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: New Sweden Dairy Feedlot B. Proposer: Davis Family Dairies, LLC C. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Technical Contact Person Alan D. Larsen Contact Person Jim Sullivan and Title Professional Engineer and Title Planner Principal Address P.O. Box 166 Address 520 Lafayette Road North Le Sueur, Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota Phone Phone Fax Fax al.larsen@daviscofoods.com jim.sullivan@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. 29A E. Project Location: County Nicollet Township New Sweden W 1/2 NE 1/4 Section 36 Township 111 North Range 28 West Watershed (name and 4-digit code): Middle Minnesota, HUC # Lower Minnesota, HUC # 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: Exhibit A Nicollet County map showing the location of the project Exhibit B U.S. Geological Survey topographic map showing all residences and sensitive receptors within a one-mile radius of the feedlot or in close proximity to manure land application sites Exhibit C Site plan showing all significant project and natural features Exhibit D Northeastern Nicollet County map showing project location and manure application sites Exhibit E Map showing neighboring residences within one mile of the site Exhibit F Natural Heritage Database search response from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Exhibit G Minnesota Historical Society database search results for known recorded archaeological sites and historic architectural properties Exhibit H Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) public water suppliers search results within two miles of the project location Exhibit I Air Emission Modeling Report Exhibit J Cumulative Potential Effects Analysis map for surface water and land resources Exhibit K Nicollet County Variance G. Project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. The project is a proposed expansion of an existing 600-head dry cow/pre-fresh heifer, dairy facility. With the new construction, the entire site will house 3,050 milking dairy cows, 731 dry cows, 905 pre-fresh dairy heifers, and 425 newborn to 2-month old dairy heifer calves for a total of 4,500 animal units (au). Additional earthen manure storage will be constructed and all liquid earthen manure storage will be covered by an impermeable cover. Biogas produced under the covers will be collected and flared. Holding and milking parlor facilities will also be constructed with dairy offices and an educational facility that will be a part of the University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine, providing student housing at the site for both formal training and continuing education opportunities for practicing dairy veterinarians. H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested data: Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Finishing hogs Sows Nursery pigs Dairy cows 3,781 Total Beef cattle Turkeys Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species) 405 heifer calves 905 pre-fresh heifers Total I. Project magnitude data. Total acreage of farm: 80 Number of animal units proposed in this project: 4,500 Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: 4,500 Acreage required for manure application: 4,480 New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 2 Worksheet

4 J. Describe construction methods and timing. Construction would begin in the late spring to early summer of 2008 with earthwork and site preparation. Earthen manure storage basins and associated manure transfer facilities would be installed concurrent with preparation of building pads and driveways for the new facility. The existing feed storage pad would be extended further to the west. Two additional, eight-inch diameter water supply wells for livestock watering and process water would be constructed and installed at approximately the same depth as the existing two, six-inch diameter water supply wells. It is anticipated that building construction would begin July 1, 2008, and be completed by December 1, 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. No environmental review was done for the previously permitted, 990-animal unit dry cow/heifer facility. An existing freestall barn houses 600 dry cows and heifers, and two 48-foot by 50-foot hoop barns for housing of newborn calves prior to their shipment off site weekly. An existing 250-foot by 500-foot by 18-foot earthen basin provides manure storage for the site. No further expansion is anticipated for this site under the existing Nicollet County Feedlot Ordinance, which has a 3,000-animal unit cap. Davis Family Dairies applied for and received a variance from the maximum animal unit capacity for any feedlot of 3,000 animal units up to a maximum of 4,500 animal units. 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. New Sweden Dairy Site The one-mile radius of the area surrounding the site and all of the cropland designated for land application of manure is zoned agricultural. There are a total of 14 residences within a one-mile radius of the site and 3 additional residences within 300 feet of that one-mile radius. The distances to the respective residences are: 1,480 feet, 3,300 feet, 4,500 and 5,200 feet west of the site 1,500 feet, and 4,340 feet east of the site 2,510 feet and 4,860 feet north of the site 2,045 feet and 3,740 feet southeast of the site 3,160 feet, 3,300 feet and 4,800 feet southwest of the site 4,645 feet northwest of the site The dairy will be set back approximately 750 feet south of County Road 15, with the feed center and feed storage between the north freestall barn and the road. County Road 3 is approximately ¼-mile to the east and a township gravel road approximately ½-mile to the west. The distance to any public road to the south is 2-½ miles to County Road 5. New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 3 Worksheet

5 Manure Application Sites A total of 4,480 acres of cropland are estimated to be required for land application of the manure and process water generated by New Sweden Dairy. New Sweden Dairy currently has 5,304 tillable acres of cropland under agreement for land application of the manure. The cropland available for land application is shown in Exhibit B in relationship to the site of the proposed dairy facility. All cropland is within 4-½ miles of the proposed dairy and zoned agricultural. Surface tile intakes have all been identified on the individual Farm Service Agency aerial photographs submitted as a part of the Manure Management Plan in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit Application. 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 1 land use plan or ordinance 1 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. Applicable Nicollet County Ordinances The Nicollet County Shoreland Management Ordinance does not affect the project. Floodplain is its own zoning district in Nicollet County, is regulated under the Zoning Ordinance, and does not affect the project. Nicollet County does not have a wild or scenic river land use district. These areas of the County are regulated under the Shoreland Management Ordinance and the Conservancy and Floodplain Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The Wellhead Protection Plan is a portion of the Nicollet County Water Plan. It does not affect this project. 2 Nicollet County Feedlot Ordinances Nicollet County Feedlot Ordinance includes a maximum number of animal units that may be housed at any single feedlot at 3, New Sweden Dairy applied for and received a variance from Nicollet County to exceed that number and house up to 4,500 animal units at the site, with special conditions. One of the conditions is that in the event that the relationship with the University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine is terminated, the animal unit cap of 3,000 will be applicable. This condition is an enforceable provision of the variance and Conditional Use Permit (see Exhibit K). 1 The project is allowed under Section of the Nicollet County Zoning Ordinance as a Conditional Use in the Agricultural Preservation Zoning District. It also must adhere to Section (dimensional standards), and Section 713 (Feedlots). See (retrieved December 28, 2007). 2 See generally the Nicollet County zoning and land use planning ordinances located at 3 The variance from Section SIZE RESTRICTION was approved by the Nicollet County Board of Adjustments and Appeals on Monday, July 16, See Exhibit K. New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 4 Worksheet

6 Nicollet County requires the use of OFFSET to manage odor-based setback distances for livestock operations. 4 In light of the design and operation of the proposed project, an OFFSET calculation cannot be completed with the existing University of Minnesota data. As a result, Nicollet County Environmental Management Department personnel proposed that the New Sweden Dairy verify compliance with 93 percent annoyance-free rating through the implementation of an acceptable air quality monitoring plan to be prepared by New Sweden Dairy, reviewed and accepted by Nicollet County in lieu of completing the calculation. 5 For a more complete discussion of the project odor impact analysis, please refer to Section 6C of the EAW. 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 MDH? 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. The MDH was contacted and one public water supplier was identified in the SW¼ of Section 18 of Lake Prairie W Township, the Scandia Grove Lutheran Church. The wellhead protection area consists of a 200-foot radius around the well. The closest parcel of cropland is located in the N½ of the NW¼ of Section 24, greater than ¾-mile away, a considerable distance from the well protection area. In light of the distance between the land application site and the well head protection area, there is little potential for environmental impact to groundwater resources from land application activities. A copy of the MDH response is included as Exhibit H. A search of the Minnesota Natural Heritage Database within approximately one mile of the New Sweden Dairy site and cropland designated to receive manure revealed that there are no known occurrences of rare species or natural communities. One known occurrence of a native plant community was found; however, it is over one mile away from any cropland designated to receive land application of manure. The native plant community is described as a Big Woods and is not state or globally ranked. In light of the distance between the cropland area and the native plant community, there is little potential for an adverse environmental impact. The DNR review is included as Exhibit F. 4 See Section (Feedlots) of the Nicollet County Ordinance. 5 Confirmed through a December 26, 2007, from Rob Redding, Nicollet County Feedlot Officer, to Jim Sullivan, MPCA environmental review project manager. New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 5 Worksheet

7 Correspondence from the Minnesota Historical Society was also received indicating that no known historic properties had been identified in the project area. correspondence from the Minnesota Historical Society is included as Exhibit G. 3. Geologic and soil conditions. A. 6 Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) 1 ½ 1 ½ 0 (average) 3 ½ 3 ½ 3 ½ Bedrock (minimum) (average) B. 7 NRCS Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Classifications (if known) CL-ML CL-ML, CL-ML, OL, SC C. Indicate with a yes or no whether any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water are present at the feedlot, manure storage area, or manure application sites. Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Karst features (sinkhole, cave, No No No resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley) Exposed bedrock No No No Soils developed in bedrock (as shown on soils maps) No No No For items answered yes (in C), describe the features, show them on a map, and discuss proposed design and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts. 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 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. 6 The ground-water depth listed for the feedlot and manure storage areas are taken from project-specific soil boring data submitted by the project proposer. The remaining data was extracted from the Nicollet County Soil Atlas (1994). 7 This information was compiled from the Nicollet County Soil Atlas (1994). The Unified Soil Classification System (or USCS) is a soil classification system that is used in engineering and geology disciplines (including soil science) to describe the texture and grain size of a particular soil. The symbols provided in Table 3B are USCS designations for clay (CL), silt (ML), organic silt/clay (OL), and clayey sand (SC). A more comprehensive review of the USCS system can be found at (retrieved December 28, 2007). New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 6 Worksheet

