STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY"

Transcription

1 p-ear2-82b

2 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED R & R THIER FEEDLOTS, INC. OLNEY TOWNSHIP NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Pursuant to Minn. ch. 4410, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ( MPCA ) staff prepared and distributed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet ( EAW ) for the proposed R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc., Project. Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT Project Description 1. R & R Thier, Inc. ( Proposer ) proposes to build a new total confinement beef cattle feedlot facility ( Project or New Facility ) with a maximum capacity of 6,000 Animal Units ( AUs ). The New Facility will be located in the south half of Section 22, Olney Township, Nobles County, Minnesota. The Proposer will construct two (2) new total confinement barns, with reinforced concrete manure pits below each barn, at the New Facility. The Proposer will also place perimeter drain tiles around each new barn and manure pit, and construct a new stormwater retention pond at the site. 2. The Proposer already operates an existing beef cattle feedlot facility ( Existing Facility ), in Section 26, Olney Township, Nobles County, approximately one-half mile south/southwest of the New Facility. 3. In September of 2008, the MPCA completed environmental review (an EAW) of an expansion of the Existing Facility. After the 2008 EAW, the Existing Facility included one total confinement barn, a reinforced concrete manure pit, and a runoff retention pond. After the 2008 EAW, the Existing Facility contained 5,000 head of beef cattle (5,000 AUs). 4. In 2013, the Proposer completed another expansion of the confinement barn at the Existing Facility, adding 475 AUs to the 5,000 AUs from the 2008 expansion. The total AUs at the Existing Facility after the 2013 expansion was 5,475 AUs. The MPCA did not conduct an environmental review of the 2013 expansion project. 5. The Proposer plans to have a total of 6,000 AUs authorized at its New Facility. In addition, after completion of construction of the New Facility, the number of AUs at the Existing Facility will TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order decrease from 5,475 to 4,989 AUs. The combined total number of AUs authorized under the MPCA s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System ( NPDES/SDS ) permit, which will cover both the New and Existing Facility under a single permit, will now be 10,989 AUs. 6. The MPCA s environmental review for the New Facility also includes review of the 2013 expansion project at the Existing Facility that added 475 AUs since it occurred within three years of the Proposed Project. 7. The Proposer has indicated that 3,515 acres of land are required for the land application of manure generated by the Project. The majority of the manure generated as a result of the Project will be transferred and sold to third parties for application at agronomic rates. 8. The Proposer has prepared a draft Manure Management Plan ( MMP ) for Transferred Ownership for the manure generated from the Project. The manure application sites for the Existing Facility were considered under the 2008 EAW and therefore were not reviewed again for this Project. No changes are proposed to the management of those sites. Two new fields, not covered in a previous environmental review, will also receive manure from the proposed Project and are evaluated in the EAW for the Project. 9. The Proposer applied for coverage of both the Existing and Proposed Facilities under the Minnesota General Livestock Production National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Permit ( NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit ) on March 20, Environmental Review of the Project 10. An EAW is mandatory for the Project under Minn. R , subp. 29A. 11. An EAW is a brief document designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS ) is required for a proposed project or to initiate the scoping process for an EIS (Minn. R. pt , subp. 24). The MPCA is the Responsible Governmental Unit ( RGU ) for preparing the EAW for this Project. 12. The MPCA provided public notice of the Project as follows: a. Notice of the availability of the EAW for public comment was published in the EQB Monitor on July 20, 2015, as required by Minn. R b. The EAW was available for review on the MPCA website at c. The MPCA provided a news release to media in the southern region of Minnesota, and other interested parties on July 23, During the 30-day comment period ending on August 19, 2015, the MPCA received comment letters from the Southwest Regional Development Commission, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ( MDNR ), the Minnesota Department of Health ( MDH ), the city of Rushmore, and the city of Adrian. No comment letters were received from citizens. One comment letter from a government unit was received after the close of the comment period. A list of the comment letters 2

4 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order received and copies of the letters, and MPCA s Responses to Comments, are included as Appendix A to these Findings. 14. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the 30-day public comment period as well as the comment letter from the Minnesota Historical Society received after the close of the comment period. The responses to the comments are included as Appendix A to these findings. 15. The NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit was open for comment from July 22, 2015, through August 21, The MPCA did not receive any comment letters on the Permit. Standard for Decision on the Need for an EIS 16. The MPCA shall base its decision on the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the EAW process and the comments received on the EAW (Minn. R , subp. 3). The MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects (Minn. R , subp. 1). In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R , subp. 7. These criteria are: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects. B. Cumulative potential effects. The responsible governmental unit (RGU) shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project. C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project. 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. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 17. The MPCA finds that the types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Project include: Groundwater and surface water quality impacts related to runoff from the facility, and cropland used for land application of manure Groundwater impacts related to appropriation of large volume of water Air quality impacts related to emissions of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odorous compounds 3

