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 ASMUS EGG FARMS INC FEEDLOT EXPANSION ALFSBORG TOWNSHIP SIBLEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R , the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Asmus Egg Farms, Inc. Feedlot Expansion project (Project). Based on the MPCA staff review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following,, and Order. Project Description Asmus Egg Farms operates a total confinement egg laying feedlot in Alfsborg Township, Sibley County. The Project is an expansion to their existing egg laying hen farm in Section 2, Alfsborg Township, Sibley County that contains 575 animal units in 2 barns. The proposed Project includes two 75-foot by 425-foot egg laying chicken barns, one 80-foot by 200-foot manure storage building, one 65-foot by 135-foot manure storage building, two water wells, and other associated infrastructure. The Project proposer plans to begin construction in the spring of When completed, there will be an additional 373,248 egg laying hens (under 5 pounds), or 1,120 animal units, for a total of 1,695 animal units. Procedural History 1. The permit application for coverage of the proposed Project under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Feedlot Permit was submitted to the MPCA on July 28, No previous environmental review has been completed on the site. 3. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 29, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R , the MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to media in Sibley, Nicollet, Le Sueur, Scott, Carver, McLeod, and Renville Counties, as well as other interested parties, on November 21, The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB Monitor on November 14, 2011, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA website at HUhttp:// p-ear2-28b TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 4. The 30-day comment period for the EAW began on November 14, 2011, and ended on December 14, During the comment period, the MPCA received one comment letter from a citizen and one letter from the Minnesota Historical Society, State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). A list and copies of the comment letters received are included in Appendix A to these findings. 5. The General NPDES/SDS Permit MNG was placed on public notice on November 14, 2011, and came off notice on December 14, No comment letters were received on the General NPDES/SDS Permit. 6. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the 30-day EAW comment period. The responses to the comments are included in Appendix A to these findings. Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 7. Under Minn. R , the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R , subp. 7. These criteria are: A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects B. cumulative potential effects C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority 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 8. 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. 9. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the proposed Project include the following: air quality impacts related to hydrogen sulfide emissions air quality impacts related to ammonia emissions air quality impacts related to odor impacts to groundwater and surface water quality 2

4 10. With respect to the extent and reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 11. Air quality modeling estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and the intensity of odorous gases at the Project s property lines and at the feedlot s 32 nearest neighbors. The model also considered the air emissions from three neighboring feedlots in that same area. The modeling protocol and report were reviewed and approved by MPCA staff. The table below provides a summary of the air quality modeling results. Asmus Egg Farms Inc Feedlot Expansion Hourly Average Concentrations in Ambient Air Proposed Site Property Boundary Hydrogen Sulfide (ppb) a Acute Ammonia (µg/m 3 ) b Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t) c Frequency Faint Odor Threshold is Exceeded c North % South , % East , <0.1% West , <0.1% a. The air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide is 30 ppb (parts per billion) as a half-hour average not to be exceeded more than two times in any five-day period. The results in the tables include a background concentration of 17 ppb. b. The acute ihrv (inhalation health risk value) for ammonia is 3,200 µg/m 3 (micrograms per cubic meter). The results in the table include a background concentration of 148 µg/m 3. c. Odor impact assessment based on odor units (OUs). Odor intensities and their perceived strength: very faint (25 71), faint (72 211), moderate ( ) strong (624 1,833), and very strong ( 1,834). UAir Quality Impacts Related to Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions 12. The CALPUFF modeling results indicated that the proposed Project will not violate the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The CALPUFF-predicted maximum project-specific contribution to the ambient hydrogen sulfide concentration was 9.90 ppb. When a background hydrogen sulfide concentration of 17 ppb was added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum property-line hourly concentration was ppb, which indicates that the half-hour standard of 30 ppb will not be exceeded. Thus, violations of the hydrogen sulfide standard are not expected to occur, and the proposed Project is expected to be in compliance with the applicable air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide. 13. The CALPUFF modeling results also indicated that the proposed Project will not cause the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv to be exceeded at neighboring residences. The estimated facility-specific maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentration for the feedlot s neighbors was 0.87 μg/m 3. When a background concentration of 1 μg/m 3 is added to the CALPUFF estimate, the 13-week neighbor hydrogen sulfide maximum concentration was 1.87 μg/m 3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 μg/m 3. 3

