11-15-95 PCCITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPT.
MEETING DATE
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS FINANCE
NOVEMBER 27,1995
ITEM NO: ITEM DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
4.A BUSINESS DATABASE REPORT BY DATABASE
INTERN, TIM ENG
P.Boedigheime
-ai
The City's Database Intern, Tim Eng will be present to review the attached Business Database Intern
Report. This report, prepared by Tim Eng, is based on his internship with the City during the past
summer. The internship was to research businesses located in the city through observation and listings
from the Secretary of State, to administer a survey to all potential businesses and to summarize the results
of the survey and internship into a final report
The report provides some very interesting information regarding the number and types of businesses
located in the City and will be a useful tool in the future planning of economic development within the
city.
CITY OF OTSEGO
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION:
DEPARTMENT:
MEETING DATE
7. BOB KIRMIS, ASST. CITY PLANNER Nov.
27, 1995 6:30PM
ITEM NUMBER:
ITEM DESCRIPTION:
PREPARED BY:
7.3. Consider Amendment
to the PUD/CUP to
Elaine Beatty
allow expansion of
Minn -E -Golf and Hobby
City Clerk/Z.A.
for Rudy and Margaret Thibodeau, PID Vs
118-038-001030 and 4118-038-001040.
BACKGROUND:
This item came to Hearing at the Planning Commission on November 15, 1995.
After much discussion, Richard Nichols Motioned to approve the request for the Amendment to the
CUP/PUD to allow for an expansion of Minn -E -Golf and Hobby for Rudy and Margaret Thibodeau,
subject to the 15 conditions listed, minus Item#2. That site activities (bumper car and kiddie car tracks)
are relocated to comply with applicable 35' setback requirements from Park Avenue
Ing Roskaft seconded the motion. Discussion of the pitching machine lights in that area being adjusted
and the drainage needs to be coordinated with the City Engineer. Motion carried unanimously.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends to approve the CUP/PUD to allow for an expansion of Minn -E -Golf and
Hobby for Margaret Thibodeau subject to the 15 conditions listed in NAC's Report. Adjustment of
lights in the pitching machine area and drainage needs to be coordinated with the City Engineer.
Thank you,
Elaine
DRAFT 2 November 9, 1995
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF COMMERCIAL FEEDLOTS WITHIN THE CITY OF OTSEGO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Intent. It is the intent of this Interim Ordinance to
allow the City of Otsego to complete review of the presently
existing ordinance sections related to Commercial Feedlots and to
make appropriate changes in the same in order to protect the value
of residential properties within the City of Otsego, to insure
proper land use controls, and to facilitate compatibility between
such facilities and the surrounding property uses.
Section 2. Authority and Purpose. The City Council is empowered by
Minn. Stat. 462.355, Subd. 4 to pass an interim ordinance,
applicable to all or a portion of its jurisdiction, for the purpose
of protecting the planning process and the health, safety, and
welfare of its citizens.
Section 3. Temporary Prohibition. For one year after the effective
date of this ordinance, or until such earlier time as the Otsego
City Council determines by resolution that the reasons for the
moratorium no longer exist, no Commercial Feedlots shall be
established within the City of Otsego, nor shall the City receive,
consider, and/or approve, any application, of any type, for a
Commercial Feedlot within the City.
Section 4. Misdemeanor. Any person, persons, firm or corporation
violating any provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 609.02, Subd. 3, or as subsequently
amended, plus costs of prosecution.
Section S. Injunctive Relief. In the event of a violation of this
ordinance, the City may institute appropriate actions or
proceedings, including requesting injunctive relief to prevent,
restrain, correct or abate such violations.
Section 6. Separability. It is hereby declared to be the intention
that the several provisions of this ordinance are separable in
accordance with the following: if any court of competent
jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this ordinance to be
invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provisions of
this ordinance not specifically included in said judgment.
Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect from
and after its passage and publication, and shall remain in effect
until one year after the effective date, unless a shorter period of
time is approved by proper resolution of the Otsego City Council.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Otsego this day of
, 1995.
IN FAVOR:
OPPOSED:
CITY OF OTSEGO
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
CITY OF OTSEGO
COUNTY OF WRIGHT
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN INTERIM ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM
ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMERCIAL FEEDLOTS WITHIN THE CITY OF
OTSEGO
WHEREAS, the Otsego City Council has determined that in order to
protect the planning process and insure the health, safety, and
welfare of the citizens of Otsego that the presently existing
ordinances and controls regarding the establishment of Commercial
Feedlots within the City need to be reevaluated; and
WHEREAS, the Council has directed staff to present a report to the
City outlining problems within the existing ordinances, and
possible changes and amendments to said ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Council has further directed that a Citizen's
Committee be established to review the ordinances and related
issues and report to the Council regarding any proposals for change
in local controls that they might arrive at; and
WHEREAS, a recent application for a Commercial Feedlot Conditional
Use Permit, submitted for consideration by the City, has brought
forth concerns regarding the compatibility of commercial feedlots
with residential and other uses, concerns about reduction of the
property value of adjoining residents due to proximity to such a
facility, concerns about the effect of possible changes to the City
Comprehensive Plan and controls due to availability of sewer and
water and the advisability of allowing such uses in an area which
may become primarily residential, and concerns about the
effectiveness of existing ordinances in properly regulating such a
facility; and
WHEREAS, the above mentioned concerns require the City to study
possible changes to existing controls; and
WHEREAS, the City needs a period of time in which to conduct these
studies and to implement any needed changes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that no Commercial
Feedlots should be established within the City until these issues
have been studied and proper amendments to the City ordinances have
been implemented.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
OTSEGO that the attached Interim Ordinance Establishing A
Moratorium On the Establishment Of Commercial Feedlots Within The
City of Otsego is hereby adopted.
ADOPTED this day of November, 1995.
IN FAVOR:
OPPOSED:
CITY OF OTSEGO
Norman F. Freske, Mayor
Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
William S. RadzwiU
lndrew J. MacArthur
Michael C. Couri
November 9, 1995
RADZWILL & COURI
Attorneys at Law
705 Central Avenue East
PO Box 369
St. Michael, MN 55376
(612) 497-1930
(612) 497-2599 (FAX)
Planning Commission Members
City of Otsego
c/o Elaine Beatty, City Clerk
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
RE: Proposed Interim Ordinance Establishing A Moratorium On
Commercial Feedlots Within The City of Otsego
Dear Planning Commission Members:
Enclosed for your review and public hearing at your next regularly
scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 15, 1995 please
find the proposed Interim Ordinance establishing a Moratorium on
Commercial Feedlots within the City of Otsego and a proposed
supporting resolution.
The public hearing on the proposed moratorium was scheduled at the
request of the City Council. The purpose of the proposed moratorium
is to give the City sufficient time to review and revise the
existing ordinance provisions and make a determination as to
whether or not such facilities will be allowed within the City, and
if they are allowed where and under what conditions.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
Very truly yours
drew MacArthur
RADZWILL & COURI
Encls.
cc: Bob Kirmis, NAC
Larry Koshak, Hakanson Anderson
11, NA
C
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
C O M M U N I T Y PLANNING - DESIGN MARKET RESEARCH
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
Bob Kirmis/David Licht
9 November 1995
Otsego - Thibodeau Minn -E -Golf (Fun City) PUD/CUP
Amendment
176.02 - 95.18
Rudy and Margaret Thibodeau have requested an amendment to their previously approved
planned unit development conditional use permit for the existing Minn -E -Golf facility
located west of Parish Avenue between County Road 39 and Park Avenue. Specifically,
the applicants wish to amend the previously approved site plan to allow the following
activities upon the subject site:
1. 1,320 square foot (24' x 55') game room/storage building (15 to 20 game
machines).
2. 2,025 square foot (45'x 45') bumper boat pond to accommodate six to eight electric
boats.
3. 1,400 square foot (35' x 40') bumper car track to accommodate six to eight gasoline
powered cars.
4. Kiddle car track to accommodate two to three electric cars.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. - Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595 -9636 -Fax. 595-9837
E0'd 2=6 SGS 7T9 OUN T2:ST SG6T-60-S0N
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Previously Approved Site Plan
Exhibit C - Proposed Site Plan
Exhibit D - Building Elevations
Exhibit E - Building Floor Plan
Exhibit F - Surfacing Detail
Recommendation
Based on the. following review of the PUDICUP amendment request, our office
recommends approval subject to the following conditions
1. Administrative approval of a minor subdivision to combine Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 of
Mississippi Shores Addition.
2. Site activities (bumper car and kiddie car tracks) are relocated to comply with
applicable 35 foot setback requirements from Park Avenue.
3. The applicants demonstrate that the proposed use shall comply with City noise
requirements.
4. A landscape plan is submitted which identifies the type, size and location of all
landscaping efforts with specific attention being given to screening efforts along the
site's northern boundary. Such plan shall be subject to City review and approval.
5. The City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to grading and
drainage issues.
6. The Clty Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to septic system
issues.
7. All refuse is screened from eye level view of neighboring uses and public rights-of-
way.
B. The site plan is modified to provide a specific loading berth.
9. Bicycle racks be provided with a capacity of one bicycle for each two game devices.
A designated bicycle parking area shall be provided and illustrated in the site plan.
10. Hours of facility operation are subject to City approval.
2
CYa' J J C^OG CC,— 7TO
11. All site signage comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance.
12. The site plan is modified to illustrate all exterior lighting locations. All such lighting
including that which currently exists on the property should be hooded and directed
to reflect away from adjacent rights-of-way and residential properties.
13. The applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all
necessary securities.
14. All site fencing comply with applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.
15. Comments from other City staff.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Use Permissiveness. Commercial recreational uses such as those which currently exist
upon the subject site and those which are proposed are considered permitted uses in the
site's applicable B-3, General Business zoning designation. The processing of the
planned unit development (conditional use permit) is necessary to accommodate the
location of two principal buildings upon the subject property.
PUD/CUP Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of conditional use permit requests (and
amendments), the Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission and City Council
to consider the following:
1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provision of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein
(i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving
the property.
1-Hn * J ! (-CC =,- 7T0
7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including
parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's
service capacity.
In review of the aforementioned evaluation criteria, the proposed uses may be acceptable
provided all applicable City (and State) performance standards are satisfied.
Subdivision. Previous PUD/CUP approval was conditioned upon the combination of Lots
3 and 4, Block i of the Mississippi Shore Subdivision. According to the City Zoning
administrator, such subdivision (minor) never took place. To be specifically noted is that
the failure of the applicant to pursue such action violates a specific term of the site's
applicable development agreement. Any approval of the applicant's request should be
contingent upon the combination of the two lots which underlie the subject property. To
ensure such action, the posting of a security in an amount determined appropriate by the
Zoning Administrator shall be required.
Off -Street Parking. The maximum intensity of site use is directly related to the number
of off-street parking spaces that can be accommodated upon the subject site. According
to Section 20-22-4.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, parking requirements which contain two
or more use types shall be calculated separately by individual use.
Based upon actual evaluation of similar uses and operations (APA resource document),
the following off-street parking requirements are believed necessary to accommodate the
existing and proposed site uses.
Use
Ratio
Required Spaces
Miniature Golf (36 holes)
1:5 spaces per hole
54
8 Batting Cages (1 person each
cage)
*One space for every three
persons that the outdoor
facilities are designed to
accommodate
13
8 Bumper Boats (2 persons
each)
8 Bumper Cars (1 person each)
3 Kiddie Cars (2 persons each)
Game Room (744 Sq. Ft.)
*One space for each 150 feet
of gross floor area
5
TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED
72
*Per APA "Off -Street Parking Requirements" for Amusement Park/Amusement Center Uses
2 W
Based on historical parking demand of the Minn -E -Golf facility, a reduction in the
aforementioned parking may be appropriate. In this regard, a ratio of 1 space per
miniature golf hole is likely more representative of actual demand experienced upon the
subject site. Utilizing this ratio, a total of 72 off-street parking stalls would be required.
With an on-site parking supply of 77 spaces, the required off-street parking for the
proposed site uses has been satisfied.
Noise. Of primary issue with the proposed development request is the potential noise
impact the gasoline powered bumper cars will have upon adjacent residences. According
to Section 20-16-14 of the Zoning Ordinance, noises emanating from any use shall be in
compliance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Standards, Minnesota
Regulations NPC 7010, as amended. As a condition of PUDICUP amendment approval,
the applicants should demonstrate, in a manner acceptable to the City that the proposed
commercial recreational activities will be within acceptable MPCA noise levels.
Setbacks. As shown on the submitted site plan, the bumper and kiddie car tracks are to
lie + 10 feet from the site's northern property line. While the nature of the PUD does allow
interior setback flexibilities, all perimeter setback requirements of the base B-3 Zoning
District must be upheld. In this regard, a minimum 35 foot setback is required from Paris
Avenue.
To be specifically noted is that such setback is considered applicable to the proposed
bumper car and kiddie car tracks (considered °structures" per Uniform Building Code
definition) as the essential intent of the setback is to restrict principal use activity within
such area. Reinforcing this interpretation is the zoning definition of "yard" as provided
below:
Yard: An open space on the same lot with a building, unoccupied and
unobstructed by any portion of a structure from the ground upward, except
as otherwise provided herein. In measuring a yard for the purpose . of
determining the width of a side yard, the mean horizontal distance between
the lot line and main building shall be used.
The allowance of principal use activities within the required 35 foot setback is thus
considered contrary to the intentions of City setback requirements.
Also to be noted is that the existing miniature golf course setback from Park Avenue (±
five feet) represents a non -conforming situation and does not grant any rights to new site
components.
As a condition of amendment approval, new site activities should be relocated so as to
comply with applicable setback requirements.
5
Compatibility. As shown on the site plan, the bumper car and kiddie car tracks are to be
located along the site's northern boundary. In recognition of single family residential
homes which lie directly north of the subject site, some concern exists in regard to
compatibility (particularly in regard to noise and glare).
To minimize such impacts, the following are recommended:
1. Shifting of car tracks southward to comply with applicable setbacks.
2. Provision for intense screening (landscaping/berming, etc.) to the north of such
activities. Specific screening methods shall be subject to City approval.
3. Demonstration by the applicants that such uses will comply with City noise
requirements.
4. Consideration is given to internalizing those uses with a potential for adverse
impacts upon neighboring residences.
Grading/Drainage. The proposed site improvements will result in approximately 8,490
square feet of additional impervious surface coverage upon the subject property. As a
result, an increase in stormwater drainage volumes can be expected. Resultantly,
assurances should be made that proper storm water management take place (i.e.,
ponding). This issue should be subject to comment by the City Engineer.
Septic System. As a condition of amendment approval, an assurance should be made
that the septic system needs (drain field area) of the existing and proposed uses can be
accommodated. This issue should also be subject to further comment by the City
Engineer.
Trash. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, the site plan should be modified to identify
specific trash handling areas. Per Section 20-16-5 of the Zoning Ordinance, all refuse
must be screened from eye level view from all neighboring uses and public rights-of-way
and must be fully accessible to service vehicles.
Loading. According to Section 20-33-7.A of the Zoning Ordinance, all commercial
buildings must have at least one off-street loading berth. Such loading berth should be
illustrated on the site plan.
Bicycles. Due to the types of uses to be provided, it is anticipated that the subject facility
will, in the summer months, incur relatively large volumes of bicycle traffic. As such, it is
recommended that bicycle racks be provided with a capacity for one bicycle for each two
game devices (Off -Street Parking Requirements, American Planning Association, 1991).
A designated bicycle parking area should be designated on the submitted site plan and
illustrated on the site.
Structure Height. According to the submitted building elevations, the proposed storage
structure/game room is to measure ± 13 feet in height and complies with the maximum 35
foot B-3 District standard.
Lighting. All exterior lighting locations should be illustrated on the site plan and hooded
and directed so as to reflect away from adjacent rights-of-way and residential properties.
It should be noted that such glare restrictions also apply to batting cage lighting which
currently exist upon the subject property. Any current problems which may exist in this
regard must be corrected regardless of the current development application.
Landscape Plan. As a condition of PUD/CUP amendment approval, a landscape plan
should be submitted which identifies the type, size, and location of all landscaping efforts.
Per Ordinance requirements, the plan should be developed with an emphasis upon the
following areas:
The periphery or perimeter of the proposed site at points adjoining other property
(screening along site's northern boundary).
The immediate perimeter of the structure.
The perimeter of parking and loading areas.
Hours of Operation. To ensure use compatibility with adjacent single family residences,
it is believed appropriate to reasonably limit hours of facility operation. In this regard,
hours of operation should be subject to City approval.
Signage. It has not been indicated whether any new signage is to be erected as part of
the propped development project. As a condition of PUD/CUP approval, all site signage
must comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance.
Building Materials. According to the applicant, the proposed 1,320 square foot. game
room/storage building is to be of wood (stick built) construction with white vinyl siding and
a blue steel roof. Such building materials comply with applicable building material
requirements set forth in the ordinance.
Fencing. As shown on the submitted site plan, various recreational activities are to be
surrounded by perimeter fencing. As a condition of PUD/CUP amendment approval, all
site fencing must comply with the City's commercial district fencing requirements (Section
20-16-7.k). The applicants have indicated that if the neighbors express concern over
noise emitted by the proposed uses, they would be willing to construct a solid wall as a
screening/noise barrier. While such noise wall is well intended, such construction along
the site's northern boundary is not allowed by Ordinance, except by conditional use permit.
Specifically Section 20-16-7.k.1 which addresses this matter reads as follows:
i AF
eo*d L=G S6S �T9 `BHN SS:ST S66T-60-nON
Fences extending across a required front yard or a required side yard which
abuts a street on a comer lot shall be at least seventy-five (75) percent open
for the passage of air and light and shall maintain the traffic visibility
requirements of Section 20-16-8 of this Chapter.
The Ordinance does state, however, that fences for special purposes and differing in
construction, height or length may be permitted via the issuance of a conditional use
permit.
Development Agreement. As a condition of PUD/CUP amendment approval, the
applicant should enter into a development agreement with the City and post all the
necessary securities required by it including that necessary to ensure combination of the
two properties which underlie the subject site.
CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding review, our office recommends approval of the requested
PUD/CUP amendment subject to the conditions listed in the Executive Summary of this
report.
PC- Elaine Beatty
Jerry Olson
Andy MacArthur
Lany Koshak
Rudy and Margaret Thibodeau
9
NOV-09-1995 15:36 NAC 612 595 9837 P.10
NOIIVOOI 311S - d LISIHX3
I-------------
C
m
lealal ZO
=rlof
Q.[.t. ..t.R/
a,m I al.w
---
------------------
—_ - 13
«oil
iLw
j :.N
1f-S
rniJ
-1311ibw
32iov
—/
wI£
L Itwr
S
I
A�
!
I
v
L
l �
I
I
$� a
,
I
l
I
66
2
F
1332(15
n
b
B
r
2
---'---_
�
N"1"• 7
...r
..�----
dea=l
I
I
•••• p •.•�
I
_
2
m,is.l
I
c
k
•
;
.
133b1S
s
14159 '3'N
l
�l
w
I,
— — — — — -- — 1• aC 'ON QY M •f1
—I—A.13
n i rr 2 r.r a rJ II r
>♦ NO+1lddvt419 g zZ : tz oz ^+ .t £t: [t ; tiI of x g; 4 ,'
I �M K.W
Apodo -1b nea oq.
wy.Sr l
�' •.•r
N
iSw
«oil
iLw
j :.N
1f-S
rniJ
-1311ibw
32iov
—/
wI£
L Itwr
—I—A.13
n i rr 2 r.r a rJ II r
>♦ NO+1lddvt419 g zZ : tz oz ^+ .t £t: [t ; tiI of x g; 4 ,'
I �M K.W
Apodo -1b nea oq.
wy.Sr l
�' •.•r
3 a I �, g, D �•N � �., r.«..
rr =� ..r.. «•..v c � S
F I �../ w.. fir....•
C
1b tag [ M•,. I :
`i ... KN/
• C at
w {1 MSN `r 1 it ` • V i
rwK. �'•• •• OZ w.rZ 1:3x15 a �'4h KNI o m—n 2 ; w...+.•
Y
M.N t
j+•, Q " SZ :,, wrr a ;h
_ M r-•.... ..rn. Kr.r. MIN I hrI � � �I •..t1 � 1 .wF ].ro
NOI.LIM: S38OHS i z� r ? �'" INM I.. p ��•
tt of I e I B c £Cil
iddlSSiSSIW ,, Ujl
Co
Nti1.I- .�.0 r+.w. .�... ..�� 6Lw-r. i i l � i 1 . p S � •�•• C `.'•.. .+, 9 .
M -.•u ..... eK.l , .... «N w w I /... � wi./ � w rw/ Klw � I ,,,,, � r../.
0�7 w
.IZaV, YY
? a of f 1�
*Zo/ C`
N1
�
wI
I « Y •
7 L w . ry I ..r r t +� •j il' .1 s
�'•� w.0 K.f. a.N i Z
DI
It CI r -O
— — -s •�- — -a rs
N
b
rniJ
I
I Krni,l
I
I
I
S
I
A�
I
I
�
O
l �
I
I
$� a
,
I
l
3 a I �, g, D �•N � �., r.«..
rr =� ..r.. «•..v c � S
F I �../ w.. fir....•
C
1b tag [ M•,. I :
`i ... KN/
• C at
w {1 MSN `r 1 it ` • V i
rwK. �'•• •• OZ w.rZ 1:3x15 a �'4h KNI o m—n 2 ; w...+.•
Y
M.N t
j+•, Q " SZ :,, wrr a ;h
_ M r-•.... ..rn. Kr.r. MIN I hrI � � �I •..t1 � 1 .wF ].ro
NOI.LIM: S38OHS i z� r ? �'" INM I.. p ��•
tt of I e I B c £Cil
iddlSSiSSIW ,, Ujl
Co
Nti1.I- .�.0 r+.w. .�... ..�� 6Lw-r. i i l � i 1 . p S � •�•• C `.'•.. .+, 9 .
M -.•u ..... eK.l , .... «N w w I /... � wi./ � w rw/ Klw � I ,,,,, � r../.
0�7 w
.IZaV, YY
? a of f 1�
*Zo/ C`
N1
�
wI
I « Y •
7 L w . ry I ..r r t +� •j il' .1 s
�'•� w.0 K.f. a.N i Z
DI
It CI r -O
— — -s •�- — -a rs
40
\Z.
NORTH
I
EXHIBIT B - PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAt
NOV-09-1995 15:37 NAC
bald 311S a3SOdOtfd .O 1191HX3
re
612 595 9637 P.12
' � 7
i
�u r
7R A40
ng
Vpkaf J. Vol
NIHON
FV"IRIT D — BUILDING ELEVATION:
..00,l,Z
EXHIBIT E - BUILDING FLOOR PLE
t7T'd Lz86 SGS ZT9 OdN 82:ST SGGT-60-nON
CD
uO
If
Lu
�
w
Lu
Wood
fy-
OG
Lu
CL
cc
..00,l,Z
EXHIBIT E - BUILDING FLOOR PLE
t7T'd Lz86 SGS ZT9 OdN 82:ST SGGT-60-nON
ST"d -ldlol
...:�:.... ......:.... .. .................................................
. ............
...:...................................
:-:•:::-:•:- �::::.:..:.:.::.�.•:::•:::
:�::: :.. . ..�..- - ....
...::..::• ::_ .....:. .
..
-:. -.::. oa.z .. -. .-.-.
wOlD■rmc
FYHIRIT F - SIIRFACING DETAIL
lw
VIA
...:�:.... ......:.... .. .................................................
. ............
...:...................................
:-:•:::-:•:- �::::.:..:.:.::.�.•:::•:::
:�::: :.. . ..�..- - ....
...::..::• ::_ .....:. .
..
-:. -.::. oa.z .. -. .-.-.
wOlD■rmc
FYHIRIT F - SIIRFACING DETAIL
...
.. j■,r.
.ti.ti■
El J'■r■
.Q0.sS
...:�:.... ......:.... .. .................................................
. ............
...:...................................
:-:•:::-:•:- �::::.:..:.:.::.�.•:::•:::
:�::: :.. . ..�..- - ....
...::..::• ::_ .....:. .
..
-:. -.::. oa.z .. -. .-.-.
wOlD■rmc
FYHIRIT F - SIIRFACING DETAIL
November 15, 1995
TO: Otsego Planning Committee
RE: Interim Ordinance Temporarily Prohibiting The Receipt
Consideration, or Approval of CUP Application For Commercial
Feedlots Within the City of Otsego.
I believe the City of Otsego needs this temporary ordinance because
the city doesn't know enough about commercial feedlots or the total
operation of one.
The city doesn't know the right questions to ask the applicant or
what the right answers should be to questions asked.
The city doesn't know what papers or descriptions to ask the
applicant for.
The city doesn't know how a feedlot will affect the real decrease of
property value. (present & future; and this will affect tax dollars)
The city doesn't know what the long range affect of a commercial
feedlot will have on it's city.
The city needs to update it's ordinances with descriptions of
feedlots to answer the: What's, Why's, How's, Where's
The following is information regarding feedlots:
* Laws of Mn from the last legislature session that states
$75,000 has been granted for research on feedlot odors.
And, $25,000 has been granted for research on effects feedlots
have on the value of nearby property.
* A study done by North Carolina State University regarding
environmental impacts of surrounding residential property values,
due to feedlots. The study was based on odors, volume of manure,
distances to residential homes (over 200 homes were used) etc.
* Letters from an appraiser and real estate agencies talking
about resistance of market values and marketability of homes
near feedlots.
* A letter from Julie Jansen, (Olivia, MN) regarding health
issues that can be related to commercial feedlots. Also,
a list of health symptoms, a newspaper article regarding the
Jansen situation and a list of potentially present disease
and health symptoms from the MPGA.
It was stated by the Planning Committee that maybe the residents
are afraid of the unknown and that is why we opposed the Lef-Co
Commercial Feedlot. What a great statement about unknowns! I
personally believe that there are too many unknown's on a feedlot -
reasons mentioned above and I know there are many others as well.
NOW is the time to find out about these unknowns, for the safety,
health and welfare of our city.
Submitted by: Carol A. Holland, 6419 Packard Ave, Otsego
Esc. q —
Ch. 220 LAWS of MINNESOTA for 1995 1574 t 1575 LAWS (
the second year arc for the seaway port
authority of Duluth.
$19,000 the first year and $I9.000 the
second year is for a grant to the Minne-
sota livestock breeder's association.
$50,000 the first year and $50,000 the
second year are for the passing on the
farm center under Minnesota Statutes,
section 17.985. This appropriation is
available only to the extent matched
with nonstatc money.* (The preceding
paragraph beginning "$50,000" was
vetoed by the governor.)
$75.000 the first year and $75,000 the
second year are for grants to the Uni-
versity of Minnesota for applied
research on odor control at feedlots.
This appropriation is available only if
matched by the same amount in non -
state money. -The research must pro-
vide: (1) an evaluation of cost-effective
covers for manure storage structures,
and (2) development of economical
means of altering the biological activity
in manure storage structures to reduce
odor emissions.
$25,000 the first year is for a grant to
the University of Minnesota for
research into the effects feedlots have
on the value of nearby property. The
research must take into account the dis-
tance the property is from the feedlot,
the type of feedlot, and be based on
actual sales of property near feedlots.
$150.000 is for a grant to the beaver
damage control joint powers board
formed by the counties of Beltrami,
Clearwater, Marshall, Pennington, Polk,
Red Lake, Mahnomen, Norman,
Becker, Hubbard, Itasca, Kittson,
Koochiching, St. Louis. Roseau, and
Lakc of the Woods for the purpose of
beaver damage control. The grant must
be matched by at )cast $80,000
joint powers board. The join
board may enter into an agrccn
the Red Lake Band of Chipp(
ans for participation by the ba
joint powers board's beaver
control program. This approp,
available until June 30, 1997.*
ceding paragraph beginning "$
was vetoed by the governor.)
Notwithstanding any other la,
contrary, for fiscal year 1995
from the general fund may I
ferred to the special account c.
Minnesota Statutes, section
subdivision 1, to provide an e
loan to the grain inspection an
ing account. The commissioner
culture shall repay the loan 1
spr;L•ial account by June 30, 19!
$50,000 in the first year shall be
the commissioner of agricult
grant for a pilot project for an a
digestion plant for the manage
animal manures and research
appropriate technologies for
Ment of animal manures.
$350,000 the first year is for tr
the ethanol development accou
special revenue fund.
$200,000 the first year is for tr.
the value added agriculture
revolving loan account in the
revenue fund.
$20,000 in the first year is to
513' and research support for
stock processing markets task
(The Preceding paragraph be
"$20,000„ was vetoed by the gw
Sec. 8. BOARD OF ANIMAL
HEALTH
See, 9- MINN ESOTA-WISCON
E*UNDARY AREA COMMIS
Tri -County Appraisal Service
21370 John Milless Drive
P.O. Box 276
Robert A. Gallus Rogers, Minnesota 55374
Certified Residential
Real Property Appraiser
Minnesota License# 4001387
September 18,1995
John & Carol Holland
6419 Packard Ave NE
Elk River, NIN 55330
Dear John & Carol:
E-� . R -2
In response to your question about homes located directly adjacent to commercial
properties such as gas stations, restaurants or shopping centers, etc, or any adverse
environmental conditions will suffer some market resistance and will sell for less then
those properties that are not located adjacent to these properties.
Should you have any addition questions, please feel free to give me a call.
Robert A. Gallus
Certified Residential
Real Property Appaiser
License # 4001387
Office
(612)428-9166
Fax
(612)428-9167
u n ._LM 1I'I I U 4284706 P. 02
�--' �.. �),-3
ACCLAIM 326 MAIN STREET
RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE ELK RIVER, MN 55330
EIX RIVER OFFICE BUS. (612) 2414155
0
pr
70,
/511
71'a a XU,44,oc�,,
Julie Jansen
RR 1 Box 80
Olivia, MN 56277
September 19, 1995
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
and
Minnesota Department of Health Commissioners,
My name is Julie Jansen. I live in section 21 of Norfolk Township (Renville County),
Olivia, MN. My family purchased a beautiful 8.10 acre farm site in Nov. of 1989. lam
a day care provider and have been licensed for 8 years. My husband is a trucker who
owns his own tractor and trailer. Both of our businesses benefit from our farm home.
In 1994, ValAdCo built two large hog facilities in Norfolk Township, in sections 29 and
27, 3/4 mile and 1 114 mile respectively, from our home.
