04-17-96 PCExhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit D
The above Exhibits were previously distributed to the Planning Commission and
City Council and, therefore, are not included with the attached minutes. They have
been made part of the record.
Attached are Exhibits C, E, F and G.
Thank you,
Judy Hudson
Deputy Clerk
Tylaa
A q�
Proudly Producing PLANCOork
Elanco Animal Health
A Division of Eli Lilly and Company
Indianapolis, Indiana 46285 USA Tylan® (tylosin, Elanco) Al 8110
APR -16-1996 11:05AM FROM
FAX COVER
EX
TO 16124973936 P.01
MINNESOTA PORK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION
360 PIERCE AVE., SUITE 106
NORTH MANKATO, MN 56003
507-345-5$14
FAX #: 507-345-8681
TO:
COMPANY: -_ q 17
La"o'-�
�
DATE: Y--16, --
ADDITIONAL MESSAGE:
Number of pages to follow:
PLEASE CHECK THIS TRANSMISSION AFTER EACH PACE. IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE
IT CLEARLY, OR IF YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS, OR IF SENT TO AN INCORRECT
NUMBER, PLEASE CALL US BACK IMMEDIATELY AT 507-345-$$14.
---------------------------------------------
APR-16-1996 11:05AM FROM _ TO 16124973936 P.02
6nimal I, nit - A unit of measure used to compare differences in the production of
animal manure that employs as a standard the amount of manners manure produced on
a regular basis by a 1,000 pound slaughter steer or heifer based upon the MPGA 7020
regulations.
Animal
Unit
One manure dairy cow
1.4 animal unit
One slaughter steer or heifer
1.0 animal unit
One horse
1.0 animal unit
One swine over 55 pounds
0.4 animal unit
One sheep
0.1 animal unit
One swine under 55 pounds
0.05 animal unit
One duck
0.2 animal unit
One turkey
0.018 animal unit
One chicken
.01 animal unit
Dwelling - A residential building or portion thereof intended for occupancy by a single
family, includes, churches and schools, but not including hotels, motels, boarding or
rooming houses or tourist homes.
e dlot Existing - An animal feedlot which has obtained a feedlot permit from the
Mower County Feedlot Officer or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), a
minimum size of ten (10) animal units in shoreIand areas and fifty (50) animal units in
other areas. Those feedlots without permits need to be permitted by the year 2000 to
be considered an "existing feedlot".
Feed_lot__..Expansion - When animal units will increase to where new buildings are
needed for housing.
Feedlot. Industrial - An animal feedlot with over 2,000 animal units.
Feedlot, New - An animal feedlot constructed and operated on a site where no animal
feedlot existed previously or where a preexisting animal feedlot has been abandoned or
unused for a period of five (5) years or more.
Feedlot P iluti of Officer - A County employee or officer who is
knowledgeable in agriculture and who is designated by the County Board to receive and
process animal feedlot permit applications.
CL(i2-Neighbor Plan - A Good Neighbor Plan consists of a plan that the feedlot
applicant is required to complete at the time of application for a feedlot permit. This
plan addresses odor control, manure application, and weight restrictions.
Parks - Areas of public land developed and maintained primarily as pleasurable
landscaped areas providing for both active and passive recreational pursuits, including
tot -lots, playgrounds, neighborhood parks, piayfields, and special purpose areas. This
does not include recreational trials or DNR wildlife management areas.
APR -16-1996 11:06AM FRCM
The fee structure for a feedlot permit is as follows:
1. One time charge on all permits.
2. $25.00 charge on existing feedlot permits.
3. Permit fee for new and expanding feedlot facilities are:
an increase of animal units
10-99
$ 25.00
100-299
$ 100.00
300-499
$ 200.00
500-699
$ 500.00
700-999
$ 700.00
1,000 - 3,000
$1,000.00
TO 16121973936 P.03
APR -16-1996 11:06AM FROM
Mower County Zoning Ordinance
TO 16124973936 P.04
SECTION 1446. ZONING�O_UNDARY INTERPRET_ATION
Appeals from the commissioners or any administrative officer's determination of the exact location
of district boundary lines shall be heard by the Board of Adjustment in accordance with the
provisions of this Ordinance.
4-47.ERINITTTED
No structure, building or tract of Iand shall be devoted to any use other than a permitted use in the
Zoning District in which such structure, or tract of land shall be located with the following
exceptions:
(a) Conditional uses allowed in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(b) Any structure which will, under this Ordinance, become non -conforming but for which a
zoning permit has been lawfully granted prior to be the effective date of this Ordinance and
continues to completion within one (1.) year after the effective date of this Ordinance, shall
be a non -conforming structure.
SECTION 14-48. USES NOT PROVIDED IN ZONING DISTRICT
Whenever, in any zoning district, a use is neither specifically permitted or denied, the use shall be
considered prohibited. In such case, the Planning Commission, on their own initiative or upon
request of a property owner, may conduct a study to determine if the use is acceptable and, if so,
what zoning district would be the most appropriate and the determination as to conditions and
standards relating to development of the use. The County Board or Planning Commission, upon
receipt of the study, shall, if appropriate, initiate an amendment to the Zoning, Ordinance to
provide for the particular use under consideration or shall find that the use is not compatible for
development within the County.
D-11IS.ION 2. "A" AGRICULTURAL DISMCT
SECTION 1449. P
The "A" Agricultural District is intended to provide a district which will allow suitable areas of
the county to be retained in agricultural use; regulate scattered non-farm development; regulate
wetlands and woodlands, which, because of their unique physical features provide a valuable
natural resource; and, secure economy _ -merge--, es f f pubije sepices, uti4f-a11
annd-s..h, els. T9 provide a district that will r fain conserve. and enhance agricultural land in the
County and to protect this land from necessary urban encroachment including scattered residential
de�pment.
The County
will view the agricultural
district as a zone in which land is used for commercial
agricultural
production. Owners_
resident§, and other users of property in this
zone or
neighboring
proQerties may be Fu
Lecte to inconvenience or discomfort arising from normal
and
34-'-L -7 �
APP, -16-1996 11:07AM FPOM
Mower County Zoning Ordinance
TO 16124973936 P.05
e to agricultural practices and op ration including but not limited tg noise._odors, dust
operation of machinery of any kind including aircraft the storage and disposal of manure and -the
a22LC-at'on of fertilizers_ agil amendments herbicides aid pesticides Qwners. residents. and
users of this property or neighboring property should be prepared tg accept such inconveniences or
discomfort from normal operations and are herebv put on official notice that this declaration may
prevent them from obtaining a lea�jg. argent against such normal operations
SECTION 14-50. PERMITI'ED U$FS
In the "A" Agricultural District no building, structure or part thereof shall be erected, altered,
used or moved upon any premises nor shall any land be used in whole or pan for other than one
or more of the following uses:
(a) Agricultural operations.
(b) Farm dwelling plus accessory buildings for such farm use.
(c) Conservation areas including water supply works, flood control or watershed protection
works, fish or game hatcheries, or game refuges.
(d) Park or recreation areas operated by a governmental agency.
(e) Alcohol stills producing not more than: -
1) 12,000 gallons per year for 1-160 acres of farmland, owned or leased, individually
or in cooperation.
2) 25,000 gallons per year for 161-320 acres of farmland, owned or Ieased,
individually or in cooperation.
3) 50,000 gallons per year for 321-640 acres of farmland, owned or leased,
individually or in cooperation.
4) 100,000 gallons per year for 540 acres of farmland, owned or leased, individually
or in cooperation.
(f --i) Feedlots -=-Existing (Feedlot_ ExislL - An adoral feedlot which has obtained a feedlot
permit from the Mower County Feedlot Officer or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
W..minimum size of ten (IQ) animal units in shoreland areas and fifty (50) animal
units in other eas. Those feedlots without permits need to be permitted by the year 2000
to be considered an "existing feedlot").
All feedlots require zoning permit, from the Mower ounty Plan, ning_De ent
and feedlot permits from the Feedlot Pollution Control Officer or_the Minnesota
P iluti n Control Agency CA indicating conformance with Chapter 7020).
2.1_ d to the feedlot Pollution Control Officr showing, location
of proposal and coneflt' ns of the area with 1/2 mile It shall delict alt existing
tomography and all exi cin land u c d herein and existing property
lines
3-5-34
APR -16-1996 11:07AM FROM TO 16124973936 P.06
Mower County Zoning Ordinance
3) A goodneighbor plan must be urnitted to the Feedlot_ pollution Contrgl Offic� e
the time of application for a feedlot permit.
4) The County Board, may charge a fee For feedlo This fee will be established
yearly by a resolution.
(f -ii) Feedlot - Expansion (Feedlot Expansion -When animaLtlnits will increase to where new
buildings are needed for housing. An animal feed t which has obtained a feedlot ermit
from the Feedlot Pollution Control Officer or MPCA, a minimum size of ten (10) animal
units in shoreland areas and fifty (50) animal units in other areas and can expand on
contiguous land that the feedlot pwner owns but the expaMottmust begin_ within SQQ feet
of the existing feedlot Aa expansion that begins further than 500 feet from the existing,,
feedlot would be coo red a "new feedlot". Those feedlots without permits need to be
permitted by the year 2(X70 to be considered an "exis3in�e�dtoc.".)
1) All feedlots require zoning permits from the Mower County Planning Department
and feedlot permits from the Feedlot Pollution _C9rttcol Officer or the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA indicating_ nformance with Chapter 7Q20).
ZL_ _ .A map shall be submitted to the Feedlot Pollution wrQl Officer showing location.
of proposal and conditions of the area with 1/2 mile. it shall depict all existing
topoaraphv and all existing land uses as described herein and existingproperty
'nes.
3) A good neigh. lq an must be submitted to the Feedlot Pollution Control Officer at
to time of application for a feedlot permit:
4) An applicant far a new feedlot facility or expansion of existing facilitesshould
provide written notice pf intent to the tgwnship and all prnea owners within one
(�Lm le radius of facility. Property owners who. -reside within the one (1) mile
radius in a municipality will not be notified Notification willthen go to the
municipality.
5) The _C_ounty _Board may charge a fee for feedlots. This fee will be established
yearly by a resolution.
-(f-iii) l eedi t - w _(Feedlot, New - A _animal feedlot constructed and operated on a site
where no animal feed of existed previously or where a preexisting animal feedlot has been
afzaridoned or unused for a period of five (5) years or more.)
1) Ail feedlots require zoning permits from the Mower County Planning Department
and feedlot permits from the Feedlot Pollution Control Officer or the Minnesota
pollution Control Agencv (MPCA indicating conformance with Chapter 70201
2) A map shall be submitted tc the Feedlot Pollution Control Officer showing location
proposal and conditions of the area with 1/2 mile 1t shall depict all exisdnp-
LqgD,graphy and ail existing land uses as described herein and existing property
ines.
3 -A-good neighbor plan must be submitted to the Feedlot Pollution Control Officer at
the time of application fgr a feedlot permit,
4) Feedlots shall not be located within 1.000 feet of any dwelling. school church
and/or public park.
5) Feedlots shall not be located within 1/2 mile of an incoMorated city limit
.U -3-r-
APR -16-1996 11:oeAM FROM
Mower County Zoning Ordinance
TO 16121973936 P.07
6 ica t a new eedlot facility or ex ani of a isting, facili should
provide written notice of intent to the township and al roQerty owners within one
1 mileCadius 2f Jacility.
21op—erty owners who reside within the one 1) mile
d' s in a manic' li will n be notified. Notific uon will then cro t the
municipality.
7) The setback requirements are to be measured from, the outermost boundaries of the
f(edlot to the existing dwellings. In the case of residential lots of record. public
aD�ks and incorporated city limits the measurement will be from the feedlot to the
closest property line -
8) The County Board may charge a fee for feedlors This fee will be established
yeiy by a resolution
(g) Home occupations meeting the following standards:
1) No more than one (1) full time person other than members of the family occupying
the premises shall be employed in conjunction with a permitted home occupation_
2) The home occupation shall be incidental and subordinate to the use of the premises
for faxming and/or residential purposes.
3) No traffic shall be generated by the home occupation beyond that which is
reasonable and normal for the area in which it is located.
4) Only one (1) non -illuminated sign, not to exceed twelve (12) square feet in area,
shall be allowed in conjunction with the home occupation, as regulated by Section
14-147(b).
S) No equipment or process shall be used in the home occupation which creates noise,
vibration, glare, fumes, odors, or electrical interference detectable off the premises.
6) The home occupation shall be carried on only in the principal residence.
(h) Non-farm single family dwellings, not included in subdivision, which meet the following
conditions:
1) No more than one (1) non-farm dwelling per aner- section 160
Aes) of land shall be allowed provided the non-farm dwellitlg is at least 1.000 feet
from an exist�g fe_ edlot,
2) No more than €eer (4} -two (2) non-farm dwellings per mile length on a single side
of a public road shall be allowed.
3) No non-farm dwellings shall be permitted in areas classified as wetlands,
floodways, and peat and much areas.
4) No non-farm dwellings shall be permitted on land which has been tilled within five
(5) years of the date of the application for a zoning permit or has an agricultural
crop rating of greater than sixty (60) as determined by the U.S.D.A. or SCS soils
rating or is in any state or federal conservation program.
5) No non-farm dwellings shall be permitted on lots which do not abut an existing
public road or highway or privately dedicated 66 foot wide utility and driveway
easement.
6) When an existing farm building site is split from the remainder of the farm, it shall
be classified as a non-farm dwelling.
.-744
Mower County Zoning Ordinance
(i) Essential Service - Telephone, telegraph and power transmission lines under 35KV and
necessary appurtenant structures_
SECTION 14-51. CONDInONAL US1"S
In the "A" Agricultural District, the following uses may be allowed subject to obtaining a
Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article I, Division 6 of this
Ordinance.
(a) Aircraft landing fields and associated facilities.