8 At full operation, the project is expected to consume approximately 80,000,000 gallons per year of water or 1,600,000,000 gallons over a 20-year service life. Two existing six-inch diameter wells provide ground water to the existing dry cow freestall barn. The unique well and boring numbers are and , and both are completed to a total depth of 380 feet below surface. Both wells are developed in the Franconian Sandstone aquifer. The current wells were granted coverage under DNR General Permit , which authorizes ground-water appropriations for livestock watering and sanitation purposes. Two additional eight-inch diameter wells will be constructed for use by the new freestall barns and milking parlor. It is anticipated that the new wells will also be developed in the Franconian Sandstone aquifer. A Water Appropriation Permit will be applied for after construction of the additional two wells. A DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be required since the water use by the dairy will exceed 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year. The DNR Water Appropriation Permit Application will be for a total of 80 million gallons per year and will cover all four of the wells. The Water Appropriation Permit Program ensures that water resources are managed such that an adequate supply is available for long-range season 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. Any well interference of water use conflict would need to be addressed before the Water Appropriation Permit could be issued. In the event that an existing well yield is impacted, the DNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found to be the cause of the interference, the operator must correct it. B. Will the project involve installation of drain tiling, tile inlets or outlets? Yes No If yes, describe. Drain tile will be installed around the perimeter of the earthen manure storage basins to control hydrostatic water pressure on the bottom and side slopes of the basins. The tile will be installed at a depth at or below two feet below the bottom of the basin. The drain tile will be routed to an existing 36-inch diameter concrete sump, where it will be lifted to the surface and collected in the stormwater detention pond prior to discharge to a county drainage ditch via an existing drain tile. The county ditch discharges to Rogers Creek and eventually to the Minnesota River, approximately nine miles east of the dairy. The proposer will perform weekly examinations or the monitoring port or drain tile outlet for water flow and signs of discoloration or odor in any water flowing in the drain tile. Any changes in color or odor of the drain tile discharge will be reported to the MPCA as required in NPDES/SDS Permits issued for concentrated animal feedlot operations. A drain tile and surface intake will also be installed at the north end of the site, providing an overflow for the stormwater retention pond. The overflow is designed to accommodate long-term and chronic rainfall events. The overflow will discharge to a private ditch that flows into Rogers Creek. Water from this pond will be used in the fall to recharge the earthen manure storage basin system and provide water to flush the manure transfer flume in the new freestall dairy barns. 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 New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 7 Worksheet

9 5. Manure management. A. Check the box or boxes below which best describe the manure management system proposed for this feedlot. Stockpiling for land application Containment storage under barns for land application Containment storage outside of barns for land application Dry litter pack on barn floors for eventual land application Composting system Treatment of manure to remove solids and/or to recover energy Other (please describe) B. Manure collection, handling, and storage. Quantities of manure generated: total 30,900,000 gallons Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle 365 Total days per year 28 Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled (including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot: The freestall barns will be scraped three times daily to a 24-inch diameter pipe, where the sand-laden manure will be flushed to one of two poured concrete sand settling lanes. The velocity of the manure slurry will be reduced such that the sand will drop out of the slurry, and with the continued movement of water, the manure solids will be released and transported via gravity to the existing manure transfer flume and to the existing concrete manure collection tank. The liquid manure will then be pumped to the earthen liquid manure storage basin system. The earthen manure storage system will consist of two sedimentation basins and three earthen liquid manure storage basins connected in series. All earthen manure storage basins will be covered with an impermeable membrane cover that will be floated on the liquid manure surface with perforated piping at the top of the dike beneath the covers. This biogas will be collected continuously via negative pressure and routed to a flare and combusted. The use of a flare for combusting biogas is a common practice for this type of manure management 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. A sludge removal system connected to a wet well on the east side of the sedimentation basins will be the access point for pumping of the liquid manure via a flexible pipeline. Access will also be provided by two additional wet wells that will be installed on the south side of the new earthen liquid manure storage basin and on the west side of the final stage earthen liquid manure storage basin. The liquid manure will then be applied by a tool bar pulled behind a tractor and immediately incorporated beneath the surface. Land application will be conducted annually in the fall following crop removal and applied at agronomic rates. New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 8 Worksheet

10 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 Land application of the manure will be completed at agronomic rates with nitrogen as the limiting nutrient using the University of Minnesota recommendations for fertilizer. Commercial manure applicators will be contracted to apply the manure. A flow meter will be used to monitor and confirm application rates. Ownership of the manure will be transferred to the individual farm operators that receive the manure; however, the application of the manure will be coordinated by the owners. The project proposer will be responsible for the contents of the Manure Management Plan, an enforceable provision of the NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit. The Manure Management Plan prepared for the project used University of Minnesota nutrient content estimates. Using these estimates, the plan indicates that over a four-year period, phosphorus application may exceed the crop s phosphorus uptake, but does not indicate any excessive buildup in soil phosphorus levels and is conservative in the estimate of the manure nutrient contents. 3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. The earthen manure storage basins are sized to provide in excess of 15 months of storage of manure and process water produced at the dairy. The Manure Management Plan indicates that a total of 4,480 acres of cropland are required to apply the manure at agronomic rates. A total of 5,304 acres of cropland are available for land application of manure. Copies of all Land Application Agreements are included in the Manure Management Plan. All acreage in the Manure Management Plan accounts for the land application setback distances described below. 4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems. The only applicable land application setbacks are the MPCA feedlot regulation setbacks provided in Minn. R. ch The setback distances under the MPCA regulations are provided as follows: Feature MPCA Animal Waste Land Application Setback Distances (in feet) 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 berms Inadequate Vegetated Buffer Open tile intake Well, mine or quarry *Intermittent streams and ditches pertain to those identified on USGS quadrangle maps, excluding ditches with berms that protect from run-off into the ditch and segments of intermittent streams that 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 (these maps are often located in County Soil and Water Conservation offices and typically include all wetlands over ten acres). ***The setback for open tile intakes is at least 25 feet unless they are able to achieve 75 percent settling of solids prior to entering the intake. This is most often accomplished using a riser pipe, such as a Hickenbottom riser. New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 9 Worksheet

11 The Manure Management Plan prepared for the project is based on a nitrogen limiting basis, and includes soil sampling and analysis for phosphorus to monitor soil phosphorus levels on the cropland that will be used for land application. If soil phosphorus levels exceed either 60 ppm, Olsen or 75 ppm, Bray P1, alternative cropland will be used for land application and there will be no long-term buildup of phosphorus levels in the soil. 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 freestall barns, the sand settling lanes and the earthen manure storage basins will be the major sources of air and odor emissions from the proposed dairy. The types of materials emitted will include dust, non-odorous gases and odorous gases. These types of emissions are common to dairy farms with liquid manure storage structures. Some odorous gases (e.g., ammonia) will be emitted during the land application of manure. Immediate incorporation into the soil below the surface will minimize the release of odorous gases. Spilled feed and mortality can also be a source of odors. 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 proposed dairy has operational and design features that will be implemented to avoid and minimize adverse air and odor emissions. These features include the following: Spilled feed will be promptly recovered and feed rejected by the cows will be removed daily from the freestall barns. The earthen manure storage basins will be covered with impermeable covers and biogases produced beneath the covers will be removed under negative pressure and combusted in a flare. Agitation will not be possible from the basin top due to the presence of an impermeable cover, nor is it expected to be needed in the liquid manure earthen storage basins. Settled solids and sludge in the primary basins will be removed without agitation, minimizing odor release during manure removal. The use of an inorganic bedding source (sand), combined with the construction of the low profile, cross-ventilated freestall barns that will cool the freestall barns during periods of hot weather, will help minimize odorous emissions produced in the freestall barns. Mortalities will be removed and composted, minimizing any release of odor. Land application of the liquid manure will be completed by immediate incorporation. This will help to retain the nutrients contained in the liquid manure and reduce the emission of odorous gases. Land application of the manure will be performed by a licensed custom manure applicator that has the proper equipment for the immediate incorporation of the manure. The freestall barns will be scraped three times daily, preventing the accumulation of manure in the barn, reducing the potential for anaerobic decomposition of the manure, and minimizing the potential for emission of odorous gases. New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 10 Worksheet

