storage Pond .................................  5.55




 5.8.1-1        Schematic of Center Pivot Irrigation System .........................  5-78




5.10.2-1      Schematic of Ground- Water Monitoring Wells ... ....................  5-97





-------
                         LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
                                                                          Page
5.12.2-1     Windrow Composting	5-113




5.17.2-1     Scraper System	5'143
                                       xx

-------
 1.0
 INTRODUCTION
               Section 301(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) directs EPA to periodically review
 arid revise, if necessary, effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated under CWA
 Sections 301, 304, and 306.  Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have been
 identified as a major source of nutrients impairing surface water and ground water in the United
 States; therefore, EPA is revising the existing effluent guidelines for CAFOs.

              For beef, dairy, heifer, veal, swine, chicken, and turkey 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 the operations. Based on
 these data, EPA identified new regulatory requirements to be imposed on concentrated animal
 feeding operations (CAFOs) through revision of the effluent guidelines and standards.  This report
 describes the methodology used to estimate engineering compliance costs (in 1997 dollars)
 associated with installing and operating the various  technologies and practices mat make up the
 10 regulatory options considered for beef, dairy, heifer, veal, swine, chicken, and turkey
 operations. The technologies described in this report were used to estimate compliance costs, but
 are not necessarily mandated by the rule. In practice, a facility may choose a different waste
 management system to meet the requirements of the rule.

              Section 1.1 describes the regulatory options considered for CAFOs, Section 1.2
 discusses the development of model farms used to determine compliance costs for each option,
 Section 1.3 defines key terms used throughout this report, and Section 1.4 presents the overall
 organization of the report.
1.1
Regulatory Options
             EPA considered the following 10 regulatory options for CAFOs. These options
are described below:
                                          1-1

-------
I
                              1      Zero discharge from a facility designed, maintained, and operated to hold
                                     manure, litter, and other process wastewater, including direct precipitation
                                     and runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event. This option includes   .
                                     implementation of feedlot best management practices, including storrnwater
                                     diversions; lagoon and pond depth markers; periodic inspections; nitrogen-
                                     based agronomic application rates; elimination of manure application within
                                     100 feet of any surface water, tile drain inlet, or sinkhole; mortality-
                                     handling, nutrient management planning, and recordkeeping guidelines.

                              1A    The same elements as Option 1, with the addition of storage capacity for
                                     the chronic storm event (10-year, 10-day storm) above any capacity
                                     necessary to hold manure, litter, and other process wastewater, including
                                     direct participation and runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.

                              2      The same elements as Option 1, except nitrogen-based agronomic
                                     application rates are replaced by phosphorus-based agronomic application
                                     rates when dictated by site-specific conditions.

                              3A/3B The same elements as Option 2, plus Option 3A facility costs include an
                                     assessment of the ground water's hydrologic link to surface water; Option
                                     3B facility costs include ground water monitoring, concrete pads,
                                     synthetically lined lagoons and/or synthetically lined storage ponds.

                              3C/3D The same elements as Option 2, plus permeability standards for lagoons
                                     and storage ponds, which may include costs for synthetically lined lagoons
                                     and ponds. .

                              4      The same elements as Option 2, plus costs for additional surface water
                                     monitoring.

                              5      For swine, poultry, and veal operations only, the same elements as Option
                                     2, but is based on zero discharge with no overflow under any
                                     circumstances (i.e., total confinement and covered storage).

                              5A    For beef, dairy, and heifer operations only, the same elements as Option 2,
                                     plus implementation of a drier manure management system (i.e.,
                                     composting).

                               6     For the large swine and dairy operations only, the same elements as Option
                                     2, plus implementation of anaerobic digestion with energy recovery.

                               7     The same elements as Option 2, plus timing restrictions on land application
                                     of animal waste to frozen, snow-covered, or saturated ground.
                 EPA also conducted several sensitivity analyses, described in Section 8.
                                                            1-2

-------
              EPA selected Option 2 as BAT for all CAFOs and as New Source Performance
 Standards (NSPS) for beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations.  EPA selected Option 5 as
 NSPS for swine, poultry, and veal operations or containment for 100-year storm (see the
 Technical Development Document for additional information).                   un t^,.. •   r,r

       , •;       To determine the 'cost of complying with each option, EPA developed model farms
 that form the basis of the cost estimate for each type of operation under the regulatory options.
 The waste management technologies that make up the model farms are based primarily on the
 animal type and the types of waste managed. Waste management practices determine the amount
 of manure waste and wastewater generated that are used to size and cost various technologies or
 practices. Where differences in production practices (such as the finishing versus farrowing phases
 of swine production) or waste management practices (such as under-house pits versus lagoons)
 are significantly different within an animal sector, EPA developed additional model farms to better
 reflect costs incurred by each type of operation. Ultimately, EPA developed more than 15,000
model farms to reflect the variability in production, waste management,  farm size, cropland
availability, and regional and climatic differences. Table 1.1-1 presents the technologies and
practices that are included for each option.

       '.       The types of operations used to model beef, dairy, heifer, swine, chicken, turkey,
and veal facilities are summarized below:
                    Beef feedlots and heifer operations house cattle on drylots. The manure
                    that is deposited 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 rainfall and 180 days of
                    storage. Runoff is treated in a sedimentation basin before going to the
                    storage pond.
                                          1-3

-------

 §
•-B
 Cu
O
 DJD
 O

 &
CO



















*-
va
3
«
«
$%
3 a
**
1— 1
-




,
Technology or Practice


s
S
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
s

c!>
s .
o en
T? §*
sment practices (BMPs), including stormwater diversions, cover
•, lagoon/pond depth markers, periodic inspections, and recordke
Feedlot best manag
for dry poultry littei

s
S
^
S
S
s
s
s
s
s.





requirements (e.g., rendering, composting)."
|| Mortality-handling

s
S'
^
S"
s
s
S'
s
s
s


0} >
i*
i
nt planning and recordkeeping (sample soils once every 3 years,
jar). .
« Nutrient manageme
manure twice per y









S
S





nited to nitrogen-based agronomic application rates.
1
n
"c
t
•c
c
cc

s
^
^
S
S
S
s
s




.0
p
s
nited to phosphorus-based agronomic application rates where di
ons, and nitrogen-based application elsewhere.
JLand application lit
site-specific conditi

S.
S.
s»
s
s
s
s
s
^
s



m
o
Jon within 100 feet of any surface water, tile drain inlet, or sink!
No manure applica







S




a
Q.-0 '
s. §
~ a"
rements, including assessment of hydrologic link, monitoring w
impermeable pads under storage, impermeable lagoon/pond lin
storage during upgrade.
1 Ground water requi
facility), sampling
temporary/modifiec






^









rements including performance based standards for lagoons.
Ground water requ









S






1
§
V
0
'c
C
d
t-
P
Q
2
Additional capacity





S





,g
0 0

'o ^
is!
itoring requirement (4 total grab samples upstream and downstre
Dlication areas, 12x/yr; one composite sample collected Ix/yr at
dments. Samples are analyzed for nitrogen, phosphorus, and to
1 Surface-water mon
feedlot and land ap
and surface impour
suspended solids.).



^
'S i






0

'^ ,*\
^-2
2'3
ology basis (covered lagoons for veal, swine (option 5), and lay«
for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer, and veal operations). Retrofit
id wet layer operations under option 5A.
JlpS
O S 
-------
 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 and manure is collected in a central collection system and
 transported to an on-site anaerobic lagoon, with capacity for the 25-year
 24-hour rainfall and 180 days of storage. The wastewater is treated in a
 solids separator before going to the lagoon.

 Immature animals (i.e., heifers and calves) are housed on drylots. The
 manure that is deposited 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 directly 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
 and manure is collected in a central collection system and transported to an
 on-site anaerobic lagoon with capacity for the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall
 event and 180 days of storage. Wastewater is treated in a solids separator
 before going to the lagoon.

 Immature animals (i.e., heifers and calves) are housed on drylots. Their
 manure is handled as described under flush bams above.

 Veal operations house the veal calves in  confinement bams that are flushed
 daily.  The flush water and manure 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 of storage.

 Farrow-to-finish swine operations house swine in total confinement barns.
 Farrow-to-finish operations include all common production phases
 including farrowing, nursery, and finishing (final production). Manure
 from these operations is stored in a pit under the house,  flushed to an on-
 site anaerobic lagoon with capacity for direct precipitation from the 25-
 year, 24-hour rainfall event, or flushed to an evaporative lagoon.

 Grow/finish operations house swine in total confinement barns.
 Grow/finish operations specialize in the finishing phase.  Manure from these
 operations is stored in a pit under the house, flushed to an on-site anaerobic
 lagoon with capacity for direct precipitation from the 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event, or flushed to an evaporative lagoon.

Broilers are housed in total confinement barns on the floor where
droppings are mixed with bedding such as wood shavings to form litter.
                       1-5

-------
                    Litter close to drinking water forms a dry cake that is removed between
                    flocks.  The rest of the litter in a broiler house is removed periodically
                    (usually every 1 to 3 years) from the barns.
             •      Layers are confined in cages in high-rise housing or shallow pit flush
                    housing. In a high-rise house, the layer cages are suspended over a bottom
                    story, where the manure is deposited and stored. In shallow pit flush
                    housing, a single layer of cages is suspended over a shallow pit.  Manure
                    drops directly into the pit, where it is flushed periodically to an on-site
                    anaerobic lagoon using recycled lagoon water.
             •      Turkeys, like broilers, are raised hi total confinement bams on the floor
                    where droppings are mixed with bedding such as wood shavings to form
                    litter. Litter close to drinking water forms a cake that is removed between
                    flocks.  The rest of the litter in a broiler house is removed periodically
                    '(usually every 1 to 3 years) from the barns.

             Each model farm is analyzed under three possible land availability scenarios,
named Category 1, Category 2, and  Category 3. Operations in Category 1 have sufficient
cropland to land apply all of their manure and waste, and therefore have no transportation costs.
Operations in Category 2 have some cropland. Therefore, Category 2 operations land apply a
portion of then- manure and waste and transport the remainder off site. Operations in Category 3
have no cropland, and therefore transport all of their manure and waste off site. Note that some
operations are Category  1 when applying manure and wastewater on a nitrogen-based rate, but
may become Category 2 operations  when applying manure and wastewater on a phosphorus-
based rate.

              Each model farm is located in one of five geographic regions. These regions were
developed by EPA from data received from the Economic Research Service (ERS) of USDA.
ERS has developed 10 agricultural 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 (NASS) required certain ERS regions to be combined in order to
meet disclosure criteria for both economic data and census data. Therefore, the 10  ERS regions
were condensed into the five regions used in this model based on similarities in animal production
and manure handling techniques across adjacent regions.  Figure 1.1-1 presents the states that are
contained within each of the. five modeled regions.
                                            1-6

-------
Figure 1.1-1. Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) Production Regions
                            1-7

-------
1.2
Model Farm Descriptions
             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. Given the amount and type of information that is available for the beef, dairy,
swine, poultry, and veal industries,.EPA has chosen a model-facility approach to estimate
compliance costs. Model facilities, or model farms, are defined by the size of the operation,
regional location, and/or waste management practices. 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 of Large CAFOs.
1.2.1
Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations
              EPA developed one type of model farm to represent medium- and large-sized beef
feedlots and heifer operations in the United States. The parameters describing the beef and heifer
model farm were developed from information from USD A, data collected during site visits to beef
feedlots across the country, meetings with USDA extension agents, the National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, and the National Milk Producers Federation, and discussions with the Professional
Heifer Growers 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
              The vast majority of beef feedlots and heifer operations in the United States house
the cattle on drylots (USDA APHIS, 1995). Some smaller operations use confinement barns at
beef feedlots. However, since the majority of operations, including most new ones, use open lots,
EPA used drylots as the housing for the beef model farm. Some operations raise the heifers on
pasture, but because this regulation addresses only confined operations, the heifer model farm
accounts only for animals housed on drylots. The size of the drylot is calculated using animal
space requirements suggested by Midwest Plan Service (MWPS, 1995).

                                           1-8

-------
   ••'•-       Waste Management System

              Based on site visits, the drylot is the main area where waste is produced at beef
feedlots and 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 open feed
areas.

              Most beef operations in the United States divert runoff from the drylot to a storage
pond (USDA APHIS, 1995a). Heifer operations typically operate like beef feedlots (Cady, R,
2000). As such, EPA assumed that runoff from the drylot is channeled to a storage pond at both
beef and heifer operations. Some operations use a solids separator (typically an earthen basin) 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 APHIS, 1995a).
                                ^                                      .....'._.
              The beef and heifer model farm was developed following these typical
characteristics of beef feedlots and heifer operations.  Figure 1.2:1-1 presents the waste
management system used as part of the beef and heifer model farm.
              Region
      ;        Data from site visits 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 Midwest region receives a greater amount of rainfall annually than a beef
feedlot in the Central region; therefore, the Midwest feedlot produces a greater 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 diverse regions of
the United States: Central, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Pacific, and South, as described in Section 1.1.
Data from USDA indicate that heifer operations are located in similar areas as beef feedlots and
would have similar characteristics as the beef feedlots.
                                           1-9

-------
                                           Solids (98.5%)
                   Figure 1.2.1-1. Beef and Heifer Model Farm Waste
                                  Management System
1.2.2
Dairies
             EPA developed two model farms to represent medium- and large-sized dairies in
the United States: a flush dairy and a hose/scrape dairy. These types of farms were identified as
the predominant type of dairy in the United States based on data collected from site visits and
NAHMS.  EPA developed the parameters describing the dairy model farms are developed from
information from USD A, 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
                                          1-10

-------
  components that make up the model farms is presented below, with the sources of the information
  used tb develop each piece of the model farm.

  »  •• ..•       Housing

               To determine the type of housing used at the model farm, the type of animals on
 the farm were 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, including calves and heifers.
 The number of immature animals (i.e., calves and heifers) at the dairy is proportional to the
 number of mature cows in the herd, but further depends on the farm's management. For example,
 the dairy may house virtually no immature .animals on site and obtain their replacement heifers
 from off-site operations, or the dairy could have close to a 1:1 ratio of immature animals to
 mature animals. Site visits suggest the trend that the largest dairy managers want to focus on milk
 production only, and prefer not to keep heifers on site.

              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 percent of the
 mature dairy (milking) cows (USDA, 1997). EPA assumes that there are an equal number of
 calves and heifers on site (30 percent each) at the dairy model farms. Based on this information,
 the number of calves-on site  is estimated to be 30 percent of the number of mature cows on site,
 as are the number of heifers on site, for the dairy model farm. The percentage of bulls is typically
 small (USDA, 1997),. as most dairies do not keep them on site.  For this reason, EPA assumed
 that their impact on the model farm waste management system is insignificant, and did not
 consider bulls in the dairy model farm.

              The most common types of housing for mature cows include freestall barns, tie
 stalls/stanchions, pasture, drylots, and combinations of these (Stall, CE., et. al. eds. 1998).
Based on site visits, most medium- to large-sized dairies (>200 mature dairy cows) house their
mature dairy cows in freestall bams; therefore, it is assumed that mature dairy cows are housed in
freestall barns for the dairy model.
                                          1-11

-------
             The most common types of calf and heifer housing are drylots, multiple animal
pens, and pasture (USDA APHIS, 1996a). Based on site visits, most medium- to large-sized
facilities use drylots to house their heifers and calves; therefore, it is assumed .that calves are
housed in hutches on drylots and heifers are housed in groups on drylots at dairies described in
the model.  EPA calculated the size of the drylot for the model farm using animal space
requirements suggested by Midwest Plan Service (MWPS, 1995).

             Waste Management Systems

             Waste is generated in two main areas at dairies: 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 bams includes bedding
and manure for all bams, 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 dairies transport their wastewater from the parlor and
flush barns to a lagoon for storage and treatment. Some dairies use a solids separator (either
gravity or mechanical) 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 bam 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 on cropland either on or off site. Figure 1.2.2-1  presents the
waste management systems used for model dairy farm.

               The amount of waste generated at a dairy depends on how the operation cleans the
bam and parlor on a daily basis. Some, dairies clean the parlor and barns by flushing the waste (a
flush dairy); othereuse less water, hosing down the parlor and scraping the manure from the bams
(a hose/scrape  dairy). EPA estimated the percentage of total dairies that operate as a flush dairy
or a hose/scrape dairy using USDA data (USDA APHIS,  1996a) and described in Section 4.3.2 of
                                           1-12

-------
this report.  Both flush and hose/scrape dairy systems are modeled separately as two model
facilities.
                                           Flush Dairy
                                                   Solids
            Figure 1.2.2-1. Dairy Model Farm Waste Management Systems
                                         1-13

-------
             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 greater 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 distinct regions of the United States: Central, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Pacific, and South, as
described in Section 1.1.
1.2.3
•Veal Operations
              EPA developed one model farm to represent medium- and large-sized 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
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.
                                           1-14

-------
               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.
        (

              EPA developed the veal model farm used in the cost model 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. Direct precipitation is  also collected on the lagoon
 surface, if the lagoon is uncovered. Figure 1.2.3-1 presents a diagram of the veal model farm
 waste management system.
                                               Solids

Freestall
Barn (Flush)
>.

1
Solids
Separation
present)
•*i»
^*

T.flgppn

	 ^~
v
End Use
               Figure 1.2.3-1.  Veal Model Farm Waste Management System
              Region
              The American Veal Association indicates that veal producers are located
predominantly in the Midwest and Central regions (Crouch, A., 1999); therefore, only these two
regions are modeled as part of the veal model farm.
                                          1-15

-------
1.2.4
Swine Operations
             EPA developed the parameters describing the model swine farms using information
from the USDA NASS, site visits to swine farms across the country, discussions with the National
Pork Producers Council, and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). A
description of the various components that make up the model farm is presented in the following
discussion, and the sources of the information used to develop each piece of the model farm are
noted.

             Housing

             Swine are typically housed in total confinement barns, and less commonly in. other
housing configurations such as open buildings with or without outside access and pastures
(USDA APHIS, 1995b).  On many farms, small numbers of pigs (fewer than the number covered
by this regulation) are raised outdoors; however, the trend in the industry is toward larger
confinement farms at which pigs are raised indoors (NCSU, 1998). For these reasons, the model
swine farm is assumed to house its animals in total confinement barns.

             Waste Management Systems

             The characteristics of waste produced at an operation depends on the type of
animals that are present. In farrow-to-finish operations, the pigs are born and raised at the same
facility. Therefore, the manure at a farrow-to-finish farm has the characteristics of mixed excreta
from varying ages.  In grow-finish facilities, young pigs are first born and cared for at a nursery,
and then brought onto the finishing farm.  Therefore, the manure at a grow/finish farm has
characteristics of pigs older than 7 weeks. These are the two predominant types of swine
operations in the United States for the size classes that would be covered under the final mile.
The Technical Development Document contains additional information on herd and waste
characteristics.
                                          1-16

-------
               Swine houses with greater than 750 head typically store their wastes in pits under
 the house or flush the wastes to outside lagoons. Slatted floors or flush alleys are used to
 separate manure and wastes from the animal. It is common to allow manure to collect hi a pit and
 wash the pit one to six times per day with water to move the waste to a lagoon. The waste is
 stored in the lagoon until it is applied to land or transported off site. Storing the waste in an
 anaerobic lagoon provides sonie treatment during storage, conditioning the wastewater for later
 land application, and reducing odors (NCSU, 1998). EPA developed model farms for farrow-to-
 finish and grow/finish operations in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions that are assumed  to use
 pits or flush alleys and anaerobic lagoon storage.

              In the Midwest, a deep pit storage system is more common. Deep pit systems start
 with several inches of water in the pit, and the manure is collected and stored under the house
 until it is pumped out for field application, typically twice a year. This system uses less water,
 creating a manure slurry that has higher nutrient concentrations than the flush system described
 earlier.  A survey of swine operations in 2000 shows that both lagoons and deep pits are
 commonly used for waste storage in the Midwest region (USDA APHIS, 2002). For purposes of
 developing the cost models, EPA estimated, from the USDA APHIS (2002) data, the percentage
 of farrow-to-finish and grow/finish operations in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions that  use
 pit storage. EPA developed model farms for farrow-to-finish and grow/finish operations in the
 Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions that are assumed to use pit storage pumped twice per year.

              Although not present in  the statistics that were available to the EPA at the time  of
 this analysis, EPA recognizes the increasing number of large swine operations in the Central
 region.  Many of these larger operations in the Central region use evaporative lagoons instead of
 traditional anaerobic lagoons found in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest.  Thus, EPA developed
 model farms for large facilities in the Central region and assumed evaporative lagoons are used for
 waste storage.
              EPA's swine model farm's under Option 5 assume that all lagoons are covered
with a synthetic cover. Facilities that use deep pit storage are not assumed to need any additional
practices to comply with Option 5.
                                          1-17

-------
             Figure 1.2.4-1 .presents'1 these waste management systems used for the model swine
farms in this cost model.
                                                                           1 :!lvl,l
-------
  were modeled in both regionsT targe swine operations that use evaporative lagoons for waste
  storage were modeled in the Central region. 'Operations located in other regions were split among
  the modeled regions to folly account for operations in a given size class. Allocating operations
  from one region to another was necessary since the census data could not be obtained for all
  desired regions and size groups (USDA NASS, 1999). Table 1.2.4-1 presents a summary of the
  swine model farms developed by EPA.
                                     Table 1.2.4-1
   Model Swine Farms by Farm Type, Size, Region, and Waste Storage System
Farm Type
Farrow-to-
Finish
Grow/Finish

Size Group '
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
•Region
Central
NM
NM
NM
Evap Lagoon
Evap Lagoon
.: NM-,..
NM
NM
Evap Lagoon
Evap Lagoon
Mid-Atlantic
L&P
L&P
L&P
L&P
L&P
L & P
L&P
L&P
L&P
L&P
Midwest ,
L&P
L&P
L&P
L&P
L&P
L&P
L&P
L&P
L&P
L&P
Pacific
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
South
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM

           »_*   	—fy -
P = under house pit storage
Evap Lagoon = evaporative lagoon storage
NM = Not modeled in this region.
1.2.5
Poultry Operations
             EPA developed four model farms to represent poultry operations in the United
States. The model farms are broiler, turkey, dry layer, and wet layer operations. EPA developed
the parameters describing the model poultry farms using information from NASS, site visits to
poultry farms across the country, and the USDA NRCS.  A description of the various components
                                         1-19

-------
of each model farm is presented in the following discussion, and the sources of the information
used to develop each piece of the model farm are noted.

              Housing

              Broilers and turkeys are typically housed in long barns (approximately 40 feet wide
and 400 to 500 feet long; NCSU, 1998) and are grown on the floor of the house. The floor of the
bam is covered with a layer of bedding, such as wood shavings, and the broilers or turkeys
deposit manure directly onto the bedding. Approximately 4 inches of bedding are initially added
to the houses and top dressed with about 1 inch of new bedding between flocks.

              Layers are typically confined in cages in high-rise housing or shallow pit flush
housing. In a high-rise house, the layer cages are suspended over a bottom story, where the
manure is deposited and stored. EPA used this configuration to model housing for dry layer
model farms. In shallow pit flush housing, a single layer of cages is suspended over a shallow pit.
Manure drops directly into the pit, where it is flushed out periodically using recycled lagoon
water. EPA used this configuration to model housing for wet layer model farms.

              These poultry housing systems are considered typical systems in the poultry
industry (NCSU, 1998). Therefore, the cost model uses these farm housing systems in the model
farms.

              Waste Management Systems

              Manure from broiler and turkey operations accumulate on the floor where it is
 mixed with bedding, forming litter. Litter close to drinking water forms a cake that is removed
 between flocks.  The rest of the litter hi a house is removed periodically (6 months to 2 years)
 from the barns, and then transported off site or applied to land. Typically, broiler and turkey
 operations are completely dry waste management systems (NCSU, 1998). Therefore, EPA used
 this waste management configuration in modeling both broiler and turkey model farms.
                                           1-20

-------
 reflects the South and Mid-Atlantic regions, and the model layer farm reflects the Midwest and
 South regions.  State-level data from the 1997 Census of Agriculture indicate that states in the
 Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States account for over 70 percent of all turkey
 turkeys produced. For this reason, model turkey farms are located in-the Mid-Atlantic and '
 Midwest regions (USDA NASS, 1999).  Table 1.2.5-1 presents the number of facilities modeled
 for the poultry model farms.
                                     Table 1.2.5-1
              Model Poultry Farms by Farm Type, Size, and Region
Farm .Type-.;
Broilers
Dry Layers
Wet Layers
Turkeys
Size Group
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
- Region
Central
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Mid-Atlantic
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NM
NM
Y
Y
Y
Y
Midwest
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NM
NM
Y
Y
Y
Y
Pacific
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM :
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
, South
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
Y
Y
NM
NM
NM
NM
Y.= model larni was developed for this region.
NM = model farm was not developed for this region.
                                          1-22

-------
             Layer operations may operate as a wet or a dry system. Approximately 12 percent
of layer houses use a liquid flush system, in which waste is removed from the house and stored in
a lagoon (USDA APHIS, 2000). Operations that use this type of waste management system are
referred to as wet layers. The remaining layer operations typically operate as dry systems, with
manure stored in the house for up to a year.  A scraper is used to remove waste from the
collection pit or cage area (NCSU, 1998). Operations that use this type of waste management
system are referred to as dry layers.  The lagoon wastewater and dry manure are stored until they
are applied to land or transported off site: Figure .1.2.5-1 presents the waste management systems
for poultry.                                              ':'
Broiler
House
Broiler House
with Bedding
i
t
Storage
i
End
f
Use
r'

Turkey
House ~
Turkey House
with Bedding
i
p
Storage
?
End
r
Use


Caged Uatyer
Shallow Pit
Flush House
Shallow Pit
Flush House
T
r
Anaerobic
Lagoon
i
End
r
Use
<
^aged liajier
High-rise
House
High-rise '
House
1
r
End Use
             Figure 1.2.5-1  Poultry Model Farm Waste Management System
              Region
              Data from site visits and North Carolina State University's draft~ Swine and Poultry
Industry Characterization indicate that the predominant type of waste management system at
poultry operations varies from region to region (NCSU, 1998). Most of the broiler operations in
the United States are located in the South and Mid-Atlantic regions, while most of the egg-laying
operations are located in the Midwest and South regions. Therefore, the model broiler farm

                                          1-21

-------
 1.3
Key Terms
              This subsection discusses the key terms used in the cost model report, including
 size groups, frequency factors (technology factors that vary by performance level, technology
 factors that do not vary by performance level, land availability factors, nutrient management
 factors), and manure and wastes.
 1.3.1
Size Groups.
              EPA developed and analyzed up to five size groups for each animal type. The size
 groups include one to two size groups for "Large" farms and up to three size groups for
 "Medium" farms.  Table 1.3-1 presents the size groups for each animal type.
                                      Table 1.3-1
                            Size Classes for Model Farms
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy (Mature
Dairy Cows)
Veal
Swine
Dry Layers
Wet Layers
Broilers
Turkeys
Medium 1
300-499
300-499
200-349
300-499
750-1,249
25,000-49,999
N/A
37,750-49,999
16,500-27,499
Medium 2
500-749
500-749
350-524
500-749
1,250-1,874
50,000-74,999
N/A
50,000-74,999
27,500-41,249
Medium3
750-999
750-999
525-699
>750
1,875-2,499
75,000-81,999
9,000-29,999
75,000-124,999
41,250-54,999
Large 1
1,000-7,999
2:1,000
2:700
N/A
2,500-4,999
82,000-599,999
>30,000
125,000-179,999
2:55,000
' Large 2
;>8,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
;>5,000
>600,000
N/A
2:180,000
N/A
N/A - Not applicable.
              In this report, references to the model farm size classes will be capitalized. For
example, Large would refer to all operations that fall into the Large 1 or Large 2 model farm size
classes. When the terms are not capitalized (i.e., "large"), they are used in a general way.
                                          1-23

-------
1.3.2
Frequency Factors
             EPA developed frequency factors to reflect the baseline industry conditions
(industry conditions prior to implementation of the regulation),  m the cost model, four types of
frequency factors are employed: technology frequency factors that do not vary by performance
level, technology frequency factors that dp vary by performance level, land availability frequency
factors, and nutrient management frequency factors.

             The model-farm approach used in the cost model provides the average cost a farm
is projected to incur under the proposed regulatory options. EPA recognizes that this approach
might underestimate or overestimate the projected costs for farms that are on the extreme ends of
applicability. For example, some farms might already meet the proposed regulatory requirements;
therefore, those farm costs would be zero.jMternatively, some farms might meet very few of the
proposed regulatory requirements; therefore, those operations would incur costs much higher
than the "average" model farm costs. Therefore, EPA used frequency factors that vary according
to the requirements of the model farm. EPA assumed 25% of farms will have high requirements,
25% will have low requirements, and 50% will have moderate requirements. Frequency factors
were estimated  according to these assumptions.
              Technology Factors That Vary by Performance Level

              Technology frequency factors reflect the percentage of operations that have a
particular operation, technique, or practice in place at baseline. In most cases, the frequency
factors have a performance level (i.e., high, medium, or low performance) as estimated by USDA.
Frequency factors that vary by performance level were developed for the following practices or
technologies:

              •      Feeding strategies;
              •      Solids separation using earthen and concrete settling basins;
              •      Runoff controls (e.g., berms);
                                           1-24

-------
                     Liquid land application (e.g,. center pivot irrigation); and

                     Nutrient management planning (i.e., setbacks, lagoon markers, soil
                     sampling, manure sampling, recordkeeping, document preparation).
               Technology Factors That Do Not Vary by Performance Level


               Two of the technology components of the cost model are not based on USDA's
 performance-based data. The frequency factors for naturally-lined ponds and lagoons and
 transportation are based on several different data sources as discussed in Section 6.1.3.


               Land Availability Factors
              Operations fall into three categories with respect to the amount of on-site cropland
 available for manure application. Using USDA data, EPA calculated the percentage of facilities i
 each of these categories:
in
                     Category 1 operations have sufficient land to land-apply all of then-
                     generated manure and wastewater at appropriate agronomic rates.  No
                     manure is transported off site.

                     Category 2 operations do not have sufficient land to land-apply all of then-
                     generated manure and wastewater at appropriate agronomic rates.  The
                     excess manure after agronomic application is transported off site.

                     Category 3 operations do not have any available land for manure
                     application. All generated manure and wastewater is transported off site.
              Nutrient Management Factors


              In the proposed regulation, the land application of manure is governed by the rate
determined by the Director and for the purposes of this analysis is assumed to be agronomically
limited by either nitrogen or .phosphorus. This assumption ensures that EPA has calculated the
highest costs of this regulation. Several cost modules compute component costs separately for
                                          1-25

-------
both nitrogen- and phosphorus-based application and are adjusted based on frequency factors that
indicate the use of the component in the industry. For Options 1 and 1A, all operations are costed
for nitrogen-based application, and for Option 2A, all operations are costed for phosphorus-based
application.  However, under the remaining options, EPA used soil tests and USD A data to
determine the percent of facilities in each state that would require nitrogen-based versus
phosphorus-based application rates. This ranges from 12% to 66% across animal type and region,
but roughly 50% of all facilities would need to apply at a phosphorus rate.
1.3.3
Manure and Waste
              In the cost model report, manure refers to excreted manure with no added process
water or rain water. Waste and wastewater may refer to the combination .of manure and
contaminated runoff, process water, and cleaning water. This does not necessarily reflect the
official language of the preamble of this regulation.
1.4
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 data sources used to generate compliance costs;
              •      Section 4.0 discusses the cost model inputs;
              •      Section 5.0 discusses the methodology .used to calculate costs;
              •      Section 6.0 discusses the frequency factors used in the report;
              •      Section 7.0 provides examples of total model farm costs calculated for beef
                     and dairy and swine and poultry operations as well as weighted model farm
                     costs for each animal sector under the selected BAT and NSPS options;
              •      Section 8.0 discusses sensitivity and side analyses conducted on EPA's
                     model farms; and
                                           1-26

-------
                    Appendices A through D present cost results.
 1.5
References
 Cady, R, 2000. Telephone conversation with Dr. Roger Cady, Monsanto Company and Founder
       of the Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association. February 18, 2000.

 Crouch, A., 1999. Telephone conversation with Alexa Crouch., American Veal Association.
       October 14, 1999.

 MWPS, 1995. Midwest Plan Service. Beef Housing and Equipment Handbook. Fourth Edition,
       MWPS-6. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. November 1995.

 NCSU, 1998. Draft of Swine and Poultry Industry Characterization, Waste Management
       Practices and Modeled Detailed Analysis'of Predominantly Used Systems. September 30,
       1998.

 Stall, C.E., et..al. eds. 1998.  Animal Care Series: Dairy Care Practices. 2nd ed, Dairy
       Workgroup. University of California Cooperative Extension. June.1998.

 USDA, 1997. Census of Agriculture, 1997.

 USDA APHIS, 1995a. National Animal Health Monitoring System, Part I: Feedlot Management
       Practices.  1995a

 USDA APHIS, 1995b.  National Animal Health Monitoring System: Swine '95. Parti.
       Reference of 1995 Swine Management Practices.
                          %

 USDA APHIS, 1996a. National Animal Health Monitoring System, Part III: Reference of 1996
       Dairy Health and Health.

USDA APHIS, 1996b. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), Part 1: Reference
       of 1996 Dairy Management Practices.

USDA APHIS, 2000. Data summaries of NAHMS Layer '99, prepared at request of EPA.
       National Animal Health Monitoring System. Washington, DC.

USDA APHIS, 2002. Queries run by Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health prepared by
       Eric Bush; March 22, 2002; 2 pages.

USDA NASS, 1999. Queries run by NASS for USEPA on the 1997 Census of Agriculture data.
       U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington,
       DC.
                                        1-27

-------
Wilson, L.L., C.L. Stull, and T.L. Terosky, 1995. 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.
                                          1-28

-------
 2.0
COST MODEL STRUCTURE
              EPA created two separate models to estimate compliance costs associated with
 regulatory options for CAFOs: one model to generate beef, dairy, heifer, and veal costs, and
 another model to generate swine, broiler, turkey, and layer costs. The following subsections
 describe the structure of each of these models.
 2.1
Beef and Dairy Cost Model
              To generate industry compliance cost estimates for beef feedlots, dairies, and
 heifer and veal 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 Basic® and data tables created in Microsoft® Access 97.
 Figure 2.1-1 presents a flow chart of the general cost model methodology. The cost model
 consists of several components, which can be grouped into five major categories:
                    Input data;
                    Technology cost modules;
                    Frequency factors (including farm-weighting factors);
                    Cost test; and
                    Model farm costs.
              The beef and dairy cost model calculates costs for the following groups of model
farms, shown in Table 2.1-1.

              Model outputs are presented in Appendices A through D of this report. Each
technology cost module calculates a specific piece of operational data (e.g., runoff) or develops a
component 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.  Some component-level frequency factors are performance based, and different factors are
used to estimate costs for a low-performing, medium-performing, and high-performing farm.
                                          2-1

-------
I
                                      Farm-Weighting
                                         Factors
                                                                Technology
                                                                Cost Modules
                                                              Component Costs
                                                                  Weighted
                                                               Component Costs
                                                                Weighted Farm
                                                                    Costs
                                                               Model Farm Costs


                                          Figure 2.1-1. Flow Chart of General Cost
                                                       Methodology
                                                             2-2

-------

 o-
 4)
 to
 |.
 o"
 C3


 S5

 o
"«'
09
1-1
H|
8-S
8 >
68 CV
bl CO
.5 "O
Igl u
A! *
1 s
B P,
* H
09
S
es
*.«'
8 -Si
. «j g
•5 ,g
a S
2 WD
§
1 «
4

' -
•£«
-"3 «a
R *C
1 1
•« *
' 05

't* "*


•s


ll
**


8
O
I
is,
S K


S

•-.-

CO*







,-,

CN




V,

••


CO









CO





1
o

u

(O
>D
S



'CO









CN


*

«




CO









CO


o

d
_«
^*3
•i
§




S



CO









CN






Q
CN
n
CO
o



CO









CN




-




CO









CO





£
o
CO




8



CO






'


CM'


'•
-...,.
CO




CO









CO





1
s



>
CO
o

.-

CO





-'-'



CN




co




CO









CO

..



Midwest




V>
CO
CN
~i.=








'•'





-f
























73

t-











' ••-•"•'






.
§•
a,
CO

0
•o
o1
ra
J3
is-
^s

•a
u
«
^


id
1
CA
••-B



_>>
"S
o
CO
1
t-


CL,
o
                                    2-3

-------
Using these factors, cost estimates for a low-performing farm will include the majority of possible
costs, and estimates for a high-performing farm will include less of the possible costs.

              Farm-weighting factors are then 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, or nutrient basis for land application).  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.
2.1.1
Input Data to Cost Model
              Input data 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, performance level, and number
                     of operations that are represented by the model farm;
              •      Wastewater generation - Volume of milking parlor wastewater and bam
                     wastewater generated;
              •      Manure generation - Amount and composition of manure generated at the
                     operation; and
              •      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 used as inputs for cost calculations. Section 4.0 discusses
 inputs to the cost model in greater detail.
                                            2-4

-------
 2.1.2
Technology Calculations
              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
 (O&M) costs that only occur every 3 or 5 years. The cost model refers to these periodic O&M
 costs as a "3-year recurring cost" or a "5-year recurring cost."                        ;

              For each regulatory option, the cost, model combines a series of modules. Table
 2.1.2-1 presents the waste management technology components for dairies, beef feedlots, and
 heifer and veal operations that make up the basis for each regulatory option. Each module  uses
 the input data tables to generate costs to implement the technologies under each regulatory
 option. Figure 2.1.2-1 presents the components of the technology cost modules, and Section 5.0
 discusses each cost module in detail.  The cost model uses Microsoft® Access 97 queries to create
a module-specific input page that selects only the input required to run the specific waste
management component of interest. No costs are calculated for components that are not included
in the option.
                                    Table 2.1.2-1
        Waste Management Technologies for Beef Feedlots, Dairies, and
                            Heifer and Veal Operations
Technology or Practice
Solids Separation
Anaerobic Treatment
Liquids Storage
Runoff Controls
On-Site Land
Application
Technology Cost Module
Concrete Basin
Earthen Basin
Naturally Lined Lagoon
Naturally Lined Pond
Berms
Nutrient Management Planning
Nutrient-Based Application
On-Site Irrigation
Off-Site Transportation
Animal Type. ;
Dairy :
/

^

S
S
S
/
s
Beef & Heifer

/

/
S
S
S
S
s
Veal
S

S


/
^
^
s
                                         2-5

-------
                                                                                              I
                                                                                                       S
                                                                                                      T3
                                                                                                       O
                                                                                                       «i
                                                                                                       O

                                                                                                      u
                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                       
S
o

601
                    ir

                    •£
                                                      I
                                             2-6

-------
 system to meet the requirements of the rule, which may vary in cost from these estimated costs.
 Section 6.0 discusses the frequency factors used in the cost model.

              Weighted Farm Costs

              Some weighted component costs vary depending on the type of manure application
 basis (nitrogen or phosphorus). To account for these differences, the cost model further weights
 the weighted component costs, as necessary.

              The farm-weighting factor adjusts the weighted component costs for the type of
 nutrient-based application used. Note, this  only applies to land application component costs that
 are affected by the number of available acres. As discussed in Section 6.2, the cost model
 estimates the number of operations that require nitrogen-based application and the number of
 operations that require phosphorus-based application. In fact, most operations will have some
 fields limited to nitrogen and some limited to phosphorus. The exact distribution will vary for
 each individual operation. This approach assumes each farm will incur costs based on both
 nitrogen and phosphorus, and calculates a weighted cost. 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 farm cost for each type operation  that  conducts on-site land application.
where:
             ' NFacs
              NCost
              PFacs
              PCost
                     Weighted Cost = [(NFacs x NCost) + (PFacs x PCost)]
                                             [NFacs + PFacs]
Number of operations that apply on nitrogen basis
Weighted unit component cost, nitrogen-based application
Number of operations that apply on phosphorus basis
Weighted unit component cost, phosphorus-based
application.
             The weighted farm costs are then used in a "cost test," described in Section 5.0, to
select the least costly option to transport excess manure off site.  There are four transportation
                                          2-9

-------
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. The cost model sums and annualizes the weighted farm costs for each of
the transportation scenarios, and selects the least costly scenario.

              The cost estimates generated contain the following types of costs:

              •       Capital costs - Costs for facility upgrades (e.g., construction projects).
              •       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 cost 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.
              •       Five-year recurring permit costs - Application fees and reporting costs
                     occur once every five years.
              •       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 of each
regulatory option.  Section 7.0 presents these model farm cost outputs.
2.2
Swine and Poultry Cost Model
              EPA developed a computer-based cost model to generate industry compliance cost
estimates for swine and poultry operations. The cost model is executed on a personal computer
and consists of a main program and subroutines written in Digital Fortran 90, Version 6, and data
tables created in Microsoft® Excel and text format.
                                           2-10

-------
              Each module generates an intermediate output page, containing the capital, fixed,
 annual, and recurring costs associated with that waste management system component. The
 output page also includes data that may be used as input to subsequent modules..
 2.1.3
Frequency Factors
              EPA determined the current frequency of existing waste management practices at
beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer and veal operations to estimate the portion of the operations that
would incur costs to comply with the final regulation.  The frequency information is used to
estimate compliance costs-for specific model farms. These specific technologies are not required
to meet the requirements of the regulation.  Rather, they are simply for the basis of estimating
costs for cpmpliance with the regulation. The resulting weighted farm costs can be multiplied by
the number of facilities represented by each model to estimate industry-wide costs.
                                         e

              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, estimated frequency factors based on the sources below.
Each source was considered along with its limitations; Section 6.0 discusses in detail the
frequency factors used to develop compliance costs for each regulatory option.
                    USDA/Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) - EPA used the
                    data currently available from NRCS to determine the distribution of beef
                    feedlots and dairies across the regions by size class, production category,
                    and performance level.
                    EPA site visit information - EPA used this information to assess general
                    practices of beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer and veal operations and how
                    they vary between regions and size classes.
                    Observations from industry experts - EPA contacted experts on beef and
                    dairy animal feeding operations to provide insight into operations and
                    practices, especially where data are limited or not publicly available.
                    USDA/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
                                          2-7

-------
                    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 - EPA used this summary of state regulatory programs to estimate
                    frequency factors based on current waste-handling requirements that
                    already apply to beef feedlots and dairies in various states and in specific
                    size classes as related to off-site transportation and nitrogen-based land
                    application.
2.1.4
Calculation of Weighted Costs
                                                                          t  ,;L,
             ' The cost model generates weighted technology costs and weighted farm costs

from the waste management system component costs calculated within each module.
                           •'    ,  '  -     • •     -     ..      > -•<   ; •  ,"   • '".. ~~t'\-'*~i*. •. 'i
Methodologies used to develop both of these costs are described below.
              Weighted Technology Costs
   .:  ',• > ,%  *-..          '••.•••            •' •       '              ," v'-:. •

             "To ensure that' only operations that do not have the technology are costed, the cost

model weights the technology component costs to reflect the percentage of operations that

akeady have some components in place. For some technologies (e.g., settling basins), there are

three different frequency factors that represent facilities that have low, medium, and high

requirements reflecting the performance level of the farm. The cost model uses the following

equation to weight the component costs:   .                            .
 where:
              Frequency Factor
                                    Costcomponent x (1 - Frequency Factor) -  ;  ;
                            Weighted component cost
                            Component cost
                            Percentage of operations that have the component in
                            place.
 This weighted component cost reflects the conservative assumptions made in this cost model for

 compliance with the regulation. In practice, a facility may choose a different waste management
                                            2-8

-------
               The components of the cost model can be grouped into six major categories as
 illustrated in Figure 2.2-1:
                      Model farm input data;
                      Preprocessor subroutines (get farm counts, manure characteristics, etc!);
                      Basic calculations (manure production, nutrient needs, etc.);
                      Other input data (technology performance and costs, frequency factors
                      etc.);
                      Cost subroutines for practices; and
                      Model farm costs (outputs).
              The core of the cost model is the "Main" program. Data files with model feedlot
 information, constants associated with manure characteristics and cropping systems, frequency
 factors, number of farms represented by each model, technology costs, and various other variables
 essential to the cost modeling effort are input into the main program and its subroutines.  The
 program then calculates practice-specific and total costs for each model farm. The total national
 cost of the proposed regulation is estimated by multiplying model farm costs by the number of
 farms represented by each particular model. The cost model creates both formatted and
 unformatted outputs.

              The model's subroutines read into the Main program the basic information
 regarding model farms (e.g., animal  type, operation type) and the various constants used in a wide
 range of Main program calculations  (e.g., nutrient management training costs, regional nitrogen
 and phosphorus uptake values, frequency factors), and they perform the more complex
 calculations (e.g.,  berm size, lagoon  size, lagoon cover size) and analyses (e.g., selecting the least-
cost alternative for each option).  Unlike the beef and dairy cost model, total confinement was
assumed for all swine and poultry operations; thus, runoff generation was not calculated.
                                          2-11

-------
                                   Model Farms
                            based oa preset Characteristics
                              • stetor, sate, refiion, land
                                 • regulatory option
                             {•re-processor Sub-RoutiBtt
                             * .get number of model 6mw
                          • manure and nutrient characteristics |
                              - nitttient application rates  •
^••l»»»
:  Other data KES that  j
!  provide constants and J
{  costs for the various  |
|  regions, sties, and    |
:  sectors      •       i
I«MBV»I»1
                                 Baric Calculations
                                •Manure Production
                                •Nutrient Productson
                             •Nutrients Required on Farm
                             • Excess Nutrient Production
                            Out Sito-Rondhw for Piadktt
               tarion/Sefter Snedfte Costs       Reekm/SMtOf NoH^ptdfie
               > Frequency of Compliance        • Constants {ground wsta-
               > Nutrient Management Planning   rnonhorlng, labor rates, etc.)
               > Fadflty Upgrades
               - Nutrient Reduction
                                   Modd Outputs
                                * one page per mode!
                                 * one line per model
                              > for the 7 regulatory options
Figure 2.2-1. Flow Chart of Swine and Poultry Cost Model
                                  2-12

-------
              The cost model developed costs tfor multiple model farms based on their size,

 region; operation type (e.g., type of animal raised), and nutrient (nitrogen or phosphorus) used in

 nutrient planning. Costs are calculated for nutrient management planning (e.g., training, soil

 testing), facility upgrades (e.g., mortality composting facility, lagoon liner, buffers), land   . - -

 application, and a range of scenarios for reducing excess nutrients (e.g., separation and hauling,

 feeding strategies). Frequency factors are applied to the component costs to weight the costs by

 the estimated percentage of operations that already have the component in place. Costs include

 capital costs; fixed, one-time costs;'nonannual but recurring costs; and annual costs, all in 1997
 dollars.                                                                  ......


              Model components and operations are described in greater detail in the following

 subsections. In addition, Section 8.0 describes side analyses conducted to test the sensitivity of

 the model to various inputs, to determine the factors that drive the costs, and to evaluate the

 overall robustness of the model.
2.2.1
Input Data to Cost Model
              Input data to the cost model include information on the model farms, manure and

wastewater generation and characteristics, regional information, technology costs, technical   .

characteristics and performance, and frequency factors, as described below. Two types of data

file structures — fixed-format files (*.dat) and variable-format files (*.csv) — are used, and data
elements are separated by commas.
                    Model farm definitions - Animal type, EPA regulatory option number,
                    operation type (e.g., broiler, farrow to finish, wet layer), size class (e.g.,
                    Large 1), average number of head, region, performance level (high,
                    medium, low), nutrient management basis (N or P), land availability
                    category (1, 2, or 3), acreage, manure management system (e.g., liquid,
                    solid), and number of operations that are represented by the model.

                    Manure and waste generation and* characteristics - Animal turnover rate,
                    average weight of animal, manure characteristics, weight of manure
                    produced, volume of manure produced, moisture content of fresh manure,
                    nitrogen in fresh manure,  efficiency of nitrogen application to field,
                                          2-13

-------
 phosphorus in fresh manure, efficiency of phosphorus application to field,
 potassium in manure, efficiency of potassium application to field, dilution
 factor, percentage of birds that die in one turnover of animals, animal life
 span, average weight of animals at death, etc.

 Regional information - Recoverable manure correction factors, nitrogen
 uptake, phosphorus uptake, transportation distance, chronic rainfall, etc.

 Technology costs (including labor) - Installing ground-water monitoring
 well; time to sample ground-water monitoring well; water sample analysis;
 assessment of crop field/ground water link to surface water; recordkeeping
 and reporting; training and certification to land apply manure; manure
 sampler; manure nutrient analysis; setup and tune required to take first
, manure sample; time required for additional samples; soil sampling  , j 1
 frequency—low end; soil sampling frequency—site-specific approach; soil
 auger; time required to take sample—low end; time required to take
 sample—site-specific approach; cost of soil analysis; rate for obtaining a
 certified CNMP; scale to calibrate manure spreader; time required to
 calibrate manure spreader; tarp to calibrate manure spreader; hourly tractor
 operation costs; general labor rate; professional labor rate; amortization
 rate; property tax; standard maintenance; time allowance for litter transfer
 to storage; tune allowance for litter storage cleaning; bulk price for wood
 shavings; lagoon depth marker; time required for weekly visual inspection;
 liner material; insulated lagoon cover; unit area cost of litter storage
 facility; phosphorus feeding strategy cost per pig; phosphorus feeding
 strategy cost per chicken; nitrogen feeding strategy cost per pig; nitrogen
 feeding strategy cost per chicken; hauling and applying liquid manure;
 hauling and applying solid manure; solid/liquid separator; pipe; installing a
 steel storage tank; time required to install pipe and set up separator; retrofit
 initial investment; retrofit 1/4-HP motor per 1,250 swine; retrofit motor
 usage per day; electricity; retrofit labor required; retrofit blades required
 per year; unit cost of high-rise construction; high-rise fuel, repairs, and
 utilities; hoop structure construction; hoop feed and manure equipment;
 hoop bedding; hoop fuel, repairs, and utilities; hoop labor, etc.

 Technology characteristics and performance - Shaving material application
 depth, rate of litter storage cleaning, length of litter storage, lagoon depth,
 lagoon side slopes, diversion berm top width, diversion berm height,
 diversion berm side slope, cost to move earth, area of house, nitrogen
 reduction in manure from feeding strategies,- phosphorus reduction in
 manure from feeding strategies, separation safety factor, separator
 efficiency, solids content of separated manure, pipe length to connect
 lagoon to separator, amount of phosphorus transferred after separation,
 amount of nitrogen transferred after separation, etc.
                        2-14

-------
                     Frequency factors - Frequencies at which practices are currently
                     implemented on model farms.
   „  ..       Jhe central data file for model farms contains 14,346 records covering the range of
 values for animal type, operation type, region, nutrient management basis, baseline management
 level, land availability category, regulatory option, manure type, and operation size class.
 Separate costs were developed for each of these records (summarized in Table 2.2.1-1). Section
 4.0 discusses inputs to the cost model in greater detail.
 2.2.2
Technology Calculations
              Execution of the cost model begins with a series of routines to load the input data
described in Section 2.2.1. The Main program uses the regulatory option value to set rules
regarding which practices the cost model will use. For example, only Option 3 includes costs for
additional ground water protection practices.  Next, the program executes a number of basic
calculations, including total manure generation, nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) generation,
and alternative technologies to reduce total nutrient generation, such as feeding strategies.

             Another series of calculations follows to determine the land required to spread
manure. These calculations are keyed to one of the following land availability categories:

             •      Category 1: Farm has the acreage needed to agronomically apply the
                    nutrients in manure generated at the farm using regional estimates of crop
                    uptake and yield.  This acreage does not include the area of the buffer strip.
             •      Category 2: Farm has some land, but not enough to agronomically apply
                    all nutrients in manure generated at the farm.
                    Category 3: Farm has no land available for application of manure.
                                         2-15

-------
               Table 2.2.1-1
Swine and Poultry Model Farm Input Records
1, .
*, 3 * !. t
Operation Type
and Region
Broilers
Mid-Atlantic
South
Layers - Wet
South
Layers - Dry
Midwest
South
Turkeys
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
=====
.Options/
Suboptions'
==^==
Land
Availability
Categories
=====
Size
Classes
=======
Nutrient
Management
Bases6
*
12
12
3
3
5
5
'" 2 '
2
i
Manure
Types

1
1
=====
BMP
Imp.
Levels

3
3

12

12
12

12
12
3
2

3
3
5
5
2

2
' 2

3
3
4
4
2
2
1 1 3

i ;
i

i
i

3
3

3
3
Swine - Grow-to-Finish
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
13
13
13
3
3
3
2
5
5
2
2
2
i
2
2
3
3
3
Sv-'inr. . Farrnw-tn-Finish
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest

13
13
13

3
3
3

2
5
5

2
2
2

1
2
2 '

3
3
3

=====
Total
1,890
945
945
378
378
1,890
945
945
1,512
756
756
4,338
414
1,962
1,962
4,338
414
1,962
1,962 1
14,346 1
Option 6 is for swine only; N and P basis, liquid and pit for two regions, evaporative pond for one region, two sizes and
Options 1 and 1 A are N-based only, whereas option 2A is P-based only.
                    2-16

-------
               Next, the cost model determines nutrient management planning costs, which
  include fixed one-time costs (e.g., engineering costs, soil augers), nonannual recurring costs (e.g.,
  CNMP development), and annual costs (e.g., recordkeeping). Some of these costs (e.g., soil
  testing) are incurred by all Category 1 and 2 farms, but not by Category 3 farms because they
  have no land.                          '

               After calculating nutrient management planning, the cost model calculates facility
 upgrade costs. Fixed, one-time costs include both amortizable and nonamortizable costs.
 Recurring costs for facility upgrades include visual inspection and operation and maintenance of
 the various upgrades.  Fixed costs include mortality composting facilities, storage for solid waste,
 lagoon depth markers, stormwater diversions (berms), lagoon liners, buffers, recycling pumps,
 larger lagoons, and digesters (swine only, Option 6). The cost of storage for liquid waste is
 included only in the cases where increased storage is needed to contain chronic rainfall events
 (regulatory Option 1 A) or where secondary lagoons are included to address hauling costs
 (Category 2 farms).  In all other cases, the storage facility design is used only to derive costs for
 liners, covers, and storm water diversions.  Storage costs in these cases are set to zero because it
 is assumed that the storage already exists.

              The cost model then evaluates a series of 18 scenarios are then evaluated to
 determine the least cost alternative for addressing excess manure nutrients at Category 2 farms.
 These scenarios include the initial and annual costs for: feeding strategies; hauling with and
 without feeding strategies; separation and hauling with and without feeding strategies; retrofit
 flush to scrape (swine operations and wet layer operations); 5-year recurring sludge hauling with
 and without feeding strategies (swine operations); high-rise houses (swine operations), including
hauling with and without feeding strategies; hoop houses (swine operations), including hauling
with and without feeding strategies;  and lagoon covers, with and without biogas generation and
capture (swine operations).
                                          2-17

-------
              Costs calculated, for ithe.various technologies are included under ;each option for
which the technology applies': the cost rriodei then conducts a cost test to determine the set: of
technologies that produces the lowest cost for each option, using the following equation:

 Annualized Model Farm'Cost = 0.14 x Capital Cost + O&M + Fixed + Recurring Cost ^ + Recurring Cost p^

              Outputs include fixed, fixed amortized, and annual nonamortized costs for facility
upgrades, land application, and nutrient management for each of the model farms for swine and
poultry.  The cost model determines the total cost of each option by multiplying the costs of each
model farm by me-number of farmsite-modd represents. Totals can be generated for each animal
type, operation type, and other distinguishing characteristics by  summing the costs across the
selected characteristic. '•        ••"•  " ;   ' '  !    !

             ••• Figure 2.2.2-2 illustrates the set of practices included in the costing tinder Option
2A,'ph0sphorus-b£ised nutrient management. All costs for nutrient management planning and
facility upgrades are'included in the cost for all options, but the components of these two cost
categories can differ across categories and options. For example, manure sampling devices
included for all  farms under Option  2A, but soil testing is not included for Category 3 farms
because they have no land. The cost model calculates costs for all of the technology options
 listed in Figure  2:2.2-1, including options to haul manure with and without feeding strategies, and
 then selects the cheapest option as described above.
                                                                     are
 2.2.3
Frequency Factors
               EPA developed frequency factors that describe the percentage of the swine and
 poultry industries that already implements particular operations, techniques, or practices that my
 be used to comply with the option. These particular operations, techniques, or practices are not
 required by the regulation. Rather, they serve as the cost basis for estimating compliance costs for
 specific model farms. The resulting weighted farm costs can be multiplied by the number of
 facilities represented by each model to estimate industry-wide costs.
                                            2-18

-------
   Manure sampling device
   Manure testing
   Nutrient management planning
Nutrient Management Planning

                                All Farms
   Training and certification for manure application
   Initial CNMP development
   CNMP planning every 3 years
   Soil auger
   Soil testing
   Scale to calibrate manure spreader
   Labor and tarp to calibrate manure spreader

                              Facility Upgrades

   Storage for poultry (dry)
   Lagoon depth marker (liquid)
   Storm water diversions around structures
   Visual inspection of facilities
   Operation and maintenance for diversions
  Buffer
  Buffer operation and maintenance
  Buffer land rental


                            Technology Options


  Feeding strategies (except for broilers)
  Separators (liquid only)
  Retrofit scrapers (liquid only)
  High-rise house (liquid only)
  Hoop house (liquid only)
  Lagoon cover with flare (liquid and evaporative)


  Hauling
                                Category  1 and 2
                                All Farms
                                Category 1 and 2
                               All Farms
                               Category 2 and 3
Figure 2.2.2-1 Practices Included Under Option 2A, Phosphorus-Based Management
                                    2-19

-------
             USDA provided data from which some frequency factors were developed. Where
data from USDA were not available, EPA used frequency factors obtained from other sources,
which vary by sector, component, or practice. Industry and USDA data were used as the basis
for most of the frequency factors for layers and swine; analysis of state and federal regulations
was used primarily for broilers and turkeys. EPA's report on state regulatory programs (USEPA,
1999) was also used for all animal sectors. Costs were not attributed, to CAFO model farms when
state regulations specify standards or require practices equal to or more stringent than the
proposed technology options.

              Because the literature and industry-provided data for the broiler and turkey sectors
      generally not detailed enough to generate frequency factors, EPA reviewed the specific
  ;gulatory language and summaries of regulations for 12 major poultry-producing states regarding
requirements for nutrient management plans (NMPs) at broiler and turkey farms (Tetra Tech,
2000). Requirements were considered for farms in two size groups: 300 to 1,000 animal units
(AU) and greater than 1,000 AU. All broiler and turkey farms were assumed to use dry waste
management systems. Detail on the frequency factor calculations is provided in Section 6.
were
re,
 2.2.4
              Calculation of Weighted Costs
               EPA applied the frequency factors to develop a weighted-average cost for each
 model farm. For example, if a practice costs $100 and 60 percent (the frequency factor) of the
 operations hi the model category already implement the practice, the average cost to farms
 represented by that model farm is $40. Each of these weighted-average costs was then multiplied
 by the number of farms represented by the particular model farm to estimate industry-level costs.
 Varying farm performance was addressed by assigning 25 percent of represented farms to the high
 performance level, 50 percent to the medium level, and 25 percent to the low level.  As described
 above, these levels have different frequency factors values.

               The following equation was used to weight the component costs:
                                 = Costcomponent x (1 - Frequency Factor)

                                            2-20

-------
 where:
       C°Stweighted

,...,    Frequency Factor
                                       Weighted component cost
                                       Component cost     ,      .-  > ..
                                       Percentage of operations that have component in
                                       place.
2.3
      References
Tetra Tech. 2000. Frequency Factors for Broiler and Turkey Facilities, Memorandum from
       Terra Tech, Inc., to Paul Shriner, Work Assignment Manager, U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, March 3,2000. EPA Contract 68-C-99-263, Work Assignment B-04.

USEPA^1999. State Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to Animal
       Feeding Operations - Interim Final Report.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
       Office of Water, Washington, DC.                                  '
                                      2-21

-------

-------
   3.0
 DATA SOURCES
                EPA collected and evaluated data from a variety of sources during the course of
  developing the costs for the revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
  concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) industry. These data sources include EPA site
  visits, industry trade associations, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), published
  literature, and data collected and analyzed conducted by the National Climate Data Center
  (NCDC), as well as previous EPA Office of Water studies of the Feedlots Point Source Category
  and other EPA studies of animal feeding operations. These data sources are discussed below.
  The list of references for each section of the cost model report is provided at the end of each
  section.
 3.1
Summary of EPA's Site Visit Program
               The Agency conducted approximately 116 site visits to collect information about
 animal feeding operations (AFOs) and waste management practices. Specifically, EPA visited
 beef feedlots, dairies, and swine, poultry, and veal operations throughout the United States. In
 general, the Agency visited a wide range of operations, including those demonstrating centralized
 treatment or new and innovative technologies.  EPA chose the majority of facilities with the
 assistance of the following industry trade associations:
                     National Pork Producers Council;
                     United Egg Producers and United Egg Association;
                     National Turkey Federation;
                     National Cattlemen's Beef Association;
                     National Milk Producers Federation; and
                     Western United Dairymen.
             EPA also received assistance from environmental groups, such as the Natural
Resources Defense Council and the Clean Water Network. The Agency contacted university
experts/state cooperatives and extension services, and state and EPA regional representatives
                                          3-1

-------
when identifying facilities for site visits.  EPA also attended USDA-sponsored farm tours, as well
as industry, academic, and government conferences.

              Table 3-1 summarizes the number of site visits EPA conducted by animal industry
sector, site locations, and size of animal  operations.

                                       Table 3-1
                 Number of Site Visits Conducted by EPA for the
                          Various Animal Industry Sectors
  Animal Type
  •••^•••••••••i
  Swine
  Poultry
  Dairy
  Beef
  Veal
Number of Site
    Visits
     30
  6 (broiler)
                    12 (layer)
                    6 (turkey)
                       29
      30
                                              Locations)
NC, PA, OH, IA, MN, TX, OK, UT
                   GA, AR, NC, VA, WV, MD, DE, PA,
                             OH, IN, WI
    PA. FL. CA, WI, CO, VA
 TX, OK, KS, CO, CA, IN, NE, IA
           ,  IN
Size of Operaitions
900 - 1 million head
                                   20,000 - 1 million
                                        birds
                                                                         40 - 4,000 cows
                                                      500 -120,000 head
                                                        500 - 540 calves
  The Agency considered the following factors when identifying representative facilities for site
  visits:
                      •      Type of animal feeding operation;
                      •      Location;
                      •      Feedlot size; and
                      •      Current waste management practices.

                Facility-specific selection criteria are contained in site visit reports (SVRs)
  prepared for each facility visited by EPA. The SVRs are located in the administrative record for
  this rulemaking.
                                             3-2

-------
                During the site visits, EPA typically collected the following types of information:
                      General facility information, including size and age of facility, .number of
                      employees, crops grown, precipitation information, and proximity to
                      nearby waterways;

                      Animal operation data, including flock or herd size, culling rate, and
                      method for disposing of dead animals;

                      Description of animal holding areas, such as barns or pens, and any central
                      areas, such as milking centers;
                             collection and management information, including the amount
                      generated, removal methods and storage location, disposal information,
                      and nutrient content;


                      Wastewater^collection and management information, including the amount
                      generated, runoff information, and nutrient content;


          •••"-.  .  Nutrient management plans and best management practices (BMPs); and

               •       Available wastewater discharge permit information.
                               /    '. •

               This information, along with other site-specific information, is documented in the

 SVRs for each facility visited.  Some of the information collected from the site visits was used in

 the cost model, such as the-percentage of beef feedlots and heifer operations that require the

 installation of a pond and the percentage of dairies that would require the installation of a lagoon.
 3.2
Industry Trade Associations
              EPA contacted the following industry trade associations and representatives during

the development of the proposed and promulgated rules and used the information provided for the
cost model.
              US Poultry and Egg Association OJSPOTJT.TRV)  USPOULTRY represents all

segments of the poultry and egg industry, from producers of eggs, turkeys, and broilers to the

processors of these products and allied companies that serve the industry. USPOULTRY
                                          3-3

-------
sponsors the world's largest poultry industry show, scientific research, and a comprehensive,
year-round educational program for members of the industry.

              Capitol Link. Capitol Link represents the interests of many livestock organizations
and acts as a liaison with federal agencies such as EPA. They frequently provide comments and
data on proposed federal regulatory actions..-

              National Pork Pinners Council (NPPQ. NPPC is a marketing organization and
trade association made up of 44 affiliated state pork producer associations. NPPC's purpose is to
increase the quality, production, distribution, and sales of pork and pork products.

              United Egg Producers and United Egg AssoHation (UEP/UEA). UEP/UEA
promotes the egg industry in the following areas: price discovery, production and marketing
information, unified industry leadership, USDA relationships, and promotional efforts.

              National Turkey Federation (NTF). NTF is the national advocate for all segments
 of the turkey industry, providing services and conducting activities that increase demand for its
 members'products.

               National Chicken Council (NCQ. NCC  represents the vertically integrated
 companies that produce and process  about 95 percent of the chickens sold in the United States.
 The association provides consumer education, public relations, and public affairs support, and is
 working to seek a positive regulatory, legislative, and economic environment for the broiler
 industry.

               National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBAV  NCBA is a marketing
 organization and trade association for cattle farmers and ranchers, representing the beef industry.

                National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF). NMPF is involved with milk quality
  and standards, animal health and food safety issues, dairy product labeling and standards, and
  legislation affecting the dairy industry.
                                             3-4

-------
               American Veal Association rAVA)  AVA represents the veal industry, and
  advances the 'industry's concerns in the legislative arena, coordinates production-related issues
  affecting the industry, and handles other issues relating to the industry.        .  '  .-...-
               Western United Dairymen (WIJDV WUD, a dairy organization in California,
 promotes legislative and administrative policies and programs for the industry and consumers.

               Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association fPDHGA). PDHGAisan
 association of heifer growers who are dedicated to growing high-quality dairy cow replacements.
 The association offers educational programs and professional development opportunities,
 provides a communication network, and establishes business and ethical standards for the dairy
 heifer grower industry.
              All of the above organizations, along with .several of their state affiliates, assisted
 EPA's efforts to understand the industry by helping with site visit selection, submitting
 supplemental data, and reviewing descriptions of the industry and waste management practices.
 These organizations also participated in and hosted meetings with EPA for the purpose of
 exchanging information with the Agency. EPA also obtained copies of membership directories
 and conference proceedings, which were used to identify contacts and obtain additional
 information on the industry.  For the cost model, EPA used information provided by the trade
 associations regarding the operations at AFOs and locations of these operations throughout the
 U.S.  The membership directories for the trade associations were also used.
3.3
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA^
              EPA obtained data from several agencies within the USDA, including the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS),
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Economic Research Service (ERS) in
order to better characterize the AFO industry. The collected data used in the cost model include
statistical survey information and published reports. Data collected from each agency are
described below.
                                          3-5

-------
3.3.1
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
             NASS is responsible for objectively providing accurate statistical information and
data support services of structure and activities of agricultural production in the United States.
Each year NASS conducts hundreds of surveys and prepares reports covering virtually every facet
of U.S. agricultural publications. The primary source of data is the animal production facility.
NASS collects voluntary information using mail surveys, telephone and in-person interviews, and
field observations. NASS is also responsible for conducting a Census bf Agriculture, which is
currently performed once every 5 years; the last census occurred in 1997.  EPA gathered
information from the following published NASS reports:
                     I ,.:•".,  j  ... i -                                    ,
             •     Hogs and Pigs: Final Estimates 1993-1997;
             •     Chickens and Eggs: Final Estimates 1994- 1997;
             •     Poultry Production and Value: Final Estimates 1994 - 1997;
                    Cattle: Final Estimates 1994 - 1998;
              •     Milking Cows and Production: Final Estimates 1993 - 1997;
              •     1997 Census of Agriculture; and
              •     Estimation of Private and Public Costs Associated with Comprehensive
                    Nutrient Management Plan Implementation: A Documentation, 2002.

              The information EPA collected from these sources is summarized below.

              Hoes and Pips: Final Estimates 1993 - 1997

               EPA used data from this report to augment the swine industry profile. The report
 presents information on inventory, market hogs, breeding herd, and pig crops. Specifically, the
 report provides the number of farrowings, sows, and pigs per litter.  This report presents the
 number of operations with hogs; however, EPA did not use this report to estimate farm counts
                                           3-6

-------
 because the report provided limited data. Instead, EPA used the 1997 Census of Agriculture data
 to estimate farm counts, as discussed later in this section.
               Chickens andEsss: Final Estimates 1994 - 1997
              EPA used data from this report to augment the poultry industry profile.  The
 report presents national and state-level data for the top-producing states on chickens and eggs,
 including the number laid and production for 1994 through 1997.      	

              Poultry Production and Value: Final Estimates 1994 - 1997

              EPA used data-from this report to augment the poultry industry profile.  The
 report presents national  and state-level data for the top-producing states on production (number
 and pounds produced/raised), price per pound or egg, and value of production of broilers,
 chickens, eggs, and turkeys for 1994 through 1997.

              Cattle: Final Estimates 1994 - 1998
                                                                                     f
              EPA used data from this report to augment the beef industry profile. The report
provides the number of and population estimates for beef feedlots that have a capacity of over
 1,000 head of cattle, grouped by size and geographic distribution. This report provides national
and state-level data, which include the number of feedlots, cattle inventory, and number of cattle
sold per year by size class for the 13 top-producing beef states. The report also provides the total
number of feedlots that have a capacity of fewer than 1,000 head of cattle, total cattle inventory,
and number of cattle sold per year for these operations. However, EPA did not use this report to
estimate farm counts because the report provided limited data. Instead, as discussed earlier in this
section, EPA used the  1997  Census of Agriculture data to estimate farm counts, as discussed later
in this section.
                                          3-7

-------
             Milkinz Cows and Production: Final Estimates 1993 - 1997

             EPA used data from this report to augment the dairy industry profile.  The report
presents national and state-level estimates of dairy cattle inventory and the number of dairy
operations by size group. This particular report presents data for all dairy operations with over
200 mature dairy cows in.one size class. However, EPA did not use this report to estimate.farm
counts because the report provided limited data. Instead, EPA used the 1997 Census of
Agriculture data to estimate farm counts, as discussed below.
              1997 Census of Agriculture •.  .

              The Census of Agriculture is a complete accounting of U.S. agricultural
production and is the only source of uniform, comprehensive agricultural data for every county in
the nation. The census is conducted every 5 years.  Prior to 1997, the Bureau of the Census
conducted this activity. Starting with the 1997 Census of Agriculture, the responsibility passed to
USDA NASS. The census includes all farm operations from which $1,000 or more of agricultural
products are produced and sold. The most recent census occurred in late 1997 and is based on
calendar year 1997 data.

              The census collects information relating to land use and ownership, crops,
livestock, and poultry. This database is maintained by USDA; data used for this analysis were
compiled with the assistance of staff at USDA NASS. (USDA periodically publishes aggregated
data from these databases and also compiles customized analyses of the data for members of the
public and other government agencies.  In providing such analyses, USDA maintains a sufficient
level of aggregation to ensure the confidentiality of any individual operation's activities or
holdings.)

              Several size groups were developed to allow tabulation of farm counts by fairm size
using different criteria than those used in the published 1997 Census of Agriculture. EPA
developed algorithms to define farm size in terms of capacity, or number of animals likely to be
found on the farm at any given time. To convert sales of hogs and pigs and feeder pigs into an

                                           3-8

-------
  inventory, EPA divided total sales by the number of groups of pigs likely to be produced and sold
  in a given year. EPA estimates that the larger grow-finish farms produce 2.8 groups of pigs per
  year. ; Farrow-finish operations produce 2.0 groups of pigs per year. Nursery operations produce
  up to 10 groups per year. Data used to determine the groups of pigs produced per year were
  obtained from a survey performed by USDA (USDA APHIS, 1999).

               For beef operations, EPA estimates the larger feedlots produce up to 3 .5 groups of
  cattle per year, while the smaller operations produce only 1 to 1.5 groups per year (ERG, 2002).
  The newly aggregated data better depict the size and geographic distribution of operations needed
  for EPA's analysis, particularly smaller beef feedlots (fewer than 1,000 head capacity) and larger
  dairies (more than 200 mature dairy: cows).  EPA used the census data to gather more details on
  the larger dairies, such as the number of operations and number of head for additional size classes
  (200 to 499, 500 to 999, and more than 1,000'head).
                                                                     '"
                           also compiled and performed analyses on census data thatEPAused
 for its analyses.  These data identify the number of feedlots, their geographical distributions, and
 the amount of cropland available to land apply animal manure generated from their confined
 feeding operations (based on nitrogen and phosphorus availability relative to crop need).  EPA
 used these estimates to identify feedlots that may not own sufficient land to apply all of the animal
 manure to the land. EPA used the results of this analysis to estimate the number, of operations
 that may incur additional manure transportation costs  under the various regulatory options
 considered under the proposed rule.
              Estimation of Private and Public Costs Associated with Comprehensive Nutrie
              Management Plan Implementation: A Documentation. 2002
              EPA received data from USDA as part of a document entitled Estimation of
Private and Public Costs Associated with Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan
Implementation: A Documentation.  This document presents costs and frequency factors for three
performance-based categories of facilities (low requirement, medium requirement, and high
requirement) for a series of "representative" farms defined by USDA in nine USDA-defined
                                          3-9

-------
regions. This approach is similar to EPA's modeling approach, and allowed EPA to directly use
some of USDA's data to calculate corresponding frequency factors in the cost models.
3.3.2
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)/National Animal
Health Monitoring System (NAHMS)
             APHIS provides leadership in ensuring the health and care of animals and plants,
improving agricultural productivity and competitiveness, and contributing to the national economy
and public health.  One of its main responsibilities is to enhance the care of animals.  In 1983,
APHIS initiated the National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) as an information-
gathering program to collect, analyze, and disseminate data on animal health,  management, and
productivity across the United States. NAHMS conducts national studies to  gather data and
generate descriptive statistics and information from data collected by other industry sources.
NAHMS has published national study reports for various food animal populations (e.g., swine,
dairy cattle).
 reports:
              EPA gathered information for the cost model report from the following NAHMS
                    Swine '95 Part I: Reference of 1995 Swine Management Practices;
                    Swine '95 Part II: Reference of Grower/Finisher Health & Management
                    Practices;
                    Swine 2000 Part I: Reference of Swine Health and Management in the
                     United States;
                    Layers '99 Parts I and II: Reference of 1999 Table Egg Layer
                    Management in the U.S.;
                    Dairy '96 Part I: Reference of 1996 Dairy Management Practices;
                    Dairy '96 Part III: Reference of 1996 Dairy Health and Health
                    Management;
                                          3-10

-------
              •      Beef Feedlot '95 Part I: Feedlot Management Practices; and
              •      Feedlot '99 Part I: Baseline Reference of Feedlot Management Practices.

       =•„	 EPA also collected information from NAHMS fact sheets, specifically the Swine.
 '95 fact sheets, which describe biosecurity measures, vaccination practices, environmental
 practices/management, and antibiotics used..iii-the industry.

              Swine '95 Part I: Reference of 1995 Swine Management Practices
    -  	-•-•-- This^report provides references on productivity, preventative and vaccination
 practices, bioseciirity"issues, and environmental programs (including carcass disposal). The data
 were obtained from a sample of "1,477 producers representing nearly 91 percent of the U.S. hog
 inventory from the top 16 pork-producing states.  Population estimates are broken down into
 farrowing and weaning, nursery, grower/finisher, and sows.                ,

              Swine '95 Part II: Reference of Grower/Finisher Health & Management Practices

              This report provides additional references on feed and waste management, health
 and productivity, marketing, and quality control. • the data were collected from 418 producers
 with operations having 300 or more market hogs (at least one hog over 120 pounds) and
 represent about 90 percent of the target population.  NAHMS also performed additional analyses
 for EPA that present manure management information for the swine industry by two size classes
 (fewer.than 2,500 marketed head and more than 2,500 marketed head) and three regions
 (Midwest, North, and Southeast) (USDA APHIS, 1999).
             Swine 2000 Part I: Reference of Swine Health and Manasement in the United
             States               .
              Swine 2000 was designed to statistically sample from operations with 100 or more
pigs. The study included 17 of the major pork-producing states that account for 94 percent of the
U.S. pig inventory. Data for this report were collected from 2,328 operations.  This report
                                         3-11

-------
provides information on feed and waste management, health and productivity, animal
management, and facility management. In addition to this report, NAHMS also performed
additional analyses for EPA that present the percentage of sites where pit holding was the waste
management system used most by region and herd size for the farrowing and grow/finish phase
(USDA APHIS, 2002).

             Layers '99 Parts I and II: Reference of 1999 Table Ess Layer Management in the
              XheJLayers.99 study is the, first NAHMS national study of the .layer industry,
Data were obtained from 15 states, which account for over 75 percent of the table egg layers in
the United States. Part I of this report provides a summary of the study results, including
descriptions of farm sites and flocks, feed, and health management. Part II of this report provides
a summary of biosecurity, facility management, and manure handling.                 .
              Dairy '96 Part I: Reference of 1996 Dairy Management Practices and Dairy '96
              Part III: Reference of 1996 Dairy Health and Health Management
              These reports present the results of a survey that was distributed to dairies in 20
 major states to collect information on cattle inventories; dairy herd management practices; health
 management; births, illness, and deaths; housing; and biosecurity.  The results represent 83
 percent of U.S. milk cows, or 2,542 producers.  The reports also provide national data on cattle
 housing, manure and runoff collection practices, and irrigation/land application practices for
 dairies with more than 200 or fewer than 200 mature dairy cows. NAHMS provided the same
 information to EPA with the results reaggregated into three size classes (fewer than 500, 500 to
 699, and more than 700 mature dairy cows) and into three regions (East, West, and Midwest).

              BeefFeedlot '95 Part I: Feedlot Management Practices

              This report contains information on population estimates, environmental programs
 (e.g., ground-water monitoring and methods of waste disposal), and carcass disposal at small and
                                        '   3-12

-------
  large beef feedlots (fewer than and more -than 1,000 head capacity). The data were collected from
  3,214 feedlots in 13 states, representing almost 86 percent of the U.S. cattle-on-feed inventory:
                  '•                                                    i
          '' '•'• "' "• feedlot '99 Parti: Baseline Reference ofFeedlot Management Practices

               This report also contains information on population estimates, environmental
  programs, and carcass disposal at beef feedlots. The data were collected from 1,250 feedlots in
  12 states, representing 77 percent of all cattle on feed in the United States.
 3.3.3
Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)
               NRCS provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve,
 improve, and sustain our natural resources and the environment. NRCS relies on many partners
 to help set conservation goals, work with people on the land, and provide assistance. Its partners
 include conservation districts, state and federal agencies, NRCS Earth Team volunteers,
 agricultural and environmental groups, and professional societies.
              NRCS publishes the Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, which is
 an agricultural/engineering guidance manual that explains general waste management principles,
 and provides detailed design information for particular waste management systems. The
 handbook reports specific design information on a variety of farm production and waste
 management practices at different types of feedlots." The handbook also reports runoff
 calculations under normal and peak precipitation as well as information on manure and bedding
 characteristics.  EPA used this information to develop its cost and environmental analyses. NRCS
 personnel also contributed technical expertise in the development of EPA's estimates of
 compliance costs and environmental assessment framework by providing EPA with estimates of
manure generation in excess of expected crop uptake.

             NRCS also analyzed the census data that EPA used for its analysis.  In the draft
February 23, 2002 Profile of Farms with Livestock in the United States:  A Statistical Summary
USDA NRCS presents estimates of the number of CAFOs by animal sector and size group, as

                                          3-13

-------
well as the number of head at these farms. EPA used these estimates to calculate the average
number of head and the number of CAFOs by animal sector and size group. In the case of beef
feedlots, NRCS used a turnover rate of 2.5 to estimate capacity for all size operations. EPA
recalculated the number of head at these operations using the turnover rates discussed above.

             Another NRCS report, Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland
and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients:-Spatial and Temporal Trends for the United States
published in December 2000, provides background information on trends in animal agriculture
and manure production based on information collected in the 1997 Census of Agriculture. EPA
used data on the percentage of farms with sufficient cropland, insufficient cropland, and no
cropland to determine the number of CAFOs that require off-site transport of excess manure.
EPA also used data from this report to determine the amount of excess manure at operations with
an insufficient amount of cropland to agronomically land apply all of the manure and wastewater
generated on site.

             Beginning in early 2002, NRCS shared drafts of its report Overview of Cost
Analysis for Implementation of CNMPs On Animal Feeding Operations with EPA. This report
presents a cost analysis for planning, designing, implementing and following up on CNMPs on
AFOs. The report also estimated the percentage of operations that have high, medium, and low
requirements for the development and implementation of CNMPs. The scheduled release of the
final document was October 2002. EPA used information from this report to refine baseline
conditions of the CAFOs industry.
3.3.4
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
             ARS is the primary research agency working internally for the USD A.  One of its
many objectives is to heighten awareness of natural resources and the environment.  EPA used
information provided from ARS's Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication report (USDA
ARS, 1999) to estimate the number of CAFOs that could be subject to a phosphorus-based
regulation.
                                         3-14

-------
 3.3.5
               Economic Research Service (ERS)
              ERS provides economic analyses on efficiency, efficacy, and equity issues related
 to agriculture, food, the environment, and rural development to improve public and private
 decision making. ERS uses data from the Farm Costs arid Returns Survey (FCRS) to examine
 farm financial performance (USDA ERS, 1997). This report developed 10 regions that were
 intended to group agricultural production into fooad geographic regions of the United States:
 Pacific, Mountain, Northern Plains, Southern Plains, Lake States, Corn Belt, Delta, Northeast,
 Appalachian, and Southern. EPA further consolidated the 10 sectors into 5  regions in order to
 analyze aggregated Census of Agriculture'data.   -
                             n                -.          -                ,
              ERS is also responsible for the Agricultural Resource Management Study
 (ARMS), USDA's primary vehicle for collection of information on a broad range of issues about
 agricultural resource use and costs and farm sector financial conditions. The ARMS is a flexible
 data collection tool with several versions and uses. Information is collected via surveys, and it
provides a measure of the annual changes in the financial conditions of production agriculture.
3.4
              Literature Sources
                                                                              i sources
              EPA performed several Internet and literature searches to identify papers,
presentations, and other applicable materials to use in the cost model report.  Literature SL
were identified from library literature searches as well as through EPA contacts and industry
experts. Literature collected by EPA covers such topics as housing equipment, fertilizer and
manure application, general agricultural waste management, air emissions, pathogens, and
construction cost data.  EPA used literature sources to estimate the costs of design and expansion
of waste management system components at AFOs. EPA also used publicly available information
from several universities specializing in agricultural research for industry profile information,
waste management and modeling information, and construction cost data, as well as existing
computer models, such as the FarmWare Model that was developed by EPA's AgStar program.
                                         3-15

-------
3.5
National Climate Data Center fNCDQ
             EPA used data from another government agency, the National Climate and Data
Center (NCDC). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conducts
research and gathers data, which is provided on the NCDC web site. For the cost model, EPA
used the Normal Monthly Precipitation report from the NCDC web site to obtain the normal
monthly precipitation values from 1971 to 2000 for cities in each state. These values were used
to calculate the annual precipitation for each region.
3.6
References "
ERG, 2002. Beef Production Cycles and Capacity. Memorandum from D. Bartram to Feedlots
       Rulemaking Record. December 9, 2002.
ERG, 2000. Facility Counts for Beef, Dairy, Veal, and Heifer Operations. Memorandum by
       Deborah Bartram, Eastern Research Group, Inc. to the Feedlots Rulemaking Record.
       December 13,2002.
USDA ERS, 1997. Farm Costs and Returns Survey (FCRS).
USDA ARS, 1999. Agricultural Phosphorus & Eutrophication (ARS-149). July 1, 1999.
USDA APHIS, 1999.  Data summaries of NAHMS Swine '95, prepared at request of EPA.
       National Animal Health Monitoring System. Washington, DC.
USDA, 2002. Queries run by Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health prepared by Eric
       Bush; March 22,2002; 2 pages.
                                         3-16

-------
 4.0
INPUT DATA
              This section describes in detail the input data to the cost model that EPA used to
 estimate the' 'compliance costs for CAFOs.  Section 4.1 defines the geographic regions that were
 modeled, Section 4.2 describes the size groups for each animal group, Section 4.3 discusses farm
 counts, Section 4.4 discusses average head at animal feeding operations, Section 4.5 discusses
 wastewater/dilution water, Section 4.6 discusses manure generation, Section 4.7 discusses
 precipitation data and runoff, Section 4.8 discusses crops and agronomic application rates,
 Section 4.9 discusses^excess manure, and .Section 4.10 discusses acres available for land
 application of manure.;  	      ~~~'•- •—•'••-                      ......
 4.1
Definition of Regions
              For the purposes of this analysis, EPA classified animal feeding operations into
various geographic regions. The Agency used these classifications to differentiate the types of
waste management system components that are expected to be in place at baseline (due either to
existing regulations or to geographic location), as well as the amount of wastes generated, the
crops grown, and the ability of the operations to use manure, litter, and. other process wastewater.
on site. This subsection describes the geographic regions developed and used to estimate
compliance costs for CAFOs.

              The cost model addresses variations between operations in different regions of the
country. For example, the crop nutrient removal rates, which are used to set manure application
rates, vary among regions of the country based on average crop yields in each region. Many of
the costs in the model rely on the manure and associated nutrient production of the animals at an
operation, and are affected by regional differences such as climate and rainfall. Some frequency
factors also vary by region when data were available.
              EPA generally obtained information on animal production from USDA's 1997
Census of Agriculture, .USD A's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and information
gathered from site visits and trade associations. For information obtained from the 1997 Census
                                          4-1

-------
of Agriculture, EPA divided the United States into five production regions and designated them
the South, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, West, and Central regions. Originally, the USDA Economic
Research Service (ERS) established ten regions so that it could group economic information.
EPA condensed these regions into the five regions because of similarities in animal production and
manure-handling techniques, and to allow for the aggregation of critical data on the number of
facilities, production quantities, and financial conditions, which may otherwise not be possible due
to concerns about disclosure.1 Table 4.1-1 presents the .production regions.

   .:.....    ,,    •   ••-     :P'=  .:*».   Table4.1-1         	' •     '  ":'" J  '

               Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) Production Regions
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
- - •-'•••. v : >i^> States Included -..•••<-.•...-,',:..->, ••uw-»\--.-;:>;vbv/-,'i ..•..;•,
Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, .Utah,
Wyoming
Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont,
Virginia, West Virginia
New
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota,
Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin
Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington
Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina
               For swine and poultry operations, EPA developed key geographic regions on
 which to focus cost modeling efforts because the swine and poultry animal sectors tend to be
 concentrated in these regions. Also, data are lacking for those regions where a particular sector
 has a lesser presence. The climate of each key region defines the amount of precipitation mat will
 need to be managed and the typical evaporation rate. The region also defines typical crop yields,
 soil types, housing types, and manure management practices that vary across the nation. In
 practice, a given state may have many soil types and climatic variations; EPA adopted the key
 'For example, USDA Census of Agriculture data are typically not released unless there are enough observations to
 ensure confidentially. Consequently, if data were aggregated on a state basis (instead of a regional basis), many
 key data points needed to describe the industry segments would be unavailable.
                                            4-2

-------
 region approach to account for typical geographical variations without using an impractical
 number of model farms.

              Table 4.1-2 presents the key regions for each animal sector.  The Swine 95 survey
 found that 78 percent of U.S. hog operations were located in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest
 Regions.  However, more recent reports indicate an increasing trend toward large facilities in the
 Central Region-  Thus, the key regions selected for the swine sector are the Mid-Atlantic,
 Midwest, and Central. As described in Chapter 2;~swine operations do not generally collect
 runoff, and direct rainfall variations in the other regions does not significantly change costs.  To
 account for all potentially regulated operations, the cost model distributed operations in regions
 other than the key'regions evenly among'the regions that were modeled. For
 example, the Midwest region combines operations from the Midwest with a portion of the
 operations from the "non-key" regions that are assumed to have similar production and manure
 management practices. Large swine operations that use evaporative lagoons for waste storage
 were modeled in the Central region.  Operations located in other regions were split among the
 modeled regions to fully account for operations in a given size class. Allocating operations from
 one region to another was necessary since the census data could not be obtained for all desired
regions and size groups (USDA NASS,  1999).

              Beef feedlots, dairies, heifer, and veal operations were modeled in all regions in
which operations were identified within EPA's size classes. No Large beef feedlots were identified
in the South region. Additionally, no heifer operations were identified in the Mid-Atlantic and
 South regions, no Large heifer operations were identified in the Midwest region, and no veal
operations were identified in the Pacific and South regions.  The regions used for each animal
sector are presented in Table 4.1-2.
                                          4-3

-------
                                    Table 4.1-2
                     Key Regions Modeled by Animal Sector
Animal Sector
Swine: Farrow to Finish
Swine: Grow Finish
Layer. Wet
Layer: Dry
Broiler
Turkey
BeefFeedlots
Dairies
Heifer Operations
Veal Operations
Regions Modeled ;
Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Central
Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Central ,
South
Midwest, South
Mid-Atlantic, South
Mid-Atlantic, Midwest
Central, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Pacific, South
Central, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Pacific, South
Central, Midwest, Pacific
Central, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest
             The key regions for broilers are the Mid-Atlantic and South (containing 86 percent
of larger farms), while the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest are the key regions for turkeys (containing
67 percent of larger farms). Layer farms with wet manure systems are located primarily in 'the
South and Texas, where approximately half of all layer farms use wet-manure-handling systems.
EPA used industry reports and NAHMS data to estimate the number of layer farms with wet
manure systems in the rest of the United States (USDA APHIS, 1999).  The South and Midwest
are the key regions for all other layer farms, capturing 53 percent of larger layer farms in addition
to the 12 percent of farms with layers with wet manure systems. For large broiler, turkey, and
layer farms (other than wet manure systems), precipitation was not a key factor affecting costs.
These operation use confining housing almost exclusively.  Therefore, operations from "non-key"
regions were folded into the key regions for these animal types in the same manner as described
above for swine operations.
                                          4-4

-------
 4.2
 Definition of Size Groups
               EPA developed and analyzed up to five size groups for each animal type. These
 size groups included^ne to two "Large" groups, representing operations that are already subject
 to the 1974 effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Feedlots Point Source Category,
 as well as three "Medium" groups to evaluate the costs, benefits, and impacts of the regulatory
 options on operations that may be defined as CAFOs.  Table 4.2-1 presents the size groups for
 each animal type.

                         J            Table 4.2-1

                            Size Classes for Model Farms3                '
^•J&fimal Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy (Mature
Dairy Cows)
Veal
Swine
Dry Layers
Wet Layers
Broilers
Turkeys
Medium 1
300-499
300-499
200-349
300-499
750-1,249
25,000-49,999
NA
37,750-49,999
16,500-27,499
Medium 2 *
50.0-749
500-749
350-524
500-749
1,250-1,874
50,000-74,999
NA
50,000-74,999
27,500-41,249
Medium 3
750-999
750-999
525-699
£750
1, '875-2,499
75,000-81,999
9,000-29,999
75,000-124,999
41,250-54,999
Large 1,
1,000-7,999
^ 1,000
£700
NA
2,500-4,999
82,000-599,999
>30,000
125,000-179,999
£55,000
Large .2
£8,000,
NA
NA
NA
;>5,000
>600,000
NA
£180,000

"These size classes represent capacity at a given point in the year, which does not necessarily correspond to annual
production.
4.3
Farm Counts
             This subsection describes how EPA developed farm counts for each animal sector.
                                          4-5

-------
4.3.1
Farm Counts - Beef Feedlots
             Table 4.3.1-1 presents the total number of potential beef CAFOs by size class, as
estimated by USDA's NRCS, using the 1997 Census of Agriculture data (USDA, 2002). The
USDA estimates grouped all large operations (;> 1,000 head) into one group. EPA supplemented
these data with USDA's NASS data to estimate that there are 421 beef feedlots with ;>8,000 head
(USDANASS, 1999b).                                   -    :   ..

                                   Table 4.3.1-1
              Number of Potential Beef CAFOs by EPA Size Class
                  from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database
1 Size Class (Number of Milk Cows) ;;/..,
Medium 1
(300-499 head)

Medium 2
(500-749 head)
801
Medium 3
(750-999 head)
415
JLarge 1 and 2
(arl?000head)
1,766
total "
7,230
 Source: USDA, 2002 (Table 16).

              To estimate the number of operations by geographic region, EPA used the number
 of operations that sold fattened cattle by state provided in the 1997 Census of Agriculture data to
 develop a distribution of beef feedlots by region. Because the Census data are sales numbers,
 EPA estimated the number of production cycles per year and converted the sales data into cattle
 capacity (i.e., the number of beef cattle estimated on site at any one time) (ERG, 2002).  Table
 4.3.1-2 presents the distribution of beef feedlots by region for each size category provided In the
 Census. Table 4.3.1-2 also presents the estimated cattle capacity for each size category in the
 Census.
                                          4-6

-------
                                      Table 4.3.1-2
      Percentage of Beef Feedlots by Region and Census of Agriculture Size
     •  ........  .,      ..   .  .   ...       .Category     '        "            "   '"""[
~ Region
Census Size
'Categories
Estimated
, Capacity"
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South ,
Percentage of Beef Feedlots- ' .->
500-999
Head Sold
380-750
.Head Capacity
11.6
3.9 .' '
•'82.5
... 1-4
0.5
1,000-2,499
* Head Sold
750-1,785
Head Capacity
15.2
2.7'
"78.7 • -
.2.7
0.7
2,500-4,999
Head Sold -
1,785-3,424
Head Capacity
21.4
1.6
74.5
2.5
0
-5:5,000
Head Sold -
*3,425 < "
Head Capacity >
36.6
0.2
58.3
5.0
0
;> 1,000 head
-capacity*1
31.5
0.6
63.7 •
4.2
o
 source: census or Agnculture (USDA, 1997).
 "ERG memorandum (2002.).
 'Estimated as the geographic distribution of both the 2,500 to 4,999 and the 2 5,000 head sold categories.  '

              EPA assumed that the regional distribution of operations for the Medium 1 and
 Medium 2 size classes is represented by the 500 to 999 head sold category in the Census and the
 regional distribution of operations for the Medium 3 size class is represented by the 1,000 to
 2,499 head sold category in the Census. EPA also estimated that the regional distribution for
 both the Large 1 and Large 2 size classes is represented by the combination of the 2,500. to 4,999
 and the :> 5,000 head sold category (the regional distribution of operations for this size class is
 presented in Table 4.3.1-2 under the heading ":> 1,000 head").

             For example, EPA estimated the potential number of beef CAFOs in the Central
region by  size class using the following equations and the data presented in Tables 4.3.1-1 and
4.3.1-2:
              Medium 1:
              Medium 2:
              Medium 3:
              Large 1:
              Large 2:
1,466 operations x 11:6%    = 170;
801 operations x 11.6%     = 93;
415 operations x 15.2%     = 63;
1,345 operations x 31.5%    = 424; and
421 operations x 31.5%     =133.
                                          4-7

-------
Table 4.3.1-3 presents the final number of beef feedlot CAFOs by size class and region.
                                 Table 4.3.1-3
              Number of Beef Feedlots by Region and Size Class
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
•••• ,.,..-,;•..,. .-•-- ., .SfeeCtassi-. -.-.....• ;-;..:^,'^""-'1.-.?.;.
Medium 1
170
58
1,210
21
7
Medium 2 i
93
32
661
11
4
Medium3.
63
11
327
11
3
: Large!;;
424
8
856
57
0
,targe2
133
3
268
17
0
Not all medium operations are expected to be CAFOs under the rule. The percentage.of medium
facilities EPA estimates will be CAFOs is presented in Table 4.3.1-4 (See Preamble Section 4 and
40 CFR part 122.23).

                          r       Table 4.3.1-4

         Percentage of Beef Facilities That Are Expected to Be CAFOs
, Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Size Class
All Medium
10
4
6
10
4
All Large
100
100
100
100
10
                                       4-8

-------
 4.3.2
Farm Counts - Dairies
             Table 4.3.2-.1 presents the total number of potential dairy CAFOs by size class, as
 estimated by USDA's NRCS, using the 1997 Census of Agriculture data (USDA NRCS, 2002).":
 To estimate the number of operations by geographic region, EPA used the number of milk cow
 operations by state provided in the 1997 Census of Agriculture data to develop a distribution of
 dairies by region. However, the Census provides farm counts for different size groups than" those
 evaluated by EPA, as shown in Table 4.3.2-2.       -    -  	    >     -   . ~	    .....
                                   Table 4.3.2-1
             Number of Potential Dairy CAFOs by EPA Size Class
                 from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database
, , - Size Class (Number of Milk Cows)
Medium 1
(2flbi349 head)
3,805
Medium 2
(350-524 head)
1,372
Mediums
(525-699 head)
603
Large 1
(;>700 head)
1,450
Total ;.;
7,230 .
source. UOJJA JNKL-a, /UU/ (lame 16).
                                   Table 4.3.2-2
   Percentage of Dairies by Region and Census of Agriculture Size Category
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Percentage of Dairies
200-499 head
17.5
25.7
. 27.9
21.3
7.5
500-999 head
20.9
12.5
9.6
49.8
7.2
s 1,000 head
31.9
3.8
4.7
54.0
5.7
;>700head"
27.6
7.1
6.6
52.4
63
            Source: Census of Agriculture (USDA, 1997).
            'Estimated as 40 percent of operations with 500-999 head and all of operations with s 1,000 head.
                                        4-9

-------
             For the purposes of this rule, EPA assumed that the regional distribution of
operations in the Medium 1 and Medium 2 size classes were represented by the 200 to 499 head
category in the Census. EPA also assumed that the regional distribution of operations in the
Medium 3 size-clas.8 were represented by the 500 to 999 head category in the Census. EPA
estimated that 40 percent of operations in the Census '"500 to 999 head category and all of the
operations in the Census' s 1,000 head category .make up the Large 1 size class. The regional   ,
distribution of operations for this size class is presented in Table 4.3.2-2 under the heading "^700
head."-                   — .....  -    •••                "     " "'•
             For example, EPA estimated the number of dairy CAFOs in the Central region by
size class using the following equations and the data presented in fables 4.3.2-1 and 4.3.2-2:
             Medium 1:   3,805 operations x'17.5%    =667;
             Medium 2:  . 1,372 operations x 17.5%    =241;.;
             Medium 3:   603 operations x 20.9%      = 126; and
             Large 1:  ' - 1,450 operations x 27.6%    =401.
Table 4.3.2-3 presents the final number of dairies by size class and region.
                                    Table 4.3.2-3
                   Number of Dairies by Region and Size Class
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
•'•••./-••• -Size-Class •..•:•" -.'••-. • " ;, ;•
Medium 1
667
979
1,062
, 812
285
Medium 2
241
353
383
293
102
Medium 3
126
75
58
301
43
Large 1
401
104
95
759
91
 Not all medium operations are expected to be CAFOs under the rule.  The percentage of medium
 operations EPA estimates will be CAFOs is presented in Table 4.3.2-4 (See Preamble Section 4
 and 40 CFRpart 122.23).
                                         4-10

-------
                                     Table 4.3.2-4
              Percentage of Dairies That Are Expected to Be CAFOs
r Region
Central -
Mid-Atlantic -
Midwest
Pacific
South 	
Size Class
All Medium
20
• • • 55 -
. 45 .-
10
- • -35
AUJLarge
100
100
	 100 ~»
100
100
 4.3.3
Farm Counts - Heifer Operations
              Table 4.3.3-1 presents the total number of potential heifer CAFOs by size, as
 estimated by USDA's NRCS, using the 1997 Census of Agriculture data (USDA NRCS, 2002).
 To estimate the number of operations by geographic region, EPA reviewed membership data from
 the Professional Heifer Growers Association, as well as available data from the Census of
 Agriculture. However, none of these sources provided an estimate of operations by both size
 class and geographic location. Because heifer operations directly support the dairy industry, EPA
 assumed that they are concentrated in areas where the dairy industry is moving toward
 specialization (BocherL.W., 1999). Using best professional judgement, EPA estimated that the
majority of large heifer operations are located in the west and south (represented by the Pacific
and Central regions), while the majority of the smallest operations are located in the Midwest.
Table 4.3.3-2 presents EPA's estimated distribution of heifer operations by size class and region.
                                        4-11

-------
                                 Table 4.3.3-1
            Number of Potential Heifer CAFOs by EPA Size Class
                from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database


Medium 1
(300-499 head)
417

, Steel
Medium 2
(500-749 head)
218

ClaSS i..'''.; :
Medium3
(750-999 head)
89


Lai-gel
"-
-------
                                    Table 4.3:3-3
              Number of Heifer Operations by Region and Size Class
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Size Class
-Medium 1
42
0
333
42
0
Medium 2
109
0
44
65
o
Medium 3
44
0
18
27
o
Large 1
• 145
0
0
97
Q
 Not all medium operations are expected to be CAFOs under the rale. The percentage of medium
 operations EPA estimates will be CAFOs is presented in Table 4.3.3-4 (See Preamble Section 4
 and 40 CFR part 122.23).
                                   Table 4.3.3-4
       Percentage of Heifer Operations That Are Expected to Be CAFOs
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Size Class
AH Medium
20
55
45
10
35
Alllair-ge - ;
100
100
100
100
100
4.3.4
Farm Counts - Veal Operations
             Table 4.3.4-1 presents the total number of potential veal CAFOs by size, as
estimated by USDA's NRCS, using the 1997 Census of Agriculture data (USDA NRCS, 2002).
EPA conducted site visits to veal operations and requested distribution data from industry to
estimate the number of veal operations by size class and region in the United States.  These data
indicate that veal producers are located predominantly in the Midwest and Central regions
                                       4-13

-------
(Crouch A., 1999). Using best professional judgement, EPA estimated that the vast majority (95

percent) of operators are located in the Midwest, with the remaining operations located in the

Mid-Atlantic and Central regions. Table 4.3.4-2 presents EPA's estimated distribution of veal

operations by size class and region.
                                   Table 4.3.4-1

              Number of Potential Veal CAFOs by EPA Size Class
                 from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database
1- •• • '-,- "Size Class ;i:-:;., l,-:. ----- \.:;. :;•:.
Medium 1
(300-499 head)
35 ' •
Medium 2
(500-749 nead)f
• 17
Medium, 3
(sTSOhead)4
17
•/Total '-.:;.?;'
69
             Source: USDA NRCS, 2002 (Table 16).
             •USDA estimates that 12 veal operations are s 1,000 head.
                                   Table 4.3.4-2
             Percentage of Veal Operations by Region and Size Class
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Percentage of Veal Operations
Medium 1
2.5
2.5
95
0
0
Medium 2 v
5
0
95
0
0
Medium 3
5
0
95
0
0
              For example, EPA estimated the number of veal CAFOs in the Central region by

 size class using the following equations and the data presented in Tables 4.3.4-1 and 4.3.4-2:
              Medium 1:    35 operations x 2.5% = 1;
              Medium 2:    17 operations x 5%   = 1; and
              Medium 3:    17 operations x 5%   = 1.
 Table 4.3.4-3 presents the final number of veal operations by size class and region.
                                         4-14

-------
                                   Table 4.3.4-3
               Number of Veal Operations by Region and Size Class
Region ;
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
'•.-.'.'••..'•/• v'. •,..--:: Size Class :.r>-'.:?^-:v.v
AM«$iuml;>-
1
1
33
0
0
Medium 2
1
0
16
0
o
, Medium^ *
1
0
16
0
Q '
 Not all medium operations are expected to be CAFOs under the rule.  The percentage of medium
 operations EPA estimates will be CAFOs is presented in Table 4.3.4-4 (See Preamble Section 4
 and 40 CFR part 122.23).                                           "-
                                   Table 4.3.4-4
        Percentage of Veal Operations That Are Expected to Be CAFOs
; Region
Central
Mid-Atlantie
Midwest
Pacific 	
South
•':•-'••-.•.;_•-•; ,v^: Sjze'XHass , .•;.- • ,' ; -:
^Medium is
10
4
6
10
4
^Medium 2 ;
10
4
6
10
. 4
^Mediums
100
100
100
100
100
4.3.5
Farm Counts - Poultry Operations
             Layers
             Table 4.3.5-1 presents the total number of layer, layer/pullet, and pullet operations
using the 1997 Census of Agriculture database (USDA NRCS, 2002).  Lacking more recent state-
or region-specific data, EPA also relied on queries from the 1997 Census of Agriculture database
                                      4-15

-------
(Table 4.3.5-2) that were used for the draft ralemaking that included region- and subsector-level
information (USDA NASS, 1999b).


