Forsman Farms Feedlot - Stockholm Site EAW

Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment

Worksheet (EAW) Forsman Farms Feedlot – Stockholm Site

Doc Type: Public Notice

Public Comment Information

EAW Public comment period begins: January 18, 2016

EAW Public comment period ends: February 16, 2016

Notice published in the EQB Monitor: January 18, 2016

Facility Specific Information

Facility name and location: Facility contact: Forsman Farms Feedlot – Stockholm Site Section 26 Stockholm Township, Wright County

Peter Forsman P.O. Box 699 Cokato, MN 55321 Phone: 301-286-5905 Fax: 320-286-5935 [email protected]

MPCA Contact Information

MPCA EAW contact person: MPCA Permit contact person: Kevin Kain Planner Principal 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Phone: 651-757-2856 Fax: 651-297-2343 [email protected]

Kim Brynildson Permit Engineer 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Phone: 651-757-2250 Fax: 651-297-2343 [email protected]

General Information

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is distributing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The MPCA uses the EAW and any comments received to evaluate the potential for significant environmental effects from the project and decide on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

An electronic version of the EAW is available on the MPCA Environmental Review webpage at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oxpg691. If you would like a copy of the EAW or NPDES/SDS Permit or have any questions on the EAW or NPDES/SDS Permit, contact the appropriate person(s) listed above.

Description of Proposed Project Forsman Farms (“Proposer”) will construct and operate a laying hen feedlot in Stockholm Township handling 1,250,000 layer hens and 375,000 pullets for a total of 4,875 animal units (“Project”). The Project will include five (5) barns for layers, three (3) barns for pullets, a manure storage barn, and a processing plant to prepare the eggs for shipment.

www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formatsi-admin12-08 • 10/2/14 of 2

p-ear2-95a

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

mailto:[email protected]



http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oxpg691

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

Need for an EIS

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

www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formatsi-admin12-08 • 10/2/14 of 2

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

Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Note to preparers: This form is authorized for use only for the preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) for animal feedlots. Project proposers should consult the guidance Guidelines for Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots (also available at the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) website http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm or by calling 651-296-6300) regarding how to supply information needed by the Responsible Government Unit to complete the worksheet form. Note to reviewers: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. This EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”), acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (“RGU”), to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) should be prepared. The project proposer supplied reasonably accessible data for, but did not complete the final worksheet. Comments on the EAW must be submitted to the MPCA during the 30-day comment period which begins with notice of the availability of the EAW in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) Monitor. Comments on the EAW should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that are reasonably expected to occur that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. A copy of the EAW may be obtained from the MPCA by calling 651-757-2100. An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA website http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html. 1. Basic Project Information.

A. Feedlot Name: Forsman Farms Feedlot B.

Feedlot Proposer:

Forsman Farms

C.

RGU:

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Technical

Contact Person Peter Forsman

Contact Person

Kevin Kain

and

Title Owner

and Title

Project Manager

Address P.O. Box 699 Address 520 Lafayette Road North Cokato, MN 55321 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 Phone 301-286-5905 Phone 651-757- 2482 Fax 320-286-5935 Fax 651-297-2343 E-mail [email protected] E-mail [email protected]

p-ear1-05 TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332

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

http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html



D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)

EIS Scoping

Mandatory EAW

X

Citizen Petition

RGU Discretion

Proposer Volunteered

If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule

category subpart number and name: 4410.4300, subpart 29 Animal Feedlots

E. Project Location: County Wright City/Twp Stockholm 1/4 1/4 Section 26 Township 118N Range 28W

Watershed (name and 4-digit code): North Fork Crow River 07010204

F. Attach each of the following to the EAW:

· Attachment A County Location Map · Attachment B Topographic Map · Attachment C Site Plan · Attachment D Sensitivity Features Maps, One Mile Radius Map · Attachment E Water resources map · Attachment F Air Quality Modeling Analysis · Attachment G Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historical Structures Inventory Results · Attachment H Natural Heritage Information System Search Report · Attachment I MDNR Groundwater Assessment · Attachment J Manure Management Plan · Attachment K Example of Manure Transfer Document · Attachment L NRCS Soil Survey Data

The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”)/State Disposal System (“SDS”) permit application and associated documents, including the Air Emissions and Odor Management Plan, the Animal Mortality Plan, and the Emergency Response Plan, are available for review by contacting Kim Brynildson of the MPCA’s St. Paul office at 651-757-2250.

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

Forsman Farms (“Proposer”) will construct and operate a laying hen feedlot in Stockholm Township handling 1,250,000 layer hens and 375,000 pullets for a total of 4,875 animal units (“AUs”) (“Project”). The Project will include five (5) barns for layers, three (3) barns for pullets, a manure storage barn, and a processing plant to prepare the eggs for shipment.

Forsman Farms Feedlot Environmental Assessment Stockholm Township, Wright County, Minnesota 2 Worksheet

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

Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Finishing hogs Sows Nursery pigs Dairy cows Beef cattle Turkeys Layer hens 1.25 Million Total confinement - Caged in Barns Chickens Pullets 375,000 Total confinement -Caged in Barns Other (Please identify species)

I. Project magnitude data.

Total acreage of farm: 154 Number of animal units proposed in this project: 4,875 Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: 4,875 Acreage required for manure application: 0

J. Describe construction methods and timing.

The Proposer will construct and operate a laying hen feedlot in Section 26 in Stockholm Township handling 1,250,000 layer hens and 375,000 pullets or 4,875 AUs. The Project will include five (5) barns for layer hens along with an additional three (3) barns for pullets. The Project will also include construction of a manure storage barn, a processing barn to prepare the eggs for shipment, and 12 water supply wells to serve the Project.

