p-ear2-136b STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LAMONT SWINE, LLC PROJECT FINDINGS OF FACT BLOOMING GROVE TOWNSHIP CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WASECA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND ORDER
Pursuant to Minn. ch. 4410, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff prepared and distributed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Lamont Swine, LLC Project. Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Project Description
1. Lamont Swine, LLC (Proposer) proposes to construct and operate a new 1,440 animal unit (AU) swine finishing facility (4,800 hogs) in Section 5 of Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County (Project).
2. The Project consists of installing the following items: · Two 102-foot x 192-foot total confinement, power-ventilated barns; both with an 8-foot deep concrete liquid manure storage area · One 20-foot x 40-foot animal mortality composting building with 5-foot high side walls · One 1.8 million gallons per year well for livestock watering and employee domestic use · One 2.59 acre (259,316 gallon) stormwater infiltration basin
3. The Proposer plans to begin construction during the spring of 2018, and complete construction in the summer of 2018.
4. The Proposer’s actual construction dates are dependent on completion of the environmental review process, issuance of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Appropriation Permit and the State of Minnesota General Animal Feedlot National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Feedlot Permit) from the MPCA.
5. The Project will generate approximately 1.66 million gallons of manure annually. The Proposer will sell and transfer ownership a portion of the Project’s manure to third parties (i.e., manure recipients).
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
6. The Proposer owns four of the six manure application sites to be used for the Project (i.e., sites 1-4). The manure recipients own the two other manure application sites to be used for the Project (i.e., sites 5 and 6).
7. The Proposer will hire a licensed Commercial Animal Waste Technician (CAWT) who will transfer the manure from the Proposer’s two barns to all six manure application sites (i.e., to both the Proposer’s manure application sites and the manure recipients manure application sites). The CAWT will land apply manure to cropland according to the Proposer’s MPCA approved manure management plan (MMP).
8. The Proposer has applied for coverage under the Feedlot Permit (MNG441949) on August 4, 2017.
Procedural History
9. An EAW is a brief document designed to provide the basic facts necessary for the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for a proposed project or to initiate the scoping process for an EIS (Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 24). The MPCA is the RGU for this Project.
10. Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29(A) requires preparation of an EAW for the Project because it is the construction of an animal feedlot facility with a capacity of 1,000 AUs or more.
11. The MPCA provided public notice of the Project as follows: a. The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) published the notice of availability of the EAW for public comment in the EQB Monitor on December 11, 2017, as required by Minn. R. 4410.1500. b. The EAW was available for review on the MPCA website at: www.pca.state.mn.us/eaw. c. The MPCA provided a news release to media in southern Minnesota, and other interested parties, on December 11, 2017. d. The Proposer’s application for permit coverage under the Feedlot Permit was open for public comment from December 11, 2017, through January 10, 2018.
12. During the 30-day comment period ending on January 10, 2018, on the EAW and the Proposer’s application for coverage under the Feedlot Permit, the MPCA received comments from the Minnesota Historical Society, the DNR, Waseca County, Blooming Grove Township, and 13 comments from citizens.
13. The list of comment letters received during the 30-day public comment period are included as Appendix A to these Findings.
14. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comments received during the 30-day public comment period. These responses are included as Appendix B to these Findings.
2 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects
15. The MPCA shall base its decision on the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the EAW process and the comments received on the EAW (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 3). The MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 1). In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are:
A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.
B. Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the Project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the Project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.
C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project.
D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the Proposer, including other EISs. The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria Are Set Forth Below Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 16. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the “type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. A. The MPCA Findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
17. The types of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project include the following: · Surface water and groundwater quality · Groundwater appropriation · Air quality - related to hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor emissions
18. Comments received during the EAW comment period raised additional issues, as follows: · Land use – related appropriateness of feedlot at property site · CenterPoint Energy – Waterville Gas Storage Facility (CPE Facility) – related to cumulative impacts of Project on CPE Facility and vice versa · Dead animals · Manure application oversight
3 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
19. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following Findings.
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
20. The Feedlot Permit, Section 3.7, requires the Proposer to develop and maintain on-site a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that includes erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) for the construction and operation of the Project. The EAW outlines all construction and operational BMPs the Proposer will use to comply with this Feedlot Permit requirement.
21. The Project will include more than 1 acre of new impervious surface, therefore the Proposer is required to install permanent stormwater treatment. The Proposer will install one stormwater pond on the Project site designed to retain and infiltrate a water volume of 1 inch of runoff from the new impervious surface.
22. Minn. R. pt. 7020.2003, subp. 1 and 2, and the Feedlot Permit, Section 10, items 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4, require each project site to meet a zero discharge standard. The EAW outlines all construction and operational BMPs the Proposer will use to comply with this rule and Feedlot Permit requirement.
23. The Feedlot Permit, Section 10.5, requires that all animals at the feedlot have no access to surface waters, and storage of manure in a belowground reinforced concrete pit that meets the design criteria of Minn. R. 7020.2125. The Proposer will install one 8-foot deep concrete liquid manure storage area in each total confinement barn.
24. As stated in the Proposer’s application for permit coverage under the Feedlot Permit, and confirmed in the MPCA’s review of the application and in the EAW, the Proposer will install perimeter drain tiles below the footing elevations of the reinforced concrete pit. The Proposer will install inspection ports on the perimeter tiles to allow for observation of the drains tiles to ensure these are functioning properly and to identify seepage from the pit if a leak were to occur.
25. The Feedlot Permit, Section 4, also requires the Proposer to develop a MMP that meets the requirements of Minn. R. 7020.2225. The MMP describes how manure generated at the feedlot is land applied during the fall in a way that maximizes the benefits to cropland, meets all rules and regulations, and protects surface water quality. The Proposer prepared and submitted a MMP with the Feedlot Permit application. Once approved, the MMP becomes an integral and enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit.
26. The Project will require approximately 475 acres of land for manure application. The Proposer has identified 479.1 acres of cropland available for manure application.
27. The Proposer will hire a CAWT to land apply manure generated by the Project to cropland owned by the manure recipients, as well as land owned by the Proposer. The CAWT must land apply manure using accepted industry methods to prevent manure spilling onto public roadways. If spillage
4 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
occurs, the CAWT must remove and properly dispose of the manure in accordance with Minn. R. 7020.2010.
28. The Feedlot Permit, Sections 4.2.2 and 4.3, require the Proposer to transport manure in a manner to prevent it from leaking or spilling on to public roadways. If manure leakage or spillage does occur, the Proposer must remove and properly dispose of the manure in accordance with Minn. R. 7020.2010.
29. The Feedlot Permit, Section 4.4, requires the Proposer, prior to or at the time of manure land application, to provide the manure recipient with the most current manure nutrient analysis. The manure recipient will follow the application of manure as applicable under Minn. R. 7020.2225, or local requirements, whichever is the more stringent. The Proposer will follow the same requirements for the manure that it applies to the land application sites that it controls.
30. Minn. R. 7020.2225 and the Feedlot Permit, Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5, contain manure application requirements. The Proposer must keep records for the six most recent years, including the amount and nutrient content of manure delivered, the name and address of any commercial hauler or applicator who received the manure, the location where the manure is applied, and the rate of application. The CAWT spreading manure for the manure recipient must also keep records for six years, and submit a copy of the records to the Proposer no later than 60 days following each land application.
31. In order to avoid contaminating the groundwater at the manure application sites, the CAWT will apply manure at agronomic rates based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry to minimize the potential for nitrate leaching into the groundwater. Minn. R. ch. 7020.2225 governs the requirements for land application of manure, including setbacks to county and/or water supply wells, open well intakes, special protection areas, sinkholes, mines, quarries, and wells. Where a county also has setback requirements, the Proposer, the CAWT, and the recipients of transferred manure must follow the most restrictive of the state and county setback requirements. As a result, the MPCA does not expect incorporated manure to adversely impact water quality.
32. The MPCA finds that the measures specified above will mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater quality related to manure incorporated at the manure application sites.
33. The land application of manure, if done improperly, can not only adversely impact groundwater, but can adversely impact surface water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into drain tile lines that outfall to surface waters. Therefore, the MMP requires the CAWT to observe MPCA and/or county setback requirements, as well as all other applicable federal and state rules, whatever are most restrictive, around drain tile intakes located within and adjacent to manure application areas, and near other surface water resources.
34. The MMP requires manure applications to follow all applicable required setbacks from sensitive features, such as karst features and waterways. The land application practices in the MMP, once approved by the MPCA, become enforceable provisions of the Feedlot Permit.
5 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
35. According to University of Minnesota Agriculture Extension manure management information, manure contains several essential plant nutrients, and contributes to increased crop yields when properly applied to soils. Manure provides valuable organic matter to soil that improves soil tilth, aids in the retention of water and nutrients, and promotes growth of beneficial microorganisms.
36. Minnesota’s “Final Animal Agriculture Generic Environmental Impact Statement” (2002) and the University of Minnesota Agriculture Extension Program state that manure not only supplies nutrients, but can also improve the biological and physical properties of soil, making it more productive and less erosive.
