doc type: public noticesteve sommer and title environmental consultant and title planner principal...

m, MINNESOTA POLLUTION

CONTROL AGENCY

520 Lafayette Road North

St. Paul, MN 55155-4194

Public comment information

EAW public comment period begins: August 12, 2019

Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment

Worksheet (EAW) Josh Bonnstetter Feedlot EAW

Doc Type: Public Notice

EAW public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on September 11, 2019

Notice published in the EQB Monitor: August 12, 2019

Permit public comment period begins: August 12, 2019

Permit public comment period ends: September 11, 2019

Facility specific information

Facility name and location: Josh Bonnstetter Feedlot Section 24 Lowville Township Murray County

MPCA contact information

MPCA EAW contact person:

Steve Sommer Resource Management and Assistance Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: 651-757-2746 Fax: 651-297-2343

Email: [email protected]

Admin staff phone: 651-757-2100

General information

Facility contact:

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

MPCA NPDES Feedlot Permit contact person: Klayton VanOverbeke Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1420 E College Drive, Suite 900 Marshall, MN 56258 Phone: 507-476-4276 Email: [email protected]

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

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

• 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864www.pca.state.mn.us Use your preferred relay service Available in alternative formats

Page 1 of 2 p-ear2-161a

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

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/review.html or by calling 651-296-6300) regarding how to supply information needed by the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) 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 651-757-2101. 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: Josh Bonnstetter Feedlot

B.

Feedlot Proposer:

Josh Bonnstetter

C.

RGU:

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Technical

Contact Person Andrew Nesseth

Contact Person

Steve Sommer

and

Title Environmental Consultant

and Title

Planner Principal

Address Extended Ag Services, Inc. Address 520 Lafayette Road North

202 South Highway 86 Lakefield, MN 56150

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194

Phone 507-662-5005 Phone 651-757-2746

Fax 507-662-5105 Fax 651-297-2343

E-mail [email protected] E-mail [email protected]

D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one)

EIS Scoping

Mandatory EAW

X

Citizen Petition

RGU Discretion

Proposer Volunteered

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

Josh Bonnstetter Feedlot Environmental Assessment Lowville Township, Murray County 2 Worksheet

If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category subpart number and name:

Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29A Animal Feedlots

E. Project Location: County Murray City/Twp Lowville

NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 Section 24 Township 107N Range 42W

Watershed (name and 4-digit code):

Des Moines River - Headwaters Watershed : 07100001

F. Attach each of the following to the EAW:

Attachment A – General Location Map

Attachment B – USGS Topographic Map

Attachment C – Project Site Map

Attachment D – One-Mile Radius Map

Attachment E – Manure Application Sites Map

Attachment F – DNR Natural Heritage Review Letter

Attachment G – State Historic Preservation Office Review Letter

Attachment H – Well Inventory Map

Attachment I – DNR Preliminary Well Construction Assessment

Attachment J – Minnesota Phosphorus Index Report

Attachment K – Odor OFFSET Map

Attachment L – Air Quality Modeling Report

Attachment M - Cumulative Impacts Map

Attachment N – Groundwater Pollution Sensitivity Map

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

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

Josh Bonnstetter proposes to construct and operate a new 1,440 animal unit1 swine finishing feedlot (4,800 head) in Section 24, Lowville Township, Murray County consisting of one total confinement barn with a below-ground concrete liquid manure storage area; one animal mortality storage building; one stormwater infiltration basin; one water well and a driveway.

1 An “animal unit” or “AU” is a unit of measure developed to compare the differences in the amount of manure produced by livestock species. The “AU” is standardized to the amount of manure produced on a regular basis by a slaughter steer or heifer, which also correlates to 1,000 pounds of body weight. The “AU” is used for administrative purposes by various governmental entities for permitting and record-keeping.

[email protected]


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

Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement

Finishing swine 4,800 head Total Confinement

Sows

Nursery pigs

Dairy cows

Beef cattle

Turkeys

Layer hens

Chickens

Pullets

Other (Please identify species)

I. Project magnitude data.

Total acreage of farm: 856

Number of animal units proposed in this project: 1,440

Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: 1,440

Acreage required for manure application: 802 acres/year

J. Describe construction methods and timing.

Josh Bonnstetter (Bonnstetter) is proposing to construct and operate a new 1,440 animal unit (AU) swine finishing feedlot (4,800 head) in Section 24, Lowville Township, Murray County (Project). The Project includes the following as shown on Attachments A, B, and C:

One total confinement power-ventilated barn (121 feet 8 inches by 336 feet) with an 8 foot deep, below-ground, reinforced concrete liquid manure storage area (LMSA)

One 12 feet by 12 feet (with 4 foot high side walls) animal mortality storage building

One 140,564 gallon stormwater infiltration basin

One 1.8 million gallons per year well for livestock watering and employee domestic use

One gravel driveway Bonnstetter plans to begin construction in the early fall of 2019, beginning with the installation of stormwater erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices (BMPs), including a silt fence and top soil stripping and stockpiling. Bonnstetter will utilize soils excavated from the location of the proposed barn to create the site driveway, the berm for the stormwater infiltration basin and as material to grade stormwater away from the barn. Bonnstetter will place perimeter drain tile at the construction limits of the LMSA for the proposed barn below footing elevation. Bonnstetter will use perimeter drain tile to relieve any seasonal saturation and limit any hydrostatic pressure on the LMSA walls. The drain tile will also help Bonnstetter dewater the Project excavation area if necessary due to the presence of perched groundwater or following precipitation events. Bonnstetter will install the LMSA, perimeter drain tile, driveway, and utilities at the same time. The construction will include placement of the concrete for the LMSA floor, building and column footings after placement of specified reinforcing steel and concrete forms. Bonnstetter will follow the wall and column construction with placement of precast beams and slats. The construction will create more than 1 acre of impervious area at the Project site (i.e., 113,256 ft2) and, therefore, a stormwater infiltration basin is required to be constructed.


Bonnstetter expects to complete construction in the late fall of 2019. The Project’s actual construction dates are dependent on completion of the MPCA Environmental Review process, issuance of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Appropriation Permit and MPCA Feedlot Permit2.

K. Past and future stages.

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

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

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

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

nearby residences, schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, places of worship, and other places accessible to the public (including roads) within 1 mile of the feedlot and within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites. The Project site and all associated manure application sites are in Murray County on land that is agricultural and rural in nature. Project Site There are eight residences within 1 mile of the Project (Attachment D):

Residence #1 is 0.71 miles (3,764 feet) to the northwest

Residence #2 is 0.46 miles (2,469 feet) to the northwest

Residence #3 is 0.57 miles (3,026 feet) to the southwest

Residence #4 is 0.83 miles (4,403 feet) to the southwest

Residence #5 is 0.66 miles (3,527 feet) to the southeast

Residence #6 is 0.54 miles (2,898 feet) to the east

Residence #7 is 0.46 miles (2,447 feet) to the northeast

Residence #8 is 0.85 miles (4,527 feet) to the northeast There are two unnamed waterways within 1 mile of the Project site (Attachment D) The nearest incorporated town (Hadley, MN) is approximately 4 miles south of the Project site. There are 11 animal feedlots within an approximate 3 square mile area surrounding the Project site. The Project site and its manure application sites are in the Des Moines River - Headwaters watershed where land use is primarily agricultural. Manure Application Sites: Bonnstetter’s six proposed manure application sites are within 2.5 miles of the Project site in Lowville and Mason Townships in Murray County (Attachment E). The total acreage of these six sites is 855.9 acres. All the manure application sites are currently being used for crop production.