The five (5) layer hen barns will each measure 620-feet by 180-feet with concrete flooring designed to house 250,000 birds each, for a total of 1,250,000 birds. The Proposer will design the layer hen barns with a tiered cage, manure belt conveyor and integrated dry manure storage system. Manure is continuously captured on conveyor belts, dried as it is moved through the barn toward the offloading end, and then removed by the Proposer on a daily basis to a dry manure handling barn. The three (3) pullet barns will each measure 500-feet by 140-feet with concrete flooring housing 125,000 birds each, for a total of 375,000 birds. The Proposer will design and operate the pullet barns similar to the layer hen barns described above.

In addition to the manure belt operational design, the Proposer designed the layer hen and pullet barns with a chimney on the east end of each barn, which will vent odors and dust from the structure through convection by the use of fans. Exhaust fans from barns will not vent directly into the air. Rather the vented air will go through a chimney, which will help collect any dust that is vented through the fans. Makeup air to each barn will be brought into the structure on the west end of the barn. Depending on the time of year, the air may be additionally cooled or heated with the goal of maintaining a set air temperature range throughout the structure.

The Proposer will also construct a 620-foot by 90-foot dry manure storage barn with concrete flooring.


See Attachment C, Project Site Plan for the layout of all barns on the site. The Project site is currently zoned for agriculture use and is occupied by crop fields. Construction and operation is expected to begin in 2016.

K. Past and future stages.

Is this project an expansion or addition to an existing feedlot? Yes No Are future expansions of this feedlot planned or likely? Yes No If either question is answered yes, briefly describe the existing feedlot (species, number of

animals and animal units, and type of operation) and any past environmental review or the anticipated expansion.

The Project is a new operation for the Proposer at this Project site. At some point in the future it is anticipated that the Proposer will expand on the Project site in Section 26 of Stockholm Township. However, the Proposer does not have current plans for an expansion at the Project site in Section 26 of Stockholm Township.

2. Land uses and noteworthy resources in proximity to the site. A. Adjacent land uses. Describe the uses of adjacent lands and give the distances and directions to

nearby residences, schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, places of worship, and other places accessible to the public (including roads) within one mile of the feedlot and within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites. The Project site is surrounded by predominately farmland within a one-mile of the Project site. Norling Avenue SW is a Township Road that runs adjacent to the Project site to the west and 105th Street SW runs east-west on the south border of the Project. Five other public roads are within one mile of the Project: There are 48 rural residences/farmsteads located within one mile of the existing site. The following table shows the approximate distances from the proposed feedlot to the residence. Residence (1) is associated with the subject property. Residences (16) and (17) are the nearest of the residences to the north. Residence (24) is the nearest residence to the east. Residence (48) is the nearest residence to the south. Residence (20) is the nearest residence to the west. See Attachment D 4 for more information.


There are no schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, or places of worship within one mile of the Project (Attachment D).

The Proposer has prepared an MMP for the Project. The Proposer will transfer all dried pelletized manure to Crop Fertility Services who must apply manure at agronomic rates using the University of Minnesota Extension Service bulletin, “Fertilizer Recommendations for Agronomic Crops in Minnesota.” Application rates will be nitrogen or phosphorous based on nutrient needs of the crop to be grown, yield goal, previous crop grown, previous manure applications and other legume credits. The location of fields receiving the dried manure pellets can vary from year to year. The Proposer will document manure transfers using the MPCA form “Records when Manure Ownership is Transferred 300 or More Animal Units.” (See example Attachment K). Third parties will follow best management practices (“BMPs”) in the transportation of manure so as to prevent manure from spilling or being deposited on a public roadway. In such an instance where manure is deposited on a public roadway, it must be removed and properly disposed of by the hauler of the manure in accordance with Minn. R. 7020.2010, Transportation of Manure.

Resident Approximate Distance (ft) Resident Approximate Distance (ft)

1 150.74 25 3537.11 2 5235.99 26 5159.11 3 3645.58 27 3063.21 4 4882.69 28 3143.13 5 2809.01 29 3854.93 6 2747.25 30 2301.16 7 4372.41 31 2864.82 8 5198.22 32 5007.04 9 5281.42 33 4815.46

10 4343.48 34 4255.77 11 4944.74 35 4784.42 12 5278.25 36 5015.61 13 3534.83 37 4786.44 14 2929.92 38 4902.66 15 2768.75 39 4704.23 16 1711.12 40 5098.58 17 1466.52 41 4512.28 18 3112.65 42 4457.66 19 3898.98 43 4684.64 20 2506.08 44 4605.81 21 2712.98 45 2570.32 22 1793.85 46 3198.34 23 2035.64 47 3829.72 24 1728.32 48 617.67


Prior to or at the time of manure transfer, the Proposer is required to provide the manure recipient with information on the state requirements for manure application, as well as the most current manure nutrient analysis. The manure recipient is required to follow the Proposer’s MMP as applicable under 7020.2225 Land Application Manure, or local requirements, whichever is the more stringent.

B. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to any of the following

adopted plans or ordinances? Check all that apply:

local comprehensive plan land use plan or ordinance shoreland zoning ordinance flood plain ordinance wild or scenic river land use district ordinance local wellhead protection plan

Is there anything about the proposed feedlot that is not consistent with any provision of any ordinance or plan checked? Yes No. If yes, describe the inconsistency and how it will be resolved. Are there any lands in proximity to the feedlot that are officially planned for or zoned for future uses that might be incompatible with a feedlot (such as residential development)? Yes No If yes, describe the potentially affected use and its location relative to the feedlot, its anticipated development schedule, and any plans to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with the feedlot.

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

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

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

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

other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities? Yes No

· Scenic views and vistas? Yes No · Other unique resources? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Public Wells Based on information provided to the Proposer by the Minnesota Department of Health (“MDH”), the Project is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of one public water supply well at 11893 Montgomery Avenue SW. The well has a unique number 438899 and was assigned to the name Joe


Carlson. The well is 156 feet deep and is registered as public water supply, non-community-transient well. The property containing the well appears to be an apple orchard with the well likely serving customers who visit the property. No other public water supply wells, including municipal water supply wells, were found within two miles of the Project. The MPCA does not expect the Project to have an adverse impact to nearby surface waters or state listed threatened species or species of special concern. Additionally, the MPCA does not expect the Project’s manure application activities to create a significant impact to state listed species because manure will be applied on the soil at agronomic rates. The application rate is based on the crop to be grown, the previous crop, the soil type and the soil fertility. Archaeological, Historical or Architectural Resources The State Historic Preservation Office performed a search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historical Structures Inventory which identified two features near the Project site: a farmstead, located adjacent to the Project site off of County Road 3 (T118, R28W, NE-SE-SE Section 26) and a school house located on Netnolin Avenue SW (T118, R28W, SE-SE-SE Section 26).

Farmstead on County Road 3 The Proposer states that the current farmstead was constructed sometime between 1991 and 2003 based on review of historic aerial photos. School House The Proposer states that the school house is no longer present at the site based in observations during a site visit and historic aerial photos.

The Project will be constructed on property owned by the Proposer and will not encroach on either the school house or the farmstead property identified above Based on this information, the MPCA expects that there will be no impact to archaeological, historic or architectural resources identified above from this Project.

3. Geologic and soil conditions.

A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) 40 Same as Feedlot Not Applicable (average) 50 Same as Feedlot Not Applicable Bedrock (minimum) 400 Same as Feedlot Not Applicable (average) 425 Same as Feedlot Not Applicable

The Proposer’s review of nearby well records indicates that a layer of clay approximately 90-120 feet in thickness overlies the aquifer in the area surrounding the Project site. This indicates that the aquifer is relatively low in vulnerability to man-made contamination infiltrating from the land surface.

Depth to groundwater is based on static water level measurements obtained by the Proposer from the County Well Index database. Depth to water in most wells is approximately 50-75 feet. However, this generally reflects the hydraulic head in the buried sand aquifer. In some locations, a perched water table may exist within the soils on top of the clay deposit. Any shallow groundwater would likely not be hydraulically connected to the underlying buried sand aquifer that serves as the local source for drinking water supply.


The Wright County Geologic Atlas (Minnesota Geological Survey, 2013) shows that depth to bedrock over the Project site ranges between 400 feet and 450 feet.

B. NRCS Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application

Sites Classifications (if known)

1213C - Cokato-Storden complex, 6 to 12 % slopes,eroded

1204B - Reedslake loam, 2 to 5% slopes

414 – Hamel loam, 1 to 3 % slopes

523 – Houghton muck, depressional, 0 to 1 % slopes

109 - Cordova clay loam, 0 to 2% slopes

86 – Canisteo clay loam,

moderately fine substratum, 0 to 2 % slopes

109 - Cordova clay loam, 0 to 2% slopes

1204B - Reedslake loam, 2 to 5% slopes

Third party transfer

See Attachment L, NRCS Soil Survey Data, for soil unit location. C. Indicate with a yes or no whether any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water are

present at the feedlot, manure storage area, or manure application sites.

Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Karst features (sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley)

No Same as Feedlot Third party transfer

Exposed bedrock No Same as Feedlot Third party transfer Soils developed in bedrock (as shown on soils maps)

No Same as Feedlot Third party transfer

For items answered yes (in C), describe the features, show them on a map, and discuss proposed design and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts.

4. Water Use, Tiling and Drainage, and Physical Alterations.

A. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering), or connection to any public water supply?

Yes No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; the source, duration, quantity and

purpose of any appropriations or public supply connections; and unique well numbers and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) appropriation permit numbers, if available. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on-site, explain methodology used to determine that none are present. No wells are currently known to exist on the project site, according to a search of the County Well Index database.


