public comments on the 2021-2026 feedlot npdes general permit · 2020. 8. 5. · 35. mark malecek...

List of Comment Letters (in order of receipt)

1. Kurtis Wulf2. Tom Suther3. Stearns County SWCD4. Rick Meisch5. Jeff Bullerman6. Brandon Kerkhoff7. Tim Waibel8. Jax Dairy9. Graff Feedlots10. Bucks Unlimited Inc.11. David Thier12. Randy Hein13. Nicole Knips14. Darelyn Harrington15. Dwight Burkholder16. Larry Mahoney17. Troy Paplow18. Garrett Luthens19. Shane and Melissa Luthens20. Jessica Mulder21. Jeff Bauman22. Luke Gorecki23. Brandon and Daryl Luthens24. Czech’s Roadside Acres25. Nate and Noah Hultgren26. Doug Heintz27. Minnesota Custom Applicators Association28. Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation29. Brad Nosbush30. William Brockway31. Brett Petersen32. Minnesota Department of Health33. Todd County SWCD and County Feedlot Office34. Shane Joos35. Mark Malecek36. Pat Hennen37. Jay Bakken38. Eric Zeltwanger39. Barry Belknap40. Amy Robak-Bruce41. Senator Bill Weber42. Dennis Haubenschild43. United Dairies44. Dr. Jenn Reith45. Michael Yost46. Groetsch Dairy

Public comments on the 2021-2026 feedlot NPDES draft general permit

wq-f3-55c

47. Upper Sioux Community48. Jeff Potter49. Dr. Erika Nagorske50. Minnesota Pork Producers Association51. B&B Krohn Farms52. Granby Pumping and Application, LLC.53. Scherping Dairy of Little Falls, Inc.54. Brian Dorcey55. Kevin Buss56. Tom Sedgeman57. Richard and Tracy Gaalswyk58. Andy Hennen59. Jacob Hemmesch60. Joe Loula61. Dave Wulf62. Feikema Farms63. Bracey Lerner64. Becky Clark65. Rick Martens66. Joe Gill67. John Meyer68. Eddie Delanghe69. Roger Zastrow70. Grant Binford71. David and Kathleen Skiba72. DJ Buck73. Allison VanDerWal74. Chris Buck75. Christy Jackson76. Chad Hinsch77. Schwartz Farms Inc.78. Luke Daninger79. Ben Schirmers80. New Fashion Pork81. John Boon82. Dennis Wulf83. Minnesota Agricultural Water Resource Center - Also representing:

• Chicken and Egg Association of Minnesota

• Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers

• Minnesota Corn Growers Association

• Minnesota Farm Bureau

• Minnesota Milk Producers Association

• Minnesota Soybean Growers Association

• Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association

• AgCountry Farm Credit Services

• Compeer Financial84. mnemitz

85. Cameran Bailey86. Representative Jean Wagenius & Representative Rick Hansen87. Emily Wegener88. Clayton Petersen89. Sam Wede90. Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association91. Roseview Dairy92. Evan VanDerWal93. Voth Dairy94. Senator Scott Newman95. Marlin Fay96. Ryan Franta97. Daniel Debbie Hennek98. Andrew Nesseth99. Chris Sukalski100. Michael Landuyt101. Joe Sohre102. Mark and Karen Hurd103. Ryan Franta104. Carey Tweten105. Cory Ahrens106. Environmental Working Group107. Minnesota Turkey Growers Association108. Naatz Dairy109. Sam Ziegler110. Dave Buck111. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy112. Felling Dairy113. Stender Dairy114. Timothy Stender115. Clean Water Organizations

• Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

• Friends of the Mississippi River

• Minnesota Well Owners Organization

• Sierra Club North Star Chapter116. Willard Stender117. Joe Wagner118. Loren Olson119. Woodland Dairy120. Engelmann Dairy121. Kevin and Stephanie Krohnfeldt122. Freshwater Society123. Minnesota Milk124. Russell Penning125. Brad Fehr126. Andrew Englin127. Josh Fick128. Gary and Lu Anne Reeck

129. Christensen Farms130. Senator Torrey Westrom131. Brady Janzen132. Penning Brothers133. Gar-Lin Dairy134. Josh Revier135. Joe Vander Kooi136. Justin and Lisa ReeckReceived after the 4:30 deadline on July 23rd

137. Renee Cardarelle138. Krist Wollum139. Sandy Engen140. Mark Pankonin141. Dennis Sleiter142. Keith EngenReceived after July 23rd

143. Duane Schlieman144. Ron Huseth

6/17/20 Email – Tom Suther George, Just wondering why you let human waste and all the garbage (septic systems) be spread on the fields. This seems like a master pollution problem even with the lime they add. We see all sorts of junk in the field after a septic transfer. You need to attack all pollution not that which is convenient to control. And the septic problem is not controlled well. Tom Suther

6/17/20 Email – Dennis Fuchs, Stearns Co SWCD

We have the following comments on the draft Feedlot NPDES General Permit from the Stearns County SWCD:

1) 10.1-6 Follow-up with recipient of manure to ensure the land base is available and is not alreadytaking manure from someone else.

2) 14.8 g) Fields used for land application meet a total phosphorus loss risk index number of two orless (low to very low relative risk) Does a level 2 index adequately address the resource concern?

3) 15.6 and 15.7 setback are confusing and not consistent with current setback recommendations(Applying Manure in Sensitive Areas, MPCA & NRCS, May 2005).

4) 20 pages with 30 permit requirements is a significant workload to manage. What is the plan toby the MPCA to ensure all elements of the permit are fulfilled by the permittee?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. Fuchs Administrator, Stearns County Soil and Water Conservation District

6/17/20 Email – Rick Meisch I've rented out my farm and do not run it y more. Keep things simple and least cost as money seems to be very short the last 3 decades in all farming commodities or make it show a profit if all these special means need to be and some spare self time is a requirement in this field of work. I'm retired but have replaced both knees, have 3 vertebreas in my back in very bad shape, kidneys that operate at 32 % function, I get tested tomorrow for Lymes Disease, have had rotator cuff surgery, a shoulder socket cleaned out,ulcers on each leg,and things I've forgotten. My father died 2013 and we counted 21 different health ordeals he went through in his life time. I lost my brother to a farm accident 2000 which left 3 kids without a dad. I just can't believe what government asks to which I say has to be but this 1 and a half percent of the population runs the farms of America and I would say not one person has any intention to do any harm to their land ,product or consumer to put a farm in jeopardy . Remember a weekend is rare to come by on a farm because of weather, funds, work, repairs, etc. I see farms just coming up with walls and obsticals constantly but the question should be why. I'm sorry for this but I just got to shake my head. Rick Meisch

6/22/20 Email – Jeff Bullerman George Schwint, I am contacting you because of the new proposed feed lot permit. I am not sure if the goal is to drive agriculture out of Minnesota, but that is surely the direction we are headed if this keeps up. The way manure is managed and accounted for is so much better today than it was a decade ago, and with the current feedlot permit I feel it is a win win for the state of Minnesota and the farmer. We can manage the manure in a responsible way. But with the proposed next year permit we will not be able to manage the manure. I promise you what you will find a year later is full pits and manure piles all over the state because there will not be enough time to responsibly manage the manure. You will be asking us to do the impossible. First, there needs to be an understanding that not all manure is the same. Because it is easier for the state you just want to lump all manure into no applying in August and September. Let, me give you one example as to why that does not work across the board. We have one quarter of oats each year that will be harvested in the end of July. Then, in August and September we can haul out the recommended bedding pack, so we do not have to continue to stockpile and wreck ground. And by doing this we will then chisel the ground when completed. We do not need to worry about runoff, and we are also being good to the land. This also lets us get some work done so we can probably apply liquid manure later in the fall in a timely matter. Another situation in September is if a confinement pit is full. There needs to be an understanding that there may be a situation where a few loads may need to be applied to get by. Second, lets look at October restrictions. There is no reason to add restrictions to October. Again, lets look at real life scenarios. Would you rather us start hauling manure second or third week in October when soil temps are 55 degrees and weather is on a downward trend even though it has not hit 50 degrees yet? Or would you rather us be out there the first week in December floating the tool bar because there was not enough time to apply? With this new feedlot permit you are asking us to do a months’ worth of work in a week or two. It is just not realistic. Is there a chance that when we start in October on a warmer than average year the soil temps would be a little warm yet? Maybe. But I would say even on a warm year we are talking days and not weeks. Other options you have recommended is a nitrogen inhibitor which is expensive, and the money just is not there for it. It is also just not needed with the downward trend in soil temps at this time. Another thing we need to consider at this time of application is most everything is being incorporated. So, this topsoil, even if a little warm, gets turned over with lows starting to get plenty cool. Where the manure is being applied soil, temps drop quickly. Another hot topic these days is cover crops. Again, in the real world its not always a possibility due to weather and or cost. You can not ask us to throw more cash at something that has not been working well the past couple years. Also, some of these cover crops are starting to cause serious issues with tile due to roots plugging them up. This is another thing that maybe on paper, could be argued something beneficial, but in the real world in a lot of situations just does not work. Third, Is the February and March bed pack spreading. First, the February restrictions just make no sense whatsoever. Most years December, January and February weather are very much the same. And to put restrictions on March does not make a lot of sense either because once it starts melting and warming up it is too muddy to go out there anyways. But by adding this restriction it takes away that year where there is little to no snow out in the field and we get a cold March. So instead of hauling then two things will happen. Farmers will be forced to destroy ground in April, or we can go back to my first paragraph and you will see manure piles sitting for years out in fields. I can promise you this will become a problem.

So please do not fix something that is not broke. I have found that newer record keeping and some of the other current feedlot stuff has made me a much better farmer. Also, as a farmer we need every ounce of fertilizer we can with todays economy. We are not being reckless with it. If you feel there

are a few that are causing issues go after them. But let us be honest, those few will not follow the new restrictions either.

In closing, I am asking you to please reconsider these new restrictions. Give us the time we need to do a good job for our operation and for the next generation. Thank you, Jeff Bullerman

6/25/20 Email – Brandon Kerkhoff Good morning George. The most concerning revision on the proposed changes is the prohibition of feb-march land application! Where did the ideas of basing it on snowfall, slope,etc go? We could have snow till March and or not have any snow during February, which would be unbelievable to think we couldn't spread with no snow cover. This is a major blow to us producers. where do we go with two months of manure that we've previously been able to spread? Another point against the February bans for spreading would be that a lot of outside feedlots sometimes do not break loose to spread until February/March. Another point I'm going to make, and I hate to throw anyone under the bus, but we has "CAFO's" generally do the best job when it comes to properly spreading according to setbacks, thaw events, yard cleaniness, etc, so why are the 50-400 head producers not held to the same standard's? Why are we punished based on animal units? I'd lay odds I have less pollutants coming from my feedlot then some 50-200 head feedlots. This rule is simply unacceptable and in the economics of our industry right now, couldn't come at a worse time. I'd be requesting for that rule to be thrown out. Thanks, Brandon Kerkhoff

7/11/20 Email with additional comments Good afternoon, I would like to add to my original comment at this time. Something that really is puzzling to me and many other producers is the prohibition of transferred manure during February and March. I was told by Mark Pankonin and Mike Landuyt that at your meeting with our top state cattlmen officials in sleepy eye that this was a way to still apply manure during this time period (Feb,March). This was recommended by YOU! Now your taking that away also?! Truthfully, whether it's transferred or applied on my own land, being forced to stockpile this manure will cause terrible hardships on us producers, forcing us to wait until fall to apply this manure. Many of us with bed pack barns choose to clean out our bedpacks in February and or March to help freshen the barns Causing LESS AMMONIA AND METHANE GASES from the barns. These packs are usually built in the fall prior and can account for alot of manure to be spread but now with these proposals will have to be stockpiled?!! Where would many of these producers stockpile this manure with spring planting right around the corner? It will cause a major hardship! The September cover crop proposal is a idea that many of us are struggling to understand. When you plant a cover crop that late in the season, your chances of anything to actually grow to a functional height are not good. Most guys plant a cover crop in July/August in a pp (prevent plant) situation and much of those acres will only grow 5-8" oats. It causes us an additional pass and adds easily $15-25/ acre cost that is all for none with one frost. George, I'm really saddened by the fact that we as producers spent time with you and fellow agents to discuss our comments and concerns just to see everything we said being thrown out to the curb with no regard to how these changes effect us. I appose all these rules bring implemented in the new general permit. Thanks for listening. Brandon kerkhoff

6/29/20 Email – Tim Waibel Good morning, I want to comment on the cover crop part of the proposed draft. I feel that requiring a farmer to plant a cover crop in the month of September is a huge stretch to any benefit. Our growing season in Minnesota does not fare well to get a plant started this late in the growing season due to lack of sunshine and cooler nights. I believe it is more wasted money and expense for the farmer. Last year we planted three hundred acres into cover crops that were required on prevent plant acres. It worked well but the cover crop did create a big problem with wrapping around the axles on our manure injection system. If a person were to inter seed a cover crop into a soybean field in the month of August, that cover crop would be tall enough to create problems and stress on the bean head when it is time to harvest in late September early October. If a cover crop would be required in corn, that would also create a big problem wrapping around the rollers on a corn head and sometimes corn harvest runs in to last days of November. I am not saying that cover crops don’t have a place but in our operation it is NOT needed! In Minnesota there are over 6,000 different types of soil and rock types and it kills me when some people think all the soils are the same though out the entire state of Minnesota. Which they are not! WE as farmers use different types of planting systems, seed types, different tools to prepare the soil, and different types fertilizers. Some places need irrigation systems and others need drainage tile systems. I would like to close by saying “a cookie cutter system” is not what we need for cover crops and this is what is proposed. There are some who think farmers don’t know what’s best for their land. I have 44 years of experience planting field trials using corn and soybeans. With my experiences, I have learned that every year presents different data and a different outcome. Thank you, Tim Waibel

Proudly Producing Beef, Pork, Corn and Soybeans!

Thursday, July 2, 2020

Minnesota Pollution Control,

I have several comments about the proposed NPDES permit changes. The permit holders are doing a good job now of

protecting the environment. We are now and have been good stewards of the land. When you overregulate you will

encourage permit holders to look for ways around the unreasonable requirements you are looking to add. The current

permits have more than enough restrictions now. I have written more specific comments about the different line items

in the new proposed NPDES permit application. The numbers correspond with the proposed permit lines on the

application. I have also included pictures that I took February 18, 2020 after we had applied solid manure to the field

(see 14.8).

10.3b Transferring solid manure in February and March should be allowed. Banning manure by calendar dates is

unreasonable and undefendable as manure should be able to be applied if the weather conditions are favorable. I

do not feel that transferring manure should be banned but if restrictions need to be made they need to be made

by weather events, such as 14.8 b-f, not by calendar date.

14.5 Requiring planting of a cover crop in September does not work most years. Dry years the seed will not

germinate. Cold years will not grow enough to do any good. Seed applied in the South will not amount to much

after September 15th and in the North anything planted after September 1st will not produce much either. This is

a tax of $15 or more to the producers with no chance of getting enough growth to do any good. A $15/Acre

minimum for seed plus $10/Acre for seeding doesn’t pay in September. On my operation we have been planting

cover crops after silage, one out of four years we get enough growth to cover seed cost. In the proposed rules,

14.5 states a “cover crop is established for the remainder of the growing season.” September should be removed

from this and established need to be changed to planted. We have no control on the weather to germinate

seeds.

14.6 October restrictions are unreasonable especially for solid manure. We applied manure for Phosphorus not

Nitrogen. Our 5 year average of 1st year availability for Nitrogen on solid manure is 5.1 pounds/ton at a rate of 12

ton/Acre. The Nitrogen loss from solid manure is minimal. If you need to keep this section it should only be for

liquid manure where the amount of Nitrogen is higher.

14.6b. Nitrogen stabilizers work in liquid manure not solid.

14.6 c. Cover crops do not work in October.

14.7 This section is only good for creating more work. Do not create another form to fill out. If you keep this section,

incorporate this information into the manure application record. Once again this should only be needed, at most,

for liquid manure.

14.8 Banning February and March applications are unreasonable and unwarranted because weather is the influencing

factor not the date on the calendar. We do not want to lose nutrients not only to protect the environment, but

the nutrients are also too valuable for us not to manage. The current rules 14.8 a-g have limitations for

application in different weather events that begin December 1st and better address weather concerns. These

limitations address the concerns for February and March without causing a hardship for producers to apply solid

manure when conditions are favorable for application irregardless of which month it is. Snow manure mix needs

to be able to be land applied as soon as possible after a weather event. We work more hours and days than

MPCA and we can not wait for MPCA’s office hours to get permission to haul snow from the areas by the bunks.

The pictures I have attached to these comments below were taken on February 18, 2020, the day before the pictures

were taken we had cleaned pens and spread the solid manure on the field. The field had less than ½ inch of snow cover,

see Picture A.

Picture B shows the lay of the land and that there was virtually no snow anywhere. This land application, under these

conditions are better than stockpiling in February and March. This will also add to the work load in April and the field

conditions are usually not fit for manure spreaders to be in the field.

Picture C is another view of the same field. This picture reinforces the fact that land applications should be restricted by

weather events not calendar dates.

14.9 Notifying MPCA 24 hours before establishment of a temporary stockpile is unreasonable and in most cases

producers will not know 24 hours in advance. This will then force stock piling in February and March which is a

higher risk of run off than land applied applications under the current rules.

In conclusion, the current version of the permits covers the issues MPCA is trying to address. MPCA needs to try to

make it easier to comply with rules that are environmentally sound rather than listening to activist groups that will only

be satisfied when we are out of business. Please feel free to contact me with any comments you may have.

Glen N. Graff

MN Beef Producer, NPDES Permit Holder 26114 470th Ave. Sanborn, MN 56083 507-920-6705

7/7/20 Email – Chris Buck Mr. Schwindt, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the NPDES permit. One major concern I have is that the entire state is treated the same for application restrictions. We have seeded oats as early as March 17 here in Goodhue. That probably has not happened in northern parts of MN. There needs to be more flexibility in those regulations based on local conditions. I agree that in February and March we will have days statewide with runoff potential, but a one size fits all program is not the best way to move forward. By allowing counties to determine if it is fit to apply manure on a weekly or daily basis makes the most sense to me. With custom applicators already strapped for time to get all their work done then adding in that they won't be able to work solely because the calendar says we can't work and not the ground conditions is not a good path forward. Thank you for your time. Chris Buck Bucks Unlimited, LLC

7/7/20 Email – Dave Thier

My name is Dave Thier with Thier Feedlots Inc. in Rushmore, MN. I currently have a NPDES permit for our facility located in Nobles County. I am writing today concerning the proposed language for the next permit, and the problems I see with it for our state’s livestock producers.

My first concern with the proposed language is the tightening of the fall window for all livestock producers. We already have, in these last few flood years, an inadequate window for spreading manure. Many hog operations have experienced difficulty in getting their pits pumped with an entire fall to do it. Weather and availability of pumpers dictate how it will get done. Shrinking our window of application will only magnify this problem.

My major concern however, with the proposed language is the prohibition of land application of manure in February and March. Your proposal references the ability to stockpile on site, but unless you have tried this, you cannot understand why this simply is not feasible. First off let me say that for pit barns this will not create a problem; they do not inject in February or March anyway. For bed pack barns this will be an inconvenience and additional expense, but the material they would be stockpiling would be able to be “piled”. For an outside facility such as my own, however, the amount of snow received in February and March can obviously be overwhelming at times. We need to have the ability to spread this material at this time of year because the mix of snow and manure is simply unable to be piled. Two years ago, in late March we had six inches of snow, and the ground had already thawed to a point where spreading was not possible. At that time, I piled approximately 80 loads of snow/manure mix next to my runoff ponds. The pile which at the time was five to six feet tall melted into a slop that grew into double its original size. We worked over a six-week period in July cleaning a fifteen-foot edge around the pile, and then leveling out the tracks we made, and then waiting a week to dry out before repeating the process. For 80 loads it took about five times of doing this. The cost was obviously more than double of hauling it out in a timely manner. This experiment of mine was only for one snow event. How many years don’t we have one event like this per week? I estimate the cost of hauling out snow to be around $7,000 for a six-inch snow event. When we cleaned, loaded, stockpiled, and then tried to catch the slop pile in the summer, I estimated total cost to be closer to $15,000, not to mention what we did to the ground on which it sat. Having to multiply this additional cost by 8 ½ weeks would be the death of an operation like ours, an operation that otherwise has done a very good job in efforts to mitigate environmental problems. I feel that observing field slopes is a good way to compromise with the Feb/March concerns, like we have in the past. We can use the existing manure management plan to designate safe fields to apply in Feb/March.

I understand that we are all trying our best to managing livestock production, but I feel that every five years we are producers are pushed further and further to a point of no longer existing. Is there ever a time when the new five-year permit will ease requirements? Is the goal of the MPCA to eliminate small animal production in the state, because at some point, larger, out of state producers will be all that is left. Once the ground thaws in early spring, we are done with hauling out any manure, because of the obvious compaction problems. Are we to then stockpile February – September and then get it all applied in a proposed shorter window? At the very, very least, outside facilities such as my own, should be allowed or “grandfathered” in to continue to have permission to operate in the state. A one size fits all approach to something that varies so much as beef operations, would be a very poor choice. In trying to pass down a smaller farm operation like mine to the next generation, I find it increasingly difficult to make long term decisions or investments in facilities, when we are precariously uncertain every five years if we will continue to have permission to operate in Minnesota. The straight-out prohibition of February/March application would be the end of my operation.

Sincerely, Dave Thier

Thier Feedlots, Inc. 7/23/20 Email additional comments – Dave Thier My name is Dave Thier of Thier Feedlots, Inc. in Nobles County. I have already sent comments to you earlier but have a few more concerns I would like to share. The prohibition of manure transfers as well as the prohibition of application in February or March is simply unacceptable. For outside facilities such as my own we need to be constantly cleaning and hauling as a matter of not only production, but animal welfare. By disallowing us to do so, makes beef production in outside facilities impossible during these months. Do you expect us to somehow push “pause” on production at this time, so as not to produce any waste? Like I have explained in my earlier comments, outside facilities such as my own cannot pile material in February or March, because of its snow content. The pile will melt in the spring and become impossible to manage. Thus, making your May 15th requirement to have it hauled out completely ridiculous! For outside facilities there needs to be, at a very minimum an allowance to let us produce, even if these rules would go into place for new or expanding feedlots. How can I have the permits and right to do business in Minnesota, but you make everything I need to do, be illegal? I am at a loss of words at this point. Sincerely, Dave Thier

7/7/20 Email – Randy Hein State of Minnesota, Recently I read an article in the Minnesota Farmer magazine which stated the manure application proposed changes. I couldn’t believe what I read. Cover crops in/on certain types of land may be okay, but there are not many acres in my part of SW Minnesota. Why, our soils are clay based, and do not dry to allow spring tillage. I have watched with interest one neighbor in particular who uses cover crops. Last year he had all prevent plant acres on corn as his fields did not dry enough to allow planting. Any wet spring his crops are planted later than most in the neighborhood due to wetness, and we know early planting most years will have better yields and drier corn. Plus cover crops add an additional $15 per acre cost. With the low corn and soybean prices we have we cannot afford to have any additional cost. Please do not force cover crops on us, we as livestock producers need to plant our crops timely just like our non-livestock neighbors do. Most landlords are retired farmers and will look for someone who can plant a crop timely. The livestock farmer will be at a disadvantage when land becomes available to rent. Nitrogen Stabilizer’s – I’ve tried them, and saw no benefit. Agronomist, who does not sell these products, so they have nothing to profit from, will tell you not to buy nitrogen stabilizers. They might work, and might not work, all depends on the weather. Of course, anyone selling these products will try to tell how well a stabilizer will work, again adding another $15 an acre to production cost. No solid manure application Feb and March - so now we haul in April when soils are wet and we pack the soil so solid that the water runs off and nothing grows. Most of us have seen how well this works. In addition while our neighbors are planting corn we livestock farmers are hauling wet, sloppy, rain filled manure. Once again, the livestock producer is at a disadvantage. It seems as though the MPCA wants to make the rules the same for everyone in the state, yet there is a big range in the topography and soil types across our state as well as many different types of farming operations. Is this to simplify the job? I see this in the banking industry, and just shake my head in disbelief. There are no two farms alike, what works on one farm may not work and any other farm. Times are tuff on the farm today as we’ve suffered extremely poor grain and livestock prices, low yields due to heavy rains and high winds, workloads are at capacity, and it feels like more and more Minnesota is becoming an anti-agriculture state. The thousands of wildlife acres we have nearby have already lowered the number of farm families living in our area, as well as increased the tax burden to all who live in the county. The last thing we farmers need today is more strict expensive rules. Please respond, Randy Hein

7/7/20 Email – Nicole Knips George Schwint, My name is Nicole Knips and I am speaking on behalf of Knips Feedlot, near Magnolia, MN. We have some comments in regards to the NPDES rule changes that have been proposed. Do not restrict the application of solid manure in June- August, even without a cover crop, because it has low leaching potential. Allow manure application in September without a cover crop when total N does not exceed 66% of planted crop needs. Move the soil temp up to 55 F. Waiting until 50 F leads to more of a work load on applicators in a shorter period of time. Operating large liquid applicators in winter elements (sleet & snow) is more dangerous. Split application is not economical & it leads to increased ground compaction. Nitrogen stabilizers & cover crops are beneficial for some scenarios but should not be mandatory, they should be a case by case decision. Not allowing solid manure application during the months of February & March is not attainable for our operation because of the increased time, labor, machinery cost, & protentional compaction. We believe MPCA is choosing to write rules that favor simplicity and ease of enforcement by the agency over matching the rules to the unique characteristics and conditions of each farm, feedlot, or management practice. Thank you for your time, Knips Feedlot Nicole Knips

7/8/20 Email – Darelyn Harrington Dear Mr. Schwint, I wanted to take some time to comment on the rule changes for manure application. First of all, I do not believe dairy/beef and swine manure should be lumped together. The components of manure are different. Cattle have 4 stomachs and swine only have 1 stomach. Therefore, the manure characteristics are different and should not be treated the same. Dairy/beef manure has more organic nitrogen than swine manure having less potential leaching effects. Solid manure should be allowed June through August without a cover crop because of the low potential of leaching. Liquid manure should be allowed June through August with an established cover crop. Manure applications should be allowed in September without a cover crop when total crop needs does not exceed 66%, not 50%, especially with solid manure in all applications and some low levels of liquid manure. I see no reason to restrict manure applications in October. The soil temperature at 55 degrees, not 50 degrees, with usually cooler temperatures as the month goes on. Applying a nitrogen stabilizer is not significant and cannot be depended upon due to weather conditions and tends to be variable with its results not to mention the cost to farmers for the application. Solid manure has shown to exhibit time released characteristics. Manure applications should also be regional due to geology such as Southwest Minnesota is different from Southeast Minnesota. It should not be a blanket rule change for all farmers and all regions. The existing rules are working and should not be changed. Also, not all manure is the same. The MPCA and the University of Minnesota have both said that the BMP’s will have little impact reducing nitrate losses. Another note, I still have cereal rye seed in my shed from last year due to weather conditions that we were unable to plant. In February and March, I see no changes are needed due to improvements in Water Quality that has happened over time with the existing framework in place. An outright prohibition would be disastrous for cattle especially. Certain fields could be designated that have the lowest risk of runoff by the use of MMP. Stockpiling during February and March is impossible and I see more potential run off during these snowy months with stockpiling. It would be better To spread in a designated field when the ground is frozen to avoid compaction and run off with a stock pile. Please note that there is less nitrate uptake with compacted fields. Sincerely and respectfully, Darelyn Harrington

7/8/20 Email – Dwight Burkholder I am sending you this email because I recently discovered that there are changes being proposed regarding manure application that would greatly hamper a farmers ability to operate efficiently. Let me be clear- I understand water quality concerns, however, many of the problems that are related to water quality is because of cropping systems that include two crops only- corn and soybeans. This allows ground to sit unprotected many months of the year and I have seen many heavy rains wash my neighbor's fields down the river while my soils stay intact..... because I have predominantly hay/pastures on my land..... because I have livestock to feed these crops to.... which produce the manure which is apparently considered a problem to deal with. There needs to be some differences made when considering different kinds of manure. Due to the composition of high carbon solid dairy manure (which is what I have)- there is no reason such a product could not be applied any month of the year. On my farm, I spread two to three loads every week (during Feb and March). This manure goes on sod ground that will be planted to corn in the spring. I have yet to see any appreciable run off on my flat Claremont area farm. During much of the season, my cows are on pasture, happily eating grass and distributing their own manure. In September after the Corn Silage harvest, we will spread manure where the corn is taken off and chisel plow it in. This ground is then seeded to hay the following year. I am basically the only small dairy left in this part of the world. Years of oppressive prices and regulation has squeezed almost all of us out. I have adjusted, stayed small and farmed conservatively, allowing me to still be here. However, this new regulation that is being proposed would probably be the straw that breaks the camel's back and I would join the ranks of those who have exited the business. Part of the "conservative approach" here has been keeping infrastructure investment low. This is the reason that I haul my manure rather than stock-piling it somewhere in an expensive manure facility. I am asking you to consider that one size doesn't fit every farm. What I am practicing is not harming the environment. Should I cease dairying, this farm would become a corn/bean factory like all my neighbors, the last hay field would leave the neighborhood and more dirt would run down the Mississippi. Is this really what you want? Just this past Monday, one of my neighbors commented that he's really glad that I'm still here milking cows like this farm has for the past 100 years. All my neighbors enjoy the idyllic scenery and the way we farm. Nobody is concerned that the environment is being compromised by my practices. I would be happy to show you my operation and explain what I do and how these regulations could essentially put me out of the business. In conclusion, I'm begging you to make consideration for farms much like mine that really need no further regulations to our business. We don't want to harm the environment, and we aren't. However, should we leave the business and go the corn/bean route that is heavily subsidized, the hay and pasture which protects so much of our land will be gone.

Please consider before making these (what I would consider) unnecessary changes. I understand you have a job to do, however, I feel like there does come a time when things are over regulated..... we could be approaching that time. Respectfully submitted, Dwight Burkholder

Wednesday, July 8, 2020

Minnesota Pollution Control,

I am submitting comments about the proposed NPDES permit changes. In my opinion, the current permit holders are

doing a good job of protecting the environment. They are true environmentalist as they are and still have been good

stewards of the land. When Minnesota Pollution control (MPCA) overregulates the permit holders it encourages them to

look for ways around the unreasonable requirements MPCA is looking to add. The current permits have more than

enough restrictions now. I have included more specific comments about the different line items in the new proposed

NPDES permit application. The numbers correspond with the proposed permit lines on the application.

10.3b Transferring solid manure in February and March should be allowed. Banning manure by calendar dates does not

make sense as manure should be able to be applied if the weather conditions are favorable. I do not feel that

transferring manure should be banned but if restrictions need to be made they need to be made by weather

events, such as 14.8 b-f, not by calendar date.

14.5 Requiring planting of a cover crop in September does not work most years. Dry years the seed will not

germinate. In the proposed rules, 14.5 states a “cover crop is established for the remainder of the growing

season.” September should be removed from this and established need to be changed to planted. We have no

control on the weather to germinate seeds.

14.6 October restrictions are unreasonable especially for solid manure. We apply manure for Phosphorus not

Nitrogen. Our 5 year average of 1st year availability for Nitrogen on solid manure is 5.1 pounds/ton at a rate of 12

ton/Acre. The Nitrogen loss from solid manure is minimal. If you need to keep this section it should only be for

liquid manure where the amount of Nitrogen is higher.

14.6b. Nitrogen stabilizers work in liquid manure not solid.

14.6 c. Cover crops do not work in October.

14.7 This section is only good for creating more work. Do not create another form to fill out. If you keep this section,

incorporate this information into the manure application record. Once again this should only be needed, at most,

for liquid manure.

14.8 Banning February and March applications is unnecessary because weather is the influencing factor not the date

on the calendar. We do not want to lose nutrients not only to protect the environment, but the nutrients are also

too valuable for us not to manage. The current rules 14.8 a-g have limitations for application in different weather

events that begin December 1st and better address weather concerns. These limitations address the concerns for

February and March without causing a hardship for producers to apply solid manure when conditions are

favorable for application irregardless of which month it is. Snow manure mix needs to be able to be land applied

as soon as possible after a weather event. We work more hours and days than MPCA and we can not wait for

MPCA’s office hours to get permission to haul snow from the areas by the bunks. MPCA will not have enough

staff available to handle the granting of permission during these snow events especially when they happen on a

weekend. We can not wait until Monday to get permission to remove the snow to feed and tend to our animals.

14.9 Notifying MPCA 24 hours before establishment of a temporary stockpile is unreasonable and in most cases

producers will not know 24 hours in advance. This will then force stock piling in February and March which is a

higher risk of run off than land applied applications under the current rules.

In conclusion, I feel that the current permit covers MPCA needs. MPCA needs to try to make it easier to comply with

rules that are environmentally sound rather than listening to activist groups that will only be satisfied when we are all

out of business. Please feel free to contact me with any comments you may have.

Troy Paplow 25564 460th Ave. Sanborn, MN 56083 605-212-5698

Skyview Dairy, Inc. Garrett Luthens 18503 Nickel Ave. Hutchinson, MN 55350

7/16/2020

RE: Comments on General Permit MNG440000 Animal Feedlot Permit

To Whom It May Concern:

We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.

1. Cover crops should not be required for September manure applications. While cover crops continue in adoption, we do not yet have systems in place to ensure they lead to the outcomes desired.

a. A 2005 Literature Review done by the MPCA showed that manure improves soil tilth and reduces runoff. If these are the outcomes desired of cover crops, manure application may be achieving this already (Water Quality/Feedlots 1.08, January 2005).

b. Technology developed over the next five years will likely tell us how and when cover crops can be helpful for reducing soil erosion and better water quality.

c. The current proposal does not take into account corn silage roots plus stalks or alfalfa may still be covering the soil and holding it with manure.

2. Direct injection should be added as a Best Management Practice. With rapid adoption of direct injected manure, MPCA has never recognized it as a Best Management Practice despite its known benefits. Direct injection:

a. Limits soil compaction.

b. Preserves more soil organic matter and soil structure.

c. Allows for application to growing crops and can be similar to no-till in results.

d. Reduces rick of P runoff and particulate P loss is reduced.

e. Reduced N volatization loss, resulting in retention of plant-available N.

f. Reduced odor issues.

3. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. Fall weather is difficult to predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from year-to-year. The use of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in

November or later. For these reasons we would suggest not implementing these October BMPs. If BMPs in October must be followed:

a. 50o F is not a magic number, but a recommendation or suggestion. Below 60o F maybe just as beneficial to the environment but much more flexible to farmers

b. Direct injection should be added as BMP

c. The suggested required cover crop BMP should be planted, not “established”

4. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The University of Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at least one of the centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca):

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31

This means in the previous four years, 24 days of the two months had an appropriate soil temperature for manure application somewhere in Minnesota. This does not count local conditions, which can vary significantly. In many cases, solid manure application requires just one or two days to keep animals’ areas clean and keep animals healthy. Prohibiting two calendar months such as February or March would likely result in more winter applications in January and April, when conditions may not be as ideal for manure application.

5. Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program enrollees should have assurance. The MAWQCP farms should have assurance that their already agreed to BMPs fit within the framework of this proposal.

6. Allowing manure storage beyond 14 months would help achieve some of these BMPs. One limitation in Minnesota guidance is a 14-month limit on manure storage, even when producers aim to have up to 24-months for flexibility and to obtain more BMPs. With our current 14-month limit enforced by MPCA, our manure application windows become emergencies, driving up the cost of application and hours required by applicators to apply manure in an effective manner.

Garrett Luthens

Skyview Dairy, Inc. Shane Luthens Melissa Luthens18503 Nickel Ave. Hutchinson, MN 55350

7/16/2020




1. Cover crops should not be required for September manure applications. While covercrops continue in adoption, we do not yet have systems in place to ensure they lead tothe outcomes desired.

a. A 2005 Literature Review done by the MPCA showed that manure improves soiltilth and reduces runoff. If these are the outcomes desired of cover crops,manure application may be achieving this already (Water Quality/Feedlots 1.08,January 2005).

b. Technology developed over the next five years will likely tell us how and whencover crops can be helpful for reducing soil erosion and better water quality.

c. The current proposal does not take into account corn silage roots plus stalks oralfalfa may still be covering the soil and holding it with manure.

2. Direct injection should be added as a Best Management Practice. With rapid adoption ofdirect injected manure, MPCA has never recognized it as a Best Management Practicedespite its known benefits. Direct injection:







3. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. Fall weather is difficultto predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from year-to-year. Theuse of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in

November or later. For these reasons we would suggest not implementing these October BMPs. If BMPs in October must be followed:

a. 50o F is not a magic number, but a recommendation or suggestion. Below 60o Fmaybe just as beneficial to the environment but much more flexible to farmers



4. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The University ofMinnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Wasecacollectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at least one of thecenters in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton andWaseca):

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31


5. Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program enrollees should haveassurance. The MAWQCP farms should have assurance that their already agreed toBMPs fit within the framework of this proposal.

6. Allowing manure storage beyond 14 months would help achieve some of these BMPs.One limitation in Minnesota guidance is a 14-month limit on manure storage, even whenproducers aim to have up to 24-months for flexibility and to obtain more BMPs. With ourcurrent 14-month limit enforced by MPCA, our manure application windows becomeemergencies, driving up the cost of application and hours required by applicators toapply manure in an effective manner.

Shane Luthens Melissa Luthens

7/17/20 Email – Jessica Mulder Dear MPCA, Thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our feedback on the proposed Minnesota NPDES Permit. I was also want to thank you for taking the time to meet with the different producers groups this past spring to gain input on how the upcoming changes to the NPDES permit would impact the producers that have currently operated under an NPDES permit. The comments I have, as a consultant, to the proposed NPDES permit are related to the issues of adding BMP’s to the land applications in September and October and the elimination of land application in February and March. The biggest concern, I feel is, the added restrictions you are putting on the producers. I completely understand as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that your job is to protect and improve the environment, however, I think there are better alternatives in doing this besides putting more restrictions on when producers can land apply. As you know, the State of Minnesota varies in its topography and not all parts of the state are susceptible to leaching as other parts. I do not think it is right to lump everyone into the same basket when implementing these rules. I know it may be easier for the MPCA to regulate, but I do not think that is the right mentality to have. My suggestion would be to utilize a tool that everyone is required to complete as a feedlot owner and that is the manure management plan. Producers could designate fields that are acceptable for solid spreading in Feb and March or designate what fields need BMP’s for land application in September and October based off a soil texture. In conclusion, I agree we need rules and guidance in place to improve and keep our environment safe. I just think that we need to use common sense and research data to make these rules. If these rules are implemented, you could me forcing hardship upon a lot of producers due to either facility management or increased financial costs. Thank you for your consideration of comments and concerns regarding the NPDES Permit. Sincerely,

Jessica Mulder Extended Ag Services, Inc.

Comments on General Permit MNG440000 Feedlot Permit

My name is Jeff Bauman. I am a consultant with Anez Consulting, Inc in Willmar.

My role here is to work with clients on their permitting and manure management

plans. I plan rates, keep records and for some clients give oversite to pumping

activities being on site daily and “on call 24-7” during pumping season.

Minnesota is a diverse state when it comes to climate. Our northern most client

will see a first frost date in the September 1 -September 10 area whereas our

southernmost client will see first frost from October 1 – October 10 area. What

works for one area will not work for another. Weather conditions can change

dramatically in the fall. It is not unusual to see snow storms the first part of

November.

The last few years have taught us that we do not live in a perfect world when it

comes to manure application. Weather conditions have been against us every

step of the way. About 90% of our clients work with custom applicators. This can

create challenges for timely applications as applications may have started in one

area only to have rainfall stop applications, so the applicator moves to another

area and will not be back for 2 – 3 weeks. Sometimes clients have had to find

other applicators as their preferred one cannot get there to complete the work.

Usually no applicator is looking for work at that point. The cost of pumps and

application equipment is cost prohibitive for most. They cannot justify owning

their own.

Comments:

10.3 & 14.8 Winter application of solids manure in February and March for both

transferred and non-transferred manure.

• Should be based off snow cover and temperature not calendar.

• It is not practical for farms to spread manure on soils that can be

easily compacted in the spring when the ground is thawing.

Application windows are very small and can lead to delayed

planting.

14.4 Applying to coarse textured soils when soil temperature is over 50 degrees

• Producers may not have an option if they cannot get a custom

applicator in a timely way. More emergency applications may

take place with this limitation.

• Add the planting of a cover crop as an option as it is in 14.5 & 14.6

14.5 June, July, August or September Restrictions

• My suggestion is a cover crop in September only on coarse soils.

• Has research shown excessive N leaching in heavy soils in

September?

14.6 October Restrictions

• Soil temperature below 50 degrees for application is not practical

in October. The window of application from mid-October forward

is small. Add in weather events and the potential for larger

environmental problems is greater than the 50 degree soil

temperature limit when pushed to late October early November.

• Some nitrogen stabilizers require a Commercial Pesticide

Applicators License to be applied if applied by a custom

applicator. Most if not all the custom applicators I have talked to

are not willing to go that route. Each tractor operator would

require a license. Again, not practical.

• Cover crops in October only on fields with course soils. Cover

crops planted in October will see little if any growth.

• A split application of manure is not practical. There are costs

involved with setup, mobilization, etc. This would add costs to the

producer that are not recoverable. Half rates from swine finishing

barns are near impossible.

• MPCA approval to apply snow from holding areas. Is that a one-

time approval or after every snow event that may need cleaning?

Would the no spreading in February & March rule apply if

enacted? What additional measures / practices may be required?

• Direct injection or immediate incorporation should be listed as a

BMP

Adding extra costs and regulations to producers during this time of economic

distress is a cost they do not need. I feel as a consulting company we are doing

our best to keep our clients compliant, maximize yields and not harm the

environment. We are all for clean air and water. Our clients want to be good

stewards of the land and resources available to us.

7/19/20 Email – Luke Gorecki To Whom it May Concern,

I am a young cattle producer that moved home and started farming full time 5 years ago. Times are very

tight right now in the cattle industry and making a profit is difficult. I have one main concern with the

new proposed feedlot permit. My main concern is with the prohibition of spreading manure in February

or March.

The financial repercussions of prohibiting manure spreading during February and March will be

substantial for cattle producers. To comply with this regulation, most cattle producers will have to add

large manure storage facilities. The facilities to store manure could cost upwards of $100,000. To be

able to accomplish spreading the extra loads of manure in the spring, my operation would have to add

an additional tractor and manure spreader. The equipment alone would cost $150,000-$200,000. Plus

we would need to add extra labor to run the extra tractor and spreader during the already busy planting

season. On top of spending the money to add the manure storage, farmers will be forced to spread the

manure in the spring. Spring application causes substantial compaction to the soil. One benefit of

hauling manure in February and March is the ground is frozen. Spreading manure on frozen ground

avoids soil compaction and increases crop yields. The financial impact of soil compaction would be large

most spring seasons due to decreased yields.

I agree that we need to prevent runoff of manure. My solution would be to allow spreading in

February and March, but only on fields that are not high risk for runoff into water sources. This risk

could be based on soil type maps which would show the soil type and the slope of the field. These two

factors could be used to determine if the field is high risk for runoff. This solution would allow cattle

farmers to avoid increased costs and compaction from spring spreading. This solution would use a

scientific approach to reduce runoff and protect the water quality.

I received my degree in agronomy and spent 10 years as an agronomist before choosing to farm

full time. I take pride in incorporating best practices to not only improve our farm but to protect our

land for the future generations. I urge you to consider this change so young cattle farmers such as

myself are able to stay financially viable and have a strong farm to pass on to the next generation.

Sincerely,

Luke Gorecki

Glencoe Farm Brandon Luthens Daryl Luthens 8707 Dairy Ave Glencoe, MN 55336

7/16/2020















3. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. Fall weather is difficult to predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from year-to-year. The

use of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in November or later. For these reasons we would suggest not implementing these October BMPs. If BMPs in October must be followed:




4. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The University of Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at at least one of the centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca):

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31




Brandon Luthens

Brandon Luthens

Daryl Luthens

Daryl Luthens

7/20/20 Email with attachment – Nate and Noah Hultgren

RE: General Permit MNG440000 Animal Feedlot Permit

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed general permit revisions. As a farmer, we have concerns about the increase in regulations with respect to manure application that are proposed with this permit revision. Manure is a valuable fertilizer product. Our farm has used manure as fertilizer in the past and greatly benefited from it. The proposed requirements to plant cover crops in September and use nitrogen BMPs in October will be problematic for our state. Minnesota's manure application season is already short given our climate. These requirements would further shorten that window, increase the cost of manure handling, and increase the risk that livestock producers will not be able to empty manure storage areas in the fall (which, in turn, is a threat to the environment).

These increased regulations could also drive livestock investment out of Minnesota. Our rural economies depend on agriculture and adding value to our crops. In addition to creating jobs and tax revenue, animal agriculture creates a market for Minnesota-grown crops, and it generates manure, which offsets the use of commercial fertilizer. As a policy matter, we need to promote livestock growth in Minnesota, not put livestock operators at a disadvantage to operators in neighboring states. Furthermore, the technology and infrastructure does not exist to effectively implement the proposed cover crop requirements. Given Minnesota's short growing season, establishing cover crops is difficult. And as a practical matter, the industry does not currently have enough cover crop seed and planting capability to implement these requirements.

We urge the MPCA to remove the proposed requirements for cover crops with September manure application and for nitrogen BMPs with October manure application. Short of that, the MPCA should treat the direct injection of liquid manure or the prompt incorporation of solid manure as a BMP that allows for September and October manure application regardless of soil temperature. Manure, when properly handled, has been shown to reduce runoff volume and soil loss. 1

Nate & Noah Hultgren//Hultgren Farms Raymond, MN 320-894-7522

1 See wq-fl -08, Runoff Reduction with Incorporated Manure

Thank you f considering our comments and concerns.

7/21/20 Email – Minnesota Custom Applicators Association Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the NPDS general permits. The

MNCAA organization and its members have been committed to providing safe and reliable manure

application in the state of Minnesota for more than 30 years. Mn manure applicators have been

innovators and have been on the forefront of application improvements and technology advances to

provide the best possible, safest and timely application of manure. Our success is in providing

environmentally safe application of manure is proven in the successful and profitable crop production of

our clients, a stable customer base and the dedication to elimination of manure storage breaches. We

host training for our members to provide the most up to date information, but it is also an opportunity

for networking and sharing struggles of application conditions, as well as successes in the following crop

year production from manure application. We are hands on, proven, real life circumstances experts in

the world of manure application.

The following are comments on manure application as they relate to the proposed draft of the Feedlot

NDPES General Permit.

Page 7, 14.4: While the 50-degree soil temperature is ideal, it is not practical. The possibility of frozen

manure application increases exponentially the longer application is delayed. Delayed application

increases emergency winter application events. Increasing to 60-degree soil temperature would increase

the window of opportunity for safe application, and still provide greater protection from phosphorus

losses than emergency winter application. Consider risk and reward.

Page 7, 14.5: After mid-September, cover crops may be hard to establish and be effective. Allowing

application based on soil temps, again 60-degrees, would be much more effective.

Page 8, 14.6: Include last half of September. Increase to 60-degrees. Change cover crop wording to “has

been established”.

Page 9, 14.10: Prohibiting liquid manure application in the months of January, February and March

would make reasonable sense. Emergency winter application stems from a significant weather event

during fall application time. Limited field availability is probable. Restricting maximum of 3500 GPA may

be unattainable. One size, max rate will not work. Limiting P205 can be achievable. Abiding by setbacks

for frozen ground increases number of acres needed.

Page 20,30.53: Manure that is applied to lightly frozen soil, less than 6”, in late November and early

December adheres to the soil and is absorbed into the soil profile. With snow cover, the frost will tend

to be removed, allowing manure to adhere to the soil, preserving nutrients. Exempting Early December

from Winter application definition would be reasonable.

The window of opportunity for applying manure is already small. Manure application is the last thing in

the field in the fall, first in the spring. Best management practices are a guide, developed on a fairly

small-scale test plots. As the agency knows, animal agriculture has increased to a large scale.

Commercial application of manure was developed to handle the large volumes in a timely manner,

efficiently, with expertise. If the window of opportunity for manure application is too small, commercial

manure application will not be a sustainable business. Who will apply the large volumes of manure?

Emergency winter application will increase exponentially. Worse yet, storage facilities will over flow.

Addition comments in consideration of proposed changes:

Organic Farmers are NOT Allowed to use Chemical types of N Stabilizers

N Stabilizer products don’t work well in warmer soil temps in August or September

Recommended Rates for N stabilizer products early fall is double Rates or more which is Not

cost effective

It will cause financial hardship and is not economical to use N Stabilizer with current cash crop

prices and livestock prices as low as they are.

N Stabilizer Application Equipment is Very Expensive and very high maintenance

License Requirements to be able to buy and use N Stabilizer

Cover crops planted in September / October are very questionable on the benefits

There is not enough growing days between planting of cover crops and Average first frost date

There generally is poor germination rates with cover crops planted after Canning Crops, or Corn

Silage due to clumpy soil conditions

You have to have a timely rain after planting cover crop to have acceptable germination and

stand

There still is a risk that there will be residual Herbicide that can inhibit cover crop germination

and growth when planting cover crops early fall

Restricting manure application based on soil temps will shorten the window of opportunity to

get manure injected into the soil

The reasoning that you are trying to Lessen Environmental effects by restricting manure

application in soils above 52 degrees will Potentially cause even More Environmental

consequences.

Shortening the manure application window runs the risk of being forced to applicate on frozen

or saturated soils causing even more Environmental consequences.

Shortening the manure application window will cause it to not be economical to be in this

industry and cause non sustainable high costs to Livestock and Crop operations

Board of Directors of MNCAA

Rick Martens, Executive Director

Physical Address: 3080 Eagandale Place, Eagan, MN 55121-2118 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 64370, St. Paul, MN 55164-0370

Phone: 651.768.2100 Fax: 651.768.2159 Email: [email protected] www.fbmn.org

July 23, 2020

Mr. George Schwint Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165 Mankato, Minnesota 56001

Submitted via email to [email protected]

RE: Notice of Intent to Issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit MNG440000 Animal Feedlot Permit

Dear Mr. Schwint:

The Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation (MFBF) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Livestock NPDES Permit put forth by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). While we have serious concerns about the reasonableness and lack of flexibility of the proposed changes as a whole, our comments will be specific to the Prohibited Application of Solid Manure in February and March.

MFBF opposes eliminating the spreading of solid manure on fields during winter months.

The new requirements contained in the permit are unnecessary and unreasonable. The current Livestock NPDES Permit language already includes specific requirements and conditions for farmers to minimize the risk of runoff. In addition, MPCA has shown no evidence that the current permit requirements are inadequate.

On the farm level, we are further troubled by how the changes will limit farmer’s ability to manage manure around favorable weather conditions. Farmers control many aspects specific to their farm through advances in agricultural technologies. However, farmers cannot control the weather. From northern to southern Minnesota, spring can arrive nearly a full month earlier for those in the southern portion of the state. To tie regulations to specific calendar dates will limit farmer’s flexibility to manage manure specific to the circumstances on their farm.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on behalf of MFBF membership. If you have any follow up questions let us know. Sincerely,

Kevin Paap President

7/21/20 Email – Brad Nosbush To Whom It May Concern:










d. Reduces risk of P runoff and particulate P loss is reduced.



3. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. Fall weather is difficult to predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from year-to-year. The use of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in November or later. For these reasons we would suggest not implementing these October BMPs. If BMPs in October must be followed:

4. 50o F is not a magic number, but a recommendation or suggestion. Below 60o F maybe just as beneficial to the environment but much more flexible to farmers

a. Direct injection should be added as BMP

b. The suggested required cover crop BMP should be planted, not “established”

5. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The University of Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at at least one of the

centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca):

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31




Restricting manure applications in September and October means more manure will be applied to frozen ground in November and December. Incorporating manure in September and October will have less negative effects than trying to incorporate on frozen ground in November and December.

If less manure is applied in fall/winter then more will need to be applied in spring. Spring applications work well when weather is drier than average. Manure applications in wetter than average springs causes compaction and planting delays which reduces yields. Reduced yields because of spring manure applications are environmentally detrimental because the same amount of fuel, pesticides and nutrients were used to produce less.

Brad Nosbush

7/21/20 Email – William Brockway The proposed requirement to obtain permission to remove snow-manure mix from a feedlot surface is an animal welfare issue. Clearing the pen needs to be done soon after a storm to make conditions suitable for animals. Moisture needs to be removed and fresh bedding may need to be added. Further, if a storm ends on a weekend, it could be extremely difficult getting a response from MPCA. Regards, bill

An equal opportunity employer.

P r o t e c t i n g , M a i n t a i n i n g a n d I m p r o v i n g t h e H e a l t h o f A l l M i n n e s o t a n s

July 20, 2020 George Schwint Watershed Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165, Mankato, MN 56001 [email protected] Dear Mr. Schwint, Thank you for providing the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) with the opportunity to comment on the General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for the construction, expansion, modification or operation of animal feedlots in Minnesota. The MDH Source Water Protection (SWP) Program assists public water suppliers in developing and implementing plans to help communities and public water systems protect drinking water sources from potential contaminants. There are approximately 242 community water supply systems that are considered to have vulnerable aquifers or rely on surface water sources. These water supplies are susceptible to land surface contaminant sources such as feedlots, manure and other nonpoint and point source threats. MDH would like to commend the MPCA for making a number of changes that recognize and require the use of additional manure best practices that will reduce nitrogen loss to groundwater that help protect local drinking water supplies. Some of the changes related to manure land application requirements include: increased use of cover crops, requiring application of manure when soil conditions are less than 50 degrees, and requiring the use of other University recommended best practices that decrease nitrogen loss to groundwater as outlined in subparts of Part 14.1 of the Feedlot NPDES General Permit. As part of the review of the General Permit, MDH would like to offer the following comments for consideration regarding revisions to the Feedlot NPDES General Permit that will reduce impacts on public drinking water sources. We recognize that several of our comments below are broader in scope and also apply more generally to feedlot permitting and the implementation of Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020. They include:

1) Recognition in the Feedlot permitting process of State approved vulnerable groundwater surface water Drinking Water Supply Management Areas (DWSMAs). The NPDES General Permit recognizes waters of the State, but does not recognize State approved

mailto:[email protected]

P A G E 2 O F 3

DWSMAs and public drinking water sources that are vulnerable to feedlot impacts. Recognition of vulnerable DWSMAs would allow for improved monitoring of manure management, stock piling and overall consideration of drinking water resources during feedlot permitting, reporting and compliance monitoring processes. MDH can provide the agency with GIS data and information of these areas.

2) NPDES Permit Part 27.1 to 27.5 (page 14): Add vulnerable DWSMAs and surface water source DWSMAs to the list of water resources that must be included in the submittal of a written statement regarding any discharge, spill or overflow. Surface water features are identified in the draft permit as needing to be listed and named but not drinking water sources.

