TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282-5332TDD (for hearing and speech impaired...

TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282-5332

Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED LOWELL FRANZEN FEEDLOT PROJECT LYLE TOWNSHIP MOWER COUNTY, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000 - 4410.1600 (2005), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Lowell Franzen Feedlot Project (Project). Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, comments, and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed New Construction Lowell Franzen is proposing the construction of a new swine gestation and farrowing facility in Section 30 of Lyle Township in Mower County. The total confinement, mechanically ventilated facility will consist of a gestation barn with a maximum physical capacity of 4,064 sows (1,626 animal units), and a farrowing barn with a maximum physical capacity of 768 sows (307 animal units) and 1,280 nursery pigs (64 animal units). Manure will be collected in reinforced concrete pits located beneath the barns. Each spring and fall, the manure will be pumped from the facility and injected at agronomic rates into designated cropland as fertilizer. Environmental Concerns Because the proposed Project exceeds the current EAW threshold of 1,000 animal units for feedlot facilities, the preparation of an EAW was mandatory (as required by Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29). Environmental concerns related to feedlot facilities generally include the potential impacts to: • air quality (i.e., hydrogen sulfide [H2S], ammonia [NH3], odors, and dust) • ground-water quality • surface-water quality • water appropriation

Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters The concerns described in the comment letters received for the proposed Project mainly dealt with the potential impacts to air and ground-water quality. Additional concerns were expressed in the comment letters regarding the potential impacts to the land, and the subtherapeutic use of antibiotics. These comments have been addressed in Appendix B to these findings.

Lowell Franzen Feedlot Project Findings of Fact On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Conclusions of Law Lyle Township, Minnesota And Order

2

Community Involvement in Process The EAW was published in the Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB) January 29, 2007, edition of the EQB Monitor. Public comments were taken on the EAW from January 29, 2007, to February 28, 2007.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed

Project. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500 (2005), the EAW was distributed to the EQB mailing list and other interested parties on January 26, 2007.

2. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release

was provided to Dodge, Fillmore, Freeborn, Mower, Olmsted, and Steele counties and other interested parties on January 29, 2007. In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on January 29, 2007, and was made available for review on the MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html on January 26, 2007.

3. The public comment period for the EAW began on January 29, 2007, and ended on February 28,

2007. During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received six comment e-mails from citizens and one comment letter from a government agency. After the 30-day comment period, and at the request of the MPCA, the government agency provided an e-mail clarifying its comment letter. The MPCA also received one additional comment letter from another government agency eight days after the comment period had ended.

4. The MPCA prepared responses to all of the comments received during the 30-day public comment

period. The comment letters and e-mails have been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to these findings. The MPCA responses to the comments are hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix B to these findings.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2005), 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. 4410.1700, subp. 7 (2005). 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.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html


3

THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA ARE SET FORTH BELOW

Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 6. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A (2005). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below.

7. Reasonably expected environmental effects of the proposed Project to air quality:

• H2S Emissions • NH3 Emissions • Odors • Dust

8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:

(H2S) H2S is a potentially harmful gas (when encountered at high levels) that is created at feedlots when manure is broken down by bacteria. For the proposed Project, air quality dispersion modeling was performed using a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–approved model that calculated the estimated property line and nearest neighbor concentrations of H2S. For the proposed Project, the nearest neighbor is located approximately 2,300 feet to the west of the proposed feedlot facility site. In addition, there are a total of eight other residences located within approximately one mile of the proposed Project site: one that is about 2,700 feet to the northwest; one that is about 3,000 feet to the southeast; one that is about 3,700 feet to the west; one that is about 4,000 feet to the southwest; one that is about 5,000 feet to the south; one that is about 5,000 feet to the northwest; and two that are about 5,300 feet to the southeast. Altogether, the modeling incorporated data from a total of 34 of the proposed Project’s nearest neighbors. The modeling was based on the estimated H2S emission rates from the manure pits located beneath the swine barns and from off-site H2S emission sources. Background concentrations of H2S, developed from air quality monitoring data in Minnesota, were also included in these calculations to account for potential cumulative air impacts. The modeling study results indicate that no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project’s H2S emissions. For H2S along the proposed Project’s property lines, the modeling results suggest that the proposed project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s ambient air quality standard of 30 parts per billion (ppb). Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 17 ppb, the model predicted a maximum H2S concentration of 20.18 ppb at the proposed Project’s property lines.