37. Manure, when properly used as part of a soil management program, improves soil quality, builds soil structure, and increases the level of soil organic matter. Commercial fertilizers cannot provide these same improvements to soil properties.
38. Landowners may alternate between commercial fertilizers and manure for differing reasons. However, when landowners receive manure on their fields, they may only add commercial fertilizer in quantities to meet the nutrient needs of their crops.
39. The Proposer will hire a licensed CAWT to land apply the manure. The CAWT will land apply manure by direct injection. The Proposer’s MMP, once approved by the MPCA, will require the Proposer, the CAWT, and the recipients of transferred manure to incorporate manure via direct injection into the soil.
40. The MPCA finds that the quality of the stormwater runoff from land application areas for the manure will not significantly change if managed in accordance with the MMP required by the Feedlot Permit.
41. The MPCA finds that the requirements of the Feedlot Permit and the MMP minimize the potential for manure applied at manure application sites to enter surface waters.
42. The MPCA finds that the information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to assess potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.
43. The MPCA finds the Proposer has developed adequate measures in its MMP to prevent or mitigate potential water quality impacts.
44. The Feedlot Permit includes conditions for the prevention of adverse effects on surface water and groundwater quality due to manure storage and application.
45. Although the MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water quality, if these were to occur, the Proposer must modify the operation and management of the Project. The MPCA would then modify the Feedlot Permit and the MMP, and impacts to waters would be reversed. Therefore, the MPCA finds any water quality impacts that may occur from the Project are reversible.
6 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
46. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record are adequate to assess potential impacts to the quality of surface water and groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.
47. The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent and reversibility of impacts related to surface water and groundwater quality, which are reasonably expected to occur.
Groundwater Appropriation
48. There are no wells currently located on the Project site, but the Proposer expects to use approximately 1.8 million gallons of water annually, for a total consumption of 45 million gallons over 25 years.
49. On June 26, 2017, the Proposer applied to the DNR for preliminary approval to drill a well approximately 250 feet deep, which will pump at 20 gallons per minute. The DNR granted preliminary approval to drill the well on June 26, 2017. The Proposer may use the DNR preliminary approval in deciding whether to proceed in constructing a 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 this permit for users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water daily, or 1 million gallons annually.
50. The DNR is the permitting authority for appropriating waters of the state in Minnesota. The DNR Water Appropriations Permit allows for a reasonable use of water if the use does not negatively impact surrounding wells or other water resources.
51. The purpose of the Water Appropriation Permit is to ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is available for long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and water quality.
52. As of the date of these Findings, the Proposer has not yet drilled its well.
53. The DNR Water Appropriation Permit 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 the DNR finds a commercial operator is causing interference, the operator must correct it.
54. Unauthorized pumping or use of the well or other water resources is subject to enforcement under Minn. Stat. § 103. Upon completion of an investigation, a permit for water appropriation may be limited, amended, or denied in accordance with applicable laws and rules for the protection of the public interests and the sustainability of Minnesota’s water resources.
55. Due to the DNR oversight and permitting of water appropriations, the MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water appropriation. However, if the DNR determines there is well interference based on concerns or well interference claims, the operator must fix the causes of the
7 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
interference. Thus, the impacts to water appropriations would then be reversed. The MPCA finds that any water appropriation impacts that may occur from the Project are reversible.
56. The MPCA finds that the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to water appropriations that are reasonably expected to occur.
Air Quality
57. The Proposer conducted air dispersion modeling in August 2017 to estimate the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and the intensity of odorous gases at the Project property lines and nearest neighbors.
58. The Proposer’s air modeling used the American Meteorological Society Regulatory Model (AERMOD) developed by the American Meteorological Society and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The model evaluated the air quality impacts of the Project. AERMOD is a widely accepted air dispersion model, which uses conservative assumptions to predict air quality.
Air Quality Related to Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions
Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS)
59. The air modeling predicts that the Project will comply with the 30 parts per billion (ppb) hydrogen sulfide MAAQS. Under the MAAQS, the third exceedance of the MAAQS within any 5-day period is a violation. The air modeling demonstrates compliance when the high-third-high (H3H) hydrogen sulfide concentration (added to background concentration) for any 5-day period at each property- line receptor is less than 30 ppb.
60. The air modeling predicts that the Project emissions alone will result in a maximum H3H property- line hydrogen sulfide concentration of 10.71 ppb. The estimated ambient air concentration for hydrogen sulfide in the Project area is 17 ppb. The total (Project emissions plus existing background) H3H hydrogen sulfide concentration is predicted to be 27.71 ppb at the Project’s property lines.
Sub-Chronic Inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV)
61. The air modeling predicts that the Project will not exceed the 10 μg/m3 subchronic (13-week) hydrogen sulfide iHRV at neighboring residences. iHRVs are concentrations of chemicals emitted to air that are unlikely to pose a significant risk of harmful effects when humans are exposed to those concentrations over a specified period.
62. The air modeling predicts that the Project emissions alone will result in a maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration of 1.17 μg/m3 at the nearest residences. The estimated hydrogen sulfide background concentration in the Project area is 1.00 μg/m3. The predicted total maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration at the neighboring residences is 2.17 μg/m3. Note that while the iHRV is for a 13-week period, AERMOD is not capable of averaging concentrations for that
8 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
time-period, so a monthly averaging period was used instead. The monthly averaging period is acceptable because it produces a more conservative or protective prediction than the 13-week period.
63. Based on the air modeling results discussed above, the MPCA finds that hydrogen sulfide emissions expected from the Project do not present the potential for significant environmental effects.
Air Quality Related to Ammonia Emissions
Acute iHRV
64. The air modeling predicts that the Project will not exceed the 3,200 μg/m3 (one-hour) acute ammonia iHRV at neighboring residences.
65. The air modeling predicts that the Project emissions alone will result in a maximum hourly ammonia concentration of 317.48 μg/m3 at the nearest residences to the Project site. The estimated ammonia background concentration in the Project area is 148 μg/m3. The maximum total (Project 3 emissions plus existing background) ammonia concentration is predicted to be 465.48 μg/m at the nearest residences.
Chronic iHRV
66. The air modeling predicts that the Project will not exceed the 80 μg/m3 (1-year) chronic ammonia iHRV at neighboring residences to the Project site.
67. The air modeling predicts that the Project emissions alone will result in a maximum 1-year time 3 averaged ammonia concentration of 4.72 μg/m at the neighboring residences. The estimated ammonia background concentration in the Project area is 5.72 μg/m3. The maximum total (Project emissions plus existing background) ammonia concentration is predicted to be 10.44 μg/m3 at the nearest residences.
68. Based on the air modeling results discussed above, the MPCA finds that ammonia emissions expected from the Project do not present the potential for significant environmental effects.
Air Quality Related to Odor Emissions
69. Although the state of Minnesota has not established ambient air quality standards to regulate odor, the Proposer completed air dispersion modeling for odor.
70. The modeled maximum hourly odor intensity, at the Project’s property lines, is 41 odor units per cubic meter (OU/m3) and occurs on the east boundary line. This predicted odor intensity is considered a, “faint odor” as defined by the air modeling report used in the EAW for this Project (Attachment I of EAW).
71. The modeled maximum hourly odor intensity, at the nearest residences, is 12 OU/m3. This predicted odor intensity is considered to be, “no odor.”
9 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
72. The Proposer has submitted an air emissions and odor management plan to the MPCA with its Feedlot Permit application. The plan includes measures that the Proposer will take to minimize the generation of odors from its proposed feedlot and from associated manure application activities. The Proposer will use below ground manure storage pits and inject manure into the soil within 24 hours of land application to minimize odors.
73. Based on the modeling results discussed above, the MPCA finds that odor at the Proposer’s property lines and nearby residences does not present the potential for significant environmental effects.
Summary of Air Quality Impacts
74. The MPCA expects the Project to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria.
75. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts expected to occur from the Project, air emissions from the Project will continue while it remains in operation and would cease only if the Project were temporarily or permanently closed.
76. If excessive air emissions or violations of the ambient hydrogen sulfide air standards were to occur, or if the Proposer exceeded iHRVs for ammonia, air quality impacts are likely to be correctable. The MPCA could initiate an investigation and require the Proposer to make operation and maintenance changes. Therefore, the MPCA finds that any impacts on air quality that may occur from the Project are reversible.
77. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record are adequate to assess the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur as a result of the Project.
78. The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts on air quality reasonably expected to occur from the Project.
Public Comments on Impacts Related to Land Use
79. The Project site is in Waseca County on land that is zoned agricultural and rural in nature. The nearest incorporated town (Morristown, Minnesota) is located approximately 3.5 miles to the northeast of the Project site.
80. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record are adequate to assess the impacts on land use that are reasonably expected to occur as a result of the Project.
81. The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts on land use reasonably expected to occur from the Project.
