Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) R & R Hogs LLC Doc Type: Public Notice

Public Comment Information EAW Public comment period begins: July 4, 2016 EAW Public comment period ends: August 3, 2016 Notice published in the EQB Monitor: July 4, 2016

Facility Specific Information Facility name and location: Facility contact: R & R Hogs Alan D. Larsen Faribault County Anez Consulting, Inc. Dunbar Township 1700 Technology Drive NE NW ¼ Section 4 Willmar, MN 56201 Township 104N Range 24 West Phone: 320-235-1970 Fax: 320-235-1986 Email;[email protected]

MPCA Contact Information

MPCA EAW contact person: MPCA Permit contact person: Laura Hysjulien Desiree Hohenstein Resource Management and Assistance Division Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55-55 St. Paul, MN 55155-4194 Phone: 651-757-2455 Phone: 651-757-2334 Fax: 651-297-2343 Fax: 651-297-2343 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Admin staff phone: 651-757-2100

General Information The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is distributing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The MPCA uses the EAW and any comments received to evaluate the potential for significant environmental effects from the project and decide on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An electronic version of the EAW is available on the MPCA Environmental Review webpage at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oxpg691. If you would like a copy of the EAW or NPDES/SDS Permit or have any questions on the EAW or NPDES/SDS Permit, contact the appropriate person(s) listed above.

Description of Proposed Project R & R Hogs LLC (“Proposer”) proposes to construct a new swine finishing feedlot in Section 4 of Dunbar Township, Faribault County (“Project”). The Proposer will construct two 102-feet x 160-foot total confinement, power ventilated buildings with eight-foot deep reinforced, poured-in-place concrete liquid manure storage pits below the buildings and a separate mortality composting building. The Project will house up to a total of 4,000 finishing hogs or 1,200 animal units in the two buildings.

p-ear2-109a

www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats Page 1 of 2

Written comments on the EAW must be received by the MPCA EAW contact person within the comment period listed above. For information on how to comment on the (NPDES/SDS Permit, contact the MPCA Permit contact person listed above.

NOTE: All comment letters are public documents and will be part of the official public record for this project.

Need for an EIS The MPCA Commissioner will make a final decision on the need for an EIS after the end of the comment period.

www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats Page 2 of 2 Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Note to preparers: This form is authorized for use only for the preparation of Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) for animal feedlots. Project proposers should consult the guidance Guidelines for Alternative EAW Form for Animal Feedlots (also available at the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) website http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/review.html or by calling 651-296-6300) regarding how to supply information needed by the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) to complete the worksheet form. Note to reviewers: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (“EAW”) provides information about a Project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. This EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”), acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (“RGU”), to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) should be prepared. The Project proposer supplied reasonably accessible data for, but did not complete the final worksheet. Comments on the EAW must be submitted to the MPCA during the 30-day comment period which begins with notice of the availability of the EAW in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. Comments on the EAW should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that are reasonably expected to occur that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. A copy of the EAW may be obtained from the MPCA by calling 651-757-2101. An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA website http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html.

Please note that this EAW is for a proposed project for the construction of a new hog feedlot. No permits have been issued and the project proposer may not begin construction until the EAW process is completed and all required permits are issued.

1. Basic Project Information. A. Feedlot Name: R & R Hogs, LLC

B. Feedlot Proposer: R & R Hogs, LLC C. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Technical Contact Contact Person Alan D. Larsen, PE Person Laura Hysjulien

and Professional Engineer and Title Anez Consulting, Inc. Title Project Manager

Address 1700 Technology Drive NE Address 520 Lafayette Road North Willmar, MN 56201 St Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194

Phone 320-235-1970 Phone 651-757-2455 Fax 320-235-1986 Fax 651-297-2343 E-mail [email protected] E-mail [email protected]

p-ear1-05 TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332 Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers D. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) EIS Mandatory Citizen RGU Proposer Scoping EAW X Petition Discretion Volunteered

If EAW or EIS is mandatory, give EQB rule category subpart number and name: Minn R. 4410.4300, subp. 29A

E. Project Location: County Faribault City/Twp Dunbar

NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 4 Township 104N Range 24W

Watershed (name and 4-digit code): Minnesota, 0702

F. Attach each of the following to the EAW:

Attachment A Project Location Map Attachment B U.S.G.S. Topographical Map, Faribault County Map Attachment C Project Site Plan Attachment D Neighboring Residences, Water Supply Wells, Sensitive Features, One Mile Radius Attachment E Cumulative Impacts – Water, Wells DWSMA Map Attachment F Air Quality Modeling Analysis Attachment G Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory Results Attachment H Natural Heritage Information System Search Report Attachment I Dunbar Township Zoning Districts Attachment J MDNR Well Construction Preliminary Assessment

The following documents are available for review at either:

1. MPCA’s St. Paul Office, 520 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155 2. MPCA’s Mankato Office, 12 Civic Center Plaza #2165, Mankato, MN 56001: · National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Permit (“Feedlot Permit”) and Application and associated documents including the Air Emissions and Odor Response Plan · Animal Mortality Plan · Emergency Response Plan · Operation and Maintenance · Manure Management Plan G. Project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.

R & R Hogs LLC (“Proposer”) propose to construct a new swine finishing feedlot Section 4 of Dunbar Township, Faribault County (“Project”). The Proposer will construct two (2) 102-feet x 160-foot total confinement, power ventilated buildings with eight (8)-foot deep reinforced, poured-in-place concrete liquid manure storage pits below the buildings and a separate mortality composting building. The Project will house up to a total of 4,000 finishing hogs or 1,200 animal units1in the (2) two buildings.

1 An “animal unit” or “AU” is a unit of measure developed to compare the differences in the amount of manure produced by livestock species. The “AU” is standardized to the amount of manure produced on a regular basis by a slaughter steer or heifer, which also correlates to 1,000 pounds of body weight. The “AU” is used for administrative purposes by various governmental entities for permitting and record-keeping.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 2 Worksheet H. Please check all boxes that apply and fill in requested data:

Animal Type Number Proposed Type of Confinement Finishing hogs 4,000 Total Confinement Sows Nursery pigs Dairy cows Beef cattle Turkeys Layer hens Chickens Pullets Other (Please identify species)

I. Project magnitude data.

Total acreage of farm: 20 Number of animal units proposed in this Project: 1,200 Total animal unit capacity at this location after Project construction: 1,200 Acreage required for manure application: 791 acres per year

J. Describe construction methods and timing.

The Proposer will construct the Project in the NW¼ of the SW¼ of Section 4 of Dunbar Township in Faribault County. The Project consists of constructing two (2) 102-feet x 160-feet total confinement, power-ventilated barns (see Attachment C). The building’s design includes concrete slated floors, which allows manure to pass through to an eight (8) foot deep, reinforced, poured-in-place concrete liquid manure storage pits. These barns combined, will house up to 4,000 finishing hogs or 1,200 animal units (“AU”). Pit fans installed over the manure along the interior edge of the building, vent manure gasses out of the manure pit. Construction also includes a mortality compost building.

The Proposer will install a perimeter drain tile around the base of the manure storage pits. The perimeter tile allows soil drainage and limits any hydrostatic pressure on concrete pit walls.

Inspection ports connected to the perimeter tiles allow the Proposer to observe that the tiles are operational and identify seepage from the pits if a leak were to occur.

The Proposer will install the concrete pits, perimeter drain tile with inspection ports, driveways, utilities, and a new drinking water supply well concurrently. Construction of the two (2) finishing buildings and mortality compost building will occur simultaneously.

The Proposer will provide stormwater drainage away from the facility through final grading and permanent vegetative cover.

The Proposer expects to begin construction of the Project in late summer 2016 and finish before winter of 2017. The actual construction dates are dependent on completion of the environmental review process, issuance of the Feedlot Permit from the MPCA and the Water Appropriations Permit from the Minnesota department of Natural resources (“MDNR”). This EAW is for a new proposed feedlot facility hereinafter referred to as the Project.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 3 Worksheet K. Past and future stages. Is this Project an expansion or addition to an existing feedlot? Yes No Are future expansions of this feedlot planned or likely? Yes No

If either question is answered yes, briefly describe the existing feedlot (species, number of animals and animal units, and type of operation) and any past environmental review or the anticipated expansion. This EAW is for a new Project where the Proposer will manage 4,000 swine (each weighing 55 to 300 pounds (1,200 AU), housed in two (2) 102’ x 160’ total confinement buildings. The manure is stored in poured-in-place, reinforced concrete pits, 8’ deep below the buildings. The Proposer does not plan any further expansion of the Project. 2. Land uses and noteworthy resources in proximity to the site. A. Adjacent land uses. Describe the uses of adjacent lands and give the distances and directions to nearby residences, schools, daycare facilities, senior citizen housing, places of worship, and other places accessible to the public (including roads) within one mile of the feedlot and within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites.

