STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT

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 PJM PORK, INC. SWINE FEEDLOT EXPANSION PROJECT COURTLAND TOWNSHIP, NICOLLET COUNTY, COURTLAND, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAWAND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R (2001), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed 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,, and Order: FACILITY HISTORY The PJM Pork, Inc. Swine Feedlot Expansion Project (Project) consists of two existing swine finishing barns and a proposed third finishing barn. The first barn, an 82 foot by 200 foot production unit, was built in May 2003 with a second barn, 41 foot by 200 foot production unit, built in June The first barn houses a total of 2,000 head (600 animal units [au]), while the second barn has a capacity of 1,000 head or 300 au. Each of the swine finishing barns store liquid manure in eight foot deep concrete pits located beneath the slatted floors of the housing units. The swine finishing barns were constructed under the Construction Short-Form Permit CSF# C issued by Nicollet County on May 13, 2003, and a Nicollet County Conditional Use Permit (CUP# C-6-03) on May 13, PJM Pork, Inc. submitted a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Feedlot Permit application to the MPCA on January 9, 2004, for construction of a third swine finishing unit that will house a total of 2,000 head or 600 au. The expansion of the existing facility will bring the overall operating capacity of the PJM Pork, Inc. Swine Feedlot to 5,000 head or 1,500 au. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 29, the Project reviewed in the EAW includes both the existing and proposed barns. This environmental review is a phased action (Minn. R , subp. 60) under the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules and as a result is in the mandatory EAW category. The Project has not been subject to previous environmental review or MPCA enforcement activities. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 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 EQB mailing list and other interested parties on April 23, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to Nicollet, Blue Earth, Le Sueur, Sibley and Brown Counties, as well as, other interested parties on April 26, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on April 26, 2004, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at April 26, The public comment period for the EAW began on April 26, 2004, and ended on May 26, During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received three comment letters from government agencies and received one comment letter from a citizen. 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 as Appendix A to these findings. The MPCA responses to comments received are hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix B to these findings. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R (2003), 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 EISs. 2

3 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: Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions Ammonia Emissions Odor 8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: Hydrogen Sulfide (H 2 S) Emissions Air quality dispersion modeling was performed using the CalPUFF software that calculated the estimated property-line and nearest neighbor concentrations of H 2 S. The modeling was based on the estimated H 2 S emission rates from the manure pits located beneath the hog barns and from offsite H 2 S emission sources. Background concentrations of H 2 S developed from air quality monitoring data in Minnesota, were also included in these calculations to account for potential cumulative air impacts. The modeling results indicated that the air emissions from the Project will not exceed the Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards for H 2 S. When a H 2 S concentration of 17 parts per billion (ppb) is presumed, the maximum property line H 2 S concentration is ppb, which is below the ambient air quality standard of 30 ppb. The modeling study results indicate that no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur from the Project s H 2 S emissions. Ammonia (NH 3 ) Emissions Air quality modeling was performed that calculated the estimated property-line and nearest neighbor concentration of NH 3. The modeling was based on estimated NH 3 emission rates from the livestock units including the manure storage pits beneath the hog barns. Background concentrations of NH 3, developed from air quality monitoring data in Minnesota, were considered in these calculations to account for potential cumulative air impacts. 3

4 The CalPUFF model predicted a maximum one-hour time averaged property-line NH 3 concentration of 1,886 microgram per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ). When a background concentration of 148 µg/m 3 is considered, the maximum property-line NH 3 concentration is then 2,034 µg/m 3, which is below the acute inhalation health risk value (ihrv) for NH 3 of 3,200 µg/m 3. The predicted maximum one-year time averaged NH 3 concentration for the sites nearest neighbor is µg/m 3, which includes an annual concentration of 5.72 µg/m 3. This combined concentration is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 µg/m 3. The modeling study results indicate that no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur from the Project NH 3 emissions. Odors Air quality modeling, using five-years of meteorological data and site-specific information, was performed that calculated the estimated property-line and nearest neighbor concentrations of volatile odorous organic compounds (VOOC). VOOCs have been correlated to human olfactory responses as a means to assess odor impacts (i.e., Zahn Correlation) with good agreement. The modeling was based on the estimated emission rates of these odorous gases from the chemistry of the manure pits located beneath the hog barns. The modeled concentrations of the VOOCs predicted by the computer model are less than the levels that are usually considered unpleasant based on the Zahn Odor Correlation. The MPCA has not received any odor complaints from the existing swine barns. Nicollet County has received no odor complaints for the facility prior to expansion. Subsequent visits by the MPCA and Nicollet County have not revealed any specific air quality issues. 9. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this Project would be reversible. 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. The MPCA did not receive any comments regarding potential effects to air quality. As discussed above in sections 8 and 9, the 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 Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts have 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. 4

5 13. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to water quality: Ground and Surface Water Water Supply 14. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Ground and Surface Water The MPCA has reviewed the construction and operation of the existing site and proposed expansion, including the land application of manure and information provided during public comment. The existing and proposed swine finishing barns are total confinement systems that are designed to avoid and eliminate the potential for water quality impacts. The manure is contained in MPCA-approved engineered concrete pits, located beneath the ground, which are covered by the livestock building to avoid contact with precipitation. The land application of manure is designed to be applied in concentrations that facilitate crop yields (i.e., agronomic rates). The use of an agronomic rate avoids or eliminates potential impacts to water resources. The land application information is found in the Manure Management Plan (MMP) and contains such details as the agronomic rates, soil types, land application method and cropping practices. The land application sites where manure will be spread and setbacks to any surface waters, including tile intakes, have been included in the MMP. This information 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. The MMP is an enforceable provision of the NPDES Permit. B. Water Supply A Water Appropriation Permit is required from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the use of more than 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year, 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: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this Project would be reversible. 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. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality: One comment letter expressed concern that land application practices had a potential to impact Swan Lake, wetlands and drain-tile intakes. As discussed above in sections 14 and 15, the analysis indicates that the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 5

