Jensen Family Farms Feedlots Environmental Assessment

p-ear2-66a

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 preparers: This form is authorized for use only for the preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) for animal feedlots. Project Proposers should consult the guidance Guidelines for Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots (also available at the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) website http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/review.html or by calling 651-201-2476) regarding how to supply information needed by the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) to complete the worksheet form. 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 651-757-2101. An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA website http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html#open-eaw. 1. Basic project information.

A. Feedlot Name: Jensen Family Farms Feedlots B.

Feedlot Proposer:

Jensen Family Farms

C.

RGU:

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Technical

Contact Person Nick McCabe

Contact Person

Charles Peterson

and Title

Environmental Scientist

and Title

Principal Planner

Address 115 E Hickory St Suite 300 Address 520 Lafayette Road North Mankato, MN 56001 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 Phone 507-387-6651 Phone 651-757-2856 Fax 507-387-3583 Fax 651-297-8683 E-mail [email protected] E-mail [email protected]

D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)

EIS Scoping

Mandatory EAW

X

Citizen Petition

RGU Discretion

Proposer Volunteered

If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule

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

http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/review.html

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

Jensen Family Farms Feedlots Environmental Assessment Bath Township, Freeborn County, Minnesota 2 Worksheet

E. Project Location: County Freeborn City/Twp Bath Township SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 17 Township 104N Range 21W SE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section 18 Watershed (name and 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code):

Le Sueur River (07020011), County Ditch #46

F. Attach each of the following to the EAW:

Attachment A: County map showing the general location of the project Attachment B: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale topographic map Attachment C: Site Plan Attachment D: Soil Survey Map Attachment E: Well Map Attachment F: Hydrology Features Map Attachment G: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Natural Heritage Database

Review Correspondence Attachment H: State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) Correspondence Attachment I: Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Correspondence Attachment J: Cumulative Potential Effects Map showing neighboring permitted feedlots Attachment K: MDNR Preliminary Well Assessment Attachment L: Air Quality Modeling Report

The National Pollutnat Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit and required attachments (Manure Management Plan, Air Emissions and Odor Management Plan, Emergency Response Plan, Operation and Maintenance Plan, and Animal Mortality Plan) have been submitted to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Rochester office. Contact Paul Brietzke in the Rochester office at 507-206-2616 to review this information.

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

Jensen Family Farms (Proposer) proposes to add one wean-to-finish hog barn including 2,400 wean-to-finish hogs (720 animal units (AUs)) in Section 18 of Bath Township in Freeborn County, Minnesota. An existing barn is on-site that also houses 2,400 wean-to-finish hogs (720 AUs) in total confinement (4,800 hog/1,440 AU total site capacity). Additionally, J&J Family Farms proposes to add two wean-to-finish hog barns including 4,800 wean-to-finish hogs (1,440 animal units) in Section 17 of Bath Township. The Proposer anticipates having up to 50 beef cattle in pasture. Upon completion of the project, the feedlots will house 9,600 wean-to-finish hogs for a total of 2,880 AUs at the two sites.

H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested data: Table 1. Number of animals proposed

Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Finishing hogs 7,200 head Total Confinement Beef cattle ≤50 Pasture


I. Project magnitude data:

Total acreage of farm: 160 Acres (20 acres of feedlot sites, 10 acres of residences, 130 acres of manure application fields)

Number of animal units proposed in this project: 2,210 Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: 2,880 Acreage required for manure application: 1,300 Acres

J. Describe construction methods and timing.

Construction is anticipated to begin in summer 2014, after all permits have been received, and be completed by fall 2014. Three 51-foot by 400-foot barns will be constructed. The barns will consist of concrete stem walls, wood stud walls and rafters, concrete floors with slats over manure storage, and a metal roof. Manure will be stored in an eight-foot deep, engineered concrete pit underneath each barn.

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.

This project includes the addition of one hog barn to the Proposer’s existing feedlot operation (Jensen Family Farms LLC) consisting of 2,400 wean-to-finish hogs (720 AU) and two hog barns on a new site (J&J Family Farms LLC) consisting of 4,800 wean-to-finish hogs (1,440 AU). Additionally, the Proposer anticipates having up to 50 beef cattle in pasture (Note: Animals on Pasture are not included in the feedlot permit). There have been no previous environmental reviews on either site. The project Proposer currently has a Freeborn County Feedlot Permit (FREE-11-01) and a Certificate of Compliance from the MPCA. The total number of AUs will increase by 2,210 AUs, totaling in 2,880 AUs on both sites. All barns are total confinement with engineered concrete manure storage pits beneath the barns. The dimensions and number of existing and proposed barns are listed in the following table: Table 2. Proposed and Existing Barns.

Barn Barn Dimensions (ft.) Number of animals Animal Units Existing 51 x 392 2,400 hogs 720 Proposed 51 x 400 2,400 hogs 720 Proposed 51 x 400 2,400 hogs 720 Proposed 51 x 400 2,400 hogs 720 Site Total -------------------- 9,600 hogs 2,880

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. There are no schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing units, places of worship, or other


publicly accessible places within one mile of the feedlot with the exception of a cemetery located approximately 3/4-mile east of the northern feedlot. There are currently 22 rural residences within one mile of the feedlots. The closest residence to the southern feedlot is located approximately 1/3-mile to the south with 2 other residences located within 1/2-mile. Two residences are equally close to the northern feedlot, each approximately 1/3-mile away. One residence is located directly north on County Hwy 20/740th Avenue, while the other is located to the southeast on 315th Street. The access road for the southern feedlot is 310th Street. 315th Street provides access the northern feedlot. Both roads are located directly south of the respective sites. The area surrounding both feedlot sites is zoned for agricultural land use and is primarily utilized for crop production. The feedlot is located approximately four miles east of the city of Hartland. There are no schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing units, places of worship, or other publicly accessible places within or directly adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites. There are two rural residences owned by the Proposer/Proposer’s family located within the manure application fields as well as one rural residence adjacent to the northern manure application field, located south of 315th Street and separated from the field by the roadway. The area surrounding both manure application fields is zoned for agricultural land use and utilized for crop production. There are no other public facilities adjacent to the manure application fields. Refer to Attachment E to view residences and public roads adjacent to the feedlots and manure application sites.

B. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to any of the following

adopted plans or ordinances? Check all that apply:

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

Is there anything about the proposed feedlot that is not consistent with any provision of any ordinance or plan checked? Yes No. If yes, describe the inconsistency and how it will be resolved.

The majority of Freeborn County is zoned for agriculture. The area of the proposed project in Bath Township is zoned for agriculture. The Proposer will need a Freeborn County Feedlot Permit. According to the Freeborn County Feedlot and Manure Management Ordinance, feedlots containing 10 AUs or more require a feedlot permit. This proposed expansion is compatible with the Freeborn County Zoning and Feedlot and Manure Management Ordinances1.

Because the feedlots will house greater than 1,000 AUs, an NPDES Permit will be obtained along with a Freeborn County Condition Use Permit. An Animal Feedlot Operation and Maintenance Plan, Manure Management Plan, Air Emissions Plan, Animal Mortality Plan, and Emergency Response Plan were completed and included in the NPDES application.

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

1 Freeborn County Zoning and Feedlot and Manure Management Ordinances. Available Online at: http://www.co.freeborn.mn.us/180/Ordinances.

http://www.co.freeborn.mn.us/180/Ordinances


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. The majority of Bath Township is zoned as an agricultural district. Permitted uses under the agricultural district include feedlots and feedlot expansions. The feedlot cannot be located closer than one mile from any incorporated municipal boundary or the unincorporated boundaries of Gordonsville, London, Maple Island, or Oakland. The proposed project sites are located approximately four miles east of Hartland and approximately four miles northwest of Clarks Grove. No other areas in Bath Township are planned or zoned for future uses that might be incompatible with a feedlot.

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

· Drinking Water Supply Management Areas designated by the Minnesota Department of Health? Yes No

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

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

· Scenic views and vistas? Yes No · Other unique resources? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Refer to attached Attachments G, H, and, I to review correspondence from the Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) regarding nearby resources. Drinking Water Supply Management Areas & Public Water Supply Wells There are no Drinking Water Supply Management Areas or Public Water Supply wells located within a two mile radius of the proposed feedlot sites according to correspondence with the MDH (Attachment I). There are approximately 23 domestic and/or test wells that MDH is aware of within two miles of the feedlot site. There are no other delineated wellhead protection areas or special well construction areas in proximity to the feedlot sites.


Table 3. Wells within two miles of the Feedlot Sites. Well Name (unique ID #) Distance from Feedlot Sites (miles)

Fornberg, Paul (152839) 0.07 Bengston, Keith (413072) 0.13 Christenson, Ray M. (547201) 0.27 Olsen, Orville (139082) 0.31 Thostenson, Willie (226473) 0.48 Thostenson, Russell (168389) 0.71 Thostenson, Wilfred (166657) 0.83 Wallin, Mike (501436) 0.84 Carlyle, Johnson (132513) 0.86 *Jenson, Ronald BA-1 (134877) 0.98 Groenweg, Jon (415399) 1.07 Walsh, Kevin (730790) 1.30 Sorlis, Herman (415325) 1.33 Bartness, Delores (139570) 1.46 Brink, Chester (226485) 1.63 Peters, Irene (226476) 1.71 Beckmann, Glen (559926) 1.74 *Eastvold HL-1 (213512) 1.85 Norske Farms (213168) 1.93 Hocrler, Al (442254) 1.96 Eastvold, Trygve (226474) 1.98 Hansen, Darrin (562728) 2.00 Newgard Brothers (459914) 2.01

*Test Wells No domestic wells are within 300 feet of the manure spreading areas other than those owned by the Proposer/Proposer’s family. Best management practices will be used and setbacks (see Question 4) followed when applying manure. There are no other delineated wellhead protection areas or special well construction areas nearby the manure application fields. Archaeological, Historical, or Architectural Resources According to correspondence from SHPO (Attachment H), the Seventh Day Adventist Church is listed in the History/Architecture Inventory and is located in the NW-NE-SE 1/4 of Section 17 of Bath Township. This is located approximately 1/3-mile east of the north manure application field as seen on Attachment B – United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic map and is a cemetery. It is not anticipated that the cemetery will experience any adverse effects as a result of this project. There are no other documented archaeological, historical, or architectural resources in the vicinity of the project.


3. Geologic and soil conditions.

A. Table 4. Groundwater and bedrock depths Approximate depth (in

feet) to: South Feedlot/ Manure

Storage Area North Feedlot/ Manure

Storage Area Manure Application Sites

Ground Water (average minimum)

1.4 4.6 3.9

(average) 3.0 4.8 4.5 Bedrock (minimum) 203 207 204

(average) 203 207 204

B. NRCS Soil Table 5. Soils present at feedlot sites

Site Feedlot/Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites

New Site Nicolett clay loam, Lester loam, Glencoe clay loam See Below Existing Site Webster clay loam, Lester Loam See Below

Soil and groundwater data was acquired from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of Freeborn County, Minnesota by utilizing the USDA Web Soil Survey seasonal high water table values. Bedrock depth was acquired from the Minnesota Geological Survey2. More information, including soil maps, can be referenced in the Nutrient Management Plan (NMP), available for review at the MPCA, Rochester Office. Soils at the manure application fields are listed below:

Table 6. Soil map unit symbols and names (refer to Attachment C)

Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name 86 Canisteo clay loam

112 Harps clay loam 113 Webster clay loam 114 Glencoe clay loam 130 Nicollet clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 130 Nicollet clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 239 Le Sueur loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 350 Canisteo clay loam, depressional 524 Caron muck

106B Lester loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 106C2 Lester loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded

North Manure Application Field - Sec 17-104N-21W Soils in this application area are Caron muck, Nicollet clay loam, Webster Clay loam, Lester clay loam, Glencoe clay loam, and Le Sueur loam.

