steve and terry athman swine finishing site …...steve and terry athman, does not have the...

2

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the governmental unit responsible for preparing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) when an animal feedlot project meets the thresholds specified in Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29A. As a result, MPCA staff prepared the EAW for this proposed Project in order to assess whether it has the potential for significant environmental effects, and to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As part of the process, a 30-day public comment period was held, during which interested parties raised concerns about the application rate of the manure. The preparation of an EIS was requested in one of the comment letters. A summary of the potential environmental issues associated with this proposed Project is included in the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Attachment 1). Based on the analysis contained in the EAW, the comments submitted by the public during the 30-day comment period, and the MPCA staff’s responses to those comments, MPCA staff has outlined in the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order that this proposed Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Accordingly, MPCA staff recommends that the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board) approve the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order and authorize the issuance of a Negative Declaration (no EIS) for the Project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order 2. Letter from the Minnesota Historic Preservation Office 3. Letter from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Regional Division

Environmental Review and Feedlot Section

Steve and Terry Athman Swine Finishing Site Expansion Request for Approval of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order

and Authorization to Issue a Negative Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement

July 22, 2008

ISSUE STATEMENT Steve and Terry Athman currently own and operate a 2,400-head (720 animal units) barn in the S½ of Section 3, Granite Township, Morrison County. The barn is equipped with a concrete, slatted floor and an eight-foot reinforced concrete pit located beneath the barn to hold the manure generated by the finishing hogs. Steve and Terry Athman are proposing to expand their existing operation with the construction of a new second 2,400-head (720 animal units) swine finishing barn in the S½ of Section 3, Granite Township, Morrison County (Project). The barn will be equipped with a concrete, slatted floor and an eight-foot reinforced concrete pit located beneath the barn to hold the manure generated by the finishing hogs. The new total confinement swine finishing barn will have a maximum physical capacity of 2,400 finishing hogs (720 animal units), which is in addition to the existing 2,400-head (720 animal units) barn and will bring the total number of pigs at the site to 4,800 (1,440 animal units). Manure will be collected and stored in reinforced concrete pits beneath the barns. Manure will be pumped from the facility twice each year and applied at agronomic rates into designated cropland as fertilizer. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the governmental unit responsible for preparing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) when an animal feedlot project meets the thresholds specified in Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29A. As a result, MPCA staff prepared the EAW for this proposed Project in order to assess whether it has the potential for significant environmental effects, and to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). As part of the process, a 30-day public comment period was held, during which interested parties raised concerns about the application rate of the manure. The preparation of an EIS was requested in one of the comment letters. A summary of the potential environmental issues associated with this proposed Project is included in the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Attachment 1). Based on the analysis contained in the EAW, the comments submitted by the public during the 30-day comment period, and the MPCA staff’s responses to those comments, MPCA staff has outlined in the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order that this proposed Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. Accordingly, MPCA staff recommends that the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board) approve the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order and authorize the issuance of a Negative Declaration (no EIS) for the Project.

2

I. BACKGROUND:

Steve and Terry Athman currently own and operate a 2,400-head (720 animal units) barn in the S½

of Section 3, Granite Township, Morrison County. The barn is equipped with a concrete, slatted floor and

an eight-foot reinforced concrete pit located beneath the barn to hold the manure generated by the

finishing hogs.

Steve and Terry Athman are proposing to expand their existing operation with the construction of a

new 2,400-head (720 animal units) swine finishing barn in the S½ of Section 3, Granite Township,

Morrison County. The barn will be equipped with a concrete, slatted floor and an eight-foot reinforced

concrete pit located beneath the barn to hold the manure generated by the finishing hogs. The new total

confinement swine finishing barn will have a maximum physical capacity of 2,400 finishing hogs (720

animal units), which is in addition to the existing 2,400-head (720 animal units) barn and will bring the

number of pigs on site to 4,800 (1,440 animal units). Manure will be collected and stored in reinforced

concrete pits beneath the barns. Manure will be pumped from the facility twice each year and applied at

agronomic rates into designated cropland as fertilizer.

An environmental review is required for this Project because the proposed expansion would

increase the size of the operation by more than the mandatory threshold of 1,000 animal units, as

specified in Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29A. As a result, MPCA staff prepared the EAW for the proposed

Project. The EAW was placed on public notice on June 2, 2008, which started the 30-day public comment

period that ended on July 2, 2008. Two comment letters were received during the comment period. One

of those letters requested the preparation of an EIS. The MPCA’s written responses to the comments are

provided in Attachment A.

