p-ear2-31a

Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Note to reviewers: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. This EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The project proposer supplied reasonably accessible data for, but did not complete the final worksheet. Comments on the EAW must be submitted to the MPCA during the 30-day comment period which begins with notice of the availability of the EAW in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. Comments on the EAW should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that are reasonably expected to occur that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. A copy of the EAW may be obtained from the MPCA by calling 651-757-2101. 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:

B.

Feedlot Proposer:

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27

Matt Holland

Technical Contact Person

D.

C.

Nick McCabe

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Contact Person

Charles Peterson

Title

Environmental Scientist

Title

Planner Principal

Address

115 E Hickory St Suite 300 Mankato, MN 56001

Address

520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194

Phone Fax E-mail

507-387-6651 507-387-3583 [email protected]

Phone Fax E-mail

651-757-2856 651-297-2343 [email protected]

Reason for EAW Preparation: EIS Scoping

Mandatory EAW

(check one) X

Citizen Petition

If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category subpart number and name: E.

RGU:

Project Location: SE

1/4

NW

County 1/4

Section

Watershed (name and 11-digit code):

RGU Discretion

Proposer Volunteered

Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29 (A) Steele 27

City/Twp Township

105 North

Straight River (07040002010)

p-ear2-31a TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332 Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

Berlin Township Range

21 West

F. Exhibits to the EAW Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Exhibit C: Exhibit D: Exhibits E1-E5: Exhibit F: Exhibit G: Exhibit H: Exhibit I: Exhibit J:

County map showing the general location of the project U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map Site plan & Map showing wells, tile inlets, residences, and sensitive receptors within a one mile radius of the feedlot Hydrology features Map showing wells, tile inlets, residences, and sensitive receptors on or adjacent to manure application sites Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Database Review Correspondence State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) Correspondence Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Correspondence Cumulative Potential Effects Map Air Quality Modeling Report

The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit and required attachments (Nutrient Management Plan [NMP], Air Emissions and Odor Management Plan, Emergency Response Plan, Operation and Maintenance Plan, and Animal Mortality Plan) have been submitted to the MPCA Rochester office. Contact Steve Schmidt in the Rochester office at 507-206-2618 to review this information. G. Project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Matt Holland proposes to expand his existing feedlot by constructing a second 51-foot x 392-foot wean-to-finish hog barn in Section 27 of Berlin Township in Steele County, Minnesota. The proposed barn will house 2,400 wean-to-finish hogs (720 animal units, or AUs) in total confinement. Upon completion of the project, the feedlot will house 4,800 wean-to-finish hogs (1,440 AUs) and 20 cows (in pasture) for a total of 1,464 AUs at the site. Manure will be collected and stored in reinforced poured concrete pits beneath the barns. Manure will be land applied to cropland in the fall after October 1 in accordance with the approved NMP. H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested data. Animal Type Finishing hogs Sows Nursery pigs Dairy cows Beef cattle Turkeys Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species)

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

Number Proposed 2,400 head

2

Type of Confinement Total Confinement

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

I.

Project magnitude data Total acreage of farm: 1,297 acres Number of animal units proposed in this project: 720 AUs Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: Acreage required for manure application: 415 acres

J.

1,464 AUs

Describe construction methods and timing Construction is anticipated to begin in spring 2012 after all permits have been received, and completed by late summer 2012. One tunnel/power-ventilated, 51-foot x 392-foot barn will be constructed. The barn 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, poured concrete pit beneath the barn.

