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 ARMSTRONG FEEDLOT FREEDOM TOWNSHIP/WASECA COUNTY WASECA, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R (2003), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Armstrong Feedlot 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,, and Order: FACILITY HISTORY Overview The proposer plans to expand an existing feedlot operation, which currently consists of two turkey and two cattle barns (two 60-foot by 560-foot turkey barns, one 44-foot by 160-foot and one 40-foot by 150- foot cattle barn). The proposer will construct two new power-ventilated 81-foot by 200-foot hog barns in Section 1, Freedom Township, Waseca County. The barns would be constructed with wood stud walls, wood rafters, and metal roofs. The manure will be stored in eight-foot deep concrete pits with concrete slats and constructed to the specifications of a licensed professional engineer. Since a portion of the existing operation was built within the past three years, it is considered a phased action under the environmental review rules. Therefore, the EAW describes the potential impacts of the entire operation, including the turkey, cattle, and hog barns, and the management of manure from all types of livestock on the site. No changes will be made to the existing turkey or cow barns under this proposal. Permitting History This facility was first permitted in 2002, when Waseca County issued a Construction Short Form Permit (WASC-CSF ) to construct the Turkey Barns. No state permits have been issued for this facility prior to TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 Previous Environmental Review Prior to this proposal to expand the feedlot, the operation was not large enough to exceed the threshold (1,000 animal units) that would have required environmental review. The addition of two new barns and 1,200 additional animal units trips the threshold requiring the mandatory development of an EAW. Compliance/Enforcement History No enforcement actions have ever been taken against the existing cow and turkey operation. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed New Construction/Proposed Modification Armstrong Feedlot, Waseca County, proposes to construct two new 81-foot by 200-foot hog barns to house 4,000 finishing hogs (1,200 animal units [AU]) (Project). The Project site currently has four existing barns; two total-confinement barns for 24,600 turkeys (443 AU) and two partial-confinement barns for 275 feeder cattle (193 AU). After completion of the expansion, there would be a total of 1,836 AU at the site. The new hog barns would be constructed of wood studs, wood rafters, and metal roofs. Under each barn, an eight-foot deep concrete pit would be constructed to collect hog manure and store until it can be properly disposed of. The proposer plans to install a new well to supply water to the proposed hog barns. The well will be drilled on the feedlot site to a depth of approximately 280 feet. The well will be located within the St. Peter Aquifer. Water from the new well will be used as drinking water for the livestock and as wash water. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and University of Minnesota data, the hog operation will require an average of three gallons of water per hog per day for consumption and wash water, resulting in an average yearly water use of 4.38 million gallons. In addition to this well, two other wells already exist on the homestead site. One well is used to supply water to the turkey barns. Water use for the turkeys averages gallons per animal per day, or 1.6 million gallons of water per year. The other well is used to water the cattle. The depth of this well is unknown. This well provides 25 gallons of water per cattle per day, or about 2.5 million gallons per year. All wells together would supply approximately 8.5 million gallons per year. An individual DNR Water Appropriations Permit will be required for this appropriation. Manure from each barn will be collected and disposed of at a minimum of once per year. The concrete pits are designed to have a 12-month or greater storage capacity. Prior to removal from the pits, the manure would be agitated below the surface in an effort to reduce odors. Manure would then be pumped and transported to the fields by hose and injected into the soil at agronomic rates. Soil sampling and testing for organic matter, ph, phosphorus, and potassium would be conducted on each application field at least once every four years. Application equipment would be calibrated and maintained to ensure that application rates do not exceed planned rates by more than approximately 15 percent. Equipment would be properly maintained and cleaned after each application. 2