6 17. 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 expansion of this facility have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed. 18. 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. 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. The MPCA did not receive any public comments concerning cumulative impacts. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the Project, including a review of the manure management plan, air quality modeling, and swine barn construction plans for the existing livestock operation and proposed expansion, as well as, information presented by the commentors, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this Project. 22. 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 23. 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. 6

7 24. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: 25. Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. MPCA NPDES/SDS Pending Environmental Review Feedlot/Stormwater Permit B. County/Township/City Conditional Use Permit Pending Environmental Review C. DNR Water Appropriation Permit Pending Environmental Review 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 Stormwater Permit. This is a blended permit that incorporates construction stormwater 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 an enforceable condition of the NPDES Permit. B. Nicollet County Conditional Use Permit The Nicollet 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 requirements. C. DNR Water Appropriations Permit A Water Appropriation Permit is required from the DNR for the use of more than 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year, 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. 26. 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. 27. 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. 7

8 28. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed expansion of the Project: Nutrient Management Plan Air Quality Modeling Evaluation NPDES/SDS Permit Application EAW 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. 29. 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. 30. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise 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 31. 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 PJM Pork, Inc. Swine Feedlot Expansion 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. 32. 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. 33. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R (2001), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Project. 34. An EIS is not required. 35. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. 8

9 ORDER The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the PJM Pork, Inc. Swine Feedlot Expansion Project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. IT IS SO ORDERED Sheryl A. Corrigan, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date 9

10 APPENDIX B Minnesota Pollution Control Agency PJM Pork, Inc. Swine Feedlot Expansion Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Lawrence W. Filter, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Transportation District 7, 501 South Victory Drive, Mankato, Minnesota Letter received May 17, Comment 1-1: Mn/DOT has prepared a Corridor Management Plan for U.S. Highway 14 between North Mankato and New Ulm, which includes the vicinity of Courtland. That plan, completed in June 2003, is intended to guide future highway planning efforts in this corridor. Mn/DOT has just begun a two-year development of an Environmental Impact Statement for this same segment of Highway 14. Despite these planning efforts, there is no scheduled date for construction of this segment. Response: The comment is noted. Comment 1-2: at least one of the alternatives for relocating Highway 14 in the vicinity of Courtland would affect manure application sites 3 & 4 as depicted in the EAW. Another alternative could affect manure application sites 1 & 2. Response: This information will be important to the Project proposer for future land application planning. It is understood that the Highway 14 expansion project is in the very early stages of planning and that there is no scheduled date for construction. It will be important to keep the Project proposer informed on the nature of the highway project as it progresses in the event that alternative land application sites are needed. Comment 1-3: It appears that manure application site 4 is within the corporate limits of the City of Courtland. Item 10 of the EAW does not indicate any need for a permit from the City of Courtland. Response: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has contacted the city of Courtland (City) to determine if a specific city ordinance would apply to land application activities. The City has indicated that it does not have any ordinance or rule that would restrict land application of livestock waste. A City permit or related action is not required for this PJM Pork, Inc. Swine Feedlot Expansion Project (Project). 2. Comments by Anonymous. Letter received May 17, Comment 2-1: The commenter alleges that the producer does not have an adequate amount of acreage for land application from the existing and for the proposed expansion. Response: The MPCA has reviewed the Manure Management Plan (MMP) for the proposed Project and has conducted an onsite visit to confirm land application locations. The MPCA has concluded that the Project proposers have adequate acreage for land application purposes and has approved the MMP for permitting purposes. Comment 2-2: The commenter is concerned that the Project does not contain any type of septic system for wash water.

11 Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response: The wastewater from the livestock units is directed to the manure storage pit. This is an acceptable and approved practice for wastewater management at livestock facilities in Minnesota. Comment 2-3: The commenter alleges that the producer s previous dairy operation discharged to Swan Lake. Response: The MPCA does not have any record of runoff or discharge from the former 60-head dairy project operated by the Project proposer. The Project proposer has since closed the dairy operation and sold the remaining dairy livestock. Comment 2-4: The commenter feels that the proposer should seal any drinking water wells not in use. Response: A review of the construction and land application areas did not reveal any unused drinking water wells. In the event that an unused drinking water well is discovered during the construction of the Project or during land application, the Project proposer will seal the well following the Minnesota Department of Health regulations. 3. Comments by Diane K. Anderson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota Letter received May 25, Comment 3-1: Manure applications should not be done during winter or on saturated soils as this could potentially result in run-off into Swan Lake, other wetlands, or tile lines. Response: The comment is noted. The proposer s MMP details land application activities that comport with the MPCA feedlot rules. The MPCA feedlot rules are design to protect water resources and account for environmentally sensitive features such as Swan Lake, wetlands and tile lines. Winter application is not likely to occur due to the nature of livestock management and the composition of the animal waste (liquid). 4. Britta L. Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society, 345 Kellogg Boulevard, Saint Paul, Minnesota Letter received May 28, Comment 4-1: Based on our review of the Project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this Project. Response: The comment is noted. 2