4

For H2S at the proposed Project’s nearest neighbors, the modeling results suggest that the proposed Project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s subchronic inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV) of 10 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 1 µg/m3, the model predicted a maximum H2S concentration of 1.02 µg/m3 at the proposed Project’s nearest neighbors. NH3 NH3 is also a potentially harmful gas (when encountered at high levels) that is created at feedlots when manure is broken down by bacteria. Air quality modeling was performed that calculated the estimated property line and nearest neighbor concentration of NH3. The modeling was based on estimated NH3 emission rates from the livestock units, including the manure storage pits beneath the swine barns. Background concentrations of NH3, developed from air quality monitoring data in Minnesota, were considered in these calculations to account for potential cumulative air impacts. The modeling study results indicate that no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project’s NH3 emissions. For NH3 at the proposed Project’s property lines, the modeling results suggest that the proposed Project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s acute iHRV of 3,200 µg/m3. Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 148 µg/m3, the model predicted a maximum NH3 concentration of 1,368 µg/m3 at the proposed Project’s property lines. For NH3 at the proposed Project’s nearest neighbors, the modeling results suggest that the proposed Project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s chronic iHRV of 80 µg/m3. Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 5.72 µg/m3, the model predicted a maximum NH3 concentration of 7.97 µg/m3 at the proposed Project’s nearest neighbors. Odors Swine facility odors are typically generated by multiple sources, including the animal waste, the animal waste storage areas, the animal barns, and the animals themselves. Using site-specific information and five years of meteorological data, air quality modeling was performed to calculate the estimated concentrations of 12 volatile odorous organic compounds at the proposed Project property lines and at the nearest neighbor. The modeling study results indicate that no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project’s odorous gases. Specifically, the modeling results suggest that while concentrations of odorous gases can exist off site, the estimated maximum concentration of total volatile odorous organic compounds at the proposed Project’s property line is 7.4 times less than the threshold concentration associated with ‘unpleasant odors,’ and 20.6 times less at the proposed Project’s nearest neighbor.

Dust It is expected that dust will be generated during the construction of the proposed Project, and later when pigs and feed are delivered to and from the facility. Following construction, fugitive dust sources are expected to be minimal due to grass seeding around the barns, confinement of the swine to the barns, and graveled (rather than clay or dirt) driveways. As a result, no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur as a result of dust generated as part of the proposed Project.


5

9. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:

The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from the proposed Project would be reversible. Once emissions are released to the air, they cannot be recovered, but the release can be stopped. If air quality were to be impacted, there are measures that can be implemented to minimize impacts. For example, the MPCA could initiate a complaint investigation and require the Project proposer to make operational and maintenance changes. As discussed above, the expected effects on air quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that the proposed Project is reasonably expected to cause a potential for significant negative effects on air quality.

10. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to air quality:

Although some of the comment letters expressed a general concern for the potential negative effects of the proposed Project to air quality, none of them included air quality data or detailed comments that clearly expressed concerns about the methods or results of the air dispersion modeling, the proposed Project’s design features, or the air and odor emission mitigation measures. As discussed above in Findings 8 and 9, the analysis indicates that the effects on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.

11. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because:

All potential impacts to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process, and methods to prevent these impacts have been developed. In this case, the most effective measure for mitigating the potential air and odor emissions from the proposed feedlot facility is the siting of the facility a sufficient distance from the nearest neighbor, which is a residence located approximately 2,300 feet to the west. Based on the results of the air quality modeling study conducted for the proposed Project, this is an adequate separation distance for minimizing potential adverse air and odor impacts. The barns at the proposed facility will be cleaned frequently as sows and nursery pigs are rotated periodically through the system. The barns will also be inspected daily for dead animals, which will be removed immediately upon discovery and composted on site. Manure will be injected immediately into the soil during application in the spring and fall to minimize the release of odors. Required setbacks for manure application will be observed from nearby residences, and an Air Emissions and Odor Management Plan has been prepared as part of the proposed Project that includes a good neighbor policy for notifying neighbors of operational events that may result in high levels of odor, including manure application events. Dust at the proposed facility will be minimized by installing gravel (rather than clay or dirt) driveways.

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

13. Reasonably expected environmental effects of the proposed Project to water quality:

• Ground Water • Surface Water • Water Appropriation

14. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:

Ground Water Based on the design of the proposed gestation and farrowing pig facility and the planned implementation of an MPCA-approved Crop Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP), the extent of any potential effects to ground-water quality that are reasonably expected to occur as part of this proposed Project should be minimal. The two new total confinement barns will be equipped with concrete, slatted floors and mechanical ventilation systems. A ten-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit will be constructed beneath the gestation barn and a two-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit will be constructed beneath the farrowing barn to hold the manure generated by the animals. In addition, the MPCA and Mower County setback requirements will be observed around the water supply well for the barns. As a result, it is not expected that the manure stored at the proposed feedlot site will come in contact with ground water.

In order to avoid contaminating the ground water at the manure application sites, the manure will be incorporated into the soil at agronomic rates. These rates take into account the levels of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous) that will be utilized by the crops planted on the manure application sites, thereby reducing the possibility that excess nutrients will infiltrate down into the ground water. The details of the manure application methods to be implemented as part of this proposed Project are outlined in the CNMP. In addition, the MPCA and Mower County setback requirements will be observed around the surface tile inlets and residential water supply wells located within and adjacent to the manure application sites. As a result, it is not expected that the manure injected at the manure application sites will come in contact with ground water. Although the proposed feedlot facility site and manure application sites are located in a region of Minnesota known to have karst features, a Karst Feature Inventory Study (Study) conducted by the proposer did not identify any actual karst features in the area. As part of the Study, ten suspected karst features were identified near the proposed facility, but a site inspection of each suspected feature, and a test excavation of the two depressional features nearest the proposed manure storage site, has shown that none were actually karst features. According to the Geologic Atlas of Mower County cited in the Study, a verified sinkhole has previously been identified near the border of the southern manure application area in Section 28. The sinkhole could not be located, however, during the site investigation. The Study suggests that it “may have been filled during grading within the highway corridor.” Based on the findings of the Study, the MPCA and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) staffs have determined that the proposed facility and manure application locations are not considered karst sites. Should unidentified karst features exist near the proposed facility and/or manure application sites, the design of the proposed facility and the planned implementation of an MPCA-approved CNMP, as described above, will help to ensure that ground water will not be impacted by the proposed Project.


7

Surface Water Based on the design of the proposed facility and the planned implementation of an MPCA-approved CNMP, the extent of any potential effects to surface water quality that are reasonably expected to occur as part of this proposed Project should be minimal. The proposed location of the feedlot facility is currently a farm field. Surface water runoff will increase on the proposed facility site due to an increase in impervious surfaces, mainly from the construction of roofed buildings. Because this will be a total confinement facility, with the manure stored entirely under the barns, the runoff should not come into contact with the livestock or manure. All feed at the proposed facility will be stored in covered bins, and a grass buffer will be planted around the barns to minimize sediment loss from the building area.

To handle rainwater from the roofs of the barns, a 100-foot by 38-foot by 4-foot deep stormwater basin will be constructed to the southeast of the gestation barn. The basin will be designed to gradually discharge the rainwater to a 15-inch drain tile that will drain into Woodbury Creek, which is located approximately one-half mile southwest of the proposed building site.

