Barrick Family Farms, LLP – Lockhart 25 Environmental ... · Barrick Family Farms, LLP – Lockhart 25 Doc Type: Public Notice Public comment information ... The MPCA Commissioner

www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats p-ear2-174i Page 1 of 2

Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment

Worksheet (EAW) Barrick Family Farms, LLP – Lockhart 25

Doc Type: Public Notice

Public comment information EAW public comment period begins: July 20, 2020

EAW public comment period ends: August 19, 2020 EXTENDED to September 18, 2020

Notice published in the EQB Monitor: July 20, 2020

Permit public comment period begins: July 20, 2020 Permit

Permit public comment period ends: August 19, 2020

Facility specific information Facility name and location: Facility contact: Barrick Family Farms, LLP – Lockhart 25 County Road 5 Ada, MN 56510

Andrew Nesseth Extended Ag Services, Inc. 202 South Highway 86 Lakefield, MN 56150 Phone: 507-662-5005 Email: [email protected]

MPCA contact information

MPCA EAW contact person: MPCA Permit contact person: Kevin Kain Resource Management and Assistance Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-757-2856 Email: [email protected] Admin staff phone: 651-757-2100

Molly Costin Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 714 Lake Avenue Suite 220 Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 Phone: 218-846-8114 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/regulations/projects-under-mpca-review. If you would like a copy of the EAW or NPDES permit, have any questions on the EAW or NPDES permit, contact the appropriate person(s)

Description of proposed project Barrick Family Farms proposes to construct a new feedlot consisting of two total confinement barns (gestation and farrowing) in Section 25 of Lockhart Township in Norman County. The fully constructed facility will consist of 3,741 Animal Units, below-ground concrete liquid manure storage, one animal mortality compost building, one stormwater infiltration basin, water well, and driveway.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.pca.state.mn.us/regulations/projects-under-mpca-review

www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Use your preferred relay service • Available in alternative formats p-ear2-174i Page 2 of 2

To submit written comments on the EAW and NPDES 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 Permit, contact the person listed above.

NOTE: All comment letters are public documents and will be part of the official public record for this project.

Need for an EIS The MPCA Commissioner will make a final decision on the need for an EIS after the end of the comment period.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/

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

Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Note to preparers: This form is authorized for use only for the preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) for animal feedlots. Project proposers should consult the guidance Guidelines for Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots (also available at the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) website https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/content/environmental‐review‐guidance‐practitioners‐and‐Barrick Farmss. 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: Barrick Family Farms, LLP – Lockhart 25 B.

Feedlot Proposer:

Barrick Family Farms, LLP

C.

RGU:

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Technical

Contact Person Andrew Nesseth

Contact Person

Kevin Kain

and

Title Extended Ag Services, Inc.

and Title

Project Manager

Address 202 South Highway 89 Address 520 Lafayette Road North Lakefield, MN 56150 St. Paul, MN 55155‐4194 Phone 507‐662‐5005 Phone 651‐757‐2482 Fax 507‐662‐5105 Fax 651‐297‐2343 E‐mail [email protected] E‐mail [email protected]

D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) EIS

Scoping

Mandatory EAW

X

Citizen Petition

RGU Discretion

Proposer Volunteered

If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule

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

Barrick Family Farms Environmental Assessment Lockhart Township, Norman County 2 Worksheet

E. Project Location: County Norman City/Twp Lockhart NE 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 25 Township 146W Range 46W

Watershed (name and 4‐digit code):

Red River: 0902 Marsh River Major Watershed (HUC 070200011)

F. Attach each of the following to the EAW:

Attachment A – General Location Map Attachment B – USGS Topographic Map Attachment C – Project Site Map Attachment D – One‐Mile Radius Map Attachment E – Manure Application Sites Map Attachment F– DNR Natural Heritage Review Letter Attachment G – Well Inventory Map Attachment H – State Historic Preservation Office Review Letter Attachment I – DNR Preliminary Well Construction Assessment Attachment J – Minnesota Phosphorus Index Report Attachment K – Odor OFFSET Map Attachment L – Air Quality Modeling Report Attachment M ‐ Cumulative Impacts Map Attachment N – Groundwater Pollution Sensitivity Map

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Permit (Feedlot Permit) application and associated documents, including the Animal Mortality Plan, the Emergency Response Plan, and the Manure Management Plan (MMP) are available for review by contacting Molly Costin of the MPCA’s Detroit Lakes office at [email protected]

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

Barrick Family Farms, LLP (Barrick Farms) proposes to construct a new feedlot consisting of two total confinement barns (gestation and farrowing) in Section 25 of Lockhart Township in Norman County. The fully constructed facility will consist of 3,741 Animal Units1, below‐ground concrete liquid manure storage, one animal mortality compost building, one stormwater infiltration basin, one new well and driveway.

H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested data:

Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Swine under 55 lbs. lbs. 6,600 Total Confinement Swine 55‐300 4,928 Total Confinement Swine over 300 lbs. 4,800 Total Confinement Dairy cows Beef cattle Turkeys

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.


Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species)

I. Project magnitude data.

Total acreage of farm: 4,279 Number of animal units proposed in this project: 3,741 Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: 3,741 Acreage required for manure application: 1,216 acres per year

J. Describe construction methods and timing.

Barrick Farms proposes to construct a new 3,741 animal Units (AU) feedlot in the northeast quarter of Section 25, Lockhart Township, in Norman County (Project) see Attachment A and B. The Project includes the following as shown on Attachment C.

