Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact,
and Record of Decision
Hunter Hills Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
July 9, 2020
RGU PROPOSER
City of Otsego
13400 - 90th Street NE
Otsego, MN 55330
Daniel Licht, City Planner
Phone: (763) 441-4414
Tamarack Land Development
1536 Beachcomber Blvd
Waconia, MN 55387
Dale Willenbring, President
Phone: (952) 715-2926
i
CITY OF OTSEGO
Response to Comments, Findings of Fact,
and Record of Decision
Hunter Hills Residential Development
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
CONTENTS
Title Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
EAW Notification, Distribution, and Comment Period ..................................................................... 1
COMMENTS RECEIVED ................................................................................................................. 1
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ........................................................................................................... 1
Wright County .................................................................................................................................... 2
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers........................................................................................................... 2
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comments .................................................................. 3
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ................................................................................................. 4
Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office .................................................................................... 6
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy ................................................................................ 6
FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................................................................ 13
Project Description ........................................................................................................................... 13
Proposed Project ........................................................................................................................... 13
Site Description and Existing Conditions .................................................................................... 13
Decision Regarding the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects ........................................ 13
A. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects..................................................... 13
B. Cumulative Potential Effects .................................................................................................. 14
C. Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation .................................. 15
D. Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled ......................... 16
RECORD OF DECISION ................................................................................................................. 17
TABLES
Table 1. Estimated Sanitary Wastewater Generation ............................................................................ 6
Table 2. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment, Hunter Hills Residential Development ..................... 11
Table 3. Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................................... 15
APPENDICES
A. Written Comments Submitted to the City of Otsego
B. Plat Showing 1,000-Foot Radius from Berning Family Dairy Feedlot
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
1
INTRODUCTION
Hunter Hills Residential Development is proposed on 208.15 acres of land in the western part of the City
of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota. The project will consist of up to 590 residential units, including
about 454 single-family detached homes and 136 multi-family attached twin homes and townhomes. Site
development will include installation of municipal sewer and water, mass grading, and stormwater
management features. The project will convert about 170 acres of cropland, 17 acres of trees and grass,
and 1 acre of wetland to streets, homes, lawns, landscaping, and stormwater basins.
An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part
4410.4300, Subp. 19.D. (Residential development). The EAW and the respective comments have been
reviewed in accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 to determine if the project has potential for
significant environmental effects. This document includes responses to comments received by City of
Otsego (City), the Findings of Fact supporting the decision, and the Record of Decision indicating an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not necessary for this project.
EAW Notification, Distribution, and Comment Period
In accordance with Minnesota Rules 4410.1500, the EAW was completed and distributed to persons and
agencies on the official Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list. The notification was
published in the EQB Monitor on May 26, 2020, initiating the 30-day public comment period. A public
notice or press release was submitted to the Elk River Star News. The comment period ended on June 26,
2020.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
The City received eight written comment letters from five public agencies and one nonprofit organization:
1. Wright County, May 18, 2020;
2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, May 19, 2020;
3. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 23, 2020;
4. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, June 9, 2020;
5. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, June 24, 2020;
6. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, June 23, 2020
7. Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office, June 24, 2020;
8. Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, June 25, 2020.
None of the comments recommended preparation of an EIS. The City of Otsego did not receive
comments from individual residents or members of the public.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
This document responds to comments letters individually. It includes summaries of comments followed
by responses. Complete comment letters are included in Appendix A. Responses to comments are
generally confined to substantive issues that “address the accuracy and completeness of the material
contained in the EAW, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation before the project is
commenced, and the need for an EIS on the proposed project.” (MN Rules 4410.1600). Some comments
included general remarks, recommendations, or permit requirements. Such comments are noted for the
record.
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
2
Wright County
Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes
The EAW lists Brian Beaudry's farm as a feedlot, but the distance from the feedlot to parcel 118-800-
243100 is about 500 feet, much less than indicated in the EAW. There are several homes in the SW
corner of the development that are within 1,000 feet of Beaudry's feedlot.
There is a 1,000-foot radius drawn from the Berning Family Dairy feedlot, but the separation distance
shouldn't be drawn from a central point. The setback is from any component of the feedlot that houses
animals. There are portions of the setback circle that appear to only be about 820 feet from Berning
Family Dairy. Perhaps there is a survey that clarifies the number of parcels within that setback distance?
The Barthel Brothers Dairy is still listed as an active feedlot because a certified letter was not submitted to
the County Feedlot Program Administrator or the MPCA, stating that the animal feedlot or the manure
storage area has been closed according to MN Rule 7020.2025. The EAW states that the wastewater
lagoon was obliterated in 2016. Were the contaminated soils removed from the lagoon or was it
improperly just filled in?
Response
The City of Otsego agrees that the Brian Beaudry Farm feedlot is less than 1,000 feet from the project
area. However, the Beaudry Feedlot is not registered under the City Zoning Ordinance and therefore the
1,000-foot setback does not apply.
Although the EAW illustrated the Berning Family Dairy feedlot 1,000-foot radius from a central point,
the Preliminary Plat uses more detailed survey information and shows the 1,000-foot radius measured
from the corners of the barn that contains livestock (Appendix B).
The project proponent has submitted certified letters to the County Feedlot Program Administrator and
the MPCA stating that the Barthel Brothers Dairy feedlot and manure storage area has been closed. The
timing of feedlot closure was determined from aerial photography. The property has been sold twice
since the feedlot was closed and the current owner has no record of methods the Barthel Brothers used to
close the feedlot.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Water Resources
An approved jurisdictional determination was issued for the site on June 17, 2020, indicating Wetlands 5,
5A, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are not waters of the United States and therefore not subject to Corps of Engineers
jurisdiction. However, a Department of the Army (DA) permit may be required for activity proposed in
remaining aquatic resources. The proposal appears to involve the discharge of dredged or fill material
into aquatic resources that may be waters of the United States subject to the Corps of Engineers’
jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Response
The comment is noted and the project proponent has filed an appropriate wetland permit application for
the first phase of the Hunter Hills Residential Development.
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
3
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comments
Wastewater
The proposed plan would add residential water softeners due to the water hardness levels of the Otsego
municipal water supply. Many Minnesota municipalities are wrestling with high chloride levels in their
wastewater (See https://www.wrc.umn.edu/chloride ). Most home water softeners use sodium chloride
(NaCl) in a softening process that discharges chloride ions into wastewater.
Otsego’s West Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), the planned WWTF for the development, is
struggling to meet chloride discharge permit limits. The February 2020 Otsego Water Master Plan
(Section 2.3.1, Hardness) discusses this issue and states that centralized water softening will be explored
as an option for future system improvements. This factsheet suggests ways to optimize home water
softener salt use (https://www.wrc.umn.edu/sites/wrc.umn.edu/files/umnresidentialbmps_final.pdf), while
this link (https://www.wrc.umn.edu/communitywatershed-scale) provides resources for cities and
examples of how other communities in Minnesota are addressing their high chloride levels. We suggest
that as this development moves forward, the City of Otsego consider what strategies can be used to
minimize chloride use.
Stormwater
The increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the road salt (chloride) used in the project area.
Consider promoting local business and city applicator participation in the Smart Salting Training offered
through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. More information and resources can be found at this
website: (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/salt-applicators). Many winter maintenance staff who have
attended the Smart Salting training have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their
organizations.
Consider using stormwater features as a source for landscape irrigation. Such water appropriations do not
require a DNR Water Appropriations Permit.
Surface Waters
Restoration or enhancement of the larger wetland in the northeast portion of the site could be conducted
in coordination with stormwater management measures.
Wildlife
Due to entanglement issues with small animals, please limit the use of erosion control blankets to ‘bio-
netting’ or ‘natural netting’ types, and products without plastic mesh netting or other plastic components.
These are Category 3N or 4N in the 2016 & 2018 MnDOT Standards Specifications for Construction.
Also be aware that hydro-mulch products may contain small synthetic (plastic) fibers to aid in its matrix
strength. These loose fibers could potentially re-suspend and make their way into Public Waters. Please
review mulch products and do not allow any materials with synthetic (plastic) fiber additives in areas that
drain to Public Waters.
The DNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) letter provides recommendations for avoiding
impacts to Blanding’s turtles. Blanding's turtles, a state-listed threatened species, have been reported in
the vicinity of the proposed project, but outside of the one-mile search radius. Blanding's turtles use
upland areas up to and over a mile distant from wetlands, waterbodies, and watercourses. Uplands are
used for nesting, basking, periods of dormancy, and traveling between wetlands. Factors believed to
contribute to the decline of this species include collisions with vehicles, wetland drainage and
degradation, and the development of upland habitat. Any added fatality can be detrimental to populations
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
4
of Blanding's turtles, as these turtles have a low reproduction rate that depends upon a high survival rate
to maintain population levels.
For additional information, see the Blanding's turtle fact sheet, which describes the habitat use and life
history of this species. The fact sheet provides recommendations for minimizing impacts to this rare turtle
(https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/animals/reptiles_amphibians/turtles/blandings_turtle/f
actsheet.pdf). Refer to the first list of recommendations for your project. The Blanding's turtle flyer
(https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/natural_resources/animals/reptiles_amphibians/turtles/blandings_turtle/fl
yer.pdf) should be given to all contractors working in the area.
Response
Wastewater
The City of Otsego monitors wastewater effluent chlorides as required by the NPDES permit. The City’s
adopted Water Master Plan reviewed water treatment alternatives for centralized softening and surface
water treatment and has initiated winter maintenance practices to reduce chlorides. Educational and long-
term strategies are being reviewed, referencing the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Chloride Management
Plan (https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-iw11-06ff.pdf). In addition, project developers
and builders have the ability to require that water softeners in new homes are metered by water use rather
than by time, softening only when necessary. Accordingly, chloride reduction strategies will be
considered to the extent practicable.
Stormwater
The comment is noted. As stated above, chloride reduction strategies will be considered to the extent
practicable. Landscape irrigation for the project is not expected to require a DNR Water Appropriation
Permit.
Surface Waters
The comment is noted. No further response is necessary.
