STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT FACILITY HISTORY

Transcription

1 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ERDMAN SWINE FINISHING PROJECT ALTON TOWNSHIP WASECA COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT The above-entitled matter came before the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens Board at a special meeting held in St. Paul, Minnesota on July 21, Pursuant to Minn. R (2001), the MPCA staff has prepared an (EAW) for the proposed Erdman Swine Finishing Project (Project). Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, comments, and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order: FACILITY HISTORY Overview Mr. Daryl Erdman is proposing to construct a swine finishing operation in Section 7, Alton Township, Waseca County. The proposed facility will consist of two 41-foot by 408-foot naturally/mechanically ventilated total confinement swine finishing units. Each swine finishing unit will feature an eight-foot deep concrete pit located beneath the slatted floor of the structure for manure storage. Each livestock unit will house 2,000 head (600 animal units (AU)) of finishing swine for a total of 4,000 head (1,200 AU). Manure will be removed from the concrete pits once a year and land applied on cropland as fertilizer. Permitting History Mr. Erdman owns a hog finishing facility in Section 6 of Alton Township (approximately one and three-quarters miles north of the proposed site). This site was issued an MPCA Interim Feedlot Permit on August 23, 1995, for the construction of the operation. An MPCA Certificate of Compliance which indicates the completion of construction was issued to Mr. Erdman on June 27, A change in ownership occurred on June 16, 1999, a new MPCA Certificate of Compliance was issued for the MAN/ERD Hogs partnership. The original permit issued to Mr. Erdman was written for three livestock units, containing 2,000 finishing hogs each for a total of 4,000 head (1,600 AU using former federal AU number). The facility was completed more than three years prior to the application for the proposed facility. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Mr. Erdman also owned and operated another facility in Section 3 of Alton Township, approximately three and one-half miles away. The site was originally permitted in 1973 with the last modification coming in The total AU for this site was 217.5, using the former federal AU conversion value of.4 for finishing hogs. This swine production site has since been abandoned and the land sold to the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the construction of the new U.S. Trunk Highway 14 by-pass around Janesville. Previous Environmental Review The Project is a new submittal and has not been subject to any previous environmental review efforts. Compliance/Enforcement History None of the facilities owned or operated by Mr. Erdman has been subject to enforcement by the MPCA. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Project The proposed Project will consist of two single-story livestock units, 41-foot by 408-foot with concrete manure storage pits, eight-foot in depth, under the slatted floors of the buildings. The proposed structures are a combination of naturally and mechanically ventilated systems. Each livestock unit has a capacity of 2,000 head of finishing hogs. The total operation shall house 4,000 head of finishing hogs for a total of 1,200 AU. The proposed Project will have over a year of manure storage. The livestock production site is approximately six acres in size. Land Application The proposed Project has a total of 1,203 acres available for land application. The acreage required for manure disposal is 750 acres based on nitrogen-based agronomic rates. Manure will be land applied by injection in the fall using tankers or towed-hose system. For land application fields farther away from the livestock production site, larger nurse-trucks may be used to transport the manure to the fields where it would be transferred to a tanker. It is estimated that the time required to complete land application will be approximately 100 hours per year. The volume of manure and wastewater generated in a one-year period is estimated to be 1,314,000 gallons per year (gpy). This equals 1,093 gallons per acre if applied on all 1,203 acres of land available. The concrete pits under the barns will have capacity for 1,565,000 gallons with a 1.5 foot freeboard. Land application activities will follow applicable state and county regulations. The Waseca County Rules and Setbacks for Land Application of Manure are as follows: 2