One 529.5 x 228.3‐foot total confinement, power ventilated gestation barn, with a 12‐foot deep poured concrete, below barn, liquid manure storage area (LMSA)

One 380 x 177.9‐foot total confinement, power ventilated farrowing barn, with a 12‐foot deep poured concrete, below barn, LMSA

One 164 x 60‐foot 10 bay composting shed One 1.0‐acre stormwater infiltration basin One new well producing 15 million gallons per year for livestock watering and employee

domestic use One 60 x 40‐foot machine shed One gravel driveway

Barrick Farms has designed the barns to include slatted floors, which will allow manure to pass through to the LMSA. Construction Timing Barrick Farms plans to begin construction in the summer of 2020, beginning with the installation of stormwater erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices (BMPs), including silt fence and topsoil stripping and stockpiling. Barrick Farms will utilize soils excavated from the location of the proposed barn to create the site driveway, the berm for the stormwater infiltration basin and as material to grade stormwater away from the barn. Barrick Farms will place the perimeter drain tile at the construction limits of the LMSA for the proposed barns below footing elevation. Barrick Farms is using the perimeter drain tile to relieve any seasonal saturation and limit any hydrostatic pressure on the concrete LMSA walls. This will also help Barrick Farms dewater the Project excavation area if necessary due to the presence of perched groundwater or following precipitation events. Barrick Farms will install the LMSA, perimeter drain tile, driveway, and utilities at the same time. Barrick Farms’ construction will include placement of the concrete for the LMSA floors, building and column footings after placement of specified reinforcing steel and concrete forms. Barrick Farms will follow the wall and column construction with placement of precast beams and slats, after the design engineer has approved the wall and column construction. Barrick Farms will follow construction of the swine barn and installation of equipment with a final grading of the soil surface to direct stormwater away from the buildings. The construction will disturb more than 3 acres and will create more than an acre of impervious area. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been developed. The


barn roof runoff water will be collected in a stormwater infiltration basin. All construction runoff will flow to the stormwater infiltration basin. Barrick Farms expects to complete construction in the fall of 2020. Barrick Farms’ actual construction dates are dependent on completion of the environmental review process, issuance of the Feedlot Permit from the MPCA, issuance of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Water Appropriations Permit as well as the General NPDES Permit from the MPCA.

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.

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

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

nearby residences, schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, places of worship, and other places accessible to the public (including roads) within one mile of the feedlot and within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites. The Project site and all associated manure application sites are located in Norman County on land that is agricultural and rural in nature. Project Site There are no residences within 1 mile of the site (Attachment E):

There are no waterways within 1 mile of the site. There are 65 mapped wetlands within 1 mile of the site.

The nearest incorporated town (Fertile, Minnesota) is approximately 10 miles northeast of the Project site.

There are zero feedlots within an approximate 3 square mile area surrounding the Project site. The Project site is in the Red River of the North ‐ Marsh River watershed and land application sites are in the Red River of the North ‐ Marsh River and Sandhill watersheds. Land use within the Red River of the North ‐ Marsh River watershed is primarily agricultural. Manure Application Sites: The manure application sites are within 4 miles of the Project site and are in Lockhart and Spring Creek Townships in Norman County (Attachment D). All sites are currently managed in crop production.

Site 1: 158.1‐acre site in the NW1/4 of Section 9, Lockhart Township. County Road 101 is to the north and State Highway 9 is to the west.

Site 2: 158‐acre site in the SE1/4 of Section 8, Lockhart Township. One residence is across the road to the southeast. State Highway 9 is to the east and County Road 134 is to the south.

Site 3: 160.3‐acre site the SE1/4 of Section 12, Lockhart Township. County Road 134 is to the south and 290th Street to the east.

Site 4: 168.6‐acre site in the SE1/4 of Section 25, Lockhart Township. County Road 123 is to the south and 290th Street to the east.


Site 5: 148.7‐acre site in the SW1/4 of Section 22, Lockhart Township. There is one residence southeast of the site, and one across the road to the south. County Highway 5 is to the south and County Road 144 is to the west.

Site 6: 152‐acre site in the NE1/4 of Section 28, Lockhart Township. County Road 144 is to the east and County Highway 5 to the north.

Site 7: 79.5‐acre site in the E1/2 of the SE1/4 of Section 19, Spring Creek Township. County Road 148 is to the east and County Highway 5 to the south.

Site 8: 226.7‐acre site in the NE1/4 and N1/2 of NW1/4 of Section 27, Spring Creek Township. There is one residence within the manure application site and one residence across the road to the northeast. County Highway 30 is to the east and County Highway 5 is to the north of the site. An unnamed intermittent stream runs through the middle of the field.

Site 9: 66.7‐acre site in the NE1/4 of Section 25, Lockhart Township. County Highway 5 to the north and County Road 146 is to the east of the site.

Site 10: 456.9‐acre site in the E1/2 and SW1/4 of Section 9, Lockhart Township. There is one residence in the southwest corner of the land application site. County Highway 1 to the north, State Highway 9 to the west, County Road 134 to the south, and County Road 144 is to the east of the site.

Site 11: 315.4‐acre site in the N1/2 of Section 19, Spring Creek Township. An unnamed intermittent stream is across the road to the east. County Road 148 to the east of the site.

Site 12: 627.8‐acre site in Section 18, Spring Creek Township. County Road 148 to the east, County Road 134 to the north, 290th Street to the west, and manure application site 11 to the south.

Site 13: 627.1‐acre site in Section 17, Spring Creek Township. There is one residence in the northwest corner of the manure application site. There is also an unnamed intermittent stream that runs along the western side of the site. County Road 148 to the west.

Site 14: 603.3‐acre site in Section 20, Spring Creek Township. There is an unnamed intermittent stream that runs along the northern half, and western border of the site. County Road 148 is to the west and County Highway 5 to the south.

Site 15: 253.5‐acre site in the E1/2 of Section 13, Lockhart Township. County Road 134 is to the north and 290th Street to the east.

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 ordinance2 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

2 Norman County Unified Development Code. http://www.co.Norman.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/128


If yes, describe the potentially affected use and its location relative to the feedlot, its anticipated development schedule, and any plans to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with the feedlot.

C. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the feedlot, manure

storage areas, or within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites?