5 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 18. Written comments received during the comment period identified the potential for manure to be land applied at sites that were near and/or upgradient of the city of Adrian s and the city of Worthington s drinking water system management areas (DWSMAs). With respect to the extent of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. Impacts to Groundwater and Surface Water Quality 19. All livestock will be housed in total confinement buildings with no access to surface waters. Manure will be stored in below-ground reinforced concrete pits that meet the design criteria of Minn. R The Project s NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit requires both the Existing as well as the New Facility to meet a zero discharge standard. 21. The NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit requires that the Proposer develop and maintain stormwater pollution prevention and management plans that include erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices for the operation of the facility and keep the plans on site. 22. In order to avoid contaminating the groundwater at the manure application sites, the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit and MMP require the Proposer and the owner of the transferred manure to apply the manure at agronomic rates based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry, taking into account levels of nitrogen utilized by crops planted at the manure application sites and, therefore, minimizing the potential for nitrates leaching into the groundwater. 23. All manure application sites must also comply with MPCA and/or county manure application setback requirements as well as all other applicable federal and state rules, whatever is the more restrictive. 24. These measures will mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater quality related to manure incorporated at the manure application sites. 25. The land application of manure, if done improperly, can adversely impact surface-water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into draintile lines that outfall to surface waters. Therefore, all manure application sites must comply with MPCA and/or county setbacks, as well as all other applicable federal and state rules, whatever is most restrictive, around drain tile intakes located within and adjacent to manure application areas, and near other surface water resources. 26. As noted in the EAW, Minnesota rules require the Proposer and owners of manure application sites, within the vicinity of a DWSMA and/or Wellhead Protection Area, to manage land application of manure in accordance with Minnesota rules governing land application of manure application, or by local restrictions, whichever is more stringent. 4

6 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 27. The majority of the manure application will occur during the late fall. The timing reduces the significant rain events and allows manure incorporation into the soil as soon as time and field conditions allow. Manure application will follow all applicable required setbacks from sensitive features and waterways. The land application practices are included in the MMP, which once approved, becomes an enforceable provision of the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit. 28. As described in Minnesota s Final Animal Agriculture Generic Environmental Impact Statement prepared in 2002, and noted through the University of Minnesota Agriculture Extension program, manure not only supplies nutrients, but can also improve the biological and physical properties of soil, making it more productive and less erosive. Manure, when properly used as part of a soil management program, improves soil quality, builds soil structure, and increases the level of soil organic matter. Commercial fertilizers cannot provide these same improvements to soil properties. The Proposer s land application sites already utilize manure rather than commercial fertilizer. Third party land owners and applicators may alternate between commercial fertilizers and manure for differing reasons, but will have this additional manure resource available. 29. The MPCA expects that the requirements of the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit and the MMP will minimize the potential for manure applied at manure application sites to come in contact with runoff and enter surface waters. The MPCA expects that quality of runoff from land application areas for the manure will not significantly change if managed in accordance with the MMP required by the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit. Nutrients from manure tend to replace nutrients provided by other fertilizers, and improved soil tilth through the use of organic fertilizer and immediate incorporation of manure has the potential to improve runoff characteristics over the acres receiving manure under the MMP. With respect to the reversibility of water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 30. The NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit addresses the prevention of adverse effects on water quality due to manure storage and application. 31. Although the MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water quality, if water quality impacts were to occur, the operation and management of the feedlot and the MMP can be modified and impacts to waters could be reversed; therefore, the water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project are found to be reversible. 32. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to assess potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts have been developed and are required as permit conditions. 33. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur. Impacts Related to Groundwater Appropriation 5

7 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 34. The Proposer will drill a new well for this Project. The expected depth of the well is approximately 185 feet. The annual water usage for the Project at the New Facility is expected to be approximately 24 million gallons per year. The Existing Facility, located approximately ½ mile south and east of the New Facility, has an annual water usage of approximately 22 million gallons per year. The New Facility s projected 25-year service consumption is 600 million gallons. The Proposer s projected 25- year consumption for both the existing and new facilities is 1.15 billion gallons. 35. The water appropriations will be subject to the MDNR Water Appropriation Animal Feedlots and Livestock Operations Individual Permit ( Water Appropriations Permit ). The MDNR reviews the permit application upon approval of the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit, which determines final animal numbers and, hence, water consumption. 36. The purpose of the MDNR 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 water quality control. 37. The MDNR Permit Program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the State s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the MDNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator is found to be causing the problem, the operator must correct it. With respect to the reversibility of water appropriation impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project, the MPCA makes the findings set forth below. 38. The prevention of adverse effects on water appropriation due to increased usage of water by livestock is addressed in the MDNR Water Appropriations Permit. 39. The MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water quantity; however, if well interference occurs, the operation and management of the feedlot can be modified, and impacts to waters could be reversed. Therefore, the MPCA finds that the water appropriation impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project are reversible. 40. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to assess potential impacts to the quantity of surface and groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. 41. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to water appropriations that are reasonably expected to occur. Impacts Related to Air Quality 42. The Proposer conducted air quality modeling, required for feedlots undergoing environmental review, which estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and the 6