3 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Sensitive Features Winter frozen or snowcovered soils Non-Winter with immediate incorporation (within 24 hours). With Phosphorus Managemen t No Phosphorus Management Non-Winter, not incorporated within 24 hours. With Phosphorus Managemen t No Phosphorus Management Lake, Stream. 300 feet 25 feet 300 feet 100 feet 300 feet Intermittent Stream, DNR protected wetlands, drainage ditch without berms. 300 feet 25 feet 300 feet 50 feet 300 feet Open Tile Intake. 300 feet feet 300 feet Well, Mine or Quarry. 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Sinkhole with no diversion berm. Downslope 50 feet/ Upslope 300 feet 50 feet 50 feet Downslope 50 feet/ Upslope 300 feet Downslope 50 feet/ Upslope 300 feet Source: MPCA *Additional application requirements for land within 300 feet of open tile intakes. Manure must be injected or incorporated within 24 hours of being land applied and prior to rainfall when applied within 300 feet of open tile intakes, unless other MPCA approved water quality protection management practices are implemented in this 300 foot zone. Mr. Erdman has prepared a manure management plan for the proposed Project which includes the various setback requirements and land application practices that conform to applicable feedlot regulations. The manure management plan will be an enforceable part of the feedlot permit for this Project. Storm-water Management The proposed Project will include two storm-water detention ponds that will collect storm water that runs off the livestock unit roofs and the driveway. The storm water will not contain any livestock waste or feed rations. The contents of the storm-water basins will be discharged into a tile line. The storm-water discharge to the tile will be regulated via an inline flow orifice. Construction Timeline The proposed construction timeline anticipates a late August, early September 2003, start date, with completion occurring in November, Environmental Concerns An EAW is required because the Project exceeds the mandatory 1,000 AU threshold for environmental review under Minn. R , subp. 29. Potential environmental concerns from feedlot facilities include: odor from the barns and land application; hydrogen sulfide emissions; water quality impacts from land application; and potential human health impacts. 3

4 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Permitting Requirements A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit/NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit will be required by the MPCA. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will require a Water Appropriation Permit, and Waseca County will require a Conditional Use Permit. All permits will be obtained prior to the start of construction for the proposed project. These permits will mandate that the facility operates in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Community Involvement in Process A 30-day public comment period was held for this EAW Project. Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters Letters received during the public comment period indicate the following environmental concerns associated with the proposed expansion: Air Quality/Odor Changes in Fly and Pest Population Manure Management Surface-Water Impacts Ground-Water Impacts Water Supply Property Values Road Conditions and Traffic Analysis Livestock Mortality Management Human Health Impacts PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 29, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R (2001), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on April 11, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to Brown, Waseca, Jackson, Lyon, Murray, Nobles and Redwood Counties, as well as, other interested parties on April 11, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on April 14, 2003, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at on April 14, The public comment period for the EAW began on April 14, 2003, and ended on May 14, The MPCA received one comment letter from a government agency and received eight comment letters from citizens during the 30-day public comment period. 4. The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during the 30-day public comment period. Comment letters received have been hereby incorporated by reference in Appendix A. Responses to comments received have been prepared by MPCA staff and are hereby incorporated by reference in Appendix B. 4

5 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R , subp. 1 (2001), the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur. 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 (2001). These criteria are: A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and 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 EIS s. THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA ARE SET FORTH BELOW Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 6. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R , subp. 7.A (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below. 7. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to air quality are: A. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions B. Human Health Impacts C. Odors D. Particulate Matter and Bioaerosols E. Fly and Pest Populations 8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: A. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions The MPCA has assessed the hydrogen sulfide air emissions from the proposed facility using Air Quality Modeling. The Air Quality Modeling evaluation is designed to assess the maximum pollutant concentrations from the proposed facility based on manure chemistry and meteorological data as well as nearby residents and property lines. The MPCA has compared air quality modeling (using the protocol employed in the EAW process) with air quality 5

6 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order monitoring and found that the results are in close agreement and useful for environmental impact assessment purposes. The results of the air quality modeling evaluation indicate that the proposed project will not exceed the state ambient hydrogen sulfide air quality standard at the property boundary and will not exceed the Minnesota Department of Health s (MDH) inhalation Health Risk Values (ihrvs) for hydrogen sulfide or ammonia at the property boundaries or nearby receptors. B. Human Health Impacts The MPCA has reviewed the proposed Project with respect to the potential impact the facility may have on the ambient air pathway and its relationship to human health impacts. The potential pathways that would impact human health via the ambient air have been assessed using air quality modeling and a review of the technical literature. Additionally, the potential impacts to the community were assessed using the MDH ihrvs for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia. The ihrvs are designed to protect sensitive populations. The ihrvs were incorporated into the modeling evaluation. The facility as proposed does not present a situation that is reasonably likely to impact human health for residents in the area. C. Odors The MPCA has assessed the odor air emissions from the proposed facility using Air Quality Modeling. The Air Quality Modeling evaluation is designed to assess the maximum concentrations from the proposed facility based on manure chemistry and meteorological data as well as nearby residents and property lines. The MPCA has compared air quality modeling (using the protocol employed in the EAW process) with air quality monitoring and found that the results are in close agreement and useful for environmental impact assessment purposes. The results of the air quality modeling evaluation indicate that the site s effective property lines and nearest neighbors will not be subjected to offensive odors. D. Particulate Matter and Bioaerosols The MPCA relied on technical literature to evaluate particulate matter and bioaerosal from the proposed facility. Particulate matter (dust) impacts from the proposed Project are expected to be minimal based on the amount of dust generated, dust composition, and dust transport. Additionally, it is unlikely that the facility would ever exceed existing state and federal ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. Bioaerosols are not expected to be viable upon release to the atmosphere from the livestock production system, significantly reducing or eliminating any potential for human health impacts. E. Fly and Pest Populations The MPCA relied on technical literature to evaluate potential fly and pest impacts from the proposed facility. Generally, flies and related flying pests require a specific environmental condition to incubate young and increase populations. Typically, the optimal conditions include wet areas/standing water and decaying organic material including animal waste. The proposed facility management is designed to reduce the potential for flies and other pests to breed and generate a population that would affect the surrounding community. The manure storage system is covered by the livestock operation. Feedstock and animal mortalities are also enclosed and not generally subject to wet conditions. 6