(b) Commercial outdoor recreation.
(c) Churches, cemeteries, memorial buildings, schools, libraries and museums.
(d) Commercial radio and television towers and transmitters.
(e) Kennels.
(f) Horse stables.
(g) One additional farm dwelling per farm operation.
(h) Commercial greenhouses and nurseries.
(i) Mining and gravel extraction.
0) Demolition landfills.
-(k) Solid waste handling or disposal facility.
(I) Campgrounds or tourist homes.
(m) Agriculturally -oriented businesses, including but not limited to, commercial storage or
blending of liquid and dry fertilizers; grain and feed sales; general repair and installation
services for agricultural equipment; custom meat processing; agricultural supplies and
product sales or warehousing; livestock sales pavilion.
(n) Veterinary clinics.
(o) Alcohol stills producing more than 100,000 gallons per year.
(p) Junkyards, auto wrecking yards, auto graveyards and body repair.
29-34
APR -16-1996 11:09AM FPOM
Mower County Zoning Ordinance
TO 16124973936 P.09
(q) Home Occupations meeting the following standards:
1) Employnaa more than one (1) non-resident employee on the premise.
2) Carried on in an accessory building.
3) Standards 2 through 5 as listed in Section 14-50() of this Ordinance.
(r) Dams, power plants, switching yards, transmission lines over 35KV, flowage areas and
pipelines.
(s) Temporary storage, crushing/recycling of concrete and/or bituminous material_ (9-10_91)
(t) Commercial mini storage area.
(u) Other uses of the same general character as those listed above, provided they are deemed .
fitting or compatible to the District by the Planning Commission.
(v) Board & Lodging Facilities and Health Care Facilities (8-I-95)
(w) NCw_and expand` ing fee. ons over 2.000 animal_ units rnu t compiv w€th the follow
tandar s,
1 All feedlo e viremina
permits from the County Planning De enc
and feedlot er its fro a Feeds t ollution trol f icer r the i
Y 1 tion C n ofkg
n to
cv MP dicatina c te
ormance with ha r 702()).
?) A map shall be su 'tted
to th, piI t Tucson Ci2nviol Officer showin location
of pro osal and canditi of the e with I/2 ile, It shall de ict all aistin
Eos°Lphv nd alI
isting lap uses as described herein and exists a r
lines.
3) A hood neighbor lan must be submitted to the feedlot Pollution Control Officer at
the time of licati
for a f of permij,'
4 Feedlots shalLuot
10cateL_w4bin LOW feet of any„ dwell g schgol, church
an_dlqr public park.
Feed is shall of a
ted w' i/2 o ani rat ciry it.
n al2icant ora new
feedl acility or expansion of a istin cility hould
Ovide writte otice
tentto-Ole township and all property own s withi„ n
file radius af-faciliv,
one
ProoeMowners who reside within theme (1) mile
radius in a municipality
will not be notified Notification will then to the
�unicipalirv.
go
71 An animal fe 11 t which has obtained_ feedlot permit from the Feed of Pollution
*
ontr i Offcer or
CA minimum size of ten (10) animal units in shore_ land
are and fi tv 50 an
al units cher areas and can expand on conn u u land
that the feedlot owner
__ns -but the expansion must begin within SQQ of the
Ifeet
exist n� feedlot. n e, ansion t begins further than 500 feet fromexisting
feedlot would he c tui
_the
a "new feedlot" Th se feedl is wi_tbout Ferrnits__nteed
to e ermined b the
2000 to e considered n "existing feedlot".
8The setback requirements
ue to be measured from the outermost boundarnes r?f the
feedlot to the existing
dwe fing5 In the case of re 'dent at lots of rec d u sic
U-44
APR -16-1996 11:09Af1 FROM
mower County Zoning Ordinance
TO 16124973936 P.10
arks and inc orated cimits. the mea u ement willeb__ftpM the fee of to the
closest property cine
9A__ _ The Coon . Board i-av chase a fee for feedlots —Ms.fee will be est bl hed
Yearly by a resolution.
xPlatting- of land.
New mtben lnognL
5EC11ON I4--2. LOT 5JZE1 WIDTH, YARD AND HEIGHT REOUIUMEN
TS
Any lot in an "A" Agricultural District on which any permitted or conditionally permitted use is
erected shall meet the following minimum standards:
(a) Lot Size, Width and Depth. Any lot shall contain a minimum of one (1) acre of buildable
area and shall have a minimum width of one hundred twenty five (125) feet along an
existing public dedicated street or privately dedicated 66 foot wide utility and driveway
easement, and a minimum depth of two hundred (200) feet.
(b) Yazd Requirements. Every permitted, conditionally permitted or accessory building shall
meet the following yard requirements:
1} Front Yard.
a) There shall be a minimum setback of forty (40) feet from the right-of-way
line of any public road or privately dedicated 66 foot wide utility and
driveway easement.
b) In the event any building is located on a lot at the intersection of two (2) or
more roads highways
road or highway. , such lot shall have a front yard abutting each such
2) Side and Rear Yard.
a) There shall be a side yard width of not less than tweny (20) feet on each
side of the building; however, an adjoining property owner or owners may
sign a waiver of lot Iine in which case it shall be no less than five (5) feet
for a free standing accessory building.
b) Rear yard setback for all building be twenty (20) feet; however, an
adjoining property owner or owners may sign a waiver of lot line in which
case it shall be no less than five (5) feet for a free standing accessory
building.
(c) Height Requirements. Every permitted, conditionally permitted or accessory building shall
meet the following height requirements:
1) The maximum height of all buildings shall not exceed two and one-half (2 1/2)
stories or thirty-five (35) feet.
1Q_44
APS IV 6
Mower County
Lowell Franzen, Feedlot Officer Phone: (507) 433-8268
101 21st. St. SE Fax: (507) 437-4755
Austin, MN 55912
In Cooperation with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
& Mower County Soil and Water Conservation District
Your Feedlot and the Good Neighbor Flan
I. What are your plans as a feedlot operator in minimi1 9 or controlling odors?
What are your plans as it applies to informing your neighbor on manure application and
making a good faith effort to please and appease them ?
Note: it is highly recommended that all types of liquid manure be injected into the active top soil at agronomic rates
when ever possible. For the following reasons
I. Less volatilization of nitrogen
.2. Minimization of Odors
3. Aid in runoff control
3. As a feedlot operator how will you be addressing township, county, and state weight
restrictions on public roads?
AN EQUAL OPPORTLTNrry EMPLOYER
Good Neighbor Plan: A Good Neighbor Plan consists of a plan that the feedlot applicant is required to
complete at the time of application for a feedlot permit. This plan addresses odor control, manure
application and road weight restrictions.
Industrial Feedlot: A animal feedlot with over 2000 annnal units will be considered industrial.
Parks: Areas of public land developed and maintained primarily as pleasurable landscaped areas providing
for both active and passive recreational pursuits, including tot -lots, playgrounds, neighborhood parks,
playfields and special purpose areas. This does not include recreational trails or DNR wildlife management
areas.
Expansion Feedlot: When animal units will increase to where new buildings are needed for housing.
H. Addition and Changes to the Zoning Ordinance
A. New feedlots must comply with the following standards:
1. All feedlots require county zoning permits from the zoning office and feedlot permits issued
from the feedlot officer or the Akiirmesota Pollution Control Agency (NTCA indicating
conformance with Chapter 7020.
2. A map shall be submitted showing location of proposal and conditions of the area with 112 mile.
It shall depict all existing topography and all existing land uses as described herein and existing
property lines.
3. A good neighbor plan must be submitted to the feedlot officer at the time of application for a
feedlot permit.
4. Feedlots shall not be located within 1000 feet of dwellings, schools, churches and public parks.
5. Feedlots shall not be located within 112 mile of an incorporated city limit.
6. An Applicant for a new feedlot facility or expansion of existing Facility should provide written
notice of intent to the township and all property owners within a 1 mile radius of a facility.
Property owners who reside within the 1 mile radius who reside in a rnunicpality will not be
notified. Notification will then go to the municipality.
7. Any feedlot expansion must be on contiguous land that the feedlot owner owns and must begin
within 500 feet of the existing feedlot. An expansion that begins further than 500 feet from the
existing feedlot would be considered a new feedlot.
7_T'd 9262,L6bcT9T Ol WOdd WU T:TT 966T-9T-dd1d
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEEDLOT RECOMMENDATIONS
TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
From the
Mower County Feedlot Advisory Committee
February 28,1996
L Definitions to be added to the existing Zoning ordinance.
Animal Unit: A unit of measure used to compare differences in the production of animal manure that
employs as a standard the amount of manure produced on a regular basis by a 1000 pound slaughter steer
or heifer based upon the MPCA 7020 regulations.
Animal
Unit
One manure dairy cow
1.4 animal unit
One slaughter steer or heifer
1.0 animal unit
One horse
1.0 animal unit
One swine over 55 pounds
0.4 animal unit
One sheep
0.1 animal unit
One swine under 55 pounds
.05 animal unit
One duck
0.20 stinal unit
One turkey
.018 aminal unit
One chicken
.01 animal unit
Dwelling; Any building or part thereof designed or used exclusively for residential purposes by one or
more human beings. This also includes churches and schools.
Feedlo4 New: An animal feedlot cons&=ed and operated on a site where no animal feedlot existed
previously or where a preexisting animal feedlot has been abandoned or unused for a period of five years or
more.
Feedlot Existing: An animal feedlot which has obtained a feedlot permit from the Feedlot Control Officer
or MPCA, a minimum size of 10 animal units in shoreland areas and 50 animal units in other areas. Those
feedlots without permits need to be permitted by the year 2000 to be considered an "existing feedlot".
Feedlot Pollution Control Officer: A County employee or oflicer who is knowledgeable in agriculture and
who is designated by the county board to receive and process animal feedlot permit applications.
,-T 'cd 9262LGVET9T Ol WOdd WdTT:TT 9662-9T—Jdd
B. The setback requirements are to be measured from the outermost boundaries of the feedlot to the
existing dwellings. In the case of residential lots of record, public parks and incorporated city
limits, the measurement will be from the feedlot to the closest property line.
C. Non farm single family dwellings, not included in subdivisions, which meet the following
conditions:
1. No more than one (1) non-farm dwelling per 160 acre of land shall be allowed provided it is
1000 feet from a feedlot.
III. Other Recommendations
A.
B.
C.
D.
E
F
No limit on size of feedlot facility.
All plats will be required to have a conditional use permit.
All new feedlots and expanding feedlots consisting of 2000 animal units and larger will be required
to have a conditional use permit.
All new earthen lagoons will be required to have a conditional use permit.
There will be no bonding requireman.
The fee structure for a feedlot permit are as follows. -
1. One time charge on all permits .
2. Twenty five dollar charge on existing feedlot permits .
3. Permit fee for new and expanding feedlot facility are
VT 'd 926ZLGVET9T Ol W06WUTT:TT 966T-9T-6d1J
-----------------------------
an increase of animal
units
10
to 99
$ 25.00
100
to 299
100.00
300
to 499
200.00
500
to 699
500.00
700
to 999
700.00
1000
to 3000
1000.00
VT 'd 926ZLGVET9T Ol W06WUTT:TT 966T-9T-6d1J
-----------------------------
As a feedlot operator, how will you dispose of your livestock or poultry caresses? (Circle the
-%propriate letter)
A. Bury - with a minimum of 3' of cover and 5' above Seasonal High Water Table.
B. incinerate - with an WCA approved incinerator .
C. Render - Name and location of rendering service: **
D. Compost - poultry, sheep, hogs & goats
Construction and operations as specified by the USDA Cooperative
Extension Service, or Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook.
Note: Turkey and Sheep are not renderable.
- - gnature of Livestock Producer:
Date
ST 'd 9£62L6bZT9T 01 W06d WdZT:TT 966T-9T-6du
Ap_ .L i :-
Atte: the Apr_i 3, 19'-46 lannlr,g i_. j:^m1S=10 g ani
h•_.•r upset the La:.ne_ a we. e I dec:_Jed `_C --a.._ L)3vl
eis_er-, Executive D, rector o-' the Minn. -,r k Producers, ana see
what he thought was a workable ordinance. Enclosed is the
intar-mation he sent me. He was willing to help. If you nave any
questions please call him 507-345-6681.
I also called MPGA to see what trey could recommend for a
ieediot ordinance. lion haugie, Mei CA Feedlot Team =9=.-% 3.0,
=a4i— ?'rent Feedlot Officer and Ag
ir.spectc,r icr Rice Coanty. Don tole me Rice County was eirni-sr
-o 'hr lght L.ounty because of11;c-y a. -e a r apil-.1;; growing, count, a:.:-,
are struggling to •c_ep agriculture going and vet be co!npatible to
residentiai. Don felt the Rice County ordinance wa:: a very goo-
oru-nance, because .Lt addressed but:, the large and the small
farms. Call and talk to Don Haugie. Also if you nave any
questions on the Rm e Cc-inty ord-nance please _alp Tree-
`i•_-:orKell 50- On the Matrix that Richarj Ni -hn i = put
toc;ether• he used some of the Rice County setbacks, but 1 nad_ n -:+t
seen the Rice County ordinance until this week.
Tr,ank you.
Ann 6'nn
m� a:
�J1S-� -�-C
IPC
cc
, Pierce Ave., Suite 106
North Mankato, MN 56003
April 8, 1996
Ann Bentz
6699 NE Packard Ave
Elk River MN 56330
Dear Ann:
MINNESOTA
PORK
PRODUCERS
ASSOCIATION
Enclosed are some items that may be helpful to you.
Phone 507-345-8814
FAX 507-345-8681
• Land Application of Manure Guidelines
• Mower County Feedlot Ordinance (awaiting final approval)
• A map of wind direction and predominate winds in southern Minnesota
• Chapter 7020
The land application guidelines were adopted in late 1995. They provide a good reference
point for managing manure and have been researched through literature review. The
Mower county feedlot ordinance, which is awaiting final approval of the Mower county
board is a new ordinance, which you may not have seen.