Project Site: The Project is in Faribault County; the manure application sites are in Faribault and Waseca Counties. Both counties are agricultural and rural in nature. There are a total of ten (10) residences within one (1) mile of the Project and one (1) residence located on the Project property. A drainage ditch along the west side of 570th Avenue is within 500 feet of the proposed feedlot. The Cobb River is north and east of the site at a separation distance of 1.2 miles or greater.

Faribault setbacks state the Project must be a minimum of 1,500 feet from neighboring residences, 500 feet from rivers, creeks or wetlands, and 1/2 of a mile from churches. The nearest neighbor is 2,353 feet (0.45 mile) southeast of the site. The second nearest neighbor is 2,752 feet (0.52 mile) northeast of the site. The Project is a minimum of 500 feet from the nearest drainage ditch located on the east side of Faribault County Road 21, and the nearest wetland is 2,200 feet east of the site. St. Paul’s United Church is 14,920 feet (2.83 miles) southwest of the site. Attachment D shows the following location of the neighbors within one (1) mile of the Project site. All residences are in Faribault County: • Farm residence located 0.54 miles southeast (R1) • Non-farm residence located 0.52 miles northwest (R2) • Farm residence located 0.54 miles southwest (R3) • Farm residence located 0.54 miles northeast (R4) • Non-farm residence located 0.64 miles northeast (R5) • Farm residence located 0.73 miles west (R6) • Non-farm residence located 0.75 miles east (R7) • Non-farm residence located 0.87 miles southeast (R8) • Farm residence located 0.90 miles north (R9) • Farm residence located 0.93 miles north (R10) · There is also one residence located on the Project property. (R11)

Manure Application Sites: All 13 of the manure application sites are within six (6) miles of the Project site; none of them are located on the Project site. Twelve are in Faribault County and one (1) in Waseca County. The manure application sites are in Dunbar, Minnesota Lake, and Clark Townships in Faribault County and one (1) site in Vivian Township in Waseca County. The majority of the sites are

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 4 Worksheet currently cultivated in a row-crop rotation (ie. corn, soybeans) with a few currently in alfalfa production. Attachment A shows the following locations of the manure application sites. Two (2) proposed manure application sites lie within the city limits of Wells and zoned Agricultural. According to the Wells Comprehensive Municipal Plan, part 5.4.2.5, the Agricultural District (A) the city of Wells established this in order to protect existing farm industry as a viable, long-term use in those incorporated areas that are furthest from urban growth and associated services. The only permitted use in this district is crop farming.

Faribault County, MN

Site A: 145-acre site in the northwest quarter of Section 8 of Dunbar Township, Faribault County, 0.67 miles southwest of the Project and bordered by 240th Street to the north and 560th Avenue to the west. The site surrounds a residence (R12) that includes an existing feedlot (Feedlot JW). Site B: 38-acre site in the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 5 of Dunbar Township, 600 feet northwest of the Project and bordered by 570th Avenue (Faribault County 29) to the east. No residences are adjacent or located on this manure application site. Site C: 140-acre site in the southwest quarter of Section 4, Dunbar Township, will surround the Project and bordered by 570th Avenue (Faribault CSAH 29) to the west and by a drainage ditch to the south. This manure application site surrounds a farm residence (R11). Dunbar 4, a Minnesota Biological Survey (“MBS”)-listed site of Biodiversity Significance (Rated “Below”) lies 1330 feet east of the site. A wetland lies within 500 feet of the northeast corner of the site. The MPCA does not expect impacts to the wetland due to the incorporation of the manure into the soil during land application. Site E: 131-acre site located in the northeast quarter of Section 3, Dunbar Township, 1.4 miles northeast of the Project and bordered by 590th Avenue to the east and 250th Street to the north. The site surrounds a residence (R13) on the east side. A feedlot residence (R14) is north of the site on the other side of 250th Street (Waseca CSAH 67). The Cobb River divides the site from the southwest to the northeast. The Cobb River is on the MDNR Protected Waters Inventory (“PWI”) as protected water. It is also on the 303d list of impaired waters. Site F: 104-acre site located in the west half of Section 16, Dunbar Township, 1.6 miles south of the Project and bordered by 570th Avenue (Faribault CSAH 29) to the west. The site surrounds a farm residence (R15). An unnamed lateral of County Ditch 86 bisects the site from southwest to northeast. This lateral is on the MDNR PWI as a protected water. Site G: 72-acre site located in the southwest quarter of Section 24, Minnesota Lake Township, 4.0 miles southwest of the Project and bordered by a railroad right-of-way and Minnesota State Highway 22 to the northeast, by 540th Avenue to the west and 210th Street to the south. The site surrounds a farm residence (R16). County Ditch 77 runs along the northern edge of the site. The Maple River is 780 feet to the south. Both waters are on the MDNR PWI as protected waters. The railroad right-of-way and identified by the MBS as a Site of Biodiversity Significance. Site H: 150-acre site located in the northwest quarter of section 33, Dunbar Township, 4.4 miles south of the Project and bordered by 570th Avenue (Faribault CSAH 29) to the west and 200th Street to the north. The site surrounds a farm residence (R17) on the west side. Nearby residences include a residence (R18) located on the west side of 570th Avenue across from the site, a residence (R19) located near the northeast corner of the site and a third residence (R20) located north of the site across 200th Street. Site I: 144-acre site located in the southwest quarter of section 33, Dunbar Township, 4.9 miles south of the Project and bordered by 570th Avenue (Faribault CSAH 29) to the west and the Maple River to

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 5 Worksheet the south, which also bisects the site in the southwest corner. The site surrounds a farm residence (R21) on the west side. Nearby residences, include residence (R22) west of the site across 570th Avenue and two (2) residences (R22 and R23) that are near the southwest corner of the site. Site J: 153-acre site located in the southeast quarter of section 33, Dunbar Township, 4.9 miles south of the Project and bordered by 580th Avenue to the east. The Maple River bisects the site from northeast to southwest. Site K: 65-acre site located in the north half of the northwest quarter of Section 4, Clark Township, 5.3 miles south of the Project and bordered by 570th Avenue (Faribault CSAH 29) to the west and the north by manure application Site I and the Maple River. Site L: 90-acre site located in the south half of the northwest quarter of Section 4, Clark Township, 5.6 miles south of the Project and bordered by 570th Avenue (Faribault CSAH 29) to the west. This site appears to lay within the city limits of Wells. Three (3) non-farm residences lie within 300 feet of site at the southwest corner. Four (4) public water supply wells lie within a mile of the south line of the site, as well as the city of Wells Drinking Water Supply Management Area (“DWSMA”). The city of Wells has established a Wellhead Protection Area, but a Wellhead Protection Plan does not exist. Site M: 154-acre site located in the northeast quarter of Section 4, Clark Township, 5.4 miles southeast of the Project and bordered by 580th Avenue to the east. The site abuts the city limits of the city of Wells at the southwest corner of the site. The site surrounds a farm residence (R25) on the east side. A second residence (R26) lies east of the site across 580th Avenue. Waseca County, MN Site D: Nine (9)-acre site located in the south half of the southwest quarter of Section 33 of Vivian Township in Waseca County, 0.60 miles north of the Project and bordered by 570th Avenue (Waseca County 3) to the west and by 250th Street (Waseca CSAH 67) to the south. The site surrounds a residence (R5).

B. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the Project subject to any of the following adopted plans or ordinances? Check all that apply:

Local comprehensive plan Land use plan or ordinance Shoreland zoning ordinance Flood plain ordinance Wild or scenic river land use district ordinance Local wellhead protection plan

http://www.faribaultcountyswcd.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63 http://mn-wasecacounty.civicplus.com/index.aspx?nid=275

Is there anything about the proposed feedlot that is not consistent with any provision of any ordinance or plan checked? Yes No.

