p-ear2-41b
STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED HIGH ISLAND DAIRY, LLC LAKE PRAIRIE TOWNSHIP NICOLLET COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000-4410.1600, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed High Island Dairy, LLC project. Based on the MPCA staff review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Project Description 1. High Island Dairy, LLC proposes to construct a 3,000 lactating Jersey Cow dairy in Section 3, Lake Prairie Township, Nicollet County (Project). The cows will be housed in a total confinement freestall barn with manure and wastewater collected and treated by an anaerobic digester. Process wastewater and wastewater treatment sludge from the Le Sueur Cheese Company will be mixed with the manure and wastewater before discharge to the anaerobic digester. The digested manure solids will be separated for use as bedding in the free stalls. Biogas from the digestion process will be used to power on-site electrical generators, and the liquid fraction will be stored in a covered manure storage basin. The liquid manure and excess bedding solids will be land applied annually in the fall following crop harvest and used as fertilizer. Procedural History 2. The permit application for coverage of the proposed Project under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Feedlot Permit was submitted to the MPCA on April 18, 2012. Additional permit application information was submitted on April 30, 2012. 3. This is a new project. There has been no past environmental review. 4. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment as required by Minn. R. 4410.1500. A news release was provided to media in Nicollet, Blue Earth, Le Sueur, Sibley, Renville, and Brown Counties, as well as other interested parties on June 25, 2012. The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB Monitor on June 25, 2011, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA website at HUhttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.htmlUH. p-ear2-41b TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332 Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement High Island Dairy, LLC. Nicollet County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 5. The 30-day comment period for the EAW began on June 25, 2012, and ended on July 25, 2012. During the comment period, the MPCA received two comment letters from citizens. A list and copies of the comment letters received is included as Appendix A to these findings. 6. The General NPDES/SDS Permit was placed on public notice on June 25, 2012, and came off notice on July 25, 2012. One comment letter was received on the General NPDES/SDS Permit. 7. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the 30-day EAW comment period. The responses to the comments are included in Appendix A to these findings. Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 8. The MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects. B. Cumulative potential effects. The responsible governmental unit (RGU) shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project. C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project. D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria Are Set Forth Below Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 9. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. A. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 2
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement High Island Dairy, LLC. Nicollet County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 10. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the proposed Project include the following: Air quality impacts related to hydrogen sulfide emissions Air quality impacts related to ammonia emissions Air quality impacts related to odor Impacts to groundwater and surface water quality 11. With respect to the extent and reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 12. Air quality modeling estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and the intensity of odorous gases at the proposed Project s property lines and at the feedlot s 23 nearest neighbors. The modeling protocol and report were reviewed and approved by MPCA staff. The tables below provide a summary of the air quality modeling results. High Island Dairy, LLC. Hourly Average Concentrations in Ambient Air Proposed Site Property Boundary Hydrogen Sulfide (ppb) a Acute Ammonia (µg/m 3 ) b Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t) c North 20.36 538 15 South 21.20 525 16 East 18.61 296 6 West 19.90 405 12 a. The air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide is 30 ppb (parts per billion) as a half-hour average not to be exceeded more than two times in any five-day period. The results in the tables include a background concentration of 17 ppb. b. The acute ihrv (inhalation health risk value) for ammonia is 3,200 µg/m 3 (micrograms per cubic meter). The results in the table include a background concentration of 148 µg/m 3. c. Odor impact assessment based on odor units (OUs). Odor intensities and their perceived strength: very faint (28 82), faint (83 243), moderate (244 722) strong (723 2,139), and very strong (>2,140). UAir Quality Impacts Related to Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions 13. The CALPUFF modeling results indicated that the proposed Project will not violate the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The CALPUFF-predicted maximum Project-specific contribution to the ambient hydrogen sulfide concentration was 4.20 ppb. When the background hydrogen sulfide concentration of 17 ppb was added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum property-line hourly concentration was 21.20 ppb, which indicates that the half-hour standard of 30 ppb will not be exceeded. Thus, violations of the hydrogen sulfide standard are not expected to occur, and the proposed Project is expected to be in compliance with the applicable air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide. 14. The CALPUFF modeling results also indicated that the proposed Project will not cause the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv to be exceeded at neighboring residences. The estimated facility-specific maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentration for the feedlot s neighbors was 0.03 μg/m 3. When a background concentration of 1 μg/m 3 is added to the CALPUFF estimate, the 3
