Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Transcription

1 Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Note to reviewers: The Worksheet (EAW) provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. This EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The project proposer supplied reasonably accessible data for, but did not complete the final worksheet. Comments on the EAW must be submitted to the MPCA during the 30-day comment period, which begins with notice of the availability of the EAW in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. Comments on the EAW should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that are reasonably expected to occur that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. A copy of the EAW may be obtained from the MPCA by calling (651) An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA Web site 1. Basic Project Information. A. Feedlot Name: B. Feedlot Proposer: Michael Juergens/Paul Juergens C. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Technical Contact Person Michael Juergens Contact Person Kevin J. Kain and Title Proposer and Title Project Manager Address State Highway 30 Address 520 Lafayette Road North Amboy, MN St. Paul, Minnesota Phone (507) Phone (651) Fax (507) Fax (651) Anderson@prairie.lakes.com (engineer) Kevin.kain@pca.state.mn.us D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) EIS Scoping Mandatory EAW X Citizen Petition RGU Discretion Proposer Volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and name: TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 E. Project Location: County Blue Earth City/Twp Sterling SE 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 31 Township 105N Range 27W Watershed (name and 4-digit code): F. Attach each of the following to the EAW: Exhibit 1: State Map; Exhibit 2: County map showing the general location of the project; Exhibit 3: U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (photocopy acceptable); Exhibit 4: Site plan showing all significant project and natural features; Exhibit 5: Map showing manure application sites and tile inlets; Exhibit 6: List of residences and sensitive receptors within a one-mile radius of the proposed barn site; Exhibit 7: Feedlot Permit Application (county or state); Exhibit 8: Soil Classifications and Geologic Soil Conditions for the barn site and manure application sites; and Exhibit 9. Air Emission Modeling Report. G. Project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Michael Juergens is proposing to construct two new finishing swine barns that would house a total of 4000 finishing hogs on approximately 80 acres of land located in the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 31, Sterling Township, Blue Earth County. The manure will be stored in eight-foot deep poured concrete pits beneath the barns. The accumulation of manure at the site would be removed on an annual basis and transported to fields for land application by enclosed tankers and injected into the soil and used as fertilizer. H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested data: Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Finishing hogs 4000 Total confinement Sows Nursery pigs Dairy cows Beef cattle Turkeys Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species) Sterling Township, Minnesota 2 Worksheet

3 I. Project magnitude data. Total acreage of farm: 80 Number of animal unites proposed in this project: 1600 Total animal unit capacity at this location after project construction: 1600 Acreage required for manure application: 900 plus J. Describe construction methods and timing. The project would consist of two 41-foot by 408-foot total confinement barns, each housing 2,000 finishing hogs. Manure generated by the animals would be stored in eight foot deep, poured concrete pits beneath the barns. The barns would have two 41-foot by 200-foot rooms, each holding 1000 head of finishing hogs. The rooms would be connected at the ends by an eight-foot office/load out area. This area would also be used for supplies, electrical equipment, and a clothing changing area. The poured pits would provide at least 12 months of storage for the manure generated by the hogs in each barn. The project in total would disturb approximately 2.5 acres of land. Once started, construction is expected to be completed within 4 months. K. Past and future stages. Is this project an expansion or addition to an existing feedlot? Yes No Are future expansions of this feedlot planned or likely? Yes No If either question is answered yes, briefly describe the existing feedlot (species, number of animals and animal units, and type of operation) and any past environmental review or the anticipated expansion. 2. Land uses and noteworthy resources in proximity to the site. A. Adjacent land uses. Describe the uses of adjacent lands and give the distances and directions to nearby residences, schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, places of worship, and other places accessible to the public (including roads) within one mile of the feedlot and within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites. The project is located in rural Sterling Township, Blue Earth County. The site is currently zoned for general agricultural use as are the adjacent lands surrounding the proposed project site. Land to be used for the application of manure is also located on agriculturally zoned rural cropland. There are eight (8) residences within a one-mile radius of the proposed project site, one (1) 500 head hog facility, two (2) abandoned farm sites and four (4) land property owners. There is one (1) Judicial County Ditch #49 approximately 2166 feet from the proposed facility. The nearest town to the proposed site is Amboy, approximately 3 miles to the northwest. Amboy has a population of approximately 575 people according to the 2000 census. There are no major rivers or streams within a one-mile radius of the proposed site. Sterling Township, Minnesota 3 Worksheet