Faribault County is in south central Minnesota approximately 120 miles southwest of the Minneapolis and St. Paul Metropolitan Area. South central Minnesota has some of the most productive farmland in the nation; with the region’s counties consistently ranking among the top producers of corn, soybeans, hogs, and other commodities. Over 90% of the region is under cultivation or pastureland making agriculture the predominant land use in the region. Faribault County, with the second lowest population of the regional counties, has the third‐highest total acreage with 462,000 acres. The County is within two (2) major watersheds; the Blue Earth River Watershed, to the south and LeSueur

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 6 Worksheet River Watershed to the north. The Blue Earth River and LeSueur Rivers are both tributaries of the Minnesota River.

The Project is consistent with the Faribault County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (2015). A goal of the plan is to retain a strong agriculture‐based economy. Corn, soybeans, and other cash crops have become the dominant source of revenues. The majority of Faribault County’s economic development will likely continue to revolve around the agricultural industry.

The Project is consistent with the land use plan or ordinance and specifically, the General Agriculture, Shoreland and Feedlot Ordinances. Section 7, A-2 General Agriculture District, Part C.6 of the Faribault County Zoning Ordinance states that Feedlots over one-thousand (1,000) AUs are a Conditional Use in the A-2 District. The Project meets all setback requirements listed in Section 7. Section 20, Shoreland Regulations, Part G.2 of the Faribault County Zoning Ordinance states that new animal feedlots must not be located in the shoreland of watercourses or in bluff impact zones and must meet a minimum setback of three hundred (300) feet from the ordinary high water level of all public waters basins. The Project site is outside of the Shoreland District.

The Project complies with all requirements of the Faribault County Zoning Ordinance, the Faribault County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the city of Wells Comprehensive Municipal Plan.

If yes, describe the inconsistency and how it will be resolved.

Are there any lands in proximity to the feedlot that are officially planned for or zoned for future uses that might be incompatible with a feedlot (such as residential development)? Yes No

If yes, describe the potentially affected use and its location relative to the feedlot, its anticipated development schedule, and any plans to avoid or minimize potential conflicts with the feedlot.

C. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the feedlot, manure storage areas, or within or adjacent to the boundaries of the manure application sites?

· Drinking Water Supply Management Areas designated by the Minnesota Department of Health? Yes No · Public water supply wells (within two miles)? Yes No · Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? Yes No · Designated public parks, recreation areas or trails? Yes No · Lakes or Wildlife Management Areas? Yes No · State-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities? Yes No · Scenic views and vistas? Yes No · Other unique resources? Yes No

If yes, describe the resource and identify any Project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 7 Worksheet Resources Public Water Supply Wells Based on information provided by the Minnesota Department of Health (“MDH”), there are four (4) public water supply wells located within two (2) miles of the Project site and/or the manure application sites.

The Dairy Queen Water Supply Well This well is within the Wells city limits, approximately 1,675 feet (0.31 miles) southwest of application site “L” in the southwest quarter of Section 4 of Clark Township. The MDH considers this well susceptible to contamination because it does not meet current construction standards and/or no information is available regarding the well construction. The source water protection plan for the well consists of an inner wellhead management zone defined by a 200-foot radius around each well that supplies drinking water. There are no manure land application sites within that 200-foot radius and the MDH has only identified one contaminant source of concern, a municipal buried sewer collector.

The City of Wells Public Wells The city of Wells operates two (2) wells, the closest lies approximately 5,690 feet (1.1 miles) south of the application site “L” in the southwest quarter of section 4 of Clark Township. Both wells are approximately 700 feet in depth and not considered by the MDH to be susceptible to contamination. The wells meet current construction standards and do not present a pathway for contamination to enter the water supply. Additionally, the supplying aquifer sensitivity considered low, due to one (1) or more layers of fine-grained material covering it, protecting it from potential sources of contamination. These wells are within the Wells DWSMA and listed as “Not Vulnerable” to contamination by the MDH. See attachment E for location of these wells.

There are no manure land application sites within the DWSMA. A Wellhead Protection Plan for this DWSMA does not exist. None of the contaminants regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act for this public water supply system have been detected by MDH in the source water.

St. Paul’s United Church of Christ Public Supply Well This public water supply well is in the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 12 in Minnesota Lake Township. It is approximately 7,830 feet (1.5 miles) northeast of the application site in the southwest quarter of Section 24 in Minnesota Lake Township and 7,685 feet (1.5 miles) southwest of the application site in the northwest quarter of Section 8 in Dunbar Township. The MDH considers this well susceptible to contamination because it does not meet current construction standards and/or no information is available regarding the well construction. The well depth is 150 feet; however, no well log information is available. Review of drinking water supply wells in the area indicate one (1) or more layers of fine grained material over the drinking water supply aquifer and is protected from remote contaminant sources. None of the contaminants regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act for this public water supply system have been detected by MDH in the source water. The MDH has not designated this area as a source water protection area.

The Proposer is required to follow an MPCA-approved Manure Management Plan (“MMP”) and submit an annual report to the MPCA on manure production, land application, and any discharges. The approved MMP is an integral and enforceable part of the Project’s Feedlot Permit.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 8 Worksheet Archaeological, Historical or Architectural Resources Archaeological site A search of the Minnesota Archaeological Inventory and Historic Structures Inventory performed by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office identified one site. The archaeological site is an Indian trail (21FAz) in the west half of Section 5 in Dunbar Township. The nearest manure application site is in the northwest quarter of Section 8, on the south side of 240th Street. The MPCA does not expect any changes to land use on the manure application sites.

Farmers have farmed the acres identified for manure application for decades. The Proposer does not plan to change existing land use. The Proposer will construct the facility on land currently used for agricultural production. There is no other construction planned as part of this Project.

Manure application rates should be carefully determined to ensure that nutrient input does not exceed the ability for crop nutrient uptake and result in runoff to this archeological significant area.

Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance Rare Species/Natural Features A search of the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System database was completed for: 1) rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features known to occur within an approximate one (1)-mile radius of the Project, or 2) cropland designated to receive manure produced by the Project.

The MHIS database search identified five (5) sites classified by the Minnesota Biological Survey (“MBS”) as Sites of Biodiversity Significance near the Project area (see Attachment H). Sites of Biodiversity Significance have varying levels of native biodiversity, “Below – Moderate – High, and Outstanding”, and ranked based on the relative significance of this biodiversity at a statewide level. The sensitive features map identifies these areas.

A Below rank reflects a lack of rare species and natural features, or does not meet MBS standards for a ranking of Outstanding, High, or Moderate. These sites may include areas of conservation value at the local level, such as habitat for native plants and animals, corridors for animal movement, buffers surrounding higher-quality natural areas, areas with high potential for restoration of native habitat, or open space. Sites ranked Moderate contain occurrences of rare species, moderately disturbed native plant communities, and/or landscapes that have strong potential for recovery of native plant communities and characteristic ecological processes. Sites ranked High contain very good quality occurrences of the rarest species, high-quality examples of rare native plant communities, and/or important functional landscapes.

Native Prairie The MBS has identified native prairie remnants in the railroad right‐of‐way located next to proposed manure application site (G) located in the southwest quarter of Section 24, Township 104N, Range 25W (Minnesota Lake), and in the vicinity of application site (M) located in the northwest quarter of Section 4, Township 104N, Range 25W (Clark). The 1997 Minnesota State Legislature directed the MDNR to conduct a field review of active railroad rights‐of‐way (“ROW”) to identify native prairie. The MDNR surveyed 3,240 miles of railroad ROW, of which identified 487 discontinuous miles of native prairie. The prairie fragments were ranked very good, good, or fair based on the coverage of native prairie plant species, abundance of woody shrubs, and level of disturbance (such as herbicide use or equipment storage). In 1998, the MBS considered the prairie remnants near the Project area to be in good condition. The MBS identifies these sites of "High" biodiversity significance. Sites ranked High

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 9 Worksheet contain very good quality occurrences of the rarest species, high-quality examples of rare native plant communities, and/or important functional landscapes.

Specifically, the MBS classifies NPC as Mesic Prairie (Southern) of the Southern Floristic Region, Upland Prairie System. Mesic Prairie is a dry-mesic to wet-mesic grassland that occurs mainly in the prairie zone in southern and western Minnesota and sporadically in the deciduous forest-woodland zone. Mesic Prairie is dominated by grasses.

This site has mesic prairie varying from moderate to very good quality. The state of Minnesota lists Mesic Prairie as imperiled. Manure application rates should be carefully determined to ensure that nutrient input does not exceed the ability for crop nutrient uptake and result in runoff to this ecologically significant area.