8 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order intensity of odorous gases at the project s property lines, and at the feedlot s 25 nearest neighbors. The model also considered the air emissions from 11 neighboring feedlots in that same area. The modeling protocol and report were reviewed and approved by the MPCA. Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions 43. Modeling results obtained from the AERMOD model indicated that the Project will not violate the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The AERMOD-predicted maximum project-specific contribution to the ambient hydrogen sulfide concentration was 6.56 parts per billion ( ppb ). When a background hydrogen sulfide concentration of 17 ppb was added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property-line hourly concentration was ppb, which indicates that the half-hour standard of 30 ppb will not be exceeded. Thus, the MPCA does not expect violations of the hydrogen sulfide standard to occur, and the MPCA expects the Project to comply with the applicable air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide. 44. The AERMOD modeling results also indicated that the Project will not cause the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv (inhalation health risk value) to be exceeded at neighboring residences. The estimated facility-specific maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentration among the feedlot s neighbors was 1.05 μg/m 3. When a background concentration of 1 μg/m 3 was added to the AERMOD estimate, the 13-week neighbor hydrogen sulfide maximum concentration was 2.05 μg/m 3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 μg/m 3. Thus, the MPCA does not expect exceedances of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv as a result of the Project. Ammonia Emissions 45. The AERMOD modeling results for ammonia suggests that the Project will not exceed the acute ammonia ihrv. The AERMOD model predicted a maximum hourly property-line concentration of 1,375 µg/m 3. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m 3 was added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property line ammonia concentration was 1,523 μg/m 3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 μg/m The AERMOD results also indicated that the Project will not cause ambient air concentrations of ammonia to exceed the chronic ammonia ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration for the feedlot s neighbors was µg/m 3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m 3 was added to AERMOD estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration for a neighbor was µg/m 3, which is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 µg/m The MPCA does not expect exceedances of the acute or chronic ammonia ihrv as a result of the Project. Odor Emissions 48. Ambient air quality standards are not established to regulate odor in Minnesota. The AERMOD results indicate that construction and operation of the New Facility would not contribute to odor levels above an odor intensity of odor units ( OU )/m 3, defined as a faint odor, at nearby residences. 7

9 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 49. The odor modeling conducted at the Proposer s property line and nearby residents within a 3 x 3 mile domain shows maximum hourly odor intensity of 139 OU, which is above the faint odor threshold of 83 OU and below the moderate odor threshold of 244 OU. However, the modeling indicates that the frequency at which off-site odor intensities exceed the threshold for faint odors is less than 0.25% of the time. By definition, a faint odor can be detected by an average person if attention is called to the odor. Otherwise, the odor would not be noticed. Thus, the MPCA expects that more than 99% of the time, an average person would not detect off-site odors. 50. The Proposer has submitted an air emissions and odor management plan with the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit application for the New Facility. The Proposer will empty below-ground reinforced concrete manure storage pits once per year in the fall. The Proposer will use a pit additive to reduce odors associated with anaerobic conditions in the liquid manure storage pits. In addition, the Proposer will inject all of the manure into the soil upon land application, thus reducing odor potential at the time of application. Although there will be odors, because manure is a source of odor, the total confinement facility design will also help to mitigate odors by limiting exposure to the atmosphere. 51. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, air emissions from the New Facility will continue while it remains in operation and would cease only if the New Facility were temporarily or permanently closed. While the New Facility is in operation, the MPCA expects the Project to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria. 52. If excessive air emissions or violations of the ambient hydrogen sulfide air standards were to occur, or if ihrvs for ammonia were exceeded, air quality impacts are likely to be temporary in nature and corrective measures could be implemented. Such measures could include the initiation of a complaint investigation by the MPCA and requiring the Proposer to make operation and maintenance changes. Therefore, the MPCA finds that the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project are reversible. 53. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to air quality. The MPCA has considered the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project during the review process and finds that appropriate mitigation measures are available and will be required if necessary to prevent significant adverse impacts. 54. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Cumulative Potential Effects 55. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the cumulative potential effects. In making this determination, the MPCA must consider whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other 8

10 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project. Minn. R subp.7.b. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 56. The MPCA s analysis of the New Facility includes consideration of the 2013 expansion of the Existing Facility as a phased action (the addition of 475 AUs). Minn. R , subp. 60. The MPCA s analysis of cumulative potential effects considered both the 2013 expansion and the current aggregate effects of past actions. Minn. R , sub. 11a. 57. 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 result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects. 58. The EAW evaluated the cumulative potential effects for the Project on: Air quality Water quality of surface waters Cumulative Potential Effects on Air Quality 59. The MPCA evaluated cumulative potential effects on air quality by comparing the Minnesota ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide, ihrvs for ammonia, and odor intensity thresholds with concentrations in the air predicted by air modeling. The modeling analysis included the estimated emissions from the Project and incorporated conservative background concentrations to account for the potential impacts of air emissions from other feedlots. Air concentrations were estimated for these pollutants at the 64 residences closest to the Project. 60. All modeled concentrations were below the health-based and nuisance odor criteria used in the analyses. Therefore, the MPCA has determined that cumulative potential effects on air quality will not be significant in the Project area, and the Project will not contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on air quality. Cumulative Potential Effects on Water Quality 61. The proposed New Facility, the Existing Facility, and the majority of proposed manure application sites are located within the Rock River Watershed. A portion of the proposed manure application sites are also located in the Little Sioux River Watershed. Land use in both watersheds is primarily agricultural, dominated by animal and crop production. 62. The Rock River Watershed includes Norwegian Creek, listed as impaired for fecal coliform, Kanaranzi Creek, listed as impaired because of fecal coliform and turbidity, and the Little Rock River, listed as impaired because of E. coli and turbidity. Activities related to surface water impairments in the Rock River Watershed originate from a combination of anthropogenic point source (e.g., inadequately functioning septic systems) and nonpoint source (e.g., agricultural activities) discharges. 9