2 The NPDES Feedlot Permit is required for a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation capable of holding 1,000 or more AUs.


Site 1: 74.7 acre site in the S1/2 of NW1/4 of Section 12, Lowville Township. There is one residence adjacent to the southeast side of the site. 110th Avenue is to the west and 166th Street is to the south. The Lowville Wildlife Management Area is adjacent to the site, approximately 150 feet to the southeast. Site 2: 138.6 acre site in the SE1/4 of Section 13, Lowville Township. 151st Street is to the south and 120th Avenue is to the east of the site. There are two residences to the east of the site. The Lowville Wildlife Management Area is approximately 50 feet to the northwest. The Mason Wildlife Management Area is approximately 1,200 feet to the east. Site 3: 154.6 acre site in the NW1/4 of Section 24, Lowville Township. 110th Avenue is to the west and 151st Street is to the north of the site. There is one residence adjacent to the west side of the site. Site 4: 78.7 acre site in N1/2 of NE1/4 of Section 24, Lowville Township. This manure site is also the Project site. There are two residences to the northeast side of the site. 120th Avenue is to the east and 151st Street is to the north. Site 5: 149.1 acre site in the SW1/4 of Section 24, Lowville Township. 110th Avenue is to the west and 141st Street is to the south. There is one residence within the west side of the site. Site 6: 260.2 acre site in the S1/2 of Section 30, Mason Township. 131st Street is to the south and 130th Avenue to the east of the site. There are two residences to the east of the site. Beaver Creek flows along the southwest edge of the site. This site is adjacent to an area identified as having “Moderate Biodiversity Significance” by the DNR (Attachment F).

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 ordinance3 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

3 Murray County Feedlot Ordinances. https://murraycountymn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Section14-General-Regulations.pdf

https://murraycountymn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Section14-General-Regulations.pdf


Public water supply wells (within two miles)? Yes No

Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Yes No

Designated public parks, recreation areas or trails? Yes No

Lakes or Wildlife Management Areas? Yes No

State-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities? Yes No

Scenic views and vistas? Yes No

Other unique resources? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.

Minnesota State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) Review The SHPO reviewed their historical and archeological database for this Project. The SHPO found no archeological records in the Project area. The SHPO did identify the following six sites of historical significance in the Project area (Attachment G):

A school in Section 11 of (T107N-R42W)

Mason Township Hall in Section 18 of (T107N-R41W)

Two bridges in Section 36 of (T107N-R42W)

One bridge in Section 30 of (T107N-R41W)

One bridge in Section 31 of (T107N-R41W)

The Project is not expected to impact the school or township hall due to their distance from the site. In order to avoid impacts to the bridges, Bonnstetter will observe posted road weight limits. Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) The following are the nearest WMAs to the Project and its manure application sites (Attachment F): Lowville WMA – North Unit4 Lowville WMA – North Unit, at approximately 0.1 miles south of manure application Site 1. This WMA is approximately 148.1 acres and has wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities for various small game species and waterfowl. Lowville WMA – South Unit 5 Lowville WMA – South Unit is approximately 0.1 miles northwest of manure application Site 2. This WMA is approximately 45.86 acres and has wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities for various small game species and waterfowl. Mason WMA6 Mason WMA is approximately 0.25 miles east of manure application Site 2. This WMA is approximately 34.97 acres and has wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities for various small game species and waterfowl. Engebretson WMA – West Unit7 Engebretson WMA – West Unit is approximately 0.5 miles southeast of manure application Site 6. This

4 DNR Lowville WMA – North Unit: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/detail_report.html?id=WMA0009001 5 DNR Lowville WMA – South Unit: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/detail_report.html?id=WMA0009002 6 DNR Mason WMA: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/detail_report.html?id=WMA0006900 7 DNR Engebretson WMA – West Unit: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/detail_report.html?id=WMA0082201

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/detail_report.html?id=WMA0009001https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/detail_report.html?id=WMA0009002https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/detail_report.html?id=WMA0006900https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/wmas/detail_report.html?id=WMA0082201


WMA is approximately 52.25 acres and is a wooded river valley with some grassland. Beaver Creek runs through this unit. It has wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities for various small game species and waterfowl, particularly wild turkeys. Project-related management activities utilized to minimize potential adverse impacts to identified natural resources include, utilizing regular manure testing and calibrating manure application rates to crop need, timing applications to reduce conversion to nitrate and exceeding separation distances designed to protect vulnerable water supplies. In additional, all manure is applied via soil injection to reduce potential for manure to run off the site. Applying manure at agronomic rates reduces the likelihood of excess nitrates leaching into sensitive aquifers8. In addition, applying manure when soil temperatures are near, at or below 50 degrees Fahrenheit reduces the potential for nitrate conversion in the soil, thus decreasing the potential for nitrate leaching during times between active crop growth. Bonnstetter will use nitrification inhibitors to reduce potential for nitrate losses9. In addition, the Project and all its manure application sites are on existing cropland under regular and intensive cultivation, therefore no wildlife habitat will be disturbed and nitrogen from manure applications will only replace nitrogen already being utilized for crop production. The DNR Water Appropriation Permit, which is required for the Project, will regulate water consumption to protect nearby water resources including wetlands. The Project will utilize wet/dry feeders, which are considered high-efficiency systems that reduce water consumption in swine barns10. Additionally, the distance from the Project site to the fen, identified by the DNR below, provides additional mitigation of risk to the resource.

DNR Natural Heritage Review The DNR queried their Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System database to determine if any rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate 1-mile radius of the Project or its manure application sites. The DNR’s review indicated the following (Attachment F):

Ecologically Significant Areas – Manure application Site 6 is adjacent to an area the Minnesota Biological Survey identified as a Site of Moderate Biodiversity Significance. Sites of Biodiversity Significance have varying levels of native biodiversity. Sites ranked as Moderate contain occurrences of rare species and/or moderately disturbed native plant communities, and or landscapes that have strong potential for recovery. This particular site contains several high-quality native plant communities. In order to minimize impact to this ecologically significant area, Bonnstetter will comply with the MMP in its Feedlot permit, which contains manure application requirements.

