STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

Transcription

1 p-ear2-97b

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 BUENDORF HOG FACILITY HARTLAND TOWNSHIP FREEBORN 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 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,, and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT Project Description 1. Troy and Chad Buendorf ( Proposer ) own an existing facility that consists of a single 400-ft by 51-ft total confinement, power-ventilated building housing 2,400 head of finishing swine (720 animal units) ( AU ) in Section 6 of Hartland Township in Freeborn County ( Existing Facility ). 2. The Proposer proposes to expand his Existing Facility by constructing one new power-vented building to store up to 2,400 finishing hogs ( Project ). The Proposer will construct a reinforced concrete pit beneath the new building to store manure. 3. The Existing Facility plus the Project will have a combined total maximum capacity of 4,800 finishing hogs (1,440 AU) (the Existing Facility and the Project together are defined as the Expanded Facility. Both Project and Expanded Facility will be used throughout this document as needed to describe the EAW. 4. The Proposer applied for coverage to add the Project to the Existing Facility under the State of Minnesota General Animal Feedlot National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES ) Permit ( Feedlot Permit ) on November 3, No previous environmental review has been completed on the Existing Facility. 5. After the Project is completed, the Proposer estimates the Expanded Facility will generate 1,230,312 gallons of manure annually. Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 Environmental Review of the Project 6. 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 , subp. 24). The MPCA is the RGU for this Project. 7. An EAW is mandatory for this Project under Minn. R , 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 , subp. 60, and now requires an EAW for the Existing Facility and Project. This EAW evaluates both the Existing Facility and the Proposed Project Expansion. 8. The MPCA provided public notice of the Project as follows: a. The EQB published the notice of availability of the EAW for public comment in the EQB Monitor on March 14, 2016, as required by Minn. R b. The EAW was made available on the MPCA website at c. The MPCA provided a news release to media in the southern region of Minnesota and other interested parties on March 14, During the 30-day public comment period ending on April 13, 2016, the MPCA received comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ( MDNR ), Minnesota Historical Society and Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MnDOT ) and no comments from citizens. A list of the comment letters received and copies of the letters are included as Appendix A to these Findings. 10. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the 30-day public comment period. The responses to the comments are included as Appendix A to these findings. 11. The NPDES/State Disposal System ( SDS ) General Feedlot Permit was open for comment from March 14, 2016, through April 13, The MPCA did not receive any comments on the Permit. Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 12. 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 , subp. 3) The MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. (Minn. R , 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 , 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 2

4 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 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 13. 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 , subp. 7(A). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 14. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Expanded Facility include: Groundwater and surface water quality impacts related to runoff from the Facility and cropland used for land application of manure; Groundwater impacts related to groundwater appropriation; and Air quality impacts related to emissions of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odorous compounds from total confinement barns. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts reasonably expected to occur from the Expanded Facility, the MPCA makes the following findings. Impacts to Groundwater and Surface Water Quality 15. The Expanded Facility Feedlot Permit requires housing of all livestock in total confinement buildings with no access to surface waters, and storage of manure in below-ground reinforced concrete pits that meet the design criteria of Minn. R The Expanded Facility Feedlot Permit requires both the Existing Facility as well as the Project to meet a zero discharge standard. 17. 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 Facility. 3

5 18. The Feedlot Permit also requires the Proposer to develop a manure management plan ( MMP ) that meets the requirements of Minn. R. ch A MMP shows how manure generated at a feedlot Facility will be used during the upcoming cropping year(s) in a way that maximizes the benefits of applying manure to cropland, meets all rules and regulations, and protects surface water quality. 19. The Proposer indicated that 1,142 acres of land are required for manure application sites. This land is owned or rented by the Proposer, or secured under a manure management agreement to ensure land is always available for manure application. 20. The Proposer will transfer all manure generated from the Expanded Facility for offsite land application. State and local requirements require all applicators of manure, whether transferred or applied at permittee-owned sites, to follow testing, application limits, restrictions, setbacks, keep records, and report spills. 21. The Proposer s MMP outlines specific transfer of manure application methods the Proposer will implement as part of this Expanded Facility. Although the Proposer will ultimately sell all manure, the MMP for transferred manure will be an enforceable provision of the NPDES Feedlot Permit for the Expanded Facility. 22. When the Proposer transfers ownership of manure, Minn. R and the NPDES Feedlot Permit include requirements that the Proposer must meet. The Proposer is responsible for providing the manure recipient with information to satisfy state requirements concerning soil testing, rate limits, seasonal restrictions, setbacks, keeping records, and reporting spills. In turn, the recipient must conduct manure management planning and recordkeeping that are specific to the fields and crops to which the manure will be applied. 23. The Proposer must keep records for the six (6) most recent years, including the amount and nutrient content of manure delivered, the name and address of any commercial hauler or applicator who received the manure, the location where the manure is applied, and the rate of application. The applicator spreading manure for the manure recipient must keep records for six (6) years, and submit a copy of the records to the Proposer no later than 60 days following each land application. 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 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. 25. 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. 26. 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 4

