MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY. Watershed Division. Board Item Cover Sheet. MEETING DATE: August 26, 2014 DATE MAILED: August 15, 2014

Transcription

1 b-bp a

2 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Watershed Division Board Item Cover Sheet MEETING DATE: August 26, 2014 DATE MAILED: August 15, 2014 Presenter(s): Supervisor: Manager: Division Director: Asst. Commissioner: Deputy Commissioner: Attorney: Charles Peterson Craig Affeldt Bill Sierks Gaylen Reetz Rebecca Flood Michelle Beeman Adam Kujawa Phone Number: Phone Number: Phone Number: Phone Number: Phone Number: Phone Number: Phone Number: TITLE OF BOARD ITEM: Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Request for Approval of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, and Authorization to Issue a Negative Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement LOCATION: Baker Stevens Township County TYPE OF ACTION: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Environmental Review Approval of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, and Authorization to Issue a Negative Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement ISSUE STATEMENT: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff requests that the MPCA Citizens Board (Board) approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, and authorize the issuance of a Negative Declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Riverview LLP Baker Dairy feedlot in Stevens County. Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Telephone Device for Deaf (TDD): ; Local This material can be made available in other formats, including Braille, large type or audio tape, upon request.

3 The Riverview LLP is proposing to build a total confinement dairy facility in Baker Township, Stevens County. The facility will house 8,850 Jersey cows and 500 Jersey heifers, for a maximum physical capacity of 9,200 animal units (AUs). Application has been made for coverage under the State of Minnesota General Livestock Production Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit MNG The MPCA is the governmental unit responsible for preparing an EAW for the construction of animal feedlots capable of housing more than 1,000 AUs, as specified in Minn. R , subp. 29. MPCA staff prepared the EAW for this proposed project in order to assess the potential for significant environmental effects and to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The preparation of an EIS was requested in 15 of the 24 comment letters. The MPCA staff recommends that the Board approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, and authorize the issuance of a Negative Declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Riverview LLP Baker Dairy feedlot in Stevens County. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Attachment 1: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order 2. Appendix A: Comment Letters Received on the EAW 3. Appendix B: MPCA Staff Responses to Comments 4. Attachment A to Appendix B Riverview Biosecurity Program 5. Attachment B to Appendix B Water pipeline route 6. Attachment C to Appendix B Water pipeline Construction details Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. Telephone Device for Deaf (TDD): ; Local This material can be made available in other formats, including Braille, large type or audio tape, upon request.

4 MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Watershed Division Riverview LLP Baker Dairy - Request for Approval of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order and Authorization to Issue a Negative Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement August 26, 2014 ISSUE STATEMENT Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff requests that the MPCA Citizens Board (Board) approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, and authorize the issuance of a Negative Declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Riverview LLP Baker Dairy feedlot in Stevens County. Riverview LLP is proposing to build a total confinement dairy facility in Baker Township, Stevens County. The facility will house 8,850 Jersey cows and 500 Jersey heifers, for a maximum physical capacity of 9,200 animal units (AUs). Application has been made for coverage under the State of Minnesota General Livestock Production Permit, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit MNG The MPCA is the governmental unit responsible for preparing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the construction of animal feedlots capable of housing more than 1,000 AUs, as specified in Minn. R , subp. 29. MPCA staff prepared the EAW for this proposed project in order to assess the potential for significant environmental effects and to determine the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The preparation of an EIS was requested in 15 of the 24 comment letters. The MPCA staff recommends that the Board approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, and authorize the issuance of a Negative Declaration on the need for an EIS for the proposed Riverview LLP Baker Dairy feedlot in Stevens County. I. BACKGROUND: A. Project Description Riverview LLP is proposing to build a total confinement dairy facility in Baker Township, Stevens County. The facility will house 8,850 Jersey cows and 500 Jersey heifers, for a maximum physical capacity of 9,200 AUs. The proposed facility will be a cross-ventilated 640 1

5 by 1,400 total confinement free stall barn. Manure and wastewater will be collected in a straw covered 650 by 100 by 15 earthen basin and stored in two 650 by 795 by 20 earthen basins with impermeable high-density polyethylene (HDPE) covers. All of the manure generated at the facility will be applied during the fall, after the crops have been harvested from the designated land application sites. Approximately 6,300 acres of cropland are needed to apply the manure at nitrogen-based agronomic rates. Riverview LLP operates 3,060 acres which will receive manure from the proposed dairy; the remaining manure will be sold to neighboring farmers. Clean stormwater from the site will be collected to prevent contact with manure, feed or other sources of contamination and stored in a 325 by 380 earthen detention basin. B. Procedural History The permit application for coverage of the proposed project under the NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit was submitted to the MPCA on March 4, The MPCA is the governmental unit responsible for preparing an EAW for the construction of animal feedlots capable of housing more than 1,000 AUs, as specified in Minn. R , subp. 29. MPCA staff prepared the EAW for this proposed project in order to assess the potential for significant environmental effects and to determine the need for an EIS following procedures described in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules (Minn. R ). The EAW was distributed to the EQB mailing list and other interested parties on May 23, 2014, pursuant to Minn. R The public comment period for the EAW began on May 26, 2014, and ended on June 25, 2014, during which interested parties raised concerns about impacts related to ground and surface water quality and air quality. During the comment period, the MPCA received 6 2

6 comment letters from government agencies: the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Historical Society, Stevens County Environmental Services, Baker Township, Stevens Township, and Synnes Township. The remaining 18 letters came from citizens. A list and copies of the comment letters received is included as Appendix A to the Findings of Fact. The preparation of an EIS was requested in 15 of the 24 comment letters. MPCA staff prepared Responses to Comments and a proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, concluding that an the proposed project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and recommending that a Negative Declaration be issued on the need for an EIS. The proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, a list and copies of the comment letters received, and the Responses to Comments are attached. as follows: The principal environmental issues addressed in the EAW and raised in comments were groundwater availability land application of manure air quality wetlands runoff compliance and enforcement impact to roads The MPCA prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the 30-day public comment period. The comment letters received are presented in Board Item Attachment 2. The Responses to Comments document is Board Item Appendix B. II. DISCUSSION: Minn. R provides four criteria that must be considered by a responsible governmental unit in deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental 3

7 effects. These criteria are: a) the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; b) cumulative potential effects; c) the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and d) the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. These criteria were applied to the proposed project and are fully discussed in the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Board Item Attachment 1), and the MPCA Responses to Comments on the EAW (Board Item Appendix B). III. CONCLUSIONS: MPCA staff believes that the information in the EAW, as supplemented by the Responses to Comments and the entire record for this proposed project, is adequate to make a reasoned decision on the need for an EIS, as set forth in detail in the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order and the MPCA staff s responses to comments. Based on this record, MPCA staff concludes that the potential environmental impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project were identified during the environmental review and will be mitigated by MPCA rule requirements and binding conditions to be placed in MPCA permits, including the NPDES/SDS Permit, as well as other state and local regulations and ordinances that apply to the proposed project. MPCA staff further concludes that, based on the analysis presented in the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, and evidence in the record of this proceeding, the proposed project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects and the preparation of an EIS is not warranted. 4

8 IV. RECOMMENDATION: The MPCA staff recommends that, in accordance with the standard and criteria set forth in Minn. R , the Board: 1) approve the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, which conclude that the proposed project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects; 2) authorize the Commissioner to publish a Negative Declaration indicating that the proposed project will not require an EIS; and 3) adopt the following staff resolution. SUGGESTED STAFF RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED, that, in accordance with the standard and criteria set forth in Minn. R , the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency approves and adopts the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, which conclude that the Riverview LLP Baker Dairy project, proposed by Riverview LLP and analyzed in the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The Commissioner is authorized to execute the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order on behalf of the MPCA. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the MPCA authorizes the Commissioner, on behalf of the MPCA, to publish a Negative Declaration on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement. 5

9 ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED RIVERVIEW LLP BAKER DAIRY BAKER TOWNSHIP STEVENS COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R , the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Riverview LLP Baker Dairy project (Project). Based on the MPCA staff review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. Project Description 1. Riverview, LLP (Project Proposer) proposes to build a 9,200 animal unit (AU) total confinement Jersey dairy farm (8850 cows, 500 heifers) in Section 36, Baker Township, Stevens County. The proposed facility will be a cross-ventilated 640 by 1,400 total confinement free stall barn. Manure and wastewater will be collected in a straw covered 650 by 100 by 15 earthen basin and stored in two 650 by 795 by 20 earthen basins with impermeable high-density polyethylene (HDPE) covers. Clean stormwater from the site will be collected to prevent contact with manure, feed, or other sources of contamination and stored in a 325 by 380 earthen detention basin. 2. All of the manure generated at the facility will be applied during the fall, after the crops have been harvested from the designated land application sites. Approximately 6,300 acres of cropland are needed to apply the manure at nitrogen-based agronomic rates. Riverview LLP operates 3,060 acres which will receive manure from the proposed dairy; the remaining manure will be sold to neighboring farmers. 3. An informational public meeting was held on July 22, 2014, in the evening, at the Chokio-Alberta High School gym, concerning the proposed Baker Dairy Project. An estimated 150 people attended the meeting including area residents, Stevens County officials, and members of Riverview. The meeting was held at the request of neighbors located close to the proposed Project and was moderated by the Stevens County attorney. The meeting was public noticed because the Stevens County Board of Commissioners was in attendance. Procedural History 4. The permit application for coverage of the proposed Project under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) General Feedlot Permit was submitted to the MPCA on March 4, p-ear2-18b TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

10 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 5. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 29, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R , the MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to media statewide, as well as other interested parties, on May 30, The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB Monitor on May 26, 2014, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA website at HUhttp:// 6. The 30-day comment period for the EAW began on May 26, 2014, and ended on June 25, During the comment period, the MPCA received six comment letters from government agencies: the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Minnesota Historical Society, Stevens County Environmental Services, Baker Township, Stevens Township, and Synnes Township; and 18 letters from citizens. A list and copies of the comment letters received is included as Appendix A to these findings. 7. The General NPDES/SDS Permit coverage MNG was placed on public notice on June 9, 2014, and came off notice on July 9, The MPCA prepared written responses to comments received during the 30-day EAW comment period. The responses to comments are included as Appendix B to these findings. Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects 9. Under Minn. R , the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R , subp. 7. These criteria are: A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects. B. Cumulative potential effects. The responsible governmental unit (RGU) shall consider the following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the Project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the Project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the Project Proposer to minimize the contributions from the Project. C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the Project. D. The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the Project Proposer, including other EISs. 2

11 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria Are Set Forth Below Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 10. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects. Minn. R , subp. 7(A). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 11. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Project include the following: Air quality impacts related to hydrogen sulfide emissions Air quality impacts related to ammonia emissions Air quality impacts related to odor Air quality impacts related to increased traffic and dust Impacts to groundwater and surface water quality Impacts to groundwater supply 12. With respect to the extent and reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 13. Air quality modeling estimated the ambient air concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and the intensity of odorous gases at the Project s property lines, and at the feedlot s eight nearest neighbors. There are no other neighboring feedlots in that same area. The modeling protocol and report were reviewed and approved by the MPCA. UAir Quality Impacts Related To Hydrogen Sulfide Emissions 14. Modeling results obtained from the AERMOD model indicated that the proposed Project will not violate the Minnesota ambient air quality standard for hydrogen sulfide. The AERMOD-predicted maximum high-third-high (H3H) project-specific contribution to the ambient hydrogen sulfide concentration was parts per billion (ppb). When a background hydrogen sulfide concentration of 17 ppb was added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum H3H property-line hourly concentration was ppb, which indicates that the half-hour standard of 30 ppb will not be violated. Thus, violations of the hydrogen sulfide standard are not expected to occur, and the proposed Project is expected to be in compliance with the applicable air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide. 15. The AERMOD modeling results also indicated that the proposed Project will not cause the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv (inhalation health risk value) to be exceeded at neighboring residences. The estimated facility-specific maximum 13-week time-averaged hydrogen sulfide concentration among the feedlot s neighbors was 0.17 μg/m 3. When a background concentration of 1 μg/m 3 was added to the AERMOD estimate, the 13-week neighbor hydrogen sulfide maximum concentration was 1.17 μg/m 3, which is below the subchronic hydrogen sulfide ihrv of 10 μg/m 3. 3

12 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order UAir Quality Impacts Related To Ammonia Emissions 16. The AERMOD modeling results for ammonia suggest that the proposed Project will not exceed the acute ammonia ihrv. The AERMOD model predicted a maximum hourly property-line concentration of 1,158 µg/m 3 along the western property line. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m 3 was added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property line ammonia concentration was 1,306 μg/m 3, which is below the acute ammonia ihrv of 3,200 μg/m The AERMOD results also indicated that the proposed Project will not cause ambient air concentrations of ammonia to exceed the chronic ammonia ihrv at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration for the feedlot s neighbors was 2.73 µg/m 3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 µg/m 3 was added to AERMOD estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration for a neighbor was 8.45 µg/m 3, which is below the chronic ammonia ihrv of 80 µg/m 3. Air Quality Impacts Related To Odor 18. Ambient air quality standards are not established for the regulation of odor in Minnesota; however, air quality modeling using AERMOD was conducted to estimate the ground level odor intensities at the feedlot s property lines and at neighboring residences. The maximum hourly odor intensity predicted at the expanded feedlot s effective property lines was 130 odor units (OUs). This would be above the faint odor threshold of 83 OUs, but below the moderate odor threshold of 244 OUs. 19. The maximum odor intensity at eight of the nearest neighbors was modeled. The highest modeled value at a nearby residence was 32 OUs, which is below the faint odor threshold. Of the eight sites modeled, the maximum predicted value at five of the sites was below the very faint odor threshold of 28 OUs. Three of the modeled sites had a maximum predicted value that exceeded the very faint odor threshold. 20. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, air emissions from the facility will continue while the facility remains in operation, and would cease only if the facility were to be temporarily or permanently closed. While in operation, the Project is expected to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria. If excessive air emissions or violations of the ambient hydrogen sulfide air standards were to occur, or if ihrvs for ammonia were exceeded, air quality impacts are likely to be temporary in nature and corrective measures could be implemented. Such measures could include the initiation of a complaint investigation by the MPCA and requiring the Project Proposer to make operation and maintenance changes. In addition, as noted in the Project Proposer s Air Emissions Plan and Complaint Response Protocol, if higher than expected levels of air or odor emissions are anticipated, notification will be made to neighbors. Therefore, the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project are reversible. 21. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to assess the impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed. 22. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. 4

