attachment h: air quality modeling report.lowell franzen is proposing the construction of a new...

p-ear1-05 TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282-5332

Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Note to reviewers: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. This EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The project proposer supplied reasonably accessible data for, but did not complete the final worksheet. Comments on the EAW must be submitted to the MPCA during the 30-day comment period which begins with notice of the availability of the EAW in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. Comments on the EAW should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that are reasonably expected to occur that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. A copy of the EAW may be obtained from the MPCA by calling (651) 297-8510. An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA Web site http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html#open-eaw. 1. Basic Project Information.

A. Feedlot Name: Lowell Franzen Feedlot B.

Feedlot Proposer:

Lowell Franzen

C.

RGU:

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Technical

Contact Person Cris Skonard

Contact Person

Joel Fischer

and

Title President Skonard Engineering, Inc.

and Title

Project Manager Environmental Review Unit

Address 1580 60th Avenue Northeast Address 520 Lafayette Road North Willmar, Minnesota 56201 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone 320-905-5020 Phone 651-296-8643 Fax 320-235-0544 Fax 651-297-2343 E-mail [email protected] E-mail [email protected]

D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)

EIS Scoping

Mandatory EAW

X

Citizen Petition

RGU Discretion

Proposer Volunteered

If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category

subpart number and name:

Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29 (A)

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html#open-eaw

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Lowell Franzen Feedlot Environmental Assessment Lyle Township, Minnesota 2 Worksheet

E. Project Location: County Mower City/Twp Lyle Township NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 30 Township 101N Range 18W Watershed (name and 4-digit code):

Cedar River, HUC #07080201

F. Attach each of the following to the EAW:

Attachment A: County map showing the general location of the project Attachment B: Site map showing all significant project and natural features and project boundaries Attachment C: Geological survey map showing all residences and surface tile inlets within a one-mile

radius of the proposed feedlot site Attachment D: Geological survey maps of manure application sites showing all residences and surface

tile inlets in the areas of the manure application sites Attachment E: Letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Attachment F: Email from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Attachment G: Email from the Minnesota State Historical Society (MSHS) Attachment H: Air Quality Modeling Report. Attachment I: Karst Feature Inventory Study

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit Application and associated documents, including the Air Emissions and Odor Management Plan, the Animal Mortality Plan, the Emergency Response Plan, and the Crop Nutrient Management Plan, are available for review by contacting Mr. Chuck Peterson, of the MPCA’s Rochester office, at 507-280-3591.

G. Project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.

Lowell Franzen is proposing the construction of a new swine gestation and farrowing facility in Section 30 of Lyle Township in Mower County. The total confinement, mechanically ventilated facility will consist of a gestation barn with a maximum physical capacity of 4,064 sows (1,626 animal units), and a farrowing barn with a maximum physical capacity of 768 sows (307 animal units) and 1,280 nursery pigs (64 animal units). Manure will be collected in reinforced concrete pits located beneath the barns. Each spring and fall, the manure will be pumped from the facility and injected at agronomic rates into designated cropland as fertilizer.

H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested data:

Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Finishing hogs Sows 4,832 head Total Confinement Nursery pigs 1,280 head Total Confinement Dairy cows Beef cattle Turkeys Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species)


I. Project magnitude data.

Total acreage of farm: 14 acres Number of animal units proposed in this project: 1,997 Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: 1,997 Acreage required for manure application: 1,202 acres

J. Describe construction methods and timing.

The proposed project will consist of the construction of two barns to be located approximately 200 feet south and 200 feet west of the northeast corner of Section 30 in Mower County: a 521-foot by 161-foot, 10-inch total confinement gestation barn, and a 404-foot, 6-inch by 139-foot total confinement farrowing barn (see Attachments A and B). The barns will be oriented east-west, with the farrowing barn constructed just to the north of the gestation barn. Both barns will be mechanically ventilated, with computers controlling the ventilation rates, which will vary depending on the air temperature, humidity, and amount of heat generated by the animals. Supplemental heat will be added, as needed, using liquid propane gas heaters. Each barn will be equipped with concrete, slatted floors. A ten-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit will be constructed beneath the gestation barn and a two-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit will be constructed beneath the farrowing barn to hold the manure generated by the animals. Once the facility is operating, the shallower farrowing barn pit will be emptied approximately every two weeks into the deeper gestation barn pit. The construction of the manure pits will be done in accordance with the engineering plans and specifications prepared for this proposed project and submitted to the MPCA permitting staff for MPCA review and approval.

As required by Mower County, drain tiles will be installed around the base of each of the manure storage pits. These perimeter tiles will help to control the potential hydrostatic pressure that could be exerted on the pit walls and floors due to a seasonably high water table. Inspection ports connected to the perimeter tiles will allow the producer to observe whether or not the tiles are operational, and will help to identify seepage from the pits if a leak were to occur. The perimeter tiles will outlet to a 15-inch drain tile that will run from the project site to Woodbury Creek, which is located approximately one-half mile south of the proposed feedlot site. An inspection port will also be installed between the perimeter tiles and the 15-inch drain tile.

A 100-foot by 38-foot by 4-foot deep stormwater basin will be constructed to the southeast of the gestation barn to capture rainwater from the roofs of the barns. The basin will be designed to gradually discharge the rainwater to the 15-inch drain tile mentioned above. A grass buffer will be planted around the barns to minimize sediment loss from the building area.

A 60-foot by 52-foot mortality composting facility will be constructed to the southwest of the gestation barn. The facility will have a concrete floor, eight-foot concrete walls topped with four-foot wood-framed stemmed walls, and a steel roof. Overhead doors will be installed on both ends of the building to help keep animals from entering the facility. Construction of the proposed facility is anticipated to take approximately four months to complete, with the proposer seeking to begin construction in the spring of 2007. The actual construction date is dependent on the completion of the environmental review process and the issuance of the NPDES/SDS Permit.


K. Past and future stages.

Is this project an expansion or addition to an existing feedlot? Yes No Are future expansions of this feedlot planned or likely? Yes No If either question is answered yes, briefly describe the existing feedlot (species, number of

animals and animal units, and type of operation) and any past environmental review or the anticipated expansion.

The proposer has indicated that no future expansions of the proposed facility are anticipated at this time. The proposer has also indicated that he will not be involved in the finishing of the swine produced at the proposed facility, and that he will be entering into contracts with other pork producers to finish those animals.

2. Land uses and noteworthy resources in proximity to the site.

A. Adjacent land uses. Describe the uses of adjacent lands and give the distances and directions to

nearby residences, schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, places of worship, and other places accessible to the public (including roads) within one mile of the feedlot and within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites. The proposed feedlot site and manure application sites are zoned for agricultural use, and are located in the Cedar River major watershed. Feedlot: There are a total of nine residences located within approximately one mile of the proposed project site. The nearest neighbor is approximately 2,300 feet to the west. The eight remaining residences are located at the following approximate distances from the proposed feedlot site: 2,700 feet to the northwest; 5,000 feet to the northwest; 3,700 feet to the west; 4,000 feet to the southwest; 5,000 feet to the south; 5,300 feet to the southeast; 3,000 feet to the southeast; and 5,300 feet to the southeast (see Attachment C). The nearest road to the proposed feedlot site is 115th Street, which runs along the north side of the property. Woodbury Creek flows approximately one-half mile southwest of the proposed facility site, and the Cedar River flows approximately one-and-a-half miles to the east. Manure Application Sites: The manure application sites are located within a three-mile radius of the proposed feedlot site, and are spread out over eight sections within Lyle Township (see Attachment D-1).

Section 16, Lyle Township: There are two residences located within the manure application sites, and three residences adjacent to the site: one to the north, one to the west and one to the south (see Attachment D-2). 525th Avenue runs along the west side of the application sites, 140th Street runs along the north side, and 130th Street runs along the south side. Section 21, Lyle Township: There are no residences located within the manure application site (see Attachment D-3). The nearest residence is located approximately 500 feet northwest of the site. 130th Street runs along the north side of the site.