10 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
Public Comments on Impacts Related to CPE Facility
82. The CPE Facility stores natural gas in the Mount Simon Aquifer at a depth of approximately 800-900 feet deep below portions of Blooming Grove Township sections 5, 6, and 7 and Iosco Township sections 1 and 12 (information from Waseca County Comprehensive Plan).
83. The Project will not have a cumulative impact on groundwater appropriation due to the reasons stated in items 48-56 above. In addition, the Project and the CPE Facility will not impact each other with respect to water appropriation since they are located in different aquifers (i.e., Project will be in Prairie du Chien and CPE Facility is in Mount Simon). The aquifers are separated by approximately 400 feet of bedrock material, including several layers considered to be aquitards.
84. The Project will not have a cumulative impact on groundwater quality or surface water quality due to the reasons stated in items 20-47 above. In addition, the two facilities do not generate similar pollutants. The Project generates manure (pollutants of concern are nutrients and potential pathogens) and CPE Facility generated hydrocarbons.
85. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record are adequate to assess potential impacts to the quality of surface water and groundwater, and water appropriation that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project and the cumulative impacts from the Project in conjunction with the existing CPE Facility.
86. The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent and reversibility of impacts related to surface water and groundwater quality, and water appropriation, which are reasonably expected to occur due to the cumulative impacts from the Project in conjunction with the existing CPE Facility.
Public Comments on Impacts Related to Dead Animals
87. The Proposer expects to use composting as the primary method of dead animal disposal. The Proposer will use rendering when composting is not possible.
88. The Proposer has prepared an Animal Mortality Plan, in accordance with State requirements, including Minn. Stat. § 35.82 and Minn. R. chs. 1719.0100 to 1719.4600 and 7011.1215. The Proposer submitted the Animal Mortality Plan with the Feedlot Permit application to the MPCA. The Animal Mortality Plan is an enforceable condition of the Feedlot Permit.
89. The Proposer will construct a 20-foot x 40-foot animal mortality compost structure, with impervious concrete flooring, 5-foot high sidewalls, and a cover. The Proposer plans to inspect the barn daily for animal mortalities and transfer the dead animals to the compost structure immediately if present.
90. The Proposer will follow the Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules for disposal of all animal mortalities. The Proposer predicts that the annual mortality rate will be approximately 145 hogs per year.
11 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
91. The Proposer will land apply the compost on the fields in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. When composting is unavailable, the Proposer will hire a rendering company to pick up and convey the dead animals to the rendering company site.
92. The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts reasonably expected to occur from dead animals from the Project. Public Comments on Impacts Related to Manure Application Oversight 93. The Proposer will hire a licensed CAWT to land apply the manure. The CAWT will land apply manure by direct injection. Manure application will take place in the fall after harvest. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture regulates CAWTs.
94. The CAWT 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 MMP is an enforceable provision of the Feedlot Permit.
95. The Proposer will sell and transfer ownership of a portion of the manure generated at the Project site to third parties who have agreements with the Proposer. The Proposer will ensure that the manure is first tested, using University of Minnesota Extension recommended practices for manure sampling prior to land application. 96. The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts reasonably expected to occur from application of manure from the Project.
Cumulative Potential Effects
97. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the “cumulative potential effects.” In making this determination, the MPCA must consider “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” Minn. R. 4410.1700 subp.7.b. The MPCA Findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
98. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this Project in such a way as to result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects.
99. The EAW addressed the following areas for cumulative potential effects for the proposed Project: · Surface water and groundwater quality · Groundwater appropriation · Air quality
12 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
100. The Project and its associated manure application sites are within five sub-watersheds of the Cannon River Major Watershed, in Waseca, Le Sueur, and Rice Counties.
101. The Project and its manure application sites are in areas where the land use is predominantly agricultural. Feedlots in these areas have the potential to contribute to surface water pollution.
102. Waterville Creek, Whitewater Creek, Unnamed Creek, and Tetonka Lake are the closest listed impaired water bodies to the Project and its manure application sites.
103. Waterville Creek, Whitewater Creek, and Unnamed Creek are all located within the Cannon River Major Watershed. Waterville Creek is approximately 1.25 miles north of the Proposer’s manure application site 1. Whitewater Creek is approximately 1.0 mile southeast of the Proposer’s manure application site 2. Unnamed Creek is located adjacent to the manure application site 5 and 0.35 miles to the west of the manure application site 6.
104. The MPCA’s 2012 impaired waters list identifies all three creeks as impaired due to fecal coliform (i.e., E. coli bacteria). The creeks are included in the updated October 2016, Cannon River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report. The TMDL identifies livestock manure as a potential substantial source of fecal coliform contamination to the Cannon River Watershed.
105. Tetonka Lake is also within the Cannon River Major Watershed and is approximately: · 740 feet to the north of manure application site 2 · 1,450 feet to the north of manure application site 3 · 2,200 feet to the north of manure application site 4
106. The MPCA’s 2012 impaired waters list identifies Tetonka Lake as being impaired for phosphorus. The Lake is listed in the updated October 2016, Cannon River TMDL Report. The TMDL identifies cropland runoff as a source of phosphorus contamination to the Cannon River Watershed.
107. The Proposer will implement BMPs through their MPCA-approved MMP, an enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit. In addition, the Proposer will take the following actions to minimize impacts to surface water: · Test soil 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 feedlot facility as a total confinement operation and check drain tile periodically for pit leaks. 108. The Proposer will implement the above-mentioned BMPs specified in their MPCA-approved MMP and will be an integral and enforceable part of the Project’s Feedlot Permit.
109. The MPCA does not expect manure contaminated runoff from the Project site because it is a total confinement facility. In addition, the Project will operate under the NPDES feedlot permitting
13 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
system, which has more stringent MMP requirements than smaller feedlots in the region. Finally, the swine manure from the Project is liquid and incorporated into the soil by direct injection.
110. The Feedlot Permit requires that the Project meet zero discharge standards. As a result, the MPCA does not expect any discharge of manure or manure-contaminated runoff to any waters of the state.
111. All manure application sites must also comply with MPCA or county setback requirements, as well as all other applicable federal and state rules, whatever are the more restrictive.
112. The MMP, in order to prevent impacts to any waters of the state, is designed specifically for the manure that the Proposer expects to generate at the Project and manure application sites.
113. Proper operation and management of the Project and adherence to appropriate manure land application practices in the MPCA-approved MMPs will prevent runoff of manure and/or manure- contaminated stormwater runoff from impacting waters of the state.
114. Since the Feedlot Permit and MMPs require preventative measures to protect surface water and groundwater quality, the MPCA does not anticipate the Project will contribute to any potential adverse effect on water quality. Therefore, the MPCA finds that the Project is not expected to contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on water quality.
Groundwater Appropriation
115. On June 26, 2017, the Proposer applied to the DNR for preliminary approval to drill a well approximately 250 feet into the local aquifer. The well will pump at 20 gallons per minute.
116. The DNR granted preliminary approval to drill the well on June 26, 2017 (EAW Attachment N). The Preliminary Well Assessment concluded that the volume of water is minimal and should not negatively impact lakes, wetlands or rare species.
117. During its Water Appropriation Permit review process, the DNR may require the Proposer to conduct an aquifer test. The DNR will analyze the results of the aquifer test to evaluate potential short-term impacts such as well interferences, and long-term cumulative effects. Cumulative effects is one of the considerations the DNR evaluates in the Water Appropriation Permit Program, particularly in areas of high groundwater use, such as this area.
118. If during the Water Appropriations permitting process, the DNR finds that the Project will cause significant negative short or long-term impacts, it may require the Proposer to reduce the requested water appropriation level or find another source of water.
119. The MPCA finds that the Project is not expected to contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effect on water appropriation.
14 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
Air Quality
120. The MPCA evaluated cumulative potential effects on air quality by comparing the MAAQS for hydrogen sulfide, iHRVs for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and odor intensity thresholds with concentrations in the air predicted by air modeling.
121. The modeling analysis included the estimated emissions from the Project and incorporated conservative background concentrations to account for the potential impacts of air emissions from other feedlots in the area of the Project. The Proposer estimated air concentrations for these pollutants at the residences closest to the Project.
122. All modeled concentrations for the Project were below the health-based criteria used in the analyses. Therefore, the MPCA finds that cumulative potential effects on air quality will not be significant in the Project area, and the Project will not contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on air quality.
Cumulative Effects – Summary
123. Based on information on the Project obtained from air modeling reports and Feedlot Permit application processes, information on water quality, groundwater appropriation presented in the EAW, and consideration of potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from this Project.
124. The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects related to cumulative potential effects that are reasonably expected to occur.
The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority
125. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project." Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C. The MPCA Findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
126. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project:
Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required MPCA Feedlot Permit (includes Construction Stormwater (CSW) and Permanent Stormwater Permit requirements) DNR Water Appropriation Permit Waseca County Conditional Use Permit or other land use permit
127. MPCA Feedlot Permit. The MPCA requires the Proposer to obtain a Feedlot Permit for the Project. The Feedlot Permit incorporates construction and operation requirements, including stormwater, and includes operating plans that address manure management, emergency response protocols,
15 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
and odor/air quality management. The attachments are an enforceable condition of the Feedlot Permit. The Feedlot Permit incorporates provisions of the CSW Permit pertinent to livestock operations. Thus, the Proposer is not required to apply separately for coverage under the CSW Permit.
