STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

Transcription

1 p-ear2-101b

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 JOE WAGNER FEEDLOT MILLERVILLE TOWNSHIP DOUGLAS 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 Joe Wagner Feedlot (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. Joe Wagner (Proposer) plans to expand an existing 679 animal unit (AU) beef cattle open lot system feedlot (Facility) in Section 12 of Millerville Township, Douglas County. 2. For the expansion the Proposer will build: two total confinement barns with 12-foot deep concrete manure storage pits, two total confinement monoslope barns with manure pack bays, an open lot area with runoff controls, a small monoslope partial confinement barn, a working building, and an asphalt feed storage area (Project). Monoslope barns typically have three walls and an open side with a roof with a constant slope in one direction directing stormwater runoff away from the open side. The open side provides ventilation, access for feeding and manure removal, and in some cases access to open lots for the cattle. 3. Once completed, the Project will accommodate 6,800 AUs of beef cattle. 4. The Proposer will construct two geo-synthetic clay lined manure storage basins to control surface water runoff from the open lots and feed storage areas at the Facility. 5. The Proposer will begin construction once all necessary permits are issued. Construction will start with the installation of stormwater and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) such as, but not limited to silt fence, top soil stripping, and stockpiling. 6. Prior to constructing the new feedlot, the Proposer will permanently close the existing Facility s open lots, runoff controls, and feed storage areas. Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 7. After the Project is completed, the Proposer estimates the Expanded Facility will generate 1,230,312 gallons of manure annually. 8. The Proposer applied for coverage under the State of Minnesota General Animal Feedlot National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Feedlot Permit) on December 21, Environmental Review of the Project 9. An EAW is a brief document designed to set out the basic facts necessary for the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) 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 RGU for this Project. 10. An EAW is mandatory for this Project under Minn. R , subp. 29(A) (construction or expansion of an animal feedlot facility with a capacity of 1,000 AU or more. Although the Existing Facility did not require a mandatory EAW, the expansion is a phased action under Minn. R , subp. 60, and now requires an EAW for the Existing Facility and Project. This EAW evaluates both the Existing Facility and the Proposed Project Expansion. 11. The MPCA provided public notice of the Project as follows: a. The EQB published the notice of availability of the EAW for public comment in the EQB Monitor on July 18, 2016, as required by Minn. R b. The EAW was made available 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 18, During the 30-day public comment period ending on August 17, 2016, the MPCA received comments from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), Minnesota Historical Society, and Millerville Township and one comment letter from a citizen. A list of the comment letters received and copies of the letters are included as Appendix A to these Findings. 13. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comments received during the 30-day public comment period. The responses to the comments are also included as Appendix A to these findings. 14. The Feedlot Permit was open for comment from July 18, 2016, through August 17, The MPCA received seven comment letters on the Permit. Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 15. 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 2

4 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 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 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. The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria Are Set Forth Below Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 16. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects Minn. R , subp. 7(A). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 17. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Expanded Facility include: Groundwater and surface water quality Groundwater appropriation Air quality related to hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor emissions. Groundwater and Surface Water Quality 18. The Feedlot Permit requires that the Proposer develop and maintain on-site a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that includes erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs for the construction and operation of the Project. 19. The Feedlot Permit requires the Project to meet a zero discharge standard. 20. The Feedlot Permit requires housing of all livestock in open lots, partial confinement and monoslope barns and with no access to surface waters. 3

5 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 21. The Feedlot Permit requires total confinement barns with storage of manure in below-ground reinforced concrete pits that meet the design criteria of Minn. R The Proposer will use the following manure management storage techniques at the Project: a. Manure management for solid manure from open lots and monoslope barns with manure packs. b. Manure management for collected runoff from open lots and feed storage pads. c. Manure management for liquid manure collected in pits beneath barns with slatted floors. Solid Manure 23. The Proposer will store solid manure in open lots and the partial confinement monoslope barns as manure pack, and, when conditions allow, scrape the manure into short-term manure piles within the open lots. 24. Solid manure in the total confinement monoslope barns will be scraped from pens and stored in manure storage bays until land applied. 25. In the fall after harvest, the Proposer will scrape and remove the solid manure stored in the open lots and manure storage bays within the monoslope barns and transport the solid manure to the land application fields in a truck or a solids spreader. The Proposer will then land apply the manure with a solids spreader at agronomic rates onto fields in accordance with the MPCA approved manure management plan (MMP). Collected Runoff 26. Open lot and feed storage area runoff that is collected in the two geo-synthetic clay lined manure storage basins will be land applied onto cropland near the Project site. The Proposer will pump the runoff ponds annually, or when nearing capacity, and apply the pond water onto a growing crop with a traveling gun or center pivot at agronomic rates determined in the MPCA approved MMP. Liquid Manure 27. Manure collected in poured concrete pits beneath two of the total confinement barns will be agitated and removed annually, primarily in the fall after harvest. Manure will be land applied at agronomic rates via a towed hose by a licensed commercial animal waste technician (CAWT). 28. In the two total confinement barns with slatted floors and poured concrete pits, the Proposer will install perimeter drain tiles below the footing elevations of the reinforced concrete pits. The Proposer will install inspection ports on the perimeter tiles to allow for observation of the drains tiles to ensure these are functioning properly and to identify seepage from the pits if a leak were to occur. 29. The Feedlot Permit also requires the Proposer to develop a MMP that meets the requirements of Minn. R. ch A MMP shows how manure generated at a feedlot is used during the upcoming growing season(s) in a way that maximizes the benefits of applying manure to cropland, meets all rules and regulations, and protects surface water quality. 30. The Proposer indicated that up to 6,100 acres of land are required for manure application, and has identified 8,800 acres of cropland available for manure application. 4