K. Past and future stages Is this project an expansion or addition to an existing feedlot? Are future expansions of this feedlot planned or likely? Yes

Yes No

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 project proposer’s existing feedlot operation consisting of 2,400 wean-to-finish hogs (720 AUs) and 20 cows (24 AUs) in pasture. There has been no previous environmental review on the site. The project proposer currently has a Steele County Feedlot Permit (CSF 99093). The total number of AUs will increase by 720 AUs, totaling 1,464 AUs on site. Both barns are total confinement with concrete manure storage pits beneath the barns. The project is a phased action because the permit application for the proposed barn was submitted less than three years after the start of construction of the existing barn. The dimensions and number of existing and proposed barns are listed in the following table: Table 1. Proposed and Existing Barns Barn Barn Dimensions (feet) Existing 51 x 392 Proposed 51 x 392 Site Total --------------------

Number of animals 2,400 hogs and 20 cattle 2,400 hogs 4,800 hogs and 20 cattle

Animal Units 744 720 1464

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. There are currently 22 rural residences within one mile of the feedlot. The closest residence to the feedlot is located approximately 2,000 feet west of the feedlot site, off of SW 72nd Avenue. Highway 30 and SW 72nd Avenue are near the site.

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

3

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

Highway 30 provides access to the feedlot site and is located immediately north. The area surrounding the feedlot site is zoned for agricultural land use. The feedlot is located 1.26 miles west of the city of Ellendale, which contains 318 residences. 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 is one cemetery within one mile of a manure application field. The Berlin Cemetery is located off of SW 133rd Street, within the Kramerer manure application field. There is no church or building on the site. There are 19 rural residences directly adjacent to or within manure application fields. The area surrounding all manure application fields is zoned for agricultural land use. There are no other public facilities adjacent to the manure application fields. Refer to Exhibit C and Exhibits E1-E5 to view residences and public roads adjacent to the feedlot 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 Steele County (90 percent) is zoned for agriculture. The area of the proposed project in Berlin Township is zoned for agriculture[1]. The Proposer will need a Steele County Conditional Use Permit. According to the Steele County Zoning Ordinance and Feedlot Ordinance, feedlots containing 1,000 AUs or more, an existing feedlot expansion to a total of 1,000 AUs or more, or an expansion located within one mile but more than one half mile from a city boundary have to have a conditional use permit[2]. This proposed expansion follows the Steele County Zoning and Feedlot Ordinance. An NPDES/SDS Permit and Steele County Conditional Use permit will be obtained. An NMP, Dead Animal Disposal Plan, and Oder Control Plan are complete and included in the NPDES/SDS Permit 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]

Steele County Zoning Ordinance. July 2008. http://www.co.steele.mn.us/departments/planning_and_zoning/SCZoning_Ordinance_w_Admendments.pdf [2] Steele County Livestock Operation Ordinance, Ordinance #25. November 2003. http://www.co.steele.mn.us/departments/planning_and_zoning/sc_livestock_ord_w_amendment.pdf Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

4

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

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 Berlin Township is zoned as an Agricultural District (A-1). Permitted uses under the Agricultural District include feedlots and feedlot expansions with a Conditional Use Permit due to the total number of AUs being greater than 1,000. There is an area zoned for the city of Ellendale and a small area zoned for rural residential. The feedlot cannot be located closer than one-half mile from city limits. The city of Ellendale is located approximately 1.2 miles from the proposed project and the area zoned for rural residential is approximately 1.3 miles. No other areas in Berlin Township are planned for future zoning changes that would be incompatible with the proposed project. C. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the feedlot, manure storage areas, or within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites? • • • • • • • •

Drinking Water Supply Management Areas designated by the MDH? Yes No Yes No Public water supply wells (within two miles)? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Yes No Yes No Designated public parks, recreation areas or trails? Lakes or Wildlife Management Areas? Yes No State-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial water bird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities? Yes No Yes No Scenic views and vistas? Yes No Other unique resources?

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 Exhibits F, G, and H to review correspondence from the DNR, SHPO, and MDH regarding nearby resources. Public water supply wells There are five public water supply (PWS) wells located within a two-mile radius of the proposed feedlot site. According to the MDH, the wells serve the city of Ellendale and a small park, Beaver Lake Park. The Beaver Lake Park well is approximately 1.4 miles northeast of the feedlot site, and the closest city of Ellendale PWS well is 1.55 miles east of the feedlot site. The PWS wells in the city of Ellendale are not vulnerable to most land uses; therefore, the MDH does not expect the drinking water quality of this well to be degraded from the proposed expansion. There are approximately 38 domestic 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 nearby the feedlot site.