128. DNR Water Appropriation Permit. There are no wells currently at the Project site. The Proposer plans to install one well at the Project site. The Proposer expects to use approximately 1.8 million gallons of water annually, for a total consumption of 45 million gallons over 25 years.
129. On June 26, 2017, the Proposer applied to the DNR for preliminary approval to drill a well at the Project site. The DNR granted preliminary approval to drill the well on June 26, 2017. 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.
130. 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.
131. The Proposer must register the well with the Minnesota Department of Health before construction.
132. Waseca County Conditional Use Permit. The Proposer is required to obtain all required building and conditional use permits required by local units of government to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The Conditional Use Permit will address local zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that are needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land.
133. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.
The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs
134. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is “the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs,” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.D. The MPCA Findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 135. Although not exhaustive, the MPCA reviewed the following documents as part of the environmental impact analysis for the Proposed Project: · Data presented in the EAW · Feedlot Permit application, with MMPs and attachments · Air Dispersion Modeling Report
16 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Lamont Swine, LLC Project Conclusions of Law Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County And Order
· Minnesota’s “Final Animal Agriculture Generic Environmental Impact Statement” (2002) · Permits and environmental review of similar projects
136. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the Proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff.
137. The environmental effects of the Project have been addressed by the design and permit development processes, and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects.
138. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies by public agencies or the Project Proposer, and staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.
139. The MPCA adopts the rationale stated in the attached Responses to Comments (Appendix B) as the basis for response to any issues not specifically addressed in these Findings.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
140. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this Project. The EAW, the permit development process, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project.
141. The MPCA identified areas for potential significant environmental effects. The Project design and permits ensure the Proposer will take appropriate mitigation measures to address significant effects. The MPCA expects the Project to comply with all environmental rules, regulations, and standards.
142. Based on a comparison of the impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700 subp. 7, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.
143. An EIS is not required for the proposed Lamont Swine, LLC project.
144. Any Findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed Findings are hereby adopted as such.
17
APPENDIX A
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Lamont Swine, LLC Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
1. Mark Leiferman, Waseca County, Email received December 14, 2017. 2. Carol Overland, Legalectric, Inc., Email letter received January 5, 2018. 3. Kevin Mixon, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Email received January 10, 2018. 4. David Ellis Hollenhorst, Email received January 8, 2018. 5. Dale Karsten and Carrie Groth, Email letter received January 9, 2018. 6. Scott Lang, Email received January 9, 2018. 7. Nancy Prehn, Emails received January 9, 2018. 8. Tom Metzdorff, Email letter received January 9, 2018. 9. Sarah Root, Email received January 9, 2018. 10. Ray and Nancy Miller, Email received January 9, 2018. 11. Sharlene Kanne, Email letter received January 9, 2018. 12. Brian Kirk, Email letter received January 9, 2018. 13. Tom Davision, Laurel Remund, and Todd Selvik, Blooming Grove Township, Email received January 9, 2018. 14. Kimber Prehn, Email received January 9, 2018 (with supplemental email received January 10, 2018). 15. Scott and Jeanne Hansen, Email received January 10, 2018. 16. Lucas and Sarah Root, letter received January 10, 2018. 17. Sarah Beimers, Minnesota Historical Society, letter received January 10, 2018. 1 From: Mark Leiferman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 2:10 PM To: Martens, William (MPCA)
Mr. Martens, During the application process, Waseca County expressed a concern that the information contained in the MPCA EAW reports regarding the location wetlands in the vicinity of the project and areas where manure will be land applied is often inadequate. Waseca County is the LGU regarding wetlands in the county. The information contained within the Lamont Swine Environmental Assessment Worksheet reference the wetland setbacks the project is required to meet; however, the report provides only limited data relating to possible wetlands in the vicinity of the facility or where manure may be applied.
There is inadequate information within the Lamont Swine Environmental Assessment Worksheet to make a determination as to whether there will be an impact to wetlands.
Mark Leiferman
Mark Leiferman Planning and Zoning Administrator Waseca County 300 North State Street Waseca, MN 56093
Direct Phone Number: 507.835.0651 Office Phone Number: 507.835.0650 Fax Number: 507.837.5310 Website: co.waseca.mn.us 2
Legalectric, Inc. Carol Overland Attorney at Law, MN #254617 Energy Consultant—Transmission, Power Plants, Nuclear Waste [email protected]
1110 West Avenue Red Wing, Minnesota 55066 612.227.8638
January 4, 2018
Steve Sommer via email: [email protected] Project Manager Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155
Dan Card via email: [email protected] Supervisor, Environmental Review Unit Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155
William Martens via email: [email protected] Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 7678 College Road Baxter, MN 56425
RE: Comment Period Extension Request Lamont Swine, LLC Environmental Assessment
Dear Mr. Sommer and Mr. Card:
Please consider this a Comment for the record.
It has come to my attention that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet has been completed and is now up for Comment until January 10, 2018, less than one week from now. At this time, I request an extension of the Comment period of at least 30 days.
A former client on the Simon Gas Plant, Nancy Prehn, is a neighbor of this proposed project, and has contacted me today regarding this upcoming deadline and several concerns. Mrs. Prehn stated that she has left messages with MPCA staff, has questions that require an answer before she can adequately comment on the proposal, and has not yet received a response.
Upon investigation, Mrs. Prehn has learned that neighbors do not know that this project has been proposed, much less that an EAW has been released for comment. Notice for this project insufficient, because was not published in the Waseca paper, only the Waterville and Mankato papers. The project is
1 proposed for Waseca County, and notice should be in the Waseca paper. Mrs. Prehn is working to notify neighbors, but it is not the job of local residents to provide adequate notice.
A major concern that jumps out, given the proposed location of the project, are cumulative impacts.
There is a feedlot very near this proposed location, and, upon information and belief, the neighbor was asked to agree to a variance and waive county setback requirements, which was declined. The need for a variance is an indication of inappropriate land use.
This proposed feedlot is requesting use of 1.8 million gallons of water annually, problematic because:
o The project sits over a 7 billion cubic foot natural gas storage area, an underground shale dome, which stores natural gas in the aquifer in roughly a 10 square mile area. This gas dome pumps and withdraws gas and the water in the area is subject to contamination. o The impacts of this project on the natural gas dome and its water use must be considered. o The impacts of the water in the aquifer must also be considered – is this water fit for animal consumption?
The EAW has not adequately explored or considered the impacts on and of the aquifer.
There are 22 families living within one mile of this proposed feedlot. The impact on these families has not been adequately addressed.
Manure management plans do not have sufficient review and oversight to assure that those signing up who are not principals in this project continue to participate, to avoid overspreading on other parcels.
Cumulative impacts must be considered, including but not limited to that of the other nearby feedlot, and impacts of putting a feedlot with a 1.8 million gallon annual water demand over a 10 square mile natural gas storage facility.
These are but a few concerns.
Please contact Nancy Prehn at (507) 291-1955 regarding her questions.
Again, at this time, I request a 30 day extension of the comment period to allow neighbors to review the EAW and comment.
Thank you for assistance you can provide in this matter. If you have any questions, or require anything further, please let us know.
Very truly yours,
Carol A. Overland Attorney at Law cc: Nancy Prehn
2
3
4
From: David Ellis Hollenhorst [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 12:36 PM To: Sommer, Steve (MPCA)
The proposed Lamont Swine hoglot approximately 4 miles se of Waterville, MN is not a good idea for the citizens of Waterville and the surrounding area. The smell of a 4,800 hog hoglot will permeate the city, a portion of the Sakatah Trail and Sakatah State Park when the winds are right (wrong?).
Twenty two homes are within one mile of this proposed hoglot. Have you ever lived within one mile of a hoglot?
In the published proposal I note that "According to a study of air emissions from the proposed facility, it would meet air quality standards and odor guidelines." My proposal is that all MNPCA employees be required to live within one mile of any hoglot permitted in MN to fully understand what the "odor guidelines" should be..
The hoglot smell carries much further than one mile and drops property values and lowers many citizens quality of life.
Lamont Swine is a business that will profit at the expense of the public. Agribusiness should not be allowed to pollute the air breathed by other citizens.
Thank you.
David Ellis Hollenhorst Citizens of Minnesota 507-404-1253 5
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 12:26 PM To: Sommer, Steve (MPCA)
Good Day Steve and William,
Attached please find a letter of concern in regards to the proposed Lamont Swine Facility in Waseca County.
We appreciate your time and review, as we high opposition of the facility being built.
If you have any questions upon review, please feel free to contact Dale or myself.