In order to avoid contaminating the surface waters located within and/or adjacent to the manure application sites (i.e. the Cedar River and Woodbury Creek), the manure will be incorporated directly into the soil via knife injection, which substantially reduces the potential for contaminants in manure to come into contact with runoff water. The incorporation of the manure into the soil will be done at agronomic rates. These rates take into account the levels of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous) that will be utilized by the crops planted on the manure application sites, thereby reducing the possibility that excess nutrients will come in contact with surface water. The details of the manure application methods to be implemented as part of this proposed Project are outlined in the CNMP. In addition, the MPCA and Mower County setback requirements will be observed around the surface waters located within and adjacent to the manure application areas. As a result, it is not expected that the manure injected at the manure application sites will come in contact with surface water.

Water Appropriation The proposed Project will include the installation of a new well at the site by a licensed well driller. The well will be completed to an anticipated depth of between 200 and 250 feet, based on depths of other wells installed in the area. An estimated nine million gallons per year of water will be required at this site to operate the proposed feedlot facility. Because the annual water appropriation is expected to exceed five million gallons, an individual water appropriation permit will be required by the DNR. The DNR Area Hydrologist for the proposed Project has indicated to MPCA staff, “I do not foresee any major issues related to a permit at this volume. However, as with all of our appropriation permits, there will be a condition in the permit that will allow for DNR Waters to investigate their system if well interference complaints are brought to our attention.” Based on these comments, no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur as a result of the water appropriation required as part of the proposed Project.

15. The reversibility of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:

The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this proposed Project would be reversible. Because manure will be stored in concrete structures, the potential for ground and surface-water pollution is very low and not reasonably likely to occur. If a significant impact occurs from excess nutrients in the soil at one of the manure application sites, further application of manure on that field can cease, allowing water quality to recover. As discussed


8

above, the expected effects on water quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this proposed Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water quality.

16. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality:

Although some of the comment letters expressed a general concern for the potential negative effects of this proposed Project to water quality, none of them included technical data or detailed comments that clearly expressed concerns about specific Project features that have been proposed to mitigate any potential water quality effects. As discussed above in Findings 14 and 15, the analysis indicates that the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.

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 construction of this facility have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts have been developed. For example, manure and wastewater from the animals at this facility will be collected during the year and stored in reinforced concrete pits under the slatted floors of the barns. The manure will be pumped from the pits during the spring and fall, after the crops have been harvested from the designated land application sites, and will be incorporated at agronomic rates into the soil immediately during land application via knife injection. In order to help protect the nearby water bodies (i.e., the Cedar River and Woodbury Creek), the Project proposer will abide by the manure application setbacks established by the MPCA and Mower County.

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. 4410.1700, subp. 7.B (2005). 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 proposed 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:

Although none of the comment letters received by the MPCA expressed specific concerns about the cumulative impact of this proposed Project to air and water quality, a description of MPCA staff’s analysis of the potential cumulative impacts is as follows.


