STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT. Project Description

Transcription

1

2 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED STROBEL FARMS JUNGBLOET SITE & BUECKSLER SITE BLUE EARTH COUNTY MCPHERSON TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R , the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Strobel Farms Jungbloet Site & Buecksler Site project (Project). Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, the EAW, 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. Project Description 1. Strobel Farms is proposing two new swine finishing feedlots, one in Section 34 (Jungbloet Site) and one in Section 36 (Buecksler Site) of McPherson Township, Blue Earth County Minnesota. 2. The proposed facilities will consist of the construction of two identical barns at each site with a maximum physical capacity of 2,400 finishing hogs, or 720 animal units housed in each barn. After construction, the maximum physical capacity of the entire operation will be 9,600 finishing swine (2,880 animal units). The proposed barns will be total confinement, power-ventilated buildings. Manure will be stored in reinforced concrete pits located beneath each of the barns. Procedural History 3. The permit applications for the proposed facilities were submitted to the MPCA on July 16, Each site exceeds the 1,000 animal unit threshold for a mandatory EAW, in accordance with Minn. R , subps. 1 and 29. The proposed facilities are a phased action as defined in Minn R , subp. 60, and a single EAW was prepared for both sites. 4. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 29, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R , the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on June 29, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to media in Blue Earth, Nicollet, Le Sueur, Waseca, Faribault, Martin, Watonwan, and Brown Counties, as well as other interested parties, on June 29, The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on June 29, 2009, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA Web site at on June 29, The public comment period for the EAW began on June 29, 2009, and ended on July 29, During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received no comment letters. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 7. Under Minn. R , the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. 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. These criteria are: A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. potential cumulative 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 8. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R , subp. 7(A). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 9. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Project include the following: Air quality impacts related to hydrogen sulfide emissions Air quality impacts related to ammonia emissions Air quality impacts related to odor Impacts to groundwater and surface water quality Impacts related to water appropriation 10. With respect to the extent of potential air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 11. Air quality modeling estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and the detectability of selected odorous gases at the property lines for the proposed Project and at 45 of the proposed feedlot s nearest neighbors, all located within a four-mile by three-mile area. The tables below are a summary of the air quality modeling results. 2

4 Jungbloet Site Proposed Site Property Boundary Hydrogen Sulfide Results (ppb) 1 Acute Ammonia Results (µg/m 3 ) 2 North South , East West , Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t) 3 Buecksler Site Proposed Site Property Boundary Hydrogen Sulfide Results (ppb) 1 Acute Ammonia Results (µg/m 3 ) 2 Maximum Hourly Odor Intensity (OU, d/t) 3 North South , East , West Results are one-hour averages. State ambient hydrogen sulfide air quality standard: 30 ppb half-hour average not to be exceeded more than two times in any five-day period. 2 Acute ihrv for ammonia: one-hour average of 3,200 µg/m 3. 3 Odor impact assessment based on odor units. A value of 72 odor units is considered to be a faint odor (for swine) detectable by most people. ihrv = inhalation health risk value ppb = parts per billion µg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter Air quality impacts related to hydrogen sulfide emissions 12. The modeling results indicated that the proposed Project will not exceed the existing ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The proposed Project s estimated maximum contribution to the ambient hydrogen sulfide concentration was 9.0 ppb on a volume basis at the effective property lines of the Jungbloet Site. When the background hydrogen sulfide concentration of 17 ppb is added to the modeling results, the maximum property-line hydrogen sulfide hourly concentration was 26.0 ppb, which does not exceed the half-hour standard of 30 ppb. While the averaging times for the estimated maximum contribution and the background hydrogen sulfide concentrations differ, the background concentration used in the modeling is more than 50 percent of the ambient standard, providing a large margin of safety. Thus, no violations of the hydrogen sulfide standard are reasonably expected to occur, and the proposed Project is expected to be in compliance with the applicable air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide. Air quality impacts related to ammonia emissions 13. The modeling results indicate that the proposed Project will not exceed the acute or chronic ihrv for ammonia. The estimated proposed Project s maximum contribution to the ambient ammonia concentration was 1,193 ug/m 3 at the effective property lines of the Jungbloet Site. When the estimated local background ammonia concentration of 148 ug/m 3 is added to the modeling results, the maximum property line ammonia concentration is 1,341 ug/m 3, which is below the acute ihrv for ammonia of 3,200 ug/m 3. The predicted maximum one-year, time-averaged ammonia 3