3 All land within the vicinity of the existing feedlot and the manure application sites is used for agricultural purposes. The only manure application site used for cattle manure would be Site A. All the other manure application sites would be used for hog manure. Manure from the turkey barns is managed and disposed of by the Jennie-O Turkey Store. The proposer has a short-term contract with Jennie-O which allows Jennie-O to clean the turkey manure from the barns and to handle and dispose of the manure in an appropriate manner and in accordance with all local and state regulations. Currently, cattle manure is applied approximately twelve times per year. Cattle manure is cleaned out of the barns and is applied with a manure spreader. When needed, cattle manure has been stockpiled for short periods during the summer (June September) behind a tree line directly west of the homestead within Application Site A. Sensitive areas within each manure application site have been identified and are shown on site maps. All of the setbacks outlined in the state feedlot rules (Minn. R. ch. 7020) would be adhered to. In addition, application of manure would be avoided when precipitation is expected within 24 hours, to prevent runoff into surface water. Manure would not be applied to frozen ground. The ditches adjacent to the manure application site have berms on the banks to prevent field runoff from entering surface water. Application of manure within 300 feet of ditches would be injected or incorporated immediately. Manure application within 300 feet of tile inlets would be injected or immediately incorporated. Construction of the first barn could begin in the fall of 2004 and would be completed prior to the fall of The second barn will be built after the first barn is completed in 2005 or PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 29, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R (2003), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on September 10, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to Waseca County, as well as, other interested parties on September 15, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on September 13, 2004, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at on September 13, The public comment period for the EAW began on September 13, 2004, and ended on October 13, During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received no comment letters from citizens or government agencies. Approximately two weeks after the end of the comment period, the MPCA received one letter from one government agency, however no issues of significance were raised. 3

4 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 4. 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 (2003). 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. THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA ARE SET FORTH BELOW Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 5. 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 (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below. 6. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to air quality: A. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions B. Ammonia Emissions C. Odors D. Particulate Matter 7. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions Air quality modeling was performed that calculated the estimated property line and nearestneighbor concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. The computer modeling was conducted using the CALPUFF air quality model and was based on five years of historical meteorological data. The modeling was based on the estimated hydrogen sulfide emission rates from the manure pits 4

5 located beneath the barns, as well as air emissions from the existing cattle and turkey barns and lots. Background (existing) concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, developed from air quality monitoring data in Minnesota, were also included in these calculations. The modeling found that air emissions from the proposed project will comply with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. When a background concentration of 17 parts per billion (ppb) is added to the CALPUFF-generated concentrations, the maximum estimated property-line hydrogen sulfide is ppb, which is below the standard of 30 ppb. The CALPUFF results suggest that the Armstrong Feedlot will not cause exceedences of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide inhalation Health Risk Values (ihrv) at the neighboring residences. The findings from the modeling study indicate that no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed facility s hydrogen sulfide emissions. B. Ammonia Emissions Ammonia Emissions from the facility will have a minimal impact on the environment and is not expected to exceed the draft Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) ihrvs for ammonia based on previous ambient air ammonia data collected around the state by MPCA staff. The MPCA staff collected ambient air ammonia data from a number of feedlot facilities in Minnesota over the past three years and most ammonia data tends to be in concentrations that are typically less than ten percent of the draft MDH ihrvs. C. Odors Manure storage and application are primary livestock odor sources. The Project will include construction of concrete manure pits under the stock barns where manure will be stored for up to one year. Some odor may be released during agitation of the hog manure, although this would be of a short duration, as well as during the land application of manure. Injecting the manure directly into the soil should minimize the release of these odorous gases. Other potential odor sources could be spilled feed and dead animal carcasses. Drop tubes will be used to direct feed in an efficient, measured and sanitary manner. This should reduce the potential for odor from this source. The disposal of livestock mortalities is regulated by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health. It is estimated that approximately three percent of all animals will die while onsite each year. The anticipated quantity of dead hogs is approximately three percent of 8,000 hogs (or 240 dead animals). Dead hogs will be stored in a separate trailer while they await pick-up by a rendering company. Pick-up of dead animals typically occurs within 24 hours. Turkey mortality is expected to involve approximately 738 dead animals each year. Dead turkeys would be managed by Jennie-O and the company would arrange for their prompt pickup and disposal. Approximately eight to nine cattle are also expected to die onsite. Currently, the proposer handles cattle mortality by contracting with a rendering company which typically picks up dead animals within 24 hours. 5