7 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 9. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this Project would not be irreversible. As discussed above, the expected effects on air quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on air quality. 10. Comments received that give a specific basis for concerns regarding potential effects to air quality are: Some comment letters express a general concern for the quality of air surrounding their community. As discussed above in Findings 8 and 9, the MPCA analysis indicates that the effects on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 11. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed construction of this facility have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts has been developed. 12. 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 environmental effects reasonably expected to occur as a result of its air emissions. 13. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to water quality are: A. Surface-Water Impacts B. Ground-Water Impacts C. Water Supply D. Human Health Impacts 14. The discussion of potential water quality effects are presented with respect to manure management. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: A. Surface-water Runoff: The potential environmental effects to surface waters from this site are from manure or manure-contaminated runoff from the site and land application of manure to cropland. Manure-contaminated runoff from the site is unlikely. Manure is contained in concrete pits located beneath the finishing barn, making contaminated runoff by precipitation unlikely. Land application activities are expected to occur in the fall of the year. The land application sites where manure will be spread and setbacks to any surface waters, including tile outlets, have been included in a manure management plan. The manure management plan is an enforceable provision of the MPCA Feedlot Permit. The Project proposer will also use a shallow injection method to land apply manure. 7

8 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order The practice will further protect water resources by isolating manure beneath the surface to avoid runoff and to minimize leaching to ground water. This practice also meets the criteria of the MPCA feedlot rules. Land application of the manure is not reasonably expected to result in manure or manure-contaminated runoff reaching surface waters. B. Ground Water: The potential environmental impact to ground water from this facility is from manurecontaminated water leaching into the ground water from land application sites and from the livestock production facility. The proposed construction of the facility will consist of concrete pits beneath the barns that are used to store manure. The concrete pits are constructed according to engineered plans that are reviewed and approved by the MPCA before construction can begin. The potential environmental impact to ground water from manure leaching through concrete manure storage structures is not reasonably expected to be a significant environmental impact to ground water resources. The land application of manure may result in some leaching of nutrient to ground water resources, however, it is not reasonable expected to result in a significant impact in light of the shallow injection land application practices employed at the facility. C. Water Supply: The potential environmental impact to the water supply from this facility will be an increase in the demand for water for the operation of this facility. A water appropriation permit is required from the DNR for the use of more than 10,000 gallons per day (gpd) or one million gpy, which includes agricultural uses. The purpose of the permit program is to ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is provided to long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. The program exists to balance competing management objectives including both the development and protection of water resources. 15. The reversibility of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this Project would not be irreversible. As discussed above, the expected effects on water quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water quality. 16. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because all potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed. 8