Section 22, Lyle Township: There are two residences located within the manure application sites. The nearest residences outside the sites are located approximately 500 feet south of the sites (see Attachment D-4). 130th Street runs along the north side of the sites, and 535th Avenue runs between the sites. Section 27, Lyle Township: There is one residence located within the manure application site, and two residences adjacent to the site: one to the north and one to the south (see Attachment D-5). 535th Avenue runs along the west side of the site, and County Road 6 runs along the south side of the site. Section 28, Lyle Township: There are no residences located within the northern manure application site, one residence (which is occupied by the project proposer) located within the southern site, and two residences located adjacent to the sites: one to the north of the northern site and one to the south of the southern site (see Attachment D-6). No roads border the northern site. State Highway 105 runs along the west side of the southern site, and County Road 6 runs along the south side of the southern site. Section 29, Lyle Township: This site is contiguous with the manure application site located in Section 28. There is one residence located within this site. The two nearest residences outside the site are located approximately 500 feet to the west and south of the site (see Attachment D-7). State Highway 105 divides the site, as it does not follow the section line. 120th Street runs along the north side of the site, and 110th Street runs along the south side of the site. Section 33, Lyle Township: There is one residence located within the manure application site, and one residence adjacent to the west side of the site (see Attachment D-8). County Road 6 runs along the north side of the site. Section 34, Lyle Township: There is one residence located within the manure application site, and one residence adjacent to the west side of the site (see Attachment D-9). 535th Avenue runs along the west side of the site. The Minnesota-Iowa border runs along the south side of the site.

The Cedar River flows within one mile west of the manure application sites in Sections 16, 21, 22, 27, 33, and 34 of Lyle Township, within one mile east of the manure application site in Section 29 of Lyle Township, and adjacent to the eastern border of the manure application site in Section 28 of Lyle Township. Woodbury Creek flows within one mile southwest of the manure application sites in Sections 28 and 29 of Lyle Township.

B. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to any of the following adopted plans or ordinances? Check all that apply:

local comprehensive plan land use plan or ordinance shoreland zoning ordinance flood plain ordinance wild or scenic river land use district ordinance local wellhead protection plan

Is there anything about the proposed feedlot that is not consistent with any provision of any ordinance or plan checked? Yes No.


If yes, describe the inconsistency and how it will be resolved. According to Mower County Environmental Services Director Daryl Franklin, the proposed project will comply with all local land use plans and ordinances. Are there any lands in proximity to the feedlot that are officially planned for or zoned for future uses that might be incompatible with a feedlot (such as residential development)? Yes No If yes, describe the potentially affected use and its location relative to the feedlot, its anticipated development schedule, and any plans to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with the feedlot. According to Mower County Environmental Services Director Daryl Franklin, there are currently no plans for construction activities or other anticipated uses of nearby land that would be incompatible with the proposed project.

C. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the feedlot, manure storage areas, or within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites?

• Drinking Water Supply Management Areas designated by the Minnesota Department of

Health? Yes No • Public water supply wells (within two miles)? Yes No • Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Yes No • Designated public parks, recreation areas or trails? Yes No • Lakes or Wildlife Management Areas? Yes No • State-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or

other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial water bird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities? Yes No

• Scenic views and vistas? Yes No • Other unique resources? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Public Water Supply Wells: The MDH has prepared an email addressing this issue (see Attachment F). The municipal wells for the city of Lyle are located approximately one-and-a-half miles east-northeast of the manure application sites, the aggregate of individual homeowner wells for the city of London are located approximately one-and-a-half miles west of the proposed feedlot site, and the well for the River Bend Campground is located approximately one-and-a-half miles northeast of the proposed feedlot site. The MDH has indicated, though, that based on “the description of the site and the characteristics of the nearest public water supply wells, there is little likelihood that the feedlot and manure spreading will impact public water supplies. The closest public water supply wells are in Lyle, London and the River Bend Campground. The London and River Bend Campground wells are up-gradient of the feedlot site and Lyle is some distance away, on the other side of the river.” The design of the proposed facility and the planned implementation of an MPCA-approved Crop Nutrient Management Plan will also help to ensure that these water supply wells will not be impacted by the proposed project. Manure will be stored in reinforced concrete pits, and will be knife injected into the soil at the designated manure application sites at agronomic rates to avoid the buildup of contaminants that could ultimately reach ground water. State of Minnesota and Mower County manure application setback distances will also be maintained to help prevent the contamination of ground water through wells or other potential receptors.


State-listed Special Concern Species: The DNR has prepared a letter addressing this issue (see Attachment E). According to a search of the Minnesota National Heritage database conducted by the DNR, there are 15 known occurrences of rare species within the approximate one-mile radius of the site, but only two species of special concern that may potentially be impacted by the proposed feedlot project: the Creek Heelsplitter Mussel and the Ozark Minnow. Creek Heelsplitter Mussels have been documented in the Cedar River, which flows approximately one and one-half miles east of the proposed feedlot site, and adjacent to the manure application sites located in Section 28 (see Attachment D-6). The DNR has noted that these mussels “are particularly vulnerable to deterioration in water quality, such as increased siltation or nutrient loading.” Based on the planned implementation of an MPCA-approved Crop Nutrient Management Plan, including the injection of manure into the soil at agronomic rates, the extent of any potential effects to the water quality of the Cedar River that are reasonably expected to occur as part of the proposed project should be minimal. Ozark Minnows have been documented in Woodbury Creek, which flows approximately one-half mile southwest of the proposed feedlot facility. None of the proposed manure application sites border Woodbury Creek. As stated in the DNR’s letter, “Non-point source pollution, including agricultural runoff, threatens this species, which is intolerant of excessive turbidity or siltation.” Based on the design of the proposed facility, including the storage of manure in reinforced concrete pits and the treatment of stormwater from the barn roofs in a designated on-site basin, the extent of any potential effects to the water quality of Woodbury Creek that are reasonably expected to occur as part of the proposed project should be minimal.

3. Geologic and soil conditions.

A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) 0.5 0.5 0.5 (average) >5.0 >5.0 >5.0 Bedrock (minimum) 21.0 21.0 0.0 – 75.0 (average) >21.0 >21.0 0.0 – 75.0

B. Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil

Feedlot Manure Storage Area

Manure Application Sites

Classifications (if known) Udolpho Silt Loam, Loamy

Substrate

Udolpho Silt Loam, Loamy

Substrate

Udolpho Silt Loam, Loamy Substrate, Marshal Clay

Loam, Donnan Silt Loam


C. Indicate with a yes or no whether any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water are

present at the feedlot, manure storage area, or manure application sites.

Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Karst features (sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley);

No* No* No*

Exposed bedrock No No No Soils developed in bedrock (as shown on soils maps).

No No No

For items answered yes (in C), describe the features, show them on a map, and discuss proposed design and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts. *Although the proposed feedlot facility site and manure application sites are located in a region of Minnesota known to have karst features, a Karst Feature Inventory Study (Study) conducted by the proposer did not identify any actual karst features in the area (see Attachment I). As part of the Study, ten suspected karst features were identified near the proposed facility, but a site inspection of each suspected feature, and a test excavation of the two depressional features nearest the proposed manure storage site, has shown that none were actually karst features. According to the Geologic Atlas of Mower County cited in the Study, a verified sinkhole has previously been identified near the border of the southern manure application area in Section 28. The sinkhole could not be located, however, during the site investigation. The Study suggests that it “may have been filled during grading within the highway corridor.” Based on the findings of the Study, the MPCA and DNR staffs have determined that the proposed facility and manure application locations are not considered karst sites.

Should unidentified karst features exist near the proposed facility and/or manure application sites, the design of the proposed facility and the planned implementation of an MPCA-approved Crop Nutrient Management Plan will help to ensure that these water supply wells will not be impacted by the proposed project. Manure will be stored in reinforced concrete pits, and will be knife injected into the soil at the designated manure application sites at agronomic rates to avoid the buildup of contaminants that could ultimately reach ground water. State of Minnesota and Mower County manure application setback distances will also be maintained to help prevent the contamination of ground water through wells and other potential receptors.

4. Water Use, Tiling and Drainage, and Physical Alterations.

A. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering), or connection to any public water supply?

Yes No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; the source, duration, quantity

and purpose of any appropriations or public supply connections; and unique well numbers and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) appropriation permit numbers, if available. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on-site, explain methodology used to determine that none are present.