In May of 1995, our family began to experience unbelievable hog odors, and at the
same time started to experience health symptoms. It is clear to us that the odors and
health symptoms are connected. It does not take science to prove they stink and that
they are taking away our quality of life.
I have been researching and looking for the truth since July 5, 1995. As of todays'.
date, no solution to the problem has been offered.
I am totally taken aside with frustration. I have spoken to both your offices,, many many
times. No one wants to take any responsibility for the problems out here. Each
department tells me it's the other departments problem. Someone has to take
responsibility! MPCA permitted these lagoons and now we are experiencing health
effects from them... MPCA's role is what? ... The Health Departments role is what?...
My neighbors and my family continue to experience health symptoms, from eye
irritations to blacking out.. not to mention the same effects on man tiother people in
Renville County, in the rest of Minnesota and in other states. In Renville. County alone
there are 55 plus people (who answered a survey), HUMAN BEINGS, who are
experiencing the same health effects down wind of these lagoons_
I have talked to families in Minnesota, who are experiencing health effects down. wind.
from large pitted barns, also.
A family Dr. also agrees, you don't get flu and allergy symptoms because of wind
direction.
I have news paper articles with headlines: "Hog Odors May Be Hazardous. To Your
Health... Breathe At Your Own Risk". It then goes on to say, "According to scientists
who gathered here, continued exposure to swine odor may lead to 'serious health
problems." Researchers at the University of Iowa are now studying the impact of
hydrogen sulfide on people who live downwind from livestock facilities. Researchers
believe that as hydrogen sulfide is breathed, it is absorbed into the stem of the brain.
Researchers are uncertain how the gases might affect the brain and other parts of the
body. A lot of discussion is made, that we need scientific data rather than emotions.
How can we get scientific data, with departments like yourselves, helping us like this?
It is not fair for the public to have to breathe this contaminated air and to have. to suffer
health effects like these. It is not fair to have to wait for science to prove it is unhealthy
for us to breathe.
The bur en of proof should be on the hop facility industry... to prove it is safe to live. in.
They are facilities running for a profit and ruining our air. It has taken two (2) decades
to prove that hog confinement houses are not a healthy environment for workers or
animals. I ask you, why, when it is not our choice, should we have to experience the
same health effects, and suffer until science does prove it's unhealthy to breathe?
I cannot express the need enough in words, to stop permitting these facilities until the
scientific data is here. We, in the State of Minnesota, have a big enough mess to
clean up with what you have already permitted. Our county (Renville) does not know
what to do ... the odor is unacceptable_ The odor invades the cities of Renville,
Danube, Hector, Bird Island, Buffalo Lake and Olivia.
I ask you, how many people Link they just have the flu? ... How many people think
their allergies are terrible? When human beings are experiencing intoxicating effects
with wind direction, how can you not relate these symptoms to chemicals or gases
from the lagoons? How many people hasn't this affected yet? How many people will
it eventually hurt? What happens when the scientific data does catch up with your,
permitting, and with the lack of our own health departments' help in finding the truth?
We need one of these two solutions... either
1) the MPGA stops permitting these facilities altogether and enforces clean-up of
what's here, or,
2) the MPCA permits only lagoons with covers and synthetic liners to protect the
public's air and water, and pitted barns with fan scrubbers to protect the public; and to.
use those same methods tb clean up the mess already made.
Renville County has 46 MPCA permitted earthen basins of all sizes. When I asked the
MPCA where the hog lagoons that were not causing any trouble were located; I
received 2 locations, neither of which were in Renville County, neither of which were
the size of the two (2) in my back yard.
When asking a ValAdCo member, where the working (non-odorous),I'agoons-were
located, (that they claim to have visited), his reply was, "down south". A very vague
response which means absolutely nothing to me. 1, personally, do not believe there is
such a place.
I realize scrubbers and covers are very expensive, but l also ask.....
What is the $ amount worth on human beings' health?..,
What is the $ amount worth, for counties like ours, wondering what they are going to
do, now that these facilities are here?...
Which taxpayers are going to pay for the problem?...outside, for being
What is the $ amount worth for our children not being able to play
sick and crabby with every bad wind direction?...
What is the $ amount worth for all the families displaced because they can't live in the
stench?...
What is the $amount worth for each family that has to fife bankruptcy and loses ail
their credit, because they can no longer five in their homes, and the stench makes
their homes worthless?...
What is the $ amount worth, if lagoons leak and ruin our drinking water and kiln our fish
and wildlife?...
What is the $ amount worth when excessive manure spreading renders our soils
worthless?...
What is the $ amount worth if a county replaces 300 hog farmers with several aven largehe
corporations or cooperatives owned by a few people, while the money 9
communities and going instead to a large city?...
What is the $ amount worth if rural communities lose their tax base, because there are
no longer farm families living on numerous farms....
What is the $ amount worth if communities are totally destroyed?...
What is the $ amount worth in losing the enjoyment of using our own homes and
yards, our own land?...
What is the $ amount worth if even one1efseof taken by these
large Metropolitan
What is the $ amount worth, when bodies
areas, are contaminated even further?...
Are the "political dollars" of hogs worth more than human lives, the health of future
generations, the prospering of rural communities and the enjoyment of one's own
property?...
Is the future of, "only bottled water", unhealthy children who are forced to stay indoors
because of air pollution and people being unable to swim in our lakes because of
water pollution, really in your departments hands?
er states regarding these issues before
Have you talked to other people in oth
permitting these facilities "hand over fist"?
it
I have heard, time and time again, "I'm glad it's not by us Don't Peoplesotalfse�itizens
could very easily be by them next? No one has any guaranteesl Minn
should be furious!
hese "thin s" are in your backyard, you're doomed, No one cares - no one will
Once t 9
do anything to help you. I've called Senators, numerous times: Of Menge, Crams,
Wellstone and Dean E. Johnson, only Johnson called me personally.
Our beautiful picture of the "Land of 10,000 Lakes", clear skies and abundant fish and
wildlife, seems to be destined to becoming the land of 10,000 lagoons, unbearable
stench and a plethora of disease carrying flies. (It doesn't sound like the ideal
vacation spat, does it?)
Problems and threats to our air and water from these facilities, will not "magically" ,g0
away, and neither will the people from all across the United States, who are being
injured by them. Expanding and promoting them all across the country certainly isn't
the answer. Some good old-fashioned, ordinary, common sense reasoning is
necessary to correct the problem
Many scientists and researchers have agreed with me, this I S a serious problem.
Why, I ask you, are you not looking at it as one? pleasel irk together and find the
truth. Work with us and people from other states. Answers are there if only`you will
look. Help us with this problem!
Sincerely,
Julie Jansen
Olivia, Mn (Renville County, Norfolk Township, Section # 21
(612) 523-1106
JJ/je
Enclosure: List of health symptoms
cc: MPCA, Feedlot Division
MPGA, Air Quality Division
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Attorney General`
Minnesota Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Surgeon General
Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson
Minnesota Rep. Roger Cooper
Minnesota Sen. Dean E. Johnson
U.S. Sen. Rod Grams
U.S. Rep. David Minge
U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone
Renville County Commissioners
Renville County Attorney, Tom Simmons
Renville County Auditor, James Tersteeg
Renville County Planning and Zoning, Larry Zupke
KTCAIKTCI, Channel 2117
KSTP, Channel 5
M.j • L� I ,
Pain/Cramping in upper arms and legs
Sore throats, including itchy/scratchy throat and swollen glands,pain from jaw to ear
Sinusitis, sinuses blocked or runny
Feeling of burning in the nose
Shakiness
Headaches
Nauseallomiting
Watery/burning eyes
Burning lungs, water in lungs
Heaviness in chest
Asthma worsened
Diarrhea, yellow, foamy, foul smelling
Abdominal cramping
Dizziness
Feeling of intoxication
Blacking out
Skin rashes
Fevers
Chills ,
Sulfur taste in mouth
Inability to sleep/insomnia
Fatigue
Frequent urination, in small children there's an inability to stay dry.
Broken and raised blood vessels in legs
Blood doesn't coagulate, ie. bloody noses
Bacterial infections which can't be identified
Ear pain
coughs with no clear reason
These may be very common symptoms, but why are they happening regularly with
wind direction, to people living by lagoons and why do the symptoms leave when the
victims leave the area?
Why does throat, lung and stomach cancer seem to be more prevalent among people
in NC, who have been living in lagoon stench for a number of years? A study should
be done on this before this trend of haphazard pollution permitting continues.
Demand action against two large hog confinement facilities
By TOM CHERVENY
scar Writer
OLIVIA — Armed with both a
petition and a doctor's opinion,
residents of Norfolk Township
d, tided that Renville County
two large, ValAdCo hog
ment facilities there a
inuisance.
Julie and Jeff Jansen, joined
by others living near similar
hog confinement facilities in
the county, told the commis-
sioners Tuesday that the open,
earthen lagoon waste systems
on the two ValAdCo facilities
should be covered, or the facili-
ties themselves closed.
"Enough is enough," said Jeff
Enough is enough. We have suffered
long enough. I want my house back and I
want it back now."
Jansen. "We have suffered long
enough."
They were supported by ap-
plause from many of the esti-
mated 50 persons attending the
meeting. The Jansens pre-
sented a petition of 100 signa-
tures from township residents
— Jeff Jansen,
Norfolk Township
demanding the sites be de-
clared a public nuisance.
"I want my house back and I
want it back now," said Jeff
,Jansen, who charged that the
lagoon odors and gasses are
forcing his family from its
home — and harming its
A-10 West Central Tribune, Minn.—Wednesday, October 11, 1995
Hogs Continued from Page A-1
winds shift and keep the emis-
sions away.
Julie said there have been
occasions during which she has
Partially blacked out in her
home from the gasses. She
fears that one of her children
has suffered neurological prob-
lems due to them: The young-
ster is now undergoing therapy,
no longer able to draw straight
lines and circles as she once
did during pre-school screening
tests.
The family has also reported
unexplained illnesses among
their horses and pets, and the
disappearance of wild birds.
Tests reportedly have shown no
Problems with their domestic
water supply. They live north
of the ValAdCo finishing and
breeding sites — one located
three-quarters of a mile and
the other 149 miles away.
The Jansens' family physi-
cian provided a written opinion
concurring with the family that
the lagoon odors are respon-
sible for the physical symptoms
they are experiencing. While
Dr. Paul E. Thompson, Prairie
Family Practice, noted that
Julie is now on a crusade, he
agreed that the lagoon odor is
indeed causative of the symp-
toms" described by the family
members.
Julie Jansen also charged
that the emissions of hydrogen
sulfide from the hog confine-
ment buildings could exceed
the state recommended guide-
lines at certain times, although
there is no evidence that regu-
lations have been violated.
Test strips placed in the
township showed hydrogen sul-
fide emissions averaged 3.8
parts per billion per day over
the course of a 21 -day test, well
below the 30 Parts 'per billion
limit. However, Jansen said the
accumulations of hydrogen sul-
fide on the test strips ranged
from .25 to 2.5 parts per mil-
lion, suggesting that the 30
parts per billion threshold
could have been exceeded at
times.
Julie Jansen told the commis-
sioners they could require Val-
AdCo to install expensive moni-
toring equipment to determine
whether violations are occur-
ring. However, she prefers that
the co-operative instead invest
its money in covering its two
open waste lagoons at the two
facilities, which she considers
the cause of her health prob-
lems.
Julie, along with neighbors
attending the meeting, also
charged that ValAdCo's efforts
to mask the odors have been
ineffective, and serve to subject
them to additional chemicals.
Test results for gas emissions
at the ValAdCo site in Norfolk
Township have convinced the
Minnesota Department of
Health. to conduct additional
tests. "There is enough positive
data at (the Norfolk site) to at
least do more testing,'; Jill
Bruns, Renville County public
health nurse, told the commis-
sioners.
The Health Department also
intends to conduct a health -risk
assessment in the Jansens'
home, and determine if there
may be any other sources for
their health problems.
The county commissioners
promised to address the con-
cerns, but are unsure yet how
to proceed.
Commissioners Robert Ryan,
Bird Island, and Frank
Schweiss, Fairfax, both ex-
pressed support for acting
quickly on behalf of the town-
ship residents.
Schweiss charged that the
commissioners should never
have allowed the large, open
lagoon facilities, which were
built in 1984. "Why didn't they
research what was going on?"
asked Schweiss. "It's the down
fall of Renville County. Now we
have them all over Renville
County."
The two commissioners said
they will ask the Health De-
partment to expand its planned
health.
The Jansens described how
they and their six young chil-
dren have. suffered a long list
of symptoms which they at-
tribute to emissions from the
ValAdCo facilities.
They suffer headaches, nau-
sea, diarrhea, coughing and
chest congestion, burning eyes,
and sore throats whenever pre-
vailing winds bring a mix of
hydrogen sulfide, methane and
other gasses from the facilities,
said the Jansens. The symp-
toms disappear when the fam-
ily leaves home, or when the
HOGS
Continued on Page A-10
> Two ValAdCo hog
confinement facilities in
Norfolk Township with
open lagoon waste
systems were the focus
of complaints Tuesday.
> Renville County
commissioners will hold
a public hearing at 1:30
p.m. next Tuesday, Oct.
17, on the controversy.
> Many support a
petition demanding the
county declare the hog
confinement facilities as
public nuisances.
Tribune photo by Tan Chermny
Jeff and Julie Jansen of Norfolk Township, Renville County,
have accumulated a box full of scientific papers and other
information on problems related to odors and gasses from
open waste systems for large hog confinement facilities.
health test to include the areas open waste storage systems for
around two other, large hog large feedlots. Before, the Min -
confinement facilities in the nesota Pollution Control Agen-
county. cy licensed 46 earthen basin fa.
The county adopted an ordi. cilities in the county, according
nance this year that prohibits to the Jansens.
the construction of any new,
Entamoeba histolytiCS
---------------- ------
Eimeria sp.
Balantidium coli
-------------------
Tozoplas.ra SP-
------------
Non-protozoal
-
'(nematodes pinworms,etc.)
Ascaris lumbricoides
---•---------- --------
Sarcocystis sp.
1'. American Society of Testing and Materials, Biological McTno:as TorAWC.•
Asssessment of Water Quality, 3rd Ed., ASTM Special Tkh—nioal.'.
Publication 528. Edited by John Cairns, Jr., and K.L.
American Society of Testing and Materials, Philadelphia :(:1.976).'
2. Ehlers, Victor M. and Ernest W. Steel, Municipal and Rural;:5anitation,',
6th ed., McGraw-Hill Book., New York(1965)-
3. Moore, James A., Mark E. Grismer , Stuart R. Crane and J. Rona'.ld'Miner;.
Evaluating Dairy Waste Management Systems' Influence on Fecal Coliform
Concentration in Runoff, Station Bulletin 658, Agricultural Experiment..
Station, Oregon State Univ., CorvalIis,OR
Minnesota Pollution
s
. � Control Agency l . _ • .....• . • .. :.: .
520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
(612) 2WF,900 (Voice,), 282.5332 (TTY),
Toll F(" 1.800657.3864 (VrfTY)
Hear U a: ,
I
We are pleased to send you the enclosed material. This
informal way of responding io your request saves us the time
and expense of preparing a formal letter. Thank you for your` i
interest, and please contact us it we can help you furthor.
P1eaa� Ica , wi rX rtd .tee
a.ce Pa
l�lE.1,+�L2.[,TZ
el.A
. 4v Aef.
I
D?SEASES AND PARAS:IE>«PoiENTiALLY+TRANSMITTED-TO
HUMANS -VIA -ANIMAL -MANURE--------
1. DISE�S:S
---------------
- ~
BACTERIAL
--------------------------
Disease or Symtoms
Salmonella Sp.
xyphoid fever and gastro-intestinal disorders s
-
Shigella -sp.
Diarrheal disease (i.e., bacillary dysent9r..y
Escheric�ia ccl,
Nausea, dehydration and diarrhea, particularly
--------------------
in infants.
Leptosaira sp.
Weil's disease or hemorrhagic infections of
_____________
the kidney, liver and nervous systems.
Pasteurella
Tularemia
Vibrio ibrio
Cholera
Mycobacterium 5;,.
Tuberculosis
Brucella sF J
Brucellosis
Listeria -sp.
Listeriosis
Clostridium tetani
Tetanus
-+
---------------------
Bacillus anthracia
Anthrax
Bruce)laYsp-J ---
Brucellosis (undulant fever)
Erysipelothrix Sp.
Erysipelas
----------------
Rickettaial
-- --------
--.-__Coxiella burneti
Coxiella
Q Fever
Viral
--------
---- Various viruses
New castle, hog cholera, foot and mouth,
polio, co=sackle, respiratory diseases.
eye infections.
Fungal
-� - Coccidioides immitus
Coccidiodomycosis
-----------------------
Histoplasma Capsulatum
-
Histoplasmosis
,.,_-_ _.."�rr�rnnr��m
Ringw4iin ..
and Trichophyton
--------------
z. PARASITES
--------------
Protozoal
7_-,�. 4 L
The Effect of Environmental Impacts from Swine Operations
on Surrounding Residential Property Values*
by
Raymond B. Palmquist'
Fritz M. Roka2
Tomislav Vukina2
Department of Economics'
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics
2
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695-8110
May 16, 1995
The Effect of Environmental Impacts from Swine Operations
on Surrounding Property Values
Introduction
The swine production industry is undergoing radical changes both in size and structure.
Changes have been particularly noticeable in North Carolina. Hog inventories in North Carolina
have grown from 2.8 million in 1991 to 7 million in 1994, making the state the second largest
producer in the nation (North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture). North Carolina also leads the country
in the movement towards concentration and vertical coordination of the entire industry. Of the
8,500 farms with hogs, an estimated 13 percent produce 95 percent of the state's swine output (Hurt
and Zering, 1993). Further, it has been estimated that by 1995 over 80% of the state's hogs will be
raised under coordinated arrangements between producers and processors (Hurt and Zering, 1993).
While the rapid expansion of the swine industry has increased income and employment
opportunities, some serious environmental concerns have arisen. A significant amount of public
attention has been directed toward offensive odors released from hog barns and manure handling
systems. In addition, concerns have been heightened over the potential movement of nutrients into
ground and surface water supplies. Rural residents have complained that living in close proximity
to large hog operations has adversely affected the quality of their lives, and they fear that swine
odors and water quality impairment may pose long-term health risks. Some residents further claim
that they have suffered tangible economic damages from a decline in their real estate property
values.
The current debate over whether environmental effects from swine operations impose
monetary damages on neighboring residences is being waged with little scientific evidence. The
only valuation study of swine odor we are aware of is a hedonic analysis by Abeles-Allison and
1
Conner (1990). They analyzed house sales surrounding eight Michigan hog operations. Their
results indicated that house value decreased $.43 for each additional hog within a five mile radius.
Their results further suggested that the magnitude of impact varied with size of operation and
distance separating a residence from a farm. Greater negative impacts occurred from large farms
and to properties located closer to hog operations. Unfortunately, these results can not be
generalized because home sale observations were only taken around hog farms which had received
multiple complaints. It is reasonable to believe that those farms may have been managed poorly
hence creating a larger nuisance for the surrounding homeowners compared to possible effects on
neighbors of well managed operations.'
Results from Abeles-Allison and Conner's study suggest that offensive odors represent real
costs to those who are exposed to them. A study by Van Kleeck and Bulley (1985) also offers some
support to the argument that odor costs will be connected to a physical source. Their study
examined the degree to which homeowners in Fraser Valley, British Columbia regarded their
neighboring livestock farms as a nuisance. Swine, beef, and poultry farms were considered. Of 857
individuals interviewed only 17% indicated that their neighboring farm was a nuisance. Of the
farms that were considered a nuisance, odor accounted for 75% of the complaints and 66% of the
farms with odor problems were swine operations. Further, they found a reduction in odor
complaints with distance. At very close distances, the frequency of swine farms being perceived
as a nuisance was independent of farm size.
The goal of this study is to test whether or not hog operations have a significant effect on
surrounding property values. If the effect is significant, it is important to quantify it Initially, our
objective was to quantify the impact of swine odor on neighboring home values. However, a serious
2
limitation to this effort was the absence of physical data describing the intensity and duration of odor
events. Confounding the data issue further is the fact that a standardized measurement protocol on
swine odor does not yet exist In addition, other environmental variables, namely water quality, can
have an effect on value of neighboring properties. Measuring the significance and magnitude of
changes in house value relative to hog farm proximity captures a total impact without having to
consider the exact source of damage.
Methodology and Hypotheses
The use of hedonic techniques in measuring and evaluating environmental effects is well
established (Palmquist, 1991; Freeman, 1993, Chapter 11), although its application to the effects of
swine operations is relatively new. The price of a differentiated product such as a house can be
explained by its characteristics. These include structural, neighborhood, location, and environmental
characteristics, all of which may influence the price for which a house sells. Thus housing markets
are one of the few places where environmental quality is traded. A hedonic regression, explaining
the price for which a house sells by the characteristics it contains, can reveal whether or not an
environmental variable has a significant effect on housing values, how much residents value a
marginal increase or decrease in environmental quality, and in some cases the value they would
place on significant changes in the environmental quality.
The estimated hedonic regression represents a market equilibrium locus of prices and usually
cannot be used to measure directly the value of non-marginal environmental changes. Nevertheless,
it has been shown that when an environmental change is a "localized externality," welfare
measurement is possible (Palmquist, 1992). A "localized externality" is something that influences
ki
surrounding houses but does not affect the market equilibrium. This is the case when one considers
locating a new hog operation.
In estimating the hedonic function, the functional form of the regression cannot be
determined a priori, but rather must be determined empirically. This is particularly true of the form
in which the environmental variable(s) are entered. How does the environmental impact vary with
the distance from the source? Does the effect of a change in the environmental variable depend on
the initial level of that variable? These are some of the issues addressed in this study. We would
anticipate that if there were a significant impact of a swine operation, it would diminish with
distance. The quantitative effect would have to be determined. We would also anticipate that the
impact of adding hog capacity would depend on the number of hogs already present in the area and
at some point this marginal effect would begin to diminish.
Data Collection
The study area included nine counties in southeastern North Carolina. There are diverse
levels of hog production and animal concentrations in the region. The greatest volume of hog
production occurs in Sampson and Duplin counties, making these counties the center of the swine
production in North Carolina. Bladen, Greene, Johnston, Lenoir, Pender, Pitt, and Wayne counties
encircle Sampson and Duplin counties and are currently experiencing rapid production growth.
During 1993, average swine concentrations ranged from a low of 111 hogs per square mile in
Pender County to over 1270 hogs per square mile in Duplin County (North Carolina Dept. of
Agriculture).
4
Data were collected on 237 home sales that occurred primarily between January 1992 and
July 1993.2 Sales were restricted to "arms -length" transactions for rural non-farm residences. Most
lot sizes were less than three acres and none were greater than ten acres. An arms -length transaction
ensured that a fair market price was paid and reported. A residence was considered "rural" so long
as the surrounding jurisdiction was less than 2500 people. Restricting lot sizes to less than ten acres
avoided considering homes sold in conjunction with farm or timber tracts.
For each transaction, data were collected on house characteristics, general neighborhood
indicators, and swine population statistics. House characteristics included sale price, date of sale,
square feet of heated area, lot size, number of bathrooms, and effective age of house. In addition,
the existence of a deck/patio, fireplace, two -car garage, wood floors, and location within an
organized subdivision were noted. Each home was identified by its geographic location which
allowed the integration of surrounding hog farm data
Population density, median family income, and average commute -to -work time described
"neighborhood" influences. Population density, measured as the number of people per square mile,
reflected the extent of urbanization within close proximity to the house. Greater density was
expected to have a positive effect on house value. Median family income measured area affluence
and proxied the value of neighboring properties. Higher family income was expected to have a
positive effect on house price. Average commuting time to work attempted to incorporate the
relationship between the location of a home and the major employment centers. As average
commute time increases, average home value was expected to decrease. The 1990 Census of
Population and Housing for North Carolina provided population density by township and income
and commute time by census tract.
5
The third block of data is information on hog operations surrounding each home sale. The
State Veterinarian's office of North Carolina maintains a data base of all hog farms in the state.
However, state law classifies this information as confidential. In lieu of exact farm locations, the
State Veterinarian's office provided a summary of the total number of herds and the head -capacities
of breeding, finishing and nursery stock within three specified rings of each house. The three rings
were: 0 to'/z mile;'/z to 1 mile; and 1 to 2 miles. Odors and water quality impairments from swine
operations are connected to manure handling practices. We chose to classify the manure produced
by a 40 pound feeder pig as the same as the manure produced by a 400 pound sow, except for the
volume produced. Using the data from Livestock Manure Characteristics (Barker, 1990), animal
head capacities were converted into tons of manure produced annually. This allowed aggregation
of the different age classes.
Table 1 lists the variables, their definitions, and descriptive statistics. Of the homes
considered, 66 of 237 homes had at least one swine operation within one-half mile. The probability
that at least one swine farm operated within one mile of the residence increased to 76% and there
were 232 out of 237 that had at least one hog farm operated within two miles. Since the State
Veterinarian's Office counts a "herd" as any site with at least one animal, it is not unreasonable to
expect most rural homes in southeastern North Carolina to be near at least one swine `herd."
Converting animal numbers to market -herd equivalents on the basis of manure output (1.5 tons per
year) provides an alternative way to describe the distribution of animal densities around the home
sales in this study. In the sample of 237 home sales, 46 sales had less than 100 market -head
equivalents within a two-mile radius. Another 65 home sales had between 100 and 1,000 head
within a two-mile radius. Seventy home sales had between 1,000 and 10,000 head and 56 homes
N.
had greater than 10,000 head within a two-mile radius. Of the homes that had greater than 10,000
head, three were surrounded by more than 30,000 head with the highest concentration being 38,758
market -head equivalents.
Estimation Procedures
Experience with numerous hedonic studies of housing indicates that certain characteristics
are consistently significant in explaining sales prices. Such variables include heated living space,
number of bathrooms, the age of the structure, and the lot area if there is sufficient variation among
the observations. The importance of minor structural characteristics (porches, decks, storage, etc.)
depends on the market. In choosing the variables for inclusion, alternative functional forms were
specified. The four most common functional forms ( linear, log -linear, semi -log, and inverse semi -
log) were used in the variable selection. Some variables were not included in the final specifications
because they were statistically insignificant across all four functional forms. These variables
included single -car garages, carports, wood floors, porches, indicators of rural subdivisions, and
local tax rates.
Multicollinearity is a potential problem with neighborhood variables. Regression diagnostics
(Belsley, Kuh, and Welsch, 1980) were used to determine which variables might lead to degrading
multicollinearity. A few variables describing county characteristics (income, hog inventories, and
their growth rates) were eliminated because of collinearity problems. The coefficients and
significance of the variables of interest changed very little with the elimination of these variables.
One variable representing commuting times might be marginally involved in collinearity but was
7
maintained for theoretical reasons and because its presence or absence did not affect the other
results.
To provide greater functional form flexibility, Boz -Cox and Boz -Tidwell techniques were
used to transform both the dependent variable and those independent variables where transformation
was appropriate.' Statistical computer programs typically require that all transformed independent
variables use the same Boz -Cox parameter 1. As a result, the value of I is strongly influenced by
the major variables (e.g., square feet of living space) and may be inappropriate for the variables of
interest (e.g., environmental variables). Ideally, separate li's are estimated for each variable
simultaneously, but maximum likelihood procedures usually fail to converge. For this research,
iterative grid search methods were used to estimate individual X's. Some neighborhood variables
were not very significant in explaining price and therefore not transformed. Five variables were
transformed: the dependent variable, price, and four independent variables (heated area, lot size,
family income, and the environmental variable to be discussed below).
Confidentiality of individual hog farm data restricted available information to herd numbers
and animal capacities by rings surrounding each house. If there is an effect on house values from
surrounding hog operations, it will be a cumulative effect from all operations. There may not be
a linear relationship between house price and surrounding operations. For example, as the level of
manure increases, the marginal impact of an additional hog may diminish. In this case, the impact
in one ring cannot be determined without knowing the level in the other rings. This requires that
a manure index be formed which combines data from the three rings. Equation (1) presents the
construction of this index.
8
(NMANO,) (NMANI;) (NMAN2,)
XMAN, = Ya A + Yt Al+ Y2 A (1)
o 2
where NMANO); is the tons of manure in the jth ring around the ith house and Aj is the number of
acres in the jth ring. Given the radius of each ring, A. equals 504 acres, Al equals 1507 acres, and
A2 equals 6029 acres. Manure production in each ring was divided by the number of acres in the
ring to get manure per acre. Since the environmental effects may diminish with distance, weights
(y) for the manure per acre in each ring were determined empirically with the weight in the first
ring normalized to one.`
. It is possible that perceptions of the environmental effects of hog operations may depend on
the concentration of animals as well as the manure generated. To examine this we also generated
an index for the number of herds. The hypothesis was that for a given amount of manure, the
perceived effect would be greater if the herds were more concentrated (i.e. fewer herds for a given
number of animals). However, it is obvious that if the number of herds were zero, there would be
no effect. Thus, an additive index would not be monotonically related to perceived effect. Also,
looking at the number of herds without considering their size (manure produced) would be
uninformative. Therefore, the herd index was formed by taking a weighted sum of the reciprocal
of the number of herds in each ring. If the number of herds was zero, this was entered as zero. This
herd index was then multiplied by the manure index. By using both the manure index and this herd -
manure index, we can see if herd concentration has an effect. The expected signs of the coefficients
of both indexes were negative.
The functional form with which the manure index affects property values also had to be
E
determined empirically. One possibility would be a sigmoid shape. At very low levels of manure
a marginal increase in manure might have a small impact on property values, but as the manure level
rises there might be a large marginal effect as the changes are easily perceived. When the manure
levels are high enough, a marginal change might be perceived to have a small impact once again.
An alternative possibility is that there is a threshold separating zero and positive environmental
effects. With this type of relationship it is also possible that above the threshold the relationship is
nonlinear.
The most widely used sigmoid curve is the logistic, but this form requires that the inflection
point be at the midpoint of the two asymptotes. The Gompertz form is somewhat more general,
while the Richards is the most general of the forms that are commonly used. The latter two allow
the inflection point and curvature to be determined by the estimated parameters (Johnson, 1985).
Thresholds can be combined with functional forms where the first derivative of the form of the
environmental variable is positive and monotonically decreasing.