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

5

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

Table 2. Public Water Supply and Domestic Wells within two miles of the Feedlot Site Well Name (unique ID #) Distance from Feedlot Site (miles) Anderson, Elois (599107) 0.33 Schember, Dan (524793) 0.46 Reese, Brent (500510) 0.46 Unnamed (213159) 0.52 Grunwald, Richard 0.54 Thompson, Jerry (142680) 0.67 PMW-5 (740391) 0.76 PMW-4 (740390) 0.76 Utpodel, George J. (132541) 0.77 Langlie, Athan (134877) 1.14 Toft, Kenneth (663291) 1.22 Marcus, Mike (600172) 1.26 Asbell, Michael (515158) 1.32 PWS: Beaver Lake Park 1 (261666) 1.36 Mrotz, Dale (459923) 1.44 Unnamed (717603) 1.46 Johnson, Duane (541412) 1.47 Jorgenson, Howard (226886) 1.48 Ahern, Tom (415372) 1.51 Knutson, Kevin (717063) 1.51 PMW-1 (740387) 1.51 PMW-2 (740388) 1.51 PMW-3 (740389) 1.51 PWS: Ellendale 3 (741686) 1.55 PWS: Ellendale 4 (741687) 1.55 Wistrcill, Don (720972) 1.59 Burshem, Ralph S. (152811) 1.60 Meyer, Jon (720994) 1.61 Crabtree, Henry (226887) 1.62 Baird, Floyd (674507) 1.70 PWS: Ellendale 1 (213161) 1.73 Jensen, Nels P. (530373) 1.75 Johnson, Kevin (687219) 1.75 Cole, Vern (142653) 1.77 Shimek, Wayne (134827) 1.77 Klemmensen, Doug (733166) 1.77 PWS: Ellendale 2 (226891) 1.79 Klemmensen, Cory (714780) 1.79 Gjerdahl, Michael (139077) 1.80 Doberstein, Luke (720982) 1.88 Aronson, Erin (620475) 1.90 Johnson, Rick (714584) 1.90 Klemnenson, Donale W. (103480) 1.91

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

6

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

Several domestic wells are within 200 feet of the manure spreading areas. Best management practices (BMPs) will be used and setbacks (see Question 4) followed when applying manure. MDH is aware of 15 domestic wells directly adjacent to manure application sites, nine of which are also located within two miles of the feedlot location. There are no other delineated wellhead protection areas or special well construction areas near the manure application fields. Table 3. Domestic Wells Directly Adjacent to Manure Application Fields Well Name (unique ID #) Manure Application Field Adjacent to Doberstein, Luke (720982) Mrotz Schember, Dan (524793) Bergland Anderson, Elois (599107) Bergland Reese, Brent (500510) Luellas Thompson, Jerry (142680) Nelson Utpodel, George J. (132541) Nelson Johnson, Rick (714584) Tracy Schneider, Richard (677049) Terry Holland, Tracy (571770) Tracy’s House Johnson, Irving (101241) Tracy’s House Mracher, Jim (628236) Doug’s Nydigger, Larry (663300) Doug’s Wayne, Dave (613749) Doug’s Klemnenson, Donale W. (103480) Doug’s New Home Klemmensen, Doug (733166) Doug’s New Home

Distance from Manure Application Field (feet) 1,081 1,123 1,081 330 695 1,541 1,400 950 150 340 140 65 235 250 0

**MDH is aware of 50 total domestic wells in the manure application field and feedlot site area. Forty-four wells are accounted for by Table 2 and 3, six wells are not listed because they are not in the County Well Inventory.

