Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Transcription

1

2 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 An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA Web site 1. Basic Project Information. A. Feedlot Name: Phil Gervais Hog Conf II B. Feedlot Proposer: Phil Gervais C. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Technical Contact Person Andrew A. Nesseth Contact Person Charles Peterson and Title Project Consultant Extended Ag Services, Inc and Title Planner Principal Address 507 Milwaukee Street Address 520 Lafayette Road North Lakefield, Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota Phone Phone Fax Fax extag@frontiernet.net charles.peterson@pca.state.mn.us 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 , subp. 29 E. Project Location: County Murray Twp Lake Sarah NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 29 Township T-108-N Range R-41-W Watershed (name and 4-digit code): West Fork Des Moines River Minor 5 Code: 51082, from Sarah Lake p-ear1-05 TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 F. Attach each of the following to the EAW: Attachment A County map showing the general location of the project Attachment B U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries Attachment C Map of Project site with significant natural features Attachment D Summary map of manure application sites Attachment E One-mile radius map Attachment F Correspondence with Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Attachment G Correspondence with Minnesota Department of Health Attachment H Correspondence with Minnesota Historical Society Attachment I Air Quality Model Attachment J Results of Minnesota Phosphorus Index Modeling Attachment K Groundwater Sensitivity Map Attachment L Cumulative impacts map Attachment M Odor OFFSET Results Attachment N Traffic Impacts Map The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit Application and associated documents, including the Air Emissions and Odor Management Plan, the Animal Mortality Plan, the Emergency Response Plan, and the Manure Management Plan (MMP), are available for review by contacting Mr. George Schwint, of the MPCA s Willmar office, at G. Project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Phil Gervais is proposing an expansion of an existing swine finishing facility in Section 29 of Lake Sarah Township in Murray County. The facility currently has a maximum physical capacity of 2,200 finishing hogs (660 animal units 1 ) housed in one barn. The proposed facility expansion will consist of the construction of one additional barn that will have a maximum physical capacity of 2,200 finishing hogs (660 animal units). After construction, the maximum physical capacity of the entire facility will be 4,400 finishing swine (1,320 animal units). The existing and proposed barns will be identical total confinement, power-ventilated buildings. Manure will be stored in reinforced concrete pits located beneath each of the barns. H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested data: Animal Type Existing Number Number Proposed Total Type of Confinement Finishing hogs 2,200 2,200 4,400 Total Confinement Sows Nursery pigs Dairy cows Beef cattle Turkeys Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species) 1 An animal unit or AU is a unit of measure developed to compare the differences in the amount of manure produced by livestock species. The AU is standardized to the amount of manure produced on a regular basis by a slaughter steer or heifer, which also correlates to 1,000 pounds of body weight. The AU is used for administrative purposes by various governmental entities for permitting and record-keeping. Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 2 Worksheet

4 I. Project magnitude data. Total acreage of farm: Number of animal units proposed in this project: 660 Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: 1,320 Acreage required for manure application: 324 acres/year J. Describe construction methods and timing. The proposed project will be constructed in the NW¼ of the SW¼ of Section 29 of Lake Sarah Township in Murray County. The proposed project consists of constructing one 101-foot by 180-foot total confinement, power-ventilated barn (see Attachment C). The barn will be equipped with concrete, slatted floors. Eight-foot deep, reinforced concrete pits will be constructed beneath each of the barns to hold the manure generated by the finishing hogs. Pit fans will be installed over the manure pump outs along the edge of the building. A perimeter drain tile will be installed around the base of the manure storage pit. The tile will help to control the potential hydrostatic pressure that could be exerted on the pit walls and floors. 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 anticipated time line for the proposed project is for construction to commence in May of 2009 and finish by August 1, 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 proposed project is an expansion of an existing feedlot located in the NW¼ of the SW¼ of Section 29 in Lake Sarah Township, Murray County. The existing facility consists of one 101-foot by 180-foot total confinement, power-ventilated barn. The barn houses 2,200 head of wean-to-finish hogs, for a total of 660 animal units. Manure generated by the swine is stored in an under-floor, reinforced concrete pit. No prior environmental review has taken place for the existing facility. The proposer indicated there are no plans in the foreseeable future to expand its operation at this project site or within six miles of the existing feedlot. 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. Land surrounding the proposed project and the manure application sites are primarily agricultural and rural in nature. Two lakes are located in the proximity of the project. Lake Maria is located about three-quarters of a mile from one of the manure application sites and Lake Sarah is located about one and three-quarters of a mile from the project site. The feedlot facility and all of the manure application sites are located in the Lake Shetek sub-watershed in the upper reaches of the West Fork of the Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 3 Worksheet

5 Des Moines River watershed. Land use within the West Fork of the Des Moines River watershed is primarily agricultural, comprised primarily of a two-year corn/soybean rotation with a small amount of small grains, hay, and grasslands enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Feedlot: There are a total of 11residences and a gun club located within one mile of the site, four of which are within one-half mile. A map showing neighbors within one mile of the feedlot is shown in Attachment E. There are no schools, daycare facilities, senior citizens housing, or public places of worship within a one-mile radius of the project area. Manure Application Sites. The manure application sites are within five and one-half miles of the feedlot facility and are located in Lake Sarah and Skandia Townships (Attachment D) in Murray County. Murray County Lake Sarah Township Section 18: The manure application sites located in Section 18 are located approximately one mile southwest of Lake Sarah. The Skandia Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is about one-half mile to the southwest of the proposed site. The field is bordered by 120 th Avenue to the west, 125 th Avenue to the east and 221 st Street to the north and is about three miles from the project site. One residence is located adjacent to the manure application site to the west. The site has been in crop production for decades. Section 29: The manure application site in Section 29 has been enrolled in the CRP for the last 20 years. The CRP contract expired in 2008 and will not be renewed with the field being converted to crop production. The proposed project site is located within the boundaries of the proposed manure application site. County Road 30 is located to the west of the site and 191 st Street is located to the south. One residence is situated within the boundaries of the manure application site; a sporting clay shooting club is located 1/8-mile to the west across County Road 30, and a residence is located to the south across 191 st Street. The west tract of the Sarah-Mason Wildlife Management Area is located in the very North-East corner of Section 33 and is directly across County Road 30 to the southwest. The two east tracts of the Sarah-Mason Wildlife Management Area are about one-half mile and one mile to the southeast in Section 33. Section 30: The manure application site in Section 30 is adjacent and east of County Road 30 and south of 201 st Street. The field is about one-quarter of a mile from the project site. There are no residences within the manure application site, but one vacant residence is located about 1,000 feet to the south and the sporting clay shooting club about one-half mile to the south. The Skandia Wildlife Management Area and the northeastern tract of the Sarah-Mason Wildlife Management Area are located about three-quarters of a mile to the northwest and southwest, respectively. Skandia Township Section 2: The manure application site in Section 2 is adjacent and west of 110 th Avenue and north of 231 st Street. The field is about 5½ miles from the project site. There are no residences within the manure application site. The Skandia Wildlife Management Area and the northeastern tract of the Sarah-Mason Wildlife Management Area are located about three-quarters of a mile to the northwest and southwest, respectively. Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 4 Worksheet

6 Section 13: The manure application sites in Section 13 are bordered by 120 th Avenue to the east and 221 st Street to the north. The field is located approximately three miles from the project site. One residence is situated within the boundaries of the field. The Skandia Wildlife Management Area is located one-third of a mile to the south. 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. 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. 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 waterbird 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 Well: Peaceful Acres Gun Club The well at the Peaceful Acres Gun Club is a public water supply well and located about 1,500 feet to the southwest of the proposed facility (Attachment E). The manure application site in Scandia 29 is about one-quarter of a mile to the east of the well. Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 5 Worksheet