13 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order Air Quality Impacts Related To Increased Traffic and Dust 23. The Project will increase the road traffic to the area. The Project is located on Stevens County Highway 8. This road is a paved asphalt road. All milk trucks and the majority of the day-to-day traffic will use this road. During harvest, area roads that are not asphalt will be used to harvest corn silage and alfalfa silage as part of the project operations. It has been the practice for Riverview to apply chloride (to suppress the dust) on gravel roads in front of houses that receive truck traffic. This will continue to be the practice at Baker Dairy. 24. Currently the primary land use in the area is agriculture. This will not change. The area of the proposed dairy is presently in row crop agriculture. The area surrounding the dairy will be either paved or grass which will help to minimize dust from the site. Cleaning on a regular basis and other good housekeeping practices will be relied on to help minimize dust from the barns and other areas. Impacts to Groundwater and Surface Water Quality 25. With respect to the extent of potential water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. 26. All livestock will be housed in a total confinement building and not have access to surface waters. Manure will be stored in manure storage structures that meet the design criteria of Minn. R The Project site itself will be required by the General NPDES/SDS Permit to meet a zero discharge standard. The General NPDES/SDS Permit requires that stormwater pollution prevention and management plans, which include best management practices for the operation of the facility be developed and maintained on site. 27. In order to avoid contaminating the groundwater at the manure application sites, manure must be applied at agronomic rates. Agronomic rates are based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil chemistry, taking into account levels of nitrogen utilized by crops planted at the manure application sites. This will minimize the potential for nitrates leaching into the groundwater. MPCA and/or county setback requirements, whichever are the more restrictive, must also be observed from water supply wells. These measures will mitigate the potential for adverse impacts on groundwater quality related to manure incorporated at the manure application sites. 28. The land application of manure, if done improperly, can adversely impact surface-water resources through manure-laden runoff or manure residue leaching into draintile lines that outfall to surface waters. Therefore, MPCA and/or county setback requirements, whichever are more restrictive, must be observed around drain tile intakes located within and adjacent to manure application areas, and near other surface-water resources. Additional requirements of the General NPDES/SDS Permit and the Manure Management Plan (MMP) are expected to minimize the potential for manure applied at manure application sites to come in contact with runoff and enter surface waters. 29. The quality of runoff from land application areas is not expected to significantly change if managed in accordance with the MMP required by the NPDES/SDS Permit. Nutrients from manure will tend to replace nutrients formerly provided by other fertilizers. Improved soil tilth through the use of organic fertilizer and immediate incorporation of manure has the potential to improve runoff characteristics over the acres receiving manure under the MMP, provided manure is not applied in excessive amounts. 30. The MPCA makes the following findings with respect to the reversibility of water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from this proposed Project. 5

14 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 31. The prevention of adverse effects on water quality due to manure storage and application is addressed in the proposed NPDES/SDS Permit. Although significant adverse impacts to water quality are not expected, if water quality impacts were to occur, the operation and management of the feedlot and the MMP can be modified and impacts to waters could be reversed. Therefore, the water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project are found to be reversible. 32. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to assess potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project. Measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts have been developed and are required as permit conditions. 33. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to water quality. Impacts to Groundwater Supply 34. The original water supply plan for the proposed Project, as stated in the EAW, raised concerns as stated in Attachment N to the EAW. There were specific concerns with Well Permit application # that included drilling two new wells at West River Dairy, located approximately six miles to the east of Baker Dairy. 35. Other sources of water were reviewed by the Project Proposer, including a fully-permitted well that had already gone through the environmental review process to supply an ethanol plant proposed by APEC, LLC but never constructed. The permit was held in good standing with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). After reviewing the extensive data on the well obtained during the previous environmental review and permitting for the APEC project, the Project Proposer decided that this would be an option to pursue for the dairy. The MDNR granted approval to use a portion of the appropriation on June 3, The well permit number is This new well source, # , will be used in place of # The following finding is taken from the Findings of Fact from the APEC, LLC Ethanol Production Facility and is transferable to the new permit holders. The DNR Water Appropriation Permit will mitigate potential well interference with neighboring wells through its standard well interference and water conflict process as established under Minn. R Mitigation would require the Proposer to lower the pump in each affected well, or if necessary, to replace the pump or replace the well to supply the domestic user with an ample quantity of quality water. DNR will require the APEC to mitigate interference in wells that have already been identified as wells that will experience interference prior to start-up the facility, using well interference triggers described in the EAW. 6

15 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 38. Well # , located at the Baker Dairy site, was constructed per preliminary approval in late 2013 and has some investigative measures attached before appropriation could be awarded. Further information will be required of Riverview to further assess potential impacts, identify necessary measures to better assure sustainability, and to issue a water appropriation permit. The following information has been requested and will be obtained through the ongoing MDNR permit process: Providing an inventory of well information within 1.5 miles of both Baker Dairy and West River Dairy. This includes gathering well information that is not in the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) county well index. Providing MDNR with available specific capacity test data from all wells at both dairy farms. Conducting an aquifer test once the new wells are drilled ( ). The details of this test will be determined at a later date but will be designed to evaluate current and future water use in the confined aquifers by the dairy in both locations. Installing an observation well(s) that will be used during the aquifer test and for long term monitoring. Provide MDNR with an aquifer test report which describes the aquifer sustainability and impact to nearby wells and resource features. 39. Well # will be used as a backup emergency well only. Baker Dairy will complete the remaining items needed to receive a permit for this backup well. Using this new well source ( ) will also alleviate any groundwater sustainability questions surrounding the use of # The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to groundwater supply. Cumulative Potential Effects 41. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is the "cumulative potential effects. In making this determination, the MPCA must consider whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the Project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the Project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the Project Proposer to minimize the contributions from the project. Minn. R , subp. 7(B). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 42. The EAW addressed the following areas for cumulative potential effects for the proposed Project. Air quality Water quality of surface waters Groundwater supplies Air Quality 43. Cumulative potential effects related to air quality were evaluated by comparing the Minnesota ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide, ihrvs for ammonia, and odor intensity thresholds with concentrations in the air predicted by air modeling. The modeling analysis included 7

16 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order the estimated emissions from the proposed Project and incorporated conservative background concentrations to account for the potential impacts of air emissions from other feedlots. Air concentrations were estimated for these pollutants at the eight residences closest to the Project. All modeled air concentrations demonstrated compliance with state standards for hydrogen sulfide and were below the health-based and nuisance odor criteria used in the analyses. Therefore, the cumulative potential effects on air quality are not believed to be significant in the Project area nor is the proposed Project expected to result in significant adverse cumulative potential effects on air quality. Water Quality of Surface Waters 44. The proposed feedlot expansion is located in the Little Muddy Creek (HUC ) minor watershed which is in the Pomme de Terre River major watershed. Fields designated for land application of manure from Baker Dairy are primarily in the Little Muddy Creek watershed. In addition, several fields are located in the Drywood Creek minor watershed (HUC ), also in the Pomme de Terre River major watershed, one field is in the Twelve Mile Creek minor watershed (HUC ), which is in the Mustinka River major watershed. 45. The Project has the potential to affect the water quality of Lake Hattie which is in the Little Muddy Creek watershed and is listed as an impaired water due to excess nutrient (phosphorus) and eutrophication biological Indicators. Lake Hattie is approximately one mile east of the nearest land application field and may receive runoff from fields used for land application of manure. 46. When a lake becomes eutrophic, it is more likely to experience nuisance algal blooms. Large algal blooms in a lake reduce the lake s water clarity and desirability for recreational use. Animal manure is one of many potential sources of phosphorus in a lake watershed. For waters that are impaired, the MPCA must conduct studies that will identify and assess the sources of phosphorus in the watershed and then determine an appropriate total maximum daily load (TMDL) of phosphorus for each lake and load allocations of all types of sources. 47. Lake Hattie is included in a report on the Pomme de Terre River Watershed TMDL Project which is anticipated to go on public notice soon. The Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Report (WRAPS) will be used as the implementation plan. The Project will need to be consistent with the strategies of the implementation plan. 48. The Project has the potential to affect the water quality of Drywood Creek which is listed as impaired based on aquatic macroinvertebrate bioassessments; E. coli bacteria; fishes bioassessments; low dissolved oxygen; and turbidity. Several of the manure land application sites are located in the Drywood Creek watershed. The MPCA must conduct studies that will identify and assess the sources of the impairments in the watershed and then determine an appropriate TMDL for each source of impairment and load allocations of all types of sources. Drywood Creek is part of the Pomme de Terre River Watershed TMDL Project which is anticipated to go on public notice soon. The WRAPS will be used as the implementation plan. The Project will need to be consistent with the strategies of the implementation plan. 8

17 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 49. The Project and the land application sites located in the Pomme de Terre River watershed must also be consistent with the Pomme de Terre River Fecal Coliform TMDL Implementation Plan, submitted by Stevens County Soil and Water Conservation District (September 2008). The majority of the implementation is directed at smaller more traditional feedlots with open lots and pastures. Baker Dairy will be a total confinement facility with all manure stored on site in covered manure storage basins until land application. The Pomme de Terre Watershed TMDL Implementation Plan (page 10) states, Nutrient Management Plans: Using soil tests, crop input needs (University of Minnesota Extension recommendations), and manure analysis to determine proper manure application rates to all farm fields will decrease the amount of excessive manure applied to fields. Manure application should follow the requirements set forth by the MPCA in Land Application of Manure: Minimum State Requirements, MPCA document #wq-f8-11. This document specifies the setback requirements for land application of manure. Baker Dairy has an MPCA approved nutrient management plan. 50. The proposed dairy must also follow Minn. R. ch regulations for manure storage design and land application. This includes applying manure at agronomic rates, annually testing manure nutrient content and using construction methods pre-approved by the MPCA. Additionally, the producer is required to follow an MPCA approved MMP for manure transfer and submit an annual report to the MPCA on manure production, land application and any discharges. Manure application sites related to Baker Dairy are currently in crop production and nutrients from manure will be used to replace other nutrient sources such as commercial fertilizers. Groundwater Resources 51. The potential for the groundwater appropriation requirements of the proposed Project to result in cumulative potential effects on groundwater resources has been and will be further evaluated as part of the MDNR permitting process. 52. The groundwater appropriation permit for Well # has undergone previous environmental review and permitting. Mitigation measures were incorporated into permit requirements and an observation well monitoring condition was included for verification: The permittee is required to measure water levels, with an accuracy of 0.01 foot, in the west observation well (unique number ) and the east observation well (unique number ). Water levels shall be measured monthly, and recorded as depth to water from the top of the well casing. Monitoring reports shall be submitted electronically on a quarterly basis. 53. The MDNR Water Appropriation Permit will also ensure the mitigation of cumulative potential effects through its standard well interference and water conflict process as established under Minn. R Mitigation would require the Proposer to lower the pump in each affected well, or if necessary, to replace the pump or replace the well to supply the domestic user with an ample quantity of quality water. 54. Groundwater appropriation permit application at the Baker Dairy site is pending review. MDNR requested the applicant to provide an inventory of well information within 1.5 miles of Baker Dairy and provide any specific capacity test data. MDNR will review the application once the information has been provided to determine whether further testing or an observation well is required. 9

18 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 55. Based on information on the Project obtained from air modeling, permit application, and plan review processes, ongoing water quality assessments, a site visit, Response to Comments, and presented in the EAW, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative potential effects from this Project. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 56. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R , subp. 7(C). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 57. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: Unit of Government MPCA MPCA Stevens County MDNR Department of the Army MPCA Permit or Approval Required General NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit Individual Water Appropriation Permit CWA Section 404 Permit CWA Section 401 Permit 58. MPCA NPDES/SDS Livestock Production, Construction, Operation (Feedlot) and Stormwater Permit. An NPDES/SDS Feedlot and Stormwater Permit is required for the Project. The General NPDES/SDS Feedlot Permit incorporates construction and operation requirements, and includes operating plans that address manure management, operation and maintenance, emergency response protocols, animal mortalities management, and odor/air quality management. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is also required. These plans are an enforceable condition of the NPDES/SDS Permit. 59. County Conditional Use Permit. The Project Proposer must obtain all required building and conditional use permits required by local units of government to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The Conditional Use Permit will address local zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that are needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses. 60. MDNR Water Appropriation Permit. Baker Dairy currently holds an appropriations permit (MDNR # ) for 226 million gallons of water per year. This permit was originally held by APEC, LLC with a total of 452 million gallons of appropriation per year. APEC, LLC was planning on building an ethanol plant and using this appropriation for that purpose. An agreement was reached between APEC, LLC and Riverview, LLP to split the appropriation. APEC, LLC would retain 226 million gallons, and 226 million gallons would be appropriated to Riverview, LLP to use as livestock watering for Baker Dairy. On June 3, 2014, the MDNR approved this plan. If the ethanol plant were to expand/build, they would have access to its 226 million gallon appropriated water portion. 61. The Project Proposer plans to use Well # as its main water source for the Project. The well is located in Section 17, Horton Township of Stevens County. This well location is about twelve miles from the Project location. A water pipeline will be installed to connect the well to the Project. An engineering firm was hired by the Proposer to help plan the route, provide detailed engineered drawings, and identify sensitive features. A licensed contractor will be hired to install the pipe. 10

19 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 62. The new well source will be used in place of # Well # will be used as a backup emergency well only. Baker Dairy will complete the remaining items needed to receive a permit for this backup emergency well. Using this new well source (# ) will alleviate any groundwater sustainability questions surrounding the use of # Riverview s existing jersey dairies have averaged 29 gallons per head per day total water usage over the past three years. This includes water for cows, parlor water, and wash water. The proposed Project has applied for 8,850 mature Jersey cows and 500 Jersey heifers cattle (9,200 AUs). At 29 gallons per head per day the total estimated annual water usage will be 98,969,750 gallons. The dairy currently holds a MDNR water appropriations permit for 226 million gallons (# ), which is enough to supply the proposed dairy with its total water usage. 64. Department of the Army CWA Section 404 Permit, MPCA CWA Section 401 Permit. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) completed a site visit on June 17, 2014, where they re-affirmed the acre amount from the original wetland determination that was completed by the National Resources Conservation Service on January 5, The Corps has made a preliminary jurisdictional determination that the farmed wetland basins are adjacent to an unnamed tributary to the Minnesota River and are therefore waters of the U.S. subject to 404 permitting requirements. The proposed activity may also require an individual water quality certification or waiver from the MPCA under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). 65. The two farmed wetlands identified are approximately 4.8 acres in size and Riverview LLP proposes to compensate for the farmed wetland impacts by purchasing credits from an approved wetland mitigation bank. The Corps has noted that it appears that some of the filled area will be in to create a lawn and that more information is needed to demonstrate that this impact is unavoidable. 66. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 67. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the Project Proposer, including other EISs, Minn. R , subp. 7. D. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 68. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the environmental impact assessment for the proposed Project. Data presented in the EAW Permit application and required plan submittals Air dispersion modeling report 69. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on other information provided by the Project Proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff during the course of the EAW process. 11

20 On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law And Order 70. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the Project design and permit development processes, or by local plans and ordinances. 71. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 72. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this Project. The EAW, the permit development process, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project. 73. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project design and permits. The Project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards and requirements. 74. Based on a comparison of the impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the criteria established in Minn. R , subp. 7, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. 75. An Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Project is not required. 76. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. ORDER The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. 0BIT IS SO ORDERED John Linc Stine, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date 12

21 APPENDIX A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Riverview, LLP Baker Dairy Environmental Assessment Worksheet LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Corey Poppe, Citizen. received June 5, Nathan Kestner, DNR Division of Ecological & Water Resources, NW Region. received June 10, Nathan Anderson, Citizen. received June 23, Bill Kleindl, Environmental Services/Planning & Zoning Director for Stevens County. received June 25, 2014; letter received June 26, Scott and Jenell Staples, Citizens. received June 24, 2014; fax received June 25, The Erickson Family, Citizens. received June 24, Jason DeVita, Clerk, Stevens Township, Stevens County. received June 24, Karen DeVita, Treasurer, Stevens Township, Stevens County. received June 24, Jake Marty, Citizen, Stevens Township, Stevens County. received June 25, Jon Hallman, Resident and Baker Township Supervisor. received June 25, Clark DeCamp, Citizen. received June 25, Nathan Burmeister, Chairman, Baker Township. received June 25, Allen and Eileen Marquardt, Citizens. Letter received June 25, Roger and Lila Anderson, Citizens. Fax received June 24, Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received June 18, Brethorst Farms/John and Ardyce Brethorst and JJ, Heide and Gracie Brethorst, Citizens. received June 25, Kyle, Angela, Mackenzie and Alex Anderson, Citizens. received June 25, Kathy DeBuhr, Citizen. received June 25, Keith and Debbie Anderson, Citizens. and fax received June 25, Madison Anderson, Daughter of Keith and Debbie Anderson. and fax received June 25, David C. and Ruth E. Anderson, Citizens. received June 25, Kurt Staples, Clerk of Synnes Township and Clay Staples, Resident. received June 25, Stanley Staples, Treasurer of Synnes Township. received June 25, John Kleindl, Citizen. Fax received June 25, 2014.