Murray Calcareous Fen (ID# 33456) - This fen has been documented approximately 3 miles from the Project area. A calcareous fen is a rare and distinctive peat accumulating wetland that is protected in Minnesota. Many of the unique characteristics result from the upwelling of groundwater through calcareous substrates. Because of this dependence on groundwater hydrology, calcareous fens can be affected by nearby activities or even those several miles away. The DNR would have concerns regarding any activities that might affect groundwater

8 Sawyer, J. and Randall, G. (2008) Final Report: Gulf Hypoxia and Local Water Quality Concerns Workshop. Pages 59-71. ASABE. Retrieved December 2015: http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/soilfertility/info/Gulf05PP.pdf 9 Nelson, D.W. and Huber D. (1992). Nitrification Inhibitors for Corn Production. National Corn Handbook, NCH-55. Iowa State University. Retrieved December 2015. http://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Management/pdfs/NCH55.pdf 10 Harmon, Jay. (ASL-R 1586) Water Usage in Finishing Facilities: Wet/Dry Feeders versus Dry Feeders with Nipple Waters. Retrieved July 1, 2019: https://www.extension.iastate.edu/pages/ansci/swinereports/asl-1586.pdf

http://www.agronext.iastate.edu/soilfertility/info/Gulf05PP.pdfhttp://corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/Management/pdfs/NCH55.pdfhttps://www.extension.iastate.edu/pages/ansci/swinereports/asl-1586.pdf


flows, including groundwater pumping, contamination or discharge. Bonnstetter is required to apply for and obtain a DNR Water Appropriation Permit for this Project. The DNR Water Appropriation Permit process includes an assessment of the impacts of groundwater use. If the DNR determines that the proposed water appropriation may impact the fen, the DNR will include protective conditions in the DNR Water Appropriation Permit.

State-listed Endangered Species - The burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a state-listed endangered species, was documented in the vicinity of the Project in 2002. Burrowing owls use open, grazed pastures or native prairies populated by burrowing mammals. Areas of intensive agriculture are usually, but not always, avoided. Bonnstetter will limit construction and operation of the Project to current areas of intensive agriculture to minimize impacts to this rare species.

3. Geologic and soil conditions.

A.

Approximate depth (in feet) to: Project Site

(Feedlot) Manure Storage

Area Manure Application Sites

Groundwater (minimum) 0.5– 2 0.5– 2 0.5– 6.7

(average) 1 1 4

Bedrock (minimum) >400 >400 >400

(average) >400 >400 >400

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

B.

NRCS Soil Project Site


Area Manure Application Sites

Classifications (if known): Hokans-Svea Complex, Svea Loam, Lake Park-Roliss-Parnell, Balaton Loam, Vallers Clay Loam, Barnes-Buse Complex

J101B, J11A, J96C2, J57A,

J107A

J101B, J11A, J96C2, J57A,

J107A

J101B, J104A, J106B, J11A, J57A, J107A, J236A, J199A, J96C2, 256A,

J195B

C. Indicate with a yes or no whether any of the following geologic site hazards to groundwater are

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

Project Site


Area Manure Application

Sites

Karst features (sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley)

No No No

Exposed bedrock No No No

Soils developed in bedrock (as shown on soils maps)

No No No

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

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

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

Yes No


If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations or public supply connections; and unique well numbers and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) appropriation permit numbers, if available. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on-site, explain methodology used to determine that none are present. There are currently no wells at the Project site. The Project will require construction of one well to supply the water for the entire Project (Attachment C). Bonnstetter must notify the Minnesota Department of Health prior to drilling the well. After the well is drilled, and before using the well, Bonnstetter must apply for a DNR Water Appropriation Permit. Bonnstetter estimates that the new well will be completed to a depth of approximately 250 feet. Bonnstetter expects the Project to use approximately 1.8 million gallons of water per year. The Project has a projected service consumption of 44.4 million gallons of water over a 25-year period. Attachment H shows the nearest known water wells to the Project and its manure application sites. The DNR conducted a preliminary well construction assessment for the Project (Attachment I) and identified the following potentially significant resource impacts:

One or more calcareous fens within 5 miles of the proposed well for the Project. A permit application for a DNR Water Appropriation Permit to use groundwater near calcareous fen wetlands must be evaluated by the DNR, so the Project doesn’t degrade those fens. This may require Bonnstetter to acquire additional information so the DNR can determine if the well will impact other users or nearby resources. This may include conducting an aquifer test.

Nearby lakes, rivers, and wetlands

Known groundwater users

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

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

Bonnstetter will install 4-inch high-density polyethylene perimeter drain tiles around the base of the LMSA to control hydrostatic pressure on the outside walls caused by fluctuations in seasonal saturation. Inspection ports connected to the perimeter tiles will allow Bonnstetter to observe if the tiles are operational and may help to identify seepage from the LMSA if a leak were to occur. The drain tile will connect to existing agricultural drain tile. Bonnstetter will follow its Operation and Maintenance Plan submitted with its Feedlot Permit application. The plan is integral to and enforceable through the Feedlot Permit and must meet the


requirements of Minn. R. 7020.2100. The plan will include Project-specific requirements for Bonnstetter to follow including:

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

Maintaining records of all drain tile inspections

C. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No

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

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

5. Manure management.

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

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

B. Manure collection, handling, and storage.

Quantities of manure generated: Total - 1.6 million gallons

Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle 4 days

Total days per year 4 days

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

Swine manure and wastewater generated by the Project will drop through slatted floors in the pens into the LMSA where it will be stored below the barn. The LMSA will have an effective storage capacity of approximately 1.9 million gallons, which represents manure storage capacity in excess of 1 year. The LMSA will use fans for ventilation. Annually in the fall, Bonnstetter will agitate and pump out the manure from the LMSA using a portable chopper pump. Bonnstetter will hire a Commercial Animal Waste Technician (CAWT) licensed by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, to land apply the manure at its manure application sites. The CAWT will incorporate the manure into the soil immediately, using a knife injection system.

C. Manure utilization.

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


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

Bonnstetter will hire a CAWT to land apply manure at the manure application sites in the fall after the crops have been harvested from the designated manure application sites. The length of time for manure application will be five days or less. The CAWT will apply the manure by a towed hose system or a liquid manure tanker and incorporate into the soil immediately via knife injection. The CAWT will calibrate the tank application system by using a flow meter and then adjusting the speed of the manure application equipment to achieve the planned application rate. All manure application sites are currently in row crop production. The manure will be used in place of commercial fertilizer.

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 Bonnstetter submitted an MMP to the MPCA with their Feedlot Permit application. After MPCA review and approval, the MMP becomes an integral and enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit. Bonnstetter will apply manure at agronomic rates per the MPCA approved MMP to ensure there is no excess nutrient buildup in the soil based on the type of crop grown, the soil type and the soil chemistry. The manure application rates cannot exceed the crop’s nitrogen needs. In areas of the field near water features or where soil tests indicate elevated soil phosphorus levels, crop phosphorus needs will also be considered. The agronomic rates will be specified in the Feedlot Permit and the MMP. Failure to follow these requirements may subject Bonnstetter to penalties. Bonnstetter will prioritize manure application sites based on logistics and nitrogen, phosphorus, and/or potassium soil test levels. Manure application sites requiring the most nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium will receive the manure first. Other factors include current field conditions, crops grown, yield goal, organic matter content, previous manure credits and other legume credits. Nutrient rates are determined by utilizing the most current University of Minnesota Extension Service fertilizer recommendations.11

Previous Crop Crop to Utilize Manure

Expected Yield Nitrogen Needed

Phosphorus Removed12

Corn Corn 200 bu/ac 180 lbs N/ac 70 lbs P2O5/ac*

Note: *P2O5 removed in grain, per crop year

ac = acres bu = bushel lbs = pounds N = nitrogen P2O5 = phosphorus

This procedure has been developed from continual Land Grant University research as the one that best predicts the amount of that nutrient in the soil that can be used by plants. Using this method, a ‘Maximum Return to Nitrogen’ value will be used in determining the appropriate manure application rates. The manure application acres are soil sampled at least every 4 years to monitor crop needs and target acres that will positively respond to manure applications.

