johnson pork producers, llc fof · 4410.1700, subp. 1). in deciding whether a project has the...

p-ear2-111b

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

STATE OF MINNESOTA

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED JOHNSON PORK PRODUCERS, LLC ROME TOWNSHIP FARIBAULT COUNTY, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

Pursuant to Minn. ch. 4410, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff prepared and distributed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Johnson Pork Producers hog facility expansion (Project) that will result in an Expanded Facility. Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Project Description 1. Lucas Johnson (Proposer) owns an existing facility that consists of a single 392-foot by 51-foot total

confinement power-ventilated barn with eight foot deep poured concrete pits, which houses up to 2,400 head of finishing swine (720 animal units) (AU) in Section 21 of Rome Township, Faribault County (Existing Facility).

2. The Proposer proposes to expand his Existing Facility by constructing one new 392-foot by 51-foot total confinement power-vented barn identical to the existing barn to store up to 2,400 finishing hogs (Project). The barn will contain a reinforced 8-foot deep below grade manure storage concrete pit.

3. The Existing Facility plus the Project will have a combined total maximum capacity of 4,800 finishing hogs (1,440 AU); together they are defined as the Expanded Facility.

4. Environmental review was not previously required on the Existing Facility because it was less than

1,000 AU. 5. The Proposer will manage manure generated from the swine through land application. These

manure application sites are located within two miles from the Project site within Rome Township, Faribault County. After Project completion, the Proposer estimates the Expanded Facility will generate 1,340,000 gallons of manure annually.

6. The Proposer is planning to begin construction of the Project in the fall of 2016.

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Johnson Pork Producers, LLC Conclusions of Law Faribault County, Minnesota And Order

2

7. Actual construction dates depend on completion of the environmental review process and issuance

of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit (Feedlot Permit). The Proposer applied for NPDES coverage on April 26, 2016.

Environmental Review of Expanded Facility

4. An EAW is a brief document designed to set out the basic facts necessary for the Responsible

Governmental Unit (RGU) to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for a proposed project or to initiate the scoping process for an EIS (Minn. R. pt. 4410.0200, subp. 24). The MPCA is the RGU for this Project.

5. An EAW is mandatory for this Project under Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29(A) (construction or

expansion of an animal feedlot facility with a capacity of 1,000 AU or more. Although the Existing Facility did not require a mandatory EAW, the expansion is a phased action under Minn. R 4410.0200, subp. 60, and now requires an EAW for the Existing Facility and Project; together the Expanded Facility.

6. The MPCA provided public notice of the Project as follows:

· The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) published the notice of availability of the EAW for public comment in the EQB Monitor on August 8, 2016 as required by Minn. R. 4410.1500.

· The EAW was available for review on the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html.

· The MPCA provided a news release to media in the southwest region of Minnesota, and other interested parties on August 8, 2016.

7. During the 30-day comment period ending on September 7, 2016, the MPCA received comments

from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the Minnesota Historic Preservation Office, Faribault County, and one comment from a citizen. A list and copies of the comments received and the response to comments are in Appendix A to these Findings.

8. The Feedlot Permit was open for comment from August 8, 2016, through September 7, 2016.

Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects

9. The MPCA shall base its decision on the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the

EAW process and the comments received on the EAW (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 3). The MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 1). In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are:

A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.


3

B. Cumulative potential effects. The RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.

C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public

regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project.

D. The extent to which environmental effects are anticipated and controlled as a result of other

available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the Proposer, including other EISs.

The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria

Are Set Forth Below Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 10. 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.

11. The types of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Expanded Facility include the following: · Surface water and groundwater quality · Groundwater appropriations; and · Air quality related to hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor emissions

With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Expanded Facility, the MPCA makes the following findings. Surface Water and Groundwater Quality 12. The Feedlot Permit requires that the Proposer develop and maintain on-site a stormwater pollution

prevention plan (SWPPP) that includes erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) for the construction and operation of the Project.

13. The Feedlot Permit requires the Expanded Facility to meet a zero discharge standard.

14. The Feedlot Permit requires housing of all livestock in total confinement barns with no access to surface waters, and storage of manure in below-ground reinforced concrete pits that meet the design criteria of Minn. R. 7020.2125.