South Manure Application Field - Sec 18-104N-21W

2 Lively, R.S., Bauer, E.J., and Chandler, V.M. January 2006. Maps of Gridded Bedrock in Minnesota (GIS File). Minnesota Geological Survey Open File Report OFR2006_02.


Canisteo clay loam, Webster clay loam, Glencoe clay loam, Nicollet clay loam, Le Sueur loam, Lester loam, and Caron muck. 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. Table 7. Potential geologic hazards

Hazard Feedlot/Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Karst features (sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley) No No Exposed bedrock No No Soils developed in bedrock (as shown on soils maps) 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. NA

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. There is one well that services the existing feedlot which will continue to be used to service both barns at the south feedlot site. This well is located approximately 125 feet south of the existing barn. A new well will be required to service the barns at the north feedlot. Each feedlot is estimated to use approximately 6.1 million gallons of water annually. See Item 11 for additional discussion of water use.

According to the University of Minnesota Extension Services, wean-to-finish hog operations require 3 to 4 gallons of water per hog per day. Therefore, 3.5 gallons per day multiplied by 4,800 hogs (total at both locations) plus 25 cattle, was used to obtain water appropriation estimations. The total water use at the existing site is anticipated to double, resulting in a total water use of approximately 16,870 gallons per day (6.1 million gallons annually) after the project completion. As a result of the proposed expansion, the Proposer will need to submit an individual water appropriation permit application to the MDNR.

The service life of hog barns is approximately 25 years, which translates to a total water consumption of approximately 153 million gallons over the life of the project. However, it should be noted the existing barn was constructed in 2011 and therefore the barn is three years old.

The MDNR was contacted and a Preliminary Well Assessment (PWA) was completed for the proposed


well (see Attachment K). The PWA gives preliminary approval to construct the well. However, the PWA does indicate that there are wetlands identified in the National Wetland Inventory and public waters located within 1.5 miles of the proposed well, which may require submittal of additional information to ascertain anticipated impacts to these features prior to a water appropriation permit being issued.

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

A perimeter drain will be installed around the foundation of the proposed hog barns to dewater the soil and reduce hydro-static pressure on the walls of the pits. No contaminated water will be discharged through the tile. The perimeter tile drains and connects to existing field drainage tile. Feedlot operators are required to do a monthly examination of the monitoring port or drain tile outlet for water flow and signs of discoloration or odor in any water flowing in the drain tile.

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

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

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

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

5. Manure management.

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

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

B. Manure collection, handling, and storage.

Quantities of manure generated: total ~3,033,120 gallons by species 1 Swine

Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle Twice per year

(~180 days) Total days per year 40


Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled (including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot: Manure and wastewater is currently and will be stored in engineered concrete pits underneath each barn. The pits are designed to have a 12-month storage capacity. The annual quantity of manure generated at the site will be approximately 3,033,120 gallons. The manure storage capacity is 3,936,000 gallons. An Operation and Maintenance Plan will be followed to prevent overfilling of the manure pit or runoff into surface waters. Manure will be agitated prior to removal from the pits and then pumped and hauled in a tanker to the manure application fields.

C. Manure utilization.

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

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

In order to fully utilize the manure produced at this facility as a fertilizer resource, it will be applied to cropland in the surrounding area. In the spring and fall, manure will be agitated in the pits, pumped into a tanker, and applied with disc injectors into the soil at agronomic rates and in accordance with NMP). There are two known manure application sites proposed as shown on Attachment C, both of which are rented by the Proposer. The remaining manure is sold and used by other farmers. Manure applications will be rotated from field to field each year, as needed, to accommodate crop rotations. Table 8. Manure Application Sites

Manure Application Site Name Size (acres) Ownership Status North Field 65 Rent South Field 65 Rent

Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized when transportation of animal manure is executed to prevent manure from leaking, spilling, or otherwise being deposited on a public roadway. In such an instance where manure is deposited on a public roadway, it will be removed and properly disposed of by the hauler of the manure according to the Emergency Management Plan (can be obtain upon request), in accordance with Minn. R. 7020.

Prior to, or at the time of manure transfer, the Permittee must provide the manure recipient with a description of minimum state requirements for manure application the most current manure nutrient analysis. Where manure ownership is transferred for application to fields not owned, leased, or rented by the Permittee, the Permittee must keep the following records for a period of six years: the total amount of each manure source from the facility that was sold or given away (in gallons or tons); the date(s) of manure transfer to other parties; the results of the manure nutrient analyses for each source of manure from the facility; the name and address of any commercial applicator or other person(s) who received the manure, including a signature indicating that the recipient received a copy of the state manure application requirements; the location where the manure was applied; and the rate(s) of application (in tons per acre or gallons per acre).


The recipient of the manure must provide the Permittee, within 60 days of receiving the manure, who applied the manure, their address, their commercial applicator license number, the location of the fields receiving the manure, and the application rate of the manure.

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 For manure that is transferred to another party, the Proposer does not make decisions regarding the crop rotation, nutrient planning, or manure application timing or rate. It is the responsibility of the party receiving the manure to ensure manure is applied at agronomic rates and BMPs are utilized. The manure applied by the Proposer will follow the NMP, agronomic rates based on nitrogen and phosphorus, and BMPs. A total of 130 acres of manure application sites are farmed by the Proposer. The crop rotation, nutrient planning, and manure application rate can be obtained upon request. The agronomic rate will be based on the type of crop produced, yield goals, soil type, and nutrient content of the manure. According to the NMP, the annual manure produced will be 3,033,120 gallons, consisting of 193,880 lbs of nitrogen, 95,040 lbs of phosphorus, and 126,880 lbs of potassium. Manure testing will occur annually prior to application to determine accurate application rates. Soil sampling at manure application sites includes testing for organic matter, pH, phosphorous, and potassium will be conducted at least once every four years. Testing for residual nitrate is recommended annually. Application equipment will be calibrated and maintained to ensure manure application rates do not exceed projected rates by more than 15 percent.

3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. After the proposed expansion, the manure storage basins under the hog barns will hold a combined total of 3,936,000 gallons of manure for 365 days (12 months), with the new manure pits holding 2,952,000 gallons. According to the NMP, the annual manure production is expected to be 3,033,120 gallons. This shows there is excess storage to reduce overfill or the need for emergency winter application. Also, to prevent the need for emergency winter application, manure pits will be emptied two times a year, in the spring and in the fall, to ensure enough room for winter manure accumulation. Manure will be applied to fields with corn/corn or corn/soybean rotations and the application rates will be based on nitrogen and phosphorus levels in the soil. Manure will be applied twice a year: in the spring ranging from March to May, and in the fall, ranging from August to November, unless the ground in frozen. To apply manure at proper agronomic rates, 4,500 gallons per acre will be applied to corn/corn application fields when applied every other year, 4,000 gallons per acre to corn/corn application fields when applied every year, and 3,500 gallons per acre will be applied to corn/soybean application fields to soybean stubble prior to corn planted years only. 1,304 acres are needed to meet manure utilization requirement for spreading of the nitrogen in the manure that is produced from the livestock operation. Additionally, phosphorus needs 1,652 acres, and potash needs 3,212 acres. The acreage available for manure application through rental is 130 acres, and the remaining manure is sold.

4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems.


According to the USDA, which includes the Farm Service Agency and Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS), the following table shows the soils in the manure management areas that are classified Highly Erodible Land or Potentially Highly Erodible Land in Freeborn County. Table 9. Potentially Highly and Highly Erodible Land in Freeborn County

Category Map Symbol Map Unit Name

PHEL

102C Clarion loam, 6-12% slopes, 106C2 Lester loam, 6-12% slopes, eroded 1806B Lerdal silty clay loam, silty substratum, 2-10% slopes, 216C Lamont fine sandy loam, 6-12 % slopes 27C Dickinson fine sandy loam, 6-16% slopes 5C Dakota loams, 6-14% slopes

921C Clarion-Storden loams, 6-12% slopes

HEL

102D Clarion loam, 12-18% slopes 104C Hayden loam, 6-12% slopes 104D Hayden loam, 12-18% slopes

106D2 Lester loam 12-18% slopes, eroded 106E Lester loam 18-24% slopes

138C2 Lerdal silty clay loam 6-15% slopes, eroded 238C2 Kilkenny loam, 6-12% slopes, eroded 238D2 Kilkenny loam, 12-18% slopes, eroded 238E Kilkenny loam, 18-24% slopes 259C Gray’s silt loam, 6-12% slopes

286C2 Shorewood silty clay loam, 6-12% slopes, eroded 382C Blooming silt loam, 6-12% slopes, 41C Estherville sandy loam, 6-12% slopes 41D Estherville sandy loam, 12-18% slopes 42D Salida soils, 12-25% slopes 920C Clarion-Storden-Estherville complex, 6-12% slopes 920D Storden-Clarion-Estherville complex, 12-18% slopes 921D Clarion-Storden loams, 12-18% slopes 921E Clarion-Storden loams, 18-25% slopes

944C2 Lester-Estherville complex, 6-12% slopes, eroded 944D2 Lester-Estherville complex, 12-18% slopes, eroded 944E Lester-Estherville complex, 18-24% slopes

Soil erosion conservation practices will be in place for proper management of highly erodible soils, see Attachment D.

Freeborn County Feedlot Ordinance Article 17 Section 5 does not allow manure application in any manner that will cause pollution of waters of the State due to runoff of precipitation or snowmelt that contains manure. Soil type Lester loam 6 to 12 percent slope (potentially highly erodible) is present on Mr. Jensen’s north manure application field, however it comprises a very small


percentage of the field area. There are no soils with slopes greater than 12 percent. Winter application is proposed only in emergency situations. In this case, frozen ground with slopes greater than 4 percent will be avoided. However, because the proposed feedlots will be capable of storing over a year’s worth of manure and the manure is applied in the spring and fall unless the ground is frozen, it is unlikely an emergency application of manure in the winter will be necessary. Sensitive areas within each manure application site have been identified and labeled on site maps. Nearby tile intakes in the adjacent road ditches are shown on Attachment C. Potentially highly erodible land is identified on Attachment D. All setbacks outlined in the MPCA feedlot rules and Freeborn County Feedlot Ordinance will be adhered to. In addition, application of manure will be avoided when precipitation is likely within 24 hours to prevent runoff, and no manure will be applied to frozen ground (unless emergency winter application is needed). All manure application will be injected or immediately incorporated. Both manure application fields have tile inlets in the adjacent road ditches and a 50 foot buffer will be maintained when applying near these tile inlets. Mr. Jensen’s residence, the existing site feedlot, Paul Fornberg, Keith Bengston, and Tim Donovan have domestic wells within 1000 feet of manure application. A 50 foot setback from wells and residences is required by Minnesota rules.

Table 10. MPCA Setback Distances for Land Application of Manure (in feet).3

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

Stream1

DNR protected wetlands2

Drainage ditch w/o quarry1

300 25 300 50 300

Open Tile Intake 300 0 0 300 300 Well, mine or

quarry 50 50 50 50 50

Sinkhole with no diversion

Downslope 50 Upslope 300

50 50 Downslope 50 Upslope 300

Downslope 50 Upslope 300

1Intermittent 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 [January 28, 2005].