Native Plants The MBS has identified a Site of "Moderate" Biodiversity Significance located in the vicinity of application site (D) in the southwest quarter of Section 33, Township 105N, Range 24W (Dunbar). Sites ranked Moderate contain occurrences of rare species, moderately disturbed native plant communities, and/or landscapes that have strong potential for recovery of native plant communities and characteristic ecological processes. This Site of Moderate Biodiversity Significance contains the following native plant communities: Silver Maple - Green Ash - Cottonwood Terrace Forest, part of the Floodplain Forest System in the Southern Floristic Region, and considered vulnerable to extirpation within Minnesota.

The MBS has identified three (3) sites “Below” minimum biodiversity significance located within one (1)-mile of the proposed manure application sites. A Below rank reflects a lack of rare species and natural features, or does not meet MBS standards for a ranking of Outstanding, High, or Moderate. See the maps in Attachment H for locations of these sites and their proximity to application acres. Nitrogen loading is a potential threat to prairie ecosystems as it can result in a loss of plant species diversity, an increased abundance of nonnative invasive species, and the disruption of ecosystem functioning. To prevent runoff to these areas, careful consideration to manure application rates and timing are important.

Mitigation Measures

This Proposer does not plan to change existing land use. The Proposer will construct the Project on land currently used for agricultural production. There is no other construction planned as part of this Project. The Proposer will monitor manure application rates to ensure nutrient input does not exceed the ability for crop nutrient uptake. This effort will mitigate any potential for degradation of these natural areas from runoff or excessive nitrogen loading. The Proposer will maintain required setbacks from all surface waters and tile intakes and incorporate manure into the soil within 24 hours. The MPCA does not anticipate the Project or land application of manure to affect resources due to their separation distance from the project site or land application acreage.

Water Supply Wells (listed below) The Proposer is required to follow an MPCA-approved MMP and submit an annual report to the MPCA on manure production, land application, and any discharges. The approved MMP is an integral and enforceable part of the Project’s Feedlot Permit. The MPCA has determined that land application of manure from this Project should not adversely affect groundwater provided the Proposer follows the approved MMP and application rates as required by the Feedlot Permit and Minnesota rules.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 10 Worksheet The Dairy Queen Water Supply Well There is no manure application site within the 200-foot radius of this well. Because of the geological conditions, nitrate applications (manure or commercial fertilizer) have a lower potential to contaminate the aquifer. The Proposer will apply nitrogen at the Economic Optimum N Rate to reduce the potential of aquifer contamination by minimizing residual soil nitrate. The Proposer will follow the MMP and Feedlot Permit to avoid impacts.

The City of Wells Public Wells There is no land application sites within the DWSMA. Because of the geological conditions, nitrate applications (manure or commercial fertilizer) have a lower potential to contaminate the aquifer. The Proposer will apply nitrogen at the Economic Optimum N Rate to reduce the potential of aquifer contamination by minimizing residual soil nitrate. The Proposer will follow the MMP and Feedlot Permit to avoid impacts.

St. Paul’s United Church of Christ Public Supply Well Review of drinking water supply wells in the area indicate one (1) of more layers of fine grained material over the drinking water supply aquifer and therefore protected from remote contaminant sources.

The Proposer will apply nitrogen at the Economic Optimum N Rate to reduce the potential of aquifer contamination by minimizing residual soil nitrate. The Proposer will follow the MMP and Feedlot Permit to avoid impacts.

Archaeological, Historical or Architectural Resources Archaeological Site To protect this area, no manure applications will take place within the identified archeological area. Manure injected into the soil during application reduces the possibility of surface runoff due to rainfall. Application of all manure at agronomic rates minimizes nutrient buildup in the soil including manure application at the Economic Optimum N Rate to reduce the potential of aquifer contamination by minimizing residual soil nitrate. Land application must follow all MPCA required setbacks from sensitive features. Native Prairie To protect the prairie remnants, insects, and animals that use these remnants as habitat, the Proposer will use best management practices (“BMPs”) per the MMP and no manure applications will take place within the identified native prairie area. Manure injected into the soil during application reduces the possibility of surface runoff due to rainfall. Application of all manure at agronomic rates minimizes nutrient buildup in the soil. Land application must follow all MPCA required setbacks from sensitive features. Native Plants To protect the native plants, the Proposer will use BMPs per the MMP and no manure applications will take place within the identified native plant area. Manure injected into the soil during application reduces the possibility of surface runoff due to rainfall. Application of all manure at agronomic rates minimizes nutrient buildup in the soil. Land application must follow all MPCA required setbacks from sensitive features.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 11 Worksheet 3. Geologic and soil conditions. A. Approximate depth (in feet) to: Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Ground Water (minimum) 0 0 0-5 (average) 0 0 2.5 Bedrock (minimum) 220 220 85 (average) 240 240 160

B. NRCS Soil Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Classifications (if known) 140 140 140,134,L107A,L85A,L83A,

The soils at the manure storage areas are silty clay loam with the land application acreage comprised of silty clay loam and clay loam.

C. Indicate with a yes or no whether any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water are present at the feedlot, manure storage area, or manure application sites.

Feedlot Manure Storage Area Manure Application Sites Karst features (sinkhole, cave, No No No resurgent spring, disappearing spring, karst window, blind valley, or dry valley) Exposed bedrock No No No Soils developed in bedrock (as No No No shown on soils maps)

For items answered yes (in C), describe the features, show them on a map, and discuss proposed design and mitigation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts. 4. Water Use, Tiling and Drainage, and Physical Alterations. A. Will the Project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering), or connection to any public water supply? Yes No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations or public supply connections; and unique well numbers and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) appropriation permit numbers, if available. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on-site, explain methodology used to determine that none are present. There is no existing well at the Project site; therefore, the Proposer intends to install a new well to supply water for the Project. The projected water usage is approximately 2.2 million gallons per year. The Project has a projected service consumption of 55.0 million gallons over a 25-year period.

The Proposer has not installed the well as of the time of this review. Thus far in the process, the Proposer has coordinated with MDNR to obtain a Preliminary Well Construction Assessment. This preliminary approval to construct a well is information that can be used by the Proposer to decide whether to proceed in constructing a well, but does not act as a notification to the MDH, nor is it a

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 12 Worksheet MDNR water use permit. The Proposer intends to register the well with the MDH following well construction, and permit use of the well through the MDNR.

The MDNR requires a water appropriation permit for all users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons of water per day or one (1) million gallons per year. The purpose of the MDNR Water Appropriation Permit program is to ensure the Proposer manages water resources so that adequate supply is available for long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. This permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat. § 103G.261 establishes domestic water use as the highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the MDNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If identified that a commercial operator is causing the problem, the operator must correct it.

The MDNR is the permitting authority for appropriating waters of the state in Minnesota. The MDNR Water Appropriations Permit allows for a reasonable use of water provided that the use does not negatively impact surrounding wells or other water resources. Receipt of a Well Construction Preliminary Assessment does not constitute an authorization or guarantee permit approval by the Project Proposer. Following the completion of environmental review, the Project Proposer may pursue the water appropriation permitting process with MDNR. Unauthorized pumping or use of the well or other water resource is subject to enforcement under Minn. Stat. 103. Upon completion of a permit review period a permit for water appropriation may be limited, amended or denied in accordance with applicable laws and rules for the protection of the public interests and the sustainability of Minnesota’s water resources.

On February 12, 2016, the MDNR granted approval for preliminary well construction (see Attachment J). This is not approval to install the well; it is part of an evaluation to determine if a MDNR Water Appropriations Permit is required, which it will be for this Project.

B. Will the Project involve installation of drain tiling, tile inlets or outlets? Yes No If yes, describe. The Proposer will install five (5)-inch high-density polyethylene perimeter drain tile around the base of the Project liquid manure storage area (subgrade concrete pit) to control hydrostatic pressure on the outside of concrete pit walls. The new drain tile will either connect to either existing field drain tile or be installed by the Proposer as part of the stormwater treatment. This tile outlets to the drainage ditch north of the Project.

The Project design plans and construction specifications show perimeter drain tile located below the floor elevation of the concrete pits for relief of seasonal saturation. The eight (8) foot deep concrete liquid manure storage area will have perimeter tile placed at an elevation that requires a lift pump to discharge the clean water collected from the new perimeter drain tile to the surface. This discharge will then infiltrate through the soil and into either existing or new drain tile. The Proposer will use an Operation and Maintenance Plan with specifications that are integral to and enforceable through the Feedlot Permit and meet the requirements of Minn. R. 7020.2100. This plan requires monthly monitoring of the perimeter drain tile for water flow and signs of discoloration or odor. The Proposer will also monitor discharge from the perimeter drain tile weekly for any change in appearance and odor. The Proposer will maintain records of all inspections as part of the operation and maintenance for the proposed concrete liquid manure storage area.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 13 Worksheet C. Will the Project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment — of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI. Describe proposed mitigation measures to avoid or minimize impacts.