Best Regards, Dale Karsten 507.412.9793
Carrie Groth 507.581.0291
43184 130th Street Waseca, MN 56093 January 8, 2018
Steve Sommer Resource Management and Assistance Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
William Martens Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 7678 College Road Suite 105 Baxter, Minnesota 56425
RE: Lamont Swine Opposition
Dear Steve and William; along with Others It May Concern,
We write today in opposition to the proposed Lamont Swine, LLC. Facility; located in Waseca County, Blooming Grove Township, SE ¼, SW ¼ Section 5, Township 108N, Range 22W.
Although, there are multiple reasons in which we oppose the hog farm being built, the primary reason is that the farm would be within a football field from our property. We recently purchased property behind our existing home, a residential buildable lot, with the intent to build a new home; with that it places the proposed hog farm within a football field's distance from our property line, our new home, within a football and a half's field from our existing home, nowhere near 1000 feet. We purchased the property without any knowledge of a proposed swine facility, even though we questioned the Waseca County Planning and Zoning, Mark Leiferman, prior to purchase, as there had been rumor of a potential hog facility in our area and we are very aware that use of neighboring land for such things as a hog farm, not only would deter us from wanting to build on our recently purchased property, but decreases our property values and possibility of sale in the future. We most likely wouldn't have purchased the additional property had we known of such intentions.
We have received no notification of the proposed hog facility. All information we have received has been via our neighbors, and research on our end as to what had been proposed. It is our belief that proper notification is required in matters such as these, in matters of such close proximity. We were told something had been published in the local paper, however, we do not subscribe, and we were also informed that the publication was delayed in timeliness, allowing even less duration to respond and impose concern of the proposed facility.
One of the other largest concerns, is that the CenterPoint Energy Facility; as well as another hog farm, owned by Holden Farms, are within miles of our home, of the proposed Lamont Swine Facility. The existing facilities have already imposed concern on ground water contamination; yet another 4800 head of full grown hogs is proposed without any additional concern to surrounding occupants and homes. Even in the close proximity of the Cannon River Watershed, as well as the many lakes that are nearby. That is not to mention the air pollution concerns that another 4800 head hog facility brings along with it.
We are also concerned with the amount of accessible nearby land to spread the manure that is produced within such facility. With an existing hog facility in such close proximity, it is not believed there is sufficient amounts of land to spread, without contributing to the ground water contamination and high levels of air pollution. Lamont has recently acquired said land and we feel is unable to provide adequate insight on the spreading of manure in this area.
We are in great opposition of this facility being built. It is of great detriment to our home; and our well- being, as well as our families and our surrounding neighbors.
We ask of you to consider our opposition and to ask the Lamont Swine, LLC; all members, family and others of interest, to reconsider the placement of this facility.
Best Regards,
Dale Karsten Carrie Groth
6
From: Scott Lang [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 12:14 PM To: Sommer, Steve (MPCA)
Scott Lang 14100 440th Ave Waseca, MN 56093
January 9, 2018
Steve Sommer Resource Management and Assistance Division MPCA 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Steve:
Recently we became aware of the proposed Lamont Swine, LLC project in Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County. Our family resides within the 1 mile radius of this proposed project. After reading the current EAW, I noticed our residence was not included in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. We are very concerned with current water quality issues that exist in the township. There are over 20 households within the one mile radius along with Center Point Energy who is a known contributor to contaminants in the water for the past 5 decades. Air quality is also a concern considering the proximity to so many residences.
With the proposed water usage and manure inputs on already impaired waters, we are requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be conducted before any further water quality issues arise in our area.
Respectfully,
Scott T. Lang 7
Steve Sommer Resource Mgmt. and Asst. Div. MPCA 520 Lafayette Rd. North St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Steve,
I am writing to you as I have a request for information as well as to express my concerns as a resident living within the mile radius of the proposed Lamont Swine Facility LLC in Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County. I would like to ask for information on any and all of the studies of the impaired waters from the intermittent streams mentioned in the manure management plan portion of the EAW. What was the last agency, either for profit or not for profit to do a study on these impaired waters listed in the EAW ? I have been trying to research lots of my questions, some I have found information and others not. I wanted to view Water Appropriations Application that shows on page 19, question 10/Permits and Approvals. Mark required permits and give status of Application. it indicates there is a DNR Water Appropriations Application submitted, I have tried several avenues to retrieve this information and have been told it is not available, Please provide me with this information that is showing as the application submitted. Please provide me with the information on the potential depth of the proposed water well. What is the average depth of the private wells with in the one mile radius of the proposed site?
I am very concerned about the water quality in our area as a result of all the current activity that has been going on for the past 50 plus years. We know that there is contamination occurring on a daily basis, we live here, we see it. In my family there have been three members with skin cancer, Mayo Clinic Rochester has ruled out genetic .
Can you please provide me with the baseline information of studies of the Aquifer and any current studies showing conditions of the Aquifer. I do not want speculation, I would like facts, written and solid information on the aquifer. I ask for this information and believe that you have this available you in order to make an educated decision on the proposed feedlot.I am very concerned with the water quality in the area, our water runs black and smells oily on a regular basis.
Thank you,
Nancy J.Prehn 43497 State Highway 13 Waseca, MN 56093 [email protected] Phone 507-291-1555
8
From: Tom [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 10:05 AM To: Sommer, Steve (MPCA)
Steve,
Attached is a letter regarding the proposed Lamont Swine, LLC project.
Thanks,
Tom Metzdorff
Tom and Kris Metzdorff 10833 270th Street West Waseca, MN 56093
January 9, 2018
Steve Sommer Resource Management and Assistance Division MPCA 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Steve: We live approximately 1 and ¼ miles from the site of the proposed Lamont Swine, LLC project in Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County. We are very concerned with current water quality issues that exist in the township. There are over 20 households within the one mile radius radius along with Center Point Energy who is a known contributor to contaminants in the water for the past 5 decades. With the proposed water usage and manure inputs on already impaired waters, we are requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be conducted before any further water quality issues arise in our area.
Respectfully, Tom Metzdorff 507-461-2010 9
From: Ben Root [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 8:34 AM To: Sommer, Steve (MPCA)
January 8, 2018
Steve Sommer Resource Management and Assistance Division MPCA 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Steve:
We live within the one mile radius of the proposed Lamont Swine, LLC project in Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County. We are very concerned with current water quality issues that exist in the township. There are over 20 households within the one mile radius alone with the Center Point Energy which is a known contributer to contaminants in the water for the past 5 decades.
With the proposed water usage and manure inputs on already impaired waters, we are requesting an environmental impact study be conducted before any further water quality issues arise in our area.
I know from our previous residence that when your household's water is contaminated, it makes it almost impossible to sell your home. This is concerning for future residents of Blooming Grove Township as well as for me and my family of 5.
If you would like to speak to me directly, my phone number is 808-428-3060.
Respectfully,
Sarah Root 10
From: Nancy Mill [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2018 6:50 PM To: Sommer, Steve (MPCA)
Dear Steve, My wife & I are homeowners living within 1700 feet of the proposed Lamont Swine, LLC project in Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County. We are very concerned about several pollution issues – Water Quality, Manure odor, nuisance laws, & our property values. #1 The water quality related to the swine manure , contaminating our wells. Similar contamination has happened in the Blooming Prairie area. We also have Center point Energy within 1 mile of our 20 nearby homes with evidence of contaminents in the water due to this.
With the proposed water usage and manure inputs on already impaired waters, we are requesting an enviromental inpact study be conducted before any further water quality issues arise in our area.
We are not in agreement with the start of a new Swine Project in Blooming Grove Township.
Respectfully, Ray & Nancy Miller 43268 130th St Waseca, MN 56093 507-461-0083 (cell) 507-835-5664 ( home) 11 12 13
From: Laurel Remund [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 3:59 PM To: Martens, William (MPCA)
Good morning,
My name is Laurel Remund. I am a Supervisor for Blooming Grove Township. Our board received copies of the Notice of Availability of an EAW as regards the Lamont Swine LLC, Waseca County.
Naturally, our board has been approached by concerned neighbors of the site. There are 2 additional swine feedlots in our township and 2 Jenny-O turkey as well as numerous others under 100 AU. We are farmers, that is the heritage of our County.
The concern with the Lamont site being proposed is many things, which I'm sure are common in this process; smell, dead animals, runoff, proximity to neighbors; but we find ourselves in a rather unique situation in that part of our township.
Under sections 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 is a gas dome. The natural gas is harvested in the northeast 1/4 of section 6, within one mile of the proposed site. Neighbors are seeing black water and smell in their homes when the gas company introduces water into the aquifer. We need proper investigation, not just assurances that more contaminated water will not exacerbate this situation.
In 1970, Minnegasco drilled a 487' well on the proposed hog site, possibly for the purpose of monitoring the gas dome. (Well #213192 according to records from Dan Girolomo, Hydrologist with the DNR.)
With the old well in place and the advent of a new well on the site; and the annual 2 million gallons of water drawn and distributed, how will the aquifer be affected? Can testing be done before this goes any further to put the neighbors minds at ease?
The quality of the water in these sections is questionable; they purchase bottled water for cooking and drinking.