2Wetland 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)

Table 11. Freeborn County Manure Application Setbacks (in feet)4.

3 Minnesota Feedlot Rules Chapter 7020

http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com/


Feature Surface Spreading Liquid

Incorporated or Injection

Surface Spreading Solid

Individual Dwellings2, Residential Developments2, Churches2, Incorporated Cities

1000 300 1000

Streams, Rivers, and Sinkholes

300 50 300

Lakes 300 100 300

Water Wells 300 300 300

Channeled flow of surface waters directly to the waters of the State Ditches, streams and rivers; Surface water inlets

300 50 300

1 Phosphorus management means that the application rate and frequency over six-year periods will not result in soil P build-up where soil P already exceeds 21 Bray P1 or 16 ppm Olsen.

2 Distance may be reduced with owner’s permission.

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

No additional manure utilization methods are planned.

6. Air/odor emissions.

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

Potential sources of major and minor air and odor emissions include: manure storage pits, confinement barns, dead animal disposal, spilled or spoiled feed, and manure application sites during the scheduled manure application periods. Dust generated by truck traffic around the site can also contribute odor emissions.

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

implemented to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts and discuss their anticipated effectiveness. The existing barn and proposed barn are both total confinement facilities. Manure will be stored in engineered concrete pits below the barns. The following BMPs are proposed to reduce odor in the animal holding area:

o Maintenance of clean, dry floors o Prompt cleanup of spilled feed

4 Steele County, Minnesota. Livestock Operation Ordinance: Ordinance #25. Separation Distances and Restriction on Land Application Sites, Section 109.001-109.002, November 2003.


o Maintenance of exhaust fans to avoid manure and dust accumulation These BMPs will reduce manure and dust accumulation. The Proposer will consult with the MPCA/CFO to identify changes that can be made to reduce odors following complaints. Manure will be agitated twice per year prior to application. Some odor will be generated during the agitation process, while emptying the concrete pits, and during land application of manure. Equipment must be kept in good condition to prevent leaks or spills on manure application sites and public roads. Incorporating manure immediately into the soil will minimize the release of odorous gases. Composting is a potential source of odor emissions. The Proposer manages mortalities as required by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (see Question 7).

C. Answer this item only if no feedlot design features or mitigations were proposed in item 6.B. 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. An AERMOD model was run to analyze the potential effects on air quality from the project (see Attachment L). Hydrogen Sulfide The modeling results suggest that both the expanded existing site and the new site will comply with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The standard regards the third exceedance of 30 parts per billion (ppb) within any 5-day period as a violation. Modeled compliance with the standard is demonstrated when the high-third-high (H3H) concentration (with background) for any 5-day period at each property line receptor is less than 30 ppb. AERMOD predicted a maximum H3H property line hydrogen sulfide concentration for the two feedlots of 12.43 ppb. When a background concentration of 17 ppb is added to the AERMOD predictions, the H3H hydrogen sulfide concentration is 29.43 ppb, which is below the ambient standard of 30 ppb. Thus, no violation of the 30 ppb ambient hydrogen sulfide standard was modeled for the two feedlots. The AERMOD results indicate that the two feedlots and the one neighboring cattle feedlot will not create exceedances of the subchronic (13-week) hydrogen sulfide inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV) at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration for the neighboring residences is 0.61 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 1.00 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum monthly neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.61 µg/m3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV of 10 µg/m3. Ammonia The modeling results also suggest that the two feedlots will not create exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV. AERMOD predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentration of 366 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 148 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is 514 µg/m3, which is below the acute ammonia iHRV of 3,200 µg/m3. The AERMOD results indicate that the two feedlots and the one neighboring cattle feedlot will not create exceedances of the chronic ammonia iHRV at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration for the neighbors is 5.74 µg/m3. When a


background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration for a neighboring residence is 11.19 µg/m3, which is below the chronic ammonia iHRV of 80 µg/m3.

Table 12. Air Quality AERMOD Modeling Results for the Existing Site

Property Boundary H3H Hydrogen Sulfide (ppb)1

Acute Ammonia (µg/m3)2 Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t)3

North 24.17 345 25 East 28.25 443 38

South 28.79 514 47 West 27.16 411 34

1The H3H air quality standard for Hydrogen Sulfide is 30 ppb. The data results in Table 8 include the background concentration of 17 ppb. 2The acute iHRV for ammonia is 3,200 µg/m3. The data results in Table 8 include the background concentration of 148 µg/m3. 3Odor Impact assessment based on odor units. A value of 72 odor units is considered to be a faint odor detectable by most people.

Table 13. Air Quality AERMOD Modeling Results for the New Site

Property Boundary H3H Hydrogen Sulfide (ppb)1

Acute Ammonia (µg/m3)2 Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t)3

North 29.43 485 43 East 22.49 280 17

South 28.63 423 35 West 28.21 459 39

1The H3H air quality standard for Hydrogen Sulfide is 30 ppb. The data results in Table 8 include the background concentration of 17 ppb. 2The acute iHRV for ammonia is 3,200 µg/m3. The data results in Table 8 include the background concentration of 148 µg/m3. 3Odor Impact assessment based on odor units. A value of 72 odor units is considered to be a faint odor detectable by most people.

Odor Based on the air dispersion modeling analysis performed, AERMOD results indicate that construction of the proposed finishing barns will not contribute to odor concentrations above an odor intensity of 83 OU/m3, defined as a “faint odor” at nearby residences. Modeled hourly maximum odor concentrations at the nearest neighbor receptors vary from 3 odor units (OU) to 46 OU. Additionally, the analysis indicates that the addition of the proposed finishing barns would not significantly impact the odor concentrations along the property line. The modeled high hourly concentration at the property line is 47 OU and would occur along the south property line of existing site.

Conclusion

Results of the air quality dispersion modeling analysis indicate that emissions from the operation of the proposed swine finishing barns will not exceed state ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide. Additionally, the project will not contribute to exceedances of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV, the acute hourly ammonia iHRV, or the annual chronic ammonia iHRV. Modeling results also indicate that the project will not contribute to a significant increase in odor concentrations.

D. Describe any plans to notify neighbors of operational events (such as manure storage agitation and pumpout) that may result in higher-than-usual levels of air or odor emissions.


The Proposer is not required by state law or county ordinance to notify neighbors of the manure storage basins and manure application sites prior to agitation and land application. However, he notifies county feedlot officer 12 hours in advance of any odor release. Additionally, according to the Good Neighbor Policy as listed in the Freeborn County Feedlot and Manure Management Ordinance, wind direction towards individual dwellings, residential areas, and churches, are all taken into consideration before manure application.

E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Noises and dust common to building construction are expected during construction of the proposed barn. After construction, noise and dust levels are expected to be consistent with current operation and general land use in the area. To ensure noise will be consistent with current conditions, equipment and vehicles will be properly maintained and primarily operated during daylight hours. Noise Noise will be produced from ventilation fans. Fan noise is not anticipated to be above the allowable noise levels per Minnesota Noise Standards beyond the property boundary. The nearest homes are 0.3 miles away from the new site, located to the north and southeast, and 0.5 miles from the existing site, located to the northeast, south, and west. Dust The main road being used to access both feedlots, County Highway 20, is paved and will not be a source of dust. 310th Street and 315th Street are both gravel roads and will produce dust. However, each site access is located less than 700 feet from County Highway 20, so very little driving on unpaved roads will take place. Animal feed is also a possible source of dust. To reduce the amount of dust, flex augers will carry feed from the storage bins to the barns and fill feeders through plastic tubing. Spills will be cleaned up promptly; debris and dust build up will be regularly removed from exhaust fans.

7. Dead animal disposal.

Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. The disposal of livestock mortality is regulated by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health. Mortality for wean-to-finish swine with an average weight of 150 lbs is estimated to equal two to four percent5. Both the new site and existing site will have the capacity to house 4,800 head (1,440 AU). The facility operator plans to fill and empty the barns on average 2.5 times per year (five times every two years), resulting in a total of 12,000 head on the site per year. Therefore, the anticipated mortality rate is estimated to range between 240 to 480 hogs per year. The estimated mortality of cattle is three percent, resulting in 1.5 dead animals per year assuming 50 cattle in pasture. Composting will be the primary method used to dispose of dead swine and cattle at the new site and Existing site. One 10x24 foot building used for composting is already present at the existing site, and the Proposer will construct an additional 27x40 foot structure that will assist with the disposal of animal mortalities. A 27x40 foot structure for the disposal of animal mortalities will be constructed at the new

5 Morse, D.E. (updated July 1996). Composting Animal Mortalities. Agricultural Resources Management and Development Division. Minnesota Department of Agriculture.


site. Rendering will be used as a secondary method. Barns will be inspected daily and dead animals will be promptly removed. The facilities will be capable of handling the mortalities generated by the expansion and will comply with Minnesota Board of Animal Health guidelines.

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. Feedlot Site The proposed expansion for the existing site will be established with perennial vegetation and gravel surfaced driveways. The feedlot is surrounded by cultivated agricultural land. The feedlot is in the County Ditch 46 minor watershed of the LeSueur River major watershed. The quantity of stormwater runoff will increase slightly at the site once the new 51x 400 foot hog barn is constructed since there will be a slight increase in impervious surfaces. As previously stated, manure will be stored in pits entirely under the barns. Rainwater will not come in contact with the manure pits. No contaminated runoff is anticipated. An emergency management plan has been created in case of a spill. This is an enforceable condition of the NPDES/ SDS feedlot permit. In the event of a spill, the plan requires the creation of temporary berms to redirect surface flow so that surface waters are not contaminated. The plan also includes: installation of bale checks, blockage of downstream culverts, plugging tile intakes, tilling ground ahead of the spill, and use of absorptive materials. Land Application Areas Some manure will be land applied by the Proposer. Manure will be incorporated at the time of application and runoff is not expected to change since manure application does not affect impervious surface coverage. Manure will be applied at agronomic rates based on the crop grown, yield goal, soil type and residual nutrient content of the soil. In addition, the Proposer must adhere to required setbacks, as outlined in Item 5 of the EAW. Manure application sites are located in the Unnamed Minor Watershed: Co Ditch #46 – 32038 and the Le Sueur River major watershed (see Attachment F).

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. No road improvements are required or anticipated at this time. Significant adverse traffic impacts related to the existing feedlot operations are not known to exist in the project area under current conditions. There is expected to be a small increase in truck traffic as a result of the project. An average of three heavy trucks per site per week will access the feedlots to deliver feed. When hogs are marketed, the number of trucks rises. Trucks will utilize paved State Highway 20, 310th Street, and 315th Street to access the feedlot. Based on Minnesota Department of Transportation counts from 2009, the average annual daily traffic volume for Highway 20, from County Highway 31 to County Highway 35, is 275 vehicles per day. In view of the small increase in traffic, no significant impacts on traffic are expected to occur.

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


the project? Yes No

If yes, please describe.

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

Table 13. Permits and approvals required Unit of government Type of Application Status

MPCA NPDES Permit Application Submitted. Permit will be on notice concurrently with EAW.