3) NPDES Permit Part 29.12 (page 16): MDH requests that in addition to ‘public drinking

water supplies’ the MPCA adds vulnerable DWSMAs and surface water source DWSMAs.

4) Increased participation and coordination with MDA in the local implementation of the Groundwater Rule, where nitrate levels in a public water supply are above 5.4mg/L. In many State approved DWSMAs, manure is used in combination with commercial fertilizer as a source of nitrogen for crop production. Manure best management practices need to be considered and evaluated as part of the solution in the reduction of nitrate levels in public drinking water sources.

5) Maintain adequate staff levels and compliance monitoring of feedlot operations. MDH recognizes that there are over 1,200 large feedlots that require NPDES Permits and the importance of having adequate staffing to perform program related work. The agency needs to have sufficient staffing to assist operators, review permit applications, perform investigative spill and enforcement work and complete compliance monitoring to ensure operators are maintaining adequate records in the management of feedlot operations and manure. Program resources are necessary to ensure both surface water and groundwater resources are protected. Citizens, feedlot operators and local government need to know resources are available to assist them with feedlot related issues and monitor for permit compliance.

6) Increased consideration for climate change impacts on manure storage and

management needs. The agency may wish to further consider how climate change and extreme weather will impact manure storage and feedlot management in future revisions of the general permit. Increased emphasis on emergency manure contingency planning to avoid spills and releases may be needed in the future.

MDH would like to work closely with the MPCA to ensure protection of public drinking water sources through ongoing discussions regarding feedlot permitting of large and small facilities, manure management best practices, compliance monitoring and enforcement of permitted feedlots. The mission of MDH is to protect, maintain and improve the health of all Minnesotans. The agency is responsible for implementing programs under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

P A G E 3 O F 3

MDH wishes to encourage thoughtful consideration of drinking water resources and public health protection as part of updating the Feedlot NPDES General Permit. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments. Feel free to contact me at (651) 201-4647 or [email protected] if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Sandeep R Burman, PG Manager, Drinking Water Protection Section Minnesota Department of Health PO Box 64975 St. Paul, MN 55164-0975 CC Katrina Kessler, MPCA Commissioners Office Water Policy / Agriculture Glenn Skuta, MPCA Watershed Division Tom Hogan, MDH Environmental Health Division Jim Kelly, MDH Environmental Surveillance and Assessment David Bell, MDH Environmental Impact Analysis Steve Robertson, MDH Source Water Protection Unit Tannie Eshenaur, MDH Drinking Water Protection Section Mark Wettlaufer, MDH Source Water Protection Unit Amanda Strommer, MDH Source Water Protection Unit


7/21/20 Email – Deja Anton Todd County Feedlot Program and Todd County SWCD

This is currently the only statement that the Todd County Feedlot Program and Todd SWCD would like to respond to at this time regarding the language proposed to be added to the document titled, Proposed changes to feedlot NPDES general permit for 2021-2026. Mitigation of Nitrate Leaching Nitrogen BMPs would be required for any manure application during the month of October. The primary BMP would be delaying application until soil temperatures are 50 degrees or less; this is commonly around October 21 for a majority of the state. While the Nitrogen BMP’s recommended by the U of M are generally accepted by both ag groups and agency leaders alike, particularly for farms land applying nitrogen on sensitive soils, we would like to be assured that in adapting this language into the general NPDES permit, there will exist no unexamined fallouts for water quality and the environment. Questions that have rose to the surface include the following:

1) By restricting NPDES sites to a tighter fall schedule in which land application can occur, how, if at all, might this impact both the local environment and the smaller CAFO site in land applying their manure? There are only a limited number of Custom Applicators available for hire. Most dairy and swine farms, for examples, do hire custom applicators to do their liquid pumping and land application. It is already a competition for time to get manure land applied at the right time.

2) Will smaller farms be “back-burnered” more than they already are as a result of this newer requirement for NPDES sites (N BMP highlighted above)?

3) And as a result, will more small farms be forced to apply liquid manure onto frozen soils or in unfavorable conditions? The crops come off, relatively speaking, near the same time period whether you are a small farm or a large farm (NPDES) in any particular region.

4) Do we know the distribution and volume of liquid manure being land applied in the state or in a particular region by non-NPDES sites vs. NPDES sites? We would venture to say that in Todd County where small farms prevail that the volume of manure may rival that of the NPDES sites. This may be similar in our neighboring counties of Douglas, Ottertail, Wadena, Cass, Morrison, etc. Even with the setbacks in place, land application of manure on to frozen ground can impact both the environment and the value based economic benefits of manure (vs. chemical) that comes to play for small farms, or any farm for that matter. Also to be considered are the combined impacts to available nitrogen for maximum profitability for the upcoming crops on non-NPDES sites when nitrogen and/or manure is not applied in a timely fashion.

5) Taking this ratio of small farm vs. NPDES sites in considering distribution and volume, will we actually see more manure being land-applied at the “wrong time of year” or are the nitrogen impacts of NPDES sites so significant across the state, that this requirement is the lesser of the two related concerns?

6) Instead of injecting this requirement as “blanket format” into all NPDES permit applications, would it be wiser to restrict it for farms known to be land applying on sensitive soils?

These are the questions that have been posed to our organizations. Thank you for taking time to consider and respond.

7/21/20 Email – Shane Joos I'm guessing you never grew up on a farm. Weather rules out here when and when not you can get stuff done not a calendar. Placing statewide days won't work unless you are trying to get rid of the cattle feeder. Please don't crush my life style.

7/21/20 Email – Mark Malecek To the MPCA board. The newly suggested general permit MNG40000 could not have been put together at a worse time. With all the economic pressures of late, this bill will be the final blow for alot of producers. I am proud of the environmental stewardship that has evolved with my neighboring beef producers. I see good manure management in place at the present time. No need for this burdensome permit. Mark Malecek,Redwood Falls, MN.

7/21/20 Email – Pat Hennen I am a livestock farmer in SW MN and won a NPDS site. I am concerned with some of the regulations that the MPCA would like to implement going forward. I feel that we as farmers should be able to spread manure and manure/snow mix in February and March timeframe. I feel fields could be assigned or approved ahead of time by the MPCA so that we can remove the Waste in a timely manner and after a snowstorm so that we can provide our livestock with the best chance of remaining healthy and comfortable. It is impractical to think that the we need approval from someone from behind a desk to tell us what and when we can operate. What if it is a weekend, night or holiday? As for September/ October cover crops, have you ever planted anything before? I am pretty confident that little to any growth of a cover crop even in my area would amount to much. Most of us are just trying to get crops harvested, bedding put up and stock piles of manure accumulated from the growing season spread and worked in with tillage. I realize that your office is trying to protect the environment—I get that. I also can assure you that us farmers are trying to do the same and it only makes economic sense For us to figure out how to utilize animal waste as to get the most economical return that we can. That is our competitive advantage as compared to crop farmers. Many of us livestock farmers already have more regulations to deal with and enough financial stress. We are going to use our resources to the best of our ability to maximize a profit as best we can. Sincerely, Pat Hennen

7/21/20 Email – Jay Bakken Dear Mr Schwint, I am writing these comments in reference to the proposed changes to the General NPDES permit. My operation is a holder of said permit and the following proposed changes are concerning to me and I have the following comments for your consideration. As a farmer feeder in the State of MN, functioning under the current set of permit rules, I am satisfied with both the scope of the regulations as well as the ability of my operation to function economically and efficiently within them, as well as the ability to be a good steward of the environment while providing proper, humane care to my livestock. Concerning the restriction of the application of solid manure in the months of February and March, to this rule I am opposed for the following reasons. Under current rules, there are already satisfactory guidelines in place concerning winter application of solid manure that have proven to protect the environment. For several years, our operation has been a site for the Discovery Farms, Minnesota project. The runoff from our fields that have had winter manure applied to them, according to the current set of rules regarding sensitive areas, application rates, and setbacks, has shown virtually NO runoff through the monitoring station. This data does not suggest that there is any issue with winter application of solid manure that would require an arbitrary ban of application specifically during these months. The weather during these two months can vary greatly throughout the state and there is little evidence that any further restrictions above and beyond what is currently in place will have any positive impact on water quality. It will only prove to be burdensome to producers and ineffective to water quality improvement. Therefore I am opposed to this proposed change to the permit rules. Concerning the requirement of MPCA approval to apply snow/manure mix during February and March, to this rule I am opposed for the following reasons. Under current rules, snow/manure mixture is already applied according to the current rules in place for solid manure application. There should be no differentiation in snow/manure application from solid manure. And there should be no restrictions in any specific month or time period as long as the current application rules and rates are being followed. A larger concern with this rule is the issue of animal welfare. Many cattle in the state of Minnesota are fed outdoors, and thrive in that environment. They are able to thrive because of good husbandry and management. A large part of that management is the ability of producers such as myself to properly clean and provide fresh bedding for animals after a snow event, regardless of snowfall amounts. If we are required to wait for approval to perform our best management practices to provide the best care and welfare for the livestock under our care, that care will no doubt be compromised. Therefore I am opposed to this proposed change to the permit rules. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Jay Bakken BLAC-X Farms, Inc. Rock County, MN

7/22/20 Email – Eric Zeltwanger My name is Eric Zeltwanger. I live in the Stevens county area with my wife and our three children. The planed changes in the feedlot rules could greatly affect the ability of our operations to exist if passed as proposed. Things I would like to address are Eliminate the cover crop requirement for the month of September. There are many years in MN when growing a cover crop after August is not possible. There is a large change in climate and growing degree units from the north to the south of our state. This leads into the BMP requirement for October application. Just like establishing cover crops the ground temp can very greatly across the state. Thus limiting further the time line for application in a already tight window. Next prohibit manure application in February and March. This change is unnecessary and unreasonable. Current rules have proved adequate for ground water protection. Regulations based on a calendar date severely limit the times when farmers can apply manure. With the ever changing weather patterns sometimes February and March are much more favorable then other times for manure application. Current permit language adequately describes favorable conditions. Approval from the MPCA would be required to apply snow mix from animal holding areas in the months of February and March. This is an outrageous rule to think about implementing. We as stewards of the land and caretakers for our animals need to be able to do what is needed from them during and IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING winter storms! We do not want to cause our animals undue stress and suffering while we wait for MPCA to answer the question of if we can move snow out of pens so animals can be fed and bedded. Farmers need to know with certainty what we can do in the middle of a good old Minnesota blizzard. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. Kindly, Eric Zeltwanger MN Beef producer

7/22/20 Email – Barry Belknap Mr. Schwint, MPCA – I am sympathetic to farm lobby concerns over the proposed rule changes to the NPDES feedlot permit. As an ag lender, I know the majority of my customers observe the best possible manure management practices available to them in a given season. Their incentives to do so are multiple: manure has a high economic value by displacing commercial fertilizer costs; manure has proven soil health and crop productivity benefits; a genuine desire to farm in an economically friendly manner. Being a banker, I understand the value of sound regulation even if I don’t always like it. Likewise, I support sound environmental regulation for the benefit of all Minnesotans – including farmers – again even if regulations aren’t always pleasant to follow. However, several of the MPCA proposed changes are written in a manner that suggests the agency does not understand the business being regulated. Changes to the proposed NPDES permit called for by the various farm associations are sensible. They acknowledge the need to protect our environment, but in a way that fits with our highly volatile Minnesota weather. MPCA will better fulfill its mission by taking farmer concerns seriously on this issue when it publishes the final rule. Sincerely, Barry Belknap | Vice President Harvest Bank | Kimball Office

July 21, 2020

Amy Robak-Bruce,CCA Centra Sota Cooperative Lead Nutrient Management Specialist NRCS TSP-16-21609 13146 Haven Road Little Falls, MN 56345 612.400.3974 [email protected]







c. The current proposal does not consider corn silage roots plus stalks or alfalfa may still be covering the soil and holding it with manure.

2. In the instance cover crops are required for manure applications and are established prior to those manure applications, a 60-80% coverage must be remaining after those said manure applications. This not only protects the surface/groundwater elements, but it also more economical to the producer in regards to overall soil health practices and input costs of the cover crops.







July 21, 2020



4. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. Fall weather is difficult to predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from year-to-year. The use of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in November or later. For these reasons I would suggest changing these these October BMPs stated in the draft. If BMPs in October must be followed:

a. 50o F is not a magic number, but a recommendation or suggestion. Below 60o F maybe just as beneficial to the environment but much more flexible to farmers.

b. Direct injection should be added as BMP.

c. A spilt application of nitrogen from manure rates

i. Course textured soils should be no more than ½ of the recommend nitrogen rate for that upcoming cropping season and a nitrogen stabilizing agent/product is added.

ii. Medium and fine textured soils should be no more then 2/3 of the recommend nitrogen rate for that upcoming cropping season.

d. The suggested “one” Nitrogen BMP for October manure applications should increase to “two” Nitrogen BMP due to the nature of the adverse fall weather conditions; along with protecting drinking water integrity in course textured soils.

5. November Best Management Practices should be added. Due to the adverse fall weather that has increased November temperatures and adoption of manure applications, Nitrogen Best Management Practices should be required.

6. Liquid Manure Storage Areas (LMSA) should require 12 months of storage. Due to adverse weather conditions and NRCS funding opportunities, increased manure storage is not only financially favorable, but environmentally beneficial to producers.

7. In Section 24.2, Permittee records/reports/submittals, upon MPCA request, should have only 7 days to comply. At the current day length of 30 days, I have seen many producers create documents to satisfy MPCA records requests. If producers are keeping records as stated in the MN State Feedlot Rule, producers should be able to generate those records/reports/submittals within a shorter time frame.

8. Annual Reporting (Section 25.1) should be verified by a Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) or NRCS Nutrient Management Technical Service Provider (NRCS TSP). This verification on the annual reporting forms via signature/certification number, keeps the producer accountable for the reporting to include truthful information about manure nutrient applications during that reporting year. This now adds a layer of certification to the MPCA officers that review the documents that the information is truthful and verified by a second party.

Sincerely,

Amy Robak-Bruce

7/22/20 Email – Dennis Haubenschild

Please do not change the NPDS general permits. We Haubenschild Farm Dairy have always used BMPS in applying our manure (digestate). We treat it as a fertilizer for next years crop not as a waste! To use dates and not actual temperatures is not practical the falls are getting longer every year. an example is we use to plant 85-90-day corn and are now planting 100-110-day maturity corn. We are a MAWQCP farm and the new proposed changes would not allow us to use our agreed to BMPs. Thanks Dennis Haubenschild

United Dairies LLP

Alpha Foods LLP, Union Dairy LLP, Westland Dairy LLP, Allied Dairy

7/23/2020








d. Adding requirements in September and October limits the days in which manure can be applied, and could create worse consequences in the spring. Also, see concern #6.











c. The suggested required cover crop BMP should be planted, not “established.”

4. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The University of Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at (at least) one of the centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca):

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31




Steven Landwehr, Tom Landwehr, Matt Landwehr, Nick Ridgeway, Bob Hennen, Craig Achen

7/22/20 Email – Dr. Jenn Reith I am writing in reference to the General Permit MNG440000 Feedlot Permit. I wanted to voice my support of the issues the Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association have outlined. As veterinarian and as a cattle producer I am concerned how new verbiage of the permit would affect health of animals with regards to snow and manure removal. As well as the expectations that limit cattleman when it comes to weather and timing. Bellow are the outlined points of MSCA. Cordially, Dr. Reith

Feedlot Permit Talking Points

Prepared for the MSCA

Issue: General NPDES Permits are reviewed by the MPCA every five years. The

current permit expires on December 31, 2020. The MPCA is in the process of

reviewing and revising the next five-year permit that will be in effect from January

1, 2021 through December 31, 2026. In the new permit, the agency is proposing

the following four changes that could impact MCSA members:

1. A cover crop would be required for manure applications in September.

The current permit requires a cover crop be planted for applications of

manure in the months of June, July, and August as required by Minnesota

Rules Chapter 7020. Adding the month of September to this list is not

authorized by Minnesota Law.

The extension of the summer application cover crop requirement into

September should be amended to include other options in place of a cover

crop, such as the use of a nitrogen stabilizing product.

2. A nitrogen BMP would be required for manure applications in October.

These new requirements will be logistical challenges for farmers to follow

and are unlikely to result in significant water quality improvements.

Soil temperatures during the month of October can vary considerably from

year-to-year. Farmers need the flexibility to manage manure in a timely

manure and can utilize existing tools to mitigate nitrogen losses.

The number of days suitable for manure application are already severely

limited in Minnesota by the length of season. These requirements have the

effect of further shortening the fall manure application season and

increasing he cost of manure handling.

The word “established” should be replaced with the word “planted” in point

14.6 (c). Fall weather is difficult to predict, and cover crop growth varies

widely from year-to-year. The requirement to plant is within a farmer’s

management scope. Actual establishment is beyond a farmer’s control.

3. Applications of solid manure would be prohibited in February or March

regardless of the weather or field conditions.

These new requirements are unnecessary and unreasonable.

Current permit language specifies requirements and conditions for field

applications of solid manure with minimal risk of runoff.

Current field conditions requirements have proven adequate for water

quality protection.

Conditions from southern to northern Minnesota can be different, with spring

arriving as much as a full month earlier in the south.

Regulations based on calendar dates limit the farmer’s ability to manage

around favorable weather conditions. In some years, in some parts of the

state, February and March can provide good conditions for manure

application.

The current permit language adequately describes favorable conditions.

The MPCA has not provided any evidence, even anecdotal, of runoff events

associated with winter application at permitted operations.

4. Approval from the MPCA would be required prior to application of manure-

snow mix from animal holding areas during February and March.

Farmers need to know with certainty how to respond following large snow

events.

The restriction on application of snow-manure mix following significant snow

accumulation in animal holding areas is unreasonable.

The proposed permit language would require farmers to contact the MPCA

after a snowstorm, wait for approval, and if approval is obtained may be

subjected to additional measures/practices. This is an unreasonable

requirement that limits the farmer’s ability to properly care for his/her

livestock.

When feedlots are inundated with snow, animal health is jeopardized.

Farmers need to have assurance that they can clean lots promptly. They

should not have to wait for their livestock.

If included as a new category of manure in the permit, permittees should be

assured that they will be allowed to land apply snow-manure mix following

the same requirements provided for winter solid manure applications.

Farmers should know with certainty the conditions under which they can

land apply snow and manure-snow mix so that they can clean their lots in a

timely manner.

The MPCA should continue the current permit language defining conditions

required for winter application of solid manure, clarifying that these

requirements also apply to snow-manure mix.

7/22/20 Email – Michael Yost

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to General Permit MN

440000 Animal Feedlot Permit. I am a farmer who uses manure as a replacement for

commercial fertilizer, it is an excellent source of crop nutrients and helps us meet our goals of

being a consumer driven sustainable producer of food.

The proposed Requirements to plant cover crops in September and use nitrogen Best

Management Practices (BPMs) in October are of great concern. These requirements would

significantly shorten the manure application time frame in Minnesota and increase the risk of

not emptying manure storage facilities in the fall. This would drive up the cost of manure

application placing a financial burden on the livestock farmer and those of us who use manure

would be forced to turn to commercial fertilizer.

Experience has shown that establishing cover crops in Minnesota in September is difficult under

ideal circumstances and has been a failed exercise most of the time. Commercial fertilizer can

be applied any time in the fall regardless of soil temperature. The direct injection of liquid

manure and immediate incorporation of solid manure has worked well in our area both

environmental and nuisance issues are eliminated.

Livestock producers are the leading driver of the economy in greater Minnesota. Crop farmers

and main street businesses need a thriving animal agriculture sector. The proposed revisions to

the Animal Feedlot Permit would increase their costs making them uncompetitive with their

counter parts in other states.

As a fourth generation farmer and steward of the land I would urge you not to make the

proposed changes to General Permit 44000.

Thank you

Michael W. Yost

7/22/20 Email – Lisa Groetsch Hi George We are certain you are trying to maintain water quality as are we in rural areas of Minnesota. We would like you to consider the following before you adopt any new policies for new permits.


2. Direct injection should be added as a Best Management Practice. With rapid adoption of direct injected manure, MPCA has never recognized it as a Best Management Practice despite its known benefits. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. Fall weather is difficult to predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from year-to-year. The use of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in less than ideal conditions in November or later. For these reasons we would suggest not implementing these October BMPs.

3. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The University of Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at at least one of the centers in 2017-2020 in 24 days of the two months..



It is critical for us to be able to make decisions during critical haul times. We have to consider weather, field conditions and even neighbors/community events. Thanks you for your time Lisa Groetsch Groetsch Dairy Inc

Boenn or TnUSTEESTnIeRT CrreInueN - KEVIN JErusvoIo

Tnreet VrcE CuerR - CaRetyru TRutruaTnIeaL SECRETARY - TneTTaayruE BLUE

TRreat TnensunER - SHeRoru OnecenoM EHaeeR-eT-Lence - JEREMY Heurl'ror.r

PosT OFFICE Box 1475722 TnevERs LANE

Gnerure FaLLS, MN 5624132(.r^.564.3a53

32O.564.44A2 - FAX

July 20,2020

George SchwintWatershed DivisionMinnesota Pollution Control Agency12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165Mankato, MN 56001Phone: 320-894-5866Email: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Schwint,

This letter is intended to summarize the Uppet Sioux Community's (USC) concerns about the Minnesota PollutionControl Agency's MPCA) revisions to the Feedlot National Poliutant Discharge Elimination System G\fPDES)General Petmit 2021-2026. The proposed changes fiom the previous S-year Feedlot NPDES General Permit, set toexpite on January 31,2021 are faiily

^pparcnt in the reduction of size from 48 pages to 20 pages. V&ile the USC

understands the desire to reduce the size of a document, we feel that this reduction in the draft permit createsconfusion whereas the current Feedlot NPDES General Permit creates clarity. This letter will outline some of theconcerns as they have been identified by USC Environmental Staff.

1,. General otientation of the document. The Draft Feedlot General Permit 2021,-2026 (Draft) references theMinnesota Statutes within the Dtaft rather than providing the statute informatjon wrthin the document asseen in the treedlot NPDES Genetal Permit 2016-2021(Curent). The USC feels that this lack of clait'Jleaves the interpretation of the Minnesota Statutes up to the Producer rather than the interpretation orintentions of the MPCA. The USC feels that the Feedlot NPDES General Permit 201.6-2021. outlines therules and regulations as laid out by the Minnesota State Statutes in a manner that provides greater cladty tothe Producers, MPCA staff, and the general public. Seeking to reduce the size of the document and losingvaluable clarification is not a sacrifice that the USC believes is worth making. \W4ren documents can easily beprovided through electronical means and data sharing has never been simpler, the size of the documentshould not be reduced in order to simply teduce the amount of paper that is printed. This Permit impacts alarge sector of rural Minnesotans and should be user friendly. The cutrent format makes finding informationonetous, reduces clarity, and could result in unintended misinterpretations by Producers as a result. The USCwould like MPCA to considet changing the format back to the more user friendly, content appropriate, anddetailed format similar to the Feedlot NPDES General permit 2016-2021..

2. The USC supports the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) request to add the following with theundetstandingthatif a reviewing agency does not feel that MPCA has fuily illustrated the expected guidanceto Ptoducers with some of the definitions as outlined in the Draft, the general public will also have troubleunderstanding MPCA's intent, format, and language:

^. Include the following language on the title page: "Once an anlmal feeding operation is defined as a

CAFO for at least one type of animal, the NPDES tequirements for CAFOs apply with respect to allanimals in confinement at the operation and all manure, littet, and process wastewatet generated by thoseanimals ot the production of those animals tegardless of the type of animal."

b. Add the followrng tequirement to section 1., Pennit Couerage:

The process for submitting public comments and headng requests, and the hearing process if a requestfor a headng is gtanted, must follow the procedures applicable to draft permits set forth in 40 CFRL24.1.1. through 124.13. Ot MN. R. ch. 7001.0110. The Director must respond to significant commentsreceived during the comment period, as provided in 40 CFR 1.24.1.1 , and, if necessary, require the CAFOowner or operator to revise the nutrient management plan in otder to be granted petmit coverage. OtMN. R. ch. 7001.0660.

c. Add the following requirements to sect-ion 3, Swbmittals and Nolificatiow to the MPCA:. A notice of intent for a generai permit must include the information specified in \ 1.22.21. and $ 1.22.28.. 40 CFR SS 122.21(D(1),1,22.23(b). The permitting authority can use Form 28 for both NPDES CAtrOpermit applications and NOIs. The NOI/Permit Application for CAFOs is iocated athttp://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/cafo-fedregstt-form2b.pdf. Or reference MN 7020.0505 Subp. 4.

d. Add the following requirement to section 9, Manure Nutrient Testing:The results of most recent representative manure, litter, and process wastewater tests for nitrogen andphosphorus taken within 12 months of the date of land application, in ordet to determine the amount ofnitrogen and phosphotus in the manure, Iitter, and process wastewater to be applied.

e. Add the following requirement to section 11, Manure Management Plan:The CAFO owner or operator must provide the Director with the most cuffent version of the CAFO'snutrient management plan and identify changes from the previous version, except that the results ofcalculations made in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs G)(5)(r(B) and (e)(5)(ii)(D) of thissection are r,ot subject to the requitements of paragraph (e)(6) of this section.This suppotts the USC's first point, that the Draft format is less user ftiendly in that there is a need toclatfy the language.

f. Add the following requirement to section 1.2, l-nnd Applicatioa of Manure:tMrere the manure, litter or process wastewater has been applied in accordance with site specific nutrientmanagement practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the manute, littetor process wasteq/ater, as specified in $ 1,22.a2@)(1x"r- (ix), a precipitation-related discharge of manure,litter or process wastewater from land ateas under the conttol of a CAFO is an agricultural stormwaterdischarge.

g. Add the following tequirements to section 1.2, l-nnd Application of Manare:1. Ensure adequate storage of manure, litter, and process wastewater, including procedures to ensurepropff operation and maintenance of the storage facilities;2. Ensure that clean water is diverted, as appropriate, ftom the production

^re ;

3. Ensure that chemicals and other contaminants handled on-site a(e not disposed of in any manure,litter, process wastev/ater, or storm water storage or treatment system unless specifically designed to treatsuch chemicals and other contaminants.

h. Add the following requirement to section 12, l-nndApplication of Manure:Prevent direct contact of confined animals with waters of the United States

i. Add the following requirement to section 20, Reqaired P-ailig IntpeclionrWeekly recotds of the depth of the manute and process wastewater in the liquid impoundment as

indicated by the depth marker under parugraph (a)(2) of this section.

i. Add the following requirement to section 24.3,RecordkeepingRequirements:

The Pennittee thall rnaintain the folkwingfacili! maintenance record.t:

,) A ducription of aryt modifications, or damage and repair, to the ruanure collection, containment, and $orage

componen/s.

U Aryy signtficant actiuitiu that alter the nature of the facilit1 or that uould irucrease the likelihood of dbcharge fromthe facilit1t or potentia/ for groundwater pollwtion.

,) Any otherfactorc ffiting compliance with the requiremenfi of thb Peruit.d) Information pertaining to the management of animal mortalities

k.

q.

f.

n.

Add the following requirement to section 24, Recordkeeping Requirements:Weekly records of the depth of the manure and process v/astewater in the liquid impoundment asindicated by the depth marker under pangrapb. (a)(2) of this section.

Add the following requirements to section 28, Perrnit Eligibility:

' An owner of a faclltty is not eligrble fot coverage under this Permit and must obtain coverage under anindividual NPDES permit when any of the following apply:

a) a schedule of compliance is required to address a pollution bazard;b).....k) any owner or operator authorized by a general permit may request to be excluded from the coverage ofthe general permit by app\ing for an individual permit. The owner or operator shall submit anapplication under $ 122.21,

' An application for an individual permit must include the information specified in \ 1,22.21. A notice ofintent for a general permit must include the information specified in $ 1,22.21, and $ 122.28.' When an individual NPDES permit is issued to an owner or operator otherwise subject to a generalNPDES permit, the applicability of the general permit to the individual NPDES permittee isautomatically terminated on the effective date of the individual permit.

Add the following requirements to sectjon 29, General Conditiow

Duty to appiy - Apy person who dischatges or proposes to discharge pollutants or who owns or operatesa "sludge-only factlity" whose seviage sludge use or disposal practice is regulated by part 503 of thischapter, and who does not have an effective permit, except persons covered by general permits under5122.28, excluded under $ 122.3, or a user of a privately o-.r.d treatment works unless the Directorrequires otherwise under $122.44(m), must submit a complete applicauon to the Director in accordancewith this section and part 124 of this chapter. The requirements for concentrated an:unal feedingoperations are described in \122.23 (d).Add the following requirement to section 29, Genenl Conditions:Duty to reapply - If the perrnittee wishes to continue an acivitiJ regulated by this permit after theexpiration date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit.Add the following requirement to section 29, General Conditions:Permit actions - This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filingof a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termin ation, or anotification of planned changes or anticipated noncompl-iance does not stay any permit condition.Add the following requirements to section 29, General Conditions:

1. Proper O & M - The permittee shall at all times propedy operate and maintain all facilities and systemsof treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used by the permittee toachieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also includesadequate laboratory controls and appropdate quality assurance procedures. This provision requires theoperation of back-up ot auxiliary facil,ities ot similar systems which are instalied by a permittee only whenthe operation is necessary to achieve compJiance with the conditions of the permit.2. Duty to ptovide information - The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time,any information which the Director may request to determine whether cause exists for modi$zing,revoking and reissuing, or terminating this permit or to determine compliance with this permit. Thepermittee shall also furnish to the Director upon request, copies of records required to be kept by thispermit.3. Monitoting reports - Monitoring results shal1 be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in thispermit.Add the following requirement to section 29, Gened Conditions:Signatory requirement - All appJications, reports, or information submitted to the Director shall be signedand certified. (See 9122.22)Add the following requirement to section 29, Gened Conditions:

p.

Planned changes. The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any plannedphysical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:

s. Add the requitements of 40 CtrF. 122.41 (m) to section 29, General Conditions. This section containsauthorization to bypass a pottion of a treatment facility and discharge. Review p^rt L7 .6 and providefurther clariry.

t. Add the requirements of 40 CtrP. 122.4L (n) to secuon 29, General Conditiorus.

Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance withtechnology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of thepermittee. An upset does not include noncompl-iance to the extent caused by operational eror,impropedy designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance,or cateless or improper operation. ........

u. Add the following to part 30.15, Definitions:"Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation" ('CAFO') means an AFO that is defined as a Large CAFOot as a Medium CAFO by the terms of 40 CFR $ L22.23b)Q), or that is designated as a CAFO inaccordance with 40 CF'R $ 122.23(c). Two or more AFOs under the common ownetship are consideredto be a single AFO for the purposes of determining the number of animals at an operation, if they adjoineach other or it they use a commofl area or system for the disposal of wastes.

v. Add the following to part 30, Definitions:"Multi-year phosphorus applicationrr means phosphorus applied to a field in excess of the crop needs forthat year. In muiti-year phosphorus applications, no additional manure, litter, or process wastewater isapplied to the same land in subsequent years until the applied phosphorus has been removed from thefield via harvest and crop removal.

'w. Add the following to part 30, Defnitiow"Setback" means a specified distance ftom sutface waters or potential conduits to surface waters wheremanure, littet, and process wastewater may not be land app[ed. Examples of conduits to surface watersinclude but are not limited to: Open tile line intake structures, si.nkholes, and agricultural well heads.

3. The USC would like to see the public notice period of 14 days (previously 30 days) for substantial changes tothe Manure Management Plan changed back to 30 days. The USC has two staff mernbers in the Office of theEnvironment to review all Federal, State, Local, and Tdbal enviriinmental issues. With limited staff, the 14-day public notice pedod is too short for approptiate teview and commentary. Since the 30 days has beeneffective for the past 5 yeats, the USC does not foresee any additional benefit to farmers in decreasing thenotice period but there is a substantial disadvantage to the public and the USC in the reduction of time from30 to 1.4 days for review and commentary.

4. The USC would like to see the Dtaft proposal to temove the requirement fot notification to the MN DutyOff,rcer for emergency winter manure applications dismissed. The MN Duty OfFrcer Reports are provided tothe USC Office of the Environment Staff and provides the Community with an undetstanding of potenualenvironmental issues within the region th^t may adverseiy affect tribal members. For the Community's healthand safety, the USC would like to see the report to the MN Duty Officer for emergency winter manureapplications stay in piace.

The Upper Sioux Community appteciates the time that MPCA has spent on updating their documents and hopes thatthese comments are fully considered and addressed in the updated Permit.

Sincerely,

4z4urI{evin JensvoldUpper Sioux Community, Chairman

7/22/20 Email – Jeff Potter

Mr. Schwint, I am writing in response to the proposed changes in the feedlot rules. The biggest change that would effect myself and other feedlots is proposing to not let us spread solid manure during Feb. and March. I do not know what the reason for this is, but those months are good because we can still get out on the fields. I we wait till April, that is when we start thinking about planting. We want to have manure hauled before long before planting starts. If we have to spread during April, we run the risk of compacting the soil and causing more water runoff problems. We are already staying away from lakes, waterways, intakes, and streams. To stock pile for 2 months and then spread is a waste of manpower, fuel, and puts more wear and tear on machinery. We already are having a hard time finding workers in the spring and this would make it even harder. Please, leave that change alone. Jeff Potter Potterosa Farms Inc.

7/22/20 Email – Erika Nagorske Dear Mr. George Schwint, My name is Dr. Erika Nagorske. I am a food animal veterinarian in Southwest Minnesota, based out of Worthington. I am writing to comment on the proposed changes to the General Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. I would like to express my grave concern with the proposed changes from the MPCA. The livestock producers I work with strive to be stewards of the land. If they do not take care of the land they use for crops or livestock, it will not be here in the future, for the next generation to be a successful livestock or crop producer. The proposed changes make it difficult, if not impossible, for producers to manage livestock manure and therefore runoff. I am very concerned of the requirement for a cover crop for manure applications in September. I am assuming the producer is expected to pay for the cover crop seed and management. This is a huge financial ask during such devastating times, when margins are nonexistent and producers are just trying to make it to next month. As a veterinarian, I have taken an oath to protect animal welfare and wellbeing. I take pride in helping my clients provide a safe and wholesome food supply to our country and the world. The proposal for an approval from the MPCA for application of manure-snow mix from animal holding areas during February and March is absurd. We have some of the worst snowstorms during those months in this part of the state. I would like you to consider the following scenario: it snows 12 inches over night at a feedlot in SW Minnesota on a Friday night. The bunks are in the middle of the pen. Since the producer must wait til approval to remove the manure-snow mix, they are unable to get to the feed bunks. Therefore, cattle get no feed. The wind blew 40mph gusts, so there are 5-6ft snowbanks, some cattle are stuck behind or even in the snowbank. These cattle are unable to reach feed or water. My producer is unable to remove snow until approval, since he has a small footprint and nowhere for that amount of manure-snow mix to go. Cattle suffer and animal welfare is in question. Since this producer was unable to move snow in a timely matter, cattle get sick and he even loses some. I have personally watched some of my clients hand shovel cattle out of these snowstorm events to give them the proper care. If these proposed changes are approved, my clients would also have to be worried about an approval to move snow and have the potential to greatly affect the welfare and wellbeing of their cattle. As a veterinarian, I am greatly opposed to this proposed rule. As you are aware, COVID-19 has destroyed livestock and crop markets for the foreseeable future. Livestock and crop producers have become used to the volatile markets, but the proposed changes will create more difficulty for our producers to operate in a successful manner. I hope the MPCA is able to understand the current financial stress and burden placed on producers and the negative impact these proposed changes will have. Our country prides itself on a safe and cheap food supply. The two proposals I mentioned above jeopardize both animal safety and the ability for a producer to provide an affordable product for our nation.

Thank you for your time, Erika Nagorske, DVM

July XX, 2020

MPCA

ATTN: George Schwint

12 Civic Center Plaza, Ste 2165

Mankato, MN 56001

RE: Minnesota Pork Producers comments for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination

System (NPDES) Permit

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Minnesota Feedlot NPDES permit. We

appreciate the outreach and meetings held during the process to gain input from the people who have

NPDES permits but are disappointed those suggestion were not incorporated in the changes for the

NPDES permit

Our comments are related to the issues around required mitigations for manure application in the

months of September and October, and public comment requirements for field additions to manure

management plans.

The single largest concern that our members have shared is the proposal for mitigation during the

month of October. We analyzed the soil temperature data from the University of Minnesota Research

and Outreach Centers’ in Waseca and Lamberton for the past ten years. During that time period, there

is one clear outlier but on average, over the last ten years, soil temperatures at the two locations have

averaged 52 degrees Fahrenheit on October 12.

That being the case, we do not agree with the proposed rule that would affect the entire month of

October for manure application. We recommend that the entire month of October be allowed for

manure application without required mitigation. Technology and other management practices can

ensure manure applications in the entire month of October can be done in an environmentally

responsible way.

In practice, a farm would only have the choice of a nitrogen stabilizer during October. It is the opinions

of many crop farmers that a cover crop planted in October has a low probability of being established

and therefore would not adequately serve its intended purpose of storing nutrients. This practice would

have little to no benefit for the environment or the farmer. Planting cover crops in season is a

developing practice that is not widely adopted. We would anticipate more and better information when

the next permit is developed.

Similar data for September shows soil temperatures are above 60 degrees Fahrenheit for the majority of

the month. We can support the cover crop planting for manure applied in September but also want to

add the option of nitrification inhibitors during the month of September. This gives another option for

management practices and data shows these resources can be effective at holding nitrogen.

MPPA also objects to the restriction on transferring manure in the winter months. We do not see the

need or logic in apply this new restriction.

The MPPA objects to the requirement of public notice when adding fields to a manure management

plan. We agree the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency should be informed of adding a field, but

would like to know under what authority the agency has to require a full public notice? Adding a field

does not produce more manure. It merely puts manure in a different place so it is benign as far as the

environmental protections are concerned. All setback and application requirement remain the same.

The requirement for public notice takes away the flexibility in years of unpredictable weather and

further burdens farmers. Providing notice to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding a

change in field takes a large amount of time and has historically not attracted many comments.

Our concern remains that if these above changes are made to the NPDES permit, applicators and

farmers will make different application decisions.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns regarding the NPDES Permit. If you

need further clarification or have questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you,

David Preisler

CEO, Minnesota Pork Producers Association

Enclosed: Soil Temperature Data from UMN Extension

../../../../../../../../Desktop/Soil%20Temp%20Data.xlsx

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Average

1 54.1 57.5 58.5 63 61 59.5 59.5 60 58 54 65.5 59.1

2 52.8 54.6 57 62 60.5 63 57.5 63 59 53 57 58.1

3 49.6 52.1 60 60.5 59.5 56.5 56 64 58.5 54 53 56.7

4 48.6 51.5 61 61 59.5 48 55 64 58 57 53 56.1

5 48.5 52.3 61.5 55.5 57.5 49 56 61.5 56.5 50.5 53 54.7

6 47.4 55.8 64.5 54 55.5 50.5 59 57 56.5 50.5 53 54.9

7 44.9 56.0 62.5 49 51.5 51 60 52 56 49.5 53 53.2

8 46.8 55.2 65.5 49 54 53 58.5 49.5 59.5 49 54 54.0

9 45.5 60.2 65 52 55.5 53 60 49.5 57.5 51.5 55.5 55.0

10 44.4 61.9 63.5 50.5 58 52 58 50 48.5 49.5 58 54.0

11 40.3 61.3 59.5 51 59.5 49.5 59 55 48 47.5 51.5 52.9

12 39.2 61.6 60 48 58 49 63.5 51 49.5 42 43 51.3

13 38.6 56.7 58.5 47.5 52.5 51.5 56.5 47 53.5 43.5 41 49.7

14 38.3 53.8 55.5 54.5 51.5 51 56.5 48 52 45.5 42.5 49.9

15 42.6 53.2 50 53 50 51 55.5 51.5 50 41 44 49.3

16 40.7 52.4 50 52.5 50 51 53.5 55 48 42 44.5 49.1

17 41.9 51.8 50 59 50 52.5 50.5 54 49 45 46.5 50.0

18 42.6 50.2 48.5 55.5 47.5 50 50.05 58 52 44.5 47 49.6

19 44.1 50.8 46.5 50 46 50.5 53.5 56 52 48.5 51.5 49.9

20 46.6 49.9 43.5 47 45.5 52.5 59 48.5 52 51.5 52.5 49.9

21 46.4 49.9 45 50 44 52 58 48 56.5 45.5 50 49.6

22 43.5 48.7 46.5 52 43 51 54 47.5 57 46 48 48.8

23 40.3 50.3 50 50.5 41 54 53 51 53 47 45 48.6

24 40.1 57.2 51 55.5 40 55 53.5 50 49.5 45 42.5 49.0

25 40.1 54.0 49.5 49.5 40.5 55 50 97 47.5 44.5 43 51.9

26 41.8 55.1 49.5 42 41.5 52.5 49 49.5 50 48 42.5 47.4

27 41.9 46.3 45.5 40.5 41.5 50 51 48.5 45.5 48.5 44.5 45.8

28 42.2 41.2 46 39.5 42.5 50.5 50 52 40 49 41.5 44.9

29 43.7 39.6 44.5 41.5 40.5 46 46.5 55.5 41.5 47 38.5 44.1

30 46.9 40.5 42 43.5 40.5 47.5 44.5 50.5 42.5 46 38.5 43.9

31 44.2 41.9 43.5 41.5 44 45 45 47.5 38 46 36.5 43.0

https://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/weather/historic-reports

https://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/weather

Soil Temperature average at a 4" depth in October- Southwest Research and Outreach Center- Lamberton, MN

https://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/weather/historic-reports

https://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/weather

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Average

1 54.5 63 59.5 63 64 60.5 63.5 63 61.5 54 66.5 61.18

2 51 61 58.0 63.5 66 59 61.5 66.5 59 53.5 59.5 59.86

3 48.5 56.5 59.5 62.5 64 57.5 60.5 66 60 54 55 58.55

4 49.5 56 62.0 62.5 63.0 50.5 60 66 60 57.5 53 58.18

5 49.5 56.5 63.0 59.5 61 49 57.5 65.5 63 51.5 52.5 57.14

6 47.5 57.5 66.5 56 58.5 47.5 61 61.5 57 51 51.5 55.95

7 44 60.5 65.0 52.5 55.5 49 62 57 56.5 50.5 53 55.05

8 45 59 67.0 51.5 56.5 52 61.5 53.5 57 50.5 54.5 55.27

9 42 62 69.0 52.5 57 52.5 61.5 52 57.5 52.5 55.5 55.82

10 42.5 65 68.0 50.5 60 53 58.5 52 53.5 52 58 55.73

11 37.5 64.5 63.0 49.5 61 51 58.5 56 49.5 49 54 53.95

12 39.5 64.5 63.0 49.5 60.5 50.5 64.5 60 50.5 43.5 46 53.82

13 38.5 62 60.5 48.5 55.0 51 56.5 53 56 43.5 41.5 51.45

14 36 58 56.5 52.5 54.5 53 56.5 52 53.5 44.5 42 50.82

15 37.5 56.5 54.5 53.5 52.5 52 56.5 52.5 51.5 41.5 44 50.23

16 38 58.5 54.0 53 52.0 52 55 57 50.5 42.5 46.5 50.82

17 40 58 52.5 55.5 49.5 52 49.5 57 50.5 43.5 45.5 50.32

18 39.5 56 50.5 54.5 49.5 51.5 49.5 60.5 54 43.5 47 50.55

19 42.5 54 48.0 52 49.5 52 52.5 58.5 55.5 45 50 50.86

20 46.5 53 46.5 51 46.0 52 58 54.5 54.5 49.5 53 51.32

21 46 52.5 47.0 50 45.0 53 60 52.5 57.5 44 50.5 50.73

22 41 50 46.5 52 42.5 52 54.5 50 57 43 49.5 48.91

23 39.5 50.5 50.0 53.5 40.5 51 55 53 54.5 44.5 44.5 48.77

24 39.5 55.5 50.0 56.5 40.0 55 54 53.5 50 44.5 43 49.23

25 39 56 49.0 55 41.0 53.5 50 51.5 48 42.5 42.5 48.00

26 40 56 50.5 49 41.5 52.5 48.5 49 48.5 45.5 41.5 47.50

27 41 50.5 48.5 44 44.0 50.5 52 49 47 46 43.5 46.91

28 41 44 47.5 43.5 43.5 53 51 49 42 49 41.5 45.91

29 43 41.5 44.5 42.5 44.0 47.5 45.5 51.5 40 46.5 40.5 44.27

30 46.5 41 43.5 41 44.0 47 43.5 52 40 45.5 40 44.00

31 40.5 43.5 45.5 41 46.5 43.5 46.5 48.5 38.5 46 37.5 43.41

Soil Temperature average at a 4" depth in October-Southern Research and Outreach Center-Waseca, MN

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average 2016 2017 2018 2019

1 54.5 58.5 56.5 61 59.5 53.5 52 56.50 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

2 51 56.5 54.5 58 58 60 49 55.29 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

3 48.5 55.5 58.5 56 55.5 56.5 47.5 54.00 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

4 49.5 53 59.5 56.5 3.5 44 47 44.71 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

5 49.5 53.5 60 47.5 54.5 46 47 51.14 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

6 47.5 55.5 62.5 45 53.5 43.5 53 51.50 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

7 44 57.5 60.5 43 49.5 46 47 49.64 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

8 45 56 63.5 43 50.5 49.5 45.5 50.43 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

9 42 59.5 61.5 45.5 53.5 48.5 51.5 51.71 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

10 42.5 61 62 42.5 56 47.5 50 51.64 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

11 37.5 60.5 58 43.5 57.5 47.5 53 51.07 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

12 39.5 61.5 59.5 43.5 55.5 45.5 57.5 51.79 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

13 38.5 58.5 58 41.5 48 47.5 44.5 48.07 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

14 36 56 55 51.5 46 50.5 43.5 48.36 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

15 37.5 54 49.5 48 48 51 45.5 47.64 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

16 38 53 49 47 44 50 36 45.29 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

17 40 53 47 55 44.5 52.5 34.5 46.64 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

18 39.5 50 46 50.5 41.5 50 39 45.21 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

19 42.5 50 43 47 41 46.5 43 44.71 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

20 46.5 49 42.5 46 41 45 50 45.71 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

21 46 49.5 43.5 47.5 39 50.5 48.5 46.36 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

22 41 48 43.5 48.5 38 49.5 40 44.07 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

23 39.5 49 46 50.5 36.5 52 40.5 44.86 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

24 39.5 49.5 48 53 37 53.5 44 46.36 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

25 39 49 46 47.5 37.5 54 40.5 44.79 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

26 40 51 46.5 40 38 49 43 43.93 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

27 41 48 43 38 38 46 46.5 42.93 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

28 41 43.5 43.5 39 38.5 44 43 41.79 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

29 43 42 42 41.5 37.5 41 38 40.71 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

30 46.5 41.5 39.5 41.5 37 42 37.5 40.79 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

31 40.5 42.5 39 40.5 38.5 38.5 40 39.93 data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable data unavailable

Soil Temperature average at a 4" depth in October-West Central Research and Outreach Center-Morris, MN

7/22/20 Email with attachment – Brent and Bryce Krohn George Thanks again for coming out to our farm to talk about proposed changes to the NPDES general livestock permit. With regards to the proposed NPDES general livestock permit changes:

1. What is the basis for the proposed changes to the current NPDES permit?

a. Please provide documentation of the research, who conducted the research, on

what scale the research was completed, and who sponsored the research.

b. What research has the MPCA all reviewed or considered in proposing these

changes?

c. What organizations / lobbyists have provided input on the proposed changes?

2. Can the MPCA provide full scale peer reviewed research on the benefits that the proposed

changes to the NPDES permit will have on the environment?

3. What is the measurable outcome that the MPCA hopes to achieve by implementing these

new standards?

a. How will these outcomes be measured?

b. What additional research will occur to determine whether this is the best route

forward?

c. Who will fund research and data collection?

d. Who will perform research and data collection?

The proposed changes would represent a significant cost to producers as follows:

Instinct II (stabilizer)

Fall Applied (74 oz/ac) = $26.40 / Acre (product only)

Spring Applied (37 oz/ac) = $13.20 / Acre (product only)

Injection into manure = $6 /Acre (cost to carry around tote, purchase pump,

deal with pump issues, etc.)

TOTAL COST = $19.20 - $32.40 / ac

Cover Crops

Tillage Radish = $12/ac

Annual Ryegrass = $27/ac

Certified Oats = $18/ac

Seeding = $15/ac

TOTAL COST = $27 - $42 / acre

4. Has research been done to prove that there is economic benefit to justify this expense?

5. Who will help pay for this additional expense to the farmer if there is no economic benefit

to offset it?

You have made mention that there have been very few emergency applications of livestock manure

over the past few years which is great news. My concern with these proposed changes is that they will

force more emergency applications to occur. Minnesota agriculture typically has a very small window in

which to work for harvest due to winter weather. In the recent past we have experienced some tough

and very wet falls where we struggle to get everything done. The state of Minnesota is also stressed on

application capacity prior to these additional proposed changes.

Lets assume a typical window of 9 weeks for application (October, November, 1st week of

December) If we lose 3 of these weeks that’s 1/3 of our application window and 1/3 of our capacity. As

a custom applicator who still needs to pay the bills this would increase my application costs around

20%. This reduction in capacity would also force me to drop clients who may not have many other

options for pumping their barns other than to self perform which is quite costly as well. Furthermore

this will lead to more required emergency winter applications due to decrease in the application

window.

While spring pumping is an option, it is not how most farms are setup to operate and it is also

not a good agronomic practice. 1 out of the last 4 springs we saw no decrease in yield due to spring

application. The issue with spring application is that by the time the ground is dry enough and fit the

planter should be in the field. If you go too soon the fields are wet, you risk getting stuck, and you put

compaction into the field that will not have a frost cycle to break up. Waiting until the ground is fit

typically means a couple day delay in planting which has been known to cause a noticeable decrease in

yield (see attached charts from our farm). Based on these a 1 day loss in plant date for our own farm in

2019 resulted in a 21 bushel decline in harvest yield and planting 2 days later resulted in a 50 bushel per

acre decline. While it may not be this way every year we have seen it year over year on our farm. A 21

BPA decrase @ $3 corn is a $63 / acre loss on a 50 PA decrease is a $150 / ac loss. These are real

numbers.

EXAMPLE COSTS

For my families 4000 head hog finishing site:

1,200,000 gallons of manure at 3750 gallons per acre = 320 acres covered

320 acres x $32.40 / acre (fall applied stabilizer) = $10,368

20% increase in pumping costs = $.014 / gallon x 1.2 = $.0168 /gallon

$.0168 - $.014 = $0.0028 / gallon increase x 1,200,000 = $3360 increased application costs

TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS = $13,728 OR $42.90 / ACRE

I have also attached the ISU estimated costs of crop production in Iowa for 2020 which estimates cost of

production of corn @ $3.76 / bushel for corn-on-corn and $3.23 for corn-on-beans (see page 3). Looking

at markets today for the next year out the range is $2.92 - $3.15. Based on this your average farmer is

already losing money. How can the MPCA justify these proposed NPDES changes to a farmer who is

already losing money to spend/lose an additional $42.90/ acre?

As a farmer I am all for doing what is right for the environment provided it has been PROVEN to

be effective and that the benefits can be justified. If you can answer the above questions with provided

documentation it would be greatly appreciated. If the above questions can not be answered and

justified with solid research and data, I encourage the MPCA to NOT ADOPT the proposed changes.

Thanks Bryce Brent Krohn mobile: 507.380.9313 Bryce Krohn mobile: 507.381.0578

Ag Decision Maker

File A1-20

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2020The estimated costs of corn, corn silage, soybeans, alfalfa, and pasture maintenance in this report are based on data from several sources. They include the annual Iowa Farm Business Association record summaries, production and costs data from the Departments of Economics, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, and Agronomy at Iowa State University, and a survey of selected agricultural cooperatives and other input suppliers around the state.

These cost estimates are representative of average costs for farms in Iowa. Very large or small farms may have lower or higher fixed costs per acre.

Due to differences in soil potentials, quantity of inputs used, and other factors, production costs will vary from farm to farm. Price shifts for inputs can change production costs in both the short and long run. The data reflect average cost of purchased inputs and a return to land and labor resources, but do not provide a margin for profit or a return to management. They reflect production costs only, and do not include costs of storage.

Labor has been treated as a fixed cost because most labor on Iowa farms is supplied by the operator, family, or permanent hired labor. However, when deciding among alternative crops, labor should be considered a variable cost. The wage rate used here is $14.75 per hour. The hours assumed per crop are presented in the budgets. The hours per crop acre include not only the field work but also time for maintenance, travel, and other activities related to crop production. The land charge is based on cash rent equivalent. Owned land may require a greater or lesser cash outlay.

In the short run, cash income must be sufficient to pay cash costs, including seed, fertilizer, chemicals, insurance, cash rent, and hired labor, as well as machinery fuel and repairs, and interest on operating capital. In the long run, income should be sufficient to pay all costs of production for resources to be used in their most profitable alternative.

Starting in 2019, reference yields for corn and soybean budgets reflect 30-year trend yields and are updated annually. Corn yields reflect rotation effects. Fertilizer rates have been adjusted to reflect current data on removal and application rates. Crop insurance costs reflect revenue crop protection at 80% coverage for a typical farm in Central Iowa. Starting in 2020, the average cost of lime is adjusted to account for regional differences in lime application practices (ag lime quality, quantity, and frequency of application).

Machinery costs reflect both new and used equipment. The machine operations assumed are based on the 2000 Crop Production Practices Survey conducted by the Iowa Agricultural Statistics Service and Iowa State University Extension and Outreach publication PM 696, Estimating the Field Capacity of Farm Machines, https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/4032. The Estimated Machinery Costs table can be used to budget other tillage and harvesting systems.

Estimates represent typical costs and are only intended to be guidelines. Actual costs will vary considerably and can be entered in the column for “Your Estimates.” Electronic spreadsheets for developing crop production budgets are available on the Ag Decision Maker website, www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm.

Budgets for alfalfa hay establishment with an oat companion crop and by direct seeding are included in this publication. Annual production costs for established alfalfa or alfalfa-grass hay as well as a budget for maintaining grass pastures are included.

Two low-till budgets, one for corn and one for soybean, are included. The major differences between the low-till and conventional budgets are the preharvest machinery, labor, herbicide, and seeding costs. The soybean budgets are for herbicide tolerant varieties. A strip-till budget is also included.