Since possible offensive odor is a function of wind direction, I've enclosed a copy of a
"wind rose" for Southern Minnesota. This was taken from the Mankato National Weather
Service. You could get similar information from Minneapolis/St. Paul since that location
would be closer to you. The areas that 1 drew lines through by hand would be areas that
would be affected much less than the non -shaded areas. As you can see, homes built to the
north, northeast, and northwest of a feedlot receive more wind especially in the summer
when odors tend to be worse. Wind direction may be a better measure combined with
appropriate setbacks than setback alone. In theory, setbacks should be less if the home is
located to the south of a feedlot because predominate winds will carry odor away.
If 1 can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
;L
David Preisler
Executive Director
ds
Enclosures
r
y RICE COUNTY
TRENT McCORKELL
Rice County Feedlot Officer and Ag Inspector
,+.k. a t• rr
r.
Court House
218 N.W. Third Street • Faribault, MN 55021 ! DRAFT M4/g
9^�rrr1
507 -332-6168
Toll Free from Northfield (507 645-9576 Toll Free from Lonsdale S07 744.5185
s « 1 1 I
'r„;COUNTY FEEDLOT ORDINANCE
NtG
THKXFJtMrrnNG. LOCATION, DEVELOPMENT, '
! , x,,:- Lr ,�.•P ~ , 'S,.PROTECTINGIBE NATURAL=ENVIR011( T,
y rItBLIC 'HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE
o�;�iT�zE2vs�oi��u�'covNTY.
:1;Ri COIIN�'YBt?'ARD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN:
t +�
ice
ThiS<rdin&
known, cited and referred to as the Rice County Feedlot Ordinance.
! 7
'?, a AND PURP SE
MEN
'• T'SF�s rtptu�pose of
afor the permitting of feedlots.
{
' the lot tion, development, and expansion of feedlots.
i'=,^q, O weW
3
senvuonment.
+'t+..S�''!�.'.L.
SIT
;as is the administration of statewide statutes and regulations governing
bP 1
�anA awmal health.
- Protecting human welfare.
�F PROVISIONS
91--5he jw sdicdon of this Ordinanceshall apply to all the area of
;incorporated limits of municipalities.
RVy rt ` 'i
,�'�•,,Se. From'and after the effective date of this Ordinance and sub
Sequent
amo,dmeatts, all005 ing or proposed feedlots shall be in conformity with the provisions of
2T:003t1 n
(a)
In their interpretation and application, the provisions of this Ordinance shall be held='
to be the minimum requirements to satisfy the Intent and Purpose of this Ordinance.
(b) Where the conditions imposed by any provision of this Ordinance are either more
restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other law,
ordinance, statute, resolution, or regulation of any kind, the regulations which are
more restrictive or which impose higher standards or requirements shall prevail.
SECTION 728 DEFINITIONS
728.001 For the purpose of this Ordinance, certain terms or words used herein
shall be interpreted as follows:
(a) The word "shall" is mandatory, and not discretionary; the word "may" is permissive.
(b) Words used in the present tense shall include the future; and words used in the
singular shall include the plural, and the plural the singular.
(c) Words shall be given their common usage if not defined.
(d) The word "Board" includes the "county commissioners", the 'Board of County
Commissioners" or any other word or words meaning the "Rice County Board of
Commissioners".
(e) The word "person" includes a firm, association, organization, partnership, trust,
company, corporation or individual.
728.002 A enc . The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as established in
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 116.
728.003 . Animal Manure. Poultry, livestock or other animal excreta or mixture with
feed, bedding, water or other materials.
728.004 Animal Unit (AU). 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 slaughter steer or heifer. For purposes of this ordinance, the following
equivalents shall apply:
Animal
AU
per Animal
100 AU Equals
one mature dairy cow
1.4
71 animals
one dairy calf under 500 pounds
.5
200 animals
one slaughter steer or heifer
1.0
100 animals
one horse
1.0
100 animals
one swine 55 pounds or more
.4
250 animals
one swine under 55 pounds
.05
2000 animals
one duck
.2
500 animals
one sheep
.1
1000 animals
one turkey 10 pounds or more
.018
5555 animals
one turkey under 10 pounds
.01
10000 animals
one chicken
.01
10000 animals
For animals not listed, the number of animal units shall be defined as the average weight of
the animal divided by one thousand (1,000) pounds. The total number of animal units subject
( 2 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
to permit or registration shall be determined by including operations under common
ownership or management and which utilize a common area or system for manure disposal.
728.005 Board. The Rice County Board of Commissioners.
728.006 Building. Any structure of every kind for the shelter, support or enclosure
of persons, animals, chattel or property of any kind; and when separated by party walls
without openings, each portion of such buildings so separated shall be deemed a separate
building.
728.007 Building, Agricultural. All buildings, other than dwellings, which are
incidental to a farming operation.
728.008 Commissioner. Commissioner means the Commissioner of the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency whose duties are defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116.03.
728.009 Farm. A tract of land which is principally used for agricultural activities such
as the production of cash crops, livestock or poultry farming.
728.010 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. Pastures shall not be
considered feedlots under these rules. Fish farms shall be considered feedlots for the purposes
of this Ordinance.
728.011 Feedlot (New). An unpermitted or unregistered feedlot, a feedlot constructed
and operated at a site where no feedlot existed previously or where a pre-existing feedlot has
been abandoned or unused for a period of one year.
728.012 Feedlot Officer. The county employee who is knowledgeable in agriculture,
designated by the county board to receive and process feedlot permit applications, and
identified by MPCA rules as the feedlot pollution control officer.
728.013 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.
728.014 Feedlot Runoff. The movement of water from a feedlot, either in the form
of rainfall, snow, or as water from a waterway, ditch, etc. passing through a feedlot, carrying
particles of manure as well as soil into a body of water and thereby constituting a potential
pollution hazard.
728.015 Floodplain. The channel or beds proper and the areas adjoining a wetland,
lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood.
Flood Plain areas within Rice County shall encompass all areas designated as Zone A on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
( 3 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
728.016 Floodway. The channel of the water course and those portions of the
adjoining floodplains which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood
discharge.
728.017 Interim Permit. A permit issued by the County and, when required, the
MPCA which expires no later than 10 months from the date of issuance, identifying the
necessary corrective measures to abate potential pollution hazards.
728.018 Liquid Manure. Manure that contains less than 15% solids content.
728.019 Manure Storage Structure. A structure where lot runoff, manure effluent
or other diluted animal waste is stored or treated, including earthen manure storage basins,
earthen lagoons, concrete or glass lined storage.
728.020 Modification. Any change in the feedlot operation that does not result in an
increase in animal numbers.
728.021 MPCA. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
728.022 NRCS. Natural Resources Conservation Service, formerly the Soil
Conservation Service.
728.023 Owner. Any person having possession, control, or title to an feedlot.
728.024 Parcel. A contiguous quantity of land legally described and recorded with the
County Recorder as the property of a person.
728.025 Pastures. Areas where grass or other growing plants are used for grazing and
where the concentration of animals is such that a vegetative ground cover is maintained
during the growing season except in the immediate vicinity of temporary supplemental feeding
or watering devices.
728.026 Permit, County. A document issued by the County which contains
requirements, conditions and compliance schedules relating to the discharge of animal manure
pollutants, and, issued to the contractor, owner or operator, stating that the feedlot meets
the minimum standards as required by this Ordinance and the MPCA. Certificates of
Compliance previously issued by the MPCA or Rice County shall be deemed permits for
purposes of this Ordinance. An MPCA permit may also be required.
728.027 Permit, State. A document issued by the Agency which contains
requirements, conditions, and compliance schedules relating to the discharge of animal
manure pollutants. A Rice County permit must also be issued before any operation may
commence activity.
( 4 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
728.028 Potential Pollution Hazard. A condition which indicates a potential for
pollution of land and waters including:
(a) Allowing a discharge of biological oxygen demand (BOD) pollutants in excess of 25
parts per million; or
(b) A feedlot or manure storage area located within a shoreland or floodplain.
728.029 Public Well. As regulated by Minnesota Chapter 4720 and as administered
by the Minnesota Department of Health.
728.030 Residential Area. A concentration of ten (10) or more developed or
undeveloped contiguous residential lots.
728.031 Solid Manure. Manure which has at least 15% solids content excluding
mineral solids.
728.032 Surface Waters. Waters which include but are not limited to rivers, streams,
creeks, ponds, intermittent streams, and wetlands.
728.033 SWCD. Rice County Soil and Water Conservation District.
728.034 USDA. United States Department of Agriculture.
728.035 Wetlands. A surface water feature of two (2) acres or more and as identified
by Minnesota Statute §103G.005 Subd. 19.
SECTION 729 ADMINISTRATION
729.001 Planning and Zoning Department. The Rice County Feedlot Ordinance
shall be administered by the Rice County Planning and Zoning Department. The Rice County
Board of Commissioners shall appoint a County Feedlot Officer to discharge the duties of this
department under the Feedlot Ordinance.
729.002 Duties and Powers. The Rice County Feedlot Officer shall have the following
duties and powers:
(a) Administer and enforce the Rice County Feedlot Ordinance;
(b) Review. permits as set forth in this Ordinance;
(c) Assist feedlot operators with the Rice County permitting process including
applications for a State Certificate of Compliance, Feedlot Permit or Interim Permit;
(d) Process applications to ensure compliance with county and state regulations;
(e) Issue Rice County Permits, Interim Permits or Certificates of Compliance;
(f) When appropriate, forward applications for State Feedlot Permits along with
recommendations, and the County Feedlot Permit or Interim Permit to the MPCA;
(g) Maintain records including all Certificates of Compliance, Interim Permits and Feedlot
Permits;
( 5 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
(h) Provide and maintain a public information bureau relative to this Ordinance;
(i) Educate the public and feedlot operators concerning provisions of this Ordinance;
0) Inspect feedlot operations to insure compliance with the standards of this Ordinance.
SECTION 730 REGISTRATION AND PERMITS
730.001 Registration Required. Registration shall be required for all feedlots not
having a current Feedlot Permit or interim Feedlot Permit from Rice County or the State.
(a) A registration form shall be made available by the Department. The following
information shall be included for registration:
(1) Names of all owners and/or operators-,
(2) Type of livestock and number or animal units;
(3) Description of operation including a site plan and manure management plan.
(b) Any person owning or operating an existing feedlot without a current Rice County or
State Feedlot Permit shall register the feedlot operation with the Department within
one (1) year from the date of enactment of this Ordinance.
(c) A Registered feedlot may continue the operation as described on the registration form
and shall not be subject to the minimum area and building setback requirements of this
Ordinance for the present operation.
(d) A Registered feedlot shall secure Rice County and/or State Permits when required
under this Ordinance.
(e) A feedlot that is not Registered within one (1) year from the date of enactment of this
Ordinance shall be subject to all requirements of this Ordinance including area and all
setback requirements.
730.002 Permit Required.
(a) Any person owning or operating a proposed or existing feedlot of ten (10) to forty-
nine (49) animal units shall make application to the Department for a Rice County
Feedlot Permit or Interim Permit if conditions (b)(5) or (b)(6) are met.
(b) Any person owning or operating a proposed or existing feedlot of fifty (50) animal
units or more shall make application to the Department for a Rice County Feedlot
Permit and, if applicable, a State permit if any of the following conditions exist:
(1) A new feedlot is proposed;
(2) A change in the operation of an existing feedlot is proposed including:
(A) An increase beyond the maximum number of animal units allowed by
the current feedlot permit; or
(B) An increase in the number of animal units which are confined at a
Registered feedlot or an unpermitted feedlot and requiring a
construction investment; or
(C) A change in the construction or operation of an feedlot that would
affect the storage, handling, utilization, or disposal of animal manure.
(3) A change in ownership of an existing feedlot is proposed including:
(A) A change in title to animals or animal buildings and/or when land
transfers constitute a change in ownership; or
( 6 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
(B) When a lessee commences operating on leased land the lessee shall be
considered the owner for purposes of the Feedlot Permit.
(4) A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
application is required under state or federal rules and regulations;
(5) An inspection by the Agency staff or the County Feedlot Officer
determines that the feedlot creates or maintains a potential pollution hazard;
(6) In shoreland, feedlots of less than 50 animal units shall be required to have a
Rice County Feedlot Permit.
(7) A State permit is required by Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020
730.003 Permit Issuance. A Feedlot Permit may be issued if.
(a) There is demonstrated compliance with this Ordinance, manure is used as a domestic
fertilizer, and no potential pollution hazard exists; or
(b) There is demonstrated compliance with this Ordinance, manure is used as a domestic
fertilizer, and a potential pollution hazard has been mitigated.
730.004 Interim Permit Issuance. When a potential pollution hazard has been
identified but not mitigated by a permit applicant, an Interim Permit valid for ten (10) months
may be issued if
(a) There is demonstrated compliance with this Ordinance, manure is used as a domestic
fertilizer and the potential pollution hazard will be mitigated within ten (10) months;
or
(b) The Feedlot Permit application includes a manure storage structure; or
(c) A new feedlot is proposed where a potential pollution hazard is identified; or
(d) An existing feedlot that is not currently permitted is seeking to become permitted and
is a potential pollution hazard.
730.005 Interim Permit Extension. An Interim Permit may be extended up to an
additional ten (10) months if there is demonstrated progress towards mitigating the pollution
hazard or construction of the waste facility and there is evidence provided that the project will
be completed within the new time set.
730.006 Manure Management Plan Required for Manure Transported Into the
County,
(a) An approved manure management plan shall be required prior to the transportation
of manure into Rice County.
(b) Land spreading shall be subject to the requirements of this Ordinance including all
land application, storage standards and setback requirements.
