STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT

Transcription

1

2 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED BRAUN HOG FEEDLOT EXPANSION PRAIRIEVILLE TOWNSHIP/BROWN COUNTY SLEEPY EYE, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R (2005), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Braun Hog Feedlot Expansion project (Project). Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, comments, and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following,,. FACILITY HISTORY Permitting History A Construction Short Form permit was issued by Brown County on July 16, 2003, for the existing facility. Previous Environmental Review No previous environmental review action has been undertaken for this Project. Compliance/Enforcement History A compliance inspection was conducted by Brown County on April 12, 2004, and the facility was found to be in compliance with Minn. R. ch PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed New Construction/Proposed Modification Brian Braun is proposing to expand his existing feedlot by constructing a 51-foot by 360-foot swine finishing barn, with an eight-foot deep concrete pit beneath it, in Prairieville Township of Brown County. The proposed construction would house 2,400 head of finishing swine (720 animal units [AU]). The feedlot currently consists of a 51-foot by 360-foot structure housing 2,400 head of finishing swine (720 AU) and three remodeled barns housing 600 head of finishing swine (180 AU). After the expansion, the feedlot will house a total of 5,400 head of finishing swine (1,620 AU). Manure from these structures will be land applied and incorporated once per year. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 Environmental Concerns Environmental concerns related to feedlot facilities generally include: air quality hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odors; surface-water impacts; ground-water impacts; and water supply. Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters (Addressed in Appendix B, Response to Comments) No comment letters were received. Community Involvement in Process In addition to the 30-day public comment period for the EAW, the community will have an additional opportunity to become involved in the process during the Brown County Conditional Use Permit process, which entails a local public hearing for the Project. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 29 (2005), an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R (2003), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on June 2, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to Brown, Nicollet, Blue Earth, Watonwan, Cottonwood, Redwood and Renville counties, as well as other interested parties on June 1, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on June 5, 2006, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at on June 5, The public comment period for the EAW began on June 5, 2006, and ended on July 5, During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA did not receive any comment letters. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 4. Under Minn. R (2005), the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur. 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 , subp. 7 (2005). These criteria are: A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and 2

4 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 5. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R , subp. 7. (2005). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below. 6. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to air quality: A. hydrogen sulfide emissions; B. ammonia emissions; and C. odor. 7. The Air Quality Modeling Report, included as Attachment D to the EAW, contained the following information with regard to the extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions MPCA rules establish a state ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide of 30 parts per billion (ppb). Minn. R Air quality modeling was performed that calculated the concentrations of hydrogen sulfide at the property line and nearest neighbor location. The computer modeling was conducted using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)- accepted CALPUFF air quality model, based on five years of historical meteorological data. Background (existing) concentrations of hydrogen sulfide were also included in these calculations. The background concentration was developed using ambient air quality monitoring data and followed the process outlined in EPA modeling guidance. The modeling results indicate that the proposed Project will not exceed the existing ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The modeling results indicate that the proposed Project s maximum contribution to the ambient hydrogen sulfide concentration is ppb on a volume basis at the site s effective property lines. When the background hydrogen sulfide concentration of 17 ppb is added to the modeling results (i.e., cumulative impact), the maximum property line hydrogen sulfide concentration is ppb, which is below the state ambient air quality standard of 30 ppb established by Minn. R The modeling results suggest that no significant adverse effects to the environment or human health are expected from the proposed Project s hydrogen sulfide emissions. 3

5 B. Ammonia The inhalation health risk values (ihrv) were created by the Minnesota Department of Health as a means to assess the potential for health risks in light of exposure to a pollutant in the ambient air. Air quality modeling was performed that calculated the estimated concentrations of ammonia at the property line and nearby residents to evaluate whether the proposed Project would exceed the applicable chronic and acute ihrv for ammonia. The computer modeling was conducted using the EPA-accepted CALPUFF air quality model, based on five years of historical meteorological data. Background (existing) concentrations of ammonia were also included in these calculations to account for the cumulative impact analysis. The air quality modeling results indicate that the proposed Project s maximum contribution to the ambient ammonia concentration at the site s effective property lines is 924 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ). When the local background ammonia concentration of 148 μg/m 3 is added to the modeling results, the maximum property line ammonia concentration is 1,072 μg/m 3, which is well below the acute ihrv for ammonia of 3,200 μg/m 3. In addition, the air quality modeling results indicate that the maximum annual ammonia concentration for any of the Project s 32 neighbors is μg/m 3, also well below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 μg/m 3. The MPCA concludes that the ammonia emissions from the proposed Project are not significant and are not reasonably expected to adversely impact the environment or human health. C. Odors Air quality modeling was performed that calculated the concentrations of selected odorous gases (including para-cresol and n-butyric acid) at the estimated property line and nearest neighbor locations. Odor modeling in this application is based on chemical surrogates, which are known odorants in context to odor-response curves based on the perceptions of human subjects that reflect the general population. The odor threshold concentration is defined as the gas-phase concentration at which 50 percent of the population can detect the gas s odor. The odor number employed in this Project assessment is defined as the ratio of the estimated atmospheric concentration for a specific odorous gas divided by the gas s odor threshold concentration. An odor number equal to one suggests that 50 percent of the population can detect the estimated atmospheric concentration for a specific gas. An odor number greater than one suggests that more than 50 percent of the population can detect the gas, while a value less than one indicates that less than 50 percent of the population can detect the gas. Typically, an odor number below about 0.1 suggests that less than one percent of the population can detect the gas. The odor modeling was conducted as part of the air quality modeling using the CALPUFF air quality model, based on five years of historical meteorological data. While the modeling results suggest that detectable concentrations of odorous gases can exist off site, the highest estimated maximum concentration of total volatile odorous organic compounds any neighbor would experience is 2.9 times less than the threshold concentration associated with unpleasant odors. The modeling results suggest that no significant adverse effects to the environment or human health are expected from the proposed Project s emission of odorous gases. 4