7 Lake or Wildlife Management Area: Skandia WMA The Skandia WMA was identified about one-half mile to the south of the proposed manure application site in Skandia 13 and about three-quarters of a mile from the proposed manure application site Section 30 of Lake Sarah Township (Attachment D). The Skandia WMA is an emergent marsh with irregular boundaries. It is approximately 40 acres in size and contains designated hunting options, which include deer, small game, water fowl, and pheasant. It provides an opportunity to view wetland wildlife. Sarah-Mason WMA West Unit The west unit of the Sarah-Mason WMA was identified about 100 feet to the southwest of the proposed manure application site in Lake Sarah 29, SW¼, across County Road 20 (Attachment D). The Sarah- Mason WMA is approximately 12 acres in size and consists of a small wetland with some associated upland grassland. It contains designated hunting options, which include waterfowl, small game, and pheasant. It provides an opportunity to view wetland wildlife. Giese WMA The Giese WMA was identified about three-quarters of a mile to the north of the manure application site in Skandia 2, SE¼. The Giese WMA is approximately 36.7 acres in size and consists of opportunities to hunt deer, small game, waterfowl, and doves. Iron Lake WMA The Iron Lake WMA is located about three-quarters of a mile to the southwest of the manure application site in Skandia 2, SE¼. The Iron Lake WMA is approximately 53 acres in size and provides opportunities to view wetland wildlife and prairie wildlife. This WMA contains three wetlands, associated marginal grasslands, and woody cover and has hunting options for deer, small game, pheasant, and waterfowl. Lake Maria Lake Maria was identified about three-quarters of a mile to the east of the manure application site in Section 18 of Lake Sarah Township and about two and one-quarter miles north of the project site. Lake Maria is a shallow lake that provides an opportunity to view wetland wildlife and waterfowl. It was identified by the DNR as a Colonial Waterbird Nesting Area in a survey completed in the summer of Lake Sarah Lake Sarah is located about two and one-half miles to the north of the proposed project site and is adjacent to the proposed manure application site in Section 7 of Lake Sarah Township (Attachment D). The lake is approximately 1,051 acres in size with a maximum depth of 11 feet, and provides an opportunity to view wetland wildlife as well as recreational opportunities and exceptional walleye fishing. Improvements are being made by the DNR to improve the health of the fishery in Lake Sarah. 2 Lake Sarah was listed as an impaired lake for Aquatic Recreation in the 2006 TMDL list for excess nutrients. Lake Shetek Covering 3,596 acres, Lake Shetek is the largest lake in Southwest Minnesota. It has a shoreline length of 31.7 miles and a maximum depth of ten feet. The immediate shoreline is covered primarily by woodland areas, and the majority of the surrounding watershed is cultivated. The lake is heavily developed and is utilized extensively for recreation opportunities. Lake Shetek was listed as an impaired lake for Aquatic Recreation in the 2006 TMDL list for excess nutrients. 2 DNR Web site: Retrieved August 29, Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 6 Worksheet

8 Sensitive Ecological Resources The Minnesota Natural Heritage database has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed feedlot facility or manure application sites. Based on the review, there are five known occurrences of rare species or native plant communities within an approximate one-mile radius of the project area or a manure application site. The following that are listed are those elements that were identified by the DNR: 1. Calcareous Fen Southwestern Type #39 Lake Sarah Township, Section Colonial Nesting Bird Area Lake Sarah Township Section 7, 8, 17, Rhynchospora capillacea (Hair-like Beak-rush) Lake Sarah Township Section Sterna forsteri (Forster s Tern) Lake Sarah Township Section 8, 9, 16, Triglochin palustris (Marsh Arrow-grass) Lake Sarah Township, Section 33 Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures for protecting nearby aquatic resources and the biota that depend on unique or delicate ecological conditions for survival are based on limiting nutrient loading in land utilized by the project and reducing the potential for mobilization of these nutrients. Calcareous fens in particular are adversely impacted by increases in nutrients through surface water runoff. In addition, the Calcareous fen is ground water fed. Therefore, any water appropriations that lower the water table have the potential to adversely impact the fen and its biota. The project proposer will be required to follow an MMP that is designed to protect water quality by determining proper rate, timing, and placement of manure applications, including setbacks from sensitive features. The MMP has been reviewed and technically approved by the MPCA. It determines the nutrients needed for the intended crop from all sources. Manure will be injected into the soil during the late fall via knife injection at agronomic rates, thereby reducing the potential for nitrate leaching, manure contaminated surface runoff carrying excess nutrients and/or fecal coliform bacteria, and minimizing odors associated with manure applications. Measures to mitigate impacts to ground-water resources include the use of wet/dry feeders for water conservation and utilizing a wean-to-finish production cycle. This type of production facility reduces average water consumption per barn due to the lower average weight per head and it reduces wash water usage due to the longer production cycle for each group of swine. In addition, the project proposer will operate the facility under the DNR Water Appropriations Permit, discussed in 4.A of this document. Air quality impacts to the resources are not expected to be significant (Attachment I). 3. Geologic and soil conditions. A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) (average) >50 >50 >50 Bedrock (minimum) >300 >300 >300 (average) >400 >400 >400 Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 7 Worksheet

9 B. NRCS Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Classifications (if known) 236, 33B2, 902C2 236, 33B2, 902C2 1824, 184, 210, 212, 236, 246, 276, 284B, 284B2, 33B, 33B2, 341B, 344, 36, 70, 902C2, 940B, 904C, 913D, 94B 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. Karst features (sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley) Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites No No No Exposed bedrock No No No Soils developed in bedrock (as No No No shown on soils maps) 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. 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 existing well will be used to provide water for both barns, and will be subject to DNR Water Appropriation Animal Feedlots and Livestock Operations General Permit # The total water usage for the finishing hogs after the proposed project will be approximately 2,000,000 gallons per year, with a projected service consumption of 50,000,000 gallons over a 25-year period. A DNR Water Appropriations Permit will be required and will be applied for during the process of environmental review. The purpose of the DNR permit program is to ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is provided to long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. The permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the DNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found to be causing the problem, the operator must correct it. Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 8 Worksheet

10 The existing well was completed in the Cretaceous Aquifer. 3 Cretaceous sediments overlie the Precambrian crystalline rocks. 4 Woodward and Anderson described yields from wells in Cretaceous sandstones as variable, ranging from a few to several tens of gallons per minute. 5 Based on work conducted in the southwestern region of Minnesota, it was noted that Yields for Quaternary sediments are extremely variable. Higher yields are generally associated with surficial and gravel deposits that can yield as much as 1,000 gpm. However, yields are generally less than 100 gpm. 6 Based on the information reviewed from the County Well Logs, the Cretaceous aquifer at the project site is covered by approximately 100 to 200 feet of low permeability superglacial drift, thereby reducing the potential for contamination from land application or manure storage activities. 7 Attachment K is an aerial photograph that shows the sensitivity of ground-water resources in relation to the proposed project. B. Will the project involve installation of drain tiling, tile inlets or outlets? Yes No If yes, describe. A four-inch perimeter drain tile constructed of high density polyethylene will be installed around the base of the manure storage pit. The tile will help to control the potential hydrostatic pressure that could be exerted on the pit walls and floors. 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 tile will connect to a sump pump and discharge approximately 100 feet to the southwest of the barn into the road ditch. The feedlot NPDES/SDS Permit requires that the inspection ports be visually checked weekly. 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 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) 3 Murray County Major Aquifers. Murray County Environmental Services, Map prepared by SDRC 4/08. Retrieved on August 31, [Web site] 4 Setterholm, D.R., Geologic maps of late Cretaceous rocks, southwestern Minnesota: Minnesota Geologic Survey Miscellaneous Map Series M-69, 2 pls., scale 175,000 and smaller. 5 Woodward, D.G., and Anderson, H.W., Jr., 1986., Hydrogeologic water-quality characteristics of the Cretaceous aquifer, southwestern Minnesota: US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report , 2 pls. 6 Bradt, Randy, Jr., Surficial Hydrogeology. Regional Hydrogeologic Assessment Series. RHA-2, Part-B, Plate 3 of 4. 7 Bradt, Randy, Jr., Sensitivity of Surficial Aquifers to Pollution. RHA-2, Part-B, Plate 4 of 4. Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 9 Worksheet

11 B. Manure collection, handling, and storage. Quantities of manure generated: total 1.1 Mill gal By species Mill gal By species 2 Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle 5 Total days per year 5 Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled (including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot: Swine manure and wastewater generated by the proposed project will be collected during the year and stored in deep pits (concrete) under slatted floors. All of the below-building pits utilize pit fans for ventilation. In the fall, the swine manure in the deep pits will be agitated and pumped out by a portable chopper pump. All swine manure will be applied by a licensed commercial applicator. The manure will be incorporated immediately upon land application via liquid tanker equipped with a knife injection system. 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. The swine manure from this feedlot will be applied during the fall after the crops have been harvested from the designated land application sites. Manure will be incorporated into the soil immediately during land application via knife injection. Manure will be injected into the soil profile utilizing either a towed hose system or a liquid tanker. The manure application equipment will be operated by a licensed commercial applicator and will be calibrated using a flow meter and adjusting the speed of the equipment during application. 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 The manure will be applied at agronomic rates based upon crop nitrogen needs. Field priority for land application of manure will be based on moisture conditions in the field at the time of application. The feedlot NPDES/SDS Permit requires that all fields receiving manure are soil sampled and tested for phosphorus levels once every four years. Fields with lower soil test levels of phosphorus and potassium are given a higher priority for manure application. Other factors that will determine nutrient needs will be crop grown, yield goal, organic matter content, first and second year manure credits, and other legume credits. Nutrient rates will be determined by utilizing University of Minnesota Extension Service bulletin, Fertilizer Recommendations for Agronomic Crops in Minnesota. Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 10 Worksheet