(c) Manure from out of county sources shall not be stockpiled in Rice County.
(d) Temporary storage of less than six (6) months is permitted on farms where the land
spreading will take place subject to the setback requirements for land spreading.
( 7 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
730.007 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
Requirement. If it is determined during the review process that a feedlot must obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, the applicant shall be notified and
a permit will be processed and issued by MPCA as prescribed in Chapter 7070.
730.008 Permit Application.
(a) Application Forms. Application forms for Rice County Feedlot Permits and Interim
Permits shall be provided by the Department.
(b) Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The County Board may require an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The Department shall notify the County
Board of all applications over 300 AU so they may make their determination.
(c) Notice of Application.
(1) A notice of feedlot application shall be published in the official county
newspaper and in any other publication designated by the County Board for
feedlots having three hundred (300) animal units or more. The notice shall be
published at least twenty-one (2 1) days prior to issuance of a Feedlot Permit
but in no case later than ten (10) days from receipt of the completed
application. The notice shall be published twice during the twenty-one (21)
day notification period. During this two week review period written
comments can be submitted to the Rice County Feedlot Officer.
(2) Upon application for a feedlot of three hundred (300) animal units or more,
property owners of record located within one quarter mile or the ten (10)
properties nearest to the affected property, whichever is the greatest number
of property owners, shall be notified by mail. Mailed notice shall be sent at
least twenty-one (21) days prior to issuance of a Feedlot Permit but in no case
later than 10 days from receipt of the completed application.
(3) Governing bodies of municipalities located within Rice County shall be
notified when application has been made for a Feedlot Permit of three hundred
(300) animal units or more if proposed within a quarter mile of their
jurisdiction. Mailed notice shall be sent at least twenty-one (2 1) days prior to
issuance of a Feedlot Permit but in no case later than 10 days from receipt of
the completed application.
(4) Township boards shall be notified by mail when an application has been made
for a Feedlot Permit of three hundred (300) animal units or more that is
proposed to be located within their township. Mailed notice shall be sent at
least twenty-one (2 1) days prior to issuance of a Feedlot Permit but in no case
later than 10 days from receipt of the completed application.
730.011 Inspections.
(a) The Feedlot Officer shall conduct review or compliance inspections.
(b) The Feedlot Officer shall make reasonable efforts to carry out the compliance
inspections within the written biosecurity guidelines established by the operator at the
time of permit application. A copy of the written biosecurity guidelines submitted by
the operator shall be kept on file by the Feedlot Officer.
( 8 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
(c) The schedule of inspections shall be followed as closely as possible:
(1) Permitted feedlots which do not utilize manure storage structures, once every
three years.
(2) Feedlots permitted for less than three hundred (300) animal units with no
significant pollution potential, once every three years.
(3) Feedlots permitted for 300 animal units or more, once every two years.
(4) Permitted feedlots with the potential for pollution problems, once per year.
(d) Registered feedlots shall follow the same inspection schedule as permitted feedlots.
(e) Inspections may be conducted on a more frequent basis if deemed necessary by the
Department.
730.012 Fees. Application, permit, registration, or review and compliance inspection
fees, and such other fees required by this Ordinance shall be set by resolution of the County
Board.
SECTION 731 ANIMAL UNITS, AREA, AND SETBACK REGULATIONS
731.001 Maximum Animal Units. A maximum of 500 animal units may be allowed
for all new and expanding feedlots.
Animal AU per Animal
one mature dairy cow
1.4
one dairy calf under 500 pounds
.5
one slaughter steer or heifer
1.0
one horse
1.0
one swine 55 pounds or more
.4
one swine under 55 pounds
.05
one duck
.2
one sheep
,1
one turkey 10 pounds or more
.018
one turkey under 10 pounds
.01
one chicken
.01
731.002 Minimum Parcel Size and Area Requirements.
100 AU Equals
71 animals
200 animals
100 animals
100 animals
250 animals
2000 animals
500 animals
1000 animals
5555 animals
10000 animals
10000 animals
(a) Existing Registered or Permitted livestock or poultry feedlots, or, expansions to less
than 300 AU shall be deemed conforming in their present parcel size and area.
(b) New feedlots of 50 AU to 299 AU shall be located on a parcel of not less than 35
acres.
(c) New or expanding feedlots of 300 AU or more shall be located on a parcel of not less
than 65 acres.
( 9 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
(d) Feedlots of 300 AU or larger shall provide additional land in conformance with the
chart below, or, shall provide the financial assurance required under Section 736.002.
The required minimum area may be achieved by including non-contiguous land under
the same ownership located within one half (1/2) mile of the feedlot site.
Animal units Minimum area
300 to 400 AUs 160 Acres
401 AUs and larger 160 Acres plus 1 acre for every five (5) AUs over 400
731.003 Additional Land.
(a) The Feedlot Permit holder shall own or have sufficient additional land under lease or
contract to meet the manure utilization requirement for spreading of manure produced
in the feedlot. The Department shall retain copies of all written spreading agreements.
Such agreement shall be a condition of the Feedlot Permit or Interim Permit.
(b) No more than one manure spreading agreement shall be allowed on a site.
The agreement shall be valid for a period of not less than three (3) years, and recorded
with the County Recorder. The agreement shall include the legal description and a
map of the spreading area.
(c) Sales contracts for land application of solid manure may be substituted for the
additional land requirement for the feedlot subject to such additional standards as the
State shall require. Sales contracts need not be recorded with the County Recorder
but must be submitted to the Department prior to manure transport. Solid manure
sold under a sales contract shall be subject to the requirements of this Ordinance
including all land application, storage standards, setback requirements and
applications rates.
(d) Upon termination of the agreement, a feedlot operator shall provide the county with
written proof that sufficient new land is owned or under lease or contract to meet the
manure utilization requirement for spreading of manure produced in the feedlot.
Failure by the feedlot operator to provide sufficient land for manure management shall
result in termination of the Rice County Feedlot Permit and Interim Permit. A new
agreement approved by the Feedlot Officer may be substituted in the Feedlot Permit
or Interim Permit for an expired or cancelled agreement.
731.004 Liquid Manure Storage Structures and Associated Livestock Building
Setbacks. The following shall be the minimum setback requirements for new feedlots
utilizing liquid manure however, setbacks may be reduced by 50 percent for feedlots utilizing
covers over manure storage structures and scrubbers on barn exhaust systems:
Cateeory
Public Parks (not including
public trails)
Municipalities of Northfield,
Dundas, Faribault,
Lonsdale and Dennison
Municipalities
(other)
50-150 AU 151-250 AU 251-400 AU >400AU
1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1 mile 1 mile
1/4 mile
1/2 mile
1 mile
1 1/2 miles
1/4 mile
1/2 mile
1/2 mile
l mile
( 10 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
Residential Area
Neighboring Residence
Shoreland and
Floodplain
Public or Private
Drainage Ditch
Wetlands
Well, private
Well, public
Property Lines
Existing Feedlots
1/4 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/2 mile
1000 feet 1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1/2 mile
Prohibited-------------------------------------------------
100 feet 100 feet 200 feet 200 feet
75 feet 75 feet 100 feet 100 feet
100 feet --------------------------------------------------
1000 feet --------------------------------------------------
100 feet --------------------------------------------------
N/A N/A 1/4 mile 1/4 mile
Distances shall be calculated from the nearest point on the feedlot structure to the nearest
point on each feature listed.
731.005 Solid Manure Storage Structures and Associated Livestock Building
Setbacks. The following shall be the minimum setback requirements for new feedlots
utilizing solid manure:
Category
Public Parks (not including
public trails)
Municipalities of Northfield,
Dundas, Faribault,
Lonsdale and Dennison
Municipalities
(other)
Residential Area
Neighboring Residence
Shoreland and
Floodplain
Public or Private
Drainage Ditch
Wetlands
Well, private
Well, public
Property Lines
50-150 AU 151-250 AU 251-400 AU >400AU
500 feet 1/4 mile 1/4 mile 1/2 mile
500 feet
1/4 mile
1/4 mile
1/2 mile
500 feet
1/4 mile
1/4 mile
1/2 mile
500 feet
750 feet
1000 feet
1/4 mile
500 feet
750 feet
1000 feet
1/4 mile
Prohibited-------------------------------------------------
100 feet 100 feet 200 feet 200 feet
75 feet 75 feet 100 feet 100 feet
100 feet --------------------------------------------------
1000 feet -------------------------------------------------
100 feet --------------------------------------------------
Distances shall be calculated from the nearest point on the feedlot structure to the nearest
point on each feature listed.
731.006 Wetland Setback. Modifications to existing feedlots that are located within
seventy-five (75) feet of a wetland are allowed if the work undertaken will alleviate a potential
pollution hazard.
( 11 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
731.007 Well Setback Modifications or expansions to existing feedlots that are
located within one hundred (100) feet of a private well are allowed if the expansion does not
further encroach into the well setback.
731.008 Abandoned Wells. Abandoned wells on the feedlot site shall be sealed
pursuant Minnesota Rule 4725.
SECTION 732 MODIFICATION AND EXPANSION OF EXISTING FEEDLOTS IN
SHORELAND AND NONSHORLAND AREAS
732.001 Existing Feedlots Outside of Shoreland.
(a) Feedlots that pose a potential pollution hazard shall conform to the permitting
requirements of this Ordinance and, if appropriate, the regulations of the MPCA.
(b) Feedlots that are neither Registered nor in possession of a current Feedlot Permit shall
be subject to the provisions of this Ordinance as if they were a new feedlot.
Farms not currently operating as feedlots and having existing livestock buildings may
receive a permit for up to a 299 AU limit if 25% of the livestock are housed in
existing buildings. Minimum setbacks shall be established based on the location of the
farm's existing livestock buildings and new buildings shall not encroach further into
the required setbacks or reduce the present land area of the feedlot to less than the
minimum area required of Section 731.002 of this Ordinance.
(c) Existing Registered or Permitted feedlots may continue the operation as described on
the application form and shall not be subject to the minimum area and building setback
provisions of this Ordinance for the present operation. Transfer of ownership shall
not invalidate this exception.
(d) Modification or expansion of an existing Registered or Permitted feedlot to 299
animal units or less may be allowed subject to the following conditions:
(1) The modification or expansion does not further encroach into the required
setback; and
(2) The modification or expansion does not reduce the present land area of the
feedlot to less than the minimum area requirement of Section 731.002 of this
Ordinance.
(e) Expansion of an existing Registered or Permitted feedlot resulting in a feedlot of 300
animal units or more may be allowed subject to the following conditions:
(1) The feedlot expansion does not exceed the maximum animal unit limitation of
Section 73 1. 001 of this Ordinance;
(2) The feedlot does not further encroach into the required setback; and
(3) The feedlot meets the minimum area requirement of Section 731.002.
732.002 Existing Feedlots in Shoreland, Floodalains, and Floodways.
(a) Modifications to existing feedlots that are located within shoreland, floodplains, or
floodways may be allowed. Modifications shall not further encroach into the
shoreland, floodplain, or floodway or reduce the present land area of the feedlot to
less than the minimum area requirement of Section 731.002 of this Ordinance.
Transfer of ownership shall not invalidate this exception.
( 12 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
(b) Expansions to existing feedlots located within shoreland, floodplains or floodways are
prohibited.
732.003 Existing Feedlots A-2 Zone. The keeping of livestock on parcels located in
the "A-2" Agricultural/Rural Residential District shall be limited to one animal unit per acre
not to exceed a maximum of ten (10) animal units.
SECTION 733 LAND APPLICATION OF MANURE
733.001 Application Methods. The following requirements shall apply to the land
application of manure in Rice County.
(a) Irrigation type disposal of manure, including but not limited to the use of a travelling
gun or center pivot irrigation, is prohibited.
(b) Liquid manure shall be injected or incorporated within twelve (12) hours of
application with the following exceptions:
(1) When applied in the winter months of December through March.
(2) When applied to hay and pasture land.
(c) Solid manure may be spread without incorporation, but incorporation is
recommended.
(d) Manure application hoses are prohibited in or along side standing or running water
with the following exceptions:
(1) Manure application hoses may cross standing or running water if supported
by a rigid structure; and
(2) Hose connections shall not be placed over or near standing or running water.
733.002 Estimatinia Manure ADDlication Rates. Application rates shall be based on
nitrogen requirements and may be estimated for feedlots having less than 300 animal units or
for the land application of poultry manure. Such application rates shall be based upon soil
type, crop nitrogen requirements and crop yield goals utilizing the following procedure:
(a) Estimate nitrogen concentration of manure based upon the current official guidelines
developed for use by the MRCS, MPCA and the Minnesota Extension Service.
(b) Calculate the amount of nitrogen generated in livestock manure.
(c) Utilize Minnesota Extension Service fertilizer recommendations to determine crop
nitrogen requirements.
(d) Divide the total amount of nitrogen the livestock is generating by the crop nitrogen
requirements to determine the acreage needed for manure utilization.
(e) The operator shall maintain a record of land application sites, application rates, crop
nutrient requirements and of any additional fertilizer used on the site. Copies of these
records shall be available for inspection at the feedlot and records shall be maintained
by the feedlot operator for a minimum of three years.
733.003 Testing for Nutrient Levels. A feedlot owner or operator having 300 animal
units or more shall use actual manure and soil test results in place of estimated nutrient values.
Feedlot operators with less than 300 animal units may use testing. Testing may allow the
( 13 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
feedlot operator to apply manure on a year to year basis at rates greater than allowed under
Section 733.002.
(a) Samples shall be taken from:
(1) the manure holding facility;
(2) the manure applicator during application of liquid manure; and
(3) the soil of the proposed application site.
(b) The samples shall be sent to a state certified laboratory.
(c) The actual nitrogen shall be used in place of estimated nitrogen values.