The project will include the installation of a new well at the site by a licensed well driller. The well will be completed to an anticipated depth of between 200 and 250 feet, based on depths of other wells installed in the area. An estimated nine million gallons per year of water will be required at this site to operate the proposed feedlot facility. Because the annual water appropriation is expected to exceed five million gallons, an individual water appropriation permit will be required by the DNR. The DNR Area Hydrologist for the proposed project has indicated to MPCA staff, “I do not foresee any major issues related to a permit at this volume. However, as with all of our appropriation permits, there will be a condition in the permit that will allow for DNR Waters to investigate their system if well interference complaints are brought to our attention.” Based on these comments, the MPCA believes that the water supply for the proposed project will be adequate, and that the appropriation will not have a significant impact on the area water supply.

The purpose of the DNR permit program is to ensure that water resources are protected and managed so that an adequate supply is available to meet the long-range seasonal needs of those who utilize those resources, whether for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, hydroelectric, navigational, or any other purposes. Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. As noted above, if a well interference arises, the DNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found to be causing an interference, it is their responsibility to correct it.

B. Will the project involve installation of drain tiling, tile inlets or outlets? Yes No If yes, describe.

As required by Mower County, drain tiles will be installed around the base of each of the manure storage pits. These perimeter tiles will help to control the potential hydrostatic pressure that could be exerted on the pit walls and floors due to a seasonably high water table. Inspection ports connected to the perimeter tiles will allow the producer to observe whether or not the tiles are operational, and will help to identify seepage from the pits if a leak were to occur. The perimeter tiles will outlet to a 15-inch drain tile that will run from the project site to Woodbury Creek, which is located approximately one-half mile southwest of the proposed feedlot site. An inspection port will also be installed between the perimeter tiles and the 15-inch drain tile. No surface tile intakes will be installed as part of the proposed project. A 100-foot by 38-foot by 4-foot deep stormwater basin will be constructed to the southeast of the gestation barn to capture rainwater from the roofs of the barns (see Attachment B). The basin will be designed to gradually discharge the rainwater to the 15-inch drain tile mentioned above.

C. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream

diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No

If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if

the water resources affected are on the PWI. Describe proposed mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts.


5. Manure management.

A. Check the box or boxes below which best describe the manure management system proposed for this feedlot.

Stockpiling for land application Containment storage under barns for land application Containment storage outside of barns for land application Dry litter pack on barn floors for eventual land application Composting system Treatment of manure to remove solids and/or to recover energy Other (please describe)

B. Manure collection, handling, and storage.

Quantities of manure generated: total 4,488,600 gallons

Frequency and duration of manure removal: Number of days per cycle 5 (spring)

15 (fall) Total days per year 20

Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled (including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot: Each barn will be equipped with concrete, slatted floors. Manure generated by the animals will drop down into a ten-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit located beneath the gestation barn and a two-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit located beneath the farrowing barn. The total storage capacity of the pits will be 6,073,600 gallons, which will provide for the minimum of nine months of manure storage capacity required by Minn. R. 7020.2100, subp. 3.A. Once the proposed facility is operational, manure from the shallower farrowing barn pit will be emptied approximately every two weeks into the deeper gestation barn pit. In the spring and fall, the manure in the gestation barn pit will be agitated and pumped out into tanker spreaders. The manure will then be knife injected into the soil at the designated manure application sites.

C. Manure utilization.

Physical state of manure to be applied: liquid solid other - describe:

D. Manure application.

1. Describe application technology, technique, frequency, time of year and locations.

Twice each year, the liquid manure in the deeper gestation barn pit will be agitated and pumped into tanker spreaders. The manure will then be hauled to the designated manure application sites and knife injected into the soil at agronomic rates. Injection of the manure will occur prior to planting of the crops in the spring and after harvesting of the crops in the fall. The manure application sites cover portions of Sections 16, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 33, and 34 of Lyle Township in Mower County (see Attachments D-1 to D-9).


2. Describe the agronomic rates of application (per acre) to be used and whether the rates are

based on nitrogen or phosphorus. Will there be a nutrient management plan? Yes No

Guidelines for calculating the agronomic rates for applying manure to farm fields have been developed by the University of Minnesota Extension Service. Using those guidelines, the specific agronomic rates for applying the manure from the proposed facility to the designated manure application sites will be determined each year based on the following information: the available nutrient value of the manure to be generated by the proposed facility; the nutrient value(s) from any other fertilizer sources applied to the manure application sites; the nutrient needs of the crops to be planted on the manure application sites; and the levels of nutrients remaining in the soil from crop plantings and/or fertilizer applications done in previous years. As described in the Crop Nutrient Management Plan prepared for the proposed project, the manure application rates will be based on nitrogen. In this case, assuming an every other year crop rotation of corn and soybeans, and an expected crop yield of 175 bushels per acre of corn and 45 bushels per acre of soybeans, an average of 145 pounds per acre of nitrogen will be needed to achieve those yields. In order to achieve this nitrogen rate, the manure from the proposed facility will be applied at between 5,000 and 6,700 gallons per acre, depending on the manure application site.

The Crop Nutrient Management Plan, which describes the manure application rates for the proposed project in more detail, has been reviewed and approved by the MPCA as part of the NPDES/SDS Permit Application.

3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Assuming a capacity of 4,832 sows and 1,280 nursery pigs, the proposed facility will generate an estimated 4,488,600 gallons of manure per year. As specified in the Crop Nutrient Management Plan, approximately 600 acres will be needed annually to utilize all of the manure generated at the proposed facility. Taking into account that manure from the proposed facility will be applied to individual manure application sites only once every two years in order to allow the crops enough time to take up the available phosphorous (i.e., to avoid a buildup of that nutrient in the soil), the proposer currently has 1,202 acres of land available for manure application. The nutrient levels of the manure from the proposed facility will be tested annually and the nutrient levels of the soil at the manure application sites will be tested a minimum of every four years to ensure that the manure application rates continue to conform to the University of Minnesota Extension Service’s guidelines.

No improvements to the manure application sites will be necessary.


4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems. Mower County utilizes the standard MPCA setback distances for manure application, which are listed in Table #1 below. The project proposer will abide by those setbacks.

Table #1: MPCA Animal Waste Land Application Setback Distances (in feet)

Winter Non-Winter With Immediate

Incorporation (<24 hours)

Non-Winter Not incorporated within 24 hours

Feature

With P Management

No P Management

With Vegetated Buffer

Inadequate Vegetated Buffer

Lake, Stream 300 25 300 100 300 Intermittent Stream* DNR protected wetlands** Drainage ditch w/o quarry*

300 25 300 50 300

Open Tile Intake 300 0 0 300 300 Well, mine or quarry 50 50 50 50 50 Sinkhole with no diversion

Downslope 50 Upslope 300

50 50 Down slope 50 Upslope 300

Down slope 50 Upslope 300

* Intermittent streams and ditches pertain to those identified on U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps, excluding drainage ditches with berms that protect from runoff into the ditch and segments of intermittent streams, which are grassed waterways. U.S. Geological Survey quadrangle maps can be found at County Soil and Water Conservation District Offices or can be viewed on the internet at http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com (August 17, 2004).

** Wetland setbacks pertain to all protected wetlands identified on DNR protected waters and wetlands maps (these maps are often located in County Soil and Water Conservation District offices and typically include all wetlands over ten acres).

E. Other methods of manure utilization. If the project will utilize manure other than by land

application, please describe the methods.

N/A.

6. Air/odor emissions. A. Identify the major sources of air or odor emissions from this feedlot.

The major sources of air or odor emissions are the manure collection and storage areas, the manure application sites after manure has been applied, and the mortality composting area. Dust caused by truck traffic can also contribute to odor.