6 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 31. The Proposer will transfer ownership of some of the manure generated from the Project to manure recipients for offsite land application. State and local requirements require all applicators of manure, whether transferred or applied at permittee-owned sites, to follow testing, application limits, restrictions, setbacks, keep records, and report spills. 32. The Proposer s MMP outlines specific transfer of manure application methods the Proposer will implement as part of this Project. Although the Proposer will ultimately sell some of the manure, the MMP for transferred manure will be an enforceable provision of the Feedlot Permit for the Project. 33. When the Proposer transfers ownership of manure, Minn. R and the Feedlot Permit include requirements that the Proposer must meet for manure application. The Proposer is responsible for providing the manure recipient with information to satisfy state requirements concerning soil testing, rate limits, seasonal restrictions, setbacks, keeping records, and reporting spills. In turn, the recipient must conduct manure management planning and recordkeeping that are specific to the fields and crops to which the manure is applied, and sample soil from fields receiving manure once every four years. The Proposer must provide this information to the MCPA in an annual report. 34. The Proposer must keep records for the six most recent years, including the amount and nutrient content of manure delivered, the name and address of any commercial hauler or applicator who received the manure, the location where the manure is applied, and the rate of application. 35. The commercial animal waste technician (CAWT) spreading the manure for the manure recipient must keep records for six years, and submit a copy of the records to the Proposer no later than 60 days following each land application. 36. In order to avoid contaminating the groundwater at the manure application sites, manure is applied at agronomic rates based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry to minimize the potential for nitrate leaching into the groundwater. The MMP requires the applicator spreading manure to observe MPCA and/or county water supply well setback requirements, whichever are the more restrictive. As a result, the MPCA does not expect incorporated manure to adversely impact water quality. 37. The MPCA finds that these measures will mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater quality related to manure incorporated at the manure application sites. 38. The land application of manure, if done improperly, can not only adversely impact groundwater, but can adversely impact surface-water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into drain tile lines that outfall to surface waters. Therefore, the MMP requires the manure applicator to observe MPCA and/or county setback requirements, 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. 39. The MMP requires the manure application associated with the Project to occur in the spring after the ground has thawed and before planting, or during the late fall after harvest. The timing reduces 5

7 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order the likelihood of significant rain events and allows manure incorporation into the soil as soon as time and field conditions allow. 40. The MMP requires application to follow all applicable required setbacks from sensitive features and waterways. The land application practices in the MMP, once approved by the MPCA, become an enforceable provision of the Feedlot Permit. 41. Minnesota s Final Animal Agriculture Generic Environmental Impact Statement (2002) and the University of Minnesota Agriculture Extension program state that manure not only supplies nutrients, but can also improve the biological and physical properties of soil, making it more productive and less erosive. 42. 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. 43. When cropland receives manure, the CAWT only applies commercial fertilizer to supplement manure nutrients up to agronomic rates. The combined total of nitrogen from manure and commercial fertilizer cannot exceed rates as prescribed in Minn R The Proposer will hire a CAWT licensed by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture to land apply the manure. The CAWT applies the manure via direct injection or by broadcast application and incorporates it within 24 hours. Manure application takes place when fields are accessible in the fall after harvest. 45. The Proposer s land application sites already utilize manure rather than commercial fertilizer. Nutrient application rates on cropland already receiving manure will remain unchanged. Third party land owners and applicators may alternate between commercial fertilizers and manure for differing reasons, but will have this additional manure resource available. When cropland receives manure, commercial fertilizer can only be applied to supplement manure nutrients up to agronomic rates. 46. The MPCA finds that the requirements of the Feedlot Permit and MMP minimize the potential for manure applied at manure application sites to come in contact with runoff and enter surface waters. 47. The MPCA finds 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 Feedlot Permit. Nutrients from manure tend to replace nutrients provided by other fertilizers, and improve soil tilth due to the use of organic fertilizer. The immediate incorporation of manure has the potential to improve runoff characteristics over the acres receiving manure under the MMP. 48. 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. The Proposer has developed measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts. 6