12 Previous Crop Crop to utilize Manure Expected Yield Nitrogen needed Phosphorus needed Corn Corn 200 bu/ac 180 lbs N/ac 69 lbs P 2 O 5 /ac* Soybeans Corn 200 bu/ac 140 lbs N/ac 109 lbs P 2 O 5 /ac** Note: *P 2 O 5 needs per crop year; ** P 2 O 5 needs for two-year rotation. ac = acres bu = bushel lbs = pounds N = nitrogen P 2 O 5 = phosphorus Recommended crop nutrient needs have been determined from on-going land grant research. Following these recommendations, a Maximum Return to Nitrogen value will be used in determining the appropriate manure application rates. Manure application acres will be soil sampled every four years at a minimum to monitor crop needs and target acres that will positively respond to manure applications. 3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. It is estimated that the finishing swine at this facility in both barns will generate approximately 1.1 million gallons of manure per year. All manure will be applied at agronomic rates. Accordingly, approximately 340 corn acres each year will be needed to utilize all of the manure generated at this facility. The proposer currently has approximately 682 total acres available for manure application. All application acres are producer controlled. Land is either owned or rented by the producer and is always available for application following the MMP. Corn/Soybean Rotation: In order to achieve a yield goal of 200 bushels of corn per acre in the corn/soybean rotation, swine manure will be applied at a nitrogen-based rate to provide approximately 142 pounds of nitrogen per acre the first year. Based on previous manure tests from the existing facility, this will require an application rate of approximately 3,300 gallons of manure per acre from the proposed project. An estimated 324 acres will be needed to utilize all of the manure in the first year. No improvements to any of the manure application sites will be necessary. An evaluation of each field scheduled to receive manure applications considering slope, proximity to water, tillage, crop rotations, and nutrient applications (timing, rate, placement) was conducted using the Minnesota Phosphorus Index 8 (Attachment J). The Minnesota Phosphorus Index is a management tool to estimate the relative risk of phosphorus loss from an agricultural field, which takes into consideration initial soil test phosphorus, tillage method and orientation, soil types, slope, distance to water, crop, manure and fertilizer application rates, and application methods. All fields reviewed received very low or low ratings, indicating that no management changes are recommended. 8 Initial funding for development of the Minnesota Phosphorus Index came from the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and the University of Minnesota Extension Service in response to the results of the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on Animal Agriculture. Current funding is from a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 319 grant sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Developers include: John Moncrief, Paul Bloom, Dave Mulla, Neil Hansen, Gyles Randall, Carl Rosen, Ed Dorsey, and Ann Lewandowski University of Minnesota Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 11 Worksheet

13 Based on an MPCA review and approval of the MMP for the existing and proposed feedlots, the project proposers have an adequate land base to properly apply animal waste as fertilizer. 4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems. Murray County does not have any specific ordinance directed at the land application activities and follows the MPCA feedlot regulations pertaining to setback distances. The project proposer must abide by the MPCA feedlot rules regarding land application practices and environmentally sensitive features (Minn. R ) summarized in the following table. MPCA Animal Waste Land Application Setback Distances (in feet) Feature Winter Non-Winter With Immediate Incorporation (<24 hours) Non-Winter Not incorporated within 24 hours With P Mgmt. No P Mgmt. With Vegetated Buffer Lake, Stream Intermittent Stream* DNR protected wetlands** Drainage ditch w/o quarry* Inadequate Vegetated Buffer Open Tile Intake Well, mine or quarry Sinkhole with no diversion Downslope 50 Upslope Downslope 50 Upslope 300 Downslope 50 Upslope 300 * Intermittent streams and ditches pertain to those identified on USGS quadrangle maps, excluding drainage ditches with berms that protect from runoff into the ditch and segments of intermittent streams, which are grassed waterways. USGS quadrangle maps can be found at County Soil and Water Conservation District Offices or can be viewed on the Internet at (August 17, 2004). ** Wetland setbacks pertain to all protected wetlands identified on DNR protected waters and wetlands maps. (Contact the Local Soil and Water Conservation District for information on protected wetlands.) E. Other methods of manure utilization. If the project will utilize manure other than by land application, please describe the methods. None. 6. Air/odor emissions. A. Identify the major sources of air or odor emissions from this feedlot. The surfaces of the barns that come into contact with animals and manure, especially floors, and the animals themselves are sources of air and odor emissions. The manure collection and storage facilities, the dead animal disposal and storage areas, and the manure application fields are also significant sources of odor. Dust generated by truck traffic around the site can also contribute as a carrier of odor. 300 Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 12 Worksheet

14 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. The facility is a total confinement facility; thus odors are mitigated by reducing the surface area of manure exposed to the atmosphere. Odor management practices implemented for the swine unit include thorough washing and disinfection of the interior of the finishing building at the end of each cycle. Special attention is paid to cleaning the ventilation fans and pit exhaust fans. Swine manure will all be injected immediately into soil to minimize the release of odors by eliminating contact with the atmosphere. Weather conditions, primarily wind speed/direction and humidity, will be evaluated before manure is land applied to insure minimal impacts on neighbors and the public. If dust generated by truck traffic becomes an issue, the proposer will use a dust suppressant to control it. Feedlot odors will still be present at the facility; however, the proposed design features and management will help mitigate these 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. Air quality modeling estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases at the property lines for the proposed Gervais Swine Facility and at 28 of the proposed feedlot s nearest neighbors. A complete report of the air quality modeling findings is found in Attachment I. Hydrogen Sulfide The CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the expanded Gervais Swine Facility feedlot will comply with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. CALPUFF predicted a maximum hourly property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration of 13.0 parts per billion (ppb) (v/v). When a background concentration of 17 ppb is added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration is 30.0 ppb. The CALPUFF results indicate that the expanded Gervais Swine Facility will not create exceedences of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide inhalation health risk value (ihrv) at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentration for the feedlot s neighbors is 0.49 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ). When a background concentration of 1.00 µg/m 3 is added to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum 13-week neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.5 µg/m 3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 µg/m 3. Ammonia The modeling results suggest that the expanded Gervais Swine Facility will not create exceedences of the acute ammonia ihrv. CALPUFF predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentration of 1,580 µg/m 3. When a background concentration of 148 µg/m 3 is added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is 1,730 µg/m 3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 µg/m 3. The CALPUFF results also indicate that the expanded Gervais Swine Facility will not create exceedences of the chronic ammonia ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration for the feedlot s neighbors is15.7 µg/m 3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.7 µg/m 3 is added to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration for a neighbor is 21.4 µg/m 3, which is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 µg/m 3. Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 13 Worksheet

15 Odor The CALPUFF modeling estimated the ground level odor intensities at the expanded feedlot s property lines and at the feedlot s neighbors. As indicated in the following table, the maximum hourly odor intensity at the expanded feedlot s effective property lines is 38 odor units (OU), which is below the faint odor threshold of 72 OU. See the table below for a summary of the predicted results from the CALPUFF estimate: Proposed Site Property Boundary Hydrogen Sulfide Results (ppb) 8 Acute Ammonia Results (µg/m 3 ) 9 *See Attachment E for a more complete discussion of modeled odor impacts. Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t) 9 North , South East West In summary, The CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the expanded Gervais hog feedlot will comply with the ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide and will not create exceedences of the acute ammonia ihrv at its property lines. The CALPUFF results also suggest that the expanded feedlot and the three neighboring feedlots will not create exceedences of the subchronic ihrv for hydrogen sulfide and the chronic ihrv for ammonia at the neighboring residences. The CALPUFF modeling results indicate that detectable concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and certain volatile odorous organic compounds (VOOCs) can exist beyond the expanded feedlot s property lines. However, the estimated maximum concentration of total VOOCs for the modeled neighbor locations is less than the threshold concentration associated with unpleasant odors. Also, the modeled odor intensities at the nearest neighbors are less than the threshold for faint odors. 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. There are 11 residences and one gun club located within one mile of the facility. The producers do not plan to notify neighbors prior to operational events such as manure storage, agitation, pump out or application, but they are willing to work around planned social events. The County Feedlot Officer will be notified prior to operational events such as manure agitation and land application. 9 Odor impact assessment based on odor units. A value of 72 odor units is considered to be a faint odor detectable by most people. Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 14 Worksheet

16 E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. The loudest noise generated at the facility is due, almost exclusively, to truck traffic entering and leaving the site. Additional noise will also be generated at the residences along the roads used by traffic servicing the project site. The nearest neighbors are within one-half mile and the separation distance is primary mitigating factor in reducing the potential for adverse impacts from 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. The Project proposer will follow the Animal Mortality Plan in accordance with the NPDES/SDS Permit and the Minnesota Board of Animal Health. The feedlot utilizes a rendering service for disposing of animal mortalities. Mortalities are removed as discovered from the barns and stored in scavenger-proof mortality disposal area prior to rendering pickup. The predicted annual mortality rate is approximately three percent, or 132 head of swine every year from the entire project site. 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. Livestock Production Site Surface-water runoff will increase on the proposed expansion site due to an increase in impervious surfaces, in particular the construction of roofed buildings. Since the proposed project is a total confinement facility, it is unlikely that this runoff will come in contact with livestock or manure. The contractor and engineer will be responsible for managing surface-water runoff during construction. The requirements of the stormwater NPDES/SDS Permit that apply to the construction and operation of an animal feedlot are incorporated into and are an enforceable part of the feedlot NPDES/SDS Permit. Land Application Sites The land application of manure, if improperly applied, can adversely impact surface-water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into drain tile lines that outfall to surface waters. The project contains land application areas that are located within the West Fork of the Des Moines headwaters watershed. The watershed has been farmed for many years. The change in stormwater runoff characteristics (physically and chemically) from the project land application areas is expected to remain the same and under certain circumstances, improve as a result of the land application activities regulated under the NPDES/SDS Permit. The improvements would occur through developing better soil tilth 10 from organic fertilizer and the uniform practice of incorporating manure over the acres identified in the MMP. The potential impact to surface-water resources from the project s land application activities will be mitigated as discussed in Item 5 of the EAW, manure will be applied on the soil at agronomic rates. This means that only the amount of nitrogen that can be used by the growing crop as nutrients will be applied. The agronomic rate is based on the type of crop grown, the soil type and the soil fertility. 10 Good tilth is a sign of healthy soil organisms. While digesting organic material, bacteria secrete gum and slime-like matter in the soil. This works like glue, binding soil particles and humus together to form aggregates. The aggregates are crumb-like and allow for good air circulation and water drainage in the soil. Well-aggregated soil is regarded as having good tilth. The addition of organic material will feed micro-organisms and, thus, improve tilth. (retrieved May 2, 2007) Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 15 Worksheet

