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 MINNESOTA SUPREME FEEDERS HIGHWATER TOWNSHIP COTTONWOOD 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 regular meeting held in St. Paul, Minnesota on June 26, Pursuant to Minn. R (1999), the 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,, and Order: FACILITY HISTORY Overview Minnesota Supreme Feeders is proposing to modify an existing beef cattle feedlot. The modification will expand the existing facility in, Cottonwood County. The existing facility consists of 975 feeder cattle (975 animal units (AU)) housed in: two partial confinement barns, each with an adjacent open concrete lot, and a shipping/receiving area with a partial confinement barn and an adjacent open lot, located next to an office. Permitting History The existing facility was issued a Certificate of Compliance permit on May 4, 1993, for a 50 feet by 280 feet partial confinement barn for 500 cows and a 60 feet by 70 feet cattle-working barn. An amendment to the permit was issued on September 9, 1993, for another 50 feet by 280 feet partial confinement barn to house 25 calves and 450 feeder cattle. Previous Environmental Review No environmental review was required prior to constructing the existing facility, as it was below the threshold requiring the mandatory preparation of an EAW. Compliance/Enforcement History The MPCA has no record of any enforcement action with the proposed facility. However, the MPCA has had an enforcement action with one of the partners of the facility, Mr. Warren Pankonin. Mr. Pankonin owned and operated a beef cattle facility located in the southeast quarter of Section 10, Highwater Township, Cottonwood County. This site is separate from the facility. The MPCA issued an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) on April 27, The total dollar amount of the APO was $10,000 TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 100% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 ($7,500 forgivable and $2,500 non-forgivable). The MPCA enforcement action involved feedlot facilities not included in the proposed project, however, they are adjacent to one another. The corrective actions required by the MPCA at the Pankonin facility have been addressed to MPCA satisfaction and the penalty has been paid. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Modification The proposed expansion includes creating two total confinement barns by covering the two existing partial confinement barns and open lots, constructing a new total confinement barn and adding 2,525 feeder cattle (2,525 AU) to the facility. The shipping/receiving area, with a partial confinement barn and an open lot adjacent to an office, will remain unchanged. Until the roofs are in place on the existing open lots, concrete curbing and gutters will be used to divert rain and snowmelt water away from and around the open lots. Any runoff that flows off of the open lots will be directed to a grassed buffer area that outlets to a field and has a flow direction to the south and southwest, away from Highwater Creek. Storm water from the feed storage bunker will also be discharged to a vegetated filter strip. Clean storm-water runoff will be diverted prior to coming into contact with manure or feed storage and routed to the adjacent crop land or to a storm-water retention basin, where the runoff will percolate through the soil to subsurface drainage. Manure will be removed from each of the livestock housing areas and will either be directly land applied to cropland as fertilizer, stored on the proposed concrete stacking slab, or stockpiled on one of three stockpile sites that have been identified on the land application sites. The manure will be removed from all of the stockpile sites at least once each year and land applied as fertilizer. A 50 feet by 50 feet stacking slab for short-term manure storage will be constructed with a reinforced concrete floor and reinforced concrete walls on three sides, on the east end of the proposed 1,100 feet by 100 feet total confinement barn. Rain and snowmelt waters will be diverted from the remaining open side, as the site will be graded such that all waters will flow away from the structure. Also, there will be no discharge of manure or manure contaminated runoff from this structure due to the solid form of the manure and its relatively low moisture content, with the ability to absorb precipitation that may fall directly on the stacking slab. Additionally, rain and snowmelt waters will be prevented from running into or out of the stacking slab by the three concrete walls. Construction of the new total confinement cattle barn will take place in 2001 and require approximately three months to complete. The buffer area and the vegetated filter strip will also be completed within the same three-month construction period. After construction is complete, all of the cattle on this site will be housed under a roof with the rain and snowmelt waters diverted around the structures so that these waters do not come in contact with the manure. The one remaining open lot in the shipping/receiving area is used primarily for loading and unloading cattle. No cattle will be housed on this lot. All work is scheduled to be completed by January 1,