Results
Table 2 reports the results of the hedonic regressions for three specifications. The first
column gives the results using the specification procedures described in the previous section. The
regression explains 85 percent of the variation in house prices, quite high for a multi -county study.
The important structural variables have the correct signs, are highly significant, and have plausible
magnitudes when transformed to dollar values of the characteristic. For example, a square foot of
living space is worth about $28 in the average house, while an additional bathroom is worth over
$5,500. The depreciation with age is approximately geometric at about 1.2 percent per year, which
10
is very close to the rates found in other studies. The coefficient of lot area indicates that an
additional acre of lot size contributes over $3,000 to the price of an average home. This may be
high for rural land and low for densely developed land. The sample included houses in locations
ranging from truly rural areas to developed subdivisions. Such differences are allowed for in
specification (2) below. The weights in the manure index were found to be 1 in the first ring (by
normalization), .3 in the second ring, and .2 in the third ring. The best form for entering the index
was determined to have the impact increasing at a decreasing rate after a threshold. -l-6 The
coefficient of the manure index is negative and statistically significant.
The data come from nine adjacent counties (out of 100 in North Carolina). Geographical
differences among counties might influence local housing prices and are incorporated in the second
specification. To control for county differences, interaction terms between the counties and heated
area, lot area, and family income were tried, as well as the county dummy variables. The results
suggest that rural homes in the nine counties are a fairly homogeneous market. Of 36 county
variables and interaction terms, only four were statistically significant. Some of these differences
were expected. For example, Johnston county is adjacent to Raleigh and the Research Triangle
Park. Land prices in Johnston County are higher than in more distant counties. The regression
results for specification (2) are reported in column 2 of Table 2. It is important to note that the
estimated coefficient on the manure index variable remained statistically significant.
The coefficients change dramatically between columns 1 and 2, primarily due to changes in
the Box -Cox parameters. However, the dollar values of the major characteristics are not changed
greatly by the county additions. For example, the value of a bathroom at the mean is almost
unchanged at about $5,400, and depreciation is 1.1 percent per year. The value of lot area has been
11
reduced as expected (because of Johnston County), and is now almost $2,800. The value of living
space also changes somewhat because of an interaction term with living space, and now is about $35
per square foot. For our purposes, the most important comparison between the two models is the
stability of the relationship between price and the manure index, which has not changed.
The third column in Table 2 shows the results when the herd -manure index is added to
Model 2. This variable is insignificant. The manure volume alone captures the environmental
impact of the hog operations! For this reason, the calculations in the next section are based on the
regression coefficients in column 2.s
The robustness of the damage estimates was examined in a variety of ways. Including
variables that had been eliminated due to insignificance or multicollinearity had little effect on the
manure results. Similarly, the functional form for the regression equation was varied without
substantially altering the impact of various manure levels (e.g. using a simpler semi -log functional
form with the logged manure index). The data set was also examined for influential outliers that had
an effect on the manure index coefficient using Belsley, Kuh, and Welsch (1980) regression
diagnostics. Seven influential observations were identified. Since no reasonable criteria were
evident to eliminate these observations from the analysis, all observations were included in the final
regressions. However, the presence or absence of these influential observations had almost no effect
on the manure results.
Effects on housing prices
If a new hog operation were to be established at a particular location, this might affect house
prices in the immediate vicinity, but it would not be expected to change to the market equilibrium
represented by the hedonic price schedule. Thus, it would be a "localized externality," and the
12
welfare effect of the new operation can be estimated from the hedonic results.
Before considering the dollar impacts, a correspondence between the manure index and
numbers of animals should be established. In Table 3 a market head capacity within each ring is
shown that corresponds to a manure index value. For the purposes of this table, it is assumed that
the animals are uniformly distributed! The values of the manure index represent the octiles of the
distribution of observations sorted by the index.
Table 4 uses the estimated coefficients of the model presented in column (2) of Table 2 to
predict a dollar value of a typical house for various manure index values. The typical house has the
characteristics (other than manure) of the median price house in our sample. The effects of hog
operations are represented in two ways. First, moving down the left side of the table, the price of
a typical house is predicted over the range of observed manure index values. Second, moving across
the table, the change in house price at a given initial manure index is predicted when a new hog
operation is located near the house.
The first column represents the values of the manure index at each 1/8th of the distribution.
The third column represents the value of the typical house given the manure index value in column
(1). The predicted house value for a particular set of characteristics is a random variable. The usual
95% confidence interval around this prediction can be derived. However, the variance of the
predicted price depends on the variance -covariance matrix of all the estimated coefficients. Thus,
the prediction bounds say more about the overall fit of the hedonic regression than about the
precision of the estimated manure index coefficient. For this reason, the price range for each level
of manure is based on the 95% confidence interval of the manure index coefficient (transformed to
the price space) assuming that the other coefficients are fixed. As one moves down column 3, the
13
location of the house changes from an area with few hogs to one surrounded with substantial hog
operations. The predicted price falls from $65,284 to $60,234.
The last three columns of Table 4 describe the predicted change in house price when a 2,400
head finishing floor is built within 0 to 1/2 mile, 1/2 to 1 mile, and 1 to 2 miles. The effect of a new
operation diminishes with greater distance from the house. For example, if the new operation
locates within '/2 mile of a house in an area with an initial manure index of 0.0930, house value
drops by 3.72%. Alternatively, if the new operation locates 2 miles from the house, value falls by
only 0.86%. The effect of a new operation will be felt more strongly in an area where the initial hog
population is low (i.e. low manure index). As an area becomes more saturated with hogs, both the
dollar loss and the percentage reduction with the addition of a new operation become smaller.
How sensitive are these dollar measures to the specification of the regression? Column 1
of Table 2 uses no county variables and the Box -Cox coefficients differ making the results look
quite different However, the dollar impacts on house price are only about 3.5 percent higher when
the results of specification 1 are used instead of specification 2.
Conclusions and Future Work
Odor associated with swine production has led to conflicts between neighboring landowners.
The future growth and development of the swine industry depends on successful resolution of this
and other environmental problems associated with large-scale intensive hogs production facilities.
To date, there has been little quantitative evidence on the magnitude of detrimental environmental
impacts from swine operations on surrounding residential properties. The objective of this paper
was to estimate the extent of monetary damages from hog operations on nearby houses.
Environmental externalities were proxied by the amount of swine manure generated at
14
varying distances from rural residential properties. The estimates from a hedonic model show that
proximity of hog operations has a statistically significant and negative impact on property values.
The results also show that monetary damages decrease with the increasing distance from the swine
production facility to the house. The results further indicate that expansion of swine production in
areas where hog concentration is already high will have smaller negative effects on surrounding
property values than when expansion occurs in low hog density areas.
The possibilities for future research in this area are numerous. The lack of more detailed
data on hogs production facilities prevented us from using a more realistic specification of
conditions under which adverse environmental impacts are likely to occur. For example, data on
hog farm locations would allow the inclusion of important variables such as exact distances between
farms and residences as well as prevailing wind patterns. Also, farming and managerial practices
may prove to be more important determinants of damages than the type of operation and the number
of animals. Including such variables may improve the overall fit of the model and provide valuable
guidance in designing regulatory proposals such as zoning, set -back requirements, and
recommended management practices.
15
Table 1: Variables of the hedonic model and their descriptive statistics.
Variable Description units Min Max Mean Std Dev
PRICE
market price
S
15000
320000
73132
36601
HTD
heated area
sq.ft
792
3817
1678
540
LOT
lot size
ac
16
8.5
1.16
1.1
BATH
bathrooms
#
1
4
1.8
.56
AGE
effective age
yrs
0
100
18.0
16.0
DATE
date of sale
yr.mo
90.06
94.08
92.06
.9
GAR2
2 -car garage
y/n
0
1
26
DECK
deck/patio
y/n
0
1
.49
FIRE
fireplace
y/n
0
1
.62
POPDTW
township population density
#/m2
9
1992
342
466
INC90CT
income by census tract (1990)
S/fam
19945
41145
27846
4780
TRAVCT
commute time by census tract
min
15.4
28.9
21.7
3.1
HRDO
herd count O -'h mile
#
0
5
.4
•7
HRDI
herd count 'h-1 mile
#
0
8
1.3
1.5
HRD2
herd count 1-2 mile
#
0
16
4.7
3.3
XHRD
herd index
index
.4
150000
82068
48296
NMANO
manure 0-'h mile
tons/yr
0
11016
331
1329
NMAN1
manure'fe-1 mile
tons/yr
0
48152
1780
4761
NMAN2
manure 1-2 mile
tons/yr
0
40467
6104
9210
XIv1AN
hog index
index
.00001
22.5
1216
3.014
Number of observations, n = 237.
16
Table 2: Estimation results for three alternative specifications. (Dependent variable was house price r.)
Variable
(1)
Coefficient
t -statistics
(2)
Coefficients
t -statistics
(3)
Coefficients t -statistics
Intercept
23.96
(13.8)'
141.73
(12.0)'
143.4
(11.9)'
Heated Area
.0207
(13.4)'
.0764
(13.6)'
.0764
(135)'
Lot size"
5378
(33)'
2.557
(1.7)'
2.559
(1.7)'
Bath rooms
.6854
(2.6)'
7.138
(2.8)'
7.093
(2.8)'
Effective age
-.0975
(123)'
-.9954
(13.1)'
-.9928
(13.0)'
Pre 1992
-.9373
(3.1)'
-8.246
(2.8)'
-8351
(2.8)'
Post 1992
3415
(13)
2384
(0.9)
2339
(0.9)
2 -car garage
1.242
(4.7)'
14.144
(55)'
14.228
(5.6)'
Dock/Patio
.7780
(35)'
8.280
(3.8)'
8.175
(3.7)'
Fireplace
2173
(0.9)
-2449
(0.1)
.1919
(0.1)
Pop. deasity
.0003
(1.4)
0001
(0.0)
A002
(0.1)
Commute time
-.0276
(0.7)
-5155
(1.2)
-5730
(1.4)
Family income"
.0097
(6.2)'
.2E(-6)
(5.9)'
.2E(-6)
(5.8)'
Manure index.V
-.0692
(2.2)`
-.7593
(33)'
-.9669
(3.0)'
Manurebend
-.1ZE(-5)
(0.1)
Lenoir County
-9.630
(25)`
-9.834
(25)`
Wayne County
-5036
(53)'
-5056
(53)'
Wayne x h area
.0664
(6.9)'
.0666
(6.9)'
Johnston x lot
8.460
(3.0)'
8.353
3.0)'
adjusted R2
.8567
.8927
.8923
F -value
1095
116516
109.612
Notes: Variables with superscript numbers were transformed using Box Cox techniques. The estimated Box Cox parameters are given
below for the regression in column (1) and the regressions in columns (2) and (3).
17
col(1)
col(2) do (3)
1
House Price A
.193
.408
2
Heated Area ,1
.766
.904
3
Lot size Ix
350
.650
4
Family income Il
596
1.855
5
Manure Index X
-.062
-.115
Superscript letter refer to the significance level of
the t -statistics presented in parentheses:
a
significant at the l % level;
b
significant at the 5°% level;
c
significant at the 10% level.
17
Table 3: Head capacities of market hogs within three rings surrounding a given house that produces the associated manure indent
C"AN).
XMAN" Manure per acres
0-% mile
%-1 mile
1-2 mile
index ton/aclyr
market head-capacie
0.0059 0.004
1
4
16
0.0275 0.018
6
18
72
0.0664 0.044
15
44
177
0.0930 0.062
21
62
249
0.2593 0.173
58
174
695
0.9114 0.608
204
611
2,444
2.4104 1.607
538
1,615
6,459
225 15.0
5,024
15,072
60,288
Notes:
1. The manure index (XMAN) formula is
presented by equation (1),
where y, Y, and y
are distance weights and were
estimated to be 1, 03 and 0.2, respectively.
2. Hog populations are assumed to be uniformly spread over a 2 mile radius from the house, implying manure (tans) per acre
is a constant measure.
3. An operation products an annual manure quantity of 1.5 tons per one market -head capacity (Barker. 1991). Dividing total
annual tons of manure by 1.5, estimates market -head capacity.
18
Table 4: Predicted values of the median price house" at different levels of hog proximity measures (XMAN) and the predicted
change in house value relative to initial hog concentrations when a 2400 head finishing floor is located within .5, 1
and 2 miles of the house.
Median house (by price) is a 40 year old rural residence with 2,034 ft, 2 full baths, and 1 fireplace on a lot size of
2.435 acres. The house does not have a garage or deck. It is located in Johnston County, North Carolina, in a
neighborhood of 260.2 people per miler and with a median family income of $25,671. The house was sold in 1992.
2. Range is based on the 95% confidence interval for the X IAN coefficient.
19
Predicted change in house value when a new
operation located within:
Location
in Predicted
XMAN
Distribution House value
'A mile
1 mile
2 mile
.0059
1/8
$65,284
S change
-$4,609
-$3,526
-52,472
range $63,056 - S67,559 v
% change
-7.06%
-5.40%
-3.79%
.0275
1/4
$63,924
S change
43,250
-$2,182
-$1,217
range S62-519- 565,348
% chane
-5.08%
-3.41%
-1.90%
.0664
3/8
563,253
S change
42,581
41,538
-$698
range $62.252 - $64,263
% chane
-4.08%
-2.43%
-1.10%
.0930
$63,015
$ change
42,345
-$1,318
4544
range $62.157-$63.879
%chane
-3.72%
-2.09%
-0.86%
.2593
5/8
$62,347
S change
-$1,687
-5749
-$226
range $61,891- $62.806
% chane
-2.71%
-1.20%
-0.36%
.9114
3/4
$61,634
$ change
-$1,008
-5295
-S64
range $61.605 - $61.663
%change
-1.64%
-0.48%
-0.10%
2.4104
7/8
$61,152
$ change
4594
-$120
-523
range $60,893 - $61,411
% chane
-0.97%
-0.20%
-0.04%
22.500
1
$60,234
S change
-$97
-S11
-S2
range $59.434-$61,041
%change
-0.16%
-0.02%
-0.00%
Median house (by price) is a 40 year old rural residence with 2,034 ft, 2 full baths, and 1 fireplace on a lot size of
2.435 acres. The house does not have a garage or deck. It is located in Johnston County, North Carolina, in a
neighborhood of 260.2 people per miler and with a median family income of $25,671. The house was sold in 1992.
2. Range is based on the 95% confidence interval for the X IAN coefficient.
19
Endnotes
This study was partially funded by a grant from the North Carolina Agricultural Research Service.
The work by Dr. Thomas McGinn and David Wray of the NC State Veterinarian's Office to compile
the hog farm data is greatly appreciated. Home sale data were collected with the help of Mike Baker,
Joe Hemingway, and Chris Rodwell of the Farm Credit Service along with Tim Medlin (Wayne
Realty) and Becky Sutton (Eastern Real Estate). Valuable comments on earlier drafts were provided
by Kelly Zering, Jim Easley, Wally Thurman, and Bill Foster. Any remaining errors are the
responsibility of the authors.
The only other odor valuation study of which we are aware appears in Lareau and Rae
(1989). This study employed contingent raking approach to estimate the value of reduced
exposure to diesel odors in the Philadelphia metropolitan area.
2. Data were collected on all rural home sales which were recorded by the Cape Fear, Tar Heel,
and East Carolina districts of the Farm Credit Association and the Sampson County Tax
Assessor's Office. In addition, rural sales from two private real estate companies were
included.
3. Many of the variables were discrete (e.g. count variables such as number of baths or binary
variables such as presence of a fireplace) and were not appropriate for Box -Cox
transformations.
4. This procedure is equivalent (except for scaling) to using total manure per ring and estimating
different new weights for each ring.
5. The sigmoid functional forms proved to be too inflexible (logistic and Gompertz) or too
complex to converge with maximum likelihood estimation (Richards).
6. The estimated threshold was extremely low. There were few observations with no hog
operations in the surrounding rings, but there were many observations with relatively low
index values. The threshold issue requires further research.
7. As expected, the herd index alone (not interacted with manure) also had no explanatory
power. This was expected because using the number of herds without considering the size
of the herds does not proxy the environmental effects of hog operations.
8. Some comparisons are made using the results in column 1.
9. The same index value could arise from a wide variety of distributions of animals among the
rings. The empirical results suggest that these different distributions would have the same
impact on house values. The uniform distribution used in the table is simply an example.
20
References
Abeles-Allison, M. and LJ. Conner. "An Analysis of Local Benefits and Costs of Michigan Hog Operation
Experiencing Environmental Conflicts." Agricultural Economics Report No. 536, Dept. of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1990.
Belsley, David A., Edwin Kuh, and Roy E. Welsch. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and
Sources of Collinearity, John Wiley and Sons, 1980
Barker, 1. Livestock Manure Characteristics, Dept. of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North
Carolina State University, 1990.
Freeman, A. Myrick. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, Resources for the Future,
1993.
Hurt, C. and K. Zering. "Restructuring the Nation's Pork Industry, NC State Economist, North Carolina
Cooperative Extension Service, September 1993.
Johnson, Thomas, "Modeling Growth for Economic Analysis of Dynamical Systems," Working paper, North
Carolina State University, October 1985.
Lareau, TJ. and D.A. Rae. "Valuing WTP for Diesel Odor Reductions: An Application of Contingent Ranking
Technique." Southern Economic Journal, 55, 1989, pp. 728-742.
North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture. 1993 North Carolina Summary of Agricultural Statistics, Raleigh, NC,
July 1994.
Palmquist, Raymond B., "Hedonic Methods" in John B. Braden and Charles D. Kolstad, eds. Measuring the
Demand for Environmental Quality, North -Holland, 1991, pp. 77-120.
Palmquist, Raymond B., "Valuing Localized Externalities," Journal of Urban Economics, 31, 1992x, pp. 59-
68.
Van Kleeck, RJ. and N.R. Bulley. "An Assessment of Separation Distance as a Tool for Reducing
Farm/Neighbour Conflict," Proceedings of the Fifth International Symposium on Agricultural
Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, 1985.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Washington D.C., 1992.
21
t,v IA (AN;
D V� 01 +��
0100AS05 - 0100.IS06
0100.1805 LNIVALIDATION OF PERIIIT.
An,. approved Conditional Use Permit shall become invalid unless a building permit is issued
within nine (9) months of final approval by the County Board.
0100.1806 STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PER.NMIT.
Subpart 1. Findings Required. No Conditional Use shall be recommended by the- ICount�
Planning Commission or Land Use Administrator unless said Commission or Administrator shall
find:
A. Conformance to the County Land Use Plan.
B. That the proposed use will not degrade the water quality of the County.
C. That theptoposed use «iii not adversely increase the quantity of water ruiiu ..
D. That the Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other
property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted.
E. That the establishment of the Conditional Use will not impede the normal and
orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for
predominant uses. -in the area.
F. - That adequate utilities. access roads; draina,e and other necessary facilities ha vc.
been or are being provided.-
G. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide suFacient off-s='ct
parking and. loading space to serve the proposed use.
H. That ade:;uate nne^,u,L-S have bceri or will be taken to prevent or control off�n3ive
odor, funics, dust, noise and vibration, so that none of these will co:lstitutc a.
nuisance, and io co:lout lighted si jti3 Ind :,t: c, lig :ta s, "I'll, a -^e: +t,ar r,,
disturbance to neighboring properties will result.
1. That soil conditions are adequate to accorn—niodate the proposed use.
J. ;'lint proper facilities are provided wl:ic:ll would eliminate any traffic conacstion
or trti' is h2zard ':tihich may result'turn &,,: proposed use.
I%. That the d: nsity of proposed reside-ltial develoontent is not greater th�..n t':e
dicnEity _,en-nitzed t 1 the Lanka' L1 e Dist= in wl,,tch located.
3
0100.1806- 0100.181006
i
L. That the intensity of proposed commercial or industrial development is not greater
than the intensity of t :e surrounding uses or not greater than the intensity
characteristic of the applicable Land Use District.
N1 1. That the proposed use does not create a potential pollution hazard.
N. Site specific conditions and such other conditions as required for the protection of
the public's health, safety, morals, and general welfare.
Subp. 2. Authority to Impose Condikions. The County Board in order to achieve the standards
stated in 0100.1806, Subp 1. of this Section may require reasonable chances in building design.
landscaping, screening, and may impose conditions requiring reasonable maintenance of the
premises.
0100.1807 ADVERSE ENVIRONIIE�'T'_AL EFFECT.
The applicant for a Conditional Use Permit which, in the opinion of the PIanning Corm-nission,
may result in a material adverse effect on the environmental may be requested by the Board to
demonstrate the nature and extent of the effect.
0100.1808 PE1Z:YUT VALID FOR FItiTJ YEARS.
A Conditional Use Permit shall be for a period of five (5) years unless othenwise stated on the
permit. after the fourth, and prior to the fish anniversary date of the permit, the Counry Board
,A,M review the Conditional Use Permit to dete.:.iine ii u'te permit should be continued, amended,
or allowed to terminate.
0100.1809 RECORDU G.
The Land Use Administrator shall file a cenif ed coov of any Conditional Use Permit vvitli the
Land Records Department for record. The Conditional Use Permit shall Lnclude the le�,al
description of the property involved.
0100.1810 CONTPLIANCE.
.any use permitted under the terms of any Conditional Use Permit shall be established and
conducted in conformity to the terms of such permit and of any conditions designated in
connection therewith. Failure to comply ,vith the terms of the pern.it shall cause automatic
termination of the pernlit and the use may not be continued or re -started v-ritLout County Beard
approval.
Pa -.90
CIIAPTER 130.02
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 1. Jurisdiction. The provisions of this Ordinance
shall apply to all animal feedlots that exceed 10 animal units,
A.U., as defined in this Ordinance., and to all areas of Blue
Earth County outside the incorporated limits of municipalities.
Subd. 2. Compliance. The use of any land for the establishment,
expansion or management of an animal feedlot shall comply with
the provisions of this Ordinance, the Blue Earth County Zoning
Ordinance, and the provisions of MPGA Rules.
Subd. 3. Administration and Enforcement. The Feedlot Officer is
responsible for the administration and enforcement of this
Ordinance. The Board may establish by resolution, application,
permit and such other fees necessary to fund the administration
and enforcement of this Ordinance.
Any violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to
comply with any of its requirements, including violations of
conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants
of variances or conditional uses, shall constitute a misdemeanor
and shall be punishable as defined by law. Violations of this
Ordinance can occur regardless of whether or not a permit is
required for a regulated activity pursuant to this Ordinance.
Subd. 4. Interpretation. In the interpretation and application,
the provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be minimum
requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the
public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Blue Earth
County by providing for the commonly approved animal husbandry
practices used in the management of animal feedlots.
Suhd— 5. Severability. If any section, clause, provision, or
portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid
by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this
Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
Subd. 6. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not the
intent of this Ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or inpair any
existing ordinances, rules or statute. However, when this
Ordinance is inconsistent wire any other orciinauc:� , L uJ.t: vs
statute, the ordinance, rule or statute which imposes ;:he greater
restriction shall prevail.
Subd. 7. Amendment. This Ordinanca may be amended whenelier the
public necessity and the general welfare require such amendment
by following the procedure specified in this Subdivision.
2
[1] Proceedings for Amendment. Proceedings for amendment of
this ordinance shall be initiated as follows:
a. A recommendation of the County Planning Commission.
b. By action of the Board of County Commissioners.
[2] Notice of Public Hearing. A notice of public hearing,
containing date, time and location of hearing as well as a
description of the proposed amendment, shall be published in
the official newspaper of the County at least ten (10) days
in advance of the public hearing.
[3] Public Hearing. The County Planning Commission shall
hold a public hearing, as published in the official newspa-
per of the county, and shall make a report of its findings
and recommendations on the proposed amendment to the County
Board of Commissioners and the Zoning Administrator within
sixty (60) days after the hearing.
a. If no report or recommendation is transmitted by the
County Planning Commission within sixty (60) days after
the hearing, the Board may take action without awaiting
for such recommendation.
Upon the filing of such report or recommendation, the Board
may hold such public hearings upon the amendment as it deers
advisable. After the conclusion of the hearings, if any,
the Board may adopt the amendment or any part thereof in
such form as it deems advisable. The amendment shall be
effective only if a majority of all members of the Board
concur with its' passage.
[4] Recording. Upon the adoption of any ordinance or other
official control including any maps or charts supplemented
to or as a part thereof, the County Auditor shall file a
certified copy thereof with the County*Recorder or Registrar
of Titles for record. Ordinances, resolutions, maps or
regulations filed with the County Recorder or Registrar of
Titles pursuant to this Ordinance do not constitute- encum-
brances on real property.
Subd. S. Definitions. Unless specifically defined below, words
or phrases used in this Ordi.n?r.re sha.�.l. hA )n+�ArprP.t nC cq ?a_ to
give them the same meaning as they have in common usage and so as
to give this Ordinance its most reasonable application. For the
purpose of this Ordinance, the words "mus -t" and "shall" are
mandatory and not permissive. All distances, unless otherwise
specified, shall be measured horizontally. The word "person" or
"feedlot operator" shall include individuals, businesses, firms,
associations, organizations, partnerships, trusts, campznies, and
corporations.
3
[1] Abandoned Water Well. "Abandoned Water Well" means a
well whose use has been permanently discontinued, or which
is in such disrepair that its continued use for the purpose
of obtaining ground water is impractical or may be a health
hazard.
[2] Agency. "Agency" means the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency as established in Minnesota Statues, Chapter 116.
[3] Agriculture. The use of land for agricultural purpos-
es, including farming, dairying, pasturage agriculture,
horticulture, floriculture, viticulture, and animal and
poultry husbandry and the necessary accessory uses for
packing, treating or storing the produce; provided, however,
that the operation of any such accessory uses shall be
secondary to that of primary agricultural activities.
[4] Animal Feedlot. A lot or building, or combination of
contiguous lots and buildings, intended for the confined
feeding, breeding, raising, or holding of animals and spe-
cifically designed as a confinement area in which manure may
accumulate, or where the concentration of animals is such
that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the
enclosure. For purposes of these parts, open lots used for
feeding and rearing of poultry (poultry ranges) and barns,
dairy facilities, swine facilities, beef lots and barns,
horse stalls,.mink ranches and domesticated animal zoos,
shall be considered to be animal feedlots. Pastures shall
not be considered animal feedlots under these parts.
[5] Animal Manure. "Animal Manure" means poultry, live-
stock, or other animal excreta, or a mixture of excreta with
feed, bedding or other materials.
[6] Animal Unit (A.U.). "Animal Unit" means a unit of
measure used to compare differences in the production of
animal manures that employs as a standard the amount of
manure produced on a regular basis by a 1000 pound slaughter
steer or heifer.
[7] Bluff. "Bluff" means a topographic feature such as a
hill, cliff, or embankment with an average slope of 18
percent or greater over a horizontal distance of 50 feet.
[8] Board. The word "Board" includes the "County Commis-
sioners", the "Board of County Commissioners" or any other
word or words meaning the "Blue Earth County Board of Com-
missioners."
[9] Certificate of Compliance. A letter from the MPCA
commissioner to the owner of an animal feedlot stating that
the feedlot meets the agency standards, and that the live -
2
stock operation does not create or maintain a potential
pollution hazard, or if a potential pollution hazard exist-
ed, it has been corrected to meet MPGA requirements.
[10] Blue Earth County Feedlot Permit. A permit from the
county feedlot officer to the owner of an animal feedlot
stating that the feedlot meets the requirements of this
Ordinance.
[11] Change in operation. An increase beyond the permitted
maximum number of animal units, or an increase in the number
of animal units which are confined at an unpermitted animal
feedlot requiring a construction investment, or a change in
the construction or operation of an animal feedlot that
would affect the storage, handling, utilization, or disposal
of animal manure.
[12] Conditional Use. A use that because of special
characteristics attendant to its operation, may be permitted
in a district as a conditional use with site specific re-
quirements, as determined and approved by the Board, that
protect the public health, safety and welfare of the commu-
nity.
[13] Conservation Zoning District. A district based on
topographic, physiographic, and soil conditions that will:
a. Be protective of the environmentally fragile areas
in Blue Earth County;
b. Retain major areas of natural ground cover for
conservation purposes;
c. Deter abuse of water resources and conserve other
natural resources of the County.
[14] Corrective or Protective Measure. A practice, struc-
ture, condition, or combination thereof which prevents or
reduces the discharge of pollutants from an animal feedlot
to a level in conformity with MPC1 rules.
[15] County. The term "County" as used in this Ordinance
means Blue Earth County.
[15] Domestic Fertilizer. For the purposes of this Ordi-
nance domestic fertilizer means:
a. Animal manure that is put on or injected into thw
soil to inprove the rnzality or quantity of plant
grovth; or
b. Animal manure that is used as compost, -oil condi-
5
tioners, or specialized plant beds.
[17] Earthen Storage Basin. For the purposes of this Ordi-
nance, Earthen Storage Basin is considered a Manure Storage
Area.
[18] Feedlot Officer. An individual, appointed by the
Board, and is responsible for administering this Ordinance.
[19] Feedlot operator. An individual, a corporation, a
group of individuals, a partnership, joint venture, owner or
any other business entity having charge or control of one or
more livestock feedlots, poultry lots or other animal lots.
[20] Floodplain. Floodplain means the beds proper and the
areas adjoining a wetland, lake or watercourse which have
been, or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood and
as shown on the Blue Earth County Flood Insurance Rate Map
dated March 5, 1990.
[21] Hardship. "Hardship" means the same as that term is
defined in :Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 394.
[22] Immediate Incorporation. "Immediate Incorporation"
means the mechanical incorporation of manure into the soil
within 48 hours.
[23] Interim Permit. A permit issued by the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency or the county feedlot officer which
expires no longer than ten months from the date of issue.
[24] Lagoon. A biological treatment system designed and
operated for biodegradation,.to convert organic matter such
as feed, bedding, and body byproducts in animal wastes to
more stable end products.
[25] Manure Storage Area. Means an area associated with an
animal feedlot where animal manure or runoff containing
animal manure is stored until it can be utilized as domestic
fertilizer or removed to a permitted animal manure disposal
site. Animal manure packs or mounding within the animal
feedlot shall not be considered to be manure storage for the
purposes of this Ordinance.
[25] National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). A permit issued by the MPCA for the purpose of
regulating the discharge of pollutants from point sources
including concentrated animal feeding operations.
[27] Ncw Animal Feedlot. An animal feedlot constructed and
operated at a site where an animal feedlot did not previous-
ly exist.