FM 1712 Revised January 2020

https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/4032

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2020

Corn Following Corn

164 bushelsper acre

182 bushelsper acre

200 bushelsper acre

YourEstimateFixed Variable Fixed Variable Fixed Variable

Preharvest Machinery 1/ $23.20 $21.20 $23.20 $21.20 $23.20 $21.20 $

Seed, Chemical, etc. Units Units UnitsSeed @$3.22 per 1000 kernel 25,000 $80.50 30,000 $96.60 35,000 $112.70 $

Nitrogen @$0.34 per pound 186 63.24 186 63.24 186 63.24

Phosphate @$0.34 per pound 62 21.08 68 23.12 75 25.50

Potash @$0.31 per pound 49 15.19 55 17.05 60 18.60

Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 12.49 12.49

Herbicide 31.85 31.85 31.85

Insecticide 23.79 23.79 23.79

Crop insurance 8.70 9.70 10.50

Miscellaneous 9.00 10.00 11.00

Interest on preharvest variable costs (8 months @ 5.8%) 11.10 11.95 12.79

Total $276.94 $299.79 $322.46 $

Harvest MachineryCombine $13.00 $6.80 $13.00 $6.80 $13.00 $6.80 $

Grain cart 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00

Haul 7.05 6.23 7.83 6.92 8.60 7.60

Dry (LP gas @$1.12 per gallon) 8.20 22.04 9.10 24.46 10.00 26.88

Handle (auger) 2.87 3.21 3.19 3.57 3.50 3.92

Total $37.32 $41.29 $39.31 $44.74 $41.30 $48.20 $

Labor2.80 hours @ $14.75 $41.30 $41.30 $41.30 $

LandCash rent equivalent $183.00 $219.00 $255.00 $

Total fixed, variable

Per acre $284.82 $339.43 $322.81 $365.73 $360.80 $391.86 Yield: bushelsper acrePer bushel $1.74 $2.07 $1.77 $2.01 $1.80 $1.96

Total cost per acre $624.25 $688.54 $752.66 $

Total cost per bushel $3.81 $3.78 $3.76 $1/ Chisel plow, tandem disk, apply Nitrogen, field cultivate, plant, and spray. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table.


Corn Following Soybean

179 bushelsper acre

199 bushelsper acre

219 bushelsper acre






Potash @$0.31 per pound 54 16.74 60 18.60 66 20.46

Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 12.49 12.49

Herbicide 31.85 31.85 31.85



Interest on preharvest variable costs (8 months @5.8%) 9.43 10.31 11.16

Total $236.03 $259.59 $282.58 $


Grain cart 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00

Haul 7.70 6.80 8.56 7.56 9.42 8.32


Handle (auger) 3.13 3.51 3.48 3.90 3.83 4.29

Total $38.98 $44.17 $41.19 $48.01 $43.40 $51.85 $

Labor2.55 hours @ $14.75 $37.61 $37.61 $37.61 $





Total cost per bushel $3.22 $3.23 $3.23 $1/ Apply Nitrogen, tandem disk, field cultivate, plant, and spray. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table.


Corn Silage Following Corn

21 tonsper acre

24 tonsper acre

26 tonsper acre






Potash @$0.31 per pound 168 52.08 192 59.52 208 64.48

Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 12.49 12.49

Herbicide 31.85 31.85 31.85

Insecticide 23.79 23.79 23.79




Total $319.33 $351.89 $380.62 $

Harvest MachinerySilage harvester $49.20 $31.20 $49.20 $31.20 $49.20 $31.20 $

Haul 27.93 26.88 31.92 30.72 34.58 33.28

Store silage (unloader) 8.82 2.73 10.08 3.12 10.92 3.38

Total $85.95 $60.81 $91.20 $65.04 $94.70 $67.86 $

Labor4.95 hours @ $14.75 $73.01 $73.01 $73.01 $



Per acre $365.16 $401.34 $406.41 $438.13 $445.91 $469.68 Yield: tonsper acrePer ton $17.39 $19.11 $16.93 $18.26 $17.15 $18.06


Total cost per ton $36.50 $35.19 $35.22 $1/ Chisel plow, tandem disk, apply Nitrogen, field cultivate, plant, and spray. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table.


Herbicide Tolerant Soybean Following Corn

50 bushelsper acre

56 bushelsper acre

62 bushelsper acre



Seed, Chemical, etc. Units Units UnitsSeed @$47.40 per 140,000 kernel 140,000 $47.40 140,000 $47.40 140,000 $47.40 $


Potash @$0.31 per pound 75 23.25 84 26.04 93 28.83

Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 12.49 12.49

Herbicide 41.62 41.62 41.62




Total $161.78 $168.52 $175.16 $


Grain cart 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00

Haul 2.15 1.90 2.41 2.13 2.67 2.36

Handle (auger) 0.88 0.98 0.98 1.10 1.09 1.22

Total $17.53 $9.98 $17.89 $10.33 $18.25 $10.67 $

Labor2.20 hours @ $14.75 $32.45 $32.45 $32.45 $




$444.64 $488.09 $531.43 $Total cost per acre

Total cost per bushel $8.89 $8.72 $8.57 $

1/ Chisel plow, tandem disk, field cultivate, plant, and two sprays. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table. 2/ Estimates do not include any insecticide or fungicide costs.


Strip Tillage Corn and SoybeanCorn Following Soybean Herbicide Tolerant Soybean Following Corn

199 bushels per acre Your Estimate

56 bushels per acre Your EstimateFixed Variable Fixed Variable

Preharvest Machinery 1/ $11.00 $9.90 $


Seed, Chemical, etc. Units Seed, Chemical, etc. UnitsSeed @$3.22 per 1000 kernel 30,000 $96.60 $

Seed @ $47.40 per 140,000 kernel 160,000 $54.17 $

Nitrogen @ $0.34 per pound 131 44.54 Phosphate @ $0.34 per pound 75 25.50

Phosphate @ $0.34 per pound 45 15.30

Potash @ $0.31 per pound 60 18.60


Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 Herbicide 2/ 35.01 Herbicide 2/ 42.00 Crop insurance 9.70 Crop insurance 8.70 Miscellaneous 10.00 Miscellaneous 10.00 Interest on preharvest variable costs (8 months @ 5.8%) 10.14

Interest on preharvest variable costs (8 months @ 5.8%) 6.98

Total $262.58 $ Total $175.68 $

Harvest MachineryCombine $13.00 $6.80 $ Combine $8.30 $4.10 $

Grain cart 6.20 3.00 Grain cart 6.20 3.00 Haul 8.56 7.56 Haul 2.41 2.13 Dry (LP gas @$1.12 per gallon) 9.95 26.75 Handle (auger) 3.48 3.90 Handle (auger) 0.98 1.10

Total $41.19 $48.01 $ Total $17.89 $10.33 $

Labor2.25 hours @$14.75 $33.19 $ 1.70 hours @$14.75 $25.08 $

LandCash rent equivalent $219.00 $ Cash rent equivalent $219.00 $


Per acre $304.38 $320.49 Yield: bushels/acre

Per acre $275.36 $197.70 Yield: bushels/acrePer bushel $1.53 $1.61 Per bushel $4.92 $3.53

Total cost per acre $624.87 $ Total cost per acre $473.07 $

Total cost per bushel $3.14 $ Total cost per bushel $8.45 $1/ Strip till, plant, and spray for corn. No-till drill, two sprays for soybean. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table. 2/ Estimates do not include any insecticide or fungicide costs.


Non-Herbicide Tolerant Soybean Following CornSoybean Following Corn Drilled Soybean Following Corn



Preharvest Machinery 1/ $21.50 $19.10 $ $18.50 $15.80 $

Seed, Chemical, etc. Units Units

Seed @$33.00 per 140,000 kernel 130,000 $30.60 $ 150,000 $35.40 $

Phosphate @ $0.34 per pound 45 15.30 45 15.30

Potash @ $0.31 per pound 84 26.04 84 26.04

Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 12.49

Herbicide 2/ 55.00 42.00

Crop insurance 8.70 8.70

Miscellaneous 10.00 10.00

Interest on preharvest variable costs (8 months @ 5.8%) 6.85 6.41

Total $164.98 $ $156.34 $

Harvest MachineryCombine $8.30 $4.10 $ $8.30 $4.10 $

Grain cart 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00

Haul 2.41 2.13 2.41 2.13

Handle (auger) 0.98 1.10 0.98 1.10

Total $17.89 $10.33 $ $17.89 $10.33 $

Labor

2.40 hours @$14.75 $35.40 $

1.72 hours @$14.75 $25.37 $

Land

Cash rent equivalent $219.00 $ $219.00 $


Per acre $293.79 $194.41Yield: bushels/acre

$280.76 $182.46Yield: bushels/acrePer bushel $5.25 $3.47 $5.01 $3.26

Total cost per acre $488.20 $ $463.22 $

Total cost per bushel $8.72 $ $8.27 $1/Chisel plow, tandem disk, field cultivate, plant, cultivate, and spray. Tandem disk, field cultivate, drill, and spray for drilled soybeans. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table.2/Estimates do not include any insecticide or fungicide costs


Low-till Corn and SoybeanCorn Following Soybean Herbicide Tolerant Soybean Following Corn




Seed, Chemical, etc. Units UnitsSeed @ $3.22 per 1000 kernel 30,000 $96.60 $

Seed @ $47.40 per 140,000 kernel 160,000 $54.20 $

Nitrogen @ $0.34 per pound 131 44.54





Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 Lime (yearly cost) 12.49

Herbicide 2/ 35.01 Herbicide 2/ 42.00

Crop insurance 9.70 Crop insurance 8.70

Miscellaneous 10.00 Miscellaneous 10.00 Interest on preharvest variable costs (8 months @ 5.8%) 10.30


Total $262.74 $ Total $175.70 $

Harvest Machinery

Combine $13.00 $6.80 $ Combine $8.30 $4.10 $

Grain cart 6.20 3.00 Grain cart 6.20 3.00

Haul 8.56 7.56 Haul 2.41 2.13 Dry (LP gas @$1.12 per gallon) 9.95 26.75

Handle (auger) 3.48 3.90 Handle (auger) 0.98 1.10

Total $41.19 $48.01 $ Total $17.89 $10.33 $

Labor

2.25 hours @$14.75 $33.19 $ 1.70 hours @$14.75 $25.08 $

Land

Cash rent equivalent $219.00 $ Cash rent equivalent $219.00 $





Total cost per bushel $3.18 $ Total cost per bushel $8.45 $

1/ Apply Nitrogen, cultivate, plant, and spray for corn. Disk, drill, and spray for soybeans. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table.2/ Estimates do not include any insecticide or fungicide costs.


Oat and Hay Production - Seedling Year CostsAlfalfa-Grass Seeded

with Oat Companion Crop 1/

Alfalfa Seeded with Herbicide 2/

Your EstimateEstablishment Costs Fixed Variable Fixed Variable

Preharvest Machinery Spray herbicide $2.20 $2.00 $Tandem disk (2 times) $9.20 $6.80 9.20 6.80 Spread fertilizer 1.90 1.60 1.90 1.60 Harrow 2.10 1.50 2.10 1.50 Seed (drill) 4.50 4.10 4.50 4.10Total preharvest machinery $17.70 $14.00 $19.90 $16.00 $

Seed 3/

Oat 2 bushels $17.72 $Alfalfa 8 pounds 34.24 15 pounds $64.20Bromegrass 6 pounds 14.88 Orchardgrass 3 pounds 10.02Total seed cost $76.86 $64.20 $

Herbicide $13.10 $Lime (total cost for hay lifetime) $21.00 21.00Labor: 1 hour @ $14.75 $14.75 $14.75 $

Total establishment costs $32.45 $111.86 $34.65 $114.30 $

Annual Costs Fixed Variable Fixed VariableYour

Estimate

One-third of Establishment Costs (for establishment year) $10.82 $37.29 $11.55 $38.10 $

FertilizerNitrogen 60 pounds $20.40 $

Phosphorus 45 pounds 15.30 35 pounds $11.90Potash 130 pounds 40.30 125 pounds 38.75Total fertilizer $76.00 $50.65 $

Insurance, oats $2.50 $

Labor @ $14.75 4 hours $59.00 3 hours $44.25 $

Land (cash rent equivalent) $119.00 $119.00 $

Harvest MachineryOat: combine and haul grain $10.94 $6.14 $

Oat: rake, bale, and haul straw 12.10 9.35Alfalfa: mower-conditioner, rake, bale, and haul hay 18.47 14.43 $37.87 $30.33Total harvest cost $41.51 $29.93 $37.87 $30.33 $

Total fixed and variable costs $230.32 $145.71 $212.67 $119.08 $

Total cost per acre $376.04 $331.75 $1/ Assumes 80 bushels oat yield, one ton straw yield, and one ton per acre alfalfa yield from one cutting. 2/ Assumes two and a half tons per acre from two alfalfa cuttings with herbicide-assisted seeding.3/ Omit oats from August seedings. Higher priced seed varieties or different seed mixtures could vary these costs by 1.2 to 2.0 times.


Annual Production Costs for Established Alfalfa or Alfalfa-Grass Hay

Hay Production Level

4 tons per acre 1/ 6 tons per acreYour

EstimateFixed Variable Fixed Variable

One-third of establishment costs Machinery, seed, lime, labor, and herbicide 2/ $10.82 $37.29 $11.55 $38.10 $

Annual fertilizer 3/ 0-13-50 pounds per ton removed plus spreading and insurance $1.90 $83.18 $3.80 $125.57 $

Harvesting Costs: Large Round Bales 4/

Mower-conditioner, rake, baling, and hauling $57.27 $46.23 $77.60 $63.60 $

Labor costs: 1.33 hours per cutting @ $14.75 per hour $59.00 $78.67 $

Land: Cash rent equivalent $119.00 $160.00 $

Total fixed and variable cost using large round bales per acre $247.98 $166.70 $331.62 $227.27 $

Fixed, variable cost per ton $62.00 $41.68 $55.27 $37.88 $

Total cost per acre $414.68 $558.89 $

Total cost per ton $103.67 $93.15 $

Harvesting Costs: Small Square Bales 4/

Mower-conditioner, rake, baling, hauling, and stack $54.50 $44.12 $74.00 $60.92 $

Labor costs: 2 hours per cutting @ $14.75 per hour $88.50 $118.00 $


Total fixed and variable cost using small square bales per acre $274.72 $164.58 $367.35 $224.59 $




1/ For harvest as silage, use machine cost estimates from the Estimated Machinery Costs table.2/ Assumes alfalfa-grass seeded with oat companion crop. If alfalfa seeded with preplant herbicide, then use other costs (see previous page).3/ For 6-ton yield goal, a split application of fertilizer is assumed.4/ Harvest cost estimates assume 3 cuttings for 4 tons and 4 cuttings for 6 tons.


Maintaining Grass Pastures - Annual Cost per AcreImproved Grass 2/ Improved Grass-Legume 3/

Your EstimateFixed Variable Fixed Variable

Machinery Costs

Spreading fertilizer $1.90 $1.60 $1.90 $1.60 $

Spraying herbicide 2.20 2.00

Clipping weeds 6.50 4.20 6.50 4.20

Total machinery cost $10.60 $7.80 $8.40 $5.80 $

Fertilizer and Herbicide 1/

Nitrogen @ $0.34 per pound 80 pounds $27.20 $

Phosphate @ $0.34 per pound 30 pounds 10.20 30 pounds $10.20

Potash @ $0.31 per pound 40 pounds 12.40

Herbicide 2.62

Total fertilizer and herbicide $40.02 $22.60 $

Labor

Growing practices .5 hours @ $14.75 $7.38 $7.38 $

Fence maintenance 1 hours @ $14.75 14.75 14.75

Total labor $22.13 $22.13 $

Land

Cash rent equivalent $51.00 $75.00 $

Total annual cost $83.73 $47.82 $105.53 $28.40 $

Total annual cost per acre $131.55 $133.93 $

1/ These are average rates and may vary with soil test and the level of management on a particular field. Different herbicide alternatives could vary this cost.

2/ Improved grass pastures assume a dominance of cool season grasses such as smooth bromegrass, orchardgrass, tall fescue, or reed canarygrass.

3/ Improved grass-legume pasture assumed one-third of the forage is made up of red clover, birdsfoot trefoil, or alfalfa.


Estimated Machinery CostsThe following cost estimates are for on-farm use, excluding labor. Depreciation is based on current replacement cost; interest is based on average market rates. Fixed costs will be greater for newer machinery. If annual machine use is greater than that assumed, fixed costs per acre will be lower, and vice versa. Hauling costs are based on a round trip of one mile. Remember these are estimates and they should not take the place of accurate recordkeeping. Diesel fuel is estimated to cost $2.53 per gallon, delivered to the farm in bulk.

OperationHours of Use

Assumed per Year

Fixed Cost per Acre(depreciation, interest,

insurance, housing)

Variable Costper Acre

(fuel, oil, repairs)Subsoiling (V-ripper) 120 $6.30 $7.60 Moldboard plow 120 9.00 9.60 Chisel plow 120 3.60 3.90 Chop stalks 120 4.90 4.90 Tandem disk 120 4.60 3.40 Offset disk 120 3.80 3.30 Peg tooth harrow 60 2.10 1.50 Sprayer/disk 120 3.70 2.90 Field cultivator 120 2.70 2.70 Disk/Field cultivator 120 2.60 2.70 Strip tiller 120 3.00 3.10 Bulk fertilizer spreader 60 1.90 1.60 NH3 applicator 120 4.30 4.40 Chisel plow, NH3 applicator 120 6.00 6.80 Grain drill 100 4.50 4.10 Broadcast seeder 100 2.90 1.70 Planter 100 5.80 4.80 No-till planter 100 7.40 6.30 No-till drill 100 9.00 7.70 Rotary hoe 60 1.80 1.10 Cultivator 120 2.60 2.30 Sprayer 150 2.20 2.00 Combine corn 180 13.00 6.80 Combine soybeans 120 8.30 4.10 Combine small grain 120 7.50 3.10 Haul grain (on farm) 600 0.043/bushel 0.038/bushel Grain cart 200 6.20 3.00Store grain (auger) 0.0175/bushel 0.0196/bushel Silage harvester 200 49.20 31.20Haul silage 140 1.33/ton 1.28/ton Store silage (unloader) 0.42/ton 0.13/ton Rotary mower 120 6.50 4.20 Mower-conditioner 120 5.40 4.30 Rake 120 3.10 2.00 Small square baler 120 7.00/cutting 4.20/cutting Round baler 120 8.10 5.20 Large square baler 120 8.60 6.20Windrower 200 3.00 2.10Forage chopper 200 17.80 13.60Haul small square bales 120 2.00/ton 3.15/ton Haul large round bales 120 1.87/ton 2.93/ton


Estimated Crop Production Costs in Iowa, 2011-20202011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20191/ 2020

Corn Following Corn Machinery $152.73 $147.37 $147.37 $155.29 $144.99 $129.92 $119.83 $132.80 $134.38 $128.46 Seed, chemicals, etc. 341.92 376.81 372.43 340.27 357.80 330.55 287.19 279.81 313.70 299.79 Labor 33.06 33.35 34.91 37.05 37.05 37.05 36.40 39.20 39.90 41.30 Land 215.00 258.00 276.00 287.00 273.00 266.00 230.00 219.00 223.00 219.00 Total cost per acre 742.70 815.53 830.70 819.61 812.83 763.52 673.41 670.80 710.98 688.54 Assumed yield 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 182 bu. 182 bu. Total cost per bushel $4.50 $4.94 $5.03 $4.97 $4.93 $4.63 $4.08 $4.07 $3.91 $3.78 Corn Following Soybean Machinery $151.54 $144.22 $144.22 $152.28 $142.18 $126.74 $116.56 $130.47 $132.22 $126.10 Seed, chemicals, etc. 300.13 329.14 324.61 298.80 311.84 292.47 251.48 241.86 279.96 259.59 Labor 30.16 30.42 31.85 33.80 33.80 33.80 33.15 35.70 36.34 37.61 Land 215.00 258.00 276.00 287.00 273.00 266.00 230.00 219.00 223.00 219.00 Total cost per acre 696.83 761.78 776.68 771.88 760.81 719.01 631.18 627.03 671.51 642.30 Assumed yield 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 198 bu. 199 bu. Total cost per bushel $3.87 $4.23 $4.31 $4.29 $4.23 $3.99 $3.51 $3.48 $3.39 $3.23Soybean Following Corn 2/

Machinery $72.70 $80.70 $80.70 $84.70 $79.17 $75.43 $67.40 $68.67 $68.43 $68.11 Seed, chemicals, etc. 156.52 180.89 163.44 155.65 166.38 162.63 157.11 154.41 183.61 168.52 Labor 28.42 26.33 27.56 29.25 29.25 29.25 28.60 30.80 31.35 32.45 Land 215.00 258.00 276.00 287.00 273.00 266.00 230.00 219.00 223.00 219.00 Total cost per acre 472.64 545.91 547.71 556.60 547.80 533.30 483.11 472.89 506.38 488.09 Assumed yield 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 56 bu. 56 bu. Total cost per bushel $9.45 $10.92 $10.95 $11.13 $10.96 $10.67 $9.66 $9.46 $9.04 $8.72Alfalfa Hay, annual production, 6 ton per acre, large round bales One-third of est. costs $52.75 $52.48 $54.25 $58.17 $60.62 $57.93 $60.03 $51.43 $48.50 $49.65 Annual fertilizer 199.82 227.92 200.94 164.14 166.88 148.21 109.05 121.48 135.37 129.37 Harvest machinery 159.60 174.50 174.50 179.60 167.60 159.20 140.80 144.40 141.60 141.20 Labor 61.87 62.40 65.33 69.33 69.33 69.33 69.33 74.67 76.00 78.67 Land 124.00 150.00 161.00 167.00 167.00 170.00 165.00 157.00 157.00 160.00 Total cost per acre 598.04 667.30 656.02 638.24 631.43 604.67 544.22 548.97 558.47 558.89 Assumed yield 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton Total cost per ton $99.67 $111.22 $109.34 $106.37 $105.24 $100.78 $90.70 $91.49 $93.08 $93.15 1/ Starting in 2019, reference yields for corn and soybean budgets reflect 30-year trend yields. 2/ Soybean estimates are for herbicide tolerant varieties.

Iowa State University Extension and Outreach does not discriminate on the basis of age, disability, ethnicity, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, pregnancy, race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or status as a U.S. veteran, or other protected classes. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies may be directed to the Diversity Advisor, 2150 Beardshear Hall, 515 Morrill Road, Ames, Iowa 50011, 515-294-1482, [email protected]. All other inquiries may be directed to 800-262-3804.

Prepared by Alejandro Plastinaextension economist

[email protected]

www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm store.extension.iastate.edu

7/22/20 Email with attachment – Granby Pumping and Application LLC George With regards to the proposed NPDES general livestock permit changes:

1. What is the basis for the proposed changes to the current NPDES permit?

a. Please provide documentation of the research, who conducted the research, on

what scale the research was completed, and who sponsored the research.

b. What research has the MPCA all reviewed or considered in proposing these

changes?

c. What organizations / lobbyists have provided input on the proposed changes?

2. Can the MPCA provide full scale peer reviewed research on the benefits that the proposed

changes to the NPDES permit will have on the environment?

3. What is the measurable outcome that the MPCA hopes to achieve by implementing these

new standards?

a. How will these outcomes be measured?

b. What additional research will occur to determine whether this is the best route

forward?

c. Who will fund research and data collection?

d. Who will perform research and data collection?

The proposed changes would represent a significant cost to producers as follows:

Instinct II (stabilizer)

Fall Applied (74 oz/ac) = $26.40 / Acre (product only)

Spring Applied (37 oz/ac) = $13.20 / Acre (product only)

Injection into manure = $6 /Acre (cost to carry around tote, purchase pump,

deal with pump issues, etc.)

TOTAL COST = $19.20 - $32.40 / ac

Aggregated fertilizer results from a local coop for 2019:

Fall Manure Only: 188.4 bu/acre

Fall Manure + Instinct: 188.7 bu/acre

Average Fall manure program: 188.5

Commercial broadcast fertilizer program: 185.1

University of Minnesota broadcast fertilizer program: 177.5

Cover Crops

Tillage Radish = $12/ac

Annual Ryegrass = $27/ac

Certified Oats = $18/ac

Seeding = $15/ac

TOTAL COST = $27 - $42 / acre

4. Has research been done to prove that there is economic benefit to justify this expense?

5. Who will help pay for this additional expense if there is no economic benefit to offset it?

You have made mention that there have been very few emergency applications of livestock manure

over the past few years which is great news. My concern with these proposed changes is that they will

force more emergency applications to occur. Minnesota agriculture typically has a very small window in

which to work for harvest due to winter weather. In the recent past we have experienced some tough

and very wet falls where we struggle to get everything done. The state of Minnesota is also stressed on

application capacity prior to these additional proposed changes. Lets assume a typical window of 9

weeks for application (October, November, 1st week of December) If we lose 3 of these weeks that’s 1/3

of our application window and 1/3 of our capacity. As a custom applicator who still needs to pay the

bills this would increase my application costs around 20%. This reduction in capacity would also force

me to drop clients who may not have many other options for pumping their barns other than to self

perform which is quite costly as well. Furthermore this will lead to more required emergency winter

applications due to decrease in the application window.

While spring pumping is an option, it is not how most farms are setup to operate and it is also

not a good agronomic practice. 1 out of the last 4 springs we saw no decrease in yield due to spring

application. The issue with spring application is that by the time the ground is dry enough and fit the

planter should be in the field. If you go too soon the fields are wet, you risk getting stuck, and you put

compaction into the field that will not have a frost cycle to break up. Waiting until the ground is fit

typically means a couple day delay in planting which has been known to cause a noticeable decrease in

yield (see attached charts from our farm). Based on these a 1 day loss in plant date for our own farm in

2019 resulted in a 21 bushel decline in harvest yield and planting 2 days later resulted in a 50 bushel per

acre decline. While it may not be this way every year we have seen it year over year on our farm. A 21

BPA decrase @ $3 corn is a $63 / acre loss on a 50 PA decrease is a $150 / ac loss. These are real

numbers.

EXAMPLE COSTS

For my families 4000 head hog finishing site:

1,200,000 gallons of manure at 3750 gallons per acre = 320 acres covered

320 acres x $32.40 / acre (fall applied stabilizer) = $10,368

20% increase in pumping costs = $.014 / gallon x 1.2 = $.0168 /gallon

$.0168 - $.014 = $0.0028 / gallon increase x 1,200,000 = $3360 increased application costs

TOTAL ADDITIONAL COSTS = $13,728 OR $42.90 / ACRE

I have also attached the ISU estimated costs of crop production in iowa for 2020 which estimates cost of

production of corn @ $3.76 / bushel for corn-on-corn and $3.23 for corn-on-beans. Looking at markets

today for the next year out the range is $2.92 - $3.15. Based on this your average farmer is already

losing money. How can the MPCA justify these proposed NPDES changes to a farmer who is already

losing money to spend/lose an additional $42.90/ acre?

As a farmer I am all for doing what is right for the environment provided it has been PROVEN to

be effective and that the benefits can be justified. If you can answer the above questions with provided

documentation it would be greatly appreciated. If the above questions can not be answered and

justified with solid research and data, I encourage the MPCA to NOT ADOPT the proposed changes.

Brent Krohn, PE Granby Pumping & Application

Ag Decision Maker

File A1-20

Estimated Costs of Crop Production in Iowa - 2020The estimated costs of corn, corn silage, soybeans, alfalfa, and pasture maintenance in this report are based on data from several sources. They include the annual Iowa Farm Business Association record summaries, production and costs data from the Departments of Economics, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, and Agronomy at Iowa State University, and a survey of selected agricultural cooperatives and other input suppliers around the state.

These cost estimates are representative of average costs for farms in Iowa. Very large or small farms may have lower or higher fixed costs per acre.

Due to differences in soil potentials, quantity of inputs used, and other factors, production costs will vary from farm to farm. Price shifts for inputs can change production costs in both the short and long run. The data reflect average cost of purchased inputs and a return to land and labor resources, but do not provide a margin for profit or a return to management. They reflect production costs only, and do not include costs of storage.

Labor has been treated as a fixed cost because most labor on Iowa farms is supplied by the operator, family, or permanent hired labor. However, when deciding among alternative crops, labor should be considered a variable cost. The wage rate used here is $14.75 per hour. The hours assumed per crop are presented in the budgets. The hours per crop acre include not only the field work but also time for maintenance, travel, and other activities related to crop production. The land charge is based on cash rent equivalent. Owned land may require a greater or lesser cash outlay.

In the short run, cash income must be sufficient to pay cash costs, including seed, fertilizer, chemicals, insurance, cash rent, and hired labor, as well as machinery fuel and repairs, and interest on operating capital. In the long run, income should be sufficient to pay all costs of production for resources to be used in their most profitable alternative.

Starting in 2019, reference yields for corn and soybean budgets reflect 30-year trend yields and are updated annually. Corn yields reflect rotation effects. Fertilizer rates have been adjusted to reflect current data on removal and application rates. Crop insurance costs reflect revenue crop protection at 80% coverage for a typical farm in Central Iowa. Starting in 2020, the average cost of lime is adjusted to account for regional differences in lime application practices (ag lime quality, quantity, and frequency of application).

Machinery costs reflect both new and used equipment. The machine operations assumed are based on the 2000 Crop Production Practices Survey conducted by the Iowa Agricultural Statistics Service and Iowa State University Extension and Outreach publication PM 696, Estimating the Field Capacity of Farm Machines, https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/4032. The Estimated Machinery Costs table can be used to budget other tillage and harvesting systems.

Estimates represent typical costs and are only intended to be guidelines. Actual costs will vary considerably and can be entered in the column for “Your Estimates.” Electronic spreadsheets for developing crop production budgets are available on the Ag Decision Maker website, www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm.

Budgets for alfalfa hay establishment with an oat companion crop and by direct seeding are included in this publication. Annual production costs for established alfalfa or alfalfa-grass hay as well as a budget for maintaining grass pastures are included.

Two low-till budgets, one for corn and one for soybean, are included. The major differences between the low-till and conventional budgets are the preharvest machinery, labor, herbicide, and seeding costs. The soybean budgets are for herbicide tolerant varieties. A strip-till budget is also included.

FM 1712 Revised January 2020

https://store.extension.iastate.edu/product/4032

http://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm


Corn Following Corn

164 bushelsper acre

182 bushelsper acre

200 bushelsper acre






Potash @$0.31 per pound 49 15.19 55 17.05 60 18.60

Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 12.49 12.49

Herbicide 31.85 31.85 31.85

Insecticide 23.79 23.79 23.79



Interest on preharvest variable costs (8 months @ 5.8%) 11.10 11.95 12.79

Total $276.94 $299.79 $322.46 $


Grain cart 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00

Haul 7.05 6.23 7.83 6.92 8.60 7.60


Handle (auger) 2.87 3.21 3.19 3.57 3.50 3.92

Total $37.32 $41.29 $39.31 $44.74 $41.30 $48.20 $

Labor2.80 hours @ $14.75 $41.30 $41.30 $41.30 $





Total cost per bushel $3.81 $3.78 $3.76 $1/ Chisel plow, tandem disk, apply Nitrogen, field cultivate, plant, and spray. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table.


Corn Following Soybean

179 bushelsper acre

199 bushelsper acre

219 bushelsper acre






Potash @$0.31 per pound 54 16.74 60 18.60 66 20.46

Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 12.49 12.49

Herbicide 31.85 31.85 31.85




Total $236.03 $259.59 $282.58 $


Grain cart 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00

Haul 7.70 6.80 8.56 7.56 9.42 8.32


Handle (auger) 3.13 3.51 3.48 3.90 3.83 4.29

Total $38.98 $44.17 $41.19 $48.01 $43.40 $51.85 $

Labor2.55 hours @ $14.75 $37.61 $37.61 $37.61 $





Total cost per bushel $3.22 $3.23 $3.23 $1/ Apply Nitrogen, tandem disk, field cultivate, plant, and spray. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table.


Corn Silage Following Corn

21 tonsper acre

24 tonsper acre

26 tonsper acre






Potash @$0.31 per pound 168 52.08 192 59.52 208 64.48

Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 12.49 12.49

Herbicide 31.85 31.85 31.85

Insecticide 23.79 23.79 23.79




Total $319.33 $351.89 $380.62 $

Harvest MachinerySilage harvester $49.20 $31.20 $49.20 $31.20 $49.20 $31.20 $

Haul 27.93 26.88 31.92 30.72 34.58 33.28

Store silage (unloader) 8.82 2.73 10.08 3.12 10.92 3.38

Total $85.95 $60.81 $91.20 $65.04 $94.70 $67.86 $

Labor4.95 hours @ $14.75 $73.01 $73.01 $73.01 $



Per acre $365.16 $401.34 $406.41 $438.13 $445.91 $469.68 Yield: tonsper acrePer ton $17.39 $19.11 $16.93 $18.26 $17.15 $18.06


Total cost per ton $36.50 $35.19 $35.22 $1/ Chisel plow, tandem disk, apply Nitrogen, field cultivate, plant, and spray. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table.


Herbicide Tolerant Soybean Following Corn

50 bushelsper acre

56 bushelsper acre

62 bushelsper acre



Seed, Chemical, etc. Units Units UnitsSeed @$47.40 per 140,000 kernel 140,000 $47.40 140,000 $47.40 140,000 $47.40 $


Potash @$0.31 per pound 75 23.25 84 26.04 93 28.83

Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 12.49 12.49

Herbicide 41.62 41.62 41.62




Total $161.78 $168.52 $175.16 $


Grain cart 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00

Haul 2.15 1.90 2.41 2.13 2.67 2.36

Handle (auger) 0.88 0.98 0.98 1.10 1.09 1.22

Total $17.53 $9.98 $17.89 $10.33 $18.25 $10.67 $

Labor2.20 hours @ $14.75 $32.45 $32.45 $32.45 $




$444.64 $488.09 $531.43 $Total cost per acre

Total cost per bushel $8.89 $8.72 $8.57 $

1/ Chisel plow, tandem disk, field cultivate, plant, and two sprays. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table. 2/ Estimates do not include any insecticide or fungicide costs.


Strip Tillage Corn and SoybeanCorn Following Soybean Herbicide Tolerant Soybean Following Corn





Seed, Chemical, etc. Units Seed, Chemical, etc. UnitsSeed @$3.22 per 1000 kernel 30,000 $96.60 $

Seed @ $47.40 per 140,000 kernel 160,000 $54.17 $

Nitrogen @ $0.34 per pound 131 44.54 Phosphate @ $0.34 per pound 75 25.50




Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 Herbicide 2/ 35.01 Herbicide 2/ 42.00 Crop insurance 9.70 Crop insurance 8.70 Miscellaneous 10.00 Miscellaneous 10.00 Interest on preharvest variable costs (8 months @ 5.8%) 10.14


Total $262.58 $ Total $175.68 $

Harvest MachineryCombine $13.00 $6.80 $ Combine $8.30 $4.10 $

Grain cart 6.20 3.00 Grain cart 6.20 3.00 Haul 8.56 7.56 Haul 2.41 2.13 Dry (LP gas @$1.12 per gallon) 9.95 26.75 Handle (auger) 3.48 3.90 Handle (auger) 0.98 1.10

Total $41.19 $48.01 $ Total $17.89 $10.33 $

Labor2.25 hours @$14.75 $33.19 $ 1.70 hours @$14.75 $25.08 $

LandCash rent equivalent $219.00 $ Cash rent equivalent $219.00 $





Total cost per bushel $3.14 $ Total cost per bushel $8.45 $1/ Strip till, plant, and spray for corn. No-till drill, two sprays for soybean. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table. 2/ Estimates do not include any insecticide or fungicide costs.


Non-Herbicide Tolerant Soybean Following CornSoybean Following Corn Drilled Soybean Following Corn




Seed, Chemical, etc. Units Units

Seed @$33.00 per 140,000 kernel 130,000 $30.60 $ 150,000 $35.40 $

Phosphate @ $0.34 per pound 45 15.30 45 15.30

Potash @ $0.31 per pound 84 26.04 84 26.04

Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 12.49

Herbicide 2/ 55.00 42.00

Crop insurance 8.70 8.70

Miscellaneous 10.00 10.00

Interest on preharvest variable costs (8 months @ 5.8%) 6.85 6.41

Total $164.98 $ $156.34 $

Harvest MachineryCombine $8.30 $4.10 $ $8.30 $4.10 $

Grain cart 6.20 3.00 6.20 3.00

Haul 2.41 2.13 2.41 2.13

Handle (auger) 0.98 1.10 0.98 1.10

Total $17.89 $10.33 $ $17.89 $10.33 $

Labor

2.40 hours @$14.75 $35.40 $

1.72 hours @$14.75 $25.37 $

Land

Cash rent equivalent $219.00 $ $219.00 $


Per acre $293.79 $194.41Yield: bushels/acre

$280.76 $182.46Yield: bushels/acrePer bushel $5.25 $3.47 $5.01 $3.26

Total cost per acre $488.20 $ $463.22 $

Total cost per bushel $8.72 $ $8.27 $1/Chisel plow, tandem disk, field cultivate, plant, cultivate, and spray. Tandem disk, field cultivate, drill, and spray for drilled soybeans. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table.2/Estimates do not include any insecticide or fungicide costs


Low-till Corn and SoybeanCorn Following Soybean Herbicide Tolerant Soybean Following Corn




Seed, Chemical, etc. Units UnitsSeed @ $3.22 per 1000 kernel 30,000 $96.60 $

Seed @ $47.40 per 140,000 kernel 160,000 $54.20 $

Nitrogen @ $0.34 per pound 131 44.54





Lime (yearly cost) 12.49 Lime (yearly cost) 12.49

Herbicide 2/ 35.01 Herbicide 2/ 42.00

Crop insurance 9.70 Crop insurance 8.70

Miscellaneous 10.00 Miscellaneous 10.00 Interest on preharvest variable costs (8 months @ 5.8%) 10.30


Total $262.74 $ Total $175.70 $

Harvest Machinery

Combine $13.00 $6.80 $ Combine $8.30 $4.10 $

Grain cart 6.20 3.00 Grain cart 6.20 3.00

Haul 8.56 7.56 Haul 2.41 2.13 Dry (LP gas @$1.12 per gallon) 9.95 26.75

Handle (auger) 3.48 3.90 Handle (auger) 0.98 1.10

Total $41.19 $48.01 $ Total $17.89 $10.33 $

Labor

2.25 hours @$14.75 $33.19 $ 1.70 hours @$14.75 $25.08 $

Land

Cash rent equivalent $219.00 $ Cash rent equivalent $219.00 $





Total cost per bushel $3.18 $ Total cost per bushel $8.45 $

1/ Apply Nitrogen, cultivate, plant, and spray for corn. Disk, drill, and spray for soybeans. See the Estimated Machinery Costs table.2/ Estimates do not include any insecticide or fungicide costs.


Oat and Hay Production - Seedling Year CostsAlfalfa-Grass Seeded

with Oat Companion Crop 1/

Alfalfa Seeded with Herbicide 2/

Your EstimateEstablishment Costs Fixed Variable Fixed Variable

Preharvest Machinery Spray herbicide $2.20 $2.00 $Tandem disk (2 times) $9.20 $6.80 9.20 6.80 Spread fertilizer 1.90 1.60 1.90 1.60 Harrow 2.10 1.50 2.10 1.50 Seed (drill) 4.50 4.10 4.50 4.10Total preharvest machinery $17.70 $14.00 $19.90 $16.00 $

Seed 3/

Oat 2 bushels $17.72 $Alfalfa 8 pounds 34.24 15 pounds $64.20Bromegrass 6 pounds 14.88 Orchardgrass 3 pounds 10.02Total seed cost $76.86 $64.20 $

Herbicide $13.10 $Lime (total cost for hay lifetime) $21.00 21.00Labor: 1 hour @ $14.75 $14.75 $14.75 $

Total establishment costs $32.45 $111.86 $34.65 $114.30 $

Annual Costs Fixed Variable Fixed VariableYour

Estimate

One-third of Establishment Costs (for establishment year) $10.82 $37.29 $11.55 $38.10 $

FertilizerNitrogen 60 pounds $20.40 $

Phosphorus 45 pounds 15.30 35 pounds $11.90Potash 130 pounds 40.30 125 pounds 38.75Total fertilizer $76.00 $50.65 $

Insurance, oats $2.50 $

Labor @ $14.75 4 hours $59.00 3 hours $44.25 $

Land (cash rent equivalent) $119.00 $119.00 $

Harvest MachineryOat: combine and haul grain $10.94 $6.14 $

Oat: rake, bale, and haul straw 12.10 9.35Alfalfa: mower-conditioner, rake, bale, and haul hay 18.47 14.43 $37.87 $30.33Total harvest cost $41.51 $29.93 $37.87 $30.33 $

Total fixed and variable costs $230.32 $145.71 $212.67 $119.08 $

Total cost per acre $376.04 $331.75 $1/ Assumes 80 bushels oat yield, one ton straw yield, and one ton per acre alfalfa yield from one cutting. 2/ Assumes two and a half tons per acre from two alfalfa cuttings with herbicide-assisted seeding.3/ Omit oats from August seedings. Higher priced seed varieties or different seed mixtures could vary these costs by 1.2 to 2.0 times.


Annual Production Costs for Established Alfalfa or Alfalfa-Grass Hay

Hay Production Level

4 tons per acre 1/ 6 tons per acreYour

EstimateFixed Variable Fixed Variable

One-third of establishment costs Machinery, seed, lime, labor, and herbicide 2/ $10.82 $37.29 $11.55 $38.10 $

Annual fertilizer 3/ 0-13-50 pounds per ton removed plus spreading and insurance $1.90 $83.18 $3.80 $125.57 $

Harvesting Costs: Large Round Bales 4/

Mower-conditioner, rake, baling, and hauling $57.27 $46.23 $77.60 $63.60 $

Labor costs: 1.33 hours per cutting @ $14.75 per hour $59.00 $78.67 $


Total fixed and variable cost using large round bales per acre $247.98 $166.70 $331.62 $227.27 $




Harvesting Costs: Small Square Bales 4/

Mower-conditioner, rake, baling, hauling, and stack $54.50 $44.12 $74.00 $60.92 $

Labor costs: 2 hours per cutting @ $14.75 per hour $88.50 $118.00 $


Total fixed and variable cost using small square bales per acre $274.72 $164.58 $367.35 $224.59 $




1/ For harvest as silage, use machine cost estimates from the Estimated Machinery Costs table.2/ Assumes alfalfa-grass seeded with oat companion crop. If alfalfa seeded with preplant herbicide, then use other costs (see previous page).3/ For 6-ton yield goal, a split application of fertilizer is assumed.4/ Harvest cost estimates assume 3 cuttings for 4 tons and 4 cuttings for 6 tons.


Maintaining Grass Pastures - Annual Cost per AcreImproved Grass 2/ Improved Grass-Legume 3/

Your EstimateFixed Variable Fixed Variable

Machinery Costs

Spreading fertilizer $1.90 $1.60 $1.90 $1.60 $

Spraying herbicide 2.20 2.00

Clipping weeds 6.50 4.20 6.50 4.20

Total machinery cost $10.60 $7.80 $8.40 $5.80 $

Fertilizer and Herbicide 1/

Nitrogen @ $0.34 per pound 80 pounds $27.20 $

Phosphate @ $0.34 per pound 30 pounds 10.20 30 pounds $10.20

Potash @ $0.31 per pound 40 pounds 12.40

Herbicide 2.62

Total fertilizer and herbicide $40.02 $22.60 $

Labor

Growing practices .5 hours @ $14.75 $7.38 $7.38 $

Fence maintenance 1 hours @ $14.75 14.75 14.75

Total labor $22.13 $22.13 $

Land

Cash rent equivalent $51.00 $75.00 $

Total annual cost $83.73 $47.82 $105.53 $28.40 $

Total annual cost per acre $131.55 $133.93 $

1/ These are average rates and may vary with soil test and the level of management on a particular field. Different herbicide alternatives could vary this cost.

2/ Improved grass pastures assume a dominance of cool season grasses such as smooth bromegrass, orchardgrass, tall fescue, or reed canarygrass.

3/ Improved grass-legume pasture assumed one-third of the forage is made up of red clover, birdsfoot trefoil, or alfalfa.


Estimated Machinery CostsThe following cost estimates are for on-farm use, excluding labor. Depreciation is based on current replacement cost; interest is based on average market rates. Fixed costs will be greater for newer machinery. If annual machine use is greater than that assumed, fixed costs per acre will be lower, and vice versa. Hauling costs are based on a round trip of one mile. Remember these are estimates and they should not take the place of accurate recordkeeping. Diesel fuel is estimated to cost $2.53 per gallon, delivered to the farm in bulk.

OperationHours of Use

Assumed per Year

Fixed Cost per Acre(depreciation, interest,

insurance, housing)

Variable Costper Acre

(fuel, oil, repairs)Subsoiling (V-ripper) 120 $6.30 $7.60 Moldboard plow 120 9.00 9.60 Chisel plow 120 3.60 3.90 Chop stalks 120 4.90 4.90 Tandem disk 120 4.60 3.40 Offset disk 120 3.80 3.30 Peg tooth harrow 60 2.10 1.50 Sprayer/disk 120 3.70 2.90 Field cultivator 120 2.70 2.70 Disk/Field cultivator 120 2.60 2.70 Strip tiller 120 3.00 3.10 Bulk fertilizer spreader 60 1.90 1.60 NH3 applicator 120 4.30 4.40 Chisel plow, NH3 applicator 120 6.00 6.80 Grain drill 100 4.50 4.10 Broadcast seeder 100 2.90 1.70 Planter 100 5.80 4.80 No-till planter 100 7.40 6.30 No-till drill 100 9.00 7.70 Rotary hoe 60 1.80 1.10 Cultivator 120 2.60 2.30 Sprayer 150 2.20 2.00 Combine corn 180 13.00 6.80 Combine soybeans 120 8.30 4.10 Combine small grain 120 7.50 3.10 Haul grain (on farm) 600 0.043/bushel 0.038/bushel Grain cart 200 6.20 3.00Store grain (auger) 0.0175/bushel 0.0196/bushel Silage harvester 200 49.20 31.20Haul silage 140 1.33/ton 1.28/ton Store silage (unloader) 0.42/ton 0.13/ton Rotary mower 120 6.50 4.20 Mower-conditioner 120 5.40 4.30 Rake 120 3.10 2.00 Small square baler 120 7.00/cutting 4.20/cutting Round baler 120 8.10 5.20 Large square baler 120 8.60 6.20Windrower 200 3.00 2.10Forage chopper 200 17.80 13.60Haul small square bales 120 2.00/ton 3.15/ton Haul large round bales 120 1.87/ton 2.93/ton


Estimated Crop Production Costs in Iowa, 2011-20202011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 20191/ 2020

Corn Following Corn Machinery $152.73 $147.37 $147.37 $155.29 $144.99 $129.92 $119.83 $132.80 $134.38 $128.46 Seed, chemicals, etc. 341.92 376.81 372.43 340.27 357.80 330.55 287.19 279.81 313.70 299.79 Labor 33.06 33.35 34.91 37.05 37.05 37.05 36.40 39.20 39.90 41.30 Land 215.00 258.00 276.00 287.00 273.00 266.00 230.00 219.00 223.00 219.00 Total cost per acre 742.70 815.53 830.70 819.61 812.83 763.52 673.41 670.80 710.98 688.54 Assumed yield 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 165 bu. 182 bu. 182 bu. Total cost per bushel $4.50 $4.94 $5.03 $4.97 $4.93 $4.63 $4.08 $4.07 $3.91 $3.78 Corn Following Soybean Machinery $151.54 $144.22 $144.22 $152.28 $142.18 $126.74 $116.56 $130.47 $132.22 $126.10 Seed, chemicals, etc. 300.13 329.14 324.61 298.80 311.84 292.47 251.48 241.86 279.96 259.59 Labor 30.16 30.42 31.85 33.80 33.80 33.80 33.15 35.70 36.34 37.61 Land 215.00 258.00 276.00 287.00 273.00 266.00 230.00 219.00 223.00 219.00 Total cost per acre 696.83 761.78 776.68 771.88 760.81 719.01 631.18 627.03 671.51 642.30 Assumed yield 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 180 bu. 198 bu. 199 bu. Total cost per bushel $3.87 $4.23 $4.31 $4.29 $4.23 $3.99 $3.51 $3.48 $3.39 $3.23Soybean Following Corn 2/

Machinery $72.70 $80.70 $80.70 $84.70 $79.17 $75.43 $67.40 $68.67 $68.43 $68.11 Seed, chemicals, etc. 156.52 180.89 163.44 155.65 166.38 162.63 157.11 154.41 183.61 168.52 Labor 28.42 26.33 27.56 29.25 29.25 29.25 28.60 30.80 31.35 32.45 Land 215.00 258.00 276.00 287.00 273.00 266.00 230.00 219.00 223.00 219.00 Total cost per acre 472.64 545.91 547.71 556.60 547.80 533.30 483.11 472.89 506.38 488.09 Assumed yield 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 50 bu. 56 bu. 56 bu. Total cost per bushel $9.45 $10.92 $10.95 $11.13 $10.96 $10.67 $9.66 $9.46 $9.04 $8.72Alfalfa Hay, annual production, 6 ton per acre, large round bales One-third of est. costs $52.75 $52.48 $54.25 $58.17 $60.62 $57.93 $60.03 $51.43 $48.50 $49.65 Annual fertilizer 199.82 227.92 200.94 164.14 166.88 148.21 109.05 121.48 135.37 129.37 Harvest machinery 159.60 174.50 174.50 179.60 167.60 159.20 140.80 144.40 141.60 141.20 Labor 61.87 62.40 65.33 69.33 69.33 69.33 69.33 74.67 76.00 78.67 Land 124.00 150.00 161.00 167.00 167.00 170.00 165.00 157.00 157.00 160.00 Total cost per acre 598.04 667.30 656.02 638.24 631.43 604.67 544.22 548.97 558.47 558.89 Assumed yield 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton 6 ton Total cost per ton $99.67 $111.22 $109.34 $106.37 $105.24 $100.78 $90.70 $91.49 $93.08 $93.15 1/ Starting in 2019, reference yields for corn and soybean budgets reflect 30-year trend yields. 2/ Soybean estimates are for herbicide tolerant varieties.

Iowa State University Extension and Outreach does not discriminate on the basis of age, disability, ethnicity, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, pregnancy, race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or status as a U.S. veteran, or other protected classes. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies may be directed to the Diversity Advisor, 2150 Beardshear Hall, 515 Morrill Road, Ames, Iowa 50011, 515-294-1482, [email protected]. All other inquiries may be directed to 800-262-3804.

Prepared by Alejandro Plastinaextension economist

[email protected]

www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm store.extension.iastate.edu

7/22/20 Email – Sherping Farms of Little Falls, Inc. To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.

1. Cover crops should not be required for September manure applications. While cover crops

continue in adoption, we do not yet have systems in place to ensure they lead to the outcomes

desired.

a. A 2005 Literature Review done by the MPCA showed that manure improves soil tilth and

reduces runoff. If these are the outcomes desired of cover crops, manure application

may be achieving this already (Water Quality/Feedlots 1.08, January 2005).

b. Technology developed over the next five years will likely tell us how and when cover

crops can be helpful for reducing soil erosion and better water quality.

c. The current proposal does not consider corn silage roots plus stalks or alfalfa may still

be covering the soil and holding it with manure.

d. Adding requirements in September and October limits the days in which manure can be

applied, and could create worse consequences in the spring. Also, see concern #6.

2. Direct injection should be added as a Best Management Practice. With rapid adoption of direct

injected manure, MPCA has never recognized it as a Best Management Practice despite its

known benefits. Direct injection:







3. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. Fall weather is difficult to

predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from year-to-year. The use of the

proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in November or later.

For these reasons we would suggest not implementing these October BMPs. If BMPs in October

must be followed:

a. 50o F is not a magic number, but a recommendation or suggestion. Below 60o F maybe

just as beneficial to the environment but much more flexible to farmers.



4. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The University of

Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca collectively have

data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at (at least) one of the centers in 2017-2020

(data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca):

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31


5. Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program enrollees should have assurance.

The MAWQCP farms should have assurance that their already agreed to BMPs fit within the

framework of this proposal.

6. Allowing manure storage beyond 14 months would help achieve some of these BMPs. One

limitation in Minnesota guidance is a 14-month limit on manure storage, even when producers

aim to have up to 24-months for flexibility and to obtain more BMPs. With our current 14-

month limit enforced by MPCA, our manure application windows become emergencies, driving

up the cost of application and hours required by applicators to apply manure in an effective

manner.