                                    Table 4.3.5-1

         Number of Layer Operations by EPA Size Class from the 1997
                          Census of Agriculture Database



Sector

Size Class (EPA AU) „ ,
Medium!
(300-499 AU/
30,000-49,999
head
776
Medium 2
500-749 AU/
.50,000-74,999
head
446
Medium 3
750-999 AU/
75,000-99,999
head
238
Large -1 and 2
AU/
>100,000
head
671

*
,
Total
Operations
2,131
Source: USDA NRCS, 2002.


              EPA made the following assumptions to reorganize the data presented in Table

4.3.5-2 to match selected facility size classes (Table 4.3.5-3 presents the results of these

assumptions):


              •      Pullet operations are located near and provide birds to laying operations.
                     Pullet operations >180,000 can be split into 180,000-600,000 and
                     >600,000 size classes using the proportion of layer operations (i.e.,
                     2377(237+89));

                     National pullet operations can be split into regions using the proportion of
                     layer operations in that region for each size class; and

              •      Other pullet size classes can be resized to the selected size classes by
                     assuming a uniform distribution of operations within each size class.


              The number of wet layer operations is computed from the layer operations in Table

 4.3.5-3 assuming 60 percent of the South and Central regions and 5 percent each of the other

 three regions use wet layer systems (USDA APHIS, 2000). Applying these percentages to Table

 4.3.5-3 results in 349.4 wet layer operations with more than 30,000 head (see Table 4.3.5-4).
                                           4-16

-------
                           Table 4.3.5-2
Number of Layer Operations by Size Class and Region from 1997 Census
                      of Agriculture Database
;IRegion

30;ppO-62j500
v-.^-;;.;;;i-.Size.CIass(head)v ,. -- ; •>L-J.:.V,V> -;-•/_,,- •;
62,500-180,000
ISOjOOOifiOOjOOO
>6W,QO&
; Total
Operations
Layer and Layer/Pullet Operations
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Total
76
150
123
38
208
595
41
, 133
182
66
90 .<,.-
. 512
28
48
78
39
44
237
9
15
39
17
9
89
154
346
422
160
351

Pullet Operations
i- *'"'•"•• -T ,' : '
National
30,000-100,000
516
100,000-180,000
61
>180,000

'

NA = Not available.
Total
Operations


                          Table 4.3.5-3
          Reorganized Layer and Pullet Operation Counts
Region
Layer Operations

Mid-Atlantic

Pacific
South
Total
Pullet Operations

Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific .
South
Total
-•• .-••:'•• • ,: •' •-. , Size Class (head) , i -'•:--
30,000r
49,999
50,000-
74,999
75,000-
99,999
100,000-
599,999

47
92
76
23
128
366
34
72
67
22
90
283
9
28
39
14
19
109
56
139
202
84
105
586

19
37
31
9
52
148
15
33
32
11
39
128
6
19
26
9
13
72
22
66
92
35
46
261
>600,000 ?

9
15
39
17
9
89

1
2
5
2
1


Total
Operations

154
346
422
160
351
1,433

63
157
185,
66
150

                             4-17

-------
                  Table 4.3.5-4
Reorganized Distribution of Dry Layer, Wet Layer,
         and Pullet Operations by Region
r
Region
" IT Size Class (head) ~
30,000-
49,999
50,000-
74,999 "
75,000-
99,999
100,000-
599,999
5==3===2==525S==I
>600,000
JTJry Layer Operations 	 , 	 — — r
Central
vlid-Atl antic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Total
18.7
87.7
71.9
222
51.2
251.7
13.4
68.2
63.3
20.6
35.8
201.4
3.5
26.9
36.8
13.3
7.7
88.2
22.4
131.6
191.8
79.7
42.1
467.7
3.6
14.3
37.1
16.2
3.6
74.7
Wet Layer Operations 	 , 	 	 — — ,
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Total
Pullet Operations
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Total
All Operations
28.1
4.6
3.8
1.2
76.8
114.4

18.9
37.2
30.5
9.4
51.6
147.7
513.8
=====
20.2
3.6
3.3
1.1 '
53.7
81.9
5.2
1.4
1.9
0.7
11.5
20.8
33.5
6.9
10.1
4.2
63.2
117.9

14.7
32.6
31.8
10.5
38.6
128.2
411.5
i===
5.7-
18.6
25.5
9.2
12.6
71.7 „ .
180.6
================
22.2
66.1
92.1
34.8
46.3 .
.. 261.4
847.0
=====
5.4
0.8
2.0
0.9
5.4
14.4

1.2
2.0
5.3
2.3
1.2
12.0
101.0 	
=====
Total
Operations

61.6

400.9
152.0
140.4
1,083.6
- 	 	 11
i — —I
92.4 I]
17.3
21.1
8.0
210.6
349.4
1 	
62.6 1
156.5
185.2
66.3
150.3
621.0
2,054.0 J
                        4-18

-------
              The USDA NRCS (2002) analysis (Table 4.3.5-1) did not divide the >1,000 AU
 size class into the two size classes EPA uses in the modeling exercise.  EPA maintained the facility
 count from the original queries (USDA MASS, 1999b) for the largest operations with >600,000
 head (i.e., 101 total operations with >600,000 head). For the remaining size classes, EPA used
 the proportion of each operation typeje.g., dry layer, wet layer, pullets) using the facility count
 from Table 4.3.5-4 (and repeated in the top half of Table 43.5-5) to disaggregate the data
 provided in Table 4.3.5-1 .  For example, the number of dry layers forjthe smallest size class is
 equal to (251.7/513.8) x 776.0, or 380.1.   •- -              r       •      -  - .........
   Reorganized Distribution jrf Dry Lager, Wet Layer, and Pullet Operations
'f. r * %
Sector
, SizeClass (head)
30,000-
49,999
50,000-
- 74^99
75,000-
99^999
100,000-
-599,999
>600,000
Total
Operations
Facility Count using USDA NASS (1999c)
Dry Layers
Wet Layers
Pullets
Total
252
114
,148
514
201
82
128
412
88
' 21
72
181
468
118
261
847
75
14
12
101
' 1,084
349
621
•: 2,054
Facility Count using USDA NRCS (2002)
Dry Layers
Wet Layers
Pullets
Total
380
; 173 .
223
776
218
-, , 89
139
446
116
. 27
95
238
315
79
176
570
75
14
12
101
1,104
383
644
2 131
              The facility counts using USDA NRCS (2002) data from Table 4.3.5-5 were
further disaggregated by region using the data in Table 4.3.5-4. Wet layer operations greater than
30,000 head were aggregated into one size class while dry layer and pullet operations were
combined by region and size class. Wet layer operations greater than 30,000 head were combined
since there are relatively few operations and potential issues related to disclosure precluded
further resolution. Pullets are housed in cages similar to layers, or on bedded floors such as
                                         4-19

-------
broilers and turkeys. Therefore no separate model was developed for pullets. Though there are
many pullet farms located apart from the laying farms or broiler breeder farms, the production and
manure management at these operations is very similar to broiler and caged layer operations.
Therefore no separate model was developed for pullet farms. The results of these steps are
presented in Table 4.3.5-6.  For example, the number of dry layers in the smallest Midwest size
class is (71.9/251.7) x 380.1 (for dry layers) plus (30.5/147.7) x 223.0 (for pullets) for a total of
154.7 operations. In addition, another 800 wet layer operations with 9,000-29,999 head were
included in Hie evaluation since their manure is handled in a wet form and the threshold for being-
a CAFO is lower than for dry manure management systems. The number of wet layer Operations
with 9,000-29,999 head was estimated as approximately equal to 7,300 operations x 0.73 x 0.15,
where 7,300 is the approximate number of operations in the South region with fewer than 3 0,000
head (USDA NASS, 1999b), 0.73- is the fraction of operations in the size class of 9,~000-29,999
relative to <30,000, and 0.15 is the fraction of these operations that use wet-manure-handling
systems.

              In order to evaluate the impact of including smaller operations, the smallest dry
 layer size class was expanded to include operations from 25,000-49,999.  To account for the size
 interval increasing by 25 percent, 25 percent more operations were added to the smallest size
 class. Also, the division between the third and fourth dry layer size class was changed from
 100,000 to 82,000. To account for this size class change, 72 percent of the operations  from the
 third size class were moved to the fourth size class.  Seventy-two percent was selected because
 that represents the size class interval change (e.g., 75,000-99,999 versus 75,000-81,999). Table
 4.3.5-7 presents the estimated number of facilities by sector, size class,  and region.  Table 4.3.5-8
 presents the final number of facilities by sector, size class, and modeled region,  which distributes
 the remaining dry layer operations from the Central, Mid-Atlantic, and Pacific regions evenly to
 the Midwest and South regions. These operations use total confinement housing, and do not need
  storage for feedlot runoff. Therefore, they are not subject to climate variations  that result in
  variable process waste water.  All wet layer operations are modeled as the Southern region, which
  accounts 65 percent of all wet layer operations.
                                            4-20

-------
                           Table 4.3.5-6
Intermediate Layer Operation Counts by Sector, Size Class, and Region
=======
' Region
Wet Layers
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest

South
Total
Region
Dry Layers
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific

Total 	
NA - Not applicable.
=====
NA *
„
NA - ' -
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
===========================—
Size Class (head)
NA
9,000- (
„,. 29,999^ „
>30,000
NA'

NA
NA
NA
NA .
NA
NA
196
32
27
8
537
800
99
18
21
8
237
383
Size Class (head)'
30,000-
49,999
50,000-
74,999
75,000-
81,999
82,000-,
599,999

57
189.
155
48
155
603
=====
31
109
103
34,
81
357
===
12
60
82
30
27
211
===£:
30
133"
191
77
60
491
- — '" '"_" '
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

>600,000

5
16
42
18
5
87
=====
==
Total
Operations

295
50
47
16
774
1,183
Total
Operations

. 134
507
573
207
327
1,748
=====
                              4-21

-------
                               Table 4.3.5-7
      Final Layer Operation Counts by Sector, Size Class, and Region
i .1 i,l__JU L ^_,L'^-- -!-J- -'!' ' ' ""^g
Region
Wet Layers
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South

Region
Dry Layers' ' 1T|
Central i
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific >
South-'-
Total
-...ill .,.._ ly^.n-— .i-.ll.i —
" ' Size Class (head)
NA

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
" ' NA

'25,000-
49,999
' SD \ • , -
'71
236 . „
193
. . 60 - -
,.,...194,—
754
=========
NA ••'•
, 9^000-
29,999
>30,000

NA
NA
NA
NA '"'"'•
NA
NA
•• .. - ••••-•••••;§
50,000-
74^99
196
32
27
< ••> -g '
537
800

75,000-
81^99
99
18
21
8
237
383

82,000-
599,999
L'"1'-1..
31 J ,,
109,, ..;
103 	
HA

	 	 81 • —
357 - :
==============
3
....... 17, ,
._.. 23 	
._ „. - 8, . -

...... 8
59
'
39
1,76
250 -..
. 99

79
642-
=======
=====
-&&

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

>600,000

5
16 .
. : 42
. .- 18 ••-
5
87
=====
^^=^±K«iiiii-«*—
•X -Total. .
Operations

2.95
50
47
16
774
1,183
'.. • "Total; i;
Openationsi

148
.. , 554
	 _612
. 219
366
1,899
-=
NA-Not applicable.
                                     4-22

-------
                                 Table 4.3.5-8
       w
   Final Layer Operation Counts by Sector, Size Class, and Modeled Region
Region
Wet Layers
South
y_ Region
Dry Layers
Midwest
South
Total
Size Class (head)
NA *
~~r$£-""f
9,000- "
29,999
>30,000
NA
-
NA
NA
800
383
NA
„ ,', _,l :' Size Class (Head)
25,000-
49,999 ,
50,000-
"74,999" "
75,000-
81>99
82,000-
599,999
>600,000

377
377
754
190
167
357
37
22
59
407
235
642
62
25
87
Total
Operations

1,183
-Total,
Operations

1,073
827
1 899
IN/\ - JNOI applicable.
Not all medium operations are expected to be CAFOs under the rule. The percentage of medium
operations EPA estimates will be CAFOs is presented in Tables 4.3.5-9 and 4.3.5-10 (See
Preamble Section 4 and 40 CFR part 122.23).
                                 Table 4.3.5-9

      Percentage of Layer Operations That Are Expected to Be_CAFOs
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
.;,,/;;,, .:;....- v^'u • -Size-Class^ ^ •;;••••.; ^V;->:
Medium 1 :
3
3
3
3
3
Medium 2 ;
3
3
3
3
3
Mediums
3
3
3
3
3
.,-'Large,d-';;
100
100
100
100
100
                                     4-23

-------
                               Table 4.3.5-10
    Percentage of Dry Layer Operations That Are Expected to Be CAFOs
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic -
Midwest
Pacific
South
- .••.'.-.•: .Size-Class • • • : ••
"All Medium
. 2
2
2
5
- 2
All Large :
100
100
100
100
100
            Turkeys

            Table 4.3.5-11 presents the total number of turkey operations using the 1997
Census of Agriculture database (USDA NRCS, 2002). Lacking state- or region-specific data,
EPA also relied on queries from the 1997 Census of Agriculture database (Table 4.3.5-12) that
were used for the draft rulemaking that included region-level information (USDA MASS, 1999b).

                                Table 4.3.5-11

       Number of Turkey Operations by Size Class from 1997 Census of
                             Agriculture Database
Animal Type

Size Class (EPA AU)
Medium 1
300-500 AU/
16,500-27,499
head

Medium 2
500-750 AU/
27,500-41,249
head
478
Medium 3
750-1000 AU/
41,250-54,999
head
262

Large!
>1,OOOAU/
>55jOOO head
388
, •;' Total .V
Operations ,
2,003
Source: USDA NRCS, 2002.
                                      4-24

-------
                                      Table 4,3.5-12
   Number of Turkey Operations by Size Class and Region from 1997 Census of
                                 Agriculture Database
 Source: USDANASS, 19991^-
 EPA made the following assumptions to reorganizelhe data presented in Table 4.3.5-13 to match
 the selected facility size classes (Table 4.3.5-14 presents the results of these assumptions):
                                                                        !    ~ .'  :    T   ;•
           .-*....  'Large turkey operations use total confinement housing and generally do -
                     not store litter uncovered. Therefore climate does not play a. role in
                     manure and process wastewater generation.
                     More than 75 percent of turkey operations are located in the Mid-Atlantic
                     and Midwest regions, i.e., the key regions. Separate model farms were
                     developed for the two key regions to account for .differences in facility _
                     operation (e.g., crop rotations and BMP implementation).
              •    .  Operations in the combined Pacific and South region were split based on
                     the total number of turkey -operations reported in the 1997 Census of
                     Agriculture state summaries. (Approximately 39 percent of the combined
                     Pacific and South region were assigned to the Pacific Region.)
                     Turkey size classes can be resized to the current size classes by assuming a
                     uniform distribution of operations within each size class.  "

              The facility counts -in- Table 4.3.5-11 can be disaggregated using the data provided
in Table 4.3.5-13 (see Table 4.3.5-14). For example, EPA calculated the number of Central
region operations in the smallest size class as (27,0/683.0) x 875, or 34.6 operations.  Table
4.3.5-15 presents the final number of facilities by size class and modeled region, which were
                                         4-25

-------
distributed from the Central, Pacific and South regions evenly to the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest

regions.


                                   Table 4.3.5-13

                      Reorganized Turkey Operation Counts
       Region
                                     Size Class (head)
16,500-
27,499
27,500-
41,249"
                                              41,250-
                                               54,999
2:55,000
Total Operations
  Central
                         27
                                     30
                                                 16
                                       34
                                                                            107
  Mid-Atlantic
  299
                                    322
                          119
                                                             83
                                                                            823
  Midwest
                        247
              267
                                                101
                                                             142
                                                                            756
  Pacific
                         43
                                     49
                                                 27
                                                             43
                                                                            162
  South
                         68
                                     76
  Total
                        683
              744
                                                305
                                   Table 4.3.5-14
            Final Turkey Operation Counts by Size Class and Region
—
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Total
•."V .., Size Class (head) ;':•/=• : - ••
16,500-
27,499
35
382
316
56
87
875
27,500-
41^249 ";
19
207
. 171
31
49
478
' 4i,250-
; 54,999 ,
14
102
87
23
36
262
=====
^55,000
36
87
149
45
70
388
^ss^ssss^s^^^ssssss
Total Operations
103
779
723
155
242
2,003
                                          4-26

-------
                                  Table 4.3.5-15
       Final Turkey Operation Counts by Size Class and Modeled Region
;Xtf.v- 'Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Total
Size Class (head) ^
16,500-
27,m 7
471
404
875
27,500-
" 41,249
257--
.221
478
41,250-
54,999
139
123
262-
"^55,000
163
. 225
388
Total Operations
1,030
973 .
2-003
 Not all medium'operations are expected to be CAFOs under the rule.  The percentage of medium
 operations EPA estimates will be CAFOs is presented in Table 4.3.5-16 (See Preamble Section 4
 and 40 CFR part 122.23).                                   ..;,,.
                                 Table 4.3.5-16
                            1     '    i  ••—                              i
      Percentage of Turkey Operations That Are Expected to Be CAFOs-
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
/:;v:v,::.i:«ize*Cias)Sv,.';;Cv-;;i
AM Medium
.2
2
2
2
5
.-.•,;;pl 100,000 head, 50,000-99,999 head, and 30,000-
49,999 head.
                                      4-27

-------
                            Table 4.3.5-17

Number of Broiler Operations as Provided by USDA NRCS (2002) Based on
            Analyses of 1997 Census of Agriculture Database
======
Location
AL


AR
•

GA


K.T, TN, VA, WV

MD.DE
MS
NC.SC
OK, MO, KS
TX,LA
Other

T and Availability
Category
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
'-.-'. ; Operation Size and Nutrient Basis
2:100,000
N ;
d
98
268
d
69
260
d
169
382
d
58
187
d
62
38
d
72
230
d
105
177
d
26
124
d
53
231
d
113
100
,:P. ••'.
d
98
274
d
69
263
d
169
387
d
58
201
d
62
73
d
72
230
d
105
198-
d
26
126
d
53
231
d
113
104
50,000-99,999
,• N, -••.-.
34
227
666
58
155
797
17
319 •
494
34
169
304
106
275
146
10
172
437
61
287
394
19
49
248
23
117
312
41
162
190
};• ,?•:.;•/,
15
227
685
49
155
806
6
319
505
17
169
321
31
275
221
8
172
439
12
287
44-3
12
49
255
21
117
314
11
162
220
30,000-49,999
-N;,: .,
39
217
412
104
226
672
14
194
250
23
129
149
103
294
107
14
70
143
59
290
292
30
32
171
9
41
86
45
112
99
P
32
217
419
93
226
683
10
194
254
15
129
157
38
294
172
14
70
143
19
290
332
29
32
172
8
41
87
17
112
127
d - Data not disclosed.
                                  4-28

-------
                     Land availability:
                     Location:
                     Nutrient basis: -
   No excess (Category 1 farms with sufficient crop or
   pasture land).
   Excess, with acres (Category 2 farms with some
   land, but not enough land to assimilate all manure
   nutrients)..--.
   Excess, no acres (Category 3 farms with none of the
	24major crop, types identified by NRCS).
   Ten states or groups of states.
                                        j"
   Applications are based on nitrogen (N) or         "
 _ phosphorus _(P) application rates.
              For an example of the data contained in Table 4:3.5-17, in Alabama there are 98
 facilities with more than 100,000 birds with none of the 24" major crop types identified by NRCS
 for application of animal wastes. There are 268 operations and 274 operations with 100,000 or
 more birds with some land in Alabama, but not enough land to assimilate all manure nutrients
 using nitrogen-based and phosphorus-based application rates, respectively.  An undisclosed
 number of facilities have enough land (i.e.'rno excess manure). 'Based on additional USDA NRCS
 (2002) information, there are a total of 2,945 operations with 100,000 or more head, 6,323
 operations with 50,000-99,999 head, and 4,426 operations with 30,000-49,999 head within the
 United States. Thus, by comparison to Table 4.3.5-17, EPA concluded that 123 operations with
 100,000 or more head do not have excess manure using nitrogen-based application rates and 33
 operations do not have excess manure using phosphorus-based application rates. USDA NRCS
 (2002) also computed from the 1997 Census of Agriculture that there are a total of 598 broiler
 operations with 180,000 or more birds and 1,034 broiler operations with 125,000-179,999 birds.

             Based on these data, EPA adjusted the size classes to the following: 37,500-
49,999, 50,000-74,999, 75,000-124,999, 125,000-179,999, and ^180,000.  Thus, using a uniform
distribution, EPA eliminated 37.5 percent of the 4,426 operations with 30,000-49,999 head from
                                          4-29

-------
consideration, leaving 2,766 operations in the smallest size class and 12,034 total broiler
operations. Based on the above information, the data in Table 4.3.5-17 were modified to account
for the undisclosed operations and the modified size classes, and were further disaggregated to
                                                          •                   .   , .   ••" ^ ,
match the five size classes selected by EPA for modeling.  Tables 4.3.5-18 and. 4.3.5-19 present
the results of these calculations for nitrogen- and phosphorus-based application rates,
respectively.

              Because thejQcgtion groupings in Tables 4.3.5-18 .and. 4.3.5-19  do npt match the
regions chosen by EPA for modeling, it was necessary to disaggregate the data in Tables 4.3.5-18
and 4.3.5-19 to the state level. The data in Tables 4.3.5-18 and 4,3.5-19 were disaggregated by
using the number of operations with 200,000-499,999 broilers sold or 500,00,0  or more broilers
sold as reported in the 1997 Census of Agriculture state summaries. The number of operations
with 500,000 or more broilers sold was used for the larger three class sizes. State-disaggregated
data were then recombined into regions chosen by EPA for modeling.  The results of these
calculations are presented in Tables 4.3.5-20 and 4.3.5-21. .Approximately 87 percent of all
broiler operations with more than 30,000 bird spot capacity were located in the South and Mid-
Atlantic regions in 1997 (USDA NASS, 1999b). These two regions were selected as the key
regions.  Since climate is not a major factor in. estimating costs at broiler operations (which have
total confinement buildings and generally have covered manure storage), total birds from the
Midwest, Central and Pacific regions were divided equally among the South and Mid-Atlantic
regions for modeling purposes (see Tables  4.3.5-22 and 4.3.5-23).
                                            4-30

-------
                         Table 4.3.5-18
Intermediate Number of Broiler Operations Based on Location, Land
     Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based
                     Application of Manure
Location
AL
AR
GA
KT, TN, VA, WV
MD,DE
MS
NC,SC
OK, MO, KS
TX.LA


Other


Land Availability
Category '
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres :
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres v
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
Total
180,000+
4
20
54
. • - 1 -
14
53
1
34
78
4
12
38
8
13
8
1
15
47
5
.21
36.
1
5
25
0
11
47
1
23
20
598
125,000-
179,999
7
34
94
1
24 •
91
2
59
134
7
20
66
14
22
13
2
25
81
8
37
62 -.
2
9
44
0
19
81
1
40
35
1 034
75,000-
124,999
,20
133
389
34
91
466
10
186
289
20
99
178
62
161
85
6
101
255
36
168
230
11
29
145
13
68
182
24
95
111
3 693
50,000-
74,999
21 ,.
142
415
36
97
497
11
199
308
21
105
190
66
172
91
6
107
273
38
179
246
12
31
155
14
73
195
26
101
119
3 943
37,750-
49,999
, .24
136
258
65
141
420
9
121
156
14
81
93
64
184
67
9
44
89
37
181
183
19
20
107
6
26
54
28
70
62
2 766
                             4-31

-------
                         Table 4.3.5-19
Intermediate Number of Broiler Operations Based on Location, Land
    Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based
                     Application of Manure
Location
AL


AR


GA


KT,TN,VA,WV

MD, DE
MS
NC.SC
OK, MO, KS
TX,LA
Other

Land Availability
Category
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess "-••-- ' •
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres-
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres

iso;o6(H-
3
20 ,
56
0
14
53
0
34
79
1
. 12
41
1
13
15
1
15
47
0
21
40
1
5
26
0
11
47
0
23
21
598
179,999
5
34
96
0
' 24
92
,0
59
136
2 -
20
71
2
22
26
2
25
81
0
37
70
. 1
9
44
0
19
81
0
40
37
1,034
124,999
9
133
400
29
91
471
4
186
295
10
99
188
18
161
129
5
101
256
7
168
259
7
29
149
12
68
183
6
95
129
3,693
'74,999' V-"
9
142
427
31
97
503
4
199
315
11
105
200
19
172
138
5
107
274
8
179
276
8
31
159
13
73
196
7
101
137
3,943
49,999
20
136
262
. 58
141
427
6
121
159
9
81
98
24
184
108
9
44
89
12
181
208
18
20
108
5
26
54
11
70
79
2,766 .
                              4-32

-------
                          Tablp 4.3.5-20
Final Number of Broiler Operations Based on Region, Land Availability
  Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based Application of Manure
' Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest .
.Pacific
South


Land Availability
Category
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres.
Excess, with acres '
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Total
180,000+
11
48
1
51
84
16
8
13
1
3
3
0
95
258
7
598
125,000-
179,999
19
84
2
88
145
28
13
22
1
5
4
0
164
446
13
1,034
75,000- ,
124,999
65
222
17
438
502
121
34
70
10
12
14
3
580
1,521
85
3,693
50,000-
74,999
66
199
15
422
475
119
36
125
12
39
45
10
642
1,643
96
3,943
.37,750-
49,999
26
75
10
405
300
110
24
83
17
27
24
11
521
1,007
127
2766
                              4-33

-------
                          Table 4.3.5-21
Final Number of Broiler Operations Based on Region, Land Availability
Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based Application of Manure
Region
Central •••


Mid-Atlantic

Midwest
Pacific
South

LandAvailabffity
Category • r "r"
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess -- —
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres ...
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres —
No excess
Excess, no acres "
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess

180,000*
11
49 . ..
1 ...
- SI'
' 98
2
8
.13 	
0
' ,.'3
3
0
95
262
4
~ 598 ""
125,000-
179,999
19
,84.
-• -1
88'~
170
4
13
......22.. .
0
,5
5
. 0
...,164
452-
6-
1,034
75,000-
1^4#99;
65
.. 22.6 ,._
---13
438
587
36.
34
	 76 ...
..4 '
12
16
1
. 580
. 1,554
52
3,693
V7;4,999"-:. '
66 	
.. ,2Q1_ 	
... . .13 	 ;
422™™
558
37
.,,36_ ,„
130 .,
6 ' " ~
39
53
3
642
1,683
56
3,943
49,999
26
., J6
	 10 -
•--405 '
366
43
, .24
.86
14
' 27
30
4
521
1,033
1.01
2,766
                               4-34

-------
                               Table, 4.3.5-22 >
     Final Number of Broiler Operations Based on Modeled Region, Land
           Availability Category, Operation Size for Mtrogen-Based
                           Application of Manure
Region
Mid-Atlantic
South
Land Availability
Category -* ' „
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres i
No excess
Total
180,000+
62
116
17
106
290
8
598
125,000-
179,999
107
200
29
183
r501
14
1,034
75,000-
124,995
494
655
136
635
. T,674
100
3,693
50,000-
74,999
492
660
137
713 ' '
l,-827:;
114
3,943
37,750-,
49,999
444
391
129
560
1,097- ; .
146
2 766
                               Table 4.3.5-23

     Final Number of Broiler Operations Based on Modeled Region, Land
   Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based Application
                                of Manure
Region }
Mid-Atlantic
South
Land Availability
• -Category. • .. '•••'•"'•}•• :
Excess, no acres.
Excess, with acres ' :
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Total
180,000+
62
130
3
106
294
4
. 598
125,000-
179,999 „
107
225
5
183
508
7
1,034
75,000-
124,99,9
494
746
45
635
1,713
61
3,693
50,000-
-74,999-
492
750
47
713
1,875
66
3,943
37,750-
49,999 i
444
462
57
560
1,129
115
2766
Not all .medium operations are expected to be CAFOs under the rule. The percentage of medium

operations EPA estimates will be CAFOs is presented in Table 4.3.5-24 (See Preamble Section 4 '
and 40 CFR part 122.23).
                                   4-35

-------
                                  Table 4.3.5-24
      Percentage of Broiler Operations That Are Expected to Be CAFOs
Region
Central _ ,
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
. . Size Class • . .•••',
AU Medium
.-...5
	 ,,5,
5
5
5
All Large; -
100 .
100 .
100 --
100
100
4.3.6
Farm Counts - Swine Operations
             USD A NRCS (2002) .provided information to EPA on the number of swine

operations based on the following classifications as shown in Table 4.3.6-1:
                    Operation size:


                    Land availability:
                    Location:

                    Nutrient basis:
                          >2,500 head, 1,250-2,499 head, and 750-1,249
                          head.        	

                          No excess (Category 1 farms with sufficient crop or
                          pasture land).            .    -

                          Excess, with acres (Category 2 farms with some
                          land, but not enough land to assimilate all manure
                          nutrients).

                          Excess, no acres (Category 3 farms with none of the
                          24 major crop types identified by NRCS).

                          Eleven states or groups of states.

                          Applications are based on nitrogen (N) or
                          phosphorus (P) application rates.
                                         4-36

-------
               As an example of the data contained in Table 4.3.6-1, in Illinois there are 72 "
  facilities with more than 2,500 head with none of the 24 major crop types identified by NRCS for
  application of animal wastes. There are 34 operations with 2,500 or more head that have some
  land in Illinois. However, these operations do not have enough land to assimilate all of the manure
  nutrients using nitrogen-based application rates. There are 184 Illinois operations with 2,500 or
  more head that have enough land to assimilate all manure nutrients using nitrogen based
  application rates. Based on USDA NRCS (2002) analysis of the 1997 Census of Agriculture
  data, there are a total of 3,924 operations with 2,500 or more head, 1,507 operations with 1,875-
 2,499 head, 2,840 operations with 1,250-1,874 head, and 5,554 operations with 750-1,249 head
 within the United States.                      '	
                         •»)•'.»
              Based on these data, EPA adjusted these size classes to the following: 750-1,249,
 1,250-1,874, 1,875-2,499, 2,500-4,999, and >5,000. Using data provided by USDA NRCS
 (2002), EPA placed 65.33 percent of the operations in the 1,250-2,499 size class into the 1,250-
 1,874 size class.  Based on data from USDA NASS (1999b), EPA placed 41.8 percent of the
 operations in the >2,500 size class into the >5,000 size class. Thus, the information in Table
 4.3.6-1 was reaggregated to match the five size classes selected by EPA for modeling. Tables
 4.3.6-2 and 4.3.6-3 present the results of these calculations for nitrogen- and phosphorus-based
 application rates, respectively.

              EPA then imputed the data in Table 4.3.6-2 and Table 4.3.6-3 to the state level by
 using the number of operations with 1,000  or more hogs and pigs sold as reported in the 1997
 Census of Agriculture state summaries. State-disaggregated data were then recombined into
regions (see Tables 4.3.6-4 and 4.3.6-5). Facilities from the South, Pacific, and Central regions
were divided equally among the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions for modeling the three smaller
size classes and combined into the Central region for the larger two size classes for modeling
purposes (see Tables 4.3.6-6 and 4.3.6-7).
                                          4-37

-------
                          Table 4.3.6-1
Number of Swine Operations as Provided by USDA NRCS (2002) Based on
           Analyses of 1997 Census of Agriculture Database
Location
AR, KS, OK


1L


IN


IA

MI.WI
MN
MO
NC
NE
OH
Other

Land Availability
: Category
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres


£2,500
, N- •-
52
66
113
184
72
34
179
68
35
411
211
120
57
31
19
225
152
50
54
17
59
194 •
185
630
40
81
32
45
23
12
184
132
157
-'•fc.'. :•:•••
21
66
144
95
72
123
107
68
107
164
211
367
25
31
51
97
152
178
32
17
81
15
185
809
15
81
57
23
23
34
87
132
254
1,250-2*499
;,N-:
76
36
78
357
45
31
254
53
29
1,155
183
89
97
30
19
386
83
28
104
18
48
83
71
157
164
49
29
98
33
17
244
99
104
P
50
36
104
283
45
105
205
53
78
796
183
448
65
30
. 51
272
83
142
87
18
65
23
71
217
141
49
52
61
33
54
145
99
203
750-1^49 1
; N • -.
101
.22
40
528
39
21
387
50
36
1,587
235
51
169
29
8
523
69
28
203
25
33
56
33
45
279
82
29
202
31
29
404
102
78
•>iv •:•
80
22
61
472
39
77
346
50
77
1,346
235
.292
136
29
41
430
69
121
183
25
53
21
33
80
245
82
63
154
31
77
289
102
193
                               4-38

-------
                         Table4.3.6-2
 Intermediate Number of Swine Operations Based on Location, Land
Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based Application
                          of Manure
Location
AR, KS, OK
IL
IN
IO
MI,WI
MN
MO
NC
NE ;


OH


Other


Land Availability
Category
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
Total
•. Size Class
5,000+
22
28
47
77
--.- 30 .
14
75
28
15
172
88
50
24
13
8
94
64
21
23
7
25
81
77
263
17
34
13
19
10
5
77
55
66
1,639
2,500-
4,999
30
38
66
107
- 42
20
104
40
20
239
123
70
33
18
11
131
89
29
31
10
34
113
108
367
23
47
19
26
13
7
107
77
91
2,285
1,875-
2,499
26
13
27
124
16
11
88
18
10
400
63
31
34
10
7
134
29
10
36
6
17
29
25
54
57
17
10
34
11
6
85
34
36
1 507
1,250-
1,874
50
24
51
233
29
20
166
35
19
755
120
58
63
20
12
252
54
18
68
12
31
54
46
103
107
32
19
64
22
11
159
65
68
2 840
750-1,249
101
22
40
528
39
21
387
50
36
1,587
235
51
169
29
8
523
69
28
203
25
33
56
33
45
279
82
29
202
31
29
404
102
78
5 554
                             4-39

-------
                          Table 4.3.6-3
  Intermediate Number of Swine Operations Based on Location, Land
Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based Application
                           of Manure
Location
AR,KS,OK


IL

t
IN
,

10
MI.WI
MN
MO
NC
NE
OH
Other

Land Availability ;
Category
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess :. '
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres

5,000+
9
28
60
40
30
51
45
28
45
69
88
153
10
13
21
41
. 64
74
13
7
34
6
77
338
6
34
24
10
10
14
36
55
106
1,639
2,500-
4,999
. 12
38
84
55
42
72
62
40
62
96
123
214
15
18
30
57
89
104
19
10
47
9
108
471
9
47
33
13
13
20
51
77
148
2,285
1,875-
2,499
17
13
36
98
16
36
71
18
27
276
63
155
23
10
18
94
29
49
30
6
23
8
25
75
49
17
18
21
11
19
50
34
70
1,507
1,874
33 .
24
68
185
29
69
134
35
51
520
120
293
43
20
33
178
54
93
57
12
43
15
46
142
92
32
34
40
22
35
95
65
133
2,840
750-1,249
, 80
22
61
472
39
77
346
50 '
77
1,346
235
292
136
29
41
430
69
121
183
25
53
21
33
80
245
82
63
154
31
77
289
102
193
5,554
                               4-40

-------
                          Table 4.3.6-4
Final Number of Swine Operations Based on Region, Land Availability
 Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based Application of Manure
; f Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest • ~ ••
Pacific


South


Land Availability
Category ~"
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
.'Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with.acres
No excess
Excess, no; acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Total
'5,000*
10
14
11
102
292
115
..-_ ,300
188
528
2
2
2
21
30
23
1,639
2,500-
4,999
- 13
19
15
142
408
161
418
263
736
2
3
3
29
42
32
2,285
1,875-
^499 -
5
8
12
40 ,
71
67
185
122
939
1
1
3
11
17
26
1,507
1,250-
1,874
10
15 •
23
75
133
125
349
229
1,770
2
2
5
21
32
49

750-1,249
13
14
54
79
80
236
595
212
4,022
3
2
12
28
30
115

                             4-41

-------
                          Table 4.3.6-5
Final Number of Swine Operations Based on Region, Land Availability
Category* Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based Application of Manure
Region
Central


Mid-Atlantic
.. .__,, „ ,._,__

Midwest


Pacific — —


South



Land Availability
Category •- :
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess, ...
Excess, no acres •-- — •-
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess ~.,
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess

5,000-H
10 "
20
__,. J.5 .,
102-
—-38S""
*-~™23
300
470
,, 246
-2 •
3
1
21
43
10
1,639
2,500-
4$999
	 '13
27
... 7
142
537
31 "
418
655
343 .. ,
« - 0
-£•
5
' "2
29
60
14
2,285
2,49? 1 -
5
12
.8
40
107
30
185
379
.682
	 1-
2
2
11
27
16
1,507
;:;vl»874
10
23
.14
75
^01
57
349
713
1,286
... —9 • •
4
3
21
51
30
2,840
750-1,249
13
- 28 •-.
40 .
_- 79
166
150
595
876
3,419
•-•3-
6
9
28
60
85
5,554
                               4-42

-------
                           Table 4.3.6-6
   Final Number of Swine Operations Based on Modeled Region, Land
  Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based Application
                            of Manure  ,
''jt: qvRegion
Central


Mid-Atlantic


Midwest
•

1 Total _
1
Land Availability
Category
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres •
Excess, with acres
No excess 	 , ;
Excess, no acres
Excess, with- acres
No excess
'
5,000+
32
46
36
	 102
292 ,
-.11.5
300
188
528
1,639
2,500-
.4,999
45
64
50
142
-408
161
..418
263
736
2,285
1,875-
2,499
0
... Q
0
49
84
87
194
135
959
1,507
1,250-
1,874
, 0
0
0
92
157- -
164
366
254
1,808
2.840
=====
750-1,249
0
0
--o
100
103
327
617
295
4,113
5,554
                          Table 4.3.6-7

  Final Number of Swine Operations Based on Modeled Region, Land
Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based Application
                           of Manure
; V Region
Central


Mid-Atlantic


Midwest


1 Total 	
11
Land Availability
Category
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres

Excess, no acres
Excess, with acres
No excess
=======
5^0047
32
66
16
102
385
23
300
470
246
1.639
2,500-,
4^999
45
92
22
142
537
31
418
655
343
2.285
==========
1^875-
2,499
0
0
0
• 49
127
43
194
399
695
1,507
============
1,250-
1,874
0
0
0
92
240
81
366
752
1,309
2.840
=========
750-1,249;
0
0
0
100
213
217
617
922
3,485
5.554
^^=asss
                              4-43

-------
             While USDA NRCS (2002) provided information to estimate the number of
operations by region, size class, and land availability category, it did not provide data to estimate
the number of operations by operation type (i.e., farrow-to-fmish, grow-finish) or the number of
operations by manure storage_(i.e., pit storage, lagoon, evaporative lagoon). Using data provided
by USDA NASS (1999b), EPA estimated that 50.6,45.6, 40.7, and 35.0 percent of operations
with 2,500+, 1,875-2,499,1,250-1,874, and 750-1,249 head, respectively, were grow-finish
operations.  Using data from USDA APHIS (2002), EPA estimated the following percentages of
swine operations that use pit storage:, 14.4 and 23.9 percent of medium and large farrow-to-finish
operations, respectively, and 26.3 and 37.5 percent of medium and large grow-finish operations,
respectively, in the Mid-Atlantic" region; and 5*9Hnd 56.4 percent of medium and large farrow-
to-finish operations, respectively, and 6717 and 70.7 of medium and large grow-finish operations,
respectively, in the Midwest region.  All operations modeled in the Central region were assumed
to use evaporative lagoons. ,    .	    .„„__.,.,.....

              Not all medium operations are expected to be CAFOs under the rule.  The
percentage of medium operations EPA estimates will be CAFOs is presented in Table 4.3.6-8
 (See Preamble Section 4 and 40 CFR part 122.23).

                                    Table 4.3.6-8

        Percentage of Swine Operations That Are Expected to Be CAFOs
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific

Size Class
Medium 1
15
15
15
15

Medium 2
15
15
15
15
15
Medium3
15
15
15
15
15

Large!
100
100
100
100
100
                                          4-44

-------
 4.4
 Average Head
   •   ,-,..>    This section describes the methodology used to calculate average head in each size
 group for each animal type.
 4.4.1
 Average Head - Beef Feedlots
              Table 4.4.1 -1 presents the total number of fattened cattle at potential beef feedlot
 CAFOs by size class, as estimated by USDA NRCS, using the 1997 Census of Agriculture data
 (USDA NRCS, 2002).
                                    Table 4.4.1-1
       Number of Fattened Cattle at Potential CAFOs by EPA Size Class
                  from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database
si Size Class .-.
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Size Class
Large 1
Large 2
Number of Beef
Feedlots
1,466
801
415
Number of Beef
Feedlots
1,654"
421
Number Fattened Cattle
Based on 2.5
tumov«rs/year and .
1,000 pounds
251,015
204,850
147,322
Number of Fattened
Cattle Sold
4,347,000
18,442,000
Based on variable
turnovers and 877
pounds
541,742
442,109
317,951
Number On Site
(based on variable
turnovers)
10,902,500
3,041,250
Average Number of
.Fattened Cattle
370
552
766
Average Number'of
Fattened Cattle
1,839
25897
 JNumber;Oi Large
Large 1 size class.
1 beet reedlots estimated by USDA/NASS. This estimate is used only to calculate the average head for the
             To estimate average head at Medium beef feedlots, EPA first converted these
animal unit estimates back to sales estimated using the turnover of 2.5 beef cycles per year (ERG,
2002). Information collected by EPA from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service indicate that beef feedlots generally operate at less
than 100 percent capacity, and smaller feedlots tend to have less production cycles per year.
                                        4-45

-------
Based on these data, EPA used production cycle estimates based on the size of operation to
recalculate head estimates from the sales data (ERG, 2002). EPA also recalculated the number of
beef cows based on a weight of 877 pounds, as shown in the equation below:
          # Fattened CattlerottiHc8d = # Fattened CattleAu x
                                                       2.5
                                                     Weightxu
                                    Tumoversize class    Weightier c<>w
                                                               x
where:
             # Fattened CattleAU
             Tumbversizeaass
             WeightAU'
             WeightBeefCow.  —
                          USDA's NRCS data for number of AU for a size
                          class
                          Estimated number of production cycles for a size
                          class""' '" %v --••••••-•
                        -  -Weight of one animal unit (1,000 Ibs)	-
                       	»Average weight of beef cow (877 Ibs).
Next>_EPA calculated the average head per operation by dividing the number of fattened cattle'by
the number of operations. These average head are also presented in Table 4.3.1-1.

              For example, USDA estimates that there are 204,850 animal units at Medium 2
operations. Multiplying this number by 2.5 turnovers and converting the weight basis to 877
pounds yields 583,951 cows. It is estimated that there are 1.32 production cycles at these
operations, which yields 442,109 cattle at 801 operations in the Medium 2 size class, which
results in an average head size of 552 fattened cattle at Medium 2 operations.

              For large operations, the USDA/NRCS data does not provide the number of head
for both the Large 1 and Large 2 size classes.  Instead, EPA used data from USDA/NASS to
estimate the average head at large operations.   	-	                       	~
 4.4.2
Average Head - Dairies
              Table 4.4.2-1 presents the total number of milk cows at potential dairy CAFOs by
 size class, as estimated by USDA's NRCS, using the 1997 Census of Agriculture data (USDA
 NRCS, 2002). The estimates prepared by NRCS are presented as the number of animal units
                                          4-46

-------
  assuming a weight of 1,000 pounds per animal unit. EPA first converted these animal unit
  estimates to the number of dairy cows based on a weight of 1,350 pounds, as shown in the
  equation below:
 where:
             # Mature Dairy Cows™H^=# Mature Dairy COWSA
                               WeightAu
              #Mature Dairy Cows

              WeightAU
              WeightDaiiyCattle
'AU
                                                                    ity Cattle
USDA's NRCS data for number of farms
with milk cows for a size category
Weight of one animal unit (1,000 Ibs)
Average weight of dairy cow (1,350 Ibs).
                                   Table 4.4.2-1

         Number of Dairy Cows at Potential CAFOs by EPA Size Class
                  from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database
• SizeClass
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Number of Dairies
3,805
1,372
603
1,450
Number of At)
• 1,285,821
787,492
488,283
2,798,343
Number of Dairy Cows
952,460
583,327
361,691
2,072,847
Average Number of
MsiturefDairyiGows
250
425
600
1,430
             Next, EPA calculated the average head per operation by dividing the number of
dairy cows by the number of operations. These average head are also presented in Table 4.4.2-1.


             For example, USDA estimates that there are 787,492 animal units at Medium 2
operations. Converting this number to dairy cows yields 583,327 cows. It is estimated that there
are 1,372 operations in the Medium 2 size class, which results in an average head size of 425
dairy cows at Medium 2 operations.
                                       4-47

-------
                      # Mature Dairy Cowsxotai head =  787,492 x
                                              1,000
                                              1,350
4.4.3
                      # Mature Dairy CowsTotaihead =  583,327
                                                     583,327
                      # Mature Dairy COWSHead per farm =
                                                      i yj I £*
                      # Mature Dairy COWSHead per farm = 425
Average Head - Heifer Operations
              The average size of heifer 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 heifer operation is approximately 200 head (Cady
R., 2000). The average head for each Medium size class is calculated as the median of the size
class range, as shown in Table 4.4.3-1.. Using best professional judgement, EPA set the Large
size class equal to 1,500 head.
                                     Table 4.4.3-1
                       Average Head for Heifer Model Farm
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Average Head
400
625
875
1,500
4.4.4
Average Head - Veal Operations
              The average head of veal calves in each size class is based on discussions with the
 American Veal Association and site visits (Crouch A., 1999). A veal confinement bam may hold
 between 200 and 300 calves, and on average houses 270 calves. Most commonly, veal operations
 have two bams. Therefore, the Medium 1 facilities were estimated to have two confinement
                                          4-48

-------
 barns with 200 calves per bam, Medium 2 facilities were estimated to have two barns with 270
 calves in each bam, and Medium 3 facilities were estimated to have four barns with 270 calves in
 each barn, as presented in Table 4.4.4-1.                                                ,  ,

                                     Table 4.4.4-1
                        Average Head for Veal Model Farm
Size Glass
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Average Head , .'.-^
400
540
1,080
4.4.5
                     Source: ERG, 2000b.
Average Head - Poultry Operations
              The calculation of average head for poultry operations includes separate •
calculations for layers, turkeys, broilers. Each of these is described hi detail in the following
discussion.
              Layers
              Table 4.4.5-1 presents the number of layer facilities and total USDA-based animal
units (USDA AUs) using the 1997 Census of Agriculture (USDA NRCS, 2002). According to
USDA NRCS (2000), the number of birds per USDA AU ranges from 250 for layers to 455 for
pullets less than three months old.  To convert the total USDA AUs (in Table 4.4.5-1) to birds
count, EPA estimated a conversion factor that represented both pullets and layers. Using the
three smaller size classes in Table 4.4.5-1, EPA developed a conversion factor of 310 head per
USDA AU. The Agency developed this conversion factor so that the average head count per
operation (last column in Table 4.4.5-1) for these three size  classes was near the middle of the
size class interval. Lacking specific data to directly compute the average head count for either of
the larger two size classes, EPA selected a mid-value (i.e., 350,000 head) for the 100,000-
                                          4-49

-------
599,999 size class.  With this information and the assumption that 101 of .the 671 facilities with
more than 1,000 EPA* AUs had more than 600,000 head, EPA was able to estimate the average
head count for the largest size class.
                                    Table 4.4.5-1
  Layer Facility Demographics from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
MediumS
Large 1 and „
Large 2
Total
• 1 1 r
Number of
'^Facilities ,
776 '
446
238
67,1'
, 1 = 4 ' " *f'
2,131 ... .
Total
USD A AUs .
95,648
88,817
69,379
922,558
.. 1,176,402
Size Class Interval
(Number of Head)
Lower
30,000
50,000
: "'75,000
100,000
Upper
49,999
74,999
99,999
599,999
^600,000
. •- - 	
• -•
Average Bead
'Count per
Operation
38,210
61,734
90,368
350,000
856,368

Source: USDA NRCS, 2002.
•Section 4.3.5 documents the methodology-used to estimate that 101 of-the 671 facilities with more than 1,000 EPA AUs had
more thari'600,000 head.  ".   ~~"	
              To analyze the alternative layer thresholdsultimately'"adopted by EPA, the smallest
dry layer size class was expanded to include operations from the 25,000-49,999 size class.  Also,
the division between the third and fourth dry layer size class was changed from 100,000 to
82,000. Section 4.3.5 describes the approach used to adjust the number of operations per size
class. Correspondingly, EPA recomputed the average head based on the number of operations
that were removed or added to each size class. The resulting average head count per operation
for dry layers is presented in Table 4.4.5-2. The average head count for wet layer operations with
9,000-29,999 head was estimated as the midpoint, or 19,500 head.  The average head count for
wet layer operations with 30,000 or more head was estimated as 146,426 head.
                                          4-50

-------
                                     Table 4.4.5-2
                     Average Head Count for Layer Operations
Size Class
"t: Size Class Interval
(Number of Head)
Lower
Upper
Average Head Count per Operation
Dry Layer Operations
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3 ,
Large 1
Large 2
25,000
50,000 -
. . 75,000
82,000
49,999 •--• •
.,.•- 74,999
81,999 .
599,999
^600,000
36,068
61,734
78,546
291,153
856,368
Wet Layer Operations
Medium 1
Large 1
9,000
29,999
;>30,000
19,500

              Turkeys

              Table 4.4.5-3 presents the number of turkey facilities and total USDA AUs using
the 1997 Census of Agriculture (USDA NRCS, 2002). According to USDA's NRCS (2000), the
number of head per USDA AU ranges from 50 for breeding turkeys to 67 for slaughter turkeys.
To convert the total USDA AUs (in Table 4.4.5-3) to head count, EPA estimated a conversion
factor that represented both breeding and slaughter turkeys. Using the three smaller size classes
in Table 4.4.5-3, EPA developed a conversion factor of 54 head per USDA AU.  The Agency
developed this conversion factor so that the average head count per operation (last column in
Table 4.4.5-3) for these three size classes was near the middle of the size class interval. The
average head count for the largest size class was directly calculated using the conversion factor.
                                        4-51

-------
                                   Table 4.4.5-3
Turkey Facility Demographics from the 1997 Census of Agriculture Database
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1

Number of
Operations
875
478
262
388
2,003
Total
USDAAUs
360,475
306,632
230,628
915,367
1,813,102
Size Glass Interval
(Number of Head)
Lower
16,500
27,500
41,250
.;-:,,/;.;irpj>er--"" .'••
27,499
41,249
54,999
;>55,000 .


Average Head
Count per
Operation
22,246
34,640
47,534
127,396

Source: USDA NRCS, 2002.
             Broilers
             USDA NRCS (2002) provided information to EPA on the number of broiler

facilities and total USDA AUs using the 1997 Census of Agriculture based on the following

classifications:
                    Operation size:


                    Land availability:
                    Location:

                    Nutrient basis:
;>100,000 head, 50,000-99,999 head, and 30,000-
49,999 head.

No excess manure nutrients (Category 1 farms with
sufficient crop or pasture land).

Excess manure nutrients, with acres (Category 2
farms with some land, but not enough land to
assimilate all manure nutrients).

Excess manure nutrients, no acres (Category 3 farms
with none of the 24 major crop types identified by
NRCS).

Ten states or groups of states.

Applications are based on nitrogen (N) or
phosphorus (P) application rates.
                                         4-52

-------
              Table 4.3.5-17 in Section 4.3.5 presents the number of facilities for each
 classification combination. According to USDA's NRCS (2000), the number of head per USDA
 AU is 455 for broilers. EPA used this conversion factor to convert the USDA NRCS data to
 number of birds:" Total munber of birds was disaggregated using a procedure that corresponds to
 the procedure described in Section 4.3.5 (to disaggregate broiler facilities) for each modeled size '
 class and individual state. These results were aggregated into regions, and then ultimately into
 modeled regions as summarized in Tables 4*5:4 and 4.4.5-5 for nitrogen- and phosphorus-based
 application rates. Approximately 87 percent of all broiler operations with more than 30,000 bird
 spot capacity were located in the South a^dMid-Atlantic regions in 1997 (USDA NASS,'1999b).
 111686'^°. I!giCmS W6re seiected;as ^ kgy regiohs^mce climate is not a major factor in
 estimating costs at broiler operations (wMcn have total confinement buildings and generally have
 covered manure storage)", total number of operations from the Midwest, Central and Pacific
regions was divided equally among the South and Mid-Atlantic regions for modeling purposes.  "

                                   Table 4.4.5-4

      Final Number of Broilers per Operation Based on  Modeled Region,
        Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based
                              Application of Manure
South
Legion ,
lantic




=====
Land AvaUability
Category
No excess
Excess, with acres
Excess, no acres
No excess
Excess, with acres
Excess, no acres
=====
======
Medium 1
-. 39,786
39,842
39,609
39,075
39,414
39,419
=====
=====
Medium 2
55,963
58,359
56,176
54,921
57,684 •
57,557
====
=====
Medium 3
85,865
89,574
86,342
84,423
88,640
88,516
=====
Large 1
125,000
133,430
151,184
125,000
134,913
132,017
=====
=====
JLargel
273 909
329,505
381,884
251,127
314,098
325,838
=— , — i
                                       4-53

-------
                                   Table 4.4.5-5
      Final Number of Broilers per Operation Based on Modeled Region,
      Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based
                              Application of Manure
   Region
 Land Availability
    Category
                               Medium 1
          Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1:
                                                                             Large 2
 Mid-Atlantic
No excess
39,642
                                            55,618
                                          85,355
            125,000
             Excess, with acres
                    39,851
           58,110
                                                       89,171
            132,696
             Excess, no acres
                    39,609
                                            56,176
                       86,342
                                                     149,292
                                                                             219,247
                                                                326,246
                                                                             385,154
 South
No excess
38,845
                                            53,886
                                          82,820
                                 125,000
             Excess, with acres
                    39,427~
            57,644
                                                        88,596
            135,091
                                                                             219,247
                                                                312,224
4.4.6
Average Head - Swine Operations
             USDA NRCS (2002) provided information to EPA on the number of swine

facilities and total USDA AUs using the 1997 Census of Agriculture based on the following

classifications:
                    Operation, size:


                    Land availability:
                     Location:

                     Nutrient basis:
                           ^2,500 head, 1,250-2,499 head, and 750-1,249
                           head.

                           No excess (Category 1 farms, with sufficient crop or
                           pasture land).

                           Excess, with acres (Category 2 farms with some
                           land, but not enough land to assimilate all manure
                           nutrients).

                           Excess, no acres (Category 3 farms with none of the
                           24 major crop types identified by NRCS).

                           Eleven states or groups of states.

                           Applications are based on nitrogen (N) or
                           phosphorus (P) application rates.
                                          4-54

-------
              Table 4.3.6-1 in Section 4.3.6 presents the number of facilities for each
 classification combination.  While USDA NRCS (2002) provided information by region, size
 class, and land availability category, it did not provide data to.estimate average head count by
 operation type (i.e., farrow-to-finish, grow-finish) or the number of operations by manure storage
 (i.e., pit storage, lagoon, evaporative lagoon). Thus, it was necessary to estimate a conversion
 factor that represented both breeding hogs and hogs for slaughter to convert the total USDA AUs
 to head count.  According to USDA NRCS (2000), the number of head-per USDA AU ranges
 from 2.67 for breeding hogs to 9.09 for hogs for slaughter.  Using summary :data provided by the
 USDA NRCS (2002), EPA developed a conversion factor of 6 head per USDA AU, in order to
 convert the USDA NRCS data to number of head.  Total head were disaggregated using the same
procedure as described in Section 4.3.6 (to disaggregate .swine facilities) for each modeled size
class and individual state. These results were aggregated info regions, andlhen ultimately into
modeled regions, as summarized in Tables 4.4.6-1 and 4.4.6-2 for nitrogen-and phosphorus-based
application rates, respectively.
                                   Table 4.4.6-1
       Final Number of Swine per Operation Based on Modeled Region,
        Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Nitrogen-Based
                              Application of Manure
; Region
Central







	
NA - Not applicable. '
Land Availability
" Category
No excess
Excess, with acres .
Excess, no acres
No excess
Excess, with acres
Excess, no acres
No excess
Excess, with acres
Excess, no acres

=====
Medium 1
NA
NA
NA
889
1,031
976
871
950
976

==^==
Medium 2
NA
NA
NA
1,368
1,554
1,477
1,332
1,465
1,522

Medium 3
NA
NA
NA .
1,900
2,158
2,051
1,898
2,035
2,114

Large 1
2,500
3,696
4,999
2,664
4,581
4,424
2,505
3,457
4,561


6,553
11,065
34,944
7,838
13,713
14,929
5,927
12,132
16,982

                                       4-55

-------
                                  Table 4.4.6-2
       Final Number of Swine per Operation Based on Modeled Region,
      Land Availability Category, Operation Size for Phosphorus-Based
                             Application of Manure
Region
Central, .
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Land Availability
Category
No excess
Excess, with acres '
Excess, no acres
No excess
Excess, with acres
Excess, no -acres
No excess
Excess, with acres

Medium 1
NA
NA
NA
883
964
976
863
926
976
Medium 2
NA
NA
NA
1,346
1,496
. 1,477
1,311
1,415
1,522
Medium 3
NA
NA
NA
1,888
2,077
2,051
1,885
1,965
2,114
Large 1
2,500
3,304
4,999
2,500
4,134
.4,424
• . 2,500
2,878
4,463
Large 2
6,037
9,890
34,944
6,390
12,375
14,929
5,094
, ,?,172
16,636
NA-Not applicable.

              EPA decided to develop model farms for the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions
because over 93 percent of the facilities with more than 750 head were located in these two
regions in 1997 (USDA NASS, 1999b). EPA added additional model farms in the Central region
based on comments received on the proposed rule that many large facilities had recently located
to states in the Central region.            .                                    .
4.5
Wastewater/Dilution Water
             The amount of wastewater and dilution water generated at dairies and veal
 operations is needed for the design of storage and treatment technologies.  The cost model
 calculates the amount of wastewater generated for each model farm. Sections 4.5.1 through 4.5.4
 describe the estimates of wastewater generated at dairies and veal, poultry, and swine operations
 and the assumptions and equations used in the cost model.  Beef feedlots and heifer operations do
 not generate any wastewater under the model farm assumptions. (For the purpose of this report,
 the term "wastewater" does not include rainwater runoff.)
                                         4-56

-------
 4.5.1
Wastewater Generation at Dairies
               The cost model calculates the total amount of wastewater generated at dairies and
 uses it as input for the design of storage andlreatment technologies.  Wastewater, as used in the"
 cost model, includes water from flushing or hosing confinement barns and milk parlors at dairies
 and veal operations. Section 4.5.1 describes the equations used to calculate the wastewater
 generated, and .the.different wastewater sources present at hose and flush dairies.

      ...    T -Hose Dairies  -           ~r^=r --.-

               Wastewater generated at hose dairies includes wash water for equipment, milk
 parlor floors, and holding area floors.  The cost model assumes wastewater is generated only in
 the milk parlor for hose dairies, because confinement barn waste is scraped without using flush
 water.  Table 4.5.1-1 lists the  sources of milk parlor wastewater by size class for dairies using
 hose systems.
                                     Table 4.5.1-1
       Milk Parlor Wastewater Generated at Dairies Using Hose Systems
/"- £ ".Water Source :; -••;.
Bulk Tank-Manual"
Pipeline In Parlor2
Miscellaneous
Equipment3
Cow Preparation-
Manual11
Milkhouse Floor1"
Parlor and Holding
Area Flush*
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
••;:Y.; ;-•*.•:•'••;,. . •'• " />,;•':•
Medium Operations
t2¥^00'Head) T
35
100
30
' 0.375
15
-30
.^-V^aiege' -•.-::.;.
Operations '
<* 700 Head) ;
30
125
30
0.25
10
20
         	„ .*.„,».,. „„„ 4 AMii WW4 *.iu\* - / , i-rfuiy JfltcatOll XlUUSllig OllU CUUlpmeill, P/
'Information taken from Midwest Plan Service - 18, Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook, p2.5
                                          4-57

-------
               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  x  Cow Preparation x Number of Dairy Cattle
                   Day
               ...,,,-.  ,j   '  -.  _ ;..-..    ,    •             .•
               Milkhouse Floor Wash

               No. Milkings  x Parlor and Holding Area Flush
                   Day
                After plugging in the values from Table 4.5.1-1, and assuming the number of
 washes and milkings equals 2.5, the total wastewater generated in the milk parlor for each size
 class is computed using the following equations:
 <200 Head
 200-700 Head
 >700 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)
 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)
 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)
                                                4-58

-------
               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 cows, both lactating and dry, are used to calculate parlor
 wastewater.

               Flush Dairies

               Dairies using flush systems generate larger quantities of water than dairies using
 hose systems.  Table 4.5.1-2 lists the sources of wastewater by size class for dairies using flush
 systems.

                                     Table 4.5.1-2

       Milk Parlor Wastewater Generated at Dairies Using Flush Systems8
Water Source
Bulk Tank-Automatic
Pipeline In Parlor
Miscellaneous
Equipment
Cow Preparation-
Automatic
Milkhouse Floor
Parlor and Holding Area
Flush
•','•• -.•JUiiitS''- '"•
gal/wash
gal/wash •
gal/day
gal/wash-cow
gal/day
gal/day-cow
Small Operations
(<200Head)
60
75
30
2
20
40
Medium Operations
@00-700ftead)
55
100
30
2
15
32.5
Large Operations
• (N700 Head) i
50
125
30
2
10
25
                                    Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook, page 2.5

              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 x (Bulk Tank Rinse + Pipeline Rinse")
       Day             Wash
                                                                              Wash
                                          4-59

-------
                             +,      Miscellaneous Equipment

                             +      No. Washes x  Cow Preparation x Number of Dairy Cattle
                                       Day

                             +      Milkhouse Floor Wash

                             +      No. Milkings x  Parlor and Holding Area Flush
                                       Day
              Afterplugging in the values from Table 4.5.1-2, the total wastewater generated in

the milk parlor for each size class is computed using the following equations:


< 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 milk parlor wastewater, water is used to flush the confinement

 bams.  The amount of water required is estimated at 100 gal/day-cow (MWPS, 1993). The

 amount of wastewater generated is calculated using the following equation:
                                              4-60

-------
                  Barn Wastewater (gal/day) = 100 gal/day-cow * Number of Dairy Cattle

 Because only the milking herd is housed in the confinement bam for the flush dairy model farm,
 only the milking herd is.counted in the number of dairy cattle. Table 4.5.1-3 presents a summary
 of the wastewater generation by dairy model farm given the average head described in Section
 4.4.

                                      Table 4.5.1-3

                   Wastewater Generation by Dairy Model Farm
Animal Type
Dairy-Flush
Dairy-Hose
Size Class -
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1 - *
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
•, ** ^ ?
Average Head
250
425
600
1,430
250
425
600
1,430
Parlor v,
Wastewater" ~~
(gal/day)
-9,808
16,370
22,933
43,378
692
856
1,020
1,371
Barn
Wastewater"
(gal/day) •
25,000
42,500
60,000
143,000
0
0
0

Total
Wastewater
(gal/day)
34,808
58,870
82,933
186,378
692
856
1,020

mature dairy cows, both lactating and dry, are used to calculate parlor wastewater.
4.5.2
Wastewater Generation at Veal Operations
              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 only. It is estimated that the amount of water required is 100 gal/day-cow, the same value
as provided for dairy barns (MWPS, 1993); therefore, the wastewater generated from veal
operations is calculated using the following equation:

                 Barn Wastewater (gal/day) = 100 gal/day-calf x Number of Veal Calves
                                          4-61

-------
             Total Wastewater Generation

             The equations listed in Section 4.4 require the average number of animals as input.
Table 4.4.4-1 lists the average number of head for each model farm. The total wastewater
generated is the sum of the wastewater generated from the confinement barn and milk parlor.

           Total Wastewater (gaUday) = Parlor Wastewater (gal/day) + Bam Wastewater (gal/day)

Table 4.5.2-1 shows the wastewater generation by veal model farm.
                                    Table 4.5.2-1
                   Wastewater Generation by Veal Model Farm


Animal Type
Veal




Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2


.-.' :• •-•;'.•. !
Average Head
400
540
1,080

Wastewater
(gal/day)
, 0
0
0
Barn
Wastewater
(gal/day)
40,000
54,000
108,000

Wastewater
(gal/Say)
40,000
54,000
108,000
 4.5.3
Wastewater and Dilution at Dry Poultry Operations
              The dilution of as-excreted manure is calculated to provide the volume of manure
 and additional liquids stored. Manure is diluted with water by a dilution value of one to three.  A
 dilution value of one means the stored manure has roughly the same volume as the excreted
 manure (e.g., layer manure that is stored in the bottom of the layer house).  Broiler and turkey
 manure has a 75- to 80-percent moisture content when excreted. After the manure dries, broiler
 and turkey manure is usually handled as litter.  However, the loss of moisture during storage is
 approximately replaced by the bedding material. Thus, a dilution value of one was used to
 estimate the volume of broiler and turkey manure/litter.
                                          4-62

-------
 4.5.4
Wastewater and Dilution at Swine and Wet Layer Operations
         •    - Under baseline conditions, EPA assumed a dilution value of three when the
 manure is flushed to a lagoon for storage and a dilution factor of 1.2 when manure is stored in a
 pit beneath the house. EPA estimated the dilution value for lagoon storage by adding together
 typical slatted floor manure flush volumes (MWPS), the annual net precipitation for the lagoon
 surface, and the volume of a 25-year 24-hour rainfall event. This value is multiplied by the
 manure production in an approach similar to USDA NRCS (1998). Thus, an operation that
 produces 1,000 gallons of manure "as excreted" actually produces 3,000 gallons of liquid wastes
 after flushing. The resulting volume is the estimated total annual pumpdown volume.

              As a comparison, the University of Missouri estimates annual pumpdown volumes
 based on contributions~from manure, daily fresh water inputs, net rainfall, and runoff.  Though
 pumpdown will vary by rainfall and climate, the Missouri model predicts the dilution value used-
 by EPA may overestimate the volume of effluent associated with lagoon operations. EPA decided
 to use a dilution value of three'fbr baseline conditions to ensure that the amount of waste
 produced and the associated manure handlmg costs were not underestimated.

              A dilution value of two reflects methods of lowering the amount of dilution that
 occurs (e.g., reducing wastewater volumes due to recycling of flush water and the corresponding
 reduction in fresh water use; reducing or eliminating precipitation from entering the liquid waste
 impoundments).  A lower dilution value will result in a large reduction in the volume of liquid
 manure that must be hauled, with a corresponding reduction hi hauling costs. A dilution factor of
 two was assumed when manure is flushed to a lagoon for storage and the facility constructs a
 secondary lagoon and installs a pump to recycle water for flushing.  These practices were used to
 lower the costs of Category 2 and 3 facilities with lagoons that had to haul excess manure
nutrients away from the facility.
                                         4-63

-------
4.6
Manure Generation
              The amount of manure generated at animal feeding 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. For cattle model farms, the cost model calculates the amount of
manure generated for each model farm. Section 4.6.1 describes the estimates of manure
generated at beef feedlots, dairies, and veal operations and the assumptions and equations used in
the cost model. Sections 4.6.2 and 4.6.3 describes the calculation of recoverable manure at
poultry and swine operations.
4.6.1
Manure Generation at Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, Dairies, and Veal
Operations
              The cost model calculates the total amount of manure generated using manure
 characteristics and the total number of arumals^on the beef feedlots, dairies, heifer and veal
 operations.  Table 4.6.1-1 lists the assumptions used tojipproximate 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.

              Manure Placement

              The amount of manure generated is distributed among the different areas of the
 operation. For beef feedlots and heifer operations, it is assumed that all manure is generated on
 the drylot.  For yeal operations, it is assumed that all manure from mature cattle is generated in
 the confinement barn.  For dairies, it is assumed that 85 percent of the manure from mature cattle
 is generated in the confinement barn and 15 percent is generated hi the milking parlor (USDA,
 1996). Also, at dairies, it is assumed that calves and heifers on site deposit manure on the drylot.
 These estimates are based on the amount of time dairy cattle typically spend in each facility.
                                           4-64

-------
                                        Table 4.6.1-1
                    Cattle Manure Production and Characteristics
£3- Animal Type
Beef Cattle
Mature dairy cows
Calves^
Heifers
Veal Calves ; "
Animal
WeigbtObs)"
877
1,350 .....
350
550
275
, Manure Production
(lb/day/l,000-Ib animal)
63b
83.5b 	
65.8b 	 	
66b
65.8b
Manure Density
^Ob/ft3)8
62
- 62
., 	 62 ,
62
62
Manure Moisture
percent)
88C
- 87C
..•• 98"
87d
98°
 a technical Development Document, 2002.
 b Lander, C.H., D. Moffit, andK. Alt, 1998.                _     . '  '_
 CNCSU,1994.    '"  """   	"'?"*."     	""
 EAssumes that heifers are equal to dairy cows and calves are equal to veal calves
 "ASAE,;1993.
               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 4.6.1-2 is used for manure generation

information, and information hi Table 4.4.1-1 is used to obtain the average number of head.


               Beef cattle, calves, and heifers

                    Drylot Manure Generated = Average Head x Animal Weight (Ibs)
                            x Manure Production (lb/day/l,000-lb animal)

               Mature dairy cows

             Milking Parlor Manure Generated = 0.15 x Average Head x Animal Weight (Ibs) x
                             Manure Production (lb/day/l,000-lb animal)
  •  '   i   .  .  •      •     ,  t
                 Barn Manure Generated = 0.85 x Average Head x Animal Weight (Ibs) x
                             Manure Production (lb/day/l,000-lb animal)

               Veal calves

                   Barn Manure Generated = Average Head x Animal Weight (Ibs) x
                             Manure Production (lb/day/l,000-lb animal)

              Table 4.6.1-2 presents manure generation by model farm.  Manure generation does

not vary by region.
                                            4-65

-------
                                    Table 4.6.1-2
                    Cattle Manure Generation by Model Farm
Animal Type
Beef
Heifers
Dairy
Veal
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Drylot
Manure" ,
Obs/dajr) ,
20,427
30,495 '
42,330
101,590
1,430,804
17,010
26,578
37,209
63,787
4,461
7,576
10,689
25,474
NA
NA
NA
Milking Parlor
Manure
(Ibs/day)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
NA
3,345
5,682
8,017
19,106
NA
NA
NA
Barn Manure
(Ibs/day)
NA
NA
NA .
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
18,958
32,200
45,427
108,266
7,238
9,771
19,543
Total Manure
(Ibs/day)
20,427
30,495
42,330
101,590
1,430,804
17,010
26,578
37,209
63,787
26,764
45,458
64,132
152,846
7,238
9,771
19,543
•For dairy farms, drylot manure includes calf and heifer waste.
Mature Cattle Head.
NA - Not applicable.
                              The number of calves and heifers is estimated as 0.3 x Average
4.6.2
Recoverable Manure Generation at Poultry Operations
              The poultry cost model did not use estimates of manure generation to calculate
costs. Instead, estimates of recoverable manure were made. A procedure for the calculation of
on-farm nutrient production was outlined in a report by USDA NRCS (1998) and subsequently
updated (USDA NRCS, 2000). Total nutrient availability was estimated for each livestock type
by first multiplying the average confined livestock population (in animal units) by the number of
tons of manure produced (i.e., manure as-excreted) by each type of livestock, and then
                                          4-66

-------
  multiplying by the recovery factor. The recovery factor reflects that portion of manure that can
  be collected from the confinement areas and land applied. The recovery factor recognizes that not
  all nutrients may be recovered and reflects typical nutrient losses due to volatilization, nutrients
  taken up by plants in grazing area^accumulation in confinement area soils, feedlot runoff, or
  leaching into ground water. This result, tons of recoverable manure, was multiplied by the
  number of pounds of nitrogen or phosphorus contained in one ton of manure to compute the total
  pounds of recoverable nutrients. The resulting value was further adjusted for typical nutrient
  losses that occur during storage and handling to generate an estimate of total available nitrogen
  and phosphorus from confined livestock manure.  Table 4.6.2-1 presents details of manure and
  animal characteristics for poultry.           '•  .-:>
             -                        Table 4.6.2-1
     Poultry Manure Characteristics Used to Calculate Nutrient Production
Animal
Chicken
Chicken
Chicken
Chicken
Turkey
Operation
Broiler
Layer
Pullet
Integrated
Layer

Animal
Turnover
#
5.5.
1.0
2.0
1.0
2.5'
Average
Animal
Weight
Ib
3
4
2
4
11
Animal Unit
Conversion
#animaIs/AU
(USDA AU)
400
270
500
270
89
Manure
Production
tons/AU/yr
(USDAAU)
15
11
8
11
9
Nutrient Content
N
P
Ib/ton of manure
16
18
14
16

7
9
9
7

              Regional Recovery Factors

              EPA developed regional recovery factors based on state-level recovery factors
provided by USDA (see Table 4.6.2-2). The regional factor was calculated by weighting the state
recovery factor with the number of animals of each type in a given state. Table 4.6.2-3 gives an
example of the calculation of weighting factors.  In Table 4.6.2-3, the number of broilers (NB) is
multiplied by the state recovery factor (RF) to produce the weighting factor. The weighting
                                          4-67

-------
factor (RF * NB) is summed and divided by the total number of broilers in a region to obtain the
regional recovery factor.

                                  Table 4.6.2-2
                Poultry Regional Recovery Factors for Manure

Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic"
Midwest
Pacific
South
Recoverable Manure Correction Factor :
/.V. NVv;Chicken ^,'.;.>;\
0.95
0.97
0.94
.. 0.90
0.96
V" XV'3torljgy''../: %..•>.
0.75
0.97
0.62
0.94
0.72
                                  Table 4.6.2-3
     Example of Weighted Averaging Method for Manure Recovery Factor
State
AL
AR
FL
GA
LA
MS
SC


Number of Broilers (NB)" ;
134,027,304
172,617,806
19,973,361
149,740,420
• 20,538,744
26,313,171
617,762,696
SumofNB
523 210 806
Recovery Factor (RF)b
0.98
0.95
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.95
1.00
Sum of (Mb x RF)/sum of NB
Weighted mean = 0.960
• ->RF x NB :;,...! .:;•,.. .
131,346,758
163,986,916
18,974,693
142,253,399
20,538,744
24,997,512
617,762,696
Sumof(NBxRF)
502,098,022
•USDANASS, 1999.
bUSDANRCS, 1998.
             Nutrient Losses

             The values for nitrogen and phosphorus content after losses were estimated to
provide the amount of nutrients that would be present in land-applied manure and effluent. There
is no national or even regional perspective on what these values should be. These estimates are
based on a three-part assumption:
                                        4-68

-------
                     Nitrogen losses will greatly exceed those of phosphorus primarily due to
                     volatilization of nitrogen compounds.

                     As the quality (from an automation view) and number of manure
                     management systems improverthe losses of nutrients, particularly nitrogen,
                     may increase.  In other words, as the manure management system becomes
                     more automated, nitrogen losses through volatilization also increase.

                     Phosphorus amounts are present within the bottom sludge of lagoons and
                     ponds, and even though the sludge is not removed on a regular basis, the
                     phosphorus content must be considered in an application strategy.  In other
                     words, effluent composition may not reflect actual nitrogen and
                     phosphorus contents in the lagoon or holding pond.
              Numerous individuals from USD A, universities, and industry groups were
consulted to arrive at the "national" values for nutrient content after losses. The discussions

focused on the types of manure systems typically used by the industry in different parts of the

country, the losses typically associated with these systems (see Chapter 11, Agricultural Waste

Management Field Handbook,USDA, 1992), and the portion of the nation's livestock raised in
different parts of the country.
4.6.3
Recoverable Manure Generation at Swine Operations
              The same procedure used to compute on-farm nutrient production used for poultry

(see Section 4.6.2) is used for swine.  Details of manure and animal characteristics are given in

Table 4.6.3-1 for swine.  EPA developed regional recovery .factors based on state-level recovery

factors provided by USDA (see Table 4.6.3-2). The regional factor was calculated by weighting

the state recovery factor with the number of animals of each type in a given state.
                                          4-69

-------
                                    Table 4.6.3-1
      Swine Manure Characteristics Used to Calculate Nutrient Production
Animal
: i
Swine
Swine
Operation
Integrated
Slaughter
• ' • .: , -.-I.
Animal
Turnover
#
2.1
2.8
, Average
Animal
Weight
Ib
110
135
Animal Unit
Conversion
#animais/AU
(U§DAAU)
9
7
Manure
Production
tons/AU/yr
.(USDAAU),
15
12
Nutrient Content
N
P
Ib/ton of manure
3
3
3
3
Source: USDA NRCS (1998).
                                    Table 4.6.3-2
                  Swine Regional Recovery Factors for Manure

Region
Central
Mid Atlantic 	
Midwest
Pacific
South
Recoverable Manure
Correction Factor
0.75
-~ 	 -0.87
0.76
0.76
0.54
4.7
Precipitation Data and Runoff
             The cost model uses precipitation data to estimate the annual direct precipitation
and runoff, the amount of direct precipitation and runoff from a peak storm, and the amount of
direct precipitation and runoff from a chronic storm. These data .are used to properly size open
storage areas, such as runoff ponds and anaerobic lagoons.

             For beef feedlots, diaries, and heifer operations, the cost model includes
calculations for runoff from drylots and direct precipitation into open liquid storage areas (e.g.,
lagoons, ponds). For swine and wet layer operations, the cost model calculates costs for
                                         4-70

-------
 operations that have only direct precipitation into open liquid storage areas (i.e., do not have
 drylots from which runoff is collected).

               The cost model'does not use precipitation data to estimate incremental regulatory
 costs for dry or wet poultry operations.  It is assumed that all poultry operations use total
 confinement and the production area is never in" contact with precipitation.  Dry poultry houses
 are cleaned butperiodically and the operators may have the litter hauled off site, stacked in a
 is'hed, or piled outside at the edges of fields for spreading as a fertilizer. The costs for the best
 management practices (BMPs) (such as covered storage and berms) used to mitigate potential
                         • -\r ,'
 runoff from dry poultry litter are not dependent upon the amount of precipitation. The cost model
 assumes that wet layer operations '..use a lagoon to store liquid manure and that operators prevent
 runoff from precipitation from entering the lagoon. It is also assumed that the lagoons are  sized
 properly to prevent overflow from rainfall events less than the 25-year/24-hour rainfall event.

               As with poultry operations, the cost model does not use precipitation data to
 estimate the regulatory costs for swine operations. It is assumed that all swine operations subject
 to the rule  use total confinement and the production area is never in contact with precipitation,
 and that operators prevent uncontaminated runoff from entering waste storage areas.  The model
 also assumes that swine operations use either lagoons or deep pits to store liquid wastes and that
 the lagoons are sized properly to prevent overflow from less than the 25-year/24-hour rainfall
 event. The methodology for estimating the costs of constructing and operating a lagoon are
 presented in Section 5.4.

              Runoff from drylots at beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies under all
 options 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 and
heifer feedlots.  Dairies are assumed to keep calves and heifers on site on  dry lots and to collect
runoff from these  drylots.  Veal cattle, swine, and poultry model farms assume that the animals
                                           4-71

-------
are kept in confinement bams rather than drylpts; therefore, it is assumed that contaminated
runoff is negligible for these animal types.
4.7.1
Precipitation Estimates
              The annual precipitation for each region is calculated using monthly precipitation
values from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC, 1999) representing the wettest six months
of the year. EPA averaged all NCDC city data for each state to approximate an average monthly
state precipitation.  Next, EPA calculated average regional monthly precipitation data by
averaging the state precipitation estimates in each region. Then, EPA summed the average
regional monthly precipitation over the wettest consecutive six-month period to obtain the
"wettest six-month precipitation." The average annual regional precipitation was conservatively
estimated by multiplying the wettest six-month precipitation by two (ERG, 20QOa). ,

              Annual evaporation is estimated from a map of mean annual lake evaporation
(MWPS, 1997). The net regional six-month precipitation is then calculated as the difference
between six-month precipitation and one-half of the annual evaporation, shown below.
             Net Six-Month Precipitation = Six - Month Precipitation -
                                                             Annual Evaporation
              Rainfall depth for the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event, the 10-year, 1-hour rainfall
event, and the 10-year, 10-day rainfall event is estimated from map contour lines (MWPS, 1997).
Table 4.7.1-1 presents the precipitation estimates for all animal groups and each region.
                                           4-72

-------
                                     Table 4.7.1-1
                                Precipitation Estimates
Animal
Type
All
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
-Wettest 6-Month
Precipitation
(in) '
6.65
21.52
11.2
23.25
25.59
25-Year, 24-Hour
Precipitation
(to)
4
5.4
5
10
8
10-year, 1-Hour
Precipitation
(in) v
1
2.1
2
1.6
3
10-year, 10-day
Precipitation ;
(in) i
' 7
• . ,9
7
6
12
 4.7.2
Drylot Area Estimates
              The cost model uses the area of the drylot to determine the quantity of runoff.

 Runoff from the drylot is considered to be contaminated with manure solids;  therefore, it requires
 collection and storage.  Table 4.7.2-1 presents the range of drylot area for each animal type for
 which runoff is calculated.                                                      '


       ;                              Table 4.7.2-1

                      Drylot Area Required by Animal Type3
Animal Tfype .••;..:
Calves
Heifers
Beef Cattle
Area Required per Animal (ft?) ' "
150-300
250-500
300-500
              "Midwest Flan Service - 6 (MWPS,
              unpaved lots with mounds, page 1.1
                             Beef Housing and Equipment Handbook,
              The cost model assumes the area required for each animal type equals the average

area of each range plus an additional 15 percent for storage and handling facilities and feed silage

areas (AEA, 1999). The following equation is used to calculate total drylot area per animal:
                                          4-73

-------
                  Drylot Area (ftVanimal) = Average Area + (0.15 x Average Area)

             Table 4.7.2-2 lists the calculated drylot area per animal 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.
                                    Table 4.7*2-2
         Drylot Area Required by Animal Type Used in the Cost Model
- -./'-.- Ajfimal,:Typev - ?ti\ :.;nJ
Calves
Heifers
Beef Cattle
i^ieajRequired per Animal (ft*)
: 259
431
460
4.7.3
Total Runoff
              The cost model uses the precipitation and.area of the drylot to determine the total
amount of runoff from the drylot. The cost model assumes 40 percent of the total precipitation
over the storage period will run off a drylot that is 20 percent paved (Shuyler L., 1999):
                                      R=0.4xp x A
where:
              R
              P
              A
              Runoff volume (ft3)
              Precipitation for the wettest six months (ft)
              Drylot area (ft2).
              Table 4.7.3-1 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.
                                          4-74

-------
                                    Table 4.7.3-1
                            Six-Moath Runoff Volumes
Animal Type
Beef
Dairy .:
Heifers
<* y*-"y
I^Jze Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
-Large!
Large 2 —
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1

Central
37,728
56,286
78,106
187,517
2,640,631
11,471
19,501
27,531
65,616
38,238
59,746
83,645
143,391
Wettest Six-Month Runoff (ft3) by Region
Mid-Atlantic
122,090
- 182,145
252,760
606,821
'8,545,320
37,122
63,107 •
89,093
212,338
123,740
193,344
270,681
464,025
Midwest
63,541
94,797
131,548
315,818
4,447,378
19,320
32,844
46,368
110,510
64,400
100,625
140,875
241,500
Pacific
131,905
196,788
273,079
655,604
9,232,281
40,106
68,181
96,255
229,408
133,688
208,886
292,441
501,328
South
145,181
216,594
300,563
72r,587
10,161,465
44,143
75,043
105,943
252,497
147,143
229,910
321,874
551,784
             The cost model also calculates runoff volumes from the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall
event (for Options 1 through 7) and the 10-year, 10-day rainfall event (for Option 1 A). The
volume of runoff for a single rainfall event is calculated using the equation below, which assumes
that one-half inch of rain is absorbed by the drylot (MWPS, 1993):
where:
             R
             P
             A
                                  R =
               (P - 0.5)
             (12 in/ft) x A
Runoff volume (ft3)
Precipitation (in)
Drylot area (ft2).
                                         4-75

-------
             Table 4.7.3-2 shows the runoff volumes for a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event by
model farm and by region, and Table 4.7.3-3 shows the runoff volumes for the 10-year, 10-day
rainfall event by model farm.  The cost model uses these volumes to size settling basins, ponds,
and lagoons.      "       •     ,.
                                   Table 4.7.3-2
                25-Year, 24-Hour Rainfall Event Runoff Values
Animal Type
Beef
Dairy
Heifers
-•-. • --- • -
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
MediumS
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
.,,._.., — --•"Runoff (ft3) by Region
Central'
49,642
74,060
102,772
246,733
3,474,514
15,094
25,659
36,225
86,336
50,313
78,613
110,059
188,672
Mid-Atlantic
69,498
103,684
143,880
345,426
. 4,864,320
21,131
35,923
50,715
120,871
70,438
110,059
154,082
264,141
"Midwest
63,825
95,220
132,135
317,228
4,467,233
19,406
32,991
46,575
111,004
64,688
101,074
141,504
242,578
" Pacific
134,742
201,020
278,952
669,703
9,430,824
40,969
69,647
98,325
234,341
136,563
213,379
298,730
•512,109
" South
106,375
158,700
220,225
528,713
7,445,388
32,344
54,984
77,625
185,006
107,813
168,457
235,840
404,297
                                        4-76

-------
                                    Table 4.7.3-3
                  10-Year, 10-Day Rainfall Event Runoff Values
Animal
Beef
Dairy
Heifers
— •


j
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1 ••-
Medium 1
Medium 2
MediunfS
Large 1
Runoff («P)Tby Region , -
Central
7,092
10,580
14,682
35,248
496,359
2,156
3,666
5,175
12,334
7,188
' 11230
15,723
26,953 ,
Mid-Atlantic
22,693
33,856
46,981
112,792
1,588,349
6,900
11,730
16,560
- -- 39,468-
23,000 •
~—--35,937
" 50,312
- 86,250
• Midwest
21,275
31,740
44,045
105,743
1,489,078
- 6,469
10,997
15,525
37,001
21,563 •-•;
33,691 —
- 47,168
80,859
Pacific
15,602
23,276
32,300
77,545
1,091,990
, 4,744
8,064
11,385
27,134
15,813 •
24,707
34,590
59,297
South
35,458
52,900
73,408
176,238
2,481,796
10,781
18,328
25,875
61,669
35,938
56;152 '
78,613
134,766
4.7.4
Runoff Solids
             Runoff from drylots contains some portion of solids. Midwest Plan Service
suggests 1.5 percent of the runoff by mass is solids (MWPS, 1993). EPA assumes 1he runoff
solids have the same waste characteristics as excreted manure. To determine the mass of solids,
EPA'Converts the total runoff volume to mass using the density of water (62.4 Ib/cf). Then, EPA
calculates the mass of solids in the runoff by multiplying the mass of runoff by 1.5 percent.
                                        4-77

-------
where:
                        Runoff solids (cf) = RunofiF6mo cf x 62.4 Ib/cf x 0.015
             Runoff6mo
             62.4
             0.015
             =      Runoff from the wettest six months of the year (cf)
             =      Density of water (Ib/cf)
             =      Proportion of runoff that is solids.
4.8
Crops and Agronomic Application Rates
              The cost model estimates the amount"of nutrients that may be applied to cropland.
To make these estimations, the cost model uses data about representative crops and crop rotation
practices typical of each fann type in eachregion. .These data are used to calculate a regional
agronomic rate for each farm type.      -  —	•-'	          ~              •   [r

              EPA developed crop nitrogen and phosphorus requirements to depict conditions of
the model farms.  Extension personnef from counties with the densest populations of animals were
consulted to determine the common cropping practices. Crop yields were determined by dividing
the harvested quantity by the acreage obtained in the 1997 Census of Agriculture (USDA NASS,
1999b).  For some poultry operations, yields were far below expected and were changed to reflect
expected yields found in the  Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook (USDA NRCS,
1996). Crop nutrient removal (uptake) was based on data provided by USDA NRCS  (1998) for
swine and poultry operations and USDA for cattle operations (Lander C.H., D. Moffitt, and K.
Alt, 1998). The nitrogen application rates were increased to reflect the 30-percent loss of
nitrogen after land application of manure (Sutton A.L., D.W. Nelson,  and D.D. Jones, 1985) due
to volatilization of ammonia. The average  annual nitrogen and phosphorus crop removal and
application rates were calculated by dividing the total crop requirements over the time to
complete a full crop rotation.

          Crop Nitrogen Requirements (Ib/acre)  = Crop Yield (tons/acre) x Crop Uptake (lb/ton)nitrogi:n

        Crop Phosphorus Requirements (Ib/acre) = Crop Yield (tons/acre) x Crop Uptake (lb/ton)pllosphonis
                                           4-78

-------
              Table 4.8^1 presents the representative crops, crop rotations, 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.

              When more than one crop, in a given rotation, is grown on the land, the total crop
nutrient requirement for that land is equal to the sum of the individual crop nutrient requirements.
The cost model estimates that 70 percent of the nitrogen and 100 percent of the phosphorus in
cattle manure that is applied to the land is available for crop uptake and utilization over time
(Lander C.H., Di Moffitt, and K. Alt, 1998); therefore, the agronomic application rate is
calculated as the total crop nutrient requirement divided by the appropriate utilization factor.
         Manure Application Rate^^g^ (Ib/acre) = Total Crop Nitrogen Requirements (lb/acre)-^-70%
       Manure Application Ratephospllonis (Ib/acre) = Total Crop Phosphorus Requirements (lb/acre)-f-100%
              When more than one crop is present, the agronomic rate is presented as the
average of the individual agronomic rates for each crop. These agronomic application rates for
nitrogen- and phosphorus-based application scenarios are used as inputs to the cost model. Table
4.8-2 presents the total crop nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) requirements and manure
application rates (nitrogen and phosphorus) for all animal types by region.
4.9
Excess Manure
              EPA used data developed by USDA to determine the amount of excess manure at
each model farm with insufficient land to land apply all of the manure generated on the farm
(Category 2 facilities). These USDA data were developed as part of a national analysis of the
1997 Census of Agriculture data to estimate manure production at livestock facilities (Kellogg, R.
et. al., 2000). EPA applied these data to the appropriate model farms by animal types and size
classes for beef and dairy operations.  Veal operations are not included in this analysis as all veal
operations are considered to have sufficient cropland to land apply all of the manure generated at
the farm.  An alternative approach described in Section 4.9.2 was used to compute excess manure
nutrients for poultry and swine operations.

                                           4-79

-------
CO
 (U
       fl
       o
       i
U
 g?
•M
 03
"O
 03
 (U
V
1

*o


s
g;
a
0"
(2
a,
g
0


*J?
S
o
1
•5
R<
&
B.
O
U




















_
j
•«
*•
1
A.




1
bfl
z


Crop Yield



„
Rotation
1
o
S
U



B
O
*ob
K

i «

§
00
OO
S
-* o
01






Ol O


vo
t— t o
-< o





-8
S o



20 tons/acre
3 tons/acre




ta
It
O ^


_
J



1


', ,
O
m


oo oo
01 01






— 01
G*i O
•— < m


-H t—
-^





— rr
r~ o



27 tons/acre
6 tons/acre
-S-
•JS
S
S
S;
I
||
u <


— • ol
e'i'
0 U
u
•a
M
<
•o
is





_ OO
01 01






9 0



i— i r-.
""*•





— . •*
t~ o



20 tons/acre
6 tons/acre
-|-

3
S
6-
o
%
11
<3 n o





^^ 00 O
C""~ O\ ^3



17 tons/acre
• 2 tons/acre
3 tons/acre




t
"?
(3 ffi <§"


^_
1



j,
1




S
^^ o
O!






01 o'


VO
o
-* o
— 0





m
« o
t-~ o



20 tons/acre
3 tons/acre




"ca
0 iC
ll
O ^


_
2
u



1
J

"5, fe
si


00 O\







ss
— 01


^- r—
r rt





— . ^t-
f~ O
«0



17 tons/acre
4 tons/acre
f

i
2

li



~* Ol
n. o.
2 2
CJ O
o

1
<
rs





OO ON
T-H T— 1






ol 0
—i 01


« t—
« ^f





— M-
r- o
»n



17 tons/acre
4 tons/acre
i

cd
2
o
"? <2
u <


« 01
i-f
O O


'.,_,
0
13
is




„
oo >n o
m ol






m o o
o t-~

m
o
r— — i o >n
->1- « C3 O O
f*-





•* ^^ o
o r~ o
in



8 tons/acre
24 tons/acre
18 tons/acre


o*
_o
s
III
eS '? S3
S |.s
3c3£


-^ 01
U 0



O
1




°
oo •— < o
r-t rn






r-t O O


2
--< fO O
— • in o





_, 00 S
C-- C\ O



17 tons/acre
2 tons/acre
3 tons/acre




1
Hiji
U S (^


_
1



£
1





*_H in ON
ol —






o o t-

III
oc/o
01 Tj; 01
O O O






I'll
c-c^c-
oo vq o
o c*S --*
138 bu/acre
42 bu/acre
46 bu/acre


^
/_^ o
III
'? S fe
1 '§>•'§
O^i?


m
1


gi-
"S 1
^es


13
o>


in
t— <






m
Ol



£






o



8 tons/acre





1
M


— ,
I



1
cJ

ff
1
                                              4-80

-------
 "O
 «u
 S3
 O

U
oo
J
 us
H
^^
§•
R

CS»
-w
1
s
w
'i.
f
P5
1



;.
"a*
i

_s
«
g.
u



w



M
B.




1
•2



.
1
1
OH


d

1


•- •." \. ,'."'-""". '••" * •'•'V
Crop Yield
CA
B
e -
1
• e
- • , Tl
: S
r: 1
•:-' u


B
' 'Pi
'.;'" *.-
• : 'F--
-2 a* -
":•§, 'S
': .^ ^"




00






S





oo




oo



j 123 bushels/acre



B
6
«-*
1



-O






>n
co





O




s:



j 27 bushels/acre



1
I1
CM
U

.1^-

m

..




S





CO




S



163 bushels/acre



I
•1
CO
1
Q

i
•o



0
'~-
.,„-




S





o




OS



1 5 tons/acre ;



u
S
CL,
,
U


^
1



Tj-
cs
™




VO
a





s




>o



1 23 tons/acre : |



8-
•n
<3
T-H
1



1— t
""'
~




VO
00





~




o
vo



1 102 bushels/acre



cfl
3
CM
1



CO
CO





ro
O
>n





CO
CO




CM
m.


| 7 tons/acre ]



•§
^
CO
1



U
1



0
""*





5



'

o




£



, 5 tons/acre j



u
B-,
_
1



1
oo








t^-
CM






developed only one se
f
T3
§
g
C
f
_C
1
T3
O
"fi
«
CO
1
1
a>
p
1
Q
                                               4-81

-------
                        Table 4.8-2
Total Crop Nutrient Requirements and Manure Application Rates
Animal
Type
Beef




Dairy
Veal
Swine
Poultry

Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
All
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific

Total Crop RequirementisOto/acre)
Nitrogen :
142
247
222
287
160
142
161
161
287
160
102 ,
129
97
139
178
150
150
128
99
141
99
Phosphorus
21
28 .
'25
•, . r-32
r;v ,'49. -.
21
18
18
32
49
, 27 ,
24
14
1-9
18
15
15
20
10
14
10
Manure Application Rate (Jb/acre)
•;" ;N-Based:;;>:>;
203
353. t
, 317
410
,229
203
230
230
410
229
146
185
138
198
407
215
215
183
141
412
141
,.:•;. P-Based --;>•' •
21
28
25
32
49
21
18
18
32
49
27
24
14
19
34
15
15
20
10
34 1
10 1
                             4-82

-------
 4.9.1
Beef and Dairy
              The. USDA provides data on the number of farms with excess nitrogen and/or
 phosphorus, broken down by animal type and size class, as well as the pounds of total excess
 nitrogen or phosphorus produced by these farms. Appendix E of USDA's.report Manure
 Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial
 and Temporal Trends for the United States presents manure nutrient production according to
 farm type and size for 1997. This appendix identifies the total number of operations with farm-
 level excess nitrogen and the total amount of excess manure in pounds of nitrogen and
 phosphorus.  These farm counts correspond to the sum of EPA's Category 2 and 3 farms.
 However, to determine the excess for just the Category 2 farms, EPA used USDA's Table E97,
 Part III, Farms with Potential Excess Manure Nitrogen, Assuming No Export of Manure from
 Farm and Part V, Farms with Potential Excess Manure Phosphorus, Assuming No Export of
 Manure from. Farm.  This table contains the same data presented in Appendix E with  a breakout
 of the amount of excess manure in pounds of nitrogen and phosphorus for farms with available
 cropland (Category 2) and for farms with no acres of cropland (Category 3). Table 4.9.1-1
 presents the USDA data used by EPA to develop estimates of excess manure for each animal type
 and size class.

              EPA calculated the excess manure on a nitrogen and phosphorus basis  for
 Category 2 facilities by dividing the pounds of excess nutrients by the number of farms with
 excess manure and available cropland from USDA's Table E97.  For example, for Fattened Cattle
 > 11,000 head capacity (Beef Large 2), the amount of excess nitrogen and phosphorus per farm is
 calculated using the following equations:

                Excess Manure on Nitrogen Basis (Ib/farm) = 114,675,269/186 = 616,534
               Excess Manure on Phosphorus Basis (Ib/farm) = 86,121,090/213 = 404,324

Table 4.9.1-2 presents the estimates of excess manure by animal type and size class.
                                         4-83

-------
                                Table 4.9.1-1
          USDA Data on Manure Production at Livestock Facilities
Animal
Type
Beef
Heifer
Dairy
Size Class
Large2
Large 1
MediumS
Medium 2
Medium 1
•All
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
* « -r ,*.f
Enterprise Type
Fattened cattle >
1 1,000-head capacity
Fattened cattle. 1,300-
t6 ll.boO-.head '
capacity
Fattened cattle 650- to
l,300rhead capacity-
Cattle other than •
fattened cattle and •
dairy cows > 300 or
more animal units . t
Dairy farms > 700-
head capacity
Dairy farms 350- to
700-head capacity
Dairy farms 0- to 350-
head capacity
Farms -ttith.-Excess Nitrogen
Manure and Cropland or
Pastureland Available
Number of
Farms
186"""
112 •
i ! ""*
—|- •- 23-J- -
965
r~ ' i
394
358
2,266
Excess Manure
Nitrogen (Ibs)
'" 114,675,269
5,984,998
--.„„!. 220,917- ••
1,718,304
31,101,658
8,124,258
9,251,390
Farms with Excess Phosphorus
Manure and Cropland or
Pastureland Available
Number of
Farms
213
355
77
1,643
530
. 596
5,409
Excess Manure
Phosphorus (Ibs)
86,121,090
10,077,337
362,238
2,138,529
17,713,995
5,183,144
6,781,325
Source: USDA Table E97, Part III and Part V.
                                      4-84

-------
                                    Table 4.9.1-2
            Excess Manure Estimates by Animal Type and Size Class
Animal
Type
Beef
Dairy
Heifer :
Size Class
Large 2
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
Large 1
Medium 3
Medium 2
Medium 1
USDA Enterprise
' ' Type "- * (
Fattened cattle >
" 1 1 ,000-head capacity
Fattened'cattle 1,300- ""
to.ll;000-head
capacity
Fattened cattle 650- to
1 ,3 00-head -capacity
Dairy farms > 700-
head capacity
Dairy farms 350- to
700-head capacity
Dairy farms 0- to 350-
head capacity
Cattle other than
fattened cattle and
dairy cows > 300 or
more animal units
? •*
Excess Manure on
Nitrogen Basis (Ib/farm)
. 616;534 ;
'" ' 53,437" ~
; .. 9,605
78,938
22,693
4,083 	
1,781
"Excess Manure on
Phosphorus Basis
(Ib/farm)
404,324
28,387
4,704
33,423
8,697
1,254
1,302
4.9.2
Poultry and Swine
             USDA NRCS (2002) also provided information to the EPA regarding the total on-
farm acreage associated with different land availability classes.  On-farm acreage when combined
with the average head count (Section 4.4), manure generation (Sections 4.6.2 and 4.6.3), and
crop requirements (Section 4.8) can be used to estimate the excess nitrogen or phosphorus
produced on an operation. Box 1 illustrates the procedure used by USDA NRCS (1998) and
adopted in the poultry and swine cost model to calculate nutrient loading and land application for
a typical 1,000-hog operation in the Midwest region. The animal unit (AU) conversion factor in
Box 1 represents the number of animals having a combined weight of 1,000 pounds For this
example, for integrated swine operations (generally meaning farrow-to-finish farms), the average
       I                                  4-85

-------
weight of a hog is 110 pounds and the concomitant AU factor is 9.09 (1,000 Ib of animals/110 Ib
average hog weight).  Each hog AU produces 14.69 tons of manure per year with a concentration
after losses of 2.8 Ib P/ton manure and 2.82 Ib N/ton manure. This example uses a regional
recovery factor of 0.8 and nutrient uptake of 25 Ib P/acre. The result is an acreage of 145 acres
for application of all of the manure  at agronomic phosphorus rates for a 1,000-swine farrow-to-
finish operation.  Operations with (some, but) less available .acreage (i.e., Category 2 operations)
would have excess phosphorus and  would need to export the excess manure nutrients off-site.  As
such, the remainder of this section describes the data used for acreage available to Category 2
farms. (Note, that acreage for Category 1 operations was calculated by determining the mass of
manure nutrients produced at the operation and,dividing it by the manure application rate as
determined by the crop nutrient needs.)   .;, . .,,
   Box 1.  USDA's Method for Calculating Nutrient Production and Land Application
   To calculate annual nutrient production:
                  Ib            ...   , no. head.   tons manure    ..        ^ ^   Ib
   Nutrient produced (—) = no. head / animal units conversion (———) x	—— x nutrient concentation
AU
                                                          yr-AU
    Substituting AWMFH values:
    P produced (—) = 1,000 / 9.09 x 14.69 x 2.8=4,525—
             yr                          yr
    To calculate land required:
    Land required (—) = P produced (—) x regional recovery factor (%) / nutrient uptake (—)
               yr            yr                                    ac

    Substituting values from average of MPS -18, USDA, and NCSU data:
    Land required (acres) = 4,525 x 0.80 / 25 = 145 acres
                                                                                  ton
               For layers and turkeys, USDA NRCS (2002) provided information to EPA
regarding the total on-farm acreage with manure applied (for Category 2 layer and turkey
operations) using the 1997 Census of Agriculture data. These data were organized into the
following groups:
                      Operations with no excess manure using nitrogen- or phosphorus-based
                      applications;
                                            4-86

-------
                     Operations with no excess manure using nitrogen-based applications, but
                     which do not have enough acres to meet phosphorus-based applications;
                     Operations with excess manure using nitrogen-based applications and less
                     than 10 acres available for manure application; and
                     Operations with excess manure using nitrogen-based applications and 10 or
                     more acres available for manure application.
              EPA calculated the average acreage for Category 2-operations (using nitrogen-
based applications)! as the ratio .of the total acreage to number of operations for farms with excess
                 -          •             "           ••  • ~ i.
manure using nitrogen-based applications and 10 or more acres available for manure application
(see Table 4.9.2-1). For example, layer operations with 500 to 750 animal units have an average
of 83.3 acres (=14,998/180). Due to Census of Agriculture disclosure restrictions, USDA NRCS
had to aggregate the first two groups described above in numerous instances.  In these instances,
EPA assumed that 80 percent of the operations .from-the combined group together with the
Category 2 operations using nitrogen-based applications would be used for the Category 2
operations using phosphorus-based applications (see Table .4.9.2-1).  Based on ratios of
operations, the acreage for the largest layer size class in Table 4.9.2-1 was disaggregated to 217.1
and 531.2 acres for nitrogen-based applications and 332.5 and 813.5 acres for phosphorus-based
applications.