11 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 63. Kanaranzi Creek, Norwegian Creek, and the Little Rock River are the closest water courses in the same watershed listed on the 2012 Impaired Waters as requiring a Total Maximum Daily Load ( TMDL ). The Little Rock River is listed as impaired for aquatic life based on fecal coliform bacteria and turbidity. The Rock River Fecal Coliform TMDL Report (MPCA Fecal Coliform and Turbidity Assessment for the Rock River Watershed, February 2008) lists incorporated manure as a Low- Moderate contributor to fecal coliform bacteria in the watershed, depending on climatic conditions. Although TMDLS have not been initiated at this time, there has been additional work done to identify stressors, and candidate causes for impairments as well as Monitoring/Assessment Reports prepared for the Little Sioux and Rock River Watersheds, as part of work for the Missouri River Basin Watershed as a whole (September 2014, Missouri River Basin - Upper Big Sioux, Lower Big Sioux, Little Sioux, and Rock River Watersheds Monitoring and Assessment Report). 64. Typical strategies identified for preventing and managing impairments related to manure include buffer strips and buffer set-aside acreage in the Conservation Reserve Program ( CRP ), nutrient and manure management and residue management. The Proposer is currently utilizing the most applicable measures in the MMP now for the manure generated at the Existing Facility and will also be required to utilize the most applicable measures in the MMP that is to be incorporated as an enforceable part of the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit once issued. 65. The proposed manure application sites in the Little Sioux River Watershed are in the western portion of the watershed. Land use in the Little Sioux River Watershed is primarily cropland. In April 2015, the MPCA published the Little Sioux River Watershed Biotic Stressor Identification Report, which provides more details on potential candidate causes for high phosphorus, nitrate-nitrites, altered hydrogeology/connective/geomorphology, and high turbidity/total suspended solids. 66. The surface waters identified as impaired that are closest to those sites are Okabena Lake, the Ocheda (West Basin), and Judicial Ditch No. 6 (Lake Okabena Outflow). Okabena Lake and Ocheda are both listed as impaired because of nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators, and Judicial Ditch No. 6 is listed as impaired because of turbidity. 67. When a lake becomes eutrophic, it is more likely to experience nuisance algal blooms. Large algal blooms in a lake reduce the lake s water clarity and desirability for recreational use. Animal manure is one of many potential sources of phosphorus in a lake watershed. For waters that are impaired, the MPCA must conduct studies that will identify and assess the sources of phosphorus in the watershed and then determine an appropriate total maximum daily loadl (TMDL) of phosphorus for each lake and load allocations of all types of sources. 68. When moving forward with TMDLS, implementation plans will include measures for preventing and managing manure, including those already required through NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit and MMP requirements. 69. The NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit requires that the Facility meet zero discharge standards. As a result, there should be no discharge of manure or manure-contaminated runoff to any waters of the state. 10

12 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 70. The MMP, which becomes an enforceable part of the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit once it has been approved by the MPCA, is designed to be specific to the New Facility s expected manure generation, proposer-controlled and/or third party manure application sites, in order to prevent impacts to any waters of the state. 71. Proper operation and management of the New Facility will prevent the runoff of manure and/or manure-contaminated stormwater runoff from impacting waters of the state, whether or not waters are impaired. 72. Appropriate manure land application practices in adherence with the MPCA-approved MMP for Proposer/Transferred Manure Ownership, will prevent the runoff of manure and/or manurecontaminated stormwater runoff from impacts waters of the state, whether or not waters are impaired. 73. Since the potential effects of the Project on water quality are addressed through the MMP and NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit, the MPCA does not anticipate the Project will contribute to any potential adverse effect on water quality. Therefore, the MPCA does not expect the Project to contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on water quality. 74. Based on information on the Project obtained from air modeling report and feedlot permit application processes and information on surface water quality in the Project area presented in the EAW, and in consideration of potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from this Project. 75. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed does not have the potential to contribute to any significant environmental effects related to cumulative potential effects that are reasonably expected to occur. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 76. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project." Minn. R , subp. 7.C. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 77. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: Unit of Government MPCA Nobles County MDNR MDNR Permit or Approval Required Livestock Production NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit and Manure Management Plan, including NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit requirements Conditional Use Permit Preliminary Well Construction Permit Water Appropriation Permit 11

13 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 78. Minnesota Livestock Production National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System General Permit ( NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit ). The Proposer must obtain an NPDES/SDS General Feedlot and an NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater ( CSW ) Permit for the Project. The NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit incorporates construction and operation requirements, and includes operating plans that address manure management, emergency response protocols, and odor/air quality management. The attachments are an enforceable condition of the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit. The NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit incorporates provisions of the CSW Permit pertinent to livestock operations, thus the Proposer is not required to apply separately for coverage under the CSW Permit. 79. Nobles County Conditional Use Permit. The Proposer is required to obtain all required building and conditional use permits required by local units of government to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The conditional use permit will address local zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that are needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses. 80. MDNR Preliminary Well Construction Permit. The Proposer has been granted preliminary approval to construct a well by the MDNR. This preliminary approval to construct a well contains information provided by MDNR to the Proposer to use to decide whether to proceed in constructing a well and is based largely on information provided by the Proposer. It is not notification to the MDH, and is not a MDNR water use permit. 81. MDNR Water Appropriation Permit. The Proposer must obtain a MDNR Water Appropriation Permit, as the Project will be withdrawing more than 1,000,000 gallons per year. The Proposer estimates an approximate use of 24 million gallons per year for the New Facility. The Proposer will hire a licensed well driller to install a new production well. 82. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 83. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs, Minn. R , subp. 7. D. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 84. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of its environmental review of the Project. Data presented in the EAW Permit applications Air Dispersion Modeling Report Permits and environmental review of similar projects 12