Brian Scherping

7/22/20 Email – Brian Dorcey Dear Mr. Schwint, My name is Dr. Brian Dorcey from Worthington, MN. I am part of a mixed animal practice in SW Minnesota and my primary area of expertise is beef feedlot medicine. I am writing to you concerning the proposed changes being considered for the upcoming NPDES permit renewal scheduled to take effect Jan 2021- Dec 2026. I work with many feedlot and dairy producers across SW Minnesota that are great cattle feeders, excellent stewards of the land, and protectors of our drinking water. I feel that the proposed new regulations are an overreach on the part of MPCA with little or no data to drive these changes. It is my understanding that there are no reported runoff events associated with winter application at permitted operations today, so it does not make sense to limit the solid manure application in February and March. I feel the current language addresses field conditions for application adequately with minimal risk for runoff. Regulating based on a calendar date makes little sense with the historically difficult weather conditions our producers have faced over the last 3 years…the choice for our farmers should be what’s best for them on the land that they operate within the conditions of the current permit. February and March have historically been excellent months to apply solid manure while balancing animal welfare and environmental responsibility. I have farmers that work all night when conditions are right to get manure hauled in such a way to be compliant with current regulations, keep their animals comfortable, and protect our water…this often occurs in February and March. Having to seek approval from MPCA to apply snow-mixed manure prior to application in February and March would put undue and unreasonable regulation on the backs of our producers. Simply put this is an animal welfare issue. Forcing our farmers to wait until after a snow storm for approval, limits their ability to care for their livestock. Many of the farms that I work with will start moving snow in the middle of the night or directly after a snow storm to get their animals comfortable and protected from the elements as soon as they can…often at an hour where no one in the government is awake to give approval. This proposed change will put undue harm on livestock as it is written today. Treating snow-mixed manure as solid manure would make the most sense as it’s the manure part of that combination that we are most concerned about. The requirement of a nitrogen BMP for manure applications in October will be difficult to comply with and at the end of the day will probably not result in any better water quality. The biggest value to the farm is properly timed application of manure to the land in such a way to maximize value back to the cropping operation. Fall weather is difficult to predict and planting is far easier to comply with than establishment. This should be a management decision at the farm level rather than a government mandate…farmers will need the flexibility to utilize the time and tools at their disposal to mitigate nitrogen loss. I believe that when given the choice the cattlemen and cattlewomen of Minnesota will make the right decision…for their cattle, for their families, and for our environment. I am asking you to walk a mile in their shoes as you consider changes to the upcoming NPDES permit. Make changes to solve problems based on science and data rather than to create new ones based on what-if’s. Thank you, Brian Dorcey, DVM

7/22/20 Email – Kevin Buss Mr.schwint my name is Kevin Buss from Hutchinson mn I am writing you concerning manure application in fall and winter months although it does not directly affect your operation because of size our county seems to want to follow stricter guidelines my fear is they will not let us do winter haul.As science has proven we have organic matter (straw cornstalks beanstraw) to hold N P and K until mixed with soil. Respefully submitted Kevin J Buss Dairy Farmer

7/22/20 Email – Tom Sedgeman To whom it may concern, It has come to my attention that the MPCA is considering additional new restrictions on manure application and cover crop requirements without science backed studies. Using ‘one size fits all’ ‘shoving a square peg through a round hole’ approach will not accomplish desired results. As livestock producers and farmers in general, we are early adapters to scientific based technology improvements. We live and play in our environments, and we are proud of the improvements that we have made for our families, our communities, and our environment. Much has been accomplished, and as early adapters, we will accomplish much more as science and research trials advance. With the high cost of crop inputs and low value of our harvest, we have a huge incentive to capture the nutrient value from manure application. The timely capture of this nutrient value changes each year. Our weather is not predictable to set guidelines by calendar dates. Food for our country’s population will be produced. Our government needs to decide if they want that food produced here by our farmers wanting to provide care for the environment, or they want it produced outside of our country with little to no oversight of the production methods. Look no further than the clothing manufacturer’s use of foreign sweat shops and child labor. If results are the goal, invest in science and research to provide proven results on size scale operations which university research farms have available. As farmers, we embrace proven science and technology. Thank you for your time, Tom Sedgeman

7/22/20 Email – Andy Hennen To whom it may concern: I was writing to comment on a few of your "proposed" rule changes to obtain a NPDES Permit. In reading through a few of these rule changes MPCA is either 1) Trying to make rules that are easy to enforce but impossible to work with 2) Trying to make life extremely difficult for farmers who already are doing their very best to protect the environment 3) Trying to force out agriculture by adding more costs to an extremely tight margin business. A couple rule changes that don't make sense to me would include not applying manure in February and March and having to get approval from MPCA before applying a manure/snow mixture. There are already rules in place to minimize runoff possibilities: setbacks from intakes, streams, wetlands, ect. To say absolutely no application in those months is ridiculous because conditions change year to year. Example, this winter/spring in our area consisted of almost no snow cover and was almost perfect conditions for application. Also, to not be able to apply a manure/snow mix is almost impossible. Are we supposed to stockpile bed packs after a snow storm? We were forced to do some of that two years ago and those piles were almost impossible to get anywhere near the following fall! With these new proposed regulations, when exactly are we supposed to apply the stockpiles? Most farmers, me included will not apply this in the spring and compact our fields. With one of the other regulation changes to apply in October, it would be virtually impossible to get the work all done. Once again, it appears that you are attempting to force livestock out of the State of Minnesota. Also, if we would have to wait for approval to apply a snow/manure mix and a blizzard happens on a weekend or holiday, are we supposed to wait until Monday to maybe get approval? Livestock are most farmers main concern after a blizzard to get comfortable to remain productive and healthy. We do take care of our livestock 24/7 not just during the week and "normal" business hours. Most farmers are responsible people that take care their land and their livestock and take care of the environment. Runoff is a waste for us too which is why we do everything possible to keep the nutrients on our land for our crops. Blanket regulations and more regulations are not something we need in this state. MPCA should be working with farmers not against them to make things better. The more livestock in this state would bring more young people back to the farm, and would also keep the dollars circulating through the small communities. Thank you, Andy Hennen Hennen Feedlot

7/22/20 Email – Jacob Hemmesch To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.







a. Limits soil compaction. b. Preserves more soil organic matter and soil structure. c. Allows for application to growing crops and can be similar to no-till in

results. d. Reduces rick of P runoff and particulate P loss is reduced. e. Reduced N volatization loss, resulting in retention of plant-available N. f. Reduced odor issues.



b. Direct injection should be added as BMP. c. The suggested required cover crop BMP should be planted, not

“established.”


a. February 1 and 2 b. February 21-24 c. March 9 d. March 13-31




Sincerely, Jacob W. Hemmesch

7/22/20 Email – Joe Loula Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed general permit revisions. As a farmer, I have concerns about the increase in regulations with respect to manure application that are proposed with this permit revision. Manure is a valuable fertilizer product. My farm has used manure as fertilizer in the past and greatly benefited from it. The proposed requirements to plant cover crops in September and use nitrogen BMPs in October will be problematic for our state. Minnesota’s manure application season is already short given our climate. These requirements would further shorten that window, increase the cost of manure handling, and increase the risk that livestock producers will not be able to empty manure storage areas in the fall (which, in turn, is a threat to the environment). These increased regulations could also drive livestock investment out of Minnesota. Our rural economies depend on agriculture and adding value to our crops. In addition to creating jobs and tax revenue, animal agriculture creates a market for Minnesota-grown crops, and it generates manure, which offsets the use of commercial fertilizer. As a policy matter, we need to promote livestock growth in Minnesota, not put livestock operators at a disadvantage to operators in neighboring states. Furthermore, the technology and infrastructure does not exist to effectively implement the proposed cover crop requirements. Given Minnesota’s short growing season, establishing cover crops is difficult. And as a practical matter, the industry does not currently have enough cover crop seed and planting capability to implement these requirements. I urge the MPCA to remove the proposed requirements for cover crops with September manure application and for nitrogen BMPs with October manure application. Short of that, the MPCA should treat the direct injection of liquid manure or the prompt incorporation of solid manure as a BMP that allows for September and October manure application regardless of soil temperature. Manure, when properly handled, has been shown to reduce runoff volume and soil loss.2 Thank you for considering my comments and concerns. Joe Loula High Point Pork

7/22/20 Email – Dave Wulf Dear George or to whomever it may concern. RE: Following are my submitted comments pertaining to proposed General NPDES rule changes. My name is Davis Wulf. I live in Stevens County, MN and currently own and operate a 5000 hd capacity NPDES permitted beef feedlot. I wish to comment on some of the changes to the feedlot rules specifically pertaining to beef feedlots. Some of the changes would put unduly harsh restrictions on an already heavily regulated industry. It appears that many of these changes are based on emotion or "Let's try this practice to see if the environment responds" and not based on scientific facts and research. RULE CHANGE; [A cover crop must be required for manure application in September.] First of all, the climate varies widely in the state so how can you apply a blanket rule for the entire state? This is the northern climate. More years than not, September is too late to establish a cover crop. Rather than a cover crop, a suitable nitrogen stabilizer should be used. RULE CHANGE: [A nitrogen BMP would be required for manure applications in October.] Here again October climate is not conducive to growing a cover crop. Colder weather and colder soils. Planting a cover crop takes valuable time from farmers in a time of the season when daylight hours are shortened. If a cover crop is deemed necessary, only require it to be planted versus established since weather and climate conditions are out of farmers control. RULE CHANGE; [Applications of solid manure will be prohibited in February and March regardless of weather of field conditions. ] This is not a reasonable solution. Animals defecate continually so therefore must be removed and disposed of in a proper manner. We care about the welfare and health of our animals. If we are not allowed to spread manure in these months, animals are forced to lie in and live in unhealthy and stressful conditions which continue to escalate with deepening manure and increased ammonia due to urine build up. This will also decrease air quality and overall well being needed for good animal health. Current rule requirements are adequate for minimal runoff risk. Current field condition requirements have proven to work well to minimize runoff. Again, we would like solid scientific evidence that runoff in these 2 months are causing problems. RULE CHANGE; [ Approval from MPCA will be required prior to applying manure-snow mix in February and March.] Our general practice is to remove snow and spreading on the fields from animal holding areas asap after a snow event, regardless of the time of day. This process takes from 1 day to several days to accomplish and in some cases, right into the next snow event. We simply do not have time to obtain a permit before applying on the field. If we are not allowed to accomplish this task

in a timely manner, animals will suffer unduly as snow accumulates excessively where they eat and where they drink. This causes extreme stress for animals. Weakened animals will not trudge through snow to eat or drink. Generally the snow content in this material is from 90% -100%. Manure application amounts are extremely minimal. Many operators are affected by one snow event which would cause a huge overload of permit applications at MPCA. It is reasonable to expect this permitting process to take several days which is absolutely unreasonable to relinquish the problem of winter hardships. It is bad enough to deal with snow and cold weather and then have to deal with this issue too. In talking to fellow producers about more rule changes and added regulations, most everyone is getting mentally and physically fatigued. They say, "I am so ready to quit this whole thing. Just isn't fun anymore." Is this what we want in our state? Good, honest, tax paying, hard working food producers giving up their livelihood and businesses for the sake of government oppression. And in a world where people are starving, even here in Minnesota, with the thought of food prices skyrocketing. All aspects must be considered before adding unreasonable rules. Thank you for reading and considering. Davis Wulf

July 22, 2020

Feikema Farms, Inc

1735 120th Ave

Luverne, MN 56156

[email protected]

George Schwint, MPCA

Re: MPCA NPDES permit changes

Dear Mr. Schwint,

We would like to express our concern about the proposed NPDES permit changes and offer some insight

as to how they would affect our operation.

As background, we have a beef feedlot with open yards, partial confinement, and full confinement

facilities with CAFO status and we utilize all of the manure in our crop operation. We have been diligent

with complying with all MPCA requirements and utilize cover crops, buffer strips, strip till, no till, and

BMP when applying manure. We utilize not just manure from our own beef feedlot, but contract with

several swine operations that are based in Minnesota to apply manure from their facilities to our crop

ground, usually around 2000 acres per year.

The proposed changes would significantly affect our ability to effectively run our business. We are

constantly aware and concerned about our animal health, soil health and water quality. The changes

proposed assume that every situation is the same and that is not the case. Liquid manure is not the

same as solid manure and manure from swine/dairy/beef is also not the same. Therefore, we would

propose that liquid manure applications be allowed June-August when a cover crop is established, and

solid manure applications be allowed even without a cover crop because of the very low leaching

potential. Also, allow manure applications in September without a cover crop when the total nitrogen

available (expressed in 1st year availability) does not exceed 66% of planned crop needs.

In addition, there is no reason to add restrictions to October applied manure. The requirements of soil

temp, nitrogen stabilizer, cover crop and split application at 50% of total is burdensome and does not

account for variable weather and field conditions that directly impact the potential for Nitrate leaching.

Actual nitrate leaching is highly dependent on a number of factors and so blanket regulations fail to

account for manure type, field characteristics, and cannot account for future weather. The potential

benefits are uncertain and variable and the burden to our operation and the ag industry as a whole is

disproportionate to the benefits. While all those ideas are well and good, and probably being

implemented already in many cases, requiring it across the board at a time when everyone in ag is

struggling is unrealistic.

In regards to winter application in February and March: An outright prohibition of manure applications

in February and March serves only the Agency’s need for simplicity and convenience and neglects to


account for weather, field Conditions, field Characteristics and proximity to water. THOSE are the things

that impact water quality.

The MMP could easily be used to designate fields deemed acceptable for February – March manure

applications.

We know February and March have the highest risk of runoff from manure applications. But, this is

primarily due to applications on fields with heavy snow pack or done with a melt coming. We need to be

able to prioritize the fields with lowest risk and manage accordingly - save them for those months, for

example. An outright prohibition would be disastrous.

It is also worthwhile to point out that these restrictions only apply to CAFO entities which already have

to abide by more stringent regulations. Non CAFO entities, which account for 65 percent of the animal

capacity in the state will not have to abide by these regulations but might be contributing just as much

or more than the CAFO entities to the current water quality status. We understand looking at the big

operations is an easy target but how about looking at the big picture instead?

In summary, a blanket approach to manure application as stated in these proposed changes could

potentially put livestock operations out of business for no proven gain. CAFO regulations already take

into consideration all of the major factors and come up with a sustainable and responsible

plan. Farmers are used to tailoring a detailed plan for each field, each farm, and adjusting it rapidly

based on weather, temperature, changing soil conditions and future weather predictions. The way that

these regulations are proposed seems to penalize larger family farms that are already implementing the

highest standard of BMP. These regulations would have the opposite effect of what is intended by

taking away flexibility in management decisions that are best for our animals, our land and the

environment. They will prioritize agency simplicity and sacrifice actual results.

Sincerely

Shawn Feikema

1735 120th Ave Luverne, MN 56156

[email protected]

(605) 370-9934

www.feikemafarms.com


http://www.feikemafarms.com/

7/23/20 Email – Clark Farms LLC To Whom It May Concern:


1. 2. Cover crops should not

3. be required for September manure applications. While cover crops continue in adoption, we do not yet have systems in

4. place to ensure they lead to the outcomes desired.

5. 6.

a. b. A 2005 Literature Review done by the MPCA showed that

c. manure improves soil tilth and reduces runoff. If these are the outcomes desired of cover crops, manure application may be achieving this already (Water Quality/Feedlots 1.08, January 2005).

d. e. f. Technology developed over the next five years will likely

g. tell us how and when cover crops can be helpful for reducing soil erosion and better water quality.

h. i. j. The current proposal does not consider corn silage roots

k. plus stalks or alfalfa may still be covering the soil and holding it with manure.

l. m. n. Adding requirements in September and October limits

o. the days in which manure can be applied, and could create worse consequences in the spring. Also, see concern #6.

p.

1. 2. Direct injection should

3. be added as a Best Management Practice. With rapid adoption of direct injected manure, MPCA has never recognized it

4. as a Best Management Practice despite its known benefits. Direct injection:

5.

6. a.

b. Limits soil compaction.

c. d.

e. Preserves more soil organic matter and soil structure.

f. g. h. Allows for application to growing crops and can be similar

i. to no-till in results.

j. k.

l. Reduces rick of P runoff and particulate P loss is reduced.

m. n. o. Reduced N volatization loss, resulting in retention

p. of plant-available N.

q. r.

s. Reduced odor issues.

t.

1. 2. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical.

3. Fall weather is difficult to predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from year-to-year. The use of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in November or later. For these reasons we would suggest not implementing

4. these October BMPs. If BMPs in October must be followed:

5. 6.

a. b. 50o

c. F is not a magic number, but a recommendation or suggestion. Below 60o

d. F maybe just as beneficial to the environment but much more flexible to farmers.

e. f. g. Direct injection should be

h. added as BMP.

i.

j. k. The suggested required cover

l. crop BMP should be planted, not “established.”

m.

1. 2. Winter applications should follow field conditions,

3. not the calendar. The University of Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton,

4. Morris, and Waseca collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33

5. o F at (at least) one of the centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and

6. 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca):

7. 8.

a. b. February 1 and 2

c. d.

e. February 21-24

f. g.

h. March 9

i. j.

k. March 13-31

l.


5. 6. Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program

7. enrollees should have assurance. The MAWQCP farms should have assurance that their already

8. agreed to BMPs fit within the framework of this proposal.

9. 10.

11. Allowing manure storage beyond 14 months would help

12. achieve some of these BMPs. One limitation in Minnesota guidance is a 14-month limit on manure

13. storage, even when producers aim to have up to 24-months for flexibility and to obtain more BMPs. With our current 14-month limit enforced by MPCA, our manure application windows become emergencies, driving up the cost of application and hours required by

14. applicators to apply manure in an effective manner.

15.

Becky Clark

7/23/20 Email – Rick Martens Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the NPDS general permits. The MNCAA organization and its members have been committed to providing safe and reliable manure application in the state of Minnesota for more than 30 years. Mn manure applicators have been innovators and have been on the forefront of application improvements and technology advances to provide the best possible, safest and timely application of manure. Our success is in providing environmentally safe application of manure is proven in the successful and profitable crop production of our clients, a stable customer base and the dedication to elimination of manure storage breaches. We host training for our members to provide the most up to date information, but it is also an opportunity for networking and sharing struggles of application conditions, as well as successes in the following crop year production from manure application. We are hands on, proven, real life circumstances experts in the world of manure application. The following are comments on manure application as they relate to the proposed draft of the Feedlot NDPES General Permit. Page 7, 14.4: While the 50-degree soil temperature is ideal, it is not practical. The possibility of frozen manure application increases exponentially the longer application is delayed. Delayed application increases emergency winter application events. Increasing to 60-degree soil temperature would increase the window of opportunity for safe application, and still provide greater protection from phosphorus losses than emergency winter application. Consider risk and reward. Page 7, 14.5: After mid-September, cover crops may be hard to establish and be effective. Allowing application based on soil temps, again 60-degrees, would be much more effective. Page 8, 14.6: Include last half of September. Increase to 60-degrees. Change cover crop wording to “has been established”. Page 9, 14.10: Prohibiting liquid manure application in the months of January, February and March would make reasonable sense. Emergency winter application stems from a significant weather event during fall application time. Limited field availability is probable. Restricting maximum of 3500 GPA may be unattainable. One size, max rate will not work. Limiting P205 can be achievable. Abiding by setbacks for frozen ground increases number of acres needed. Page 20,30.53: Manure that is applied to lightly frozen soil, less than 6”, in late November and early December adheres to the soil and is absorbed into the soil profile. With snow cover, the frost will tend to be removed, allowing manure to adhere to the soil, preserving nutrients. Exempting Early December from Winter application definition would be reasonable. The window of opportunity for applying manure is already small. Manure application is the last thing in the field in the fall, first in the spring. Best management practices are a guide, developed on a fairly small-scale test plots. As the agency knows, animal agriculture has increased to a large scale. Commercial application of manure was developed to handle the large volumes in a timely manner, efficiently, with expertise. If the window of opportunity for manure application is too small, commercial manure application will not be a sustainable business. Who will apply the large volumes of manure? Emergency winter application will increase exponentially. Worse yet, storage facilities will over flow. Addition comments in consideration of proposed changes:

Organic Farmers are NOT Allowed to use Chemical types of N Stabilizers

N Stabilizer products don’t work well in warmer soil temps in August or September

Recommended Rates for N stabilizer products early fall is double Rates or more which is Not cost effective

It will cause financial hardship and is not economical to use N Stabilizer with current cash crop prices and livestock prices as low as they are.

N Stabilizer Application Equipment is Very Expensive and very high maintenance

License Requirements to be able to buy and use N Stabilizer

Cover crops planted in September / October are very questionable on the benefits

There is not enough growing days between planting of cover crops and Average first frost date

There generally is poor germination rates with cover crops planted after Canning Crops, or Corn Silage due to clumpy soil conditions

You have to have a timely rain after planting cover crop to have acceptable germination and stand

There still is a risk that there will be residual Herbicide that can inhibit cover crop germination and growth when planting cover crops early fall

Restricting manure application based on soil temps will shorten the window of opportunity to get manure injected into the soil

The reasoning that you are trying to Lessen Environmental effects by restricting manure application in soils above 52 degrees will Potentially cause even More Environmental consequences.

Shortening the manure application window runs the risk of being forced to applicate on frozen or saturated soils causing even more Environmental consequences.

Shortening the manure application window will cause it to not be economical to be in this industry and cause non sustainable high costs to Livestock and Crop operations

7/23/20 Email – Joe Gill Good morning Mr. Schwint,

I farm and have connection with farmers on a daily basis. This issue is of concern to me and to many of my listeners.

I write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES

Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.

1. Cover crops should not be required for September manure applications. While cover

crops continue in adoption, we do not yet have systems in place to ensure they lead

to the outcomes desired.

a. A 2005 Literature Review done by the MPCA showed that manure improves

soil tilth and reduces runoff. If these are the outcomes desired of cover crops,

manure application may be achieving this already (Water Quality/Feedlots

1.08, January 2005).

b. Technology developed over the next five years will likely tell us how and when

cover crops can be helpful for reducing soil erosion and better water quality.

c. The current proposal does not consider corn silage roots plus stalks or alfalfa

may still be covering the soil and holding it with manure.

d. Adding requirements in September and October limits the days in which

manure can be applied, and could create worse consequences in the spring.

Also, see concern #6.

2. Direct injection should be added as a Best Management Practice. With rapid adoption

of direct injected manure, MPCA has never recognized it as a Best Management

Practice despite its known benefits. Direct injection:







3. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. Fall weather is

difficult to predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from year-

to-year. The use of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse

conditions in November or later. For these reasons we would suggest not

implementing these October BMPs. If BMPs in October must be followed:

a. 50o F is not a magic number, but a recommendation or suggestion. Below 60o

F maybe just as beneficial to the environment but much more flexible to

farmers.




Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca

collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at (at least) one of

the centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at

Lamberton and Waseca):

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31

This means in the previous four years, 24 days of the two months had an

appropriate soil temperature for manure application somewhere in Minnesota. This does not count local conditions, which can vary significantly.

In many cases, solid manure application requires just one or two days to keep animals’ areas clean and keep animals healthy. Prohibiting two

calendar months such as February or March would likely result in more

winter applications in January and April, when conditions may not be as ideal for manure application.

5. Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program enrollees should have

assurance. The MAWQCP farms should have assurance that their already agreed to

BMPs fit within the framework of this proposal.

6. Allowing manure storage beyond 14 months would help achieve some of these BMPs.

One limitation in Minnesota guidance is a 14-month limit on manure storage, even

when producers aim to have up to 24-months for flexibility and to obtain more BMPs.

With our current 14-month limit enforced by MPCA, our manure application windows

become emergencies, driving up the cost of application and hours required by

applicators to apply manure in an effective manner.

Thank you for your time,

Joe Gill

KASM 1150AM Farm Director/Traffic Manager

National Association of Farm Broadcasting - member since 2013

Albany, MN

7/23/20 Email – John Meyer To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.



desired.























must be followed:









a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31










manner.

John Meyer

General Permit MNG440000 Animal Feedlot Permit

It is my opinion that several of the proposed rule changes for the 2021 NPDES permit were written

without a clear understanding of the impact these changes would have on the environment, local

communities, the businesses and family farms that will be forced to implement these proposed rule

changes if they are accepted. Many of the points I will address have been brought to the attention of the

MPCA through meetings before the rules were drafted or through phone calls with MPCA employees,

but they have either been ignored or have fallen on deaf ears.

The MPCA should eliminate the propose rule changes regarding eliminating manure spreading during

February and March. They should continue with the current permit language defining the conditions

required for winter application of solid manure, clarifying that these requirements also apply to snow-

manure mix for the following reasons.

1. These proposed rules are based on ease of enforcement for the MPCA. The MPCA put

convenience of themselves as a top priority while putting almost no priority to the following.

a. The financial burden on producers.

1. Producers would be forced to handle all manure several extra times.

2. Soil compaction would damage crops

3. Areas used to pile manure would be unusable for months.

b. The convenience and time burden of producers.

1. Producers would be forced to focus on manure handling operations when they would

often be focused on planting small grains or other crops.

2. Producer would be forced to handle manure several extra times.

c. The burden to townships and counties to maintain roads.

1. If roads are frozen when manure is being land applied there is almost no damage done

to the roads.

2. When roads are saturated and thawing while land application equipment is being drove

on them the effects can be devastating. With the extremely short window to get

everything done in the spring (planting, calving, maintaining cattle yards, pumping

Liquid manure, etc..) producers would not be able to allow for road conditions to

improve. They would be forced to move manure out of their yards or piles any chance

they could. Most of this traffic would have occurred while roads remained frozen in

February and March.

d. The environment

1. There are many years where the chance of runoff would be greater during April than

during February or March. The best way to manage possible impact to the environment

is to continue identifying fields that have low runoff potential and applying manure to

those fields during winter months. The MPCA has provided no evidence of runoff events

associated with winter applications from NPDES permitted sites.

e. The welfare of animals affected by these rules.

1. If producers are not allowed to haul manure during February and March one way to

avoid the cost of handling manure several different times and causing extra compaction

to crop production areas would be to allow manure to remain in the cattle pens for

extended periods of time. With the extra manure in the pens it would be much harder

to maintain comfortable nourishing conditions for livestock that most producers strive

for.

2. The rule is unnecessary, impractical, and unworkable.

a. The MPCA has not provided any evidence or any convincing data showing winter application

from NPDES site in Minnesota has an adverse effect on the environment.

b. There are measures in the current permit to ensure NPDES sites apply manure during all

winter months only to fields that show little risk of runoff.

c. The burden put on producers is so great that many will quit or reduce in size so they are

under 1000 animal units and are not required to obtain a NDPDES permit.

d. The MPCA gives the impression that piling manure during February and March and land

applying it in April is a simple solution. There are many reasons this will not work.

1. Large piles of bedding, snow and manure will freeze rock solid making them impossible

to handle while they are frozen.

2. Once these manure piles start to thaw the bedding acts as and insulating blanket. These

piles will take months of warm weather to thaw.

3. Once the piles thaw it will take several more months of good dry weather for the soil

under the pile to become firm enough to approach with any equipment.

4. Above numbers 1, 2 and 3 make it nearly impossible to land apply this manure for an

average of 4-8 months depending on the make up of the pile and the weather.

e. There is the possibility of a February and March with little or no snow. In this event there is

a possibility the manure pile would be accessible for land application. However, the

compaction to the soil cause by land application while the ground is thawed would be

devastating to the crop and would increase the likelihood of erosion on packed soil. It would

also eliminate the benefits of having manure applied to fields to reduce wind and water

erosion during February and March.

f. Conditions vary greatly from one area of the state to the other and from year to year.

Having a one size fits all solution is lazy and is not what is best for producers or the

environment or the communities the MPCA is supposed to be serving.

Now I will address the rules that are associated with the ability to land apply snow out of cattle yards

after a “significant snow event.”

It is important that producers know they will not be penalized for applying snow from cattle

yards to fields in order to properly care for their cattle. If the MPCA removes the proposed rules

eliminating manure application during February and March, then the proposed rules to

“significant snow events” will be insignificant. If they do not remove the proposed elimination of

manure application during February and March, then they must provide more clear guidelines in

the following areas.

a. “Significant snow event” is not defined in the permit and no MPCA staff has been willing to

give us any clear guidance on the topic. We were told the MCPA will decide after an event if

it is significant or not. This must be defined for the following reasons.

1. “Significant snow event” is so vague that the interpretations and endless.

2. Snow accumulations can vary greatly from township to township. How would the MPCA

staff be able to determine in a timely manner if a snow event was significant if they have

no clear definition of “significant” and they have hundreds of different sites to analyze

after every snow event? my definition of a “significant snow event” includes 1.5 feet of

snow blowing into my cattle yards after a week with no snow or wind. Is the MPCA’s

position the same?

b. There must be guidelines to the amount of manure that can be included with the snow that

is land applied. During a 3-day blizzard it is impossible to remove snow from manure in the

cattle yards. Without clear definitions of the amount of manure that can be mixed with

snow, producers would not be comfortable hauling any amount of snow out of their cattle

yards. It takes an insignificant amount of manure to discolor snow. Producers must know

that the limitations on manure mixed with snow are reasonable and clearly defined.

c. The requirement for producers to call their local office to receive permission after each

significant snow event must be removed for the following reasons.

1. It would not be possible for local MPCA staff to analyze and give permission in a timely

manner.

2. Producers must be able to plan before and during a snow event to organize help and

prepare equipment. It is most producers goal to return cattle yards to a comfortable

nourishing environment immediately after any snow event. If producers cannot get in

contact with MPCA staff or must wait several days over a weekend this would be

detrimental to the ability of the producer to take care of his animals. After seeing the

proposed rules, it appears as if the MPCA did not even consider animal welfare while

drafting them.

3. This requirement would be wasting taxpayer’s money. It is much more efficient and

reasonable to clearly define terms to allow producers to make decisions based on facts,

not the determination of an individual MPCA employee who may be located 100 miles

away and likely has no real-world experience dealing with these situation.

Now I will address the proposed rule changes to manure application in September and October.

1. Pertaining to cover crops the word “establish” should be replaced with the verb sow. Producers

cannot control what happens once a cover crop has been sown. Some years cover crops become

establish and thrive while other years they germinate and die.

2. The requirement for a nitrogen stabilizer, split application, cover crop or waiting until soil

temperatures are below 50 degrees in Oct. is not practical for solid manure for several reasons.

a. The probability of a cover crop having a long enough growing season to provide any benefit

is extremely low.

b. It is nearly impossible to incorporate a nitrogen stabilizer into solid manure well enough to

create any benefit.

c. Split application would require spreading more manure after fall tillage. One of the most

proven ways to stabilize nitrogen is to incorporate it.

d. Waiting for soil temperatures to fall below 50 degrees is a nice thought. When it can be

done it is likely beneficial. The fact is there are years when there is not enough time

between the first day of 50-degree soil temperatures and the soil being frozen to apply

manure and complete other fall obligations such as harvest and tillage. Most custom

manure applicators take advantage of any opportunities they have to spread manure early

because there is not enough time or equipment to get everything applied while the soil

temperatures are in that specific temperature range. Once the calendar turns to October

the amount of microbial activity in the soil is low enough that there is little breaking down of

nitrogen happening. The risk of not getting manure applied while it can be incorporated is

far greater than the benefits of waiting until soil temperatures are at or below 50 degrees.

The same can be said for liquid manure, some years there is not enough time for application

while soil temperatures fall from 50 degrees to 32 degrees.

I sincerely hope you consider all the comments during this public comment period process more

seriously than you considered the comments during the meeting with the Minnesota Cattlemen’s

Association before the proposed rules were published.

Edward De Langhe

7/23/20 Email – Roger Zastrow I am writing in regard to the proposed changes in general permit for feedlots. Banning the spreading of manure in winter months will put many small farmers out of business. On our farm we spread 3 to 4 loads per month in the winter, if we have to put in storage for that we can not afford it. We have had no problems with the current regulations. We have the land we can pick out to safely spread manure. Also no one talks about the benefits to wildlife from the grain that passes through cattle, in our area when most people quit spreading manure our pheasant population crashed. The fields that were spread always had birds of all kinds out there eating. Now the only fields in our area that have any amount of spreading done are owned by the Amish. Thank You Roger Zastrow Long Prairie MN

7/23/20 Email – Grant Binford To whom it may concern: I am writing to submit my comments on MPCA’s proposed manure application changes to NPEDS permit holders. There are a number of the proposed changes that will negatively affect us as permit holders and other industry professionals while providing little to no benefits to the environment.

1. Limiting Fall Application a. In Minnesota, we have a very limited window of manure application days available as

the last few years have shown. Limiting those available days further would be costly to the livestock industry in this state and also probably leave some application to surface applied instead of injected because of ground becoming frozen before all application could happen. We should also not treat all regions of the state the same since there is so much variation between regions.

2. February & March Application of Solid Manure a. I feel strongly that the rules in place are sufficient to provide a high level of water

quality. In fact, in my county of Rock, there is data that Fecal chloroform bacteria has gone down in the Rock River over the last 60 years with current rules and practices that producers are using. New regulations once again do not allow for each region or even differences in fields with more sensitive areas and ones that carry little risk of runoff. Manure that would have to be stockpiled would have to be mostly land applied in the fall since spring application usually leads to reduced yields because of compaction and timeliness of planting.

In conclusion, I would strongly urge MPCA to not inflict more challenges and costs on producers that can ill afford these burdens with the outcome of the changes to provide negligible benefits. Sincerely, Grant Binford

7/23/20 Email – David and Kathleen Skiba To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.



desired.























must be followed:









a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31










manner.

Even though we are a smaller dairy producer our sons might consider expansion in the future. We need decisions based on the climate of Minnesota and how that changes in each subsequent year. We need decisions based on science and research that will be the best both for the farm land, the farmer, and the environment. Trying to rush plans through is not an effective method for agriculture to remain a viable industry in Minnesota. David & Kathleen Skiba

7/23/20 Email – DJ Buck George, As a dairy producer I am also a custom applicator of manure. The new requirements will make our job much more difficult/nearly impossible. The problem I see with cover crops after application no matter the date in the fall is that they are very difficult to establish. If we wait to pump all manure until the ground reaches 50 degrees we will really be up against the clock on applying all manure before the ground freezes. Would we rather pump manure with 60 degree soil temperature or have an emergency application on frozen ground? Direct injection should be a BMP. The benefits in my opinion are relatively obvious. Thank you for your time. You always have an open invitation to check out our application operation and see what we do to promote soil and environmental health. I strongly urge you to give my comments some serious consideration. Thank you. -- DJ Buck

7/23/20 George Schwint Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza Suite 2165 Mankato, MN 56001

Re: General Permit Animal Feedlot Permit

Dear Mr. Schwint,

Please accept these comments regarding the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program general permit changes. Although I am appreciative of the agency’s efforts to simplify the application process, I have some issues with these proposed changes as outlines below.

1. Cover Crop required to for manure application in September. If the summer application cover crop requirement is to be extended into September, these requirements should include other BMPs as outlined in section 14.

2. A nitrogen BMP would be required for manure application in October. Soil temperatures can vary considerably across the state of Minnesota in the month of October leaving some producers only a few days to haul manure provided other conditions allow. These requirements would cause logistical challenges for farmers and are unlikely to result in significant water quality improvements. Limiting amount of manure being able to be hailed in October will result in more stockpile of manure that will need to be hauled over the winter. In regard to these best management practices, the word “established” when pertaining to a cover crop should be changed to “planted” in point 14.6 (c). Fall weather is variable and without proper rainfall and environment, cover crops that are planted are not guaranteed to become established. For producers who have a bed pack or solid manure facilities, nitrogen stabilizers do not work well. Therefore, if cover crops are planted and not established that producer is then paying to plant a cover crop, paying to use a nitrogen stabilizer that does not always work on solid manure and wasting valuable manure hauling days.

3. Applications of solid manure would be prohibited in February or March regardless of weather or field conditions.

These requirements are unreasonable. Field conditions in February and March have been proven adequate for manure application with minimal runoff. Echoing the point above, temperatures and conditions vary greatly across the state of Minnesota in the months of February and March. Spring weather can and has been a month earlier in the southern portion than the northern part of the state.

Calendar dates should not dictate a producer’s ability to manage their pens. Especially when there is no research to agree with these exact dates regarding run off. On the contrary, many days in February and March are ideal for manure hauling in the southern portion of the state.

4. Approval from the MPCA would be required prior to application of manure-snow mixture from animal holding areas.

Weather is not predictable, and producers need to know exactly when they can clean pens and haul manure following snow events. The restriction of application of manure following a ‘significant’ snow event is unreasonable. Feedlots around the state of Minnesota are all unique. Facility design, location, topography of the land etc. a significant snowfall is vague. In the southern portion of the state where I am from, an inch or so of snow with wind can cause drifting in holding areas that requires cleaning. When referring to mud and loss of gain and feed conversion, significant snowfall is not always 6 plus inches. When cattle stand in mud (generated in winter by manure and snow mix) that is dewclaw deep gain is reduced by 7% and increases exponentially as depth of mud increases (UNL 1991, Mader, 2011; https://beef.unl.edu/c9405542-1c41-4b9c-a143-f192e1e72917.pdf). Similarly, as cattle stand in mud and wet environments, they are more prone to foot rot, hairy heel wart and other foot and leg issues. Weather events don’t only occur during the work week and if producers have to wait for MPCA to answer their call and make a decision on application, snow mix could be turned to slop thus harder to pile or haul. Producers need to know for certain whenever a snow happens they have the ability to clean pens and haul manure to ensure they are conducting the best management practices to maintain gain and animal comfort and care. The MPCA should continue the current permit language defining the conditions required for winter application of solid manure, clarifying that these requirements also apply to snow-manure mix.

Thank you for taking time to review my comments. If you have any questions regarding them please feel free to reach me at [email protected] or 507-822-5921.

Sincerely,

Allison VanDerWal

https://beef.unl.edu/c9405542-1c41-4b9c-a143-f192e1e72917.pdf

https://beef.unl.edu/c9405542-1c41-4b9c-a143-f192e1e72917.pdf


7/23/20 Email – Chris Buck George, I am a dairy farmer in the southeastern part of the state. I have some concerns about the new permit. One concern is that we should consider summer broadcast application of manure into a growing hay crop as a good practice. It releases nitrogen to the air, it reduces the need for commercial fertilizer, and we would only apply when the forecast shows no rain and conditions are dry. With the summer heat the manure would completely dry and be soaked up by the ground in under 24 hours. I see this as the same as applying with a cover crop. Most farms have plenty of nutrients and buying commercial nutrients is not cost effective or practical. Our climate is very different from the northern part of the state. A one size fits all for winter application is not the best way forward. I have concerns that fall applications being delayed based on ground temperature would create a different problem when it comes to not getting all manure applied before the freeze. Direct injection into warmer soil temps is better than a broadcast on frozen ground. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Chris Buck

7/23/20 Email – Christy Jackson Mr. Schwint, I respectfully write in opposition of the general permit that will limit times feedlots are allow to apply manure to land. I am the 4th generation on our Century Farm in SW Mn. My hope is that my boys will be the 5th. We are blessed with the ability to care for land and raise livestock. While it has been rewarding, our ability to operate is becoming more and more limited, by regulations such as this. Animal welfare and sustainability are at the fore front of consumer concern. I also understand the concern to protect our environment. We are trying to operate and respect all of that. The only way we can transfer this farm from generation to generation, is to be good stewards of our resources. Any farmer can tell you that is what they strive for – if we don’t, we do not succeed. This permit, however causes great concern for us to be able to do that for two reasons:

1. Manure application as an ORGANIC means of fertilizing the soil is the ultimate form of sustainability. We invest in consultative services to help us know where, and how much to apply, and WHEN, to maximize benefit and soil fertility.

2. Limiting the WHEN to apply infringes on our ability to provide optimal care for our livestock – that becomes a welfare issue.

When your house is dirty, you clean it – for the health and safety of your family. Same goes for livestock. It creates horrific living conditions, and limits their ability to get to feed if they are wading and laying in feet-deep manure and sludge. Limiting when we can apply an organic, sustainable means of fertilization to our ground to grow crops, AND create very poor living conditions for our livestock is not in the best interests of what our public expects from us as caretakers of land and livestock. Please reconsider this permit. Regards, Christy Jackson VP, Cottonwood Cattle Producers

7/23/20 Email – Chad Hinsch George, I know the comment is this is just for large 1000+ animal unit facilities. However, rule changes always seem to trickle down to smaller sizes as well. On our dairy of under 1000AU we have limited manure storage. It is cost prohibitive for us to spend the money needed to construct longer term storage. We have applied for assistance in the past and been told, “you do a nice job and are not causing an environmental issue” so we do not qualify for assistance. Currently we have 30 days of manure storage. The costs to go to 6 or 12 months storage is $500-$1000 per cow for cement structures. In today’s fluctuating markets it is not feasible for us to spend that large amount of money to maintain sustainability in the dairy industry. There are many groups that attack animal agriculture. Just please be sure to use proven science behind rule changes. Many ideas seem and sound good until they are tested. Then there is always the practicality issues. Sometimes great ideas are just impractical and financially crippling. Thank you for your time and considerations, Chad Hinsch I am also in agreement with the following letter I’m sure you have received: RE: Comments on General Permit MNG440000 Animal Feedlot Permit To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.



desired.
















d. Reduces risk of P runoff and particulate P loss is reduced.







must be followed:









a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31










manner.

Chad Hinsch

7/23/20 Email –Luke Daninger To Mr. Schwint and members of MCPA, I write with some concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. Producers I work with as an agronomist are doing a good job of applying manure with the environment in mind. Cover crop adoption, attention to slope and weather considerations are the top of mind already. Often times, Mother Nature ends up helping to dictate a lot of what happens as well and our producers do their best to be stewards of the environment while managing Mother Nature at the same time. The permit should make the following changes before approval.

1. Cover crops should not be required for September manure applications. While cover crops continue in adoption, we do not yet have systems in place to ensure they lead to the outcomes desired. I have more producers I work with every year who are utilizing cover crops.






a. Limits soil compaction. b. Preserves more soil organic matter and soil structure. c. Allows for application to growing crops and can be similar to no-till in

results. d. Reduces rick of P runoff and particulate P loss is reduced. e. Reduced N volatization loss, resulting in retention of plant-available N. f. Reduced odor issues.

3. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. Fall weather is difficult to predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from

year-to-year. The use of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in November or later. For these reasons we would suggest not implementing these October BMPs. If BMPs in October must be followed:


b. Direct injection should be added as BMP. c. The suggested required cover crop BMP should be planted, not

“established.” 4. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The

University of Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at (at least) one of the centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca):





Thank you, Luke Daninger Senior Crop Advisor Ag Partners Coop

7/23/20 Email – Ben Schirmers Please do not add more strain on small farmers. Many small farmers have had no previous contact with MPCA and having the potential of action taken against them on very small acreage could be the straw that breaks them.

7/23/20 Email – John Boon

Dear Mr. Schwint, These new requirements and regulations are unreasonable. We already comply with the current regulations for piling and spreading manure and adding more will put further burdens on burdened Minnesota farmers. Let me explain why. First, we can’t have regulations based on a calendar date. We must be able to spread solid manure in February and March because that is when the fields have the best conditions for spreading – no or little snow and frozen ground for no spring compaction, which affects our crop yield (which gets fed to the cattle). Second, we can not wait for approval to haul it out after a snowfall. We take manure out twice a week and put in many hours to make sure our cattle are safe and healthy. Having to wait for approval for each removal will result in sick cattle and added stress and mental fatigue to us as producers. We need you to step into our shoes and realize how greatly this would impact our lives, our business, and everything else from being unable to afford a large concrete bay for manure to getting docked financially at the packing plant for sick, not prime cattle. We need people who will come along side of us who are willing to listen to how our operations work. Come out to our farms and you will begin to see how these regulations will greatly hinder us and our state’s cattle products. Thank you for taking the time to hear us, John Boon Owner/Operator D & J Livestock, LLC

7/23/20 Email – Dennis Wulf Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed general permit revisions. As a farmer, I have concerns about theincrease in regulations with respect to manure application that are proposed with this permit revision. Manure is a valuable fertilizer product. My farm has used manure as fertilizer in the past and greatly benefited from it. The proposed requirements to plant cover crops in September and use nitrogen BMPs in October will be problematic for our state. Minnesota’s manure application season is already short given our climate. These requirements would further shorten that window, increase the cost of manure handling, and increase the risk that livestock producers will not be able to empty manure storage areas in the fall (which, in turn, is a threat to the environment). These increased regulations could also drive livestock investment out of Minnesota. Our rural economies depend on agriculture and adding value to our crops. In addition to creating jobs and tax revenue, animal agriculture creates amarket for Minnesota-grown crops, and it generates manure, which offsets the use of commercial fertilizer. As a policy matter, we need to promote livestock growth in Minnesota, not put livestock operators at a disadvantage to operators in neighboring states. Furthermore, the technology and infrastructure does not exist to effectively implement the proposed cover crop requirements. Given Minnesota’s short growing season, establishing cover crops is difficult. And as a practical matter, the industry does not currently have enough cover crop seed and planting capability to implement these requirements. I urge the MPCA to remove the proposed requirements for cover crops with September manure application and for nitrogen BMPs with October manure application. Short of that, the MPCA should treat the direct injection of liquid manure or the prompt incorporation of solid manure as a BMP that allows for September and October manure application regardless of soil temperature. Manure, when properly handled, has been shown to reduce runoff volume and soil loss. Thank you for considering my comments and concerns. Dennis Wulf I also don’t think we can have the same rules for the whole state.

July 23, 2020

George Schwint

Watershed Division

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165

Mankato, MN 56001

Email: [email protected]

RE: Draft Livestock NPDES Permit

Dear Mr. Schwint,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Minnesota Feedlot NPDES permit. The

livestock industry is an important market for grain producers, adding value to our crops, increasing

diversity of cropping systems and providing a valuable source of nutrients with which to fertilize crops.

We appreciate the Agency’s efforts to allow input on the development of a permit that is adequately

protective of water quality and within the MPCA’s enforcement capabilities. We have several concerns

with the MPCA’s proposed changes regarding land application.

Our primary concerns relate to the use of calendar dates to restrict manure applications. We encourage

the MPCA to describe conditions under which manure applications can be made with reasonable risk of

loss with consideration of logistical restraints inherent in manure storage and handling, and weather

variability both across the state and from year-to-year. Minnesota’s seasons vary considerably. On

average, there is nearly a two-month difference in growing season from north to south. Our state also

experiences much more rainfall moving from the northwest, with 30-year normal precipitation of

approximately 24 inches, to southeast, where 30-year normal precipitation of approximately 34 inches.

Specific to the recommendation to restrict February and March solid manure applications, it is

noteworthy that expected precipitation in northwest Minnesota for the six-month period from

November through April is only 6 inches. In fact, total runoff at the Norman County Discovery Farms

location average less than 1 inch annually!

3080 Eagandale Place - Eagan, MN 55121 Phone (952)237-9822 Email- [email protected] Web- www.mawrc.org


http://www.mawrc.org/

We appreciate the agency’s use of Discovery Farms data but strongly suggest that you look at the full

collection available data. We also ask that in the future you would work with us, as our team can provide

a more thorough analysis of details behind the data. Simply lumping all the data together is interesting

but not necessarily useful. Worse yet is cherry picking one small subset of the available data to support a

new regulation.

For example, Minnesota Discovery Farms data confirms that March is, on average, the highest month for

total runoff, total phosphorus, and total dissolved phosphorus, as indicated in figure 1. In February,

however, runoff volumes and phosphorus levels are much lower. Further, as shown in figure 2, March

runoff constitutes 69% of snowmelt period runoff, followed by 17% in April and 11% in February.

Coupled with the low precipitation values for northwest Minnesota and the very low runoff volumes, we

question the agency’s approach of using dates as regulatory tools.

Figure 1. Total annual runoff and phosphorus values by month from Minnesota Discovery Farms data

Figure 2. Frozen period runoff values by month from Minnesota Discovery Farms data

The data used by the MPCA as justification for prohibiting February and March solid manure

applications include data from the Wisconsin Discovery Farms program, especially data collected about

15 years ago. This information has been used as an educational tool to help farmer understand the

significance of snowmelt runoff periods and encouraging producers to manage environmental risk by

1. planning ahead- identify fields that can be used for late winter applications, and

2. watching the weather- avoid applications when runoff due to rainfall, melting or both is

likely in the next few days.

Since 2010, very few data points like those from 2004-5 have been experienced, likely due in part to the

educational efforts of Discovery Farms, Extension and livestock organizations. Working together,

environmental impacts have been reduced.

Current permit language specifies requirements and conditions for field applications of solid manure

with minimal risk of runoff. These conditions echo those identified and used as educational tools by

Discovery Farms and Extension. Regulations based on calendar dates limit the farmer’s ability to manage

around weather conditions. The current permit has proven effective.

When solid manure cannot be safely land applied and stockpiles are established, we recommend that

the manure removal date be extended to June 15 to accommodate late springs and variability from

north to south.

Farmers need to know with certainty how to respond following large snow events. The proposed permit

language would require farmers to contact the MPCA after a snowstorm, wait for approval, and if

approval is obtained may be subjected to additional measures/practices. This is an unreasonable

requirement that limits the farmer’s ability to properly care for his/her livestock. Farmers should know

with certainty the conditions under which they can land apply snow and manure-snow mix so that they

can clean their lots in a timely manner, without waiting for approval or worse yet, be denied the

opportunity to properly care for their livestock.

We strongly suggest that the MPCA continue the current permit language defining the conditions

required for winter application of solid manure, clarifying that these requirements also apply to snow-

manure mix.

Cover crops can effectively reduce nitrogen loss and protect soil from erosion. We encourage their use,

particularly following early harvested crops. However, we suggest that the extension of the summer

cover crop requirement into September be amended to include other options, such as the use of a

nitrogen stabilizing product. This is also an area of on-going research at the University of Minnesota. In

the future, perhaps additional approaches will be developed to mitigating nitrogen losses from early fall

manure applications.

The new requirements for nitrogen mitigation in October will be logistical challenges for farmers to

follow and are unlikely to result in significant water quality improvements. Soil temperatures during the

month of October can vary considerably from year-to-year. Farmers need the flexibility to manage

manure in a timely manner and can utilize existing tools to mitigate nitrogen losses.

The number of days suitable for manure application are already severely limited in Minnesota by the

length of season. These requirements have the effect of further shortening the fall manure application

season and increasing the cost of manure handling.

Also, point 14.6.c should be worded similarly to the summer requirements, substituting “planted” for

“established”. Cover crop establishment is largely affected by weather, which is beyond the farmer’s

control. No new restrictions should be added for October manure applications.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments and concerns.

Sincerely,

Warren Formo, Executive Director

Minnesota Agricultural Water Resource Center

Chicken and Egg Association of Minnesota

Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers

Minnesota Corn Growers Association

Minnesota Farm Bureau

Minnesota Milk Producers Association

Minnesota Soybean Growers Association

Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association

AgCountry Farm Credit Services

Compeer Financial

7/23/20 Email – mnemitz To the issue of the cover crops, in southern Minnesota it is going to be difficult to establish a cover crop after spreading manure in September or October due to colder temps seeds do not germinate and grow slowly. As far as spreading manure in February and March we need that time to spread when the ground is froze. Waiting until the ground has thawed we do much damage to the field and reduce corn yields by 30-40 bushels an acre. Thus forcing us to spread all of the manure in the fall. With the work load that we have in the fall it becomes very difficult to get it all done.

7/23/20 Email – Cameran J. Bailey I came across the Draft Feedlots General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit on June 8, 2020. The proposed Feedlots NPDES Permit is for the construction, expansion, modification, or operation of animal feedlots in Minnesota. I offer the following comments for your consideration. Item 14.6 - “Alternatives [to nitrogen BMP’s] developed by a land grant University can be used if approved by the MPCA and included as part of the approved MMP.” I recommend that acceptable alternatives be able to come from entities beyond just “a land grant University” as that status alone does not denote uniquely elite, nor “better”, expertise. Considering the alternatives methods must still be approved by the MPCA, there’s no reason to not expand the potential pool of solutions beyond the MPCA. For example, the Metropolitan Council is piloting manure spreading technique with farmers in Empire Township, MN. Under the current permit language, BMP’s developed by local farmers and the Council would not be able to serve as alternative BMP’s without a land grant university cosigning. Item 14.9 - “The Permittee must notify the MPCA at least 24 hours before the initial establishment of the temporary stockpile.” Is 24-hours a sufficient amount of time for MPCA staff to respond to potential concerns raised by the use of a temporary stockpile? If not, I would recommend increasing the amount of time available for staff to respond. 15.1 - Land Application Setbacks. I’m pleased to see the flexibility and consistency being applied to setback regulations, as well as the incorporation of grass buffers and berms as potential control mechanisms. Item 23.2 - Permanent Closure. “Within one year after permanently ceasing operation of a facility component, the Permittee shall remove, from the closed component, all manure and any soils visibly contaminated by manure. [Minn. R. 7020.2025].” The subjectivity of this standard makes we wary that the next land owner, local government unit, or the state, may end up being burdened with additional costs for contaminated soils removal that the previous owner/operator should have been responsible for. I would recommend a more stringent threshold for which soils need to be removed than just those which are “visibly contaminated.” Operation of such a facility requires annual testing according to this permit. I would advocate for testing to be included on the back end closure of such an operation to better inform which soils are contaminated, and should be removed by the previous owner/operator. Item 24.2 - Recordkeeping Requirements. “Except where specifically noted, the Permittee shall retain all records/reports/submittals required by this Permit for a minimum of six years. This retention period shall be automatically extended during the course of any legal or administrative proceedings or when so requested by the MPCA. Documents shall be maintained at the facility or at the Permittee's business address. The Permittee shall make all documents available for examination and copying upon request of the MPCA or county feedlot officer (CFO) and shall, upon request, submit any documents to the MPCA or CFO within 30 days. [Minn. R. 7001.0150]” I recommend amending the text to read that “…all documents available for examination and copying upon request of the MPCA AND CFO….submit any documents to the MPCA AND CFO…” The rationale here is to maintain consistency in the level of knowledge and information for the CFO and MPCA to avoid misunderstandings and/or miscommunications.

Item 30.7 - Definitions. "Animal Manure" or "Manure" means poultry, livestock, or other animal excreta or a mixture of excreta with feed, bedding, precipitation, or other materials. [Minn. R. 7020.0300]” In light of the Metropolitan Council and other wastewater facilities testing the treatment and spread of human excreta for agriculture purposes, I would recommend explicitly stating what the MPCA’s policy and definition is for “human manure”, as “animal” is not defined, and humans are technically a species of animal. This concludes my review of the Draft Feedlots NPDES Permit!

State Office Building, 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., St. Paul, Minnesota 55155

Minnesota

House of

Representatives July 23, 2020 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North Saint Paul, MN 55155 Re: Comment Submitted for Proposed General Animal Feedlot NPDES Permit (MNG440000) The 2018 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change researchers told us that the world has only the next dozen years to sharply curb carbon dioxide emissions to head off the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. In MPCA’s FAQs on greenhouse gas emissions in feedlot environmental assessment worksheets you state “(g)reenhouse gases are chemicals that contribute to warming of the earth’s atmosphere and climate change. They include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons. Those most commonly associated with feedlots are nitrous oxide and methane.” In MPCA’s report, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions in MN by Sector (2016)” you find that 26.09% of the total emissions come from the transportation sector and 26.01% come from electricity generation. In your overall totals you combine agriculture—a greenhouse gas emitter—and forestry—a carbon sink. Agriculture alone, without counting the reduction from forestry, emits 25.69% of the total emissions. So, the emissions from transportation, electric generation, and agriculture are almost the same, each emitting approximately a quarter of all emissions in Minnesota. In 2005, total emissions from the agriculture sector were a little over 37 million tons of CO2 and in 2016 it was a little over 39.5 million tons of CO2. You further breakdown the emissions in each sector. While there is not enough information in your agriculture breakdowns for me to determine exactly how much comes from feedlots, I have a reasonable degree of confidence that emissions related to feedlots is somewhere between 12 and 33 percent of total agriculture emissions. These estimates do not include energy estimates, which are included in the total agriculture emissions, and no doubt factor into feedlots. The Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act that was enacted into law in 2007 seeks progressive reductions in greenhouse gas emission from 2005 levels. The goal is a 15% reduction by 2015 and a 30% reduction by 2025. MPCA has reported that Minnesota did not meet the 2015 goal. In the “Fact Sheet” about your proposed five-year renewal of the feedlot general permit you state that about 1,200 livestock operations in Minnesota are now permitted under the general permit and that with the new general permit they must meet construction, operational, and maintenance requirements for the production area and land application activities. You further say, “(t)he Permit contains protections for surface waters, groundwater, and air quality.

Yet, while you say you are protecting air quality, you choose to totally ignore the reality of the greenhouse gas emissions from 1,200 livestock operations. Nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, is emitted when manure is spread over fields. It is 300 times more potent than CO2 and also contributes to ozone depletion. Of the N2O released into the atmosphere from human activity it is estimated that roughly two thirds come from agriculture fertilizers and livestock manure and their runoff. Some think the estimation is low. As soil temperatures rise and soils are wetter from climate change, the emissions will only get worse. Where is your analysis of the contribution of the 1,200 feedlots that will receive a general permit under your proposed rule? Where is the mitigation? Methane and some nitrous oxide are emitted from manure pits as manure is decomposing. There are ways to curb those emissions—composting, manure additives, surface covers, aeration and more. What is the contribution from 1,200 manure pits? Where is the mitigation? MPCA has ample authority to deal with greenhouse gas emissions. You have chosen to use it for clean cars. Giving feedlots a five-year free pass undermines the other work you are doing. More importantly, you tell Minnesotans that their efforts to curb greenhouse gases are absolutely necessary, but with your actions in this proposed permitting process you say, not really. MPCA’s General Permit must be considered in a contested case hearing so Minnesotans can have the opportunity to weigh in on feedlot issues related to climate change. The groundwater degradation prevention goal enacted by the legislature in 1989 states:

It is the goal of the state that groundwater be maintained in its natural condition, free from any degradation caused by human activities. It is recognized that for some human activities this degradation prevention goal cannot be practicably achieved. However, where prevention is practicable, it is intended that it be achieved. Where it is not currently practicable, the development of methods and technology that will make prevention practicable is encouraged.