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

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

other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial 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. Minnesota State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) Review Five archaeological sites and one historic site were identified in a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the search area requested. None is located at the Project site or manure application sites. (Attachment G) Archeological, Historic or Architectural Resources Barrick Family Farms requested and received the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office's (SHPO) search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory for the Project area. SHPO's search identified 6 archaeological and 30 historic sites within the general Project area. See Attachment H. Archaeological sites:

21NRd (described as "Rolette"), in Section 8 SE of Ada Township 21NRp (described as “Wagon Road‐EastI”), in Section 5 of Ada Township 21NRp (described as “Wagon Road‐EastI”), in Section 7 of Ada Township 21NRp (described as “Wagon Road‐EastI”), in Section 8 of Ada Township 21NRp (described as “Wagon Road‐EastI”), in Section 18 of Ada Township

Barrick Farms will observe posted road weight limits.

Historical sites: The SHPO identified a shed as a historical site.

Ada Township, Section 9 None of these sites is adjacent to, or within, the same section as the manure applications sites or the Project. DNR Natural Heritage Review The Minnesota Natural Heritage database (Attachment F) has been reviewed to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate


1‐mile radius of the Project site or manure application sites. Based on the review, there are three known occurrences of rare species or native plant communities within an approximate 1‐mile radius of the Project area or a manure application site used by Barrick Farms.

Agassiz‐Olson Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is adjacent to the proposed manure application site in Section 27 in Township 146N Range 45N. The site was considered by the Minnesota Biological Survey to be Below the minimum biodiversity threshold for statewide significance. The area may have conservation value for habitat.

Agassiz‐Olson WMA (ID# 13677) and Agassiz‐Nelson WMA (ID# 35480) calcareous fens have been documented within 2 miles of the Project area. Sterile sedge and hair‐like beak rush, both state‐listed threatened plants, have been documented within the fens. A calcareous fen is a rare and distinctive peat accumulating wetland that is legally protected in Minnesota.

Boom grounds of the Greater Prairie‐chicken, a state‐listed bird of special concern, have been documented in the vicinity of the Project.

Mitigation Measures Project‐related management activities utilized to minimize potential adverse impacts to identified natural resources include, utilizing regular manure testing, and calibrating manure application rates to crop need, timing applications to reduce conversion to nitrate, and exceeding separation distances designed to protect vulnerable water supplies. In addition, all manure is applied via drag line to reduce potential for manure to run off the site. Applying manure at agronomic rates reduces the likelihood of excess nitrates leaching into sensitive aquifers3. In addition, applying manure when soil temperatures are near, at, or below 50 degrees Fahrenheit reduces the potential for nitrate conversion in the soil, thus decreasing the potential for nitrate leaching during times between active crop growth. Barrick Farms will use nitrification inhibitors to reduce potential for nitrate losses4. In addition, the Project and all its manure application sites are on existing cropland under regular and intensive cultivation, therefore no wildlife habitat will be disturbed and nitrogen from manure applications will only replace nitrogen already being utilized for crop production. The DNR Water Appropriation Permit, which is required for the Project, will regulate water consumption to protect nearby water resources, including wetlands. The distance from the Project site to the fen, identified by the DNR below, provides additional mitigation of risk to the resource.

3. Geologic and soil conditions.

A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Groundwater (minimum) 0 – 3’ 0’ – 3’ 0’ – 6.5’ (average) 1.5’ 1.5’ 2.8’ Bedrock (minimum) >6.5’ >6.5’ >6.5’ (average) >6.5’ >6.5’ >6.5’

*Groundwater depth from NRCS Soil Survey, Wet Soil Moisture Status in wettest Month (April)

3 Sawyer, J. and Randall, G. (2008) Final Report: Gulf Hypoxia and Local Water Quality Concerns Workshop. Pages 59‐71. ASABE. Retrieved December 2015: http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/soilfertility/info/Gulf05PP.pdf 4 Nelson, D.W. and Huber D. (1992). Nitrification Inhibitors for Corn Production. National Corn Handbook, NCH‐55. Iowa State University. Retrieved December 2015. http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Management/pdfs/NCH55.pdf


B. NRCS Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites

Classifications (if known):

I15A, I25A, I62A, I109A, I110A, I119A, I233A,I309A, I356A, I376A, I507A, I530A, I655A, I669A, I671A, I671B

I15A, I25A, I62A, I109A, I110A, I119A, I233A,I309A, I356A, I376A, I507A, I530A, I655A, I669A, I671A, I671B

I109A, I110A, I119A, I15A, I229A, I233A, I25A, I309A, I356A, I376A, I507A, I530A, I62A, I633A, I655A, I669A, I671A, I671B, I672A, I672B, I711A, I720A, I759A, I791A, I823A, IGp

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.

There are currently no wells on the Project site. Barrick Farms will install one well as a part of the Project (Attachment C). Barrick Farms must notify the Minnesota Department of Health prior to drilling the well. After the well is drilled, and before using the well, Barrick Farms must apply for a DNR Water Appropriation Permit. Barrick Farms estimates that the new well will be completed to a depth of approximately 225 feet. Barrick Farms expects the Project to use approximately 15 million gallons of water per year. The Project has a projected service consumption of 375 million gallons of water over a 25‐year period. Attachment H shows the nearest known water wells to the Project and its manure application sites. The DNR conducted a preliminary well construction assessment for the Project (Attachment I) and identified the following potentially significant resource impacts:

One or more calcareous fens within 5 miles of the proposed well for the Project. A permit application for a DNR Water Appropriation Permit to use groundwater near calcareous fen wetlands must be evaluated by the DNR, to ensure the Project does not degrade the fens. This


may require Barrick Farms to acquire additional information, including conducting an aquifer test, so the DNR can determine if the well will impact other users or nearby resources.

The purpose of the DNR permit program is to ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is provided to long‐range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. The permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the DNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found to be causing the problem, the operator must correct it.

