evers dairy expansion environmental assessment … · evers dairy expansion environmental...

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

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

Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

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

A. Feedlot Name: Evers Dairy Expansion B.

Feedlot Proposer:

Wayne Evers

C.

RGU:

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Technical

Contact Person Andrew Nesseth

Contact Person

Nancy Drach

and

Title Environmental Consultant, Extended Ag Services, Inc.

and Title

Project Manager

Address 507 Milwaukee Street Address 520 Lafayette Road North Lakefield, Minnesota 56150 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 Phone 507-662-5005 Phone 651-297-8236 Fax 507-662-5105 Fax 651-297-2343 E-mail [email protected] E-mail [email protected]

D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)

EIS Scoping

Mandatory EAW

X

Citizen Petition

RGU Discretion

Proposer Volunteered

If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule

category subpart number and name: Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29A

Evers Dairy Expansion Environmental Assessment Highland Township, Minnesota 2 Worksheet

E. Project Location: County Wabasha Twp Highland NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 10 Township T109N Range R11W Watershed (name and 4-digit code):

0704 0704004

Upper Mississippi - Black Root Zumbro

F. Attach each of the following to the EAW:

Attachment A: Wabasha County map showing the general location of the project Attachment B: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project

boundaries Attachment C: Site plan showing all significant project and natural features Attachment D: Maps of manure application sites Attachment E: Map showing all wells, residences, and sensitive receptors within a one-mile radius of

the proposed project Attachment F November 7, 2007, Letter from Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)

regarding Natural Heritage information Attachment G May 2, 2008, letter from the DNR Environmental Review Unit Attachment H: February 1, 2008, E-mail from Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Attachment I: November 2, 2007, E-mail from Minnesota Historical Society, Archaeological Sites and Historic Properties Attachment J: Air Quality Modeling Report Attachment K: Zoning Map for Wabasha County, Minnesota Attachment L: Results of Phosphorus Index Modeling, dated March 31, 2008 Attachment M: Cumulative Potential Effects Analysis Map The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit Application and associated documents, including the Air Emissions and Odor Management Plan, the Animal Mortality Plan, the Emergency Response Plan, and the Manure Management Plan (MMP), are available for review by contacting Mr. Charles Peterson, of the MPCA’s Rochester office, at 507-280-3591.

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

Wayne Evers is proposing to expand his existing dairy operation in Section 10 of Highland Township, Wabasha County (Project). The Project would consist of: construction of one 112-foot by 234-foot total confinement barn housing up to 400 cows (560 animal units, or AUs) and 15 calves (3 AUs) born on site but removed immediately; modification of the existing 112-foot by 592-foot barn to add capacity for an additional 160 cattle beyond the existing 690 cattle capacity. Total number of head after construction would be 1,265 (1,753 AUs). In addition, a 141-foot by 200-foot by 10-foot sand settling lane would be constructed to allow manure and wastewater to flow to the existing solids basin, but have the sand settle out for recycling. Manure from the proposed new and existing modified barns would be removed each fall and spring, and land applied onto designated cropland as fertilizer in the spring and fall of the year.

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 575 proposed Total confinement Beef cattle Turkeys Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species)

I. Project magnitude data.

Total acreage of farm: 2,020 Number of animal units proposed in this project: 575 Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: 1,753

Acreage required for manure application: 675-700 acres/year

J. Describe construction methods and timing. The proposed Project will consist of the following construction:

• One 112-foot by 234-foot total confinement barn in the NW¼ of the NW¼ of Section 10 in Highland Township (see Attachment C);

• Modification of the existing 112-foot by 592-foot total confinement barn; and • One concrete sand-settling lane.

The anticipated time line for this Project is to commence construction in 2008 and finish by the end of 2008. The actual commencement of construction would occur after completion of environmental review and issuance of all applicable permits. All construction will follow Minnesota state building codes and MPCA engineering specifications.

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

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

The existing feedlot is located in the NW¼ of Section 10 of Highland Township in Wabasha County, Minnesota. The existing site consists of one total confinement, free stall barn with dimensions of 112 feet by 592 feet, a 96-foot by 176-foot milk parlor, a 320-foot by 320-foot commodity storage pad, a 150-foot by 400-foot temporary silage pad, and a 141-foot by 200-foot by 10-foot solids settling basin. The existing barn has a maximum physical capacity of 690 head of mature dairy cows, or 966 AUs. No prior environmental review has taken place on the facility.


The proposer indicated there are no plans in the foreseeable future to expand its operation beyond the Project described in this EAW, either at this Project site or within six miles of the existing feedlot.

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

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

nearby residences, schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, places of worship, and other places accessible to the public (including roads) within one mile of the feedlot and within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites. The dairy facility and land application sites are located in the Zumbro and Buffalo Whitewater (Root River) watersheds of the Upper Mississippi-Lower Portion Basin, and land use within the Project area is primarily agricultural. There are a total of 14 residences located within one mile of the site, three of which are within one-half mile. A map showing neighbors within one mile of the feedlot is shown in Attachment E. The un-incorporated village of Conception, Minnesota is located approximately three-quarters of a mile due east of the Project site. One church, one cemetery, and several residences (included in the 14) are located in the village. Manure Application Sites. The manure application sites are within 11 miles of the feedlot facility and are located in Highland, Glasgow, and West Albany townships (Exhibit D). The manure application sites are located in the Zumbro and Buffalo-Whitewater (Root River) sub-basins, with 97.7 percent in the Zumbro and 2.3 percent in the Buffalo-Whitewater (Root River) sub-basins. Wabasha County

Highland Township Section 3: The manure application site in Section 3 is bordered by County Road 18 to the south. One residence is located within the manure application site and one directly adjacent to the east. A tributary of the Zumbro River is located approximately 300 feet to the north-northeast. Section 4: The manure application site in Section 4 is bordered by County Road 18 to the south and 229th Avenue to the east. Three residences are within or adjacent to the site. A tributary of the Zumbro River is located approximately 300 feet to the south-southwest. A known sinkhole is located in the southern half of the manure application site. Section 8: The manure application site in Section 8 is not bordered by any roads. Access to the site is through a driveway in Section 9 that connects to County Road 18. One residence is located within the manure application site. One small tributary of the Zumbro River extends from the field to the southwest. Section 9: The manure application sites in Section 9 are bordered by County Road 18 to the north. One residence is located within the manure application site. Two small tributaries of the Zumbro River extend from the field to the southwest. Sections 10 and 11: The manure application sites in Sections 10 and 11 are bordered by County Road 18 to the north and County Road 14 to the east. The Project proposer’s residence is located within the manure application site in the NW¼. A residence is located with the NW¼ and another residence is located within the manure application site in the SE¼. A known sinkhole is located in the manure application in the SE¼. Section 18: The manure application site in Section 18 is bordered by County Road 86 to the north and east.


Glasgow Township

Section 33: The manure application site in Section 33 is bordered by U.S. Highway 14 to the North, 150th Avenue to the west, 120th Street to the south, and 160th Avenue to the east. One residence is located with the manure application site in the NE¼. One residence is located across 160th Avenue to the east and one residence is located across 120th Street to the south.

West Albany Township

Sections 3 and 10: The manure application sites in Sections 3 and 10 are divided by 670th Street and are bordered by County Road 4 to the east. One residence is located within the manure application site and one residence is located adjacent to the site – one directly to the west.

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 plan1

land use plan or ordinance2

shoreland zoning ordinance3 flood plain ordinance3

wild or scenic river land use district ordinance local wellhead protection plan

1 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Wabasha County, Minnesota. http://www.co.wabasha.mn.us/files/enviro/landuseplan.pdf (retrieved August 24, 2007). 2 Wabasha County Ordinance, Article V: Confined Feedlot Regulations (August 15, 2006). 3 The Wabasha County floodplain and shoreland ordinance can be found at: http://www.co.wabasha.mn.us/files/enviro/ordinance/Zoning_Ordinance.pdf (retrieved August 24, 2007). 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. No land has been identified within or around the project area that could create a situation incompatible with a livestock operation. All land is zoned A-1 agricultural (see Attachment K). Are there any lands in proximity to the feedlot that are officially planned for or zoned for future uses that might be incompatible with a feedlot (such as residential development)? Yes No If yes, describe the potentially affected use and its location relative to the feedlot, its anticipated development schedule, and any plans to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with the feedlot.

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

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

Health? Yes No • Public water supply wells (within two miles)? Yes No • Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Yes No • Designated public parks, recreation areas or trails? Yes No • Lakes or Wildlife Management Areas? Yes No


• State-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial water bird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities? Yes No

• Scenic views and vistas? Yes No • Other unique resources? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Public Water Supply Well The Project would be located within one mile of a non-community public water supply well, which is considered to be nonconforming by the MDH (Attachment H) and located at the Immaculate Conception Church. There are no other public water supply wells, or Drinking Water Source Management Areas within a two-mile radius of the site. Rare Species/Natural Features The Minnesota Natural Heritage database at the DNR has been reviewed (Attachment F) to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed feedlot facility or manure application sites. In addition, DNR Environmental Review unit review (Attachment G) provided some corrections to the status of the Wood Turtles, and additional details based on the database review. Based on the reviews, there are 93 known occurrences of rare species or native plant communities within an approximate one-mile radius of the Project area or a manure application site used by the Project. The following species listed are only those that the DNR determined may be impacted:

Wood Turtles: Clemmys insculpta (Wood turtles), a state listed threatened species have been documented in the Zumbro River. Wood turtles are intolerant of water pollution, including siltation, over-enrichment from organic sources, and industrial pollution. As such, strict adherence to setback requirements is important. Manure application rates should also be carefully determined to ensure that nutrient input does not exceed the ability for crop nutrient uptake and result in nutrient-rich runoff to this river or its tributaries.