3. Geologic and soil conditions A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Ground Water (minimum) (average) Bedrock (minimum) (average) B. NRCS Soil Classifications (if known)

Feedlot 0.5 4.0 163 164

Manure Storage Area 0.5 4.0 163 164

Manure Application Sites 0.0 3.3 143 178

Feedlot Lester Loam

Manure Storage Area Lester Loam

Manure Application Sites See Below

Soil and groundwater data was acquired from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Surveys of Steele County, Minnesota (1973) and the USDA Web Soil Survey. Bedrock depth was acquired from the Minnesota Geology Survey1. More information, including soil maps, can be referenced in the NMP, available for review at the MPCA, Rochester Office. Soils at the manure application fields are listed below.

1

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

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

7

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

Bergland and Luellas - 27-105N-21W Soils in this application area are Webster clay loam and Le Sueur clay loam. Doug's Farm/Tracy's House - 14-105N-21W Biscay loam, Clarion loam, Dakota sandy loam, Dakota loam, Glencoe clay loam, Lester loam, LesterStorden complex, Lester-Estherville-Storden complex, Le Sueur clay loam, Mayer loam, Muck, Wadena loam, and Webster clay loam. Nelson and James - 22-105N-21W Biscay loam, Canisteo silty clay loam, Canisteo clay loam, Colo silty clay loam, Dakota sandy loam, Glencoe clay loam, Lake beaches, Lester loam, Le Sueur clay loam, Muck, Wadena loam, and Webster clay loam. Margella, Terry, Tracy, Gravel Pit - 15-105N-21W Biscay loam, Canisteo clay loam, Canisteo silty clay loam, Estherville sandy loam, Glencoe clay loam, Lester loam, Lester-Storden complex, Le Sueur clay loam, Muck, Wadena loam, and Webster clay loam. Langlie - 34-105N-21W Canisteo clay loam, Clarion loam, Clarion-Storden complex, Glencoe clay loam, Muck, Nicollet clay loam, and Webster clay loam. Mrotz - 20-105N-21W Glencoe clay loam, Lester loam, Le Sueur clay loam, Muck, and Webster clay loam. Kramerer- 13-105N-21W: Biscay loam, Clarion loam, Clarion-Storden complex, Nicollet clay loam, Wadena loam, and Webster clay loam. Doug’s-New Home - 23-105N-21W Biscay loam, Clarion loam, Dakota sandy loam, Lester loam, Nicollet clay loam, and Webster clay loam. C. Indicate with a yes or no whether any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water are present at the feedlot, manure storage area, or manure application sites.

Karst features (sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley) Exposed bedrock Soils developed in bedrock (as shown on soils maps)

Feedlot No

Manure Storage Area No

Manure Application Sites No

No No

No 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.

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

8

Environmental Assessment 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 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 barn which will be used to service the new barn. This well is located approximately 100 feet northwest of the existing barn. The current water appropriation for the well is 8,470 gallons per day (3.1 million gallons annually). The proposed barn is anticipated to require 8,400 gallons per day (3.0 million gallons annually). According to the University of Minnesota Extension Services, wean-to-finish hog operations require three to four gallons of water per hog per day. Three and one-half gallons per day multiplied by 4,800 hogs (total) plus 20 cattle, results in the water appropriation estimations. The total water use is anticipated to double, resulting in a total water use of approximately 16,870 gallons per day (6.1 million gallons annually) after project completion. As a result of the proposed expansion, the proposer will need to submit an individual water appropriation permit application to the DNR. The service life of hog barns is approximately 25 years, which translates to a total water consumption of approximately 153 million gallons. However, it should be noted the existing barn was constructed in November 2008 and, therefore, the barn is three years old. 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 barn 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 will drain to the south of the proposed barn and connect to an existing field drainage tile. Further to the southeast, the field drainage tile outlets to an intermittent stream. There will be no installation of drain tiles, tile inlets, or outlets installed on any of the manure application sites as a result of this expansion project. 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

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

9

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

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

~1,927,200 gallons

by species 1

Swine

Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle Total days per year 10

by species 2

Beef Cows

Once per year

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 continue to 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 1,927,200 gallons. The manure storage capacity is 2,542,183 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: D.

liquid

solid

other - describe:

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 fall after October 1, manure will be agitated in the pits, pumped into a tanker, and knife injected into the soil at agronomic rates and in accordance with the NMP, unless the ground is frozen. Liquid manure spreaders or a drag hose system will be used for applying the manure. There are 14 manure application sites proposed. Seven of the proposed manure application fields are owned by the proposer, three are rented, and four are transferred manure application fields. The locations of these manure application sites are shown in Exhibit A. Manure applications will be rotated from field to field each year, as needed, to accommodate crop rotations.