This, to us, is more of a concern that the MPCA and the Department of Health should be looking into.
We encourage agricultural growth and diversification in our Township; we'd like the Lamonts to build their home on the site as well. But our first concern is for the people who do actually live here. We want them to have a voice in their neighborhoods and to have safe, clean drinking water and soil.
We are the people who live with the fallout from these decisions, we have been chosen by the people to listen to both sides and deal with what you pass down, and it gets pretty heated. Yet, we have no authority to prevent or protect them. So please, we encourage you to evaluate and consider an EIS for the best results for all parties. Let's slow this down a little and resolve these issues.
Thank you, Blooming Grove Township Board Tom Davision, Laurel Remund Todd Selvik 14
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2018 8:06 PM To: Sommer, Steve (MPCA)
Dear Steve,
I am writing with questions about the EAW for the proposed Swine facility in Blooming grove township, Waseca County. I live within the one mile radius of the proposed site. I have concerns about the water quality in the area. There currently is an operation that displaces water and is a known contributor of water pollution and there is absolutely no mention of this operation in the EAW. Even the MN DNR makes no mention of it on the their preliminary assessment of DNR Well Construction. They use a checklist, and it appears they did not do their due diligence. MN DNR holds the Original Water Appropriations permit to displace water to inject natural ga into the ground. Centerpoint Energy reported to area neighbors in 1996-98 that their operation was generating contaminated water, hence they now have a Water Treatment Operation on site. The MPCA holds this permit. I am requesting that you do an environmental impact study before you permit any further water wells or issue any feedlot permits of this magnitude until the neighbors have some assurances that their water will not get any worse. Can you provide me with information that shows a baseline information on the water quality in Blooming Grove Township, Waseca County.
Thank you,
Kimber E. Prehn 43497 State Highway 13 Waseca, MN. 56093 Email- Nancyprehn@gmail. com Phone 1-507-461-5112
(See Photos)
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 1:09 PM To: Sommer, Steve (MPCA)
Here is the information that shows no information was taken into consideration the regarding the water quality in Blooming Grove twshp., Waseca County. As I stated earlier we are in a unique area with the natural gas underground storage facility that displaces water. Can the MPCA do a more comprehensive study of the water quality in our area before they issue any further permits!
Thank you, Kimber Prehn 43497 State Highway 13 Waseca, MN. 56093 507-461-5112 phone
See attached to go with my previous comment letter.
15
From: Jeanne hansen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 10:53 AM To: Sommer, Steve (MPCA)
January 10, 2018
Steve Sommer Resource Management and Assistance Division MPCA 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Steve:
As a resident of Blooming Grove Township and a homeowner within the one mile radius of the proposed Lamont Swine, LLC project, my husband and I have concerns about the application not recognizing the Center Point Energy gas storage “dome” and its impacts on water quality and quantity in the area. Using the proposed 1.8 million gallons of water annually and having surface runoff with the manure application, we are concerned about further pollutants in the water moving into our streams, lakes and aquifers.
The application also lacks accurate information with regards to all of the residents within the one mile radius.
Air quality is also a large concern as we have an existing hog operation that is approximately 4 miles from us that has yet to plant the tree line that was originally part of the permitting process. It has been decades.
The operators of this proposed multimillion dollar site are a 25 year old couple. Landi, the wife, had little knowledge to answer any of our questions about the operation. She referred us to her husband and he is unaware of the “dome” and its pollutants. We explained to him that in the late 1990’s Center Point Energy came to the neighboring residents and made us aware that there was Lead, Selenium, Betex, and Cynide in the water caused by their operations. Their current solution consists of a tanker that collects the used water and a fountain that cycles the contaminated water to a holding pond before being released into an “unnamed” intermittent stream that leads to Lake Sakatah. This is the water system that would be fed to the animals and in turn the animals fed to humans. Not to mention the food grown on the land where the manure is being applied.
We live where the circumstances are very unique as there is no other known underground rock formation in Minnesota that stores billions of cubic feet of natural gas.
Please read the following article- http://www.bloomingprairieonline.com/news/contaminated-well-forces-family-not- drink-water
When I spoke with Mr. Schmeling he informed me that he and his wife have 30,000 hogs within a 2 mile radius of his home. · 15 years ago the first barn went up. · All the others in the last 10 years. · His well is 96 ft deep. · The water table has dropped 12 ft in the last 5 years. · He has had to put a larger ¾ H pump with a governor on it to be able to have enough contaminated water supply. · Over the last 10 years he has fought and continues to fight bladder cancer, thyroid cancer, and prostate cancer. · His wife has colon cancer. The issues are real!
We ask that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be conducted before we allow any further pollutants in our township wells/ aquifer.
Please understand that your actions, Steve, create fallout.
Respectfully,
Scott Hansen Jeanne Hansen Scott Hansen Construction, LLC 13250 440th Avenue Waseca, MN 56093 Office 507.835.4029 Cell 612.290.5416
16 17
APPENDIX B
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Lamont Swine, LLC Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) received multiple comment letters on the EAW. Many of the commenters expressed similar concerns. The following response to comments groups common concerns. The numbers in parenthesis after the comment correspond to the commenter number listed in Appendix A to the Finding of Fact for this Project.
GROUNDWATER APPROPRIATION
1. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the cumulative impact of the Project’s well water use on water availability in area aquifers and wells. (Commenters 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16)
Response: As stated in the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) preliminary well assessment (EAW Attachment N), “The volume of water [requested by the Proposer] is minimal and should not negatively impact the lake, wetlands or rare species”. In addition, during its Water Appropriation Permit review process, the DNR may choose to require the Proposer to conduct an aquifer test. The DNR would analyze the results of any required aquifer pump test to evaluate potential short-term impacts such as well interferences, and long-term cumulative effects. Cumulative effects is one of the considerations DNR evaluates in the Water Appropriation Permit Program. If during the Water Appropriations permitting process, the DNR finds that the Project will cause significant negative short or long-term impacts, it may require the Proposer to reduce the requested water appropriation level or find another source of water.
2. Comment: The commenter requested to see the DNR Water Appropriations Permit application for the Project. (Commenter 7).
Response: Section 10 of the EAW erroneously indicated that the Proposer had submitted an application for a DNR Water Appropriation Permit. However, to date the Proposer has not yet submitted an application for a Water Appropriations Permit. If the commenter would like additional information about the DNR’s Water Appropriation Permit Program, they can find it at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/index.html.
GROUNDWATER QUALITY
3. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the cumulative impact of the Project on groundwater quality (i.e., impact on local aquifers and wells). Commenters specifically mentioned concerns about the Proposer’s generation, storage and application of manure. (Commenters 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16)
Response: The Proposer will minimize impacts to groundwater (i.e., aquifers and wells) by following the design, construction, and operation requirements in Minn. R. ch. 7020 (Animal Feedlots). These rules protect groundwater from both cumulative and individual feedlot impacts. Lamont Swine, LLC Responses to Comments on the Blooming Grove Township, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
The Proposer submitted a State of Minnesota General Animal Feedlot National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Feedlot Permit) application for the Project. The application included engineering design plans and construction specifications for two total confinement barns, each with concrete liquid manure storage areas (LMSA). MPCA staff reviewed the engineering design plans and the construction specifications and found them to meet the requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7020. The design of the LMSAs includes a perimeter drain tile to relieve hydrostatic pressure on the walls of the structure. This also allows the producer to observe if the LMSA is leaking. The Feedlot Permit requires the Proposer to monitor the tile line and report any discharges to the Minnesota Duty Officer and to the MPCA.
The Proposer’s Feedlot Permit application also included a manure management plan (MMP) for the land application of manure. The MPCA reviewed the MMP and found that it meets the requirements on Minn. R. ch. 7020, which contains specific requirements relating to the application of manure from feedlots in Minnesota. The requirements found in the rules are designed to provide protection of Minnesota groundwater and surface waters and are based on the University of Minnesota Extension Service recommendations. The rules require that nitrogen application rates from all sources such as manure, fertilizer and credits from previously grown crops not exceed the crop nitrogen needs for non-legume crops, or the expected nitrogen removal rates of legume crops such as alfalfa and soybeans. In addition to applying nutrients from all sources at agronomic rates, the Proposer is also required to have manure analyzed annually and adjust the rates of application depending on crop needs and manure analysis. The requirements of land application also apply to manure recipients for this Project. Once approved, the MMP becomes and enforceable part of the permit.
4. Comment: The commenter expressed concern about the groundwater aquifer and asked if the water is fit for animal consumption. (Commenter 2)
Response: The Proposer has indicated that it plans to construct an approximate 250 feet deep well into the Prairie du Chien aquifer in Waseca County. The Prairie du Chien is a very commonly used regional aquifer in Minnesota and surrounding states. The MPCA is not aware of any reason to believe that the water would be unfit for animal consumption.