5. Manure management.

A. Check the box or boxes below which best describe the manure management system proposed for this feedlot.

Stockpiling for land application Containment storage under barns for land application Containment storage outside of barns for land application Dry litter pack on barn floors for eventual land application Composting system Treatment of manure to remove solids and/or to recover energy Other (please describe) B. Manure collection, handling, and storage.

Quantities of manure generated: total 1,420,000 by species 1 by species 2 gallons

Frequency and duration of manure removal: number of days per cycle 2 x per year each time taking up to 10 days Total days per year Up to 20 days

Give a brief description of how manures will be collected, handled (including methods of removal), and stored at this feedlot:

The Proposer collects and stores manure beneath the building in reinforced concrete pits. Manure drops into the pits through slatted floors and stored in liquid form. The Project will have a storage capacity of approximately 1,603,368 gallons, which equates to approximately 357 days or approximately one (1) year of manure storage.

All the below-building pits will use pit fans for ventilation. In the fall, a portable chopper pump agitates and pumps out the swine manure in the deep pits. The Proposer will agitate and pump manure via a towed hose or tank system to the land application sites. A licensed commercial animal waste technician (“CAWT”) will apply all swine manure generated at the Project to designated manure application sites. Incorporation of the manure occurs immediately via a knife injection system at the application sites.

C. Manure utilization.

Physical state of manure to be applied: liquid solid other - describe:

D. Manure application.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 14 Worksheet 1. Describe application technology, technique, frequency, time of year and locations.

The swine manure application events will take place primarily in the fall after harvest and rarely if ever in the spring. Manure application in the fall occurs after harvesting of crops from the designated manure application sites. Incorporation of manure into the soil happens immediately during land application via knife injection. A licensed CAWT will operate the tow hose/drag line system. Calibration occurs by use of a flow meter and then adjusting the speed of the manure application equipment to achieve the planned rate of manure application.

The Proposer will sell and transfer all manure generated at the feedlot to third parties who have entered into agreements with the Proposer. Approximately 791 acres is required for land application of the manure, dependent upon crop and nutrient needs.

The Proposer will agitate, pump, and transfer the manure via a towed hose or tank system to the owner/operators of the manure application sites. A licensed CAWT will apply and incorporate the manure via direct injection or by broadcast application within 24 hours. Manure application events will typically last for ten (10) days or less.

The Proposer will transfer ownership of the manure generated by the Project to third parties; owner/operators of the cropland receiving the manure. The Proposer has obtained land application agreements for all manure generated by the Project. The Proposer will transport manure using accepted industry methods to prevent manure spilling onto public roadways. If spillage occurs, the Proposer must remove and properly dispose of the manure in accordance with Minn. R. 7020.2010, Transportation of Manure. Prior to or at the time of manure ownership transfer; the Proposer is required to provide the cropland owner/operator with information on the state requirements for manure application, as well as the most current manure nutrient analysis. The cropland owner/operator is required to follow the Proposer’s MMP as applicable under 7020.2225 Land Application of Manure, or local requirements, whichever is the more stringent.

Attachment A contains a map showing the location of the thirteen manure application sites of which twelve are in Faribault County and one (1) in Waseca County.

2. Describe the agronomic rates of application (per acre) to be used and whether the rates are based on nitrogen or phosphorus. Will there be a nutrient management plan? Yes No

The Proposer submitted a MMP for transferred ownership of manure. After MPCA review and approval, the MMP becomes an integral and enforceable part of the MPCA Feedlot Permit. The MMP requires the licensed CAWT to ensure the manure application occurs at agronomic rates based on: the previous crop harvested, the available nutrients, and the crop to be grown. The MMP also specifies the requirements to change from nitrogen to phosphorus-based application rates, if needed in the future Nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in calculating the application rate. The Proposer is responsible for providing the cropland owner/operator with the requirements for soil testing, manure application rate limits, seasonal restrictions, manure application setbacks, manure application record keeping, and spill reporting. Cropland owner/operators are required to meet all manure application requirements per Minn. R. 7020.2225, Land Application of Manure, or local requirements, whichever is more stringent.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 15 Worksheet 3. Discuss the capacity of the sites to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. The Proposer estimates annual manure generation at 1.42 million gallons. The storage volume of each proposed finishing building is 0.8 million gallons, with a total of 1.6 million gallons for both buildings, equating to a manure storage capacity of greater than 12 months. The MMP estimates that 791 acres of cropland are required for the land application of manure and there is a total of 1,445 acres of cropland available, meaning sufficient acreage is available for land application. None of the manure application sites requires improvements.

4. Describe any required setbacks for land application systems.

The MPCA feedlot staff has reviewed and approved the MMP for the Project.

The ownership transfer of all manure will occur and the owners must comply with land application setbacks set forth by Minn. R. 7020 and/or local ordinances, whichever is more stringent, and as contained in the Proposer’s MMP. Table 1 identifies MPCA setbacks. Faribault County and Waseca County required setbacks for land application of manure are in Tables 2a and 2b

Table 1: MPCA Land Application Setback Distances (in feet) Feature Winter Non-Winter Non-Winter With Immediate Not incorporated within 24 hours Incorporation (<24 hours) With P No P Mgmt. With Vegetated Inadequate Mgmt. Buffer Vegetated Buffer Lake, 300 25 300 100 300 Stream Intermittent 300 25 300 50 300 Stream* MDNR protected wetlands** Drainage ditch w/o quarry* Open Tile 300 0 0 300 300 Intake Well, Mine, 50 50 50 50 50 or Quarry Sinkhole Downslope -50 50 50 Downslope - 50 Downslope - 50 with no Upslope -300 Upslope - 300 Upslope - 300 Diversion *Intermittent streams and ditches are those identified on USGS quadrangle maps, excluding drainage ditches with berms that protect from runoff into the ditch and segments of intermittent streams which are grassed waterways. USGS quadrangle maps can be found at County Soil and Water Conservation District Offices, or can be viewed on the internet at http://www.terraserver.microsoft.com [January 28, 2005]. **Wetland setbacks pertain to all protected wetlands identified on MDNR protected waters and wetlands maps (these maps are often located in County Soil and Water Conservation District offices and typically include all wetlands over 10 acres).

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 16 Worksheet Table 2a: Faribault County Required Setbacks for Land Application of Manure Location Surface Applied Incorporation or Injection Watercourses, streams, rivers, lakes, 300 feet 100 feet wetlands and ditches Municipal Well 1,000 feet 1,000 feet Private Wells 200 feet 200 feet Residential Area or Municipality 500 feet 200 feet Uncomposted Poultry Manure from 5,280 feet 5,280 feet Municipality Residence, neighboring residences 300 feet 200 feet Cemeteries 300 feet 200 feet 100 Year Flood Plain Prohibited 200 feet Field Tile Intake 100 feet 10 feet Drainage Ditches (with one rod buffer) 50 feet Edge of buffer Drainage Ditches (without buffer) 100 feet 16.5 feet Irrigation applied manure will need to be approved by the Faribault County SWCD Board in a land use plan

Table 2b: Waseca County Required Setbacks for Land Application of Manure Location Surface Applied Incorporation or Injection Municipal Well 1,000 feet 1,000 feet Private Wells 200 feet 200 feet Residential Area or Municipality 500 feet 200 feet Residence, neighboring residences 300 feet 200 feet Cemeteries 300 feet 200 feet 100 Year Flood Plain Prohibited Allowed Field Tile Intake 300 feet *See note below Road Right-of-way Prohibited Prohibited *Additional application requirements for land within three hundred (300) feet of open tile intakes. Manure must be injected or incorporated within twenty four (24) hours of being land applied and prior to rainfall when applied within three hundred (300) feet of open tile intakes, unless other MPCA approved water quality protection management practices are implemented in this three hundred (300) feet zone. (source: MPCA)

E. Other methods of manure utilization. If the Project will utilize manure other than by land application, please describe the methods.

None

6. Air/odor emissions.

A. Identify the major sources of air or odor emissions from this feedlot.

Sources of odor include animals, ventilation systems, animal and manure contact surfaces (especially floors), manure collection pits, dead animal storage and disposal areas, manure application sites, and truck traffic dust.