6 The existing cattle and turkey barns are also potential sources of odor, mostly from manure. An air modeling analysis has been conducted for the entire facility. The modeling exercise showed that no significant odor will result from expansion of this facility. D. Particulate Matter Animal feed is a possible source of dust, as well as the trucks that will go to and from the buildings. To reduce the amount of dust from animal feed, long drop tubes would be used for the feed in the barns. Fat may also be added to the feed to reduce particulates. Spills would be cleaned up promptly, and debris and dust build-up would be regularly removed from exhaust fans. Most of the trucks going to and from the facility would use a gravel road for about 500 feet and then travel on a paved road. The generation of particulate matter (dust) from truck traffic is not expected to be a problem. If dust becomes a problem, water or oil would be sprayed on the roads adjacent to the feedlot in order to decrease particulates in the air near the facility. 8. 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. 9. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to air quality: There were no public comments submitted pertaining to the potential for significant air quality impacts. As discussed above in Findings 8 and 9, the analysis indicates that the effects on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to water quality: A. Surface-water Runoff B. Ground Water C. Water Supply 6

7 13. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Surface-water Runoff The potential environmental effects to surface waters from this site are from manure or manure contaminated runoff from the site, runoff from cattle manure stockpiles, and land application of manure to cropland. There would be a slight increase in the quantity of site runoff after completion of the construction process due to the impervious surfaces created by the new barns. The roof runoff would drain away via sheet flow and infiltrate directly into the soil. No contaminated runoff would be generated at the site from the feed, manure, or animal holding areas. An Emergency Management Plan has been created for the rare case of a spill. This would be an enforceable condition of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) feedlot permit. In the event of a spill, the plan requires that nearby tile intakes be covered and that temporary berms be created to contain or redirect water flow so that surface waters are not contaminated. Sensitive areas within each manure application site have been identified. All of the setbacks outlined in the state feedlot rules (Minn. R. ch. 7020) would be adhered to. In addition, application of manure would be avoided when precipitation is expected within 24 hours, to prevent runoff into surface water. Manure would not be applied to frozen ground. The ditches adjacent to the manure application site have berms on the banks to prevent field runoff from entering surface water. Application of manure within 300 feet of ditches would be injected or incorporated immediately. Manure application within 300 feet of tile inlets would be injected or immediately incorporated. B. Ground Water The potential environmental impact to ground water from this facility is from manurecontaminated water leaching into the ground water at the livestock housing areas, land application sites, or field stockpiling sites (cattle manure). Existing barns are and the new barns will be covered, reducing the potential for ground water to become contaminated. Waste is contained in the barns and periodically cleaned out and disposed of at agronomic rates. The proposed new hog barns and deep concrete manure storage pits would be constructed in accordance with state regulations and modern engineering principles. A perimeter drain tile would be installed around the foundation of the hog barns to dewater the soil and reduce hydrostatic pressure on the walls of the concrete pits. The concrete pits are designed to reduce the potential for ground-water contamination near or under the hog barns. Manure application will occur at agronomic rates on all fields. In addition, there would be no drain tiles, tile inlets, or tile outlets installed on any of the manure application sites. Due to these safeguards, no impacts to ground water are expected. 7

8 C. Water Supply The potential environmental impact to the water supply from this facility may relate to the projected increase in water usage. Well information was obtained from the Minnesota Geological Survey. The proposer plans to install a new well to supply water to the proposed hog barns. The well will be drilled on the feedlot site to a depth of approximately 280 feet. The well will be located within the St. Peter Aquifer. Water from the new well will be used as drinking water for the livestock and as wash water. In addition to this well, two other wells already exist on the homestead site. One well is used to supply water to the turkey barns. All wells together would supply approximately 8.5 million gallons per year. As a result, an individual DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be required for this expansion. A DNR permit is required when an operation proposes to use 10,000 gallons or more of water per day or one million gallons of water per year. The purpose of the Water Appropriations Permit is to ensure that water resources are managed such that an 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. 14. 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. 15. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality: There were no public comments pertaining to the potential for significant water quality impacts. As discussed above in Findings 14 and 15, the analysis indicates that the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 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 expansion of this facility have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed. 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. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 8