3 Modification of the existing structures at the facility will have a beneficial environmental effect, as runoff from open lots will be eliminated. Also, the quality of the runoff should improve, as row crop cultivation will no longer be practiced in the location of the new barn. Environmental Concerns Letters received during the public comment period indicate the following environmental concerns associated with the proposed expansion: Air quality Fly population Odors Surface water runoff Manure management Ground water Water supply Permitting Requirements A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit/NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit will be issued by the MPCA. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will issue a Water Appropriation Permit and Cottonwood County has issued a Conditional Use Permit. All permits will be issued prior to the start of construction for the proposed expansion. These permits will mandate that the facility operates in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters Additional concerns described in the comment letters received are as follows: The connection between the owner listed for the expanded facility and the current owner of the facility; A history of noncompliance associated with the existing facility (see responses to comments #3; past noncompliance not applicable to this facility); Re-sale valuation of property; Road conditions; and A setback variance granted by Cottonwood County. Community Involvement in Process In addition to the 30-day public comment period for this EAW, a public meeting was held by the County. According to the,, and Order for the Conditional Use Permit application for Minnesota Supreme Feeders, issued by Cottonwood County, a public hearing was held on September 22, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. at the Cottonwood County office building. 3

4 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R subp. 29, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed project. Pursuant to Minn. R (1999), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on March 30, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to Brown, Cottonwood, Jackson, Lyon, Murray, Nobles and Redwood counties, as well as, other interested parties on April 2, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on April 2, 2001, and available for review on the MPCA website at pca.state.mn.us on April 2, The public comment period for the EAW began on April 2, 2001, and ended on May 2, The MPCA did not receive any comment letters from any government agencies and received 12 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. s to comments received have been prepared by MPCA staff and are hereby incorporated by reference in Appendix B. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R , subp. 1 (1999), 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 (1999). 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. 4

5 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 (1999). 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. Ammonia Emissions C. Odors D. Particulate Matter E. Fly Populations 8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: A. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions Based on the animal species type, animal housing method, and manure storage method this facility is not likely to create or contribute to violations of the state ambient hydrogen sulfide air quality standard. 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) inhalation health risk values (ihrvs) for ammonia based on previous ambient air quality dated collected around the state by MPCA staff. 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 Animal waste strength is a good indicator of potential air quality impacts. In general, beef cattle waste has relatively low waste strength (in terms of odor) in comparison to the waste of other livestock species. Manure storage is typically a primary livestock odor source. The proposed project will employ stockpiling of solid manure. Solid manure storage systems generally have a lower odor strength in comparison to other forms of manure storage. The manure storage system employed by the project proposer is likely to have a very low odor emission strength if properly managed. Manure stockpile odor management concerns are generally related to moisture content and control related to the stockpile. If manure moisture 5

6 content is too high during storage, odor concentration can increase. The manure management plan and the air emission plan will contain requirements to ensure that the manure will be managed effectively and potential odor will be controlled. The scrape and haul manure management technique is used at a variety of livestock production facilities. In general, the greater the frequency of manure removal from an open lot, pasture, or animal housing system using the scrape and haul method, the greater reduction in hydrogen sulfide and odor emissions from a facility. Minnesota Supreme Feeders will be employing manure stockpiling as their method of animal waste storage. The stockpiling method is appropriate and it has been observed that a crust can form which appears to reduce odor. D. Particulate Matter 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 (Takai et al., 1998). Additionally, it is unlikely that the facility would ever exceed existing state and federal ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. E. Fly Populations The project proposer intends to use a fly larvacide that is introduced as a feed additive for cattle. Additionally, pesticides will be sprayed directly onto fly breeding areas to ensure that the fly population is minimized or nearly eliminated. The details of the proposed fly control program will be developed during the permitting of the facility. 9. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: MPCA staff believes 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. 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 sections 8 and 9, the MPCA's staff 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 expansion of this facility have been considered by MPCA staff 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. 6