9 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 17. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects on water quality based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur. 18. Comments received that give a specific basis for concerns regarding potential effects, including property values, road conditions and traffic analysis, livestock mortality management, and potential human health impacts. Several commenters indicated concern for property values with respect to livestock production facilities. The relationship of property values and livestock operations is not included within the scope of an EAW. Typically, this topic is included within the scope of an EIS, if the decision is made to prepare one for a project. The MPCA is not requesting that an EIS be conducted for this particular Project proposal. The public notice and comment period provided input regarding the potential impact to traffic and transportation systems around the Project area. The MPCA has reviewed the traffic estimates presented by the Project Proposer and have contacted Waseca County for further information. The proposed Project would increase the traffic on local roads by approximately one truck per day. Based on existing and estimated traffic increase as a result of the operation of the proposed Project, as well as the ratings of the local roads, the changes in traffic patterns are not considered to be significant. The Minnesota Board of Animal Health regulates the disposal of animal mortalities. Improper disposal of animal mortalities can impact water resources and create a human health concern. The dead animal disposal practices employed by the Proposer will employ a refrigerated enclosed animal mortality storage system that will be used to store animal carcasses until the rendering service can retrieve them. The rendering service will retrieve animal mortalities three times a week. This practice meets the regulations of the Minnesota Board of Animal Health. The potential impacts to human health are a concern for a number of commenters. The MPCA reviewed information regarding the various potential environmental pathways that may affect the health of the community including air and water environmental media. The air quality evaluation included the use of the ihrv's for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide developed by the Minnesota Department of Health to protect sensitive populations. The air quality evaluation also included a pollutant background concentration to account for air emissions outside the Project scope. The technical literature was also reviewed to evaluate and assess the potential impacts to the community from particulate matter including bioaerisols, pathogens and endotoxins. Potential surface and ground-water impacts were evaluated based on the manure storage and land application practices with respect to terrain, vegetation, soil types, and location. Animal mortality management also presents a potential impact to human health if improper disposal of carcasses is used by the Project proposer. The general conclusions of each analysis indicates that the potential impacts to human health are not reasonably expected to occur. 9

10 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 19. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects," Minn. R , subp. 7.B (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 20. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this Project in such a way as to identify any potential cumulative environmental impacts that are reasonably expected to occur. 21. In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA finds that the reasonably expected effects from this Project will not be significant. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject To Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 22. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R , subp. 7.C (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 23. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit and NPDES Pending Construction Storm Water Permit B. Waseca County Conditional Use Permit To be submitted C. DNR Water Appropriation Permit To be submitted 24. The MPCA has prepared a general NPDES Permit, developed to mitigate or eliminate potential environmental impacts. All potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur will be mitigated under the requirements of this permit, the DNR Water Appropriations Permit and the Waseca County Conditional Use Permit. A. General NPDES/SDS Permit The MPCA will issue a General NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit to the project proposer as well as an NPDES Construction Storm Water Permit. This is a blended permit that incorporates construction storm water and feedlot permitting into one permit. The NPDES Permit contains operating plans that address manure management, emergency response protocols and air quality management. The attachments are enforceable conditions of the NPDES Permit. 10

11 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order B. Waseca County Conditional Use Permit The Waseca County Conditional Use Permit addresses all local zoning and local environmental regulatory requirements. Local environmental requirements may be more stringent, but not less stringent, than state regulatory requirements. C. DNR Water Appropriations Permit A Water Appropriation Permit is required from the DNR for the use of more than 10,000 gpd or one million gpy, which includes agricultural uses. The purpose of the permit program is to ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is provided to long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. The program exists to balance competing management objectives including both the development and protection of water resources. 25. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur. 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. 26. 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 (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 27. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed expansion of the Erdman Swine Project. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, commentors, staff experience, and other available information. A. Cox, C.S., Wathes, C.M., Bioaerosols Handbook. New York:Lewis, B. Curtis, S.E., Drummond, J.G., Kelley, K.W., Grunloh, D.J., Meares, V.J., Norton, H.W., Jensen, A.H., Diurnal and annual fluctuations of aerial bacteria and dust levels in enclosed swine houses. J. Anim. Sci. 41(5): C. Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Literature Review. Environmental Quality Board. D. Heber, A.J., Stroik, M., Faubion, J.M., Willard, L.H., Size distribution and identification of aerial dust particles in swine finishing buildings. Transaction of the ASAE 31(3): E. Honey, L.F., McQuitty, J.B., Some physical factors affecting dust concentrations in a pig facility. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 21(1):9-14. F. Jacobson, L.J., Odor Rating Project and Database. In: Livestock Odors: Emissions, Measurement, Control, and Regulation. University of Minnesota Extension Service. H. Liao, C.M., Feddes, J.J.R., Modeling and analysis of airborne dust removal from a ventilated airspace. Canadian Agricultural Engineering (2)

