Andy Henning - Home Site EAWNotice of Availability of an
Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) Andy Henning – Home Site
Doc Type: Public Notice
Public comment information EAW public comment period begins:
November 20, 2017
EAW public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on December 20,
2017
Notice published in the EQB Monitor: November 20, 2017
Permit public comment period begins: November 20, 2017
Permit public comment period ends: December 20, 2017
Facility specific information Facility name and location: Facility
contact: Andy Henning – Home Site Bloom Township Nobles
County
Andy Henning 1673 41st Street Iona, MN 56141 Phone:
507-329-0173
MPCA contact information MPCA EAW contact person: MPCA Permit
contact person: Kim Grosenheider Resource Management and Assistance
Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road
North St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-757-2170 Fax: 651-297-2343
Email:
[email protected] Admin staff phone:
651-757-2100
Brent Riess Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
504 Fairgrounds Road, Suite 200 Marshall, MN 56258 Phone:
507-476-4268 Fax: 507-537-6001 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 https://www.pca.state.mn.us/eaw. If
you would like a copy of the EAW or National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit or have
any questions on the EAW or NPDES/SDS Permit, contact the
appropriate persons listed above.
Description of proposed project Andy Henning intends to construct
and operate a new feedlot in NE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 9 of
Bloom Township in Nobles County (Project). The Project consists of
two 720 animal unit (AU), for a total of 1,440 AU, swine finishing
165-foot by 121-foot total confinement barns each with a 8-foot
below-ground liquid manure storage area. The Project also includes
a 12-foot by 12-foot animal mortality holding building, and a
stormwater pond.
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your
preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats
p-ear2-138a Page 2 of 2
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 written comments are public documents and will be part of
the official public record for this project.
Need for an EIS The MPCA Commissioner will make a final decision on
the need for an EIS after the end of the comment period.
Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Note to preparers: This form is authorized for use only for the
preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) for
animal feedlots. Project proposers should consult the guidance
Guidelines for Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots (also
available at the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
website
https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/content/environmental-review-guidance-practitioners-and-proposers.
or by calling 651-296-6300) regarding how to supply information
needed by the Responsible Government Unit 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 651-757-2100. An
electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA
website www.pca.state.mn.us/eaw. 1. Basic Project
Information.
A. Feedlot Name: Andy Henning – Home Site B.
Feedlot Proposer:
Andy Henning
and Title
Planner Principal
Address Extended Ag Services, Inc. Address 520 Lafayette Road North
507 Milwaukee Street
Lakefield, MN 56150 St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
Phone 507-662-5005 Phone 651-757-2170 Fax 507-662-5105 Fax
651-297-2343 E-mail
[email protected] E-mail
[email protected]
D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
EIS Scoping
Mandatory EAW
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 2 Worksheet
If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category subpart number
and name:
Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29(A) Construction of an animal feedlot
with the capacity of 1,000 animal units or more
E. County Nobles City/Twp Bloom NE 1/4 SE 1/4 Section 9 Township
104N Range 41W Watershed (name and 4-digit code):
Des Moines River – Headwaters: 0001
F. Attach each of the following to the EAW:
· Attachment A – General Location Map · Attachment B – Site Map ·
Attachment C – USGS Topographic Map · Attachment D – One-Mile
Radius Map · Attachment E – Manure Application Site Summary Map ·
Attachment F – Minnesota Department of Health Public Water
Supply/DWSMA Map · Attachment G – Minnesota Historical Society
State Historic Preservation Office Review · Attachment H –Natural
Heritage Database Review with Map · Attachment I – Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources Well Construction Assessment ·
Attachment J – Phosphorus Index Modeling Results · Attachment K –
Odor OFFSET Results · Attachment L – Air Modeling Report ·
Attachment M - Cumulative Potential Effects Map · Attachment N –
Groundwater Pollution Sensitivity Map
The following documents are on file and available by contacting
Brent Riess of the MPCA’s Marshall Office at 507-476-4268 or at
[email protected]:
· State of Minnesota General Animal Feedlot National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Feedlot Permit)
Application and associated documents
· Emergency Response Plan · Manure Management Plan
G. Project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB
Monitor. Andy Henning (Proposer) intends to construct and operate a
new feedlot in NE1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 9 of Bloom Township in
Nobles County (Project). The Project consists of two 720 animal
unit (AU) 1, for a total of 1,440 AU, swine finishing 165-foot by
121-foot total confinement barns each with a 8-foot below-ground
liquid manure storage area. The Project also includes a 12-foot by
12-foot animal mortality holding building, and a stormwater
pond.
1 An “animal unit” or “AU” is a unit of measure developed to
compare the differences in the amount of manure produced by
livestock species. The “AU” is standardized to the amount of manure
produced on a regular basis by a slaughter steer or heifer, which
also correlates to 1,000 pounds of body weight. The “AU” is used
for administrative purposes by various governmental entities for
permitting and record-keeping.
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 3 Worksheet
H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested
data:
Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Finishing hogs
4,800 Total Confinement Sows Nursery pigs Dairy cows Beef cattle
Turkeys Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify
species)
I. Project magnitude data.
Total acreage of farm: 901.8 acres Number of animal units proposed
in this project: 1,440 AU Total animal unit capacity at this
location after project construction: 1,440 AU Acreage required for
manure application: 511 acres/year
J. Describe construction methods and timing.
The Proposer intends to construct the Project in the NE1/4 of the
SE1/4 of Section 9 of Bloom Township in Nobles County (Attachment
A). The Project consists of two 165-foot by 121-foot total
confinement finishing barn housing up to 4,800 hogs (1,440 AUs),
with 8 foot deep, below ground, reinforced concrete liquid manure
storage area, referred to as “manure storage pit” for the remainder
of the document. The barns will be equipped with concrete slatted
floors. The Proposer will install pit fans over the manure pump
outs along the exterior edge of the building. In addition, the
Project includes a 12-foot by 12-foot by 4-foot high side walls
animal mortality holding building, a new 1,769,520 gallons per year
well for livestock watering and employee domestic use, and a
stormwater pond (Attachment B). A United States Geological Survey
(USGS) topographic map of the Project area is included as
Attachment C.
The Proposer plans to begin construction in the early spring of
2018, beginning with the installation of stormwater erosion
prevention and sediment control best management practices,
including silt fence and top soil stripping and stockpiling. The
Proposer will utilize soils excavated from the location of the
proposed barns to create the site driveway, the berm for the
stormwater pond and as material to grade stormwater away from the
barns. The Proposer will place the perimeter drain tile at the
construction limits of the manure storage pits, below footing
elevation. The Proposer is using the perimeter drain tile to
relieve any seasonal saturation and limit any hydrostatic pressure
on the manure storage pit walls. This will also help the Proposer
dewater the Project excavation area if necessary due to the
presence of perched groundwater or following precipitation events.