12 Low profile cross-ventilated freestall dairy barns have been evaluated by researchers from the University of Idaho with findings that indicate that this design provides a better environment for the animals and workers. The researchers noted that there were no measureable concentrations of hydrogen sulfide detected within this type of freestall dairy barn. 8 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 New Sweden Dairy expansion and at 28 of the proposed feedlot s nearest neighbors. A complete report of the air quality modeling findings is found in Attachment I. The table below is provided as a summary of the air quality modeling findings. Property Boundary New Sweden Dairy Expansion Project Modeling Results Hydrogen Sulfide Acute Ammonia Chronic Ammonia Results (ppb) 1 Results (µg/m 3 ) 2 Results (µg/m 3 ) 3 (Includes a 17 ppb (Includes a (Includes a 5.72 µg/m 3 background 148 µg/m 3 background concentration) background concentration) concentration) Odor Results (odor units) 4 (Includes a 17 ppb background concentration) North , East , South , West , State ambient hydrogen sulfide air quality standard: 30 ppb half-hour average 2 Acute inhalation health risk value for ammonia: one hour average of 3,200 µg/m 3 3 Chronic inhalation health risk value for ammonia: one year average of 80µg/m 3 4 Odor impact assessment based on odor units. A value of 83 odor units is considered to be a faint odor (for cattle) detectable by most people. ppb = parts per billion µg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter It is important to note that each modeling exercise took into account the 13 nearby feedlots to better represent the potential air quality impacts. In summary, the CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the proposed project will comply with the ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide and will not exceed the applicable inhalation health risk values for ammonia or hydrogen sulfide. In addition, the model results indicate that more than 99 percent of the time the expanded Dairy s neighbors will be exposed to odor intensities below 83 OU (see Exhibit I). 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. The project proposer will notify all neighbors within one mile of the dairy and work with the cropland operators prior to beginning land application of the liquid manure to learn of any activities previously planned by local residents that may be impacted. Land application of the manure will take place following crop harvest in the fall where cooler temperatures will help to minimize the release of any odors. These activities are identified in the Project Air Emission Plan, which is an enforceable provision of the MPCA NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit. 8 See (retrieved December 28, 2007). New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 11 Worksheet

13 E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Dust emissions from New Sweden Dairy will be mitigated by its location on bituminous asphalt surfaced highway and bituminous asphalt surfaced driveways. Noise will be produced by tractors and truck traffic into and out of the site. Most of the traffic will be during daylight hours and common in agricultural areas. The cross-ventilated freestall barn will have continuous operation of exhaust fans, which will produce some noise that will decrease into the evening hours as temperatures cool. Dust and noise may be expected during the construction phase of the Project. 7. Dead Animal Disposal Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. Animal mortality at the site is estimated to be 240 cows or pre-fresh heifers and 140 calves annually. All mortalities at the site will be removed from the freestall barn upon discovery and placed in the mortality compost shed located west of the covered earthen basins. The mortality composting shed is a 20-foot by 60-foot open front shed with eight-inch thick concrete walls on an eight-inch thick concrete floor and footings. The walls are ten feet in height with a wood framed, steel sided, and roofed structure divided into three bays by two concrete walls. Procedures outlined by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health will be followed during the composting of animal carcasses. 9 In the event that a catastrophic mortality event occurs, the State of Minnesota Emergency Response Plan will be followed Surface Water Runoff. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been prepared as part of the NPDES/SDS Permit Application required for this project. The site has been historically used as cultivated agricultural cropland. As a part of the existing site construction, stormwater control structures will be installed for treatment of stormwater prior to exiting the site. The quantity of stormwater will increase with the construction of the three freestall barns and other impervious surfaces. Stormwater that is generated around and to the south of the new freestall barns and the existing freestall barn and driveways, will be collected and treated in the stormwater detention pond formed by the berm at the south end of the site. Stormwater will be filtered through a subsurface intake (French drain) prior to discharge through drain tile and into a county drainage ditch. The silage piles will be covered by impermeable plastic on an asphalt surface feed storage pad. Stormwater runoff from the feed storage pad and the northern part of the site will be collected in a permanent stormwater retention basin that will be sized to store the stormwater annually generated with an emergency spillway to a dedicated drain tile that will discharge to an existing drainage ditch ¼-mile west of the site. The stormwater collected in this basin will provide water to be used for flushing the manure transfer flumes in the fall following removal of the manure stored in the earthen basins. Sand that is separated from the 9 The Minnesota Board of Animal Health regulates animal carcass disposal. Composting must be completed in accordance with Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules (Minn. R ). Composting is allowed for poultry, swine, sheep, and goats. The Minnesota Board of Animal Health may authorize other species to be composted or alternative methods to be used. The Minnesota Board of Animal Health composting guidance is found at (retrieved December 29, 2007) New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 12 Worksheet

14 sand-laden manure will be removed from the sand settling lanes and placed on one of two stacking slabs. Stormwater from both of these stacking slabs will be collected in the sand settling lanes and stored in the earthen manure storage basins. All of the cows, lactating or dry, and all of the pre-fresh heifers will be housed inside the freestall barns and all of the calves will be housed in huts. Any stormwater that comes into contact with manure-contaminated sand or straw bedding will be collected and stored in the earthen manure storage basins. No contaminated stormwater runoff will be allowed to leave the site. Land application of manure, if done improperly, 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 includes land application acreage in two minor watersheds, each within two different major watersheds of the Minnesota River. With the change in use, from row-crop agriculture to confined animal agriculture, while the amount of stormwater will change, the run-off characteristics, both physical and chemical, from the land application acreage is expected to remain the same and, under certain circumstances, may improve as a result of the regulated land application activities (e.g., agronomic rates, immediate incorporation of the manure) under the MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit. The improvements would occur through the improvement in soil tilth 11 through the use of organic fertilizer and the uniform practice of immediate incorporation over the acres identified in the Manure Management Plan. The potential impact to surface-water resources from the project s land application activities is not expected to create a significant impact as it will be regulated by an NPDES/SDS Permit that operates under a no discharge standard and the Manure Management Plan. The no discharge standard is managed through the following practices. Manure will be incorporated into the soil at agronomic rates, meaning that only the amount of manure will be applied that supplies the crop nutrients that can be utilized by the growing crop. The agronomic rate is based on the type of crop to be grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry. In addition, land application will only occur during the fall of the year after crops have been removed from the field, rather than in the spring when runoff potential is greater due to increased precipitation and soil moisture. Additional details or land application activities are found in Item 5 of the EAW. The information presented in Item 5 will be incorporated into the Manure Management Plan for the proposed project. The Manure Management Plan will be an enforceable provision of the NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit for the project. 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. When New Sweden Dairy is stocked at capacity, there will be three semi-truck loads of milk daily leaving from the site and transported to Le Sueur, Minnesota. An average of seven semi-truck loads of feed will be delivered on a weekly basis. Additional passenger vehicle traffic will also result from the presence of the University of Minnesota, College of Veterinary Medicine on the site. Nicollet County Road 15 is a four-season, 10-ton bituminous surface road and no improvements are expected as a result of this project 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) 12 Information provided by Mike Wagner, Nicollet County Highway Engineer, to Jim Sullivan, MPCA, via a December 28, 2007, . New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 13 Worksheet

15 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 MPCA Type of Application NPDES/SDS Feedlot/Stormwater Permit submitted issued upon completion of environmental review. Nicollet County Variance of the 3,000-animal unit cap. Variance granted on July 16, Nicollet County DNR Minnesota Board of Animal Health Conditional Use Permit to be submitted upon completion of environmental review. Water Appropriation to be submitted upon completion of environmental review. Permit to compost cattle to be submitted upon completion of environmental review. 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 conducted an analysis that addressed other projects or operations in context to 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 an adverse cumulative potential effect. The MPCA reviewed projects that are already in existence or planned for the future and are located in the surrounding area. The MPCA reviewed existing public data to identify the number of feedlots and other projects within the same subwatersheds 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 109 livestock operations were identified from the search of public records. There is no other project pending within the project boundaries of this proposal. No other non-feedlot projects were identified during the search. The proposed livestock production facility and land application acres are located in five minor catchments (Judicial Ditch #1A, County Ditch #30A, County Ditch #75, Rogers Creek, and County Ditch #39) that drain into the Minnesota River basin. New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 14 Worksheet

16 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. Ground-water Appropriation Based on information provided by the project proposer, the proposed livestock operation will extract ground water from the Franconia aquifer (see Item 4.A.). The MPCA reviewed the County Well Index (CWI) to explore the nature of well depth and type to account for other users of the same or nearby resources identified within approximately a one-mile radius of the project. 13 A total of 15 well logs were identified and reviewed. Most drinking water wells in the area extend through the glacial sediments into water-bearing sand layers or into bedrock layers. The aquifers are recharged through infiltration of precipitation and subsurface groundwater movement. Some surface waterbodies and wetlands may also act as points of aquifer recharge. 14 The existing ground water use is domestic with an assumed consumption rate of 100 gallons per person per day. 15 As previously discussed in Item 4.A., the project is designed to consume 80 million gallons of water a year, for a total of 1,600,000,000 gallons over a 20-year service life. A review of published geologic and hydrogeologic data indicates that the water-bearing characteristics of the 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. It is important to note that the local ground-water users in and around the proposed project area are domestic users. Minn. Stat. 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state's water when supplies are limited. 16 In addition, the proposed project will be required to obtain a Water Appropriation Permit from the DNR for the use of more than 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year, which includes agricultural uses. The purpose of the 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 program exists to balance competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. In light of the projected project water use, aquifer characteristics, existing water uses, and the water appropriation statute, the proposed project is not expected to contribute to an adverse or irreversible cumulative potential impact of ground-water resources. Ground-water Quality Ground-water resources can be adversely impacted by land application activities where ground-water resources are at or near the surface or are accessible through conduits and fractures commonly associated with karst topography or through the texture and structure of soils and sediment. The 1989 Minnesota Ground Water Protection Act authorized the DNR to map geographic areas defined by natural features where there is risk to ground water from activities conducted at or near the land surface. 17 The MPCA has reviewed information compiled by the DNR to determine whether the proposed project has the potential to contribute pollutants to the underlying aquifer creating an adverse cumulative potential effect. 13 The MPCA used the MDH CWI June The one-mile radius was employed based on the working assumption of a one-mile zone of depletion for a livestock production well. 14 Bradt, R., Berg, J., Surficial hydrogeology. Regional Hydrogeologic Assessment Series, Upper Minnesota River Basin. RH-4. Part B, Plate 3 of See Minn. R , subp (retrieved April 25, 2007). 17 See generally Minn. Stat. 103H. New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 15 Worksheet