8 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 49. The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to groundwater or surfacewater quality that are reasonably expected to occur. 50. The Feedlot Permit addresses the prevention of adverse effects on water quality due to manure storage and application. 51. Although the MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water quality, if water quality impacts were to occur, the Proposer will modify the operation and management of the feedlot. The MPCA would then modify the Feedlot Permit and MMP and impacts to waters would be reversed. Therefore, the MPCA finds any water quality impacts that may occur from the Project are reversible. 52. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record are adequate to assess potential impacts to the quantity of surface water and groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Groundwater Appropriation 53. There are two existing wells on the Project site. The existing wells are not capable of providing sufficient water for the Project; therefore, the Proposer intends to install a new well to supply additional water for the Project. The projected water usage is approximately 45 to 50 million gallons per year. The Project has a projected service consumption of 1,125 to 1,250 million gallons over a 25-year period. 54. The MDNR is the permitting authority for appropriating waters of the state in Minnesota. The MDNR Water Appropriations Permit allows for a reasonable use of water provided that the use does not negatively impact surrounding wells or other water resources. Receipt of a Well Construction Preliminary Assessment does not constitute an authorization or guarantee permit approval by the Project Proposer. Following the completion of environmental review, the Project Proposer may pursue the water appropriation permitting process with MDNR. Unauthorized pumping or use of the well or other water resource is subject to enforcement under Minn. Stat Upon completion of a permit review period, a permit for water appropriation may be limited, amended, or denied in accordance with applicable laws and rules for the protection of the public interests and the sustainability of Minnesota s water resources. 55. The Project s proposed water appropriation is 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 Feedlot Permit, which determines final animal numbers and, hence, water consumption. 56. The purpose of the MDNR Water Appropriation Permit Program is to ensure water resources are managed so that adequate supply is available for long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and water quality control. 7

9 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 57. The MDNR Water Appropriation 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 the MDNR finds a commercial operator is causing interference, the operator must correct it. 58. The MDNR Water Appropriations Permit addresses the prevention of adverse effects on water appropriation due to increased usage of water by the Proposer. 59. The Proposer has not installed the well as of the time of this review. Thus far in the process, the Proposer has coordinated with the MDNR to obtain a Preliminary Well Construction Assessment. This preliminary approval to construct a well is information that can be used by the Proposer to decide whether to proceed in constructing a well, but does not act as a notification to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), nor is it a MDNR water use permit. The Proposer intends to register the well with the MDH following well construction, and permit use of the well through the MDNR. 60. The MDNR requires a water appropriation permit for all users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or one million gallons per year. The purpose of the MDNR Water Appropriation Permit program is to ensure the Proposer manages water resources so that adequate supply is available for long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. 61. The MDNR Water Appropriations Permit is intended to prevent any adverse effects on water appropriation due to increased usage of water by the Proposer. This permit program balances competing management objectives, including 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 MDNR identifies that a commercial operator is causing the problem, the operator must correct it. 62. Following the completion of environmental review, the Project Proposer may pursue the water appropriation permitting process with MDNR. Unauthorized pumping or use of the well or other water resource is subject to enforcement under Minn. Stat Upon completion of a permit review period, the MDNR may limit, amend, or deny a permit for water appropriation in accordance with applicable laws and rules for the protection of the public interest and the sustainability of Minnesota s water resources. 63. Due to the MDNR oversight and permitting of water appropriations, the MPCA does not expect significant adverse impacts to water quantity. However, if the MDNR determines there is well interference based on concerns or well interference claims, the operator must fix the causes of the interference. The impacts to water appropriations would then be reversed. Therefore, the MPCA finds that any water appropriation impacts that may occur from the Project are reversible. 8