No fields listed in the MMP are adjacent to the Zumbro River. A list of fields that are directly adjacent to tributaries of the Zumbro River are listed below, along with the approximate flow distance of the tributary to the Zumbro River: ¼

• Glasgow 33, SE¼ of SW¼ – 1.65 miles • Highland 3, S½ of NW¼ – 2.5 miles • Highland 3, S½ – 3.75 miles • Highland 4, E½ of NW¼ – 3.0 miles • Highland 10, N½ – 4.0 miles • Highland 10, SE¼ – 5.75 miles • Highland 18, S ½ – 4.0 miles • West Albany 3, S½ – 7.5 miles

Archaeological Sites A search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory (Attachment I) with the Minnesota Historical Society revealed three archaeological sites located Section 10 of Highland Township and in Section 3 of Highland Township. The archaeological sites and their relative locations are listed below:


• Immaculate Conception Church - Highland 3, SE¼ of SE¼ of SE¼ • Commercial Building – Highland 10, NW¼ of NE¼ of NE¼ • W. McNallan Farmhouse – Highland 10, NW¼ of NE¼ of NE¼

Mitigation Measures Immaculate Conception Church Noncommunity/Nonconforming Public Supply Well The location of the existing and proposed feedlot site, as well as the plans and specifications and operation requirements for both, have been designed to prevent runoff of manure, stormwater and silage leachate impacting surface and ground waters in the area, including the well located at the Immaculate Conception Church. Manure applied to the fields adjacent to the resources identified by the DNR will occur during the late fall and late spring and will be immediately incorporated via knife injection. Immediate incorporation reduces the exposure to precipitation and decreases the likelihood of the manure from moving off site. All manure will be applied at agronomic rates. The practice of land applying manure at agronomic rates reduces or eliminates the potential for a surplus of nutrients to impact water resources. In addition, the Project proposer will follow MPCA-required setbacks/Wabasha County zoning ordinances from sensitive features. The land application practices will be included in the project MMP, which is an enforceable provision of the facility NPDES/SDS Permit. Wood Turtle Manure applied to the fields adjacent to the resources identified by the DNR will occur during the late fall and late spring and will be immediately incorporated via knife injection. Immediate incorporation reduces the exposure to precipitation and decreases the likelihood of the manure from moving off site. All manure will be applied at agronomic rates. The practice of land applying manure at agronomic rates reduces or eliminates the potential for a surplus of nutrients to impact water resources. In addition, the Project proposer will follow MPCA-required setbacks/Wabasha County zoning ordinances from sensitive features. The land application practices will be included in the project MMP, which is an enforceable provision of the facility NPDES/SDS Permit. Archaeological Site The Project proposer will work around planned social events such as weddings and funerals to accommodate the members of the Immaculate Conception Church and or the listed commercial building. The W. McNallan Farmhouse belongs to the Project proposer and will not be affected by the construction of the proposed Project.

3. Geologic and soil conditions.

A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) > 6 > 10 > 10 (average) > 6 > 10 > 10 Bedrock (minimum) > 10 > 10 20 – 30 inches (average) > 10 > 10 > 3

B. NRCS* Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Classifications (if known) FaB2 FaB2 FaB, FaB2, FaC2, FaD2,

FaD3, DrD, DnD2, DrE, *Natural Resources Conservation Service


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

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

Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites

Karst features (sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley)

No No – the closest known karst feature is a sinkhole

located approximately 2,275 feet due NW.

Yes

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. There are two known sinkholes in the manure application sites in Highland Township, NE¼ of the NE¼ Section 9, and in Highland Highland, NE¼ of SE¼, Section 10 (see Attachment D). The manure will be injected or incorporated within 24 hours on all land that is located upslope and within 300 feet of these sensitive features, and a 100-foot non-manure setback will be observed.

In addition, Mr. Evers is working with the NRCS to plan to have the existing sinkholes closed and lined with high-density polyethylene (HDPE) and clay.

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

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

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

and purpose of any appropriations or public supply connections; and unique well numbers and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) appropriation permit numbers, if available. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on-site, explain methodology used to determine that none are present. The existing facility is using approximately 9,822,150 gallons per year. The projected water use for this Project is approximately 17,793,750 million gallons per year, with a projected service consumption of 445 million gallons over a 25-year period. One well is currently available for water appropriations for the proposed Project. The well is registered with the MDH and is assigned unique well number 719640. The well was drilled on January 20, 2006, and was completed at 560 feet with a six-inch steel casing to 440 feet. No new wells will be drilled for water appropriations. According to information from the MDH’s County Well Index (CWI), ground water from unconsolidated glacial deposits and in underlying bedrock is used as the primary source of water for both the existing facility and the proposed Project, primarily from the Franconia Aquifer. In addition, the MPCA used the CWI to explore the nature of well depth and type to account for other users of the same or nearby resources identified within the one-mile radius of the Project.


Livestock projects that pump more than one million gallons per year are required to apply for and receive a DNR Water Appropriation Permit. These permits provide assurances that the water resources are properly managed, maintaining an adequate supply for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational and quality control. The permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the DNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found to be causing the problem, the operator must correct it.

B. Will the project involve installation of drain tiling, tile inlets or outlets? Yes No C. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream

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

5. Manure management.

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

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

B. Manure collection, handling, and storage.

Quantities of manure generated: total

15,792,000

by species 1

15,792,000

by species 2

Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle 180 Total days per year 20

Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled (including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot: Existing Manure Handling System The dairy cattle are housed in a total confinement, free stall barn that utilizes sand for bedding. The barn uses a flush system to remove manure solids from the facility. The barn is flushed daily with ‘gray’ water to remove manure generated by the dairy cows from the facility. The manure contaminated wastewater is flushed into an existing concrete reception pit where solids are allowed to settle out. This pit is the source of the recycled gray water that is to continuously flush the free stall barn. Excess wastewater is transferred to the existing manure storage pond where it is eventually land applied.


Proposed Manure Handling System The Project proposal includes plans to construct a sand settling lane adjacent to the existing solids settling basin to recycle the bedding sand flushed out of the barn during cleaning. The flush system will work as it currently exists, with the addition of the proposed sand settling system. After flushing of the barn alleys, the manure-contaminated water will flow to the concrete reception pit. Following a brief time there, the manure-contaminated water will gravity flow to the sand settling lane. The proposed sand settling basin is a 40-foot by 165-foot impervious structure constructed of reinforced concrete. The bedding sand will be deposited along the settling basin as the flush water slows in speed as it passes over the nearly level concrete. Manure wastewater then flows into the 141-foot by 200-foot by 10-foot existing concrete solids settling basin. The flush water then flows through a cross over pipe into the existing 200-foot by 600-foot by 18-foot HDPE-lined manure storage pond. The manure wastewater is land applied twice per year according to the MMP. The liquid manure storage areas were designed by a licensed engineer and were determined to have adequate capacity to handle the increased volume of manure from the proposed expansion. No expansion to the existing liquid manure storage areas is planned. In addition, all silage leachate and milk house waste is also totally contained and stored in the existing liquid manure storage pond.

C. Manure utilization.

Physical state of manure to be applied: liquid solid other - describe: Manure and wastewater generated by the proposed Project will be collected during the year in both the solids settling basin constructed of reinforced concrete and the HDPE-lined manure storage pond. The manure storage pond has dimensions of 200 feet by 600 feet by 10 feet and the settling basin has dimensions of 141 feet by 200 feet by 10 feet. In the spring and fall, the manure in the collection pit and the storage pond will be agitated and pumped out by a portable chopper pump. All manure will be incorporated immediately upon land application via a drag hose or a liquid tanker with knife injection system.

D. Manure application.

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

The manure from this feedlot will be applied during the spring prior to the crops being planted and in the fall after the crops have been harvested from the designated land application sites. It will be incorporated into the soil immediately during land application via knife injection. Manure from the storage pond will be applied using a drag hose line by a licensed commercial applicator. The drag hose line will be calibrated by using a flow meter and adjusting the speed of the equipment during application. A simple equation is used where the flow rate is multiplied by 8.25 and then divided by the product of the ground speed and spreader width. Manure from the solid settling pit will be removed with liquid tankers and land applied by a licensed commercial applicator. The tankers will be calibrated using a flow meter that allows the volume of manure applied per acre to be regulated by the applicator. All manure will be incorporated immediately into the soil via knife injection.

The manure application sites are located in Highland, Glasgow, and West Albany townships in Wabasha County (see Attachment D).


2. Describe the agronomic rates of application (per acre) to be used and whether the rates are based on nitrogen or phosphorus. Will there be a nutrient management plan?

Yes No

The dairy manure will be applied at a nitrogen-based rate. Field priority will be based on a phosphorus soil test and potassium, with the lower levels of these receiving the manure first. Other factors that will determine nutrient needs will be crop grown, organic matter content, precious manure credits, and other legume credits. Nutrient rates will be determined by utilizing University of Minnesota Extension Service bulletin, “Fertilizer Recommendations for Agronomic Crops in Minnesota.”

Previous

Crop Crop to utilize

Manure Yield Goal Nitrogen needed

Phosphorus Needed

Corn Corn 200 bu/ac 180 lbs. N/ac 69 lbs. P2O5/ac*

Corn Silage Corn Silage 25 T/ac 180 lbs. N/ac 95 lbs. P2O5/ac*

Soybeans Corn 200 bu/ac 140 lbs. N/ac 109 lbs.P2O5/ac**

*Total for one year of crop production. **Total for two year rotation of crop production. ac = acres bu = bushel lbs = pounds N = nitrogen P2O5 = phosphorus T = Ton

This procedure has been developed from continual land grant research as the one that best predicts

the amount of that nutrient in the soil that can be used by plants. Using this method, a ‘Maximum Return to Nitrogen’ value will be used in determining the appropriate manure application rates. The manure application acres will be soil sampled at least every four years to monitor crop needs and target acres that will positively respond to manure applications.

3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. It is estimated that the cattle at this facility will generate 15,972,000 gallons of manure per year. In order to achieve a yield goal of 200 bushels of corn per acre or 25 tons of corn silage per year, the cropland receiving applications of dairy manure will need to be supplemented with additional fertilizer to meet crop needs. Manure will be applied at a rate of approximately 25,000 gallons per acre to provide an average of 138 pounds per acre the first year, or any time the field did not receive a manure application the previous year. An additional 32 pounds of nitrogen will be supplemented in the crop prior to planting or side-dressed in early summer. A nitrogen based target rate of 19,500 gallons of manure per acre from the will be applied from the solid settling pit to achieve approximately 181 lbs of nitrogen per acre. Manure applications that are made to fields on consecutive years will account for the second year manure credits and adjust the rates pursuant to the MMP. Accordingly, an estimated 680 corn acres will be needed to utilize all of the manure generated at this facility.


The Project proposer currently has approximately 1,460 corn acres available for manure application under their control per year. Please note that some of the land for manure application is labeled as highly erodible by the NRCS. The soils to be used for manure application have been rated for their potential for disposing of agricultural waste, such as manure. The ratings are both verbal and numeric. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect agricultural waste management. The predominant soil type in the areas to be used for manure application is a Fayette clay loam. It is rated as “somewhat limited” by the NRCS soil survey manual. “Somewhat limited” indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 – 1.0, with 1.0 being the greatest limitation and 0.00 being no limitation. The Fayette clay loam series generally has a rating of 0.02 for acidity, with some also having a rating of 0.96 for slope.

The Project proposer is currently utilizing a conservation mulch tillage, grassed waterways, contour strip cropping system, and rotations other than row crops, such as alfalfa and contour buffer strips. These management practices are designed to control soil erosion. Please see the MMP for a complete list soil conservation measures. In addition, the Minnesota Phosphorus Index Model1 was used to calculate the potential for phosphorus loss from the fields. The risk ratings on the fields listed in the MMP range from very low, which recommends no management changes, to medium, which recommends management changes to reduce erosion and nutrient management. A complete listing of those results can be viewed by field in Attachment L.

4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems.

Manure application, which occurs around environmentally sensitive areas, such as sinkholes, tile intakes, lakes, streams, rivers, and wetlands, will follow the MPCA recommended setbacks and procedures contained in Minn. R. 7020.2005. See chart below:

Manure Application Separation Distance (In Feet)

Feature Winter

Non-Winter With Immediate

Incorporation (<24 hours)

Non-Winter Not incorporated within

24 hours

With P Mgmt.

No P Mgmt.

