Rebco Pork II EAWWorksheet (EAW) Rebco Pork II
Doc Type: Public Notice
Public Comment Information EAW Public comment period begins: June
8, 2015
EAW Public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on July 8, 2015
Notice published in the EQB Monitor: June 8, 2015
Facility Specific Information Facility name and location: Facility
contact: Rebco Pork II SW ¼ of Section 12, Township 109 North Range
29 West, Courtland Township Nicollet County, MN
Alan D. Larson, PE Anez Consulting, Inc. 1700 Technology Drive NE
Willmar, Minnesota 56201 Phone: 320-235-1970 Fax: 320-235-1986
Email:
[email protected]
MPCA Contact Information
MPCA EAW contact person: MPCA Permit contact person: Charles
Peterson Resource Management and Assistance Division Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN
55155 Phone: 651-757-2856 Fax: 651-297-2343 Email:
[email protected] Admin staff phone: 651-757-0100
Richard Gruenes Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone:
651-757-2751 Fax: 651-297-2343 Email:
[email protected]
General Information The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
is distributing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a
30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental
Quality Board (EQB) rules. The MPCA uses the EAW and any comments
received to evaluate the potential for significant environmental
effects from the project and decide on the need for an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
An electronic version of the EAW is available on the MPCA
Environmental Review webpage at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oxpg691.
If you would like a copy of the EAW or NPDES/SDS Permit or have any
questions on the EAW or NPDES/SDS Permit, contact the appropriate
person(s) listed above.
p-ear2-87a
Description of Proposed Project Rebco Pork, Inc. (Proposer)
proposes to build two 102 feet x 204 feet total confinement
buildings with 10 feet deep concrete manure storage pits below the
buildings, along with a 20 feet x 48 feet composting building in
Section 12 of Courtland Township, Nicollet County (Project). The
proposed facility will house up to 4,800 market swine for a total
of 1,440 animal units (AUs). A copy of the Environmental Assessment
Worksheet will be posted on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
website, at the following:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html. Written comments on
the EAW should be submitted to Charles Peterson. A copy of the EAW
may also be obtained by contacting Beth Tegdesch at 651-757-2100.
In addition to the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s draft National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS)
Permit will also be available for public comment beginning shortly
after EAW publication. The contact person for the NPDES/SDS Permit
is Richard Gruenes at 651-757-2343.
To Submit Written Comments on the EAW and NPDES/SDS Permit Written
comments on the EAW must be received by the MPCA EAW contact person
within the comment period listed above.
For information on how to comment on the (NPDES/SDS Permit, contact
the MPCA Permit contact person listed above.
NOTE: All comment letters are public documents and will be part of
the official public record for this project.
Need for an EIS (1) A final decision on the need for an EIS will be
made after the end of the comment period. (2) If a request for an
EIS is received during the comment period, or if the MPCA
Commissioner (Commissioner) recommends
the preparation of an EIS, the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board) will
make the final decision. (3) If a request for an EIS is not
received, the final decision will be made by the
Commissioner.
The Board meets once a month, usually the fourth Tuesday of each
month, at the MPCA office in St. Paul. Meetings are open to the
public and interested persons may offer testimony on Board agenda
items. Information on the Board is available at:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/nwqh406. p-ear2-87a
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY
651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats
i-admin12-08 • 10/2/14 Page 2 of 2
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
651-296-6300) 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. 1. Basic
Project Information.
A. Feedlot Name: Rebco Pork II B. Feedlot Proposer: Rebco Pork Inc.
C. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Technical
Contact Person Alan D. Larsen, PE
Contact Person
Charles Peterson
and Title
Planner Principal
Address 1700 Technology Drive NE Address 520 Lafayette Road North
Willmar, MN 56201 St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Phone 320-235-1970 Phone
651-757-2856 Fax 320-235-1986 Fax 651-297-2343 E-mail
[email protected] E-mail
[email protected]
D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
EIS Scoping
Mandatory EAW
category subpart number and name: Minn R. 4410.4300, subp.
29A
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
E. Project Location: County Nicollet City/Twp Courtland
SE 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 12 Township 109N Range 29W Watershed (name
and 4-digit code):
Minnesota, 0702
Attachment A Project Location Map Attachment B U.S. Geological
Survey Topographical Map with Project Boundaries Attachment C
Project Site Plan Attachment D Neighboring Residences, Water Supply
Wells, Sensitive Features, One Mile Radius Attachment E Cumulative
Impacts - Water Attachment F Air Quality Modeling Analysis and
OFFSET Modeling Results Attachment G Minnesota Archaeological
Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory Results Attachment H
Natural Heritage Information System Search Report Attachment I
Courtland Township Zoning Districts Attachment J MDNR Well
Construction Preliminary Assessment
Contact Richard Gruenes, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s St.
Paul office, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155 to review
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal
System (NPDES/SDS) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Permit
Application and associated documents including the Air Emissions
and Odor Response Plan, the Animal Mortality Plan, the Emergency
Response Plan, the Operation and Maintenance Plan and the Manure
Management Plan (MMP).
G. Project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB
Monitor.
Rebco Pork, Inc. (Proposer) proposes to build two 102 feet x 204
feet total confinement buildings with 10 feet deep concrete manure
storage pits below the buildings, along with a 20 feet x 48 feet
composting building in Section 12 of Courtland Township, Nicollet
County (Project). The proposed facility will house up to 4,800
market swine for a total of 1,440 animal units (AUs).
H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested
data:
Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Finishing hogs
4,800 Total Sows Nursery pigs Dairy cows Beef cattle Turkeys Layer
hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species)
I. Project magnitude data.
Total acreage of farm: 40 Number of animal units proposed in this
Project: 1,440 Total animal unit capacity at this location after
Project construction: 1,440
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 2 Worksheet
Acreage required for manure application: The Proposer will sell and
transfer all manure generated at the facility to third parties who
have entered into agreements with the Proposer. Approximately 890
acres is needed for land application of the manure, dependent upon
crop and nutrient needs.
J. Describe construction methods and timing.
The Proposer will construct the finishing buildings and compost
building simultaneously. The installation of stormwater erosion
prevention and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs),
including silt fence and top soil stripping and stockpiling, begins
in the fall of 2015. The Proposer will install concrete pits,
perimeter drain tile, driveways, utilities, and the new production
well at the same time. The perimeter drain tile is used to relieve
any seasonal saturation and limit any hydrostatic pressure on the
concrete pit walls. Placement of the concrete for the pit floors,
footings and compost building slab takes place after placement of
specified reinforcing steel and concrete forms. Wall and column
construction will be followed with placement of precast beams and
slats, after approval by the design engineer. The Proposer will
provide stormwater drainage away from the facility through final
grading and permanent vegetative cover.
K. Past and future stages.
Is this Project an expansion or addition to an existing feedlot?
Yes No
Are future expansions of this feedlot planned or likely? Yes
No
If either question is answered yes, briefly describe the existing
feedlot (species, number of animals and animal units, and type of
operation) and any past environmental review or the anticipated
expansion.
The Proposer will manage 4,800 swine, each weighing 55 to 300
pounds (1,440 AU), housed in two 102 feet x 204 feet total
confinement buildings. The manure is stored in poured-in-place,
reinforced concrete pits, 10 feet deep below the buildings. The
Proposer does not plan any further expansion of the facility.
2. Land uses and noteworthy resources in proximity to the
site.
A. Adjacent land uses. Describe the uses of adjacent lands and give
the distances and directions to nearby residences, schools, daycare
facilities, senior citizen housing, places of worship, and other
places accessible to the public (including roads) within one mile
of the feedlot and within or adjacent to the boundaries of the
manure application sites.
The facility and the manure application sites are located in
Nicollet County, zoned and utilized for agriculture. Three
residences are located within 1/2 mile of the proposed site. The
closest non-farm residence is 1/3 of a mile northwest of the
proposed site. Sixteen residences are within one mile of the
proposed site. The Courtland Immanuel Lutheran Church and School
are 0.5 and 0.7 miles west, respectively, of the proposed
site.
Nicollet County State Aid Highway 25 runs along the south side of
the proposed site. The Minnesota River is three miles southeast of
the proposed site. A total of 893 acres of cropland identified for
land application of the manure is located within three miles of the
proposed site.
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
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 3 Worksheet
Is there anything about the proposed feedlot that is not consistent
with any provision of any ordinance or plan checked? Yes No.