11 The University of Minnesota Extension “Fertilizer Recommendations for Agronomic Crops in Minnesota” bulletin. Retrieved July 2016: https://extension.umn.edu/crop-production#nutrient-management 12 International Plant Nutrition Institute. (IPNI) Retrieved April 1, 2016. http://www.ipni.net/article/IPNI-3296

https://extension.umn.edu/crop-production#nutrient-managementhttp://www.ipni.net/article/IPNI-3296


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

The Project is expected to generate approximately 1.6 million gallons of manure per year from the estimated 4,800 head of swine. The Project’s LMSA will have the capacity to store approximately 1.9 million gallons of manure. Each year 855.9 acres of fields will be available for manure application. The number of fields required to utilize all the Project’s manure will vary from year to year based on nutrient content of the manure and soil needs. Bonnstetter will apply the manure at agronomic rates based on composite tests pulled from the manure storage areas prior to land application. Currently, the manure application sites are managed in a corn/corn rotation. As such, approximately 348 acres of corn will be necessary to utilize all manure from the Project, each year.

Currently, all manure application sites are in row crop production. The land is owned or rented by Bonnstetter or has been secured under a manure agreement. There is sufficient land available for manure application to utilize the nutrients generated by the Project.

All fields designated for manure application were evaluated by the Minnesota Phosphorus Index (MN P Index). The MN P Index is a model that estimates the risk of phosphors loss on fields. Bonnstetter evaluated the manure application sites with this index (Attachment J). All fields received a risk rating of ‘Low Risk or ‘Very Low Risk’. The MN P Index recommends ‘No Management Changes’ on fields with a ‘Very Low Risk’ rating. Thus, no improvements are necessary on those fields. ‘Low Risk’ fields (Manure application Site #2) have minor management changes recommended, including reducing soil phosphorus levels and reducing snowmelt phosphorus losses via soil fracturing methods.

4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems.

Based on a MPCA review of the MMP for the proposed Project, Bonnstetter has an adequate land-base to apply animal waste as fertilizer. Murray County has a specific ordinance directed at the manure application activities, which supersedes the MPCA feedlot regulations pertaining to setback distances. Bonnstetter will abide by the maximum setback from either the Murray County or Minnesota rules regarding manure application practices and environmentally sensitive features (Minn. R. 7020.2005, Minn. Stat.103F.48).

Minnesota Animal Waste Land Application Setback Distances

Feature Winter

Non-Winter With Immediate

Incorporation (


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

None.

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

The barn’s ventilation and the surfaces of the barn that come into contact with animals and manure, especially floors, will be sources of odor. The animals themselves will also be a source of odors. The manure collection and storage facilities, the dead animal storage area, and the manure application sites will also be significant sources of odor. Dust generated by truck traffic around the site will also contribute as a carrier of odor.

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

The Project will result in the generation of odors at the Project site and at its manure application sites. Bonnstetter will implement the following design and operational measures to minimize odors at the Project site:

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

The barn will be cleaned to eliminate manure and any spilled animal feed.

The barn will be washed and interior surfaces disinfected at the end of each swine production cycle.

The fans for the barn and LMSA exhaust will be cleaned periodically.

The manure in the LMSA will not be agitated until immediately before the manure is removed for land application.

The MPCA and/or the Murray County feedlot officer will be consulted to identify changes to reduce odors in the event odor complaints are received.

Crude protein will be minimized in the swine’s diet.

Synthetic amino acids such as lysine will be used in the swine’s feed.

Bonnstetter will implement the following manure land application measures to minimize odors:

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

Observe all required setback requirements from nearby residences for all manure applications.

Respond to complaints by consulting with the MPCA and/or the Murray County feedlot officer to identify possible changes to reduce odors.

Evaluate weather conditions, primarily wind speed/direction and humidity, before manure is land applied to insure minimal impacts on neighbors and the public.

Use BMPs such as properly operating manure equipment to reduce/eliminate spillage. The proposed Project site and manure application sites are within areas zoned as an Agricultural District. The Murray County Zoning Ordinance states that the “Agricultural District is intended to provide a district which will allow extensive areas of the County to be retained in agricultural use;


prevent scattered non-farm development; secure economy in governmental expenditures for public services utilities and schools; and preserve woodlands and wetlands which because of their physical features, are desirable retention areas, habitat for plant and animal life, or other environmental use beneficial to the county.”13 The University of Minnesota Department of Bio-Systems and Agricultural Engineering has developed an odor modeling program, OFFSET, designed to estimate average odor impacts from a variety of animal facilities and manure storages. The model calculates the frequency of odor occurrences at various distances from the feedlot site, representing different frequencies of time when odors will not be at levels considered "annoying." These odor annoyance-free frequencies represent the percent of time where odors are possibly detected, but at a level that is not typically considered annoying. An evaluation of the Project indicates that the nearest residences are within the 97% odor annoyance free zone (See Attachment K).

C. Provide a summary of the results of an air emissions modeling study designed to compare predicted emissions at the property boundaries with state standards, health risk values, or odor threshold concentrations. The modeling must incorporate an appropriate background concentration for hydrogen sulfide to account for potential cumulative air quality impacts. Bonnstetter conducted air dispersion modeling to predict how the Project’s emissions (including six nearby registered feedlots) of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odors would impact air quality at the Project’s property lines and at 18 of the nearest residences. The modeling was done using the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD). The modeling results are contained within the report attached as Attachment L of the EAW. The following is a summary of the conclusions of the air modeling report.

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S)

Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standard (MAAQS) AERMOD predicted that the Project will not result in an exceedance of the 30 parts per billion (ppb) H2S MAAQS. The third exceedance of the MAAQS standard within any 5-day period is a violation. Modeled compliance is demonstrated when the high-third-high (H3H) H2S predicted concentration from the Project, when added to the existing background ambient air concentration for H2S (at each property-line receptor) is less than 30 ppb. AERMOD predicted that the Project emissions alone would result in a maximum H3H property-line H2S concentration of 12.1 ppb. The ambient air concentration for H2S in the area of the Project is estimated to be 17 ppb. The total (Project emissions plus existing background) H3H H2S concentration in the air is predicted to be 29.1 ppb at the Project’s property lines.

