Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Transcription

1 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 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: B. Feedlot Proposer: Charles Carlson C. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Technical Contact Person Michael L. Anderson Contact Person James E. Sullivan and Title Consultant and Title Project Manager Address th Avenue Address 520 Lafayette Road North Mapleton, Minnesota St. Paul, Minnesota Phone (507) Phone (651) Fax (507) Fax (651) mikeanderson@lakes.com jim.sullivan@pca.state.mn.us TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing 100% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 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: Animal Feedlots subp. 29 E. Project Location: County Blue Earth City/Twp Shelby Township W 1/2 SE 1/4 Section 32 Township Shelby Range 28 Watershed (name and 4-digit code): 0702 F. Attach each of the following to the EAW: Site Location Map, Blue Earth, Faribault and Martin County Map (Exhibit 1); U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (Exhibit 2); Project Site Sketches (Exhibits 3 a-b); Table showing available manure acreage and maps of manure application sites (Exhibits 4 a-h); Maps showing wells, residences, and feedlots within a one-mile radius of the feedlot (Exhibits 5 a-d); and Air Quality Modeling Exercise (Exhibit 6). A copy of the Feedlot Permit Application is available upon request. Please contact Chuck Peterson with the MPCA Rochester Regional Office at (507) G. Project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Charles Carlson is proposing to expand his existing 2,000 head (600 animal units) swine finishing facility to a 4,000 head (1,200 animal units) facility. The proposed Swine Feedlot Expansion Project (Project) includes one new finishing swine barn, 41 feet by 408 feet, with concrete pits located beneath the barns. The proposed Project will be located in Section 32, Shelby Township, Blue Earth County. H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested data: Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Finishing hogs 2,000 Total confinement Sows Nursery pigs Dairy cows Beef cattle Turkeys Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species) Shelby Township, Minnesota 2 Worksheet

3 I. Project magnitude data. Total acreage of farm: 80 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: 800 *Phased Project see Item K below. J. Describe construction methods and timing. The expansion Project will consist of construction of one, 41 foot wide by 408 foot long total confinement barn housing 2,000 finishing hogs. Manure generated by the animals will be stored in eight foot deep, poured concrete pits beneath the barn. The barn will be 41 feet wide by 408 feet long, holding 2,000 head of finishing hogs. The poured concrete pits will provide at least 12 months of storage of the manure to be generated at the site. The Project in total will disturb approximately 1.25 acres. Construction will be completed within four months upon regulatory approval. See Exhibit 6 for details on concrete pit construction. 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 The existing barn was constructed within three years of receiving an application for the proposed barn; therefore, the Project is considered a phased action under Minn. R. ch The Project being evaluated in this environmental review includes both the existing barn and the newly proposed barn. 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. The existing swine feedlot consists of a 41 feet wide by 408 feet long total confinement barn housing 2,000 finishing hogs. The existing barn has an eight-foot deep, poured concrete pit beneath it. The new barn will be identical to the existing barn. There is no other anticipated expansion at this site. 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 Project is located in rural Shelby Township, Blue Earth County. The site is currently zoned for general agricultural use, as are the adjacent lands surrounding the proposed Project site. Land to be used for application of manure is likewise located on agriculturally zoned rural cropland. There are eight residences within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project site, one hog facility, three abandoned farmsites, and three land property owners. There is one judicial county ditch (#49) approximately 2,166 feet from the proposed Project. (Exhibit 5) The nearest town to the proposed finishing site is Amboy (approximately four miles to the northeast). Amboy has a population of approximately 575 people according to the 2000 census. There are no major rivers or streams within a one-mile radius of the proposed site. Shelby Township, Minnesota 3 Worksheet

4 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 N/A Flood plain ordinance N/A Wild or Scenic River land use district ordinance N/A Local wellhead protection plan N/A 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. 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? 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. On September 11, 2001, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reviewed the Natural Heritage database for information pertaining to a proposed project (Doug Meyer Hog Finishing Barn: ERDB ). The proposed Project is within the same geographic area as the Meyer Project. The Natural Heritage Database review indicates that there are two species of plant life within the area (Sullivant s Milkweed and Rattlesnake-Master). The proposed Project is not expected to impact the existing population of plant life listed in the National History Database review. Shelby Township, Minnesota 4 Worksheet

5 3. Geologic and soil conditions. A. See Exhibit 13 Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) 3 feet 3 feet 0 - >6 feet (average) 4 feet 4 feet.5 - >6 feet Bedrock (minimum) > 60 feet > 60 feet > 60 feet (average) > 60 feet > 60 feet > 60 feet B. NRCS Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Classifications (if known) Clay loam, silty clay loam. Clay loam, silty clay loam. Silty clay loam, clay loam, loam, silt loam, loamy fine sand. 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. Karst features (sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley); Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites No No No Exposed bedrock; No No No Soils developed in bedrock (as No No No shown on soils maps). 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 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 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 Project will use the existing well. A licensed well driller installed the well. Projects that pump more than 10,000 gallons of ground water per day or 1,000,000 per year are required to apply for and receive a DNR Water Appropriation Permit. The estimated water use of the Project at full production will be approximately 16,800 gallons per day or 6,132,000 gallons per year (gpy). This Project will therefore require application and acquisition of a DNR Water Appropriation Permit. Shelby Township, Minnesota 5 Worksheet