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

10

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

Table 4. Manure Application Sites Manure Application Site Name Bergland Doug’s Home Doug’s New Home Gravel Pit James Kramerer Langlie Leulla Margella Mrotz Nelson Terry Tracy Tracy’s House

Size (acres) 58 230 133 24 52 100 125 120 40 124 138 75 38 34

Ownership Status Owns Custom Farms Custom Farms Owns Rents Custom Farms Custom Farms Owns Owns Owns Owns Owns Rents Rents

Some ownership of manure will be transferred to neighboring farmers. The proposer handles all manure that is transferred. The proposer is hired by neighboring farmers to apply transferred manure for them. The Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) includes transfer of manure documents for approximately 588 acres within Berlin Township in Steele County. Manure will be land applied in October and November, weather permitting. 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. ch. 7020. 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 an NMP? 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 579 acres of manure application sites are owned and 124 acres of the manure application sites are rented by the proposer, for a total of 703 acres out the 1,291 acres available under the proposer's management. The remaining 588 acres are custom farmed by the proposer for other landowners. 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 1,927,200 gallons, consisting of 82,869.6 pounds of nitrogen, 30,835.2 pounds of phosphorus, and 48,180 pounds of potassium.

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

11

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

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, phosphorus, and potassium and 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. The proposed manure application sites include continuous corn fields and corn/soybean crop rotations. Manure will be applied once a year in the fall. The agronomic rate of application will be 5,000 gallons per acre for continuous corn fields and 4,400 gallons per acre for rotational crops on corn grown years. Application rates are based on nitrogen and phosphorus. 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 2,542,183 gallons of manure for 365 days (12 months), with the new manure pit holding 1,345,861 gallons. According to the NMP, the annual manure production is expected to be 1,927,200 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 in late 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. To apply manure at proper agronomic rates, 5,000 gallons per acre will be applied to corn/corn application fields and 4,400 gallons per acre will be applied to corn/soybean application fields on corn planted years only. To meet manure utilization requirement for spreading of manure produced in the livestock operation, 414.35 acres are needed. The acreage available for manure application through ownership, rental, and application agreements is 1,291 acres. 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 (HEL) or Potentially Highly Erodible Land (PHEL) in Steele County: Table 5. Potentially Highly and Highly Erodible Land in Manure Management Areas Category Map Symbol Map Unit Name PHEL C1C2 Clarion Loam, 6-12% slope, eroded CsC2 Clarion-Storden Complex, 6-12% slope, eroded DaC Dakota Sandy Loam, 6-14% slope L1C2 Lester Loam, 6-12% slope, eroded LmD2 Lester-Estherville-Storden Complex, 6-18% slope, eroded EaC Estherville Sandy Loam, 6-12% slope L1D2 Lester Loam, 12-18% slope, eroded HEL LnE Lester and Hayden Loams, 18-25% slope