5 concentration for the site s nearest neighbors is 10.7 ug/m 3, which includes a background annual concentration of 5.7 ug/m 3. This combined concentration of 16.4 ug/m 3 is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 ug/m 3. The modeling results indicate that no significant impacts are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project s ammonia emissions. Air quality impacts related to odor 14. Modeling results indicate the Project neighbors will be exposed to odor intensities below 72 odor units. A value of 72 odor units is considered to be a faint odor (for swine) detectable by most people. In light of the modeling results, there are no significant impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project s emission of odor-producing gases. 15. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 16. Air emissions from the Project will continue while the Project remains in operation and would cease only if the facility were to be temporarily or permanently closed. While in operation, the facility is expected to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria. If excessive air emissions or violations of the ambient hydrogen sulfide standards were to occur, or if ihrvs for ammonia were exceeded, air quality could be impacted. If such impacts were to occur, they would be temporary in nature and corrective measures could be implemented to minimize impacts. Such measures could include the initiation of a complaint investigation by the MPCA and requiring the Project proposer to make operational and maintenance changes. Therefore, the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project are reversible. 17. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to air quality. The impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed. 18. 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 impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur as a result of air emissions from the Project. Impacts to groundwater and surface-water quality 19. With respect to the extent of any potential water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 20. The feedlot itself is not anticipated to result in any significant adverse groundwater impacts. Concrete manure storage pits will be designed to meet the required provisions of Minn. R. ch The MPCA design standards include provisions to prevent catastrophic releases and leaking. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Permit to be issued will require the manure storage area to be built in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the MPCA, and inspections must be conducted to ensure proper construction. Construction notification, verification, and certification requirements are listed in the NPDES/SDS Permit, Parts II.A and II.E. No significant adverse effects to groundwater are expected from the feedlot itself. 4

6 21. The details of the manure application methods to be implemented as part of this Project are outlined in the Manure Management Plan. The Manure Management Plan will be an enforceable provision of the NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit for the Project. In order to avoid contaminating the groundwater at the manure application sites, the manure will be incorporated into the soil at agronomic rates based on the type of crop to be grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry. These rates take into account the levels of nitrogen that will be utilized by the crops planted on the manure application sites, thereby minimizing the potential for nitrates leaching into the groundwater. MPCA setback requirements must also be observed from water supply wells. As a result, it is not expected that the manure injected at the manure application sites will result in an adverse impact on groundwater quality. 22. The land application of manure, if done improperly, can adversely impact surface-water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into drain tile lines that outfall to surface waters. Therefore, MPCA setback requirements must be observed around the drain tile intakes located within and adjacent to the manure application areas, and near other surface-water resources. In addition, the Manure Management Plan states that land application will only occur during the fall of the year after crops have been removed from the field, rather than in the spring when runoff potential is greater due to increased precipitation and soil moisture. As a result, it is not expected that the manure injected at the manure application sites will come in contact with surface water. 23. A four-inch perimeter drain tile constructed of high density polyethylene will be installed around the base of each manure storage pit. The tile will help to control the potential hydrostatic pressure that could be exerted on the pit walls and floors. Inspection ports connected to the perimeter tiles will allow the producer to observe whether or not the tiles are operational, and will help to identify seepage from the pits if a leak were to occur. 24. The proposer will perform weekly examinations of the monitoring port or drain tile outlet for water flow and signs of discoloration or odor in any water flowing in the drain tile. Any changes in color or odor of the drain tile discharge will be reported to the MPCA as required in NPDES/SDS Permits issued for concentrated animal feedlot operations. 25. The Project identifies land application areas that are located within six minor watersheds within the Le Sueur River and Blue Earth River watersheds. The watersheds have been farmed for several decades. The change in stormwater runoff characteristics (physically and chemically) from the Project land application areas is not expected to be significant under the MPCA NPDES/SDS Permit. Improved soil tilth through the use of organic fertilizer and the uniform practice of injecting manure over the acres identified in the Manure Management Plan has the potential to improve runoff characteristics. 26. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared as part of the NPDES/SDS Permit application required for this Project. The site has historically been used as cultivated agricultural cropland. The quantity of stormwater generated at the site will increase with the construction of the barns and other impervious surfaces at the site. Any surface water leaving the site will be directed to stormwater retention basins. 5