17 Contamination of ground-water resources is evaluated through a number of factors including the depth to ground water, the porosity and permeability of the overlying media, and characteristics of the pollutant. 18 The MPCA reviewed the Land Application Plan, along with soil data, in order to determine the potential ground-water contamination risk presented by the project. The MPCA has concluded that the Project will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect to ground-water resources in the area based on the potential risk of contamination to ground-water resources, characteristics of the aquifer and overlying media, and the manner in which land application will be managed. Surface-water Impacts As noted above, the land application areas are located within five minor catchments: Judicial Ditch #1A, County Ditch #30A, County Ditch #75, Rogers Creek, and County Ditch #39. A review of the MPCA impaired waters list indicated that Rogers Creek is listed as having impairment for biological integrity related to fish. The remaining surface water features have not been listed. All manure generated from the livestock operations within the listed minor catchments is assumed to be land applied within the watershed area or within several miles of each catchment. The proposed project is not expected to contribute to the existing water quality issue discussed above. The project will minimize its potential impact to surface-water quality through the land application activities discussed in Item 5 of the EAW, which include storage in engineered concrete and earthen lined structures, fall land application, injection of manure, and observation of setback distances, as well as the use of an agronomic rate for land application. These practices will be included in the project s NPDES/SDS Permit, which requires a producer to operate a facility under a no discharge standard. As a result, the MPCA concludes that the project will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect of surface-water quality. Air Quality Impacts Air quality computer modeling was performed that estimated ambient air concentrations for hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the proposed project, along with 13 other feedlots identified in the area. The model estimated pollutant concentrations from the proposed project and the 13 other feedlots, along with an ambient hydrogen sulfide and ammonia background concentration, to account for any off-site air emission sources or activities. 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 effects. Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia may be present from other feedlot barns, the agitation, pumpout and land application activities of a neighboring feedlot or the pumping of a municipal wastewater treatment facility. 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. The results of the modeling study indicate that no significant air quality impacts are expected from the proposed project and that the proposed project will not contribute to any adverse cumulative potential effects of air quality (Exhibit I). 18 Alexander, S. C., and Alexander, E. C., Jr., 1989, Residence times of Minnesota ground waters: Minnesota Academy of Sciences Journal, v. 55, no. 1, p In addition, the MPCA also employs work from the following: Geologic Sensitivity Workgroup, 1991, Criteria and guidelines for assessing geologic sensitivity of ground water resources in Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters, St. Paul, MN, 122 p. New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 16 Worksheet

18 Land Use The land identified for the purpose of this project includes the site of the project proper, along with the land application acreage. The overall project, including land application sites, is reviewed in context to other existing or proposed projects within the watershed. Three issues have been identified with respect to land resources wildlife habitat, row crop agriculture, and traffic. Wildlife Habitat There is a competing issue in rural landscapes to maintain a balance between agricultural demands and preserving natural resources. In this case, the location of the proposed project is in an area that is currently being used for agricultural production. All land, including land application areas, has been used for agricultural purposes for more than 20 years. The proposed project will not displace or disrupt any wildlife habitat and, as a result, will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect related to habitat fragmentation and loss. Row Crop Agriculture The project is designed to utilize existing row crop feedstock, rather than to cultivate fallow or marginal land to meet crop use needs. As a result, existing row crop agriculture practices are not expected to create an additional new impact to environmental quality. There is no indication that any other projects in the area will be converting fallow or marginal cropland into row crop production within the project area. The proposed project will not modify land use and will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect related to row crop agriculture. Traffic The cumulative potential effects analysis for traffic included an evaluation of the direct contribution of new traffic through the development and operation of the proposed project in context to the existing traffic load. The direct impact analysis is provided in Item 9.A of the EAW. According to the Nicollet County Highway Engineer, the additional traffic identified in Item 9.A is not considered to be a significant contribution to existing traffic load and does not present an adverse cumulative potential effect. 12. Summary of issues. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. No other issues. New Sweden Dairy Environmental Assessment New Sweden Township, Minnesota 17 Worksheet

19

20 EXHIBIT A

21 EXHIBIT B

22 EXHIBIT C

23 EXHIBIT D

24 EXHIBIT E

25 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 25 EXHIBIT F 500 Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota Phone: (651) Fax: (651) lisa.joyal@dnr.state.mn.us September 21, 2007 Mr. Alan D. Larsen Davis Family Dairies P.O. Box 166 Le Sueur, MN Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed New Sweden Dairy Farm Expansion, Nicollet County NHNRP Contact #: ERDB Township (N) Range (W) Sections , 5, 6, 7, 8, & , 12, 13, 14, & , 29, 32, & , 24, 25, 26, 27, 35, & 36 Dear Mr. Larsen, 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 area indicated on the map enclosed with your information request. Based on this review, there are no known occurrences of rare species or native plant communities in the area searched. The Natural Heritage database is maintained by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, a unit within the Division of Ecological Resources, Department of Natural Resources. It 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. Its purpose is to foster better understanding and protection of these features. Because our information is not based on a comprehensive inventory, there may be rare or otherwise significant natural features in the state that are not represented in the database. A county-by-county survey of rare natural features is now underway, and has been completed for Nicollet County. Our information about native plant communities is, therefore, quite thorough for that county. However, because survey work for rare plants and animals is less exhaustive, and because there has not been an on-site survey of all areas of the county, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist on the project area. Please be aware that review by the Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program focuses only on rare natural features. It does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. If you require further information on the environmental review process for other natural resourcerelated issues, you may contact your Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Todd Kolander, at (507) An invoice in the amount of $85.71 will be mailed to you under separate cover within several weeks of the date of this letter. You are being billed for the database search. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely, Lisa Joyal Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator DNR Information: TTY: An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity

26 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box Lafayette Road St. Paul, Minnesota Phone: (651) Fax: (651) November 7, 2007 Alan Larsen Davis Family Dairies PO Box 166 Le Sueur, MN Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed New Sweden Dairy Farm Expansion additional sections; T111N R27W Sections 30 & 31 and T111N R28W Sections 11, 12, 14, 15, & 22; Nicollet County Dear Mr. Larsen, The Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System 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 additional sections listed above. Based on this review, there is one known occurrence of a native plant community in the area searched (for details, please see the enclosed database printouts and the explanation of selected fields). However, based on the nature and location of the proposed project, I do not believe that the project will negatively affect this rare feature. Thank you for notifying us of the proposed changes, and for the opportunity to provide additional comments. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Lisa Joyal Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator DNR Information: TTY: An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity

27 EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT G.txt From: Cinadr, Thomas [thomas.cinadr@mnhs.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 26, :33 AM To: Al Larsen Subject: RE: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Attachments: Archaeology.doc 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. For further information contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson by phone at or at kelly.gragg-johnson@mnhs.org. No historic properties were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the search area requested. A report containing the archaeological sites identified is attached. 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. With regard to Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAW), a negative known site/structure response from the SHPO databases is not necessarily appropriate information on which to base a "No" response to EAW Question 25a. It is the Responsible Governmental Unit s (RGU) obligation to verify the accuracy of the information contained within the EAW. A "No" response to Question 25a without written justification should be carefully considered. 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. Please contact the SHPO by phone at or by at mnshpo@mnhs.org for current lists of professional consultants in these fields. For further questions on the review process contact the Reviews Department at The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata can be found at Original Message----- From: Al Larsen [mailto:al.larsen@daviscofoods.com] Sent: Friday, September 21, :29 PM To: Gimmestad, Dennis Subject: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Page 1

28 Dear Mr. Gimmestad; EXHIBIT G.txt I am in the process of preparing the completed data portion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to be submitted to the MPCA as a part of the permit application process for a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). Part of the EAW is the search for any archaeological, historical or architectural resources within the project boundaries, adjacent to the boundaries or in proximity (within two miles) of the project. The project is located in rural Nicollet County west of St. Peter. The legal descriptions for the feedlot site and sections where cropland designated for land application of manure are as follows: Township Range Sections 111N 28W 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 35, N 27W 28, 29, 32, N 28W 1, 12, 13, 14, 110N 27W 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 109N 28W 20 The feedlot site is located in T11N, R28W, Section 36, in the W ½ of the NE ¼. It is an expansion of an existing dairy dry cow facility to include 3,000 lactating dairy cows and up to 1,400 dairy heifer calves. Manure will be stored in two earthen manure storage basins in addition to the existing earthen manure storage basin. Manure and process water generated and stored at the site will be land applied by immediate incorporation in the fall following crop harvest at agronomic rates on cropland located in the remaining sections identified. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Thank you. AL Alan D. Larsen, PE Davis Family Dairies P.O. Box Page 2