0
[28'3 Nonconformity. "Nonconformity" means any legally
established use, structure or parcel of land before the
adoption of this Ordinance, or amendments thereto, that is
not in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
[29] Ordinary High Rater Level. The landward boundary of
public waters and wetlands which delineates the highest
water level which has been maintained for a sufficient
period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape. This is
commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes
from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial.
For watercourses, the ordinary high water level is the
elevation of the top of the bank of the channel.
[30] Pastures. Means areas where grass or other growing
plants are used for grazing and where the concentration of
animals is such that a vegetation cover is maintained during
the growing season except in the immediate vicinity of
temporary supplemental feeding or water devices.
[31] Potential Pollution Hazard. A condition which indi-
cates a potential for pollution of the land or waters of the
state including, but not limited to:
a. An animal feedlot or manure storage area whose
boundaries are located within shoreland or floodplain,
or are located in an area draining directly to a sink-
hole or draining to an area with shallow soils overlay-
ing a fractured or cavernous rock, or are located
within 100 feet of a water well; or
b. An animal feedlot or manure storage area whose
construction or operation will allow a discharge of
pollutants to surface or groundwater of the state in
excess of applicable standards, including, but not
limited to, MN Rules Chapters 7050 and 7055, during a
rainstorm event of less magnitude than the 25 -year,
(4.9 inches), 24- hour event, or will violate any
applicable state rules.
[32] Public Waters. Any waters as defined in Minnesota
Statutes, Section 103G, subdivisions 14 and 15.
[33] Residauc e. Ii dwelling where a person or persons live.
[34] Riparian. "Riparian" means land contiguous with the
bank of a stream, the shore of a lake, or th<2 edge of a
wetland.
[35] Seasonal IIic;h 7" t^r Table. The highest elevation in
the soil where all voids are filled �-aith watei:, as evidenccd
by presence of water or soil mottling or other information.
7
[36] Shoreland. Land located within the following distances
from public water:
a. 1,000 feet from the ordinary high water level of a
lake, pond, or flowage.
b. 300 feet from a river or stream, or the landward
extent of a flood plain designated by ordinance on a
river or stream, whichever is greater.
[37] State Animal Feedlot Permit. A State Animal Feedlot
Permit is issued when an identified potential pollution
hazard cannot be corrected within a 10 month period because
the solution is not technically or economically feasible, or
the manure is not used as a domestic fertilizer.
[38] Steep Slopes. "Steep slopes" are lands having average
slopes over 12 percent, and less than 18 percent as measured
over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more.
[39] Structure. "Structure" means any building or appurte-
nance and other supporting facilities.
[40] Unused/Abandoned Feedlot. A pre-existing animal feedlot
that has been abandoned or unused for a period of five
years.
[41] Variance. Any person may apply for a variance from any
requirements of MN Rules Part 7020.1500 to 7020.1900. Such
variances shall be applied for and acted upon by the MPCA in
accordance to MN Statutes, Section 116.07, subdivision 5,
and other applicable statutes and rules.
[42] Waters of the State. "Waters of the State" means all
streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways,
wells, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems,
drainage systems, and all other bodies or accumulations of
water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public
or private, which are contained within, flow through, or
border upon the state or any portions thereof.
[43] Wetland. "Wetland" means a surface water feature
f ' :.•ct' and in the Unit_cd States Fish and W; 1 c7-
classy ie:,. ac a .�
life Service circular Pio. 39 (1971 edition) .
8
CaAPTER 13 0.03
ADMINISTRATION
Subdivision 1. Certificate of Compliance and Blue Earth County
Feedlot,; Permit is Required. No person shall operate an animal
feedlot greater than ten (10) animal units without first obtain-
ing a feedlot permit from Blue Earth County. In addition, a
Cert if icate of Compliance from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency and a County feedlot permit is required when any of the
following conditions exist:
[1] A new feedlot is proposed where a feedlot did not previ-
ously exist.
[2] A change in operation of an existing animal feedlot is
p:; oposed.
[3] A change in ownership, which includes the transfer of a
feedlot operation from one member of a family to another
member of the family.
[4] An existing feedlot is to be restocked after being
abandoned, or unused for 5 or more years.
(5) An inspection by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPGA) staff or county feedlot officer reveals that the
feedlot is creating a potential pollution hazard.
Subd. 2. Exceptions. The following conditions are exceptions to
the requirements of this Ordinance:
[1] Animal feedlots within shoreland, with an animal density
greater than one (1) animal unit per acre, shall be reviewed
by the Blue Earth County feedlot officer to determine if a
potential pollution hazard exists.
[2] Temporary uses involving 10 animal units or more may be
exempted by the Board, but not to exceed 14 calendar days.
[3] A certificate of compliance and county feedlot permit is
required for feedlots with f enie-r than (10 ) anima.1 units whe21
a MPCA or county inspection reveals an uncorrected potential,
pollution hazard.
Subd. 3. Responsibility for Obtaining a Fcedlot Pe=rt,. The
landowner, the owner and operator of a proposed or existing
feedlot facility are responsible, and shall obtain a coulzty
feedlot permit prior to the comnenccm{cnt of a new feedlot, or the
expansion of an existing feedlot. The permit will specify that
the feedlot operation conforms to the requirenent-s of this
Ordinance. Any use, arrangement, or ccnsl:.ruction at varianc=c
WA
with that authorized by permit shall be deemed a violation of
this Ordinance and shall be punishable as provided in this.
Ordinance.
Subd. 4. Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency is the authority to issue all certifi-
cates of compliance.
Subd. S. Issuance of a Blue Earth County Feedlot Permit. The
feedlot officer shall issue a Blue Earth County feedlot permit
for any animal feedlot that is in compliance with this Ordinance.
Subd. 6. Land Use Development Permit. No land use development
permit, a permit to begin construction, shall be issued until a
feedlot permit has been issued by Blue Earth County and a Certif-
icate of Compliance has been issued by the MPCA.
Subd. 7. Blue Earth County Feedlot Permit Review. The county
feedlot officer shall conduct an on-site review of a feedlot
operation, in the following circumstances, to assure coi<<pliance
with this Ordinance:
[1] When a new application for a feedlot permit is received.
[2] When a written complaint has been determined to be valid
by the feedlot officer.
[3] On a random basis of the permitted feedlots each year.
[4] When a feedlot operator has received a written warning
of a potential violation, or a written notice of a violation
of this Ordinance, the following shall apply:
a. The initial review shall verify whether all problems
have been corrected and that the operation of the
feedlot is in compliance with this Ordinance.
b. The feedlot officer may conduct subsequent reviews
of the feedlot operation to insure that corrective
practices are being implemented.
[5] Those feedlots that have been designated ar, having the
highest potential to pollute shall bo subject t+ mare fre-
quent review.
[6] All other feedlots shall be contacted periodically. The
contact may consist of a response to written questions
regarding the operation of the facility, or it may also, but
not necessarily, include an on-site visit to the fcedlo•t.
Contact may also include attendance of educational neetirvjs
for feedlot operators.
'L0
[7] A written review of the feedlot's operation and compli-
ance with this Ordinance shall be completed by the feedlot
officer each time an on-site review is conducted. The feed-
lot operator and owner shall be provided with a copy of the
review by mailing to the address provided on the annual
permit within 15 working days of the on-site visit.
Subd. B. Variances. Variances may only be granted in accordance
with the provisions of this Ordinance and Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 394.
[1] A variance may not circumvent the general purposes and
intent of this Ordinance.
[2] A variance may not be granted that would allow any use
that is prohibited in the zoning district in which the
subject property is located.
[3] Conditions may be imposed in the granting of a variance
to ensure compliance.
Subd. 9. Non -Conforming Use. Any use or occupancy which on the
effective date of this Ordinance does not conform to the provi-
sions of this Ordinance is a non -conforming use. A county feedlot
permit is required for all non -conforming feedlots.
[1] Non -Conforming Use: Continued, Restored, or Abandoned.
a. A non -conforming use may not be enlarged, but may be
continued, or restored in accordance with this Subdivi-
sion.
b. Any non -conforming use which is abandoned or which
is discontinued for a period of one year may not be re-
sumed, and any future use or occupancy of the land
shall conform to this Ordinance.
[2] Non -Conforming Uses: Alteration, or Moving.
a. A non -conforming use or occupancy may be altered,
provided such alterations do not intensify or physical-
ly expand or extend the non -conforming use.
b. A non -conforming building or structure moved to a
different location on a single parcel or land shall be
brought into conformance with this Ordinance.
[3] Non -Conforming Uses: Damage or Destruction.
a. When a non -conforming use or occupancy is destroyed
by fire or other peril to the c'::tent of 50% of its;
mar];:et value, as determined by tho County Assessor, any
11
subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises
shall conform to this Ordinance.
[4] Restoration and Repair. A non -conforming str=ucture may
be restored or repaired as follows:
a. To comply with state law and county ordinances;
b. If damaged to an extent less than fifty percent
(50%) of its market value as determined by the County
Assessor;
c. To effect repairs and necessary maintenance which
are non -structured and incidental to the use or occu-
pancy, provided such repairs do not constitute more
than fifty percent (50%) of its market value as deter-
mined by the Assessor.
t:�
CHAPTER 130.04
PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES
subdivision 1. Permitted Uses. Existing and new feedlots are a
permitted use only in the agricultural zoning district if they
have a Blue Earth County feedlot permit pursuant to this Ordi-
nance.
Subd. 2. Conditional Uses. A conditional use permit and a Blue
Earth County feedlot permit is required when the following
conditions exist:
[1] The proposed expansion, or modification of an existing
feedlot, or a new feedlot in a conservation district.
[2] The proposed expansion or modification of an existing
feedlot, or a new feedlot in the shoreland district.
[3] A lagoon system, or an earthen storage basin is proposed
for the storage or treatment of animal waste.
[4] A feedlot that exceeds 10 animal units when it has been
determined to be a potential pollution hazard as defined in
this Ordinance.
[5] When a feedlot operator has received a written notice of
a violation of this Ordinance.
[6] A new feedlot exceeding 300 animal units.
[7] The expansion of an existing feedlot if the cumulative
total exceeds 300 animal units.
[8] When the riPCA issues an Interim Permit, a State Feedlot
Permit, or a NPDES Permit.
[9] A new feedlot to be located, or the expansion of an
existing feedlot within one half mile of a county, municipal
or state park.
[10] A new feedlot or the expansion of an existing feedlot
within two miles of a municipal border.
[11] A new feedlot within one half mile of a municiFal boun-
dary is prohibited unless there is a written agreement from
the affected municipality.
[12] Other feedlots as dete=ined by the feedlot officer.
13
Subd. 3. Standards for Conditional Use Permits. The County may
impose in addition to the standards and requirements set forth in
this Ordinance, additional conditions which the Planning Commis-
sion or Board consider necessary to protect the public health,
safety, and welfare. This may include, but is not limited to the
following conditions:
[1] Conditional Use Permits shall be in effect only as long
as sufficient land specified for spreading manure is avail-
able and being used for such purposes as regulated otherwise
by this Ordinance.
[2] All feedlots shall be operated in a manner consistent
with the MPCA certificate of compliance and this Ordinance.
(Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7005.0950 states that agricultural
odors from cropland activities such as spreading fertilizer,
pesticides and manure [MPGA] are not air pollution.)
[3] For all new feedlots greater than 1000 animal units, or
the expansion of existing feedlots to more than 1000 animal
units, the Board may require the applicant, or permit hold-
er, to furnish a bond, or payment to the Earthen Basin
Closure Fund for reclamation purposes based upon the Animal
Units involved. The bond shall be approved by the feedlot
officer and the Blue Earth County Attorney. Payment of the
closure fee does not relieve the owner or operator from the
legal responsibility or obligation to close the facility as
required by federal, state, or county regulations. The
closure fee will be used to close the facility, only after
all other sources have been exhausted.
[9] All manure storage lagoons and earthen storage basin
shall conform with MPCA design standards. All plans for
manure storage lagoons and earthen manure storage basins
shall be designed, and the plans signed, by an agricultural
or civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, or
by qualified staff of the United States Department of Agri-
culture Soil Conservation Service.
[5] An agricultural or civil engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota or qualified staff of the United States
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service shall
provide the county FLedlot Ctf fiLcr %.i th� � r ri .i7"Y_9. n`. r.-1. rnstr c
-
tion report and certification that the manure storage la-
goon, or earthen manure storage basin was constructed to the
standards of the approved plans.
[G] The owner and/or operator may be required to post a roac1
bond in the amount of $2,500 per miles to pay for the cost oi:
any repair of damag to the roadcaay cau;ied as a result of
the construction of the facility.
14
[7] Land used for manure application may be limited to a
two mile radius from the earthen basin. Effluent will be
land applied with the chisel plow and drag -line injection
method, unless otherwise specified on the permit.
(8] For new earthen basins, storing 1,000 animal units of
manure or more, the Board may require an independent inspec-
tor, of the county's choosing, to inspect the site during
construction of the basin. The inspection may include sample
cores of the clay liner as required to ascertain the compac-
tion density of the liner. The applicant shall be responsi-
ble for all cost associated with the inspection and testing.
15
CILAPTER 130.05
INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR A BLUE EARTH COUITTY FEEDLOT PERMIT.
subdivision 1. Information Required. In general, the following
information is required for review prior to the issuance of a
county feedlot permit, or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
certificate of compliance:
[1] A completed permit application listing the names, ad-
dressees, and telephone numbers of the landowner, all owners
and operators and signed by at least one of the owners.
[2] The maximum number of animals of each type that will be
confined at the feedlot at one time.
[3] A description of the geological condition, soil types
and seasonal high water table.
[4] A map or aerial photo indicating dimensions of feedlot,
showing all existing homes, buildings, lakes, ponds, water
courses, wetlands, dry runs, rock out -cropping, roads,
wells, topographic contours and surface water drainage
within 1,000 feet of the feedlot.
[5] Manure management planning should include, but not
limited to, the following information:
a. ASCS aerial photographs of the location of all
manure application sites and acreage reports.
b. If an area to be used for land spreading of manure
is not owned, or operated by the feedlot owner or
operator, then proof of a written agreement bet:aeen
feedlot owner and/or operator and landowner shall h^
furnished showing the land to be used for land spread-
ing manure.
c. Manure handling and applicat-ion techniques.
d. Plans for proposed manure storage and/or_ pollution
abatement structure.
e. A nutrient analysis of the sails and manure when
required by the feedlot officer.
f. Permits shall be amended to record any changes in
land used for manure application.
1 _;
[6] A site plan showing the following information:
a. The locations and dimensions of all animal confine-
ment buildings including outside lots.
b. The locations and dimensions of any manure storage
facilities, including those not located in a building.
c. The location of any well, active or abandoned, and
its distance to the nearest confinement building or
outside lot.
d. The drainage patterns on the site.
[7] In some instances, because of site specific, or opera-
tional considerations, the feedlot officer may require
additional information.
[8] Method/plan for disposal of dead animals shall be con-
sistent with the Minnesota Board of Animal Health regula-
tions.
subd. 2. Manure Management Education. Manure management is a
complex issue that is an important part of a feedlot's operation.
The best plan for utilizing manure is a specific plan designed
with the input of the feedlot operator. Without the feedlot
operator's full cooperation and coordination, the implementation
of any manure management plan is difficult.
Feedlot operators must be aware of the many variables associated
with manure management. Feedlot operators shall be encouraged to
use educational and technical sources to develop an individual
manure management pian based upon current best management prac-
tices.
The county feedlot officer shall cooperate.with state and federal
agencies, and industry to make current manure management educa-
tion publications and a list of independent consultants available
to the feedlot operator when applying for a Blue Earth County
feedlot permit.
3.7
CHAPTER 130.05
SETBACKS FOR FEEDLOTS AND MF14URE APPLICATION
Subdivision 1. Nealy Constructed Feedlots. Newly constructed
feedlots will meet the following setbac. requirements of this
ordinance:
[1] New feedlots may not be located in 100 year floodplain.
[2] New feedlots may not be located closer than 200 feet
from any public, or private well less than 50 feet deep, or
if such well is not located in an aquifer protected by a
geologic confining layer. This includes abandoned wells
that have not been sealed in accordance with the Blue Earth
County Water Well Ordinance.
a. New feedlots shall setback 100 feet from all other
wells.
[3] New feedlots or expansion of an existing feedlot shall
be setback at least 30 feet from the top of a steep slope
when adjacent to any riparian zone.
[4] New feedlots must be setback 100 feet from a pudic or
private drainage ditch.
[5] New feedlots must be setback 500 feet from a residence
other than the owner's or operator's.
[6] New feedlots must be setback 50 feet from all other
property lines.
Subd. 2. Manure Application Setbacks for All Feedlot3. The land
application of manure shall be setback as follows:
Setback From The Spreading injection or
Following Physical Without Incorporation
Features/Structures Incorporation Within Oft Hours
Streams or rivers Subd. 3. below
Lakes subd. 3. beluw
Wetlands*
Public & private
drainage ditches
Surface tile inlets
Plater wells
Subd. 3. below
100 feet
100 feel --
200
eel --200 feet3. $3
50 feet
100 i���.. _
_
-�
50 feet
2 J f eet
2.5 feet
200 feet
Irrigation
200
fit
,.,0
V
I. 4
200
feaet
200
f---Qa:
200
200
Setback From The
Spreading
Injection or
Irrigation
Following Physical
without
Incorporation
Features/Structures
Incorporation
Within 48 Hours
feet
Sinkhole
100 feet
50 feet
200 feet
Residential dwellings
500 feet
300 feet
1000 feet
Public roads (ROW line) 25 feet
10 feet
300 feet
Floodplain
Prohibited
Permitted
Prohibited
* Non -exempted wetlands as defined in
Minnesota Wetland
Conserva-
tion Act of 1991.
6%
All Soils
Frozen
Subd. 3. Setbacks for Spreading Manure without Incorporation.
The following separation distances and prohibition, based upon
percent of slope, soil texture as defined in the Blue Earth
County Soils Survey and time of year, apply to the land applica-
tion of manure without immediate incorporation.
Slope Soil Texture Time of Year Separation Prom
surface waters
0-6% Coarse Not Frozen 100 feet
0-6%
Coarse
Frozen
200
feet
0-6%
Medium to fine
Not Frozen
200
feet
0-6%
Medium to fine
Frozen
300
feet
Over
6%
Coarse
Not Frozen
200
feet
Over
6%
Medium to fine
Not Frozen
300
feet
Over
6%
All Soils
Frozen
Prohibited
:� 9
CHAPTER 130.07
GENERAL STANDARDS
Subdivision 1. In General. No animal feedlot or manure storage
area shall be constructed, located, or operated so as to create
or maintain a potential pollution hazard.
Subd. 2. Animal Manure. Any animal manure not utilized as
domestic fertilizer shall be treated or disposed of in accordance
with applicable state rules.
Subd 3. Animal Unit (A.U.). "Animal Unit" means a unit of
measure used to compare differences in the production of animal
manures. It uses as a standard, the Zmount of manure produced on
a regular basis by a 1000 pound slaughter steer or heifer.
Livestock Animal Unit Animals = 300 A.U.
1 mature dairy cow 1.4 215
1 slaughter steer/heifer 1.0 300
1 horse 1.0 300
1 swine over 55 m 0.4 750
1 nursery pig to 55 lb 0.05 6,000
1 sheep 0.1 3,000
1 turkey 0.018 16,500
1 chicken 0.01 30,000
Other animals -- average weight of anima1/1,OOO1')` = A.U.
Subd. 4. Manure Storage. New concrete manure storage pits shall
provide a minimum of eight months storage capacity. Animal
manure, when utilized as domestic fertilizer, shall not be storad
for longer than one year.
Subd. 5. nauure applicat--ion Rates. Ani-laal licuti^r.
rates should minimize adverse effects on public waters. Whenever
possible, manure should be applied at rates consistent with Best
Management Practices that are site specific to each farm and as
established the by the Stage of Minnesota.
When manure cannot ba applied at rates consistent with Best
Management Practices, then it shall be applied a-'%-- rat -es riot
exceeding local agricultural crop nitrogon r equirer�ents .
20
Subd G. Earthen Basin Storage Standards
[1] Each applicant shall provide the feedlot officer with an
annual manure management plan that includes the following:
a. Manure testing procedures and results.
b. Acreage and soil characteristics of the field.
c. Crop to be grown and yield goal.
d. Amount of manure to be applied to the field.
e. Other site specific information as required by the
zoning administrator or feedlot officer.
[2] Each applicant shall provide the feedlot officer with a
basin maintenance management plan and annual management
report for review by the zoning administrator or feedlot
officer. The feedlot officer shall provide forms to be used
as a guide for completing the plan.
[3] Each applicant shall provide the feedlot officer with
the results of Spring and Fall testing of the basin's perim-
eter tile by a certified laboratory. Testing will be for
nitrate and fecal coliform. The results of the tests will
be sent to the zoning administrator or feedlot officer for
review. If test results indicate that tile water exceeds
MPCA Health Risk Limits, HRL, the county may require reme-
dial action, and may require monitoring wells to be in-
stalled. If HRL are not exceeded for two consecutive years,
then one test a year may be required.
Subd. 7. Standards for the Transportation of Manure. All vehicles
used to transport animal manure on township, county, state, and
interstate highways or through municipalities shall be leak-
proof.
[1] Manure spreaders with end gates shall be considered to
be in compliance with this provision provided the end gate
works effectively to restrict leakage and the manure spread-
er is leak -proof.
[2] This provision shall not apply to animal manure being
hauled to fields adjacent to feedlot operations or fields
divided by roadways provided the animal manure is for use as
domestic fertilizer.
Subd. 3. Transportation of manure Into tho County. Any person
located outside the jurisdiction of Blue Earth County that
transports manure to Blue Earth. County with the intent of sto7- ng
o : spreading said manure within Blur: Fa::th County shall provide
2°
the County with a complete Manure Management Plan and shall
comply with all provisions of this Ordinance. Furthermore, the
animal manure shall be applied to the land in a manner consistent
with this Ordinance and with the Animal Feedlot Pollution Control
Requirements.
Subd. 9. Owner and Operator's Responsibility. The landowner, and
the owner, and the operator, of any animal feedlot shall be
responsible for the storage, transportation, and disposal of all
animal manure generated in a manner consistent with the provi-
sions of this Ordinance.
[1] Upon abandonment, termination or non -renewal of any
permit or certificate necessary to operate a feedlot, or
failure to operate the feedlot in any manner consistent with
these ordinances or with State and Federal regulations, the
landowner, and the owner and the operator of any feedlot
shall remain responsible for all costs of closure, cleanup
or other costs necessary to bring the property into compli-
ance with all Federal, State, and County regulations, and to
restore the property to a suitable use.
22
11/15/95: Questiongthat need
to be
answered regarding
comEartial�
feedlots within the
City
of Otsego.
1) CAN A FEEDLOT CUP BE RE-NEWABLE ON A A YEARLY BASIS ? (this
allows the city to close the feedlot down incase there are
problems with it, or future growth of the city finds that
continuing commercial feedlot is not compatible with a changing
city. There are no known laws stating that any CUP is to run
forever)
2) CAN A CITY STIPULATE THAT THE TRACT OF LAND ON WHICH A
FEEDLOT IS PLACED REMAIN AS ONE SECTION AND CAN NOT BE
SUBDIVIDED, SPLIT OR MADE INTO SMALLER PIECES?
(this will prevent any rezoning of property at later date if
feedlot goes bankrupt and keeps entire piece in ag status)
3) CAN A CITY STIPULATE THAT THE ENTIRE TRACT OF LAND WHICH
HAS A FEEDLOT ON IT MUST REMAIN ZONED AG?
4) CAN THE CITY REQUIRE EACH FEEDLOT TO HAVE A E.A.W.
(ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET) DONE AT THEIR EXPENSE.
(lets city know the environmental risks of this project)
5) CAN A PLASTIC LINER BE A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL LAGOON TYPE
MANURE PITS?. (this will prevent any ground water pollution.
the MPCA allows these pits to leak 500 gallons a day directly
into the ground Do we need to risk our clean water supply only
to find out the MPCA was wrong to allow this at a later day?
Sewage treatment plants use liners and this operation should
too.)
6) WHAT IS THE SAFEST DISTANCE FOR A FEEDLOT TO BE PLACEDFROM
ANY WETLAND, POND OR FLOWAGE ? (protects environment, follows
city ordinance)
7) CAN THE SETBACKS BE MADE EVEN FURTHER THAN THE MPCA RULES
ALLOW?
8) CAN A FEEDLOT BE PLACED FURTHER THAN 1000 FEET FROM
ANY NEIGHBORS WELL? (environment and health issue)
9) CAN FEEDLOTS BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A PERMANENT TEST WELL
AT SITE AND HAVE WATER TESTED TWICE A YEAR AND REPORT RESULTS
TO THE CITY IN A PERMANENT PUBLIC FILE?. (helps city monitor
pollution for nitrates)
10) CAN A FEEDLOT BE REQUIRED TO TEST ALL THE NEIGHBORS WELLS
WITHIN 2 MILE RADIOUS BEFORE THE FEEDLOT IS BUILT AND WILL TEST
EACH WELL ONCE A YEAR ? (this will help prove any change in
ground water pollution, nitrate levels and adverse effect of
the feedlot on neighborhood)
11) WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY WATER CLEAN UP CAUSED BY
THE FEEDLOT AT THE FEEDLOT SITE AND AT ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS
WELLS THAT MAY BE CONTAMINATED OR GO DRY? (neither the city
nor taxpayers should need to pay for a water problem that they
didn't create)
12) CAN FEEDLOTS BE REQUIRED TO CARRY INSURANCE OR POST A BOND
FOR ANY DAMAGE TO THE CITY AND NEIGHBORS AT ALL TIMES IN THE
AMMOUNT OF 5 MILLION DALLARS AND PROVIDE PROOF TO THE CITY
BI -ANNUALLY ? (this will ensure that the city will not have
to pay for any damages)
13) CAN THE OFFICERS/OWNERS OF A FEEDLOT BE MADE TO BE
PERSONNALY LIABLE FOR ANY ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, NEIGHBORING
PROPERTY DEVALUATION, OR CLEAN UP OF THE PROPERTY IN CASE OF
ABANDONMENT, SHUT DOWN OR BANKRUPTCY BY PLEDGING THEIR PERSONNAL
ASSETS WHICH CAN'T BE TRANSFERED INTO ANY OTHER PERSONS NAME
TO HIDE OR PROTECT THE ASSETS FROM THE CITY AND NEIGHBORS CLAIMS
? (this gives the taxpayers, the city and neighbors protection
from having to pay for any damages that feedlots create and
provides a chance of getting compensated from any loss resulting
from the feedlot operation.
14) WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR GUARANTEEING THE NEIGHBORING
PROPERTY'S FAIR APPRAISAL VALUE BASED ON WHAT THE PROPERTY WOULD
BE WORTH WITHOUT A FEEDLOT. (the residents should not suffer
a property value devaluation that is the direct result of placing
a feedlot next to them)
15) CAN THE CITY REQUIRE IN A CUP THAT A FEEDLOT CAN NEVER
CHANGE OVER IT'S USE FROM A COW FEEDLOT TO ANY OTHER ANIMAL
SUCH AS CHICKEN, PIGS, SHEEP OR TURKEY IN THE FUTURE BY ANY
OTHER NEW OWNER OR PARTNER ? (the city is issuing a dairy feedlot
CUP and not anything else which would require a new permit from
MPCA and new CUP from the city)
16) IF FOR ANY REASON A FEEDLOT CLOSES, CAN THE CITY
STIPULATE THAT THE PROPERTY CAN NEVER AGAIN BE USED BY ANY FUTURE
OWNER AS A FEEDLOT OF ANY KIND EVER AGAIN? ( this prevents
a feedlot from going bankrupt, closing the feedlot down, settling
with creditors for pennies on the dallar and then re -opening
under a new name to continue operating as a feedlot.
17) CAN CREDITORS TO THE FEEDLOT BE BANNED FROM OPERATING
A PROPERTY AS A FEEDLOT ? (prevents the continuation of a feedlot
under different management or corporation)
18) CAN THERE BE A LIMIT AS TO HOW MANY COWS ARE ALLOWED ON
A CUP AND THAT THE CUP WILL NEVER ALLOW ANYMORE COWS THAN THE
STATED NUMBER TO EVER BE EXCEEDED ? ( a MPCA permit allows for
up to 1,000 cows under the same permit if the operation goes
well for several years without having to apply for a new permit
on the existing feedlot and unless the city imposes limits on
the number of cows in the CUP, it can't stop anyone from
increasing the increase in cow numbers)
19) CAN THE CITY RANDOMLY 1 TIME PER QUARTER, 4 TIMES A YEAR
COUNT THE NUMBER OF COWS ON A FEEDLOT ? (this will assure
the city that the true number of animals at the feedlot)
20) CAN THE CITY REQUIRE THAT ANY FEEDLOT HAVE A 6 FOOT HIGH
SOLID WOODEN FENCE TOTALLY ENCLOSE THE MANURE PIT ? (this
prevents an attractive nuisance to both children and animals.
MPGA has no rules requiring a fence)
21) CAN THE CITY REQUIRE EACH FEEDLOT TO PLACE 3 ROWS OF
STAGGERED 8-10 FOOT TALL BLUE SPRUCE EVERGREENS TO BE PLANTED
AROUND THE ENTIRE PIT ? (this will help hide the pit and make
it aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood)
22) CAN THE PLACEMENT OF A 6 FOOT HIGH EARTHEN BERM BE REQUIRED
TO BE PLACED DOWN THE SIDE OF STREET FACING RESIDENTIAL HOMES
THAT A FEEDLOT FACES ? (this will cut down on noise from the
feedlot)
23) CAN THE CITY REQUIRE THAT 2 ROWS OF STAGGERED 6-8 FOOT
TALL BLUE SPRUCE EVERGREENS WILL BE PLACED DOWN THE ENTIRE SIDE
OF ANY STREET THAT A FEEDLOT FACES?.