5. Comment: The commenter expressed concern about the Proposer’s manure application sites three and four being rated as highly sensitive to groundwater pollution and thus the risk of contamination of groundwater from manure application. The commenter recommended alternative manure application sites be used to avoid the highly sensitive areas. (Commenter 3)
Response: Minn. R. ch. 7020 contains specific requirements relating to the application of manure from feedlots in Minnesota. The requirements found in the rules are designed to provide protection of Minnesota groundwater and surface waters and are based on the University of Minnesota Extension Service recommendations. The rules require that nitrogen application rates from all sources such as manure, fertilizer, and credits from previously grown crops not exceed the crop nitrogen needs for non-legume crops, or the expected nitrogen removal rates of legume crops such as alfalfa and soybeans. In addition to applying nutrients from all sources at agronomic rates, the Proposer is also required to have manure analyzed annually and adjust the rates of application depending on crop needs and manure analysis. The requirements of land application also apply to manure recipients for this Project. The Proposer submitted a MMP that included crop nutrient
2 Lamont Swine, LLC Responses to Comments on the Blooming Grove Township, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
needs and how nutrients will be applied at or below agronomic rates at all manure application sites; including sites 3 and 4. MPCA staff reviewed the submitted MMP and found it to meet Minn. R. ch. 7020 requirements. Once approved, the MMP becomes and enforceable part of the permit.
6. Comment: Commenters requested information and studies regarding the aquifer and groundwater quality in the Project area. (Commenters 7 and 14)
Response: The EAW contains sufficient information regarding the Project’s impact on aquifers and groundwater quality. The commenters can find additional information regarding these topics at the following webpages:
· Minnesota Geological Survey County Geologic Atlas: http://www.mngs.umn.edu/county_atlas/countyatlas.htm · MPCA Groundwater Monitoring Data: https://pca-gis02.pca.state.mn.us/eda_groundwater/index.html · MDH Water Well Information: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/wells/brochures.html
7. Comment: Commenters expressed concerns about the MMP for the Project and the availability of adequate land to spread manure without causing groundwater pollution. (Commenters 2 and 5).
Response: The Proposer’s MMP identified and calculated the required vs. available manure acres to ensure there is sufficient manure application acres to have manure applied at or below agronomic rates. The Proposer must also meet all requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7020, all requirements of the Feedlot Permit and any other local rules or ordinances. All proposed manure application sites are currently being cultivated for crop production. The Proposer and manure recipients will use the manure as a fertilizer replacement in the existing nutrient management. Records of manure application, including application rates, crops grown, and crop nutrient needs are required to be submitted to the MPCA annually. MPCA staff reviewed the submitted MMP and found it to meet Minn. R. ch. 7020 requirements. Once approved, the MMP becomes and enforceable part of the permit.
SURFACE WATER QUALITY
8. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the cumulative impact of the Project on surface water quality and impaired waters. The commenters were concerned about the generation, storage and application of manure. (Commenters 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16)
Response: The Proposer will minimize impacts to surface water by following the design, construction and operation requirements in Minn. R. ch. 7020 (Animal Feedlots). These rules protect surface water from both cumulative and individual feedlot impacts.
The Proposer submitted a Feedlot Permit application for the Project. The application included engineered design plans and construction specifications for two total confinement barns, each with concrete LMSAs. MPCA staff reviewed the engineering design plans and the construction specifications and found them to meet the requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7020. The design of the LMSAs includes a perimeter drain tile to relieve hydrostatic pressure on the walls of the structure.
3 Lamont Swine, LLC Responses to Comments on the Blooming Grove Township, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
This also allows the producer to observe if the liquid manure storage area is leaking. The Feedlot Permit requires the Proposer to monitor the tile line and report any discharges to the Minnesota Duty Officer and to the MPCA.
The Proposer’s Feedlot Permit application also included a MMP for the land application of manure. The MPCA reviewed the MMP and found that it meets the requirements on Minn. R. ch. 7020, which contains specific requirements relating to the application of manure from feedlots in Minnesota. The requirements found in the rules are designed to provide protection of Minnesota groundwater and surface waters and are based on the University of Minnesota Extension Service recommendations. The rules require that nitrogen application rates from all sources such as manure, fertilizer, and credits from previously grown crops not exceed the crop nitrogen needs for non-legume crops, or the expected nitrogen removal rates of legume crops such as alfalfa and soybeans. In addition to applying nutrients from all sources at agronomic rates, the Proposer is also required to have manure analyzed annually and adjust the rates of application depending on crop needs and manure analysis. The requirements of land application also apply to manure recipients for this Project. Once approved, the MMP becomes an enforceable part of the permit.
In addition, the MMP requires the Proposer to implement the following best management practices (BMPs) to minimize impacts to surface water:
· 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 pit leaks, they will be detected in a timely manner · Test soil 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 (ERP) in its Feedlot Permit. · Design and build the Project as a total confinement operation.
9. Comment: Commenter expressed concern that there is limited data regarding possible wetlands in the Project area and therefore, there may be inadequate information to make a determination on the Project’s impacts on wetlands. (Commenter 1)
Response: The Project will not occur in a wetland. The EAW contains adequate information to make a determination on the Project’s impacts to nearby wetlands. As indicated in the previous item, the Proposer will be required to comply with Minn. R. ch. 7020 as well as its Feedlot Permit, which contain requirements meant to protect surface water, including any wetlands. See Response to Comment 8 above.
10. Comment: Commenter asked what, “Special Conditions” beyond the standard BMPs and monitoring are going to be applied to the Project to ensure that it does not contribute to the fecal coliform impairment of the unnamed creek near manure application site 5 and to work toward its removal from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Impaired Waters List. (Commenter 3)
Response: Minn. R. ch. 7020 contains specific requirements relating to the application of manure from feedlots in Minnesota. The requirements found in the rules are designed to provide protection of Minnesota surface waters and are based on the University of Minnesota Extension Service
4 Lamont Swine, LLC Responses to Comments on the Blooming Grove Township, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
recommendations. In addition, the Proposer will implement the following BMPs through their MPCA-approved MMP, an enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit: · Test soil and apply manure at agronomic rates. · Comply with state and county required manure application setbacks. · If a manure spill occurs, comply with the ERP in its Feedlot Permit. · Design and build the Project as a total 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 pit leaks, they will be detected in a timely manner.
Minn. R. ch. 7020 and the Feedlot Permit contains adequate requirements and no additional, “Special Conditions” are needed for the Project.
11. Comment: Commenter expressed concern about the potential for manure seepage from Proposer’s manure storage pit and its impact on surface water quality. Commenter recommends that drain tile water from the Proposer’s manure storage pit be tested frequently, such as on a monthly basis, as part of its MMP or other ongoing regulatory authority. Commenter also requested that if the testing results in the detection of bacteria, further action be taken to correct the problem. (Commenter 3)
Response: Minn. R. ch. 7020 contains specific requirements for locating, constructing and operating facilities in Minnesota. The Proposer’s Feedlot Permit application included engineering design plans for two liquid manure storage areas and construction specifications. MPCA staff reviewed the engineered design plans and the construction specifications and found them to meet the requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7020.
The design of the LMSA includes a perimeter drain tile to relieve hydrostatic pressure on the walls of the structure. This also allows the producer to observe if the LMSA is leaking. The Feedlot Permit will require the Proposer to monitor the tile line from the LMSA and report any discharges to the Minnesota Duty Officer and to the MPCA.
12. Comment: Commenter requested information on, “any and all of the studies of the impaired waters from the intermittent streams mentioned in the manure management plan portion of the EAW”, and “What was the last agency, either for profit or not for profit to do a study on these impaired waters listed in the EAW?” (Commenter 7)
Response: The EAW contains sufficient information and links to webpages on the impaired waters in the Project area (see EAW section 11). With respect to the question regarding the last agency to do a study on impaired waters, that is outside the scope of this EAW. The commenter can find additional information regarding impaired waters on the MPCA’s Water Monitoring and assessment webpage at: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/water-monitoring-and-assessment.
AIR QUALITY
13. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about odors and air pollution generated from the Project and its impact on nearby residents, citizens of the city of Waterville, the Sakatah Trail and Sakatah State Park. (Commenters 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, and 15)
5 Lamont Swine, LLC Responses to Comments on the Blooming Grove Township, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Response: The Proposer used the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model AERMOD dispersion model to predict potential emissions of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the Project (Attachment I of EAW). The model estimated pollutant concentrations from the Project, along with an ambient hydrogen sulfide and ammonia background concentration to account for any nearby air emission sources. 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 then 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 affect downwind human and environmental receptors. The Proposer used monitoring data from other Minnesota feedlot facilities to derive a background level for hydrogen sulfide. AERMOD adds the monitored background hydrogen sulfide concentration to the predicted modeled emission. Based on the results of the modeling, the MPCA does not expect significant air quality impacts from the Project including adverse cumulative potential effects on nearby residents, citizens of the city of Waterville, or users of the Sakatah Trail or Sakatah State Park.
LAND USE
14. Comment: Commenter stated, “There is a feedlot very near this proposed location and, upon information and belief, the neighbor was asked to agree to a variance and waive county setback requirements, which was declined. The need for a variance is an indication of inappropriate land use.” (Commenter 2)
Response: Waseca County has the zoning authority in the Project area and they are responsible to processing variance requests and determining appropriate land use.