Twelve (12) new wells will be required at the project site for the following uses: drinking water for livestock, truck washes, cleaning, restroom facilities, and potable water for employees. Eleven (11) wells will be installed for the five egg laying barns and two pullet barns, with one additional well needed for the small processing plant, and a backup well. The average annual use is expected to be 18.32 MG/Y for the entire Project. The Proposer will obtain a MDNR Water Appropriation Permit to utilize groundwater resources to supply these needs. The Proposer has applied to MDNR for a new groundwater appropriations permit as part of this Project. Minn. Stat. 116d.04, subp. 16 requires that when a project undergoing environmental review may need a MDNR water appropriations permit, the EAW must include an assessment of water resources available for appropriation. A MDNR Well Construction Preliminary Assessment (“PA”) (Attachment I) has been approved (tracking number 2015-2150) for the construction of a well to utilize groundwater resources to supply the water needs for the Project). The MDNR approved PA fulfills the statutory requirements. The Proposer will follow MDH well code requiring that all water supply wells and be located at least 50 feet from a poultry barn. All wells will be located to comply with these requirements. The MDNR water appropriation program is in place to ensure water resources are managed so that water resources are protected. Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. Minn. R. 6115.0730 also specifies the MDNR process to investigate and resolve concerns or claims for a well interference. If the MDNR finds that there is well interference, the operator of that well is found to be causing the problem, the operator must correct it. Local groundwater users around the Project site are primarily domestic users with some livestock users. The MDNR water appropriation permit review process may require the Proposer to obtain additional information from those landowners for well information. In addition, because of the location and proximity of nearby lakes, rivers and wetlands, and wildlife management areas, as part of the water appropriations permit application, the MDNR may also require the Proposer to provide additional information to the MDNR, including but not limited to, installation of monitoring wells, and aquifer performance test results. This information may be needed to determine how much water can be appropriated.

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

C. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion,

outfall structure, diking, and impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No

If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if

the water resources affected are on the PWI. Describe proposed mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts.

5. Manure management.

A. Check the box or boxes below which best describe the manure management system proposed for this feedlot.

Stockpiling for land application Containment storage under barns for land application


Containment storage outside of barns for land application Dry litter pack on barn floors for eventual land application Composting system Treatment of manure to remove solids and/or to recover energy Other (please describe)

The Proposer will construct a separate 620’ by 90’ dry manure storage barn with a roof and concrete floor. The Proposer will transport dried manure from the air drying system in all the barns to the manure storage barn via a covered conveyor system. The manure will enter the manure storage barn between 10% to 18% moisture content. Manure may be stored up to one year, and the self-composting that occurs in the manure storage barn will further reduce the moisture content, potentially down to 12% to 15% moisture content.

B. Manure collection, handling, and storage.

Quantities of manure generated: total 21,653 ton/year

by species 1 All

by species 2 N/A

Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle Continuous Total days per year 365

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

The Proposer will use what is referred to as a “manure belt conveyor” design for the five (5) layer hen and three (3) pullet barns. The manure belt conveyor system captures the manure generated by the chickens on conveyor belts that run from one end of the barns to the other. As the conveyor belt moves through the barn toward the offloading end of the barn, the manure dries and is then removed by the Proposer on a daily basis to a dry manure handling barn. The dried manure will be pelletized, reducing the volume by half and the Proposer will transfer the pellets off the Project site. The manure storage barn will include a roof and a concrete floor to prevent any contact with precipitation, surface and/or groundwater until sold to third parties on an annual basis. Manure is typically sold in the fall of the year. As a result of the project, the Proposer has prepared agreements for the sale of all manure expected to be produced through 2018.

C. Manure utilization.

Physical state of manure to be applied: liquid solid other - describe:

D. Manure application. 1. Describe application technology, technique, frequency, time of year and locations.

The Proposer has an agreement with Crop Fertility Services to take all the manure generated from the Project through 2018. Crop Fertility Services is a licensed manure applicator. The pelletized manure is purchased by Crop Fertility Services which in turn sells and applies the dried manure pellets for interested parties. BMPs are to be utilized in the transportation of manure so as to prevent manure from spilling or being deposited on a public roadway. In such an instance where manure is deposited on a public roadway, it must be removed and properly disposed of by the hauler of the manure in accordance with Minn. R. 7020.2010, Transportation of Manure.


Prior to or at the time of manure transfer, the Proposer is required to provide the manure recipient with information on the state requirements for manure application, as well as the most current manure nutrient analysis. The manure recipient is required to follow the Proposer’s Manure Management Plan (“MMP”) as applicable under 7020.2225 Land Application Manure, or local requirements, whichever is the more stringent. The risk of over-application is mitigated through the market price paid by third parties for the nutrient content of the manure.

2. Describe the agronomic rates of application (per acre) to be used and whether the rates are based on nitrogen or phosphorus. Will there be a nutrient management plan?

Yes No

3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any

improvements necessary.

The Project expects to produce 21,563 wet tons of manure per year, which will dry to around 10,134 tons. The Proposer will construct a 50-foot by 30-foot manure storage area attached to each of the three pullet barns. The Proposer will also construct a 620-foot by 90-foot manure storage barn which will house the pelletizing equipment.

4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems.

Third party transferred manure is subject to setbacks set forth by Minn. R. 7020 and/or local ordinances, whichever is the more stringent, and as contained in the Proposer’s MMP (Attachment J).

E. Other methods of manure utilization. If the project will utilize manure other than by land

application, please describe the methods.