9

Air Quality Based upon the air emission modeling results, the proposed Project is not anticipated to have significant adverse cumulative effects upon air quality. The computer model used to estimate the concentrations of H2S and NH3 emitted from the proposed Project includes the “background” level of pollutants. The background is the amount of a pollutant that is already in the air. Air emissions from other emission sources may affect the compliance status of a proposed project, or impact downwind human and environmental receptors. The background level for H2S that was used in the computer model was derived from monitoring at other feedlot facilities. The modeling adds the background air pollutant concentration to the emission concentrations predicted from the proposed Project, resulting in the cumulative totals reported in the air emission modeling results, which are discussed in Finding 8 above. The proposed Project is not anticipated to have significant adverse cumulative effects upon air quality. Water Quality Ground-water Quality: Ground-water resources can also be adversely impacted by land application activities where ground-water resources are at or near the surface, or are accessible through conduits and fractures commonly associated with karst topography. Based on the Karst Feature Inventory Study prepared for the proposed Project, the MPCA has concluded that there is a very low potential for any adverse impact to the ground-water resources in the area of the proposed facility site or the manure application sites. To further protect surface water, project proposers are required to follow the requirements specified in Minn. R. ch. 7020 that relate to the construction of manure storage structures and the land application of the manure. These rules are intended to protect surface water from both cumulative and individual feedlot impacts. The proposed plans and specifications for the manure storage pits and the CNMP for the land application of the manure generated at the proposed facility have been reviewed and approved by the MPCA staff, and will be enforceable conditions of the proposed Project’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Feedlot Permit. As a result, the extent of any potential cumulative effects to ground-water quality that are reasonably expected to occur as part of this proposed Project should be minimal. Surface-water Quality: Land application of manure can be a concern with respect to water quality. The MPCA’s impaired waters database has been reviewed to determine whether the proposed facility or manure application sites are located near any existing impaired surface waters in the watershed. The proposed feedlot site will be located approximately one-half mile from Woodbury Creek and approximately one-and-one-half miles from the Cedar River. All of the proposed manure application sites will be located within approximately one-and-one-half miles of the Cedar River, and the proposed manure application sites in Sections 28 and 29 will be located approximately one-half mile from Woodbury Creek. Both the Cedar River and Woodbury Creek, which are located within the Cedar River major watershed, are listed on the Total Maximum Daily Load database as impaired: the Cedar River for fecal coliform, PCBs, turbidity, and mercury; and Woodbury Creek for fecal coliform. To ensure water resources will not be impacted, several measures will be taken, as outlined in the CNMP. Soil and manure testing will be conducted regularly to determine the amount of manure to be applied to the designated manure application sites. By spreading the manure at the appropriate agronomic rates, only the amount of manure that is needed to provide for crop growth will be applied, which helps to eliminate the possibility that excess manure will impact water resources. Manure will be knife injected into the soil, which significantly reduces the potential for manure and manure-contaminated runoff waters from reaching surface waters. Required setbacks from all


10

surface waters and tile intakes will also be maintained. All of these protective measures will help to ensure that none of the manure from the proposed Project will discharge to either the Cedar River or Woodbury Creek. As a result, the extent of any potential cumulative effects to surface-water quality that are reasonably expected to occur as part of this proposed Project should be minimal. Water Appropriation: An estimated nine million gallons of water will be required annually at this site to operate the proposed facility. In addition, ground-water will be appropriated to operate the proposed 2,400-head swine finishing facility to be located less than one mile to the east of the proposed Project. The DNR Area Hydrologist for the proposed Project has indicated to the MPCA staff that he does not foresee any problems related to permitting the volumes of water to be appropriated at these sites. Based on the DNR’s comments, the MPCA believes that the water supply for the proposed Project will be adequate, and that the appropriation will not have a significant cumulative effect on the area water supply.

22. In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA

finds that the reasonably expected effects from this proposed Project will not be significant. The Extent to which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 23. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C (2005). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

24. The following permits or approvals will be required for the proposed Project:

Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status MPCA NPDES/SDS Livestock Production

Construction, Operation and Stormwater Permit

Submitted

MPCA Stormwater Prevention Plan Submitted as part of the NPDES/SDS Permit Application

DNR Individual Water Appropriation Permit To be submitted after well installation

25. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential

environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur.


11

The Extent to which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 26. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is “the extent to which environmental effects can

be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.D (2005). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

27. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed Project. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the Project proposer, commenters, staff experience, and other available information. • Project EAW • NPDES/SDS Permit Application for an Animal Feedlot or Manure Storage Area • Air Quality Monitoring Report • Crop Nutrient Management Plan • Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • Emergency Response Plan • Animal Mortality Plan • Air Emissions and Odor Management Plan • Mower County Feedlot Ordinance

28. There are no elements of the proposed Project that pose the potential for significant environmental

effects that cannot be addressed in the Project design and permit development processes, or in the regulatory documents listed above.

29. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the proposed Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 30. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this proposed Project. The

EAW, the permit development process, the facility planning process, responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the Project EAW, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this proposed Project.

31. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the proposed Project design and permits. The proposed Project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards.

32. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2005), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project.

33. An EIS is not required.

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Lowell Franzen Feedlot Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

1. Sara Rostampour, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail received February 5, 2007.

2. Chris Moates, Minnesota Department of Transportation. Letter received February 9, 2007. Comment (clarification) by Tracy Schnell, Minnesota Department of Transportation. E-mail

received March 14, 2007.

3. Amy E. O’Malley, St. Paul, Minnesota. Email received February 13, 2007.

4. Steven Gleason, Austin, Minnesota. E-mail received February 20, 2007.

5. Chris Sukalski, LeRoy, Minnesota. E-mail received February 21, 2007.

6. Lori and Kevin Korell, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail received February 27, 2007.

7. Joe Effertz, Owatonna, Minnesota. E-mail received February 27, 2007. 8. Britta Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society State Historic Preservation Office. Letter received March 8, 2007 (eight days after public comment period ended).

APPENDIX B

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

Lowell Franzen Feedlot Project (Project) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW

RECEIVED DURING THE 30-DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD 1. Comments by Sara Rostampour, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail received February 5, 2007. Comment 1-1: “As someone who buys produce from that area, I am very opposed [to] the feedlot. The environmental quality of both the land and air would be compromised tremendously by such an operation, as the manure produced by a farm of this size would be huge and is in no way positive.” Response 1-1: As part of preparing the EAW for this Project, the MPCA staff evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project to the quality of the land and air in the area surrounding the proposed feedlot. Based on the design of the proposed feedlot facility and the planned implementation of an MPCA-approved Crop Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP), the extent of any potential environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur as part of the proposed Project should be minimal. Land: A number of design features will be implemented to help ensure that the manure generated at the proposed facility does not contaminate the feedlot facility site. The two new barns will be total confinement structures with concrete, slatted floors. A ten-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit will be constructed beneath the gestation barn and a two-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit will be constructed beneath the farrowing barn to hold the manure. A grass buffer will be planted around the barns to minimize sediment loss from the building area. In order to avoid contaminating the land at the manure application sites, the manure will be injected into the soil at agronomic rates. These rates take into account the levels of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous) that will be utilized by the crops planted on the manure application sites, thereby reducing the possibility that excess nutrients will remain in the soil. Immediate injection of the manure limits the potential for runoff because the applied manure is incorporated into the ground, limiting any potential exposure during precipitation events. The details of the manure application methods to be implemented as part of this project are outlined in the CNMP. Air: Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia are toxic gases (when encountered at high levels) that are created at feedlots when manure is broken down by bacteria. In this case, using a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-approved model, air quality dispersion modeling was performed for the proposed Project that calculated the estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases at the property line of the proposed feedlot, at the property lines of 34 of the proposed feedlot’s nearest neighbors, and at the anticipated property line of a separate hog feedlot that has been proposed to be built within one mile of this proposed feedlot site. Background concentrations of the gases, developed from air quality monitoring data in Minnesota, were also included in these calculations to account for off-site emission sources and activities that contribute to potential cumulative air effects. The modeling study results indicate that no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project’s hydrogen sulfide emissions, ammonia emissions, and odorous gases.

