ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings of Fact, Conclusion of Law, and Order 5/24/07

Transcription

1

2

3 The 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 , 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 proposed Project s potential to negatively impact air and water quality. The preparation of an EIS was requested in two 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, Conclusion of Law, and Order 5/24/07

4 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Regional Division Environmental Review and Operations Section Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project 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 November 27, 2007 ISSUE STATEMENT The Revier Cattle Company, Inc., located in Section 17 of Norfolk Township, Renville County, is proposing to expand its existing 4,500-animal unit (AU), open-lot operation by building two new total confinement barns to house an additional 3,000 AUs each (Project). If approved and constructed, the expanded facility and the existing operation would be covered under the same general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Feedlot Permit with a total capacity of 10,500 AUs. The proposed barns will be total confinement barns, naturally ventilated, and built with slatted floors. A precast reinforced concrete pit 420 feet long, 216 feet wide, and 12 feet deep, will be constructed beneath the slatted floors of each barn, and each pit will be capable of providing over 12 months of manure storage. The manure will be applied and incorporated at agronomic rates, as directed in the Manure Management Plan. Solid manure from the existing open-lot operation will primarily be broadcast in the fall, although some late summer applications are planned following sweet corn and pea crops. Liquid manure collected and stored in deep concrete pits beneath the new total confinement barns will be agitated and knife injected in the fall. The 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 , 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 proposed Project s potential to negatively impact air and water quality. The preparation of an EIS was requested in two 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.

5 I. BACKGROUND: The existing facility is permitted for 4,500 AUs, and consists of eight open cattle lots, one manure storage pad, and storage bays for feed and equipment. The proposed expansion includes the construction of a stormwater pond, and two naturally ventilated, total confinement barns with slatted floors. Each barn will be 420 feet by 200 feet, will be designed to house up to 3,000 AUs, and will be equipped with a precast concrete pit beneath the slatted floor. Each pit will be capable of storing over 12 months of manure. The proposed Project also includes 32 manure application fields located within 12 miles of the facility. The manure will be applied at agronomic rates, as directed in the Manure Management Plan. Each fall, the manure stored in the pits will be agitated, pumped, and field injected at agronomic rates. Solid manure from the existing open-lots will be applied in the fall (and sometimes in late summer following sweet corn and pea crops) and will be incorporated within 24 hours. Approximately 2,900 acres of farm land are required for manure management, and the Project proposer has access to over 5,000 acres of farm land for manure application. 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 AUs, as specified in Minn. R , subp. 29A. As a result, MPCA staff prepared the EAW for the proposed Project. The EAW was placed on public notice on August 13, 2007, which started the 30-day public comment period that ended on September 12, Six comment letters were received during the comment period. Two of those letters requested the preparation of an EIS. The MPCA s written responses to the comments are provided in Attachment B. After the environmental review process, the proposed Project will seek a zoning variance from the Renville County Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals, and apply for a Conditional Use Permit from the Renville County Planning Commission. The proposed Project will also require an individual Water 2

6 Appropriation Permit from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. If the proposed Project is approved and constructed, the existing and proposed facility will operate under one MPCA NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit for a total of 10,500 AUs. II. DISCUSSION: Minn. R 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 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 and Ammonia Emissions, and Odors Page 4 Ground-water impacts Page 6 Surface-water impacts Page 7 Water Appropriation Page 8 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 3

7 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 conclude 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. SUGGESTED STAFF RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED, that, in accordance with the standard and criteria set forth in Minn. R , the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) approves and adopts the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, which conclude that the proposed Project analyzed in this Environmental Assessment Worksheet and proposed by the Revier Cattle Company, Inc., 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. 4

8 ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED REVIER CATTLE COMPANY, INC. FEEDLOT EXPANSION PROJECT NORFOLK TOWNSHIP RENVILLE COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R (2006), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project. Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, comments, and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Facility History Overview Revier Cattle Co., Inc. proposes to expand its existing beef cattle feedlot operation located in Section 17 of Norfolk Township, Renville County. The existing feedlot operation consists of open lots and partial confinement barns capable of housing 4,500 animal units (AUs). The proposed project will involve the construction and operation of two naturally ventilated, freestall, total confinement barns to house 3,000 AUs each, for a total increase of 6,000 AUs (Project). Permitting History The existing feedlot is permitted under the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Feedlot Permit (number MNG440929) that was issued February 15, 2007, and will expire on May 31, 2011, if not reissued before that date. Prior to the issuance of the existing general permit, the facility operated under an individual NPDES/SDS Permit (number MN ), which was issued November 27, Previous Environmental Review No environmental reviews were required or completed for previous activities undertaken at the facility. Compliance/Enforcement History The MPCA and Renville County feedlot programs have no records of enforcement actions against the existing feedlot. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