15. Comment: Commenters are opposed to Project being so close to their home. (Commenters 5 and 13)
Response: Feedlot setback requirements in the Project area are the jurisdiction of Waseca County.
CULTURAL RESROUCES
16. Comment: Commenter stated that, “Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project.” (Commenter 17)
Response: Comment noted.
CENTERPOINT ENERGY – WATERVILLE GAS STORAGE FACILITY
17. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the Project’s potential cumulative impact on water quality due to the presence of the nearby CenterPoint Energy - Waterville Gas Storage Facility (CPE Facility). Commenters were specifically concerned about the following issues: a) Project’s cumulative impact on groundwater quantity in the area; b) Project’s cumulative impact to groundwater quality (aquifers and wells); and
6 Lamont Swine, LLC Responses to Comments on the Blooming Grove Township, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
c) Project’s cumulative impact on surface water and locally impaired waters. (Commenters 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16)
Response: The following responses correspond to the comments above: a) See response to comment number 1 above. In addition, the Proposer has indicated that its well will be constructed to a depth of approximately 250 feet and terminate in the Prairie du Chien Aquifer. The CPE Facility stores natural gas in the Mount Simon Aquifer. Locally, the Prairie du Chien and the Mount Simon are separated by approximately 400 feet of bedrock material, including several layers considered to be aquitards. Since the two facilities are not hydraulically connected, in that they will be using two entirely separate aquifers, which are separated by several hundred feet, with respect to groundwater quantity, this Project is not expected to interact with the CPE Facility and therefore MPCA staff do not expect negative cumulative groundwater quantity impacts.; b) See response to comment number 3 above and response 18a. In addition, the Project and the CPE Facility generate different pollutants. Feedlots can potentially affect water quality due to their generation, storage and application of manure (nutrients and potential pathogens). The CPE Facility could potentially affect water quality due to their hydrocarbon discharges to surface water. With respect to groundwater quality, since there is no overlap in pollutants between the two facilities; MPCA staff do not expect negative cumulative groundwater quality impacts.; and c) See Response to Comment 8 above.
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
18. Comment: Commenter stated that the public notice for the EAW was insufficient because it was not published in the Waseca newspaper and requested an extension of the public notice period. (Commenter 2)
Response: The MPCA denied the commenter’s request for public notice extension in an email dated January 8, 2018. The denial was because the EAW was properly public noticed as required by Minn. R. 4410.1500, subpart C. The rule requires that the responsible governmental unit (RGU) shall provide a press release, containing notice of the availability of the EAW for public review, to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the area where the project is proposed. The rule only requires that the RGU publish the press release if the proposer requests and agrees to pay for the notice or advertisement. The press release shall include the name and location of the project, a brief description of the project, the location where copies of the EAW are available for review, the date the comment period expires, and the procedures for commenting. Specifically, the MPCA provided a press release for public notice of the availability of the Lamont Swine proposed project EAW as follows: · On December 12, 2017, the MPCA e-mailed the Lamont Swine proposed project EAW press release to the Waseca County News. Based on a search of the Waseca County News website, the following is a link to the story that was published on Dec. 21, 2017, related to this proposed project. http://www.southernminn.com/waseca_county_news/news/article_98868764-ce2c-5f52- 8486-129bd45abf61.html.
7 Lamont Swine, LLC Responses to Comments on the Blooming Grove Township, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
· Posted the press release on the MPCA home page on December 11, 2017 (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/quick-links/environmental-assessment-worksheets-and- environmental-impact-statements). · Posted the press release on the MPCA public notices page (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/public-notices) under “Monday, December 11, 2017.” · Sent the press release to a number of other publications using GovDelivery. They included the Albert Lea Tribune, the Mankato Free Press, the Star Tribune, the Marshall Independent, the Republican Eagle (Red Wing), the Redwood Falls Gazette, and the Fargo Forum.
19. Comment: Commenter expressed concern about whether the EAW was properly public noticed and said that they had not heard about the Project and/or EAW. (Commenter 5)
Response: See Response to Comment 19 above.
20. Comment: Commenter states that Waseca County did not tell them about the Project before they purchased their property. (Commenter 5)
Response: Comment is beyond the scope of the EAW because the information on this issue would not inform a reasoned decision about the potential for or significance of the environmental effects of the Project under Minn. R. 4410.1700.
21. Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the Project’s impact on their property value and their ability to sell their home (Commenters 4, 5, 9, and 10)
Response: Comment is beyond the scope of the EAW because the information on this issue would not inform a reasoned decision about the potential for or significance of the environmental effects of the Project under Minn. R. 4410.1700.
EAW ACCURACY
22. Comment: Commenter stated that their residence was not included in the EAW. (Commenter 6)
Response: The commenter’s residence is included in Attachment E the EAW, but is just outside the one-mile radius of the Project.
23. Comment: Commenter stated that the EAW lacks accurate information about all residents within a 1-mile radius of the Project. (Commenter 15)
Response: The MPCA is not aware of any inaccuracies about residents within a 1-mile radius of the Project, as shown in Attachment E of the EAW.
OTHER
24. Comment: Commenter stated that one of their concerns was, “nuisance laws.” (Commenter 10)
8 Lamont Swine, LLC Responses to Comments on the Blooming Grove Township, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Response: Item six of the EAW addressed nuisance issues such as odors, noise and dust. The local units of government (i.e., Waseca County and Blooming Grove Township) are responsible for promulgating and enforcing nuisance laws in the Project area.
25. Comment: Commenter expressed concern about dead animals from the Project. (Commenter 13)
Response: Item seven of the EAW addressed this issue as follows:
The Proposer expects to use composting as the primary method of dead animal disposal. The Proposer will use rendering when composting is not possible. The Proposer has prepared an Animal Mortality Plan, in accordance with State requirements, including Minn. Stat. § 35.82 and Minn. R. chs. 1719.0100 to 1719.4600 and 7011.1215. The Proposer submitted the Animal Mortality Plan with the Feedlot Permit application to the MPCA. The Animal Mortality Plan is an enforceable condition of the Feedlot Permit. The Proposer will construct a 20-foot x 40-foot animal mortality compost structure, with impervious concrete flooring, 5-foot high sidewalls, and a cover. The Proposer plans to inspect the barn daily for animal mortalities and transfer the dead animals to the compost structure immediately if present. The Proposer will follow the Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules for disposal of all animal mortalities. The Proposer predicts that the annual mortality rate will be approximately 145 hogs per year. The Proposer will land apply the compost on the fields in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. When composting is unavailable, the Proposer will hire a rendering company to pick up and convey the dead animals to the rendering company site.
26. Comment: Commenter forwarded an electronic link to a newspaper article (http://www.bloomingprairieonline.com/news/contaminated-well-forces-family-not-drink-water) to MPCA staff and requested that it be read. Commenter also provided information about an individual named Mr. Schmeling and his well. (Commenter 15)
Response: Article read by MPCA staff and information noted. See item 3 above regarding impacts to groundwater quality.
27. Comment: Commenter states that the MMP for the Project does not have sufficient oversight to ensure over-application of manure from the Project. (Commenter 2)
Response: The MPCA reviewed and approved the Proposer’s MMP and determined that it identified sufficient manure application acres to have manure applied at or below agronomic rates. Additionally, the Proposer must meet all requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7020, all requirements of the Feedlot Permit and any other local rules or ordinances. The Proposer is required to submit records of manure application, including manure application rates and records of transferred manure to the MPCA annually. Manure recipients are also required to keep manure application records and comply with all requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7020 and any local rules or ordinances. The MPCA and/or Waseca County may conduct inspections at manure application sites when manure is applied. MPCA staff reviewed the submitted MMP and found it to meet Minn. R. ch. 7020 requirements. Once approved, the MMP becomes and enforceable part of the Feedlot permit.
9 Lamont Swine, LLC Responses to Comments on the Blooming Grove Township, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
28. Comment: Commenter requested information on depth of Project Proposer’s well. (Commenter 7)
Response: The Proposer has informed MPCA that its well will be approximately 250 feet deep and will be in the Prairie du Chien Aquifer.
29. Comment: Commenter requested information on the average depth of private wells in the 1-mile radius of the proposed Project. (Commenter 7)
Response: Section 11 of the EAW indicates that the County Well Index indicates that there are 121 verified wells within a 1-mile radius of the proposed Project. These wells range from a depth of 138 to 2,375 feet below grade. Although the EAW does not contain information on the average well depth, it contains sufficient information to determine potential effects from the Project. The commenter can find additional well information at the Minnesota Department of Health County Well Index: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/cwi/.
REQUESTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS)
30. Comment: Several commenters requested an EIS for the Project. (Commenters 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16)
Response: The MPCA’s responses to each concern is contained within the responses above. The MPCA Commissioner determines the need for an EIS after carefully reviewing the record, including all information in the EAW and in comments received on the Project, as required under the criteria in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.
10