6 applicator to observe MPCA and/or county setback requirements, as well as all other applicable 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. 27. The MMP requires the majority of the manure application associated with the Project to occur during the late fall. The timing reduces the likelihood of significant rain events and allows manure incorporation into the soil as soon as time and field conditions allow. The MMP requires application to follow all applicable required setbacks from sensitive features and waterways. The land application practices are included in the MMP, which once approved by the MPCA, becomes an enforceable provision of the Feedlot Permit. 28. 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. 29. 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. 30. The Proposer s land application sites already utilize manure rather than commercial fertilizer. Nutrient application rates on cropland already receiving manure will remain unchanged. Third party land owners and applicators may alternate between commercial fertilizers and manure for differing reasons, but will have this additional manure resource available. When cropland receives manure, commercial fertilizer can only be applied to supplement manure nutrients up to agronomic rates 31. The MPCA finds that the requirements of the Feedlot Permit and MMP will minimize the potential for manure applied at manure application sites to come in contact with runoff and enter surface waters. 32. The MPCA finds that quality of runoff from land application areas for the manure will not significantly change if managed in accordance with the MMP required by the Feedlot Permit. Nutrients from manure tend to replace nutrients provided by other fertilizers, and improved soil tilth due to the use of organic fertilizer and immediate incorporation of manure has the potential to improve runoff characteristics over the acres receiving manure under the MMP. 33. 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. Measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts have been developed. 34. The MPCA finds that the Expanded Facility, as it is proposed, 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. 5

7 35. The NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit addresses the prevention of adverse effects on water quality due to manure storage and application. 36. Although the MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water quality, if water quality impacts were to occur, the operation and management of the feedlot and the Feedlot Permit and MMP can be modified and impacts to waters could be reversed. Therefore, the MPCA finds the water quality impacts reasonably expected to occur from the Expanded Facility are reversible. Groundwater Impacts Related to Groundwater Appropriation 37. The Proposer will not install new wells for this Expanded Facility. However, the Existing Facility consumes approximately 1,750,000 gallons of water per year. The Expanded Facility (Existing Facility plus Proposed Expansion) expects to double the water consumption to approximately 3.5 million gallons per year. 38. The Expanded Facility proposed water appropriation is subject to the 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. 39. The purpose of the MDNR Water Appropriation Permit Program is to 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, such as Forsman Farms, is causing interference, the operator must correct it. 41. The MDNR Water Appropriations Permit addresses the prevention of adverse effects on water appropriation due to increased usage of water by the Proposer. 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 waters will then be reversed. Therefore, the MPCA finds that the water appropriation impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Expanded Facility are reversible. 43. 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. 6

8 44. The MPCA finds that the Expanded Facility, as proposed, 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. Impacts Related to Air Quality 45. 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 Expanded Facility nearest neighbors. The model also considered the air emissions from three (3) neighboring feedlots to the Expanded Facility. The MPCA reviewed and approved the modeling protocol and report. 46. The Proposer used the AERMOD model, which is a widely used and accepted model. 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. Air Quality Impacts Related to Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions 47. 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 (5)-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 (5)-day period at each property-line receptor is less than 30 ppb MAAQ standard. 48. AERMOD-predicted maximum H#H property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration of ppb for the Expanded Facility. When a background concentration of 17 ppb is added to the AERMOD predictions, the H3H hydrogen sulfide concentration is 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. 49. 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. HRVs 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 feedlot s neighbors is 0.55 μg/m 3. When a background concentration of 1.00 μg/m 3 was added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum monthly neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.55 μg/m 3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 μg/m 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. 7