MPCA Minnesota Feedlot Permit County Minnesota Feedlot Permit County Conditional use To be submitted upon completion

of Environmental Review. MDNR Water Appropriation Preliminary approval has been

given by the MDNR. (Attachment K)

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. (Cumulative impacts may be discussed here or under the appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form.) This section will focus on cumulative impacts in relation to the feedlots, manure application sites, and will also address other planned or existing land uses in the landscape. Based on data from the MPCA, there are five registered feedlots located within the County Ditch 46 watershed. Refer to Attachment J - Cumulative Potential Effects Map. A review was also conducted on groundwater, surface water, air quality, and land use in the area. The following is a brief discussion of each. Groundwater Appropriation and Quality There are three general areas of concern related to the topic of feedlots and groundwater. Contamination from manure storage structures, contamination from land application, and effects on water supply from increased demand. To protect groundwater, the Proposer is required to follow the design criteria in Minn. R. ch. 7020 for the construction of the manure storage structures for the swine manure and the land application of the manure must follow the NMP. The proposed plans and specifications for the manure storage pits, the design and operation of the feedlots, and the NMP for the land application of the manure have been reviewed and approved by MPCA staff, and will be enforceable conditions of the project’s feedlot NPDES/SDS Permit. The Producer is required to follow an MPCA-approved NMP and submit an annual report to the MPCA on manure production, land application and any discharges. The approved NMP is an enforceable part of the


project’s NPDES/SDS Permit. The proposed expansion is not expected to adversely impact ground water from land application of manure as appropriate setbacks will be followed. The MPCA reviewed the County Well Index (CWI) to explore the nature of well depth and type to account for the other users of the same or nearby resources identified within an approximate one mile radius of the project. Table 14. Summary of CWI listings within a one-mile radius of the feedlot.

Name Unique Well #

Well Depth (in feet)

Installation Date

Well Use Geological Material/Depth Aquifer

Thostenson, Wilfred

168389 203 1982 Domestic Black top soil from surface to 2 feet; yellow clay from 2 to 18 feet; blue clay from 18 to 84 feet; sand from 84 to 191 feet; and brown limestone from 191 to 203 feet.

Dubuque-Galena

Thostenson, Willie

226473 250 1962 Domestic Pit from 0 to 7 feet; Blue clay from 7 to 203 feet; sand and gravel from 203 to 230 feet; and rock from 230 to 250 feet.

Galena

Thostenson, Wilfred

166657 216 1980 Domestic Black soil from 0 to 2 feet; yellow clay from 2 to 17 feet; blue clay from 17 to 196 feet; gray limestone from 196 to 216 feet.

Galena

Bengson, Keith

413072 225 1987 Domestic Black soil from 0 to 2 feet; brown sandy clay from 2 to 17 feet; gray sandy clay from 17 to 80 feet; sand from 80 to 90 feet; gray sandy clay from 90 to 208 feet; white shale from 208 to 218 feet; white brown limestone from 218 to 225 feet .

Dubuque-Galena

Christenson, Ray M.

547201 166 1994 Domestic Black soil from 0 to 1 feet; yellow clay from 1 to 16 feet; sandy clay from 16 to 160 feet; and fine sand from 160 to 166 feet.

Quat. Buried Artes. Aquifer

Johnson, Carlyle

132513 248 1976 Domestic Black top soil from 0 to 2 feet; yellow clay from 2 to 19 feet; blue clay from 19 to 103 feet; pea rock from 103 to 115 feet; blue clay for 115 to 120 feet; fine clay and sand from 120 to 147 feet; blue clay from 147 to 205 feet; brown shale from 205 to 210 feet; limestone from 210 to 212 feet; brown shale from 212 to 217 feet; limestone from 217 to 218 feet; blue shale from 218 to 220 feet; and limestone from 220 to 248 feet.

Dubuque-Galena

Fornberg, Paul

152839 260 1979 Domestic Black top soil from 0 to 3 feet; yellow clay from 3 to 15 feet; blue clay from 15 to 30; sand from 30 to 40; blue clay from 40 to 190 feet; brown shale from

Galena


Name Unique Well #

Well Depth (in feet)

Installation Date

Well Use Geological Material/Depth Aquifer

190 to 203 feet; gray limestone from 203 to 225 feet; brown limestone from 225 to 240 feet; and gray limestone from 240 to 260.

Olsen, Orville

139082 245 1982 Domestic Black top soil from 0 to 2 feet; yellow clay from 2 to 18 feet; blue clay from 18 to 77 feet; boulder from 77 to 95 feet; blue clay from 95 to 170 feet; sand from 170 to 190 feet; blue clay from 190 to 205 feet; layer of shale and limestone from 205 to 236 feet, and limestone from 236 to 245 feet.

Galena

Ronald Jensen BA-1

213511 644 1974 Test Well Drift from 0 to 237 feet; Galena formation from 237 to 462 feet; Decorah formation from 462 to 512 feet; Platteville formation from 512 to 528 feet; Glenwood Shale 528 to 537; St. Peter formation from 537 to 633 feet; and Shakopee formation from 633 to 644 feet.

Unlisted

Wallin, Mike 501436 245 1989 Domestic Black topsoil from 0 to 2 feet; drift from 2 to 180 feet; white limestone and shale from 180 to 200 feet; and white limestone from 200 to 245 feet.

Galena

After construction, a total of approximately 6.1 million gallons of water will be expended annually by the proposed and existing barns. As a result of the proposed expansion, the Proposer will need to submit an individual water appropriation permit application to the MDNR because water use will exceed 5 million gallons per year. As described in the PWA, the MDNR will assess the potential for impacts to natural resources such as wetlands, public waters, and groundwater prior to a water appropriation permit being issued (see Attachment K). The proposed project is not expected to contribute to an adverse or irreversible cumulative potential impact of groundwater resources. Surface Water As previously stated, the proposed feedlot expansion and manure application sites are located in the Le Sueur River major watersheds. The Le Sueur River is a major watershed, but also a tributary of the Blue Earth River which eventually flows into the Minnesota River. Row crop agriculture is the primary land use within the two watersheds and extensive drainage through public and private tile systems has occurred. The feedlots and manure application sites fall within the County Ditch 46 (32038) minor watershed (see Attachment J). The Le Sueur River is listed on the MPCA’s Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Load list for aquatic life. The Le Sueur River converges with the Blue Earth River south of Mankato. According to the 303d List of Impaired Waters updated by the MPCA, the Le Sueur River and several tributaries have poor water quality mainly caused by fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity. The closest Le Sueur River impairment to the proposed project is 1.4 miles east of the project as shown on Attachment J.


Best management practices will minimize potential cumulative effects on water resources. To ensure water resources will not be impacted, several measures will be taken as indicated in the manure management plan. Soil and manure testing will specify the amount of manure to apply on application sites. Required setbacks from all surface waters and tile intakes will be maintained and manure will be immediately incorporated (within 24 hours) into the soil. Air Quality According to the air quality AERMOD model described above in Question 6, the proposed and existing feedlot are expected to comply with Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards for hydrogen sulfide. No exceedance of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV or acute and chronic ammonia iHRV. In addition, the maximum hourly odor intensity from the feedlot properties is 47 OU, which is below the "faint" odor threshold of 72 OU (see Appendix 1). Land Use The project is located in an area where the predominant land use is row crop agriculture with other uses also present including farmsteads, rural residences, feedlots, and paved or gravel surfaced roads. The project complies with the surrounding land uses and zoning regulations. The number of AU will increase by 2,210 AUs for a total of 2,930 AUs after project completion. The proposed project will be constructed on cultivated agricultural land. No natural areas will be impacted as a result of the project. Manure will be stored in engineered pits below the barns and land applied at agronomic rates. Manure application will comply with all rules and regulations at state and county levels so water resources are not adversely impacted. Impacts on natural resources and a decline of wildlife habitat have become an issue in many areas, whether by urban development or agricultural use. The project is not expected to result in a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity since the project will not disrupt wildlife habitat. In addition, traffic is not expected to be an issue. No complaints have been received regarding the current traffic status. Only a slight increase in traffic will result due to the expansion as there is already an operating feedlot located on the property. Overall, the project is not anticipated to contribute significantly to any adverse cumulative impacts.

12. Summary of issues. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. None identified.

§̈¦90

§̈¦35

£¤69

£¤65

£¤13

£¤65

£¤65

£¤65

ßß

ªATOSENNIM

13

ßßªATOSENNIM

30

ßß

ªATOSENNIM

251

FreebornCounty

SteeleCounty

WasecaCounty

Albert LeaAlden

Ellendale

Hayward

Geneva

New Richland

Hartland

Clarks Grove

Freeborn

Glenville

Conger

Manchester

PN: 14-16426 Scale:0 6,000 12,000

Feet F1 inch = 12,000 feet

Cou

nty

Hw

y 20

Sec 18 Sec 17

Sec 19 Sec 20

T104NR21W

New Site

New Site Location

DATE

: 4/17/

2014

Z:

\16000

PROJ

\16400

-16499

\16426

Brady

Jense

n Hog

Barns

- Free

born C

o\1642

6 NR\1

6426 E

AW\16

426 Ma

ps\164

26 Loc

ation M

ap.mx

d

Existing Site Location

Existing Site

315th Street

310th Street

Jensen Family Farms FeedlotSite Location MapBath Township, Freeborn County, Minnesota

EXHIBIT A

ATTACHMENT A

Existing Site

New Site

Seventh Day Adventist Church Cemetery

Jensen Family Farms FeedlotUSGS Topographic MapPN: 14-16246Source: USGS 1:24k Quadrangle

Scale:

Bath Township, Freeborn County, Minnesota

0 750 1,500Feet F1 inch = 1,500 feet

EXHIBIT B

LegendBarn Locations

Applicants' Residences

Site Boundaries

Manure Application Fields

ATTACHMENT B

!2

WW

WW

!2

WW

315th St

310th St

Existing Site

New Site

315th St

310th StExisting Compost Shed

Proposed Compost Shed

Existing Barn

Proposed Barn

Proposed Compost Shed

Proposed Barn

Site Access

Proposed Site Access

Proposed Well

Tile Intake in Ditch

Tile Intake in Ditch

17-104-2118-104-21

20-104-2119-104-21

Cou

nty

Hw

y 20

Jensen Family Farms FeedlotSite PlanPN: 14-16246Source: 2013 Color Orthophotograph

Scale:


0 300 600Feet F1 inch = 600 feet

EXHIBIT C

Legend!2 Tile Intake

WW Well

Barn Locations


Site Boundaries


Section Lines

ATTACHMENT C

Cou

nty

Hw

y 20

/ 74

0 th

Ave

315th St

310th St

Existing Site

New Site

113113

112

106B

113

130

239239

112

114

350

106B

130

114

86

524

86

106C2

106B

524

114

114

106C2

239

114

106B

239

106C2

106B

524

414

106B

106C2239

106B

114

524

106C2

86

925

113

106B

114

239

114

239

106D2

113

414

113

106C2

239

130

130

86

239

106B239

114

350

130

113

106B239113

414

414

106C2

239

414

239

106B

106B

106D2

106B106B

114

106C2

106B

106B

239

Jensen Family Farms FeedlotSoil Survey MapPN: 14-16246Source: 2013 Color Orthophotograph

Scale:


0 300 600Feet F1 inch = 600 feet

EXHIBIT D

LegendPHEL

Soil Map Units

Barn Locations


Site Boundaries

Manure Application FieldsRefer to Section 3 of the EAW for soil map unit names

ATTACHMENT D

RRRRRRRR

RR

RR

RR

RR

RRRR

RR

RRRR RR

RR

RR

RR

RR

RRRR

RR

RR

Existing Site

New SiteC

oun

ty H

wy

20

226485

730790

173095

415399

166657

139082

168389

139086

226473

213512

562728

559926

557419

547201

541412

501436

489805

459914

442254

415321

413072

226930

226486

226483

226474

226472

226471226470

213511

213168

213167 132513

139570

152839

173075

Cou

nty

Hw

y 20

County Hwy 35

Cou

nty

Hw

y 24

County Hwy 31

County Rd 97

Cou

nty

Rd

116County Rd 95

Cou

nty

Rd

73

County Hwy 31

County Hwy 14

Cou

nty

Rd

63

Main St W

Jensen Family Farms FeedlotWell MapPN: 14-16246Source: 2013 Color Orthophotograph

