United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory
Ada OK 74820
EPA-600/2 79-070
March 1979
Research and Development
&EPA
Design and
Cost of Feedlot
Runoff Control
Facilities
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4, Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-070
March 1979
DESIGN AND COST OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF CONTROL FACILITIES
by
J. Ronald Miner
Robert B, Wensink
Robert M. McDowell
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Grant No. R-803819
Project Officer
R. Douglas Kreis
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERTA S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory, u. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the
quality of our environment.
An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for
information about environmental problems, management techniques and new
technologies through which optimum use of the nation's land and water
resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the welfare
of the American people can be minimized.
EPA's Office of Research and Development conducts this search
through a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to:
(a) investigate the nature, transport, fate and management of pollutants
in groundwater; (b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating waste-
waters with soil and other natural systems; (c) develop and demonstrate
pollution control technologies for irrigation return flows, (d) develop
and demonstrate pollution control technologies for animal production
wastes; (e) develop and demonstrate technologies to prevent, control
or abate pollution from the petroleum refining and petrochemical in-
dustries, and (f) develop and demonstrate technologies to manage pol-
lution resulting from combinations of industrial wastewaters or indus-
trial/municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge essential if the EPA
is to meet the requirements of environmental laws that it establish
and enforce pollution control standards which are reasonable, cost
effective and provide adequate protection for the American people.
C.
William C. Galegar, Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Cattle feedlots are typically located to utilize natural surface
drainage conditions. These conditions necessitate control facil-
ities to intercept and store surface runoff so manure-contaminated
waters are prevented from entering streams and lakes. Engineering
design to prevent the discharge of effluent from open feedlot fa-
cilities requires a matching of individual structures to proposed
management techniques and regional climatic data.
Two computer models were developed for these purposes. The first,
the sufficient design program, was a simulation model which sized
feedlot runoff retention ponds based upon previous climatic data
and management dewatering policies. In addition to minimum pond
volume, the sufficient design model listed average number of year-
ly pumpings for each simulated management alternative at a selected
pumping rate. The second model, an economic budget generator, de-
termined cost of open feedlot runoff control systems. The models
were tested at seven selected locations in the United States to
determine the effects of five pumping rates and seven management
dewatering alternatives on minimum storage volumes required to
prevent discharges as defined by EPA Effluent Guidelines. Sta-
tions were selected from each major climatic region in the U. S.
and represented a broad spectrum of precipitation patterns. Last-
ly, effects of relaxing the discharge criterion were also studied
at each location.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Grant Number R-803819
by Oregon State University under the partial sponsorship of the
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers the
period from June 15, 1975 to December 31, 1977; work was com-
pleted as of December 31, 1977.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract
List of Figures
List of Tables
Acknowledgments
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 3
3. Sufficient Design Model Development 5
and Description
4. Sufficient Design Model Inputs 15
5. Sufficient Design Model Outputs 17
6. Interpretation of Sufficient Design 26
Output
7. Design Evaluation Model 29
8. Economic Model Development and 30
Description
9. Economic Model Inputs 45
10. Economic Model Outputs 46
11. Interpretation of Economic Model Output 58
References 66
Appendices
A. Sufficient Design Technique Simulation 67
Model
B. Design Evaluation Simulation Model 83
C. Economic Evaluation Model 96
D. Irrigation Cost Data 126
E. Conversion of Units 133
v
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Block diagram of feedlot runoff model 6
2 Flowchart of feedlot runoff retention 14
sufficient design model
3 Simulated cost and performance of feedlot 65
runoff control systems at Pendleton, Oregon,
for time period 1914-1971
Vl
-------
TABLES
N xomber Page
1 Physical interpretation of the seven 7
runoff management policies
2 Climatic attributes of selected feedlot 16
locations
3 Required retention pond capacity, acre- 18
in./feedlot acre, and average number of
pumping days, for Pendleton, Oregon
as a function of management disposal
policies and pumping capacities
4 Required retention pond capacity, acre- 19
in./feedlot acre, and average number of
pumping days, for Lubbock, Texas as a
function of management disposal policies
and pumping capacities
5 Required retention pond capacity, acre- 20
in./feedlot acre, and average number of
pumping days, for Bozeman, Montana as a
function of management disposal policies
and pumping capacities
6 Required retention pond capacity, acre- 21
in./feedlot acre, and average number of
pumping days, for Ames, Iowa as a function
of management disposal policies and
pumping capacities
7 Required retention pond capacity, acre- 22
in./feedlot acre, and average number of
pumping days, for Corvallis, Oregon as
a function of management disposal policies
and pumping capacities
8 Required retention pond capacity, acre- 23
in./feedlot acre, and average number of
pumping days, for Experiment, Georgia
as a function of management disposal
policies and pumping capacities
VII
-------
Number Page
9 Required retention pond capacity, acre- 24
in./feedlot acre, and average number of
pumping days, for Astoria, Oregon as a
function of management disposal policies
and pumping capacities
10 Minimum pond volume when discharges are 25
allowed for all-year dewatering policy with
0.4 times 25 year-24 hour event pumping rate
(acre-inches/feedlot acre)
11 Labor requirements for operating various 42
irrigation systems
12 Annual pollution control cost (dollars per 47
head of capacity) at Ames, Iowa as a
function of pumping capacity, irrigation
system, and feedlot size
13 Annual pollution control cost (dollars per 48
head of capacity) at Astoria, Oregon as a
function of pumping capacity, irrigation
system, and feedlot size
14 Annual pollution control cost (dollars per 49
head of capacity) at Bozeman, Montana as
a function of pumping capacity, irrigation
system, and feedlot size
15 Annual pollution control cost (dollars per 50
head of capacity) at Corvallis, Oregon as
a function of pumping capacity, irrigation
system, and feedlot size
16 Annual pollution control cost (dollars per 51
head of capacity) at Experiment, Georgia
as a function of pumping capacity,
irrigation system, and feedlot size
17 Annual pollution control cost (dollars per 52
head of capacity) at Lubbock, Texas as a
function of pumping capacity, irrigation
system, and feedlot size
18 Annual pollution control cost (dollars per 53
head of capacity) at Pendleton, Oregon as
a function of pumping capacity, irrigation
system, and feedlot size
19 Minimum annual pollution control cost 54
(dollars per head of capacity) for various
disposal policies for Ames, Iowa, and
Lubbock, Texas
Vlll
-------
Number
20 Annual pollution control costs (dollars 55
per head of capacity) when dewatering
ten or fewer days per year for various
irrigation systems at seven U. S.
locations
21 Minimum investment and annual pollution 56
control cost (dollars per head of capacity)
at seven U. S. locations
22 Annual pollution control costs (dollars 57
per head of capacity) at seven U. S.
locations with similar pumping
characteristics
23 Added production cost (dollars per head) 60
associated with pollution control systems
as a function of feedlot size and
location
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The preparation of this report was supported in part by Grant Num-
ber R-803819, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The coopera-
tion of R. Douglas Kreis, Project Officer, Robert S. Kerr Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Ada, Oklahoma, is gratefully acknow-
ledged .
This study was undertaken in conjunction with a sister project at
Kansas State University under the direction of James K. Koelliker
and Jerome Zovne. Their interactions and cooperation have been
sincerely appreciated.
Professors John W. Wolfe and Marvin N. Shearer, Department of Ag-
ricultural Engineering, Oregon State University, were instrumental
in the development of the irrigation models reported. Professor
Grant Blanch, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics,
Oregon State University, participated in the development of the
economic analysis and served as major advisor to Robert M. McDowell
in his degree program. Oregon State University students making
significant contributions to the success of this project include
Thomas Booster and John Wedman.
In conclusion, technical assistance of Ted L. Willrich, Extension
Agricultural Engineer, and editorial and production assistance of
Carol Small, Secretary, Department of Agricultural Engineering,
Oregon State University, were instrumental in the completion of
this report.
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Cattle feedlots are typically located to utilize natural sur-
face drainage conditions. These conditions necessitate con-
trol facilities to intercept and store surface runoff so manure-
contaminated waters are prevented from entering streams and lakes.
Intercepted runoff is generally applied to agricultural lands to
replenish facility volume and to insure utilization of dissolved
plant nutrients.
In 1972 the U. S. Congress enacted the National Pollution Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES). As a result, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated effluent
guidelines which permit discharge from a feedlot only in con-
nection with an "unusual rainfall" event. For 1983, the "unusual
rainfall" criterion is the 25 year-24 hour storm. This is a
performance standard and does not provide exact design criteria;
that is, the classical design of flood prevention structures based
upon the design runoff rate return period technique is not suf-
ficient since this technique primarily considers runoff generated
from a single precipitation event. Wensink and Miner (1975) and
Koelliker, Manges and Lipper (1975) showed that chronic precipi-
tation conditions, rather than single catastrophic storms, typi-
cally determine feedlot runoff control facility design capacities.
Engineering design to prevent discharge of effluent from open
feedlot facilities requires a matching of individual structures to
both management techniques and regional climatic data. Wensink
and Miner (1975) developed a model which uses hydrologic data to
determine minimum feedlot facility volumes required to satisfy the
above criterion without management considerations. This study
was, therefore, initiated to investigate effects (both engineering
and economic) of alternate dewatering policies on the minimum
volumetric capacity of feedlot runoff control facilities.
A cattle feedlot runoff control model was first developed to
integrate the effects of alternate dewatering policies on minimum
facility volumes. This simulation model determined engineering
relationships between historical climatological data, dewatering
schedules, and minimum feedlot runoff control volumes.
In addition, an economic model to simulate cost of cattle feedlot
runoff control designs was formulated to analyze effects of
-------
alternate dewatering policies and pumping sizes on required
reservoir volumes. This model determined economic relationships
between dewatering schedules, minimum reservoir volumes, pumping
capacity, and disposal areas and was used to estimate cost of
feedlot pollution control systems which comply with EPA regula-
tions at seven locations in the United States.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The first objective of this project was to develop a technique
which provided a rational design method for feedlot pollution
control facilities. The technique should integrate historical
climatic data in such a way as to predict the effectiveness of
various'combinations of runoff-handling components. The second
objective of this study was to demonstrate this computerized
technique in four representative climatic regions in the United
States. The third objective was to develop a computerized method
to analyze economic cost of feedlot runoff pollution control
systems and alternatives.
The first two objectives were accomplished by developing a com-
puter simulation model which sized feedlot runoff retention ponds
based upon previous climatic data and management dewatering pol-
icies. The model utilized daily rainfalls, average temperatures,
and pan evaporations to predict the effects of management de-
watering policies on the design of minimum retention volumes which
satisfy environmental protection standards. The simulation model
accepted a pond dewatering volumetric rate and a management de-
watering alternative as inputs and determined the disposal area
and facility volume required to hold all feedlot runoff resulting
from storms less than the 25 year-24 hour criterion.
The design model was implemented at the following seven selected
locations: Pendleton, Oregon; Lubbock, Texas; Bozeman, Montana;
Ames, Iowa; Corvallis, Oregon; Experiment, Georgia; and Astoria,
Oregon. Locations ganged in average annual precipitation from
13.4 to 75.4 inches. At each site, five volumetric pumping rates
and seven management dewatering alternatives were evaluated to
determine minimum storage volume required to prevent discharge as
defined by EPA Effluent Guidelines.
The third objective was accomplished by formulating a computerized
economic model to estimate cost of open feedlot runoff control
Current feedlot pollution control technology and regulatory lan-
guage involves English units. Therefore,the models developed in
the course of the research upon which this report is based utilize
English units of measure. For the convenience of those readers
who deal with international units, a select list of conversions is
provided in Appendix E.
-------
systems. The model required market prices of equipment, services,
land, and taxes, and the following basic engineering design para-
meters: feedlot area, design pumping rate, required storage vol-
ume, annual pumping days, total disposal land area, and single
day's disposal area.
The economic model generated investment and annual operating costs
for standardized runoff control systems. Charges were estimated
for hand move, side roll, big gun, and traveling big gun at seven
locations in the U. S. Budgets were developed for each system
with five different pumping rates, seven management alternatives
(with respect to timing of disposal), and two disposal policies on
1.0, 10, and 100 acre feedlots (symbolizing 200, 2,000, and 20,000
animal feedlots, respectively).
Results indicate that economies of feedlot size exist in control-
ling runoff and that pumping capacity could not economically
substitute for reservoir volume. At most locations, the all-
year pumping policy produced the lowest cost; additional costs
associated with more restrictive management policies were not
significant.
-------
SECTION 3
SUFFICIENT DESIGN MODEL
DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION
The purpose of this model is to design the volumetric capacity of
a feedlot runoff control system. The model must accommodate
various input data used as the basis for a design. Included in
the model are the abilities to consider both long term and daily
climatic data, management policies that would be appropriate for
various geographic regions, and selection of a design which meets
specified discharge conditions.
A block diagram of the feedlot runoff model is shown in Figure 1.
The model simulates a feedlot surface onto which precipitation
falls and runoff results. As runoff moves off the feedlot surface,
it is intercepted by a holding pond. Effluent is removed from the
reservoir by pumping to a nearby field for restoration of available
storage capacity.
INITIALIZATION
In preparing the model, several initial values must be specified.
These values make the run unique to the location and management
plan selected. In order to consider evaporation from the runoff
retention pond surface, it is necessary to specify long term
monthly average temperatures, average daily evaporation rate (on a
monthly basis), and average daily evaporation rate (in inches per
day). The technique used for determining daily evaporation rate is
to compare daily temperature with the average temperature for the
month, and to use this as a factor to adjust the average daily
evaporation rate.
The model utilizes the 25 year-24 hour storm value as the discharge
criterion. If a rainfall event exceeds this value and the existing
pond can not hold the runoff, retention pond volume is not adjusted
upward; instead, discharge is allowed and recorded. If one were to
design for another discharge criterion, this is where an adjustment
would be made.
As an initialization, the management policy must be inserted. In
this model, seven management policies have been defined as shown in
Table 1. Not all seven management policies are applicable to each
climatic region; however, they were designed to provide a full
range of potential operating policies.
-------
CLIMATIC INPUTS
1. Daily precipitations
Daily maximum and minimum
temperatures
Daily snowfall accumulation
Monthly evaporations
FEEDLOT
Runoff
Management
Dewatering
Policy
RESERVOIR
Reservoir
Pumping Rate
AGRICULTURAL
LAND
Overflow
Figure 1. Block diagram of feedlot runoff model.
-------
TABLE 1. PHYSICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE
SEVEN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT POLICIES
Policy
Situation
simulation
Dates runoff
disposal permitted
1
2
4
5
All-year disposal
Apply effluent to corn crop
plus pre-planting (April)
disposal
Apply effluent to corn crop
plus after harvest (Oct 15-
Nov 15) disposal and pre-
planting (April) disposal
Apply effluent to corn crop
Apply effluent to corn crop
plus post-harvest (Oct 15-
Nov 15)
Apply effluent to hay crop
and winter months disposal
Apply effluent to hay crop
All year
April, June, July,
August
April, June, July,
August, Oct 15-Nov 15
June, July, August
June, July, August,
Oct 15-Nov 15
Jan 1-May 15; Jun 15-
30; Jul 15-31; Aug 15-
31; Sep 15-30; Oct 15-
Jan 1
Apr 1-May 15; Jun 15-
30; Jul 15-31; Aug 15-
31; Sep 15-30; Oct 15-
31
-------
Pumping rate must be defined. This value establishes overall
size of irrigation disposal equipment, which in turn establishes
quantity of land that must be available for an individual dewater-
ing. Pumping rate is here defined as a fraction of the 25 year-24
hour storm, reported in inches per day. Interpreted as a pumping
capacity, pumping rate becomes essentially a volumetric capacity,
in acre-inches per acre of feedlot per day.
Next, the model requires the nitrogen concentration of the ef-
fluent applied to the disposal site and the maximum total an-
nual nitrogen loading of the disposal area. These values in-
directly determine total disposal area required to satisfy the
system's design parameters.
The model requires that starting and stopping dates of climatic
data also be initially inserted. Climatic data for a particular
location must be read from a file. The station name is listed on
the first line (record) of each data file to reduce the potential
for error. The next entry is an average daily temperature (re-
ported in °F), calculated as daily maximum plus daily minimum,
divided by two. The daily precipitation value in inches is the
next item on the record. Snowfall data are also included at this
point and are tabulated as snowfall accumulation, essentially an
inventory (in inches of snow) that exists on any particular date.
This latter value is used to determine whether a previous snow is
still being stored on the feedlot surface, or alternately, if
it is time to calculate runoff based upon previously accumulated
snowfall.
Preliminary pond depth is established as six feet. An evapora-
tion coefficient is next inserted to correct pan evaporation rate
data to that anticipated from an open pond. A value of 0.7 has
typically been used.
PRELIMINARY STEPS
To proceed, a preliminary pond surface area must be calculated.
This has been done by multiplying the 25 year-24 hour storm by two
and then calculating an appropriate pond surface area using the
preliminary depth of six feet. In order to make this preliminary
pond surface area estimate, the following formula is used:
Surface a-ea = 2 (43,560) (25 yr-24 hr storm value)
surtace a.ea 12 (preliminary pond depth)(1)
The area calculated in this manner is later used for estimating
evaporation losses. For locations in which calculated pond depth
is in excess of 13 feet, a revised surface area is used to replace
the preliminary value and the model is re-run. Pumping rate is
next established by multiplying together pumping rate as specified
earlier and the already inserted 25 year-24 hour storm value.
Thus, a pumping rate (in inches per day) is established which is
equivalent to acre-inches per acre of feedlot per day. The 25
-------
year-24 hour storm is converted to a statistical 24-hour value by
dividing it by 1.14. In making this correction, the 24-hour storm
value and daily climatic data become consistent.
Reading from Climatic Data File
The first step in reading climatic data is to read the name of
the station. This assures that the appropriate data have been
located. Second, it is determined whether the first year of
data is a leap year; if so, number of days per year is replaced
with 366. Once this information has been established, data for
year one are read from the data file. It is at this point that
the program will return for subsequent iterations. The computer
reads only one year's data and makes that series of manipulations
before returning for the following year.
THE ITERATIVE PROCESS
The bulk of the program is an iterative process considering each
day's climatic data and then adjusting the calculated values of
antecedent rainfall, pond volume, accumulated snowfall, and total
runo f f.
The antecedent rainfall condition used to determine runoff coef-
ficients must be updated by adding the value for the day in ques-
tion and subtracting the value of the rainfall recorded six days
previously. Thus, the antecedent rainfall condition is a contin-
uing total of rainfall for the previous five days. While a day's
rainfall is being manipulated, annual rainfall is also increased by
that amount.
Daily pan evaporation is next determined by multiplying aver-
age daily evaporation rate by daily temperature, divided by
average monthly temperature. Pond volume must next be updated
(based upon evaporation and rainfall for that day) by adding
to the previous day's pond volume a factor equal to the precipi-
tation for the day minus daily surface evaporation. This latter
factor is multiplied by the preliminary pond surface area in acres.
Following this manipulation, there is a check to make certain that
pond volume has not decreased to a value less than zero; if so,
this means the pond is empty and the negative value is replaced
with a zero.
Determining If This is an Acceptable Day for Irrigation
The next step involves a series of checks to determine whether
irrigation is a possibility.
1. Management policy is checked to determine if it
allows irrigation on the date under consideration.
This is a go or no-go check, and if the date
does not allow irrigation, subsequent checks
are unnecessary.
-------
2. A check is made to determine if precipitation
for that day exceeds a cutoff value. A cutoff value
of zero has typically been used. Under this condition,
if there is rainfall, irrigation has not been permitted.
3. A check is made to determine if the ground is fro-
zen. This is done by calculating whether the sum
of average daily temperatures for the previous
three days exceeds 96 °F. If the ground is proven fro-
zen by this criterion, 96 °F is replaced with a value
of 114 °F to use as the check for the following day.
In this way, the program determines that for ground
to freeze, average daily temperature for three days
must be less than 32 °F, and that for ground to thaw,
the three-day average temperature must be at least 38 °F.
4. Average temperature for the day under consideration
is checked. If it is less than 32 °F, no irrigation
is allowed.
5. Snowfall accumulation is next evaluated. If there
is snow cover on the ground, no irrigation is per-
mitted.
At this point, if all criteria for an acceptable day have been
met, the day is counted as an allowable day for irrigation.
To further determine if irrigation should be conducted on this
day, pond volume is checked to determine that there is at least
one day's pumping volume in storage. This aspect of the model
is one of the management conditions that has been considered.
It requires that the operator not pump small volumes of water
involving less than one day's operation of equipment. If it is an
allowable pumping day and there is water in the pond, the model
then checks disposal plots for water and nitrogen limits. Maximum
water limitation (accumulated precipitation and effluent) of two
inches and seven inches per week is permitted on a single disposal
plot. Nitrogen loading increases as effluent is applied to each
site. When nitrogen loading reaches the designated maximum value
(input parameter) and the above water limitation criteria permit
dewatering, the model increases its total disposal area by one plot
size so that a disposal site exists. Number of days pumped is then
incremented by one.
Assuming all the above criteria have been met, pond volume is
reduced by one day's pumping and disposal plot parameters (nitro-
gen and water) are incremented by the appropriate amounts. One
day's pumping is determined by multiplying pumping rate times
the 25 year-24 hour storm.
10
-------
Determining Runoff Value
Prior to calculating runoff from a particular storm, the program
performs a series of checks. These are itemized below:
1. The program determines if snowfall accumulation on
the day under consideration is greater than zero.
If there is accumulated snowfall, the precipitation
value is added to the accumulated precipitation
value and no runoff is added to the pond volume
value.
2. If snowfall accumulation is equal to zero and the
value of accumulated precipitation is greater
than zero, then precipitation for that day is in-
creased by the value of the accumulated precipi-
tation. The precipitation accumulated value is re-
turned to zero, and the new precipitation value for
that day (including both actual and previously accumu-
lated) is sent through the higher runoff prediction
equation for evaluating that day's runoff.
3. If precipitation is less than 0.05 inches, there
is no runoff for that day according to the model.
4. The next step is to determine which runoff predic-
tion equation to use, based upon whether it is a
warm or cold day. If the average daily temperature
is greater than 45 °F, it is considered a warm day;
if less than 45 °F, a cold day. At this point,
the antecedent moisture condition is also consid -
ered. If the previous five-day total antecedent
precipitation for a cold season exceeds 1.1 inches,
the higher runoff prediction value is used. For a
warm season, the higher prediction value is used if
the antecedent moisture condition exceeds 2.1 inches.