Wildlife
As indicated in the EAW, the project will consider using erosion control materials constructed of organic
fibers rather than plastic. The comments and related information on Blanding’s turtles have been
forwarded to the project engineer, who will be able to include these materials in construction documents
to be reviewed by construction contractors.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Surface Waters
The EAW should include the MPCA as a regulator of all surface waters as defined by Minn. Stat. 115.01
Subd. 22. (Waters of the state). Even if surface waters do not fall under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) jurisdiction or are exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act, all surface waters are regulated
by the MPCA and any surface water impact described in the EAW may require mitigation.
The MPCA requires applicants for 401 Water Quality Certification to complete an Antidegradation form.
The Antidegradation form and Draft Certification must be public noticed by the MPCA.
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
5
Wastewater
A map showing the sewer connection locations to the city sewer, direction of flow, and the sewer route to
the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) should be included. Map scale should show the Project site and
WWTP location.
Design wastewater flow calculations should include both average daily flow and peak flow.
Table 7 shows the design flow per unit of 175 gallons per day (gpd)/unit. This seems low compared to the
design flow projections we see for other projects, usually around 275 gpd/unit.
Table 14 lists recent development projects in the city. It would be beneficial to include the number of
units and design flows for each of those developments.
Table 8 indicates that there is currently 200,000 gpd of available capacity at the WWTP. Please clarify if
that surplus capacity considers allocations for the 10 recent projects listed in Table 14.
Other Environmental Effects
Please note that chloride (salt) is a growing issue for lakes, streams, and groundwater around the state.
Chloride can come from both de-icing salt and water softener salt. For the proposed Project, the MPCA
recommends smart salting practices for de-icing streets and driveways during the winter weather months
and water softening best practices be used year-round. Additional resources are available at
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/statewide-chloride-resources.
Response
Surface Waters
The EAW noted the potential need for Section 401 Water Quality Certification or Waiver from the
MPCA. Waters of the state often serve a stormwater function and the proposed project will include a
stormwater management system to replace the uses and functions of such waters.
Wastewater
The Otsego West Wastewater Treatment Facility (W-WWTF)is located at 7551 Lancaster Ave, about 0.5
mile south of the project area. Wastewater will be routed through sanitary sewers beneath streets to the
W-WWTF. Maps are included in the Comprehensive Plan. A detailed sewer route map is not required
under environmental review rules, EAW guidelines, or to understand environmental effects.
The City has verified the 175 GPD average flow based on development connected to the City’s East and
West Wastewater Treatment Facilities as documented in its Sewer Master Plan. Table 7 from the EAW
has been revised and included below as Table 1 to show the peak flow as well as average flow. The W-
WWTF is designed for an annual average flow capacity of 600,000 GPD and a peak flow capacity of
2,210,000 GPD. Predicted project average and peak wastewater flows each represent 17.2% of the design
capacity of the W-WWTF. The City has planned for sufficient wastewater treatment capacity.
Sewer capacity from the W-WWTF has already been allocated to Pleasant Creek Farms, Arbor Creek,
Martin Farms, and Prairie View Elementary school. For the remaining average 200,000 GPD capacity at
the W-WWTF, the City only allocates sewer capacity to developments with approved final plats, which
would affect future phases of Kittredge Crossings and the phased development of the Hunter Hills project.
The Ashwood development is within the East Sewer District and served by a separate wastewater
treatment facility. The Kollviue Estates development is within the City of Albertville and is not served by
the City of Otsego.
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
6
Table 1. Estimated Sanitary Wastewater Generation
Use Units No. of
Units Units/REC
GPD1 Total GPD
Ave Peak Ave Peak
Residential Residences 590 1 175 645 103,250 380,550 1GPD = Gallons per Day; REC = Residential Equivalent Connection
Other Environmental Effects
Refer to the preceding Response to the Minnesota DNR Wastewater comments regarding chloride.
Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office
Historic Properties
Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the
National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the
area that will be affected by this project.
Response
The comment is noted. No further response is necessary.
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change
The EAW omits a potentially significant environmental impact: climate change. In order to comply with
Minnesota law and policy, the EAW must analyze the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that the
development will emit, possible mitigation measures to reduce those emissions, and the impacts of
climate change on the Project. Revising the EAW to include this analysis would also enable the City to
promote smarter, cleaner, and more resilient growth. For this reason, Minnesota Center for Environmental
Advocacy (MCEA) respectfully requests that the City revise the EAW to include this vital information.
The City must consider the GHG emissions that the Project will produce in order to fully understand the
environmental impacts of the Project, and to identify opportunities to reduce that impact. Residential
developments have potential to generate significant GHG emissions from the following sources:
• Construction – GHGs result from producing construction materials such as cement and steel, as
well as transporting materials and operating heavy equipment.
• Land-use change – Converting previously undeveloped land into developed land releases GHG
emissions from soil and foliage that are displaced for development.
• Electricity generation – Although emissions from the electric sector are decreasing, electricity
generation is the single largest source of GHG emissions in buildings.
• Space and water heating – Particularly when powered with gas or propane rather than electricity,
water heaters and furnaces can be a significant source of emissions—in Minnesota, natural gas is
the largest contributor to emissions within the residential and commercial sectors.
• Cooling and refrigeration – Refrigeration and air conditioning can result in a wide variety of
GHGs during installation, use, and disposal, and many of these gases have a global warming
potential significantly higher than that of carbon dioxide.
A recent Court of Appeals decision requires an estimation and analysis of GHG emissions for any project
expected to produce emissions with the potential to create significant environmental effects. Minnesota
law and environmental guidance also require that the EAW include an analysis of mitigation measures
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
7
that could reduce greenhouse gas emissions. To accurately assess the environmental impacts of a project,
the EAW must analyze the effects that a changing climate will have on the Project. For example,
Minnesota is already facing more significant rainfall events than in previous years as a result of climate
change, and the EAW must consider the effects of those events on the Project.
MCEA believes the EAW presents the City with a valuable opportunity to plan for growth that is cleaner,
more efficient, and more sustainable. This will provide a benefit to the citizens of Otsego in the
immediate future and for decades to come.
A significant amount of GHG emissions are “reasonably expected” from the Project during construction
and operation. Accordingly, an analysis of GHG emissions for the Project must be included in response
to the “catch-all” section on the EAW form for “other potential environmental effects.”
Response
MCEA comments include five main points:
1. A revised EAW is requested to address GHG emissions and climate change.
2. GHG emissions of the project must be analyzed.
3. Significant GHG emissions are reasonably expected from project construction and operation.
4. The project will impact climate change and be impacted by climate change.
5. The project should identify potential mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions.
The following narrative and analysis responds to each of these points individually.
1. Request for a Revised EAW
Minnesota environmental review rules do not specify a purpose for or conditions under which a revised
EAW should be prepared. In fact, the rules make no mention of a revised EAW. Instead, in cases where
information necessary is lacking, but can be reasonably obtained, Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, Subp.
2a.B. allow RGUs to obtain the lacking information prior to the decision on the need for an EIS. Such
supplemental information is customarily included in the Response to Comments and Findings of Fact
supporting the decision on the need for an EIS. This Response to Comments includes supplemental
information, which the MCEA said was lacking in the EAW. The supplemental information follows. It
is provided in the interest of making the EAW and Record of Decision complete and accurate.
2. GHG Emissions
As of July 2020, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board is still working on the proposed framework
for integrating GHG quantification and assessment requirements into the Environmental Review Program.
In light of this constraint and in the absence of official guidance, the GHG assessment presented here is
based on reasonably available information.
It should be noted that some of the GHG emissions considered here will not add to existing emissions.
This is because future residents of the project are already alive, living in heated and cooled homes,
driving automobiles, and generating solid waste and wastewater. These activities, which will transfer to
the project area when people purchase homes, already contribute to ambient, pre-existing GHG emissions.
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
8
Methods and Information Sources
Common GHG greenhouse gas emissions include CO2, CH4, N2O. GHG emissions are customarily
converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) using global warming conversion factors to represent the
global warming potential over 100 years, equivalent to one ton of CO2 derived from fossil fuel.
GHG emissions of project construction were estimated from the impervious surface development acreage
and the ratio of GHG emissions to impervious surface acre from the ‘Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment
for the Proposed Central Commons Project’ prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc., available at
https://www.ci.stillwater.mn.us/centralcommons.
GHG emissions from project operation, including buildings (electricity and space heating in homes),
vehicle travel, air travel, and hotel use was estimated using the Carbon Footprint Calculator provided by
Conservation International, available at https://www.conservation.org/carbon-footprint-calculator#/. This calculator was released in 2017 and uses current data to estimate GHG emissions based on specific
lifestyle choices and a range of household behaviors. When specific data were otherwise lacking, we
used U.S. averages provided in the Conservation International Carbon Footprint Calculator.
GHG emissions from solid waste were estimated using the solid waste generation estimate from the EAW
and the ratio of GHG emission per ton of solid waste from the ‘Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment for
the Proposed Central Commons Project’ prepared by Wenck Associates, Inc.
GHG emissions from wastewater was estimated using GHG emission rates derived from ‘Greenhouse
Gas Emissions from Wastewater Treatment Plants’ (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.10.067).
GHG emissions from land use conversion were not specifically estimated for this project for three
reasons:
1. Most of the existing project area is dedicated to production of agricultural crops that are harvested
and tilled annually. Therefore, existing vegetative cover on the site is unlikely to sequester
carbon into roots, soil, and vegetative growth when compared to natural environments like
prairies or forests.
2. The existing agricultural production on the site produces its own GHG emissions through use of
diesel-operated machinery, commercial fertilizer, and other factors.
3. In the ‘Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment for the Proposed Central Commons Project,’ Wenck
Associates found only a minor GHG emission impact attributable to land use conversion.
GHG emissions for residential refrigeration and air conditioning were not estimated for this project for
three reasons:
GHG emissions related to refrigeration and air conditioning result from the manufacturing process,
leakage and service of equipment, and disposal at the end of the useful life of the equipment. Such GHG
emissions can include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and non-halogenated
refrigerants such as ammonia, carbon dioxide (CO2), propane, or isobutane (‘Direct Fugitive Emissions
from Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Fire Suppression, And Industrial Gases’;
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/fugitiveemissions.pdf). GHG emissions
of refrigeration and air conditioning were not quantified for this project for three reasons listed below.