Scale:


0 1,750 3,500Feet F1 inch = 3,500 feet

EXHIBIT E

LegendRR Residences

CWI Located Well

2 mile buffer

1 Mile Buffer

Barn Locations


Site Boundaries


ATTACHMENT E

Existing Site

New Site

32038

48044

49001

32085

32085

32085

32085

Le Sueur River

Cedar River

Shell Rock River

Coun

ty Dit

ch 46

Cou

nty

Hw

y 20

County Hwy 35

County Rd 97

County Hwy 31

Cou

nty

Rd

116

Jensen Family Farms FeedlotHydrology Features MapPN: 14-16246Source: 2013 Color Orthophotograph

Scale:


0 1,000 2,000Feet F1 inch = 2,000 feet

EXHIBIT F

LegendStreams

1 Mile Buffer

Barn Locations


Site Boundaries


Major Watershed

Minor Watershed

Public Water Basin

NWI Wetland

ATTACHMENT F

www.mndnr.gov

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

March 13, 2014 Correspondence # ERDB 20140264 Mr. Nick McCabe I&S Group 115 E Hickory Street, Suite 300 Mankato, MN 56001 RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Jensen Family Farms Feedlots; T104N R21W Section 17 & 18; Freeborn County Dear Mr. McCabe,

As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) has been queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query, there are no known occurrences of rare features in the area searched.

The Natural Heritage Information System, a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area.

For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results are only valid for the project location (noted above) and project description provided on the NHIS Data Request Form. Please contact me if project details change or if an updated review is needed.

Furthermore, the Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. Additional rare features for which we have no data may be present in the project area, or there may be other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project. For these concerns, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist (contact information available at http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html). Please be aware that additional site assessments or review may be required.

Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. An invoice will be mailed to you under separate cover. Sincerely,

Samantha Bump

NHIS Review Specialist

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Box 25

500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025 Phone: (651) 259-5109 E-mail: [email protected]

ATTACHMENT G

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html�

nickmcc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT G

1

Nick McCabe

From: Thomas Cinadr <[email protected]>

Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 11:55 AM

To: Nick McCabe

Subject: Re: Jensen Family Farms Feedlot

Attachments: Historic.rtf

THIS EMAIL IS NOT A PROJECT CLEARANCE.

This message simply reports the results of the cultural resources This message simply reports the results of the cultural resources This message simply reports the results of the cultural resources This message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search produced database search you requested. The database search produced database search you requested. The database search produced database search you requested. The database search produced results for only previously known archaeological sites and results for only previously known archaeological sites and results for only previously known archaeological sites and results for only previously known archaeological sites and historic historic historic historic properties. Please read the note below carefully.properties. Please read the note below carefully.properties. Please read the note below carefully.properties. Please read the note below carefully. No archaeological sites were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the search area requested. A report containing the historic properties identified is attached. The result of this database search provides a listing of recorded archaeological sites and historic architectural properties that are included in the current SHPO databases. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or structures may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field survey, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential to contain historic properties. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or historic architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in Review and Compliance @ 651-259-3455 or by email at [email protected]. The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata and Contractor Lists can be found at http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm SHPO research hours are 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM Tuesday-Friday.

The Office is closed on Mondays.

Tom Cinadr Survey and Information Management Coordinator

ATTACHMENT H

nickmcc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT H

2

Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Historical Society 345 Kellogg Blvd. West St. Paul, MN 55102 651-259-3453

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Nick McCabe <[email protected]> wrote:

Thomas,

Jensen Family Farms proposes to add one hog barn including 2,400 hogs (720 animal units (AUs)) in Section 18 of Bath

Township in Freeborn County, Minnesota. An existing barn is on-site that also houses 2,400 hogs (720 AUs) in total

confinement (4,800 hog/1,440 AU total site capacity). Additionally, Jensen Family Farms proposes to add two hog barns

including 4,800 hogs (1,440 animal units) in Section 17 of Bath Township. The Proposer also anticipates having up to 50

cattle in pasture (50 AU). Upon completion of the project, the feedlots will house 9,600 hogs and 50 cattle for a total of

2,930 AUs at the two sites.

Since the project includes over 1,000 AUs, an EAW is required by the MPCA. As part of the EAW, I need your assistance

identifying historical, architectural, and/or archaeological properties within the vicinity of the project. See attached

map. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Nick McCabe


507.387.6651 (Office)

507.330.4786 (Mobile)

I&S Group, Inc.

Mankato and Faribault, MN

Storm Lake, Algona, and Sac City, IA

La Crosse, WI

www.is-grp.com

History/Architecture Inventory PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS Twp Range Sec Quarters USGS Report NRHP CEF DOE Inventory Number

COUNTY: Freeborn CITY/TOWNSHIP: Bath Twp. Seventh Day Adventist Church off Twp. Rd. 104 21 17 NW-NE-SE Ellendale FE-85-1H FE-BAT-003

Monday, February 24, 2014 Page 1 of 1

1

Nick McCabe

From: Bailey, Pat (MDH) <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:20 PM

To: Nick McCabe

Cc: Hanson, Scott.J (MDH); Blum, Justin (MDH); Halvorson, Paul (MDH)

Subject: RE: Jensen Family Farms Feedlot

Nick, As requested we checked for Public Water Supply wells - community, nontransient or transient , Wellhead Protection Areas, and Special Well Construction Areas within the vicinity of the Jensen Family Farms Feedlot project. There are no public water supply wells within 1.5 miles of the active feedlot site or the proposed feedlot site in Bath Township.

Pat Bailey, Planner Minnesota Department of Health Source Water Protection Unit 18 Wood Lake Dr. SE Rochester, MN 55904-5506

507-206-2741

[email protected]

From: Nick McCabe [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 2:45 PM

To: Halvorson, Paul (MDH); Hanson, Scott.J (MDH); Bailey, Pat (MDH) Cc: Blum, Justin (MDH)

Subject: RE: Jensen Family Farms Feedlot

Paul, Scott, & Pat,

I tried to get in contact with Justin recently regarding this project and have not received a response

yet. We are ready to submit our EAW document to the MPCA for review so I wanted to reach out to you

to see if you can help in answering the inquiry below.

Nick McCabe

Scientist

Environmental Group 115 E. Hickory Street,

Suite 300

Mankato, MN 56001

P: 507.387.6651

ATTACHMENT I

nickmcc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT I

2

C: 507.330.4786

[email protected]

www.is-grp.com

Architecture Engineering

Environmental

Planning

From: Nick McCabe

Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2014 10:44 AM

To: Justin Blum (MDH)

Subject: Jensen Family Farms Feedlot

Justin,

Jensen Family Farms proposes to add one hog barn including 2,400 hogs (720 animal units (AUs)) in Section 18 of Bath

Township in Freeborn County, Minnesota. An existing barn is on-site that also houses 2,400 hogs (720 AUs) in total

confinement (4,800 hog/1,440 AU total site capacity). Additionally, Jensen Family Farms proposes to add two hog barns

including 4,800 hogs (1,440 animal units) in Section 17 of Bath Township. The Proposer also anticipates having up to 50

cattle in pasture (50 AU). Upon completion of the project, the feedlots will house 9,600 hogs and 50 cattle for a total of

2,930 AUs at the two sites.

Since the project includes over 1,000 AUs, an EAW is required by the MPCA. As part of the EAW, I need your assistance

identifying Public Water Supply wells, 'transient noncommunity' public water suppliers, Wellhead Protection Areas, Special

Well Construction Areas, etc. within the vicinity of the project. See attached map. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you.

Nick McCabe


507.387.6651 (Office)

507.330.4786 (Mobile)

I&S Group, Inc. Mankato and Faribault, MN

Storm Lake, Algona, and Sac City, IA

La Crosse, WI

www.is-grp.com

õ

õ

õ

õ

õõõõ

õõõ

õõ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õõõ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õõ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

õ

Existing Site

New Site

32038

32085

49001

48044

3905732024

32025

48043

32027

48043

Le Sueur River

Cedar River

Shell Rock River

Cannon River

Le Su

eur R

iver

County Ditch 28

Coun

ty Dit

ch 46

Le Sueur River

Banc

roft C

reek

Cou

nty

Hw

y 20

Cou

nty

Hw

y 24

County Hwy 35

County Rd 97County Hwy 31

Cou

nty

Rd

116

County Rd 95

County Hwy 14

Cou

nty

Rd

63

Jensen Family Farms FeedlotCumulative Potential Effects MapPN: 14-16246Source: 2013 Color Orthophotograph

Scale:


0 1,500 3,000Feet F1 inch = 3,000 feet

EXHIBIT J

Legendõ MPCA Permitted Feedlots

Impaired Streams

Streams

1 Mile Buffer

Barn Locations


Site Boundaries


Major Watershed

Minor Watershed

ATTACHMENT J

May 15, 2014 Brady Jensen 31369 740th Avenue Hartland, MN 56042 Dear Mr. Jensen:

RE: DNR Assessment, Pre-Well Construction, Tracking No. #tbd-#, NW ¼ Section 17 T104N, R21W Freeborn County This is your preliminary approval to construct a well. We have reviewed your well drilling proposal and determined that the proposed rate and volume may interfere with other water users or have negative impacts on nearby lakes, streams or wetlands. Potential areas of concern State law1 requires that wells do not cause harm to ecosystems, degrade water quality, or significantly reduce the public water supply. We found that your proposal has the following potential concerns:

Distance to wetlands identified in the National Wetland Inventory

Distance to public waters The attached assessment contains further information about our analysis. If you proceed… If you decide to proceed, you must notify the MN Department of Health2 prior to well

construction. Then, after the well is drilled, apply for a DNR water use permit. The easiest way for most people to apply for a water use permit is through the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) at www.mndnr.gov/mpars/signin. Instructions at this site will assist you, step-by-step, through the application process. To more completely understand the risk to other wells or lakes, streams or wetlands, you may be asked for additional information and testing or monitoring, at your expense. We will use this information to determine how much water can be appropriated.

Please note This preliminary approval to construct a well is information you can use to decide whether to proceed in constructing a well and is based largely on information you provided. It is not notification to MN Department of Health, and is not a DNR water use permit.

1 Minnesota Statutes 103G.287 2 Minnesota Statutes 103I

Division of Ecological and Water Resources

ATTACHMENT K

http://www.mndnr.gov/mpars/signin

Jensen Family Farms C/o Brady Jensen Preliminary Well Construction Assessment Section 17 Bath, Freeborn Co. Page 2 of 2 We anticipate that this process will save money for landowners with water needs near sensitive or limited water resources and help avoid water shortages for competing demands. If you have any questions, please contact me at 507-362-8778 or [email protected]. Sincerely,

Daniel Girolamo Area Hydrologist Enclosures Cc: Nick McCabe, I&S Group Melissa Doperalski, MN DNR Charles Peterson, MPCA

Well Construction Proposal Assessment, NW1/4, Section 17, T104N, R21W, Tracking Number #-#

This preliminary Well Construction Approval is not an appropriation permit. State law requires you to obtain preliminary approval to drill a well that is required to have a DNR water appropriation permit. A water appropriation permit from DNR is required for all users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or 1 million gallons per year. DNR Staff have evaluated your project to determine whether the proposed appropriation is likely to meet statutory requirements in Minnesota Statutes, section 103G.287.