5. At this point, the program calculates runoff for the
day under consideration. Feedlot runoff is pre-
dicted by using Soil Conservation Service Runoff
Equations. The method was developed from correlation
of runoff from various storms on agricultural watersheds
in many parts of the U. S. and is described in Schwab et
al. (1966) as:
Q _ (P - . 25) (2.
w P + .85 <"*'
where Q = direct surface runoff, inches
P = storm rainfall, inches
S = maximum potential difference between
rainfall and runoff, inches.
S is a measure of surface infiltration and storage;
thus, as S increases, runoff, Q, decreases.
11
-------
The Soil Conservation Service also defines:
where N = an arbitrary curve number varying from
0 to 100.
0 to 100.
As N increases, Q also increases and when N = 100,
equation (2) reduces to Q = P, i.e., all precipita-
tion results in runoff.
The utilization of N = 91 for an average soil mois-
ture condition and N = 97 for a wet soil is defined
by the following antecedent rainfall and seasonal
temperature criteria:
Warm Season
(Preceding 5-day average temperature greater than 45 °F)
N = 91 if 5-day antecedent precipitation < 2.1 inches
N = 97 if 5-day antecedent precipitation > 2.1 inches
Cold Season
(Preceding 5-day average temperature less than 45 °F)
N = 91 if 5-day antecedent precipitation < 1.1 inches
N = 97 if 5-day antecedent precipitation > 1.1 inches
If runoff is in part from snowfall melt, an N value of
97 is used and the pond is forced to hold all runoff
irrespective of the 25 year- 24 hour value.
6. The next step is to determine if precipitation is in
excess of the 25 year-24 hour value. If so, the pro-
gram does not require the pond to increase its vol-
ume to retain runoff. Storm date and runoff are re-
corded, and if overflow occurs, statistics are ac-
cumulated.
Termination
After weather data for the last day of the year have been pro-
cessed, it is determined whether this is the end of the program or
if another run through the yearly iterative process is required.
If necessary, the program returns to the beginning of the iterative
process and repeats. If this is the last year of available data,
the program proceeds to calculate statistics for the run including
total rainfall, total runoff, number of overflows, number of
pumping days permissible, number of pumping days, and disposal
areas and then writes these total statistics plus a series of
yearly statistics.
12
-------
In this model, seven management dewatering policies have been
defined as shown in Table 1. Management policies are stored
on a magnetic file and a specific policy is selected for each
computer simulation. Not all seven management policies are
applicable to each climatic region in the U. S.; however, they
were designed to provide a full range of potential operating
policies. Each policy contains a yearly array of zeroes and
ones; a zero designates that pumping is not permitted while a one
indicates that pumping is allowed on the specific day. The
sufficient design model is flowcharted in Figure 2.
13
-------
Start
Input: Design pumping rate
25 yr-24 hr storm
Starting year
Ending year
Write: Pond size
Determine pond
surface area
c
Stop
No
No
Input: Daily rainfall,
snow and temp.
Accumulate rainfall
1
No
Determine runoff
Decrease pond
volume
Add runoff
to pond
Determine overflow
Increase pond volume
if needed
Figure 2. Flowchart of feedlot runoff retention sufficient
design model.
14
-------
SECTION 4
SUFFICIENT DESIGN MODEL INPUTS
Weather data from seven unique climatological regions of the
U. S. were used in the model to evaluate the effect of alternate
pumping schedules on required pond volume. The seven locations,
ranging in annual precipitation from 13 to 75 inches, are listed
with selected climatic attributes in Table 2. Each location
represents a major climatic region. Two stations, Astoria,
Oregon, and Corvallis, Oregon, are areas with chronic wet winters.
Pendleton, Oregon, represents an arid high plains region while
Bozeman, Montana, and Ames, Iowa, are stations which experience
snowfall accumulations and cold winters. Experiment, Georgia,
and Lubbock, Texas, on the other hand, represent mild winter
conditions with occasional catastrophic rainfall events.
In addition to the above climatic data, the sufficient design
model requires selection of a pumping-dewatering rate, expressed
as a fraction of the 25 year-24 hour recurrence storm. Values of
0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 1.0 times the 25 year-24 hour value were
studied at each of the selected stations. Before a simulation
run at a particular location commenced, a management policy was
selected from Table 1.
15
-------
TABLE 2. CLIMATIC ATTRIBUTES OF SELECTED FEEDLOT LOCATIONS
Location
Pendleton, OR
Lubbock, TX
Bozeman, MT
Ames, IA
Cor vail is, OR
Experiment, GA
Astoria, OR
Average
annual
rainfall ,
inches
13.39
18.62
19.23
30.91
39.66
49.90
75.39
Average
January
tgmp,
F
30.9
39.0
19.0
19.9
37.9
48.0
39.9
25 yr-24 hr
rainfall ,
inches
1.5
5.0
2.7
5.4
4.5
6.7
5.5
Years
cumulative
data
1914-71
1914-72
1908-70
1901-70
1914-71
1926-70
1914-71
Average
annual
runoff,
inches
1.60
5.99
4.76
11.05
12.52
19.40
32.95
-------
SECTION 5
SUFFICIENT DESIGN MODEL OUTPUTS
The simulation model analyzed five management dewatering pol-
icies at seven selected locations. For each location, the model
progressed through the years of climatic data listed in Table 2,
with pumping rates set at 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 1.0 times
the 25 year-24 hour storm. Tables 3-9 show model outputs for
Pendleton, Oregon; Lubbock, Texas; Bozeman, Montana; Ames, Iowa;
Corvallis, Oregon; Experiment, Georgia; and Astoria, Oregon,
respectively. Each table includes the pcnd surface area corre-
sponding to its unique location. The tables also contain the
minimum pond volume to hold all runoff from storms less than the
25-year event and the corresponding average number of pumping
days annually for each selected management dewatering policy.
Management policies 1, 6, and 7 (permitting all-year pumping,
applying effluent to a hay crop with winter disposal, and ap-
plying effluent to a hay crop without winter disposal, respec-
tively) , were analyzed at each station. In addition, two of the
three policies which applied effluent to corn fields were consid-
ered at each station. Policy 1 was then re-evaluated with pumping
permitted on all days; there was runoff in the pond even though the
volume was less than the one-day pumping capacity criterion.
Lastly, Table 10 shows the effects of relaxing the 25 year-24 hour
discharge criterion. For each location, the table contains the
minimum pond volume to hold all runoff except during the critical
(worst) year and the design volume which permits discharges during
5% of the years.
17
-------
TABLE 3 . REQUIRED RETENTION POND CAPACITY,
ACRE-IN./FEEDLOT ACRE, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PUMPING DAYS.
FOR PENDLETON, OREGON
AS A FUNCTION OF MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL POLICIES AND PUMPING CAPACITIES1
Management3
policy
Pumping rates,
0.075 0.15
acre-in./feedlot acre-day2
0.30 0.60 1.50
1
4
5
6
7
I6
capacity **
pumping days
capacity
pimping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
2.13
21.1
3.44
16.3
3.07
16.6
2.13
20.4
2.86
19.3
2.13
42.6
1.98
10.0
3.44
8.3
3.14
8.3
1.98
9.8
2.93
9.4
1.93
34.7
2.05
4.6
3.44
3.9
3.14
3.9
2.05
4.6
2.93
4.4
1.80
31.7
2.35
1.9
3.44
1.8
3.44
1.8
2.35
1.9
3.23
1.9
1.80
30.7
2.64
0.6
3.78
0.5
3.78
0.5
2.64
0.6
3.57
0.5
1.80
30.5
Detention pond area » 1,815.0 sq. ft./feedlot acre.
2Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times 25 yr-24 hr storm.
3Management dewataring policies are defined in Table 1.
''Capacity of retention pond in acre-in./feedlot acre.
5Average number of pumping days per year.
6Policy similar to 1 above, except dewatering was permitted without a full
day's pumping volume.
18
-------
TABLE 4. REQUIRED RETENTION POND CAPACITY,
ACRE-IN./FEEDLOT ACRE, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PUMPING DAYS.
FOR LUBBOCK, TEXAS
AS A FUNCTION OF MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL POLICIES AND PUMPING CAPACITIES1
Management3
policy
Pumping rates,
0.25 0.50
acre-in./feedlot acre-day2
1.00 2.00 5.00
1
2
3
6
7
I6
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity **
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
9.48
21.8
10.64
15.7
10.64
18.6
10.12
19.9
10.12
18.1
9.48
34.8
8.98
9.9
10.64
7.4
10.64
8.9
9.62
9.4
9.62
8.7
8.98
24.2
7.98
4.3
10.64
3.3
10.64
3.9
8.62
4.1
8.62
3.9
7.98
19.4
7.98
1.6
11.19
1.4
11.19
1.6
8.62
1.6
8.62
1.6
7.59
17.7
10.99
0.5
11.19
0.4
11.19
0.4
11.90
0.4
11.90
0.4
7.59
17.0
Detention pond area - 6,050.0 sq. ft./feedlot acre.
2Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times 25 yr-24 hr storm.
3Management dewatering policies are defined in Table 1.
"*Capacity of retention pond in acre-in./feedlot acre.
5Average number of pumping days per year.
6Policy similar to 1 above, except dewatering was permitted without a full
day's pumping volume.
19
-------
TABLE 5. REQUIRED RETENTION POND CAPACITY,
ACRE-IN./FEEDLOT ACRE, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PUMPING DAYS,
FOR BOZEMAN, MONTANA
AS A FUNCTION OF MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL POLICIES AND PUMPING CAPACITIES1
Management3
policy
Pumping rates,
0.135 0.27
acre-in./feedlot acre-day2
0.54 1.08 2.7
1
4
5
6
7
I6
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity"*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
9.06
32.7
13.46
30.2
13.32
30.7
9.68
31.5
9.81
31.2
8.97
47.3
8.17
15.9
13.56
15.3
13.29
15.4
8.71
15.7
8.98
15.6
8.13
33.7
8.30
7.6
13.77
7.4
13.23
7.5
8.30
7.6
8.84
7.6
7.79
27.3
8.26
3.6
13.77
3.6
12.69
3.6
8.26
3.7
9.34
3.6
7.25
24.7
8.18
1.4
13.77
1.4
13.77
1.4
8.18
1.4
10.53
1.4
6.68
23.8
1Retention pond area = 3,267.0 sq. ft./feedlot acre.
2Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times 25 yr-24 hr storm.
3Management dewatering policies are defined in Table 1.
**Capacity of retention pond in acre-in./feedlot acre.
5Average number of pumping days per year.
6Policy similar to 1 above, except dewatering was permitted without a full
day's pumping volume.
20
-------
TABLE 6. REQUIRED RETENTION POND CAPACITY,
ACRE-IN./FEEDLOT ACRE, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PUMPING DAYS,
FOR AMES, IOWA
AS A FUNCTION OF MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL POLICIES AND PUMPING CAPACITIES1
Managemer
policy
1
4
5
6
7
I6
it3
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pimping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days
capacity1*
pumping days5
Pumping rates,
0.27 0.54
10.33
44.0
16.42
40.1
14.07
40.9
10.69
42.3
11.15
41.8
10.07
59.2
10.13
21.5
16.42
20.3
13.85
20.6
10.67
21.0
11.22
20.9
9.80
39.9
acre-in./feedlot acre-day2
1.08 2.16 5.4
9.52
10.3
16.63
10.0
13.79
10.1
11.36
10.2
11.65
10.2
9.26
30.9
10.29
5.0
17.31
4.9
15.27
4.9
12.14
5.0
12.14
5.0
8.72
27.4
13.27
1.9
20.86
1.9
17.56
1.9
14.23
1.9
14.23
1.9
8.72
26.3
Detention pond area = 2,163.86 sq. ft./feedlot acre.
2Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times 25 yr-24 hr storm.
3Management dewatering policies are defined in Table 1.
"*Capacity of retention pond in acre-in./feedlot acre.
5Average number of pumping days per year.
6Policy similar to 1 above, except dewatering was permitted without a full
day's pumping volume.
21
-------
TABLE 7. REQUIRED RETENTION POND CAPACITY,
ACRE-IN./FEEDLOT ACRE, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PUMPING DAYS.
FOR CORVALLIS, OREGON
AS A FUNCTION OF MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL POLICIES AND PUMPING CAPACITIES1
Management
policy
1
4
5
6
7
I6
.3
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
- capacity *
pumping days
capacity"*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days5
Pumping rates,
0.225 0.45
20.24
69.8
45.85
68.8
35.30
71.4
20.24
68.5
40.47
70.2
20.05
80.1
17.84
34.9
33.77
38.6
29.55
39.1
17.84
34.8
29.72
39.8
17.80
51.9
acre-in./feedlot acre-day2
0.90 1.80 4.50
16.48
17.2
34.22
20.0
29.72
20.1
16.48
17.2
29.75
20.8
15.78
39.0
13.78
8.3
34.22
9.9
30.62
9.9
13.78
8.3
30.62
10.3
13.08
33.6
15.54
3.2
34.87
3.7
31.75
3.7
15.50
3.2
32.77
3.8
11.92
31.3
1 Retention pond area = 5,445.0 sq. ft./feedlot acre.
2Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times 25 yr-24 hr storm.
3Management dewatering policies are defined in Table 1.
"*Capacity of retention pond in acre-in./feedlot acre.
Average number of pumping days per year.
Policy similar to 1 above, except dewatering was permitted without a full
day's pumping volume.
7Retention pond surface area = 10,890 sq. ft./feedlot acre.
22
-------
TABLE 8. REQUIRED RETENTION POND CAPACITY,
ACRE-IN./FEEDLOT ACRE, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PUMPING DAYS,
FOR EXPERIMENT, GEORGIA
AS A FUNCTION OF MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL POLICIES AND PUMPING CAPACITIES1
Management3
policy
Pumping rates,
0.335 0.67
acre-in./feedlot acre-day2
1.34 2.68 6.7
1
2
3
6
7
1s
capacity"
pumping days5
capacity"
pumping days5
capacity "
pumping days
capacity"*
pumping days5
capacity"
pumping days
capacity"
pumping days5
11.90
66.1
24.50
61.1
23.54
62.3
11.90
64.4
23.54
61.8
14.27
88.7
10.56
32.1
23.83
31.0
22.52
31.3
10.56
31.8
22.87
31.3
10.24
58.6
10.68
15.6
22.69
15.4
22.00
15.5
10.68
15.6
22.00
15.5
10.24
45.0
10.51
7.7
22.55
7.6
21.95
7.6
11.55
7.6
22.03
7.6
10.24
39.7
16.44
3.0
25.34
3.0
24.16
3.0
16.44
3.0
24.16
3.0
10.24
38.3
Detention pond area = 8,107.0 sq. ft./feedlot acre.
2Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times 25 yr-24 hr storm.
3Management de'watering policies are defined in Table 1.
"Capacity of retention pond in acre-in./feedlot acre.
Average number of pumping days per year.
6Policy similar to 1 above, except dewatering was permitted without a full
day's pumping volume.
23
-------
TABLE 9. REQUIRED RETENTION POND CAPACITY,
ACRE-IN./FEEDLOT ACRE, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF PUMPING DAYS,
FOR ASTORIA, OREGON
AS A FUNCTION OF MANAGEMENT DISPOSAL POLICIES AND PUMPING CAPACITIES1
Management
policy
1
4
5
6
7
I6
.3
capacity "
pumping days5
capacity
pumping days5
capacity1*
pumping days
capacity"*
pumping days5
capacity"
pumping days5
capacity**
pumping days5
Pumping rates, acre-in./feedlot acre-day2
0.275 0.55 1.10 2.20 5.5
— 8 72. 917 49.11
107.6 45.9
101.21
52.6
86.41
52.7
49.11
45.7
95.50
52.8
72. 917 48.53
114.2 61.5
43.74
22.8
99.90
26.5
84.21
26.6
43.74
22.8
82.38
26.7
42.48
44.7
45.40
9.0
99.90
10.5
83.91
10.6
45.40
9.0
84.28
10.6
40.12
36.4
Detention pond area = 13,310 sq. ft./feedlot
sq. ft./feedlot acre.
2Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times 25 yr-24 hr storm.
'Management dewatering policies are defined in Table 1.
"Capacity of retention pond in acre-in./feedlot acre.
5Average number of pumping days per year.
6Policy similar to 1 above, except dewatering was permitted without a full
day's pumping volume.
Retention pond surface area = 19,965 sg. ft./feedlot acre.
8Feasible design did not exist.
24
-------
TABLE 10. MINIMUM POND VOLUME WHEN DISCHARGES
ARE ALLOWED FOR ALL-YEAR DEWATERING POLICY
WITH 0.4 TIMES 25 YEAR-24 HOUR EVENT PUMPING RATE
(acre-inches/feedlot acre)
Location
Pendleton, OR
Lubbock, TX
Bozeman, MT
Ames, IA
Corvallis, OR
Experiment, GA
Astoria, OR
Hold all
volume
<25 yr
storm
2.35
7.98
8.26
10.29
13.78
10.51
43.74
Discharge
permitted
during worst
year
2.27
7.70
7.10
8.55
13.29
10.21
40.08
Discharge
permitted
during 5%
of years
1.88
6.14
4.79
6.35
10.51
9.69
38.90
25
-------
SECTION 6
INTERPRETATION OF SUFFICIENT DESIGN OUTPUT
The sufficient design technique calculated minimum pond volumes
required to retain all runoff except that attributable to pre-
cipitation events in excess of the 25 year-24 hour storm. The
model analyzed five management dewatering policies with selected
pumping capacities at each site location. Dewatering Policy 1
(all-year pumping), evaluated at each location, represented the
extreme in management dedication since pond dewatering was allowed
on any day with permissible climatic conditions; pump-operating
personnel were assumed available throughout the complete year. At
all stations, this policy required minimum pond volumes to satisfy
the design criterion. However, this policy required the largest
number of annual pumping days.
Four dewatering policies simulated effluent disposal onto a corn
crop. Policy 4 permitted disposal only during June, July, and
August while Policy 5 expanded this period to include a post-
harvest (October 15-November 15) disposal. Policies 2 and 3 were
identical to Policies 4 and 5, respectively, with an additional
preplanting (April) disposal. Policies 2 and 3 were tested on
southern regions where early spring disposal seemed appropriate.
At all stations, the corn scenarios without post-harvest disposal
(Policies 2 or 4) required the largest pond volumes. When post-
harvest disposals were permitted (Policies 3 or 5), sufficient pond
volumes were reduced an average of 5.8%, 0.0%, 3.0%, 15.0%, 13.6%,
4.0%, and 15.4% at Pendleton, Lubbock, Bozeman, Ames, Corvallis,
Experiment, and Astoria, respectively.
The last two dewatering policies simulated disposal of effluent
onto hay fields. Management Policy 7 permitted irrigation from
April 1-May 15, then 15-day on-off cycling commencing April 1
and terminating October 31. Dewatering Policy 6 extended Policy 7
to include irrigating during winter months. Since Policy 6 per-
mitted pond dewatering during every month, resultant pond volumes
and average number of yearly pumpings were identical to management
Policy 1 (all-year pumping) at Pendleton, Bozeman, Corvallis,
Experiment, and Astoria, while pond volumes at Lubbock and Ames
increased 7.5% and 10%, respectively, over those of Policy 1.
Management Policies 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 did not permit winter dis-
posals and required substantially larger pond volumes than the
all-year pumping policy. Specifically, Pendleton, Lubbock,
26
-------
Bozeman, Ames, Corvallis, Experiment, and Astoria required average
volume increases of 49%, 15%, 45%, 39%, 99.7%, 97.4%, and 97.7%,
respectively, above corresponding volumes in Policy 1.
In addition to minimum pond volume, the model also listed aver-
age number of pumping days per year for each simulated manage-
ment policy with a selected pumping rate. As pumping rates were
increased, design volumes and number of pumping days generally
decreased. In selected cases design volumes actually increased as
pumping rates were increased. These enlarged volumes resulted from
requiring the pumping system to always discharge a full day's ca-
pacity. As daily pumping capacities were increased from 0.05 to
1.0 times the 25 year-24 hour storm, pond volumes experienced only
marginal reductions. However, a several-fold reduction in average
annual pumping days occurred as pumping capacity was increased
throughout the same spectrum. For example, increasing pumping
rates from 0.05 to 1.0 times the 25 year-24 hour storm on the
all-year dewatering policy at Bozeman reduced the sufficient pond
volume from 9.06 to 8.18 acre-inches per acre of feedlot while the
corresponding average number of yearly irrigations was reduced from
32.7 to 1.4. Therefore, the major benefit of increased pumping
capacity was a substantial reduction in annual number of pumpings.
At a specific pumping capacity, average number of yearly pumpings
was relatively constant among alternate dewatering policies.
This, again, was a result of requiring the pumping system to
always discharge a full day's capacity. Since total annual runoff
was identical for all dewatering policies at a selected climatic
location, annual variation in effluent disposal was a function of
only the interaction of management dewatering policies and daily
pond surface evaporations. That is, management dewatering policies
requiring effluent to remain in the pond for extended periods
resulted in larger total annual surface evaporations. For ex-
ample, a pumping rate of .05 times the 25 year-24 hour event at Lub-
bock required 21.8 average pumpings per year for the all-year
dewatering policy, but only 15.7 average pumpings per year when
effluent was applied to a corn field in April, June, July, and
August (Policy 2).
Effects of requiring the irrigation system to pump only when
effluent inventory exceeded daily pumping capacity were pursued
by analyzing management dewatering Policy 1 with this constraint
removed. The last rows of Tables 3-9 list the results of removing
condition 6 describing a suitable irrigation day. That is, irri-
gation was permitted on days having suitable climatic conditions
and any amount, no matter how minute, of pond effluent. Sufficient
pond volumes were reduced an average of 14%, 7.2%, 12%, and 6.6%
while number of average annual pumpings increased 1487%, 972%,
411%, and 275% for Pendleton, Lubbock, Ames, and Corvallis, re-
spectively. The relaxation of condition 6 resulted in an excessive
number of partial capacity pumpings with only marginal reductions
in sufficient pond volumes.