The Proposer has designed the perimeter drain tile to discharge to
existing tile drains. The Proposer will install the manure storage
pit, perimeter drain tile, driveway, and utilities at the same
time. The Proposer’s construction will include placement of the
concrete for the manure storage pit floors, building and column
footings and the animal mortality holding building after placement
of specified reinforcing steel and concrete forms. The Proposer
will follow the wall and column construction with placement of
precast beams and slats, after the design engineer has approved
the
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 4 Worksheet
wall and column construction. The Proposer will follow construction
of the swine barns and the animal mortality holding building and
installation of equipment and final grading with the installation
of the permanent stormwater pond. The Proposer will provide
stormwater drainage via vegetated swales for infiltration. The
vegetated swale will direct stormwater away from the site through
final grading and permanent vegetative cover. If the pond were to
overflow, the water would discharge to adjacent cropland and a
nearby drainage ditch. The Proposer expects to complete
construction in the spring of 2018. The Proposer’s actual
construction dates are dependent on completion of the environmental
review process, issuance of the Feedlot Permit2, and issuance of
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) water
appropriations permit.
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 is not planning further expansions at the Project
site.
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 1 mile of the feedlot and within or
adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites. Land
surrounding the Project and the manure application sites is
agricultural and rural in nature. There are 32 feedlots located
within an approximate 3 square mile area surrounding the Project.
The Project and land application sites are in the Des Moines -
Headwaters watershed. Land use within the Des Moines River
watershed is primarily agricultural.
Feedlot: There are six rural residences located within 1 mile of
the Project site. The nearest residence is located approximately
315 feet to the south. Attachment D shows a map of neighbors within
1 mile of the Project. There are no schools, daycare facilities,
senior citizens housing, or public places of worship within a
1-mile radius of the Project. The Project is in an area zoned for
Agricultural Use. Manure Application Sites: The manure application
sites are located within 3 miles of the Project and are in Bloom
Township in Nobles County and Iona Township in Murray County
(Attachment E). Currently, all the manure application sites are in
crop production. Manure Application Sites in Iona Township, Murray
County, MN Site 1 – Section 26, SW1/4: This manure application site
is bordered by 160th Avenue to the west and 11th Street to the
south. One residence is within the boundaries of the manure
application site. A drainage ditch runs through this site.
2 The NPDES Permit is required for a Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation capable of holding 1,000 or more AUs.
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 5 Worksheet
Site 2 – Section 26, SE1/4: This manure application site is
bordered by 170th Avenue to the east and 11th Street to the south.
There are no residences within the boundaries of the manure
application site. A drainage ditch runs through this site. Site 3 –
Section 35, NW1/4: This manure application site is bordered by
160th Ave to the west and 11th Street to the north. One residence
is within the boundaries of the manure application site.
Manure Application Sites in Bloom Township, Nobles County, MN Site
4 – Section 9, NW1/4: This manure application site is bordered by
King Avenue to the west and 110th Street to the north. There are no
residences within the boundaries of the manure application site. A
drainage ditch runs through this site. Site 5 – Section 9, NE1/4:
This manure application site is bordered by 110th Street to the
north and Knauf Avenue to the east. One residence is within the
boundaries of the manure application site. Two drainage ditches run
through this site. Site 6 – Section 9, SE1/4: This manure
application site is bordered by 120th Street to the south and Knauf
Avenue to the east. One residence is within the boundaries of the
manure application site. A drainage ditch runs through this
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
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.
Are there any lands in proximity to the feedlot that are officially
planned for or zoned for future uses that might be incompatible
with a feedlot (such as residential development)? Yes No If yes,
describe the potentially affected use and its location relative to
the feedlot, its anticipated development schedule, and any plans to
avoid or minimize potential conflicts with the feedlot.
C. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in
proximity to the feedlot, manure storage areas, or within or
adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites?
· Drinking Water Supply Management Areas designated by the
Minnesota Department of Health? Yes No
· Public water supply wells (within 2 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
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 6 Worksheet
· 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. Drinking Water Supply Management Areas and Wells:
There are no Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Drinking Water
Supply Management Areas (DWSMA) nor public water supply wells
within the vicinity of the Project or manure land application areas
(Attachment F). There are 14 verified wells near the Project. The
Proposer obtained this number through the MDH’s Minnesota Well
Index (MWI), which contains older Minnesota County Well Index data.
Unfortunately, the MWI misses some wells that were constructed
before the well registry existed or if the well was not registered
with the county or state. It is reasonable to assume all residences
near the Project site have a well or share access to a neighbor’s
well. Archeological/Historic Resources: The State Historical
Preservation Office’s search of the Minnesota Archaeological
Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory found no archaeological
or historical sites within 1 mile of the Project or the manure
application areas (Attachment G). Wildlife Management Area (WMA):
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages WMAs to
protect wildlife habitat for future generations, provide citizens
opportunities for hunting, fishing and wildlife watching, and to
promote important wildlife-based tourism in the state. There are
two WMAs near manure application sites, described below (Attachment
E):
· County Line – South Unit WMA3 is approximately 0.5 miles
northwest of the manure application site 4 in Section 9 of Bloom
Township. The more than 90-acre WMA contains Willow Lake, which is
managed for waterfowl. In addition, the WMA contains food plots,
woody cover plantings, and native grasslands.
· Swessinger WMA4 is approximately 0.5 miles southwest of the
manure application site 4 in Section 9 of Bloom Township. The
713-acre WMA contains a small marsh with associated upland
grassland, a willow patch, and a food plot.
The Proposer will mitigate potential impacts to the WMAs by
following a MPCA-approved Manure Management Plant (MMP), which
includes manure application conditions, such as setbacks and
application techniques, as well as details of the allowable
quantities of application. All manure application sites are on
existing cropland, therefore no wildlife habitat will be disturbed
and nitrogen from manure applications will only replace nitrogen
already utilized for crop production. The Proposer must 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 Feedlot Permit.
3 DNR County Line: South Unit WMA:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/detail_report.html?id=WMA0020501 4
DNR Swessinger WMA:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/detail_report.html?id=WMA0120000
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 7 Worksheet
Rare species/natural features The DNR’s review of its Minnesota
Natural Heritage database (Attachment H) did not find any rare
plant or animal species or other significant natural features known
to occur within an approximate 1-mile radius of the proposed
Project or manure application sites.