6 B. Will the project involve installation of drain tiling, tile inlets or outlets? Yes No If yes, describe. A drain tile will be placed around the perimeter of the concrete pits for drainage of saturated soils adjacent to the concrete pits. This drain tile will be pumped to a field drain tile where the water will be carried off to the county tile. 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 million gpy by species 1 Swine pounds by species 2 Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle Total days per year 14 Twice per year Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled (including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot: The waste handling system at the Project will be completely enclosed and self-contained in the pouredengineered concrete pits underneath the barns. The accumulation of manure at the site will be removed on an annual basis and transported to fields for land application by enclosed tankers and injected into the soil and used as fertilizer. All rates of injection will be calculated for agronomic rates and follow all local, state and federal regulations. C. Manure utilization. Physical state of manure to be applied: liquid solid other, describe: Shelby Township, Minnesota 6 Worksheet

7 D. Manure application. 1. Describe application technology, technique, frequency, time of year and locations. The Manure Management Plan (MMP) estimates the manure and manure nutrients to be generated by the existing and proposed Project and the acreage necessary to utilize the nutrients available for crop production in the manure. Land application of the manure will be done annually by injection, restricting any movement offsite that may occur from storm-water runoff. Manure will be sampled and analyzed for available nutrients. Application rate calculations will be based on available nitrogen in the manure added to any other nitrogen sources, and balanced with the crop to be grown the following growing season. Land application of manure would comply with setbacks prescribed by the Blue Earth County Feedlot Ordinance and the Blue Earth Land Use Ordinance supplement. 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 A MMP has been prepared for this Project and is available upon request. The manure will be sampled annually prior to the calculation of land application rates. Charles Carlson will be responsible for sampling of the manure, with the analysis performed by an accredited laboratory. A certified crop consultant will provide fertilizer recommendations and use those recommendations to calculate application rates of manure based on the results of the manure testing. Nitrogen will be the limiting nutrient and used to calculate the application rate. Phosphorus and potassium levels will be monitored from analysis of soil samples at a minimum of every four years, in accordance with Minn. R Records of manure sampling, application rates, locations, and the crops to be grown with soil sampling results, will be maintained. 3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. The existing and proposed poured concrete pits are designed to store liquid manure. The volume of the existing and proposed concrete pits is estimated to be sufficient to store the quantity of manure to be produced by the animals housed at the site. 4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems. The following separation distance will be maintained when land applying manure as prescribed by the MPCA guidelines, the Blue Earth County Feedlot Ordinance, and the Blue Earth Land Use Ordinance. Surface Spreading Incorporation or Injection Streams 300 feet 50 feet Lakes Water Wells Sinkholes Individual Dwelling Residential Development Public Roadway (ROW) Uncultivated Wetlands Drainage Ditches Year Flood Plain Prohibited Permitted Field Intake Shelby Township, Minnesota 7 Worksheet

8 Slope Soil Texture Time of Year Minimum Separation 0-6 percent Coarse Not Frozen 100 feet Frozen 200 feet Medium to Fine Not Frozen 200 feet Frozen 300 feet Over 6 percent Coarse Not Frozen 200 feet Medium to Fine Not Frozen 300 feet All Soils Frozen Prohibited E. Other methods of manure utilization. If the project will utilize manure other than by land application, please describe the methods. N/A. 6. Air/odor emissions. A. Identify the major sources of air or odor emissions from this feedlot. The Project consists of two finishing swine barns; an existing 41 foot wide by 408 foot long and a proposed 41 foot wide by 408 foot long. Each barn will house 2,000 finishing hogs. There will be poured concrete pits, eight feet in depth, underneath the barns. 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. To reduce the potential odor problem from these barns, Charles Carlson has proposed to build a below ground engineered concrete pit. This type of structure has shown odor control benefits compared to above ground storage tanks or open lagoons. In addition to the below ground concrete pit, Charles Carlson proposes to examine planting a windbreak. The Blue Earth County Soil and Water Conservation District will be consulted regarding the varieties to be planted and the exact placement on the site. Preliminary designs would place the windbreak at a distance of 100 feet from the proposed barn (to the north and east), allowing for natural ventilation. 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. Air quality computer modeling was performed that estimated concentrations in the air of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the proposed Project expansion and the existing swine finishing operation. The model estimated pollutant concentrations from the Project at the property line and nearest neighbors living near the proposed Project (see Exhibit 6). Shelby Township, Minnesota 8 Worksheet