B. Describe any proposed feedlot design features or air or odor emission mitigation measures to be

implemented to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts and discuss their anticipated effectiveness. In this case, the most effective measure for mitigating the potential air and odor emissions from the proposed feedlot facility is the siting of the facility a sufficient distance from the nearest neighbor, which is a residence located approximately 2,600 feet to the west-southwest. Based on the results of the air quality modeling study conducted for the proposed project, this is an adequate separation distance for minimizing potential adverse air and odor impacts. The air quality modeling study also found that adequate separation distances exist between the proposed manure application sites and the

http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com


neighbors. A copy of the air emissions modeling study report has been included as Attachment H to this document. In addition, the barns at the proposed facility will be cleaned frequently as sows and nursery pigs are rotated periodically through the system. The barns will also be inspected daily for dead animals, which will be removed immediately upon discovery and composted on site. Dust at the proposed facility will be minimized by installing gravel (rather than clay or dirt) driveways. At the proposed manure application sites, manure will be injected into the soil immediately during application in the spring and fall, which will minimize the release of odors.

C. Provide a summary of the results of an air emissions modeling study designed to compare

predicted emissions at the property boundaries with state standards, health risk values, or odor threshold concentrations. The modeling must incorporate an appropriate background concentration for hydrogen sulfide to account for potential cumulative air quality impacts. In addition to the proposed feedlot design features and mitigations identified in item 6.B, an air quality modeling study has been completed for the proposed project that estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases at the property line of the proposed feedlot, at the property lines of 34 of the proposed feedlot’s nearest neighbors, and at the anticipated property line of a separate hog feedlot that has been proposed to be built within one mile of this proposed feedlot site. As noted above, a copy of the Air Quality Modeling Report has been included as Attachment H to this document. The results of the Air Quality Modeling Report are as follows: For hydrogen sulfide along the proposed project’s property lines, the modeling results suggest that the proposed project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s ambient air quality standard of 30 parts per billion (ppb). Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 17 ppb, the model predicted a hydrogen sulfide concentration of 20.18 ppb at the proposed project’s property lines. For hydrogen sulfide at the proposed project’s nearest neighbors, the modeling results suggest that the proposed project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s subchronic inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV) of 10 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 1 µg/m3, the model predicted a hydrogen sulfide concentration of 1.02 µg/m3 at the proposed project’s nearest neighbors. For ammonia at the proposed project’s property lines, the modeling results suggest that the proposed project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s acute iHRV of 3,200 µg/m3. Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 148 µg/m3, the model predicted an ammonia concentration of 1,368 µg/m3 at the proposed project’s property lines. For ammonia at the proposed project’s nearest neighbors, the modeling results suggest that the proposed project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s chronic iHRV of 80 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 5.72 µg/m3, the model predicted an ammonia concentration of 7.97 µg/m3 at the proposed project’s nearest neighbors. Finally, while the modeling results suggest that detectable concentrations of odorous gases can exist off site, the estimated maximum concentration of total volatile odorous organic compounds at the proposed project’s property line is 7.4 times less than the threshold concentration associated with ‘unpleasant odors,’ and 20.6 times less at the proposed project’s nearest neighbor.

D. Describe any plans to notify neighbors of operational events (such as manure storage agitation


and pumpout) that may result in higher-than-usual levels of air or odor emissions. An Air Emissions and Odor Management Plan has been prepared as part of the proposed project that includes a good neighbor policy for notifying neighbors of operational events that may result in high levels of odor, including manure application events. In the event of a complaint or a violation, the proposer will follow the protocols outlined in the Air Emissions and Odor Management Plan.

E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. During construction, normal noise and dust associated with earth moving equipment and construction will be generated. Adverse impacts as a result of these activities are not anticipated. Following construction, fugitive dust sources are expected to be minimal due to grass seeding around the barns, confinement of the hogs to the barns, and graveled (rather than clay or dirt) driveways. The main noise from the proposed project site will come from manure pit ventilation fans. In this case, the distance between the proposed facility site and the nearest neighbor (approximately 2,600 feet) is a significant factor in mitigating any adverse impacts of noise associated with this project.

7. Dead Animal Disposal

Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. All dead animals will be disposed of according to Minnesota Board of Animal Health requirements. During full production, the anticipated number of mortalities will be 142 sows and 95 nursery pigs per year. The barns will be inspected daily and dead animals will be removed immediately upon discovery. The carcasses will be composted on site in a 60-foot by 52-foot composting facility to be constructed to the southwest of the gestation barn (see Attachment B). The facility will have a concrete floor, eight-foot concrete walls topped with four-foot wood-framed stemmed walls, and a steel roof. Overhead doors will be installed on both ends of the building to help keep animals from entering the facility. Dead animals will be placed on top of 12 inches of wood shavings, and then covered with a 12 to 24 inches of wood shavings mixed with water and/or swine manure. The piles will be turned with a skid loader every 30 to 60 days to ensure the appropriate level of aerobic digestion and to maintain an internal pile temperature of at least 130˚ F. It is anticipated that the composted material will be ready for land application within 60 to 90 days, and will be spread and incorporated into the soil on the same fields designated as manure application sites for the proposed project.

8. Surface Water Runoff.

Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. The proposed location of the feedlot facility is currently a farm field. Surface water runoff will increase on the proposed facility site due to an increase in impervious surfaces, mainly from the construction of roofed buildings. Because this will be a total confinement facility, with the manure stored entirely under the barns,


the runoff should not come into contact with the livestock or manure. All feed at the proposed facility will be stored in covered bins, and a grass buffer will be planted around the barns to minimize sediment loss from the building area.

To handle rainwater from the roofs of the barns, a 100-foot by 38-foot by 4-foot deep stormwater basin will be constructed to the southeast of the gestation barn. The basin will be designed to gradually discharge the rainwater to a 15-inch drain tile that will drain into Woodbury Creek, which is located approximately one-half mile southwest of the proposed building site.

9. Traffic and Public Infrastructure Impacts.

A. Estimate the number of heavy truck trips generated per week and describe their routing over local roads. Describe any road improvements to be made. It is anticipated that a total of approximately four trucks per week will visit the site to either deliver feed or pick up nursery pigs for transport to other swine facilities. The trucks will access the site from State Highway 105 and 120th Street, or from County Road 6 and 505th Avenue. All trucks will be at or below weight restrictions placed on any public road. No road improvements are anticipated.

B. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve

the project? Yes No

If yes, please describe. Three-phase electrical service will be supplied to the new barns.

10. Permits and approvals required. Mark required permits and give status of application:

Unit of government Type of Application Status MPCA NPDES Feedlot/SDS Livestock Production

Construction, Operation and Stormwater Permit

Submitted

MPCA Stormwater Prevention Plan Submitted as part of the NPDES/SDS Permit Application

County/twp/city Conditional use or other land use permit Mower County conditional use permit only required for 2,000 or more animal units

DNR Individual Water Appropriation To be submitted after well installation

11. Other potential environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. If the project may cause any

adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 10, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. This includes any cumulative impacts caused by the project in combination with other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Examples of cumulative impacts to consider include air quality, stormwater volume or quality, and surface water quality.


Antibiotic Use: The proposed project will address swine health problems, as necessary, through the therapeutic use of antibiotics. The proposer is aware of the environmental and public health concerns related to antibiotic use in livestock and will not use any antibiotics without the supervision of a veterinarian.

Pests: Manure storage in a deep concrete pit does not facilitate the development of fly infestation. If flies do become a problem, the owner will implement fly control measures. Rodent control is necessary to prevent the spread of diseases that they can carry. An effective rodent control plan will be implemented using self-contained baiting stations. Potential Cumulative Environmental Effects: The following potential cumulative effects have been identified by MPCA staff. MPCA staff was notified by the proposer, who is also the Mower County Feedlot Officer, that a 2,400 head swine finishing facility is planned for construction near the proposed project site. According to the permit application submitted to the MPCA for the proposed neighboring facility, it will be a single barn, total confinement operation with a deep concrete pit for manure storage. Although it has not yet been constructed, the potential cumulative effects from the proposed swine finishing facility and this proposed project have been taken into account.