4 B. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to any of the following adopted plans or ordinances? Check all that apply: local comprehensive plan land use plan or ordinance shoreland zoning ordinance flood plain ordinance wild or scenic river land use district ordinance local wellhead protection plan Is there anything about the proposed feedlot that is not consistent with any provision of any ordinance or plan checked? Yes No. If yes, describe the inconsistency and how it will be resolved. Are there any lands in proximity to the feedlot that are officially planned for or zoned for future uses that might be incompatible with a feedlot (such as residential development)? Yes No If yes, describe the potentially affected use and its location relative to the feedlot, its anticipated development schedule, and any plans to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with the feedlot. C. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the feedlot, manure storage areas, or within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites? Drinking Water Supply Management Areas designated by the Minnesota Department of Health? Yes No Public water supply wells (within two miles)? Yes No Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Yes No Designated public parks, recreation areas or trails? Yes No Lakes or Wildlife Management Areas? Yes No State-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities? Yes No Scenic views and vistas? Yes No Other unique resources? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. 3. Geologic and soil conditions. A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) 3 feet 3 feet 0 - >6 feet (average) 4 feet 4 feet 5 - >6 feet Bedrock (minimum) >60 >60 >60 (average) >60 >60 >60 B. NRCS Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Classifications (if known) See Exhibit 8 See Exhibit 8 See Exhibit 8 C. Indicate with a yes or no whether any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water are present Sterling Township, Minnesota 4 Worksheet

5 at the feedlot, manure storage area, or manure application sites. Karst features (sinkhole, cave, resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley); Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites No No No Exposed bedrock; No No No Soils developed in bedrock (as No No No shown on soils maps). For items answered yes (in C), describe the features, show them on a map, and discuss proposed design and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts. 4. Water Use, Tiling and Drainage, and Physical Alterations. A. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering), or connection to any public water supply? Yes No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations or public supply connections; and unique well numbers and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) appropriation permit numbers, if available. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on-site, explain methodology used to determine that none are present. The project would involve the installation of a new well. The well would be installed to an unknown depth by a licensed well driller. The pumping rate is unknown at this time. Projects that pump more that 10,000 gallons of ground water per day or 1,000,000 gallons per year are required to apply for and receive a DNR Water Appropriation Permit. The estimated water use of the project at full production would be approximately 16,800 gallons per day or 6,132,000 gallons per year. This project will therefore require an application and acquisition of a DNR Appropriation Permit. The project would also require the capping of an existing well at the barn site. A licensed well driller would be hired for this work B. Will the project involve installation of drain tiling, tile inlets or outlets? Yes No If yes, describe. Drain tile would be placed around the perimeter of the proposed concrete pits for drainage of saturated soils adjacent to the concrete pits. This drain tile would be attached to field drain tile where the water would be carried off to appropriate drainage areas. C. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI. Describe proposed mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts. 5. Manure management. Sterling Township, Minnesota 5 Worksheet

6 A. Check the box or boxes below which best describe the manure management system proposed for this feedlot. Stockpiling for land application Containment storage under barns for land application Containment storage outside of barns for land application Dry litter pack on barn floors for eventual land application Composting system Treatment of manure to remove solids and/or to recover energy Other (please describe) B. Manure collection, handling, and storage. Quantities of manure generated: total by species million gallons per year Swine Pounds Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle 365 Total days per year 14 Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled (including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot: The waste handling system at the facility would be completely enclosed and self-contained in the concrete pits beneath the barns. The accumulation of manure at the site would be removed on an annual basis and transported to fields in enclosed tankers for land application. The manure would be injected into the soil and used as fertilizer. All rates of injection will be calculated for appropriate agronomic rates and follow all local, state, and federal regulations. C. Manure utilization. Physical state of manure to be applied: liquid solid other, describe: D. Manure application. 1. Describe application technology, technique, frequency, time of year and locations. Land application of the manure would be done annually by injection. Manure will be sampled and analyzed for available nutrients. Application rate calculations would be based on available nitrogen in the manure added to any other nitrogen sources and balanced with the crop to be grown the following season. Land application of manure would comply with setbacks prescribed by Blue Earth County Feedlot Ordinance, the Blue Earth Land Use Ordinance supplement, and MPCA guidelines. Sterling Township, Minnesota 6 Worksheet