Lowell Franzen Feedlot Project Responses to Comments on the Lyle Township, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet

2

For hydrogen sulfide along the proposed project’s property lines, the modeling results suggest that the proposed Project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s ambient air quality standard of 30 parts per billion (ppb). Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 17 ppb, the model predicted a maximum hydrogen sulfide concentration of 20.18 ppb at the proposed Project’s property lines. For hydrogen sulfide at the proposed Project’s nearest neighbors, the modeling results suggest that the proposed Project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s subchronic inhalation Health Risk Value (iHRV) of 10 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3). Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 1 µg/m3, the model predicted a maximum hydrogen sulfide concentration of 1.02 µg/m3 at the proposed Project’s nearest neighbors. For ammonia at the proposed Project’s property lines, the modeling results suggest that the proposed Project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s acute iHRV of 3,200 µg/m3. Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 148 µg/m3, the model predicted a maximum ammonia concentration of 1,368 µg/m3 at the proposed Project’s property lines. For ammonia at the proposed Project’s nearest neighbors, the modeling results suggest that the proposed Project will not exceed the state of Minnesota’s chronic iHRV of 80 µg/m3. Specifically, assuming a background concentration of 5.72 µg/m3, the model predicted a maximum ammonia concentration of 7.97 µg/m3 at the proposed Project’s nearest neighbors. Finally, while the modeling results suggest that detectable concentrations of odorous gases can exist off site, the estimated maximum concentration of total volatile odorous organic compounds at the proposed Project’s property line is 7.4 times less than the threshold concentration associated with ‘unpleasant odors,’ and 20.6 times less at the proposed Project’s nearest neighbor. Comment 1-2: “There are many other possible positive uses for the land and community and the proposed feedlot is not one of them.” Response 1-2: The issue of whether or not a proposed feedlot is the best possible use of the land on which the feedlot will be sited is outside the scope of the EAW process. Generally, EAWs are designed to identify the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, as well as the mitigative measures that will be employed to avoid or minimize those impacts, so that a decision can be made by the responsible governmental unit on the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS). 2. Comment by Chris Moates, Minnesota Department of Transportation. Letter received

February 9, 2007. Clarification comment by Tracy Schnell, Minnesota Department of Transportation. E-mail received March 14, 2007.

Comment 2-1: “This proposal has no direct impact to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) roadways at the current time. However, Mn/DOT highly recommends that it be monitored for cumulative impacts. The Mn/DOT Planning Office accepts the EAW.” Comment 2-1 (Clarification): “Over time Mn/DOT will monitor the cumulative impacts created by an increase in truck traffic at the intersection with Minnesota State Highway 105. Increased truck traffic may affect the function and performance of the intersection and whether turn lanes or bypass lanes would need to be constructed. Response 2-1: The comments are noted.


3

3. Comments by Amy E. O’Malley. E-mail received February 13, 2007. Comment 3-1: “Large feedlots like above proposed are destructive to our environment and threatening to public health. The gases they emit are toxic, those being ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and methane. When surrounding communities are forced to breathe in these destructive gases it results in harmful health effects that have proven devastating in communities throughout the U.S.” Response 3-1: Regarding the presence of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide as part of the proposed Project, please see the Response to Comment 1-1. Regarding the presence of methane, it is a colorless, nonpoisonous, flammable gas created by the anaerobic decomposition of organic compounds. Methane is a major component of natural gas used in the home, where a minor amount of an additional odorous gas (methyl mercaptan) is added as a safety measure to help people identify gas leaks. Methane from a livestock production facility is generally not an issue of concern with respect to public health, as it is non-toxic and is not generated in concentrations that would create an explosion hazard for either livestock within the barns or nearby residents. Comment 3-2: “The waste produced also contaminates our drinking water supplies as well, thereby adding to the problem of harming human health.” Response 3-2: Based on the design of the proposed gestation and farrowing pig facility and the planned implementation of a CNMP, the extent of any potential effects to ground-water quality that are reasonably expected to occur as part of this proposed Project should be minimal. The two new total confinement barns will be equipped with concrete, slatted floors and mechanical ventilation systems. A ten-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit will be constructed beneath the gestation barn and a two-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit will be constructed beneath the farrowing barn to hold the manure generated by the animals. In addition, the MPCA and Mower County setback requirements will be observed around the water supply well for the barns. As a result, it is not expected that the manure stored at the proposed feedlot site will come in contact with ground water. In order to avoid contaminating the ground water at the manure application sites, the manure will be incorporated into the soil at agronomic rates. These rates take into account the levels of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous) that will be utilized by the crops planted on the manure application sites, thereby reducing the possibility that excess nutrients will infiltrate down into the ground water. The details of the manure application methods to be implemented as part of this proposed Project are outlined in the CNMP. In addition, the MPCA and Mower County setback requirements will be observed around the surface tile inlets and residential water supply wells located within and adjacent to the manure application sites. As a result, it is not expected that the manure injected at the manure application sites will come in contact with ground water.