7 13. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to water quality are: A. Surface water runoff B. Ground water C. Water supply 14. 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, runoff from the feed storage area, storm-water runoff, runoff from manure stockpiles, and land application of manure to cropland. A potential effect to surface water from this project is from the runoff of manure or manurecontaminated water from the open lots to Highwater Creek or other nearby surface waters. In the past, this was an issue because cattle were housed very near the creek. The proposed project is set back from the creek and is designed such that any runoff that leaves the open lots prior to being roofed over will be diverted to a grassed buffer strip that outlets into a field and away from the creek or other surface waters. Once the open lots where animals are housed are eliminated, there will be little, if any, runoff from the livestock. Rain or snowmelt waters that run off the feed storage area will be directed to a grassed buffer strip that has been designed to treat the effluent before it flows onto a field. The design requirements of the grassed buffer strip was determined using the Natural Resource Conservation Service technical guidelines. A system will be implemented to address any potential impacts caused by stormwater. This system consists of contouring the natural ground to direct rain and snowmelt waters to flow towards a French drain, which will be used to settle soil particles from the runoff water before it flows into the drain. Runoff from the proposed concrete stacking slab that is to be constructed at the east side of the proposed barn will have concrete walls to prevent any runoff from leaving the stacking slab. Solid manure removed from the barns or open lot that cannot be land applied immediately or stacked on the concrete stacking slab will be temporarily stockpiled at one of three field sites. These field sites have been identified and meet the criteria outlined in the MPCA feedlot rules (Minn. R. ch. 7020) for setbacks to surface water. The distance from these fields to surface waters is great enough that manure-contaminated runoff from the fields will not likely reach surface waters. 7

8 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. 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. No environmental effects are anticipated from the proposed project to surface waters, as the result of storm events that are of a magnitude that is less than the 25-year, 24-hour event frequency. (Livestock facilities that discharge during a storm event that exceeds this magnitude are exempt from federal and state discharge limits.) 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 stockpile sites. The proposed construction at the facility will consist of concrete floors that contain all the manure until properly land applied. The existing barns and open lots that are being converted to total confinement barns also have concrete floors. Runoff from these structures will be minimal and will result in little, if any, leaching into the ground water. There will be no leaching at the site of the concrete stockpile site because of the concrete floor. The stockpile sites located on the fields will not have any type of floor to control leaching to ground water. On these sites, ground water is protected by rotating the sites each year, removing the manure from the stockpile site each year, and planting a vegetative cover at the stockpile site after the manure is removed. This vegetative cover will take up any nutrients that remain in the soil at the stockpile site and prevents them from moving through the soil profile into the ground water. The grassed strip that is designed to collect any runoff from the facility also provides treatment to runoff that infiltrates into the ground. The filter strip grasses will utilize the runoff water nutrients so ground water quality is protected. C. Water Supply: The potential environmental impact to the water supply from this facility may be an increase in the demand for water from this facility. 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. 8

9 15. The reversibility of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: The MPCA staff believes 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. received that give a specific basis for concerns regarding potential effects to water quality are: Some comment letters expressed concern that surface water runoff from the livestock facility will discharge to a nearby creek. Also, some comment letters express a general concern for the magnitude of the community water supply and for potential impacts to ground water. As discussed above in sections 14 and 15, the MPCA's staff analysis indicates that the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 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 by MPCA staff 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 (1999). 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. Public comments concerning cumulative impacts are: One comment letter expressed a general concern for the magnitude of the concentration of animals in the community. The commentor did not specify what potential cumulative environmental effects she was concerned about as a result of the concentration of animal units. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the project, including the manure management plan and odor mitigation measures, and 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. 9