17 9. Traffic and Public Infrastructure Impacts. A. Estimate the number of heavy truck trips generated per week and describes their routing over local roads. Describe any road improvements to be made. A feed truck will visit the site twice per week for regular refilling duties. Four semi-tractors with trailers will come to the project site two times per year to refill the barns with nursery pigs. Approximately 24 semi-tractors and trailers, two times per year, will be used to load the finished hogs from the site to market. These periods of heavy traffic will occur over an approximate time period of six weeks for each load out, averaging about two trucks per day. In addition, a vehicle will visit the site twice daily to check on the livestock and a rendering truck will visit the facility approximately twice per week. The manure application sites will be serviced by a combination of township roads with five-ton load restrictions in the spring and County Road 30. The most significant traffic loads are expected to take place during the fall months after the crops have been harvested. Manure application is expected to take three to five days each year. See Attachment N for details of local roads and ratings to be used by the proposed project. The primary service corridor is County Road 30, a bituminous all weather access road with a nine-ton load restriction for seven and one-half miles north of the site and one and one-half miles south of the site to County Road 48. County Road 30 transitions to a seven-ton load restriction from that point to State Highway 30. County Road 48 itself carries a spring nine-ton load restriction until it connects to U.S. Highway 59, a paved all weather access road with a ten-ton load restriction. The axle weight restriction will not impact the traffic from the proposed project. It was also noted that the additional traffic volume from the project will not be an impact to the normal road use. However, adverse impacts to road surfaces can result from traffic loads that exceed local road postings. 11 The project proposer is required to follow all local weight restrictions and consideration will be given towards proper load limits and routes for all vehicles. If the project proposer is found to be responsible for damages to road surfaces, he can be held liable. The Minnesota Department of Transportation District 8 offered no comment on the project, according to the Project consultant 12 No road improvements are necessary or planned for the proposed project. B. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No 10. Permits and approvals required. Mark required permits and give status of application: Unit of government Type of Application Status MPCA NPDES Permit Pending MPCA Minnesota Feedlot Permit MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit MPCA Notification/Status Change for Underground Storage Tanks County Minnesota Feedlot Permit County/twp/city Conditional use or other land use permit Pending DNR Water Appropriation Pending Other* *(List any other approvals required along with the unit of government, type of approval needed, and status of approval process.) 11 correspondence with Randy Groves, P.E. for the Murray County Highway Department and Andrew Nesseth, Project Consultant on September 3, correspondence with Jarret Hubbard for the Minnesota Department of Transportation District 8 with Andrew Nesseth, Project Consultant on August 26, Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 16 Worksheet

18 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. The MPCA is required to inquire whether a proposed project, which may not individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, could have a significant effect when considered along with other projects. This type of impact is known as a cumulative potential effect. In order to assess the proposed project s cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA reviewed other projects or operations in the context of the potential direct or indirect impacts of the proposed project that: (1) are already in existence or planned for the future; (2) are located in the surrounding area; and (3) might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources. The following is a review of the analysis conducted to determine if the proposed project would contribute to a significant adverse cumulative potential effect. The MPCA reviewed existing public data to identify the number of feedlots and other projects within the same sub-watersheds of the proposed project. The public data reviewed included the most recent MPCA feedlot registration database and related project or permit databases for other operations that may hold an air quality, water quality, hazardous waste, or solid waste permit. A total of 14 other livestock operations, representing 5,569.6 animal units located in the same minor watersheds as the proposed project and or land application sites associated with the project (see Attachment L). Lastly, the MPCA reviewed the proposed and existing projects to determine whether collectively they might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources. The natural resources of concern included ground water, surface waters, air quality, and land use. The following is a brief discussion of each. Water Resources Water resources include both surface waters and ground waters. This project will utilize ground-water resources as a potable water source for livestock production. Land application of livestock waste has the potential to impact both surface and ground-water resources if conducted without regard to agronomic rate. 1. Ground Water There are three areas of concern related to ground water. Contamination from manure storage structures, contamination from land application, and effects on water supply from increased demand. To protect ground water, the project proposer is required to follow the design criteria in Minn. R. ch for the construction of the manure storage structures for the swine manure and the land application of the manure. The proposed plans and specifications for the manure storage pits, the design and operation of the open lots, and the MMP for the land application of the manure have been reviewed and approved by MPCA staff, and will be enforceable conditions of the project s feedlot NPDES/SDS Permit. The producer is required to follow an MPCA-approved MMP and submit an annual report to the MPCA on manure production, land application and any discharges. The approved MMP is an enforceable part the project s NPDES/SDS Permit. The proposed expansion is not expected to adversely impact ground water from land application of manure. Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 17 Worksheet

19 The existing ground-water use is commercial with an assumed average consumption rate of 1.3 gallons per head of swine per day. As previously discussed in Item 4.A., the project is designed to consume 2,000,000 million gallons of water a year, for a total of 50.0 million gallons over the 25-year service life of the proposed facility. A review of published geologic and hydrogeologic data indicates that the water-bearing characteristics of the surficial aquifer (including recharge) and the nature of its existing use as a ground-water source, water use for this project is not expected to interfere with other ground-water users. The proposed project will be required to obtain a Water Appropriation Permit from the DNR. The proposed project is not expected to contribute to an adverse or irreversible cumulative potential impact of ground-water resources. 2. Surface-water Impacts Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) a. West Fork Des Moines River Watershed Multiple Impairments The West Fork Des Moines River Watershed has an approved TMDL for multiple reaches for both turbidity and fecal coliform bacteria and excess nutrients in Heron Lake. The two reaches most directly impacted by the existing and proposed project are the Lower Lake Sarah Outlet and the Lake Shetek Inlet. These two reaches are listed as impaired for fecal coliform bacteria. The TMDL report estimates a reduction of fecal coliform bacteria of percent is needed throughout the watershed. The West Fork Des Moines River Watershed TMDL Report identifies primary sources contributing within those areas are likely overgrazed pasture near streams and waterways and, to a lesser extent, feedlots or stockpiles without adequate runoff controls and surface-applied manure. The cropland in Skandia Township, Section 2 identified in the MMP drains to the Lake Shetek Inlet. All of the remaining cropland identified in the MMP drains to Lake Sarah and subsequently to the Lower Lake Sarah Outlet. The expansion of this facility could negatively impact the water quality through improper management of manure. The management of manure will be addressed through NPDES requirements and through an MMP. Both stream reaches are within the Coteau agroecoregion and the implementation section of the TMDL report recommends that Livestock should be excluded from streambanks, and liquid manure storage facilities should be properly sited and designed. The implementation plan for this TMDL is being prepared. b. Lake Sarah and Lake Shetek Lake Sarah and Lake Shetek were listed on the 2006 Impaired Waters List requiring a TMDL for excess nutrients. The proposed project is located about 1.75 miles away from Lake Sarah. One of the manure application sites will be located within one mile flow distance to Lake Maria, itself connected to Lake Sarah. The remaining manure application sites are 2-5 miles of flow distance from Lake Sarah. The manure application cropland identified as located in Section 2 of Skandia Township drains to Lake Shetek; however, it is over ten miles of flow distance. All remaining cropland identified in the MMP drain to Lake Sarah. It should be noted improper manure management could affect phosphorus levels in Lake Sarah and Lake Shetek. All livestock will be housed in a total confinement building and will not have access to streambanks. Manure will be stored in beneath barn concrete pits that were designed by a Professional Engineer and approved by the MPCA. The project site itself is required by the NPDES/SDS Permit to meet a zero discharge standard. The MMP calls for all manure to be applied at nitrogen-based agronomic rates. Cropland is required to be sampled and tested for soil phosphorus levels once every four years. If soil phosphorus levels reach very high levels (120 ppm Olson, 150 ppm Bray) the MMP must by modified to prevent additional build up of Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 18 Worksheet