9 Air Quality Impacts Related to Ammonia Emissions 51. 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 458 µg/m 3 along the east property line. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m 3 was added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is 606 μg/m 3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 μg/m The AERMOD results indicate that the Expanded Facility and the three (3) neighboring feedlots will not create exceedances of the chronic ammonia ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one (1)-year time-averaged ammonia concentration at the neighbors is 5.67 µg/m 3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m 3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration at the neighboring residence is µg/m 3, which is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 µg/m 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. Air Quality Impacts Related to Odor Emissions 54. Although Minnesota has not established ambient air quality standards to regulate odor, the Proposer did complete AERMOD modeling for odor. The AERMOD results indicate that construction and operation of the Expanded Facility would not contribute to odor levels above an odor intensity of 25 odor units ( OU )/m 3, defined as a very faint odor, at nearby residences. 55. The odor modeling conducted at the Proposer s property line shows maximum hourly odor intensity of 55 OU, which is above the very faint odor threshold of 25 OU and below the faint odor threshold of 72 OU along the east property line. 56. The MPCA finds that odor at the Proposer s property line and at nearby residences are projected to be very faint, which does not present the potential for significant environmental effects. 57. The Proposer has submitted an air emissions and odor management plan with the Feedlot Permit application for the Expanded Facility. 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. Type, Extent and Reversibility of Air Quality Impacts 58. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts expected to occur from the Expanded Facility, air emissions from the Expanded Facility 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 8

10 in operation, the MPCA expects the Expanded Facility to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria. 59. 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 the impacts on air quality reasonably expected to occur from the Expanded Facility are reversible. 60. 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. Methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed. 61. The MPCA finds that the Expanded Facility, 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 reasonably expected to occur from the Expanded Facility. Cumulative Potential Effects 62. 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 Expanded Facility 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 subp.7.b. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 63. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this Expanded Facility in such a way as to result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects. 64. The EAW evaluated the cumulative potential effects for the Expanded Facility on: Air quality; and Water quality of surface waters. Air Quality 65. 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 29 residences closest to the Expanded Facility. 9

11 66. 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. Water Quality of Surface Waters 67. The Expanded Facility and the majority of proposed manure application sites are located within five (5) minor watersheds of the Le Sueur River watershed. Land use in the Le Sueur Watershed is primarily agricultural, dominated by animal and crop production. 68. The MPCA reviewed the MPCA s impaired waters database to determine if the Expanded Facility would contribute to any existing impaired surface waters. The Le Sueur Watershed includes Boot Creek, listed as impaired because of fecal coliform, and the Le Sueur River, listed as impaired because fecal coliform and turbidity. Activities related to surface water impairments in the Le Sueur Watershed originate from a combination of anthropogenic point source (e.g., inadequately functioning septic systems) and nonpoint source (e.g., agricultural activities) discharges. 69. Boot Creek and the Le Sueur River are the closest water courses in the same watershed listed on the 2014 Impaired Waters requiring a total maximum daily load ( TMDL ) 1. The MPCA lists Boot Creek as impaired for fecal coliform and within approximately 0.4 and 0.6 miles of the closest manure application site in New Richland Township Section 19 and Byron Township, Section 25. Additionally, the MPCA lists Le Sueur River as impaired for fecal coliform and turbidity 2 and located within the 0.5 miles of the closest manure application sites, located in Sections 22, 23, and 25 of New Richland Township, respectively. The MPCA has listed the Le Sueur River for turbidity. 70. Boot Creek and Le Sueur River are located within the Le Sueur River Watershed and listed as impaired on the Federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list for recreational/human contact use based on water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria. The Fecal Coliform TMDL Report lists incorporated manure as a Low Moderate contributor to fecal coliform bacteria in the watershed, depending on climatic conditions 3. The Proposer will use BMPs, as outlined in the implementation plan for manure management including appropriate timing, nutrient and manure management, and residue management. 71. Land use within the Expanded Facility area is predominantly agricultural, which can contribute to non-point source pollution of surface waters. Boot Creek is about 650 feet to the west of the west hog barn. The Le Sueur River is approximately five (5) miles east of. The MPCA 2012 TMDL Report lists both of these rivers as impaired. The proposer must implement a SWPPP 1 Water Resources Center, Mankato State University. Fecal Coliform TMDL Assessment for 21 Impaired Streams in the Blue Earth River Basin. June Retrieved on February Water Resources Center, Mankato State University. Turbidity Total Maximum Daily Load Study: Greater Blue Earth River Basin. May Retrieved February Water Resources Center, Mankato State University. Fecal Coliform TMDL Assessment for 21 Impaired Streams in the Blue Earth River Basin. June Retrieved on February