14 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Project Olney Township, Nobles County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 85. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the Project Proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff. 86. The environmental effects of the Project have been addressed by the design and permit development processes, and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects 87. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies by public agencies or the Project Proposer, and staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. 88. The MPCA adopts the rationale stated in the attached Response to Comments (Appendix A) as the basis for response to any issues not specifically addressed in these Findings. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 89. The MPCA is the governmental unit responsible for determining the need for an EIS for this Project. 90. The EAW, the permit development process, 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. 91. 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 and rules. 92. Based on a comparison of the impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the criteria established in Minn. R subp. 7, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 93. Based on the record, the MPCA makes a negative declaration on the need for an EIS for the Project. 94. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. 13

15

16 APPENDIX A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. (Project) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Robin Weis, Southwest Regional Development Commission. Letter received August 5, Kevin Mixon, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received August 12, Colleen Gruis, City of Rushmore. Letter received August 13, Bruce Heitkamp, City of Adrian. Letter received August 17, Amanda Strommer, Minnesota Department of Health. Letter received 8/19/15. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Robin Weis, Southwest Regional Development Commission (SWRDC). Letter received August 5, Comment 1-1: Project will need to request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the Nobles County Feedlot Ordinance. Ordinance requires new or existing feedlot with a capacity of more than 5,000 Animal Units (AUs) be one mile from a rural residence. The project has two residences within that distance. Response: The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has made note and concurs with the comment provided by the SWRDC. The EAW does reference the requirement to obtain a conditional use permit from Nobles County, Minnesota. Comment 1-2: We recommend the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services (USFWS) be contacted in regards to the critical habitat identified within the proposal. Response: The MPCA is required to send a copy of all EAWs to the USFWS, and as such, sent a copy of the R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. EAW for their review and comment. Comment 1-3: The SWRDC contacted Nobles County Environmental Services, and based on their conversation regarding wellhead protection areas, distance from streams, and items included in their permit, SWRDC is confident that items addressed by MPCA have been carefully dealt with. Response: The MPCA has made note of the comment provided by the SWRDC.

17 R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Nobles County, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 2. Kevin Mixon, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Letter received July 12, Comment 2-1: MDNR notes that several manure application sites are located near segments of Kanaranzi Creek, Little Rock Creek, and the Little Rock River and unnamed streams the MDNR designated as critical habitat for the Topeka Shiner. MDNR advises that the USFWS designates critical habitat for Topeka Shiners as indicated in Attachment F [to the EAW]. Response: The MDNR correctly notes the proximity of several of the manure application sites, to water bodies, including those federally designated as critical habitat for the Topeka Shiner. The Topeka Shiner is a federally-listed endangered and state-listed special concern. The Proposer has applied for coverage of both the Existing Facility and the New Facility under the General Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operation (CAFO) Livestock Production Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit/State Disposal System Permit MNG (NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit). The NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit requires the Permittee to develop, maintain, implement, and annually update a Manure Management Plan (MMP), and also outlines requirements of what is to be included in the MMP. The MMP, once approved by the MPCA, becomes an enforceable part of the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit. The Proposer has stated in the EAW as well as draft submitted MMP that liquid manure will be land applied via soil injection. Land application of manure to any fields, regardless of the ownership of the field, or manure, must comply with the setback to water requirements of Minn. R. ch These setbacks have been developed to provide protection to water resources. In addition, must be done in accordance with the most stringent of applicable state and federal rules. For example, the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit prohibits the application of liquid manure during winter time conditions, and places restrictive conditions on the application of solid manure during the winter period as well. Furthermore, land application must be done in accordance with the most stringent of applicable state and federal rules. For example, if county setback requirements are more stringent than the State Feedlot Rules (Minn. R ), the county setback requirements are to be followed. If the MDNR Shoreland Management requirements or the newly adopted Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices Act are applicable, and either/both are more stringent than either or both local or state feedlot setback requirements, these are to be met. Comment 2-2: MDNR Letter [Attachment F to the EAW] also recommended coordination with the USFWS concern potential impacts to Topeka shiners. The EAW did not include any correspondence with the USFWS concerning the manure application sites that are directly adjacent to the designated habitat for the species. The MDNR recommends that coordination occur with the USFWS Twin Cities Field Office prior to MPCA approval [issuance] of the Feedlot Permit and Manure Management Plan. Response: Please see responses to 1-2 and 2-1. The MPCA NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit requirements have been developed to ensure applicable requirements are met, including but not limited to land application sites located near waters of the state. Comment 2-3: The MDNR notes that several manure application sites adjacent to public watercourses. The newly adopted Riparian Protection and Water Quality Practices (Minn. Stat. 103F.48) requires a 2