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

12

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

Soil erosion conservation practices will be in place for proper management of highly erodible soils (see Exhibits E1-E5). Grassed waterways, terracing, chisel or disk tillage with residue, field edge buffers, and contour buffer strips will be implemented where applicable on application fields to manage sensitive features. Chisel or disk tillage with residue will be implemented at all of the manure application fields. Additionally, field edge buffers will be implemented at the Bergland and Doug’s home manure application fields. Kramerer, Langlie, and Leulla’s application fields will also have grassed waterways. The Nelson application field will have grassed waterways, terracing, and contour buffer strips. Steele County Feedlot Ordinance 109.002 does not allow manure application on slopes greater than 12 percent. Soil types Dakota sandy loam 6 to 14 percent slope (potentially highly erodible) and Lester-Estherville-Storden complex with 6 to 18 percent slopes (potentially highly erodible) are present on Doug’s home manure application fields. Doug’s new home, Nelson, James, Mortz, and Bergland manure application fields all have Lester loam with 12 to 18 percent slopes (highly erodible) soil types present. Bergland’s manure application field also has soil type Lester and Hayden loams with 18 to 25 percent slopes (highly erodible) present. At these manure application sites, the listed areas having slopes greater than 12 percent will be avoided when applying manure. Winter application is proposed only in emergency situations. Bergland, Langlie, and Luellas are the potential winter manure application fields. Langlie’s manure application field will be utilized first in the case that emergency winter application is needed due to the lower slope at this location. Bergland and Luellas will be used only after Langlie because higher slopes are more prevalent in this area. Manure will not be applied to frozen soils with slopes greater than six percent. Sensitive areas within each manure application site have been identified (Table 6). Exhibits E1-E5 show all of the fields indentified in the NMP. All setbacks outlined in the MPCA feedlot rules and Steele 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 soil (unless emergency winter application is needed) and all manure will be immediately incorporated upon application; therefore, the setback distances from sensitive features are as follows: No setback is required around grassed waterways or tile intakes. A 25-foot setback will be observed around wetlands, drainage ditches, and/or open water. A 50-foot setback will be observed around all wells, dwellings, and the cemetery. All manure will be immediately injected or incorporated upon application. Table 6. Sensitive Features on/near Manure Application Fields Field Name Sensitive Feature Conservation Practice Doug’s Home Domestic Water Well 50' setback Doug’s Home Open Water 25' setback Doug’s New Home Domestic Water Well 50' setback Gravel Pit Open Water 25' setback James Wetland 25' setback Kramerer Cemetery 50' setback Langlie Wetland adjacent 25' setback Luellas Wetland 25' setback Nelson Wetland 25' setback

Matt Holland Farm Sec 27 Berlin Township, Steele County, Minnesota

13

Sec 14 14

Twp 105N 105N

Range 21W 21W

23 15 22 13 34 27 22

105N 105N 105N 105N 105N 105N 105N

21W 21W 21W 21W 21W 21W 21W

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

Table 7. MPCA Setback Distances for Land Application of Manure (in feet)2 Non-Winter Non-Winter With Immediate Not incorporated within Incorporation 24 hours (1 percent the para-cresol concentration, >1 percent the n-butyric acid concentration, and >1 percent the ammonia concentration. The population response curves assume the presence of individual gases.

Total VOOC Concentrations The empirical Zahn correlation relates the total gas-phase volatile odorous organic compound (VOOC) concentration for the gases emitted from livestock and manure storage facilities to the perceived odor intensity as determined by odor panels. The sum of the individual maximum VOOC concentrations from the CALPUFF modeling effort was multiplied by 1.18 to account for all of the VOOC gases included in the Zahn correlation. As indicated in Figure 16, the maximum VOOC concentrations (with the 1.18 20

Appendix 1

Holland Hog Feedlot Report

correction) obtained from the CALPUFF modeling effort are 31.2 µg/m3 for the south property line of the expanded Holland hog feedlot and 8.2 µg/m3 for Neighbor E2. 9

correction factor) are plotted in Figure 17. The Zahn correlation suggests that a total VOOC concentration of about 10 µg/m3 can be considered as the odor detection threshold. Figure 17 suggests that the expanded Holland hog feedlot can generate detectable off-site total VOOC concentrations.

Unbearable Zahn South PropertyLine Very Unpleasant Neighbor E2

2

5

Unpleasant

3

Neutral

North/South Distance (miles)

Odor Intensity

7

1 0.1

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

Total VOOC Concentration (µg/m3)

Figure 16. CALPUFF-generated maximum hourly total VOOC concentrations for the expanded Holland hog feedlot’s south property line and for the modeled location of Neighbor E2.