7 27. With respect to the reversibility of water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 28. As discussed above, the expected effects on water quality due to manure storage and application are minimal and can be addressed in the respective permits. The water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project are reversible. 29. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to assess potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed expansion of this facility. Measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts have been developed. 30. 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 water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur. Impacts related to water appropriation 31. The Project will include use of the existing well at the site. The total estimated water use of the Project at full production will be 2.36 million gallons per year per site; 4.72 million gallons for both sites. A Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Appropriation Permit will be required. The purpose of the DNR 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 permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the State s water when supplies are limited. 32. With respect to the reversibility of water appropriation impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 33. As discussed above, the expected effects on water usage are minimal and can be mitigated by adhering to requirements of their respective permits. If a well interference arises, the DNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found to be causing the problem, the operator must correct it. The impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project are reversible. 34. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to assess potential impacts to water use that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed expansion of this facility. Measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts have been developed. 35. 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 impacts related to water appropriation that are reasonably expected to occur. 6

8 Potential Cumulative Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 36. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the "potential cumulative effects of related or anticipated future projects" Minn. R , subp. 7(B). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 37. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA technical evaluation did not disclose any related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this proposed Project in such a way as to cause any potential cumulative environmental effects. There are no other facilities currently operating or planned in the vicinity of the proposed Project that are anticipated to have emissions that will increase the background level of hydrogen sulfide or ammonia. Similarly, the MPCA has no information suggesting that there are other current or planned projects that would be significant users of water. 38. Manure managed at the facilities contains phosphorus, nitrogen, and bacteria and can impact the quality of surface waters in the Project area, some of which are listed on the MCPA list of impaired waters. The MPCA finds that this potential impact will be addressed under the Manure Management Plan incorporated into the NPDES/SDS Permit. This will require the permittee to test soils at least every four years for phosphorus levels and to test manure annually for nitrogen and phosphorus. If the permittee finds that excess phosphorus has built up in the soil, the facilities must manage the fields to reduce soil phosphorus levels to acceptable levels. 39. The MPCA finds that the manure application resulting from the Project will not cause cumulative impacts. The MPCA notes that all acres identified for manure application are already used for crop production at this time and, therefore, can be assumed to already receive applications of manure or commercial fertilizer from other sources. The construction of the Project will not introduce nutrients where none currently exist. The Project will merely provide an alternative source for the nutrients currently being applied. 40. Based on the available information on the Project, including the permit application, a site visit by MPCA staff, and the EAW, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from this Project. 41. In considering the potential cumulative effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA finds that the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects due to related or anticipated future projects. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 42. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R , subp. 7(C). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 7

9 43. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status MPCA NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit and Submitted Manure Management Plan MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit Submitted County Conditional Use Permit To be submitted DNR Water Appropriation Permit To be submitted 44. MPCA NPDES/SDS Livestock Production, Construction, Operation (Feedlot) and Stormwater Permit. An NPDES/SDS Feedlot and Stormwater Permit is required for the Project. The NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit incorporates construction and operation requirements, and includes operating plans that address manure management, emergency response protocols, and odor/air quality management. The attachments are an enforceable condition of the NPDES/SDS Permit. 45. County Conditional Use Permit. The proposer is required to obtain all required building and conditional use permits required by local units of government to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The conditional use permit will address local zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that are needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses. 46. DNR Water Appropriation Permit. A DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be required, as the Project proposer will be withdrawing more than 2.36 million gallons per year. The Project proposer currently has a well available for the proposed Project. 47. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. 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 48. 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). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 49. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental assessment for the proposed Project. EAW Permit Application Air dispersion modeling report This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the Project proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff. 8

10