22 1 From: Corey Poppe Sent: Thursday, June 05, :42 PM To: Affeldt, Craig (MPCA) Subject: Stevens County Dairy I live in Morris, MN. I support building the new dairy near Chokio!

23 2 From: Kestner, Nathan (DNR) Sent: Tuesday, June 10, :01 AM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Cc: Miersch, Janell (DNR); Rose, Jennifer (DNR); Stratton, Barry (DNR); Doperalski, Melissa (DNR) Subject: Riverview Dairy EAW - DNR Comments Mr. Peterson- Thank you for the opportunity to review the Riverview Dairy EAW and for the level of early coordination with DNR staff during the development of the document. DNR has completed our review and offers the following comments: Project Description Based on recent interactions with project proposers we have learned that plans for intended water usage have changed. Likewise, it appears that the preliminary well assessment and information provided for wells associated with DNR application # and # are no longer part of the project. Instead the applicant has indicated that they plan to obtain water from an alternate source. We recommend that the a description of the most recent project and any related impacts be considered as part of the EAW process. Nathan Kestner Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist - Reg 1 MN DNR Division of Ecological & Water Resources, NW Region 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd NE, Bemidji, MN , (fax) nathan.kestner@state.mn.us

24 Original Message----- From: Nathan Anderson Sent: Monday, June 23, :02 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Riverview Dairy Dear Sir, I would like to voice my concerns about the proposed dairy in Baker Township from Riverview Dairy. I am very concerned about the groundwater supply. The West River Dairy already draws a huge amount of water from the same aquifer. We are blessed in this area to have a good water supply, but we don't need to tax it anymore. I know they have a back up plan of using water rights that the ethanol plant (Denco II) had lined up. But, what happens when the ethanol plant wants to expand? Where will we all get our water? Another concern is the run off of manure. The barn itself is very close to a local lake. Also, they will be spreading/ knifing in manure close to wetland areas. Yet another concern is the county roads. The milk trucks have been beating up our county tar roads. Also, add in the silage and haylage trucks and it's a lot of truck traffic. So, I would like you to do an Environmental Impact Study to decide if our area can handle this new dairy. Riverview already has three dairy operations, and at least three feedlots in this county. My thoughts are that this area can't handle another dairy operation. Thanks for listening. Nathan D. Anderson PO Box 316 Chokio, MN (320)

25 4 From: Bill Kleindl Sent: Tuesday, June 24, :08 AM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Cc:!Commissioners; Ace Sperr; Keith Marty (kmmarty@fedtel.net); Ken Rausch (ken.rausch@westmor-ind.com); mmcnally@hometownsolutions.net; Phil GausmanHome; Rob Kopel (rkopel@fedtel.net) Subject: Baker Dairy EAW Comment Letter Hi Chuck, Attached is a comment letter in regard to the Baker Dairy EAW. Please confirm you received. I will also be mailing a hard copy today. Let me know of any questions. Bill Kleindl Environmental Services/Planning & Zoning Director 400 Colorado Avenue Suite 306 Morris, MN (320) billkleindl@co.stevens.mn.us

26 4

27 5 From: Scott & Jenell Staples Sent: Tuesday, June 24, :57 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: probabilty of Baker 30 Dairy Dear Mr. Peterson, We are writing concerning the proposed Baker Township Dairy which will be located near our farm in Stevens County, rural Morris, here in Minnesota. We have many concerns, and would like you to know some of them before the dairy is allowed to be built. First, we are asking why, if the water that can be produced at the actual location of the proposed dairy is either insufficient or of poor quality, the owners can be allowed to tap into water from somewhere else. It is our understanding, that water may be piped from a neighboring township, or from a main leading from the city of Morris. This was not brought up in the original permit, and should it not have to be re-permitted? Also, the ramifications of using water from an alternate source needs to be addressed. We do not care to have our wells and aquafors depleted through no fault of our own. In our opinion, if water availability is an issue for the dairy, the project needs to be re-thought or moved to another location, When the existing dairy, Riverview West was proposed awhile ago, we were promised these dairies would have no effect on our quality of life here in West Central MN. We live here because we enjoy clean air, quiet, and little traffic. We can assure you, this longer the case. Our roads have greatly suffered from the equipment and semi trucks needed to move the silage to the dairy. We have a lot of dust. Their drivers don t always obey traffic signs, it can be dangerous out here. There is a lot of odor, at times we can t sit outdoors. Our life has change, and not for the better. We also know the owners of the proposed dairy need to sell their manure to other landowners to get rid of it. Do they have enough permission slips, in writing, to address this problem? These are issues that need attention before ground is broken. In addition, the value of our farm-sites and land becomes an issue for anyone not connected to this dairy, as we don t feel anyone would want to live too close to a smelly dairy barn. These concerns are not only in the here and now, but will potentially affect our lives for many years, and our future generations. Thank you for the opportunity to let you know our concerns. Please do the right thing. Sincerely, Scott and Jenell Staples

28 6 From: The Ericksons Sent: Tuesday, June 24, :44 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Comments on proposed Baker Dairy site. (EAW) Dear Mr. Peterson, My name is Dean Erickson and my family and I live less than one mile South of the proposed Baker Dairy site. We, as a family and community, have many concerns about Baker Dairy. The location is too close to the existing West River Dairy. How many animal units can one part of a county provide for? The amount of water, traffic and odor from these barns will be devastating to our already shrinking population. The dairy needs 6300 acres for manure application, it has only 3060 acres to use. Shouldn't they have to have all of the acres needed under contract before a permit is issued? When they were permitted for West River Dairy they gave a list of acres they were going to use to put manure on and some of those acres have never had an application of manure yet. Who oversees this process? The amount of water they would need started at 98,000,000 gallons per year and then it increased to 135,000,000, which is split 60,000,000 West River Dairy wells and 75,000,000 Baker Dairy wells. Looking at the information provided by them this will make an already bad situation worse. If by 2030 the water they are using now is going to be at critical levels and you add 9,000 more cows, how fast will it fall to critical levels? In their report they have a well inventory list and the two closest wells to the new dairy, our well and Keith Anderson's well, are not listed at all. I would ask that a draw down test be done on all wells on that inventory list and include our well and Keith Anderson's well also. In this report they say there are 4.8 acres of wetlands and I think it is more than that. I have sent 3 short videos, in seperate s, showing wet areas of the South and West boundaries of the proposed dairy site. In the report they say they are working on wetlands delineated and I would ask that this be done before any permits are granted. The odor that 9,000 cows give off is something you need to experience first hand. While I am sure that the models used are good at telling you what should happen, I can tell you first hand they are not very accurate. We live 5 1/2 miles West of West River Dairy and when the wind is from the East we can smell it without any problem. I have talked to people who live in every direction from West River Dairy and they say it is the first thing they smell in the morning and the last thing they smell at night. One family said they get into their car, in their garage, and turn on the air conditioner and the smell comes right out at them! I don't believe that is a faint odor and even a faint odor 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, is not healthy and people should not be subjected to this. The fly problem is a very real problem and families that live around West River Dairy will tell you that also. The traffic from the existing dairy has already caused County Road 8 to start to fail. They list that Baker Dairy will need 56 trucks for milk each week and 28 trucks for feed each week that is 4368 trucks per year just to keep the dairy working. This is a small number compared to what it will take during harvest and construction. I think just for harvest it will take 160 trucks per 160 acres. I estimate they will need around 10,000 acres to feed and bed these cows, adding another 10,000 trucks per year using County Road 8 and the surrounding township roads. County Road 8 was scheduled to be resurfaced in 2016, since I have been talking to people about this I have learned that it has been pushed back to If this dairy is allowed to happen they might just as well let it go back to a gravel road because that is all that will be left by The township roads they use to get the hay off starting in early June and sileage off thru September are sometimes unpassable to regular traffic due to ruts and heavy dust. They are an accident waiting to happen! These are the concerns we have about the information in the EAW. Since this has started we have learned they are going to get their water from another source and if this is true then will another EAW need to be filed so myself and my neighbors will have the opportunity to voice our concerns about how they will get the water to the new dairy and what type of problems it could cause the people of this area?

29 6 In closing, this proposed dairy is not good for our environment, schools, businesses, churches and our community in general. I have been told by two families in our neighborhood that they will be moving away if this dairy is allowed to happen. We would ask you to deny this permit, or at the very least take another step forward and ask them to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). I have two children who would like to farm and because of these dairies their chances of farming are getting less every day. Thank you. The Erickson's; Dean Erickson, Stevens Township Board Member Jeri Erickson Alex Erickson Chandler Erickson

30 Original Message----- From: Jason DeVita Sent: Tuesday, June 24, :37 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Baker Dairy EAW Comments and Questions Mr. Charles Peterson, We, as a community from several townships, had a meeting to discuss the proposed Baker Dairy in Baker Township, Stevens County. I have several concerns and questions with allowing a new dairy to be started in this area. My first concern is traffic and wear on the road. Section 9(A) of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet stated Stevens County road 8 is slated for improvements in County Commissioner Ron Staples informed us that the date for improvements is 2019 and they are talking about moving it another two years to 2021 due to county budget concerns. The increased heavy traffic will bring the condition of that road down well before the scheduled improvements. Secondly, section 4(A) states they will be drilling two wells, one on site that will allow for 75,000,000 gallons. What is the guarantee that the water is available and will not be running the aquifer dry for the neighbors in the area? If also states they will be taking 60,000,000 gallons from a new well at the existing dairy in Synnes Township. County Commissioner Staples informed us that after this EAW was submitted the Baker Dairy bought water rights from yet a third well further out in the county. Unfortunately I can't remember the exact location of the third well. The question to that is if these wells and water sources are changing, and the road repairs/improvements mentioned above are not correct, why is a new EAW required to be submitted and a new public notice period allocated? Thirdly, manure application and storage. My first question is how will they remove all the manure? It stated they will pump and inject some after the fall harvest and they will have verbal agreements with neighboring farms. What is the guarantee they will have enough people interested to take the remaining manure, and if neighboring farms are not taking the remaining manure what will be done with it? Lastly, I have a great concern about the odor from the dairy. Their existing dairies, even with the modern methods they have, puts off odors for tens of miles with the wind, more so and stronger when applying manure. This will impact the quality of life for many people in the area, not only the few listed within one mile on the map in the report. I understand, and agree with not hearing complaints about something with smells, noise, etc. if someone moves into an area where there is an existing commercial farm, airport, industry, etc. however I moved to this area 14 years ago to get away from those nuisances and in talking to neighbors they enjoy this area for the same reasons. What is the reasoning to allow another nuisance and resource draining site into another area that doesn't currently have these issues? I ask that this proposed plan be denied and not allowed to continue. If, however, it is not denied, at the least I ask that an Environmental Impact Study be required. Respectfully Jason DeVita Clerk, Stevens Township, Stevens County

31 Original Message----- From: Karen De Vita Sent: Tuesday, June 24, :38 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Baker Dairy, Stevens County Mr. Peterson - After attending a meeting concerning this dairy and reading the information on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency web site, I firmly believe that an Environmental Impact Statement must be completed. It seems logical that an EIS should be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects. My first concern is odor. Nothing in this report convinces me that this will not be a problem. Do we, as property owners of long-standing, want to schedule summer activities at our home only to find it unbearable to be outdoors? Another concern is water usage. And it concerns me that Currently the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is determining what government body has jurisdiction (federal, state or local. How certain are we that one million gallons per year of water usage will allow sustainability. The report also states that new regulations require the DNR to provide preliminary assessment of a proposed well and a water use permit is required. Has that been done? You state that County Road 8 is slated for improvements in It is my understanding that this date has been put back to at least Thank you for your consideration of these statements. Karen DeVita Treasurer, Stevens Township Stevens County

32 9 From: Jake Marty Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :11 AM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Baker Dairy EAW I am writing to you about the proposed Baker Dairy in section 36 of Bake Township in Stevens Township. My two biggest concerns are 1)ground water and 2)roads. my concerns with the ground water is two fold. First, will there be enough water to support an additional feedlot of this size located within approx. 6 miles from another large dairy, 3 nursery to finisher hog sites, a 3000 plus sow unit, and a farrow to finish hog unit. This is a large number of animals to add to an existing area. Also, the permit calls for 60 millions gallon of water to come from West River Dairy, but I understand that the water will come from another location. My interpretation is that would make this application invalid due to inaccurate information. If they can change this information mid stream, who's to say they will also to true the fact that they do not plan to expand this feedlot. As for the roads, when they chop silage for the other dairies in the area the roads become impassable. When they chop silage, the tucks cause the base of the roads to push up through the gravel. The roads in this area will not be able to handle the additional truck traffic that this dairy will bring. It is a safety concern from both the condition of the roads and from the drivers failing to follow traffic laws. Thank you for listening to my concerns. Jake Marty Stevens Twp Stevens Co