Based on these considerations, this assessment focuses on larger sources of GHG emissions.
1. Household refrigeration and air conditioning is done for relatively small spaces and therefore
impacts are generally less than those of commercial refrigeration and air conditioning.
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
9
2. Most household GHG impacts are related to space heating, electricity use, and travel rather than
refrigeration and air conditioning chemicals.
3. Quantification of GHG emissions from household refrigeration and air conditioning can require
multiple assumptions and be complex.
Assumptions
This GHG assessment is based on the following assumptions regarding the project and emissions:
1. GHG emissions from construction are proportional to the area of impervious surface development
and construction will be distributed over 10 years.
2. Assumptions of the Central Commons GHG Assessment included in the EAW distributed by the
City of Stillwater in June 2020 are valid and can be reasonably extrapolated to other projects.
3. Future residents of Hunter Hills will not purchase of wind or solar energy through programs of
energy utilities, rooftop solar, or community solar gardens. This assumption helps ensure a
worst-case scenario GHG assessment.
4. Homes to be constructed in Hunter Hills will use programmable thermostats, energy star
appliances, and energy efficient light bulbs. These technologies are already readily available.
5. Homeowners in Hunter Hills will recycle metal, plastic, glass, and paper. The City of Otsego
offers curbside recycling and recycling programs generally focus on increasing awareness and
participation
6. Residents of Hunter Hills will consume an omnivorous diet.
7. Residents of Hunter Hills will dry laundry in appliances rather than on clotheslines.
8. Each detached home will have three residents and each attached home will have two residents.
9. The developed project will include an average of two motor vehicles per home. Neither vehicle
will be electric, driving distance will average 10,000 to 15,000 miles/year, and fuel economy will
average 20-24 MPG.
10. Air travel will average three medium round-trip flights (300 to 2,500 miles one way) and three
short round-trip flights (<300 miles one way) per household per year (U.S. average).
11. Use of hotels will average 1-2 weeks in hotels per household per year.
Results
Hunter Hills Residential Development is estimated to emit 4,035.31 tons of CO2e per year from project
construction and 32,981.39 tons of CO2e per year from project operation (Table 2). Emissions from
construction and operation will have some overlap and be partially additive because later phases of
development will be under construction while earlier phases of development are operational. The
combined total, considered a worst-case scenario, is estimated at 37,016.70 tons of CO2e per year.
3. GHG Emissions and Potential for Significant Environmental Effects
The estimated GHG emissions are not considered to cause potential for significant environmental effects
because the combined total of 37,016.70 tons of CO2e per year is less than half the mandatory EAW
threshold of 100,000 tons of CO2e per year (Minnesota Rules Part 4410.4300, Subp. 15.B.).
The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act provides criteria for determining the potential for significant
environmental effects, discussed later in this document, but it does not provide a definition of
‘significance.’ Under the National Environmental Policy Act, significance of environmental effects refers
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
10
to context, intensity, and uniqueness (‘Significance’ under NEPA, https://www.npi.org/node/478).
Specifically, significance refers to the:
1. geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur;
2. intensity or severity of the impact in whatever context it occurs; and
3. unique characteristics or sensitivity of the environmental in which the effects occur.
The GHG emissions of Hunter Hills Residential Development do not rise to the level of significant
environmental effects because:
1. the proposed project is consistent with the context of the Otsego environment in which it will
occur;
2. the proposed project is consistent with the intensity of similar nearby residential developments;
and
3. the existing environment in which the project will occur is mostly cropland that lacks unique or
sensitive environmental characteristics.
4. Climate Change Impacts
Everything on earth is either affected by climate change or affects climate change. This project is no
exception. In Minnesota, climate change is causing increases in extreme heat, large precipitation events,
flooding, annual precipitation levels, and the length of the growing season. These trends will continue
and increase until climate change is reversed. Effects on the project and future residents of the project
area could include flooding; increased maintenance of roadways, storm sewers, and drainage routes;
increased heat stress, pollen counts, and heat-related human health issues; and decreased need for
irrigation. Increased heat could also affect elements of project construction such as roofing and outdoor
activities such as summer sports. Winter activities such as skiing and snowmobiling could also be
impacted due to lack of snow and freezing temperatures during the typical winter recreation season.
Undesirable organisms such as deer ticks and fungal growth could increase as a result of climate change
and cause problems for future residents of the project area. Some climate change impacts, such as
extreme drought, coastal flooding, and shortages of food and water, are expected to affect other parts of
the planet more severely than the project area.
Just as the project will be impacted by climate change, the project will also make an incremental impact
that contributes to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. Climate change impacts are
incremental and cumulative in nature.
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
11
Table 2. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Assessment, Hunter Hills Residential Development
Hunter Hills No. of Units No. of Phases
Phase 1 Total Phase 1 Total
59 590 1 6 to 8
Acres Impervious Acres
Phase 1 Total Phase 1 Total % Imperv.
Hunter Hills 28.40 208.15 9.43 69.10 0.33
CO2e MT1 Hunter Hills
Emission Source Impervious CO2e CO2e
Construction Acre MT Tons
On-Road Emissions 134.80 9,314.46 10,267.43
Off-Road Emissions 100.07 6,914.95 7,622.42
Aggregate, Asphalt,
Concrete 294.91 20,378.27 22,463.20
Construction Subtotal 36,607.69 40,353.05
Construction Years 10 10
Construction CO2e/Yr 3,660.77 4,035.31
Household Residents Per Unit/Yr Total
Operations2 Sq.Ft. Per Unit CO2e CO2e CO2e CO2e
Homes (Buildings)2 MT/Yr Tons/Yr MT/Yr Tons/Yr
Detached (454 units) 2,500-3,000 3 40.59 44.74 18,426.71 20,311.96
Attached (136 units) 2,000-2,500 2 27.19 29.97 3,697.61 4,075.92
Subtotal (590 units) 22,124.32 24,387.88
Vehicle Travel 9.17 10.11 5,411.27 5,964.90
Air Travel/Hotel Use 1.63 1.80 963.43 1,062.00
MT CO2e/
Tons/Yr short ton Solid Waste 2,147.60 0.63 1,352.99 1,491.41
CO2e CO2e
Wastewater Population MT/Yr Tons/Yr
Low Estimate
(23.7 kg CO2e/Person) 1,634 38.73 42.69
High Estimate
(36.1 kg CO2e/Person) 1,634 58.99 65.02
Average 68.22 75.20
Operations Subtotal 29,920.22 32,981.39
Total Annual 33,580.99 37,016.70 1Based on the ratio of GHG emissions to impervious acres, as determined from the Central Commons assessment. 2GHG emissions from homes include electricity, space heating, vehicle travel, air travel, and hotel use.
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
12
5. GHG Mitigation Measures
Several opportunities for climate change and GHG mitigation and adaptation exist. Potential GHG and
climate change mitigation measures that may be considered include:
1. Include a higher density or a greater proportion of multi-family homes, which use fewer resources
and have smaller carbon footprints than single-family residential homes.
2. Use energy efficient building materials that reduce needs for home heating and cooling.
3. Install energy star appliances and programable thermostats (already assumed).
4. Install smart irrigation, or no irrigation at all, to reduce outdoor water use (many Minnesota lawns
now stay green all summer long without irrigation).
5. Install high-albedo (reflective) roofing materials that reflect solar energy and save energy.
6. Plant lawns to a no-mow fine fescue mix or prairie gardens to decrease mowing and increase
carbon sequestration.
7. Narrow street widths to decrease use of petroleum-based bituminous, decrease stormwater runoff,
and decrease street maintenance.
8. Encourage residents to sign up for utility-sponsored renewable energy programs, such as
renewable connect or windsource.
9. Install rooftop solar, electric vehicle charging stations, and/or battery powerwalls in new homes
to make them more energy autonomous and EV-ready.
10. Allocate part of the site to a community solar garden and create a solar-ready community with
lower long-term electricity costs.
11. Work with home builders that integrate rooftop solar into new construction. Prominent Twin
Cities builders like Lennar and DR Horton already offer rooftop solar in parts of the U.S. and
these programs are expanding (see https://www.lennar.com/resource-center/article/benefits-of-
solar and https://newsroom.sunpower.com/press-releases?item=122662).
12. Create a community compost program for organic solid waste to reduce the burden on and future
methane emissions from local solid waste landfills.
13. Create a microgrid for efficient, automated distribution of energy among participants.
14. Install ground-source or air-source geothermal heat pumps during initial construction when these
features are most cost-effective.
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
13
FINDINGS OF FACT
Project Description
Proposed Project
Hunter Hills Residential Development is proposed on 208.15 acres of land in the City of Otsego, Wright
County, Minnesota. The project will consist of up to 590 residential units, including about 454 single-
family detached homes and 136 multi-family attached twin homes and townhomes. The project will
convert about 188 acres of cropland, old building sites, trees, grassland, and wetland to streets, homes,
lawns, landscaping, and stormwater basins.
Site Description and Existing Conditions
The project area is dominated by cropland and has a history of agricultural use. The project area is
roughly 82% cropland, 7% wetlands, and 5% grassland. Planted trees, old building sites, turf grass, and
impervious surface each cover 3% or less of the existing site. The site includes mostly loam and clay
loam soils, 34 feet of topographic relief, and gradual slopes.
Decision Regarding the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, Subp. 7 lists four criteria that shall be considered in deciding whether a
project has the potential for significant environmental effects. Those criteria and the City’s findings are
presented below.
A. Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (A) indicates the first factor that the City must consider is the “type,
extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.” The City’s findings are set forth below.
1. Cover Types. The project will convert about 188 acres of cropland, old building sites, trees,
grassland, and wetland to streets, homes, lawns, landscaping, and stormwater basins. The project
will include preservation and creation of wetlands, buffers, and stormwater ponds covering about
20 to 30 acres.
2. Shorelands and Floodplains. The project area is not within or adjacent to a wild and scenic
river, critical area, agricultural preserve, shoreland overlay district, or mapped floodplain.
3. Land Use. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project is consistent with
the City of Otsego 2012 Comprehensive Plan, which guides the site for Low Density Residential
and Low Density Residential (Large Lot) uses.