24) can the city require that ANY EVERGREENS THAT DIE AT
ANYTIME WILL BE REPLACED WITH LIVE SAME SIZE, SAME TYPE OF
EVERGREENS within a month period? (this keeps the landscaping
uniform)
25) can the city require that a feedlot BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED
AT ALL TIMES ? (the city does not need a messy looking feedlot
to tarnish its image)
26) can WARNING SIGNS BE POSTED AT 50 FOOT INTERVALS WARNING
OF THE MANURE PIT AROUND PERIMETER OF WHOLE FEEDLOT ? (safety
issue)
27) can A WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN be submitted TO BOTH THE CITY
AND TO THE MPCA ANNUALLY? (lets city know how the waste is being
handled)
28) CAN THE CITY BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY OF LAND OWNERSNAMES,
ADDRESS, LOCATION AND TOTAL ACERAGES OF LAND WHICH A FEEDLOT
WILL USE FOR SPREADING THE LIQUID MANURE? (this allows city
to monitor where the liquid manure is being applied)
29) CAN BOTH THE FEEDLOT AND THE LANDOWNERS WHO ARE ALLOWING
THE FEEDLOT TO SPREAD LIQUID MANURE ON THEIR PROPERTY BE REQUIRED
TO NOTIFY THE CITY WITHIN 1 WEEK OF ANY CHANGE OF THE MANURE
SPREADING AGREEMENTS?. (this lets city know if any new or
additional areas being used for liquid manure spreading)
30) can feedlots USE ALL MEANS NECESSARY INCLUDING ADDING
CHEMICALS TO REDUCE ODOR FROM THE MANURE PITs?
31) WILL feedlots be prevented from AGITATing THE MANURE
PIT ( TO RELEASE NITROGEN INTO THE ATMOSPHERE SO THAT THE LIQUID
MANURE CAN BE SPREAD FASTER INTO THE GROUND) WITHOUT GIVING
THE NEIGHBORS A 3 WEEK ADVANCE NOTICE OF SUCH ACTION ? (the
neighbors need this incase they have social engagements such
as wedding receptions, family reunions, tours, or parties planned
at their homes on those dates since the odors associated with
agitation are a detrimine in allowing them to enjoy their
property
32) will feedlots be prevented from AGITATing AND SPREADing
THE LIQUID MANURE WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE NEIGHBORS 3 WEEKS IN
ADVANCE? (same reason as above item)
33) can the city prevent the AGITATION AND SPREADING OF LIQUID
MANURE ON WEEKENDS OR HOLIDAYS? (same reason as above items)
34) can the city forbid that THE HOSES USED FOR THE SPREADING
OF THE LIQUID MANURE WILL NOT BE PUT OR PLACED ON ANY CITY
STREET, ROAD, DITCH, CULVERT OR RIGHT OF WAY AT ANYTIME?. (there
is no reason that the city should make its property available
to benefit the feedlot by providing access to other areas of
the city. Also why should the right of ways be put at risk
incase of spills or hose breaking. who wants the mess and spill
in their ditches)
35) can the city demand that THE HOSES USED FOR SPREADING OF
LIQUID MANURE SHALL NOT BE PUT OR PLACED ON ANY PUBLICH RIGHT
OF WAY, DITCH, CULVERt FOR CLEANING PURPOSES ? (there is no
reason for the city to suffer a manure spill or to have a highly
concentrated manure residual be put on their property. who
is reponsible for the clean up and who would want this mess
and odor in the ditch in front of their property)
36) can the city require that THE HOSES USED FOR SPREADING
WILL BE INSPECTED BEFORE AND AFTER EACH USE and ANY
DAMAGE/REPAIR/REPLACEMENT TO THE HOSE WILL BE NOTED AND GIVEN
IN WRITING TO THE CITY?. (helps city in case of broken hose
polluting ground or spill)
37) can the city require that it will IMMEDIATELY NOTIFied
OF ANY SPILL OR ACCIDENT INVOLVING LIQUID MANURE and this MUST
BE MADE ORALLY AND ALSO IN WRITING and THIS INFORMATION WILL
BE PART OF A PERMANENT PUBLIC FILE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY?
(helps with clean up liability and to track safety of feedlot)
38) can the city disallow ANY DRY STORAGE OF MANURE ON ANY
feedlot?. (they have a pit and should use it)
39) cam the city require that ALL MANURE WILL BE COVERED IN
THE FIELDS THAT IT IS SPREAD ON ? (this will prevent odor and
flies)
40) can the city require that HALF OF THE LIQUID MANURE MUST
BE TRUCKED OUT OF THE CITY LIMITS AND BE SPREAD ELSEWHERE EACH
TIME THE PIT IS AGITATED ? (due to the high concentration of
the manure, the land can only be saturated with so much
concentration before it is permanently damaged. this will help
preserve the environment)
41) who WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MEDICAL COSTS AND
TREATMENT TO ALL RESIDENTS FOR ANY NEW HEALTH PROBLEMS RESULTING
FROM THE FEEDLOT? (neighbors were healthy before the feedlot
was placed and should expect compensation for experiencing
medical problems that had not existed prior to the feedlot was
placed)
42) can THE CITY MAINTAIN A PUBLIC FILE FOR ALL HEALTH HAZARDS
RELATED TO FEEDLOT, INCLUDING NEW HEALTH COMPLAINTS DOCUMENTED
BY THE CITY RESIDENTS ?
43) who WILL CLEAN ANY MESS CREATED OR CAUSED BY fedlots on
public roadways?
44) can the city require that 6 SOIL BORINGS FROM THE ACTUAL
SITE SHALL BE TAKEN AND THE RESULTS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
PERMANENT FILE AT CITY HALL?. (environmental information)
45) can THE STANCHON BARS THAT THE COWS PUT THEIR HEAD THROUGH
TO EAT WILL BE ENCLOSED IN RUBBER OR PLASTIC TO REDUCE THE NOISE
OF 400 COWS CLANGING METAL AGAINST METAL?. ( at the Glennwood
inspection the noise of the clanging was horrible and they only
had 200 cows. the noise is loud and can occur at any time 24
hours a day)
46) can the city require that there will be NO TRACTOR,
COMPRESSOR OR TRUCKS noises ALLOWED BETWEEN 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.?
47) can the city require that ALL LIGHTS MUST BE DIMMED AND
NOT SHINE TOWARD NEIGHBORS PROPERTY AFTER 9. p.m.?
48) can all FEEd BE STORED IN CONCRETE BUNKERS WITH ROOFS' AND
ALL OUTSIDE FEED BE required to be COVEREd?
49) can RODENT CONTROL BE made a requirment of a feedlot?
50) can feedlot operators BE held RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL INCREASED
RODENT CONTROL PROBLEMS AT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY'S AND COMPENSATE
NEIGHBORS FOR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED IN RODENT CONTROL?
51) can A VIGILANT FLY CONTROL PROGRAM BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE
OF THE FEEDLOT BUILDINGS be a requirement?
52) WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL INCREASED FLY PROBLEMS
AT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY'S AND who will COMPENSATE NEIGHBORS
FULLY FOR ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FLY CONTROL PROBLEMS?
53) what happens IF THE OPERATION OF THE FEEDLOT CAUSES THE
NEIGHBORS TO NO LONGER BE ABLE TO INHABIT THEIR HOMES EITHER
PERMANENTLY OR TEMPORARILY and who WILL TOTALLY AND COMPETELY
FINANCIALLY COMPENSATE THE NEIGHBORS FOR THE LOSS OF USE OF
THEIR PROPERTY?
54) who WILL ASSSUME LIABILITY AND FINANCIALLY COMPENSATE
ALL NEIGHBORS FOR ANY ILLNESS, MEDICAL COSTS, INJURIES AND VALUE
FOR OF ANY OF THEIR PETS THAT SUFFER AS A RESULT OF THE FEEDLOT?
55) WILL THE CITY be notified BOTH VERBALLY AND IN WRITING
IF THE FEEDLOT CEASES TO OPERATE AT ANY TIME?
56) who WILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY COSTS IN REMOVING ALL MANURE
FROM ALL BUILDINGS AND THE MANURE PIT IN CASE THE FEEDLOT CLOSES
FOR ANY REASON TEMORARILY OR PERMANENTLY?
57) what will the city do about complaints about the feedlot?
58) will the ciyt MAINTAIN AN OPEN FILE ON THE FEEDLOT
PERMANENTLY AND INCLUDE ANY INFORMATION IN IT THAT PERTAINS
TO THE FEEDLOT?. (this will provide documentation for the city
for CUP purposes)
59) how can the city shut down a feedlot?
60) will feedlot owners be required to post any damage bonds?
61) who is responsible for neighboring well contamination and
how will they be compensated?
62) what documents will the city require of feedlots?
63) why can't feedlots be classified as commmercial operations
and be required to fullfill all the requirements that any other
commercial business has to?
64) can the city keep the 1.4 cow limit to the acre to include
all feedlots?
65) can the city ban all new feedlots?
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
WATER QUALITY DIVISION
Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Information or Opinions Regarding Proposed
Amendment to Rules Governing Animal Feedlots, Minn. R. 7020.0100 - 7020.0900.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is
seeking opinion, information and comment from sources outside the MPCA to assist in the
preparation of proposed amendments to Minn. R. 7020.0100 - 7020.0900 governing the storage,
transportation, disposal and utilization of animal manure, and the application for and issuance of
permits and certificates of compliance for construction and operation of animal manure management
and disposal or utilization systems for the protection of the environment. The MPCA requests
information and opinions from the public concerning the subject matter of the rule. The amendment
of this rule is authorized by Minn. Stat. § 115.03, subd. 1, which permits the MPCA to adopt rules
governing water pollution control.
Rule amendments will concern the proper control, including storage, transportation, disposal
and utilization, of manure from animals such as livestock and poultry for the purpose of better
abating and preventing pollution of Minnesota waters. The types of groups or individuals likely to
be affected by rule amendments are owners and operators of feedlots, persons involved in the
storage, transportation, disposal and utilization of manure, those interested in management of
animals or related facilities, and those persons interested in Minnesota water quality.
The MPCA will define the scope of the rule amendments over the next several months, and
will then begin work on developing draft rule amendments. To assist the MPCA with amendments
to Minn. R. ch. 7020, the MPCA is particularly interested in receiving comments on subjects
currently being considered by the MPCA as part of the rule amendment process and on the issues
raised by the public during the prior public comment solicitation period. Listed below are MPCA's
priorities for rule revision as well as related issues raised by the public during a comment solicitation
period previously published in the State Register on May 1, 1995.
MPCA Priorities for the Feedlot Rule Revision:
A. Define seepage limits for earthen basins;
B. Address environmental impacts of abandoned feedlots;
C. Develop "Permit by Rule" for smaller feedlots;
D. Define land application requirements for manure;
E. Regulate manure stockpiling to prevent leaching and run-off of pollutants;
F. Define appropriate setbacks for feedlots;
G. Revise feedlot discharge requirements in current state water quality
standards; and
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% paper recycled by consumers
H. Require that some manure holding facilities of less than 500,000 gallons have
an engineered plan.
2. Issues Raised by the Public During Prior Comment Solicitation Period:
A. Require that counties, townships, and the state coordinate during the
permitting processing;
B. Require completion of state feedlot inventory;
C. Require certification of county feedlot officers;
D. Clarify environmental regulations for dead animal disposal;
E. Address the issue of odors from feedlots;
F. Develop regulations addressing milkhouse waste;
G. Require feedlot owners to be trained in proper manure application
techniques;
H. Require bonding/financial assurance for certain facilities;
Charge a fee for MPCA feedlot permits; and
J. Require that the MPCA notify counties, townships and neighbors of new or
expanding feedlots.
Any interested persons or groups may submit data or views written or orally. Oral
statements will be received by telephone at the number listed below, or in person at the address listed
below, during regular business hours. All statements of information and opinion will be accepted
until 4:30 p.m. (CST) on August 11, 1995. Any written materials received by the MPCA shall
become part of the rulemaking record to be submitted to the administrative law judge in the event
that the rule amendment is adopted. Draft rule amendments may not be available until
approximately April 1996. A copy of the draft rules may be obtained from the MPCA by contacting
Lynne M. Kolze at the address or telephone number listed below. Written or oral statement should
be directed to:
Lynne M. Kolze
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Water Quality Division
Nonpoint Source Compliance Section
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194
Telephone: (612) 296-8481
MN Toll free: 1-800-657-3864
TTY: (612) 282-5332
The MPCA will be working closely with the Feedlot and Manure Management Advisory
Committee (FMMAC) during the rulemaking process. The formation of this committee was
required by the 1994 Legislature to "identify needs, goals, and suggested policies for research,
monitoring and regulatory activities regarding feedlots and manure management." The FMMAC has
created several Task Forces including: 1) Land Application of Manure, 2) Alternative Methods for
Treatment of Feedlot Runoff, and 3) Earthen Basins. FMMAC members will provide ongoing
advice to the MPCA as it proceeds through the rulemaking process. The FMMAC includes
representatives from a diverse organizations concerned with agriculture and feedlot and manure
management in Minnesota. The organizations listed below are represented on the FMMAC:
Boiler and Egg Association of Minnesota
Dairy Herd Improvement Association
Izaak Walton League
Minnesota Cattleman's Association
Minnesota Farm Bureau
Minnesota Farmers Union
Minnesota House of Representatives
Minnesota Pork Producers
Minnesota Turkey Growers Association
Minnesota Senate
Sierra Club
Department of Natural Resources
Farm Services Administration
Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation District
Minnesota Association of Townships
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Minnesota Extension Services
Minnesota Lakes Association
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Natural Resources Conservation Services
University of Minnesota
The MPCA does not intend to form a separate advisory task force for this rulemaking.
Questions regarding FMMAC meetings or related matters should be directed to:
Steve Olson
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
(612)297-3217
1-800-967-2474
The MPCA currently anticipates publishing the revised rule for adoption in the State
Re ist r in June 1996. Final rules are expected to be effective during the summer of 1997.
Date: •Z� S- �.e;�
Charles W. illiams
Commissioner
3
Note: The MPCA published its first Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Information
in the State Register in May of 1995 and provided a 30 day period within which the
public could provide comments, opinions and data on the subject of the state's
feedlot rule (ch. 7020). A second Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Information
will be published in the State Register during July and August of 1995. This
document provides a general summary of the comments that the Agency received
during the first comment period.
Lagoons
Several people expressed their concerns about the safety of manure pits and
lagoons. There is a concern that the environmental impact of these lagoons is
unknown and that they may be causing serious water quality impacts, especially in
the southwest 41 corner of Minnesota where there is a high potential for groundwater
contamination. One person was concerned about the potential impacts of these
facilities on human health and would like to see the Department of Health do
research into that issue.
One individual questioned the wisdom of allowing surface water runoff to enter
manure pits. Their concern was that when "clean water" is allowed to mix with
manure, it increases its volume substantially and then creates a bigger manure
disposal problem later. The costs of disposing of manure were felt to be
contributing to the loss of small farms in Minnesota.
Enforcement
s. T roblem.
These individual enforcement, the feedlot program is
meaningless. The MPCA must be willing to do a better job of permitting ac mi ies
not in compliance and in taking the enforcement actions against violators. On— e
commentor pointed out that it should ngt be up to neighboring an owners an
Ir X. E ":-)
1/P.701MUR
Note: The MPCA published its first Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Information
in the State Register in May of 1995 and provided a 30 day period within which the
public could provide comments, opinions and data on the subject of the state's
feedlot rule (ch. 7020). A second Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Information
will be published in the State Register during July and August of 1995. This
document provides a general summary of the comments that the Agency received
during the first comment period.
Lagoons
Several people expressed their concerns about the safety of manure pits and
lagoons. There is a concern that the environmental impact of these lagoons is
unknown and that they may be causing serious water quality impacts, especially in
the southwest corner of Minnesota where there is a high potential for groundwater
contamination. One person was concerned about the potential impacts of these
facilities on human health and would like to see the Department of Health do
research into that issue.
One individual questioned the wisdom of allowing surface water runoff to enter
manure pits. Their concern was that when "clean water" is allowed to mix with
manure, it increases its volume substantially and then creates a bigger manure
disposal problem later. The costs of disposing of manure were felt to be
contributing to the loss of small farms in Minnesota.
Enforcement
"P44 t .46
s. T roblem.
These individual enforcement, the feedlot program is
meaningless. The MPCA must be willing to do a better job of permitting aci i ies
not in compliance and in takingthe enforcement actions against violators. One
commentor pointe out t at it should �L be up to neighboring an owners an
individuals at the local level to be the watchdogs and enforcement officials for the
Fees/Bonding
Several people requested that MPCA collect fees for feedlot permits, suggesting
that there is a precedent for collecting permit fees in the air quality and water
quality programs. The suggestion was made that the MPCA should use these fees
to cover part of the cost of regulating the feedlot industry. Several commentors
suggested that the fees be based on the number of animal units in the operation.
One commentor suggested that some portion of the fees be deposited into an
indemnity fund to reimburse counties for the costs of emptying lagoons on
properties that have reverted back to them as a result of nonpayment of property
taxes.
Another commentor suggested that the MPCA require facilities of certain sizes to
have bonding to cover the costs of cleaning up sites should the feedlot owners go
bankrupt. The commentor suggested that farmers should be treated the same as
any other industry which must be responsible for the environmental impacts they
might cause.
Manure spreading
One commentor requested that farmers be required to keep records related to
certain aspects of running a feedlot operation. Specifically, they asked that farmers
be required to document the number of animal units they have on each site, the
number of gallons of manure hauled per year, the methods of spreading that
manure, the days it was spread, where and by whom, weather conditions during
spreading, etc.
Several comments were made about the need to reexamine the use of nitrogen as a
limiting factor when developing manure application rates. Several commentors
articulated the view that phosphorus should be also considered in developing
application rates due to its impact on water quality. One commentor felt that there
are a number of common assumplions about phosphorus that are outdated an
need to be reconsidered in developing m nua reapplication guidelines. A number of
articles were cited that call previous assumptions into question regarding the fate of
phosphorus in the environment.
One individual felt that the MPCA needs to better clarify what is meant by
"agronomic rates" when addressing the issue of manure application.
Permitting
individuals at the local level to be the watchdogs and enforcement officials for the
Fees/Bonding
Several people requested that MPCA collect fees for feedlot permits, suggesting
that there is a precedent for collecting permit fees in the air quality and water
quality programs. The suggestion was made that the MPCA should use these fees
to cover part of the cost of regulating the feedlot industry. Several commentors
suggested that the fees be based on the number of animal units in the operation.
One commentor suggested that some portion of the fees be deposited into an
indemnity fund to reimburse counties for the costs of emptying lagoons on
properties that have reverted back to them as a result of nonpayment of property
taxes.
Another commentor suggested that the MPCA require facilities of certain sizes to
have bonding to cover the costs of cleaning up sites should the feedlot owners go
bankrupt. The commentor suggested that farmers should be treated the same as
any other industry which must be responsible for the environmental impacts they
might cause.
Manure spreading
One commentor requested that farmers be required to keep records related to
certain aspects of running a feedlot operation. Specifically, they asked that farmers
be required to document the number of animal units they have on each site, the
number of gallons of manure hauled per year, the methods of spreading that
manure, the days it was spread, where and by whom, weather conditions during
spreading, etc.
Several comments were made about the need to reexamine the use of nitrogen as a
limiting factor when developing manure application rates. Several commentors
articulated the view that phosphorus should be also considered in developing
application rates due to its impact on water quality. One commentor felt that there
are a number of common assUMDtions about phosphorus that are outdated an
need to be reconsidered in developing manure application guide ines. A number of
articles were cited that call previous assumptions into question regarding the fate of
phosphorus in the environment.
One individual felt that the MPCA needs to better clarify what is meant by
"agronomic rates" when addressing the issue of manure application.
Permitting
Some frustration was expressed with respect to the timeliness of MPCA's
permitting process. Specifically, one commentor said that unless the MPCA is able
to get permits out faster than they do now, they should not be developing any new
requirements.
Several individuals asked for changes in the feedlot permit application so that the
MPCA gets more complete and accurate information about operations before it
permits them. One individual felt that the permit-,applicaiton should ask for the
number of acres in each parcel of land used for manure application, a legal
description of those parcels, and the tillable acres in those parcels. One individual
felt that the MPCA should request a sludge management plan for lagoon systems
as well as records of soil and manure test results for parcels of land where manure
is spread.
One individual requested that the MPCA place heavy fines against those
landowners that falsify information provided to the MPCA under the permitting
process. The accusation was made that there are some feedlot owners that are not
including some information or who are falsifying information in their permit
applications. The commentor suggested that if a landowner js found guilty of this
activity, that they not be allowed to have a facility permitted again for 10 years.
Water Quality Standards
One organization commented that the MPCA has the authority to establish ground
water standards and surface water standards. In cases where groundwater is
found to exceed federal and state drinking water standards of 10mg/I, the feedlot
rules should require that the MPCA develop state groundwater standards.
Data Collection and Reporting
One organization commented that a greater effort should be made to track and
evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices in reducing surface and
groundwater impacts from feedlots. As such, they suggested that the state
develop a methodology for collecting information from operators that would allow
this kind of analysis to be done over time.
Another comment stated that the rules should specify which types of operations
will be required to monitor groundwater quality. A systematic review of data
collected at these sites was also called for.
One person requested that the MPCA gather more information on the number,
location, and impact of abandoned feedlots.
Notification of Permit Activity
Some frustration was expressed with respect to the timeliness of MPCA's
permitting process. Specifically, one commentor said that unless the MPCA is able
to get permits out faster than they do now, they should not be developing any new
requirements.
Several individuals asked for changes in the feedlot permit application so that the
MPCA gets more complete and accurate information about operations before it
permits them. One individual felt that the permit'.applicaiton should ask for the
number of acres in each parcel of land used for manure application, a legal
description of those parcels, and the tillable acres in those parcels. One individual
felt that the MPCA should request a sludge management plan for lagoon systems
as well as records of soil and manure test results for parcels of land where manure
is spread.
One individual requested that the MPCA place heavy fines against those
landowners that falsify information provided to the MPCA under the permitting
process. The accusation was made that there are some feedlot owners that are not
including some information or who are falsifying information in their permit
applications. The commentor suggested that if a landowner js found guilty of this
activity, that they not be allowed to have a facility permitted again for 10 years.
Water Quality Standards
One organization commented that the MPCA has the authority to establish ground
water standards and surface water standards. In cases where groundwater is
found to exceed federal and state drinking water standards of 10mg/I, the feedlot
rules should require that the MPCA develop state groundwater standards.
Data Collection and Reporting
One organization commented that a greater effort should be made to track and
evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices in reducing surface and
groundwater impacts from feedlots. As such, they suggested that the state
develop a methodology for collecting information from operators that would allow
this kind of analysis to be done over time.
Another comment stated that the rules should specify which types of operations
will be required to monitor groundwater quality. A systematic review of data
collected at these sites was also called for.
One person requested that the MPCA gather more information on the number,
location, and impact of abandoned feedlots.
Notification of Permit Activity
rum
Several comments were received that requested that the MPCA notify people living
in proximity to a new or expanding feedlot facility. One person asked that the new
feedlot_rUIg reguire that theMPCA i hborillivinq within a one mile radius_
of new or expanding feedlot operations. Another asked that the MPCA notify all
towns i s and local units of governments whenever a feedlot permit application
as been received by the agency.
Setbacks
-Better setback requirements were requested by several individ
they requested that shoreline areas be protected by restricting
watering of cattle int ose areas, by - reg
anci surface waters and between acres at
Specifically,
.grazing or
between lagoons
died with manure and surface waters,
ditches, surface tile inlets, wetlands, roads, etc.
Training
One group suggested that the MPCA require permitees and manure haulers to have
training regarding the proper application of manure. They suggested that it may be
reasonable to require four hours of training every five years.
Other issues
A general comment was made that water belongs to all people, not iust landowners
or users and that no one person has a right to make a profit at the people's
expense.
Another individual asked that the MPCA or some other entity address the issue of
large fee lots and their impact on communities,uc uality of life, land values etc. A
number of people expressed concern over the size, actual a iciency and
environmental impact of large confinement facilities.
Several people suggested that n6 feedlot over 500 animal units should be allowed.
Another commentor felt that affTeedlot owners shout a required to live on their
sites and that there be no absentee ownership allowed.
A general comment was made that for each proposed change in the rule, the MPCA
needs to do an economic impact study.
Odor was raised by a number of people as an important issue that someone must
ad„ dr%s. There is a feeling that odor is affecting many people's quality of life and
that it may also hp causing healib P Qhlems for them as we
Several comments were received that requested that the MPCA notify people living
in proximity to a new or expanding feedlot facility. One person asked that the new
feedlot rule reaujre that theMPCA no ifg alllneighbors living within a one mile radius
of new or exoandina feedlot operations. An asked that the MPCA notify all
to- wnshi sand local units of governments whenever a feedlot permit application
as been received by the agency.
Setbacks
Bitter setback requirements_ were r
they requested that shoreline areas
watering of cattle int ose areas,
ani'surface waters and between ac
uested by several individuals. Specifically,
protected by restricting the grazing or
equir� minimum distances between lagoons
s applied with manure and surface waters,
-ditches, surface tile inlets, wetlands, roads, etc.
Training
One group suggested that the MPCA require permitees and manure haulers to have
training regarding the proper application of manure. They suggested that it may be
reasonable to require four hours of training every five years.
Other issues
A general comment was made that water belongs to all people, not just landowners
or users and that no one person has a right to make asprof at the people's
expense.
•
Another individual asked that the MPCA or some other entity address the issue of
large fe nd their impact on communities, quality of life, land values etc. A
number of people expressed concern over the size, actuaF-efficiency and
environmental impact of large confinement facilities.
Several people suggested that na feedlot over 500 animal units should be allowed.
Another commentor felt that affTeedlot owners should be required to live on their
sites and that there be no absentee ownership allowed.
A general comment was made that for each proposed change in the rule, the MPCA
needs to do an economic impact study.
Odor was raised by a number of people as an important issue that someone must
ad! d_, rens. There is a feeling that odor is affecting many people's quality of life and
that it may also b _ causing beallb a►^blems for them as we
V
A.K.M. Dairy Farm, MPCA-C 4203 Issue Date: 9 -Jul -1991
NE NE 27 121 24 Ostego Wright
8017 Kadler Avenue
Monticdllo, MN 55362 Phone: 612-497-2089
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
f of Animals
Units
on inement
Storage
Dairy Cows
50
70.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS SOLID
STACKING SLAB
Dairy Youngstock
20
10.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS SOLID
STACKING SLAB
Beef Calves
15
4.500
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS SOLID
STACKING SLAB
Total: 84.5
Abel, Randy MPCA-I 1173(A) Issue Date: 10 -Sep -1992
NW NW 14 120 25 Buffalo Wright
4307 - 40th Street NE
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 612-682-5017
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 55 77.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Cows 15 21.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 98.0
Alfred Barthel and Sons, MPCA-C 4745 Issue Date: 22 -Feb -1993
SE SW 24 121 24 Otsego Wright
11464 - 80th Street NE
Albertville, MN 55301 Phone: 612-497-2180
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type I of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 100 140.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 125 62.500 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 202.5
Anderson, Harlan MPCA-C 2261 Issue Date: 31 -Jan -1983
SE NE 17 119 28 Cokato Wright
Route 2
Cokato, MN 55321 Phone: 612-286-5682
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type i of Animals Unitson inement Storage
Beef Feeders 350 350.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS POURED CONCRETE TANK
Sheep 100 10.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 360.0
Anderson, Warren MPCA-C 2422 Issue Date: 7 -Jul -1983
NW SW 2 119 26 Marysville Wright
Route 5
` � Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
r�
520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
(612) 296-6300 (Voice), 282-5332 (TTY), /
Toll Free 1-800-657-3864 (V/TTY) ! /
Dear 10 5
I
We are pleased to send you the enclosed material. This
informal way of responding to your request saves us the time
and expense of preparing a formal letter. Thank you for your
interest, and please contact us if we can help you further.
�'L S
1�1L5 �0
� an
e�
l�al `j—rl L 6 ,, 8 �ne- am
e5 -t -�
Z7�_ / �`
11
MPCA Regional Offices
Northeast Region
North Central Region
Northwest Region
MPCA
MPCA
MPCA
Duluth Government
1601 Minnesota Drive
Lake Avenue Plaza
Services Center
Brainerd, MN 56401
714 Lake Avenue
Room 704
(218) 828-2492
Suite 220
320 W Second Street
Detroit Lakes, MN 565
Duluth, MN 55802
(218) 847-1519
(218) 723-4660
Southwest Region
Southeast Region
MPCA
MPCA
700 N Seventh Street
2116 Campus Drive SE
Marshall, MN 56258
Rochester, MN 55904
(507)537-7146
(507)285-7343
Printed on recycled papr wing at least
10 percent fibers from pape 'by consumers.
Buffalo, r,313 Phone: 612-682-3348
ANIMAL STATISTICS _
Animal Type i of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Breeder Swine 50 20.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 20.0
Anderson, Harlan SW -A 822 Issue Date: 20 -Jun -1973
SE 17 119 28 Cokato Wright
Route 1, Box 44
Cokato, MN 55321 Phone: 000-286-5682
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type f of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 48 67.200 TOTAL CONFINEMENT CONCRETE BLOCK/STAVE PIT
Total: 67.2
Anderson, Thomas W. SW -A 1378
NW 16 121 23 South side Wright
Box 54
South Haven, MN 55382 Phone: 000-236-7581
ANIMAL STATISTICS
/ of Animals Units onfinement
Animal Type
Storage
Total: 0
Anderson, Thomas W. SW -A 4123
SE SW 9 121 28 Southside Wright
Box 54
South Haven, MN 55362 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type f of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 500 200.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT CONCRETE BLOCK/STAVE PIT
Total: 200.0
Anshus, Dean H. MPCA-C 1703
NE NE 27 120 27 Albion Wright
Route 2
Annandale, MN 55302 Phone: 612-963-3760
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
De ,ows 50 70.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W FF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
De oungstock 30 15.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W FF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 85.0
Bakeberg, George MPCA-C 2753 Issue Date: 11 -Jul -1984
NW SE 13 118 27 Victor Wright
Route 1
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone: 612-543-3844
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 40 56.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 25 12.500 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 68.5
Bakeberg, Greg MPCA-C 557 Issue Date: 18 -Jun -1980
NW HE 24 118 27 Victor Wright
Rural Route
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone: 612-543-3848
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 100 140.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 50 25.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 165.0
Becker, Bernard Grace MPCA-C 709 Issue Date: 18 -Aug -1980
SW HE 9 120 24 Frankfort Wright
St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: 612-497-2755
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 40 56.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 30 15.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 71.0
Becker, Jim and Rosie MPCA-C 3859 Issue Date: 1 -Nov -1989
SW HE 22 121 24 Otsego Wright
9510 85th St. HE
Monticello, MN 55362 Phone: 612-295-2394
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 300 120.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT POURED CONCRETE TANK
Totai: 120.0
************************************************************************************
Bersie, Ronald MPCA-C 2915 Issue Date: 28 -Dec -1984
SW SW 9 119 26 Marysville Wright
Route 1
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone: 612-658-4467
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Ty pe
1 of Animals
Units
Confinement
Storage
Beef Cow w/Clf
30
30.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Cows
60
84.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock
60
30.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 144.0
Biegler, James F. MPCA-C 2769
SE SW 17 121 24 Monticello Wright
Route 2
Monticello, MN 55362 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type i of Animals Units Confinement
Breeder Swine 24 9.600 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 9.6
Broll, Ronald and Edward MPCA-C 1107 Issue Date: 13 -Jan -1981
SE NW 16 118 26 Woodland Wright
Route 1
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone: 612-658-4747
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type f of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 40 56.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 15 7.500 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 63.5
Broll, William, Judy MPCA-I 714(B) Issue Date: 15 -Dec -1985
SE NW 34 119 26 Marysyille Wright
Route 2, Box 25
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone: 612-675-3642
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type f of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Finishing Pigs > 55 lbs 600 240.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Finishing Pigs > 55 lbs 400 160.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Finishing Pigs > 55 lbs 900 360.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Totem - 760.0
Brown, Ma A Jeffrey MPCA-C 5231 Issue Date: 23 -Nov -1993
SE 23 122 _- Silver Creek Wright
1067 145th St. N.W.