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement High Island Dairy, LLC. Nicollet County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 13-week neighbor hydrogen sulfide maximum concentration was 1.03 μg/m 3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 μg/m 3.Thus, the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv is not expected to be exceeded. UAir Quality Impacts Related to Ammonia Emissions 15. The CALPUFF modeling results for ammonia suggested that the proposed Project would not exceed the acute ammonia ihrv. The CALPUFF model predicted a maximum hourly property-line concentration of 390 µg/m 3. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m 3 was added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum property line ammonia concentration was 538 μg/m 3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 μg/m 3. Thus, the acute ammonia ihrv is not expected to be exceeded. 16. The CALPUFF results also indicate that the feedlot would not result in air concentrations of ammonia exceeding the chronic ammonia ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration among the feedlot s neighbors was 1.48 μg/m 3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 μg/m 3 was added to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration at any neighboring residence was 7.20 μg/m 3, which is less than the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 μg/m 3. Thus, the chronic ammonia ihrv is not expected to be exceeded. Air Quality Impacts Related to Odor 17. Ambient air quality standards are not established for the regulation of odor in Minnesota; however, the CALPUFF model was used to estimate the ground level odor intensities at the feedlot s property lines and at neighboring residences. As indicated in the table in finding number 12, the maximum hourly odor intensity predicted at the expanded feedlot s effective property lines was 16 OUs. This would be below the very faint odor threshold of 28 OUs. 18. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project, air emissions from the facility will continue while the facility remains in operation, and would cease only if the facility were to be temporarily or permanently closed. While in operation, the proposed Project is expected to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria. If excessive air emissions or violations of the ambient hydrogen sulfide air standards were to occur, or if ihrvs for ammonia were exceeded, air quality impacts would be temporary in nature and corrective measures could be implemented. Such measures could include the initiation of a complaint investigation by the MPCA and requiring the Project proposer to make operation and maintenance changes. In addition, as noted in the proposer s Air Emissions Plan and Complaint Response Protocol, if higher than expected levels of air or odor emissions are anticipated, notification will be made to neighbors. Therefore, the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project are reversible. 19. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to assess the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project. Methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed. 20. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project. 4
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement High Island Dairy, LLC. Nicollet County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Impacts to Groundwater and Surface Water Quality 21. With respect to the extent of potential water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 22. All livestock will be housed in a total confinement building and not have access to surface waters. Manure will be stored in manure storage structures that meet the design criteria of Minn. R. 7020.2125. The proposed Project site itself will be required by the General NPDES/SDS Permit to meet a zero discharge standard. The General NPDES/SDS Permit requires that stormwater pollution prevention and management plans that include best management practices for the operation of the facility be developed and maintained on site. 23. All manure will continue to be transferred off site for application by other parties. The Project proposer sells manure to licensed commercial manure applicators only. 24. In order to avoid contaminating the groundwater at the manure application sites, manure must be applied at agronomic rates, based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry, taking into account levels of nitrogen utilized by crops planted at the manure application sites and, therefore, minimizing the potential for nitrates leaching into the groundwater. MPCA and/or county setback requirements, whichever are the more restrictive, must also be observed from water supply wells. As a result, manure incorporation at the manure application sites will mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater quality. 25. The land application of manure, if done improperly, can adversely impact surface-water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into draintile lines that outfall to surface waters. Therefore, MPCA and/or county setback requirements, whichever are more restrictive, must be observed around drain tile intakes located within and adjacent to manure application areas, and near other surface-water resources. Requirements of the NPDES Permit and the Manure Management Plan (MMP) are expected to minimize the potential for manure applied at manure application sites to come in contact with runoff and enter surface waters. 26. The quality of runoff from land application areas for the manure is not expected to significantly change if managed in accordance with the MMP required by the NPDES/SDS Permit. Nutrients from manure will replace nutrients provided by other fertilizers, and improved soil tilth through the use of organic fertilizer and immediate incorporation of manure has the potential to improve runoff characteristics over the acres identified in the MMP. 27. With respect to the reversibility of water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from this proposed Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 28. The prevention of adverse effects on water quality due to manure storage and application is addressed in the proposed NPDES/SDS Permit. Although significant adverse impacts to water quality are not expected, if water quality impacts were to occur the operation and management of the feedlot and the MMP can be modified, and impacts to waters could be reversed; therefore, the water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project are found to be reversible. 5