9 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Norfolk Township, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Proposed Project Description Proposed New Construction As indicated, the proposed Project will involve the construction and operation of two naturally ventilated, freestall, total confinement barns. Each barn will be 420 feet long by 200 feet wide and constructed with slatted floors, and beneath each floor will be a pre-cast, reinforced concrete manure storage pit capable of providing over 12 months of manure storage. Each fall, the manure will be pumped from the pits and injected at agronomic rates into designated cropland as fertilizer. Renville County Ditch No. 124, which runs north to south through the property, separates the existing feedlot from the area proposed for the new barns. The existing feedlot is west, and proposed barns will be located east, respectively, of County Ditch No The two barns will be constructed 200 feet apart, oriented east-west along their lengths, and positioned north and south relative to one another. A surface water runoff basin will be constructed between the two proposed barns and the ditch, and all stormwater runoff will be diverted to the basin for temporary storage before discharging to County Ditch 124, which flows into Birch Coulee Creek, and then to the Minnesota River (approximately ten miles south of the feedlot facility). An existing field access bridge over County Ditch No. 124 will provide adequate vehicle movement between the existing facility and the proposed barns. The existing facility is equipped with the necessary infrastructure to provide support services (i.e., feeding, medical, scale, etc.) for the proposed Project. Environmental Concerns Because the proposed Project exceeds the current EAW threshold of 1,000 AUs for feedlot facilities, the preparation of an EAW was mandatory (as required by Minn. R , subp. 29). Environmental concerns related to feedlot facilities generally include: Air quality (i.e., hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, odors, and dust) Ground-water impacts Surface-water impacts Water appropriation Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters Comment letters received for the proposed Project generally reiterated the environmental concerns identified above. Community Involvement in Process The EAW was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB Monitor on August 13, 2007 (Vol. 31, No. 17), and comments were accepted on the EAW from August 13, 2007, until 4:30 p.m. on September 12, The proposed Project would require a variance from the Renville County zoning ordinance that limits the feedlot capacity to 2,000 AUs. This variance process will involve a public notice and a public hearing, to be held by the Renville County Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals. If the variance request is approved, the Project proposer would move forward with the Conditional Use Permit process, which also involves a public notice and a public hearing, to be held by the Renville County Planning Commission. 2

10 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Norfolk Township, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Procedural History 1. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 29, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R (2006), the EAW was distributed to the EQB mailing list and other interested parties on August 10, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. On August 10, 2007, the MPCA provided a news release to Renville, Kandiyohi, Redwood, McLeod, Brown, and Sibley counties, as well as other interested parties. The EAW was also made available for review on the MPCA Web site at on August 10, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on August 13, The public comment period for the EAW began on August 13, 2007, and ended on September 12, During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received three comment letters from government agencies and three comment letters from citizens. 4. The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during the 30-day public comment period. Comment letters received have been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to these findings. The MPCA responses to comments received are hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix B to these findings. Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 5. Under Minn. R (2006), the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R , subp. 7 (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 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. 3

11 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Norfolk Township, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria are Set Forth Below Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 6. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R , subp. 7.A (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 and ammonia emissions Odors from barns and land application sites 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 odor 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 accounted for the potential air quality contributions of the Project on existing air quality conditions. The existing air quality conditions include other off-site air emission sources, which is a part of the air quality cumulative potential effects analysis. An Air Quality Modeling Report was prepared for the proposed Project, which predicted odorous gas concentrations and odor intensities at the effective property lines and at 15 of the proposed feedlot s nearest neighbors. The Air Quality Modeling Protocol is provided in Appendix C and the Air Quality Modeling Report is provided in Appendix D. Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, and Odor Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia gases are created at feedlots when manure is broken down by bacteria, and these gases are potentially harmful when encountered at high levels. Air quality modeling was performed that estimated the concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia at the property lines and nearest neighbors. The modeling was based on estimated hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emission rates from the livestock units. Background concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, developed from air quality monitoring data in Minnesota were considered in these calculations to account for potential cumulative air impacts. Odor was evaluated using air emission values for odor developed from livestock operations in Minnesota. Again, the air quality modeling estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor at the property lines for the proposed Project and at 15 of the proposed Project s nearest neighbors. A summary of the air quality modeling results is provided below: 4

