Please note that comment letters submitted to the MPCA do become public documents and will be part of the official public record for this project.

Transcription

1 August 26, 2005 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES RE: Enclosed is the Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed New Fashion Pork, Fransen Site, Nobles County. The EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and is being distributed for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The comment period will begin the day the EAW availability notice is published in the EQB Monitor, which will likely occur in the August 29, 2005, issue. Comments received on the EAW will be used by the MPCA in evaluating the potential for significant environmental effects from this project and deciding on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A final decision on the need for an EIS will be made by the MPCA Commissioner after the end of the comment period. If a request for an EIS is received during the comment period, or if the Commissioner recommends the preparation of an EIS, the MPCA Citizens Board (Board) will make the final decision. The final EIS need decision will also be made by the Board if so requested by the project proposer, other interested parties or MPCA staff and if this request is agreed to by one or more members of the Board or the MPCA Commissioner. The Board meets once a month, usually the fourth Tuesday of each month, at the MPCA office in St. Paul. Meetings are open to the public and interested persons may offer testimony on Board agenda items. A listing of Board members is available on request by calling (651) Please note that comment letters submitted to the MPCA do become public documents and will be part of the official public record for this project. If you have any questions on the EAW, please contact William Lynott of my staff at (651) Sincerely, Richard Newquist Supervisor, Environmental Review Unit Environmental Review and Operations Section Regional Division RN:jgo Enclosure

2 Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Note to reviewers: The Worksheet (EAW) provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. This EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The project proposer supplied reasonably accessible data for, but did not complete the final worksheet. Comments on the EAW must be submitted to the MPCA during the 30-day comment period which begins with notice of the availability of the EAW in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. Comments on the EAW should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that are reasonably expected to occur that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. A copy of the EAW may be obtained from the MPCA by calling (651) An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA Web site 1. Basic Project Information. A. Feedlot Name: Farm 173, Engelkes Site B. Feedlot Proposer: New Fashion Pork, LLP C. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Technical Contact Person Jay Moore Contact Person William Lynott And Title Environmental Manager and Title Project Manager Address P.O. Box 244 Address 520 Lafayette Road North Jackson, Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota Phone Phone Fax Fax jdmoore@nfpinc.com D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) EIS Scoping Mandatory EAW X Citizen Petition RGU Discretion Proposer Volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and name: E. Project Location: County Nobles City/Twp Worthington/Little Rock NW 1/4 NE 1/4 Section 1 Township 101 N Range 42 W Watershed (name and 4-digit code): 1017 TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 F. Attach each of the following to the EAW: Attachment 1. Location Map; Attachment 2. County Map; Attachment 3. Topographic Map; Attachment 4. Aerial Photo; Attachment 5. Site Plan View; Attachment 6. One-mile Receptor Map; Attachment 7. Letter, Minnesota Historical Society; Attachment 8. Letter, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Heritage Program; Attachment 9. Letter, Minnesota Department of Health; Attachment 10. Manure Application Plat Maps; Attachment 11. Manure Application County Map; and Attachment 12. Air Emission Modeling Report. G. Project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. New Fashion Pork proposes to construct a new 1,200 animal unit wean-to-finish hog feedlot facility (Facility) consisting of a single barn measuring 332 feet x 102 feet with four rooms, each with an independent 8 foot deep reinforced concrete manure storage pit. The manure will be stored for one year and land applied at agronomic rates as fertilizer by injection. H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested data: Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Finishing hogs (Wean-Finish) 4,000 Total confinement slat floor over concrete deep pits Sows Nursery pigs Dairy cows Beef cattle Turkeys Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species) I. Project magnitude data. Total acreage of facility: 6 acres Number of animal units proposed in this project: 1,200 Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: 1,200 Acreage required for manure application: 564 Total land available for spreading manure: J. Describe construction methods and timing. Worthington, Minnesota 2 Worksheet