              For broilers,  USDA NRCS (2002) provided information to EPA on the number of
broiler facilities and on-farm acres with manure applied using the 1997 Census of Agriculture
based on the following classifications:
                     Operation size:

                     Land availability:
> 100,000 head, 50,000-99,999 head, and 30,000-
49,999 head.
No excess (Category 1 farms with sufficient crop or
pasture land).
Excess, with acres (Category 2 farms with some
land, but not enough land to assimilate all manure
nutrients).
                                          4-87

-------
                                      Table 4.9.2-1
        On-Farm Acreage for Category 2 Layer and Turkey Operations
Animal
Type
Layers
Turkeys
Size
Class
(AUs)
300-500
500-750
750-1000
>1000
300-500 "
500-750
750-1000

Farms with Excess Manure and 10 or More
Acres Available for Manure Application
Using Nitrogen-based Application
Number of '
Operations
349
J80 ...
96
278
= 464 	
289
139

Total
• Acreage
22,534
.14,998 , ,
11,267'
73,500
	 5T,32"(T~
40,584
26,516

Average
-Acreage '--•*
64.6
	 83.3
. 117.4
264.4
_ 1T49--
' 140.4
190.8
271.1
"Acres Ayailable^jtoir ; Manure^pliratibn
Using Phosphorus-based Application
' Numberpf;^'
Operations- ;
515
249a
124"
336a
"' ' '! 577"
317"
161'
238
Total
Acreage
67,108
43,000" :„ .
33,612a
136,208"
121,712'
67,587"
56,356"
133,275
_. - .(Average •'• ••:
...... Acreage' -•.
130.3
. _172.8
271.1
404.9
211.0
213.2
349.2
560.0
Due to Census or Agriculture disclosure resmcnons, uiw UHUUUIGU upuauuua wm» n« u/K\/»rc *»»-.—- «,...„	e,—
phosphorus-based applications and operations with no excess manure using nitrogen-based applications but nothaving enough;
acres to meet phosphorus-based applications. In 'these instances, EPA assumed that 80 percent of the operations from the
combined group together with the Category 2 operations using nitrogen-based applications would be used for the Category 2
operations using phosphorus-based applications:-—  —	—..-•.- .-..
                                           Excess, no acres (Category 3 farms with none of the
                                           24 major crop types identified by NRCS).
               •       Location:

               •       Nutrient basis:
Ten states or groups of states.

Applications are based on nitrogen (N) or
phosphorus (P) application rates.
               Section 4.3.5 presents the number of facilities for each classification'combination.

Only the calculations for Category 2 acreage are presented here because Category 3 acreage is
zero and Category 1  acreage is calculated using the equation presented in Section 4.10. Total on-

farm acreage with manure applied (to Category 2 operations) was disaggregated using the same
procedure as that described in Section 4.3.5 (to disaggregate broiler facilities) for each modeled

size class and individual state. EPA disaggregated these results into regions, and then ultimately

into modeled regions, as summarized in Table 4.9.2-2.
                                             4-88

-------
                                    Table "4.9.2-2
  On-Earni: Acreage with Manure Applied for Category 2 Broiler Operations
„ Region
Mid-Atlantic
South
Mid-Atlantic
South
Nutrient Basis
Nitrogen
Nitrogen :
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Acreage in each Size Class
i8o;ooo+
226.9
214.4
356.2
230.9
125,000-
179,999
128.7
129.5
209.0
139.3
75,000-
124,999
118.8
112.5
184.0
124.6
50,000-
,74,999,
85.7
80.3
131.3
90.2
37,750-
49,999
65.6
70.3
108.7
77.5
             For swine operations, USDA NRCS (2002) provided information to EPA on the
number of swine facilities and on-farm acres with manure applied using the 1997 Census of
Agriculture based on the following classifications:
                    Operation size:


                    Land availability:
                    Location:

                    Nutrient basis:
>2,500 head, 1,250-2,499 head, and 750-1,249
head.

No excess (Category 1 farms with sufficient crop or
pasture land).

Excess, with acres (Category 2 farms with some
land, but not enough land to assimilate all manure
nutrients).

Excess, no acres (Category 3 farms with none of the
24 major crop types identified by NRCS).

Eleven states or groups of states.

Applications are based on nitrogen (N) or
phosphorus (P) application rates.
             Section 4.3.6 presents the number of facilities for each classification combination.

Only the calculations for Category 2 acreage are presented here because Category 3 acreage is

zero and Category 1 acreage is calculated using the equation presented in Section 4.10. Total on-

farm acreage with manure applied (to Category 2 operations) was disaggregated using the same

procedure as that described in Section 4.3.6 (to disaggregate swine facilities) for each modeled
                                         4-89

-------
size class and individual state.  EPA aggregated these results into regions, and then ultimately into
modeled regions, as summarized in Table 4.9.2-3. While USDA NRCS (2002) provided
information by region, size class, and land availability category, it did not provide data to estimate
acreage by operation type (i.e., farrow-to-finish, grow-finish) or the number of operations by
manure storage (i.e., pit storage, lagoon, evaporative lagoon). The acreage of category 1
operations was calculated by determining the mass of manure nutrients produced at the operation
and dividing it by the manure application rate as determined by the crop nutrient needs.
                                     Table 4.9.2-3
   On-Farm Acreage with Manure Applied for Category 2 Swime Operations
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Nutrient Basis
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
Phosphorus
5,00(fr
323.0
236.4
387.7
725.2
525.2
895.8
2,500-
4,999
107.9
79.0
106.4
242.3
175.5
289.4
1,875-
2,499
n/a
70.2
103.1
n/a
181.3
285.2
1,250-
1,874
n/a
50.6
74.2
n/a
130.5
205.3
750-1,249
n/a
44.0
56.9
n/a
151.2
145.8
4.10
              Data on the amount of land available to facilities for land application of manure are
limited and vary significantly by animal sector, region, and size class. This subsection presents the
methodologies used to calculate the total amount of land available for land application of manure
for the beef, and dairy sectors and the amount of land available for application of liquid wastes for
the different land-availability categories. Please refer to Section 4.9.2 for information related to
on-farm acreage available for manure application at swine and poultry facilities.

              For Category 1 farms, the land requirement is calculated using the nutrients
generated and the crop uptake. The same basic approach is used for Category 2 farms, but the
                                          4-90

-------
 fraction of manure nutrients hauled off-site is subtracted from the^otal manure nutrients
 generated.  For both Category 1 and 2 farms, N generation and N uptake are used for N-based
 nutrient management, and the corresponding P values are used for P-based nutrient management.
 These calculations are essential to determining the amount of excess manure nutrients generated.
 Note that a Category 1 farm using N-based application rates might be a Category 2 farm using P-
 based application rates.  Category 3 farms have no available land'and it is assumed that all manure
 nutrients are hauled off site.

 4.10.1         Total Available Cropland Acres at Beef Feedlots, Dairies, Heifer and Veal
               Operations and Category 1 Swine and Poultry Acreage

               The cost model performs a number of calculations to determine for each model
 farm the total acreage that is available to land apply manure and the amount of manure requiring
 off-site transportation. The same methodology is used for both beef and dairy animal sectors.
 The acreage calculations are performed for both nitrogen-based and phosphorus-based application
 scenarios.                            ...

               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 (AUsI x Manure Generation ftons/AUl x Nutrient Content (Ibs/ton manure) x Recoverabilitv Facto
                                          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 hi nutrient
values per ton of manure mirrors the reduction in solids content of the recoverable manure
(Lander C.H., D. Moffitt, and K. Alt, 1998).
                                           4-91

-------
              Category 2 Acreage

          ' '"Category 2 acreages are calculated using Category 1 acreages, the estimate of
excess manurefromtlSDA^iialysis described1 in Sec'tion'^and Seres required to land apply
excess manure:
                      ~	•'	 :"  	'"	''""'"	 r Excess Nutrients (Ibs/yr)
                 Average. Excess Nutrients (Ibs / yr) = Number of Category 2 Facilities
                                                                                              	f
                      Excess Acreage =
  Average Excess Nutrients (Ibs/ yr)
Agronomic Application Rate (Ib / acre)
                      Category 2 Acreage = Category 1 Acreage  Excess Acreage
    :    '             » ! '

 Table 4.10.1-1 presents Category 1 and 2 acreages by animal type, size group, and region.

              Category 3 Acreage

              Category 3 acreages, by definition, are zero.

              Liquid Land Application Acres

               The cost model calculates the minimum amount of acreage required to land apply
 all of the liquid wastewater to determine the costs of the equipment required to apply liquid waste
 (see Section 5.8 for a detailed discussion of the land application costs).  The number of acres
 required to apply liquid waste from ponds and lagoons is based on two main variables:  the
 hydraulic loading capacity of the cropland and the nutrient assimilative capacity of the crops. The
 cost model calculates the number of required liquid acres in four steps.  The first step
                                             4-92

-------
                  Table 4.10.1-1
          Category 1 and 2 Total Acreages
for Beef Feedlots, Dairies, Heifer and Veal Operations
                     Option 2
1"
Animal
Beef
Dairy
Farm
Type
Beef
Flush
Size Class
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
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
Category 1 Acreages
N-Based
307
164
182
155
252
4323
2305
2562
2189
3552
62
33
37
31
51
92
49
55
47
76
128
68
76
65
105
519
428
469
240
372
P-Based
. 1930
1327
1525
1317
776
27175
18690
21479
18544
10928
388
267
307
265
156
579
398
458
395
233
804
553
635
549
323
1991
2132
2337
1242
697
Category 2 Acreages
^ N-Based
43
12
14
25
19
1282
557
619
685
858
14
6
6
8
9
45
22
24
23
34
80
41
46
41
63
130
85
126
48
27
P-Based
. , : 579
326
374
417
190
7930
4423
5083
5721
2586
164
101
116
116
59
355
232
267
246
136
580
387
445
399
226
401
313
518
182
8
                       4-93

-------
Table 4.10.1-1 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
cont.)
Farm
Type
Flush

Hose
Size Class
Medium 1




Medium 2


Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3

Region
Central
Vlid-Atlantic
viidwest
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
South
Category 1 Acreages
N-Based
91
75
82
42
65
154
127
139
71
110
218
180
197
101
156
519
428
469
240
372
91
75
82
42
65
154
127
139
71
110
218
180
197
101
156
P-Based >
348
373
409
217
122
592
634
695
369
207
835
895
981
521
293
1991
2132
2337
1242
697
348
373
409
217
122
592
634
695
369
207
835
895
981
521
293 .

N-Based .
71
57
64
32 .
47
42
29
41
16
11
106
81
98
45
57
130
85
126
48
27
71
57
64
32
47
42
29
41
16
11
106
81
98
45
57
P-Based
288
305
340
177
96
179
161
222
94
28
422
421
507
245
113
401
313
518
182
8
288
305
340
177
96
179
161
222
94
28
422
421
507
245
113 1
            4-94

-------
Table 4.10.1-1 (Continued)
f°5Animal
Heifers
Veal
Farm
Type"
Heifers
Flush


Size Class
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1

Medium 2




Medium 3


,

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
South
Category 1 Acreages
N-Based
74
61
61
38
61
20
16
16
10
16
31
25
25
16
25
43
35
35
22
36
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
P-Based
432
458
458
295
174
115
122
122
79
46
180
191
191
123
72
252
267
267
172
101
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Category 2 Acreages
N-Based '
65
53
53
33
53
11
8
8
6
8
22
17
17
11
18
34
28
28
18
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
P-Based
370
387
387
254
147
53
51
51
37
19
118
120
120
82
46
190
197
197
131
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
          4-95

-------
calculates the hydraulic loading rate using standard engineering equations (Tchobanoglous,
George and F.L. Burton, eds., 1991).  The second step calculates the minimum acreage required
to apply the liquid manure at the hydraulic loading rate. The third step calculates the minimum
acreage required to apply the liquid manure at the liquid-nutrient loading rate. The fourth and
final step compares the acreage required under the hydraulic loading and.liquid-nutrient loading
scenarios and selects the maximum number of acres as the acres required for liquid land
application. Each of these steps is described below.       "     "~
Step 1)
Calculate the Hydraulic Loading Rate
              The cost model uses the foilowing'equation to calculate the amount of wastewater

that can be applied and used by the crops and soil per acre per,year. Using this equation in

combination with the total amount of liquid wastewater generated per year, the cost model

calculates the total number of acres ne'eded to apply all of the liquid waste.
                       ',!.''

        Hydraulic Loading Rate (ft/yr) = Evapotranspiration Rate - Precipitation Rate + Percolation Rate


              Evapotranspiration Rate: EPA calculated the evapotranspiration rate using data
              found in Metcalf and Eddy for select cities in the United States that correspond to
              the five regions used in this analysis. Evapotranspiration rates for cities located in
              the same region were averaged together. Table 4.10.1-2 presents the
              evapotranspiration rate used in the cost model by region.

              Precipitation Rate: To best estimate the hydraulic loading rate, Metcalf and Eddy
              suggests using precipitation data from the wettest year over the past 10 years. For
              this analysis, EPA used data found at the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
              web site for  1994  through 1999. The data included weighted annual rainfall for
              each state in the United States. The stations were averaged by state and by region.
              By averaging the regions and comparing the average rainfall in the United States
              for each year, EPA determined that 1996 was the wettest year. Table 4.10.1-3
              lists the regional precipitation rates for 1996. Note, the rates used in this analysis
              are not weighted;  each data point contributes equally to the regional weighting.
                                            4-96

-------
                                    Table 4.10.1-2
                              Evapotranspirattion Rate
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
'- "•' ..-•-. •. : •".••. ••"i'~"'--'j
-; . '.City • .'...;
Paris, TX
Brevard, NC
Hanover, NH
Seabrook, NJ
Central MO
Central Valley, CA
Southern Desert, CA
JonesbotOj GA
Evapotranspiration Rate
:^,-,:- ;>:C;(ta/yrK,- -::::>.:•-
35,7
24.2
24.8
27.6
35.3
49.4
• 82.8
34.4
Regional Evapotranspiration
,':.";":-- /'^Rate^n/yr):-.^ ':-:
35.7
25.5
35.3
66.1
34.4
Source: Tchobanoglous, G. et al.1991.
                                    Table 4.10.1-3
                        1996 Average Regional Precipitation
'• •"•'• "Region'^?- =,':'•
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Annual Precipitation Rate
W-,- ^i^;*^,;- ,|
17.87
57.13
33.89
39.96
53.00
                       Source: NCDC (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov).
             Percolation Rate: The following equation, taken from Metcalf & Eddy, is used to
             calculate the rate at which liquid moves through the soil.

         Percolation rate (in/yr) = Soil Permeability (in/hr) x Average Time of Irrigation (hr/day) x
                       Days of Irrigation (day/yr) x Percolation Reduction (%)

             Soil Permeability:  EPA identified the principal state soil type for each model farm.
             Using USDA's soil descriptions for each of these state soils (USDA NRCS,
             200Ib), EPA then identified the soil's permeability (e.g., rapid, very rapid) and
             matched it to established USDA soil permeability ranges (USDA NRCS, 2001 a).
             Following the procedure suggested in Metcalf and Eddy. EPA used the minimum
                                          4-97

-------
            value in the range as the soil permeability. Table 4.10.1-4 presents the values for
            each region.

                                  Table 4.10.1-4
                            Regional Soil Permeability
Animal
Beef
Dairy
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Soil Type
Houston Black (XX)
Hazleton (PA) . .
Hamey(KS)
San Joaquin (CA) • •-
MyakkaOFE) :~
Houston Black (XX)
Honeoye (NY)
Antigo (WI) , , ,
San Joaquin (CA)
Myakka(FL) 	
; Permeability Class
Slow-
Moderately Rapid to Rapid
Moderately Slow.
Very Slow • ~ - • ~ . .
Moderately Rapid to Rapid
Slow
Moderate
Moderately Rapid
Very Slow- 	
Moderately Rapid to Rapid
Permeability Range
>-V ^Xta/hi-rv _
0.06
2
0.2
0.0015
2
0.06
0.6
2
0.0015
•' 2 	
0.2
20
0.6
0.06
20""
0.2
2
6
0.06
20
             Average Time of Irrigation: EPA assumed this to be the length of one working
             day (10 hr/day as per the cost model).                              	

             Davs of Irrigation: EPA assumed that farms irrigate cropland weekly and they are
             not permitted to irrigate while the land is frozen. Table 4.10.1-5 shows the days of
             irrigation assumed for this analysis.

             Percolation Reduction:  EPA assumed the percolation reduction to be 4 percent
             based on the recommended value for preliminary design in Metcalf and Eddy.
             Table 4.10.1-6 presents the results of the hydraulic loading rate calculations for
Option 2.
                                         4-98

-------
                                 Table 4.10.1-5
                               Days of Irrigation
Animal
Beef
Dairy
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South '
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Freeze-Free Bays8
(days/yr)
191
161 .
•171 	
257 	
i'j ' ' ?'
320
226
153
141
256
320
Days Between
Applications
(days)
7
7
' 7
7 '
7
7
7
7
7
7
Annual Application
(applications/yr)
27
J 23
24 .
37
46
32
22
20
37
46
•From ERG, 20003
                                     4-99

-------

















-






VO
^_4
•
O
T"(
•
Tf
O
2
(2
^











C
o
•-e
CM
5
C3
>
&
g
ra
A
03
>
ffi
3 u
3 n sj IT
C3 IS •*•' ^»
jMa&
If1*
a
f|«
If
5 6
§1
at s
o Is"
PCS-
9
P*
.£>
J'-iS'


p«
-a
0
Hf
 1-
B<
n
i
-, 5
et *Si'J7'

5 2 ~
-C
n,
5
w
i
°&
•a
j
•*d


m

CO


... ,
•*r
VO




s
0




t--
oo





r-

en


I

€*_
tt3
CQ
o
o
o
o

oo

••3-
g
rr




S
CM




en





Vi

OJ


1
S




oo
fsj
O
en

CS

'
ON




O
O




ON
oo
en
en





en

en


Midwest




oo
*—*
r»
VO
CN

O

*
-




O
o




VO
ON
ON





^*

VO


0
tc
1




o
VI

oo
t— *

r—
en

7"
S




o
CN




en





^j-

en


JS
1
CO




to
to

ON .


,_
.......
ON




VO
o
0




r-
00





r-

en


1
U

fc-
ca
Q
o
o
o
0


.......

en




o
VO. .
o




r-
„




to

e»


as
T2




VO
tj.

CO

VO


8




0
o
C-)




ON
00
en
en





en

en


Midwest




00
.~*
CN
VO
CN
""
0

-
-




O
0 ,
O,'




VO
ON
ON
en





—i
VO
VO


'i
OH




0
to
t— i
OO

t—
en


ON




O
O
.CN




en
«o





Ttf-

en


1
CO























V"
D
c
ill
*O Ck u
"1 I1*55
"o SJ 1

g < tH
•§ s S?

Pi
y. Midwest set equa
al averaging of 199
s of irrigation, every
*o §> 2
ig.fi
J3
<
4-100

-------
Step 2)
Calculate the Minimum Acreage Required to Apply the Liquid
Manure at the Hydraulic Loading Rate
              The following equation calculates the minimum acreage required to apply the
liquid manure at the hydraulic loading rate. The liquid manure"volume is obtained from the cost
model.  Table 4.10.1-7 presents the results of the hydraulic loading rate based on the acreage
calculations.     > •   :

      Hydraulic Acres Required..(acres) = Liquid Manure Volume (cf/yr) / Hydraulic Loading Rate.(fl/yr) x ,
               "-  .'   „    .       Conversion^!acre/43,560 sf)
Step 3)
Calculate the Minimum Acreage Required to Apply the Liquid
Manure at the Liquid-Nutrient Loading Rate
              The following equation calculates the amount of liquid manure that can be applied
per acre of cropland, accounting for the amount of nitrogen or phosphorus that can be used by the
crops. '
                Liquid-Nutrient Acres Required (acres) = Total Volume of Liquid (cfyr) x
            Nutrient Concentration in Liquid -Agwaste (lb/cf)/ Crop Nutrient Requirements (Ib/acre)
              The crop nutrient requirements are the same as the values used to calculate the
total available acreage, and vary by animal type and region. Nitrogen and phosphorus values for
lagoon/pond water are fixed at 0.01249 lb/cf and 0.00359 Ib/cf, respectively (USDA NRCS,
1996).
                                          4-101

-------
t^-

T-l

O
 CQ

H
        §
        ••a
        a.

        O
        I
        DJD
        .s
        •a
         53,

         C3
        w
         cu
         C3


        TJ
        *»-<



        'CP1

        <
        <*-(
         o

         
         a


        •»-<
         a
J2
1 J ^
"s g Is

|l*
T3 g
EL § **»
Q) f^ *ES
ftjj g* ^^
§<,...
*
O 03
•** -J3
"3 « 0
S- bH g
•o • S
^3~
•a
SI*
O Yn( J
§&
€3
w
tn
u
1
B a>
1 s
fa H

2 02
6 a
1^

B

o»

K





p:
—

CO
vo

— -
.

—

b-
oo





Medium 1


u
m



C3



















O

g-


. —

0
o.
o
—•••••
o
CO
oo
CO





Medium 1


1?
pa


%
«

B
ca

<;
•a





U

0


-.*,,
....
0
o
""°~"
~vi~
CO
CN
VO





Medium 2



















u

0



.„..
o
o.
o
. a,
•ov
CN
r-
v-4




U



















O

J


.„.,.
.-
o
o
o

•vb
o
VI
1-H
f^
CN



CN


















CO
vo
i
CO
p.

_.s-
— 4-
00
CN
o
" •
o
a





Medium 1


^
m


S



bl
CO
0>
•a




CO
VO

^*



CN
(U
I


















VO
CO
•*

vo
o\
o\
oo



oo
CN

"co
CN
CN
5





Medium 1



CQ


*s
ffl




o
c
o
C3



s
f~-

VO
.CN
CO

~.
_
oo
CN

CN
1-H
£





CN
n
s


















o
2

CN
oo
1-H
CN
CO
00



oo
1-H
CN

00-
Ol
CN
ss
,— !




1


















5
oo
CO
00
CN
1—
.00-
co
1-H

oo
CN

o
«n
t~-
s
o
CO



CN


















OV
VO

$
§
CO



o
in
— '

CO

-•

CN
vo"
CN
00





Medium 2


















1—4
VO
0
CO

CN
oo
CO
CO
CO
en
»— 1


o
•-*

06
oo
VO
a\
»-H




1


















CO
CN
o

ON
vo
V~t
CN
CN
CN"
CN

o
1— t

VO
CO
VI
oo
CO
CO



CN
u
3
















                                                      4-102

-------
t
o
1
m a _
a) o /tTx
.53 '-C >,

gas
!r* cu si
'$ ^
S-
•a e
•Na> ;O
•1*4 1"
I*",
It?
n g
t9
ill
» j *->
is?
'{•' s-'
-' -5-
U

>;. 1:
j:i*
• . "m
2 «>
5 £'

\ ^
_g
a?
^ «•




o

oo

en
o
r-
en

in
in

o\
S



-
fa
1
1


&
Q


2
c
U



r>
o

a
en

>n

vo
vo
K






CO
O
JC












en
vo

ON
T— 1
r-

m

vo
oo
en
O
—*


cs
K
1
1













r- «

S
^

in

r-
r-






co












I— 1
CS

O
en

m

o
ON
00
cs



,_)
(D
I
CO
_»












VO
CS

o
en
12

in

oo
oo
t~-






ffi












U



^

o
o
o
ON
oo
en
CS



—
E
•3
1
PH


£>
KI
Q
_o
cct
<
'O
s



o



^

o
o
o
cs
oo
ON






1












0



^

o
o
o
VO
oo
o
00
ON
— •


cs
2
•3
_c
CO
E












Q_J
z


^

C5
0
O
VO
s
g






K












O



%

0
o
en
en
en



t _l
!
CO
J3












C)



^

o
o
0
r-

-------
ft
 I
••§
 o
•S
H
a
•O B _
3 o O
.«a --o S,
8*4(2
« g|,
1
•a H
CD O
1.1 I
V *"** aS
•ft Sj v""*'
§•<
3 £^
09 OC SL
If
•a
a
a'.l^
g i-J ^
en
,3
i

u
1
a.
J|H
•a „

-§H


B
.2
GO






j*
o\
oo
CO
5?


o
in


o
m
m
CO
vo




,
Medium

S
u-


'S3
Q






£
o
CO



CO
r-
T— 1
^
£


o


S
o
CO







1














vo
r-
oo
T— t
CO
CN
CN
OO


O


OO
00
oo
CO
CN
CN
1—4



CN
Medium

JS
S3
(J-,














VO
O
CO
o
CO
CO
*— 4


o


oo
CN
oo
o\







I














r-
CM
ON
00
55
vo
rr
I-H
CN

O
in


r-
co
CN
CO




1

CO
E














CN
00
o
CO
r-
VO
VD
CO


o


M
in







CD
1














O

p~
oo


m


oo
Tt-
?




^^
Medium
ft
&
'53
a
ft

'53
a






1
o



b

CO
o


in


o
oo
oo
CO




CN
•3
















2;

"3-
VO
CN
O
oo


in


o
oo
vo
r-
CN





u
01
















n


o
JS
'

o
o
o

VO
s
CO




r^
_2

1
ft
,Q>
'1


o
*j
CTJ

•rb
S



n


^


o
o
0

CN
1




CN
Medium
















o


%


o
o
0

£
oo
0\
00





1
















CN
O
CO
oo
1


oo
CN


CN
r—
S




^H
Medium
52
<£
'I
S

'53
a




r
t/i
I
S



m
ON
VO
O
CO
00


oo
o

VO
CO
oo
CO
CO
CN




CN
Medium
















Si
oo
CO
oo
CN
oo
VO
VO
»— <

CO
o

vi
r-
vo





CD
DO
t_c
CO
















p
CN
r--
oo


oo
CN

o
oo
oo
CN




1—4
Medium

'53
a
.

S






o
'3
CB
PH



'^
m
in
vo
CN
CN
CN

-
OO
CN

oo
m
oo




CN
Medium
















CN
CN
O
CO
o
CO
in


oo
CN

vo
CO
oo
o





1
















•o

VO
VO
CN
PS


o
in


vo
ON
00
CN




*— t
Medium
52
«a
'1

,<&
•s
a






1
o
CO



O\
oo
oo
rt
vo
CO


o
in


CO
CN
CO




CN
Medium
















oo
CO
VO
vo
ON
CO


o
m


m
oo
vc
^




o
I






































T3
ta

_o
o

o
O
                                          4-104

-------
              Table 4.10.1-8 presents the results of the liquid-nutrient loading rate based acreage
 calculations for Option 2 for beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer and veal operations.
 Step 4:
       Compare the Acreage Required Under Hydraulic Loading and
       Liquid-Nutrient Loading Scenarios
              The cost model uses the maximum number of acres calculated using hydraulic

 loading and liquid-nutrient loading to determine the number of acres needed to apply all liquid
 manure.
 4.10.2
Swine and Poultry Operations
              Please refer to Section 4.9.2 for information related to on-farm acreage available
for manure application.
4.11
References
AEA, 1999. George, John. Telephone discussion regarding drylot areas and clay liners.
      : September 1999.

ASAE, 1993. American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE). Engineering Practices and
       Data: Manure Production and Characteristics. St. Joseph, Michigan. 1999.

Bocher L.W., 1999. Custom Heifer Grower—Specialize in Providing Replacements for Dairy
       Herd.. Hoards Dairyman. 1999.

Cady, R., 2000. Telephone conversation with Dr. Roger Cady, Monsanto Company and Founder
       of the Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association. February 18, 2000.

Crouch, A. 1999. Telephone conversation with Alexa Crouch., American Veal Association.
       October 14, 1999.    -    .    .     .

ERG, 2000a. Annual Precipitation Estimates. Memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc.
      to the Feedlots Rulemaking Record. December 15, 2000.

ERG, 2000b. Methodology to Calculate Storage Capacity Requirements Under Option 7.
      Internal memorandum.
                                        4-105

-------
ERG, 2002. Beef Production Cycles and Capacity. Membrandum'from D. Bartram to Feedlots
       Rulemaking Record. December 9, 2002.

Kellogg, R. et.al., 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the, Capacity of Cropland and
       Pastureland to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the U.S. 2000

Lander, C.H., D. Moffitt, and K. Alt, 1998. Nutrients Available from Livestock Manure Relative
       to Crop Growth Requirements, Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working
       Paper 98-1. 1998.

MWPS, 1993. Midwest Plan Service: Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. Second Edition.
       MWPS-18. Iowa State University. Ames Iowa. April.

MWPS, 1995. Midwest Plan Service: Beef Housing and Equipment Handbook. Fourth Edition,
       MWPS-6. Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa. November.

MWPS, 1997. Midwest Plan Service: Dairy Freestall Housing and Equipment. MWPS-7. 6th
      .Edition.

MWPS, 1997. Midwest Plan Service: Dairy Freestall Housing and Equipment. MWPS-7. 6th
       Edition.
                     ""'  -•;'•-!••••••••;
NCDC, 1999. National Climate Data Center (NCDC). Normal Monthly Precipitation, 1971-
       1990. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1999.

NCSU, 1994. North Carolina State University. Livestock Manure Production and.
       Characterization in-North Carolina. North .Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.

Shuyler, L., 1999. E-mail correspondence regarding feedlot area and runoff coefficients.
       September 9..

Sutton, A.L., D.W. Nelson, and D.D. Jones, 1985..,Utilization of animal manure as fertilizer.
       University of Minnesota Agricultural Extension Service. AG-FO-2613.

Tchobanoglous, George and Franklin L. Burton, eds. 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment,
       Disposal, and Reuse. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc.

USDA, 1997.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture.

USDA APHIS, 1999.  Part 1: Reference of 1999 Table Egg Layer Management in the U.S.
       National Animal Health Monitoring System. Fort Collins, Colorado.

USDA APHIS, 2000. Data summaries of NAHMS Layer '99, prepared at request of EPA.
       National Animal Health Monitoring System. Washington, DC.
                                        4-106

-------
USDA APHIS, 2002. Queries run by Centers for Epidemiology and Animal Health prepared by
       Eric Bush. March 22,2002, 2 pages.

USDA NASS, 1999. Statistical Bulletin 952. Milking Cows and Production: Final Estimates
       1993-1997. 1999.

USDA NASS, 1999c. Queries run by NASS for USEPA on the 1997 Census of Agriculture data.
       Washington, DC.

USDA NRCS, 1996. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, National Engineering
       Handbook (NEH), Part 651.

USDA NRCS, 1998. Nutrients Available from Livestock Manure Relative to Crop Growth
       Requirements. Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working Paper 98-1.
       . Accessed October 15,1998.

USDA NRCS, 2001a NSSH - Soil Properties and Qualities (Part 618).  Soil Survey Division.
       http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/nssh/618.htm. Accessed June 14,2001.

USDA NRCS, 200Ib. Representative and State Soils. Soil Survey Division.
       http://www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/photogal/statesoils/listl.htm/. Accessed June 14, 2001.

USDA NRCS, 2002. Profile of Farms with Livestock in the United States: A Statistical Summary;
       R. Kellogg; Feb 4, 2002; 31 pages

USDA NRCS. 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland to
       Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the United States. Washington,
       DC.
                                        4-107

-------

-------
5.0
TECHNOLOGY COST EQUATIONS
              Technology cost equations calculate the direct capital and annual costs for
installing, operating, and maintaining a particular technology or practice for an animal feeding
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 4.0 are used to size
equipment and properly estimate the direct capital costs for purchasing and installing equipment
and annual operating and maintenance 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 equation used as a basis for
the regulatory options and specifically discuss the following:

       '       «      Description of the technology or practice;
              •      Design;
              •      Costs; and
              «      Results for component costs for the technology or practice.

Section 6 discusses the prevalence of the technology or practice in use at CAFOs. Appendix A
contains output tables of capital and annual costs (in 1997 dollars) for each technology or practice
component.  Section 7.0 provides examples of how these component costs are used to calculate
model farm costs.
5.1
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). The cost model assumes that beef feedlots and heifer operations use
earthen basins to collect runoff. Because high wastewater flows from flushing operations could
cause erosion in an earthen basin, dairies and veal operations use concrete settling basins
                                           5-1

-------
(discussed in Section 5.2) to collect bam and milking parlor wastewater. The cost model includes
costs for an earthen settling basin for beef feedlots and heifer operations for all regulatory options.
5.1.1
Technology Description
              An earthen basin is a shallow basin that is designed to accumulate solids. The cost
model assumes that earthen basins receive runoff from beef feedlots and heifer operations. 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 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 front-end loader or tractor.  (The costs for periodic solids removal
are included in the annual costs, which are presented as a percentage of the total capital costs.)
5.1.2
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 (horizontalrvertical) ratio to prevent
erosion and allow for front-end-loader access to remove solids. Earthen basins are constructed of
soils that have a significant clay content (usually at least 10 percent). Figure 5.1.2-1 presents a
cross-section 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 5.1.2-1
are defined as follows:
              he
              h
              wc
              wb
              height of embankment
              height (depth) of basin
              width of embankment
              width at bottom of basin
              width at surface of basin
              length at bottom of basin
              length at surface of basin.
                                            5-2

-------
                          w,
                        Excavated
                         Volurte
                         Width View
                                                                  Backfill
                                                               with excavated
                                                                    soil
                                                                7
\
                                                                 Ground
                                                                  Level
                       Excavated
                        Volume
                I	1
                           L

                        Length View


Figure 5.1.2-1. Cross-Section of an Earthen Basin
                                                                 Backfill
                                                              with excavated
                                                                   soil
                                                               7
                                                                Ground
                                                                 Level
                          5-3

-------
             Table 5.1.2-1 summarizes the default design criteria used in the cost model.
                                     Table 5.1.2-1
                      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
               Source: Midwest Plan Service Structures and Environment Handbook, 1987.(MWPS, 1987)

The remainder of this subsection describes the methods used to calculate the earthen basin influent
and effluent flows, volume, other dimensions, and excavation and embankment volumes, as listed
on Figure 5.1.2-1.

              Earthen Basin Influent and Effluent Flows

              The design volume of the earthen basin is based on the peak runoff entering the
basin, which is set equal to the peak runoff from a 10-year, 1-hour rainfall event under all
regulatory options.  Section 4.7 describes the details of the runoff calculation. In addition, it is
assumed that runoff contains 1.5 percent solids (MWPS, 1993). EPA assumes that all of the solids
from the drylot are manure solids. Using these assumptions, the total amount of water and solids
entering the earthen basin are calculated as follows:

                          Water Entering, cubic feet = (Peak) x ( l - 0.015)
                           Solids Entering, cubic feet = (Peak) x (0.015)
 where:
              Peak  =      Peak runoff during 10-year, 1-hour storm event (cubic feet).
                                            5-4

-------
               The cost model assumes that earthen basins have a settling efficiency of 50
 percent, and the moisture content of the settled solids is 80 percent (Fulhage, C.D. and D.L.
 Pfost, 1995). The amounts of water and solids in the settled solids and basin effluent are
 calculated from the following equations:

                        Settled Solids, cubic feet = Solids Entering x 0.5
                   Water in Settled Solids, cubic feet = Settled Solids x  —'-—
                                                               L(1-0.8)J

                    Solids Exiting, cubic feet  = Solids Entering - Settled Solids
                Water Exiting, cubic feet = 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 5.5), not the volume of the basin.

               Earthen Basin Volume
              The required volume of the basin is calculated from the following equation
(MWPS, 1987):
where:
              Surface Area  =
              h
                                 Volumebasin = Surface Area x
Peak-4
Basin depth (Table 5.1.2-1 value).
              Because solids from the basin are removed frequently to prevent significant
accumulation, the cost model does not include accumulated solids in the volume calculations.
Table 5.1.2-2 summarizes the earthen basin design volumes calculated for all regulatory options
by model farm.
                                            5-5

-------
                                   Table 5.1.2-2

      Earthen Basin Volume by Model Farm for All Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Beef
Heifer
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3

Earthen Basin Volume (ft3) by Region
Central
777
1,367
2,036
5,511
83,534
777
1,474
2,223
4,121
Mid-Atlantic
3,399
5,297
7,516
18,635
268,341
3,453
5,645
8,077 _..
14,145
Midwest
3,159
4,923
.7,008
17,459
251,528
3,212
5,244
7,543
13,236
Pacific
2,196
3,506
5,029
12,675
184,330
2,250
3,747
5,404
9,600

South
5,565
8,505
11,979
29,381
419,522
5,645
9,066
12,862
22,351
NA - Not applicable. No regulatory options include this component for this model farm.
             Earthen Basin Dimensions
             The cost model assumes 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 from

Table 5.1.2-2 is used with the design parameters shown in Table 5.1.2-1. The following equation

is used to determine the length of the basin:


                            Volumebasin = J4 h [A, + A2 + (A, A2 f5]

                          Volumebasin = V4 h [lbwb + lsws + (l^w,,)0-5]
where:
             A,
             A2
Area of the bottom base =lbwb
Area of the top (surface area) = ls ws.
                                         5-6

-------
              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 5.1.2-2 depicts the surfaces of the sloped sides.
 a trapezoid.
where:
              The surface area of the sloped sides is calculated using the formula for the area of
                                  Area of Side = >/4 HS (a + b)
              HS    =      Height of the side (see equation below)
              a      =      Bottom width (lb or wb)
              b      =      Top width (ls or wj.
The height of the side is calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem:
                                     HS = (h2 + (4h)2)°
The total surface area of the basin is:
                 Surface Areabasin = lbwb + 2 [0.5 x HS Ob + 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:
                          Vol^^ = 0.5 (h-h.) [lbwb + lsws + (lbwblsws)0-5]
                                           5-7

-------
4h.
            Basin
            Volume
               ;ide View
              HS
                  wb
              HS
Surface of Sloped Side
                                                 Surface of Sloped Side
  Figure 5.1.2-2.  Sloped Sides of Earthen Basin
                       5-8

-------
The excavated soil is used to build the embankments. Because the soil will settle somewhat, the
cost model assumes that an extra 5 percent of volume is required. The embankment volume is
represented by the following equation:

       ; Volembankll,ent = 2 [(1.05 h.We + s (1.05 he)2) (lb +2  sh)] + 2 [(1.05 hewe + (1.05 s)2 he2) (w + 2sh)]

The cost model calculates the dimensions of the basin that yields the desired volume.
5.1.3
Costs
              Capital costs to construct and install the earthen basin consist of mobilization,
excavation, and compaction.  Table 5.1.3-1 lists the unit costs for each of these elements.

                                      Table 5.1.3-1
                            Unit Costs for Earthen Basins
'':",•' " , Untt/.-'':':": - -
Backhoe mobilization
Excavation
Compaction
-.. • ->.•': -'Cost
(1997 dollars)
$204.82/event
$2.02/yd3
$0.41/yd3
Source*
Means, 1999 (022 274 0020)
Means, 1999 (022 238 0200)
Means, 1996 (022 226 5720)
alnfbrmation taken from Means Construction Data. The numbers in parentheses refer to the division number and line number.
              The excavation cost is calculated using the following equation:
           Excavation Cost ($)  = Excavation Unit Costs ($/yd3) x
                                                            Volume
                                                                   excavated
                                                            (ft3)
                                                               27 (ft3/yd3)
              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 AreabKin (ft2) x l ft] + Volumeembankment (ft3)
                                           5-9

-------
           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

              Total Annual Costs

              Based on best professional judgement, it is estimated that annual operating and
maintenance costs are 5 percent of the total capital costs.

                            Annual Cost = 0.05 * (Capital Cost)
5.1.4
basin.
Results
              Appendix A, Table A-l presents the cost model results for constructing an earthen
5.2
Concrete Settling Basins
              Concrete 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). Dairies use solids
 separation to increase the storage volume available for wastewater in 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.  The cost model includes concrete settling basins in all
 options for dairies to collect barn and milking parlor wastewater because the higher wastewater

                                           5-10

-------
flows characteristic of dairies could cause significant erosion in an earthen basin. Concrete
settling basins were not included in the cost analysis for beef feedlots, heifer operations, swine
operations, or poultry operations.
5.2.1
Technology Description
              The settling basin is a shallow basin or pond that is designed to accumulate 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 enough
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 of between 30 percent (for
mechanical separators) and 60 percent (gravity settling basins) (Fulhage, C. D. and D.L. Pfost,
1995). EPA estimated that most solids separators used in this industry are gravity settling basins,
and used a settling efficiency of 50 percent.

              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.
5.2.2
Design
              Wastes entering the concrete settling basin include manure from the mature dairy
cows, wastewater from the milk parlor, and flush or hose 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
depends upon the surface loading rate (i.e., the hydraulic load per unit of basin surface area) for
                                           5-11

-------
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 5.2.2-1). 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, it
is longer than the other sides to allow the basin to have sufficient volume. The access ramp is
sloped 1 inch fail per 1 foot run (MWPS, 1987).  The concrete thickness is 6 inches (USDA
NRCS, 1995). The sub-base for the concrete floor and access ramp consists of 6 inches of
compacted gravel fill 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
                               - -  , •r.f-i-r   .-.•  . ---'•- -••;..,
                                               .
              The required area and volume of the basin are calculated from the Midwest Plan
 Service (MWPS, 1987) formulas below:
 where:
               Peak  =
                                 Surface Areabasin = Peak * 4

                             ....-•i...yolurae£!jii= Surface Area x h
                             . v         ; •
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, EPA assumes 1 foot.) (Fulhage, C. D. and D.L.
Pfost, 1995).
Flow from flushing of confinement barn.
               Using the Pythagorean Theorem,
                                  Ramp Length = (h2 + Run2)1
                                                      ,2\Si
                                           5-12

-------
       Concrete Settling Basin
                              (Base Cross-Section)
Figure 5.2.2-1. Concrete Settling Design
                5-13

-------
where:
             Run
             Surface Area of Ramp
             Volume Along Access Ramp
h x 12 in/ft x (1 ft run - 1 in fall)
Ramp Length x Basin Width
0.5 Fall x Run x Basin Width.
Additional basin length is needed to account for the slope of ramp.


                                    Length = 0.5 x Run

             Length^iagbium (including access ramp) = Theoretical Length + Additional Length

                   Lengthjetafag basin (excluding access ramp) = Length of Basin - Run


              Table 5.2.2-1 summarizes 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.


                                     Table 5.2.2-1


       Concrete Basin Volume by Model Farm for All Regulatory Options
Animal Type
Dairy - Flush
Dairy - Hose
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Concrete Basin
Volume (ft3)
7,520
12,784
18,048
43,014
416
515
614
825
                                           5-14

-------
 5.2.3.
Costs
               The capital costs to construct and install the concrete settling basin include
 mobilizing the backhoe used for excavation, .excavating soil, compacting 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. Table 5.2.3-1 presents the unit costs for each of these components.

                                       Table 5.2.3-1

                        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
SO.SS/ft2
Source8
Means 1999 (022 274 0020)
Means 1999 (022 238 0200)
Means 1996 (022 266 0040)
Means 1996 (022 226 5720)
Means 1 998 (022 308 0 1 00)
Richardson 1996 (3-5 pi)
Means 1999 (025 122 1100)
Building news 1998 (03110.65)
Richardson 1996 (3-5 p9)
Means 1998 (033 126 0200)
Means 1999 (033 130 4700)
Means 1999 (033 454 0010)
       •For Means Construction Data, the numbers in parentheses refer to the division number and line number.
              Mobilization

              The mobilization costs are a fee per event (i.e., fee to mobilize all equipment on
site).  These costs are for moving the appropriate heavy machinery and equipment.
                                           5-15

-------
              Excavation
              The excavation cost is calculated from the following equations:
                                 = Volumebasin + Volumeramp + Volumesilbsurface
                                                          Volumeexcavated (ft3)
              Excavation Cost = Excavation Unit Costs ($/yd3) x     27ft3 /v d3
              Compaction


              The total volume to be compacted includes the surface area of the basin and the

ramp times a 1-foot compaction depth.


                              , = [Surface Areabasin (ft2) + Surface Area^p (ft2)] * 1 ft
              Hauling


              The total volume of gravel and sand needed is equal to the volume underneath the

settling basin and the ramp.
       Volumegravel(yd3) = [Surface Areabasin (ft2) + Surface Area Ramp (ft2 )] x 0.5 ft x
       Volumesand(yd3) = [Surface Areabasin (ft2) + Surface Area Ramp (ft2)] x 0.33 ft x
 The volume of the material to be hauled includes the sand plus the gravel.
                                            5-16

-------
               Reinforcement
               The concrete wall form work is calculated as follows:
                                            g basin + Areabasin cnd 4- Area^mp sidcs
               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:
                                  = 2 bars/ft x [Surface Area^ + Surface Area^p
               The concrete volume for the walls and slab are calculated as follows:
                           Volumec
-------
              Total Annual Costs

              Based on best professional judgement, it is assumed that annual operating and
maintenance costs are 5 percent of the total capital costs.

                               Annual Cost = 0.05 * (Capital Cost)
5.2.4
Results
              Appendix A, Table A-2 presents the cost model results for constructing a concrete
gravity settling basin.
 5.3
Berr
              Beef feedlots, daMesIheifer, and'swine and dry poultry operations use berms to
 contain stormwater runoff and process water that fall within the animal handling and feeding areas
 and to divert clean stormwater 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 act as a physical barrier between the containment area and adjacent "clean" land.
 Berms are costed for all beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies for all regulatory options, but
 not costed for veal operations because they are assumed to be indoor operations.

               Stormwater is diverted around poultry and swine storage structures by
 constructing berms on two adjacent sides up-gradient from the storage facility or lagoon. Berms
 are not included in the cost analysis for swine operations with pit systems.
 5.3.1
 Technology Description
               Berms are earthen structures that divert clean runoff away from pollutant sources
 and channel runoff that falls within the area containing pollutant sources. Runoff that falls within
                                            5-18

-------
 the containment area at beef and dairy operations may become contaminated from contact with
 animal feed and fecal matter deposited in the feedlot or handling area.  This runoff is channeled by
 the berms to a waste management storage facility (e.g., a pond or lagoon).
5.3.2
Design
              The design of a berm system for a specific operation depends on the size of the
outdoor feedlot area, lagoon, or dry waste storage area. The feedlot area is dependent upon the
number of animals contained on drylots at the facility.

              Beef Feedlots and Dairies

              The cost model assumes for beef feedlots and dairies that berms are constructed as
a 3-foot-high, 6-foot-wide compacted soil mound that surrounds the feedlot and animal handling
areas. EPA assumes the feed storage area is part of the animal handling areas. Figure 5.3.2-1
depicts the cross-section of the berm assumed for this cost model.
                          Figure 5.3.2-1. Cross-Section of Berm
             The area of the cross-section of the berm is calculated using the following
equation:
                                          5-19

-------
                                   Area.  =%xbxh
where:
             b
             h
Base width (6 feet)
Total height (3 feet).
             The total length of the berm system for beef feedlots and dairies varies according
to the size of the feedlot area. The area required for each animal varies by animal type, because
different sized animals require a different amount of space. Table 5.3.2-1 provides the
recommended area per animal for a drylot, not including handling and storage areas. The beef
and dairy costmodel calculated the average area per animal on a drylot using the ranges presented
in Table 5.3.2-1, and added 15 percent for handling areas (AEA, 1999).

                                     Table 5.3.2-1

          Space Requirements Assumed for Animals Housed on Drylots3
Animal Type
Beef cattle
Mature dairy cows
Heifers

Drylot Area
(ft2 /animal)
400
400
375
225
Handling Area
(ftVanimal)
60
60
56
34
Total Area
(fi?/animai)
460
460
431
259
 •Source: MWPS, 1993; AEA, 1999
              The total perimeter of the berm is calculated as follows:
 where:
              Head
       L = 4 x
                                                x Head)1
                                                     ,0,5
       Total perimeter (length of four sides of a square area) (feet)
       Total area of drylot and handling areas per animal (ft2)
       (Table 5.3.2-1 value)
       Average Head (Table 4.3.1-1 value).
                                          5-20

-------
              Table 5.3.2-2 summarizes the perimeters of the berm calculated for all model
farms. Note that the berm design does not vary by region or regulatory option.

              Swine and Poultry Operations

              For swine and poultry operations, berms were constructed in accordance with the
standards of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE, 1998). ASAE specifies a
berm with a 1-foot top width, a height of 3 feet, and a 2:1 side slope. Assuming a trapezoidal
shape, the berm cross-sectional area is determined by:
                                                     bermtop
                                                         )
where:
w,
w,
               bermbot"
               bermtop"
height of berm
width of berm bottom
 width of berm top.

         Table 5.3.2-2
  Berm Perimeter by Beef and Dairy Model Farm for All Regulatory Options
Animal Type
Beef
Heifers
Dairy (Heifers and Calves)
.-.••/>. . Size Class •'''-•• •-, • -
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Benfl Perimeter (ft) =
1,650
2,016
2,374
3,679
13,806
1,661
2,077
2,457
3,217
910
1,186
1,410
2,176
                                        5-21

-------
              With a side slope of 2:1 (H:V), a height of 3 feet (HberJ, and a top width of 1 foot
       ), the bottom width (Wbermb-ot) is 13 feet, and the cross-sectional area (AreabeiJ is 21
square feet. The cross-sectional area is then multiplied by berm length (L^™) to obtain cubic
yardage for construction.  Berm length is determined by the dimensions of the solid or liquid
storage structure.

              For solid poultry waste, the berm length is calculated from .the dimensions of ithe
litter storage shed (see 5.14).  Shed width is assumed to be 68 feet and shed length is the same as
the length of the litter stack. For liquid storage systems, lagoons or evaporative ponds, berm
length is determined after a subroutine is executed to determine the lagoon or evaporative pond
dimensions (see 5.4.5). Lagoons and evaporative ponds are assumed to be square, and berm
length is calculated from the top width of these structures.

              The two.adjoining berms for swine and poultry operations are designed to extend
10 feet beyond each of two adjacent sides of the storage structure.. The berms meet to form a
corner, but since the berms are 13 feet wide at the base, there is substantial overlap  at the corner.
Based on a mathematical analysis of the extent of this overlap, it was determined that berm length
should be calculated in the following manner to adjust for the overlap:
For lagoons and evaporative ponds:
For solid storage structures:
where:
              W            =
              "lagoontop
                ok
              320
                                        (2 * W,agoontop + 30)
                                       = (Volumeslack/320 + 98)
                                   Width of top of lagoon or evaporative pond
                                   Volume of litter stack
                                   The cross-sectional area of the litter stack.
               A more detailed discussion of berm and other calculations used for swine and
 poultry operations can be found in Swine and Poultry Cost Model QA/QC Report (Terra Tech,
 2002).
                                            5-22

-------
 5.3.3
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. Table 5.3.3-1 presents unit costs for constructing the berm. A fixed earth

 moving cost of $2.60 per cubic yard was used in the calculation of similar expenses for berms at
 swine and poultry operations.
                                      Table 5.3.3-1
                          Unit Costs for Constructing Berms
Unit ''-•'-:''•'[
Compaction
Excavation
Cost
(1997 Dollars)
$0.41/yd3
$2.02/yd3
v f *° ^ *
Source"
Means, 1996 (022 226 5720)
Means, 1999 (022 238 0200)
 inlormation taken from 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 for beef feedlots and dairies is calculated using the
following equation:
where:
                          Volume ben^ysten, =  Area ^ x L x 1.25 x 1.05
              Area berm      =      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 (AEA, 1999)
              1-05          =      Factor accounting for 5% settling after compaction.
                           Compact Cost =
                                            $0.41 / yd3 x Volume
                                                27 ft3./yd3
                           _      .   _,.     $2.02 / yd3 x Volume
                           Excavation Cost =	—	
                                                 27 ft/yd3
                                           5-23

-------
The volume of berms for swine and poultry operations is calculated using the following equation:
                               Volume^™ = Areaberm
With a cross-sectional area of 21 square feet, berm volume is:
                                  Volumebemi = 21 *
              Total Capital Cost


              The total capital cost for beef feedlots and dairies, 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:


                                      $2.43/yd3  x %  x 6 x 3 x 1.25 x 1.05_
     Capital Cost = Cost / Linear Foot =  	 27ft3/  d3	~


 The cost of $1.41 per linear foot of berm is the cost included in the cost model.


               A fixed earth moving cost of $2.60 per cubic yard was used to calculate the cost of

 berms for swine and poultry operations.  This fixed  cost was multiplied by the berm volume to
 determine total capital cost using the following equation:


                             Capital Cost = Volume^ 727 x 2.60


 where the 27 converts volume from cubic feet to cubic yards.
                                            5-24

-------
              Total Annual Costs                                      -

              Based on best professional judgement, the total annual cost for berm maintenance
is estimated at 2 percent of the total capital costs for all animal types.

       . .                      Annual Cost = 0.02 x (Capital Cost)
5.3.4
Results
              Appendix A, Table A-3 presents the cost model results for constructing and
maintaining berais.
5.4
Lagoons
              Anaerobic lagoons are used at dairies and veal, wet layer, and swine 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 or irrigation water, or be transported off
site.  Section 5.9 discusses the costs associated with transporting waste off site, including solids
and liquids.
              Lagoons are included in all options for dairies and veal operations, except Option 6
which replaces the lagoon with an anaerobic digester and a pond for large dairies. Options 1, 2,
4, 5 A, and 6 require zero discharge of manure, litter, or process wastewater pollutants from the
production area with the exception of overflows from a facility designed to hold all process
wastewater, including the direct precipitation and runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
CAFOs that already have storage in place are assumed to have sufficient capacity. Under Options
1, 2, and 4, CAFOs that have no storage on site are costed for the installation of naturally lined
lagoons with 180 days of storage. Under Option 7, CAFOs are costed for the installation of
                                          5-25

-------
naturally lined lagoons with a storage capacity that varies based on land application timing
restrictions.  For Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D, CAFOs expected to have a direct hydrologic
connection from ground water to surface water are costed for the installation of anaerobic
lagoons with an artificial liner to prevent seepage of wastewater into ground water.
              Lagoons are assumed as part of the baseline scenario for wet layer operations and
some swine operations with liquid-based systems. Other swine operations have pit storage or
evaporative pond systems under baseline conditions, and all other poultry operations have solid-
based manure management systems. Thus, lagoon construction is generally not included as a cost
for swine and poultry operations, with five exceptions. Under Option 1 A, increased storage is
provided to handle chronic rainfall at wet layer operations and at swine operations with liquid or
evaporative pond systems. Increased storage is provided for all swine facilities under Option 7,
and secondary lagoons are included as part of the cost to recycle flush water at Category 2 liquid
swine operations for all but Option 5. The cost model also includes construction of new, lined
and covered anaerobic lagoons under Option 5 for swine operations currently using evaporative
ponds. This alternative is less expensive than covering the evaporative ponds. In addition,
secondary lagoons with storage for 20 days are constructed hi conjunction with liner installation
for liquid and evaporative pond systems.
 5.4.1
Technology Description
              Anaerobic lagoons provide storage for animal wastes while decomposing and
 liquefying manure solids. Anaerobic processes degrade high biochemical oxygen demand (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 or irrigation water, 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.
                                           5-26

-------
              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.
 Influent nitrogen is reduced through volatilization to ammonia.

       ;       Anaerobic lagoons are typically at least 6 to 10 feet in depth, although 8 to 20 foot
 depths are not unusual. Deeper lagoons typically have a smaller surface area to depth ratio, allow
 less area for volatilization, provide a more thorough mixing of lagoon contents by rising gas
 bubbles, and minimize odors.

              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 and 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.                            -

              Anaerobic lagoons are appropriate for use at operations that collect high BOD
 waste, such as milking parlor flush or hose water and flush bam 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 use anaerobic lagoons, some swine and poultry operations
 require a lagoon, and beef feedlot and heifer operations use a storage pond (discussed in Section
 5.5).  The cost model also assumes that swine operations use either pit (Mid-Atlantic and
 Midwest regions), anaerobic lagoon (Mid-Atlantic and Midwest regions), or evaporative pond
 systems (Central region), while all wet layer operations use anaerobic lagoons. Broiler, turkey,
 and dry layer operations are assumed to not use anaerobic lagoons.
              Based on site visits, EPA assumes all veal operations have sufficient storage, such
as lagoons, currently in place. However, not all dairies are expected to have liquid storage
currently in place. In addition, naturally lined lagoons are more prevalent at dairies and veal
operations than synthetically lined lagoons. Section 6 provides EPA's estimates of the percentage
of dairies and veal operations that would require the installation of a lagoon, a lagoon with a liner

                                          5-27

-------
(for Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D), or a lagoon with additional capacity under Option 7. Also
contained in Section 6.0 are EPA's estimates of the percentage of swine and wet layer operations
that would require increased storage under Option 1A, liners under Options 3B and 3C, and
increased storage for swine facilities under Option 7.
5.4.2
Design of Anaerobic Lagoons at Dairies and Veal Operations
              The design of anaerobic lagoons for dairies and veal operations is described below.
Considerations specific to the design of anaerobic lagoons and evaporative ponds for swine and
poultry operations are discussed in Section 5.4.5.

              Anaerobic lagoons are designed based on volatile solids loading rates (VSLR).
Volatile solids represent the amount of wastes that will decompose. The cost model assumes the
lagoon receives runoff directly from the calf and heifer drylots, wastewater from the barns,
wastewater from the parlor, and manure from the parlor and flush barns. The manure supplies the
volatile solids into the lagoon. Lagoons are typically constructed by excavating a pit and building
berms around the perimeter. The berms are constructed with an extra 5 percent in height to allow
for settling. The sides of the lagoon are typically sloped with a 2:1 or 3:1 (horizontahvertical)
ratio.

              Considerations are also made to avoid ground water and soil contamination.
 Options  1, 2,4, 5, 5 A, and 7 assume the bottom and sides of the lagoon are constructed of soil
 that is at least 10 percent clay compacted with a sheepsfoot roller.  Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D
 require additional ground water protection; therefore, CAFOs that are located in areas of high risk
 for ground-water contamination have costs for installation of an synthetic liner over a compacted
 clay liner.

               Lagoons are designed using the following steps:
                                           5-28

-------
               1)     Determine the necessary storage volume of the lagoon. Lagoons are
                     designed to contain the following volumes (see Figure 5.4.2-1):

                     —     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 waste water
                            and manure and runoff from drylots,

                     —     Net Precipitation: Annual precipitation minus the annual'
                            evaporation,

                     —     Design Storm: The depth of the peak (e.g., 25-year, 24-hour)
                           .rainfall event,

                     —     Freeboard: A minimum of one foot of freeboard, and

                     —     Dilution volume (for swine and poultry operations).

              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.
                                      Freeboard
                       Depth of runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event

                          Depth of normal precipitation less evaporation

                       Manure and wastewater volume (including runoff)
                              Minimum treatment volume

                                     Sludge volume


Source: Agricultural Waste Handbook, USDA, 1996.

                  Figure 5.4.2-1. Cross-Section of an Anaerobic Lagoon
                                         5-29

-------
Step 1) 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 lagoon cleanouts varies based on
 the type and amount of animal waste. As manure decomposes in the lagoon, portions of the total
 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
 fWlb solids for dairy cattle (USDA NRCS, 1996).  The calculation of the separator solids is based
 on a 50 percent settling rate. The calculation of the runoff solids is discussed in Section 4.7.
 where:
               Sludge Volume = Sludge Accumulation x (Separator Solids + Runoff Solids)
               Sludge Volume
               Sludge Accumulation
               Separator Solids
               Runoff Solids
Volume of accumulated sludge in the lagoon
between cleanouts (depends on the type and amount
of animal waste), ft3
0.0729 fWlb
Amount of solids entering the lagoon from the-
separator, Ib
Amount of solids entering the lagoon from runoff,
Ib.
                                           5-30

-------
               Minimum Treatment Volume (MTV)


               The minimum treatment volume is the minimum volume of the lagoon to insure

 anaerobic treatment for a given volatile solids loading.  The minimum treatment volume is based

 on the volatile solids loading rate (VSLR), which varies with regional 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 ft3. The influent daily volatile solids loadings is

 calculated using the'manure volatile solids and settling basin efficiency.  The quantity of volatile

 solids (VS) entering the lagoon is calculated using the following equation:
 where:
                  Influent VS = Manure VS - (Manures VS x Settling Basin Efficiency)
              Influent VS

              Manure VS


              Settling Basin Efficiency
       Daily volatile solids loading from all sources
       entering the lagoon, Ibs/day
       Volatile solids excreted as part of the
       manure, Ibs/day (see Technical Development
       Document for manure characteristics)
       0.50 (i.e., percent of solids that settled in the
       settling basin).
Therefore, the minimum treatment volume is calculated as follows:
where:
              MTV

              Influent VS

              VSLR
                                   MTV =
  Influent VS
    VSLR
Minimum treatment volume (i.e., minimum volume
required for treatment to occur in the lagoon), ft3
Daily volatile solids loading from all sources
entering the lagoon, Ibs/day
Volatile solids loading rate, Ib VS/1000 ftVday.
The VSLR varies by region, as shown in Figure 5.4.2-2, because the rate of solids decomposition
in anaerobic lagoons is a function of temperature (USDA NRCS, 1996).
                                          5-31.

-------
             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. For all options except Option 7, the storage
period used in the cost model is 180 days.
                                          5-32

-------
a1
1
                                           5-33

-------
             All of the manure and wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the dairy parlor or

bam is washed to a concrete settling basin (or separator) before it enters the lagoon (see Section

5.2). 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 bam

flush water is added to the total influent over the whole storage period. It is assumed that the

settling basin has a 50-percent 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:   .
              Lagoon Influent = (Parlor Wash + Bam Wash + Manure Water) x Storage Days
where:
              Lagoon Influent

              Parlor Wash

              Bam Wash

              Manure Water

              Storage Days
Effluent from the separator entering the lagoon,
gallons, gal
Wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the parlor,
gallons per day, gpd
Wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the barn,
The portion of manure that enters the lagoon that is
not solid, gpd
Retention time of the lagoon (varies by option).
 See Section 4.5 for more information regarding calculating the parlor wash and bam wash and

 Section 4.6 for manure water.
                       Recycled Barn Water = Barn Wash * (Storage Days - 1)
 where:
              Recycled Barn Water =

              Bam Wash          =

              Storage Days        =
 Wastewater recycled from the lagoon to use as barn
 flush water, gpd
 Wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the barn,
 Retention time of the lagoon (varies by option).
                                           5-34

-------
     Lagoon Storage = [(Parlor Wash + Bam Wash + Manure Water) x Storage Days] - Recycled Barn Water

 where:
               Lagoon Storage      =

               Parlor Wash        " =

               Barn Wash          =

               Manure Water       =

               Storage Days    --   =-
               Recycled Barn Water ..=
     Separator wastewater entering the lagoon for
.„_. ^storage, ga]L_
     Wastewater that Is flushed or hosed from the parlor,
..'   gpd  r      .   .  ...  	
     Wastewater that is flushed or hosed from the bam,
     gpd
     The portion of manure that enters the lagoon that is
     not solid;"gpd~	
     Retention time of the lagoon (varies by option).
	_. Wastewater recycled from the lagoon to use as barn
     flush water, gpd.
 where:
                 Lagoon Solids = Manure Solids - (Manure Solids x Separator Efficiency)
              Lagoon Solids        =
              Manure Solids     - -—
              Separator Efficiency  =
    Solids entering the lagoon from the separator, ft3
    Manure solids entering the separator, ft3
    0.50 (i.e., percent of solids that settled in the
    separator).
              Net Precipitation


              The lagoon depth is increased to allow for the six-month precipitation minus the

six-month evaporation, as discussed in Section 4.7, The net precipitation contribution to the

lagoon depth is equal to the average precipitation minus the average evaporation.


              Design Storm


              The depth of the peak storm event is added to the depth of the lagoon. For all

options except Option 1A, this peak rainfall event is the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall. For Option 1 A,

a sensitivity analysis done by EPA to account for chronic rainfall, the peak storm is defined as the

25-year, 24-hour rainfall plus the 10-year, 10-day rainfall (see Section 8.0).
                                          5-35

-------
        Peak Precipitation = 25-year, 24-hour Rainfall or 25-year, 24-hour + 10-year, 10-day Rainfall
where:
              Peak Precipitation
              25-Yr, 24-Hr Rainfall
              10-Yr, 10-Day Rainfall
Precipitation depth that falls directly on the
lagoon from the peak rainfall event, inches
Depth of the 25-year, 24-hour peak rainfall
(used for Option 1 through 7), inches
Depth of the 10-year, 10-day chronic rainfall
(used for Option 1A), niches.
              Freeboard
              A minimum of one foot of freeboard is added to the depth.
              Runoff
              The amount of runoff from the drylot entering the lagoon is determined from the
 net precipitation and area of the drylot, as discussed in Section 4.7. The amount of runoff is
 determined by estimating the precipitation for the number of days of storage assumed for each
 option. New lagoons are costed under Options 1 through 6 for 180 days of storage. Option 7
 storage requirements are presented in Table 5.4.2-1. In addition, the runoff contribution to the
 lagoon is reduced by the amount of water retained by the solids that settle out in the basin.  The
 solids entering the lagoon are 1.5 percent of the total runoff from the drylot  (MWPS, 1993). The
 peak storm runoff is also included in the storage requirements.  Section 4.7 describes the details
 of the precipitation and runoff calculations.
                                            5-36

-------
                                      Table 5.4.2-1
                 Lagoon Storage Capacities at Dairies for Option 7
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Estimated Storage-
Capacity for
Option 7 (days)
180
225
225
135
45
Estimated Existing
Storage Capacity
(days)
60 .
30
90
30
30
Additional Lagoon
Capac% Costed !br ; v
Existing Ponds (days) ; r
120
195
135
105

 where:
                     Influent Runoff Solids^^ = Runoff^^ x % Runoff Solids
              Influent Runoff Solids,



              Run°ff6-month

              % Runoff Solids
'6-month
Amount of solids entering the lagoon from
the drylot (i.e., solids exiting the settling
basin), ft3
Amount of the total runoff entering the
lagoon from the drylot, ft3
1.5% (i.e., the percent of runoff entering the
lagoon that consists of solids).
Step 2) Dimensions and Configuration of the Lagoon


              The lagoon is designed in the shape of an inverted pyramid with a flat bottom,

containing the required volume.  The depth of the lagoon is set as follows:
where:
                         h = Initial Depth + Net Precipitation + Freeboard
             h                    =     Depth of the lagoon, ft
             Initial Depth         =     10 ft
                                         5-37

-------
             Net Precipitation
             Freeboard
                                       Six-month precipitation depth that falls directly on
                                       the pond minus the amount that evaporates from the
                                       pond, ft
                                       1ft.
             For dairies and veal operations, the initial depth of the lagoon is set at 10 feet,

based on discussions with industry consultants. This initial depth is assumed to include depth for

the runoff and solids. This depth is used as the starting value for the dimensions calculations
using the required volume of the lagoon. The lagoon is assumed to be square, and the final depth

and length is solved by iteration, knowing the lagoon volume and the other variables in the

equation.                                    '         r ••


              Lagoon Excavation and Embankment Volumes


              Lagoons are constructed by excavating a portion of the necessary volume and

building embankments around the perimeter of the lagoon to make up the total design volume.
The cost model performs an iteration to maximize the use of excavated material used in
     itructing the embankments that minimizes the costs for construction. The excavation volume
cons'
 is represented by the following equation:
 where:
               W
                                    = C, (h-he) [lbwb + lsws + (lbwblswsH
                                  Total volume of soil extracted from the lagoon, ft3
                                  constant equaling Yz for dairy cost model
                                  Depth of the lagoon, ft
                                  Height of embankment, ft
                                  Length of the base of the lagoon, ft
                                  Width of the base of the lagoon, ft
                                  Length of the top of the lagoon, ft
                                  Width of the top of the lagoon, ft.
  The excavated soil is used to build the embankments.  Because some settling of the soil will

  occur, it is assumed that an extra 5 percent of volume is required. The embankment volume is

  represented by the following equation:

                                           5-38

-------
        Vplumeembankmcnt = 2 [(1.05 hcwe + s (1.05 h,)2) (lb +2 sh)] + 2 [(1.05 hewe + (1.05 s)2 he2) (w + 2sh)]
 where:
Volumeembankment              Total volume of soil used for the embankment, ft3
he                   =      Height of embankment, ft
we           -.=.-'  Width of embankment, ft
                     =      Length of the base of the lagoon, ft
                     =      Slope of sidewalls
                     =      Width of the floor of lagoon.
               S
               W
 The dimensions of the basin which yield the desired volume are calculated by the cost model using

 these equations.

                 i'                   ' „.     - •    • r- •   ,...'.    1  -
                                       "            ' ' '    '         t-\           r '   * '•  •
               Lagoon Liners



               For Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D, lagoons are designed with a synthetic liner for

 those operations located in areas requiring ground water 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 liner cover. The dimensions are equal to the surface area of

 the floor and sides of the lagoon.



              The surface area of the floor of the lagoon is calculated to determine the area for

 compaction and for the lagoonliner.  The surface area includes the bottom area plus the area of

the four trapezoids that make up the sides of the lagoon.
a trapezoid.
              The surface area of the sloped sides is calculated using the formula for the area of
                                Area of Side, = '/2 HS x (lb + is)

                                Area of Sidew = 1A HS x (Wb + wj
                                           5-39

-------
where:
              Area of Side,
              Area of Sidew
              HS
              w
                  , Area of length side of the lagoon, fi2
                   Area of width side of the lagoon, ft2
               u,. ^Height of the side on file lagoon (see equation below), ft
                   Bottom length of the lagoon, ft
                   Top length of the lagoon, ft
                   Bottom width of the lagoon; it   —  '-
                  -Top width of the lagoonr.ft.  -	-
The height of the side is'calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem.
 where:
              HS    =
              h
                                              (4h)2)°
             Height of the side on the lagoon, ft
             Depth of the lagoon, ft.
 The total surface area of the basin is:
 where:
                     Surface Area,MOOn = lb Wb + 2 [Area of Side,] + 2 [Area of Si'deJ
               Surface Arealagoon

               !„
               wb
               Area of Side,
               Area of Sidew
                           Total surface area of the pond floor, including the
                           bottom and sides, ft2
                           Bottom length of the pond, ft
                           Bottom width of the pond, ft
                           Area of length side of the pond, ft2
                           Area of width side of the pond, ft2.
 5.4.3
Costs for Constructing a Dairy Lagoon
               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
 5.4.3-1 presents the unit costs used to calculate the capital and annual cost for constructing the

 storage lagoon.

                                            5-40

-------
                                      Table 5.4.3-1
                            Unit Costs for Storage Lagoon
Unit
Mobilization
Excavation
Compaction
Flush Wash Conveyance ,
Hose Wash Conveyance
Clay Liner (shipped & installed)
Synthetic Liner (installed) 	
information takftn frnm N/fpnnb fonts*
1
-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)a
Means 1 999 (022 238 0200)a
Means 1996 (022 226 :5720)a
ERG, 2000c.
ERG,2000c ...
AEA, 1999
Tetra Tech, 200Qc 	
 numbers.
              The calculations for the cost associated with these items are shown below.
              Mobilization

              The mobilization costs are for transporting the heavy machinery and equipment.
The Means Construction Data reports that this cost is $205/event.

              Excavation

              To calculate the lagoon excavation costs, the volume of material that is excavated
is first calculated, as described previously.  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 = Cost x Volumeexcaval=d - Conversion Factor
                                         5-41

-------
where:
              Excavation
              Cost
              Conversion Factor    =
Total cost to excavate the lagoon, $
$2.02/yd3 (i.e., cost per the volume of soil
excavated)
Amount (volume) of soil excavated, ft3
27 ft3/yd3 (conversion from ft3 to yd3).
              Compaction


              To calculate compaction costs, the volume for compaction is calculated, as
described in Section 5.1.3. The compaction cost is calculated using the following equation:
 where:
                     Compaction = Cost x Volumecompacled (ft3) - Conversion Factor
              Compaction
              Cost
              Conversion Factor    =
 Total cost to compact the lagoon, $
 $0.41/yd3 (i.e., cost per volume of soil compacted)
 Amount (volume) of soil compacted, ft3
 27 ftVyd3 (conversion from ft3 to yd3).
              Conveyance


              The conveyance costs are for constructing conveyances to direct runoff from the
 drylot area to the lagoon.  According to the Means Construction Data, this cost is $11,025/system
 for flush wash conveyance and $7,644/system for hose wash conveyance.


              Clay and Synthetic Liners


              To calculate liner costs, the surface area of the basin flow and sidewalls is
 calculated, as described previously. The liner cost includes both clay and synthetic liners, and is

 calculated using the following equations:
                                           5-42

-------
 where:
               Glay Liner
               Cost
               Surface Area
                                  Clay Liner = Cost x Surface Area
,C6st to install a clay liner, $
$Q.24/ft? (i.e., post per the surface area of the pond)
Surface area of the basin floor and the sidewalls, ft2.
 where:
               Synthetic Liner
               Cost
               Surface Area
                                Synthetic Liner = Cost x Surface Area
      <-Cost to install a synthetic liner, $
       $1.SO/ft2 (i.e., cost per the surface area of the pond)
       Surface area of the basin floor and the sidewalls, ft2.
following:
following:
               Total Capital Costs
               The total capital cost for construction of the naturally lined storage lagoon is the
                  Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Conveyance
               The total capital cost for construction of the synthetically lined lagoon is the
                 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 synthetically lined lagoons are estimated at 5 percent of the capital costs.


                                 Annual Cost = 5% x Capital Cost
                                            5-43

-------
5.4.4
Dairy Lagoon Results
              The cost model results for constructing a naturally lined lagoon, a synthetically
lined lagoon, and additional lagoons'for extra capacity (Option 7) at dairies are presented in
Appendix A, Table A-4, Table A-5 ,- and Tables A-6a and 6b, respectively.
5.4.5
Design of Lagoons and Evaporative Ponds for Swine and Poultry Operations
              Basic volume requirements, for liquid storage are determined by calculating the
manure volume generated for the storage period and multiplying that number, by-a dilution factor.
The dilution factor is intended to address process dilution; netdifect precipitation (precipitation
minus evaporation over lagoon surface), freeboard (1 foot), and storage for the 25-year, 24-hour
rainfall event.
              Design
              The basic design steps employed for dairy and veal lagoons are also used for swine
 and poultry lagoons. Unique lagoon dimensions are calculated for each model facility based upon
 the required storage volume. The cost model applies berms on two sides of liquid storage
 structures to eliminate runoff into storage facilities (see Section 5.3).

              USDA's design approach provides storage for manure, clean water used in
 dilution, accumulated solids and wastewater, net precipitation (precipitation - evaporation), the
 25-year 24-hour rainfall event, and 1 foot of freeboard (USDA NRCS, 1996).  In cases where
 there are watersheds draining to the lagoon, USDA adds volume for runoff. Basic volume
 requirements for storage of liquid wastes from swine and wet layer operations are determined by
 calculating the manure volume generated for the storage period and multiplying that number by a
 dilution factor.  The dilution factor is intended to address process dilution, net direct precipitation
 (precipitation minus evaporation over lagoon surface), freeboard (1 foot), and storage for the 25-
 year 24-hour rainfall event. Solids accumulation is  assumed to not occur since it is assumed that
 waste is agitated and mixed before application to fields.
                                            5-44

-------
                The suitability of the modeled lagoons to handle all inputs was tested in an exercise
  to determine if overflows would occur due to chronic and 25-year, 24-hour rainfall events.  No
  capacity problems were found in this testing, so it is concluded that lagoons designed using the
  cost model approach are reasonable approximations of .those designed using USDA's approach.

                The storage period for lagoons is assumed to be six months, except for those
  options and scenarios where storage is increased. The required storage volume (Volumestorage) is
  therefore calculated as:
 where:
               Volume,,
               dilution
              •2
                              Volumeslorage = Volumemimiirc x dilution/2
annual volume of manure produced
dilution factor (ranges from 1 to 3)
12 months/6 months storage.
               The cost model addresses five cases for which lagoon construction costs are
 included: (1) Option 1A, where increased storage is provided to handle chronic rainfall events at
 wet layer operations and at swine operations with liquid or evaporative pond systems, (2)
 increased storage for all swine facilities under Option 7, (3) the construction of secondary lagoons
 for settling as part of the installation of flush-water recycling systems for Category 2 liquid swine
 facilities under all options other than Option 5, (4) the replacement of evaporative ponds with
 lined and covered lagoons under Option 5, and (5) the construction of a secondary lagoon with
 storage for 20 days in conjunction with liner installation for liquid and evaporative pond systems.
 In all other cases, the storage facility is designed for the purpose of deriving costs for liners,
 covers, and diversions only, and lagoon construction costs are not included.

              Under Option 1 A, the storage volume is increased to handle chronic rainfall,
ranging from 5 to 11 inches (see Table 5.4.5-1). The extra lagoon for flush-water recycling
systems is designed to handle storage for 20 days, the same design volume used for extra lagoons
constructed when liners are added to existing lagoons and evaporative ponds.  Increased storage
under Option 7 is set to 90 days for the Mid-Atlantic region and 135 days for the Midwest and
                                           5-45

-------
Central regions.  Lagoons constructed to replace evaporative ponds are designed to handle the
same volume as the evaporative ponds, and then 6 inches of depth is removed to account for the
covers which keep direct precipitation from entering the lagoon.
                                   Table 5.4.5-1
        Chronic Rainfall Amounts for Option 1A for Swine and Poultry
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
South
Chronic Rainfall Amount (inches)
5
11
' ' ' ' ' 7
10
             Dimensions and Configuration

             The shape assumed for lagoons and evaporative ponds is an upside-down frustrum,
which is a pyramid with the top chopped off. The shape and parameters of a frustrum are given in
Figure 5.4.5-1. The cost model assume that lagoons and evaporative ponds are square (a=b and
c=d).
                                    Area and Volume of the Frustrum of a Pyramid
                                      Area ~ &i •*- B2-f A*
                                           = ab + cd +(a+b-H:-HJ) »
                                     Votume = --h  (B,
                              Figure 5.4.5-1.  Frustrum
                                        5-46

-------
              Because lagoons have sloping sides, the minimum volume associated with a lagoon
12 feet deep with side slopes (H:V) of 2 is 9,216 cubic feet.  For an evaporative pond with a
depth of 4 feet and side slopes of 2, the minimum volume is 341 cubic feet. Since the cost model
calculates lagoon dimensions from lagoon volume, which can be very small for secondary
lagoons, there is the potential that calculations result in negative bottom widths and lengths if the
depth and side slopes are fixed values.  To prevent these negative values from occurring, an
analysis of lagoon dimensions resulting from various volumes, lagoon depths, and side slopes was
conducted.  The results from this, analysis are presented in Table 5.4.5-2. When applying the
information contained in Table 5.4.5-2 to the design of anaerobic lagoons in the cost model, the
default depth is 12 feet, and a preference is given to maintaining a depth of at least 10 feet
wherever possible, but no less than 6 feet (see Table 5.4.5-3). This approach is consistent with
USDA guidelines specifying that the minimum acceptable depth for anaerobic lagoons is 6 feet,
but in colder climates at least 10 feet is recommended to assure proper operation and odor control
(USDA NRCS, 1996). USDA also recommends that internal slopes be no less than 1.5:1 (H:V)
for liquid storage (USDANRCS; 1996).

             According to the American Society of Agricultural Engineers standards (ASAE,
1998), a minimum lagoon depth of 5 feet is necessary for construction of anaerobic lagoons, and
approximately 20 feet is considered the maximum depth to ensure proper biological activity.
                                          5-47

-------
                  table 5.4.5-2
Relationships Among Depth, Side Slope, Volume, And
            Bottom Width of Lagoons
Depth
12
12
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
Side Slope
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
Volume Below Which Calculations Result In
Negative Value for Bottom Width of Lagoon
36,864
20,736
9,216
28,395
15,972
7,099
21,334
12,000
5,334
15,552
8,748
3,888
10,923
6,144
2,731
7,318
4,116
1,830
4,608
2,592
1,152
288
2,667
1,500
667
167
1,365
,768
342
86
                       5-48

-------
                                     Table 5.4.5-3
            Depth and Side Slopes for Lagoons and Evaporative Ponds
Volume (cubic feet)
> 0 and < 342
>=342
>0and<167
>=167and<288 '
>=288 and <1,152
>=l,152and=l,830and<2,731
>=2,731and<3,888
>=3,888 and <5,334
>=5,334 and <7,099
>=7,099and<9,216
>=9,216
Lagoons
Depth
NA
NA
4
5
6
6
7
.8
r 9
10 '
11
12
Slope
.NA
NA
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
-' 2
2
2
Evaporative Ponds
Depth
, '4
4
NA
' NA
NA
NA
NA
NA :
NA
NA
NA
NA
Slope
1
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA: Not applicable. , . •
Because some of the modeled lagoons are very small, a depth of 4 feet is allowed for volumes less
than 167 cubic feet, and a depth of 5 feet is allowed for volumes of 167-287 cubic feet. This
allowance for shallow anaerobic lagoons is particularly important in calculations of the costs for
extra storage.
              Lagoon dimensions are calculated from volume using the following basic
equations:
        Wlagoonbottom=[(-2h2s)+((4x(h^) x (s2)) - 4xhx((4/3)x(h3)x(s2).Volumestorage))°-5]-f-2h
                                           =
                                   •^lagoonbottom  ** lagoonbottom
                            Wlagoontop =Wlagoonbottom+(2 X S X depth)
                             Llagoomop=Liagoonbottom+(2  x S X depth)
                                          5-49

-------
where:
              "lagoonbottom
              w
              •'lagoontop
              •Magoonbottom
              •Magoontop
              S
              h
Width of bottom of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Width of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Length of bottom of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Length of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Slope of sidewalls
Depth of the lagoon, ft.
              To simulate increased storage volume for chronic rainfall under Option 1 A, the
cost model increases the top width (and length since it is assumed to be square) of the lagoon with

the following equation:
where:
              W,
              ' * lagoontop
              S
              chronic
              12
              2
                            Wlagoontop =WIagoontop + (2 x s x chronic •*-12)
Width of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Slope of sidewalls
Chronic rainfall, in
12 inches per foot
Two sides.
              The equation essentially builds additional storage above the existing lagoon,
resulting in a wider, longer, and deeper lagoon. The new top width and length are used to
calculate the new lagoon volumes, liner areas, berm dimensions, and cover areas for Option 1 A.
The increase in lagoon volume is calculated by subtracting the original volume from the new

volume.


              An additional 20 days of storage is provided by both the extra lagoons for flush-

water recycling systems and the extra lagoons constructed when liners are added to existing

lagoons and evaporative ponds. This additional storage volume (Volume20.daystorage) is calculated
with the following equation:
                                               , * 20 - 365 - 7.481 - 27
                                           5-50

-------
 where:
                            =      12-month storage volume in gallons
              20/365       =      Fraction of year covered by 20 days
              7.481 converts to cubic feet -  .     • .    .
              27 converts to cubic yards.
              Increased storage under Option 7 is set to 90 days for the Mid-Atlantic region and
 135 days for the Midwest and Central regions.  The storage volume is calculated using the same
 equation as above, with the exception that 20 is replaced with 90 or 135.

              Under Option 5, the cost model builds a new lago'on to replace evaporative ponds
 since this approach is less expensive than covering the large but shallow evaporative ponds. First,
 the dimensions of the new lagoon are determined using the basic equations from above.  Then,
 lagoon depth is decreased by 6 inches. The typical annual rainfall in the central region where
 evaporative ponds are used is 1 foot, and 6 inches is selected since the storage period is six
 months.  The lagoon bottom width and length remain the same, but the width and length of the
 lagoon top are then recalculated using the following equations:
where:
              W,
              ' * lagoontop
              •Magoontop
              S
                                   "lagoontop  "lagoontop ~ (2 X S)
                                   *-'lagoontop~~Magoontop ~ (2 x S)
Width of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Length of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Slope of sidewalls.
Volume is then calculated using the frustrum equation with the original bottom dimensions, the
new depth, and the new top dimensions.
                                          5-51

-------
             Lagoon Liners

             The surface area of lagoons and evaporative ponds for swine and poultry
operations is calculated using the same basic equations described in Section 5.4.2 for dairies and
veal operations. The cost for a lagoon is calculated using the same costs shown in Table 5.4.3-1.
5.4.6
Costs for Lagoons at Swine and Poultry Operations
              Capital Costs
              The excavation cost of $2.60 per cubic yard for swine and poultry operations is
multiplied by the volume or volume change (e.g., Option 1 A) to determine total excavation costs.
When a liner is present, unit liner costs are the same as shown in Table 5.4.3-1, and are multiplied
by liner area to determine total liner cost.
where:
                   Capital Cost = Excavation Cost x Volume Excavated + Liner Cost
              Excavation Cost     =
              Volume Excavated   =
              Liner Cost           =
                           $2.60 per cubic yard
                           Volume or volume change of lagoon
                           Clay liner + synthetic liner.
capital costs.
              Annual Costs
              The annual maintenance and operation cost is assumed to be 2 percent of the
                               Annual Cost = 2% x Capital Cost
                                          5-52

-------
 5.5
 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 bams, or transported off site.  Section 5.9 discusses the
 costs associated with transporting waste off site, including the solids and liquids.

              Ponds are included in all regulatory options for beef feedlots, heifer operations,
 and as a holding pond for effluent from an anaerobic digester in Option 6.  Options 1, 2, 4, 5A,
 and 6 require zero discharge of manure, litter, or process wastewater pollutants from the
 production area with the exception of overflows from a facility designed to hold all process
 wastewater, including the direct precipitation and runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.
 CAFOs that already have storage ponds in place are assumed to have sufficient capacity.  CAFOs
 that have no storage on site are costed for the installation of naturally lined ponds with 180 days
 of storage. Under Option 7, CAFOs are costed for the installation of naturally lined ponds with a
 storage capacity that varies based on land application timing restrictions. For Options 3A/3B and
 3C/3D, CAFOs expected to have a direct hydrologic connection from ground water to surface
 water are given costs for the installation of storage ponds with a liner to prevent seepage of
 wastewater into ground water.
5.5.1
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.
                                          5-53

-------
             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
as flush water for the animal barns, or transported off site.. The sludge can also be land applied as
a fertilizer and soil amendment

              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 heifer operations
operate in this manner and have storage ponds for runoff collection.  All cost options for beef
feedlots and heifer operations include a storage pond.  Dairies and veal operations typically
operate lagoons (discussed in Section 5.4) to provide treatment for the barn and milking parlor
flush water; however, a storage pond is included in the costs for large dairies under Option ,6,
where the pond receives effluent from an anaerobic digester.

               Not all beef feedlots and heifer operations are expected to have liquid storage
 currently in place. In addition, ponds without a synthetic or clay liner are currently more
 prevalent at beef feedlots and heifer operations than are lined ponds. Section 6.0 provides EPA's
 estimates of the percentage of beef feedlots and heifer operations that are costed for the
 installation of a pond, a pond with a liner (for Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D), or a pond with
 additional capacity (for Option 7).
 5.5.2
Design
               The cost model assumes only direct precipitation or runoff that has gone through a
 settling basin (or separator) 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 percent 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.
                                            5-54

-------
             Considerations are also made to avoid ground-water and soil contamination.

Options 1,2,4, 5 A, 6, and 7 assume the bottom and sides of the pond are constructed of soil that

is at least 10 percent clay compacted with a sheepsfoot roller.  Under Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D,
                                                                        >
some CAFOs will require additional ground-water 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 5.5.2-1):

                    —    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 (e.g., 25-year, 24-hour)
                          rainfall event, and

                    —    Freeboard: A minimum of 1 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.
                                         5-55

-------
A
                                     Freeboard
   Required
    volume
                      Depth of runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event
                         Depth of normal precipitation less evaporation
                 \
Runoff from normal precipitation
       Sludge volume
                                                       y
Source: Agricultural Waste Handbook, USD A, 1996.
                     Figure 5.5.2-1.  Cross-Section of a Storage Pond
Step 1) 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.

              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. A rate of sludge accumulation is not available for
beef cattle but is estimated to be the same as dairy cattle: 0.0729 cubic feet per pound (ftVlb)
(USDA NRCS, 1996). The calculation of the separator solids is discussed in Section 5.2,
assuming 50-percent settling rate. The calculation of the runoff solids is discussed in Section 4.7.
                                          5-56

-------
                       Sludge Volume = Sludge Accumulation x Runoff Solids
 where:
              Sludge Volume      =
              Sludge Accumulation =
              Runoff Solids
Amount of sludge that accumulates between pond
cleanouts, ft3
0.0729, ftMb
Quantity of total solids that enter the pond following
separation, pounds, Ib.
              Runoff
              The amount of runoff entering the pond is determined from the net precipitation
and area of the drylot, as discussed in Section 4.7. The amount of runoff is determined by
estimating the precipitation for the number of days of storage assumed for each option. New
ponds are costed under Options 1 through 6 for 180 days of storage. Option 7 storage
requirements are presented in Table 5.5.2-1. 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 percent of the total runoff (see Section 4.7 for more
information), while the solids entering the pond are 50 percent of the basin solids (i.e., the
efficiency of the settling basin is assumed to be 50 percent).
                                    Table 5.5.2-1
 Pond Storage Capacities at Beef Feedlot and Heifer Operations for Option 7
'v ' Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Estimated Storage
Capacity for
Option 7 (days)
180
225
225
135
45
Source: ERG, 2000a and ERG 2002.
Estimated Existing
Storage Capacity
,/ . ' (days)
50
80
190
30
45
'
Additional Pond
Capacity Costed for ••
Existing Ponds (days)
130
145
35
105
0
'
                                        5-57

-------
            Influent Runoff Solids,^,,,,,, = Total Runoff Solids6.roomh x (l^Settling Basin Efficiency)
where:
              Influent Runoff Solids

              Total Runoff Solids6.momh

              Settling Basin Efficiency
       Amount of solids entering the pond (i.e.,
       solids exiting the settling basin), ft3
       Amount of the total runoff entering the
       settling basin that consists of solids, ft3
       50% (i.e., percent of solids that settled in the
       settling basin).
where:
Note that:
                 Settled Solids6.monlh = Total Runoff Solids^™,,, x Settling Basin Efficiency
               Settled

               Total Runoff Solids^,,,

               Settling Basin Efficiency
       Amount of solids that settled in the settling
       basin from the runoff entering the basin, ft3
       Amount of the total runoff entering the
       settling basin that consists of solids, ft3
       50% (i.e., percent of solids that settled in the
       settling basin).
                Total Runoff Solidss.^,,, = Influent Runoff Solids6.raonth + Settled Solids^,,,,,,,
               For the cost model calculations, it is assumed that settled solids have a moisture
content of 80 percent (based on best professional judgement); therefore, the runoff entering the

pond is:
                  180 days
                            x Storage Days  -
where:
Settled Solids6.month x Solidsmoisture
         1 Solidsmoisture
                                                                          + Peak Rainfall Runoff
                                           Amount of runoff entering the pond from the
                                           settling basin and drainage area, ft3
                                           Total runoff entering the settling basin calculated
                                           using the average monthly precipitation amounts
                                           from the wettest six-month consecutive period (see
                                           Section 4.7),  ft3
                                             5-58

-------
               180 days
               Storage Days

               Settled Solids,
                           '6-month
               Solids,
                    moisture
               Peak Rainfall Runoff  =
Number of storage days for runoff
Required number of storage days for the specific
option, days
Amount of solids that settled in the settling basin
from the runoff entering the basin, ft3
80% (i.e., moisture content percentage in the settled
solids)
Total runoff from the peak rainfall event (either 25-
year, 24-hour or 25-year, 24-hour plus 10-year, 10-
day).
               Section 4.7 describes the details of the precipitation and runoff calculations.


              Net Precipitation              ,            ,     .,


              The. pond depth is increased to allow for direct net precipitation, as discussed in

 Section 4.7.  The net precipitation contribution to the pond depth is equal to the average

 precipitation minus the average evaporation.


              Design Storm


              The depth of the peak rainfall event is added to the depth of the pond to account

 for direct precipitation.  For all options except 1 A, this peak rainfall event is the 25-year, 24-hour

 rainfall.  For Option 1 A, a sensitivity analysis conducted by EPA to account for chronic rainfall,

 the peak storm is defined as the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall plus the 10-year, 10-day rainfall.

 Precipitation information for these storms was also extracted from the NCDC database.
where:
            Peak Precipitation =25-Yr, 24-Hr Rainfall or 25-Yr, 24-Hr + 10-Yr, 10-Day Rainfall
              Peak Precipitation

              25-Yr, 24-Hr Rainfall

              10-Yr, 10-Day Rainfall
      Precipitation depth that falls directly on the
      pond from the peak rainfall event, inches
      Depth of the 25-year, 24-hour peak rainfall,
      inches
      Depth of the 10-year, 10-day chronic rainfall',
      inches.
                                           5-59

-------
             Freeboard

             A minimum of 1 foot of freeboard is added to the depth.

Step 2) Dimensions and Configuration of Pond

             The pond is designed approximately in the shape of an inverted frustum (i.e., an
inverted pyramid with a flat bottom), containing the required volume.  The initial depth of the
pond is set as follows:
                 •h = Initial Depth + Net Precipitation + Freeboard + Peak Precipitation
where:
              Initial Depth.
              Net Precipitation
              Freeboard
              Peak Precipitation
Depth of the pond, ft
10ft
Six-month precipitation depth that falls directly on
the pond minus the amount that evaporates from the
pond, ft
1 foot
Precipitation depth that falls directly on the pond
from the peak rainfall event, ft.
               The initial depth of the pond is set at 10 feet, based on discussions with industry
 consultants. This initial depth is assumed to include depth for the runoff and solids. This depth is
 used as the starting value for the dimensions calculations using the required volume of the pond.
 The pond is assumed to be square,- and the final depth and length is solved by iteration, knowing
 the pond volume and the other variables in .the equation.
               Fond Dimensions

               For the cost model calculations, it is assumed that the pond has four sloped sides
 with a rectangular base. To determine the dimensions of the pond, the design volume of the pond
 is used with the design parameters discussed previously. The following equation is used to
 determine the length of the basin:
                                            5-60

-------
 where:
                             Pond Volume = Vz h [A, + A2 + (A, A2 )°-5]

                          Pond Volume = 1A h [lb Wb + ls Ws +• (lbWblsWs)0-5]
              Pond Volume
              h
              A,

              A2
              Wb
              Is
              w,
 Necessary volume of the pond calculated in Step 1), ft3
 Depth of the pond, ft
 Area of the bottom base of the pond, assuming the pond is
 square (this equals lb Wb)
 Area of the top (surface area) of the pond, assuming the
ixmd is square (this equals ls Ws)
 Length of the base of the pond, ft
 Width of the base of the pond, ft
 Length of the top of the pond, ft
 Width of the top of the pond, ft.
              Pond Excavation and Embankment Volumes


              Ponds are constructed by excavating a portion of the necessary volume and

 building embankments around the perimeter of the pond 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:                                             '    '
where:
                        Volumeexoavated = 0.5 (h-hc) [lbwb + lsws
              Volume,
                    'excavated
             W
Total volume of soil extracted from the pond, ft3
Depth of the pond, ft
Height of embankment, ft
Length of the base of the pond, ft
Width of the base of the pond, ft
Length of the top of the pond, ft
Width of the top of the pond, ft.
             The excavated soil is used to build the embankments. Because some settling of the

soil will occur, it is assumed that an extra 5 percent of volume is required.  The embankment

volume is represented by the following equation:

-------
      Volun«w«ta«i = 2 [(1.05 hcwe + s (1.05 he)2) (lb +2 sh)] + 2 [(1.05 hewe + (1.05 s)2 he2) (w + 2sh)]
where:
              S
              W
      Total volume of soil used for the embankment, ft3
      Depth embankment, ft
      Width embankment, ft
      Length of the base of the pond, ft
      slope of walls of pond, ft/ft
      width of the base of the pond, ft.
The dimensions of the basin which yield the desired volume are calculated by the cost model.


              Pond Liners


              For Options 3A/3B and 3C/3D, ponds,are designed with a synthetic liner for those

operations located in areas requiring ground water 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.


              The surface area of the floor of the pond is calculated to determine the area for
         *
compaction and for the pond liner.  The surface area includes the bottom area plus the area of the

four trapezoids that make up the sides of the pond.
              The surface area of the sloped sides is calculated using the formula for the area of
a trapezoid.
where:
              Area of Side,  =
              AreaofSidew  =
              HS
                                Area of Side, = K HS * (lb + ls)

                                Area of Sidew = 1A HS x (wb + ws)
Area of length side of the pond, ft2
Area of width side of the pond, ft2
Height of the side on the pond (see equation below), ft
Bottom length of the pond, ft
Top length of the pond, ft

        5-62

-------
               w
                     Bottom width of the pond, ft
                     Top width of the pond, ft.
 The height of the side is calculated using the Pythagorean Theorem.
                                                  20-5
 where:
 HS.   ='
 h     =
                                               (4h)2)
                            Height of the side on the pond, ft
                            Depth of the pond, ft.
 The total surface area of the basin is:
 where:
                     Surface Area,,ond = lb Wb + 2 [Area of Side,] + 2 [Area of Sidew]
              Surface Areap0[ld
              wb
              Area of Side,
              Area of Side,,
                            Total surface area of the pond floor, including the
                            bottom 'and sides, ft2
                            Bottom length of the pond, ft
                            Bottom width of the pond, ft
                            Area of length side of the pond, ft2
                            Area of width side of the pond, ft2.
5.5.3
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
5.5.3-1 presents the unit costs used to calculate the capital and annual cost for constructing
storage ponds.
                                          5-63

-------
                                    Table 5.5.3-1
                            Unit Costs for Storage Pond
Unit
Mobilization
Excavation
Compaction
Conveyance
Clay Liner (shipped & installed)
Synthetic Liner (installed)
Cost
(1997 dollars) .
$205/event
$2.02/yd3
$0.4J/yd3
$7,644/event
• $Q.2A/& — •
••$r.5o7ft2""' ' :
v • ' Source
Means 1999 (022 274 0020)"
Means 1999 (022 238 0200)"
Means 1996 (022 226 5720)a ,
ERG,2000c
AEA;--1 999 ! '•
f etra Tech, 2000c
The calculations for the costs associated with these items are shown below:

             Mobilization
                                            ,   • 1
             The mobilization costs are $205/event (i.e., $205 to mobilize all equipment on
site).  These costs are for moving the appropriate heavy machinery and equipment.

             Excavation

             To calculate the pond excavation costs, the volume of material that is excavated is
first calculated, as described previously. 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.
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 = Cost x
 Volumeexcavated
Conversion Factor
                                          5-64

-------
 where:
               Excavation
               Cost
              Volumeexcavated
              Conversion Factor
    Total cost to excavate the pond, $
    $2.02/yd3 (i.e., cost per the volume of soil
,  _  excavated)
    Amount (volume) of soil excavated, ft3
    27 ftVyd3 (i.e., conversion from ft3 to yd3).
              Compaction

                           > " ~*'
              To calculate compaction costs, the volume for compaction is calculated, as
 described in Section 5.1. The compaction cost is calculated with the following equation:
 where:
                           Compaction = Cost x
                                             Volume,
                                                   'compacted
                    (ft3)
              Compaction
              Cost
              Volumecompacted
              Conversion Factor
                                              Conversion Factor
    Total cost to compact the pond, $
    $0.41/yd3 (i.e.', cost per volume of soil compacted)
    Amount (volume) of soil compacted, ft3
    27 fWyd3 (i.e., conversion from ft3 to yd3).
              Conveyance


              The conveyance costs are for constructing conveyances to direct runoff from the
drylot area to the storage pond. According to the Means Construction Data, this cost is
$7,644/event.


              Clay and Synthetic Liners


              To calculate liner costs, the surface area of the basin'floor and sidewalls is
calculated, as described in Section 5.1.  The liner cost includes both a clay and synthetic liner, and
is calculated using the following equations:
                                          5-65

-------
where:
              Clay Liner    =
              Cost
              Surface Area =
                                 Clay Liner = Cost x Surface Area
Cost to install a clay liner, $
$"0.24/ft? (i.e., cost per the surface area of the pond)
Surface area of the basin floor and the sidewalls, ft2.
where:
                               Synthetic Liner = Cost x Surface Area
              Synthetic Liner
              Cost
              Surface Area
       Cost to install a synthetic liner, $
       $l.5Q/fP(i.e., cost per the surface area of the pond)
       Surface area of the basin floor and the sidewaills, ft2.
following:
following:
              Total Capital Costs for Naturally Lined and Synthetically Lined Ponds
              The total capital cost for construction of the naturally-lined storage pond is the
                  Capital Cost = Mobilization + Excavation + Compaction + Conveyance
              The total capital cost for construction of the synthetically lined pond is the
     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 synthetically lined storage ponds are estimated at 5 percent of the total

capital costs.


                                 Annual Cost = 5% x Capital Cost
                                            5-66

-------
 5.5.4   ;:1.
 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, Table A-7, Table A-8, and Tables A-9a and 9b,, respectively.
 5.6
Nutrient Management
              The cost model assumes that as part of the regulation, CAFOs will be required to
 conduct certain practices to appropriately manage their nutrients. - These practices include: the
 development of a nutrient management plan, soil sampling, manure, sampling, recordkeeping and
 reporting costs, purchase of nitrogen fertilizer, lagoon depth marker, establishment of setback
                            -','        rXlV   ''       '         •.               ;    : '
 areas, and calibration of a manure spreader. Each of these are described in this section. The sum
 of the nutrient management costs are presented for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer and veal
                                     i i- . L.                  - "  - .
 operations in Appendix A, Tables A-lOa and lOb. Tables A-lOc through A-lOg present costs for
    -                                       -,•••>•"                   J.
 buffers at swine and poultry operations.
5.6.1
Nutrient Management Plan Development and Associated Costs
              The cost model assumes that all but Category 3 animal feeding operations covered
by this regulation will need to develop and implement a nutrient management plan for then-
operation. To this end, there is an initial cost for the owner/operator of the farm to be trained in
nutrient management planning.  Further, for all but Category 3 farms, it is assumed that the
owner/operator develops or updates then: nutrient management plan every 5 years.

              On-Farm Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) Development

              The cost to develop an on-farm NMP is calculated by multiplying the farm size
(number of tillable acres) by a NMP rate in dollars per acre. NMP rates vary depending on the
level of services (e.g., soil sampling, manure sampling, and analysis). EPA selected a NMP rate of
$5 per tillable acre, assuming that costs for soil and manure testing were estimated separately

                                          5-67

-------
from NMP development and the higher costs for NMP development are usually attributed to
testing costs.  While the final regulation requires that NMPs be rewritten at a minimum of every 5
years; therefore, the cost models for all operations include costs to revise the NMP every 5 years.
Costs for an annual review of the NMP are included under the recordkeeping requirements for all
facilities.

              EPA also assumes that there will be a one-time fixed cost for documenting the
manure generation, collection, storage, and treatment systems at animal operations that require
nutrient management planning. EPA assumes that this documentation will be prepared by a
nutrient management specialist as the first step in the nutrient management planning development
process.  Labor hours for both the farmer and the nutrient management specialist are required.
EPA assumes this documentation will require 8 hours of time by the farmer at $10' per hour and
16 hours of time by the nutrient management specialist at $55 per hour. This cost is:
              One-time Fixed Cost
                           (8 hours x $10/hr) + (16 hours x $55/hr)
                           $960.
5.6.2
Soil Sampling
              As part of nutrient management planning requirements, the cost model includes
costs for soil sampling and analysis to determine the nutrient balance of the soil prior to manure
application. Costs associated with soil sampling include a fixed cost for equipment purchase and
soil sampling costs every 3 years.