With Vegetated

Buffer

Inadequate Vegetated

Buffer Lake, Stream 300 25 300 100 300

Intermittent Stream* DNR protected wetlands** Drainage ditch w/o quarry*

300 25 300 50 300

Open Tile Intake 300 25 25 300 300 Well, mine or quarry 300 50 50 50 50

Sinkhole with no diversion Downslope 50 Upslope 300 50 50 Downslope 50

Upslope 300 Downslope 50 Upslope 300

*Notes on following page.

1 John Moncrief, Paul Bloom, Dave Mulla, Neil Hansen, Gyles Randall, Carl Rosen, Ed Dorsey, and Ann Lewandowski, University of Minnesota. The Minnesota Phosphorus Index can be used to determine the relative risk posed by farm fields on the landscape and how to reduce the risk. The P Index is a management tool for individual fields or landscapes that provides a relative (unitless) assessment of the risks to surface waters of P losses from erosion, rainfall runoff, and snowmelt runoff. See http://www.mnpi.umn.edu/ for more information.


* Intermittent streams and ditches pertain to those identified on USGS quadrangle maps, excluding drainage ditches with berms that protect from runoff into the ditch and segments of intermittent streams, which are grassed

waterways. USGS quadrangle maps can be found at County Soil and Water Conservation District offices or can be viewed on the internet at http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com (August 17, 2004).

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

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

application, please describe the methods.

None.

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

The surfaces of the barns that come into contact with animals and manure, especially the floor, are

sources of odor. The animals themselves are also sources of odor. The manure collection and storage facilities, the feed storage facilities, the dead animal disposal and storage areas, and the manure exposed to the air during land application are also significant sources of odor. Dust generated by truck traffic around the site can also contribute to odor.

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

implemented to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts and discuss their anticipated effectiveness.

Odor management practices implemented for the feedlot include flushing the barn daily to remove manure from the alley. Solids are removed from the manure wastewater, thereby reducing odor from the manure storage pond. Dairy manure will all be injected immediately into soil to minimize the release of odors. Required setbacks will be observed from nearby residences for manure application. Weather conditions, primarily wind speed/direction and humidity will be evaluated before manure is land applied to insure minimal impacts on neighbors and the public. If dust generated by truck traffic becomes an issue, the Project proposer will use a dust suppressant to control it.

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 and at 34 of the dairy’s nearest neighbors for the proposed Project. The following table is provided as a summary of the air quality modeling findings.


Proposed Project- Air Quality Summary with Background Concentrations

*See Attachment J for a more complete discussion of modeled odor impacts. 8State ambient hydrogen sulfide air quality standard: 30 ppb half-hour average. 9Acute iHRV for ammonia: one hour average of 3,200 µg/m3

10 Odor impact assessment based on odor units (OU). A value of 83 odor units is considered to be a faint odor (for cattle) detectable by most people.

iHRV = inhalation health risk value ppb = parts per billion µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter The modeling results suggest that the proposed Project will comply with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. CALPUFF predicted a maximum hourly property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration of 5.82 ppb (v/v [volume over volume basis]). When a background concentration of 17 ppb (v/v) is added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum effective property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration is 22.82 ppb (v/v), which is below the ambient standard of 30 ppb (v/v). The CALPUFF results indicate that the proposed Project and the three neighboring dairies will not create exceedences of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentration for the neighboring residences is 0.26 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 1.00 µg/m3 is added to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum 13-week neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.26 µg/m3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV of 10 µg/m3. The modeling results also suggest that the expanded Project will not create exceedences of the acute ammonia iHRV. CALPUFF predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentration of 619 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 148 µg/m3 is added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum effective property-line ammonia concentration is 767 µg/m3, which is below the acute ammonia iHRV of 3,200 µg/m3. The CALPUFF results indicate that the proposed Project and the three neighboring dairies will not create exceedences of the chronic ammonia iHRV at neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration for the dairy’s nearest neighbors is 8.12 µg/m3. When a

Property Boundary

Hydrogen Sulfide Results (ppb)8

(Includes a 17 pp background)

Acute Ammonia Results (µg/m3)9

(Includes a 148 ug/mg3 background concentration)

Odor Results (OU)10

(Includes a 17 ppb background

concentration

Northwest 20.02 ppb 767 µg/m3 109 OU

North 22.82 ppb 690 µg/m3 186 OU

South 19.73 ppb 454µg/m3 97 OU

East 19.28 ppb 434 µg/m3 78 OU

West 20.53 ppb 597 µg/m3 109 OU


background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m3 is added to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration for a neighboring residence is 13.84 µg/m3, which is below the chronic ammonia iHRV of 80 µg/m3. The modeling results for the proposed Project 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. The modeling results also suggest that the proposed dairy and three neighboring dairies will approach, but not exceed, the threshold for faint odors. The modeling indicated that the frequency at which “faint” odors would occur beyond the property boundary is less than one percent of the time.

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. Three neighbors are located within one-third of a mile of the site. The Project proposers do not plan to notify neighbors of operational events such as manure storage, agitation, pump out or application, but they are willing to work around planned social events.

E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts.

The Project is located on an asphalt road, so dust on the road should not be a problem. The loudest sources of noise will be milk trucks, feed trucks, and other machinery. In this case, the distance between the proposed Project site and the nearest neighbor (approximately 1,419 feet) is a significant factor in mitigating any adverse impacts of the noise associated with this Project. The resident is also an employee that works at the Evers Dairy facility.

If particulate matter generated by truck traffic becomes an issue, the owners will use a dust suppressant to abate fugitive particulate matter emissions.

7. Dead Animal Disposal

Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. A 12-foot by 12-foot mortality disposal box will be constructed on the proposed Project site. The disposal area will be constructed of ten-inch tongue and groove polyvinyl chloride paneling. A swinging door with latch will provide access to the box and security from scavengers. The floor of the disposal area will be a compacted clay soil. Mortalities are removed as discovered from the barn. A rendering company (Darling International) that services livestock producers will be utilized to pick up mortalities on a per call basis. Rendering service has been reliable and timely. The predicted annual mortality rate is approximately 25 head of cattle every year from the entire Project site. An animal mortality plan has been completed and is an enforceable part of the NPDES/SDS General Permit.


8. Surface Water Runoff.

Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Livestock Production Site The construction of the new barn and modification of the existing barn in the proposed Project will require an NPDES/SDS Feedlot/Construction Stormwater Permit, which addresses the need for both temporary and permanent stormwater and erosion control measures. The proposal for the Project has included a temporary stormwater pollution prevent plan in the engineering plans and specifications that will address the requirements for stormwater management. The contractor and engineer would be responsible for managing surface water runoff during construction of the Project. Surface water runoff will increase on the Project site due to an increase in impervious surfaces, in particular the construction of roofed buildings. However, it is highly unlikely that this runoff will come into contact with livestock or its manure due to the facility housing all animals in total confinement. Land Application Sites The land application of manure, if improperly applied, can adversely impact surface-water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into draintile lines that outfall to surface waters. None of the fields identified in the MMP to be used for manure application have existing draintile lines. The Project contains land application areas that are located within the Zumbro and (Buffalo-Whitewater) Root River sub-basins, which are within the Upper Mississippi, Lower Portion watershed. The specific subwatersheds where acres were identified for land application were reviewed to evaluate runoff and surface-water quality. It is important to note that the subwatersheds have been farmed for several decades. The change in stormwater runoff characteristics (physically and chemically) from the Project land application areas is expected to remain the same and, under certain circumstances, improve as a result of the land application activities regulated under the MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit. The improvements would occur by developing better soil tilth2 through the use of organic fertilizer and the uniform practice of incorporating manure over the acres identified in the MMP. The potential impact to surface-water resources from the Project’s land application activities would not be expected to create a significant impact for the following reasons. As discussed in Item 5 of the EAW, manure would be immediately incorporated into the soil via knife injection at agronomic rates, meaning that only the amount of manure that can be used by the growing crop as nutrient would be applied. The agronomic rate is based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry. The information presented in Item 5 will be incorporated into the MMP for the proposed Project. The MMP is incorporated into and considered an enforceable provision of the NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit for the Project, if issued, and which would operate under a “no discharge” standard.

2 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. www.earthandtable.com/glossary/soil/qualities.html (retrieved May 2, 2007)


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. Existing Traffic The existing dairy facility is serviced by about 61 tri-axle semi trucks per month to remove milk produced at the dairy facility. The trucks utilize County Highway 18, County Highway 14, and State Highway 42 for entering and leaving the facility. Approximately three semi trucks with trailers bring soybean meal and distillers grains to the dairy facility in an average month; approximately 60 semi trucks with trailers bring in sweet corn/pea/carrot pulps for feed every month. During the summer months, about 200 loads of haylage will be delivered to the Project site at each cutting of alfalfa. When the corn silage is harvested in late summer, about 640 loads will be delivered to the Project site. In addition, about twice per month, culled cows are removed from the site via pickup truck and trailer and replacement heifers are delivered about once per month. A rendering truck will visit the site an average of twice per month and farm employees will make about 180 trips to the farm each month. Most traffic will follow County Highways 14 and 23. Township roads will facilitate traffic from the field operations to the facility as well. Proposed Traffic The proposed Project would be serviced by about 61 tri-axle semi trucks per month to remove milk produced at the facility, representing no increase to existing traffic. The trucks would continue to utilize County Highway 18, County Highway 14, and State Highway 42 for entering and leaving the facility. Approximately, four semi trucks with trailers will bring soybean meal and distillers grains to the dairy in an average month; approximately 60 semi trucks with trailers bring in sweet corn/pea/carrot pulps for feed every month, representing an increase of one truck per month. During the summer months, about 300 loads of haylage will be delivered to the Project site at each cutting of alfalfa hay, an increase of about 100 loads per cutting. When the corn silage is harvested in late summer, about nine hundred loads would be delivered to the Project site, an increase of about 160 loads. In addition, about twice per month, culled cows are removed from the site via pickup truck and trailer and replacement heifers are delivered about twice per month, an increase of one pickup truck with trailer per month. A rendering truck would visit the site an average of twice per month and farm employees will make about 180 trips to the farm each month, representing no increase in traffic. Traffic would continue to follow County Highways 18 and 14 for the majority of the transportation routes. Township roads would also facilitate traffic from the field operations to the facility. The majority of the increase in traffic will occur during the summer months around the harvest of alfalfa and corn silage. At this time, the normal load limits for County Roads 18 and 14 are 9 tons per axle (single axle) and 73,280 gallons volume weight. The spring load restrictions for County Roads 18 and 14 are 7 tons per axle (single axle). According to the Wabasha County Engineer, “the damage from the projected increase and legally loaded traffic is expected to be within reasonable limits. Traffic with loads over the posted and Statutory weight limits will substantially increase damage to the road. As with any increase in traffic there is an increase in the potential for traffic crashes. Other factors affecting the potential increase in crashes include sight distance, type and amount of traffic accessing and traveling along the road, and driver behavior and ability.”


B. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No

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

Unit of government Type of Application Status MPCA NPDES/SDS Feedlot/ Construction

Stormwater Permit Pending

Wabasha County Conditional Use Permit/Building Permit Pending DNR Water Appropriation Permit Pending

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. A search of the MPCA feedlot Registration data from 2003 shows 169 feedlots identified within a six-mile radius of the proposed area. In addition, the MPCA developed a set of maps from the Project proposer’s information and Attachments as previously described, as well as MPCA facility data, to reflect a Cumulative Affects Analysis Map for the Evers Dairy (Attachment M).

Lastly, the MPCA reviewed the proposed Project and existing facilities 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. Surface Water Impacts Land use within the Project area is predominantly agricultural, which can contribute to nonpoint source pollution of surface waters. The proposed feedlot facility and land application sites are located in two minor catchments in the Lower Mississippi Watersheds. The Zumbro River is approximately three miles north of the Evers Dairy facility. The river is listed as impaired in the 2006 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Report3 for turbidity. The proposed Project is not expected to contribute negative environmental impacts to surface waters as the feedlot facility is designed for zero discharge of manure or stormwater. The existing feedlot and the proposed Project are designed so that stormwater and silage leachate are captured on site and routed to the existing basins on the site.

3 Missouri and Des Moines River Basin: Conventional Parameters. 2006 Impaired Waters requiring a TMDL. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publications/maps/tmdl-mdm-conv-06.pdf (retrieved August 10, 2007)


The land application management practices (described in Item 5.D.) would help reduce or eliminate the Project’s potential for surface-water quality impairment within the minor watersheds of the Lower Mississippi River Basin. The land application practices include approved temporary stockpiling and seasonal application of manure at agronomic rates. Additionally, the required setback distances from surface waters, tile intakes, and other sensitive features, such as Karst, would be maintained. The practice of land applying manure at agronomic rates reduces or eliminates the potential for a surplus of nutrient to impact water resources. The land application practices would be included in the Project MMP, which is an enforceable provision of the facility NPDES/SDS Permit. As a result, the MPCA concludes that the proposed Project would not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect of surface water quality. Ground-water Appropriation The proposed Project will be served by one well and will utilize approximately 18 million gallons of water annually. The MPCA reviewed the CWI to explore the nature of well depth and type to account for other users of the same or nearby resources identified within the one-mile radius of the project. The following is a summary of selected findings from the CWI data:

Name Unique Well # Well Depth/Unit Well Use

Richard Miller 542396 The well is finished to a depth of 100 feet within a

shale unit.

Domestic

Stephen Taubel 482516 The well is finished to a depth of 410 feet within a

Franconia unit.

Domestic

Steve Taubel 247331 The well is finished to a depth of 233 feet within a

Jordan sandstone unit

Domestic

John Meyer 179231 The well is finished to a depth of 575 feet within a

sand and shale unit.

Domestic

Don Eversman 196642 The well is finished to a depth of 477 feet within a

sandstone unit

Domestic

Randy Fellows 127898 The well is finished to a depth of 98 feet within a shale and sandstone firm

unit

Domestic

Paul McNallan 156938 The well is finished to a depth of 418 feet within a

lime rock unit.

Domestic

As previously discussed, the feedlot, after the proposed expansion, is designed to consume a total of 17,793,750 million gallons per year with a projected service consumption of 445 million gallons over a 25-year period. By comparison, a town of 100 consumes approximately 10,000 gallons of water per day. This amount over a 25-year period amounts to 91.25 million gallons. Based on the water-bearing characteristics of the area aquifers and the nature of the existing use, water use for this Project is not expected to interfere with other ground-water users.


Ground-water appropriations are addressed through the DNR Water Appropriations Permit Program. The purpose of the DNR permit program is to ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is provided to long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. The permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the DNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found to be causing the problem, the operator must correct it. The feedlot owner will be required to assess the potential impacts during the Water Appropriation Permit review process. Ground-water resources can be adversely impacted by feedlot operation and land application activities. The MPCA has reviewed information compiled by the DNR to determine if the proposed Project has the potential to contaminate the underlying aquifer. The engineering plans and specifications, application information, and MMP provided by the Project proposer reflect the management practices required under the existing Minnesota feedlot regulations, including those for operation and management in an area with karstic features. The MPCA believes the potential for any adverse impact to ground-water resources from this proposed Project alone, or in consideration with other existing and known future facilities, should be low. The number of ground-water users of this aquifer does not appear to cause a specific water supply management issue. The addition of the Project to this aquifer is not likely to create or contribute to a significant environmental impact. Air Quality Impacts

Air quality computer modeling was performed that estimated concentrations in the air of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the proposed Project. The model estimated pollutant concentrations from the proposed Project, along with an ambient hydrogen sulfide and ammonia background concentration to account for any off-site air emission sources or activities. The air quality modeling evaluation predicted concentrations of the selected gases at the proposed Project property lines and nearest neighbors. A background concentration is the amount of pollutants already in the air from other sources, and is used in this evaluation to address cumulative air impacts. Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia may be present from other feedlot barns, the agitation and pump out 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 to air quality (Attachment J). Land Use The land identified for the purpose of this proposed Project includes the site of the proposed Project proper, along with the land application acreage. The overall proposed 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. Habitat There is a competing issue in rural landscapes to maintain a balance between agricultural demands and preserving natural resources. In this case, the proposed Project is located in areas currently used for agricultural production. All affected acres, including the proposed manure application fields, have been

General Location ofWayne Evers Dairy Proposed Project

Wabasha County, Minnesota

Proposed Project Location

Attachment A

�

� �

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

�� !�� "�!�# $��%�� &��'��( )�� *��+� �, �� "')* �#

�!� -��. �(�/� �� 0�+�

Attachment B

Attachment C

Attachment D

Attachment E

DNR Information: 651-296-6157 ● 1-888-646-6367 ● TTY: 651-296-5484 ● 1-800-657-3929

An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity

Phone: (651) 259-5109 Fax: (651) 296-1811 E-mail: [email protected]

November 13, 2007 Mr. Andrew Nesseth Extended Ag Services, Inc. 715 Third Street Jackson, MN 56143 Re: Request for Natural Heritage information for vicinity of proposed Wayne Evers Dairy Expansion, Wabasha County NHNRP Contact #: ERDB 20080332 Dear Mr. Nesseth,

Please note that the Township, Range, or Section information that was listed on the Data Request Form did not exactly match the project area as outlined on the map that was submitted with the form. The enclosed search results are for the area indicated on the map. Please contact me if the location description of your project area, as listed in the subject line of this letter, is in error.

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 93 known occurrences of rare species or native plant communities in the area searched (for details, please see the enclosed database printouts and the explanation of selected fields). Following are specific comments for only those elements that may be impacted by the proposed project. Rare feature occurrences not listed below are not anticipated to be affected by the proposed project.

�� Wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta), a state-listed threatened species, have been documented in the Zumbro River. Wood turtles are intolerant of water pollution, including siltation, over-enrichment from organic sources, and industrial pollution. As such, strict adherence to setback requirements is important. Manure application rates should also be carefully determined to ensure that nutrient input does not exceed the ability for crop nutrient uptake and result in nutrient-rich runoff to this river or its tributaries.

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 Wabasha 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.

Township (N) Range (W) Sections 109 11 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11,

18, 21, 22, 27, & 28 110 11 27, 28, & 33 110 12 3, 10, 13, & 24

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025

Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program, Box 25

Attachment F

The enclosed results of the database search are provided in two formats: short record report and long record report. To control the release of locational information, which might result in the damage or destruction of a rare element, both printout formats are copyrighted.

The short record report provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an Environmental Assessment Worksheet, municipal natural resource plan, or report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the short record report for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. The long record report includes more detailed locational information, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to reprint the long record report for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission.

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 resource-related issues, you may contact your Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Wayne Barstad, at (651) 772-7940.

An invoice in the amount of $161.50 will be mailed to you under separate cover within two weeks of the date of this letter. You are being billed for the database search and printouts, and staff scientist review. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely,

Lisa Joyal Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator encl: Database search results

Rare Feature Database Print-Outs: An Explanation of Fields

�� ●�� ●�� ●� ��

�� !�"##"�� $#!"��#��"��%�%!��#�#��%"��&��$��$ $�"'��(�#")��%"�) $��*�)��

�� !�"#�� $�%�#��&�� '��( ) ��%� �* �� $��+�'',�-� ��%��. ��/0� )��"#�� $�.��1��2��"#��0 ��3��$��"4� ��0� ��5��0�� )�+ �� $�%�� 60+%7�� #�� /� )��"#�� $�.��1��2��6".17�)��"#��0 ��)��$��4� ��8� �$ �5��1 � �� 5��0+%��))��)�$$�� )�� 5��0+%��$�$�2�� $�� )�� $$��$�� 5��$��)�� $$��$��5�� $�� $�� )�� $��$�� $�� $��)�� /�)/��/ ��$ � ��$�� $ ��".1�9��'0�6� �� $�� 7�� $�� 5�� $��)�� $�� $$�� $��)�� )� �� $�� $�� $��$��)�� )��8��#��$� ��0+%��)��.��:�� $�� $�� $�;��)�� )��2 ��2��$��)�� /$�� $�� $�� )� ��#�� <�� %�#�� 0+%� �� $�� $ ��$�� $��9�� $�#�$��)�� $�� $�� $�� )�� 2��/��2�� 9)� ��)�� $�� $ �� # �$ �$�� )��$��$� ��/".1�� !�� "��5��0+%��#�� $�� 2 ��)� ��#�� $��)�� .��0� )��".1�� 2��2 ��)� ��$�� 2��$�� .�� $� �� #�� $� $�� $� �� ;�� $�2 ��)� �� =��,-��>?��,'�,�?�2 ��9��2�� #��#�� 9)� �2 ��)� ��#�� $��)�� 0+%�� )�� $�� )�� $$�� ; ��2 ��)� �� %� �� 2 ��)� �� $��)�� $� �� $��@ �� .$�4 ��6��7�#��

�� #�A� $��@ �,� �"�� $#��.$�4 ��B�� *�2��$�� ; �� $��"#�� $�@��$� ��'?6'7�>?'/>'-��6,7�0�� )��.�� @��$� ��" ��5��*� ��&�#��B��5+�CD-,?��&*.=�6�7�0�� )�@��$� �� @��&�#��)�� C,��$$��0��*"�� $��+�''?''��&*.��

��

Attachment G

�

�

�

�

��

��

��

#�� $%��&��

4� ��#� ��: �� (�� (��" �� 1��(��1��

( �� 7�� " �� #�� 1�

��(�� #�� #�� 8�� # ��#��#��

� ��1�� -��(( ��#��##�� &�( ��(��#�1 ��

�� #��4� �0 ��;��D�� 9�� ##�� 1�&��( ��

(��#��5�� 6��

�

'��(��%�� (��

�� .��#� �� #� # " #�� /*$� �� "�� (�##�� #�

��# �� "�� #�

"� �� 4� ��"�� (# �� #��(�� #�: ��

�� ?�" �� (��#1��#�� # �� 3� ��

�� #��#�� 3�� (��#�� 8(�� " �#��#��

�� 3�� #�� #�� #�� #� ��

�� 9� �#��#�� #�� 9��#��#�� #� �� E�� #��

��

�

4�� #�� #��" ��(��#�� 3��(�� #�

( �#�� (��(�� # ��#1��

��(��#��4� �/*$��#�� "�#�� ( ��#�� .�((��(�

��(��#�� #��#�� # ��# � ��-��

�� #�� "�#�� "�� (� #��#��#�(�� .