20 soil phosphorus. Additionally, the MMP calls for all manure to be injected into the soil profile at the time application during the fall months, which will reduce the potential for fecal coliform bacteria to be transported to surface waters. The MMP is an enforceable part of the NPDES/SDS Permit. Land The land identified for the purpose of this Project includes the site of the proposer s project, along with the land application acreage available. Two issues have been identified with respect to land resources wildlife habitat and row crop agriculture. 1. Habitat There is a competing issue in rural landscapes to maintain a balance between agricultural demands and preserving natural resources. In this case, nearly (80 percent) all the land to be used for the proposed expansion is currently open agricultural land that offers limited protection, food, or cover for wildlife. The exception is the designated land application site in Section 29 of Lake Sarah Township. This site has been enrolled in the CRP for the last 20 years, but will be converted to agricultural production, resulting in a reduction of approximately acres of high quality prairie habitat. The land is privately held and the termination of the CRP contract is not directly related to the proposed project. As such, an impact to wildlife habitat is anticipated, but is independent of the proposed project and is not dependent on the expansion. 2. Row Crop Agriculture The Project is designed to primarily utilize existing row crop feedstock with the exception of the SW1/4 of Section 29 in Lake Sarah Township. This farm has been enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) for the last 20 years, but will be converted to agricultural production, resulting in a reduction of approximately acres of high quality prairie habitat. As a result, new and existing row crop agriculture is not expected to create an additional new impact to environmental quality. Air Quality The project has been evaluated for regulated pollutants (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, odor, and ammonia) and accounted for other off-site sources through the use of a background concentration. 1. Regulated Pollutants Air quality computer modeling was performed that estimated concentrations in the air of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the proposed project. The model estimated pollutant concentrations from the proposed project, along with an ambient hydrogen sulfide and ammonia background concentration to account for any off-site air emission sources or activities. The air quality modeling evaluation predicted concentrations of the selected gases at the proposed project property lines and nearest neighbors. A background concentration is the amount of pollutants already in the air from other sources and is used in this evaluation to address cumulative air impacts. Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia may be present from other feedlot barns or the agitation and pump out of a neighboring feedlot. Air emissions from other emission sources may affect the compliance status of the proposed facility, 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 in Minnesota. The modeling adds the background air pollutant concentration to the emission concentration predicted from the proposed project. Phil Gervais Hog Conf II Environmental Assessment Lake Sara Township, Minnesota 19 Worksheet

21

22 ATTACHMENT A

23 ATTACHMENT B

24 ATTACHMENT C

25 ATTACHMENT D

26 ATTACHMENT E

27 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological Resources, Box Lafayette Road ATTACHMENT F St. Paul, Minnesota Phone: (651) Fax: (651) heidi.cyr@dnr.state.mn.us August 18, 2008 Mr. Andrew Nesseth Extended Ag Services, Inc. 507 Milwaukee St. Lakefield, MN Re: Request for Natural Heritage information in the vicinity of the proposed Phil Gervais Swine Facility Correspondence # : ERDB County Township (N) Range (W) Section(s) , 8, 18, 29, 30 Dear Mr. Nesseth, Murray As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query, several rare features have been documented within the search area (for details, please see the enclosed database reports). However, given the nature and location of the proposed project, I do not believe the project will negatively affect any known occurrences of rare features. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. The enclosed results include an Index Report and a Detailed Report of records in the Rare Features Database, the main database of the NHIS. To control the release of specific location information, which might result in the destruction of a rare feature, both reports are copyrighted. The Index Report provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an environmental review document (e.g., EAW or EIS), municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index report for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. The Detailed Report may include specific location information, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to reprint or publish the detailed report for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission. Please be aware that this letter focuses only on potential effects to rare natural features; there may be other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project. This letter does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. An invoice in the amount of $ will be mailed to you under separate cover within two weeks of the date of this letter. You are being billed for the database search and printouts, and staff scientist review. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, enc. Heidi Cyr Endangered Species Environmental Review Specialist

28 ATTACHMENT G

29

30

31

32 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT H Andrew Nesseth From: Cinadr, Thomas [Thomas.Cinadr@MNHS.ORG] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, :11 AM To: 'Andrew Nesseth' Subject: RE: Information Request for EAW THIS IS NOT A PROJECT CLEARANCE. This message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search produced results for only previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. Please read the note below carefully. No archaeological sites and historic properties were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the search area requested. The result of this database search provides a listing of recorded archaeological sites and historic architectural properties that are included in the current SHPO databases. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or structures may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field survey, may be necessary to adequately assess the area s potential to contain historic properties. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in Review and or by at kelly.graggjohnson@mnhs.org. The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata and Contractor Lists can be found at Tom Cinadr Survey and Information Management Coordinator Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Historical Society 345 Kellogg Boulevard West St. Paul, MN From: Andrew Nesseth [mailto:extag@frontiernet.net] Sent: Friday, July 11, :35 PM To: Cinadr, Thomas Subject: Information Request for EAW Tom 10/6/2008

33 Page 2 of 2 I would like to request a search for any archeological sites or cultural resources within a two mile radius of a proposed swine feedlot located in Lake Sarah 29, SW1/4, Murray County. See below for project details: Site location & description: The proposed project will be constructed in the NW¼ of the SW¼ of Section 29 of Lake Sarah Township in Murray County. The proposed Project consists of constructing one 101- foot by 180-foot total confinement, power-ventilated barn. The barn will be equipped with concrete, slatted floors. Eight-foot deep, reinforced concrete pits will be constructed beneath each of the barns to hold the manure generated by the finishing hogs. Pit fans will be installed over the manure pump outs along the edge of the building. A perimeter drain tile will be installed around the base of the manure storage pit. The tile will help to control the potential hydrostatic pressure that could be exerted on the pit walls and floors. Inspection ports connected to the perimeter tiles will allow the producer to observe whether or not the tiles are operational, and may help to identify seepage from the pits if a leak were to occur. Manure Application Sites: The manure would be applied at agronomic rate. We will recommend best management practices for applying manure and the producer will be required to following all EPA, MPCA, and County setbacks to sensitive features. Township Range Legal Description Approximate Acres T108N R41W Lake Sarah 29, SW1/4 160 T108N R41W Lake Sarah 30, N1/2 of NE1/4 160 T108N R41W Lake Sarah 18, W1/2 of NW1/4 100 T108N R42W Skandia 13, NE1/4 160 T108N R42W Skandia 13, Pt of SE1/4 40 T108N R41W Lake Sarah 7, SW1/4 of SW1/ T108N R41W Lake Sarah 7, E1/ Thank you, in advance, for your assistance. Andrew Nesseth 10/6/2008

34 ATTACHMENT I Air Quality Modeling Report Phil Gervais Proposed Hog Feedlot Expansion Murray County Lake Sarah Township SW Section 29 Prepared by Charles J. Gantzer, Ph.D. Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN December 2008

35 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 General Modeling Approach... 3 Impact Thresholds and Background Values... 4 Source Characterizations... 7 Site Descriptions... 8 Expanded Gervais Hog Feedlot... 8 Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Gas Emission Rates Hog Finishing Barns Hog Gestation Barns Cattle Lots Hydrogen Sulfide at Property Lines and Neighbors Ammonia at Property Lines and Neighbors Odorous Gases at Property Lines and Neighbors Total VOOCs at North Property Line and Neighbor H Odor Intensities at Property Lines and Neighbors Summary... 22

36 Introduction Phil Gervais (Gervais) proposes to expand his hog feedlot by adding a second 2,200-head finishing barn. The feedlot is located in the SW of Section 29, Lake Sarah Township, Murray County. Based on a protocol approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on December 1, 2008, air quality modeling estimated the odorous gas concentrations and odor intensities at the property lines for the expanded Gervais hog feedlot and at 28 of the expanded feedlot s nearest neighbors. In addition to the emissions from the Gervais feedlot, the modeling considered the gaseous emissions from three neighboring feedlots. The locations of the Gervais feedlot and the neighboring feedlots are provided in Figure 1. The following atmospheric concentrations were calculated: 1. the maximum hourly hydrogen sulfide concentration at the property lines for the expanded Gervais feedlot 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 hydrogen sulfide concentration at 28 of the expanded feedlot s nearest neighbors to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota s subchronic inhalation Health Risk Value (ihrv) for hydrogen sulfide of 10 g/m 3 ; 3. the maximum hourly ammonia concentration at the property lines for the expanded Gervais feedlot to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota s acute ihrv for ammonia of 3,200 g/m 3 ; 4. the maximum annual ammonia concentration at 28 of the expanded feedlot s nearest neighbors to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota s chronic ihrv for ammonia of 80 g/m 3 ; 5. the maximum hourly concentrations of selected odorous organic gases (including n-butyric acid and para-cresol) at the property lines for the expanded Gervais feedlot and at 28 of the expanded feedlot s nearest neighbors to access the potential for off-site odor episodes; and 6. the maximum hourly odor intensities at the property lines for the expanded Gervais feedlot and at 28 of the expanded 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 modeling results suggest that the expanded Gervais 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 ppb. When a background concentration of 17 ppb is added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration is ppb, which is below the ambient standard of 30 ppb. Thus, no violation of the 30-ppb ambient hydrogen sulfide standard was modeled for the expanded Gervais hog feedlot. The CALPUFF results indicate that the expanded Gervais hog feedlot and the three neighboring feedlots will not create exceedences of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum 13-week hydrogen sulfide concentration for the neighboring residences is 0.49 g/m 3. When a background concentration of 1.00 g/m 3 is added to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum 13-week neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.49 g/m 3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 g/m 3. 1 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