4 The single story barn will be built with four separation production rooms, each underlain by a concrete manure storage pit under slatted floors, for the storage of liquid manure. The proposed Facility will be built on a six acre tract. Actual construction activity will involve one acre of land. Storm water control measures will be implemented for temporary and permanent erosion control protection. Construction will take approximately 9 weeks. See Attachments 1-5. K. Past and future stages. Is this project an expansion or addition to an existing feedlot? Yes No Are future expansions of this feedlot planned or likely? Yes No If either question is answered yes, briefly describe the existing feedlot (species, number of animals and animal units, and type of operation) and any past environmental review or the anticipated expansion. 2. Land uses and noteworthy resources in proximity to the site. A. Adjacent land uses. Describe the uses of adjacent lands and give the distances and directions to nearby residences, schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, places of worship, and other places accessible to the public (including roads) within one mile of the feedlot and within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites. The one-mile area surrounding the proposed Facility and all land for spreading manure is zoned agricultural. All of the residential units within one mile of the proposed Facility are or have at one time been active farmsteads. The proposed Facility site has eight homesteads within a one mile radius (Attachment 6). The proposed Facility will be 283 feet from the public road-right-of-way. The nearest residence is the facility manager, Mark Engelkes, who has signed a waiver addressing the encroachment upon his residence. The next closest residence is 2,360 feet (0.45 miles) away. B. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to any of the following adopted plans or ordinances? Check all that apply: local comprehensive plan land use plan or ordinance shoreland zoning ordinance flood plain ordinance wild or scenic river land use district ordinance local wellhead protection plan Is there anything about the proposed feedlot that is not consistent with any provision of any ordinance or plan checked? Yes No. If yes, describe the inconsistency and how it will be resolved. The proposed Facility will encroach upon property line setbacks. To resolve the issue, New Fashion Pork has requested to go before the Conditional Use Committee of Nobles County to seek approval. Are there any lands in proximity to the feedlot that are officially planned for or zoned for future uses that might be incompatible with a feedlot (such as residential development)? Yes No If yes, describe the potentially affected use and its location relative to the feedlot, its anticipated development schedule, and any plans to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with the feedlot. C. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the feedlot, manure storage areas, or within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites? Worthington, Minnesota 3 Worksheet

5 Drinking Water Supply Management Areas designated by the Minnesota Department of Health? Yes No Public water supply wells (within two miles)? Yes No Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Yes No Designated public parks, recreation areas or trails? Yes No Lakes or Wildlife Management Areas? Yes No State-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities? Yes No Scenic views and vistas? Yes No Other unique resources? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The Little Rock River, which lies in the vicinity of one of the manure application fields, has been designated as critical habitat for the Topeka Shiner, a fish species that is listed both as a federal endangered species and as a state species of special concern. Since a 25-foot setback must be observed when applying manure near streams, and since manure outside the setback will be injected, no significant impacts are expected on this species from manure application. 3. Geologic and soil conditions. A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) Greater than 13 feet 60 feet (average) 125 feet feet Bedrock (minimum) N/A N/A (average) Greater than 200 feet Greater than 200 feet B. NRCS Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Classifications (if known) Loam, Silt Clay Loam Loam, Silt Clay Loam C. Indicate with a yes or no whether any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water are present at the feedlot, manure storage area, or manure application sites. Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Karst features (sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing NO NO NO spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley); Exposed bedrock; NO NO NO Soils developed in bedrock (as shown on soils maps). NO NO NO For items answered yes (in C), describe the features, show them on a map, and discuss proposed design and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts. 4. Water Use, Tiling and Drainage, and Physical Alterations. A. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, appropriation of any ground or Worthington, Minnesota 4 Worksheet

6 surface water (including dewatering), or connection to any public water supply? Yes No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations or public supply connections; and unique well numbers and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) appropriation permit numbers, if available. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on-site, explain methodology used to determine that none are present. The proposed Facility will utilize a new private well. B. Will the project involve installation of drain tiling, tile inlets or outlets? Yes No If yes, describe. Drain tile will be installed around the perimeter of the manure storage pits to control hydrostatic water pressure on the deep pit walls. C. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI. Describe proposed mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts. 5. Manure management. A. Check the box or boxes below which best describe the manure management system proposed for this feedlot. Stockpiling for land application Containment storage under barns for land application Containment storage outside of barns for land application Dry litter pack on barn floors for eventual land application Composting system Treatment of manure to remove solids and/or to recover energy Other (please describe) B. Manure collection, handling, and storage. Quantities of manure generated: total 921,200 Gals per year Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle 21 Total days per year 21 Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled (including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot: Manure and wastewater will be collected during the year and stored in deep pits (concrete) under slotted floors. In the fall and/or spring, the manure will be agitated in the deep pits, pumped out of the deep pit into tankers, and land applied by injection as fertilizer. C. Manure utilization. Physical state of manure to be applied: liquid solid other, describe: Worthington, Minnesota 5 Worksheet