Sub-chronic Inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV) AERMOD predicted that the Project will not result in an exceedance of the 10 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) subchronic (13-week time averaged) H2S iHRV at the nearest residences to the Project. An iHRV is the concentration of a chemical (or a defined mixture of chemicals) that is likely to pose little or no risk to human health. AERMOD predicted that the Project emissions alone would result in a maximum monthly H2S concentration at the neighboring residences of 0.6 μg/m3. The background ambient air concentration for H2S in the area of the Project is estimated to be 1.0 μg/m3. The total (Project emissions plus existing background) H2S concentration in the air is predicted to be 1.6 μg/m3. Note that while the iHRV is for a 13-week period, AERMOD is not capable of averaging concentrations for this time. Instead, AERMOD uses a monthly averaging period, which produces a more conservative or protective prediction.

13 Murray Zoning County Ordinance. https://murraycountymn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Full-Murray-County-Ordinance.pdf

https://murraycountymn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Full-Murray-County-Ordinance.pdf


Ammonia (NH3)

Acute iHRV AERMOD predicted that the Project will not result in an exceedance of the 3,200 μg/m3 acute (1-hour time averaged) NH3 iHRV at the nearest residences to the Project. AERMOD predicted that the Project emissions alone would result in a maximum hourly property-line concentration of NH3 of 392 μg/m3. The background ambient air concentration for NH3 in the area of the Project is estimated to be 148 μg/m3. The total (Project emissions plus existing background) NH3 concentration in the air is predicted to be 540 μg/m3.

Chronic iHRV AERMOD predicted that the Project will not result in an exceedance of the 80 μg/m3 chronic (1-year time averaged) NH3 iHRV at the nearest residences to the Project. AERMOD predicted that the Project emissions alone would result in a maximum 1-year time-averaged NH3 concentration of 2.3 μg/m3. The background ambient air concentration for NH3 in the Project area is estimated to be 5.7 μg/m3. The total (Project emissions plus existing background) maximum NH3 concentration in the air is predicted to be 8.0 μg/m3.

Odor

At Project Property Line AERMOD predicted that the Project will result in a maximum odor intensity of 50 odor units per cubic meter (OU/m3) at the Project’s north property line. This predicted odor intensity is considered “Very Faint.”

At Nearest Residences AERMOD predicted that the Project would result in a maximum odor intensity of 142 OU/m3 at a nearby residence. This predicted odor intensity is considered to be a “faint odor.” This residence is on the site of an existing feedlot.

Maximum Property Boundary AERMOD Air Quality Modeling Results Modeled

value Background

value Modeled plus

Background value

Threshold Percent of Threshold

1-hour H2S H3H 12.1 ppb 17 ppb 29.1 ppb 30 ppb 97%

1-hour NH3 392 µg/m3 148 µg/m3 540 µg/m3 3,200 µg/m3 17%

Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity

50 OU/m3 NA 50 OU/m3 72 OU/m3 (Faint)

70%

Maximum Neighbor AERMOD Air Quality Modeling Results Modeled

value Background

value Modeled plus

Background value

Threshold Percent of Threshold

13-week H2S 0.6 µg/m3 1.0 µg/m3 1.6 µg/m3 10.0 µg/m3 16%

Annual NH3 2.3 µg/m3 5.7 µg/m3 8.0 µg/m3 80.00 µg/m3 10%

Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity

142 OU/m3 NA 142 OU/m3* 72 OU/m3 (Faint)

197%

* The maximum neighbor odor intensity is greater than the maximum property boundary odor intensity because this residence is located on the site of an existing nearby feedlot. The AERMOD modeling results for the Project suggest compliance with the hydrogen sulfide air quality standard, no exceedances of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV, no exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV, and no exceedances of chronic ammonia iHRV.

D. Describe any plans to notify neighbors of operational events (such as manure storage agitation and pump out) that may result in higher-than-usual levels of air or odor emissions.


Bonnstetter plans to notify neighbors before operational events such as manure storage, agitation, pump out, or application. Bonnstetter is willing to try to avoid manure handling during planned social events and/or holidays. Bonnstetter will evaluate weather conditions before manure application to minimize impacts on neighbors and the public. Bonnstetter will work with Murray County and state of Minnesota officials to find a resolution if there are complaints. Bonnstetter will implement the air emission plan included in the Feedlot Permit application in the event that an odor event occurs. The air emission plan will be an enforceable provision of the Feedlot Permit.

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

The construction of the Project will involve extensive dirt work, in particular, removing top soil and hauling in clay for the stormwater infiltration basin and the hauling in of gravel to build the service roads for the Project. If dust becomes a significant issue, Bonnstetter will implement dust abatement measures, such as applying water spray. During Project operations, the major causes of dust generation would be truck traffic using the gravel entrance road and exhaust fans. If dust generation becomes an issue, Bonnstetter will use a dust abatement measure to control it (e.g., water spray). The largest source of noise at this Project will be from the barn’s exhaust fans. The nearest neighbor is approximately 2,447 feet away. The separation distance between the residence and the Project is the biggest mitigation factor in noise and dust abatement. Bonnstetter doesn’t have any additional plans for noise or dust abatement.

7. Dead Animal Disposal. Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. Bonnstetter has prepared an Animal Mortality Plan in accordance with state of Minnesota requirements, including Minn. Stat. § 35.82 and Minn. R. chs. 1719.0100 to 1719.4600 and 7011.1215. Bonnstetter submitted the plan to the MPCA with its Feedlot Permit application. The plan will be an enforceable condition of Bonnstetter’s Feedlot Permit. Bonnstetter will remove animal mortalities from its barn as discovered and temporarily store them in a 2 x 12 x 4-foot animal mortality storage building. The building will be constructed of tongue and groove PVC plastic. The animal mortalities will be removed and disposed of by a rendering service. The predicted annual mortality rate is approximately 145 head of swine per year.

8. Surface Water Runoff.

Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff.


Project Site

Construction Phase A Construction Stormwater General Permit (CSW Permit) is required when a project disturbs 1 acre or more of soil. This Project will disturb approximately 2.6 acres of soil; therefore, a CSW Permit is required for this Project. The CSW Permit will be incorporated within Bonnstetter’s Feedlot Permit and will require completion of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP must propose erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs to control the discharge of sediment and/or other pollutants from the Project site. Bonnstetter has completed a SWPPP for the Project and has identified the following BMPs that it will implement during construction:

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

The Project site will be staked and marked to indicate the construction area.

A silt fence will be used or a berm will be built around the construction site.

Rock will be placed on the Project driveway.