10 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 64. The MPCA finds that the Project, as 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. Air Quality Related to Hydrogen Sulfide, Ammonia, and Odor Emissions 65. The Proposer conducted air dispersion modeling, required for feedlots undergoing environmental review, which estimated the atmospheric concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and the intensity of odorous gases at the Expanded Facility property lines, and at the Expanded Facility nearest neighbors. The model also considered the air emissions from 29 neighboring feedlots to the Expanded Facility. The MPCA reviewed and approved the modeling protocol and report. 66. The Proposer used the AERMOD model developed by the American Meteorological Society and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which is a widely used and accepted model in determining air quality. AERMOD includes conservative assumptions, which means that the model results are conservative predictions of future performance. The model evaluated the air quality impacts of the Project. Air Quality Related to Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions 67. The modeling results predict the Project will comply with the 30 parts per billion (ppb) hydrogen sulfide Minnesota ambient air quality (MAAQ) standard. Under the MAAQ standard, the third exceedance of the MAAQ within any five-day period is a violation. The AERMOD modeled results demonstrate compliance when the high-third-high (H3H) concentration (added to background concentration) for any five-day period at each property-line receptor is less than 30 ppb MAAQ standard. 68. AERMOD-predicted maximum H3H property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration of 5.61 ppb for the Project. When a background concentration of 17 ppb is added to the AERMOD predictions, the H3H hydrogen sulfide concentration is ppb, which is below the ambient standard of 30 ppb. Thus, the MPCA finds that hydrogen sulfide emissions from the Project do not pose a threat to the hydrogen sulfide ambient air quality standard. 69. The Proposer will notify the County Feedlot Officer before operational events such as manure agitation and application to obtain the 21-day exemption from the ambient hydrogen sulfide standards while manure is being removed from barns or manure storage facilities (Minn. Stat ). However, the County Feedlot Officer is not required by rule or permit to notify affected residences. 70. The AERMOD modeling results also indicated that the Project will not cause an exceedance of the subchronic (13 week) hydrogen sulfide inhalation Health Risk Value (ihrv) at neighboring residences. ihrvs are concentrations of chemicals emitted to air that are unlikely to pose a significant risk of harmful effects when humans are exposed to those concentrations over a specified period of time. The estimated maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration among the Project s neighbors is 0.23 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ). When a background concentration of 1.00 μg/m 3 was added 9

11 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum monthly neighbor hydrogen sulfide concentration is 1.23 μg/m 3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 μg/m Based on the AERMOD modeling results discussed above, the MPCA does not expect violations of the hydrogen sulfide ambient air quality standard or exceedances of the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv as a result of the Project. The MPCA expects the Project to comply with the applicable air quality standards and ihrvs for hydrogen sulfide. Air Quality Related to Ammonia Emissions 72. The modeling results also indicate that the Project will not create exceedances of the acute ammonia ihrv at the property line. AERMOD predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentration of 892 µg/m 3. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m 3 was added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is 1,040 μg/m 3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 μg/m The AERMOD results indicate that the Project will not create exceedances of the chronic ammonia ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration at the neighbors is µg/m 3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m 3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration at the neighboring residence is µg/m 3, which is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 µg/m The MPCA finds that ammonia emissions expected from the Project, including the modeled exceedances of the acute ammonia ihrv, do not present the potential for significant effects. Air Quality Related to Odor Emissions 75. Although the state of Minnesota has not established ambient air quality standards to regulate odor, the Proposer did complete AERMOD modeling for odor. The AERMOD results show the Project will not contribute to odor concentrations (OU/m 3 ) above an odor intensity defined as a faint odor at the property line. The modeled maximum hourly odor intensity was 180 OU/m 3 on the Project site s north boundary line. 76. The modeling results also predict the Project will not contribute to odor concentrations above an odor intensity of 83 OU/m 3, defined as a faint odor at nearby non-feedlot residences. With the addition of the Project, the maximum hourly odor intensity for a non-feedlot neighboring residence was 47 OU/m The MPCA finds that odor at the Proposer s property line and at nearby residences, projected to be a faint odor, does not present the potential for significant environmental effects. 78. The Proposer has submitted an air emissions and odor management plan with the Feedlot Permit application for the Project. Under the plan, the Proposer will empty below-ground reinforced concrete manure storage pits once per year in the fall. The Proposer will inject all of the manure into the soil upon land application, thus reducing odor potential at the time of application. Although 10