12 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Norfolk Township, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Modeling Results Property Boundary Hydrogen Sulfide Results 1 (ppb) Acute Ammonia Results 2 (µg/m 3 ) North , Near East , East , South , Near South , West , Background (values are included with reported results) Odor Results 3 (odor units) N/A Notes: 1 Maximum hourly hydrogen sulfide concentration at property lines. State ambient hydrogen sulfide air quality standard: 30 ppb half-hour average. 2 Maximum hourly ammonia concentration at property lines. Acute inhalation health risk value for ammonia: one hour average of 3,200 µg/m 3. 3 Maximum hourly odor intensities at property lines. Odor impact assessment based on odor intensity correlation for cattle (in odor units). A value of 83 odor units is considered faint odor and detectable by an average person if attention is called to the odor. A value of 244 odor units is considered moderate odor. ppb = parts per billion µg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter The air modeling results suggest that the proposed Project will comply with the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. When a background concentration of 17 ppb (v/v) is added, the maximum estimated property-line hydrogen sulfide is ppb, which is below the standard of 30 ppb. The modeling results also suggest that the proposed Project will not exceed the acute inhalation health risk value ammonia. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m 3 is added, the highest estimated property-line concentration for ammonia is 3,040 μg/m 3, which is below the acute inhalation health risk value for ammonia of 3,200 μg/m 3. The air modeling results suggest that detectable concentrations of hydrogen sulfide will exist offsite. An analysis was performed to determine the frequency at which the CALPUFF-generated odor intensity exceeded the reported threshold for a faint odor of 83 odor units. For each property line, the receptor with the highest estimated odor intensity did not exceed the threshold for a faint odor more than 1.5 percent of the time. A faint odor has been described as an odor that an average person might detect if attention is called to the odor, but the odor would not otherwise be noticed. 5

13 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Norfolk Township, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Dust During construction, normal noise and dust associated with earth moving equipment and construction will be generated. However, because the construction activities will be short term, adverse impacts as a result of these activities are not anticipated. Following construction, fugitive dust sources are expected to be minimal due to grass seeding, confinement of livestock to the barns, and graveled driveways. 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, the MPCA could initiate a complaint investigation and require the Project proposer to make operational and maintenance changes to minimize impacts. 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: Comment letters 1 and 2 (Appendix A) expressed a general concern for air quality. As discussed above in Findings 8 and 9, the analysis indicates that the effects on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 11. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts have been developed. 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 and the planned implementation of the Project s 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 will be minimal. 6

14 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Norfolk Township, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order In order to avoid contaminating the ground water at the proposed barn sites, the proposed total confinement barns will be constructed with slatted floors, and a pre-cast reinforced concrete manure storage pit (capable of storing over 12 months of manure) will be constructed below each slatted floor. This type of manure containment system has been installed at numerous feedlot facilities nationwide. In order to avoid contaminating the ground water at the manure application sites, the manure will be incorporated into the soil at agronomic rates. These rates take into account the levels of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous) that will be utilized by the crops planted on the manureapplied fields, thereby reducing the possibility that excess nutrients will infiltrate down into the ground water. The details of the manure application methods to be implemented as part of this proposed Project are outlined in the Project s MMP, which has been reviewed by the MPCA and found to be adequately protective of ground water. In addition, all setback requirements will be observed around the water supply and irrigation 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 the Project s 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. The location of the proposed Project is in an area that is currently being used for agricultural production. After construction, surface-water runoff will increase at the proposed feedlot site due to an increase in impervious surfaces, mainly from the construction of roofed buildings. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan has been prepared for the proposed Project that addresses potential impacts to surface waters. It is anticipated that the grass that will be seeded around the barns will absorb and filter the surface-water runoff. In the event of a large rainfall, the surrounding agricultural fields in the area will act as infiltration/water storage sites through a combination of crops and soil. Construction of the livestock units will be regulated under the construction stormwater provision of the NPDES/SDS Permit that will be required for the proposed Project. In order to avoid contaminating the surface waters located near manure application sites, the manure will be incorporated directly into the soil within 24-hours after land application, which substantially reduces the potential for contaminants in manure to come into contact with runoff water. The incorporation of the manure into the soil will be done at agronomic rates. These rates take into account the levels of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorous) that will be utilized by the crops planted on the manure-applied fields, thereby reducing the possibility that excess nutrients will come in contact with surface water. The details of the manure application methods to be implemented as part of this proposed Project are outlined in the project s MMP, which has been reviewed by the MPCA and found to be adequately protective of surface waters. In addition, the MPCA and 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. 7