33 10 From: Jon Hallman Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :05 AM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Baker Dairy EAW comments Mr. Peterson - As a resident and Township Supervisor of Baker Township, Stevens County, I have several concerns regarding the proposed "Baker Dairy." In viewing a copy of the EAW, I saw that Baker Dairy has applied for a groundwater appropriations permit (# ) to remove 75,000,000 gallons of water per year from Baker Township. In 2013, I needed a new well dug at my residence in Baker Township. The well driller found only two narrow veins of water in 160 feet before contacting what he felt was bedrock. The potential water use is a great concern to myself, as well as numerous residents of not only Baker Township, but also Scott, Stevens and Synnes Townships as all three townships are within a mile of the proposed "Baker Dairy." My concerns are that we don't know how much water is truly under Baker Dairy and how removing that much water from the environment will affect the water table and surrounding habitat. Looking at the MN DNR website, it appears to me that there is no DNR Observation Well in Baker Township or even close enough to Baker Dairy to realistically address the concerns of current water levels or, more importantly, volumes close to Baker Dairy. To myself and other residents of Baker Township, these concerns seem to signal the potential for significant environmental effects and so I feel there is a need for an EIS. Attachment F in the EAW (area wells within two miles of proposed dairy) appears to have two or three omissions within the two mile radius. I believe the residents Keith Anderson, Dean Erickson and Les DeBuhr have their own wells. If this is the case, why are they not on Attachment F? If Baker Dairy is built, it will be the third large dairy within a 12 mile distance, putting multiple tens of thousands of cattle in this area. I realize Riverview LLP has built and operated according to existing regulations yet is there a cumulative potential environmental effect of having this many animals and the resultant animal waste concentrated in this area? I have been told that after three years of operation, Baker Dairy could expand in a limited way without revisiting the permitting process. If this is true for Baker Dairy as well as their existing dairies, the animal and animal waste numbers are only going to increase in this area. For all given concerns and reasons, I feel there is great need for an EIS. Jon Hallman

34 11 From: lorna decamp Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :08 AM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Environmental Assessment Impact Statement Request for an Environmental Impact Statement: I am concerned about my well. I live about 2.5 miles from the proposed site and get my water from the same aquafier as the well for the proposed dairy. All of the additional truck traffic on county roads 8 and 13 will result in future road problems and road work. They are out only black top road we have to access. Hyway 28,75, and 59 will also be traveled more. The additional trucks will amount to about 75 a week. That is not including the trucks that haul hay and corn silage, adding up to 100s of loads. Roads will be wore out in about 2 years and they are not projected to be resurfaces until I am also directly southwest of the site. Northeast winds will make it nearly impossible for outdoor activities due to the odor. As far as employment opportunities go, there are none. They are hiring people for other parts of the country to do their work, resulting in very few job openings for local citizens. The tax burden on local residents for their Hisspanic employees is tremendous because of food stamps and medical care. They don't send their students to our schools, their children are mostly home schooled, which isn't helping the school districts in the area anyways. If at all, this group of people are trying to drive eeryone else out of the count, please reconsider this decision to let them build. Doing this will make four in Stevens County. When will it be enough? There is already enough cows in the county so another county could be considered. They do not have enough land for the manure it will generate. Again, please reconsider, Clark DeCamp

35 12 From: Beth Burmeister Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :29 AM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Cc: bburmeis@fedtel.net Subject: Proposed Dairy in Baker Township Importance: High Dear Mr. Peterson, RE: Proposed Dairy in Baker Township As the chairman of Baker Township, several concerns have come to the Baker Township Board s attention regarding the proposed dairy in Baker Township. Adequate water supply - We understand that the water at the proposed site is not adequate (volume and quality). One concern is that the dairy s water use will potentially exhaust the water supply for adjoining land owners. We understand the dairy will be responsible for repairing neighbor s wells in the event that the aquifer is over used. What are the long-term effects on the wells for the adjoining property owners? Is there a time limit for repair? We have no test wells in Baker Township. We do not know how the water is recharged or if there is adequate water available for all landowners. Routing of clean water We understand that the clean water from the dairy will be routed in a tile down the county ditch. Will the county ditch system be adequate to handle the rain runoff from the buildings and paved area? Quality of life Once the dairy is built, we anticipate that this will negatively affect property values for adjoining agricultural property. Increased traffic The township roads were not designed to handle the proposed traffic volume for larger and heavier vehicles. We anticipate that the tax revenue will not offset the maintenance needed. Thus, the tax levy will need to be increased. This will impact all landowners in Baker Township. Population decline - Several families indicated that they would leave the township if the proposed dairy is built. If the families leave the community, this will impact the Chokio school district and community. We respectfully request that an Environmental Impact Statement be conducted. Thank you for considering this request. Sincerely, Nathan Burmeister Chairman, Baker Township State Hwy. 28 Chokio, MN 56221

36 13

37

38 14

39

40

41 15

42 16 From: Heidi Brethorst Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :25 AM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Baker Dairy June 25, 2014 Brethorst Farms th Ave Chokio, MN Dear Mr. Peterson, I am writing you today to help stop the building of the Baker Dairy. I am writing this letter not only as a daughter in law and a wife of Brethorst Farms, but as a mother to a nine month old baby girl and how the Baker Dairy will not only impact our lives but how it will affect my daughter and our future unborn children. Baker Dairy s potential location is only around two miles from our home and farm. This is not far for the environmental impact it will have on our family. This dairy barn has many factors that will affect not only our family but many families surrounding the dairy barns location. These factors include the foul smell that come with running a dairy barn. With living in the country I am not only able go outside into a safe and quiet environment, I am able to take my baby girl out into the fresh air and play and teach the new world surrounding her. If this dairy barn goes up the foul smell that will be in that fresh air will impede my baby s ability to go outside and enjoy all of these things. Another concern we have are the flies that dairy barns bring with them. Flies will be another contributing factor that will affect not only my baby and family but several other families ability to enjoy our time outside. These flies can also be a danger to our health as flies can carry many potential diseases. An added concern we have is truck traffic and road conditions that will affect our county. We already have numerous dairy trucks going by our house twenty four hours a day, and just had to have road construction completed to rebuild the roads as these trucks tear up the highways. I was not able to drive my vehicle out of our garage for days as the highway is right at the end of our drive way. The last concern we share with you today is land competition and land values. It is hard and will be harder for our family farm to expand our acreage and other young family farmers like ours to do the same. We have attended multiple land auctions and were out bid by local dairies. We feel it is our right to provide employment and opportunities for our children and grandchildren and to pursue agriculture in our area. Thank you for your time, Brethorst Farms/ John & Ardyce Brethorst and JJ, Heidi and Gracie Brethorst

43 Original Message----- From: Kyle Anderson Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :17 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Baker Dairy Dear Charles, We are writing in regards to the proposed Baker Dairy in section 36 Baker Township, Stevens county. The dairy proposed to be built is only 4.5 miles away from my farm. I am totally against the building of it for many reasons. 1. Water, will we run out of water? According to page 72 and 73 of the EAW it does not sound good. 2. Why are the closest wells not mentioned in the EAW those of Keith Anderson and Dean Erickson? This seems kind of strange doesn't it? 3. What happens when the water is gone? This seems pretty serious does it not? 4. I live 2 miles west of the west river site and i have been concerned of running out of water since it was built, now put one up 4.5 west of me i am really concerned. 5. How are they going to contain the smell? I already get it from the east, now the west. Do you think this ok? 6. Roads are another concern of mine, being a supervisor on the Synnes Township I have had to deal with many phone calls in regards to how they leave the roads when they are done harvesting there silage and haylage. These roads are not built to last the constant abuse.who is going to be responsible for the repair of them? 7.Manure where is all the manure going? Do they have the acres to spread it on? Don't sound like it. 8. Being a young farmer I can not compete with the outrageous land prices they are paying. They leave nothing for the younger generation, so they have to move out of the area. 9. Why should our quality of life depend on this proposed dairy? 10.When is enough enough? I am asking that you do a Environmental Impact Statement on this proposed dairy to further understand what we are dealing with. Sincerely, Kyle, Angela, Mackenzie and Alex Anderson County Road 9 Alberta,MN Phone Cell Phone

44 18 From: Les and Kathy, John and Mitchell Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :31 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Baker Dairy, Stevens County Mr. Peterson, I am writing in response to the proposed dairy feedlot that is going to be built in Baker Township, Section near the cities of Chokio and Alberta Minnesota. My husband s family farm homestead is in Syness and Stevens Townships just 1 mile south of the proposed dairy. We are strongly opposing the construction of another dairy in our neighborhood for a number of reasons: 1. Water usage: The large amount of water to be used by this dairy is being drawn from an aquifer that is at 300 feet below surface. The well we have has been working very well since 1982 when we replaced it. I feel that the extreme amounts of water used by the dairy proposed and the dairies that are already operating within 5 miles of our home jeopardize our water supply. As the level of use of water from that lower aquifer increases, the water from our aquifer will likely have to fill the lower one and then the dairies will use that as well, leaving us without a water supply. As you already know, water is becoming an increasingly important commodity in this country and the world. In this land of 10,000 + lakes, it would be unacceptable that I do not have the water that I need and have a right to use. I feel that the people behind this dairy have no regard for the rights and needs of the local residents in the areas surrounding this and their other dairies. I know that the DNR has observation wells in the county and I request the data from these wells, going back to before the West River Dairy began operation. I submit that there should be an observation well next to each dairy or other large water consumer to monitor the effects of such large draws of water. The DNR is supported by my taxes and I want to be assured that the water I need is available to me, my family, my animals and my sons, who would also like to farm in the future. I have questions about how much water this organization already uses in the operation of their dairies. On the DNR Water Appropriations Permits table, Page 213, the usage of 5 wells for West River Dairy for the years of 2010 and 2011 are exactly the same for the wells used by this dairy, 15.4 in 2010 and 13.3 in That is highly unlikely and I request that actual usage and specific locations of these wells be disclosed by the organization, so that adequate monitoring and supervision of the amounts of water actually used be available to the public. In addition, there have been several expansions to the dairy in the past few years and I would like the figures for 2012 and 2013 be made public during this application process, so that the compliance history of this organization can be taken into account when considering any permits to build. 2. Water quality: Subjectively, I feel the quality of our well water has dropped significantly in the last 10 years, since the dairy 5 miles from us started operations. Twice a year, coinciding with manure application and in the spring, our water has a strong odor of sulfur, enough that it is uncomfortable to use for bathing and offensive while drinking from the faucet. If a dairy with millions of gallons of draw is allowed within 1.4 miles of my home, I can only imagine that the problem will be more pronounced. I feel I have a right to clean, pure, odor-free water just the same as anyone else in this area. 3. Notification: I have questions about whether the proper notifications were made in this Baker Dairy application. I want to know what the radius of affected wells limit is and where the measurements are taken. Our home is 1/2 mile east and 1 mile south of the proposed Baker Dairy s southeastern boundary. As

45 18 the crow flies, 1.4 miles from the site s nearest boundary. If that measurement may be used, my farm well is within 1 1/2 miles of the site, yet our well was not included in the application. 4. Odor management: My farm is 1.4 miles southeast of the feedlot site and 1 mile south of land that will have manure placed in it. I already drive past the existing dairies and am repulsed by the odors emanating from the dairies, and frequently it make me nauseous. I do not want to live with that odor at my home. As our state and area has prevailing northwesterly winds, our farmsite and home are directly in the path of odor movements from the site and the manure application areas. According to the National Weather Forecast Service out of Watertown, SD, in the past year from July 1, 2013 to June 25, 2014, the wind direction has been in the north/northwest (300 to 360 degrees) 142 days out of 360. What steps are going to be taken to prevent our farmsite from smelling like a dairy and limiting the enjoyment of our home and yard 40% of the year? The West River Dairy, owned and run by the same people, puts manure into the ground at questionable times according to the existing permits and the odor during the application and the spillage that occurs near the road is horrendous. The expected enjoyment I may experience at my own home, where I have lived for 35 years and where my husband has lived for 58 years, will be severely and negatively impacted by the odor. My experience with the existing dairies makes me believe that we will have many days of unpleasant odors if this dairy is permitted. What will be the steps taken to prevent odor migration to my home for the days when the manure is being injected into the ground? 5. Compliance: Has the organization that is applying for the Baker Dairy met all the requirements of their permits for their other dairy enterprises? I believe a history of how these dairies are operated and whether they are completely compliant with the regulations and the laws that apply to their operation are legitimate concerns. Do the dairies distribute the manure as prescribed in their permits? Are the odor management steps effective in protecting the equal enjoyment of their own property by the neighboring people? In the application, there is a significant gap in the amount of acres that are required to be committed to Baker Dairy for manure placement. Do the acres need to be formally committed? And who follows up to be sure that the manure will be distributed to the full number of acres per year? 6. Traffic and Road Damage: I have had the existing dairy silage trucks driving past my house, on township roads where I have been also driving trucks and farm machinery, driving along the county highway while I am putting up hay in the county road ditch and been appalled at the speed and recklessness with which the drivers operate. The area around my farm is far more dangerous for myself, my family and neighbors, my pets and wildlife in the area. We farmed right across the road from the silage and haylage operations of the existing dairies and the township gravel roads are left rutted and with huge holes in them due to the operation of trucks that are going at 60+ mph on them. There is no compensation or repair of those roads by the dairies and the rest of the township residents are left to pay a huge share of the road repair. And the danger of meeting one of those trucks on a small township road is very real. I have had to drive with my right sided wheels on a pickup in the grassy road ditch to avoid a semi truck with haylage on it coming straight at me. I have had to stop on my county highway on the way to work in the early a.m. when a semi truck hauling silage pulled out right in front of me. I barely got stopped in time. I have been frightened to death on my way to work when the dairy workers are walking or riding bicycles on the county highway at 4:00 a.m. in the dark. Calls to our County Sheriff have helped that situation. The mail in my mailbox is covered with a fine dust that filters into it as the trucks go through our homestead at 60+ mph. Our home and outbuilding and barns are on both sides of a township road. It is dangerous for my pets to be near the road when the trucks are driving by. The road ditches grass is covered with dust, making it impossible to use for my animals, due to the dusty content of the hay. Is there a plan to provide dust control on these roads so that I may continue to

46 18 use my small little area on this earth? Or is it just country for enormous corporate farms? My concerns about the deterioration of my quality of life may seem small to you, but I suggest you come to my house and explain to my children that our dog was run over by a dairy truck and that there is nothing that can be done to prevent it. The deterioration of our County Highway, the route I take to get to my job in Morris, get groceries, visit friends, or go to church impacts my quality of life. Two of our county commissioners have said that our County Highway #8 will need to be resurfaced much sooner than planned because of the increase in the heavy traffic on it. Who is to pay for that? Again, the lion s share is left to the rest of the taxpayers. My quality of life drops with each new dairy that is permitted, due to safety, esthetics, finances and decreased enjoyment of my neighborhood. Employees of the dairy have vandalized local lake accesses, parking cars under picnic shelters, breaking up wooden structures for campfires, left beer bottles littered all over, terrorized the local youth who wanted to swim at the lake and cost the local wildlife groups and 4-H clubs financial resources to repair the lake accesses. Is there a way to recoup these losses for these non-profit, civic-minded groups? The reactions of the 4-Hers who maintain the public access was memorable in its sadness and loss of faith in doing charitable activities. 7. Water Handling: Where will the runoff for the blacktop go? A holding pond can take a certain amount and then the excess must go into the local County Ditch system. Is that system large enough to handle this water and what are the effects downstream of the added amounts that this water will create? An Environmental Impact Statement should be done to assess that issue prior to any permitting. 8. Water supply: At the time of this writing, the plan by the Baker Dairy organization is to apply for permits for a large water pipe to bring water from about 10 miles away from the Baker Dairy into Baker Township via the county road ditch system. Who will be responsible for any breaks in the water pipe and the resultant road and surface damage of such a leak? Will every person who wants to bury a pipe or tile in the county road ditch be allowed to do so, or just the large corporate farms? Will the DNR give permission for the water supply pipe to be buried on its property in Scott Township along County Road #8 near County Road 9, or even in the road ditch near that property? Will our County Commissioners have the courage to support the long time residents that reside in the immediate area of the proposed Baker Dairy? That remains to be seen. In conclusion, my family and I oppose the Baker Dairy permit. If the safety, financial, esthetic and quality of life issues are of no importance, then approve this permit. If the rights of the local folks, taxpayers and voters matter, please do not give a permit for any further expansions by this large, uncaring, unfeeling, greedy corporate farm. Kathy DeBuhr th Avenue Chokio, MN jklmltd@fedteldirect.net

47 19 From: Anderson, Debra, R [mailto:dranderson@bremer.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :56 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Baker Dairy Please see the attached letter of concern regarding the proposed Baker dairy. Thank you! Keith & Debbie Anderson th Ave Chokio, MN H C NOTICE-CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - The information in this communication is proprietary and strictly confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of the information contained in this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please first notify the sender immediately and then delete this communication from all data storage devices and destroy all hard copies.