As described in Section 5B, Manure collection, handling, and storage, the proposer will dry and pelletize the manure. The Proposer will sell the pelletized manure as a dried pelletized fertilizer product and used by the purchaser at other locations. The parties receiving the manure are required to follow state and local requirements for manure application.

6. Air/odor emissions.

A. Identify the major sources of air or odor emissions from this feedlot.

The layer hens and their manure are all sources of objectionable odors and air contaminants. The collection and disposal of dead animals can also cause dust and odor emissions. Truck traffic bringing in feed or taking out product and/or waste may also create road dust.

B. Describe any proposed feedlot design features or air or odor emission mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts and discuss their anticipated effectiveness.


Manure Storage: The proposed manure storage barn is a separate, stand-alone structure connected to the all the barns barn via a covered conveyor belt. There will be continuous air drying of manure within the pullet barn with daily removal of approximately 15 percent of the manure via the enclosed conveyor to the roof covered manure storage barn constructed for that specific purpose. The drying system will minimize the development of aerobic conditions in manure that allow for the creation of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and other odors. The daily drying and removal of manure will break the fly larval cycle, thereby minimizing fly production. Composting also aids in the further reduction of odor. Transfer of Manure: In accordance with Minn. R. 7020.2010, Transportation of Manure, storage and moving equipment, including trucks hauling out the dried manure, must be kept in optimal condition to prevent leaks or spills on manure application sites and public roads. Incorporating manure immediately into the soil, as well as adhering to all applicable setback requirements, will mitigate odor impacts. If necessary, dust generated by truck traffic will be controlled by the use of a dust suppressant. Animal Mortalities: Composting of dead animals is a potential source of odor emissions. The Proposer is required to follow Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Board of Animal Health construction and management requirements/guidelines for animal composting.

C. Answer this item only if no feedlot design features or mitigations were proposed in item 6.B. Provide a summary of the results of an air emissions modeling study designed to compare predicted emissions at the property boundaries with state standards, health risk values, or odor threshold concentrations. The modeling must incorporate an appropriate background concentration for hydrogen sulfide to account for potential cumulative air quality impacts. Although the Proposer is proposing design and mitigation features in item 6.B. above, an air emission modeling study was prepared (Attachment F). The modeling study predicts compliance with the current state standards, health risk values, and odor threshold concentrations. Based on a protocol approved by the MPCA on November 16, 2015, the Proposer completed an air quality modeling analysis to estimate the hydrogen sulfide concentrations, ammonia concentrations, and odor intensities at the feedlot’s property lines and an additional three miles in each direction. The air quality modeling also considered the gaseous emissions from one neighboring diary/beef feedlots within the 3.2 mile area grid surrounding the Project site. The analysis was performed using the AERMOD air dispersion model for a five year period using historical weather data. The following findings present results of the quantitative assessment of air quality impacts associated with the Project. Hydrogen Sulfide The modeling results predict the Project will comply with the 30 parts per billion (“ppb”) hydrogen sulfide Minnesota ambient air quality (“MAAQ”) standards. Under the MAAQ standard, the third exceedance of the MAAQ within any 5-day period is a violation. Modeled compliance is demonstrated when the high-third-high (“H3H”) concentration (added to background concentration) for any 5-day period at each property-line receptor is less than 30 ppb MAAQ standard. AERMOD predicted a maximum H3H property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration of 4.3 ppb. When a background concentration of 17 ppb is added to the AERMOD predictions, the H3H hydrogen sulfide concentration is 21.3 ppb, which is below the ambient standard of 30 ppb. Thus no violation of the 30-ppb ambient hydrogen sulfide standard was modeled for the Project.


The AERMOD results indicate that, after the Project will not create exceedances of the subchronic (13-week) hydrogen sulfide inhalation Human Risk Value (iHRV) at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration at the property line is 0.3 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 1.00 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum monthly neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.3 µg/m3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV of 10 µg/m3. Ammonia The modeling results also suggest that the Project will not create exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV at the property line. AERMOD predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentration of 254.4 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 148 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is 402.4 µg/m3, which is below the acute ammonia iHRV of 3,200 µg/m3. The AERMOD results indicate that the Project will not create exceedances of the chronic ammonia iHRV at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration at the property line is 3.36 µg/m3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration at the property-line is 9.08 µg/m3, which is below the chronic ammonia iHRV of 80 µg/m3. Odor AERMOD estimated the ground-level odor intensities at the Project property-line and nearest neighbor. The maximum hourly odor intensity at the Project’s property line is 34.6 odor units (“OU”), which is below the "faint" odor threshold of 72 OU, but above the "very faint" odor threshold of 25 OU. Odor impacts fall below 25 OU within 0.05 miles (90 yards) of the north property boundary.

Summary The AERMOD modeling results indicate that the proposed Project will not violate the ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide. No exceedances of MDH iHRV for hydrogen sulfide or acute ammonia are expected to occur at property boundaries. The iHRVs for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia will not be exceeded at any of the neighboring residences. Odor impacts to neighboring residences should be very faint to faint.