II. DISCUSSION:

Minn. R. 4410.1700 provides that four criteria must be considered when a responsible

governmental unit makes a determination of the potential for significant environmental effects from a

project. These criteria are: A) the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B) cumulative

3

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. These criteria are

applied to the proposed Project and are fully discussed in the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of

Law, and Order (Attachment 1).

Issues related to the proposed Project are discussed on the following pages of the Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, and Order:

• Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions, Ammonia Emissions, and Odors – Page 4

• Water impacts – Page 5

III. CONCLUSIONS:

The EAW, and the responses by the MPCA staff to the comments on the EAW, have generated

information to adequately address the issues raised about this proposed Project. The proposed

construction and operation of the facility is expected to comply with applicable MPCA and other relevant

requirements. MPCA staff believes that adherence to permit requirements established for this facility

will minimize environmental effects attributable to the proposed Project such that the effects would not be

significant. MPCA staff concludes, based on the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order that the

preparation of an EIS is not needed for the proposed Project.

IV. RECOMMENDATION:

MPCA staff recommends that the Board approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and

Order, which concludes that the proposed Project does not have the potential for significant

environmental effects, and recommends that the Board authorize the Commissioner to publish a Negative

Declaration, indicating that the proposed Project will not require an EIS, by adopting the suggested staff

resolution.

4

SUGGESTED STAFF RESOLUTION

BE IT RESOLVED, that, in accordance with the standard and criteria set forth in Minn. R.

4410.1700, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) approves and adopts the attached Findings

of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, which conclude that the Steve and Terry Athman Swine

Finishing Site Expansion project analyzed in this Environmental Assessment Worksheet and proposed by

Steve and Terry Athman, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The

Commissioner is authorized to execute the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order on behalf of

the MPCA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the MPCA authorizes the Commissioner to publish a

Negative Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement on behalf of the MPCA.

ATTACHMENT 1

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 STEVE AND TERRY ATHMAN SWINE FINISHING SITE EXPANSION GRANITE TOWNSHIP, MORRISON COUNTY HILLMAN, 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 July 22, 2008. Based on the MPCA staff 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:

FACILITY HISTORY Overview Steve and Terry Athman currently own and operate a 2,400-head (720 animal unit) barn in the S½ of Section 3, Granite Township, Morrison County. The barn is equipped with a concrete, slatted floor and an eight-foot reinforced concrete pit located beneath the barn to hold the manure generated by the finishing hogs.

Permitting History The project proposer currently holds Certificate of Registration #097-112933 for a livestock operation that consists of 720 animal units. Previous Environmental Review The existing facility has never undergone any previous environmental review process. Compliance/Enforcement History The existing facility does not have any history of compliance issues or enforcement activities.

PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Steve and Terry Athman are proposing to expand their existing operation with the construction of a new second 2,400-head (720 animal units) swine finishing barn in the S½ of Section 3, Granite Township, Morrison County (Project). The barn will be equipped with a concrete, slatted floor and an eight-foot reinforced concrete pit located beneath the barn to hold the manure generated by the finishing hogs. The new total confinement swine finishing barn will have a maximum physical capacity of 2,400 finishing hogs (720 animal units), which is in addition to the existing 2,400-head (720 animal units) barn and will bring the total number of pigs at the site to 4,800 (1,440 animal units). Manure will be collected and stored in reinforced concrete pits beneath the barns. Manure will be pumped from the facility twice each year and applied at agronomic rates into designated cropland as fertilizer.

Steve and Terry Athman Swine Finishing Site Expansion Findings of Fact On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Conclusions of Law Hillman, Minnesota And Order

2

Environmental Concerns • Air quality (i.e., hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, odors, and dust) • Water impacts Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters The MPCA received two comment letters with one requesting the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the other raising a question regarding land application rates given local soil types. Community Involvement in Process The EAW was published in the Environmental Quality Board’s (EQB) June 2, 2008, edition of the EQB Monitor. Public comments on the EAW could be submitted to the MPCA from June 2, 2008, through July 2, 2008.

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 (2006), the EAW was distributed to the EQB mailing list and other interested parties on June 2, 2008.

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

was provided to Morrison, Todd, Mille Lacs and Crow Wing counties, as well as other interested parties, on June 3, 2008. In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on June 2, 2008, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html on June 2, 2008.

3. The public comment period for the EAW began on June 2, 2008, and ended on July 2, 2008.

During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received two comment letters from citizens. 4. The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during the 30-day public comment period.