48 19

49 20 From: Anderson, Debra, R [mailto:dranderson@bremer.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :58 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Baker Dairy Please see the attached letter of concern regarding the proposed Baker Dairy. Madison Anderson Daughter of Keith and Debbie Anderson th Ave. Chokio, MN NOTICE-CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION - The information in this communication is proprietary and strictly confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of the information contained in this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please first notify the sender immediately and then delete this communication from all data storage devices and destroy all hard copies.

50 20

51 20

52 21 From: Ruth E Anderson [mailto:randers@fedtel.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :20 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Baker Dairy 6/25/2014 From: David C & Ruth E Anderson randers@fedtel.net TO: RE: Charles Peterson charles.peterson@state.mn.us Baker Dairy Our farm and farm home is located 1 mile west and 5 miles south of the proposed Baker Dairy. We have some concerns regarding the proposed Dairy. Perhaps further study is needed such as an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). Our community is like many smaller, rural areas throughout the state. We are concerned for our neighbors and friends, especially those living closer to the proposed Baker Dairy. Concerns such as: WATER Where will the water for the operation and the cattle come from? The suggested aquifer seems inadequate; longevity is minimal. What then? How will the farm families in the areas obtain the water necessary for their needs? If the water source is changed, does that not necessitate a new EIS? WASTE MANAGEMENT Does the operation have the necessary acres required for spreading the waste generated by the animals? Does the entity have to name all the acres, owned by them and also by others, which they plan to use? Shouldn't this be secured prior to permits given, rather than a broad statement that adequate acres are available for spreading of manure? Another concern with waste management: Are there certain months, days of the year when spreading of manure is allowed? Why is hay land counted as cultivated land? When manure is spread over fields from which the hay crop has just been harvested, what is going to keep that waste from washing into the drainage systems? ODOR The EAW notes the amount of various gases in the air, adding that these amounts will be at or below hazardous levels. That is all well and good. What isn't measurable is how the nose detects the odor from the dairy itself, and the manure as it's spread. People with certain medical issues know that small fluctuations in the quality, content of the air they breathe affects the condition. As a chronic migraine sufferer, I know this to be true. ROADS The routes in the EAW are just proposed, or suggested, routes. We live on Co. Rd. #13. That is not one of the proposed routes. I never saw the EAW for the West River Dairy. It may or may not been a proposed route for that dairy. What we have noticed is that many, many milk trucks have been using the road past us, both going to and coming from the Riverview Dairies. It's interesting that, in the past few weeks, there have been very few milk trucks on Co. Rd. #13... Gravel County and Township roads are severely damaged by the trucks hauling forage to feed the animals. This is another major concern for the landowners in the townships. They are the ones who have to pay for repairing the townships roads.

53 21 QUALITY OF LIFE The quality of life will be diminished for those living with a large radius of the Baker dairy, due to the above concerns. This will also affect the value of farm sites with livable homes and quality buildings should a family choose to relocate in retirement. In summary, we believe more study, such and an Environmental Impact Statement, is needed before permitting the Baker Dairy project. Respectfully David C & Ruth E Anderson

54 Original Message----- From: kurt staples Sent: Wednesday, June 25, :21 PM To: Peterson, Charles V (MPCA) Subject: Riverview, LLP - Baker Dairy EAW Comments The two attached documents are separate comments to the Riverview LLP- Baker Dairy EAW. Thank you, Clay Staples

55 22 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Riverview LLP, Baker Dairy I have the following concerns with the Baker Dairy EAW. Water- The Baker Dairy plans on using 75 MGY from the building site, along with an additional 60 MGY from the West River Dairy in Synnes Township. The DNR has its concerns that with the current decline to the aquifer by the 2030 s the aquifer will be at 50%. If the additional 75 MGY are pulled from 2 new wells the 50% will come much sooner than Manure- The Baker Dairy currently has 3060 acres of tillable land, the operation will need a total of 6300 acres to spread all generated manure. My question is does the dairy need a contract with local farmers and landowners to spread the additional 3240 acres of manure? Roads- With the Baker Dairy using County Road 8 that is paved and many additional county and township roads. County Road 8 takes a beating from the local traffic, along with West River Dairies milk trucks, and occasional feed semis. With an additional 84 semis traveling the road every week the road would be ruined. Along with the other the county and township roads that are used very heavily during harvest. These are just some of the reasons why I believe the Baker Dairy needs an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Kurt Staples Clerk for Synnes Township Clay Staples Resident th Ave Morris, MN 56267

56 Riverview, LLP Baker Dairy EAW Concerns of the Baker Dairy EAW. Water- The Baker Dairy is currently being permitted for the water used to come from West River Dairy in Synnes Township and Baker Township. This is no longer the case and it is now coming from a private well in Horton Township. Manure- In the permit the dairy has stated they have 3060 acres to apply manure on. But the amount of manure produced every year would take 6300 acres to apply the volume produced. Where is the other 3500 acres coming from? Does the dairy need to have signed contracts with the other landowners? Roads- The dairy will be very hard on township roads when they are harvesting silage and hay. Also the truck drivers are dangerous to other people on the road, due to not obeying the rules. With the following concerns I believe an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is in order. Stanley Staples Treasurer of Synnes Township th St. Morris, MN

57 24

58 APPENDIX B Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW (The notation after each comment denotes the comment letter and the number of the comment from that letter) Requests for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Comment 1: Comments made to request that the MPCA prepare an EIS on the proposed project. (3-8, 6-16, 7-11, 8-1, 10-3, 11-1, 12-12, 14-20, 17-11, 18-36, 19-12, 21-1, 22-4, 23-5, and 24-1) Response: The decision on the need for an EIS will be made by the MPCA Citizens Board (Board). The meeting will be held at the MPCA St. Paul Office located at 520 Lafayette Avenue North, St. Paul, Minnesota, in Board Room Central. The public is welcome to attend and is able to give testimony to the Board regarding Baker Dairy s proposal to construct a total confinement dairy facility (Project). General Comments Comment 2: Comment is generally supportive of the Project. (1-1) Response: No response necessary. Request for a public meeting Comment 3: Comment states that a public meeting would be helpful regarding all of the issues. (24-2) Response: An informational public meeting was held on July 22, 2014, in the evening, at the Chokio- Alberta High School gym, concerning the proposed Baker Dairy Project. An estimated 150 people attended the meeting including area residents, Stevens County officials, and members of Riverview. The meeting was held at the request of neighbors located close to the proposed Project and was moderated by the Stevens County attorney. The meeting was public noticed because the Stevens County Board of Commissioners was in attendance. The public may also attend the MPCA Board meeting and give testimony to the Board regarding the proposed Project. The meeting will be held at the MPCA St. Paul Office located at 520 Lafayette Avenue North, St. Paul, Minnesota, in Board Room Central. Request to MPCA to deny plan Comment 4: Comment requests that the plan to construct the Project be denied. (7-10) Response: Environmental review processes are intended to provide comprehensive information about the potential environmental effects of a project to inform future decisions on permits or approvals needed by a project. The EAW is a worksheet with a series of questions to guide Responsible Governmental Units (RGUs) in evaluating the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts by the

59 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Project on the surrounding environment. The action taken by an RGU in an EAW process is not to approve or deny a project; rather, the action taken is to determine whether or not to order an EIS to be completed on the project. If the RGU determines that those potential impacts are significant then an EIS will be ordered. Correction to EAW Comment 5: Item 2 B. compatibility with plans and land use regulations (pages 4-5). The land use plan or ordinance box should be checked. (4-1) Response: Correction will be made to the EAW in the permanent record. Concrete mixing plant Comment 6: Comment notes that Duininck Concrete is planning to operate a ready mix concrete plant at Baker Dairy during construction for a period of three years and requests discussion of the plant operations, truck traffic, noise, dust, and the amount of water usage projected over the three-year period. (4-2) Response: The proposed Baker Dairy is planning on starting construction of the Project in the fall of 2014 with completion in the fall of During that period, a portable ready mix concrete plant will be assembled and operated on site. Upon completion of construction, the portable plant will be disassembled and removed from the site. The intent in having a portable ready mix plant on-site is to reduce overall impacts related to truck traffic, noise, and dust, as well as to create construction efficiency. The on-site plant will eliminate the need to haul water to the site (mixed in with a delivered product if the concrete was made off-site) thus reducing the amount of trucks on the road. Fewer trucks on the road will result in less noise. An estimated 35,000 yards of concrete will be used for the Project. Based on approximately 25 gallons of water per yard of concrete, 750,000 gallons of water would be used for the portable plant. Thus water use for this purpose will be below the threshold for a Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) water appropriation permit (more than 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year) and a water appropriation permit will not be needed for the portable concrete plant. The MDNR considers water usage amounts below the permit thresholds as low impact because water usage at this rate is unlikely to over-pump the resource aquifer or cause aquifer drawdown problems. Riverview LLP (Proposer) does not anticipate that daily water usage will exceed 10,000 gallons per day. During construction, water consumption will be monitored daily so that 10,000 gallons will not be exceeded. If there is a chance that 10,000 gallons will be exceeded, the Proposer will use water stored on site to ensure that 10,000 gallons is not exceeded. Dust Comment 7: Comments are concerned about the amount of dust that will be generated by the Project, the increased road traffic, and what plans are there to control dust. (5-6, 14-6, and 18-28) Response: The Project will increase the road traffic to the area. The Project is located on Stevens County Highway 8. This road is an asphalt road. All milk trucks and the majority of the day-to-day traffic will use 2

60 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet this road. During harvest, area roads that are not asphalt will be used to harvest corn silage and alfalfa silage. It has been the practice for Riverview to apply chloride (to suppress the dust) on gravel roads in front of houses that receive truck traffic. This will continue to be the practice at Baker Dairy. The Project site will be on a combination of either asphalt or concrete. This will minimize any sources of dust on the site. Safety Comment 8: Comments are concerned about the safety on the roads for children and pets due to increased truck traffic. (18-25, and20-6) Response: The Proposer indicates that safety is a high priority. Prior to any harvest, safety meetings are conducted with the harvest crew. Drivers are encouraged to slow down and use caution near farm sites. Obeying the traffic laws is required, as well as using common sense around farm sites. During harvest, chloride is applied to roads to suppress dust in front of houses that receive truck traffic. This also tends to improve visibility and safety. Farm Values Comment 9: Commenters are concerned about the effect the Project will have on the value of nearby properties. (5-10, 14-18, and 21-15) Response: The required content of an EAW is defined in Minn. R An analysis of economic effects, such as the effect on property values, is beyond the scope of information included in an EAW. If an RGU determines there is a potential for significant environmental effects, an EIS is ordered. An assessment of socio-economic issues would be made part of the scope of the EIS. Flies Comment 10: Comments express concern about the nuisance created by the increase in flies as a result of the Project. (6-10 and 16-2) Response: There are many steps taken to reduce and eliminate any potential fly issues at the site. The entire site will be covered in asphalt, concrete, or grass. Feed will be properly stored and any spilled feed will be promptly cleaned up. The need for fly control in the barn will be reduced as the crossventilated barn will maintain a constant air speed of up to six miles per hour eliminating the presence of flies in the barn. Additionally, flies will be reduced by the use of chemical-free, biological fly control (non-stinging wasps) if needed. Dead animals will be removed from the site within 48 hours by a rendering service. According to the project proposer, overall site cleanliness is a high priority. This includes lawn mowing, weed trimming, keeping asphalt and concrete areas clean, and ensuring tile intakes work properly. This helps reduce opportunities for flies to reproduce. Comment 11: Commenter is concerned about diseases carried by flies. (16-3) Response: The Project Proposer has provided the following information attributed to Kevin D. Pelzer, Associate Professor, Large Animal Clinical Sciences, Virginia Tech; and Nancy Currin, D.V.M., Veterinary 3

61 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Extension Publication Specialist, Virginia Tech concerning diseases which are transmissible from cattle to humans. The full article can be found at: Zoonotic diseases are diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans and from humans to animals. Zoonotic diseases may be acquired or spread in a variety of ways: through the air (aerosol), direct contact, contact with an inanimate object that harbors the disease (fomite transmission), oral ingestion, and insect transmission. There are 15 cattle diseases with zoonotic potential in the United States, some of which are more common than others. They include: (very common) cryptosporidiosis, (common) Escherichia coli, ringworm, salmonellosis, (occasional) giardiasis, leptospirosis, Q fever, (rare) anthrax, brucellosis, dermatophilosis, listeriosis, pseudocowpox, rabies, tuberculosis, and vesicular stomatitis. These diseases cause mild to severe symptoms and are a definite concern for farmers and their families. While some of the diseases are rare, their potential for devastating outcomes makes it necessary to take precautions seriously. Luckily, many of the precautions taken to prevent these diseases are the same: Washing hands with soap after handling animals is the most important precaution. Soap should be readily available in the barn/lavatory areas. Unpasteurized milk and milk products should be avoided. This is especially true for children, the elderly, and pregnant women. All meat should be cooked to appropriate internal temperatures. Ground beef should be cooked to an internal temperature of 165 F and the juices run clear. Raw meat and eggs should be handled as if they contain infectious organisms. All surfaces and utensils used to prepare raw foods should be thoroughly washed with hot water and soap. Utensils used on raw foods should not be used later in the cooking or serving process. If you suspect any of these diseases on your farm, or you have questions about them, contact your veterinarian. If you suspect that you, one of your farm employees, or anyone in your family has any of these diseases, contact your physician immediately. In addition, the Proposer has a biosecurity program to mitigate the risk of an outbreak of infectious disease that endangers the health of Riverview s animals, its employees, the food supply, and the general public. This information was provided as Attachment A to the Responses to Comments document. Future Expansion Comment 12: Commenter is concerned about future limited expansion of the feedlot without revisiting the permitting process. (10-6) Response: Minn. R requires a permit action whenever a facility is expanded or modified. The terms Expansion and Modification are defined in Minn. R In summary, a permit action is necessary whenever animal number or animal unit capacity increases, whenever manure storage capacity increases, or whenever a permitted facility component or operational practice is modified regardless of the length of time between actions. 4