(d) Application rate shall be based on a site-specific agronomic analysis that includes:
(1) all plant available nutrient inputs from manure, legumes, residual soil nutrient,
and soil organic matter;
(2) site specific soil, and manure analyses; and
(3) previous year's analyses of applied manure and application site.
These data, plus the yield goal for the crop to be grown, will be used to calculate
appropriate manure and supplemental fertilizer nutrient additions.
(e) Management factors such as manure handling, application method, tillage, cropping,
grazing pattern, and, site factors such as soil texture, slope and aspect will be used to
modify the manure application rates.
(f) The operator shall maintain copies of the agronomic analyses which are being relied
upon for the purpose of limiting land application rates of manure. This analysis shall
be carried out each year before land application takes place and the analysis and
conclusions forwarded to the County Feedlot Officer. Copies of such analyses shall
be available for inspection at the facility and records shall be maintained by the feedlot
operator for a minimum of three years.
733.004 Manure From Out of County Sources. Manure from out of county sources
may be used as a domestic fertilizer in Rice County. An approved manure management plan
shall be required prior to the transportation of manure into Rice County. Land spreading and
temporary storage on farms where the spreading will take place shall be subject to the
requirements of this Ordinance including all land application, storage standards and setback
requirements.
Manure from out of county sources shall not be stockpiled in Rice County. Temporary
storage of less than six (6) months is permitted on farms where the land spreading will take
place subject to the setback requirements for land spreading.
SECTION 734 RESTRICTIONS ON LAND APPLICATION SITES
734.001 Soil Loss in Non-Shoreland Areas. Land application of manure shall not be
allowed on soils outside of shoreland that exceed 1 1/2 times the tolerable soil loss (T) as set
by the NRCS with assistance from the Minnesota Extension Service unless a conservation
plan that will reduce soil loss to 1 1/2 times T is developed and is showing progress towards
implementation within one (1) year of issuance of the Feedlot Permit or Interim Permit.
( 14 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
734.002 Soil Loss in Shoreland Areas. Land application of manure shall not be
allowed on soils within shoreland that exceed the tolerable soil loss (T) as set by the NRCS
with assistance from the Minnesota Extension Service unless a conservation plan that will
reduce soil loss to T is developed and is showing progress towards implementation within one
(1) year of issuance of a Feedlot Permit or Interim Permit.
734.003 Required Setbacks for Land Application of Manure. All feedlots shall
meet the following setbacks for the land application of manure:
Setbacks From the Spreading of Spreading of
Following Physical Liquid Manure Solid Manure
Features/Structures on Hay Ground w/o Incorporation
Lake, River, or Stream
Stream with buffer strip
Other Surface Waters
or Sinkholes
10 year Floodplain
Municipal Boundary
Residential Area
Residence other than
the Operator
Public Roads
(ROW Line)
Field Tile Intake
734.004 Slopes
750 feet
300 feet
300 feet
Prohibited
1/4 mile
1/4 mile
1/4 mile
10 feet
300 feet
300 feet
100 feet
75 feet
Prohibited
500 feet
500 feet
500 feet
10 feet
100 feet
Injection or
Incorporation
of Manure
Within 12 hours
300 feet
100 feet
75 feet
Prohibited
500 feet
300 feet
300 feet
10 feet
25 feet
(a) Manure shall not be applied on slopes of greater than 12%.
(b) Liquid manure shall not be applied on slopes of greater than 6% during the winter
months of December through March.
(c) Separation Distance from Surface Waters for Surface Application During the Winter
Months of December through March:
Sloe % Manure Type Time of Year Minimum Separation
0-6 Solid, Liquid December -March 300 feet
6-12 Solid December -March 300 feet
734.005 Right -of -Way. Manure shall not be applied to'the right-of-way of public
roads.
734.006 Drainage Ditches. If no potential pollution hazard exists, a minimum distance
of one (1) rod or 16.5 feet shall be maintained between surface applications of manure and
drainage ditches or grassed waterways unless classified as a wetland or protected water.
( 15) DRAFT (3/14/96)
734.007 Private Wells. If no potential pollution hazard exists, a minimum distance of
one hundred (100) feet shall be maintained between surface applications of manure and any
private water supply well.
734.008 Public Wells. If no potential pollution hazard exists, a minimum distance of
one thousand (1000) feet shall be maintained between surface application of manure and any
public water supply well.
734.009 Residences. Manure may be applied closer to a residence than prescribed by
this Ordinance if permission is granted by the resident in the form of a written agreement.
Agreements shall not bind subsequent residents. When determining the distance between a
residence and manure application the distance shall be measured from the residence, not
property lines, to manure application.
734.010 Treatment or Disposal. Any manure not utilized as domestic fertilizer shall
be treated or disposed of in accordance with applicable State and County rules.
SECTION 735 MANURE STORAGE AND TRANSPORTATION
735.001 Compliance with State and Local Standards. All animal manure shall be
stored and transported in conformance with MPCA rules 7020 and the Rice County Feedlot
Ordinance.
735.002 Potential Pollution Hazard Prohibited. No manure storage area shall be
constructed, located, or operated so as to create or maintain a potential pollution hazard
unless a Certificate of Compliance, Permit, or Interim Permit has been issued by the MPCA
and Rice County setting out the requirements for mitigating or abating the potential pollution
hazard.
735.003 Vehicles, Spreaders. All vehicles used to transport animal manure on
County, State, and interstate highways or through municipalities shall be leak proof. Manure
spreaders with endgates shall be in compliance with this provision provided the endgate works
effectively to restrict leakage and the manure spreader is leak proof. This shall not apply to
animal manure being hauled to fields adjacent to feedlots or fields divided by roadways
provided the animal manure is for use as domestic. fertilizer.
735.004 Utilization as Domestic Fertilizer. Animal manure, when utilized as
domestic fertilizer, shall not be stored for longer than one year.
735.005 Stacking of Manure on Site. Solid manure that is stacked for more than six
(6) months shall be stored on a concrete containment pad designed with a water containment
and diversion plan approved by the Department.
735.006 Run -Off Control Structures. All outside manure storage areas shall have
run-off control structures to contain the liquid.
( 16 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
735.007 Storage Caaacity. The Manure Management Plan shall provide for twelve
(12) months of manure storage capacity for new or expanding feedlots and must be approved
by the Feedlot Officer.
735.008 Storage Design Approval.
(a) All plans for manure storage structures shall be reviewed and approved by the
County.
(b) Plans for all earthen manure storage structures and all manure storage structures of
500,000 gallons capacity or larger shall be approved by the State.
(c) Plans for manure storage structures may be reviewed by the SWCD and/or NRCS.
735.009 Minimum Location, Design, Construction and Maintenance Standards
for Earthen Manure Storage Structure.
(a) Location Standards.
(1) All location criteria for earthen manure storage structures, as established by
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in Chapter 7020 of the State of
Minnesota Rules, shall be included by reference in this standard.
(2) No earthen manure storage structure shall be located in an area where the
bedrock surface is less than 20 feet below the ground surface or in an area
where karst features such as sinkholes, potholes and fractures are apparent in
the topography and are within 1,000 feet of the proposed location. All earthen
manure storage structures shall be located such that the depth from the
bottom of the liner to bedrock is equal to or greater than the design depth of
the structure. If the structure is to be located in an area that is between 1,000
and 1,500 feet from a karst area, the minimum separation to bedrock shall be
twice the design depth of the structure. In addition, special MPCA
requirements in karst areas shall apply.
(3) No earthen manure storage structure shall be located in an area where the
seasonal -high groundwater table will be within two feet of the bottom of the
structure sealing liner. The installation of a groundwater drainage system to
lower the seasonal -high groundwater table shall be prohibited.
(4) No earthen manure storage structure shall be located in an area identified as
having a high susceptibility to groundwater contamination.
(5) No earthen manure storage structure shall be located in an area identified as
primarily sand and gravel.
(b) Design Standards.
(1) Site Investigation.
(A) A minimum of two soil borings for the first '/z acre of site area plus
one soil boring per acre thereof shall be made at the proposed location
of the structure by a qualified soils technician. The borings shall be
advanced to a depth of ten feet below the proposed bottom of the
structure.
(B) A record of the findings of the soil borings shall be made and will
include the following:
1) A listing of the soils types by USDA classification and the
thickness of the soil layers encountered in the boring;
( 17 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
2) The depth to the highest evidence of seasonal -high
groundwater table;
3) The depth to any bedrock layer, with a description of the type
of rock encountered;
4) The depth to saturated soil conditions or groundwater table;
and
5) The date and location relative to the proposed basin to be
shown on the plan set of the borings, the elevation of the
ground at the borings and the name of the soils technician
conducting the boring operation and soils interpretation.
(2) Basic Design.
(A) The earthen storage structure shall be designed with sufficient volume
to hold the waste from the proposed number of animals for the design
period while providing at least two feet of freeboard between the
surface of the waste and the lowest point in the surrounding
embankment.
(B) The structure shall not be used for the storage of animal manure for
a period of longer than 365 days.
(C) The design of the structure shall be prepared and signed by a
registered Professional Engineer qualified in the design of earthen
structures.
(3) Liner Design.
(A) Liner thickness shall be based on liquid depth and storage capacity.
1) The earthen structure shall have a liner that is at least 24
inches in thickness after compaction. The overall thickness
shall be increased by 1.5 inches for each additional foot in
design depth over 10 feet (not including the freeboard depth).
Liner thickness shall be increased as required to achieve a
demonstrated permeability rate of 10'' cm/second (500
gallons/acre/day) or less;
2) The minimum liner thickness shall be increased to thirty (30)
inches for earthen structures of 1-1.5 million gallons of
capacity. Earthen structures with a capacity of 1.5-2 million
gallons shall require a synthetic membrane in addition to the
30 -inch compacted liner; and
3) Earthen structures having more than a two million gallon
capacity shall meet the technical standards for solid waste
management facilities under Minnesota Rules Chapter 7035.
(B) The interior side slopes of the liner shall not be greater than 2:1
(horizontal : vertical) or 50%, or, 3:1 (horizontal : vertical) if
compaction efforts on sidewalls are parallel to the slope.
(C) The specified soil used to make up the liner shall be composed of at
least 50% material finer than the #200 sieve and 25% smaller than
0.002 millimeters as tested by hydrometer. The soil shall contain no
rock larger than 3 inches in diameter and no organic matter such as
roots or grass.
(D) The soil used in the liner specifications shall have a minimum liquid
( 18 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
limit of 25% and a minimum plasticity index of 15% and be capable of
attaining a demonstrated permeability rate
10' cm/second (500 gallons/acre/day) or less.
(4) Liner Borrow Area.
(A) Soil borings shall be conducted at the proposed source for the soil
liner material. A minimum of two soil borings shall be made at the
proposed location by a qualified soils technician. The borings shall be
advanced to a depth below the proposed bottom of the excavation.
(B) A record of the findings of the soil borings shall be made and will
include the following:
1) A listing of the soils types by USDA classification and the
thickness of the soil layers encountered in the boring;
2) The depth to the highest evidence of seasonal -high
groundwater table;
3) The depth to any bedrock layer, with a description of the type
of rock encountered;
4) The depth to saturated soil conditions or groundwater table;
and
5) The date and location to be shown on plan set of the borings,
the elevation of the ground at the borings and the name of the
soils technician conducting the boring operation and soils
interpretation.
6) An estimate of the volume of borrow material required and
available.
(C) The borrow area for the liner soil shall be tested to verify the
characteristics of the soil. The tests shall be conducted by a qualified
testing facility and shall include:
1) Grain size analysis (ASTM D422);
2) Standard Proctor density analysis (ASTM D698);
3) Hydraulic Conductivity (ASTM D5084);and
4) Liquid Limit and Plasticity Index (ASTM D4318).
(c) Submittals.
(1) The following materials shall be submitted to the Rice County Feedlot Officer
and MPCA for review and approval:
(A) Construction Plans and Specifications signed by a registered
Professional Engineer.
(B) Boring logs and summary sheets from the soil borings taken at the
proposed structure site and the proposed borrow site.
(C) Results of the testing conducted on the proposed soil liner, including
the permeability, optimum density, moisture content of the compacted
soil and estimated volume of borrow area material.
(d) Construction Standards.
(1) Liner Placement and Compaction.
(A) The soil liner shall be placed in horizontal lifts of no more than 6
inches in thickness after compaction. The liner on the side walls shall
also be placed in horizontal lifts to facilitate compaction, unless the
builder can demonstrate the ability to achieve the required compaction
( 19 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
735.010 Steel Tanks. Steel tanks for underground manure storage shall be prohibited.
735.011 Odor Control Plan.
(a) An Odor Control Plan shall be prepared by the feedlot operator for all new and
existing feedlots.
(b) The Odor Control Plan shall provide for methods of odor control that will
significantly reduce the odor leaving the feedlot.
(c) The Odor Control Plan shall provide that all liquid manure storage facilities on
feedlots of 300 AU or larger, or, liquid manure storage facilities of 1,000,000 gallons
or more shall be enclosed with a cover approved by the County.
( 20) DRAFT (3/14/96)
on the slopes using other methodologies. The surface of the lifts shall
be scarified prior to placement of the succeeding lift to facilitate
bonding of the lifts.
(B)
The moisture content of the her soil shall be at or above the optimum
moisture content identified in the preconstruction testing. In no case
shall the moisture content exceed 4% above or fall below the
identified optimum moisture content.
(C)
The soil shall be compacted to a minimum of 95% of the identified
Proctor maximum density. The compaction shall be done with a
"sheepsfoot" roller or other kneading compactors. The compaction
shall be verified by field testing of the compacted material using
nuclear density (ASTM D2922), sand cone (ASTM D 1556) or rubber
balloon methods (ASTM D2167). One density test shall be conducted
for each 1,000 square feet of surface area of the soil her (including
side walls)for each lift. These tests shall be conducted by qualified
personnel.