D. Describe any plans to notify neighbors of operational events (such as manure storage agitation and

pumpout) that may result in higher-than-usual levels of air or odor emissions. The Proposer uses a dry manure handling method. The manure is dried on belts in the barns and is pelletized before the manure is removed from the Project. The dry manure is only handled twice. First the dry manure is moved from the chicken barns into the manure barn for storage where it is then pelletized. The second handling comes when the manure is sold to licensed applicators and hauled off the Project site for application by other parties. Therefore, wet manure is not turned or agitated once the manure enters storage. The Proposer will notify the Wright County feedlot officer prior to manure being transferred off the Project site. The Proposer will respond to any complaints issued by neighbors or agencies through the county feedlot officer.

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


Significant noise sources from the Project consist of ventilation fans and haul vehicle operation. Either type of noise source is not particularly intrusive, and the distance from the farm to nearby residences makes it unlikely to cause adverse impacts. The Proposer will minimize dust generated by farm operations and haul trucks will be minimized by Proposer through the use of good housekeeping practices. If dust is a problem during dry periods, the Proposer may water the roadways as a way to control dust from haul vehicle operations. The Proposer must address all complaints in a timely manner.

7. Dead Animal Disposal.

Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. According to the Animal Mortality Plan submitted as part of the feedlot permit application, dead animals are to be removed daily from the pullet barns and incinerated or composted as a method of animal disposal. The NPDES/SDS feedlot permit includes provisions requiring the permittee to adhere to the applicable composting requirements of the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (Minn. R. ch. 1719) as well as recordkeeping requirements of the mortality management and practice. Composting of animal mortalities must comply with both Minnesota Board of Animal Health and MPCA rules. Composting is a method that uses aerobic bacteria to break down dead animals and organic material. Dead animals must be covered daily with 12 inches of organic bulking material. The temperature of the manure pile must be measured and recorded daily. The manure pile must complete two heat cycles before manure can be removed and land applied. A heat cycle is described as a 130°F for at least 7 days. When the temperature drops, the manure pile is ready to be turned to start the second heat cycle. Turning the pile aerates the pile allowing the aerobic bacteria to start consuming the organic material in the pile. Pullets can be completely composted in as little as 15 days.

8. Surface Water Runoff.

Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Project Site The Proposer will construct five (5) layer hen barns sized at 205’x600’, and three (3) pullet barns sized at 70’x400’ , along with a 580’x80’manure storage barn, a plant at 80’x240’, and an office at 30’x80’. The Project increases the amount of new impervious surface from 0.50 acres to 16.54 acres, or 10.7% of the entire site. The manure in the hen and pullet barns will be dried with a continuous air drying manure system, transferred to the manure storage barn by conveyor, and further dried as it is stored in a roofed manure barn on a concrete floor and away from the elements. Therefore, no manure will be exposed to stormwater. All of the operations associated with the feedlot, including manure storage, are covered by rooftops. Stormwater runoff from these rooftops are collected by grass swales and culverts which flow into the drainage ditch in the southern portion of the property and continues east, until it reaches the property line. The Project site is a rural farmstead comprised of 154 acres, with only 0.5 acres of impervious surface. Stormwater runoff from the Project site is directed by swales to a drainage ditch which directs flow to the east property line. This drainage eventually discharges to Grass Lake, which is approximately a mile north


of the farm. The Project site is within the North Fork of the Crow River major watershed and is part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Grass Lake is not listed on the 2014 Impaired Waters list. Land Application Acres All manure will be transferred and sold from the Proposer to third parties. According to the Proposer’s MMP for transferred manure, third parties will incorporate the manure at the time of application. The Proposer will mitigate potential impact to surface water resources from the Project’s land application activities, as discussed in Item #5 of the EAW. Third parties will use BMPs for the transferred manure and must a) follow the more stringent of state or local application setback requirements along with any additional restrictions or prohibitions; and b) apply manure at agronomic rates based on the crop grown, yield goal, soil type, and residual nutrient content of the soil. The MPCA expects stormwater runoff characteristics from the cropland designated to receive manure to remain the same and, under certain circumstances, improve as a result of the land application activities regulated under the MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit. The improvements would occur through developing better soil tilth1 from the organic fertilizer and the uniform practice of incorporating the solid manure over the acres receiving manure.

9. Traffic and Public Infrastructure Impacts.

A. Estimate the number of heavy truck trips generated per week and describes their routing over local roads. Describe any road improvements to be made. Trucks will access the Project site via 105th

Street SW (a gravel Township road) which intersects with County Road 3. Trucks will either use County Road 3 directly (a major collector roadway) or by way of County Road 137 (60th

Street SW) for eastbound travel, to access U.S. Highway 12, a Principal Arterial that runs east/west through Wright County. U.S. Highway 12 currently has dedicated turn lanes at intersections with both 60th

Street SW and County Road 3, which will allow trucks servicing the new Project site to make turns without causing traffic backups. When the Project is operating at full capacity there will be approximately 32 feed trucks per week and 33 egg trucks per week. Additionally manure trucks will make 166 trips per year. The MPCA does not expect any adverse impact to the normal road use.

B. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No

If yes, please describe. The Project will result in an increase in traffic on the township roads and County Road 3. At full operating capacity there will be approximately 68 truck trips per week to serve the Project site, which is not anticipated to be significant. The township road adjacent to the Project site (105th Avenue SW) and the intersection of 105th

Avenue SW and County Road 3 will be improved to accommodate the large trucks. No delays on U.S. Highway 12, 60th Street SW or County Road 3 are anticipated. No other issues outside of the ones discussed have been identified that warrant further consideration.