Checked factors are those that we believe may be impacted by your proposed water use.

Calcareous fens

Designated trout streams

Lakes and rivers, wetlands

Rare Species (Threatened, Endangered, Special Concern), Native Plant Communities (S1-3)

Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance (High, Outstanding)

Known well interference problems

Existing water appropriation permits with higher priority as defined in Statute 103G.261

Publicly owned lands such as DNR Wildlife Management Areas

Municipal Wellhead Protection Areas, Drinking Water Source Management Areas, Source Water Protection Area’s

Known groundwater contamination

Groundwater management areas or areas with declining water levels

If any of the factors above are marked with a checked box, you may be required to install monitoring well(s), perform aquifer test(s) or provide other information to ascertain anticipated impacts to these features. This information will be used to evaluate and make a decision on your water appropriation request. Your water appropriation request may be modified, reduced, or denied based upon site specific information.

If you choose to drill this well and use more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or 1 million gallons per year you must submit a water appropriation permit application which can be found at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/permits.html

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/permits.html

Air Quality Modeling Report Brady Jensen Hog Feedlots !!!Proposed Feedlot Expansion Freeborn County, Bath Township SE ¼ Section 18 !Proposed New Feedlot Freeborn County, Bath Township NE ¼ Section 17 !!!Prepared by Charles J. Gantzer, Ph.D. Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 !!!April 2014

ATTACHMENT L

Table of Contents

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

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

...............................................................................Impact Thresholds and Background Values 4

...........................................................................................................Source Characterizations 7

.............................................................................................................Neighboring Residences 7

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

..................................................................................................................Existing Hog Feedlot 9

........................................................................................................................New Hog Feedlot 9

................................................................................................................................Feedlot #1 10

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

...............................................................................................................Hog-Finishing Barns 11

............................................................................................................................................Cattle Barn 11

...................................................................................................................................Open Lot 11

......................................................................Hydrogen Sulfide at Property Lines and Neighbors 12

...................................................................................Ammonia at Property Lines and Neighbors 15

.........................................................................................................Odorous Gas Concentrations 17

.........................................................................Odor Intensities at Property Lines and Neighbors 18

........................................................................................................................................Summary 20

IntroductionBrady Jensen proposes to expand his existing

hog feedlot located in the SE ¼ of Section 18, Bath Township, Freeborn County by adding a second 2,400-head hog-finishing barn. Within the next couple of years, Jensen might also build a new hog feedlot consisting of two 2,400-head hog-finishing barns located in the NW ¼ of Section 17, Bath Township, Freeborn County.

Based on a protocol approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on April 2, 2014, air quality modeling estimated the hydrogen sulfide concentrations, ammonia concentrations, and odor intensities at the two Jensen feedlots’ property lines and at 43 of the feedlots’ nearest neighbors.

The modeled emission sources for the two Jensen hog feedlots included:

• two 392-ft by 51-ft hog-finishing barns at the expanded existing site; and

• two 392-ft by 51-ft hog-finishing barns at the potential new site.

In addition to the emissions from the existing and new Jensen hog feedlots, the air quality modeling also considered the gaseous emissions from one neighboring cattle feedlot. The locations of the two Jensen hog feedlots and the neighboring cattle feedlot are provided in Figure 1.

The following atmospheric concentrations were estimated:

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

2. the maximum 13-week hydrogen sulfide concentration at the two Jensen feedlots’ nearest neighbors to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota’s subchronic inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV) for hydrogen sulfide of 10 µg/m3;

3. the maximum hourly ammonia concentration at the property lines for the two Jensen hog feedlots to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota’s acute iHRV for ammonia of 3,200 µg/m3;

4. the maximum annual ammonia concentration at the two Jensen feedlots’ nearest neighbors to assess the potential to exceed Minnesota’s chronic iHRV for ammonia of 80 µg/m3; and

5. the maximum hourly odor intensities at the property lines for the two Jensen feedlots and at the two feedlots’ nearest neighbors to access the potential for off-site odor episodes.

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

1 Jensen Hog Feedlots Report

JensenNew Site

JensenExisting Site

Feedlot #1

Figure 1. Modeled locations of the existing Jensen hog feedlot, the new Jensen hog feedlot, the neighboring cattle feedlot (Feedlot #1), and the 43 neighboring residences (not labeled).


The modeling results suggest that both the expanded existing Jensen feedlot and the potential new Jensen feedlot will comply with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The standard regards the third exceedance of 30 ppb within any 5-day period as a violation. Modeled compliance is demonstrated when the high-third-high (H3H) concentration (with background) for any 5-day period at each property-line receptor is less than 30 ppb. AERMOD predicted a maximum H3H property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration for the two Jensen feedlots of 12.43 ppb. When a background concentration of 17 ppb is added to the AERMOD predictions, the H3H hydrogen sulfide concentration is 29.43 ppb, which is below the ambient standard of 30 ppb. Thus, no violation of the 30-ppb ambient hydrogen sulfide standard was modeled for the two Jensen hog feedlots.

The AERMOD results indicate that the two Jensen hog feedlots and the one neighboring cattle feedlot will not create exceedances of the subchronic (13-week) hydrogen sulfide iHRV at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration for the neighboring residences is 0.61 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 1.00 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum monthly neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.61 µg/m3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV of 10 µg/m3.

The modeling results also suggest that the two Jensen hog feedlots will not create exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV. AERMOD predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentration of 366 µg/m3. When a background

concentration of 148 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is 514 µg/m3, which is below the acute ammonia iHRV of 3,200 µg/m3.

The AERMOD results indicate that the expanded existing Jensen feedlot, the potential new Jensen feedlot, and the one neighboring cattle feedlot will not create exceedances of the chronic ammonia iHRV at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration for the neighbors is 5.74 µg/m3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration for a neighboring residence is 11.19 µg/m3, which is below the chronic ammonia iHRV of 80 µg/m3.

Thus, the modeling results for both the expanded existing Jensen feedlot and the potential new Jensen feedlot suggest compliance with the hydrogen sulfide air quality standard, no exceedances of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV, and no exceedances of the acute and chronic ammonia iHRVs.

General Modeling ApproachThe modeling approach assumed that the

gaseous from the expanded existing Jensen hog feedlot, the potential new Jensen hog feedlot, and the one neighboring cattle feedlot were the only significant and quantifiable emission sources within a 4-mile by 3-mile grid. The air quality impacts associated with the three feedlots were explicitly modeled. The two Jensen feedlots were located in the two middle square miles of the grid.


The air quality impacts associated with any other sources in the modeled 4-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 (e.g., less than 50 animal units), septic tank vents, fertilizer and manure application to cropland, and wetlands.

The AERMOD (version 12345) 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 directions, atmospheric stabilities, and rural mixing heights. The historical weather data consists of five years (2006-2010) of surface meteorological data for the National Weather Service (NWS) station in Olivia, MN and of upper air weather data for the NWS station in Chanhassen, MN. The Olivia surface weather data represents a location surrounded by flat terrain and row crops, which are the conditions immediately surrounding the two Jensen feedlots. The surface and upper air weather data files were combined into an AERMET (version 12345) meteorological file4, 5 by the MPCA.

Maximum one-hour, monthly, and annual average concentrations were calculated. The modeling assumed no decay of any modeled gas due to chemical reactions. The modeled receptor height was 0 meters, i.e., ground level. A flat terrain was assumed. All modeled property-line and nearest-neighbor receptors were defined as discrete receptors. Property-line receptors were less than or equal to 25 meters apart. An arbitrary Cartesian coordinate system (x, y) was used with the southwest corner of Section 18 (Bath Township, Freeborn County) as the origin (0, 0). Positive values of x represent distance east of the origin. Positive values of y represent distance north of the origin.

Impact Thresholds and Background ValuesTo assess the potential for environmental

impacts, the atmospheric hydrogen sulfide and ammonia concentrations, and the atmospheric odor intensities generated by the air quality modeling were compared to air quality standards, inhalation Health Risk Values (iHRVs), published odor threshold concentrations, and an odor classification system based on detection-threshold odor intensities.

The direct comparison of model-generated concentrations to these environmental threshold concentrations does not consider the impact of different averaging times. EPA guidelines do not


1 U.S. EPA. 2004. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model—AERMOD. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/B-03-001.

2 U.S. EPA. 2012. Addendum. User’s Guide for the AMS/EPA Regulatory Model—AERMOD. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-454/B-03-001.

3 U.S. EPA. 2005. Revision to the Guideline for Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Ch. 1, Part 51, Appendix W (November 9, 2005 Edition).

4 U.S. EPA. 2004. User’s Guide for the AERMOD Meteorological Preprocessor (AERMET). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454-B-03-002.

5 U.S. EPA. 2012. Addendum. User’s Guide for the AERMOD Meteorological Preprocessor (AERMET). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454-B-03-002.

allow concentrations to be time averaged for time periods less than an hour.6 This is important because the Minnesota ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide are based on average concentrations over a 30-minute time period and because the published odor intensity correlations are often based on instantaneous measurements. For example, an hourly 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 AERMOD estimated concentrations as described in EPA guidelines.7 The listed concentrations represent background concentrations for rural Minnesota. The listed 17-ppb background hydrogen sulfide concentration is appropriate when assessing a feedlot’s potential to comply with the 30-ppb standard. A background concentration of 18 ppb should be used when assessing the potential to

comply with the 50-ppb hydrogen sulfide standard.

The background concentrations listed in Table 1 are not the time-averaged concentrations obtained from monitoring. Instead, the listed concentrations reflect the monitored data expressed in the terms of the “exceedance or violation condition” for the corresponding iHRV guideline or ambient standard. For example, the background 208-ppb ammonia concentration for the acute ammonia iHRV represents the maximum hourly concentration that occurred within the entire length of monitoring. This is the appropriate interpretation of background for the acute ammonia iHRV, because the guidance is concerned with any potential exceedance of the iHRV. Also, the 17-ppb hydrogen sulfide background represents the third highest 30-minute concentration that occurred within any 5-day period (i.e., the high-third-high or H3H). This is appropriate, because the ambient hydrogen sulfide standard defines a violation as the third exceedance of 30-ppb within any 5-day period.


6 U.S. EPA. 2005. Revision to the Guideline for Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Ch. 1, Part 51, Appendix W.7 Ibid.

Table 1. Background concentrations for rural Minnesota.

Pollutant

HourlyBackground

Concentration

13-WeekBackground

Concentration

AnnualBackground

Concentration

HydrogenSulfide

17 ppb (v/v)(24.3 µg/m3)

0.70 ppb (v/v)(1.00 µg/m3)

Not Required

Ammonia 208 ppb (v/v)(148 µg/m3)

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

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

population can detect the gas. Typically, an odor number below about 0.1 suggests that less than 1 percent of the population can detect the gas.8 The odor threshold concentrations used in this assessment are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Odor threshold concentrations.9, 10

Odorous Gas

Odor Threshold Concentration

(ppb, v/v)

Hydrogen Sulfide 9.4Ammonia 5,800

Table 3. Odor intensity classification.11

OdorIntensityNumber

OdorStrength

n-ButanolReference Solution

(ppm)

Detection-ThresholdOdor Units(OU, D/T)

0 no odor 0 01 very faint 250 252 faint 750 723 moderate 2,250 2124 strong 6,750 6245 very strong 20,250 1,834


8 Nagy G. Z. 1991. The odor impact model. Journal of Air & Waste Management Association 41(10): 1360-1362.9 AIHA. 1989. Odor Thresholds for Chemicals with Established Occupational Health Standards. American

Industrial Hygiene Association, Akron, OH. This reference provided the odor threshold concentrations for hydrogen sulfide.