B. Describe any proposed feedlot design features or air or odor emission mitigation measures to be implemented to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts and discuss their anticipated effectiveness.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 17 Worksheet The Project is located to minimize potential adverse odor/air emissions impacts. Buildings are oriented to allow the free-flow of prevailing winds. The inherent design of this total confinement facility mitigates odors and emissions by eliminating exposure of sources to the atmosphere. Additional air mitigation measures include:

Project Site · The Proposer will use a dust suppressant to control dust generated by truck traffic. · The Proposer will only agitate stored manure immediately prior to the removal of manure for land application. On a regular basis, pit ventilation cleaning and servicing will occur to reduce dust accumulation and discharge. · The Proposer will maintain clean, dry floors, eliminate the buildup of manure, and clean up any spilled feed. Standard good housekeeping practices will include washing and disinfection of the interior of the finishing building at the end of each cycle, paying special attention to the ventilation fans. · The Proposer will implement Board of Animal Health and MPCA recommended BMPs at the animal mortality compost building such as: utilizing sufficient carbon source (12-inch minimum cover over carcass); maintaining adequate temperature; and keeping compost material inside proper bunkers.

During manure application · A licensed CAWT by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture will inject all manure immediately or incorporate manure within 24 hours to minimize the release of odors. · The licensed CAWT will limit the number of application days as much as possible depending on weather, safety, availability size of equipment, and availability of personnel to operate equipment. · The licensed CAWT will use good manure sanitation practices such as properly operating manure equipment to reduce/eliminate spillage. · The CAWT will observe all required setback requirements from nearby residences for all manure applications.

The Proposer is committed to being a good neighbor and as such, an evaluation of weather conditions prior to land application to minimize impacts on neighbors and the public. The Proposer will consult with the MPCA/County Feedlot Officer to identify any changes needed to reduce odors in the event of complaints.

C. Answer this item only if no feedlot design features or mitigations were proposed in item 6.B. Provide a summary of the results of an air emissions modeling study designed to compare predicted emissions at the property boundaries with state standards, health risk values, or odor threshold concentrations. The modeling must incorporate an appropriate background concentration for hydrogen sulfide to account for potential cumulative air quality impacts.

Based on a protocol approved by the MPCA on March 4, 2015, the Proposer completed an air dispersion modeling analysis using AERMOD for a five (5) year period using historic weather data to predict the air emissions impact from the Project on hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and odor intensities at the Project’s property line and 73 nearest neighbors. The following findings present results of the quantitative assessment of air quality impacts associated with the Project, as well as six (6) existing feedlots located within a nine (9) square-mile grid surrounding the Project site.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 18 Worksheet Hydrogen Sulfide The modeling results predict the Project will comply with the 30 parts per billion (“ppb”) hydrogen sulfide Minnesota ambient air quality (“MAAQ”) standard. Under the MAAQ standard, the third exceedance of the MAAQ within any five (5)-day period is a violation. Modeled compliance is demonstrated when the high-third-high (“H3H’) concentration (added to background) for any five (5)- day period at each property-line receptor is less than the 30 ppb MAAQ standard. AERMOD predicted a maximum H3H property-line hydrogen sulfide concentration of 12.80 ppb. When a background concentration of 17 ppb added to the AERMOD predictions, the H3H hydrogen sulfide concentration is 29.80 ppb, which is below the ambient standard of 30 ppb. Thus, no violation of the 30-ppb ambient hydrogen sulfide standard was modeled for the Project.

The AERMOD results indicated that, after construction, the Project will not create exceedances of the sub chronic (13-week) hydrogen sulfide inhalation Human Risk Value (“iHRV”) at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration for a neighboring residence is 0.46 μg/m3. When a background concentration of 1.00 μg/m3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum monthly hydrogen sulfide concentration for a neighboring residence is 1.46 μg/m3, which is below the sub chronic hydrogen sulfide iHRV of 10 μg/m3.

Ammonia The modeling results also suggest that, after construction, the Project will not create exceedances of the acute ammonia iHRV. AERMOD predicted a maximum hourly property-line ammonia concentration of 309.15 μg/m3. When a background concentration of 148 μg/m3 is added to the AERMOD prediction, the maximum property-line ammonia concentration is 457.15 μg/m3, which is below the acute ammonia iHRV of 3,200 μg/m3. The AERMOD results indicate that the facility, after construction of the Project, will not create exceedances of the chronic ammonia iHRV at the neighboring residences. The estimated maximum one-year time-averaged ammonia concentration for a neighboring residence is 6.33 μg/m3. When a background ammonia concentration of 5.72 μg/m3 is added to the AERMOD estimate, the maximum annual ammonia concentration for a neighboring residence is 12.05 μg/m3, which is below the chronic ammonia iHRV of 80 μg/m3. Odor Based on the air dispersion modeling analysis performed by MPCA, AERMOD modeling results indicate the Project will not contribute to odor concentrations (OU/m3) above an odor intensity of 72 OU/m3, defined as a “faint odor” at the property line. The modeled maximum hourly odor intensity was 61.82 OU/m3 on the north boundary line. The modeling results also predict the Project will not contribute to odor concentrations above an odor intensity of 72 OU/m3, defined as a “faint odor” at nearby non-feedlot residences. Proposed Project Air Quality Summary with Background Concentrations Property Boundary Hydrogen Sulfide Results Acute Ammonia Results Odor Results (OU) (ppb)1 (µg/m3)2 North 29.63 ppb 437.15 µg/m3 61.82 OU South 29.45 ppb 457.15 µg/m3 38.97 OU East 29.80 ppb 428.09 µg/m3 47.72 OU West 27.52 ppb 398.70 µg/m3 38.34 OU 1State ambient hydrogen sulfide air quality standard: 300 ppb half-hour average 2Acute inhalation health risk value for ammonia: one-hour average of 3,200 µg/m3 3Odor impact assessment based on odor units. Most people consider a value of 72 OU to be a faint odor (for swine) ppb = parts per billion µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 19 Worksheet Conclusion

Results of the air quality dispersion modeling analysis indicate that emissions from the operation of the Project will not exceed state ambient air quality standard and subchronic iHRV for hydrogen sulfide. The AERMOD results also indicate the Project will not create exceedances of the acute or chronic iHRV for ammonia at neighboring residences. Modeled property-line odor intensities also did not exceed the 73 OU threshold for ‘faint’ odors. A complete report of the air dispersion modeling findings is in Attachment F.

D. Describe any plans to notify neighbors of operational events (such as manure storage agitation and pumpout) that may result in higher-than-usual levels of air or odor emissions. The Proposer does not plan to notify neighbors before operational events such as manure storage, agitation, pump out, or application.

The Proposer does plan to notify the County Feedlot Officer prior to operational events such as manure agitation and land application. The Proposer will evaluate weather conditions before manure application to minimize impacts on neighbors and the public.

The Proposer will implement the air emission plan in the Feedlot Permit in the event that an odor event occurs. The air emission plan is an enforceable provision of the Feedlot Permit.

E. Noise and dust. Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. The Proposer indicates truck traffic along roads entering and leaving the facility will generate some noise, but because of the separation distance, impact to residences is not expected. Separation distance is the primary mitigating factor in reducing the potential for adverse impacts from this Project as the nearest neighbors are 0.52 miles northwest of the Project. The Proposer will use a dust suppressant to control dust generated by truck traffic on gravel roads if necessary during land application events. Access to the Project is by all-weather bituminous asphalt pavement. The Proposer will respond to all dust and noise complaints in a timely manner. The construction of the Project will include stockpiling and stabilization of any removed top soil. When appropriate, the re-use of soils will occur, including final grading, seeding, etc. per an erosion and sediment control plan. 7. Dead Animal Disposal. Describe the quantities of dead animals anticipated, the method for storing and disposing of carcasses, and frequency of disposal. The Proposer will follow the Animal Mortality Plan prepared as a part of the Feedlot Permit application with composting as the primary method of disposal and rendering when composting is not available. The Proposer will remove mortalities from the building as discovered. The Proposer will follow the Minnesota Board of Animal Health rules for disposal of all animal mortalities. The Proposer will compost dead animals at the Project in a 20-foot by 48-foot covered mortality compost bay to dispose of carcasses. The disposal area will have a concrete apron, concrete floor and side bays and a steel roof, and will be south and east of both total confinement buildings. When composting is unavailable, the Proposer will store dead animals in a scavenger-proof disposal area prior to rendering pickup. The estimated annual mortality rate is 5% or approximately 200 head of swine.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 20 Worksheet 8. Surface Water Runoff. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the Project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Project Site Construction of roofed buildings and driveways will increase surface water runoff on the proposed site due to an increase in impervious surfaces that total 2.4 acres. Construction Storm Water (“CSW”) General NPDES Permit MN R100001 requires projects that create over one (1) or more acres of impervious surface must retain the water quality volume of one (1) inch of runoff from the new impervious surfaces created by the project is retained on site by infiltration or other volume reduction practices and not discharged to surface waters. Since the buildings are total confinement, the runoff will not come in contact with livestock or manure. The Proposer has prepared a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that meets the requirements of the CSW General NPDES Permit for erosion prevention and sediment control during construction.