1 Good tilth is a sign of healthy soil organisms. While digesting organic material, bacteria secrete gum and slime-like matter in the soil. This works like glue, binding soil particles and humus together to form aggregates. The aggregates are crumb-like and allow for good air circulation and water drainage in the soil. Well-aggregated soil is regarded as having good tilth. The addition of organic material will feed micro-organisms and, thus, improve tilth. www.earthandtable.com/glossary/soil/qualities.html (Retrieved May 2, 2007.) Forsman Farms Feedlot Environmental Assessment Stockholm Township, Wright County, Minnesota 15 Worksheet

http://www.earthandtable.com/glossary/soil/qualities.html

10. Permits and approvals required. Mark required permits and give status of application:

Unit of government Type of Application Status MPCA NPDES Permit MPCA Minnesota Feedlot Permit Application submitted MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit To be applied for

MPCA

Notification/Status Change for Underground Storage Tanks

County Minnesota Feedlot Permit County Work within Right-of-way To be applied for Stockholm Township Conditional use or other land use permit To be applied for DNR Preliminary Well Assessment Attached (Attachment I) DNR Water Appropriation Application submitted Other*

*(List any other approvals required along with the unit of government, type of approval needed, and status of approval process.)

11. Other potential environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. If the project may cause any

adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 10, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. This includes any cumulative impacts caused by the project in combination with other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Examples of cumulative impacts to consider include air quality, stormwater volume or quality, and surface water quality. (Cumulative impacts may be discussed here or under the appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form.) The MPCA is required to inquire whether a Project, which may not individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, could have a significant effect when considered along with other projects. This type of impact is known as a cumulative potential effect. In order to assess the proposed Project’s “cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects,” the MPCA conducted an analysis that addressed other projects or operations in context to the potential direct or indirect impacts of the proposed project that: (1) are already in existence or planned for the future; (2) are located in the surrounding area; and (3) might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources. The following is a review of the MPCA’s analysis conducted to determine if the proposed project would contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect.

The MPCA reviewed existing public data to identify the number of feedlots and other projects within the same sub-watersheds of the Project. The public data reviewed included the most recent MPCA feedlot registration database and related project or permit databases for other operations that may hold an air quality, water quality, hazardous waste, or solid waste permit. A total of 41 livestock operations are located in the same minor watersheds as the Project or land application sites associated with the Project.

Lastly, the MPCA reviewed the Project and existing feedlot operations to determine whether collectively they might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources. The natural resources of concern included groundwater, surface waters, air quality, and land use. The following is a brief discussion of each.

Groundwater Quality There are three areas of concern related to groundwater: contamination from manure storage structures, contamination from land application, and effects on water resources from increased demand.


To protect groundwater, the Proposer is required to construct and operate the hen and pullet barns and dry manure storage barn, which is considered a permanent stockpile site, in accordance with the applicable requirements of Minn. R. 7020.2125, Manure Stockpiling Sites. MPCA staff will review the permit application, Project design plans, and construction specifications for proposed construction of the hen and pullet barns and the dry manure storage barn. These documents contain integral and enforceable conditions of the NPDES/SDS feedlot permit. The Proposer is required to follow an MPCA-approved MMP for transferred manure, and submit an annual report to the MPCA. The approved MMP for transferred manure is also an enforceable part the project’s NPDES/SDS feedlot permit. In addition, the recipients of the manure are also required to follow the MMP requirements and in accordance with Minn. R 7020.2225, Land Application of Manure and/or local restrictions, whichever is more restrictive. Although the manure is being transferred to other parties who will apply the manure, the MMP requirements provides a framework to track and determine adherence to the requirements. The Proposer and all owners of manure application sites must maintain manure land application setbacks from wells and other sensitive features. The Proposer will submit an annual report to the MPCA of manure production and land application. The Project is not expected to adversely impact groundwater from land application of manure. Groundwater Appropriation After completion of construction, the Proposer estimates the Project will appropriate approximately 18.5 million gallons from the constructed appropriation well per year. The Proposer will obtain a MDNR water appropriation permit. As described in the MDNR Well Construction PA and the MDNR’s preliminary approval to construct the well (Attachment I), the Proposer may be required to submit to the MDNR additional information, including but not limited to neighboring well data, monitoring, and well performance testing, before the MDNR will determine the amount of water that is permitted for appropriation. Minn. Stat. 103G.261 establish domestic water use as the highest priority of the State’s water when supplies are limited, and other uses may be limited, or even prohibited. Further, when there are concerns of a localized problem with getting water, and there are concerns or claims that a well is causing well interference, Minn. R. 6115.0730 has MDNR procedures in place for resolving well interferences. If the MDNR determines there is well interference, the operator is required to fix the causes of the interference. The MPCA’s review of published geologic and hydro-geologic data2 indicates that the water-bearing characteristics of the surficial aquifer (including recharge) and the nature of its existing use as a groundwater source, the MPCA has determined that water use for this Project does not have the potential to create an adverse cumulative effect. Surface Water Quality The layer hens and pullets are housed in a total confinement barns and do not have access to surface waters. After completion of the project, the manure in the hen and pullet barns, that has been dried via the Optiplate air dryer system and conveyed to the manure storage barn via a covered conveyor belt, will be stored in manure storage barn that meet the design criteria of Minn. R. 7020.2125. The storage will provide for additional drying. The NPDES/SDS feedlot permit requires the Project to meet a zero discharge standard, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”) that include BMPs for the construction and operation of the Project. These requirements minimize the contribution of the Project to cumulative effects on surface water resources.