Operational Phase Surface water runoff will increase on the Project site due to an increase in impervious surfaces. The CSW permit requires projects that create 1 acre or more of new impervious surface to provide permanent treatment of stormwater runoff. This Project will create 2.6 acres of impervious surface through the construction of the barn and driveway; therefore, permanent stormwater runoff treatment is required. Bonnstetter will construct a 140,564 gallon permanent stormwater infiltration basin north of the total confinement barn to meet the CSW Permit requirement. The infiltration basin will collect stormwater generated at the Project site and allow it to infiltrate into the soils at the site. If the infiltration basin were to overflow, the water would discharge to the adjacent cropland. Bonnstetter will establish perennial vegetation and install a gravel surface driveway at the Project site. The Project is designed as a total confinement barn and it is unlikely that stormwater runoff will come in contact with livestock or manure. Bonnstetter will store manure in a LMSA below the barn. Rainwater will not come in contact with the manure. As a result, Bonnstetter expects there will be no contaminated runoff. Bonnstetter has drafted and submitted an ERP with its Feedlot Permit application. The ERP includes procedures to address spills, should they occur. In the event of a spill, the ERP requires Bonnstetter to stop the source of the liquid manure leak or spill immediately. The ERP also includes using the following measures where appropriate:

Installation of bale checks

Blockage of downstream culverts

Plugging tile intakes

Tilling ground ahead of the spill

Use of absorptive materials.

Following MPCA approval of the ERP, it becomes an enforceable condition of the Feedlot Permit. Manure Application Sites

All manure generated by the Project will be land applied by a CAWT, at agronomic rates, at the manure application sites show in in Attachment E. Bonnstetter will determine the agronomic rate based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil fertility. The CAWT will land apply manure in the fall of the year. The CAWT will apply the manure directly into the soil via knife injection. The CAWT must adhere to applicable manure application setbacks as outlined in Item 5 of the EAW.


All Project manure application sites are within the Des Moines River watershed. Previous landowners have farmed land in the watershed for several decades. Bonnstetter expects the stormwater runoff characteristics from the Project and its manure application sites to remain the same, and under certain circumstances, improve because of the manure application activities regulated under the Feedlot Permit. The improvements would occur through developing better soil tilth from organic fertilizer and the uniform practice of incorporating manure over the acres identified in the MMP.

9. Traffic and Public Infrastructure Impacts.

A. Estimate the number of heavy truck trips generated per week and describes their routing over local roads. Describe any road improvements to be made. A single passenger vehicle will visit the Project site daily for regular management duties. Twice a week a rendering truck will visit the Project site to pick up animal mortalities and a feed truck will visit to refill feed. Nine pick-ups with trailers will come to the Project site two-three times per year to refill the barns with nursery pigs. Each re-stocking period for the barn will take approximately 2 weeks to complete, averaging four-five loads per week. Approximately 28 semi-tractors and trailers will be used, two-three times per year, to take the finished swine to market. These periods of heavy traffic will occur over an approximate period of 1 month, averaging about 4-6 semi-trucks per week for each load out. Vehicle routes will be at the discretion of the driver; however, it is expected that truck routes will be directed from Murray County Road 29 to 151st Street as the primary access point for the Project. On occasion, State Highway 59 will be used as well. There will not be any need for improvements to the road system to handle this additional traffic. Seasonal road restrictions will be observed with more frequent trips at lower weights to reduce impacts on the roads. Table 9.A. 1. Table Projected Traffic Counts – Post-Project

Road Avg. Vehicle/Day Avg. Vehicle/Week Increase/Week

State Highway 59 2,550 17,850 18.2

County Road 29 285 1,995 18.2

151st or 141st Street 25 175 18.2 **Traffic counts from Minnesota Department of Transportation: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/tma.html

B. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve

the project? Yes No

If yes, please describe.

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

Unit of government Type of Application Status

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

Submitted

MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit

County/twp/city Murray County Conditional Use Permit Not Submitted

DNR General Water Appropriation Permit Not Submitted

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

https://www.dot.state.mn.us/traffic/data/tma.html


11. Other potential environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 10, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. This includes any cumulative impacts caused by the project in combination with other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Examples of cumulative impacts to consider include air quality, stormwater volume or quality, and surface water quality. (Cumulative impacts may be discussed here or under the appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form.) The MPCA is required to inquire whether a proposed project, which may not individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, could have a significant effect when considered along with other projects. This type of impact is known as a cumulative potential effect. In order to assess the proposed project’s “cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects,” the MPCA conducted an analysis that addressed other projects or operations in context to the potential direct or indirect impacts of the 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 analysis conducted to determine if the proposed Project would contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect. Bonnstetter conducted a public records search and found 45 feedlots with 17,993.5 AUs within the sub-watersheds containing the Project and its manure application sites (Attachment M). Surface Water Quality The Project and its associated manure application sites are within the Des Moines River - Headwaters Watershed (HUC 07100001), in Murray County. Land use within the Project and manure application site areas are predominantly agricultural, which can contribute to non-point source pollution of surface waters. Impaired Waters and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 303(d)) (1972) requires that each state develop a plan to identify and restore any waterbody that is deemed impaired by state regulations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires a TMDL as a result of the federal CWA. A TMDL identifies the pollutant that is causing the impairment and how much of that pollutant can enter the waterbody and still meet water quality standards. Beaver Creek is the closest listed impaired water body to the Project and its manure application sites (Attachment M).

Beaver Creek is approximately 150 feet from manure application Site 6 and approximately 4,140 feet from manure application Site 5. This 27.13-mile-long reach of Beaver Creek is a part of the Des Moines River Basin. Beaver Creek is listed as impaired in the 2018 Impaired Waters List for fecal coliform, fish biological indicators and turbidity. The 2008 TMDL report14 addresses fecal coliform and turbidity.

The Des Moines River is downstream from Beaver Creek. The Des Moines River is listed as impaired for bacteria, turbidity, fish Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) and macroinvertebrates IBI as well.

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

14 West Fork Des Moines River Total Maximum Daily Load Final Report: Excess Nutrients (North and South Heron Lake), Turbidity, and Fecal Coliform Bacteria Impairments. December 2008. Website: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw7-13e.pdf

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw7-13e.pdf


Test the soil at the manure application site and apply manure at agronomic rates.

Comply with state and county required manure application setbacks.

If a manure spill occurs, comply with the ERP in the Feedlot Permit.

Design and build the Project as a total animal confinement operation.

Examine the LMSA drain tile outlet monthly for water flow and signs of discoloration or odor in any water in the drain tile. This will ensure that, if there are any LMSA leaks, they will be detected in a timely manner.

