STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT

Transcription

1 p-ear2-59b

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 HEARTLAND HUTTERIAN BRETHREN, INC. FEEDLOT EXPANSION FOUNTAIN PRAIRIE TOWNSHIP PIPESTONE 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 Heartland Hutterian Brethren, Inc. Feedlot Expansion 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 1. Heartland Hutterian Brethren, Inc. (Project Proposer) proposes to build two 103 x213 total confinement swine finishing facilities with 8 deep concrete manure storage pits below the buildings in Section 16 of Fountain Prairie Township, Pipestone County. The proposed facility will house 4,800 market swine and add 1,440 animal units (AU) to their existing facility and permit. The current permit is for 2,307.5 AU of swine and AU of poultry, with the manure stored in an open, concrete tank, 170 feet in diameter and 12 feet in depth. Procedural History 2. The permit application for coverage of the proposed project under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Feedlot Permit was submitted to the MPCA on March 25, During the review of the EAW it was determined that a straw cover on the existing manure storage basin would be necessary for the facility to model compliance with the ambient hydrogen sulfide standard. Straw covers on manure storage basins are not covered by the General Feedlot NPDES/SDS Permit, therefore, an Individual NPDES/SDS Permit was drafted and noticed for the facility. 4. 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, as well as other interested parties, on April 28, The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB Monitor on April 28, 2014, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA website at HUhttp:// p-ear2-18b TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 5. The 30-day comment period for the EAW began on April 28, 2014, and ended on May 28, During the comment period, the MPCA received one comment letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. A list and copies of the comment letters received is included as Appendix A to these findings. 6. The Individual NPDES/SDS Permit MN was placed on public notice on May 14, 2014, and will come off notice on June 13, The MPCA prepared written responses to comments received during the 30-day EAW comment period. The responses to comments are included as Appendix A to these findings. Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 8. 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. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects. B. Cumulative potential effects. The responsible governmental unit (RGU) shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the 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 Project 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 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 9. 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. 2

4 10. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the 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 11. 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. 12. 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 77 nearest neighbors. The model also considered the air emissions from 12 neighboring feedlots in that same area. The modeling protocol and report were reviewed and approved by MPCA staff. UAir Quality Impacts Related To Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions 13. Air modeling determined that use of a straw cover on the existing manure storage basin would be necessary for the facility to comply with the ambient hydrogen sulfide standard. 14. With inclusion of the straw cover on the existing manure storage basin, modeling results obtained from AERMOD indicated that the proposed project will not violate the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The AERMOD-predicted maximum project-specific contribution to the ambient hydrogen sulfide concentration was 7.7 parts per billion (ppb). When the background hydrogen sulfide concentration of 17 ppb was added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property-line hourly concentration was 24.7 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. 15. With inclusion of the straw cover on the existing manure storage basin, the AERMOD modeling results also indicated that the proposed project will not cause the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv (inhalation health risk value) to be exceeded at neighboring residences. The estimated facilityspecific maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentration among the feedlot s neighbors was 0.30 μg/m 3. When a background concentration of 1 μg/m 3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the 13-week neighbor hydrogen sulfide maximum concentration was 1.30 μg/m 3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 μg/m 3. UAir Quality Impacts Related To Ammonia Emissions 16. With inclusion of the straw cover on the existing manure storage basin, the AERMOD modeling results for ammonia suggests that the proposed project will not exceed the acute ammonia ihrv. The AERMOD model predicted a maximum hourly property-line concentration of 2,048 µg/m 3 along the township road. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m 3 was added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property line ammonia concentration was 2,196 μg/m 3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 μg/m 3. 3