3. Geologic and soil conditions.
A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area
Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) 0.5’ – 2’ 0.5’ – 2’
0’ – 6.5’ (average) 1’ 1’ 2’ Bedrock (minimum) >400’ >400’
>400’ (average) >400’ >400’ >400’
B.
NRCS Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites
Classifications (if known): Ocheda Silty Clay Loam, Waldorf Silty
Clay Loam, Clarion-Crooksford Complex, Clarion Loam, Nicollet Clay
Loam, Canisteo Clay Loam, Collinwood Silty Clay, Glencoe Silty Clay
Loam
L79B, L140A, L83A
L79B, L140A, L83A L140A, L133A, L134B, L133A, L79B, L85A, L78A,
L111A, L112A, L102C2, L146A, L145A, 96B, 130, 229, 96A, 102B, 113,
102B2, 118, 114, 141B, 211
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.
4. Water Use, Tiling and Drainage, and Physical Alterations.
A. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any
water wells, appropriation of any ground or surface water
(including dewatering), or connection to any public water
supply?
Yes No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new
wells; the source, duration, quantity and
purpose of any appropriations or public supply connections; and
unique well numbers and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
appropriation permit numbers, if available. Identify any existing
and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on-site,
explain methodology used to determine that none are present.
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 8 Worksheet
There are no wells currently located on the Project site, but the
Proposer plans to install one well for livestock and employee
domestic use. The Proposer expects to use approximately 1.8 million
gallons of water annually, for a total consumption of 44.2 million
gallons over 25 years. The Proposer applied to the DNR for
preliminary approval to drill a well approximately 200 feet deep
that will pump at 20 gallons per minute. The DNR granted
preliminary approval to drill the well on February 1, 2017,
(Attachment I). The Proposer may use the DNR preliminary approval
to decide whether to proceed in constructing the well. The approval
to drill a well is not an approval to use or pump the well. To use
the well, the Proposer must obtain a DNR water appropriation
permit. State law requires the permit for users withdrawing more
than 10,000 gallons of water daily, or 1 million gallons annually.
The DNR water appropriation permit ensures the well user manages
water resources so adequate supply is available for long-range
seasonal requirements for domestic, agriculture, fish and wildlife,
recreation, power, navigation and water quality. State law
establishes domestic use as the highest priority when water
supplies are limited, and, when well interference occurs, the DNR
follows a standardized procedure of investigation.
The Proposer must register the well with the MDH before
construction.
B. Will the project involve installation of drain tiling, tile
inlets or outlets? Yes No If yes, describe.
The Proposer will install a 4-inch perimeter drain tile made of
high density polyethylene around the base of the manure storage pit
to control hydrostatic pressure on the outside of the pit walls
caused by fluctuations in seasonal saturation. Inspection ports
connected to the perimeter tiles will allow the Proposer to observe
if the tiles are operational, and may help identify seepage from
the pits if a leak were to occur. The drain tile will connect to
existing agricultural drain tile.
The Feedlot Permit requires the following drain tile
inspections.
· The Proposer must conduct weekly monitoring of the drain tile for
water flow and signs of discoloration or odor.
· The Proposer must maintain records of all inspections.
C. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration —
dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and
impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland,
stream or drainage ditch? Yes No
If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected
Waters Inventory number(s) if
the water resources affected are on the PWI. Describe proposed
mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts.
5. Manure management.
A. Check the box or boxes below which best describe the manure
management system proposed for this feedlot.
Stockpiling for land application Containment storage under barns
for land application
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 9 Worksheet
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 1.7 million gallons per
year
Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle
Typically 1 time per year Total days per year 4 days
Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled
(including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot:
Manure and wastewater generated by the Project will drop through
slatted floors in the barns into the manure storage pits, where it
will be stored. The manure storage pits will be 8 feet deep. The
typical maximum operating depth is 6.5 feet resulting in a storage
capacity for 1 year (944,000 gallons for each barn). The Proposer
will use fans to vent the manure storage pit. To remove the manure,
the Proposer will agitate and pump out the manure by a portable
chopper pump.
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.
Annually, in the fall after the crops have been harvested or during
the spring before the crops are planted, the Proposer will agitate
and pump out the manure. The Proposer will hire a commercial animal
waste technician (CAWT) licensed by the Minnesota Department of
Agriculture, to land apply the manure to the manure application
sites (Attachment E). The CAWT will apply the manure within 24
hours of pump out by a towed hose system or a liquid manure tanker.
The CAWT will connect the towed hose or tanker to a toolbar
equipment with a liquid distributor that will provide consistent
and even coverage with complete incorporation of the manure 4-6
inches below the soil surface immediately upon land application. In
addition, the CAWT will use a liquid flow meter to calibrate the
application rate with the speed of the tractor and width of the
toolbar to achieve the planned application rate. The Proposer
expects the manure land application process to be completed within
4 days of initiation. All manure land application sites are
currently in row crop production. The manure will be used as a
fertilizer replacement in the existing nutrient management.
Typically, the manure application sites will receive manure once
every 2 to 4 years.
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 10 Worksheet
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 an MMP with its Feedlot Permit
application. After MPCA review and approval, the MMP becomes an
integral and enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit. The Proposer
will apply manure at agronomic rates per the MPCA approved MMP to
ensure there is no excess nutrient buildup in the soil based on the
type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry. The
manure application rates cannot exceed the crop’s nitrogen needs.
In areas of the field near water features or where soil tests
indicate elevated soil phosphorus levels, crop phosphorus needs are
also considered. The agronomic rates are in the Feedlot Permit and
the MMP. Failure to follow these rules may subject the permit
holder to penalties. The Proposer will prioritize manure
application sites based on logistics and nitrogen, phosphorus,
and/or potassium soil test levels. Fields requiring the most
nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium receive the manure first. Other
factors include current field conditions, crops grown, yield goal,
organic matter content, previous manure credits and other legume
credits. Nutrient rates are determined by utilizing the University
of Minnesota Extension Service bulletin5, “Fertilizer
Recommendations for Agronomic Crops in Minnesota.
Previous Crop Crop to Utilize Manure Expected Yield Nitrogen Needed
Phosphorus Removed6
Corn Corn 190 bu/ac 180 lbs N/ac 67 lbs P2O5/ac* Soybeans Corn 190
bu/ac & 55 bu/ac 140 lbs N/ac 107 lbs P2O5/ac**
Note: *P2O5 removed in grain, per crop year; ** P2O5 removed for
2-year rotation. ac = acres bu = bushel lbs = pounds N = nitrogen
P2O5 = phosphorus
Land Grant University research developed this procedure as the one
that best predicts the amount of nutrients in the soil used by
plants. Using this method, a Maximum Return to Nitrogen value
determines manure application rates. The manure recipients sample
the soil every 4 years to monitor crop needs and target acres that
will respond positively to manure applications.