2 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Ecological and Water Resources Division. 2006. Pope County Geologic Atlas. Available at: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/programs/gw_section/mapping/platesum/popecga.html Forsman Farms Feedlot Environmental Assessment Stockholm Township, Wright County, Minnesota 17 Worksheet

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/programs/gw_section/mapping/platesum/popecga.html

Air Quality The MPCA evaluated the Project for regulated pollutants (e.g., hydrogen sulfide, odor, and ammonia) and accounted for other off-site sources through the use of a background concentration. The Proposer performed and MPCA reviewed air quality computer modeling (AERMOD) that estimated concentrations in the air of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the Project. The model estimated pollutant concentrations from the proposed Project, along with estimated ambient hydrogen sulfide and ammonia background concentrations to account for any off-site air emission sources or activities. A background concentration is the amount of pollutants already in the air from other sources and is used in this evaluation to address cumulative air impacts .The air quality modeling evaluation predicted concentrations of the selected gases at the Project property lines and nearest neighbors. Based on the results of the AERMOD modeling study, after construction and operation of the Project, the Project is expected to comply with Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards for hydrogen sulfide and not exceed the MDH’s iHRVs for ammonium. In addition, other odorous gases predicted to be less than levels usually considered unpleasant. For these reasons, the MPCA does not anticipate cumulative air impacts from the Project. Land Use The Project is located in a landscape dominated by row crop agriculture with a mosaic of farmsteads, rural residences, feedlots, naturally-vegetated river and stream corridors, and paved and gravel surfaced roads. The project complies with the surrounding land uses and zoning regulations. The Project is located on cultivated agricultural land. No natural areas will be impacted as a result of the Project. Manure will be stored in dry manure storage barns and land-applied at agronomic rates. Manure application will comply with all rules and regulations at state and county levels so water resources are not adversely impacted. Impacts on natural resources and a decline of wildlife habitat have become an issue in many areas, whether by urban development or agricultural use. The MPCA does not expect the Project to result in a regionally significant decline in wildlife abundance or species diversity since the Project will not disrupt wildlife habitat. .

12. Summary of issues. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. Stormwater Runoff Stormwater runoff from the Project site is directed by swales to a drainage ditch, which directs flow to the east property line. This drainage eventually discharges to Grass Lake, which is approximately a mile north of the farm. The Project site is within the North Fork of the Crow River major watershed and is part of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The Proposer has a SWPPP, which was submitted along with their permit application. The SWPPP has both temporary and permanent stormwater control practices to be implemented during construction of the new barns and improvements. Land Use The Project is located in a landscape dominated by row crop agriculture with a mosaic of farmsteads, rural residences, feedlots, naturally-vegetated river and stream corridors, and paved and gravel surfaced roads. The Project complies with the surrounding land uses and zoning regulations. The Project will be on cultivated agricultural land. No natural areas will be impacted as a result of the Project. Manure will be


ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT C

ATTACHMENT D

ATTACHMENT E

ATTACHMENT F

ATTACHMENT G

ATTACHMENT H

ATTACHMENT I

ATTACHMENT J

ATTACHMENT K

ATTACHMENT L

Project Location

Figure No.

Title

Client/Project

Anoka

Benton

CarverHennepin

Isanti

McLeod

Meeker

Renville Scott

Sherburne

Sibley

Stearns

Wright

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

North Fork CrowR- Sucker CrContinuation

North ForkCrow R-

Twelvemile Cr

North ForkCrow R-

Twelvemile Cr

North ForkCrow R-

From Ann L

South Fork CrowR- Unknown

Watershed Name

South Fork CrowR- Unknown

Watershed Name

Notes1.

2.

R:\gis

\othe

r_PCs

\193

7034

56_Fo

rsman

EAW

\07_

gis\m

xds\

EAW_

Figure

s\Fo

rsman

_Fee

dlot1.

mxd

Re

vised

: 201

6-01-0

4 By:

safo

ster

($$¯0 0.5 1Miles

1:78,000 (at original document size of 8.5x11)

Page 01 of 01

1 DRAFTFeed Lot North Fork Crow R.From Ann L Minor Watersheds

193703456T118N, R28E, S26T. of StockholmWright Co., MN

Prepared by SF on 2015-02-25Technical Review by MP on 2015-03-12

Independent Review by TM on 2015-03-12

Legend!( Feedlots

Project SiteCounty BoundaryTownship BoundaryWatersheds

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane MinnesotaSouth FIPS 2203 FeetData Sources Include: Stantec

Disclaimer: Stantec assumes no responsibility for datasupplied in electronic format. The recipient accepts fullresponsibility for verifying the accuracy and completenessof the data. The recipient releases Stantec, its officers,employees, consultants and agents, from any and all claimsarising in any way from the content or provision of the data.

Forsman FarmsNorling Ave EAW

ATTACHMENT M

Forsman Farms Feedlot - Stockholm Site EAW

Documents

Transcript of Forsman Farms Feedlot - Stockholm Site EAW