��#�� (�#��( ��#�: ��)�� #�� #��1 �� E�� # ��

�

4��1��(�� "�� /�(��!"�� #�-�� 0�1��

(�� (�� # �� ( #�( �� 9� ��

�

)�� #��

�

�

� ��

�

$��#��0� #��) ��#� ��

!"�� #�$ "� ��#��%��

/�"��(�!��#��#�$ ��

5,&+6��&=.&+&C�

�

�� 0 �� )� " ��#"��'��A��#��##�7�� A ((�? � ��

!$/�F��BB�.��

/�G/*$H�� G0 �� H!" �H/��H!3��H!�#�H-� ��H��H!-0 ��

�

��

��

1

Andrew Nesseth

From: Justin Blum [[email protected]]Sent: Friday, February 01, 2008 12:28 PMTo: Andy Nesseth; Terry BoveeCc: Art PersonsSubject: Re: Review for EAW

Hi Terry, Andy, & Art:

The feedlot will be located within a mile of a NC PWS well at the Immaculate Conception Church (well no. 261847). We have very limited information on this well. Drilled in 1960and 400 ft. deep.That's it. The nitrates in the well have been fairly consistent at~5 ppm. I am not clear what extra controls would (could) be placed on the feedlot given the location and vulnerability.

There are no other PWS wells or DWSMAS within the two-mile radius of the site.

Regards,

----------------------------------------------------------------------Justin L. Blum [email protected]/Environmental Health Phone: 651-201-4698625 North Robert Street Fax: 651-201-4701St. Paul, MN 55155

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>>> Terry Bovee 1/31/2008 3:34 PM >>> Andy,

I am forwarding this request (Wabasha site) to Art Persons who covers that portion of the state.

Insofar as the Oct. 31st request...which county was this one located and what is the applicant's name? I'll need to check on that and get back to you. I will try to do so tomorrow, Feb. 1, 2008.

Terry

Terry L. BoveeMN. Dept. Of HealthSource Water Protection Unit410 Jackson, Suite 500Mankato, MN 56001tel. 507-389-6597fax [email protected]

>>> "Andy Nesseth" <[email protected]> 1/29/2008 5:24 PM >>>

Terry,

I sent a request for a review for public wells and DWSMA’s near land to be used for manureapplication and a proposed expanding feedlot on October 31, 2007. I cannot find record of the response for that request. If you have completed that review, please forward me the results. If you have not completed the review, please forward the results to my contact

Attachment H

2

information at the bottom of the email. Thank you for your efforts. I have also enclosed acopy of the language in the previous request in case you are unable to locate it. I have attached the necessary documents as well.

I would like to request a search for any public water supply wells or DWSMAs within a two mile radius of a proposed total confinement Dairy Feedlot or manure application sites for Wayne Evers.

Site location & description: NW ¼ of NW ¼ Section 10, Highland Township, Wabasha County. The dairy expansion will consist of one total confinement barn, two temporary commodity storage pads, and two liquid manure storage areas. The liquid manure storage area is a combination of a collection/settling basin and a high density polyethelene (HDPE) storage basin. Manure will be collected in storage basin and removed each fall and spring. The manure will be land applied onto designated cropland as fertilizer in the spring and fall of the year.

Manure Application Sites: The manure would be applied at agronomic rate as fertilizer replacement. We will recommend best management practices for applying manure by followingall proper setbacks to sensitive features.Allmanure is injected immediately and is applied primarily in the late fall (Oct - Nov) with some being done in the spring (Mar - Apr). Please review the attached map for a summary ofmanure acres. G.I.S. shapefiles of all manure acres can be provided upon request.

In conclusion, could you please verify receipt of this request? Thank you, in advance, foryour assistance.

Please review the attached documents for a complete listing of the fields to be used for manure application.

Andrew NessethExtended Ag Services, Inc507 Milwaukee StreetLakefield, MN 56150-1177507-662-5005 office507-662-5105 fax507-841-0943 cell

From: Cinadr, Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 8:59 AM To: 'Vicki Tusa' Subject: RE: Request for information Wayne Evers

THIS EMAIL 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 651-259-3455 or email at [email protected] sites and historic properties were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the search area requested. Reports containing the results of the search are 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 651-259-3450 or by email at [email protected] for current lists of professional consultants in these fields.

The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata can be found at http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm

Attachment I

Archaeological Site LocationsSite Number Site Name Twp. Range Sec. Quarter Sections Acres Phase Site

Description Traditio Context Reports NR CEF DOE

County: Wabasha21WBw 110 12 28 C-S-NW 0 HD

History/ArchitecturePROPERTY NAME ADDRESS Twp Range Sec QuartersUSGS Report NRHP CEF DOE Inventory Number

COUNTY WabashaCITY/TOWNSHIP: Highland Twp.

Immaculate Conception Church off Co. Hwy. 18 109 11 3 SE-SE-SEWabasha South WB-87-1H WB-HGH-001

commercial building 109 11 10 NW-NE-NEWabasha South WB-87-1HWB-HGH-002

W. McNallan Farmhouse (razed) 109 11 10 NW-NE-NWWabasha South WB-87-1HWB-HGH-003

Air Quality Modeling Report

Evers Dairy Expansion

Wabasha County

Highland Township

NW � Section 10

October 2007

Attachment J

Table of Contents

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

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

..............................................................................................................................Site Descriptions 9

................................................................................................................................Evers Dairy 9

...................................................................................................................................Dairy #1 12

...................................................................................................................................Dairy #2 12

...................................................................................................................................Dairy #3 13

........................................................................................................................Gas Emission Rates 13

..............................................................................................................Dairy Freestall Barns 13

.............................................................................................................................Dairy Basins 14

......................................................................Hydrogen Sulfide at Property Lines and Neighbors 16

...................................................................................Ammonia at Property Lines and Neighbors 18

..........................................................................Odorous Gases at Property Lines and Neighbors 20

...............................................................Total VOOCs at North Property Line and Neighbor AP 21

.........................................................................Odor Intensities at Property Lines and Neighbors 22

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

Introduction

Based on a protocol reviewed and approved by

the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

on September 18, 2007, air quality modeling es-

timated the hydrogen sulfide concentrations, am-

monia concentrations, volatile odorous organic

compound concentrations, and odor intensities at

the effective property lines for the expanded

Evers Dairy and at 34 of the expanded dairy’s

nearest neighbors. Presently, the dairy consists of

a single 828-head freestall barn, a sand collection

basin, and a manure storage basin. The proposed

expansion would add a 422-head freestall barn.

Two neighbors have grantedair quality easements

to the dairy, such that the effective property lines

for the dairy surround the NW � Section 10 and

the W � of the NE � Section 10. The modeling

also considered the gaseous emissions from three

neighboring dairies. The locations of the Evers

Dairy and the three dairies are provided in Fig-

ure 1.

The following atmospheric concentrations were

calculated:

1. the maximum hourly hydrogen sulfide

concentration at the expanded dairy’s ef-

fective property lines to assess the poten-

tial 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 34 of

the expanded dairy’s nearest neighbors to

assess the potential to exceed Minnesota’s

subchronic inhalation Health Risk Value

(iHRV) of 10 �g/m3;

3. the maximum hourly ammonia concentra-

tion at the expanded dairy’s effective

property lines to assess the potential to

exceed Minnesota’s acute iHRV for am-

monia of 3,200 �g/m3;

4. the maximum annual-averaged ammonia

concentration at 34 of the expanded

dairy’s nearest neighbors to assess the

potential to exceed Minnesota’s chronic

iHRV for ammonia of 80 �g/m3;

5. the maximum hourly concentrations of

selected odorous organic gases (including

n-butyric acid and para-cresol) at the ex-

panded dairy’s effective property lines

and at 34 of the expanded dairy’s nearest

neighbors to access the potential for off-

site odor episodes; and

6. the maximum hourly odor intensities at

the expanded dairy’s effective property

lines and at 34 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

Evers Dairy will comply with the Minnesota am-

bient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide.

CALPUFF predicted a maximum hourly property-

line hydrogen sulfide concentration of 5.82 ppb

(v/v). When a background concentration of

17 ppb (v/v) is added to the CALPUFF prediction,

the maximum effective property-line hydrogen

sulfide concentration is 22.82 ppb (v/v), which is

below the ambient standard of 30 ppb (v/v).

The CALPUFF results indicate that the ex-

panded Evers Dairy and the three neighboring

dairies will not create exceedences of the sub-

chronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV at the neighboring

residences. The estimated maximum 13-week

time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentration for

the neighboring residences is 0.26 �g/m3. When a

background concentration of 1.00 �g/m3 is added

to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum 13-week

neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is

1.26 �g/m3, which is below the subchronic hy-

drogen sulfide iHRV of 10 �g/m3.

1 Evers Dairy Report


Figure 1. Modeled locations of the Evers Dairy and three neighboring dairies. The green-bordered rectangle represents the effective property lines for the dairy.

The modeling results also suggest that the ex-

panded Evers Dairy will not create exceedences

of the acute ammonia iHRV. CALPUFF predicted

a maximum hourly property-line ammonia con-

centration of 619 �g/m3. When a background

concentration of 148 �g/m3 is added to the

CALPUFF prediction, the maximum effective

property-line ammonia concentration is

767 �g/m3, which is below the acute ammonia

iHRV of 3,200 �g/m3.

The CALPUFF results indicate that the ex-

panded Evers Dairy and the three neighboring

dairies will not create exceedences of the chronic

ammonia iHRV at neighboring residences. The

estimated maximum one-year time-averaged am-

monia concentration for the dairies’ nearest

neighbors is 8.12 �g/m3. When a background

ammonia concentration of 5.72 �g/m3 is added to

the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum annual

ammonia concentration for a neighboring resi-

dence is 13.84 �g/m3, which is below the chronic

ammonia iHRV of 80 �g/m3.

Thus, the modeling results for the expanded

Evers Dairy suggest compliance with the hydro-

gen 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 Evers Dairy and the

three neighboring dairies as the only significant

and quantifiable emission sources within a 3-mile

by 3-mile grid. The air quality impacts associated

with the dairies were explicitly modeled. The ex-

panded Evers Dairy was located in the 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 are added to the modeling results. Hence, the

background concentrations of hydrogen sulfide

and ammonia include 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 060412)

air quality model1,2,3 was used to estimate the

property-line and nearest-neighbor odorous gas

concentrations. The estimated concentrations

were based on historical wind speeds, wind direc-

tions, atmospheric stabilities, and rural mixing

heights. The historical weather data consisted of

five years (1985-1989) 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 mete-

orological file by the U.S. Environmental Protec-

tion Agency’s (EPA’s) PCRAMMET software.4

The surface and upper air weather data sets were

obtained from the EPA’s Support Center for Regu-

latory Air Models.5

Maximum one-hour, 13-week, and annual aver-

age concentrations were calculated. Rural disper-


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

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

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

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

5 www.epa.gov/scram001

sion coefficients were used to characterize atmos-

pheric mixing. The modeling assumed no decay

of any modeled gas due to chemical reactions.