62 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Once the environmental review process has been completed on a project, it is no longer subject to further environmental review as long as the project does not have any significant changes. If there are significant changes to the project before or during construction, the EAW may be reopened. Once the project is complete, any expansions within a three year period by the Proposer that total 1,000 animal units (AU) or more, and that affect the same geographic area, will need to complete a new EAW. Proper notification Comment 13: Commenter expressed concern that proper notification was given for the permit and EAW. (18-11) Response: In accordance with Minn. R , notification to residents and property owners within 5,000 feet of the feedlot were accomplished on May 10, 2014, public notice in the Morris Sun Tribune newspaper. The notice of the EAW was published in the May 26, 2014, Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. The notice was mailed to all interested parties on May 23, The EAW was placed on MPCA s website on May 23, A press release was distributed statewide on May 26, 2014, to all news outlets: which includes Stevens, Traverse, Big Stone, Swift, Pope, Douglas, and Grant counties. Compliance Comment 14: Commenter has expressed concern about the compliance history of the Project Proposer at their existing dairies. (18-19) Response: The Proposer owns and operates eight other active dairy facilities permitted by the MPCA: Riverview Dairy, West River Dairy, District 45 Dairy, Moore Calves, Hawk Creek Calves, Dublin Dairy, East Dublin Dairy, and Chippewa Calves. Additionally, the Proposer owns and has permitted two other facilities that have yet to be constructed: Dollymount Dairy and Meadow Star Dairy. Of the eight active dairy facilities owned and operated by the Proposer, there has only been one instance of an enforcement action taken by the MPCA. That action was taken June 18, 2008, for burning solid waste in an unauthorized manner. The MPCA regularly visits the dairy operations associated with the Proposer and has not noted other instances of non-compliance at these facilities. Asthma Comment 15: Commenters are concerned about the effect that the dairy will have on the asthma of a local resident. (19-1 and 20-5) Response: Currently the primary land use in the area is agriculture. This will not change. The area of the Project is presently in row crop agriculture. The area surrounding the dairy will be either paved or grass which will help to minimize dust from the site. Barns are cleaned on a regular basis which will help to minimize dust from the barns. The Project will increase the road traffic to the area. The Project is located on Stevens County Highway 8. This road is an asphalt road. All milk trucks and the majority of the day to day traffic will be using this road. During harvest, area roads that are not asphalt will be used 5

63 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet to harvest corn silage and alfalfa silage. It has been the practice for Riverview to apply chloride (to suppress the dust) on gravel roads in front houses that receive truck traffic. This will continue to be the practice at Baker Dairy. Land use ordinances protect the health, safety, and welfare of surrounding residences by establishing zoning districts. Within those zoning districts, the ordinances establish permitted and conditional uses. For permitted and conditional uses, the ordinance includes specific setbacks and limits. The proposed Project is planned within the agricultural district of Stevens County and in light of the proposed size of the dairy, is a conditional use. As a result, the Project will have to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from Stevens County. Section 15, Part C.1, of the Stevens County Zoning Ordinance states that, If granted, the conditional use permit may include the stipulation of additional conditions or restrictions and guarantees that such conditions or restrictions will be complied with when they are deemed necessary for the protection of the public interest. Because the proposed Project meets the criteria of a conditional use, it is consistent with the Stevens County Land Use Ordinance, subject to any further conditions the county may impose. The information developed as part of this environmental review process will be available to Stevens County to aid in determining whether to issue the CUP, and what conditions should be placed in it. Noise Comment 16: Commenter states that the Project Proposer chops silage and runs milk trucks 24 hours a day which causes a noise problem during nighttime hours. (19-9) Response: The proposed Project is located in an A-1 agricultural zone. There are no zoning ordinances against farming during night hours. Historical Structures and Archaeological Properties Comment 17: Commenter noted that no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area will be affected by this project. (15-1) Response: Comment noted. Comment 18: Commenter noted that the comment letter from the State Historic Preservation Office does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this Project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office by the responsible federal agency. (15-2) Response: Comment has been forwarded to the Project Proposer. Riverview Dairy Truck Drivers Comment 19: Commenters noted that truck drivers employed by Riverview Dairy often violate traffic laws. (5-7, 9-4, 14-7, and 23-4) 6

64 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response: Comments are beyond the scope of information included in the EAW as defined in Minn. R ; however, the Project Proposer provided the following response: Safety is a high priority at Riverview. Prior to any harvest, safety meetings are conducted with the harvest crew. Drivers are encouraged to slow down and use caution near farm sites. Obeying the traffic laws is a must as well as using common sense around farm sites. During harvest, chloride is applied to roads in front of houses that receive truck traffic. This acts as a dust suppressant which greatly improves visibility and safety. Effect on Future Generations Comment 20: Commenters are concerned that the Project will affect opportunities for future generations to farm. (5-11, 6-17, and 20-4) Response: Comments on socio-economic issues are beyond the scope of information to be included in the EAW as defined in Minn. R If an EIS is ordered, some of these issues could be included. Local Population Comment 21: Commenters are concerned the Project will cause a decline in the local population. (6-2, 6-15, 11-7, 12-11, 14-19, and 24-10) Response: Comments on socio-economic issues are beyond the scope of information to be included in the EAW as defined in Minn. R If an EIS is ordered, some of these issues could be included. Effect on Local Taxes Comment 22: Commenters are concerned the Project will cause their property taxes to increase. (12-10, 14-14, and 14-17) Response: Comments are beyond the scope of information to be included in the EAW as defined in Minn. R If an EIS is ordered, some of these issues could be made part of the scope of the EIS. Competition for Land Comment 23: Commenters are concerned they will be unable to compete with the Project Proposer for farmland. (14-15, 14-16, 16-5, and 17-8) Response: Comments on socio-economic issues are beyond the scope of information to be included in the EAW as defined in Minn. R If an EIS is ordered, some of these issues could be included. Employment Opportunities Comment 24: Commenter states there will be no employment opportunities for local residents because the Project Proposer hires employees from other parts of the country. (11-5) Response: Comments on socio-economic issues are beyond the scope of information to be included in the EAW as defined in Minn. R If an EIS is ordered, some of these issues could be included. 7

65 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dairy Employees Comment 25: Comments express concern about the employees of Riverview Farms. (11-6, 18-27, and 18-34) Response: Comments are beyond the scope of information to be included in the EAW as defined in Minn. R Quality of Life Comment 26: Commenters are concerned the Project will negatively affect their quality of life. (5-4, 7-8, 12-8, 14-13, 17-9, 18-31, 18-32, 19-13, and 21-14) Response: The environmental review and permitting of proposed projects are intended to ensure the positive contribution of environmental protection and the enhancement of human health and safety to the quality of life. The environmental review process provides comprehensive information on the environmental impacts from projects to decision makers so that environmental concerns can be addressed in their consideration and actions on necessary permits and approvals. Other Comments Comment 27: Commenter expressed concern that the Project Proposer has no regard for the rights and needs of local residents. (18-4) Response: Comment is beyond the scope of information to be included in the EAW as defined in Minn. R Comment 28: Commenter is concerned about who the county commissioners will support. (18-40) Response: Comment is beyond the scope of information to be included in the EAW as defined in Minn. R Water Supply Comment 29: Commenters noted that an additional source of water will be used for the source that was not included in the original EAW. (2-1, 5-2, 9-2, 13-3 and 23-1) Response: The water requirement of the proposed Project has been an important area to be addressed during the planning and review of the Project. The original water supply plan, as described in the EAW and in Attachment N to the EAW, addressed specific concerns with Well Permit application # , located approximately six miles to the east of Baker Dairy at West River Dairy and two new wells to be constructed at the Project site. A preliminary review of the application by the MDNR noted concerns about the potential aquifer sustainability; consequently, the MDNR requested further investigation of the West River Dairy Well before appropriation could be given (see Attachment N, page 3). Well # , located at the Baker Dairy site, did not raise a similar level of concerns as the previous well; 8

66 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet however, some investigative measures were also requested before appropriation could be awarded (see attachment N, page 3). Note that this Well was constructed per MDNR approval in late Other sources of water were reviewed, including contracting water from the city of Morris and/or using alternative wells to appropriate water. These were considered future options that could not be immediately implemented because of current infrastructure and/or regulatory approval. In the process of reviewing water options, a fully-permitted well was located that had already gone through the environmental review process to supply water to an ethanol plant that was never constructed. The permit authorized the appropriation of 452 million gallons per year and was held in good standing with the MDNR. After reviewing the extensive environmental review data available on the well, the Project Proposer decided to pursue this source for the dairy. The MDNR granted approval to use a portion of the permitted appropriation, up to 226 million gallons per year, on June 3, The Well Permit number is This new well source would be used in place of # Well # would be used as a backup emergency well only. Baker Dairy will complete the remaining items needed to receive a permit for backup use of # Comment 30: Commenters question why the inclusion of a new source of water in the Project did not require re-noticing the EAW. (6-14, 7-3, and 21-4) Response: The alternate, previously permitted water supply described in the response to Comment #29 was identified by the Project after the beginning of the comment period for the Baker Dairy EAW. EQB rules do not provide specific guidance for situations in which a change in a project occurs following the notice and distribution of the EAW but before the EIS-need decision. However, guidance can be derived from Minn. R subp. 5 under which an RGU may require a new EAW if a change in the project occurs after a negative declaration has been issued but before the proposed project has received all approvals or been implemented and if the RGU determines that a substantial change has been made in the proposed project or has occurred in the project s circumstances, which change may affect the potential for significant environmental effects that were not addressed in the existing EAW. In the present case, the project change is the use of a water from an existing permitted well which had been part of an ethanol plant project which had previously completed environmental review. This change would also involve the installation of a water pipeline from the existing permitted well site to the proposed Baker Dairy site. During environmental review of the ethanol plant, concerns about the water supply were identified and permit conditions were included in the water appropriation permit to address those concerns. That permit was subsequently amended to include Baker Dairy; however, the total amount of water allowed to be appropriated from the well was not increased, and no permit conditions were changed. It is again noted that the ethanol plant has not been built. See also the responses to Comments 29 and 31. Comment 31: Commenter requests a thorough discussion of the potential impacts from the alternate source of water as part of the EAW. (2-2) Response: A new EAW was not required due to the change in the intended water supply option for the proposed Project. The response to this comment addresses both the water supply well and the installation of a water pipeline to transport water from the well site to the proposed Project site. 9

67 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Water supply well: A negative declaration was approved by the MPCA Board on October 23, 2007, to complete environmental review of the proposed APEC, LLC Ethanol Production Facility, Stevens County. The Findings of Fact upon which that decision was made provided the following analysis: Because the initial aquifer test indicated the potential for well interference, the Project proposer redesigned the Project to reduce its water appropriation from the North Well Field in two significant ways: 1) the final Project will use a zero process wastewater discharge system to reduce its water needs; and 2) the final Project will use a second well field, the South Well Field, in conjunction with the North Well Field to supply its water needs. The proposed Project would appropriate an average of 860 gpm with a maximum of 1,000 gpm of ground water from two well fields, referred to as the North Well Field and the South Well Field. When the two well fields are pumped concurrently or individually, they will be limited to a peak pumping rate of 1,000 gpm. The total annual appropriation will not exceed 452 million gallons per year. As part of the water appropriation application process, the DNR required the Proposer to conduct an inventory of all water wells within a 1.5-mile radius of each well field and to conduct aquifer tests to evaluate potential impacts on the source aquifers, surrounding water supply wells, and any nearby surface water features. 30. The results of the aquifer test and ground-water modeling were used to make predictions of the long-term effects of pumping from the source aquifers. Additional information in the form of a published United States Geological Services (USGS) report, well-driller logs, test borings, and observation wells, were used to support conclusions regarding the effects of the Project on the aquifers. DNR staff analyzed the data and determined that the aquifer tests and supporting data submitted by the Proposer provided adequate information about the aquifer s ability to meet the Project s long-term water supply needs. With DNR s assistance, the MPCA staff determined that the aquifer test and supporting data provided enough information to conduct an adequate environmental review analysis of the proposed water appropriation. 31. The results of the aquifer test and ground-water modeling showed the potential for well interference with neighboring wells from the North Well Field appropriation. The DNR Water Appropriation Permit will mitigate this effect through its standard well interference and water conflict process as established under Minn. R Mitigation would require the Proposer to lower the pump in each affected well, or if necessary, to replace the pump or replace the well to supply the domestic user with an ample quantity of quality water. DNR will require APEC to mitigate interference in wells that have already been identified as wells that will experience interference prior to start-up the facility, using well interference triggers described in the EAW. For other wells, the Water Appropriation Permit will require monitoring in specific observation wells to limit the potential effect of interference before it occurs to domestic well owners. The aquifer test also showed that where pumping ceases at the North Well Field, the well recovers to nearly its original level. Due to the requirement to mitigate well interference, the MPCA finds that the potential for well interference has been identified and addressed and does not present the potential for significant environmental impact. 10

68 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 32. The potential well interference from the North Well Field appropriation does not mean there is a potential effect on the Benson aquifer system from the long-term pumping needs of the proposed facility. The aquifer test demonstrated that the aquifer had sufficient water to supply both the existing users and the APEC Project. The DNR Water Appropriations Permit will establish a safe yield threshold for the aquifer at specific monitoring well locations to ensure the integrity of the aquifer in addition to the interference trigger in Finding 31. The MPCA finds that the Project s planned appropriation from the North Well Field does not present the potential for significant environmental effect. Water pipeline The Proposer would use Well # as its main water source for the Baker Dairy Project. The well is located about 12 miles from the dairy site, in Section 17, Horton Township, Stevens County. A pipeline will be installed to connect the well to the Project. An engineering firm has been hired by the Proposer to help plan the route, provide detailed engineered drawings, and identify sensitive features. A licensed contractor will be hired to install the pipe. The pipeline location is presented in Attachment B to the Responses to Comments document. Drawings of pipeline construction and layout details are presented in Attachment C to the Responses to Comments document. The water pipeline would be installed over a distance of approximately 12 miles travelling in county road right-of-way from the well location to the Project site. The pipe will cross multiple township and county roads. The type of crossing (directional bore or open trench method) will depend on the road type. A permit application is currently pending with Stevens County to occupy the right of way and to cross the roads. The Project will cross one unnamed stream and an application for license to cross public lands and waters, is currently pending with the MDNR. The pipe will also cross or pass close by two wetlands. Each wetland crossing will be approved by the appropriate authorities prior to installation. At certain points along the pipe route, it will be necessary to either install or access private land. Pipeline installation easements have been granted to the Proposer by the landowners. The installation of a water pipeline is a type of project which is frequently encountered in the public sector. The potential impacts are well understood and effective mitigation measures are known and can be incorporated as appropriate in construction, crossing, right-of-way, and other permits required at the state and local levels. Water pipeline construction is also not subject to mandatory environmental review under EQB rules. In addition, this option for water supply will also eliminate the need for the originally proposed water supply well and pipeline from the West River Dairy and the potential impacts that would have been associated with its construction and use will be avoided. Comment 32: Commenter would like to know what happens if the ethanol plant decides to expand. (3-2) Response: Baker Dairy currently holds an appropriations permit (MDNR # ) for 226 million gallons of water per year. This permit was originally held by APEC, LLC with a total of 452 million gallons of appropriation per year. APEC, LLC was planning on building an ethanol plant and using this appropriation for that purpose. An agreement was reached between APEC, LLC and Riverview, LLP to split the appropriation: 226 million gallons would stay with APEC, LLC and 226 million gallons would be appropriated to Riverview, LLP to use as livestock watering for Baker Dairy. On June 3, 2014, the MDNR 11