              Soil Sampler

              The one time capital cost for equipment was estimated to be $25 for a soil auger
(ASC Scientific, 1999).  Category 3 facilities do not incur this cost since they have no land.
                                          5-68

-------
              Soil Sampling

              The cost model assumes that on-farm soil sampling will occur at least once every 3
years.  EPA selected a soil sampling rate of one composite sample per 20 tillable acres, based
upon a review of federal and state soil sampling recommendations. A composite soil sample was
estimated to take 1 hour because of the distance between samples, and labor costs for soil
sampling were estimated to be $ 10/hr. Costs for soil analysis for major nutrients and important
soil characteristics were estimated at $10 per sample based on a review of costs by state NRGS
labs. Category 3 facilities do not incur this cost since they have no land.
5.6.3
Manure Sampling
              As part of nutrient management planning requirements, the cost model includes
costs for manure sampling and analysis to determine the nutrient balance of the manure prior to
application to cropland. Costs associated with manure sampling apply to all facilities and include
a fixed cost for equipment purchase and semiannual manure sampling costs.

              Manure Sampler :

              The one-time cost for equipment to sample liquid manure waste is estimated at $30
for a manure sampler.  The manure sampler consists of a hollow conduit long enough to extend to
the bottom of the lagoon, pit, or other storage structure.  In the case of solid manure, a shovel or
similar device is sufficient to obtain a representative sample and therefore no cost is assumed.

              Manure Sampling

              Manure sampling costs are based on sampling twice per year. The cost of manure
sampling includes the labor required and the manure nutrient analysis. For all poultry and swine
facilities, 1 hour is required to sample the main storage area.  For dry poultry, an additional 0.25
hour per house is required to collect a composite sample from each house. Beef feedlots and
                                          5-69

-------
dairies are assumed to have two samples of .the liquid waste and two samples of solid waste
collected per year, for a total of four samples per year.

              Labor rates are estimated"at$10/hr. Manure analysis was estimated at $40 per
sample based on a review of costs by state soir conservation service labs.
5.6.4
Recordkeeping and Reporting
              As part of implementing a nutrient management plan, the cost model assigns
annual costs to each facility for recordkeeping and reporting time. Recordkeeping costs
($880/year) for all facilities include the cost of recording animal inventories, manure generation,
field application of manure and other nutrients (amount, rate, method, incorporation, dates),
manure and soil analysis compilation, crop yield goals and harvested yields, crop rotations, tillage
practices, rainfall and irrigation, lime applications, findings from visual inspections of feedlot areas
and fields, lagoon emptying, and other activities on a monthly basis.

              EPA  estimated that large facilities incur an additional cost of $1407 year to
maintain records of manure that is transferred to a third party. The average number of transfers
per large CAPO is 16,900, based on.excess manure estimates in Simons (2002). Using the 100-
ton transfer estimate from Simons (2002), the average annual number of transfers per CAFO of
169 (16,900 •*• 100). It should not require more than five minutes per transfer to record the four
data items: the name of the recipient, the data of the transfer, the quantity of manure, and its
nutrient content. Therefore, the annual burden estimate will be approximately 14 hours (169
transfers x 5 minutes/transfer -=- 60 minutes/hour).  The additional $8.50 cost per 20-ton load to
weight a truck (Simons, 2002) is not a required cost of the rule and, therefore, is excluded from
the offsite transfer cost estimate.
              Records may include manure spreader calibration worksheets, manure application
worksheets, maintenance logs, soil and manure test results, and documentation of corrective
actions taken in response to findings from visual inspections. EPA assumed 8 hours were needed
to prepare an annual report on animal inventories, manure generation, and overall manure

                                          5-70

-------
application.  Monthly write-ups and field observations are assumed to require 3 hours each (72
hours annually).  Thus, a total of 80 hours annually was estimated for recordkeeping at $10/hour.
Other costs associated with recordkeeping, including obtaining signed certifications of proper
manure application from off-site manure recipients, were estimated at 10 percent of labor costs.
5.6.5
Commercial Nitrogen Fertilizer
              The nitrogen-to-phosphoras ratio in manure is typically much lower
(approximately 2:1) than harvested crop nutrient removal ratios (approximately 6:1). Therefore,
facilities that must land apply their manure on a phosphorus basis rather than a nitrogen basis
incur additional costs because a commercial source of nitrogen must be applied to their fields
(termed sidedressing) to compensate for the nitrogen not supplied through manure application.
The cost model assumes a cost of 12.30 per pound of additional nitrogen is required, based upon
the cost data shown in Table 5.6.5-1. No,veal operations are assumed to need commercial
fertilizer. Appendix A, Table A-l 1 presents the cost model results for purchasing commercial
nitrogen fertilizer for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer, and veal operations.
5.6.6
                                     Table 5.6.5-1
                          Retail Cost of Nitrogen Fertilizer
Fertilizer
Anhydrous Ammonia
Urea
Ammonium Nitrate
U.S. Average
RetaH Cost Per Pound of Nitrogen ; :j
140
120
110
12.30
              Source: The Fertilizer Institute, 1999.
Lagoon Depth Marker
              EPA believes that all facilities with liquid waste impoundments should have a •
gauge to measure the remaining storage capacity. A lagoon depth marker can be manufactured by
purchasing PVC pipe, fittings, and cement to construct a length of incrementally marked pipe long
                                          5-71

-------
enough to reach the bottom of the lagoon and extend above the freeboard. EPA estimated lhat
building and installing a lagoon depth marker would cost $30.
5.6.7
Establishment of Setback Areas
             The final rule requires either (1) a 100-foot manure application setback from
surface waters, sinkholes, open tile dram inlets, or (2) a 30-foot vegetated buffer from surface
waters, sinkholes, open tile drain inlets, or (3) one or more NRCS field practices providing an
equal or better level of protection (a certified CNMP is deemed to meet this requirement).

             However, EPA believes that in addition to manure application setbacks from.
surface waters, operations should also establish buffer strips or their equivalent to control erosion
and treat field runoff.  Thus, EPA estimated the costs of 100-foot .buffer strips for fields used for
manure application that are adjacent to streams, discussed below.

             The costs of the buffer should be thought of as an,allowance for the AFO to
implement site specific field control practices such as conservation management. In other words,
controls other than buffer strips may be more effective in certain situations (Sims J., A. Leytem, F.
Coale, 2000), and this cost basis is considered an allowance that can be used to implement other
runoff control practices.

              Initial Fixed Costs
              EPA calculated the ratio of stream length to land area based on national estimates
of land area (3 million square miles of land in the contiguous United States (ESRI,1998) and
stream miles (3.5 million miles of streams (USEPA, 2000). This ratio was converted to miles per
acre (0.00144 mile of stream per acre of land). EPA then calculated the amount of land needed
for buffer construction by multiplying the average acres of cropland for each model farm by the
ratio of stream miles per acre of land, which determined the length of stream on each farm.  EPA
further assumed that the farm is square and the stream runs down the middle of the farm, and the
width of the buffer (on both sides of the stream) is 100 feet. The cost of 100-foot buffers was

                                          5-72

-------
based on information collected from a total of 914 filter strip projects in 28 states with an average
cost of $106.62/ac (1999 dollars; USEPA, 1993). The net loss of tillable land to establish a buffer
was estimated at 3.5 percent of the cropland (0.00144 mile of stream per acre x 5,280 feet per
mile x 200 ft2 of buffer per foot of stream length -*- 43,560 fWac). Thus, the cost for stream
buffers was estimated at approximately $3.72/ac of total cropland.

              Annual Costs

              EPA assumed that the land taken out of production for installation of buffer strips
was previously farmed.  The rental value for land taken out of production was added to standard
O&M costs.  The rental value for cropland used as a stream buffer was estimated at $64.00/ac/yr
based on analysis by North Carolina State University (NCSU, 1998).
5.6.8
Manure Spreader Calibration
              EPA assumed that regular calibration of the manure spreader is part of
implementing the nutrient management plan. To meet this need, EPA assumed that Category 1
and 2 facilities will purchase two calibration scales to weight the manure spreader before and after
land application.

              In cases where states require calibration of manure spreaders at broiler and turkey
facilities, EPA assumed that calibration scales (or an equivalent calibration technology or method)
are available to the facility, and therefore no costs were assumed.  Solid manure spreaders can be
calibrated in a number of ways, some of which are based on volume instead of weight. Liquid-
based systems can also be calibrated in terms of volume. Section 8 of the Technical Development
Document describers methods for calibration of manure spreaders in greater detail.
              Weighing the spreader before and after application is the ideal methodology for
wet or dry manure calibration because it is relatively quick and produces accurate results. This
approach is unsuitable for manure application devices such as umbilical applicators.  Instead, the
volume of manure injected must be first be determined. The procedure includes collecting

                                          5-73

-------
pumped material into a bucket to determine the flow rate, which decreases initial calibration costs.
Some operations that handle their manure in a drier form may be able to use a less expensive
calibration method. For example, spreading manure on a tarp and-weighing it on a less expensive
hanging balance would reduce initial calibration costs.                          '

             Fixed One-Time Costs

             EPA assumed the one-time cost for equipment is $500 for a scale to weigh the
manure spreader (one under each wheel at $250 each).          '"''"•  ••''•'
              Annual Costs                                   '                 ;

              EPA estimated the cost for manure spreader calibration to be $ 100 based on 4
hours of labor, at $10 per hour, for both wet and dry applicators and 2 hours of tractor time at
$30 per hour. EPA assumed that the time required for calibration included gathering required
equipment, loading manure, weighing the spreader before and after land application, and applying
manure to a known area of cropland. Category 3 facilities do not incur this cost since they have
no land.
5.7
Screen Solid-Liquid Separation for Swine Operations
              Solid-liquid separation systems are used by many livestock operations as a way to
manage waste.  Solid-liquid separation is the partial removal of organic and inorganic solids from
a mixture of animal wastes and process-generated wastewater (known as liquid manure).
Separating the solids from the liquid manure makes the liquids easier to pump and handle.  The
cost model assigns costs to swine operations for screen separation.
                                          5-74

-------
 5.7.1
Technology Description and Design
               Typically, screens are used to separate the solids from the liquids. As the liquids
pass through the screen, the solids accumulate", and are eventually collected. After collection, the
solids may be handled more economically for hauling, composting, refeeding or generating biogas
(methane).  EPA assumes that the separator efficiency is 30 percent and that the solids content of
the separate.d.manure is 23 percent.

               The approach taken in the cost model is to separate the solid from the liquid
portion of the manure to concentrate the nutrients thus reducing the costs associated with hauling
the excess nutrients. Both Category 2 and 3 swine facilities are given costs for solid-liquid
separation with screens.
5.7.2
Costs
              Costs for solid/liquid separation are estimated as a one-time, fixed cost and an
annual cost, based on the following calculations. Costs include a tank with sufficient capacity to
store solids for six months, a mechanical solids separator, piping, and labor for installation.

              Capital Cost
              The following equation determines the initial cost to install a separator on a swine
operation:
        Sepinitial = (Solids x Safety x Tankcost) + Separator + Pipelen x Pipecost + Seplabor x Labor
where:
              Sepinitial
              Solids
              Safety
              Tankcost
                            Initial cost ($) to install a separator system
                            Volume of solids separated from the manure every 6
                            months, gal
                            Safety factor providing additional storage for the
                            separator (115%)
                            Cost of installing a steel storage tank ($0.18/gallon)

                             5-75

-------
             Separator
             Pipelen
             Pipecost
             Seplabor
             Labor
                           Cost of a separation device was estimated at
                           $13,000 for medium-sized operations and $28,000
                           for large operations, (USDA.NRCS, 2002a)
                           Pipe length needed to connect the lagoon to the
                           separator (250 feet)
                           Cost of pipe ($2.13/foot)
                           Time required to install the pipe and separator (4
                           hours)
                           Labor rate per hour ($10).
              Annual Costs

              The annual cost of operation and maintenance of solid-liquid separation systems
was estimated to be 2 percent of the total cost of installing 'the system.
5.8
Land Application
              The purchase of land application equipment is a primary component of the
compliance costs for beef feedlots and dairies estimated by the cost model. The cost model
estimates costs for the purchase of irrigation equipment to apply liquid from ponds and lagoons to
the fields. The model assumes that all facilities already have equipment to apply solid manure and,
therefore, includes no cost for this. As described in Section 4.10, the cost model calculates the
total crop acreage used for application of liquid waste based on the nutrient assimilative capacity
of the crops and the total waste generated, and uses this total acreage to cost irrigation
equipment. The cost model includes no costs for application equipment for swine and poultry
operations.

              The cost model uses two forms of irrigation, center pivot and traveling gun.
Center pivot irrigation is ideal for applying liquid waste to a large number of acres but is not as
cost-effective for smaller acreage. Therefore, the cost model estimates costs for center pivot
irrigation for facilities applying liquid manure to crop acreage greater than or equal to 30 acres
and for traveling gun irrigation for facilities applying liquid manure to less than 30 acres.
                                           5-76

-------
5.8.1
Center Pivot Irrigation
              Center pivots are a'-method of precisely inigating virtually any type of crop over
large areas of land. This technology is more expensive than other methods of irrigation, and
                                            • i± • •** •   ! H '. - v.' ••  • '.  \ .    ,.•.',      -
therefore, costs included in the cost model for center pivot irrigation are conservative.  A center
pivot can effectively distribute liquid animal waste and supply nutrients to cropland at agronomic
rates because they have a high level of control. 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 applying  liquid manure to more than 30
acres of cropland under all regulatory options.

              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:
              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.  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.
                                           5-77

-------
              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.
Figure 5.8.1-1 shows a schematic of a center pivot irrigation system.
                         Storage
                      Rjrrp—•>
               Figure 5.8.1-1.  Schematic of Center Pivot Irrigation System

              All regulatory options are based on the installation of irrigation equipment a.t beef
feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations that land apply waste on site (i.e., Category 1 and 2
facilities). EPA developed frequency factors for center pivot irrigation based on the frequency
factors for an unlined pond or lagoon. EPA 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. These frequency factors are presented in Section 6.0.
The cost model does not include costs for veal operations for center pivot irrigation because they
are assumed to have sufficient storage capacity and therefore the necessary irrigation equipment.
                                          5-78

-------
               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 of up to approximately 15 percent, although
 this depends on the type of crop cover and methods used to alleviate runoff. The costs assume a
 regular-shaped parcel (square), a water requirement of 7 gallons per minute per acre, and 1,000
 operating hours per year.
 5.8.2
Traveling Gun Irrigation
              Based on industry expert opinion and literature, farms can irrigate relatively small
areas using a traveling gun (USDA NRCS, 1996). Traveling guns are also useful in oddly shaped
fields. These systems can be installed rapidly and are easily transported. However, the operation
of traveling gun systems is more labor intensive than the operation of center pivot systems.
Another disadvantage of traveling gun systems is low application efficiency. Water is sprayed
high into the  air, causing wind and evaporation losses up to 30 percent (Clemson Extension,
2002). The traveling gun system requires higher capital, annual, labor, and energy costs per
irrigated acre than the center pivot system (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2002). Despite
the disadvantages, traveling gun irrigation systems remain the best alternative for small acreages.
A traveling gun system is costed for all operations with less than 30 acres of cropland under all
regulatory options.

              Technology Description
              Traveling gun systems consist of a large sprinkler, a wheeled cart, a hose reel, and
an irrigation hose. The sprinkler is also referred to as the "gun" or "big gun."  The sprinkler is
                                           5-79

-------
moved during irrigation, hence the name "traveling gun." Traveling gun sprinklers discharge 50
to 1,000 gallons per minute with operating pressures from 60 to 120 psi (USDA NRCS,1996). A
traveling gun sprinkler is mounted on a wheeled cart to allow for mobility. An irrigation hose is
connected to the sprinkler on the wheeled cart and contained in a hose reel. There are two types
of traveling gun operations depending on the type or irrigation hose used:

              Hard-Hose - This type of traveling gun operation utilizes a hard, high-pressure,
              polyethylene hose. The hose is pulled out some distance from the hose reel. As
              the sprinkler operates, the hose reel begins to reel in the cart and sprinkler.
              Soft-Hose - This system may also be called a Cable-Tow system. A soft, flexible
              hose similar to a fire hose is used. The entire hose must be unwound from the
              hose reel before use. The wheeled cart is placed in the field and anchored by a
              cable. A winch on the cart pulls reels the cable, pulling the cart closer to the
              anchor.  The lu>se drags behind the cart and must be manually reeled after use.

              The sprinkler travels a straight path, wetting a 200-400 foot wide strip of land
 (USDA NRCS, 1996). When one path is complete, the unit must be moved to an adjacent path to
 make another pass at the field.  This process is repeated until the entire field is irrigated.

              EPA developed frequency factors for traveling gun irrigation based on the
 frequency factors for an unlined pond or lagoon. These frequency factors are presented in
 Section 6.0. EPA assumed that if a facility has an unlined pond or lagoon on site, the facility
 would also akeady have some method of land application equipment to land apply the wastewater
 from this lagoon. The cost model does not include costs for veal operations because they are
 assumed to have sufficient storage capacity.
               Design
               The traveling gun 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 and composition affects the selection of the water spraying volume.
                                           5-80

-------
5.8.3
Beef and Dairy Irrigation Costs
             The only variable the cost model uses to determine costs for a center pivot and
traveling gun irrigation systems are total acres irrigated.

             Center Pivot

             EPA derived annual arid capital costs for center pivots from cost curves created
from data available at a vendor web site (Zimmatic, Inc., 1999). Number of irrigated acres (61,
122, and 488) 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.
Table 5.8.3-1 presents the costs for each of these points.
                                    Table 5.8.3-1
         Costs for Data Points from Center Pivot Irrigation Cost Curves
Number of Irrigated Acres
61
122
488
Gapitel Costs
$58,741
$64,130
$122,414
Annual Costs
$3,453
$5,616
$11,559
             Source: http://www.Zimmatic.com.
             Traveling Gun

             Traveling gun costs are based on information provided by Kifco, Inc., an
agricultural irrigation company. The cost model assumes that 250-gpm applicators would provide
adequate coverage for cropland comprising less than 30 acres. Table 5.8.3-2 presents the capital
costs for a 250-gpm applicator.  Annual costs are estimated at five percent of the capital costs.
                                          5-81

-------
                                    Table 5.8.3-2
                       Costs for 250-gpm Liquid Applicators
1 Model
37M/1220
40A/1320
Flow Rate (gpm)
225-415'
250-480
Capital Cost
$28;990 r
$31,400
                     Source: (Kifco, 2002)  """

                       •..:••::- ••:,'..' i-'U >•.;?.>. ;.u-r
              Total Capital Costs
                                        :v'i I'i,
          '    A polynomial curve with a regression coefficient of 1 'is drawn through the capital

cost points. The cost model uses the resulting curve to estimate costs for the various acreages.

The equation is:
where:
              y
              x
                                y = 0.166x2 + 57.958x + 54,588
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 cost model uses the resulting curve to estimate costs for various

acreages.  The equation is:
                                   y = 3954 In (x)-13,033
where:
              y
              x
Annual cost
Irrigated acreage.
                                           5-82

-------
              Results
              Appendix A, Tables A-12a and A-12b present the cost model results for
 implementing center pivot or traveling gun irrigation systems at beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer
 operations.
5.9
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. EPA evaluated both methods of transportation for all
regulatory options. The least expensive method for each model farm and regulatory option is
chosen as the basis of the costs.  Hauling at swine and poultry operations is assumed to be
accomplished via contract hauling.
5.9.1
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 5.6) require that facilities apply only the amount of nutrients agronomically required by
the crop. When a facility generates more nutrients in its manure waste and wastewater than can
be used for on-site application, they must transport the remaining manure waste and wastewater
off site.

              Beef feedlots, dairies, swine operations, and poultry operations are divided into
three categories, as discussed in Section 1.3. 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 apply a portion of their generated waste.
Category 3 operations have no cropland and must transport all of their waste off site. The number
                                          5-83

-------
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.

              The amount of excess waste that requires transport depends on the nutrient basis
used for land application, as well as the practices and technologies employed at the facility (e.g.,
feeding strategies). Option 1 requires that animal waste be applied on a nitrogen basis to
cropland, and Options 2 through 7 require application on a phosphorus basis as dictated by site-
specific conditions. In general, the amount of waste transported off site increases under a
phosphorus-based application option. Section 4.9 discusses the methodology used to determine
the amount of excess waste at beef feedlots, dairies, swine operations, and poultry operations.

              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.

              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 the N-based scenario. The percentage of facilities that
are expected to incur transportation costs was based on EPA's Interim Final Report: State
Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to Animal Feeding Operations -
Interim Final Report (EPA, 1999) and is discussed in detail in Section 6.0 of this report.

              Contract Hauling
              One method evaluated for transporting manure waste off site is contract hauling,
whereby 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 transport waste from multiple operations.

                                           5-84

-------
              Equipment Purchase

              Another method evaluated for transporting manure waste off site is to purchase
transportation equipment.  In this method, the operation owner purchases 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 for 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.
5.9.2
Design and Costs of Contract Hauling
              In determining costs for the contract-hauling option, the cost model considered
three major factors:
              1)     Amount of waste transported;
              2)     Type of waste transported (semisolid or liquid); and
              3)     Location of the operation.
              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:

              Step 1)       Determine constants, based on region, animal type, and waste type;

                                           5-85

-------
              Step 2)       Determine the weight of the transported waste, accounting for
                           water losses during storage or composting; and
              Step 3)       Determine the annual waste transportation costs.
              Each of these steps is explained in detail below.

Step 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

              The one-way hauling distance for a Category 2 or 3 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. The cost model assumes that Category 3 operations have
always transported all of their waste; however, the cost model also assumes that the distance
required for transport would increase under the P-based scenario. Therefore, the distance
assigned to Category 3, P-based facilities is an incremental distance, representing the difference in
distance a facility would have to transport under the P-based option.  (For more details, see
Revised Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Type Operations, Terra Tech, 2000.)

              The P-based hauling distance is reduced where feeding strategies are used to
reduce swine manure-P by 40 percent.  EPA assumes that if total manure P is reduced by 40
percent, facilities will not have to haul their excess manure as great a distance. The cost model
counted all major animal types in determining counties with nutrient excess. (Analysis based on
Kellogg, R. et al., 2000.) Table 5.9.2-1 presents the Category 2 and Category 3 hauling distances
by region.
                                           5-86

-------
                                       Table 5.9.2-1
                         Hauling Distances for Transportation
^ ';• •••••^•Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
. One-Way fiauling 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
P-Basis*
NA
18
NA
NA
NA
One-Way Hauling Distance (miles) for
Category 3
N-Basis
0
0
0
0
•: 0 "
P-Basis
5.5
25.0
3.5
9.0
8 5
P-Basis*
NA
18
NA
NA
NA
 source: for detailed information on the calculation of one-way hauling distances, see Revised Transportation Distances for
 Category 2and3 Type Operations. TetraTech, 2000.                        •>"•'•.         ,  .
 *P-Basis when feeding strategies are used to reduce total P by 40 percent.
               Moisture Content of Waste             -

               Based on available information, the cost model assumes that the moisture content
of stockpiled manure is 35.4 percent and the moisture content of composted manure is 30.8
percent (Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995).

               Hauling Rate

               The $/ton-mile rates for liquid and solids wastes for Category 2 and 3 beef feedlots
and dairies are estimated based on information obtained from various contract haulers and
presented in Table 5.9.2-2. The hauling rates used for swine and poultry operations are presented
in Table 5.9.2-3.
                                           5-87

-------
                                   Table 5.9.2-2
  Rates for Contract Hauling for Category 2 and 3 Beef Feedlots and Dairies
Type of Waste
Solid ($/ton-mile)
Liouid ($/ton-niile)
Category 2 Rates •
N-Based
Application
0.24
0.53
P-Based :
Application
0.15
0.10

.;.... Jtf-B.a]se3;-;'.;:';
Application
0
0
P=-Basfed
Application .
0.08
0.26
Source: For additional detail on the calculation of contract hauling rates, see Methodology, to Calculate Contract
Hauling Rates for Beef and Dairy Cost Model, ERG 2000.
                                    Table 5.9.2-3
                                             i
       Hauling Rates for Category 2 and 3 Swine and Poultry Operations
Type of Waste
Liquid - First Mile ($/gallon-mile)
Liquid - Beyond First Mile ($/gallon-mile)
Solid - Less than 90 Miles ($/ton-mile)
Solid - 90 to 1230 Miles ($/ton-mile)
Solid - Beyond 1230 Miles ($/ton-mile)
• ' '. ; v. ,.-'"; • ' "Rate, •'.; •'•;'" V>V .:_ ' '
0.008
0.0013
0.10
0.23
0.18
Source: Tetra Tech, 2002.

Step 2) Determine the weight of the transported waste

             The amount of waste to be transported is estimated as the sum of separated solids,
lagoon's pond effluent, lagoon's pond accumulated solids, and process and rainwater not applied
to land.

Step 3) Determine the annual cost  of transporting the waste

             The annual cost of hiring a contractor to haul the waste is based on the amount of
waste (in either semisolid or liquid form), the distance traveled, and the haul rate. The following
equation incorporates both the solid and liquid annual hauling costs:
                                         5-88

-------
          ... Annual Cost = (Weight of Solids x Solid Hauling Rate x Hauling Distance Roimd-trip) +
                  (Weight of Liquids x Liquid Hauling Rate x Hauling Distance Roumi.trip)
              There are no capital costs associated with contract hauling.  All hauling costs for

swine and poultry operations are calculated using this basic approach for cdntract hauling.
5.9.3
Design and Cost of Purchase Equipment Transportation Option
              In determining costs for the purchase truck transportation option, the cost model

considered three major factors:
              1)     Amount of transported waste;
              2)     Type of waste transported (semisolid 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:

                                           5-89

-------
             Step 1)       Determine constants, based on region, animal type, and waste type;
             Step 2)   •    Determine the weight of the waste transported, accounting for
                           water losses during storage or composting;
             Step 3)       Determine the number of trucks and number of trips required to
                           haul all of the waste each year;
             Step 4)       Determine =the number of hours required to transport waste each
                           year;__.    . _.	      	
             Step 5)       Determine the purchase cost for the trucks required to transport the
                         "waste; and,      .. -   .        -     —.
             Step 6)       Determine the annual cost to transport the waste.
              Each of these steps is explained in detail below.

Step 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. Table 5.9.2-1 presents these distances.
                                          5-90

-------
 1995).
              Average Speed
              The average speed of the truck is estimated to be 35 miles per hour (USEPA,
              Moisture Content of Waste
              Based on available information, the moisture content of stockpiled manure and
 composted manure is estimated to be 35.4 percent and 30.8 percent, respectively Sweeten, J.M.
 and S.H. Amosson, 1995).                                   .......

              Working Schedule

              The cost model estimated that one laborer requires 25 minutes to load and unload
 the truck and hauls waste for 7 hours per day (USEPA, 1995).

              Fuel Rate

              The diesel fuel is estimated to cost $1.35 per gallon (Jewell, W.J., P.E. Wright,
 N.P. Fleszar, G. Green, A. Safinski, A. Zucker, 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, W.J., P.E. Wright, N.P. Fleszar, G.
Green, A. Safinski, A. Zucker, 1997; USEPA, 1995).

              Labor Rate
             The rate used in the cost model for the laborer to load, unload, and haul the waste
is $10 per hour.
                                         5-91

-------
              Capacity and Prices of Trucks                 	

              The size of the solid waste trucks vary, depending on the amount of waste that is
                                  >' I. :  ---".i ; i- ," •  • ;        ••• •   -- -       " ':    •   :  	 f
hauled.  The standard sizes and purchase prices for solid waste trucks used in the cost model are
(USEPA, 1995):

                                 7-cubic-yard truck = $91,728
                                 10-cubic-yard truck =$137,593
                  - '  "    ,     "•'•' !' ''.•''.:  'l:>Jj t.  .:'''.     . •  •   •  '!        ','      !
                                 15-cubic-yard truck = $183,457
                                 25-cubic-yard truck = $241,054

              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 (USEPA, 1995):
                                  1,600-gallon truck = $84,262
                                 2,500-gallon track = $113,061
                                 4,000-gallon truck = $140,792

 Step 2)  Determine the weight of the waste transported

               The amount of waste to be transported is estimated as the sum of separated solids,
 lagoon's pond effluent, lagoon's pond accumulated solids, and process and rainwater not applied
 to land.

 Step 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
 cost model performs the following calculations. First, the size of the truck is determined. Then,
 the maximum possible number of trips per year is calculated, given the hauling schedule arid the
                                            5-92

-------
 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 track 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 + Track Unloading Time -t- Track Haul Time)
              The capacity of the truck is determined through an iterative process that
substitutes the size of the track (10 cubic yards (CY), 15 CY, and 25 CY) and the number of
tracks (1 or 2) into the following equation until the number of trips per year is greater than the
maximum number of trips per year:
                 Number of Trips/yr =
                                            Solid Waste (as collected)
                                    (Number of Tracks x Capacity of Truck)
              The equation for the actual number of trips per year is:
                  Actual Trips/ yr
                                           Solid Waste (as collected)
                                  (Number of Trucks x Capacity of Truck)
           (Note: The number of tracks is rounded up to the nearest whole number.)

Step 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:
                                         5-93

-------
   Transport Hours = (Truck Loading Time + Truck Unloading Time + Truck Haul Time) x Number of Trips

Step 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 arid the
cost for that size of truck, as shown below:

                         Purchase Cost = Number of Trucks x Cost of Truck

Step 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:
         Annual Cost = (Maintenance Rate x Hauling Distance Round.trip x Number of Trips + Transport
      Hours x Labor Rate + Hauling Distance Round.,rip x Number of Trips / Fuel Rate) x Number of Trucks
5.9.4
Transportation Cost Test
              When evaluating costs to transport waste off site, the cost model considered
purchasing a truck to transport waste and hiring a contractor to haul waste as the two scenarios
for the model beef feedlots, dairies, and veal operations. Because the weight and volume of the
manure directly impact the transportation costs, each scenario was 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.
                                           5-94

-------
               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. 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 5.12).  EPA assumes 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, the cost model conducts a test that compares the costs annualized over 10
 years:                   ,     ; -              -         ~        .

              For each model farm that transports waste off site under Options 1 through 4,6,
 and 7, the cost model assumes 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 5A, only transportation scenarios with composting are considered.

              Cost Test Methodology

              The transportation scenario that is costed for each operation 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 (l +1)° / [(1 + I)n - 1] + A
                                          5-95

-------
where:
              A(n)
              P
              I
              n
              A
             Annualized cost over n years
             Capital cost
             Interest rate      ,, ., ..
             Number of years
             Annual cost.
The least expensive annualized cost of the four transportation scenarios is selected as the
preferred scenario.
5.9.5
Results
              Appendix A, Table A-13a presents the cost model results for transporting manure
waste using contract hauling or purchasing transport equipment when applying on a nitrogen basis
for beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations. Appendix A, Table A-13b  presents the cost
model results for transporting manure waste using contract hauling or purchasing transport
equipment when applying on a phosphorus basis for beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations.
Appendix B presents the selected transportation method for each of these model farms.
 5.10
Ground-Water Assessment and Monitoring
              Storing or treating animal waste at or below the ground surface has the potential
 to contaminate ground water. Ground-water wells may be used at animal feeding operations to
 monitor ground-water contamination. For Option 3A/3B, a ground-water assessment is used to
 determine whether a direct hydrologic connection to surface water exists. Ground-water well
 installation and associated monitoring is then costed for all model farms where there is a direct
 hydrologic connection between ground water and surface water.
                                           5-96

-------
5.10.1
Technology Description
              Manure and waste that infiltrates into the soil, and is not taken up by crops, may
                       i
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. In
turn, such manure and waste may contaminate surface water which has a direct hydrologic
connection to the ground water. Ground-water 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 may occur prior to well installation to
determine site conditions and to determine the number and location of samples as well as the
sampling .depth.
5.10.2
Design and Costs
             . The design for the ground-water wells does not vary according to animal type or
size of facility. It is assumed that each facility determined to have a direct hydrologic connection
will install four 50-foot ground-water monitoring wells, one up-gradient and three down-gradient
from the manure storage facility, as shown in Figure 5.10.2-1.
                                          5-97

-------
Manure
Top of casing


Groundwater -"
monitoring
well
(up-gradient)
-•-..^___



_s_



5

_i
storage facility
(manure stockpile)
_ Ground / _
.surface ^*" " -^
Groundwater 	
monitoring
well
(down-gradient)
Water table
C-




JZ_



t / /
5





Q'

             Figure 5.10.2-1. Schematic of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells
              Assessment of Crop Field and Ground-Water Links to Surface Water

              Because the assessment of ground-water links to surface water requires
professional expertise, EPA estimates pay rates of $75 per hour for field work and report writing,
and $65 per hour for research related to this task.  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 percent of total costs. This one-time assessment does not vary with
the size or type of operation; therefore, the cost is the same for each model farm.  The one-time
labor cost does not vary by model farm and is calculated as follows:
                                          5-98

-------
 geographic location, method of manure collection, and the type of waste management system.
 Table 5.13.2-1 summarizes the inputs used for both the covered lagoon and complete mix
 digesters.  User-selected input values are npted 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 model farm is assumed to have 1,450 cows, 435 heifers, and 435 calves in free stalls. The
 farm is evaluated for both a covered lagoon digester and a complete mix digester.

              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. For the large
dairy, the FarmWare model calculates a total manure generation of about 187,000 Ib/day.  With
an average volatile solids (VS) production of 8.5 Ib/day per 1,000 pounds of animal, the
FarmWare program estimates a total VS production of about 18,000 Ib/day.  The model also
generates the design specifications for each system as shown in Table 5.13.2-2.
                                         5-122

-------
              A complete mix digester is a heated, constant volume, mechanically-mixed tank
with a gas-impermeable 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, 1997a).

              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-impermeable 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
comprises 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, 1996).

              Selection of the type of digester is dictated by the percent solids expected hi the
manure waste. To estimate the costs for a digester system, dairies that operate flush cleaning
systems are assumed to use a covered lagoon system following a settling basin, while dairies that
operate scrape systems are assumed to use 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 hi Section
5.2.
5.13.2
Design
              Dairy
              Inputs to the FarmWare model are based on the model farm characteristics for a
large dairy. The FarmWare model requires input data on the livestock type, number of animals,

                                          5-121

-------
 5.13.1
Technology Description
              Anaerobic digestion is the decomposition of organic matter in the absence of
 oxygen and nitrates. Under these anaerobic conditions", the"brganic material is stabilized and is
 converted biologically to a range of end products, including methane and carb'on dioxide.
 Anaerobic treatment reduces BOD* odor, and 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 or irrigation water, or are transported off site

              'Anaerobic digesters are specially designed tanks or concrete basinTthat 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 artaerpbic digesters may ie used:;
                     Plug flow;
                     Complete mix; and
                     Covered lagoon.  ,
Plug flow digesters are applicable for treating wastes with high (>10 percent) solids content, while
covered lagoons are appropriate for treating wastes with low (<2 percent) solids content.
Complete mix digesters are used for treating 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, 1996).

              A plug flow digester is a constant volume, flow-through long tank with a gas-
impermeable 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-impermeable cover maintains anaerobic conditions inside the tank and collects the biogas
through attached pipes (USEPA, 1997b).
                                          5-120

-------
              At poultry operations, annual costs include both operation and maintenance costs.
It is assumed that a sufficient supply of amendments is available on site.  EPA estimates that
mortality transportation, loading, and turning in compost bins requires 90 hours per year. The
value of tractor usage is $30/hour, and the labor rate is set at $10/hour.  The capital cost of the
mortality composting facility is multiplied by .02 to estimate the annual maintenance cost of the
facility. The total annual cost for mortality composting is therefore determined from the following
equation:

                         Annual Cost = 90 x (30 + 10) + .02 x Capital Cost
5.12.4
Results
model farm.
5.13
              Appendix A, Table A-15 presents the cost model results for composting at each
Anaerobic Digestion with Energy Recovery
              Anaerobic digesters are sometimes used at animal feeding operations to
biologically decompose manure while controlling odor and generating energy. 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, P., 1998). Of these 94 digesters, more
than 60 percent of plug flow and complete mix digesters and 12 percent of the covered lagoon
digesters have failed (Lusk, P., 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 dairies in the United States have operable digesters with
energy recovery.

              Anaerobic digestion with energy recovery is used as the cost basis for Option 6.
Under this option, only large dairies and large swine operations are costed for installation of an
anaerobic digester, with energy recovery system.                               ;
                                          5-119

-------
              The total capital cost for mortality composting structures varies with the size of
the operation, and is calculated as follows:
                      Capital Cost = Mortality Volume x $7.50 per square foot.
                                      5 ft depth
              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 costs
(Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995):
              Annual Cost = ($2.69/ton x Volume,.,,,,,.,.,^) + ($72.68/ton x VolumewhK1,sllaw) +
                     ($1.75/100cf x Volume^,) - ($1.70 x Selling Weight/2000)
where:
              Volumecolleoted
              Volumewheatstraw=

              $1.75
              Volumewater
              $1.70
              Selling weight
=      Volume of manure collected for compost
Volume of wheat straw added to balance carbon/nitrogen
ratio
=      Cost of water per 100 cubic feet
=      Volume of water added to mixture
=      Net value of compost as a fertilizer, subtracting
       value of manure as fertilizer (Sweeten, J.M. and
       S.H. Amosson, 1995)
=      Final composted weight of manure mixture.
              Manure solids are expected to be reduced after 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 that is not composted. The cost model calculates these

differences, however, and considers them in calculating transportation costs, described in Section
5.9.
                                         5-118

-------
                                   Table 5.12.3-1
                            Unit Costs for Composting
Unit
Windrow turning equipment
(Valoraction 5 1 0 rotary drum turner
tractor attachment)
Thermometers
Turning labor
Water
Value of manure fertilizer
(based on nitrogen and phosphorus)
Value of composted manure
(based on nitrogen and phosphorus)

Cost (1997)
. $8,914
$242.27 (for set of two)
$2.69/ton
$0.00203 per gallon
$4.99 per ton
$6.69 per ton
$72.68/ton
Source
On-Farm Composting Handbook,
NRAES-54
Omega Engineering
On-Farm Composting Handbook,
NRAES-54
EPA, Technical Development
Document for Metal Products and
Machinery Effluent Limitation
Guidelines, in progress.
Manure Quality and Economics, J.M.
Sweeten, S.H. Amosson, and B.W.
Auverman.
Case's Agworld.com
             Capital costs for mortality composting are calculated assuming a depth of 5 feet.
Then, the square footage of the composting facility is calculated from the volume. The cost
model uses a construction cost of $7.50 per square foot for mortality compost facilities, based on
the price of a poultry drystack/composter with concrete floor and wooden walls (USDA NRCS,
2002a). The capital cost is determined with the following equation:

                             Capital Cost = MortVolume -*• 5 x 7.50

             Total Capital Costs

             The following equation is used to calculate the windrow composting capital cost:
                    Capital Cost = Windrow Turning Equipment + Thermometers
                                    = $8,914 + $242.27
              The total capital costs for windrow composting is $9,156.27.
                                         5-117

-------
              Compost Recipe

              As stated in Section 5.12.1, manure must be mixed with composting amendments
 to obtain the proper C:N ratio and moisture content. The cost model assumes that wheat straw is
 used as the composting amendment. Wheat straw has a moisture content of 10 percent 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, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995). The
 carbon content is calculated using the following equation (USDA NRCS, 1996):
                     Carbon.
                     Volatile Solidsmanure  = 564.6
                           1.8            1.8
                                                           = 314
The nitrogen content of manure is estimated to be 25.71 Ib/ton (Sweeten, J.M. and S.H.
Amosson, 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.
5.12.3
Costs
             Capital costs for windrow composting include turning equipment and
thermometers to monitor the pile temperature.  Annual costs include the labor to turn the pile and
any required composting amendment (hi this case, wheat straw and water).  Additionally, EPA
assumes that operations would be able to recoup some costs of composting by selling composted
manure. EPA assumes that the cost recouped equals the difference between the selling price of
uncomposted manure and composted manure. Table 5.12.3-1 presents the 1997 unit costs for
these items.
                                        5-116

-------
50 percent (see Section 5.1). For beef and heifer 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 percent moisture

(Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 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)
              Mortality Composting for Swine and Poultry Operations


              The volume needed for mortality composting includes the dead animals and the

other materials included in the compost mix.  This mix of animals and compost ingredients is

addressed in the cost model by using the factor of 2 cubic feet per pound of dead bird in the

following equation:.
                    MortVolume = nohead * deadlen x deadwt x pctdead x 2 x 1.5
where:
              MortVolume
              Nohead
              Deadlen
              Deadwt
              Pctdead
              2

              1.5
Total volume required, ft3
Number of animals
Lifespan of the animal, days/cycle
Market weight of the animal, Ibs/head
Mortality rate (%/cycle expressed as a decimal fraction)
Primary plus secondary storage cubic feet per pound of
dead animal (Barker, J.C., 2000)
Safety factor for catastrophic events.
                                          5-115

-------
 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 using the following equations:

                             Volume Solids roUccted = Volume SolidSe^ed
                           Volume Solids = Total Volume x ( 1 - Moisture)       "
                   Volumecollected (1 - Moisture^^J = Volume^^ (1 - MoistureexcrctKl)         ;' ''' '
Volumecollected =
  .....      "
                                                  1 - Moistureexcreted)]
                                             - Molsturecolleoted)
      ! •:>• "'"     The cost model estimates that manure collected from the drylot has a moisture
 content of 35.4 percent (Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 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,  i '              ,                   .  ..   t

              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 percent of the
 total drylot runoff (MWPS, 1985).

              Settling Basins

              Option 5 A includes  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 cows 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 cost model calculates the amount of separated solids by computing
the amount of manure generated in the barn and parlor and multiplying by the settling efficiency of
                                          5-114

-------
                        Tractor
                                                          Windrow
                           Turning
                           Equipment
                         Figure 5.12.2-1.  Windrow Composting
             Drylots
              The cost model assumes that all beef cattle, dairy calves, and heifers are kept on
drylots. 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
4.6. 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-
                                         5-113

-------
              Windrow Composting for Beef Feedlots, Dairies, and Heifer Operations

              Windrow composting systems are designed for use at beef feedlots, heifer
 operations, 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
 i          '.   ~:\r.   ."'"''                - -
 Valoraction, Incorporated (NRAES, 1992) (see Figure 5.12.2-1). This type of windrow turner
 can turn 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 and heifer operations can compost the manure collected from the
 drylots. Because dairies and veal operations use flush and hose systems, their waste is too wet for
 composting. However, the 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.

              A typical mortality composting facility consists of two stages, primary and
 secondary (USDA NRCS, 1996). The. first stage consists of equally sized bins in which the dead
 animals and amendments are initially added and allowed to compost.  The mixture is moved from
 the first stage to the  second stage, or secondary digester, when the compost temperature begins to
 decline. The second stage can also consist of a number of bins, but it is usually just one bin or
 concrete area that allows compost to be stacked with a volume equal to or greater than the sum of
 the first stage bins. The design volume for each stage should be based on peak disposal
requirements for the  animal operation.

              Volume of Manure     .

              The cost model calculates the volume of waste transferred to the compost pile
from drylots and from settling basins.
                                        5-112

-------
with strong odors are produced. 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 amounts of carbon, .nitrogen, and moisture
should be properly balanced in the initial compost mix.  Moisture levels should be in the range of
40 to 65 percent. Water"is necessary "toTsupport biological activity; however, if the moisture
content is too high, water displaces air in the pore.spaces_and thej>ile 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.                            	

              The length of time required for composting depends on the materials used, the
composting management practices, and the desired compost characteristics. Composting 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 during which resistant
compounds, organic acids, and large particles are further decomposed, follows composting.
5.12.2
Design
              The cost methodology for all considered options included windrow composting at
beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer operations. If the volume reduction resulting from composting
resulted in a more cost effective option, then composting was selected as a waste management
technology. The cost methodology for swine and poultry operations included mortality
composting under ground water options. Each of these composting methods are described below.
                                         5-111

-------
50 percent (see Section 5.1). For beef and heifer 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 percent moisture

(Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 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)
              Mortality Composting for Swine and Poultry Operations


              The volume needed for mortality composting includes the dead animals and the
other materials included in the compost mix.  This mix of animals and compost ingredients is
addressed in the cost model by using the factor of 2 cubic feet per pound of dead bird in the
following equation:.
                    MortVolume = nohead •*• deadlen x deadwt x pctdead x 2 x i .5
where:
             MortVolume
             Nohead
             Deadlen
             Deadwt
             Pctdead
             2

             1.5
Total volume required, ft3
Number of animals
Lifespan of the animal, days/cycle
Market weight of the animal, Ibs/head
Mortality rate (%/cycle expressed as a decimal fraction)
Primary plus secondary storage cubic feet per pound of
dead animal (Barker, J.C., 2000)
Safely factor for catastrophic events.
                                         5-115

-------
             Compost Recipe

             As stated in Section 5.12.1, manure must be mixed with composting amendments
to obtain the proper C:N ratio and moisture content  The cost model assumes that wheat straw is
used as the composting amendment.  Wheat straw has a moisture content of 10 percent 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, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995). The
carbon content is calculated using the following equation (USDA NRCS, 1996):
                     Carbon.
                    Volatile Solidsmanure _ 564.6
                           1.8        ~  1.8
                                                          = 314
The nitrogen content of manure is estimated to be 25.71 Ib/ton (Sweeten, J.M. and S.H.
Amosson, 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.
5.12.3
Costs
              Capital costs for windrow composting include turning equipment and
thermometers to monitor the pile temperature.  Annual costs include the labor to turn the pile and
any required composting amendment (in this case, wheat straw and water).  Additionally, EPA
assumes that operations would be able to recoup some costs of composting by selling composted
manure. EPA assumes that the cost recouped equals the difference between the selling price of
uncomposted manure and composted manure. Table 5.12.3-1 presents the 1997 unit costs for
these items.
                                         5-116

-------
                                    Table 5.12.3-1
                             Unit Costs for Composting
•J'4- ••--..,;•>• • Unit' • "-.'': •'.'_'
Windrow turning equipment
(Valoraction 510 rotary drum turner
tractor attachment)
Thermometers
Turning labor
Water
Value of manure fertilizer
(based on nitrogen and phosphorus)
Value of composted manure
(based on nitrogen and phosphorus)
Wheat straw
, • ^Crtsft^SST)/,;--^'^-?
. $8,914
$242.27 (for set of two)
$2.69/ton
$0.00203 per gallon
j
$4.99 per ton
$6.69 per ton
$72.68/ton
•.;, ••- :...-• -. -_,,;.. S6u^;,.v*:e!;;; :',
On-Farm Composting Handbook,
NRAES-54
Omega Engineering
On-Farm Composting Handbook,
NRAES-54
EPA, Technical Development
Document for Metal Products and
Machinery Effluent Limitation
Guidelines, in progress.
Manure Quality and Economics, J.M.
Sweeten, S.H. Amosson, and B.W.
Auverman.
Case's Agworld.com
             Capital costs for mortality composting are calculated assuming a depth of 5 feet.
Then, the square footage of the composting facility is calculated from the volume. The cost
model uses a construction cost of $7.50 per square foot for mortality compost facilities, based on
the price of a poultry drystack/composter with concrete floor and wooden walls (USDA NRCS,
2002a). The capital cost is determined with the following equation:

                            Capital Cost = MortVolume * 5 x 7.50

             Total Capital Costs

             The following equation is used to calculate the windrow composting capital cost:
                   Capital Cost = Windrow Turning Equipment + Thermometers
                                    = $8,914+ $242.27
             The total capital costs for windrow composting is $9,156.27.
                                         5-117

-------
             The total capital cost for mortality composting structures varies with the size of

the operation, and is calculated as follows:
                      Capital Cost = Mortality Volume x $7.50 per square foot.
                                      5 ft depth
              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 costs

(Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995):
               Annual Cost = ($2.69/ton x Volume^,,,,) + ($72.68/ton x VolumewheatsMW) +
                     ($1.75/1 OOcfx Volume^) - ($1.70 x Selling Weight/2000)
where:
              Volumecollected
              Volumewheatstraw=

              $1.75
              Volumewater
              $1.70
              Selling weight
=      Volume of manure collected for compost
Volume of wheat straw added to balance carbon/nitrogen
ratio
=      Cost of water per 100 cubic feet
=      Volume of water added to mixture
=      Net value of compost as a fertilizer, subtracting
       value of manure as fertilizer (Sweeten, J.M. and
       S.H. Amosson,  1995)
=      Final composted weight of manure mixture.
              Manure solids are expected to be reduced after 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 that is not composted. The cost model calculates these

 differences, however, and considers them in calculating transportation costs,  described in Section

 5.9.
                                          5-118

-------
              At poultry operations, annual costs include both operation and maintenance costs.
 It is assumed that a sufficient supply of amendments is available on site. EPA estimates that
 mortality transportation, loading, and turning in compost bins requires 90 hours per year. The
 value of tractor usage is $30/hour, and the labor rate is set at $10/hour.  The capital cost of the
 mortality composting facility is multiplied by .02 to estimate the annual maintenance cost of the
 facility. The total annual cost for mortality composting is therefore determined from the following
 equation:

                         Annual Cost = 90 x (30+10) + .02 x Capital Cost
 5.12.4
Results
model farm.
              Appendix A, Table A-15 presents the cost model results for composting at each
5.13
Anaerobic Digestion with Energy Recovery
              Anaerobic digesters are sometimes used at animal feeding operations to
biologically decompose manure while controlling odor and generating energy.  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, P., 1998).  Of these 94 digesters, more
than 60 percent of plug flow and complete mix digesters and 12 percent of the covered lagoon
digesters have failed (Lusk, P., 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 dairies in the United States have operable digesters with
energy recovery.

              Anaerobic digestion with energy recovery is used as the cost basis for Option 6.
Under this option, only large dairies and large swine operations are costed for installation of an
anaerobic digester, with energy recovery system.
                                         5-119

-------
5.13.1
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, and 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 or irrigation water, 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 J>e used:
                    Plug flow;
                    Complete mix; and
                    Covered lagoon.
Plug flow digesters are applicable for treating wastes with high (>10 percent) solids content, while
covered lagoons are appropriate for treating wastes with low (<2 percent) solids content.
Complete mix digesters are used for treating 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, 1996).

              A plug flow digester is a constant volume, flow-through long tank with a gas-
impermeable 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-impermeable cover maintains anaerobic conditions inside the tank and collects the biogas
through attached pipes (USEPA, 1997b).
                                          5-120

-------
               A complete mix digester is a heated, constant volume, mechanically-mixed tank
 with a gas-impermeable 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, 1997a).

               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-impermeable 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
 comprises 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, 1996).

              Selection of the type of digester is dictated by the percent solids expected in the
 manure waste.  To estimate the costs for a digester system, dairies that operate flush cleaning
 systems are assumed to use a covered lagoon system following a settling basin, while dairies that
 operate scrape systems are assumed to use 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
 5.2.
5.13.2
Design
              Dairy
              Inputs to the FarmWare model are based on the model farm characteristics for a
large dairy. The FarmWare model requires input data on the livestock type, number of animals,
                                         5-121

-------
geographic location, method of manure collection, and the type of waste management system.
Table 5.13.2-1 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 model farm is assumed to have 1,450 cows, 435 heifers, and 435 calves in free stalls. The
farm is evaluated for both a covered lagoon digester and a complete mix digester.

              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. For the large
dairy, the FarmWare model calculates a total manure generation of about 187,000 Ib/day. With
an average volatile solids (VS) production of 8.5 Ib/day per 1,000 pounds of animal, the
FarmWare program estimates a total VS production of about 18,000 Ib/day. The model also
generates the design specifications for each system as shown in Table 5.13.2-2.
                                          5-122

-------
                                    Table 5.13.2-1
                              Farm Ware Input Table
: Input Data
• Type of Digester
Covered Lagoon Digester
Climate Data
County, State
Rainfall
Recommended Minimum Lagoon
Hydraulic Retention Time
Recommended Maximum Lagoon Loading
25-yr, 24-hr Storm
Annual Runoff Unpaved
Annual Runoff Paved
Annual Evaporation
- CompleteTVKx 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]
1,450 milking cows [S]
435 heifers [S]
435 calves [S]
Flush parlor/
Flush freestall barn [S]
Flush parlor/
Scrape freestall barn [S]
Methane recovery lagoon [S]
Settling basin [S]
NA
[S] = User selected input.
[d] = Default input.
NA - Not applicable.
                                        5-123

-------
                                   Table 5.13.2-2
                          FarmWare Design Information
Design Information
•.'' • _•-.•: .;. • ..•;...-. •;•••••:<•. - 2 Type of Digester .. • • ;.-,; .'•• - ; -";
Covered Lagoon JDigester :•[.
, 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 < ; ;• '• ' -i« . ••'
Hydraulic Retention [Time (days)
Depth (ft)
Dimension (ft)
Freeboard (ft)
Slope (hor/ver)
Total Volume (ft3)
.42
20
285 x 285
. - ,„ , 'i
2
1,21-1,167. \
20 .
20
73 diameter
1
NA
84,272
NA- Not applicable.
5.13.3
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, the cost for water use, as well as an additional 15 percent 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).
                                         5-124

-------
               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.

               Large Dairy - Covered Lagoon System

               For this analysis, 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 hours per 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 285 feet by 285
 feet, representing a total area of about 81,225  square feet that requires an industrial fabric cover,
 such as an HDPE cover. Table 5.13.2-2 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 $ 111,000 and the
 engine generator is $80,000. Other engineering costs total $25,000. The total capital cost is
 $216,000.  Annual costs include the FarmWare estimated operating savings, water costs for
 dilution water, and an estimated 15 percent of the total capital costs. The net annual operating
 cost is estimated to be ($63,994) 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 5.9 of this report).

              Large Dairy - Complete Mix Digester System

              For this analysis, 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 barn,
and the heifers and calves spend 24 hours per day in drylots.  The wastewater from the milking
                                          5-125

-------
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 applied to cropland.

              The total digester volume is calculated to be about 84,000 cubic feet. With a
digester depth of 20 feet, the diameter is estimated to be 73 feet, with a total area of 4,200 square
feet. Table 5.13.2-2 presents the design information for the complete mix digester, as determined
by the FarmWare model.

              The capital costs for the complete mix digester is $127,000, the mix tank is
$26,000, and the engine generator is $187,000. Other engineering costs total $25,000.  The total
capital cost is $364,857. Annual costs include the FarmWare estimated operating savings, water
costs for dilution water, and an estimated  15 percent of the total capital costs. The net annual
operating cost is estimated to be ($85,969) per year (i.e., a net savings). 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 5.9 of this report.)
              Swine Operations

              The capital and annual costs for digesters were determined from the following two
 equations using data from Table 5.13.3-1:

                               Capital Cost = nohead x capheadcost
                               Annual Cost = nohead x annheadcost
 where:
              Nohead      =
              Capheadcost  =
              Annheadcost  =
Number of animals
Capital cost per animal
Annual cost per animal.
                                           5-126

-------
                                      Table 5.13.3-1
                                Digester Costs for Swine
I Manure Type
Pit
Liquid
Evaporative Pond
Operation Type
Grower-Feeder
Grower-Feeder
Farrow-Feeder
Farrow-Feeder
Grower-Feeder
Grower-Feeder
Farrow-Feeder
Farrow-Feeder
Grower-Feeder
Farrow-Feeder .
Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Central
Central
Capital Cost
($ per Head)
41.3
42.1
39.09
39.37
38.73
39.45
33.81
34.79
37.62
33.81
Annual Cost *
(&per Head)
-6.3.1
-5.77
-2.08
-2.42
-6.18
-5.57
-1.97
-2.13
-5.55
-2.13
5.13.4
Results
              Appendix A, Table A-16 presents the cost model results for constructing anaerobic
digesters with methane recovery at large dairies.
5.14
Litter Storage Sheds
              Litter storage is included in the costing for all dry poultry operations.
Requirements for poultry litter storage structures are similar to those for mortality composting
facilities in that they require a roof, foundation and floor, and suitable building materials for side
walls.  Storage facilities are assumed to be 68 feet wide and 8 feet tall.  Litter is assumed to be
stacked to the top in a trapezoidal pile 48 feet wide at the base and 32 feet wide at the top.
There are aisles 10 feet wide on either side of the stack. It is assumed that poultry litter storage
facilities include a roof with a 0.75 pitch,  a concrete floor 16 feet wide, and a 12-foot height from
floor to roof (NCSU, 1998). The width and height were designed for piling manure to its angle of
repose to minimize space.  The length of the structure is variable.
                                          5-127

-------
              The size of a poultry manure storage facility was calculated based on the volume

of both manure and litter produced from the various poultry operations. Manure production for

all poultry types, when designing manure storage facilities, was assigned a value of 0.00169 ft3 per
bird per day (or 0.6169 ft3 per bird per year) (NCSU, 1998).  The basic equation for calculating

manure production is:
where:
              VolumeManure
              Nohead
              365
                             VolumeMmure = 0.00169 x Nohead x 365
Annual volume of manure, ft3
Number of animals
Days in year.
              Litter production was calculated as the number of houses (25,000 chickens or

6,250 turkeys per house) multiplied by the shaving material application depth (3.0 inches),

multiplied by the area of the house (16,000 ft2), adjusted for the amount of house floor area to
receive shavings (zero percent for layers, 33 percent for pullets, and 100 percent for the remaining

poultry types), and multiplied by the frequency of litter storage emptying (no more than two times

per year). The basic equation for calculating litter production is:
where:
                      VolumeLitu.r = Houses x Depthstavings x AreaHouse x Coverage
              Volume,^   =
              Houses       =
              Depthshavings   =
              Coverage
Volume of litter in houses, ft3
Number of animal houses
Depth of litter, ft
Area of house floor, ft2
Portion of floor covered with litter (decimal fraction).
              The volumes of manure and litter production are summed to arrive at the total

volume produced annually. The cost model assumes storage for six months. The volume of

storage required for the facility is calculated from the following:
                                          5-128

-------
                     Volumestorage = (VolumeLitter + VolumeMamire) x Duration - 12
 where:
              Volume
              Duration
              12
                     'Storage
                     Storage facility volume
                     Time period for storage (months)
                     Months per year.
              Assuming a height of 8 feet, the square footage of the litter storage facility is
calculated from the volume. EPA uses a construction cost of $8.50 per square foot based upon
the cost of a structure with concrete floors and walls since there is a risk of spontaneous
combustion at a stacking height of 8 feet (USDA NRCS, 2002a).  The capital cost is determined
from the following equation:

                             Capital Cost =Volumestorage H- g x 8.50

              The cost model includes no operating cost for storage facilities since manure and
litter management are considered part of the baseline scenario. Appendix Tables 17a through 17c
present capital costs for storage at dry poultry operations.
5.15
Lagoon Covers
              The cost of lagoon covers is estimated as a technology that complies with Option 5
for Category 2 and 3 swine, layer, and veal operations.  Flares are added to covered lagoons for
swine and poultry operations. In addition to covering lagoons under Option 5, evaporative pond
systems at swine operations are assumed abandoned and replaced with a new covered lagoon and
berms. These new lagoons are designed for a volume that does not include direct precipitation
since they are covered. Berms are not constructed around the abandoned evaporative pond. For
wet layer operations, lagoons for egg washing waste are also covered, but flares are not added.
                                         5-129

-------
             Design
              As discussed in Section 5.4, lagoon shape is assumed to approximately be a
frustrum with top length and width equal and bottom length and width equal. Lagoon cover size
is estimated as the square footage of the top surface of the lagoon. Lagoon cover size is
calculated as:
                                  Cover - W,agoc,ntopx L,agoomop
where:
              W,
                lagoontop
                igoontop
Width of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft
Length of top of lagoon or evaporative pond, ft.
              Lagoons for egg wash water at wet layer operations are designed to provide
storage for six months in accordance with the procedure described in Section 5.4.5 for swirie and
poultry operations. The volume required for egg wash water is determined from the following
equation:
where:
              Nohead
              0.05776
                                        = Nohead x 0.057756619
Number of layers
Egg wash water volume per head per 6 months.
              Layers produce an average of 256 eggs per year (USDA NASS, 1998). A value of
4.6 liters per case is used based upon the quantity of wash water used for table eggs (Hamm, D.,
G. Searcy, and A. Mercuri. 1974). There are 360 eggs per case.(United Egg, 2002), so
0.000451238 cubic feet of water is used per egg (4.6/360 x 0.03531435 cubic feet/liter). Since
storage is for six months, the volume of egg wash water per head is 0.05776  (256 x 0.000451238
                                          5-130

-------
              Fixed One-Time Costs

              Several lagoon cover manufacturers were contacted to identify costs of purchasing
 and installing lagoon covers. The results of the survey are shown'in Table 5.15-1. Installed
 lagoon covers range from $1.20 to $4.81 per square foot, with lower costs per square foot
 expected at larger installations and depending upon whether insulation is required. Thus, to
 develop  costs for installation of insulated lagoon covers, a cost of $4.00 per square foot was
 assumed. The capital cost of a flare is estimated to be $2,500, and the cost for a cover and flare is
 calculated using the following equation:

                          Capital Cost = Area of Cover *  $4/ft2 + $2,500

                                     Table 5.15-1

     Manufacturer-Suggested Costs of Lagoon Covers for Vz-Acre Lagoons
x:-r'"-v , Dealer -..
Lange Containment
Systems, Inc.
CWNeal
Environmental
Fabrics, Inc.
Reef Industries
Geomembrane
Technologies, Inc.
Environmental
Protection Inc.
>;;. —;/••; . '•• Descriptipji ; .-;• ••;..• '••^- x.v*'1
30 mil PVC liner, 36 mil reinforced Hypalon cover system
installation
'/4-acre lagoon, 32-mil polypropylene, installed
'/•j-acre lagoon, 40 mil HOPE uninsulated cover, gas, and rain .
collection
'/i-acre lagoon, 40 mil HPDE R-6 insulated cover, gas, and
rain collection
Permalon®, ply X-210 reinforced floating cover system (not
including foam float logs)
Vi-acre cover system installed, 30 mil reinforced modified
PVC layer (XR-5) and '/2-inch sublayer
36 mil reinforced cover
:• -^iCfist — V'.V
$1.28/ft2
$34,665
$3-4/ft*
$0.85/ft2
$2.25/ft2
$0.407^
$105,000
$0.45 - $0.50/ft2
             Annual Costs

             Operation and maintenance costs for lagoon covers were estimated at 2 percent of
capital costs. Appendix Table A-18 presents costs for lagoon covers at veal operations.
                                        5-131

-------
5.16
Feeding Strategies
              Feeding strategies designed to reduce nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) losses
include more precise diet formulation, enhancing the digestibility of feed ingredients, genetic
enhancement of cereal grains and other ingredients resulting in increased feed digestibility and
improved quality control. These strategies increase the efficiency with which the animals use the
nutrients in their feed and decrease the amount of nutrients excreted in the waste. With a lower
nutrient content, more manure can be applied to the land and less cost is incurred to transport
excess manure from the farm. Strategies that focus on reducing P concentrations, thus reducing
overapplication of P and associated runoff into surface waters, can turn manure into a more
balanced fertilizer in terms of plant requirements.
5.16.1
Technology Description
              Feeding strategies that reduce nutrient concentrations in waste have been
developed for specific animal sectors, and those for the swine and poultry industries are described
below. The application of these types of feeding strategies to the beef industry has lagged behind
other livestock sectors and is not discussed here.
              Swine
              Lenis and Schutte (1990) showed that the protein content of a typical Dutch swine
ration could be reduced by 30 grams per kilogram without negative effects on animal
performance. They calculated that a 1-percent reduction in feed N could result in a 10-percent
reduction in excreted N. Monge et al. (1998) confirmed these findings by concluding that a 1-
percent reduction in feed N yielded an 11-percent reduction in excreted N. Experts believe that N
losses through excretion can be reduced by 15 to 30 percent in part by minimizing excesses in diet
with better quality control at the feed mill (NCSU, 1998).
                                          5-132

-------
              Poultry
              Precision nutrition entails formulating feed to meet more precisely the animals'
nutritional requirements, causing more of the nutrients to be metabolized, thereby reducing the
amount of nutrients excreted. For more precise feeding, it is imperative that both the nutritional
requirements of the animal and the nutrient yield of the feed are fully understood. Greater
understanding of poultry physiology has led .to the development of computer growth models that
take into account a variety of factors, including strain, sex, and age of bird, for use in
implementing a nutritional program. By optimizing feeding regimes using simulation results,
poultry operations can increase growth rates while reducing nutrient losses in manure.

              Phytase can be used to feed all-poultry. Phosphorus reductions of 30 to 50 percent
have been achieved by adding phytase to the feed mix while simultaneously decreasing the amount
of inorganic P normally added (NCSU, 1999).  Addition of phytase to feed significantly reduces P
levels in poultry manure. The high cost of phytase application equipment has discouraged more
widespread use. Phytase is in use at many poultry operations.
5.16.2
Costs
              The cost model applies feeding strategies to all Category 2 and 3 swine and
poultry operations under all options. Hauling costs are compared for the cases with and without
feeding strategies under a range of technology scenarios, including separators, retrofit scraper
systems, sludge cleanout, highrise hog houses, hoop houses for hogs, and lagoon covers.

              The basic approach to estimating the costs of feeding strategies involves six steps:

              1.     Determine P-based and N-based feeding strategy costs for animal type;
              2.     Determine the quantity of N and P in the applied manure;
              3.     Determine the acreage required to spread manure under N-based or P-
                    based management;
                                          5-133

-------
              4:     Determine the quantity of nutrient in excess of on-farm needs;
              5.     Determine hauling costs; and
              6.     Add hauling costs to feeding strategy costs.
              Feeding Strategy Costs

              Feeding strategy costs for both swine and poultry are provided in Table 5.16.2-1
(Tetra Tech, 2000c).  EPA estimates that it costs $ 10 per ton ($0.005 per pound) to reduce
nitrogen in feed. It is assumed that layers consume the same quantity of feed per day as do
broilers, which consume 11 pounds of feed, costing $0.055, to achieve market weight.  Since
broiler turnover is 5.5 flocks per year, versus 1 flock per year for layers, the quantity of feed for
layers is estimated as 5.5 x 11, bringing the cost to $0.3025 per layer (5.5 x 0.055). Turkeys
consume 46 pounds of feed, at a cost of 46 * 0.005, or $0.23 per turkey.

              Phosphorus feeding strategy costs for"broilers and layers" are-assumed to be zero
since integrators supply the feed to the growers, and phytase is commonly used at these
operations. The cost of phytase js estimated at $1 per ton, or $0.0005 per pound.  For turkeys,
the feeding cost is therefore 46 x 0.0005, or.$0.023 per turkey.
                                    Table 5.16.2-1
                  Feeding Strategy Costs for Swine and Poultry
Animal
Broiler
Layer
Turkey
Pig - FF
Pig-GF
Turns
5.5
1
2.5
2.1
2.8
Feeding Strategy Costs ($ Per Animal)
N -Strategy
0.055
0.3025
0.23
2.70
2.70
P Strategy
0
0
0.023
0.36
0.36
                                         •5-134

-------
              Feeding costs are calculated using the following equations:
where:
              Swine - P-Based:     CostFS = Noheadx UnitCost x Turns x o.7

              Other:              CostFS = Nohead x" UnitCost x Turns
              CostFS
              UnitCost
              Turns
Cost of feeding strategies
Cost per animal for feeding strategy (Table 5.16.2-1)
Number of flocks or turnovers per year (Table 5.16.2-1).
              Quantity of Nutrients Applied


              Implementation of feeding strategies reduces the quantity of nutrients excreted.
The cost model assumes a 40-percent reduction in phosphorus excretion and a 20-percent

reduction in nitrogen excretion under P-based and N-based feeding strategies, respectively. The
following equation is used to calculate nutrient production resulting from feeding strategy
implementation:
where:
              Nutrientps
              Nutrient
              Reduction
                              NutrientFS = Nutrient x (1-Reduction)
Total nutrient (N or P) in manure under feeding strategies
Total nutrient (N or P) in manure without feeding strategies
Feeding strategy nutrient reduction (N or P).
              Acreage Required for Spreading


              The acreage required to spread manure is calculated based upon nutrient content
of the manure, nutrient losses occurring during transport of the manure to the field, crop uptake

of the nutrient, and the portion of manure given away by the operation. The cost model assumes
that all nutrients are available to the crops, which is a conservative estimate with regard to
                                          5-135

-------
I
                 acreage requirements. The values for nutrient uptake by crops are given in Table 5.16,2-2 (Tetra
                 Tech, 2000c). The following equation is used to determine the acreage required for spreading:
                                       AcreageFS = NutrientFS x Efficiency x (1-Given) t Uptake
                 where:
                              AcreageFS

                              Nutrientpg

                              Efficiency

                              Given
                              Uptake
Acreage required to spread manure under feeding strategies,
acres
Total nutrient (N or P) hi manure under feeding strategies,
pounds per year
Portion of nutrient (N or P) available to crop, decimal
fraction =1   <
Portion of manure given away, decimal fraction
Crop uptake of nutrient (N or P), pounds per acre per year
(Section 4.9).
                                                     Table 5.16.2-2
                                                Crop Nutrient Uptake
Animal Type
Poultry
Swine
Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
N Uptake
(pounds per acre per year)
183
141
141
185
138
198
P Uptake
(pounds per acre per year)
20
10
10
24
14
19
                              Excess Nutrients


                              The cost model assumes that nitrogen feeding strategies are used under N-based
                 management, while phosphorus feeding strategies are used under P-based management. Excess
                 nutrients result when the acreage required to spread the manure at either N-based or P-based
                                                          5-136

-------
 agronomic rates exceeds the acreage available at the operation. The cost model requires hauling
 for cases where there are excess nutrients. The following equation is used to calculate the

 quantity of excess nitrogen and phosphorus under P-based management where phosphorus
 feeding strategies are employed:                          •
 where:
                      ExcessN = NNoFS x (1- AcreageFaim ^-AcreageFS.P) x (l-Given)

                                Excessp = (PFS - PFarm) x (1 -Given)
Exces^       =      Excess nitrogen, Ib/yr
Excessp       =      Excess phosphorus, Ib/yr
N            =      Nitrogen in manure without feeding strategies, Ib/yr
              =      Phosphorus in manure with feeding strategies, Ib/yr
              =      Phosphorus required on farm to meet crop nutrient
                  -.  requirements, Ib/yr
AcreageFann    =      Acreage on farm available to spread manure, acres
AcreageFS.P    =      Acreage required to spread manure under P feeding
                     strategies, acres
Reduction     =      Feeding strategy nutrient reduction (N or P)
Given         =      Portion of manure given away, decimal fraction.
                NoFS
                FS
              A similar set of equations is used to determine excess nitrogen and phosphorus

amounts under N-based nutrient management. In simple terms, the amount of manure spread on

the farm is based upon the quantity of the target nutrient (N or P) available in the manure after

feedings strategies for that nutrient are implemented. The nutrients in the leftover manure are

considered excess nutrients.


              Hauling Costs


              Hauling costs are determined using the basic approach described for contractor

hauling costs in Section 5.9.2. The portion of manure to be hauled is determined from the
following equation:


                             HauIPct= l-(AcreageFaim^- AcreageFS)
                                          5-137

-------
where:
              HaulPct
              AcreageFanl
              AcreageFS
Portion of manure hauled away, decimal fraction
Acreage on farm available to spread manure, acres
Acreage required to spread manure under (N or P) feeding
strategies, acres.
              The quantity of manure to be hauled is calculated from the following equations for

liquid and solid manure:
where:
              Liquid:       VolumeLiquidMamirc = VolumeManure x HaulPct x (1-Given) x (1-Mangive)

              Solid:         WeightSolidMamTC= WeightManurc  x  HaulPct x (l-Given) x (1-Mangive)
              VolumeLiquidManure

              WeightSolidManure=
              VolumeManure
              WeightManure
              Given
              HaulPct
              Mangive
=     Annual volume of liquid manure to haul,
       gallons/year
Annual weight of solid manure to haul, tons/year
=     Annual volume of manure produced, gallons/year
=     Annual weight of manure produced, tons/year
=     Portion of manure given away, decimal fraction
=     Portion of manure hauled away, decimal fraction
=     Frequency factor for giving manure away.
              EPA assumes that Category 3 operations incur no cost to haul manure under N-

 based management since that is the baseline scenario. For all other Category 2 and 3 liquid-based

 swine and poultry operations, the cost of hauling the sludge is determined using the following

 equation:


              lid= (Volumeu,uidManurx LiquidFirst) + (LiquidAdd x VolumeLiquidManur) x (Transport-1))
 where:
               CostLiquid
               VolumeLiquidManu

               LiquidFirst
               LiquidAdd
               Transport
        Annual cost of hauling liquid manure
        Annual volume of liquid manure to haul,
        gallons/year
        Liquid hauling cost for first mile
        Liquid hauling cost beyond first mile
        Transport distance for hauling manure.
                                           5-138

-------
               Transport distances are given in Table 5.9.2-1. For the Mid-Atlantic region, the
 transport distances for liquid hauling are changed if feeding strategies are employed.  If the
 hauling percentage (HaulPct) is less than 20 percent (0.20), the transport distance is set at 5.5
 miles, the distance for Nrbased management at Category 2 facilities (see Table 5.9.2-1).
 Otherwise, the transport distance is set to 18 miles in the Mid-Atlantic region.

               For all other Category 2 and 3 solid-based operations, the cost of hauling the
 manure is determined using the following equation:
where:
               CostSolid
               WeightSoIidManure=
               HaulRate
               Transport
                                 = WeightSolidManure x HaulRate x Transport
=     Annual cost of hauling solid manure
Annual weight of solid manure to haul, tons/year
=     Hauling rate based upon hauling distance (Table
       5.17.3-3)
=     Transport distance for hauling manure.
              Total Feeding Strategy Costs

              The cost model assessed the relative cost of feeding strategies by summing the
costs for feeding, strategies and the associated hauling.  This cost can be compared versus hauling
without feeding strategies to determine which is less expensive. Similarly, hauling associated with
other nutrient reduction technologies (e.g., scraper systems) is costed with and without feeding
strategies.  The total cost of feeding strategy implementation is estimated with the following
equation:
where:
              CostFS
              CostHauli
                                   Cost = CostF<- + Cost,
                                                    •Hauling
Cost of feeding strategies
Cost of hauling with feeding strategies.
                                           5-139

-------
5.17
Options to Retrofit Swine and Wet Layer Systems to Dry Systems
             In addition to the use of lagoon covers to comply with the requirements of Option
5, EPA investigated retrofitting swine and wet layer systems to replace lagoons as the waste
management practice. Retrofitting to a "scraper system" was assessed for swine and wet layer
facilities. In addition, retrofitting to high-rise and hoop houses for swine operations was assessed.
The scraper system and high-rise house retrofit options require the cleanout and closure of the
existing lagoon.
5.17.1
Lagoon Cleanout and Closure Costs
             Lagoon closures were used as part of the cost test for BAT option 5, and were
also considered as part of a proposed permit requirement to have a closure plan or a bond to
ensure closure. These options were not selected.

             USDA NRCS developed an interim standard that has been use for closure of
lagoons used in North Carolina. NCDENR (1999) prepared a list of 65 lagoon closures that have
been cost-shared by the North Carolina Agriculture Cost Share Program.  The smallest lagoon
was 0.11 acres, and the largest was 2.5 acres. The range of closure costs on a per acre basis was
generally in the $15K/acre to $60K/acre range.  The average cost to clean out and close 65 dairy,
beef, poultry, and swine lagoons was $0.031 per gallon. This value is used to estimate the cost of
lagoon cleanout and closure nationally using the following equation:
                             Cleanout Cost = Volume*,
                                      . x 0.031
where:
              Volume
                    'Manure
                    Volume of manure for one year, gallons
           Cleanout Cost = VolumeManure x 0.031
                                         5-140

-------
 Where,
 VolumeManure = Volume of manure for one year (gallons)
 5.17.2
 Retrofit to Scraper System
              Mechanical scrapers are dedicated to a specific alley, propelled by electrical
 devices, and attached by cables or chains (USDA NRCS, 1996). Scrape alleys range from 3 to 8
 feet wide for swine and poultry operations.

              Scraper systems are applied to both swine and wet-layer facilities in the cost model
 . One retrofit unit is required for each 1,250 hogs or 25,000 layers, with a minimum of one unit
 per operation. Components of scraper systems costed in the model include a motor, blades, and a
 steel tank for storage of scraped material for one year. There is also a setup cost and a cost for
 cleanout of the existing lagoon (see Section 5.4). When facilities are retrofitted to a scraper
 system, the dilution factor is set to 1, no additional water is added, and scraped material is moved
 to a covered steel tank to limit dilution by precipitation.

              It is assumed that each animal house has a single alley requiring one scraper system
 (Figure 5.17.2-1). Each scraper has two blades.  Steel scraper blades last for 10 years (MDS,
 2002). Since costs are amortized over 20 years, four steel blades are purchased at $177 each as
 capital costs. This cost is based upon $29.50 per foot for 6-foot blades (MDS, 2002).  EPA
 assumes a setup cost of $36,000 per house, and $200 for a 1/4 HP motor. The volume of waste
to be stored in the tank is calculated from the following equation:
where:
                 VolumeManureUndilutcd = nohead x weight -s-1,000 x volume x 365 x 7.481
                     ManureUndiluted
Volume;
nohead
weight -5-1000
volume
Annual volume of undiluted manure, gallons/year
Number of head
Animal weight divided by 1,000 = Number of animal
units
Cubic feet of manure produced per animal unit per
day

 5-141

-------
             365
             7.481
      Days per year
      Gallons per cubic foot.
                            Scraper Blades
                   Stalls
                                17
                                 Alley
           Stalls
                           Figure 5.17.2-1. Scraper System
             Capital Costs
             Retrofit costs (minus lagoon cleanout costs) are calculated using the following
equation:
        Capital Cost = ((Setup + Motor) + (Blades* 177)) x Number + (VolumeManureUndi,uled x Tankcost)
where:
             Setup
             Motor
             Blades
             177
Setup cost of $36,000
Motor cost of $200
Number of steel scraper blades (4)
Cost of steel scraper blades
                                       5-142

-------
              Number
              Tankcost
                    Number of retrofit units
                    Cost of steel tank ($0.18 per gallon).
              Annual Costs

              Annual operation and maintenance include labor, electricity, replacement blades
and standard maintenance. EPA .estimates motor usage for each unit to be 897 kWh at $0.095
per kWh.  Labor for each unit is estimated to be 52 hours per year at $10 per hour, and
maintenance is estimated at 2 percent of initial costs, including cleanout of the lagoon ($724).
Annual costs are calculated using the following equation:
            Annual Cost = (Electricity x Rate + Hours x Labor) x Number + Capital Cost x 0.02
where:
              Electricity    =
              Rate         =
              Hours        =
              Labor        =
              Number      =
              CapitalCost   =
              0.02
                    Annual electricity usage per unit
                    Cost of electricity
                    Labor per unit
                    Labor rate
                    Number of retrofit units
                    Capital Cost (including lagoon cleanout)
                    Standard maintenance rate.
5.17.3
Retrofit to High Rise Hog Houses
              Menke, et al. (2000) evaluated the construction costs for a two-story confinement
housing design. Material falls through open slots onto the first floor where it is composted with
carbon-rich material. A high-rise house for 1,000 head of finishing pigs is 44 feet * 190 feet.  On
a per pig basis, a traditional deep pit house in Indiana/Ohio costs $155 to 160 per animal; a
lagoon style flush house costs $145 per animal; and the high-rise building costs $185 per animal.
The high-rise building costs include professional engineering design that meets NRCS design
standards. Building a deep-pit house to these standards is estimated to increase the construction
cost of a deep-pit house by $15,000 ($15 per animal).
                                          5-143

-------
              Operation and maintenance costs for a high-rise hog facility are estimated at 2
percent of initial costs. Additional costs include energy costs and drying agents.  Energy costs for
a traditional confinement building are estimated at $2,500 to $2,800 per year. The high-rise
building has average monthly costs of approximately $400 or $4,800 annually.  Drying agents
evaluated include wheat straw, corn stalks, and wood shavings.  Around 50 to 60 tons of wood
shavings are needed to cover the house at a depth of 2 feet at an annual cost of $4,000 to $5,000
per year.  In contrast, 5 feet of straw or corn stalk material are needed to absorb similar amounts
of moisture. Even at a lower cost of $9 to $10 per 1,200 pound bale of com stalks, the higher
volumes required offset the unit cost savings. Straw and corn materials also tend to degrade and
compost more rapidly than wood, requiring more frequent addition of drying material to the
house.        .-'.i    :

              The cost of feed and manure handling are assumed to be no different from
baseline.  Therefore, the initial cost of high-rise buildings for hogs is calculated using the
following equation:
where:
              Nohead
              Construction
                              Capital Cost = Nohead x Construction
Number of head
Cost of construction ($185 per pig space).
              Annual costs are estimated with the following equation:
where:
                     Annual Cost = Nohead x Operation + Capital Cost x o .02
              Nohead
              Operation
Number of head
Cost of confinement fuel, repairs, and utilities ($3.22 per
Pig)-
                                          5-144

-------
 5.17.4
Retrofit to Hoop Houses
              Hoop structures are low-cost, Quonset-shaped swine shelters with no form of
 artificial climate control. Wooden or concrete sidewalls 4 to 6 feet tall are covered with an
 ultraviolet and moisture-resistant, polyethylene fabric tarp supported by 12- to 16-gauge tubular
 steel hoops or steel truss arches placed 4 to 6 feet apart. Hoop structures with a diameter greater
 than 35 feet generally have trusses rather than the tubing used on narrower hoops. Some
 companies market hoops as wide as 75 feet. Tarps are affixed to the hoops using ropes or winches
 and nylon straps.

              Generally, the majority of the floor area is earthen, with approximately one-third of
 the south end of the building concreted and used as a feeding area.  Approximately 150 to 200
 finisher hogs or up to 60 head of sows are grouped together in one large, deep-bedded pen.
 Plentiful amounts of high-quality bedding are applied to the earthen portion of the structure,
 creating a bed approximately 12 to 18 inches deep. The heavy bedding absorbs animal manure to
 produce a solid waste product.  Additional bedding is added continuously throughout the
 production cycle. Fresh bedding keeps the bed surface clean and free of pathogens and sustains
 aerobic decomposition. Aerobic decomposition within the bedding pack generates heat and
 elevates the effective temperature in the unheated hoop structure, improving animal comfort in
 winter conditions.

              The costing for hoop houses is similar to that for high-rise houses. Capital costs
 are estimated using the following equation:

                              Capital Cost = Nohead x Construction
where:
              Nohead      =
              Construction  =
                    Number of head
                    Cost of construction ($55 per pig space).
              Annual costs are estimated with the following equation:
                                          5-145

-------
where:
          Annual Cost = Nohead x (Operation + Bedding + Hours x Labor) + Capital Cost x 0 .02
              Nohead
              Operation

              Bedding
              Hours
              Labor
                    Number of head
                    Cost of confinement fuel, repairs, and utilities ($1.40 per
                    pig)
                    Cost of bedding ($4.20 per pig)
                    Labor (1.12 hours per pig)                          .
                    $10 per hour.
5.18
Recycling of Flush Water
              In liquid-based systems, fresh water can be used for flushing or water from a

secondary lagoon can be recycled as flush water.  This technology is applied to Category 2,

lagoon-based swine operations for all options except Option 5.


              Costing for this technology includes piping, labor, and an extra lined lagoon

designed to provide an additional 20 days of storage.  The design of the extra lagoon is discussed

hi Section 5.4.5, and lagoon liners are described in Section 5.4.2.  EPA assumes that 250 feet of

pipe are required to connect the extra lagoon to the pump, at a cost of $2.13 per foot.  It is

estimated that 4 hours of labor is required to install the pipe and set up the pump, at a cost of

$10/hour.


              Capital Cost


              The capital costs are estimated with the following equation:
               Capital Cost = Pipelength x Pipecost + Hours x Labor + ExtraLagoon + Liner
 where:
               Pipelength    =
               Pipecost      =
               Hours        =
               Labor        =
                     Length of pipe
                     Cost per foot of pipe
                     General labor hours to install pipe and pump
                     $10/hour
                                           5-146

-------
               ExtraLagoon =
               Liner         =
                     Cost to build lagoon with storage for 20 days
                     Cost of liner for extra lagoon.
               The cost to build the extra lagoon is estimated by multiplying the lagoon volume
 by the earth moving cost of $2.60 per cubic yard. The cost of the liner is determined by
 multiplying the surface area of the liner (bottom plus sides) by the liner cost of $1.84 per square
 foot (clay plus synthetic).

               Annual Costs

               The annual cost is calculated with the following equation:

                                Annual Cost = Capital Cost x 0.02
5.19
Sludge Cleanout
              Sludge must be removed from lagoons periodically to keep storage capacity
available. The cost model accounts for sludge cleanout annually for beef feedlots, dairies, and
heifer operations and once every five years for liquid-based swine operations for all considered
options.
5.19.1
Technology Description
              Nondegradable solids settle to the bottom of lagoons as sludge, which is
periodically removed. The liquid is applied to on-site cropland as fertilizer or irrigation water, or
it is transported off site.  The sludge can also be land applied as a fertilizer and soil amendment.

              Compared with lagoon liquids, lagoon sludges have higher concentrations of all
pollutants that are not completely soluble. Some organic N associated with heavier and
nondegradable organics also settles into the lagoon sludge and stays, resulting in a high-organic N
fraction of total Kjeldahl N (TKN) in settled solids.
                                          5-147

-------
             Beef and Dairy Model

             For the beef, dairy, and sludge operations, sludge removal is assumed to occur
annually because of the higher capacity requirements associated with liquid storage receiving
runoff from open lots. Cost for removing the sludge is determined using a cost test against three
options:                                                              .
              1)     Lagoon or pond is pumped to a traveling gun. Sludge is applied to land on
                    site using the traveling gun.
              2)     Lagoon or pond is pumped to a tanker truck owned and operated by the
                    operation owner. The tanker truck ships the sludge to an off-site location.
              3)     A custom applicator brings equipment on site, removes the sludge, and
                    ships the sludge off site.
Hauling costs incurred by the owner/operator are included in Section 5.9.
5.19.2
Beef and Dairy Costs
              Capital Costs

              The cost model assumes that facilities with less than 30 acres may choose to
purchase a traveling gun or contract with a custom applicator to remove sludge from their
lagoons. The model assumes that facilities with 30 or greater acres may choose to purchase a
tanker truck to haul their own waste or will contract with a custom applicator to remove sludge
from their lagoons. Costs for a traveling gun are outlined in Section 5.8 and costs to purchase a
tanker truck are outlined in Section 5.9.  Contracting with a custom applicator has no assumed
capital costs.
                                          5-148

-------
               Annual Costs


               Annual costs for traveling guns and tanker truck hauling are estimated at 5 percent
 of the capital costs. Annual costs for contracting with a custom applicator are estimated at $0.05
 per gallon of sludge. Appendix Table A-19 presents sludge removal costs for beef feedlots,
 dairies, and heifer operations.
 5.19.3
Swine Costs
              For the swine cost model, zero cost is assumed for sludge cleanout, but hauling
 costs are estimated. The volume of sludge to be hauled is determined using the following
 equation:              .                                                 '  •
             VolumeSiudgc = VolumeManure x (1-Given) x Solids x 0.924 x HaulPct x (1-mangive)
where:
              Volumesludge
              VolumeManurc
              Given
              Solids
              0.924
              HaulPct
              Mangive
                    Annual volume of sludge to haul, gallons/year
                    Annual volume of manure produced, gallons/year
                    Portion of manure given away, decimal fraction
                    Solids content of manure, decimal fraction
                    Moisture content of sludge
                    Portion x>f manure hauled away, decimal fraction
                    Frequency factor for giving manure away.
              EPA assumes that Category 3 swine operations incur no cost to haul sludge under
N-based management since that is the baseline scenario.  For all other Category 2 and 3 liquid-
based swine operations, the cost of hauling the sludge is determined using the following equation:
where:
           Costs,udl= = (Volumesludgc x LiquidFirst) + (LiquidAdd x Volumesludge x (Transport - 1))
              C°StSludge
              Volumes,udge   =
              LiquidFirst   =
              LiquidAdd    =
                    Annual cost of hauling sludge
                    Annual volume of sludge to haul, gallons/year
                    Liquid hauling cost for first mile
                    Liquid hauling cost beyond first mile

                           5-149

-------
              Transport
                    Transport distance for hauling sludge.
              The values of LiquidFirst ($0.008/gallon-mile) and LiquidAdd ($0.0013/gallon-
mile) are taken from Table 5.9.2-3, In cases where feeding strategies are employed (see Section
5.21.9), sludge volume is reduced by the factor (1-FSRed) to account for the reduced quantity of
solid waste produced under feeding strategies. The value of FSRed is 0.40. Further, for the Mid-
Atlantic region, the transport distances are changed if feeding strategies are employed. If the
hauling percentage (HaulPct) is less than 20 percent (0.20), the transport distance is set at 5.5
miles, the distance for N-based management at Category 2 facilities (see Table 5.9.2-1).
Otherwise, the transport distance is set to 18 miles in the Mid-Atlantic region  for swine facilities
that use feeding strategies to reduce manure-P production.
5.20
Surface Water Monitoring
              Option 4 requires animal feeding operations to monitor nearby water bodies for
contaminants.
5.20.1
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.
                                           5-150

-------
 5.20.2
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.
 5.20.3
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 5.20-1 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 conforms, 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.
                                         5-151

-------
r
                5.20.4
                                                   Table 5.20-1
                                               Number of Samples
1 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 5.20-2, include training, coolers, and
                reusable sampling equipment Annual costs, shown in Table 5.20-3, include sterile containers and
                sampling supplies for each sampling event, labor costs associated with sampling, sample overnight
                shipment, and lab processing fees.
                                                   Table 5.20-2
                                   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
                                                       5-152

-------
                                     Table 5.20-3
                     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
• $ro/hf
	 $10/hr . .. .

Annual Cost
$240
$162
$720 	
$30 ,
$4,740
$240' '
. . : — $120

 5.20.5
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.
 5.21
References
AEA, 1999. George, John. Telephone discussion regarding drylot areas and clay liners
       September 1999.


Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2002. Choosing a Sprinkler Irrigation System.
        Accessed August 20, 2002.


ASAE, 1998. ASAE Standards 1998, 45th Edition.  American Society of Agricultural Engineers
       St. Joseph, MI.                                             as,


ASC Scientific, 1999. ASC Scientific: Soil Augers and Sampling Tools.
        . Accessed September 30, 1999.


Barker, J.C., 2000. Worksheet to Determine Size of Poultry Mortality Composter, EBAE 177-93,

      http.7/www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/ebae 177 93.html retrieved'
      5/21/2000.
                                      .  5-153

-------
Building News, 1998. Home Builder's 1998 Costbook. 6th Edition.

Case's Ag-world.com, 2000. The Haymarket. Website Marketplace. December 13, 2000.

Clemson Extension, 2002. Irrigation Equipment: Traveling Gun Systems.
        Accessed August 11, 2002.

ERG, 2000a.  Methodology to Calculate Storage Capacity Requirements Under Option 7.
       Internal memorandum from Eastern Research Group, Inc.

ERG, 2000b. Methodology to Calculate Contract Hauling Rates for Beef and Dairy Cost Model.
       Internal memorandum by Eastern Research Group, Inc.

ERG, 2000c.  Methodology to Cost Conveyances for Feedlots.  Internal Memorandum from
       Eastern Research Group, Inc.
                    i.                         ]
ERG, 2001. Ground Water Assessment & Sampling Cost Comment. Memorandum from T. Curry
       at Eastern Research Group, Inc. to P. Shriner at EPA; February 6, 2002.

ERG, 2002. Estimates of Existing Storage for Beef and Dairy Model Farms. Memorandum from
       D. Bartram of Eastern Research Group, Inc. to Feedlots Rulemaking Record. December
       10,2002.         ~                        		 -  ~

ESRI, 1998. ESRIData & Maps CD No. 2: United States (Detailed). Environmental Systems
       Research Institute, Inc. Redlands, CA.

Fulhage, C. D. and D.L. Pfost, 1995.  Settling Basins and Terraces for Dairy Waste. University
       of Missouri-Columbia, Department of Agricultural Engineering.

Hamm, D., G. Searcy, and A. Mercuri. 1974. "A study of the waste wash water from egg washing
       machines." Poultry Science. 53:191-197.

Jewell, W.J., P.E. Wright, N.P. Fleszar, G. Green, A. Safinski, A. Zucker, 1997. 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, R.et al., 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pastureland
       to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the U.S.

Kifco, 2002. Telephone discussion regarding traveling gun irrigation systems.

Lander, C.H. D. Moffitt, and K.Alt, 1998. Nutrients Available from Livestock Manure Relative
       'to Crop Growth Requirements. Resource Assessment and Strategic Planning Working
       Paper 98-1.
                                         5-154

-------
Lenis, N.P., and J.B. Schutte. 1990. "Aminozuurvoorziening van biggen en vleesvarkens in relatie
       tot stikstofuitscheiding." In: Mestproblematiek: aanpak via de voeding van varkens en
       pluimvee (A.W. Jongbloed and J. Coppoqlse, eds.), pp. 7^-89. Onderzoek inzake de mest
       en ammoniakproblematiek in de veehouderij 4, Dienst Landbouwkundig

Onderzoekj Wageningen.                    ;      -     ,_  ,  .   ,i^,«.--,. .  ,

Lusk, P., 1998. Methane Recovery from Animal Manures: a Current Opportunities Casebook.
       3rd Edition. NREL/SR-25145. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Golden, Colorado.

MDS 2002. MDS Hog Confinement Systems* Products. Email from Brad Hohn
       (mds@santel.net) quoting price of steel blades. November 5, 2Q02.

Means, R:S., 1996. Heavy Construction Cost Data. 10ffi Armual Edition?" ~'~

Means,*R.S., 1998. Building: Construction Cost Data. 56th Annual Edition. •   -'    ~   ••'•'

Means, R.S., 1999. Building Construction Cost Data. 56th Annual Edition.

Menke, T, H. Keener, and G. Lefevre. 2000. Highnse Hog Housing Cost Information. Emailed
       on to Terra Tech on April 25, 2000.

Monge, H., P.H. Simmins, and J. Weigel, 1998. Reductionfdu taux proteique alimentaire
       combinee avec differents rapports methionine:lysine. Effet sur le bilan azote du poire
       maigre en croissance et en finition. Journees de la Recherce Porcine en France 29:293-
       298.

MWPS, 1987. Midwest Plan Service: Structures and Environment Handbook, MWPS-1. Iowa
       State University. Ames, Iowa. 1987.

MWPS, 1993. Midwest Plan Service: Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook.  Second Edition.
       MWPS-18. Iowa State University. Ames Iowa. April 1993.

NCDENR.  1999 Lagoon closure information. North Carolina Department of Environmental and
       Natural Resources, Division of Soil and Water Conservation. Raleigh, North Carolina.

NCSU, 1993. North Carolina State University. Livestock Manure Production and
       Characterization in North Carolina. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service.
       1993.

NCSU. 1998. Draft of Swine and Poultry Industry Characterization, Waste Management
       Practices and Modeled Detailed Analysis of Predominantly Used Systems. North
       Carolina State University, September 30.

NCSU. 1999. Nitrogen and Phosphorus Excretion in Poultry Production. Unpublished. February
       1999. North Carolina State University, Animal Waste Management Program
                                        5-155

-------
NRAES, 1989. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service. Liquid Manure Application
      Systems Design Manual. Dougherty, Mark, Larry Geohring, and Peter Wright. National
      Regional Agricultural Engineering Service.

NRAES, 1992. 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.;i996. Process Plant Construction Estimating Standards.
      Volume 1. Sitework, Piping, Concrete.  -

Sims I, A. Leytem, F. Coale, 2000. Implementing a Phosphorus Site Index: The Delmarva
      Experience. In Proceedings of 2000 NatioharPoultry Waste Management Symposium.

Simons,"C. 2002.  Excess manure recordkeeping costs. Memorandum on April 23 from C. Simons,
      DPRA Inc. to V. Kibler, EPA and J. Waddell, Tetra Tech.

Sweeten, J.M. and S.H. Amosson, 1995. Total Quality Manure Management. Texas Cattle
      Feeders Association. June 1995.

Tetra Tech, Inc.,  1999. Costs Associated with surface water sampling. Memorandum to Paul
      Shriner (EPA). December 17,1999.

Tetra Tech, Inc., 2000a. Costs of Storage, Transportation, and Land Application of Manure.
      February 2000.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 2000b. Revised Transportation Distances for Category 2 and 3 Type
      Operations. Memorandum to Paul Shriner (EPA), January 7, 2000.

Tetra Tech, Inc., 2000c.  Cost Model for Swine and Poultry Sectors. May 2000.

Tetra Tech, Inc., 2002. Swine and Poultry Cost Model QA/QC Report. December, 2002.

United Egg, 2002. Statistics, http://www.unitedegg.org/statistics.htm, retrieved 11/7/2002.

USDA APHIS, 1995. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), Swine '95: Part I:
      Reference of 1995 Swine Management Practices.

USDA APHIS, 1996a. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), Part 1: Reference
      of 1996 Dairy Management Practices.

USDA APHIS, 1996b. National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS), Swine '95: Part
      II: Reference of 1995 Grower/Finisher Health and Management.
                                        5-156

-------
USDA NASS, 1998. Chickens and Eggs Final Estimates 1994-1997, Statistical Bulletin Number
      944, Washington, DC.

USDANRCS, 1992. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, National Engineering
     ' Handbook (NEH), Part 657.1992.            ''

USDA NRCS, 1995. Conservation Practice Standard: Waste Storage Facility Code 313, April
      1995.

USDANRCS, 1996.  Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, National Engineering
      Handbook (NEH), Part 651 - Chapter 10. 1996.
                                              .                            '
USDA NRCS, 1998.  Chickens and Eggs Final Estimates 1994-1997, StatisticaLBulletin  . .;..,
      Number 944, Washington, DC. 1998.

USDA NRCS, 2002a. Cost Estimator (2002), Alabama NRCS,'	         	 " '
      http://www.al.nrcs.usda.gov/FOTG/ICOST/CostEstimator2002.xls,-retrieved 4-1-2002.

USDA NRCS, 2002b.  Cost List for USDA Cost-Share Programs (2/15/02), Alabama NRCS,
      http://www.al.nrcs.usda.gov/pdf/EQIP_HB.pdf, retrieved 8-22-2002.

USDOE, 1998. United States Department of Energy (DOE): Monthly Electric Utility Sales and
      Revenue Report with State Distributions. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-
      826.

USEPA. 1993.  Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources ofNonpoint Pollution
      in Coastal Waters. EPA840-B-92-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
      Water, Washington, DC.  January 1993.

USEPA, 1995. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual: Land
      Application of Sewage Sludge and Domestic Septage. EPA/625/R-95/001 .Office of
      Research and Development: National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Center for
      Environmental Research Information. September 1995.

USEPA, 1996. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agstar Technical Series: Covered
      'Lagoon Digesters. EPA 430-F-96-007. Office of Air and Radiation. March 1996.

USEPA, 1991 a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agstar Technical Series: Complete Mix
      Digesters. EPA 430-F-97-004. Office of Air and Radiation. February 1997.

USEPA, 1997b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Agstar Technical Series: Plug Flow
      Digesters. EPA 430-F-97-006. Office of Air and Radiation. February 1997.
                                       5-157

-------
USEPA, 1999. Identification of Acreage of U.S. Agricultural Land with a Significant Potential
      for Siting of Animal Waste Facilities and Associated Limitations from Potential of
       Ground Water Contamination-draft. Office of Water. Sobecki, T.M., and M. Clipper,
       December 15,1999.

USEPA. 2000. Water Quality Conditions in the United States.  U.S. Environmental Protection
       Agency, Office of Water. EPA841

Zimmatic, Inc. 1999. Cost Estimate for Center Pivot Irrigation Systems,
       http://www.Zimniatic.com.
                                       5-158

-------
 6.0
FREQUENCY FACTORS
               EPA recognizes that most individual farms are currently implementing certain
 waste management techniques or practices that are called for in the regulatory options considered.
 Only costs that are the direct result of the regulation are included in the cost model. Therefore,
 costs already incurred by operations are not attributed to the regulation.

               Frequency factors are used in the cost model to simulate a cost allowance by
 reducing the expenditures necessary to bring a farm into compliance with the regulatory options
 considered. In other words, compliance costs are set to less than 100 percent of the cost of
 needed practices if farms are already implementing all or part of these practices or equivalent
 practices. The resulting cost could be viewed as an allowance. The degree to which costs are
 reduced is directly linked to the extent to which the required practices are already being
 implemented.

              TO reflect baseline industry conditions, EPA developed technology frequency
 factors to describe the percentage of the industry that already implements particular operations,
 techniques, or practices that may be used to meet the requirements of the final rule. In some
 cases, these frequency factors are based on an assumed performance category (i.e., high, medium,
 and low performance) as estimated by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). EPA also
                                                                                   t
 developed ground water control frequency factors based on the location of the facility and current
 state requirements for permeabilities of waste management storage units.  In addition, EPA
 developed nutrient basis frequency factors describing the distribution of farms that would apply
 manure to soils on a nitrogen or phosphorus basis, land availability frequency factors describing
 the distribution of farms with and without sufficient cropland to land apply the manure and
 wastewater generated at the farm, and transportation frequency factors describing the distribution
 of farms transporting excess manure and wastewater off site.

              Some technologies included in the cost model, including composting and anaerobic
digestion, were assumed not to be present under baseline industry conditions. Therefore, EPA
                                           6-1

-------
assumed all of the facilities incur the cost of implementing the technologies and did not develop

frequency factors for these technologies.


             This section presents the frequency factors and the methodologies used to develop

them in the following subsections:
                     Section 6.1- Beef and Dairy Technology Frequency Factors;
                     Section 6.2 - Beef and Dairy Nutrient Basis Frequency Factors;
                     Section 6.3 - Beef and Dairy Land Availability Frequency Factors;
                     Section 6.4 - Swine and Poultry Technology Frequency Factors;
                     Section 6.5 - Swine and Poultry Nutrient Basis Frequency Factors;
                     Section 6.6 - Swine and Poultry Land Availability Frequency Factors; and
                     Section 6.7 - Ground Water Control Frequency Factors.
6.1
Beef and Dairy Technology Frequency Factors
              Technology frequency factors reflect the percentage of operations that have a

particular operation, technique, or practice (e.g., settling basin) in place at baseline (i.e., prior to

implementation of the regulation). Frequency factors are based on geographic location, type and
size of operation, existing regulatory requirements, and overall status of the industry. EPA

developed technology frequency factors for practices or technologies included in the cost model,

including:


              •     Solids separation using earthen settling basins;

              •     Runoff controls (i.e., berms);

              •     Liquid land application (e.g., center pivot irrigation);

              •     Nutrient management planning (i.e., setbacks, lagoon markers, soil
                    sampling, manure sampling, recordkeeping, document preparation);

              •     Solids separation using concrete settling basins;

              •     Naturally lined ponds and lagoons; and

              •     Transportation.
                                           6-2

-------
       :       Frequency factors were developed to represent the current implementation rate of
 various practices used on operations. Since current implementation can vary significantly across
 operations in a given sector, the frequency factors were developed to represent low, medium, and
 high implementation costs based on farm performance. For example, operations classified as "low
 implementation cost" generally tend to have already implemented the practice and thus "low" (or
 no) additional costs are expected for such operations.  Conversely, "high implementation cost"
 operations are assumed to have little or low levels of implementation and are expected to have
 "high" additional costs to implement a given practice or meet a certain standard. EPA assumed
 that 50 percent of all facilities would incur "medium", costs, 25 percent of facilities would incur
 "low" costs, and 25 percent would incur "high" costs.

              EPA developed technology frequency factors that vary by farm performance using
 the same methodology and source of USD A data. Section 6.1.1 discusses the development of
 these frequency factors for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer operations, and veal operations.
 Frequency factors for some technologies were not included in USDA's data. The development of
 factors that were not presented in the USDA data that were assumed to vary by level of
 performance is described in Section 6.1.2 for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer operations, and veal
 operations. The remaining technology frequency factors are not assumed to vary by farm.
 performance. EPA developed these remaining technology frequency factors using several different
 data sources.  Section 6.1.3 discusses these frequency factors for beef feedlots, dairies, heifer
 operations, and veal operations. Section 6.1.4 discusses the frequency factors developed for the
 swine and poultry cost model.
6.1.1
Performance-Based Frequency Factors Based on USDA Data
              EPA received frequency factors from USDA as part of a document entitled
Estimation-of Private and Public Costs Associated with Comprehensive Nutrient Management
Plan Implementation: A Documentation (April 23, 2001).  This document includes frequency
factors for three performance-based categories of facilities (low-performing, medium-performing,
and high-performing) for a series of "representative" farms defined by USDA in eight USDA

                                          6-3

-------
defined regions. USD A defined high performers to be 25 percent of the facilities, medium
performers to be 50 percent of the facilities, and low performers to be 25 percent of the facilities.
EPA also used these percentages to calculate the number of facilities that are high, medium., and
low performers.