29 EXHIBIT H EXHIBIT H.txt From: Terry Bovee [Terry.Bovee@state.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, :30 PM To: Al Larsen Cc: Rhonda Johnson Subject: Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Hello Mr. Larsen, I have conducted a search for public water suppliers within 2 miles of the proposed project located in the W ½ of the NE ¼ of Section 36, T11N, R28W, (Lake Prairie Township). There are three active noncummunity public water suppliers located in or near the village of Norseland: 1) Scandia Grove Lutheran Church, 2) Norseland Lutheran Church and 3) Norseland Scout Camp. All three of these water suppliers are considered to be transient-type systems and therefore their wellhead protection areas consist of a 200 foot radius around each well. These wells range from 260 feet to 385 feet deep. If you have any specific questions about these water suppliers please contact Rhonda Johnson (MDH Sanitarian - Mankato office) at or rhonda.johnson@health.state.mn.us Terry Terry L. Bovee MN. Dept. Of Health Source Water Protection Unit 410 Jackson, Suite 500 Mankato, MN tel fax terry.bovee@health.state.mn.us >>> "Al Larsen" <Al.Larsen@DaviscoFoods.com> 9/21/2007 1:35 PM >>> Dear Mr. Bovee; I am in the process of preparing the completed data portion of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) to be submitted to the MPCA as a part of the permit application process for a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). Part of the EAW is the search for any drink water supply management areas the project boundaries, adjacent to the boundaries or in proximity (within two miles) to the project or public water supply wells within two miles of the project. The project is located in rural Nicollet County west of St. Peter. The legal descriptions for the feedlot site and sections where cropland designated for land application of manure are as follows: Township Range Sections 111N 28W 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 35, N 27W 28, 29, 32, N 28W 1, 12, 13, 14, 15 Page 1

30 EXHIBIT H.txt 110N 27W 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 109N 28W 20 The feedlot site is located in T11N, R28W, Section 36, in the W ½ of the NE ¼. It is an expansion of an existing dairy dry cow facility to include 3,000 lactating dairy cows and up to 1,400 dairy heifer calves. Manure will be stored in two earthen manure storage basins in addition to the existing earthen manure storage basin. Manure and process water generated and stored at the site will be land applied by immediate incorporation in the fall following crop harvest at agronomic rates on cropland located in the remaining sections identified. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. Thank you. AL Alan D. Larsen, PE Davis Family Dairies P.O. Box Page 2

31 EXHIBIT I Air Quality Modeling Report New Sweden Dairy Expansion Davis Family Dairies, LLC Nicollet County New Sweden Township N Section 36 December 2007

32 Table of Contents Introduction... 1 General Modeling Approach... 3 Site Descriptions... 8 New Sweden Dairy... 8 Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Feedlot # Gas Emission Rates Dairy Freestall Barns Dairy Manure Basins and Sand-Settling Lanes Cattle Barns Sheep Barn Hog Barns Hog Manure Basins Chicken (Layer) Barns Hydrogen Sulfide at Property Lines and Neighbors Ammonia at Property Lines and Neighbors Odorous Gas Concentrations at Property Lines and Neighbors Odor Intensities at Property Lines and Neighbors Summary... 28

33 Introduction Based on a protocol approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on December 27, 2007, air quality modeling estimated the hydrogen sulfide (H2S) concentrations, ammonia (NH3) concentrations, and odor intensities at the effective property lines for the expanded New Sweden Dairy and at 28 of the expanded dairy s nearest neighbors. Presently, the dairy consists of a 605-head freestall barn, and a manure storage basin. The proposed expansion would add a 1,200-head freestall barn, two 1,440-head freestall barns, two sand-settling lanes, and three manure storage basins. The existing and three proposed manure basins will be covered with impervious geomembrane covers. The biogas collected from beneath the covers will be combusted prior to atmospheric release. Two neighbors have granted air quality easements to the dairy, such that the effective property lines for the dairy surround a mile by mile parcel of land (Figure 1). The modeling also considered the gaseous emissions from thirteen neighboring feedlots. The locations of the New Sweden Dairy and the thirteen feedlots are provided in Figure 1. The following atmospheric concentrations were calculated: 1. the maximum hourly hydrogen sulfide concentration at the expanded dairy s effective property lines to assess the potential to comply with Minnesota s ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide of 30 ppb (v/v); 2. the maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentration at 28 of the expanded dairy s nearest neighbors to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota s subchronic inhalation Health Risk Value (ihrv) of 10 g/m 3 ; 3. the maximum hourly ammonia concentration at the expanded dairy s effective property lines to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota s acute ihrv for ammonia of 3,200 g/m 3 ; 4. the maximum annual-averaged ammonia concentration at 28 of the expanded dairy s nearest neighbors to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota s chronic ihrv for ammonia of 80 g/m 3 ; and 5. the maximum hourly odor intensities at the expanded dairy s effective property lines and at 28 of the expanded dairy 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 New Sweden Dairy 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 New Sweden Dairy. The CALPUFF results indicate that the expanded New Sweden Dairy and the thirteen 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 1.00 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 2.00 g/m 3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 g/m 3. 1 New Sweden Dairy Report

34 Figure 1. Modeled locations of the New Sweden Dairy and thirteen neighboring feedlots. The green-bordered rectangle represents the effective property lines for the dairy. 2 New Sweden Dairy Report

35 The modeling results also suggest that the expanded New Sweden Dairy will not create exceedences of the acute ammonia ihrv. CAL- PUFF predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentration of 1,580 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 1,728 g/m 3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 g/m 3. The CALPUFF results indicate that the expanded New Sweden Dairy and the thirteen neighboring feedlots will not create exceedences of the chronic ammonia ihrv at 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 New Sweden Dairy 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 considered the gaseous emissions from the expanded New Sweden Dairy and thirteen neighboring feedlots as the only significant and quantifiable emission sources within a 3-mile by 3-mile grid. The air quality impacts associated with these fourteen feedlots were explicitly modeled. The expanded New Sweden Dairy was located in middle square mile of the grid. 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 were 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 effective 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 data from the National Weather Surface station in Rochester, Minnesota and of upper air data from the National Weather Surface station in St. Cloud, Minnesota. 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 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 (April 15, 2004 Edition). 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) New Sweden Dairy Report

36 Maximum one-hour, 13-week, and annual average concentrations were calculated. Rural dispersion coefficients were used to characterize atmospheric mixing. The modeling assumed no decay of any modeled gas due to chemical reactions. The modeled receptor height was 0 meters, i.e., ground level. A flat terrain was assumed. All modeled effective 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 36 (New Sweden Township, Nicollet 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. To assess the potential for environmental impacts, the atmospheric hydrogen sulfide and ammonia 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 modelgenerated 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 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 (April 15, 2004 Edition). 7 Ibid. 4 New Sweden Dairy Report

37 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. The background concentrations listed in Table 1 are not the time-averaged concentrations obtained from monitoring. Instead, the listed concentrations reflect the monitoring 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 the gas s odor threshold concentration. An odor number equal to 1 suggests that 50 percent of the population can detect the estimated atmospheric concentration for a specific gas. An odor number greater than 1 suggests that more than 50 percent of the population can detect the gas, while a value less than 1 indicates that less than 50 percent of the population can detect the gas. Typically, an odor number below about 0.1 suggests that less than 1 percent of the population can detect the gas. 8 The odor threshold concentrations used in this assessment are presented in Table 2. Table 2. Odor threshold concentrations for the modeled gases. 9 Odorous Gas Odor Threshold Concentration (ppb, v/v) Hydrogen Sulfide 3.7 Ammonia 1,500 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 83 detection-threshold odor units (OU) is defined as a faint odor and is the odor intensity that an average person might detect the odor if attention is called to the odor, but the odor would not otherwise be noticed 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. 10 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. 5 New Sweden Dairy Report

38 Table 3. Odor intensity classification. 11 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 2,140 Livestock barns were characterized as either line sources or volume sources using the approaches described in EPA air quality modeling documentation. 12 For barns with lengths greater than twice their width (aspect ratio greater than 2), the barn was represented as a line source, i.e., a line of separated square volume subsources. Barns with aspect ratios less than 2 were modeled as square volume sources. The CALPUFF air quality model estimated the impact of the two sand-settling lanes (New Sweden Dairy), the two crust-free hog manure basins (Feedlot #8 and Feedlot #12), and the three crustcovered dairy manure basins (Feedlot #1, Feedlot #6, and Feedlot #11) on downwind air quality based on the hourly variation in gaseous emission rates. The hourly emission data for each modeled gas consisted of 43,824 hourly data points (= 5 years x 365 days x 24 hours + 24 hours for leap year). The BasinOdor algorithms estimated each hourly emission rate based on the water-phase concentration of the modeled gas, the estimated water temperature, and the recorded wind speed. BasinOdor uses EPA-recommended mass-transfer algorithms to estimate emission rates 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. 12 U.S. EPA User s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models. Volume II Description of Model Algorithms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/B b. 13 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. 6 New Sweden Dairy Report