Nicollet County is located in south central Minnesota. The County
is bounded on the south and east by the Minnesota River, as it
bends north toward its confluence with the Mississippi. Nicollet
County is predominately rural in character- the vast majority of
land in the unincorporated areas of the County is used for
agricultural production. As a corollary to this, agricultural
residences are scattered throughout the rural areas. In addition to
these related uses, the rural areas contain a certain percentage of
land unsuitable for cultivation because of conditions such as
topography and drainage. In Nicollet County there is comparatively
little unsuitable land. However, there are some significant
wetlands, wooded areas, and steep slopes located principally along
the Minnesota River and the area immediately surrounding Swan Lake.
These areas provide wildlife habitat, preserve natural scenery, and
protect soil and water resources. The Project is consistent with
the County Comprehensive Plan.
The Project is consistent with the land use plan or ordinance and
specifically, the Special Protection, Floodplain, and Feedlot
Ordinances. Shoreland areas around Swan and Middle Lakes that are
unique in natural wildlife resource value and experience
considerable public use for recreation purposes are part of a
Special Protection District. Feedlots of 300 or more AUs are a
conditionally permitted use in the Special Protection District. The
Floodplain District includes those areas that lie within the 100
year and 500 year flood boundaries on the Flood Insurance Rate Map
Index dated July 21, 1999. Feedlots are not a permitted use in the
Floodplain District. The Shoreland Management Ordinance regulates
the development of shorelands of public waters, preserves the
quality of surface waters, conserves the economic and natural
environmental values of shorelands, and provides for the wise use
of waters and related land resources. Feedlots of 300 or more AUs
are a conditionally permitted use in the Shoreland Management
District.
The Project site is located outside of the Special Protection,
Floodplain, and Shoreland Management Districts and the Project is a
conditionally permitted use in the Agricultural Preservation
District. See Attachment I for a map showing Courtland Township
zoning districts.
Nicollet County Zoning Ordinance 715.4 specifies that new animal
feedlots maintain a minimum setback of 1/8 of a mile from
neighboring residences and 1/2 of a mile from schools and private
schools, excluding home school sites or churches. There are a total
of 16 residences, one church and cemetery, and a private school
located within one mile of the proposed feedlot. The nearest
neighbor is 1,720 feet (0.33 mile) northwest of the site. The
second nearest neighbor is 2,358 feet (0.45 mile) northeast of the
site. The Courtland Immanuel Lutheran Church is 2,710 feet (0.51
mile) west, and the Immanuel Lutheran School is 3,693 feet (0.70
mile) west of the proposed site. A map showing neighbors within one
mile of the feedlot is shown in Attachment D.
The Nicollet County feedlot ordinance also requires new feedlots or
new construction on existing feedlots to meet a 99% odor annoyance
free rating at the closest city limits line and a 93% odor
annoyance free rating for residential zoning districts, public
parks, churches, public schools, or dwellings that are not
designated as accessory to the feedlot, as determined by the OFFSET
odor evaluation modeling developed and modified by the University
of Minnesota Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering.
OFFSET modeling confirms the proposed feedlot meets all annoyance
free ratings. See Attachment F for OFFSET modeling results.
If yes, describe the inconsistency and how it will be
resolved.
Are there any lands in proximity to the feedlot that are officially
planned for or zoned for future uses that might be incompatible
with a feedlot (such as residential development)? Yes No
If yes, describe the potentially affected use and its location
relative to the feedlot, its anticipated development schedule, and
any plans to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with the
feedlot.
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 4 Worksheet
C. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in
proximity to the feedlot, manure storage areas, or within or
adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites?
• Drinking Water Supply Management Areas designated by the
Minnesota Department of Health? Yes No
• Public water supply wells (within two miles)? Yes No •
Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Yes No •
Designated public parks, recreation areas or trails? Yes No • Lakes
or Wildlife Management Areas? Yes No • State-listed (endangered,
threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities
or
other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie
habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare
plant communities? Yes No
• Scenic views and vistas? Yes No • Other unique resources? Yes No
If yes, describe the resource and identify any Project-related
impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid
adverse impacts. Public Water Supply Wells
Based on information provided by the Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH), there are three public water supply wells located within 2
miles of the Project site and/or the manure application acres. The
nearest public water supply well is located at the Courtland
Immanuel Lutheran Church and School and lies 1/3 of a mile west of
the application site in the southwest quarter of section 12 of
Courtland Township. The MPCA considers this 325-foot deep well
susceptible to contamination because it does not meet current
construction standards or no information is available regarding the
well construction. At this time, municipalities using this well
that are required to monitor for contaminants listed in the Safe
Drinking Water Act for this type of public water system have not
detected any such contaminants.
The other two public water supply wells are located within 2 miles
from a manure land application site. Courtland City Well No. 1 and
Courtland City Well No. 2 are located 1.75 miles southwest of the
manure application site in the northwest quarter of Section 3 in
Courtland West Township. The MPCA determined these wells, one at
101 feet and the other at 104 feet in depth, are not susceptible to
contamination because they meet well construction standards and do
not present a pathway for contamination to readily enter the water
supply. The MDH has not designated this area as a source water
protection area.
The Proposer is required to follow an MPCA-approved MMP and submit
an annual report to the MPCA on manure production, land
application, and any discharges. The approved MMP is an integral
and enforceable part of the Project’s NPDES/SDS Permit. The MPCA
has determined that land application of manure from this Project
should not adversely impact groundwater provided the approved MMP
and application rates are followed as required by the NPDES permit
and Minnesota rules.
Archaeological, Historical or Architectural Resources
Four archaeological sites and 13 historic properties were
identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory
and Historic Structures Inventory performed by the Minnesota State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). This database lists recorded
archaeological sites and historic architectural properties that are
included in the current SHPO databases.
The four archaeological sites identified are concentrated in the
north half of Section 2 in Courtland Township. The nearest manure
application site is located approximately 1,500 feet south, in
the
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 5 Worksheet
southeast quarter of that section. The MPCA does not expect any
changes to land use on the manure application sites. Further, the
MPCA does not anticipate any archaeological or historical resource
impacts.
Of the 13 historic properties identified within a mile of the
Project site and/or application acres, 9 are farmsteads and 4 are
farm structures - buildings and granaries. The Proposer will send
manure generated from the proposed facility to two co-located
farmsteads.
Farmers have farmed the acres identified for land application for
decades. The Proposer does not plan to change existing land use.
The Proposer will construct the facility on land currently used for
agricultural production. No other construction is planned as part
of this Project. The MPCA determined the Project will not impact
archaeological, historic, or architectural resources.
Lakes or Wildlife Management Areas
• The Swan Lake Wildlife Management Area, Courtland East Unit lies
in the southwest quarter of Section 28 of Courtland West Township,
adjacent to the application fields in the northwest quarter of
Section 33 and the northeast quarter of Section 32.
• The Swan Lake Wildlife Management Area, Courtland Central Unit
lies in the north half of Section 32, adjacent to the application
field in the northeast quarter of that section.
Farmers accepting manure from the Project will maintain all manure
application setbacks in order to avoid impacts to sensitive areas,
such as Wildlife Management Areas. Additionally, MPCA guidelines
require incorporation of manure within 24 hours of
application.
The application rate is based on the crop to be grown, the previous
crop, the soil type, and the soil fertility. This will assure there
is no excess nutrient build up in the soil. The MPCA does not
anticipate any adverse impacts to lakes or wildlife management
areas.
State-listed Species
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) completed a
search of the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS)
for rare species or other significant natural features known to
occur within approximately one-mile of the proposed site or
cropland designated to receive manure generated by the livestock
housed in the proposed facility. The search identified 14 animal
species. Of these, 8 were vertebrate species, such as fish,
reptiles and birds, and 6x were invertebrate species, such as
mollusks.
The Minnesota’s State Wildlife Action Plan identified milk snake
(Lampropeltis Triangulum), a state- listed Species in Greatest
Conservation Need, in the vicinity of the Project. This
nonvenomous, medium-sized snake is found mainly along the
Minnesota, Mississippi, and St. Croix rivers in open places that
have rocky outcroppings and forests. Milk snakes have no special
status in Minnesota; however, the MDNR provided information
regarding identification of the reptile and will require all
contractors to implement wildlife-friendly erosion control
measures.
Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity
Significance
The NHIS search identified two sites classified by the Minnesota
Biological Survey (MBS) as Sites of Moderate Biodiversity
Significance in the vicinity of the Project area (see Attachment
H). Sites of Biodiversity Significance have varying levels of
native biodiversity, “Below – Moderate – High, and Outstanding”,
and are ranked based on the relative significance of this
biodiversity at a statewide level.