4

15. The Proposer will install perimeter drain tiles below the footing elevations of the reinforced concrete pits. The Proposer will install inspection ports on the perimeter tiles to allow for observation of the drains tiles to ensure these are functioning properly and to identify seepage from the pits if a leak were to occur.

16. The Feedlot Permit also requires the Proposer to develop a manure management plan (MMP) that

meets the requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7020.2225. A MMP shows how manure generated at a feedlot is used during the upcoming growing season(s) in a way that maximizes the benefits of applying manure to cropland, meets all rules and regulations, and protects surface water quality.

17. The Proposer indicated that 400 acres of land are required for manure application, and has identified 475 acres of cropland available for manure application. The Proposer owns or rents all the land that is available for manure application.

18. The Proposer’s MMP outlines specific manure application methods the Proposer will implement as part of this Project. The Proposer will not be selling or transferring ownership of any manure generated from the Expanded Facility.

19. The Proposer will transport manure using accepted industry methods to prevent manure spilling

onto public roadways. If spillage occurs, the Proposer must remove and properly dispose of the manure in accordance with Minn. R. 7020.2010.

20. Minn. R. 7020 and the Feedlot Permit includes requirements that the Proposer must meet for manure application. The Proposer is responsible for gathering information to satisfy state requirements concerning soil testing, rate limits, seasonal restrictions, setbacks, keeping records, and reporting spills. The Proposer must also conduct manure management planning and recordkeeping that are specific to the fields and crops that receive manure.

21. The Proposer must keep records for the six most recent years, including the amount and nutrient content of manure delivered and location and the rate of manure application.

22. In order to avoid contaminating the groundwater at the manure application sites, manure

application utilizes agronomic rates based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry to minimize the potential for nitrate leaching into the groundwater. The MMP requires the applicator spreading manure to observe MPCA and/or county water supply well setback requirements, whichever are the more restrictive. As a result, the MPCA does not expect incorporated manure to adversely impact water quality.

23. The MPCA finds that these measures will mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater

quality related to manure incorporated at the manure application sites. 24. The land application of manure, if done improperly, can not only adversely impact groundwater, but

can adversely impact surface-water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into drain tile lines that outfall to surface waters. Therefore, the MMP requires the manure applicator to observe MPCA and/or county setback requirements, as well as all other applicable


5

federal and state rules, whatever is most restrictive, around drain tile intakes located within and adjacent to manure application areas, and near other surface water resources.

25. The MMP requires the manure application associated with the Expanded Facility to occur in the

spring after the ground has thawed and before planting, or during the late fall after harvest. The timing reduces the likelihood of significant rain events and allows manure incorporation into the soil as soon as time and field conditions allow.

26. The MMP requires application to follow all applicable required setbacks from sensitive features and

waterways. The land application practices in the MMP, once approved by the MPCA, become an enforceable provision of the Feedlot Permit.

27. Minnesota’s “Final Animal Agriculture Generic Environmental Impact Statement” (2002) and the

University of Minnesota Agriculture Extension program state that manure not only supplies nutrients, but can also improve the biological and physical properties of soil, making it more productive and less erosive.

28. Manure, when properly used as part of a soil management program, improves soil quality, builds

soil structure, and increases the level of soil organic matter. Commercial fertilizers cannot provide these same improvements to soil properties.

29. The manure application sites at the Existing Facility already utilize manure rather than commercial

fertilizer. Nutrient application rates on cropland already receiving manure will remain unchanged. When cropland receives manure, commercial fertilizer is only applied to supplement manure nutrients up to agronomic rates.

30. The MPCA finds that the requirements of the Feedlot Permit and MMP minimize the potential for

manure applied at manure application sites to come in contact with runoff and enter surface waters.

31. The MPCA finds that quality of runoff from manure application sites will not significantly change if

managed in accordance with the MMP as required by the Feedlot Permit. Nutrients from manure tend to replace nutrients provided by other fertilizers, and improve soil tilth due to the use of organic fertilizer. The immediate incorporation of manure has the potential to improve runoff characteristics over the acres receiving manure under the MMP.

32. 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 Expanded Facility. The Proposer has developed measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts.