The modeled receptor height was 0 meters, i.e.,

ground level. A flat terrain was assumed. All

modeled property-line and nearest-neighbor re-

ceptors 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 10 (Highland Township, Wabasha

County) as the origin (0, 0). Positive values of x

represent distance east of the origin. Positive val-

ues of y represent distance north of the origin.

To assess the potential for environmental im-

pacts, the atmospheric hydrogen sulfide, ammo-

nia, and volatile odorous organic compound

(VOOC) concentrations and the atmospheric odor

intensities generated by the air quality modeling

were compared to air quality standards, inhalation

Health Risk Values (iHRVs), published odor

threshold concentrations, and an odor classifica-

tion system based on detection-threshold odor

intensities. The direct comparison of model-

generated concentrations to these environmental

threshold concentrations does not consider the

impact of different averaging times. EPA guide-

lines do not allow concentrations to be time aver-

aged 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 model-

generated hydrogen sulfide concentration of

29 ppb (v/v) may contain a half-hour average

concentration that exceeds the 30 ppb standard.

Also, an odor intensity that an odor panelist may

find to be merely detectable in a short-term field

measurement could be annoying if present for an

hour or longer.

The background concentrations of hydrogen

sulfide and ammonia provided in Table 1 were

added to the CALPUFF estimated concentrations

as described in EPA guidelines.7 The listed con-

centrations represent background concentrations

for rural Minnesota. The listed 17-ppb back-

ground hydrogen sulfide concentration is appro-

priate when assessing a feedlot’s potential to

comply with the 30-ppb standard. A background

concentration of 18 ppb should be used when as-


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

7 Ibid.

Table 1. Background concentrations.

GasHourly

BackgroundConcentration

13-WeekBackground

Concentration

AnnualBackground

Concentration

Hydrogen Sulfide 17 ppb (v/v)(24.3 �g/m3)

0.70 ppb (v/v)(1.00 �g/m3)

Not Required

Ammonia 208 ppb (v/v)(148 �g/m3)

Not Required 8.07 ppb (v/v)(5.72 �g/m3)

sessing 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 concentra-

tions reflect the monitored data expressed in the

terms of the “exceedence or violation condition”

for the corresponding iHRV guideline or ambient

standard. For example, the background 208-ppb

ammonia concentration for the acute ammonia

iHRV represents the maximum hourly concentra-

tion that occurred within the entire length of

monitoring. This is the appropriate interpretation

of background for the acute ammonia iHRV, be-

cause the guidance is concerned with any poten-

tial exceedence of the iHRV. Also, the 17-ppb

hydrogen sulfide background represents the

third highest 30-minute concentration that oc-

curred within any 5-day period. This is appro-

priate, because the ambient hydrogen sulfide

standard defines a violation as the third ex-

ceedence 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 concentra-

tion. The odor threshold concentration is defined

as the gas-phase concentration at which 50 per-

cent of the population can detect the gas’s odor.

For this presentation, odor number is defined as

the ratio of the estimated atmospheric concentra-

tion for a specific odorous gas divided by the

gas’s odor threshold concentration. An odor num-

ber equal to 1 suggests that 50 percent of the

population can detect the estimated atmospheric

concentration for a specific gas. An odor number

greater than 1 suggests that more than 50 percent

of the population can detect the gas, while a value

less than 1 indicates that less than 50 percent of

the population can detect the gas. Typically, an

odor number below about 0.1 suggests that less

than 1 percent of the population can detect the

gas.8 The odor threshold concentrations used in

this assessment are presented in Table 2.

The odor-number assessment of odor intensity

does not consider the interactions between gases.

Gas mixtures can intensify or mitigate certain

odors. The Zahn correlation9,10 was used to ac-

count for the odor intensity associated with the

mixture of gases released from the dairy manure

basins. The total concentration of volatile odorous

organic compounds (VOOCs) required for the

Zahn correlation was calculated from the modeled

concentrations of the 12 organic gases listed in

Table 2.


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

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

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

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

Odorous Gas

Odor Threshold Concentration

(ppb, v/v)

Acetic Acid 200

n-Propanoic Acid 17

iso-Butyric Acid 11

n-Butyric Acid 0.69

iso-Valeric Acid 4.8

n-Valeric Acid 0.28

iso-Caproic Acid 7.7

n-Caproic Acid 21

n-Heptanoic Acid 5

Phenol 76

para-Cresol 0.25

para-Ethyl Phenol 1.2

Hydrogen Sulfide 3.7

Ammonia 1,500

As a third means of assessing potential odor

impacts, the CALPUFF-generated odor intensities

(expressed as detection-threshold odor units) were

compared to the reference odor intensities pro-

vided in Table 3.12 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 if attention is called

to the odor, but the odor would not otherwise be

noticed.13

Livestock barns were characterized as either

line sources or volume sources using the ap-

proaches described in EPA air quality modeling

documentation.14 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 manure basins were characterized as non-

buoyant area sources. Although crusts occasion-

ally form on the sand collection basin and the ma-


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

12 Jacobson L. D. et al. 2000. Development of an odor rating system to estimate setback distances from animal feed-lots: 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.

13 Jacobson L. D. and Guo H. 2000. Odor from feedlots setback estimation tool (OFFSET). In: Livestock and Poul-try Odor Workshop II, Dept. of Biosystems & Agricultural Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 39 pp.

14 U.S. EPA. 1995. User’s Guide for the Industrial Source Complex (ISC3) Dispersion Models. Volume II–Descrip-tion of Model Algorithms. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/B-95-003b.

nure storage basin at the Evers Dairy, the modeled

assumed that both basins were crust-free.

The manure storage basin at Dairy #3 was as-

sumed to always have a crust. Crusts can reduce

gas emissions from dairy manure basins by 3 ma-

jor mechanisms: (1) preventing wind-induced tur-

bulence at the surface of the stored liquid manure,

(2) increasing the thickness of the stagnant air-

phase layer due to air-filled pores in the crust, and

(3) biodegrading many of the gases generated in

the liquid manure as the gases pass through the

crust. Dairy basin crusts and other porous basin

covers can reduce gaseous emission rates by at

least 70 percent.15 However, it should be noted

that many of the studies reporting emission reduc-

tions due to porous covers were performed at the

relatively low air velocities found within flux

chambers. Extension of the two-film theory for

mass transfer across interfaces16 suggests that

greater emission reductions would have been ob-

served at faster air velocities.

The CALPUFF air quality model estimated the

impact of the manure basins 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.17 The Springer correlations for the liquid-


15 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board. 1999. A Summary of the Literature Related to the Social, Environmen-tal, Economic and Health Effects: Volume 2. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture, Prepared by the University of Minnesota, September 1999.

16 Cussler E. L. 1984. Diffusion: Mass Transfer in Fluid Systems. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.

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

OdorIntensityNumber

OdorStrength

n-ButanolReference Solution

(ppm)

Detection-ThresholdOdor Units(OU, D/T)

0 no odor 0 0

1 very faint 250 28

2 faint 750 83

3 moderate 2,250 244

4 strong 6,750 723

5 very strong 20,250 2,140

Table 3. Odor intensity classification.

phase mass transfer coefficient were replaced with

modified Mackay-Yeun correlations in the Basin-

Odor algorithms, based on an examination of the

data presented in Lunney (1983).18

The overall mass transfer coefficients for the

manure basin at Dairy #3 were adjusted to ac-

count 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. No chemical or biological reactions

were assumed to occur within the crust.

Hourly water temperatures within each basin

were estimated by the heat balance approach de-

scribed in Thomann and Mueller (1987).19 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 algo-

rithms20 were used to estimate the hourly varia-

tion 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 sta-

tion in Rochester, Minnesota provided the site

latitude and longitude. Basin depths were as-

sumed constant. When the water temperature al-

gorithms 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 released into the atmos-

phere.


18 Lunney P. D. 1983. Characterization of Wind and Depth Effects upon Liquid Phase Mass Transfer Coefficients: Simulation Studies. Master’s thesis, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 119 pp.

19 Thomann R. V. and Mueller J. A. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, 644 pp.

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

Site Descriptions

Evers Dairy

The Evers Dairy presently consists of an 828-

head freestall barn, a sand collection basin, and a

manure storage basin. The proposed expansion

would add of 422-head freestall barn. The physi-

cal characteristics of the existing and proposed

freestall barns are provided in Table 4. The barns

were modeled as line sources. The physical di-

mensions of the sand collection and manure stor-

age basins are provided in Table 5. The basins

were modeled as area sources.

The modeled locations of the barns and basins

are provided in Figure 2. The setback distances

from the effective property lines range from

509 feet to 1,800 feet.

The air quality modeling estimated the odorous

gas concentrations at the 34 neighboring resi-

dences shown in Figure 3.


Table 4. Dimensions and capacities of the freestall barns at the expanded Evers Dairy.

DairyFreestall

Barn

BarnLength(feet)

BarnWidth(feet)

BarnHeight(feet)

Number ofHousedCows

Barn #1 (existing) 592 112 25 828Barn #2 (proposed) 234 112 25 422

Table 5. Dimensions of the existing sand collection and manure storage basins.

BasinLength(feet)

Width(feet)

Operational Depth(feet)

Sand Collection 200 141 8Manure Storage 600 200 16


Barn #1

(existing)

Barn #2

(proposed)

Sand Basin

(existing)

Manure Basin

(existing)

1420'

616' 6"

1287'

N

E

S

W

(33', 2640')

1963' 6"

643' 6"

643' 6"

891'

509'

2640'

2607'

3283' 6"

1800' 2"

Figure 2. Modeled emission sources and effective property lines for the expanded Evers Dairy. The blue-filled squares represent the square volume subsources used to character-ize the emissions from the freestall barns. The red-bordered polygon represents the dairy’s property lines. The green lines represent the effective property lines associated with the air quality easements granted by neighboring landowners.


Figure 3. Modeled locations for the Evers Dairy, for the three neighboring dairies, and for 34 of the Evers Dairy’s nearest neighbors.

Dairy #1

Dairy #1 is assumed to house all of its 180 cows

in a single barn. The modeled location of the barn

is provided in Figure 4. The physical characteris-

tics of the barn are provided in Table 6. The barn

was modeled as a line source with three sub-

sources.

N

E

S

W

140' 140'

334'

195'

195'

(-1022', 25')

Barn #1

Figure 4. Modeled gaseous emission sources for Dairy #1.

Table 6. Physical dimensionsof the barn at Dairy #1.

CowBarn

Length(feet)

Width(feet)

Height(feet)

Barn #1 238 54 24

Dairy #2

Dairy #2 is assumed to have four barns that

house a total of 300 cows. The modeled locations

of the barns are provided in Figure 5. The physi-

cal characteristics of the barns are provided in

Table 7. Barn #1 and Barn #2 were modeled as

line sources with 2 and 3 subsources, respectively.

Barn #3 and Barn #4 were modeled as volume

sources.

