Andy Henning - Home Site EAW

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.
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
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.
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
· 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
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.
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
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.
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
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).
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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
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
^
^
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
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)
DWSMA Wellhead Protection Area Source Water Assessment
·
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
Pollution Sensitivity of Near-Surface Materials RATING
Very low Ultra low Moderate Low High
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

Andy Henning - Home Site EAW

Documents

Transcript of Andy Henning - Home Site EAW