15 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Norfolk Township, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Water Appropriation The water demand for the existing feedlot operation is approximately ten gallons per minute. In total, the estimated water needs for the existing facility and the proposed expansion will be approximately 22.0 million gallons per year, which can be satisfied with a sustained pumping rate of approximately 42 gallons per minute (roughly four times the present pumping rate). While this need can be met with the existing facility s well, which has the capacity to supply 60 gallons per minute, a new well will be drilled to supply the water needed for the proposed Project. In the long term, approximately 550 million gallons will be needed to operate the facility over the next 25 years. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was consulted on the issues related to water supply and potential well interference. The DNR reviewed information from wells drilled in the area and concluded that there is sufficient ground water to supply residences and feedlots in the area. 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. If water quality impacts are identified, they could be reversed through remediation or the implementation of additional best management practices. 16. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality: Five of six comment letters received expressed concern related to surface and ground-water quality. As discussed above in Findings 14 and 15, the analysis indicates that the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 17. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed 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 , 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

16 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Norfolk Township, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 21. Public comments concerning cumulative effects: The MPCA did not receive any public comments concerning cumulative effects. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the Project, including the EAW, the air quality modeling protocol and results, the NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit Application, the MMP, and information presented by the commenters, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this Project. 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 , 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 MPCA County County DNR Type of Application NPDES/SDS Feedlot/Construction Stormwater Permit Zoning Variance Conditional Use Permit Individual Water Appropriation Permit 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 , 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 expansion of the proposed Project: the EAW, the protocol and results of air quality modeling, the NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit Application, and the MMP. 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. 9

17 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Norfolk Township, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 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, the responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the 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 (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 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot 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 10

18 APPENDIX A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Revier Cattle Company, Inc., Feedlot Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Larry and Margaret Revier, Olivia. Letter received September 4, Mary Elbert, Representative for the Concerned Citizens of Renville County (Douglas Elbert, Judy Elbert, Joseph Schulte, and Monica Kahout). Fax received September 11, Ronald Wieland, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received September 12, Stephen W. Robertson, Minnesota Department of Health. Fax received September 12, Scott Refsland, Renville County. Letter received September 7, Jeff and Tami Revier, Josh Revier, Scott Revier, and Mark Revier, Olivia. Letter received September 12, 2007.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 APPENDIX B Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project (Project) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Larry and Margaret Revier, Olivia. Letter received September 4, Comment 1-1: The commenters expressed concerns about the proposed feedlot project and requested an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Response 1-1: The comment is noted. The MPCA Citizens Board will convene on November 27, 2007, to determine if the proposed Project will require further environmental review in the form of an EIS. The MPCA Citizens Board meeting is open to the public, and you are encouraged to attend and provide comment. You will be provided a copy of the MPCA Citizens Board Agenda as part of this correspondence. Comment 1-2: The commenters stated that they are long-time residences, live slightly more than one mile from the proposed site, and are among the feedlot s 15 closest neighbors. The commenters added that since its beginning, they have witnessed firsthand the management practices of the Revier Cattle Company. Response 1-2: By this comment, the MPCA understands that the commenters have misgivings about the management practices at the existing Revier Cattle Company s feedlot facility. However, there are no records of complaints against the existing feedlot on file with either Renville County or the MPCA. Comment 1-3: The commenters cited a Renville County Feedlot Regulation (Section 6, Item 2), which limits a new or an expanded feedlot capacity to less than 2,000 animal units (AU). The commenters also observed that the existing feedlot, with its 4,500 AUs, is already operating at 225 percent of that limit, and the proposed expansion of 6,000 AUs would put the feedlot at 525 percent of that limit. The commenters asserted that the 2,000 AU limit is in place to protect the health and safety of the residents of Renville County and should be enforced. Response 1-3: The commenters are correct. Chapter 8, Section 6, Item 2 of the Renville County Land Use Ordinance states that a new feedlot, or the expansion of an existing feedlot, shall not exceed a density of 2,000 animal units. However, the same ordinance (Chapter 8, Section 1) also aims to protect the Renville County s natural resources and quality of life while recognizing the importance of animal agriculture and the beneficial uses of animal manure in the production of agricultural crops. The Renville County Feedlot Ordinance allows for the continued production of agricultural commodities and to maintain a healthy agricultural community while ensuring that animal feedlots and animal wastes are properly managed to protect public health and natural resources. Renville County manages these goals with Conditional Use Permits (CUP), which allow for a variance from the strict enforcement of the zoning regulations, based on case-specific circumstances. Renville County described its variance provision as the permission to vary from the standard requirements of the zoning ordinance.