10 Devos M., Patte F, Rouault J., Laffort P., and Van Gemert L. J. 1990. Standardized Human Olfactory Thresholds. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. This reference provided the odor threshold concentrations for the ammonia.

11 Jacobson L. D. et al. 2000. Development of an odor rating system to estimate setback distances from animal feedlots: odor for feedlots setback estimation tool (OFFSET). Final Report. Prepared by the Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 26 pp.

As a second means of assessing potential odor impacts, the AERMOD-generated odor intensities (expressed as detection-threshold odor units) were compared to the reference odor intensities provided in Table 3. An odor intensity of 72 detection-threshold odor units (OU) is defined as a faint odor and is the odor intensity that “an average person might detect if attention is called to the odor, but the odor would not otherwise be noticed.”

Source CharacterizationsThe livestock barns were characterized as either

volume or line sources using the approaches described in EPA air quality modeling guidance.12

For the open cattle lot at the neighboring feedlot, the OPENLOTFLUX algorithms estimated the hourly hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emission flux rates based on the wind speed, cloud cover, solar radiation, air temperature, and surface soil temperature. OPENLOTFLUX uses mass transfer algorithms obtained from the

agricultural and micro-meteorological literature.13, 14 The historical soil temperatures at 4-inch below the surface near Lamberton, MN were used in estimating the surface soil temperatures.15 The EPA’s PCRAMMET algorithms16 were used to estimate the hourly variation in solar elevation. OPENLOTFLUX also uses the average effective hydrogen sulfide and ammonia concentrations at the surface of the manure pack obtained from cattle feedlot monitoring data.17, 18 When the simulated manure pack temperatures are less than 0°C (32°F), the algorithms assume that the average effective ammonia concentration is two-thirds the non-freezing value.19

Neighboring ResidencesThe air quality modeling estimated the odorous

gas concentrations at the 43 neighboring residences shown in Figure 2.


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

13 Sommer S. G. and Olesen J. E. 2000. Modeling ammonia volatilization from animal slurry applied with trail hoses to cereals. Atmospheric Environment 34(15): 2361-2372.

14 Arya S. P. 2001. Introduction to Micrometeorology. Second Edition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.15 www.swroc.coafes.umn.edu/weather/Reports/soil_hist_ave.PDF16 U.S. EPA. 1999. PCRAMMET User’s Guide. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-454-B-96-001 (Revised June 1999).17 Todd R. W. et al. 2005. Ammonia and gaseous nitrogen emissions from a commercial cattle feedyard estimated

using the flux-gradient method and the N:P ratio analysis. In: State of the Science, Animal Manure and Waste Management, January 4-7, 2005, San Antonio, TX.

18 Baek B. H. et al. 2006. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide flux and dry deposition velocity estimates using vertical gradient method at a commercial beef cattle feedlot. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 6(2-3): 189-203.

19 Leytem A. B. et al. 2011. Emissions of ammonia, methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide from dairy cattle housing and manure management systems. Journal of Environmental Quality 40(5): 1383-1394.

http://www.swroc.coafes.umn.edu/weather/Reports/soil_hist_ave.PDF%06

http://www.swroc.coafes.umn.edu/weather/Reports/soil_hist_ave.PDF%06

A1

A2

A3 A4 B1

B2B3

B4 B5

B6 C1C2

D1D2

E1

E2

E3

E4

F1

F2

F3

F4 F5

F6

G1 G2

G3

H1 H2H3

H4

I1

I2

I3

J1J2

J3K1

K2

K3

L1

L2

L3

Figure 2. Modeled locations of the expanded Jensen hog feedlot (not labeled), the new Jensen hog feedlot (not labeled), the neighboring cattle feedlot (not labeled), and the 43 neighboring residences.


Site Descriptions

Existing Hog FeedlotAfter the proposed expansion, the existing

Jensen hog feedlot will consist of two 2,400-head deep-pitted hog-finishing barns. The modeled locations of the barns and the effective property lines are provided in Figure 3. The setback distances from the barns to the property lines range from 220 to 1,918 feet.

The physical characteristics of the hog barns are provided in Table 4. Each barn was modeled as a line source.

220'

300'

1918'

453'

1245'

2540'

(3960', 50')

Proposed Barn

Existing Barn

N

E

S

W

400'

Figure 3. Modeled locations of the two hog-finishing barns at the expanded existing feedlot.

New Hog FeedlotAfter construction, the potential new Jensen hog

feedlot will consist of two 2,400-head deep-pitted hog-finishing barns. The modeled locations of the barns and the effective property lines are provided in Figure 4. The setback distances from the barns to the property lines range from 220 to 1,823 feet.

The physical characteristics of the hog barns are provided in Table 4. Each barn was modeled as a line source.

220'

300'

648'

(535

5', 2

690'

)

350'

1823

'

N

E

S

W

Nor

th N

ew B

arn

Sout

h N

ew B

arn

2565

'

1270

'

Figure 4. Modeled locations of the two hog-finishing barns at the potential new feedlot.

9 Jensen Hog Feedlots Protocol

Table 4. Dimensions and capacities of the Jensen hog-finishing barns.

JensenFeedlot

FinishingBarn

BarnLength(feet)

BarnWidth(feet)

BarnHeight(feet)

Number ofHousedAnimals

Existing Existing 392 51 20 2,400Proposed 392 51 20 2,400

New North 392 51 20 2,400South 392 51 20 2,400

Feedlot #1Feedlot #1 is 70-head cattle feedlot consisting

of a 60-ft by 40-ft cattle and a 180-ft by 170-ft open lot. The modeled locations of the barn and open lot are provided in Figure 5.

The physical characteristics of the cattle barn are provided in Table 5. The barn was modeled as a volume source.

N

E

S

W

240'

145'

490'

375'

(12,480', 2,690')

Cattle #1

Lot #1

Figure 5. Modeled locations of the cattle barn and open lot for Feedlot #1.

Table 5. Dimensions and capacity of the cattle barn at Feedlot #1.

Barn

BarnLength(feet)

BarnWidth(feet)

BarnHeight(feet)

Number ofHousedAnimals

Cattle #1 60 40 18 70


Gas Emission Rates

Hog-Finishing BarnsThe Jensen hog-finishing barns were modeled

as sources of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor. The estimated emission rates were based on the following constant emission factors:

• 3.35 µg H2S/(m2•sec)

• 53.3 µg NH3/(m2•sec)

• 6.86 OU•m3/(m2•sec).20

Cattle BarnThe cattle barn at Feedlot #1 was modeled as a

source of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor. The barn emission rates were based on following constant emission fluxes:

• 0.55 µg H2S/(m2•sec)21

• 33.5 µg NH3/(m2•sec)22

• 1.34 OU•m3/(m2•sec).23

Open LotThe open lot at Feedlot #1 was modeled

as a source of odor, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia. Emission rates are equal to the surface area times the estimated emission flux rate. The

modeled odor emission flux ratesfrom the manure pack of the open lots varied monthly, based on an April odor flux of 4.76 OU•m3/(m2•sec).24 To account for monthly variations in odor emission flux rates, the April flux was multiplied by the monthly scalars listed in Table 6.

The modeled hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emission flux rates from the manure pack of the open lots varied hourly. The OPENLOTFLUX algorithms estimated the emission flux rates, based on the wind speed, air temperature, manure pack temperature, and effective surface concentrations. The algorithms used the average effective hydrogen sulfide and ammonia concentrations at the surface of the manure pack obtained from cattle feedlot monitoring data for a feedlot not exposed to freezing conditions.25, 26

To illustrate the range and variability in the hourly emissions, the estimated 2006 noon-hour emission flux rates for hydrogen sulfide are provided in Figure 6.


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

21 Smith J. F. et al. 2007. Comprehensive evaluation of a low-profile cross-ventilated freestall barn. Western Dairy Management Conference, Reno, NV, March 7-9, 2007.

22 Ibid.23 Gay S. W. et al. 2003. Odor, total reduced sulfur, and ammonia emissions from animal housing facilities and

manure storage units in Minnesota. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 19(3): 347-360.24 Duysen R. D. et al. 2003. Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and odor emissions from a beef cattle feedlot. ASAE

Meeting Paper No. 034109. St. Joseph, MI.25 Todd R. W. et al. 2005. Ammonia and gaseous nitrogen emissions from a commercial cattle feedyard estimated

using the flux-gradient method and the N:P ratio analysis. In: State of the Science, Animal Manure and Waste Management, January 4-7, 2005, San Antonio, TX.

26 Baek B. H. et al. 2006. Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide flux and dry deposition velocity estimates using vertical gradient method at a commercial beef cattle feedlot. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 6(2-3): 189-203.

Table 6. Monthly odor emission scalars for open lots.27

MonthOdor

Emission Scalar

January 0.38February 0.38March 0.38April 1.00May 1.00June 0.67July 0.67August 0.64September 0.38October 0.38November 0.38December 0.38

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

H 2S$Flux$[g

/(m

2 •da

y)]

Julian$Day

Figure 6. Estimated 2006 noon-hour hydrogen sulfide (H2S) emission flux rates for an open cattle lot.

Hydrogen Sulfide at Property Lines and Neighbors

The AERMOD results suggest that the expanded existing Jensen hog feedlot and the potential new Jensen hog feedlot will comply with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide (H2S). The estimated high-third-high (H3H) concentrations at the two feedlots’ property lines are provided in Table 7 and Table 8. When a background concentration of 17 ppb is added to the AERMOD-generated concentrations, the H3H hydrogen sulfide concentration is 29.43 ppb, which does not exceed the standard of 30 ppb. Thus, no violations of the hydrogen sulfide standard were modeled.

Table 7. High-third-high hourly property-linehydrogen sulfide concentrations for the expanded existing Jensen hog feedlot.

ExistingFeedlotProperty

Line

High-Third-High H2S

ConcentrationWithout

Background(ppb, v/v)

High-Third-High H2S

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

North 7.17 24.17 East 11.25 28.25 South 11.79 28.79 West 10.16 27.16


27 Duysen R. D. et al. 2003. Ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and odor emissions from a beef cattle feedlot. ASAE Meeting Paper No. 034109. St. Joseph, MI

Table 8. High-third-high hourly property-linehydrogen sulfide concentrations for the

potential new Jensen hog feedlot.

NewFeedlotProperty

Line

High-Third-High H2S

ConcentrationWithout

Background(ppb, v/v)

High-Third-High H2S

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

North 12.43 29.43 East 5.49 22.49 South 11.63 28.63 West 11.21 28.21

The maximum AERMOD-generated hourly hydrogen sulfide concentrations (without background) are plotted in Figure 7. The plotted 10-ppb concentration isopleth is assumed to represent the maximum extent of detectable hydrogen sulfide odors. This assumption slightly underestimates the extent of detectable odors, because the reported odor threshold concentration for hydrogen sulfide is 9.4 ppb (Table 2). The 10-ppb isopleth in Figure 7 suggests that detectable offsite concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can exist for both the existing and new Jensen hog feedlots.