12 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 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. 79. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts expected to occur from the Project, air emissions from the Project will continue while it remains in operation and would cease only if the Project were temporarily or permanently closed. While the Project is in operation, the MPCA expects the Project to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria. 80. If excessive air emissions or violations of the ambient hydrogen sulfide air standards were to occur or if the Proposer exceeded ihrvs for ammonia, air quality impacts are likely to be correctable. The MPCA could initiate an investigation and require the Proposer to make operation and maintenance changes. Therefore, the MPCA finds that any impacts on air quality that may occur from the Project are reversible. 81. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record are adequate to assess the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur as a result of the Project. The Proposer has methods to prevent significant adverse impacts. 82. The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts on air quality reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Cumulative Potential Effects 83. 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 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. 84. 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. 85. The EAW addressed the following cumulative potential effects of the proposed Project: Surface water and groundwater quality, and Air quality. Surface Water and Groundwater Quality 86. The MPCA reviewed the MPCA s impaired waters database to determine if the Project is in an area with impaired surface water bodies. The Project and most of the manure application sites are 11

13 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order located in the Chippewa River Watershed (Hydrologic Unit), which is located within the Minnesota River Watershed. 87. Land use in the Chippewa River Minor Watershed is primarily agricultural, dominated by animal and row crop production. The closest watersheds to the Chippewa River Minor Watershed are Lake Christina, Lake Moses, Chippewa Lake, County Ditch No.60, Lake Miltona, Lake Ida, and Fish Lake. The closest significant waterbody listed with a total maximum daily load (TMDL) on the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website is Chippewa Lake, which is over five miles south of the main site and it is listed for a TMDL on mercury. 88. The Chippewa River is listed on the Federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list for recreational/human contact use based on water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria. 89. Activities related to the surface water impairments in the watershed originate from a combination of anthropogenic point source (e.g., inadequately functioning septic systems) and nonpoint source (e.g. agricultural activities) discharges. 90. Typical strategies identified for preventing and managing impairments related to manure include buffer strips and buffer set-aside acreage in the Conservation Reserve Program, nutrient and manure management, and residue management. The Proposer has agreed to utilize the most applicable measures that are required in the MMP for the manure generated at the Project. The Proposer is also required to use the most applicable measures in the MMP that are incorporated as an enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit for the Project once issued. 91. As TMDLs move forward, MPCA implementation plans will include measures for preventing and managing manure, including those already required through the Feedlot Permit and MMP requirements. 92. The Feedlot Permit requires that the Project meet zero discharge standards. As a result, there should be no discharge of manure or manure-contaminated runoff to any waters of the state. 93. Land applicators of manure must also comply with the more stringent of MPCA or county manure application setback requirements as well as all other applicable federal and state rules. 94. The MMP, in order to prevent impacts to any waters of the state, is designed specifically for the manure that the Proposer expects to generate at the Project and the Proposer-controlled manure application sites. 95. The Project design is intended to assure that manure will not come in contact with any stormwater; therefore, the MPCA does not expect any manure-contaminated stormwater runoff from the Project. 96. Adherence to appropriate manure land application practices in the MPCA-approved MMP will prevent the runoff of manure and/or manure-contaminated stormwater runoff from impacting waters of the state, whether or not waters are impaired. 12

14 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 97. Since the MMP and Feedlot Permit require preventative measures to protect water quality, 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. Air Quality 98. 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 AERMOD air dispersion 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 in the area of the Project. The Proposer estimated air concentrations for these pollutants at the Project property line and at the 29 nearest neighbors. 99. All modeled concentrations were below the health-based and nuisance odor criteria used in the analyses. Therefore, the MPCA does not expect any significant cumulative potential effects on air quality in the Project area, and the Project will not contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential effects on air quality. Cumulative Effects Summary 100. Based on information on the Project obtained from air modeling reports and feedlot permit application processes, information on water quality in the Project area presented in the EAW, and consideration of potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from this Project The MPCA finds the Project, as proposed, does not have the potential for 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 102. 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 The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: 13

15 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Unit of government MPCA MPCA County County MDNR MDNR MDH Type of Application NPDES Individual Feedlot Permit and MMP NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit Minnesota Feedlot Permit Conditional use or other land use permit Water Appropriation MDNR Well Construction Preliminary Assessment MDH Well Construction Permit 104. NPDES Feedlot Permit. The NPDES individual feedlot permit applies to feedlots with 1,000 AU or more that have the potential to discharge to the waters of the state. The MPCA is delegated to administer this NPDES Feedlot Permit, and it will require specific conditions be adhered to for construction of the feedlot facility, for the operation of the Facility, including land application of the manure, and for overall compliance with air and water quality requirements NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit. A General NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit is required when a project disturbs one or more acres. It requires the use of BMPs such as silt fences, inlet protection rock checks, and prompt soil stabilization and revegetation to prevent erosion and to keep eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. The Proposer must have a stormwater pollution prevention plan that will provide more detail as to the specific measures to be implemented and will also address: phased construction; vehicle tracking of sediment; inspection of erosion control measures implemented; and timeframes in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The general permit also requires projects that create one or more acres of new impervious surface to provide permanent treatment of stormwater runoff. Therefore, this Project must treat one inch of runoff from each new acre of impervious surface County Feedlot Permit. The individual County Feedlot Permit and MMP will require specific conditions to be adhered to for construction and operation of the Project, including land application of the manure County Conditional Use Permit. The Proposer must 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 needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses MDNR Water Appropriation Permit. The Proposer must obtain a MDNR Water Appropriation Permit, as the Project will withdraw more than 1,000,000 gallons per year. The Proposer estimates an approximate use of 2,000,000 gallons per year for the Project. The Proposer will hire a licensed well driller to install a new production well MDNR Well Construction Preliminary Assessment. The Proposer will apply for 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 actual construction of 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. 14