37 Figure 1. Modeled locations of the Gervais hog feedlot and the three neighboring feedlots. 2 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

38 The modeling results also suggest that the expanded Gervais hog feedlot will not create exceedences of the acute ammonia ihrv. CALPUFF predicted a maximum hourly propertyline ammonia concentration of 1,578 g/m 3. When a background concentration of 148 g/m 3 is added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is 1,726 g/m 3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 g/m 3. The CALPUFF results indicate that the expanded hog feedlot and the three neighboring feedlots will not create exceedences of the chronic ammonia ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration for the neighbors is g/m 3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 g/m 3 is added to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration for a neighboring residence is g/m 3, which is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 g/m 3. Thus, the modeling results for the expanded Gervais hog feedlot 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 Approach The modeling approach assumed that the gaseous emissions from the expanded Gervais hog feedlot and the three neighboring feedlots were the only significant and quantifiable emission sources within a 3-mile by 3-mile grid. The air quality impacts associated with the Gervais and neighboring feedlots were explicitly modeled. The air quality impacts associated with any other sources in the modeled 3-mile by 3-mile grid were considered implicitly as contributors to the background concentrations that are added to the modeling results. Hence, the background concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia included the impacts associated with sources such as small feedlots, septic tank vents, fertilizer and manure application to cropland, and wetlands. The CALPUFF (version 6.112, level ) air quality model 1, 2, 3 was used to estimate the property-line and nearest-neighbor odorous gas concentrations. 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 ( ) of surface meteorological and upper air data from the National Weather Service station in Huron, South Dakota. The surface and upper air weather data sets were combined into an ISC-type meteorological file by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA s) PCRAMMET software. 4 The surface and upper air weather data sets were obtained from the EPA s Support Center for Regulatory Air Models. 5 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 1 U.S. EPA 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 Scire J. S., Strimaitis D. G., and Yamarino R. J A User s Guide for the CALPUFF Dispersion Model (Version 5). Earth Tech, Inc., Concord, MA. 496 pp. 3 U.S. EPA Revision to the Guideline for Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Ch. 1, Part 51, Appendix W. 4 U.S. EPA PCRAMMET User s Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454-B (Revised June 1999) Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

39 0 meters, i.e., ground level. A flat terrain was assumed. All modeled property-line and nearestneighbor receptors were defined as discrete receptors. Property-line receptors were less than or equal to 25 meters apart. An arbitrary Cartesian coordinate system (x, y) was used with the southwest corner of Section 29 (Lake Sarah Township, Murray 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. Impact Thresholds and Background Values To assess the potential for environmental impacts, the atmospheric hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and volatile odorous organic compound (VOOC) concentrations, and the atmospheric odor intensities generated by the air quality modeling were compared to air quality standards, inhalation Health Risk Values (ihrvs), published odor threshold concentrations, and an odor classification system based on detection-threshold odor intensities. 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 intensity correlations are often based on instantaneous measurements. For example, an hourly modelgenerated 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 when assessing the potential to comply with the 50-ppb hydrogen sulfide standard. Table 1. Background concentrations. Gas Hourly Background Concentration 13-Week Background Concentration Annual Background Concentration Hydrogen Sulfide 17 ppb (v/v) (24.3 g/m 3 ) 0.70 ppb (v/v) (1.00 g/m 3 ) Not Required Ammonia 208 ppb (v/v) (148 g/m 3 ) Not Required 8.07 ppb (v/v) (5.72 g/m 3 ) 6 U.S. EPA Revision to the Guideline for Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Ch. 1, Part 51, Appendix W. 7 Ibid. 4 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

40 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. 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 its 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. Table 2. Odor threshold concentrations. 9 Odorous Gas Odor Threshold Concentration (ppb, v/v) Acetic Acid 200 n-propanoic Acid 17 iso-butyric Acid 11 n-butyric Acid 0.69 iso-valeric Acid 4.8 n-valeric Acid 0.28 iso-caproic Acid 7.7 n-caproic Acid 21 n-heptanoic Acid 5 Phenol 76 para-cresol 0.25 para-ethyl Phenol 1.2 Hydrogen Sulfide 3.7 Ammonia 1,500 8 Nagy G. Z The odor impact model. Journal of Air & Waste Management Association 41(10): Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 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 Table 2 presents the geometric mean of the lower and upper odor threshold concentrations obtained from this reference. 5 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

41 The odor-number assessment of odor intensity does not consider the interactions between gases. Gas mixtures can intensify or mitigate certain odors. The Zahn correlation 10,11 was used to account for the odor intensity associated with the mixture of gases released from the hog barn 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. As a third means of assessing potential odor impacts, the CALPUFF-generated odor intensities (expressed as detection-threshold odor units) were compared to the reference odor intensities provided in Table 3. An odor intensity of 72 detection-threshold odor units (OU) is defined as a faint odor and is the odor intensity that an average person might detect if attention is called to the odor, but the odor would not otherwise be noticed. 12 Table 3. Odor intensity classification. 13 Odor Intensity Number Odor Strength n-butanol Reference Solution (ppm) Detection-Threshold Odor Units (OU, D/T) 0 no odor very faint faint moderate 2, strong 6, very strong 20,250 1, Zahn J. A Swine odor and emissions from pork production. In: McGuire K. (ed.), Environmental Assurance Program, National Pork Producers Council, Des Moines, IA, pp Zahn J. A., Hatfield J. L., Laird D. A., Hart T. T., Do Y. S., and DiSpirito A. A Functional classification of swine manure management systems based on effluent and gas emission characteristics. Journal of Environmental Quality 30: Jacobson L. D. and Guo H Odor from feedlots setback estimation tool (OFFSET). In: Livestock and Poultry Odor Workshop II, Dept. of Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 39 pp. 13 Jacobson L. D. et al Development of an odor rating system to estimate setback distances from animal feedlots: odor for feedlots setback estimation tool (OFFSET). Final Report. Prepared by the Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 26 pp. 6 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

42 Source Characterizations The tunnel-ventilated hog barns at the expanded Gervais hog feedlot were characterized as potentially-buoyant square area sources. The square area source was located at the east end of barns, which is where the exhaust fans will be located. The estimated temperature differences between the air inlet and outlet for the mechanically-ventilated barns are provided in Figure 2. Increased Temperature of Exhausted Air ( C) Ambient Temperature ( C) Figure 2. Modeled temperature difference between the inlet air and the exhausted air for the mechanically-ventilated hogfinishing barns at the expanded Gervais feedlot. The livestock barns at Feedlot #3 will be characterized as either line sources or volume sources using the approaches described in EPA air quality modeling documentation. 14 For barns with lengths greater than twice their width (aspect ratio greater than 2), the barn will be represented as a line source, i.e., a line of separated square volume subsources. Barns with aspect ratios less than or equal to 2 will be modeled as square volume sources. For the open cattle lots at Feedlot #1 and Feedlot #2, the OpenLotFlux algorithms estimated the hourly hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emission flux rates based on the wind speed, cloud cover, solar, elevation, air temperature, and surface soil temperature. OpenLotFlux uses mass transfer algorithms obtained from the agricultural and micro-meteorological literature. 15, 16 The historical soil temperatures at 4-inch below the surface near Lamberton, MN were used in estimating the surface soil temperatures. 17 The EPA s PCRAMMET algorithms 18 were used to estimate the hourly variation in solar elevation. OpenLotFlux also uses the average effective hydrogen sulfide and ammonia concentrations at the surface of the manure pack obtained from cattle feedlot monitoring data. 19, Jacobson L. D. et al Development of an odor rating system to estimate setback distances from animal feedlots: odor for feedlots setback estimation tool (OFFSET). Final Report. Prepared by the Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 26 pp. 15 Sommer S. G. and Olesen J. E Modeling ammonia volatilization from animal slurry applied with trail hoses to cereals. Atmospheric Environment 34(15): Arya S. P Introduction to Micrometeorology. Second Edition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA U.S. EPA PCRAMMET User s Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454-B (Revised June 1999). 19 Todd R. W. et al Ammonia and gaseous nitrogen emissions from a commercial cattle feedyard estimated using the flux-gradient method and the N:P ratio analysis. In: State of the Science, Animal Manure and Waste Management, January 4-7, 2005, San Antonio, TX. 20 Baek B. H. et al Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide flux and dry deposition velocity estimates using vertical gradient method at a commercial beef cattle feedlot. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 6(2-3): Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