7 2. Describe the agronomic rates of application (per acre) to be used and whether the rates are based on nitrogen or phosphorus. Will there be a nutrient management plan? Yes No A Comprehensive Manure Nutrient Management Plan has been prepared for this project and is available for review at the MPCA Offices in Mankato and St. Paul upon request. The manure would be sampled annually prior to the calculation of application rates. The proposer would be responsible for sampling of the manure. The analysis would be performed by an accredited laboratory. A certified crop consultant would provide fertilizer recommendations and use those recommendations to calculate application rates of manure based on the results of the manure testing. Nitrogen would be the limiting nutrient and used to calculate the application rate. In accordance with Minn. R. 7020, phosphorus and potassium levels would be monitored for a minimum of four years from analysis of soil samples. Records of soil sampling, manure sampling, application rates, and location of crops to be grown would be maintained by the project proposer. 3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. The proposed poured concrete pits are designed to store liquid manure. The volume of the proposed concrete pits is estimated to be sufficient to store the quantity of manure to be produced by the animals housed on the site for up to 12 months. Only due to unforeseen circumstances would manure need to the removed from the concrete pits more than once each year. There are over 900 acres of land available for manure application within two miles of the site, which is more than the required 800 acres. 4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems. The following separation distances would be maintained when land applying manure as prescribed by Blue Earth County Feedlot Ordinances, and the Blue Earth Land Use Ordinances (as shown in the tables below) and MPCA guidelines. Surface Spreading Incorporation or Injection Stream 300 feet 50 feet Lakes Water Wells Sinkholes Individual Dwelling Residential Development Public Roadway Uncultivated Wetlands Drainage Ditches Year Flood Plain Prohibited Permitted Field Intake Sterling Township, Minnesota 7 Worksheet

8 Slope Soil Texture Time of Year Minimum Separation 0 6 percent Coarse Not Frozen 100 feet Frozen 200 feet Medium to Fine Not Frozen 200 feet Frozen 300 feet Over 6 percent Coarse Not Frozen 200 feet Medium to Fine Not Frozen 300 feet All Soils Frozen Prohibited E. Other methods of manure utilization. If the project will utilize manure other than by land application, please describe the methods. Not Applicable 6. Air/odor emissions. A. Identify the major sources of air or odor emissions from this feedlot. There would be two finishing swine barns, 41-feet by 408-feet, with each barn housing 2000 finishing hogs (800 AUs). There would be poured concrete pits, eight feet in depth, under each of the barns. The majority of air and odors emitted from this facility would come from the hog barn ventilation fans. These emissions would be composed of dust, gases and odors common to hog barns with deep pit manure storage. Some odor may be released during land application of manure. Injecting the manure into the soil would minimize release of these odors and gases. If dust from parking and driveways becomes a problem, the owners would use oil to mitigate this problem. B. Describe any proposed feedlot design features or air or odor emission mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts and discuss their anticipated effectiveness. To reduce the potential odor problem from these barns, the proposer has selected to build a below ground engineered concrete pit. This type of structure has shown odor control benefits compared to open above ground storage tanks or open lagoons. Land application of manure would be done by injection to minimize odors. Sterling Township, Minnesota 8 Worksheet

9 C. Answer this item only if no feedlot design features or mitigations were proposed in item 6.B. Provide a summary of the results of an air emissions modeling study designed to compare predicted emissions at the property boundaries with state standards, health risk values, or odor threshold concentrations. The modeling must incorporate an appropriate background concentration for hydrogen sulfide to account for potential cumulative air quality impacts. Air quality computer modeling was performed that estimated concentrations in the air of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the proposed barns. The model estimated pollutant concentrations from the proposed barns plus background levels at the property-line and nearest neighbor. A background level is the amount already in the air from other sources. The findings from the modeling study are that no significant impacts are expected. (Exhibit 9). The modeling results indicated that the emissions from the total facility would comply with the Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS) for hydrogen sulfide and the proposed Minnesota Department of Health s inhalation Health Risk Values (ihrv) for ammonia. The modeled concentrations and applicable standards are summarized in the table below. Fourteen other odorous gases were evaluated as part of the modeling. The concentrations of these gases predicted in the computer model are less than the levels that are usually considered unpleasant. Maximum Modeled Concentra tions Hydrogen Sulfide one hour exposure at the property line part per billion (ppb) Hydrogen Sulfide one hour exposure at the nearest neighbor Ammonia one year exposure at the property line ppb 1217 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3) Ammonia one year exposure at the nearest neighbor 7.40 g/m3 MAAQS 30 ppb 30 ppb Not Applicable Not Applicable Proposed Acute ihrv (one hour exposure) 80 g/m3 (57 ppb) 80 g/m3 (57 ppb) 3200 g/m g/m3 Proposed Chronic ihrv (one year exposure) Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 80 g/m3 D. Describe any plans to notify neighbors of operational events (such as manure storage agitation and pumpout) that may result in higher-than-usual levels of air or odor emissions. A good neighbor policy that includes notification of neighbors prior to land application is being considered by the project proposer. The proposer has stated that if outdoor activities are planned by a neighbor to the site or cropland to be used for the application of manure, then agitation or land application activities would either be modified or suspended until such outdoor activities have been completed. Sterling Township, Minnesota 9 Worksheet