33. The MPCA finds the Expanded Facility does not have the potential for significant environmental

effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to groundwater or surface-water quality that are reasonably expected to occur.


6

34. The Feedlot Permit addresses the prevention of adverse effects on water quality due to manure storage and application.

35. Although the MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water quality, if water quality impacts were to occur, the Proposer will modify the operation and management of the feedlot. The MPCA would then modify the Feedlot Permit and MMP and impacts to waters would be reversed. Therefore, the MPCA finds any water quality impacts that may occur from the Expanded Facility are reversible.

36. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record are adequate to assess potential impacts to the quantity of surface water and groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Expanded Facility.

Groundwater Appropriation

37. The Proposer will not be installing a new well. There is one existing MDNR permitted well that

services the Existing Facility and consumes approximately 900,000 gallons of water per year. The Expanded Facility will double the consumption to 1.8 million gallons of water per year.

38. Because the Expanded Facility doubles water consumption to over one million gallons per year, the Proposer must obtain a new general MDNR Water Appropriation Animal Feedlots and Livestock Operations Individual Permit (Water Appropriations Permit). The MDNR reviews the permit application upon approval of the Feedlot Permit, which determines final animal numbers and, hence, water consumption. The MDNR requires a water appropriation permit for all users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or one million gallons per year. The MDNR reviews the permit application upon approval of the Feedlot Permit, which determines final animal numbers and, hence, water consumption.

39. The purpose of the MDNR Water Appropriation Permit Program is to prevent any adverse effects on

water appropriation due to increased usage of water by the Proposer and ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is available for long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and water quality control.

40. The MDNR 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 MDNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If the MDNR finds a commercial operator is causing interference, the operator must correct it.

41. Following the completion of environmental review, the Proposer may pursue the water

appropriation permitting process with MDNR. Unauthorized pumping or use of the well or other water resource is subject to enforcement under Minn. Stat. § 103. Upon completion of a permit review period, a permit for water appropriation may be limited, amended, or denied in accordance with applicable laws and rules for the protection of the public interests and the sustainability of Minnesota’s water resources.


7

42. Due to the MDNR oversight and permitting of water appropriations, the MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water quantity. However, if the MDNR determines there is well interference based on concerns or well interference claims, the operator must fix the causes of the interference. The impacts to water appropriations would then be reversed. Therefore, the MPCA finds that any water appropriation impacts that may occur from the Expanded Facility are reversible.

43. The MPCA finds that the Expanded Facility does not have the potential for significant environmental

effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to water appropriations that are reasonably expected to occur.

Air quality related to hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor emissions

44. The Proposer conducted air dispersion modeling, required for feedlots undergoing environmental

review, which estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and the intensity of odorous gases at the Expanded Facility property lines, and at the nearest neighbors. The MPCA reviewed and approved the modeling protocol and report.

45. The Proposer used the AERMOD model developed by the American Meteorological Society and the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is a widely used and accepted model in determining air quality. AERMOD includes conservative assumptions, which means that the model results are conservative predictions of future performance. The model evaluated the air quality impacts of the Expanded Facility.

46. The modeling results predict the Expanded Facility will comply with the 30 parts per billion (ppb)

hydrogen sulfide Minnesota ambient air quality (MAAQ) standard. Under the MAAQ standard, the third exceedance of the MAAQ within any five-day period is a violation. The AERMOD modeled results demonstrate compliance when the high-third-high (H3H) concentration (added to background concentration) for any five-day period at each property-line receptor is less than 30 ppb MAAQ standard.

47. AERMOD-predicted maximum H3H property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration of 12.38 ppb for

the Expanded Facility. When a background concentration of 17 ppb is added to the AERMOD predictions, the H3H hydrogen sulfide concentration is 29.38 ppb, which is below the ambient standard of 30 ppb. Thus, the MPCA finds that hydrogen sulfide emissions from the Expanded Facility do not pose a threat to the hydrogen sulfide ambient air quality standard.