Air Quality: Based on the results of the air quality modeling study mentioned in Item 6.C of this document, the proposed project is not anticipated to have significant adverse cumulative effects upon air quality. The computer model used to estimate the concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emitted from the proposed project includes the ‘background’ level of pollutants. The background is the amount of a pollutant that is already in the air. Air emissions from other emission sources may affect the compliance status of a proposed project, or impact downwind human and environmental receptors. The background level for hydrogen sulfide that was used in the computer model was derived from monitoring at other feedlot facilities. The modeling adds the background air pollutant concentration to the emission concentrations predicted from the proposed project, resulting in cumulative totals. For the proposed project, those cumulative totals are identified in Item 6.C of this document. Based on the results of the study, the proposed project is not anticipated to have significant adverse cumulative effects on the air quality in the area. Surface Water Quality: Land application of manure can be a concern with respect to water quality. The MPCA’s impaired waters database has been reviewed to determine whether the proposed facility or manure application sites are located near any existing impaired surface waters in the watershed. As described in Item 2.A of this document, the proposed feedlot site will be located approximately one-half mile from Woodbury Creek and approximately one-and-a-half miles from the Cedar River. All of the proposed manure application sites will be located within approximately one-and-a-half miles of the Cedar River, and the proposed manure application sites in Sections 28 and 29 will be located approximately one-half mile from Woodbury Creek. Both the Cedar River and Woodbury Creek, which are located within the Cedar River major watershed, are listed on the Total Maximum Daily Load database as impaired: the Cedar River for fecal coliform, PCBs, turbidity, and mercury; and Woodbury Creek for fecal coliform. To ensure water resources will not be impacted, several measures will be taken, as outlined in the Crop Nutrient Management Plan. As described in Item 5 of this document, soil and manure testing will be conducted regularly to determine the amount of manure to be applied to the designated manure application sites. By spreading the manure at the appropriate agronomic rates, only the amount of manure that is needed to provide for crop growth will be applied, which helps to eliminate the possibility that excess manure will impact water resources. Manure will be knife injected into the soil, which significantly reduces the potential for manure and manure-contaminated runoff waters from reaching surface waters. Required setbacks from all surface waters and tile intakes will also be


maintained. All of these protective measures help to ensure that none of the manure from the proposed project will discharge to either the Cedar River or Woodbury Creek. As a result, the extent of any potential cumulative effects to surface water quality that are reasonably expected to occur as part of this proposed project should be minimal. Ground-water Quality: As described in Item 4.A of this document, an estimated nine million gallons of water will be required annually at this site to operate the proposed facility. In addition, ground water will be appropriated to operate the proposed 2,400-head swine finishing facility to be located less than one mile to the east of the proposed project. The DNR Area Hydrologist for the proposed project has indicated to the MPCA staff that he does not foresee any problems related to permitting the volumes of water to be appropriated at these sites. Based on the DNR’s comments, the MPCA believes that the water supply for the proposed project will be adequate, and that the appropriation will not have a significant cumulative effect on the area water supply. Ground-water resources can also be adversely impacted by land application activities where ground-water resources are at or near the surface, or are accessible through conduits and fractures commonly associated with karst topography. Based on the Karst Feature Inventory Study prepared for the proposed project, the MPCA has concluded that there is a very low potential for any adverse impact to the ground-water resources in the area of the proposed facility site or the manure application sites. To further protect surface water, project proposers are required to follow the requirements specified in Minn. R. ch. 7020 that relate to the construction of manure storage structures and the land application of the manure. These rules are intended to protect surface water from both cumulative and individual feedlot impacts. The proposed plans and specifications for the manure storage pits and the Crop Nutrient Management Plan for the land application of the manure generated at the proposed facility have been reviewed and approved by the MPCA staff, and will be enforceable conditions of the proposed project’s NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit. As a result, the extent of any potential cumulative effects to ground-water quality that are reasonably expected to occur as part of this proposed project should be minimal. Land Use: Because the proposed facility site and manure application sites are already open agricultural farm fields that offer limited protection, food, or cover for wildlife, the proposed project is not expected to have any additional cumulative negative effect on area wildlife habitat.

12. Summary of issues. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further

investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. No additional summary is needed.

ATTACHMENT B

Air Quality Modeling ReportFranzen Hog Feedlot

Mower CountyLyle TownshipNE ¼ Section 30

August 2006

ATTACHMENT H

Table of Contents

......................................................................................................................................Introduction 1

............................................................................................................General Modeling Approach 3

..............................................................................................................................Site Descriptions 7

...................................................................................................................Franzen Feedlot 7

.................................................................................................................Neighbor Feedlot 7

........................................................................................................................Gas Emission Rates 11

.................................................................................................................Franzen Feedlot 11

...............................................................................................................Neighbor Feedlot 11

......................................................................Hydrogen Sulfide at Property Lines and Neighbors 13

...................................................................................Ammonia at Property Lines and Neighbors 16

..........................................................................Odorous Gases at Property Lines and Neighbors 19

....................................................................Total VOOCs at East Property Line and Neighbor D 22

........................................................................................................................................Summary 24

IntroductionAir quality modeling estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia

and selected odorous gases at the property lines for the hog feedlot proposed by Lowell Franzen and at 34 of the proposed hog feedlot’s nearest neighbors. Franzen proposes to build two barns: a 521-ft by 162-ft gestation barn and a 405-ft by 139-ft farrowing barn. Shallow pull-plug manure pits will be located beneath the farrowing barn. When the plugs are pulled, the manure will flow to the deep manure pit located beneath the gestation barn. The modeling will also consider the emissions from a proposed nearby hog feedlot that will consist by one 396-ft by 51-ft deep-pitted finishing barn.

The following atmospheric concentrations were calculated:

1. the maximum hourly atmospheric hydrogen sulfide concentration at the proposed feedlot’s property lines to assess the potential to comply with Minnesota’s ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide of 30 ppb (v/v);

2. the maximum 13-week time-averaged atmospheric hydrogen sulfide concentration at 34 of the proposed feedlot’s nearest neighbors to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota’s subchronic inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV) of 10 µg/m3;

3. the maximum hourly atmospheric ammonia concentration at the proposed feedlot’s property lines to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota’s acute iHRV for ammonia of 3,200 µg/m3;

4. the maximum annual-averaged atmospheric ammonia concentration at 34 of the proposed feedlot’s nearest neighbors to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota’s chronic iHRV for ammonia of 80 µg/m3; and

5. the hourly concentrations of selected odorous gases (including n-butyric acid and para-cresol) at the proposed feedlot’s property lines and at 34 of the proposed feedlot’s nearest neighbors to access the potential for off-site odor episodes.

The above calculations were performed using the CALPUFF air quality model, based on 5 years of historical meteorological data.

The CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the proposed Franzen hog feedlot will comply with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. CALPUFF predicted a maximum hourly property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration of 3.18 ppb (v/v). When a background concentration of 17 ppb (v/v) is added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum

1 Franzen Hog Feedlot Report

property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration is 20.18 ppb (v/v), which is below the ambient standard of 30 ppb (v/v).

The CALPUFF results indicate that the proposed Franzen feedlot will not create exceedences of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentration for the feedlot’s neighbors is 0.02 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 1.00 µg/m3 is added to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum 13-week nearest-neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.02 µg/m3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV of 10 µg/m3.

The modeling results also suggest that the proposed Franzen feedlot will not create exceedences of the acute and chronic ammonia iHRVs. CALPUFF predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentration of 1,220 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 148 µg/m3 is added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is 1,368 µg/m3, which is below the acute ammonia iHRV of 3,200 µg/m3. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration for the proposed feedlot’s neighbors is 2.25 µg/m3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m3 is added to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration for a neighbor is7.97 µg/m3, which is below the chronic ammonia iHRV of 80 µg/m3.

Thus, the modeling results suggest compliance with the hydrogen sulfide air quality standard, no exceedences of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV, and no exceedences of the acute and chronic ammonia iHRVs.


General Modeling ApproachThe modeling approach considered the emissions from the proposed Franzen sow feedlot and

from a proposed nearby hog-finishing feedlot. The air quality impacts associated with the two proposed hog feedlots were explicitly modeled. The air quality impacts associated with the non-quantifiable sources were implicitly considered as contributors to the background concentrations that were added to the modeling results. Hence, the background concentrations include the impacts associated with sources such as small feedlots, septic tank vents, fertilizer and manure application to cropland, and wetlands.