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement High Island Dairy, LLC. Nicollet County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 29. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to assess potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project. Measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts have been developed and required as proposed permit conditions. 30. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur. Cumulative Potential Effects 31. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the "cumulative potential effects. In making this determination, the MPCA must consider whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.B). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 32. The EAW addressed the following areas for cumulative potential effects for the proposed Project. Air quality Water quality of surface waters Air Quality 33. Cumulative potential effects on air quality were evaluated by comparing the Minnesota ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide, ihrvs for ammonia, and odor intensity thresholds with concentrations in the air predicted by computer modeling. The modeling analysis included the estimated emissions from the proposed Project and incorporated conservative background concentrations to account for the potential impacts of air emissions from other feedlots. Air concentrations were estimated for these pollutants at the 23 residences closest to the proposed Project. All modeled concentrations were below the health-based and nuisance odor criteria used in the analyses. Therefore, the cumulative potential effects on air quality are not believed to be significant in the proposed Project area, nor is the proposed Project expected to contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on air quality. Water Quality of Surface Waters 34. The streams and rivers listed in the table below are in the area around the proposed Project and have been identified as impaired (see Attachment J). The South Branch Rush River and the Rush River (S Br Rush River to Minnesota River) have approved total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for fecal coliform bacteria. The Project, as proposed, is consistent with the implementation plans in the approved TMDLs. 6
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement High Island Dairy, LLC. Nicollet County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order List of impaired waters near proposed Project Reach name Assessment Unit Impairment Approved TMDL Judicial Ditch 1A 07020012-509 E. coli No Rush River, South Branch 07020012-553 Fecal Coliform Yes Rush River, Middle Branch 07020012-550 E. coli No Rush River (M Br Rush River to 07020012-548 Turbidity No S Br Rush River) Rush River (S Br Rush River to Minnesota River) 07020012-521 Fecal Coliform Turbidity Yes Fecal Coliform No Turbidity 35. Based on information on the proposed Project obtained from air modeling, permit application and plan review processes, ongoing water quality assessments, a site visit, and presented in the EAW, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative potential effects from the proposed Project. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 36. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority" (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 37. The following permits or approvals will be required for the proposed Project: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required MPCA General NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit Nicollet County Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit Minnesota Department of Natural Individual Water Appropriation Permit Resources (DNR) 38. MPCA NPDES/SDS Livestock Production, Construction, Operation (Feedlot) and Stormwater Permit. An NPDES/SDS Feedlot and Stormwater Permit are required for the proposed Project. The NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit incorporates construction and operation requirements, and includes operating plans that address manure management, operation and maintenance, emergency response protocols, animal mortalities, and odor/air quality management. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is also required. These plans are an enforceable condition of the NPDES/SDS Permit. 39. County Conditional Use Permit. The project proposer is required to obtain all required building and conditional use permits required by local units of government to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The conditional use permit will address local zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that are needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses. 40. DNR Water Appropriation Permit. At full operation, the proposed Project is expected to consume approximately 45 million gallons of water per year or 900 million gallons over a 20-year service life. Two new 8-inch wells will be constructed to provide the water for the new freestall barn and milking parlor. It is anticipated that the wells will be developed in the Franconia Sandstone aquifer. A Water Appropriation Permit will be applied for after construction of the new wells. 7
On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement High Island Dairy, LLC. Nicollet County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 41. Facilities that include sources or air emissions are required to determine and apply for the appropriate air quality permit from the MPCA. High Island Dairy determined that the proposed Project did not require an air quality permit from the MPCA. 42. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the proposed Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the proposed Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 43. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the Project proposer, including other EISs (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. D). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 44. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the environmental impact analysis for the proposed Project. Data presented in the EAW Permit application and required plan submittals Air dispersion modeling report This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on other information provided by the Project proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff. 45. There are no elements of the proposed Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans. 46. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the proposed Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. 47. The MPCA adopts the rationale stated in the attached Response to Comments (Appendix A) as the basis for response to any issues not specifically addressed in these Findings. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 48. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this project. The EAW, the permit development process, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project. 8