48. The AERMOD modeling results also indicated that the Expanded Facility will not cause an

exceedance of the subchronic (13 week) hydrogen sulfide inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV) at neighboring residences. iHRVs are concentrations of chemicals emitted to air that are unlikely to pose a significant risk of harmful effects when humans are exposed to those concentrations over a specified period of time. The estimated maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration among the Expanded Facility’s neighbors is 0.19 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). When a background concentration of 1.00 μg/m3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum monthly neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.19 μg/m3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV of 10 μg/m3.


8

49. Based on the AERMOD modeling results discussed above, the MPCA does not expect violations of

the hydrogen sulfide ambient air quality standard or exceedances of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV as a result of the Expanded Facility. The MPCA expects the Expanded Facility to comply with the applicable air quality standards and iHRVs for hydrogen sulfide.

50. The modeling results also indicate that the Expanded Facility will not create exceedances of the

acute ammonia iHRV at the property line. AERMOD predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentration of 1,058 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m3 is added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is 1,206 μg/m3, which is below the acute ammonia iHRV of 3,200 μg/m3.

51. The AERMOD results indicate that the Expanded Facility will not create exceedances of the chronic

ammonia iHRV at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration at the neighbors is 1.40 µg/m3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration at the neighboring residence is 7.12 µg/m3, which is below the chronic ammonia iHRV of 80 µg/m3.

52. The MPCA finds that ammonia emissions expected from the Expanded Facility, including the

modeled exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV, do not present the potential for significant effects.

53. Although the state of Minnesota has not established ambient air quality standards to regulate odor,

the Proposer did complete AERMOD modeling for odor. The AERMOD results show the Expanded Facility will not contribute to odor concentrations (OU/m3) above an odor intensity defined as a “faint odor” at the property line. The modeled maximum hourly odor intensity was 70 OU/m3 on the Expanded Facility north boundary line. The “faint” threshold limit for swine facilities is 72 OU/m3.

54. The modeling results also predict the Expanded Facility will not contribute to odor concentrations

above an odor intensity of 72 OU/m3, defined as a “faint odor” at nearby non-feedlot residences. The maximum hourly odor intensity for a non-feedlot neighboring residence was 27 OU/m3 which is barely above the “very faint” odor threshold of 25-OU/m3 and well below the “faint” threshold.

55. The MPCA finds that odor at the Proposer’s property line and at nearby residences, projected to be a “faint odor”, does not present the potential for significant environmental effects.

56. The Proposer has submitted an air emissions and odor management plan with the Feedlot Permit

application for the Project. Under the plan the Proposer will empty below-ground reinforced concrete manure storage pits once per year in the fall. The Proposer will inject all of the manure into the soil upon land application, thus reducing odor potential at the time of application. Although there will be odors, because manure is a source of odor, the total confinement facility design will also help to mitigate odors by limiting exposure to the atmosphere.


9

57. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts expected to occur from the Expanded Facility, air emissions will continue while it remains in operation and would cease only if the Expanded Facility were temporarily or permanently closed. While the Expanded Facility is in operation, the MPCA expects the Expanded Facility to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria.

58. If excessive air emissions or violations of the ambient hydrogen sulfide air standards were to occur,

or if the Proposer exceeded iHRVs for ammonia, air quality impacts are likely to be correctable. The MPCA could initiate an investigation and require the Proposer to make operation and maintenance changes. Therefore, the MPCA finds that any impacts on air quality that may occur from the Expanded Facility are reversible.

59. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record are adequate to assess the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur as a result of the Expanded Facility. The Proposer has methods to prevent significant adverse impacts.

60. The MPCA finds the Expanded Facility does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts on air quality reasonably expected to occur from the Expanded Facility.

Cumulative Potential Effects 61. 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.

62. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or

anticipated future projects that may interact with this Project in such a way as to result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects.

63. The EAW addressed the following cumulative potential effects of the Expanded Facility:

· Water quality of surface waters and groundwater, and · Air quality.

Water Quality of Surface Waters and Groundwater 64. The Expanded Facility and the proposed manure application sites are within minor watersheds of

the Blue Earth River Watershed. Land use in the Blue Earth River Watershed is primarily agricultural, dominated by animal and crop production.