4. Geology and Soils. Residential development grading is expected to affect about 188 acres of
land and involve movement of about 850,000 cubic yards of soil to construct streets, residential
building pads, and stormwater features.
5. Water Quality. Compliance with stormwater requirements will minimize and mitigate potential
adverse effects on receiving waters. Project construction will add about 69 acres of impervious
surface to the site, consisting of streets, homes, and driveways. Stormwater rate and volume
controls will limit increases in runoff volume and associated pollutant transport. Stormwater
ponds and infiltration basins are expected to mitigate potential adverse effects on water quality.
6. Wetlands and Surface Waters. The project has been designed to avoid and minimize effects on
wetlands to the extent practicable. Up to 2.07 acres of wetlands and ditches may be impacted for
roadways, stormwater basins and residential lots. The project proponent will be required to
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
14
demonstrate compliance with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and Section 404 of the
Federal Clean Water Act, which may require evaluation of alternatives, avoiding and minimizing
effects on wetlands, and replacing unavoidable wetland impacts at a 2:1 ratio.
7. Wastewater. The project is expected to produce normal domestic wastewater that will be typical
of residential developments. The City has planned for sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to
serve the proposed development.
8. Hazardous Materials. The project area has been used as cropland since at least the 1930s. The
site is not known to include environmental hazards. Wells were sealed and abandoned, and the
wastewater lagoon was obliterated in 2016. The agricultural land use history suggests low
potential for environmental contamination.
9. Ecological Resources. Project development will convert about 188 acres of cropland, old
building sites, trees, grassland, and wetland to residential land uses. The project may affect the
number and type of wildlife species in the area, but changes in wildlife abundance are not
expected to be regionally significant.
10. Historic Resources. A Phase IA Cultural Resource Literature Review of the project area found
no known archaeological or historic architectural sites within the project area. The State Historic
Preservation Office reviewed Cultural Resources report and concluded no known or suspected
archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project.
11. Visual Resources. There are no scenic views or vistas on or adjacent to the project area.
Substantial effects on visual resources are not anticipated in conjunction with project
development.
12. Air Quality. Estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the project are not considered to
cause potential for significant environmental effects. The estimated total annual GHG emissions
from project construction and operation is less than half the relevant mandatory EAW threshold.
13. Noise. Local noise levels are expected to increase temporarily during project construction, but
noise levels are expected to be at or near existing levels after construction is complete. Noise
levels are not anticipated to exceed state standards. Noise generated by construction equipment
and residential building construction will be limited primarily to daylight hours when noise levels
are commonly higher than at night.
14. Transportation. The traffic to be generated by the proposed project does not raise capacity or
safety concerns. The Traffic Study concluded that area intersections are expected to operate at
acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) during the a.m. peak and p.m. peak hours. Trips generated by
the proposed development are expected to have minimal impact on traffic operations of the
surrounding street system.
15. Climate Change. The project will be affected by climate change and it will also have an
incremental impact that contributes to climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases.
These effects are similar to comparable residential developments, as everything on earth is
impacted by climate, contributes to climate change, or both.
B. Cumulative Potential Effects
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (B) indicates the second factor the City must consider is “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
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
15
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.” The
City’s findings are set forth below.
Projects typically combine to produce cumulative effects on municipal resources like water supply and
wastewater treatment. The City of Otsego has planned for growth and increased capacity to address these
cumulative effects. The proposed project will be consistent with land use policies for areas served by
municipal sewer and water.
Cumulative effects of residential development on natural resources may include the loss of agricultural
land and the loss and fragmentation of wildlife habitat. Surface water runoff from the project area will
infiltrate into the soil or be treated in basins prior to discharge toward wetlands and streams. Stormwater
regulations and water quality BMPs are expected to minimize cumulative effects of post-development
runoff on downstream waters.
Climate change impacts are incremental and cumulative in nature. Residential developments contribute
to climate change primarily through combustion of fossil fuels for space heating, electricity, and
transportation. The Response to Comments section of this document includes a list of 14 potential
climate change mitigation measures intended to reduce climate change impacts and enable the City to
promote smarter, cleaner, and more resilient growth.
C. Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (C) indicates the third factor the City must consider is the “extent to
which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.” The
City’s findings are set forth below.
Environmental effects on water quality, wetlands, and traffic are subject to additional approvals and/or
mitigation through requirements of local, state, and federal regulations, ordinances, management plans,
and permitting processes. The following permits and approvals are required for the project addressed
under the EAW. These processes will provide additional opportunity to require mitigation.
Table 3. Permits and Approvals
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
City of Otsego EAW Decision Submitted
City of Otsego Zoning Map Amendment Submitted
City of Otsego Preliminary Plat and PUD-CUP Submitted
City of Otsego Final Plat To be applied for
City of Otsego Wetland Delineation Approval Approved
City of Otsego Wetland Replacement Plan Approval To be applied for
City of Otsego Grading Permit To be applied for
City of Otsego Building Permit To be applied for
City of Otsego Stormwater and Erosion Control Approval To be applied for
City of Otsego Municipal Water Connection Permit To be applied for
City of Otsego Sanitary Sewer Connection Permit To be applied for
Minnesota Department of
Health Water Main Extension Approval To be applied for
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit
To be applied for if
needed
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
16
Table 3. Permits and Approvals
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency NPDES/SDS General Permit To be applied for
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency Sanitary Sewer Extension Approval To be applied for
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Section 401 Water Quality Certification or
Waiver
To be applied for if
needed
U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Wetland Delineation and Approved
Jurisdictional Determination or Section
404 Permit
Approved / To be
applied for
Climate change mitigation measures are expected to gain increased acceptance, adoption rates, and
economic advantages over time. Although climate change mitigation measures may be implemented
sparingly in the initial phase of development, they are expected to become more available, more popular,
and more advantageous by the time project development reaches later phases in 10 to 15 years.
Potential environmental effects associated with this project will be mitigated in accordance with
applicable rules and regulations. The City of Otsego therefore finds that potential environmental effects
of the project are less than significant and “subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.”
D. Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled
Minnesota Rules 4410.1700 Subp. 7 (D) indicates the final factor the City must consider is the “extent to
which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other environmental studies
undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.” The City’s findings are set
forth below.
1. The proposed project design, plans, EAW, related studies, and mitigation measures apply
knowledge, approaches, standards, and best management practices gained from previous
experience and projects that have, in general, successfully mitigated potential offsite
environmental effects.
2. The EAW, in conjunction with this document, contains or references the known studies that
provide information or guidance regarding environmental effects that can be anticipated and
controlled.
3. Other projects studied under environmental reviews in Minnesota have included studies and
mitigation measures comparable to those included in this EAW.
4. There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects
that cannot be addressed by the project design, assessment, permitting and development processes
and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans.
5. The environmental effects of this development can be anticipated and controlled by the City’s
PUD application process and other regulatory processes.
6. Considering the results of environmental review and permitting processes for similar projects, the
City of Otsego finds that the environmental effects of the project can be adequately anticipated
and controlled.
Record of Decision – Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet
17
Based on the EAW, comments received, responses to comments, and criteria above, the City of Otsego
finds that Hunter Hills Residential Development does not have the potential for significant environmental
effects and does not require the preparation of an EIS.
RECORD OF DECISION
Based on the EAW, the response to comments, and the Findings of Fact, the City of Otsego, the RGU for
this environmental review, concludes the following:
1. The EAW was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental
Policy Act and Minnesota Rules, Parts 4410.1000 to 4410.1700;
2. The EAW satisfactorily addressed the issues for which existing information could have been
reasonably obtained;
3. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rules 4410.1700, the project does not have the
potential for significant environmental effects;
4. The City makes a “Negative Declaration;” and
5. An EIS is not required.
Appendix A
Written Comments Submitted to the City of Otsego
Record of Decision
Hunter Hills Residential Development EAW
From: Tracy Janikula <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 5:35 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Sean Riley <[email protected]> Subject: Response to the EAW for the Hunter Hills Residential Development
Mr. Licht, I have reviewed the EAW for the Hunter Hills Residential Development and have a few concerns regarding feedlots. Section 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes lists Brian Beaudry's farm as a feedlot, but I disagree with the stated distance from the development. I understand the What's In My Neighborhood map from the MPCA was used to determine Table 10. The map has the location of Beaudry's feedlot hundreds of feet farther south than it actually is. I measure the distance from the feedlot to the corner of parcel 118-800-243100 as approximately 500 feet. There are several homes in the SW corner of the development that are within 1,000 feet of Beaudry's feedlot. I am using the Beacon map on the Wright County website. There is a 1,000 foot radius drawn from the Berning Family Dairy feedlot, but the separation distance shouldn't be drawn from a central point. The setback is from any component of the feedlot that houses animals. There are portions of the setback circle that appear to only be about 820 feet from Berning Family Dairy. Perhaps there is a survey that clarifies the number of parcels within that setback distance? The Barthel Brothers Dairy is still listed as an active feedlot because a certified letter was not submitted to the County Feedlot Program Administrator or the MPCA, stating that the animal feedlot or the manure storage area has been closed according to MN Rule 7020.2025. The EAW states that the wastewater lagoon was obliterated in 2016. Were the contaminated soils removed from the lagoon or was it improperly just filled in? The owner needs to send the closure letter stating that the liner of the earthen manure basin was properly removed prior to being backfilled. Sincerely,
Tracy Janikula • County Feedlot Program Administrator
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA: PLANNING & ZONING
direct: 763-682-7334 • fax: 763-682-7872
Government Center, 10 2nd St. NW, Room 140, Buffalo, MN 55313
www.co.wright.mn.us
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ST. PAUL DISTRICT
180 FIFTH STREET EAST, SUITE 700 ST. PAUL, MN 55101-1678
05/19/2020
Regulatory File No. MVP-2019-02417-MMJ
THIS IS NOT A PERMIT Rob Bouta Kjolhaug Environmental Services Co 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 130 Orono, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Bouta: We have received your submittal described below. You may contact the Project Manager with questions regarding the evaluation process. The Project Manager may request additional information necessary to evaluate your submittal. File Number: MVP-2019-02417-MMJ Applicant: Dale Willenbring Project Name: Hunter Hills Residential Development (11436 80th Street NE)
Project Location: Section 24 of Township 121 North, Range 24, Wright County, Minnesota (Latitude: 45.2721516406054; Longitude: -93.6531498790457)
Received Date: 10/01/2019 Project Manager: Samantha Coungeris
(651) 290-5268 [email protected]
Additional information about the St. Paul District Regulatory Program can be found on our web site at http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/missions/regulatory. Please note that initiating work in waters of the United States prior to receiving Department of the Army authorization could constitute a violation of Federal law. If you have any questions, please contact the Project Manager.