Monticello, MN 55362 Phone: 612-878-2375
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Total: 0
Bruns, John, Jr. MPCA-C 1106 Issue Date: 13 -Jan -1981
NE SE 22 121 26 Maple Lake Wright
Route 2
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-3269
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
# of Animals
Units
Confinement
Storage
Storage
Dairy Cows
60
84.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED
W/RUNOFF
CONTROLS
EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock
40
20.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED
W/RUNOFF
CONTROLS
EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Horses
20
20.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED
W/RUNOFF
CONTROLS
EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs)
20
8.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED
W/RUNOFF
CONTROLS
EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Total: 132.0
Buttenhoff, Melvin G. SW -A 106
NW 25 Middleville Wright
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 150 60.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
CONCRETE BLOCK/STAVE PIT
Total: 60.0
Cardinal, Arlynn, Jane MPCA-C 3512 Issue Date: 16 -Mar -1988
SE SW 12 118 26 Woodland Wright
Route 1, Box 193
Montrose, MN 55363 Phone: 612-675-3302
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
# of Animals
Units
l=onfinem—en t
Storage
Breeder Swine
150
60.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE
PACK IN BUILDINGS
Breeder Swine
25
10.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Feeder Pigs (< 55 lbs)
850
42.500
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Finishing Pigs>
55 lbs
650
260.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Finishing Pigs
�> 55 lbs;
100
40.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Total: 412.50
Carl, Goeb L. SW -A 269
NW 23 Frankfort Wright
Route 1
St. Micha 1 55376 Phone: 000-497-2885
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 300 120.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
CONCRETE BLOCOSTAVE PIT
Total: 120.0
************************************************************************************
Carlson, John M. SW -A 385
NE 18 Rockford Wright
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storagge
Dairy Cows 150 210.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS CONCRETE BLOC O STAVE PIT
Total: 210.0
Carlson, Rodeny L. SW -A 1122
SW 25 121 28 South Side Wright
Annandale, MN 55302 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 26 36.400 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
Total: 36.4
Carlson, Ronald SW -A 3440 Issue Date: 2 -Apr -1975
NW NW 24 119 26 Marysvile Wright
Route 5
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 612-675-3553
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 70 98.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 98.0
Collins, Thomas R. MPCA-C 174
NE SE 23 121 25 Monticello Wright
Route 3 Box 379
Monticello, MN 55362 Phone: 612-295-5617
ANIMAL STATISTICS
# of Animals Units Confinement
Animal Type
Storage
Be-` how w/Calf 60 60.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/- RUNOFF CONTROLS OTHER
D rows 50 70.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED '1NOFF CONTROLS OTHER
Total: 130.0
Diers, Gordon L. MPCA-C 512
SE SE 36 119 27 Middleville Wright
Route 1
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-3822
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type 3 of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 600 240.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS STOCKPILING (NO STRUCTURE)
Total: 240.0
Diers, Stanley R.
MPCA-I 1228 B
HE NW 15 11 7
Victor Wright
8082 County Road 6 Southwest
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone:
612-543-2947
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
I of Animals
Units
Confinement
Storage
Dairy Cows
40
56.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock
60
30.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Cows
100
140.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 226.0
Diers Corporation, Diers SW -A 764 Issue Date: 7 -Jun -1973
NW 19 Woodland Wright
Route 1
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type l of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 150 210.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
Total: 210.0
Diers Corporation, SW -A 4319 Issue Date: 21 -Nov -1994
HE HE 22 118 27 Victor Wright
Route 1, Box 321D
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type i of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Tota: 0
Dupont, Ercell SW -A 3844 Issue Date: 29 -Jul -1915
NE 5 121 26 Silver Creek Wright
Route 2, Box 174
Maple Lake, MN 00000 Phone: 612-878-2322
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Horses 2 2.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS STOCKPILING (NO STRUCTURE)
Beef Feeders 10 10.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS STOCKPILING (NO STRUCTURE)
Total: 12.0
Duske, Stanley H. MPCA-C 2356
NE NW 5 118 25 Franklin Wright
Route 1
Montrose, MN 55363 Phone: 612-675-3363
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 500 200.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 200.0
Dwyer,ruble,ebeling, Virgina,Terry,Lyle MPCA-C 302 Issue Date: 1 -Apr -1980
NE NW 30 119 25 Franklin Wright
13800 Spring Lake Road
Minnetonka, MN 55343 Phone: 612-933-0939
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storae
Dairy Cows 50 70.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS DAILY HAULING NO STORAGE)
Total: 70.0
Elletson, Dewey MPCA-C 1105 Issue Date: 13 -Jan -1981
SW SW 32 121 26 Maple,Lake Wright
Route 2
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-3185
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 56 78.400 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 24 12.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
To 90.4
Epple's Dairy, MPCA-C 3006 Issue Date: 11 -Jun -1985
SE SW 26 119 26 Marysville Wright
Route 1
Montrose, MN 55363 Phone: 612-675-3576
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 240 336.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS SOLID STACKING SLAB
Dairy Youngstock PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS SOLID STACKING SLAB
Total: 336.0
************************************************************************************
Erickson, Tim, Edwin MPCA-C 1846 Issue Date: 8 -Mar -1982
SE SE 16 120 28 French Lake Wright
Route 1
Annandale, MN 55302 Phone: 612-286-5601
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 80 112.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 112.0
Fiecke, Philip, Rose Ann MPCA-C 3426 Issue Date: 15 -Oct -1981
SW SW 26 118 26 Victor Wright
Route 1, Box 260
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-485-3980
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Chicken Pullets 95,000 475.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 475.000
************************************************************************************
Fitterer, David and Robin MPCA-C 4506R Issue Date: 27 -Apr -1993
NW NW 6 118 28 Stockholm Wright
Route 1, Box 309
Cokato, MN 55321 Phone: -
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement
Beef Calves 30 9.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Beef Feeders 19 19.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 28.0
Fitzsimmons, Robert MPCA-C 5026 Issue Date: 24 -Jun -1993
SE SE 7 11P Cokato . Wright
Route 2
Box 28A
Good Thunder, MN 56037 Phone: 507-278-3464
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Breeder Swine 1,140 456.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT POURED CONCRETE TANK
Feeder Pigs (< 55 lbs) 900 45.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 501.00
Gabbert, Reinhold MPCA-C 1138 Issue Date: 30 -Jan -1981
SE SW 6 118 27 Victor Wright
Route 2
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-2849
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 80 112.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS ABOVE -GROUND TANK
Dairy Youngstock 70 35.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS ABOVE -GROUND TANK
Total: 147.0
Gleason, Dennis and Kimberly MPCA-C 3833 Issue Date: 21 -Sep -1989
NW SW 27 120 25 Buffalo Wright
Route 5, Box 164
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 612-682-6745
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 84 117.600 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 117.6
Glessing, Dennis MPCA-C 4030 Issue Date: 18 -Oct -1990
NE NE 8 118 27 Victor Wright
Route 2, Box 152
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-3229
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
# of Animals
Units
Confinement
- Storage
Dairy Cows
100
140.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Cows
16
22.400
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Dairy Youngstock
50
25.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 187.4
Glessing, Allen H. SW -A 3390
NE NE 14 118 27 Victor Wright
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone: 612-543-7831
ANIMAL STATISTICS
,nal Type # of Animals Units Confinemen
Finitning Pigs (> 55 lbs) 250 100.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 100.0
Gunnary, James MPCA-I 694(8) Issue Date: 17 -Oct -1985
NW SE 13 120 28 French Lake Wright
Annandale, MN 55302 Phone: 612-274-5392
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Beef Cow w/Calf 50 50.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Beef Feeders 150 150.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 200.0
Gunnary, Wallace MPCA-I 699 B) Issue Date: 17 -Oct -1985
SE SE 15 12 28 French Lake Wright
Route 1 Box 131
Annandale, MN 55302 Phone: 612-274-5756
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Beef Feeders 20 20.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Breeder Swine 30 12.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS POURED CONCRETE TANK
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 700 280.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 312.0
Gustafson, Walter MPCA-C 1762 Issue Date: 26 -Jan -1982
NE NE 22 120 26 Chatham Wright
3390 Hardscrabble Rd
Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 612-472-3594
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storae
Horses 10 10.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS DAILY HAULING ?NO STORAGE)
Total: 10.0
Hechsel, Arnold SW -A 648 Issue Date: 11 -May -1973
NE 20 118 27 Victor Wright
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 250 100.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS CONCRETE BLOCK/STAVE PIT
Dairy Youngstock 30 15.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS CONCRETE BLOCK/STAVE PIT
Total: 115.0
Higgins, Tim MPCA-C 793 Issue Date: 4 -Sep -1980
NE NE 36 121 27 Corinna Wright
Route 1
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-3849
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement
Chicken Layers 50,000 500.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 500.00
Higgins, Tim MPCA-C 793 Issue Date: 4 -Sep -1980
NE NE 36 121 27 Corina Wright
Route 1
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-3849
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement
Chicken Layers 50,000 500.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 500.00
Hoffman, Larry E. SW -A 735
SW 4 Albion Wright
Route 2
Annandale, MN 55302 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 60 84.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
Total: 84.0
Hohag, Dean, Joan MPCA-C 2748 Issue Date: 2 -Jul -1984
NW NW 28 119 26 Marysville Wright
Route 1
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone: 612-658-4882
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 45 63.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS ABOVE -GROUND TANK
Dairy Youngstock 20 10.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS ABOVE -GROUND TANK
To 73.0
Hopkins, Patrick and Joe Issue Date:
SE SW 6 120 25 Buffalo Wright
Route 1, Box 49
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 612-682-1858
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
I of Animals
Units
Confinement
Storage
Farrowing Sows
18
7.200
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Cows
60
84.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
DAILY HAULING (NO STORAGE)
Dairy Youngstock
45
22.500
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
DAILY HAULING (NO STORAGE)
Total: 113.7
************************************************************************************
How, Gerald SW -A 114 Issue Date: 27 -Sep -1972
NE SW 9 Buffalo Wright
Route 1, Box 118
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type i of Animals Units Confinement
Dairy Cows 50 70.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 70.0
************************************************************************************
Janckila, Ken MPCA-C 4746 Issue Date: 22 -Feb -1993
NW NW 34 120 28 French Lake Wright
Route 2, Box 220
Cokato, MN 55321 Phone: 612-286-2502
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type i of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 49 68.600 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 46 23.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 91.6
************************************************************************************
Johnson, George, Glen MPCA-C 1109 Issue Date: 13 -Jan -1981
NW NE 32 120 27 Albion Wright
Route 2
Annandale, MN 55302 Phone: 612-295-5250
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type ! of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 50 70.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 20 10.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 80.0
************************************************************************************
Johnson, d E. MPCA-I 484
SE SE 27 115 ranklin Wright
Route 1
Watertown, MN 55388 Phone: 612-955-1717
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
f of Animals
Units
Confinement
Storage
Breeder Swine
60
24.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Feeder Pigs (< 55 lbs)
200
10.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs)
50
20.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 54.00
Johnson, Myron SW -A 3835 Issue Date: 29 -Jul -1975
NW NE 13 121 27 Corinna Wright
Route 2
Maple Lake, MN 00000 Phone: 612-963-3449
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type f of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 70 98.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 70 35.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 133.0
************************************************************************************
Kasper, Lewis MPCA-C 1395 Issue Date: 21 -Apr -1981
SW NE 16 120 24 Frankfort Wright
Rural Route
St.Michael, MN 55376 Phone: 612-497-2823
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type f of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 55 77.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS ABOVE -GROUND TANK
Dairy Youngstock 75 37.500 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS ABOVE -GROUND TANK
Total: 114.5
************************************************************************************
Ketcham, R.W. SW -A 131 Issue Date: 25 -Oct -1972
SW 13 Middleville Wright
route 1
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 000-543-4877
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type f of Animals Units Confinement r Storage
Beef Feeders 60 60.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 60.0
Kotila, Gordon MPCA-I 1732(A) Issue Date: 4 -Oct -1995
SE 04 119 28 Cokato Wright
741 Co. Rd. 3 SW
Cokato, Mr '1 Phone:
612-286-5994
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
Beef Calves
# of Animals
60
Units
18.000
Confinement
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
Storage
RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Dairy Youngstock
60
30.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Dairy Cows
100
140.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 188.0
Krause, Warren SW -A 126 Issue Date: 25 -Oct -1972
SE NE 31 Chatham Wright
Route 2
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units on lnement Storae
Dairy Cows 150 210.000 OPEN LOT w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS DAILY HAULING ?NO STORAGE)
Total: 210.0
Kritzeck, Gervase SW -A 3465 Issue Date: 10 -Apr -1975
SW SE 29 118 27 Victor Wright
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-2883
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 200 80.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 80.0
Kulinski, Leo SW -A 846 Issue Date: 21 -Jun -1973
SW 1 118 27 Victor Wright
Route 1
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 000-543-3828
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 32 44.800 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
Total: 44.8
LEF-CO Farm, Inc., MPCA-I 1629(A Issue Date: 12 -Jul -1995
SW NW 34 121 b Otsego Wright
15033 - 10th St.
Elk River, MN 55330 Phone: 612-441-7204
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Daws 400 560.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 560.0
Larson, Leo and Bernadine MPCA-C 3401 Issue Date: 20 -Aug -1981
SW SE 32 Chatham Wright
Route 2, Box 80
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 612-963-3871
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
i of Animals Units Confinement
Units
35.000
Storage
Dairy Cows
40 56.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS
SOLID STACKING SLAB
Dairy Youngstock
50 25.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 81.0
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Larson, Brian
MPCA-C 5717
Issue Date:
27 -Dec -1994
NE NE 5 119 27
Middleville
Wright
6493 Illsley Ave. NW
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-5811
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 35 49.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Beef Calves 25 7.500 TOTAL CONFINEMENT MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 56.5
Larson, Brian MPCA-C 5888 Issue Date: 8 -Feb -1995
NE NE 5 119 27 Middleville Wright
6493 Illsley Avenue NW
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-5811
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
Dairy Cows
l of Animals
25
Units
35.000
on inement
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
Storage
RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Dairy Youngstock
10
5.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Beef Calves
25
7.500
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 47.5
Lenneman Dairy Farm, MPCA-I 1282(A) Issue Date: 21 -Aug -1993
NE SW 22 120 24 Frankfurt Wright
2461 Jamison Ave. NE
St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: 612-497-3921
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units on inement Storage
Dairy Cows 170 238.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 238.0
Lindenfelser, Richard MPCA-C 1108 Issue Date: 13 -Jan -1981
SW SE 6 120 23 Frankfort Wright
Route 1
Albertville, MN 55301 Phone: 612-974-2265
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type / of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 55 77.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 50 25.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 102.0
Lindenfelser, Albert MPCA-C 1510 Issue Date: 1 -Jul -1981
SW SE 28 121 24 Monticello Wright
Route 2
Monticello, MN 55362 Phone: 612-295-2037
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type i of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Beef Feeders 125 125.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 200 80.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 205.0
Marquardt, Rodney MPCA-C 4291 Issue Date: 15 -Aug -1991
NE SE 19 118 26 Woodland Wright
Route 1
Box 323
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone: 612-543-3348
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
i of Animals
Units
Confinement
Storage
Breeder Swine
90
36.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Feeder Pigs (< 55 lbs)
480
24.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Finishing Pigs (> 55
lbs) 240
96.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Beef Feeders
80
80.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o
RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN
HOLDING BASIN
Total: 236.00
Marschel, Darold SW -A 492 Issue Date: 12 -Apr -1973
NW 9 119 24 Rockford Wright
Route 3 box 159
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 000-477-6675
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type f of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 34 47.600 TOTAL CONFINEMENT MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
To. 47.6
Melberg, James SW -A 2824 Issue Date: 12 -Aug -1974
SE 32 Otsego Wright
Route 2, Box 102A
Rogers, MN 55374 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Beef Feeders 150 150.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
Total: 150.0
Miller, Kevin L. MPCA-C 6027
SW NW 02 119 27 Middleville Wright
319 Hoyt Avenue SW
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-2253
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Beef Feeders 60 60.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 60.0
Miller Bros. Dairy, MPCA-C 5663 Issue Date: 21 -Oct -1994
SW NW 11 118 27 Victor Wright
7907 72nd St. SW.
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-3939
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units on inement
Dairy Cows 315 441.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storae
DAILY HAULING ?NO STORAGE)
Total: 441.0
Miller Bros. Dairy, MPCA-C 5663 Issue Date: 1 -Nov -1994
SW NW 11 118 27 Victor Wright
7907 72nd St. SW
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-3939
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type d of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 15 21.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Dairy Cows 300 420.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT DAILY HAULING (NO STORAGE)
Total: 441.0
Munco, Inc
Route 2
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-3971
MPCA-C 2123P Issue Date: 20 -Feb -1986
SE SW 32 119 ddleville Wright
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Turkeys 28,000 504.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 504.000
Munson, Beryl, Carolyn MPCA-I 786(A Issue Date: 20 -Mar -1987
SE SE 2 118 17 Victor Wright
Route 2, Box 31
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-3971
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement
Turkeys 50,000 900.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 900.000
Munson, Beryl and Carolyn MPCA-C 3284 Issue Date: 30 -Dec -1986
SW SW 20 119 27 Middleville Wright
Route 2, Box 31
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-3971
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type / of Animals Units Confinement
Turkeys 53,000 954.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 954.000
Myrabo, Arne and Judy MPCA-C 5139 Issue Date: 15 -Sep -1993
NE 1 121 26 Silver Creek Wright
5 -120th St. NW
Monticello, MN 55362 Phone: 612-878-2870
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type f of Animals Unitson inf ement - Storage
Beef Calves 25 7.500 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Horses 8 8.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 15.5
Neisen, James D. MPCA-C 3328
SE SE 10 118 25 Franklin Wright
Route 1, Box 41
Delano, K 128 Phone: 612-972-2046
ANIMAL STATISTIC!
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 160 64.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 64.0
************************************************************************************
Neisen, Jerry MPCA-C 3968 Issue Date: 12 -Jul -1990
NE SE 10 118 25 Franklin Wright
Route 1, Box 272
Delano, MN 55328 Phone: 612-972-6293
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 40 56.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 30 15.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 71.0
Nelson, Roy MPCA-C 1829 Issue Date: 24 -Feb -1982
SW NW 33 121 27 Corinna Wright
Route 2
Annandale, MN 55302 Phone: 612-274-5298
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Storage
Dairy Cows 45 63.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 40 20.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 83.0
North Fork Farms Inc., SW -A 9999 Issue Date: 19 -Jul -1979
SW 27 Franklin Wright
Route 2, Box 241
Delano, MN 55328 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 130 52.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
Total: 52.0
Ordorff, Ralph V. MPCA-I 6117(8)R
SW NE 20 120 25 Buffalo Wright
Route 4, Box 282
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 612-682-3039
ANIMAL STATISTICS
.mal Type # of Animals Units Confinemer' Storage
Be sders 25 25.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED M FF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 25.0
************************************************************************************
Ostagard, Kenneth MPCA-C 966 Issue Date: 10 -Nov -1980
SE SE 24 119 25 Rockford Wright
Route 3
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 612-477-5319
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Horses 20 20.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 20.0
Pawelk, Eldor MPCA-C 968 Issue Date: 10 -Nov -1980
NE NW 30 121 26 Maple Lake Wright
Route 2
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-3393
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Beef Feeders 10 10.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT POURED CONCRETE TANK
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 350 140.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 150.0
Pawelk, Kenneth W. SW -A 9881
NE 34 Woodland Wright
Montrose, MN 55363 Phone: 612-955-1181
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 500 200.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT CONCRETE BLOCK/STAVE PIT
Dairy Cows 56 78.400 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
Dairy Youngstock 60 30.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
Total: 308.4
Peavy, James MPCA-C 2061 Issue Date: 3 -Sep -1982
NE NW 4 119 26 Marysville Wright
Route 2
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 612-682-4769
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units -Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 50 70.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 50 25.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 95.0
************************************************************************************
Pederson, David SW -A 796 Issue Date: 15 -Jun -1973
SE 36 Maple Lake Wright
Route 1, Box 54A
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone:
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement
Beef Cow w/Calf 25 25.000
Storage
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 25.0
************************************************************************************
Peikert, Gerald MPCA-C 558 Issue Date: 18 -Jun -1980
SW SW 20 120 28 French Lake Wright
Route 1
South Haven, MN 55382 Phone: 612-682-1933
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type i of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 35 49.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 20 10.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 59.0
Praught, Donald SW -A 3556 Issue Date: 12 -May -1975
SE 31 121 23 Otsego Wright
Route 2, Box 110
Rogers, MN 00000 Phone: 507-497-2659
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals UnitsConfinement Storage
Dairy Cows 60 84.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 84.0
Quaal, John SW -A 2784 Issue Date: 9 -Aug -1974
NE 33 Woodland Wright
Route 1, Box 134
Montrose, MN 55363 Phone: 000-955-1470
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type Y of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Cows 100 140.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT CONCRETE BLOCK/STAVE PIT
Dairy Youngstock 10 5.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT CONCRETE BLOCK/STAVE PIT
To 145.0
Ransom, M, n MPCA-C 41 Issue Date: 15 -Jan -1980
NW 20 121 27 Corinna Wright
Route 3
Annandale, MN 55302 Phone: 612-274-5198
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
Y of Animals
Units
Confinement Storage
Breeder Swine
15
6.000 TOTAL
CONFINEMENT
Breeder Swine
15
6.000 TOTAL
CONFINEMENT
Dairy Cows
62
86.800 TOTAL
CONFINEMENT
Dairy Youngstock
100
50.000 TOTAL
CONFINEMENT
Total: 148.8
Reemtz, David L. MPCA-I 467
SW NW 17 121 23 Otsego Wright
13195 NE 95th St.
Elk River, MN 55330 Phone: 612-441-3236
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storae
Dairy Cows 40 56.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS DAILY HAULING ?NO STORAGE)
Dairy Youngstock 25 12.500 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 68.5
S.W.R. Farms, MPCA-C 2693 Issue Date: 21 -Apr -1984
SE SW 16 120 24 Frankfort Wright
206 West Fourth Stre
Monticello, MN 55362 Phone: 612-295-3260
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type i of Animals Units Confinement
Chicken Broilers 116,320 1,163.200 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 1163.20
Sand Farms Inc., SW -A 3477 Issue Date: 18 -Apr -1915
SE SE 16 118 28 Stockholm Wright
Cokato, MN 55321 Phone: 612-286-5615
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type d of Animals Units Con inement Storage
Dairy Cows 165 231.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 150 75.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 306.0
Schaufler, Norbert SW -A 2785 Issue Date: 9 -Aug -1974
SW 8 Maple Lake Wright
Maple, Mf 4 Phone: 000-963-3302
ANIMAL STATISTIC:
Animal Type # of Animals Units on -Inement
Dairy Cows 75 105.000
Storage
Total: 105.0
Schendel, Dallas S. MPCA-I 867(B)
SW SE 20 121 4 Monticello Wright
Route 2 Box 298A
Monticello, MN 55362 Phone: 612-295-4334
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal
Finishing
Type
Pigs (> 55 lbs)
# of Animals
150
Units
60.000
Confinement
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
Storage
STOCKPILING(NO
STRUCTURE)
Farrowing
Sows
20
8.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
MANURE PACK IN
BUILDINGS
Gestating
Sows
60
24.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
MANURE PACK IN
BUILDINGS
Feeder Pigs
(< 55 lbs)
200
10.000
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
MANURE PACK IN
BUILDINGS
Sheep
12
1.200
OPEN LOT w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
STOCKPILINGNO
(NO
STRUCTURE
Horses
10
10.000
OPEN LOT w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
STOCKPILING
STRUCTURE
Total: 113.20
Scherping, Virgil
MPCA-C 5920R Issue Date:
18 -May -1995
NE NW 21 118 26 Woodland
Wright
635 Shady Creek Drive
Winsted, MN 55345 Phone: 612-485-4217
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Co�inement Storage
Beef Feeders 400 400.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Beef Calves 500 150.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 550.0
Schwankl, Lynne and Harlan MPCA-C 463 Issue Date: 19 -May -1980
SE SE 35 119 25 Franklin Wright
Route 2, Box 151
Delano, MN 56362 Phone: 612-571-1040
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storae
Horses 7 7.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT DAILY HAULING NO STORAGE)
Total: 7.0
Smith, Eugene E. MPCA-C 1047
NE NW 6 121 26 Silver Creek Wright
Route 2
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-3327
ANIMAL STATISTICS
ial Type # of Animals Units Confinemen* Storage
Bre Swine 60 24.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Feeur.,Pigs (< 55 lbs j TOTAL CONFINEMENT EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 1,000 400.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 424.00
Smith, Larry E. MPCA-C 6234
NW NE 1 118 28 Stockholm Wright
12299 U.S. Hwyy 12 SW
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-286-2228
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Beef Calves 250 75.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
Beef Feeders 20 20.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
Total: 95.0
Smith, Douglas L. MPCA-I 1655(8)
SE SE 11 121 7 Corinna Wright
7051 - 102nd Street NW
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-5791
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
Dairy Youngstock
# of Animals
102
Units
51.000
Confinement
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
DAILY
e
StoraINO
HAULING NO STORAGE)
Dairy Cows
87
121.800
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
DAILY
HAULING STORAGE)
Dairy Youngstock
16
8.000
OPEN LOT w/RUNOFF CONTROLS
OTHER
Dairy Youngstock
15
7.500
OPEN LOT w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS
OTHER
Dairy Cows
7
9.800
OPEN LOT w/RUNOFF CONTROLS
OTHER
Beef Feeders
20
20.000
OPEN LOT w/RUNOFF CONTROLS
OTHER
Total: 218.1
Stokes, William
MPCA-C 2137 Issue Date:
20 -Oct -1982
SW NW 13 119 27 Middleville
Wright
Howard Lake, MN 55349 Phone: 612-543-2605
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Beef Feeders 40 40.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Total: 40.0
Thiesen, Robert MPCA-I 437 Issue Date: 12 -Apr -1983
SW NE 17 118 25 Franklin Wright
Route 1
Delano, MN 55328 Phone: 612-972-3615
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Unitson inement Storage
Dairy Cows 45 63.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Dairy Youngstock 50 25.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 88.0
Thommes, Melvin, Joan MPCA-C 1340 Issue Date: 1 -Apr -1981
NW SW 23 120 25 Buffalo Wright
Route 1
Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 612-682-2827
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units on 1nement Storae
Breeder Swine 12 4.800 TOTAL CONFINEMENT DAILY HAULING I NO STORAGE)
Feeder Pigs (< 55 lbs) 200 10.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT DAILY HAULINGNO STORAGE)
Total: 14.80
Unteidt, Jerold A. MPCA-C 749
SW NW 17 119 26 Marysville Wright
Route 2
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone: 612-658-4672
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
f of Animals
Units
Confinement
Storage
Breeder Swine
70
28.000 TOTAL
CONFINEMENT
POURED CONCRETE TANK
Feeder Pigs (< 55 lbs)
280
14.000 TOTAL
CONFINEMENT
POURED CONCRETE TANK
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs)
280
112.000 TOTAL
CONFINEMENT
POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 154.00
Uter, Ronald MPCA-C 5281 Issue Date: 12 -Jan -1994
SE SW 7 119 26 Marysville Wright
5576 20th Street S.W.