Comment letters received and the MPCA responses to comments received have been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to these findings.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2006), the MPCA must order an 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 (2006). 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


3

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 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 (2006). 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:

• Hydrogen sulfide emissions • Ammonia emissions • Odors • Dust

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

Air Quality Modeling Air quality impacts from hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odors were reviewed using a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency–approved air quality dispersion model. The modeling assessed the direct air quality impacts of the Project on the area, and account for the potential air quality contributions of the Project on existing air quality conditions. The existing air quality conditions included other off-site air emissions sources, which is a part of the air quality cumulative potential effects analysis. As a requirement in its MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Feedlot Permit, the proposer must install biofilters in the new barn and the existing barn to help collect odors, dust, and gasses that will be discharged from the barns. Consequently, the overall reduction of odors, dust, and other air emissions from a well-designed biofiltration system for the proposed new barn and the existing barn is expected to be approximately 80 percent. An Air Quality Modeling Report was prepared for the proposed Project equipped with biofilters, which predicted odorous gas concentrations and odor intensities at the effective property lines and at five of the proposed feedlot’s nearest neighbors.


4

Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions Hydrogen sulfide 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 concentrations of hydrogen sulfide. The modeling was based on the estimated hydrogen sulfide emission rates from the manure pits located beneath the hog barns and from off-site hydrogen sulfide emission sources. Background concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, developed from air quality monitoring data in Minnesota, were also included in these calculations to account for potential cumulative air impacts. The modeling results indicated that the air emissions from the proposed Project will not exceed the Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards for hydrogen sulfide. When a background hydrogen sulfide concentration of 24.3 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) is presumed, the maximum property line concentration is 40.8 ug/m3, which is below the ambient air quality standard of 42.9 ug/m3. 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 Ammonia is 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 concentration of ammonia. The modeling was based on estimated ammonia emission rates from the livestock units, including the manure storage pits beneath the hog barns. Background concentrations of ammonia, developed from air quality monitoring data in Minnesota, were considered in these calculations to account for potential cumulative air impacts. The modeling predicted a maximum one-hour, time-averaged property line ammonia concentration of 0.520 µg/m3. When a background concentration of 148 µg/m3 is considered, the maximum property line ammonia concentration is then 148.52 µg/m3, which is below the acute inhalation health risk value of 3,200 µg/m3 for ammonia. The modeling study results indicate that no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur from the Project’s ammonia emissions. Odors Finishing hog 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 results suggest that, while concentrations of odorous gases can exist off site, the highest concentrations any neighbor would experience would be less than the threshold concentration associated with unpleasant odors. The modeling study results indicate that no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project’s odorous gases.

Dust It is expected that dust will be generated during the proposed Project, and later when hogs and feed are delivered to and from the facility. Following construction, fugitive dust sources are expected to be minimal due to use of biofilters, grass seeding (resulting in vegetative cover) around the barns,


5

confinement of the hogs to the barns, and graveled, rather than dirt, driveways. If dust becomes a problem, the proposer will apply a dust suppressant where it is needed. As a result, no significant adverse effects are reasonably expected to occur as a result of dust generated as part of the proposed Project.

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 this 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 this Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on air quality.

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

No comments were received regarding the effects of air quality. 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.

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.

13. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this 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 facility expansion and the planned implementation of an MPCA-approved Manure Management Plan (MMP), 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 new total confinement barn will be equipped with a concrete, slatted floor and a tunnel ventilation system. An eight-foot deep, reinforced concrete pit will be constructed beneath the barn to hold the manure generated by the finishing hogs. All stages of construction will be done according to the engineering plans and specifications approved by the MPCA. In addition, the MPCA and Morrison County setback requirements will be observed around the water supply wells for the barns. As a result, it is not expected that the manure stored at the proposed Project site will come in contact with ground water.