39 For the crust-free hog manure basins basins, the Springer correlations for the liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient was replaced with modified Mackay-Yeun correlations in the BasinOdor algorithms, based on an examination of the data presented in Lunney (1983). 14 For the sand-settling lanes, the Springer correlations for the liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient were replaced by the Moog-Jirka correlation. 15 For the crust-covered dairy manure basins at Feedlot #1, Feedlot #6, and Feedlot #11, the overall mass transfer coefficients were adjusted to account for the presence of a crust. The crust was assumed to prevent the wind-induced mixing of the liquid surface and to consist of a 1-inch thick dry crust. While the crust was assumed to reduce the gas-phase mass transfer coefficient, no chemical or biological reactions were assumed to occur within the crust. The modeled effectiveness of a 1-inch thick dry crust in reducing emissions is provided in Figure 2. Hourly water temperatures within each basin were estimated by the heat balance approach described in Thomann and Mueller (1987). 16 The approach assumes that the basin is crust-free and completely-mixed vertically, and that the sky is free of clouds. The EPA s PCRAMMET algorithms 17 were used to estimate the hourly variation in solar radiation based on day of the year, hour of the day, site latitude, and site longitude. The location of the National Weather Surface station in Rochester, Minnesota provided the site latitude and longitude. Basin depth was assumed constant and equal to the maximum design capacity depth. When the water temperature algorithms predicted water temperatures less than or equal to 0 C (32 F), the emission algorithms assumed that the basin was ice covered and that no gas emissions were emitted into the atmosphere. Percent Reduction in Emission Rate Wind Speed (mph) Hydrogen Sulfide Ammonia Figure 2. Modeled percent reduction in emission rates from a crust-covered basin compared to a crust-free basin. The gasspecific responses to wind speed are due to differences in the Henry s Law coefficients and diffusion coefficients for the two gases. A uniform temperature of 20 C (68 F) is assumed. 14 Lunney P. D Characterization of Wind and Depth Effects upon Liquid Phase Mass Transfer Coefficients: Simulation Studies. Master s thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 119 pp. 15 Moog D. B. and Jirka G. H Analysis of reaeration equations using mean multiplicative error. In: Jähne B. and Monahan E. C. (eds.), Air-Water Gas Transfer: Selected Papers from the Third International Symposium on Air-Water Gas Transfer, July 24-27, 1995, Heidelberg University. AERON Verlag & Studio, Hanau, Germany, pp Thomann R. V. and Mueller J. A Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, 644 pp. 17 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). 7 New Sweden Dairy Report

40 Site Descriptions New Sweden Dairy The New Sweden Dairy presently consists of a freestall barn, and a manure storage basin. The proposed expansion would add three freestall barns, two sand-settling lanes, and three manure storage basins. The four manure basins will have impervious geomembrane covers. The physical characteristics of the existing and proposed freestall barns are provided in Table 4. The modeled locations of the barns, sand-settling lanes, and basins are provided in Figure 3. The setback distances from the effective property lines range from 734 feet to 1,530 feet. Each sand-settling lane will have a channel width of 12 feet and a total length of 300 feet. A flowing water depth of 2 inches and velocity of 1.67 feet/sec are assumed, based on an existing sand-settling lane at another dairy. The four covered manure basins were modeled as a single 1,120-ft long and 570-ft wide area source. Based on water-vapor permeability data provided by the manufacturer, the cover provides an overall mass transfer coefficient of m/sec for water vapor. In addition to the effective property lines, the air quality modeling also estimated the odorous gas concentrations at the 28 neighboring residences shown in Figure 4. Table 4. Dimensions and capacities of the freestall barns at the expanded New Sweden Dairy. Dairy Freestall Barn Barn Length Barn Width Barn Height Number of Housed Cows Barn #1 (proposed) ,200 Barn #2 (proposed) ,440 Barn #3 (proposed) ,440 Barn #4 (existing) New Sweden Dairy Report

41 3910' 1941' 734' 1392' 1379' Freestall Barn #2 (proposed) Sand- Settling Lane Freestall Barn #1 (proposed) Covered Manure Basins Freestall Barn #3 (proposed) Freestall Barn #4 (existing) 1490' 1300' Sand- Settling Lane 3910' 1530' N W E S (1320', 1320') Figure 3. Modeled emission sources and effective property lines for the expanded New Sweden Dairy. The blue-filled squares represent the square volume subsources used to characterize the emissions from the freestall barns. The red-bordered rectangle represents the dairy s property lines. The green lines represent the effective property lines associated with the air quality easements granted by neighboring landowners. 9 New Sweden Dairy Report

42 Figure 4. Modeled locations for the New Sweden Dairy, for the thirteen neighboring feedlots, and for 28 of the Dairy s nearest neighbors. 10 New Sweden Dairy Report

43 Feedlot #1 Feedlot #1 is a dairy consisting of five barns and a 240-ft by 120-ft crust-covered manure storage basin. The modeling assumed that all 110 cows are located in the barns. The modeled locations of the barns and basin are provided in Figure 5. The physical characteristics of the barns are provided in Table 5. The three smaller barns were modeled as line sources, while Barn #4 was modeled as a volume source. Feedlot #2 Feedlot #2 has three partial confinement barns that house cattle (40 head), hogs (45 finishers and 11 sows), and sheep (60 head). Aerial photographs and permit information do not indicate where each type of livestock are housed. The assumed locations of the barns are provided in Figure 6. The assumed physical characteristics of the barns are provided in Table 6. Cattle #1 was modeled as a line source with 3 subsources. Hog #1 and Sheep #1 were modeled as volume sources. 780' W N E 476' S N 433' 477' 240' W E 784' S 408' Barn #3 Cattle #1 663' 332' Barn #2 Barn #4 Manure Storage Basin 72' Hog #1 234' 190' Barn #1 Sheep #1 124' 420' 93' 161' (-3912', 9743') Figure 5. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #1. (-509', 9864') Figure 6. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #2. Table 5. Physical dimensions of the barns at Feedlot #1. Table 6. Physical dimensions of the barns at Feedlot #2. Dairy Barn Length Width Height Animal Barn Length Width Height Barn # Barn # Barn # Barn # Cattle # Hog # Sheep # New Sweden Dairy Report

44 Feedlot #3 Feedlot #3 is a 40-head cattle operation with a single barn. The modeled location of the barn is provided in Figure 7. The physical characteristics of the barn are provided in Table 7. The barn was be modeled as a line source with two subsources. 648' Feedlot #4 Feedlot #4 is a 114-head sow facility with six barns. The modeling assumed that all 114 sows are located in the barns. The modeled locations of the barns are provided in Figure 8. The physical characteristics of the barns are provided in Table 8. Sow #1, Sow #4, and Sow #5 were modeled as line sources The other three barns were modeled as volume sources. 146' 550' W N S 456' E Cattle #1 235' 160' 456' 80' 92' 100' Sow #1 Sow #2 Sow #3 Sow #4 Sow #6 232' 355' N (-4694', 4774') Sow #5 90' W S E Figure 7. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #3. Cattle Barn Table 7. Physical dimensions of the barn at Feedlot #3. Length Width Height Cattle # (-4030', 33') Figure 8. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #4. Sow Barn Table 8. Physical dimensions of the barns at Feedlot #4. Length Width Height Sow # Sow # Sow # Sow # Sow # Sow # New Sweden Dairy Report

45 Feedlot #5 Feedlot #5 is a 170-head hog-finishing operation with two permitted barns. From an aerial photograph, the location of the smaller 20-ft by 16-ft barn could not be determined. Modeling only considered the larger barn. The modeled location of the modeled barn is provided in Figure 9. The physical characteristics of the barn are provided in Table 9. The barn was modeled as a volume source. Feedlot #6 Feedlot #6 is a cattle operation with 60 cattle and 50 calves. The feedlot consists of two partial confinement barns and a 200-ft by 80-ft crustcovered manure storage basin. The modeled locations of the barns and basin are provided in Figure 10. The physical characteristics of the barns are provided in Table 10. The barns were modeled as volume sources. 590' 65' 495' N W N S E W S E 155' Cattle #1 Manure 325' Storage Cattle #2 Basin 290' 60' 400' 500' (33', 440') 80' 60' Finishing #1 325' 140' Figure 10. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #6. The manure basin is assumed to have a 1-inch thick dry crust. (-1760', -533') Figure 9. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #5. 50' Table 10. Physical dimensions of the barns at Feedlot #6. Table 9. Physical dimensions of the hog-finishing barn at Feedlot #5. Cattle Barn Length Width Height Hog Barn Length Width Height Barn # Barn # Finishing # New Sweden Dairy Report

46 Feedlot #7 Feedlot #7 has three partial confinement barns that house cattle (200 head) and sows (50 head). Aerial photographs and permit information do not indicate where each type of livestock are housed. The assumed locations of the barns are provided in Figure 11. The physical characteristics of the barns are provided in Table 11. Cattle #1 and Sow #1 were modeled as line sources with 2 subsources. Sow #2 was modeled as a volume source. Feedlot #8 Feedlot #8 is a 1,326-head sow facility with two gestation barns, a farrowing barn, and a 310-ft by 240-ft crust-free manure storage basin. The modeled locations of the barns and basin are provided in Figure 12. The physical characteristics of the barns are provided in Table 12. The barns were modeled as line sources 500' N 736' W E 101' S N 211' W S E Manure 116' Storage 86' Basin 120' Cattle #1 698' Gestation #1 702' Sow #1 Sow #2 427' 50' Gestation #2 170' 214' 90' 85' Farrowing #1 (7862', 4532') 130' 105' Figure 11. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #7. Table 11. Physical dimensions of the barns at Feedlot #7. (5330', 1475') Figure 12. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #8. The manure storage basin is assumed to be crust-free. 45' Animal Barn Length Width Height Table 12. Physical dimensions of the barns at Feedlot #8. Cattle # Sow # Sow # Sow Barn Length Width Height Gestation # Gestation # Farrowing # New Sweden Dairy Report