Thank you. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, ST. PAUL DISTRICT
180 FIFTH STREET EAST, SUITE 700 ST. PAUL, MN 55101-1678
JUNE 23, 2020
Regulatory File No. 2019-02417-SSC City of Otsego c/o Daniel Licht 13400 90th Street NE Otsego, Minnesota 55330
Dear Mr. Licht:
This letter is in response to correspondence we received from Dale Willenbring (Tamarack Land Development) regarding the Hunter Hills Residential Development. This letter contains our initial comments on this project for your consideration. An approved jurisdictional determination was issued for the site of your project on June 17, 2020, and determined that Wetlands 5, 5A, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are not waters of the United States and therefore not subject to Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. However, the purpose of this letter is to inform you that based on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the project referenced above a Department of the Army (DA) permit may be required for your proposed activity in the remaining aquatic resources.
The proposal appears to involve the discharge of dredged or fill material into aquatic
resources that may be waters of the United States, and may be subject to the Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA Section 404). Waters of the United States include navigable waters, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands (33 CFR § 328.3). CWA Section 301(a) prohibits discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, unless the work has been authorized by a Department of the Army permit under Section 404. Information about the Corps permitting process can be obtained online at http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory.
The Corps evaluation of a Section 404 permit application involves multiple analyses,
including (1) evaluating the proposal’s impacts in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (33 CFR part 325), (2) determining whether the proposal is contrary to the public interest (33 CFR § 320.4), and (3) in the case of a Section 404 permit, determining whether the proposal complies with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) (40 CFR part 230).
If the proposal requires a Section 404 permit application, the Guidelines specifically require
that “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences” (40 CFR § 230.10(a)). Time and money spent on the proposal prior to applying for a Section 404 permit cannot be factored into the Corps’ decision whether there is a less damaging practicable alternative to the proposal.
If an application for a Corps permit has not yet been submitted, the project proposer may
request a pre-application consultation meeting with the Corps to obtain information regarding
Regulatory Branch (File No. 2019-02417-SSC)
Page 2 of 2
the data, studies or other information that will be necessary for the permit evaluation process. A pre-application consultation meeting is strongly recommended if the proposal has substantial impacts to waters of the United States, or if it is a large or controversial project.
If you have any questions, please contact me in our St. Paul office at
(651) 290-5268 or [email protected]. In any correspondence or inquiries, please refer to the Regulatory file number shown above.
Sincerely, Samantha Coungeris Project Manager
Enclosure cc: Tamarack Land Development c/o Dale Willenbring 1536 Beachcomber Boulevard Waconia, Minnesota 55387
Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email Region 3 Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106
June 24, 2020
Mr. Daniel Licht, City Planner City of Otsego 13400 90th Street NE Otsego, Minnesota 55330
Dear Mr. Licht,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Hunter Hills Residential Development EAW. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your consideration:
1. Page 12, 11.b.i. Wastewater. The proposed plan to add 590 residential units would presumablyadd a comparable number of residential water softeners due to the water hardness levels ofthe Otsego municipal water supply. Many Minnesota municipalities are wrestling with highchloride levels in their wastewater (See this recent study on sources of chloride in Minnesota).Chloride is one of the components of salt, which is used in forms such as sodium chloride (tablesalt), calcium chloride and magnesium chloride (road salts). Sodium chloride is commonly usedin home water softeners and by water treatment plants to treat “hard” water. Minnesotagenerally has groundwater with high levels of calcium and magnesium that must be removedthrough softening in order to improve taste and prevent lime scale buildup in appliances, pipesand water fixtures. The majority of home water softeners use sodium chloride (NaCl) in asoftening process that replaces calcium and magnesium ions with sodium, while the chlorideions are discharged in the wastewater and eventually end up in the environment.
Otsego’s West Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), the planned WWTF for thedevelopment, is already struggling to meet chloride discharge permit limits. Chloride releasedinto local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment,potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Because salt water ismore dense than fresh water, it settles at the bottom of lakes preventing the natural mixing ofoxygen and nutrients and in effect creating a “dead zone.”
The February 2020 Otsego Water Master Plan (Section 2.3.1, Hardness) discusses this issue andstates that centralized water softening will be explored as an option for future systemimprovements. Each community needs to determine which tool is appropriate for theirsituation. This factsheet suggests ways for homeowners to optimize their water softener salt
use, while this link provides resources for cities and examples of how other communities in Minnesota are addressing their high chloride levels. We suggest that as this development moves forward, the City of Otsego consider what strategies can be used to minimize chloride use.
2. Page 13 – 16, 11.b.ii. Stormwater.
• The planned increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt(chloride) used in the project area. Consider promoting local business and city applicatorparticipation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many wintermaintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities andcounties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use andsave money for their organizations.
• Please consider using stormwater features as a source for landscape irrigation. Such waterappropriations do not require a DNR Water Appropriations Permit.
• We appreciate the stormwater management goal of settling out sediment andcontaminants before they reach wetlands and Public Waters.
• Due to entanglement issues with small animals, please limit the use of erosion controlblankets to ‘bio-netting’ or ‘natural netting’ types, and specifically not products containingplastic mesh netting or other plastic components. These are Category 3N or 4N in the 2016& 2018 MnDOT Standards Specifications for Construction. Also be aware that hydro-mulchproducts may contain small synthetic (plastic) fibers to aid in its matrix strength. Theseloose fibers could potentially re-suspend and make their way into Public Waters. As such,please review mulch products and do not allow any materials with synthetic (plastic) fiberadditives in areas that drain to Public Waters.
3. Page 18 – 19, 11.b.iv. Surface Waters. A restoration or enhancement of the larger wetland inthe northeast portion of the site could be conducted in coordination with stormwatermanagement measures.
4. Page 24 – 25, 13.b. State. Please see the attached DNR Natural Heritage Review letter andinclude it in the public record. The NHIS letter provides recommendations for avoiding impactsto Blanding’s turtles.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Melissa Collins Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5755 Email: [email protected]
Equal Opportunity Employer
June 23, 2020 Daniel Licht City Planner City of Otsego 13400 90th Street NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Hunter Hills Residential Development Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear Daniel Licht: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Hunter Hills Residential Development project (Project) in the city of Otsego, Wright County, Minnesota. The Project consists of a new residential development. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility or other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration.
Water Resources (Item 11) Surface water • The EAW should include the MPCA as a regulator of all surface waters as defined by Minn. Stat.
115.01 subd. 22. Waters of the state. "Waters of the state" means all streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof. Even though there may be surface waters that are determined to be U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) non-jurisdictional, or exempt from the Wetland Conservation Act, all surface waters are regulated by the MPCA and any surface water impact described in the EAW, may require mitigation.
• The MPCA requires applicants for 401 Water Quality Certification to complete an Antidegradation form. The Antidegradation form and Draft Certification must be public noticed by the MPCA. This public notice process is about 30-days and is different from the USACE public notice process. For further information about the 401 Water Quality Certification process, please contact Bill Wilde at 651-757-2825 or [email protected].
Wastewater • Design wastewater flow calculations should include both average daily flow and peak flow. • Table 7 shows the design flow per unit of 175 gallons per day (gpd)/unit. This seems low compared
to the design flow projections we see for other projects, usually around 275 gpd/unit. • A map showing the sewer connection locations to the city sewer, direction of flow, and the sewer
route to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) should be included. Map scale should show the Project site and WWTP location.
• Table 14 lists recent development projects in the city. It would be beneficial to include the number of units and design flows for each of those developments.
Daniel Licht Page 2 June 23, 2020
• Table 8 indicates that there is currently 200,000 gpd of available capacity at the WWTP. Please clarify if that surplus capacity takes into account allocations for the 10 recent projects listed in Table 14. Questions regarding wastewater should be directed to Dave Sahli at 651-757-2687 or [email protected].
Other Potential Environmental Effects (Item 20) Please note that chloride (salt) is a growing issue for lakes, streams, and groundwater around the state. Chloride can come from both de-icing salt and water softener salt. For the proposed Project, the MPCA recommends smart salting practices for de-icing streets and driveways during the winter weather months and water softening best practices be used year-round. Additional resources are available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/statewide-chloride-resources. We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please provide your specific responses to our comments and notice of decision on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit action(s) by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at [email protected] or by telephone at 651-757-2508. Sincerely, Karen Kromar Karen Kromar Project Manager Environmental Review Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division KK:bt cc: Dan Card, MPCA, St. Paul Bill Wilde, MPCA, St. Paul
Dave Sahli, MPCA, St. Paul
MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287
mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ [email protected]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER
June 24, 2020 Daniel Licht City Planner City of Otsego 13400 90th St NE Otsego, MN 55330 RE: EAW – Hunter Hills Residential Development
T121 R24 S24, Otsego, Wright County SHPO Number: 2020-0679 Dear Mr. Licht: Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the above-referenced project. Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If this project is considered for federal financial assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be initiated by the lead federal agency. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by our office for this state-level review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of review and consultation under Section 106.
Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist, at [email protected] if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely,
Sarah J. Beimers Environmental Review Program Manager
June 25, 2020 City of Otsego ATTN: City Planner VIA E-MAIL 13400 90th Street NE Otsego, MN 55330 Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet for Hunter Hills Development Dear City Planner, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (“MCEA”) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) for the Hunter Hills Development (“the Project”). We see this project as an opportunity to continue the conversation around analyzing greenhouse gas emissions as part of the EAW process for residential and commercial developments. MCEA appreciates the work that the City of Otsego has done to create a comprehensive EAW for the Project. However, the EAW omits a potentially significant environmental impact: climate change. In order to comply with Minnesota law and policy, the EAW must analyze the greenhouse gas emissions that the development will emit, possible mitigation measures to reduce those emissions, and the impacts of climate change on the Project. Revising the EAW to include this analysis would also enable the City to promote smarter, cleaner, and more resilient growth. For this reason, MCEA respectfully requests that the City revise the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) to include this vital information. Please see our comments for further discussion. Again, we thank you for the opportunity to continue these important discussions regarding the protection of our state’s environment. Sincerely, /s/ Carolyn Berninger Carolyn Berninger Climate and Energy Policy Analyst CB/ad Enclosure
1
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy’s Comments on the Hunter Hills Environmental Assessment Worksheet,
dated May 18, 2020
June 25, 2020
INTRODUCTION
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (“MCEA”) applauds the City of Otsego
(“the City”) for its efforts to develop a comprehensive Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(“EAW”) for the Hunter Hills Development Project (“the Project”). However, as written, the EAW
omits a potentially significant environmental impact: The Project’s contribution to climate change.
Without considering the Project’s climate impacts, the City cannot make a reasoned decision about
its environmental effects. In order to comply with Minnesota law and public policy, an EAW must
analyze (1) the amount of GHG emissions that will be produced by the project, (2) mitigation
measures that could reduce those emissions, and (3) the impacts of climate change on the Project.
For this reason, MCEA requests that the City revise the EAW to include this vital information. The
City must consider the GHG emissions that the Project will produce in order to fully understand the
environmental impacts of the Project, and to identify opportunities to reduce that impact.
GHG emissions are already impacting Minnesota’s climate, and these changes are affecting
the health and well-being of the state’s residents.1 These impacts are particularly significant for
lower-income communities and communities of color, who already experience disproportionate
environmental health burdens and who are often less able than others to adapt to or recover from
climate impacts.2
1 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Commerce, Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Minnesota: 1990-2016, at 3 (January 2019), https://www .pca.state.mn.us/sites/ default/files/lraq-2sy19.pdf [hereinafter “GHG Emissions in Minn.”]. 2 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change, Public Health and Environmental Justice: Caring for Our Most Vulnerable Communities, The EPA Blog, January 5, 2017, https://blog.epa.gov/2017/01/05/ej-climate-change/
2
Consistent with the threat of climate change, a recent Court of Appeals decision requires an
estimation and analysis of GHG emissions for any project expected to produce emissions with the
potential to create significant environmental effects.3 Minnesota law and environmental guidance
also require that the EAW include an analysis of mitigation measures that could reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Finally, to accurately assess the environmental impacts of a project, the EAW must
analyze the effects that a changing climate will have on the Project. For example, Minnesota is
already facing more significant rainfall events than in previous years as a result of climate change,
and the EAW must consider the effects of those events on the Project.
MCEA believes the EAW presents the City with a valuable opportunity to plan for growth
that is cleaner, more efficient, and more sustainable. This will provide a benefit to the citizens of
Otsego in the immediate future and for decades to come. Accordingly, MCEA respectfully requests
that the City revise the EAW to address GHG emissions and the effects of climate change for the
proposed development.
ANALYSIS
I. THE CITY MUST REVISE THE EAW TO ANALYZE THE GREENHOUSE GASES THAT THE PROJECT WILL EMIT.
Currently, the EAW does not include any analysis of the GHG emissions that the Project will
produce. However, such an analysis is required by Minnesota law and policy. The City can perform
this analysis based on guidance issued by the Council for Environmental Quality, as well as using
various tools and models that have been created to help quantify GHG emissions.
A. Minnesota Law And Public Policy Require The Examination Of GHG Emissions In The Project EAW Because The Project’s GHG Emissions Have The Potential For Significant Environmental Effects.
3 Matter of Denial of a Contested Case Hearing Request & Modification of a Notice of Coverage Under Individual Nat'l Pollution Discharge Elimination Sys. Feedlot Permit No. MN0067652, No. A19-0207, 2019 WL 5106666, at *7-8 (Minn. Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2019).
3
Under the environmental review process required by the Minnesota Environmental Policy
Act (“MEPA”), a responsible governmental unit (“RGU”) must identify and consider all impacts
“that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project” to determine whether the project has
“the potential for significant environmental effects.”4 The RGU must take a “hard look” at the
issues involved, and “genuinely engage[ ] in reasoned decision making.”5 This is not limited to
answering the questions on the EAW form.6 This includes an analysis of GHG emissions if the
emissions are “reasonably expected” to occur from the project with a potential for significant
environmental effects.7 In this case, a significant amount of GHG emissions are “reasonably
expected” from the Project during construction and operation, as explained in the next section.
Accordingly, an analysis of GHG emissions for the Project must be included in response to the
“catch-all” section on the EAW form for “other potential environmental effects.”
Considering GHG emissions in environmental review aligns with Minnesota law and policy,
which calls for steep reductions in GHG emissions throughout the state—reductions that will not
be accomplished without significant action across all sectors. Minnesota’s 2007 Next Generation
Energy Act acknowledged the threat GHG emissions pose to public health and welfare by setting a
goal to reduce statewide emissions 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.8 Unfortunately, Minnesota
4 Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 6 (2018) 5 Citizens Advocating Responsible Dev. v. Kandiyohi Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 713 N.W.2d 817, 832 (Minn. 2006). 6 Matter of Denial of a Contested Case Hearing, 2019 WL 5106666, at *7-8; see also Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7 (2018) (explaining criteria for determining potential for significant environmental effects, and not limiting analysis to issues on EAW form); Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Holsten, No. A08-2171, 2009 WL 2998037, at *3 (Minn. App. Sept. 22, 2009) (finding that the agency had adequately considered the impact of the project’s GHG emissions and thereby implying that such consideration was a required part of the review). 7 Matter of Denial of a Contested Case Hearing, 2019 WL 5106666, at *7. 8 Minn. Stat. § 216H.02, subd. 1, subd. 2 (2019).
4
is not on track to meet this goal.9 Recognizing that a coordinated approach is needed to address the
existential threat of climate change, the governor’s office has created a Climate Change Subcabinet,
which will identify strategies to help Minnesota meet or exceed its goals for reduction of GHG
emissions and enhance climate resiliency in Minnesota.10 Incorporating an analysis of GHG
emissions into the Project’s EAW, therefore, will advance a critical goal of the State of Minnesota.
The Minnesota Attorney General (“AG”) has endorsed including GHG emissions in
environmental review. According to a joint comment with other state AGs, agencies’ obligation
under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) (the federal analog to MEPA) “must
necessarily include examining a project’s contribution to climate change through its GHG
emissions.”11 Disclosing and examining GHG impacts, the AG explained, provides the public with
information that increases their ability to ask agencies and project proponents to move toward
greener and sustainable projects.12 Accordingly, to comply with the “hard look” at environmental
issues required by NEPA (the same standard used for MEPA) an analysis of the project’s likely
climate change impacts is required.13 Analyzing GHG emissions in the Project’s EAW, therefore, is
needed to comply with the AG’s interpretation of the laws governing environmental review.
Finally, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”)—the state agency tasked with
developing rules for the environmental review process under MEPA—has recognized that GHG
9 Gov. Tim Walz, Executive Order 19-37, Establishing the Climate Change Subcabinet and the Governor’s Advisory Council on Climate Change to Promote Coordinated Climate Change Mitigation and Resilience Strategies in the State of Minnesota (Dec. 2, 2019), https://mn.gov/governor/assets/ 2019_12_2_EO_19-37_Climate_tcm1055-412094.pdf. 10 Id. 11 Comments of the Attorneys General of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington to the Council on Environmental Quality, at 10 (Aug. 26, 2019), attached as Exhibit 1 [hereinafter “Comments of the Attorneys General”]. 12 Id. at 11. 13 Id. at 11.
5
emissions must be addressed in environmental review. In January 2020, the EQB convened a team
to provide recommendations for including climate change-related information—including a
discussion of mitigation, adaptation, and resiliency planning—in environmental review documents.14
This decision was based on “general agreement” that climate information is needed in these
documents to inform decision making on proposed projects.15 A report on the issue is due later this
summer.
At present, the EAW for the Project does not include any analysis of GHG emissions. In
order to comply with Minnesota law, public policy, the AG’s interpretation, and the EQB’s
approach, the City must revise the EAW to include such an analysis because the Project is
reasonably expected to emit GHGs with the potential for significant environmental effects.
B. The Project Will Produce GHG Emissions With The Potential To Cause Significant Environmental Effects.
Residential and commercial developments have the potential to generate significant GHG
emissions, including from the following sources:
• Construction – GHGs result from producing construction materials such as cement and
steel, as well as transporting materials and operating heavy equipment.16
• Land-use change – converting previously undeveloped land into developed land releases
GHG emissions from soil and foliage that are displaced for development.17
14 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, Recommended strategies for incorporating information related to climate change into Minnesota’s Environmental Review Program, at 1 (Jan. 22, 2020), attached as Exhibit 2 [hereinafter “EQB Recommended Strategies”]. 15 Id. 16 Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Buildings and Built Infrastructure (last visited April 26, 2020), https://www.eesi.org/topics/built-infrastructure/description 17 See Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2018, Chapter 6.11 (April 13, 2020), https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-usgreenhouse- gas-emissions-and-sinks-1990-2018.
6
• Electricity generation – although emissions from the electric sector are decreasing,
electricity generation is the single largest source of GHG emissions in buildings.18
• Space and water heating – Particularly when powered with gas or propane rather than
electricity, water heaters and furnaces can be a significant source of emissions—in
Minnesota, natural gas is the largest contributor to emissions within the residential and
commercial sectors.19
• Cooling and refrigeration – Refrigeration and air conditioning can result in a wide variety
of GHGs during installation, use, and disposal, and many of these gases have a global
warming potential significantly higher than that of carbon dioxide.20
An EAW recently prepared for a mixed-use development in Stillwater, Minnesota provides
an example of the type of GHG emissions that will result from residential and commercial
projects.21 After initially omitting GHG emissions from the EAW, the City of Stillwater revised the
analysis to include such a discussion. The revised EAW includes the following estimated GHG
emissions attributable to the project during both the construction and operational phases:22
18 Oswaldo Lucon, et al., Buildings, in IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, supra note 22, at 678 (2014). 19 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data: Interactive Sector Details (last visited April 26, 2020), https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/greenhouse-gas-emissionsdata 20 United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Greenhouse Gas Inventory Guidance: Direct Fugitive Emissions from Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, Fire Suppression, and Industrial Gases, at 3 (November 2014). 21 Westwood, Central Commons EAW (June 1, 2020) https://www.ci.stillwater.mn.us/vertical/Sites/%7B5BFEF821-C140-4887-AEB5-99440411EEFD%7D/uploads/200601_Central_Commons_Revised_EAW_Final.pdf. 22 Id.at 31-32.