The manure application practices (described in Item 5.D.), and the BMPs listed above, will help reduce or eliminate the Project’s potential to cause surface water quality impairment within the minor watersheds of the Des Moines River watershed. Groundwater Appropriation The Project will be served by one 250 foot deep well and will utilize approximately 1.8 million gallons of water annually. A review of the Minnesota County Well Index by Bonnstetter’s consultant indicates six verified and unverified wells in the vicinity of the Project (not including the proposed well at the Project site). Well usage is a mixture of domestic and livestock. Well depths range from approximately 200 feet to approximately 350 feet. Bonnstetter will apply for a General Water Appropriation Permit from the DNR. Groundwater appropriation is addressed through the DNR Water Appropriation Permit Program. The purpose of the DNR permit program is to ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is provided to long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. The permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the DNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found to be causing the problem, the operator must correct it. The Project owner will be required to assess the potential impacts during the water appropriation permit review process. Groundwater Quality Groundwater resources can be adversely impacted by feedlot operation and manure application activities. The MPCA has reviewed information compiled by the DNR to determine if the Project has the potential to contaminate the underlying aquifer. Based on a review of published information related to pollution sensitivity potential, the Project and its manure application sites are in an area primarily designated as having a very low susceptibility to groundwater pollution (Attachment N). This means that it could take months to a year for near-surface contamination to reach a depth of 10 feet below land surface15. The risk to groundwater pollution is reduced by the manure application practices discussed in Item 5 of the EAW. Air Quality Impacts Air quality computer modeling was performed that estimated concentrations in the air of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the Project. The model estimated pollutant concentrations from the Project, along with an ambient hydrogen sulfide and ammonia background concentration to account for any off-site air emission sources or activities. The air quality modeling evaluation predicted concentrations of the selected gases at the Project property lines and nearest

15 Adams, R. Pollution Sensitivity of Near-Surface Materials. DNR. 2016. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/mha/hg02_report.pdf

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/mha/hg02_report.pdf


neighbors. A background concentration is the amount of pollutants already in the air from other sources and is used in this evaluation to address cumulative air impacts. Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia may be present from other feedlot barns, the agitation and pump out of a neighboring feedlot, or the pumping of a municipal wastewater treatment facility. Air emissions from other emission sources may affect the compliance status of the Project, or impact downwind human and environmental receptors. The background level for hydrogen sulfide used in the computer model was derived from monitoring at other feedlot facilities in Minnesota. The modeling adds the background air pollutant concentration to the emission concentration predicted from the Project. The results of the modeling study indicate that no significant air quality impacts are expected from the Project and that the Project will not contribute to any adverse cumulative potential effects to air quality. Land Use The land identified for the purpose of this Project includes the site of the Project proper along with the land for manure application. The Project, including manure application sites have been reviewed in context to other existing or proposed projects within the watershed. Three issues have been identified with respect to land resources – wildlife habitat, row crop agriculture, and traffic. Habitat There is a competing issue in rural landscapes to maintain a balance between agricultural demands and preserving natural resources. The Project is in an area currently used for agricultural production. All affected land, including the proposed manure application sites, have been used for agricultural purposes for more than 50 years. The Project will not displace or disrupt any wildlife habitat and as a result, will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect related to habitat fragmentation and loss. Row Crop Agriculture The Project is designed to utilize existing row crop feedstock, rather than to cultivate fallow or marginal land to meet crop use needs. As a result, existing row crop agriculture practices are not expected to create an additional new impact to environmental quality. There is no indication that any other projects in the area will be converting fallow or marginal cropland into row crop production within the Project area. The Project will not modify land use and will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect related to row crop agriculture. Traffic The cumulative potential effects analysis for traffic included an evaluation of the direct contribution of new traffic through the development and operation of the Project in context to the existing traffic load. The analysis is provided in Item 9.A, which shows a slight increase of traffic from the Project on Township, County and State Roads. This amount of additional traffic is not likely to cause an adverse cumulative potential effect.

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

^̀

^̀

Iona

Holly

Leeds

Mason

Shetek

Murray

Fenton Belfast

Dovray

Bondin

Slayton

Skandia

Moulton

LowvilleCameron

Lime Lake

Lake SarahEllsborough

Chanarambie Des Moines River

Bonnstetter FarmsMurray Co., MN Josh Bonnstetter Feedlot General Location Map

·Map Produced by:

ATTACHMENT A

_̂Lowville107N - 042W Mason107N - 041W

8711

23

26

13 1714

12

2024

18

2925

19

30

910

15

22

2827

21

35

16

36 31 32

5

34 33

4612

6

3

5

2

4

1

0 2,100 4,200 6,300 8,4001,050Feet

Imagery Courtesy of BING.

NOTES:

Murray Co., MN Josh Bonnstetter Feedlot USGS Topographic Map Bonnstetter Farms

Legend_̂ Site Location

Manure Application SitesWaterwaySpecial Protection Area ·

ATTACHMENT B

0 150 300 450 60075Feet


NOTES:There are no Karst features within 1000-ft of the facility. No permanent stormwater retention pond is a part of the Project.

Murray Co., MN Josh Bonnstetter Feedlot Project Site Map Bonnstetter Farms

LegendDistance

_̂ Site Location4800 Head FinisherAnimal Mortality Storage BuildingGravel DrivewayStormwater Inflitration Basin

!( Well

·

_̂

24

13

19

18

23

14

26 25 30

7

Lowville Mason

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus

ATTACHMENT C

0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200650Feet


NOTES:

Murray Co., MN Josh Bonnstetter Feedlot One-Mile Radius Map Bonnstetter Farms

Legend_̂ Site LocationX Known Well

Residence (8)Distance to Residence

") FeedlotsConnector (Wetland)

! ! ! Stream (Intermittent)

Lake or PondMine or Gravel PitRiverNWI WetlandsMN DNR WMAOneMileRadiusProposed BuildingWaterwayManure Application Sites

·

ATTACHMENT D

_̂

Lowville WMA

Lowville WMA Mason WMA

Engebretson WMA

Lowville107N - 042W Mason107N - 041W

8711

23

26

13 1714

12

2024

18

2925

19

30

9

15

10

22

28

35

27

21

36

16

31 3234 33

45612

I-037-051-011 Unnamed Stream

I-03

7-051 Beaver Cree k

MAJ-07101467

I-037-051-014-003 Unnamed Stream

I-037-05

1-011-00

1 Unnamed

Stream



6

3

5

2

4

1

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

0 2,100 4,200 6,300 8,4001,050Feet


NOTES:856 Total Acres

Murray Co., MN Josh Bonnstetter Feedlot Manure Application Sites Map Bonnstetter Farms

Legend_̂ Site Location

Manure Application SitesWildlife Management Area

River and Stream Types(MN DNR)Stream (Perennial)Stream (Intermittent)Stream (Unknown)Stream (Underground/Karst)Ditch (Perennial)

Ditch (Intermittent)Ditch (Unknown)Lake ConnectorWetland ConnectorRiver CenterlineRiver Connector ·

ATTACHMENT E

From: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPOTo: [email protected]: FW: SHPO Database Search: Bonnstetter FarmsDate: Friday, May 10, 2019 11:57:24 AMAttachments: image001.png

MurrayHistoric.xlsImportance: High

Hello Andrew,Your requested historic report is attached. Our database has no archaeologic records for the givenarea.In the future, please submit data requests like these to this email. It helps us to better track them.Thanx!Jim

SHPO Data RequestsMinnesota State Historic Preservation Office50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203Saint Paul, MN 55155(651) [email protected]: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. Thedatabase search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THISDATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERALPRESERVATION LAWS – please see our website at https://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/ for further informationregarding our Environmental Review Process.Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not beenrecorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by developmentprojects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess thearea’s potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites.Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listingin the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports:NR – National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a NationalRegister District.CEF – Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible forlisting in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of theEnvironmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in theNational Register.SEF – Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the NationalRegister, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process.DOE – Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible forlisting in the National Register, but have not been officially listed.CNEF – Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For thepurposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties mayneed to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts.Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated andtherefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore anyeligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of dateand the property will need to be reassessed.If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project’s potential to impact archaeological sites or

ATTACHMENT G

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://mn.gov/adminmailto:[email protected]://mn.gov/admin/shpo/protection/

historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you needassistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201-3285 or by email at [email protected] Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found athttps://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/.MN SHPO research hours are 8:30 AM – 4:00 PM Tuesday-Friday. Please call ahead at 651-201-3295 to ensure staffis available to assist you, if necessary. Thank you.