10 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 (1999). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 24. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit Pending B. MPCA NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit Pending C. Cottonwood County Conditional Use Permit Issued D. DNR Water Appropriation Permit To be submitted 25. The MPCA has prepared a draft permit with the following special permit conditions, developed to mitigate 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 Cottonwood County Conditional Use Permit. A. & B. The MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit/NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit: A 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, 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 storm-water permit requirements. 10

11 The following is a summary of requirements included in the NPDES/SDS Permit: Control of runoff from the existing open lots 1. Open lots are required to be roofed over by January 1, A buffer area used to treat runoff from the open lots until roofing is complete is to be installed in accordance with design engineer plans and specifications. 3. The owner is to notify the MPCA before and after construction of the stacking slab. Manure storage areas 1. The concrete stacking slab is to be installed in accordance with the design engineer plans and specifications. 2. The owner is to notify the MPCA before and after construction of the stacking slab. 3. Stockpiling of manure at the field site is to be done according with the criteria established in Minn. R. ch. 7020, as well as the permit. Land application of manure 1. Land application of manure is to be done according to criteria established in Minn. R. ch. 7020, as well as the permit. Stormwater, erosion, and sediment control 1. The Stormwater Construction Permit conditions are incorporated into the NPDES/SDS Permit. These conditions require erosion and sediment be controlled during and after construction from this site. Effluent limitations and discharge prohibitions 1. The permit prohibits the discharge of manure or manure-contaminated runoff to surface waters except as a result of either chronic or catastrophic rainfall events. 2. The permittee is required to report to the local Duty Officer and the MPCA any discharge from the facility to surface waters. C. Cottonwood County Conditional Use Permit The Cottonwood 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. D. DNR Water Appropriations Permit 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. 26. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur. 11

12 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 (1999). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 28. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed expansion of the Minnesota Supreme Feeders facility. 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. Anderson, D.P., Beard, C.W., Hanson, R.P., Influence of poultry house dust, ammonia and carbon dioxide on resistance of chickens to Newcastle disease virus. Avian Diseases 10: Clark, P.C., McQitty, J.B., Air quality in six Alberta commercial free-stall dairy barns. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 29(1): Cox, C.S., Wathes, C.M., Bioaerosols Handbook. New York:Lewis, 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): Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Literature Review. Environmental Quality Board. Grub, W.C., Rollo, C.A., and Howes, J.R., Dust problems in poultry environments. Transactions of the ASAE 8(2): 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): Honey, L.F., McQuitty, J.B., Some physical factors affecting dust concentrations in a pig facility. Canadian Agricultural Engineering 21(1):9-14. Jacobson, L.J., Odor Rating Project and Database. In: Livestock Odors: Emissions, Measurement, Control, and Regulation. University of Minnesota Extension Service. Koon, J., Howes, J.R., Grub, W., Rollo, C.A., Poultry Dust: origin and composition. Agricultural Engineering 44(11): Liao, C.M., Feddes, J.J.R., Modeling and analysis of airborne dust removal from a ventilated airspace. Canadian Agricultural Engineering (2) McQuitty, J.B., Feddes, J.J.R., Leonard, J.J., Air quality in commercial laying barns. Canadian Agricultural Engineering, 27(2):

13 Pearson, C.C., Sharples, T.J., Airborne dust concentration in livestock buildings and the effect of feed. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research , Sweeten, J.M., Odor and dust from livestock feedlots. Texas Agricultural Extension Service. College Station, TX. pp Sweeten, J.M., Odor production, measurement, and control technologies. In: Proceedings: Innovations and new horizons in livestock and poultry management. pp 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, The Ohio State University, Domestic Flies. Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet. Entomology. HYG University of Kentucky, Face Flies and Pinkeye. By Lee Townsend, Extension Entomologist University of Kentucky College of Agriculture. Veenhuizen, M.A., Odor-An environmental challenge for the pork industry. In: NPPC, 1996 p 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 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 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 Minnesota Supreme Feeders 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 (1999), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the project. 34. An EIS is not required. 13