Due to the increase in new impervious surfaces, the Proposer will construct permanent stormwater detention areas between the driveways that will infiltrate the stormwater through the soil profile before discharging via drain tile to the north.

Manure Application Sites The MPCA does not expect significant potential impacts to surface water resources from the Project’s land application of manure activities. As discussed in Item 5 of the EAW, land application of manure occurs at agronomic rates. The Proposer determines the agronomic rate based on the type of crop grown, the soil type, and the soil fertility. This will assure there is no excess nutrient build up in the soil. Land application will most likely always occur in the fall of the year after removal of crops from the field, rather than in the spring when runoff potential is greater due to increased precipitation and soil moisture. Further, injection of all land-applied manure occurs at the time of application. The Project contains manure application areas located within the Cobb River and Maple River sub- watersheds of the Le Sueur River Watershed. Previous landowners have farmed land in the watersheds for several decades. The Proposer expects stormwater runoff characteristics from the Project manure application areas to remain the same and under certain circumstances, improve because of the land application activities regulated under the Feedlot Permit. The improvements would occur through developing better soil tilth from organic fertilizer and the uniform practice of incorporating manure over the acres identified in the MMP. The Proposer expects no change in stormwater runoff characteristics (physically and chemically) from the Project manure application sites.

9. Traffic and Public Infrastructure Impacts. A. Estimate the number of heavy truck trips generated per week and describes their routing over local roads. Describe any road improvements to be made. · Delivery feed and supplies to the site will occur once every two (2) days. One (1) time per month a semi – tractor with trailer will deliver feeder pigs to the site. Animal care technicians will visit the site twice daily for normal care and maintenance of livestock and facility. · Six (6) times per month, a semi-tractor with trailer will pick up market hogs.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 21 Worksheet Access to the site is via Faribault County State Aid Highway 29, an asphalt paved, nine (9)-ton, all weather road. Land application acreage will be accessible using CSAH 29 an all-weather, gravel surfaced, five (5)-ton road. Review of traffic counts from the Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Transportation Data and Analysis: Traffic Volume Program 2013 AADT (Average Annual Daily Traffic) indicates that the Project will have little to no impact to traffic volumes. The 2013 project estimated that CSAH 29 has an AADT of 730 or 5,110 vehicles per week. The Project will only add an average of 4.5 vehicles per day to the traffic volume. The Proposer does not expect any adverse impacts to the use of the roads. No road improvements will be necessary and there are no planned improvements due to the Project.

B. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be required to serve the Project? Yes No

If yes, please describe. The Proposer will install a telephone service and an electrical service with a standby electrical generator for the Project. The existing state and county road infrastructure will not require any improvements.

10. Permits and approvals required. Mark required permits and give status of application:

Unit of government Type of Application Status MPCA Feedlot Permit and Manure Management Application Submitted Plan MPCA NPDES General Construction Stormwater Submitted as part of Feedlot Permit permit application Notification/Status Change for MPCA Underground Storage Tanks County Minnesota Feedlot Permit County/twp/city Conditional use or other land use permit To be Submitted MDNR Preliminary Well Construction Permit Approved, with conditions MDNR Water Appropriation To be Submitted Other* *(List any other approvals required along with the unit of government, type of approval needed, and status of approval process.) 11. Other potential environmental impacts, including cumulative impacts. If the Project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 10, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. This includes any cumulative impacts caused by the Project in combination with other existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future Projects that may interact with the Project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Examples of cumulative impacts to consider include air quality, stormwater volume or quality, and surface water quality. (Cumulative impacts may be discussed here or under the appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form.)

The MPCA is required to inquire whether a project, which may not individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, could have a significant effect when considered along with other projects. This type of impact is known as a cumulative potential effect. In order to assess the Project’s

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 22 Worksheet “cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects”, the MPCA conducted an analysis that addressed other projects or operations in the context to potential direct or indirect impacts of the Project that: (1) are already in existence or planned for the future; (2) are located in the surrounding area; and (3) might reasonably be expected to affect the same natural resources. The following is a review of the MPCA’s analysis conducted to determine if the Project would contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect.

Land use within the Project area is predominantly agricultural, which can contribute to non-point source pollution of surface water. The Project is within the Le Sueur River Watershed that drains an area of land approximately 710,832 acres, of which approximately 82.5% is tillable agricultural cropland, before it's convergence with the Blue Earth River. The Project’s project site and manure application areas are all located in the Cobb River and Maple River watersheds, which are minor watersheds of the Le Sueur River Watershed. The 2012 total maximum daily load (“TMDL”) Report (2014 Proposed Impaired Waters List) lists the Cobb River as impaired while that section of the Maple River within the Project area identified as no evaluation existing.

The MPCA reviewed the existing public data to identify the number of feedlots and other projects within the same sub-watersheds of the Project. The public data reviewed included the most recent MPCA feedlot registration database. Two hundred and fifty five permitted feedlots are within the Cobb River watershed housing 90,151 total AUs of which there are 36 livestock facilities covered by the General Feedlot Permit, MNG440000 required to be a zero discharge facility. (LeSueur River Watershed Total Maximum Daily Load). The same requirement applies to the Project.

Water Resources Water resources include the waters found on the surface and below the ground. The Proposer will use one (1) well as the potable water source for livestock production. Land application of manure has the potential to impact both surface and groundwater resources if conducted improperly or without regard to agronomic rate.

Surface Water Impacts The Project and proposed manure application sites are within two (2) minor watersheds of the Le Sueur River watershed (Hydrologic Unit 07020011), located within the Mississippi River Basin. The Project is located in Section 4, Faribault County, Dunbar Township. Eight (8) of the manure application sites are located in Faribault County, Dunbar Township, (Sections 3, 5, 8, 16, 24 and three (3) application sites in 33) Three (3) manure application sites are in Section 4 of Wells Township, in Faribault County. One (1) manure application site is in Section 33 of Vivian Township in Waseca County.

Land application of manure can affect water quality. The MPCA reviewed the MPCA’s impaired waters database to determine if the Project would contribute to any existing impaired surface waters. The MPCA added the Cobb River reach, exists from the south line of Section 34 in Freeborn Township in Freeborn County to its confluence with the Little Cobb River in Blue Earth County, to the Section 303(d) Clean Water Act impaired waters list in 2004 for aquatic life due to fish bioassessments. This same reach added to the list in 2010 for aquatic life due to turbidity. Both listed for reporting year 2012 as well as the 2014 proposed list. The MPCA has not completed a total maximum daily load (“TMDL”) for these impairments. This portion of the Cobb River bisects the application site located in the northeast quarter of section 3 in Dunbar Township. 18.4% of the project application acres are within one (1) mile of the Cobb River. The Project also includes manure application sites in the Maple River watershed. The MPCA has not assessed this section of the Maple River; therefore, it is not on the impaired waters list. This portion of the Maple

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 23 Worksheet River flows between the manure application sites in Section 33 of Dunbar Township and Section 4 of Wells Township and bisects a third manure application site in Section 33.

These waters are both located within the Le Sueur River Watershed and listed as impaired on the Federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list for recreational/human contact use based on water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria. The Fecal Coliform TMDL Report lists incorporated manure as a Low-Moderate contributor to fecal coliform bacteria in the watershed, depending on climatic conditions. The Proposer will use BMPs as outlined in the implementation plan for manure management including appropriate timing, nutrient and manure management, and residue management.