Although the proposed feedlot facility site and manure application sites are located in a region of Minnesota known to have karst features, a Karst Feature Inventory Study (Study) conducted by the proposer did not identify any actual karst features in the area. As part of the Study, ten suspected karst features were identified near the proposed facility, but a site inspection of each suspected feature, and a test excavation of the two depressional features nearest the proposed manure storage site, has shown that none were actually karst features. According to the Geologic Atlas of Mower County cited in the Study, a verified sinkhole has previously been identified near the border of the southern manure application area in Section 28. The sinkhole could not be located, however, during the site investigation. The Study suggests that it “may have been filled during grading within the highway corridor.” Based on the findings of the Study, the MPCA and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources staffs have determined that the proposed facility and manure application locations are not considered karst sites. Should unidentified


4

karst features exist near the proposed facility and/or manure application sites, the design of the proposed facility and the planned implementation of an MPCA-approved CNMP, as described above, will help to ensure that ground water will not be impacted by the proposed Project. Comment 3-3: “Further, the widespread use of antibiotics poses dangers. The antibiotics used to promote growth end up entering the environment, the food chain, and contribute to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, thus making it harder to treat human diseases.” Response 3-3: In this case, the Project proposer has indicated that swine health problems will be addressed, as necessary, through the therapeutic use of antibiotics, rather than at the subtherapeutic levels necessary to specifically promote growth. The proposer has also indicated that they will not use any antibiotics without the supervision of a veterinarian. 4. Comments by Steven Gleason. E-mail received February 20, 2007. Comment 4-1: General comments in support of the proposed Project. Response 4-1: The comments are noted. 5. Comments by Chris Sukalski, LeRoy, Minnesota. E-mail received February 21, 2007. Comment 5-1: General comments in support of the proposed Project. Response 5-1: The comments are noted. 6. Comments by Lori and Kevin Korell, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail received February 27, 2007. Comment 6-1: “The noxious fumes from this proposed huge facility will no doubt disturb residents and children of the area.” Response 6-1: Please see the Response to Comment 1-1. Comment 6-2: “Concrete pits beneath barns are highly dangerous and in fact I have a cousin near St. George, MN, who fell in one and nearly died in such a manure pit.” Response 6-2: The issue of whether or not under-barn manure storage pits are a safety hazard is outside the scope of the EAW process. Generally, EAWs are designed to identify the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project, as well as the mitigative measures that will be employed to avoid or minimize those impacts, so that a decision can be made by the responsible governmental unit on the need for an EIS. To help allay the safety concerns expressed above, though, the proposer has indicated that the manure pits will be covered by 1,000-pound concrete floor slats, and that the only access to the pits will be through pump out chambers that will have concrete covers. Generally, the pump out chambers will only be open the approximately ten days per year that the manure pits are to be emptied in the spring and fall. Comment 6-3: “Pumping manure twice a year and injecting it onto cropland is only a recipe for disaster and disease, stink, plague and filth. So the waste and manure from 6,112 pigs will accumulate for six months before it is shoddily dealth with by dumping it onto the land?”


5

Response 6-3: Please see the Responses to Comments 1-1 and 3-2. 7. Comments by Joe Effertz, Owatonna, Minnesota. E-mail received February 27, 2007. Comment 7-1: General comments in support of the proposed Project. Response 7-1: The comments are noted.

Date post:	11-Jan-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times

TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282-5332TDD (for hearing and speech impaired...

Documents