6 8. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential air quality effects that are reasonably likely to occur from this Project would be reversible. Once emissions are released to the air, they cannot be recovered, but the release can be stopped. Though not expected to be necessary, there are measures that can be implemented to minimize impacts. For example, the MPCA could initiate a complaint investigation and require the proposer to make operational and maintenance changes. As discussed above, the expected effects on air quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this Project is reasonably expected to cause a potential for significant negative effects on air quality. 9. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to air quality: The MPCA did not receive any public comments concerning air quality; however, the air modeling study for the Project predicts that odors will fall below levels of concern. As discussed above in Finding 8, and in Section 6 of the EAW, the analysis indicates that the effects on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 10. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts have been developed, as discussed in Section 6 of the EAW. In addition, the air modeling analysis was conducted using an EPA-accepted protocol that employed reasonable and conservative assumptions that are standard with regard to this type of analysis and which have been verified by field data. The MPCA deems the results of the air quality modeling to be reliable and conclusive. 11. 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 environmental effects reasonably expected to occur as a result of its air emissions. 12. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to water quality: A. surface water and ground water; and B. water supply. 13. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Surface Water and Ground Water The MPCA has reviewed the construction and operation plans for the Project, including the land application of manure. The current swine finishing barns and the proposed new barn are total confinement systems that are designed to avoid and eliminate the potential for water quality impacts. The manure is contained in engineered concrete pits, located beneath the ground, which are covered by the livestock building to avoid contact with precipitation. The Project design calls for manure to be land applied in concentrations that facilitate crop yields (i.e., agronomic rates). The use of an agronomic rate avoids or eliminates potential impacts to water resources. The land application information is found in the Manure Management Plan (MMP) and contains such details as the agronomic rates, soil types, land 5

7 application method, and cropping practices. The land application sites where manure will be spread and setbacks from any surface waters, including tile intakes, have been included in the MMP. This information also meets the criteria of the MPCA Feedlot Rules. Land application of the manure is not reasonably expected to result in manure or manure-contaminated runoff reaching surface waters. The MMP will be an enforceable part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit that will be issued by the MPCA. B. Water Supply: As discussed in the EAW, no new wells will be drilled. The new barn will connect to existing well #696419, which is subject to Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Appropriation Permit # Existing water usage is approximately 3.3 million gallons per year. The total water usage after the proposed expansion will be approximately 5.9 million gallons per year. 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 (2005) establishes domestic 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. Based on the information discussed above, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant adverse water supply effects from the proposed Project s water usage. 14. The reversibility of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this Project would be reversible. If a significant impact occurs from excess nutrients in the soil, the Project can cease using the problematic fields and the surface water would recover. Because manure is stored in concrete structures, the potential for ground-water pollution is very low and not reasonably likely to occur. As a result, the MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this Project would be reversible. As discussed above, the expected effects on water quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water quality. 15. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality: The MPCA did not receive any public comments concerning water quality; however, as discussed above in Findings 13A, 13B, and 14, the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 6

8 16. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed. 17. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects on water quality based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 18. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, Minn. R , subp. 7(B) (2005). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 19. The EAW and the 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 make any potential cumulative environmental impacts reasonably likely to occur. 20. Public comments concerning cumulative impacts: The MPCA did not receive any public comments concerning cumulative impacts. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the project, including a review of the MMP, air quality assessment and construction plans for the proposed facility, the MPCA does not reasonably expect the Project to have significant adverse cumulative effects upon surface water or ground water. 21. In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA finds that the reasonably expected effects from this Project will not be significant. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 22. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority, Minn. R , subp. 7(C) (2005). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 7

9 23. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. MPCA NPDES/SDS Feedlot/Stormwater Application has been submitted Permit to the MPCA for review. B. Brown County Conditional Use Permit Final permit to be issued upon completion of environmental review. C. Brown County Septic System Permit Final permit to be issued upon completion of environmental review. 24. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur. 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 EIS 25. 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 , subp. 7(D) (2005). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 26. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the Project. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, staff experience, and other available information. Nutrient Management Plan; Air Quality Modeling Evaluation; NPDES/SDS Feedlot/Stormwater Permit application; and Draft EAW 27. There are no elements of the 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. 28. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. 8

10