Waverly, MN 55390 Phone: 612-658-4540
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type d of Animals Units on inement
Dairy Cows 160 224.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Stora e
DAILY HAULING ?NO STORAGE)
Total: 224.0
Valley View Dairy, MPCA-C 3148 Issue Date: 31 -Mar -1986
NW NW 22 120 26 Chatham Wright
Route 1, Box 55
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-3700
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units ------ Zo—ff 1nement Storae
Dairy Cows 85 119.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS DAILY HAULING ?NO STORAGE)
Dairy Youngstock 100 50.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
Beef Feeders 30 30.000 PASTURE MANURE PACK IN BUILDINGS
T( 199.0***************************************************: ****************x**********
Vandergon, Floris MPCA-C 2291 Issue Date: 18 -Mar -1983
SW SE 18 121 26 Maple Lake Wright
Route 2
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-3395
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 700 280.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Storage
POURED CONCRETE TANK
Total: 280.0
Warner, Eugene MPCA-C 4823 Issue Date: 5 -Mar -1993
SE SW 10 120 27 Albion Wright
8730 County Rd. 37 NW
Annandale, MN 55302 Phone: 612-963-5425
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
# of Animals
Units
Confinement
Storage
Storage
Dairy Cows
50
70.000
PARTIALLY
HOUSED
W/RUNOFF
CONTROLS
EARTHEN HOLDING
BASIN
Dairy Youngstock
42
21.000
PARTIALLY
HOUSED
W/RUNOFF
CONTROLS
EARTHEN HOLDING
BASIN
Farrowing Sows
10
4.000
PARTIALLY
HOUSED
W/RUNOFF
CONTROLS
DAILY HAULING
NO STORAGE
Feeder Pigs (< 55 lbs)
120
6.000
PARTIALLY
HOUSED
W/RUNOFF
CONTROLS
DAILY HAULING
IND
NO STORAGE
Gestating Sows
50
20.000
PARTIALLY
HOUSED
W/RUNOFF
CONTROLS
DAILY HAULING
NO STORAGE
Finishin Pi s (> 55 lbs)
40
16.000
PARTIALLY
HOUSED
W/RUNOFF
CONTROLS
DAILY HAULING
STORAGE
Total: 137.00
Wiedenbach, Vernon, Donald MPCA-C 2303 Issue Date: 25 -Mar -1983
NE NE 23 121 24 Otsego Wright
8809 Labeaux Avenue
Monticello, MN 55362 Phone: 612-497-2158
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type
# of Animals
Units
Confinement
Storage
Beef Feeders
20
20.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
ABOVE -GROUND TANK
Dairy Cows
90
126.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
ABOVE -GROUND TANK
Dairy Youngstock
80
40.000
PARTIALLY HOUSED W/RUNOFF CONTROLS
ABOVE -GROUND TANK
Total: 186.0
Wozniak, Leonard SW -A 9829 Issue Date: 26 -Jul -1919
SE 21 118 28 Stockholm Wright
Route 1
Cokato, MN 55321 Phone: 000-286-5235
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals UnitsConfinement StoraINO
e
Beef Cow w/Calf 30 30.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS DAILY HAULING NO STORAGE)
Dairy Cows 75 105.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS DAILY HAULING STORAGE)
Total: 135.0
Wright County Sales, SW -A 2629 Issue Date: 23 -Aug -1974
NW NW 1
Howard L, IN 55349 Phone: 612-543-5981
ANIMAL STATISTIC'.
Animal Type # of Animals Units on inement
Finishing Pigs (> 55 lbs) 300 120.000 TOTAL CONFINEMENT
Victor
Wright
Storage
Total: 120.0
Wurm, James M. MPCA-C 3164
SW NE 35 121 27 Corinna Wright
Route 1, Box 226
Maple Lake, MN 55358 Phone: 612-963-3763
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units on inement Stora e
Beef Cow w/Calf 35 35.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS DAILY HAULINGNO STORAGE)
Dairy Youngstock 35 17.500 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS DAILY HAULING NO STORAGE)
Total: 52.5
Zachman, Allen SW -A 4078 Issue Date: 12 -Sep -1975
SW SW 33 Otsego Wright
Elk River, MN 55330 Phone: 612-497-2189
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal Type # of Animals Units Confinement Storage
Dairy Youngstock 100 50.000 PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING BASIN
Total: 50.0
Zimmer, Kenneth and Harold MPCA-C 3113 Issue Date: 12 -Jul -1989
NW SW 31 121 23 Otsego Wright
6450 Maciver Ave. N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55301 Phone: 612-497-2674
ANIMAL STATISTICS
Animal
Type
# of Animals
Units
Confinement
Storage
Dairy Cows
44
61.600
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF
CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING
BASIN
Dairy Youngstock
23
11.500
PARTIALLY HOUSED w/o RUNOFF
CONTROLS EARTHEN HOLDING
BASIN
Farrowing Sows
6
2.400
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
DAILY HAULINGNO
STORAGE
Boars
1
.400
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
DAILY HAULING
€NO
NO STORAGE
Feeder Pigs
(< 55 lbs)
54
2.700
TOTAL CONFINEMENT
DAILY HAULING
STORAGE
Total: 78.60
Total: 118
Overall P 1 Units: 20988
F*. T: -::-y
Summer 1995
f 'f
Over the next several years, the MPCA will revise the State's animal feedlot rules (Minn. Rules Chapter
7020). With this update, we will inform interested parties of major activities and issues related to this
rulemaking. Beginning with this issue, we will publish this update on a quarterly basis and will include:
1) an explanation of proposed changes to the rule, 2) summaries of comments and recommendations received
from industry, agencies, and citizens, and 3) notifications of public participation events planned over the
course of the rulemaking process.
Since 1968, the MPCA has has been responsible for developing standards that protect our surface and ground
iters. This means that the MPCA must regulate a wide variety of pollutants, including those that come from
�ricultural operations such as the raising of livestock and poultry.
Minnesota's Feedlot Rules Chapter 7020 were first adopted during the early 1970's. The rules have been
amended twice since then, with the last major revision occurring in 1978. Since then, agriculture in
Minnesota has undergone major changes. Animal housing and production techniques have changed
dramatically, there are greater concentrations of animals on farms than before, and the potential impacts of
animal feedlots on water quality are now better understood. As a result, the MPCA has made revision of the
feedlot rule a priority.
There are approximately 40,000 livestock and poultry operations in Minnesota. Animal manure generated by
these facilities can become a serious water pollution hazard if it is not used, stored, transported or disposed of
properly. By developing rules for managing animal manure, the MPCA can create safeguards to ensure that
animal manure is stored, transported, used, or otherwise disposed of in a manner that will protect water
quality.
The MPCA began its rulemaking process in May of 1995. During the spring and summer of 1995, the
MPCA will be asking the public to submit comments regarding changes they wish to see in the feedlot rule.
By the end of the summer, using public comments, the MPCA will finalize the list of issues to be addressed
over the course of the rule revision process. During the fall, the MPCA will begin to draft rule amendments.
the spring of 1996, MPCA staff will have developed a first draft of the amended feedlot rule. Public
.rings on the feedlot rule will take place in the fall of 1997. MPCA is aware that the feedlot rule revision
will be of great interest to agricultural producers and other r rganizations in Minnesota. For that reason, the
agency will do its best to inform interested parties of critical issues and will sponsor a number of events to
familiarize the public with the content of the proposed rule.
In an effort to develop an effective and reasonable feedlot rule, the MPCA will be working closely with
representatives of the agricultural industry. The MPCA will have an opportunity to solicit advice on a
regular basis through participation in the Feedlot and Manure Management Advisory Committee (FMMAC).
FMMAC, a committee established by the legislature to "identify needs, goals, and suggested policies for
research, monitoring and regulatory activities regarding feedlots and manure management", will assist the
MPCA in developing a rule that is fair to landowners, but which protects surface and ground waters
effectively. In preparation for the rule revision process, FMMAC has established several taskforces to
research and provide technical advice to the MPCA on matters related to feedlot and manure management.
FMMAC's Task Forces are entitled: Land Application of Manure, Alternative Methods for Treatment of
Feedlot Runoff, and Earthen Basins.
The MPCA has not yet determined the full scope of issues to be considered during the feedlot rule revision
process. There are a number of issues, however, that have been discussed over the last several years and will
be among those that the MPCA will consider as staff revise the rule. The issues are:
2.
3.
4.
environmental impacts of abandoned feedlots;
unpermitted earthen basins and their impacts on ground water;
changes in the permitting process (for example, raising the minimum number of animal units;
which require a permit);
financial assurance for large animal confinement facilities;
5. seepage limits for earthen manure basins;
6. land application requirements for manure;
7. manure stockpiling requirements;
8. fees for feedlot permits;
9. setbacks for feedlots to protect water quality; and
10. permit by rule for small feedlots.
1 r' r [ �m[u [
Over the course of this process, the staff at the MPCA invites you to call us at any time to provide your
comments, insights, and recommendations. We will be working hard to find a reasonable balance among
the varied interests involved in the feedlot issue. Your opinions matter to us. Please let us know how we
are doing.
For your convenience, we are including the names of MPCA staff who arc available to answer your questions about technical, policy
or procedural issues related to the feedlot rule revision. Please feel free to give us a call at the following numbers:
St. Paul Staff:
Randy Ellingboe 612-296-9209
Kim Brynildson
612-296-7366
Ron Leaf
612-296-7326
Chris Lucke
612- 296-9332
Mark Steuart
612-296-7313
Lynne Kolze
612-296-8481
Dave Wall
612-296-8440
(permitting issues, earthen and concrete basin
construction requirements, general technical questions)
(permitting issues, general technical questions,
county delegation agreements, requests for data)
(permit application status, engineer review of manure
storage systems)
(permitting issues, engineer review of manure storage systems)
(enforcement issues, complaints)
(rulemaking process, public meetings and hearings)
(ground water quality, land application rates)
printed on recycled paper
Regional Office Staff:
Kevin Molloy 507-537-6394 Marshall
Mike N'avricka 218-847-1519 Detroit Lakes
John Archambo 218-828-2492 Brainerd
Heidi Bauman 218-7234660 Duluth
Jerry Hildcbrandt 507-285-7343 Rochester
Proposed MPGA Rule Revision Process
For the Feedlot Rule (Ch. 7020)
MPCA publishes intial notice of intent to solicit
April `95 outside information in the State Register
MPCA seeks
public comments
on issues to
The Feedlot and Manure Management Committee address in
May `95 (FMMAC) helps the MPCA to scope the issues that rulemaking
will be addressed by the rule revision
March `96 1 MPCA finalizes draft of revised feedlot rule
June'96 MPCA publishes notice of intent to adopt rule in the
State Register and requests public comment Public comment
(30 day prehearing comment period)
period
October `96
MPCA holds public hearings
NY
November `96 5-20 day post -hearing comment period for Public comment
all interested parties period
Administrative Law Judge prepares his
December `96 findings and conclusions
(continued on back)
MPCA issues second notice of intent to solicit
June `95
outside information in the State Register MPCA seeks s
public comments
on issues selected
•
for rule revision
FMMAC Task Forces provide technical advice to the
June `
MPCA as new rule language is being developed
March `9
'96
March `96 1 MPCA finalizes draft of revised feedlot rule
June'96 MPCA publishes notice of intent to adopt rule in the
State Register and requests public comment Public comment
(30 day prehearing comment period)
period
October `96
MPCA holds public hearings
NY
November `96 5-20 day post -hearing comment period for Public comment
all interested parties period
Administrative Law Judge prepares his
December `96 findings and conclusions
(continued on back)
MPCA feedlot rule revision continued
MPCA considers making changes to proposed m
January `97 based on public testimony and Judge's comments
March `97 MPCA staff presents revised rule to MPCA's
Citizens Board and requests that it be adopted
May `97 Final rule is adopted and published in
State Register
Rule is effective 5 working days after notice
is published
For questions on the MPCA's feedlot rule or the rule revision process,
contact:
Lynne Kolze
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-8481
Note: The MPCA published its first Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Information
in the State Register in May of 1995 and provided a 30 day period within which the
public could provide comments, opinions and data on the subject of the state's
feedlot rule (ch. 7020). A second Notice of Intent to Solicit Outside Information
will be published in the State Register during July and August of 1995. This
document provides a general summary of the comments that the Agency received
during the first comment period.
Lagoons
Several people expressed their concerns about the safety of manure pits and
lagoons. There is a concern that the environmental impact of these lagoons is
unknown and that they may be causing serious water quality impacts, especially in
the southw-1&-t"corner of Minnesota where there is a high potential for groundwater
contamination. One person was concerned about the potential impacts of these
facilities on human health and would like to see the Department of Health do
research into that issue.
One individual questioned the wisdom of allowing surface water runoff to enter
manure pits. Their concern was that when "clean water" is allowed to mix with
manure, it increases its volume substantially and then creates a bigger manure
disposal problem later. The costs of disposing of manure were felt to be
contributing to the loss of small farms in Minnesota.
Enforcement
o Several people made comments regarding MPCA's inability to keep up with its
permitting and enforcement responsibilities. This was viewed as a major problem.
These individuals felt that without adequate enforcement, the feedlot program is
meaningless. The MPCA must be willing to do a better job of permitting facilities
not in compliance and in taking the enforcement actions against violators. One
commentor pointed out that it should = be up to neighboring landowners and
individuals at the local level to be the watchdogs and enforcement officials for the
MPCA.
Fees/Bonding
Several people requested that MPCA collect fees for feedlot permits, suggesting
that there is a precedent for collecting permit fees in the air quality and water
quality programs. The suggestion was made that the MPCA should use these fees
to cover part of the cost of regulating the feedlot industry. Several commentors
suggested that the fees be based on the number of animal units in the operation.
One commentor suggested that some portion of the fees be deposited into an
indemnity fund to reimburse counties for the costs of emptying lagoons on
properties that have reverted back to them as a result of nonpayment of property
taxes.
Another commentor suggested that the MPCA require facilities of certain sizes to
have bonding to cover the costs of cleaning up sites should the feedlot owners go
bankrupt. The commentor suggested that farmers should be treated the same as
any other industry which must be responsible for the environmental impacts they
might cause.
Manure spreading
One commentor requested that farmers be required to keep records related to
certain aspects of running a feedlot operation. Specifically, they asked that farmers
be required to document the number of animal units they have on each site, the
number of gallons of manure hauled per year, the methods of spreading that
manure, the days it was spread, where and by whom, weather conditions during
spreading, etc.
Several comments were made about the need to reexamine the use of nitrogen as a
limiting factor when developing manure application rates. Several commentors
articulated the view that phosphorus should be also considered in developing
application rates due to its impact on water quality. One commentor felt that there
are a number of common assumptions about phosphorus that are outdated and
need to be reconsidered in developing manure application guidelines. A number of
articles were cited that call previous assumptions into question regarding the fate of
phosphorus in the environment.
One individual felt that the MPCA needs to better clarify what is meant by
"agronomic rates" when addressing the issue of manure application.
Permitting
Several comments were received that requested that the MPCA notify people living
in proximity to a new or expanding feedlot facility. One person asked that the new
feedlot rule require that theMPCA notify all neighbors living within a one mile radius
of new or expanding feedlot operations. Another asked that the MPCA notify all
townships and local units of governments whenever a feedlot permit application
has been received by the agency.
Setbacks
Better setback requirements were requested by several individuals. Specifically,
they requested that shoreline areas be protected by restricting the grazing or
watering of cattle in those areas, by requiring minimum distances between lagoons
and surface waters and between acres applied with manure and surface waters,
ditches, surface tile inlets, wetlands, roads, etc.
Training
One group suggested that the MPCA require permitees and manure haulers to have
training regarding the proper application of manure. They suggested that it may be
reasonable to require four hours of training every five years.
Otherissues
A general comment was made that water belongs to all people, not just landowners
or users and that no one person has a right to make a profit at the people's
expense.
Another individual asked that the MPCA or some other entity address the issue of
large feedlots and their impact on communities, quality of life, land values, etc. A
number of people expressed concern over the size, actual efficiency and
environmental impact of large confinement facilities.
Several people suggested that no feedlot over 500 animal units should be allowed.
Another commentor felt that all feedlot owners should be required to live on their
sites and that there be no absentee ownership allowed;
A general comment was made that for each proposed change in the rule, the MPCA
needs to do an economic impact study.
Odor was raised by a number of people as an important issue that someone must
address. There is a feeling that odor is affecting many people's quality of life and
that it may also be causing health problems for them as well.
Some frustration was expressed with respect to the timeliness of MPCA's
permitting process. Specifically, one commentor said that unless the MPCA is able
to get permits out faster than they do now, they should not be developing any new
requirements.
Several individuals asked for changes in the feedlot permit application so that the
MPCA gets more complete and accurate information about operations before it
permits them. One individual felt that the permit'.applicaiton should ask for the
number of acres in each parcel of land used for manure application, a legal
description of those parcels, and the tillable acres in those parcels. One individual
felt that the MPCA should request a sludge management plan for lagoon systems
as well as records of soil and manure test results for parcels of land where manure
is spread.
One individual requested that the MPCA place heavy fines against those
landowners that falsify information provided to the MPCA under the permitting
process. The accusation was made that there are some feedlot owners that are not
including some information or who are falsifying information in their permit
applications. The commentor suggested that if a landowner js found guilty of this
activity, that they not be allowed to have a facility permitted again for 10 gears.
Water Quality Standards
One organization commented that the MPCA has the authority to establish ground
water standards and surface water standards. In cases where groundwater is
found to exceed federal and state drinking water standards of 10mg/I, the feedlot
rules should require that the MPCA develop state groundwater standards.
Data Collection and Reporting
One organization commented that a greater effort should be made to track and
evaluate the effectiveness of best management practices in reducing surface and
groundwater impacts from feedlots. As such, they suggested that the state
develop a methodology for collecting information from operators that would allow
this kind of analysis to be done over time.
Another comment stated that the rules should specify which types of operations
will be required to monitor groundwater quality. A systematic review of data
collected at these sites was also called for.
One person requested that the MPCA gather more information on the number,
location, and impact of abandoned feedlots.
Notification of Permit Activity
Edina Really.
Elk River Office
692 Dodge Avenue NW
Elk River, Minnesota 66330
(612) 441-8260
October 3, 1995
Mrs. Ann Bentz
6699 Packard Ave. N.E.
Elk River, MN 55330
Dear Ann:
Gene Chouinard, CRS
Thank you so much for the opportunity to tell you about
- myself, Edina Realty, and our services! With my marketing
skills and the tools which Edina Realty makes available, the
sale of your home or the purchase of a new one, should become
a smooth transition.
Our company offers many services which will assist you in
making your real estate transaction a quick and easy one for
- you. We offer experienced full-time real estate
professionals, trained in the aspects of financing,
marketing, and selling techniques, to help you with real
-- estate decisions.
Through our experience, we have discovered that many property
owners, like yourself, have some common objectives when
selling their property.
The pages which follow will provide important information
about selling your home. Please read it carefully and call
me with any questions.
We believe you will find, like many others before, that the
combination of our marketing systems, coupled with
trustworthy ethical practices, is why EDINA REALTY is RATED
#1 IN CUSTOMER SATISFACTION!
Sincerely,
EDINA REALTY, INC.
C\ -ter
Gene Chouinard, CRS
President's Circle
P.S. Should the proposed feed lot for across the street get
approval, the recommended list price range which I have
recommended would have to be reduced substantially. The
exact amount would have to be determined by a more in-depth
study of pared properties in similar situations.
3 MY t�
Schedu
8:00 Welcome and Introduction.
Moderator- Ray Porter
8:10 &--State of the Feedlot Industry
What are the Most Controversial Aspects of
the Industry?
Why Have We Selected Odor Control as the
Key Topic?
Commissioner Gen u oson,Dwaine Bundy
9:30 Break.
9:40 !/Perspective on the Current Situation:
Zoning, Right to Enjoy Property, Not in My
Backyard, Liability Issues.
Kenneth Albrecht,Marlin Pankratz ,
Jack Van de North, George Boody
10:40 Break.
10:50 Current Regulations and Plan for Proposed
Changes.
Bill Oemichen, David Nelson, Todd Biewen
11:35 Legal Development Regarding Feedlot
Permitting and Environmental Review.
Dick Nowlin, Paul Hoff
12:00 Lunch- Roundtable Discussions.
1:00 Breakout Sessions- Short Presentations
Followed by Audience Q&A. Smaller Group
Sessions Will Allow Increased Audience
Participation. Attendees Will Be Able To
Attend Both Sessions.
Room I. Manure Management Strategies.
John Baumgartner, Paul Deprez, Michael
Schmitt, Carolyn Oakley, John Ahlrichs
Room II. Odor- Definition, Sociological
Issues, Zoning, Property Values and
Rights, Now Do You Treat Your Neighbors,
Health and Physiological Impacts.
Larry Jacobson, Jackie Duncanson
Char Kahler, June Varner, Gregg Gleichert
2:30 Break.
2:40 Repeat Breakout Sessions- Room I.- Odor.
Room II: Manure Management Strategies.
aX
Os tD
O 3
O �•
a�
M
< .O*
�3
d �
(A
rt r*
M..
CL
to
s
O Jy O
C71
rho 0
w Q
Ww �a
w 00 0 �
O �
N
. 0•
0
97 _ •
Excellence in Feedlot
Management:
Odor Control and
Environmental Stewardship
sponsored by
The Minnesota
Environmental Initiative
The Minnesota Department
of Agriculture
and
The Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Wednesday, September 6, 1995
Best Western Garden Inn
m� 'U C o
0 z
1 111 RangeStreet, Highway 169 North
D
o
Mankato, Minnesota
z_
y
w 0
1 G)
co m G)
bear farnte.,
This is your invitation to attend the conference: Excellence in Feedlot Management: Odor Control and
Environmental Stewardship, to be held on Wednesday, September 6, 1995, at Mankato's Best Western
Garden Inn. The attendance fee is $25.00; reduced rate and free passes are available.
During the past several years, negative publicity surrounding feedlots has captured the attention of
Minnesota's news media and the general public. We have debated feedlot policy issues in other forums.
However, some farmers have chosen the large feedlot as a key strategy for adding value to grain grown in
Minnesota.
With this in mind, we have designed this workshop to provide concrete solutions to the environmental
challenges facing feedlot operators. In a positive and practical atmosphere, workshop participants will have
the opportunity to learn about current technologies and regulations as well as what the future may hold in
store.
We have already mailed 6,000 registration brochures to farmers and others in the Mankato area, but would
also like to extend you the opportunity to attend this unique event. Farmers are a primary target audience
although it will also attract local government, state agencies, community leaders, consultants, and technology
companies.
We would value your participation in this first -of -its -kind event. Complete the attached form to register or
contact the Minnesota Environmental Initiative (MEI) for a full program brochure including speaker biogra-
phies. Walk-in registrations will be accepted at the door.
Sincerely,
Venee Russ
Program Coordinator, MEI
Since 1991 MEI has provided an unbiased forum on a wide range of environ-
mental issues. Our approach is to facilitate the exchange of information in a
non -confrontational environment. During the past year we have held two very
successful events for the agriculture community:
• Corporate Farin Law and Livestock Confinement Issues, New Ulm, March 1994.
Over 5070 of attendees were farmers. Cooperative farmers and sustainable
agriculture advocates found common ground in the idea that farmers need
to find innovative approaches to stay competitive.
• The Minnesota River, Mankato, August 1994. Farmers, community leaders
and others agreed that the responsibility for cleaning up the river is shared
by everyone in the basin, both urban and rural.
If you cannot attend the September 6th feedlot workshop, would you attend
a similar event held in your area? Which other environmental issues would
you like to see education on during the next year - Corporate Farm Law,
nonpoint source pollution, wetlands? Let us know ... Contact Venee Russ at
(612) 334-3388 or by writing to MEI, 527 Marquette Avenue S, Suite 2420,
Minnrannl;, 144ry srIfy)
Registration
Please complete This form and fax or mail to:
Minnesota Environmental Initiative
527 Marquette Ave. S., Suite 2420
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone (612) 334-3388 Fax (612) 334-3093
MEI Members and Non -Members - $25.00
To encourage public attendance, reduced rate
and free passes are available.
No one will be denied access due to an inability to pay.
Register by Phone, Fax or Mail.
_ I would like to become a member of the Initiative
for $50 and attend this event free of charge
Payment Enclosed (make check payable to:
Minnesota Environmental Initiative).
Purchase Order/ Voucher
Please bill me at the address below.
Charge to:
Visa _ MasterCard Exp. Date
Account #
Signature
Excellence in Feedlot Management:
Name
Organization
Address
City, St., Zip
Phone Fax
The Minnesota Environmental Initiative
is a non-partisan educational organization,
bringing diverse groups together in a
non -contentious forum to facilitate solutions to
ormlomnor;lry reoinrud environmental issues.
u
w10e '
O vWop o
�juteA&�
a000
ad .
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1995
taking
R may..4'" f
66551**CAR RT SORT RR1
BENTZ ROGER
RR i BOX 100
TRUMAN MN
56088
28 PAGES
toll,on harvest
i serious infestations may
�r harvesting their corn
lossible time," Hugoson
re going to have to weigh
saving more of their crop
higher drying cost that
earlier harvesting."
st half (of Minnesota) is
ireenivasam said. "You
un in the southeast. It
mature, and the longer
worse the damage will
tnilis,need to
im because the situation
t in each field.
teele Countyextension';
8rmers should check at
mt locations in each field
simple tug test and exam -
as for evidence of corn
s can evaluate potential
Y pushing each plant in
at a point several nodes
least a foot from the ver -
Plants that break off or
ear, then calculate poten-
expected yield to deter-
uvest loss in bushels per
ler, a Fillmore County
tor, pointed out that har-
iith corn at 32 percent
than 27 percent, means
!nt more water must be
1 variables such as yield
ce and corn price affect
ng the extra 5 percent.
east three bushels per
'vest losses would be
ak even, say extension
Early harvest would be
ons when Potential loss-
Limum of three bushels
Herald Barton, a Silver Lake, Minn.,cropAgri News Photo By Amy Jo Brandel
an attachment for
combines that substantially reducs thnu number oficorn ears lost during har-
vesting. The patented device Is called an Outboard Crop Divider Structure
Guard Assembly.
Farmer -inventor keeps
his ears off the ground
By AMY JO BRANDEL "You get only one crop a year. You
Agri News staff Writer don't want to Ince any of rt 11 u,...,......
SINGLE COPY 754t
Proposed odor
rule has farm
groups worried
By PAUL ADAMS
Agri News Staff Writer
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agen-
cy may have £malls found a way to measure
the immeasurable livestock odors that
have been the source of controversy in
farm country.
You might say they plan to employ a
highly sophisticated odor detecting appa-
ratus that has taken eons to evolve.
Call it public opinion. Call it the nasal
appraisal, if you will. .
The MPCA has proposed replacing nu-
merical standards. for measuring industri-
al and farm odor with a rule based on cit-
izen complaints. If it survives scrutiny,
livestock producers could be subject to
tougher regulations if as few as 10 of their
neighbors complain to the MPCA about
odors within a 90 -day period.
The rule would also turn responsibili-
ty for investigating complaints over to local
governments.
The change would be a victory for neigh-
bors opposed to large livestock facilities.
Many blame livestock odors for lowering
property values and destroying quality of
life. Farmers in many areas throughout
the state have faced stiff opposition from
neighbors as they attempt to expand their
feedlots. State and local governments have
compl�aintsuProm neig Dhow libestock
operations become larger. Many counties
have passed ordinances banning large live-
stock feedlots.
But farm groups say the rule could be
devastating to agriculture and are angry
that the MPCA didn't consult with them
before subjecting the industry to the pro-
posed rule.
"The way the rule is drafted right now,
it's an absolute disaster," said Roger Gil -
Ian, a Morgan cattle producer and chair-
man of the Feedlot and Manure Manage-
ment Advisory Committee. Made up of
farmers, legislators, environmentalists and
MPCA officials, the committee was set up
to advise the MPGA on livestock pollution
issues. But the committee was not told
about the proposed odor rule.
"The idea behind the committee was to
advise (MPCA) and work on these things,"
Gillan said. "We feel they should have con-
sulted us ... but none of us had any idea
the language had been put together."
That may be because the rule was origi
I 1-- Ill .1_ Iw
I
losses
lone. Farmers now must
it is
more economical to
Ying costs by harvestingt
r
risk leaving the corn in
r,
oping the damage is not
.
�t�
;loner Gene Hugoson said
til
i yt
wout their fields to check
damage and then make
i serious infestations may
�r harvesting their corn
lossible time," Hugoson
re going to have to weigh
saving more of their crop
higher drying cost that
earlier harvesting."
st half (of Minnesota) is
ireenivasam said. "You
un in the southeast. It
mature, and the longer
worse the damage will
tnilis,need to
im because the situation
t in each field.
teele Countyextension';
8rmers should check at
mt locations in each field
simple tug test and exam -
as for evidence of corn
s can evaluate potential
Y pushing each plant in
at a point several nodes
least a foot from the ver -
Plants that break off or
ear, then calculate poten-
expected yield to deter-
uvest loss in bushels per
ler, a Fillmore County
tor, pointed out that har-
iith corn at 32 percent
than 27 percent, means
!nt more water must be
1 variables such as yield
ce and corn price affect
ng the extra 5 percent.
east three bushels per
'vest losses would be
ak even, say extension
Early harvest would be
ons when Potential loss-
Limum of three bushels
Herald Barton, a Silver Lake, Minn.,cropAgri News Photo By Amy Jo Brandel
an attachment for
combines that substantially reducs thnu number oficorn ears lost during har-
vesting. The patented device Is called an Outboard Crop Divider Structure
Guard Assembly.
Farmer -inventor keeps
his ears off the ground
By AMY JO BRANDEL "You get only one crop a year. You
Agri News staff Writer don't want to Ince any of rt 11 u,...,......
SINGLE COPY 754t
Proposed odor
rule has farm
groups worried
By PAUL ADAMS
Agri News Staff Writer
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agen-
cy may have £malls found a way to measure
the immeasurable livestock odors that
have been the source of controversy in
farm country.
You might say they plan to employ a
highly sophisticated odor detecting appa-
ratus that has taken eons to evolve.
Call it public opinion. Call it the nasal
appraisal, if you will. .
The MPCA has proposed replacing nu-
merical standards. for measuring industri-
al and farm odor with a rule based on cit-
izen complaints. If it survives scrutiny,
livestock producers could be subject to
tougher regulations if as few as 10 of their
neighbors complain to the MPCA about
odors within a 90 -day period.
The rule would also turn responsibili-
ty for investigating complaints over to local
governments.
The change would be a victory for neigh-
bors opposed to large livestock facilities.
Many blame livestock odors for lowering
property values and destroying quality of
life. Farmers in many areas throughout
the state have faced stiff opposition from
neighbors as they attempt to expand their
feedlots. State and local governments have
compl�aintsuProm neig Dhow libestock
operations become larger. Many counties
have passed ordinances banning large live-
stock feedlots.
But farm groups say the rule could be
devastating to agriculture and are angry
that the MPCA didn't consult with them
before subjecting the industry to the pro-
posed rule.
"The way the rule is drafted right now,
it's an absolute disaster," said Roger Gil -
Ian, a Morgan cattle producer and chair-
man of the Feedlot and Manure Manage-
ment Advisory Committee. Made up of
farmers, legislators, environmentalists and
MPCA officials, the committee was set up
to advise the MPGA on livestock pollution
issues. But the committee was not told
about the proposed odor rule.
"The idea behind the committee was to
advise (MPCA) and work on these things,"
Gillan said. "We feel they should have con-
sulted us ... but none of us had any idea
the language had been put together."
That may be because the rule was origi
I 1-- Ill .1_ Iw
I
orn borer infestation is
field potential remains
armers harvest infested
possible,
sam is less optimistic,
it he thinks could be a
blow.
while to ascertain the
" Sreenivasam said. "My
hat it's easily going to
on in damages."
SILVER. LAKE, Minn. — A simple but
effective invention by Herald Barton
keeps corn ears in the combine head
rather than dropping to the ground.