14 35. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. ORDER The MPCA determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Minnesota Supreme Feeders project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. IT IS SO ORDERED Karen A. Studders, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date 14

15 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency APPENDIX B Minnesota Supreme Feeders RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Phyllis Behrends, Neighbor Comment letter dated: April 23, 2001, received (via ): April 23, 2001 received: (via mail): April 25, 2001 The commentor is opposed to the proposed expansion because of their concerns for the following potential environmental effects: air pollution, odor, flies, insects, possible pollution of ground and surface water, enormous amount of water needed, handling of manure. Also, the commentor feels that this is too large a concentration of livestock for the area. The commentor states that she lives 1/2-mile from the proposed expansion and is concerned about the resale valuation of her property. Potential air pollution, odor, flies and insects Based on a number of technical papers and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) data, it is reasonable to expect a variety of air emissions from livestock production facilities. The following is a discussion of these air emissions and their potential environmental impacts. Hydrogen Sulfide emissions Based on the animal species type, animal housing method, and manure storage method, this facility is not reasonably expected to cause or contribute to any violations of the state ambient hydrogen sulfide air quality standard. 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) inhalation health risk values (ihrvs) for ammonia based on previous ambient air quality dated collected around the state by MPCA staff. Additionally, the MPCA has not observed ammonia in the ambient air that has exceeded concentrations greater than the draft MDH ihrvs. The MPCA staff has 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. Particulate Matter 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 (Takai et al., 1998). Additionally, it is unlikely that the facility would ever exceed existing state and federal ambient air quality standards for particulate matter. Odors Animal waste strength is a good indicator of potential air quality impacts. In general, beef cattle waste has relatively low waste strength (in terms of odor) in comparison to the waste of other livestock species.

16 s to on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet The manure storage system employed by the project proposer is likely to have a very low odor emission strength if properly managed. Manure stockpile odor management concerns are generally related to moisture content and control related to the stockpile. If manure moisture content is too high during storage, odor concentration can increase. The manure management plan and the air emission plan will contain requirements to ensure that the manure will be managed effectively and potential odor will be controlled. The scrape and haul manure management technique is used at a variety of livestock production facilities. In general, the greater the frequency of manure removal from an open lot, pasture, or animal housing system using the scrape and haul method, the greater reduction in hydrogen sulfide and odor emissions from a facility. Minnesota Supreme Feeders will be employing manure stockpiling as their method of animal waste storage. The stockpiling method is appropriate and it has been observed that a crust can form which appears to reduce odor. Flies and insects The project proposer intends to use a fly larvacide that is introduced as a feed additive for cattle. Additionally, pesticides will be sprayed directly onto fly breeding areas to ensure that the fly population is minimized or nearly eliminated. Potential ground water pollution The facility will contain all manure on the site until it is land applied. As a result, manurecontaminated water will not leach into, or impact, ground water at the site. Manure will also be stockpiled at the land application sites, as identified in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The stockpiling of manure at the land application sites will meet the technical and setback requirements of the MPCA Feedlot Rules (Minn. R. ch. 7020). These requirements will ensure that manure from the site does not infiltrate ground water. Potential surface water pollution The proposed project calls for the construction of a total confinement barn and roofing the existing open lots. After this work has been completed, all of the cattle on this site will be housed under a roof with the rain and snowmelt waters diverted around the structures so that these waters do not come in contact with the manure, and runoff will be avoided. This work is scheduled to be completed by January 1, Until the roofs are in place on the existing open lots, concrete curbing and gutters will be used to divert as much rain and snowmelt water away from and around the open lots. Any runoff that flows off of the open lots will be directed to a grassed buffer area that outlets to a field and has a flow direction to the south and southwest, away from the creek. In the past, there have been open lots located along Highwater Creek. These lots have all been eliminated and will not be replaced. The current proposal does not allow for any livestock to be housed in the area between the existing feed storage area and the creek. The existing open lots and barns and the proposed barn are all located in areas where most of the natural drainage is to the south, southwest and west, which is away from Highwater Creek. Areas that do not naturally drain away from the creek will be graded or diverted in such a manner as to prevent drainage from flowing towards the creek. 2