47 Feedlot #9 Feedlot #9 is a 2,800-head hog-finishing facility with three barns. The modeled locations of the barns are provided in Figure 13. The physical characteristics of the barns are provided in Table 13. The barns were modeled as line sources Feedlot #10 Feedlot #10 is a 325,00-head egg-laying facility with two poultry (layer) barns and one manure storage barn. The modeled locations of the barns are provided in Figure 14. The physical characteristics of the barns are provided in Table 14. The barns were characterized as line sources. 355' Finishing #1 Finishing #2 50' 60' W N S E 495' 100' 238' 100' Poultry #1 Manure #1 Poultry #2 545' W N S E 85' 54' 90' 90' 393' 110' Finishing #3 50' 65' (3965', -5280') 77' 65' (5330', 0') Figure 13. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #9. Hog Barn 50' Table 13. Physical dimensions of the barns at Feedlot #9. Length Width Height Finishing # Finishing # Finishing # Figure 14. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #10. Barn Table 14. Physical dimensions of the barns at Feedlot #10. Length Width Height Poultry # Poultry # Manure # New Sweden Dairy Report

48 Feedlot #11 Feedlot #11 was modeled as a 173-head dairy operation consisting of four barns and a 140-ft diameter crust-covered manure storage basin. The modeling assumed that all cows are located in the barns. The modeled locations of the barns and basin are provided in Figure 15. The physical characteristics of the barns are provided in Table 15. The barns were characterized as volume sources. Feedlot #12 Feedlot #12 is a hog facility with ten hog barns and a 70-ft by 60-ft crust-free manure storage basin. Other than Finishing #5 and Finishing #6, it was not possible determine actual barn types and locations from the aerial photographs and permit information. The assumed locations of the barns and basin are provided in Figure 16. The modeled physical characteristics of the barns are provided in Table 16. All barns were modeled as line sources. 730' W N E 610' S 358' 680' Finishing #6 182' N E W S Barn #1 73' 195' Barn #2 Barn #3 Barn #4 445' Finishing #5 329' 254' (-408', -3652') 172' Manure Storage Basin Figure 15. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #11. The manure basin was modeled as a square area source. Dairy Barn Table 15. Physical dimensions of the barns at Feedlot #11. Length Width Height 1355' 98' Finishing #1 Finishing #2 Manure Storage Basin Finishing #3 Nursery #1 Finishing #4 Gestation #2 Gestation #1 Gestation #3 (-2640', -4225) Barn # Barn # Barn # Barn # ' 364' Figure 16. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot #12. The manure storage basin is assumed to be crust-free. 16 New Sweden Dairy Report

49 Hog Barn Table 16. Physical dimensions of the barns at Feedlot #12. Length Width Height Feedlot #13 Feedlot #5 is a 2,000-head hog-finishing operation with two barns. The modeled locations of the barns are provided in Figure 17. The physical characteristics of the barn are provided in Table 17. The barns were modeled as line sources. Gestation # Gestation # Gestation # Nursery # Finishing # Finishing # Finishing # Finishing # Finishing # Finishing # ' W N S E (-3289', -2228') 616' Finishing #1 Finishing #2 Figure 17. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Feedlot # ' 70' 60' 333' Table 17. Physical dimensions of the hog-finishing barns at Feedlot #13. Hog Barn Length Width Height Finishing # Finishing # New Sweden Dairy Report

50 Gas Emission Rates Dairy Freestall Barns The freestall barns at the expanded New Sweden Dairy and the cow barns at the neighboring dairies (Feedlot #1 and Feedlot #2) were modeled as sources of odor, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia. The odor emission rates for the dairy barns were based on a constant emission flux rate of 1.34 OU m 3 /(m 2 sec). 18 A constant flux of 0.45 g H2S/m 2 /sec was used to characterize the hydrogen sulfide emissions from each dairy barn. 19 The ammonia emission rates for the dairy barns were based on the stable + manure ammonia emission factor of kg NH3/cow/year for lactating cows. 20 This emission factor was assigned to both lactating and dry cows. The resulting rates correspond to the average ammonia emissions on an annual basis and typically represent the expected total site emissions (i.e., ammonia emissions from the cow barns and the manure storage facilities). To account for the reported temperature effects on ammonia emissions, the annual ammonia emission rates were multiplied by the monthly scalars developed by the MPCA. Dairy Manure Basins and Sand-Settling Lanes The geomembrane-covered basins at the expanded New Sweden Dairy, the crust-covered basin at Feedlot #1, the crust-covered basin at Feedlot #11, and the two sand-settling lanes at the expanded New Sweden Dairy were modeled as sources of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor. The hydrogen sulfide emissions and ammonia emission rates from these facilities were based on the manure chemistry provided in Table 18. Table 18. Chemical characteristics of a manure storage basin at a sand-bedded dairy in Iowa. Parameter Units Value ph -log10[h + ] 7.5 Sulfide mg S/L 1.8 Ammonia mg N/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): Clark P. C. and McQuitty J. B Air quality in six Alberta commercial free-stall dairy barns. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 29(1): 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. 18 New Sweden Dairy Report

51 The geomembrane-covered basins at the New Sweden Dairy were assumed to have constant hydrogen sulfide and ammonia fluxes of and g/(m 2 sec), respectively. These fluxes are based on the reported permeability of the geomembrane to water vapor and on the assumption that the gases under the cover are in equilibrium with the dissolved gases in the liquid manure. These estimated fluxes represent a 97 percent and greater reduction in emissions compared to a cover-free basin under near calm wind conditions. Assuming a 97 percent reduction in odor flux, the geomembrane-covered basins are assumed to have an constant odor flux of 0.19 OU m 3 /(m 2 sec). 21 For the proposed sand-settling lanes, the hourly liquid-phase mass transfer coefficients for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia in the Basin- Odor algorithms were based on an oxygen mass transfer coefficient of m/sec for flumes obtained from the Moog-Jirka correlation. 22 The hourly odor emission fluxes for the sand-settling lanes were based on a near-calm flux of 6.33 OU m 3 /(m 2 sec) 23 multiplied by the wind scalars provided in Figure 18. Odor Flux Scalar Wind Velocity (meter/second) Figure 18. Odor emission flux scalars as a function of wind velocity for crustfree basins and sand-settling lanes. The dairy manure basins at Feedlot #1, Feedlot #6, and Feedlot #11 are assumed to have 1- inch thick dry crusts. The BasinOdor algorithms estimated the hourly hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emissions from manure storage basins based on manure chemistry provided in Table 18. For the crust-covered manure basins, a constant odor flux of 8.7 OU m 3 /(m 2 sec) was assumed 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): Moog D. B. and Jirka G. H Analysis of reaeration equations using mean multiplicative error. In: Jähne B. and Monahan E. C. (eds.), Air-Water Gas Transfer: Selected Papers from the Third International Symposium on Air-Water Gas Transfer, July 24-27, 1995, Heidelberg University. AERON Verlag & Studio, Hanau, Germany, pp 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): Ibid. This flux is the geometric mean odor flux for all listed earthen storage basins for dairy cows. 19 New Sweden Dairy Report

52 Cattle Barns Cattle barns at the neighboring feedlots were modeled as sources of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor. A flux of 0.45 g H2S/m 2 /sec was used to characterize the hydrogen sulfide emissions from each cattle barn. 25 Steers and calves were assumed to have annual average ammonia emission factors of and 3.87 kg/head/year, respectively. 26 The resulting barn ammonia emission rates were multiplied by the monthly scalars developed by the MPCA to account for potential temperature effects. Sheep Barn The sheep barn at Feedlot #2 was modeled as a source of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor. A flux of 0.45 g H2S/m 2 /sec was used to characterize the hydrogen sulfide emissions. 28 An odor flux of 1.34 OU m 3 /(m 2 sec) characterized odor emissions. 29 Ammonia emissions were based on an emission factor of 0.7 kg/head/year. 30 The resulting barn ammonia emission rates were multiplied by the monthly scalars developed by the MPCA to account for potential temperature effects. Cattle barns were assumed to have a constant odor flux of 4.42 OU m 3 /(m 2 sec) Clark P. C. and McQuitty J. B Air quality in six Alberta commercial free-stall dairy barns. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 29(1): 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 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): Clark P. C. and McQuitty J. B Air quality in six Alberta commercial free-stall dairy barns. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 29(1): 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): 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. 20 New Sweden Dairy Report

53 Hog Barns The gestation (sow), farrowing, nursery, and finishing barns at the neighboring feedlots were modeled as sources of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor. The hydrogen sulfide and odor emission rates were based on the fluxes provided in Table 19. Table 19. Hydrogen sulfide and odor fluxes for hog barns. 31,32,33,34 on an annual basis. The annual ammonia emission rates for the farrowing and gestation barns were based on an ammonia emission factor of 8.09 kg NH3/sow/year. 36 For nursery pigs, an emission factor of 2.42 kg NH3/head/yr 37 was assumed. To account for temperature variations on ammonia emissions from the hog barns, the respective ammonia emission factors were multiplied by the monthly scalars developed by the MPCA. H2S Flux ( g/m 2 sec) Odor Flux (OU m 3 /m 2 sec) Gestation Farrowing Nursery Finishing Hog Manure Basins The hog manure storage basins at Feedlot #8 and Feedlot #12 were modeled as sources hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor. They were modeled as crust-free basins. The BasinOdor algorithms estimated the hourly hydrogen sulfide and ammonia from the manure storage basins based on manure chemistry provided in Table 20. The ammonia emission rate for the hogfinishing barns were based on an ammonia emission rate factor of 3.7 kg NH3/head/yr. 35 This emission factor represents the ammonia emissions 31 MPCA Hancock Pro-Pork Hog Feedlot Project. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, September 15, 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): 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, Jerez S. B. et al Aerial pollutant concentration and emission rate measurements from a swine farrowing building in Illinois. Air & Waste Management Association Conference, Minneapolis, MN, June 21-24, 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 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. 37 Ibid. The emission factor of 2.42 kg NH3/head/yr is for breeding sows weighing between kg. 21 New Sweden Dairy Report