16 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Joe Wagner Feedlot Millerville Township, Douglas County Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 110. MDH Well Construction Permit. The Proposer must obtain a well construction permit from the MDH. The Proposer must construct the well in accordance with Minn. Stat and Minn. R 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 112. 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 The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the environmental impact analysis for the proposed Project. Data presented in the EAW; Feedlot Permit application, with attachments; Air Quality Modeling Report, and updated information for the report; and Permits and environmental review of similar facilities 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 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 116. 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 The MPCA adopts the rationale stated in the attached Response to Comments (Appendix B) as the basis for response to any issues not specifically addressed in these Findings. 15

17

18 APPENDIX A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Joe Wagner Feedlot Environmental Assessment Worksheet LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Millerville Township, letter received August 17, James and Ann Payton, letter received August 17, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, letter received August 17, Minnesota Historical Society, letter received August 17, 2016.

19 1

20 2

21

22 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NORTHWEST REGION MNDNR ECOLOGICAL & WATER RESOURCES 2115 BIRCHMONT BEACH RD NE BEMIDJI, MN August 17, 2016 Kevin Kain Resource Management and Assistance Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN Dear Mr. Kain: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rippreciates the opportunity to comment on the Joe Wagner Feedlot Environmental Assessment Worksheet (E/\W). We have completed our r ev iew, and..,v e recommend that additional information be included into the record by responding to these comments. We ask that the environmental documents then be used to help guide future decisions. General Comments l. According to the Minnesota Department of Health, Mr. Wagner has 4 active wells in Section 12, Millerville Township, of Douglas County They are all listed as domestic wells. They vary in size from 4 to 6 inches in diameter (note that a household is typically a 4 inch diameter well). Mr. Wagner obta ined a livestock watering General Permit AuthNization for up to SMGY on June 27, 2016 for use of two wells unique numbers and He currently has 679 cattle under this permit # Mr. Wagner will be required to report 2016 water use by February 15, DNR has also prepared a well construction preliminary review of proposed well construction for the well in the field to the east (Permit t/ ). Based on our assessment, we have identified concerns that may need further evaluat ion. Our assessment indicates that use of a 1Nell at this site at the proposed rate and vo lume may result in interference with other water users or negatively impact nearby natural resource features such as a lake, stream, or wetland (see letter attached). DNR does not currently have an applicat ion for a permit to appropriate water from this well, and additional information and test ing may be needed as the EAW indicated 13 residences within 1 mile of project area, and two public water basins and several wetlands as identified in the National Wetlands Inventory within O 5 miles. In riddition, since feedlots are appropriated year round, a we ll mri11rigernent plan shou ld be provided w ith the application to ensure sustainabi lity of the aquifer. DNR recommends including this information for the record. 2. Based on the volume of total.soiid waste generated, the 8,000 beef steers or cows confined at the feedlot will generate enough waste for potential of significant environmenta l impacts to the many lakes and strea ms in the area if it is not handled responsibly. In particular, given the extent of dr ainage alterations and enhancements (Countv Ditchesll and 60) in the upper West Branch of the Chippewa R iver watershed. any manure those fa rmers receive will need the necessary soil tests, and ensure that the application of rnanure meets agronomic rate sta ndards. DNR