(D)
No frozen soil materials shall be used in the construction of the liner
nor shall placement or compaction of soil material take place during
freezing weather conditions.
(2) Construction
Certification.
(A)
All clay liner placement and compaction shall be observed by a
registered Professional Engineer. Records of the construction
activities and conditions shall be kept on site.
(B)
Upon completion of construction of the liner, a construction report
shall be filed with the Feedlot Officer and MPCA. This report shall
contain the testing results, a summary of the construction activities, an
as -built plan set and a certification that the work was conducted
according to the plans and specifications approved by the State and
the County for construction.
735.010 Steel Tanks. Steel tanks for underground manure storage shall be prohibited.
735.011 Odor Control Plan.
(a) An Odor Control Plan shall be prepared by the feedlot operator for all new and
existing feedlots.
(b) The Odor Control Plan shall provide for methods of odor control that will
significantly reduce the odor leaving the feedlot.
(c) The Odor Control Plan shall provide that all liquid manure storage facilities on
feedlots of 300 AU or larger, or, liquid manure storage facilities of 1,000,000 gallons
or more shall be enclosed with a cover approved by the County.
( 20) DRAFT (3/14/96)
SECTION 736 FEEDLOT CLOSURE
736.001 Responsible Parties. The landowner, owner'and operator of any feedlot
shall be responsible for the ongoing management of manure and the final closure of the feedlot
including the cleaning of buildings and the emptying and proper disposal of manure from all
manure storage structures.
736.002 Environmental Financial Assurance. Financial assurance guaranteeing
proper closure shall be required with all applications for new or expanding feedlots of 300
animal units or more unless the feedlot meets the minimum area requirements of Section
731.002. Such assurance shall be a $20,000 bond, letter of credit, or escrow account.
The County shall establish an environmental remediation fee that shall be paid to the County
based on the holding capacity in gallons of new manure storage structures.
736.003 Closure Plan. If a feedlot ceases operation, the owner shall submit to the
County a Closure Plan.
(a) The Closure Plan shall be submitted at least 60 days prior to the final day of
operation. This Plan shall be prepared by a Professional Engineer registered in the
State of Minnesota or an MRCS technician.
(b) Closure may be postponed for a period of 12 months if the property is posted for sale.
However, pollution hazards must be remediated immediately.
(c) Manure storage structure closure shall include the removal of the sludge in the
facilities and its disposal by proper land application at agronomic rates or by other
legally permissible method. Manure storage structure closure shall also include the
grading, leveling and sloping of the was of the manure storage structure and the
seeding of the area.
(d) All wastes from the feedlot operation and its waste control system must be removed
and disposed of on land or in some other manner which is legally permissible as soon
as practical and in accordance with the approved Plan in order to promote and protect
public health.
(e) Each time ownership of the feedlot changes the new owner must notify the Rice
County Feedlot Officer in writing within 60 days of the transfer of ownership that the
approved Plan has been read and is understood and that all provisions of the Plan will
be implemented.
(f) If the new ownership will continue to operate the feedlot, closure shall not be
required.
SECTION 737 ABANDONMENT
Owners and operators of feedlots shall have joint and several liability for clean-up, closure or
remediation of abandoned feedlot sites.
( 21 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
SECTION 738 DISPOSAL OF ANIMAL CARCASSES
738.001 Plan Required. The feedlot owner or operator shall provide a plan indicating
the method to be used for the disposal of animal carcasses.
(a) The plan for dead animal disposal shall be consistent with the Minnesota Board of
Animal Health Regulations Minnesota Rules Chapter 1719.
(b) The disposal plan shall include the name and location of any rendering service to be
used and methods for protecting carcasses from scavengers.
(c) A site plan shall be included identifying the composting site or burial areas, distance
to neighboring residences, lakes and watercourses, and, the distances to ground water
and bedrock.
(d) Animal carcasses either whole, partial or ground -up shall not be disposed of in the
manure storage structure.
SECTION 739 VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
739.001 Violations. Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any of the
provisions hereof or who shall fail to comply with any of the provisions hereof or who shall
make any false statement in any document required to be submitted under the provisions
hereof; shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each day that a violation continues shall constitute
a separate offense.
739.002 Enforcement.
(a) Stop Work Orders. Whenever any work is being done contrary to the provisions of
this Ordinance, the Rice County Feedlot Officer or Director of Planning and Zoning
may order the work stopped by written notice personally served upon the owner or
operator of the feedlot. All activities shall cease and desist until subsequent
authorization to proceed is received from the Rice County Feedlot Officer or Director
of Planning and Zoning.
(b) Revocation. Any person who fails to comply with the conditions set forth on the
Permit, Interim Permit or Certificate of Compliance may be subject to revocation
upon written notice personally served upon the owner or operator of the feedlot.
(c) Interference Prohibited. No person shall hinder or otherwise interfere with the Rice
County Feedlot Officer in the performance of duties and responsibilities required
pursuant to this Ordinance.
(d) Access to Premises. Upon the request of the Rice County Feedlot Officer, the
applicant, permittee or any other person shall allow access to the affected premises
for the purposes of regulating and enforcing this Ordinance. Refusal to allow access
to the Rice County Feedlot Officer shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense,
whether or not any other specific violations are cited.
(e) Injunctive Relief and Other Remedies. In the event of a violation of this
Ordinance, the County may institute appropriate actions or proceedings, including
requesting injunctive relief, to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations. All
costs incurred for corrective action may be recovered by the County in a civil action
( 22 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
in any court of competent jurisdiction or, at the discretion of the County, the costs
may be certified to the County Auditor as a special tax against the real property.
These and other remedies, as determined appropriate by the County, may be imposed
upon the applicant, permittee, installer, or other responsible person either in addition
to or separate from other enforcement actions.
SECTION 740 SEVERABILITY AND VALIDITY
It is hereby declared to be the intention that the several provisions of this Ordinance are
severable in accordance with the following:
(a) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provisions of this Ordinance
to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provisions of the Ordinance not
specifically included in said judgment.
(b) If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge invalid the application of any
provision of this Ordinance to a particular property, building, or structure, such
judgment shall not affect other property, buildings or structures.
( 23 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
SECTION 741 ORDINANCE REPEALED
The Rice County Feedlot Ordinance dated December 22, 1992 and amendments thereto is
repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 742 EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval, as
provided by law.
Passed and approved this day of
Attest:
Amended
Amended
Amended
County Administrator
, 1996 by the County of Rice.
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
( 24 ) DRAFT (3/14/96)
08/16/95
Recommendations of the
Land Application of Manure Task Force
m
Land Application of Manure Guidelines
to the
Feedlot and Manure Management Advisory Committee
August 1995
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% fibers from paper recycled by consumers.
LAND APPi iC'ATION OF MANi1RF TACK F ULC
DFTl1T
RECOMMENDATIONS
REGARDING APPLICATION GUIDELINES
I. INTRODUCTION
The potential for water pollution from animal manures and the need for properly managing
manure has been recognized for many years. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) created the feedlot program in 1971 to address these needs. The MPCA rules for
animal feedlots (chapter 7020) have been in existence since 1979. These rules "recognize
that animal manure often provides beneficial qualities to the soil and to production of
agricultural crops" and state that animal manure shall "be applied at rates not exceeding
local agricultural crop nutrient requirements except where allowed by permit." No other
specific information is provided in MPCA feedlot rules regarding land application of
manure. In 1981, the MPCA developed more specific guidelines for manure application.
A draft revision of the guidelines was developed in 1992. While the guidelines were
intended to foster voluntary adoption of measures to protect water quality, certain language
from the guidelines has been incorporated into some local feedlot ordinances and
provisions in some permits.
The Feedlot Advisory Group (FLAG) was formed by interested producer groups,
environmental groups and state, federal and local agencies in 1989 to provide increased
discussion and coordination regarding concerns surrounding animal production and water
pollution and the MPCA efforts in this area. The Land Application of Manure Task Force
was established by FLAG to review and make recommendations to the group for revising
the MPCA manure application guidelines. The task force was also asked.to provide
direction to the MPCA for clarification of the feedlot rule language regarding the
application of manure at agronomic rates.
This report describes the task force recommendations concerning manure application
guidelines. Clarification of MPCA rule language has not yet been addressed by the task
force. The report is divided into four sections as shown below:
I. Introduction (pages 1-3);
II. Task Force Recommended Considerations in Revising the Guidelines (pages 4-5);
III. Revised Land Application of Manure Guidelines (pages 6-13); and
IV. Basis and Justification for Guidelines (Appendix A).
The task force was composed primarily of FLAG members who volunteered to be a part of
the task force. Additional people were added to the task force as others became aware of
and interested in the task force. MPCA staff was assigned to coordinate the meetings and
2
write the task force report. After the task force had met several times, a new Feedlot and
Manure Management Advisory Committee (FMMAC) was established by siatute, thereby
replacing FLAG. FMMAC, composed largely of the same members and organizations as
FLAG, directed the Land Application of Manure Task Force to continue meeting and
present final manure application guideline recommendations to FMMAC.
The task force members and their affiliation are listed below:
Mr. Duane Bakke
Minnesota Pork Producers
Mr. Lowel M. Busman
Minnesota Extension Service
Mr. Steve Commerford
Private Consultant
Mr. Greg Engelke
Cenex/Land O'Lakes Ag. Services
Mr. Joe Fitzgerald
Stearns Soil and Water Conservation District
Mr. Roger Gilland
Minnesota Cattlemen Association
Mr. Rick Hanna
Blue Earth County Environmental Services
Mr. John Holden
Minnesota Turkey Growers Association
Mr. Greg Johnson
MPCA - Task force co-chair and co-author
Mr. Jack Johnson
AURJ
Mr. Tim Johnson
Willmar Poultry Company
Mr. Ted Lovdahl, Jr.
Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Mr. Gary Martens
Commercial Applicator
Mr. Steve McCorquodale
Commercial Applicator
Mr. Jerry Miller
Minnesota Dairy Herd Improvement Association
Dr. John Moncrief
University of Minnesota
Mr. Bruce Montgomery
Minnesota Department of Agriculture
Mr. Greg Murch
Sparboe Companies
Dr. Mike Nelms
Jerome Foods
Mr. David Nelson
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Mr. Jeff St. Ores
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Mr. Marlin Pankratz
Minnesota Pork Producers
Mr. Matthew Peterson
Jennie -0 -Foods
Mr. Chris Radatz
Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation
Mr. Steve Riebel
Jennie -O Foods
Ms. Sam Sunderlin
Minnesota Lakes Association
Mr. David Wall
MPCA - Task force co-chair and co-author
The task force met eight times between August 1993 and June 1995, during the process to
develop this report, as described below.
Meetings 1 and 2 (August 5 and September 8, 1993) - Invited speakers provided an
overview of 1) agronomic considerations in the use and management of manure, and
2) transport mechanisms of manure -related pollutants and the effects of pollutants on
water quality. After the second meeting, MPCA staff reviewed and summarized
literature pertaining to water quality and manure application.
3
Meetings 3 and 4 (January 14 and March 11, 1994) - Task force goals and objectives
were defined, concerns with existing manure -application guidelines and use of
guidelines in county ordinances were discussed, results of published research were
reviewed and options for revising the current guidelines were identified.
Meeting 5 (March 25, 1994) - The practicality and effectiveness of the various
approaches for protecting water quality when applying manure was discussed. Rough
draft guidelines were mailed to task force members between meeting 5 and meeting 6.
Meeting 6 (September 9, 1994) - Specific comments on drafts of the "Land
Application of Manure Guidelines" and "Task Force Recommended Considerations
in Revising Guidelines" were received. A second draft guidelines and draft
"Appendix A - Basis and Justification for Manure Application Guidelines" was
mailed to task force members between meeting 6 and meeting 7.
Meeting 7 (March 24, 1995) - Comments were received on the second draft
guidelines and Appendix A. A third draft guidelines was sent to task force members
on April 21, 1995. Comments on the third draft were received from task force
members via telephone and mail. Then a fourth draft guidelines and Appendix A was
sent to task force members and other experts involved with nutrient and manure
management (Dr. Paul Fixen, Dr. George Rehm, Dr. Gyles Randall, Dr. Mike
Schmitt). Comments were received prior to meeting 8 and a fifth draft was prepared.
Meeting 8 (June 28, 1995) - Comments were received on the fifth draft guidelines and
changes were recommended and agreed on by the Task Force. A near final sixth draft
was sent to task force members before finalizing this report to FMMAC.
This report represents the recommendations of the task force to FMMAC.
4
II. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED CONSIDERATIONS IN REVISING
GUIDELINES
Listed below are guiding principles that the task force considered when revising the
guidelines.
A. There is a need for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to provide
specific manure application guidelines in order to provide for greater consistency,
justifiability, and practicality of recommended manure application practices throughout
Minnesota.
B. MPCA guidelines should represent practices that help to reduce negative water quality
impacts from land application of manure. It is not feasible to eliminate all risk of
manure -associated pollutant transport to water resources of the state.
C. The primary intent of the guidelines should be to foster voluntary adoption of measures
to protect water quality. However, it is recognized that some counties may incorporate
guidelines into provisions of feedlot ordinances. The guidelines should be
environmentally sound and consider the potential for economic hardship to producers.
D. Nitrogen, phosphorus, pathogens and oxygen demanding substances are the parameters
of greatest concern based on the potential for water quality impacts from land
application of manure. The guidelines should consider minimizing phosphorus,
pathogen, and oxygen demanding substance transport where there is a reasonable
chance that they can be transported to surface waters. This is particularly a concern on
sloping lands in close proximity to lakes and streams, and on cropland with direct
surface drainage conduits. On land where there is little chance of surface water quality
impacts, phosphorus should not be a controlling factor for determining application
rates. The degree of water quality protection afforded compared to background
loadings should also be considered. Since nitrogen is of concern for ground and surface
waters, best management practices to minimize nitrogen losses are recommended
statewide.
