STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

Transcription

1 p-ear2-131b

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 HI-WAY 30 HOGS, LLC PROJECT BYRON TOWNSHIP, WASECA 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 Hi-Way 30 Hogs Project. 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). FINDINGS OF FACT Project Description 1. Hi-Way 30 Hogs, LLC (Proposer) proposes to expand its existing swine finishing feedlot in Section 15 of Byron Township in Waseca County. 2. The Proposer will construct one new barn to hold up to 2,400 finishing hogs (Proposed Facility). The Existing Facility plus the Proposed Facility (Project) will have a combined total maximum capacity of 4,800 finishing hogs [1,440 animal units (AU)]. 3. The Proposed Facility consists of constructing one 393 foot by 51-foot total confinement finishing barn with concrete slatted floors, underlain by a 9 foot deep, below ground, reinforced concrete pit for manure storage. The barn will be equipped with concrete slatted floors. The Proposer will install pit fans over the manure pump outs along the exterior edge of the barn. 4. The Project will produce animal manure. The Proposer will land apply the manure on fields that it owns, or are owned by third parties, who have entered into agreements with the Proposer. 5. The Proposer will hire a commercial animal waste technician (CAWT) to land apply manure to cropland according to its MPCA approved manure management plan (MMP). 6. The Proposer applied for coverage under the State of Minnesota General Animal Feedlot National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (MNG441910) (Feedlot Permit) on June 9, Actual construction dates depend on completion of the environmental review process and issuance of the Feedlot Permit. 8. The Project will generate approximately 2.2 million gallons of manure annually. Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Procedural History 9. An EAW is a brief document designed to provide 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 , subp. 24). The MPCA is the RGU for this Project. 10. The Existing Facility was constructed in 2016 and included 2,400 finishing hogs (720 AUs). The Proposed Facility will add an additional 2,400 finishing hogs (720 AUs). The combined total maximum capacity of the Existing and Proposed Facilities will be 4,800 finishing hogs (1,440 AUs). 11. Because construction of the Existing Facility was begun within three years of the Proposed Project, the cumulative total of the Proposed and Existing Facilities is included in determining whether a mandatory threshold is met or exceeded. See Minn. R , subp. 1; Minn. R , subp The MPCA considered the Existing Facility and Proposed Facility as phased actions in determining the need for an EAW, preparing the EAW, and determining the need for an EIS. Minn. R , subp The MPCA provided public notice of the Project as follows: a. The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) published the notice of availability of the EAW for public comment in the EQB Monitor on June 12, 2017, as required by Minn. R b. The EAW was available for review on the MPCA website at c. The MPCA provided a news release to media in the southeast region of Minnesota, and other interested parties, on July 24, d. The Proposer s application for permit coverage under the Feedlot Permit was open for public comment from July 24, 2017, through August 23, During the 30-day comment period ending on August 23, 2017, the MPCA received comments on the EAW and Feedlot Permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Minnesota Historical Society and two citizens, and no comments on the Feedlot Permit application. 15. The comments received are included as Appendix A to these Findings. 16. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comments received during the 30-day public comment period. The responses are included as Appendix A to these Findings. Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 17. 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 2

4 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 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 RGU shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the Project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the Project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the Project. C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the Project. D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the 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 18. 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. 19. The types of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project include the following: Surface water and groundwater quality Groundwater appropriation Air quality impacts related to hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor emissions 20. Comments received during the EAW comment period raised an additional issue regarding manure and mud dropped on area roads during transportation to area fields for application. 21. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following Findings. Surface Water and Groundwater Quality 22. The Feedlot Permit, section 3.7, requires the Proposer to develop and maintain on-site a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that includes erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) for the construction and operation of the Project. 3