A Below rank reflects a lack of rare species and natural features,
or does not meet MBS standards for a ranking of Outstanding, High,
or Moderate. These sites may include areas of conservation value
at
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 6 Worksheet
the local level, such as habitat for native plants and animals,
corridors for animal movement, buffers surrounding higher-quality
natural areas, areas with high potential for restoration of native
habitat, or open space. Sites ranked Moderate contain occurrences
of rare species, moderately disturbed native plant communities,
and/or landscapes that have strong potential for recovery of native
plant communities and characteristic ecological processes. Sites
ranked High contain very good quality occurrences of the rarest
species, high-quality examples of rare native plant communities,
and/or important functional landscapes.
The MBS identified sites designated as Moderate Biodiversity
Significance adjacent to manure application cropland in the
southeast quarter of Section 2 and the northeast quarter of Section
24 of Courtland Township. These particular sites contain the Red
Oak-Sugar Maple-Basswood (Bitternut Hickory) Forest native plant
community, which is considered vulnerable to extirpation within
Minnesota. Further, these sites contain Southern Mesic Maple –
Maple Basswood Forest, which is considered imperiled in
Minnesota.
Farmers have farmed cropland identified for land application of
manure for decades. The Project does not plan to change existing
land use. The Proposer will construct the facility on land
currently used for agricultural production. No other construction
is planned as part of this Project. The Proposer will monitor
manure application rates to ensure nutrient input does not exceed
the ability for crop nutrient uptake. This will mitigate any
potential for degradation of these natural areas from runoff or
excessive nitrogen loading. The Proposer will maintain required
setbacks from all surface waters and tile intakes and incorporate
manure into the soil within 24 hours. The MPCA has determined the
Project will not impact ecologically significant areas.
3. Geologic and soil conditions.
A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area
Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) 3.6 3.6 1-4.6
(average) 3.6 3.6 2.8 Bedrock (minimum) 200 200 165 (average) 250
250 260
B.
NRCS Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites
Classifications (if known) 106B 106B 106B,109,978,239,L84A
C. Indicate with a yes or no whether any of the following geologic
site hazards to ground water are
present at the feedlot, manure storage area, or manure application
sites.
Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Karst features
(sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst
window, blind valley, or dry valley)
No No No
Exposed bedrock No No No Soils developed in bedrock (as shown on
soils maps)
No No No
For items answered yes (in C), describe the features, show them on
a map, and discuss proposed design and mitigation measures to avoid
or minimize potential impacts.
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 7 Worksheet
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 Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) 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.
A licensed driller will install a new production well. The Proposer
estimates full production water use at approximately 2.6 million
gallons per year. On February 9, 2015, the MDNR granted approval
for preliminary well construction. (see Attachment J).
The Proposer will obtain a MDNR Water Appropriations Permit
following completion of the EAW and acquire all other permits
necessary for well completion. The purpose of the MDNR Water
Appropriation Permit program is to ensure water resources are
managed so that adequate supply is provided to long-range seasonal
requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife,
recreational, power, navigational, and quality control purposes.
This permit program balances competing management objectives,
including both the development and protection of water resources.
Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the
highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. If
a well interference arises, the MDNR has a standard procedure for
investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found
culpable, the operator must correct the interference.
B. Will the Project involve installation of drain tiling, tile
inlets or outlets? Yes No
If yes, describe.
Perimeter drain tile is one component of the design plans and
construction specifications submitted by the Proposer. These plans
and specifications are integral to and enforceable through the
NPDES Permit and meet the requirements of Minn. R. 7020.2100. The
plans and specifications show perimeter drain tile located below
the floor elevation of the concrete pits for relief of seasonal
saturation. A pump will lift discharge from the new perimeter drain
tile to the surface. The discharge will then infiltrate or flow to
existing drain tile. The Proposer will monitor weekly discharge
from the perimeter drain tile for change in appearance and odor.
The Proposer will keep a record of monitored results as part of the
operation and maintenance of the proposed concrete liquid manure
storage area.
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.
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 8 Worksheet
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 1,700,000
gallons by species 1 by species 2
Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle
Up to 10 days
Total days per year Up to 20 days
Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled
(including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot:
Underfloor reinforced concrete pits collect and store all manure
generated at the proposed site. Manure drops directly into the pits
through slatted floors in the buildings and stored in liquid form.
The Proposer will agitate and pump manure via a towed hose or tank
system to the land application sites. A licensed commercial animal
waste technician will apply the manure via direct injection or by
broadcast application and incorporate within 24 hours.
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.
Exhibit A contains a map showing the location of manure application
sites. The Proposer will transfer ownership of the manure generated
by the Project to operators of the cropland receiving the manure.
The Proposer has obtained manure application agreements for all
manure generated by the Project. The Proposer will transport manure
using accepted industry methods to prevent manure spilling onto
public roadways. If spillage occurs, the hauler must remove and
properly disposed the manure in accordance with Minn. R. 7020.2010,
Transportation of Manure. Prior to or at the time that manure
ownership is transferred, the Proposer is required to provide the
cropland operator with information on the state requirements for
manure application, as well as the most current manure nutrient
analysis. The cropland operator is required to follow the
Proposer’s MMP as applicable under 7020.2225 Land Application of
Manure, or local requirements, whichever is the more
stringent.
2. Describe the agronomic rates of application (per acre) to be
used and whether the rates are
based on nitrogen or phosphorus. Will there be a nutrient
management plan? Yes No
The Proposer submitted a MMP for transferred ownership of manure.
After MPCA review and approval, the MMP becomes an integral and
enforceable part of the MPCA feedlot permit. The
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 9 Worksheet
MMP requires the licensed Commercial Animal Waste Technician to
ensure the manure is applied at agronomic rates. The Proposer is
responsible for providing cropland operator with the requirements
for soil testing, manure application rate limits, seasonal
restrictions, manure application setbacks, manure application
record keeping, and spill reporting. Cropland operators are
required to meet all manure application requirements per Minn. R.
7020.2225, Land Application of Manure, or local requirements,
whichever is more stringent.
3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and
composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary.
The Proposer estimates annual manure generation at 1.7 million
gallons. The storage volume of each proposed finishing building is
1.34 million gallons, with a total of 2.7 million gallons for both
buildings, equating to a 12 month manure storage capacity. The MMP
estimates that 890 acres of cropland are required for the land
application of manure. For this Project, a total of 893 acres of
cropland is available for application. Therefore, the MPCA has
determined that no site improvements are necessary.
4. Describe any required setbacks for land application
systems.
All manure whose ownership is transferred, must comply with land
application setbacks set forth by Minn. R. 7020 and/or local
ordinances, whichever is more stringent, and as contained in the
Proposer’s MMP. MPCA setbacks are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: MPCA Land Application Setback Distances (in feet) Feature
Winter Non-Winter
With Immediate Incorporation (<24 hours)
Non-Winter Not incorporated within 24 hours
With P Mgmt.
No P Mgmt.
With Vegetated Buffer
Inadequate Vegetated Buffer
Lake, Stream 300 25 300 100 300 Intermittent Stream* DNR protected
wetlands** Drainage ditch w/o quarry*
300 25 300 50 300
Open Tile Intake 300 0 0 300 300 Well, Mine, or Quarry 50 50 50 50
50 Sinkhole with no Diversion
Downslope -50 Upslope -300
Downslope - 50 Upslope - 300
* Intermittent streams and ditches are 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].
** Wetland setbacks pertain to all protected wetlands identified on
MDNR protected waters and wetlands maps (these maps are often
located in County Soil and Water Conservation District offices and
typically include all wetlands over 10 acres).
E. Other methods of manure utilization. If the Project will utilize
manure other than by land
application, please describe the methods.
None
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 10 Worksheet
6. Air/odor emissions.
A. Identify the major sources of air or odor emissions from this
feedlot.
Manure and those surfaces or items that come into contact with the
manure, including floors, walls, equipment, and animals are sources
of air and/or odor emissions. Manure collection and relative
activities such as pit agitation, manure pumping, or building
cleaning are also sources of air emissions and odors. Animal
mortality composting buildings are potential sources of odor. The
subsequent application of manure on Project fields is also a
significant source of odor.
B. Describe any proposed feedlot design features or air or odor
emission mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or minimize
potential adverse impacts and discuss their anticipated
effectiveness.