7
Clearly, this Project has the potential to produce significant GHG emissions.
Because of the potential for a significant environmental impact, the City must revise the
EAW to analyze this impact, despite the challenges associated with quantifying direct climate
impacts from an individual development or source. As explained by the Council on Environmental
Quality (“CEQ”), climate change by its nature results from the incremental addition of GHG
emissions from millions of individual sources that collectively have a large impact.23 Any single
project, no matter how large, is unlikely to cause a measurable change in the global climate on its
own. Accordingly, if a RGU like the City could avoid assessing GHGs by stating that any individual
source is not significant because it alone will not have a global impact, then no project’s emissions
23 CEQ, Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental Policy Act Reviews, at 10-11 (2016) attached as Exhibit 3 [hereinafter, “CEQ Guidance”].
8
will ever be reviewed.24 Because emissions from the Project will be significant in quantity and will
add to the effects of climate change, the City must analyze them in the EAW.
C. The City May Use Guidance From The Council On Environmental Quality And Other Tools To Guide Its GHG Emissions Analysis.
For direction in performing a GHG analysis for the Project, the City may look to the
CEQ—the agency charged with overseeing the implementation of the National Environmental
Policy Act (“NEPA”). Under the Obama Administration, the CEQ issued guidance for agencies to
use when assessing a project’s climate impacts.25 It is well established in Minnesota that
interpretations of NEPA’s requirements may be used when interpreting the requirements of MEPA,
making use of this guidance appropriate here.26
The CEQ guidance provides a structure for agencies to use when assessing the impacts of a
project on the climate. Moreover, it explains common pitfalls and ways that agencies should not
perform a GHG analysis. Among other things, the guidance instructs agencies to:
• Quantify a proposal’s projected direct and indirect GHG emissions using available GHG
quantification tools;27
• Analyze the cumulative impacts and short- and long-term effects of the GHG emissions;28
and
24 Id. 25 CEQ Guidance, supra note 25. While the CEQ guidance issued under the Obama administration has been officially withdrawn by the Trump administration, in the absence of new, finalized guidance from the CEQ or the EQB, the withdrawn guidance remains useful as a roadmap for conducting a GHG analysis. This is particularly true because the Minnesota Office of the Attorney General has commented favorably on the Obama administration guidance and endorsed the approach taken by the CEQ. 26 See In re N.D. Pipeline Co. LLC, 869 N.W.2d 693, 698 (Minn. App. 2015) (explaining that Minnesota courts may look to federal courts’ interpretation of NEPA when applying MEPA). 27 CEQ Guidance, supra note 25, at 11. 28 Id. at 17-18.
9
• Consider alternatives and mitigation measures that would reduce GHG emissions or increase
carbon sequestration and how those alternatives would contribute to the federal, state, or
local plans for GHG emission reductions.29
The first step in this process is to create a GHG inventory that quantifies projected
emissions. The RGU should estimate the primary sources of GHG emissions to the extent possible.
This is necessary to both understand the full environmental impacts of the project, and to identify
opportunities to reduce the project’s impacts on the climate. In circumstances where quantifying
emissions is prohibitively difficult, a California guide to environmental review recommends
performing a qualitative analysis based on “scientific and factual data.”30
There are several resources available that provide guidelines for estimating GHG emissions
from developments like this project. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol has developed worksheets and
guidance for calculating GHG emissions from specific sectors, including specific resources for
calculating emissions from refrigeration and air conditioning as well as stationary combustion.31
These calculation tools include step-by-step guides to quantifying emissions data. The World
Resources Institute has also developed a guidebook for developing a customized GHG calculation
29 Id. at 18-19, 28; see also Comments of the Attorneys General, supra note 12, at 18, 21 (supporting the approach of the Obama administration CEQ guidance with respect to consideration of cumulative, short- and long-term effects; and mitigation measures). 30 Institute for Local Government, Evaluating Greenhouse Gas Emissions as Part of California’s Environmental Review Process: A Local Official’s Guide, at 5 (September 2011). 31 The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Calculation Tools, WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE (last visited April 26, 2020), https://ghgprotocol.org/calculation-tools.
10
tool based off The GHG Protocol’s guidance.32 In addition, the Minnesota Environmental Quality
Board also has staff who can assist local governments with conducting environmental review.33
In addition to ample guidance, there are a number of calculator tools available to quantify
GHG emissions. For many sources of emissions, simple calculations are enough and additional
modeling software is not necessary. For instance, emissions from electricity generation and space
and water heating can be estimated by multiplying Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)
emissions factors by anticipated energy or fuel usage.34 In instances where expected energy usage is
unknown, the RGU could consider using average estimates. For example, the National Association
of Home Builders estimates that for homes built after 1999, average energy use is 100.1 BTUs per
square foot.35 This average usage could be multiplied with local emissions factors for electricity
generation to calculate expected emissions of CO2 and other GHGs from electricity use in these
new homes.
Modeling software tools are also available to assist with calculating expected emissions. The
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs recommends using energy
modeling software such as eQUEST, Energy-10, Visual DOE, and DOE2 to calculate projected
32 Florence Daviet, Designing a Customized Greenhouse Gas Calculation Tool, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE (June 2006), https://www.wri.org/publication/designing-customizedgreenhouse-gas-calculation-tool. 33 See Minnesota Environmental Quality Board, Guidance for Practitioners and Proposers (last visited April 26, 2020), https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/content/environmental-review-guidancepractitioners-and-proposers. 34 Environmental Protection Agency, Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories (2018), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-03/documents/emission0-factors_mar_2018_0.pdf. 35 Paul Emrath and Joshua Miller, How Much Energy Homes Use, and Why, National Association of Home Builders, November 5, 2014, available at https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?sectionID=734&genericContentID=237901#:~:text=Single%2D%20family%20detached%20homes%20built,100.1%20BTUs%20per%20square%20foot.
11
energy usage from stationary sources and energy consumption for use in environmental review.36
This type of modeling software can be particularly useful for comparing emissions under various
mitigation scenarios: eQUEST can be used to determine the energy performance of up to nine
different design alternatives.37
In sum, guidance and calculation tools are readily available online for the City to use in
performing its GHG emissions analysis. These tools will allow the City to reasonably and properly
assess the GHG emissions from the Project, which in turn will allow the City to determine the scale
of the impacts of the Project and actions that can best be taken to mitigate those impacts.
II. THE CITY MUST REVISE THE EAW TO ANALYZE MITIGATION MEASURES.
The EAW also contains no discussion of potential mitigation measures that would reduce GHG
emissions from the construction and operation of the Project. Minnesota environmental law, rules,
and guidance all instruct the agency conducting the review to provide a robust discussion of
mitigation measures when analyzing a project’s climate change impacts. To comply, the City must
revise the EAW to provide the required analysis.
A. A Full Analysis of Mitigation Measures Is Required As Part Of An Environmental Review.
To fulfill the purpose of environmental review, the RGU must discuss potential mitigation
measures sufficient for meaningful public review. MEPA’s purpose includes “understanding the
impact which a proposed project will have on the environment,” and making the information about
impacts “available to governmental units and citizens early in the decision making process.”38 The
36 Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol, (last visited April 26, 2020), http://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/eea/emepa/pdffiles/misc/GHG%20Policy%20FINAL.pdf. 37 Energy Design Resources, eQUEST…the Quick Energy Simulation Tool, at 5 (last visited April 26, 2020), http://www.doe2.com/download/equest/eQUESTv3-Overview.pdf. 38 Minn. R. 4410.0300, subd. 3.
12
Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis in Robertson v. Methow
Valley Citizens Council that a mitigation analysis in an EAW “gives the public the assurance that the
agency has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process . . . and,
perhaps more significantly, provides a springboard for public comment.”39 Here, the public is
entitled to information about mitigation measures that could reduce the Project’s environmental
effects early enough to allow meaningful comments on how the Project should be modified or
improved. This information also benefits other permitting agencies that rely on the EAW as the best
available information about a project’s environmental effects. By identifying practices that can avoid,
minimize, or compensate for its emissions in the EAW, governmental units that will issue permits
and approvals can require improvements that make the Project better and more resilient.
Rules and guidance make clear that the mitigation discussion should include both the
practices the project proposer plans to implement as part of the project, as well as those practices
they could implement. Minnesota Rule 4410.1200 requires all EAWs to discuss “resource protection
measures that have been incorporated into the project design”—in other words, mitigation measures
planned as part of the project. This requirement is also reflected in the EAW form: The catch-all
final question in the EAW form requires the agency to describe any additional environmental effects
not addressed in the rest of the EAW, and to “identify measures that will be taken to minimize and
mitigate these effects.”40 This language makes clear that the EAW must detail all mitigation measures
a project proponent plans to implement.
EQB guidance also confirms the EAW must include a discussion of mitigation practices that
could be implemented. According to EQB guidance:
39 Minn. Ctr. for Envtl. Advocacy v. Minn. Pollution Control Agency, 644 N.W.2d 457, 468 (Minn. 2002) (quoting Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 349 (1989)). 40 See Project EAW, at 33.
13
Information that reduces uncertainties about impacts and their significance belongs in an EAW. Any information that helps clarify the likelihood or level of significance of a potential impact is useful in an EAW because it helps the RGU make a better determination about the need for an EIS. It could be . . . information about how the impact could be mitigated and how that mitigation will be imposed.”41
Here, the EAW fails to analyze the efficacy of any measures the Project might use and does not
discuss mitigations that could be implemented for the Project in regards to climate change. The
EAW must be modified to comply with the requirements of EQB forms and guidance.