The property-line and nearest-neighbor odorous gas concentrations were estimated by the CALPUFF (version 6.112, level 060412) air quality model.1,2,3 The estimated concentrations were based on historical wind speeds, wind directions, atmospheric stabilities, and rural mixing heights. The historical weather data consisted of five years (1985-1989) of surface meteorological data from the National Weather Service station in Rochester, Minnesota and upper air data from the National Weather Service station in St. Cloud, Minnesota. The surface and upper air weather data sets were combined into an ISC-type4 meteorological file by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) PCRAMMET software.5 The surface and upper air weather data sets were obtained from the EPA’s Support Center for Regulatory Air Models.

Maximum one-hour, 13-week, and annual average concentrations were calculated. Rural dispersion coefficients were used to characterize atmospheric mixing. The modeling assumed no decay of any modeled gas due to chemical reactions. The modeled receptor height was 0 meters, i.e., ground level. A flat terrain was assumed. All modeled property-line and nearest-neighbor receptors were defined as discrete receptors. Property-line receptors were less than 25 meters apart. An arbitrary Cartesian coordinate system (x, y) was used with the southwest corner of Section 30 (Lyle Township, Mower County) as the origin (0, 0). Positive values of x represent distance east of the origin. Positive values of y represent distance north of the origin.


1 U.S. EPA. 1995. A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/B-95-006.

2 Scire J. S., Strimaitis D. G., and Yamarino R. J. 2000. A User’s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA. 496 pp.

3 U.S. EPA. 2003. Revision to the Guideline for Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Ch. 1, Part 51, Appendix W (April 15, 2004 Edition).

4 ISC = Industrial Source Complex

5 U.S. EPA. 1999. PCRAMMET User’s Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454-B-96-001 (Revised June 1999).

To assess the potential for environmental impacts, the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and volatile odorous organic compounds (VOOCs) generated by the air quality modeling were compared to air quality standards, inhalation Health Risk Values (iHRVs), and published odor threshold concentrations. The direct comparison of model-generated concentrations to these environmental threshold concentrations does not consider the impact of different averaging times. EPA guidelines do not allow concentrations to be time averaged for time periods less than an hour.6 This is important because the Minnesota ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide are based on average concentrations over a 30-minute time period and because the published odor threshold concentrations for VOOCs are often based on instantaneous measurements. For example, an hourly model-generated hydrogen sulfide concentration of 29 ppb (v/v) may contain a half-hour average concentration that exceeds the 30 ppb standard. Also, an odor intensity that an odor panelist may find to be merely detectable in a short-term field measurement could be annoying if present for an hour or longer.

The background concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia provided in Table 1 were added to the CALPUFF estimated concentrations as described in EPA guidelines.7 The listed concentrations represent background concentrations for rural Minnesota. The listed 17-ppb background hydrogen sulfide concentration is appropriate when assessing a feedlot’s potential to comply with the 30-ppb standard. A background concentration of 18 ppb should be used in assessing the potential to comply with the 50-ppb hydrogen sulfide standard.

The background concentrations listed in Table 1 are not the time-averaged concentrations obtained from monitoring. Instead, the listed concentrations reflect the monitored data expressed in the terms of the “exceedence or violation condition” for the corresponding iHRV guideline or ambient standard. For example, the background 208-ppb ammonia concentration for the acute ammonia iHRV represents the maximum hourly concentration that occurred within the entire length of monitoring. This is the appropriate interpretation of background for the acute ammonia iHRV, because the guidance is concerned with any potential exceedence of the iHRV. Also, the 17-ppb hydrogen sulfide background represents the third highest 30-minute concentration that occurred within any 5-day period. This is appropriate, because the ambient hydrogen sulfide standard defines a violation as the third exceedence of 30-ppb within any 5-day period.


6 U.S. EPA. 2003. Revision to the Guideline for Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Ch. 1, Part 51, Appendix W (April 15, 2004 Edition).

7 Ibid.

Table 1. Background concentrations.

Gas

HourlyBackground

Concentration

13-WeekBackground

Concentration

AnnualBackground

Concentration

Hydrogen Sulfide 17 ppb (v/v)(24.3 µg/m3)

0.70 ppb (v/v)(1.00 µg/m3)

Not Required

Ammonia 208 ppb (v/v)(148 µg/m3)

Not Required 8.07 ppb (v/v)(5.72 µg/m3)

To assess the potential for odor episodes, the estimated atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and the VOOCs were compared to each gas’s reported odor threshold concentration. The odor threshold concentration is defined as the gas-phase concentration at which 50 percent of the population can detect the gas’s odor. For this presentation, odor number is defined as the ratio of the estimated atmospheric concentration for a specific odorous gas divided by the gas’s odor threshold concentration. An odor number equal to 1 suggests that 50 percent of the population can detect the estimated atmospheric concentration for a specific gas. An odor number greater than 1 suggests that more than 50 percent of the population can detect the gas, while a value less than 1 indicates that less than 50 percent of the population can detect the gas. Typically, an odor number below about 0.1 suggests that less than 1 percent of the population can detect the gas.8 The odor threshold concentrations used in this assessment are presented in Table 2.

The odor-number assessment of odor intensity does not consider the interactions between gases. Gas mixtures can intensify or mitigate certain odors. The Zahn correlation9,10 was used to


8 Nagy G. Z. 1991. The odor impact model. Journal of Air & Waste Management Association 41(10): 1360-1362.

9 Zahn J. A. 1997. Swine odor and emissions from pork production. In: McGuire K. (ed.), Environmental Assurance Program, National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA, pp. 20-122.

10 Zahn J. A., Hatfield J. L., Laird D. A., Hart T. T., Do Y. S., and DiSpirito A. A. 2001. Functional classification of swine manure management systems based on effluent and gas emission characteristics. Journal of Environmental Quality 30: 635-647.

account for the odor intensity associated with the mixture of gases released from the manure pits. The total concentration of volatile odorous organic compounds (VOOCs) required for the Zahn correlation was calculated from the modeled concentrations of the 12 organic gases listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Odor threshold concentrations for the modeled gases.11

Odorous Gas

Odor Threshold Concentration

(ppb, v/v)

Acetic Acid 200n-Propanoic Acid 17iso-Butyric Acid 11n-Butyric Acid 0.69iso-Valeric Acid 4.8n-Valeric Acid 0.28iso-Caproic Acid 7.7n-Caproic Acid 21n-Heptanoic Acid 5.0

Phenol 76para-Cresol 0.25para-Ethyl Phenol 1.2

Hydrogen Sulfide 3.7Ammonia 1,500


11 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. 1999. A Summary of the Literature Related to the Social, Environmental, Economic and Health Effects: Volume 2. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture, Prepared by the University of Minnesota, September 1999. Table 2 presents the geometric mean of the lower and upper odor threshold concentrations obtained from this reference.

Site Descriptions

Franzen FeedlotThe proposed Franzen Feedlot site is a 39-acre parcel of land that is 1,320-ft long (east/west

direction) and 1,287-ft wide (north/south direction). The modeled emission sources consisted of one gestation barn and one farrowing barn. The physical characteristics of the proposed gestation and farrowing barns are provided in Table 3. As shown in Figure 1, modeled setback distances to the property lines ranged from 200 feet to 686 feet.

The air quality modeling estimated the atmospheric gas concentrations at the 34 neighboring residences shown in Figure 2. The three residences located on the east edge of London, Minnesota were used to assess potential impacts on the town’s residences.

Table 3. Dimensions and capacities of the proposed Franzen hog barns.

Barn

BarnLength(feet)

BarnWidth(feet)

BarnHeight(feet)

ModeledNumber of

Housed Pigs

Gestation 521 162 31 4,064 sowsFarrowing 405 139 28 1,264 piglets

768 sows

Neighbor FeedlotThe proposed Neighbor Feedlot is located in the SW ¼ Section 20, Lyle Township, Mower

County. The proposed Neighbor site is across the road and east of the proposed Franzen Feedlot (Figure 2) and consists of one hog-finishing barn. The anticipated location of the barn is provided in Figure 3. The physical characteristics of the barn are provided in Table 4.


1320'

1287'

100'

200'

686'

279'636'

200'599'

N

E

S

W

(3,960', 3,960')

Farrowing Barn

Gestation Barn

Figure 1. Modeled gaseous emission sources and property lines for the proposed Franzen sow feedlot. The shaded squares represent the square volume subsources used to characterize the barns.