The Project is located to minimize potential adverse odor/air
emissions impacts. Buildings are oriented to allow the free-flow of
prevailing winds. The inherent design of this total confinement
facility mitigates odors and emissions by eliminating exposure of
sources to the atmosphere. Additional air mitigation measures
include:
• A dust suppressant to control dust generated by truck traffic.
The Proposer will only agitate stored manure immediately prior to
the manure being removed for land application. Further, the pit
ventilation will be cleaned and serviced on a regular basis to
reduce dust accumulation and discharge.
• During manure application: 1) A Commercial Animal Waste
Technician licensed by the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture
will inject all manure immediately or incorporate manure within 24
hours to minimize the release of odors.
2) The licensed technician will limit the number of application
days as much as possible depending on weather, safety, availability
size of equipment, and availability of personnel to operate
equipment.
3) The licensed technician will use good manure sanitation
practices such as properly operating manure equipment to
reduce/eliminate spillage.
• The Proposer will maintain clean, dry floors, eliminate the
buildup of manure, and clean up any spilled feed. Standard good
housekeeping practices will include washing and disinfection of the
interior of the finishing building at the end of each cycle, paying
special attention to the ventilation fans.
• The Proposer will implement Board of Animal Health and MPCA
recommended BMPs at the animal mortality compost building such as:
utilizing sufficient carbon source (12 inch minimum cover over
carcass); maintaining adequate temperature; and keeping compost
material inside proper bunkers.
The Proposer is committed to being a good neighbor, and weather
conditions will be evaluated prior to land application to minimize
impacts on neighbors and the public. The Proposer will consult with
the MPCA/County Feedlot Officer to identify changes that can be
made to reduce odors in the event that complaints are
received.
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.
Based on a protocol approved by the MPCA, MPCA performed an air
dispersion modeling analysis to estimate the air quality impacts of
the construction of two 2,400-head swine finishing facility in
the
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 11 Worksheet
southwest quarter of Section 12 in Courtland Township, Nicollet
County. The following findings present results of the quantitative
assessment of air quality impacts associated with the Project, as
well as existing feedlots located within a nine square-mile grid
surrounding the Project site.
Hydrogen Sulfide
The modeling results predict the constructed facility will comply
with the 30 parts per billion (ppb) hydrogen sulfide Minnesota
ambient air quality (MAAQ) standard. Under the MAAQ standard, the
third exceedance of the MAAQ within any 5-day period is a
violation. Modeled compliance is demonstrated when the
high-third-high (H3H) concentration (added to background) for any
5-day period at each property-line receptor is less than the 30 ppb
MAAQ standard. AERMOD predicted a maximum H3H property-line
hydrogen sulfide concentration of 12.58 ppb. When a background
concentration of 17 ppb is added to the AERMOD predictions, the H3H
hydrogen sulfide concentration is 29.58 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 facility with the
proposed Project.
The AERMOD results indicated that, after construction, the facility
will not create exceedances of the sub chronic (13-week) hydrogen
sulfide inhalation Human Risk Value (iHRV) at the neighboring
residences. The estimated maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide
concentration for a neighboring residence is 1.66 μg/m3. When a
background concentration of 1.00 μg/m3 is added to the AERMOD
estimate, the maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration for a
neighboring residence is 2.66 μg/m3, which is below the sub chronic
hydrogen sulfide iHRV of 10 μg/m3.
Ammonia
The modeling results also suggest that, after construction, the
facility will not create exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV.
AERMOD predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia
concentration of 245.98 μg/m3. When a background concentration of
148 μg/m3 is added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum
property-line ammonia concentration is 393.98 μg/m3, which is below
the acute ammonia iHRV of 3,200 μg/m3.
The AERMOD results indicate that the facility, after construction
of the Project, will not create exceedances of the chronic ammonia
iHRV at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year
time-averaged ammonia concentration for a neighboring residence is
8.74 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 14.46 μg/m3, which is
below the chronic ammonia iHRV of 80 μg/m3.
Odor
Based on the air dispersion modeling analysis performed by MPCA,
AERMOD modeling results indicate the Project will not contribute to
odor concentrations (OU/m3) above an odor intensity of 83 OU/m3,
defined as a “faint odor” at the property line. The modeled maximum
hourly odor intensity was 35.97 OU/m3 on the south boundary
line.
The modeling results also predict the Project will not contribute
to odor concentrations above an odor intensity of 83 OU/m3, defined
as a “faint odor” at nearby non-feedlot residences. With the
addition of the proposed Rebco II finishing facility, the maximum
hourly odor intensity for a non-feedlot neighboring residence was
only 49.19 OU/m3.
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 does not plan to notify neighbors before operational
events such as manure storage, agitation, pump out, or application.
The County Feedlot Officer will be notified prior to operational
events such as manure agitation and land application. The Proposer
will evaluate weather conditions before manure application to
minimize impacts on neighbors and the public.
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 12 Worksheet
E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration,
quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate
adverse impacts.
The Proposer indicates truck traffic along roads, entering and
leaving the facility will generate some noise, but no residences
will be impacted. Separation distance is the primary mitigating
factor in reducing the potential for adverse impacts from this
Project. The Proposer will use a dust suppressant to control dust
generated by truck traffic. The Proposer will respond to all
complaints in a timely manner.
7. Dead Animal Disposal
Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for
storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of
disposal.
The Proposer will follow the Animal Mortality Plan prepared as a
part of the NPDES/SDS Permit application with composting as the
primary method of disposal and rendering when composting is not
available. The Proposer will remove mortalities from the building
as they are discovered. The estimated annual mortality rate is 5%
or approximately 240 head of swine. The Proposer will follow the
Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules for disposal of all animal
mortalities.
8. Surface Water Runoff.
Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after
the Project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat
runoff.
Livestock production site
Construction of roofed buildings and driveways will increase
surface water runoff on the proposed site due to an increase in
impervious surfaces. However, since the buildings are total
confinement, the runoff will not come in contact with livestock or
manure. The Proposer will prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan (SWPPP) required by the NPDES Permit for erosion prevention
and sediment control during construction.
Land application sites
The land application of manure, if improperly applied, can
adversely impact surface water resources through manure-laden
runoff or manure residue leaching into drain tile lines that
outfall to surface waters. The Project contains land application
areas located within the city of Courtland-Minnesota River, Swan
Lake and Swan Lake Outlet sub-watersheds of the Minnesota River –
Mankato Watershed. These watersheds were converted to cropland many
decades ago. Stormwater runoff characteristics from the Project
manure application areas are expected to remain the same and under
certain circumstances, improve as a result of the land application
activities regulated under the MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit. The
improvements would occur through developing better soil tilth from
organic fertilizer and the uniform practice of incorporating manure
over the acres identified in the MMP. The MPCA does not expect the
Project’s manure application activities to create a significant
impact to surface water resources because as discussed in Item 5,
manure will be applied on the soil at agronomic rates. The
agronomic rate is based on the crop to be grown, the previous crop,
the soil type, and the soil fertility. This will assure there is no
excess nutrient build up in the soil
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.
Trucks will deliver feed and supplies to the site once every two
days. Four times per month a semi- tractor with trailer will pick
up market hogs. One time per month a semi – tractor with trailer
will deliver feeder pigs to the site. Animal care technicians will
visit the site twice daily for normal care and maintenance of
livestock and facility. Access is through County State Aid Highway
25, an asphalt paved
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 13 Worksheet
all weather road. The road has a 10 ton per axle load spring weight
restriction. The additional traffic from the Project is not
expected to have an adverse impact to the normal road use. The MPCA
does not anticipate any road improvements are necessary, and there
are no planned improvements, as a result of the Project.
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:
Unit of government Type of Application Status MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit
Application Submitted MPCA Minnesota Feedlot Permit Application
Submitted MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit Submitted as
part of NPDES
feedlot permit application MPCA Notification/Status Change for
Underground
Storage Tanks
County Minnesota Feedlot Permit County/twp/city Conditional use or
other land use permit To be Submitted MDNR Preliminary Well
Construction Permit Approved, with conditions MDNR Water
Appropriation To be Submitted Other*
*(List any other approvals required along with the unit of
government, type of approval needed, and status of approval
process.)
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.)