3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and
composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. The
Project will generate approximately 1.7 million gallons of manure
per year from the estimated 4,800 head of swine. The manure storage
pits have the combined capacity to hold 1.9 million gallons of
manure. Each year approximately 893 acres of fields are available
for manure application. The amount of fields required to utilize
all of the Project’s manure will vary from year to year based on
nutrient content of the manure and soil needs. The Proposer will
apply the manure at agronomic rates based on composite tests pulled
from the manure storage areas prior
5 The University of Minnesota Extension “Fertilizer Recommendations
for Agronomic Crops in Minnesota” bulletin. Retrieved July 2016:
http://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/nutrient-management/nutrient-lime-guidelines/fertilizer-recommendations-for-agronomic-
crops-in-minnesota/ 6 International Plant Nutrition Institute.
(IPNI) Retrieved April 1, 2016.
http://www.ipni.net/article/IPNI-3296
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 11 Worksheet
to land application. If the previous year was soybeans, then
approximately 500 acres of corn will be necessary to utilize all of
the manure from the Project, or, if the previous year was corn,
then approximately 389 acres of corn will be necessary to utilize
all of the manure from the Project. Currently all of the manure
application sites are in row crop production. The land is owned or
rented by the Proposer or has been secured under a manure
agreement. There is sufficient land available for manure
application to utilize the nutrients generated by the
Project.
All fields designated for manure application were evaluated by the
Minnesota Phosphorus Index (Index) (Attachment J). The Index is a
model that estimates the risk of phosphorus loss on fields. The
Proposer evaluated the manure application sites with this Index.
All of the fields received a risk rating of very low risk, which
recommends no management changes.
4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems. The
Project is subject to setback requirements contained in the
following regulations:
· Minnesota Animal Feedlot Rules, Minn. R. 7020.2225 Land
Application of Manure · Minnesota Statutes/Laws (i.e., “Minnesota
buffer law”)
o Minn. Stat. 103F.48 Riparian Protection and Water Quality
Practices (2016) o Minnesota Session Law chapter 85 (S.F. 2503-
April 25, 2016)
· Nobles County Ordinance, Section 7, Subsection 725 Livestock
Feedlots · Murray County Ordinance, Section 14, Subdivision
12
The Proposer will comply with the most stringent applicable
regulation as shown in the table below.
Table 5.D.4. Animal Waste Land Application Setback Distances
Feature Winter
With P Mgmt. No P Mgmt. With Vegetated Buffer
Inadequate Vegetated Buffer
Lake, Stream 300’ 100’* 100’* 100’ 300’ Intermittent Stream** DNR
protected wetlands*** Drainage ditch w/o quarry**
300’ 50’ 300’ 50’ 300’
Open Tile Intake 300’ 0’ 0’ 300’ 300’ Well, mine or quarry 200’*
200’* 200’* 200’* 200’* Sinkhole with no diversion 300’ 100’ 100’
300’ 300’
Residence/Church/ School 300’ 300’ 300’ 300’ 300’
Public Roadways 25’* 10’* 10’* 25’ 25’* *Nobles County Livestock
Feedlot Ordinance. **Intermittent streams and ditches pertain to
those identified on USGS quadrangle maps, excluding drainage
ditches with
berms that protect from runoff into the ditch and segments of
intermittent streams which are grassed waterways. USGS quadrangle
maps can be found at County Soil and Water Conservation District
Offices or can be viewed on the internet at
http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com [August 17, 2004].
***Wetland setbacks pertain to all protected wetlands identified on
DNR protected waters and wetlands maps (these maps are often
located in County Soil and Water Conservation District offices and
typically include all wetlands over 10 acres).
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 12 Worksheet
E. Other methods of manure utilization. If the project will utilize
manure other than by land application, please describe the
methods.
None.
6. Air/odor emissions.
A. Identify the major sources of air or odor emissions from this
feedlot.
The building’s ventilation and the surfaces of the barns that come
into contact with animals and manure, especially floors, are
sources of odor. The animals themselves are also sources of odor.
The manure collection and storage facilities, the dead animal
disposal and storage areas, and the manure application fields are
also significant sources of odor. Dust generated by truck traffic
around the site can also contribute as a carrier 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. Feedlot odors will occur at the Project and at
manure application sites. However, the Proposer will implement
design and operational measures to reduce odors. Project design and
operational measures to reduce odor include:
· The Project will be a total confinement, which reduces the
surface area of manure exposed to the air.
· The Proposer will maintain clean, dry floors, eliminate manure
buildup, and clean up any spilled feed.
· The Proposer will thoroughly wash and disinfect barn interior
surfaces at the end of each cycle.
· The Proposer will give special attention to cleaning the
ventilation fans and pit exhaust fans. · The Proposer will only
agitate the stored manure immediately before the manure is
removed
for land application. · The Proposer will consult with the MPCA or
County Feedlot Officer to identify changes to
reduce odors in the event of complaints are received. · The
Proposer may reduce protein in the hogs’ diet. · The Proposer may
use synthetic amino acids such as lysine in the hogs’ feed.
Manure land application measures to reduce odor include:
· The CAWT will immediately inject manure into the soil to minimize
the release of odors by eliminating manure contact with the
atmosphere.
· The CAWT will observe all required manure application setback
requirements from nearby residences and special features.
· The Proposer will consult with the MPCA or County Feedlot Officer
to identify changes to reduce odors in the event complaints are
received.
· The CAWT will evaluate weather conditions, primarily wind
speed/direction and humidity, before manure application to insure
minimal impacts on neighbors and the public.
The University of Minnesota Department of Bio-Systems and
Agricultural Engineering has developed an odor modeling program,
OFFSET, designed to estimate average odor impacts from a variety
of
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 13 Worksheet
animal facilities and manure storages. The model calculates the
frequency of odor occurrences at various distances from the farm
site, representing different frequencies of time when odors will
not be at levels considered "annoying." These odor annoyance-free
frequencies represent the percent of time where odors are possibly
detected, but at a level that is not typically considered annoying.
An evaluation of the Project indicates that one residence is within
the 94% odor annoyance free zone (Attachment K).
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.