105'

123'

232'

75'

N

E

S

W

553'

400'

(5740', 1200')

Barn #1

Barn #2 Barn #3

Barn #4



Table 7. Physical dimensionsof the barns at Dairy #2.

CowBarn

Length(feet)

Width(feet)

Height(feet)

Barn #1 108 36 22

Barn #2 136 32 21

Barn #3 76 46 23

Barn #4 62 46 23

Dairy #3

Dairy #3 is assumed to house all of its 720 cows

in a single barn. The physical characteristics of

the barn are provided in Table 8. The barn was

modeled as a line source with two subsources.

Manure is assumed to be stored in a crust-covered

basin with a length of 180 ft, a width of 90 ft, and

an operational depth of 10 ft. The modeled loca-

tions of the barn and the basin are provided in

Figure 6.

Table 8. Physical dimensionsof the barn at Dairy #3.

CowBarn

Length(feet)

Width(feet)

Height(feet)

Barn #1 260 80 27

215'310'

135'

485'

350'

60'

605'

880'

(7953', -2607')

Barn #1

Manure

Basin

N

E

S

W


Gas Emission Rates

Dairy Freestall Barns

The freestall barns at the expanded Evers Dairy

and the cow barns at the neighboring three dairies

were modeled as sources of odor, hydrogen sul-

fide, and ammonia. The estimated odor emission

rates for the dairy barns assumed a constant emis-

sion flux rate of 1.34 OU•m3/(m2•sec).21 A con-

stant flux of 0.45 �g H2S/m2/sec was used to

characterize the hydrogen sulfide emissions from

each dairy barn.22


21 Gay S. W. et al. 2003. Odor, total reduced sulfur, and ammonia emissions from animal housing facilities and ma-nure storage units in Minnesota. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 19(3): 347-360.

22 Clark P. C. and McQuitty J. B. 1987. Air quality in six Alberta commercial free-stall dairy barns. Canadian Agri-cultural Engineering 29(1): 77-80.

The ammonia emission rates for the freestall

barns were based on the “stable + manure” am-

monia emission factor of 12.87 kg NH3/cow/year

for lactating cows and 3.87 kg NH3/cow/year for

dry cows.23 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). Hence,

the expected ammonia emissions for each dairy

were assigned to its freestall barns. Any modeled

ammonia emissions assigned to a manure storage

basin represented an excess beyond the expected

total site ammonia emissions. To account for the

reported temperature effects on ammonia emis-

sions, the annual ammonia emission rates were

multiplied by monthly scalars developed by the

MPCA.

Dairy Basins

The two basins at the Evers Dairy and the one

basin at Dairy #3 were modeled as sources of hy-

drogen sulfide, ammonia, 12 volatile odorous or-

ganic compounds (VOOCs), and odor. The two

Evers basins were modeled as crust-free basins,

while the Dairy #3 basin was assumed to have a

1-inch thick crust. The BasinOdor algorithms es-

timated the hourly hydrogen sulfide, ammonia,

and VOOC emissions from manure storage basins

based on manure chemistry provided in Table 9.

The estimated noon-hour water temperatures for

the Evers manure storage basin using the 1987

weather data are provided in Figure 7. To illus-

trate the range and variability in the hourly emis-

sions, the estimated 1987 noon-hour emission flux

rates for hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and

n-butyric acid are provided in Figures 8, 9, and

10, respectively.

For the two crust-free basins at the expanded

Evers Dairy, the odor emission rates were based

on an odor flux of 6.33 OU•m3/(m2•sec) for the

sand collection basin and 5.07 OU•m3/(m2•sec)

for the manure storage basin.24 These emission

flux rates reflect low air velocities at the liquid

surface. To account for the effect of wind velocity

on odor emission rates, the emission flux rates

were multiplied by the scalars plotted in

Figure 11.25,26 For the crust-covered manure basin

at Dairy #3, a constant odor flux of

8.7 OU•m3/(m2•sec) was assumed.27

Table 9. Chemical characteristics of dairymanure storage basins.

Parameter Units Value

pH -log10[H+] 7.8

Volatile Acids mg HOAc/L 3,750

Phenolics mg/L 6.0

Sulfide mg S/L 1.3

Ammonia mg N/L 856


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

24 Gay S. W. et al. 2003. Odor, total reduced sulfur, and ammonia emissions from animal housing facilities and ma-nure storage units in Minnesota. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 19(3): 347-360.

25 Schmidt D. R., Bicudo J. R., and Janni K. A. 1999. Determining odor emissions from manure surfaces using a wind tunnel. ASAE Paper No. 99-4033. St. Joseph, MI.

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

27 Gay S. W. et al. 2003. Odor, total reduced sulfur, and ammonia emissions from animal housing facilities and ma-nure storage units in Minnesota. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 19(3): 347-360. This flux is the geometric mean odor flux for all listed earthen storage basins for dairy cows.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

BasinTemperature (°C)

Julian Day

Figure 7. Estimated 1987 noon-hour tem-peratures for the Evers manure storage basin.

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

H2S Flux

[g/(m2•day)]

Julian Day

Figure 8. Estimated 1987 noon-hour hydro-gen sulfide flux rates for the Evers manure storage basin.

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

NH3 Flux

[g/(m2•day)]

Julian Day

Figure 9. Estimated 1987 noon-hour am-monia flux rates for the Evers manure stor-age basin.

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Butyric Acid Flux

[mg/(m22•day)]

Julian Day

Figure 10. Estimated 1987 noon-hour n-butyric acid flux rates for the Evers manure storage basin.


0

5

10

15

20

0 4 8 12 16

Odor FluxScalar

Wind Velocity(meter/second)

Figure 11. Basin odor emission flux scalars as a function of wind velocity for crust-free basins.

Hydrogen Sulfide at Property Lines and Neighbors

The CALPUFF results suggest that the ex-

panded Evers Dairy will comply with the Minne-

sota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen

sulfide. The estimated maximum hourly property-

line concentrations for the expanded feedlot are

provided in Table 10. When a background con-

centration of 17 ppb (v/v) is added to the

CALPUFF-generated concentrations, the maxi-

mum effective property-line hydrogen sulfide

concentration is 22.82 ppb, which is below the

standard of 30 ppb.

The maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly

hydrogen sulfide concentrations (without back-

ground) are plotted in Figure 12. The plotted

3-ppb concentration isopleth overestimates the

maximum extent of detectable hydrogen sulfide

odors without background, because the reported

odor threshold concentration for hydrogen sulfide

is 3.7 ppb (Table 2). Figure 12 suggests that the

hydrogen sulfide emissions from the expanded

Evers Dairy can generate detectable off-site con-

centrations of hydrogen sulfide.

Table 10. Maximum hourly property-line hydrogen sulfide concentrations.

EffectiveProperty Line

H2SConcentration

WithoutBackground(ppb, v/v)

H2SConcentrationWith a 17 ppb Background(ppb, v/v)

Northwest 3.02 20.02

North 5.82 22.82

East 2.28 19.28

South 2.73 19.73

West 3.53 20.53

3813

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2

Northh/SouthDistance (miles)

East/West Distance (miles)

Figure 12. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly hydrogen sulfide concentrations in ppb (v/v) for the expanded Evers Dairy and the three neighboring dairies. The contour lines represent 3, 8, and 13 ppb (v/v) of hy-drogen sulfide. The plotted concentrations do not include the 17-ppb background hy-drogen sulfide concentration. The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 10.


The CALPUFF results also suggest that the

combined emissions from the expanded Evers

Dairy and the three neighboring dairies will not

cause exceedences of the subchronic hydrogen

sulfide iHRV at 34 of the dairies'’ nearest resi-

dences. When a background concentration of

1.00 �g/m3 is added to the CALPUFF-generated

concentrations, the maximum 13-week

hydrogen sulfide concentration for a neighbor is

1.26 �g/m3, which is below the subchronic iHRV

for hydrogen sulfide of 10 �g/m3. The estimated

maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sul-

fide concentrations for each of the modeled near-

est neighbors are provided in Table 11.


Table 11. Maximum 13-week hydrogen sulfide concentrations for neighbors.

Neighbor

H2SConcentration

WithoutBackground

(�g/m3)

H2SConcentrationWith a 1 �g/m3

Background(�g/m3)

AA 0.01 1.01

AB 0.01 1.01

AC 0.03 1.03

AD 0.06 1.06

AE 0.03 1.03

AF 0.26 1.26

AG 0.03 1.03

AH 0.04 1.04

AI 0.03 1.03

AJ 0.03 1.03

AK 0.02 1.02

AL 0.01 1.01

AM 0.01 1.01

AN 0.02 1.02

AO 0.01 1.01

AP 0.07 1.07

AQ 0.05 1.05

AR 0.06 1.06

AS 0.01 1.01

AT 0.01 1.01

AU 0.01 1.01

AV 0.01 1.01

AW 0.01 1.01

AX 0.02 1.02

AY 0.01 1.01

AZ 0.01 1.01

BA 0.01 1.01

BB 0.01 1.01

BC 0.06 1.06

BD 0.03 1.03

BE 0.05 1.05

BF 0.02 1.02

BG 0.02 1.02

BH 0.02 1.02

Ammonia at Property Lines and Neighbors

The CALPUFF-generated maximum hourly

property-line ammonia concentrations are pro-

vided in Table 12. The maximum effective

property-line concentration with a background

concentration of 148 �g/m3 is 767 �g/m3, which

is below the acute iHRV for ammonia of

3,200 �g/m3. Thus, the modeling results suggest

that the expanded Evers Dairy will not result in

exceedences of the acute ammonia iHRV.

Table 12. Maximum hourly property-lineammonia concentrations.


NH3

ConcentrationWithout

Background(�g/m3)

NH3

ConcentrationWith a

148 �g/m3 Background

(�g/m3)

Northwest 619 767

North 542 690

East 286 434

South 306 454

West 449 597


ammonia concentrations (without background)

are plotted in Figure 13. The reported odor

threshold concentration for ammonia is

1,067 �g/m3 or 1,500 ppb v/v (Table 2). The plot-

ted 1,000-�g/m3 isopleth overestimates the maxi-

mum extent of detectable ammonia odors. Fig-

ure 13 and Table 12 suggest that detectable am-

monia concentrations will be confined to the ef-

fective property lines of the expanded Evers

Dairy.


5001,000

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2

North/SouthDistance (miles)


Figure 13. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly ammonia concentration in �g/m3 for the expanded Evers Dairy and the three neighboring dairies. The contour lines represent 500 and 1,500 �g/m3 of ammonia. The plotted concentrations do not include the 148 �g/m3 background ammonia concentration. The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 10.

The CALPUFF results also suggest that the

combined emissions from the expanded Evers

Dairy and the three neighboring dairies will not

cause exceedences of the chronic ammonia iHRV

at the 34 nearest neighbors. The highest annual

ammonia concentration for a neighbor with a

background concentration of 5.72 �g/m3 is

13.84 �g/m3, which is below the chronic ammo-

nia iHRV of 80 �g/m3. The maximum annual

ammonia concentrations for each of the modeled

nearest neighbors are provided in Table 13.

Table 13. Maximum annual ammoniaconcentrations for neighbors.