12 which is part of the permit application and contains both temporary and permanent stormwater controls during construction and operation of the Expanded Facility. 72. 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 that are required in the MMP for the manure generated at the Existing Facility. The Proposer will also be required to utilize the most applicable measures in the MMP that will be incorporated as an enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit for the Existing and new facilities once issued. 73. 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. 74. The Feedlot Permit requires that the 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. 75. All manure application sites must also comply with MPCA and/or county manure application setback requirements as well as all other applicable federal and state rules, whatever are the more restrictive. 76. The MMP, in order to prevent impacts to any waters of the state, is specific to the Expanded Facility expected manure generation, proposer-controlled manure application sites. The MMP becomes an enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit once approved by the MPCA. 77. Proper operation and management of the Facility will prevent the runoff of manure and/or manurecontaminated stormwater runoff from impacting waters of the state, whether or not waters are impaired. 78. 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 manurecontaminated stormwater runoff from impacting waters of the state, whether or not waters are impaired. 79. 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. Cumulative Effects Summary 80. Based on information on the Expanded Facility obtained from air modeling reports and feedlot permit application processes, and information on surface 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. 11

13 81. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, 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 82. 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. 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 Expanded Facility." Minn. R , subp. 7(C). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 83. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Expanded Facility: Unit of Government MPCA Freeborn County MDNR Permit or Approval Required State of Minnesota General Animal Feedlot NPDES Permit and Manure Management Plan, including MPCA Construction Stormwater NPDES General Permit ( CSW Permit ) requirements Conditional Use Permit Water Appropriations Permit 84. State of Minnesota General Animal Feedlot NPDES Permit ( Feedlot Permit ). The Proposer must obtain a Feedlot Permit for the Expanded Facility. The Feedlot Permit incorporates construction and operation requirements, 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 CSW Permit pertinent to livestock operations, thus the Proposer is not required to apply separately for coverage under the CSW Permit. 85. Nobles County Conditional Use Permit. The 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 needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses. 86. MDNR Water Appropriations Permit. The Proposer must obtain a general MDNR Water Appropriations Permit for the Expanded Facility. The Existing Facility operates under Permit # for the existing well that MDNR will amend to incorporate water consumption by the Expanded Facility. The general permit allows up to five (5) million gallons per year and the Expanded Facility will utilize an estimated 3.5 million gallons of water annually. The Expanded Facility requires one well to supply the estimated 3.5 million gallons of water. 87. 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. 12

14 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. 88. 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). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 89. The MPCA staff reviewed, although not exhaustively, the following documents as part of the environmental review impact analysis for the Expanded Facility. Data presented in the EAW, Permit application(s), Air Dispersion Modeling Report, and Permits and environmental review of similar projects. 90. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the Proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff. 91. The environmental effects of the Expanded Facility have been 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 92. 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 can be anticipated and controlled. 93. 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 94. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this Expanded Facility. The EAW, the permit development process, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from the Expanded Facility. 95. The MPCA has identified areas where the potential for significant environmental effects and the Expanded Facility design and permits ensure the Proposer takes appropriate mitigation measures. The MPCA expects the Expanded Facility to comply with all environmental rules, regulations and standards. 13

15

16 APPENDIX A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Buendorf Hogs Facility ( Project ) Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( EAW ) List of Comment Letters Received 1. Kevin Mixon, Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Letter received April 6, Sarah Beimers, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Letter received April 11, Mark Schoenfelder, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Letter received April 13, 2016 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Kevin Mixon, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Letter received April 6, 2016 Comment 1-1: The commenter stated that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) appreciated the opportunity to review and comment on the Buendorf Hogs EAW located in Freeborn County, MN. They reviewed the project information and said they have no comments at this time. Response: Thank you for your comment. No response to this comment is necessary. 2. Sarah Beimers, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Letter received April 11, Comment 2-1: The commenter stated that based on the review of the project information, it has been concluded that no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Response: Thank you for your comment. No response to this comment is necessary. 3. Mark Schoenfelder, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Letter received April 13, Comment 3-1: The commenter stated that based on the review of the project information, the EAW is accurate and complete and there are no potential state transportation system impacts that warrant further investigation before the project is commenced and there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Response: Thank you for your comment. No response to this comment is necessary.

17 1

18 2

19 3