The Proposer completed an air dispersion modeling analyses report
(Attachment L) for the Project using the American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD)
for a 5-year period using historic weather data. The model predicts
the Project’s air emissions impact from hydrogen sulfide, ammonia,
and odor intensities at the Project property lines and at 12 of the
nearest neighbors. The following findings present results of the
quantitative assessment of air quality impacts associated with the
Project, as well as three existing feedlots within a 9 square-mile
grid surrounding the Project site.
Hydrogen Sulfide The modeling results predict the Project 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 7.28 ppb. When a background
concentration of 17 ppb added to the AERMOD predictions, the H3H
hydrogen sulfide concentration is 24.28 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 Project. The
AERMOD results indicated that, after construction, the Project
would 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 0.63 micrograms per
cubic meter (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 1.63 µg/m3,
which is below the sub chronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV of 10 µg/m3.
Note that while the iHRV is for a 13-week period, AEMOD is not
capable of averaging concentrations for this time period. Instead,
AEMOD uses a monthly averaging period, which produces a more
conservative or protective prediction.
Ammonia The modeling suggests that after construction, the Project
will not create exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV. AERMOD
predicted a maximum hourly property-line concentration of 200.91
µg/m3. When a background concentration of 148 µg/m3 is added to the
AERMOD prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration
is 348.91 µg/m3, which is below the acute ammonia iHRV of 3,200
µg/m3.
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 14 Worksheet
The AERMOD results indicate that after construction, the Project
will not create exceedances of the chronic ammonia iHRV at the
neighboring residences. The estimated maximum 1-year time-averaged
ammonia concentration for a neighboring residence is 2.20 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 7.92 µg/m3, which is below the chronic
ammonia iHRV of 80 µg/m3. Odor Based on the air dispersion modeling
analysis, AERMOD modeling results indicate that after construction,
the Project will not contribute to odor concentrations above an
odor intensity of 72 odor units per cubic meter (OU/m3), defined as
a “faint odor” at the Project property line. The modelled maximum
hourly odor intensity was 25.87 OU/m3 on the north boundary line,
which would be a “very faint odor.” The modeling results also
indicate the Project will not contribute to odor concentrations
above an odor intensity of 28.69 OU/m3, defined as a “ very faint
odor” at nearby non-feedlot residences.
Table 6.C. Proposed Project Air Quality Summary with Background
Concentrations
1State ambient hydrogen sulfide air quality standard: 30 ppb
half-hour average. 2Acute inhalation health risk value for ammonia:
one-hour average of 3,200 µg/m3. 3Odor impact assessment based on
OU/m3. A value of 72 OU/m3 is considered to be a faint odor (for
swine) detectable by most people.
ppb = parts per billion µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
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 prior to
operational events such as manure storage, agitation, pump out, or
application, but they are willing to work around planned social
events. Federal and local holidays will be avoided as much as
possible for manure handling operations. If complaints are
received, the Project Proposer will work with county and state
officials to find a resolution to the problem.
E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration,
quantities or intensity and any proposed
measures to mitigate adverse impacts. The construction of the
Project will involve extensive dirt work, such as removing top soil
and the hauling in of gravel to build the service roads for the
Project. If dust becomes an issue, the Project Proposer will use a
dust abatement, such as water, to help control it.
Property Boundary Hydrogen Sulfide Results (ppb)1
Acute Ammonia Results (µg/m3)2 Odor Results (OU/m3)3
North 24.28 348.91 25.87 South 19.45 216.14 8.77 East 22.92 194.26
18.83
West 18.12 187.05 5.03
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 15 Worksheet
During Project operation, the major causes of dust would be truck
traffic using the gravel entrance road and exhaust fans. The
largest source of noise at this Project will be from exhaust fans.
These fans run at low decibels. The nearest neighbor is
approximately 315-feet away and the separation distance between the
residence and the Project is the biggest mitigation factor in noise
and dust abatement. No additional plans are currently in place for
noise or dust abatement.
7. Dead Animal Disposal.
Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for
storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. The
Feedlot Permit requires the Proposer to manage animal mortalities
in compliance with the Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules. The
Proposer will remove mortalities from the barn upon discovery and
contact a rendering service. Prior to pick up by a contracted
rendering service, which typically occurs within 48 hours, the
Proposer will store the mortalities in the animal mortality holding
building, a 12-foot-by-12-foot structure with a compacted clay
floor and tongue and groove PVC walls. The surrounding area will be
seeded to grass. The Proposer predicts a mortality rate of
approximately 145 swine per year for the Project site.
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.
Project Site A Minnesota NPDES/State Disposal System (SDS)
Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSW Permit) is required
when a project disturbs 1 acre or more of soil. While the Project
will exceed 1 acre of soil disturbance, a separate CSW permit is
not required because the Feedlot Permit contains all CSW permit
requirements such as the use of silt fences, inlet protection rock
checks, prompt soil stabilization and revegetation to prevent
erosion and to keep eroded sediment from leaving the construction
site. The Proposer has prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan that meets the requirements for erosion prevention and
sediment control during construction. The Proposer will establish
perennial vegetation and install a gravel surface driveway once the
construction of the barn is complete. The Proposer’s construction
of two 165-foot by 121-foot hog barns, a 12-foot by 12-foot animal
mortality holding building, and associated driveway will increase
the area of new impervious surface at the Project site by
approximately 3.5 acres, which will cause an increase in surface
water runoff. The Feedlot Permit requires projects that create 1
acre or more of new impervious surface to retain and permanently
treat the water quality volume of one inch of runoff created by the
Project. The Proposer may manage this runoff by infiltration or
other volume reduction practices without a discharge to surface
waters. Since this Project will create more than 1 acre of new
impervious surface, this stormwater treatment requirement applies
to this Project. The Proposer will construct a permanent stormwater
pond east of the barns to collect stormwater generated at the site.
The pond will allow the collected stormwater to infiltrate into the
soils. If the pond were to overflow, the water would discharge to
adjacent cropland and a nearby drainage ditch.
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 16 Worksheet
Stormwater should not come into contact with livestock or manure.
This is because the animals will be contained indoors and manure
will be collected and stored in manure storage pits located
entirely below the barns. The Proposer has submitted an Emergency
Response Plan (ERP) to the MPCA with its Feedlot Permit
application. The Proposer’s ERP includes procedures to address
spills should they occur. In the event of a spill, the Proposer’s
ERP requires the Proposer to immediately stop the source of the
liquid manure leak or spill. The ERP also includes the following
measures where appropriate: installation of bale checks, blockage
of downstream culverts, plugging tile intakes, tilling ground ahead
of the spill, and use of absorptive materials. Once the MPCA has
approved the ERP, it becomes an enforceable condition of the
Feedlot Permit. Manure Application Sites As discussed in Item 5 of
the EAW, a CWAT or the Proposer will land apply manure at agronomic
rates. The Proposer determines the agronomic rate based on the type
of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil fertility. This will
assure there is no excess nutrient build up in the soil. Further,
injection of manure occurs at the time of application.