             To use USDA's frequency factors in the cost models, EPA "mapped" USDA's
representative farms to its model farms and then weighted the frequency factors by the percent
distribution of farms within each region.  The general methodology used to perform this
translation is provided below. See ERG's memorandum to the record Methodology to
Incorporate USDA Frequency Factors into Beef and Dairy Cost Model Methodology (ERG,
2001) for a more detailed description of the methodology and USDA data used for beef feedlots,
dairies, and heifer and veal operations.

             Mapping USDA Representative Farms to EPA Model Farms

             To use these performance-based frequency factors for beef feedlots, heifer
operations, dairies, and veal operations, EPA correlated the USDA representative farms and
regions to EPA's model farms and five geographic regions. To do this, EPA divided each USDA
region into individual states and then weight-averaged the frequency factors from each state in
that region to calculate the frequency factors for that region, according to the total number of
operations in each state.

             EPA's cost methodology for beef feedlots and heifer operations uses a single
model farm to represent the costs of the majority of beef feedlots and heifer operations in the
country with greater than 300 head. USDA's frequency factors for beef are based on two
representative farms in eight geographic regions.  The USDA factors are presented for the
following size groups:
                    >30;
                    >100;
                    30 - 500;
                    >500;
                                          6-4

-------
                     30-1,000; and
                     >1,000 head.
 EPA correlated these size groups to the Agency's size groups of 300 - 499 (Medium 1), 500 -
 999 (Medium 2 and 3), and > 1,000 (Large 1) head. EPA applied USDA's assumptions for beef
 feedlots to heifer operations since USDA's data did not include information for heifer operations.

              EPA's cost methodology for dairies uses two model farms to represent the costs of
 the majority of dairies in the country with greater than 200 head.  The USD A methodology uses
 five representative farms to reflect the current state of the industry. No "dairies with greater than
 200 head'are represented by USDA's farm #1 and only a small portion are represented by
 USDA's farm #2.  Therefore, EPA used frequency factors from only USDA farms #3, #4, and #5.

              The Agency did not compare veal operations because EPA assumes that all veal
 operations currently have" appropriate waste management practices in place and would require
 nutrient management planning.

              Tables 6.1.1-1 and 6.1.1-2 present the correlation of EPA model farm components
 to the USDA representative farm components for beef feedlots and dairies, respectively.

              Weighting USDA Frequency Factors

              To use USDA's frequency factors at EPA model farms, EPA first weighted the
 frequency factors by the percent distribution of farms in a given USDA region. For example, if a
USDA region was described using representative farm #1 and representative farm #2, and the
USDA weighting factors indicate that 30 percent of operations in this region are represented by
farm #1 and 70 percent of operations are represented by farm #2, then the weighted frequency
factor for that region is:

          Weighted frequency factor'= Frequency factor FannS1 x 0.3 + Frequency factor Faml#2 * 0.7
                                          6-5

-------
             Next, EPA determined the states included in the USDA regions and estimated how
many USDA facilities were in each state. EPA then calculated the percentage of the total number
of EPA facilities in each USDA region using its estimates of the number of facilities in each state.
These percentages provide the basis for weighting the USDA frequency factors to create the
frequency factor for the EPA region. Table 6.1.1-3 presents the portion of beef feedlots and
heifer operations and Table 6.1.1-4 presents the portion of dairies from the USDA region that fall
within the corresponding EPA region, expressed as a percentage of the total EPA beef feedlots,
heifer operations, and dairies in that region.
                                    Table 6.1.1-1   "
 Correlation of EPA Beef Model Farm Components and USDA Representative
                                 Farm Components

Animal Type
Beef












EPA Model Farm
Partially paved drylot
Concrete pad
(Options 3 & 4)
Berms
Stormwater pond
Earthen settling basin
Solids land application
Liquid land application
Nutrient management
planning

Off-site transportation

•\,^--^^.-:^.^
Lot with smooth, hardened
surface
Concrete slab for manure

Adequate clean water
diversion system
Adequate runoff storage pond
Not listed
Appropriate solids collection/
spreading/transfer equipment
Appropriate liquid collection/
spreading/transfer equipment
Manure and soil testing
One-time documentation of
facility
Routine recordkeeping
Off-farm export
ntatiye Farm* . : ,:;
^XV^v-;'- .
Graded, curbed, fenced, lots
Not listed

Adequate clean water
diversion system
Adequate runoff storage pond
Adequate settling basin
Appropriate solids collection/
spreading/transfer equipment
Appropriate liquid collection/
spreading/transfer equipment
Manure and soil testing
One-time documentation of
facility
Routine recordkeeping
Off-farm export
 This list includes all components included for that representative farm in all regions.
                                          6-6

-------
                                    Table 6.1.1-2
         Correlation of EPA Dairy Model Farm Components and USDA
                        Representative Farm Components
Animal Type
Dairy
EPA. Model Farm
Berms
Concrete settling
basin
Anaerobic lagoon
Liquid land
application
Nutrient
management
planning
Off-site
transportation
USDA Representative Farm"
#3 - ,
Adequate clean
water diversion
system
Separator or settling.
basinb
Adequate liquid
storage
Appropriate liquid
spreading/transfer
equipment
Manure and soil
testing
One-time
documentation of
facility
Routine
recordkeeping
Off-farm export
" #4 "
Adequate clean
water diversion
system
Separator or settling
basinb
Adequate liquid
storage
Appropriate liquid
spreading/transfer
equipment
Manure and soil
testing
One-time . . . . .
documentation of
facility
Routine
recordkeeping
Off-farm export
#5
Adequate clean
water diversion
system
Separator or settling
basinb
Adequate liquid
storage
Appropriate liquid
spreading/transfer
equipment
Manure and soil
testing
One-time
documentation of
facility
Routine
recordkeeping
Off-farm export
"This list includes all components included for that representative farm in all regions.
bA footnote on the USDA tables indicates that 30 percent of operations have a separator or settling basins.
                                         6-7

-------
              Using the percentages in Tables 6.1.1-3 and 6.1.1-4, EPA calculated the weighted
frequency factors for each of the five EPA regions. For example, for beef feedlots in the EPA
Central region, a frequency factor can be calculated using the following formulas:
                     USDA Region A Frequency Factor x 0.10 = USDA portion A
                     USDA Region B Frequency Factor x 0.19 = USDA portion B
                     USDA Region C Frequency Factor x 0.15 = USDA portion C
                     USDA Region D Frequency Factor x 0.56 = USDA portion D

                       Sum of USDA portions = EPA regional frequency factor
                                     Table 6.1.1-3
   Percentage of EPA Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations in USDA Regions
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
EPA Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
USDA Regions"
"A
0.10
0
0.13
0
0
0.02
0
0.27
0
0
-B
0.19
0
0
1
0
0.48
0
0
1
0
C
0.15. ;
0
0.16
0
0
0.13
0
0.15
0
0
D
. 0.56, ,
0
0
0
0
0.38
0
0
0
0
•E
0;,
0.05
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0.70
0
0
0
0
0.54
0
0
G
0
0.45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
0
0.50
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
"Region A: MT,WY,ND,MN
Region B: CA, AZ, AK, HI, UT, NV, WA, OR, ID
Region C: CO.KS.NE.SD
Region D: TX.OK.NM
Region E: MA, RI, CN, VT, NH, ME
Region F: MO, IL, IN, OH, MI, WI, IA
Region G: PA,NY,NJ
Region H: VA, WV, MD, DE, NC, TN, KY, SC, GA, AL,
        MS, FL, AR, LA
                                           6-8

-------
                                      Table 6.1.1-4
                    Percentage of EPA Dairies in USDA Regions
• -Animal Type :
Dairy
EPA Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
USDA Regions"
Dairy Belt
0
0.74
1 ..,--
. ... o ...
0
Southeast
0
0.26
0
0
1
West
1
0
0
1
0
 "Dairy Belt Region - MN, IA, MO, WI, IL, MI, IN, OH, PA, NY, VT, ND, SD, ME, KS, NJ, MD, DE, MA, Ct, RI, NH, ME
 Southeast Region - KY, TN, PL, VA, WV, NC, SC, GA, AL, MS, AR, LA                  ..       ._.,..	
 West Region - CA, OR, WA, ID, NM, TX, HI, AK, AZ, UT, NV, MX, WY, CO, OK            .
              Frequency Factors for Earthen Settling Basins
                                                                  -•tt-'.-..
              All regulatory options assume that beef feedlots and heifer operations require an
earthen basin to collect runoff.  The regulatory options also 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. Table 6.1.1-5 lists the percentage
of beef feedlots and heifer operations that would incur costs for earthen basins by size class,
region, and requirements.

              Frequency Factors for Runoff Controls

              Under all regulatory options, CAFOs are required to contain any runoff collecting
in potentially contaminated areas. For the purpose of estimating compliance costs, EPA assumes
that facilities will use berms to control runoff. Table 6.1.1-6 presents estimates of beef feedlots,
heifer operations, and dairies that will incur costs to install berms based on size class, -~
requirements, and regional location.  EPA assumes that veal,  swine, and poultry operations do not
require berms.
                                           6-9

-------
                                    Table 6.1.1-5
     Percentage of Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations Incurring Earthen
                      Basin Costs for All Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Beef
and
Heifers
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2'
Performance
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
. . . •;,•. . - . ••Region.;. -;;.:. ,., . -s,-r.r
Central
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
Mid-Atlantic
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
Midwest !
100%
80%
40%
100%
- . 80%
40%
•• Pacific
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%

South
100%
80%
40%
100%
80%
40%
•Large 2 size class represents only beef feedlots.

              Frequency Factors for Liquid Land Application

              Under all regulatory options, beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies are
assumed to land apply their liquid manure and process wastewaters. Table 6.1.1-7 presents
estimates of beef feedlot, heifer operations, and dairies that will incur costs (i.e, purchase liquid
land application equipment) to apply liquid manure and wastewaters to .their cropland based on
size class, requirements, and regional location.  EPA assumes that all veal operations have
appropriate equipment for liquid land application and, therefore, do not incur any additional costs.

              Frequency Factors for Nutrient Management Planning

              Under all regulatory options, beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies are
assumed to incur costs associated with nutrient management planning. Nutrient management
planning includes setbacks, lagoon depth markers, soil sampling, manure sampling, recordkeeping,
and document preparation. Table 6.1.1-8 presents estimates of beef feedlots, heifer operations,
and dairies that will incur costs to comply with the nutrient management planning requirements
based on size class, requirements, and regional location.  All veal operations (100 percent) are
assumed to incur costs for nutrient management planning.
                                          6-10

-------
                                 Table 6.1.1-6
  Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies Incurring Costs to Install and
                  Maintain Berms for All Regulatory Options
Animal Type
Beef and
Heifers
Dairy
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2"
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1

Performance
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
•• High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
Region
Central
74%
56%
32%
71%
54%
'.29%
74%
56%
32%
67%
51%
23%
50%
40%
0%
30%
10%
0%
30%
10%
0%
30%
10%
0%
30%
10%
0%
Mid-
Atlantic
92%
32%
21%
92%
32%
21%
92%
32%
21%
92%
32%
21%
92%
32%
21%
34%
21%
7%
34%
21%
7%
34% ,
21%
7%
33%
20%
8%
Midwest
59%
46%
12%
55%
43%
6%
59%
46%
12%
50%
40%
0%
50%
40%
0%
59%
36%
14%
59%
36%
14%
59%
36%
14%
' 58%
38%
18%
Pacific
50%
40% ,
0%
50%
40%
0%
50%
40%
0%
50%
40%
0%
50%
40%
0%
30%
10%
0%
' 30%
10%
0%
30%
10%
0%
30%
10%
0%
South
85%
65%
43%
84%
65%
43%
85%
65%
43%
85%
65%
43%
85%
65%
43%
40%
20%
0%
40%
20%
0%
40%
20%
0%
40%
20%
0%
"Large 2 size class represents only beef feedlots.
                                     6-11

-------
                                 Table 6.1.1-7
Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies Incurring Costs for Liquid Land
                    Application for All Regulatory Options

Animal
Type
Beef and
Heifers













Dairy - Flush


Dairy - Hose






Size Class
Medium 1


Medium 2


Mediums


Large 1


Large 2"


Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2

Large 1



Requirements
High
Medium
Low
High_
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low

Central
100%
,70%
32%
100%
70%
33%
100%
70% .
32%
100%
70%
34%
100%
70%
40%
50%
30%
10%
50%
30%
10%
50%
30%
10%

Mid-
Atlantic
.80% _-,
56%
26%
,80%
56%
26%
80%
56%
26%
80%
56%
26%
80%
56%
26%
55%
40%
21%
57%
39%
19%
55%
40%
21%
Region
Midwest
,100%
70%
37%
100%
70%
38%
100%
70%
37%
100%
70%
40%
100%
70%
40%
92%
57%
14%
91%
55%
13%
92%
57%
14%

"Pacific
100%
,70% ,
40%
100%
70%
40%
100%
70%
40%
100%
70%
40%
100%
70%
40%
50%
30%
10%
50%
30%
10%
50%
30%
io%-

South
. 97%
67%
24%
.. 97% __
67%
24%
97%
67%
24%
97%
67%
24%
97%
67%
24%
65%
51%
37%
65%
51%
37%
65%
51%
37%
'Large 2 size class represents only beef feedlots.
                                      6-12

-------
                                 Table 6.1.1-8
  Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, and Dairies Incurring Costs for Nutrient
              Management Planning for All Regulatory Options
Animal
Type
Beef and
Heifers
Dairy - Flush
Dairy -
Scrape
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
. Large 1
Large 2a •
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Requirements
High
Medium
Low
.High
Medium
. Low
High •
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
- Low
i * " ¥ ~ Region
Central
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
Mid-
Atlantic :
100%
95%
79%
100%
95%
79%
63%
57%
50%
64%
58%
51%
63%
57% .
50%
Midwest
100%
90%
80%
100% .
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
Pacific
100%
90%
80%
100% .....
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
South
100%
93%
80%
100%
93%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
100%
90%
80%
"Large 2 size class represents only beef feedlots.
                                     6-13

-------
6.1.2
Other Performance-Based Frequency Factors
             For some technologies, USD A did not provide data based on farm performance.

Therefore, EPA used implementation rates identified in literature, which are provided as single

values rather than a range of values. Because EPA believes that the implementation of these

technologies varies according to farm performance, EPA used the single values to calculate the

range of frequency factors for these technologies using the following methodology:
1)
 2)
Identify the overall frequency of implementation of the .technology or practice

       Let X = the overall implementation, or frequency factor.
If X   25%, then
       Low Frequency factor,
       Medium Frequency Factor
       Highest Frequency Factor
If 25%75%, then
       Low Frequency factor
       Medium Frequency Factor
       Highest Frequency Factor
                                                    0%     .
                                                    0%
                                                    "X -25%
                                                     PC r 25%)*. 50%
                                                     100%

                                                     PC- 75%)  -s-25%
                                                     100%
                                                     100%
             Thus, it was assumed that low implementation cost operations had a frequency

factor of 100 percent (100 percent of facilities had implemented the practice) and high

implementation cost operations had a frequency factor of 0 percent. "Medium implementation

cost" was then calculated by assuming that 25 percent of the operations incurred low

implementation cost, 25 percent incurred high implementation cost, arid the remaining 50 percent

incurred medium implementation cost. For example, if literature reported the actual

implementation rate to be 65 percent, the low and high implementation cost frequency factors

were assumed to be 100 and 0 percent, respectively. The medium implementation cost frequency

factor would be computed as 80 percent.
                                         6-14

-------
 The frequency factors for concrete settling basins in the beef and dairy cost model was calculated
 in this way, as shown in Table 6.1.2-1.
                                    Table 6.1.2-1
    Frequency Factors Identified from Literature and Used to Calculate Low,
      Medium, and High Frequency Factors for Beef and Dairy Cost Model
Technology or
Practice
Concrete Settling
Basin
Size Class
Medium
Large
Overall Frequency
Factor
20%
r •••~33%""1' -
Implementation Cost Frequency Factor
Low' t
0%
0% -v"
Medium
~ ""0%
• 16%-:
High -
80%
100%
 6.1.3
Other Technology Frequency Factors
              Some of the technology components ofEPA's cost models are not based on
 USDA-'s performance-based data. Frequency factors for naturally lined ponds, lagoons, and
 transportation costs are based on several different data sources and are described below.

              Naturally Lined Pond and Lagoon Frequency Factors

              The cost models for beef feedlots, heifer operation, dairies, veal operations, swine
 operations, and wet layer operations include naturally lined ponds and lagoons. This subsection
 presents the frequency factors for beef feedlot, dairies, heifer and veal operations.

              Using information from site visits and state and federal regulations, EPA assumed
 that all large-sized beef feedlots and all large dairies have adequate storage for process
 wastewater consistent with the 1974 regulation.  EPA developed frequency factors for medium-
 sized beef feedlots with naturally lined ponds using site visit information and best professional
judgment.  Based on discussions with the Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association, EPA
                                         6-15

-------
assumed that heifer operations operate like beef feedlots; therefore, the Agency used the same
frequency factors for naturally lined ponds for both types of operations.
                                                    ^ j i .j ^  » •
              Frequency factors for medium-sized dairies with naturally lined ponds are based on
site visit information, NAHMS data, and current state and federal regulations. According to
NAHMS, 13.5 percent of dairies in the 500-to-699-head group and 4.3 percent hi the greater than
700 head group do not have any kind- of waste-storage facility. Of the sites visited by EPA, only
one dairy had neither a lagoon nor large storage-tank. Therefore, EPA assumes that the larger the
dairy, the more likely it is to have a lagoon or other waste storage facility. According to	~
NAHMS, dairies of 200 head and-above in the East and Midwest (31:4 and 16.9'percent, ~   "
respectively) are less likely to have lagoons or storage than dairies hi the West (7.9 percent)":
EPA assumes that the smaller dairies (less than 700 mature dairy cows) comprise the largest
percentage of dairies without waste "storage hi each region.
              Based on site visits and discussions with the American Veal Association, EPA
assumes that all veal operations have sufficient lagoon capacity to manage all of the manure and
wastewater generated.  Table 6.1.3-1 presents the percentage of beef feedlots, heifer operations,
dairies, and veal operations that would incur costs to install a naturally lined pond or lagoon under
Options 1,2,4, 5A, and 6. The percentages do not vary by region. EPA also used these
frequency factors to determine the percentage of facilities requiring additional storage capacity
under Option 7.
              Transportation Frequency Factors

              EPA developed frequency factors for facilities requiring the off-site transportation
of excess manure and waste for all animal types using hiformation from existing state regulations
(ERG, 2000; EPA, 1999). Frequency factors were developed only for Category 2 facilities
because the percentage of Category 1 and 3 facilities transporting excess manure and waste
remains the same under all regulatory options. EPA assumes that facilities required by their states
to land apply at agronomic rates are using nitrogen-based application rates and already incur the
cost of transporting excess manure  and waste off site. EPA assumes that no facilities are

                                           6-16

-------
 currently meeting phosphorus-based agronomic application of manure and, therefore, assumes
 that all operations costed for phosphorus-based application will incur costs to transport excess
 manure.                                        ....
                                                              :-"".,.=
                                     Table 6.1.3-1

  Percentage of Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations, Dairies, and Veal Operations
           Incurring Costs to Install  a Naturally Lined Pond or Lagoon
; •/-' ?-;AiimaCTyp0'";tHS'
Beef and Heifers
Dairy
Veal
M;;Mlip^-jd^s^j|,j:'l;
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1 j_' •
-Large 2a
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
All
J^^tiHti^e^l^iU^e^^
' 50%
50% :"
' 50%
0% -•;•-
0%
10% :
10%
10%
0%
0%
              "Large 2 size class represents only beef feedlots.

              To calculate the frequency factors for Category 2 beef feedlots and dairies, EPA
determined the threshold requirements for nitrogen-based agronomic application of manure for 22
major dairy and beef-producing states based on state regulations.  The Agency then used industry
profile and Census of Agriculture data to determine the number of facilities in each state above
both the state threshold and EPA's proposed threshold. EPA recorded the number of facilities
above both thresholds by region; these facilities are assumed to already Incur transportation costs
for excess manure. EPA compared the number of facilities assumed to incur transportation costs
with the number of facilities above the proposed threshold to arrive at regional frequency factors
representing transportation costs. States other than the 22 included in the analysis were assumed
not to require nitrogen-based agronomic application of animal wastes. EPA assumes that heifer
                                         6-17

-------
operations operate the same as beef feedlots and, therefore, heifer operations use the same
frequency factors as beef feedlots.  EPA assumes that all veal operations are Category 1
operations and therefore, did not develop transportation frequency factors for these operations.
Table 6.1.3-2 presents the percentage of Category 2 beef feedlots, heifer operations, and dairies
incurring costs for transporting excess manure and waste off site.
                                 '   Table 6.1.3-2	__
    Percentage of Category 2 Beef Feedlots, Heifer Operations", and "Dairies
     Incurring Costs for Transporting Excess Manure and Waste Off Site
Animal Type
Beef
Heifer
Daiiy
- SizeCIass
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
MediumS
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Region __ „
Central
100%
13%
100%
13%
100%
46%
Mid-
Atlantic
100%
6%
100%
6%
100%
34%
Midwest
78%
33%
82%
33%
82%
77%
Pacific
100%
100%
,100%
100%
100%
100%
I
South
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
54%
6.2
Beef and Dairy Nutrient Basis Frequency Factors
             Several cost modules compute component costs separately for both nitrogen- and
phosphorus-based application and are adjusted based on frequency factors that indicate the use of
the component in the industry. For Options 1 and 1 A, the cost model estimates costs for all
operations for nitrogen-based application, and for Option 2A, estimates costs for all operations
for phosphorus-based application. However, under the remaining options, EPA used the soil test
map from USDA's Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication book (USDA ARS, 1999) to
                                         6-18

-------
determine the percentage of facilities in each state that would require nitrogen-based versus
phosphorus-based application rates. The soil map identified the percentage of soil samples in each
state that had soil test P (phosphorus) levels in the "high"or above" categories.  States colored red
on the map reported high or above soil test P levels in more than 50 percent of the samples.
Phosphorus levels of greater than 50 parts per million are generally considered "high." States
colored pink/orange reported high or above soil test P levels in 25 to 50 percent of the samples,
and states colored green reported high or above soil test P levels in less than 25.percent of the
samples.                     ,                                .      -  ^
              Using these results for soil test P levels, EPA made the following assumptions:
                     Facilities located in "green" states would require only nitrogen-based
                     applications;

                     Facilities located in "pink/orange" states would require 40 percent
                     phosphorus-based and 60 percent nitrogen-based applications; and

                     Facilities located in "red" states would require 60 percent phosphorus-
                     based and 40 percent nitrogen-based applications.
EPA adopted this 40/60 and 60/40 split of applications to account for areas within a given state

that would have soils with low phosphorus levels.


              Using these determinations, EPA calculated the percentage of operations that

would require phosphorus-based applications under Options 2 through 7 for each region. These
percentages were calculated by animal type, size class, and regions using the following equation:
PFacso/0=
where:
fStateFacR
\ Total Fac
P Facs%

State FacR    =
State FacO    =
Total Fac     =
                     6()0/o
                                                    State FacO
                                                     Total Fac
[6-2]
                                   Percentage of facilities, by region, that would require
                                   phosphorus-based application
                                   Number of facilities in a red state
                                   Number of facilities in an orange/pink state
                                   Total number of facilities in that size class and region
                                           6-19

-------
              %Pbased
                     Percentage of facilities that would require phosphorus-based
                     application for that given state.
              EPA calculated the percentage of nitrogen-based application facilities in each
region and size class using the following equation:
                               N Facs =.  100% -  P Facs
                                                                        [6-3]
where:
              N Facs =	Percentage of facilities that would require nitrogen-based
                           application     	,,..., ill. „„„:„,:	
              P Facs =     Percentage of facilities that would require phosphorus-based
                           application.
              Table 6.2-1 presents the percentages of nitrogen-based and phosphorus-based

facilities by animal type, by size class, and by region for Options 2 through 7.
6.3
Beef and Dairy Land Availability Frequency Factors
              All operations fall into one of three land availability categories depending on the
amount of on-site cropland available for manure application:
                     Category 1 operations have sufficient land to land apply all of their
                     generated manure and wastewater at appropriate agronomic rates. No
                     manure is transported off site.

                     Category 2 operations do not have sufficient land to land apply all of their
                     generated manure and wastewater at appropriate agronomic rates. The
                     excess manure after agronomic application is transported off site.

                     Category 3 operations do not have any available land for manure
                     application.  All generated manure and wastewater is transported off site.
              Facility counts for swine and broiler operations were provided by USDA NRCS

including land availability category; therefore, these model farms did not require disaggregation

using the land availability frequency factors.  However, facility counts for layers, pullets, turkeys,
                                           6-20

-------
and cattle operations were not provided by land" availability category!! Therefore^ EPA applied the
land availability categories to the facility counts for these operations.^

                                   Table 6.2-1 '^,L  •~_i-i,     "

  Percentage of Nitrogen-Based and Phosphorus-Based Application Facilities
Animal
Type
Beef and
Heifers
Dairy
Veal


Size CJass
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1

Medium 2

Medium 3

Application
Percentage Basis
Nitrogen
Phosphorus-. ,^
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen -
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen -
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
' - * ,Re8*on
Central
53%
47% -^
54%
46%
48%
52% •
45%
55%
46%
54%
46%
54%
47%
53%
49%
51%
56%
44%
40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
Mid-
Atlantic
~~51%~
.49% .
51%
49%
49%
. 51%
49%
51%
60%
40%
47%
53%
46% '
54%
44%
56%
44%
56%
60%
40%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Midwest
•- -60%!^"
•" 40%
60%
40%
60% -
- 40%
61%
39%
61%
39%
47%
53'%
47%
53%
49%
51%
50%.
50%
44%
56%
44%
56%
44%
56%
Pacific
40%
60%
,40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
' 40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
40%
60%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
South
49%
51%
55%
45%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
56%
44%
57%
43%
48%"
52%
47%
53%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
                                      6-21

-------
             EPA calculated the percentage of facilities in each of these categories using USDA

data. USDA conducted a national analysis of the 1997 Census of Agriculture data to estimate the

manure production at livestock facilities (Kellogg, R, et al, 2000).  As part of this analysis, USDA
estimated the number of confined livestock facilities that produce more,manure than they can

land-apply on their available cropland and pasturelands at agronomic rates for nitrogen and
phosphorus and the number of confined livestock operations that do not have any available

cropland orpastureland.  This analysis also identified the amount of excess manure at the facilities

with insufficient land.


             EPA used USDA's facility counts to develop the percentage of facilities that are

classified as Category 2 and 3 under a 100-percent nitrogen-based application scenario and a 100-
percent phosphorus-based application scenario. EPA estimated the percentage of facilities

classified as Category 2 and 3 using the following equations:
       Percent Category 2 Facs =
 No. Farms with Excess Manure (N or P) and Cropland
         Total No. Confined Livestock Farms
[6-4]
     Percent Category 3 Facs =
No. Farms with Excess Manure (N or P) and No Cropland
        Total No. of Confined Livestock Farms
where:
              Percent Category 2 Facs

              Percent Category 3 Facs

              No. Farms with Excess
              Manure (N or P) and
              Cropland
              No. Farms with Excess
              Manure (N or P) and
              No Cropland
              Total No. of Confined
              Livestock Farms
[6-5]
                   Percentage of facilities classified as
                   Category 2
                   Percentage of facilities classified as
                   Category 3
                   Number of facilities with excess
                   manure on a nitrogen or phosphorus basis
                   and some cropland for land application
                   Number of facilities with excess
                   manure on a nitrogen or phosphorus basis
                   and no cropland for land application
                   Total number of confined livestock farms
EPA estimated the percentage of facilities classified as Category 1 using the following equation:
                                           6-22

-------
                Percent Category .l.Facs = 100% - Percent Category 2 - Percent Category 3
                                     [6-5]
where:
              Percent Category 1 Facs

              Percent Category 2

              Percent Category 3
Percentage of facilities classified as
Category 1
Percentage of facilities classified as
Category 2
Percentage of facilities classified as
Category 3
              Option 1 uses only nitrogen-based application factors, while Options 2 through 7

use a combination of both nitrogen- and phosphorus-based factors. Table 6.3-1 .presents EPA's

estimated percentage of Category 1, 2, and 3 facilities using nitrogen- and phosphorus-based

applications.                                                                     .,  ...
                                     Table 6.3-1

        Percentage of Category 1,2, and 3 Facilities Using Nitrogen- and
                          Phosphorus-Based Applications
Animal
Type
Beef
Dairy
Heifer
Veal
Size
Class
Medium 1
Medium. 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3.
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Nitrogen-Based Application -'-v
Category 1
84%
68%
8%
50%
27%
84%
68%
100%
Category 2
9%
21%
53%
36%
51%
9%
21%
0%
Category 3
7%
11%
39%
14%
22%
7%
11%
0%
Phosphorus-Based Application
Category;!
62%
22%
1%
25%
10%
62%
22%
100%
^Category!
31%
67%
60%
61%
68%
31%
67%
0%
Category 3
7%
11%
39%
14%
22%
7%
11%
0%
                                         6-23

-------
6.4
Poultry and Swine Technology Frequency Factors
             Frequency factors were developed to represent the current implementation rate of
various practices used on operations. Since current implementation can vary significantly across
operations in a given sector, the frequency factors were developed to represent low, medium, and
high implementation costs.  For example, operations classified as "low implementation cost"
generally tend to have already implemented the practice and thus "low" (or no) additional costs
are expected for such operations. Conversely, "high implementation cost" operations are
assumed to have little or low levels of implementation and are expected to have "high" additional
costs to  implement a given practice or meet a certain standard. Data received from USDA were
presented in this manner for some technologies and practices, including manure testing, soil
testing, record keeping, mortality composting, and adequate mortality storage (Kellogg, 2002).

             In some cases, implementation rates in the literature are provided as single values
rather than a range of values. Thus, it was assumed that low implementation cost operations had
a frequency factor of 100 percent (100 percent of facilities had implemented the practice) and high
implementation cost operations had a frequency factor of 0 percent. "Medium implementation
cost" was then calculated by assuming that 25 percent of the operations incurred low
implementation cost, 25 percent incurred high implementation cost, and the remaining 50 percent
incurred medium implementation cost. For example, if literature reported the actual
implementation rate to be 65 percent, the low and high implementation cost frequency factors
were assumed to be 100 and 0  percent, respectively. The medium implementation cost frequency
factor would be computed as 80 percent. In those cases where the medium implementation factor
calculation produced results that were not possible, the low or high frequency factor would be
adjusted down or up, as appropriate, until a realistic medium frequency factor resulted.  For
example, if the literature-reported implementation rate was 80 percent, the low and medium
frequency factors would be 100 percent and the high frequency factor would be adjusted up to 20
percent  (rather than 0 percent).
                                          6-24

-------
               Where data from USDA were not available, EPA .used frequency factors obtained
  from other sources, which varied by sector, component, or practice. Industry and USD A data
  were used as the basis for most of .the frequency factors for layers and swine; analysis of state and
  federal regulations was used primarily for broilers and turkeys. EPA's report on state regulatory
  programs (USEPA, 1999) was also used for all animal sectors. Costs were not attributed to
  CAFO model farms when state regulations specify standards or require practices equal to  or more
  stringent than the proposed technology options.

               Because the literature and industry provided data for the broiler and turkey sectors
 were generally not detailed enough to generate frequency factors, EPA reviewed the specific
 regulatory language and summaries of regulations for 12 major poultry-producing states regarding
 requirements for nutrient management plans (NMPs) at broiler and turkey farms (Tetra Tech,
 2000). Requirements were considered for farms in two size groups:  300 to 1,000 animal units
 (AU) and greater than 1,000 AU. All broiler and turkey farms were  assumed to use^dry waste
 management systems.

              From the analysis of state and federal regulations, EPA determined that a few
 states already require broiler and turkey farms to  implement some of the components of an NMP.
 Except as specified for groundwater and surface water requirements, and in cases where select
 frequency factors could be based on available industry data, the analysis from these 12 states was
 used to calculate regional frequency factors.  These regional frequency factors approximate the
 number of farms that are currently required to implement NMP components and therefore already
 incur costs for these components.
              Weighted averages were used to estimate frequency factors for each NMP
component (for 300 to 1,000 AU and >1,000 AU), as illustrated in the example in Table 6.4-1.
The weight reflects the percentage of operations in the entire region already incurring the costs of
that component.
                                          6-25

-------
                                      Table 6.4-1
     Illustration of Method to Calculate Frequency Factors from Weighted
                                       Averages
State
A
B
C
D

Number of Farms"
10
40
20
20
100
Component Required?"
Yes
No
Yes
No

",:::.' ..Weight;-. •, •
10
0
20
0

 JlilC IlUIJlUwl Ul JLttllllO t\Jt ui\j*i\sii3 cu*u tuu,*v<^j*j vtiAAWiv. »*»»»»«• w»~«- ___-,., __	— 	  ,_,      j,    „
different for broilers versus turkeys. 1997 Census of Agriculture data (USDOC, 1999) were used to determine the number of
farms in each state within the two size ranges, 300 to 1,000 AU and >1,000 AU.
k Components were assumed not to be required for states other than the 12 reviewed.

Technology Frequency Factors for Poultry and Swine

              Data used to determine frequency factors for poultry and swine varied upon the
sector and component or practice. Industry and USDA data were used as the basis for most of
the frequency factors for layers (United.Egg Producers/United Egg Association and Capitolink,
 1999) and swine (USDA APHIS, 1995 andNPPC, 1998), whereas analysis of state and federal
regulations was used primarily for broilers and turkeys.  In addition, frequency factors were also
derived from data provided by USDA NRCS (2002) provided to EPA electronically on February
6,2002. USDA NRCS data included frequency factors for three performance-based categories of
facilities (low performing, medium performing, and high performing) for a series of
"representative" farms defined by USDA.  Frequency factors are presented in Tables 6.4-2
through 6.4-8 for the various combinations of sector, region, size class, and performance level.

              Literature and industry data for the broiler and turkey .sectors was generally not
 detailed enough to generate frequency factors. Instead, EPA reviewed the specific regulatory
 language and summaries of regulations for 12 major poultry-producing states regarding
 requirements for nutrient management plans (NMPs) at broiler and turkey facilities (Tetra Tech,
 2000).  Requirements were considered for both medium and large facilities.  All broiler and turkey
                                            6-26

-------
 facilities were assumed to use dry waste management systems. Erom the analysis of state and
 federal regulations, EPA determined that a few states akeady require broiler and turkey facilities
 to implement some of the components of a NMP. Except as specified for ground water and
 surface water requirements, and in cases where select frequency factors could be based on
 available industry data, the analysis from these 12 states were  used to calculate regional frequency
 factors.  These state regulation based frequency factors approximate the number of facilities that
 are currently required to implement NMP components and, therefore, must already incur costs for
 these components. Weighted averages were used to estimate  frequency factors for each
 component.            .

              Assessment of Ground Water Link to Surface Water.  The frequency factors
 for these assessments at layer (United Egg Producers/United Egg Association and Capitolink,
 1999) facilities was based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey
 facilities were  conservatively assumed to be zero. The frequency factors for swine facilities was
 based upon a review of state regulations that already require lagoons to be lined.

              Surface Water Monitoring and O&M. The  frequency factors for surface water
 monitoring at layer facilities were assumed to be zero based on site visits, those for swine were
 based upon industry data (USDA APHIS, 1995), and those for broiler and turkey facilities were
 derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000).

              Soil Augers. The frequency factors for soil augers at layer (United Egg
 Producers/United Egg Association and Capitolink, 1999) and  swine (NPPC, 1998) facilities were
based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey facilities were derived
from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000). In cases where states require soil testing
at broiler and turkey facilities, it was assumed that soil augers  (or an equivalent technology) are
also required or otherwise available to the facility, and thus not costed.
                                          6-27

-------
     6*
     S  c
     .3 «
VO
03
H
     a> pq

     .. cu
     £ '•*
        ,O
        tt-1
     I

4,-i.


;-.--
V
1
f
|i
1
g

1
i
!|
p
is

r
•«!f«ij
S
1
i
e(''
a
1
1
1
1
ss
1
s?
ft
^ •
"11

•?4

-,.^;-
t, \\(

|
a?
§
1

iff
1
^
M
4*^
^|
?!
^
1
1
:4jf
^'
a
i
1
1
cc
11
v*?

§
s
CA
*5^
1
f'"1

it*
w


;

1
S
1
;
p.
1
<
>
3
c
o
o
o
o
CD


0
O

CD
O
O
o
0
o
CD
O
0
^^ ^
M
O
Already assess GW
CO
a
"5
&
&

o
o
o
o


o
CD

O
o
0
0
CD
O
o

*""^
^"^
s
r«
SW monitoring; 0(

5
s
3
)
£
O
O
o
o


o
o

CD
O
o
o
o
0
o
o
*••*
0

0
a
'c
CO
CO
5
a
s
on
>
S
£
CO
CN
CN
O
in
o


CO
CN
o

CN
O
o\
v§
CD
O
VO
CN

^
*

Manure sampler
CO
5
8
10
1
3
J
o
o
o
o


0
o

o
o.
VO
o
o
VO
CN
o
—
*
1
1
*«
o
•1
£
1
CO
Jj.
c
CO
CO
g
3
10
S
+2
CO
CN
CN
O
>n i
oo


CO
CN
O

CN
g
VO
VO
o
O
VO
CN
O
-
*
pment and NMP
« Initial NMP develc
on-farm recurring

1
>o

^
o
o
o
o


o
o

o
o
VO
VO'
o
o
VO
CN

—
*
Ui
0
>
£
CN
CN
O
~
0


CO
CN
O

oj
o
o\
o
o






{/
§
£
a
•5
S
0
£
t/

O
3
S
10
S
3
CN
O
~
in
oo


CO
CN
o

~
o
o
o
o
0




"3
Storm water— O&l

o
3
p
10
S
S

o
o
o



o

o
o
o
o
o
o




s
<*
Stream buffer and

5
0
a
So
>
'o
CN

in'
i/i
oo


CO
CN
<-'

CN
0,
O
O
o






1
c.
I
J

•g"g
« s
«!

o
o
o
o
o
CD
'-H

CD
O

CD
CD
O
O
f— <
o
CD
O
O
o
o
o
CD
O
O
o
t— 4
o

Feeding strategies


3

D
o
o
o
o
o
o
r"-1

o
CD

O
=>
o
CD
O
2
2
2
y
2
2
1 or trade
o
ca
c
o
C
a
C

•)

4
a
D
0
CO
o
ON


VO
CO

VO
OS
N

CJ
VO
OS
\

VO
OS

I
0
t.
c
c
a

1

Q
p


CD
CN


•-1
'-'

•— '
O
CN
O

•— "
CN
1 — '

—
C^

c
_«
"c.
CO

/D
'V*
a
D
•— '

o
CN


i—1


•-1
CN
O

'— <
CN
*— •

•—
O

Manure testing

i
s
Q
p
"- '

—
CN


-


•-1
CN
O

•— <
fN
*~*

— <
O

M
_C
Q
c
O
fl
Pi

A
^
J
Q
D

CN
^
ON


OO


00

CO
vd
v^
/%
m

oo

oo

bO
c
jjMortality — compo







8
§
1 •
.5
1
d

1
°T
||
CL, X
•g m

e i
•£? ^
a?
Cn in
1 S'
^ .SP
IK
,CT 5^
to CN
II o
^ a
1/3 "g
8"!
•a &
& 1
T3 0
IIMortalitv— U&M
Note: GW = groin
a Weighted averag
                               6-28

-------
       w>
       O
,VO
 «t
H
*i
S ^
•s2
•SH
     * * JjS


    3 *«
     CS M
    fe g


     a j?
Kl&l
&;XlP^8
if$m»ji
^sl^^M
1
I/
$
*
1
|M
:
i
1
:
|
i
|S>
1
i
I
%
x$;
ti
i
s
i
fe
j£
i
F
it
|
i
1
i
i
j:
i
xi1
9
m
w
I
I
1
1
<£
i
I
I
Sft
^
i
sfS

•w-
«•
*§
i
I
If
i
§
i
i^
£?
i
ir
r
1
i
i
81
•S
s
«f
fi
p
^'
V'^K--
-%
i
i
p
i»
-SK
1
RK
1
a<-
i>',
£"•':
1
c
s
<
§
CO
C
















»
3
5
J3
sD
Q
3
CO
03
?
>
CO
C
_C
c
E
u
Pi
ji
i
!X>
















|
5
3
5
/i
CO
C
_c
c
d
Pi
J
_«
ex:
















f
5
/I
co
j
0
a
Pi
.a
£
00


0

-.

o

00
co

"o
CN
O
O

o
•<*•
>
X
3
co
J
J
!
<
State Regulations
<*

o



<=>

oo
rj

vb
CN
O
O
O
0
Tf
3
3
1
j
>
I"
3
— i
5-
3
J
/)
State Regulations
0

CO
o



o


o
o



o

1 initial NMP development and NMP
on-farm recurring
W
J
0
i
pi
9
a
5l
^





o

00
m
<_>
vd

J
3
3
3
a
3
«
J
jgulations
f£
1
c
(/I








<_>
O
<_>


^J
CO
5
3
>
3
>
3
5
.j
/3
CO
j
c
5
Pi
|
r/i
°









u

o

o

=a
>
3
3
lo
CO
j
C
5
(^
|
r/1
°








O
o

o

o
o
i
t
i
)
H
P
r>
3
>
3
/)
aulations
PH
(1
3
^^



°



o
o
o

o

o
o
3
>
>
&
Q
«
s
rt
Site visits and
industry consult.
/•>
O
>o
^

O
o
^
>o
o
1^1
o
CO
>
i
>
5
5
JO
3
3
>
)
CN
O
O
CN
OH
a.
CO
»o

vo

2
CO


VO
tr>
2
»r>
^^ ^
VO

o
CO

CO
3
n
5
C
3
)
Z,
~)
V.
i
<
CJ
»o
f-
^)-

>o
&;
»o
-3-

»n
<5N
>O
•^1-
o
o
>n
o
CT\
«-)
^f
0
o

3
U.
1
<
V
0

~
f\
o


•— '
CN
— <
O
o
s
o
o
o
o
CN
I
3
>
O
S}
V.
1
<
K
O

"
CN
O


•—i
CN
— i
O
O
o
CN
O
o
o
3
IP
n
>
>
3
5
H
ty
1
<;
Q
V.
2

—
^
o


— *
CN
— '.
O
0
o
CN
O
o
o
o
CN
£
\
>
S
3
3
o
y,
VI.
<,
%
<
Q
-j.
c^
—<
•^
t~
?
•—1
•*
C~-
•^f
^
•«)•
O
3
0
§
o
g>
3
\
3
o
^
\
5


c
(0
c:
'CD
•o
co
jj
2
Q.
0
2
s
cB
II
s1-
c i
?!
® ^3
i: S
3 X
«g
D-0
zX
,_-x
lii
S x
Sio
^ T3
CO JB
«"|
i i
> 0
•? (D
S s
o>9>
II CD
> "O
> O
•\ 4^
°.f»
o> «
0 g
                        6-29

-------
     > en
      O
      U
vo

    03
                       6-30

-------
     I
     *©
     
     JN O
     © CJ
       M
       g
     w
     8
     «
•4
^

S3
H
II
TO [V.
JM F^
© a>
     S3 SH
     _ «
     O "
    O .3
    •sS
    O

    03
g
ng
ti

                                                     3o
                                                If
                                                 

                                                It
                                                o S
                                                3 X
ater,
mputed as
ted
                          6-31

-------
ve
Tf
vd
 o
2
 «
H
S
                                      6-32

-------
 o>

3
                  i
m
i
                  1
                                  > S
                                  U H
                                 •o g

                                 fe 8
                                  3  C

                                        s
                               «

                             "si
                             IU
                                            O

                                                     g
a

ON &„ S^


-------
I
TJ
°P
rr
vo

«
s
.gp«

W  ;§
eg  (J
   a
    V
 03
 g  '8
 S3  '43
 era
 S  «
M  %
 0)  >-(
 Ml  0»
 a  Pi
 o
«


 a>
I
 O


 O
 a>


j J
lift
8
§>
1


1
1
jyit
I

2
r>

en

o
CM

-
O
CM
O

Si
o
CM
O
o\

§
1
"1
s
klready in complia
Biner requirements
siHdv vasn
IT)
0
2
o

ON

O
oo
o
3
vq
o
o
CO
*— 4
ON
M
0
oq
C

nS
nSW monitoring; 0
o
o
o

1
Storm water divers
t/5
>n
o
2
o

ON

O
oo
O
3
VO
O
-
"TV
ON
Si
o
oo
o
o

ons — O&M
Storm water divers
Site visits and
State Regulations
o
o
o
o

ON
ON

VO
ON
2 '
o
o
T— 1
o
o
o
o
a
vo
ON
o
o
o
o

do1
I-N
rtream buffer and (
1
b
w
o

-------
               Manure Sampler. The frequency factors for manure samplers at layer (United
 Egg Producers/United Egg Association and Capitolink, 1999) and swine (NPPC, 1998) facilities
 were based upon industry data, while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey facilities were
 derived from an analysis of state regulations (Terra Tech, 2000).  In cases where states require
 manure testing at broiler and turkey facilities, it was assumed that manure samplers (or an
 equivalent technology) are also required or otherwise available to the facility, and thus not costed.

               Scales for Spreader Calibration. The frequency factors for calibration scales at
 layer (United Egg Producers/United Egg Association and Capitolink, 1999) and swine (NPPC,
 1998) facilities were based upon industry data,  while the frequency factors for broiler and turkey
 facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000). In cases where
 states require calibration of manure spreaders at broiler and turkey facilities, it was assumed that
 calibration scales (or an equivalent calibration technology or method) are  also required or
 otherwise available to the facility, and thus not  costed. Calibration of solid manure spreaders can
 be performed in a number of ways, some of which are based on volume instead of weight, and
 liquid-based systems can also be calibrated in terms of volume.

              Initial NMP Development and NMP Recurring. The frequency factors for
 development of an on-farm NMP at layer (United Egg Producers/United Egg Association and
 Capitolink, 1999) and swine (USDA APHIS, 1995) facilities were based upon industry data, while
 the frequency factors for broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state
 regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000). Revision of plans at broiler and turkey facilities was considered
 to occur only if explicitly mentioned in the state regulations.

              Calibration of Manure Spreader. The frequency factors for spreader calibration
 at layer facilities were based upon industry data (United Egg Producers/United Egg Association
 and Capitolink, 1999), those for swine facilities were based upon data from the AFO Strategy
 (USEPA, 1999), and those for broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state
regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000).
                                          6-35

-------
              Storm Water Diversions and Storm Water 6&M. The frequency factors for
storm water diversions at layer facilities (United Egg Producers/United Egg Association and
Capitolink, 1999) were based upon industry data, those for swine facilities were based upon site
visits, and those for broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations
(Tetra Tech, 2000). The frequency factors for operation and maintenance of field runoff controls
were assumed to-be equal to those for initial implementation of the controls.

              Stream Buffer and>O&M. The frequency factors for stream buffers.at layer
facilities were based upon industry data (United Egg Producers/United Egg Association and
Capitolink, 1999), those for swine facilities were based upon site visits and state regulations, and
those for broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra
Tech, 2000). .

              Visual Inspection. The frequency factors for-visual inspection at .layer and swine
facilities were based upon the AFO Strategy (USEPA, 1999), while.the: frequency factors for
broiler and turkey facilities were derived from an analysis of state regulations (Tetra Tech, 2000).
      *_*k *     •*
              Feeding Strategies.  The frequency factors for feeding strategies at swine facilities
were based upon USDA data (USDA APHIS, 1995), while the frequency factors for broiler and
turkey facilities were provided by site visits and conversations with industry. Most broiler
facilities have phase diets, and an increasing number of broiler operations utilize feed additives
such as phytase.  All broiler operations were all assumed to have phytase additions to their diet,
thus no benefit is observed. Phytase use is less common in turkey production where debates exist
that the skeletal structure of poults is affected by phytase interactions with calcium. EPA
assumed few if any layer facilities incorporated phased diets or feeding strategies beyond
nutritional requirements of the birds and molting (if any), and assumed the frequency factor was
zero.

              Operations that Sell or Trade Manure.  The frequency factors for the
percentage of swine operations that already sell, trade, or otherwise transport manure off-site for
swine is conservatively set to zero based on the small fraction of operations that report
                                            6-36

-------
 transporting manure off site (USDA APHIS, 1995). The frequency factors for poultry are based
 on recent data submitted to the EPA (United Egg Producers, 2002).
              Lagoon Marker. The frequency factors, for lagoon depth markers at swine •
 facilities were based upon the AFO Strategy (USEPA, 1999). It was assumed that no layer
 facilities had lagoon depth markers, and dry manure facilities do not need depth markers.

              Adequate Storage, Soil Testing, Manure Testing, Record Keeping, Mortality
 (Composting and O&M).  The frequency factor for these components were primarily based on
 data provided by USDA NRCS (2002). These frequency factors are from USDA's input files
 entitled Summary ofCNMP needs and total cost per component for Manure and Wastewater
 Storage and Handling provided to EPA electronically on February 6, 2002. The input file
 includes frequency factors for three performance-based categories of facilities (low performing,
 medium performing, and high performing) for a series of "representative" farms defined by
 USDA. Data describing the exact methods for handling swine mortality were not available,
 however, EPA believes all Large CAFOs already have technologies/BMPs in place to handle
 routine mortalities. Since additional controls of mortalities were only considered for Option 3,
 EPA only calculated incremental costs for those operations with a direct hydrologic link to
 surface waters from the ground water beneath the production area. The portion of facilities
 required to implement .additional swine mortality controls was based on an assessment of ground
 water risk (USEPA, 2000). Thus, the frequency factors for swine mortality represent the percent
 of operations that would not have to implement additional mortality practices because they do not
 have a hydrologic link from the ground water to the surface water rather than the actual
 percentage of swine operations that have adequate mortality handling facilities.
6.5
Poultry and Swine Nutrient Basis Frequency Factors
             EPA estimated the number of facilities that will have to land-apply their manure on
a phosphorus basis by using state soil test data (Sharpley, A.N., T. Daniel, T. Sims, J. Lemunyon,
R. Stevens, R. Parry, 1999). Consistent with EPA acknowledgment of site-specific differences,
these data clearly show that high soil phosphorus levels are a regional problem. Distinct areas of
                                         6-37

-------
general phosphorus deficit and surplus exist within states and regions and can be correlated to
areas of intensive animal production. To develop the percentage of agricultural soils testing high
in phosphorus on a regional basis, the percentage of soils testing high or above in phosphorus was
weighted with the number of facilities in each state. Table 6.5-1 shows the results of the facility-
weighted soil test values by region and animal type. The label "P" indicates that more than half of
the facility-weighted soils tested high or above, for phosphorus.  An "N" indicates that less than
half of the facility-weighted soil tests in the region were high hi phosphorus. If the facility
weighted soil test values indicated that more than half of the soils in the region tested high for
phosphorus, it was assumed that 60 percent of the facilities will require a phosphorus-based
manure application rate and 40 percent can use a nitrogen-based rate. If the facility-weighted soil
.test values indicated that less than half of the soils in the region tested high for phosphorus, it was
assumed that 40 percent of the facilities will require a phosphorus-based manure application rate
and 60 percent can use a nitrogen-based rate. This approach reflects the potential fluctuations in
phosphorus soil tests in a given state. •
                                            6-38

-------
                                   Table 6.5-1
   AFO Nutrient Management Planning Basis by Animal Sector and Region
 Based on Percentage of Agricultural Soils Analyzed by Soil Test Laboratories
               in 1997 That Tested High or Above for Phosphorus
Sector
Industry
Broilers
Layers (dry)
Layer (wet)
Swine" 	
Turkey
Broilers
Layers (dry)
Layers (wet)
Swine
Turkey
farm. Size
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Large
Large
Large
Large
Large
Regions ' " ^
Central ,
P
P
N
N
N
P
P
P
N.
N
Mid-Atlantic
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P-
Midwest
,P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Pacific .
> P 	
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
South
N
N
N
-P
P
N
N
N
P
P
Key: N = less than half of the facility-weighted soil tests in the region were high in phosphorus.
P = more- than half of the facility-weighted soils tested high or above for phosphorus.
6.6
Poultry and Swine Land Availability Frequency Factors
             All operations fall into one of three land availability categories depending on the
amount of on-site cropland available for manure application.
                   Category 1 operations have sufficient land to land-apply all of then-
                   generated manure and wastewater at appropriate agronomic rates. No
                   manure is transported off site.

                   Category 2 operations do not have sufficient land to land-apply all of their
                   generated manure and wastewater at appropriate agronomic rates. The
                   excess manure after agronomic application is transported off site.
                                       6-39

-------
                    Category 3 operations do not have any available land for manure
                    application. All generated manure and wastewater is transported off site.
             For broilers and swine, the number of operations by land availability category was
provided by the USDA NRCS (2002) at the state or group-of-state level. Section 4.3 provides
details on how these data were processed for broilers and swine.  For layers and turkeys, the
number of operations by land availability category was provided by USDA NRCS (2002) at the
national level by size class. Percentages were computed using the number of operations by land
availability category with the results provided in Table 6.6.1.  Due to data disclosure issues the
number of Category 1 operations using a phosphorus based application rate was not made
available.  Lacking this data, EPA heuristically assumed that 20 percent of the Category 1
operations using nitrogen based application rates would be Category 1 using phosphorus based
application rates.
                                     Table 6.6-1
     Percentage of Category 1,2, and 3 Operations for Layers and Turkeys
Sector
Layers
Layers
Layers
Layers
Layers
Turkeys
Turkeys
Turkeys
Turkeys
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Nitrogen Based Applications
Category 1
25.64%
19.28%
14.71%
10.88%
10.88%
16.11%
7.32%
10.69%
7.47%
Category 2
44.97%
40.36%
40.34%
41.43%
41.43%
53.03%
60.46%
53.05%
53.87%
Category 3
29.38%
40.36%
44.96%
47.69%
47.69%
30.86%
32.22%
36.26%
38.66%
Phosphorus Based Applications
Category 1
4.25%
3.86%
2.94%
2.18%
2.18%
3.22%
1.46%
2.14%
0.00%
Category2
66.37%
55.78%
52.10%
' 50.13%
50.13%
65.92%
66.32%
61.60%
61.34%
Category 3
29.38%
40.36%
44.96%
47.69%
47.69%
30.86%
32.22%
36.26%
38.66%
                                          6-40

-------
6.7
Ground Water Control Frequency Factors
              EPA developed two sets of frequency factors for all animal types for ground water
control costs. The first set of frequency factors corresponds to Options 3A/3B and includes
ground water monitoring, ponds and lagoons with engineered liners, concrete pads for solid waste
storage areas, and a hydrological assessment.  The second set of frequency factors corresponds to
Options 3C/3D and includes permeability standards for waste storage units.

     -  - J    EPA developed the frequency factors for Option -3A/3B using an analysis of soil
types ancfgrouhd water depths across the country (USEPA, 2000).  Based on this analysis, EPA
determined that, under Option 3A/3B, facilities located in areas with sandy soils, shallow depths
to ground water, and karst or karst-like terrains would require ground water controls and all other
facilities would incur only the costs for the ground water assessment.  Table 6.2-1 presents the
frequency factors for facilities located in areas requiring controls and facilities requiring only a
ground water assessment under Options 3A/3B.
                                      Table 6.2-1
  Percentage of Facilities Incurring Ground Water Costs Under Option 3A/3B
Animal
f:|[$pe .
All -
Size Class
All
Region
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South -
Facilities Requiring All
Ground Water Controls
13%
24%
27%
12%
22%
Facilities Requiring Only a •:
Hydrologic Assessment
87%
76%
73%
88%
78%
             EPA developed the frequency factors for Option 3C/3D using an analysis of state
regulations. Facilities located in states with permeability standards for waste storage units and in
       \
locations identified under Option 3A/3B as high-risk areas were assumed to already be in
compliance with Option 3C/3D and therefore would not incur costs.  EPA determined that
                                         6-41

-------
existing permeability standards applied only to large facilities and, therefore, assumed that all
medium facilities located in areas with a high risk of ground water contamination would incur

costs. To develop regional frequency factors for facilities that would incur costs under Option

3C/3D, EPA used the following equation:                               '.•.•_.
                           FacPermeability = (1 - %FacState) x %FacGW
                                              [6-1]
where:
              FacPermeability

              %FacState

              %FacGW
 Percentage of facilities located in the region that
 incur ground watercosts under Option 3C/3D
 Percentage of facilities in the region that are located
 in states with existing permeability standards -:
""Percentage of facilities in the region that are located
 in areas with a .high risk of ground water
 contamination.
Table 6.2-2 presents the percentage of facilities requiring ground water costs under Option

3C/3D.
                                            6-42

-------
                              Table 6.2-2
Percentage of Beef Feedlots, Dairies, and Heifer Operations Incurring Ground
                    Water Costs Under Option 3C/3D
Animal Type
Size Class
Region
Central
Option 3C
Beef and Heifer
Dairy
Veal
Option 3D
Beef and Heifer

Dairy

Veal
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3

Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
13% '
6%.
13%
7%
13%

87%
94%
87%
93%
13%
, Mid-
Atlantic'

24%
20%
24%
22%
24%

76%
80%
76%
78%
24%
Midwest

27%
26%
27%
13%
27%

73%
74%
73%
87%
27%
Pacific

12%
10%
12%
12%
12%

88%
90%
88%
88%
12%
South

22%
22%
22%
22%
22%

78%
78%
78%
78%
22%
                                 6-43

-------
6.8
References
ERG, 2000. State Requirements for Land Application at Agronomics Rates. January 13,2000".

ERG, 2001. Methodology to Incorporate USDA Frequency Factors into Beef and Dairy Cost
Model Methodology. December 2002.

Kellogg, R.et al., 2000. Manure Nutrients Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pdstureland
       to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial and Temporal Trends for the U.S.

MPPC. 1998. Environmental Assurance Program Survey.  National Pork Producer Council.

Sharpley, A.N., T. Daniel, T. Sims, J. Lemunyon, R. Stevens, R. Parry, 1999. Agricultural
       Phosphorus and Eutrophication. ARS-149. United States Department of Agriculture:
       Agricultural Research Service. July, 1999.

Tetra Tech, Inc., 2000. Cost Model for Swine and Poultry Sectors. May 2000.

United Egg Producers, 2002. Statistics, http://www.unitedegg.org/statistics.htm, retrieved
       11/7/2002.

United Egg Producers/United Egg Association and Capitolink, 1999. Data submission to EPA.

USDA, 1999. Fax from Lindsey Garber, USDA/NAHMS-Center for Animal Health Monitoring,
       August 1999.

USDA, 2001. Estimation of Private and Public Costs Associated with Comprehensive Nutrient
       Management Plan Implementation: A Documentation. April 23, 2001.

USDA APHIS, 1995. Swine '95. Part 1. Reference of 1995  Swine Management Practices.
       USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, National Animal Health Monitoring
       System.

USDAARS, 1999. Agricultural Phosphorus and Eutrophication, ARS-149.

USDS NRCS, 2002. Summary ofCNMP needs and total cost per component for Manure and
        Wastewater Storage and Handling. Electronic files received by EPA on February 6,
       2002.

USEPA. 1999. State Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to Animal
       Feeding Operations - Interim Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Office of Water, Washington, DC.

USEPA, 2000. Identification of Acreage of U.S. Agricultural Land with a Significant Potential
       for Siting of Animal Waste Facilities and Associated Limitations from Potential of

                                         6-44

-------
       Groundwater Contamination-draft 12/15/99. Memorandum from Mike Clipper and Terry
       Sobecki, EPA, to the Feedlots Rulemaking Record. October 3, 2000.

USEPA. 1999.  Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations,
       http://www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm. Accessed on September 23, 1999.
                                      6-45

-------

-------
 7.0
EXAMPLE MODEL CALCULATIONS
              This section includes an example calculation of model farm costs for the beef and
 dairy cost model.
 7.1
Beef and Dairy Model Farm Example Calculation
              This subsection uses the information presented previously in this report to provide
 an example calculation of model farm costs. The beef and dairy cost model calculates the total
 model farm costs using the waste management system component costs with the frequency

 factors. This subsection presents an example of this calculation for the following model farm for
 Option 2:
                    Animal type = Dairy;
                    Size class = Large 1 (i.e., >700 head);
                    Regional location = Central;
                    Farm type = Flush; and
                    Performance level = Medium.
              Under Option 2, the cost model estimates costs for a Large dairy operation in the
Central region for the following waste management system components:
                    Runoff control berms;
                    Concrete settling basin;
                    Lagoon;
                    Accumulated sludge removal;
                    Composting;
                    Liquid land application equipment;
                    Commercial fertilizer application;
                    Nutrient management planning; and
                    Off-site waste transportation.
             This example does not show how each of these component costs is calculated.
Instead, this example uses these component costs (Appendix A) and frequency factors to calculate
the final weighted model farm cost.
                                         7-1

-------
              The costs presented in this example represent the expected costs for this model
farm for the final rule. Appendix C presents the model farm costs (in 1997 dollars) for Options 1,

2 and 5.
7.1.1
Unit Component Costs
              The first step in the cost calculation is the generation of costs for each component
included in the regulatory option.  As noted in Section 7.1, EPA is not showing how these costs
are calculated here; instead, these  component costs are provided as the starting point for this
example. The methodology for calculating these costs is presented in corresponding sections of

this report.

              Component costs are classified based on whether they vary by nutrient application
basis and land availability category. Nutrients may be applied on site according to either the
nitrogen needs of the crops or the  phosphorus needs of the crops. Additionally, all model farms
are classified into three land availability categories:


                     Category 1 facilities have enough cropland to apply all of their waste on
                     site;

                     Category 2 facilities have some cropland, and apply some of their waste on
                     site and haul the other portion  of waste off site; and

              •      Category 3 facilities have no cropland and haul all of their waste off site.
               The cost model calculates costs for seven possibilities for each farm type, region,
 size group, and performance level:


               1)     Component cost does not vary by nutrient basis or category;

               2)     Component cost varies by category and nutrient: Nitrogen basis, Category
                      1 facility;

               3)     Component cost varies by category and nutrient: Phosphorus basis,
                      Category 1 facility;

                                            7-2

-------
             4)     Component cost varies by category and nutrient: Nitrogen basis, Category
                    2 facility;
             5)     Component cost varies by category and nutrient: Phosphorus basis,
                    Category 2 facility;                          <
             6)     Component cost varies by category and nutrient: Nitrogen basis, Category
                    3 facility; and
             7)     Component cost varies by category and nutrient: Phosphorus basis,
                    Category 3 facility.
The cost model calculates a weighted model summary cost for each category by summing the
component costs that do not vary with the category costs,"weighted according to the nutrient"
basis and category.

             Table 7.1.1-1 presents component costs that do not vary by nutrient application
basis (i.e., nitrogen- versus phosphorus-based application). Table 7.1.1 ^presents component
costs that do vary by nutrient application basis.  Finally, Table 7.1.1-3 presents the component
costs for the four transportation scenarios considered for both Category 2 and Category 3 flush
dairies.
                                   Table 7.1.1-1
              Component Costs for Option 2 That Do Not Vary by
                            Nutrient Application Basis
                          Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central
Component
Runoff control berms
Concrete settling basin
Lagoon
Accumulated sludge removal
Composting
Flush Dairy
Capital
$3,069
$130,713
$201,552
$122,426
$9,157
" "• Annual , ; -=•..-''"; -
$61.
$2,614
$10,078
$6,121
$7,995
                                         7-3

-------
                                     Table 7.1.1-2
    Component Costs for Option 2 That Vary by Nutrient Application Basis
                            Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central

Nitrogen-Based Application
Capital
Fixed
Annual
Phosphorus-Based Application
Capital
Fixed •'•'.'• \. , > Annual :
Category 1 ,,,..., . • •
Nutrient Management
Planning
Commercial Nitrogen
Fertilizer
Liquid Land
Application
$0
$0
$70,454
$3,648
$0
$0
$2,453
$0
$7,510
. $0
$0
$125,115
$9,316
$0
$0
Category 2
Nutrient Management
Planning
Commercial Nitrogen
Fertilizer
Liquid Land
Application
$0
$0
$64,925
$2,151
$0
$0
$1,581
$0
$6,212
$0
$0
$104,562
$3,194
$0
$0
$5,750
$25,361
$11,541

$2,188
$7,300
$10,669
Category 3
Nutrient Management
Planning
Commercial Nitrogen
Fertilizer
Liquid Land
Application
$0
$0
$0
$1,035
$0
$0
$1,089
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,035
$0
$0
$1,089
$0
$0
NOTE: Nutrient Management Planning includes the following costs: nutrient plan development, soil and manure sampling,
land application equipment calibration, recordkeeping and reporting, lagoon depth markers, and identification of setback areas.
                                            7-4

-------
                                       Table 7.1.1-3
         Transportation Costs for Option 2 Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central
iflCategory" v
2
3
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
$171,724
"~ $0
$171,724
$0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Annual
$21,932
$68,850
$21,909
$68,831
NA
NA
NA
NA
Phosphorus-Based Application
Capital
$373,312
-$o -
$373,312
$0,
$373,312
$0
$373,312
$0
Annual
$46,494
$30,400
$46,426
$30,363
$106,031
$130,758
$105,997
$130,751
'Category 1 operations do not incur transportation costs because they have sufficient land to apply all waste on site.
NA - Not applicable; Category 3 operations do not incur transportation costs under N-based scenarios because they are already
assumed to transfer all waste off site under N-based scenarios.
7.1.2
Calculation of Weighted Component Costs
              The cost model then weights the component costs to reflect the percentage of

operations that already have some components in place.  The following equation is used to weight
the component costs:
                           Costw<.rghttd = Costcomponcnt x (l . Frequency Factor)
                                                                          [7-1]
where:
              Costweighted
              ^ostcomponent
              Frequency Factor
                            Weighted component cost
                            Component cost (from Table 7.1.1-1)
                            Percentage of operations that have component hi
                            place.
                                            7-5

-------
             Table 7.1.2-1 presents the frequency factors used for large flush dairy operations in

the Central region.
                                    Table 7.1.2-1

  Percentage of Operations Assumed to Have Equivalent Technology In Place
                           Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central

Component
Runoff control berms
Concrete settling basin
Lagoon
Accumulated sludge removal
Composting
Nutrient management planning
Commercial nitrogen fertilizer
Liquid land application
Transportation (N-Based)
Performance Category of Operation
High .
100%
33%
100%
100%
0%
20%
0%
90%
54%
Medium
90%
33%
100%
100%
0%
10%
0%
70%
54%
Low
70%
33%
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
50%
54%
              Equation 7-1 is used to calculate the weighted component costs for the model farm

for all land availability categories (Categories 1, 2, and 3) and performance categories (high,
medium, and low). For example, capital weighted costs for liquid land application in Category 2

at a medium performing facility are calculated as follows:
 where:
              $64,924

              0.70
                                   Costcomponent x (1 - Frequency Factor)
                                   $64,925 x (1 - 0.70)
                                   $19,477
Category 2 liquid land application cost, Table
7.1.1-2
Frequency factor for liquid land application from
Table 7.1.2-1.
                                          7-6

-------
             Table 7.1.2-2 presents the weighted component costs for components that do not
vary by nutrient application basis and land availability category-. Costs are shown for all
performance categories. Table 7.1.3-1 presents the weighted costs for components that vary by
nutrient application basis and land availability category.
                                   Table 7.1.2-2
        Weighted Component Costs for Option 2 That Do Not Vary by
           Nutrient Application Basis and Land Availability Category
              Medium Performance, Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central
Component
Runoff control berms
Concrete settling basin
Lagoon
Accumulated sludge removal
Composting
• " .. ' -' ., '-.'.'Capital '. •••'- :"VV:;f
$307
$87,578
$0
$0
$9,157
;ft:;;w;:-',":';;0-.::-v;:.;'AjbriuaI" "'. ' '. .. ...
$6
$1,752
$0
$0
$7,995 ;
7.1.3
Calculation of Weighted Farm Costs
             Some weighted component costs vary depending on the nutrient application basis
and land availability category, as shown in Table 7.1.3-1.  To calculate weighted farm costs, the
cost model applies farm-type frequency factors to the weighted component costs to represent the
portion of operations that can be characterized within each nutrient management basis and land
availability category.
                                        7-7

-------
                    Table 7.1.3-1
  Weighted Component Costs for Option 2 That Vary by
Nutrient Application Basis and Land Availability Category
   Medium Performance, Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central

Component 	 -- 	
Nitrogen-Based Application
Capital Costs
•: Annual Costs
, Phosphorus-Based Application
Capital Costs
Annual Costs
Category 1 . ..' 	 ..._..
Nutrient management planning
Commercial nitrogen fertilizer
Liquid land application
Transportation - Purchase truck option
Transportation - Contract-hauling option
Transportation - Purchase truck option with
composting
Transportation - Contract-hauling option
with composting
$3,283
$0 ,
$35,227
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,207
$0
$3,755
$0 ,
$0
$0
0$0
$8,384
$0
$62,557
$0
$0
$0
$0
$5,175
$25,361
$5,771
$0
$0
$0
$0
Category 2
Nutrient management planning
Commercial nitrogen fertilizer
Liquid land application
Transportation - Purchase truck option
Transportation - Contract-hauling option
Transportation - Purchase truck option with
composting
Transportation - Contract-hauling option
with composting
$1,935
$0
$32,462
$171,724
$0
$171,724
$0
$1,423
$0
$3,106
$21,932
$68,850
$21,909
$68,831
$2,875
$0
$52,281
$373,312
$0
$373,312
$0
$1,969
$7,300
$5,335
$46,494
$30,400
$46,426
$30,363
Category 3
Nutrient management planning
Commercial nitrogen fertilizer
Liquid land application
Transportation - Purchase truck option
Transportation - Contract-hauling option
Transportation - Purchase truck option with
composting
Transportation - Contract-hauling option
with composting
$1,035
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,089
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,035
$0
$0
$373,312
$0
$373,312
$0
$1,089
$0
$0
$106,031
$130,758
$105,997
$130,751
                         7-8

-------
              The first farm-type weighting factor applied adjusts the weighted component costs
                                        " i                         *
for the land availability category (Category 1, Category 2, or Category 3). Section 6.0 presents
the calculation of the land availability category frequencies, and Table 7.1.3-2 provides these
frequency factors for dairies under the nitrogen-based and phosphorus-based application
scenarios.
                                     Table 7.1.3-2
                  Land Availability Category Frequency Factors
                                   Dairies, Large 1

Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
.Nitrogen Basis
27%
51%
22%
Phosphorus Basis
10%
68%
22%
              The second farm-type 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 nitrogen-based weighted component costs. Likewise, because all operations are required to
land-apply using a phosphorus-based application rate under Option 2A, the weighted farm costs
are equal to the phosphorus-based weighted component costs. For the remaining options, EPA
assumed that each model farm would apply waste based on both a nitrogen and phosphorus basis.
Section 6.0 presents the percentage of costs that are attributed to an N-based application basis
versus a P-based application basis for each model farm. For this example, the nutrient-based
frequency factors for large dairies in the Central region are 56 percent of operations require
nitrogen-based application and 44 percent of operations require phosphorus-based application.

             The cost model uses these two farm-type factors to calculate the weighted farm
costs using the following equation:
                                          7-9

-------
   Category
= [(%N x Q/oN-Cat X x Catl(N)Costj + (%P x %P-Cat X x Catl(P)Cost)]
               [(%N x %N-Cat X) + (%P x o/oP-Cat X)]
where:
              %N
              %N-CatX

              %P
              %P-CatX
                     Percentage of land that requires N-based application
                     Category X frequency factor under an N-based
                     application scenario
                     Percentage of land that requires P-based application
                     Category X frequency factor under an P-based
                     application scenario.
              For example, capital weighted costs forliquid land application in Category 2 at a

medium-performing facility~are calculated as:
            Land Application,
                          Icat2
          =  [(56% x 54% x $19,477) + (44% x 68% x $31,369)]
                      [56%  x 54% + 44% "x 68%]
[7-4]
              The cost model uses each of the weighted model farm components to calculate the
weighted model farm costs using Equation 7-3 for each possible category and transportation

option. The transportation cost test is then used to determine which transportation option is the
least costly, as described in Section 5.17 of this report. The selected transportation option for this
example is contract hauling without composting for both Category 2 and 3 operations.


              Table 7.1.3-3 presents the weighted farm costs for the example model, including

the selected least-cost transportation scenario.
                                           7-10

-------
                                      Table 7.1.3-3
                          Weighted Farm Costs for Option 2
               Medium Performance, Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central
; Component
Concrete.basin
Berms ; .,'.
Composting11
Lagoon
Nutrient management
planning0 --••-•-•-•
Liquid land
application
Commercial fertilizer
application
Category!:
Capital
$87,578 '
' $307
$0
.$0
$4,433
$24,833
$0
Annual
$1,752
$6
$0
$0
$2,877
$2,526
$5,717
Category 2
Capital
$87,578
$307
$0
$0
$2,416
$25,561
$0
Annual
, $1,752
$6
..- $0
$0
$1,702
$2,548

$3,735
Category 3
Capital
$87,578
$307
$0
$0
$1,035
$0

$0
Annual
$1,752
$6
$0
$0
$1,089
$0'
$0
Selected Transportation Scenario .
Purchase truck
$0
$0
$0
$49,178
$0
$57,533
"Costs are weighted by farm type (hose versus flush) and by application basis (nitrogen versus phosphorus).
""Composting costs were not selected as part of the model farm costs.
'Nutrient management planning capital costs are fixed costs; 3-year recurring costs are also incurred, but are not shown in this
table.
7.1.4
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. The cost model sums these costs to generate
the final model farm capital, annual, fixed, and 3-year recurring costs by category. Table 7.1,4-1
presents the weighted farm costs selected for the model farm.  Commercial fertilizer costs are
listed as a separate cost item in the model farm result tables presented in Appendix C.
                                           7-11

-------
                                   Table 7.1.4-1
                         Model Farm Costs by Category
              Medium Performance, Flush Dairy, Large 1, Central
Component
Category 1
Total Model Farm Costs
Commercial Fertilizer Application
Category 2 -
Total Model Farm Costs
Commercial Fertilizer Application
Category 3
Total Model Farm Costs
Commercial Fertilizer Application
Capital

$112,718
$0

$113,446
$0
™- , w:^ _**«^ .- ,">..w r**-'.. •-',_'," •,'.-. . iA
' "$87,885-
$0
Annual
_
$56,658
$5,717
'
$63,731
$3,735
SM.'^.ai-a^;^- ' - .-SiiV : -* - -' ,"'• "- ^-.''v
$2,968
$0
Fixed

$4,926
$0
, 4 „
$2,685
$0
;:*:;• *!;g;^.;? ' ' .; •;•,
$1,150
$0
7.2
Swine and Poultry Model Farm Cost Example
             This section uses the information presented previously in this report to provide an

example calculation of model farm costs. The total model farm costs are calculated using the
waste management system component costs with the frequency factors. This section presents an

example of this calculation for the following model farm for Option 2 (manure land-applied on a

P-basis):
                   Animal type = Swine;
                   Size class = Large 1 (i.e., 2,500 to 4,999 head);
                   Regional location = Mid-Atlantic;
                   Farm type = Grow-Finish;
                   Waste storage system = lagoon; and
                   Performance level = Medium.
             Under Option 2, the following components are costed for the above model farm:
                   Nutrient management planning (NMP) one time costs (soil auger, manure
                   sampler, scales for manure spreader calibration, initial NMP development).
                                        7-12

-------
               •      NMP reoccurring costs (on-farm NMP development every 5 years, soil
                      testing every 3 years).
               •      NMP annual costs (record keeping, manure spreader calibration, manure
                      testing twice per year).
               •      Facility upgrades (lagoon depth marker, berms to divert storm water from
                      entering lagoon, field runoff controls).
               •      Facility annual costs (visual inspection, operation and maintenance of
                      berms, operation and maintenance of field runoff controls, and land rental
                      value).
               •      Practices to remove excess manure nutrients from the operation site
                      (secondary lagoon to decrease dilution and the least expensive scenario of
                      the following: feeding strategies; hauling, with or without feeding
                      strategies; solid liquid separation and hauling, with or without feeding
                      strategies; retrofit to scraper system and hauling, with or without feeding
                      strategies; retrofit to high rise and hauling, with or without feeding
                      strategies; retrofit to hoop house and hauling, with or without feeding
                      strategies; sludge cleanout every 5 years, with or without feeding
                      strategies).                           ,
               •       Commercial fertilizer costs that replace manure nutrients in some
                      situations.


               The methodologies used to calculate the costs for each of these waste management
system components are presented in Chapter 5.  This example demonstrates how these
methodologies are used to calculate the costs for one model farm. This example also demonstrates

how the frequency factors are used to calculate the final, weighted, model  farm cost.
7.2.1
Unit Component Costs
              As in the previous dairy example, the first step in the cost calculation is the

generation of costs for each component included in the regulatory option. This example does not

include calculating the component level costs; instead, these component costs are provided as the

starting point for this example. The methodology for calculating each of these costs is presented

in corresponding chapters of this report.


              Component costs are classified based on whether they vary by nutrient application

basis and land availability category. Nutrients may be applied on site according to either the

nitrogen needs of the crops  or the phosphorus needs of the crops (the examples below assume
                                           7-13

-------
that manure nutrients are applied to meet the phosphorus needs of the crops). Additionally, all
model farms are classified into three land availability categories:

                     Category 1 facilities have enough cropland to apply all of their manure  .
                     nutrients on site;

              •      Category 2 facilities have some cropland, and apply some of their manure
       ._..   ._..	  nutrients on site and can use a variety of practices to remove the remaining
                     manure nutrients; and_,,	 .,  ,  . _„   ......

  "•""   '      i      Category 3 facilitiesTha've no cropland and"must remove excess manure
            „—~  --'nutrients from the operation site.     •-	   •.
              Costs are calculated for six possibilities for each farm type, region, size group, and

performance level:
               1)     Component cost that do not vary by nutrient basis and category;

               2)     Component costs that do not vary for facilities that apply manure on site;'

               3)     Component costs that vary in direct proportion to the number of animals at
                     the facility;

               4)     Component costs that vary by the acreage at the facility (Category 1 and 2
                     facilities);

               5)     Component costs for Category 2 facilities that vary by regulatory option;
                     and

               6)     Category 3 facility costs for moving manure nutrients an additional distance
                     under option 2.

 A weighted model summary cost is  calculated for each category by summing the component costs
 that do not vary with the category costs, weighted according to the nutrient basis and category.


               Table 7.2-1  presents component costs that do not vary by option, facility category,
 or nutrient application basis (i.e., nitrogen- versus phosphorus-based application). Table 7.2-2
 presents component costs that do vary for facilities that apply manure on-site.  Table 7.2-3
 presents the component costs that vary only based upon the  number of head at the facility. Table
                                            7-14

-------
7.2-4 presents component costs that vary by the acreage at the facility (Category 1 and 2
facilities). Table 7.2-5 presents component costs for Category 2 facilities that vary by regulatory
option.
                                Table 7.2-1
   Component Costs for That Do Not Vary by Option, Fadlity Category, or
                    Manure Nutrient Application Basis
          Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic
Component
Manure sampler
Record keeping
Lagoon depth marker
Manure testing
Visual inspection
Capital - ' \
$30
None
$30
None
None
" Annual
None
$1,020
None
$100
$130
                               Table 7.2-2

             Component Costs That Do Not Vary for Facilities
                     That Land Apply Manure On-site
          Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic
; Component ?
Soil auger
Two scales for spreader calibration
Calibrate manure spreader
Capital
$25
$500
None
. Annual : • • .'7- '.'.'"'
None
None
$40
                                  7-15

-------
                   Table 7.2-3
       Component Costs That Vary by Facility
               Based on Head Count
Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic
Model Farm Description
Number .
of Head
Storm Water'Djversions (berms)
•-','• Capital
• ' Annual
Category 1 .._......
Option 1 (N-based application)
Option 2 (P-based application)
2,664
2,500
$816 ~
$795
$16
$16
Category 2 -
N-based application
P-based application
4,581
4,581
$863
$863
$17
$17
Category 3
All options
4,424
$1,008
$20
                       7-16

-------
IK
1



1
TS,
$
•a
S
M
|
I








n
a
e
t'
£
"5.
-t
<§
A
1)
^






fit
tu
f>
"'
V
>*»
"3
g

•e
1
3
•a
U1
Cfi
1

1
,«n
b
C3
P5

1
$.
•a
V
K
to
5
t
1

|
•4^
U


•^^
fc

• £

n


s"

5!


§

<
z.


2

^
^
c^
CO
69

^
^

8-
Is
s?
co -43
-

^
r-^
"^
69
£

n


^

^


fN
O

CO
69


^

<
^

S


^
vo
r-

NMP development
every 5 years



-^^
|Z

en
cs

^


^

^


s

<
^


vo
CN
69

<-
^

S


^
^s

Soil testing every
3 years



.^^
^;

£

^


^
XO
s
01

C-)
O

^
^


sH

<:
^

2;


oo
CN
69
vo
r--
co
Field runoff contro



^£
^

£
m
cs


' ^

^


c»

<
*


£

^
s

J^
^

.^
r-

Runoff controls -
O&M, rental



^*
%z

£

g


o


69

0!


S

^
.

t-

$



cs
69


^

S


^
'{S

Soil testing every
3 years



^^
^;

g


-------
Unique Category 2 Facility Costs


              Practices that reduce or remove excess manure nutrients are only used for
Category 2 facilities. The least expensive scenario of the following is selected:


                     Feeding strategies;

                     Install secondary lagoon to reduce manure dilution and hauling with or
                     without feeding strategies;           * .

              . 	  Solid liquid separation and hauling withuor without feeding strategies;

              •      Retrofit to scraper system and hauling with or without feeding strategies;

              •      Retrofit to high rise and hauling with or without feeding strategies;

              •      Retrofit to hoop house and hauling with and without feeding strategies; or

              •      Install secondary lagoon to reduce manure dilution and  sludge cleanout and
                     hauling every five years with and without feeding strategies.

              Under option 2, Category 2 facilities that are required to apply  their manure on site
using P-based application rates incur costs to apply commercial fertilizer.  Table 7.2-5 presents
the unique component costs for Category 2 facilities by manure nutrient application basis.
                                             7-18

-------
V)
•8
H
            S5
            CS
       |S



       r^ M
        ** 5^

       I §

           5
        C  f4
        O


        s  9
        o  —

       w  «
           S3
           _O

           a,

           O





B
e
i
*&
0*'

, >.W •

At '
..«. .
W
;jd:-




".-v>
* B ;-
O1
."B ..

•
O.
n.
^^•. ;
% •
«'•
-*?.'.
fe;
j:


cs
0>

•IT


b
1'
TD
•-
a
rT
a


^r
fj
f
i1-8"
."- ; .
i-f
i;
1
>v

••«r>



T
9 -
•« .

•s
-.w-
i
u


Selected BMPs
;-; ,.§;•
'•fij
o .:

2;





i


^^
i~^



<
^
^
Z


^

•7-





<;
^


$
oo
69
j..

Secondary lagoon w
pipe and pump

^





2


.^^
i,^*


-
<-
*'
<
Z


S

»7





CO
f-
69'


s
<;



O&M for secondary
lagoon, pipe, pump

2;





S


^^
1^*



^
^
^
fz

0\
CN

!?*





<
2


£
^


CO
Sludge removal and
hauling every 5 year

,__,


2;





^


^<
j_^



^
^
S
vcf
69

s

»7





. •<
^


*
CO
CO
of
69
-C

Secondary lagoon w
pipe and pump

2;





2


O"\
(V)
1— «
6O

<
*
<
'Z


§

17





CO
r-
69


S

-------
Category 3 Facility Costs for Option 2 P-based Manure Application

             Under option 2 (P-based land application) Category 3 facilities are assumed to haul
their manure farther than they do under option 1 (N-based application) because more land is
required. As stated previously, facilities are assumed to apply their manure off site on a N-basis.
Thus it is assumed that costs are only applicable to the regulation for moving manure from
Category 3 facilities under option 2. The costs are calculated by multiplying the additional mileage
by the commercial hauling rate and the mass of the manure to be hauled. The model selects the
least expensive practice for moving the manure nutrients the additional distance from the facility.
The least expensive practice for Category 3 grow-finish facilities under option 2 in the Mid-
Atlantic region is hauling lagoon sludge every 5 years at a cost of $8,496.
7.2.2
Calculation of Adjusted Component Costs
              As stated in section 7.1, the component costs are then adjusted to reflect the
percentage of operations that already have some components in place. The following equation is
used to adjust the component costs:

                      Costadjusted = Costcomponent x (1 - Frequency Factor)
where:
              Costcomponent
              Frequency Factor
                           Adjusted component cost
                           Component cost
                           Percentage of operations that have component in
                           place.
              Table 7.2-6 presents the frequency factors used for Large 1 grow-finish operations
 in the Mid-Atlantic Region.
                                           7-20

-------
                                     Table 7.2-6
      Percent Operations Assumed to Have Equivalent Technology In Place
  Swine Grow-Finish Operations with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic Region
" ~\'f '.'.-,..' 'Component - •-
Soil auger ••-•- -.„..„.,
Manure sampler ..... . ...... 	 ._.
Scales for manure spreader calibration
Development NMP initial and recurring
Calibration of manure spreader
Visual inspections
Soil testing 	 ~ " 	 -
Manure testing -• -• - - •• • .-.,.-, 	
Recordkeeping _ .._.._ ..._.._
Lagoon depth marker
Stream buffers and O&M
Feeding strategies
Runoff control berms
Runoff control berm O&M
Transportation (N-Based)
Performance Category of Operation*
High
100% -•-•
.100%.,._
100% "_
100%
100%
100%
20%"
20%
.-,,20%™. .
100%
100%
100%
100%
70%
100%
Medium
98%
94% ..
94%
89%
100%
0%
10%
10%
.... 10%
100%
100%
95%
50%
1%
100%
Low
80%
0%
0%
0%
96%
0%
0%
0%
0%
96%
96%
0%
0%
0%
98%
 : H = the high performing facilities (top 25%), M = the medium performing facilities (middle 50%, and L = the
low performing facilities (bottom 25%).
             Equation 7-2 is used to calculate the adjusted component costs for each model
farm. For example, the annual costs for recordkeeping at a Category 2 medium performing
facility are calculated as follows:
where:
             $1,020
             0.10
                     Costadjusted = Costcomponent x (1 - Frequency Factor)
                                 = $ 1,020 x(l-0.10)
                                       = $918
Annual recordkeeping costs from Table 7.2-1.
Frequency factor for medium performer from Table 7.2-6.
                                        7-21

-------
             Table 7.2-7 presents the adjusted component costs for components that do not
vary by nutrient application basis and land availability category. Costs are'shown for all
performance categories.  Table 7.2-8 presents the adjusted component costs for components that
do not vary for facilities that apply manure on site.  Table 7.2-9 presents the adjusted component
costs that vary only based upon the number of head at the facility.  Table 7.2-10 presents adjusted
component costs that vary by the acreage at the facility (Category 1 and 2 facilities).  Table 7.2-
11 presents adjusted component costs for Category 2 facilities that vary by regulatory option.
Note that the frequency factors for Category 2 facilities that already reduce or remove excess
manure nutrients is zero for high, medium, and low performance facilities.  It is also assumed that
no facilities use commercial N on site (zero frequency factor). Thus the costs do not vary by
performance level.
                                    Table 7.2-7              ,
Adjusted Component Costs That Do Not Vary by Option, Facility Category, or
                        Manure Nutrient Application Basis
            Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic
Component
Manure sampler
Record keeping
Lagoon depth marker
Manure testing
Visual inspection
• ;. - Capital ;-•; ••: •':••:•.'
H
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
• 'M " .;
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
L ''•• ;
$6
$0
$1
$0
$0
:•• '::':--'"-:- Annual '•••"'••• - '•'.'.; •;
'' ",
-------
                           Tablfe 7.2-8

Adjusted Component Costs for Option 2 That Do Not Vary for Facilities
                 That Land Apply Manure On Site
       Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic

Component
Soil auger
Two scales for manure
spreader calibration
Calibrate manure spreader
Capital'- --•' /
H
$0

$0
$0
->M'X;V;-f
$1

$31
.$0
... ' L
$5

$500
$0
Annual
~ TT
$0

$0
$0
M "
$0

$0
$0
"L
$0

$0
$2
                              7-23

-------
                   Table 7.2-9
   Adjusted Component Costs That Vary by Facility
               Based on Head Count
Swine Grow-Finish with Lagoons, Large 1, Mid-Atlantic
Model Farm Description
Number
of Head
Category 1 , , - . I,
Option 1 (N-based
application)
Option 2 (P-based
application) *
2,664

2,500
Category2 , ,: ,\ ' :
N-based application
P-based application
4,581
4,581
Category 3 i
All options
4,424
Storm Water Diversions (berms)
- - .Capital
	 H_
$0

$0
• : H :
$0
$0
; .'BM-.
$0
.. M
$408

$398
' •' :M'O
$432
$432
. M >
$504
". L
$816

$795
•--' • > •t;,"
$863
$863
•.;;-,;..t;.-;.
$1,008
Annual
- M
$5
$5
,';i !••;.•>«.-;;
$5
$5
_,AV >&..:•
$6
M
$16
$16
•'..:'• •^-•'•,
$17
$17
: :v~M •'."•'•
$20
L
$16
$16
'.;',";•&•';
$17
$17
. •:. '_ '. 'L. ,
$20
                       7-24

-------
a>
    TJ /-^

    C3 ^


    ^ °

    O -o

    •-D a
    «2 o »r
    — DC a

    > S §
      8
    S S &=

    fi^a
    •S   .2
    5
    o
    cu
    s
    o
    u
    •o



1
83
£
"S
i
I



O
•-s
u
a,
a.
"*!
1
PQ
a
8)
O
£






hJ
g


B
Cost type
S
u
-•
g


HI

Q>
1
U
«
u<

<

Component

13
• o
to
f--.
S
•'i

o

•a
E
CN
O
t^
en
oo

o



E
vo



£
1
a,
o
1
K>
•a
2
o
U

T— 1
en"
r-
oo
en

O
60

Ui
a
?•
CN
O
en
oo
en
en
.s

o



!
VO



.
development every
fe S2
S&

en
CN
.60
CN

t—
OO
V*
a
en
CN
o
VO
cs
en
CN

O
CN



f-i
cd

en
vo




g
>
OO en

O.
6O
O

O

"c3
'I
U
CN
O
f-
5
o

o
6O



3
"I-
U
VO
r-



runoff controls
2
*S.
E

^•O
60
O

0

13
CN
O
&
o

0



"ca
c

r-



ff controls -O&M,
1
§ S
§ c
5, Z



o

CN
O
CN

O

T3

r-
3
o

o



13
1

vo


(X
!s
'•G
[5
a.
_o
"B
1
S

t^

oo
ON

O
60

f>
V>
c-~
00
en
en

0



ca
?•

\o



development every
I §
1 g>

^o

s

5

s
en

"
Wl
CN
en
CN

o
6<3


en

VO
r-


esting every
rs
r s
'5 >«
00 en

CN

O

0

3
'I
u

— '
s
o

o



"cS
1

vo



runoff controls
2
"o
E
VO


;,,s.

o

a
c

—
£
o

o



CS
C

VO



ff controls -O&M,
2 «
|g

























a>
2
nl
O
1
[|

CN

t~-

-------
        •-c
      CA
      o>
      OS tS
      o ^

      gl
      P  OX)
      ^o^ «i

      S g
.22    -M
A
 03

H
X! (g


 00 i

 o o

U0
-l-» w
 0 0>
 o e
      U •§

      'O  C3





K
O
re

1
•s
:§•
pa
g
0
ft
S.
0
£^




e
_o

1
3
"<-
w
ua
02
M
B
I





H«J


.__.
S


K






0>
"^
•M
s
U
-

g



a





I
IB
U
Selected BMPs

s
"5.
0


^<
p^j


A
Sludge removal and
hauling every 5 years


*-<



NO
^«
VQ*
69
VO

vo"
69
NO
\o"
69

. ,.,




"s
'&
U

en
en
oo"
69
en
en
oo
69

en
en
ob"
69




S
U
Secondary lagoon with
pipe and pump

ON

jm^
69

ON
t— H
69

ON
69


-




*ea
P
M
<;

en
69
en
t-
69


en
r-
69





1
3
O&M for secondary
lagoon, pipe, pump

p-
oo
(•»•.
NO*
69
r-
00
r-
vo"
69
oo
r-
vo"
69






§
^»
VI

ON
0)
69
ON
(N
69


ON
ts
69





I
•A
Sludge removal and
hauling every 5 years

0
oo
v>
e^f
69
o
oo
Vi
of
69
. o
oo
V)
e>f
69_ .





__
- •';§ •
3
<;

£
<



<






P

Commercial N
fertilizer applied on
site to replace manure
N


M




















"•.
















I
"g.
CU
~
ii
<;

                                       7-26

-------
7.2.3
Calculation of Weighted Farm Costs by Nutrient Application Basis for
Option!
             The final step in calculating farm costs is to weight the adjusted component costs
depending on the nutrient application basis. To calculate weighted farm costs, frequency factors
are applied to the adjusted component costs to represent the portion of operations that use each
nutrient management basis as shown in Table 7.2-12. Because all operations can land-apply using
a nitrogen-based application rate under Option 1, the weighted farm costs are equal to the
nitrogen-based weighted component costs. Likewise, because all operations are required to land-
apply using a phosphorus-based application rate under Option 2A, the weighted farm costs are
equal to the phosphorus-based weighted component costs. For the remaining options, it is
assumed that model farms would apply waste based on a weighted nitrogen and phosphorus basis.
For this example, the nutrient-based frequency factor for a large 1, swine, grow-finish operation in
the Mid-Atlantic Region is 60 percent of operations use phosphorus-based application and 40
percent of the operations use nitrogen-based application. This frequency factor is applied such
that the total number of category 1, 2, and 3 facilities that apply manure on a P-basis is equal to
60 percent of the total facilities.

                                    Table 7.2-12

               Assumed Nutrient Land Application Frequency For
             Total Facilities For Key Swine Regions Under Option 2
Key Regions • ' . .
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Nitrogen Basis ;
40%
40%
Phosphorus Basis
60%
60%
             The weighted farm costs using the following equation:
                    Costweighted = (Cost N x o/oN) + (Cost P x %P)
                                         7-27

-------
where:
              %N
              Costs N
              %P
              Costs,
                           Percent of total facilities by performance level and
                           facility category that are required to use N-based
                           application
                           Adjusted component costs of N-based practice
                           Percent of total facilities by performance level and
                           facility category that are required to use P-based
                           application
                           Adjusted component costs P-based practice.
              For example, the weighted costs for initial NMP development at a Category 2

facility, medium performing facility are calculated as:
          V L


                     CqstBdgteI.   =.($150 x (26/77))-)-($202 x (51/77))  .

                                  = $50.65+ $133.79

                                  = $184.44
7.2.4
Final Model Farm Costs
              The weighted farm costs are summed for each option, facility type, size, land

availability category, and performance level. The final model farm costs are summed separately

for capital, fixed, annual, 3-year recurring, and 5-year recurring costs.  Table 7.2-13 presents the
weighted farm costs for the model farms presented in this example.  A complete lists of the costs

of the swine and poultry model farms is presented in Appendix C.
                                           7-28

-------
   ® *s
   "^ •*
   V ^

   O  o
  •a 5

  % §
2 !'§>
 i  I-  g
" W>
§B
g
•f* s
fn U
-a
e
"8
h
i
b
o
J?
O
. .ft:
e
:,-l
;-'f: 1
cw J:
I

0


0
69



VO
OO
69

0
69

O


— '




K

ready haul at N
<
0
69


0
69



I
69
O
69

O
oo"
69


CM




a

ready haul at N
<
o
69


O
69




VO
OO
69

O
69

O
69


CO




a

S

E


, CO
69



*
69
0
69

1


—




g

ready haul at N
<
E


CO
69



Q\
OO
69
O
69

O
69


CM




Jg

ready haul at N
'
o'


S




00
69
O
69

r-
oo


CO




s

1

OO
CO
69

VO
69



$5
69
a
69
O
CM
"i
69


—




j

udge Removal
OO
0
69

CM
69



00
69
a
69
CM
"J,
06"
69


CM




j.

ready haul at N |
<
S
„

o
69




CM
69
0
69

CM
. g
6^


m




j

1

0
69


OO
69



OO
69

O
69

O
69


—



CM
ffi

udge Removal
60
in
a"

r-
69



CM
VO
69
0
69

CO
00*
69


CM



CM
ffi

udge Removal
Ol
OO
o
69

•s




s'
OO
69

O
69

0
69


CO



CM
ffi

1

a'
69

VO
69



VO
69
S3
69

0
g


— '



CM
Jg

udge Removal
CO
OO
&e-

•5?
69



CM
69
OO
69

O\'
CO
co^
69


CM



CM
S

udge Removal 1
oo
OO
o
69

O
69




2
69
S

OO


«



CM
g

!

i
1—4
69

CO
r-
•69



r-
00
69
CM
O
CM"
69
69


, «



CM
,j

udge Removal

O
>n
69

VO
69



t-
•5-,
69
0
69
O\
oo"
69


CM



CM
_,

udge Removal |
00
OO
S
69

O
69




S
69
a

1
69


ro



CM
j

                                   7-29

-------

-------
8.0
SENSITIVITY ANALYSES
              The model-farm approach that EPA used to estimate costs for this regulation
provides an average cost that a facility is projected to incur under the regulatory options. As
discussed in Section 6.0, EPA used frequency factors to reflect baseline industry conditions for
high-, medium-, and low-performing farm operations. 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, and these operations will incur costs that are much higher than the average model
facility cost. By estimating compliance costs for each type of operation, EPA has effectively
calculated the range of costs that would be incurred by facilities within each model farm.

              Following the calculation of costs for each option, EPA performed sensitivity
analyses on the cost model to identify major drivers for the model farm costs under various
scenarios. EPA performed several sensitivity runs. These sensitivity analyses included the
following modifications of the regulatory options:

              •      For Option 1 A, EPA evaluated the costs associated with including capacity
                    for a chronic storm event for all animal operations with liquid storage;
              •      EPA conducted a cost driver analysis on Options 2 and 5 to determine
                    which waste management components were the major contributors to costs
                    for beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer and veal operations;
              •      For Option 2A, EPA evaluated the costs associated with requiring all
                    facilities to apply manure on an agronomic phosphorus basis for beef, dairy,
                    heifer, and veal operations; and
              «      For Option 2B, EPA evaluated the costs associated with requiring the
                    development of nutrient management planning for off-site manure
                    recipients for beef feedlots, dairies, and heifer and veal operations.
                                          8-1

-------
8.1
Option 1A
              The cost basis for all of the regulatory options evaluated for this rulemaking
includes liquid storage capacity for a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event.  In addition to this rainfall
event, the cost basis for Option 1A includes liquid storage capacity for a chronic storm event,
classified as a 10-year, 10-day  storm. Because there is a higher chance of a 10-year, 10-day storm
event occurring in any given year, they have a higher amount of precipitation associated with
them than 25-year, 24-hour rainfall events.  The 10-year, 10-day storm event can make a
difference of two inches or more per rainfall. If a lagoon or pond is only sized to contain process
wastewater plus the runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event, there is a greater chance of
wastewater overflows due to a chronic storm event.

              EPA assumes that facilities that require liquid storage as well as facilities that
already have liquid storage incur costs to construct and maintain additional capacity to contain
precipitation and runoff from the 10-day, 10-year chronic storm event.
              Facilities with no existing liquid storage:  Under Option 1 A, lagoon and ponds
              are sized for facilities that require new liquid storage to account for 6 months of
              average precipitation, the peak storm event (25-year, 24-hour rainfall event), and
              the chronic storm event (10-year,  10-day). Both direct precipitation and runoff
              resulting from the precipitation are included in the capacity of the lagoon or pond.
              Facilities with existing liquid storage:  Under Option 1 A, additional lagoon or
              pond storage is sized for facilities that are assumed to already have liquid storage
              to account for the 10-year, 10-day storm event. Both direct precipitation and runoff
              resulting from precipitation are included in the additional capacity of the pond or
              lagoon.
              The increase in wastewater volume also affects the calculation of costs for liquid
land application and transportation. These are waste management components downstream of the
lagoon or pond that are dependent on liquid volume.
                                              80
                                             -2.

-------
              The model facility costs are significantly higher for Option 1A as a result of
 including capacity for the chronic rainfall event, ranging from 10 percent to multiple times the
 cost of Option 1.                                             si
 8.2
Cost Driver Analysis
              EPA performed an analysis on Options-2 and 5, as well as Option 3, to determine
 the primary cost drivers under each regulatory scenario for the beef, dairy, heifer, and veal animal
 groups. EPA used the weighted model farm output from the cost model to compare the weighted
 cost of each component that comprised the model farm costs. Table 8.2-1 summarizes the results
 of this analysis.

              Additionally, EPA performed two sensitivity runs to identify the cost drivers for
 the swine and poultry cost model: the first compared the effects of nitrogen-based nutrient
 management verses phosphorus-based nutrient management on the costs, and the second   •
 compared the effects of ground water monitoring requirements on the costs. By running the
 model both with and without frequency factors, EPA was able to identify the costs of the
 technologies and practices that are most sensitive to the Agency's modeling assumptions.  EPA
 was then able to identify the model elements and cost components that were cost drivers and
 would thus merit further analysis: the availability of cropland for manure utilization, the
 incremental costs of phosphorus-based application over nitrogen-based application, the costs of
 ground water controls, and the costs of incremental storage for timing constraints.

              EPA had already developed an approach to reflect nitrogen- and phosphorus-based
requirements and had developed three categories of land availability to capture the wide range of
land application and hauling costs. EPA's sensitivity analysis concluded that the costs generated
by the refined cost models were stable over a wide range of modeling.  To further examine the
cost impacts under different financial assumptions, such as varying revenue, farm performance,
and net returns, EPA conducted sensitivity analyses.
                                          8-3

-------
                                    Table 8.2-1
                         Results of Cost Driver Analysis
Animal
Beef
Dairy
Heifers
Veal
Size
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Large
Medium
Medium
Option
2
Ground water
2
Ground water
2
Ground water
2
Ground water
2
Ground water
2
Ground water
5
Primary Driver(s)'
Nutrient management planning/transportation
Clay-lined pond/ Transportation/concrete pad
Nutrient management planning/land application
Nutrient management planning/land application/clay-lined pond
Concrete settling basin/transportation
Clay-lined lagoon/transportation
Nutrient management planning/transportation
Clay-lined lagoon/nutrient management planning
Nutrient management planning/transportation
Nutrient management planning/land application/clay-lined pond
Nutrient management planning/land application
Nutrient management planning/land application
Covered lagoon
a All drivers are listed that make up the top 50% of costs.
8.3
Option 2A
             Under the regulatory options, facilities 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, EPA
performed a sensitivity analysis named Option 2A, based on Option 2. Option 2 costs are based
                                          8-4

-------
  on a combination of nitrogen-based and phosphorus-based nutrient management. Option 2A
  represents a modification of this option by assuming 100 percent of facilities would be located in a
  phosphorus-based nutrient management area.               "   	                 --•-
  !i r .
               Because more cropland is required for phosphorus-based application, operations
 that are Category 1 operations under nitrogen-based nutrient management may be reclassified as
 Category 2 operations 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 (NT-
 based application), Category 1 facilities to the sensitivity run for Option 2A (P-based application),
 Category 2 facilities.                                   •   •-  '-  ~- ---

              Comparing these results shows an increase of between 200 to 500 percent in the
 costs from Option J, Category 1 to Option 2A, Category 2 for most model farms. This increase is
 due to the following factors:                      	
                     Shift in the number 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 because they already apply manure at N-
                     based rates, while they do incur these transportation costs under P-based
                     application; and
                     Larger acreage for phosphorus-based facilities, requiring more irrigation,
                     soil sampling, and nutrient management planning costs.
8.4
Option 2B
              Under the regulatory options, facilities will be required to design and implement a
nutrient management plan for the use of manure waste on site. EPA performed a sensitivity
                                          8-5

-------
analysis to assess the estimated cost of developing a nutrient management plan for the use of
manure off site as well as on site. The cost model assumed that off-site recipients of manure
waste would apply the waste on a nitrogen-based agronomic basis.