18 R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Nobles County, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 50-foot perennial rooted vegetated buffer from public waters that is designed to protect the state s water resources. The MPCA should review the new statute to ensure the MPCA 25-foot setback from lakes and streams and MDNR protected wetlands, for manure incorporation for phosphorus management, is in compliance with the required 50-foot average width vegetated buffer from public waters as required by Minn. Stat. 103F.48. Response: MPCA staff is familiar with the new legislation that has been adopted. Because of the brief time frame since the adoption of this legislation, many of the requirements included in this legislation have not yet been implemented or required (for example, the requirements for local water resources riparian protection are to be in place by July 1, 2017, the MDNR s creation of a buffer protection map, with buffers on public waters, are to be in place by November 1, 2017, and buffers on public drainage systems are to be in place by November 1, 2018). However, unless specifically exempted in the legislation, standard provisions of the NPDES/SDS feedlot permits, as well as those of other permits, require permittees to meet all applicable state and federal rules, including the new statute. Where there are conflicting requirements, including setbacks for land application of manure, unless specifically exempted in law, the permittee is required to follow the most stringent requirement applicable. Comment 2-4: The MDNR notes the Nobles County Land Use Ordinance under Tributary Watercourses (609.37), indicates the General Manure Management Regulations for streams and rivers for incorporation is 50 feet. Response: The Proposer s MMP identifies that manure will be incorporated within 12 hours in such areas. Comment 2-5: Future EAWs and permits should clearly indicate the required setbacks from public waters based on the standard MPCA Animal Waste Land Application Setback Distances, County Zoning Ordinances, or Minn. Stat. 103F.48. Increase the manure incorporation to the required 50-foot public waters buffer will improve water quality and benefit the Topeka shiner (federally-listed) and Pugnose shiner (state-listed threatened). Response: See response to 2-3. The MPCA notes the comment. The MPCA notes that the Proposer s MMP, which is an enforceable part of the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit, has been approved, and includes maps and aerial photos showing field locations, acreage, and sensitive features. The Minnesota feedlot rules as well as the NPDES/SDS General Feedlot Permit requires the MMP include identification of fields not suitable for land application manure, and special measures to be taken in drinking water supply management areas where the well is vulnerable. Owners and applicators of transferred manure are required to follow the Minnesota feedlot rules. The use of land application sites may vary from year to year. In addition, owners of transferred manure are required to submit information to the Proposer about the land application of the transferred manure. The Proposer is required to keep this on file. As the MMP must be annually updated, the Proposer s MMP is going to have the most current and accurate information on manure management, including the information about land application sites. This is a public document, and available upon request. 3

19 R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Nobles County, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 3. Colleen Gruis, City Clerk-Treasurer, on behalf of the city of Rushmore. Letter received August 13, Comment 3-1: The city of Rushmore experiences many, many days of odor of cattle feedlot and manure application odor from Dewald Section 20. The Rushmore City Council approved a resolution on August 10, 2015 (attached). The city of Rushmore is asking that R & R Their Feedlots, Inc. not be allowed to stockpile, spread, or incorporate manure in Dewald Section 20, Olney Section 25 or any section within one mile of the city of Rushmore. Response: There are currently no state odor standards in Minnesota. Emissions of hydrogen sulfide, a regulated air emissions and a significant source of odor in manure, are elevated during periods of when manure is being removed from feedlot storage facilities. There may also some be odors associated during land application of manure, although odor disperses fairly quickly during land application. The Proposer has stated that all manure will be injected or incorporated into the soil, not just surface spread, so odor will be even less of an issue during and after land application of manure. Air modeling is done for feedlots to estimate inhalation risk values for the amount of ammonia and hydrogen sulfide. The Proposer conducted air modeling for the New Facility with an MPCA-approved software tool (AERMOD) that measured ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, as well as odors. The air modeling showed that the New Facility would not be expected to exceed the hydrogen sulfide and ammonia inhalation health risk standards. The air modeling also showed that the New Facility would not contribute to odor levels above an odor intensity of odor unit, defined as a faint odor, at nearby residences. The frequency at which faint odors would be at a faint odor beyond the New Facility property boundary would occur less than.25% of the time. By definition, a faint odor can be detected by an average person if attention is called to the odor, otherwise the odor would not be noticed. As a result, more than 99% of the time, an average person would not detect off-site odors. 4. Bruce Heitkamp, City Administrator/Clerk-Treasurer, on behalf of the city of Adrian. Letter received August 17, Comment 4-1: The city of Adrian is only concerned with the application of manure to Olney Township Sections 18 and 20. The city of Adrian s Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). The City s drinking water derives from the afore-mentioned sections [within DWSMA, and shown on attachment to letter] prior to being extracted from wells within Section 18. The City would appreciate if manure isn t applied within Sections 18 and 20 of Olney Township. Response: The city of Adrian, like many other communities in Minnesota, has a public water supply well for City residents. The City s DWSMA is shown on the attachment to the comment letter. The DWSMA encompasses portions of Township Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 29, and 30. The city of Adrian also has a designated wellhead protection area within the DWSMA, and also shown on the attachment to their comment letter. The City s designated wellhead protection area encompasses most of the area within the DWSMA, including Sections 18 and 20. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) rules 4720 and 4725 includes provisions for communities to develop, implement and maintain wellhead protection plans. Communities are required to meet both isolation distances for placement of public water and community supply wells (Minn. R. 4725). Communities are also required to maintain an inner wellhead 4