27
-------
At a selected location, the sufficient design technique recorded
each year's minimum pond volume as the model progressed through the
climatic data. Upon completion of the simulation process, the
model selected the largest volume which occurred during the run and
listed that value as the sufficient design minimum volume. There-
fore, volumes reported in Tables 3-9 corresponded to maximum values
encountered during each complete simulation run. Effects of relax-
ing the 25 year-24 hour discharge criterion were studied at each
location by disregarding years containing critical design volumes
corresponding to the all-year dewatering policy with the 0.4 times
the 25 year-24 hour storm pumping rate. Table 10 shows pond
volumes to hold all runoff less than the 25 year-24 hour event,
pond volume which excluded the critical (worst) year, and vol-
ume which resulted from excluding the largest 5% of yearly minimum
volumes at each location. When discharge during the critical year
was permitted (i.e., the year was excluded from the analysis),
minimum volumes were reduced 3%, 4%, 14%, 17%, 4%, 3%, and 8% at
Pendleton, Lubbock, Bozeman, Ames, Corvallis, Experiment, and
Astoria, respectively. If discharges were permitted during 5% of
the year, minimum volumes for the above locations could be reduced
by 20%, 23%, 42%, 38%, 24%, 8%, and 11%, respectively. The mag-
nitude of the volumetric reductions at Bozeman, Montana, and Ames,
Iowa, (the cold weather locations) was approximately twice that of
the remaining locations.
28
-------
SECTION 7
DESIGN EVALUATION MODEL
To detail a fuller relationship among major design variables
(pumping rates, storage volumes, and pumping days), a computer
simulation model was developed to evaluate specific design pa-
rameters. The model required the selection of pumping rates,
pond volumes, and management policies. For each design, the
model determined number and volume of yearly discharge. Pro-
gram listing and documentation are contained in Appendix B.
29
-------
SECTION 8
ECONOMIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND DESCRIPTION
The basic function of this model is to calculate initial invest-
ment and annual operating costs for feedlot runoff control fa-
cilities. The model is comprised of a set of engineering cost
equations reflecting assumptions about the design of various
system components. It provides investment and operating cost
information on a standardized runoff control system for open-air,
earth-surfaced lots. The model considers a variety of systems
to control runoff from feedlots, all of which have the follow-
ing basic components:
1. A diversion structure to prevent clean water from
entering the feedlot;
2. A structure to collect and intercept runoff from
the feedlot;
3. A settling basin to remove suspended solids from
runoff;
4. A retention pond to store accumulated runoff until
it evaporates or can be disposed of without entering
surface waters;
5. A disposal system, commonly composed of irrigation
equipment, to dewater the retention pond and dispose
of accumulated runoff onto land.
Regardless of feedlot size or location, items 1-4 will always be
constructed using basic design assumptions described in the latter
part of this section. For cost comparison purposes, hand move,
side roll, stationary big gun, and traveling big gun irrigation
systems are analyzed as potential disposal tools. Hand move,
stationary big gun, and side roll systems are "costed" at each
site, regardless of feedlot size or pumping requirements. Trav-
eling big gun is included subject to a minimum pumping rate.
COMPONENT COST VARIABLES
Cost variables representing various component and service costs
were provided by extension specialists in waste management and
irrigation, equipment dealers, and various contractors in the
northwestern U. S. Most service costs, excavation, engineering,
surveying, and so forth provide estimates for the entire U. S.
30
-------
All irrigation component costs are actual market prices as quoted
by manufacturers and equipment dealers. Tables in Appendix D
contain a listing of all cost inputs used in this study.
DERIVATION OF ENGINEERING COST EQUATION
Cost equations are divided into two groups: (1) those used to
calculate initial investment, and (2) those used to calculate
annual operating costs. Subsequent sections describe the as-
sumptions and procedures used to derive these equations.
INVESTMENT
Investment costs are grouped into the following four categories:
(1) earthwork, (2) land, (3) irrigation equipment, and (4) mis-
cellaneous items.
Earthwork
Retention Pond—
The retention pond is assumed to contain the following con-
figuration:
1. Water depth is a maximum of 14 feet when the pond is
full;
2. One foot of freeboard is provided, rendering total
depth 15 feet;
3. The pond is square; inside slope is 2:1, and outside
slope is 3:1;
4. Top width of the berm is six feet.
Required storage volume is provided as a program input. How-
ever, design assumptions require one foot of freeboard. Thus, a
volume larger than the storage volume must be excavated to satisfy
these two requirements. This procedure has three basic steps:
1. Given the required storage volume, length of pond at the
waterline is calculated;
2. This length is used to calculate length of the pond
at the freeboard level;
3. The length of the pond at freeboard level is used to
calculate the required excavation.
Pond volume is represented by
V = wld + sd2(w + 1) + 4/3s2d3 (4)
where w = width, feet
1 = length, feet
d = depth, feet
s = slope of bank, feet/foot
31
-------
Utilizing the above design assumptions, equation (4) simplifies
to :
V = 14L2 - 784L + 14630 (5)
where V = pond volume, ft
L = top length (at water line) of pond, feet
Equation (5) is solved for L and combined with the length re-
su^ting from pond freeboard. The total excavation volume, in ft ,
is :
EV = 15(Lpb2 - 60LFb + 1200) (6)
where EV = necessary excavation volume, ft
Lp, = length of pond at freeboard level, feet
Equation (6) represents total excavation volume required to con-
struct the pond.
Settling Basin—
One acre-inch of settling basin volume is assumed for each feed-
lot acre. Excavation volume is calculated as follows:
SBVOL = FLAREA (134.4) (7)
where SBVOL = excavation volume, cubic yards
FLAREA = feedlot area, acres
134.4 = cubic yards/acre-inch
Clean Water Diversion—
Clean water diversion runoff collection terraces are assumed
eight feet wide and required on three sides of the feedlot.
Assuming a square fe.edlot, the cost of contructing clean water
diversion is calculated by the following equation:
DCIV = (3)^43,560) (FIAREA)T (COST B) (8)
where FLAREA = feedlot area, acres
43,560 = square feet per acre
COST B = construction cost per lineal foot
Cost of constructing the retention pond and settling basin is
calculated by multiplying total excavation volume times cost per
excavated cubic yard. The sum of this cost and the cost of clean
water diversion is the total investment in earthwork. Cost of
disposing of excavated material either on-site or elsewhere is
highly site-specific and is not included in this analysis.
*Equation simplifying steps are included in McDowell (1977).
32
-------
Land
A cost is assessed for land occupied by the retention pond, set-
tling basin,collecting diversion structures, and, depending upon
disposal policy, disposal site.
Retention Pond—
Pond configuration and construction are quite site-specific, de-
pending upon local topography and other considerations. Some sites
can be excavated simply as a "hole in the ground"; others may re-
quire earthen berms, while some may even contain square dimensions.
For purposes of calculating retention pond land area, the follow-
ing method is used to determine area required in an "average"
situation: land area is assumed square, with side dimensions of
(L + 101) feet. The sum of 101 comprises:
1. Six feet (for top width of berm), plus
2. Forty-five feet (horizontal distance covered by 15-foot
berm with 3:1 outside slope), plus
3. Fifty feet (25-foot setback for fence at each end of pond).
Thus land area required for the retention pond and perimeter,
LARPAP, (in acres) is calculated as
LARPAP _ (L + 101)2 (9)
LAKPAP - 43f560 V '
where L = length of the retention pond at freeboard level.
Settling Basin—
Settling basins are assumed to have a uniform depth of four feet,
a length to width ratio of 2:1, an inside slope of 3:1, and square
ends. Volume is calculated by the equation
V = L(W - DS)D (10)
where L = length of basin at top, feet
W = width at top, feet
S = inside slope, feet/foot
D = depth, feet
V = volume, ft
Substituting 2W for L and replacing variables S and D with the
appropriate constants yields the quadratic
0 = 2W2 - 24W - V/4 (11)
Once the settling basin volume is selected, the top width, W,
is determined by equation (1).
33
-------
Diversion/Collecting Terraces—
Using design assumptions previously described, land area occupied
by collecting terraces is calculated as follows:
LADIV - 8 X 3C/FLAREA x 43,560)
LADIV - 43,560 U2)
where LADIV = area required for clean water diversion,
acres
3C/FLAREA x 43,560) = lineal feet of diversion required
8 = width of diversion, ft
43,560 = ftVacre
Disposal of Effluent—
Under a nutrient utilization disposal policy, land is used pri-
marily for crop production, thus is not included as a cost.
With a strict disposal policy, the disposal site is assumed un-
productive and becomes part of the required investment.
Total land cost is the sum of land areas required for the re-
tention pond, settling basin, collecting/diversion terraces, and
disposal (if applicable) times a per-acre cost.
Sprinklers
The cost of an irrigation system will be computed in two parts:
1. The cost of the system capable of achieving one day's
pumping;
2. The cost of extending the system to cover the entire
disposal site.
Each irrigation system consists of three basic components: •(!)
piping, (2) pump, and (3) sprinkling unit. This is the core of
the system necessary to apply a day's effluent to the disposal
plot. Cost of extending the system requires additional mainline
to irrigate the total disposal site with the basic system.
Implicit in this procedure is the assumption that the same volume
is pumped on any one day.
Hand Move Sprinklers—
The basic assumptions used in designing a hand move waste dis-
posal system are outlined below:
1. Laterals are comprised of 40-foot sections of 3-
or 4-inch aluminum pipe with a sprinkler on each 40-
foot section;
2. Laterals are moved 60 feet along mainline to the next
set (sprinkler spacing is 60 by 40 feet);
34
-------
3. Area irrigated per sprinkler is approximately .0551
acre;
4. Hourly application rate is 0.33 inches per hour.
The number of 40-foot sections that must be purchased to irrigate
the disposal plot is a function of set duration. This analysis
assumes a maximum of two sets per day, regardless of set dura-
tion. If the disposal plot is irrigated with two sets per day
and a minimum of two hours is allowed to move laterals to the
next set, a maximum of ten hours is permissible for each set.
Thus, with set time, TSET < ten hours, the disposal plot can be
irrigated in two sets; if TSET > ten hours, the disposal plot
must be irrigated with one set. Hours required per set, TSET,
are dependent upon pumping rates. With pumping rate, MAXDA, ex-
pressed in acre-inches per acre day, and hourly application rate
of 0.33 acre-inches, TSET = MAXDA/0.33. With irrigated area per
sprinkler equal to 0.0551 acres, number of sprinklers required
to cover a one acre set is 18.15.
60' x 40' acres
43,560 (ft2/ac)
where sprinkler spacing is 60' x 40'.
Given the cost per 40-foot section, COST D, cost per acre per
set equals 18.15 times (COST D). The total cost of laterals re-
quired to irrigate a given disposal plot, ADP, is calculated by
one of the following equations:
IRCA = 18.15 (COST D) (ADP) (14a)
where: TSET > 10 hours; ADP irrigated in one
set/day
IRCB = 9.075 (COST D) (ADP) (14b)
where: TSET < 10 hours; ADP irrigated in two
sets/day
Side Roll Sprinklers—
Design assumptions for the side roll system are identical to
those for hand move, with two additions:
1. Laterals are mounted on 72-inch wheels;
2. A small gasoline-powered drive unit is used to advance
the lateral to the next set.
A 1,320-foot lateral covers 1.8 acres per set; therefore, cost
per set-acre is equal to
0.556 COST E = C?S? E (15)
-L • o
where COST E = cost of a 1,320-foot lateral complete with wheels,
sprinklers and drive unit.
35
-------
Total cost of laterals for the side roll system is calculated
with one of the following equations:
IRCC = 0.556 (COST E) (ADP) (16a)
where: TSET > 10 hours; ADP irrigated in one set
IRCD = 0.278 (COST E) (ADP) (16b)
where: TSET < 10 hours; ADP irrigated in two sets
Stationary Big Gun—
Assuming an operating pressure of 100 psi, eleven discrete sizes
(in gpm) are available from a major manufacturer. In actual
practice, however, a continuum of set sizes may be achieved by
manipulating operating pressure and nozzle sizes.
The cost of a big gun system is calculated on the assumption that
by minor modifications, the operator can obtain a system (with one
or more big guns) that will irrigate an area equal to the disposal
plot size, ADP. Hence, the basic design variable for the big
gun system is gpm discharge, not size of disposal plot.
The big gun(s) required for a given system are selected on the
basis of total system discharge (gpm). Given a required dis-
charge, guns are selected and cost calculated using the following
assumptions:
1. Average application rate of 0.33 inches/hr for all big
guns;
2. Allowable sets per day and hours per set are the same as
described for the hand move and side roll systems;
3. 1,000 gpm is the maximum discharge rate of a single big
gun?
4. All systems requiring a discharge rate less than 1,000
gpm will use one big gun.
When the required discharge rate is greater than 1,000 gpm, more
than one gun is necessary. In such cases, the minimum number of
possible guns will be used, all with an identical discharge rate.
For example, with a required discharge rate of 2,400 gpm three guns
are necessary, each at a discharge rate of 800 gpm.
Total cost of the big gun(s) is based on number of guns and their
individual discharge capacity. Cost information on big guns
is contained in Appendix D.
Traveling Big Gun—
The traveling big gun is assumed equipped with a big gun-type
sprinkler whose characteristics are identical to the stationary
big gun described above. Models are available with discharge
capacities of approximately 250 to 1,000 gpm. Using an average
36
-------
stationary application rate of 0.33 acre-inches/hr , moving big
gun systems are designed using the following assumptions:
1. The moving big gun is capable of varying travel speed
to apply from one to six inches of waste per acre per day;
2. Two hours each day are included for moving the unit to
the next set, hence 22 hours/day are allotted for pumping;
3. Units are available with a capacity of 250 to 1,000 gpm;
4. If more than one unit is required, all will have identical
capacity;
5. The system is not applicable when required pumping rates
are less than 250 gpm (22-hour pumping day) .
With the design pump rate in acre-inches per day, the required dis-
charge capacity is equal to
MBGGPM = 22 x 6o' = 20-57 DPRATE
where MBGGPM = required discharge capacity of gun, gpm
DPRATE = design pumping rate, acre-inches per day
27,153 = gallons per acre-inch
22 = pumping hours per day
60 = minutes per hour
The above design assumptions dictate a capacity of 1,000 gpm;
when MBGGPM is greater than 1,000 gpm, the number of ^units required
is equal to NMBG, calculated by the FORTRAN equation
NMBG = IFIX + i-0 (18>
The total cost of moving big gun units is NMBG times its unit
price, listed in Appendix D.
Pumps —
All systems utilize electrically powered centrifugal pumps. The
hand move and side roll systems operate at 50 psi, big gun and
moving big gun systems at 100 psi. Pumps are selected primarily
on the basis of two criteria: total dynamic head (a collection of
friction losses, static lifts, and operating pressures), and gpm
discharge.
The FORTRAN command IFIX simply truncates the value contained in
the parentheses following the command. The addition of 1.0 to
MBGGPM/1,000 insures that any decimal value will be rounded to
the next highest integer.
37
-------
Assuming a level field, no lift to the pump, 20% loss of pressure
due to mainline friction and pressure loss due to couplings, etc.,
total dynamic head (in feet) is calculated as follows:
FEET OF HEAD = 2.31 (operating pressure + pressure losses
in system) , expressed in pounds per
square inch
= 2.31 (1.2) (operating pressure)
For hand move and side roll systems operating at 50 psi, total
dynamic head is 138 feet.
The discharge capacity (gpm) for a given system is based on the
design assumptions previously listed for each system type. Pump
discharge for hand move, side roll or big gun is dependent on
coverage of the disposal plot with one or two sets. With the
disposal plot irrigated in one set, discharge capacity (gpm) is
as follows:
GPM - 452.5 (DPRATE)
GPM -- — (19)
where DPRATE = design pumping rate (acre-inches per day)
TSET = hours per set ..
452.5 = 43,560 (ft Vac) (1 ft/12 in.) (7. 48 gal./ftJ)(l hr/
60 min)
With the disposal plot irrigated in two sets, gpm is as follows:
GPM - 226'3TE) (20)
Discharge capacity for a traveling big gun is calculated using the
procedure previously described. Costs of various size pumps are
presented in Appendix D (assuming pumping heads of 138 and 277
feet, respectively) . These costs include pump, motor, all elec-
trical switches, control panel pump base, and installation. Cost
of all accessories to the basic pump-motor combination is estimated
at 100% of the pump-motor cost. Table D-6 (Appendix D) contains
an itemization of these costs for two different pump sizes.
Mainlines —
The procedure for determining pump cost for a given system is
outlined as follows:
1. Pump costs for hand move and side roll system are taken
from Table D-3. Pump costs for big gun and moving big gun
systems are taken from Table D-4.
2. In each case, the smallest size pump with capacity
greater than or equal to required gpm for the system in
question is selected.
38
-------
3. When the required discharge rate cannot be achieved by
the use of one pump, multiple pumps of identical size
will be selected. In each case, the smallest number of
pumps possible will be used.
4. Total pump cost is the product of number of pumps required
and price of that pump(s) as determined by its capacity.
All systems utilize portable aluminum mainline; cost is determined
by pipe diameter and length. Appendix D presents maximum capa-
cities (in gpm) and costs of commercially available aluminum
mainline. Because pipe diameter required for a given system is
based on total pump capacity (gpm), the model selects the smallest
diameter pipe with capacity greater than or equal to required gpm.
Length of mainline is based on the following assumptions:
1. Distance from pump to disposal site is 300 feet.
2. All disposal sites for hand move, side roll, and big gun
systems are square.
3. The disposal site for a traveling big gun is rectangular,
width being limited to 1,620 feet by the length of the
flexible irrigation base. (A maximum length of 660 feet
allows a travel path of 1,320 feet, which, when added to
a 300-foot wetted diameter, equals 1,620 feet.)
4. Mainline for hand move and side roll systems must extend
the length of the disposal site.
5. Mainline for the big gun system must extend the length
plus the width of the disposal site.
Using these assumptions, lineal footage of mainline required for
the various systems is calculated as follows:
1. Hand move and side roll systems ,
LMAINA = 300 + [(ADS) (43,560)) * (21)
where LMAINA = feet of mainline required for hand
move and side roll systems
300 = distance from pump to edge of dis-
posal site
ADS = area of disposal site, acres
43,560 = ft2/acre
2. Big gun ,
LMAINB = 300 + 2 [(ADS) (43,560~)] * (22)
where LMAINB = feet of mainline required for
big gun systems
300 = distance from pump to disposal
site, feet
ADS = disposal site area, acres
43,560 = ft2/acre
39
-------
3. Traveling big gun
LMAINC = 300 + [(ADS) (43,560]] /1,620 (23)
where LMAINC = feet of mainline required for
traveling big gun systems
300 = distance from pump to disposal site
in feet
and [(ADS) (43,560]] /1,620 is the length of the
disposal site as:
ADS = disposal site area, acres
43,560 = ft2/acre
1,620 = width of disposal site, feet
The total cost of mainline for any system is determined by multi-
plying total pipe length by per-foot cost, as determinedby pipe
diameter and the above selection process.
Fencing—
Fencing is required for the retention pond and perimeter. Given
the area occupied by pond and perimeter at (L + 101)2, the required
lineal feet of fence, LF, is calculated as LF = 4(L + 101).
Seeding and Erosion Control—
Seeding exposed earthwork to grass is required to prevent ero-
sion. An expenditure of one percent of the total earthwork cost
is assumed for seeding.
Engineering—
A fixed cost of $200 is included to cover surveying, other travel,
etc., associated with construction of facilities. No engineering
costs are included for design of earthworks for the disposal sys-
tem. Such costs would be highly site-specific; in addition, in
most cases, Soil and Water Conservation and University Extension
personnel are available to perform such duties at no cost to the
proprietor.
Settling. Basin Check Dams—
This analysis assumes that two expanded metal screen dams are
installed in each settling basin, with total feet of check dams
equal to twice basin width. The cost, which includes materials
and installation, is calculated on a per-foot basis. Settling
basin widths are described in the calculation of land area oc-
cupied by the settling basin.
ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
Operating and ownership costs are grouped into the following
six categories: (1) interest and depreciation, (2) repair and
maintenance, (3) taxes, (4) insurance, (5) labor, and (6) energy.
40
-------
Interest and Depreciation
The cost of depreciation and interest is expressed as a series of
equivalent annual costs, amortizing principal and interest pay-
ments over the lifetime of the investment. This is calculated by
multiplying total investment times amortization factor, reflecting
a lifetime of ten years and a 10% interest rate for all items
exclusive of land, which is not depreciated. All items are assumed
to have zero salvage value at the end of ten years.
Although actual lifetimes of some investment items are in excess
of ten years, all are depreciated over the ten-year period to
reflect the uncertainty that exists with respect to future prices,
irrigation and waste disposal technology, livestock production
practices, and institutional factors which may alter existing
socially acceptable forms of waste disposal.
Periodic replacement of materials is only required in the case
of the traveling big gun system, which utilized a flexible irri-
gation hose with a lifetime of two to five years, depending on
soil conditions and operating practices. For this study, a life-
time of three years was assumed. To account for replacement of
this flexible irrigation hose, initial cost of the system includes
an outlay for replacing the hose in four and seven years following
initial purchase. This cost is the sum of the present values of
the hose, discounted at 10% for the appropriate number of years
(see McDowell, 1977 for details).
Repair and Maintenance
Annual repair and maintenance costs are calculated on the basis of
initial investment, using the following coefficients:
1. Pumps: 6%
2. Mainline: 2%
3. Hand move laterals: 2%
4. Side roll laterals: 3%
5. Big gun: 2%
6. Traveling big gun: 1%
7. Earthworks: 0.5%'
Taxes
An annual cost for property taxes assumes that a uniform tax
rate of 1.5% is applied to the full value of all land and invest-
ment items.
41
-------
Insurance
An annual insurance cost of 0.3% of the initial investment in
irrigation equipment is used in the model.
Labor
In addition to labor costs represented in maintenance and repair,
labor is required for operating the irrigation system. Using labor
requirements estimated for hand move, big gun, and traveling
big gun systems by Lorimer (1974) and for the side roll system
by Gossett (1976), equations were developed to calculate labor
costs for each system; these are summarized in Table 11.
TABLE 11. LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR
OPERATING VARIOUS IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
System
Hand move J
Side roll2
Stationary big gun3
Traveling big gun"
Area/ set
(acres)
1.8
1.8
2.2
10.0
Labor/ set
(minutes)
70
20
70
60
Labor/acre
(hours)
0.65
0.18
0.53
0.10
11,320-foot lateral with 60 feet between sets.
21,320-foot lateral with 60 feet between sets.
3350-foot wetted diameter.
k350-foot wetted diameter and 1,320-foot travel,
Hand Move—
With 70 minutes required per 1.8 acre set (0.633 hours per acre),
the labor required per pumping day is .65 times the disposal plot
area (ADP). Yearly labor cost, CLABHM, is represented by the
following equation:
CLABHM = 0.65 (ADP) (PDAYS) (COST N) (24)
where PDAYS = number of pumping days per year
COST N = hourly wage rate
ADP = disposal plot area, acres.