              The cost of a nutrient management plan is based on the number of acres on which
manure waste would be applied. Therefore, the cost model calculated the cost of the off-site
nutrient management plan by first estimating the amount of manure waste that would be
transported off site, then the nutrient content of that waste, and finally, estimating the agronomic
rate of application on a nitrogen basis. The cost model used these data to calculate the number of
acres required to land apply all of the waste transported off site on a nitrogen basis. This acreage
was the basis for the off-site nutrient management plan development costs.

              The resulting cost to develop a nutrient management plan for recipients of waste
transported off site was insignificant compared to the total weighted model farm cost, typically
less than 5 percent of the weighted model farm cost.
 8.5
Applications to Frozen Ground
               Winter is the least desirable time for land application of manure. Although there
 are some benefits to winter applications of manure, the negative impacts outweigh the advantages.
 Winter applications might be advantageous because of greater labor availability and improved
 driving capabilities on frozen soils.  In addition, although there may be significant losses of
 available nitrogen, the organic fraction will still be available for plant uptake. However, applying
 manure in winter creates a potential for nutrient runoff because the manure cannot be
 incorporated into frozen soil. Winter manure applications should include working the manure into
 the soil either by tillage or by subsurface injection to reduce the runoff potential.  Another
 disadvantage of whiter manure application is low nutrient utilization during the winter months.

               In northern areas where frozen soil and snow cover are common conditions, winter
 manure application should be avoided. In fact, winter manure application is prohibited in a
                                            8-6

-------
 number of northern states and in most Canadian provinces. There may be some justification for
 winter manure application, such as reduced ammonia volatilization and odor problems (Steenhuis,
 T.S., G.D. Bubenzer, and J.S. Converse, 1979), reduced runoff due to a mulching effect of solid
 manure (Young, R.A. and R.F. Holt, 1977; Clausen, J.C., 1990), enhanced die-off of some
 microorganisms in freeze-thaw cycles (Kibby, H.J., C. Hagedom, and E.L. McCoy, 1978;
 Stoddard et al. 1998), avoidance of soil compaction, and simplified farm management schedules.
 However, considerable research has demonstrated that runoff from manure application on frozen
 or snow-covered ground has a high risk of negative water quality impact.

              Extremely high runoff N and P concentrations have been reported from plot
 studies of winter-applied manure.  Runoff concentrations as high as 23.5-1086.0 mg TKN /L and
 1.6-15.4 mg TP/L have been observed (Thompson, D.B:, T.L.  Loudon,  and J.B. Gerrish, 1979;
 Melvin, S. and J. Lorimor, 1996).  In two Vermont field studies, Clausen (Clausen, J.C., 1990;
 Clausen, J.C., 1991) reported the following nutrient increases hi runoff resulting from winter
 application of dairy manure:

              •   -  165%-224% in total P concentrations;
              •      246%-1480% in soluble P concentrations;
              •      114% in TKN concentrations; and
                    Up to 576% in NH3-N.

             Runoff mass losses of up to 22 percent of applied N and  up to 27 percent of
applied P from whiter-applied manure have been reported (Midgeley, A.R. and D.E. Dunklee,
 1945; Hensler, R.F., R.J. Olsen, S.A. Witzel, O.J. Attoe, W.H.  Paulson, and R.F. Johannes, 1970;
Phillips, P.A., A.J. MacLean, F.R. Hore, F.J. Sowden, A.D. Tenant, and N.K. Patni, 1975;
Converse, J.C., G.D. Bubenzer, and W.H. Paulson, 1976;  Klausner, S.D., PJ. Zwerman, and
D.F. Ellis, 1976, Young, R.A. and C.K. Mutchler, 1976, Clausen, J.C., 1990; Clausen, J.C., 1991;
Melvin,  S. and J. Lorimor, 1996).  Much of this loss can occur in a single storm event (Klausner,
S.D., P.J. Zwerman, and D.F. Ellis, 1976). Such losses may represent a  significant portion of
annual crop nutrient needs.
                                         8-7

-------
             Runoff from winter-applied manure can be a major source of annual nutrient
loading to water bodies. In a Wisconsin lake, 25 percent of the annual P load from animal waste
sources was estimated to be from manure applied in winter (Moore, I.C. and F.W. Madison,
1985). In New York, snowmelt runoff from winter spreading on cropland contributed more P to
a local reservoir than did runoff from poorly managed barnyards (Brown, M.P., P. Longabucco,
M.R. Rafferty, P.D. Robillard, M.F. Walter, and D.A. Haith,  1989). Clausen and Meals (1989)
estimated that 40 percent of Vermont streams and lakes would experience significant water
quality impairments from the addition of just two winter-spread fields in their watersheds.

             Winter application of manure results in increased microorganism losses in runoff
from agricultural land (Reddy, K.R., R. Khaleel, andJM.R- Overcash, 1981).  Studies have shown
that cool temperatures enhance survival of fecal bacteria (Reddy, K.R., R. Khaleel, and M.R.
Overcash, 1981, Kibby, H.J., C. Hagedorn, and E.L. McCoy, 1978).  However, research results
are conflicting; some researchers have reported that freezing conditions are lethal to fecal bacteria
(Kibby, H.J., C. Hagedorn, and E.L. McCoy, 1978, Stoddard et al. 1998). Kudva et al. (1998)
found that E. coli can survive longer than 100 days in frozen  manure at -20 degrees C.
Vansteelant (2000) observed that freezing and thawing of a soil/slurry mix reduced E. coli levels
by about 90 percent. Research has found that winter application of manure does not guarantee
die-off of Cryptosppridium oocysts (Carrington, E.G. and M.E. Ransome, 1994; Payer, R. and T.
Nerad, 1996).

             Furthermore, microorganism losses in winter application are increased due to the
lack of incorporation or injection of applied manure into the soil.  Therefore, filtration and
adsorption of manure through soil contact is prevented.  Both mechanisms are important for
attenuating microorganism losses (Gerba, D., C. Wallis, and J. Mellnick,  1975; Patni, N.K., H.R.
Toxopeus, and P.Y.  Jui, 1985).

             There are several additional disadvantages to winter manure application. Runoff
from winter-spread fields during winter thaws or spring snowmelt occurs before the growing
season. Riparian buffers or vegetated filter strips are relatively inactive at this time and therefore
                                          8-8

-------
 ineffective in removing pollutants from runoff before delivery to surface waters.  Also, winter

 application may occur due to lack of adequate manure storage.  Since the manure must be applied

 frequently, a loss of management flexibility occurs which makes good nutrient management
 difficult.


              Although several studies have reported little water quality impact from winter-
 spread manure (Klausner, S.D., P.J. Zwerman, and D.F. Ellis, 1976; Young, R.A. and R.F. Holt,

 1977;  Young,.R.A. and C.K. Mutchler, 1976), such findings typically result from fortuitous
 circumstances of weather, soil properties, and timing/position of manure in the snowpack._ The

 spatial and temporal variability and unpredictability of such factors makes the possibility of ideal
 conditions both unlikely and impossible to predict. .
8.6
References
Brown, M.P., P. Longabucco, M.R. Rafferty, P.D. Robillard, M.F. Walter, and D.A. Haith, 1989.
       Effects of animal waste control practices on nonpoint-source phosphorus loading in the
       West Branch of the Delaware River watershed. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 44(1):67-70.

Carrington, E.G. and M.E. Ransome, 1994. Factors influencing the survival of Cryptosporidium
       oocysts in the environment Report No. FR 0456. Foundations for Water Research.
       Marlow, Bucks.

Clausen, J.C., 1990. Winter and Fall application of manure to corn land. Pages 179 - 180 in
       Meals,-D.W. 1990. LaPlatte River Watershed Water Quality Monitoring and Analysis
       Program: Comprehensive Final Report. Program Report No. 12. Vermont Water
       Resource Research Center, University of Vermont, Burlington.

Clausen, J.C., 1991. Best manure management effectiveness. Pages 193 -  197 in Vermont RCWP
       Coordinating Committee. 1991. St. Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Program, Final Report.
       Vermont Water Resources Research Center, University of Vermont, Burlington

Clausen, J.C. and D.W. Meals, 1989. Water quality achievable with agricultural best management
       practices. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 44(6):593-596.

Converse, J.C., G.D. Bubenzer, and W.H. Paulson, 1976. Nutrient losses in surface runoff from
       winter spread manure. Trans. ASAE 19:517-519.
                                          8-9

-------
Payer, R. and T. Nerad, 1996. Effects of low temperature on viability of Cryptosporidium parvum
       oocysts. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 62(4):1431-1433

Gerba, D., C. Wallis, and J. Mellnick, 1975. Fate of wastewater bacteria and viruses in soil. J. Irr.
       Drain. Div. ASCE 101:157-174.

Hensler, R.F., R.J. Olsen, S.A. Witzel, OJ. Attoe, W.H. Paulson, and R.F. Johannes, 1970. Effect
       of method of manure handling on crop yields, nutrient recovery, and runoff losses. Trans
       ASAE 13(6):726-731.
                                                 . , ,-•    r •* •'
Kibby, H.J., C. Hagedorn, and E.L. McCoy, 1978. Use of Fecal Streptococci as indicators of
       pollution in soil. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 35(4):711-717.

Klausner, S.D., P.J. Zwerman, and D.F. Ellis, 1976. Nitrogen and phosphorus losses from winter
       disposal of dairy manure. J. Environ. Qual. 5(l):47-49.

Kudva, I.T., K. Blanch, and CJ. Hovde, 1998. Analysis of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in ovine or
       bovine manure and manure slurry. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 64(9):3166-3174.

Melvin, S. and J. Lorimor, 1996. Effects of whiter manure spreading on surface water quality.
       1996 Research Report, Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University
       Extension, Ames, IA.  (http://www.nppc.org/Research/796Reports/796Melvin-
       manure.html)

Midgeley, A.R. and D.E. Dunklee, 1945. Fertility runoff losses from manure spread during the
       whiter. Univ. of Vermont, Agric. Exp. Station, Bulletin 523, 19 p.

Moore, I.C. and F.W. Madison, 1985. Description and application of an animal waste phosphorus
       loading model. J. Environ. Qual. 14(3):364-368.

Patni, N.K., H.R. Toxopeus, and P.Y. Jui, 1985.  Bacterial quality of runoff from manured and
       non-manured cropland. Trans. ASAE 28Q: 1871-1884.

Phillips, P.A., A.J. MacLean, F.R. Hore, F.J. Sowden, A.D. Tenant, and N.K. Patni, 1975. Soil
       water and crop effects of selected rates and times of dairy cattle liquid manure applications
       under continuous corn. Engineering Research Service Contribution No. 540. Agriculture
       Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Reddy, K.R., R. Khaleel, and M.R. Overcash, 1981. Behavior and transport of microbial
       pathogens and indicator organisms hi soils treated with organic wastes. J. Environ. Qual.
       10(3):255-266.

Steenhuis, T.S., G.D. Bubenzer, and J.S. Converse, 1979. Ammonia volatilization of whiter
       spread manure. Trans. ASAE 22: 153-157.
                                          8-10

-------
Stoddard et al. 1998.
Thompson, D.B., T.L. Loudon, and J.B. Gerrish, 1979. Animal manure movement in winter
       runoff for different surface conditions. Pages 145-157 in R.C. Loehr et al., eds. Best
       Management Practices for Silviculture and Agriculture. Ann Arbor Science, Ann .Arbor
      .MI.,               ...   ,   '    ,                                ,      "V "-'  ,.

Vansteelant, JY., 2000. Personal communication, Institut National de la Recherche Agronimique,
       Thonon les Bains, France.

Young, R.A. and R.F. Holt, 1977. Winter-applied manure: effects on annual runoff, erosion, and
       nutrient movement. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 32(5):219-222.

Young, R.A. and C.K.: Mutchler, 1976. Pollution potential of manure spread on frozen ground. J.
       Environ. Qual. 5(2): 174-179.
                                        8-11

-------

-------
Appendix A

-------

-------
                             Table A-l
Costs for Earthen Settling Basins at Beef Feedlots and Heifer Operations
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
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Farm, Type
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef i -
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers -
„ , Region
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
•Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific '
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Size Class
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Mediums
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3 •
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Capital
$1,084
$12,155
$413
$496
$591
$2,947
$38,378
$785
$1,054
$1,369
$2,780
$35,992.,
$751
$1,001
$1,297
$2,101
$26,457
$614
$800
$1,016
$4,471
$59,829
$1,092
$1,509
$2,002
$887
$413
$512
$618
$2,309 .
$792
$1,103
~*^ Annual
$54
$608
$21
$25
$30
, $147
$1,919
$39
$53
$68
. $139
$1,800
$38
$50
$65
$105
$1,323
- .$31.
$40
$51
$224
$2,991
$55
$75
$100
$44
$21
$26
$31
$115
$40
$55
                               A-l

-------
Table A-l (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Farm Type ::
Heifers'
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Size Glass
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
•-;-,Y .Capital ..-..;•.
$1,449
$2,181
$758
$1,046
$1,373
$1,665
$622
$834
$1,069
$3,474
$1,103
$1,589
$2,127
.-•,. •.•••/Annual...; v :
$72
$109
$38
$52
$69
$83
$31
$42
$53'
$174
$55
$79
$106
         A-2

-------
                        table A-2
Costs for Concrete Separators for Dairies and Veal Operations
"y':i,, 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
Dairy
Dairy
,JFarm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
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
Hose
Hose
Region
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific .
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Size Class
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Capital
$130,713
$28,880
$44,963
$60,458
$130,713
$28,880
$44,963
$60,458
$130,713
$28,880
$44,963
$60,458
$130,713
$28,880
$44,963
$60,458
$130,713
$28,880 .
$44,963
$60,458
$5,582
$3,605
$4,115
$4,601
$5,582
$3,605
$4,115
$4,601
$5,582
$3,605
$4,115
$4,601
Annual
$2,614
$578
$899
$1,209
$2,614
$578
$899
$1,209
$2,614
$578
$899
$1,209
$2,614
$578
$899
$1,209
$2,614
$578
$899
$1,209
$112
$72
$82
$92
$112
$72
$82
$92
$112
$72
$82
$92
                          A-3

-------
Table A-2 (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Farm Type
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose . ,
Hose
Hose
Hose
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Size Class
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Capital
$5,582
$3,605
$4,115
$4,601
$5,582
$3,605
$4,115
$4,601
$42,711
$55,192
$101,511
$42,711
$55,192
$101,511
$42,711
$55,192
$101,511
$42,711
$55,192
$101,511
$42,711
$55,192
$101,511
Annual
$112
$72
$82
$92
$112
$72
$82
$92
$854
$1,104
$2,030
$854
$1,104
$2,030
$854
$1,104
$2,030
$854
$1,104
$2,030
$854
$1,104
$2,030
         A-4

-------
                         r Table A-3a
Costs for Berms at Dairies, Beef Feedlots, Heifer and Veal Operations
HH^Ailimal
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
Dairy
Dairy
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
Flush
Flush
:^====
Region
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
~g*^—
Size Class
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Capital
$5,187
$19,466
$2,327
$2,842
$3,348
~ $5,187
$19,466
$2,327
$2,842
$3,348
$5,187
$19,466
$2,327
$2,842
$3,348
$5,187
$19,466
$2,327
$2,842
$3,348
$5,187
$19,466
$2,327
$2,842
$3,348
$3,069
$1,283
$1,673
$1,988
$3,069
$1,283
$1,673
~ 'Annual j
$104 I
$389
$47
$57
$67
$104
$389
$47
$57
$67
$104
$389
$47
$57
$67
$104
$389
$47
$57
$67
$104
$389 •
$47
$57
$67
$61
$26
$33
$40
$61
$26
	 	
$33
                             A-5

-------
Table A-3a (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy -
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
3airy
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
Farm Type
Flush
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.
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Vlidwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Central
Size Class >:
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
.Capital
$1,988
$3,069
$1,283
$1,673
$1,988
$3,069
. $1,283
$1,673
$1,988
$3,069
$1,283
$1,673
$1,988
$3,069
$1,283
$1,673
$1,988
$3,069
$1,283
$1,673
$1,988
$3,069
$1,283
$1,673
$1,988
$3,069
$1,283
$1,673
$1,988
$3,069
$1,283
$1,673
$1,988
$4,536
Annual |
$40 1
*~.$l6i
$26
$33
$40
$61
$26
$33
$40
$61
$26
$33
$40
$61
• $26
$33
$40
$61
$26
$33
$40
$61
$26
$33
$40
$61
$26
$33
$40
$61
$26
$33
$40
$91
          A-6

-------
TaTble A^la (Continued)
;;;?'.,'-;?Aiiimal . .
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
leifers
Heifers
leifers
Farm Type
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Region
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3,
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Mediums ,
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Capital
$2,342
$2,928
$3,465
$4,536
$2,342
$2,928
$3,465
$4,536
$2,342
$2,928
$3,465
$4,536
$2,342
$2,928
$3,465
$4,536
$2,342
$2,928
$3,465
Annual
-$47
$59
$69
$91
$47
$59
$69
$91
$47
$59
$69
$91
$47
$59
$69
' $91
$47
$59
$69
        A-7

-------
 a>

S
 cs
H
If}
p
1
r
,o

fr
BJD
1
l
.- 0
% -i
<










I
1
1
l:
1
•TT
1
I
;'*
s-l"
5 U
B '-
§-
i5

- a
g>
114
a
H
fl
IS
ta
c
S
c
5
ON
D
O
5
i9
O
O
69
1

"c
CO
o
c
a
i
S


Ji
(X
1
f
o
.9
VO
CO
&
|
io
t— «
oo
69
CM
O
Ql

cr
o
c
ca
<:
S



2
PQ
c
u
f
£
D
6?
I
'
vo .
Medium 2
T3
"o
CO
O
c
n
<



£
P.
1
f3
XD
0
OO
69
OO
OO
1
CO
1

a
o
c
n
i



o
&
G
a
t
f
O
1
S
N
O
O
V)

ff
1
c
f3
69
OO
ON
ON
69
ON
ON
VO
69
vo
oo
69
CS
a*

C


•S
O
CO



pi
c
c
VO
69
J\
CN
69
VO
69
i9
VO
69
S
Medium 1
•a
K


3
i/



H
m
a
u
C
.9
ON
en
en
69
69
en
69

en
en
69
Medium 2

"c


-c
o
CO



ff
1
e-
oo
69
>n
S
oo
69
VO
I
OO
69
i
Medium 3
•a
V.


.g
o
CO



o
1
d
69
VO
3
<9
69
/J
69
VO
VO
69
1
•d
o
CO


1


Q
Q
a
C
d
U
O
o
69
O
69
n
69
O
•O
69
vo
I-M
69
CS
O
00
fe

c


a


^
b
a
C!
0
O
u
69
OO
VO
CS
69
ID
69 ,
OO
VO
CS
69
y»
oo
vo
CS
69
1

V.





Q
b
03
13
a
u
4:
69
ON
VO
69
O\
§
VO
69
-O\
en
69
Medium 2
•a
o
CO





Q
0
«t
C
c
't
u
69
en
69
69
n
69

en
69
Medium 3

V.





Q
S
£8
1
43
69
£
f>
69
VO
O
69
vo
vo
r-
9
OO
VO
CS
69
Medium 1

o
CO


43
b

i.
t-4
u
cd
a.
t.
O
69
G
VO
69
ON
n
69
VO
69
ON
T— 1-
en
69
Medium 2
•ct
c?


43
o
CO

£
u
CS
1
b
69
m
en
69
.9
r-H
en
69
r-
69
en
69
en
1

V.


JS
o
CO

Q
<3
cd
c
i.
t
d
69
A
O
69
E
69
m
69
ID
1
T3
t—


43
a


S
1
c
c
43
                                         A-8

-------
I
 os
H

t
If
Q



I
I



¥"(
n
1
u


1 33
1

: S

















"2
c
B
_
'S,

i
c
5
1
s
u
i
<

3
•a
SI .
U
S.




B
O
I



H*

1:
fe


_

JS:
*
69

5;
69

O
69


r-
•>3-
69


69


CO
69


CO

13
g-
l-l


43
3
CO




H
>>

1-J
S3
S3
o
43
CO
tN
69

S
	 r
69
0
tN
69


s
69

r-
i— «
69


O
OO
69


U
e?
2

o
t£
W


1
0
43
C
b
R

H

b


g
£
69

r-
tN
ts"
69
Tl-


r—
00
69

VO
tN
69


O
tN
69

tN

Q
>
w


1

43
CO
0
b
R

£3
cd



C
£
o
tN

00
o
o^

5


CO
oo


VO


oo

•-
I

*t3
g.
_l
o
s

s
•a
13
b
R
fc


b


C
CO
CO

tN
tN
J^-

00
tN
69


OO
69

VO
U


O
o\
69

tN
I

13
g.
fJ
O
a"
1
s-
•3
B
b
R
fc
13
ea
b


.§
CO
69

5;
VI
69

O
*— i
69


OO
oo


69


CO
W
69


Medium 1

13
g.
1-1
u
s
1
S
-g
c
b
o
*
ti
a




(5
CO
CO
69

«
69

69


VO
VO


CO
69


OO
VO
69


i

"O
g.
H-l
o
S
•c)
s
•a
c
b
0
£
£^

PH


g

69

VI
co
69

CO
69


vo
69


69


CO
69


Medium 3

t3
g.
1-1
o
C3
13
S
•a
B
b
0
&
^

b


g
CO
o
69

O
69


O
69


O
69


0
69


O
69


!



0-
O
•g
<
S
-s
B
b
0
pE
^J

b


g
CO
o
69

O
69


O
69


.8


S


o
69


tN



PH
O
•J3
<
S
43
CO
B
b
o
&
£2

b


g
%
o
69

O
69


O
69


g


O
69


O
69


Medium 1



PH
O
•g
•c)
s
43
S3
b
P
fc
t!

b


S
CO
g

o
69


O
69


8


O
69


O
69


tN
•3



PH
O
C3

S
CO
S3
b
p

£2

b


CD
CO
o
69

O
69


O
69


O
69


O
69


O
69


CO
•3



PH
O
g
|
S
-s
B
b
o
*
!-!
5
b


J3
CO
0
69

tN
"-
69
•n
69


O
69


VO
69


VO
69


1

t3
&
H-l


1
S
•a
B
b
o
&
J|H

b


B
CO
r-
CO
69

VO
tN
00^
69
VO
tN
69


OO
0
CO^
69

CO
69





O
if
•j

•o
g.
1-1


•4-1
Wl
4
S
-S
B
b
o

H

b


S
CO
69

V)
w-i
69

O
T-H
69



-------
 ru

1
H

c^
o
JSP
S"




<3




£
J?
«

*
<7
f
•
1








1
1

n.
U
•a
a
1
S
01
u

a
-5
1
*s.
u
. CO
ff
16

li
J -p

1
1
M
1
to

"a
.1
'3
§

00
o
69

69
-
CO
VD
00
69


vo"
69


VO
00
69

„
s>

•o
P
cj*

1
•s
c
PH
g
O
Swine
CO
69

N
69

OO

oo
n.
69

VO


o
OS
69

CN
1
3

t)
a*

I
•a
§

'5
E
ft
cS
Swine
69

in
69


0
69

OO
oo


5


CO
69

]j
H

•o
rj*

1
3
§
•s

PH

O
u
c
'I
CO

69


yj

VO
vo


CO
69


oo
CN
VO
69

CN
T3

-o
g.
^4
0
1
3
§
CO
"2
PH
IS
O
5
|| Swine
.9

m
•o


CO
iO

1
69


Tf"
69


CO
i— i
69

CO
§
"8

•a
CJ*
,-J
o
1
•cl
§
en
'5
PH
g
O
Swine
o
69

P


O
69

O
69


O
69


O
69

_
I



Pk
j
•a
§
•S
'5
PH
o
c5
Swine
o
69

§


O

O
69


O
69


O
69

CN
&



OH
O
•c
en
C
PH
g
O
Swine
o
69

P


g.

O
69


§


g

1
•3
1


4-*
OH
0
1
§
•S
c
f*
§
0
Swine
o
69

0


O
69

O
69


O
69


O
69

CN
"•§
S


^
PH
O
•c
JS
CO
C
PH
g
O
	
Swine
o
69

O
69


O
69

0


O
69


O
69

CO
1
12
§



OH
O
JS
CO
C
PH
g
O
	
Swine
o
CN
69

«— i
o
69

69

f-
69


vo
69


VO
OS
t—
69

,_
1

T3
cy
>-J
Midwest
•S
c
PH
g
O
Swine
o
69

VO
N
69

VO
CN-
69

OO
69

CO


69

CN
£?


g-
»-i
Midwest
^
C
PH
P
O
Swine
69

»


O

r-
69


69


CO
69

r-H
G
•S

-a
a
CT1
K-J
Midwest
43
CO
C
*>
P
O
c
1


VD
69


>9

&9


CN
69


CN
VO
69

CN
•3
1

•a
CT1
>-J
Midwest
'•S
c
*t
P
6
_c
t-H
69

»9


CO

VO
VO
69


69


CO
s

CO
g
1

•a
cr
1-J
Midwest
j..
C
PH
P
6
1
K

/s


g

o
69


8

--
69


ff


^
PH
Midwest
JH
C
£
P
O
c
CO
69

O
69


O
69

O
69


O
69

_.
O
69

CN
ff
t-1


„
OH
Midwest
•a
.g
t
g
o
c
1
69

O
69


O
69

p


O
69

._
O
69

i
•b
1


.,_,
PH
Midwest
jg
C
ft-

6
c
1
69

0


O
69

O
69


S


g

CN
•8
S


4.,
OH
Midwest
V.
C
ft

O
_£
CO
69

O
69


O
69

0


O
69


O
69

CO
P
"O
1


4_
OH
Midwest
•i
£
f%

O
CO


s


s

S
aO
CO
69


OO
69

t-
00
CO
69


OO
69


r-
oo
CO
69

CO
|
"8
S

•n
o
CO
o
1

<3
&
K
CO
1
69

s


rt-
69

O


69


S
69

i— i
U
I:

•rt
o
CO
Midwest

&
JS
00
a
CO
1
t5
                                         A-10

-------
             e
         ..
         oo
         CN
                          00
                          CO
                          V)
         &
                 ss
                 cs
             Si.
            a
 &
 o
S
 C3
H
i
I

 -
 &> 0

                CO
            §
                u

                •O
                     s
         £?
         01
                     3
                     a
                         3
                                                      A-ll

-------
o
3
H

t
&
*
U



£
«.
•



lH
6
f
S



"-.


'»








•a'
e
^,
"S."
a
U
"3
;'o
w-
"Si'
-S;
.-.-;
P
^

^
n,
"3;'
• ffi
2;
u
;-ce
u
S a»

3'^

S
1 'S
(2

aj
a
1
;"5
. _*i
S

in
3



O

S


0




o
in

01


-O
"c
CO
o
•g
Cl
1
T3
2


u
1
pa
<
c
CO
s

s
w

—
1

3S
T>


in




vo
ro
69

CS
1


T3
"3
CO
0
•g
J2
•A



CD
1
1
O
VD
69

in
OS



VO
69

VO
OS
s


vo
69




m
OS
CS
69

g
1


•o



3
o
CO


ts
1
s

b
Q
'!
	
Chicken
S

vo
vo



r-H
69

f-
69


m
69




VO
VD
r-
69

I


3
0
CO


1
CO

&*
Q

Chicken
CO
69

vS
oo
f.
1— 1
ee

—•'
m
:
»— i


5>



t-
69

CS
ID
I


3
o
CO


•s
g
CO

o
5
Ichicken
&

oo
VO
CS



~

oo
vo
CS


&




oo
vo
^H
Medium


3
o
CO


|
CO

s
|p"l
_1
	
Chicken
£

OS
CO
69



VO
•
OS
f— t


vo
69




OS
CS
'•§
s


3
o
CO


1
CO

s
0
Chicken
U

in
CO



r-

m
CO


is




en
en
i


3
o
CO


|
CO

Q
1
Ichicken
b9

in



£

E


5




OS

f

-O
'Ir
3


f
CO

•s
u
J
Chicken
                                  A-12

-------
1
H


fn
.i?-
1
-



S
If
y~



1
O:





2
'§
a

^



.;


'-V




: "3
B
3

-S
-• m*
•v
13
•. s

a
••<
^
d2
§*
;W
1
a
1
U
8

a>
:i

£


g
I

s.
S
:H
1
•a
B
' S
.*..
69



69


69

-
5



69


CM
69
CO
g

^

13
'I-
-"


3
CO

u
^
1
s

o
U
CO
CM
69



VO
69

69


ON
69


t~
69


O
00

-H
u


1
ca


1



2
b

1"

CO
•n
69



CM
CM"
69

CM
CO


g
,_ T
69

CM

0
s"

CM
U
J*
CB

O
W


1
U


o
1

O
s
eg
o



o
69


g


g



O


g

_,
O
I


p-
0
c
JB
T)
^


2
1
1

u
g
CO
CM



CO
o
69

i—


oo
CM
CO
69


VO


r-

_
fl>
I

12
**
0
C
,2
S


0
|
1

o>
G
CO
o



o


0


g



0


o

CM
3}
I


OH
U
C
OS
S


o
1

(U
B
CO
CO



s
69

S


o
CM
i—*
69

CM

O
CO

CM

C
CO
o



o
69


O
69


O



O


O
,
g

"8


o-
u
C!
JS
T3
s


0
1

O
c
eg
69



>n


o


t—
69


£••


CO
•n
t
g
2
1

•a
'1
i-l
0
•g
^2
S


Q
1

4>
C
CO
o



o


o


g



o


0
69
CM
g
3
-o
1


a.
u
S
ed
•i
S


0
I

(U
c
CO
CO



1


£


CO
69


CM


S
vo
CM
g
S
1

"2
'3
cr
i-l
u
•g
.2
§


2
|
a!

O
C!
CO
O
69



0
69


O
69


O
69



O
. 69


O
69
CO
g
2
i


OH
O
fi

S


2
1

d>
c
£
69



r-
69


CO
69


1— »
CO
VO
69


69


69
CO
g
!3
1

•o
'i
j
u
•g
•A
S


2
o
b

o
c
CO
0
69



O
69


O
69


O
69



O
69


g

»-4
4)
a*
CO
I-l


p-


I
s


o
1
b

o
CH
CO
0



i
69

69


VO
r-
69


VO
69


5

^-H
o>
I

."2
u


T3
s


O
1

O
B
CO
o
69



g


0
69


g



g


O
69

CM
(U



OH


|
S


2
|
OS

u

CO
VO
CO
69



1
69

CO
CM
69


CO

69

CM
69

O
t--
69

CM

|P

r2
-i


CO
1
S


2
1

u
B
£
g



O
69


O
69


O
69



O
69


O
69
„
S

•g


•0,


CO
1
S


2
I
p^

O
C
£
*-H
T-H
69



•O
69


OS
69


~
69


69


CM
>n
69
_
S
s
1

H
j


I
s


2
1

o
c
CO
0
69



O
69


g


O
69



g


O
69
CN
g
£3
13
i


OH


S
^
S


O
CB
b


c3
CO
o
69



0
69


0
69


O
69



O
69


O
69
CO
g
S
1


S


1



2
i
b

fl>
c
£
69



r-
69


CM
69


00
vo
69


69


r-
69
CO
g
^
•g

1
I-l


CO
1



2
o
b

1>
PJ
r^
co
CM
69



VO
»— i
69

69


3
69


r-
69


o
CO
69

l
O
I

o
CU
W


1



B
b
1

O
53
*
                                      A-13

-------
a»
§


h
f
a
U





r*
t
I





T-t
£•
«t*
st
u




2
<
it








•3
a
c
••"3
a,
et
U
•3
s
o
5

•3
a.
a
U
s
a
a
"*
•3
•*•»
'3.
R
U
CA
CO
a
U
CO
>
jl
1

a
I

Farm Type
•3
.§
^
OS
69


-)
u
e
1
S
Grow Finish

%
g:
CO
o


o



0




o



o
69






g

(D

PH
0

1
S
Grow Finish

r
H
S


cs
CS
69


VO
CS




o
cs
69


69




0
OO

5

cs
ID
if
"2
>-i
o
RS
1
S
Grow Finish

g
1
o
69


O
69



O
69




g



O
69






O
69

Medium

PU
U
1

s
Grow Finish

c
CO
69


69



0
69




t-
69



69





«"i
-4
0


S
i
5
E
1


if

0-


1
s
Grow Finish

9



yj




»-H
69



69




ON
r>l
69
{
Medium
•o
'1
>-'


CO
1
£
Grow Finish

c
fj
CO
69


§



O




o
69



O
69






g
CS
Medium

PH


8
£
Grow Finish

c
CO
69


I



»-H




69



CS
69




OO
T-H
VO
69
CS
Medium
12
a"
i-l


'to
1
^
Grow Finish

g
CO
69


O
69



69




O
69



O
69






O
69
CO
Medium

PH


'to
1
&
Grow Finish

(D
e
£
ft


g



CS
69




OO
T-H
vo
69



rr
69




1-H
T_H
s
CO
Medium
"2
'3
o*
^


1
^
Grow Finish

c
CO
69


O
iO



69




§
I—
69



69




•3-
O
r-
69

1
7J
CO
o
C3
•a
^
1
00
M
CO

^
£
69


X)



VO
69




OO
CS
69



VO
69




r-
oo
cs
69
,_<
Medium
."2
75
CO
u
C3
01
•rb
^
53
1
g
CO

Jrf
^
69


VO
CO
CO
69



69




VO
CO



£




vo
CO
CO
69
CS
Medium
!2
7J
CO
u
a
•o
*
4
§
53

jg'
£:
                                         A-14

-------
TS

 g
 ft
 O
U
3.
H




f)
£•
I
u




f*
1?
3



^4
g?
e
S?
3





g
s
a
03
|y








-





m
E
fi

"5
C

'"3
a
<

"1
U
"IS
a
a
^


1
S.
8!
U

Gfi
•;3
U
GO

«
E^
'**



a
I

cu
6
"1"
to

1

00





oo
en

oo
69



t—
00


oo







r-
oo
en


E
i


"O
^3
0
oo
U
'S
_C3
i
•o
§

.
•a
g
00
1



69



§

2
€^


S


69







S
t-


i


T3
^3
O



tfi
1
§

S3
•a
1
00
•1"
E"1
VO





p-
oo
es
69

VO



ss
ex)

VO







00
cs


Medium 1


•^
*^
o
oo


I
T3
S

S3
f

oo
1
H
r-





vo

&9



VO
en
en

IS







VO
en
en
69

Medium 2


T3

"o
OO


1
S

S3
•a
g
oo
•1"
H'
oo
69




OO
en
69

oo
69



t-
oo
en
69

00
69







r-
oo
en
69

1 Medium 3


*o
*^
o
oo


ts
4
S

S3
oo
1
oo
!
H
                                     A-15

-------
H


£
S





1
ij


\H
"S



















a
•s
c
3
A
cs
U
"S
9
•&
-S
§*
u
1
"S
'EL
a
O
'cn
CB
U
j
IX)
)M
3
a
S

R
O
t
OS


g
i
UK
I


69


VO
69



S

VO
01
m
69


o
v-H
69
m
o
9'


vo
cn
69


o
01
69

O
69

r-
69
OO
69





•d
"3
CO
o
C3
—
^
•d
S

C1J
ff
1


O


o
N
yj



i— »
69"

01
m
69


O
69
O
69


1


-d
=3
CO



£j
3
o
CO

HI
(£
1


M
69


VO,
r—
i9



69

VO
69


VO
69
00
69

r>»

h

1

o
in
69


00
VD
01
69



m
69.

00
vo
01
69


m
69
OO
VO
_,
g
•3
i


•n
~o
CO


OJ
^
•d
S
£
"(f>
c:
O

u
69


OS
m •
69



vo
69

69


VO
69
en
69
01
g
•3
1


•d
CO


a;
&
•d
§
Q
a>
a
1


69


m
en-
69



t—
69

«n
8-


t-
69
in
en
69
en
g
1


•d
"o
CO


"a
^
)O
S
&
1
a
1


69-


VO
VO



in
=<9

VO
VO


in
69
vo
vo
r-
69

,_
!


-d
"3
CO



.0
g
CO
Q
y
^
1

o
en
69


b"
T— 4
69


cn~
9


m
m
69



O
1—4'
69

m
"3-
69


69
cn
m
69
cn
B
1

•d
'3
a*
3



^3
3
CO
t;
i.
E?
1
1H
O
                                 A-16

-------
I
o
U

tri
t-
Ml
I
;U
«Sh
t
M
1
l^i-i1
£
;9













"S3
a
g
:«C
1
'&
cs
O
Annual
}
•1
3
J
Size Class
Manure type


"In
&

0>

^;
l_:
"3'';
:.§
<-•
en
CN
6O
vi
6?
O
es
60
2;
o_
&o
r-
&o
O

£?
5
(-<
O
f
m


1
o
•i
c
E
0
|
ft,
s
&
OO
VI
6O
CO
(S
OS
CN
&o
•*
CO
60
r-
00
^°,
60
VO
3
O\
i— i
'T.
6O
CN
co
I
s
a,
?
w


1
0
.B
CO
C
ft,
o
|
CO
ft<
S
on
6%
0
6O
0
6O
g
o
6O
O
6O
»— i
U
ff
J

Bu
o
1
3
-o
s
J3
CA
C
ft.
2
s?
g
£
d>
c
5t
GO
CN
6O
CO
§
6O
r-
*•-,
6O
en
vo
00
6O
VO
6O
VO
CO
&o
»— 1
u
ff
*J
•a
1
_i
o
G;
CO
1
s
•s
c
ft,
2
1
ft.
S
£
6O
O
&9
o
6O
O
6O
O
6O
g
(S

m
v>
6O
Medium 1
13
1
>-l
O
1
1
s
.G
CO
B
UH
O
|
1
g
^
OO
o
&o
o
6O
O
&o
§
C3
6O
O
6O
Medium 2
4->
OH
0
S
CO
"•&
<
•a
S
•s
B
[ZH
O
1
b
g
OO
m
&o
^
vo
6O
6O
VO
VO
T)
6O
CO
6O
OO
CN
VO
&o
CN
g
I
•a
1
K-)
U
C3
CO
<
•6
S
•a
B
UH
O
I
b.
g
OO
o
&e
o
6O
O
6O
O
&O
O
60
O
&O
en
1
S

P-i
U
B
<
•i
S
-s
B
PH
O
|
t2
g
00
>o
6O
VI
en
r-
6O
en
6O
O
s
6O
2;
6O
en
r-
6O
Medium 3
T3
'H
1-1
O
1
!
s
.B
B
ft,
R
|
1
g
£
OO
C3
SO
i
g
0
&o
o
60
g
o
6O
»— i
CD
I

PH


CO
1
S
.B
CO
B
UH
O
|
ca
ft,
u
B
1
o
CN
6O
CN
0_
6O
v>
6O
g
f~
6O
vo
6O
^
t—
6O
T-H
U
If
nJ
T3
'!•
i-i


I
•a
S
•S
c
b
o
&
1
b
g
JS
o
6O
O
6O
O
6O
o
6O
O
6O
g
CN
1)
>3

cu


s
&
T3
s
•a
c
PH
O
&
o
£
•s
^
r-
cn
6O
VO
CN
°°*
eo
VO'
CN
6O
OO
o
2-
6O
t*1
CN
6O
2
6O
CN
U
•a
'i-
u


I
s
-C
CO
e
PL,
0
1
t£
S
CX3
O
6O
S
o
&o
o
6O
o
6O
C5
&O
Medium 1

PH


U
1
s
-C
en
B
ft,
O
|
ft!
S
&
OO
»-H
r-H
&o
•*

6O
Medium 1
•a
'&
>-)


CO
1
s
•a
•R
ft,
o
|
ft,
0>
B
^
o
6O
0
6O
0
6O
g
E
o
&o
CN
•3
1

eu


1
S
•a
•a
ft.
o
I
a
b
S
c^
en
€o
6O
CN
6O
CN
CN
VO
6O
Medium 2
-8
'H
J


1
s

•R
u.
0
1
S
OO
o
•&o
o
6O
O
6O
O
6O
O
60
O
6O
Medium 3 .

(X


CO
1
S
J3
t»
'H
ft,
0
|
cS
CD
OO

6O
g
6O
en
60
VO
CM
VO
6O
2;
6O
en
f~
6O
Medium 3
t3
%
>-J


1
S
A
CO
B
ft,
O
&
g
(2
?
r^
f>
CN
6O
•*
VO
6O
0
So
•*,
»— 1
o_
6O
f-
6O
O
<0
OO
6O
a>
£P
cd
_!
i-i
I
tii


"3
L^
B
(3


JS
IX,
I
O
o
OO
o\

B
%
                                     A-ll

-------
C
O
•S
H
t*J
f
a
M
a

03
u












•a
|
1
1
!
1
3
•a
o
GO
jg
F")
CO
anuretype
S

.2
tf
#
t.
S
CO

E
"5
69
CO
o
69
r-
69
CO
vo
CO
69
VO
*— 4
69
VO
CO
69
_
S
"2
"5
13
o
%
1

B
E
1

_c
o
69
O
69
g
O
69
O
69
O
69
CN
£?
C8
_l

P->
O
B
cd

43
C
E
e

Swine
CO
69
N
co
CO
T— 1
69
VO
1
1—4
69
CN
S
•o
"3

o
B
1
•S
E
S
O

_c
o
69
O
69
g
O
69
g
0
69
3
•8

PL!
0
S
•*-"
-CJ
is
43
B
E
1

Swine
5
uo
iO
o
69
O\
CO
4—4
69
CO
>n
B
•o
•o
•s.
i-l
o
CO
is
43
B
E
I

Swine
o
69
O
69
O
g
g
69
CN
I
•s
s

&


•a
is

B
E
S«

Swine
CO
.9
vo
69
5
VO
VO
>4O
69
CO
69
CO
CN
VO
CN
S
I
12
1-1
o
i
i
T3
is
43
S
E
I

Swine
o
69
O
O
69
69
O
O
69
CO
"8
S

P-
o
1
•a
is
•s
B
E
I

Swine
69
n
CO
69
O
VO
69
69
CO
S
CO
•a
'3
.-I
o
1
is
43
.S
1

Swine
69
p
O
69
0
69
O
69
0

|

P-4


Midwes
K
B
E
is
o

c
CO
o
CN
69
N
69
S
O
f-
r-
69
VO
69
VO
f-
69

00
T3
"^



Midwes
V.
B
E
is
C

i
o
69
O
69
O
O
69
O
69
g



a.


Midwes
CO
B
E
C

E
CO
g
VO
(O^
VO
69
CO
69
CO
l-H
CN
S
•a
'rl



1
1
j.
C
E
1

i
69
O
69
69
O
69
g
O
69
i
i

a.


1
is
•S
s
E
C

a
/»
«n
69
s
>n
69
CO
69
|
•d
C71



^C
c/
E
g
a

CO
69
g
69
g
g
O
69
CN
1
•8

PH

^
1
43
CO
_S
C

CO
69
VO
69
S
y»
CN
69
CN
VO
69
CN
B
1
3
•-J

-M
1
43
CO
S
E
<§


-------

;''S"

u
             R
            5
-d
 0>
 e
 o
 Rt

H
                    r-
                    oo
               s
            oo

            8
                   "•§

                   I
                                                   A-19

-------
       CQ
       g
       u
      •8
       %
       C3
       SS

      f
      O
•S
H
       -
       C3
       fl
       1
       CO
       •e
       I
       eg
       S
       &
       M
       VI
       O
       U


«
U





^
y
u




:


g
l
j











._
S
^
'a

«
U
^
a
a
•'4
o>
03
Q
1
1
"Pk
A

•1
>
3 1
p


1
<5

0)
'S
IH
n
to
"S
"5

~


o



o


S



o
o
•n

cd


IS
"o
CO
O

e
•6


0
1
CQ
1
o

•o


3
69


O


OS
OS
OS
69



T— *
VO
CO
ES

ol
00
8


3
*o
CO
o
•n
1
^
•o
s


1
s
g
ft
&•
^
c
c
C
«


o
00^
69


•o
69


00^
»— 4
69


r-
p-
vo
69

CS


3
"o
CO


ts
O
1
s
Q
S3
8?

c
jid
o
a
69


OO
O
J9



a


00
VO



69
OO
VO
£4
T— H
Medium


3
"o
CO


«
•a
S
Q

5?
^
1
c
j:
69


Os
^
69



vo
69


Os
ro



69
Os
69
ts
Medium


3
'o
CO


»



£


VO
VO
IS



69
VO
VO
t-
69

Si
S3
hJ


"o
CO



^
CO
Q
ft
«

1
S
•o
69


00^
1— H
69


CO
69


1
69


CO
69
i
69

C-l


1



H
CO
s

&

1
c
U
69


OO
n



i9


OO
VO
cs
69



69
OO
VO
O)
69
T-H
Medium


"o
CO



•s
CO
t?
ft


1
c
j:
69


Os
•o
69



VO
69


OS



VO
69
CO
69
CM
Medium


"o
00



•£
CO
s
S3
^

c
1
c
a
69


O
69



IS


S



t-
69
CO
69
CO
Medium


3
"3
CO



•£
00
Q
ft
q

C
a
69


OO
CO
/»



CO
69


OO
CO
69



CO
69
oo
CO
69

|

•O
_c



-fl
CO
1
S3
ct

|
c
O
                                        A-20

-------
 O
H

';
13
V



i*
V
{•



•1— 1
N-»






' 2
.. • s
••'*


i






.



S
e
s
S1

"2
E
i

0
"a
e

3


U
1



£


.1
Sb

0)
n.
i
fe

73
S
<
69


OO
C
6"


ON
69

vo


o





69
CO
1


i
"-1


5
00

CD
fe
_J


1
S
OO
69

CN
r-
CN
69

CO
CN
co
69

vo"
69

CO
60


OO
VO

CN"
&
S


>
w


S

2
#
s


S
OO


69
t-
CO
CM
r-
69
ON
69

oo"
69

>n
69



ON

CM
69
CN
I


1
W


1
CD

2
3
C3


g
0
69


0


O

O


o


-


0
69
O
3



M-
O
C3
CO
1

2
•s
o
^


S
0



ON
69


VO

OO
t-
69


5





69
ft,
I


"O
rl
•-1
O
1
•A

2
3
CO


S
0
69


O
69


O
69

O
69


0
69





O
69
-J
o
1
1

2
o
CO


s
OO
69


O
69


O
69

H


§





O
69
S
S



MH
O
C5
co
•A

2
0
CO


D
OO



OO
C
&l


ON
69

CN
rr


O
&<=





00
OO
69
|
"8


"2
>-J
o
1
1

o
o
S
b

CD
OO
O
69


O
69


O
69

g


§





O
69
g
"8



Oc
u
C
CO
•i

2
3
S
b

e
CO

co

o
o
VO
69


O
5

6=


CN
69





00
r-
69
CM
•8


•o
%
1-1
u

1

2
o
§
b

§'
CO
o
69


O
69


O
69

O
69


CD
69





O
69
CO
a
T8



0,
o
CO
1

o
3
«
b

U
CO

GO

OO
OO
VO
69


5

OC
ff.


CO
69





VO
VO
69
CO
13


T3
~^
t-l
O
CO
•a

2
1
§
b

g

O
69


6<;


6=

O
69


O
69





0
69
O
If



i.


I

2
3
3
b

g

•ON
CO

VC
ON
69


CO

ON
VO
vo
69


f-H
69





69
U
cf


1
J


1

2
1

b

g

o
69


O
69


g

V.


O
69





0
69
CM
O
ff



X


CO
"2

2
o

IH

g

f
69

VC
69

CN
CN
69

O
69

O




CO
CN
69
CM
I


12
j


I

2
^
CO
^

«

o
,69


O
69


O
69

^


0
69





O
69
i
•a
CD



X


1

o
*
t!
CO
Ll

l>

o
69

OO
G
6<


S

VC


O
53





OO
69
B
•8


1
_i


Midwes

2

a
*«

o
&
0


o
69


O
69

O
69


O
69





O'
69
CM
1



3,


1

2
o
_,
i


g
s

69

00
O
VO
69


O

5
69


69





CN
r-
69
CN
•8


•a
%



MidwesI

R
o

LI


-------
i
C3
H
1
1
«
d





II a

II


11
11
IJTH
1^
1
1
|

<
|| !
I] i
11 V
|| f










1
K
C
3
R.
«
U
•a
c

1




=>

p



O




0
1— H
1
•O
i



a,
o
re
i
•d

)^


1

-)
"E
ca
i

^
J3
E
1

a
•g
CO
o
69


O
69



O
69

O
69



O
69




0
69
01

"8



P-
o
'i
a
i
>d

^,

G
E
1

u




O
o
VO
69



O
69

01
69


01
69



OO
69

|
1

•d
rr
HJ
u
1
•^

^5

C
E
1

u
c
CO
69


O
69



O
69

O
69



g




O
69
CO
G
"8



p-
0
1
-d

t^i
J3
E
c

.1

(9


OO
XD
69



01
JO

OO
69


CO
69




S
CO
1
•8

•d
rr
t-J
_o
^

^
43
c
E
|

.1
CO
69


g



/}

g



O
69




O
69


I


^
a,

1

"5
JS
c
E
1

n>
_c
CO



VO
ON
69



CO
»9

ON
VO
69


in
69




IS




•d

>-<

£
•c

^
J3
C
E
I

(U
c
CO
69


O
69



O
69

O
69



O
69




g


I


•*-»
UH

1

**
43
C
E
|

c
CO
CO
69


O



N
69

O
69


69



CO
01
69

01
I

•d
rr
-J

1

•*
J=
c
E
C

(L)
_£
CO
69


O
69



O
69

O
69



O
69




O
69

|
•8


^
eu



•*
43
e
E
(5



"•*
J3
e
E
V*

t
•g
CO
69


g



O
69

O
69



O
69




g
CO
i
•d


.1,.
MH

M
1

•i5
•«
C
E
1

(D
_C
CO
/J


O
69



69

01
r-
69


CO
69



$
VO
• 69
CO
1


•d
cr
^

1

^
•*
_g
V*

1
CO
s


s.
(9



69

S
69


JO



O
r-
69

7
I


"c
CO
•c
K
1

^

a
a
V.

b

69


O



VO
69

bo
69


vo
69



OO
S
»— t
|
1


"3
CO
_t
c
C(}
^



1
•f
5

3
^
H
69


VO
CO
CO
69



U

vo
CO
CO
69


69



VO
CO
CO
69
Ol
£
1

Tt
*c
(/
n
t



(
E
^

<

                                         A-22

-------
•a
 a>
 01

1
H


u


M
o





~
f:
,". :

,"t.-.'





"1
§












1
1
&

•a
3
f
u

a •
s
a
B..
"a':
• •<•»
Or
B
u.


8'
CO •


1



g
»
«

&
Jj
S
cs
to
*53'
1

oo

oo
oo
t/i

r-
oo
en
69

OO
69





t—
OO
69
en
g
£1
•s
s
•o
o

o
•§•
1
s


•a
§
CO
1
t-1

69
r-
00
cs
69
VO
69

t—
OO
69

VO
69





f^.
oo
69

g
3
1?
§

O
CO


ts
1
s

CD
f
CO
1
H


en
69
r-
69

en
69

69





VO
en
69
CM
fi
3
•o
S
T3
O
CO


1
S

CD
f
CO
1
H
oo
69
1
OO
69

t--
oo
en
69

oo
69





r-
oo
en
69
en
P.
3
•a
S
T3
O
CO


CO
1
S

t>
t
CO
1
H
                                            A-23

-------
J8

•s
H
 o

•s
 03

 §
 U
cc

nd
 V
 en
 A


2
  •V
V)

 a
 o
33


c?

 s



1
 V3



I

 S
 cu

O
 Of
 0
       CO

       -CJ
       a
       os
       §

       PH

       ^
       ,o
        o
       PQ


       I

       42
        en
        O
       U


f»5
?n
a>
s
u




^
f
(Ml
t>

TH
e
a>
Q











"a
. g
a


"a
•t*
Pi
cs
V
•c — «;
,-5
'«
•!
.'•«
'.•rs
s
3
.-• *s.
es

•::l
S t
H g«
'5

e
e
K
B
"S
B
-n
oo"
CO

00
CO
CN
co
CN
1— H
CO

1— 1
iu

n
>


C.
B-
c
CO
o




o
CO



3

o
CO


o
CO
o
co

CN

-------
•-P
 O
O
•s
H


*>
; ;£"
" -O
g"
;•:§
•-.v




;~.;«S
?;|
-"&
'&


•••..1-1
• ' h
:-i
i-O
















''S
C3
E



*
S
,'¥
§^
J3 .
'V--,

i*S

'' ffl
,i&
'I
'*"
^.
"*."§
•*:
"! w
a-vg


'o
•-a
.*.
H- •
55- oj
i?
® :
•"53
'-.§
:-."^
o
"




oo
c
6«


OS
6O


3
CO



6=



en
6O
Mediuml
•a
§•
*J


^



IH

I
00
O
60





O
6O


O
•6O


C




O



o
69
S
I

„_,
PH

^_
S



IH
IH


CO
U
T3
&
1-1

^^
1



X,
X,

g
6?
2
60




vc


£


oc
69



S



5
MediumS

a*
^


S-
§



J-.

I
£
2
69




OO
O
vc


o
69


00
O
ut
69



CS



CS-
VO
Medium2
X)
§•
J

-^
1



X,
X,

e
00
0
t*>




00
c


&f


o
en
69



5



en
Mediuml

8-
t-j


S



X,

S
6?
V,
en




o
en
r-
r-

oo
oo
o

w*
oc
,-jT
*n
&9

•0
en
vo


en
en
CN
S,
CO
Ui
O
ea*
w


W
U



S

s
6?
oc
60




CN
CN

en
6O

in
S
oo

69

00
en
CN


CN
°s.
!
s
>
w


8



&

s
oo
o





0


o


o
69




O



o
1)


OH


1



S

s
00
0





o


o
69


O




8



S
ID
EJ3


OH


§



S

S
£
O





O


O
60


69




O
69



0
Mediums


OH


S



O

S
£
o
69





O
60


69


0
69




O
6O



O
6O
Medium2


PH


S



s

a
oo
c





8


o
6O


O




o
6O



o
Mediuml


OH


S



o

U
c
is
oo
en
en





r-
vq_
j-jr^

t~-
CN


en




vo
CN
69


O
OS
60
CN
ID
1

g.
^


S



IX,
O

c
£
OS
60




VO
.to


VO


vo
oo
6O



VD
60



VO
OO
69
O
E?
C3

8-
-1


S



a

c
00
^.
69




os
oo
VO
69


CN
69


OS
69



T-H
69



en
69
MediumS
•a
g,
vJ


S



e

u
c
oo
o
60




O
VD
6O


O


O
CN
6O



en
6O



oo
CN
vo
60
Medium2
•a
&
i-i


S



&

S
oo
0
69




00
c


os


5
69



60



en
6O
Mediuml

&
-!


S



s

§
oo
o





o
69


S


0
69




O
69



O
69
00


OH


i



S

ID
C
£
o
69





0


0
69


O
6O




O



O
60
&
J3


OH


1



X,

g
1
                                        A-25

-------
 O

£
<*-•
 cs
H
fr
Si
$
o

Category
-
1










.1
c
c

1 "3
i.
to
3
03
1
3
*s<
£9
u
•8

w
1*
a
e
a
o
•-B •«
§
O
"5
e
c
a
o
69
iO
«?
g
O
69
CO
•a
i

PH

s
fT

C
CO
o
69
O
69
O
69
O
69
O
69
g
1
13
1

Pi

s

b
(0
CO
g
o

o
69
69
O
69
O
69
i
1

a*

s
PH
a
u
c7
VO
CO
69
OO
s

•o
69
&
CO
69
CO
£
"8
•a
CO

V.


i
i
c.
j:
69
VO

s
VO
O
>9
69
vo
VO

b
q

CO

t/


i
*!
0
o
69
O
<9
O
69
O
69
CO
69
5
oc
6=
1
q
•C
V.

C


c*
1
t"
o
oo
o
/*
8
o
•o
69
69
V
69
CO
£
>r
1
3

c<


j
O
CO
69
OO
CO
69
CO
69
00
n
>9
CO
69
OO
CO
*
I
-c


o


-
o
VO
69
OO
0)
69
VO
69
SO
N
69
VO
69
f-
9
vo
CO
co
69
t—
69
VO
CO
CO
69
O

•e
o
CO

5

CO
&
^
oo
69
OO
CO
69
OO
69
bo
CO
69
OO
69
r-
oo
1
i
13
O
CO

^

CO

H
S
s

s
§
6?
•51-
t-
69
t
0
h-
13
O
CO

|1

CO
1
^
VO
69
X)
CS
69
VO
69
X>

-------
I
u
                     r-
                     00
              a,
             u
           e _
             t
 a
       •a


       I
       •1
      :"O'
       1
       n,
       at
       U
                 vo
                     t-
                     oo
                        p-
                        60
I
H
             3
                 •o
                     T3

                     i
             .§
           e
                                               A-27

-------
 CA
 (U
 CM
 a
 o
 o
 CJD
T3
 
B.
S
a
fa


"es


oo
O
CN
O




1




1
U





%
h


Q
r-
en
o\
CN
en
en
00



,_
Medium




1
0





JS
Cf3
O


ft
CO
Q
t-

^
en
oo



CN
Medium




1
8





CA
P-:

^
CCS
Q


oo
CN



en
Medium


o
c
a
1
S





w
tin

ft
0
VO

t—
ON
en
en




&
3




I
S





1
fe

ft
Q
CN
O
en
en
,
vo
vo



„
Medium




en
1
S





43
HH

ft
Cvt
OO
oo
vo
V)
oo
o
en



CN
Medium




1
S





P
fe

&
CO
en
vo
o
VO
JO
N
:N



en
Medium




I
2





1
PM

*
Q
oo
CN
£
in




1
.J




o
s
'o






V.
fe

g.

ON
en
ft
en
r-



T— 1
Medium




0
5
(S





a
u.

g.

en
o
CN

OO
VO
o
3



CN
Medium




0
S
'S
a,





•S
d,

b

en
N
VO
K
en



en
Medium




o
1C
'q






"v.
fc.

&

co

g
o
en






O
oo

m
3N
vo
3N




T— t
CO
I-)




1
0





1
K

£>
Q
N
n
f>
^
|N



<—•
Medium




1






c
ffi

£>

                                     A-28

-------
 «
H
      :s
      a
      o
      o
      8P
•e


|


t
fi
      O

      O

OS
:'•

1
;CS
.1


S
e
OD

' ' 't*s
^H


O>
n.
S
fe

-'3

oo
o
o

in
O
01


_

r-
•^*

5
CO
00
&•»


Q
o
>n

S
o
<=>

tN
g
1


0

Pi
CO
3
S



w
b

.£>
Q
oo
VO

?)
00

CO
S
1


o



•i
S



1
b

Q
S
,_H

ON
CO
CO
tM


^_,
ID
1





t
i
S



1
b

Q
01
o
CO
CO

»
vo
vo


S
.2






1
S



1
b

2
00
oo
VO
•st-

00
-VO
r-
to

cs
g
1






1
S



1
b

1
CO
VO
0
VO

00
«N

CO
g
1





t
13
S



•S
b

.&-
oo
CN


3
Q
ON
oo


ON
OO
t-
ON

fN
g
•3






£
o
oo



1
b

'3
Q
§
ol
vo

vo
*— t

CO
g
£
u






fi
o
oo



1
b

1
O
oo


CO
ON
vo
ON



1






1
0



9>
ffi

Q
CO


r-
r-
01


13
1






1
u



CO
w

&
Q
                                  A-28

-------
I
•s
•8
H
                                        A-27

-------
1
H

•'• S
; B
it
'.: i
-. u
. 3
;;. t»


'! a
1 O



at
• B
as




v. "es
G


8
ON
69

CO
co"
CO
69

CN
g
:n
1



"ca
0



ID

O
33


b
ca
S
CN
69

VI
06"

CO
S
.3
&



1
ID



ID

jO
i-L,


b
CO
•*
vo
69

*— i
r-
00^
CO


„
ID
I


O
'i
ca
•c)
S



ID

^O
>!H


b
CO
r-
V)
00
69

CN
CO
r-^
CO
69

—
a
3
1


o
•B
3
s



0>

,H
U-1


JJ,
Q
CN
vo
CN

CN"

CN
g

•y


o
1
<
s





o
tJ-l


b
ca
CO
CO

r-
o\
VO"
vo

CO
g

s


_o
1
s



<1>

o
UJ


b
ca
ac
CO
vo

oo^
t-^1


1_H





1
s



fl>

o
•^


b
ca
Q
o
o\
s

CO
r-
co"
CO

_
g
§
•o
*



1




«1>
CiQ
,o
UJ


&
Q'
CO
CN
69

CN
oo"

CN
s
p
"8



1






O
>U


b
ca
Q
CO
CO

CO
CN"
VO
69

CO
S
3
•8




S



HI

o
Ul


b
CS
Q
CO
CO
s

CO
vo"
CO
69


„
u
I



o
ca
cu



(i>

o
UJ


b
ca
Q
r-
o\
S

CO
r—
"T.
CO
69

T— «
fi
.3
•o



u
(S



o

o
UJ


b
Q
CO
CN
69

"/I
VO

CN
g
3
i



o
(2



n>

o
nLl


b
a
VO
OO
CO
69

CO
CN
r-
oC
VO
69

CO
fi

•8



0
<2



ID

o
HI


b
ca
Q
§
CO
V)
69

O
OO
VO"
69


_
(U
I




'o
00



ID

o
sc


b
ca
Q
OO
VO
r-
69

>n
*T,
vT

T-H
F

•a



^
o
00




-------

£


"3
J
°£

i
v»

en
o
CTi
CO




i
T3
i


IS
•1
!§


•s
u.


c;
O
««

JN
m




s
•g


o
1


•s
3



1
to
60

f~
rM




cs
£
•8


o
'3


•f
to


a
u-i
XI

S




1
"8



1
CO


•s
PH


a
>
§
W

VI
vo
00
g




CM
I
1



o
CO


V
ft,


^
CM
n
60

en
S
f>




en
TB



g
CO


CO
3
fe


^
                                         A-30

-------
      a
      I
vU
      03

      .1

      "S
      Q

      «
      so
      &J)
      C3
      a
      a-
      •-§
      1
      .s
      U



'BJ '
.J3
H

]§.;
-ti-
•**",•
rsn
3
u.
J.

a
M

01
J?
g
fa

^3
•a



o
in

oo

69
§
O
CO
VO
69



1


I



•S
PH


&
cO
Q.
r— t
Ol
OO
oo

69
OO
VO
r-


O
1
1


J



•s
PH*


&>

Q
CO
Tf
m
m

69
s*
OO
O..
69


tt
4-
S

•1— t
I



•s
p-


b
m
Q
Ol

m
T— 1
01
69
VO-,
oo
CO
&s



o
'o
«s

1—1
8?
ca



1
PH


&>

Q
oo

t —
OS
I-— 1
69
vo"
OV
69



1


if



•s
PH


g.
C8
Q

in
in
vo
69

O
CO
69



£
S

1
1



,c
CO
PH


g.
CO
Q

f^
in
vo
69

O
O
CO
69


_ea
•0
§

a
T3



1
PH


g.
ed
Q
VO
»— i
01
in
69

CO
§
69


•S!
4
:§•

1
i



1
PH


g.

Q

oo
r-
r-


Ol
VO
V)
69



O
S
1

s
"8



1
PH


p">
ca
O
Ol
CO

r-
69

1
0
in
69



1
oo

1
"g



_c
PH


g.
ca
Q
CO
o
CO
t—
69

In
vo
••*
69



1
c
6


1



1
PH


&
C3
P
l-H
VO

r"~
69

01
t— *
69

O
•S
S
ii


•8
S-



M
PH


£>
CO
P
00
C3\..
O
vo
69

01
01
69


.,_.
1


•8



1
PH


E?
ca
P
00
VO
oo
oo
69

>n
v->
CO
r-
69



1


•8



JS
PH


&
C3
P
00
OO
01
oo
69

OO
n
vo
01
69



1

S
•8



J3
PH


£,
ca
P

VO
m
0

69
O
CO
CO

se



I
oo


1



1
PH


g.
ca
P
01
VO
Ol
c^
69

>n
01
m
00
69



2
c
6

1-H




g
ffi


&
ca
P

in
oo
0

69
CO
£
69

O
.2
|







69

00
CO

-------
1
a
i

03
S
s
IS

I
CJ
8
U
Sj
CO
a
sp
P-

0>
01
fa


•Mrf
03
a



s
CM
&e

CO
CO
CM




"S
a


~
1



8
B



r.
a
Q
S
o
fee

vo
CO
o\
g




3
O
oo


-




§
SB



1
«
Q
CM
CO
CM
fee


01
V?
%




1
U


s
1



(U
SB



u
cd
Q
vo
o
CO
fee


o
CO
vo


•3
C
03
1

_
§
1



8
a



•
•3
Q
o
CM
&e


CM
CO
S




Midwest

_
§
1



8
a



&
CO
Q
oo
r-
co
fee


vo
VD
CO
fee




'3

l
Ej
•a
1



CO
a



'
Q
CO
ON
CO
CO


vo
vo
o\
r-
VD
fee




1

i_||
s
•a
i



to
B



c*
CO
Q
o
CO

U

CM
^
S



8
B



c*
CS
Q
o
o
fee


o\
*— i
CO
&e


£

1
§

01
P
•8
S



8
B



1
0)
Q
CO
CO


0
VO
vo
fee




Midwest

CM
P
"S
I



8
B



'
C3
Q
CO
r-
5


P
&e




o
1

CM
s
•o
i



CO
o
a



!-<
o
o
vo
o
fee


S
oo




1
00

01
S
1



(U
CO
O




)M
ctt
Q
o
wo
fee


1
S




1
U

CO
s
•s
s



8
a



C
o
o
VO
CO
m
fee


t— 4
O
CM
fee


*-*3
c
1

CO
1
"8



s
B



!-•
ca
Q
ro
CO
fee


w>
CO
fee




Midwest

CO
1
T3

O
&e



o
&e





o

' ^
g
u



£1
PH





O
&e



o
fee





00

,_
i
i



JS
P
PH



cd
(U
O



O
fee





1
a)
U

0)
g
1



•S
&,




•L>
i?



S



^O
s
1

01
P
'8



1
PH



n

-------
¥
 g
<
 «
      S..
      .00-
      i
             1
                        •3
                        "•§•
                        PH
                                              A-33

-------
      •J
VD
 CJ

H
•s
•5
 fi
 O
       -£2
       Vi
       O

       U

1

•a
±5
«
U
ws
(A
03
u
g>
00

H
e
1
PS


09
fa


*S

op
ON
00
oo
ON







,
(U



s
u
a


.c
CO
v->
E?
cd
p
ON
oo
io
en
oo
oo
60





1— «
g
P
11



1
U


.a
CO
p
b-,
&
03
P
ON
O
6O
O
ON
oo
6O





eN
g
•3
i



2
0


•S
P-
&
•«
p

P
g;
eN
r-
en
Q





^H
S
g
"O



4->
1
S


•3
HH

ca
P
vo
r-
r-
•<*•
ON
•n
ON
60





en
S
1


-*-»
1
s


CO
p-

ca
P
vo
ON
O
T— f
6O
CS
s
T— 1
oo
ts
60






_
ID
l3



0
s
(2


A
OH

ca
P
CN
j— t
r— 4
60
CN
CS
oo
6O





T— 4
s
u



0
'3



43
b

P
OO
oo
w*>
s
r-





cs
g
•3
0)



o
s
'o



f!
H-

P
vo
o
r-
.60
CS
0





en
g
H



u
'o



•s
p
b

ca
P
ON
VO
f-
6O
en
r-
ON
CS






„
1
J



1
o
oo


CO
z>
n<

p
vo
V)
6O
s
o
60





-H
g
"S



1
o
oo


1
Pi-

ca
p
en
r-
cs
6O
vo
60





CS
g
1



1
oo


.e
CO
p
PH
&
P
ON
en
ON
OO
ON
vo
oo
f— 1
&o





en
g
•3
i



&
p
00


1
Pi

p
oo
r-
6O
VO
ON
6O






«
I



1
O


1
ffi

P
ON
ON
CS
6O
OO
00
ON
S





— <
g
•3
1



1
U


§
U-l

P
t--
ON
r-
6O
en
ON
en
60





CS
g
•3



1



§
K

P
                                        A-34

-------
                   CO

                   vo
               CO

               f-
               >n

               of
          o

          vc?
                        oo
                        vo
r-
ON
                                                 oo_
                                                 •n"
                                                              CO
                                                              vn
VD
O
CO
C"f
        I
                                                               co^

                                                               09
               co
               00
               CN
               
O
                                          1
                                       1
                                       1
                                                         CO
                                                         OH
                                       o
                                       s
                                       'o
                                                          5
                                                          §
                                                          oo
                                                                         0
                                                                        CO
                                                           §
                                                          CO
                                                                                           CO
              §
             a
         a
              t
                                  ffi
                                                K
                                                                       w
                                  1
                                                         C3
                                                        Q
                                                                             Q
                                                             A-35

-------
I
      l>
      I
      I
      §
      i
      ft
o
o
DC
03
       U
       03
       a
       I
       TS

       3
       ca
       O


8



13
'5.
CS
U
1
u
at
c»




«



S
m
fc.

•S


01
o\
o
^jfy

CO
oo
ON
S







ff
,-.




'fi
U



1

h
(2
ol
ON
O
y')

CO
oo
ON
»— i
Ol







I




•1

Q

vo
S


r-
01
ON




01
g
p
•8




2
e




1
E

&
C3
O

vo
S


t-
o\
0)
ON




01
g
p
•s




ca
0



w
E

&
a
Q
ON
vo
s


£
01
ON




01
S
p
13
1




1
U



1
E

&
ca
Q
ON
ON

-------
I
o
H



~
•'•'3


•s
ft
:«t
fc)
1
P
K§
'!»

: -' •

a
'.•O

;ff?
08
K



1
3
•b


I



*n
ON
^>
&5

o
S
OS
OS
69




_
S

•a
S




b
a

•i
S



J3
PL,

as
Q
vo
vo
o
r-
69

CO
69




rx)
g
p
•a

1
S



J3
PL,
b
as
Q
CN

O
co"


CN
O
vo
CN





_

M
01





4-.
il>

S



CO
p
PL,

as
Q
CN

O
CO


$
CN
O
S





(__.(

OO
5





^
K>

S



js
PL,
b
as
Q
tN

O
CO

69
CN
O
VO
69





l

op
as





<_.
in

§



1
PL,
b
as
O

oo
r-
CO




S



1
PL,
b
as
Q

oo
r-
co


0
69




_4
Fi
p
•a






to
i(>
-1
S



j=
PL,
b
as
Q

oo

CO


0
t—




_
g
p
T3
n>





to
n>
1
S



J2
PL,
b
as
Q
r—

CO
i/-j
69

OO
CO
S




CN
fi
p
T3
S





to
K>

S



'1
PL,
b
as
Q
r-

CO






^
flS
•a
S



1
fe
b
as
Q-
c-

co
V)
69

00
CO
2




«N
FJ
p
•a






to
K>
4
S



1
PL,
b
as
Q
r-

co
*o
69

00
CO
o
1— <




CN
Fi
p
•a






to
fl>
1
S



1
PL,
•b
at
Q
o

00
VO
69

0
OS
OS
vo
CO




CO
g
P"
•n








M
s



-s
PL,
b
• as
a-
0

00
vo
69

O
OS
Os
VO
CO




CO
R
p
•a
S





to
n>
-1
2



•S
PL,
b
aj
Q
0

00
VO
y^

O
OS
OS
VO
CO




CO
R
s
T3
I





to
ill
•a
2



-•S
PL,
b
m
Q
o-

00
vo"
£/5

o
OS
Os
vo
CO




CO
R
3
•fi






.u
!(>
1
^s



•s
PL,
b

Q
CN
t--
r-
1—,
t—t

o
CO
CO





J

op
as







S
'o




1
PL,
b
w
Q
                                      A-37

-------
vo
•S
H



ca
S
§

1
CL.
u
CA
0
s
CO


a
o
'§>
P5



1
03



"S
'5


01
t—

r^,
l— »

O
CO
in
CO
09



t
fl>
§>




0

o
<2


_£,
g
b


b
p
01

o*
,_,
,_4
69
O
CO
in
09



l
A)
I




0

O
,2


j-
W
3
tli


g.
ca
Q
01
r—
r-
,_«
,«i
69
O
CO
m
CO
69



t
CO





0

.2


J-J
3
b


£,
CD
Q
O
*— 1
VO
CO
69

S
01
01
w



„
g
p
i




o

b
«2


j.
3
b


b
a
Q
o

VO
CO


S
01
01
t~



_
g
3
1




0

b
(2


J-.
3
b


&
ca
Q
o
»— (
vo
CO


s
01
K



_
fi
d
•o
1




o

1


j-;
3
b


£,
S
O

VO
CO


s
01
r-



„
g
3
•a




o

1


JS

u.


fr
&
CO
CO
0
in


vo
0
o
69


01
g
3
T3
1




O

1


j.
ca
3
PH


&
0
CO
CO
o
•n
69

VO
0
o
69


01
g
3
1




o
lf-4
O


J.J
=
b


b
s
CO
CO
o
in


VO
§
69


01
fi

•a
1




o
(4-4
o
(2


J*
3
Pi,


^
Q
CO
CO
o
in
69

VO
§
69


01
fi

•a
ID




o
IS
o


-G

b


b
Q


CO
vo


01
^— H
CO
o7
69


CO
fi
3
-a
a>




o
t*-*
o


j..
ca
b


^
CB
Q

OS
CO
vo
69

Ol
CO
oi
69


CO
g
3
13




o
(4-1
1


j..
3
b


b
S


CO
VO
09

01
CO
s
69


CO
g
3
1




0
tc
o


J-J
3
b


b
ca
Q


CO
VO
09

01
CO
oJ
69


CO
fi
3
"g




0
V?
o
<2


J-J
3
b


&
ca
Q
VO
VO
01
in
09

CO
01
CO
in
o
69



l
O
cf






I


J-,
3
b


g.
Q


01
in
09

CO
Ol
CO
in
o
69



(
O
£P
ca





^
o
CO


j-j
3
b


b
ca
Q
vo
VD
01
m
69

CO
01
CO
0
69



|
CO






•4s
o
CO


J-,
s
b


b
ca
Q
VO
VO
01
m
69

CO
01
CO
0
69



_
CO
s?
ca
,-J





•4s
g
CO


j-J
~
b


&
ca
Q
m
m

T»I
69

O
in
CO



_
g
3
1





rS
O
CO


j..
S
b'


b
ca
Q
m
m
r-
l-H
09

O
n

,_«
09

O
S3



_
g
3
•g





•4s
g
CO


JS

b


b
ca
Q
in
in

r^
69

O
in
CO



,-,
g
3
1





*s
g
CO


.c
ca
3
b


b
ca
Q

ol
CO
01
09

01
ol
VO



01
fi
3
1





*0
g
CO


JS

b


g.

-------
tS
 §


'S
••B
--B

S
;f
u
'to
^M
J


"•a
'Si
W

x

,;eu
:|.-
es
to

1
.g

"-...•;

^
69

CN

CN

CN
"0
%

en
|
1




S
S
o




£§


b
Q

o
oo
CN

CN
ON
"n
£


|
*a




2
1
U




tS


fr
nt
Q

O
OO
CN

CN
ON
>r>
£

en
s
•a
CD




1
0




u
S
a


b
(S

en
c-

r-
o
1


i— H
f-

u
S
CS
^
s




CO


h
n

en
r-
69

t-~
O
S


-<
&
CS

u
c
a
5
s




1


h
CS
n

en
69

S
2


-
'I

o
'S

•^
§




u
s
ffi


b
n

en
r-
69

f-
O
69


-
I

O
S
CS
s
s




1


h
'3
Q

oo
ON
O
CN
69

CN
ON
i


s
1

u
J**

•a
s




1


h
n
 «3
H
                                        A-39

-------
1




1


Annual

1
"S.
CU

w»
8
0
Ji
(XI

0
o

M


o
a,
1
"ss
•<

oo
o
CN
69
CN
ON




S
"8


o
5

5


w

b
O
00
g
CN
69
CN
ON
i



1
T3
O


0
g
1
s


OS

b
ca
Q
oo
ON
O
CN
69
CN
ON
49



|
1


0
•£
1
S


1

b
•y
Q
S
ON
CN
69
S
O
OO
69



CN
g
•a


0
c
I
s


CD
OS

h
ca
Q
en
o
ON

vo
vo
o
oo



3
i


o
•g
I
s


CO

b
ca
Q
ON
CN
VO
VO
o
00



CN
1


o
•g
•A
s


CD
CO
O
OS

&
ca
Q
co
ON
CN
vo
VD
O
00
69



1
1


O
•g
s
s


1

b
ca
Q
CN
en
69
g
69



en
"8


o
1
T»
S


OS

b
ca
Q
S
c-
en
69
£
69



en
1
•O
CD


0
15
1
S


CD
8
OS

b
y
Q
p-
en
69
r-
rt
P-
69



en
•o
5


03

b
ca
Q
S
CN
69
p-
8
o
69



CN
•8




•d
^1


CU
s
OS

b
ca
Q
S
CN
69
P-
en
C5
O
XT
69



CN
ID




S3
-1
IS


CU
1

b
ca
Q
CN
en
69
VO
o
vo
69



en
1
•a
O




1
£


CD
CO
iS

b
a
CN
en
69
VO
O
rr
vo
69



en
g
-a
i




1
S


CD
1

b
a
CN
CN
en
69
VO
O
69



en
•d




CO
4
^


OS

b
ca
Q
                                     A-40

-------
f

I
o
3
•s
H



1
u
«
U
^
OS


a
JO-
PS


a>
1
'«
fa


•13
J

cs
cs
en
vo
o
*n
69

-
cn
S
g
-a


Is
is
§





{§


'3
Q
ON
ON
CS
69
CS
OO
ON
CS
69



_
-j
I


0
in
£




u
A


'3
Q
vo

{§


1
S
cs
69
CS
00
o
«n
69


CS
g
JS
"8


o
(B
PH




V
£§


Q
In
CS
69
CS
OO
o
69

- -
CS
g
p
•o


0
«B
1




O



Q
S
cs
69
CS
OO
o
69


CS
g
£3
T3
1


0

1




a>
w


S
rr
•n
cs
69
cs
§
69


CS
g
P
•o
i


u
c
1





-------
 fl
 O
 CD
i

1

•8
«*••
a*
a
D
ffi
CO
§
I

OJ
a.
a
£

"3
i
B


oo
m

cs

5"


co
Medium

CO



u
K

&
a
Q
                                        A-42

-------
       i
       O
       ffl

       -«
        a
        03
 S3

H
      -
        0)

       PQ
       -w
        OJ
        S
       I
       i
       en
       O

       U

§mw

*

1
Ctt
O
O
H
t»

a
o

a»
PS


o>
O.
,H
(2

•a
e

CO
r-
ON
69


OO
v)
ON
69




_
1





1
a




1


«
VO
vo
T— <
«<3<
&9

OO
r— <
CO
CO
00
69




CM
<0





1
0




(4-1
U
pa


H
pa
CO
vo
69


vo
0)
69



— .
g
•3





"a
1
U




(4-1
Oi
O


(41
(D
U
pa
v>
69


CO
O
CM



CM
g
1





1
u




8
CQ


8
PQ
oo
69


00
f-
co



CO
§
"•§
s





1
o




8
pa


pa
8
,_j%
69

O
ON
CO




_
£?
,3


0
•.n
CO
33
i.
S




(4-1
pa


m
oo
CO
00


CO
CM
VO
vo
69



0)
S)
3


o
•J3
OS
5
2




PQ


i
t-
ON
C--
69


CO
V>



—
g
s


o
•43

3
s




m


PQ
ON
CO
ON
69


OO
£
00



CM
g
1


o

m
•^
S




1


8
m
o
^^
69

r-
c—
T-H
CM



CO
a
,3
i


o

s
3
S




1
pa


<4-l
PQ
VD
,_^
69

O
CO
I/I
CM




^_
1





1
s




pa


(4-.
PQ
oo
CO
00
v^
69

VO
r-
VO
69



CM
1





1
s




(4-<

-------
i
 c
 o

1

1
BU
W
U
tft
i
t/}

a
t


S
S?
(S

"S
.§
3


3
0,

£
01
69



01
F
3
•3
1


3
0
CO


C4-4
1



<+_
«
Ol
69
OO
i



co

3
I


3
O
CO


«4-
u
CQ



«4-l
m
oo
69

01
ON
CO
r-
69




f
S


2
a



1
a


»

a
vo
vo
69

T— 4
CO
r— 1
69



t— t
g
•3


1
U



£


f?
.R
a
CO
vo
69

§
t-
01
69



01
fi
.3
T3
i


1
CJ


52
u
a


R

a
o
r-
69

o
01
T— 4
69



CO
g
1


1

-------
       ce
       H
       O
       «
       ffit
       O
       "S
       s
00
^
«
f
 «
H
 m
 S
 9
 a.
 13
 a
 a
 •£?
'*«
 «
 43
       Bt)
       •W

       ®


§
a
a

1
U;
1
U

§3
CO
H
If



at
£•11
CO

i

VO
^j~
&9


ON
oo




2
g
U



a>
3


1

1
„
01
69


0)
00
VO
00
69

0

c
1




ID
pa

1
^.
•^
69


00
O
O




U
1



ID
1


pa

13
&
ON
O
69


f-
ON
O
O




I
•


ID
S




t*-.
OO
^1"
O)
69

O
r-
69




U




I


pa

i
oo
t"~
oi
€/i

8
I

O

8
|



O
I


pa

pa
en
en
t--
69

00
en




Midwest





(D
H>
«
oo
r-

o
en
69

«3>
•O
VO
69




1
CO




I


pa

«
0)
t—
Ol
69


OO
69




1
S

_
CH
§
•8


pa

.pa
en
VO
ON
69


en
01
ON
en
69

o

C
C3
1

_,
e
§
•8


I

"8
pa
vo

1-H


O
01
en
69




Midwest

^,
rn
§
"S
s


pa

»
VO
VO
en
69


en
f-




0
1

^^
C3
§
1


ID
ID
pa

H
vo
O)
CN


2
I




1
CO

_
g
3
T3


pa


O
pa
(
oo
0»
69


0
en
00
VO
69




O
'o
&

01
c
B
•8


m

pa
oo
^d-
vo
Ol
69


S
%




1
CO

0)


•8
s


m

1
en
vo
69


s
en
en
69




1

-------
 o
5i
oo
^
 0)

Annual

1
B<
03
U
s
0>

CO
a
o
1
tf


cu
SJ
to

"5s
S
R



ON
CO
CO
CO
oo
oo
vo"
VO
60






u
1
PH




§
13
1


'SI
1





m
OJ
CO
CO
01
Ol
vo
6O






1
CO





1


"rt
«





»
3N
01
01
r-
CO






*«
I




"""
&>
$


1
a1



s

(O
a
S
CO
ON
O
P~



U
fi
C3
S









a



8

a
oo
t—
ol
ON
oo
vo
60






2





I


«
(U
a



S

a
VO

oo
o
CO
ON



•


o
'o
a
PH








a
a



g

a
01
CO
•*
s
VO
GO






1
CO





1?


1
a



52
,">

sS
o
oo
01

CO
01






"a
1



g
§
•8


1
a



g

s
a
ON
ON

VO
oo
CO
ON
CO



o
•g
CO




g
§
"8


'ts




S2

u
a
VO
in

0
o
CO
CO
6O






s



s
§
T3
1


'ts




2

a
co

01
6»






O
S
1
PH



p
S
"O
1


a
a



52

a
CO
01
01
Ol
VO
6O






43
1



p
§
i


52
u
a



,s
Jta

00
oo

CO
vo
ON
01






1
O




§
"8


1
u
a



52

a
ON
OO
CO

ON
r-
t--
p-



0
S
ca
1
§



(3
3
"8


1
n
oo






o
IB
I




3
T3
U


1
a



S2

u
a
01
p~
01
r-
co
lo






1
CO




s
•a
i


1
a



g

a
VO

p-
00
oo
CO
CO






C3
u




§
•o
i


g
a



52

a
o
oo.
01
TO
§
VO



u
ts

1
§



F
.3
•8


tS
a



g

a
o
o*
6O
CO
§
en






Midwes




P
•3
S


1
0
a



e


-------
         o
         f-
oo


60
                i
t-
 a
 o
33
         -O
         a
         P

         I
S
 i-
u
vo


o
rf

6O
                              O
                              O
                              r-
CN


6O
U



J
 eg
O\
H
     cs

     1
     •3
     u
       ••e


         13
        . S
         9
         PH


         ,1

         09

         tg
'&

SA
                     O
                          -a



                          U
              "2


              u
 g
     4-c


     pa
                          pa
                              pa
                 53
                m
                     P3
                          m
                              pa
                                   pa
                                       00
                                       vo
                                       VO
                                r-
                                oo
r-


Y—I

OO
                                                                     S
                                                                     oo
                                                                CN
                                                                O
                                                                Ov
                                                                              S
                                                                                                                          oo
                                                                                                                          oo
                            o
                            o
                                            en
                                            oo
                                         S
                                                   00

                                                   f-

                                                   Tl
                                         VO
                                         O
                                                   r-
                                                   cs
                                                   oo
oo
oo
oq_

en"
en
                                                                                               00
                                                                                               rt-
                                                                                        o
                                                                                        fN
                                                                                                    oo
                                                                                                    CN.

                                                                                                    en"
                                                                                                    CN
                                                                                                    oo
r-

oo^

en"
en
oo
                                                       en
                                                       en
                                                       oo
r-
cn
00
                                                 CN
                                                               en

                                                               6
                                                                        CN
                                             £?
                                                   S
                                                             3

                                                            •3
                                                                                 •
                       en

                        |

                       •3

                       i
                                                                                                        eN
                                                                          1
                                                                                    I
                                                             If

                                                                               
-------
•s
cr\
•8
H

a
B
B

•a
•a
et
U
1
KM


a
o
I

»


§
•3



OS
6*5


VO
oo
CO
o



01
e;
§
T3
to
S



I

<*-.
(S



d-i
«
CO
6O


"O
O
CO
U


CO
r*
§
•U
&



1
CO


60




Oi



tn
4
§






f
Q
CO
00
60



CO
»— i
vb"
60




ID
3



O
«B
"S

~S
H



t
Q
00
6O



0
CO
VO
6O




ID
E?
3



1
CO


J3



t
Q
6O



O
OO
o
CO
60




ID
E?



'S
1

ID
1



t
O
vo
CO
r-



01
rf
6O





E?


o
'H
|

ID
O
a



'S
Q
vo
6O



OO
l-~
OO
co~
60





I



4
§

ID
iS



.&
P
VO
vo
r-



co
01
CO
in
6=>




ID
I



O
1

ID
a



f
p
CO
r-
6O



t—
OO
r-
•^
&o





§*



1
o
CO

ID
a



.£•
P
VO
r-
r-
6O



OO
ir>
60




ID
I



I


-------







?
S3

I
!
3
A
H















.fl
j
1
•-S
u
'•M
X
:ts
t.-o




at
|
1



"<3
S
'ts'



^
o
6?

a
c


fN
Medium




o
'o
£


S
t«
o
a


CO
1
a

O
^-
£
•-
•o
(X


CO
1 Medium




^
3

a


e
u
S
a
tM
OO
r— (
T— 1

VO
vq
cn
(S
&<=>

m
1





1
t/3


2
cS

a


1
5
a
A-49

-------
 o

I
-e

3
"Cft

•c
I
Q
 d
 o
Annual 1
,
a,
03

8
R
O
1
0
t




1
(2

"3
J
'a

OS
oo
CO
0
OS
6ft





(U


_
ii
C!
(U
U


13
a>


1
so
CO
t-^
oo"
CO
6ft





CN


—
r*
C
U
U


m


8
so
.in
6ft
SO
C-I
6ft





Medium 1


—
w
d



pa


pa
so
o\
m
6ft
CO
6ft





Medium 2


"m

A
U


^
pa


tn
ID
OO
6ft
0
f-
in^
6ft





CO
•3
%



2
h
U


13
£


pa
6ft
CO
00
°°~
6ft





ID
a

a

"^
T3
S


pa


pa
CN
in"
6ft
00
9
s"
»— 1





1
3

03

"^
•a
S


«



00
3


o
li-«
o
p-<



-------
 fl
 o
H
i
sg

?3
$
1'
t/3

:|
f

o>
"•S3

31
:8


0
09

g

>
CM
g
1

1
C/3


m


(f-t
CD
CQ
O
09

g


CO
g
I

1
00

tr!
(S


^
m
CM
CM
CO
09

?
NO


_
1

1
O

i
a


1
a
oo"
09

O-
*-'


s
g-
-o

1
u

1
£


|.
a
ON




CD

0
PH

1
a


2
a
t-

T—H
0

r-

09
CO
g
1

0
O
CO

2
43
a


1
a
                                     A-51

-------
        t»
        s
        o
        53
        73
        S-i

        &
        O

        s


        §
        •ct
         03
         0)

        >
          •X

        3
         o

        3
         o>
         0)
        fe
        ««-•
         O)
             ea
             S
             
• 2
"a
a
^
*a-
Q)
->f
:•*
^1
«•> 8
.s
i
-••-•g-
<
•s
X
s
BE
a
••^•i
fj u
a>
«
•3
"g-
•<:
•a
u

Size Class
§
I
|S.
!£
"«
.S
- -a
*<
o
CM
69
O
>n
n.
69

S
69
O
CM
>O
69
g
CM-
69
S
r-
S
1
8f
m
«n
t—
>rj
69
s
CT\
OO
69
O
£
J

S
8
CM
O
(D
CO
%
5
CQ
o
CM
69
O
>n
"I
69
S
69
O
CM
CM
00
69
ro
ON
OS
69
r-
t—
o
CM
CO
69
§
CO*
CM
69
CM
O
CO
CM
VO
69
S
VO
o
69
CM
§>
3

!
'tf-i

w->
CM"
69
ON
S
ro
69
Medium 1

1
CM
d>
£
13
OJ
CQ
S
69
O
CM
69
S
69
0
OO
CO
69
m
s
CM
69
CM
ON
CM
69
O
CM
VO
69
r-
00
in
u
•
CQ
CM
O

m
S
o
CM
69
in
s
69
S
VO
69
Ov
OO
m
CM
69
OO
p
CO
69
0
VO
oo
69-
i
m
&o
S
s
Medium 3

s
g
o
•s
35
CQ
U
CQ
o
CM
69
O
m
"1
69
in
S
69
O
VO
CO
69
0
VO
s"
0
g
g
69
1
69
•3-
in
VO
VO
69
8»
c3
U
1
<:
T3
is
•s
(U
CQ
•S3
S
O
CM
69
0
i/l
CO
69
8
69
O
O
VO
rf
69
OO
CO
CO
69
S
>n
oo
69
O
VO
CO
0\
69
VO
CT\
CM
3
6ft
«/1
O
in
P
69
CM
1
^
<
•a
is
CM
O
(L>
CQ
%

cq
CM
a>
a>
CQ
1
o
CM
69
S
O
69
O
VO
s
o
»"H
oo
69
OO
9
CM
69
O
9
69
CM
00
CM
69
r-
£
CO
69
Medium 2
o
•c
<£
•o
jg
CM

&
CM

OO
ON
CM
69
69
VO
tf
OO
s
r—
T?
t--
69
|
^
is
13
u
oa
(4-1
O

CQ
o
CM
69
O
WO
CO
69
in
s
69
O
oo
CM_
in"
69
VO
OO
CM
69
VO
CN
69
1
CM"
69
CO
'fr
in
9
69
9
CM
•*
OO
69
CM
|
to
1
is
H
CQ
CM
8
CQ
o
CM
69
O
£»,
69
in
S
69
O
2;
69
0
m
in
69
CM
CTN
O\
69
9
CO
69
OO
S
69
g
3
Medium 1
^
1
iS
13

a>
CQ
13
£
s
o
in
m
&ft
tn
s
69
in"
69
in
*3-
CM
•*
69
CM
p-
in
a
o
CM
CM •
oT
69
a.
VO
ON
5!
^e
m
s;
(N
r-
69
M
$
2

o

CQ
8
CQ
o
CM
69
O
m
CO
69
in
S
69
O
CM
CM
69
VO
m
oo
69
r~-
r-~
CM
69
0
CM
OO
69
OO
VO
CO
69
CO
CO
in
•*
69

O>
CQ
s
CQ
O
CS
69
0
in
CO
&=•
VI
s
69
C)
O
r--^
CM"
6">
CO
?!
r-
69
S
m
69
S
f^
&»
1
in
rq
ej
1
E
CM
1
>J

J3
1
H
CQ
13
(D
M
                                                A-52

-------
 a>
 e
 o
^
 as
 a>
2

«Y
1
t



M
U



•1-t'
1"
I







Ml
a
*i
r> g
S
"3
•s
•§
•s
•w
E
£
V •$
f*> o
"s
•1
'1
1
fO y
£
'S
8
g
-<
1
E
Size Class
•a
&
S '°*
- M

'"*
o
CS
6O
O
CS
6O
i
6O
O
OO
60
CS
9
60
(S
i—
f-
60
o
OO
6O
OS
m
so
6O
2
S
I
1
CO
<4-«

0
m
o
V
m
o
es
(A
o
CS
69
i
6%
O
so
60
m
as
m
6O
os.
so
o
cs
6O
O
SO
0)
6O
CS
00
6O
i
S
Medium 2
•S
§
W
<*-«
m
<4-»
O
u
CQ
S
6«»
o
R
6O
»n
S
6O
O
SO
CS
6O
SO
OS
i—
6O
in
5-
cs"
6O
O
so
m
6O
Tj-
o
CS
6O
•OS
{S
S
Medium 3
1
CO
"S
u
«
"S
,
CQ
S
o
m
">.
6O
in
S
6O
O
?
6O
OO
?!
CS
6O
OS
OO
O
en"
6O
O
OO
o
sf
0
CT\
OO
VI
&9-
»— i
CS
g
§>
J
1

3
Q
§
0
ts
eo
»n
•^t-
o
&^
S
f>
6O
»n
S?
ffi
s
so
C~I
6O
0
OO
SJ
o
s
u
«•>
OO
OO
tN
ff>
Medium 1
I
1
fa
b
c5
Q
S
6O
O
cs
6O
i
6O
1
6O
OS
SO
&o
Ti-
ro
CS
CS
6O
§
SO
6O
SO
•3
cs
6O
S
OO
ro
6O
Medium 2
1
5
1
fa
b
8
o
C-J
ff>
o
tN
6O
VI
S
6O
0
>n
?3
S
g
S
o
OO
OO
6O
O
SO
ro
6O
O
so
«-•
•*
&o
Medium 3
1
4=
CQ
3
fa
1
o
CS
6O
O
m
m
6O
U">
S
6O
§
en

t--
8
O
CS
CN
cs"
ff>
SO
s
SO
6O
•*
»r>
t--
Os
6O
d>
I
O
1
^
T3
§
J3
CO
3
fa
&>
§
O
CS
6O
O
cs
6O
>n
S
69
?
cn
60
m
S;
60
OJ
f-
U
o
o
•^
6O
S
cs
6O
OO
Os
cs
&e
Medium 1
o
1
<
•o
§
•g
fa
b
§
o
cs
6O
O
CS
6O

S
60
0
CS
6O
«n
S
6O
O
SO
•q-
6O
m
m
cs
cs"
6O
so
SO
ro
6O
1
6O
>n
Os
CS
S5
g
«*
6O
Medium 3
1
5
3
i
*
fa
.b
5
Q
S
6O
O
>n
m
6O
in
"3-
O
6O
O
SO

S
6O
O
cs
60
O
•rt
6O
"&•
OS
6O
O
o
•n
C3S
6O
9
6O
r<1
so
VI
s.
v>
0
cs
6O
Medium 1
•S
1
1
fa
b
cct
Q
8'
60
O
cs
6O
»n
S
6O
O
•"3-
6O
m
in
en
6O
-m
58
?—<
&e
?
io
s
t—
6O
CS
•*
m
cs
6O
CS
•3
a>
S
•S
§
CO
A
CQ
3
fa
b
8
i
0
«H
6O
in
Tf
o
&o
§
6O
§
6O
O
S
1^4
.60
O
cs
m
60
SO
•S
6e
m
fi
cs
6O
m
1
j:
I
CO
.e
CO
3
fa
b
8
s
6O
0
in
m
6O
»n
S
60
I
OO
CS
m
io
OS
s
m
6O
o
§
cs"
6O
O
OS
00
>n
6O
CS
Os
ffi

cf
>-)
1
O
U
o
n
X
.&•
Q
o
cs
6O
O
cs
6O
S
6O
0
CS
m
6O
>n
S
60
•*
>n
so
U
o
OO
m
6O
s
o
60

n
K
b
c5
Q
                                            A-53

-------
1
 o
 05
O
i
 03
H

<*>
|
a




o
1



fr








u'*
wi
§


•s
•1
IP
s>.|
1
1
•e
1
4
*Ǥ
s
a
_x
O
S
1

11
"a
O
CM
69
O
•9

*
69
0
69
to
CO
CM
S
g
CO
69
O
oo
oo
69
O
vo
8
vo
69
Medium 3

1
CJ
IX
t
O
CM
69
0
69

^
69
0
S
CO
CN
69
O
to
S
CM"
69
vo
VO
69
ON"
69
I
2
o
•c
•a


5
n
ft
0
69

^
69
O
CO
69
CO
69
I-H
CM
69
O
,O
69
VO
CM
CN
69
OO
s-
•a
CO
O
C
CC
13

V
a
&
'n
f>
o
69

O
69
O
OO
vo
69
VO
CM
69
O
O
CM
69
VO
OO
co"
69
Medium 2
.S
C
CC
1
•o

1
"5
o
CM
69
0


S
,69
69
CO
CO
CN
S
VO
VO
s
0
s;
69
CM
CO
69
ON
69
CO
S
1
^O
CC
<
s
1
a
2
S
o
69

^
69
O
o
&
o
ON
10
CM
69
CO
to
CO
69
of
69
to
vo
VO
VO
69
CO
o
I
CC

T3
S
O
1
E?
2
,9
O
69


69
O
VO
CO
69
CM
S
CM
69
•O
OO
CN
69
O
69
VO
O
CM
CM
69
§
Medium 1

1
s
4)
W
C
't!
O
CM
69
0
69


69
1
69
t—
OO
r—
69
§
CM
69
O
69
i
&
CM
CM
1

I
S
a
5
O
CM
69
0
69


69
69
§
u
s
CO
69
69
t—
OO
CO
69
CM
CM
CO
6°
CO
1

1
2
I
5
I
O
69


69
O
O
CM
69
OO
CO
oo
69
VO
CM
69
O
0
69
CM
CN
3
55
CO
vb"
69

O
CM
69
to

69
O
2;
69
CO
s
69
O
00
ON
69
0
CN
CO
69
VO
69
CO
CN
69
CO
i

•£

|
&
0
f)
O
CO
69

S
69
0
o\
CM
69
O
69
O
VO
69
00
CO
CN
69
00
CT
1

1
0
tt
"5
ffi
V
"S
o
CM
69
0
CM
69
to
S
69
i
1
69
S
69
69
to
,69
00
00
E
1

a
c
0
2
•eft
*

-------
        09


        ^O


        53
        S
        w



        CQ
        PM*
        03
        £



        V
S
•8
H
    03
 ^ a
 £)  O



1  «
        .5^
        a
        e
        03
        S
        a>
        6JD
        03
        c
        03
        v>
        O
       U

<*>
??