20 R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Nobles County, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet management zone, and manage the area around a water supply well so that potential sources of contamination are not placed, constructed, or installed and negatively impacting the water supply well. The MDH rules do not list specific setback requirements for the land application of manure. Land application sites are, by their very nature, agricultural sites that receive fertilizers, whether from commercially prepared chemical fertilizers or from manure. Manure can and is used in place of chemical fertilizers for the application rates. One benefit of applying manure to the soils instead of commercial fertilizer is that manure can help build soil tilth which enables the soils to better retain applied nutrients within the soil profile for utilization by the crops. Nitrogen from all sources must not exceed agronomic rates as defined by the local land grant universities. Finally, Minnesota feedlot rules (Minn. R Land Application of Manure) require that manure not be applied to land in a manner that will result in a discharge to waters of the state, including groundwater, during the application process, or cause pollution of waters of the state, including groundwater, due to manure-contaminated runoff. The commenter references communication between the City and the Proposer such that it appears there is ongoing, positive and clear discussion about the needs and goals of both parties, which is also important in ensuring the protection of the public water supply. 5. Amanda Strommer, Minnesota Department of Health. Letter received August 19, Comment 5-1: One of the potential manure application transfer sites within Adrian s DWSMA is immediately upgradient of Adrian s wells. Adrian s wells are cased to depths around feet below grade. The management of manure and possibility of a manure spill or release in this area is a concern due to vulnerability of the aquifer to land use contaminants and close proximity of this site to Adrian s water supply. Response: See response to 4-1. The MPCA feedlot requirements, both in rule and through permitting, provide substantial provisions for preventing the improper application of manure, reducing the potential for spills and releases, and mitigating both should that occur. Comment 5-2: The EAW should recognize that the city of Adrian currently operates a nitrate removal plant and the city s water supply has a high vulnerability rating to land use impacts. The city of Adrian s DWSMA is conjunctive, meaning that overland flow of contaminants can in a very short time impact the city s aquifer and water supply. Response: Comment noted. Please see response to Comment 4-1. The EAW discusses the actions the Proposer shall take to meet requirements, including those within the vicinity of a DSWMA. As also discussed in the EAW, nitrogen from manure sources replace nitrogen from commercial fertilizer sources, and that nitrogen applied from all sources will not exceed agronomic rates as defined by the local land grant universities. EAW Attachments E1, E2, identifies special protection areas. EAW Attachment G also identifies the wellhead protection areas, Worthington s source water area, and areas of both high and low vulnerability for drinking water. Although the EAW does provide discussion about the sensitivity of soils for both the feedlot and manure application sites, the MPCA appreciates the MDH s comment to provide more specificity about the soils at community DSWMAs. Comment 5-3: Producers accepting or handling manure in the Adrian DWSMA should be aware of proper timing and incorporation of manure applications. Producers accepting or handling manure in the 5

21 R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Nobles County, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Adrian DWSMA should be aware of the potential impact of a manure spill on the Adrian DWSMA, and have a plan in place to be able to immediately response and clean up a manure spill or release. Response: See response to 4-1. In addition to the applicable feedlot requirements regarding information that the Proposer is required to provide to third parties regarding manure management, all parties that accept and handle manure are required to understand and meet the Minn. R Land Application of Manure. The Proposer is required to and has developed an emergency response plan that lists critical phone numbers to call, as well as spill responses procedures if a spill were to happen. Comment 5-4: The EAW text includes no reference to the city of Worthington s Public Water Supply or Wellhead Protection Plan. There are two potential land application sites in close proximity to the city of Worthington s Public Utilities Malcom Wellhead Protection (WHP) Area DWSMA. As with the city of Adrian, there are potential land application sites that are vulnerable (high and moderate). Producers accepting or handling manure in the city of Worthington s Public Utilities Malcom Wellhead WHP Area/DWSMA should be aware of proper timing and incorporation of manure applications, DWSMA should be aware of the potential impact of a manure spill in the WHP Area/DWSMA, and have a plan in place to be able to immediately response and clean up a manure spill or release. Response: The responses to comments 4-1, and 5-3 about the city of Adrian s DWSMA and wellhead protection plans, including the feedlot rules that prohibit discharges of manure to waters of the state, and prevent manure-contaminated runoff from reaching waters of the state, are also applicable to the city of Worthington s Public Utilities Malcom Wellhead WHP Area/DWSMA. Comment 5-5: The commenter notes there are two residences within one mile of the feedlot and the EAW explanation as given as to how this is inconsistent with the Nobles County Feedlot Ordinances. As a result shouldn t the answer to the question regarding inconsistencies with any ordinance be checked yet? Response: As noted in the EAW, the Proposer will apply to the Nobles County Board of Adjustment for a variance from the Nobles County Feedlot Ordinance. The Nobles County Feedlot Ordinance, Section Variance, provides for applying for and receiving a variance, therefore the variance application process is not inconsistent with the ordinance. Comment 5-6: Attachments E1 and E2 show manure application will occur within some zones designated as Special Protection Areas along waters. Is manure application permitted in these areas? If so, what measures are taken to ensure that that these areas do not become contaminated as a result of manure application? Response: As noted in the EAW and in previous responses, the Proposer, as well as other handlers of manure, is required to meet the most stringent of all applicable state and/or local rules, including those that restrict or prohibit the land application of manure. The identification of manure land application sites on the EAW attachments should not be construed as approval for the land application of manure or exemption from meeting manure land application requirements. The sites are identified as agricultural areas where land application of manure may occur, but only in accordance with all applicable state and/or local rules. In addition, the Proposer s MMP does identify the specific practices that will be followed within any special protection area. Generally, the identified practices includes: no application of manure within 25 feet, and incorporation of any manure within 300 feet of the sensitive features (the requirements do vary based on the type of sensitive feature.) 6