All manure application sites are within the major, Des Moines River
– Headwaters watershed. Previous landowners have farmed land in
these areas for several decades.
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. The Proposer estimates the Project will
generate, on average, about 15 vehicles per week. See Table 9.A.1
for current and post-Project traffic estimates. Project-related
vehicle estimates include the following.
· A passenger vehicle daily for regular management duties. · A feed
truck delivery twice per week. · A rendering service truck to
remove animal fatalities, possibly once per week. · Approximately
nine pick-ups with trailers to deliver nursery pigs once about
every 5 months.
Each re-stocking period will take approximately two weeks to
complete, averaging four to five loads per week.
· Approximately 28 semi-tractors and trailers to take finished hogs
to market once about every 5 months. These periods of heavy traffic
will occur over approximately 1 month, averaging four to six trucks
per week.
· Typically, once per year in the fall or spring, the Proposer will
remove the manure from the storage pit to be land applied. Actual
traffic related to manure handling actives will depend on the
manure application equipment. At most, 160 trips would be needed to
land apply the manure over an estimated 4 days.
Vehicle routes will be the discretion of the driver; however, the
Proposer expects trucks will primarily use McCall Avenue
approximately 2 miles to the east of the Project site. Traffic will
likely travel west on 120th Street then connecting to Knauf Avenue
to the Project site. The Proposer does not expect the need for road
improvements. Drivers will abide by the seasonal road restrictions,
which may require more frequent trips at lower weights to reduce
impacts on the roads.
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 17 Worksheet
Table 9.A. 1. Table Projected Traffic Counts – Post-Project Road
Avg. Vehicle/Day Avg. Vehicle/Week Increase/Week McCall Avenue 260
1,820 15 120th Street Unknown Unknown 15 Knauf Avenue Unknown
Unknown 15
Traffic counts from most recent MN Department of Transportation
Office of Transportation Data and Analysis: Traffic Volume Program:
http://mndotgis.dot.state.mn.us/tfa/Map
B. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or
public services be required to serve the
project? Yes No
If yes, please describe. The Proposer has received preliminary
approval from the DNR to construct a new water well on the Project
site (Attachment I).
10. Permits and approvals required. Mark required permits and give
status of application:
Unit of government Type of Application Status MPCA Feedlot Permit
Application Submitted MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit
Submitted as part of the Feedlot
Permit Application County/twp/city Conditional use or other land
use permit Application submitted DNR Water Appropriation
Application 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 MPCA must 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 of related or anticipated
future projects, the MPCA conducted an analysis that evaluated
other operations and looked for the potential for other projects in
the context of potential direct or indirect impacts of the Project
that: (1) are already in existence or planned for the future; (2)
are located in the surrounding area; and (3) might reasonably be
expected to affect the same natural resources. The following is a
review of the MPCA’s analysis conducted to determine if the Project
would contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect. The
Proposer conducted a public records search and found 42 feedlots
with 15,147 AUs within the sub- watersheds containing the Project
and its manure land application sites (Attachment M).
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 18 Worksheet
Surface Water Quality The Project site and proposed land
application sites are located within the Des Moines River major
watershed. The feedlot operation and land application areas are in
Nobles and Murray County, in Bloom and Iona Townships. Land use
within the Project area is predominantly agricultural, which can
contribute to non-point source pollution of surface waters.
Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads The Federal Clean
Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 303(d)) (1972) requires that each
state develop a plan to identify and restore any waterbody that is
deemed impaired by state regulations. The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency requires a total maximum daily load (TMDL) as a
result of the federal CWA. A TMDL identifies the pollutant that is
causing the impairment and how much of that pollutant can enter the
waterbody and still meet water quality standards. The North Branch
of Jack Creek is the closest listed impaired water body to the
Project and its manure application sites (Attachment M). The North
Branch of Jack Creek (07100001-505) flows through one of the manure
application sites identified as a part of the Project (Section 9 of
Bloom Township). This 43.22-mile-long reach is a part of the Des
Moines – Headwaters watershed and is listed as impaired in the 2008
TMDL report7 due to turbidity. The drainage area to the downstream
end of this impaired reach is about 70 square miles. The primary
sources contributing total suspended solids within this area are
row cropland and streambank/bed erosion and, to a lesser extent,
overgrazed pasture and inadequate buffers near streams and
waterways. The Project includes total confinement barns; thus, no
manure contaminated runoff is expected. In addition, the Project
will operate under the Feedlot Permit, which has more stringent MMP
requirements than smaller feedlots in the region. Finally, the
swine manure from the Project is liquid and is incorporated into
the soil during land application. Thus, the potential for
bacteria-laden manure runoff is greatly reduced12. Thus, the
Project is not expected to significantly contribute to these
impairments. Existing projects located in the surrounding area were
assessed using public information. The MPCA reviewed existing
public data to identify the number of feedlots and other projects
within the same sub- watersheds 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. The Proposer’s search of the MPCA
permitting database identified 42 feedlots, within the
sub-watersheds affected by the Project. The Proposer will take the
following actions to minimize impacts to surface water:
· Test soil and apply manure at agronomic rates (Attachment J). ·
Comply with state and county required manure application setbacks.
· If a manure spill occurs, comply with the Emergency Response Plan
in the Feedlot Permit. · Design and build the Project as a total
confinement operation and check drain tile periodically for
pit leaks.
7 West Fork Des Moines River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load
Final Report: Excess Nutrients (North and South Heron Lake),
Turbidity, and Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impairments. MPCA. October
2008. Retrieved July 2017. Website:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw7-13e.pdf
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 19 Worksheet
Groundwater Appropriation The Proposer will install one new well,
which will utilize approximately 1.8 million gallons of water
annually. As described in No. 3 above, the Project will require a
general DNR Water Appropriations Permit. A review of the Minnesota
County Well Index by the Proposer’s consultant indicate 14 verified
wells in the vicinity of the Project. Well usage is a mixture of
domestic and livestock. Well depths range from approximately 100
feet to approximately 540 feet. Attachment F shows the location of
wells near the Project site and the Proposer’s manure application
sites. The Project will require a Water Appropriation Permit from
the DNR. The DNR Water Appropriation Permit Program regulates
groundwater appropriations. The purpose of the DNR permit program
is to manage water resources so that adequate supply is provided
for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power,
navigational, and quality control. The permit program balances
competing management objectives, including both development and the
protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes
domestic use as the highest priority when water supplies are
limited, and, when well interference occurs, the DNR follows a
standardized procedure of investigation. The Proposers will need to
correct any problems DNR investigation determines they are causing.