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

Barrick Farms will install 4‐inch high‐density polyethylene perimeter drain tile around the base of the LMSA to control hydrostatic pressure on the outside of the concrete pit walls caused by fluctuations in seasonal saturation. Inspection ports connected to the perimeter tiles will allow Barrick Farms to observe if the tiles are operational and may help to identify seepage from the LMSA if a leak were to occur. The drain tile will outlet to the stormwater basin. Barrick Farms will follow its Operation and Maintenance Plan submitted with its Feedlot Permit application. The plan is integral to and enforceable through the Feedlot Permit and must meet the requirements of Minn. R. 7020.2100. The plan will include Project‐specific requirements for Barrick Farms to follow including:

Conducting monthly monitoring of the LMSA perimeter drain tile for water flow and signs of discoloration or odor

Maintaining records of all drain tile 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 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 12.8 million gallons


Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle 14 days Total days per year 14 days

Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled (including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot:

Swine manure and wastewater generated by the Project will drop through slatted floors in the pens to the LMSAs where it will be stored. The LMSAs will be 12 feet deep with an effective storage capacity of approximately 17 million gallons, which represents manure storage capacity in excess of 1 year. The LMSAs will use pit fans for ventilation.

Annually in the fall, Barrick Farms will agitate and pump out the manure from the LMSAs using a portable chopper pump. Barrick Farms will hire a Commercial Animal Waste Technician (CAWT) licensed by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, to land apply the manure at its manure application sites. The CAWT will incorporate the manure into the soil immediately after land application, using a knife injection system.

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.

Barrick Farms will hire a CAWT to land apply manure at the manure application sites (Attachment D) in the fall after the crops have been harvested from the designated land application sites. The length of time for manure application will be 5 days or less. The CAWT will apply the manure by knife injection system and incorporate into the soil within 24 hours. The CAWT will calibrate the manure application by using a flow meter and then adjusting the speed of the manure application equipment to achieve the planned application rate. All manure application sites are currently in row crop production. The manure is used as a fertilizer replacement in the existing nutrient management.

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 Barrick Farms submitted a MMP with their Feedlot Permit application. After MPCA review and approval, the MMP becomes an integral and enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit. Barrick Farms 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. Barrick Farms 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 160 bu/ac 165 lbs. N/ac 51 lbs. P2O5/ac* Corn Wheat 70 bu/ac 135 lbs. N/ac 45 lbs. P2O5/ac* Soybeans Corn 160 bu/ac 135 lbs. N/ac 40 lbs. P2O5/ac* Soybeans Wheat 70 bu/ac 115 lbs. N/ac 34 lbs. P2O5/ac*

Note: *Average P2O5 removed in grain, per crop year, based on expected yields. ac = acres, bu = bushel, lbs = pounds, N = nitrogen, P2O5 = phosphorus

This procedure has been developed from continual Land Grant University research as the one that best predicts the amount of that nutrient in the soil that can be used by plants. Using this method, a ‘Maximum Return to Nitrogen’ value will be used in determining the appropriate manure application rates. The manure application acres are soil sampled at least every 4 years to monitor crop needs and target acres that will positively respond to manure applications. The Minnesota Phosphorus Index (MN P Index) evaluated all fields designated for manure application. See Attachment J. The MN P Index is a model that estimates the risk of phosphorus loss on fields. Barrick Family Farms evaluated the manure application sites with this index. All fields received a risk rating of ‘Very Low Risk,’ which recommends ‘No Management Changes,’ thus no improvements are necessary.

3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. The Project is expected to generate approximately 13 million gallons of manure per year from the 16,328 head of swine. The manure storage pit has the capacity to hold 17 million gallons of manure. Each year 4,202.6 acres of fields are available for manure application. The number 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. Barrick Farms will apply the manure at agronomic rates based on composite tests pulled from the manure storage areas prior to land application. The fields are managed in a Corn‐Soybean‐Wheat rotation. As such, approximately 1,216 acres are necessary to utilize all manure from the Project, each year. Currently, all manure application sites are in row crop production. The land has been secured by Barrick Farms under a manure agreement. There is sufficient land available for manure application to utilize the nutrients generated by the Project. Barrick Farms has 15 fields designated for manure application. Nine of the fields were evaluated by the Minnesota Phosphorus Index (MN P Index). The MN P Index is a model that estimates the risk of phosphors loss on fields. Barrick Farms evaluated the manure application sites with available soil tests. All fields received a risk rating of ‘Very Low Risk,’ which recommends ‘No Management Changes,’ thus no improvements are necessary. The remaining six fields are scheduled to be evaluated after updated soil tests are taken. Based on field topography and past management, P‐Index risk ratings are expected to be substantially similar to those fields already evaluated.

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 Iowa State University. A General Guide for Crop Nutrient and Limestone Recommendations in Iowa. PM 1688. Revised October 2013.


4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems. Based on an MPCA review and approval of the MMP for the existing and proposed feedlots, Barrick Farms has an adequate land‐base to properly apply animal waste as fertilizer. Norman County has a specific ordinance directed at the land application activities, which supersedes the MPCA feedlot regulations pertaining to setback distances. In addition, the Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices requires additional setbacks in land application activities. Barrick Farms will abide by the maximum setback pursuant to Minnesota rules regarding land application practices and environmentally sensitive features (Minn. R. 7020.2005, Minn. Stat. 103F.48): Table #2 Animal Waste Land Application Setback Distances

Feature Winter

Non‐Winter With Immediate Incorporation

(


B. Describe any proposed feedlot design features or air or odor emission mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts and discuss their anticipated effectiveness. The Project will result in the generation of odors at the Project site and at its manure application sites. Barrick Farms will implement the following design and operational measures to minimize odors at the Project site:

The barn will be a total confinement facility to reduce the surface area of manure exposed to the air.

Maintain clean, dry floors, eliminate manure buildup, and clean up any spilled feed. The barn will be washed and interior surfaces disinfected at the end of each swine production

cycle. The fans for the barn and LMSA exhaust will be cleaned periodically. The manure in the LMSA will not be agitated until immediately before the manure is removed

for land application. The MPCA and/or the Norman County feedlot officer will be consulted to identify changes to

reduce odors in the event odor complaints are received. Crude protein will be minimized in the swine’s diet. Synthetic amino acids such as lysine will be used in the swine’s feed.

Barrick Farms will implement the following manure land application measures to reduce odor:

Land apply manure by knife injection as soon as field conditions permit to prevent contact with the atmosphere.