Figure 2. Modeled locations for the proposed Franzen Hog Feedlot, the proposed Neighbor Feedlot, the Town of London, Minnesota, and 34 of the proposed feedlots’ nearest neighbors.


N

E

S

W50'50'

496'

251'

(6,104', 5,313')

50'

150'

Finishing Barn

Figure 3. Modeled gaseous emission sources and property lines for the proposed Neighbor Feedlot. The shaded squares represent the square volume subsources used to characterize the barn. The green-bordered rectangle surrounding the barn is used to position the barn and may not represent the feedlot’s property lines.

Table 4. Dimensions and capacities for the proposed finishing barnat the Neighbor Feedlot.

Barn

BarnLength(feet)

BarnWidth(feet)

BarnHeight(feet)

ModeledNumber of

Housed Pigs

Finishing 396 51 18 2,400


Gas Emission Rates

Franzen FeedlotThe proposed gestation and farrowing barns were modeled as sources of hydrogen sulfide,

volatile odorous organic compounds (VOOCs), and ammonia. The emission rates for hydrogen sulfide and 12 VOOCs were estimated based on the emission flux rates obtained from a hog-breeding site near Hancock, Minnesota12 and on the floor surface area of the modeled barns.

The annual ammonia emission rates for the gestation and farrowing barn were based on the “stable + manure” ammonia emission factors of 8.09 kg NH3/sow/year (Tables 2-1 and 2-9, Battye et al., 1994).13 Battye et al. (1994) does not provide an ammonia emission factor for piglets. However, an emission factor of 2.42 kg NH3/head/yr for breeding sows of 20-50 kg is provided, which was used as the ammonia emission factor for the piglets. The emission factors for sows and piglets represent the ammonia emissions on an annual basis. To account for temperature variations on ammonia emissions from the proposed barns, the respective “stable + manure” ammonia emission factors were multiplied by the monthly scalars developed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).

Neighbor FeedlotThe proposed hog-finishing barn at the Neighbor Feedlot was modeled as a source of hydrogen

sulfide, volatile odorous organic compounds (VOOCs), and ammonia. The emission rates of hydrogen sulfide and the 12 VOOCs from the manure pit were estimated using the PitEmissions software (version 4.1) based on the chemical characteristics of manure stored in pits located beneath the hog-finishing barns. PitEmissions is based on the mass-transfer algorithms recommended by the EPA to estimate emission rates.14 For west-central Minnesota, the typical characteristics of stored hog manure are provided in Table 5.


12 MPCA. 2003. Hancock Pro-Pork Hog Feedlot Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, September 15, 2003.

13 Battye R., Battye W., Overcash C. and Fudge S. 1994. Development and selection of ammonia emission factors. Final Report. Prepared by EC/R Incorporated, Durham, NC for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington D.C., 112 pp.

14 U.S. EPA. 1994. Air Emissions Models for Waste and Wastewater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-453/R-94-080A.

Table 5. Chemical characteristics of manure in pitted hog-finishing barns.15

Parameter Units Value

Temperature °C 10.5pH -log10[H+] 7.2Volatile acids mg HOAc/L 19,0004-AAP phenolics mg/L 64.1Total dissolved sulfide mg S/L 13.8

The ammonia emission rate for the hog-finishing barn was based on the finishing-pig ammonia emission rate factor of 3.7 kg NH3/head/yr.16 This emission factor represents the ammonia emissions on an annual basis. To account for temperature variations on ammonia emissions from the pitted barns, the “stable + manure” ammonia emission factor was multiplied by the monthly scalars developed by the MPCA.


15 MPCA. 2003. Hancock Pro-Pork Hog Feedlot Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, September 15, 2003.

16 U.S. EPA. 2002. Review of Emissions Factors and Methodologies to Estimate Ammonia Emissions from Animal Waste Handling. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-600/R-02-017.

Hydrogen Sulfide at Property Lines and NeighborsThe CALPUFF results suggest that the proposed Franzen hog feedlot will comply with the

Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The estimated maximum hourly property-line concentrations for the proposed feedlot are provided in Table 6. When a background concentration of 17 ppb (v/v) is added to the CALPUFF-generated concentrations, the maximum estimated property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration is 20.18 ppb, which is below the standard of 30 ppb.

Table 6. Maximum hourly property-line hydrogen sulfide concentrations.

Property Line

H2S ConcentrationWithout Background

(ppb, v/v)

H2S ConcentrationWith a 17 ppb (v/v)Background Value

(ppb, v/v)

North 3.18 20.18East 3.18 20.18South 2.29 19.29West 2.58 19.58

The maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly hydrogen sulfide concentrations (without background) are plotted in Figure 4. The plotted 3-ppb concentration isopleth overestimates the maximum extent of detectable hydrogen sulfide odors without background, because the reported odor threshold concentration for hydrogen sulfide is 3.7 ppb (Table 2). Figure 4 suggests that detectable concentrations of hydrogen sulfide will exist off-site.

The CALPUFF results also suggest that the emissions from the proposed Franzen hog feedlot and the proposed Neighbor hog feedlot will not cause exceedences of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentrations for each of the 34 modeled nearest neighbors are provided in Table 7. When a background concentration of 1.00 µg/m3 is added to the CALPUFF-generated concentrations, the maximum 13-week hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.02 µg/m3, which is below the subchronic iHRV for hydrogen sulfide of 10 µg/m3.


23

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2

Nor

th/S

outh

Dis

tanc

e (m

iles)

East/West Distance (miles)

Figure 4. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly hydrogen sulfide concentrations in ppb (v/v) for the proposed Franzen Feedlot and the proposed Neighbor Feedlot. The contour lines represent 2 and 3 ppb (v/v) of hydrogen sulfide. The plotted concentrations do not include the 17-ppb background hydrogen sulfide concentration. The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 30.


Table 7. Maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentrationsfor 34 of the proposed feedlot’s nearest neighbors.

Neighbor

Maximum 13-week H2SConcentration Without

Background(µg/m3)

Maximum 13-Week H2SConcentration With a

1.00 µg/m3 Background(µg/m3)

A 0.01 1.01B 0.01 1.01C 0.00 1.00D 0.01 1.01E 0.02 1.02F 0.01 1.01G 0.01 1.01H 0.01 1.01I 0.01 1.01J 0.01 1.01K 0.01 1.01L 0.01 1.01M 0.02 1.02N 0.01 1.01O 0.01 1.01P 0.00 1.00Q 0.01 1.01R 0.01 1.01S 0.00 1.00T 0.00 1.00U 0.00 1.00V 0.00 1.00W 0.00 1.00X 0.00 1.00Y 0.00 1.00Z 0.00 1.00

AA 0.00 1.00AB 0.00 1.00AC 0.00 1.00AD 0.00 1.00AE 0.00 1.00AF 0.00 1.00AG 0.00 1.00AH 0.00 1.00


Ammonia at Property Lines and NeighborsThe CALPUFF-generated maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentrations are

provided in Table 8. The highest estimated property-line concentration with a background concentration of 148 µg/m3 is 1,368 µg/m3, which is below the acute iHRV for ammonia of 3,200 µg/m3. Thus, the modeling results suggest that the proposed Franzen hog feedlot will not result in exceedences of the acute ammonia iHRV.

Table 8. Maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentrations.

Property Line

NH3 ConcentrationWithout Background

(µg/m3)

NH3 ConcentrationWith a 148 µg/m3

Background Value(µg/m3)

North 1,198 1,346East 1,220 1,368South 983 1,131West 950 1,098

The maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly ammonia concentrations (without background) are plotted in Figure 5. The reported odor threshold concentration for ammonia is 1,067 µg/m3 or 1,500 ppb v/v (Table 2). The plotted 1,000-µg/m3 isopleth overestimates the maximum extent of detectable ammonia odors. Figure 5 suggests that detectable concentrations of ammonia will be exist off site.

The CALPUFF-generated annual-average ammonia concentrations for the proposed feedlot’s 34 nearest neighbors are provided in Table 9. The highest annual ammonia concentration with a background concentration of 5.72 µg/m3 is 7.97 µg/m3, which is below the chronic ammonia iHRV of 80 µg/m3.