33 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project Norfolk Township, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet The current operation is in compliance with the Renville County Zoning Ordinance. In regards to the existing feedlot s capacity, the existing facility had received all the required permits (including Renville County s CUP) to operate at their present capacity of 4,500 AUs before Renville County had imposed the 2,000-AU density cap. However, the proposed expansion would require a new CUP. The MPCA understands that the Project proposer intends to apply for a zoning variance after the conclusion of the environmental review process, and then apply for the CUP if the variance is approved. The variance process will involve a public notice and a public hearing, to be held by the Renville County Board of Zoning Adjustment and Appeals. The CUP process also involves a public notice and a public hearing, to be held by the Renville County Planning Commission. Comment 1-4: To travel between the existing feedlot and the proposed barns, the Project proposer plans to use an existing access road that crosses County Ditch No The commenters do not believe that an adequate access road exists, or that permission has been obtained to install such an access. Response 1-4: Between the existing facility and the site for the two proposed barns is a 60-foot wide field crossing, which (having been maintained and repaired numerous times by the Revier Cattle Company over the past 15 years) will provide adequate access from one side of County Ditch No. 124 to the other. Comment 1-5: Although the existing feedlot was designed and built to house in excess of 10,000 AUs before the Renville County Feedlot ordinance imposed its 2,000 AU limit, the commenters do not believe that this fact gives the Project proposer the right to exceed the ordinance to such a degree. Response 1-5: See Response to Comment 1-3. Comment 1-6: The commenters expressed a concern about manure handling. The EAW identified 32 manure application sites in ten townships. The commenters indicated there are 346 residences within one mile of the manure application areas and more than 80 of these are within 1,000 feet of manure application fields. The commenters suggested that there are quite a number of people who are counting on the Project proposer to handle its manure in a responsible fashion, with very little room for mistakes. Response 1-6: Manure will be applied in accordance with the proposed Project s Manure Management Plan (MMP), which will be an enforceable part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Feedlot Permit that will be issued for the proposed Project. Additionally, the existing feedlot operation has been applying solid manure on many of the land application sites identified in the EAW. However, as indicated in Response to Comment 1-2, the MPCA and Renville County Feedlot Programs have no records of complaints or enforcement actions against the existing feedlot. Comment 1-7: The commenters noted that the Beaver Falls Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is within 0.7 miles of a manure application site, and manure application sites are also near the Birch Coulee Battlefield Historic Site. Response 1-7: The commenters are correct. The Beaver Falls WMA (near Morton) is approximately 0.7 miles west of a land application site located in Section 19 of Birch Cooley Township, and the Birch Coulee Battlefield Historic Site (located on the southeast corner of County Road No. 2 and County Road No. 18) is also near a land application site being proposed northwest of that intersection. Some of the recreation offered at the Beaver Falls WMA includes hunting and wildlife viewing. The Birch Coulee Battlefield Historic Site offers hiking opportunities during the summer and fall. The site is closed in the winter and spring. 2