APPENDIX A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) High Island Dairy, LLC Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Stephanie Henriksen, Dundas, Minnesota. E-mail received July 24, 2012. 2. Don and Lynnette Wiest. E-mail received July 25, 2012. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Stephanie Henriksen. E-mail received July 24, 2012. Comment 1-1: Under #10 of the EAW (Permits and Approvals required), I think it should be mentioned that High Island Dairy LLC petitioned for a commissioner's exemption under Corporate Farm Law 500.24, Sub. 3. I suggest the main criteria for granting an exemption are not met and it is premature to go forward with the EAW at this time. In my view, a large scale project like this surely presents significant impacts on the ag economy and it is in conflict with the purpose of the Farm Law. Criteria to be met can be found on the MDA website. Response: Decisions on the applicability of the Corporate Farm Law are outside the scope of the EAW. Comment 1-2: It concerns me that there are 13 residences within a mile of the site and three more within 300 feet. Response: The nearest residence is over 1,200 feet to the project boundary. Air modeling was done on the Project, which took into account the nearest 23 residences. Fifteen of the modeled residences were within one mile of the Project boundary. The four closest residences, identified as E1, B1, B2, and C5 in Attachment I of the EAW, Air Modeling Report, have predicted values well below the Hydrogen Sulfide (H 2 S) and Ammonia (NH 3 ) inhalation health risk value (ihrv) values. The predicted odor units (OUs) are below the very faint threshold of 28 OUs. The following table lists for maximum predicted values for the four closest residences Site Approximate distance to Project Boundary a Maximum 13-Week H 2 S Concentration plus 1 μg/m 3 background b Maximum Annual NH 3 Concentration plus 5.72 μg/m 3 background c Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t) d E1 1,250 feet 1.03 μg/m 3 7.20 μg/m 3 7 OUs B1 2,490 feet 1.01 μg/m 3 6.28 μg/m 3 4 OUs B2 2,750 feet 1.02 μg/m 3 6.50 μg/m 3 4 OUs C5 2,800 feet 1.02 μg/m 3 6.65 μg/m 3 4 OUs a. Measured from aerial photo using ARCMAP 10. b. The subchronic ihrv for H 2 S is 10 μg/m 3. c. The chronic NH 3 ihrv is 80 μg/m 3. d. The very faint threshold is 28 OUs.
High Island Dairy, LLC Le Sueur, Minnesota List of Comment Letters and Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 1-3: This is the maximum (3,000 animal units [AUs]) size dairy allowed in Nicollet County. Response: Nicollet County does have a maximum capacity of 3,000 AUs for feedlots in their Zoning Ordinance. The proposed Project is for 3,000 AUs and is, therefore, compliant with the Nicollet County s size capacity restriction. Comment 1-4: It is very complex in manure management, involving anaerobic digester and LeSueur Cheese wastewater. Response: While there is increased complexity in managing anaerobic digesters utilizing industrial byproducts, the technology does have precedent as being very effective for processing, storing, and utilizing the nutrients from dairy cows. Comment 1-5: There are several churches and a church camp as well. Response: The church camp, Norseland Scout Camp, is approximately 3.5 miles southwest of the Project. Scandian Grove Lutheran Church and Norseland Lutheran Church are approximately 4 miles southwest of the proposed Project. Norwegian Grove Lutheran Church is approximately 7 miles west of the proposed project. There are land application fields within 2 miles of the scout camp and the 3 churches. All of these locations are outside the receptor grid for the air modeling. There is no evidence to suggest that any of the area churches or the church camp will be negatively affected by the proposed project. Comment 1-6: There will be heavy use of roads and I expect the township may comment on this. Response: High Island Dairy, LLC has executed road maintenance agreements with both townships pertinent to the project. Comment 1-7: Concern was expressed about the heavy use of water. Response: The proposed project will need an Individual Water Appropriation Permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) because the proposed Project s expected water usage will be greater than five million gallons per year. The purpose of the DNR s permit program for consumptive water appropriation 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 other uses. The permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. 103G.261 provides that domestic water supply shall have the first priority for the consumptive appropriation and use of the state's water. The second priority is a use of water that involves the consumption of less than 10,000 gallons per day. The DNR has promulgated rules that specifically address the issue of well interference problems. Minn. R. 6115.0730 provides a mechanism for resolution of any well interference or water use conflicts that arise either before or after a water appropriation permit is issued. If the DNR commissioner determines that a permit applicant s proposed water use will interfere with domestic wells, the commissioner may require modification or restriction of the proposed use. Similarly, if the commissioner finds that a permit holder s water use interferes with domestic wells, the commissioner may require modification or restriction of the permit. 2