43 Site Descriptions Expanded Gervais Hog Feedlot After the proposed expansion, the Gervais hog feedlot will consist of two 2,200-head finishing barns. The modeled locations of the barns are provided in Figure 3. The setback distances from the barns to the property lines range from 100 to 2,335 feet. The physical characteristics of the hog barns are provided in Table 4. The air quality modeling estimated the odorous gas concentrations at the 28 neighboring residences shown in Figure 3. Residences C3 through C6 represent the lake homes located on the southwest corner of Lake Sarah. Figure 3. Modeled barn locations and property lines for the expanded Gervais hog feedlot. The blue-filled squares represent the square area sources used to characterize the emissions from the hogfinishing barns. The red-bordered square represents the feedlot s property lines. Table 4. Dimensions and capacities of the hog barns at the expanded Gervais feedlot. Hog Barn Barn Length (feet) Barn Width (feet) Barn Height (feet) Number of Housed Pigs Finishing #1 (existing) ,200 Finishing #2 (proposed) ,200 8 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

44 Figure 4. Modeled locations of the Gervais hog feedlot, the three neighboring feedlots (not labeled), and 28 of the Gervais feedlot s nearest neighbors. 9 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

45 Feedlot #1 Feedlot #1 is a 125-head cattle (125 AU) and 20-head sheep (2 AU) operation. The feedlot will be modeled as a 127-head cattle feedlot with a 180-ft by 95-ft open lot. The modeled location of the open lot is provided in Figure 5. Feedlot #2 Feedlot #2 is a 154-head dairy cattle (154 AU) operation. The feedlot will be modeled as having a 170-ft by 125-ft open lot. The modeled location of the open lot is provided in Figure ' 670' W N S E 425' 160' Cattle Lot 40' 415' (-2,722', 9,113') Figure 5. Modeled location of the open cattle lot for Feedlot #1. Figure 6. Modeled location of the open cattle lot for Feedlot #2. 10 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

46 Feedlot #3 Feedlot #3 is a hog feedlot with 124 sows, 500 nursery pigs, and 600 finishing pigs. The available registration information and the aerial photographs do not provide information on how the pigs are housed. The modeling assumed that the sows are housed in two gestation barns. The modeling also assumed that the nursery and finishing pigs are housed in a single finishing barn. All 1,100 pigs in the finishing barn were modeled as finishing pigs. The modeled locations of the three hog barns are provided in Figure ' W N S E 875' The physical characteristics of the hog barns are provided in Table ' Gestation #1 Gestation #2 256' 128' Finishing #1 89' (1,320', 4,372') Figure 7. Modeled locations of the hog barns for Feedlot #3. Table 5. Dimensions and capacities of the hog barns at Feedlot #3. Hog Barn Barn Length (feet) Barn Width (feet) Barn Height (feet) Number of Housed Pigs Gestation # sows Gestation # sows Finishing # ,100 finishing 11 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

47 Gas Emission Rates Table 6. Monthly ammonia emission scalars. Hog Finishing Barns The hog-finishing barns at the expanded Gervais feedlot and Feedlot #3 were modeled as sources of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, VOOCs, and odor. The barn hydrogen sulfide and odor emission rates were based on fluxes of 3.35 g H2S/(m 2 sec) and 6.86 OU m 3 /(m 2 sec), respectively. 21 The ammonia emission rates for the hogfinishing barns were based on an ammonia emission rate factor of 3.7 kg NH3/head/yr. 22 To account for temperature variations on ammonia emissions from the hog barns, the ammonia emission factor was multiplied by the monthly scalars listed in Table 6. The VOOC emission rates from the manure pits were estimated using the PitEmissions software (version 4.1) based on the chemical characteristics of manure stored in pits located beneath the hogfinishing barns. PitEmissions is based on the mass-transfer algorithms recommended by the EPA to estimate emission rates. 23 For west-central Minnesota, the typical characteristics of stored hog manure are provided in Table 7. Month Ammonia Emission Scalar January 0.25 February 0.50 March 1.00 April 1.75 May 2.25 June 1.50 July 1.25 August 1.00 September 1.00 October 0.75 November 0.50 December 0.25 Table 7. Manure chemistry. 24 Parameter Units Value Temperature C 10.5 ph -log10[h + ] 7.2 Volatile Acids mg HOAc/L 19,000 Phenolics mg/l Gay S. W. et al Odor, total reduced sulfur, and ammonia emissions from animal housing facilities and manure storage units in Minnesota. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 19(3): U.S. EPA 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 U.S. EPA 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 A. 24 MPCA Hancock Pro-Pork Hog Feedlot Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, September 15, Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

48 Hog Gestation Barns The hog-gestation barns at Feedlot #3 were modeled as sources of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, VOOCs, and odor. The barn hydrogen sulfide and odor emission rates were based on fluxes of 3.58 g H2S/(m 2 sec) and 9.15 OU m 3 /(m 2 sec), respectively. 25 The ammonia emission rates for the gestation barns were based on an ammonia emission rate factor of 8.09 kg NH3/head/yr. 26 To account for temperature variations on ammonia emissions from the gestation barns, the ammonia emission factor will be multiplied by the monthly scalars listed in Table 6. The VOOC emission rates were estimated based on the emission flux rates obtained from a hogbreeding site near Hancock, Minnesota 27 and on the floor surface area of the modeled Feedlot #3 gestation barns. Cattle Lots The cattle lots Feedlot #1 and Feedlot #2 were modeled as sources of odor, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia. Emission rates were equal to the surface area times the estimated emission flux rate. The modeled odor emission flux rates from the manure pack of the cattle lots varied monthly, based on an April odor flux of 4.76 OU m 3 / (m 2 sec). 28 To account for monthly variations in odor emission flux rates, the April flux was multiplied by the monthly scalars listed in Table 8. The modeled hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emission flux rates from the manure pack of the cattle lots varied hourly. The OpenLotFlux algorithms estimated the emission flux rates, based on the wind speed, air temperature, manure pack temperature, and effective surface concentrations. OpenLotFlux used the average effective hydrogen sulfide and ammonia concentrations at the surface of the manure pack obtained from cattle feedlot monitoring data. 29, 30 To illustrate the range and variability in the hourly emissions, the estimated 1987 noon-hour emission flux rates for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are provided in Figures 8 and 9, respectively. 25 Jacobson L. D. et al Aerial pollutants emissions from confined animal buildings: dry sow buildings in Minnesota. Air & Waste Management Association Conference, Minneapolis, MN, June 21-24, Battye R., Battye W., Overcash C. and Fudge S 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. 27 MPCA Hancock Pro-Pork Hog Feedlot Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, September 15, Duysen R. D. et al Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and odor emissions from a beef cattle feedlot. ASAE Meeting Paper No St. Joseph, MI. 29 Todd R. W. et al Ammonia and gaseous nitrogen emissions from a commercial cattle feedyard estimated using the flux-gradient method and the N:P ratio analysis. In: State of the Science, Animal Manure and Waste Management, January 4-7, 2005, San Antonio, TX. 30 Baek B. H. et al Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide flux and dry deposition velocity estimates using vertical gradient method at a commercial beef cattle feedlot. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 6(2-3): Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

49 Table 8. Monthly odor emission scalars for cattle lots Month Odor Emission Scalar January 0.38 February 0.38 March 0.38 April 1.00 May 1.00 June 0.67 July 0.67 August 0.64 September 0.38 October 0.38 November 0.38 December 0.38 H 2 S Flux (g/m 2 /day) Julian Day Figure 8. Estimated 1987 noon-hour hydrogen sulfide emission flux rates for the neighboring cattle lots NH 3 Flux (g/m 2 /day) Julian Day Figure 9. Estimated 1987 noon-hour ammonia emission flux rates for the neighboring cattle lots. 31 Baek B. H. et al Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide flux and dry deposition velocity estimates using vertical gradient method at a commercial beef cattle feedlot. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 6(2-3): Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

50 Hydrogen Sulfide at Property Lines and Neighbors The CALPUFF results suggest that the expanded Gervais hog feedlot will comply with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The estimated maximum hourly concentrations for the expanded feedlot s property lines are provided in Table 9. When a background concentration of 17 ppb is added to the CALPUFF-generated concentrations, the maximum estimated property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration is ppb, which is below the standard of 30 ppb. Thus, no violations of the hydrogen sulfide standard were modeled. Table 9. Maximum hourly property-line hydrogen sulfide concentrations. Property Line H2S Concentration Without Background (ppb, v/v) H2S Concentration With a 17 ppb Background (ppb, v/v) North East South West The maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly hydrogen sulfide concentrations (without background) are plotted in Figure 10. 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 10 suggests that the hydrogen sulfide emissions from the expanded Gervais hog feedlot can generate detectable offsite concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. North/South Distance (miles) East/West Distance (miles) Figure 10. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly hydrogen sulfide concentrations in ppb for the expanded Gervais hog feedlot. The contour lines represent 3 and 8 ppb 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 29. The CALPUFF results also suggest that the emissions from the expanded Gervais feedlot and the three neighboring feedlots will not cause exceedences of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv at the 28 neighboring residences. As provided in Table 10, when a background concentration of 1.00 g/m 3 is added to the CALPUFF-generated concentrations, the maximum 13-week hydrogen sulfide concentration for a neighbor is 1.49 g/m 3, which is below the subchronic ihrv for hydrogen sulfide of 10 g/m Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