E. In situations where the water pollution potential from manure application poses no
greater threat than proper use of commercial fertilizer, restrictions placed on the
application of manure should be no greater than those placed on the use of commercial
inorganic fertilizer (refer to Appendix A for discussion of differences in pollution
potential between manure and inorganic fertilizer application).
F. The manure application guidelines should reflect conclusions derived from sound
scientific research that is appropriate for Minnesota conditions. It is recognized that
1) throughout Minnesota soils and climate are quite varied, 2) specific research results
often are not transferable across the entire state, and 3) there will likely never be enough
research to account for all of the site specific variabilities in soil and manure
management. These guidelines are subject to revision depending on future research
results.
G. The guidelines should be easily interpreted and understood by livestock producers and
government officials.
H. The guidelines developed by this task force should focus on manure application
practices rather than total farm management. However, it is recognized that erosion
control practices are very important for minimizing nutrient runoff and are quite
interrelated to manure management. In all situations, the guidelines should consider
erosion control in conjunction with manure application.
J
III. RECOMMENDED LAND APPLICATION OF MANURE GUIDELINES
0.
These guidelines are for the land application of manure' as a soil amendment and do not
pertain to manure storage. The guidelines are not meant to supplant rules or permits. It is
recommended that these guidelines be used as a means to inform livestock producers about
practical and justifiable manure application practices to minimize water pollution. These
guidelines were developed with the intent of identifying practices that minimize water
quality degradation from land application of manure without placing hardships on
producers. It is not feasible to eliminate all risk of manure -associated pollutant transport to
water resources of the state. However, these guidelines should greatly reduce
environmental risks associated with land application. In certain very sensitive areas,
additional measures will likely be necessary to ensure nondegradation of water resources.
The guidelines are based on a thorough review of pertinent research results and
considerable discussion by the multi -disciplinary Land Application of Manure Task Force.
A document describing the basis and justification for these guidelines is available from the
MPCA. While the guidelines are supported by research, the research results do not point to
one precise set of numbers that is appropriate for all sites in Minnesota. To ensure proper
stewardship of our land and water resources, the guidelines should be used along with
more specific best management practice information and the best judgment of those
managing manure application. These guidelines may be revised in the future as new
research results become available.
The following additional issues need to be considered when using these guidelines:
Manure is a Valuable Resource - Application of manure to cropland supplies nutrients
and improves soil tilth. Application of manure can increase soil organic matter of low
organic matter soils, and can increase the soil's ability to hold water and resist compaction
and crusting. Therefore, these guidelines consider land application of manure as a valuable
soil amendment rather than a waste product for disposal. Management of Minnesota's
manure supplies should strive towards achieving the maximum soil benefit from this
resource.
Farming is an Interrelated System of Many Practices - While these guidelines refer
primarily to manure application, they need to be considered along with other management
factors. For example, soil conservation practices greatly influence the surface water
pollution potential from land -applied manure. By maintaining erosion control practices,
the total amount of manure -derived pollutants entering surface waters can be greatly
reduced. Vegetative buffers maintained along lakes, streams and other water bodies reduce
the potential for pollution from manure application, especially during the growing season.
These guidelines pertain to all methods of application except irrigation. Additional precautions
and management considerations are needed for manure applied through irrigation systems.
WIT
Proper manure management depends largely on the use of appropriate application rates to
cropland. The Minnesota Extension Service has developed methods for determining these
rates. The methods use the following information:
• Realistic yield goals;
• Estimated manure nutrient content based on laboratory manure analyses;
• Estimated nutrient losses in storage and handling when using daily manure production
estimates;
• Estimated nutrient availability from manure in current year and availability from
previous two years of application;
• Soil nitrogen tests to predict nitrogen availability from previous manure applications;
• Soil test results, organic matter mineralization, credits from previous crop, and needs of
crop to be grown;
• Accurate knowledge of field management during previous years; and
• Calibrated manure application equipment that provides uniform spreading over the site.
Extension publications that describe the use of the above information or deal with other
aspects of manure and nutrient management are listed below.
Manure Management
- Fertilizing Cropland with Dairy Manure (AG -FO -5880-C)
- Fertilizing Cropland with Beef Manure (AG -FO -5882-C)
- Fertilizing Cropland with Swine Manure (AG -FO -5879-C)
- Fertilizing Cropland with Poultry Manure (AG -FO -5881-C)
- Self Assessment Worksheets for Manure Management Plans (AG -FO -5883-C)
- Manure Application Planner Computer Program - From the Center for Farm Financial
Management, University of Minnesota, St. Paul (Department of Applied Economics)
- Livestock Manure Sampling and Testing (AG -FO -6423-B)
Nitrogen Management
- Manure is a Good Source of Nitrogen (AG -FO -5760-C)
- Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use Statewide in Minnesota (AG -FO -6125-C)
- Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use in Southeastern Minnesota
(AG -FO -6126-B)
- Best Management Practices for Nitrogen use in South -Central Minnesota
(AG -FO -6127-B)
- Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use in Southwestern and West -Central
Minnesota (AG -FO -6128-C)
- Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use in East-Central and Central Minnesota
(AG -FO -6129-13)
- Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use in Northwestern Minnesota
(AG -FO -6130-B)
- Best Management Practices for Nitrogen Use on Irrigated, Coarse -Textured
Soils (AG -FO -6131-B)
Fertilizer Recommendations For Specific Crops
- Fertilizer Recommendations for Agronomic Crops in Minnesota
(AG -MI -3901-E)
- Fertilizing Corn in Minnesota (AG -FO -3790-B)
- Fertilizing Soybeans in Minnesota (AG -FO -3813-B)
- Fertilizing Alfalfa in Minnesota (AG -FO -3814-B)
- Fertilizing Wheat in Minnesota (AG -FO -3772-B)
- Fertilizing Barley in Minnesota (AG -FO -3773-B)
- Fertilizer Management for Corn Planted in Ridge -Till or No -Till Systems
(AG -FO -6074-B)
- Nutrient Management for Commercial Fruit and Vegetable Crops in
Minnesota (AG -FO -5886-F)
Le
Land areas in these guidelines are divided into two separate classifications based on the
likelihood that runoff will affect surface or ground water quality. The classifications
include:
A. General Protection Areas - All land MORE than 300 feet from:
• Lakes
• Streams
• Wetlands (MDNR regulated)2
• Intermittent streams
• Drainage ditches'
• Surface tile inlets
• Wells
• Sinkholes, mines or quarries
B. Special Protection Areas - All land LESS than 300 feet from:
• Lakes
• Streams
• Wetlands (MDNR regulated)2
• Intermittent streams
• Drainage ditches4
• Surface tile inlets
• Wells
• Sinkholes, mines or quarries
For all land in General Protection Areas, refer to the following section. Guidelines for
land in Special Protection Areas are described on pages 10 to 12.
2 Wetlands include all wetlands that are identified on Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) protected waters and wetlands inventory maps. These maps are located at
all county SWCD offices. For unincorporated areas, MDNR regulated wetlands include many
of type III, IV and IV wetlands and waters which are greater than 10 acres or are hydraulically
connected to other wetlands or water bodies that have a combined acreage of more than 10
acres.
3 Intermittent streams include all off -field drainage channels with definable banks that provide
for water flow to a perennial stream, lake or wetland during snowmelt or rainfall events.
a Drainage ditches include unbermed drainage ditches and all drainage ditches that receive
surface runoff from unbermed areas or side inlets during snowmelt or rainfall events.
10
• 1• 1 Mq 1 1W.AWKWINVIRIFT RMA
Application Rates - Maximum manure application rates to land in General Protection
Areas (defined in previous section) should be limited so that the plant available nitrogen
expected during the growing season from all nitrogen sources does not exceed expected
crop nitrogen uptakes Please refer to the previously listed extension publications to
determine the appropriate rate for specific crops and site conditions.
Frozen Soils and Steep Slopes - Application of manure to frozen or snow-covered soils is
typically the least desirable from the standpoint of nutrient utilization and water pollution.
When manure application to frozen or snow covered soils is necessary, it should be applied
to the flattest land available, avoiding soils with slopes greater than six percent. If
sufficient land area with slopes less than six percent is unavailable and winter application is
necessary, then manure should be applied to lands that present the least risk of runoff to
surface water and at time when active thaw is not occurring. In either situation, provisions
should be made to control runoff and erosion with soil and water conservation practices.
Gullies and Grassed Waterways - Manure should not be applied directly into gullies.
Avoid application to grassed waterways whenever possible.
Areas Subject to Flooding - Injection or inimediate incorporation is recommended for all
areas subject to flooding.
Land Not Owned By Livestock Producers - When applying manure to land not owned or
rented by the livestock producer, the original owner of the manure or person applying the
manure should provide the cropland manager with accurate information on the fields where
application occurs, method of application, and a good estimate of the plant available
nutrients applied (based on manure analysis results and proper equipment calibration).
5 Application at rates exceeding this may be in violation of MPCA rules which require manure to
"be applied at rates not exceeding local agricultural crop nutrient requirements, except where
allowed by permit."
6 Frozen soils refers to soils that have enough frost in the soil profile to prevent manure
incorporation or percolation of snowmelt/rain.
Lei
Land Within 300 Feet of Surface Waters
Frozen Soils - Manure application to frozen or snow covered soil is not recommended on all
land that is less than 300 feet from a lake, stream, wetland (MDNR regulated), intermittent
stream 3, or drainage ditch .°
Weather Conditions - Surface application should be avoided on all land within 300 feet of
surface waters when heavy rainfall is expected within 24 hours.
Recommended Rates - Recommended manure application to unfrozen soil within 300 feet of a
lake, stream, wetland (MDNR regulated 2), intermittent stream3, or drainage ditch should be in
accordance with the table below. Definitions for table on following page (12).
Erosion
Recommended Rate
Low
_Buffer8
more than 100 ft.
Same as General Protection Area.
Low
less than 100 ft. =>
P based rate and immed. incorp. unless soil P test is
less than V. High10, then base max. rate on N and
incorporate immediately.
Med-High
more than 100 ft.
No application recommended unless soil P test is
less than V. High 10, then P based rate9
Med-High
less than 100 ft. =>
No Application Recommended unless soil P test is
less than V. High' 0, then P based rate ,v/immediate
incorporation using methods which do not
compromise erosion control.
12
Land Within 300 Feet of Surface Waters
(continued)
Erosion
Low - estimated annual erosion rates are less than 3 tons pel
acre in Southern Minnesota and less than 1.5 tons/acre in
Northern Minnesota based on use of the Universal Soil
Loss Equation. Erosion rates less than these values
typically occur on 1) hay with slopes less than 6 to 12
percent, 2) small grains with slopes less than 4-5 percent,
and 3) row crops with slopes less than 2 to 4 percent that
have more than 30 percent residue cover maintained. If
estimated erosion rates are unknown and slope/residue
conditions suggest that erosion rates could exceed 1.5 and
3 tons/acre, then either assume a med-high erosion rate or
consult with your local NRCS or S WCD office to obtain
estimated erosion rates using USLE.
Med. to High - estimated erosion rates are more than 3 tons
per acre in Southern Minnesota or more than 1.5 tons/acre
in Northern Minnesota.
BBuffer
A "buffer" refers to a vegetated buffer (trees, shrubs, and/or grasses) that does not have
channels for runoff transport.
9P removal based rates
Average manure application rates over a one to four-year period should be limited so that
plant available phosphorus from all sources does not exceed crop phosphorus needs
during the same period of time. For example, if N -based manure application rates supply
3 times the crop phosphorus needs, then apply manure based on N during the first year
and no manure during the following 2 years, adding inorganic N as needed during the
second and third years.
10The relative soil test categories for P are as follows:
Test V. Low Low Med High V. High
----------------------------------------- ppm --------------------------------------------
Bray P, 0-5 6-10 11 - 15 16-20 21+
Olsen 0-3 4-7 8- 11 12- 15 16+
Also, lb/A = ppm x 2.
13
Surface Tile Inlets
It is recommended that manure applied within 300 feet of surface tile inlets be either 1) injected,
or 2) incorporated less than 24 hours after application and prior to rainfall. When surface
application without immediate incorporation is necessary in this zone, manure should be applied
to land with annual erosion rates less than 3 tons/acre/year in southern Minnesota and less than
1.5 tons/acre/year in northern Minnesota (see map on previous page). Application to frozen or
snow covered soils within 300 feet of inlets should be avoided whenever possible.
Application Near Wells, Sinkholes, Mines or Quarries
Manure should not be applied within 50 feet of an active or inactive well, sinkhole", mine or
quarry. General Protection Area guidelines should be used beyond the 50 foot setback.
Manure should be immediately incorporated (within 24 hours) or injected on sloping land that is
within 300 feet and upslope of a sinkhole", mine, quarry or improperly sealed/grouted well.
Exceptions: For sinkholes with diversions preventing surface runoff from entering the
sinkhole, no setbacks or immediate incorporation is necessary. Also, if soil erosion in the field
upslope of the sinkholes is less than 3 tons/acre/year, then incorporate immediately within
150 feet of the sinkhole.
Predominant Summer Wind
June 14MPH
July IOMPH June 1 IMP4
June 13 -/i -,MPH Aug. I-MIU!� PH July OMPH
AN
June 12NIPH % ......... ...........
July IONIPH A
"0
Po
ed it /
f
w
14 bat'
... ......
I/2 We
Predominant Winter Wind
Dec 12MPH
N
\iProposed
W
IT
4
1/2 Mile Y
f /
NV
S
Summer
June S 14, SSE 13, SE 12, SSW 11
July S 10, SSE 10, SE 10, SSW 10
Aug. S 17
E W
E
r
Dec t7MFH
Jars 22MPH
Feb. is MPH
Fall
Sep. S 14, NW 11
Oct. S 11, NW 15
Nov. S 11, NW 16
Predominant Fall Wind
stp. 14NIPH
Oct I IMPH
Nov I l.wH
At
S
Predominant Spring Wind
CP
May 13,WH Apr. UUMPH Apr. I Me H
At ,r\
Mar. 12M.PH
May Ri1tPH
A
..... .......