5 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 23. Minn. R. pt , subp. 1 and 2, and the Feedlot Permit, Section 10, items 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4, require each project site to meet a zero discharge standard. 24. The Feedlot Permit, Section 10.5, requires that all animals at the feedlot have no access to surface waters, and storage of manure in a belowground reinforced concrete pit that meets the design criteria of Minn. R As stated in the Proposer s application for permit coverage under the Feedlot Permit and confirmed in the MPCA s review of the application and in the EAW, the Proposer will install perimeter drain tiles below the footing elevations of the reinforced concrete pit. 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 pit if a leak were to occur. 26. The Feedlot Permit, Section 4, also requires the Proposer to develop a MMP that meets the requirements of Minn. R The MMP describes how manure generated at each feedlot is land applied during the fall in a way that maximizes the benefits to cropland, meets all rules and regulations, and protects surface water quality. The Proposer prepared and submitted a MMP with the Feedlot Permit application. 27. The Project will require approximately 436 acres of land for manure application. The Proposer has identified 1,440 acres of cropland available for manure application. 28. The Proposer will hire a CAWT to land apply manure generated by the Project to cropland owned by third parties with land application agreements. The CAWT will land apply 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 The Feedlot Permit, Section will require that the Proposer ensure that manure hauled on federal, state, or local highways, is hauled in a manner to prevent manure spilling onto public roadways. If manure leakage or spillage occurs, the Proposer must remove and properly dispose of the manure in accordance with Minn. R The Feedlot Permit, Section 4.4, requires the Proposer, prior to or at the time of manure land application, to provide the cropland owner/operator with the most current manure nutrient analysis and additional information and mapping of areas to avoid when applying manure. The Proposer must comply with the MMPs as applicable under Minn. R , or local requirements, whichever are the more stringent. 31. The CAWT will apply and incorporate the manure via direct injection. 32. Minn. R and the Feedlot Permit, Sections 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 contain manure application requirements which apply, even if the Proposer transfers the manure to a third party landowner. The requirements include soil testing, rate limits, seasonal restrictions, setback requirements, recordkeeping, and spill reporting. 33. For the fields receiving the manure, the Proposer must conduct manure management planning and recordkeeping that are specific to the field s soils and crops. 4

6 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 34. Minn. R. pt , subp. 5, governs the recordkeeping requirements for both the Proposer, as well as recipients, of transferred manure, including the amount and nutrient content of manure delivered, the name, location of the applied manure, and the rate of application. 35. In order to avoid contaminating the groundwater at the manure application sites, manure application uses 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. Minn. R. ch governs the requirements for land application of manure, including setbacks to county and/or water supply wells, open well intakes, special protection areas, sinkholes, mines, quarries, and wells. Where a county also has setback requirements, the Proposer, the CAWT, and the recipients of transferred manure must follow the most restrictive of the state and county setback requirements. As a result, the MPCA does not expect incorporated manure to adversely impact water quality. 36. The MPCA finds that the measures specified above will mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater quality related to manure incorporated at the manure application sites. 37. 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 federal and state rules, whatever are most restrictive, around drain tile intakes located within and adjacent to manure application areas, and near other surface water resources. 38. The MMP requires the manure application associated with the Project to occur in the 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. 39. The MMP requires applications to follow all applicable required setbacks from sensitive features, such as karst features and waterways. The land application practices in the MMP, once approved by the MPCA, become an enforceable provision of the Feedlot Permit. 40. According to University of Minnesota Agriculture Extension manure management information, manure contains several essential plant nutrients, and contributes to increased crop yields when properly applied to soils. Manure provides valuable organic matter to soil that improves soil tilth, aids in the retention of water and nutrients, and promotes growth of beneficial microorganisms. 41. 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. 42. 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. 5

7 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 43. Landowners may alternate between commercial fertilizers and manure for differing reasons. However, when landowners receive manure on their fields, they may only add commercial fertilizer in quantities to meet the nutrient needs of their crops. 44. The Proposer s MMP, once approved by the MPCA, will require the Proposer, the CAWT, and the recipients of transferred manure to ensure the manure is incorporated, via direct injection into the soil. 45. The MPCA finds that quality of the stormwater runoff from land application areas for the manure will not significantly change if managed in accordance with the MMP required by the Feedlot Permit. 46. The MPCA finds that the requirements of the Feedlot Permit and the MMP minimize the potential for manure applied at manure application sites to enter surface waters. 47. The MPCA finds that the 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 Project. The MPCA finds the Proposer has developed adequate measures in its MMP to prevent or mitigate potential water quality impacts. 48. The Feedlot Permit include conditions for the prevention of adverse effects on surface water or groundwater quality due to manure storage and application. 49. Although the MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water quality, if they were to occur, the Proposer must modify the operation and management of the Project. The MPCA would then modify the Feedlot Permit and the MMP, and impacts to waters would be reversed. Therefore, the MPCA finds any water quality impacts that may occur from the Project are reversible. 50. 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 quality of surface water and groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. 51. The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent and reversibility of impacts related to surface water and groundwater quality, which are reasonably expected to occur. Groundwater Appropriation 52. The Proposer plans to use the existing well on site to supply water for the Project. The Project has a projected service consumption of 1.8 million gallons per year. The DNR will transfer the permit from the Existing Facility to the Project without modification. The projected 25-year service consumption is 45 million gallons for the Project. 53. The DNR is the permitting authority for appropriating waters of the state in Minnesota. The DNR Water Appropriations Permit allows for a reasonable use of water if the use does not negatively impact surrounding wells or other water resources. 6