1

20

10

0

-1 -1

0

1

2

East/West Distance (miles)

The Zahn correlation suggests that a total VOOC concentration of about 10 µg/m3 corresponds to a detectable but “neutral” odor intensity. Total VOOC concentrations have to exceed about 70 µg/m3 before the odor intensity is “unpleasant.” At the expanded feedlot’s propertylines, the maximum CALPUFF-generated total VOOC concentration is 2.2 times less than the total VOOC concentration associated with “unpleasant” odor intensities. At the modeled Neighbor E2 location, the maximum CALPUFFgenerated total VOOC concentration is 8.5 times less than the total VOOC concentration associated with “unpleasant” odor intensities. Thus, the CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the expanded Holland feedlot’s property lines and nearest neighbors will not be subjected to unpleasant odors.

Figure 17. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly total VOOC concentrations in µg/m3 for the expanded Holland hog feedlot and the two neighboring feedlots. The contour lines represent a total VOOC concentrations of 10 and 20 µg/m3. The plotted concentrations include the 1.18 correction factor.

Odor Intensities The CALPUFF modeling estimated the ground-level odor intensities at the property lines for the expanded Holland hog feedlot and at 39 of the expanded feedlot’s nearest neighbors. As indicated in Table 15, the maximum hourly odor intensity at the expanded feedlot’s property lines is 35 odor units (OU), which is below the “faint” odor threshold of 72 OU (Table 3).

The maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly total VOOC concentrations (with the 1.18

21 Appendix 1

Holland Hog Feedlot Report

Table 15. Maximum hourly property-line odor intensities and the frequency at which the “faint” odor threshold of 72 OU is equaled or exceeded for the expanded Holland hog feedlot.

Property Lines

Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t)

the chronic iHRV for ammonia at the neighboring residences. The CALPUFF modeling results also suggest a maximum odor intensity at the expanded Holland feedlot’s property lines of 35 OU, which is below the 72-OU threshold for “faint” odors.

Frequency at Which the “Faint” Odor Threshold is Exceeded (percent)

2

North East South West

7 31 35 18

North/South Distance (miles)

25

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Table 15 and Figure 18 suggest that any “faint” or stronger odors generated by the expanded Holland hog feedlot will be confined to within the feedlot’s property lines.

75

1

25

0

-1 -1

0

1

2

East/West Distance (miles)

Figure 18. Maximum CALPUFF-generated hourly odor intensities for the expanded Holland hog feedlot and the two neighboring feedlots. The contour lines represent 25 and 75 OU. The threshold for “faint” odors is 72 OU (Table 3).

The CALPUFF-generated ground-level odor intensities at the expanded Holland hog feedlot’s neighbors are provided in Table 16. The estimated maximum nearest-neighbor odor intensity is 55 OU at Neighbor C4 (a residence associated with a neighboring feedlot), which is below the 72-OU threshold for “faint” odors.

Summary The CALPUFF modeling results suggest that the expanded Holland hog feedlot will comply with the air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide at its property lines. The modeling also suggests that the expanded feedlot will not create exceedences of the acute ammonia iHRV at its property lines. The CALPUFF results indicate that the expanded Holland feedlot and the two neighboring feedlots will not create exceedences of the subchronic iHRV for hydrogen sulfide and

22 Appendix 1

Holland Hog Feedlot Report

Table 16. Maximum neighbor odor intensities and the frequency at which the 72-OU “faint” odor threshold is exceeded. (* = feedlot residences)

Property Lines

Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t)

A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 C1 C2 C3 C4* C5 D1* D2 D3 E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 F1 F2 F3 F4 G1 G2 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 I1 I2 I3 Lakeshore Ellendale

2 1 3 4 3 3 11 13 15 16 5 7 11 55 21 21 5 8 11 9 9 7 5 5 4 6 8 2 1 4 6 5 2 2 2 2 4 2 3 3 11

Frequency at Which the “Faint” Odor Threshold is Exceeded (percent)

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

23 Appendix 1

Holland Hog Feedlot Report