But groundwater in Minnesota is not being maintained in its natural condition and the problem of nitrogen in our waters continues to grow. A report from the Environmental Working Group found that in “69 of Minnesota’s 72 agricultural counties, nitrogen from manure combined with nitrogen in fertilizer exceeded recommendations of the MPCA and the University of Minnesota. In 13 counties, nitrogen from the two sources surpassed the recommendations by more than half.” Groundwater is drinking water. Some municipalities must now build water treatment systems to deal with the nitrogen problem. The cost is so high that they are asking for subsidies from state taxpayers who didn’t create the problem. A general permit system must ensure that there is not an unintended consequence of economic gain for those who market excess nitrogen or benefit from it and an economic burden for taxpayers who are asked to pay for cleanup. Individual families that use well water for drinking water are similarly burdened. Some have the means to filter their drinking water but not all do. While it is not fair that some have to pay to clean up their drinking water when it has been contaminated by others, it is unconscionable that some must drink water contaminated by others because they don’t have the means to clean it up. MPCA must recognize the equity issue here and deal with it. Just as MPCA fails to consider curbing greenhouse gases in this proposed permitting process, it fails to look at the consequences of climate change. Minnesota will have more rain and more intense rains. A General NPDES permit provides coverage to facilities that have substantially similar operations. But climate change with its more rain, more intense rain, and heat will impact different areas differently. MPCA must consider climate change risk and its localized impact to feedlots and their neighbors when issuing permits.

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-manure-overload/

As part of the permitting process, MPCA requires a production area “to be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to contain all manure, process wastewater, contaminated runoff, and direct precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. In other words, a discharge is only authorized from the production area when it is the direct result of precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event.” Basically, MPCA is permitting flooding if the rains come from storm events that are more intense than a 25-year, 24-hour event. Those will happen. And they will happen more often. The burden of the flooding will fall to neighbors and especially to those whose drinking water well is contaminated. The problem is intensified because Minnesota does not have the capacity to test all the wells that could be contaminated in a flood or even the capacity to let folks know that their well could be contaminated. MPCA’s permitting process must protect drinking water wells. MPCA’s General Permit must be considered in a contested case hearing so Minnesotans can weigh in on the multiple water issues that are raised here and by others. Respectfully submitted, Jean Wagenius Rick Hansen State Representative State Representative

July 23, 2020 MPCA Attn: Mr. George Schwint 12 Civic Center Plaza, Ste 2165 Mankato, MN 56001 [email protected] RE: Comments for Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Dear Mr. Schwint

Thank you for allowing public comment on the draft NPDES Feedlot Permit. I would like

to endorse on the comments stated by the Minnesota Pork Producers Association (MPPA). I am

personally thankful for the opportunity to have input on the proposed NPDES Feedlot permit in

its early stages. I was able to hear from MPCA permit staff as well as other producers with active

NPDES permits. It is disappointing that the comments and suggestions made during those

informational meetings were not integrated in the changes for the NPDES Permit.

The first item of opposition is related to the required mitigation practices during the

whole month of October. The MPPA sent out analyzed soil temperature data from the University

of Minnesota Research and Outreach Centers’ in Waseca and Lamberton for the past ten years.

During that time period, there is one clear outlier but on average, over the last ten years, soil

temperatures at the two locations have averaged 52 degrees Fahrenheit on October 12.

That being the case, I disagree with the proposed rule that would affect the entire month

of October for manure application. I recommend that the entire month of October be allowed for

manure application without required mitigation. Technology and other management practices

can ensure manure applications in the entire month of October can be done in an

environmentally responsible way.

There is a low probability of establishment of a cover crop planted in October, which

does not effectively store nutrients as intended. It is a farmer’s goal to utilize the nutrients as best

as possible and this practice would be very little or no benefit at all to the environment or the


farmer. Technology and other management practices can ensure manure applications in the entire

month of October can be done in an environmentally responsible way. I believe it is important to

allow the farmer to make those management decisions based upon the field conditions and

individual field characteristics. Though cover crops are used for some, it is not currently a widely

adopted practice.

The September soil temperature data shows temperatures are above 60 degrees for most

of the month. I am in support of the cover crop planting for manure applied in September.

In regard to adding a field to the MMP I do not find it reasonable to have to go through a

full public notice period. Many farmers nowadays rent a lot of the ground they farm. These

agreements can change from year to year making it a complicated process to add any new acres

they may be renting. Adding a field does not produce more manure. It merely puts manure in a

different place, so it is benign as far as the environmental protections are concerned. All setback

and application requirement remain the same. The requirement for public notice takes away the

flexibility in years of unpredictable weather and further burdens farmers. Providing notice to the

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regarding a change in field takes a large amount of time

and has historically not attracted many comments.

With the already short manure application window, if the above changes are

implemented, it could force other application decisions that may not be for the better of the

environment.

I appreciate the consideration of comments and involvement during this process. Please

feel free to contact me for further clarification or questions.

Thank you,

Emily Wegener

Environmental Manager

7/23/20 Email – Clayton Peterson Using a cover crop for fields that have been manured in September and October.

MN is a state with varying weather and crops. One size fits all never works. Our fall weather can be any

which way and with a short growing season establishing a cover crop in our fields has been problematic.

I have been a Crop Consultant since the early 80’s and have worked with over 250,000 farm acres. My

specialty is manure management and I work with feedlots doing the regulatory work and manure

management plans. I’m a CCA. I have been working with Organic farmers, no-till farms, ridge-till, strip-till

and conventional farms. I have been working on research for the establishment of cover crops the last 5

years. I have worked with flying on, inter-seeding, drilling, over-seeding and fall establishment of cover

crops. We are having a very difficult time in most cases of getting any establishment of cover crops. At a

meeting at ISU they said in Iowa that you have to have the fields seeded by the 2nd or 3rd week or you

won’t have good results. In MN it is even worse as we have less growing degree days. Over the 5 years

we have had very poor cover crop establishment that would result in any benefit of soil erosion and

nitrate reduction. I also have taken nitrate samples and have gotten no change in the top 12 inches to

the nitrate levels with a cover crop or no cover crop.

My experience shows that after manuring if the field is left ruff you end up with less soil loss than a field

that is not worked. I remember there being research to show that a no-till vs tilled ground after

application shows more phosphate run off. Bigger slopes more potential run off no matter what tillage

you use. Either case seeding and trying to establish a cover crop that will hold the soil when done in

September or October will usually fail.

I watched a webinar about the research done with one of the great lakes watersheds and they setup

research to look at adding cover crops to the watershed and it did reduce the Total Suspended Solids

(TSS) which reduced the non-water-soluble phosphates. Then when the cover crops died it increased the

water-soluble phosphates (which is the worst kind of phosphates for the environment). When dead

material dyes usually the first rain will cause water soluble phosphate to come off the dead material. Its

not a good trade to reducing the particulate phosphate for the water-soluble phosphate. Will this be

worse for the environment?

Nitrogen benefit? By growing a cover crop it will hold some of the nitrogen in the cover crop biomass, so

it won’t leach down into the soil and tile lines. Does that work? Let’s assume that the crop is Corn.

1- Data out of Iowa State University (ISU) put together research: Start out with a Corn field that has

no additional nitrogen (N) added and gets all its nitrogen from the soil vs a Corn field with the

normal recommended rate of nitrogen. They tested the nitrogen rates coming out of the tile

under the corn fields. Research found that no Nitrogen put down for the crop gave them a

nitrate rate at 7 ppm at northern Iowa site and for fertilized corn filed they got 8-9 ppm and 7-

12 ppm for fertilized soybeans. So even if we use no nitrogen on our fields whether through

manure or adding commercial fertilizer, they only got 1-2 ppm difference. ISU is working on

research to figure out how to reduce nitrogen going into the Mississippi river and to the gulf.

They have found that going to a zero application of nitrogen will not solve the nitrate leaching

issue.

Reference: 2017 Integrated Crop Management Conference. Impacts of 4R nitrogen Management on

drainage water quality. Matthew J. Helmers, Prof, Agriculture and Biosystems Engineering, ISU.

2- Outside (non-man) sources of nitrogen: Many of our soils produce over 100 lbs of nitrogen on

their own by the microbes breaking down the organic matter during the growing season. Some

years about 5 or 6 in the last 30 years the organic matter went into overdrive and producing

higher than normal nitrates. The reason I know this is I take nitrogen samples during the

growing season and it shows up. You also can tell because the corn gets extremely green fence

row to fence row during those years. Some U of M research will show if you put a grass on a test

plot and let it grow like a prairie you will find that over time you get very little nitrates in the tile

lines vs the corn-soybean plot. To get this to that point you need to have a long-term growth in

the grass plot. A short-term cover crop in the fall has a small effect on reducing nitrates.

3- You want us to put a cover crop in September and October will not produce enough biomass to

have any effect on reducing nitrate losses. Research done in North Dakota (Rutland, ND a few

miles north of SD border) shows that using a cover crop planted in early August did reduce

available Nitrate nitrogen if the cover crops got established. The results from that plot did show

a reduction of residual nitrogen of 100 lbs./ac compared to the non-cover crop area. In the

spring the nitrogen needed for the economic optimum N was 77 lbs. for non-cover crops and

178 lbs. for the cover crop area. The economic loss to the farmers was $57/Ac. The formers had

to increase the nitrogen rate where they used the cover crops as the N was tied up in the

biomass. The researchers also seeded a cover crop in late June between the rows and it only had

an uptake of 5 lbs./ac. In their conclusions they said that they didn’t use grass-only mixes but

that it is well documented by others that they will not provide N to the next corn crop (e.g.,

Pantoja et al., 2015) We can’t ignore the fact that if you can get a cover crop established in

September or October you may tie up the nitrogen so that the next year’s crop is not able to use

it and the farmer will then be required to use more commercial nitrogen to make up for that tie

up. Doesn’t that add more nitrogen to our fields? Are you willing to allow us to add additional

nitrogen to our crop the following year if the material is lock up in the biomass? Who is going to

pay the extra costs to establish the cover crops?

References: These conclusions and references are documented in the January-February 2020 Crops &

Soils Magazine page 3.

2017 Integrated Crop Management Conference. The science of cover crops in Iowa. Liz Juchems, events

coordinator, Iowa Learning Farms, Stefans Gailans, research and field crops director. Iowa Cover Crops

Working Group looked at available research and Iowa State Survey of farmers. Survey showed looking at

income, yields and expenses it showed between $46.25 to $54.31 loss to use cover crops. Is MPCA

willing to subsidize this loss to the farmers to establish the required cover crops?

MN Corn Research and promotion council. Best management practices to integrate cover crops and

manure. PROJECT NUMBER:4151-19SP, REPORTING PERIOD: January1 –March31, 2020, PRINCIPAL

INVESTIGATOR: Melissa Wilson, ORGANIZATION: University of Minnesota, PHONE NUMBER: 612-625-

4276, EMAIL: [email protected]: Preliminary research shows that Drilling in cover crops were not able to

be established by winter (Figure 1). With over-seeding Non-manured cover crop plots had greater

biomass production compared to manured plots. So, we not only have trouble establishing cover crops

in September and October in normal conditions but if we manure this research shows it will be worse.

Erosion - Even with establishing a cover crop there is a period when the ground is bare and erosion,

including rill erosion, occurs. My experience in MN shows that the amount of cover crop establishment

will not reduce some erosion and any rill erosion.


Research done on establishing cover crops in an article in the Crops & Soils Magazine September-

October 2018 page 18 shows that seeding after a soybean or corn crop will not produce significant cover

crop biomass. They did note that Corn grown for silage has a better chance if planted by Mid-September

than in Mid-October. This was in Pennsylvania and New York. Weather sometimes may be comparable

and sometimes not. They note that a recent survey indicated that inconsistent or poor establishment is

the most limiting factor that prevents adoption of cover crops by conventional farmers. Their conclusion

is you need to inter-seed to establish a good cover crop biomass.

A 5-year study by the ISU showed a 20 lbs. average of rye cover crop nitrogen held in the biomass

following corn and 18 lbs. average following soybeans. Testing the top 2 feet reduced 14 lbs. profile

nitrate-N with cover crop. Rye cover crop uptake was small. They looked at the time to recycle the N and

found that the process was not rapid and depending on the degradation rate will not be completed for

some time after terminating the cover crop. After 105 days, 77% of rye N uptake following soybeans and

60% following corn was gone from the rye material.

Will you allow us to add additional nitrogen to make up for the nitrogen tied up in the biomass?

Reference: Presented at Integrated Crop Management Conference Nov 2017. Nitrogen dynamics with a

Rye cover crop. John E. Sawyer, Prof, Agronomy, ISU.

Most research shows most rye growth comes in the spring.

Sincerely,

American Prairie Inc. Clayton Petersen

7/23/20 Email – Sam Wede This is Sam Wede with Nienow Acres and I am writing in reference to the new proposed manure

management plan. We feed 2000 hd of beef strs per year and it will cost us a lot to comply. We haul

solid manure all winter. If we have to stop in jan-feb then we will have a lot stockpiled by April. If we

have to go haul it all in April we won’t have the time and we will pack the ground terribly. It will cost us

more than it is worth. If these restrictions keep getting harder to comply with It won’t be worth feeding

livestock. Things are hard enough as it is.

Roseview Dairy

14886 255th Avenue

Sleepy Eye, MN 56085

7/23/2020





















a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31




John Rosenhammer, Greg Rosenhammer, Laura Scholtz

7/23/20 Dear Mr. Schwint, I am writing in response to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) proposed changes to the NPEDS permits for feedlots operating in the State of Minnesota. Minnesota is in a unique situation in the upper Midwest to have land both rich in agricultural production and natural water resources. After reviewing the proposed changes, I feel they will do more to hinder agricultural producers than help protect our water resources; primarily the focus on utilizing cover crops for early to mid fall manure applications. While many of the benefits cover crops present are well documented, achieving these benefits in reality proves difficult in northern latitudes like Minnesota. The University of Minnesota acknowledges this in a cover crop publication on there website by stating, “The primary challenged that successful cover cropping faces in Minnesota is the short growing season. There’s rarely ample time and favorable field conditions to plant and establish a cover crop after grain harvest and before winter sets in.” Simply put, we do not have a long enough growing season to truly capture the full environmental benefits a cover crop would provide. There are two primary factors that drive successful stand establishment of any crop, cover or cash; water and temperature. Both of these are highly variable in the fall of the year, as rainfall and temperature vary widely. A poorly established cover crop will not be successful in nutrient sequestration, as good root and vegetative development are needed. Also, historically southern areas of the state generally have a killing frost in early to mid October, generally coinciding with the harvest season. Even a cover crop established in mid to late September following a manure application would not have enough time to become established enough to provide any measurable benefit. Ultimately this ends up being a “feel-good” while incurring extra cost to the producer. These extra costs not only include the cost of seed, but also the capital costs of additional equipment and manpower required to seed the cover crop. Some research has been done looking at inter-seeding cover crops with the already growing cash crop. While this may fit in some operations, most research indicates this fits best in no-till and strip-till situations. Land application of manure in these instances becomes an issue, as to be in compliance with other language in the permit, manure must be incorporated within 24 hours of application or setbacks must be followed. Fall application allows for immediate incorporation to be in compliance with current guidelines. If inter-seeded cover crops are the only option, they would need to be tilled under following manure application, negating any positive benefits the cover crop would provide after manure application. And while October and November applications are allowed with Nitrogen BMP’s being followed, if farmers are forced to wait until soil temps consistently stay below 50 degrees Fahrenheit, they run the risk of not applying all store manure prior to soils freezing in the winter.

Given the current financial headwinds faced by producers in the last three years, unnecessary costs will inflict even greater financial burden on producers. Therefore, I feel this rule should be excluded from the updated NPEDS permitting process as it will increase production costs without providing real environmental benefit. Thank you for your time, Evan VanDerWal Four Corners Farms 13347 US HWY 71 Sanborn, MN 56083 [email protected] 507-822-3545

Voth Dairy LLC

22695 Co. 9 Blvd

Goodhue MN 55027

July 23rd, 2020



We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The

permit should make the following changes before approval.

1. Cover crops should not be required for September manure applications. While cover

crops continue in adoption, we do not yet have systems in place to ensure they lead to

the outcomes desired.

a. A 2005 Literature Review done by the MPCA showed that manure improves soil

tilth and reduces runoff. If these are the outcomes desired of cover crops,

manure application may be achieving this already (Water Quality/Feedlots 1.08,

January 2005).

b. Technology developed over the next five years will likely tell us how and when

cover crops can be helpful for reducing soil erosion and better water quality.

c. The current proposal does not consider corn silage roots plus stalks or alfalfa


d. Adding requirements in September and October limits the days in which manure

can be applied, and could create worse consequences in the spring. Also, see

concern #6.

2. Direct injection should be added as a Best Management Practice. With rapid adoption of

direct injected manure, MPCA has never recognized it as a Best Management Practice

despite its known benefits. Direct injection:







3. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. Fall weather is difficult

to predict, with October being one of the most variable in range from year-to-year. The

use of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in

November or later. For these reasons we would suggest not implementing these

October BMPs. If BMPs in October must be followed:

a. 50o F is not a magic number, but a recommendation or suggestion. Below 60o F

maybe just as beneficial to the environment but much more flexible to farmers.




Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca

collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at (at least) one of the

centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and

Waseca):

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31

This means in the previous four years, 24 days of the two months had an appropriate soil

temperature for manure application somewhere in Minnesota. This does not count local

conditions, which can vary significantly. In many cases, solid manure application requires just

one or two days to keep animals’ areas clean and keep animals healthy. Prohibiting two

calendar months such as February or March would likely result in more winter applications in

January and April, when conditions may not be as ideal for manure application.

5. Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program enrollees should have

assurance. The MAWQCP farms should have assurance that their already agreed to

BMPs fit within the framework of this proposal.


One limitation in Minnesota guidance is a 14-month limit on manure storage, even when

producers aim to have up to 24-months for flexibility and to obtain more BMPs. With our

current 14-month limit enforced by MPCA, our manure application windows become

emergencies, driving up the cost of application and hours required by applicators to

apply manure in an effective manner.

Bradley Voth, President

7/23/20 Email with attachment – Senator Scott Newman Mr. Schwint: Please find attachd a copy of Senator Weber’s letter to you regarding the above subject, dated July 22, 2020. Like Senator Weber, I represent many farmers that will be negatively impacted by the changes proposed by the MPCA. For all of the reasons outlined in his letter, I respectfully request that the MPCA reconsider its proposed action. Once again, the MPCA and the Commissioner is proposing the imposition of regulations that will have an adverse effect on the agricultural industry and the people that live in outstate Minnesota without a corresponding environmental benfit. Respectfully Submitted Senator Scott Newman, Senate District 18

7/23/20 Email – Marlin Fay

What is the purpose of putting a cover crop on ground in September for manure application? If you go in and inject the manure you are going to disrupt much of the cover, and the manure is placed below the surface anyway. It isn't going to run off. Many of the proposals specific to Solid Manure is already covered under current permit language. In language in MPCA doctrine is a phrase that says regulations must be "reasonable"! It's about time the agency started living up to that intention. The fact that much of the land that manure is put on isn't "owned" by the hog producer, but in fasct is "dedicated" through an agreement od some sort between othe land owner and producer raises questions in why the permit is tied to farming practices. Does the hog producer become the farming practice police of the landowner? Maybe the agency should be more concerned with the cracks in the floors that are being caused by the agencies inferior design requirement of putting footings beneath the flooring columns! If I had one structural engineer that agreed with that design, I would get off my soapbox. OR, if you could tell me how ACI 318 should be incorporated in the 7020 rules. It simply does not apply, just as much of the new permit language does not. I hope we can get back to being reasonable. Marlin Fay Grand Meadow Mn

7/23/20 Email – Ryan Franta George, I was trying to look on MPCA website on where or how to submit comments but was unable to find where to go to do that so I thought I would just submit my comments to you as I know today is the last day to submit comments. I will start by saying there is no better fertilizer out there then what comes from animals, that is hogs, cattle, chickens and other animals. All of that fertilizer is different in nature and nutrients, and it is much more difficult and expensive to apply and apply at different rates and times as needed. We all want to wait until conditions are perfect before we apply but that is just not realistic for us to do especially with the weather that we have been delt with just the last few years. Very short springs and very short fall with lots of rain and snow. These proposed changes are going to be very costly for all of us farmers in an already economical challenging environment. I have done trials myself on nitrogen inhibitors and have seen very little to no response at all to crop yields or nitrogen loss. Every farm and every field and every year is different, and there is way to many variables to make these types of changes with very little to NO justification on why this may or may not work. We are in a very tough climate to make cover crops work well also, I think these changes will be too expensive and will encourage people to wait to long to haul and then will be forced to get permits to haul on top of frozen ground to get rid of manure because it can't all be hauled in that short of a window. The last thing we as farmers want to do is waste our manure that is already very expensive and time consuming to haul. We are doing our very best with the regulations we already have in place and the equipment that we own, and the weather we are given. We are building organic matter in our souls which helps to create better, healthier crops, less run off, better use of water and nutrients, and less use of commercial fertilizer. These proposed changes should not be put into place without further evaluation and discussions.

7/23/20 Email – Daniel and Debbie Hennek To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.






a. Limits soil compaction. b. Preserves more soil organic matter and soil structure. c. Allows for application to growing crops and can be similar to no-till in results. d. Reduces rick of P runoff and particulate P loss is reduced. e. Reduced N volatization loss, resulting in retention of plant-available N. f. Reduced odor issues.



b. Direct injection should be added as BMP c. The suggested required cover crop BMP should be planted, not “established”

4. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The University of Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at at least one of the centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca):





Sincerely, Daniel & Debbie Hennek

“An Unbiased & Independent Ag Services Business – Using Data to Make Decisions.”

George Schwint Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165 Mankato, MN 56001 Phone: 320‐894‐5866 Email: [email protected] RE: Comments on Proposed MN NPDES General Permit: 2021‐2026 Dear Mr. Schwint, I am writing to provide comments regarding the proposed 2021‐2026 NPDES general permit. I have been working in Minnesota with large CAFOs since 2004. Our office works with over 130 current NPDES‐permitted sites, the vast majority covered under the General Permit. In addition, we work with over 130 growers managing crop production acres across 7 Minnesota Counties and 4 Iowa Counties. This includes management in soil fertility, residue and tillage, varietal selection, fertilizer timing and rates, manure applications, chemical selection/rate/timing, and general crop consulting. As such, we have extensive, first‐hand experience working with the entities covered in the proposed NPDES permit as well as the land management practices that are regulated under this permit. I will comment on the proposed changes based on the order they are presented in the draft Permit. Part 10.2: The Permittee is responsible for management of manure from the facility unless it is transferred to another party for land application on fields that are not owned or leased or otherwise controlled by the Permittee. At the time the other party assumes physical control of the manure, the manure ownership is considered to be transferred. The Permittee is responsible for manure hauled by, or for, the Permittee until it is physically relinquished to the other person. [Minn. R. 7001.0150] Comment: I understand that this definition is the same as the 2016‐2021 General Permit. However, I recommend removing the last two sentences of this part. A manure transfer should not hinge on physical control. If a permittee sells/trades/gives manure to another recipient and that recipient directs the permittee when/where and at what rate to apply the manure – the transfer does not occur when the manure leaves the application equipment. The Transfer occurred the minute the manure left the Animal Feeding Operation, at the behest of the recipient. The act of moving and applying the manure – on behalf of and at the direction of the recipient – should not nullify or delay the ‘manure transfer’. It


occurred when the recipient assumed the management decisions of that manure. This would not nullify any CAWT requirements that may be needed for such an arrangement. Part 10.3: Except for emergency manure application, the Permittee is prohibited from transferring ownership of manure to a recipient that will:

a) perform winter application of the transferred liquid manure; or b) perform winter application during the months of February and March of the transferred solid manure. [Minn. R. 7001.0150]

Comment: This part needs to be removed from the Permit in its entirety. I strongly object to the Agency dictating to the Permittee when they can/cannot transfer manure. The Agency does not have the authority to regulate commerce. Manure Transfers are an exchange of a valuable resources between two entities and the MPCA cannot dictate when that exchange will occur. The Permittee must be able to decide how/where/when they want to relinquish control of their manure via sale, barter, trade of gift. Additionally, if the transfer has occurred the Permittee doesn’t have control of how/when the manure is applied by the recipient, period. You cannot place this restriction on the Permittee as it is beyond their control. This added requirement to the permit will be vigorously opposed by existing permittees and trade groups. Part 14.5: June, July, August, or September Restrictions ‐ The Permittee shall not apply manure in June, July, August, or September to harvested fields unless a cover crop is established for the remainder of the growing season. The cover crop must be planted in accordance with MES recommendations by one of the following methods:

a) Interseeded into the standing primary crop such that vegetative growth is established prior to manure application; b) Planted/seeded after the primary crop harvest and within 10 days of manure application; or c) Other method approved by the MPCA and included as part of the approved MMP.

Alternatives developed by a land grant University can be used if approved by the MPCA and included as part of the approved MMP. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, Minn. R. 7020.2225] Comment: Change time required to have cover crop planted after June – September. Land that is with a manure application in June – August should have 14 days to plant or seed a cover crop after manure application. This will provide flexibility to the producer to finish up activities related to the harvest of the primary crop (storage, equipment maintenance, etc.), account for weather delays, and allow for optimum field conditions for seeding the cover crop and getting a successful stand. A cover crop seeded at this time should germinate rapidly (provided it is planted in a good seedbed) and root development will be fast. Any nitrate conversion will be minimal in this time period (14 days) and rapidly growing cover crops will be able to take up any soil nitrate. The requirement of the cover crop makes a practice aimed at protecting water quality/reducing nitrate leaching potential mandatory – the added time for producers to seed a cover crop doesn’t sacrifice the efficacy of this practice, but it does make it easier for producers to meet the requirements of the permit. The manure characteristics of solid manure, namely the high ratio of organic nitrogen to ammonium, make it less prone to nitrate leaching. A further explanation is given in the next comment. Therefore, Solid manure should be exempt from a portion of the conditions proposed in Part 14.5. Proposed Changes:

Exempt Solid manure for needing a cover crop when applied in August or September. Allow 14 days to plant/seed a cover crop after a manure application.


Part 14.6: October Restrictions ‐ The Permittee shall not apply manure in October to harvested fields unless at least one of the following nitrogen BMPs are implemented:

a) Soil temperature is below 50 degrees at the time of manure application; b) A nitrogen stabilizing agent/product is added at the recommended inclusion rates; c) A cover crop is established in accordance with the requirements of this Permit for June, July, August, or September manure applications; or d) A split application of nitrogen is used where no more than 1/2 of the recommended nitrogen rate is applied before October 31.

Alternatives developed by a land grant University can be used if approved by the MPCA and included as part of the approved MMP. Nitrogen BMP implementation is not required for emergency manure application, as defined by this Permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0150] Comment 1: There are serious changes that need to be made to this Part of the Permit. First, the restrictions need to be specific to manure type – liquid vs solid, and specie specific – Beef/Swine/Dairy/Poultry/Other. The rationale is simple. All manure has nitrogen but there are different forms of nitrogen and each form has different characteristics that influence leaching potential. Field‐applied manure supplies two main forms of nitrogen: organic N, and ammonium N. The ammonium portion is immediately available for plants to use, and the organic portion is not. It needs time to break down to become plant available. Manure from swine is proportionally higher in ammonium, beef and dairy manure tends to have higher amounts of organic nitrogen than ammonium. Organic nitrogen requires time, temperature and microbial activity to convert it to Nitrate. Organic nitrogen is not prone to leaching until it converted to nitrate, which takes a significant amount of time. Organic nitrogen must first be mineralized to ammonium before it can be converted to nitrate and be prone to leaching. Even ammonium nitrogen is resistant to leaching due to its positive ionic charge. When manure is left on the soil surface, ammonium rapidly converts to ammonia gas and is lost to the atmosphere, i.e., volatilization. If you surface‐apply and do not incorporate within four days, the ammonium will volatilize, and you can expect to lose half of the total nitrogen – but it does not leach. The organic N portion will remain, but it is not prone to nitrate leaching. If manure is injected or incorporated immediately, the ammonium cannot volatize. Then the ammonium is converted to nitrate by soil bacteria, a process dependent on time and temperature. Overall, high‐ammonium nitrogen manure sources are more at risk of nitrate leaching. Therefore, manure types need to be treated differently. Proposed Changes:

Exempt solid manure from Nitrogen BMP requirements on any October manure applications. Exempt liquid beef and dairy manure from Nitrogen BMP requirements on any October manure

applications. Comment 2: The relationship of Nitrification rate to soil temperature is not linear. Below 50 F the rate slows rapidly, but nitrification continues until 32 F. Waiting for cold soils and/or use of a nitrification inhibitor does not guarantee that fall‐applied N will be a completely successful practice. Late fall may be warm, or warm and wet conditions may occur the next spring (a time period with historically high potential for wet soils and nitrate loss is May – June).


There is approximately a 10% increase in nitrification rate when soil temperatures increase to 55 F1. I reviewed soil temperature data from the University of Minnesota Research and Outreach Stations in Lamberton and Waseca from 2009 through 2019. In Lamberton, soil temperatures reached 50 F or less, on average by October 12th. In Waseca, soil temperatures reached 50 F or less, on average by October 14th. Each location averaged a reduction of approximately 10 degrees from October 1st within two weeks (50 F). Waseca averaged approximately 0.81 F decline per day and Lamberton averaged approximately 0.70 F decline per day. Each day the soil temperature declined, there was a decrease in the relative nitrate conversion rate. Every crop producer wants all of their applied nitrogen to remain in the soil profile of the manure application field. A BMP that is effective and improves nitrate retention will improve crop productivity. This will improve profitability too. The inclusion of a nitrification inhibitor is an accepted method for reducing nitrate potential. However, it is expensive. Typically, a full rate of an approved nitrification inhibitor costs $12‐$14 per acre – approximately $2,800 dollars per 2,400 head swine barn. A nitrification inhibitor’s success in mitigating nitrate leaching and improving profitability is dependent on weather conditions the following spring (April – June). A cover crop seeded in the Fall season in Minnesota can have inconsistent success in establishment. I have witnessed this many times in the past 8 years. It is not uncommon, for non‐obvious reasons, to see limited germination, root development and growth – offering limited and/or inconsistent nitrate leaching mitigation. Sometimes it works well, some years it does not. A split application of nitrogen to 50% of crop need is nearly logistically impossible for high nitrogen manure types. In addition, the added time required to lower rates will increase the total days needed to apply and increase the potential for manure applications on frozen soils. Lastly, leaching potential is not equal for all fields. Soil type and texture, depth to bedrock or sensitive aquifers differs from farm to farm. Any rules and regulations aimed at mitigating nitrate leaching potential need to account for these factors as well. There is a great deal of uncertainty in efficacy in the proposed nitrogen BMPs that outweigh the clear economic impacts of each BMP. Proposed Changes:

Include the need for nitrogen BMPs for high ammonium manure types only, exclude all solid manure and liquid beef and dairy manure.

Change soil temperature to 55 F at time of application. This will provide an additional week, on average for producers to apply manure without a costly Nitrogen BMP with a marginal increase in leaching potential. Little manure, statewide, is likely applied before this time period (pre‐October 5th).

Change cover crop requirement from “established” to “seeded” as climate often dictates establishment and a farmer shouldn’t be penalized with non‐compliance after attempting to use a cover crop as a BMP.

Change split application of nitrogen to no more than 75% of the recommended nitrogen rate if applied before October 15th. This still achieves a reduction in the total Nitrogen applied and is in line with soil temperatures that reduce nitrate conversion. It is also much more achievable

1 Effect of soil temperature on nitrate formation. Adapted from Frederick, L.R. and F.E. Broadbent. 1966. Biological interactions. p. 198‐212.


logistically, making it easier to adopt and decreasing total days of manure application across the state – which decrease chances of frozen soil applications of liquid manure.

Allow the Manure Management Plan to designate October manure application fields that have low nitrate leaching potential, based on Statewide regional risk (NRCS has guidance), and individual field’s most limiting soil type (at least 33% of field), to apply manure without Nitrogen BMPs.

Part 14.8: Winter application of solid manure ‐ Winter application of solid manure during the months of February and March is prohibited. When allowed, winter application must comply with all of the following:

a) Manure is applied on fields identified in the MPCA approved MMP for winter application; b) Manure is applied more than 300 feet from sensitive features including lakes, streams, open tile inlets, sinkholes, water supply wells, mines and quarries, intermittent streams, un‐bermed drainage ditches, or public water wetlands; c) Air temperatures are less than 40 degrees Fahrenheit during, and for at least 24 hours from the end of, the application process when two or more inches of snow are on the field; d) Less than a 50% probability of rainfall in excess of 0.25 inches predicted by the National Weather Service within 24 hours of the end of the application period; e) Slopes are less than or equal to six percent on the entire portion of the field where manure is land applied. f) Water or ice do not occupy tillage furrows to the extent that additional snowmelt or precipitation cannot be contained between furrows or in other depressions within the field; and g) Fields used for land application meet a total phosphorus loss risk index number of two or less (low to very low relative risk) as calculated according to the Minnesota Phosphorus Index.

In the event of significant snow accumulation within animal holding areas, the Permittee may obtain approval from the MPCA for winter application of the snow and manure‐snow mix during February and March. If approved, the application fields must, at a minimum, meet the requirements above. Additional measures/practices may be required by the MPCA. [Minn. R. 7001.0150] Comment: A blanket prohibition of manure application in February and March would place a tremendous burden on many Minnesota livestock facilities, particularly those in the beef industry. Each winter, one of these months – typically February or early March – is critical for hauling solid manure on MPCA‐approved fields. The existing framework for regulating Winter application of manure is adequate and requires no additional changes. An outright prohibition of manure applications in February and March serves only the Agency’s need for simplicity and convenience and neglects to account for Weather, Field Conditions, Field Characteristics and proximity to Water. The Agency’s goal is to reduce the risk manure‐contaminated surface water runoff from reaching waters of the state. To achieve this goal, use the Manure Management Planner to designate appropriate fields suitable for February and March manure applications. The specific field characteristics, snowpack, weather and proximity to water are what influence the risk of manure or manure contaminated runoff moving off‐site. Do not prioritize regulatory convenience over sound science. It is my understanding that data collected in the Discovery Farms system is used as a justification for this prohibition. The system is well‐respected and is data driven. The data collected by Discovery Farms illustrates the risks associated with winter manure application. According to Tim Radatz2, “Phosphorus concentrations are not always increased

2 https://agwaterexchange.com/2016/03/24/whats‐the‐risk‐with‐winter‐manure‐application/


with winter manure application. However, when the right conditions are present for high frozen ground runoff, winter manure application can significantly increase phosphorus losses. Monitoring field conditions and weather forecasts can identify conditions when runoff is likely. Avoiding manure application during these times is key to reducing phosphorus losses. If manure needs to be removed from barns and lots, consider if stacking and spreading later is an option. If spreading manure to fields is necessary during these high‐risk times, try selecting fields that are flat, north facing, and an appropriate distance from waterbodies.” The Discovery Farms in MN 2018 data3 indicated that “Phosphorus losses in 2018 were similar compared to previous years. Average TP loss from surface runoff in 2018 was 1.22 lb./ac with a range from 0.03 to 2.64 lb./ac. Forty‐six percent of the surface runoff TP loss was in the dissolved form. Most of the surface runoff TP loss was in March, April, and July.” The month of February represented less than 1% of the Total (Dissolved & Particulate) Phosphorus from monitored farms. The 2017 Discovery Farms in MN data4 indicate that “Phosphorus losses in 2017 were lower compared to previous years. Average TP loss from surface runoff in 2017 was 0.22 lb./ac with a range from 0.07 to 0.42 lb./ac. Fifty‐one percent of the surface runoff TP loss was in the dissolved form. Most of the surface runoff TP loss was in October and February.” The month of March represented 1% of the Total (Dissolved & Particulate) Phosphorus from monitored farms. Wisconsin Discovery Farms data5 from 2003 – 2008 shows February and March as high‐risk months for winter manure applications. It can provide lessons for MN feedlot operators and regulators. But some important distinctions need to be drawn:

The Wisconsin site consisted of rolling ground with an average slope of 5%. The farm is operated in continuous no‐till, with a silt loam well drained soil type. Improved soil infiltration due to no‐till system, increases percentage of total runoff in times of

frozen soils. Collected averages of Total Phosphorus (TP) runoff were influenced by manure applications

done immediately preceding snow melt or during the active snow melt period. In one‐year, liquid dairy manure was applied in February within 5 days of a significant runoff

event. An examination of the MN Discovery Farms data indicates that both February and March have significant phosphorus losses via surface water runoff – this is not in dispute. However, it is usually one month or the other. It is the weather and field conditions that are driving this loss. Wisconsin data confirms that these months are the highest risk – but “actual losses varied greatly from year to year depending on landscape and weather characteristics, including snowpack depth, rate of melt, frost depth, and the amount of rainfall on frozen snow‐covered ground. When manure was applied to frozen ground with little snow cover a number of weeks or months prior to snowmelt, nutrient losses were low because manure had a good opportunity to come in contact with the soil (generally less than or equal to 3 inches of snow).”

3 MN Discovery Farms. 2018 Year in Review. https://discoveryfarmsmn.org/wp‐content/uploads/2019/02/2018‐DFM‐Year‐In‐Review_Final.pdf Retrieved July 20, 2020. 4 MN Discovery Farms. 2018 Year in Review. https://discoveryfarmsmn.org/wp‐content/uploads/2018/04/2017‐DFM‐Year‐In‐Review‐Final.pdf Retrieved July 20, 2020. 5 UW Discovery Farms. Manure Applications on Frozen and/or Snow Covered Ground – 7. http://www.uwdiscoveryfarms.org/UWDiscoveryFarms/media/sitecontent/PublicationFiles/farmriechers/Manure‐Applications‐on‐Frozen‐Snow‐Covered‐Ground‐brief.pdf?ext=.pdf Retrieved July 20, 2020.


There is risk hauling manure to fields in February and March – however, there is more to the risk than just the application of manure in those months – field slope, proximity to water, tillage, residue, snowpack and weather ALL influence off‐site movement of manure. Utilize the manure management plan to designate the lowest risk fields for February and March application and maintain the current requirements regarding snowpack and forecasted weather for regulating manure application in these months. Proposed Changes:

February and March winter applications are allowed on MPCA approved fields. o Fields should meet certain that will lower the risk of phosphorus loss. o Maintain current weather restrictions for applications made in this time period.

Part 14.9: The Permittee may establish a temporary solid manure stockpile at the facility during February and March without the need to modify coverage under this permit provided an approved permanent manure stockpile site is unavailable, weather or field conditions do not allow short term stockpiling of manure within land application fields, and the temporary stockpile location complies with all of the following:

a) The stockpile site complies with the location requirements of 7020.2125 Subp. 2C. b) The slope of the stockpile site does not exceed 2%. c) The stockpile site is elevated or bermed so that surface water cannot enter or flow through the stockpile site. d) Snow is removed from the stockpile site prior to establishing the stockpile. e) Manure is removed from the stockpile site as soon as practicable but no later than May 15th.

The Permittee must notify the MPCA at least 24 hours before the initial establishment of the temporary stockpile. Temporary stockpiling activities under this part do not release the Permittee from compliance with the effluent limitations of this Permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0150] Comment: The need for a temporary stockpile due to restrictions placed on February and March applied manure is warranted. Producers will need to do this, likely on an annual basis. Snowfall will drive the need more than anything. The Agency should understand that this ‘stockpile’ will be mixture of snow and manure. When temperatures rise, the snow will melt and this will become a ‘semi‐solid’ manure, prone to movement. It will not stack. It will not dry readily. It will be difficult to handle. There is a high degree of likelihood that it will no longer meet the definition of ‘Solid Manure’ in 30.47 of the permit. Manure applied to fields in the spring have a high risk for causing severe soil compaction. This condition inhibits root growth, water infiltration and negatively impacts crop productivity – severely. The result is less nutrient uptake, more surface water runoff and a higher probability of soil loss. Proposed Changes:

Manure must be removed from the temporary stockpile no later than 6 months from the date is was established.

o In most cases this manure will be handled, once dry, and moved to a temporary in‐field stockpile.

o In dry springs, it may be land applied. o In some instances, it may be ‘stacked’ and not removed until the following fall.

Due to the characteristics of this manure from Feb‐March months, and prevailing field conditions in the spring – there needs to be much greater flexibility in timing/removal.


Part 26.5: For any facility that does not meet the definition of New Source, the Permittee shall not discharge manure, manure contaminated runoff, or process wastewater into surface waters of the State from the production area unless the overflow of manure or process wastewater is caused by a precipitation event and the facility is in compliance with the requirements of this part and the operational, design, and recordkeeping requirements of this Permit. [40 CFR 412.31] Part 30.34: "New Source" means a swine, poultry, or veal calf facility that began construction after December 4, 2008, and is subject to a new source performance standard in 40 CFR pt. 412 prohibiting discharges from the production area. [40 CFR 122.2] Comment: This new designation is unclear and needs further explanation. I request that the Agency spend time discussing this new designation of a ‘New Source’ and how it affects the regulation of each feedlot. Specifically, what discharges are allowed in facilities that do not meet the definition of a ‘New Source’ compared to those that do. It is impossible to provide adequate public comment without a clearer understanding of this designation. As MPCA is aware, weather patterns have changed in Minnesota. Rainfall intensity and frequency has increased. This has increased the quantity of rain considered a 25‐year and 24‐hour rainfall event and it has also increased the frequency of ‘chronic’ rainfall events. The 2011‐2016 NPDES General Permit defined “Chronic Rainfall Event” as an amount of rainfall within a 14‐day period as great or greater than the 25‐year, 24‐hour rainfall event and which precludes field access or land application of Manure or process wastewater without runoff or ponding. It is unclear if discharges are permitted when a facility designed, operated and maintained in accordance with this permit, are subject to chronic rainfall events. The Agency needs to make this extremely clear in the public notice process. I am formally requesting that this be done. I am also suggesting that the inclusion of chronic rainfall events, as defined in the 2011‐2016 NPDES General permit, be included in this 2021‐2016 permit. Proposed Changes:

Provide greater clarity on the impact of these rules. Explicitly include chronic rainfall events as reason for allowable discharge (when O&M

conditions are met).

Part 30.46: "Soil Temperature" means a thermometer reading at a depth of six inches or as indicated by the closest soil temperature monitoring location available on the MDA soil temperature network available at https://app.gisdata.mn.gov/mda‐soiltemp/. [Minn. R. 7001] Comment: The proposer should be allowed to use site‐specific soil temperature data. The network of soil temperature monitoring stations through the MN Department of Ag is woefully inadequate. For example, there are a total of four stations in southwest Minnesota – Luverne, Jasper, Pipestone, and Avoca. It cannot capture the soil temperatures in each field with any level of precision to make a regulatory decision. Last, soil temperatures fluctuate throughout the day. I propose MPCA clarify language that (regardless of source of soil temperature data) the soil temperature used which meets the criteria of a nitrogen BMP. If the target temperature is reached, at any time of day, the land application will be considered to meet the requirements of Part 14.6. Proposed Changes:

Allow site‐specific soil temperature data to be used when evaluating Nitrogen BMP. Allow target temperature to be achieved at any time of day to meet requirement of Nitrogen

BMP.


Summary: There has been a lot of discussion by the Agency on tailoring the permit to each feedlot and only including language specific to the facility. I think this is an intelligent strategy and one that is supported by the greater public. A customized Notice of Coverage (NOC) is a good thing. The concept needs to be embraced and expanded. Moving towards the MN Nutrient Reduction Strategy is a key goal of the MPCA. The proposed changes to the NPDES permit are meant to mitigate nitrate leaching and manure‐contaminated surface water runoff. The permit can do this while also tailoring rules and regulations specific to species, manure types and characteristics. The differences in species, manure characteristics and the associated practices needed to mitigate nitrate leaching and manure‐contaminated surface runoff require ‘manure type’ and ‘specie specific’ rules. Use the NOC to reflect the customized rules needed to achieve the Agency goals. In summary, there are numerous proposed changes that will require additional comment. I formally request that more time for public comment be provided – specifically to those individuals that are regulated by this permit. I hope that the Agency is receptive to the concerns and proposed changes expressed herein. Respectfully,

Andrew Nesseth Extended Ag Services, Inc.

7/23/20 Email – Chris Sukalski To Whom It May Concern: I’m writing in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. My concerns follow those of Minnesota Milk Producers Association, but I’ve highlighted my main concerns and reasons. In general, I see these changes as heavy handed, excessive and onerous on Minnesota’s livestock producers who are already financially hurting and at regulatory disadvantages compared to neighboring states.

1. Cover crops should not be required for September manure applications.

We have tried cover crops. Sometimes they can work great. Other times they are a costly disaster!

2. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical.

The livestock producers still in business in the future are better able to judge weather and soil conditions than a state-wide rule in a book!

3. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar.

Again, the producers are better able to judge field conditions in their own fields than to follow a date written into a law. Furthermore, our weather patterns seem to be less consistent than ever.


If a farmer can afford to build more storage, that is a GOOD thing!!!! Manure storage is often not something that can be “added on to” later. Often, the site predicts the best design of the project. If it allows slightly more storage at a reasonable cost, let it be built.

Minnesota’s regulations around livestock and manure are strict enough already. An approach that tries to work with producers and continue to seek better ways would be much more productive than another pile of onerous regulations. This appears to be another attempt to continue driving livestock from Minnesota. If I were 10 years younger, I’d be looking to leave Minnesota to farm elsewhere! Chris Sukalski Reiland Farms

7/23/20 Email – Michael Landuyt Mr. Schwint, I am submitting these comments on the MPCA proposed NPDES proposed changes.

I. The proposal to require a cover crop in September. As an experienced adaptor of cover crops, it can be very hard to establish a cover crop in September in MN. I have planted covers in mid-September in southwest MN and barely had any growth. II. The organic nitrogen in manure is different than that of commercial fertilizers. That calls for different BPM’s. Because of the natural slow release of nutrients in manure they are not as likely to be lost to a gas form. III. Banning application in February and March is burdensome and unrealistic. As producers we must haul when the manure isn’t frozen down. Many January’s only give us a few days to haul. If those days are at the beginning of the month and not the end, producers could potentially have three months of Manure Stockpiled. This adds unneeded workload with no proven benefits. Discovery farm research shows that manure that has been applied 14 days before a rain or snow melt event doesn’t leave the applied area. MN is a large state and to treat the entire state the same when it comes to weather events is unrealistic. IV. Requiring government approval before hauling snow manure mix after a snow event could cause animal welfare issues. Sound animal husbandry calls for getting and thing that restricts movement of the animals out of the pen as soon as possible. Waiting for approval could cause the snow to turn to ice and then cause injuries from slipping. V. In conclusion these proposed rules are not in the best interest of animal welfare. We cannot provide proper care to our animal and be in compliance. Not being able to haul in February and March or without permission is a detriment to the animals.

Sincerely, Mike Landuyt Walnut Grove MN 56180

-- Mike Landuyt Landuyt Land and Livestock

7/23/20 Email – Joe Sohre George, I just received an email with some proposed changes to land application of manure. I operate a swine feedlot as well as do custom manure application in Blue Earth County. After reviewing the proposed changes, a couple of items stuck out. First the BMP of not applying manure until Oct 21 each year will be impossible to get all the manure applied in the state of Minnesota. If we can't get started until then we will have many other issues including winter hauling(frozen ground), and spring hauling. I'm sure you don't realize it but spring hauling includes many problems such as road restrictions. The other was the definition of frozen ground. I can't tell you how many times in the past 5 years we have had to haul in December because it's been so wet in the fall we have to wait until the ground freezes the top inch so we can walk across it. We can still inject manure and it works great but if it considered frozen ground and we can't apply manure we are once again going to be in trouble. In our state you cannot put Magical Dates on manure application. Just because its December 1st doesn't mean you can't inject manure or just because its October 21st doesn't mean it's the best time to apply manure. In our county there is so much to get done in the fall we cannot be tied to dates or a 7 week period to haul manure (Oct 21st to Dec 1st). Agriculture is Minnesota's largest employer and Industry, we must make very informed decisions before we make any new regulations because once they are in place they are almost impossible to remove, If these restrictions were put into place it would cripple Minnesota's Agriculture industry. If the past 4 years have taught us anything, we should know that Magical Dates will not work in our state.

Joe Sohre Sohre Corporation

7/23/20 Email – Mark and Karen Hurd George, Dear Mr. Schwint: We have a hog confinement setup and these proposed changes would have a huge impact on our operation both financially and economically. We are stewards of our land and do not harm our land or the waters that are in our state. We take great care and pride to be a farmer and to take care of our land the best we can. We feel we do not need more strict regulations but more specific regulations to our farm and others like ours. I am commenting on a few of the proposed changes based on the order they are presented in the draft Permit. Part 10.2: The Permittee is responsible for management of manure from the facility unless it is transferred to another party for land application on fields that are not owned or leased or otherwise controlled by the Permittee. At the time the other party assumes physical control of the manure, the manure ownership is considered to be transferred. The Permittee is responsible for manure hauled by, or for, the Permittee until it is physically relinquished to the other person. [Minn. R. 7001.0150] Comment: I understand that this definition is the same as the 2016‐2021 General Permit. However, I recommend removing the last two sentences of this part. A manure transfer should not hinge on physical control. If a permitted sells/trades/gives manure to another recipient and that recipient directs the permittee when/where and at what rate to apply the manure – the transfer does not occur when the manure leaves the application equipment. The Transfer occurred the minute the manure left the Animal Feeding Operation, at the behest of the recipient. The act of moving and applying the manure – on behalf of and at the direction of the recipient – should not nullify or delay the ‘manure transfer’. It occurred when the recipient assumed the management decisions of that manure. This would not nullify any CAWT requirements that may be needed for such an arrangement. Part 10.3: Except for emergency manure application, the Permittee is prohibited from transferring ownership of manure to a recipient that will: a) perform winter application of the transferred liquid manure; or b) perform winter application during the months of February and March of the transferred solid manure. [Minn. R. 7001.0150] Comment: This part needs to be removed from the Permit in its entirety. I strongly object to the Agency dictating to the Permittee when they can/cannot transfer manure. The Agency does not have the authority to regulate commerce. Manure Transfers are an exchange of a valuable resources between two entities and the MPCA cannot dictate when that exchange will occur. The Permittee must be able to decide how/where/when they want to relinquish control of their manure via sale, barter, trade of gift. This added requirement to the permit will be vigorously opposed by existing permittees and trade groups. Part 14.5:

June, July, August, or September Restrictions ‐ The Permittee shall not apply manure in June, July, August, or September to harvested fields unless a cover crop is established for the remainder of the growing season. The cover crop must be planted in accordance with MES recommendations by one of the following methods: a) Interseeded into the standing primary crop such that vegetative growth is established prior to manure application; b) Planted/seeded after the primary crop harvest and within 10 days of manure application; or c) Other method approved by the MPCA and included as part of the approved MMP. Alternatives developed by a land grant University can be used if approved by the MPCA and included as part of the approved MMP. [Minn. R. 7001.0150, Minn. R. 7020.2225] Comment: Change time required to have cover crop planted after June – September. Land that is with a manure application in June – August should have 14 days to plant or seed a cover crop after manure application. This will provide flexibility to the producer to finish up activities related to the harvest of the primary crop (storage, equipment maintenance, etc.), account for weather delays, and allow for optimum field conditions for seeding the cover crop and getting a successful stand. A cover crop seeded at this time should germinate rapidly (provided it is planted in a good seedbed) and root development will be fast. Any nitrate conversion will be minimal in this time period (14 days) and rapidly growing cover crops will be able to take up any soil nitrate. The requirement of the cover crop makes a practice aimed at protecting water quality/reducing nitrate leaching potential mandatory – the added time for producers to seed a cover crop doesn’t sacrifice the efficacy of this practice, but it does make it easier for producers to meet the requirements of the permit. The manure characteristics of solid manure, namely the high ratio of organic nitrogen to ammonium, make it less prone to nitrate leaching. A further explanation is given in the next comment. Therefore, Solid manure should be exempt from a portion of the conditions proposed in Part 14.5. Proposed Changes: • Exempt Solid manure for needing a cover crop when applied in August or September. • Allow 14 days to plant/seed a cover crop after a manure application. “An Unbiased & Independent Ag Services Business – Using Data to Make Decisions.” Part 14.6: October Restrictions ‐ The Permittee shall not apply manure in October to harvested fields unless at least one of the following nitrogen BMPs are implemented: a) Soil temperature is below 50 degrees at the time of manure application; b) A nitrogen stabilizing agent/product is added at the recommended inclusion rates; c) A cover crop is established in accordance with the requirements of this Permit for June, July, August, or September manure applications; or d) A split application of nitrogen is used where no more than 1/2 of the recommended nitrogen rate is applied before October 31. Alternatives developed by a land grant University can be used if approved by the MPCA and included as part of the approved MMP. Nitrogen BMP implementation is not required for emergency manure application, as defined by this Permit. [Minn. R. 7001.0150] Comment 1: There are serious changes that need to be made to this Part of the Permit. First, the restrictions need to be specific to manure type – liquid vs solid, and specie specific – Beef/Swine/Dairy/Poultry/Other. The rationale is simple. All manure has nitrogen but there are different forms of nitrogen and each form has different characteristics that influence leaching potential. Field‐applied manure supplies two main forms of nitrogen: organic N, and ammonium N. The ammonium portion is immediately available for plants to use, and the organic portion is not and needs time to break down to become plant available. Manure from swine is proportionally higher in ammonium, beef and dairy manure tends to have higher amounts of organic nitrogen than ammonium. Organic nitrogen requires time, temperature and microbial activity to convert it to Nitrate. Organic

nitrogen is not prone to leaching until it converted to nitrate, which takes a significant amount of time. Organic nitrogen must first be mineralized to ammonium before it can be converted to nitrate and be prone to leaching. Even ammonium nitrogen is resistant to leaching due to its positive ionic charge. When manure is left on the soil surface, ammonium rapidly converts to ammonia gas and is lost to the atmosphere, i.e., volatilization. If you surface‐apply and do not incorporate within four days, the ammonium will volatilize, and you can expect to lose half of the total nitrogen – but it does not leach. The organic N portion will remain, but it is not prone to nitrate leaching. If manure is injected or incorporated immediately, the ammonium cannot volatize. Then the ammonium is converted to nitrate by soil bacteria, a process dependent on time and temperature. Overall, high‐ammonium nitrogen manure sources are more at risk of nitrate leaching. Therefore, manure types need to be treated differently. Proposed Changes: • Exempt solid manure from Nitrogen BMP requirements on any October manure applications. • Exempt liquid beef and dairy manure from Nitrogen BMP requirements on any October manure applications. Comment 2: The relationship of Nitrification rate to soil temperature is not linear. Below 50 F the rate slows rapidly, but nitrification continues until 32 F. Waiting for cold soils and/or use of a nitrification inhibitor does not guarantee that fall‐applied N will be a completely successful practice. Late fall may be warm, or warm and wet conditions may occur the next spring (a time period with historically high potential for wet soils and nitrate loss is May – June). There is approximately a 10% increase in nitrification rate when soil temperatures increase to 55 F1 . I reviewed soil temperature data from the University of Minnesota Research and Outreach Stations in Lamberton and Waseca from 2009 through 2019. In Lamberton, soil temperatures reached 50 F or less, on average by October 12th. In Waseca, soil temperatures reached 50 F or less, on average by October 14th. Each location averaged a reduction of approximately 10 degrees from October 1st within two weeks (50 F). Waseca averaged approximately 0.81 F decline per day and Lamberton averaged approximately 0.70 F decline per day. Each day the soil temperature declined, there was a decrease in the relative nitrate conversion rate. Every crop producer wants all applied nitrogen to remain in the soil profile of the manure application field. A BMP that is effective and improves nitrate retention will crop productivity. This will improve profitability too. The inclusion of a nitrification inhibitor is an accepted method for reducing nitrate potential. However, it is expensive. Typically, a full rate of an approved nitrification inhibitor costs $12‐ $14 per acre – approximately $2,800 dollars per 2,400 head swine barn. A nitrification inhibitor’s success in mitigating nitrate leaching and improving profitability is dependent on weather conditions the following spring (April – June). A cover crop seeded in the Fall season in Minnesota can have inconsistent success in establishment. I have witnessed this many times in the past 8 years. It is not uncommon, for non‐obvious reasons, to see limited germination, root development and growth – offering limited and/or inconsistent nitrate leaching mitigation. Sometimes it works well, some years it does not. A split application of nitrogen to 50% of crop need is nearly logistically impossible for high nitrogen manure types. In addition, the added time required to lower rates will increase the total days needed to apply and increase the potential for manure applications on frozen soils. Lastly, leaching potential is not equal for all fields. Soil type and texture, depth to bedrock or sensitive aquifers differs from farm to farm. Any rules and regulations aimed at mitigating nitrate leaching potential need to account for these factors as well. There is a great deal of uncertainty in efficacy in the proposed nitrogen BMPs that outweigh the clear economic impacts of each BMP.