The environmental review rules require the MPCA to evaluate whether
a Project, which may not individually have the potential to cause
significant environmental effects, could have a significant effect
when considered along with other Projects. This type of impact is
known as a cumulative potential effect. In order to assess the
Project’s cumulative potential effects, the MPCA conducted an
analysis that addressed other related or anticipated future
projects that could contribute to the potential direct or indirect
impacts of the Project. The MPCA analysis considered projects that:
(1) are already in existence or planned for the future; (2) are
located in the surrounding area; and (3) might reasonably be
expected to affect the same natural resources. The following is a
review of the MPCA’s analysis to determine if the Project would
contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect.
The MPCA reviewed the existing public data to identify the number
of feedlots and other projects within the same sub-watershed of the
Project. The public data reviewed included the most recent MPCA
feedlot registration database and related project or permit
databases for other operations that may hold an air quality, water
quality, hazardous waste, or solid waste permit. A total of 11
permitted feedlots exist in the Project area.
The MPCA also reviewed the Project and existing projects to
determine whether collectively they might reasonably be expected to
affect the same natural resources. The natural resources of concern
included groundwater, surface waters, air quality and land use. The
following is a brief discussion of each.
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 14 Worksheet
Water Resources
Water resources include the waters found on the surface and below
the ground. This Project will use groundwater as a potable water
source for livestock production. Land application of livestock
manure has the potential to impact both surface and groundwater
resources if performed without regard to agronomic rate.
a. Groundwater
There are three areas of concern related to groundwater: 1)
contamination from manure storage structures, 2) contamination from
land application, and 3) effects on water supply from increased
demand.
To protect groundwater, the Proposer will follow design criteria in
Minn. R. ch. 7020 for construction of swine manure storage
structures and land application of manure. The MPCA reviewed and
approved the proposed design plans and construction specifications
for the manure storage pits and the MMP for land application of
manure. The plans, specification and MMP become integral and
enforceable conditions of the Project’s NPDES/SDS Feedlot
Permit.
The Proposer will also submit an annual report to the MPCA on
manure production, land application, and any discharges.
Minn. Stat § 103G.261 establishes domestic water as the highest
priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. The MDNR
requires preliminary approval for well construction and will issue
a water appropriation permit for this Project prior to operation.
The Proposer obtained MDNR’s preliminary approval for the water
appropriations permit after well construction. The Proposer
indicated the Project will extract water from a glacial deposit
aquifer which is the same aquifer used by existing production wells
in the area.
Based on these measures, the MPCA determined the Project is not
expected to adversely impact groundwater from land application of
manure.
b. Surface Water Impacts
The proposed feedlot and manure application sites are located
within the Minnesota River - Mankato Watershed (HUC 07020007). The
vast majority of the Minnesota River - Mankato watershed is
cropland, with corn and soybean production accounting for about 90%
of cropped lands. The primary resource concerns of the watershed
are erosion prevention and sediment control, storm water
management, drinking water and source water protection, drainage
management, waste management, nutrient management, surface water
quality and wetland management related to several first and second
order small streams that drain directly into the Minnesota
River.
The Proposer will use Minnesota Extension Service and MPCA approved
BMPs to minimize the contribution of the Project to cumulative
effects on surface water resources. To ensure water resources will
not be impacted, the Proposer will use several measures as required
by Minnesota feedlot rules. These include, but are not limited to:
1) regular soil and manure testing to specify the manure nutrient
application rates; 2) application of all manure with nitrogen used
as the limiting nutrient when calculating application rates; 3)
sampling and analysis of cropland for phosphorus concentrations
once every four years to prevent buildup; 4) maintaining all
required setbacks from all surface waters and sensitive features
and 5) incorporating all manure into the soil immediately or within
24 hours. Incorporation of manure will reduce the potential for the
transport of fecal coliform bacteria to surface waters.
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 15 Worksheet
The Proposer will house all livestock in total confinement
buildings, and manure will be stored beneath the buildings in
concrete pits designed by a licensed Professional Engineer. The
NPDES/SDS Permit requires a zero discharge standard. As a result,
the MPCA concludes the Project will not contribute to an adverse
cumulative potential impact of surface water quality.
Land
The land identified for the purpose of this Project includes the
site of the proposed facility and the cropland identified as
potential manure application acreage. Two issues have identified
with respect to land resources – 1) wildlife habitat and 2) row
crop agriculture.
a. Wildlife Habitat
There is a competing issue in rural landscapes to maintain a
balance between agricultural demands and preserving natural
resources. In this case, the land to be used for the proposed
expansion is currently open agricultural cropland that offers
limited protection, food, or cover for wildlife. As such, no
additional impact to wildlife habitat is anticipated as a result of
this expansion.
b. Row Crop Agriculture
The Project is designed to use existing row crop feedstock, rather
than cultivate fallow or marginal land to meet crop use needs. As a
result, the MPCA does not expect existing row crop agriculture to
create any new impact to environmental quality.
Air Quality
The MPCA evaluated the Project for regulated pollutants (e.g.,
hydrogen sulfide, odor and ammonia) and accounted for other
off-site sources through the use of air dispersion modeling
software. Modeling results indicate expected concentrations of
hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the
Project will not contribute to exceedances of hydrogen sulfide,
ammonia and odor levels.
Traffic
The cumulative potential effects analysis for traffic included an
evaluation for the direct contribution of new traffic through the
development and operation of the Project in context to the existing
traffic load. The direct impact analysis is provided in Item 9.A of
the EAW. The additional traffic identified in Item 9.A is not
considered to be a significant contribution to the existing traffic
load and does not present an adverse cumulative potential
impact.
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 noted.
Rebco Pork II Environmental Assessment Courtland, Minnesota,
Nicollet County 16 Worksheet
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
FOR
PREPARED FOR
Courtland, MN. 56021
Suite 130 Willmar, MN. 56201
April 2014
ATTACHMENT F
Table of Contents
Section Description Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 MODELING APPROACH AND PARAMETERS 2
Air Quality Standards and Thresholds 2 Background Concentrations 3
Model Selection and Options 4 Meteorological Data 4 Building
Downwash 4 Terrain 5 Receptor Locations 5 3.0 SOURCE DESCRIPTIONS
AND EMISSION RATES 8
Feedlot Diagrams and Descriptions 8 Emission Rate Sources 20 4.0
MODELING RESULTS 21
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 21 Ammonia (NH3) 24 Odor 27 5.0 SUMMARY AND
CONCLUSIONS 30
6.0 REFERENCES 31
Tables and Figures
Table Description Page 1 Modeled Compounds and Concentrations 3 2
Background Concentrations 4
3 Monthly H2S Scalars 21
4 Maximum H3H Hourly H2S Concentrations at Property Lines 22
5 Maximum Monthly H2S Concentration For Nearest Neighbors 23
6 Monthly NH3 Scalars 24
7 Maximum Hourly NH3 Concentrations at Property Lines 25
8 Maximum Annual NH3 Concentrations For Nearest Neighbors 26
9 Odor Perception Intensities 27
10 Monthly Odor Scalars 28
11 Maximum Hourly Odor Concentrations at Property Lines 28
12 Maximum Hourly Odor Intensities at Nearest Neighbors 29
Figure Description Page 1 Project Overview 6 2 Site Layout 7
3 Proposed Swine Finishing Barns 8
4 Feedlot 1 Diagram 9
5 Feedlot 2 Diagram 10
6 Feedlot 3 Diagram 11
7 Feedlot 4 Diagram 12
8 Feedlot 5 Diagram 12
9 Feedlot 6 Diagram 13
10 Feedlot 7 Diagram 14
11 Feedlot 8 Diagram 15
12 Feedlot 9 Diagram 16
13 Feedlot 10 Diagram 17
14 Feedlot 11 Diagram 18
AERMOD Analysis Plots • Modeled High-Third-High (H3H) Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S) Concentrations (µg/m3) • Modeled Monthly Hydrogen
Sulfide (H2S) Concentrations (µg/m3) • Modeled 1-Hour Ammonia (NH3)
Concentrations (µg/m3) • Modeled Annual Ammonia (NH3)
Concentrations (µg/m3) • Modeled Hourly Odor Concentrations
(OU/m3)
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Rebco Pork, Inc. (Rebco) is requesting approval to construct a new
feedlot operation in the southwest quarter of section 12 in
Courtland Township, Nicollet County. The feedlot will include two
2,400-head swine finishing barns which will create a total feedlot
capacity of 1,440 animal units. Minnesota Administrative Rule
4410.4300, Subpart 29 states that an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) must be prepared for the construction of an animal
feedlot facility with a capacity of 1,000 animal units or more or
the expansion of an existing facility by 1,000 animal units or
more.