42
-------
Side Roll —
Labor requirements for the side roll system (1,320-foot lateral,
60-foot move) are 20 minutes per lateral per move. Since the
operator is required only to start and stop the power unit which
advances the lateral to the next set, labor requirements are cal-
culated, not on a per-acre basis, but with respect to number of
laterals. With a maximum lateral length of 1,320 feet (1.8 acres
per set), the number of laterals, N, is represented by one of the
following FORTRAN equations:
N* = IFIX (ADP/1.8 + 1) (25a)
N** = IFIx[°-^AQP + l] = IFIX (.278ADP + 1) (25b)
Annual cost of labor is then calculated by one of the following
equations:
CLABSR = [icOST N) (PDAYS) (.33l| (N ) (26a)
CLABSR = £2) (COST N) (PDAYS) (.33J] (N**) (26b)
* **
N - irrigated in one set; N - irrigated in two sets.
where 0.33 = hours required to move each lateral
Other variables as previously defined.
Big Gun —
Using the value 0.53 hr per acre from Table 11, the labor required
per pumping day equals 0.53 (ADP). Yearly labor costs, CLABBG, are
then calculated as follows:
CLABBG =0.53 (ADP) (PDAYS) (COST N) (27)
(With all variables defined as above.)
Traveling Big Gun —
Using the labor requirement of one hour per day per unit, the an-
nual cost of labor, CLABTG, is calculated as follows:
CLABTG = (NMBG) (PDAYS) (COST N) (28)
where NMBG = number of traveling big guns in system
PDAYS = average number pumping days per year
COST N = hourly wage rate
Labor costs for all systems assume that sprinkler units are moved
to an adjacent disposal plot each day the system is operated.
For hand move and big gun, labor costs are the same regardless of
number of sets on the disposal plot. With systems designed to
cover the disposal plot in two sets, two moves are required;
however, the system contains only half the equipment as a one set
system.
43
-------
Energy
Annual cost of energy represents the cost of electricity for pump-
ing. Energy requirements for pumping are based on three para-
meters: (1) total volume pumped, (2) total feet of dynamic head
at the pump, and (3) efficiency of the pump and its drive unit.
The amount of energy required to lift one acre-inch of water one
foot equals
E = (1 acre-inch) (27,158 gal ./ac-inch) (8.337 Ibs/gal . )
(1 foot)
= 226,497.72 foot-lbs
Converting to horsepower-hours :
E = (226,497.72 foot-lbs) /( 33 , 000 foot-lbs/min-hp)
(60 min/hr) _,
E = 1.14393 x 10~ hp-hour per acre-inch per foot of lift
Converting this relation to kilowatt-hours:
E = (1.4393 x 10 hp-hour) (1 kilowatt-hour/I . 34 hp-hour)
_2
E = 8.5368 x 10 kilowatt-hrs per acre-inch per foot of
lift.
With feet of lift represented by total feet of dynamic head (pre-
viously calculated in the section describing pump selection) , as-
suming a pump efficiency of 70% and a motor efficiency of 88%,
(61.6% combined efficiency), the per acre-inch cost of energy for
pumping is
„__ _ (8.5368 x 10"2) (TDH) (CKWH) (29)
CELEC -- -
where CELEC = dollar cost per acre-inch pumped
8.5368 = kilowatt-hours required to lift one acre-inch of
water one foot at 100% efficiency
TDH = total dynamic head, feet
CKWH = cost per kilowatt-hour
0.616 = combined efficiency of pump and motor
Thus, the annual energy cost at any site is calculated from pump
ing head, average acre-inches pumped per year, and cost per kilo
watt-hour of electricity.
44
-------
SECTION 9
ECONOMIC MODEL INPUTS
The model requires basic design parameters to calculate initial
and annual costs of a feedlot runoff control system. These para-
meters include: (1) feedlot area, (2) design pumping rate (vol-
ume per day), (3) required storage volume, (4) annual pumping
days, (5) total disposal land area, and (6) a single day's "set"
disposal area. The model can evaluate two disposal policies:
(1) nutrient utilization, and (2) strict waste disposal. The
nutrient utilization policy assumes that waste nutrients are
used (applied at 200 Ibs of nitrogen per acre) for crop production,
and therefore does not charge the feedlot runoff control system for
the disposal site. The strict waste disposal policy assumes that
the disposal site is used only for effluent application without
regard for nutrient and salt accumulations; this policy permits
1,200 Ibs of nitrogen per acre. The initial investment for this
policy includes a land cost for the disposal site.
This model was designed as a subprogram to the feedlot runoff
sufficient design program developed above; however, it can per-
form independent economic analyses of feedlot runoff control sys-
tems by providing the necessary input data. All economic co-
efficients in the model are stored on magnetic files which can
be readily adjusted to reflect unique designs or specific loca-
tions. All data used in this study represent 1977 prices and are
listed in McDowell (1977). This analysis assumes labor costs of
3.50 dollars per hour and .0308 dollars per kilowatt-hour for
electricity (1976 U. S. average farm electrical schedule).
Although the model can evaluate any feedlot size or location,
three specific sizes (1, 10, and 100 acres) were evaluated at Ames,
Iowa; Astoria, Oregon; Bozeman, Montana; Corvallis, Oregon; Ex-
periment, Georgia; Lubbock, Texas; and Pendleton, Oregon.
45
-------
SECTION 10
ECONOMIC MODEL OUTPUTS
The economic model analyzed five management dewatering policies
at seven selected locations which satisfied EPA effluent guide-
line discharge criteria only in connection with the 25 year-24 hour
storm. For each location, the model evaluated initial investment
and annual cost of feedlot control designs with pumping rates of
0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 1.0 times the 25 year-24 hour storm.
Tables 12-18 show the annual cost in dollars per head of capacity
for management policy 1 (permitting all-year pumping) with the
above pumping rates at seven locations. In addition, Table 19
presents a comparison of least cost disposal systems (in dollars
per head of capacity per year) for each management policy at
both Ames, Iowa, and Lubbock, Texas. Table 20 shows the results
of each irrigation disposal system on 1, 10, and 100 acre feedlots
using management policy 7 (apply effluent to a hay crop without
winter disposal) at each of seven stations when dewaterings are
limited to a maximum of ten per year. Table 21 presents the least
cost disposal system in both initial investment per head of capa-
city and annual cost per head of capacity for the above selected
feedlot sizes. Finally, Table 22 shows a comparison of annual cost
per head of capacity for approximately equivalent pumping rates
when management policy 1 (all-year pumping) was evaluated at each
location.
46
-------
TABLE 12 . ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL COST
(DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1)
AT AMES, IOWA
AS A FUNCTION OF PUMPING CAPACITY.
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AND FEEDLOT SIZE2
Pumping rate3 Irrigation
ac-in. /feedlot ac-day system1*
0.27 1
2
3
4
0.54 i
2
3
4
1.08 1
2
3
4
2.16 x
2
3
4
5.40 x
2
3
4
Feedlot size, acre
1.0
4.57
—
5.13
—
4.55
—
5.06
—
4.70
—
5.10
— —
5.21
5.93
5.16
— —
6.30
8.07
6.81
__
10
1.64
1.72
1.69
—
1.70
1.84
1.84
—
2.00
2.33
2.13
— —
2.54
3.23
3.49
3.40
4.30
6.07
4.82
5.68
100
1.30
1.34
1.41
1.42
1.44
1.58
1.64
1.65
2.00
2.32
2.40
2.17
2.79
3.47
3.34
3.24
5.54
7.31
6.93
7.23
Assumes a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
2All-year management dewatering policy with nutrient utilization policy;
dashes indicate system not available.
3Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times the 25 yr-24 hr
storm.
"* Irrigation systems: l=hand move; 2*side roll; 3=big gun; 4=traveling big gun.
47
-------
TABLE 13. ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL COST
(DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1)
AT ASTORIA, OREGON
AS A FUNCTION OF PUMPING CAPACITY,
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AND FEEDLOT SIZE2
Pumping rate3 Irrigation
ac-in. /feedlot ac-day system"*
0.28 1
2
3
4
0.55 1
2
3
4
1.10 i
2
3
4
2.21 l
2
3
4
5.52 x
2
3
4
Feedlot size , acre
1.0
9.75
—
10.49
—
8.01
—
8.74
—
7.51
—
8.15
— —
7.66
8.39
7.86
— —
8.25
10.55
9.67
~~
10
6.34
6.38
6.59
—
4.78
4.82
5.07
—
4.57
4.80
4.93
— —
4.89
5.49
5.20
5.88
6.85
8.54
7.87
8.26
100
5.87
5.80
6.10
6.13
4.50
4.53
4.92
5.05
4.72
4.93
5.57
5.62
5.52
6.09
6.87
8.28
8.81
10.49
11.53
14.43
Assumes a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
2All-year management dewatering policy with nutrient utilization policy;
dashes indicate system not available.
3Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times the 25 yr-24 hr
storm.
^Irrigation systems: l=hand move; 2=side roll; 3=big gun; 4=traveling big gun.
48
-------
TABLE 14. ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL COST
(DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1)
AT BOZEMAN, MONTANA
AS A FUNCTION OF PUMPING CAPACITY.
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AND FEEDLOT SIZE2
Pumping rate3 Irrigation
ac-in./feedlot ac-day system"*
0.14 1
2
3
4
0.27 1
2
3
4
0.54 1
2
3
4
1.09 1
2
3
4
2.72 !
2
3
4
Feedlot size, acre
1.0
4.16
—
4.68
~~
4.11
—
4.66
— —
4.11
—
4.55
™ ™
4.21
— —
4.55
™ ™
4.85
5.75
4.66
10
1.29
—
1.35
—
1.27
1.36
1.29
—
1.33
1.49
1.43
— -
1.57
1.92
1.63
— —
2.31
3.20
2.49
3.06
100
0.92
0.95
0.96
1.03
0.93
1.00
1.00
1.02
1.07
1.23
1.20
1.23
1.52
1.87
1.79
1.61
2.74
3.63
3.19
2.94
1Assumes a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
2All-year management dewatering policy with nutrient utilization policy;
dashes indicate system not available.
3Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times the 25 yr-24 hr
storm.
''irrigation systems: l=hand move; 2=side roll; 3=big gun; 4=traveling big gun.
49
-------
TABLE 15. ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL COST
(DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1)
AT CORVALLIS, OREGON
AS A FUNCTION OF PUMPING CAPACITY,
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AND FEEDLOT SIZE2
Pumping rate3 Irrigation
ac-in. /feedlot ac-day system1*
0.22 1
2
3
4
0.45 1
2
3
4
0.90 1
2
3
4
1.80 1
2
3
4
4.49 1
2
3
4
Feedlot size, acre
1.0
5.34
—
5.94
— —
5.15
—
5.72
—
5.06
—
5.55
— —
5.23
—
5.32
~™
5.84
7.31
6.70
"™ •"
10
2.31
2.38
2.38
—
2.15
2.26
2.33
— -
2.22
2.47
2.39
_._
2.55
3.10
2.71
3.45
3.90
5.36
3.83
4.28
100
1.93
1.95
2.03
2.09
1.88
1.97
2.01
2.05
2.07
2.31
2.42
2.36
2.69
3.23
3.25
3.21
5.01
6.46
6.42
7.03
1Assumes a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
2All-year management dewatering policy with nutrient utilization policy,-
dashes indicate system not available.
3Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times the 25 yr-24 hr
storm.
^Irrigation systems: l=hand move; 2=side roll; 3=big gun? 4=traveling big gun.
50
-------
TABLE 16. ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL COST
(DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1)
AT EXPERIMENT, GEORGIA
AS A FUNCTION OF PUMPING CAPACITY,
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AND FEEDLOT SIZE2
Pumping rate3 Irrigation
ac-in. /feedlot ac-day system **
0.33 1
2
3
4
0.67 1
2
3
4
1.34 !
2
3
4
2.68 l
2
3
4
6.70 1
2
3
4
Feedlot size , acre
1.0
4.91
—
5.57
—
4.73
—
5.32
—
4.83
5.30
5.30
6.18
5.28
7.03
9.20
7.47
10
1.92
1.98
2.10
—
1.83
1.98
2.02
—
2.15
2.52
2.43
3.30
2.72
3.54
3.21
3.56
6.35
8.52
6.54
6.66
100
1.67
1.70
1.88
1.95
1.84
1.99
2.19
2.25
2.35
2.71
2.94
3.42
3.61
4.43
4.21
4.87
7.60
9.76
10.19
11.95
1Assumes a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
All-year management dewatering policy with nutrient utilization policy;
dashes indicate system not available.
3Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times the 25 yr-24 hr
storm.
''irrigation systems: l=hand move; 2»side roll; 3=big gun; 4=traveling big gun.
51
-------
TABLE 17. ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL COST
(DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1)
AT LUEBOCK, TEXAS
AS A FUNCTION OF PUMPING CAPACITY,
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AND FEEDLOT SIZE2
Pumping rate3 Irrigation
ac-in. /feedlot ac-day system "*
0.25 1
2
3
4
0.50 i
2
3
4
i.oo 1
2
3
4
2.00 x
2
3
4
5.00 x
2
3
4
Feedlot size, acre
1.0
4.28
—
4.80
--
4.26
—
4.75
—
4.25
—
4.62
— —
4.68
5.35
4.64
_ —
5.43
7.10
6.03
— —
10
1.40
1.48
1.43
—
1.40
1.55
1.52
— —
1.53
1.85
1.60
"• —
2.03
2.69
2.03
2.98
3.42
5.08
3.73
5.24
100
1.05
1.11
1.14
1.17
1.14
1.28
1.28
1.39
1.43
1.75
1.61
1.69
2.17
2.84
2.49
2.77
4.34
6.00
5.03
4.94
1Assumes a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
2All-year management dewatering policy with nutrient utilization policy;
dashes indicate system not available.
3Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times the 25 yr-24 hr
storm.
** Irrigation systems: l=hand move; 2=side roll; 3=big gun; 4=traveling big gun.
52
-------
TABLE 18 . ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL COST
(DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1)
AT PENDLETON, OREGON
AS A FUNCTION OF PUMPING CAPACITY,
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AND FEEDLOT SIZE2
Pumping rate3 Irrigation
ac-in. /feedlot ac-day system1*
0.07 1
2
3
4
0.15 !
2
3
4
0.30 ^
2
3
4
0.60
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Feedlot size , acre
1.0
3.48
—
3.97
—
3.49
—
3.92
—
3.52
—
3.93
— —
3.59
—
3.94
— —
4.02
—
3.97
10
0.70
—
0.75
—
0.72
—
0.74
—
0.75
0.85
0.82
— —
0.87
1.07
0.92
— —
1.24
1.74
1.19
2.43
100
0.35
—
0.36
—
0.37
0.42
0.38
0.49
0.44
0.53
0.47
0.57
0.61
0.81
0.66
0.76
1.16
1.66
1.20
1.35
Assumes a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
2All-year management dewatering policy with nutrient utilization policy;
dashes indicate system not available.
3Pumping rates represent 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4 and 1.0 times the 25 yr-24 hr
storm.
14Irrigation systems: l«hand move; 2=side roll; 3»big gun; 4=traveling big gun.
53
-------
TABLE 19. MINIMUM ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL COST
(DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1) FOR
VARIOUS DISPOSAL POLICIES FOR
AMES, IOWA, AND LUBBOCK, TEXAS
Station
Ames, IA
(pumping
De water ing
policy2
rate:
.27 ac-in./
feedlot
Lubbock,
(pumping
.25 ac-
feedlot
ac-day)
TX
rate:
in./
ac-day)
1
4
5
6
7
1
7
1
2
3
6
7
1
7
Disposal
policy3
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
SWD
SWD
NU
NU
NU
NU
NU
SWD
SWD
Feedlot area, acres
1
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
.0
.57
.92
.72
.54
.54
.08
.08
.32
.32
.35
.31
.29
.67
.70
1,
1,
1,
1,
1.
2,
2,
1,
1,
1.
1.
1.
1,
1,
L£
.64
.96
.78
.64
.63
.20
.22
.45
.45
.46
.43
.42
.85
.88
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
100
.30
.50
.42
.43
.28
.86
.86
.09
.09
.10
.07
.06
.49
.51
Assumes a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
Management dewatering policies are defined in Table 1.
3Disposal application rates:
NU = Nutrient Utilization (200 Ibs nitrogen/acre)
SWD = Strict Waste Disposal (1200 Ibs nitrogen/acre).
54
-------
TABLE 20. ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS
(DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1) WHEN DEWATERING
TEN OR FEWER DAYS PER YEAR FOR VARIOUS IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
AT SEVEN U. S. LOCATIONS2
Location Dewater
day/yr
Ames, IA 10. 0
Astoria, OR 7.5
Bozeman, MT 7.6
Corvallis, 8.2
OR
Experiment, 7.6
GA
Lubbock, TX 8.9
Pendleton, 9.4
OR
Pump, rate Irrig.
ac-in./ systems3
fdlt ac-day
1.08 1
2
3
4
0.55 1
2
3
4
0.54 1
2
3
4
1.80 1
2
3
4
2.70 1
2
3
4
0.50 1
2
3
4
0.15 1
2
3
4
Feedlot size, ac
1.0
4.70
—
5.10
—
10.64
12.34
11.38
—
4.25
—
4.70
—
6.23
—
6.29
—
6.23
7.10
6.18
—
4.31
—
4.78
—
3.53
—
3.97
— —
10
2.00
2.33
2.13
—
8.45
10.13
9.43
9.79
1.45
1.61
1.55
—
3.41
3.96
3.54
4.32
3.52
4.34
3.97
4.34
1.44
1.59
1.56
—
0.80
—
0.81
— —
100
2.00
2.32
2.40
2.17
10.14
11.82
12.51
14.38
1.18
1.34
1.31
1.34
3.48
4.03
3.98
3.88
4.29
5.11
4.80
5.25
1.17
1.32
1.30
1.42
0.44
0.49
0.45
0.56
Assume a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
2Management policy: apply effluent to hay crop without winter
disposal.
Irrigation systems: 1 = hand move; 2 = side roll; 3 = big gun;
4 = traveling big gun.
55
-------
TABLE 21. MINIMUM INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL POLLUTION
CONTROL COST (DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1)
AT SEVEN U. S. LOCATIONS
Location
Feedlot size, acre
1.0
Invest.
Ame s , I A
Astoria, OR
Bozeman, MT
Corvallis, OR
Experiment, GA
Lubbock, TX
Pendleton, OR
22
37
20
25
23
21
17
.91
.93
.81
.58
.40
.85
.74
Ann.
cost
4
7
4
5
4
4
3
.54
.47
.11
.06
.73
.29
.48
10
Invest.
8.
23.
6.
11.
8.
7.
3.
41
08
70
12
69
52
65
Ann.
cost
1
4
1
2
1
1
0
.63
.53
.27
.15
.83
.42
.70
100
Invest.
6
23
4
9
8
5
1
.59
.15
.91
.65
.16
.68
.84
Ann.
cost
1.28
4.50
0.92
1.88
1.67
1.06
0.35
1Assumes a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
56
-------
TABLE 22. ANNUAL POLLUTION CONTROL COSTS
(DOLLARS PER HEAD OF CAPACITY1)
AT SEVEN U. S. LOCATIONS WITH SIMILAR PUMPING CAPACITIES
Location Dewater
day/yr
Ames, IA 10.3
Astoria, OR 37.7
Bozeman, MT 3.6
Corvallis, 17.3
OR
Experiment, 15.7
GA
Lubbock, TX 4.4
Pendleton, 1.5
OR
Pump, rate Irrig.
ac-in./ system2
fdlt ac-day
1.08 1
2
3
4
1.10 1
2
3
4
1.09 1
2
3
4
0.90 1
2
3
4
1.34 1
2
3
4
1.00 1
2
3
4
1.50 1
2
3
4
Feedlot size
1.0
4.70
3
5.10
—
7.51
—
8.15
— —
4 .21
—
4.55
—
5.06
—
5.55
—
4.83
—
5.30
—
4.25
—
4.62
—
4.02
—
3.97
"
10
2.00
2.33
2.13
—
4 .57
4.80
4.93
— —
1.57
1.92
1.62
— —
2.22
2.47
2.39
—
2.15
2.53
2.43
3.30
1.53
1.85
1.60
— —
1.24
1.74
1.19
2.43
, ac
100
2.00
2.32
2.40
2.17
4.72
4.93
5.57
5.62
1.52
1.87
1.79
1.61
2.07
2.31
2.42
2.36
2.35
2.71
2.94
3.42
1.43
1.75
1.61
1.69
1.16
1.66
1.20
1.35
'Assume a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre.
Irrigation systems: 1 = hand move; 2 = side roll; 3 = big gun;
4 = traveling big gun.
3Dashes indicate system not applicable.
57
-------
SECTION 11
INTERPRETATION OF ECONOMIC MODEL OUTPUT
RESERVOIR VOLUME VS PUMPING RATES
Tables 12-18 present the effects of increasing pumping rates on
the total cost of each system. In most cases, large pumping
capacities substantially increased annual cost of the runoff con-
trol system. At all but one location, the majority of designs
reached minimum (or near minimum) feedlot runoff control costs with
pumping rates of 0.1 times the 25 year-24 hour storm. The feedlot
runoff sufficient design program did not permit dewatering unless
a full day's pumping volume was available in the reservoir.
Though this constraint was included to more accurately model prag-
matic feedlot operations, this limitation did not permit a com-
plete substitution of feedlot reservoir volume for pumping rates.
The feedlot runoff sufficient design model output pumping rates
did not, in general, decrease volumes, since chronic precipita-
tion conditions, rather than single catastrophic storms,determined
runoff reservoir volumes. In selected cases, required reservoir
capacities actually increased as pumping rates were enlarged.
At Astoria, Oregon, (Table 13), minimum cost designs occurred with
pumping rates of 0.2 times the 25 year-24 hour storm on feedlot
sizes of 1.0 and 10 acres; this is primarily the result of the
atypical nature of the station (annual precipitation,75.39 inches) .
Isolated examples of marginal cost decreases accompanying increas-
ing pumping rates also existed at selected stations (Table 15),
with 1.0 acre feedlots. This result may be an artifact of the cost
estimating program; the program's minimum dewatering (irrigation)
system provided sufficient capacity to permit higher pumping rates.