Proposed Changes: • Include the need for nitrogen BMPs for high ammonium manure types only, exclude all solid manure and liquid beef and dairy manure. • Change soil temperature to 55 F at time of application. This will provide an additional week, on average for producers to apply manure without a costly Nitrogen BMP with a marginal increase in leaching potential. Little manure, statewide, is likely applied before this time period (pre‐ October 5th). • Change cover crop requirement from “established” to “seeded” as climate often dictates establishment and a farmer shouldn’t be penalized with non‐compliance after attempting to use a cover crop as a BMP. • Change split application of nitrogen to no more than 75% of the recommended nitrogen rate if applied before October 15th. This still achieve a reduction in the total Nitrogen applied and be in line with soil temperatures that reduce nitrate conversion. It is also much more achievable logistically, making it easier to adopt and decreasing total days of manure application across the state – which decrease chances of frozen soil applications of liquid manure. • Allow the Manure Management Plan to designate October manure application fields that have low nitrate leaching potential, based on Statewide regional risk (NRCS has guidance), and individual field’s most limiting soil type (at least 33% of field), to apply manure without Nitrogen BMPs. ( 1 Effect of soil temperature on nitrate formation. Adapted from Frederick, L.R. and F.E. Broadbent. 1966. Biological interactions. p. 198‐212.) There has been a lot of discussion by the Agency on tailoring the permit to each feedlot and only including language specific to the facility. I think this is an intelligent strategy and one that is supported by the greater public. A customized Notice of Coverage (NOC) is a good thing. The concept needs to be embraced and expanded. Moving towards the MN Nutrient Reduction Strategy is a key goal of the MPCA. The proposed changes to the NPDES permit are meant to mitigate nitrate leaching and manure‐contaminated surface water runoff. The permit can do this while also tailoring rules and regulations specific to species, manure types and characteristics. The differences in species, manure characteristics and the associated practices needed to mitigate nitrate leaching and manure‐contaminated surface runoff require ‘manure type’ and ‘specie specific’ rules. Use the NOC to reflect the customized rules needed to achieve the Agency goals. In summary, there are numerous proposed changes that will require additional comment. I formally request that more time for public comment be provided – specifically to those individuals that are regulated by this permit. I hope that the Agency is receptive to the concerns and proposed changes expressed herein. Please consider some of the proposed changes we have submitted. Sincerely, Mark & Karen Hurd

7/23/20 Email – Ryan Franta George, I was looking on the MPCA website on where to submit a comment for the proposed changes to the new NPDES permit but could not find where to do so. Being that this is the last day I just thought I would send you a few thoughts and comments on why this should not happen or be passed at this time. We as farmers are doing the best we can with trying to get our manure hauled in a safe and timely manner. The last thing we want to do is waste our manure that is already very expensive and very time consuming to haul. There is no one size fits all when it comes to the type of manure, field conditions, equipment used to haul or at what rate is preferred or can be hauled at. These proposed changes are going to be very expensive and push people to wait too long and risk frozen ground or bad filed conditions when hauling. We need to have more discussions and justification to the reasons on why the changes are being proposed. With manure we as farmers have been building healthier soils with increased organic matter which better helps nutrient uptake, better water usage, and less use of commercial fertilizer. We are already in an economically challenging times, and this will create much more expense that most farmers will not be able to bear. Every year is different and brings new challenges to overcome, lets discuss and work together to come up with a solution WITH FARMERS that are on the front lines and see what is going on with their farms. This should not be passed without further evaluation, justification on reasons why and additional expenses that will occur, and discussion with farmers. Thanks, Ryan Franta

7/23/20 Email – Carey Tweten To whom it may concern: The farmers that are left live on this land as well with no intent to harm it or themselves or neighbors. This is our livelihood. Spreading manure should be spread with consideration but yet needs to be done anytime of year. A manure pit is hard to justify so if this is to change there will need to be help for farmers to build new pits or bigger ones. The ag prices for the last few years have not been good so to just mandate us to build structures for this with little to no pay back would be the end to a lot of farmers. If this were to be the case, the bigger farms already can not spread so you will be telling smaller farms to try to make and pay for this when money is tight to begin with. With that being said, there would have to be a grant program or very low interest loans to be able to even begin to build pits. In my opinion this is like changing the rules of a game halfway through. With that being said we still need to use caution when spreading yes, because we drink this water too but the government needs to use some common sense for once and put themselves in our shoes, which would never happen. We feed the country out of our pocket book no one else's and it needs to change. Thanks, Carey Tweten

7/23/20 Email – Cory Ahrens

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed general permit revisions. As a farmer, I have concerns about the increase in regulations with respect to manure application that are proposed with this permit revision. Manure is a valuable fertilizer product. My farm has used manure as fertilizer in the past and greatly benefited from it. The proposed requirements to plant cover crops in September and use nitrogen BMPs in October will be problematic for our state. Minnesota’s manure application season is already short given our climate. These requirements would further shorten that window, increase the cost of manure handling, and increase the risk that livestock producers will not be able to empty manure storage areas in the fall (which, in turn, is a threat to the environment). These increased regulations could also drive livestock investment out of Minnesota. Our rural economies depend on agriculture and adding value to our crops. In addition to creating jobs and tax revenue, animal agriculture creates a market for Minnesota-grown crops, and it generates manure, which offsets the use of commercial fertilizer. As a policy matter, we need to promote livestock growth in Minnesota, not put livestock operators at a disadvantage to operators in neighboring states. Furthermore, the technology and infrastructure does not exist to effectively implement the proposed cover crop requirements. Given Minnesota’s short growing season, establishing cover crops is difficult. And as a practical matter, the industry does not currently have enough cover crop seed and planting capability to implement these requirements. I urge the MPCA to remove the proposed requirements for cover crops with September manure application and for nitrogen BMPs with October manure application. Short of that, the MPCA should treat the direct injection of liquid manure or the prompt incorporation of solid manure as a BMP that allows for September and October manure application regardless of soil temperature. Manure, when properly handled, has been shown to reduce runoff volume and soil loss. Thank you for considering my comments and concerns.

1

July 22, 2020 Mr. George Schwint Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165 Mankato, MN 56001 Dear Mr. Schwint, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (PCA) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) general permit. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is an environmental and public health organization committed to helping people lead healthier lives in a healthier environment. The EWG Midwest office works primarily in the Upper Mississippi River Basin states, including Minnesota. Much of our work focuses on addressing water quality impacts from feedlots, including the large feedlots covered under Minnesota’s general permit program. In this comment, EWG presents a case study analysis demonstrating the need for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) to use digital mapping analysis in its Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) general permit program in order to adequately protect groundwater and surface water quality. Based on our analysis, EWG has found that digitized mapping is critical to (1) adequately identify and assess potential water quality impacts from manured fields identified in individual CAFO Manure Management Plans (MMPs) and (2) adequately assess and address cumulative nutrient loading with the potential to contribute to groundwater and surface water quality impairments. PCA must incorporate digital mapping and cumulative effects analysis into the CAFO general permitting process, including into the terms of the permit itself, in order to uphold its duty to ensure that covered animal feedlots do not cause or contribute fertilizer pollution, capable of causing nuisance conditions or violations of water quality standards, to groundwater and surface water.1

1 40 C.F.R. § 122.4 (applicable to state programs under 40 C.F.R. § 123.25) (“No permit may be issued: (a) When the conditions of the permit do not provide for compliance with the applicable requirements of CWA, or regulations promulgated under CWA”); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44 (applicable to state programs under 40 C.F.R. § 123.25) (“[E]ach NPDES permit shall include … any requirements … necessary to … [a]chieve water quality standards … including State narrative criteria for water quality. (i) Limitations must control all pollutants … which … are or may be discharged at a level which will cause have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality.”); Minn. Stat. 115.03 Subdv. 1 (“The agency is hereby given and charged with … (e) … issu[ing] … permits … under such

2

Key Takeaways from EWG’s CAFO Case Study Analysis: EWG’s CAFO case study analysis, presented in this comment, revealed gaps in the CAFO general permit program’s assessment of potential water pollution impacts from permitted feedlots in three main areas: (1) cumulative assessment of manure from regulated and unregulated feedlots coupled with additional commercial fertilizer use, (2) identification and spatial assessment of manure application fields in individual manure management plans and (3) tracking and assessment of transferred manure. Cumulative Assessment of Manure Application

In the selected case study area, EWG’s analysis shows that manure from small, medium and large feedlots plus commercial fertilizer applied by large CAFOs significantly exceeds the nitrogen and phosphorus need of crops in the study area and has the potential to cause or contribute to groundwater and surface water pollution.

In the case study area, we estimate that farmers apply 16% (approximately 700,000 pounds) more nitrogen than that required annually by all fields in the study area. If book values are used, this number jumps to 37%. In addition, farmers apply 9% (approximately 114,873 pounds) more phosphorus than that removed annually by all fields in the study area. This number jumps to 19%, if book values are used.

Digital Assessment of Manure Application Fields

Several cases of absent or extremely poor-quality manure application field maps either completely prevented field identification and manure spreading spatial analysis or introduced uncertainty about locating fields in a GIS system.

Without digital mapping and tracking, multiple farmers can potentially apply manure to the same fields, exceeding the nutrient needs of crops and contributing to groundwater and surface water pollution. Specifically, 96 of the 508 fields that EWG mapped were claimed under multiple permits. Seventy-five of these fields were claimed under two permits, and 21 fields

conditions as it may prescribe, in order to prevent, control or abate water pollution”); Minn. R. § 7053.0115 (“Parts 7053.0135 to 7053.0405 apply to all discharges of … wastes to all waters of the state, both surface and underground. This chapter applies to point source and nonpoint source discharges.”); Minn. R. § 7053.0205 Subp. 2 (“No … wastes may be discharged from either point or nonpoint sources into any waters of the state so as to cause any nuisance conditions …”); Minn. R. § 7060 et seq.

3

were claimed under three separate permits. Because manure is not spread on all claimed fields each year, additional analysis is necessary to determine whether overlapping manure application is occurring.

Unassessed Impacts From Manure Transfer

Large CAFOs in the study area transfer a large portion of the manure they generate to other operators for disposal. Thirty-seven percent of the nitrogen and 39 percent of the phosphorous in manure generated in the study area is sent to unidentified areas. Land-spreading sites for transferred manure cannot be spatially located because the current program does not require tracking and field maps for transferred manure. Accordingly, PCA cannot evaluate the potential water pollution impact from nearly 40% of manure produced by large CAFOs in the study area.

CASE STUDY: Assessing Potential Cumulative Impacts to Groundwater and Surface Water Quality Through a Digital Mapping Analysis To prevent cumulative nutrient pollution from CAFOs from potentially causing or contributing to groundwater and surface water pollution, it is necessary to balance the amount of fertilizer (commercial and manure) nutrients being applied with the nutrient needs of crops. When fertilizer application overwhelms crop need on the available land base, there is a significant potential for nutrient contamination of groundwater and surface water. This outcome is prohibited under the clear terms of the CAFO general permit and applicable state and federal law. Adequate analysis of cumulative potential nutrient pollution impacts from CAFOs cannot occur without the use of digitized mapping. To illustrate this point, EWG completed an analysis of the manure produced by 23 large CAFOs as well as small and medium feedlots located within 5 miles of the Martin Weiss Farms operation, near the town of Adrian in Nobles County.2 EWG also analyzed commercial fertilizer use in the area, to the extent that data on commercial fertilizer use was available, and the land and crop base available for nutrient uptake.

2 From the NRCS Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework database, 47,133 acres of agricultural land were identified in the study area as having an N fertilizer need greater than zero over a six-year period between 2014-2019. To conduct the analysis, EWG downloaded the MPCA Feedlot Database and identified 23 large CAFOs in the 5-mile study area. A “large CAFO” is defined as an operation either housing more than 1,000 animal units (AU) or attributed with a “CAFO” flag in the feedlot database. Manure Management Plans were requested for these 23 operations, and any reported commercial fertilizer use during the year for which the MMP was provided was recorded.

4

EWG chose the selected case study area for analysis because the region is densely populated with feedlots and near a community water supply that has had significant challenges with nitrate contamination. In the past 10 years (2009-2018), the city of Adrian has reported nitrate levels above the legal limit of 10 mg/l 25 times, with a maximum test result of 32 mg/l in September 2016. The area is also identified as a manure “hot spot” in EWG’s recent statewide report on manure application in Minnesota. Total Manure From CAFOs in the Study Area The 23 large CAFOs in the study area collectively house 45,311.8 Animal Units (AU).3 Most of the CAFOs are swine operations (17 operations, with 24,667.8 AU), followed by beef (5 operations, with 18,690 AU) and one dairy operation (1,954 AU). This translates to 90,947 swine, 18,985 beef cattle and 9,226 dairy cows of various sizes. Together these animals produce about 350,000 tons of manure each year in the study area.4 This is the amount of manure produced by a town of 675,000 people.

3 1000 animal units is equivalent to 2,500 hogs, 1000 beef cattle, 700 dairy cows and 82,000 laying hens. 4 To calculate manure production, EWG relied on Midwest Planning Service values for manure excretion per animal per day. Animals were assumed to be present 365 days per year. The animal waste to human equivalent was calculated assuming 0.518 tons of waste generation per person per year, from Spellman and Whiting (2007).

https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-manure-overload/

https://books.google.com/books?id=v1fDeiezBPsC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=human+produce+over+2+pounds+of+sewage+waste+a+day&source=bl&ots=9Ecc85rlRB&sig=ACfU3U2ZKXHc9QRRkNias-DBO_-hFh2xGQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR7cqj5dboAhWEaM0KHUksDOAQ6AEwC3oECA0QKQ#v=onepage&q=human%20produce%20over%202%20pounds%20of%20sewage%20waste%20a%20day&f=false

5

Figure 1. Study area showing the 23 large CAFOs.

Total Nutrients in Manure From Large CAFOs in the Study Area In total, manure from the 23 large CAFOs in the study area produces 2,882,773 pounds of nitrogen and 759,223 pounds of phosphorous annually.5 However, a substantial amount of nitrogen is lost to the atmosphere upon manure application. Exactly how much nitrogen is lost depends on the method of manure application and timing of incorporation as well as climatic factors.6 The amount of phosphorous

5 To identify the baseline manure and nutrient loading from large CAFOs, EWG requested and reviewed the Manure Management Plans (MMP) for each of the 23 CAFO operations in the study area for a single year. MMPs list the amount of manure nutrients contained within the storage structures for each operation (taking into account nitrogen losses during storage and handling). From each MMP, EWG recorded the Nitrogen and P205 content of each manure storage structure, then multiplied the reported nutrient content by the volume of manure produced to get the total amount of nutrients produced by each operation. Reported P205 was multiplied by .44 to convert to elemental P. 6 To account for losses of manure nutrients (primarily nitrogen) following manure application, EWG recorded the manure application method for each field included in the MMPs and, using University of Minnesota guidelines on expected losses, reduced values for stored nutrients by that percentage. If multiple application methods were included for a single operation, the dominant method was selected. Because there is no data in MMPs on application method for transferred manure, our analysis assumes that an operation uses the same manure application method for transferred and

6

available for crop uptake was assumed to be the same as that applied. After accounting for nitrous oxide (NO3) losses to the atmosphere following application, the final tally of nutrients from CAFO manure in the study area is 2,368,379 pounds of nitrogen and 759,223 pounds of phosphorous. Manure and Nutrient Production From Small and Medium Feedlots in the Study Area In addition to the 23 large CAFOs in the study area, there are 66 small and medium feedlots holding between 50 and 999 AU.7 Collectively, these small and medium feedlots house 27,805 AU: 25 beef operations (7,679 AU), 4 dairy operations (2,333 AU) and 37 swine operations (17,793 AU). This amounts to 8,586 beef cows, 3,331 dairy cows and 79,395 pigs and a total of 211,529 tons of additional manure in the study area. This is the same amount of waste produced by a town of 400,000 people.

Figure 2. Study area showing small, medium and large animal feedlots.

non-transferred manure. For the single swine CAFO in the study area that transfers all of its manure, our analysis assumes a knife injection application method (15% nitrogen loss). 7 EWG removed nine of the small and medium feedlots from its analysis because they housed fewer than 50 AU or could not be verified using aerial photography.

7

In total, small and medium feedlots account for 44% of AU in the study area and produce an additional 2,132,267 pounds of nitrogen and 566,796 pounds of land-applied phosphorus that must be accounted for in permitting CAFOs in order to protect groundwater and surface water quality.8 Commercial Fertilizer Use Commercial fertilizer use must also be analyzed to comprehensively address the nutrient balance and any threat to water quality posed by CAFOs in the study area. EWG recorded any use of commercial fertilizer reported in the MMPs for the 23 large CAFOs. Large CAFOs in the study area reported applying 1,000,728 pounds of commercial nitrogen fertilizer a year, in addition to manure. No information on commercial fertilizer use is available for small and medium feedlots in the study area. Total Land Base and Crops Available for Utilizing Nutrients in the Study Area To evaluate the sufficiency of the land base and crops to use the nutrients being produced and used in the study area, EWG located, digitized and identified crop rotations for the fields in the study area in ArcGIS.9 From the MMP maps provided, EWG was able to digitize 508 fields, totaling 29,398 acres. Of the 508 fields, 234 fields totaling 14,356 acres were identified as having received manure during the year for which the MMPs were provided. Acres available for spreading were reduced to 12,307 acres after accounting for the setback acres identified in the MMPs. Ninety-six of the 508 fields (5,650 acres) were identified for manure application in multiple permits. Seventy-five of these fields (4,383 acres) appeared in two permits, and 21 fields (1,267 acres) in three separate permits. Fields identified for manure spreading in multiple permits could be receiving manure from more than one operation each year, but more analysis would be needed to determine the extent of overapplication, if any.

8 To calculate manure, nitrogen and phosphorus from small and medium feedlots, EWG relied on Midwest Planning Service values for manure excretion per animal per day. Animals were assumed to be present 365 days a year. EWG then reduced excreted nitrogen by the percent lost during storage and application, using University of Minnesota guidelines on expected losses. For operations between 50 and 300 AU, EWG adjusted animal counts by the following factors: 90% for dairy and swine, 70% for beef, 80% for turkey and 85% for chickens to reflect that the number of actual animals housed is generally smaller than reported facility capacity. 9 The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) ArcGIS tool is a platform for organizations to create, manage, share and analyze spatial data. EWG used it to identify fields and crop rotations in the study area.

8

Figure 3. Manure Application Field Analysis Results

EWG also found that a few of the potential manure application fields identified in MMPs are located far more than 5 miles from the CAFO producing the manure. One field, for example, was 16 miles from the CAFO. Given the substantial expense of transporting heavy swine, beef and dairy manure long distances, land application on these fields, and similarly situated fields in future applications, should be examined to determine whether they are actually being used by the CAFO to apply manure. EWG used the Agriculture Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) database to analyze the total nitrogen and phosphorus requirement of all fields in the study area and to determine the overall capacity of the landscape to uptake nutrients from both manure and commercial fertilizer without increasing the risk of surface or groundwater contamination.10 The amount of manure and commercial fertilizer 10 The Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) database provides field boundaries and a 6-year crop rotation history for all fields in the state of Minnesota from 2014-2019. The nitrogen fertilizer requirement of each field in the study area was calculated for each of the six years using University of Minnesota recommended rates, then divided by six to represent an average annual nitrogen fertilizer requirement. The phosphorous requirement of each field in the study area was calculated as the amount of phosphorous removed with crop harvest for each of the six years of the crop rotation, then divided by six to represent an average annual phosphorous fertilizer requirement. County-level yield averages were obtained from National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveys from 2014-2018 for each of the major crop types in Minnesota.

9

nitrogen produced and used by the 23 large CAFOs alone satisfies 71% of the total nitrogen need of all fields in the study area.

Together, estimated manure production by small and medium feedlots and reported manure production and commercial fertilizer use by large feedlots in the study area amounts to 5,501,374 pounds of plant-available nitrogen. This is 16% (approximately 700,000 pounds) more than what is required annually (4,739,794 pounds of N) by all fields in the study area. This calculated excess nitrogen presents a substantial threat to groundwater quality and should be identified and addressed in nutrient management plans for CAFOs in the study area. The 700,000 pounds of excess nitrogen application identified in the study area is likely a conservative estimate. If book values rather than nutrient values reported in MMPs are used to determine nutrients produced by the 23 large CAFOs, nitrogen in the study area exceeds crop needs by 37%.11 In addition, EWG used the .05 University of Minnesota Maximum Rate of Return to Nitrogen (MRTN) for corn (150 pounds per acre following soybean; 195 pounds per acre following corn) to determine crop needs for all fields and years planted to corn. The MRTN rate is significantly higher than the nitrogen rate suggested when using commercial fertilizer as the nitrogen source. If calculations were adjusted to account for application at the suggested rate for commercial fertilizer, it would lower the total nitrogen requirement of all fields in the study area and further increase the estimate of nitrogen overapplication. The estimate of overapplication would also be even higher if information was available about commercial fertilizer use by small and medium operations. The MMPs for the 23 large feedlots did not report application of phosphorus in commercial fertilizer. However, considering only estimated manure production by small and medium feedlots and reported manure production by large feedlots, phosphorus production in the study area amounts to 1,326,019 pounds, or 9% – 114,873 pounds – more than what is removed annually by all fields in the study area.12 Using the book value approach to quantifying phosphorus loading, phosphorous loads are 19% greater than what is removed annually by all fields in the study area.13

11 Using a book value approach, calculated nitrogen production in the study area was actually 43% greater than that reported in the MMPs for large CAFOs. 12 Using a book value approach, calculated phosphorous production in the study area was actually 16% greater (877,595 pounds) than that reported in the MMPs for large CAFOs. 13 At the state level in Minnesota, multiple approaches are commonly used to estimate nutrient loading, which can produce differing results. EWG estimated excreted amounts of nitrogen and

10

Unassessed Water Pollution Impacts from Transferred Manure and Outdated/Illegible Manure Application Maps EWG encountered two major challenges in assessing the adequacy of the land base available for manure nutrient application and the related potential water pollution threat posed by CAFOs in the study area: 1) many of the field maps in manure management plans are indecipherable even to trained GIS professionals; 2) no field maps are provided when manure is transferred to a different operation, precluding any spatial analysis of much of the manure generated in the study area. The lack of transparency, accuracy and accountability in manure management planning and for transferred manure violates requirements for accurate manure management plans for land-spread CAFO manure as well as more general Clean Water Act requirements for the assessment of water pollution potential from point sources and the inclusion of permit conditions to address the same.14 Absent or extremely poor-quality field maps made spatial analysis of manure application impossible or uncertain in many cases. Examples of inadequate field maps are included in the Appendix to this comment. Large CAFOs in the study area transfer a massive amount of the manure their operations produce to other farms. Transferred manure accounted for 37% of the nitrogen and 39% of the phosphorous produced in the study area. Because the current CAFO program does not require tracking and field maps for transferred manure, transferred manure application cannot be spatially located, nor can its potential pollution threat be adequately identified and addressed. Given the lack of

phosphorous and subsequently reduced nitrogen by expected storage and application loss. An alternative approach is to estimate the expected volume of manure produced annually, then apply the expected nutrient content of stored manure to that volume. In the future, focus should be placed on coalescing around a common approach for the use of book values for estimating nutrient content of manure from feedlots in the state. 14 40 C.F.R. § 122.4 (applicable to state programs under 40 C.F.R. § 123.25) (“No permit may be issued: (a) When the conditions of the permit do not provide for compliance with the applicable requirements of CWA, or regulations promulgated under CWA”); 40 C.F.R. 122.23 (applicable to state programs under 40 C.F.R. § 123.25) (“Once an animal feeding operation is defined as a CAFO for at least one type of animal, the NPDES requirements of CAFOs apply with respect to all … manure … generated by those animals.”); 40 C.F.R. § 412.4 (c) (“Each CAFO subject to this section that land applies manure … must do so in accordance with … (1) … a nutrient management plan … based on field-specific assessment of the potential for nitrogen and phosphorus transport from the field …”); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44 (applicable to state programs under 40 C.F.R. § 123.25)(“[E]ach NPDES permit shall include … any requirements … necessary to … [a]chieve water quality standards … including State narrative criteria for water quality. (i) Limitations must control all pollutants … which … are or may be discharged at a level which will cause have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality.”).

11

accountability provisions in the CAFO general permit for transferred manure, PCA is not currently evaluating the potential water pollution impact from nearly 40% of manure produced by large CAFOs in the study area. Conclusion: Demonstrated Need for Digital Mapping and Improved Individual and Cumulative Water Pollution Analyses in the CAFO General Permitting Program EWG’s case study makes clear that adequately assessing the potential for groundwater and surface water pollution from CAFO manure and commercial fertilizer application requires accurate spatial analysis – physically locating fertilized fields and evaluating the capacity of crops to utilize nutrients. This is true for analyses of individual CAFO operations as well as for cumulative analyses that evaluate the water pollution threat from CAFOs in a landscape context. PCA’s current approach to reviewing manure management plans under the CAFO general permit is legally insufficient. To ensure Clean Water Act Compliance, PCA must incorporate digitized mapping and assessment in its permitting program and also include appropriate provisions in the CAFO general permit. Additional CAFO general permit provisions must ensure that coverage under the general permit will not be permitted, or that additional, individual manure management planning conditions will be required, where there is a demonstrated threat of surface or groundwater pollution based on a landscape-level cumulative assessment.15 Submitted on behalf of the Environmental Working Group, Jamie Konopacky Midwest Director Environmental Working Group

15 Moving forward, PCA should set boundary areas for CAFO cumulative impacts analyses in a way that adequately analyzes the threat to water quality in an area. For example, in the case study area addressed in this comment, when one adds a supplementary 2-mile buffer around the existing 5-mile buffer, one finds an additional 74 feedlots- 14 large feedlots (housing 22,329 AU) and 60 small to medium feedlots (housing 21,733 AU). Accordingly, a finalized CAFO cumulative analysis for the area around Adrian may need to be larger than that presented in this comment. In other areas of the state with more concentrated CAFO operations, smaller cumulative assessment boundaries may be appropriate.

12

APPENDIX Examples of Outdated and/or Illegible Field Maps Included in Active MMPs on

File With PCA

Minnesota Turkey Growers Association

108 Marty Drive Buffalo, MN 55313 Phone: 763-682-2171 Fax: 763-682-5546 Minnesotaturkey.com

July 23, 2020 Mr. George Schwint Submitted electronically to: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency [email protected] 12 Civic Center Plaza Suite 2165 Mankato, MN 56001 Re: General Permit MNG440000 Animal Feedlot Permit Dear Mr. Schwint: Minnesota is the largest producer of turkey in the nation. Our organization represents more than 450 turkey growers across the state. The contribution our farmers make to the local and state economies is well over $1 billion. We are proud to be contributors and partners in making Minnesota the best place to live and raise a family. This partnership extends to keeping our waters pristine. The success of the turkey industry is a direct result of the prudent stewardship of land and water practiced by our growers. It is with this stewardship approach that we have examined the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program general permit changes as outlined in the June 8, 2020 edition of the State Register and we would like to offer our feedback. While we appreciate the efforts made by the MPCA to simplify the permitting process, there are elements within the proposed permit changes that will negate those efforts and also jeopardize sound water management practices.

I. OUR MEMBERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN NPDES OR SDS PERMITS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT DISCHARGE INTO WATERS OF THE U.S.

The poultry industry has long argued that its members do not need NPDES or SDS water permits because our members do not discharge pollutants into the waters of the U.S. Although poultry producers have never needed the NPDES or SDS permits, MPCA representatives have consistently opposed livestock industry efforts to eliminate this unnecessary permit requirement. A. Purpose of the NPDES Program

The purpose of the NPDES permit program is explained in 40 C.F.R. Part 122.1(b). That section states:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 5DF791AC-D76D-45E5-B060-36124BE11933


(b) Scope of the NPDES permit requirement. (1) The NPDES program requires permits for the discharge of “pollutants” from any “point source” into “waters of the United States”. The terms “pollutant”, “point source” and “waters of the United States” are defined at section 122.2.

By definition, a person who does not discharge pollutants into waters of the United States does not need an NPDES permit. B. Minnesota State Law Development

1998 – Minnesota statutes section 116.07 subdivision 7(c) was first added in 1998 with new language. The MPCA argued at the time that any farm containing 1,000 animal units or more needed to get an NPDES permit simply because it was defined as a “point source”. The MPCA did not focus on whether the farm actually discharged any pollutants, but rather they took the view that the definition of “point source” was enough to bring farms under the NPDES permit program. In addition, there was no reference in the state law to the definition of a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) as defined by the EPA. The new language, in part, read:

Subd. 7c. NPDES PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. (a) The agency must issue National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits for feedlots with 1,000 animal units or more based on the following schedule:

[Source: SF-3353, the environment finance bill, CH 401, section 43]. 2000 – The reference to the federal definition of a CAFO was added, so that the criteria were not just whether the farm was 1,000 animal units or more. The section was amended to read:

Subd. 7c. NPDES PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. (a) The agency must issue national Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits for feedlots with 1,000 animal units or more and that meet the definition of a “concentrated animal feeding operation” in Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 122.23, based on the following schedule:

[Source: HF-3692, CH 435 section 5].

C. Federal Rule Development

1972 – The Clean Water Act was passed. This Act expressly prohibits the discharge of a pollutant by any person from any point source to navigable waters except when authorized by a permit issued under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. Source: 33 U.S.C. sections

1311(a), 1342. 1974 – EPA issued general NPDES permitting guidelines.


1976- CAFO regulations were first issued. 2003 – In February, the EPA proposed a comprehensive rule covering many aspects of feedlots and in particular required all CAFOs to seek coverage under NPDES permits unless they determined there was no potential to discharge. This placed the burden of proving there was no discharge on the feedlot operator. Farm groups challenged portions of the proposed rule arguing they were too stringent, while environmental groups argued the rule did not go far enough. The cases were consolidated and on February 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld most of the provisions of the proposed rule but vacated and remanded others. Source:

Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005).

One portion of the proposed rule that was vacated by the court was the duty to apply for a permit. The farm organizations argued that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority by requiring all CAFOs to either apply for NPDES permits or demonstrate that they had no potential to discharge and be certified as such by the regional EPA director. The court agreed with the farm organization petitioners on this issue and therefore vacated the duty to apply for a permit. Specifically, the court said:

The Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to regulate, through the NPDES permitting system, only the discharge of pollutants. … In other words, unless there is a discharge of any pollutant, there is no violation of the Act, and point sources are, accordingly, neither statutorily obligated to comply with EPA regulations for point source discharges, nor are they statutorily obligated to seek or obtain an NPDES permit. Waterkeeper, at 504.

2008 - Following the February 28, 2005 ruling, the EPA went back to the drawing board and published a new rule in accordance with the court’s instructions. The final rule was published in the November 20, 2008 edition of the Federal Register (73 FR 70480) and became effective on December 22, 2008. The current duty to apply rule as it pertains to feedlots is found at 40 C.F.R. Part 122.23(d), which states, in relevant part:

(d) Who must seek coverage under an NPDES permit? (1) Permit requirement. The owner or operator of a CAFO must seek coverage under an NPDES permit if the CAFO discharges or proposes to discharge. A CAFO proposes to discharge if it is designed, constructed, operated, or maintained such that a discharge will occur.

The 2008 rule only required CAFOs that discharge to seek coverage under an NPDES permit. Any CAFO that does discharge or propose to discharge not need the permit. 2011 – Livestock groups sued EPA over its CAFO rule, which was issued in 2008 after EPA’s core provision in the initial 2003 regulation was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. In that 2005 decision, the court ruled that the CWA requires permits only for producers who actually discharge. EPA had sought to require permits even for operations that had a “potential” to discharge. The 2008 regulation, which set a zero-discharge standard, included a duty to apply for a CWA permit for all CAFOs that discharge or “propose” to


discharge. The rule essentially established a presumption that CAFOs “proposed” to discharge if any future discharge occurred. In a unanimous decision issued on March 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans said that EPA exceeded its statutory authority in requiring CAFOs that propose or that might discharge to apply for CWA permits. The U.S. EPA cannot require livestock operations to obtain CWA permits unless they are discharging manure into a waterway of the United States. It also argued that the “failure to apply” violation creates substantial economic pressure to apply for a CWA permit and that the regulation shifts the burden to a non-permitted CAFO that has a discharge to establish that it did not “propose” to discharge. The 5th Circuit Court ruled on the “duty to apply” provision that previous court cases “leave no doubt that there must be an actual discharge … to trigger the CWA’s requirements and EPA’s authority.” It also struck down the CAFO rule’s “failure to apply” provision, stating that its imposition is “outside the bounds of the CWA’s mandate.” Livestock groups approached the Minnesota legislature in 2011 to change state law to conform with the federal court ruling, but once again, MPCA representatives opposed those efforts. Eventually the 2011 legislature changed chapter 116.07, subdivision 7c to essentially state that the MPCA may require feedlots to obtain NPDES permits “only as required by federal law.” The MPCA still requires livestock farmers to get the state SDS permit, even though it is unnecessary and serves no purpose. [Source: 2011 First Special Session, CH 2, art. 4, section

21]. Regardless of the proposed changes to the General Permit MNG440000 Animal Feedlot Permit, our underlying argument is that poultry producers should not even be subject to NPDES or SDS permits in the first place. II. THE AGENCY’S PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE A COVER CROP IN SEPTEMBER IS

NOT AUTHORIZED IN MN RULES CHAPTER 7020. Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020.2225, states in relevant part: “All manure and process wastewater applications to land must meet the requirements of this part except where specifically exempted.” MN R. Ch. 7020.2225, Subpart 1 (C). “Except as provided in item E, the manure management plan must contain … (13) type of cover crop to be planted when manure is to be applied in June, July, or August to fields that have been harvested and would otherwise not have active growing crops for the remainder of the growing season.” (emphasis added). MN R. Ch. 7020.2225, Subpart 4 (D)(13). The current permit requires a cover crop be planted for applications of manure in the months of June, July, and August as required by the specific language of the manure management plans outlined Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020. The list specifically does not include the month of September, and therefore adding the month of September to this list through the General Permit


is outside the specific requirements of MN R. Ch. 7020.2225, Subpart 4 (D)(13) and is not authorized by Minnesota law. In addition, there are other manure management practices available that don’t require a farmer to plant a cover crop and use more fuel in planting it. The Agency is proposing to unnecessarily increase the carbon footprint through this requirement in direct contradiction of Governor Walz’s Executive Order 19-37, (issued December 2, 2019). III. THE AGENCY’S PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE A NITROGEN BMP IN OCTOBER IS

NOT AUTHORIZED IN MN RULES CHAPTER 7020. Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020.2225, states in relevant part: “All manure and process wastewater applications to land must meet the requirements of this part except where specifically exempted.” MN R. Ch. 7020.2225, Subpart 1 (C). “Except as provided in item E, the manure management plan must contain …” MN R. Ch. 7020.2225, Subpart 4(D). This sentence is followed by 13 specific requirements in sections (1)-(13) that need to be included in a manure management plan. In the General Permit, the Agency is proposing to require a nitrogen BMP for manure applications in October. Nowhere in this list is there a requirement that a nitrogen Best Management Practice (BMP) be included for manure. Adding this requirement through a General Permit is outside the specific scope of the Chapter 7020 Rules and therefore is not authorized by Minnesota law. Even if such a proposal was lawful, these new requirements fail to recognize the vastly different weather conditions we experience in October from year to year and instead rely on overly simplistic calendar assumptions. The soil temperature requirements under this requirement are unrealistic for managing manure and are unlikely to make a measurable difference. Instead, this change will result in adding significant costs to farmers and logistical challenges when current best management practices are available for mitigating nitrogen losses. In addition, the number of days suitable for manure application are already severely limited in Minnesota by the length of the season. These new requirements have the effect of further shortening the fall manure application season and increasing the cost of manure handling. Ironically, severely limiting October applications will actually lead to more applications in November, December, and possibly January. Also, up to half of the available nitrogen can be lost if manure is required to be stockpiled for several months. Changing cover crops from “planted” to “established” for October application is also unrealistic. A farmer cannot guarantee a crop will become established. Minnesota’s weather is too unpredictable to incur the cover crop cost with no guarantee of having the ability to spread the manure if the plants aren’t established due to an early frost, heavy rainfall, etc… Even the cover crop requirement in June, July, and August uses the word “planted” rather than “established.”


Finally, the Agency is perhaps confused about the difference between the chemical properties of commercial fertilizer and those of manure. The 50-degree temperature requirement was actually developed to regulate the application of anhydrous ammonia, which is applied in the form of a gas that can evaporate when temperatures are greater than 50 degrees. On the other hand, manure is solid, soil-building organic matter, rather than a gas that can escape. The Agency is incorrectly using the rules for gases and attempting to apply them to a solid. Under that theory, manure should never be applied in the summer, which of course is a ridiculous proposition.

IV. THE AGENCY’S PROPOSAL TO PROHIBIT APPLICATIONS IN FEBRUARY/MARCH IS NOT AUTHORIZED IN MN RULES CHAPTER 7020.

Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020.2225, states in relevant part: “All manure and process wastewater applications to land must meet the requirements of this part except where specifically exempted.” MN R. Ch. 7020.2225, Subpart 1 (C). “Except as provided in item E, the manure management plan must contain … (10) for application onto frozen or snow-covered soil, the following information about the fields that may receive the manure or process wastewater: (a) field location; (b) land slopes; (c) proximity of fields to surface waters;

(d) expected months of application for each field; and (e) tillage and other conservation measures used to minimize risk of manure-

contaminated runoff…” MN R. Ch. 7020.2225, Subpart 4 (D)(10). Nowhere in this list is there a prohibition against applying manure in a specific month. In fact, this language specifically allows application of manure in the months of February and March, so long as the applicant provides the information required in subdivisions (a)-(e). Adding a prohibition for certain months through a General Permit is outside the specific scope of the Chapter 7020 Rules and therefore is not authorized by Minnesota law. Under the Agency’s proposal, applications of solid manure would be prohibited in February or March regardless of the weather or field conditions. These new requirements are unnecessary and unreasonable. Current permit language specifies requirements and conditions for field applications of solid manure with minimal risk of runoff. Current field conditions requirements have proven adequate for water quality protection. Conditions from southern to northern Minnesota can be different, with spring arriving as much as a full month earlier in the south. Regulations based on calendar dates limit the farmer’s ability to manage around favorable weather conditions. Even Wisconsin recognizes the problem of designing regulations based off of calendar dates and as a result, made exemptions for favorable weather conditions. In some years, in some parts of the state, February and March can provide good conditions for manure application. The current permit language adequately describes favorable conditions.


The MPCA has not provided any evidence, even anecdotal, of runoff events associated with winter applications at permitted operations. In summary, the February through March manure application prohibition is an arbitrary ban that fails to recognize many data points showing little risk of contaminated runoff during those months for Minnesota-specific farms. Expected precipitation in northwest Minnesota from November through April is only six inches. Rather than relying on simple calendar days where weather can be drastically different from year to year and from region to region, the Agency should continue to use the current permit language which correctly defines what conditions must exist for proper application. V. THE AGENCY’S PROPOSAL TO REQUIRE GOVERNMENT APPROVAL PRIOR

TO APPLICATIONS OF A MANURE-SNOW MIX IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020.2225, states in relevant part: “All manure and process wastewater applications to land must meet the requirements of this part except where specifically exempted.” MN R. Ch. 7020.2225, Subpart 1 (C). “Except as provided in item E, the manure management plan must contain … (10) for application onto frozen or snow-covered soil, the following information about the fields that may receive the manure or process wastewater: (a) field location; (b) land slopes; (c) proximity of fields to surface waters;

(d) expected months of application for each field; and (e) tillage and other conservation measures used to minimize risk of manure-

contaminated runoff…” MN R. Ch. 7020.2225, Subpart 4 (D)(10). Nowhere in this list is there a requirement that a farmer seek approval from the MPCA prior to applying a manure-snow mix. In fact, this language specifically allows the application of manure-snow mix so long as the applicant provides the information required in subdivisions (a)-(e). Adding a prohibition for certain months through a General Permit is outside the specific scope of the Chapter 7020 Rules and therefor is not authorized by Minnesota law. In the General Permit, the Agency is proposing to require approval prior to application of manure-snow mix from animal holding areas during February and March. Farmers need to know with certainty how to respond following large snow events. The restriction on application of snow-manure mix following significant snow accumulation in animal holding areas is unreasonable. The proposed permit language would require farmers to contact the MPCA after a snowstorm, wait for approval, and if approval is obtained may be subjected to additional measures/practices. This is an unreasonable requirement that limits the farmer’s ability to properly care for his/her livestock. When feedlots are inundated with snow, animal health is


jeopardized. Farmers need to have assurance that they can clean lots promptly. They should not have to wait for approval from MPCA. Worse yet, MPCA could deny them the ability to properly care for their livestock. If included as a new category of manure in the permit, permittees should be assured that they will be allowed to land apply snow-manure mix following the same requirements provided for winter solid manure applications. Farmers should know with certainty the conditions under which they can land apply snow and manure-snow mix so that they can clean their lots in a timely manner. The MPCA should continue the current permit language defining the conditions required for winter application of solid manure, clarifying that these requirements also apply to snow-manure mix. Finally, there does not appear to be any objective criteria by which government personnel will grant approval for applying a manure-snow mix. This allows for complete Agency discretion, and will likely result in unlawful, arbitrary and capricious decisions by government personnel.

VI. THE AGENCY’S PROPOSALS IN SECTIONS II, III, IV, AND V ABOVE TREAT LIVESTOCK PRODUCERS DIFFERENTLY.

Minnesota Rules Chapter 7020.2225, states in relevant part: “A. An owner or operator of an animal feedlot shall prepare and retain on file a manure management plan that complies with item D according to the following schedule: (1) upon application for an NPDES, SDS, interim, or construction short-form permit for a facility capable of holding 100 or more animal units; (2) an owner of an animal feedlot capable of holding 300 or more animal units that is not required to obtain an NPDES, SDS, interim, or construction short-form permit shall prepare or update a manure management plan prior to January 1, 2005, when a manure management plan does not meet the requirements of this part or reflect current operations and the manure is applied by someone other than a commercial animal waste technician or a certified private manure applicator; and (3) once a manure management plan is required for a facility, a plan that meets the requirements under this subpart must be retained on file at the animal feedlot or manure storage area.” MN R. Ch. 7020.2225, Subpart 4(A) (emphasis added). Under this language, all producers over 300 animal units, and in some cases as few as 100 animal units, are required to prepare and follow manure management plans. Yet under the proposed changes to the General Permit, only certain producers will have to follow additional requirements that other non-permitted producers do not need to follow. If the Agency’s goal is to protect water quality by requiring additional cover crops, nitrogen BMPs, and application bans in certain months, the effort will fail since the vast majority of producers will not be subject to


the new requirements. The MPCA has not provided any evidence, even anecdotal, that permitted operations are the cause of manure pollution. To be clear, the MTGA is not suggesting that non-permitted operations get caught up in the new requirements, but we are arguing that permitted operations, along with non-permitted operations, should only be required to follow the specific requirements of manure management plans provided in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.2225. Attempting to impose additional requirements using the back-door method of amendments to a General Permit is outside the scope of Minnesota Rules and is therefore not authorized by Minnesota Law.

VII. CONCLUSION The overall proposed permit changes, if implemented, will result in more stockpiling, unnecessarily compacting soil, and greater concentration of winter application to meet deadlines that are completely arbitrary. All scenarios fail to live up to best management practice standards and put our waterways in greater risk of contamination. Nowhere during this process have we been provided with data showing the current permit language is inadequate in protecting our waterways. In fact, we fear the proposed permit changes will breed noncompliance. In addition, the cost of implementing the permit changes will hit farmers the hardest at a time when COVID-19 has knocked them off their feet. A 2016 Michigan study showed the cost to farmers for a ban on winter application would run $30 million a year. Again, our farmers put a lot of resources and time into keeping our waters clean. The health of our birds depends on it. That is why we look forward to working with you to adopt permit language that addresses our needs and can be reasonably implemented. Very truly yours, Paul Kvistad, President Minnesota Turkey Growers Association


7/23/20 Email – Naatz Dairy Farm To Whom It May Concern:



2.






2.








2.





2.

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31




Naatz Dairy Farm,

Owners William & Karen Naatz

7/23/20 Email – Sam Ziegler Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed general permit revisions. As a farmer and a regional economic developer, I have concerns about the increase in regulations with respect to manure application that are proposed with this permit revision. Manure is a valuable fertilizer product to farmers and to rural Minnesota. In the current economic times, we are not in a position to increase expense. Some points you should be aware of when determining revisions which do have financial impacts:

Animal agriculture in Minnesota represents $17.1 billion in economic Output $3 billion in household income, and 74,600 jobs. In addition, it yielded an estimated $827 million in income taxes The 2012 census reported $341 million in property taxes.

Over the past decade, the expansion of animal agriculture in Minnesota has led to increases of $1.7 billion in economic output

$298 million in household wages 7,500 jobs $82 million in tax revenue.

These increased regulations could drive animal agriculture investment out of Minnesota. Our rural economies depend on agriculture and adding value to our crops. In addition to creating jobs and tax revenue, animal agriculture creates a market for Minnesota-grown crops, and it generates manure, which offsets the use of commercial fertilizer. As a policy matter, we need to promote livestock growth in Minnesota, not put livestock operators at a disadvantage to operators in neighboring states. I urge the MPCA to take some time to further understand the economic sustainability of these rules prior to approvals. It would also be of best interest of our state to compare the regulations to other states with a sizeable animal agriculture sector. Thank you for accepting these comments,

Sam Ziegler

7/23/20 Email – David Buck Mr. Shwint, I spread my first load of liquid manure in 1977 and quickly realized its benefits. I am convinced that fields with a history of manure applications have less water runoff in heavy rain events than those fields that have chemical fertilizer only. The soil structure is improved with the use of manure. Anything we can do to use manure in an environmentally sound way is a benefit to our soil. I have a couple comments on the updating of the NPDES permit. The first is to allow placing manure on top of existing alfalfa fields. Benefits would include reducing the carbon footprint by not having to purchase and apply chemical fertilizers. We have the P and K, let’s use it. Most of the nitrogen and water would evaporate quickly in the summer heat creating little chance of runoff. Seeding grass with the alfalfa would be an option to efficiently utilize more of the nitrogen. Secondly, there is a huge variation in spring field conditions from one end of the state to the other. Rules on spring applications would need to be more flexible and/or variable to take into account those different situations at a local level. Lastly, we have done a lot of experimenting with cover crops. It is basically impossible to apply manure in the fall and get a cover crop established that will have much growth in the fall. Having said that I am a big believer in cover crops but we will need some flexibility and research before we can have a blanket recommendation on them. I think cover crop use and management will come along way in the next 5 to 10 years. Sincerely, David Buck

1

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Comments on the 2021 General National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) Animal Feedlot Permit The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) thanks the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 2021 General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Animal Feedlot Permit (referred to throughout this comment as the Proposed General Permit). IATP is a 33-year-old organization based in Minneapolis. We work at the local, state, national and international levels to create fair and sustainable agriculture and trade systems. IATP was born in response to the family farm crisis of the 1980s and we continue to pursue policy solutions that benefit family farmers, rural communities and the environment. As MPCA updates the Proposed General Permit, it’s imperative to consider the damaging impacts of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) on water quality. CAFOs contribute to nitrate contamination of waterways through runoff from land application of manure, leaching from manure that has been improperly spread on land, or through manure lagoon leaks or breaks. In the southwestern region of the state, about 20% of the monitored wells have nitrate concentrations higher than the EPA allows for drinking water. Across southern Minnesota, most of the sand and gravel aquifers have nitrate concentrations that exceed EPA guidelines for human health.1 And 27% of surface water in the state has nitrate levels that exceed EPA guidelines.2 Much of this comes from agriculture. The Proposed General Permit states that its goal is “to reduce pollutant levels in point source discharges and protect water quality in accordance with the U.S. Clean Water Act, Minnesota statutes and rules, and federal laws and regulations.”3 Yet, Minnesota’s nitrate contamination increased under the previous 2016 General Permit. Although the Proposed General Permit includes requirements to address nitrate leaching, they are not stringent enough to adequately address the increasing nitrate contamination of Minnesota’s waterways for the reasons outlined in this comment. Farmers are facing the most difficult farm economy since the 1980s. Increases in farm debt, bankruptcies and land values have far outstripped farm assets and income, making it more

1 MN Pollution Control Agency, The state of groundwater. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/state-groundwater 2 MN Pollution Control Agency, Report on nitrogen in surface water. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/featured/report-nitrogen-surface-water 3 MN Pollution Control Agency, Draft Permit of Intent to Issue State of Minnesota General Animal Feedlot NPDES Permit. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/Draft%20Permit%20-%20MNG440000.pdf

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/state-groundwater

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/state-groundwater

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/featured/report-nitrogen-surface-water

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/Draft%20Permit%20-%20MNG440000.pdf

2

and more difficult for farmers to hold on to their land. According to data from the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, the state lost over 300 dairy farms in 2019 for the second year in a row.4 Much of this is a result of agricultural consolidation, which is putting many farmers out of business. The financial stress caused by agricultural consolidation is most acute for small to mid-sized farms — the exact type of farm needed to build a resilient agricultural system. As CAFOs have increased production, prices paid to farmers have plummeted, often below the cost of production. Across the country and in Minnesota, small and mid-sized farms are struggling to operate with little to no farm income, often wiping out their savings and credit to stay in business, if they’re able to stay in business at all.5 6 Increasing and expanding CAFOs in Minnesota will worsen the agricultural consolidation that is driving small and mid-sized farmers out of business. MPCA should ensure an appropriately stringent permitting process for CAFOs. Not only are they harmful to the environment and our state’s water resources, they are also undercutting the small and mid-sized farmers that we need on the land to restore our water resources, combat climate change, steward our land and support our rural communities. MPCA must include these considerations within the updated Proposed General Permit.

Rules must anticipate more extreme precipitation Sections 16.3 and 21.2 of the Proposed General Permit are based on 25-year, 24-hour storm events as defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Many of NOAA’s rainfall frequency values were last updated in the 1960s and 1970s, and precipitation has greatly increased in severity and frequency since then. Therefore, the Proposed General Permit should be revised to reflect these newer climate patterns. Far more mega-rain events (defined by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as a storm in which at least 6 inches of rain fall over an area of 1,000 or more square miles and the core of the storm generates at least 8 inches of rain7) have hit Minnesota in recent years. For context, a 100-year storm for most Minnesota communities is roughly 6 to 7 inches over 24 hours.8

4 MN Department of Agriculture, Dairy Farm Activity Report. 2020. 5 Justin Fox, A Productivity Revolution is Wiping Out (Most) Dairy Farms, (Bloomberg, 2019). 6 James MacDonald and Doris Newton, Milk Production Continues to Shift to Large-Scale Farms, (USDA Economic Research Service, December 2014). 7 MN Department of Natural Resources, Historic Mega-Rain Events in Minnesota. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/summaries_and_publications/mega_rain_events.html 8 MN Department of Natural Resources, 100-Year Rainstorms Defined. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/summaries_and_publications/100_year_rainstorms.html

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/summaries_and_publications/mega_rain_events.html

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/summaries_and_publications/100_year_rainstorms.html

3

From 1973-2019, Minnesota experienced 14 mega-rain events, with a sharp uptick since 2000. There were 2.5 times as many mega-rains from 2000-2019 as there were from 1973-1999. Notably, of the 14 mega-rain events since 1973, three of them were considered 1,000-year storms and all took place in southern Minnesota, where many CAFOs are sited.9 These trends are consistent with predictions in the most recent National Climate Assessment that Minnesota will receive more precipitation, and more precipitation from large events, as a result of climate change.10 Due to increasing rainfall and flooding from climate change, the risk of an overflowed or breached manure lagoon is higher. In 2018, Hurricane Florence caused many manure lagoons to overflow in North Carolina, leading to contaminated water and severe public health impacts.11 Similar manure lagoon spills occurred in Iowa last year during extreme flooding.12 At home in Minnesota, heavy rains in 2018 left “livestock producers scrambling to stem the overflow from livestock manure storage basins,” according to MPCA staff.13 These disasters cause high levels of nitrate pollution in surrounding waterways. The possibility of a breached or overflowing manure lagoon is especially scary for parts of Minnesota, including the sensitive karst region where surface water pollution very easily becomes groundwater contamination. In 2018, former MPCA Commissioner John Linc Stine said, “The karst region is subject to rapid seepage of contaminants from the land and overlying soils, making the groundwater of this region very vulnerable.”14 Section 16.3 of the Proposed General Permit reads, “For any facility the does not meet the definition of New Source, the Permittee shall ensure that the production area is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to contain all manure, manure-contaminated runoff, or process wastewater, and the direct precipitation from a 25-year, 24-hour storm event as defined by the Precipitation - Frequency Atlas of the United States, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.” Section 21.2 of the Proposed General Permit states that certain inspections must occur after 25-year, 24-hour storm events.