8 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 54. The DNR requires a Water Appropriation Permit for all users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or 1 million gallons per year. 55. The purpose of the Water Appropriation Permit 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. 56. The DNR Water Appropriation Permit balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the State s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the DNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If the DNR finds a commercial operator is causing interference, the operator must correct it. 57. Unauthorized pumping or use of the well or other water resources is subject to enforcement under Minn. Stat Upon completion of an investigation, 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. 58. Due to the DNR oversight and permitting of water appropriations, the MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water quantity. However, if the DNR determines there is well interference based on concerns or well interference claims, the operator must fix the causes of the interference. Thus, the impacts to water appropriations would then be reversed. The MPCA finds that any water appropriation impacts that may occur from the Project are reversible. 59. The MPCA finds that the Project, 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. Air Quality 60. The Proposer conducted air dispersion modeling to estimate the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and the intensity of odorous gases at the Project property lines, and at the nearest neighbors. 61. The Proposer s air dispersion modeling used the American Meteorological Society Regulatory Model (AERMOD) developed by the American Meteorological Society and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The model evaluated the air quality impacts of the Project. AERMOD is a widely accepted air dispersion model, which uses conservative assumptions to predict air quality. Air Quality Related to Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions 62. The February 2017 modeling results predict the Project 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 7

9 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order background concentration) for any five-day period at each property-line receptor is less than 30 ppb MAAQ standard. 63. The February 2017 AERMOD modeling predicted maximum H3H property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration of ppb for the Project. 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 Project do not pose a threat to the hydrogen sulfide ambient air quality standard. 64. The air modeling also indicates that the Project 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. The highest estimated maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration among the Project s neighbors is 1.13 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). When a background concentration of 1.00 μg/m3 is included, the maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration at a neighboring residence is 2.13 μg/m3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 μg/m Based on the February 2017 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 Project. The MPCA expects the Project to comply with the applicable air quality standards and ihrvs for hydrogen sulfide. Air Quality Related to Ammonia Emissions 66. The modeling report indicates that the Project will not create exceedances of the acute ammonia ihrv at the property line. The modeling predicted a maximum hourly ammonia concentration of μg/m3 at the east property line. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m3 was added to the modeling prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is μg/m3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 μg/m The modeling report indicates that the Project will not create exceedances of the chronic ammonia ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum 1-year time-averaged ammonia concentration for a neighboring residence is 5.34 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 μg/m3, which is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 μg/m Based on the modeling results discussed above, the MPCA finds that ammonia emissions expected from the Project do not present the potential for significant effects. Air Quality Related to Odor Emissions 69. Although the state of Minnesota has not established ambient air quality standards to regulate odor, the Proposer completed AERMOD modeling for odor. The modeling results predict that after 8

10 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order construction, the Project will not contribute to frequent odor concentrations (OU/m 3 ) above an odor intensity of 72 OU/m 3, defined as a faint odor at the property line. 70. The modelled maximum hourly odor intensity was 8.15 OU/m 3 on the south boundary line. The modeling results also indicate the Project will not contribute to odor concentrations above an odor intensity of 25 OU/m 3, defined as a very faint odor at nearby residences. 71. The Proposer has submitted an air emissions and odor management plan to the MPCA with its Feedlot Permit application. The plan includes measures that the Proposer will take to minimize the generation of odors from its proposed feedlot and from associated manure application. Odor minimization measures include using a below ground manure storage pit to contain odors from the feedlot. In addition, during the fall when the manure will be land applied, the manure will be injected into the soil within 24 hours of land application. 72. Based on the AERMOD modeling results discussed above, the MPCA finds that odor at the Proposer s property line and at nearby residences, does not present the potential for significant environmental effects. Summary of Air Quality Impacts 73. The MPCA expects the Project to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria. 74. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts expected to occur from the Project, air emissions from the Project will continue while it remains in operation and would cease only if the Project were temporarily or permanently closed. 75. 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 Project are reversible. 76. 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 Project. 77. The MPCA finds the Project, as 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 Project. Manure spills during transportation 78. The MPCA finds that Feedlot Permit, Section requires the Proposer to ensure that manure hauled on federal, state, or local highways, roads is hauled in a manner to prevent manure spilling onto public roadways. If manure leakage or spillage occurs, the Proposer must remove and properly dispose of the manure in accordance with Minn. R