23 recommends the applicant work with Departn,ent of Agriculture and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to ensure that an appropriate manure management plan is in place and proper best management practices are followed to lessen any environmental effects to adjacent or nearby lakes and streams in the area. If there is an existing MPC/\ approved MMP, then D N R recommends it be included in the EAW as an attachment, or included for the record. 3 Based on information in the EAW, the groundwater table sits at 28 feet in depth, and the soil maps indicated that the soils could be porous. Soils at the feedlot site as classified as Arvilla sandy loam. A description of Arvilla soils state: "The Arvilla soil series consists of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils formed in moderately coarse textured glac ial outwash and the underlying sand and grave l on glacial iake beaches, stream valley terraces and outwash plains. These soils have moderately rapid permeability in the upper part and rapid or very rapid permeability in the underlying material." The LAW states that liquid manures should be well contained in the concrete pit, but that manure in the open areas will build up between maintenance and leach with rain events. DNR recommends more information about the two geosynthetic clay lined ponds that will capture runoff from the open lot and feed storage area. Specifically, we recommend that the EAW describe the design capacity (runoff capture from 5- yr, 10 yr, 50-yr events) of these holding areas and the open areas where the build- up will be. In addition, we recommend the E/\VV describe what would happen if the ponds were overlapped due to runoff rain events. 4. The LAW materials and attachments contain contradictory information regarding potential of winter applications of manures. The text in the EAW narrative indicates most liquid and solid manures will be applied to the land in the fall after crop harvest. Some applications may occur in spring In contrast to the narrative, the legend on maps included for fie ld applications (Appendix B) depict Critical Winter Application Buffers. DNR recommends clarifying whether w inter applications may occur and if so, request sufficient storage capacity to facilitate manure management so that w inter applications are unnecessary and disallowed. 5 The EAW references stockpiling solid manures in temporary piles that may ex ist in open lots for an entire year. DNR recommends clarify ing if the temporary stockpiles will also be generated on or near field application sites. If so, DNI recommends adding remediation strategies that might include covers or impervious containment syst ems in place to minimize leaching or runoff from these tem porary stockpiles. 6. There is potentiai for significant manure build up on the multiple winter pasture and feeding areas depending upon animal loading and duration of confinement DNR recommends adding more detail for this project component. A recent court ruling (MPCA vs Reichmann Cattle LL(, 2015; Case #A13-H61)) provided a legal interpretation that such areas where catt le are supplementa lly fed outside the active growing season or winter do not qualify as pasture. State Disposal System permits may be necessary to facilitate winter feeding areas at specified sit es. It would be appropriate to establish setbacks and fence cattle out of sensitive areas such as along ditches or streams and disclose how accumulated manure will be rnanaged to include soil testing, large area scrapping and loss of vegetated coverage for periods, etc. 7. Df\lF{ recommends that proper lighting been considered w ithin t he facility so as not to be a nuisance to birds, smaii rnarnmals and other species, or at a mir,imurn, include impacts to lighting in the FAW. Page 2 of 4

24 Specific comments: 1. Page 2 Item Ci Project Summary, and item H Table with data show a conflict. The project summary G states "the Project will accommodate 6,800 A Us of beef cattle" while the table in H states 8000 head tota l. DNR recommends either using AUs or head total, or give a conversion to clarify this conflict 2. The EAW page 8 question 2C regarding resources on or in proximity to the feedlot or manure spreading areas - I verified that no Drinking Water Supply Management Areas or public water supply wells are nearby those sites. 3. DNR agrees with the first paragraph in 4A (page 12) regarding the current wells in use. The EAW Question 4A paragraphs #1 and #5 contain incorrect information. (Note that paragraphs 3 and 4 correctly explain DNR per mit requirernents. ) According to Minnesota Department of Health records, Joe Wagner has four wells in Section 12, Millerville Tov,mship. They are: " diameter, 202 feet deep, drilled 9/11/ " diameter, 238 feet deep, drilled 8/13/ " diameter, 410 feet deep, dr illed 7/25/ '' diameter, 140 feet deep, drilled 9/30/2014 Two wells were drilled prior to Minnesota Statue 103Ci requiring preliminary well approvai that was effective July 1, /\ preliminary well application # was submitted December 16, 2013 for a well to be located in the field east current permit # (See EA\fll pages 116 and 117) \/\l e believe that location is actually we ll unique # as shown above.. The applicant and his consultants deny a well was drilled per communicat ion l/27/ A nother prelirt'linary well application was received by DNR on April 15, 2015 and approval was sent the same day. There was confusion about the application because included in the packet ed by the well driller was the well boring record for unique it and a permit application. On August 13, 201\ Mr. Wagner told DNR that he was not pumping enough water to require a permit. In January 2016, DNR realized that there was some miscommunication. It was about this time that the draft EAW was sent for comments. On February 3, 2016, Mr. Wagner and his well driller Randy came to DNR office to discuss water use. Since then details have been provided for t he 679 head of catt le that require water from two wells. The permit # for livestock watering General Permit Authorization for up to SMGY v\1as issued on June 27, 2016 for use of two wells unique numbers and (attached). The last paragraph incorr-ectly refers to Attachment A as the approval for preliminary we ll const ruction. Attachment /\ is the permit to use two wells f or 679 livestock wateri ng which is missing pages of t he issued permit (see attached). The pages ot the EAW are not in the correct order and are confusing Page 3 of 4