High Island Dairy, LLC Le Sueur, Minnesota List of Comment Letters and Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 1-8: Stormwater is to be discharged to Judicial Ditch 13 to Rush River and on to the Minnesota River. Several area waters are already impaired and having such a large livestock operation can only add to the problem in time. Response: The NPDES/SDS Permit for animal feedlots is a zero discharge permit, which includes runoff from feed storage areas. The permit requires the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, which includes both temporary and permanent runoff control practices. Because the location of the proposed Project is currently cropland with minimal runoff controls, there may be an overall improvement in the quality of the runoff from the site after the proposed Project has been built. Comment 1-9: This is not a good location for such a large dairy. Response: The EAW reviewed the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project, including effects related to its location. Based on the analysis in the EAW, the proposed site is not believed to present significant environmental effects that would rule out its use as a location for the proposed Project. Comment 1-10: I expect the relationship with U of M will mean more diligence in management. Response: The NPDES/SDS Permit has a number of operational requirements including an operation and maintenance plan, manure management plan, air emissions and odor management plan, and an animal mortality disposal plan. All of these plans are incorporated into the permit by reference and are enforceable. The facility can be inspected by federal, state, and county feedlot inspectors at any time for compliance with permit conditions. Failure to comply with permit conditions, including required record keeping, may result in enforcement action. Comment 1-11: I still feel an EIS should be required. Response: Comment noted. 2. Comments by Don and Lynette Wiest. E-mail received July 25, 2012. Comment 2-1: We would like to be certain that all water, air, night lighting, and transportation concerns are adequately evaluated. Response: The proposed project is in an area zoned agricultural and is compliant with the requirements of Nicollet County Land Use and Feedlot ordinance. The proposed project will need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from Nicollet County. The county may include operational conditions they determine are necessary to the CUP to address all of these concern. Comment 2-2: In reviewing Attachment E-2, we are concerned that some of the public use wells in the area were not included and wells that are further away were included. The well at Trinity Lutheran Church, Sibley Township and the two wells at Rush River County Park were not included as public use wells. However, the well at High Island Creek County Park is listed in the report and that is not part of the Rush River watershed where the proposed dairy is planned. (Instead, it is in the High Island watershed, several miles north of this area.) 3
High Island Dairy, LLC Le Sueur, Minnesota List of Comment Letters and Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response: The list of wells was obtained from the County Well Index maintained by the Minnesota Department of Health. The database does not list any wells in Section 26 of Kelso Township. That is not to say there are not any wells, but they have not been surveyed and added to the database. The wells mentioned would be classified as transient, non-community wells and would have an inner well management zone of 200-foot radius surrounding the well and would not be impacted by the dairy. Comment 2-3: The Rush River Park in Sibley County has a potential water quality impact as the Rush River flows through the park and is a popular recreation area for hiking, swimming/wading, and horseback riding. It is located in the Rush River Watershed downstream of the proposed project. Response: See response to comment 1-8. 4
1 From: Stephanie Henriksen [mailto:henriksen.steph@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 4:24 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: EAW comment: High Island Dairy LLC MPCA Charles Peterson Planner 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55l55 Dear Mr. Peterson, Under #10 of the EAW (Permits and Approvals required), I think it should be mentioned that High Island Dairy LLC petitioned for a commissioner's exemption under Corporate Farm Law 500.24, Sub. 3. I suggest the main criteria for granting an exemption are not met and it is premature to go forward with the EAW at this time. In my view, a large scale project like this surely presents significant impacts on the ag economy and it is in conflict with the purpose of the Farm Law. Criteria to be met can be found on the mda website. In addition, it concerns me that there are 13 residences within a mile of the site and three more within 300 feet. This is the maximum (3000 au) size dairy allowed in Nicollet County. It is very complex in manure management, involving anaerobic digester and LeSueur Cheese wastewater. There are several churches and a church camp as well. There will be heavy use of roads and I expect the township may comment on this. And heavy use of water. Stormwater is to be discharged to Judicial Ditch 13 to Rush River and on to the Minnesota River. Several area waters are already impaired and having such a large livestock operation can only add to the problem in time. This is not a good location for such a large dairy. I expect the relationship with U of M will mean more diligence in management, but I still feel an EIS should be required. S. A. Henriksen PO Box 267 Dundas, MN 55019
2 -----Original Message----- From: dltj@myclearwave.net [mailto:dltj@myclearwave.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 4:00 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Comments on EAW Regarding High Island Dairy, LLC Dear Charles Peterson, I am a land owner and farmer within the immediate area of the proposed dairy project. We would like to be certain that all water,air,night lighting and transportation concerns are adequately evaluated. In reviewing attachment E-2 we are concerned that some of the public use wells in the area were not included and wells that are further away were included. The well at Trinity Lutheran Church, Sibley Township and the two wells at Rush River County Park were not included as public use wells. However, the well at High Island Creek County Park is listed in the report and that is not part of the Rush River watershed where the proposed dairy is planned. (Instead it is in the High Island watershed several miles North of this area). The Rush River Park in Sibley County has a potential water quality impact as the Rush River flows through the park and is a popular recreation area for hiking, swimming/wading and horseback riding. It is located in the Rush River Watershed downstream of the proposed project. Thank you for your review of these comments. Sincerely, Don and Lynnette Wiest