10

65. The MPCA reviewed the MPCA’s impaired waters database to determine if the Expanded Facility would contribute to any existing impaired surface waters. The Blue Earth River is the closest watercourse in the same watershed listed on the 2014 Impaired Waters requiring a TMDL. The MPCA lists the Blue Earth River as impaired for mercury in fish tissue and turbidity. The Blue Earth River is approximately 11.5 miles downstream of the closest manure application

66. The manure application sites lie within the Blue Earth River watershed. The Blue Earth River

watershed drains an area of land approximately 777,240 acres in size, with land use being primarily agricultural dominated by animal and crop production. The activities related to the surface water impairments in the Blue Earth River watershed originate from a combination of anthropogenic point source (e.g., inadequately functioning septic systems) and nonpoint source (e.g., agricultural activities) discharges.

67. Strategies outlined in the TMDL implementation plan approved for Blue Earth River for addressing

reductions in fecal coliform bacteria include Conservation Reserve Program buffers, alternative tile intakes, grassed waterways, livestock exclusion, sediment basins, nutrient management plans, wetland restorations, and streambank stabilization. These source reduction strategies are effective in reducing pathogen transport/survival.

68. Typical strategies identified for preventing and managing impairments related to manure include buffer strips and buffer set-aside acreage in the Conservation Reserve Program, nutrient and manure management, and residue management. The Proposer is currently utilizing the most applicable measures required in the MMP for the manure generated at the Expanded Facility. The Proposer is also required to use the most applicable measures in the MMP that are incorporated as an enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit once issued.

69. As TMDLs move forward, implementation plans will include measures for preventing and managing

manure, including those already required through the Feedlot Permit and MMP requirements. 70. The Feedlot Permit requires that the Expanded Facility meet zero discharge standards. As a result,

there should be no discharge of manure or manure-contaminated runoff to any waters of the state. 71. Land applicators of manure must also comply with MPCA or county manure application setback

requirements as well as all other applicable federal and state rules, whatever are the more restrictive.

72. The MMP, in order to prevent impacts to any waters of the state, is designed specifically for the

manure that the Proposer expects to generate at the Expanded Facility and the Proposer-controlled manure application sites.

73. The Proposer has designed the Expanded Facility to ensure manure will not come in contact with

any stormwater; therefore, the MPCA does not expect any manure-contaminated stormwater runoff from the Expanded Facility. Further, proper operation and management of the Expanded Facility will prevent any runoff of manure and/or manure-contaminated stormwater runoff from impacting waters of the state, whether or not waters are impaired.


11

74. Adherence to appropriate manure land application practices in the MPCA-approved MMP for Proposer/Transferred Manure Ownership will prevent the runoff of manure and/or manure-contaminated stormwater runoff from impacting waters of the state, whether or not waters are impaired.

75. Since the MMP and Feedlot Permit require preventative measures to protect water quality, the

MPCA does not anticipate the Expanded Facility will contribute to any potential adverse effect on water quality. Therefore, the MPCA does not expect the Expanded Facility to contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on water quality.

Air Quality

76. The MPCA evaluated cumulative potential effects on air quality 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 air modeling. The modeling analysis included the estimated emissions from the Expanded Facility and incorporated conservative background concentrations to account for the potential impacts of air emissions from other feedlots in the area of the Expanded Facility. The Proposer estimated air concentrations for these pollutants at the 14 residences closest to the Expanded Facility.

77. All modeled concentrations were below the health-based and nuisance odor criteria used in the analyses. Therefore, the MPCA has determined that cumulative potential effects on air quality will not be significant in the Expanded Facility area, and the Expanded Facility will not contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on air quality.

78. Based on information obtained from air modeling reports and feedlot permit application processes,

information on water quality in the Expanded Facility area presented in the EAW, and in consideration of potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from this Expanded Facility.

79. The MPCA finds the Expanded Facility does not have the potential for significant environmental

effects related to cumulative potential effects that are reasonably expected to occur. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority

Unit of government Permits and Approval Required MPCA Feedlot Permit, including a MMP and a NPDES

Construction Stormwater Permit MDNR Water Appropriation Permit Faribault County Conditional use or other land use permit

80. MPCA Feedlot Permit. The MPCA requires the Proposer to obtain a new Feedlot Permit for the Project. The Feedlot Permit incorporates construction and operation requirements, including stormwater, and includes operating plans that address manure management, emergency response protocols, and odor/air quality management. The attachments are an enforceable condition of the Feedlot Permit. The Feedlot Permit incorporates provisions of the Construction Stormwater (CSW)


12

Permit pertinent to livestock operations. Thus the Proposer is not required to apply separately for coverage under the CSW Permit.