22 1 From: To: Subject: Date: Rhonda Wynia Drach, Nancy (MPCA) R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. / Project Review from SW Regional Development Commission Office. Wednesday, August 05, :42:05 AM Ms. Drach: In regards to the following Project Review, if needed, the contact person at the SW Regional Development Commission Office is Robin Weis, SRDC Economic Development Director. Her is Robin@swrdc.org Southwest Regional Development Commission Project Review Agenda Item: 6 Meeting Date: Subject: Mandatory EAW for Beef Cattle Feedlot R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. Construction Project Committee Action Status or Schedule Report Information X _ Background / Rationale: Description: R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. is proposing a new total confinement beef cattle feedlot facility (2 identical monoslope roof barns which are 66 wide and 1440 long with 12 deep pits) in the south half of Section 22, Onley Township, Nobles County. The new barns each have a 3,000 animal unit capacity. R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. has an existing facility, with 5,475 animal unit capacity, located in the west half of Section 26, Olney Township, Nobles County. The new barns are located about ½ mile from the existing facility. The total number of animal unit capacity after construction is 11,475. Construction is proposed for late summer thru late fall. Each of the new total confinement barns will have the following: concrete pits and perimeter drain tiles to maintain hydrostatic pressure in the pits. There is also a stormwater retention pond to collect precipitation-only runoff and a perimeter drain tile around the retention pond to maintain hydrostatic pressure in the pond. Manure application sites are located within 20 miles of the proposed new facility and are located in Bigelow, Dewald, Larkin, Little Rock, Lorain, Magnolia, Olney, Ransom, Summit Lake, Vienna, Westside and Worthington townships in MN and Wilson township in Iowa. A vast majority of manure will be transferred and sold from R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc to third parties for application at agronomic rates. Manure will be collected in the steel-reinforced, concrete storage. The majority of the manure will be removed in the fall with any remaining amount removed in the spring as fertilizer replacement. Both the new and existing barns will be covered under one multi-site National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. Watersheds involved include Rock River and Little Sioux River. A new Production Well and an Observation Well was drilled at the new facility to provide drinking water to the livestock and for the purpose of monitoring aquifer levels in a constant-rate aquifer test. Expanded power is needed for the location as well as phone service. A standby generator will be accessible.

23 Staff comments: The MPCA identified the following natural resources as concerns: ground water, surface waters, air quality and land use. MPCA does not anticipate the project will contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect to ground-water resources in the area. A contact was made to the City of Adrian as 2 potential land application sites are located within the city of Adrian s Source Water Protection Area. MPCA does not anticipate the project will result in an adverse cumulative potential effect of surface-water quality. MPCA feels no additional impact to wildlife habitat is anticipated as a result of this expansion. MPCA studies indicate that no significant air quality impacts are expected from the project. Nobles County Public Works Department feels that the additional traffic identified within the proposal is not to be a significant contribution to existing traffic load. Applicant had stated within the proposal that they will maintain and repair Erickson Avenue (Township Road) if this project causes a negative impact to the road. The project will need to request a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the Nobles County Feedlot Ordinance as the ordinance requires new or existing feedlot with a capacity of more than 5,000 AU be one mile from a rural residence. The project has 2 residences within that distance. I would recommend that the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services be contacted in regards to the critical habitat identified within the proposal. A contact was made to Nobles County Environmental Services. Based on our conversation regarding wellhead protections areas, distance from streams, and items included in their permit, I am confident that the items addressed by MPCA have been carefully dealt with. Staff Review: Robin Weis, Economic Development Director Review time: 2 hours

24 2

25

26 3 From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments: Drach, Nancy (MPCA) wsmith R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. EAW Public Comments Thursday, August 13, :01:41 PM Scan0018.pdf Dear Ms. Drach, I have attached a copy of the Resolution approved by the Rushmore City Council on August 10th. The City of Rushmore currently experiences many, many days of cattle feedlot and manure application odor from Dewald section 20. During a recent public hearing regarding a confinement hog nursery expansion, Rushmore residents expressed concern about excessive manure odors carrying into city limits. We are asking that R & R Thier Feedlots, Inc. not be allowed to stockpile, spread or incorporate manure in Dewald section 20, Olney section 25 or any section within one mile of the City of Rushmore. Thank you for your consideration, Coleen Gruis City of Rushmore Clerk/Treasurer

27

28 4

29

30 5 Protecting, maintaining and improving the health of all Minnesotans August 19, 2015 Nancy Drach Resource Management and Assistance Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN Dear Ms. Drach: Subject: R&R Thier Feedlot Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Drinking Water Protection Program appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the R&R Thier Feedlot EAW. The mission of MDH is to protect, maintain, and improve the health of all Minnesotans. The Drinking Water Protection Program protects public health by ensuring a safe and adequate supply of drinking water at all public water systems, which are those that serve water to the public. Adrian Wellhead Protection Area The EAW describes two potential manure land application sites within the City of Adrian s Wellhead Protection (WHP) Area. The physical boundary of the WHP area for the city wells is referred to as the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). The City of Adrian recently adopted an amendment to their Wellhead Protection Plan on April 13, Based on Attachment G Drinking Water/Well Inventory Map in the EAW the two potential sites are located within the Adrian Wellhead Protection (WHP) Area/Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA). One of the potential manure application transfer sites within the Adrian DWSMA is immediately up gradient of the city s wells. The city wells are cased to depths around feet below grade. The management of manure and possibility of a manure spill or release in this area is a concern due to vulnerability of the aquifer to land use contaminants and close proximity of this site to the city s water supply. The EAW should recognize that the City of Adrian currently operates a nitrate removal plant and that the city s water supply has a high vulnerability rating to land use impacts. The City of Adrian s DWSMA is conjunctive, meaning that overland flow of contaminants can in a very short time impact the city s aquifer and water supply. Producers accepting or handling manure in the Adrian DWSMA should be aware of the potential impact of a manure spill on Adrian s Public Water Supply and have a plan in place to be able to immediately respond and clean up a manure spill or release. Producers accepting or handling manure in the Adrian DWSMA should be aware of proper timing and incorporation of manure applications. Manure application on frozen ground, or without incorporation into the soil, before spring runoff or storms may result in surface water runoff. The contaminated runoff may recharge the sensitive aquifer. General Information: Toll-free: An equal opportunity employer