54 Table 20. Chemical characteristics of a manure storage basin at a sow site Parameter Units Value ph -log10[h + ] 7.9 Sulfide mg S/L 0.72 Ammonia mg N/L 1,180 Basin Temperature ( C) The odor emission rates for the hog-manure storage basins were estimated by multiplying the wind-corrected emission flux by the basin surface area. At low wind speeds for the the crustfree single-stage basins, an odor flux of 3.0 OU m 3 /m 2 sec was assumed. 38 To account for the effect of wind velocity on odor emission rates, the emission flux rates were multiplied by the scalars plotted in Figure 18. The estimated noon-hour water temperatures for the hog manure storage basin at Feedlot #8 using the 1987 weather data are provided in Figure 19. 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 20 and 21, respectively. Julian Day Figure 19. Estimated 1987 noon-hour temperatures for the hog manure basin at Feedlot #8. H 2 S Flux [g/(m 2 day)] Julian Day Figure 20. Estimated 1987 noon-hour hydrogen sulfide flux rates for the hog manure basin at Feedlot #8. 38 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): New Sweden Dairy Report

55 NH 3 Flux [g/(m 2 day)] Julian Day Figure 21. Estimated 1987 noon-hour ammonia flux rates the hog manure basin at Feedlot #8. Hydrogen Sulfide at Property Lines and Neighbors The CALPUFF results suggest that the expanded New Sweden Dairy will comply with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The estimated maximum hourly concentrations for the expanded Dairy s effective property lines are provided in Table 21. 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 21. Maximum hourly property-line hydrogen sulfide concentrations. Chicken (Layer) Barns The two layer barns and manure storage barns at Feedlot #10 were modeled as sources of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor. The hydrogen sulfide and odor emission rates were based on fluxes of 4.04 g H2S/m 2 /sec and 3.54 OU m 3 /m 2 sec, respectively. 39 Ammonia emission rates were based on an annual ammonia emission factor of 0.1 kg NH3/hen/year. 40 The resulting barn ammonia emission rates were multiplied by the monthly scalars developed by the MPCA to account for potential temperature effects. The manure barn was assumed to have the same hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor emission fluxes as the layer barns. Effective 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 22. The plotted 3- ppb concentration isopleth overestimates the maximum extent of detectable hydrogen sulfide 39 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): 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. 23 New Sweden Dairy Report

56 odors without background, because the reported odor threshold concentration for hydrogen sulfide is 3.7 ppb (Table 2). Figure 22 suggests that the combined hydrogen sulfide emissions from the expanded New Sweden Dairy and the thirteen neighboring feedlots can generate detectable offsite concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. North/South Distance (miles) East/West Distance (miles) Figure 22. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly hydrogen sulfide concentrations in ppb (v/v) for the expanded New Sweden Dairy and the thirteen neighboring feedlots. The contour lines represent 3, 8 and 13 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 36. The CALPUFF results also suggest that the combined emissions from the expanded New Sweden Dairy and the thirteen neighboring feedlots will not cause exceedences of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv at the 28 neighboring residences. As provided in Table 22, 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 2.00 g/m 3, which is below the subchronic ihrv for hydrogen sulfide of 10 g/m 3. 3 Table 22. 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* A2* A A A A B B B C C D D2* D D4* E E2* F1* F F F4* G1* G2* G3* G4* H H I New Sweden Dairy Report

57 Ammonia at Property Lines and Neighbors The CALPUFF-generated maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentrations are provided in Table 23. The highest estimated propertyline concentration with a background concentration of 148 g/m 3 is 1,728 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 New Sweden Dairy will not result in exceedences of the acute ammonia ihrv. North/South Distance (miles) ,500 1, , , , , Table 23. 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 ) East/West Distance (miles) Figure 23. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly ammonia concentration in g/m 3 for the expanded New Sweden Dairy and the thirteen neighboring feedlots. The contour lines represent 500, 1,000, and 1,500 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 36. North 1,580 1,728 East 1,190 1,338 South 1,090 1,238 West 942 1,090 The maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly ammonia concentrations (without background) are plotted in Figure 23. The reported odor threshold concentration for ammonia is 1,067 g/m 3 or 1,500 ppb (v/v) (Table 2). The plotted 1,000- g/m 3 isopleth overestimates the maximum extent of detectable ammonia odors. Figure 22 indicates that detectable ammonia concentrations can exist beyond the effective property lines of the expanded New Sweden Dairy. The CALPUFF results also suggest that the combined emissions from the expanded New Sweden Dairy and the thirteen neighboring feedlots will not cause exceedences of the chronic ammonia ihrv at the 28 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 New Sweden Dairy Report

58 Table 24. Maximum annual ammonia concentrations for neighbors. (* = feedlot residences) Neighbor NH3 Concentration Without Background ( g/m 3 ) NH3 Concentration With a 5.72 g/m 3 Background ( g/m 3 ) A1* A2* A A A A B B B C C D D2* D D4* E E2* F1* F F F4* G1* G2* G3* G4* H H I Odorous Gas Concentrations at Property Lines and Neighbors The CALPUFF modeling estimated the groundlevel atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia at the expanded Dairy s effective property lines and at the Dairy s nearest neighbors. The estimated maximum property-line concentrations are 2,212 ppb for ammonia (without background) and ppb for hydrogen sulfide (without background). The corresponding odor numbers for the maximum property-line concentrations are 3.3 for hydrogen sulfide and 1.5 for ammonia. Population response curves suggest that 95 percent of the population could detect the estimated maximum property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration, and 72 percent the maximum ammonia concentration. The estimated maximum hourly concentrations for the nearest neighboring residences are 1,750 ppb for ammonia (without background) at Neighbor G4 and 9.66 ppb for hydrogen sulfide (without background) at Neighbor D4. Both of these residences are associated with feedlots. The corresponding odor numbers for the maximum neighbor concentrations are 2.6 for hydrogen sulfide and 1.2 for ammonia. Population response curves suggest that 91 percent of the population could detect the estimated maximum hourly hydrogen sulfide concentration, and 59 percent the maximum ammonia concentration. The population response curves assume the presence of individual gases. 26 New Sweden Dairy Report

59 Odor Intensities at Property Lines and Neighbors The CALPUFF modeling estimated the groundlevel odor intensities at the expanded New Sweden Dairy s effective property lines and at the Dairy s nearest neighbors. The maximum hourly odor intensities for the expanded Dairy s effective property lines are provided in Table 25. The estimated maximum property-line odor intensity is 131 OU, which is below the moderate odor threshold of 244 OU and above the faint odor threshold of 83 OU (Table 3). Along the east property line, the threshold for faint odors is exceeded 0.1 percent of the time. Figure 24 indicates that faint odors are confined to the vicinity of the expanded New Sweden Dairy and Feedlot #8. Table 25. Maximum hourly property-line odor intensities and the frequency at which the faint odor threshold of 83 OU is equaled or exceeded. Effective Property Line Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t) Frequency at Which the Faint Odor Threshold is Exceeded (percent) North East South West North/South Distance (miles) East/West Distance (miles) Figure 24. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly odor intensities for the emissions from the expanded New Sweden Dairy and the thirteen neighboring feedlots. The plotted concentration lines are for 40 and 80 OU. The threshold for faint odors is 83 OU (Table 3). The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 36. The CALPUFF-generated ground-level odor intensities at the expanded Dairy s neighbors are provided in Table 26. The estimated maximum odor intensity is 94 OU, which is above the threshold of 83 OU for faint odors. At Neighbor D4, the faint odor threshold was exceeded less than 0.0 percent of the time, i.e., 19 hours out of the modeled 43,824 hours. The CALPUFF results suggest that more than 99 percent of the time the expanded Dairy s neighbors will be exposed to odor intensities below 83 OU. 27 New Sweden Dairy Report

60 Table 26. Maximum hourly nearest-neighbor odor intensities and the frequency at which the faint odor threshold of 83 OU is equaled or exceeded. (* = feedlot residences) Neighbor Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t) Frequency at Which the Faint Odor Threshold is Exceeded (percent) A1* A2* A A A A B B B C C D D2* D D4* E E2* F1* F F F4* G1* G2* G3* G4* H H I Summary The CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the expanded New Sweden Dairy will comply with the ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide and not exceed the acute ammonia ihrv at its effective property lines. The CALPUFF results also suggest that expanded Dairy and the thirteen neighboring feedlots will not create exceedences of the subchronic ihrv for hydrogen sulfide and the chronic ihrv for ammonia at the Dairy s nearest neighbors. The CALPUFF modeling results indicate that detectable concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia can exist beyond the expanded Dairy s effective property lines. However, the modeled odor intensities at the nearest neighbors are less than the threshold for faint odors, except at one location. There the faint odor intensity was exceeded 0.0 percent of the time. Hence, more than 99 percent of the time, the modeled odor intensities at the expanded Dairy s neighbors are below 83 OU. 28 New Sweden Dairy Report

61 EXHIBIT J