69 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet approved this plan. If the ethanol plant were to expand/build, they would have access to their appropriated water portion. Comment 33: Commenter would like to know how the Project Proposer can be allowed to obtain water from somewhere else. (5-1) Response: According to the MDNR, Any individual, agency, corporation, or entity appropriating in excess of 10,000 gallons/day and/or 1 million gallons/year must obtain a Water Appropriation Permit from the Department of Natural Resources as prescribed by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103G and Minnesota Rules Through this approval process, a project may apply for appropriation. Each application for appropriation must go through an approval process with the MDNR. The application to appropriate water from # was approved by the MDNR on June 3, Comment 34: Commenters are concerned about the long term sustainability of groundwater in the area. (3-1, 5-3, 6-5, 7-2, 9-1, 10-1, 11-2, 12-1, 12-3, 12-6, 13-4, 14-2, 14-3, 17-1, 17-4, 18-1, 18-2, , and 22-1) Response: Baker originally applied to appropriate water from two different sources (MDNR permit # s and ). After receiving preliminary approval to construct wells at both locations (EAW Attachment O), a review was done by the MDNR on both well locations using data collected by Riverview, LLP (Ref. EAW Attachment N). After reviewing the MDNR assessment, it was decided by the Proposer that additional water sources may be needed in the future. Well # was found and was approved for use by the MDNR for the Proposer on June 3, This well was previously environmentally reviewed and found to have an abundant supply of groundwater. Using this new source of water for the dairy will eliminate any groundwater sustainability issues for the area around Baker Dairy. Comment 35: Commenter asked if a preliminary well assessment has been completed by the DNR. (8-4) Response: A preliminary well assessment has been completed. See EAW Attachment O. Comment 36: Commenters would like to know what will happen if wells run dry. (3-3, 12-2, 14-1, 17-3, 18-3, 19-4, 19-5, 21-2, and 21-3) Response: The MDNR has a well interference resolution process. 1. Contact your Area Hydrologist to request a Water Well Information and Complaint Questionnaire, or download the questionnaire from this page: 2. Submit the completed Water Well Information and Complaint Questionnaire to the appropriate MDNR Regional Office for your county. A licensed well driller is required to complete parts B, C and D of the questionnaire. 3. Your complaint will be evaluated to determine whether an investigation is necessary. 4. Some investigations require that an aquifer pumping test be performed. The high capacity well would be pumped and water levels in the domestic well(s) involved in the complaint and possibly other wells in the area are measured to determine the extent of any well interference. 12

70 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 5. Aquifer test data and/or other information will be analyzed and a determination will be made regarding the existence and extent of the interference. 6. If the MDNR determines a well interference condition exists, the permittee will be required to perform one or more of the following actions within 30 days of notification: o Request a modification or restriction of the permit in order to provide the affected well owner with an adequate domestic water supply. o Negotiate a reasonable agreement with the affected domestic well owner(s). o Request a public hearing. Minn. Stat. 103G.261 establishes the water use priorities when supplies are limited as follows: (1) domestic water supply; (2) a use of water that involves consumption of less than 10,000 gallons of water per day; (3) agricultural irrigation, and processing of agricultural products involving consumption in excess of 10,000 gallons per day; (4) power production in excess of the use provided for in the contingency plan; (5) uses, other than agricultural irrigation, processing of agricultural products, and power production, involving consumption in excess of 10,000 gallons per day; and, (6) nonessential uses. Minn. R establishes procedures for resolving well interferences and can be found here: Comment 37: Commenter would like to know if there is a time limit for repair of dry wells. (12-4) Response: The MDNR has a well interference resolution process. The process can be found on the MDNR website or in Minn. Stat. 103G.261 and in Minn. R Comment 38: Commenters note there are no groundwater monitoring wells in Baker Township. (10-2 and 12-5) Response: Commenter is correct that there are no monitoring wells in Baker Township. The nearest monitoring well to the Project is in Section 13 of Stevens Township, about 2 1/5 miles south of the Project. The MDNR Observation Well Number is and the Minnesota Unique Well Number is , Well depth is 237 feet, the first measurement was taken October 25, 1986, and readings are still being taken. Comment 39: Commenter requests that there be observation wells next to each large dairy or other large consumer of water. (18-6) Response: Groundwater appropriation permit for APEC has an observation well monitoring condition on the permit. The permittee is required to measure water levels, with an accuracy of 0.01 foot, in the west observation well (unique number ) and the east observation well (unique number ). Water levels shall be measured monthly, and recorded as depth to water from the top of the well casing. Monitoring reports shall be submitted electronically on a quarterly basis to Groundwater appropriation permit application at the Baker Dairy site is pending review. The MDNR requested the applicant to provide an inventory of well information within 1.5 miles of Baker Dairy and provide any specific capacity test data. The MDNR will review the application once the information has been provided to determine whether further testing or an observation well is required. 13

71 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 40: Commenter requested specific locations and actual water use for all wells used by Riverview LLP 2010 through (18-8 and 18-9) Response: Water use by all permitted users through 2011 is public information and can be accessed at the MDNR website: Comment 41: Commenter would like to request data collected from all groundwater observation wells in Stevens County going back to before West River Dairy began operation. (18-5) Response: Statewide groundwater monitoring data can be obtained at: Comment 42: Commenter states that each cow drinks about 50 gallons of water per day and with 10,000 cows that is a lot of water usage. (13-5) Response: At Riverview s existing jersey dairies, water usage has averaged 29 gallons per head per day of water usage over the past three years. This includes total site water usage, including cows, parlor, and wash water. The proposed Project applied for 8,850 mature dairy cows and 500 dairy heifers (9,200 AUs). At 29 gallons per head per day, the total estimated annual water usage is 98,969,750 gallons. The dairy currently holds an MDNR water appropriations permit for 226 million gallons (# ) which will be able to supply the proposed dairy with water. Comment 43: Commenter states that the quality of the water in their well has declined in the last 10 years, particularly during times of manure application, and that the Baker Dairy will contribute to the decline in groundwater quality. (18-10) Response: MPCA rules regarding animal feedlots are designed to protect groundwater resources from contamination from manure. All manure storage structures must be designed and built to meet specific permeability requirements. Design plans for manure storage structures must be signed by a professional engineer licensed by the state of Minnesota. All tile lines placed around liquid manure storage areas (LMSA) must have a means to make weekly visual inspections for possible contamination and provide a means to take water samples if necessary. If more than one LMSA is designed, tile lines and inspection ports must be made so that each can be independently inspected. Land application of manure is another potential source of groundwater contamination. Minnesota rules have maximum allowable application rates for nitrogen based upon University of Minnesota recommendations for various crops and cropping rotations. Liquid manure may not be surface spread on frozen ground except in the case of an emergency and then must have prior approval from the MPCA. These limitations are in place to minimize the potential for groundwater contamination from land application of manure. Comment 44: Commenter would like to know the radius of affected wells from the proposed Baker Dairy and how those measurements are taken. (18-12) 14

72 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response: APEC LLC evaluated the wells within a 1.5 mile radius of groundwater appropriation permit and concluded that well interference near the northern well field can be managed by limiting withdrawals from the confined aquifer and obtaining the balance of water demand from the water-table aquifer at the southern well location. APEC LLC modelled the drawdown in nearby wells using estimated aquifer parameters and consideration of boundary conditions that were gained during an aquifer test. Wells within a 1.5 mile radius of groundwater appropriation application will be evaluated by the MDNR once the applicant provides the requested inventory of wells. Comment 45: Commenter would appreciate discussion on the construction of the water line piping, identification of wetlands impacted, and how wetland impacts will be restored to pre-existing conditions. (4-3) Response: The Project Proposer plans to install the pipe in the county right of way from well location to the project site. The pipe will cross multiple township and county roads. The type of crossing (directional bore or open trench method) will depend on the road type. A permit application is currently pending with Stevens County to occupy the right of way, and to cross roads. The Project will cross one unnamed stream and an application for license to cross public lands and waters is currently pending with the MDNR. The pipe will cross or come close to two wetlands; each wetland crossing will be approved by the appropriate authorities prior to installation. At certain points along the pipe route it will be necessary to either install or access private land. Pipeline installation easements have been granted to the Proposer by the landowners. See Attachments B, C, and D for location of pipeline and features crossed. Comment 46: Commenter would like to know if anyone can bury a water line in the road ditch. (18-37) Response: Stevens County has a permitting process for any individual/business that would seek to occupy the county right of way. Comment 47: Commenter would like to know who is responsible for damage as a result of a broken water line. (18-38) Response: Baker Dairy is responsible for any repairs/damage. Comment 48: Commenter would like to know if the MDNR will give permission for the water supply pipe to be buried on its property in Scott Township along County Road 8 near County Road 9, or even in the road ditch near that property. (18-39) Response: A permit must be obtained from the county to occupy the county road right of way. Any other permits needed including permits to cross sensitive features will be or have been applied for with the appropriate regulatory agency. See Attachments B, C, and D to the Responses to Comments document for location of pipeline and features to be crossed. Comment 49: Commenters noted that several nearby wells were left off of the well inventory in Attachment F to the EAW. (6-6, 10-4, 14-4, 17-2, 18-13, 19-3) 15

73 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response: Attachment F shows wells within two miles of the Project site. To obtain a list of the wells, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) online well database was used. Any well not included in Attachment F was not listed in the MDH database. As part of the ongoing water appropriation permitting process, the MDNR plans to gather information on these missing wells (with the help of the Project Proposer) so they can be registered with the MDH and the MDNR. Comment 50: Commenter requests that a draw down test on all wells in Attachment F and the missing wells be done. (6-7) Response: To obtain a water appropriations permit from the MDNR on Wells & the MDNR has stated the following actions must take place (See EAW Attachment N): Further information will be required of Riverview in order to process the groundwater appropriation permits. This information includes: Providing an inventory of well information within 1.5 miles of both Baker Dairy and West River Dairy. This includes gathering well information that is not in the MDH county well index. Providing DNR with available specific capacity test data from all wells at both dairy farms. Conducting an aquifer test once the new wells are drilled ( ). The details of this test will be determined at a later date but will be designed to evaluate current and future water use in the confined aquifers by the dairy in both locations. Installing an observation well(s) that will be used during the aquifer test and for long term monitoring. Provide DNR with an aquifer test report which describes the aquifer sustainability, impact to nearby wells, and resource features. Surface Water Runoff Comment 51: Commenters are concerned about the volume of the clean water runoff from the proposed Project and if the runoff is regulated and sampled. (12-7, 18-35, 24-5, and 24-6) Response: Runoff generated by precipitation falling on the feed storage area is collected and contained within the proposed liquid manure storage areas prior to land application to surrounding cropland; therefore no runoff is released from this area. Runoff generated from the feed storage area is sampled and regulated as liquid manure. Other runoff commonly termed clean water from such things as roofs, driveways, and grassed areas, among others, is addressed in the sites stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The SWPPP for the project indicates that a stormwater pond will be installed to collect and release in a controlled manner the runoff from the roofs, driveways, and grassed areas. Clean water runoff is not sampled however; the proposed runoff control practices meet and exceed the minimum stormwater control requirements of the NPDES permit. Roads Comment 52: Commenters are concerned about the damage to roads during harvest of hay and silage, and who is responsible for repairs to those roads. (3-6, 3-7, 5-5, 6-13, 9-3, 14-5, 17-6, 18-26, 21-13, 23-3, and 24-3) 16

74 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response: The Project Proposer has contacted the four closest townships (Synnes, Baker, Scott, and Stevens, all in Stevens County). These are the four townships where a large percentage of the crop will be harvested. The Proposer is going to pay for time and material (gravel and road grader time) needed after each harvest session to repair the township roads most heavily travelled because of the Proposer s harvest. Roads in need of repair will be determined mutually between the contractor contracted by the township to grade the roads and the Project Proposer. A report of what was done and how much was needed to repair the road will be submitted to the respective township boards annually. Comment 53: Commenters are concerned that the county and township roads are not designed to handle the increase in large truck traffic from the proposed dairy. (6-11, 11-3, 12-9, 16-4, 19-6, and 20-1) Response: The roads were designed to haul legal limit loads and the Proposer hauls legal limit loads. Additionally the Project Proposer has contacted the four closest townships (Synnes, Baker, Scott, and Stevens, all in Stevens County). These are the four townships where a large percentage of the crop will be harvested. The Proposer is going to pay for time and material (gravel and road grader time) needed after each harvest session to repair the township roads most heavily travelled because of the Proposer s harvest. Roads in need of repair will be determined mutually between the contractor contracted by the township to grade the roads and the Project Proposer. A report of what was done and how much was needed to repair the road will be submitted to the respective township boards annually. Comment 54: Commenter is concerned that the truck traffic will follow the routes specified in the EAW particularly County Road 13 which is not identified in the EAW. (21-12) Response: As stated in the EAW, the primary truck route will be U.S. Highway 12 to U.S. Highway 59 to Stevens County Road 8 (on all milk trucks coming from the cheese processor in Milbank, South Dakota. There may be times this primary truck route will not be used, and if that is the case, other local roads may be used including Stevens County Road 13. All posted weight limits will be followed on the routes. Comment 55: Commenters expressed concern about the date of the scheduled County Road 8 improvements and that improvements would not take place as early as 2016 as stated in the EAW. (6-12, 7-1, 8-5, 14-8, 14-9, 18-33, 19-7, 19-8, and 22-3) Response: According to the Stevens County Highway Department, the highway project is scheduled for Delaying the highway project or moving it ahead of schedule does not affect the project. Odor Comment 56: Comments express concerned about the odors generated by the proposed dairy. (5-8, 6-9, 7-7, 8-2, 11-4, 16-1, 18-15, 18-17, 19-2, and 20-2) Response: Ambient air quality standards are not established to regulate odor in Minnesota; however, air quality modeling using AERMOD was conducted to estimate the ground level odor intensities at the feedlot s property lines and at neighboring residences. The maximum hourly odor intensity predicted at the expanded feedlot s effective property lines was 130 odor units (OUs). This would be above the faint odor threshold of 83 OUs, but below the moderate odor threshold of 244 OUs. 17