9 MN Department of Natural Resources, Historic Mega-Rain Events in Minnesota. https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/summaries_and_publications/mega_rain_events.html 10 U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Climate Assessment 14. Chapter 5, Figure 18.6. https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/midwest#graphic-17083 11 Shefali Sharma, Hogwash and its Aftermath: Climate Change and Corporate Accountability after Hurricane Florence, (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, 2018). 12 Erin Jordan, Overflowing Manure Tanks Reported in Western Iowa, Eastern Iowa on Alert, (The Gazette, Sioux City, March 2019). 13 MN Pollution Control Agency, Livestock farms in southern Minnesota respond to heavy rains causing manure storage overflows. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/livestock-farms-southern-minnesota-respond-heavy-rains-causing-manure-storage-overflows 14 Cathy Rofshus, MPCA Commissioner denies permit to proposed feedlot, recommends study of nitrate-contaminated waters in the sensitive karst region of southeast Minnesota, (MPCA, 2018).

https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/summaries_and_publications/mega_rain_events.html

https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/midwest#graphic-17083

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/livestock-farms-southern-minnesota-respond-heavy-rains-causing-manure-storage-overflows

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/livestock-farms-southern-minnesota-respond-heavy-rains-causing-manure-storage-overflows

4

Given that Minnesota has experienced 14 mega-rain events that are roughly equivalent to 100-year storms and 3 mega-rain events considered 1,000-year storms since 1973, it’s clear that designing and constructing facilities to accommodate 25-year storms is not enough to protect Minnesota’s water and a new standard must be used. MPCA recognizes this fact in the 2017 Interagency Climate Adaptation Team report that highlights the need to address “resilience to extreme precipitation.”15 Based on climate data for Minnesota, outdated numbers from NOAA, and the enormous public health and environmental impacts that manure lagoon breaches pose, we recommend that the MPCA change sections 16.3 and 21.2 of the Proposed General Permit to use the more appropriate levels of 100-year, 24-hour storm events as defined by NOAA in their Precipitation Frequency Atlas.16

Rules for manure application rates are inadequate Section 13.3 of the Proposed General Permit deals with manure application rates and relies on recommendations from the University of Minnesota Extension that are based on the Maximum Return to Nitrogen (MRTN). Economic risk and cost factors underpin the MRTN, making it inadequate as a tool to limit nitrate pollution. The Proposed General Permit states that manure application rates cannot “exceed expected annual crop nitrogen needs.” Yet, the MRTN relies on calculating the price ratio for the cost per pound of nitrogen divided by the value of corn per bushel.17 The price ratio used to calculate the MRTN varies based on the price of fertilizer; an Extension fact sheet on fertilizing corn in Minnesota gives this example:

An example calculation of the price/value is if N fertilizer costs $.40 per lb N (or $820 per ton of anhydrous ammonia), and corn is valued at $4.00 per bushel, the ratio would be 0.40/4.00 = 0.10.18

For CAFOs, manure is usually free and abundant. As a result, the MRTN suggests using a 0.05 price ratio, saying it is “relevant to those that have manure readily available at low (or no) cost.” The recommendations go on to say, “For those that pay a premium, the 0.1 price ratio MRTN, or higher, may be more relevant and will result in a lower application rate.”19

15 MN Pollution Control Agency, Adapting to Climate Change in Minnesota 2017 Report of the Interagency Climate Adaptation Team. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/interagency-climate-adaptation-team 16 NOAA Atlas 14 Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates: MN. https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=mn 17 Melissa Wilson, New Manure Application Rate Guidelines for Minnesota. (University of Minnesota Extension, 2019) https://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2019/09/new-manure-application-rate-guidelines.html 18 University of Minnesota Extension. Fertilizing Corn in Minnesota. Reviewed in 2020. https://extension.umn.edu/crop-specific-needs/fertilizing-corn-minnesota 19 Melissa Wilson, New Manure Application Rate Guidelines for Minnesota. (University of Minnesota Extension, 2019) https://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2019/09/new-manure-application-rate-guidelines.html

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/interagency-climate-adaptation-team

https://hdsc.nws.noaa.gov/hdsc/pfds/pfds_map_cont.html?bkmrk=mn

https://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2019/09/new-manure-application-rate-guidelines.html

https://extension.umn.edu/crop-specific-needs/fertilizing-corn-minnesota

https://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2019/09/new-manure-application-rate-guidelines.html

5

This essentially means that a farmer with free manure can apply more since it costs less than commercial fertilizer or purchasing manure. The Proposed General Permit states that a farmer must apply manure based on expected crop nitrogen needs. Therefore, the MRTN is an inappropriate model to use since it is based on prices and maximizing profits, which have nothing to do with crop nitrogen needs. Actual crop nitrogen needs are determined by a complex set of variables, including timing, intensity and amount of precipitation; amount of sunshine; insect, weed and disease pressures; other nutrient deficiencies; the amount of soil organic matter; and soil type and texture. Section 13.3 of the Proposed General Permit should be revised to base manure application rates on these factors instead of the MRTN.

Soil testing is needed to determine manure application rates Section 13.3 of the Proposed General Permit requires farmers to limit manure applications to “expected crop nitrogen needs” and also requires farmers to include in their calculations “all nitrogen sources,” which includes commercial fertilizer, soil organic matter, legumes, manure and more. There is no way for a farmer to limit manure application to expected crop nitrogen needs without knowing how much nitrogen is already in the soil. Although the Proposed General Permit requires soil testing for phosphorus, there are no stipulations to soil test for nitrogen. The previous General Permit from 2016 included a requirement for soil nitrate testing, but it was removed in the 2021 Proposed General Permit. This requirement should be added back to ensure that manure is not overapplied.

Soil temperature requirements need more specificity Sections 14.4 and 14.6 of the Proposed General Permit require soil temperatures of less than 50 degrees Fahrenheit for certain manure application scenarios. However, the Proposed General Permit lacks the specificity required to prevent nitrate pollution. The language in the Proposed General Permit does not indicate how long the soil must be below 50 degrees, at what depth, or whether the soil temperature must remain below 50 degrees until spring. This makes it confusing for the farmer and opens up the possibility that manure could be applied after one 50 degree temperature reading, even if the weather warms back up after that. This scenario must be prevented because fall manure application when soil temperatures exceed 50 degrees is highly likely to cause nitrate pollution. MPCA must add more specificity to the soil temperature stipulations in sections 14.4 and 14.6 of the Proposed General Permit. Soil temperatures should be anticipated to remain below 50 degrees until spring. One way to estimate this is to require temperature readings of less than 50 degrees for three consecutive days at a depth of 6 inches.

6

Land application timing requirements need more specificity Section 14.8 of the Proposed General Permit states that winter application of solid manure is prohibited in the months of February and March, and section 14.10 states that winter application of liquid manure is prohibited except for emergency manure application. Winter restrictions should not be based on calendar month, but instead should be based on weather conditions. According to an article by University of Minnesota Extension, “When manure is applied on the surface of frozen soils or on top of snow… it cannot seep into the ground, so if there is any runoff in your fields, it can carry the manure to low spots or away from the field entirely which may cause environmental issues.”20 Applying manure on snow or frozen ground greatly increases risks of nitrate pollution. A comprehensive ban on manure spreading on frozen ground is necessary, and cannot be linked to arbitrary month constraints that disregard seasonal weather patterns. This is the only solution to truly limit nitrates entering Minnesota’s waterways. If a total snow and frozen ground ban is impossible, MPCA should at least expand the months when solid manure cannot be applied. The MPCA should prohibit application of solid manure in December and January (in addition to February and March, which the Proposed General Permit already indicates), when Minnesota usually has snow cover and frozen ground. There is precedent for this; Michigan’s 2020 General Permit for CAFOs prohibits manure application during the months of January, February and March.21 Minnesota should follow suit and prohibit solid manure application from December through March, or implement a total snow and frozen ground ban not tied to month restrictions.

Emergencies must be approved and documented more stringently The Proposed General Permit makes exceptions to the rules for emergency manure application in sections 10.3, 14.3, 14.4, 14.6 and 14.10. Emergency manure application is defined in section 30.19 as “instances of land application of manure that are the direct result of situations beyond the control of the Permittee, such as unusual weather conditions, unavoidable equipment failure, or other circumstances that could not have been avoided with proper planning and management and there is no opportunity to provide temporary storage within another approved manure storage area at the facility. In these situations, only the application of the volume of manure that is necessary to prevent manure storage overflow is considered to be emergency manure application.”

20 Melissa Wilson, Manure applied on frozen soil or snow – what will happen to my nitrogen? (University of Minnesota Extension, 2019) https://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2019/01/manure-applied-on-frozen-soil-or-snow.html 21 State of Michigan NPDES General Permit for CAFOs. Permit Number MIG010000. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/egle-wrd-CAFO-GP2020-MIG010000_691449_7.pdf

https://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2019/01/manure-applied-on-frozen-soil-or-snow.html

https://blog-crop-news.extension.umn.edu/2019/01/manure-applied-on-frozen-soil-or-snow.html

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/egle/egle-wrd-CAFO-GP2020-MIG010000_691449_7.pdf

7

None of the rules in the Proposed General Permit will be effective if there are too many exceptions and emergencies. Yet, in email correspondence with MPCA staff, we learned that “There really isn’t a written approval system for [emergency manure application], just a notification to the MPCA that you are going to utilize this condition of the permit.” MPCA must implement a system to review and approve emergency applications. If a farm uses the emergency manure application condition of the permit, a summary of the situation is required as part of the farm’s annual report. However, emergencies are not officially tracked, and MPCA staff only has information on how often the emergency provision was used from informal surveys of feedlot staff. Emergency manure application must be better documented and this information should be available to the public. It is critical that rural communities are aware of any emergencies that happen in their region and how they may be affected. The definition of emergency manure application in section 30.19 of the Proposed General Permit includes “unusual weather conditions.” As climate change worsens, increasingly extreme and erratic weather will become the norm. Unless the Proposed General Permit is revised to account for climate impacts, emergency manure applications will become more common and nitrate pollution in our waterways will worsen. Finally, section 14.6 of the Proposed General Permit states, “Nitrogen BMP implementation is not required for emergency manure application.” Yet, in some cases a farmer could implement BMPs despite an emergency. For example, a nitrogen stabilizing agent could be added to manure before spreading despite poor weather conditions or equipment failure. In such cases, farmers should not be excused from implementing BMPs. Better approval systems and verification of emergency manure application could ensure that BMPs are used whenever possible, even in cases of emergency. IATP thanks MPCA for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Tara Ritter Senior Program Associate, Climate Change and Rural Communities Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Ben Lilliston Director of Climate Change and Rural Strategies Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

7/23/20 Email – Felling Dairy To Whom It May Concern:

















4. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The University of Minnesota’s Research and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Waseca collectively have data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at at least one of the

centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca):

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31




Jason & Marie Felling

Felling Dairy, LLC

7/23/20 Email – Stender Dairy To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.



desired.























must be followed:









a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31










manner.

Daniel J Stender

7/23/20 Email – Tim Stender RE: Comments on General Permit MNG440000 Animal Feedlot Permit To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.



desired.























must be followed:









a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31










manner.

Timothy R Stender

July 23, 2020 Mr. George Schwint Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency VIA E-MAIL 12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165 Mankato, MN 56001 Re: Comments on the Proposed 2021 NPDES General Permit for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Dear Mr. Schwint, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Friends of the Mississippi River, Minnesota Well Owners Organization, and Sierra Club North Star Chapter (collectively, the “Clean Water Organizations”) appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Proposed 2021 NDPDES General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.

Please see the Clean Water Organizations’ comments with exhibits attached separately for further discussion. Again, we thank you for the opportunity to continue this important discussion regarding the protection of our state’s environment. Sincerely, /s/Joy Anderson Joy Anderson Senior Staff Attorney Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy JA/ad Enclosure

1

Clean Water Organizations’ Comments on the Proposed 2021 NPDES General Permit

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

July 23, 2020

INTRODUCTION

Nitrate pollution from manure and commercial fertilizer is a serious problem in Minnesota.

Despite laws intended to limit manure application, nitrate pollution from excess manure continues

to contaminate drinking water and degrade aquatic habitats. Minnesota Center for Environmental

Advocacy,1 Friends of the Mississippi River,2 Minnesota Well Owners Organization,3 and Sierra

Club North Star Chapter4 (collectively, “Clean Water Organizations”) have concluded that the

1 Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (“MCEA”) is a Minnesota non-profit organization that defends every aspect of Minnesota’s environment, relying upon facts, science, and the law. For nearly half a century, MCEA has worked with community members, decision makers, and other partners to protect Minnesota’s natural resources and the health and wellbeing of all the state’s citizens. As a public interest organization, MCEA works to ensure that Minnesota’s bedrock environmental laws are enforced and defended. It has a particular interest in water quality, and it has engaged in legislative and administrative advocacy, rulemaking and permitting proceedings, and litigation to protect Minnesota’s water quality. 2 Friends of the Mississippi River (“FMR”) is a nonprofit established in 1993 to engage Minnesotans to protect, restore, and enhance the Mississippi River and its watershed in the Twin Cities Metro area. As part of its efforts to protect and preserve a clean Mississippi River, FMR works with 2,500 members, 2,000 advocates, and over 5,000 volunteers yearly. A major part of FMR’s work is focused on watershed protection for the Mississippi River, including preserving water quality by advocating for land use policies and practices that will lead to cleaner water throughout the entire watershed. 3 Minnesota Well Owners Organization (“MNWOO”) is a nonprofit organization for private well owners that works to preserve, protect, and restore Minnesota’s water resources and to ensure the safety of those who use private wells for drinking water. MNWOO also provides education, technical and legal services, and advocacy for private well owners. MNWOO works to protect the water quality of the 1.2 million private wells in Minnesota, more than 10% of which are contaminated at levels above allowed health risk limits. This includes many private wells with elevated levels of nitrates. 4 The Sierra Club North Star Chapter (“SCNS”) is a nonprofit organization that is the Minnesota branch of the national Sierra Club, America’s oldest, largest, and most influential grassroots environmental organization. SCNS works through grassroots political action, including its 80,000 members, to strategically address Minnesotans’ most pressing environmental issues. One of SCNS’s priorities in its water program is fighting agricultural pollution in Minnesota, including nitrate pollution.

2

newly proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (“Proposed General Permit”) drafted by the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency (“MPCA”) does not effectively address this problem or follow

Minnesota’s laws regarding land application of manure. Unless MPCA revises the Proposed

General Permit to better reflect the protective standards of the law, Minnesota’s water quality is

likely to worsen during the permit’s tenure.

Since the MPCA issued the 2016 NPDES General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations (“2016 General Permit”), Minnesota’s nitrate pollution problem has intensified. The

drinking water for nearly half a million Minnesotans is now tainted with elevated levels of nitrates,

which can cause cancers and other diseases. Now, MPCA has an opportunity to provide better

protections for Minnesota’s waters, while ensuring farmers can meet their crops’ nitrogen needs,

through the Proposed General Permit. Yet, the Proposed General Permit perpetuates the same

problems that exist in the 2016 General Permit, which will lead to continued contamination of

water needed for drinking, recreation, wildlife, and aquatic habitat. Accordingly, the Clean Water

Organizations suggest changes to the Proposed General Permit to ensure the protection of water

quality and compliance with Minnesota laws regarding manure application.

Most importantly, the Clean Water Organizations propose that the MPCA revise the

Proposed General Permit to limit manure application rates to truly reflect expected crop nitrogen

needs. As it did in the 2016 General Permit, the MPCA has referenced recommendations for

manure application based on maximizing the economic return for farmers, not on the actual plant

needs for nitrogen. These recommendations are inconsistent with the governing rules for land

application of manure and have led to over-application by many farmers. MPCA must amend the

Proposed General Permit to ensure that the referenced recommendations are consistent with the

3

rule’s requirements. In addition, the Clean Water Organizations request that the MPCA revise

Proposed General Permit to restore the section from the 2016 General Permit regarding pre-plant

testing for nitrates, provide clearer requirements to farmers about determining soil temperatures

prior to manure application, strengthen October restrictions on manure application, prohibit

application of solid manure in December and January, and require geographic-information-system

(“GIS”) identification of fields in manure management plans. The Clean Water Organizations ask

that MPCA revise the permit to make these changes or grant a contested case hearing so that

material issues of fact can be heard by a neutral administrative law judge who can develop the

record and present a recommendation to the MPCA.

I. MINNESOTA’S DRINKING WATER AND AQUATIC HABITATS ARE ALREADY POLLUTED WITH DANGEROUS LEVELS OF NITRATES

Minnesota takes great pride in its water. Minnesotans depend on their lakes, rivers, and

groundwater as sources of clean, drinkable water and habitats for wildlife. While the “Land of

10,000 Lakes” claims the headwaters of the Mississippi River and other historical, cultural, and

economically significant waterways, increasing levels of nitrates, which have profound impacts

on aquatic and human life, are threatening the health of many of Minnesota’s great waters.

A. Minnesota’s Nitrate Pollution Is Worsening.

Nitrate contamination in Minnesota’s drinking water systems is getting worse. Data

collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) showed that between 1995 and

2018, 63% of Minnesota’s 115 community wells experienced growing nitrate contamination, with

the southern part of the state experiencing the largest increases.5 As one example, in the Rock

County Rural Water System, located in southwestern corner of the state, 24 of the 107 tests

5 Envtl. Working Grp., Nitrate Trends in Minnesota Drinking Water, https://www.ewg.org/ interactive-maps/2020-in-minnesotas-farm-country-nitrate-pollution-of-drinking-water-getting-worse/map/ (last visited July 17, 2020).

4

collected during this time frame revealed nitrate levels exceeding 10 milligrams per liter (“mg/l”),

the “safe for consumption” threshold set by the EPA in 1962.6 Across the state in Winona County,

nitrates in the Utica water system surged between 2016 and 2018.7 Nitrates also threaten

metropolitan area community water supplies. EPA tests collected from the Kjellberg system in

Wright County, which serves approximately 1,000 people, revealed nitrate levels greater than

3 m/l in more than half of the 204 tests obtained during the study period.8 In Hastings, 217 out of

313 tests of its groundwater supply, which serves over 22,000 Minnesotans, showed nitrate

concentrations exceeding 5 mg/l.9

The Minnesota Department of Health’s (“MDH”) testing also shows troubling trends for

private wells. Prior to 2011, less than 1% of MDH private well tests showed nitrate contamination

exceeding 10 mg/l.10 However, with the exception of 2016, beginning in 2011 and every year

thereafter, more than 1% of tested private wells were contaminated with nitrate levels exceeding

the federal safe consumption limit.11

MPCA data confirms that nitrate levels in Minnesota’s surface waters are also increasing.

Data collected between 1976 and 2010 reveal that 22 of Minnesota’s 32 major rivers shows a

statistically significant upward trend in overall nitrate concentrations.12 These rivers showed

increases in nitrate concentrations as much as an astonishing 268% during the 30 to 35 year study

6 Id. 7 Id. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Minn. Dep’t of Health, Nitrate in Private Wells, https://data.web.health.state.mn.us/nitrate_ wells (last visited July 17, 2020), attached as Ex. 3. 11 Id. 12 Minn. Pollution Control Agency, Nitrogen in Minnesota Surface Waters 150 (2013), available at https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-s6-26a.pdf, [hereinafter “Nitrogen in Surface Waters].

5

period.13 Most of MPCA’s regularly monitored testing sites along the Mississippi River have

recorded an explosive growth of nitrate concentrations, with MPCA noting that, except for two

specific sites, “nitrate concentrations [in the Mississippi River] have been increasing everywhere

downstream of Clearwater at a rate of 1% to 4% per year” in recent years.14 MPCA monitoring

sites on the St. Croix River reflected a 49% growth in nitrate concentration between 1976 and

2004.15 MPCA data collected from major tributaries similarly shows nitrate concentrations

increased in the majority of sampled waterways during the study period, with the greatest recorded

growth reaching 207%.16 And the contaminated Rock County Rural Water System discussed above

is a surface water source of drinking water.17

B. Nitrate Pollution Poses Dangers For People And Aquatic Life.

This increase in nitrate pollution is a serious problem for Minnesotans, as elevated nitrate

levels are hazardous to human health and wreak havoc on aquatic life. Increasing nitrate

contamination threatens the health of the nearly 75% of Minnesotans who rely on groundwater for

their drinking water.18 Consuming water contaminated with nitrates is associated with adverse

birth outcomes, thyroid disease, neural tube defects, and several cancers.19 Elevated nitrate levels

in drinking water are especially dangerous for infants, pregnant women, and people with certain

13 Id. at 151. 14 Id. at 398. 15 Id. at 177. 16 Id. at 150-51, 53. 17 Envtl. Working Grp., supra note 2. 18 Minn. Dep’t of Agric., Minnesota Nitrogen Fertilizer Management Plan 20 (2019), available at https://www.mda.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/2019-08/nfmp2015addendedada_0.pdf, attached as Ex. 4. 19 Alexis Temkin et al., Exposure-Based Assessment and Economic Valuation of Adverse Birth Outcomes and Cancer Risk Due to Nitrate in United States Drinking Water, 176 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 1-2 (2019), available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511930218X, attached as Ex. 5.

6

blood disorders, who are at risk of methemoglobinemia, or “blue-baby syndrome,” which causes

severe oxygen deficiency that, without medical treatment, can lead to death.20

The EPA set the current health standard for nitrate in water at 10 mg/l in 1962 largely to

protect against blue-baby syndrome. New studies strongly suggest that the current standard does

not reflect the present understanding of nitrate associated health risks.21 According to a recent

study by Environmental Working Group (“EWG”), lower levels, even below 5 mg/l, are associated

with higher risks of certain cancers and adverse birth outcomes.22 EWG concluded that nitrate

pollution of drinking water at levels far below the legal limit may cause up to 12,594 cases of

cancer each year in the United States.23 This tracks large-scale studies in Spain and Italy, published

in 2016, and Denmark, published in 2018, which found statistically significant increases of

colorectal cancer risks associated with nitrate levels below 2 mg/l.24 Minnesota regulators should

be exceedingly concerned by these new studies because hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans

currently access public water systems contaminated with nitrates exceeding 3 mg/l.25 Even worse,

the data shows that over 150,000 Minnesotans accessed public water systems with nitrate

contamination levels exceeding Minnesota’s health standard of 10 mg/l.26 Nitrates also plague

private water supplies. Minnesota Department of Agriculture data collected pursuant to its Nitrate

Clinic Outreach Program shows that 7.7% of 2,063 private well tests reported nitrate levels

20 Minn. Dep’t of Agric., supra note 15, at 7-8. 21 Minn. Dep’t of Health, Nitrate in Well Water, https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities /environment/water/wells/waterquality/nitrate.html#:~:text=Safe%20Level,water%20for%20public%20water%20supplies (last visited July 17, 2020), attached as Ex. 6; Sarah Porter & Anne Weir Schechinger, Envtl. Working Grp., Tap Water for 500,000 Minnesotans Contaminated with Elevated Levels of Nitrate (Jan. 14, 2020), attached as Ex. 7. 22 Temkin et al., supra note 16, at 11; Porter & Schechinger, supra note 18. 23 Porter & Schechinger, supra note 18. 24 Id. 25 Minn. Dep’t of Health, supra note 18. 26 Porter & Schechinger, supra note 18.

7

exceeding 10 mg/l.27 The 2012 data shows an increase in the percentage of private wells exceeding

the current standard from samples tested in 2011, suggesting nitrate infiltration into well water

supplies throughout Minnesota is an increasing problem.28 In fact, due to a lack of testing, the

number of contaminated wells in Minnesota may actually be much greater.29

In addition to impairing drinking water, elevated nitrate concentrations in Minnesota’s

waterways are significant contributors to aquatic habitat destruction. High nitrate levels in surface

waters directly contribute to eutrophication, which stimulates excessive plant growth and depletes

oxygen levels in the water, causing harm or death to fish.30 Nitrate also is directly toxic to fish and

other aquatic organisms, causing heart and liver problems, electrolyte imbalance, and increased

vulnerability to bacterial and parasitic diseases.31 Due to nitrate’s solubility in water, its ultimate

intrusion into the Mississippi River is in part to blame for the hypoxic “dead zone” in the Gulf of

Mexico.32 One study estimates that the 158 million pounds of nitrate that leave Minnesota annually

via the Mississippi River has caused nearly $2.4 billion in annual damages to fish stocks and

habitat for more than 30 years.33

C. Much Of Minnesota’s Nitrate Problem Is Caused By Agriculture.

Agriculture is Minnesota’s largest contributor to nitrate pollution—specifically, nitrate

runoff or leaching from farmland from commercial nitrogen fertilizer or manure. According to the

27 Minn. Dep’t of Agric., 2012 Nitrate Clinic Outreach Summary Report 2 (2012), available at https://www.mda.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/inline-files/2012nitrateclinic.ashx.pdf. 28 Id. 29 Jennifer Bjorhus, One in Eight Minnesotans Drink Nitrate-Tainted Tap Water, Report Says, STAR TRIBUNE (Jan. 14, 2020), available at https://www.startribune.com/one-in-eight-minnesotans-drink-nitrate-tainted-water/566960262/.] 30 Nitrogen in Surface Waters, supra note 9, at 43. 31 Id. 32 Id. at 36, 46. 33 Rebecca Boehm, Union of Concerned Scientists, Reviving the Dead Zone 3 (2020), available at https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/reviving-the-dead-zone.pdf.

8

Minnesota Department of Agriculture, approximately 2.7 million tons of inorganic nitrogen are

added to Minnesota soils each year, and 80% of that nitrogen is attributable to agriculture.34

Unfortunately, a significant portion of that nitrogen reaches state waters. In its 2013 study, MPCA

estimated that cropland sources account for almost 73% of the statewide nitrate load to streams

and lakes in an average year.35 A “significant” part of this comes from applied manure.36 Notably,

MPCA found that the largest increases in nitrate pollution are clustered in the southern third of the

state, where most of Minnesota’s confined animal feeding operations are located.37

This is unsurprising. Domestic and international studies have long confirmed an

association between livestock concentration and a documented degradation in water quality. For

example, Iowa watersheds with the highest livestock density had some of the highest stream

concentrations of nitrates in the state.38 In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, for example, land

application of manure contributes to elevated ground water nitrate concentrations and suffocating

algae blooms.39 This connection is not new. In the 1960s, nutrient runoff from the Danube River

seriously degraded the northwestern Black Sea.40 Conditions rapidly improved after the fall of

communist regimes in the late 1980s precipitated the closure of many large animal farms.41

The ease with which nitrate escapes the fields is largely to blame. A significant amount of

nitrogen from applied manure is lost through volatilization, runoff, and leaching. The University

of Minnesota Extension Service (“Extension Service”) estimates that up to 50% of the nitrogen

34 Minn. Dep’t of Agric., supra note 15, at 33-34. 35 Nitrogen in Surface Waters, supra note 9, at 205. 36 Id. at 219. 37 Id. at 295; Minn. Pollution Control Agency, https://resources.gisdata.mn.gov/pub/gdrs/data /pub/us_mn_state_pca/env_feedlots/preview/preview.jpg (last visited July 17, 2020). 38 Dr. Christopher Jones, Expert Report 6 (2020), attached as Ex. 1. 39 Id. 40 Id. 41 Id.

9

from manure may be lost through these processes.42 University of Minnesota research indicates

that applications of nitrate above the economically optimum nitrogen rate for a specific crop

significantly increase the potential for nitrate losses.43

Partly to blame for the nitrogen losses is the way manure is applied by farmers and how it

is used by plants. Manure contains both organic and inorganic forms of nitrogen.44 While inorganic

nitrogen—in the form of nitrate or ammonium—is available to be used by plants for growth

immediately, the organic form is not.45 Before plants can take up organic nitrogen, it must first be

mineralized by microorganisms in the soil to inorganic forms.46 After this conversion process,

however, the inorganic form ammonium can be easily converted into gas and lost into the

atmosphere through volatilization, only to cause water pollution when it dissolves in rain and

returns to earth.47 But more significantly, since inorganic nitrates are soluble, they are prone to

leaching.48 Thus, the converted nitrate is highly susceptible to filtering through the soil profile and

into the groundwater.49

42 Univ. of Minn. Extension, Manure Application Methods and Nitrogen Losses, (2018), https://extension.umn.edu/manure-land-application/manure-application-methods-and-nitrogen-losses, [hereinafter “Manure Application Methods”], attached as Ex. 8. 43 Melissa Wilson, Univ. of Minn. Extension, Guidelines for Manure Application Rates, https://extension.umn.edu/manure-land-application/manure-application-rates (last visited July 17, 2020), [hereinafter “Guidelines for Manure Application”], attached as Ex. 9. 44 Melissa Wilson, Univ. of Minn. Extension, Manure Characteristics, https://extension.umn. edu/manure-land-application/manure-characteristics (last visited July 17, 2020), [hereinafter “Manure Characteristics”], attached as Ex. 10. 45 Id.; Manure Application Methods, supra note 39. 46 Manure Characteristics, supra note 41; Ron Wiederholt, N.D. State Univ. Extension Serv., Environmental Implications of Excess Fertilizer and Manure on Water Quality (2017) https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/ environment-natural-resources/environmental-implications-of-excess-fertilizer-and-manure-on-water-quality, attached as Ex. 11. 47 Id. 48 Scott C. Killpack & Daryl Bucholz, Univ. of Mo. Extension, Nitrogen in the Environment: Leaching, https://extension2.missouri.edu/wq262 (last visited July 17, 2020). 49 Wiederholt, supra note 43.

10

In addition, if a farmer applies manure incorrectly—in too large of quantities, on vulnerable

soils, or at improper times—leaching or runoff is more likely. If too much manure is applied, plants

do not take it up, allowing nitrates to leach away.50 If manure is applied to coarse-textured soils,

nitrates can sink past plant roots and into groundwater.51 If manure is applied early in the fall on

ground that is too warm, it will quickly convert to into nitrate and likely be lost before spring

planting; but if manure is applied in the winter on frozen soils, it is unlikely to be incorporated into

the soil and instead runs off during melts or spring rains.52

In addition, multiple factors make manure challenging to manage as fertilizer and

encourage over-application. First, the nutrient concentration in manure is far lower and much more

uncertain than commercial fertilizer.53 Time windows for effective manure application are

narrower than with commercial fertilizer, and farm implements designed to distribute manure to

fields can apply material non-uniformly.54 Nitrogen loss to the atmosphere through volatilization

can be significant and difficult to predict.55 And insufficient storage capacity for manure may lead

to farmers applying manure at ineffective times, when it is more likely that nutrients will run off

or leach into the water and be lost to plants.56 These uncertainties may lead farmers to over-apply

manure in their eagerness to ensure that plants have abundant sources of nitrogen to use as they

grow—or may even cause them to apply manure in the fall followed by commercial fertilizer in

50 Guidelines for Manure Application, supra note 43. 51 Id. 52 Melissa Wilson, Univ. of Minn. Extension, Manure Timing, https://extension.umn.edu/ manure-land-application/manure-timing (last visited July 17, 2020), [hereinafter “Manure Timing’], attached as Exhibit 12. 53 Jones, supra note 35, at 6. 54 Id. 55 Id. 56 Id.

11

the spring.57 These factors “frequently result in manured land receiving larger amounts of nutrient

than those that receive only commercial N [fertilizer].”58

This is not necessarily a problem for the farmer, however. Unlike commercial fertilizer,

which must be purchased, farmers with large livestock operations have access to free, always

available manure in ample quantities. In some scenarios, research has found maximizing nitrogen

loss to the environment is more profitable than attempting to use all of the nutrients from the

manure.59 For these farmers, manure is a waste product, and squandering its nutrients is not

necessarily economically wasteful.60 In fact, because of the costs of hauling manure, farmers may

find it more profitable to concentrate manure applications on the fields closest to the animal

confinements and buy commercial fertilizer—with its higher, uniform, and known nitrogen

content—for the remaining fields.61

Overall, for farmers, the economic risk of under-applying manure is far greater than that of

over-applying.62 When a farmer under-applies nitrogen, the farmer takes on a considerable

economic risk: that crop growth will not be maximized, leading to lower yields and less product

to sell.63 But when a farmer over-applies nitrogen, the farmer is only taking on the risk of the cost

of the additional manure—which in many cases costs nothing at all—while increasing the

opportunity to maximize crop yields and product for sale.64 While the economic risk to the farmer

of over-application is small, however, the environmental risk of over-application is severe.65 Any

57 Id. 58 Id. 59 Id. at 6. 60 Id. 61 Id. 62 Id. at 8. 63 Id. 64 Id. 65 Id.

12

excess nitrate not taken up by crops is vulnerable to loss to the atmosphere, aquifers, lakes, and

streams.66 This increases the costs to the public, which takes on the burden of addressing pollution,

but does not increase costs to the farmer.67 Accordingly, over-application of nitrogen “transfers

the economic and natural risks associated with nitrogen application from the individual farmer to

the public.” 68

Preventing nitrate from reaching water is vital to successfully addressing the growing

nitrate pollution problem. Prevention is far less costly than treatment of contaminated water—

when treatment is even possible.69 Accordingly, controlling manure application to prevent nitrate

runoff and leaching is critical to protecting public health from still worse increases in nitrate

pollution. MPCA must ensure that the Proposed General Permit imposes restrictions that will

adequately limit nitrate pollution to protect the people and aquatic habitats of Minnesota.

II. MINNESOTA LAW PLACES LIMITS ON LAND APPLICATION OF MANURE

Because of the harm posed by the threat of nitrate pollution, and the economic incentive of

farmers to over-apply nitrogen, MPCA adopted a rule—Minn. R. 7020.2225, subp. 3 (“Land

Application Rule”)—that imposes limits on the amount of manure that can be applied to fields as

fertilizer. The Proposed General Permit must include those limitations.70

The Land Application Rule requires that manure application be “limited” so that “the

estimated plant available nitrogen from all nitrogen sources does not exceed expected crop

nitrogen needs for nonlegume crops and expected nitrogen removal for legumes.”71 In other words,

66 Id. at 2. 67 Id. at 8. 68 Id. 69 Minn. Dep’t of Agric., supra note 15, at 18, 68. 70 Minn. R. 7001.1080, subp. 1 (stating that any NPDES permit issued by the MPCA must “contain conditions necessary for the permittee to achieve compliance with all Minnesota or federal statutes or rules”). 71 Minn. R. 7020.2225, subp. 3(A) (emphasis added).

13

farmers must determine how much nitrogen their crops are expected to need or remove from the

soil, how much nitrogen is available to their crops from all sources, and how much manure is

needed to make up the difference between the needed nitrogen and available nitrogen. Then

farmers must limit their manure application to ensure the application does not provide more

nitrogen than the crops “need” or “remove.”

To perform this calculation, farmers must first determine “expected crop nitrogen needs,”

“crop nitrogen removal rates,” and “estimated plant available nitrogen.” According to the rule,

these variables “must be based on the most recent published recommendations of the University

of Minnesota Extension Service or of another land grant college in a contiguous state.”72 Farmers

must also identify all sources of nitrogen available to their crops, including “commercial fertilizer

nitrogen, soil organic matter, irrigation water, legumes grown during previous years, biosolids,

process wastewater, and manure applied for the current year and previous years.”73

The rule provides some flexibility for farmers, however. Once the manure application

calculation has been performed, farmers may deviate up to 20% from the Extension Service

recommendations “where site nutrient management history, soil conditions, or cool weather

warrant additional nitrogen application.”74 And if crop nitrogen deficiencies are “visible” or

“measured,” farmers may be able to apply even more nitrogen than the extra 20%.75

III. THE PROPOSED GENERAL PERMIT SHOULD BE REVISED TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY AND COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES

While the Proposed General Permit includes some positive changes, the draft does not go

far enough to protect Minnesota’s water quality or comply with the Land Application Rule. Unless

72 Id., subp. 3(A)(1). 73 Id., subp. 3(A)(3). 74 Id., subp. 3(A)(2). 75 Id.

14

MPCA makes changes, nitrate pollution in Minnesota is likely to worsen during the five-year

tenure of the Proposed General Permit. Accordingly, the Clean Water Organizations request

MPCA make the following changes to the Proposed General Permit.

A. Section 13.3: Limitation Of Manure Application Rates

First, MPCA must revise the Proposed General Permit to limit rates of manure application

so that application is truly restricted to the amount of nitrogen the crop needs, as required by the

Land Application Rule. As written, the Proposed General Permit references recommendations

from the Extension Service and the MPCA for plant nitrogen needs that are based on economic

risk and cost factors that are unrelated to the amount of nitrogen a typical crop will actually need

or remove. This is called the Maximum Return to Nitrogen, or MRTN, system. Based on analysis

by experts Dr. Gyles Randall, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota’s Department of

Soil, Water, and Climate, who has conducted numerous studies relating to plant nitrogen needs

and removal; and Dr. Christopher Jones, research engineer at Iowa State University, the MPCA’s

referenced recommendations are not consistent with the standard established by the Land

Application Rule.

1. MRTN is not a measure of expected crop nitrogen needs or expected nitrogen removal.

Under the Land Application Rule, farmers must “limit[]” manure application so that the

plant available nitrogen in the soil from all nitrogen sources is no more than “expected crop

nitrogen needs” for nonlegumes and “expected nitrogen removal” for legumes.76 The Land

Application Rule states that the “expected crop nitrogen needs” and “expected nitrogen removal”

must be based on the most recent published recommendations from the Extension Service (or of

76 Id., subp. 3(A).

15

another land grant college in a contiguous state).77 The Proposed General Permit, accordingly,

identifies recommendations from the Extension Service and specifically two fact sheets from

MPCA to use in determining “expected crop nitrogen needs” and “expected nitrogen removal.”78

These fact sheets direct users to an Extension Service website, entitled “Calculating Manure

Application Rates,” which directs users to first “find the nutrient needs of the crop.”79 To do so,

users are directed to another Extension Service website, called “Guidelines for Manure Application

Rates.” This website provides recommendations based on the MRTN system, for example, 195

pounds of nitrogen per acre for corn following corn and 150 pounds of nitrogen per acre for corn

following soybeans.80

The MRTN referred to in these documents is based on three variables: expected crop price,

expected nitrogen source cost, and expected crop production in response to the amount of fertilizer

77 Id., subp. (3)(A)(1). 78 Minn. Pollution Control Agency, Proposed General Permit § 13.3 (2020) [hereinafter “Proposed General Permit”] (directing permit holders to “the most recent recommendations of the Extension Service and the MPCA fact sheets ‘Manure Nitrogen Rates For Corn Production (wq-f8-18)’ and ‘Manure Management For Corn On Irrigated Sandy Soils (wq-f8-52)’” (emphasis added)); see also Minn. Pollution Control Agency, Manure Nitrogen Rates for Corn Production (wq-f8-18) (2019) [hereinafter “Manure Nitrogen Rates for Corn”], attached as Ex. 13; Minn. Pollution Control Agency, Manure Management For Corn On Irrigated Sandy Soils (wq-f8-52) (2016), attached as Ex. 14. 79 Melissa Wilson, Univ. of Minn. Extension, Calculating Manure Application Rates (2019), https://extension.umn.edu/manure-land-application/calculating-manure-application-rates, attached as Ex. 15. 80 Guidelines for Manure Application, supra note 40. Concerningly, the MRTN recommendations under the current Extension Service documents are much higher than under previous versions of the recommendations. For example, the 2011 recommendations from Extension Service identify the MRTN at the 0.05 ratio as 155 lb. N/acre for corn after corn, and 120 lb. N/acre for corn after soybeans (and are even lower for less productive soils). It is unclear to MCEA why the recommendations have risen by 25% in both cases: 40 lb. N/acre for corn after corn and 30 lb. N/acre for corn after soybeans. This is a substantial and unexplained change that is almost certain to have significant environmental effects. See Univ. of Minn. Extension, Fertilizer Guidelines for Agronomic Crops in Minnesota 15 (2011), available at https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/198924/Fertilizer%20Guidelines%20for%20Agronomic%20Crops%20in%20Minnesota.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

16

applied.81 While the expected crop production is based on research into plant nitrogen needs, the

other variables can significantly change the recommended amount of nitrogen farmers should

apply.82 Accordingly, recommendations based on the MRTN system are intended to maximize

economic performance for farmers, not simply to provide the crop with the nitrogen it needs to

grow.83

Specifically, the MRTN calculates a ratio of the cost of commercial nitrogen fertilizer to

the expected sale price for that crop. For example, if anhydrous ammonia fertilizer is being sold

for $0.30/lb.-N, and the price of corn is $3.00 per bushel, the ratio will be 0.10.84 This ratio is then

used to determine how much nitrogen should be applied to a field to achieve the most cost-effective

outcome.85 Plants can only use a certain amount of nitrogen—at some point, plants stop taking in

nitrogen from the soil and further application will produce no additional plant growth. However,

at a certain point before plants reach this maximum growth, the incremental increase of nitrogen

applied to the crop will produce a diminishing return in terms of crop yield.86 Thus, the cost of

adding that extra fertilizer to achieve the smaller potential growth becomes less cost-effective for

the farmer.87 The MRTN identifies the crucial point that produces the maximum economic return

for the farmer. Beyond that point, the revenue generated from the additional bushels produced by

additional fertilizer will (in theory) be less than the cost of the extra fertilizer applied to produce

those bushels.88 But if fertilizer is cheap, the MRTN system recommends additional applications

81 See Iowa State Univ. Agronomy Extension & Outreach, Corn Nitrogen Rate Calculator (2020) [hereinafter “Corn Nitrogen Calculator”], available at http://cnrc.agron.iastate.edu/. 82 See id. 83 See Manure Nitrogen Rates for Corn, supra note 75, at 1. 84 Jones, supra note 35, at 5-6. 85 Corn Nitrogen Rate Calculator, supra note 78. 86 Jones, supra note 35, at 5. 87 Id. 88 Id. at 6.

17

in the hope that additional grain yields will occur, even if plants are unlikely to need the additional

nitrogen and nitrogen loss to groundwater is highly likely. For this reason, the MRTN does not

strictly focus on the magnitude of the grain yield or the crop needs for nitrogen, but instead on the

economic return to the farmer.89

The recommendations generated by the MRTN system do not align with the Land

Application Rule’s requirement that manure application be limited to “expected crop nitrogen

needs” for nonlegumes or “expected nitrogen removal” for legumes.90 Contrary to the rule’s

language, the recommendations identified by the Proposed General Permit do not in fact define

“expected crop nitrogen needs” or “expected nitrogen removal.” Instead, they define the maximum

economic return to nitrogen for farmers. The growth needs of a plant are not the same as a farmer’s

desire to maximize economic return. Actual crop nitrogen needs are dependent on a number of

variables, including the timing, intensity, and total amount of precipitation; amount of sunshine;

insect, weed, and disease pressures; other nutrient deficiencies (such as phosphorus, potassium,

and sulfur); the amount of soil organic matter (which breaks organic nitrogen down into a form

plants can use); and soil type and texture.91 The MRTN system includes no variables for these

factors. Instead the MRTN recommendations are explicitly based on fertilizer and crop price, not

crop needs, and accordingly these recommendations allow manure applications that likely exceed

crop needs if it appears the farmer may economically profit.

89 Id. at 6. 90 Minn. R. 7020.2225, subp. 3(A). 91 Jones, supra note 35, at 3. Notably, the MPCA fact sheet recognizes that some fields can be highly productive without applying the maximum MRTN, based on different conditions. See Manure Nitrogen Rates for Corn, supra note 75, at 1. For example, the fact sheet acknowledges that fields in southeastern Minnesota with loess soils need less nitrogen to maximize yields. Id. But MPCA provides no recommendation for what the nitrogen level should be in these situations.

18

Because the section of the Proposed General Permit that identifies the MPCA fact sheets

and Extension Service websites is based on the MRTN, the Proposed General Permit is

inconsistent with the requirements of the Land Application Rule. The MPCA must adjust the

recommendation to reflect the rule’s requirement that the application rate must be strictly based

on expected crop nitrogen needs and expected nitrogen removal. The Clean Water Organizations

therefore propose that Section 13.3 be revised as follows:

The Permittee shall control limit manure application rates so the estimated nitrogen available to crops from all nitrogen sources (including commercial fertilizer) does not exceed expected annual crop nitrogen needs for non-legumes and expected nitrogen removal for legumes. Expected crop nitrogen needs, crop nitrogen removal rates, and estimated plant available nitrogen from manure and legumes must be based on the most recent published recommendations of the University of Minnesota Extension Service, but must not be based on recommendations incorporating cost-factors for nitrogen fertilizer (i.e., MRTN system)..based on the most recent recommendations of the MES and the MPCA fact sheets "Manure Nitrogen Rates For Corn Production (wq-f8-18)" and "Manure Management For Corn On Irrigated Sandy Soils (wq-f8-52)". The Permittee may use recommendations for annual crop nitrogen needs from another land grant college in a contiguous state may be utilized in the MMP provided the field and climate conditions at the land application site are similar to those within the contiguous state, and do not incorporate cost-factors as set forth above. [Minn. R. 7020.2225]

2. The MRTN for manure should not be calculated using a lower costratio than that used for commercial nitrogen fertilizer.

The manure application rates identified by Extension Service are also improper and

inconsistent with the Land Application Rule because the rates are formulated based on the cost of

commercial nitrogen fertilizer and often produce excessive results when used for manure. If

MPCA uses the MRTN recommendations, at a minimum those recommendations should be the

same for manure as for commercial fertilizer. After all, expected crop nitrogen needs should not

change based on whether the farmer applies commercial fertilizer or manure.

As explained above, the MRTN is calculated based on the ratio of the cost of commercial

nitrogen fertilizer to the expected sale price of the crop. Minnesota’s recommendations for the

19

MRTN for commercial fertilizer include calculations that use ratios of 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20

to account for price fluctuations in fertilizer and corn.92 However, because the ratio of the prices

of fertilizer to corn has remained approximately the same, the 0.10 ratio usually been used for

commercial fertilizer recommendations in Minnesota.93

For manure, considerations are different. Often, the farmer owns or manages livestock and

may obtain manure without paying for it.94 Presumably to account for that fact that manure is

cheaper than fertilizer, the Extension Service recommendations identified in the Proposed General

Permit do not use the 0.10 ratio that would be used for commercial fertilizer. Instead, the

recommendations use the 0.05 ratio.95

This leads to a significantly larger nitrogen recommendation for manure application than

for commercial fertilizer, Dr. Jones explains. As an example, using the 0.10 ratio for corn grown

after soybeans produces a recommended MRTN of 131 lb. N/acre, with a profitable range of 118–

144 lb. N/acre.96 Using the 0.05 ratio, by contrast, increases the MRTN Rate to 150 lb. N/acre and

the profitable range to 135–169 lb. N/acre.97 Thus, under the Extension Service recommendations,

for the same field, a farmer could add 19 lb. N/acre when applying manure instead of commercial

fertilizer. These two examples are shown below in Figure 1:

92 Daniel Kaiser, et al., Univ. of Minn. Extension, Fertilizing Corn in Minnesota (2020), https://extension.umn.edu/crop-specific-needs/fertilizing-corn-minnesota#standard-n-guidelines-2237060, attached as Ex. 17. 93 Dr. Gyles Randall, Expert Report 1 (2020), attached as Ex. 2. 94 Jones, supra note 35, at 7. 95 Manure Nitrogen Rates for Corn, supra note 75; Guidelines for Manure Application, supra note 40. 96 Jones, supra note 35, at 7. 97 Id.

20

Figure 1. Two scenarios using the MRTN Calculator for commercial anhydrous ammonia (left) and manure (right), at current prices for N fertilizer and corn, using the Proposed General Permit’s guidelines for manure application rate at 0.05 MRTN.98

Importantly, the orange line’s downward slope to the right of the MRTN shows that a

farmer who uses commercial fertilizer beyond the MRTN will incur an economic penalty.99 By

contrast, as Dr. Jones explains, “there is almost no economic consequence for the farmer to keep

applying manure far beyond the MRTN rate, which is already 19 lbs./acre higher than the

recommended rate using commercial nitrogen.”100 In addition, the difference between the total net

return to the farmer for commercial fertilizer and manure is notable. When using commercial

fertilizer at the 0.10 MRTN rate, the farmer achieves a net return of $146.86/acre. When using

98 Id. at 7. 99 Id. 100 Id.

21

manure, the farmer could achieve that same net return using an application rate far below the 0.05

MRTN rate—about 80 lbs./acre in this example.101 Clearly, the farmer using manure can achieve

economic parity with the farmer using commercial fertilizer, even while applying manure at a rate

far below the Extension Service recommendations.102 But, according to Dr. Jones, “the Extension

Service guidelines do quite the opposite—they encourage application of [nitrogen] far beyond that

threshold.”103

For this additional reason, the Extension Service’s recommendations, which are referenced

in the Proposed General Permit, do not comply with the Land Application Rule requirement that

limits manure application to “expected crop nitrogen needs” or “nitrogen removal rates.” The

actual crop needs for nitrogen do not change based on whether a farmer applies commercial

nitrogen fertilizer or manure, or based on a change in the cost of fertilizer. Accordingly, if the

MPCA elects to use the MRTN, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the Land Application Rule

to use a different MRTN for commercial fertilizer than for manure.104 If the 0.10 MRTN rate

provides sufficient nitrogen for plant growth when commercial fertilizer is used, that same rate

will provide sufficient nitrogen to meet the expected crop nitrogen needs or nitrogen removal rates

when manure is used.105

Accordingly, if the MPCA determines that the recommended rate should remain the

MRTN, the Clean Water Organizations propose that Section 13.3 be revised as follows:

101 Id. 102 Id. 103 Id. 104 Notably, one of the original MRTN developers has stated that the price of commercial nitrogen fertilizer should be used to calculate the MRTN ratio for manure, instead of the lower rate indicating that manure is less expensive. Randall, supra note 90, at 1. 105 Maximizing the amount of manure to apply is particularly inappropriate when the Land Application Rule already allows farmers to deviate up to 20% in excess of recommendations when needed under the circumstances. Minn. R. 7020.2225, subp. 3(A)(2).

22

The Permittee shall control limit manure application rates so the estimated nitrogen available to crops from all nitrogen sources (including commercial fertilizer) does not exceed expected annual crop nitrogen needs for non-legumes and expected nitrogen removal for legumes. Expected crop nitrogen needs, crop nitrogen removal rates, and estimated plant available nitrogen from manure and legumes must be based on the most recent published recommendations of the University of Minnesota Extension Service, but must not be based on recommendations incorporating cost-factors for nitrogen fertilizer (i.e., MRTN system) unless the MRTN recommendation used is based on a cost factor of at least 0.10. based on the most recent recommendations of the MES and the MPCA fact sheets "Manure Nitrogen Rates For Corn Production (wq-f8-18)" and "Manure Management For Corn On Irrigated Sandy Soils (wq-f8-52)". The Permittee may use recommendations for annual crop nitrogen needs from another land grant college in a contiguous state may be utilized in the MMP provided the field and climate conditions at the land application site are similar to those within the contiguous state, and if the recommendations are based on the MRTN, they use a cost factor of at least 0.10. [Minn. R. 7020.2225]

B. Section 13.3(a): Pre-Plant Testing For Nitrate.

Next, the Clean Water Organizations request that MPCA add back into the Proposed

General Permit a section relating to pre-plant testing for nitrate. MPCA included such a section in

the 2016 General Permit, and it is needed to comply with the Minnesota Rules and to ensure that

farmers are not over-applying manure that will cause water pollution.

The Land Application Rule requires that manure management plans include “plans for soil

nitrate testing in accordance with University of Minnesota Extension Service

recommendations.”106 Under the rules, any required testing must be sufficient to yield

representative data to determine whether a permittee is complying with the conditions of the permit

and state rules.107 In this case, the Land Application Rule and the Proposed General Permit require

farmers to limit manure applications to “expected crop nitrogen needs” or “nitrogen removal

rates.” The Land Application Rule and the Proposed General Permit also require that in calculating

these amounts, farmers consider all sources of nitrogen available to their crops, including

106 Id., subp. 4(D)(12). 107 Minn. R. 7001.0150, subp. 2(B).

23

“commercial fertilizer nitrogen, soil organic matter, irrigation water, legumes grown during

previous years, biosolids, process wastewater, and manure applied for the current year and

previous years.”108 Accordingly, nitrate testing is needed to ensure that farmers properly account

for all nitrogen sources, and that farmers do not apply nitrogen in excess of expected crop nitrogen

needs. In short, farmers cannot limit their application to the crop’s expected nitrogen needs if they

do not know how much nitrogen is already in the soil, and they cannot know how much nitrogen

is in the soil without testing.

Determining how much nitrogen farmers should credit from previous years is not an easy

task without testing. Many factors affect how much residual nitrogen remains in the soil, including

the previous crop grown, the soil texture, and historic rainfall.109 One of the most important

factors—with the most difficult-to-predict effects—is the amount of residual nitrates that remain

from manure applied in previous years.110 As the Extension Service explains, microbes require

several years to mineralize organic forms of nitrogen in manure into nitrate that can be used by

plants, and the length of the process depends on soil moisture and temperature conditions.111

Accordingly, manure applied in one growing season will continue to provide nitrate to plants for

several growing seasons.112 The amount of residual nitrogen, however, can vary greatly, is difficult

to predict, and can have substantial effects on the amount of preplant nitrogen that should be added

to the soil.113 As Dr. Randall explains, a soil test of 13 sites where manure had been applied in the

108 Minn. R. 7020.2225, subps. 3(A)(1), (A)(3) 109 Univ. of Minn. Extension, Soil Testing for Corn Nitrogen Recommendations (2018), https://extension.umn.edu/nitrogen/soil-testing-corn-nitrogen-recommendations, [hereinafter “Soil Testing for Corn”], attached as Ex. 18. 110 Id. 111 Manure Characteristics, supra note 41, at 6. 112 Id. 113 Id.; see also Randall, supra note 90, at 2.

24

previous five years showed that the amount of nitrogen to be applied should be reduced by an

average of 43 lb. N/acre based on the residual nitrogen.114 For several sites, the recommended rate

of nitrogen to be applied was reduced by 70 lb. N/acre, and for others it was reduced by only 19

lb. N/acre, showing the wide range of results that manure application can have at different fields.115

Accounting for nitrates released from manure over time can be done using a “credit” for

manure from the previous two years.116 But the crediting system cannot precisely account for the

actual amount of nitrates, and in some cases may result in excessive fertilizer recommendations.117

Measuring nitrates in the soil is more reliable than other methods of estimating the need for

additional nitrogen application.118 As the Iowa State University Extension Service explains, using

a late-spring test for soil nitrate “should help corn producers manage N to increase their profits

while reducing environmental degradation.”119

Currently, the Proposed General Permit does not include any requirement for soil testing

for nitrogen, although it does require soil testing for phosphorus.120 The 2016 General Permit,

however, does require soil nitrate testing “according to the method and frequency recommended

by the most recent MES-published guidelines.”121 It is unclear why MPCA removed this

requirement in the Proposed General Permit. To comply with the requirements of the Land

114 Randall, supra note 94, at 2. 115 Id. 116 Manure Characteristics, supra note 41, at 4. 117 Soil Testing for Corn, supra note 106, at 4 (explaining that using the standard manure nitrogen crediting system without a soil test when manure was applied in October or November “may result in high fertilizer recommendations if significant residual nitrogen was present before the manure was applied.”) 118 A.M. Blackmer et al., Iowa State Univ. Extension Serv., Nitrogen Fertilizer Recommendations for Corn in Iowa 4 (1997), attached as Ex. 19. 119 Id. at 1. 120 See Proposed General Permit, supra note 75, § 12.6. 121 Minn. Pollution Control Agency, NPDES General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations § 4.5.4 (2016).