34 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project Norfolk Township, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet It is important to note that all the land application sites (including the site near the historic battle field) are actively cultivated. The Project proposer is aware that the proposed land application field in Section 19 of Birch Cooley Township is near the Birch Coulee Battlefield Historic Site, and in accordance with the Renville County Land Use Ordinance (Chapter 8, Section 9.2.D), will not apply manure within 500 feet of the historic site. Additionally, as indicated in the EAW, manure will be applied in accordance with the Nutrient Management Plan. Because of this, it is unlikely that manure application will negatively impact the historic battlefield, or the Beaver Falls WMA 0.7 miles away. Comment 1-8: The commenters stated that 24 state-listed endangered, threatened, or special concern species have been identified near manure application areas. Response 1-8: The commenters are correct. In the consultation letter it provided on the proposed Project, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) identified 24 known occurrences of rare species or native plant communities in the Project area. Given the nature and scope of the project, the DNR did not believe that any known occurrences of rare features will be negatively affected, provided that the manure application will not negatively affect the quality of the Minnesota River or the native plant communities adjacent to the river. No land application sites are proposed near the Minnesota River. However, several of the proposed land application sites are located near creeks that flow into the Minnesota River. These include Smith Creek, Beaver Creek, and Birch Coulee Creek. In these instances, however, vegetative buffers exist between the land application sites and the creeks, and the creeks (at those locations) are located at least two miles upstream of their respective confluences with the Minnesota River. The Project proposer will also observe all setback requirements from surface waters. Also, as indicated in the EAW, manure will be applied in accordance with the Nutrient Management Plan, which was reviewed by the MPCA and found to be protective of surface and ground-water resources. With these factors combined, it is unlikely that the Project s manure management practices will negatively impact the riparian plant communities along the Minnesota River or the river itself. Comment 1-9: The commenters cited the Renville County Land Use Ordinance (Chapter 8, Section 11.1A), which states that the incorporation of manure on non-frozen soil must occur within 24 hours of application, and noted that the EAW proposed to incorporate manure within 96 hours (four times the condition allowed - unacceptable). The commenters believe the ordinance must be enforced. Response 1-9: The Project proposer has amended its MMP to comply with the Renville County Feedlot Ordinance requiring that land-applied manure on non-frozen soil to be incorporated within 24 hours. The MMP will be an enforceable part of the NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit that will be issued for the proposed Project. Comment 1-10: The commenters understand that solid manure from the existing lots will be stockpiled at an approved permanent stockpiling site, and are aware that the stockpiling site was shown in Exhibit 1C of the EAW. The commenters question, however, whether the stockpiling site meets the specific requirements listed in the MPCA Feedlot Rules (Minn. R , subp. 4). 3

35 Revier Cattle Company, Inc. Feedlot Expansion Project Norfolk Township, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response 1-10: The MPCA is responsible for permitting the existing feedlot facility, and the MPCA issued a General NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit (Number: MNG440929) for the existing facility on February 15, As part of that permit issuance process, the MPCA reviewed and approved an MMP, which included the manure stockpile, and the MPCA found that the manure stockpile site met the requirements listed in the MPCA Feedlot Rules (Minn. R , subp. 4). Comment 1-11: The commenters echoed the closing remarks made by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), in the consultation letter it provided on the proposed project (Exhibit 2B of the EAW). In that letter, the MDH recommended that care should be exercised to make sure that the proposed operation will not have an effect on local public drinking water suppliers or surface waters. The commenters added that there are several public water systems identified near five manure application sites. These are within two miles of the cities of Morton, Franklin, Bechyn, and a trailer court in Beaver Falls Township. Response 1-11: The commenters are correct. In the consultation letter it provided on this Project, the MDH identified five proposed manure application sites that were within two miles of public water supply wells. Two of those manure application sites were located near public water supply systems that MDH considered vulnerable due to the sensitive nature of the aquifer being pumped. The first is a small community public water supply system called Country Court, located in Section 8 of Beaver Falls Township. The second is the city of Morton, located in Section 19 of Birch Cooley Township. The MDH expressed a concern that a proposed land application site nearby would drain directly into a small creek that flows past the wells serving the city of Morton. The wells serving the city of Morton are relatively shallow (approximately 50 feet deep), and while the nitrate levels have fluctuated, MDH reported that they have been consistently below 1 milligrams per liter (mg/l), which do not indicate an impact from either agriculture or septic systems. The Country Court wells are over 100 feet deep and have had nitrate levels fluctuating in the single digits. Nitrate levels in both public water supply systems, however, have not exceeded the federal Safe Drinking Water Standard of 10 mg/l. For application sites proposed near these public water supply systems, the MDH recommended that manure application meet the nitrogen need of the crop and provide a buffer to prevent potential runoff from the field into water bodies. In addition, manure shall be applied during the late summer to early fall with immediate incorporation. Like other proposed manure application sites, the manure application site near Country Court is currently under agricultural production, and manure has been applied as a nutrient amendment. The Country Court community is also surrounded by agricultural fields that very likely receive nutrient applications on a regular basis. The Country Court wells are located approximately 900 feet from the proposed manure application site. When applying manure, the Project proposer will comply with all required setback distances from surface waters, domestic and public water supply wells. In regards to the city of Morton wells, the city wells are located within the city limits, approximately 1.5 miles south of the proposed manure application site in Section 19 of Birch Cooley Township. Furthermore, the manure application site is located north of County Road No. 2, whereas the headwater of the creek is over 1,200 feet south of County Road No. 2. The MPCA has reviewed the MMP for the proposed Project and found it to be adequately protective of ground-water resources. Solid manure from the existing open lots will primarily be broadcast in the fall, although some late summer applications are planned following sweet corn and pea crops. Liquid manure 4