The increase in pumping rates decreased number of pumping days
and subsequently, total labor cost.
The above data indicate that reservoir volume cannot economically
substitute for pumping capacity except in extreme atypical cases.
The economic viability of these extreme stations is even more
questionable than substitutions of reservoir-pumping volumes.
ECONOMIES OF SIZE
Tables 12-20 show significant economies of feedlot size for control-
ling feedlot runoff. These economies turn to diseconomies with
higher pumping rates; however, at lower pumping rates, economy of
58
-------
size is consistent. Most of the size advantage was achieved by
increasing feedlot size to 10 acres. Pendleton, Oregon, (annual
precipitation, 13.39 inches), deviated from this generalization
primarily due to its low runoff and minimal pumping rates.
The 10-acre feedlot at Ames, Iowa, (Table 12), which was repre-
sentative of the remaining stations, had a least cost per head
capacity of 79% of the 10-acre feedlot; in addition, the annual
cost of the 10-acre feedlot was only 28% of the 1.0-acre feedlot.
The burden of feedlot runoff control facilities to small feedlots
(approximately 200-head capacity) is substantial, and some opera-
tions may be forced out of business in lieu of implementing run-
off control measures.
One measure of the potential impact of imposing water pollution
guidelines on the feedlot industry is the relation of estimated
runoff control costs to existing costs of production. Table 23
presents the estimated additional costs of production ($/head
marketed) at six locations and three feedlot sizes, accounted for
by the imposition of feedlot runoff control measures. All costs
assume lOOi use of capacity (200 head per acre and three times
yearly animal turnover). These costs also represent the least
cost system at each site and feedlot size: hand move irrigation
equipment, all-year pumping policy, nutrient utilization disposal
policy, and a pumping rate of 0.05 times the 25 year-24 hour storm.
Gee (1977) has prepared recent estimates of the costs of produc-
tion for U. S. beef feedlot sector. He reported a weighted average
production cost per head of $431.77 during 1976. Of this, 92%
was for feed and feeder cattle, 2% was fixed, and 6% of the cost
varied with lot size. These estimates were developed assuming
100% use of capacity.
For lots with 1,000-1,999 head capacity, a total cost of $440.75
was estimated? for lots with 8,000-15,999 head capacity, Gee es-
timated cost of production (dollars per head marketed) at $362.39.
Comparing the average added cost of production (Table 23) for lots
in humid regions (Ames, Iowa; Experiment, Georgia; Corvallis,
Oregon) and arid regions (Lubbock, Texas; Pendleton, Oregon; and
Bozeman, Montana) to Gee's estimates showed the following:
1. For humid locations, average added cost of production ($/head
marketed) was $.65 and $.54 for 10 and 100 acre lots, re-
spectively. These costs represent 0.152% and 0.149% of the
estimated total production costs for 10 and 100 acre lots, re-
spectively.
2. For arid locations, average added cost of production was $.37
and $.26 for 10 and 100 acre lots, respectively. This repre-
sents 0.084% and 0.072% of the estimated total costs of pro-
duction for beef on the two sizes, respectively.
59
-------
These data show that imposition of feedlot runoff control guide-
lines upon larger feedlots would be insignificant from the stand-
point of additional production costs. However, the impact on small
feedlot operators would be substantial. Costs shown in Table 23 as-
sume a three times yearly animal turnover. Many small lots
(farmer-feeders) feed only one group of animals per year, thus
their costs would be three times those shown. For a one acre
feedlot located at Ames, Iowa, annual added cost of production
(per head) is estimated at $4.56 when only one group of animals
is fed per year. If the lot is operated at 100% capacity—200
animals per acre—total added cost for this size feedlot would be
$912.00. Costs of this magnitude may force many small feedlot
operators to cease feeding beef in open feedlots.
TABLE 23. ADDED PRODUCTION COST (DOLLARS PER HEAD1)
ASSOCIATED WITH POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEMS2
AS A FUNCTION OF FEEDLOT SIZE AND LOCATION
Feedlot
location
Ames, IA
Bozeman, MT
Corvallis, OR
Experiment, GA
Lubbock, TX
Pendleton, OR
Feedlot size, ac
1.0
1.52
1.39
1.78
1.64
1.43
1.16
10
.55
.43
.77
.64
.47
.23
100
.43
.31
.64
.56
.35
.12
Assumes a feedlot capacity of 200 head per acre, three times
yearly animal turnover, and 100% use of capacity.
2A11 systems are the least cost system for each location: pumping
rate equals 0.05 times 25 year-24 hour storm, irrigation system 1,
management alternative 1, and nutrient utilization disposal policy.
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS
Comparisons between different geographic locations show signifi-
cant variations in costs. Table 21 summarizes output from
the cost-estimating program, presenting the least expensive run-
off control and disposal system for each location. This includes
60
-------
all pumping rates, management alternatives, disposal policies, and
irrigation systems. Required investment per head ranged from $37.93
at Astoria, Oregon, to $17.74 at Pendleton, Oregon, for one-acre*
feedlots. For 10 acre feedlots, minimum investment per head ranged
from $23.08 at Astoria, Oregon, to $3.65 at Pendleton, Oregon; and
for 100 acre feedlots, investment per head ranged from $23.15 to
$1.84 from Astoria to Pendleton, Oregon, respectively.
A significant portion of cost differential is due to variations
in pumping rates. Table 22 presents expected annual costs per
head of capacity for all locations, with pumping rates approxi-
mately equated. The maximum cost differential between locations with
equivalent pumping rates was $3.54, $3.38, and $3.56 per head of
capacity for 1.0, 10, and 100 acre feedlots, respectively.
If Corvallis and Astoria, Oregon, were excluded from the analysis,
(they were not representative of regions where open feedlots are
common), costs became even more comparable: without these stations,
maximum differences in annual cost per head of feedlot capacity
were $.87, $.97, and $1.16 for 1.0, 10, and 100 acre feedlot, re-
spectively. Within this group, arid locations (Bozeman, Mon-
tana; Lubbock, Texas; and Pendleton, Oregon) had annual runoff
control costs 20 to 50% lower than humid stations (Ames, Iowa
and Experiment, Georgia).
The fact that Midwestern feedlots will face higher runoff con-
trol costs than Southwestern feedlots indicates imposition of
such guidelines may alter the current comparative advantage
Midwest feeders have over Southwest feeders. Feed costs in the
Midwest are generally lower than those in the Southwest, giving
Midwestern feedlot operators an edge. Higher runoff control
costs faced by Midwestern feedlot operators will reduce their
current advantage.
MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES
A comparison of the expected annual costs for various manage-
ment alternatives is presented in Table 19 for two locations,
Ames and Lubbock. Ames represents the Midwest, where small feed-
lots predominate. Lubbock typifies the Southwest, where large
feedlots are more common. Pumping rates at each station were al-
most identical, so irrigation technology was equivalent at both
sites. Table 19 indicates that Lubbock had an absolute cost ad-
vantage in every management policy, but differences in expected
costs were less than 20% in most cases. Economies of size were
more pronounced at Lubbock, so the cost differential between Ames
and Lubbock was more significant for larger feedlots.
At each station, costs of using various management alternatives
were fairly uniform, deviating by no more than about 10%. Thus,
there appears to be little economic incentive (strictly on the
61
-------
basis of cost) for selecting any one particular management alter-
native. The data suggest that an operator could build a system to
match the most flexible management alternatives (pumping only in
the summer months) at little extra cost, and could then be free to
switch to another management alternative at a later date, if
desired.
DISPOSAL POLICY
Table 19 also contains the annual cost per feedlot capacity for
a strict waste disposal policy in conjunction with management
alternatives 1 (all-year disposal) and 7 (apply effluent to a hay
crop without winter disposal). The strict disposal policy per-
mitted a maximum of 1,200 Ibs of nitrogen per acre and charged the
runoff control system for the disposal site. Table 19 indicates
that strict disposal was more expensive, especially for larger
feedlots, than the nutrient utilization policy.
For both locations, cost of land was assumed to be $750 per
acre; this may be too low for Ames and too high for Lubbock.
If more realistic land prices were used, strict waste disposal
would be more costly than shown at Ames and less costly than shown
for Lubbock. Outlays shown for the nutrient utilization pol-
icy did not consider fertilizer value of the runoff applied
to cropland. If this were done, the cost differential between
nutrient utilization and strict waste disposal would be more sig-
nificant than shown in Table 19.
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
The hand move irrigation system is consistently the least ex-
pensive to own and operate, as seen in Tables 12-20. Stationary
big gun is next, followed by side roll and traveling big gun.
The stationary big gun system is commonly used for waste disposal,
but it appears more costly due to higher pump costs and the in-
creased mainline required.
In a few cases (see Tables 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18), on 100-acre
feedlots, the traveling big gun system was less costly than side
roll and stationary big gun. Traveling big gun operated 22 hours
per day, while other systems operated only 12 hours daily. Longer
operating conditions permitted this system to run at lower dis-
charge rates, subsequently requiring smaller pumps and mainlines.
Using single components, traveling big gun was superior in those
isolated cases in which competing disposal systems operated with
multiple pumps and mainlines. Such pumping rates are considerably
higher than those normally used for conventional irrigation sys-
tems, and their suitability as disposal systems is questionable,
i.e., some of the higher pumping rates are equivalent to 20,000 gpm
or more for 100-acre feedlots. At lower pumping rates, however,
cost differences among various systems were minimal.
62
-------
System selection will naturally be based not only on cost, but also
on such variables as owner preference, alternate uses, etc. Tables
12-20 suggest that as long as a feedlot operator selects a low
pumping rate, increased costs associated with side roll, big gun,
and traveling big gun (where applicable) are not significant,
especially on larger feedlots.
OPERATOR CONVENIENCE
Currently, many feedlot operators have elected to dewater their
runoff reservoirs infrequently (Gee, 1976). Table 20 presents
annual costs at the seven stations with design parameters which
need to operate ten or fewer days per year. Cost primarily re-
flects pumping rates required to achieve this objective. Costs
vary widely, but those at stations in the major beef-producing
regions (Ames, Bozeman, Experiment, Lubbock, and Pendleton) follow
the same pattern as uniform pumping rates. Experiment, Georgia,
had the highest cost, with the remaining stations fairly close be-
hind. Pendleton again had the lowest cost, approximately 25%
less than the other stations. Midwestern and Southwestern sta-
tions' cost data differed by only 10 to 15%.
COST OF RUNOFF CONTROL AT VARYING LEVELS OF CONTROL
Thus far,this analysis has dealt only with the costs of full com-
pliance with proposed EPA guidelines for 1983. The literature
to date has dealt only superficially with the question of the
marginal cost of controlling runoff at levels representing less
than full compliance with proposed regulations. Klocke (1971)
presented some "marginal cost" data with respect to changes in
cost of controlling runoff at a given level for various feedlot
sizes. This did point out the existence of economies of size
but did not address the question of marginal cost of runoff
control at various levels of control for the same size feedlot.
Wensink and Miner (1977) investigated the effect of relaxing
performance standards on the design parameters developed with
their feedlot runoff design program. They found that by excluding
the worst five years of hydrologic data (with respect to precipi-
tation) , design storage volumes were reduced by an average of
25%. This did not provide data that was economically useful,
however, because cost of the retention pond is only a small part
of the total cost of most runoff control systems.
To generate data that could be used to derive the marginal cost
relationships desired, Wensink and Miner's (1975) return period
design program was used to model performance of runoff control
systems whose design parameters are insufficient to satisfy 1983
runoff guidelines. . The cost-estimating model was used to generate
the initial cost of these various systems. Cost and performance
data thus generated were combined to illustrate the marginal re-
lationships between cost and performance.
63
-------
Figure 3 presents the case for a 100 acre feedlot in Pendleton,
Oregon. The data points represent twenty runoff control systems.
Design parameters were derived by reducing pond volume and daily
pumping rate of a given system (which complied with the 1983 guide-
lines) by 5% increments. The twenty data points in Figure 3 rep-
resent systems whose design parameters are 100, 95, 90,...5, and 0%
of the pumping and pond volume necessary to meet EPA Runoff Guide-
lines. The performance of each system was measured by the percent
of total runoff that occurred within the time period (1914-71)
that the system contained. As seen in Figure 3, a large part of
the investment required to achieve full compliance has been spent
on controlling the last very small portion of total runoff. Of
the estimated $2.34 per head investment required to control 100%
of the runoff from 1914 to 1971, $1.40, or 60%, was necessary to
control 90% of the runoff. To raise the level of control from 90%
to 95% required an additional investment of $.35 per head—15%
of the total per head cost of 100% control. To raise the level of
control from 95% to 100% required an additional investment per head
of $.59. This is 25% of the total per head cost for 100% control
and is 1.7 times the cost of raising control from 90% to 95%
containment.
These costs represent only the investment required for a runoff
control system using hand move irrigation equipment, operated under
management alternative 1 (all-year pumping) with nutrient utiliza-
tion waste disposal. Each system is assumed to use the same size
disposal site and disposal plot area as the full-sized system.
While this distorts system cost, resulting costs are higher than
would be the case if the disposal plot and site area had been re-
calculated for each of the twenty systems. If lower costs were
used for the nineteen systems which were of insufficient size to
meet runoff guidelines, relative costs of controlling the last
few percent of runoff would have been even more exaggerated than
those shown in Figure 3. This clearly illustrates that signifi-
cant reduction in costs can be achieved with only minor increase
in total runoff allowed to escape from feedlots.
It is interesting to speculate on the correspondence between various
levels of runoff and environmental impact upon a watershed. How-
ever, such variables as total feedlot area draining into a stream,
distances between feedlots along a stream, stream characteristics
(temperature, flow rate, other pollutants present, etc.), local
rainfall patterns, and other factors all have an effect. The number
and interplay between these factors make any general conclusion
impossible.
64
-------
2.50 -|
t)
IB
01
1/1
4)
4J
01
2.25 -
2.00 -
1.75 -
4J
c
0
0
OJ
JJ
w
01
C
1.50 -
1.25 -
1.00 -
0.75 -
0.50
25
50
75
100
Percent of total runoff contained
1914-1971
Figure 3. Simulated cost and performance of feedlot runoff
control systems at Pendleton, Oregon, for time
period 1914-1971.
65
-------
SECTION 12
REFERENCES
Gee, K. C. Waste Management Practices of Western Cattle Feedlots.
Economic Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
1976. 51 pp.
Gee, K. C. Costs of Producing Fed Beef in Commercial Feedlots.
Economic Research Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Fort Collins, Colorado, 1977 (in press).
Gossett, D. L. and G. S. Willett. The Cost of Owning and Operat-
ing Sprinkler Irrigation Systems in the Columbia Basin.
EM2760, Cooperative Extension Service, Washington State
University, Pullman, Washington, 1976. 26 pp.
Klocke, N. A Method to Evaluate the Cost-Effectiveness of Open
Beef Feedlot Runoff Control Systems. Master's Thesis, Univer-
sity of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 1976. 58 pp.
Koelliker, J. K.,H. L. Manges, and R. I. Lipper. Modeling the
Performance of Feedlot Runoff Control Facilities. Trans-
actions of the ASAE, 18(6):1118-1121, 1975.
Lorimor, J. C. Sprinkler Irrigation Systems for Waste Disposal
from Lagoons. P-591, Cooperative Extension Service, Iowa
State University, Ames, Iowa, 1974. 8 pp.
McDowell, R. M. The Economics of Controlling Runoff from Beef
Cattle Feedlots. Master's Thesis, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon, 1977. 156 pp.
Schwab, G. 0., R. K. Frevert, J. W. Edminister, and K. K. Barnes.
Soil and Water Conservation Engineering. Second Edition, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, New York, 1966.
Wensink, R. B. and J. R. Miner. A Model to Predict the Performance
of Feedlot Runoff Control Facilities at Specific Oregon Loca-
tions. Transactions of the ASAE, 18 (6):1141-1145, 1150; 1975.
Wensink, R. B. and J. R. Miner. Modeling the Effects of Management
Alternatives on the Design of Cattle Feedlot Runoff Control
Facilities. Transactions of the ASAE, 20 (1) :138-144, 1977.
66
-------
APPENDIX A. SUFFICIENT DESIGN TECHNIQUE SIMULATION MODEL
GENERAL PROGRAM INFORMATION
Title; Cattle Feedlot Runoff Reservoir Sufficient Design Simula-
tion Model
Authors; R. B. Wensink, J. R. Miner, and T. W. Booster
Installation; CDC Cyber 70 series at Oregon State University
Programming Language; Standard FORTRAN IV
Date Written; 1976-77
Remarks;
This simulation model operates continuously from one year to the
next and requires daily precipitation, average temperatures, and
snowfall accumulations. The model determines minimum disposal
area and reservoir storage volume required to meet Environmental
Protection Agency performance standards with a specific irriga-
tion pumping capacity. Pumping capacity, expressed in a fraction
of the location's 25 year-24 hour storm, and management dewatering
policy are the only major design parameters required in the model.
PROGRAM OUTPUT
The output variable names are defined in the program.
A. Yearly Results
1. Total number of reservoir overflows
2. Maximum reservoir depth
3. Inches of legal overflow
4. Maximum rainfall
5. Total rainfall
6. Total runoff
7. Total runoff from precipitation over 25 year-24 hour storm
8. Total rainfall over 25 year-24 hour storm
9. Total number of pumping days
10. Total number of permissible pumping days
11. Total amount of nitrogen applied annually
12. Number of disposal sites
13. Total number of acres used for disposal purposes
67
-------
B. Total Run Results
1. Total years simulated
2. Total rainfall
3. Total runoff
4. Total legal overflow from precipitation over 25 year-
24 hour storm
5. Total runoff from precipitation over 25 year-24 hour storm
6. Average precipitation
7. Average legal overflow from precipitation over 25 year-
24 hour storm
8. Average runoff
9. Average runoff from precipitation over 25 year-24 hour storm
10. Minimum design reservoir design required to hold all
precipitation less than 25 year-24 hour storm.
11. Average number of pumping days
12. Average number of permissible pumping days
13. Size of disposal site (acres)
14. Maximum amount of nitrogen allowable on disposal site
(Ib/acre)
PROGRAM INPUT
Input variable names are defined in the program. Even though
the model was developed and utilized on Oregon State's Time Sharing
Computer System, the following cards would be required to operate
the program from a CDC Cyber 70 Batch Processing System.
A. Order of Job Control Language Cards
(JOB CARD)
(ACCOUNT CARD)
GET,TAPE2 = .
GET,TAPE3 = .
FTN.
LGO.
FORTRAN
SOURCE
DECK
B. Inputs
1. Pumping rate (fraction of 25 year-24 hour storm)
2. Nitrogen concentration (mg/liter) of effluent
3. Maximum nitrogen per acre (Ib/acre)
68
-------
C. In addition, the following DATA statements need to be defined:
1. ISTART and IFINAL should be set to the first and last
year, respectively, of the data utilized in a particular
run.
2. LIN and LOUT correspond to computer installation input and
output logical unit numbers, respectively.
3. RAINMAX should be set to 0.0 unless dewatering is permitted
on days in which rainfall occurs. If this condition is
desired, set RAINMAX to the maximum level of rainfall at
which dewatering is still permitted.
4. EXPRAIN should be set to the station's 25 year-24 hour
recurrence storm.
5. MONTEMP is a one-dimensional array which contains average
monthly mean temperatures.
6. AVAP is a one-dimensional array which contains average
daily evaporation for each month.
7. SURDPT is the pond depth used to determine pond surface
area.
8. EVAPCON is the evaporation constant which converts pan
evaporation to pond surface evaporation.
9. DAYLIM is the maximum daily application of water (pre-
cipitation and effluent) to disposal plot.
10. WKLIM is the maximum weekly application of water (pre-
cipitation and effluent) to disposal plot.
D. Data Files
1. The climatic data file must be created prior to running
this simulation program. Each file must contain the years
of weather data from a particular station. These data
consist of rainfalls, snowfalls, and temperatures. Each
record contains eight consecutive days of rainfall-
temperature data punched in the following format:
(8(I3,F4.2,F3.0)).
2. The management dewatering policy data file consists of
a set of zeroes and ones, with the first ten characters
describing management policy. The format is: (A10/(80I1)).
69
-------
c
c
c
C CATTLE FEEOLOT RUNOFF
C
C SUFFICIENT DESIGN TECHNIQUE
C SIMULATION fODEL
C
C
c
c THIS MOCEL DETERMINES THE MINIMUM RFSEPVOIR
C STORAGE v/OLU*E ANH DISPOSAL AREA REOUIREO TO MEET
C ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGCNCY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
c WITH A S^CIFIC IRRIGATION PUMPING CADACITY.
r
c
r
c
c
C
c
C LIN = INPUT UNIT
C LOUT = OUTPUT UNIT
r nArpf - NU^E*. OF DAYS PE-? --IGNTH
C ISfAKT = FIRST YEA9 OF ?AT(\
C IFIMAL = LAST YEAP OF DATA
C KAIMMX = M«XIWU-1 RAINFALL THAT PCCUREO DUPING EACH YEAR
r RAI%IMAX = TEWATERING PERMITTED ON HAYS WITH RAINFALL
C LESS THAN' THIF VALUE
C EXDPATN = 25 YEAF,-?^ HOU=> EXPc;CTED 'ECU^RENCF RAINFALL VALUE
C ANTCOr. = 5 OAY AN'TICE^ENT ^CISTURr ACPU^UL AT ION
C D^PTH = OEnTH OF rOND
C IWA3*c = SCASCNAL CRTTERTON IN RU'lOFF EQUATICKI
C MINTf>P = PRFEZING C5IT£RIOK
-------
c
c y;jM3nF = DAILY PU^INf, CAPACITY
C IK'O = NUM3-R CF Y^ARS OF HATa
C ITFMP = TE^Pc'AT'J51" TATA
C RAI,\i = PAIMFfiLL DATA
C 3T-AMTC = STORE rND OF Y^AR RAINFALL
C T3GTMF = STORC. ENl OF TEMPERATtjrE
C Q = DAILY ~UNCFC"
C 2C YFA'x-2'* riOU* rXPTCT-0 370RM VlLl
C IOAYOV = NUM3ER OF QAYS "C' Yr.A-R "HAT THF
C WHEN RAINFALL WA1" GREATER THAN ?3 YEA=>-?<4 MO'JR
C Dr»»THC •= 1-DTH OF OQND WHEN RAIN TXCEZOED 25 YEAR-?:* HOU» VALUE
r noT^XY^ = "AXIMUM T£PTH THAT POMO REAPHtC CURING YEAR
C OVERFLW = AMOUNT THAT THE PONC OVLRFLWTT.