Observe all required setback requirements from nearby residences for all manure applications. Respond to complaints by consulting with the MPCA and/or the Norman County feedlot officer

to identify possible changes to reduce odors. Evaluate weather conditions, primarily wind speed/direction and humidity, before manure is

land applied to insure minimal impacts on neighbors and the public. Use BMPs such as properly operating manure equipment to reduce/eliminate spillage.

The Project site and manure application sites are within an area zoned A‐1, for agricultural preservation purposes. 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 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 the nearest residences are within the 95% odor annoyance free zone (Attachment K).

C. Provide a summary of the results of an air emissions modeling study designed to compare predicted

emissions at the property boundaries with state standards, health risk values, or odor threshold concentrations. The modeling must incorporate an appropriate background concentration for hydrogen sulfide to account for potential cumulative air quality impacts. Barrick Farms conducted air dispersion modeling to predict how the Project’s emissions of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odors would impact air quality at the Project’s property lines and at six of the


nearest residences. The modeling was done using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD). The modeling results are contained within the report attached as Attachment L of the EAW. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the air modeling report. Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standard (MAAQS) AERMOD predicted that the Project will not result in an exceedance of the 30 parts per billion (ppb) H2S MAAQS. The third exceedance of the MAAQS standard within any 5‐day period is a violation. Modeled compliance is demonstrated when the high‐third‐high (H3H) H2S predicted concentration from the Project, when added to the existing background ambient air concentration for H2S (at each property‐line receptor) is less than 30 ppb. AERMOD predicted that the Project emissions alone would result in a maximum H3H property‐line H2S concentration of 12.9 ppb. The ambient air concentration for H2S in the area of the Project is estimated to be 17 ppb. The total (Project emissions plus existing background) H3H H2S concentration in the air is predicted to be 29.9 ppb at the Project’s property lines.

Sub‐chronic Inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV) AERMOD predicted that the Project will not result in an exceedance of the 10 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) subchronic (13‐week time averaged) H2S iHRV at the nearest residences to the Project. An iHRV is the concentration of a chemical (or a defined mixture of chemicals) that is likely to pose little or no risk to human health. AERMOD predicted that the Project emissions alone would result in a maximum monthly H2S concentration at the neighboring residences of 1.1 μg/m3. The background ambient air concentration for H2S in the area of the Project is estimated to be 1.0 μg/m3. The total (Project emissions plus existing background) H2S concentration in the air is predicted to be 2.1 μg/m3. Note that while the iHRV is for a 13‐week period, AERMOD is not capable of averaging concentrations for this time. Instead, AERMOD uses a monthly averaging period, which produces a more conservative or protective prediction.

Ammonia (NH3)

Acute iHRV AERMOD predicted that the Project will not result in an exceedance of the 3,200 μg/m3 acute (1‐hour time averaged) NH3 iHRV at the nearest residences to the Project. AERMOD predicted that the Project emissions alone would result in a maximum hourly property‐line concentration of NH3 of 1,065 μg/m3. The background ambient air concentration for NH3 in the area of the Project is estimated to be 148 μg/m3. The total (Project emissions plus existing background) NH3 concentration in the air is predicted to be 1,213 μg/m3.

Chronic iHRV AERMOD predicted that the Project will not result in an exceedance of the 80 μg/m3 chronic (1‐year time averaged) NH3 iHRV at the nearest residences to the Project. AERMOD predicted that the Project emissions alone would result in a maximum 1‐year time‐averaged NH3 concentration of 1.1 μg/m3. The background ambient air concentration for NH3 in the Project area is estimated to be 5.7 μg/m3. The total (Project emissions plus existing background) maximum NH3 concentration in the air is predicted to be 6.8 μg/m3.

Odor At Project Property Line

AERMOD predicted that the Project will result in a maximum odor intensity of 111 odor units per cubic meter (OU/m3) at the Project’s east property line. This predicted odor intensity is considered “Faint.”


At Nearest Residences AERMOD predicted that the Project would result in a maximum odor intensity of 22 OU/m3 at a nearby residence. This predicted odor intensity is considered to be a “very faint odor.” This residence is approximately 1.2 miles away.

Maximum Property Boundary AERMOD Air Quality Modeling Results Modeled

value Background

value Modeled plus

Background value

Threshold Percent of Threshold

1‐hour H2S H3H 12.9 ppb 17 ppb 29.9 ppb 30 ppb 100% 1‐hour NH3 1,065 µg/m3 148 µg/m3 1,213 µg/m3 3,200 µg/m3 38% Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity

111 OU/m3 NA 111 OU/m3 72 OU/m3 (faint)

154%

Maximum Neighbor AERMOD Air Quality Modeling Results Modeled

value Background

value Modeled plus

Background value

Threshold Percent of Threshold

13‐week H2S 1.1 µg/m3 1.0 µg/m3 2.1 µg/m3 10.0 µg/m3 21% Annual NH3 1.1 µg/m3 5.7 µg/m3 6.8 µg/m3 80.00 µg/m3 9% Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity

22 OU/m3 NA 22 OU/m3 25 OU/m3 (very faint)

88%

The AERMOD modeling results for the Project suggest compliance with the hydrogen sulfide air quality standard, no exceedances of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV, no exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV, and no exceedances of chronic ammonia iHRV. Greenhouse Gases The MPCA estimates the Project would directly release GHG emissions and indirectly affect GHG emissions from related activities. In general, the primary GHG emissions from farrowing operations are methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Direct GHG emissions are released from manure storage and from the feedlot. Indirectly, GHG emissions are released as a result of the land application of manure, although GHG emissions will be reduced through other Project‐related activities. CO2 is the most abundant GHG on earth and has had the largest effect on our climate. Other GHGs – including those associated with typical feedlot operations ‐ are emitted in smaller amounts but can trap heat more effectively than CO2. Some GHGs stay in our atmosphere for a very long time while other GHGs stay in our atmosphere for a relatively shorter time. “Global warming potential” is a relative measure of a GHG’s ability to trap heat and how long it stays in the atmosphere. To compare all the GHGs in common terms to CO2, the MPCA multiplies each pollutant’s emissions by its global warming potential to produce the pollutant’s CO2‐equivalent (CO2‐e) emissions. In the context of a feedlot (such as the Project), the actual amount of GHG emissions that may be produced will depend on numerous variables, including without limitation the feed ration provided to the livestock, particular manure storage and application practices, designs of buildings and manure storage facilities, local climate and geography, and many other operational and site‐specific factors. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed emission factors from a large population of feedlots for use in estimating total feedlot GHG emissions, and the MPCA has previously used these emission factors in estimating GHG emissions from all feedlots in Minnesota in preparing statewide inventories of emissions. The MPCA has calculated the potential emissions for the Project using these population‐based emission factors. These projections reflect an estimated inventory of GHGs the Project may contribute.