1



w
t
<3



-H
E








•••*-•; a
*i
•-eo g:
«
"^^
1
:^:
: 1
4
*!
.a:
^i
. 1
w_
: w /
S
1
f'l O
.3
1
-$
1
Size Class
e
o
-I-
g*
&ff
•a
g
1
s
o
m.
69
§
69
8
69
VO
CM
in
69
•— t
r-
&9
o
>d-
m
69
00
CM
69
r-
CM
r-
CM"
&9
a
5

1
ID
O

O

O


CQ
t*-t
(L>
a
0
s
o
M,
69
>n
s
69
§
69
CM
en
69
OS
O>
m
69
O
OO
69
O\
3
69
Tf
OO
t-^
i— (
69
Medium 1

1
6

a>
(D
m
t4-
(D
ID
m
S
69
O
«
69
%
O
69
8
69

vo
69
O
C-l
•^
cT
69
CM
O
§*
3
o
"*3
g
<
•o
is

o

CQ
<4_
CQ
o
cs
69
0
CM
69
>O
S
69
O,
CM
69
S
m
6%
OO
VO
>n
w
8
69
S
m
69
r-1
5
69
Medium 1
o
•£!
i
§

(D
m
<<-•
8
CQ
o
CM
69
0
CM
69
»n
s
69
8
o\
m
en
69
0
m
vo
69
S
69
§
69
•*
CO
P-^
69
Medium 2
o
1
5
is

o

CQ
a.
CM
69
0
m
69
i
69
?
69
§
69
OS
a\
in
69
CM
69
OO
s
69
$
™
CM
69
a>
I
fin
1
is

(D
IU
CQ
•s

CQ
o
CM
69
O
ro
69
in
S
69
O
VO
VO
69
r-
00
8
OO
s
69
S
VO
CM"
69
ON
vo
r-
69
69
CM
1

%
T>
is



CQ
•s

CQ
•s

CQ
o
CM
69
O
CM
69
in
S
69
O
VO
69
S
m
&3-
S
69
69
S
"3-
69
OO
r<->
OO
69
Medium 3
•s?
>
is

a>
a>
CQ
<4-H
CD

o>
PQ
8
69
O
f>
69
•r>
•&
o
69
O-
ts
t—
69
s
a\
M
69
(N
OO
S
g
^

0>
CQ
Q-.
n
o>
ro
69
VO
p.
69
Medium 2

o
1C
"I


CQ
i
o
C-l
69
>n
S
69
O
VO
69
S
m
69
m
R
69
S
69
VO
m
•*
69
§
69
Medium 3

>g
1

•s
s
CQ
C«H

-------
-
 cu
 o

.•to
>.§»
$
5
;-

i
1


;i.
1
rg









&
(S
•B
.S
e

•t
•'?
||
;»
a
%;
-:1
. OB
1
1
•a*
1
1
i
1

f j

• 
CN
cd
^
CO
's
ffl
"S

S
j3
CO
3
to
b
2
6O
O
°t
6O
O
6O
O
CM
6O
O
6O
CN
6O
O
CM
CM
6O
CO
6O
S
60
I
T3
1

1
to
t
o
CM
6O
O
CO
6O
S
6O
O
VO
6O
OO
CO
6O
O
CO
r-
&o
S
CM
&O
00
VO
6O
S^
60

GO
3
0
it
1
to
Q
S
o
CN
6O
WO
60
60
CN
VO
CO
6O
OO
VO
VO
60
§
6O
OO
6O
r-
6O
s
i
o

-------
§
 o
u
 (U


1
H

b
o
1



t
OO
8



t
I










*I
•s
a
•a
• a
*
4
1

•a
E
0>
•a
a
•0
S
Size Oasts
e



11
•a
'a

8
o
cs
69
i
69
1
OO
CO
69
s
69
O
OO
69
CO
vo
69
OO
CO
cs
69
Medium 2

P
§
o
CO

n
o
cs
69
O
es
Z
i
69
O
69
t^
CS
69
CO
in
60
I
6O
OO
60
CO
cs
6O
Medium 3

P
a
$
o
1

cc
o
cs
69
0
in
CO
£
in
69
O
O
69
0
VO
69
CS
69
1
&*
o\
oo
m
60
CO
o»
CO
69
1
|
Cd
<
T3
2
O
1

03
n
s
o
cs
69
O
69
0
OO
60
OO
69
vo
69
O
O
60
OO
3
t— 1
&*»
m
&
Medium 1
.°
<
"U
2
1
!i

n
o
cs
6O
O
cs
60
m
S
69
I
m
in
."*
f-
in
VO
69
O
••3-
69
S
in
69
CO
O
cs
69
Medium 2
1
<
*o
S
li

K
O
:s
0
cs
69
i
60
O
O
69
it
69
t-
00

O
CO
VO
60
00
CS
6O
Medium 3
0
<;
•a
'S.
1
h
Q
i
0
ro
r-H
i
6O
o
69
CS
t—
69
O
S
cs
69
§
m
oo
69
£
CO
69
9
i
69
O
69
CS
VO
69
OO
VO
69
i
s
69
O
69
3
"8

O
c
0-4
1


»
0
cs
69
i
69
O
69
VO
CS
69
t-.
S
69
S
69
1
6O
OO
OO
•*
Medium 2

1C
c
(S!
(D
1
h

S
o
cs
69
m
S
69
I
S
6O
00
6O
§
69
VO
in
69
R
ee-
Medium 3

c
c
eS
a


/»
o
tn
&^
i
69
1
O

O\
69
O
VO

£
6°
i
K

j-

co
(D
D
33

Q
o
cs
69
0
S
69
•n
S

o
VO
69
CO

VO
CS
60
0
oo
69
VO
69
£
69
Medium 1

js

t/3
1
II


i
0
cs
69
i

»
m
CO

t—
00
69
69
VO
CO
69
vo
69
CS
1

.Ej
%3
m
|


s
69
O
69
i

g
69
OO

?
69
O
00
69
0\
CO
vo
69
if
tN
€/=
m
g
1

.0
&
OQ
(D
1
£?

o
cs
69
O
•O
69
g

g
69
VO

S
69
0
O
69
VO
69
0
CO
00
60
1
cc

1

u
g
"a
a
ffi
i
0
es_
6O
i

o
cs
69
CO

I—
00
69
^
CO
CO
49
CS
cs
VO
69
g
1

|
S
o
i
a
ffi
B
u
.9
O
69
i

s
CO
CO

o
69
O
VO
69
Ov
in
CO

vo
69
Medium 2

|
S
u
1
2
<8
33
o
cs
69
O
69
1

O
VO
69
VO
VO
CO

VO
vS
69
0
VO
69
VO
OO
CO

P
69
CO
1
1

s
s
O
£
cff
'5
1

o
cs
69
0
•n
69
•n
S

o
00
69
S
1>J
1
60
0
OO
69
C—
VO
m

g
69
ct
_C
r.
K
«£

'£,
1
•5
33
IV
«
^
0
69
in

o
cs
69
OO
0
CO

vo
r-
69
1
VO
CS
CO

t—
o
69
Medium 1
'c
a
i

•^
'a
33
o

fi
O
69
I

s
oo
cs
CO

o
69
O
CO

s
if
cs
1
^c
*$
.y

c/
1
1
33
o
cs
69
O
69
in
S

I
CO
•n
"I

CO
>n
vo
69
O
VO
69
OO
VO
CO

o
oo
VC
M.
Medium 3
o
T
Cl
i
'S

1
1
t
-------
1
CU
p"-'
:•*?>•
J't?
;',:O
;P

"/:
? - •
'N

?'<.,./'
;;4v=;

y:;.
i'l-H
'-"•£"
:-:g
':S









/If
u T3
fO :t>
'I
§*""

f'
'?•»
"B
i
••••£
T* ' "3
fO :.Q
'<&•
f
•"&
'•'«"
';s;
en
sl
#1
«
%
.. ,3
1
•a
vS
.:?
'D
"J!
5O
• o
If
fia^e"*

•-i
; <
o
s
o
rn^
69
>n
§
69
O
oo
69
5
in
V)
Cs
s
69
S3
00
69

r-
m
69
o
00
f->

— ^
u
§*
J
Midwest
"S
U3
S2
•a
S
S
&9
0
«
.69
in
S
69
o
CM
69
00
O
m
69
vo
r-
"0
69
§

vo
m
V)
t—
o
so

0
•a
o
S
Midwest
*+->
'S
M
t+-t
£
S
69
0
CM
,.69
in
S
69
O
^r
69
OO
CM
m
69
o
VO
69
§

*o
CO
6O
i

CM
'g
•a
a)
4-»
3
,2
<2
'53
UJ
1
.(L>
33
o
CM
69
O
CM
.69
i
69
S
m
in
m
69
m
in
vo
69
O
vo

'oo
m
69
0
OO
vO

m
1
T3

if
>-)
C
"I
1
S
33
t»-H
0
S
0
CO
fe«*
Vi
S
V*
g
69
CT\
•
f>
S
6^
§

r-
v>
6O
§
t~-
£/}
O
I
1
C/3
1
K
C^H
5'
O
CN
6
w
o
CN
ffi
O
tM
6^
1
&»
S
O
m
CO
6O
•*
vo
6O
O
Tl-

^
CO
&o
§
V)
fM
•O
O
S
-g
.3
O
co
2
c2
'53
33

'53
33
o
CN
69-
O
C-l
(ft

S
Vi
*
n
«o
ro
WJ
n
*o
vo
&»
o
VO

_H
en
£«
•*
OO
vo
60
m
1
-«
S
1
CO
'53
33
2
0
S
6O
§
0
a
««•
«n
•*
»n
69
O
CM
69
•*
>n
69
O
R
69
1
i
1
u
•§
tL,
*r;
1
8
69
O
CN
69
IT)
•sj-
O
69
8
69
0
S
69
V>
••d-
m
69
S
69
•*
«n
69
O
S
69
CS
S
!
1
^
CO
S
A
r3
£
S
.69
O
CM
69
n
S
69
S
69
^~
V>
69
O
m
o\
69
m
g
i
1
_s
en
9
(i.

1
O
CM
69
0
<».
69
»n
S
69
S
69
O
O>
CM
69
»O
S
69
O
CM
69
•*
V>
69
0
m
OS
69
6
T3

o
CN
69
0
^
69
S
69
S
69
O
O\
CM
69
S
w-1
69
O
CM
69
•*

69
0
R
69
CM
1
T3

S
Mid-Atlantic
1
u_

>
o
CM
69
O
CM
69
S
69
1
?
69
!?
69
O
CM
69
-3-
»n
69
O
R
69
m
e
"8
S
Mid-Atlantic
J3
en
k

1
o
CM
69
O
CM
69
S
69
O
a
0
a
69
9
69
O
CM
69
•*
U">
69
O
S
69
a
•a
1
Midwest
•g
PH

1
o
CM
69
O
CM
69
in
S
69
O
S
0
OS
CM
69
VI
•<3-
69
O
CM
69
<*
in
69
O
m
OS
69
CM
1
Midwest
_e
CO
3
[i,

1
O
s.
o
CM
69
>n
•s
69
O
S
0
OS
CM
69
•n
•*
69
S
69
•*
>n
69
O
m
OS
69
cn
g
!
Midwest
1
P-.

^
S
69
O
".
69
m
S
69
O
CM
69
O
OS
CM
69
in
S
69
S
69
•*
m
69
0
S?
69
g
•a
to
S
O
tC
1
•S
fe

>
o
CM
69
0
<->
69
S
69
S
69
O
OS
CM
69
3
>n
69
O
CM
69
<3-
>n
69
O
S?
69
CM
1
*8
S
o
w
'i
OH
A
en
9
u;

^
o
CM
69
O
CM
69
S
69
1
1
69
3
69
O
CM
69
•*

69
O
S
69
m
i
•H
1
j=
CO
3
E

1
o
S
o
CM
69
S
O
69
O
CM
69
O
OS
CM
69
n
69
o
m
OS
69
E
•8
S
1
CO
•g
fe

>
S
69
O
CM
69
10
S
69
O
CM
69
O
OS
CM
69
»n
S
69
S
69
•*
>n
69
0
m
OS
69
CM
1
=3
a>
§
GO
1
E

>
                                       A-59

-------
H
        £1
         .!
          •s
        B
        te
                                    A-60

-------
    t»
    s
    •a
    2
    V
    *•

    l»
    ^ «
    r^ 53
    S6?
«l  .as

'
 eg
H
    s


    .o
    ce
    O

to
fe
1
^





3
-


fr
ft
'&




.1
CO
a











-"S
'£
**
•a
"S,
eo
U
'!~

*
i
3
1




£
'n

W
1
1


§
I
is!

2,
f">'
is
fa

•3
X


o
69



t-
00
69

i
-
cs
cs
ON



00
"— t



!
3
0
CO
o
s
1
s


,_
1
n
1
u
.a
69


O
69



2
09

OO
69

I
cs"
69



VO



o



VI
cs

o

o
o
H5O



ON
OO
,_
69


Medium 3
."2
o
CO


1
0
CO



1
a
M
o
O
&


o
69



^
69

CO
£9

vo
»— H
co"
69



0
CO
«/•>
69


U
|>
T3
O
CO


•a
S

{*»
Q
85
1
u
6
0
69


0
69



OO
69

ON
ON
cs
69

r-
VO
o"
*i


ON
j^T
r— 1
69

CS

O
CO


to
1
S

£.
Q
!
1
jd
•s
-

o
69



M-!
CS
69

CS
69

00
69



cs
cs
t--
69



Medium 1
•o
'ci
CO


VI
1


&>
Q
1
i-l
1
u
O
o
"69


O
69



£
69

O
00
t-
69

r~
VO
t-
69



VO
-cs
r^
69


Medium 2
•o
O
CO


1


f->
Q
S3
J
c
o
f)
o
69


O
69



CS
f— 1

i
69
ON
69



CO
r~

69


CO
i
T3
O
CO


1
45


ft
Q
1
1
f^
o
69
_

0
69



3
69

CS
CO
cs
69

•n
co^
co"
69



O
V}
69


1
3
o
CO


•s
o
CO

b
Q
f
1
u
u
,69


O
69



OO
69

ON
ON
CS
69

ON
oo
ON"
69



~


69

CS
s>
cd
•o
0
CO


^
O
CO

^,
Q
1
g
u

0
69


O
69



~
CS
69

1

s



VO
69



Medium 1
"O
o
CO


•s
0
CO

f>>
o
§
1
(_)
o
69


69




69

O
OO
69

r-
69



s
^
69


Medium 2
T3
O
CO


^
3
CO

ft
Q
1
c
J3
o
j=
o
69


O
69



CS
"i.
69
1
69
•f)
O
ON
69



ON
r
69


CO
1

"3
CO



§
CO

j>.
Q
1
1

                  A-61

-------
¥
 o
U
 a>

•8

f>
*>
5
0X1
u,
a

1
g
.M
_o
IE
o
0
69
/J
CM
in
CM
69
1

u
u
>»
K
c
c
IE
o
o
69
O
69
CM
a
69
s
CO
69
r-
o
69
CM
r~
69
D
£?
C3
»-)
t-t
O
CU
CO
&

1
u
o

'H
b
0
1
1
u
_c
CO
o
69
O
69
S
vo
69
§•'
be
as
B
5
69
CM
U
•3
s
O<
CO
£

1
u
U
•%
•P
b
!
b
Swine
o
69
O
69
VO
C-
&9
s
g
r-
t~-
69
>n
CO
3
u
if
v4
•O
0
O4
>-)
_o
s
5
•S
.e
b
0
1
P-H
Swine
o.

C5
69
is
6^
5
CO
&9
O
CM
S
CO
en
CO
69
CM

£P
03
>-)
13
CT*
>-)
1
!
S
J3
C
P-.
O
1
£
u
_c
C/3
C5.

O
69
>r>
S
CM,
>n
69
O\
»Ti
69
W>
CT\
69
Medium 1
•a
3
C*
_1
o
1
1
s
•s
c
tb
0
1
£
a>
_c
C/D
o

o
69
ON
O
•J=>

£?
J3
•o
3
or1
H-)

£
45
2

fa
b
o
|
1
U
_£
t/D
O

O
69
CS
N
>9
r-
3\
69
>O
cn
69
r—
>n
69
Medium 1
•a
&
nJ

CO
1
S
•S
c
b
o
1
(U
_r
oo
C5

>9
O
VO
69
f-
>n
s
•<*

69
r-
co
69
Medium 2
T3
&
nJ

cfl
1
s
•s
c
b
o
|
1
u
c
1
&?

g
CM
CM
CM
69
r-
f)
CO
69
C—
r-
69
§
69
Medium 3
•a
3
Cf
HJ

1
s
•s
C!
b
o
1
CC
b
U
_c
CO


o
69
VO
f-
1-*
69
•<4-
CO
CM
69
O
0
m
69
cS
r)-
69
ID
ff
_1


OH
1
ed
?
13
s
•s
c
b
o
1
K
b
u
1


o
69
S3
>n
69
5
CO
69
s..
CO
69
>n
CM
^
»— »
69
CM
§>
5


O-.
_0
i
3
•i
s
en
O
b
o
|
a
b
u
C
'&
CO


o
69
CO
o\
69
CO
v>
69
69
CS
VO
1—4
69
Medium 1


&4
O
1
•3
1
S
•S
B
b
R
&
1
.1
CO


o
69
en-
1— 4
69
CM
CO
T— 1
69
^f
«/">
»— *
69
0\
-*r
CM
69
Medium 2


£
u
1
OS

69
CM
Tt
CM
69
•*
*— 1
8
3
C«">
69
CO
|
1


b
1
<
x»
s
43
EA
13
b
R
1
b
(U
c
1


o
69
OS
CM
CM
69
OS
VO
CO
69
CM
r^
T— I
69
f-
r-
S
U


Pi

1
s
en
C
b
o
!
*
•*
3
69
s
•*
69
VO

r~-
Os
69
s
69
vo
OS
69
Medium 1 .


0,

W
4
S
•S
c
b
.P,
^
1
b

CM
69
OS
69
§
69
Medium 2


cu

1
S
•S
a
b
o
1
b
«
C
1


O
69
CM
CM
CM
69
l>
Tl
S
o
en
69
0
i
en
H
s


CH

S
^
s
X!
ca
a
b
o
1
ec
b
0>
C
1
                                          A-62

-------
 §
U
 a>

1
H


1
1
W

•W- '
r&
f

';>"'

1
i
U


il
2
'••S












"S
S

15
0,
a
U
]
1
Ch
es
U
1
B
3
'S,
o
u*
eu
&



B:
I

1?
_•;
g '
«£
"re
c
3.
09


O
09



CN
CO
CO


s

CN
P-
09


»— t
|

S
82*
w


1

.s
.c
b
1

8
1
09


O
O9



vo
o
CN
*••-<
09

CN
09

i


CN
1

g
>
HJ


1
C!
U
JS
CO
3
b
1

CO
09


O
09



VO
r-
09
S
CN
09


F-
F-
09

oo
CN
09


1

T3
&
J
O
1

^
CO
s

1

1
09


o
09



I--"
CN
09
OS
S
09


09

OO
CO
oo
09


CN
-l
o
1
1
•o
£
•s
c
b
|

CO
09


O
09



OS
CN
CN
09
OS
VO
CO
09


t— <
O
09

CO
vo
09


a>

•a
g-
<->


CO
1
^
CO
C
b
1

C!
?
09


0
O9



CO
oo
09
J
O9

OS
CO

vo
00
CO
09


CN

CN
69


1



a.


1
S
CO
•s
b
1
O

Swine
0
O9


O
09



CO
oo
O9
1
69

O9

VO
VD
09


CN

-------
 s
 C5
'•G

 o
 u
o
 0)

1
H

*
0
M
a>
3





£>
13





IH
fr
Pi,
1
u



0
1
O
a
i

i
e
S














•g
0
i


i
8!
u

IHH
§
•5
3
•|
u


1
a
<

€""

a
O
> R

>U
D

3 S
3 g?
8 i?
-<



e




I
w
la-

's
J
"S

§


o
69


m

ro

1

^

69



oo
•sr



cs

1




T3
O
CO
0
•s

•s
•^
•o
S

J=
oo
rt
00
I
£
o


o
69



•a
c
CO
t
i-
£
o
69


O
69


^j.
r>
vo
69

o\
69

VO

69









I




T3
O
CO



O
^
•o
S

•§>
5
CO
1
£
o
69


O
69


VO

ts
69

69

CS

69



VO
VO
69



a

i




T3
O
CO



%
%
•o
S

0
a
CO
"i
H
o
69


O
69


c^

m
69

§
in
69

$

69



m
69


CN

•8
S




T3
"o
CO



K
^
•o
S
t-l
0)
-C
Ol)
B
CO
t
f2
o
69


O
69


in

69

5O
VO
69

X

69



r— 1
69


cn

i




•0
o
CO


*-•
S
•&

S
15
00
§
CO
I
£
                                             A-64

-------
•e
o
T—I
 I



O


CO
       S3
       §
       £
      I
       0)
      •O
       C
      -o
•S    o
       
n,
fl
at
to
|| Animal
V£
&•




r-
69


r-
CN
69





CO
CO •
69
1

•a
0
CO

•a
S



CD

2
Chicken
o
CO
69




69


CN





VO
VO
69

o
CO
(X
69



CN
CN
O
69

O
O
co"
69





CN
VO
Medium 3

•a
o
CO

1



b
^

1
2




CN
C<"


r--
c«i





CO
s
1—4
1

•a
o
CO

^
o
CO


b
t-4
1
a
1
vo
CO




ON
CSI
69


cxT
CO





CO
VO
69
CN
CD
%

T3
"o
CO

.g
0
CO


Pi
u

I
V£




CN
S

-
VC





o
CN
69
Medium 1

•o
"o
CO

•s
g
CO


b


s
ex


-

o
CO
r-
69


r-
r-
CN
69





CO
69
CN
1
13
S

13
"o
CO

£
O
CO


b
i:
S
h3
1
CO
ex:
69



8
69

VO
CN
VI
co"
69





CO
69
Medium 3

13
"o
CO

•S
g
CO


b
..
^
1
^
                                     A-65

-------
T3
a>
 g
H

1
u

11 »-'
It C*
It Q>


1

1! *


1
1


1
1
"5
I
U

I
1
'5.

en
en
a
U
1
li
£
a
t


i
f
i

'<
o
n-
OS
,0
•n
n
vo
69
00
Os
"T,
CO

ID
F


.£
C/

t
'^
V
t
(.
'Jc
CJ
1
»
Js
CO
Q
JO

f— 4
CO
m
I
"2
'S
3

£
a

«
t.
a
_
,t
o
o
CO
vo
oo
69
VO
en
C9



5-
00

r~
oo
VO
VO
OI
R

a,

i
S
43
_g
C
g
cct
ID
CO

X)
oo

ss
vo
vo
CO

od
t.
cc
H-
E
nJ

•A
S

13
E
O
|
C3
W3
n.
CO
o


CO
£
•o
a)

PH

i
S

E
o
1
b
<
en
n
CO
n
r>

2i

»— (
T3
i
^
E
-J

1
T3
s

,g
c
g
b
,c
CO

S
n
JO

oo
o
CO
E
"8

PH

•A
S

il
o
1

a
c/3
^
lo
o
n
>o

oo
60
CN
•a
1
cr
>->

••a
S

13
E
O
g

CO
d
I
N
CN

OS
co
en
E
I

PH

i
•a
S
43
C
E
o
2

_£
CO

VO
CO
XI
N

VI
r-
CO
en
£
"8
|
>->

i
S
43
C
E
o
1
b
CO
9
n
i
CO
oo
vo
CO

£?
ec

PH

•rt
^;

c
E
c
B
b
ID
13
•C
CO
3
CO
OS
en
o

vo
CO

s
h-
-c
f,
>->

•r5
)§
J3
c
b
o
1
b
ID
_g
CO
OS
oy
co
oo
CN,
n"
oo
N
CO
en
en
CO
CN
6P
R

PH

•1
^
-c
C
E
o
g
fr
.(
CO
^
CO
00
N,
en"
CO
oo
N
60
CO
69
CN
0
R
E
'-1

-1
^i
43
C
b
o
o
b
i
CO
CN
en
CO
n
6O
vb
ffi

oo
69
E
1

PH

.<•§
^
J=
C
E
o
1
b
•i
CO
CN-
en
CO
n
69
VO '
en
CO

00
69
£
1
E

tn

^
J-
c
E
o
I
MH
*:
CO
X3
i
oo
n
o
oo
CO

en
oo
CO
CN
E
"8

PH


&

£
|
b

-------
I
.!' fc?
'w
; U
;- ?•
•-- i— 1 :
>, ' o "
;* ; 1



Manure






1
c
S
'2

a
I
'S.
eg
y

to"
p
Jn
4)
f.
1
f
&
fe
I
*
f
vc
C
r-
00

OS
vo
CN
69
CO
u
•o
1

1
r to Finish
g
a

S
0
o
t-
oo
vo
oo

VD
CO
69
O
£?
JS
o
I

2.
e
O
a
5
2
u
0
vc
6<
OO
o
vc
Os"
6?
f-
r-

CN
u
I
1
(5

1
0
J3
CO
S
1

S
OO
C<"
69
C)
CO
vo
69
CO
CN
VO

vo
r— *
vo
69
0
5
«

t
•a
S
5=
S
o
S
CO
.OS
CO
69
O
CO
vo
69
CO
CN
VO

vo
VO
CN
69
^_,
I
1
j

•o
CA
S
1
u
oo
o
r-
6«
OO
oc
oo

oo
vo
vo
69
CN
3

i
w
c§

s
c*"
6<
OS
vo
69
CN
CN
5=
r-
Os
69
CO
1
i
^

•2
•£
S
0

S
CO
C
6<
6«
CN
CN
6?
os
69
CO
§
•a
u
•o
"I

1
5
1

S
V£
69
Os
CO
C
6*
^
5=
vo
69

g>
-*->

1
U3
O
O

i
•*
vo
69
OS
CO
C
o

oo
vo
69

%
•a
I

1
"2
a
1


vo
OS
OS
(f.
oo
c*1
69
oo
CN
CN
69
CO
CO
69
CN
1
£

Midwes
1
2

a
vo
Os
OS
6<
OO
C^
ff
00
CN
cN
69
i
CO
69
CN
ff
rs

1
"2
a
S
1

S
^
CO
69
CN

CO
69
CN
V~t
69
VC


&e
-
T3
U
|

Midwes
a
S
I


—
oo
69
OO
CO
f-
69
OO
69
CO
OO
69
CN
•8
£

Midwes
2
1

3
-, —
oo
69
OO
CO
69
OO
69
CO
00
69
g
•a
u
5
5"

1
«
S
1

I
-. 	
vo
CO
VO
69
vo
CN
C
r~
oo
69
OS
vo
CN
69
CO
S
1
X

1
_e
1

S
vo
CO
vo
69
vo
CN
C
00
fee-


's
•a
u
1

"2
a
S
•f
o

S
                                     A-67

-------
o
U.
fl





1 o
C£
1 "«
U

II


U


0
IOJ
•8
U












<
i
i<












..

a
a
a
E
A



3
CU
a
0

"3
"3
|




3.
...B.
&
^^
^



.en
«
U
,1
3 S
s B<

B

g>

a>
-ft
H
I
to

"3
E

OO
.9




l
^H
oT
69



O\
3\
VO
r— 4







vo

,_4
vo
O4
69


_
I
"O
K


t
•O
s


J-
_c
00
c
CO


H
o
s




OO

69




Js
>O
3








o
vo


69

_
g
•3
•o
o
CO


•i
s


!i>
&
a
CO

•§
H
in
*




vo
vo
69




2
69








*— H
O


69

O4
g
•3
i>
•a
o
CO


•i
S


S?
j:
K
CO
J^
•^
pi
OO
£




^j.
IT)
2~
69



O
VO
69








•(-j-
^j«
r-

69

CO
6
•s
•o
o
CO


t
s


ID
6
5
CO
^
•s
pi
00
S




*— 1
r-H
of
69



OO
O
s
69







tf)
00

en

69


_
!

c

K
1
S


0
J=
5
CO
.^
•^
H
o
69




OO
>n
69




vo
vo
CO
69








0
en
°°~

69

r-,
g
•3
•a
K

u
1
S


<3
&
ct
CO
>.
•^
H

S




VO
vo
69




0
>9








OO
f-
o,

69

04
S
1

O
CO

V.
•c
.s


Ui
u
0
n
00
^
•§

OO
ss




,-j.
*Q
,_-
69



VO
r^l
V*







f~-
>n
^*
04

69

en
g
1
•O
*0
CO

CA
I
S


1-f
2?

CO
,
nl
Hi
                                    A-68

-------
 


•O
o
oo
0
s
.s

•a
!§

l-i
1
1
O
c
6<

00
69
O
S
01
C/J


vo
cn"
69

01
£P
cs


•a
o
00
u
1
*3
•6
S

JB
1
pa
1
d
£
«

cr
6=
cn
01



cn
„
g
•3


T3
o
oo
o
i
*jj
•c)
S

1
1
u
3
o
&*

00
c
s




1
S

o
1
o
U
VO
ol


01
oo



r-
^~
g
tg


T3
OO


CO
(D
1
S

Q
1
1
o
JS
oo
ofi

0
oo
r-
t--
VO
r—



VO
cn
T— «
Ol
g
3
•a
i


TS
O
00


»?•
1
s

o
1
o
c;
9
n

S"
VO
f~
ON



cn
f-
cn
g
1


T)
O
oo


CO
4


Q
1
o
_c
5
G/n

cn
01
VI
69


0
-)
1
u
C)
VO
&n

69
vo



o
G
69
1—4
B
•3
1


T3
O
OO



•S
o
oo

(&
!
1
u
^
S


o
oo
f-
T— 1
r-
69



t-
69
01
g
1


Tt
O
oo



"3
0
00

b
Q
c
0
01
' ^
6S
01
69
O
ON
69



ON
•O
69
cn
P
b
1


13
O
t/3




O
OO

Q
1
c
0
oo
fjTl

o
00
r-
69
t--
OO
69


01
r-
of
69


O
I


."2
.S*



.c
0
oo

1
I
1
o
J3
                                     A-69

-------
vU
•S
H
LI
i?
n
U

OJ>
1


I
|










•S--
§

1
!
1
'S.
SI
U
CJ
CO
>
3 g.
if


H
'Sb
eg


n
00
cs

1
(S


1
u
U
•a
c
E
o
Farrow

_c
vo
x>

io
oo

I


0
1
•a
s
•s
C!
E
s
1
1

a:
vo
S
CM
OO
r-
r-
oo
-J
0
s
^
S
-S
a
c
1

Swine
s
n
oo

oo
oo
5
CM
CJ)


o
c
1
s
J3
c
E
o
1
1

_c
oo
oo

o
00
CO
oo
CN
E?
cd
"2
"5
_l
o
c
1
•a
!S
'•a
c
E
o
|
n

Swine
£
5

s
CN
vo
r— 1
g
•o
i

s
0
1
•A
S

c
E
C
a
IX,

Swine
VO
JN
2

ON
V)

9
i
I
>_i
o
1
1
•a
S
•Si
c
E
o
1
(2

V

S

S
00
i
•8

PH
O
cc
•a
S

c
E
O
B
a

CO
S
X)


1
i
i
^
t-j
o
c
cs
1
s

c
E
2
|



VO

T— <
rN
VO
CO
oo
CO
•8

PH
O
1
•o
s

c
E
2
1

_c
CO
n
CM

60
S
CO
•1
•o
(U
3
t-l
o
c
a
i
S
•a
c
E
O
c

_c
CO
CM
N
CO

CN
t—
io

I

1±<



S
j:
E
o
i

_g
CM
CN
60
ON
VO
CO

=1
CO

E?
3
HJ



>
V:
S
E
o
a

_C
CO
CO
»
s

b
VO
VO
CN
CO


Pi

ts
«
T3
^
•a
c
E
o
B

_c
CO
CO
oo
6O
cl

ON
CO
:M
vo
00
CO
oo
CN
b.
«
E
i-J



^
C*
5
E
c
c
(2

_c
N
»

O
VO
6O
i
"8

PH

•4-*
(U
^
J2
CO
(I
O
I

_c
N
OO
JN

•o
t~-
a
•a
->

•s
i>
^
•3
E
o
1

_c
CO
3
OO
n
CM

oo
00
CN
E
"S
•*-»
Mi

CO
U
•€
^
•3
c
<
fr

00
VO
oo
r>
CN

/^
t—
oo
CN
E
1
c
I-4

«
ID
^
A
CO
C
E
o
1

1
N
OO
OO
VN
O

o
CO
oo
o
N
E
1
4-*
PH

«S
•C
•*
"&
e
E
c
Farrow

wa
CM
CN
N
oo
in
CO
oo


CN
oo
CO
1
••s
^
E
1-1

V


V.
o
E
o
c

CO
CM
CO
N
o
oo

0
oo
«
^
t-t
c
1*
U-l


1
o

U
c

_g
i
>,
VO
oo
s

JN
io
o
•n
CN
n
Ui
c
s
w


i


'c
E
(
o

.s
                                         A-70

-------
13
 CU
 o
U
r

:£
i


~

i— t
u






1
g










:


S
a

a
1
3
a
CJ
U,
&•
OS

i


§


s;


1
^
t--


oo
CN)
oo


o
0
en
oo


•st-
oo





Er
CO

1-»
PH
S
"2
£

CO
s
b
|
S
CO
t-~


r-


s


00
CN
OO





s
•a
§•
"-1
1
*j
i
"2
•^

43
CO
b
1
§
CO
CN
Of


C<


cS
oo
oo


oo



CN
o
£?
CO

.,_,
PH
U
1
1
•a
•^

S
1
§
0
CN
*n
oo


oc


§


00
en
oo



CN
o
tf
,3
•a
&
"J
1
1
•^

1
2
O
c
o
0


5


o
o


s



~
•S
1

.,_,
PH
O
1

•^

2
1
S
0




PH
1
CO
1
•a
£3

2
Grow F
-j
o
I
1
2

CO
s
2
O
g
%



VO
fN


S


en



en
.2
•o

^
PH
CO
^
S

S
S
b
1
c
CO
V
5


i


oo


en
O
CN



-
•2
s
T3
g.
t-J
O
•i
S

S
1
s
CO
C"


a\
vo
en


5


t--
r-
tN




o
as


PH

CO
1
s

•s
GrowF
.
&



vo


c


VO
*— t




flj
I
T3
§<
i-J

1
S

CO
S3
b
1
o.
CO



el
00

oo


vo
vo



CN
Q>
,3


PH

I
S

CO
Grow Fi
S
CO
oc


en
5

er
CN
OO


vo
oo
en



CN
o
I
•o
f?.


•a
S

CO
s
b
g

O


oo
o


o
VC


VO
oo



s
4
•8


PH

1
S

43
b
S
o
0

5


oo


s


r—
oo



-
3
1
-a
B-
3

1
S

43
CO
s
Grow Fi


CN
CN
CN
oo


oo
cr

_.
r-
oo


oo



' fi

1
T3
'3


I
s

•s
a
Grow Fi
!


I
g>
13
en
Of


S


r-
oo


oo
oo



CN
^
1

s
o
o
1
^

tH
1
CO
t

V
oo


oc
vo
oo

CN
VC
00

en
1-H
oo



en
^
•s

ja
o
oo
•|
?
>!

(-1
J3
00
J
CO
&
t5
s
VO
oo


s
oo

s
er
CN"
oo

oo
o
en"
oo





if

^
o
CO

•s
1
^


CO
&•

                                        A-71

-------
1
 0>

1
H
                 r-l
                                              A-72

-------
«
H





U


r



u




ta
b,
S
ii
s




S
to




"c

c

JJj
'S.
u

1
1

3
ft
U
J
O3

a>
-S?

a
OB
01

0
^»
H
15
<
VO
69



t—
69



f-
69

OS
CO
co"
69


1


13
O
00

•0
2


£
B
U


69



CM
69


S
69

oo^
*»


CM
ID


T3
00

•A
S
,_,
— <
CQ
1


69



O
OS
-8



OS
VO


CM
O
r— 1


Medium 1


T3
O
OO

•a
S
^
— ^
2
«,
1
o
o
os
69



1



§


O
69


Medium 2


•a
o

•A
^


2
CQ
1
u
43

69



6=



OS


r-
oo
CM
69


S
1


T3
O
00

i
-o
S
fll

2
CQ
1
6
Os
O
69



OS
Os



CM
4

Os
CM
*



1
S.


1
I
43

oo_
69


CM
CM
°x
69


O
O
CO
69
=
CM
VO
69


Medium 3


13
DO

1
§


S
1


6=



CM
CO
CM
69



P
CO
69

CO
T— 1


o


T)
O
oo

-e
o
00

irt
J
1
o
43
VO
OO
(f.



OS
OS
CM
69



5
00
CO
69

OO
OS
VO
69


CM
U
£?
3


•a
o
oo

•S
o
oo

irf
1
1
o
43
,-H
CM
69



CM
69



OS
69

O
*— i
.VO
CM
69


Medium 1


•a
O
00

43
"3
0
00

Ul
J
1


S



o
00
r-
69



r--
69

OO
VO
69


Medium 2


T)
O
OO

•a
0
oo

1-
1
1
JE3
r)

op_
69


CM
CM
°x
69


VO
CM
CO
69

>n
oo
69


CO
1


•a
o
oo

^
o
00

t-l
&
1
43
                                 A-73

-------
r
                TJ
                
3 »
! g


1
'S

f|

•S
S
rl-
69
P
vo
69
OO
ON
O
69

1
"2
'3
O"


•S
o
CO

H
.3
1
o
vo
69
&
r-
00
69
•— i
69
i
i
r2
j

1
CO

S3
•3
1
i9
DO
69
VO
OO
69
S
69
_,
U
00
S3
1
P3

1
U
o

£
	
Swine
»
oo
o
VO
CN"
69
r-
69
t—
CO
69
CN
£?
CO
1
U

"2
2
0

01
n>
1
3N
i9
0
CO
VO
69
a
VO_
69
vo
VO
cs
69

1



§
O

[2
c
'1
3N
O
CO
vo
69
69
vo
VO
CN
69
l
if



i
0
p
(2
Swine
o
X)
oo
69
C—
OO
vo
vo
CN
s

OH

•o
is
o
1
C3
PH
	
Swine
3
*— 1
69
bo
69
OO
T-H
r-
oo
VO
vo
69
CN
ff
"2
'3
_i

3
p
I

Swine
o
CO
69
ri
69
s
ON

e
1

PH

is
p
1
PH
Swine
o
CO
69
i9
CO
r-
69
ON

T— 1
£
•8
T3
'rl
i-l

1
P
I

	
Swine
o
ON
CM
69
S
co
oo
69
OO
69
CN
S
•o
«

PH

•d)
§
P

1
1 Swine
o
ON
CN
69
O
y*
CO
t-
oo
69
OO
o
69
CN
g
1
12
>J

^c
n
1

O)
.£
1
ON
CN
CN-
r— t
69
-j

•
^
o
1


[—
69
ON
VO
CN^
69
CO
1
-a
1
•o
'5
"^

TS
§
O

PH
a
CO
o
<9
XD
69-
VO
X)
69
VO
69
(D
(.t
EM
C
W

|

|
O
t
•g
                                                       A-74

-------
1
 o

U
^
2
C3

H


"SI
,u


i." •



•*"*.
o





V
1


e
'•*



«
B
I

^
C!
0

_
B
1

13
'S,
a
U
a>
N
25

1
B

a>
*
I.
'S-'
**
s


CN



r-
69

-
t-
69



CM

g
1*
1
U

D
O
g
00
os
CO
69


O
CO
vo
69



CO
CN
5


VO
VO
69



1

£
"3
^

o
I
f
oo
<*•
69


O
co
vo
69



CO
CM
VO
5


VO
VO
CM
69



a>
£?
3

•a
1
•a
•^

o
o ,
0
f-


r-
oo
ex



oo
•^-
s


r-
oo
VO
vo
69



CM
&
CB

•*-*
•a
•^

|
g
oo



oo
ex



oo
s


f-
oo
VO
VO
69



CM
ID
s>
C3

1
"S
•^

1
S
CO
CO
CO
69


CO
WO
69



CO
r-
69


§




Medium 1

(X
i
<5

D
<5
U
oo
CO
CO
69


CO
'&f



CO
r-
wo
69


o\




Medium 1

-a
3
S"
i
£

I
D
S

'OS
CM
69


^



CO
f-
00
69


00
o
69



Medium 2

<£
,
^

1
U
oo
OS
CM
69


VC



CO
OO
69


OO
O
69



CM
1

3
,
IS

1
I
oo
o
V


OS
VO
69



wo
CM
CM
i— i
69


t-
Os
69



Medium 3

£
•a
§

1
«
oo
1


OS
S
69



CM
CM
69


WO
69



Medium 3

•a
1
•A
!§

1
U

VC
69


Os
C
fa!

1
U

VO
CO
VO
69


VO
o
69


r-
oo
69


OS
VO
CM
69



CO
1

s
1
>!

1
CD
B

VO
CO
VO
69


VO
CM
C
^


00
69


os
vo
CM
1— 1



CO
1

13
1
S
1
E

1

-------
H

r*
ra





5




1


S
a.
U


cs
g


1
n.
5

i
CO
o>
3 «
H Sj
S
C
•&>
3
PS
1 1

1
'£
"*
CO

o
cs


co
CO
01
CN

vo
s
VO
&e


1

•o
"o
CO
Midwest
OJ
i
CO
m
fJ
3
3-

X>
"^


VO
CO

o
CO
n

00
o\


01
Medium

•«
"3
CO
Midwest
bi
CO
1"
^
x>
/J
•
s
6?


vo
01
6?

V
C3
(A

CO
Medium

"O
"c
CO
Midwest
«
j:
b
S
CO
5?
•sf
H
                                      A-76

-------
 Of)
H
  at
  a
  CU
  U
 M


 "8
  cfi
  «


 S
   •N
 w>




 i

 o

'  &
 -a


•S
  «5
  Pi •


 I

 i
 04
 O
 
a
m


a

U
U
oo
r-

c-
oo
• CN


1




cn
00

Medium2


•a
o
CO



O
CO




ft
1


£H
U
.irf
o
O
*— i

CN


O
00




IT)

Mediuml


TS
O
CO



O
CO




ft
a
ffl


C

Ja
U
U
-S

oo
en


en
5




!8
VO
oo
Medium2


•o
"o
CO



3




ft
a
PQ


c
S
•S
J3
VO

VO
en


•Sj




en
r~-

Mediuml


•n

CO



3




ft
a
CQ


^H

^1
U
O
Os
t-

S


o
OS




1— <
en
oo
1


o
Cu

W



8
•s
C5
fc
O






C
£
o

oo
en
oo


en
vo
en
oo




oo
•n

*— 4
IU


8,

w



U
VI
C
b
O
^
1




S
CO
r-
CN
n
CN
oo


CN
oo




VO
en
oo
MediumS



^
P->



|
CO
C
P-
0
s
1




0>
c^
T— 1
oo

oo
oo


oo




CN
00
Medium2



^_,
CU



S
JS
ca
C
b
2
£
1




g
c^
oo

VO
oo


oo




'S
oo
Mediuml



^
BH



1
J2
1/1
C
tu
o
1
t
C3
(X,




C
1
c-~
CN
in
oo

1
oo


t—
VO
oo



§
CS
OO
CN


!S
a"
•J



s
•s
c
PH
O
^
1




S
r^
VO
r~-
oo

oo
CN
oo


T-H
o
VO
oo




OS
vo
Os
00
1


r2
§•
>-)



1
^j
8
u<
o
^
1




C

OS
m
T— I
OO

vo
«n
CN
oo


OS
CN




OS
vo
oo
MediumS


. f— 1
o-
J



S
•a
s
PL,
0
£
d




s
r^
OO

oo


OS
o




00
Os
•^J-
oo
Medium2


12

j



|
^
c
PL.
O
^





s
r^
                                         A-77

-------
I
 CUD
O
 a>

I
1


i
H
CJ




1
I "*
II U
11

















1
R
•3
•s.
u
•3
s
g
1
n<
53
U
J
CO
B
1

M
.£
p:
o
•I?
c
c
I
E
•4

O
,9

3
.9


1


8
en
69



Mediuml

G4



3

'5

Farrow t

u
_c


o

en^


|


vo
o
69



1
u


PH


|
^
C
PH
Farrow t

.1
ro
ON
CM
S

ON
VO
en
69


M


N
69



I


PH


|
j2
C
PH
0
Farrow t

0>
_E

CM
CM
CM
69

OO
•n
n


o
en


o
N



MediumS


PH


|
j.
a
PH
o
Farrow t

t

o
5>

n


69


S



Medium2


PH


|
_C
S
o
1

J

8


OO


o


VD



Mediuml


PH


|
JS
S
0
c
P-


69


m
69


U

f
W


8

,_
c
PH
1

.1
OO

69

O


en
vo
en
69


S
y»



u
I
ft

U


P;

r
o
PH
1

ID
•g


69

OO
69


OO
oo
69


«n
69


t

^
PH


S

r
S
GrowF

•J
oo

&9

S
CM
69


en
69


x>
6O



1

.t:
PH


3

fH
C
PH
1

d
CO
In
69-

vo


N
69


VO
en
69



MediumS

^
P-


3

-c-
a
GrowF

,.|
oo
^,
69,

OO
<9


69


CM
69



CM
1

-*-«
cu


3

j-
c
Grow F

o
CO
o
69,

O
69


O
O


CM
VO
T-H
69



Medium!


PH


S

JS
a
Grow F

c
'^

•M
69

OO
69


O


CM"
69


!
•o
9
CJ*
t-l


S

J-
c
PH
1
C

c
•f
CO
fs
69

N
69


•O
&9


ON
VO
ON
69



1
>3
•X)
g,
"-J


3

j3
13
PH

_C
CO
in
69

VO
m
CM
69


ON
69


S;
69,



1
°H
13
g.
^^


;i

.c
•5
1
c

'^
i/i
2;
69

OO
69


g
en
69


oo
ON
69



Medium2

CT"
U


S

j-
C
| Grow F

u
c
•g
CO
o
o
69

O


o
CM
69


en
CM
en
69



Mediuml
•o
§•
U


S

J3
C
Grow F

c
'S
CO
en
69

T,


1


VO

-------
 §
 DD
O
»—(




M



H
II

s
i
u


1
3




.•

















"3
E

.1
"Su

"s
a
e
-5
•|
<3
1;
H
£
a.
a
g :

a
e
•a
o>
":.
Or
a-1
_«
ft-"
£
I
«:

i


VO
C'

CM
t-
6^

CM


U





E.




fe

j-
3
t*
2
O

a
CO
O


oo
f

0
Sj
-~
o
^


Mediums :





E




1

j-
5

1

a
o
1


in
cs

&<3

r-


Medium2




1
E




i

j-
5

1
O

u
CO
£


oo
6=

O
VO
6ft

VO
o\
6ft


Medium!





£




1

J3

U-
1

a
o
oc
6ft


en
o
6ft

•oo
'6ft

CM
en
6ft

1)



13
R'





i

JS

M-
1.

§
£
en
CN


CM
oo
en

en

•*


EP
cd



"O
g





i

JS
ta
C

1

8.
CO
en
CN


en

vo
CNI

§


Mediums



13
3
3




i

.a
CO
'3

|

a>
CO
£


CN

en
oo

m
S3


CM
I



13
p.





1

,-.
en
'3
HH
1

d
CO
en
CM
&•=


oo

o
CM

en


Mediuml



•a
3
3




|

,_,
3
u-
I

a
£
VO
CM


CM
tN

OO

CM


Mediuml




T3
CO




i


o
•T
j

1
o
S
OO


o
oo
r-

r--

vo
en
6ft

Medium2




T3
CO




|


&
•
1

C!
O
e
CM
,^-


6ft

VO
r-
o\

en
r-
6ft

Mediums




13
0
CO




1


b
'
I

1
e
I


CM
en
CM
6ft

VO
en"

0
en
00
6ft

n
en"
6ft
O
1— 4
lft

1




13 -
O
CO




O
OO


b
1
1

1
I
VO
oo
f— t
6ft


S

Ov
VO
OO^
6ft
T— <
T-H
6ft
1




13
O
CO




O
CO


b

1

1
$
VO
CM
6ft


CM
6ft

S
r-
6ft

CM
en
CM
6ft

Mediums



13

3




£


s%
i
1

1
H
oo


0
oo
r-
6ft

r-
en
6ft
o
>n
CM
o\
6ft

1



13
''3
•S*




O
oo


•c
*^
1

1
JS
>n
ift


en
6ft

6ft

S
oo
6ft

Medium!




•o
"o
oo




s



u
s
I
CO

>>
1
en
en
6ft


S
in
6ft

6ft

OO
6ft

Medium2




•o
"o
CO




1


u
i!
00
M
CO

sr
1
•n
CN
S


00
VO
6ft

CM
VO
6ft
en
P
6ft

MediumS




T3
"o
CO




g


t-l
£
00
J
CO

g,
•a
                                        A-79

-------
IS
 o>
 3
 8
•43
 8
 O

B
 CUD
 o>






tf
§>

u


»•(
1ft
u























re
9
a
El



-ji
B.
<3
1
1:
K
u
1

V
H
B
a
>§
IS

El
§
•fi
«
cw
O

•a
%
1

o
vo
69



^

69


°S.
O\
m
5"



f
^j




•a
O

s

o
A
OO
3
ca
CO

f

Irt

69



ro

s


S
1


»-H
•3




13
o

s

a>
fn

ca
CO

I
CO


69



^

69


VO
69
1
69


1
•3




t3
7i
CO
s


-------
                   Table A-il
   Costs for Supplemental Commercial Nitrogen
at Dairies, Beef Feedlots, Veal and Heifer Operations
                P-Based Scenario
;? gSAnimal
Beef
Beef
Beef ••-
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef 3
Beef - -
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
)airy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
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
- Region
Central
Central
Central
Central
.Central
Mid- Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Size Class
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium. 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Category 1
Annual Costs
$28,320
• $398,808
$5,698
, $8,501
$11,796
$35,337
$497,622
	 $7,110
$10,607
$14,719
$36,697
$516,770
$7,383
$11,015
$15,285
$40,991
$577,240
$8,247
$12,304
$17,074
$10,322
$145,356
$2,077
$3,098
$4,299
$25,361
$4,434
$7,537
$10,641
Category 2
Annual Costs
$12,131
$166,261
$3,446
$7,450
$12,158
$12,382
$168,227
$3,843
$8,839
$14,714
$12,859
$174,700
$3,991
$9,179
$15,280
$18,523
$254,388
$5,147
$10,943
$17,757
$3,617
$49,139
$1,123
$2,582
$4,298
$7,300
$5,248
$3,254
$7,673
                     A-81

-------
Table A-ll (Continued)
          A-82

-------
Table A-ll (Continued)
Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Farm Type
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers -
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush ;
Flush
Flush '
Flush
Flush
Region
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1 '
Medium 1
Medium 2-
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium3
Medium 1
Category 1
Annual Costs
$1,077
$1,831
$2,585
$6,243
$1,665
$2,601
$3,642
	 $7,881
$2,102
. $3,284
$4,597
$7,881
$2,102
$3,284
$4,597
$9,081
$2,422
$3,784
$5,297
$2,224
$593
$927
$1,297
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Category 2
Annual Costs
$1,212
$356 .
$1,428
$7,639
$1,099
$2,437
$3,923
$9,518
$1,261
$2,950
$4,827
$9,518
$1,261
$2,950
$4,827
$11,156
$1,642
$3,588
$5,750
$2,686
$356
$833
$1,362
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
        A-83

-------
Table A-ll (Continued)
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Farm Type «
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush - -
Flush
Region: •,..'.;
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
V>Size_Glass:. ••_-;
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
;;^Ca)l:egwy>l.;^
'-;iAriimal:-Gost5i,.;;.
$0 ;
$0
$0
$0
$0
v ^Category- 2; ^:
Annual Coists
'SO
$0
$0
$0
$0
          A-84

-------
       O

       1
       -o
       I
 cs
--
3
 at
H
       PQ
          .
          C
Q
   PQ
      I
      5
      eg

1
«J
u





^
t
u







1st
Wr
















1


•a
1
u
•a
-2
g.
•ji^JJ

i
f


i
S3
. {3


01 '
•S
•a
U"

%
Q
o
£

a
i

j
fe:
1


o
6O



O
60

R
•si-
en
(VO


vo
en
O
OS
v>
oo

t—
V>
en
6O


en
O
OS
V)
6O


T— 1
*o
I


1
O

'•55
&
4-(
O>
pa
o
6O



O
60

V>
OS
en
6O

CM
V>
CM

v>

en

"

CM

•5s
CM


(N
Q>



1
0

8
m
4-1
0>
pa
a



o
6O

CM
en
(vo


oo
S
VO
CM


en

o/^

oo

00
VO
CM
6O


g
3
"8
S


•3
U

pa

i>
pa
0



o

CM
Tf

—


00
oo
VO
CM


en

^f^

00

00
VO
01

CM
g
£3
"8
s


*ffl
u



s
«
6O



o
so

0)
en
60


00
oo
VO


en

6O

oo

oo
vo
01

en
g
P
•8


1
c
u

pa

§>
pa
a



o
6O

r-
Os
60


VO
f-
VO
6O

r-

vo"
6O


OS
V)
t-
$


t-H
d>
1
u
1
1
•a
S



01

I
U
•g
73
i
S

''o
u
pa

O
pa
3



o
6O

t~-

6O


VO
6O

r—
t-
V)




vn

vo


a
R
•8
S
u
•g
?
s

8
pa

§5
pa
o
6O



a

Os
T— <
Ol


VO
t-~
>n


V)
01
^^


VI
VO
t-
v»

01


13
1
u
•g
^
s

8
m
*B
n>
pa
60



o
6O

V)

en
6O


en
s
6O


v>
en
6O

en
en
o
60

en
a

1
0
S
•o
s

8
pa
4-1

oo
oo
60


V)
VO
6O

V>
OO
oo
^>
Q^

v>
o

vo
6O


^^
O
I


1
S

pa
"V

pa
o



a

en
en
v>
6O

OO
v>
5-
6O

en
V)
,-H
6O
00

v>
^
6O

01

I


I
S

pa
4-1

pa
o
6O



a

01
en
*— *
6O


OO
oo
vo
60


en

60

00

oo
VO
01


a
s»
•o
n>


I
S

pa

3>
pa
o
6O-



a

01
en
6O


OO
VO


en
f_H
6O

00

oo
VO


g
Z3
•o
s


I
s

pa
4-i

pa
6O



O
60

01
^1"
6O


t—
O
r~
V)
60

01

,__)
60

OS

O
60

en
g
3
•a
S


1
S

CQ



o
6O



O
6O

OS
V)
01
t-
6O

VO
vo
01
OS
6O
OS
01
r-

6O
os
r-
vo
vo
01
Os
6O

01
5>
I


O
'o
cd
PH

8
pa

0)
pa
o
6O



a

01
en
60


OO
VO
6O


en
^_i
60

00

OO
VO
01
6O


g
7
•a
i


o
a
CU

8
pa

3>
pa
o
6O



O
6O

s?
o
01
6O


01
V>
V>
t—
V)
60

en
S
CM
60

01
VI
V)
VI

Ol
g
3
T3


O
'o


CQ

s>
CQ
o
6O



O
60

OO
en
en
en
6O


V)
oo
oo
oo
V)

00
en
en
en
60

V)
OO
oo
00
v>
6O

en
g
ft
•a
i


o
IS
PH

8
CQ
4-c
8>
CQ
o
6O



O
6O

o
•^t*
in
60


en
oo
r-
VO
60

O
OO
"sf
m
60

en
oo
t —
VO
6O


-T_
Q>
I


*
O
00

CQ

s>
CQ
o
6O



O
60

OO
en
Os
V)
6O

VO
01
in
t*j
oo
OS1
in

6O

r-
VO
VO
01
v>
6O

01
U
on
S3


s
o
01

u
u
CQ
4-.
8
CQ
0
6O



O
6O

01
en
6O


oo
vo
60


en
,__)
&^

00

oo
VO
01
60


e
•»
1


1
o
00

pa
t1
u
CQ
                                       A-85

-------
g

1J,

cs
 n
oo
t--'

o
CM
OO


r-H
cn
t—
oo
en
g
*3
1



'3
o

1


ti-

fl
•o.
oo




g


0

oo


VO
vo
00
o
Wl




VO
VO
oo

1_l

s



1
u
o
1


b
'Si
Q
"oo




o
oo


5?
cn

60

oo
vo
00

«^j*
en
oo


CO
VO
CM
OO

F,
s
1



1


Q
g




o_


5?

•*
oo

oo
vo
oo

^J-
en
00


oo
s
vo
CM
CM
g
3
•a



1
u
CJ

1


&*
Ctf
Q
,o,




o


5?
CO

oo

00
oo
vo
CM


^«
cn
00


00
oo
vo
CM
en
g
3
•a



c
0

tS


£>

Q
,o


-•

o
oo


ON




00.
VO
oo

o\
ON
oo


00
8
s

1— t

I
u
'S

J
s

a


b

o
o
00



-•
0
oo

—
CM

•»
oo

oo
oo
vo
CN
oo

^^
C*X
oo


oo
VO
00

. g
3
"8
o
s

^
s

a


b
m
Q
o
oo




g

-•
t—4
r—



oo
•vo
vo
oo

If)
t-



oo
vo
vo
oo
CM
F.
3
"8
u
(3
.2
1
•o
s

a




Q
o-
"OO"



-
g


oo
c*

oo

CM
OO
'in
oo
orr

°i.
6O


CM
oo
oo
cn
g
£J
"8
o
g
.23
^
S

iS


&•

Q
o
oo



- -
g


•a
00

00

ON
oo
CM
oo
oo
cn
CM
oo
oo


oo
CM
oo
oo

t

1



•a
S

CO


b
CS
Q
g




o_


ON
CM
t— i
*vC
oo

en
vo
oo
oo
ON
CN
^
oo


cn
vo
oo
oo

,

I



o
C
'o
C3
O-,

0
B


b

Q
o
00




o
oo


CM

**
oo

oo
oo
vo
CM
oo
CN
•5f

oo


00
oo
vo
CM
OO

g
p
1



o
p2

1


b
a
Q
o
oo




g


CM

•*
OO

oo
oo .
vo
CM
OO

^f
*T,
oo


00
oo
vo
CM
OO
CM
g
0
•y
n>



o
'o
C3

1


b

Q
o
oo'




g


JN.

**
OO

oo
oo
VO
CM
oo
CM
•*
T>
oo


00
oo
vo
CM
oo
cn
g
p
T3
o
oo

,





•s
o

1


fc*
a
Q
o
oo



1
g


CM

**
OO

I
oo
Tt-
oo
VO
CM
oo
cM
•sj*
^
oo


00
oo
VO
io

g
£3
-a
i



1
o
co

03
Q
o




o
00


CM

"
OO

oo
S
VO
CM
&O
CM
^f
**},
oo


oo
oo
vo
CM
oo
CM
g
3
•o
i



1
o
CO

a


E?
ca
Q
o
oo




o
00


CN

"*
OO

oo
oo
vo
CM
oo
CM
^f
cn
oo


oo
oo
vo
00
cn
g
p
1



•S
o

a


b

Q
%




o
00


*




cn
vo
00
t—
oo

ON
'T,
oo


cn
vo
oo
t-
V-l
oo

,__,





1
cS
2
'S
a

£3
<£
(U
a
g-




o
oo


CM

' r
oo
	
oo
vo
CM
oo
CM
^J~
en
oo


oo
oo
vo
00

g

"8



1
c3
B
'53
a




a
g



—
G5
OO


s?

r
00
—
oo
s
vo
CM
oo
CM
•«^
'T,
oo


oo
vj-
oo
vo

g
9
"8



1
CJ
52
'53
a

f^
•fe
u
a
g




o
oo


5?

*•
oo

oo
cS
vo
CM
OO

^~
en
oo


oo
oo
vo
00
CN
g

"8



2
'S
u
52
'53
a

CO
c£J
CO
a
g




o
oo


CM

"
OO

oo
vo
CM
OO

•Cj"
'T,
oo


oo
oo
vo
S
cn
g
S
1



1
0
B
CO
a

*2
14-1

a
g




o
oo


t-H
C--


00

CM
00
o
r—
oo

c-
"1,
u


CM
OO
o
r-
oo

,_,
03

0

w
^
s
B
'S
B

f"i
S

a
                                         A-86

-------
0
o
I
H
«'• •
if
•a
s-
$j






1
|








i-t
t
f
y.
























a
^


3
•a
03
u
"3
s
(3 ,
.-
.,1

Oi
68,
(

§;
:•
•
5


£
Q>
03
•U:
W
-Q':
Q>
&


B'
-•'Sb
S


a>
OH
"ft
S

;*.
I'

^J.


O
60




6O.


*
CO
CN
6O
VO
00
f-^
.!/•}
6O

^J"
CO
(N



VO
r-H
00
[*-.
t/~)
6O

S

1
0
•~
a
a
1

*=5



1

a

ft
42

a
o




o
.60


*
CO
CN
6O
VO
T-H
oo
f^

a
o
6O


--...

o
6O


Os
O

^>

•?— i
OO
Os
Os

6O

£™S
*-H
^t*
e/3


oo
Ox
ON
V"i

CN
E

1
0
•.n
c
CO
1

*z



1
1>
a

ft
42
0>
a.
g


. .;

O


CO

*o
6O
O
CO.
vo
CM
VO
6O
OS
CO

MO
6O


O
CO
vo
CN
VO

CO
g
!3
1
O
•n
b

,3

ft
42

a
o
6O




O


oo
oo
OS
^
6O
V,
CN
VO
,_(
vo
6O
OO
oo
Os
«crf-
60


s
r— I
^O


,_,

I



I

•*5


-
en

a
g'




g-


^
V")
^_,
6O
•CO
*— '
f^
JO
6O
I—
CN

,_*
6O


CO
r-
Vt
6O
CN
a
s
I



1

"•=5



-ft
42
tt>
a

2
42

a
g




o


r-.
oo
CN
6O
rq
CO
00

6O
r—

oo
CN



VO
CN
CO
oo
vt
6O
CO
s

T3
1



S

^



ft
42
u
a

ft
C*-H

a
0
6O




O
-6O

._
o
r^.
1O
6O
CN
.CO .
^~
CO
VO
6O
0
Tf
t-
>n
6O


CN
OO
CO



,
0}
I



0
s
"o

a
o
6O




60

.-.-.
CN
CO

60
00
OO
VO
CN
6O
CN
Tf
co
^H
6O


00
oo
VO
CN
6O

B
9
•o
i



1
o
m
IX



a
42
o

OS
o
VO
CO
6O


OS
CO
CN
OS
•0
6O
CO
g
3
•o



o
in
*o
m




1
53
a

2
42
o
a
o
6O




O


Os
^J-
^jT
60
O

O
vo
feO
OS

^~
Tt
6O


VO
O
^
VO
6O

t

I



-s
n




ft
42
(a
a

2
42

a
o
6O




60

-
CN
CO

60
00
oo
VO
CN
6O
CN

CO
,_(
6O


00
rf
oo
vo
CN
6O

g
9
1



•s
0
CO



ft
42
S
a

2
42

a
o
6O




60


CN
CO

60
00
OO
VO
CN
6O
CN
•*!•
CO
,_(
6O


00
OO
VO
CN
6O

g
3
•d
u



^

1/3



2
42
4>
a

2
42

a
o
6O




O
6O


OO
OS
6O

OS
r—
vo


oo
<0
ffi




OS
r-
c—
vo
10

CN
g
3
1



1
0
CO



1
s
a

ft
42
0>
a
60




S


oo
oo
CN
CN
60
vo
r-
f^
*o
6O
OO
00
CN
CN
6O


VO
r-
[ —
to
6O
CO
g
2
•y
1



13
o
CO



1
53
a

ft

(D
a
                                     A-87

-------
g
e»-
0
O
1
£
a,
O

£
•3
W
-e
§
 •\
S
^o
s
CU
O)
fe
% .2
O f~t
W §
^ §
a> u
'fi w
'S'S
Q 1
*&

%*
'•i
.a
^—<
&
^
t3
g
J
tS

"I
     I
     -J2
     W5
     O
     U

IH
S
u



$
M
a


^
s
















"55
a


I
CS

1
1
:a-
o.
a
73
9
S
,
a
w
cs
0
1



0
'gp

o>
a

"S

O-
69


O
69

CS
•>3-
69
OO
oo
vo
cs
CO
69
OO
oo
VO
cs


t
1




s
o


3-
CO
69
00
oo
VO
cs
69

CO
a
.3




1
O


03

(4-1
ID
S
g


O
69


CO
69
OO
oo
vo
cs
69
00
r-
69
r-
oo
VO
69


,__
0>
0
•s
h
«
<
S


1

<*-
9


o
69

rs


oo
oo
VO
cs
69
CO
69
oo
VO

1—1
E
1




o
(g

'I
It

1
o
69


o
69

CS


oo
s
VO
cs
69
cs
CO'
69
oo
oo
vo
cs
69

cs
E
1




o


CfH
8
03

ff
o
69


o
69

cs
"I

oo
vo
cs
69
3
69
00
oo
vo
cs
69

CO
1
1




1C
&


8
03

ff
o
69


O
69

cs


oo
S
vo
cs
69
CS
69
O
CS
o
VO
69


-H
1




•£;
C?

(4-1
8
03

8
03
o
69


g

r-

69
VO
VO
VO
cs
0
CO
r-
•<*•
i— *
69
CO
ON
en
69


CS
a
cc




•3
o
t/>


t
ff

8
03
o
69


O
69

CS

69
oo
••3-
OO
vo
m
CO
00
cs
69
OO
VO
CS
69

i— i
S
1




.C
C/


a

PC
                           A-88

-------
I
 §
I
S
>
1
,3



IN
t
3
?


^H
1












,-







B
e
3
'S,
U

s
•?

1
*
18
„
*
-
«Sr.
• fit
5
«n
iy
cv
OS


B
5


o.
H'
,§
'&
"ft"
B '
<

O

§

CM
«*X
6O
... -
00
oo
vo"
CM
"3-
l'i.

oo
oo
VO
cs
60
CM
a
s
•a
1




.g
o
CO


Cn
cn


's
o
03
o

o

OS
oo
6O


OS
vo
vo
6O
OS
o
6O

OS
vo
vo
W-l
6O
en
S
3
1




3
O
CO


tf-l
a>
u
ffl


In

o
60

0
6O

CM
en
6O

oo
S
vo
CM
6O
CM

6O
OO
Tf
OO
VD

,_

I




1
U


n>
ffi


c*
Q
o
6O

O
6O

CM
en
6O

OO
OO
VD
CM
6O
CM

6O
00
•"3"
OO
VO

g
3
•8




1
u


„
ffi


c*
ca
Q
o

o

CM
en
6O

OO
OO
VO
CM
5»
l'i.
6O
00
rt
oo
VO
CM
6O
CM
g
3
•8




1
u



IB


£*
Q
o

o

CM
en
6O

OO
OO
VO
CM
0


00
oo
VO
CM
6O
en
g
3
•o




1
U


It)
K


£*
Q
0
6O

O
6O

CM
en
60

oo
oo
vo
CM
OO


o
OS
vo

,_<

tf
o
*;-?

CB

S


ni
0
K


£*
CO
Q
0
6O

O
6O

CM
"X
6O

00
••3-
oo
CM
6O
CM
«'!.
60
oo
oo
6O

g
3
•a
a>
„
•S

cd
5
s


ID
K


&•
OS
Q
0
6O

o
6O

CM
en_
6O

00
OO
vo
CM
6O
CM
l"l
60
OO
OO
CM
6O
CM
g
J3
T3
i
o
•43

a
5
s


n>
cn


&"
03
Q
o
6O

0
6O

CM
en
6O

OO
vo
CM
* i,

OO
"3-
oo
VO
CM
6
iS


fc*
CO
O
o
6O

o
6O

CM
en
6O

oo
oo
CM
6O
CM
''i.
6O
00
00
VO
CM
6O

,

£P
J3




1
s


n>
!K


&•
Q
o

o


en
6O

OO
oo
VO
CM
CM
^i.
6O
00
-3v
oo
CM
6O

g

"g




1
S


IH
t§


&"
Q
o

o
6O


en
60

oo
oo
VO
CM
6O
^
''i.

oo
Ttf-
oo
vo
CM
6O
CM
g

"8




1
s


(11
ffi


b"
Q
'0
6O

O
6O


en
6O

oo
VO
CM
6O
CM
<*!.

oo
oo
vo
CM
6O
en
FJ

1




1
S


m
£


£>
CS
Q
0
6O

O
6O


en
60

00
oo
VO
CM
•6O
CM
^J.
6O
OO
•5J-
00
VD
CM

l






O
fc


ni
CO


£>
03
Q
0
6O

O
6O


en
6O

00
00
VO
CM
6O
CM
^
60
OO
OO
VO
CM
6O

F-

~o




o
(2


01
1


c-
03
Q
0
6O

o
6O


en
6O

00
oo
VO
CM
*•">„
60
OO
oo
vo
CM
60
CM
g
3
1




O
(2


11
0
K


b
03
Q
0
6O

O


en
6O

00
oo
vo
CM
CM
en^
6O
oo
oo
vo
en
g
^
"S




o
IS
'Ft



Hi
J§


E?
at
Q
•o

o


cn
60

oo
vo
io
OS


CM

VD
6O

|
„
al




•S
O
CO



K


b
Q
o
6O

O
6O


en
•60

OO
s
VD
CM
6O
CM
"*!,
6O
00
OO
VO
CM
6O
CM
Fi
3
S




•s
o
CO


ni
£


£*
Q
o
60

O
6O

CM
en
6O

oo
oo
vo
CM
6O
3

6O
00
oo
vo
CM
6O
cn
g
3
1




^
O
CO


(11
a


£>
OS
Q
o
6O

O
6O


en
•6O

OO
OO
VO
CM
^?

6O
00
OO
VO
CM
6O

^-

S




1
u


<3
'1

52

a
§

o

CM
"*•
en
60

oo
oo
vo
CM
6O
CM
"X
6O
oo
oo
VD
CM
6O

g
J3
•3
i




1
•g
O


53
'1

52
&
V
ffi
0
6O

O


en
6O

00
oo
vo
CM
60
CM
en
6O
oo
oo
vo
io
T— <
S
s
i




i



CO
1

ffi

ffi
0
6O

O
6O


en
60

00
VD
Io
CM
•^~
en
6O
00
oo
VO
CM
g
j3
•s




1



S3
H

ft
«

o
6O

§

CM
Ti-
en
60

oo
VD
CM
6O
CM
en
6O
00
oo
vo
en
g
•3
=8




"2
c

6O



1




•ci
S


«3
I

CO
cS
u
                                     A-89

-------
13
 o>
I
H

co
»
3




£
1




&
•I















"ea
3
^
3
"S<
es
U
•s?


3
a
"3
3


3
&.
«
u
W>

«
m
o

O
69


CM
CO
69
00
OO
VO
CM
69
CM
CO
69

OO
oo
vo
CM
69

,_
Medium
u

c

3
s

2
*s
31
2
(O
fr!
O

o
69


CM
CO
69
OO
vo
CM
69
CM
CO
69

00
OO
vo
CM
69

CM
Medium
0

<3

3


1
1
I
'$
o
69

O
69


CM
CO
69
00
s
vo
CM
69
VO
OO
in
69

VO
r-
69

CO
Medium
o
•s
£

3


8
a
2
a
o
69

0


CM
CO
69
00
OO
VO
CM
69
CM
CO
69

OO
s
vo
CM
69


V




1
5


a
2
£
o
69

O
69


CM
CO
69
OO
OO
vo
CM
69
CM
CO
69

00
OO
vo
CM
69

i— «
Medium




1


B
a
g
a
O
69

O
69


CM
co
69
OO
vo
69
CM
CO
69

OO
oS
vd
CM
69

_ I
Medium




1
s

8
a
2
33
o
69

o


CM
co^
69
00
OO
VO
CM
69
CM
CO
69

OO
oo
VO
CM
69

CM
Medium




1
S

2
a
2
£
o
69

O
69


CM
rf
CO
69
OO
3
VO
8
CM
"I
69

00
oo
VO
CM
69

CO
Medium


^

1
S

1
33
C/
5
o
69

O
69


CM
CO
69
OO
3
69
CM
CO
69

OO
3
VO
CM
69


01
3




O
<£

1
K
B
3
o
69

§


CM
CO
69
00
oo
vo
CM
69
CM
^
69

OO
3
vo
CM
69

<—<
Medium




G


1
ffi
1
sS
g

O
69


5?
CO
69
OO
OO
VO
8
CM
CO
69

OO
OO
VD
CM
.69

— i
Medium




o
IX

1
ffi
1
ffi
o
69

O
69


CM
CO
69
OO
3
VO
CM
69
CM
CO
69

00
OO
vo
CM
69

CM
Medium




u


V.
o
33
1
33
o
69

0


CM
tr\.
69
00
oo
vo
CM
69
OO
°9.
69

OO
3
VO
CM
69

CO
Medium




IP
(2

2
a
2
a
o
69

O
69


CM
^
69
CO
CO
»— I
OO
O
OO
vo
6"

CO
1 Medium




•fi
O
Oi

i
«i
a

t
                                          A-90

-------
I—I.
•S
H
 W3




 !

 6  •-


 <§•

 tM.. •:

 £   .


"S	

 t3
 a   •
 C3
  r\

 *•
 o

 S .2

 ^  IS.

 fa  S
 "^  u
 Oi  **~
 0> %

 P9 T3
  ^  
 





_

0>
ffl
o



o
6O

o
cn
6O



oo
p;
so


0
6O

S
6O




cn
g
2
T3
O

1

S

8
m


tn
u
n
o



o
6O

r-
CN
oo




V)
cn
so


0
6O

S5
&^





T— «
!


m

S


n


(4-1
o
ffl
o



o

.00
cn

so



cn
2;
6O


0
6O

OO
VO
so





CN
ID


tn
1
S

1?
ffl


(4-1

ffl
O
60



O
6O

.*

6O



OO
CN
»— t
6O


0
SO

S
V»




*-H
g
'S



1
S

•8
m



u
ffl
o
60



O
SO

o

6O



OO
CN
r--
CN
6O

-••
O

S
6O




CN
g
1



4
S

%
ffl


(4-1

ffl
O
60



O
60

O

6O



,OO
CN
r-
n\
so


O
so

T— 1
6O




cn
g
1



1
•5
S

tu-
rn


tn
5
n
o



S

o

,jT
cn
so
-
CN
cn
cn
r-
cn
6O

60

t-
O

so



^^
2>
03



0
e«

(4-1
ffl


«M


0
6O



0
so

oo

vT
*—4
6O

0
«
CN
SO

O
6O

S
CN
SO




CN
ID
t?
4-1



O
S
(S

(4-1
ffl



-------
1
 S
 O
y,
 CS
•8
H




Costs
u
2
0
8
J3
^
a


I
bo
1
tfi
Contract


















CO
fr
ts
u




t
BB
S

m
1
£
ca
U

cs
£>
§>
1
O









I
£





"ea
a
^


""§•
a
U


"3
^
"3
J>.
"3
g
.4}


Annual

GO
§
U


fl
O
(2

s §,


"3
S
jji

o



§



en
cs_
S
en
P
o



1



i




43
O
CO



pa
o



o



OS
"V
69
00
en
vo
cs
o
69



CS
oo^
oo



cs
u




•S
o
CO


m


*-.
pa
o



o



1

oo
S
cs
0



en
cs
en"


_
Medium




3
b
CO



if




1
u

43
S3
j3


£>
cd
O
O
69



O
69



S

OO
CS
p-
Os
69
g



O
69


_
Medium




1
U
U

M
E


£>
cd
Q
o
69



g



en
oo
en^
cT
cs
69
CS
en
en
r-
en
69
0



t-
i— t
VD
69


CS
Medium




i

cd
Q
o
69



O
69



OS
69
VO
CS
OS
vo
cs
69
O
69



O
O
to
10
cs



(U




1
S

•§



b
cd
Q
o
69



O
69



69

OO
CS
f-
OS
69
O
69



en


r-l
Medium




1
S

43
fa


£>
a:
O
69



O
69



VO
r-
cs"
69
S
CS
en
cs
69
O
69



OO
en"


cs
Medium



"w
1
S

43
UH


£>
cd
O
69
'


O
69



to
CS
69

00
CS
p-
Os
69
0
69



t—
CS
69


en
Medium



'S5
(D
•c
^

43
fa


&
0
g



o
69



Os
O
69
CS
en
P
O
69



$350,409



1




O
'o
(2

-C
PH


b
Q
o
69



O
69



CS
69

00
CS
r-
i
o
69



VO
to
69


T-*
Medium




u
55=
'3
&

43
fa


£>
cd
O
69



O
69



OS
cb"
en
69
CS
en
en
p-
69
O
69



CS
CS
"I
vo"
CS
I— 1
69


CS
Medium




JC
'3
cd
PH

•fe
lb


^
cd
O
69



C)



en
6*
OS
os
p-
I
«
69



i
cs


en
i Medium




o
1C
'3
&

,13
PL,


fc>
Q
o
69



g



§.
ob"
69
OO
00
o
S
0
69



VO
cs
I— <
VI
69



!




53
O
CO

"fe
PL,


b
Q
o
69



O



OO
OO
69

00
CS
f-
£
o
.69



f-


•— i
Medium




4:
o
CO

"to
fa


2?
Q
o



o



o
00
o
vo"
69
CS
en
en
r-
o



en"
OS


CS
Medium




4:
CO

43
PL-


£>
cd
                                       A-92

-------
I
 SS
H


1

•M
•u
K
1
sw
,„

s
C?
1
tt
1
§
U














1
Is
U




S
5
-
1
IS
u
r*
E?
1
u









1




.cs
1
03
u

13
|
a
-J
1
<;


•a
s
-4
•g
«8
b
j


H
O
•B*


a,
i
4j


o
oo
o
oo



00
en
CM
CM
6O
CM
en
en
en
oo
o
6O



ON
oo
in
r-
m
oo
en
a
.2




1
o
00
JS
en

&
«
Q

o
oo
o
oo

•

VO
en
t--
r~*
6O
•n
ON
S
o
oo.



o
m
o
oo

_
a1
,3


1

2
•S.
o

Q

o
o



VO

t-
CM
•n
0



s
en

CM
g
1
O

G

S
S
1

fcv
03
Q
i
O
o



ON
m
VO

t-
CM
m
o



s

en
g
.2
i
u
•43
c
ra
^
S
sc

b
03
P

O
o
oo



-

oo
oo
en
O



CM


,
ID
if




4
S
1

Jf
P

o
o.



^

oo
CM
C--
g
O



o
r—


g
i




4
S
W

b
P

0
o



00

oo
CM
t-
S
O



oo
en
oo
CM
g




4->
1
§

-------
ts
 a>
 S
 a
••a
 ca
 O)

2




ft-
0
u/
u
g
o
«

M
S3
AK


sn
a
M
f
w
1
§
u


















S?
Pn
o>
•*••
U









*>»
I

fr.
a
o>
IS
u

£>
f
u

















1
B
"•


_
.•§
cu
B
U


-TR
3

"fi
-
"s
u
•s
' S
O
OX
i
O
69



in




CO
P.
3
"8



S
u
52
&
ffi



EC
o
69




O
69




in.

69


£
&e
o
09



en





*— i
ai
•3
u
c
a
1
S
52
EC


w
EC
o
69




O




CS

^o*
{/}

CS
T-H
o



CO
15



_,
g
3
•a
iu
0
•g
ra
S
S
0
ffi


1
»
o
69




O
69




00
Ox-

GO

CO'
69
g



OO
CS




CS
g
s
•a
1
o
•s

•o
S
1
u
ffi


1
EG
o




g




v§




v>
VI
CO
o



8
U



CO
g
0
1
o
•g
•r
<:
•a
S

M


1
u
o




o




s

69


OO
r-
OX
o



5
60




r—i




•|
CO
g
K


1
EC
o
69




0
69




CS

OO
69

Ox
OO
c—
o
.s
g



CO
69



CS
g
2
•a
i



|

1
EC


1
u
EC
C5
69




g




s

^J>
69

VO
OO
o
o
V.




-------
 0>
2








••&
.
r.)

g
H
S3
tu




S
to
a

•"H
'"I
ffl
\j?J
vfl
-B
U


















fO
>»
ft
"

w
U





• 8
1.



«'
f-

W
Q
<•*
S.'
ou
JU
U















'"31

=





"S::
•'§.;
U

¥!
1 S '
^
%r
v»-
.-. A
:S
p— <
§u:
.
.r^J •
v -

;s

C3
'••<.
••
u
'I:


0

1
05

O>
.$.,
1:


2

o
CN
69



OO
to
VO
CN
CN
vs
69

VO
OS
CN
69.
Os
vn
CO
69
n-
CN
CN
69

CO
OO
VO
CN
CN
69

CN
U




S
a
U

CQ


CQ
CN
Os
VO
69




O
Os
Os
}Q
69

OO
oo


oo
T— 1
OS


o
vo
CO
69



Os
CO
69



E°
S




2
'S
u>
O

o
u
CQ
tt-l
<5
CQ
r-
to
oo
Os.
69




O
Os
Os-
•Q
69

VO
o
69

OO
CN
•*— i
OS
69

s
69



Os

69


CN
g
1




S
C
u

CQ


u
CQ
£
Os
69




OS
OO
S
69

to
69

OO
i— i
Os
69

CN
69




vn
69


CO
g
1




2
c
CJ

CQ


CQ
§
o

69



CN
CO
CO
r-


oo
fi-
ve
69

OO
r-
t— H
Os
69

Os
5?
0s!
69


»— <
O
CO
69


,
S>
o

a

n
o
oo
oo
CO
69
CO
?— *
O
CN

CO
69
CO

CN

69

CN

O
•JS
B
at
i.
•a
S

"S
c^


CQ
r--
CO
oo
CN
69




CN
CO
CO
r-
co
69

O
o
69

00
CN
Os
69

CO
Os
CN
O
69



O
VO
69



E
3
-a
0
•r.

_CB
1.
•a
S

1

(U

CQ
Os
S
CN
69




CN
CO
CO
r-
co
69

VO
VO
69

00
r-
Os
69

CN
CO
O
£
^/j



oo
69


CM
g
•3
0

a

i
•o
S

•"S3
u
CQ
<«-<
ID
U
O
vo
oo
VI
69




CN
CO
CO
r--
co
69

1
CN"
69

OO
^
69

O
CN
S

69


00
^
69

CO
S
o
13
O
.«M
C

I
*L)
S

CQ
t*-,

CQ
VO
Os
69




CN
r— I
CO
R
CO
69

OO
r-
VO^
69

OO
pj
as
69

CN
O
CO
oo
69


CO
OO
Os
69



_
U
I



In
*
'O
s

CQ


CQ
oo
CN
CN
69



OO
CO
VO
CN
69

O
CN
to"
t— «
69
Tf
O
^:
CN
69
VO
CO
t—
r-
10
CN
69

r-
oo
CO

69

CN
CO
hJ



•g
g
-a
S

CQ
CI-H

CQ
OO
oo
69




O
OS
Os
r-
69

o
69


oo
Os
69

CN
OO
vo
CO
69



VO
Os
69



E
I



oS
g
•a
S

CQ

-------
a>
9
a







•B
o
U

-t
8
1
rrj
»H







«
U
1
£
Contract





















1
«
u






N
fe
e>
IT
QJJ




t
f
U

Category 1

















— <
-jj
B

^

"3
&

JU

-1.
3
_4j~


^B*
ea
MM'-

U
"5



"8
.1
ffl
0
ij
cc


a
o
ob
CK

s-


^
|

in
o
CO
in
oo
ON
69
00
VO
01
Ol

69

CO
Ol


^
^—4
ON
vo
VO
C8
01
ON
ON
§
69

VO
a
0~
01
69


Ol
CO
if
_j



jS
3
O
CO


s
«

m
01
01
,__,
Ol
69

O
OO
«>
CO
69

S



CO

c^

ON
69
CO
o
01
69


CO
01
69

t— i
g
1



jS
^
O
CO


s
pa

m
01

,_,
Ol
69

01
CO
CO
r-
co
69

g
69


CO
01


ON
69
O
CO
o
CO
69


CO
69

01
g
1



JS
3
b
00


S
CQ
tt-4
8
n
01
CO
ON
Ol
69

01
CO
CO
CO
69

ON
69


00

t~~

ON
69
i
69

-
OO
69

CO
R
1



jS
£3
O
CO


IH
«
tt-4
u

s
vo
o

69
01
co
CO
r—
CO
69

•*
vb"

69

CM

CO
CO
c-
CO
69
OO
O
CO
69


O
o"
£


1— •
&
cf



2
a
0

CO
9
PL.

cd
p
i—

01
Ol
f&

01
CO
CO
r-
ro
69

vo
o



oo
01
t--

ON
69
01
01
69


VO
OO
69

i— i
g
i
.


R
a
.0

m

PL,

Cd
P

CO
vo
f^
CO
tf\

01
CO
CO
c--
co
69

t— t
•=!•
69



OO
Ol
t*-

ON
69
CO
vo
69


69

01
R
1



R
a
u
O


5
PH

p

01
oo
01

69

01
CO
CO
r—
CO
69

00
69



OO
Ol
t—

ON
69
VO
VO
VO
69


T-H
CO
01
69

CO
g
1



2
a
n
>n
E


ON
CO
69

CO
R
9
n


m
1
•b
S
J3


PH

P
01
vo
,_i

T-H
69
01
co
CO
CO
69

0
of
vo
«— t
69

01

CO
co"

CO
69
VO
01
oo"
CO
01
69


Ol
o
of
69


:t
1



O
to

£
ri
CO

PH

P
T— 4
CO
vo
CO
CO
69

Ol
CO
CO
r-
co
69

vo
ON
01
69



OO
01
C"-

ON
69
ON
vo
•n
ON
s


CO
69

^H
g
%
s



o
'o


CO
s
PH

cd
P
m
^
VD
>n


01
CO
CO
r-
co
69

r~
ON
O
CO
69

01
r—l
CO
CO

CO
69
ON
CO
CO
OO
69


O
VO
01
69

01
g
1
s



o
"o
s
JS
o5

PH

cd-
P
O
01
01
ON
t-
69

01
CO
CO
O-
co
69

OO
r-
69



oo
01
f-

ON
69
ON
O
OO
vo
69


>n
o
18

CO
R
1



o
•Jj,
ca
PM


J3
PH

cd
P

c^
VO
r-

T"4
69
CN!
CO
CO
r-
co
69

Ol
t"-
no"
CNl
01
69

n
r-
69
s
69


t-
OO
°i
69

CO
g
1



j-
^
O
C/3


p3
PL.

cd
P

                                        A-96

-------
1
'•:.>



:*
o
u
3
S
!§
•.'•*«;
?-



V:
^*tfl
*'P-
sen
*g

Contract
















f>
1"
SB
u-



7-
£
u


«••
c*
t
u

Category 2














•;.:.'V
•1-
^

*«".'.


'-," •'•*
-jl'
•*&••
i
*?
4J-

CB
f


1
CS

"^
$


g
I

1
;:'S
fa
."1

!S
f-
CO


OS
00
r-
S
es
69

CO
vo
69

OO
es
r-
OS

,»
r—,
OS
69


OS
es"
69



1



1
U

11
ffi

es
P
OS
Os
O
>n
69


O
OS
Os
r-

Os
OS.
69

00
es
r-
Os
69

S

VO
CO
69


CO
OO
69
es
g
£3
•a



s
u

u
1

CS
P
VO
OS


o
OS
OS
•n

es
r—
VO
cs

OO
os

^
t-



oo
4—4
CO
g
^
=8



S

ffi

CS
p
v>
CO


o
cs
cs
CO
es
69

CO
00
69

OO
es
r-
OS
69

OS

es
cs
69


CO
r-
69



1
0

cs
•1
s

fl>
S3

a
P
S
es
o
CO


o
OO
r-
co
69

CO
CS
es
CO

00
cs
r-
Os
69

S

CO
69


O
""i,
4—4
69
CS
g
£3
13
1
u
•s


S

<1>
eo

CS
P
OS
OO
es
69


CS
CO
CO
f-
co
69

O
rf
69

00
CS
r—
OS
&9

VO
OS
VO
69


CO
c-
o
s
CO
"5
3
1
U
~-t»
a
5
S

(!>
1
f?
P
Os •
CO
NO
0
69


S
CS
CO
£9

5
69

OO
Os
69

r-
es
CO
OO
69


VO
4—4
69

t

£?
,3



1
S

(T>
ffi

CS
P
ro
69


OS
69

§
69

OO
69

es
oo
o
es
69


CO

p

1



1
2,

11
ffi

es
P
S
be


o
OS
Os
69

OS
CO
CO
69

•OO
OS
69

vo
o
CO
69


Os
69
CS
F
3
^



1
S

T)
cs
CO
cs
69

CO
CO
69

OO
69

*
OS
r-
69


OO
OO
69
CO
g
3
•8



o
"S
&

m
ffi

CS
p
1
ro
69


es
T— 4
CO
CO
t-
co
69

CO
CO-
IT)
OO
CO

es
eo
f-
CO
69
^
O
O
69


1
CO
cs
69

^^
fl3
1



1
O
00

(l>
ffi

CS
p
vo
OS
69


Os
OO
r-
o
cs
69

I
UJ

00
cs
r-
OS
69

r-
es
wo
OO
69


O'
69

S
P
•o
d>



1
o
OO

0)
1

CS
P
OS
CO
CO
0
69


S
CS
CO
es
69

g
OO
69

oo
ts
r-
OS
69

OS
vl'
CO
69


ts
£S
cs


T3



3
O
OO

U
£

iS
CO
CO
69


CS
ICY
es
CO
cs
69

VO
OO
cs
69

OO
69

,~
CO
OO
69


r-
69
CO
g

•o



3
O
OO

4O
69


O
cs
cs
CO
es
69

OO
00
4—4
69

OO
OS
69

O
4—4
CO
4—4
69


O
OS
p-
69

4—4
4>
I



1
U

cfi
&
B
S3
cs
VO
\O
69


O
OS
OS
r-
69

VO


OO
cs
r-
Os
69

OS
•^J1
CO
69


CS
69

a
p
•8



1
o

'M
ffi
a
w
VOi
o
CO
o
69


O
OS
Os
r-
69

es
OS


00

-------
"O
 O)
 S
 c
       «
y

                 CM
                     CN
       DO
                                                                     CN
              B
              O

             •Q
             S
                                                      ffi
                                                   ffi
K
W
                                       ffi
                                 w
                                                                        S
                                              A-98

-------
                          Table A-14
Costs for Concrete Pads for Beef, Dairy, Heifer, and Veal Operations
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
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
>;:?Farm|I^pfe;: ~
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
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic .
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Size Oaf s
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
MediumS
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
MediumS
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Capital
$134,541
$1,730,701
$31,232
$44,504
$59,816
$132,317
$1,700,762
$30,751
$43,803
$58,859
$133,861
$1,721,541
$31,085
$44,290
$59,523
$132,058
$1,697,279
$30,695
$43,722
$58,747
$131,707
$1,692,566
$30,620
$43,611
$58,596
$93,642
$21,276
$32,762
$43,796
$93,642
$21,276
$32,762
$43,796
Annual
$2,691
$34,614
$625
$890
$1,196
$2,646
$34,015
$615
$876
$1,177
$2,677
$34,431
$622
$886
$1,190
$2,641
$33,946
$614
$874
$1,175
$2,634
$33,851
$612
$872
$1,172
$1,873
$426
$655
$876
$1,873
$426
$655
$876
                             A-99

-------
Table A-14 (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
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
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
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
^Region
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South .
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
SizeClass?
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Capital;
$93,642
$21,276
$32,762
$43,796
$93,642
$21,276
$32,762
$43,796
$93,642
$21,276
$32,762
$43,796
$42,615
$10,723
$15,933
$20,855
$42,615
$10,723
$15,933
$20,855
$42,615
$10,723
$15,933
$20,855
$42,615
$10,723
$15,933
$20,855
$42,615
$10,723
$15,933
$20,855
$651
$570
$591
$611
•/.;-•„.• .Animal !•.'..'.*':
$1,873
$426
$655
$876
$1,873
$426
$655 '
$876
$1,873
$426
$655
$876
$852
$214
$319
$417
$852
$214
$319
$417
$852
$214
$319
$417
$852
$214
$31.9
$417
$852
$214
$319
$417
$13
$11
$12
$12
        A-100

-------
Table A-14 (Continued)
< ; Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers -
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers "
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers .
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Farm Type _ '
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
< Region
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
Size Class
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Capital
$797
$639
$679
$718
$704
$595
$623
$650
$811
$645
$687
$727
$828
$653
$698
$740
$2,276
$2,689
$4,117
$2,276
$2,689
$4,117
$2,276
$2,689
$4,117
$2,276
$2,689
$4,117
$2,276
$2,689
$4,117
Annual
$16
$13
$14
$14
$14
$12
$12
$13
$16
$13
$14
$15
$17
$13
$14
$15
$46
$54
$82
$46
$54
$82
$46
$54
$82
$46
$54
$82
$46
$54
$82
        A-101

-------
                      Table A-15
Costs for Composting at Dairies, Beef, and Heifer Operations
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
Daiiy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
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
Flush
Flush
Region
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
;.; Size Class
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
MediumS
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
.';:. Capital ?
$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
•-/ ";;Aiinual:,v -,.,:
$67,803
$954,694
$13,653
$20,356
$28,251
$58,841
$828,603
$11,839
$17,662
$24,509
$60,390
$850,412
$12,167
$18,127
$25,167
$58,860
$828,877
$11,842
$17,668
$24,517
$58,784
$827,804
$11,827
$17,645
$24,485
$7,995
$1,413
$2,380
$3,365
$4,261
$744
$1,265
                         A-102

-------
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
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Farm Type
Flush ;
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
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific'
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific ,
South
South
South
South
Central
Size Class
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large!
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Capital
$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
$9,157
" Annual
$1,786
$7,196
$1,264
$2,138
$3,031
$2,867
$503
$856
$1,210
$1,567
$280
$466
$653
$7,995
$1,413
$2,380
$3,365
$4,261
$744
$1,265
$1,786'
$7,196
$1,264
$2,138
$3,031
$2,867
$503
$856
$1,210
$1,567
$280
$466
$653
$26,997
         A-103

-------
Table A-15 (Continued)
Animal
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Farmltype, v
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers 	
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers • —
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
.Region : ,<
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest -•
-Midwest 	
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
- .Size Class,
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1 , 	
Medium 2 ,
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
'Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
•;',: /'Capital ':•-,/':
$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 i
$9,157
'•• • -Annual;' ''• .,'
$7,209
$11,260
$15,756
$19,064
$5,091
$7,952
.$11,111
$22,780
- $6,076
$9,495
$13,285
$19,4-73
$5,203
$8,120
$11,371
$16,537
$4,422
$6,894
$9,662
        A-104

-------
                   Table A-16
Costs for Digesters for Large Dairies for all Regions
IV Animal
Dairy
Dairy
Farm Type
Hose '
Flush
Size .Class
Large 1
Large 1
Digester Type
Complete Mix
Covered Lagoon
Capital
$377,447
$214,353
O&M
($45,560)
($42,062)
                      A-105

-------
 VI
I
    g
    0)
   *
-is  o
CC '^3
 )H  O<
.20
 (S
fl
1
m
U
r»
^
s
bfi
S
U
fc
j?
z™

S
co

eu
bi
1
1
s
e

06



a)
f
CO


i
•S

OS
VD
O
"»— <


CO
VO
CO
OS




OS
Os
VD
oo
6%

|
U
cd


T)
O
CO


U
S

3
S


u
2
«

1
u
OS
IS
CM


00
t— 1
CO

6^


£

OS

CM

2
m

u
a
CM
S~


«?
o\
o
^5



VD'
CM
i

E



Tl
0
CO


O
C!
ca

S
S


to
2
pa

1
u
U
r-
c—
o
vo


3
oo
CM
vo



....
CM
CM
O
VO
CO
E
i
S


•d
o
CO


u
cS

^
2


to
2
pa

1
o
CM
CM
VO
CM


£
VO
S




OS
VO
00

_
1
,3


-d
o
CO





•S
o
CO


to
2
oa

1
u
U
vo
o
vo
oo
CM
CM


-VD
CO
CM
CM



OO
vo


CM



•a
o
CO





P"
0
CO



2
ffl

1
u
u
vo
to
VO
t-


CM
to-
VD
r-
CM
V*



*
^J*
CM

g
T8
S


-d
o
CO





JS
p
o
CO


u
'5
pa

1
u
U
oo
o


r-

o
€«



CM
CO
to
CO
CO
CM
g
•3
to


•d
o
CO





p
o
CO


—
2
pa

1
u
CM
O
1—4
CM
VD


oo

CM
vo




CO

Os
to
CO
E
.2
•d


-d
o
CO





S
o
CO



2
pa

u
o
T— 4
CM
VD


OS

S
T— 1
6<»


OS
CM
VO

^_,
1
_)


•d
o
CO





1
s

s
u
>f
>->

g
•g
a
vo
o
t-


vo
r-
o
r—
^^
(A


VO
S
r-
t-~
S

CM
!


•d
0
CO





1
s

s
u
^>
K-J

1
a
CO
o
o


CO
o
0
CM
&o



CO
o
o
CM

E
1


•d
o
CO




ts
1
S

£
s?
§•


I
8
CO
S


CM
Os
CO
CO
c/3



CM
OS
CO
CO
'GO
CM
g
n


•d
o
CO





1
§

J
l-l
K?
1-1

1
a
t—
r-
S


10
c—
CO
c/^



t-
r-
S
CO
g
•8


•d
o
CO





1
S

S
ft
!•


1
t>
a
OS
CM
vo


OS
OS
T-H
CM
VD
1-H
ee


s
CM
VO
r"- 1

_
1
J


•o
o
CO





1
O
CO

ci
u
§•
hJ

1
o
a
VO
p-
o
g
£/»


^0
O
c-
"^
&9


vo
t>-
o
t~-
E

CM
1


•d
o
CO





1
o
CO

s
u
nt*
i-l

1
a
CO
Os
o
O
>
i-1

1
5
CM
Os
CO
CO.
&<»


CM
Os
CO
CO
€^



CM
Os
CO
CO
CM
g
•d
u


•d
o
CO





|
o
CO

b
Q
b

>->

1
u
O
r-
te


t--
r-
9
C/5



wo
r^-
co
CO
a
-g
»


•d
o
CO





P
o
CO

Q
u
of
t-1

1
a
£
VO
s


:t—
vo
5
4—4
O5


r-
o
VD
?*
•^r
6^

_
to


•d
o
CO


u
1

S
s

1
•a
s
CO

.g
£
CM
CM
CM
V)


CM
CM
CM
6^



CM
CM
CM

g
•3
1


•d
o
CO


0
1

s
s

s
•a
Ki
CO

t

                                     A-106

-------













?
0
&
a
o
U,
A
r^
TH

^^
pS
H
















**s

1
O
p*
1
,«
o
'l-H
%
?S?
I


1
< -
,»
'•&•
••8
.>*
%
'5^
«

"3»
o>
:**




« .
5
'In*
53


:1

O
CM
en
en
V)

O
CM
en
ON"
en


o
oC
en
V)
CM
•3
1




3
"o
oo

o

1
5
J«
T3
S

1
J3
00
1
00

1
VO
•O

en"
•n

«
en"
T)
09


VO
'en"
v%
69
en
a
s
•3
i




^
o
oo

o



^«
•o
s

s
-C
00
1
00

1
r~-
o
vo_
T-H

o
VO_


g
vq_

69

Sj
!3




2
o
oo



•*-*
s
&
•5
S

S

00
M
00

1
(M


S

cs
•n
o


VO
en"

69
en
1




3
o
00




o
^
"^
s

S3
Je
oo
1
oo

!
A-107

-------
 =
 O
T3

 2
 O "g
PM £

 *
cc
•a

en
•s?
o
Ml
-S
03
O'

r
1
&
u.
n
u

Eft
§-
^
J'
60
h
S
;a
|

a
y
f
es

B.
*
1

5
o





00
ON
O
en
ON
69



ON
ON
oo


ub
3



•a
o
oo

•71
c
a
•i
S

8
CQ
1
u
U
CN
CN
O
69




CN
ON
OO
oo
CN
CN
69


CN
CN
en"
69


CN
CD
s



•a
o
00
o

c
5
s


1
u
s
ON
oo
r—
r-
60



-
ON
V)
ON
69



en
oo^
CN

r-H
Medium



•a
o
oo
o

c
a
i
•a
S

1
1
u
0
CN
»— i
ON
en
69




vo
S



s
ON


CN
3
•a
CD



•a
o
GO
u
•c
§
•i
S

8
CQ
1
6
f-
o
&o




CN
VO
m
VO
69



OO
oC


en
Medium



•a
O
GO
U

a
•a'
s

8
CQ
1
u
S
s
R
69




O
ON



ON
O\
VO^
OO
60


CD
EP
,3



•a
o
oo



s
0
GO

8
CQ
1
u
U
o
ON
CN
f-
en
CN
69




VO
r-
oo
CN
CN
V*


CN
CN
00^
ss


(D
§*



•a
o
00



€
§
oo
tt)
8
CQ
c
O
i
r-
CN
60




VO
VO
c-
CN



en
CN^
CN

^
Medium



•a
o
oo



•3
o
oo
o
8
CQ
o
U
ON
O
•sf
60




•<*•
O
s



VO
°o.
69

CN
Medium



•a
o
GO



1
o
GO
in
1
1
o
S
CN
CN
VO
69




r-
CN
VO
69



otT


en
Medium



•a
0
oo



-G
O
00
IR
£
1
u
U
g
CN
VO





ON
ON
T— t
VO
w


ON
ON
VO



&
CO



•a
o
GO


^
1
S
ff
S"
1
a
vo
f-
o
t-
s




VO
r-
o
r-
w


VO
t—
o
pf



1



s
o
oo


^
•a
S
Q
1
4
u
en
g
o
CN
60




en
g
o
S



en
g
O
CN
69

_
Medium



•a
o
oo


„
1
S
*
!
4
s
CN
ON
en
en
60




CN
ON
en
en
6O



CN
ON
en^
en

CM
Medium



•a
O
GO


^
u
1
s
Q
S
1
o
U
r—
en
<*>




t~~
en



r-
t-^
en"
S

en
Medium



•a
00


tn
1
S
Q
1
1
o
ji
ON
ON
CN
VO
s




o\
ON
§



ON
CN~
VO
69


!



•a
00



1
o
oo
s
1
1
o
CJ
o
r-
r—
S




VO
r-
o
t--
r-



vo
r-
c^
r-
S


CN
CD



•a
GO



B
o
oo
O
•J
1
u
U
en
ON
O
0
**»




en
ON
O
O
CN
69



en
ON
O_
69

_
Medium



•a
oo



1
o
oo
O
1
1
o
U
CN
ON
en
en
<*>




CN
ON
en
en
69



en
en
69

CN
Medium



-a
GO



s
o
00


1
u
U
•Q
en
69




r-
r-
69



f-
t/1
en"
69

en
Medium



•a
oo



1
o
00
O
L;
1
1
u
U
                             A-108

-------















/••^
•8
p
a
«
|
,Q'

p2*
-D
«
H

















«*>
•fe*
o
f
<8
U
1
•+^
y
*• i
1


u.


CA
s
s
1
•s,
fl
a
~:C5
'*?
i*

-a

"55)
'.qj
&


1
E
cs
fa

1
f-
o
vo
^:
i— i
€/^



$144,607

VO
o
vo

^
5



1




T3
O
00
o

PH
CO
"*J
1
s

00

^
1
CN

CN

s

t

00
1


ON
VN





VO

VO


CO;


!

Medium 3




T3
O
OO
O




•S
s

i>
60
§
00
I


VO
^:
r-H
C-O



$144,607

vo
o
vo

5
5



o
I




"O.
o
OO




w
•1
s.

60

GO
1
CN

CN
>n
CN





B


*o
CN
VI
CN



Medium 1




T3
0
OO




to
•§
S

J
§
OO
1
o
CN
CO
CO
&O




O
CN
CO
oC

o
CN

ON
CO



Medium 2




•o
o
00




00
•1
S

U
3
OO
1
vo

ON
co
€^




VO
n

CO
VI



Medium 3




•n
O
00



*i>
S
•1
S

1
§
00
1
A-109.

-------
       -8
       U

       CO

       "O
       o>
       a
       o
 C3

H
       en


       I
       03
!
       0>
       &fi
       CM


       I
       CO
       .2
       V)
       O

       U



       I


       S*

       U

Category 3

(s
.&•
&
1;

Category 1
Size Class
nuretype
S-

e
«

0>
s
MH
"3
S
'!