9 18. 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 (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 19. The EAW 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. The cumulative impacts from this site should be minimal. Ground water should not be impacted since the manure would be stored in engineered concrete pits or within barns, and then land applied at agronomic rates based on nitrogen content. Surface waters should not receive cumulative impacts due to application of manure at agronomic rates. Soil and manure testing would determine the amount of manure that is to be applied to fields. Proper use of these nutrients makes environmental sense and also economic sense. Required setbacks from all surface waters and sensitive areas as outlined above would be maintained. There is sufficient acreage available for the proper application of manure. The operator promises a swift and thorough response to any accidental spills. Based upon the air emission modeling results, the proposed feedlot expansion is not anticipated to have significant adverse cumulative effects upon air quality. The computer model used to estimate the concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emitted from the feedlot includes the background level of pollutants. The background is the amount of a pollutant that is already in the air. Air emissions from other emission sources may impact downwind human and environmental receptors. The background level for hydrogen sulfide that was used in the computer model was derived from monitoring at other feedlot facilities in Minnesota and is developed using the United States Environmental Protection Agency protocol for air quality modeling background concentrations. The modeling adds the background air pollutant concentration to the emission concentrations predicted from the proposed project. This gives a cumulative total as reported in the air emission modeling results, which is discussed in Findings 8A, 8B, and 8C. The proposed Project is not anticipated to have significant adverse cumulative effects upon air quality. Animal agriculture as an industry is known to contribute to atmospheric acidity (ammonia, hydrogen sulfide) nutrient transport and deposition (nitrogen compounds), global warming (methane, nitrous oxide), and potential ozone layer depletion, although little is known about agriculture s contribution to the latter. However, there is no evidence that suggests the proposed Project would contribute significantly to any of these phenomena. 9

10 20. Public comments concerning cumulative impacts: There were no public comments related to cumulative impacts from this Project. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the Project, including the manure management plans, odor mitigation measures, and Construction Stormwater and DNR water appropriations permits, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this Project. 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 (2003). 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 Feedlot/Stormwater Submitted Construction Permit B. MPCA Minnesota Feedlot General Permit Submitted C. County Feedlot Permit To be submitted D. County/township/city Request for Inspection/Evaluation To be submitted E. DNR Water Appropriations Permit To be submitted 24. The MPCA has prepared a draft general permit. All potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur will be mitigated under the requirements of this permit, the DNR Waters Appropriations Permit, MPCA Stormwater Construction Permit and the Wasecea County Feedlot Permit. A.& B. MPCA NPDES/SDS Feedlot General Permit and Stormwater Construction Permit A MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit has been drafted for the proposed expansion and operation of this facility. The MPCA staff prepared the permit under authority from the Environmental Protection Agency. There will be a 30-day public comment period associated with the draft NPDES/SDS Permit before it is finalized. The permit provides conditions for the construction of runoff controls from the animal housing areas and the concrete manure stacking slab, land application of manure, and the temporary stockpiling of manure. The permit also contains requirements for annual reporting of land application practices, actions to take in the event of facility closure, 10

11 development of a plan in the event that it is determined that the site has the potential to exceed state ambient hydrogen sulfide standards and the stormwater permit requirements. C. Waseca County Feedlot Permit/Request for Inspection/Evaluation The Waseca County Feedlot 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. D. DNR Water Appropriations Permit A Water Appropriation Permit is required from 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. 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 (2003). 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 Armstrong Feedlot. 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. EAW data; Air dispersion modeling report and memorandum from Charles Gantzer, Gantzer Environmental Software and Service; and Permit Application. 28. 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. 29. 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. 11

12 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 Armstrong Feedlot 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 (2003), 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 Armstrong Feedlot 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 12

13 Appendix A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Armstrong Feedlot Environmental Assessment Worksheet COMMENT LETTER RECEIVED AFTER COMMENT PERIOD ENDED 1. Britta L. Bloomberg, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received October 29, RESPONSE TO COMMENT ON THE EAW 1. Britta L. Bloomberg, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received October 29, Comment : 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 : No response necessary.