In support of that EAW, and based on a protocol approved by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), an air quality modeling
analysis has been performed. This Air Quality Modeling Report
presents the results of the quantitative assessment of air quality
impacts associated with the planned project and existing feedlots
located within a 9 square-mile grid surrounding the project
site.
This modeling analysis followed procedures outlined in MPCA
document Air Dispersion Modeling Guidance (July 2013), the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) document Guideline
on Air Quality Models (USEPA Publication number EPA-450/2-78-027R
[revised]), and the USEPA document AERMOD Implementation Guide
(March 19, 2009).
Section 2.0 of this report describes the general modeling approach
and parameters. Section 3.0 describes onsite and offsite sources
and emission rates. Section 4.0 provides model results and Section
5.0 provides a summary and conclusions. Complete modeling files are
provided in electronic format on the enclosed CD.
1
2.0 MODELING APPROACH AND PARAMETERS
This air quality modeling analysis was based on a modeling protocol
approved by MPCA staff on 4/15/2015, and estimated the hydrogen
sulfide concentrations, ammonia concentrations, and odor
intensities from the planned project and 11 existing feedlots
located within a 9 square-mile grid surrounding the project site.
These feedlots were assumed to be the only quantifiable emission
sources; any other sources were assumed to contribute to the
background concentrations included in the modeling results.
Concentrations were estimated at the new feedlot’s effective
property lines and at 64 of the nearest neighbors surrounding the
project. The effective property lines used are those encompassing
the southeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 12, as
shown in Figure 1.
Existing sources and proposed sources were modeled to establish the
current conditions and determine the concentrations directly
attributed to the proposed project, both at the site boundaries and
at surrounding receptors. Concentration levels at property line
receptors and nearest neighbors were within established threshold
levels for all averaging periods and pollutants. A further
discussion of modeling results can be found in Sections 4 and
5.
Air Quality Standards and Thresholds
AERMOD (version 12345) was used to estimate concentrations based on
five years (2006-2010) of historical meteorological data. Maximum
1-hour, monthly and annual average concentrations were calculated
to determine compliance with Minnesota’s State Ambient Air Quality
Standard for hydrogen sulfide, and inhalation Health Risk Values
(iHRVs) for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. Odor intensities were
modeled to compare to an odor classification system based on
detection-threshold odor intensities.
Table 1 shows the compounds and concentrations that were estimated
in the air quality analysis as well as the corresponding air
quality standard.
2
Table 1: Modeled Compounds and Concentrations
Compound/ Pollutant Estimated Concentration Air Quality Standard
Notes
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
Maximum hourly concentration at the effective property lines.
30 ppb (by volume) hourly Minnesota State Ambient Air Quality
Standard
½ hour average not to be exceeded over 2 times in any 5-day
period.
Maximum monthly concentration at the nearest neighbors.
10 µg/m3 subchronic (13 week) inhalation Health Risk Value
(iHRV)
Ammonia (NH3)
3,200 µg/m3 acute hourly inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV)
Maximum annual concentration at the nearest neighbors.
80 µg/m3 annual chronic inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV)
Odor
Maximum hourly odor intensity at the effective property lines. An
odor classification system
based on detection/ threshold odor intensities.
Maximum hourly odor intensity at nearest neighbors.
Background Concentrations
Background concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia provided
in Table 2 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.
If assessing the potential to comply with the 50-ppb hydrogen
sulfide standard, a background concentration of 18 ppb would have
been used.
The background concentrations shown 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 148 µg/m3 ammonia concentration for the
acute ammonia iHRV represents the maximum hourly concentration that
occurred within the entire length of monitoring. This is
appropriate 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 due to a violation being defined as the
third exceedance of 30-ppb within any 5-day period.
Potential odor impacts were evaluated using AERMOD-generated odor
intensities (OU/m3), and were compared to the reference odor
intensities provided in Table 7. An odor intensity of 83 detection-
threshold odor units (OU) is defined as a faint odor and is the
odor intensity that "an average person might detect if attention is
called to the odor, but the odor would not otherwise be noticed."
13
3
Table 2: Background Concentrations (rural Minnesota)
Compound/Pollutant Hourly Background Concentration
0.70 ppb (v/v) (1.0 µg/m3) Not required
Ammonia (NH3) 208 ppb (v/v) (148 µg/m3) Not required 8.07ppb
(v/v)
(5.72 µg/m3)
Model Selection and Options
Dispersion modeling was conducted using the AMS/USEPA Regulatory
Model – AERMOD (Version 14134), as recommended by MPCA modeling
guidance. All AERMOD technical options selected followed the
regulatory default option without the use of the Urban option
(URBANOPT). Breeze Modeling Software (version 7.9.1 Pro) was used
to execute all AERMOD Model runs. All AERMOD modeling input/output
files are provided electronically on the enclosed CD.
Meteorological Data
The modeling analysis utilized the latest pre-processed (AERMET
version 14134) meteorological (met) data for use in AERMOD,
obtained from the AQDM website. Met data consisted 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
Meteorological Station is surrounded by land uses and surface
characteristics similar to those found around the Rebco project
site- primarily flat, agricultural land in corn and soybean
production. No on-site meteorological data was available at the
time of this analysis.
Building Downwash
For emissions released below “Good Engineering Practice” (GEP)
height, as defined by EPA rules, it is necessary to include the
potential effect of buildings on the near-field dispersion of
emissions. Large buildings and structures disrupt the wind flow,
and in the wake of such buildings emissions can be mixed more
rapidly to the ground causing elevated ground-level concentrations.
This effect is simulated in the AERMOD model.
AERMOD requires “direction-specific” building dimensions for each
emission point. The direction- specific building dimensions
represent the building width perpendicular to the wind direction
along with the building height. The regulatory default selection
uses the “upper bound” equation for predicting the
4
Air Quality Modeling Analysis Rebco Pork II
influence of a building on the dispersion of pollutants. This
equation is best suited for sources located near the center of the
building and may dramatically overestimate concentrations from
sources located near the edge of buildings where lateral plume
spread is affected by flow around the building; therefore, building
downwash effects were not included for those sources with releases
near ground-level (ie. area, line and volume sources in this
analysis).
The calculation of direction-specific building dimensions for the
proposed feedlot buildings was accomplished with the USEPA Building
Profile Input Program with Prime (BPIP-Prime), Version 04274. All
BPIP-Prime runs were executed using Breeze Modeling Software
(Version 7.9.1).
Terrain
Terrain elevations for all sources and receptors were determined
using the terrain preprocessing program AERMAP (Version 11103).
Pre-processed National Elevation Dataset (NED) files for Nicollet
County were obtained from the Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics
Consortium (MRLC) website and were used as input to AERMAP.
Elevated (complex) terrain was considered in the model. All
modeling was based on the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM)/NAD83
grid system.
Receptor Locations
In order to assess concentrations at the property line, discrete
receptors were placed along the property boundary every 25 meters.
The boundary limits were assumed to be the southeast quarter of the
southwest quarter of section 12. No receptors were placed within
the property boundary. Additionally, discrete receptors were placed
at 64 of the nearest occupied neighboring home sites. Modeled
receptor height was assumed at ground level, with elevations being
calculated by AERMAP. Figure 1 provides a project overview of the
proposed site location with proposed and existing sources and
receptor locations. Figure 2 shows the site layout.
5
Figure 1 Project Overview
7
3.0 Source Descriptions and Emission Rates
This air quality modeling analysis was based on a modeling protocol
approved by MPCA staff on 4/15/2015, and estimated the hydrogen
sulfide concentrations, ammonia concentrations, and odor
intensities from the planned project and 11 existing feedlots
located within a 9 square-mile grid surrounding the project site.
Details on the existing feedlots were obtained from the Nicollet
County Feedlot Office with dimensions obtained from recent aerial
photographs. The following figures show diagrams of the proposed
and existing feedlots with descriptions of each. Boundary lines are
approximate and are based on Nicollet County GIS data.
Feedlot Diagrams and Descriptions
Figure 3 – Proposed Swine Finishing Barns
The proposed Rebco Pork II feedlot will be located in the southwest
quarter of section 12 in Courtland Township, and will consist of
two, 102’x204’ 2,400-head swine finishing barns with 8’ deep, under
floor, reinforced-concrete manure storage. Each proposed finishing
barn has been modeled as 2 horizontal point sources, operating 24
hours a day, 365 days a year. The horizontal stacks were assumed to
have a stack diameter of 36” and a flow rate of 8,500 cfm. The
proposed barns have been located on the site a minimum of 300 feet
from the nearest property /public right-of-way line to mitigate
possible impacts from any hydrogen sulfide, ammonia or odor
emissions.