5 UAir Quality Impacts Related to Ammonia Emissions 14. The CALPUFF modeling results for ammonia indicate that the proposed Project will not exceed the acute ammonia ihrv. The CALPUFF model predicted a maximum hourly property-line concentration of 1,747 µg/m 3. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m 3 was added to the CALPUFF prediction, the maximum property line ammonia concentration was 1,895 μg/m 3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 μg/m The CALPUFF results also indicate that the feedlot would not result in air concentrations of ammonia exceeding the chronic ammonia ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration among the feedlot s neighbors was μg/m 3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 μg/m 3 was added to the CALPUFF estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration at any neighboring residence was μg/m 3, which is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 μg/m 3. Thus, the chronic ammonia ihrv is not expected to be exceeded. Air Quality Impacts Related to Odor 16. Ambient air quality standards are not established for the regulation of odor in Minnesota; however, the CALPUFF model was used to estimate the ground level odor intensities at the feedlot s property lines and at neighboring residences. As indicated in the table in finding number 11, the maximum hourly odor intensity predicted at the expanded feedlot s effective property lines was 80 OUs, which is above the faint odor threshold of 72 OUs. The modeled exceedences of the faint odor threshold were for three hours out of five years of weather data (43,824 hours), which is percent of the time. 17. The highest predicted OU value for the 32 nearest neighbors is 53 OUs, which is above the Very Faint threshold of 25 OUs, but below the Faint threshold of 72 OUs. Of the 32 nearest neighbors, 7 are predicted to experience odors above the Very Faint threshold of 25 OUs. The remaining 25 nearest neighbors are below the Very Faint threshold of 25 OUs. 18. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project, air emissions from the facility will continue while the facility remains in operation and would cease only if the facility were to be temporarily or permanently closed. While in operation, the proposed Project is expected to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria. If excessive air emissions or violations of the ambient hydrogen sulfide air standards were to occur, or if ihrvs for ammonia were exceeded, air quality impacts would be temporary in nature and corrective measures could be implemented. Such measures could include the initiation of a complaint investigation by the MPCA and requiring the Project proposer to make operation and maintenance changes. Therefore, the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project are reversible. 19. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to assess the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project. Methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed. 20. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. 4

6 Impacts to Groundwater and Surface Water Quality 21. With respect to the extent of potential water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 22. All laying hens will be housed in a total confinement building and not have access to surface waters. Manure will be stored in manure storage structures that meet the design criteria of feedlot rules (Minn. R ). The Project site itself will be required by the General NPDES/SDS Permit to meet a zero discharge standard. The General NPDES/SDS Permit requires that stormwater pollution prevention and management plans that include best management practices for the operation of the facility be developed and implemented on site. 23. All manure at the existing facility is and will continue to be transferred and is not land applied on property owned or controlled by the proposer. All applicators of manure, whether transferred or applied at permittee-owned sites, are required to follow state and local requirements pertaining to testing, limits, restrictions, setbacks, records, and reporting spills. 24. The details of the manure application methods to be implemented as part of this proposed Project are outlined in the proposer s Manure Management Plan (MMP), which is for transferred ownership of manure. Although ownership of all manure is to be transferred, the MMP for transferred manure will be an enforceable provision of the NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit for the Project. When ownership of manure is transferred, the MMP includes requirements that both the feedlot owner and manure recipient must meet. The feedlot owner is also responsible for providing the manure recipient with 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 is specific to the fields and crops. The owner of the manure must keep records for the three 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 was applied, and the rate of application. The commercial applicator spreading manure not owned or leased by the owner of the animal feedlot or the manure storage area from which the manure is produced must keep records, and a copy of the records submitted to the owner of the feedlot or manure storage area from which the manure is produced, no later than 60 days following land application. 25. In order to avoid contaminating the groundwater at the manure application sites, manure must be applied at agronomic rates, based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry, taking into account levels of nitrogen utilized by crops planted at the manure application sites and, therefore, minimizing nitrates leaching into the groundwater. MPCA and/or county setback requirements, whichever are the more restrictive, must also be observed from water supply wells. As a result, manure incorporated at the manure application sites will mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater quality. 26. The land application of manure, if done improperly, can adversely impact surface-water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into drain tile lines that outfall to surface waters. Therefore, MPCA and/or county setback requirements, whichever are more restrictive, must be observed around drain tile intakes located within and adjacent to manure application areas, and 5