17 s to on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 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. Potential contamination from manure handling A manure management plan has been developed for this site that meets the requirements of the MPCA revised feedlot rules. These rules prohibit spreading or dumping manure in a road ditch. The manure management plan identifies which fields will be allowed to land apply manure for use as fertilizer and where manure will be temporarily stockpiled in the event that it can not be spread, due to crop cover or weather conditions. Livestock concentration Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the project, including the manure management plan and odor mitigation measures, and information presented by the commenters, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this project. Re-sale valuation of property The scope of the EAW is limited to identifying the potential significant environmental effects. If a determination were made that the potential environmental effects that were reasonably expected to occur were significant, an Environmental Impact Statement would be ordered prepared. During the EIS process, financial implications of the proposed project would be considered. However, the MPCA does not believe that the proposed project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 2. Majorie M. Imker, Neighbor Comment letter dated: No Date, received: April 25, 2001 The commentor is concerned that an increase in the number of cattle will increase the potential for pollution of Highwater Creek. The commentor is also concerned about past and possible future mismanagement of manure hauling, as well as, the present, and potential future, fly population. Increased number of cattle, increased risk to creek Although there will be more cattle on the site after construction of the new barn, the cattle will be totally confined within the barn. Rain or snowmelt waters will not come in contact with the manure. With this type of housing system, there will not be any manure-contaminated runoff to the creek. The proposal calls for roofing the existing lots, located west of the feed storage areas. Once these lots are under a roof, there will be no runoff from these lots. Although there will be more cattle on the site, by changing the type of housing used, the runoff potential to the creek has been eliminated. 3

18 s to on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Past and possible future mismanagement of manure hauling Present, and potential future, fly populations 3. Lois B. Hansen, Manager, Batalden Sister's Farm Comment letter dated: April 27, 2001, received (via fax): April 27, 2001, received (via mail): May 4, 2001 The commentor is concerned about past contamination of Highwater Creek, which resulted from actions related to the Warren Pankonin farm. The commentor would like to know the relationship between the proposed Minnesota Supreme Feeders and the Pankonin farm and would like some assurance that if there is a relationship, sufficient restrictions be prescribed to prevent a possible reoccurrence. Past contamination of Highwater Creek There have been discharges in the past to Highwater Creek from livestock housed in this area. The MPCA has taken enforcement action and this problem has been resolved. The proposed barn, the existing open lot, and barns that will be used to house cattle on this site are located to the west of the creek in an area that drains away from the creek. As discussed above, the site will also be covered under roofs within the next few years, which will eliminate all runoff potential to the creek from this site. The NPDES permit, drafted for this site, requires that the open lots be covered by January 1, Until that date, all runoff from the open lots will be diverted to a buffer area that outlets to a field. Enforcement actions and relationship to Pankonin farm The MPCA has no record of any enforcement action with the proposed facility. However, the MPCA has had an enforcement action with one of the partners of the facility, Mr. Warren Pankonin. Mr. Pankonin owned and operated a beef cattle facility located in the southeast quarter of Section 10,, Cottonwood County. This site is separate from the facility. The MPCA issued an Administrative Penalty Order (APO) on April 27, The total dollar amount of the APO was $10,000 ($7,500 forgivable and $2,500 non-forgivable). The MPCA enforcement action involved feedlot facilities not included in the proposed project; however, they are adjacent to one another. The corrective actions required by the MPCA at the Pankonin facility have been addressed to MPCA satisfaction and the penalty has been paid. 4. Byron and Sherri Imker, Neighbors Comment letter dated: April 30, 2001, received (via ): April 30, 2001 The commentors are concerned about a variance from County regulatory requirements, granted by Cottonwood County. The commentors expressed concern about the following past and potential future environmental effects: current, and potential increase, of the fly population, air quality, past 4