8
Figure 4 – Feed Lot CD
Feedlot CD – Dairy feedlot located in the northeast quarter of
Section 15, Courtland Township. Basin emissions are controlled
through the use of an impermeable cover.16
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type CD1 Total
Confinement Barn Dairy 81’x120’ 1 volume source CD2 Total
Confinement Barn Dairy 31’x88’ 2 volume subsources CD3 Total
Confinement Barn Dairy 112’x412’ Line source CD4 Total Confinement
Barn Dairy 98’x730’ Line source CD5 Earthen Basin Dairy 310’x460’
Non-buoyant area source
9
Figure 5 – Feed Lot DS
Feedlot DS – A beef feedlot located in the northeast quarter of
Section 11, Courtland Township. The open lot was modeled as a
non-buoyant area source with a constant emission rate based on its
area.
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type DS1 Partial
Confinement Barn Beef Cattle 20’x25’ 1 volume source DS2 Open Lot
Beef Cattle 85’x85’ Non-buoyant area source
10
Figure 6 – Feed Lot GB
Feedlot GB – A swine-finishing feedlot located in the northeast
quarter of Section 12, Courtland Township.
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type GB1 Total
Confinement Barn Swine - Finish 42’x50’ 1 volume source GB2 Total
Confinement Barn Swine - Finish 28’x78’ Line source
11
Figure 7 – Feed Lot GB2
Feedlot GB2 – Site containing a 40’x60’ swine finishing barn in the
southeast quarter of Section 6, Nicollet Township. This facility is
a commercial swine buying station that may or may not have animals
present at all times. Modeled as a 24/7 facility for the sake of
conservatism.
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type GB21 Total
Confinement Barn Swine - Finish 40’x60’ 2 volume subsources
12
Figure 8 – Feed Lot LB
Feedlot LB – Feedlot located in the southeast quarter of Section 7
in Nicollet Township. The open lot was modeled as a non-buoyant
area source with a constant emission rate based on its area.
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type LB1 Total
Confinement Barn Swine - Finish 42’x50’ Line source LB2 Total
Confinement Barn Swine - Finish 28’x78’ Line source LB3 Open Lot
Beef Cattle 60’x60’ Non-buoyant area source LB4 Partial Confinement
Barn Beef Cattle 40’x60’ 2 volume subsources
13
Figure 9 – Feed Lot GP
Feedlot GP – Feedlot located in the southeast quarter of Section 1
in Courtland Township.
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type GP1 Partial
Confinement Barn Beef Cattle 32’x54’ 2 volume subsources GP2 Total
Confinement Barn Beef Cattle 24’x36’ 2 volume subsources GP3
Partial Confinement Barn Beef Cattle 29’x45’ 2 volume subsources
GP4 Partial Confinement Barn Beef Cattle 24’x50’ 2 volume
subsources GP5 Partial Confinement Barn Beef Cattle 30’x45 1 volume
source
14
Figure 10 – Feed Lot MB
Feedlot MB – Feedlot located in the southeast quarter of Section 11
in Courtland Township. Each horizontal point source has been
modeled operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The horizontal
stacks were assumed to have a stack diameter of 36” and a flow rate
of 8,500 cfm.
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type MB1 Total
Confinement Barn Swine-Finish 41’x196’ 5 horizontal point sources
MB2 Total Confinement Barn Swine-Finish 41’x96’ 2 horizontal point
sources MB3 Total Confinement Barn Swine-Finish 41’x96’ 2
horizontal point sources MB4 Total Confinement Barn Swine-Nursery
25’x50’ 2 horizontal point sources MB5 Total Confinement Barn
Swine-Nursery 36’x40’ 1 horizontal point source
15
Figure 11 – Feed Lot PS
Feedlot PS – Feedlot located in the southeast quarter of Section 7
in Nicollet Township. The open lots were modeled as a non-buoyant
area sources with a constant emission rate based on area. Basin
emissions are controlled through the use of a permeable (natural
crust) cover.16
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type PS1 Open Lot
Dairy 170’x170’ Non-buoyant area source PS2 Partial Confinement
Barn Beef Cattle 30’x45’ Single volume source PS3 Open Lot Beef
Cattle 50’x50’ Non-buoyant area source PS4 Total Confinement Barn
Dairy 81’x120’ Line source PS5 Partial Confinement Barn Dairy
30’x60’ 2 volume sources PS6 Earthen Basin Dairy 100’x120’
Non-buoyant area source
16
Figure 12 – Feed Lot RP
Feedlot RP – Feedlot located in the northeast quarter of Section 13
in Courtland Township. Each horizontal point source has been
modeled operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The horizontal
stacks were assumed to have a stack diameter of 36” and a flow rate
of 8,500 cfm.
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type RP1 Total
Confinement Barn Swine - Farrowing 80’x212’ 3 horizontal point
sources RP2 Total Confinement Barn Swine - Farrowing 72’x208 3
horizontal point sources RP3 Total Confinement Barn Swine -
Farrowing 60’x108 2 horizontal point sources RP4 Total Confinement
Barn Swine – Gilt Dev. 40’x70’ 2 horizontal point sources RP5 Total
Confinement Barn Swine – Gilt Dev. 30’x110’ 4 horizontal point
sources RP6 Total Confinement Barn Swine – Gilt Dev. 40’x60’ 2
horizontal point sources RP7 Total Confinement Barn Swine –
Gestation 41’x196’ 5 horizontal point sources RP8 Total Confinement
Barn Swine – Gestation 41’x196’ 5 horizontal point sources RP9
Total Confinement Barn Swine – Gestation 41’x196’ 5 horizontal
point sources RP10 Total Confinement Barn Swine – Gestation
41’x196’ 5 horizontal point sources
17
Figure 13 – Feed Lot RR
Feedlot RR – A swine-finishing feedlot located in the northeast
quarter of Section 18, Nicollet Township.
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type RR1 Total
Confinement Barn Swine - Finish 51’x176’ Line source RR2 Total
Confinement Barn Swine - Finish 102’x176’ 2 volume sources
18
Figure 14 – Feed Lot HF
Feedlot HF – Feedlot located in the southwest quarter of Section 6
in Nicollet Township.
Any other emissions from sources not listed above were considered
insignificant and unquantifiable and contributors to background
concentrations. Further discussion of source characterization and
emission rates can be found in Section 4.0.
Component Description Animals Dimensions Source Type HF1 Total
Confinement Barn Dairy 42’x50’ 1 volume source HF2 Total
Confinement Barn Beef Cattle 28’x78’ Line source HF3 Total
Confinement Barn Swine - Finish 36’x106’ Line source HF4 Partial
Confinement Barn Beef Cattle 40’x60’ 1 volume source
19
Emission Rate Sources
As stated, emissions estimates were modeled for the proposed
finishing barns as well as 11 feedlots located within the 9
square-mile grid surrounding the project location. Emission rates
were developed from emission factors listed in a number of
publications:
Swine • “Odor, Total Reduced Sulfur, and Ammonia Emissions from
Animal Housing Facilities and Manure Storage
Units in Minnesota”; S.W. Gay et. al.; April, 2002.
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency; Environmental Assessment
Worksheet, Gourley Brothers Hog Feedlot, 12/9/2011
Beef Cattle • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Memorandum “Curtis
Blair Feedlot and Blair West (Ted Reichmann)
Feedlot”; Charles Peterson; 4/23/2013.
• "Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide and Odor Emissions from a Beef Cattle
Feedlot"; R. Duysen et. al.; July, 2003.
• "Odor, Total Reduced Sulfur, and Ammonia Emissions from Animal
Housing Facilities and Manure Storage Units in Minnesota"; S.W. Gay
et. al.; April, 2002.
Dairy Cattle • Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Memorandum
“Curtis Blair Feedlot and Blair West (Ted Reichmann)
Feedlot”; Charles Peterson; 4/23/2013.
• "Odor, Total Reduced Sulfur, and Ammonia Emissions from Animal
Housing Facilities and Manure Storage Units in Minnesota"; S.W. Gay
et. al.; April, 2002.
• "Air Quality and Emissions from Livestock and Poultry Production/
Waste Management Systems"; K.D. Casey et. al.; January 2006
20
4.0 MODELING RESULTS
This section provides air dispersion modeling results for each
pollutant modeled along with background concentrations. Existing
sources and proposed sources were modeled to establish
concentrations both at the site boundaries and at surrounding
receptors.