500 1000

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2

Nor

th/S

outh

Dis

tanc

e (m

iles)


Figure 5. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly ammonia concentration in µg/m3 for the proposed Franzen hog feedlot and the proposed Neighbor hog feedlot. The contour lines represent 500 and 1,000 µg/m3 of ammonia. The plotted concentrations do not include the 148 µg/m3 background ammonia concentration. The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 30.


Table 9. Maximum annual nearest-neighbor ammonia concentrations.

Neighbor

NH3 ConcentrationWithout Background

(µg/m3)

NH3 ConcentrationWith a 5.72 µg/m3

Background Value(µg/m3)

A 1.01 6.73B 0.80 6.52C 0.53 6.25D 2.12 7.84E 2.25 7.97F 0.93 6.65G 1.02 6.74H 0.50 6.22I 0.51 6.23J 0.52 6.24K 0.91 6.63L 1.57 7.29M 2.23 7.95N 0.80 6.52O 0.75 6.47P 0.63 6.35Q 0.73 6.45R 0.66 6.38S 0.40 6.12T 0.30 6.02U 0.24 5.96V 0.26 5.98W 0.33 6.05X 0.13 5.85Y 0.13 5.85Z 0.15 5.87

AA 0.34 6.06AB 0.42 6.14AC 0.25 5.97AD 0.27 5.99AE 0.27 5.99AF 0.34 6.06AG 0.21 5.93AH 0.20 5.92


Odorous Gases at Property Lines and NeighborsThe CALPUFF modeling effort estimated the ground-level atmospheric concentrations of

selected odorous gases at the property lines for the proposed Franzen hog feedlot and at 34 of the feedlot’s nearest neighbors. Modeling considered the hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and VOOC emissions from both the proposed Franzen hog feedlot and the proposed Neighbor hog feedlot.

The estimated maximum property-line concentrations for the 6 gases with the highest concentrations relative to their odor threshold concentration are provided in Figure 6. The highest property-line concentrations are for ammonia (1,915 ppb, which includes a background concentration of 208 ppb), hydrogen sulfide (20.18 ppb, which includes a 17 ppb background concentration), propanoic acid (0.77 ppb), n-butyric acid (0.45 ppb), para-cresol (0.23 ppb), and n-valeric acid (0.08 ppb).

The corresponding odor numbers for the maximum property-line concentrations are provided in Figure 7. The gases with an odor number greater than 0.1 were hydrogen sulfide (5.46), ammonia (1.28), para-cresol (0.92), n-butyric acid (0.65), and n-valeric acid (0.28). The other modeled gases are assumed to be non-detectable as individual gases, because their individual odor numbers were less than 0.1. Population response curves suggest that 98 percent of the population could detect the estimated maximum property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration, 64 percent the property-line ammonia concentration, 45 percent the para-cresol concentration, 27 percent the n-butyric acid concentration, and 4 percent the n-valeric acid concentration.

The estimated maximum hourly nearest-neighbor concentrations for the 6 gases with highest concentrations relative to their odor threshold concentration are provided in Figure 8. The highest maximum estimated neighbor concentrations were for ammonia (795 ppb, which includes a background concentration of 208 ppb), hydrogen sulfide (18.50 ppb, which includes a background concentration of 17 ppb), propanoic acid (0.26 ppb), n-butyric acid (0.15 ppb), para-cresol (0.07 ppb), and n-valeric acid (0.03 ppb).

The calculated odor numbers corresponding to the maximum nearest-neighbor concentrations are provided in Figure 9. The individual gases with an odor number greater than 0.1 were hydrogen sulfide (5.00), ammonia (0.53), para-cresol (0.28), and n-butyric acid (0.22). The other modeled gases are assumed to be non-detectable, because their individual odor numbers were less than 0.1. Population response curves suggest that 98 percent of the population could detect the estimated maximum nearest-neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration, 18 percent the ammonia concentration, 5 percent the para-cresol concentration, and 3 percent the n-butyric acid concentration. The population response curves assume the presence of individual gases.


Propanoic

Acid

Butyric

Acid

Valeric

Acid

para-

Cresol

Hydrogen

Sulfide

Ammonia

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Gas

Con

cen

trati

on

(p

pb

, v/v

)

Figure 6. Maximum hourly property-line concentrations.

Propanoic

Acid

Butyric

Acid

Valeric

Acid

para-

Cresol

Hydrogen

Sulfide

Ammonia

0.01

0.1

1

10

Od

or N

um

ber

Figure 7. Maximum hourly property-line odor numbers.


Propanoic

Acid

Butyric

Acid

Valeric

Acid

para-

Cresol

Hydrogen

Sulfide

Ammonia

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Gas

Con

cen

trati

on

(p

pb

, v/v

)

Figure 8. Maximum hourly nearest-neighbor concentrations.

Propanoic

Acid

Butyric

Acid

Valeric

Acid

para-

Cresol

Hydrogen

Sulfide

Ammonia

0.01

0.1

1

10

Od

or N

um

ber

Figure 9. Maximum hourly nearest-neighbor odor number.


Total VOOCs at East Property Line and Neighbor DThe empirical Zahn correlation relates the total gas-phase volatile odorous organic

concentration (VOOC) for the gases emitted from manure storage facilities to the perceived odor intensity as determined by odor panels. The sum of the individual maximum VOOC concentrations from the CALPUFF modeling effort was multiplied by 1.18 to account for all of the VOOC gases included in the Zahn correlation. As indicated in Figure 10, the maximum VOOC concentrations (with the 1.18 correction) obtained from the CALPUFF modeling effort are 9.5 µg/m3 for the proposed Franzen hog feedlot’s east property line and 3.4 µg/m3 for Neighbor D.

1

3

5

7

9

0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

Odo

r In

tens

ity

Total VOOC Concentration (!g/m3)

Zahn

EastProperty-LineNeighbor D

Unbearable

Very Unpleasant

Unpleasant

Neutral

Pleasant

Figure 10. Comparison of CALPUFF-generated maximum hourly total VOOC concentrations for the proposed Franzen hog feedlot’s east property line and for the modeled location of Neighbor D. The modeling results suggest that the proposed feedlot will not create unpleasant off-site odors.

The Zahn correlation suggests that a total VOOC concentration of about 10 µg/m3 corresponds to a detectable but “neutral” odor intensity. Total VOOC concentrations have to exceed about 70 µg/m3 before the odor intensity is “unpleasant.” At the proposed Franzen feedlot’s east property-line, the maximum CALPUFF-generated total VOOC concentration is 7.4 times less


than the total VOOC concentration associated with “unpleasant” odor intensities. At the modeled Neighbor-D location, the CALPUFF-generated total VOOC concentration is 20.6 times less than the total VOOC concentration associated with “unpleasant” odor intensities. Thus, the CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the proposed Franzen hog feedlot’s property-lines and nearest neighbors will not be subjected to offensive odors.

The maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly total VOOC concentrations (with the 1.18 correction factor) are plotted in Figure 11. The Zahn correlation suggests that a total VOOC concentration of about 10 µg/m3 can be considered as the odor detection threshold. Figure 11 suggests that detectable total VOOC concentrations (greater than 10 µg/m3) can exist off site.

510

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2

Nor

th/S

outh

Dis

tanc

e (m

iles)


Figure 11. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly total VOOC concentrationsin µg/m3 for the proposed Franzen hog feedlot and the proposed Neighbor hog feedlot. The contour lines represent total VOOC concentrations of 5 and 10 µg/m3. The plotted concentrations do include the 1.18 correction factor. The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 30.


SummaryThe CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the proposed Franzen hog feedlot will comply

with the ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The CALPUFF results also suggest that the feedlot will not create exceedences of the subchronic iHRV for hydrogen sulfide, the acute iHRV for ammonia, and the chronic iHRV for ammonia. While the CALPUFF modeling results indicate that detectable concentrations of odorous gases can exist off site, the estimated maximum concentration of total VOOCs for the modeled neighbor locations is 20.6 times less than the threshold concentration associated with unpleasant odors.


attachment h: air quality modeling report.lowell franzen is proposing the construction of a new...

Documents