7 near other surface-water resources. Additional requirements of the NPDES Permit and the MMP are expected to minimize the potential for manure applied at manure application sites to come in contact with runoff and enter surface waters. 27. The quality of runoff from land application areas for the manure is not expected to significantly change if managed in accordance with the MMP required by the NPDES/SDS Permit. Nutrients from manure will replace nutrients provided by other fertilizers, and improved soil tilth through the use of organic fertilizer and immediate incorporation of manure has the potential to improve runoff characteristics over the acres identified in the MMP. 28. With respect to the reversibility of water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from this proposed Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 29. The prevention of adverse effects on water quality due to manure storage and application is addressed in the proposed NPDES/SDS Permit. Significant adverse impacts to water quality are not expected; however, if water quality impacts were to occur, the operation and management of the feedlot and the MMP can be modified and impacts to waters could be reversed. Therefore, the water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project are found to be reversible. 30. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to assess potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project. Measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts have been developed and required as proposed permit conditions. 31. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur. Cumulative Potential Effects 32. 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. 33. The EAW addressed the following areas for cumulative potential effects for the proposed Project. air quality water quality of surface waters 6

8 Air Quality 34. Cumulative potential effects on air quality were evaluated by comparing the Minnesota ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide, ihrvs for ammonia, and odor intensity thresholds with concentrations in the air predicted by air modeling. The modeling analysis included the estimated emissions from the proposed Project and incorporated conservative background concentrations to account for the potential impacts of air emissions from other feedlots. Air concentrations were estimated for these pollutants at the 32 residences closest to the proposed Project. All modeled concentrations were below the health-based and nuisance odor criteria used in the analyses. Therefore, the cumulative potential effects on air quality are not believed to be significant in the Project area, and the proposed Project is not expected to contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on air quality. Water Quality of Surface Waters 35. The proposed Project is located in the North Branch Rush River watershed. The recreational use of a short reach of the North Branch Rush River near the outlet to the Middle Branch Rush River is listed as impaired due to the presence of higher levels of E. coli bacteria. The impaired reach of the river is approximately 12 miles downstream from the proposed expansion. 36. The proposed Project stores all the manure produced at the site in buildings designed for that purpose, where is protected from precipitation to prevent contamination of runoff. The manure is transferred to other parties for land application. By transferring the manure to other parties, it is spread across a much wider portion of the state than a typical feedlot operation, which minimizes the impact to a particular water body due to land application. Only a small portion of the land applied manure is expected to be applied to existing cropland in the watershed. 37. Based on information on the proposed Project obtained from air modeling, permit application and plan review processes, ongoing water quality assessments, a site visit, and presented in the EAW, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative potential effects from this Project. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 38. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority" (Minn. R , subp. 7.C). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 39. The following permits or approvals will be required for the proposed Project: Unit of Government MPCA MPCA Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Sibley County Permit or Approval Required General NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit Individual Water Appropriation Permit Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit 7

9 40. MPCA NPDES/SDS Livestock Production, Construction, Operation (Feedlot) and Stormwater Permit. The NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit incorporates construction and operation requirements, and includes operating plans that address manure management, operation and maintenance, emergency response protocols, animal mortalities, and odor/air quality management. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is also required. These plans are an enforceable condition of the NPDES/SDS Permit. 41. County Conditional Use Permit. The Project proposer is required to obtain all required building and conditional use permits required by local units of government to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The conditional use permit will address local zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that are needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses. 42. DNR Water Appropriation Permit. The proposed Project will consume over 5,000,000 gallons of water per year. An Individual DNR Water Appropriation Permit has been applied for by the Project proposer. 43. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the proposed Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the proposed Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 44. 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. 45. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the environmental impact analysis for the proposed Project. data presented in the EAW permit application and required plan submittals air dispersion modeling report This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on other information provided by the Project proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff. 46. There are no elements of the proposed Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans. 47. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the proposed Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. 8

10

11 APPENDIX A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Asmus Egg Farms Inc. Feedlot Expansion Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Britta L. Bloomberg, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historic Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received November 30, Walter and Eunice Asmus. received December 11, RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Britta L. Bloomberg, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historical Preservation Office. Letter received November 30, Comment 1-1: Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed on 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: Comment noted. 2. Comments by Walter and Eunice Asmus. received December 11, Comment 2-1: We would like to make a positive comment in regard to the Brian Asmus Egg Farm project. We have been involved with large numbers of hens since Although we are not actively involved with this project, we are not strangers to the business. Our home is one of those within the 100 feet area of the barns. Brian does an excellent job of sanitation, rodent control, and fly control as his records indicate. He was just audited by F.D.A. two weeks ago, and was found to be very good in his work. He is very observant of open tile inlets and drainage ditch setbacks when he hauls manure to various farms. He has never received a complaint about his hauling practices. Odors on our yard are not a problem, and flies are not a problem. His supervisors and veterinarian are impressed with the condition of his barns and the care he gives to the flock. Care is given outside the buildings by means of bait and traps to discourage rodents. Response: Comment Noted.

12 1

13 2