5 17. With inclusion of the straw cover on the existing manure storage basin, the AERMOD results also indicated that the proposed project will not cause ambient air concentrations of ammonia to exceed the chronic ammonia ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year timeaveraged ammonia concentration for the feedlot s neighbors is µg/m 3. When background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m 3 was added to AERMOD estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration for a neighbor is µg/m 3, which is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 µg/m 3. Air Quality Impacts Related To Odor 18. With inclusion of the straw cover on the existing manure storage basin, based on the air dispersion modeling analysis performed, AERMOD results indicate that construction of the proposed finishing barns will not contribute to odor levels above an odor intensity of 83 odor units (OU)/m3, defined as a faint odor at nearby residences. Modeled hourly maximum odor levels at the nearest neighbor receptors vary from OU/m3 to OU/m3 on feedlot properties and from 1.63 OU/m3 to OU/m3 on properties without feedlot operations. Additionally, the analysis indicates that the addition of the proposed finishing barns would not significantly impact the odor levels along the property line. The modeled high hourly odor level at the property line is OU/m3 and would occur along the west property line near the existing swine barn. 19. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the 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. With inclusion of the straw cover on the existing manure storage basin, while in operation, the 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. In addition, as noted in the proposer s Air Emissions Plan and Complaint Response Protocol, if higher than expected levels of air or odor emissions are anticipated, notification will be made to neighbors. Therefore, the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the project are reversible. 20. 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 project. Methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed. 21. 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. Impacts to Groundwater and Surface Water Quality 22. 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. 4

6 23. All livestock 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 Minn. R The project site itself will be required by the Individual NPDES/SDS Permit to meet a zero discharge standard. The Individual 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 maintained on site. 24. In order to avoid contaminating the groundwater at the manure application sites, manure must be applied at agronomic rates, based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry, taking into account levels of nitrogen utilized by crops planted at the manure application sites and, therefore, minimizing the potential for nitrates leaching into the groundwater. MPCA and/or county setback requirements, whichever are the more restrictive, must also be observed from water supply wells. These measures will mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater quality related to manure incorporated at the manure application sites. 25. The land application of manure, if done improperly, can adversely impact surface-water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into draintile 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 near other surface-water resources. Additional requirements of the NPDES/SDS Permit and the Manure Management Plan (MMP) are expected to minimize the potential for manure applied at manure application sites to come in contact with runoff and enter surface waters. 26. 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 tend to 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. 27. 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. 28. The prevention of adverse effects on water quality due to manure storage and application is addressed in the proposed NPDES/SDS Permit. Although significant adverse impacts to water quality are not expected, 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. 29. 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 project. Measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts have been developed and required as proposed permit conditions. 30. 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. 5

7 Cumulative Potential Effects 31. 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. 32. The EAW addressed the following areas for cumulative potential effects for the proposed project. Air quality Water quality of surface waters Air Quality 33. 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 77 residences closest to the project. With inclusion of the straw cover on the existing manure storage basin, 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, nor is the proposed project expected to contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on air quality. Water Quality of Surface Waters 34. The proposed feedlot expansion and manure application sites are located within the east branch Flandreau Creek, upper Flandreau Creek and lower north branch Pipestone Creek Minor watersheds. Row crop agriculture is the primary land use within the three watersheds, with some pasture and wetlands as well. Several feedlots are currently operated within the watersheds. Pipestone Creek is listed by the MPCA as an impaired water for fecal coliform and turbidity. 35. The Pipestone Creek TMDL implementation plan was completed and published in a report dated September The report may be viewed on the MPCA website at: The proposed project is consistent with the recommendations of the TMDL implementation plan. 37. Based on information on the 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. 6

8 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 project: Unit of Government MPCA Pipestone County DNR Permit or Approval Required Individual NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit Individual Water Appropriation Permit 40. MPCA NPDES/SDS Livestock Production, Construction, Operation (Feedlot) and Stormwater Permit. An NPDES/SDS Feedlot and Stormwater Permit is required for the project. 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. MDNR Water Appropriation Permit. The project will include the installation of a new well, which will be installed by a licensed well driller. The total estimated water use of the project at full production will be approximately 2.63 million gallons per year. A Preliminary Well Construction Application has been submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). After acquiring all necessary permits and after well construction is complete, an MDNR Water Appropriations Permit will be obtained. As long as the annual water usage is less than 5 million gallons per year, the Facility is eligible for coverage under the Water Appropriation General Permit, Animal Feedlots and Livestock Operations. Several neighboring residences have connected to Lincoln-Rock-Pipestone Rural Water. 43. 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. 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 7

9 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 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 project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 48. 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. 49. 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. 50. 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. 51. An EIS for the proposed project is not required. 52. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. 8

10

11 APPENDIX A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Environmental Assessment Worksheet LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Kevin Mixon, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received May 19, RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comment by Kevin Mixon, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received May 19, Comment 1-1: The DNR has reviewed the subject document and we have no comments at this time. Response: Comment noted.

12 1