51 Table 10. Maximum 13-week hydrogen sulfide concentrations for neighbors. (* = feedlot residences) Neighbor H2S Concentration Without Background ( g/m 3 ) H2S Concentration With a 1 g/m 3 Background ( g/m 3 ) A1* B B B3* C C C C C C D D D D E1* E F F F G G H H H I I I I Ammonia at Property Lines and Neighbors The CALPUFF-generated maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentrations are provided in Table 11. The highest estimated property-line concentration with a background concentration of 148 g/m 3 is 1,726 g/m 3, which is below the acute ihrv for ammonia of 3,200 g/m 3. Thus, the modeling results suggest that the expanded Gervais hog feedlot will not cause exceedences of the acute ammonia ihrv. Table 11. Maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentrations. Effective Property Line NH3 Concentration Without Background ( g/m 3 ) NH3 Concentration With a 148 g/m 3 Background ( g/m 3 ) North 1,578 1,726 East South West The maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly ammonia concentrations (without background) are plotted in Figure 11. The reported odor threshold concentration for ammonia is 1,067 g/m 3 or 1,500 ppb (v/v) (Table 2). Figure 11 indicates that any detectable ammonia concentrations will be confined to the Gervais feedlot. 16 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

52 2 Table 12. Maximum annual ammonia concentrations for neighbors. (* = feedlot residences) North/South Distance (miles) Neighbor NH3 Concentration Without Background ( g/m 3 ) NH3 Concentration With a 5.72 g/m 3 Background ( g/m 3 ) East/West Distance (miles) Figure 11. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly ammonia concentration in g/m 3 for the expanded Gervais hog feedlot and the three neighboring feedlots. The contour lines represent 500 and 1,000 g/m 3 of ammonia. The plotted concentrations do not include the 148 g/m 3 background ammonia concentration. The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 29. The CALPUFF results also suggest that the emissions from the expanded Gervais feedlot will not cause exceedences of the chronic ammonia ihrv at the 24 nearest neighbors. The highest annual ammonia concentration for a neighbor with a background concentration of 5.72 g/m 3 is g/m 3, which is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 g/m 3. The maximum annual ammonia concentrations for each of the modeled nearest neighbors are provided in Table 12. A1* B B B3* C C C C C C D D D D E1* E F F F G G H H H I I I I Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

53 Odorous Gases at Property Lines and Neighbors The CALPUFF modeling estimated the atmospheric concentrations of selected odorous gases at the property lines for the expanded Gervais hog feedlot and at 28 of the expanded feedlot s nearest neighbors. The estimated maximum property-line concentrations for the 6 gases with the highest concentrations relative to their odor threshold concentration are provided in Figure 12. The gases with the highest propertyline concentrations were ammonia (2,209 ppb, without background), hydrogen sulfide (12.97 ppb, without background), propanoic acid (2.76 ppb), n-butyric acid (1.61 ppb), paracresol (0.82 ppb), and n-valeric acid (0.28 ppb). The corresponding odor numbers for the maximum property-line concentrations are provided in Figure 13. The gases with an odor number greater than 0.1 were hydrogen sulfide (3.5), para-cresol (3.3), n-butyric acid (2.3), ammonia (1.5), n-valeric acid (1.0), and propanoic acid (0.2). Population response curves suggest that 95 percent of the population could detect the estimated maximum property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration, 94 percent the para-cresol concentration, 88 percent the n-butyric acid concentration, 71 percent the ammonia concentration, 49 percent the n-valeric acid concentration, and 1 percent the propanoic acid concentration. Figure 12. Maximum hourly property-line concentrations. Figure 13. Maximum hourly property-line odor numbers. The estimated maximum hourly nearestneighbor concentrations for the 6 gases with highest concentrations relative to their odor threshold concentration are provided in Figure 14. The gases with the highest hourly concentrations were ammonia (623 ppb, without background), hydrogen sulfide (6.51 ppb, without background), propanoic acid (0.74 ppb), n-butyric acid (0.43 ppb), para-cresol (0.22 ppb), and n-valeric acid (0.07 ppb) The calculated odor numbers corresponding to the maximum hourly concentrations are provided in Figure 15. The individual gases with an odor number greater than 0.1 were hydrogen sulfide 18 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

54 (1.8), para-cresol (0.9), n-butyric acid (0.6), ammonia (0.4), and n-valeric acid (0.3). 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 79 percent of the population could detect the estimated maximum neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration, 43 percent the para-cresol concentration, 25 percent the n-butyric acid concentration, 11 percent the ammonia concentration, and 4 percent the n-valeric acid concentration. The population response curves assume the presence of individual gases. Total VOOCs at North Property Line and Neighbor H1 The empirical Zahn correlation relates the total gas-phase volatile odorous organic compound (VOOC) concentrations 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 16, the maximum VOOC concentrations (with the 1.18 correction) obtained from the CALPUFF modeling effort are 34.0 g/m 3 for the expanded feedlot s north property line and 9.1 g/m 3 for Neighbor H1. 9 Zahn Unbearable Odor Intensity 7 5 North Property-Line Neighbor H1 Very Unpleasant Unpleasant 3 Neutral Figure 14. Maximum hourly concentrations at neighboring residences. Pleasant ,000 10,000 Total VOOC Concentration ( g/m 3 ) Figure 16. Comparison of CALPUFFgenerated maximum hourly total VOOC concentrations for the expanded feedlot s north property line and for the modeled location of Neighbor H1. Figure 15. Maximum hourly odor numbers at neighboring residences. The Zahn correlation suggests that a total VOOC concentration of about 10 g/m 3 corresponds to a detectable but neutral odor intensity. Total VOOC concentrations have to exceed about 70 g/m 3 before the odor intensity is unpleasant. At the expanded feedlot s north property-line, the maximum CALPUFF-generated total VOOC concentration is 2.1 times less than the total VOOC concentration associated with unpleasant odor intensities. At the modeled 19 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

55 Neighbor-H1 location, the maximum CALPUFFgenerated total VOOC concentration is 7.7 times less than the total VOOC concentration associated with unpleasant odor intensities. Thus, the CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the expanded feedlot s property-lines and nearest neighbors will not be subjected to unpleasant odors. The maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly total VOOC concentrations (with the 1.18 correction factor) are plotted in Figure 17. The Zahn correlation suggests that a total VOOC concentration of about 10 g/m 3 can be considered as the odor detection threshold. Figure 17 suggests that detectable total VOOC concentrations (greater than 10 g/m 3 ) will exist off site. 2 Odor Intensities at Property Lines and Neighbors The CALPUFF modeling estimated the groundlevel odor intensities at the expanded feedlot s property lines and at the feedlot s neighbors. As indicated in Table 13, the maximum hourly odor intensity at the expanded feedlot s effective property lines is 38 odor units (OU), which is below the faint odor threshold of 72 OU. Table 13. Maximum hourly property-line odor intensities for the expanded Gervais hog feedlot. Property Line Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t) North 38 East 8 South 14 West 29 North/South Distance (miles) East/West Distance (miles) Figure 17. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly total VOOC concentrations in g/m 3 for the expanded Gervais feedlot. The contour lines represent a total VOOC concentrations of 10, 20, and 30 g/m 3. The plotted concentrations include the 1.18 correction factor. The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 29. Figure 18 suggests that any faint or stronger odors will be virtually confined to the expanded Gervais feedlot. 20 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

56 Table 14. Maximum neighbor odor intensities. (* = feedlot residences) 2510 North/South Distance (miles) Neighbor Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t) East/West Distance (miles) Figure 18. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly odor intensities for the expanded Gervais hog feedlot and the three neighboring feedlots. The threshold for very faint odors is 25 OU and for faint odors is 72 OU (Table 3). The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 29. The CALPUFF-generated ground-level odor intensities at the expanded feedlot s neighbors are provided in Table 14. The estimated maximum nearest-neighbor odor intensity is 31 OU, which is above the 25-OU threshold for very faint odors and below the 72-OU threshold for faint odors. Thus, the modeling suggests that the expanded Gervais feedlot will not create odor intensities at the nearest neighbors that exceed the threshold for faint odors. A1* 13 B1 4 B2 6 B3* 31 C1 1 C2 1 C3 1 C4 1 C5 1 C6 1 D1 3 D2 2 D3 1 D4 2 E1* 22 E2 3 F1 3 F2 10 F3 3 G1 5 G2 4 H1 10 H2 4 H3 3 I1 1 I2 1 I3 1 I Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

57 Summary The CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the expanded Gervais hog feedlot will comply with the ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide and will not create exceedences the acute ammonia ihrv at its property lines. The CALPUFF results also suggest that the expanded feedlot and the three neighboring feedlots will not create exceedences of the subchronic ihrv for hydrogen sulfide and the chronic ihrv for ammonia at the neighboring residences. The CALPUFF modeling results indicate that detectable concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and certain VOOCs can exist beyond the expanded feedlot s property lines. However, the estimated maximum concentration of total VOOCs for the modeled neighbor locations is 7.7 times less than the threshold concentration associated with unpleasant odors. Also, the modeled odor intensities at the nearest neighbors are less than the threshold for faint odors. 22 Gervais Hog Feedlot Report

58 ATTACHMENT J

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72 ATTACHMENT K

73 ATTACHMENT L