12 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order I. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board A Summary of the Literature Related to the Social, Environmental, Economic and Health Effects: Volume 2. Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Animal Agriculture, Prepared by the University of Minnesota, September, J. MPCA, Feedlot Air Quality Stakeholders Report Vol. 1, 1999 Field Season. Saint Paul, Minnesota. K. MPCA, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hancock Pro Pork Project, Saint Paul, Minnesota. L. Nagy G. Z The odor impact model. Journal Air & Waste Management Association 41(10): M. Pearson, C.C., Sharples, T.J., Airborne dust concentration in livestock buildings and the effect of feed. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research , N. Sweeten, J.M., Odor and dust from livestock feedlots. Texas Agricultural Extension Service. College Station, Texas. pp O. Sweeten, J.M., Odor production, measurement, and control technologies. In: Proceedings: Innovations and new horizons in livestock and poultry management. pp P. Takai, H., Pedersen, S., Johnsen, J.O., Metz, J.H.M., Groot Koerkamp, P.W.G., Uenk, G.H., Phillips, V.R., Holden, M.R., Sneath, R.W., Short, J.L., White, R.P., Hartung, J., Seedorf, J, Schroder, M., Linkert, K.H., Wathes, C.M., Concentrations and Emissions of Airborne Dust in Livestock Buildings in Northern Europe. J. agric. Engng Res. (1998) 70, Q. The Ohio State University, Domestic Flies. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet. Entomology. HYG R. Thomann, R.V., Mueller, J.A., Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York, New York, 644 pp. S. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guideline for Air Quality Models. 40 CFR Ch. 1, Part 51, Appendix W ( Edition). T. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Review of Emissions Factors and Methodologies to Estimate Ammonia Emissions from Animal Waste Handling. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-600/R U. University of Kentucky, Face Flies and Pinkeye. By Lee Townsend, Extension Entomologist University of Kentucky College of Agriculture. V. Veenhuizen, M.A., Odor-An environmental challenge for the pork industry. In: NPPC, 1996 p W. Zahn, J.A., Swine odor and emissions from pork production. In: McGuire K. (ed.), Environmental Assurance Program, National Pork Producers Council, Des Moine, Iowa, pp X. Zahn, J.A., DoSpirito, A.A., Do Y. S., Brooks, B.E., Cooper, E.E., and Hatfield, J.L., Correlation of human olfactory responses to airborne concentrations of malodorous volatile organic compounds emitted from swine effluent. Journal of Environmental Quality. 30: 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. 12

13 Alton Township Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 29. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and the MPCA staff expertise on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that can reasonably be expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 30. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this Project. The EAW, the permit development process, the facility planning process, responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the Erdman Swine Finishing Project EAW, 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. 31. 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. 32. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R (2001), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Project. 33. An EIS is not required. 34. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. ORDER The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Erdman Swine Finishing Project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. IT IS SO ORDERED Deputy Commissioner Kristin Applegate Chair, Citizens Board Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date 13

14 APPENDIX B Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Erdman Swine Finishing Project (EAW) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Diane K. Anderson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter dated May 14, COMMENT 1.1: Two Intermittent streams indicated as unique in the area (page 5). Requirements for the application of manure with these features should be strictly adhered to, as identified on pages 5 and 10. RESPONSE 1.1: The comment is noted. The project proposer will adhere to the manure management plan required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the facility and the applicable state and local regulations regarding the land application of livestock waste in order to protect water resources. The following table illustrates the separation distances (setbacks) that are required when land applying manure, per Minn. R The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) rules allow for other MPCA approved practices to be implemented if it can be demonstrated that they are at least as protective as the practices listed in Minn. R The MPCA rules require that manure and process wastewater shall not be applied to land in a manner that will: 1. Result in a discharge to waters of the state during the application process; or 2. Cause water pollution due to manure-contaminated runoff. Waseca County also has specific manure application requirements that mirror Minn. R and were listed on page ten, Item 5.D. of the EAW. Sensitive Features Winter frozen or snowcovered soils Non-Winter with immediate incorporation (within 24 hours). With Phosphorus Management No Phosphorus Management Non-Winter, not incorporated within 24 hours. With Phosphorus Management No Phosphorus Management Lake, Stream. 300 feet 25 feet 300 feet 100 feet 300 feet Intermittent Stream, DNR protected wetlands, drainage ditch without berms. 300 feet 25 feet 300 feet 50 feet 300 feet Open Tile Intake. 300 feet feet 300 feet Well, Mine or Quarry. 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet Sinkhole with no diversion berm. Downslope 50 feet/ Upslope 300 feet 50 feet 50 feet Downslope 50 feet/ Upslope 300 feet Downslope 50 feet/ Upslope 300 feet