7 D. Manure application. 1. Describe application technology, technique, frequency, time of year and locations. Manure will be land applied by injection in the late fall and/or early spring using tankers or towedhose system. 2. Describe the agronomic rates of application (per acre) to be used and whether the rates are based on nitrogen or phosphorus. Will there be a nutrient management plan? Yes No The typical crop will be corn-soybean rotation. Application on corn will be nitrogen based. All manure will be applied at agronomic rates and incorporated into the soil. Soil samples will be collected at least every four-years to ensure that P2O5 is being utilized properly and does not accumulate to unacceptable levels. Crop Average yield Nitrogen needed Phosphorous needed Corn 170 bu/ac 145 lbs N/ac 100 lbs P2O5/ac Soybean 50 bu/ac 245 lbs N/ac 48 lbs. P2O5/ac 3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. All land dedicated for manure application is labeled Non-Highly-Erodible-Lands (HEL-N) by NRCS. Volume of manure and wastewater generated in one year is estimated to be 921,200 gallons per year. This equals 1,486 gals per acre if applied on all acres available. The total capacity for all deep pit storage containments is 1,953,177 gallons. 4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems. Manure applied within 300 feet of ditches, streams, and lakes will be: a) injected; b) applied once every two years to limit accumulation of P; c) not applied on frozen ground; and d) not applied within the prescribed 25 feet setback from open ditches and streams. Application within 300 feet of tile inlets shall be injected. No special protection is required near tile inlets other than injection of all manure. E. Other methods of manure utilization. If the project will utilize manure other than by land application, please describe the methods. None. 6. Air/odor emissions. A. Identify the major sources of air or odor emissions from this feedlot. The majority of air and odors emitted will come from the hog barn ventilation fans. These emissions Worthington, Minnesota 6 Worksheet

8 will be composed of dust, gases, and odors common to hog barns with deep pit manure storage. Some odor may be released during land application of manure during the fall or early spring. B. Describe any proposed feedlot design features or air or odor emission mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts and discuss their anticipated effectiveness. Feed Additives It is an accepted fact that many odors are carried by dust. A popular practice to reduce dust in swine buildings has been adding one to two percent of oil or fat to the feed. While adding fat or oil to the feed is effective in reducing the feed dust particles larger than five microns, it does not have a significant impact on particulates less than five microns. Barn Sanitation The owners will perform frequent washing of pens, stalls, equipment, and animals to help reduce the accumulation of dust and manure, which are constituents of odorous emissions. Land Application of Manure The owners plan to hire certified custom contractors to apply manure from the deep pits to cropland in the fall and/or spring of the year. Where land for application is close by, a hose system will be used to transfer manure from the barn to the injector applicator pulled by a tractor in the field. For fields further away, the tractor will pull tankers with injector system. Application of manure in the late fall or early spring by injection reduces release of the odors significantly and helps to prevent runoff. C. Answer this item only if no feedlot design features or mitigations were proposed in item 6.B. Provide a summary of the results of an air emissions modeling study designed to compare predicted emissions at the property boundaries with state standards, health risk values, or odor threshold concentrations. The modeling must incorporate an appropriate background concentration for hydrogen sulfide to account for potential cumulative air quality impacts. An air emission modeling study has been performed for this project (Attachment 12). The study results indicate that the site emissions will not exceed the state ambient air quality standard or the subchronic inhalation health risk value (ihrv) for hydrogen sulfide; the acute and chronic ihrvs for ammonia; or odor levels above the threshold air concentration associated with unpleasant feedlot odors. D. Describe any plans to notify neighbors of operational events (such as manure storage agitation and pumpout) that may result in higher-than-usual levels of air or odor emissions. The operators will notify all neighbors within half mile of barns and application sites prior to agitation and land application of manure to determine if this will interfere with their activities. Land application of manure will take place in the fall and/or spring, after harvest or before planting, by injection, which will minimize the release of odors E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Noise from the ventilation fans may be detectable up to 300 to 350 feet from the barns. The only other noise will be truck traffic entering and leaving the site. Dust from truck traffic on the site should be minimal. If it becomes a problem the owners will address it appropriately. Worthington, Minnesota 7 Worksheet