C OPTIA^ = MAXIMUM OQNO DEPTH
C XUNOFC = AMOUNT OF RUNOF^ FOR EACH YE&*
C TTRAI^ = TO^AL ^AlNFALL FTR EACH Y^A^
C T"UNCF = TOTAL RUNOFF FO5 EACH YFAR
C TCTRFC = TOTAL RUNOFF F-?OM STORES Gc£^T-9 THAN
C 25 Y£AK-?i» HOUR VALUE
C T3TALK = TOTAL RAINFALL ^OR ALL YcAR^
C TOTALC = TOTAL LFGAL OVFRFLCW FROM POND FO5 ALL YF.ARS
c TOTALF = TOTAL RUNOFF F^C ^LL YFA^S
C AVGP^c = AVERAGE RAINFALL
C AVGOVP = AVERAGE LEGAL OVERFLOW
T AVGRCF = AVrRAGH RUNOFF
C AVGRFC = AVERAGE OVERFLOW FP.Qf' STOPM? GREATER THAN 25 YEAR
C -2<* HOLR fXPECTEO S^OftM VALUE
r SMOWACC = TAILY SNCW ON GFOUNO
C RAINACC = RAINFALL WHICH ACCUMULATES WHTLr SNOW ON GROUND
C IFLAGSN = SNOWFALL RUNOFF FL^G
C = ?, WHF.N NO RUVOFF FROM SNOFALL
C =1. WHFK RUNOFF r^OM SNOWFALL
c IPIJ^^DY = TOTAL P^'MI^SI^L" PUMPING DAYS EACH YEAR
c injMPC = TOTAL ACTUAL PUMPING OAYS EACH YEAR
C OV6RFL = V'ARLY TOTAL POND OVERFLOW
-------
C MANGT - MANAGEMF.WT OFWATERING
r t'OLrtlo'* ^-**Gf °ATLY EVAPORATION FCP EACH MONTH F^ S^C
C MONTF^o = AVERAGE 10NTHLV 1EAN TEMPERATURE -^
C IMONTF = AVERAGE "ONTHLY "EAN TrMp FCR c;DFri(rrc "fly
C AVAP = AVFRAGE DAILY EVAPORATIONS FOR FACH^MONTN'
C SUROPT = FCND Q">TH USEH TO 3ET?TR«INt StlPFAC- AREA
C EVADCCN = EVAPORATION CONSTANT TO CONvrtjj- oflrj rr rOMn
C SURARFA = OOND SURFACE AREA
C RATEPK = FRACTION OF POND VOLUME <25 Y?AR-2^ HOUR
C PERMITTtO IN ONE DAY O
C 6VAP = ACTUAL DAILY Fv/AOQRA
C POLICY ^= MANAGEMENT POLITY FQ!R
C STAT1 AND STAT2 = LOCATION Tc FACh S
C TO^OO = TOTAL NUH9FR OF PUMPING DAYS
C AVGPD = AVERAGE NU^^FP OF PULING DAYS °Fn Y~AR
C TOTPPC = nTAL NUMIE^ QF P£RMISSI3Lr PU"PTNG HAYS
C AVGPPC = AVFkAGP KUMBFR OF PflxMTSSIlLf PIJHPinr, CAYS
C ACO.ES = AC^FS PFK 1IS«OSAL SITF
C OAYLI*' = MAXIMUM DAILY MQISTIKE (PRECIPITATION AND
C PERMITTED ON DISPOSAL SITE
C LOAY = LAST DAY DISPOSAL SITP WAS Ix?IGAT-0
C NCONC = NI^RCGFN CONC^N^KA TICK OF PQNn WAT=-R (
C NLtV = AMOUNT DP NITROGEN DIS^OSEO 0<^ ON SIT^
C NLIM = MAXIML'C NTTROGFN PFx AC^E (L^F/ACRF)
C NL°S = NITrOGtM LIMIT P^'P DISPOSAL SIT" (L?S)
C NOOAYS = NUM3F* OF DAYS DISPOSAL SITE WA^ IPPI
C STT--.S = NUMBER OF DISPOSAL SITES US-0 c" YEAR
C WKLIM = MAVIKL'M WEEKLY ^OISTURE (PSr.CIPITATiQN AND l-WAT-?
C °ERvlTT^o ON DISPOSAL SITE ~ "
C XCONC = NITROGtN nONCENTPATTnh QF POMO WATE? ( L =?S/ ACR"- TNI
c
DIMENSION TT£.MPC*f.6l ,RATN(3b6) t T OA Yru( 13) ,
1I!3GTMF{6),OVT^FLC?5|,IDAYCV (75) ,RA
2MAMGT (756) , AM- VAP(366«, ^OK-'TE MP ( 1 2) fi
DIMENSION IFLAGC10),LDAY(12,3| ,
REAL rvCONC,NLIM,NL°S,N,MLf V(1C)
-------
INTEGER SIT£S(7^5
QAT4CISTART=193«1 , CI PIN AL=
PzlP, £2,3C« W
.0 ,Q.C.D. 0«0.1366tO.
o . o?o<»,c.o, a. oi
OAT4
OATA(LIN=6CI
DATA (RAINMAX = P.
OAT a CSURDPT = e.O)
DATA CCAYLIM.sZ.O),
-------
(IT)=MCNTF.MP(Ii<')
7 CCNT
C
r OEAH IN ^ANAGt^-NT
C
C
C***»»......*,.*» OrlT^PMiNE oos'd SIKFACC A9E4 ****** ********
C
C
ty°FCTEO VALU-S TO ?U
r RrfiT IN STATION
^rAD(c,^rCl»STATl,S
60C1 FORMAT (^Al C)
C
^ STA»T YEAPLY LOOP
no 9 11=1,10
f V(III-=0.0
00 12 JJ=1,3
LCA*
-------
c
C St;T
C
C
C CH-fK
C
LAR.N^.IVrfiS* GO T^ i:
vc>) = -7Q
flp=3fte,
1C CONTIMJZ
C
C
C
C
C SfT INITIAL AMTinr->=>.'T RAIN' AMD TlMPrRA Tijop CONDITIONS
c
IF«.GT.i)GO T0 lc
on ac u=i,e
j=iDAY£ap-r j»-i
n='>-ij«-«
IIIsRAINt Jl
II)=ITFMP(j»
DO 21 T=i.-
21 ANT':0^=ANTr:DN*-3G/SNTr (I)
C
C STA^r :JAILV SIMULATION -OR THIS YCflP
C
15 no 4
-------
IC(I.GT.6) GC Trj 3:3
IFCI.cQ.ll GO TO 25
GC TO
?5 ANTCC
GO TO
3D ANTCD
C CONTINUE
«-A,MTrnN-3G ANTC (1)
C
C
C
C
C****
C
C
C
ACCUMULATE TOTAL *?ftTNFALL ^0° V~A9
******»*
EVAPORATION *****»***»*»»**»***»******»»*
IfllLY PAN FVAPOPA
T)
H F0?, "\/ AFC-;-?
C
C
C
IFOFFTH.L '.C.010r:JTH=C. 0
oK n ",o urn
***********************
IFf I.tE. 3»G
GOTORC
60 IF«I.rO.
GO
80
-------
GOT01PO
IFM/^GT(II .EQ.O
* .OP. RAIN (I) . GT.R
* .CP.ITCMPCII.Lf .12
* .OP. SNGHACCCT) .GT.C.C) GQTn 18-
C
C PUMOJNG 13 ppcMTTjcQ rrnflv
c
C
C CHFCK
c
IFCOEFTH.LT.PUMPOP)
c
C CMfCK IF SI
C
IF(ANTCaN«-3AYLtw.GT.WKLTM)
00 12? IS=1,1C
IF(^o^Ar^(Is>.Fn.i3^ GOTO 13p
00 125 JJ*1,JJ2
IF
-------
IFfJJS.GT.-*) STOP?
LOAY
-------
CONDITION *:C. TI
C ANTTC€D'NT CONCITICN NP . Ill
3?3 0 = ( 'AIN(I) -. CCHI * *2 /(PAIN (I)*-. 2 U7)
C
c POND MUST MOLD ALL RUNGFP F=-TM
JPCIFLfl'iSN.FQ.l) GO TO 3<*2
c
C CH~C* FQ5 M£X
C
3UO iFCSAIMCI) .L£.EXDRflIN)GO TO 3
IGO TH
.LT.D'PTHO) CPTMXYR (K) =TEPTHO
no TC
IOA YC V « I = T 0 A YO V « )
DPT -IX Y«?(K» -
3<+5 WCITf {ei.e
fill FCR^1tTC'»X,I<*,<.X,I?,
RUNOFCCO^UNOFOW
TO Tn 3U3
TFO£ FT H.GT. OPT •'•1AX)DPTMOX= DEPTH
IF( DFFTH.G7 ,CCT^XYR( K) ) HPT IX YP CK
TCUNCF «)=
CONTINUE
00 i»FC 1 = 1,6
-------
00
o
5T3 CONTIh'JE
r
£******.*«.«*»»»*»«*»* CALCULAT^ STATISTICS
c
005501=1, IMO
TOTALR = TCT fLft+TTP.ClN (I)
TOTALC=TOTALC+OVERFL(I)
550 TOTALF = TOTflLF*T5UNOF (I)
AVGPPC=TOTPPO/IMO
c
WRITE OUT RESUTLS #««»•*»
C
WSITf (LOUT,5nitlISTftR7t IFINAL, STAT 1, ST AT 2, POL 1C Y, S U?APE A,
,AVGRFO,AVGOD,A y/GPPn, OPTMfty
FORMAT(1HO/////3GX,'TOTAL STATISTICS FOR VPARS/,Ir,/ TO*,15
•/ FOR *»2A1n//3 OX»/^ANAGf^ENT TEWATCCI^G POLI-Y = /»A10//
/TOTAL 0
30X,/TOTAL RUNOFF
£ A ~ #/
LrG*L OVERFLOW FROM rxnErTING PGND C£:oTH-/,F9.
-------
+ 3 CX,* AVERAGE KiJNOFP F^o* £TOMS > 2C V-
OF °UM°ING OAYS =/,*•«;. i/
+3CX, /AVERAGE MJI}1:* OF »f ^ ^1 SSI ^Lt PU«°INr: na^S =*,P"P-.l/
^-S^Xt/FCNO DEPTH TO Hni_Q flu. RUNOF^ < ?CYS STORM =*,X , # TOTAL •'EF" IS^I 3LE*1 /
PFQ YF.AR OVERFLOW 'AINi.^y,
RUNCFF O^F.R ??YP. STOR^ D\IEC
D*YS °UHPING PAYS/)
00 500 T^ISTAST, IFINAL
lOVE^FLCJI ,^AINMXCJ),TTRAIM(J) f TRUNOF (J) , KUNOFOI Jl, 3 A I NO V(J)
'IPUMPC(JI , IPUMP^Yt Jl
6103 FORM AT (IX, I*ft5XtI?,6X,F6.2,5X,F6.2.!»X,F6.2,3X,F6.2,3>tFfi.2,
16X,Ff,.2,llX,Fe.2tllX,I3,16< ,1?)
600 CONTIMJE
C
WRITFCLOUT,62C:) STAT1, ^TAT2, 1ST ART, IF T NA L » POL I C Y,
* EXPLAIN, ACSES,NLIM
* t YEARS:
* * M/1NAGE1ENT OEWftTERING PCLTCvt
* * PUMPING
» < ACRF
* < ACRES/SITE? «,F«5.2/
* < NITROGEN LIMIT* /,F7.2,# L ?S/ ACRE*////
* * YEAR*,5X,*NITROGrN*,5X,*NO. OF SITES/ , 5X ,
-------
7C:
XN, SITFS ( J)
STOP
oo
-------
APPENDIX B. DESIGN EVALUATION SIMULATION MODEL
GENERAL PROGRAM INFORMATION
Title: Cattle Feedlot Runoff Reservoir Design Evaluation Simu-
lation Model
Authors; R. B. Wensink, J. R. Miner, and T. W. Booster
Installation; CDC Cyber 70 at Oregon State University
Programming Language; Standard FORTRAN IV
Date Written; 1976-77
Remarks;
This simulation model evaluates the ability of runoff reservoir
designs to meet EPA performance standards. The model can eval-
uate several reservoir designs with one computer run and requires
the following input information for each reservoir design: pond
volume, dewatering rate, management dewatering policy, and daily
climatic data. For each design the model determines number and
volume of yearly discharges.
PROGRAM OUTPUT
The output variables are defined in the program:
A. Yearly Results
1. Number of legal overflows
2. Amount of legal overflow
3. Number of illegal overflows
4. Amount of illegal overflow
5. Total overflow (legal and illegal)
6. Maximum pond volume
7. Maximum rainfall
8. Total rainfall
9. Total runoff
10. Pumping days
11. Permissible pumping days
B. Total Run Results
1. Years simulated
2. Pond depth
3. Management dewatering policy
4. Surface area of pond
5. Pumping rate
6. Total number of legal overflows
7. Total amount of legal overflow
83
-------
8. Total number of illegal overflows
9. Total amount of illegal overflow
10. Total amount of overflow (legal and illegal)
PROGRAM INPUT
Input variable names are defined in the program. Even though
the model was developed and utilized on Oregon State University's
Time Sharing Computer System, the following cards would be re-
quired to operate the program from a CDC Cyber 70 Batch Processing
System.
A. Order of Job Control Language Cards
(JOB CARD)
(ACCOUNT CARD)
GET,TAPE2 = .
GET,TAPE3 = .
FTN.
LGO.
\
6
\
FORTRAN
SOURCE
DECK
B. Inputs
1. Number of ponds
2. Pond depth
3. Pumping rates
C. In addition, the following DATA statements need to be defined:
1. ISTART and IFINAL should be set to the first and last year,
respectively, of the data utilized in a particular run.
2. LIN and LOUT correspond to computer installation input and
output logical unit numbers, respectively.
3. RAINMAX should be set to 0.0 unless dewatering is per-
mitted on days in which rainfall occurs. If this condi-
tion is desired, set RAINMAX to the maximum level of rain-
fall at which dewatering is still permitted.
4. EXPRAIN should be set to the station's 25 year-24 hour
recurrence storm.
5. MTEMP is a one-dimensional array which contains average
monthly mean temperatures.
84
-------
6. MEVAP is a one-dimensional array which contains average
daily evaporation for each month.
7. SURDPT is the pond depth used to determine pond surface
area.
8. EVAPCON is the evaporation constant which converts pan
evaporation to pond surface evaporation.
D. Data Files
1. The climatic data file must be created prior to running
this simulation program. Each file must contain the years
of weather data from a particular station. These data
consist of rainfalls, snowfalls, and temperatures. Each
record contains eight consecutive days of rainfall-
temperature data punched in the following format:
(8(I3,F4.2,F3.0)).
2. The management dewatering policy data file consists of
a set of zeroes and ones, with the first ten characters
of each file describing management policy. The format is
(A10/(80I1) ) .
85
-------
00
<* C
PROGRAM PONDS(INPUT,OUTPUT,TAPE?,TAPE3,TAPE61>
C
C
C
C CATTLE FEEOLOT RUNOFF RESERVOIR
C
C SIMULATION MOCEL
C
C
C
C THIS MCOEL ALLOWS YOU TO SIMULATE UP TO TEN
C STORAGE PONDS EACH WITH A GIVcN VOLUME AND
C IRRIGATION PULPING CAPACITY.
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C VARI3LE DEFINITIONS
C
C
C
C LIN = INPUT UNIT
C LOUT = OUTPUT UNIT
C IDAYP* = NUMBER OF DAYS PFR MONTH
C ISTART = FIRST YEAR OF DATA
C IFINAL = LAST YEAR OF DATA
C RMAX = MAXIMUM RAINFALL THAT OCCUREO DURING EACH YEAR
c RAINMAX = HEWATERING PERMITTED ON DAYS WITH RAINFALL
C LESS THAN THIS VALUE
-------
C EXPRAIN = ?5 YEAR-2U HOUR EXPECTED OECURRFNC^ RAINFALL VALUE
C ANTCDK = 5 DAY ANTIC^OENT 10TSTURE 4CCUMULATION
C OrPTH = DEPTH OF PONO
c IWARMC = SEASONAL CRITERION IN RUNOFF EQUATION
C MTNTEfP = FREEZING CRITERION
C IDAYEAR = NUMBER OF DAYS IN A YEAR
c PUIPOF = DAILY PUMPING CAPACITY
C INO = NUM3ER CF YEARS OF CATA
c ITTMP = TE^PERATUPE DATA
C RAIN = RAINFALL DATA
C ANTRAIN = STORE END OF YEA* RAINFALL
C AKTEMF = STORE €NO OF TEM°ERATURE
C ISUM = THREE DAY ANTICEOENT TEMP£RATUDE
C 0 = DAILY PUNCFF
C TRAIN = TOTAL RAINFALL FOP EACH YEAR
c SMOMACC = DAILY SNOW ON GROUND
C RAINACC = RAINFALL WHICH ACCUMULATES WHILE SNOW ON GROUND
c IFLAGSN = SNOWFALL RUNOFF FLAG
^j C =0, WHEN NO RUNOFF FROM SNOFALL
C =1, WHEN RUNOFF FROM SNOWFALL
C PPO = TOTAL PERMISSIBLE PUXFING 3AYS EACH YEAR
C PO = TOTAL ACTUAL PUMPING OAYS EACH YEAR
C OtfFL = YEARLY TOTAL PONO OVERFLOW
C MANGT = MANAGEMENT D£WATERING POLICY
C OEVAP = AVERAGE DAILY EVAPORATION FOR EACH MONTH FOR SPECIFIC DAY
C MT£MP = AVERAGE MONTHLY MEAN TEMPERATURE
C DTEMP = AVERAGE MONTHLY MEAN TEMP FOR S°FCIFIC CAY
C MrVAP = AVERAGE DAILY EVAPORATIONS FOR EACH MONTH
C SURDPT = PONO DEPTH USED TO DETERMINE SURFACE AREA
c CVAPCCN « EVAPORATION CONSTANT TO CONVERT PAN TC PONO
C SURAREA = PONO SURFACE AREA
C RATEP* = FRACTION OF PONO VOLUME (25 vcflp-eu HOUR STORM)
C PERMITTED IN ONE DAY OF PUMPING
C EVAP = ACTUAL DAILY EVAPORATION
C POLICY = MANAGE*ENT POLICY FOR EACH STATICN
C STAT1 AND STAT2 = LOCATION OF EACH STATION
C DEPTH •= PONO CEPTH
-------
oo
CO
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
OMAX = MAXTHUM POND DEPTH FOR YEAR
QPMAX = MAXIMUM PONO DEPTH FOR RUN
NP = NUMBER OF PONOS
IONR = ILLEGAL OVERFLOW NOT RETAINED
IOR = ILLEGAL OVERFLOW RETAINED
LONR = LEGAL OVERFLOW NOT RETAINED
LOR = LEGAL OVERFLOW RETAINED
NIO = NUMBER CF ILLEGAL OVERFLOWS
NLO = NUMBER OF LEGAL OVERFLOWS
TOVFL - TOTAL OVERFLOK FOR YEAR
TO = TOTAL RUNOFF FOR RUN
INTEGER OAV,
* ITEHM366I, PANGTC366) ,HT£MP(366) ,
MTffP(12),IDAVPM(13),
NLO ( 10, 75), M 0(10, 751 ,PQ C1C , 751
TOTNLO(10),TOTNIO{10I
REAL
R AI N ( 366 ),SNO WACO (366) ,OEVAP<366» ,
MEVAP(12» ,
ANTRATfU6l ,
(10 ,75>
LOR 110, 75 1 , LONR (10, 75) ,IOR(10 ,75» ,IONR(1Q,75) ,TO VFL (1 r, 75 ) ,
OMAX CIO, 75) ,R*AX<1C,75»,TRAIN(75) ,TQ<75) ,
TOTLORI10) ,TOTLONR(10) ,TOT IOR (10 ) ,TOT IONR (10 I ,TCTOVFL (1C) ,
PUMFDPC10) ,RATEPM(10)
OATA
-------
9EWINC 2
REWINC 3
C
c
C INPUTt
C (1) NUM3E* OF PONDS
C (2) FOND DEPTHS
C 131 PUMPING RATE
C
3 PRINT 6010
READ *tNP
PRINT 6G30
READ «,CDPMAXU),RATEPMm ,I = 1,NP>
PRINT 6070
REAO 6075, OCHK
IFOCHK.EQ.*NO <> GOTO 2
C
C INITIALIZE VARIABLES
vo ANTCON=RAINACC=0.0
SURAREA=43560.0*CFXP«AIN*2.0l/12.C/SUPnPT
00 3 1=1, M«»
PUMFOP(I)=RATEPH(I)*EXPRAIN
CEXRAIN=EXPRAIN/1.1^
INO=IFINAL-ISTART«-i
00 10 H=l,12
I2=IDArPH(
00 5 1=1,12
OTEHPfOAV)=HTEMP(M)
5 OEVAP(OAY)=MEVAP(M)
10 CONTINUE
C
C INPUT STATION NAME
REAO(Z,6C80) STAT1,STAT2
-------
c
C INPUT MANAGEMENT POLICY
PEA DO, 610 oi POLICY,
C
C SET INITIAL ANTECEDENT RAIN AND TEMPERATURE CONDITIONS
IFtlYEAR.G-MSTART) GOTO 50
00 3C 1=1,6
AMTFAINCIfsRAIN(JI
30 ANTEMP
-------
IFCOAY.LE.*) GOTO SO
GOTO 70
50 IF! OAY.EQ.l) ANTCONrANTCON«-ANT*AINC*»-ANTRAIN(l»
IF(QAY.GT.l) ANTCON=ANTCOK'«-ffAINCOAY-l)-ANTRAIN(QAY)
70 CCNTIMJE
C
C CORRECT FOND ^EPTH FOR EVAPORATION ANO R
EVAP=CEVAP(OAY)*ITeMP(OAY)/OT£MP
-------
c
C
C
C
IFIMANGT(OAY) .EQ.P
* .OR. RAIN(OAY).GT.RAIN«AX
* .OR. ITEMP(CAY) .LE.32
» .OR. SNOWACCCOAYI.GT.G.CI
GOTO
C
C
POND VOLUME M /Y BE REDUCED IF DEPTH IS GREATER THAN
DAILY PUMPING CAPACITY
00 120 1=1, NP
PPO(I,IY)=PPO(I,IY)*1
IF<0£PTHm.LT.PUMPOP{IM GOTO 120
OEPTH(I)=OEPTHfI)-PUMPOP(II
PDII,IYI=POCI, 1*1+1
120 CONTINUE
18? CONTINUE
ACCUMULATE RAINFALL IF SNOW ON GROUND
IFLAGSN=0
IFf SNCWACC(OAY) .LE.C.O) GQTQ 190
RAINACC=RATNACC*RAIN(OAY|
GOTO <«QO
IFCRAINACC.LE.O.C) GOTO 2P 3
RAIN <0 AY) =RAIN(OAY)f RAIN ACC
RAINACC=0.0
IFLAGSN=1
200 CONTUUE
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
RAINFALL LESS THAN 0.05 INCHES is CONSIHERFO INSIGMFICANT
IF(RAIN(OAY).LE.0.05» GOTO
DETERMINE RUNOFF »
IFCIFIAGSN.E0.1
.OR, ITEMP.L£.IWARMC .AND.