25 4. Page 15 Sections B and [) indicate there is a,;nutrient management plan" and a Manure Management Plan. DNR recommends including this plan in an appendix and refer to the specif ic appendix..s Page 22 item #10 in the table states that MDNR Water appropriation application was submitted. A permit was issued for 679 cattle, however not additional appropriation applications have been submitted as of the date of this letter. The applicant has been told that an increase in installations and/o r volume requires an amendment to existing permit # , or an additiona l app lication is needed for Permit # DNR recommends clarifying for the record. 6. Page 24 fir s t paragraph needs clarification, as those lakes are on the State list for impairment for mercury. DNR recommends clarifying this first paragraph and correcting the impaired lakes based on the 2016 MPCA Impaired Waters List. 7. Page 25 c1ddresses cumulative effects on groundwater resources (item till). Since DNR has not received the application for increasing groundwater appropriation, no extensive review has been completed. The statement regarding "the Project [does not] adverse ly impact groundwater", is currently unfounded, at least from an aquifer capacity/sus tainability aspect. DNR recommends c larifying for the record. 8.. Page 25 also addresses groundwater quality. Although it is not stated, the DNR Geo logic Atlas is - often used to determine the potential to contaminate the aquifer. However, no geo logic atlas has been completed for Douglas County. The consultant concluded in paragraph three under groundwater quality that there is "moderate risk to groundwater pollution" from the expanded Facility and manure application fields. The document in refere nce by Bradt, R., 1997 does not include Douglas County. It is a geologic atlas plate of southwestern Minnesota counties only. DNR. recomme nds clarifying these statements. Thank-you again for the opportunity to comment. DNR has appreciated the good working relationship we have with the MPCA and look forward to continuing to work with you on protection and responsible use of our natural resources. If you have any questions regarding these comments please contact Theresa Olson at either ( 218) or Theresa.o lson@state.mn us. Sincerely, Nathan Kestner Regional Manager Division of Ecological and Water Resources Page 4 of 4

26 Minneso1"o Deporlmen1 of Naturn l Resou rces Division of Ecological and Water Resources Ave N Fergus Falls, MN December 18, 2013 DEPARTf.\ENT Of,111,Tl!HM REsounm Joe Wagner Co Rd 7 NW Brandon, MN RE: DNR assessment of your proposed well construction,tracking no Dear Mr. Wagner: The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) received information from you for the construction of a groundwater appropriation well located in Section 12 T 130 N, R 39 W Douglas County. Based on our assessment, we have identified concerns that may need further evaluation. Our assessment indicates that use of a well at this site at the proposed rate and volume may result in interference with other water users or negatively impact nearby natural resource features such as a lake, stream, or wetland. Preliminary approval to construct a well at this site is granted; however, be advised that in order to obtain a permit to appropriate water from this well, additional information and tests, at your expense, may be required. Also be aware that your water appropriation request may be modified, reduced, or denied based upon site specific information. Please refer to detailed information in the attached, Well Construction Proposal Assessment for the factors that were assessed and the additional information that may be required during the water appropriation permit application process should you decide to drill this well. This letter does not release you from any other requirements or liability or obligation imposed by M innesota Statutes, Federal Law, or local ordinances relating to your pro posed project. If yau choose to drill this well, you are responsible for notifying the Department of Health as required by Minnesota Statutes, chapter This preliminary approval is only for construction of the well in accordance with the information you provided. This letter does not authorize the appropriation of water from your well. You must apply for and receive a permit from DNR to appropriate water from your well if you will exceed 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year. Water appropriation permit application forms and instructions can be downloaded from l#appropriationspermits. Thank you for your cooperation. By seeking preliminary approval for construction of your well you have received information on the feasibility of this site to meet your needs and can make an informed decision on whether or not to proceed. If you have any questions, please contact me at (218) Ext. 253 or Janell.Miersch@state.mn.us. Sincerely, Janell Miersch Groundwater Appropr iation Hydrologist Enclosures c: Yellow rh'.t.,., _r:f G p rh M l:ij! tjl>i'j?'.;_.'.}.r', 't.":?fr i f ) : 1 (1\1.f' '.Y, i'.f'v''l! f!),n:l ((H(f 't.! K Is (,'fjimlh\ [H!( 1 : i'c','..r:m:,w/}!: Ni(! =