The table below provides estimates of potential emissions for the Project in CO2‐e tons.

Emission Type and Source: Existing Facility (tons CO2‐e/yr)

Project Increase (tons CO2‐e/yr)

Total – after Project Construction (tons CO2‐e/yr)

CH4 ‐ manure storage 0 11,600 11,600 N2O ‐ from feedlot 0 1,000 1,000 N2O ‐ manure land

application 0 700 700

ESTIMATED TOTAL: 0 13,300 13,300 Note: Table values were rounded to the nearest 10 tons.

The potential GHG emissions in the table above are only estimates and do not consider all GHG emissions that the Project could create or induce. For example, GHG emissions are not calculated for electricity generation that is required to operate lighting, heating, etc. Also not included are GHG emissions from fuel combustion required to deliver feed and animals, and to operate farm equipment used in growing feed, processing feed, and applying manure. Some agricultural practices can offset estimated greenhouse gas emissions. The land application of manure replaces nutrients that farmers would otherwise provide to their fields via application of chemical fertilizers, thereby avoiding GHG emissions associated with chemical fertilizer production. The MPCA had to apply its technical expertise and experience with GHG emissions inventories to determine which Project‐related activities to quantify because Environmental Quality Board guidance is not currently available, and the information MPCA would need to conduct a full GHG life‐cycle analysis is not readily available. The MPCA chose to quantify the sources listed in the above table because these are the sources MPCA uses to estimate GHG emissions for the entire agricultural sector on a statewide basis, and the EPA provides emission factors for these sources. Therefore, quantifying these sources for the Project enhances comparison between this Project’s GHG emissions and other GHG emissions in Minnesota.

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. Barrick Farms does not plan to notify neighbors before operational events such as manure storage, agitation, pump out, or application. Barrick Farms will work with the parties receiving the manure to ensure manure application will be avoided on holidays and special events in the neighborhood, as they become known. Barrick Farms will evaluate weather conditions before manure application to minimize impacts on neighbors and the public. Barrick Farms will work with county and state officials to find a resolution if there are complaints. Barrick Farms will implement the air emission plan included in the Feedlot Permit application in the event that an odor event occurs. The air emission plan is an enforceable provision of the Feedlot Permit.

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

Construction of the Project will involve extensive dirt moving work building up the site for the barns, the stormwater infiltration basin, and the driveway (already constructed) which will generate dust. If dust becomes a significant issue, Barrick Farms will implement dust abatement measures, such as applying water spray.


During Project operations, the major causes of dust would be truck traffic using the gravel entrance road and exhaust fans. If dust becomes an issue, Barrick Farms will use a dust abatement, such as water, to help control it. Barrick Farms indicates truck traffic along roads entering and leaving the Project will generate additional noise both during and after construction but will be limited to daytime construction and operation hours. Exhaust fans on the buildings will also be a source of noise from the Project. Barrick Farms believes separation distance is the primary mitigating factor in reducing the potential for adverse noise or dust impacts from the Project as the nearest neighbor is 1.2 miles from the Project. Barrick Farms will respond to all complaints in a timely manner.

7. Dead Animal Disposal.

Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. Barrick Farms has completed and will follow the Animal Mortality Plan, prepared as a part of the Feedlot Permit application. The Animal Mortality Plan is in accordance with State requirements, including Minn. S. 35.82 and Minn. R. 1719.0100 to 1719.4600 and 7011.1215. Barrick Farms expects to use composting as the primary method of disposal and rendering when composting is not available. Barrick Farms will remove mortalities from barns as discovered and move to the animal mortality compost building. Barrick Farms will compost dead animals in a six‐bay, 164 x 60 foot animal mortality compost building to dispose of carcasses. The disposal and compost building area will have a concrete apron, concrete floor, side bays, and a steel roof. Barrick Farms will follow the Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules for storage and disposal of all animal mortalities. Barrick Farms estimates the annual mortality rate at approximately 1,125 head per year. Barrick Farms will land apply the compost on the manure application sites at an agronomic rate as discussed in Section 5D.

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 Construction Phase A Minnesota National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSW Permit) is required when a project disturbs 1 acre or more of soil. This Project will disturb approximately 13.6 acres of soil; therefore, a CSW Permit is required for this Project. The CSW Permit will be incorporated within Barrick Farms Feedlot Permit and will require completion of a SWPPP. The SWPPP must propose erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs to control the discharge of sediment and/or other pollutants from the Project site. Barrick Farms has completed a SWPPP for the Project and has identified the following BMPs that it will implement during construction:

The Project site will be planted to grass (or other cover crop) prior to commencement of construction and within 1 week after completion of construction.

The Project site will be staked and marked to indicate the construction area. A silt fence will be used or a berm will be built around the construction site. Rock will be placed on the Project driveway.