From: Andrew Nesseth Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 2:54 PMTo: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO Cc: Krumrie, Jim (ADM) Subject: SHPO Database Search: Bonnstetter FarmsImportance: HighJim,I am requesting a search of the SHPO database for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW).The EAW is required for a new feedlot in Murray County, MN. Please complete a search for anyarcheological sites or cultural resources within a one-mile radius of the feedlot and its land applicationsites. Please let me know if there are any questions or issues with the attached files.Project Description:

The project consists of constructing a new feedlot with the construction of two total confinementswine finishing barns with an under-floor concrete pit for manure storage. The existing is currentlyfarmed cropland. Disturbance will include excavation of the soil at the facility location. Manurefrom the swine will be applied to existing cropland as a fertilizer replacement. It will be applied atagronomic rates via soil injection.

Site Location:Lowville (T107N-R42W) 24, NE1/4 – Murray County, MN

Manure Application Sites:

· Lowville (107N-42W) 12, S1/2 of NW1/4

· Lowville (107N-42W) 13, SE1/4

· Lowville (107N-42W) 24, N1/2 of NE1/4

· Lowville (107N-42W) 24, NW1/4

· Lowville (107N-42W), SW1/4

· Mason (107N-41W) 30, S1/2

All sites have been farmed for decades using conventional tillage for corn or soybeans. Theproposed Site location is currently managed as row-crop farmland.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you,Andrew Nesseth

mailto:[email protected]://mn.gov/admin/shpo/identification-evaluation/mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]

Andrew Email Logo NEW

This electronic message including any attachments may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under tradesecret and other applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, permanently delete all copies of this Message, andbe aware that examination, use, dissemination, duplication or disclosure of this Message is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are solelythose of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Extended Ag Services, Inc/Extended Ag Crop Insurance Services, LLC/Extended AgInsurance Services, Inc (EAS). Neither EAS nor the sender accepts any responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan and virus check the e-mail and its attachment(s) (if any).

COUNTY CITYTWP PROPNAME ADDRESS TOWNSHIP RANGE SECTION QUARTERS USGS REPORTNUM NRHP CEF DOE INVENTNUMMurray

Lowville Twp.school SW corner Co. Rd. 12 & Co. Hwy. 29 107 42 11 NE-NE-SE Hadley MU-80-1H MU-LOW-002

Bridge 51501 107 42 36 NE-SE Hadley MU-LOW-007

Bridge 51502 107 42 36 SE-SW Hadley MU-LOW-008

Mason Twp.Mason Township Hall off Co. Rd. 30 107 41 18 SE-SE-SE Hadley MU-80-1H MU-MAS-001

Bridge No. 4723 Twp. Rd. 55 over Beaver Creek 107 41 30 SW-SW-SW Hadley MU-80-1H MU-MAS-003

Bridge No. 4724 Twp. Rd. 55 over Beaver Creek 107 41 31 NW-NW-NW Hadley MU-80-1H MU-MAS-004

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X̂_

00798185

00330504

00330514

00330510

0033050700330505

00330512

00330508

00330506

003305030033050200330501

00330500

00330489

00645175

00199724

00167153 00196785

00222596

00645174

00106392

00199716

00167160

00106354

00222601

00222597

00199458

00196782

00680911

00247735

00196765

00212942

00199747

00710961

00222593

0068094100100600

00500898

00167167

00199711

00710960

00500865

00196795

00167165

0022259900645172

002225986

3

5

2

4

1

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

Josh Bonnstetter Feedlot DWSMA-SWP / Well Inventory Map Murray Co., MN Bonnstetter Farms

NOTES: Data courtesty of the Minnesota Department of Health. (2014)

Legend_̂ Site LocationX Known Well

BarnManure Application SitesDWSMAWellhead Protection AreaSource Water Assessment


0 1,800 3,600 5,400 7,200900Feet

·

ATTACHMENT H

DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES

175 County Road 26

Windom, MN 56101-1868

May 17, 2019

Rhonda Bonnstetter

1333 130th Avenue

Slayton, MN 56172

Josh Bonnstetter

1519 120th Avenue

Slayton, MN 56172

Re: DNR Preliminary Well Construction Assessment; Tracking No. 2019-1325; T107N-R42W-S24

NWNW; Murray County.

Dear Rhonda Bonnstetter and Josh Bonnstetter:

This preliminary assessment of your proposed well is information you can use to decide whether to

proceed with your plans to drill the well and is based on information you provided. Conclusions from this

assessment may change if more information becomes available or the proposed details change. This

assessment is not notification to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), and it is not a Minnesota

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water appropriation permit.

We have reviewed your proposal for a new well based on: proposed location, depth, volume of water

requested and pumping rate. Your proposal has been assessed for potential impacts to other users and

the resources of concern listed on the attached sheet. If the details of your proposal change you will need

to submit a new assessment application.

We have identified the following potentially significant resource impacts:

One or more calcareous fen wetlands are within 5 miles of your proposed well location. A permit

application to use groundwater near calcareous fen wetlands must be evaluated so the project does not

drain, alter or degrade those wetlands.

Sarah Mason WMA Calcareous fen is found 4.38 miles to the northeast of the proposed well location. This

groundwater dependent feature depends on a steady upwelling of groundwater. Any loss of groundwater

could significantly impact the resource. Domestic water users are also found with wells completed to

similar depths near the proposed well location, with the closest verified well location .4 miles to the

north-northwest. Lowville South WMA, Lowville North WMA, and Mason WMA are located within 1.5 miles

of the proposed well location.

(Well Assessment ID 1399, Level 5, MPARS revision 20190516, printed 05/17/2019)

ATTACHMENT I

Re: DNR Preliminary Well Construction Assessment

May 17, 2019Rhonda Bonnstetter and Josh Bonnstetter

Based on these potential impacts, if you drill the well, it is moderately likely that you will need to spend time

and money acquiring additional information so that DNR can determine if your well will impact other users

or resources located nearby. A standard requirement of groundwater appropriation permit applications is to

conduct an aquifer test to DNR specifications. In some cases the requirement for conducting an aquifer

test may be waived.

Observation wells are needed to conduct an aquifer test. Any required observation wells and aquifer tests

will be at your own expense. Your well driller can provide you with a cost estimate for drilling observation

wells an

doc type: public noticesteve sommer and title environmental consultant and title planner principal...

Documents