15 COMMENT 1.2: Assuming fields adjoining these intermittent stream areas will be cultivated and fertilized with liquid manure, the DNR strongly encourages the landowner to encourage vegetated strips along streams to help provide an improved buffer between the application areas and local waterways. RESPONSE 1.2: The comment is noted. COMMENT 1.3: Although the EAW discusses setbacks from these intermittent streams, it is important that the streams (and ordinary high water reaches) are correctly delineated. The proposer should contact DNR Area Hydrologist for assistance in this regard. RESPONSE 1.3: The project proposer will comply with applicable manure management rules regarding setback distances during land application including the intermittent streams (See Table in Response 1.1). The project proposer has contacted the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) area hydrologist regarding the ordinary high-water mark determination and was informed that an ordinary high water mark determination for intermittent streams is not possible. The DNR area hydrologist indicated that the bank of the intermittent stream was sufficient for the purpose of setback determination. COMMENT 1.4: The DNR is concerned about the proximity of Buffalo Lake and Lundquist Wildlife Management Area (WMA) to the manure application sites. Although it is stated that Buffalo Lake is separated from the application areas by a county road, we believe it likely that local tile lines and ditches cross the road and discharge into Buffalo Lake. RESPONSE 1.4: The Lundquist WMA has been accounted for during the development of the manure management plan. Minn. R Land Application of Manure was written and implemented with the intention of limiting impacts to surface and ground water from the land application of manure. All Consent Agreement and Final Order s must submit and follow a manure management plan in accordance with this section of Minn. R Specifically, Minn. R addresses phosphorous build up in soil in the following sections: Minn. R , subp. 4. D. (11) Requires a description of how phosphorous from manure is to be managed to minimize phosphorous build-up to levels described in subp. 3, item C: Subp. 3, Item C. (1) Fields in special protection areas or within 300 feet of open tile intakes that have an average soil phosphorous test level exceeding 75 parts per million (ppm) using a Bray P1 test of 60 ppm using the Olsen test. (2) Fields outside the special protection area and more than 300 feet from open tile intakes that an average soil phosphorous test level exceeding 150 ppm using a Bray P1 test of 120 ppm using the Olsen test. The project proposer will abide by these rules as conditions of the feedlot permit and the manure management plan. Additionally, please see Response 1.1. COMMENT 1.5: It is critical to avoid excessive nutrient loading into Buffalo Lake. As a wildlifedesignated lake, Buffalo Lake depends on healthy macrophyte communities. Excessive nutrient loading can change nutrient cycles and create scenarios where biological turbidity dominates the system and rooted macrophytes struggle to maintain healthy populations. Best management practices and manure application ordinances must be strictly followed to avoid an unforeseen manure application impacts to the lake. The commenter provides the same concern regarding Lake Elysiana and the Lundquist WMA. Page 2 of 17