Operational Phase Surface water runoff will increase on the Project site due to an increase in impervious surfaces. The CSW permit requires projects that create 1 acre or more of new impervious surface to provide permanent


treatment of stormwater runoff. This Project will create 13.6 acres of impervious surface through the construction of the barns and driveway; therefore, permanent stormwater runoff treatment is required. Barrick Farms will construct a permanent stormwater infiltration basin that is capable of holding 335 million gallons to meet the CSW Permit requirement. The infiltration basin will collect stormwater generated at the Project site and allow it to infiltrate into the soils at the site. If the infiltration basin were to overflow, the water would discharge to the adjacent cropland. Barrick Farms will establish perennial vegetation and has installed a gravel surface driveway at the Project site. The Project is designed as a total confinement barn and it is unlikely that stormwater runoff will come in contact with livestock or manure. Barrick Farms will store manure in LMSAs below the barns. Rainwater will not come in contact with the manure. As a result, Barrick Farms expects there will be no contaminated runoff. Manure Application Sites All manure generated by the Project will be land applied by a CAWT, at agronomic rates, at the manure application sites shown in Attachment D. Barrick Farms will determine the agronomic rate based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil fertility. The CAWT will land apply manure in the fall of the year. The CAWT will apply the manure directly into the soil via knife injection. The CAWT must adhere to applicable manure application setbacks as outlined in Item 5 of the EAW.

All Project manure application sites are within four minor watersheds in the major, Red River of the North ‐ Marsh River Watershed and one minor watershed in the major, Red River of the North – Sandhill River Watershed. Previous landowners have farmed land in the watershed for several decades. Barrick Farms expects the stormwater runoff characteristics from the Project and its manure application sites to remain the same, and under certain circumstances, improve because of the manure application activities regulated under the Feedlot Permit. The improvements would occur through developing better soil tilth from organic fertilizer and the uniform practice of incorporating manure over the acres identified in the MMP.

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.

Seventeen single passenger vehicles will visit the Project site Monday through Friday, and 10 single passenger vehicles on Saturday and Sunday will visit the Project site for regular management duties. A feed truck will visit the Project site nine times per week for regular refilling duties. Three pick‐ups with trailers and three semi‐tractor trailers will come to the Project site two times per week to refill the barns with nursery pigs and to unload finished swine. In addition, seven vehicles will access the Project site for manure application activities for approximately 14 days per year.

Vehicle routes will be the discretion of the driver; however, it is expected that vehicle routes will be directed from Highway 9, from the west to 280th Avenue and 270th Street and finally 300th Avenue, for access. 300th Avenue is the primary access point for the Project site.

At this time, there will not be any need for improvements to the road system to handle this traffic. Seasonal road restrictions will be observed with more frequent trips at lower weights to reduce impacts on the roads.


Table 9.A. 1. Table Projected Traffic Counts – Post‐Project Road Avg. Vehicle/Day Avg. Vehicle/Week Increase/Week Highway 9 670 4,690 266 280th Avenue 60 420 266 270th Street Unknown Unknown 266 300th Avenue 30 210 266

**Traffic counts from most recent MN DOT Office of Transportation Data and Analysis: Traffic Volume Program 2012‐2018 AADT Product: 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.

10. Permits and approvals required. Mark required permits and give status of application: Unit of government Type of Application Status

MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Permit (Feedlot Permit)

Submitted

MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit

County Minnesota Feedlot Permit County/twp/city Conditional use or other land use permit Pending action by county

board DNR Water Appropriation Not 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 is required to inquire whether a proposed project, which may not individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, could have a significant effect when considered along with other projects. This type of impact is known as a cumulative potential effect. In order to assess the proposed project’s “cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects,” the MPCA conducted an analysis that addressed other projects or operations in context to the potential direct or indirect impacts of the Project that: (1) are already in existence or planned for the future; (2) are in the surrounding area; and (3) might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources. The following is a review of the analysis conducted to determine if the Project would contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect.


Barrick Farms conducted a public records search and found six feedlots with 988 AUs within the sub‐watersheds containing the Project and its manure land application sites (Attachment M). Surface Water Quality The Project and its associated manure application sites are within two sub‐watersheds of the Red River of the North ‐ Marsh River Major Watershed (HUC 070200011), in Norman County. Land use within the Project and manure application site areas are predominantly agricultural, which can contribute to non‐point source pollution of surface waters. Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 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 EPA requires a 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. County Ditch 11 and the Sand Hill River are the closest listed impaired water bodies to the Project and its manure application sites (Attachment M).

County Ditch 11 is within the Red River of the North – Marsh River Watershed. o County Ditch 11 is 1.7 miles southwest of Barrick Farms’ manure application Site 6 and is listed

as impaired for mercury, no TMDL has been completed. Sand Hill River is within the Red River of the North – Sandhill River Watershed.

o Sand Hill River is 3.01 miles north of Barrick Farms’ manure application site 1 and 10. MPCA’s 2014 impaired waters list identifies the Sand Hill River7 as being impaired due to fecal coliform (E. coli) bacteria and Fish Bioassessments, no TMDL has been completed.

Barrick Farm’s MMP, which will be an enforceable part of its Feedlot Permit, will require implementation of the following BMPs to minimize impacts to surface and groundwater:

Test the soil at the manure application site and apply manure at agronomic rates. 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 animal confinement operation. Examine the LMSA drain tile outlet monthly for water flow and signs of discoloration or odor in any

water in the drain tile. This will ensure that, if there are any LMSA leaks, they will be detected in a timely manner.

The manure application practices (described in Item 5.D.), and the BMPs listed above, will help reduce or eliminate the Project’s potential to cause surface water quality impairment within the minor watersheds of the Red River of the North watershed.