11 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 79. The MPCA Finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts reasonably expected to occur from transportation of manure from the Project. Cumulative Potential Effects 80. 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 subp.7.b. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 81. 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. 82. The EAW addressed the following areas for cumulative potential effects for the proposed project. Surface water and ground water quality Air quality Surface Water and Groundwater Quality 83. The Project and its associated manure application sites are located within five sub-watersheds of the Le Sueur River major watershed in Waseca County. 84. Land use within the Project, and manure application site areas, is predominantly agricultural, which can contribute to non-point source pollution of surface waters. 85. Boot Creek is located within the Minnesota River Major watershed. Boot Creek is located approximately 2 miles to the east of one of the manure application sites identified as a part of the Project. This 6.91-mile-long reach, from south of Highway 30 to 260 th Avenue is a part of the Le Sueur watershed. 86. The Le Sueur River is listed as impaired for low dissolved oxygen and fecal coliform in the 2016 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report 10. The TMDL identifies livestock manure as one of the primary sources of fecal coliform contamination to the Minnesota River watershed. However, incorporated manure (i.e., Proposers manure application method), is listed as a low to moderate contributor to the watershed s fecal coliform bacteria impairment. The TMDL identifies the following BMPs to reduce fecal coliform loading from manure management: Conservation Reserve Program buffer strips, immediate incorporation of manure into the soil, and residue management. 87. The Proposer will implement the above-mentioned BMPs, which are specified within their MPCAapproved MMP and will be an enforceable part of the Project s Feedlot Permit. 10

12 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 88. The MPCA does not expect manure contaminated runoff from the Project site because it is a total confinement facility. In addition, the Project will operate under the NPDES feedlot permitting system, which has more stringent MMP requirements than smaller feedlots in the region. Finally, the swine manure from the Project is liquid and will be incorporated into the soil within 24 hours of land application by the CAWT. Thus, the potential for bacteria-laden manure runoff is reduced. Therefore, the MPCA does not expect the Project to contribute to these impairments. 89. The Feedlot Permit requires that the Project meet zero discharge standards. As a result, the MPCA does not expect any discharge of manure or manure-contaminated runoff to any waters of the state. 90. All manure application sites must also comply with MPCA or county setback requirements, as well as all other applicable federal and state rules, whatever are the more restrictive. 91. 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 Project and manure application sites. 92. Proper operation and management of the Project, and adherence to appropriate manure land application practices in the MPCA-approved MMPs, will prevent runoff of manure and/or manurecontaminated stormwater runoff from impacting waters of the state. 93. Since the Feedlot Permit and MMPs require preventative measures to protect surface water and groundwater quality, the MPCA does not anticipate the Project will contribute to any potential adverse effect on water quality. Therefore, the MPCA finds that the Project is not expected to contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on water quality. Air Quality 94. 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. 95. The modeling analysis included the estimated emissions from the Project and incorporated conservative background concentrations to account for the potential impacts of air emissions from seven other feedlots in the area of the Project. The Proposer estimated air concentrations for these pollutants at the residences closest to the Project. 96. All modeled concentrations for the Project were below the health-based criteria used in the analyses. Therefore, the MPCA finds that cumulative potential effects on air quality will not be significant in the Project area, and the Project will not contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on air quality. Cumulative Effects Summary 97. Based on information on the Project obtained from air modeling reports and Feedlot Permit application processes, information on water quality, groundwater presented in the EAW, and consideration of potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from this Project. 11

13 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 98. The MPCA finds the Project, as 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 99. 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 project." Minn. R , subp. 7.C. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: Unit of Government MPCA MDNR Waseca County Permit or Approval Required Feedlot Permit, including MMP and NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit (CSW) Coverage Water Appropriation Permit Conditional Use Permit 101. MPCA General Feedlot Permit. The MPCA requires the Proposer to obtain a 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 CSW Permit pertinent to livestock operations. Thus, the Proposer is not required to apply separately for coverage under the CSW Permit DNR Water Appropriation Permit. The Proposer must obtain a DNR Water Appropriation Permit, as the Project will be withdrawing more than 1 million gallons per year. The Proposer currently has one well located on the Project site that supplies the water for the Existing Facility. The Proposer has a general DNR Water Appropriations Permit Authorization (Permit # ) for this well for the withdrawal of up to 5 million gallons of water per year. The Proposer will not install a second well at the Project site. The DNR will transfer the permit from the Existing Facility to the Project without modification Waseca 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 that are needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. 12