16 RESPONSE 1.5: Please refer to Response 1.1. COMMENT 1.6: The commenter expressed concerns regarding dead animal disposal practices and the importance of adhering to applicable dead animal disposal regulations. RESPONSE 1.6: The project proposer will employ a modified refrigeration truck that is cooled by several air conditioning units for the short-term storage of dead animals. The dead animals will be picked up on a weekly basis by a rendering company. This practice meets or exceeds the Minnesota Board of Animal Health Regulations regarding the disposal of animal mortalities. COMMENT 1.7: The commenter noted that a DNR water appropriation permit is needed from the DNR Division of Waters. RESPONSE 1.7: The project proposer will apply for a water appropriations permit upon completion of the EAW. 2. Comments by Laurie Hawkins, th Avenue, Janesville, Minnesota Letter received May 15, COMMENT 2.1: The commenter indicates that the new site will result in a continued odor problem for the family and will have an adverse effect on two children that suffer asthma. RESPONSE 2.1: The air quality modeling exercise conducted for the proposed facility included an analysis of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and odor at the locations of the neighbors in the area. The modeling exercise includes inhalation health risk values (ihrv s) for hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, developed by the Minnesota Department of Health. The ihrv values are designed to protect sensitive populations and are included in the modeling exercise at the location of residents in the area of the project. The predicted values of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia did not exceed the ihrv s for either hydrogen sulfide or ammonia. The predicted odor values from the proposed facility are below the level of detection and are not reasonably expected to be an issue for residents in the area of the proposed project. COMMENT 2.2: The site that has been selected is within 1.25 miles of an existing site that Erdman owns. This site can be expanded to accommodate the new site. RESPONSE: The comment is noted. An EAW only looks at the potential environmental impacts of the project that is proposed. If an EIS is ordered for a project, then alternatives to the project can be evaluated, including a different site location. COMMENT 2.3: This site is being recommended out of convenience of manure disposal than of need or necessity. RESPONSE 2.3: The comment is noted. The MPCA reviews project location with respect to environmental impact rather than a facility management perspective. See Response 2.2. COMMENT 2.4: The current local ordinance would prevent the construction of new residential housing in this section due to concentration restrictions but a new hog facility is permissible? RESPONSE 2.4: The comment is noted, however, this is a local land use issue and beyond the scope of an EAW. Page 3 of 17

17 COMMENT 2.5: Once the manure application begins, is the proposed owner willing to pay for annual nitrate testing along with the draw down affects of the area wells? RESPONSE 2.5: The MPCA land application rules are designed to protect water quality resources. Manure application must meet nitrogen standards in the MPCA rule. These standards are designed to minimize nitrate leaching to ground water. Bacteria would be expected to die off in the soil before reaching drinking water wells. Also, as shown in the table in Response 1.1, state rules require setbacks from drain tile inlets and wells. Additionally, commercial manure applicators must be licensed in order to land apply manure in Minnesota. These measures would prevent or minimize the potential for impacts to groundwater resources from the land application of manure. A review of the County Well Index indicates that area wells within one mile of the southeastern corner of the proposed barn in depth from 100 feet to 302 feet. Two aquifers are in common use within one mile of the project: a glacially deposited sand at depths of 100 feet to 130 feet, overlain by at least 60 feet of clay; and the bedrock Prairie du Chien Aquifer, found at depths of at least 233 feet. The glacial clay overburden which overlies the two primary aquifers has not been tested for hydraulic conductivity, but materials of this type commonly have extremely low hydraulic conductivities on the order of 1E-07 cm/sec. The low expected hydraulic conductivity combined with the great vertical extent of the clay (60+ feet) provides very good drinking water (aquifer) protection. Based on the technical review of the land application plan submitted for this project, and previous MPCA experience, impacts to ground water quality from the land application of livestock waste in this area are not reasonably expected to occur. The project will include one to two new ground-water wells. The estimated water usage would be approximately 4.4 million gallons a year at 12,000 gallons per day. A pump test would be required by the DNR as part of the permit application process to determine the adequacy of the resource formation. An aquifer pumping test may be required as part of the permit application process to determine the adequacy of the resource. Any well interferences or water use conflicts would need to be addressed before the water appropriation permit could be issued. The MPCA also noted that the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer is available at greater depth, should that be necessary. Although no water usage conflicts are expected, domestic water use takes priority over other uses per Minn. Stat. 103G.261. The DNR also has a well interference resolution process available to address usage conflicts, which includes a questionnaire and an evaluation by the DNR Area Hydrologist. Final review by the DNR is pending for the water appropriation permit. The DNR permit includes required annual reporting of the monthly water usage. There is no record evidence indicating that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on ground-water supplies. COMMENT 2.6: Commenter notes that the proposed site is on the Waseca and Blue Earth County line. Concerned that there is a conflict of law with respect to the two county setback ordinances. RESPONSE: The comment is noted. Based on information provided by the Waseca County Feedlot Officer, the Waseca County setback distance requirement is controlling in this situation. COMMENT 2.7: Commenter noted concern regarding property values and the development of the project in light of odor potential. Page 4 of 17