ON
vo
o
2
69
CO
vo
3
69
ON
ON
vo
p-
oo
69
0)
M
S3
l_)
-o
O
CO
0
s
<
•A
§

o
m
1
o
o
s
p-
vo
CN
69
oo
t-
co
3
CN
p-
CN
ON
69
CN

ON
P-
CN
69
CO
t— 1
ON
p-
£
Medium 1
T3
O
CO
0
i
S
s

o
oa
1
o
U
CN
5
ON
CO
69
f>
"3-
ON
1
CO
VO
CN
ON
CO
6%
Medium 2
-a
o
CO
0
s
5
S

o
03
1
o
O
p-
p-
U~t
o
VO
&9
•*
•3-
oo
CN
VO
69
i
O
VO
69
Medium 3
•a
O
CO
0
s
<:
•i
S

o
PQ
1
U
U
oo
oo
ON
69
vo
5
S
&9
ON
ON
VO
P-
oo
69
ID
_l
•a
o
CO


5
o
CO

o
«
1
U
o
*-*
CO
?!
CN
69
S
CO
00
CN
69
p-
T— 4
CN
VO
t—
69
CN
(D
ff
_l
-0
O
CO


•s
o
CO

'o
P3
1
U
U
»— <
in
VO
r-
3
f— *
•n
vo
c—
CN
69
ON
CO
rf
P-
cs
69
Medium 1
T3
O
CO


ji
"3
o
CO

p
CO
1
U
O

oo
CO
69
C-J
•3

69
CO
•3
1
•«
o
CO


1
c?

p
m
1
o
ON
ON
cs
VO
69
ON
ON
-)
1
a
vo
c-~
o
r—
t-~
•rr
.69
VO
r—
o
r~
t-~
•*
69
JS
O
r~
r-
•<4-
69
CN
U
%
_)
t3
O
CO

t .
1
s
b
Q
&
£>
J
1
o
O
CO
ON
O
S
69
CO
ON
O
O
CN
69
CO
ON
O
O
r-i
69
Medium 1
•a
o
CO

•fc!
I
s
b
Q
&
J
1
e
CN)
OS
CO
•*
CO
69
CN
ON
CO
^t
CO
69
CM
ON
CO
TT
CO
69
Medium 2
•o
o
CO

t .
U
^
•o
s
b
Q
1
<-)
1
6
r-
W-l
t-
co
•^•
69
r-
•o
t-
co
•*
69
t-

ff
i-4
-a
O
CO


•^
»
o
CO
&
Q
1
J
a
£
0
U
VO
r-
o
r-~
5
69
VO
r-
o
r~
t—
-s-
69
vo
r-
o
c—
p-
•n-
69
CN
ID
£?
a
h4
•a
o
CO


•s
s
£
£>
Q
1
3
1
6
CO
ON
O
O
CN
69
CO
ON
O
0
S
CO
§
o
CN
69
Medium 1
•a
O
CO


JS
3
O
CO
&
Q
1
,J
1
J3
CJ
CN
ON
CO
rl-
co
69
S
CO
•3-
co
69
CN
ON
CO
^1-
CO
69
CN
|
•3
1
T3
O
CO


^
9
O
CO
b
o
&
3
1
s
r-
•n
r-
co
•*
69
p-

J3
00
S
CO
1
a
CN
>r>
CN
n
CN
69
Medium 1
•a
o
CO
o
y
%
•a
S
i^
S
£
bO
S
CO
1
&
                                       A-110

-------
















f
3
a
•••4
•G
fl
0
^
t-
T*H

^f(

£
•s
H




















;.-_„
"

>*
O
Sb
_ta

r*
f|
U
--
	 .
b
y






QB
U
[«j
*AJ


OJ
^
'b
3




g
I

i
s
'€8
•
•'-a
•,s
1


o
CN

oT
en





oT
en

O
en
ON
en








CN
3
'•3






T3

1
O
1
3
s
S
f
CO
CO


1
g
H
VO

ON
en"

€/}




vo
en"


>n
en









en
3
T3

S




rs

"o
CO
_o
1
3
s
S3
|
C3
CO


1"
g
f-1
t~-
o
va..
^>

^^
vy



t-~
O
S

vo
Tf
s









ID


J




12

*o
CO


1
S
B
"f
^
CO


^
s
H

i/~j
CN
l/-)
CN





CN
CN

CN
*O
CN








|

•3
u





T3
S3
O
CO


1
s
£
Jti
00
ctt
CO


j4
^
E-1
o
CN
en,,
ON"
en





o
en
ON
en

0
CN
en
ON
en





i


CN
2
•3

s




"O
**•*
o
CO


1
S
S
f
C3
CO


1"
b
-H
VO

,ov
en"

6<3




"0
en"
>n

ON
en
S








en
S
g
-ct

S




rs

"o
CO


1
s
1
1
5
CO


1
t
H
A-lll

-------
 o
•c
 CQ
 fi

 S
CO

TJ
 ID
 ca
 C3
JS

PH
I
 ca

I
 2
 F«^

O


5

1
 a>
eg
 O

U



If?
o
BJ
.8
ca
U


&>
M
; £.
2
m
U
5
o
M
cu
C3
W



;
co


1
• 'S
a
,*
*
B
O
I

01
£
g
-R
.P*
i



r-
•s
69




00
§
cn
ON
&%








ON
ON
VO
f-^
OO
69

_
H>
I



•a
o
CO
u

|
S


S3
'R
m
1
6

CM
CM
O
S
69




CM
ON
OO
OO
CM
CM
69






CM
CM
cn


69

CM
O
I



-a
o
CO
u

—
-o
s



ON
r-
CM
69








cn
OO
f~.
CM
69

s
s*
•a

I



•d
o
CO


£
O
CO


S3
o
m
1
o
o
o
ON
CM
r-
cn
CM
69




VD
r-
00
^H
CM
CS
69






CM
CM
cn
VI

69

CM

4
S

Q
jj
&•

1
u
U
VD
f-
O
r-
t-~
69




VD
t-
f-

69






VO
r-
f^1
r-

69

CM
O




•d
o
CO


^J
1
s

Q
!•
S3
iJ
1
o
U
cn
ON
o
o
CM
69





cn
8
o
CM
69








cn
ON
O
O
CM
69

g
3
•a



•d
o
CO


B
1
!§

£
j_;
^>
hJ
1
e
CM
ON
cn
cn
69





CM
ON
cn
^j-
cn
69








CM
ON
cn
^>
cn
69
CM
s
9
•d
u



•O
o
CO


1
s

§

g.
J
1
O
r-

r-
69





t—
cn

tf$








r--
•n

cn

69
cn

p
1



•d
o
CO


I
S

i

cJ
h-I
1
u
a
ON
ON

S
69




ON
ON
r— t
CM
VO

69






ON
ON
CM
vo

69

^^
0)




•d
o
CO


•S
0
CO

&>
Q

!>>
j
1
s
VO
r-
o
f-
69




vo
O
t—
r-

69






vo
r-
^
[•^

69

CM

if



•d
o
CO


?
0
CO

£
J_.
^>
J
1
u
O
cn
ON
o
o
CM
69





cn
§
o

&o








s
o
o
CM
69

g
3
1



•a
0
CO


•s
o
CO

Q
j_.
>>
J
1
u
U
CM
ON
cn
cn
69





ON
cn
^*
cn
69








s

<^j-
m
ee
ri

!3
1



•«
o
CO


fl
o
CO

Q

b
,-j
1
u
r~

r-
cn
69





r-
r-
cn
^j«
69








r-
r~^
cn

69
cn

£3
1



•d
o
CO


3
o
CO

Q
;_;


1
O


vo
5
69




S
VD
^-
^»«
J— 4
69






VD
O
VO

^U

&e

«— H
O
!



•d
o
CO
u

K>
1
^

$
•S
f
CO
t
f2
                                A-112

-------














^^
PVBf
cu
3
a
•-a
a
o
j^ ^
v— '
JO

T1
5
3
C3
H





















v . "
•f!O---
i->
'"•fa -
1
1
p..
•fe
.O'
f
V-0*
£•) .





"yy.--

'/4K'
•"£8
BO;



:!fl>
;'§J
,
;£';
'«
fe«4
•S

*•
I



k
H
§•

~
•'W,
to
"53-
.§

CN

n
O
CN



.'.,


*— i
g
•3
o
S





•a
o
CO
_0
1
*-;
^
i§

D
£
00

cd
CO

i
t-t
o
CN

OV

69

O
CN
en
av
en



o
CN

oT
en






CN
g
•3
ID
s





•o
o
CO
o
1
•<-*
^
s

a
£
&0

CO
CO

!>
1

v^
o^
c*") •
Vi


•o
oe



VO

Cf\
CO
*o
69





en
g
•3

1





•o
o
CO
o
1
^J
^
s

ID
t-!
bO
O
CO
CO

t
t-l

o

'^^
^-' '
69

O
*— H
69
'


En
ON
j_J*
*o
1-H
69






,_'
ID

J





•o
o
CO
...

o
•1
s.

0
^3
oo

cd
CO

f

CN

CN_
—V^ 'c
CN
69

CN
CN
U-T
CN



CN

CN_
n

'•CO
>n


vo
ID
en"
69



vo

C3V
en"

69





en
g
=0

S





^
O
CO


s
1
§

ID
J3
00

cd
CO

f
'£
A-113

-------
       S
       on
       03
      V)
       a
       o
a>

en
P
O
       S
       a,
      O


      I
       o
       01)
       03
       h


      I
       OT
      ts
       o
      U
       OH
       OS
      U

to
.^
•o
60
y

M
•fr
•R
en
S
a
W
':a-
-•S
#
i'
tn
a>
S
*





g
I
1
fe
Be
O
"3
a
•<
CO
CM
r-i
CM
69



CO
OO
CM
69


r-~

£ 	
69
!
_i



T3
O
CO





g
CO
is

g
CQ
1
6
oo
oo

OS
69


VO
CO
0^
£S)




OS
Os
VO
J^*
oo
1



•o
-o
CO





1
CO


g

1
o
vo
oo
0
CM
vn
69


CO

«
69




OO
CN
CN

>O
69
MediumS



-o
o
CO





I
CO
is

g
CQ
1
y
CM
r—
CO
o

69


o
vo
o
69




OO
oo
CO
Medium2



•o
o
CO





g
CO
is

o
CQ
1
a
O
v>

CM




vo
r—
CM





CO
t—
CM
Mediuml



•o
o
CO





1
CO

•-H
0
CQ
1
o
U
OS
t-~
vo
CM


OO
r-
CO
CM




r~

Z>
1)



13
O
CO
O

C
03

S
Is
in

o
CQ
1
o
O
Os
O

^2
69


CO

CO
OS
69




OS
OS
r-
oo
69
1



-ct
O
CO
o
•c

a

•ct
§
is

o
CQ
1
g
r-

vo
69


^
OO
CM
VO
69




CM
"»
J
1
6
as
OS
CM
VO
T— <
69


OS
OS
CM
VO

69


OS
os
VO
69
I



•a
o
CO




m
|
fc-
O
>,
^
1
o
U
vo
c~-
o
c-
c~-
69


VO
f-
O
t—
^~
69


vo
£
1 —

69
CN
>
J
1
6
CM
OS
CO

CO
69


CN
OS
CO
CO
69




CM
as
CO
•^f
CO
69
•3
1



•a
0
CO





1
CO
g
»
J
1
o
y
OS
OS
CN
vo
69


OS
OS
CM
VO
f-H
69


OS
OS
CN~
VO
69
1



-a
o
CO





•S
g
CO
9
D
£?

1
6
vo
£

p--
€/>


^0
£
t-
^}-
6^


VO
£
f-N.
€/5
1



•o
o
CO





o
CO
o

-------
S


1
o
H



'f*5
'•&•
•"'§>
•"5
y


f*^
1
i— i
t
*.
$


J
•on
e
s



e
t°

e
•2
2
S,
P
'13
.1
^
01

01
•*(/•}
IS
69



0)

O)
69
CM
v>

g
1
•a
o
00
o
C5
ca
*3
•a
s

fo

OO
1

o
cs

o\
69



O

CO
CO
o
OS
O)

1
-o
o
00
o
C3
C3
^j
J
S

i.
s
OO
t

VO

OS
CO
>n



VO

OS
^
•VO
>n

"i
1
T3
O
OO
0
C3
CIS
^
•Ct
S

CO
§
00
*
£
r-
o

^j-
2
69


C—
O
VO
2
s
SO
69


1

O
00
0

C3
*j>
•1
^

S
3
OO
1
ff
01

01
Q">
69



01

ol
69

"O
o
OO


t
t/3
O
1
S

4
i
00
f
H
vo

Os
CO
69



VO
if)
OS
CO
69
VO
CO
69
CO

•3

0
OO


t
VI
O
1
§

1
OO
i
00
>>
£
^

VO
^>
2
69


r-
o
vo
69
§
69


U
M
•a
o
00


. (
CO

1
S

«
J3
Ol

00
&
•a
^
                                     A-115

-------
                      Table A-18
Costs for Covered Lagoons at Veal Operations Under Option 5
Animal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal •
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal.
Veal ;
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Veal
Farm Type
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush :
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush
Region v
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South i
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Pacific
South
^v:/Si?e Class- c,;
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 2
Medium 2
Medium 2
Medium 2
Medium 3
Medium 3
Medium 3
Medium 3
Medium 3
-',; Capital ;.•:•',,•::
$65,959
$79,984
$75,264
$79,366
$68,049
$77,377
$89,261
$83,167
$93,320
$89,588
$100,765
$114,140
$107,803
$118,625
$114,198
Annual , :
$3,298
$3,999
$3,763
$3,968
$3,402
$3,869
$4,463
$4,158
$4,666
$4,479
$5,038
$5,707
$5,390
$5,931
$5,710
                         A-116

-------
                            Table A-19
Costs for Sludge Removal at Dairies, Beef Feedlots, and Heifer Operations
;£• Animal ".".;"
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef , j i
Beef .
Beef
Beef . • ., _„,
Beef
Beef
Beef .
Beef
Beef <
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
:•',. ••Faimi.Iypfc v '•
Beef !
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef '
Beef
'Beef.-.
Beef
'Beef .
iBeef ;,
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef
Beef,
Beef
Beef :
Beef ;
Beef '
Beef
Beef
Beef .
Flush
Flush
Flush . .
Flush
Flush
Flush
Flush:
•'••''-•;•: ^Region
Central
Central
Central
Central
Central" •
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic :
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South' .. '.-..-
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Size Class
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2 :
Medium 1
Medium 2 ",
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
"Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Large 2
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Capital -
$0
$122,426
$0
$0
$0
$0
$122,426
$0
$0
$0
$0
$122,426 .
$0
$0
$0 -
$0
$122,426
$0
$0
$0
$0
$122,426
$0
$0
$0
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
Annual
$2,377
$6,121
$478
$714
$990
$7,693
$6,121
$1,548
- $2,309
$3,204
$4,004
$6,121
$806
$1,202
$1,668
$8,312
$6,121
$1,672
$2,495
$3,462
$9,148
$6,121
$1,841
$2,746
$3,811
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
                               A-117

-------
Table A-19 (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
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Dairy
Heifers
Farm Type
Flush
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
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Hose
Heifers
Region
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Central
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Central
" ' Size Class .;/:
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2 •
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
•;, Capital ,..;
$122,426
.$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$0
$0
$0
$122,426
$0
$0
$122,426
$122,426
•$o
$0
$122,426
$122,426
$0
$122,426
$122,426
$122,426
$0
$122,426
$122,426
$0
- •:•':• .-Ajinual" ;';',,' ;
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$9,711
$16,509
$23,307
$6,121
$13,614
$23,144
$6,121
$6,121
$10,906
$18,539
$6,121
$6,121
$14,068
$6,121
$6,121
$6,121
$14,682
$6,121
$6,121
$1,818
        A-118

-------
Table A-19 (Continued)
;-;.i!; ;^£niinal-!v-
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers : -
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
ieifers
leifers
leifers
ieifers
.«iFara'Type-;r';
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
Heifers
•: ;•:••;' Region
Central
Central
Central
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Midwest
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
Pacific
South
South
South
South
Size Class
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Large 1
Medium 1
Medium 2
Medium 3
Capital
$0
$0
$0 ,
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0 .
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Annual
$485
$757
$1,060
$5,883
$1,569
$2,451
$3,432
$3,062
$816
$1,276
$1,786
$6,356
$1,695
$2,648
$3,708
$6,996
$1,865
$2,915
$4,081
       A-119

-------

-------
Appendix B

-------

-------
          9
 o>
1
H

         •a
         i

         .2
       •  O
          o
         O

         I
         42
          in
          O
         cs
         Sw
         H
         O)
         13
         cc

                         a
                        CQ
I
                            CQ
C
                                 8
                                     K
                                     CQ
                                         m
                                         CQ
                                             CQ
                                             CQ
                                                 CQ
                                                 CQ

                                                     CQ
                                                     CQ
                                                         CQ
                                                         CQ
                                                              a
                                                              CQ
                                                              PQ
                                                                  I
                                             1
•a

«
1
                                                                                      •I
                                                                                      £
•a
I
I
I
                                                                                           a
                                                                                           £
                                                                              •S
                                                          .s
                                                          1
                .if
                1
                1
                         1
                         a
                         1

                                                                                                                       a
Con

                                                                                           u
                                                                  8
3

    3
                                                                  CQ
                                                                      CQ
                                                                          CQ
                                                                              CQ
                                                                                      CQ
                                                                                           CQ
                                                                                               CQ
                                                                                                                   CQ
                                                                                                                       CQ
                                                                  CQ
                                                                      CQ
                                                                          CQ
                                                                              CQ
                                                                                  CQ
                                                                                      CQ
                                                                                          CQ
                                                                                               CQ
                                                                                                   cq
                                                                                                       CQ
                                                                                                           CQ
                                                                                                               CQ
                                                   B-l

-------
  .g
H
ti
 C3
 o
U
H
       a
                                         1
                                         •a
                                              u
                                              8
                                                 H


                                                 •s
                                                              •a
                                                                         i
                                                                          u
                                                                1
                                              •g
                                                     en
1
t5

|


U
                                         O
a

1

I
               a


               1
I
                       .s
                       1

                                                                    o

                                                                                        .i
                                                                                               .
                                                                                                               .
                                                                                                               a
                                                                                                                       B
                                                                        5

                                                                                    o
                                                                        SB
                                                                                                           a
                                      8
                                  8
        8
                                                   8
                                                              8
                                      •s
=s

                                                      I
                                          "S
                               i
                           "S
                'S
g
.3
"8
                                                                                                                   C-l

                                                                                                                    B
                  CQ
                      CQ
                          m
                              CQ
                                      CQ
                                          CQ
                                              CQ
                                                 CQ
                                                                 en
                                                                     CQ
                                                                         CQ
                                                                             CQ
                                                                                 CQ
                                                                                    CQ
                                                                                                    CQ
                                                                                                        CQ
                                                                                                            CQ
                                                                                                                CQ
                                                                                                                   CQ
               CQ
                  CQ
                      m
                          m
                              cq
                                  m
                                      CQ
                                          CQ
                                              CQ
                                                             CQ
                                                                 CQ
                                                                     CQ
                                                                         CQ
                                                                             CQ
                                                                                 CQ
                                                                                    CQ
                                                                                            CQ
                                                                                                CQ
                                                                                                    CQ
                                                                                                        CQ
                                                                                                            CQ
                                                                                                                CQ
                                                                                                                   CQ
                                                        B-2

-------
                   1

                                                       •8
                                        •a
                                        I"
                                        •8
                                        £
                                                                   •H.

                                                         2

                                                        £
                                                            1
                                            I
                    1
i
 o
PQ

S
•9
H
Contr
I.

1
o
U
                           i
                              -
C

C
C
.S


I
C
                                               I
                                        f
ntract
C
                                1
Contr
Con
 §



1
Contra
I
C
ontrac
C
M


1
C

                                                                        u
                                                                                                   w
C
           I
          • a
a
                                                        ffi
                                                                        K
                                              •8
                            e
                                    -.8.
                                            as
    1
            |


            '•§


                                                           I
               m
                   m
                       PQ
                               CQ
                                   pa
                                       m
                                           m
                                               m
                                                   CQ
                                                       CQ
                                                           a>
                                                           
                                                                             a>
                                                                            OQ
                                                                                                   CQ
                           PQ
                                                       pa
                                                           CQ
                                                               CQ
                                                                   pa
                                                                       PQ
                                                                           PQ
                                                                               CQ
                                                                                   CQ
                                                                                               CQ
                                                                •8

                                                                                                                       £
Purchas
Purc
                                                                                                a

                                                                                |

                                                                                E
                                                         B-3

-------
f
 a
 a
V3
 fl
 O
U
•8
H
w> 43
ll
*
-J
a |
s
f
.1
= s
g
1
PH
1'
£°
J
tj
N
M
i
.a
•a
E
o


B
Purchase '
•
1
Contract





a

i



I

ji
E



1

S
Purchase 1

1
Contract





j

S



I

1



t
P

•3
Purchase '

1
Contraci





s

1



I

en
E



P
-
S
Purchase '
•y
H
1
<2





a

<



1

CO
a
E



P

1
Purchase '

g
J





j

as



1

1
PH



.£>

1
Purchase '

1
.g





S

^



If
3

1
tL,



§

1
Purchase 1

1
LQ
cd





a

o
CO



1

1



1

1
Purchase 1
'.M-
1
n
cd





j

o
CO



1

1



1

•3
Purchase '

o
1
£





s

o
co



I

4=
CO
p
E



Q

•3
Purchase '
B
1
1
u





a

8

p
3
i

CO
E



2

1
i

i
o





j

8

F
3
i

1
E



'3
Q

•3
a

P

1
Purchase "
g1
i
a
1





u

|

p
pj
i

1
E



•5
P

1
Purchase r
g1
§
a
1





S

|

F
3
1

1
E



P

^
JS

a
Contract





a

i

P
p
1

CO
p
E



*s
P

1
Purchase '

1
a
1





j

i

(3

•a

1



P

1
Purchase '
g1
a
i





s

i

F
3
O

I



"c3
Q

1
Purchase '
g1
1
I





a

25

P
p
T3

E



£
P

•3
!

i
i





j

ss

F
S3

-------
                                   £•
                       .
                                                                                       .1°
                                                                    .I1
I
 o
U
S
s
tra
C
C

EC
            EC
                                EC
                                                •EC
                                    EC
                                                                        EC
                                                          .8
                                        8
                                        8
                                                                        8
        8
•R
=8
•R
                                                       •R
=2
               •S
    •s

                       OH
                                   P..
                                       PH
                                                   PL,
                                                                                                   E
                                                                                S
                          P,
                                                                   P
                                                                                                                   Q
                                                                                                                           P
                                                         B-5

-------
                                 £

tra
                           S3
                              a
C
C

tra
C
                                                                              a
                                                                                  a
                                                                                  u
                                                                                         a
                                                                                                   a
                                                                                                       §>
tra
C


                                                                                                          o
1
 O

y

                                                          a
                                                                               a
                                                                                         a
                                                                                                   a
                                                          u
             I
s

                                             •8
                            '8
                    i
                                     a


                           P
                              Q
                                     'o

2
P  Q
                                                  B-6

-------
          o


        I
                   1
                                    .


 g
i
 o
H



                                                                                          a
C
   K
             a
                                  a
                                                                          a
                                                                                                       a
            8
8
8



                                                        S
                                                           •8
                                            •8


1
=§
                                  "8
                                 '
               K
                                       a
                                                                         a
                                                                               a
                                .
                                
-------
1
 fi
5
M
H
1
H
b|
II
g

<* a
t'l
J
-S
S
«
1
o<
!
i
u
M
at
f
£
•a
s





|
^
1
£

1
Contract




Kj
8

£
S3


a"


b
Q



1
o
n

.5
1
a
6




2
o
CO

£

1

a


g.
'3
Q



1

1
Contract




j
£



I
2
«
a


1




1

"1

1
1 Contract




a
2!

Fi
P
S
2
«
(S


1
a



•g

"1

00
c
1
O




J
.

F

"8
2
a


1
5
a
                                                                                     CO
                                     B-8

-------
I
 O
O
PQ
H
U
^O M
&* o
If-

*

t'l
."
z
o
B
"I

'•"*
,1
"J
' §
V"
u
ij
•a
1


^
fh
1
£
1
1




2

ss

jjj
0>

1

1
EC

^
fS
1
(i,
f
1
| Contracl




EC

O
oo

|
•8
2

1
S3
EC

1
EC

^
£
1
i,
1
| Contrac)




J

O
00

g
1

1

1
EC

•g
H
o
J
2
i*
1
1
O




s

g

s
1

g

2
EC

•3
£
1
(i,
£
1
EC
1




EC

8
CM
1
1

tfl
%

1
EC

M
£
ca
J3
(i,
§"
1
EC
1




J

8
CM
§
•8

1
I

2
EC

U
E^
1
d,
i
1 Contract




2

8
CM
|
•s

I
o
EC

1
V

o
£


M
^
o
«£
1
Contract




j

2
CM
g
•8

2
1

1
E
EC

•S
£
1
•I
£
bJO
_g
1
EC
Contract




S

gj

g
•a

1

2
5
EC

•S
jC
d
£
6O
1
Contract




EC

O
00
CM
g
"8
2

1
EH

1
•T,

^
fc
1
"s
(5
&0
.g
1
EC
Contract




_,

O
oo
CM
g
•s

f
EC

2
T!

^
^
1
H
si
1
EC
1




^

g
CM
§
1

1.

2
T

^
£
R


1
5

u
5


£
d
si
c
1
Contract




S

|
f«"l

"3

1
EC

S
u


^
ec
"2
si
c
1
Contract




EC

|

g
1

EC

3
5


d
a
D
j:
fi
a
CC
EC
Contract




_,

2

S
1

1

L>
JS


d
t
C
si
t
e
EC
Contract




§

^


2

1
EH

3
5
                                       B-9

-------
 g
1
 o
y
 C3
H
         &
         to

u
K
            '8
              .

      0
         o
                     =§
            U
                                            B-10

-------
       I
       I
       '53
       W
       -e
       •C
       • *H4 =
       03

       •s
PQ

i
 03
H
       •-D
       o
       •«
       a
       O

       §


       1

fi
ff
o S
*
^» O
tl
«
t
•S
s t
1
5
i
^
12

0
:!>
«
G. •
I-'-
CU
a.
i .
-es
•3
B '


bo
_g
a
Contract

s3
1
O





a


8

1


1


<4-t

bO
_B
a
Contracl

c?
1
I
s





•J


S

|


8
03


1

00
'i
a
Contract

B3
a
j





£


8

s1


03


o
«

^
1
f

oo
B
a
1





a


I

O
s


0>
03


o>
03

M
£
1

bo
.fi
3
a
1





«j


I

o


8
03


8
03

^
1
cn
OJ
-C

B3
1
1
O
O





^


|

!


8
03


"S

1
1
u





^


-S

V
I


1


i

bO
B
a
Contract

B3
a
I
1





S


2
•
j


0>
«


OJ
03

oo
B
a
1

oo
B
1
a
o





a


ss

o


03


0)
03

bi
1
Contract

bO
C
§
0





J


a!

1
2


0

0>
03


o>
eu
03

B3
S
a
Contract

s3
a
b
1
<3





a


w
o

O
1


03


V
0
03

B°
1
Contract

B°
i
!
u





j


8




"•S

-------
tegoryS
rtation Type
O |
I
«•* a
§•"•5
f |
1
Performance Needs 1
o
1
2
s
Farm Type 1
1


•3
j

1
a
Contract
a


ts
1
a:
tr

8
03

o
Purchase '
G
i
a
Contract

ss

cs

<*-.
a;
(L
CQ

8
CQ

u
5
Purchase '
ff
1
Contract
S
ss

«

1
03

8
CQ

i
1


"§
S
a
a

C-J
1
8
CQ

o
(L
CQ

o
5
1

O
S
1

o
co

CM
bl
_
a;
ec

8
CQ

o
S
Purchase '
•*•

J

O
co

es

1
03

8
03
*>
1
Contract I
bo
c
1
Contract
a
8

g
l
I

o>
a
CQ
e
1
Contract t

a
Contract

8

g
i
•»
03

a
a
CQ
tf
1
Contract I

a
Contract
2
8

E
•a
OJ

1
Contract I

a
Contraci
a
<

P
•a
V
cc

8
03
g>

Contract I
en
B
1
I
§
CJ

s

g
i
1

8
a
??
i
Contract I
bo
B
1
Contract
S
<

B

I

a
a
g5
1
Contract I

3
a
Contract
a
g

3
"8
H
m


1
Contract I
oo
B
a
!
2
^

g
i
i

a
CQ
g>
i
Contract I

1
Contract
a
0

E
i
i
CQ

CC
B3
i
Contract I

i
1

0

E
1
8
03

o
a
CQ
bo
B
3
<-[-"
| Contract 1

1
a

o
CO

I
1
C4-I
&

8
03
60
B
T*
1 Contract I

1
B
O
O
a
w
CJ

1
*o
0
B
3
[Contract I
oo
B
1
a
I
CJ

8

1

g
a

g1
1
1
CJ

1

g
1
•»
CQ

(L
cc

§
[Contract]
g1
1
1

1

g
S
8
03

a
CQ
bo
B
1
| Contract ]
60
a
I
a
a
2

g
•c
1
•a
Q
m

o
a
CQ
                                                  
-------

£
~
g1
1
1
1
I
EC
1
CJ






EC


£

CN
F
s
•o
1

0>
w

o>
S

g>
1
«
bO
-S3
CJ






J


as-

(S
g
p
•a
3

o
a>
m

ca

bo
C
1
1
.S
1
EC
1






S


£

fX|


•d
(U
s

o
m

1

bo
C
1
1
bo
1
| Contrac






SB


O
CO


1
1
bo
EC
1






J


1

CO
s
p
o

IB
CQ

1

IP

Contraci
g1
1
I






EC


&!'

CO

p
"8

8
CQ

u

bo
1
J
g>
1
Contract






J


2£-

CO
F
p
i

•s
CQ



bfi
C
1
o
1
CJ
.f
I
1
o
CJ






§


2!

CO

J3
1

8
CQ



bo
B
1
1
CJ
1
EC
CJ






EC


O

CO

3
•a
(U

(4-1
a>
CQ



bo
B
1
I
1
I
1-
t>
I
CJ






J


o
CO

CO

3
13

0)
0>
CQ

CQ

g1
EC
1
I
Contraci






S


g

CO
E
p
1

u
5
03

CQ

bO
1
1
1
Contract






EC


8




l

•s
tL,

Q

ff
1
CJ
.S
Contract






j


8




1

•i
a.

a

bO
C
1
1
CJ
1
Contract






S


8




I

•s
tL,

a

M
1
m
td
-S
tS
Contract






SB


|




1

_c
EO
P
BH

a


o
1
bO
1
Contract






j


|




|

VI
3
b

"3
Q


H

CJ)
•i
EC
Contract






2


1




1
3

1
Hi

_„•
Q
 o

B


2

M
S
 03
H
                                        B-13

-------
  {j
f|
uf
fi
f» B
ll
S-f
*
ce Needs
a
tn
§
1
fv.
a
*
j
U

(XI
aj
|

•a
^

B°
1
m
Contract

g>
1
a
Contract





a

1





1
PH

b
2

g,
1
Contract

B°
1
a
Contract





j

|



1

43
CO
3
E

b
8

g>
1
Contract
-
&°
1
a
Contract





s

i



I

43
CO
3
E

1


1
Purchase

00
c
1
Contract





a

c£



&

43
CO
3
E

b
2



Purchase

oo
B
1
Contract





_)

ss



I

•s
PH

.b
Q

.*
H


1
E

•3
Q

^
|
o

•a*
1
Contract





a

o
CO



I

•g
PH

b
2

^
1
Purchase

00
a
Contract





j.

O
CO



I

CO
3
PH

b
2

^
1
Purchase

00
B
S
Contract





2

O
CO"



I

•a
PH

Q

g1
a
"Contract

;g>
1
Contract





a

8

F

•s
S

1
w

•3
Q

B°
I
Contract

•S3
1
a
Contract





,4

8

P
3
0

43
CO
3
PH

•3

&°
1
a
Contract

B°
1
a
Contract





S

8

B
S3
1

•g
PH

1

Ai
|
Purchase

'1?
1
Contract





a

|

F
3
i

•g
PH

1

^
£
Purchase

B°
a
Contract





,j

|

F
3
1

43
CO
3
PH

b
2

M
g
Purchase

00
.B
1-
§
u





s

|

F
3
•8

•a
PH

b
2

B°
1
Contract

60
1
a
Contract





a

S.

F
3
•8

•B
PH

"3
Q

00
1
1

'&•
i
a
Contract





j

^

F

1

1
P^

Q

g1
a
| Contract

q°.
a
Contract





S

i

B
£3
1

•g
PH

'3
Q

$
a
| Contract

,0°
1
| Contract





a

2S

F
b
•o
1

tw
P^

2

S
i
a
[ Contract

.?

j Contract





j

<•

F

1

43
CO
3
PH

b
2

B°
1
1 Contract

.B°
1
| Contract





S

g

F
3
1

•g
PH

b
2

.i1
1
1 Contract

g1
1
a
Contract





a

S

F
3
1

1
PH

b
2

B°
g
a
| Contract

.5-
a
| Contract





J

g

E

i

1
PH

*3
Q

.1?
a
1 Contract

oo
B
a
1 Contract





S

g

S
s>
1

1
fc

b
3
Q

em
B
i
a
i

£
a
| Contract





a

8

s

•d

1
PH

t
Q

g"
g
a
| Contract

eo
B
a
1
u





j

8


£3
O>

1
»<

•3
Q

00
1
1 Contract

00
B
1
1





S

8


?3
1

43
CO
PH

"I

^
1


.1
1
a
S





a

1

s
3
•a
1

1
PH

b
Q
                                            B-14

-------
••§
 o
U
S
•8
H
;,:', a;
^ ^
^l
, bfi ^
"S* . 0
f.'f
1*'
'^ S3
;&;'§
r|O> V«
S.f
>;•*
1-
s
'.a
n
1

>§
*..
1
U
•N
CO

1


•a
.§
P
•<

-•"-

^
,2
Purchase

oo
g
1
1
a





.j

2
CN
g
3
•a
S

1
PH



£»
O


_J^j
£
Purchase

00
B
i
1
a





2

I
fN

P
•a
a>
2

1
PH



£?
a

bfl
C
i
Contract

00
g
ffi
o





03

1
CN
g
3
Ha
V
S

•S
PH



£^
a

on
B
1
03
Contract

op
.y
i
03
0
a





j

I
CN

p
•a
S'

1
PH



£?
a^

00
B
1
Contract

60
c
03
I
a





2

s£
CN

3
"S
2

1
PH



£?
a

on
o
1
Contract

60
B
ffi
Contraci





03

g;

a

bo
c
1
Contract

60
c
1
1





J

2S
IN
E

•a
2

|.
PH



£<
a

on
B
1
Contract

60
G
ol
Contraci





2

2$

g
3
t3
O
S

1
PH



£•
a

on
B
1
J

ton
G
ol
Contract





03

O
CO

a

on
B
1
Contract

(JO
c
K
Contract





S

o
CO
fN

3
•s
2

1
PH



£>
a-

&o
c
1
Contract
.'^
60
B
1
1
O
U





03

8
m
s

l>
s

1
PH



fr
a

bO
C
K
a
-
on
B
1
1
U





J

8
ro
g

•a
S

•a
PH



£^
a

bO
C
i
"03
a

on
B
1
1
O





S

8
fO
a

"S
2

_c
CO
P
ix,



£^
a


•w{

Purchase

en
.S
1
I





03

1

p!
P
U


CO
PH



£>
a


M

Purchase

60
B
1
1





J

|
CO

p
•?>
s

3
fe



.£>
a


y

i

60
C
1
S
1





2

S

Fi
3
•a
2

•i
PH



fc>
a

bo
a
=
Contract

en
«

1





03

S
m

3
•a

Q

nn
B
w
Contract

6/1
B
1
1





J

2
m

p
•a
a>


CO
p
PH



£>
cd
Q

nn
B
K
Contract

6fl
B
1
1





2

1
m

p
1>
S

•S
PH



£>
Q

f>n
a
ffi
Contract

60
B
1
a





03

^
m

P
T3

a

bO
p
1
03
Contract

en
1

1





S

as



o


•i
PH



£>
a

bO
C
1
Contract

en
«.
ol
I
1





03

O
CO

a
3
T>
2

1
PH



£^
a.

bfl
C
1
Contract

on
B
i
03
1
a





j

o
CO

j3
3
•s


J=
en
3
E



j^
a

bo
C3
§
03
Contract

«n
B
1
03
Contract





2

o
CO

F
p
•a
2

j=
CO
p




£>
p

0-0
c
1
Contract

fin
B
K
1
o
U





03

8




jj


03






60
B
1
Contract

60
B
1
1
u





J

8




ii

g
03



-£>
a
P
                                       B-15

-------
a>
0
fi
 a>

1
fl
^ 1

f* n
§>!
g £
*
(A
I
8
a
1
£
a
o
*
§


«,
ej
1
to
•a
.§
a


g1
1
Contract

g>
a
o




2


8






33



b
cd
Q
g"
1
Contract

g>
1
1




a


i






PC



b,
«
Q

1
Contract

g>
1
I




^


i






i



£?
Q

1
Contract

g1
1
I
o




2


|



1
3


a



fc*


1
CJ

p
g
1




a


|



§


W



b
Q
g>
g
o

g)
g
6




j


|



I

o>
1



b
a
00
a
Contract

g1
i
a
t3




2


i



I


pi



£?
'cd
Q
E
1
a
Contract

g1
1
1
1




a


as



g?
,3

o
a



b
Q

a
Contract

g>
1
Contract




j


0S



I


a



b
Q

a
Contract

s3
1
I




2


as



I


a



£^
Q
S
1
Contract

g>

1




a


o
GO



I


a



b
y
Q

1
Contract

g>
1
i
I




j


o



I


a



b
cd
Q
g1
a
Contract

$
g
a
1
a




2


o
CO



I1
3


a



b
cd
Q

1
Contract

g3
1
1




a


8

a
3
i


o
a



b
cd
Q
g1
1
Contract

g>
1
1




^


8

F
3
1


PC



b
cd
Q
00
B
1
1

9
1
Contrac




2


8

P
s
i


a



b
Q
on
B
1
Contract

g1
g
1
u




a


1

r-
P
S


pi



b
cd
Q
to
B
a
Contract

g>
g
6




j


|

F
p
1


&



b
Cd
Q
(=0
a
Contract

B°
g
1
O




2


|

P

1


3



b
cd
Q
60
B
a
Contract

g1
1
a
6




a


i

P
p
i


a



b
Q

a
Contract

on
B
1
B
6




j


i

P
s
1


a






g
a
Contract

to
' C
1
1




2


i

p

2


en
S,



b
Q

1
Contract

g-
a
I




a


e£

p

2

u
1



b
Q

1
a
Contract

g>
1
1




j


pS

p

•a
a>


1



b
&

1
Contract

g1
1
S
§
o




S


cS

F
P
CD
2

«>
pi



b
Q
to
B
1
Contract

g>
1
y
6




a


o
co

p

•a
ej
2


1



b
&
g1
'g
a
6

g1
1
1




j


o
00

p

•a
2


-------
I
 o
 
y
i

1
0
1



EC
ia
CM
s
i
1

2
CO
1
i

1
Cj
1



J
8
CM
g
1
O
1

fr
Q

'8
EC
0
a
to
e
1
Cj>
!



s
8
CM
S
i
o
1

t
Q
g>
1
e
a

EC
O
a
-


s
s
CM
S
i
1

•1
Q
bO
C
*
Contrac
-
EC
o
a



j
s
CM
S
S
EC

Q

1
I
a
si.
§
EC
U
a



s
1
CM
e
i
EC

2

EC
a
g>
-EC
^
a



EC
s
CM
|
1
EC

.£>
3
Q
g1
1
1
- •
1
Q
a



j
1
CM
|
S
1

fr
§
g1
EC
I
g>
1
EC
(^
a



s-
s
CM
g
i
g
o
EC

fc-
2
g1
EC
a

i
o
1



EC
2$
CM
|
•O
0>
o

2

5
EC
Contrac
ff

t3
1
o
O



J
<
CM
3
S
EC

•1
bo
C
1
Contraci

1
ej>
1



S
^
CM
i
s
o>
1

*3
O.

1
1
g1
EC
Q
a



EC
O
.CO
CM
|
1
i

£•
a
g>
1-
i
o

1
EC-
y
a



j
0
CM
S
i
§

2
g>
EC
1
O
g1
1
^
a



s
0
CM
S
T3
G)
en

2

EC
1

1
ts
1
o



EC
8
n
s
13
1

1

1
EC
Contract

1
y
i
o



J
8
m
S
•g
§
EC

2
to
e
1
EC
1
a
g>
1
"S
1



s
8

g
1
1

•3

1
Contract

1
Q
a



EC
a

E
1
O
1

t
Q
60
C
1
a
bo
a
EC
15
1



j
3
ro
1
1

1
ts
!
a



•s
i
fO
s
13
i
EC

1

•3
Contract
g-
i
13
i
u



EC
&
ro
e
•8
1

1
g1
EC
Contract
bo
e
1

1
a



j
,
en
S
•s
O
1

Q
bo
C
1
Contract
g>
1
13
a



s
ss

s
1
§

1
bl
1
Contraci
00
e
1
EC
•g
a



EC
«

S
•3
0>
1

1
                                       B-17

-------
"O
1
W
H

                        8

                                         i
                                             EC
C
                                                  EC
                                                  EC


                                                          DB
                                                              K
I
PC
                                                                           .
                                                                               .
                                                                               EC



                                                                               I

                                                                                       '1

                 1

                                                                                                O
                                                                                                    O
                                                                                                        o

                                                                                                             U
                                                                                                                 EC
                                                                                                                 O1
EC



I

a.
1
1

                                                   EC

EC




I

                                                                                                         t?
                                  .1°
                                                                                                                              en
                                                                               EC
                                                                           1
         EC



         1





                                                                                                    S3

                                                                                                                                           00
.EC
                                                                                                                              EC
             w
             o

                                                                                            u
                          w
                          o

                                                                   33
                                                                                    'S3
                                                                                            1
                          I
                                                                                                         •53
                                                                                                                          '
                                                                                        EC  EC
                                                                                                EC   EC
                                                                                                         EC  EC
                                                                                                                     SB
                                                                                                                          EC
                                                             B-18

-------
•I
o
H
--' Oi
tl
So 5
S '- '»
ft



If
o. '•§*
';,•*

•8
§
1
PH

;'g •
f
S


N
(»

u
:fi
--'**;

••".•'•-"
i;-

—

en
c
EC
1
S3
O
u
s?
1
1
a




^i

2S

_
f-
s
TR


t/i
<§

EC
M
o>
EC

-
g>
1
!

a
g>
1
^
a




EC

g

— ,
Fi

•a
u
s

1

EC


oo
c
1
%

a
g>
i
^
1




*j

g

—
Fi
3
•0
IS

<8

i
M
a




i:

g

«
Fi
3
•U
S

1
'53
EC
1
'1


a
EC
8

a

1
§
1




EC

8


ffi
B
a-


§>
1
I

a

i
§
3




j

8

«S
Fi

•0
S

1
O

1
1


g1
1
!

a

1
•fe
a




&

8

es
.g
;3
•0
IS

1

EC
1
'53
EC


g>
1
1
(3
a

1
1





EC

1

M
g
£!
7>


1
U
ffi
1
"53


g1
1
I

.a

.1
^





I-J

1

CN
g
9
•a
a>
S

1
*s
EC
1
1


g>
1
ts

a

1
§
1




£

s

ts
g
^
•3
S

1
T>
EC
2

EC
1
1


g1
1
I

a
g1
i
s





^

I




1
U
£
2
1


g>-
1
I
£3
a

1
^
B




EC

25

ts
fi
3
T3
S



EC
1



SD
C
1
I

a

i
^
a




j

2:


w
e
S


g>
1
EC
1
a
3-
~
EC
II
a




EC

g

es
Fi

•o
S

1
o
ffi
2
1


g>
EC
I
c
a

1
o
s
a




j

g

es
f-
3
•8


1
*53
W
1



CHI
efl
EC
1
G
6,
to
c
1
a
a




^

g

es
f-
3
1?


1
O
ffi
2
'S


-™
1
I
G
a
g>
i
o
a




EC

8

m
g
3
TS


1
O

1
'53
EC


.§>
1
!
c
a
eo
B
1
1
a




j

w
o

m


•8


1
T>
EC
2
EC


g1
1
1
G
a

i
P.
a




^i

s'

m
Fi
3
•a
S

1
o
EC
2
'53
EC


g"
1
O
c
a-
g>
i
1!





EC

i

PI
Fi
3
•a
IS

1
a>

1
'53
EC


g>
1
!
G
a
BO
1
•8
a




j

1

m


i>
IS

1
o>
W
1
1


g1
EC
1
G
a
g>
i
1!
a




<5

|

r<1
Fi

1>
IS

1
"53
EC
2
EC


g>
1
I

a

i
2
a




EC

1

C<1
g
G
"8


2
<2
u
EC
2
.K


g>
1
§
a

g1
1
i
J




j

1

c^
g
G
•o
IS

1
*S
EC
2
"1


g1
1
$

a
g1
1
EJ
a




^!

1

cn
Fi
3
•O
.S

1
"53
EC
2
'53
EC
                                      B-19

-------









f
g
c
o
r*
m
0>
S
H















o *§
II
u |-
£


^
i> "c
81
fl

1
8
1

"B
^
a
(S

S


o
Is
g
fa
•a
g
•s



g,
1
1
c
a

55
1
Contract






a

^
ft*
e
i>
2


en
O


1
(D
a

on
1
1
B
a

CM
1
Contract






KJ

^
P-<
i
•8



1
£


2
o
a

to
a
1
B
a
&0
e
1
Contract






S

^
P*
e
I?
IS


2
o
a


1
o
a

.1?
1
1
B
a
60
B
a
Contract






a

o
C/D
E
•s
S


2
co


1
S
a

.1?
1
I

a
BO
B
1
Contract






j

O
m
S
13
S


2
a


1
&
a

&i
B
i
a
1

u
bl
B
a
Contract






S

0
w
E
•s
2


2
sS


1
fij
a
B-20

-------
Appendix C

-------

-------
             Table C-la
Summary of Industry Costs for Option 1
Animal
:£•$$••',
Beef
Dairy
Dairy •:
Heifers
Veal
Chicken
Chicken
Chicken
Swine
Swine
Swine
Swine
Swine
Swine
Turkey
Manure Type
Solid/Liquid
Solid/Liquid
Solid/Liquid
Solid/Liquid
Liquid
.Liquid
Solid
Solid
Evapor
Evapor
Liquid
Liquid
Pit
Pit
Solid
Operation
Type; /
Beef - -
Flush
Hose
Heifers
Flush
,LW
BR
LA
FF
GF
FF
GF
FF - -
GF
SL
Capital
$66,271,376
$262,639,714
$33,153,994
$13,452,388
$0
$9,118,438
$93,407,347
$32,664,307
$108,469
$111,079
$5,308,843
$4,017,456
$360,663
$334,852
$31,170,087
Annual
$8,689,062
$45,358,315;
$4,072,126
$1,319,976
$30,553
$1,296,980
$4,060,985
$1,746,196
$150,883
$154,573
$1,686,581
$1,135,603
$1,497,912
$1,720,540
$1,668,463
Tixed
$4,305,153
$2,626,098
$2,461,447
$694,719
$38,948
$132,432
$2,184,684
$356,844
$84,495
$86,411
$844,688
$527,369
$889,058
$957,771
$701,880
3-Year
Recurring
- ,$592,050
$183,113
$2,798,726
$204,401
$2,422
$19,525
$74,888
$51,695
$3,970
$4,054
$30,149
$22,505
$30,374
$38,814
$27,143
5-Year
Recurring
$2,530,516
$894,258
$739,387
. $82,858
$10,090
$81,264
$1,009,264
$247,758
$35,289
$36,036
$241,083
$171,891
$272,588
$329,614
$450,698
                C-l

-------
U
I
sf|S
si.88.
Ifll
Is *
111
40 y
•O »
. - S- «
• Ja
3 s
t5
fc 1
I °1
III
S •« Z
P-i
I
2
•I
1
U


1 "*
•'IB
•|p

ES.
s ^>
S.-H
1
1
in
m
"V
69
o
•*
en
69
TJ-
oo
in
8
r-
cs
i~
cs
69
s
•sr
en
69
rt
PJ
K
-
8

1

T3
O
§
g-
_i

%
o
CQ

o>

C
CD

o
o>
CQ
>n
8
o
vo
6^
§
cs
m
{«
»— i
t~-
69
i
en
69
cn
S
K
01
8

§>
3

•o
o
&
_l

4>
U
CQ

u
u
CQ
>n
es
69
?
ee
oo
s
69
OO
VO
en
69
OO
eM
oo
o
69
en
eM
e^
_)
es
U
U

£?
ta

•o
o
&
_l

o
o
cq

o
(U
cq
in
?5
69
•*
>r>
69
s
8
§
»r»
69
CN
CS
en
es
es
69
V>
3
s
es
8

1

•a
o
&
i_)

U
a>
m

a>
u
«
o
69
O
cs
69
1
69
i
69
OO
>n
"rt
TT"
69
r-
<-"
SS
en
U
U

1

•o
1
&
_l

a>
a>
ca

B
Da
o
69
VO
69
>0
e»
69
VO
en
oo

vo
o
\o
69
t-
••"
J
en
8

(D
%

•o
o
§
&
t-l

0>
0>
cq


m
o
69
OO
69
eN
en
69
1

a\
es
in
en
69
en
en
es
s
en
8

u
I1

•a
o
1
&
U


CQ

8
CQ
o
es
oo
69
J?
69
P
8
as
o
f-
69
m
ft
oo
69


J
-
J

1

•a
o
i
§•
U

(D
a>
m

8
m
o
e>l
oo
69
es
r~
69
oo

in
•*
69
I
es
69
oo
es

CQ

1
CQ
o
VO
69
O
Tt-
69
5
»O
0
es
69
OS
IT)
69
VO
en
o\
es
69

o
EC
es
s

U
$

•a
o
&
i-J

8
CQ


S3

•^
O
i
g-
K4

8
CQ

%

S

•o
o
&
hJ

U
a

Is
cS
o
69
VO
69
5
T— f
69
es
oo

OS
oo
rs
es"
69
es
o
iJ
en
s

a
5

•o
o
§
g.
_l

1


0>
CQ

1
o
1-H
OS
69
O
O
s
l>
en
m
69
VO
•q-
es
cs
69
es
es
es
en
69
>0
S
BB
-
j

O
I1

•a
•3
i
&
_l



ts
S
o
o-I
69
O
VO
69
en
VO
o
69
r~
Os
t--
69
in
oo
69
m
s
iJ
-
s

o
§•

T3
o
g.
1-1




o
i
o
00
69
VO
S
s
§
es
69
es
g
en
es
69
O
S
S'
-
s

U
I1

•a
o
g.
•-I

U
&

IP
1
o
t-~
69
§
&O-
m
Wl
a\
s
OS
Os
tn
69
es
es
es
en
69
OS
5
EC
cs
8

q>
I1

•o
§
g.
J

t;
s

d>
1
o
t—
69
CS
en
69
S
r-
en
69
S
CS
69
m
oo
69
OS
•<*•
•«•
J
es
^

1

•d
1
g.
_1

"S
U
CQ.

O
V
OP
S
69
VO
en
69
VO
VO
en
S
0\
9
69
es
OS
o
en
cs
69
OS
OS
OO
s
cs
s

o
I

-o
i
g.
1-1

9>
o
CQ

o
Q>
CQ
o
69
O
CS
69
5-
«n
69
»n
^>
o
69
en
f-
en
•n
69
•n
en
cs
K
en
^
"S,

0
'-"'
•a
"o
1
&
J

a>
a>
CQ

U
a>
CQ
o
69
VO
69
VO
en
69'
VO
en
oo

es
69
>n
en
cs
J
en
1

o
*"•*
T3
i
g.
_)

"S
a>
CQ

8
CQ
                                      C-2

-------
1
1
 o
H
a*
B-P e «
2 El «
*io<3
1/5 J5
*F
** t» ft O
"2
lg 42
l§ 1
|oo
T3 jS
X o
' S o
^
•S'iS
yj
ft .a
lii
1 ,2
"1 si
i**
!»
1
f
.WJ
s«
5
Q

I «
15
SH

g a)
Ig
fa H
•3
3
o


00
IS

00
vo
en
^H

1

o\
ON
CM
-3-
69

r-
•*
s
CO
1

1
_J
T1
1
g-
h-l
•s
0
03

"8
IU
«
v>
r-
69
0
oo
t>9
en
CM
T>
en

§
CM
69
CM
o\
•00
vo
&9
v»
o\
a
—
2

_1
•n
1
g.
,-J
"8
o
03

*8
9>
n
*vi
f-
69
•2
&9
CT\
•«
CM

n
r-
69
o
CM
r-
m
S
vi
OS
:J
—
iSS

1 o
I
•n
1
&

tf-i
.8
«

:g
-«
"0
r—
69
8

r-
m
oo
n

69
I

VO
r--
•^f
r-
vj
s
&^
•*
»n
oo
1
6%
<3\
CS
K
ts
^

|
•o
o
1
g-

tt-H
O
(S

(U
0>
m
"0


es
m
69

OO
»n
M
*>o
69
m
m
69
o\
00
s
m
69
o\
cs
J
M
^

!
T3
O
i
g-

C»-c
8
CQ

m
VI

69
VO
m
69

CO
o\
00
VO
69
r—
t~-
rj-
69
VO
OO
V*
o\
m
69
_
VO
s
fl
ss

1
3
•a
o
CO
^
'.&

t*«

a>
1
o


o
cs
69

S
»n
*— i

i
69
^
vo
S
IO

33
m
2

&
J
•o
o
§
g-

CM
a>
S

1
0


VO
69

CN
CN
^^

VO
m
oo

1

v»

J
CO
^

&
,3
•o
o
i
g.
u
.%
£

d>
£
0


oo
69

S
*— 1

s

VO
>n
t~-
ro
69
CM
CO
S
m
SS-

a>
!
T3
O
1
&
J
<4->
a>
£


0
CN
69
O
00
«

O
VI
•sf
VO


01
69
oo
a\
0)
t-~
VO
69
0
0
33
-
g

!
•o
o
g-
J
"S
£


0
s
69
S
CN

v>
«1
r--
ts

CS
i— <
0
CM
69
S
•*
OO
69
O
o
>J
—
g

o
•a
o
i
&
^1
"8

I
•o
1
§•
hJ
1
CQ

t3
S
»
IO
69

1

CTl
?5
>>
69
OO
VO
69
g

S
aa

u

P:
m
oo
en
69
O
O
_J
CM
O
CO

j
T3
1
&
_J
%
«

8
CQ
tn
&^

•r-
co
&}

r-
P
•o
"
tn
g
69
m
S
oo
0\
m
69
O
O
S
CM
O
oo

a>
s*
J
-o
1
g<
l-l
OH
U
O
m

o
u
«
o


o
CM
69

VO
VO
*-«

v~>
§
69
U1
«n
oo
oo
69
O
o
33
en
O
CO

o
n
h-)
•o
1
g.

C4-t

03

o
u
pa
m
vo
CM
69
O
0
»n
S
00
o\
r-
^^
69
ON
00
OO
69
S
•*
m
69
VO
CM
33
-
8

!
T3
•3
§
g-

Cl-i
0>
(L>
03

o
0
03
v>
vo
CM
69
O
S
s
r-
00
o
en
69
CM
V~t
U-L
•&
69
OO
9
S
VO
CM
U
-
8

o>
I
•o
o
i
3
o1

d->
(D

03

0
(L)
03
m
vo
S
o
"/^
o
s
CM
VO
«o
r-
69
O
t-.
en
vo
69
i
00
69
Tf
V>
S
-
8

!
•a
o
i
9
cr1

<<-i
o
a>
03

o
CD
03
o
•*
vo
69
O
•*
en
69
en
CM
•*
r-
69
00
"tf-
VO
69
OO
r-
•*
»-H
69
»O
t—
33
CM
8

!
•^
•3
1
g-

'(4-1
8
03

o
Q>
03
o
•*
vo
69
CM
r-
o
69
i
o
69
W)
OO
>o
69
OO
3
•*
69
*n
t~-
J
CM
8


£
o
•*-
vo
69
VO
o
CM
69
5
oo
en
69
en
en
oo
V!
69
S
VO
00
69
VI
VI
en
S
CM
8

!
•a
o
1
g-

<*-.

1
O


i

CM
V>
CM

i
»— «
69
OO
OO
00
CM
69
OS
CM
33
en
8


•a
o
1
3
o1

<4-<
a>
a>
03

a>
a>
03
o


vo
69

en
CM
en
»-H-

VO
en
oo

CM
VO
oo
•^
69
0\
CM
J
en
8

a>
s>
.5
•^
•3
i
&

CM

-------
¥
 a
 o
Si
,0
»H
U
3
 a
N
g>
«•§» J2
lit!
.AJOU
llll
• S o u
*>,20
IS- 43
8* s
|ow
•0 43
s 't«
J5 O
fa y
3"a
S3
s .i
IU..1
B o Ej
J! v«
a ,(t,
111
8 B2
A« " '•
a
0
§

ii
IS

•g'8,
&&
•a
s
in
CN
»n
^
3
OS
• 8
O
S
0
69
£
OS
"O
r^
en
69

0
33
-
a
CM
1
H-)
•O
I
§•
u
8
CQ
*£,
0>
CQ
S
in
3
m
oo
oq
69
oo
1—
os
as
69
(S
oo
00
V*
£i
VO
CM
CM
69

0
>J
-
a
CN
Q>
E?
,3
•o
"3
g-
_l
o
ei
CQ
0>
o
09
JQ
V)
&"3
t—
oo
0>
s
m
en
in
VO
1?
OO
s
as
69
s

pa
m
S
cs
69
0
-S
'69
9
OO
m
en
69
0
as
VO
>en
69
1
1
69

0
S3
CM
s
CN
o
EP
,3
•o
"o
§>
_1
CM
o
u
PQ
%
o
CQ
VI
S
CM
69
§
VO
CM
m
R
69
r—
£
8
S
oo
t~
CM
CM
69

O
J
CM
s
CM
&
ca
_)
•o
"3
&
H-)
<«-<
a>
4>
m
t*-«
o

CQ
»n
f2
CM
69
CM
_C"-
*r»
69
ON
S
CM
S
VO
10
CO
69
t—
Vi
•*
t»
OO
CM
69

O
s-
CM
j
CM
13
1
§-
i-l
CM
O
a>
P3
"S

CQ
«+-*
o
a>
CQ
S

VO
69
*— t
OV
69
S

OO
in
or\
69

0
J
en
<
S
CM
1
i-l
•O
1
§•

C4_

CQ
S

CTj
69
VO
•<*•
ON
CM
69
VO
S

m
in
o\
vo
en
69

0
s
m
s
CM
•a
1
§•

•s
(U
CQ
<4M
(D
d>
CQ
.0
oo
CN
69
C3
VO
2
in
m
m
OS
69
1
69
S
in
5
69

m
S
*— 1
s
CM
1
ca
•a
0
&

"S3
o
CQ

CQ
i
m
69
S
VO
69
0
S3
•n
69
OO
S
m
&»
S
in
5
69

in
m
S3
CM
S
CM
•a
o
S
g-
>_l
•s
u
CQ
•s
u
CQ
>n
g
m
69
OO
s
69
O
*— i,
OO
r>
69
5
F— 1
69
Tf
s
s
•69

in
m
J
CM
S
4
CM
u
o
CQ
«
!•
^
0
o
69
S
oo
69
in
5
o
69
•00
&
s
o
s
s
en
O
_)
-
S5
CM
1
3
•a
o
g-
nJ
C«H

(U
CQ
C*-4
O
a>
CQ
!?
OS
O
69
CM
s.
CM"
&9
r~-
•*
m
in
69
VO
&
oo
69
O
P
I--
CM
69
r^
o
S
«
ss
CM
O
•a
1
§•
U
CM
8
CQ
"8
Q>
01
m
9
en
69
O
S
m
00
•
3
•a
1
g-
nJ
1!
CQ
"8
S
CQ
in
9
en
69
00
•*
^
OS
vo
CM
oo"
en
69
vS
r-
en
69
S
t—
t-~
CM
69
OO
•*
S
CM
^
CN

s
o
69

VO
69
g
69
VO
en
oo

en
oo
in
o
69
VO

_l
en
£
CM
1
3
•a
o
1/3
^
§-
M]
"8
u
PQ
CM
CQ
O
69

00
69
OS
9
.8
S

CN
»n
OS
oo
CN
to
>o
CO
s
ro
SS
CM
•a
o
&
>-)
•8
&
CM
8
CQ
o
vo
t—
t-~
69
i
en"
69
in
OS
OS
SO
CM
69
CM
CM
in
69
ft
en
•*f
OS
en
69
o
0
S3
-
g
CN
U
!
T3
O
i
&
J
CM
U
s

-------
 1
 I
 o
U

S
••S
"H
if 11
' -BB
** »P ^5 W
^ S
1 § 42
9 Ǥ e>
"O $3
s o
B«
I'd"
•M
Z '&
|sf
jll
1
1
'•I
a>
JD
J
CO
•3 o>
Iff
s^
II
I
£
r-T
S
§
°j,
of
69
oo
§.
Ol
69
t—
t—
69
VO
O
O
69
O
O
>-)
—
O
(/i

Ol
«
ff
3
id/Solid
a-
j
<<-.
u
0>
«
"a
o
03
VO
r-^
r~"
69
,T— <
?
en"
69
CO
-3-
M.
8
in
m
69
•n
en
O
oo
CM
69
•O
O
s
-H
O
CO

Ol
(D
.3
is
"3
&
3
(4-1
O

CQ
-)
IS
"o
a-
3
•s
o
m
IM
o>
(8
OS
i
t—
S3
Sf*
8
>o
vo
o
01
69
o\
o
^1
69
O)
g
M-
•en
r-
69
0
O
s
c^l
O
C/3

01
J
!2
fr
3
%
£

CQ
69
O
01
69
1
"S-
69
V>
Tl-
o_
69
00
r-
01
£
69
O
O
K
m
O
CO

01
o
s»
>3
"O
=3
i
&
3
«53
u
m
•s
o
m
69
VO
r— t
.69
•*
?
01
69
SO
cn
oo

01
.0
m
01
cn
69
O
O
J
cn
O
w

01
I
IS
"o
3

m
1
»
69
OS
69
•0
s
cn
69
s
OS

,Os
5
*
O
0
s
cn
O
CO

01
o

!S
"o
§
5-
3
<<-i
8
CQ

1
m
£^
S
cn
69
VO
t—
00
69
I—
?!
69
cn


a
»n
•o
.VO
69
•Sf
VO
O
vo
01
69
t~
S
-
8

1
1
•o
••3
i
&
3
•s'
£
•s
o>
CQ
t-~
69
OS
t-
01
69
g
01
Si
OS
OS
»o
69
cn
01
VO
•*
cn
69
r)-
O
a
01
8

1
I
13
"o
B<
3
1
CQ
•s

CQ
•s
u
CQ
o
§
»ri
r~
01
69
>r>
•*
r~-
01
69
OS
9
69
•*
X
vo
69
OO
0
s
01
U
O

|
*CJ
U
s
IS
"o
S
&
3
•s
U
m
«+-,

P:
t—
69
cn
0
a
cn
8

1
•s
s
•o
1
&
3
*
CQ
d>
£
O
&e-
»n
»n

n
d
a
-
s

|
-o
0>
s
IS
"5
.8-
3
<4-l
IU
(U
CQ
<4-
8
CQ
tr>
vo
69
01
00
69
9
oo
69
cn
cn
69
1
m
69
»n
0
_1
-
1

|
t3
d>
S
IS
"3
S
§•
3
'S
U
CQ
1
>n
VO
69
cn
oo
69
O
«/->
01
69
cn
ON
V>
69
01
3
S
69
Os
0
S
-
1

|
1
•o
1
$
3
'B
£
C*^l
o
U
CQ
o
cn
69
•sf
OS
r—
69
O
OO
O
OS
69
00
VO
in
69
§
01
cn
69
O
a
01
<:
s

|
I
IS
"3
&
3
<3
s
CQ
•s
u
CQ
o
cn
69
O
OS
r-
69
01
o
oo
69
cn
01
69
O
S
W)
69
O
J
01
<
s

g
•o
1
3
"3
§
&
j
<*H
O
(U
CQ
"S

U
CQ
•a
m
o
69
S
t~-
69
S
69
i
69
OS
OS
oo
o
69
O
0
a
cn
s

|.
"S
s
1
§-
3
'S
U
m
CM
O
(U
CQ
o
&3-
§
r-.
69
rt
CO
&»
S

ON
F:
oo
69
0
0
.J
cn
1

•a
i
IS
&
3
d-H
•s
o
PQ
o
&•>
g
69
OO
OS
>n
69
VO
K

$
cn
OS
69
O
s
cn
s

S
1
IS
"3
1
<.-
o
U
CQ
•a
o
CQ
v>
oo
64
CO
5?
69
g
cn
69
c—
00
vo
69
OO
cn
•n
m
cn
69
cn
in
a
-
9

E
i
IS
"3
&
3
<8
o
CQ
•a
u
CQ
m
00
69
I
•*
ac
69
O
in
cn
69
Os
oo
O
t—
69
cn
in
U
—
S

s
•3
o
S
IS
"o
§
&
3
•a

m
                                        C-5

-------
 o

B

A
T-(

U



 03
ifll
J*S«
^4 3 SQ o
S low
IS 42
3 « «
JSa
•g -a
fi-2
342
•5 «
§5
fe 1
ja V, S
-JS *J
i «-s
I sl-
13 «Z
Pk
•fr
1
5
c

13
U
3
t«

li
s

SI
teP
"3
B
1
in
oo
69
t~
3
69
in
in
in
CM
(ft
o\
m
aft
CM
8
r~
CM
69
•*
0
en
S
—
£
2

0
"8
•a
o
§
&
.-1

o
a>
CQ
<*-.
o
C§
0
en
&9
eO
5!
69
ON
S
CO
(ft
oo
vo
in
60
00
cn
v^
in
en
(ft
vo

K
CM
£
S

I
13
a>
s
•a
o
&
_l

a>
o
m
e»-i
a>
a>
CQ
"0
en
69
ON
rt-
(ft
00
§
CN
(ft
rf
"0
CM
64
ON
oo
0
r-
69
VO

U
CN
£
S

0
•g
S
TJ
O
&
H4

u

0>
PQ
•s
&
o
69
O\
5
69
t—
m
69
VO
S

2
r~
69
en

J
en
^
S

0
T3
0>
2
T3
O
&
_l

0>
(U
CQ
CM
o
o>
CQ
S
§
69
O\
VO
•q-
69
S

CT.
en
CM
00
69
>O
CM
S
en
£
s

g
S
"8
S
•a
o
1/1
=5
&
_j

u
U
CQ

u
CQ
U1
»o
i— t
69
VO
OS
OO
69
en
cs
cn
69
•*
S
69
cn
oo
en
69
•*
0
se
-
^

0
•8
S
T!
o
§
&
_4

O
a>
CQ
<*-«
a>
u
PQ
»o
v>
&^
S
00
69
r-1
I— 4
CN
69
en
en
69
"0
9
o
CM
69
•*
0
_)
-
^

&
•a
o
S
T)
O
i
&
J

a>
u
CQ
<4-l
(D
a>
CQ
«n
»n
69
O
ON
oo
69
CM
00
VO
CM
69
"06"
§
69
5
o\
CM
69
O\
0
S
-
^

1
•81
S
ts
o
i
&
J

g
»
'S
-a>
PQ
s
VO
>o
oo
69
cn
S
w-»
69
VO
r-
»o
69
cn
oo
en
69
O
0
X
CM
2

S
9
•8
S
T3
O
1
&
,-l

8
pa
C(-l
d>
O
m
1
CM
V>
OO
69
U
en
Tf
69
VO
CM
69
0
9
O
CM
69
O
0
_!
CM
SS

g
•8
S
T3
O
1
&
J

8
m
1
CQ
9
69
S
OO
69
O\
£3
•*
,69
OO
5
69
CM
r-.
o^
CM
69
„
0
S
CM
ss

s
"8
S
T3
O
§<
J

PQ
1
PQ
o
69
VD
in
oo
69
Ov
P
69
i
69
en
oo
CM
69
O
0
ffi
en
ss

s
s
•o
1
^
o
OT
=5
&
J

8
CQ
C4H
V
S3
PQ
o
69
CM
V)
OO
69
VO
9
69
VO
S3

»n
r-
o\
69
O
o
>J
en
^

1
"8
S
•a
o
1
&
j

8
PQ
1
PQ
o
69
•^f
>n
00
69
1
69
S

g
O
69
„
0
S
m
^

e
•8
S
•a
o
1
&
K-I

"S
o
PQ
•s
u
CQ
»n
•o
CM
69
on
69
r-
S
en
•69
rt
69
8
oo
cn
&<>
rt
0
K
-
O
00

0
•8
S
•a
o
i
g-
nJ

i
•s
u
m
v>
»n
CM
69
s
ON
69
•sj-
S
69
S
en
69
OO
VO
69
_
O
J
•-
O
&o

g
i
•a
1
&
J

0
£
•s
^
in
»n
CM
69
in
o\
o\
69
VO
CM
r--
CM
69
OS
VO
69
S
CM
ON
CM
69
_
0
S
-
O
00

0
1
•a
1
&
_)

•s
S
^
*r>
S
o
ci;
69
VO
$
VO
.69
O
OO
in
69
§
OO
en
69
0
o
ffi
CM
O
VI

S
i
-a
1
&
i-I

O
a>
CQ
(M
a>
1
v>
5
VO
en
ON
69
CM
OO
m
69
•*
S
69
OO
VO
69
0
O
,-3
CM
g

0
1
•a
1
&
_4

ts
a>
PQ

m
<4-4
u
(U
PQ
o
69
O
•^T-
ON
69
o
m
r-
69
3
69
OO
oo
ON
69
O
o
K
cn
g

e
1
•a
1
&
J

V

PQ
•o
69
VO
en
ON
69
VO
9
69
VO
en
oo

S
m
0
69
0
O
_l
en
g

g
!
13
0
g,
_1

U
<1>
PQ
1
\o
69
ON
en
ON
69
5
VO
69
CM
SN

§
cn
-i
0
0
s
cn
g

1
1
T3
0
i
&
>-J

o
o
PQ
"S3

s
T3
0
i
&
i-I

8
PQ
(4-1
d)
U
CQ
g
•*
69
cn
m
S
r-
t—
ON
69
ON
in
69
m
§
VO
69
ON

tJ
-
8

CM
"O
i
•a
o
1
g.
^4

8
CQ
•s
u
CQ
g
««•
69
»n
VO
s
ON
•3-
VO
CM
69
ON
O
f-
69
S
ON
vo
U
a-\
m
s
-
8

CM
•a
o
•a
o
i
g-
*J

t3
S
<<-H
8
PQ
                                             C-6

-------
TS
 V




I
 O

U
U
 53
H
ftfs-
S fi|«
5j|8a
M
!?|S*
I'll!
S low
•M
a S 45
III
: |oo
•g J2
' fid
3a
•3 »
?«3
fc |
-1*1
-fc •.£
i
S M
-pi
S B2
PH t ,
{
• !
g?
,a
1

§ »
S

§1
eg >>
taH
•a
S
1
vi
01
8
t-~
5

eo
O
•*
co
69
CO
r~
69
v>
Ol
VO
«o
8
CM
O
a
01
8
ol
1
1
*o

§.
J

8
CO

"8
O
ffl
-)

8
CQ

'S
V
CQ
V>
01
S
»— 1
•*

r-
s
01
69
VO
a
V)
•*.
S
VO
&
•3-
0
S
01
8
01
g
o
!
•t>
1
§••
j

8
CQ

0
O
CQ
O
69
r-
t— •
co-

oo
oo
v>
?*
vi
S
69
t—
£
oo
69
01
O
a
en
8
01
1
•8
•a
1
£
J

a>

o
CQ

CQ
u->
S
&"J
tn
01
v»
S
CO
TJ-
6O
^r
P
&»
00
•<3-
VO
S
V*
m
0
a
-
1
01
g
]
•a
1
g-
J

u
Q>
CQ

%
CU
CQ
in
S
69
S.
01
69
m
VI
m
01
69
3
en
69
O
00
m
r~
69
m
O
J
•-
1
01
1
!
•a
1
&
J


CQ

8
CQ
*rj
S
69
01
01
69
OO
$
CO
69
01
tn
VO
69
VI
00
01
VO
01
69
VI
O
S
-
1
01
!
•a
1
§•
J

tU

CQ

8
CQ
o
69
S
69
§
m
69
0
m
VO
69
bo
•3-
VO
S
69
0
O
a
01
<
S
01
1
T3
1
&
N4

o
o>
CQ

"S
u
CQ
o
69
VO
oo
69
t—
V>
O
01
69
0
OO
01
69
O
00
ro
f-
69
0
O
J
01
<:
S
01
!
T3
1
§•
a

o
a>
CQ


0
69
S
69
C*-
r-
01
69
m
»n
tr*
69
v>
00
01
VO
01
69
_
O
S
01
<
S
01
1
•8
S
•a
1
3-
j

u
a>
CQ

8
CQ
S.
in
t-~
69
tn
oo
t~-
69
i
69
VO
VD
O
CO
69
0
O
•a
CO
<
01
g
1
13
1
g.
nJ-

(U
n
•^r
69
0
o
S
CO
s
01
1.
•8
S
•o
1
g-
J

d>
0>
CQ

8
CQ
»n
J5
69
00
VD

01
01
CO
69
r-
>o
t-
69
00
O
o\
VO
CO
69
CO
OO
a
-
s
ol
g
!
T3
1
&
J

O
0>
CQ

8
CQ
>n
r-
01
69
VI
VO
VO

1
Ol
69
VI
§
69
00
OO
CO
oo
69
CO
OO
,J
-
J
01
g
1
•o
1
g.
J

o

CQ

o
o>
CQ

O
CQ

O

CQ
o
01
69
•sf
VO

5!
CO
CO
69
f-
CO
VO
69
00
o
O\
VO
£
OS.
O
a
01
1.
01
g
I
"O
1
&
J

o
-3

a>
a>
CQ



CQ
o
69
Ol
VO

VO
VO
VO
69
i
69
O
§
O
69
t—
O
a
CO
^
Ol
g
I
•o
o
.&
iJ

8
CQ

0
a>
CQ.
o
69
r-
VO

r-
vo
CO
69
VO
CO
oo

Ti-
oo
O
oo
69
t-
0
_)
CO
s
Ol
g
1
•a
o
1
§•
J

a>
a>
CQ

o
a>
CQ
O
69
OS
VO

OS
Ol
VI
69
5-
OS

OS
01
VS
s
•*

s
CO
5
01
g
!
•a
o
§•
J

a>
(U
CQ

o
o
CQ
VI
3
t~-
o
CO
69
r—
t—
CO
CO
69
VO
s
69
O
9
§
69
CO
0
a
-
2
01
g
1
"O:
1
&
J

%

CO
01
69
V)
OS
01
69
O
S
ol
69
OO
ro
69
§
01
Ol
69
CO
o
>_)
-
2S
Ol
g
1
•o
1
§•
_!

8
CQ


>n
en
01
69
o
m
69
g
Ol
69
CO
VI
v>
69
Ol
OS
OS
en
69
•*
o
s
-
^
01
T3
(U
s
T3
1
&
J

8
m


W^
6%
r-
oo
(N
S
OO
s
CO
69
Tf
s.
69
O
OS
•q-
o
Tf
69
0
O
a
ol
2
01
g
•o
Q>
S
•O
o
1
&
J

«

-------
 o

U
s...'

.Q
rH

u
 a

H
g>
lisi
5i°°
g>
« -P S «!
S? C £ -H
£ s§ §•
S|0»
"3 s a
|§a
•B J3
& to
IS
••H
•S S
*as
a5
fe 8
I'ss
§ ^3
S «
Zi fa
*«*.
o IP
*§ " -S5
.&
i
t
%
a
i

•a o
El 1*1^
El ST
S


tot-
's
<
v\
69
o\
t~
CM
69
S
vo
S
r—
o
en
69
00
M-
cl
69
o
o
J
CM
2S
CM
S
!
•a
1
&
J

1

1
W1
69
en
00
CM
69
r—
t~-
eo
69
1
69
CM
ON
ON

69
o
o
S
CM
2
CM
i
T3
O
S
&
•J

13
S
09

13
S
o
69
r-
VO
CM
69
5
CO
&?
i
69
5?
vo
eo
69
o
o
EC
eo
ss
CM
6
!
•o
1
&
J

'S
Q>
09

"o
o
m
o
69
eo
VO
CM
69

«
o
oo
en
69
en
5
&»
»n
£
s
00
en
oo
69
0
CT\

O
EC
-
S
C-l
1
T3
O
S
§>
*J

O
a>
03

o
V
09
o
oo
en
69
en
S
69
>/">
s?
S
o
5
69
§
CTi
00
69
O
0
J
-
g
CM
S
•a
1
•a
o
§
&
l-l

a>
a>
03

a>
o
CQ
0
oo
m
e%
vo
i?
69
VO
OO
OO
CO
69
&
69
S
— •
69

O
S
-
8.
CM
6
"8
S
•o
o
§
&
J

a>

09

d>

>n
>o
en
69
£
VO
69
0
CJ\
»n
o
69
O
0
EC
CM
&
CM
-g
S
•a
o
§
§<


a)

CQ
g
69
S?
6^
cn
CO
CM
8
5
en.
69
VO
%
oo
69
O
0
_l
CM
g
CM
•8
S
T3
O
§
&


S
m

a>
u
09
o
t^
69
i
69
S
en
69
CT\
>Ti
«T>
69
VO
VO
VO
«
69
O
0
S
CM
S
CM
1
"8
2
13
O
&
J

8
PQ

o
o
CQ
o
69
CO
a\
CO
69
«n
VO
oo
69
*o
S
69
OO
•*
to
Tf
69
O
0
EC
CO
O
OT
CM
1
"8
S
•a
o
§
&


o
0
03

8
m
o
69
O\
00
CO
69
V)
WY
V>
69
VO
CO
oo

en
VO
•sf
CM
69
O
O
>-)
CO
O
Kl
CM
•O
S
•a
1
&


rt3
S

1
o
69
CM
O\
en
69
•*
1C
69
S
05

r-
r-
vo
CO

o
o
S
r«l
g
CM
g
!
•a
1
&


1

1
&»
*n
in
vo

0
CM
69
OO
S
S
CM
OO
VO
69
CO
i— i
EC
—
CQ
O
CO
!
•o
o
&
H-l

1

a>
u
09
o..
S
69
S
VO

CT\
en
vo
69
O
en
vo
69
r-
r-
r~
VO

CO

_)
-
8
m
s
!
•=
§
S-
j

"&

a>

n
CO
69
CO
»n
oo
»-<
69
CM
OO
vo"


0
EC
CM
8
CO
e
!
•a
o
i
P
a*
^1

a>
a>
09

u
35
CQ
o
o
•D-
69
»O
t-~
"n

en
t~
CM
CM
69
CM
OO
•*
*— 4"
69
t~-
F:
vo


0
»J
CM
8
en
's
!
-a
o
S
P
o*
hJ

'o
a>
CQ

8
CQ
o
o
S
in
oo
to

0
S
CM
69
OO
VO
vo
69
5!
o
oo
69

O
S
CM
8
en
S
•8
2
•a
o
§
S
o"
1-1

o
a>
CQ

'S
o
09
o
69
»T)
»O

•si-
en
vo
69
Vt
S
69
en
f-
o\
ON


0
EC
CO
8
CO
1
•a
o
§
3
or"
_l

a>

03

'S
r>
69

5?
CO
69
VO
CO
OO

VO
CM
OO


o
•J
CO
m
o
CO
"8
T3
O
C/3
^
E)
O*


S
09

'!u
a>
03
o
69
en
ut
69

«n
5
69
i

?
CM
Ov


O
S
CO
W
O
CO
1
*d
(U
s
•a
o
1
&


d>
1

"o

09
^
CO
69
CM
OO
VO
69
in
t~-
»-H
CO
69
i
69
CO
oo
VO
69

O
EC
-
<
S
m
-d
1
T3
1
§•


1

fy
03
o
•si-
en
69

s
T3
«
g.


1

o
a)
CQ
%>•
CO
69
OO
r-
VO
69
r-
eo
c-~
u
CM
?J
69
VO
CM
S?
69
CM
O
S
-
s
m
1
•a
1
T3
jo
&


V
u
OQ

8
CQ
•o
o
CM
69
CM
VO
vo
69
O\
CM
en
69
§
69
0.
S
vo
69
O
O
EC
CM
<
S
CO
Td
1
•o
o
i
&•
J

8
CQ

a>
a>
CQ
*n
o
04
&<3-
?
vo
69
S
CM
69
t—
en
CO
69
CO
CM
ON
69
0
0
_)
CM
'<
en
•a
a)
T3
i
3
a"
_l

u
u
09

'o

-------
 O
U

BD
iflf
* i§5
.ngOU
i!*«
£ S3 s
"l°-°
1s»~

•g«
H 0
fe O

3.g
ja
K i
"s •- ™
«5 S
1 w§
fli
I
*
I
£
M
I

i <»
P Q,
i J?
SH
s
"1
fc.H
•3
<
I
os
in
VO
69
os
s
CN
69
8
VO
69

§
00
CN
69
o
o
s
CN
s
co
s
•O
1
g.
_4

O
S
t+-i

& tu O u m Ct-H O £ 0 oo m 69 2; ON 2 r-i 69 1 69 in m a\ 69 t •* _) - J m g i T3 1 & _1 a> d> CQ "S S 0 oo m &^ § VO r- tN 69 •* to VO 69 S S 69 CN 00 •s - I m & ! •a 1 §• J o u CQ CM o (S 0 m £4 S 00 s M- m 69 S &^ § OO m 69 •* O K CN s m 1 •a 1 §< >-l 1 t*-< a> a> PQ 0 m £9 s 00 O\ VO CN CN 69 OO C- cn 69 in m o\ 69 ~^- O J CN S m S •a 1 & J (U S ra <<-< & (L) CQ 0 69 r>l in 00 VO o m 69 i VO o 69 r- o S m s CO 1 S •a 0 g- 1 S •a o S & 'o 0 03 <*-» fl> a> CQ m CN fO 69 m o\ r- 69 -r~ t-- cn S VO 9 69 r— m S 69 m o J - 22 ro 1 -a a> s •o o g. n % s •a o 1 & 8 PQ c«-i a> d> PQ in O CN 69 O\ t— 69 •* OO OO s § &e- s; S o 0 33 CN ^ CO 1 •a a> T3 O & 'o r- r- 69 OS P CN 69 CN VO m 69 F- in S 69 O 0 _1 CN 2 CO 1 •d 1 •o o 1 & 'o CQ in O CN 69 in 00 r— 69 r- CN m CO 69 CO CO s •o o § & 8 PQ "iS u •CQ o 69 r- M- r- 69 1 69 VO CO 00 CO oo CO 69 O o _l CO £ ro T3 to S T3 O 1 & '«3 o CQ 8 CQ o 69 a\ •*f t— 69 OO CN oo 69 i 00 m •n 69 O 0 s CO 2 CO •b a> s •a o § •& J ro S CN 69 OO OO o s 1 e* ^ CN CN f- 69 O O 33 — O C/3 CO •a o s •a o § g- J 'o CQ •s IU CQ m CN m 69 O O CM 69 § CN 69 OS in in 69 VO CN oo CN 69 O 0 _) ~ O 00 CO •a Q) S •a o i & J 'o a> CQ 'S a> CQ >n CN a) CQ •s (L> ra m CO 69 •n oo OS 69 m CN CN CO 69 00 S5 69 ^ CN S 69 O O 33 CN O CO CO 1 •o o §• >_) 8 CQ % ^ m CO 69 Os VO Os 69 VO CN CN 69 O 9 &9- \O O) oo u o o J CN S CO g i •a •3 1 & _) 8 CQ <4-l a> (S in CO 69 O oo Os 69 $• OO CN 69 CN VO VO 69 VO •J 1 <4-< a) u CQ C-9


-------
 c
 o
U
U
 a>
M *P« "^* WS
lill
"VI ou
IP
« -C 5! <*
"11 «
£ 3 "8 o
* J
Is «
M 3 •»
3 «8 o
Jjou
« .53
8 ' *
J.;a
3a
1-3
uu
S 1
,jo ._ 3
l*-i
z •£
*8-«
I11
PM
i
1
c
•a
«
- Cfi
sn
. O

ll
s

1^

•a
o
69
in
s.
6?
CO
£
»-H
V*
i
69
en
in
CM
I—

0
0
X
en
s
CO
p
1
^

&

n
«
<*•*
o
0>
»
o
69
§
69
00
in
vo
69
vo
en
00

vo-
vo
2;

0
o
hj
en
g
en
p
i
•o
1
&

%

•3
Q
>o
Ov
»n
if
•*
o

a
o
»n
vo
ff*
o
vo
69
VO
oo
CM
VO
01
69
VO
^3-
O
CS
69
K
fO
S
69
en
oo
en
ffi
CM
8

o
I1
,_)
•a
o
&

1
ft
.S1
S
o
>Ti
VO
69
00

3
T3
O
1
&
•4
1
ft
Q
§
of
69
O
ON
01
69
|
•3-
-69
Ol
O
-s
g
en
69
«n
en
ffi
-
o
en
>-!
-
<
S

O
E?
2
•a
o
g-
.J
1
ft
£>
2
§
of
69
VO
8
en
vo
»o
en"
69
CO
69
§
0
69
O
r—
S
-
a

>-)
T3
o
§
g<
hJ
1
ft
&
to
5?
69
en
vo
69
r-
00
o
o
to
69
O
oo
69
I/I
r—
C£,
69
VO
VO
ffi
01
s

o
%
3
"O
•3
1
&
•_)
j=
CO
3
ft
.&
S
->n
01
M-
69
O
m
69
en
U"l
01
!?
69
"3-
I

OO
oo
vo
r-
oo
69
VO
vo
_1
Ol
s

o
I
•a
o
&
J
•s
ft
&
§
«o
5?
69
f-
V~l
69
CJ\
T)
>n
$
69
01
g
69
S
oo
£
&^
m
en
s
Ol
1

a>
i
T3
O
g-
_1
•S
ft
fc-
2
0
69
en
69
in
oo
•*
en
69
C*
m
i£

75
r-
en
69
o\
01
X
en
j

O
!
•a
1
g.
_J
•S
ft
.&
nl
Q
0
69
0
69
in
oo
vo

r—
01
•n

c—
en
01
69

O\
01
J
en
s

u
•a
1
§•
_]
•S
ft
.£>
c5
Q
g
69
•^~
r~-
ov
01
69
en
o
in

en
5?
O
69
r-
in
S
cn
s

!
T3
1
§<
-J
,
ft
£>
2
9
en
of
69
in
69
en
in"
69
m
en
en
69
S
in
CM
m
69
01
en
X
-
I

o
•o
1
&
_l
1
ft
£>
§
'^
en
of
69
g
•sf
69
VO
o\
ON
•— *
69
S
Ol
69
VO
m
69

Ol
en
_5
-
^
S


§
0
en
vo
69
|
69
CM
VO
00
'o5
69
,o
s

                                        C-10

-------
 O
U
6
1
H
Ml
hi S _ ~
•2 |||
60
*• .B M
< § o u
*°S ^

1 2 42
a 5j o
|ou
•gS
•|jj5
"& &
J.3
t .1
1*1
* £
Perform-
ance
Needs
1 I
•:-U;'
i' t
»
* t«
,.:'S
. Q-
''- f^

"• i'i
• v. S:'H:

g-: " a>
(S *M*

•- ' t
•;,,>:rt
o
69
VO
69

s
69
VO
co
oo

\o
£>

vo
ol
J
m
S



S?
,3
•o
1
§•
_1
•S
tt,
•1
o
69
OO
69

9
co
69
1

S
o
»-H
69
„
T>
S
m
£


o
I
•o
1
s-
_l
•s
OH
b
S
69
§
01
'69
.
S
-d-
69
ON
.5?
01
69
•*
m
vo
*-H
m
'69
'CO
,OO
Ico
;sc
—
2


o
I
•o
1
&
ij
•S
OH
fc>
2.
o
°.
eo
oo
S
69

r-

r-
o\
69
O
69

m
oo
CO
iJ
-
2


0
I
•a
I
§•
_l
•S
OH
"I
O
°.
69
•*
m
Ol
69

5;
m
69
0)
M
01
Ol
69
2
o
69
'o
£
S
-
2


O
e?
•J3.
13
1
§•
_I
•s
OH
1
O
S
69
S
«•

$
01
69
O
co
t~-
69
1
S
u->
69
•*
PJ
ffi
CS
5S


V

T3

&
_)
•S
fe
&>
8
o
s
6<*
OO
69

CO
OO
0
69
Tl-
OO
"I
69
cs
CO
CO
r-
ro
69
Tf
£
_]
cs
^


a>
s
5
•^
1
&
_i
•S
p-
E?
'§
o
s
69
•*
»n
69

S
>o
o
69
f-
«O
•°.
69
OO
^?
CO
9
69
•*
»n
2;
S
es
^


O

T3
1
§•
_i
•S
fc
.&
o
69
S

oo
o\
CO
69
XI
S
*— 1
69
•*
CO
VO
CO
69
tM
CO
K
m
^


o>
I1
3
T3

§•
nJ
•S
fe
1
O
*1
VO
69

OO
O
69
\o
CO
OO

o
69
~'
M
CO
_l
CO
£


O
§*
3
•a
1
&
J
,
IX,
•1
o
69
OO
i— I
69

5
CO
69
5
S

2
o
1*-^
69
r~
S
s
m
•2


a>
I1
5
•^
I
&

J3
ca
P
P-,
E?
8
o
VO
"J,
69
1

§
•*
69
f-
r-
a\
cs
69
S
CO
69
VO
•*
K
—
O
CO


a>
S?
3-
•o
1
§•

•s
p.,
1
o
VO
oo_
69
0
01
CO
69

OO
69
01
00
CO
01
69
O
69

VO
•*
J
—
O
CO



SP
5
•o
0
1
§•
J
1
P-,
£>
8
o
VO
0&
69
0
VO
CO
69

S
-3-
69
O
00
VO
OI
69
CO
?
o
69
01
Ov
•s
—
o
CO


a>
I
•a
0
§•

1
S-,
1
>n
CO
69
?
&9-

s
ol
VO
69
o\
•3-
VO
69
ON
01
u->
CO
CO
CO
69
f-
oo
w
01
O
oo


a>
I
T3
0
§•

1
OH
•s
n
§
69
r~
00
J
Ol
O
CO


o
g
3
T3
O
&

1
&,
'I
a
vi
CO
69
VO
CO
69

VO
VO
69
S
•*
69
O
O
01
CO
69
CO
r~-
S
01
O
CO



s
o
CN
69

S
of
69
%
OO
69
»n
VO
01
o\
ol
69
CO
00
K
-
s

g

s
••o
O
&
J
•s
tL,
E?
§
«n
S
VO
o
69

CO
69
VO
wo
69
S
r-
U~l
69
CO
00
_)
-
ca
o

_
3
1
•o
O
§.
_)
•S
&
E^
8
in
I
00
o
69

01
«3\
69
£
69
OO
O
0
<3\
01
69
OO
VO
s
-
s

g
3
i
•a
•3
1
&
• J
43
n
S
o
o
69

C—
O
Ol
69
OO
OO
69
XI
oS
o
Ol
69
O
VO
K
Ol
8

B
1
1
T3

&
H-l
•S
fe
E^
S
«->

S
•a
1
&
J
•S
OH
.£>
V>
>n
CO
69
O
ai
69

01
ON
69
I—
CO
VO
69
1
O\
Ol
69
_
01
S
Ol
8



-a
a>
s
•a
1
§-
J
1
OH
:&
0
69
S

OS
r-
r-t
69
i
69
"0
VO
ol
O\
01
69
CO
01
»
CO
8


3
•a
o
s
•a
o
i
§•
J
1
OH
"I
O
69
VO
69

OO
O
69
VO
CO
oo

VO
p:
v>
69
CO
ol
J
CO
«
u

_
§
•g
s
•a
o
i
§-
J
•s
OH
Q
                                     C-ll

-------
 a»

 g

I
y
 0)

I
H
BS
11 i i
K|o«
M
>* .5 Ml »
o» T2 S &
£ a3i
5J°U
IS -8
IS §
|ou
•gi
4si y
s*:
•a I
Su
* 1
l-sl
a o>*g
5 .a
** fe
E ** *§
(S s §3
1 "•*
a*
t
3
g
«

»
a
I

b a>
Is
Is

gl
to H

1
o
69
OO
69
O\
S
69
S

OO
g
a
&9
t~-
•^
S
co
.8

s
]
T3
O
1
§•
>-J
43
3
to
"I
in
r-
CO
69
eo
vo
69
T>
O
Vi
69
VO
«n
69
(S
o
en
a
69
OO
VO
ffi
~
<
S

S
1
•a
o
§•
»)
•g
to
1
«/->
t—
S
S
,&6-
m
«o
OO

§


69
ON
ON
69
01
I— i
69
8
en
a
69
(
CM
SB
Ol
<

1
!
T3
1
s-
_1
•s
to
.£>
V^
S
I
cs
•VI

o
o\
OO


S
69
»O
•69
I—
O
69
§
69
5-
:S
CN
s
s
CN
s

I
!
•B
OT
g<
-1
•S
to
.£>
o
69
m
69
5
69
o\
»n
•vo

S
m
S
t~-
^f
K
CO
<
S

1
•y
1
•o
•3
i
&
_!
«
fc
.&
m
Q
S
0
-69
OO
01

,r~
01


»n
S5
>n
69
t~-
Tt-
J
CO
s

I
T3
O>
S
•a
1
&
H-I
1
to
.s-
ca
Q
-g
S
o\
VO
01
69
cn
Ov
•O

-5
O\
S
•*
o\
s
m
s

1
•a
Q>
•a
i
&
>-l
1
to
.fc>
A
Q
-o
5
69
O
O
69
vo
vo
o
69
VO
w
69
OO
s
o\
:S
Ov
•*
K
-
3

•6
•a
o
s
•o
0
§•
_J
•s
to
t
Q
0
5
69
O
OO
69
O
CT<
01
69
aV
?
69
•0
VO
69
O
•^
hJ
-
J

|
"8
•a
o
g-
*-l
1
to
£?
"3
Q
0
5
69
O
OS
69
•*
~a\
69
V»
5
69
r~
,cn
o
01
69
01
O
CO
s
•— <
1

1
"8
•a
o
g-
,J
1
to
b
^
Q
S
CO
69
O
OO
69
1
69
£
69
OO
01
vo
ON
01
69
r-
o
SB
01
s

E
I
T3
O
g-
-J
j:
tn
3
to
fc-
2
o
01
CO
69
S
69
0
o\
01
69
CO
9
69
0
VO
69
r-
o
_l
01
1

1
s
•o
o
g.
_l
J=
ca
p
to
£>
2
s
CO
69
Ol
t—
69
O
o\
69
Ol
VO
69
r-
co
o\
01
69.
t--
Ol
S
Ol
.s

g
•g
s
•o
o
&
H-l
•S
to
&
§
•s
S
69
S
00
69
»n
S
69
OO
01
vo
o\
01
69
01
•*
SB
CO
1

e
s
T)
1
g-
J
J=
CO
a
to
b
2
g
VO
69
OO
OO
o
69
VO
CO
OO

o
vo
69
01
•st"
J
CO
1

g
!
T)
O
&
u
4=
CO
S
to
1
0
69
.00
69
VO
G
69
i

t—
CO
0\
01
69
•51-
oo
s
CO
i

I
i
T)
O
g.
H-l
,
to
1
0
Ol
69
O
vo
69
ON
§
69
r-~
o
t—
69

01
69
„
>n
SB
-
2

|
!
•o
o
g.
_]
1
to
£
(S
o
01
69
?
69
CO
Ol
01
69
ts
CO
69
VO
r-
r-
»n
69
_,
•wi
_J
«
SS

|
i
•a
1
&
,-J
•g
to
.b
cd
Q
o
01
69
S
69
VO
Ol
OO
69
VO
CO
-
2
o
vo
69
O
vo
69
01
O
O
69
1
69
VI
vo
01
o\
Ol
69
VO
CO
SB
01
*

1
*a
o
s
•a
o
g-
i-J
JS
cn
3
to
fc-
2
O
VO
69
OO
S
O
VD
01
69
V">
CO
CO
69
VO
£
s
vo
CO
J
01
2

&
s
•a
o
g-
J
O3
CO
p
to
b
2
o
VO
69
'S
69
VO
00
69
O
"!
69
OO
§
ON
S
CO
r-
S
01
2

g
•2
S
T)
O
g-
J
J3
CO
p
to
.£>
o
69
S
«r>
o\
r-
69
>O
S
69
in
VO
Ol
oC
12
•*

EB
CO
2

g
I
T)
O
S
&
hJ
1
to
£>
'3
Q
o
69
VO
69
-3-
OO
O
69
VO
CO
OO

VD
r~
r~
>n
69
Tf

hJ
CO
£

S
!
T)
O
S
g.
J
•s
to
b
3
Q
o
69
OO
69
ON
VO
VO
69
.•*
ON

OO
ON
Ol
69
OO
Ol
s
CO
2

I
!
Tt
O
S
g.
J
1
to
Q
                                          C-12

-------
ts
 vU
 0



I
 O
U
U
 a>

1
H
fe-is s
(S 111
I/I 4} W ™'
«
llll
IS-s
1 |§ S'
?-? M
ia
Sa
•S »
§3
•_ B3
S -a
~s "gsT
1 1
Perform-
ance
Needs
fr
1
c
o
•§>
,«
BJ
u
1

n a>
!£
S

II

•a
S
•g
3
«n
cs
en
69
O
oo
69
m
S
O!
69
in
o\
r-
69
en
ej\
en
8
en
VO
a
-
o
CO

S
•s
S
:s
o
i
g.
l-l
J3
en
S
BH
b
Q
in
cs
en
69
•*•
VO
69
S
CS
69
VO
9
69
VO
£
m
69
en
vo
_)
«-H
O
00

E
•o
1
•a
o
i
g-
_i
js
CO
BH
b
Q

Q
V^
m
(M
&«J
3
• wj
o\
VO
cs
tf>
oo
m -
6^
VO
F:
>0
ee-
m
•*
>-)
cs
g

S
"8
2
73
o
§•
J
J3
ca
3
(In
£•
Q
u-»
m
cs
Vi
•*t
10
6O
JS
00
v>
m-
>n
ui
ff>
vo
m
?3
6O
0
OO
s
cs
8

1
1
•a
o
§•
J
J3
CO
3
BH
£•
(S
o
6O
O
CS
&•*
oo
a\
r~-
ff*
in
S
6^
m
<3\
en
S
6«>
OO

K
m
S

I
•8
S
•a
o
i
g-
>-4
1
BH
b
S
o
V)
vo
WJ
•*
oo
o
&^
vo
m
oo

vo
£
T>
'6^
OO

_)
m
O
.<»

S
•8
S
T3
O
§<
!_J
•g
fe
&
.a
o
60
00
6O
S
VO
&»
a'-

VO
en
8
ffi
in
en
S
en
g

s
1
•o
o
CO
^
§.
J
•s
BL,
&
id
Q
&
o
00
6O
1
CS
&$
oo
en
V*
«o
vo
•*
.»•
fft
0
en
'K
-
,8

1
•s
s
•o
|3
&
n4
•S
BH
&>
cd
Q
g
&e
§
6^
OO
OO
•*
v>
0
*— (
r-
6%
en
o\
o\
oo
'69
0
en
.<-)
-
.8


•g
s
•«
o
1
§.
J
•s
(b
£>
KJ
Q
g
'6<»
CS
VO
&•»
s
en
cs
Sft
.s-
&^
o
en
T— 1"
g
_
VO
s
-
8

1
•8
S
13
O
1
&
J
•s
B,
b
cd
Q
o
cs
6O
O
VO
Vi
f~
rr
VO
VO
Sf,
t-~
R
&^
>rt
vo
•5J-
«
69
cs
cs
a
cs
s;

s
1
•a
1
&
^J
•3
fc
£>
ai
Q
o
S^
oo
-=1-
«4
s.
•3-
»o
VO'
&q
«o
vo
en
60
en
o\
o\
-00
6O
CS
CS
n4
CS
8


1
•a
1
g-
j
•S
&
&
y
Q
o
S
s
&e
vo
CS
en
vo-
vo
69
VO
en
v>
6O-
O
en
»— « •
3
.69
•3-
•3-
S
CS
8


!
•J3
1
&
•-4
•S
Bt,
E?
ed
O
o
69
O
CS
69
O\
69
i
69
in
vo.
•*
in
rt-
69
00
O
ffi
en
8


i
•a
1
g-

1
BH
E?
a
o
69
VO
69
OO
2;
69
VO
S3

en
C3S
ON
00
69
OO
O
>-]
en
8

&
i
•a
1
&

1
fe
&•
^
o
69
00
69
g
69
S

O
m
t— 4
3
69
r~
i— i
2
en
8

g
i
•a
1
g-

«
H-,
b
a
m
en
vo
69
00
oo
69
1
69
CS
OO
cs_
69
•*
•-H
m
irT
•q-
69
_
vo
EC
-
<
2

i
1
•a
1
§<

1
&.
b
•(S
m
en
vo
69
t~
69
S
o\

s
69
CS
CS
O\
69

VO
J
—
<

1
1
T3
1
g-

1
BH
b
?'

2
in
in
•*
69
r~
,»— »'
EC
m
s


*o
1
•a
o
§<

1
W
b
a
o
69
O
69
g.

R
in

cs
cs
ON
69
r-~

J
en
s


i
•a
o
i
&

1
BH
b
Q
o
69
T— t
69
CS
ON
in
69
en
OX
in

en
O
en
in
69
Tf-
en
s
m
s

s
•d
CO
s
•a
o
i
&
_)
1
BH
b
a
»o
^
VO
6*3-
§
69
O
CS
in
cs
69
O
oo
0
69
OO
S!
g
•st-
m
EC
-i
s


•8
•a
o
g-
H-l
•S
&H
b
«
Q
                                           C-13

-------
-a
 a>
3
 a)

3
 03

H
a1
Sis*
SJSa
en
III!
*** e2
1 S -a
III
|oo

15;
Is
. |l
s|
H
25 to
1 1 "s
•s § *
P«
£•
f O
•If
<3
I
«
1
.•G
J
oa

M *^*
s • •

II
1
*

s
VO
69
CO
01
&9
i
69
i
69
a
01
ON
69
Tf
m
_3
-
S
01
1
•tf
o
s
T3
O
§
§•
i-4
•S
E
b
(S1
»n
ON
VO
&Q
|
69
en
-------
 a»

2
 03

H

"§
f^ u
tf
«-rt
§
1
'>!?'
0»
•JB.
•e'

Jb
••'(2

g «'
**'•";§?'
•[g -H :
^
%
69
O
CM
69
to
S
69
§
60
•*
§
6*
,_,
«i
69
O
•Tf
69
ro
to
69
to
O
CM
69
g
!
CO
1
S
2
•a
&
2
<£
1
S
69
O
CM
69
10
S
69
0
•3"
69
ON
to
to
69
t—
o
CM"
69
O
CM
69
OO
r-
69
O
oo
CM
CN
69
CN
1
I
f/1
1
S
W
£
£
S
<£
'E
a
S
69
O
CN
69
to
s
69
§
69
fO
P>
69
m
"I
CM
69
O
O
69
OO
OO
69
P
to
£
m
i
1
w
1
S
1
s
2
0
S
%9
g
69
m
f-
CO
69
r—
S
69
O
O
69
£
-3-
69
9
00
69
s
I
£
'3
,?
CL.
2

1
S
#
OH
2
<2
£
1
^
o
CM
69
O
m
69
to
s
&9
g
»— t
69
ON
to
r-
69
„
«
CM
69
O
<=
69
O
OO
69
to
CM
CM
69

I
1
0
C/3
*4-<
S
1
1
O
CM
69
O
CM
69
to
S
69
-9
69
m
r«->
m
69
OO
VO
69
1

m
f>
&9-
S
r-
&9
|
I
1
S
VH
£
1
1
!
o
CM
69
O
CM
69
i
69
O
VO
69
S
en
69
CM
t-J
69
0
O
69
^
•*
69
CM
CM
OO
69
CM
S
1
.5
3
&
^H
£
7S
ffi
S
69
O
CM
69
to
S
69
O
O
69
VO
to
Tl-
69
O
00
69
S
69
VO
to
69
Tf
CO
o\
69
m
S
"8
f
S
1
S
1
S
69
O
CM
69
to
S
69
O
CM
69
§
CM
69
10
to
69
S
69
^t"
to
69
O
S
69
S
•8
S
I
0
•S
3
El
"c3
^
S
69
0
CM
69
{,
69
to
S
69
S
O
ON
CM
69
to
to
69
S
69
•*
to
69
O
S
69
|
•O
U
t>
1
<5
•i
S
•S
_g
U-,
1
i
0
M
69
to
S
69
O
CM
69
O
ON
CN
69
to
A
69
§
69
•Sf
to
69
O
S
69
CM
•8
S
d-Atlantic
S
•g
s
E
1
S
69
O
CM
69
to
S
69
I
O
ON
CN
69
to
•ft
69
O
CN
69
-3-
"5.
69
O
S
69
CO
•a
S
o
1
<
•a
S
4=
VI
(S
g
8
69
O
CN
69
to
S
69
1
O
ON
CM
69
to
A
69
S
69
"3-
to
69
O
S
69
s
T3
S
s
1
s
_c
CO
3
E
"rt
^
O
CM
69
O
CM
69
i
69
i
o
ON
CM
69
to
A
69
•8
69
•*
to
69
O
S
69
CN
•a
S
1
•a
S
_e
CO
J=j
E
g1™1
O
CM
69
O
CM
69
i
69
1
O
ON
CM
69
to
•A
69
S
69
•*
"1
69
O
SN
&»
CO
g
s
•a
o
S
1
s
4?
ca
i
1
o
CM
69
O
CM
69
to
S
69
i
o
ON
CM
69
to
10
69
O
CM
69
•*
to
69
O
S
69
|
T3

S
o
l£3
•n
ca
PH
•i
3
E
"i
o
CM
69
O
CM_
69
i
69
S
O
ON
CM
69
to
to
69
O
CM
69
-*
to
69
0
S
69
CM
•a
1
O
5H
*o
£
43
«
E
"8
o
CM
69
O
CMn
69
i
69
i
O
ON
CM
69
to
to
69
S
69
-3-
IO
69
O
SN
6O-
CO
E
•a
S
o
s
'o
C3
0-,
j:
CO
1
•3
U
O
CM

O
CM
69
1
69
S
O
ON
CM
69
to
to
69
O
CN
69
Tl-
tO
69
O
&
69
|
T3

S
4=
3
£
•S
_3
E
1
O
CN
69
O
CM_
69
10
S
69
i
o
a
69
to
to
69
S
69
•*
to
69
O
SN"
69
CM
T3
O
•s
3
&
•S
3
E
*ca
^
O
CM
69
O
CM_
69
i
69
I
O
?5
69
to
to
69
O
CN
69
•s-
to
69
O
S
69
cn
•a
a)
.£
3
£
•S
3
PL,
1
                                           A-55