6

In order to avoid contaminating the ground water at the manure application sites, the MPCA utilizes the latest publication from the University of Minnesota to determine the proper nutrient application rate for crops receiving manure to ensure that the manure will be applied to 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 minimizing the potential for nutrients leaching into the ground water. The details of the manure application methods to be implemented as part of this Project are outlined in the MMP. In addition, the MPCA and Morrison County setback requirements will be observed around the drain tile intakes and water supply wells 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 ground water. Surface Water Based on the design of the proposed Project and the planned implementation of an MPCA-approved MMP, 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. Surface-water runoff will increase at the proposed Project site due to an increase in impervious surfaces, mainly from the construction of a second roofed building. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared for this proposed Project that addresses potential impacts to surface waters. Because this will be a total confinement facility, with the manure stored entirely under the barns, it is not expected that the manure stored at the proposed Project site will come in contact with surface water. Land application of manure can be a potential concern with respect to water quality. As discussed earlier, the proposed site and land application acreage were looked at along with other projects in the same minor watershed to evaluate cumulative potential effects to surface waters. Ninety-two feedlots were identified. The manure application areas are within the Platte River watershed and the Skunk River watershed. The creeks and rivers in these watersheds are impaired for bacteria. The proposed Project is not expected to contribute to the existing water quality issues for the following reasons. The manure will be land applied and incorporated into the soil, which limits the amount of manure and soil runoff. The manure will be incorporated 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 Project are outlined in the MMP. In addition, the MPCA and Morrison 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 There is currently one drinking water well on site, which is 74 feet in depth. According to information from the County Well Index, ground water from a Quaternary Buried Artesian Aquifer will be used as the source of water for this facility.


7

This well is designated as the water source for both the existing and proposed livestock units. The projected water use for the Project is approximately 2,560,000 gallons per year, with a 25-year service life usage of 64 million gallons using a water consumption rate of 2.5 gallons per day per animal. A Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Appropriations 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 program exists to balance 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. Any well interference or water use conflict would need to be addressed before the Water Appropriations Permit could be issued. In addition, 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.

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

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

No letters were received that expressed a concern regarding water quality.

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 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.

Potential Cumulative 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 "potential cumulative effects of related or anticipated future projects," Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.B (2006). 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 effects that are reasonably expected to occur.


8

21. Public comments concerning cumulative effects:

No comment letters were received regarding cumulative effects. 22. In considering the potential cumulative effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA

finds that the reasonably expected effects from this Project will not be significant.

The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 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 (2006). 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 Type of Application Status MPCA NPDES/SDS Feedlot/Stormwater Permit Pending Morrison County Variance for number of animal units Issued February 4th, 2008 Morrison County Conditional use or other land use permit Pending DNR Water Appropriation Pending

25. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental

effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur.

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

be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.D (2006). 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.

• NPDES/SDS Permit Application • EAW • MMP, Air Emissions Plan, and Emergency Response Plan


9

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

that cannot be addressed in the Project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans.

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

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

30. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this Project. The EAW, the

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

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

32. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2006), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

33. An EIS is not required.

34. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such.

ORDER

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Steve and Terry Athman Swine Finishing Site Expansion project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED

__________________________________________ Commissioner Brad Moore Chair, Citizens’ Board Minnesota Pollution Control Agency __________________________________________ Date

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

Steve and Terry Athman Swine Finishing Expansion Project (Project) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

1. Dennis Dunphy, St. Cloud, Minnesota. E-mail received June 24, 2008. 2. Andrew Nesseth, Extended Ag Services Inc. E-mail received June 24, 2008.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Dennis Dunphy, St. Cloud, Minnesota. E-mail received June 24, 2008. Comment 1-1: The commenter requested the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, no issues stated. Response: The decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be made by the MPCA Citizens’ Board on July 22, 2008. The public is invited to attend and provide comment. 2. Comments by Andrew Nesseth, Extended Ag Services, Inc. E-mail received June 24, 2008. Comment 2-1: The commenter stated, based on his experience and knowledge – that he would assume that this is too high a rate for 115 bushels of corn. The latest University of Minnesota nitrogen recommendation for corn is based on high or medium productivity. Productivity is based on soil texture, soil type, and organic matter. Nitrogen recommendations are based on a ration of nitrogen price/crop value – generally with manure, the ration is the most favorable for high nitrogen applications. Highly Productive Soils: For corn following corn: 130 lbs – 180 lbs – 155 lbs MRTN (maximum return to nitrogen value) For corn following soybeans: 100 – 140 lbs – 120 lbs Medium Productivity: For corn following corn: 130 lbs For corn following soybeans: 100 lbs He thought that based on the stated yield goal and the geography of the area – medium productivity is warranted, but that is based on limited information from the EAW. Response: The MPCA utilizes the latest publication from the University of Minnesota to determine the proper nutrient application rate for crops receiving manure. As indicated by the commenter, when corn is grown on highly productive soils, the recommendation is not clearly indicated, but rather a range is given, and when low productivity soils are encountered, a specific recommendation is given. The MPCA has determined that nutrient applications that do not exceed the upper limit of the acceptable range are allowable for highly productive soils. The recommendations given by the University of Minnesota Extension Service do not clearly define a high productivity soil with respect to a medium productivity soil. Rather, the determination is made following a variety of criteria and best professional judgment. Based upon conversations with University of Minnesota Extension Service staff, medium productivity soils will only be encountered in very limited cases based upon items such as erosion, poor soil drainage,