ANTCDN .G T . 2. 1
ANTC1N .GT.l. 1 1
GOTO
...USING ANTECEDENT CONDITION NO. II
Q= ( RAIN (DAY J-C. 19781 **2/ (RAIN (DAY) +9.7912)
GOTO 200
-------
c
C ...USING ANTECEDENT CONDITION NO. Ill
25 D 0=CRAIN(OAY)-C.0618)**Z/(RAIN(DAY) *C
300 CONTINUE
C
TQIIYJsTQCIY) +0
C
C AOO RUNOFF TO PONO AND CHECK FOR OV/EPFLCW
00 35C 1=1, NP
0£PTHm=OEPTHU)«-Q
IFCOEPTHf I) .LE.OPMAXCIM GOTO 3<*0
OVFL=OFPTH(I»-OPMAX(II
TOVFL+OVFL
DEPTHfI)=OPMAXm
IFdFLAGSN.EO.l
* .CR. RaiKfDAYI .LE.CEXRAIN* GOTO 330
NLO(I»IY»=NLOCI,IY>«-1
IF(CVFL.LT.Q) LOR(I,IY)=LOR ( I, IY ) +Q-OVFL
LONR(I,IV»=LONR(I, IYI *OVFL
GOTC 340
33C NIO(I,IY)=NIOCI,IY|*1
IFCCVFL.LT.Q) IOR(I, IY) = IOR ( I , IY I 4-Q-OtfFL
IONRCI,IY»=IONRII,IY> *OVFL
3<»0 IF(OEPTHCII.GT.OHAXCI,IYn 0*AX< I, IY» =OFPTH(
350 CONTINUE
400 CONTINUE
C
C CALCULATE TOTALS
00 A2C 1=1, NP
TOTKLOm=TCTNLOm+NLO(I,IY)
TOTLOR(I»*TOTLORf II *LOR( I, IY)
TOTMOCI»=TCTNIO(II*HIO(I,IY)
TOTIOR=TOTIONRCI)*IONR(I,IY)
TOTCVFL(I)sTOTOVFL«I»*TOVFLfItIVI
-------
c
c
vo
500
SET ANTECEDENT RAIN AND TEMPERATURE FOR N^XT YEAR
J=IOAYEAR-6
00 <».?)
6Q70 FCRMAT(/* IS DATA CORRECT*)
6075 FORHAT(AIO)
6080 FORHAT(3A10)
6100 FORMATU10/C80I1I)
(120 FORMAT<8(I3,Fi».2,F3.0)l
61VO FORMAT (1H1,T10f 2A10,*C*, !<»,*-*,!«»,*) tt
* T10,*PONO OEOTH =<,F6.2/
* T10,*HANAGEHENT OEWATERING POLICY = *,AlO/
T10,
-------
YEAR*,
6160 FORMflT (IHGt
-------
APPENDIX C. ECONOMIC EVALUATION MODEL
GENERAL PROGRAM INFORMATION
Title: Cattle Feedlot Runoff Control Cost Estimating Model
Authors; R. M. McDowell, R. B. Wensink, and J. R. Miner
Installation: CDC 3300 at Oregon State University
Programming Language: Standard FORTRAN IV
Date Written; 1976-1977
Remarks;
The cost-estimating model determines initial investment and annual
operating costs of runoff control facilities for unroofed, earth-
surfaced feedlots. The model develops costs for clean water
diversions, settling basin, and runoff retention structures as
well as an irrigation system for disposing of runoff. Costs of
four different irrigation systems are estimated by the model,
which is capable of approximating the cost of two different dis-
posal policies. Major design parameters are: daily pumping rate
in acre-inches per feedlot-acre-day, storage volume in acre-inches
per feedlot acre, average pumping days per year, area (in acres)
required for one day's pumping, and total area required for disposal
of runoff. The model estimates cost of runoff control only, and
does not calculate outlay for a complete waste management program.
PROGRAM OUTPUT
Output variable names are listed in the program. The output is
comprised of initial cost data and annual operating cost estimates.
A. Initial Cost
1. Earthwork (excavation cost of clean water diversion ditch,
settling basin, and retention pond);
2. Land occupied by these structures plus the disposal site;
3. Irrigation equipment (pumps, sprinkler units, and mainline);
4. Miscellaneous items (screen dams for settling basins;
fencing for retention pond; seeding of earthwork; surveying),
B. Annual Cost
1. Depreciation and interest,
2. Taxes,
3. Insurance on irrigation equipment,
4. Labor for operating disposal system, and
5. Electricity for operating disposal system
96
-------
PROGRAM INPUT
Input variable names are defined in the program. Even though
the model was developed and utilized on Oregon State's Time Sharing
Computer System, the following cards would be required to operate
the program from a CDC 3300 Batch Processing System.
A. Order of Job Control Language Cards
70(JOB CARD)
o
70(ACCOUNT CARD)
o
7 FORTRAN,L,R
o
7 7
8 8
78LOGOFF
B. Inputs
1. Feedlot area (acres);
2. Required storage volume (acre-inches per feedlot acre);
3. Pumping rate (acre-inches/feedlot acre-day);
4. Average pumping days per year;
5. Area required for one day's pumping (acres);
6. Area required for total disposal site (acres);
7. Disposal policy (nutrient utilization or strict waste
disposal);
8. Maximum daily application (acre-inches per acre-day)
C. DATA Statements
The following DATA statements must be defined:
1. NGPMP is a one-dimensional array which contains discharge
capacities of selected sizes used with hand move and
side roll irrigation systems.
2. NCOSTP is a one-dimensional array containing costs of
various pumps listed in NGPMP.
3. NHPP is a one-dimensional array containing horsepower ratings
of pumps listed in NGPMP.
4. MGPM is a one-dimensional array which contains the maximum
capacity (gpm) of various sizes of mainline.
5. MSIZE is a one-dimensional array which contains the diameter
of the mainlines corresponding to the elements of MGPM.
97
-------
6. MCPF is a one-dimensional array which contains cost per
100-foot section of the mainline listed in MGPM.
7. KGPMP is a one-dimensional array containing discharge
capacities of pumps (gpm) for the two high pressure
irrigation systems (stationary and traveling big gun).
8. KHPP is a one-dimensional array which contains horsepower
ratings of pumps contained in KHPP.
9. KCOSTP is a one-dimensional array which contains costs of
pumps represented by discharge capacities in KGPMP.
Additional Cost Variables
1. COSTA represents excavation cost per cubic yard ($).
2. COSTB is the cost of constructing clean water diversion
ditch ($/foot) .
3. KOSTC is the cost of land ($/acre).
4. COSTD is averaged cost of 40-foot sections of 3- and
4-inch aluminum irrigation pipe, with sprinkler.
5. COSTE is the cost of a 1,320 side roll irrigation lateral.
6. KOSTF is the cost of a big gun irrigation nozzle with
capacity less than 500 gpm.
7. KOSTG is the cost of a big gun irrigation nozzle with
capacity greater than 500 gpm.
*
8. KOSTH is the cost of a traveling big gun system .
9. COSTI is the cost of four-strand barbed wire fence, in-
stalled ($/foot).
10. COSTJ is the cost of seeding earthworks for grass ($/per
$ value of earthwork).
11. COSTK is the cost of screen check dams ($/foot).
12. COSTL is the cost of insuring irrigation equipment
($ per one dollar insured value).
13. COSTM is the cost of electricity ($/kilowatt-hour).
14. COSTN is the wage rate for irrigation labor ($/hour).
15. AMORT is the amortization factor to calculate annual cost
of investment with a lifetime of ten years at an interest
rate of 10%.
16. TRATE is the annual tax rate per $1.00 assessed value.
Details on cost of traveling big gun contained in Appendix D.
98
-------
CONCOST
r
C
c
r
rCcT 'STIMATING
NOT AT ION ANT E
ATION
HA NT MOVE
10
NGP-1F DTSTHArGE ~AOACITr OF FUMPT AVAILA5LF F
ANO SIDE POLL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
• FU«PS FOR US" WITH HAND MOVE
SYSTEMS
COST OF PUMPS FO- USE MITH HAND MOVE AND SIDE ROLL SYSTEMS
"ORSEPCWF- RATIMG OF PUMPS USED WITH HAND "^OVE ANO
L * Y 5 T r M c
CAPACITY OF ^'ATNLI^I£S
. 1Cn FrPT OF MAINLINE
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
r
c
NHPMP
N<"OST F
f-jHO?
MGf* M
MC°F
MSIZt
-------
o
o
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
r
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
r
AOS
FLARt A
MANPOL
COSTA
COST?
KOSTC
COSTD
CCSTE
KPSTF
KOSTG
REQUIRED
9EOUIREO
COSTL
COSTN
XAQP
XAQS
PVOL
DISPOSAL PLOT AC-FAG^
DISPOSAL SIT£ ACRrA^E
A^EA IM acR£5
POLICY IDENTIFIED
F.XCAVATTON CHARGE: 5/CU3IC
CITCH COST: ^/LINEAL COOT
COST: */ACRf
DER FEETLCT ACR£
LANG
COST
MOV?
COST
COST
LESS
COST
OF
FOOT SECTION OF ALUMINU" HAND
OF
OF
OF
KOSTH
cosri
COSTJ
COSTK
COST OF
FENCING
SEEDING
COST CF
* PtR L
HLO/CL
EXVOL
EWC'IST
KLAS?
132C POOT SIDE ROLL IRFIGATION
3IG GUN IRRIGATION S^klNKL^R WITI-
N 5C: GALLONS PE" MINUTE
3IG GUN IRRIGATICN S3OIN«LE» WITH
THAN ?oo GALLONS PER HINUTF
TRAVELLING BIG GUN SYSTEM, COMDL£Tr.
COST: */LIN"AL FOOT
COST POEFFICIENT
SC:<£rN DAMS FOR SETTLING 3ASIN:
LINEAL FOOT
COST: J/ * INSURED VALUE
ELECTRICITY POST: */ KWH
HOURLY WAGF RATF FQ^ IRRIGATION LA^O^
AMORTIZATION FACTOR
TAX RATF PtR CNF DCLLA' OF ASSFSrD VALUE
TOTAL CTSPQSAL PLOT ACRrAG£
DISPOSAL SITr ACREAGE
PU^3ING RATE REQUIRED PER DAY
PIJKJPPP opi^ YEAR
3ASIN VOLUME IN CU^IC
COST OF EXCAVATING SETTLING
COST G^ EACAVATlNr, CLEAN WATER
TOTAL F£OUI
-------
C
C
C
C
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
c
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
KLADIV COST OF LAKH OCCUPIED 3Y CLEAN WATER OIi/ERSTO*:
KLARPAP COST OF LAND OCCUPIED 3Y DETENTION POND AMI P^I^E
KLAOIS COST OF LAND AREA OCCUPIED 9Y DISPOSAL SHE
*WHEN APPROPRIATr*»
TOTAL COST OF LAND CHARGED TO RUNOFF CON'^OL SYSTEM
HOURS <=
-------
o
Ni
C
c
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
TTCHM
ITCSR
GPV8G
N3G
IGPM9G
ITC3G
TOTAL COST OF HAMO MOVE
TOT IL CTST OF SIDF ROLL
IRRIGATION
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
SYSTEM
KPCNT
HSIZEL
KGPMT
KMGPM
L MA INS
K CUNT 8
KMAIN
TCM3
ITC3GS
MRGGFK
ICM3
LGPM
LPSNT
LTPCST
L MA INC
KOUNTC
L^AIN
ICMC
PUMPING RATE FOR <*IG GUN SYSTEMS IN GALLONS PER MINUTE
OF BIG
DISCHARGE PE^
TOT tL COST OF
PUMP RATE
GUNS REQUIRED FOP
3IG GUN IN GALLONS PER MINUTE
BIG GUNS
3IG GUN SYSTEM! FOR PUMP SELECTOR LOOP
COUNTER FOR 3IG GUN SYSTEM PUMP SELECTOR LOOP
TO LOOP FOR 3IG GUN SYSTEM PUMP SELECTION
TOTAL COST OF PU*P(S> FOR BIG GUN SYSTEM
MOR3EPCWFP RATING OF. INDIVIDUAL PUHP(S) FOR
=T£R FOP BIG GUN SYSTEM. MAINLINE SELECTOR! TOTAL
NUMBER OF MAINLINES REQUIRED
DO LOOP FOR MAINLINE SELECTION FQP 3IG GUN SYSTEM
TOTAL COST OF MAINLINE FOR BIG GUN SYSTEM
TOTAL COST OF 3IG GUN SYSTEM
PUMPING °ATE FOR MOVING 3IG GUN SYSTEM
REAL NLM^ER VALUE OF "M3GGPM-
NUMBER OF MOVING <3IG GUNS NECESSARY
TOTAL COST OF MOVING ^IG GUNS
TOTfL CISChARGE CAPACITY FOR MOVING BIG GUN SYSTEM!
USE1 IN PUMP SELrCTOR LOOP
COUNTER FQP PUMP SELECTOR LOOP ^OR MOVING RIG GUN SYSTEM!
NUMBER OF CUMDS PTQUIPFO pQR MOVING 3IG GUN SYSTEM
no LOOP FOR PUMP SELECTION FT? MOVING 3IG GUN SYSTEM
TCTAL COST OF PUMPS FOR COVING ^IG SYSTE^
LENGTH OF MAINLlvj£ REQUIRED FOR MOVING «?IG GUN SYSTEM (FT.)
COUNTER FOR MAINLINE SELECTOR FOR f-OVING 9IG GUN SYSTEM
00 LOOP FOR MAINLINE SELECTIOM PQR MOVING BIG GUN SYSTEM
TOTAL HISCHARGE FROM MAINLINE FOR *CVING BIG GUN SYSTFH!
IN GALLONS °£F MTNUTE
TCTAL COST OF MAINLINE FOR MOVING 3IG GUN SYSTEM
-------
o
U)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
r
w
c
c
c
r
\*>
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
r.
r
v/
c
ircM°
CP£NC E
C~Rp
C^AMG
CFNG
C*1! "5C
ICOST
JC3ST
LCOST
TPQSTA
TCOST?
TCOSTC
TCOSTC
Acait>
ACOIHC
Acaisc
ACOIBC
ACOITG
ACTEfc
ACTS*
ACT3G
ACT 4BG
ACM^SC
ACMRO.G
TOTAL COST Oc MOVING ^IG GUN SYSTEMS
TOT^L c o c T oF c P N c i *j G
TOTAL TOST OF SELOING EACTHWO»KS TO GRASS
TOT^L rOS^ OF SCREEN OA«S FOR SETTLING 'iflSIN
TOTAL CO^T OF SNGINFPRING ANJ S»)»*FYTNG
TOTAL M!3CrLLflN£0(JS TOST
TCT4L INVESTMENT ?>^LUSlVE OP lO'IGATTON SYSTEM
FOR HAND MOVE ANT BIG GUN SYSTEMS
TOTAL INVESTMENT EXCLUSIVE OF IRRIGATION SYSTE**
FCR SIOr ROLL SYSTL^
TOTAL INVESTMENT EXCLUSIVE OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM
FOR MOVING ^IG GUN SYSTEM
TOTAL COST F0= RUNOFF CONTROL FACILITIES USING
HAND MO>/£ IRRIGATION SYSTEM
TOTAL COST FOR RUNOFF CONTPOL FACILITIES USING
SIO" RCLL IRRIGATION SYSTEM
TOTAL COST FOR RUNOFF CONTROL FACILITIES USING
3IG GUN IRKlGATION SVSTEMS
TOTAL COST OF RUNOFF CONTROL FACILITIES USING
MOVING 3TG GUN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
ANNUAL COST Oc APPRECIATION AND INTE^^ST FCR
NON-IRRIGATION ITEMS
ANNUAL COST OF 1CPRECI ATI ON AND INTEREST FOR
HANO MOVE IPRIGATION SYSTEM
ANNUAL COST OF DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST FOR
STOE RCLL SYSTEM
ANNUAL COST OF DEPRECIATION ANO INTEREST FOR
3IG GUN SYSTEM
ANNUAL COST OF QfPRECIATION AND INTEREST FCR
MOVING ^IG GUN SYSTEM
ANNUAL TAX ON NON-IRRIGATION ITEMS
ANNUAL TAX ON HANO MOVE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
ANNUAL TAX ON SIT^ ROLL IRRIGATION SVST£M
ANNUAL TAX ON 3IG GUN IRRIGATION SYSTE*
ANNUAL TAX ON MOVING 31 G GUN IPRIGATION SYSTEM
ANNUAL COST OF M/UNT. ANC PEf>AI» ON HAND *OV£ SYSTEM
ANNUAL COST OF *AI*T. ANC REPAIR ON SIDE ROLL SYSTEM
ANNUAL COST OF MAINT. A NO REPAIR ON 3IG C-UN SYSTEM
-------
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
A CM RE W
ACI NHy
ACINSK
ACIN9G
ACINTG
ELECHH
ELECSP
ELEC9G
ELE3TG
CLA3H*
CLA3SR
CLA3BG
CLA3TG
TACHM
TACSR
TAC3G
TACTG
TACEW
TACEWJ
TACEKL
TACA
TAC3
TACC
TAG 3
CCAPA
CCA»C
CCAPT
CHEAGA
CHEA08
CHEADC
CHEAOC
TICAPA
TICAP6
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNtAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNtAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
USING
TOTAL
USING
TOTAL
USING
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
MOVING
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANMAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNIAL
TOTAL
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
OF
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
COST
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
ANNUAL
HANO MOVE AMD 3IG GUN SYSTEMS
ANNUAL COST OF EARTHWORKS FOR -UNOFF CONTROL
TH- SIOE ROLL IRRIGATION SYSTEM
ANNUAL COST OF EARTHWORKS FOR RUNOFF CONTROL *YSTFMS
GUN "
FACILITIES
FACILITIES
FACILITIES
FACILITIES USING
MAINT. AND REPAIR ON MOVING 31 G GUN SYSTE*
XAINT. A NO REPAIR OK EARTHWORK^
INSURANCE FOR HAND *OVE SYSTEM
INSURANCE FOR SITE ROLL SYST*^
INSURANCE FOR 3IG GUN SYSTF*"
INSURANCE FOR MOVING BIG GUN SYSTEM
ELECTRICITY FO° HAND MOVE svsTf
ELFCTRICITY FOR SIDE ROLL SVSTFM
ELECTRICITY FOR =HIG GUN SYSTF^l
ELECTRICITY FOR MOVING <3IG GUM SYSTEM
LA^CR FOR HAN3 MOVE SYSTEM
LA30R PQR SIOE POLL SYSTEM
LA309 FOR 91 G GUN SYSTE^
LA3CR FOR MOVING RIG GUN SY^T^M
COST OF 0°£FATING HANO *C)VE SYSTFM
COST OF OPERATING STOP ROLL SYSTfM
COST OF OPERATING HG GUN SYTEM
COST OF OPERATING MOVING 1IG GUN SYSTEM
COST CF EARTHWORKS FOR ^UNOFF CONTROL
THE MOVING 3IG
ANNUAL COST OF
ANNUAL COST OF
ANNUAL COST OF
ANNUAL COST OF
"?IG GUN SySTE1'
COST OFF HTfij
COST PFR HtCD
COST °£R H~£D
COST OFP M-AO
COST PFR HF.AD
COST PER MEAT
COST PER HFAD
COST °EC HEAD
SYSTEM
USING HANO
USING SIHf
USING
3IG
MOVE SYSTFM
ROLL SYSTEM
GUN SYSTEM
OF
OF
OF
INVESTMENT DF.O
USING
USING
USING
USING
HFA3
HtAO WITH SIOF ROLL
MC\«E
STOE ROLL SYSTCW
^IG GUN SYSTEM
MOVING 31G GUM
CAPACITY USING
CAPACITY USING
CAPACITY USIMG
CA°AOITY USING
HAND MOVE c
SIDE "OLL SYSTEM
=JIG GLN SYSTEM
MOVING PIG GUN SYSTEM
WITH HANO
-------
C TICAPC TOTftL INVESTMENT PER HEAD WITH 3IG GUN SYST£M
C TICAPC TOTAL INVESTMENT PER HPAO WITH MOVING HIG GUN SYSTEM
C XMINI MINIMUM YEARLY LA30R COST FOR ANY SYSTEM
DIMENSION NGFMP(ll) ,NCOSTP(11) ,NHPP( 11)
OATA
-------
c
RFAKf 0,10 ID RfWCL,OPRATE,POArS,AQP,AQS,OTSr,»«AXDA,FLARFA
C
ic?c Fr>(*M£T« E^TER MANAGFMENT POLICY*)
10^0 FCPMAT(Il)
C
C INPUT COST VARIABLES
r
COST A = .5
C
C
r
rr»STL = . JC6
COSTNs^.5
= . 162/5
C
C FA
-------
C CALCULATION OF
r
\*
C
C
C *»CAtCUi_AT? COST QF CONSTRUCTING t A'THWCRKS**
C
C
C SETTLING ^
C
C
C
C
c CLEAN WATE*? DIVERSION
c
r
c
C *£TdNTION
C
C
£ A*363C
IF(£> WOL.LT.6 CJ .) GO TO I
TONTIMJS
GO "C 1?CC
10 5P
c
c
C CONPITF TOTAL COST FOR EARTHWORK?