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
AERMOD results indicate that the Rebco project complies with the
Minnesota state 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.
The proposed finishing barns were modeled as sources of hydrogen
sulfide using the AERMOD horizontal point source option. Existing
feedlots were modeled using the AERMOD line source option, the
volume source option, the horizontal point source option or the
area source option. Hydrogen sulfide emission rates from published
sources were used for the two earthen basins with control factors
of 95% for impermeable covers and 81% for permeable covers.16 Open
lots were modeled as sources of hydrogen sulfide, using emission
rates that were equal to the surface area multiplied by the
estimated emission flux rates. Hydrogen sulfide emission flux rates
from dairy feedlots varied monthly, and were based on a May flux
rate of 0.55 µg/m2/s.12 These monthly variations were accounted for
by applying the monthly scalars listed in Table 5.
Table 3: Monthly H2S Scalars
Odor Units Monthly H2S Emission Scalar – Dairy Feedlots10
January 0.94 February 0.87 March 0.79 April 0.90 May 1 June 1.25
July 1.49 August 1.30 September 1.1 October 1.16 November 1.22
December 1.08
21
Air Quality Modeling Analysis Rebco Pork II
AERMOD predicted a maximum H3H property- line hydrogen sulfide
concentration of 12.58 ppb. When a background concentration of 17
ppb is added to the AERMOD predictions, the H3H property line
hydrogen sulfide concentration is 29.58 ppb, which is below the
ambient standard of 30 ppb. Therefore, no exceedances of the state
ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide were
modeled.
Table 4 – Maximum H3H hourly H2S concentrations at Property
Lines
Property Line
H2S Concentration
Total Concentration
(ppb) West 16.97 12.12 17 29.12 North 15.23 10.90 17 27.90 East
17.61 12.58 17 29.58 South 14.96 10.68 17 27.68
22
Air Quality Modeling Analysis Rebco Pork II
The modeling results indicate that the proposed feedlot
construction will not will not contribute to exceedances of the
subchronic (13-week) hydrogen sulfide iHRV at any neighboring
residences. AERMOD is unable to conveniently predict 13-week
averages, therefore monthly averages have been used as a
conservative surrogate. The estimated maximum monthly average
concentration is 1.66 µg/m3. When the background value of 1.00
µg/m3 is added, the total is 2.66 µg/m3, below the subchronic H2S
iHRV of 10 µg/m3. Table 4 shows the maximum monthly H2S
concentrations at all nearest neighbor receptors.
Table 5 – Maximum monthly H2S concentrations for nearest
neighbors
Neighbor Receptor
Modeled H2S
Concentration (µg/m3)
(µg/m3)
500 0.08 1.08 532 0.23 1.23 501 0.10 1.10 533 0.23 1.23 502 0.06
1.06 534 0.05 1.05 503 0.12 1.12 535 0.05 1.05 504 0.10 1.10 536
0.11 1.11 505 0.28 1.28 537 0.19 1.19 506 0.08 1.08 538 0.23 1.23
507 0.07 1.07 539 0.36 1.36 508 0.11 1.11 540 0.30 1.30 509 0.17
1.17 541 0.77 1.77 510 0.09 1.09 542 0.29 1.29 511 0.37 1.37 543
0.18 1.18 512 0.20 1.20 544 0.63 1.63 513 0.19 1.19 545 0.24 1.24
514 0.04 1.04 546 0.26 1.26 515 0.06 1.06 547 0.36 1.36 516 0.07
1.07 548 1.66 2.66 517 0.10 1.10 549 0.13 1.13 518 0.05 1.05 550
0.31 1.31 519 0.23 1.23 551 0.13 1.13 520 0.08 1.08 552 0.25 1.25
521 0.11 1.11 553 0.26 1.26 522 0.08 1.08 554 0.11 1.11 523 0.09
1.09 555 0.06 1.06 524 0.09 1.09 556 0.09 1.09 525 0.08 1.08 557
0.20 1.20 526 0.13 1.13 558 0.19 1.19 527 0.15 1.15 559 0.20 1.20
528 0.49 1.49 560 0.13 1.13 529 0.67 1.67 561 0.10 1.10 530 0.44
1.44 562 0.10 1.10 531 0.33 1.33 563 0.09 1.09
. Receptors in bold indicate feedlot residences.
23
Ammonia
The proposed finishing barns were modeled as sources of ammonia
using the AERMOD horizontal point source option. Existing feedlots
were modeled using the AERMOD line source option, the volume source
option, the horizontal point source option or the area source
option. Maximum ammonia emission rates from published sources were
used for the two earthen basins with control factors of 95% for
impermeable covers and 37% for permeable covers.16 Open lots were
modeled as sources of ammonia, using emission rates that were equal
to the surface area multiplied by the estimated emission flux
rates. Ammonia emission flux rates from manure packs at beef
feedlots varied monthly, and were based on an April flux rate of
25.1 µg/m2/s 11. Flux rates from dairy feedlots were based on a May
odor flux rate of 43.1 µg/m2/s11. These monthly variations were
accounted for by applying the monthly scalars listed in Table
5.
Table 6: Monthly NH3 Scalars
Odor Units Monthly NH3 Emission Scalar – Beef Feedlots15
Monthly NH3 Emission Scalar – Dairy Feedlots10
January 0.57 0.94 February 0.18 0.87 March 0.59 0.79 April 1 0.90
May 1.27 1 June 1.53 1.25 July 1.56 1.49 August 1.58 1.30 September
0.95 1.1 October 0.95 1.16 November 0.95 1.22 December 0.95
1.08
24
Air Quality Modeling Analysis Rebco Pork II
AERMOD results indicate that the Rebco project complies with the
acute ammonia iHRV. AERMOD predicted a maximum hourly property-line
ammonia concentration of 245.98 µg/m3. When a background
concentration of 148 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD predictions, the
maximum property- line ammonia concentration is 393.98 µg/m3, which
is below the acute ammonia iHRV of 3200 µg/m3. This high value
occurs at the northwest corner of the property and is listed as
maximum concentrations of both the north and west property lines.
Table 6 shows the maximum concentrations by lot line.
Table 7 – Maximum hourly NH3 concentrations at Property Lines
Property Line
NH3 Concentration
(µg/m3) NH3 iHRV (µg/m3)
West 205.12 148 353.12 3200 North 205.12 148 353.12 3200 East
245.98 148 393.98 3200 South 184.36 148 332.36 3200
25
Air Quality Modeling Analysis Rebco Pork II
The AERMOD analysis indicates that the proposed project will not
create an exceedance of the chronic ammonia iHRV at any neighboring
residences. The estimated maximum concentration is 8.74 µg/m3. When
the background value of 5.72 µg/m3 is added, the maximum annual
ammonia concentration is 14.46 µg/m3, below the chronic NH3 iHRV of
80 µg/m3. Table 6 shows the maximum annual NH3 concentrations for
all nearest neighbors.
Table 8 – Maximum Annual NH3 concentrations for nearest
neighbors
Neighbor Receptor
Modeled NH3
Concentration (µg/m3)
(µg/m3)
500 0.57 6.29 532 1.99 7.71 501 0.71 6.43 533 8.74 14.46 502 0.52
6.24 534 0.39 6.11 503 0.81 6.53 535 0.36 6.08 504 0.82 6.54 536
0.99 6.71 505 1.97 7.69 537 1.14 6.86 506 0.56 6.28 538 1.32 7.04
507 0.57 6.29 539 1.82 7.54 508 0.74 6.46 540 2.55 8.27 509 1.46
7.18 541 4.62 10.34 510 0.70 6.42 542 1.47 7.19 511 5.07 10.79 543
1.36 7.08 512 1.74 7.46 544 4.95 10.67 513 1.58 7.30 545 1.51 7.23
514 0.45 6.17 546 1.40 7.12 515 0.63 6.35 547 1.89 7.61 516 0.51
6.23 548 5.45 11.17 517 0.93 6.65 549 0.97 6.69 518 0.35 6.07 550
2.41 8.13 519 6.77 12.49 551 1.03 6.75 520 1.33 7.05 552 1.51 7.23
521 1.58 7.30 553 1.93 7.65 522 0.59 6.31 554 0.87 6.59 523 0.61
6.33 555 0.52 6.24 524 0.62 6.34 556 0.57 6.29 525 0.54 6.26 557
1.32 7.04 5