Groundwater Appropriation The Project will be served by one new well and will utilize approximately 15 million gallons of water annually. As described in No. 4A above, the Project will require an individual DNR Water Appropriations Permit. A review of the Minnesota County Well Index by Barrick Farms’ consultant indicates seven verified wells in the vicinity of the Project. Well usage is primarily domestic. Well depths range from approximately 70 feet to approximately 300 feet. Groundwater appropriations are addressed through the DNR Water Appropriations Permit program. The purpose of the DNR permit program is to ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is provided to long‐range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational,

7 MPCA. Sand Hill River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load. April 2017. (Retrieved on January 1, 2020). https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq‐iw5‐10e.pdf


power, navigational, and quality control. The permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the DNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found to be causing the problem, the operator must correct it. The feedlot owner will be required to assess the potential impacts during the water appropriation permit review process. Groundwater Quality Groundwater resources can be adversely impacted by feedlot operation and land application activities. The MPCA has reviewed information compiled by the DNR to determine if the Project has the potential to contaminate the underlying aquifer. Based on a review of published information related to pollution sensitivity potential, the Project site and land application sites are located in an area primarily designated as having a low susceptibility to groundwater pollution (Attachment N). This means that it could take a week to months for near‐surface contamination to reach a depth of 10 feet below land surface8. The risk to groundwater pollution is reduced by the land application practices discussed in Item 5 of the EAW. In light of the required management factors and geologic conditions, the Project does not pose a significant potential for adverse cumulative effect to groundwater quality in the area. Air Quality Impacts Air quality computer modeling was performed that estimated concentrations in the air of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the Project. The model estimated pollutant concentrations from the Project, along with an ambient hydrogen sulfide and ammonia background concentration to account for any offsite air emission sources or activities. The air quality modeling evaluation predicted concentrations of the selected gases at the Project property lines and nearest neighbors. A background concentration is the amount of pollutants already in the air from other sources and is used in this evaluation to address cumulative air impacts. Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia may be present from other feedlot barns, the agitation and pump out of a neighboring feedlot, or the pumping of a municipal wastewater treatment facility. Air emissions from other emission sources may affect the compliance status of the Project, or impact downwind human and environmental receptors. The background level for hydrogen sulfide that was used in the computer model was derived from monitoring at other feedlot facilities in Minnesota. The modeling adds the background air pollutant concentration to the emission concentration predicted from the Project. The results of the modeling study indicate that no significant air quality impacts are expected from the Project and that the Project will not contribute to any adverse cumulative potential effects to air quality (Attachment L). Land Use The land identified for the purpose of this Project includes the site of the Project proper along with the land application acreage. The overall Project, including land application sites are reviewed in context to other existing or proposed projects within the watershed. Three issues have been identified with respect to land resources – wildlife habitat, row crop agriculture, and traffic. Habitat There is a competing issue in rural landscapes to maintain a balance between agricultural demands and preserving natural resources. In this case, the Project is located in areas currently used for agricultural production. All affected acres, including the proposed manure application fields, have been used for agricultural purposes for more than 50 years. The Project will not displace or disrupt any wildlife habitat and as a result, will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect related to habitat fragmentation and loss.

8 Adams, R. Pollution Sensitivity of Near‐Surface Materials. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2016. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/mha/hg02_report.pdf


Row Crop Agriculture The Project is designed to utilize existing row crop feedstock, rather than to cultivate fallow or marginal land to meet crop use needs. As a result, existing row crop agriculture practices are not expected to create an additional new impact to environmental quality. There is no indication that any other projects in the area will be converting fallow or marginal cropland into row crop production within the Project area. The Project will not modify land use and will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect related to row crop agriculture. Traffic The cumulative potential effects analysis for traffic included an evaluation of the direct contribution of new traffic through the development and operation of the Project in context to the existing traffic load. The analysis is provided in Item 9.A, which shows a slight increase of traffic from the Project on County Roads. This additional traffic is not likely to cause an adverse cumulative potential effect.

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

RGU CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that:

The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other

than those described in this document, which are related to the project as “phased actions,” pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 60, 4410.1000, subp. 4, and 4410.4300, subp. 1.

Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list.

Name and Title of Signer: Dan R. Card, P.E. Dan R. Card, P.E., Supervisor, Environmental Review Unit St. Paul Office

Resource Management and Assistance Division Date: 7/1/2020

The format for the alternative Environmental Assessment Worksheet form has been approved by the Chair of the Environmental Quality Board pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1300 for use for animal feedlot projects. For additional information contact: Environmental Quality Board, 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55155‐4194, 651‐296‐6300, or at their website https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/

^̀

^̀

Lee Mary Flom

Shely

Hegne

StrandHalstad Waukon

Fossum

Sundahl

Anthony

Lockhart

Hendrum Lake Ida Wild Rice

Bear Park

Rockwell Home LakeWinchester

Good Hope Spring Creek

Pleasant View Green Meadow

McDonaldsville

Barrick Family FarmsNorman Co., MN Barrick Family Farms, LLP - Norman County General Location Map

·Map Produced by:

ATTACHMENT A

_̂

13121411

4

31

2

6

15

10

79

58

Lockhart146N - 046W

Spring Creek146N - 045W

Pleasant View145N - 046W Green Meadow145N - 045W6

45

3

3 6 3

9

9

2

4

15

51

88

3 24

79

4

7

5

88 9

2

11

31

11

36

24

16

10

19

35

2028 25 30

2121

3233 34

20

13 1716

10

15

23

17

34

28

12

18

27

10

29

33

22

27

22

15

29 26

14

12

32

10

2

35

26

23

11

14

11

6

7

17

18

16

19

15Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, TomTom, Intermap, increment P Corp.,GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL,Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo,MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

0 4,200 8,400 12,600 16,8002,100Feet

Imagery Courtesy of BING.

NOTES:

Norman Co., MN Barrick Family Farms, LLP - Norman County Topographic Map Barrick Family Farms

Legend_̂ Site Location

Manure AcresConnector (Lake)

! ! ! ! Drainage Ditch (Intermittent)Drainage Ditch (Undifferentiated)

! ! ! ! Stream (Intermittent)Stream (Perennial)Special Protection AreaLake or Pond ·

ATTACHMENT B

Driveway

1 - Gestation Barn525.5' x 228.3'

2 - Farrowing Barn380' x 177.9'

Compost Facility164' x 60'

Machine Shed60' x 40'

Hallway/Loadout

~1155

ft.

~244 ft.

~181 ft.

~162 ft

.

~70 ft.

WellWell

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

0 190 380 570 76095Feet

Imagery Courtesy of BING.

There are no Karst features within 1000-ft of

Documents

Barrick Family Farms, LLP – Lockhart 25 Environmental ... · Barrick Family Farms, LLP – Lockhart 25 Doc Type: Public Notice Public comment information ... The MPCA Commissioner