The DNR will require the Proposer to assess the potential impacts
during the water appropriation permit review process. The DNR has
preliminarily approved the construction of the Proposer’s well
(Attachment I). The preliminary approval does not constitute an
authorization or guarantee permit approval by the DNR. Groundwater
Quality Feedlot operations and the land application of manure can
adversely affect groundwater resources. The Groundwater
Contamination Susceptibility in Minnesota report8 estimates the
potential for groundwater pollution. The DNR updated the report in
June of 20169. The report uses a matrix for determining a
sensitivity rating of the water table ranging from very high to
very low based on aquifer material, recharge potential, soil
materials, and vadose zone materials. A portion of the manure
application sites also contain soils with both a Low and Moderate
designation; thus, it could take a week to months for near-surface
contamination to reach a depth of 10 feet below land surface.
The DNR report indicates that the Project site and its associated
manure application sites are located in areas with very low
sensitivity to water table contamination (Attachment N). Very low
geologic susceptibility means it takes months to a year for
contaminants to vertically travel to a depth of 10 feet.
The Proposer will reduce the Project’s potential impacts to
groundwater by following the design, construction, and operation
requirements identified in Minn. R. ch. 7020 (Animal Feedlots).
These rules protect groundwater from both cumulative and individual
feedlot impacts. As required by the rule, the Proposer has
submitted design plans and construction specifications for the
manure storage pit and the MMP for the land application of manure.
Once the MPCA has reviewed and approved the plans, they will become
enforceable conditions of the Feedlot Permit. Air Quality Impacts
The Proposer used the AERMOD dispersion model to predict potential
emissions of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odors from the Project.
The air quality modeling evaluation predicted concentrations of the
odors at the Project property lines and nearest neighbors. The
model estimated pollutant concentrations from the Project, along
with an ambient hydrogen sulfide and ammonia background
concentration to
8 Geologic Sensitivity Workgroup, 1991, Criteria and guidelines for
assessing geologic sensitivity of groundwater resources in
Minnesota: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Waters, St. Paul, MN, 122 p. Retrieved July 2016.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/sensitivity/docs/assessing_geologic_sensitivity.pdf
9 Adams, R. Pollution Sensitivity of Near-Surface Materials.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. June 2016. Available at:
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/mha/hg02_report.pdf
Andy Henning – Home Site Environmental Assessment Bloom Township,
Minnesota 20 Worksheet
^
^
Summit Lake
Grand Prairie
Graham Lakes
Andy Henning - EAWNobles Co., MN Andy Henning Swine Facility
General Location Map
· Map Produced by:
Imagery Courtesy of BING.
Andy Henning - EAW
Legend _ Site Location
XW Well
NOTES:
Nobles Co., MN Andy Henning Swine Facility 1:24,000 Topographic
Map
Andy Henning - EAW
Legend _ Site Location
Stream Type Stream (Perennial) Stream (Intermittent) Stream
(Unknown) Ditch (Perennial) Ditch (Intermittent) Ditch (Unknown)
River
Lake, Pond or Reservoir Wetland Innundation Area or Intermittent
Water Fish Hatchery Pond or Farm DNR Wildlife Mgmt Area USA Topo
Maps
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
0 2,400 4,800 7,200 9,6001,200 Feet
Nobles Co., MN Andy Henning Swine Facility Manure Acreage Summary
Map
Andy Henning - EAW
Community of Biological Significance Stream (Perennial) Stream
(Intermittent) Stream (Unknown) Ditch (Perennial) Ditch
(Intermittent) Ditch (Unknown) River Lake, Pond or Reservoir
Wetland Innundation Area or Intermittent Water Fish Hatchery Pond
or Farm
!.State Park
State Trails Minnesota State Parks DNR Wildlife Mgmt Area
_SiteLocation Manure Acres
Nobles Co., MN Andy Henning - EAW
NOTES: Data courtesty of the Minnesota Department of Health.
(2014)
Legend _ Site Location
DWSMA Wellhead Protection Area Source Water Assessment
Imagery Courtesy of BING.
·
Andrew Nesseth
From: Thomas Cinadr <
[email protected]> Sent: Thursday,
June 29, 2017 8:06 AM To: Andrew Nesseth Subject: Re: SHPO Review:
Feedlot EAW (Andy Henning)
THIS EMAIL IS NOT A PROJECT CLEARANCE.
This message simply reports the results of the cultural resources
database search you requested. The database search produced results
for only previously known archaeological sites and historic
properties. Please read the note below carefully. No archaeological
sites or historic structures were identified in a search of the
Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures
Inventory for the search area requested.
The result of this database search provides a listing of recorded
archaeological sites and historic architectural properties that are
included in the current SHPO databases. Because the majority of
archaeological sites in the state and many historic architectural
properties have not been recorded, important sites or structures
may exist within the search area and may be affected by development
projects within that area. Additional research, including field
survey, may be necessary to adequately assess the area’s potential
to contain historic properties.
If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential
to impact archaeological sites or historic architectural
properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or
historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please
contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson in Review and Compliance @ 651-259-3455
or by email at
[email protected].
The Minnesota SHPO Survey Manuals and Database Metadata and
Contractor Lists can be found at
http://www.mnhs.org/shpo/survey/inventories.htm
Tom Cinadr Survey and Information Management Coordinator Minnesota
Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Historical Society 345
Kellogg Blvd. West St. Paul, MN 55102
ATTACHMENT G
2
651-259-3453 On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Andrew Nesseth
<
[email protected]> wrote:
Tom,
I am working on an EAW for an expanding, total confinement swine
feedlot in Waseca County, MN. Please complete a search for any
archeological sites or cultural resources within a one mile radius
of the proposed feedlot and its land application sites. Please let
me know if there are any questions or issues with the attached
files.
Site Location:
Iona (T105NR41W) 26, S1/2
Iona (T105NR41W) 35, NW1/4
All sites have been farmed for decades and the Site Location is in
an existing farm under corn/soybean production.
Thank you,
Andrew Nesseth
This electronic message including any attachments may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from
disclosure under trade secret and other applicable law. If you are
not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately,
permanently delete all copies of this Message, and be aware that
examination, use, dissemination, duplication or disclosure of this
Message is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those
of Extended Ag Services, Inc/Extended Ag Crop Insurance Services,
LLC/Extended Ag Insurance Services, Inc (EAS). Neither EAS nor the
sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your
responsibility to scan and virus check the e-mail and its
attachment(s) (if any).
RMinnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Ecological & Water Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 551554025
July 20, 2017
Correspondence # ERDB 20180029
Mr. Andrew Nesseth
507 Milwaukee Street
Lakefield, MN 56150
RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Andy Henning Swine Feedlot,
Murry & Nobles Counties
Dear Mr. Nesseth,
As requested, the above project has been reviewed for potential effects to known occurrences of rare features.
Given the project details that were provided with the data request form, I do not believe the proposed project
will negatively affect any known occurrences of rare features.
The Natural Heritage Information
System (NHIS), a collection of
databases that contains information
about
Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department
of Natural Resources. The NHIS
is continually updated as new
information becomes available, and
is the most
complete
source of data on Minnesota's
rare or otherwise significant
species, native plant
communities, and
other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the
occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no
records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features
in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary.
For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results
are only valid for the project
location (noted above) and
the project description provided on
the NHIS Data
Request Form. Please contact me
if project details change or for
an updated review if construction
has not
occurred within one year.
The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as
a whole. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these
rare features.
To determine whether there are other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed
project, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist (contact information available at
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html).
Please be aware that
additional site
ATTACHMENT H
Thank you for consulting us on
this matter, and for your
interest in preserving Minnesota's
rare natural
resources. Please include a copy of this letter in any state or local license or permit application. An invoice will
be mailed to you under separate cover.
Sincerely,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological
and Water Resources
MNDNR PERMITTING AND REPORTING SYSTEM (MPARS)
175 County Road 26
Nobles County.
Andy Henning
1673 41st Street
Iona, MN 56131
Dear Andy Henning:
This is your preliminary approval to construct a well . Based on
the items in the attached assessment
checklist and the information you provided, we have completed our
evaluation.
If you choose to drill this well:
The well contractor or property owner needs to notify the MN
Department of Health ¹ before the well is
constructed.
Then: The landowner needs to apply for a DNR water appropriation
permit before the well is pumped for
production. A permit from the DNR is required for water use above
10,000 gallons per day or 1 million
gallons per year. The easiest method to apply for a water use
permit is through the Minnesota DNR
Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) at
www.mndnr.gov/mpars/signin . Instructions at this website
will assist you, step-by-step, through the application
process.
Please note: This preliminary approval to construct a well is
information you can use to decide whether to proceed in
constructing a well and is based largely on information you
provided. It is not notification to the MN
Department of Health, and is not a DNR water use permit.
Thank you for your attention. We anticipate this process will save
money for landowners with water needs
near sensitive or limited water resources, and will help avoid
water shortages. If you have any questions,
please contact me at 507-831-2900 x224 or
[email protected].
Sincerely,
¹ Minnesota Statute 103I
S Green Level, Well Assessment ID 1043, MPARS revision 03-23-2015,
printed 02-01-2017.
ATTACHMENT I
MNDNR PERMITTING AND REPORTING SYSTEM (MPARS)
WELL CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST
Re: DNR Well Construction Preliminary Assessment; Tracking No.
2017-0138; T104N-R41W-S9
NESE; Nobles County.
This well construction preliminary assessment is not an
appropriation permit. State law requires you
to obtain preliminary approval to drill a well that is required to
have a DNR water appropriation permit. A
water appropriation permit from the DNR is required for all users
withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of
water per day or 1 million gallons per year. DNR Staff have
evaluated your project to determine whether the
proposed appropriation is likely to meet statutory requirements in
Minnesota Statute section 103G.287.
The factors checked below are those that we believe may be impacted
by your proposed water use:
Calcareous fens Designated trout streams Lakes and rivers,
wetlandsü Rare Species (Threatened, Endangered, Special Concern),
Native Plant Communities (S1-3)ü Minnesota Biological Survey Sites
of Biodiversity Significance (High, Outstanding) Known well
interference problems Existing water appropriation permits with
higher priority as defined in Statute 103G.261 Publicly owned lands
such as DNR Wildlife Management Areasü Municipal Wellhead
Protection Areas, Drinking Water Source Management Areas, Source
Water
Protection Areas
Known groundwater contamination Groundwater management areas or
areas with declining water levels MDH Special Well and Boring
Construction Areas
If any of the factors above are marked with a checkmark, you may be
required to install monitoring well(s),
perform aquifer test(s), or provide other information to ascertain
anticipated impacts to these features. This
information will be used to evaluate and make a decision on your
water appropriation request. Your water
appropriation request may be modified, reduced, or denied based
upon site specific information.
www.mndnr.gov/mpars
# Similar sources
Width (feet)
Control Factor
Odor Emission
Factor 1 34 2 121 165 1 136 2 0 1 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 4 0 1 1 1 0 5 0 1
1 0 6 0 1 1 0 7 0 1 1 0 8 0 1 1 0 9 0 1 1 0
10* 0 1 1 0 *Use for other source, emission number, or control
factor not currently listed.
Total Odor Emission Factor= 136
% odor Hours per annoy free month miles feet
99% 7 1.47 7752 98% 15 0.88 4668 97% 22 0.56 2983 96% 29 0.43 2253
94% 44 0.31 1616 91% 66 0.22 1156
For more information, see
Setback Distance
ATTACHMENT K
ATTACHMENT L
Legend _Site Location
FieldBoundaries - MASK Field Boundary 2012 TMDL Streams Stream
(Perennial) Stream (Intermittent) Stream (Unknown) River Centerline
Ditch (Perennial) DWSMA MN DNR WMA Wellhead Protection Area Source
Water Assessment
Minor Watershed Unknown Watershed Name
Feedlot (AU) 0.0 - 100 AU
100.1 - 300 AU
300.1 - 999 AU
999.1 - 2000 AU
Imagery Courtesy of Bing.
·
_
Nobles Co., MN Andy Henning - EAW
Legend _ Site Location
Pollution Sensitivity of Near-Surface Materials RATING
Very low Ultra low Moderate Low High
Imagery Courtesy of BING.
0 2,600 5,200 7,800 10,4001,300 Feet
· Source: Groundwater pollution sensitivity assessment was
developed by the MN DNR (County Geologic Atlas Series, 2016).
Assessments are based on the geologic and hydrogeologic factors
affect the ability of geologic materials to restrict the downward
migration of contaminants to a depth of 10 feet. Geologic
sensitivity assessments are typicall done on a 1:100,000
scale.
ATTACHMENT N
Andy Henning- Home Site EAW
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Attachment F
Attachment G
Attachment H
Attachment I
Attachment J
Attachment K
Attachment L
Attachment M
Attachment N