In addition to these rules and guidance, the CEQ, Minnesota Attorney General, and the
EQB have all expressly stated that when GHG emissions are evaluated as part of environmental
review, a discussion of mitigation measures should be included. In its guidance on assessing a
project’s climate impacts, the CEQ instructed agencies to “Consider alternatives and mitigation
measures that would reduce GHG emissions … and how those alternatives would contribute to the
federal, state, or local plans for GHG emission reductions.”42 The Minnesota Attorney General
agreed, noting in its comment to the CEQ that when a proposed project has climate change impacts,
a robust analysis of mitigation measures from GHG emissions is required.43 And the EQB, in
creating the task force to provide recommendations regarding the addition of climate-change related
information to environmental review documents, specifically stated that an effective climate change
assessment would need to include a discussion of mitigation measures.44
In sum, to comply with the requirements of environmental review, the Project’s EAW
should include a full discussion of mitigation measures, especially for the Project’s impact on climate
change. The analysis must include not only a detailed description of the mitigations the Project
41 EQB, EAW Guidelines: Preparing Environmental Assessment Worksheets 5 (2013) [hereinafter, EAW Guidelines], available at https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/documents/EAW%20guidelines%202013%20revision.pdf 42 CEQ Guidance, supra note 25, at 18-19. 43 Comments of the Attorneys General, supra note 12, at 22. 44 EQB Recommended Strategies, supra note 15, at 1.
14
plans to implement and the efficacy of these practices, but also mitigations that could be implemented
to further reduce environmental effects. The EAW for this Project does not fulfill this requirement
for a robust mitigation analysis.
B. The City Must Revise The EAW To Analyze Potential Mitigation Measures.
For a development like the Project, numerous types of mitigating measures could reduce the
emissions of climate-harming GHGs from the construction or operation of the project. It is possible,
and even likely, that the Project already includes certain design features that could be considered
mitigation. Without an identification and analysis of these features in the EAW, however, that EAW
is incomplete.
There are a number of mitigation measures available to reduce GHG emissions from
residential and commercial buildings. First, Project proposers can reduce overall energy use in
buildings in two ways: implementing improved efficiency measures; and offsetting some energy use
through onsite renewable energy generation. Guidance in both California and New York State
recommend measures such as: installing efficient appliances and light bulbs; constructing LEED
certified buildings; maximizing interior daylighting; and installing solar or wind generation onsite.45
Another option to reduce GHG emissions from new buildings is electrification of cooking
appliances and space and water heating. In most regions of the United States, electrification reduces
carbon emissions compared with burning natural gas.46 And as Minnesota’s electric grid continues to
decarbonize, GHG emissions from electric appliances will continue to drop.47 In addition, by
45 California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review (June 19, 2008), http://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf [hereinafter “CEQA and Climate Change”]; New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements (July 15, 2009), https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/ eisghgpolicy.pdf. 46 Sherri Billimoria et al., The Economics of Electrifying Buildings, ROCKY MOUNTAIN INSTITUTE, at 20 (2018), https://rmi.org/insight/the-economics-of-electrifying-buildings/. 47 Id.
15
eliminating the cost of extending gas mains, constructing service lines, and installing meters,
completely electrified new buildings will generally be less expensive than buildings that rely on natural
gas, over the long run.48 Electric space and water heaters can also be used as flexible energy storage,
allowing electricity demand to more closely track generation, which permits deeper penetration and
utilization of renewable energy sources.49
Finally, residential and commercial buildings can be constructed using building materials with
recycled content or with low-carbon or “green” concrete. Notably, cement production, which is a key
component of concrete, results in about seven percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.50 The
use of green concrete can significantly reduce a building’s emissions and has been endorsed by the
U.S. Conference of Mayors as a tool in the fight against climate change.51 New York State guidance
also recommends constructing green roofs and using high-albedo roofing materials.52
Given the significant amount of missing information in the EAW, the City lacks the necessary
factual record required to determine the actual environmental effect of the project and to perform a
competent mitigation analysis. In light of this missing information and pursuant to Minn. R.
4410.1700, subd. 2a, the City must revise the EAW to include all of this information.
III. THE CITY MUST REVISE THE EAW TO ANALYZE THE EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE PROJECT.
In addition to analyzing the GHG emissions and mitigation methods, the EAW should also
consider the effects that a changing climate will have on the Project, particularly with regard to an
48 Id. at 36, 46. 49 Id. at 41. 50 Cailin Crow, How “green” concrete can help cities fight climate change, SMART CITIES DIVE (Aug. 15, 2019), https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/us-conference-of-mayors-urges-cities-to-use-green-concrete-material-carbon-/560977/. 51 Id. 52 New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements (July 15, 2009), at 20, https://www .dec.ny.gov/docs/administration_pdf/eisghgpolicy.pdf
16
increase in heavy rainfalls, which will lead to greater-than-expected stormwater. Minnesota’s climate
is already changing, and the EAW presents an opportunity to look forward and prepare in advance
for events that could be hazardous to the environment and residents if not addressed.
A. An Assessment Of The Effects Of Climate Change On A Project Is Needed As Part Of An Environmental Review.
Multiple sources, including the CEQ, the EQB, and the Minnesota Attorney General, call for
analyzing the effects of climate change on a project during environmental review. As stated by the
CEQ, climate change can make communities more susceptible to some impacts and lessen their
resilience to others, thereby exacerbating expected environmental impacts of a project.53 Accordingly,
the City should consider the effects of climate change, such as increasing drought, high intensity
precipitation events, increased fire risk, and ecological change.54 As the Minnesota Attorney General
explains, “Increasing resiliency to a changing climate is a critically important challenge for many
communities … To protect residents, infrastructure, and industries, states must adapt to address these
impacts.”55 Similarly, when the EQB created the task force to recommend climate-change related
additions to environmental review forms, the board expressly noted that to be effective, a climate
change assessment would need to discuss resiliency planning. 56
Clearly, planning for the changes that Minnesotans are already seeing in their communities is
an important part of reviewing the environmental impacts of any project. Currently, the City does not
have any adaptation or resiliency assessment as part of the EAW for the Project. It should revise the
EAW to include this important information.
53 CEQ Guidance, supra note 25, at 21. 54 Id. at 24. 55 Comments of the Attorneys General, supra note 12, at 22. 56 EQB Recommended Strategies, supra note 15, at 2.
17
B. The City Should Analyze The Potential For Increased Stormwater And Other Effects Of Climate Change.
One of the effects of climate change already affecting Minnesotans is an increase in rainfall
and extreme precipitation events. Minnesota has seen a 20 percent increase in one-inch storm events
and a 65 percent increase in three-inch storm events over the past 100 years.57 Furthermore, “mega-
rains” covering large areas are four times more common after the year 2000 than in the 30 years before
2000 in the state.58 These changes in climate impact stormwater management. Accordingly, the EAW
should reference climate change in its consideration of stormwater infrastructure and management on
the site. If the larger amounts of rainfall have not been considered, precipitation from a large weather
event is likely to overcome the stormwater retention system and could cause local water and
groundwater contamination. To ensure that the Project will be able to adapt to the increasingly wet
weather resulting from climate change, the City should revise the EAW to consider those increases
and their potential impacts on the watershed.
CONCLUSION
Revising the EAW to include an analysis of climate change effects would not only fulfill the
City’s obligations under Minnesota law, it would also provide the City with the opportunity to
encourage smarter, cleaner, and more sustainable growth. Performing an analysis of these issues now
will benefit the City’s residents, both now and for years into the future. Accordingly, MCEA requests
that the EAW be revised to include (1) an analysis of GHG emissions, (2) mitigation measures to
address GHG emissions, and (3) the effects of climate change on the Project.
57 Environmental Quality Board, 2019 Environment and Energy Report Card: Climate (2019), https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/content/2019-environment-and-energy-report-card-climate. 58 Id.
18
Respectfully submitted, s/Carolyn Berninger Carolyn Berninger Policy Analyst Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy 1919 University Avenue West, Ste. 515 Saint Paul, MN 55104 [email protected]
Appendix B
Plat Showing 1,000-Foot Radius from
Berning Family Dairy Feedlot
Record of Decision
Hunter Hills Residential Development EAW
36
33
37
33
38
40
29
41
39
28
25
27
26
13
11
22
19
8
5
T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
1
7
LA
ND
ER
A
VE
N
E
STREET 2
S
T
R
E
E
T
4
80TH STREET
S
T
R
E
E
T
6
S
T
R
E
E
T
3
STREET 9
ST
RE
ET
10
STREET 3
S
T
R
E
E
T
1
1
S
T
R
E
E
T
1
5
S
T
R
E
E
T
1
9
17
16
18
14
2
ST
RE
ET
21
ST
RE
ET
20
32
33
31
ST
RE
ET
11B
42
43
45
46
47
48
54
52
50
51
53
55
56
57
58
30
44
24
34
33
STREET 14
10
20
15
21
12
23
S
T
R
E
E
T
4
S
T
R
E
E
T
5
ST
RE
ET
7
S
T
R
E
E
T
1
3
49
STREET 1
ST
RE
ET
8
S
T
R
E
E
T
9
S
T
R
E
E
T
1
2
S
T
R
E
E
T
1
6
ST
RE
ET
17
6
59
60
5
4
3
9
1
7
8
F
U
T
U
R
E
F
U
T
U
R
E
11
10
1
2
2A
2
4
4
8
7
5
4 15
OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN
N
19-037
05/12/2020
N
CAMPION
ENGINEERING
SERVICES, INC.
Civil Engineering Land Planning
HUNTER HILLS
TAMARACK LAND-HUNTER HILLS, LLC
OTSEGO, MN
![Landscaping Ideas [Read-Only]counties.agrilife.org/karnes/files/2011/08/landscaping-ideas.pdf · Landscaping Ideas. Landscaping Ideas. Landscaping Blunders. Landscaping Blunders](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5fdae2a2d6608009004e5f9d/landscaping-ideas-read-only-landscaping-ideas-landscaping-ideas-landscaping.jpg)