Steve and Terry Athman Swine Finishing Site Expansion Responses to Comments on the Hillman, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet

2

restriction to root growth, short growing season, marginal growing season, rainfall, etc. Growing season rainfall amounts is the only one of the above identified issues that applies to the manure application sites for this Project. It is important to note that low productivity yields does not always justify designating the land as a low productivity soil. Based on the available information, MPCA staff noted that, even though the yields identified in the Manure Management Plan are lower that what is observed in other parts of the state, the soil and growing conditions at these particular land application sites do not warrant classification as a medium productivity soil and, therefore, the rates identified in the Manure Management Plan are allowable.

ATTACHMENT 2

DNR Information: 651-296-6157 ● 1-888-646-6367 ● TTY: 651-296-5484 ● 1-800-657-3929

An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity

Phone: (651) 259-5109 Fax: (651) 296-1811 E-mail: [email protected] June 30, 2008 Ms. Terry Athman Athman Swine Finishing Operation 20310 325th Avenue Hillman, MN 56338 Re: Request for Natural Heritage information in the vicinity of the proposed Athman Swine Finishing Operation and Manure Application, Morrison County Correspondence # : ERDB 20080783 Dear Ms. Athman,

As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been queried to determine if any rare species or other significant natural features are known to occur within an approximate one-mile radius of the proposed project. Based on this query, the Minnesota County Biological Survey has identified two Sites of Biodiversity Significance in the vicinity of the manure application sites in T42N R29W Sections 15 and 33. Sites of Biodiversity Significance have varying levels of native biodiversity and are ranked based on the relative significance of this biodiversity at a statewide level. Factors taken into account during the ranking process include the number of rare species documented within the site, the quality of the native plant communities in the site, the size of the site, and the context of the site within the landscape. These particular Sites were rated Moderate and High and contain several wetlands including Alder-(Maple-Loosestrife) Swamp, Poor Tamarack-Black Spruce Swamp, Willow-Dogwood Shrub Swamp, and Sedge Meadow communities (please see the enclosed map; please note that the Rare Features Database reports do not include a complete list of native plant communities in the area).

Overapplication or improper application of liquid manure can lead to the transport of nutrients into the groundwater or surface water through leaching or overland flow. Nitrogen loading is a potential threat to wetland ecosystems that can result in a dramatic loss of plant species diversity, an increased abundance of nonnative species, and the disruption of ecosystem functioning. Thus, strict adherence to setback requirements is important. In addition, manure application rates and the timing of application should be carefully considered in order to prevent negative impacts to the native plant communities. Given the ecological significance of this area, we encourage you to follow the nutrient application restrictions for protected wetlands in the attached ‘Applying Manure in Sensitive Areas’.

The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area.

The enclosed results include an Index Report and a Detailed Report of records in the Rare Features Database, the main database of the NHIS. To control the release of specific location information, which might result in the destruction of a rare feature, both reports are copyrighted.

The Index Report provides rare feature locations only to the nearest section, and may be reprinted, unaltered, in an environmental review document (e.g., EAW or EIS), municipal natural resource plan, or

Township (N) Range (W) Section(s) 42 29 15, 33 41 29 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 20

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4025

Division of Ecological Resources, Box 25

ATTACHMENT 3

report compiled by your company for the project listed above. If you wish to reproduce the index report for any other purpose, please contact me to request written permission. The Detailed Report may include specific location information, and is for your personal use only. If you wish to reprint or publish the detailed report for any purpose, please contact me to request written permission.

Please be aware that this letter focuses only on potential effects to rare natural features; there may be other natural resource concerns associated with the proposed project. This letter does not constitute review or approval by the Department of Natural Resources as a whole. If you would like further information on the environmental review process, please contact your Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Mike North, at (320) 255-4279 ext. 235.

An invoice in the amount of $81.93 will be mailed to you under separate cover within two weeks of the date of this letter. You are being billed for the database search and printouts, and staff scientist review. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely,

Lisa Joyal Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator enc. Rare Features Database: Index Report Rare Features Database: Detail Report Rare Features Database Reports: An Explanation of Fields Applying Manure in Sensitive Areas Map cc: Ron Wieland

steve and terry athman swine finishing site …...steve and terry athman, does not have the...

Documents