19 s to on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and potential future runoff of manure into the creek, past dumping of manure into ditches and animal defecation in the commentors' yard. The commentors also stated that past mismanagement of the current livestock is one of the reasons for their concerns. Current and potential increase of fly population Air quality Runoff to Highwater Creek See responses to items 1 and 3. Past and potential future runoff of manure into the creek / past problems with dumping of manure in road ditches. Cattle getting loose By altering the method of housing the cattle and construction of new facilities, the potential for cattle to get loose will be significantly reduced, if not altogether eliminated. Past mismanagement practices See response to item Phyllis Behrends, Virginia Bryan, Sherman Hubert, Lois Tassler, Neighbors within 3/4-mile from the proposed expansion Comment letter dated: April 30, 2001, received (via ): April 30, 2001 The commentors requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed expansion. An Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared in the absence of evidence establishing that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. 6. Lois M. Tassler, Neighbor Comment letter dated: April 25, 2001, received: April 30, 2001 The commentor is concerned that the number of proposed animals is too large of a concentration for the surrounding area. The commentor also expressed concern about the following past and potential future environmental effects: continuing air pollution, ground and surface pollution, water supply, potential flood conditions and runoff, manure management, and road deterioration. In addition, the commentor states that she live three-fourths mile from the proposed expansion and is concerned about the resale valuation of her property. 5

20 s to on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Past and future effects of site to Highwater Creek See response to item 1 and 3. Air pollution Water Supply Livestock concentration Road Deterioration This EAW is limited to identifying the potential significant environmental effects. Road maintenance and management concerns are not within the scope of this review. Manure management Results of catastrophic conditions Under state and federal regulations any discharge that results from a storm event that has a frequency of the 25-year, 24-hour storm event or greater, is allowed. For this area, this would be approximately five inches of rain within a 24-hour period. With appropriate management, the site as designed is not expected to allow a discharge to surface waters from a storm event of less frequency than the 25-year, 24-hour event. In deciding whether this project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must evaluate those effects that are reasonably expected to occur from the project. The effects from unlikely and infrequent catastrophic events, such as tornadoes or freak flooding, can have on a facility of any type cannot be considered reasonably likely to occur. Potential for flooding This past spring when many sites were experiencing flooding problems, the portion of this site where cattle will be housed and manure stored under this proposal was not inundated with flood waters. This would indicate that there is a low probability for flooding to be a problem for this site. 7. Floyd Imker, Neighbor Comment letter dated: April 30, 2001, received: May 2, 2001 The commentor expressed concern about the following past and potential future environmental effects: surface water runoff, soil permeability, fly population, an eroded ditch filled with debris, direction of the flow from the site, possible flooding of the site. The commentor also expressed concern about past violations at the existing site. 6

21 s to on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Surface water runoff Flow from the site The topographic map prepared for the completed project and an on-site inspection by the MPCA staff engineer reviewing the proposed project indicate that the flow from the areas that will house livestock is to the west and south from the site. This would direct any flow from the site towards Cottonwood County Highway #5. Soil permeability The feedlot is designed to contain all manure until it is land applied. Soil permeability as it relates to the leaching of manure-contaminated water to groundwater, therefore, is not an issue. Fly population Direction of the flow from the site Flooding potential See response to item Charles Tews, No Designation Comment letter dated: May 1, 2001, received (via ): May 1, 2001 The commentor is in support of the proposed expansion and states that the proposed facility has the following factors in its favor: low odor, zero run off and a semi-solid manure system that holds down both wind and water erosion. No response necessary. 9. David Kesteloot, Beef Technical Service Manager, Hubbard Feeds Comment letter dated: No Date, received (via ): May 1, 2001 The commentor is in support of the proposed expansion and states that the proposed facility has the following factors in its favor: no run off and a semi-solid manure system. The commentor also notes that the proposed project would result in an economic gain for the surrounding community. No response necessary. 7