75 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet The maximum odor intensity at eight of the nearest neighbors was modeled. The highest modeled value at a nearby residence was 32 OUs, below the faint odor threshold. Of the eight sites modeled, the maximum predicted value at five of the sites was below the very faint odor threshold of 28 OUs. Three of the modeled sites had a maximum predicted value that exceeded the very faint odor threshold. Comment 57: Comments ask what steps will be taken to contain odors at the proposed facility. (17-5 and 18-16, and 18-21) Response: See EAW 6.A-D. See also EAW 11. Please also note Minn. R which may be in effect during times of manure application. Anytime an odor may be offensive, we encourage the affected property owners to contact the Proposer to see if something can be done to correct the situation. Comment 58: Comments express concern about the odors generated by the existing Riverview dairies. (13-2, 14-12, 18-14, 18-18, 21-11, 24-8) Response: Existing Riverview dairies in Stevens County employ many odor reducing measures. These measures include an impermeable synthetic cover over the earthen basins, using a bio-filter to filter air from the day pit and storing mortalities in an enclosed shed and removing from the site within 48 hours. Other measures that are employed include covering feed to prevent rotting, cleaning up any spilled feed promptly, injecting liquid manure during application season, and frequently cleaning the free stall barns (at least twice daily). These sites also use a manure separator which eliminates the need to use a manure agitator in the fall. Anytime an odor may be offensive, we encourage the affected property owners to contact the Proposer to see if something can be done to correct the situation. Manure Management Comment 59: Comments express concern about runoff from fields receiving manure from the dairy. (3-4, 3-5, and 24-7) Response: The Proposer plans to abide by the manure application rules as stated in Minn. R These rules are put into place to prevent periods of non-compliance including manure run-off into road ditches. The Proposer uses state licensed manure application contractors who must undergo initial and ongoing manure application training. Comment 60: Comment expresses concern that the proposed dairy has insufficient acreage for land application of all the manure that will be produced at the dairy. (5-9, 6-3, 7-5, 7-6, 11-9, 14-10, 14-11, 17-7, 18-22, 19-10, 19-11, 21-5, 22-2, 23-2, and 24-9) Response: The current Project manure management plan currently has 3,060 acres of land owned, rented, or leased. The projected annual acreage need for manure application is 6,300. Additional acres will be needed in area farm fields that are not owned, rented, or leased by the Proposer. There is more than 14,000 acres of additional farmland within a four mile radius of the site that could receive manure application plus more acres beyond the four mile radius. The Proposers plans to sell the remaining manure to these area fields. At other nearby Riverview dairy sites, the Proposer has experience selling manure to neighboring fields. The process includes: Compiling a list of all possible fields that can receive manure Contacting the owner and/or operators to gauge interest up to a year in advance 18

76 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Again contacting potential recipients during the summer prior to fall application to compile interest Manure is then sold based on availability Key points that make liquid manure as a fertilizer attractive to farmers include: 1) manure is significantly discounted versus commercial fertilizer. As an example, using manure price from 2013, if a farmer purchased 1,000 acres worth of manure he would have saved over $100,000 in fertilizer cost; and, 2) manure performs at least as good as commercial fertilizer. Comment 61: Comments ask if acres for land application of manure must be committed and identified prior to permitting. (18-23, 21-6, and 21-7) Response: The MPCA does not require signed land application agreements prior to permitting. Comment 62: Comments ask who follows up on land application of manure. (6-4, 18-20, and 18-24) Response: The facility is required by the NPDES permit to submit an annual report of land application activities to the MPCA. Comment 63: Comment asks how the manure will be removed from the basins. (7-4) Response: There are three separate manure basins at the proposed site. Each is designed to allow access to a manure pump. When manure application is scheduled to begin, a manure pump will be placed in the accessible area of the lagoon to extract the liquid manure. The manure will be pumped to a tractor in the field via a manure hose where it will be injected into the farm field. Comment 64: Comment asks why hay land is considered cultivated land. (21-9) Response: The term cultivated land refers to land that grows and produces crops. Although hay ground is not tilled on a yearly basis as traditional corn and soybean fields, hay is a crop. Therefore, a hay field is considered cultivated land. Comment 65: Comment asks if there are certain months or days of the year when land application of manure is allowed. (21-7) Response: Minn. R prohibits manure application to frozen or snow-covered soils within 300 feet of most water features and tile intakes. The rule also prohibits application of manure to fields in June, July, or August, unless there is active vegetation or a cover crop is planted after manure application. These restrictions apply to all manure applications in Minnesota. The NPDES permit further restricts land application of manure where ownership is retained, that is, where manure is land applied to fields that the feedlot facility owner also owns, operates, or has control over. In these situations, winter application of liquid manure is prohibited to these fields, except in emergency situations. Winter application of solid manure is allowed but is restricted to gently sloping land where active snowmelt is not occurring and where the field has a low risk for phosphorus transport. 19

77 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Wetlands Comment 66: Comment included three short videos of the property where the dairy is proposed to be built and is concerned there is more wetland acreage on site than was stated in the EAW. Comment requests a wetland delineation prior to permitting. (6-8) Response: On the Proposer s request, a wetland determination was undertaken by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) on January 5, The permitting process to mitigate the determined wetlands was started in the spring of Although the permit cannot be issued until the feedlot permit is granted, many state and federal agencies have been involved in the permitting process. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is one such agency and has jurisdiction of these wetlands. The Corps completed a site visit on June 17, 2014, and re-affirmed the acre amount from the original wetland determination completed by the NRCS on January 5, The two farmed wetlands are approximately 4.8 acres in size and Riverview LLP proposes compensating for the farmed wetland impacts by purchasing credits from an approved wetland mitigation bank. However, the Corps noted it appears that some of the filled area will be to create a lawn and that more information is needed to demonstrate that this impact is unavoidable. The Corps also has noted there is a 15-acre basin that has been classified by the NRCS as a prior converted wetland and that due to this classification, it is not a navigable water of the United States and therefore not subject to Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permitting requirements. Comment 67: Comment expresses concern that Currently the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is determining what government body has jurisdiction (federal, state or local). (8-3) Response: The statement Currently the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is determining what government body has jurisdiction (federal, state or local) in Part 4(C) on page 7 of the EAW refers to jurisdiction over several farmed wetlands impacted by the Project. The Corps requested that that language in the EAW be replaced with: The proposed farmed wetland impacts will require authorization under both the Wetland Conservation Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the proposed activity may require an individual water quality certification or waiver from the MPCA under Section 401 of the CWA, Section 10. Required permits and approvals will be amended to include the Corps, CWA Section 404 permit and MPCA, CWA Section 401 permit. Number of Cows and Dairies Comment 68: Comments express concern about the number of cows and large dairies in the area. (3-9, 6-1, 7-9, 10-5, 11-8, 13-1, 13-6, 17-10, 18-30, 20-7, 20-8, and 24-4) Response: The issue of feedlot density and size is addressed at the local level (either county or township) through planning and zoning. Currently, Stevens County has a zoning ordinance which allows livestock operations as a permitted use in the A-1 zoning district and in certain circumstances as a Conditional Use. The Stevens County zoning ordinance does not have a size limit on livestock operations. 20

78 Riverview LLP Baker Dairy Stevens County, Minnesota Baker Township Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet In looking at the size of operations and/or the number of livestock in an area, the limiting factors are availability of feed and water. A factor of consideration is how far can feed, water, and manure be transported and make economic sense. Water supply, as discussed above, is regulated by the MDNR. Water appropriation permits are required for large feedlot operations as well as irrigation wells, and the MDNR has a network of groundwater monitoring wells throughout the state of Minnesota. Based upon the design plans and specifications for the Project, an estimated 63 million gallons of manure will be produced annually. Using a typical manure nitrogen test value of 25pounds/1,000 gallons it is expected that 1.6 million pounds of nitrogen will be available for land application to surrounding cropland. Assuming that manure is applied via subsurface injection to a corn crop that has an average nitrogen need of 180 pounds annually, approximately 4,500 acres of corn ground is needed each year for application of manure in order to apply at a nitrogen based agronomic rate. Based on the current corn silage ration fed to cows at other Riverview Dairy facilities, nearly 4,000 acres of corn silage and 500 acres of corn (grain) will be needed to supply enough corn for the cows diet. The nitrogen produced from the animals is approximately equivalent to the nitrogen need of the corn crop used to feed the animals. Corn is the predominate crop grown in the area near the dairy and the proposed Project gives another market for farmers of the area for their corn crop while providing an adequate supply of nutrients for the corn crop in return. Corn will continue to be grown in this area and will continue to require fertilizer. This proposal will not change the current corn production practices nor will it provide for excessive nutrients for the corn crop that it requires to feed its cows. Another factor to consider in the cumulative effects of livestock operations is air quality. Proposed new and expanding feedlots that meet the mandatory requirements to complete an EAW have been required to do air modeling by the MPCA for over 10 years. Modeling is done for hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor. Hydrogen sulfide is the only one of those three that has an ambient air quality standard which is applied at the property line. Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia have inhalation health risk values (ihrvs) which are non-regulatory concentrations but do give a benchmark to evaluate the potential effects of a project on nearby neighbors. Odor is a result of numerous odorous compounds being emitted from a source and does not have any associated regulatory or health risk values. The University of Minnesota has developed a scale to evaluate the effect of odor from feedlots on nearby residences based upon a normal distribution of people. Air dispersion modeling conservatively over estimates the concentration at modeled receptors as a means of providing a safe margin of error in the predicted values. Cumulative potential effects on air quality were also evaluated by comparing the Minnesota ambient air quality standards for hydrogen sulfide, ihrvs for ammonia, and odor intensity thresholds with concentrations in the air predicted by modeling. The modeling analysis included the estimated emissions from the proposed Project, and incorporated conservative background concentrations to account for the potential impacts of air emissions from other feedlots. Air concentrations were estimated for these pollutants at the eight residences located in the three square mile area surrounding the proposed Project. All modeled concentrations were below the health-based and nuisance odor criteria used in the analyses and no violations of hydrogen sulfide standards were predicted. Therefore, the predicted cumulative potential air quality effects were not found to be significant in the Project area. 21

79 ATTACHMENT A Riverview Biosecurity Program Biosecurity is an important part of Riverview s animal operations and biological risk management plan. In order to mitigate the risk of an outbreak of infectious disease that endangers the health of Riverview s animals, its employees, the food supply, and the general public, the following biosecurity guidelines have been formulated in conjunction with local and state veterinary oversight. These guidelines are by no means all-inclusive and are subject to change as required by future regulatory action or disease pressures. Preventing the Introduction and Spread of Infectious Diseases Animal Risks In-Network Animals All in-network Riverview animals will be vaccinated according to the Riverview vaccination protocol as designed and periodically reviewed by Dr. Conrad Spangler or the veterinarian that maintains the valid Veterinary-Client-Patient-Relationship (VCPR) with the Riverview network at any time. All in-network animals will be observed daily to identify symptoms of disease by qualified, trained employees. All diseases will be entered into a computer system and reviewed by management daily to identify changing trends in animal health and production. Any heifer that leaves the Riverview network for growth and development will be vaccinated in accordance with the Riverview vaccination protocol and will be test-negative for tuberculosis and any other disease as required by the state where the heifer will be returning. No cull heifers will leave and subsequently return to the Riverview network. All cull cows will be directly marketed to slaughter. Animals will be transported in vehicles that have been cleaned and disinfected before pick-up. Purchased Animals All purchased animals entering the Riverview network will be test-negative for tuberculosis and any other disease as required by the state where the animal will be entering. All purchased animals will be vaccinated according to the Riverview vaccination protocol prior to entry into the Riverview network and will be tested for contagious diseases as determined by Dr. Conrad Spangler or the veterinarian that maintains the valid VCPR with the Riverview network at any time. Purchased animals will be quarantined in a separate pen for 14 days during which there will not be a shared feed or water source. o In the event that these animals are lactating, they will be milked last and the equipment will be sanitized after milking these cattle. Wildlife Electronic sound deterrents will be utilized to minimize feed contamination by birds. Rodent control (baits, traps) in and around the Riverview network sites will be practiced year-round.

80 Preventing the Introduction and Spread of Infectious Diseases People Risks Riverview Employees All Riverview employees will be trained on the guidelines included in the Riverview Biosecurity Program. All Riverview employees will clean footwear prior to leaving an in-network facility. In the event an employee visits an out-of-network farm, they must clean and disinfect their footwear prior to entry of an in-network facility. All Riverview employees will wear clean clothes, coveralls, or change into site-designated clothing upon entry into a Riverview facility. Trusted Vendors A trusted vendor is a vendor that has been trained on the guidelines included in the Riverview Biosecurity Program and has explicit permission to enter the Riverview facilities on an as-needed or requested basis. They must follow the guidelines expected of a Riverview employee. This includes semen company representatives, animal health distribution representatives, nutritionists, and parlor and sanitation equipment representatives. Any equipment coming onto Riverview premises should be cleaned before entering Riverview property. Anyone that is not a Riverview employee or trusted vendor will be considered a visitor and subject to the visitor guidelines. Domestic Visitors Domestic visitors are only allowed onto Riverview premises with permission. All domestic visitors that wish to enter a Riverview site will sign a visitor log that details their name, company, and date of last animal contact. Visitors are only allowed to park in designated areas and are forbidden from entering animal housing units with their vehicles. Any visitors that are invited to enter the animal housing units will be provided disposable plastic boots. Visitors will be discouraged from having any direct animal, feed, or water contact and will be toured through animal viewing locations when available. All domestic visitors are expected to obey posted signs and warnings related to biosecurity throughout the facilities. Foreign Visitors Foreign visitors are subject to the same guidelines as domestic visitors. Individuals who have arrived in the United States within the last 7 days from a country with Foot and Mouth Disease are prohibited from entering the animal housing area. Riverview Biosecurity Program reviewed and approved by on.

81 P:\08\814\01\DWG\BASEMAP.DWG Plot Date: 7/15/2014 4:19 PM ATTACHMENT B Sheet Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) REVISIONS DISTRIBUTION MAP BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA

82 Key T/2 Directional bore T/3 Open cut trench Ditch Construction work performed in the Right of Way

83 7/15/2014 4:11 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 123 R W 42 Sec. 17 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 1A

84 7/15/2014 4:12 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 123 R W 42 Sec._08 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 2A

85 7/15/2014 4:12 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 123 R W 42 Sec._05 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 3A

86 7/15/2014 4:12 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 123 R W 42 Sec._06 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 4A

87 7/15/2014 4:12 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 123 R W 43 Sec. 01 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 5A

88 7/15/2014 4:12 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 123 R W 43 Sec. 02 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 6A

89 7/15/2014 4:12 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 123 R W 43 Sec._03 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 7A

90 7/15/2014 4:12 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 123 R W 43 Sec. 04 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 8A

91 7/15/2014 4:12 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 124 R W 43 Sec. 32 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 9A

92 7/15/2014 4:12 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 123 R W 43 Sec. 06 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 10A

93 7/15/2014 4:12 PM P:\08\814\01\DWG\STAKINGSHEETS.DWG T R 124 R 44 Sec. 36 REV DATE DESCRIPTION Project Manager: BAJ Designer: DFC Project Number: Phone: (712) STAKING SHEETS BAKER DAIRY RAW WATER PIPELINE MORRIS, MINNESOTA 11A