510

105

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2 3

Nor

th/S

outh

Dis

tanc

e (m

iles)

East/WestDistance (miles)

Figure 7. Maximum AERMOD-generated hourly hydrogen sulfide concentrations in ppb for the existing Jensen feedlot, the new Jensen feedlot, and the neighboring cattle feedlot. The contour lines represent 5, 10, and 15 ppb of hydrogen sulfide.

The AERMOD results also suggest that the emissions from the expanded existing Jensen feedlot, the potential new Jensen feedlot, and the neighboring cattle feedlot will not cause exceedances of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV at the neighboring residences. As provided in Table 9, when a background concentration of 1.00 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD-generated concentrations, the maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concen-tration for a neighboring residence is 1.61 µg/m3, which is below the 13-week subchronic iHRV for hydrogen sulfide of 10 µg/m3.


Table 9. Maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentrations for neighbors.

(* = feedlot residence)

Neighbor

H2SConcentration

WithoutBackground

(µg/m3)

H2SConcentrationWith a 1 µg/m3

Background(µg/m3)

A1 0.02 1.02 A2 0.02 1.02 A3 0.04 1.04 A4 0.05 1.05 B1 0.08 1.08 B2 0.07 1.07 B3 0.08 1.08 B4 0.09 1.09 B5 0.09 1.09 B6 0.10 1.10 C1 0.13 1.13 C2 0.07 1.07 D1 0.03 1.03 D2 0.02 1.02 E1* 0.10 1.10 E2 0.08 1.08 E3 0.04 1.04 E4 0.04 1.04 F1 0.35 1.35 F2 0.61 1.61 F3 0.13 1.13 F4 0.15 1.15

Table 9. Maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentrations for neighbors.

(continued)

Neighbor

H2SConcentration

WithoutBackground

(µg/m3)

H2SConcentrationWith a 1 µg/m3

Background(µg/m3)

F5 0.10 1.10 F6 0.08 1.08 G1 0.08 1.08 G2 0.24 1.24 G3 0.28 1.28 H1 0.01 1.01 H2 0.02 1.02 H3 0.04 1.04 H4 0.04 1.04 I1 0.01 1.01 I2 0.01 1.01 I3 0.02 1.02 J1 0.07 1.07 J2 0.16 1.16 J3 0.04 1.04 K1 0.05 1.05 K2 0.08 1.08 K3 0.11 1.11 L1 0.07 1.07 L2 0.04 1.04 L3 0.03 1.03


Ammonia at Property Lines and Neighbors

The AERMOD-generated maximum hourly property-line ammonia (NH3) concentrations for the two Jensen feedlots are provided in Table 10 and Table 11. The highest estimated property-line concentration with a background concentration of 148 µg/m3 is 3,768 µg/m3, which is below the acute iHRV for ammonia of 3,200 µg/m3. Thus, the modeling results suggest that the two Jensen feedlots will not cause exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV.

Table 10. Maximum hourly property-lineammonia concentrations for the expanded

existing Jensen hog feedlot.


Line

NH3Concentration

WithoutBackground

(µg/m3)

NH3Concentration

With a 148 µg/m3

Background(µg/m3)

North 197 345 East 295 443 South 366 514 West 263 411

Table 11. Maximum hourly property-lineammonia concentrations for the potential

new Jensen hog feedlot.

NewFeedlotProperty

Line

NH3Concentration

WithoutBackground

(µg/m3)

NH3Concentration

With a 148 µg/m3

Background(µg/m3)

North 337 485 East 132 280 South 275 423 West 311 459

The maximum AERMOD-generated hourly ammonia concentrations (without background) are plotted in Figure 8. The reported odor threshold concentration for ammonia is 4,125 µg/m3 or 5,800 ppb (Table 2). Because all plotted ammonia concentrations are less than 4,125 µg/m3, Figure 8 suggests that the expanded existing Jensen feedlot, the potential new Jensen feedlot, and the neighboring cattle feedlot will not generate detectable offsite concentrations of ammonia.


250

250 250750

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2 3

Nor

th/S

outh

Dis

tanc

e (m

iles)


Figure 8. Maximum AERMOD-generated hourly ammonia concentration in µg/m3 for the existing Jensen feedlot, the new Jensen feedlot, and the neighboring cattle feedlot. The contour lines represent 250, 500, and 750 µg/m3 of ammonia.

The AERMOD results also suggest that the combined ammonia emissions the expanded existing Jensen feedlot, the potential new Jensen feedlot, and the neighboring cattle feedlot will not cause exceedances of the chronic ammonia iHRV at the nearest neighbors. The highest annual ammonia concentration for a neighbor with a background concentration of 5.72 µg/m3 is 11.19 µg/m3, which is below the chronic ammonia iHRV of 80 µg/m3. The maximum annual ammonia concentration for each of the modeled neighboring residences is provided in Table 12.

Table 12. Maximum annual ammonia concentrations for neighbors.

(* = feedlot residence)

Neighbor

NH3Concentration

WithoutBackground

(µg/m3)

NH3Concentration

With a 5.72 µg/m3 Background

(µg/m3)

A1 0.12 5.84 A2 0.12 5.84 A3 0.21 5.93 A4 0.24 5.96 B1 0.36 6.08 B2 0.41 6.13 B3 0.42 6.14 B4 0.62 6.34 B5 0.68 6.40 B6 0.73 6.45 C1 0.65 6.37 C2 0.39 6.11 D1 0.24 5.96 D2 0.23 5.95 E1* 5.47 11.19 E2 2.05 7.77 E3 0.76 6.48 E4 0.66 6.38 F1 2.34 8.06 F2 3.92 9.64 F3 0.81 6.53 F4 0.89 6.61


Table 12. Maximum annual ammonia concentrations for neighbors.

(continued)

Neighbor

NH3Concentration

WithoutBackground

(µg/m3)

NH3Concentration

With a 5.72 µg/m3 Background

(µg/m3)

F5 0.75 6.47 F6 0.73 6.45 G1 0.52 6.24 G2 1.18 6.90 G3 1.55 7.27 H1 0.11 5.83 H2 0.16 5.88 H3 0.33 6.05 H4 0.27 5.99 I1 0.09 5.81 I2 0.09 5.81 I3 0.16 5.88 J1 0.53 6.25 J2 0.82 6.54 J3 0.22 5.94 K1 0.30 6.02 K2 0.39 6.11 K3 0.56 6.28 L1 0.39 6.11 L2 0.35 6.07 L3 0.30 6.02

Odorous Gas ConcentrationsAERMOD estimated the ground-level

atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia at the property lines for the expanded existing Jensen feedlot and the potential new Jensen feedlot, and the neighboring residences not associated with feedlots. The estimated maximum property-line concentrations are 512 ppb for ammonia (without background) and 16.00 ppb for hydrogen sulfide (without background). The corresponding odor numbers for the maximum property-line concentrations are 1.7 for hydrogen sulfide and 0.1 for ammonia. Population response curves suggest that 78 percent of the population could detect the estimated maximum property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration, and 0 percent the ammonia concentration.

The estimated maximum hourly concentrations for the non-feedlot neighboring residences are 925 ppb for ammonia (without background), and 7.89 ppb for hydrogen sulfide (without background). The corresponding odor numbers for the maximum neighbor concentrations are 0.8 for hydrogen sulfide and 0.2 for ammonia. Population response curves suggest that 40 percent of the population could detect the estimated maximum neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration, and 1 percent the ammonia concentration. The population response curves assume the presence of individual gases.


Odor Intensities at Property Lines and Neighbors

AERMOD estimated the ground-level odor intensities at the property lines for both the expanded existing Jensen feedlot and the potential new Jensen feedlot, and at the neighboring residences As indicated in Table 13 and Table 14, the maximum hourly odor intensity at the two Jensen feedlots’ property lines is 47 odor units (OU), which is which is below the “faint” odor threshold of 72 OU (Table 3).

Table 13. Maximum hourly property-line odor intensities for the expanded existing Jensen hog feedlot and the frequency at which the

“faint” odor threshold of 72 OU is equaled or exceeded .


Line

MaximumHourlyOdor

Intensity(OU, d/t)

Frequency at Which the

“Faint” Odor Threshold is

Exceeded(percent)

North 25 0.00 East 38 0.00 South 47 0.00 West 34 0.00

Figure 9 suggests that “faint” and stronger odors will be confined to the Jensen feedlots.

The AERMOD-generated ground-level odor intensities at the six feedlots’ neighbors are provided in Table 15. The estimated maximum odor intensity for a non-feedlot neighboring residence is 46 OU at Neighbor E2. The 72-OU threshold for “faint” odors at Neighbor H1 was exceeded 0.00 percent of the time.

Table 14. Maximum hourly property-line odor intensities for the potential new Jensen hog

feedlot and the frequency at which the “faint” odor threshold of 72 OU is equaled or

exceeded .


Line

MaximumHourlyOdor

Intensity(OU, d/t)



Exceeded(percent)

North 43 0.00 East 17 0.00 South 35 0.00 West 39 0.00

25

2572

-1

0

1

2

-1 0 1 2 3

Nor

th/S

outh

Dis

tanc

e (m

iles)


Figure 9. Maximum AERMOD-generated hourly odor intensities as OU for the existing Jensen feedlot, the new Jensen feedlot, and the neighboring cattle feedlot. The threshold for “very faint” odors is 25 OU and for “faint” strength odors is 72 OU (Table 3).


Table 15. Maximum neighbor odor intensities.(* = feedlot residences)

Neighbor

MaximumHourlyOdor

Intensity(OU, d/t)



Exceeded(percent)

A1 3 0.00 A2 3 0.00 A3 4 0.00 A4 4 0.00 B1 5 0.00 B2 6 0.00 B3 6 0.00 B4 9 0.00 B5 11 0.00 B6 11 0.00 C1 15 0.00 C2 13 0.00 D1 5 0.00 D2 7 0.00 E1* 79 0.02 E2 46 0.00 E3 11 0.00 E4 13 0.00 F1 23 0.00 F2 22 0.00 F3 14 0.00 F4 13 0.00

Table 15. Maximum neighbor odor intensities.(continued)

Neighbor

MaximumHourlyOdor

Intensity(OU, d/t)



Exceeded(percent)

F5 13 0.00 F6 11 0.00 G1 10 0.00 G2 15 0.00 G3 18 0.00 H1 3 0.00 H2 4 0.00 H3 7 0.00 H4 7 0.00 I1 3 0.00 I2 4 0.00 I3 5 0.00 J1 12 0.00 J2 20 0.00 J3 10 0.00 K1 6 0.00 K2 6 0.00 K3 8 0.00 L1 5 0.00 L2 7 0.00 L3 4 0.00


SummaryThe AERMOD modeling results suggest that

both the expanded existing Jensen hog feedlot and the potential new Jensen hog feedlot will comply with the ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide at feedlot’s property lines. The results also suggest that the two Jensen feedlots will not create exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV at their property lines.

The AERMOD results also suggest that the expanded existing Jensen hog feedlot, the potential new Jensen hog feedlot, and the neighboring cattle feedlot will not create exceedances of the subchronic iHRV for hydrogen sulfide and the chronic iHRV for ammonia at the neighboring residences.

The AERMOD modeling results indicate that detectable concentrations of hydrogen sulfide can exist beyond the two Jensen feedlots’ property lines. Modeled maximum property-line odor intensities for the two Jensen feedlots were below the 72-OU threshold for “faint” odors. The odor intensities for the non-feedlot neighboring residences were also below the 72-OU threshold for “faint” odors.


Documents

Jensen Family Farms Feedlots Environmental Assessment