9 A background concentration is the amount of pollutants already in the air from other sources and is used in this evaluation to address cumulative air impacts. Hydrogen Sulfide (H 2 S) and Ammonia (NH 3 ) may be present from other feedlot barns, the agitation and pump out of a neighboring feedlot or the pumping of a municipal Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). Air emissions from other emission sources may combine with the proposed Project to impact downwind human and environmental receptors. The background level for H 2 S that was used in the computer model was derived from monitoring at other feedlot facilities in Minnesota. The modeling adds the background air pollutant concentration to the emission concentration predicted to come from the proposed Project. The results of the modeling study indicate that no significant air quality impacts are expected from the proposed Project. (Exhibit 6). The modeling results indicate that the emissions from the Project would comply with the Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standard (MAAQS) for hydrogen sulfide and will not exceed the Minnesota department of Health s inhalation Health Risk Values (ihrv) for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. The modeled concentrations of these gases and the volatile odorous organic compounds predicted by the computer model are less than the levels that are usually considered unpleasant based on the Zahn Odor Correlation. The Zahn correlation relates the odor chemistry of livestock waste to human olfactory senses with good reliability. 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. A good neighbor policy that includes notification of neighbors prior to land application of manure is proposed. Efforts will be made to notify neighbors near the site and the land application acreage. If outdoor activities are planned by a neighbor to the site or cropland to be used for application of manure, then agitation or land application activities, as appropriate, will either be modified or suspended until such outdoor activities have been completed. E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. During construction, normal noise and dust associated with earthmoving equipment and construction will be generated. After construction, fugitive dust emissions are expected to be minor because of grass seeding, confinement of the hogs to the barns, and graveled driveways acting to help control fugitive dust. The noise generated during the construction of the Project will be relatively consistent with the noise associated with the existing agricultural uses on the site. Following construction, noise levels should be consistent with other operations in the area. 7. Dead Animal Disposal Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. There are approximately eight mortalities per month at the existing site. There will be approximately eight mortalities per month at the proposed new barn. This totals approximately sixteen mortalities per month at the total Project site. Dead animals will be disposed of by a certified rendering service (Darling International, Blue Earth, Minnesota) on a timely basis (within 24 hours). An existing enclosure will be used in accordance with the local, state, and federal regulations to house the dead animals. Shelby Township, Minnesota 9 Worksheet

10 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 runoff will increase due to the construction of an additional 16,605 square feet of roofed area and approximately 5,000 square feet of gravel surfaced roadway/parking. The quality of the runoff should improve, as row crop cultivation will no longer be practiced on this site. Storm-water runoff from the site will be routed to help control erosion. 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. The current site generates approximately two to three trucks per week. After Project completion, there will be approximately five heavy truck trips generated per week. The trucks generally use Minnesota State Highway 30 and County Road 40 to access the site. County Road 40 has an average daily traffic volume of vehicles depending on location (according to MNDOT 1997 traffic map). It is restricted to seven tons per axle during the spring restriction period. State Highway 30 is a ten ton road. All trucks will be at or below weight restrictions placed on the public roads. The Project will not overburden the existing highways or cause traffic hazards or congestion in light of the proposed increase in truck traffic. B. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No If yes, please describe. 10. Permits and approvals required. Mark required permits and give status of application: Unit of government Type of Application Status MPCA NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit/NPDES Application submitted Construction Storm Water Permit County/twp/city Conditional use or other land use permit CUP PC DNR Water Appropriation Application submitted *(List any other approvals required along with the unit of government, type of approval needed, and status of approval process.) Shelby Township, Minnesota 10 Worksheet

11 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.) Air quality computer modeling was performed that estimated concentrations in the air of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the proposed Project. Pollutant concentrations were estimated at the site s property line and the nearest neighbors. A background concentration is the amount of pollutants already in the air from other sources and is used in this evaluation to address cumulative air impacts. H 2 S and NH 3 may be present from other feedlot barns, the agitation and pump out of a neighboring feedlot or the pumping of a municipal WWTF. Air emissions from other emission sources may combine with the proposed Project to impact downwind human and environmental receptors. The background level for H 2 S that was used in the computer model was derived from monitoring at other feedlot facilities in Minnesota. The modeling adds the background air pollutant concentration to the emission concentration predicted to come from the proposed Project. The results of the modeling study indicate that no significant air quality impacts are expected from the proposed Project. (Exhibit 6). The modeling results indicate that the emissions from the Project would comply with the MAAQS for hydrogen sulfide and the Minnesota department of ihrv for ammonia. The modeled concentrations of these gases predicted by the computer model are less than the levels that are usually considered unpleasant. Animal agriculture as an industry is known to contribute to atmospheric acidity (ammonia, hydrogen sulfide), nutrient transport and deposition (nitrogen compounds), global warming (methane, nitrous oxide), and ozone layer depletion, however, little is known about agriculture s contribution to the latter. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the proposed Project would contribute significantly to any of these phenomena. The land where the barns will be built was originally used for raising row crops. The quality of runoff from the site is expected to stay the same or improve as a result of the construction of the additional swine finishing barn along with the planting of grass at the site. No cumulative impacts relating to runoff quantity or quality is expected as a result of the construction or operation of this 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. Shelby Township, Minnesota 11 Worksheet

12 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: Beth G. Lockwood, 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 Shelby Township, Minnesota 12 Worksheet