C
C
-------
c
c
C **^ALCULATE COST LANT 3EQUIPEO FOR TOTAL FACILITIES**
C
C
C LAND A*£A FOR SETTLING 3ASIN
C
C
C
C
C
C
C LAND S^EA POP CLEAN *iAT£R m/ERSION 01
C
C
C LAND ARE/1. FOk RETENTION RESIVOIP ANT
C
C
C
C
C LAND FOR DISPOSAL
C
IFOISP.EQ.l.) GO TO ilfj
CONTINUE
GC TC 1110
C
1100
C
C
-------
c
C CALCULATE TOTAL LAND COST
C
C
1110 LATOT = LARPAP*LAOIV«-LAS3
LCrOT=LATOr*KOSTC*KLAOIS
C
C
C IRRIGATION EQUIPM-NT
C CALCULATF HOURS oer:? SET
C
TSET=MAXOA ,.33
c
c
IFITSET.GT. 1C .1 GOTO 113C
C
C COST OF LATERALS FOS H*< < SR SYSTEMS
C WHEN TSET<1Q HOURS
c
1120 LCHM=IFIX(9.C 75*COSTO*XAGF)
LCSR=IFIX(C.275*COSTF*XflOP»
GO TO 11** 0
C
C
C COST OF LATERALS FOR HM < SP SYTFM$
C WHEN TSET>10 HOURS
C
C
1130 LCH1=IFIX<18.15*COSTO*XAOP)
LCSR=IFIA (.566*COSTE*XAOD)
C
GO TC 1150
C
C CALCLLATF H* < SR SYSTEM CAPACITY WHEN TS£T<1C HOURS
C
GO TO 1160
C
C CALCULATE HM < SR SYSTEM CAPACITY WHEN TSET>10
-------
C
C
C
C P'JMFS FO* HM < SF SYT£MS
C
11«>C IGP>1=IFIX
NPCMT=1
1170 00 ll
C
C
FOR SIDE ROLL OCCUMFNTAT ION
JCOSTF=NCOSTP
JGP^P=NGPMP (I
CALCULflT-: COST OF HAINLINt ^0" H- < s«
1200 TO Icl3 TM4IN=1,7
IF( JGFM.Lt .MGF^dMfllNi ) GO TO 1220
1210
GO TC
c
1220
-------
0
C C^EATnN CF \/£KIflalrS FOR SIDE ROLL DOCUMENTATION
C
J<0'JN7=1P HOURS
C
C
C CALCLLflTE NUHIF" OF ^IG GUNS PEQUTRED
C
1250 N3G=IFIX (GOM3G/1CCC.+1.)
GO TO 126C
-------
c
C CALCULATf COST OF RIG GUN
C
ITC3G=NBG*KOS1F
GO TO 127C
C
1260 ITC3G=N3G*KOSTG
C
C
C
C
C PU^P SELECTOR FOR RG SVSTE*
C
1270 KGPM=IFIXCGPM1G>
KPCNT=i
1230 00 1290 KPUMP=1,7
IFCKGFM.LE.KGPHPfKOUMF) ) GO TO 1300
1290 CONTIKUE
GO TO 126C
C
1300 KTPCST=KPCNT*KCOSTPIKPUMP>
KHPPL=KHPP(LPLMP)
MSI ZEL=1SI7t (MAIN!
C
C
c
C
C MfllNLlNt SELECTION FOR 3G S
C
LWAINe=1CO*IFIX ((SuPTCXAOS'^HSfa-j.l 1*2.1
C
1310 DO 1323 <-IAIN=l,7
-------
GO To i3uc
1320 CONTINUE
KCUNTe=KOUNT9*l
GO TO 1310
C
13«»0 IC»HsFLOAT
C
C
C
C CALCULATE TOTAL COfT 0^ 3IG GUN
C
C
C
C
C
C CALCULATIONS FOR TRAVELING RIG GUN
c TPST POR MINIMUM PUMP ^ATE FOR TBG
C
IFCXPRATE.LT.ie.15> GO TO li»10
CHSG=FLOAT (M8GGPMI
NM8G=IFIX( <"M9G/1000«*-1.C)
ICH9G=NM8G*KOSTH
PUMP SELECTION FOR T3G
LFCMT=1
1350 00 1360
IF(LGFM.LE.KGPMPtLOUHP) ) GO TO 1370
1360 CONTINUE
LPCNT=LPCNT«-1
LGPM=f 3GGPM* ( 1 . 0/LPCNT1
GO TO 1350
C
-------
LTPCSTrLFCNT'KCOSTPlLPU-P)
C
c
C MAINLINE SELECTION FOR T3G SYSTEM
.i; 1/1620.0
1380 OP 139D LM«IM=1,7
IFCLHGPM.L-.MGPMfLMAINM GO TO 1<»CD
1390 CONTINUE
KCUNTC=KOUNTC+1
LMGPM=H3GGCM*C1 ,0/KOUNTC)
GC TO 1380
CflLCLLAT^ TOTAL COST OF TRAVELING «JI6 GUN SYSTEM
C
C
r
c
^ MI?C£LLANF.OUS COSTS
C
C
c
c
C CALCULATE COST OF FENCING
C
C
C
C
C
C CflLCULATF COST OF EROSION CONTROL (Sf '9 ING )
C
-------
c
c
C
c
C
C SETTLING -'ASIM CHECK
C
C
CDAMS=(12.«-3Q=>TC 1<»U. «• ( 3621. * FL ARFfl I / 2 ) » »
C
C
c
C CCST Or c
C
C
c CALCULATE: TOTAL MISCCLAN^OUS
c
C
C
C
c
LCOST=ICCST
C
c
C GALCULATt TOTAL INVESTMENT
C
TCOSTC=IC05T*-ITCMTG
C
-------
C CATTLE FEEOLOT RUNOFF RETENTION ^ACILITI^S ANNUAL COSTS
C
C
C VARIABLES ANC NOTATION
C
C
C
C
C COMPUTATION OF ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS
C
C
C CALCULATE EQUIVALENT ANNUAL COST OF HEPCEriA T ION
C
£W=
-------
flCHKHf=.C6mIT»:C5T*.32»LCHMf
C
c
C
c
C COMPUTE ANNUAL COST Of INSTANCE
C
C
ACINH*=CCSTL*ITCHM*.5
ACINSf=CrSTL*ITCS&*.5
ACINPG=COSTL*ITCBGS*.5
ACINTG=COSTL*ITCH3G*.5
C
C
c
C COM»UTF ENERGY COSTS POP PULPING
C
ELECHr'=ig.l2*«»VOL*COSTM
C
C
c
C COMPUTE ANNUAL COST OF
C
C
c
IFCTSET.GT.1C .1 GO TO 1U2C
GO TO 1<»30
1<»20 CLA3S* = .33»COSTN»POAYS»IFIX(XA HO/1. 1*1.0)
-------
oo
CLA3TG=NM3n»PCAYS*COSTN
C
C
C CCf°'JTt TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS OF IRRIGATION SYSTF*S
C
C
TAC£WJ=TAC"W
C
C
C
c
C GOfoijTr TOT5L ANNUAL COSTS
TAC3=TACSR*TACEW
TACC=T5C=»G*TACEW
TAC3=TACTG+TACEW
CCAPC=TACC/
-------
c
c
C CHECK FOP !»TN. OF 1 HR. LA1QP PFx DAY «^0= MM, S"? + 9G
XMI,4 =
IFIGLA33G.LT.XMIN) C
r THF^K FOR I-INI^UH DISPOSAL PLOT 317.-. FOP ^IOF ROLL S*ST£M
' (SVSTFy NOT APPLICABLE UNLF SS PLOT SI7^ >-ls HIN . .1
C
r
iF(xACp.r,E.i.cgo» GO TO i<»'-»c
jcosiF=ri
TrosT==C
-------
CCAos=0.
CHEAC9=Q.
TICAP9=C.
JPAIN=0
TACtWJ=C.
JCOST=Q
c
i«*<»0 IFtXPRATE.Gc. 12.15) GO TO 2L3T
C
LHAIKC=0
ICMC=C
ITCMBG=0
KHPPL=0
TCOSTG=1.
TICAPO=0.
TAC-)=C.
CCA°D=0.
CHEAOC^O.
ACOITG=0.
ACTNTG=S.
CLECTC-afl.
TICAPC=0.
TflC£WL=0,
LCOST = !)
C
C
2CGO
-------
21CC FORMATt*!*,//////,9X,*»* OIS°OSAL SYSTEM OFSIGN PARAMfTF'S ***,/,
*1 OX, * = = ===== = = = ==="=== =="=== = = "= = ==" = " = *,//)
c
WRITE 16, 2 2 CO FLARE A, AnP,ADS,MAXOA,OPRATF.,XAQp..XADS,XP*ATE,TSrT
»,P04.YSfROVOLtMANPOL,DIS°
2200 FORMAT!* FFEOLOT AR£A = *,F17.0,* ACRFS*,/,
i* DISPOSAL PIOT A*EA= *,FI<+.?,* ACRZS p£R F=-£nLcT ACRE*,/,
1* DISPOSAL SITE ARFA= *«F1£».2«* ACRES DER FEF1LCT flC^t*,/,
3* MAXIMUM 'lAILY APPLICATION: *,ci».0,* INCHES °F R ACRE*,/,
DESIGN PUMPING FATF= *,F13.2,* AC.-IN. PER FEEDLOT ACcE#,iv,
5* TOTAL DISPOSAL PLOT A»FA= *,F«.2f*
6* TOTAL DISPOSAL SITE AREA= *,F3.2,* &CRFS*,/,
7* TOTAL DAILY PUMPING PATE= *,F8.?f< ACȣ-INCHES ^ER HAY*,/
5* HOUFS RtQUIREC PER SET= «.F9. lv/v
** PUMPING TAYS CER Y€AR= *,F10.1»/«
** REOC. STQf?AGp VOL.= *,Flif.2,* AC-IN PER FEFOLCT ACRt*»/,
*< MAMAGEM£NT POLICY= *,I12,/,
«* TISFOSAL PCLICY= *,F14.?,//)
C
W»ITE<6,23201
2300 FORHATC7X,*** INVtSTMENT IN EARTHWORK, LAND, ANC *I5f. ITEMS »**/,
»7X,<====================================================*,//
C
WPITE(6,2HOO> SBVOL,S^COST,COI\/, ^XVOL,RPCOST , EWCOST
2^00 FORMAT!* SETTLING 3ASIN* ,21X , FS. 0, * CU. YDS . /, 1 X , #t#,F9 .0 , / ,
*# CuEAN WAT£P DIVERSION/, 32X, *?/,Fq. O,/,
*< RETENTION PCND F XC AVAT ION* , 10X ,FS . C , * CU. YDS .#, IX ,*?*,F9. 0 , / ,
*# TOTAL COST OF EARTHWORK*, 3flX , *** »F9. Q)
C
WRITE (6, 25 CO I LAS9,KL AS9f LA3I\/f KLAO I V,L ARPAP,KL ARP, XAOS, KL AOIS ,
*LATOT,LCTOT
2500
*< LAND FOR SETTLING 3ASIN* ,1 2X ,^3. 2, * ACRES* ,CX ,***, 19, /,
*# LANC FOR CLfAN WAT£P 01 V .* , 10X ,F 9. 2, * AC»ES* , <*X , *?* , I 9,/,
*t LANC FOR RET. PONO ANO PERIf ETE-<*, 3X,F6 . 2, * ACRFS* ,«fX ,?** , 19 , /,
-------
»* LAND FOP EFFLUENT HISPOSAL*, 9X,F 8. 2, < ACRES* , <»X, ***, I 9,/,
** TOTAL LAND FOR FAC IL IT IESf , 10X,F8. 2, t ACRES*, <»X , « *,I9)
c
E (5,26301 CFF_NCE,CERD,CQAMS,CENG,CMTSC,ICOST
?600 FORMAT(6X,*-MISCELLANF.OUS ITEMS-*,/,
*&<•* ..................... *,/
** FENCING FOR RET. PONO* ,33X , *?* ,F9. Q, /,
*< SEECING rARTHWORKS*,3SX,#?*,F9.0,/,
** CHFCK DAMS FOR SETTLING -3A SIN/,3«»X ,* t *,F9. C, / ,
*< ENGINEERINGS , <»2X, #f *, F9. 0, /,
** TOTAL COST OF MISC. I TEHS/ ,?3X,# %t ,F9. C, //,
** TOTAL COST OF EARTHHORK,LANO,»1ISC. <,19X, **«, I ?,//)
C
C
C
270D FORMAT(12X,X*» DISPOSAL SYST^H IN/ESTM^NT *»#,/
*==========^== ================ ===,;//
C
W>irr(ft,2^COIIGPMTf JGPHT,KGPMT,M?GGPM
?800 FORMATS THT. SYS. GPH< ,5X ,1 8, <»X, T 8, 2X , IB , 6X, I 6 ,)
2900 FORMATC* SPRINKLER UNITS t#,/, 2X, *NUM8ER REOO.*,
*27X,IE,6X,IS,/,
*1X,« TOTAL COST#,6X, #*#,!«, 3X,#f*,IH, 3V,
, JGPMP,
-------
•I CM A, JCMA, TCM3. I
»* LFNGTH (FEET»#t4»x,I*,«*XtI9,<»X,I6«6X»Ift,/
*/ 3IAM. (
*< < FF* 1
C
22CO FQI?MAT(#l#,////////////«?^<^** TOTAL INVFSTMFNT *»«,/,
*2«*X» / = ==== = = = = =========="=/,/
MOVF*t<*> tfSiaE-ROLL^t^X, ^3IG GUN*, 4X
c
c
MRITF (6,333C»ICOST, JCOST, ICOST , LCOST ,
"TCOSTA.TCOSTgtTCOSTC.TCOSTl,
*TICAPA,TICAP;3,TICAPC,TICAPD
73CO fO(l^AT« L«NO. PARTH-*,/.* WORK, MISC.*,6X,
DISF.
TOTAL
*//!
WRITC (6,3<*OC>
3i»CO FOR1£T(22X,<»* ANNUAL COSTS ***,/»
*22X,
-------
*29X,*SY<5TEM*,/,29X,* ...... *, // ,2X,*I TE** ,
;«X»*HAND VE*,«,X,*SIOE-ROU.*,i*X,«IG GUN* ,l»X , COVING B.C.*,/
4-~l™",'j;r ....... *'UXf* ......... *'VXt* ....... *ik*<
c
c
MPITE<6,3530I ACOIHM, ACOISP.ACOI3G, ACOITG
C
WRITE <6, 36<3{?» flCMRHM,
Fo* '
C
FORMAT (« FAXES*. 12X. ^,r8 .Q ,«, «*,Ffl.O ,«,«* ,r7. 3,1.x
WRITE (6, 7 830 I ACINHM, ACINSR , ACIN3G, ACTNTG
C
WPITF (6,3900)CLA3HM,CLA3SR,CLAq£'G,CLABTG
^3900 FOR1ATC* LABOR* , 12X, *«* ,F5. 0 , «,x . tl *, F- . C , 3x , «*,F7. 0 ,M ,*«*, F9. 0>
HPITE<6,«*000)cLECHy,rLEcsR,cLECRG,EL^CTG
MOO FOR1ATC* ELECTRICITY/, 6X, * ^.F?. 0.«»X,*^,P9. C, 3X,*t*,F7 ,C ,*X,
*^* ?Fv»0»/l
C
WRITEI6,t»l iCITACH1,TACS9,TAC3G,TACTG
U100 FORMAT \t
TOT. A.C.*,/,* LAMT, FARTH-*,/,
-------
N)
en
WRITC (6,«»33C)C~APA,CCAP!3,CCAPC,CCAPri,CHEAO<\,CHEA03,CH£AOC,CHEAOa
i»30t) FCR1ATK COST PC.P HEAD*,/,/ Oc ~AP ACITY *, 6X, <*•* .P8 ,2,<»X ,
-------
APPENDIX D. IRRIGATION COST DATA
TABLE D-l. ALUMINUM MAINLINES SIZES,
CAPACITIES1 AND COSTS
Capacity
(gpm)
50
100
200
300
400
800
1,200
Diameter
(inches)
2
3
4
5
6
8
10
Cost
(5/100 feet)
55
72
94
125
170
263
410
Capacities based on gpm discharges with velocity in pipe at
approximately five feet per second. Source: Buchner Irrigation
Company.
126
-------
TABLE D-2. COMPONENT COSTS OF CONTINUOUSLY
MOVING BIG GUNS1
Component Capacity, 500 gpm
($)
Traveling unit
Waste drive unit
Hose reel
Flexible hose
Hose couplings
Sprinkler
TOTAL
2,798
96
1,654
4,607
120
400
9,674
Capacity, 500-1,000 gpm
($)
2,798
96
1,654
4,831
136
700
10,188
Source: Molehill Irrigation Company.
127
-------
TABLE D-3. SPECIFICATIONS OF PUMPS
FOP HAND MOVE AND SIDE ROLL SYSTEMS
Discharge capacity
(gpm)
50
100
200
300
400
500
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
Pump size
(hp)
5
7
10
15
20
25
30
43
50
60
75
Cost
($)
1,400
1,600
1,450
1,650
1,900
2,100
2,550
2,900
3,300
4,000
6,400
128
-------
TABLE D-4. SPECIFICATIONS OF PUMPS
FOR STATIONARY AND TRAVELING BIG GUN SYSTEMS
Discharge capacity Pump size Cost
(gpm) (tip) (?)
100 15 1,400
150 20 1,840
300 30 2,280
450 40 2,700
600 60 3,280
850 75 3,160
1,150 100 6,520
129
-------
TABLE D-5. CALCULATION OF PRESENT VALUE
OF TRAVELING BIG GUN AND NECESSARY HOSE REPLACEMENTS
End
Pres
of year
O2
3*
6"
sent value
Item
Traveler
Hose
Hose
of system
Cost
($)
10,000s
4,700s
4,700
with two
P. V. factor1
1
0.638
0.476
hoses ,
P.V.
10
3
2
. . . .15
of cost
($)
,000
,210
,237
,447
1 Present value factors are for a discount rate of 10%. From
Agricultural Finance, Sixth Edition, by A. G. Nelson, W. F.
Lee, and W. M. Murray, Iowa State University Press, 1973.
2 Discounting convention refers to the beginning of the dis-
counting period as the end of year zero.
3 Average investment cost for traveling big gun (see Table D-2 of
the Appendix) is $9,931. $10,000 was used as the prices from
Table 2 are manufacturers' prices, F. 0. B., Portland, Oregon.
"* Average lifetime of hose is estimated at three years. Re-
placement is assumed to be required at the ends of years 3
and 6 of the ten year total equipment lifetime.
5 Average price of the flexible hose is $4,719. A value of
$4,700 was used for expediency (see Table D-2 for values).
130
-------
TABLE D-6. PUMP COMPONENT COSTS1
Item
Control panel2
Switch2
Electrical work
Install
Suction discharge
assembly2
Subtotal
Pump
TOTAL
5 hp
$ 50
170
200
60
250
$ 730
700
$1,430
Pump size
75 hp
$ 512
1,475
200
120
890
$3,197
3,200
$6,397
1 Source: Moore-Rane Manufacturing Company, Corvallis, Oregon.
2 Marvin N. Shearer, Department of Agricultural Engineering,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
131
-------
TABLE D-7. COST PARAMETERS USED
IN MODEL TO GENERATE OUTPUT DATA
Fortran variable Item Estimated value
name ($)
CostA
CostB
KostC
CostD
CostE
KostF
KostG
KostH
CostI
CostJ
CostK
KostL
CostM
CostN
Cost/yd3 excavated
Per ft cost of constructing
diversion ditch
Land cost per acre
40-ft section of hand move
irrig. pipe, w/ sprinkler
Cost of 1,320-ft side roll 3
lateral
Big gun w/ capacity < 500 gpm
Big gun w/ capacity > 500 gpm
Cost of complete traveling 15
big gun
Wire fence (per ft)
Cost of seeding earthworks
per $ value of earthworks
Per foot cost of screen
check dams
Insurance cost/$100 insured
value
Cost per kilowatt hour
Hourly wage rate for irrig.
labor
0.50
0.25
750.00
45.00
,800.00
400.00
700.00
,450.00
0.60
0.01
3.00
0.60
0.0308
3.50
132
-------
APPENDIX E.
Units stated
Lemjth
Inches
Inches
Feet
Feet
Units desired
centimeters
meters
centimeters
meters
Multiply by
2.54
0.0254
10.48
0.3048
Area
Square feet
Square feet
Acres
Acres
Volume
Acre-inches
Acre-inches
Volumetric flow rate
Ac re-inches/acre
GalIons/minute
Temperature
Degrees Fahrenheit
Power
Horsepower
Weight
Pounds
Pounds
Pounds/acre
square meters
hectares
square meters
hectares
cubic meters
hectare-centimeter
cubic meters/hectare
cubic meters/minute
degrees centigrade
watts
grams
kilograms
kilograms/hectare
0.0929
9.29 x 10
4,046.87
0.404687
102.79
1.0279
-5
253.81
1.78 x 10
-1
TF - 32)/1.8
746
454
0.454
1.122
133
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Pleate read Instruction* on the reverie before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-79-070
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
DESIGN AND COST OF FEEDLOT RUNOFF CONTROL FACILITIES
6. REPORT DATE
March 1979
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
J. Ronald Miner, Robert B. Wensink, Robert M. McDowell
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Dept. of Agricultural Engineering
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB770
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-803819
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab - Ada, OK
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final (6/15/75 - 12/31/77)
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT ~
Cattle feedlot runoff pollution control necessitates facilities to intercept and
store surface runoff so manure-contaminated waters are prevented from entering
streams and lakes. Design of these facilities requires a matching of individual
structures to proposed management techniques and regional climatic data.
Two computer models were developed for these purposes. The first, the sufficient
design program, was a simulation model which sized feedlot runoff retention ponds
based upon climatic data and management dewatering policies. In addition to minimum
pond volume, the sufficient design model listed average number of yearly pumpings for
each simulated management alternative at a selected pumping rate. The second model,
an economic budget generator, determined cost of open feedlot runoff control systems.
The models were tested at seven selected locations in the United States to determine
effects of five pumping rates and seven management dewatering alternatives on minimum
storage volumes required to prevent discharges as defined by EPA Effluent Guidelines.
Stations selected represented a broad spectrum of climatic conditions. Lastly,
effects of relaxing the discharge criterion were also studied at each location.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Agricultural wastes
Animal husbandry
Waste disposal
Models
Animal waste management
Feedlot runoff
Runoff retention designs
68D
98B
98C
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
144
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (••73)
134
, 1979-657-060/1636
------- |