9 7. Dead Animal Disposal Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. Dead animals will be picked up by Darling International. Expected number of dead hogs is 240 per year. Dead hogs will be kept in a three-sided, permanent structure. Darling will regularly pick up dead hogs the same day when called before 10 am. As an alternative to rendering, an incinerator would be installed and operated according to state standards. 8. Surface Water Runoff. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. The quantity of storm water generated at the site will increase slightly as a result of barn construction and other impervious surfaces at the site. The current land use is cultivated cropland. The construction of the proposed Facility will require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water Construction Permit, which addresses the need for temporary and permanent erosion control measures. The rate of runoff leaving the site is expected to decrease due to the best management practices that will be implemented during and after construction. In addition, it is likely that the quality of the runoff would improve as the land changes from cultivated cropland to land that is covered by vegetation. 9. Traffic and Public Infrastructure Impacts. A. Estimate the number of heavy truck trips generated per week and describes their routing over local roads. Describe any road improvements to be made. There will be an average of 3.5 truck trips per week to deliver feed, collect dead animals, and to move livestock. B. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No If yes, please describe. The proposed Facility will drill a new private water well and the proposed Facility will require electrical service from Nobles Cooperative Electric. 10. Permits and approvals required. Mark required permits and give status of application: Unit of government Type of Application Status MPCA NPDES/State Disposal System Feedlot/Stormwater Permit Pending Environmental Review County Nobles County Feedlot License Pending Worthington, Minnesota 8 Worksheet

10 County/twp/city Conditional use or other land use permit Conditional approval May 24, 2005 MDNR Water Appropriation Pending Other* County Building Permit Pending *(List any other approvals required along with the unit of government, type of approval needed, and status of approval process.) 11. Other potential environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 10, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. This includes any cumulative impacts caused by the project in combination with other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Examples of cumulative impacts to consider include air quality, stormwater volume or quality, and surface water quality. (Cumulative impacts may be discussed here or under the appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form.) There is one swine feedlot within 3,681 feet from the proposed Facility, as well as a cattle feedlot located 3,584 feet from the proposed Facility. An air modeling study has been conducted which found that the air quality will not be negatively impacted. The land where the proposed Facility will be built is currently used for raising row crops. Runoff from the site is expected to stay the same or improve as a result of storm water erosion control and best management practices. No cumulative impacts relating to runoff quantity or quality are expected as a result of the construction or operation of this Facility. Animal agriculture as an industry is known to contribute to atmospheric acidity (ammonia, hydrogen sulfide), atmospheric nutrient transport and deposition (nitrogen compounds), global warming (methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide), and ozone layer depletion. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the proposed Facility would contribute significantly to any of these phenomena. The air modeling report does not indicate the potential for significant air quality impacts from the project. 12. Summary of issues. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. None. Worthington, Minnesota 9 Worksheet

11 RGU CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that: The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as phased actions, pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 60, , subp. 4, and , subp. 1. Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Name and Title of Signer: Richard Newquist, Supervisor, Environmental Review Unit Operations and Environmental Review Section Regional Environmental Management Division Date: The format for the alternative Worksheet form has been approved by the Chair of the Environmental Quality Board pursuant to Minn. R for use for animal feedlot projects. For additional information contact: Environmental Quality Board, Room 300, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) , or voice mail: (800) For TTY, call (800) and ask for Minnesota Planning. This form can be made available in an alternative format, such as audiotape. This form is available at Worthington, Minnesota 10 Worksheet