10 E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Normal noise and dust associated with earthmoving equipment and construction would be generated during construction activities. After construction, fugitive dust emissions are expected to be minor because of grass seeding, confinement of the hogs in the barns, and graveled driveways acting to help control dust. The noise generated during construction of the facility would be relatively consistent with the noise associated with the existing agricultural uses on the site. Following construction, noise levels should be consistent with other operations in the area. Feed delivery trucks, livestock trucks, and manure hauling will be the main source of noise and dust. 7. Dead Animal Disposal Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. There is expected to be approximately 16 mortalities per month at the proposed project site. Dead animals would be disposed of by a certified rendering service on a timely basis. An enclosure would be built in accordance with the local, state, and federal regulation to house dead animals. 8. Surface Water Runoff. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. The quantity of runoff would increase due to the construction of 33,500 square feet of roofed area and approximately 10,000 square feet of gravel surfaced roadway/parking. Storm water runoff generated at the site would be routed to help control erosion and discharged to existing cropland. Grass areas around the buildings would control potential erosion and sediment problems. 9. Traffic and Public Infrastructure Impacts. A. Estimate the number of heavy truck trips generated per week and describes their routing over local roads. Describe any road improvements to be made. There would be approximately five heavy truck trips generated per week. The trucks would use Minnesota State Highway 30, County Road 36, and one-half mile of township gravel road between County 36 and the proposed barn site. All trucks would be at or below weight restrictions placed on the public roads. The project is not expected to overburden the existing highways or cause any traffic hazards or congestion. B. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No If yes, please describe. Sterling Township, Minnesota 10 Worksheet

11 10. Permits and approvals required. Mark required permits and give status of application: Unit of government Type of Application Status MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Application Submitted System (NPDES) Permit MPCA Minnesota Feedlot Permit Application Submitted MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit Application to be submitted following receipt of NPDES Feedlot Permit MPCA Notification/Status Change for Underground Storage Tanks County Minnesota Feedlot Permit Application submitted County/twp/city Conditional use or other land use permit Issued conditional upon completion of the environmental review process and receipt of a NPDES Feedlot Permit from the MPCA DNR Water Appropriation Application to be submitted following well drilling Other* *(List any other approvals required along with the unit of government, type of approval needed, and status of approval process.) 11. Other potential environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 10, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. This includes any cumulative impacts caused by the project in combination with other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Examples of cumulative impacts to consider include air quality, stormwater volume or quality, and surface water quality. (Cumulative impacts may be discussed here or under the appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form.) No additional impacts, beyond those discussed previously, are expected. There are no future projects planned. 12. Summary of issues. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. All potential environmental issues have been identified and addressed in individual sections throughout this document. Sterling Township, Minnesota 11 Worksheet

12 RGU CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that: The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as phased actions, pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 60, , subp. 4, and , subp. 1. Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Name and Title of Signer: Beth G. Lockwood, Supervisor Environmental Review Unit Operations and Environmental Review Section Regional Environmental Management Division Date: The format for the alternative Worksheet form has been approved by the Chair of the Environmental Quality Board pursuant to Minn. R for use for animal feedlot projects. For additional information contact: Environmental Quality Board,Room 300, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, (651) , or voice mail: (800) For TTY, call (800) and ask for Minnesota Planning. This form can be made available in an alternative format, such as audiotape. This form is available at Sterling Township, Minnesota 12 Worksheet