81. MDNR Water Appropriation Permit. The Proposer must obtain a new MDNR Water Appropriation Permit, as the Expanded Facility will be withdrawing more than 1,000,000 gallons per year. The Proposer estimates an approximate use of 1.8 million gallons per year for the Expanded Facility.

82. Faribault County Conditional Use Permit. The Proposer obtains 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 needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses.

83. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental

effects of the Expanded Facility. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Expanded Facility 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

84. 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.

85. Although not exhaustive, the MPCA reviewed the following documents as part of the environmental

impact analysis for the Expanded Facility. · Data presented in the EAW; · Feedlot Permit application, with attachments; · Air Quality Modeling Report, and updated information for the report; and · Permits and environmental review of similar facilities.

86. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the Proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff.

87. The environmental effects of the Expanded Facility are addressed by the design and permit

development processes, and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans. There are no elements of the Expanded Facility that pose the potential for significant environmental effects

88. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies by public agencies or the

Proposer, and staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Expanded Facility that are reasonably expected to occur are anticipated and controlled.

89. 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.

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Johnson Pork Producers, LLC (Project) Environmental Assessment Worksheet

(EAW)

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

1. Jane Byers, e-mail received August 8, 2016.

2. Sarah J. Beimers, Minnesota Historic Preservation Office, letter received August 29, 2016.

3. Shane Johnson, Faribault County, email received August 31,2016

4. Kevin Mixon, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, letter received September 1, 2016

1. Comment from Jane Byers, email received August 8, 2016

Comment 1-1: “In regards to this proposal, I just wanted to comment that I'd like to see Minnesota deny this type of industry from expansion. Animal farms harm the environment and supporting animal feed lots and slaughter facilities is a serious risk to public health. I am an advocate for the environment and for animal rights, and I strongly oppose this expansion.”

Response: Comment noted.

2. Comment from Sara J Beimers, Minnesota Historic Preservation Office, letter received August 29,2016

Comment 2-1: No properties were identified in the area that will be affected by this project.

Response: Thank you for your comment. No additional response is needed.

3. Comments from Shane Johnson, Faribault County, letter received August 29, 2016

Comment 3-1: On page 1 of the Notice of Availability of an EAW Worksheet under Description of Proposed Project, the township name should be Rome and not Frost.

Response: Comment noted. Rome Township is correct. The EAW for the permanent record, available on the MPCA website and in the MPCA Environmental Review file, has been modified with the correct information.

Comment 3-2: On page 2 of the EAW, Item G, the township name should be Rome and not Frost.

Response: Comment noted. Rome Township is correct. The EAW for the permanent record, available on the MPCA website and in the MPCA Environmental Review file, has been modified with the correct information.

Comment 3-3: On page 7 of the EAW, Table 3, there are more private wells within the 2 miles than what are listed.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW

Johnson Pork Producers, LLC Responses to Comments on the Rome Township, Faribault County, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet

2

Response: The wells shown in the table are only the located wells from the County Well Index (CWI). Other wells the MPCA assumed to be present at rural residences not included on the CWI, are shown on Exhibit E of the EAW. Comment 3-4: On page 12 of the EAW, Item 2, 1,450,000 gallons of manure will be produced per the Manure Management Plan, while on Page 13, Item 3 states 1,340,000 gallons of manure will be generated. Response: Comment noted. The correct value is 1,450,000. The EAW for the permanent record, available on the MPCA website and in the MPCA Environmental Review file, has been modified with the correct information. Comment 3-5: On page 19 of the EAW, part of Item E (Dust), both roads identified are gravel and not paved. Response: Comment noted. The roads are gravel. The EAW for the permanent record, available on the MPCA website and in the MPCA Environmental Review file, has been modified with the correct information. Comment 3-6: On page 21 of the EAW, near the top of the page, 30th Street is identified as paved and it is gravel. Response: Comment noted. The road is gravel. The EAW for the permanent record, available on the MPCA website and in the MPCA Environmental Review file, has been modified with the correct information. Comment 3-7: On page 21 of the EAW, Table 10, the applicant will need to apply for a Variance as well as a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The wording in the status should also read Variance and Conditional Use Permit will be applied for after EAW is complete, and not CUP will be issued. Response: Comment noted. A variance and CUP will be required. Comment 3-8: On page 22 of the EAW, Surface Water Impacts, the expanded facility is in section 21 and not section 20. Response: Comment noted. Section 21 is correct. The EAW for the permanent record, available on the MPCA website and in the MPCA Environmental Review file, has been modified with the correct information. Comment 3-9: On page 23 of the EAW, Groundwater Appropriation, the well depth listed is 87 feet while on page 9 the well depth listed is 120 feet. Response: The actual depth from the County Well Index is 87 feet. The EAW for the permanent record, available on the MPCA website and in the MPCA Environmental Review file, has been modified with the correct information. Comment 3-10: MDNR Office Memorandum regarding MPARS ID: 2016-0761, it is surprising that the MDNR did not require an actual animal type and head count. In the Site Notes it states: The applicant


3

did not indicate the animal type or anticipated number. I will use the assumption that Mr. Johnson’s facility is a 3000-4000 head finishing hog barn. Response: The MPARS application does not ask for animal numbers, just water use estimate. The actual number of animals will be 4,800. Comment 3-11: I have not noticed any public notifications in the local newspapers similar to what was done for the R & R Hogs EAW. Response: See notice below that was published on May 23, 2016.


4

4. Comments from Kevin Mixon, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, letter received September 1, 2016

Comment 4-1: The letter stated that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources did not have any comments on the project. Response: No response is needed.

From: Jane ByersTo: Hysjulien, Laura (MPCA)Subject: Johnson Pork Producers, LLC Faribault CountyDate: Monday, August 08, 2016 10:02:49 AM

Facility name and location: Johnson Pork Producers, LLC Faribault County, Rome Township

In regards to this proposal, I just wanted to comment that I'd like to see Minnesota deny this type of industry from expansion. Animal farms harm the environment and supporting animal feed lots and slaughter facilities is a serious risk to public health. I am an advocate for the environment and for animal rights, and I strongly oppose this expansion.

Jane Byers

1

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Johnson Pork Producers, LLC EAW Comments from Shane Johnson @ Faribault County 8/31/16

On page 1 of the Notice of Availability of an EAW Worksheet under Description of Proposed Project, the township name should be Rome and not Frost.

On page 2 of the EAW, Item G, the township name should be Rome and not Frost.

On page 7 of the EAW, Table 3, there are more private wells within the 2 miles than what are listed.

On page 12 of the EAW, Item 2, 1,450,000 gallons of manure will be produced per the MMP, while on Page 13, Item 3 states 1,340,000 gallons of manure will be generated.

On page 19 of the EAW, part of Item E (Dust), both roads identified are gravel and not paved.

On page 21 of the EAW, near the top of the page 30th Street is identified as paved and it is gravel.

On page 21 of the EAW, Table 10, the applicant will need to apply for a Variance as well as a Conditional Use Permit. The wording in the status should also read Variance and Conditional Use Permit will be applied for after EAW is complete and not CUP will be issued.

On page 22 of the EAW, Surface Water Impacts, the expanded facility is in section 21 and not section 20.

On page 23 of the EAW, Groundwater Appropriation, the well depth listed is 87 feet while on page 9 the well depth listed is 120 feet.

DNR Office Memorandum regarding MPARS ID: 2016-0761, it is surprising that the DNR did not require an actual animal type and head count. In the Site Notes it states: The applicant did not indicate the animal type or anticipated number. I will use the assumption that Mr. Johnson’s facility is a 3000-4000 head finishing hog barn.

I have not noticed any public notifications in the local newspapers similar to what was done for the R & R Hogs EAW.

3

johnson pork producers, llc fof · 4410.1700, subp. 1). in deciding whether a project has the...

Documents