18 RESPONSE: The MPCA has significant experience with air quality modeling of livestock operations and has been able to confirm modeled results with air quality monitoring. The air quality modeling predictions indicate that odor impacts are not reasonably expected to occur at residents currently living in this area. Issues related to property values are beyond the scope of the EAW process. COMMENT 2.8: Commenter requests an EIS. RESPONSE: The comment is noted. The project shall appear at the July 21, 2003, MPCA Citizens Special Board Meeting where a decision will be made on the need for an EIS. The public is invited to attend and provide additional comment. The MPCA Citizens Board will meet at the MPCA Saint Paul Office located at 520 Lafayette Road in Saint Paul, Minnesota. 3. Comments by Bob, Pam and Angela Nyquist, th Avenue, Janesville, Minnesota Letter received May 13, COMMENT 3.1: Commenter has concerns regarding airborne pathogens and their effects on livestock, income and residents. RESPONSE 3.1: Airborne pathogens and livestock production is an emerging area of research with significant progress made over the past decade. The general conclusion of the technical literature indicates that airborne pathogens from livestock operations appear to present a potential human health issue at occupational exposures (e.g. unprotected barn workers) rather than the community at large. There is no reasonable expectation that airborne pathogens, including endotoxins, present a significant environmental impact on livestock or residents in the area of the proposed project. The role of airborne pathogens from livestock production on economic conditions is beyond the scope of an EAW, but could be addressed if the MPCA Citizens Board determines that an EIS is needed for this project. COMMENT 3.2: General comment regarding odor events and outdoor activities. RESPONSE: The MPCA has significant experience with air quality modeling of livestock operations and has been able to confirm modeled results with air quality monitoring. The air quality modeling predictions indicate that odor impacts are not reasonably expected to occur at residents currently living in this area. The residents should be able to enjoy the same activities they have engaged in before the construction of the proposed project. COMMENT 3.3: Commenter indicates that the air quality modeling is hard to understand. RESPONSE 3.3: Every attempt is made to provide the results of the air quality modeling exercise in a format that is easy to understand. If you have additional questions regarding the air quality modeling exercise, please feel free to contact MPCA staff for further clarification. COMMENT 3.4: What happens to our water supply with the pumping of 12,000 gallons per day and 1.3 million gallons of manure per year injected throughout our neighborhood? RESPONSE 3.4: The comment is noted. Please see Response 2.5. Page 5 of 17

19 COMMENT 3.5: We are asking MPCA to order an EIS and do a more detailed study. RESPONSE 3.5: The comment is noted. Please refer to Response 2.8. COMMENT 3.6: Commenter noted concern regarding information accuracy contained within the draft EAW and would like to know Who supplied the accurate information? RESPONSE 3.6: It is the duty of the project proposer to provide the information related to the scope of the project. The MPCA reviews the information submitted and will request further information if warranted. MPCA staff also have reviewed the site (including a site visit) to confirm the information provided by the project proposer. COMMENT 3.7: Barn size-two different ones given? RESPONSE 3.7: The correction is noted. The dimensions of the livestock units cited on page two of the draft EAW indicate that the two swine finishing barns are 51 feet by 330 feet each. The actual size of the swine finishing barns are 41 feet by 408 feet. The entire impact analysis was conducted using the 41 feet by 408 feet building size. The 51 feet by 330 feet swine finishing barn size is a clerical error in the formatting of the draft EAW which was not present (and therefore not used) during the various environmental impact analyses (e.g. air quality, construction plans, manure management). COMMENT 3.8: Commenter is concerned with the size of the project presented in the draft EAW. Size of the parcel is described as approximately six acres, however, commenter indicates that actual acreage of the plot is 5.25 acres. RESPONSE 3.8: The comment is noted. COMMENT 3.9: Commenter posed the question regarding why the project proposer did not build where his site is already permitted. RESPONSE 3.9: The comment is noted, however, it is beyond the scope of an EAW. COMMENT 3.10: Acreage for manure when 1 barn was proposed as per year or 425 acres for corn-soybeans at 180 lbs of nitrogen/acre. Now with 2 barns only 750 acres are needed at 169 lbs of nitrogen per acre. Commenter is interested in this analysis and possible discrepancy. RESPONSE 3.10: The MPCA did not conduct a review of the previous project as part of this proposal as it is not relevant to the development and management of this effort. The MPCA has reviewed the manure management plan submitted for this project in light of the manure generated at the facility, the land available for the project, land application method and environmentally sensitive features as well as cropping practices. Based on the manure management plan submitted by the project proposer, the MPCA has concluded that the information provided is sufficient, protective of water resources and suitable for the proposed project. COMMENT 3.11: Doesn t Waseca County require total manure nitrogen and phosphorus rates for manure management? Page 6 of 17