Neighbor

NH3

ConcentrationWithout

Background(�g/m3)

NH3

ConcentrationWith a

5.72 �g/m3 Background

(�g/m3)

AA 0.30 6.02

AB 0.35 6.07

AC 0.86 6.58

AD 1.42 7.14

AE 0.66 6.38

AF 7.19 12.91

AG 0.82 6.54

AH 1.09 6.81

AI 1.04 6.76

AJ 1.06 6.78

AK 0.50 6.22

AL 0.36 6.08

AM 0.51 6.23

AN 0.56 6.28

AO 0.43 6.15

AP 2.07 7.79

AQ 1.22 6.94

AR 6.30 12.02

AS 0.34 6.06

AT 0.19 5.91

AU 0.25 5.97

AV 0.27 5.99

AW 0.27 5.99

AX 0.48 6.20

AY 0.44 6.16

AZ 0.46 6.18

BA 0.60 6.32

BB 0.88 6.60

BC 3.31 9.03

BD 1.36 7.08

BE 8.12 13.84

BF 1.12 6.84

BG 0.60 6.32

BH 1.09 6.81


Odorous Gases at Property Lines and Neighbors

The CALPUFF modeling effort estimated the

atmospheric concentrations of selected odorous

gases at the effective property lines for the ex-

panded Evers Dairy and at 34 of the dairy’s near-

est neighbors. The maximum property-line con-

centrations for the 6 gases with the highest con-

centrations relative to their odor threshold con-

centration are provided in Figure 14. The highest

property-line concentrations are for ammonia

(866 ppb, without background), hydrogen sulfide

(5.82 ppb, without background), para-cresol

(4.62 ppb), propanoic acid (0.04 ppb), n-butyric

acid (0.02 ppb), and n-valeric acid (0.01 ppb).

The corresponding odor numbers for the maxi-

mum effective property-line concentrations are

provided in Figure 15. The gases with an odor

number greater than 0.1 were para-cresol (18.5),

hydrogen sulfide (1.6), and ammonia (0.6). Popu-

lation response curves suggest that 100 percent of

the population could detect the estimated maxi-

mum property-line para-cresol concentration,

75 percent the hydrogen sulfide concentration,

and 21 percent the ammonia concentration.

Pro

pa

no

ic

Acid

Bu

tyric

Acid

Va

leric

Acid

pa

ra-

Cre

so

l

Hyd

rog

en

Su

lfid

e

Am

mo

nia

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

GasConcentration

(ppb, v/v)

Figure 14. Maximum hourly effective property-line concentrations.

Pro

pa

no

ic

Acid

Bu

tyric

Acid

Va

leric

Acid

pa

ra-

Cre

so

l

Hyd

rog

en

Su

lfid

e

Am

mo

nia

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

OdorNumber

Figure 15. Maximum hourly effective property-line odor numbers.

The estimated maximum hourly nearest-

neighbor concentrations for the 6 gases with high-

est concentrations relative to their odor threshold

concentration are provided in Figure 16. The

highest maximum estimated hourly concentra-

tions were for ammonia (577 ppb, without back-

ground), hydrogen sulfide (2.36 ppb, without

background), para-cresol (1.99 ppb), propanoic

acid (0.02 ppb), n-butyric acid (0.01 ppb), and

n-valeric acid (0.00 ppb).

The calculated odor numbers corresponding to

the maximum hourly concentrations are provided

in Figure 17. The individual gases with an odor

number greater than 0.1 were para-cresol (8.0),

hydrogen sulfide (0.6), and ammonia (0.4). The

other modeled gases are assumed to be non-

detectable, because their individual odor numbers

were less than 0.1. Population response curves

suggest that 99 percent of the population could

detect the estimated maximum neighbor para-

cresol concentration, 26 percent the hydrogen sul-

fide concentration, and 9 percent the ammonia

concentration. The population response curves

assume the presence of individual gases.


Pro

pa

no

ic

Acid

Bu

tyric

Acid

Va

leric

Acid

pa

ra-

Cre

so

l

Hyd

rog

en

Su

lfid

e

Am

mo

nia

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

GasConcentration

(ppb, v/v)

Figure 16. Maximum hourly concentrations at neighboring residences.

Pro

pa

no

ic

Acid

Bu

tyric

Acid

Va

leric

Acid

pa

ra-

Cre

so

l

Hyd

rog

en

Su

lfid

e

Am

mo

nia

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

OdorNumber

Figure 17. Maximum hourly odor numbers at neighboring residences .

Total VOOCs at North Property Line and Neighbor AP

The empirical Zahn correlation relates the total

gas-phase volatile odorous organic compound

(VOOC) concentrations for the gases emitted

from manure storage facilities to the perceived

odor intensity as determined by odor panels. The

sum of the individual maximum VOOC concen-

trations from the CALPUFF modeling effort was

multiplied by 1.18 to account for all of the VOOC

gases included in the Zahn correlation. As indi-

cated in Figure 18, the maximum VOOC concen-

trations (with the 1.18 correction) obtained from

the CALPUFF modeling effort are 27.4 �g/m3 for

the expanded Evers Dairy’s north property line

and 11.8 �g/m3 for Neighbor AP.

1

3

5

7

9

0.1 1 10 100 1,000 10,000

OdorIntensity

Total VOOC Concentraation (�g/m3)

Zahn

North

Property-Line

Neighbor AP

Unbearable

Very Unpleasant

Unpleasant

Neutral

Pleasant

Figure 18. Comparison of CALPUFF-generated maximum hourly total VOOC concentrations for the expanded Evers Dairy’s north property line and for the modeled location of Neighbor AP.

The Zahn correlation suggests that a total

VOOC concentration of about 10 �g/m3 corre-

sponds to a detectable but “neutral” odor intensity.

Total VOOC concentrations have to exceed about

70 �g/m3 before the odor intensity is “unpleas-

ant.” At the expanded Evers Dairy’s north

property-line, the maximum CALPUFF-generated

total VOOC concentration is 2.6 times less than

the total VOOC concentration associated with

“unpleasant” odor intensities. At the modeled

Neighbor-AP location, the maximum CALPUFF-

generated total VOOC concentration is 5.9 times

less than the total VOOC concentration associated

with “unpleasant” odor intensities. Thus, the

CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the ex-

panded dairy’s property-lines and nearest neigh-

bors will not be subjected to unpleasant odors

from the three modeled earthen manure basins.


total VOOC concentrations (with the 1.18 correc-

tion factor) are plotted in Figure 19. The Zahn

correlation suggests that a total VOOC concentra-

tion of about 10 �g/m3 can be considered as the

odor detection threshold. Figure 19 suggests that


detectable total VOOC concentrations (greater

than 10 �g/m3) will exist off site.

10

50

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2



Figure 19. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly total VOOC concentrations in �g/m3 from the earthen basins at the expanded Evers Dairy and Dairy #3. The contour lines represent total VOOC concentrations of 10, 30, 50, and 70 �g/m3. The plotted concen-trations include the 1.18 correction factor. The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 10.

Odor Intensities at Property Lines and Neighbors

The CALPUFF modeling estimated the ground-

level odor intensities at the expanded Evers

Dairy’s effective property lines and at the dairy’s

neighbors. As indicated in Table 14, the maximum

hourly odor intensity at the expanded dairy’s ef-

fective property lines is 186 odor units (OU). The

maximum frequency at which the property-line

CALPUFF-generated odor intensities exceeded

the “faint” odor threshold of 83 OU is 0.36 per-

cent of the time.


Table 14. Maximum hourly effective property-line odor intensities and the frequency at

which the “faint” odor threshold of 83 OU is equaled or exceeded.


MaximumHourlyOdor

Intensity(OU, d/t)

Frequency at Which the

“Faint” Odor Threshold is

Exceeded(percent)

Northwest 109 0.07

North 186 0.36

East 78 0.00

South 97 0.00

West 109 0.02

Figure 20 indicates that “moderate” and

stronger odors can are confined to the immediate

vicinity of expanded dairy’s barns and basins. De-

tectable “faint” odors can exist off site. The fre-

quencies (percent of the time) at which the

CALPUFF-generated odor intensities exceeded

the “faint” odor threshold of 83 OU are provided

in Figure 21. The modeling suggests that the fre-

quency at which “faint” odors would occur off

site is less than 1 percent of the time.

The CALPUFF-generated ground-level odor

intensities at the expanded dairy’s neighbors are

provided in Table 15. The estimated maximum

nearest-neighbor odor intensity is 70 OU, which

is below the 83-OU threshold for “faint” odors.

Thus, the modeling suggests that the expanded

dairy and the three neighboring dairies will create

odor intensities at the nearest neighbors that ap-

proach, but do not exceed, the threshold for

“faint” odors.

80

240

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2


East/Wesst Distance (miles)

Figure 20. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly odor intensities for the expanded Evers Dairy and the three neighboring dairies. The threshold for “faint” odors is 83 OU and for “moderate” odors is 244 OU (Table 3). The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 10.

0.1%

1.0%10.0%

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2


East/Wesst Distance (miles)

Figure 21. Percent of time at which mod-eled odor intensities are greater than or equal to the threshold for “faint” odors (83 OU). The contour lines represent 0.1, 1.0, and 10.0 percent of the time. The point (0, 0) is the southwest corner of Section 10.


Table 15. Maximum nearest-neighbor odor in-tensities and the frequency at which the

“faint” odor threshold of 83 OU is exceeded.

Property Line

MaximumHourlyOdor

Intensity(OU, d/t)

Frequency at Which the

“Faint” Odor Threshold is

Exceeded(percent)

AA 11 0

AB 14 0

AC 30 0

AD 43 0

AE 16 0

AF 70 0

AG 25 0

AH 43 0

AI 45 0

AJ 50 0

AK 15 0

AL 11 0

AM 28 0

AN 26 0

AO 17 0

AP 69 0

AQ 39 0

AR 38 0

AS 31 0

AT 11 0

AU 16 0

AV 14 0

AW 11 0

AX 17 0

AY 16 0

AZ 14 0

BA 13 0

BB 11 0

BC 27 0

BD 21 0

BE 27 0

BF 14 0

BG 13 0

BH 11 0

Summary

The CALPUFF modeling results suggest that

the expanded Evers Dairy will comply with the

ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide.

The CALPUFF results also suggest that the ex-

panded dairy and the three neighboring dairies

will not create exceedences of the subchronic

iHRV for hydrogen sulfide, the acute iHRV for

ammonia, and the chronic iHRV for ammonia.

The CALPUFF modeling results indicate that de-

tectable odors can exist beyond the expanded

dairy’s effective property lines. However, the es-

timated maximum concentration of total VOOCs

for the modeled neighbor locations is 5.9 times

less than the threshold concentration associated

with unpleasant odors. Also, the modeled odor

intensities at the nearest neighbors are less than

the threshold for “faint” odors.


Attachment K

Attachment L

Cumulative Potential Effects Analysis – Evers Dairy

LEGEND Manure Acres _____ Zumbro River Native Plant Species Known Karst Locations _____ Waterway Other Facilities (feedlots) ____Sub Watersheds

Attachment M

evers dairy expansion environmental assessment … · evers dairy expansion environmental...

Documents