14 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Hi-Way Hogs Feedlot Expansion Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 105. 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. 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 106. Although not exhaustive, the MPCA reviewed the following documents as part of the environmental impact analysis for the Proposed Project: Data presented in the EAW Feedlot Permit application, with attachments Air Dispersion Modeling Report Minnesota s Final Animal Agriculture Generic Environmental Impact Statement (2002) Permits and environmental review of similar projects 107. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the Project Proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff The environmental effects of the Project 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 Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects 109. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies by public agencies, or the Project Proposer, and staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled 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 111. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this Project. The EAW, the permit development process, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project design and permits. The Project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards Based on a comparison of the impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the criteria established in Minn. R subp. 7, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 13

15

16 APPENDIX A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Hi-Way 30 Hogs, LLC Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Richard and Sharon Possin. Letter received August 16, Kevin Mixon, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received August 18, Rick and Mary Bohlen. Letter received August 23, Sarah Beimers, Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received August 23, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Hi-Way 30 Hogs, LLC Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Richard and Sharron Possin. Letter received August 16, Comment 1-1: Commenters stated concerns that manure vehicles leaving the site will drop mud and manure on Highway 30, creating a danger for other drivers using the road. Response: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) does not expect manure to be spilled on area roads when it is removed from the Project Site and transported to fields for application. However, if a spill should occur, Minn. R. ch requires that Animal manure hauled on federal, state, or local highways, roads, or streets must be hauled in such a way as to prevent manure from leaking, spilling, or otherwise being deposited in the right-of-way. Manure deposited on a public roadway must be removed and properly disposed of by the hauler of the manure. Any manure that is not properly transported or adequately cleaned up as a result of a spill, would be subject to enforcement. In addition, the Feedlot Permit, Section requires the Proposer to ensure that manure hauled on federal, state, or local highways, roads is hauled in a manner to prevent manure spilling onto public roadways. Comment 1-2: The commenters stated concern that the odors from the facility may meet state standards initially, but could change over time. Response: The Proposer submitted an odor control plan that identified odor control strategies that are an enforceable part of the permit in the event that odors become an issue in the future. They are also required to work with the MPCA should implemented odor control strategies fail. County zoning requirements may also apply to odor emissions. Please note MPCA does not regulate odor, but rather hydrogen sulfide emissions.

17 Hi-Way 30 Hogs, LLC Project Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 1-3: The commenter stated objections to feedlot owners locating barns far away from their building site so they do not have to deal with odors and problems relating to each site. Response: Comment noted. The location of feedlot owners in relationship to the feedlots they operate is not an environmental issue and is beyond the scope of the EAW because the information on this issue would not inform a reasoned decision about the potential for, or significance of, the environmental effects of the Project under Minn. Rule Comments by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received August 18, Comment 2-1: The commenters point out that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Permitting and Reporting System does not show a water appropriation permit in Section 15, Township 105N, Range 23W, Byron Township, Waseca County. The applicant should apply for a preconstruction well assessment even though the feedlot site already includes well # that was installed in November Response: The Proposer has completed the necessary paper work and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has responded with preliminary approval (Attachment 1). 3. Comments by Rick and Mary Bohlen. received August 23, Comment 3-1: The commenters asked how can the permit for this expansion move forward when the line trees and special additives for the manure pits have not been done as promised in the permit for the existing barn. Response: Since the existing feedlot is not large enough to have a state feedlot permit, the permit in question seems to be the permit issued by Waseca County. Therefore, concerns regarding any special conditions agreed to under the existing Waseca County Permit for this feedlot should be directed to Waseca County. Comment 3-2: The commenters stated concerns that the composting building does not seem to be in place. Response: Please see response to 3-1. There currently is no compost building on site. Now that the Proposer is expanding above 1,000 animal units, a state feedlot permit is required. The Feedlot Permit requires that the facility meet all Board of Animal Health requirements for composting, which is an enforceable part of the permit. The Board of Animal Health does not require a composting facility to be covered. There can be no runoff from the composting facility, and it needs to be done on an impervious surface. The permit application lists the compost area as having a concrete floor. The proposer is not required to have walls or a roof at the facility. Comment 3-3: The commenters asked for information regarding the compliance-monitoring schedule for the site. Response: The MPCA feedlot staff will begin compliance inspections after the Project has been constructed and stocked. The MPCA inspects the Project during construction and periodically after construction as part of a rotation and in response to complaints. The Proposer is required to submit all 2

18 Hi-Way 30 Hogs, LLC Project Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet land application of manure records to the MPCA every year. For information regarding inspection results, please contact Feedlot Staff at Comments by the Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received August 23, Comment: The commenter stated that based on the review of the project information, determines that there are no properties in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by the project. Response: No response necessary. 3

19 1

20

21

22 2

23 3

24 4