At age 81, Barton is a farming veter-
an. Although retired from the daily rig-
ors and responsibilities since his son
Barry took over the farmingoperation,
Barton continues to help with combin-
ing and other Feld work At harvest time,
he did not like seeing corn ears drop-
ping to the ground and not into the com-
bine head.
In 1991, losses from corn borer dam-
age prompted Barton to invent a com-
bine head attachment that nearly elim-
inates ears on the outside rows from
bouncing out of the head and to the
ground. The U.S. patent for Barton's
invention, the Outboard Crop Divider
Structure Guard Assembly, became offi-
cial on Aug. 29.
Ear losses occur when the corn stalk
has been weakened by corn borer or
See INVENTION A2
*■
; 0% N 0% /M MA N W% 10n, • ■ A & Lft L. ■ ..1 — 1
our as it is written, agriculture would be
included.
Critics say there are too many variables
in the rule. For example, how close must
somebody live to a farm before they earn
the right to complain? Half a mile? Two
miles? Five miles? What if only two peo-
ple live next to a farm? Do their complaints
not matter to the state?
"There's a lot of variables and things
left that have not probably been well
thought out," said Dave Preisler, execu-
tive director of the Minnesota Pork Pro -
See ODOR A2
r]
I?
ie
ain in
ive is
itural
�w
t
when
loors,
ids:
-fully.
deal -
same
bin.
)etent
place,
natu-
isics.
ffices
letins
ivail-
from
inne-
I Air
pper
nber
im R
ance
:sota
ix in -
i and
ents
-r by
--d.
r,
1420
MN
Feedlots and fields abuzz
BY JOHN POCOCK
cedlots and fields
could be buzzing
this summer — not
with bees or good
news — but with flies.
Unusually wet weather
this spring, coupled with a
recent heat wave, spell
trouble for dairy and beef
cattle alike. Scenarios such
as these favor higher -than -
normal fly populations.
says Murt McLeod, South
Dakota State University
extension entomologist.
"In pasture situations,
we think mostly of two
critters: faceflies and
hornflies," says McLeod.
"They are typical range-
land pests in areas where
there are wet, high -humid-
ity conditions. So, a wet
year like this could in-
crease numbers."
Temperature also plays
a factor. "We're going to
need some hot weather for
high fly numbers to de-
velop," adds McLeod.
"Right now, we're getting
that."
Horn- and faceflies are
the two most prevalent and
damaging fly species for
South Dakota rangeland
operations, McLeod says.
These flies are also com-
mon pests to pastured
cattle in Minnesota and
North Dakota — although
in recent years, significant
facefly populations have
been limited to the south-
eastern part of North Da-
kota only.
Hornflies stay on cattle
24 hours a day and harass
them with intermittent
blood -sucking bites.
Faceflies commonly feed
on nasal mucus, saliva and
tears, which sometimes
transmits parasites and dis-
eases, such as eye worms
and pink eye.
Bcef and dairy farmers
can control horntlies fairly
well with insecticidal ear
tags, pour -on treatments,
backrubbers, oilers and
dustbags. Yet. McLeod rec-
ommends rotating insecti-
cide compounds on ear
tags yearly and relying on
just one control strategy at
a time to avoid a buildup
of insecticide resistance
among flies.
"Faceflies are more dif-
ficult to control with insec-
ticides," says McLeod. The
difficulty is due partly to
the manpower it takes to
adequately and safely ad-
minister them to the facial
area. Another reason is
that faceflies usually don't
spend enough time feeding
on the animal to ingest a
lethal dose of insecticide.
Still, ear tags can re-
duce face fly numbers and
the nuisance and disease
risk they cause to cattle,
says McLeod. Two insecti-
cidal ear tags may be
needed per cow for ad-
equate facefly protection.
Yet, the economics of this
practice may be question-
able in some situations.
Beef and dairy confine-
ment operations tend to
attract both houseflies and
stableflies. These two fly
species typically breed in
wet, mucky areas that con-
tain fermenting organic
matter.
"Feedlots that are full
of mud and muck are ideal
environments for stable -
flies and houseflies to de-
velop," says McLeod.
Sanitation is the key to
fly control in confinement
operations, says Dave
Noetzel, University of
Minnesota extension ento-
mologist."Manure cleanup
is the big factor," he says.
"You'll need to spread it in
the fields so flies can't
breed in it." Proper
spreading will dry manure
so that it is unappealing for
flies to breed in, he adds.
Drainage and feed
management is important
too. "Anything we can do
to drain feedlots and farm-
yards of standing water
will help," McLeod says.
Areas where feed accumu-
lates and ferments is an-
other place where
stableflies develop.
The stablefly bites and
feeds around the cow's
legs, where insecticide is
difficult to apply. House-
flies do not bite, but their
indiscriminate feeding
habits spread disease or-
ganisms. Aside from sani-
tation, control options in-
clude insecticidal sprays,
residual sprays that can be
used in areas along fence
lines, along the walls of
buildings, and even space
sprays used in some of the
taller vegetation surround-
ing the feed yard or the
feedlot.
In confinement situa-
tions, even just extremely
weedy premisses can be a
problem, points out Rick
Meyer, North Dakota
State University research
entomologist. "That's be-
cause flies need to have a
refuge to land in and hide
away when they are not
feeding on animals.
"If you have high
weeds around the pens,
that's a place for flies to
rest," Meyer adds. "Then,
it's a real short trip to find
an animal to feed on."
Cattle may spend more
time flicking at flies
than feeding or grazing
this summer.
The Farmer/Dakota Farmer July 1995 11
OFFICE OF
RENVILLE COUNTY ATTORNEY
t'hema� .f. slrnrnonrf
County Attorney
Charles L. Hunt
AnIttant County Attorney
'a Q. Bremer
taut County Attorney
Dorothy D. Clouse
Sharon M. Lldbeck
Legal Assislonts
August 30, 1995
Mr. Tom Casey
Attorney at Law
2854 Cambridge
Mound, MH 55364
Re: Renville County Feed Lot ordinance
Dear Mr..Casey:
Pursuant to our telephone c
the Renville County Feed Lot
requirements. If anything furti
smI
Enclosure
Commerce Building
P.O. BOX D
Olivia, Minnesota 56277
Telephones:
(612) 523-2661
(800) 645-1571
FAX: (612) 623-2667
W
wsation, enclosed is a copy of
nance which addresses setback
e desired, please advise.
truly yours,
s J. Si ons
,.. ..�..... SLG #, i T /tv'f /LUN/EXT TO
5232667 P,81
• Definitions
Animal unit - a unit of measure used to compare differences in the
production of animal manures that employs as a standard the amount of
manure produced on a regular basis by a
heifer. 1,000 pound slaughter steer or
The following figures shall be used in determining an
for Renville County; imal unit numbers
a. 1 mature dairy cow
b. l slaughter steer or heifer 1.4 A.U.
C. l horse 1.0 A.U.
d. Y swine over .55 pounds 1.0 A.U.
e. 1 duck .4 A.U.
f , 1 sheep .01 A.U.
9. 1 $wine under .55 pounds .1 A.U.
1,' turkey
.05 A.U.
iIchicken .018 A.U.
.01 A,U.
Covered Lagoon or Covered Earthen Basin - An earthen constructed
manure holding structure either totally covered with a minimum of a
thick layer of straw or other similar material, a synthetic or
floating man-made cover which continually covers the entire lagoon or
earthen basin area; or a wooden, concrete or glass lined steel
structure totally enclosing and covering the lagoon or earthen basin.
Earthen Basin An area specifically designed and engineered to be
associated with an animal feedlot where animal manure or runoff
containing animal manure is stored until it can be utilized'as
domestic fertilizer.
Feedlot - A lot or building or combination of lots and buildings
intended for -the confined.feeding, breeding, raising or holding of
animals, and specifically designed as a confinement area in which
manure may accumulate, or where the concentration of animals is such
that a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the enclosure.
open lots used for the feeding and rearing of poultry and poultry
:ranges, and pastures shall .not be considered to be animal feedlots.
Lagoon - A biological treatment system designed or operated for
biodegradation or converting of organic matter in animal wastes to
more stable end products.
Manure stockpile Site - Any location other than at feedlot's designed
manure storage facilities, at which animal manure is allowed to
accumulate on a temporary basis until proper land application can be
made.
open Earthen ""n, Open Concrete Tank or any Qgaa Mnaure Storage
'veaael - Any structure, or designed and approved manure storage
vessel, which is not covered by a minimum of a 61, thick layer of
straw, a synthetic or floating cover,,or a wooden, concrete, or glass
lined structure. All manure storage vessels not totally encompassed
by one of the above described methods, shall 4e considered an open
manure storage vessel.
Pitted Bartz . A building with self contained concrete manure storage
capabilities. Said concrete manure storage vessel shall be
the building if directly, below the building, or may be located covered -by
the building and covered with an e building,
PftrviQUs mor may outside
2.21 pas�Mitted Vaes A -X
1. Any agricultural use, including any farm dwelling and an
agricultural structure designed to assist with produCingycrops or
raising livestock, dairy or poultry, not including feedlots. An
feedlot shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.23 (d) y
Any existing reszdence.shall be subject to the separation
Provision of sectipn 2.23 (d).
2.23 Conditional U9194 • A-3.
.r
�.-O,)i:ts,ehali.be required Qn'all livestock
facilites w2ii.ch propose new cofistruction or expansion of
greater then 300 animal units.
Feedlots which can not comply with the provisions of this
ordinance shall have the right to apply for a conditional use
permit if special conditions or circumstances are present,
In excess of 300 animal units f of a new or expanding feedlot
ft8t"@ ldb, church or government buildings. eedloott owners or
operators residences excluded. Separation distances shall be
calculated from the closest point of any residence in the setback
area to the closest point of a feedlot building containing
livestock, manure storage structure or lagoon.
Xiaimum Livestock Separation Requixemeats Chart
Any Feedlot
Pitted Barrs or
Covered Earthen
Basin
rMuse"Nse
Open Lagoon
300 -boo
750. feet
1 /eN owe
m. -14W.IALM! v•
602-1,000
1/a mile
3/4 Mize
1,001-2,000
1/2 mile
I mile
Minimum ,reparation requirements of a new feedlot or expanding
existing feedlot of any size from the corporate limits of any
Renville County municipality. Separation distance shall be
calculated from the closest corporate limit line to the closest
point of a feedlot manure storage structure or 1
agoon,
Any FGedlet
Pitted Barn or
Covered Earthen
Basin
20-1,000
1 mile
Open Storage Structure
Open Lagoon NOT ALLOWED
1,001-21000
i mile
1 1/4 mile
Manure Stock Pile Sits Regulations For Off -Site Stock Pile Sites
I. bo not stock pile manure in low lying.,areas or depressions
in the field.
2. Surface water setbacks: Lake 11000 feet
River 300 feet
Stream 300 feet
Drainage Ditch 300 feet
3. Manure stock pile sites may not be located within 1 mile of
the corporate limit of any municipality..
4. Manure stock pile sites must maintain a minimum 'separation
distance of 1/4 mile from the nearest residence, eXCSpt the
owners or operators residence.
5. Runoff from manure stock pile sites must not be allowed to
enter the waters of the State. Runoff controls such as
grass filter strips or earthen beans must be installed if a
runoff condition exists.
Manure Application Setbacks
1.
Manure application within l
mile of the corporate limits of
a municipality must be injected or surface spread and.
incorporated with immediace
tillage.
2.
Manure rhall:nor.be�applied
within the right -of -way area of
any public roadway.
3.
Manure shall not be applied
within 200 feet of any public Qr
private well.
4.
In the unincorporated areas
of Renville County, manure shall
not be applied within 300 feet
of a residence, not including
.owners or operators residence.
5.
Manure shall not be applied
within 300 feet of a lake,
river or stream.
G.
Manure shall not be'applied
within five feet of the
berm of a county or judicial
drainage ditch.
Livestock Facility Road Maintenance Agreements
All livestock facilities within Renville County that cause
excessive maintenance or County or Township roads shall be
required to have a written agreement with the Township Board
or County Highway En9ireer, stating acceptance
responsibility for all add'_tional costs incurred by the LGU
. v I e- r1w t 4 N ."t:x T TO 5232667 P.04
in maintenance of said
defined as: road. Excessive maintenance shall, -be
A11 work and'ma,terials costs incurred over and
above the average cost of maintaining that specific type of
road within that local governmental units jurisdiction.
The terms of said agreement shall be determined prior to the
issuance of a conditional use permit.
2.24 A -i Regulatiot�a
(b)(5) Any existing residence shall be subject to the separation
provision of Section 2.23 (d),
(f) Any feedlot shall be subject to the provisions of Section 2.23
(d).
2.23 A-2 Regulats,oaa
(d) Any existing residence shall be subject to the separation
provisions of Section 2.23 (d),
2.43 A -2R Rsgulationa
(a) Any existing residence shall be subject to the separation
provisa,vns of Section .2..23 (d) ,
l y
CftITBA tab.az
MERATA VROVTSIONS Aft aEFMTXONe.
Subdivision 1. Jurisdiction. The provisions of this ordinance
shall apply to all animal feedlots that exceed 10 animal units,
A.U., as defined in this Ordinance,.and to all areas of Blue
Earth County outside the incorporated limits of municipalities.
BUbd. Z. Compliance. The uee of any land for the establishment,
expansion or management of an animal feedlot shall comply with
the provisions of this Ordinance, the Blue Earth County Zoning
Ordinance, and the provisions of MPCA Rules.
eubd. 3. Administration and Snforaomont. The Feedlot Officer is
responsible for the administration Viand enforcezent of this
Ordinance. The Board may establish by resolution, application,
permit and such other fees necessary to fund the administration
and enforcement of this Ordinance.
"Any violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or failure to
comply with any of its requirements, including violations of
conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants
of variances or conditional uses, shall constitute a misdemeanor
and shall be punishable,as defined by law. Violations of this
Ordinance can occur re ardless of whether or not a permit is
required for a regulate activity pursuant to this Ordinance.
Subd. 4. Interpreta[tion. In the interpretation and application,
the provisions of this ordinance shall be held to be minimum
requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of the
public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Blue Earth
County by providing for,the commonly approved animal husbandry
practices used in the management of animal feedlots..
subd. S. SovQrability. If any section, clause, provision, or
portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid
by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this
Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
Subd. 6. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions. It is not the
intent of this Ordinance to.repeal, abrogate, or impair .any
existing ordinances,.rules or statute. However, when this
Ordinance is inconsistent with any other ordinance, rule or
statute, the ordinance, rule or statute which imposes the greater
restriction shall prevail.
Oubd. 7. Amendment..This Ordinance may be amended whenever the
public necessity and the general welfare require such amendment
by following the procedure specified in this Subdivision.
2
EX) Abandoned Witer Well. "Abandoned Water Well" means a
well whose use has heeri permansntly discontinued, or which
is in such disrepair that its continued use for the purpose
of obtaining ground water is impractical or may be a health
hazard.
(21 Agency. "Agency" means the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency as established in Minnesota statues, Chapter 116.
E31 Agriculture. The use of land for agricultural purpos-
es, including farming,'dairying, pasturage agriculture,
horticulture, floriculture, viticulture,
And animal and
poultry husbandry and the necessary accessory uses for
packing, treating or storing the produce; provided, hovever,
that the operation of any such accessory uses shall be
secondary to that of primary agricultural activities.
[41 Animal Feed;lot'. A lot or building, or combination of
contiguous lots and.buildings, intended for the confined
feeding, breeding,.xaiding, or holding of animals and spe-
cifically designed 'as a confinement area in which manure may
accumulate, or where the concentration of animals is such
that.a vegetative cover cannot be maintained within the
enclosure. Forpur�oses.of these parts, open lots used for
feeding and rearing of -poul (poultry ranges) and barns,
dairy facilities, swine facil ties, beef lots and barns,
horse stalls,.mink ranches and domesticated animal.zoos,.
shall be considered to be animal feedlots. Pastures shall
not be considered animal feedlots under these parts.
[31 Animal Manure. "Animal Mai}ure" means poultry, live-
stock, or other animal excreta; or a mixture of excreta with
food, bedding or other materials.
f CHApTF.R 29.00 CONFINED FEEDLOT nOUL.ATIONS
29.01 CONFaqW FEEDLOTS 0011,' RALLY: No person shall permit or allow their land or
property under their control tb be used for. any canoed C�not+ of dMnaortz'n ucept c n
urt
prom any confined. feedlot shall be disposed of within tY
at an
operation for which a Cesvficmte of Compliance or a Conditional Uaa Permit has been
issued in accordancw with. the provisions of this Chapter.
29.02 ADOPTION BY RE R CE OF STATE P-MULA"ONS: pursuant to MSA 394.25
hcnb. adopts by refertlice
29.02 ADOP71ON BY nmwak OF stlfi%
Subdivisidn 6 the Martin County Board of Cotnn1issfAaets hereby adopts by reference.
411 16r1tM1-QLRQ*�L
Provisions
of these rules shall be as much a past of this O�an� if they had been
set out in full herein when adopted by this reference.
29.03 MCEM n FROM 1MGLrLAT10N astimal units or less when in
(1) Any confined feeding operation of un (10 ) � shall be exempt from this
conformance with all provisions of this Ordinaa
..
Chapter.
(2} Chapter in this Chapter shall exempt any owner or oparstor of any feedlot front
conNothing g with applicable state or fede�rai regulations governing confined feeding
operations, or any other provisions. of this Ordittartde.
29.04 RMSTMO OPERATIONS: Any confined feeding operation in existence at the time of
adoption of this ordinance shall be in conforrnance with the provisions of this Chapter
according to the following schedule:
(1} Whenever them is a change in operation, as defined
6 MCAR Section 4. mal feedlot the ovmcr5or
or change of ovimarsblp of an existing, ag� Fer
operator shall -apply to the County' for a Certificate s pC ce or Condidonal
Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of thi
(2) All confined feeding operations existing on the date of adoption of this Ordtr=cv
other than a confined feeding operation as spxified In
Chapter
apter29.04 (1) shall
ai Use Permit in
apply to the County for a CertifiCo cate of Compliance or ears of the
accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance within live (5) Y
effectivc date of, this Ordinance.
29.05 APPLICATION PRC>CEDM: AppUcatiotcs for locating any confined f iutg operadGr,
in Martin County shall be governed by the follows g procedures:
(1) No Potential Pollution Iluard: For any animal feedlot where manure is used as a
domestic fertdizar and with no potential polludon hazard, the County feedlot
pollution control officer shall provide a Certificate of Compliance of the applicant
stating that the animal feedlot complies with all aspw.ts of this t701=0e. ,
(2) Corrected Pollution Hazard: For zny animal feedlot where manure is used as a
1- domestic fertilizer and where all potential pollution hazards have been mitigated by
protective or corrective mmsures the County foedtot pollution control officer Shall
i
79
,t
previde It Certificate of Compliance to the applicant statin$ that the ar►irnW feedlot
complies with this OrdinanCo
(3} Peadlats Requiring a Conditional Use Pmt; Any of the following described
animal fee&g operations whether existing or proposed shall require a Conditional
Use permit issued by the County,
A. Animal feedlots'with a potential pollution hawd which has not been mitigated
by eornxtive of protective mow4m; or
B. Animal feedlots where manure is not used as domestic ferdllzrr,
.R
r
?ROPO$ED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
i
CHAPTER 29:00 - CONFINED FEEDLOT REGULATIONS
29.02 - ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF STATE REGULATIONS: Pursuant to
MSA 394.25 Subdivision 9, the Martin County Board of
Commissioners hereby adopts by reference Minn®sota
Pollution Control Agency Rules Chapter 7020 and
appendixes as amended, formerly 6 MCAR Section 4.8051
for the Control of Pollution from Animal Feedlots.
29.04 - The owner of a proposed or existing animal feedlot for
92 L:�..�r�.s shall apply to Martin County
for a Certificate of Compliance in accordance with the
provisions of this ordinance. (1) Whenever there -is a
now feedlot or,animal facility, or facility not used in
the last five years, expansion of existing feedlot or
animal facility (increased animal numbers), remodeling
or modification of.an existing feedlot or animal
facility (no increase in animal numbers), change in
ownership of an existing feedlot or animal facility,
Complaint or report of pollution hazard as defined
in Chapter 7020.
29.03 -'APPLICATION PROCEDURE:
(1) Same
(2) Same
ADD: The following is applicable only to new construction.
(� QM11 Ind rulacc Vithi
All feedlots shall not be located within one --half
(1/2) mile.of a public park.
(4 ) Feedlots shall not be located .A,�oe!i*�►,/2) -
zl,�., :.4p1t3 Located
on 20 or less acres.
(5) Feedlots shall not be located within one-half (1/2).
mile of the corporate limits of a municipality
unless approved by the affected municipality.
(6) No Feedlot shall be located within one thousand
11000) of the normal high water mark of any lake,
pond; or flawac�e�. or within, three hundred .300)
feet of a river or stream. Modifications or.. --
expansions to existing feedlots which are within
the shoreland district are allowed if they do not
further encroach into;the existing ordinary high
water level. (OhRTL) satback or the bluff impact zones.
�i
1
OJ
(7) New Feedlots (not permi.ed before the enactment of
this ordinance)
i+rl vne
thnus1�,Q ).., feet of a
dwelling or any �usiness or
industrial istrict ordinance and
on the Zoning Map.
(8) All existing feedlots (:less than 500' from building
site and permitted before the enactment of this
ordinance)including livestock holding
buildings, pits, slurry stone and lagoon System or
earthen storage basin, may not expand closer than 500
feet to the nearest existing nei.ghbor'irg dwelling,
(9) Feedlots Requiring a Conditional Use Pexmit: Any of
the following descrlbed animal feeding operations
whether existing or proposed shall' require a
Londitional Uae permit.issued by the county.
A. Animal foedlots with a pollution hazard which
has not been mitigated by corrective or
protective measures; or
8. Animal feedlots where manure is not used as
domestic fertilizer.
C. Feedlot containing over 2000 animal units
Effective day of �� .�r`', 1995.
Dated this day of, 1995.
en P arca ��rm�
i
Martin County Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
teve owers
Clerk to the Board
�y TRACTED._,
324 889 Ofkq of C60" Record,,
County of +dortm, AS►pnewi
1 hereby CeMN tial the w►th►n ►nstume", wss f,W in teas
liilyv k►r record pa theQ_ 177th day of—
,0.15-11,
f May
was duly rn':roJPInW as Ooevmeet No. 320869
Caurur Aeto►�er
Rv .....- .-.,.-...� _ Qepu►y
Nov 15, 1995
TO: Otsego City Planning Committee
RE: Why There Is A Need To Change Commercial Feedlot
Ordnances In Otsego.
I believe the Commercial Feedlot issue is larger with the
residence of Otsego and with the future growth of Otsego than many
of us want to believe.
The Lef-Co Commercial Feedlot C.U.P. application appeared to be a
Packard Ave residence opposition. But since my name was used in
the Star News articles and letter to the editor, I am here to tell
you the issue goes far beyond Packard Ave.
I have received support from Rogers to Elk River and some of the
support has been from farmers themselves. Everyone on Packard
Ave, except one (1) residence, I talked too didn't want to live
next to or across from a feedlot.
Most of the residence worked together to gather information and
helped pay the legal expenses; and, we also received additional
legal advice and information which was financed by other residence
of Otsego that didn't live on Packard Ave. This tells us that a
Commercial Feedlot is not a Packard Ave issue, but a City of
Otsego and surrounding community issue.
This experience has certainly open my eyes as to what the MPCA
isn't. It appears to me that all of our city staff, be it
elected, hired or volunteered believe that since the MPCA approved
the Lef-Co Commercial Feedlot application, everything must be OK!
But, my first conversation with the MPCA was their only concern
was with ground water pollution and that all other issues are
turned over to the LGU (local governing units)
Otsego doesn't have qualified feedlot ordinances or regulations
that reflect as to how our farmers say they have to operate in the
21st century. We must look for help from neighboring cities and
greater Minnesota which may have more experience in this area.
Otsego must establish new updated ordinances that can be tolerated
by both the residences and the commercial farming industry. For
this, an Interim Ordinance is needed to temporarily prohibit the
receipt, consideration, or approval of C.U.P. applications for
Commercial Feedlots within the City of Otsego.
Submitted by: John R. Holland
6419 Packard Ave
Otsego
Minn -E -Golf & Hobby
FunCity
1996
Expansion Plans
• Phase one Building 24' x 55', wood construction,
foundation, white vinyl siding, blue steel roof.
• Bumper boat pond, In ground 45'x45'x 42", steel
walls with vinyl liner, concrete apron & safety fence.
Electric boats.
• Pump House - addition to existing shed 6'x12'
• Bumper car pad - concrete and decorative rock.
Gas powered cars Low noise levels will provide sound
specifications.
• Kiddie Car track - asphalt and grass track,
electric cars.
• Future Restaurant - approximately 2000 sq ft.
rev. 10-t1-95
NEW
IL
CD
C)
VT
Building - phase one
55'00"
3
5
H
0
w a
s
Q ,too
wwo
Restaurant
"I"m
2s•oo-
35100m
........................ .......................
.......................32'00
.......................
.........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
...........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'....'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'
......................................... ..............
:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ..........
.............................................''
.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'."..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'......:.:.:.:.:.... .
'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'........ '.'.'.'.'.'..............
...... _ ..._ .
.........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
551000
ig a
ELECTRIC
BUM
a
E-� 1--1
t liiillii
car company
3 place
350 WEST 600 SOUTH * SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 * (801) 539-1919
r
4USA
Raceway USA's SUPER COLLIDER
is perhaps the most unique new
attraction to come around in years.
Never before has one product
generated so much interest within the
industry as the SUPER COLLIDER
FUN KART!
With virtually no chance of tipping
over while occupied, the SUPER
COLLIDER FUN KARTcan spin
on a near -zero axis at a rate of
approximately 60 times per minute!
tris highly maneuverable kart has no
=1 anventional steering and can be
instantly shifted from full forward to
full reverse with no adverse affects on
K the kart or the rider.
An air tube surrounding the kart
keeps the rider safe. Riding the
SUPER COLLIDER FUN KART is the
most fun your customers will have at
your park.
Call Raceway USA today to place
your order for the HOTTEST new
attraction to come along in years.
Read on for more information about
SUPER COLLIDER FUN KARTS!
Home Of The
Raceway USA's SUPER
COLLIDER is safer than other
fun karts because there are nc
serious jolts or impacts to the body
upon making contact with a barde
or another kart. Just a quick--ye�
gentle push that is easily
recovered by using the unique
CONTROL STICKS to changE
direction and speed. This allows
for more mobility and far les,,
congestion and traffic jams at you,
attraction, giving your customers
more time to enjoy your SUPEF
COLLIDER FUN KART!
Built by professionals with many
years of automotive design anc
engineering experience to back
them up, the SUPER COLUDEF.
FUN KART is constructed using
only the finest methods and
materials to provide you with years
of Hassle -Free operation and
Easy Maintenance! Engineered
from the finest parts anc
components that are easily
accessible from, your down-time is
minimal, letting you make morE
PROFITS with fewer headaches
A CLEAR ADVANTAGE!
Safer and far more fun than conventional bumper cars, the unique SUPER COLLIDER FUN KART features a full body cockpit
that fully supports the entire length of the body. And since there are no floor controls to reach, almost any size person can
operate the SUPER COLLIDER FUN KART!
Our fiberglass body wraps around the rider, and with proper use of the safety restraints, it keeps the rider safe and comfortable
Iroughout the duration of the ride. Colorful bodies with accenting graphics set the SUPER COLLIDER FUN KART apart from
the crowd. Its SURE to be a real pleaser to everyone --including your accountant!
SUPER COLLIDER FUN KART
GAS -POWERED MODEL GP55H
The SUPER COLLIDER FUN KART is a BLAST on an open, flat
surface or track! An extremely versatile and manueverable
fun machine, the GP55H is powered by a 5.5 Horsepower
gasoline engine, linked to two Hydrostatic Transimissions.
Desined by professionals to provide years of reliable and safe
entertainment to your customers.
All SUPER COLLIDER FUN KARTS are equipped with
RaaeMaster kart controls. This protects your employees and
customers, in that it allows you to start up and shut down the
entire ride by remote radio control.
RECHARGEABLE MODEL BP16H
This SUPER COLLIDER FUN KART is similar to the GP55H
model, in that you can operate this version on any flat surface
or track. This BATTERY -POWERED model uses no special
electrical floor grids or power pick-up systems, thus simplifying
and lowering installation costs.
A typoical charge should operate the kart for up to 8 hours,
depending on the amount of use received. What makes the
BP16H so attractive to operators, is the fact that it can be
operated in any INDOOR arena without polluting the air.
Skating Rink Operators looking for something new to attract
customers can count on the BP16H to do the job!
SUPER COLLIDERS are WINNERS!
--GAS POWERED GP55H MODEL-
Outdoor Attraction requires a smooth pavement surface or track.
No special installation requirements necessary!
--BATTERY POWERED BP16H MODEL--
Indoor, 'Year -Round" attraction requires a smooth concrete surface at
your facility. No special installation requirements necessary!
ik 1
6 0
Nib,
INVR
�"lAk
rr 71? F
64r ,-�g 5�7
"W'55 &, 7,*Pr
ek�11�v^ nog I Jr� !36<
4,2 CO (l1 11 w
1�T-:
Military Jet Takeoff
0
l 7F, 25
7/
A � S 4
�9
4,2 CO (l1 11 w
1�T-:
Military Jet Takeoff
At 50'
X �
Oxygen Torch
Turbofan Aircraft
X
Takeoff At 200'
Riveting Machine
Rock -N -Roll Band
X
Passing Subway
X
Newspaper Press
X
Motorcycle At 25'
Food Blender
I
X
Power Mower At 25'
X
Garbage Disposal
(
�
t
Passenger Car 65
X
tS
MPH At 25'
Vacuum Cleaner
50
Electric Typewriter
J
At 10'
Conversation
Quiet Residential
(
,
Street
Bird Calls
X
Soft Music
X
Rustling Leaves
Threshold Of
X
Hearing
(dba) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
L7/ L c.) 1 1 t c� �� �::;IjS
C,(c:,. A �Av/U�kf liter--jV"" ! uSGz) //,i 7�s
YS/
JLar
�S
37
r
3�r ALF;
Ocil it'l , . s-,,�,( ,-�
67
Ocil it'l , . s-,,�,( ,-�
THERE WERE NO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS IN
DECEMBER OF 1995