%
f
Iro/P'oosed Site
1/2 Mile 114 Mile
Mar. I SNWH
........ ........
0 =Residence v
S
Winter Spring
Dec. S -SSE 12, NW 17
Jan. NW 22
Feb. NW IS
Mar. NW 15, SE 12
Apr. SSW 11, S 12
May SE 13, SSE 13
E
, AG PL.NG & DEV
Fax :612-297-7678
it 16 ' 96 9:34 P, 02/07
DMMLOPIMT IN WRIMT COUNTY
The Revenue/Cost Relatiwnship
April 31 1989
Prepared by: Robert J. Bray
Joanne Dann
R08011rcO Manaq=ent Consultants, Inc.
1920 N St. N.W., Suits 400A
Washington, D.C. 20036
Phone= (202) 857-0209
Printed on Recycled Paper
.� FCLA 1[ ter-rt(u Apr 16 '96 9:35 P. 03/07
lxzctJTnT SAY
This study assesses the revenues and costs connect
ed
with growth at different densities IA various section
Wright County, Minnesota. s of
2rt particular, the coat/revenue
relationshipof growth near existing infrastructure such as
water, sewers, storm sewers and paved roads is compared with
growth in rural areas that lack established infrastructure.
Three residential development scenarios were chosen for the
study :
I) a relatively high-daneityi development of 50 units
Of rental apartments, condowinfuMB and single fam-
ily homes in the City of Buffalo, The units oc-
cupy a little over five acres.
Z) a subdivision of 50 unite of single Zanily two,
three and four bedroom homes, each on one acre, in
the Township of Otsego. The units occupy 30 acres.
3) 50 units of two, three and four bedroom homes, each
on riven and one-half acres, in the Township of
Silver Creek.' The Waits occupy �75 acres.
The unite for the Buffalo City scenario ars cO=ected to
city water and sewers.
The Townships of Otsego and
Silver
Creek contain no established infrastructure. therefore,
units use wells and septic systems.
the
* "relatively high donsity^ in this case does not approach
the density cf
politan highrise development found in major metro-
area$Rather it includes a mixture of
houses on 1/4 acro lots, semi-detachedtawnhousetache
small apartment buildingsThese densities are costtpatibnd
.
with the character of many small cities and are in Min-
nesota.
i
- - - I QA • 01Z -[y (- (b 05 Apr 16 '96 9:35 P. 04/07
In each case, the residential county, city, township and
school district costs are compared with local revenues col-
lected to support these costs. The findings of this study
illustrate:
1) the costs of growth for low density development
LA the Townships of Otsego and Silver Creak
are extremely high when county, city, tow1whip
and school district costs and revenues are
considered. The average Per unit revenue/cost
deficit for Otsego is $485.85. Fer Silver
Creek, the per unit deficit is $499.22.
2) the costs of growth are much lower for a
relatively high density subdivision in the City
of Buffalo with establUhed infrastructure.
The average per unit revOnue/cost deficit is
$114.52.
3) the differences will be even more marked in the
near future. Otsego and Silver Creek face sub-
stantially higher capital costs within the newt
two to three years (sewage treatment, water and
added schools for Otsego and added schools and
roads for Silver Creek). Buffalo City,s infra-
structure will be adequate for the next decade.
4) besides proving the least cost effective, the
Silver Creek scenario used up more land and con-
tributed to the decimation of fa=land. Higher
density development iii the City of Buffalo pre-
served land without threatening existing farmland
or forestland.
In sum, higher density development close to existing
urban infrastructure proved less expensive than low density
development in areas with no established infrastructure. The
differences are exacerbated in the near term since the Town-
ships .7f Otsego and Silver Creek face sharply higher capital
inve�zment within the next two to three years. On the other
ii
&�l '"'o Apr 16 '96 9:35 P-05/07
hand, Buffalo's capital coats can be expected to remain
Stable for the next ten years.
This study underlines the fact that it is fiacally Sound
to concentrate growth around areas with existing infrastruc-
ture and to discourage growth on large lots in farming areas.
State support of farmland preservation is a fiscally practi-
cal method to achieve these goals. it enables farmers to re_
gist selling their land for large tract development. As a
second step, it enconragea less expensive settiement around
existing infrastructure. Over the long term, farmland pres-
ervation protects an invaluable resource and it helps to pro-
tect farming counties frcam the onslaught of unplanned growth.
iii
-- I QA'vlz-L`.9(-(b(f3
Apr 16 '96 9:36 P. 06/07
FARMLAND AND THE TAX BILL:
THE COST OF COMMUNITY SERVICES IN
THREE MINNESOTA CITIES __
American Farmland Trust
1994
ucv Fax :612-297-7678_ ."
Apr 16 '96 9:36 P.07/07
Abstract
Farmland in the seven-eoanty metropolitan area
of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn. has bran
urbanized at nearly twice the rate of population
growth since 1970, resulting in the loss of more than
150,000 acres, or 235 square mites of farm and
vacant land. Since 1980, growth has occurred
almost exclusively in the second ring of suburbs and,
to a lesser extent, on the urban fringe. Slowing the
pace of urban sprawl around the Twin Cities has
been hindered in part by the property tax -dependent
system of local government finance. Even with a
natlonally lauded property tax but sharing program
and one of tate nation's highest Ievels of state aid to
local government, municipalities compete for new
development to increase their tax base.
Across the country, suburban developments are
Proposed, advocated and approved based on the
argument that expanding the tax base will reduce
local property taxes. Among other things, this has
led Property owners to oppose tax relief programs
for farmland. In response, American Farmland
Trust, a private, nonprofit conservation organization,
has developed a consistent, inexpensive and easy -to -
understand way to evaluate existing contributions of
municipal land uses. In eight studies in the
iii
Northeast and Ohio, AFT has found that any
apparent gain In tax revenue from residential
development was Iost when the cwt of delivering
necessary public services -- from roads, sewers and
Parking Iots to education and public safety — was
considered. Based on these studies and interest in
finding out if this pattern; `.vould hold in Minnesota,
AFT was asked to condt:Z three Cost of Community
Services studies in the Twin Cities metro area.
Cost of Community Services studies reorganize
local records to trace the flow of revenues and
expenditures generated by specific land uses. Results
provide a snapshot of the relative contributions of
different land uses, which are summarized by ratio&
of revenues to service costs for residential, com-
mercial and industrial, and farmland uses.
Working with the Land Stewardship Project, a
Minnesota-based farmland and social justice
organization, AFT conducted COCS studies in three
outlying Twin Cities Metro Area municipalities. On
average, AFT found the ratio of dollars generated by
residential development to the cost of services
Provided was $1 : 1.04. Ia comparison, on average,
for every farm dollar raised, only 50 cents was spent
to provide services.
(Summary of Hidings
C� "- Resrdentla%` h Cammerc�al
Iiiarm RM
~ ' ' : lndu fol Farmland
Lake e :1 7.07 ~,.
de den .,:. �: I t 0.27
0.471.
C-1 C___'
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
CHAPTER 29:00 - CONFINED FEEDLOT
REGULATIONS
29.02 - ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF STATE REGULATIONS: Pursuant to
MSA 394.25 Subdivision 8, the Martin County Board of
Commissioners hereby adopts by reference Minnesota
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
greater than 10 animal units shall apply to Martin County
for a Certificate of Compliance in accordance with the
provisions of this ordinance. (1) Whenever there is a
new 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.
29.05 - APPLICATION PROCEDURE:
(1) Same
(2 ) Same
ADD: The following is applicable only to new construction.
(3) Omit and replace with:
All feedlots shall not be located within one-half
(1/2) mile of a public park.
(4) Feedlots shall not be located within one-half (1/2) -
mile of concentration of 10 dwelling units located
on 20 or less acres.
(5) Feedlots shall not be located within one-half (112)
mile of the corporate limits of a municipality
unless approved by the affected municipality.
(6) No feedlot shall be located within one thousand
1,000) of the normal high water mark of any lake,
pond, or flowage, or within three hundred (300)
feet of a river or stream. Modifications or
_y.pdnsions to existing feedlots which are within
the shoreland district are allowed if they do not
further encroach into the existing ordinary high
water level (OHWL) setback or the bluff impact zones.
(7) New feedlots (not permitted before the enactment of
this ordinance) shall not be located within one
thousand three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet of a
dwelling other than the operator's or any business or
industrial district as defined in this 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 store and lagoon system or
earthen storage basin, may not expand closer than 500
feet to the nearest existing neighboring dwelling.
(9) Feedlots Requiring a Conditional Use Permit: Any of
the following described animal feeding operations
whather existing or proposed shall require a
Conditional Use Permit issued by the County.
A. Animal feedlots with a pollution hazard which
has not been mitigated by corrective or
protective measures; or
B. Animal feedlots where manure is not used as
domestic fertilizer.
C. Feedlot containing over 2000 animal units
Effective day of ,ZgVZ X , 1995.
Dated this �� � day of — 7 y 1995.
S en Pierce, Chairman
Martin County Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:
Steve Powers
Clerk to the Board
TRACTED,.r,.,
320889 Off" of County Recorder
County of Menn, Wnntsga
I heftay certify that the within instrrmtnt was tied in this
Ofive k4 record an the 1^717thdar of V
M„�G,.r
&e. t! _ 95 . at 8.8; 45_ o'Vack a * M and
was Cuiy rnVohlmnf as Documrnt No. 320_. � 889
1+1rg /_ --- �
rounly Recorder
RV Deputy
x
OL f�N� /NCS CUIyI ITj�j C'/T71 aWW&e__ T, z�£y
The ordinance we have reviewed for the City of Otsego certainly has
some weakness and some large loop holes. A farmer that has an existing
feedlot and would like to expand beyond 299 A.U. may read this ordinance
one way and someone else may read it another. This is something that must
be clarified, so six (6) months from now everyone knows exactly what it
says
There has been some question how we came to the distance of 2500' for
setbacks. That distance was tied to the number of animal units. The A.U.
agreed to by this committee is 1500. Is the distance to far? Are the A.U.
to high? That still is a question in many peoples mind that the City
Council must make the final decision on.
I have studied the Rice County Feedlot Ordinance, the one the MPCA
acommended as a good model to follow. As I read it, it appears to have
answered many of the questions we have about setbacks, size of feedlots,
what is existing, what is expansion, and what is a new feedlot. I strongly
suggest that the Planning Commission, City Council along with our City
Attorney review pages 7 - 15 of the Rice County Feedlot Ordinance and take
from it to provide a ordinance that has continuity from section to section
and at the same time removes the weakness and loop holes we have in the
present draft ordinance.
We spent a lot of time on this feedlot committee, but at the end of
the process we felt rushed to complete it. Please don't pass a ordinance
Just because of time restraints. Find out everything you can about
feedlots. Have meetings weekly, twice a week - whatever it takes!
The preceding town boards have allowed the farmers to sell their land
-or trailer homes, for clusters of homes on small acreage, and finally one
per 40. I'm certain when those decisions were made, it was the correct
decision at the time, but looking back now, it may not have been the best
decision. We may not have as much A-1 land (as defined) in Otsego as we
think we do, because of land being sold off for housing.
When you make your decisions - try to be fair to our farmers, try to
also be fair to the residence that could live adJacent to a 1500 A.U.
feedlot, but put aside your personal feelings and vote for what is right
for the City of Otsego's future.
\1` ��A 1
J n R. Holland
y �x F
-- -' �' - _
_ _ . - -- _
_ --- _
_. _
- .. _._.._ y9�.o o -
7 ----
-- - - ..--- ------ 7-�.� i/ . ---
1.
__ awe - ----
_.%_ _�
Gr�-- � --------- -
�o � � �
---- n — r--.- --- - -- -- ----- -
_ � ���J
---_-�-'- ---�s-rte-- --- _ � - - � —_� ----------------
--------
< _
-- ------------
--- - -- - -
-- -- -
_-------- � <-�Q-- -- - - - a �`-----------
To: CITY of OTSEGO
In regards to :Feed lot ordnance No. 96
The farming community has spoken ,and they have said this new law would not be
good for Agriculture in the city of Otsego. With this law you, the City of Otsego, are
going to determine how a farmer in this community can make a living.
Since methods in which we make a living in this country have changed, so to farming
methods will need to change. With the restrictions the City of Otsego is considering
these changes are varietally impossible!
So if farmers can't make a living raising food on their land what options do they
have? The answer is real simple Development ! Is this what we really truly want for the
City of Otsego,full scale development. If this law ,or any similar version ,is passed this
is the direction the City of Otsego is going.
Why do I feel this will happen? Well it's real simple if a farmer wants to keep farming,
but he can't make a living at here,he'll need to move on to a community that is
agriculture friendly and work there. But what happens to his land? well he sells that to
the highest bidder. Since the land would be more valuable with houses on it then corn
take a guess who the highest bidder would be.
Well you say the land is still zoned agricultural. How can you ,the City of Otsego,
stop any one from rezoning their land from an agricultural to any thing else since this
law does promote, protector or preserve agriculture. What about the farmer that doesn't
want to move but wants to keep farming ,at a loss of course.Will we ,as a city, be willing
to subsidize him so he will continue to maintain the beautiful agricultural park we have
all grown to love so much.
Since this law is not pro -agriculture -It must be pro -development.
So a vote for this law or any similar version would have to be interpreted as a
PRO -DEVELOPMENT vote and a vote a(gainsf AGRICULTURE!
CONTINUOUS AGRICULTURE OPERATION SINCE 1882
Gordy Go9din
Gregg Gbodin