The Proposer submitted an MMP for transferred ownership of manure. After MPCA review and approval, the MMP becomes an integral and enforceable part of the Feedlot Permit. The MMP requires that the licensed CAWT follow agronomic manure application rates. The Proposer will transfer ownership of the manure generated by the Project to operators of the cropland receiving the manure. The Proposer has obtained land application agreements for all manure generated by the Project. Prior to or at the time of manure ownership transfer, the Proposer is required to provide the cropland operator with information on the state requirements for soil testing, manure application rate limits, seasonal restrictions, manure application setbacks, manure application record keeping, and spill reporting, as well as the most current manure nutrient analysis. The cropland owner/operator is required to follow the Proposer’s MMP as applicable under 7020.2225 Land Application of Manure, or local requirements, whichever is the more stringent.

The Proposer will use Minnesota Extension Service and MPCA approved BMPs to minimize the contribution of the Project to cumulative effects on surface water resources. As required by Minnesota feedlot rules, the Proposer will use several measures to ensure water resources are not impacted. These include, but are not limited to: 1) regular soil and manure testing to specify the manure nutrient application rates; 2) application of all manure with nitrogen used as the limiting nutrient when calculating application rates; 3) soil sampling of manure application sites with analysis for phosphorus concentrations once every four years to prevent buildup; 4) maintaining required setbacks from all surface waters and sensitive features and 5) injecting or immediately incorporating all manure into the soil or within 24 hours maximum. Injecting or incorporating manure assimilates it into the soil profile and ties up a large portion of the nutrients in the organic portion of the soil, thereby decreasing mobilization of the nutrients by wind and/or water, which could otherwise add to the impairments. Injection or incorporation of the manure also increases the organic matter in the soil, making it less likely to erode and add sediment to the impaired waters.

The Project lies within the Le Sueur River watershed, approximately 710,832 acres in area. Land use is primarily agricultural dominated by animal and row crop production. The activities related to the surface water impairments in the Le Sueur River watershed originate from a combination of anthropogenic point source (e.g., inadequately functioning septic systems) and nonpoint source (e.g., agricultural activities) discharges. The MPCA anticipates the Project will not contribute to the existing water quality issues. The Project will minimize it potential impact to surface water quality through land application activities discussed in Item 5 of the EAW, including storage in an engineered concrete structure, fall land application, injection of the manure and observation of setback distances, as well as the use of an agronomic rate for land application. The MPCA will include these practices in the Proposer’s Feedlot Permit, which requires a “no discharge” standard.

The MPCA concludes the Project will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential impact of surface water quality. The Project will reduce or eliminate its potential to affect surface impairments within the minor watersheds of the Le Sueur River watershed. The land application practices include application of

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 24 Worksheet manure at agronomic rates. The Proposer will maintain required setback distances from surface waters, tile intakes and other sensitive features when land applying manure. These practices are in the Project’s Feedlot Permit, which requires a producer to operate a facility under a “no discharge” standard. As a result, the MPCA concludes that the Project will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect on surface-water quality.

If a spill or release occurs, the Proposer is required to take remedial actions. These requirements are in the Emergency Response Plan and are enforceable conditions of the Project’s Feedlot Permit. Groundwater Impacts

Groundwater Appropriation The Proposer indicates that construction of a new well is required for the primary source of water. The well will extract water from a bedrock aquifer, which provides water to existing production wells in the area. A review of Ground Water Contamination Susceptibility in Minnesota (MPCA, 1989), local source water assessments, project soils and well logs of nearby wells indicates the Project lies in an area with low susceptibility to contamination. This is due to one or more layers of fine-grained material that cover the bedrock aquifer and protect it from potential sources of contamination. Stratification logs of nearby wells, listed in the County Well Index indicate multiple layers of black, gray, yellow and blue clay, sandy-clay and rock before reaching shale or limestone at approximately 100’ or sandstone at approximately 200’. Soil investigations performed on the site also indicate layers of lean, sandy gray clay below the topsoil layer to a depth of 12 feet below the surface.

The MDNR Water Appropriations Permit Program addresses groundwater appropriations. The purpose of the MDNR permit program is to ensure the Proposer manages water resources so that adequate supply is provided to long-range seasonal requirements for domestic, agricultural, fish and wildlife, recreational, power, navigational, and quality control. The permit program balances competing management objectives, including both the development and protection of water resources. Minn. Stat § 103G.287, subdivision 1, paragraph (c) requires the assessment of a proposed well that will require a groundwater appropriation permit. The commissioner shall evaluate the information submitted and determine whether the anticipated appropriation request is likely to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter. If the appropriation request is likely to meet applicable requirements, the commissioner shall provide the person submitting the information with a letter providing preliminary approval to construct the well. The MDNR conducted a Well Construction Preliminary Assessment on February 12, 2016, and has approved the construction of the well. The MDNR will issue a water appropriation permit for this Project after its construction and prior to operation.

Minn. Stat § 103G.261 establishes domestic water as the highest priority of the state’s water when supplies are limited. If a well interference arises, the MDNR has a standard procedure for investigating the matter. If a commercial operator causes the problem, the operator must correct it. The water appropriation permit review process requires the feedlot owner to assess the potential impacts.

Groundwater Quality Feedlot operations and land application activities can adversely affect groundwater resources at or near the surface or are accessible through conduits and fractures commonly associated with karst topography. The 1989 Minnesota Groundwater Protection Act authorized the MDNR to map geographic areas defined by natural features where there is risk to groundwater from activities conducted at or near the land surface. The MPCA reviewed information compiled by the MDNR to determine whether the Project has the potential for significant environmental effects, including cumulative effects.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 25 Worksheet The MPCA considered the soil types and depth to bedrock as factors in the review to determine groundwater sensitivity and pollutant impacts. The MPCA reviewed the Ground Water Contamination Susceptibility in Minnesota report (“Report”) to estimate the potential for groundwater pollution from the Project. The Report uses a matrix for determining a Sensitivity Rating of the Water Table ranging from Very High to Very Low on aquifer material, recharge potential, soil materials, and vadose zone materials.

After review of the published information related to pollution sensitivity potential, the Project including manure application sites are located in an area designated as having a moderate risk to groundwater pollution. This means that it could take years to decades for near-surface contamination to reach the aquifer. No known karst topography exists within the vicinity of the Project site or manure application sites. Land application practices employed by the Proposer will reduce the risk to groundwater quality (see Item 5 of the EAW).

The Proposer will further protect groundwater by following the requirements of Minn. R. ch. 7020 for the construction of the swine manure storage structures and land application of manure. These rules protect groundwater from both cumulative and individual feedlot impacts. The MPCA reviewed and approved proposed design plans and construction specifications for the manure storage pits and the MMP for the land application of manure, which are enforceable conditions of the Project’s Feedlot Permit.

Air Quality Impacts The Proposer used the AERMOD dispersion model to predict potential emissions of hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and selected odorous gases from the Project. The air quality modeling evaluation predicted concentrations of the selected gases at the Project property lines and nearest neighbors. The model estimated pollutant concentrations from the Project, along with an ambient hydrogen sulfide and ammonia background concentration to account for any nearby air emission sources. A background concentration is the amount of pollutants already in the air from other sources and then used to address cumulative air impacts. Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia may be present from the agitation and pumpout of a neighboring feedlot, or the pumping of a municipal wastewater treatment facility. Air emissions from other emission sources may affect the compliance status of the proposed facility, or affect downwind human and environmental receptors. The Proposer used monitoring data from other Minnesota feedlot facilities to derive a background level for hydrogen sulfide. AERMOD adds the monitored background hydrogen sulfide concentration to the predicted modeled emission. Based on the results of the modeling, the MPCA does not expect significant air quality impacts from the Project including adverse cumulative potential effects (Attachment F).

Land Use The land identified for the purpose of this Project includes the site of the Project site and the cropland identified as potential manure application acreage and viewed in context with other existing or proposed projects within the watershed. The Proposer identified three (3) issues with respect to land resources – 1) wildlife habitat, 2) row crop agriculture, and 3) traffic.

Wildlife Habitat There is a competing issue in rural landscapes to maintain a balance between agricultural demands and preserving natural resources. In this case, the Project is in areas currently used for agricultural production. Previous landowners have used all affected acres, including the proposed manure application sites for agricultural purposes for more than 20 years. The Project will not displace or disrupt any wildlife habitat and as a result, will not contribute to an adverse cumulative potential effect related to habitat fragmentation and loss.

R & R Hogs LLC Environmental Assessment Wells, Minnesota, Faribault County 26 Worksheet

ATTACHMENT A

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT C

ATTACHMENT D

ATTACHMENT E

ATTACHMENT F

ATTACHMENT G

ATTACHMENT H

ATTACHMENT I

ATTACHMENT J