25

Application Rule and ensure farmers are able to accurately determine the proper amount of manure

they should apply, the Clean Water Organizations propose that the following language be added

to the Proposed General Permit:

The Permittee shall ensure that fields receiving manure are sampled and tested for soil nitrates according to the method and frequency recommended by the most recent MES-published guidelines. The Permittee shall use the results of the sample in calculating a residual N credit. [Minn. R.7020.2225, subp. 3.A(3)].

C. Section 14.6: October Restrictions On Manure Application.

The Clean Water Organizations also request changes to the section regarding October

Restrictions on Manure Application to better guard against nitrate pollution. The Clean Water

Organizations appreciate that the Proposed General Permit now requires best management

practices (“BMPs”) for any manure application in October, but believes that those requirements

should be strengthened to further protect water quality.

First, with regard to the soil temperature, the proposed language provides no direction

about how to determine soil temperature. This is important, because fall manure application when

temperatures exceed 50º F is highly likely to cause nitrate pollution. In such cases, the organic

nitrogen will be mineralized to inorganic nitrate at a time when the crops are not growing.122 Then,

the nitrate will remain in the soil until the crop takes it up, possibly not until the following June.123

The longer the nitrate remains in the soil, the more likely it is to leach into the groundwater—

particularly during heavy rains in the fall or early spring.124 Accordingly, ensuring that soil

temperatures prior to manure application are below 50º F, and are likely to remain that way until

spring, is critical. Allowing farmers to apply manure as soon as their area has one 50º F soil

122 Fred Madison et al., Univ. of Wis. Extension Serv., Guidelines for Applying Manure to Cropland and Pasture in Wisconsin 11 (2014), https://soilsextension.webhosting.cals.wisc .edu/wp-content/uploads /sites/68/2014/02/A3392.pdf, attached as Ex. 20. 123 Randall, supra note 90, at 2. 124 Id. at 2; Madison, supra note 119, at 11.

26

temperature reading will not prevent nitrate leaching, as mineralization to nitrate will begin again

if the soil temperatures rise after manure application. To ensure consistency, Dr. Randall

recommends that soil temperature readings be taken at a depth of six inches and be less than 50

degrees for three consecutive days before farmers apply manure.125

Second, with regard to cover crops, the Proposed General Permit indicates manure may be

applied in October if a cover crop “is established in accordance with the requirements of this Permit

for June, July, August, or September applications.” But the likelihood that a cover crop can be

established drops quickly after the first half of September, particularly in the northern half of the

state.126 After October 1, establishing a cover crop would be very difficult even in southern

Minnesota and extremely unlikely in northern Minnesota.127 To effectively prevent nitrate

pollution, a cover crop must not merely be germinated—it must be well-established and

sufficiently robust to take up a substantial amount of nitrate from the manure.128 This means the

crop must be well-grown—perhaps six to eight inches tall—by mid-to-late October.129 A cover

crop planted in October is extremely unlikely to fulfill its intended function as a temporary fixer

of nitrates.130 But the Proposed General Permit would allow a farmer to seed a cover crop in

October within 10 days of manure application and hope for the best—and there would be no way

to remove the manure if the cover crop does not sprout. Any manure applied under these

circumstances is very likely to mineralize to nitrate and leach into the groundwater.131 If, however,

125 Randall, supra note 90, at 3. For the same reason, this standard—three consecutive days of temperatures below 50 degrees, measured at a soil depth of six inches below the surface—also should be added to section 14.4, relating to manure application on coarse-textured soils. 126 Randall, supra note 90, at 3. 127 Id. 128 Id. 129 Id. 130 Id. 131 Id.

27

a cover crop has already been established prior to October, application of manure through an

injector into the growing cover crop could be a potential BMP.132 Therefore, the Proposed General

Permit should be revised to indicate that cover crops may be used as a BMP for October manure

application only if the cover crop has been planted in a previous month and already established

before the October application.

Third, for the split application of nitrogen, the Proposed General Permit does not indicate

when the second half of the nitrogen could be applied. Applying the second half of the manure

soon after the first half—in early November, for example—would negate the effectiveness of

splitting the nitrogen application. And manure application during the winter months, to frozen or

snow-covered soils, is prohibited or subject to strict conditions under the terms of the permit.133

Even under those conditions, winter manure application is risky and likely to lead to runoff, as

explained in the next section. Under no circumstances should applying manure during winter

months be considered a BMP. Accordingly, the Proposed General Permit should specify that the

second half of the split application of nitrogen should be applied only in the spring, when the

ground is no longer frozen.

Finally, the Proposed General Permit does not require implementation of BMPs during an

“emergency” manure application, perhaps on the assumption that BMPs would not be feasible.

But in some cases, farmers may in fact be able to implement these BMPs despite an emergency.

For example, a nitrogen stabilizing agent potentially could be added to the manure before

spreading, despite poor weather conditions or equipment failure that prevented an earlier manure

132 Id. 133 See Proposed General Permit, supra note 75, §§ 14.8, 14.10.

28

application.134 In such cases, when following the BMPs remains feasible, farmers should not be

excused from following the BMPs intended to prevent nitrate pollution.

Accordingly, to better protect water quality, the Clean Water Organizations propose the

following revisions to Section 14.6:

October Restrictions - The Permittee shall not apply manure in October to harvested fields unless at least one of the following nitrogen BMPs are implemented: a) Soil temperature is has been below 50 degrees for three consecutive days at the time of manure application based on temperatures taken six inches below the soil surface;

b) A nitrogen stabilizing agent/product is added at the recommended inclusion rates;

c) A cover crop is has been established prior to October in accordance with the requirements of this Permit for June, July, August, or September manure applications; or

d) A split application of nitrogen is used where no more than 1/2 of the recommended nitrogen rate is applied before October 31 and the remainder is applied after April 1 or after the soil is no longer frozen or snow-covered, whichever is later. Alternatives developed by a land grant University can be used if approved by the MPCA and included as part of the approved MMP. Nitrogen BMP implementation is not required for emergency manure application, as defined by this Permit, unless implementation of BMPs is infeasible due to the emergency conditions necessitating the application. [Minn. R. 7001.0150]

D. Section 14.8: Winter Application Of Solid Manure.

Similarly, while the Clean Water Organizations appreciate MPCA’s efforts to strengthen

the Proposed General Permit’s section on winter application of solid manure, a broader prohibition

could make this section even stronger. Prohibiting application of solid manure in December and

January, along with February and March, will provide even better protection against nitrate

pollution.

134 See id. § 30.19 (defining “emergency manure application”).

29

When farmers apply manure to snow-covered or frozen soil, nutrients cannot soak into the

soil, and the potential for nitrate loss is “extremely high.”135 When farmers apply manure during

the winter months, the majority of the inorganic nitrogen is likely to be lost to the air through

volatilization.136 And winter-applied manure is very likely to be “carried off to lakes and streams

during thaws or during winter or early spring rains.”137 For these reasons, the Proposed General

Permit contains a prohibition on applying solid manure during February and March. However,

these same considerations apply with equal force to December and January, when the ground is

also likely to be frozen or snow-covered.138 Accordingly, the Clean Water Organizations propose

the following revision:

Winter application of solid manure - Winter application of solid manure during the months of December, January, February and March is prohibited. When allowed, winter application must comply with all of the following: a) Manure is applied on fields identified in the MPCA approved MMP for winter application;

b) Manure is applied more than 300 feet from sensitive features including lakes, streams, open tile inlets, sinkholes, water supply wells, mines and quarries, intermittent streams, un-bermed drainage ditches, or public water wetlands;

c) Air temperatures are less than 40 degrees Fahrenheit during, and for at least 24 hours from the end of, the application process when two or more inches of snow are on the field;

d) Less than a 50% probability of rainfall in excess of 0.25 inches predicted by the National Weather Service within 24 hours of the end of the application period;

e) Slopes are less than or equal to six percent on the entire portion of the field where manure is land applied;

135 Manure Timing, supra note 52. This Extension Service publication recommends, unless there is an emergency, “Do not apply in winter.” Id. 136 Soil Testing for Corn, supra note 106, at 4. 137 Madison et al., supra note 119, at 15. 138 If the ground is not frozen or snow-covered in December or January, then the application would not qualify as a “winter manure application” under the Proposed General Permit definition and therefore would not be prohibited. See Proposed General Permit, supra note 75, § 30.53.

30

f) Water or ice do not occupy tillage furrows to the extent that additional snowmelt or precipitation cannot be contained between furrows or in other depressions within the field; and

g) Fields used for land application meet a total phosphorus loss risk index number of two or less (low to very low relative risk) as calculated according to the Minnesota Phosphorus Index. In the event of significant snow accumulation within animal holding areas, the Permittee may obtain approval from the MPCA for winter application of the snow and manure-snow mix during December, January, February and March. If approved, the application fields must, at a minimum, meet the requirements above. Additional measures/practices may be required by the MPCA. [Minn. R. 7001.0150]

E. Section 11.4: Review Of Manure Management Plan.

Finally, revising Section 11.4 to require farmers to identify fields in manure management

plans (“MMP”) using GIS information will assist MPCA staff. Using GIS information will make

it easier for MPCA to determine whether any fields receive double applications of manure because

they are identified in more than one MMP and receiving manure from more than one farmer.

Pursuant to the Land Application Rule, MMPs “must include acreage available for manure

and process wastewater application including maps or aerial photos showing field locations and

areas within the fields that are suitable for manure or process wastewater application.”139 The rule,

accordingly, requires farmers to specifically identify fields in the MMPs. Identification through

GIS information will make descriptions on MMPs more readily comparable for MPCA staff.

Under the current system, two applicants could describe the same field using different descriptors,

and determining whether there is overlap between two plans is cumbersome for MPCA staff, who

must compare different maps or aerial photographs to determine whether the same field has been

identified in more than one MMP. Using GIS information would standardize descriptions of fields

139 Minn. R. 7020.2226, subp. 4(D)(3).

31

in the MMPs, making it clear to both MPCA staff and applicants which fields are being referred

to in the MMP.

Accordingly, the Clean Water Organizations propose the following revision to Section

11.4:

The Permittee shall annually review and update the approved MMP to ensure that it meets all applicable requirements. The annual review and update shall include information for each field where manure will be applied during the following growing season. The permittee shall provide an area delineation of each manure application site in a GIS polygon geospatial file format (.kml, .shp, .json, etc.) with detailed coordinate system information, including a description of the site. Annual updates to the MMP do not require a modification of coverage under this Permit provided the updates are consistent with the methodology of the approved MMP. [Minn. R. 7001.0190, Minn. R. 7020.2225]

IV. THE CLEAN WATER ORGANIZATIONS REQUEST A CONTESTED CASE HEARING

The Clean Water Organizations request a contested case hearing on the issue of whether

the recommendation MPCA has referenced in Section 13.3 of the Proposed General Permit is

consistent with “expected crop nitrogen needs, crop nitrogen removal rates, and estimated plant

available nitrogen from manure and legumes” as required by the Land Application Rule.

The information required by Minn. R. 7000.1800 is provided below.

1. Statement of reasons or proposed findings supporting an MPCA decision to hold a contested case hearing.

(A) There is a material issue of fact in dispute concerning this matter.

As noted in the Clean Water Organizations’ comments above in section V.A, the Proposed

General Permit references recommendations from the University of Minnesota that incorporate

economic risk and cost factors unrelated to the amount of nitrogen a typical crop140 will actually

need or remove to support plant growth. As a result, these recommendations are inconsistent with

140 MCEA notes that Minn. R. 7020.2225, subp. 3 already provides for increased nitrogen application if conditions particular to the crop or field require additional applications to secure the crop.

32

what the Land Application Rule requires and will allow permittees to apply manure at rates

resulting in excess loss of nitrate to the groundwater, exacerbating the issues the Clean Water

Organizations describe in section II.B above. Whether the recommendations conform to the

objective requirement of the rule is a factual issue that can be resolved with expert testimony.141

This expert testimony will identify the results of research into “expected crop nitrogen needs, crop

nitrogen removal rates, and estimated plant available nitrogen from manure and legumes,” why

the economic components incorporated into the current recommendation result in applications not

supported by the scientific data, and why the recommendations will lead to excess application

inconsistent with the text and intent of MPCA’s land application rule.

(B) The MPCA has the jurisdiction to make a determination on this issue.

In the proposed general permit, MPCA has referenced a particular recommendation of the

Extension Service. If MPCA agrees with the Clean Water Organizations that the recommendation

it references is not consistent with the standard established by the Land Application Rule, MPCA

could ask the Extension Service to modify its recommendation, or MPCA could modify the

Proposed General Permit to ensure that a modified version of the Extension Service’s

recommendations are referenced in the Proposed General Permit. As a result, this issue is within

MPCA’s jurisdiction.

(C) There is a reasonable basis underlying the disputed material issue of factor facts such that the holding of a contested case hearing would allow theintroduction of information that would aid the MPCA in resolving thedisputed facts in making a final decision on the matter.

141 See In re City of Owatonna’s NPDES/SDS Proposed Permit Reissuance for the Discharge of Treated Wastewater, 672 N.W.2d 921, 928 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004) (finding a fact issue supporting a contested case hearing request existed when relator submitted expert affidavits and a report challenging MPCA’s interpretation of its modeling and explaining, “When experts disagree, a fact question arises.”)

33

The Clean Water Organizations support this request with two expert reports, by Dr.

Christopher Jones, research engineer at Iowa State University (attached as Exhibit 1) and Dr. Gyles

Randall, professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota (attached as Exhibit 2).142 These experts

will testify that the recommendation currently included in the Proposed General Permit is not

consistent with the standard established by the Land Application Rule.143 These experts will base

their testimony on research conducted in Minnesota and Iowa. These experts will demonstrate that

the economic factors incorporated into the current recommendations, particularly as applied to

manure, result in excess application inconsistent with “expected crop nitrogen needs, crop nitrogen

removal rates, and estimated plant available nitrogen from manure and legumes” and that this

excess application can be predicted to lead to enhances nitrogen loss to the groundwater.

2. A statement of the issues proposed to be addressed by a contested case hearingand the specific relief requested or resolution of the matter.

The issue to be addressed by a contested case hearing is whether the recommendation

referenced in the Proposed General Permit conforms to the standard established by the Land

Application Rule. The relief requested is amendment of the Proposed General Permit to include a

recommendation that will result manure application rates consistent with plant needs established

by scientific research, as required by the Land Application Rule.

Clean Water Organization has identified two changes that MPCA could make to the

Proposed General Permit to address this issue, in section V.A, above. First, MPCA could request

the Extension Service to prepare a recommendation that does not include the economic factors on

which the current MRTN recommendation is based. Second, MPCA could request the Extension

142 See Jones, supra note 35; and Randall, supra note 90. 143 See City of Owatonna, 672 N.W.2d at 929 (explaining that relator had sufficiently supported the requested for a contested case hearing when it submitted affidavits of experts who challenged MPCA’s methodology and interpretation of the modeling at issue).

34

Service to prepare a recommendation specific to manure that utilizes the MRTN, but includes a

higher cost factor ratio similar to the one used for commercial fertilizer, which is less likely to

result in over-application of manure.

3. Witnesses, exhibits, and estimate of time.

At a contested case hearing, the Clean Water Organizations would intend to present the

following witnesses: Dr. Christopher Jones and Dr. Gyles Randall. Proposed exhibits would

include all exhibits attached to this comment or referenced herein. The estimated time for the

contested case hearing would be a half-day. The Clean Water Organizations reserve the right to

introduce other witnesses or exhibits in accordance with Minn. R. 7000.1800, subp. 2(C). The

Clean Water Organizations note that MCEA has been seeking a meeting with MPCA and

Extension Service representatives to discuss the use of MRTN recommendations, which could lead

to changes that would resolve this issue without a contested case hearing.

CONCLUSION

While the Clean Water Organizations appreciate that the Proposed General Permit makes

some incremental changes that are likely to help improve water quality, the Clean Water

Organizations’ position is that the Proposed General Permit will allow the continued pollution of

Minnesota’s water, endangering drinking water and aquatic life. Already, hundreds of thousands

of Minnesotans are drinking water with elevated levels of nitrates, which will increase their risks

of cancers and other health problems. If farmers are allowed to continue to apply manure to their

fields in excess of crop nitrogen needs, and at times and using methods that pose high risk of nitrate

leaching and runoff, dangerous nitrate pollution will continue to increase across Minnesota.

Accordingly, the Clean Water Organizations respectfully request that MPCA revise the Proposed

General Permit as follows:

35

(1) revise Section 13.3 to limit manure application rates to “expected crop nitrogen needs”or “expected nitrogen removal”; or in the alternative, to ensure that the MRTN uses acost factor of at least 0.10;

(2) add Section 13.3(a) to require pre-plant testing for nitrate according to ExtensionService recommendations;

(3) revise Section 14.4 to require soil temperature measurements below 50 degrees for threeconsecutive days, measured at a soil depth of six inches below the surface;

(4) revise Section 14.6 to strengthen October restrictions on manure application;

(5) revise Section 14.8 to prohibit application of solid manure in December and January;and

(6) revise Section 11.4 to require GIS field identification in MMPs.

Respectfully submitted,

MINNESOTA CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCACY

/s/Joy R. Anderson Joy R. Anderson Ann E. Cohen Jay E. Eidsness 1919 University Avenue West, Ste. 515 Saint Paul, MN 55104 [email protected]

FRIENDS OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER Trevor Russell Water Program Director 101 East Fifth Street, Suite 2000 St. Paul, MN 55101

MINNESOTA WELL OWNERS ORGANIZATION Jan Blevins, Jeffrey Broberg, Karuna Ojenen, and Paul Wotzka Board Members 12 Elton Hills Drive Rochester, MN 55901

SIERRA CLUB NORTH STAR CHAPTER Margaret Levin State Director 2300 Myrtle Avenue, Suite 260 St. Paul, MN 55114

7/23/20 Email – Willard Stender

To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.



desired.























must be followed:









a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31










manner.

Willard Stender

MPCA,

Thank you for allowing the opportunity to comment on your proposed changes to the NPDES permit.

Please accept the following as my comments/concerns with your proposed changes.

1. A cover crop would be required for manure applications in September.My personal experience on our farm has been one of disappointment in regards to cover crops

in general. Cover crops planted even as early as August 20th have not developed into an adequate stand of forage for grazing for us during the month of October. So for us to expect a cover crop to be planted and established during the month of September is not realistic and therefore should not be the only option available to farmers. Has MPCA considered the use of a nitrogen stabilizer product as a viable option? Do the Chapter 7020 rules allow this condition?

2. Applications of solid manure would be prohibited in February or March.Does MPCA have analysis or data suggesting that manure is any different from animals

depending on the number of animals housed at the operation? It simply isn't fair to expect something different out of producers from one side of the road to the other just based off how many animals they have. Not allowing application of manure in February or March, regardless of concerns, will greatly hamper a farmer's ability to run a sustainable operation. This requirement will create the need to haul and spread much more manure in April and May. This is not a good and sustainable practice. Those later manure applications could create a runoff situation on the fields by the tremendous compaction created by driving on fields that time of the year. Also all the buffers that have been implemented in thelast few years were installed to help protect water quality which are already in place. When are farmers supposed to haul their manure? Fall is already a very busy time frame with harvest. I'm very concerned with this proposed condition that the window is closing to allow farmers the time needed to spread theirmanure. What about the quality of our state and local roads? We have tried very hard to focus our manure hauling efforts during times that our roads are froze up. Pushing this hauling effort out of February/March and into April/May could ultimately create a situation where our roads take a lot more abuse. Our township simply can not afford more expense. This new requirement is unnecessary and unreasonable.

3. Approval from the MPCA to spread manure/snow mix.This condition really needs to be addressed so the farmer knows how to proceed before the

weather event hits. Time is of the essence. Animals will be compromised and potentially die as the result of waiting for MPCA to respond and maybe grant approval to spread a snow/manure mix.

In closing, the MPCA should continue the language that exists in the current permit that defines the conditions that are required for winter application of solid manure. A clarification on how these requirements would apply to a snow-manure mixture would be helpful.

Thank you,

Joe Wagner

7/23/20 Email – Loren Olson

To Whom It May Concern: I would like to start this letter with a statement that in this day and age, I am appalled that someone with general farming knowledge and University of Minnesota research and backup could not have resolved this issue sooner. I caution you to be wary of special interest groups that believe they can “railroad” their changes with a biased approach as this. No one has even taken the time to look into the details of how this permit was composed and the impracticality it suggests. We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.

1. Cover crops should not be required for September manure applications. While cover crops continue inadoption, we do not yet have systems in place to ensure they lead to the outcomes desired. A 2005 Literature Review done by the MPCA showed that manure improves soil tilth and reduces runoff. If these are the outcomes desired of cover crops, manure application may be achieving this already (Water Quality/Feedlots 1.08, January 2005). Technology developed over the next five years will likely tell us how and when cover crops can be helpful for reducing soil erosion and better water quality. The current proposal does not take into account corn silage roots plus stalks or alfalfa may still be covering the soil and holding it with manure.

2. Direct injection should be added as a Best Management Practice. MPCA has never recognized it asa Best Management Practice despite its known benefits. Direct injection limits soil compaction and preserves more soil organic matter and soil structure. in addition, it allows for application to growing crops and can be similar to no-till in results. Most importantly, it reduces the risk of P runoff and particulate P loss. Reduced N volatilization loss, resulting in the retention of plant-available N.f.Reduced odor issues.

3. Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical.Fall weather is difficult to predict in Minnesota, with October being one of the most variable in range

from year-to-year. The use of the proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in November or later. For these reasons, we would suggest not implementing October BMPs. If BMPs in October must be followed, 50 Degrees F is not a magic number, but a recommendation or suggestion. Below 60o F can be just as beneficial to the environment but much more flexible to farmers.

*Direct injection should be added as BMP*The suggested required cover crop BMP should be planted,not “established”

4. Winter applications should follow field conditions, not the calendar. The University of Minnesota'sResearch and Outreach Centers in Lamberton, Morris, and Wasecacollectively have data showing thesoil temperature above 33 oF in at least one of the centers in 2017-2020 (data at 2” and 8” at Morris,and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca)

a.February 1 and 2b.February 21-24c.March 9d.March 13-31

This means in the previous four years, 24 days of the two months had an appropriate soil temperature for manure application somewhere in Minnesota. This does not count local conditions, which can vary significantly. In many cases, solid manure application requires just one or two days to keep animals’ areas clean and keep animals healthy. Prohibiting two calendar months such as February or March

would likely result in more winter applications in January and April, when conditions may not be as ideal for manure application. 5. Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program enrollees should have assurance. The MAWQCP farms should have the assurance that their already agreed to BMPs fit within the framework of this proposal. 6. Allowing manure storage beyond 14 months would help achieve some of these BMPs.One limitation in Minnesota guidance is a 14-month limit on manure storage, even when producers aim to have up to 24-months for flexibility and to obtain more BMPs. With our current 14-month limit enforced by MPCA, our manure application windows become emergencies, driving up the cost of application and hours required by applicators to apply manure in an effective manner. Best Regards, Loren Olson, Owner Operator Raylore Farm, Registered Holstein Dairy

7/23/20 Email – Woodland Dairy




desired.























must be followed:









a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31










manner.

Joshua Engelmann

7/23/20 Email – Engelmann Dairy To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval.



desired.























must be followed:









a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31










manner.

Roger Engelmann

7/23/20 Email – Kevin & Stephanie Krohnfeldt




desired.






c. The current proposal does not take into account corn silage roots plus stalks or alfalfa















must be followed:


just as beneficial to the environment but much more flexible to farmers





data showing the soil temperature above 33 o F at at least one of the centers in 2017-2020 (data

at 2” and 8” at Morris, and 2”, 6”, and 8” at Lamberton and Waseca):

a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31










manner.

Sincerely, Kevin & Stephanie Krohnfeldt

2424 Territorial Road Suite B │St. Paul, MN 55114 | 651.313.5800 | freshwater.org

Freshwater Society is a

nonprofit organization

working

to inspire and empower

people to value and

preserve our freshwater

resources.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Valery Forbes, PhD, Chair

Ryan Godfrey, PhD, Vice Chair

Todd Bolin, Treasurer

Josephine Marcotty, Secretary

Molly Biedenfeld Wade Campbell Mike Hanson Ryan Hurt Dave Leuthe Joan Nephew Zack Swanson Renee Willette

Emeritus Directors

Blyth Brookman JoEllen Hurr Tom Skramstad

July 23, 2020 Dear Mr. Schwint,

Thank you for meeting with us and reviewing the comment process. Freshwater and our interns appreciate the opportunity to comment on something as impactful as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permit for large feedlots. While we recognize that nutrients and pathogens have historically been the focus of management practices for manure generated in large feedlots, we would like to draw your attention to some emerging concerns.

Sulfonamides are a class of antibiotics that we would like to discuss. They are given to both humans and livestock to treat bacterial infections. Sulfamethoxazole is used for both humans and animals, whereas sulfamethazine is used solely for animals (Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), 2013). Sulfonamide antibiotics are typically administered to livestock such as cattle or swine to fight off infections like pneumonia, however, they can also be used to promote growth and production (Faries and Fajt, 2008). It is known that a majority of sulfonamides (between 50-100%) given to livestock are excreted through urine and feces, and therefore, easily find their way into manure. For example, it has been reported that pig manure contains concentrations of sulfonamides as high as 20 mg/kg. Manure then gets applied to farm fields which leads to the presence of sulfonamides in the environment, especially water sources, through runoff and leaching. This is made possible because sulfonamides have the ability to travel through soil quite efficiently thanks to their specific properties (Mojica and Aga, 2011). The presence of both sulfamethoxazole and sulfamethazine in the Minnesota environment has been reported on several occasions. According to the Minnesota Department of Health, there has been sulfamethoxazole and sulfamethazine present in Minnesota surface and groundwater (MDH, 2013). A study by the Minnesota Pollution and Control Agency in which fifty Minnesota river and stream sites were sampled in 2014 revealed that 24% of the locations contained sulfamethoxazole (Ferrey et al, 2017). It was also revealed that several wells in various locations in Minnesota contained sulfamethoxazole after a study was carried out by the U.S. Geological Survey and Minnesota Pollution and Control Agency from 2009-2012 (Erickson et al., 2014). Furthermore, it was discovered that sulfamethazine has accumulated in Minnesota lake sediment cores in Duluth Harbor, Lake Pepin, and Lake Winona (Kerrigan et al., 2017).

The widespread existence of sulfonamides in the environment is a topic that deserves more attention. Though these antibiotics may not be present in large amounts, however, it should still be alarming to consider all the places that they have accumulated. Not only can these antibiotics accumulate in water, but they also pose potential threats to other organisms. One study found that following exposure to manure containing sulfamethazine, plants were able to uptake the sulfamethazine, while another found that sulfamethoxazole had a negative impact on the intestines of zebrafish (Dolliver et al, 2007 and Zhou et al, 2018). Thyroid issues have even been linked to the use of these sulfonamide antibiotics. Ultimately, the use and persistence of sulfonamides in the environment has the potential to increase concern for the growing public health crisis of antibiotic resistance in both humans and animals (MDH, 2013).

In order to mitigate the effects and concern surrounding sulfonamides in the environment, it may be helpful to implement some new practices. One way to eliminate some sulfonamides from the

environment would be to severely restrict and regulate the use of these antibiotics by farmers. In fact, Denmark has been successfully raising pigs without antibiotics. Denmark has cracked down on the use of antibiotics and has even produced a yellow card system that punishes farmers who do not comply. Farmers have been informed on the importance of saving antibiotics for future generations and for human use as we fight against ongoing antibiotic resistance. They have been encouraged to simply provide livestock with better living conditions in order to prevent bacterial infections instead of turning to antibiotics (Jacobs, 2019). If we cannot fully prevent these antibiotics from entering the environment, then we may want to consider different practices to remove them from water since they are not easily biodegradable and can persist in the environment for quite some time. A past report has indicated that using zeolite, ozonation, and photolysis are all great for removing sulfonamides from water (Tačić et al, 2017). Another topic of concern is Endocrine Disrupting Compounds, or EDCs. EDCs are compounds which disrupt the hormonal pathways found within the endocrine systems of living organisms, frequently impairing their growth and sexual development (Combalbert et al., 2012). EDCs typically act by binding to or interacting with existing hormone receptors, and relatively small concentrations of them can cause pronounced effects in wildlife as a result (Comalbert et al., 2012). For example, persistent exposure of fish to EDC 17𝛼-ethynylestradiol at concentrations as a low as 5-6 ng/L has been correlated with feminization of male fish, eventually causing population collapse (Kidd et al., 2007). EDCs have been located in Minnesotan waters, with a 2017 study by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency finding that “many medicines and consumer products are detectable in most of the state’s rivers and streams” (Ferrey et al., 2017). Given the clear presence of EDCs in Minnesotan waters, and their noted impacts on wildlife, regulating these compounds is a matter of great importance. This matter especially applies to the NPDES permit, given the correlation between EDC runoff and manure management. The runoff from soil exposed to animal manure and breeding has been cited as a significant source of EDC contamination (Combalbert et al., 2017). This is due to a number of factors, including the tendency of natural hormones released by animals to become EDCs after modification by microorganisms and the presence of EDCs in manufactured materials and chemicals utilized in the agricultural process (Comalbert et al., 2012). These EDCs ultimately enter manure after animal excretion, and the application and later runoff of this manure may cause environmental contamination (Havens et al., 2019). Studies have previously detected increased EDC presence in runoff from fields with applied cattle manure (Havens et al., 2019). Unfortunately, although the potential for EDCs can be identified in feedlot settings, completely preventing EDC contamination is difficult. As stated previously, many EDCs are produced naturally by animals, making elimination of them from manure difficult. EDCs are present in a wide variety of products, including pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and tanks or containers (Combalbert et al., 2012 & Campbell et al., 2006). Given this and the previously-discussed small concentrations of EDC necessary to disrupt the hormonal development of other organisms, completely preventing EDC contamination from feedlots may be very difficult (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2008). However, simple identification and restriction of high-risk sites may still be valuable. Some methods of minimizing runoff have been detected. For example, previous study has suggested that greater amounts of EDC runoff occur when manure is applied to frozen soil (Havens, 2019). Ultimately, the incidence of EDCs in feeding lots is a serious, complex issue which warrants attention not currently afforded to it by the NPDES general permit for large feedlots. Manure is applied to soil in order to enrich it with nutrients; however, if this soil is contaminated with antibiotics, application of manure could have unintended consequences on the bacteria living in the soil biome. Studies have shown that common livestock antibiotics such as sulfadiazine can drastically affect the amount of bacteria present in the soil (Hammesfahr et al.,

http://scindeks.ceon.rs/Related.aspx?artaun=198710

2008). Perhaps the most alarming fact about the how antibiotics in manure affect soil microbes is how long the effect lingers. If manure containing antibiotics is applied to the soil for four days and then removed, the population of bacteria in the soil has been seen to be about 27% smaller over a month after the manure has been removed (Hammesfahr et al., 2008). This lingering effect is important to note because farmers are applying manure as fertilizer to promote growth of their crops, while the antibiotics in the manure may be doing the opposite. Plants depend on bacteria to convert atmospheric nitrogen into a form in which the plant can use it as a nutrient, and it has been shown that these bacteria are affected by antibiotics in the soil (Ollivier et al, 2010) . Without these bacteria, crops cannot rely on the atmospheric nitrogen for nourishment. It has been seen that the area in which the soil microbes are affected most by antibiotics is the rhizosphere, where the roots make contact with the soil (Ollivier et al., 2010). Here, it is common to see bacteria symbiotic with plants at lower levels, plants with malformed roots, more acidic soil, less soil nitrogen, and harmful buildups of carbon compounds, all which negatively affect the health and growth of crops growing in the contaminated soil (Ollivier et al. 2010). Soil antibiotics can have an effect on human health as well. One bacteria that is commonly found in the soil is Staphylococcus aureus. S. aureus is a human pathogen that becomes significantly more problematic when it picks up methicillin resistance and becomes Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Application of antibiotics to the soil provides a perfect environment for this resistance to develop, and effects of this are already beginning to show. People who live by farms which use manure as fertilizer are 38% more likely to contract community-associated MRSA infections (Casey, 2013). MRSA can cause conditions such as pneumonia, endocarditis, and bacteremia in humans, all which have mortality rates which can rise above 30% (Siddiqui and Koirala, 2020). There are relatively cost-effective ways to mitigate the environmental and human health associated risks that come with using manure as fertilizer. By converting manure into biochar via pyrolysis, a lot of the risks associated with using manure as fertilizer or soil amendment fade away. One thing biochar does well is immobilize contamination within the manure (Spears, 2018). This helps mitigate the risk of killing soil microbes or creating antibiotic resistant bacteria in the soil. Biochar is also proven to increase the fertility of the soil around it (Spears, 2018). This can be seen in the Amazon, where biochar has been in production for millennia under the name terra preta. The terra preta produced 2000 years ago still holds nutrients and contaminants to this day (Spears, 2018). Biochar can be produced on-site by farmers using a top-lit updraft gasifier, which also produces biofuel as a byproduct. Therefore, if farmers converted their manure into biochar for fertilizer or soil amendment purposes, their soil and crops would be healthier, the risk of MRSA infections stemming from their farms would decrease, and they could produce biofuel which may be usable with farm equipment. At the end of the day, soil and human health are both important issues to consider, and the application of antibiotic-ridden soil to farmland as fertilizer negatively impacts both and therefore needs to be amended in a way that protects the environment, farmers, and all other people alike. We would like to see manure best management practices reflect what is understood about the source and fate of these animal pharmaceuticals and strive to minimize their impact on human health and in the environment. Respectfully, Dr. Carrie Jennings, research and policy director, Freshwater and College of Biological Sciences interns Ashley Laskowski, George Roy, and Colin Vehmeier cc: John Linc Stine, Executive Director, Freshwater Dr. Valery Forbes, Dean of the College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota

References: Campbell, C., Borglin, S., Green, B., Grayson, A., Wozei, E., Stringfellow, W., (2006). Biologically directed environmental monitoring, fate, and transport of estrogenic endocrine disrupting compounds in water: A Review. Chemosphere, 65(8), 1265-1280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.08.003 Casey, J., Curriero, F., Cosgrove, S., Nachman, K., and Schwatz, B. (2013). JAMA Internal Medicine http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed/2013.10408 Combalbert, S., Bellet, V., Dabert, P., Bernet, N., Balaguer, P., Hernandez-Raquet, G. (2012). Fate of steroid hormones and endocrine activities in swine manure disposal and treatment facilities. Water Research, 46(3), 895-906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.11.074 Dolliver, H., Kumar, K., and Gupta, S. (2007). Sulfamethazine uptake by plants from manure-amended soil. Journal of Environmental Quality, 36, 1224-1230. doi:10.2134/jeq2006.0266 Erickson, M.L., Langer S. K., Roth J.L., Kroening S.E. (2014). Contaminants of emerging concern in ambient groundwater in urbanized areas of Minnesota, 2009-12. United States Geological Survey. Faries, F. C. and Fajt, V. (2008). Proper use of sulfonamides in market show animals. https://agrilifeextension.tamu.edu/library/4-h-youth-development/proper-use-of-sulfonamides-in-market-show-animals/#:~:text=In%20animals%2C%20sulfonamides%20are%20used,a%20number%20of%20different%20forms. Ferrey, M., Martinovic, D. , Backe, W., and Andrews, A. (2017). Pharmaceuticals and chemicals of concern in rivers: occurrence and biological effects. Minnesota Pollution and Control Agency. Hammesfahr, U., Heuer, H., Manzke, B., Smalla, K., and Thiele-Bruhn, S. (2008). Impact of the antibiotic sulfadiazine and pig manure on the microbial community structure in agricultural soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 40, 1583-1591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.01.010 Havens, S., Hedman, C., Hemming, J., Mieritz, M., Shafer, M., Schauer, J., (2020). Occurrence of estrogens, androgens and progestogens and estrogenic activity in surface water runoff from beef and dairy manure amended crop fields. Science of The Total Environment, 710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136247 Jacobs, A. (2019). Denmark raises antibiotic-free pigs. Why can’t the U.S.? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/06/health/pigs-antibiotics-denmark.html?auth=link-dismiss-google1tap Kerrigan, J.F., Sandberg. K.D., Engstrom D.R., LaPara, T.M., and Arnold W.A. (2018). Sedimentary record of antibiotic accumulation in Minnesota Lakes. Science of the Total Environment, 621, 970-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.130 Kidd, K., Blanchfield, P., Mills, K., Palace, V., Evans, R., Lazorchak, J., Flick, R. (2007). Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(21), 8897-8901. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609568104

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.08.003

http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed/2013.10408

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2011.11.074

https://agrilifeextension.tamu.edu/library/4-h-youth-development/proper-use-of-sulfonamides-in-market-show-animals/#:~:text=In%20animals%2C%20sulfonamides%20are%20used,a%20number%20of%20different%20forms.




https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2008.01.010

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136247

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/06/health/pigs-antibiotics-denmark.html?auth=link-dismiss-google1tap

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/06/health/pigs-antibiotics-denmark.html?auth=link-dismiss-google1tap

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.130

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609568104

Minnesota Department of Health. (2013, July). Sulfonamide antibiotics and drinking Water. https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/risk/docs/guidance/gw/sulfamethinfosht.pdf Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2008) Endocrine Disrupting Compounds- 2008 Legislative Fact Sheet. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/leg-08sy1-02.pdf Mojica E.R. and Aga D.S. (2011). Antibiotics pollution in soil and water: potential ecological and human health issues. Ollivier, J., Kleineidam, K., Reichel, R., Thiele-Bruhn, S., Kotzerke, A., Kindler, R., Wilke, B., and Schloter, M. (2010). Effect of Sulfadiazine-Contaminated Pig Manure on the Abundances of Genes and Transcripts Involved in Nitrogen Transformation in the Root-Rhizosphere Complexes of Maize and Clover. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 76, 7903-7909. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01252-10 Siddiqui, A., and Koirala, J. Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA). (2020). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482221/#:~:text=aureus%20has%20been%20reported%20to,patients%20with%20central%20line%20insertions. Spears, S. (2018). What is Biochar? Regeneration International https://regenerationinternational.org/2018/05/16/what-is-biochar/#:~:text=Biochar%20is%20a%20charcoal%2Dlike,a%20controlled%20process%20called%20pyrolysis.&text=During%20pyrolysis%20organic%20materials%2C%20such,container%20with%20very%20little%20oxygen. Tačić, A., Nikolić , V., Nikolić L., and Savić , I. (2017). Antimicrobial Sulfonamide Drugs. Advanced Technologies 6, 58-71. doi: 10.5937/savteh1701058T Zhou, L., Mchele Limbu, S., Shen, M., Zhai, W., Qiao, F., He, A., Du, Z., and Zhang, M. (2018). Environmental concentrations of antibiotics impair zebrafish gut health. Environmental Pollution, 235, 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.073

https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/risk/docs/guidance/gw/sulfamethinfosht.pdf

https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/risk/docs/guidance/gw/sulfamethinfosht.pdf

https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/leg-08sy1-02.pdf

https://dx.doi.org/10.1128%2FAEM.01252-10

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482221/#:~:text=aureus%20has%20been%20reported%20to,patients%20with%20central%20line%20insertions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482221/#:~:text=aureus%20has%20been%20reported%20to,patients%20with%20central%20line%20insertions.

https://regenerationinternational.org/2018/05/16/what-is-biochar/#:~:text=Biochar%20is%20a%20charcoal%2Dlike,a%20controlled%20process%20called%20pyrolysis.&text=During%20pyrolysis%20organic%20materials%2C%20such,container%20with%20very%20little%20oxygen.








https://doi.org/10.5937/savteh1701058T

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.073

MINNESOTA MILK PRODUCERS ASSOCIATION 2015 Rice Street | St. Paul, MN 55113

Phone: 763-355-9697 | Fax: 651-925-0545 E-Mail: [email protected] | Web: www.mnmilk.org

Advancing the Success of Minnesota Dairy Farms

July 23, 2020 George Schwint Watershed Division Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165 Mankato, MN 56001 Email: [email protected] RE: Comments on General Permit MNG440000 Animal Feedlot Permit To Whom It May Concern: We write in response to several concerns with the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. The permit should make the following changes before approval. First, a reminder of the value of manure to Minnesota. As we cite below:

A. Manure is beneficial for soil health and water when distributed appropriately. B. Manure continues the cycle of nutrients, rather than importing new nutrients to Minnesota, when

applied at appropriate levels. C. Manure is valuable and intensively managed on NPDES permit-holder sites. The benefits of

incorporating the manure into the environment using current data detailed in research also benefits farms financially. Therefore, dairy farmers have an incentive to use it appropriately and of benefit to the environment.

Concerns with the General Permit proposal: 1. Cover crops should not be required for September manure applications. While cover crops continue

in adoption, we do not yet have systems in place to ensure they lead to the outcomes desired.

a. We do not know if there will be enough cover crop seed to adapt this proposal in 2021. We recommend waiting at least five years before considering any cover crop requirements in additional months.

b. A 2005 Literature Review done by the MPCA showed that manure improves soil tilth and reduces runoff. If these are the outcomes desired of cover crops, manure application may be achieving this already (Water Quality/Feedlots 1.08, January 2005).

c. Technology developed over the next five years will likely tell us how and when cover crops can be helpful for reducing soil erosion and better water quality.

d. The current proposal does not consider corn silage roots plus stalks or alfalfa may still be covering the soil and holding it with manure.

e. Adding requirements in September and October limits the days in which manure can be applied and could create worse consequences in the spring. Also, see concern #6.





2. Direct injection should be added as a Best Management Practice. With rapid adoption of direct injected manure, MPCA has never recognized it as a Best Management Practice despite its known benefits. When NPDES permits were originally made available in 1972, the technology did not exist. Today, they have widespread adoption. Direct injection:












a. February 1 and 2

b. February 21-24

c. March 9

d. March 13-31

This means in the previous four years, 24 days of the two months had an appropriate soil temperature for manure application somewhere in Minnesota. This does not count local conditions, which can vary significantly. In many cases, solid manure application requires just one or two days to keep animals’ areas clean and keep animals healthy. Prohibiting two calendar months such as February or March would likely result in more winter applications in January and April, when conditions may not be as ideal for manure




application. As you know, there are dairies in a line that stretches from Winona County to Roseau County, and Rock County to St. Louis County. Soil and weather conditions anywhere in the state can be variable from day-to-day and hour-to-hour, and it is not uncommon for a safe snow-free 24-hour window to take care of a good portion of nutrient dispersal needs on some farms. Another consideration in solid winter applications is to provide a nutrient tons per acre limit for spreading in February and March rather than any outright ban.

5. Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program enrollees should have assurance. The MAWQCP farms should have assurance that their already agreed to BMPs fit within the framework of this proposal. The NPDES General Permit should make clear that MAWQCP farms already comply with the rules in the permit.


Thank you for your consideration of our comments and suggestions. Sincerely, Lucas Sjostrom, Executive Director

7/23/20 Email – Russell Penning George I am not in favor of the proposed changes to our current rules. We as a farm/feed yard use Extended Ag out of Lakefield they have drafted a letter to you I am in favor of Ext. Ags changes to your changes. Thanks for your time Russell Penning Summit Lake Livestock

7/23/20 Email – Andrew Englin Good afternoon I guess my biggest concern in this permitting is the feb and march no spread policy. Why is this a one size fits all scenario. We have taking steps on certain fields to eliminate runoff no intakes, berms and just the way the topography is laying . Furthermore if February and march would have no snow cover or a earlier spring why no hauling. What if April turns out to be the heaviest snowfall and everyone hauls then and it all gets trapped in the snow pack and runs off would it be better for the environment to spread earlier like in march . I don't understand how you can predict the outcome before things happen with weather. We worry about problems like this but we let buildings burn in the Minneapolis watch pollutants go up in the air and through the storm sewers with the fire water all of peaceful protests when are government can't even control mass destruction . What would happen if agriculture protested by dumping manure in lakes and streams ? Getting to applying in fall cover crops are not the answer to all problems it's a make you feel good fix. N stabilizer in liquid manure is a better plan and try a cover crop I've seen nice working cover crops and also ones that never started. This all gets back to making individual decisions on your own farm but at same point some people have to be told what to do. Another thing that bothers me is we want manure tests I think a soil test will tell you a lot more information if spreading to much for what the crop removal is. Where are the facts of all this runoff of winter spreading cause they sure are hard to find with talking to people? Why was there no actual meetings in person on these issues? I'm sure there would be host farms that would enjoy a open air setting with elected officials . Getting to to manure snow mix application just pile it somewhere it doesn't run off there will be next to no value there when it melts. I'm a lot better talking one on one with someone on these issues. Thank you for your time. If more and more regulations keep coming AG in Minnesota will die but to me it seems as if that's what non rural people want then 50 years from now people will wonder why did this happen and how can we fix it. Money and politics is the controlling mechanism right now and it's a grim picture. Have a happy day!

7/23/20 Email – Josh Fick

Mr. Schwint: I write to provide comment on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) proposed 2021 draft NPDES permit. While I appreciate that the MPCA has held meetings on the proposed new permit to gain input from stakeholders, and that the new permit application will be moving to a shorter online format, I have heard concerns from constituents as follows: Cover crop requirement in September and October – use of cover crops is becoming more widespread and can be beneficial to soil health, but sometimes is not possible to establish them before winter due to inclement weather conditions. Additional nitrogen best management practices (BMPs) requirements in October – the proposed additional requirements for land application in October will severely limit the fall application season. Constituents have suggested setting the soil temperature requirement higher (60 degrees F), or establishing parameters based on soil or using other BMPs. Prohibition on spreading of solid manure in February and March – given the dynamic weather in Minnesota, it would be more reasonable to have rules for spreading based on criteria such as temperature, snow cover, slope, or proximity to water rather than on specific calendar dates. I have also heard concerns from constituents that some of the new permit requirements appear to go beyond Minnesota Rules that govern feedlots (Chapter 7020). I would urge the agency to carefully review the new requirements they are seeking to implement in the 2021 NPDES permit and ensure that they fit within existing rules. Requirements that fall outside Chapter 7020 need to go through the rulemaking process as is required by law. Minnesota farmers are good stewards of their lands and want clean water, as we all do. I urge the MPCA to take producer’s comments to heart and make adjustments to the draft permit so they can comply with their permit requirements. Sincerely, Josh Fick Luverne, MN

7/23/20 Email – Gary and Lu Anne Reeck To Whom It May Concern: We are writing in response to the proposed 2021-2026 NPDES Permit. Before approval the following changes should be made.

Cover crops should not be required for September manure applications. MPCA had literature review in 2005 showing how manure improves tilth and reduces runoff, the same goal as cover crops. Corn silage roots, or stalks or alfalfa is not being considered as coverage and manure holding capabilities. Using a set calendar does not take current weather factors into consideration.

Direct injection should be added as a Best Management Practice. Reduced runoff, reduced nutrient loss, preserves organic matter and soil structure, less compaction, and reduced odor.

Proposed October Best Management Practices are not practical. October is very unpredictable. The temperature should be adjusted to below 60 degrees. Direct injection should be added as BMP. Cover crops should be planted not established.

Winter applications should be made guided by field conditions. Again a calendar in Minnesota is not the best way to determine when manure should be applied.

Minnesota Agriculture Water Quality Certification Program enrollees should have assurance that their already agreed upon BMPs fit this proposal.

Allowing manure storage beyond 14 months would help achieve some of these BMPs. Adding new requirements and short time frames will put pressure on 14 month storage. As explained to me over 10 years ago, 14 month storage is derived from government cost share program rules as a way to prevent participants from overbuilding when there is government funding. It should have never applied to producers willing to completely finance their manure storage and wanting extra storage to better contend with weather and field conditions. Nothing is worse than an emergency manure application because the storage is full.

Our family dairy farm started before 1885. We have dairy farmed since 1975 and our son and daughter-in-law are continuing the family dairy. 135 years is a long time and we take utmost care of the soil, using BMPs long before they were a term. The basic goal is to reduce runoff and preserve nutrients, which is best for environment and best for the long term viability of a farm. Every manure decision is weighed carefully to utilize the nutrients to the maximum level. Farming is not sustainable if this is not done. Some of the proposals sound like arbitrary rules using calendars and trying to set practices without allowing for individual field or weather conditions. Some of the proposals will greatly hamper our ability to apply manure at the best time and method. I hope you will take our comments seriously. Sincerely, Gary and Lu Anne Reeck

7/23/20 Email – Senator Torrey Westrom I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed changes to the NPDES permit. In my role as Chairman of the Senate Agriculture, Rural Development, and Housing Finance Committee, I see the following concerns with these proposed changes:

1. Cover crop requirement for manure application in September - This proposed requirement, which goes beyond the current requirements of Minnesota state law, relies on the assumption that it is possible to establish a cover crop on soybean stubble in September, which is highly improbable. September weather in Minnesota is unpredictable and it is not possible to meet this proposed requirement on a consistent basis. There are already significant challenges involving weather and the current allowable time frames for application. This rule change would only serve to create more problems for farmers and thus, should not be required.

2. Nitrogen BMP for October applications - With the unpredictability of soil temperatures and weather in October, the establishment of a BMP will be so complex that it will be hard to implement and enforce. Farmers need lots of flexibility to manage manure application in a timely and practical manner to mitigate nitrogen losses. You obviously have forgotten how rugged fall 2019 was for farmers in Minnesota. The combined weather challenges of rain, snow, and freezing soil devasted our farmers. Sitting in your comfortable office building was most likely not impacted by those three months of bad weather, but it was absolutely brutal for nearly every Minnesota farmer, including grain and livestock farmers. Between muddy fields, early snow, extremely wet fields, and then cold weather that hit early, farmers were stressed beyond belief last year. The last thing they needed were some new rules like this to try and micromanage their farm with. Simply, the requirements of this rule change add cost and uncertainty to the process.

3. Prohibition of solid manure application in February and March regardless of field and weather

conditions - This is outrageous. Current language specifies requirements and conditions for field application to ensure minimal risk of runoff. This proposed change does not consider the substantial differences between the northern and southern portions of our state, both in terms of soil conditions and temperatures. It is quite obvious that whoever wrote this proposed rule did not grow up on or operate a real farm. Farmers sometimes need to make decisions to apply during these months. On the farm I grew up on, there were times we had to. Foolish regulations like these would hurt small farmers even more so than larger farms, as they often have less manure storage options. Once again, the state in their one-size-fits-all policy will take away this much needed flexibility.

4. MPCA approval prior to application of manure-snow mix during February and March – As any

Minnesotan can tell you, we usually get a lot of snow during these two months. When a feedlot gets shut in due to heavy snowfall and drifting, cattle can be denied access to water and feed. For their safety and lives, it is imperative that the farmer be able to clear the lot and dispose of the snow and manure in a timely manner. They cannot wait for a bureaucrat in St. Paul to decide if and when this should be done. Again, this proposed rule puts the well-being of livestock in jeopardy. If you persist in implementing this, the MPCA should also accept full liability and responsibility for animal endangerment. Each farmer has the most vested interest in maintaining and caring for their livestock and farm to be sustainable. More red tape and ivory tower rule-making won’t make it easier for farmers to operate their business safely and

properly, but rather it will impede it. You should be clarifying that snow-manure mix falls under the current winter application language.

In short, the proposed rule changes again reflect that the agency does not have a thorough understanding of the livestock industry and these rules should not be implemented for the reasons outlined above, along with other reasons you receive that discusses why these rules are unworkable and not prudent.

July 23, 2020 George Schwint Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165 Mankato, MN 56001 RE: General Permit MNG440000 Animal Feedlot Permit Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed general permit revisions. Please consider the following when finalizing the general permit revisions:





d. Adding requirements in September and October limits the days in which manure can be applied, and could create worse consequences in the spring.

2. Direct injection should be added as a Best Management Practice. Direct injection of liquid manure has several benefits, including the following:

a. Reduced soil compaction. b. Preserved soil organic matter and soil structure. c. Reduced risk of P runoff and particulate P loss is reduced. d. Reduced N volatization loss, resulting in retention of plant-available N. e. Reduced odor issues.


predict, with October being one of the most variable from year-to-year. The proposed BMPs may result in manure being applied in worse conditions in November or later. For these reasons we suggest not implementing these October BMPs. If BMPs in October are needed:

a. 50o F is not a magic number, below 60o F maybe just as beneficial to the environment but add flexibility for farmers.

b. Direct injection should be added as BMP. c. Any cover crop BMP requirement should be “planted,” not “established.”

4. Manure storage capacity beyond 14 months should be allowed. One limitation in Minnesota is a

14-month limit on manure storage capacity. With this limitation, manure application windows can be short, driving up the cost and challenge of manure application.

Thank you, Brady Janzen Riverview, LLP

7/23/20 Email – Penning Brothers WE DO NOT FAVOR YOUR PLAN AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN IT’S INTIRETY. RATHER THEN ME GOING ON TO SPELL OUT THE INS AND OUTS OF ALL THAT YOUR PLAN INVOLVES, I WOULD LIKE TO INDORSE WHAT EXTENDED AG OF LAKEFIELD, MN, BY ANDY NESSETH, AND WHAT HE HAS SUMMITED AS A BLUEPRINT FOR ALL THAT THIS INVOLVES. HE IS VERY MUCH HANDS ON AND HIS FIRM WORKS IN A LARGE AREA AND HAS A VERY GOOD HANDS ON APPROACH AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE SEASONS, SOILS, NUTRIENT VALUES OF MANURE AND PLANT UPTAKE, ESPECIALLY IN SW MINNESOTA AND NW IOWA. WE NEED A GOOD WINDOW TO GET OUR MANURE APPLICATION DONE. THIS ALONG WITH TIMELY HARVEST AND AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES FOR APPLICATION. WE CAN’T CONTROL MOTHER NATURE AND SHE THROWS A WRENCH INTO OUR OPERATIONS MANY TIMES EACH YEAR. NONE OF US HAVE AN 8 HOUR WORK DAY WHEN IN SEASON. WE HAVE TO DO WHAT IT TAKES TO GET THE JOB DONE AND WE NO LONGER HAVE A GOOD SUPPLE OF A FARM GROWN LABOR FORCE TO WORK WITH WHO KNOW WHAT THAT IS. AGAIN, WE FAVOR EXTENDED AG’S APPROACH AND REASONING. Thank you, Penning Brothers John H. Penning Partner

7/23/20 Email – Josh Revier Hi George We are not in favor of not allowing producers to apply manure in February and March. Most producers use proper judgment already when applying manure during this time frame. In the past years we have had many events where this would of significantly tied our hands to best take care of the health and well being of our animals. Sincerely Josh Revier Revier Feedlot

7/23/20 Email – Joe Vander Kooi George, I'm writing this short email to voice several concerns I have with proposed changes to manure applications. While I understand the reasoning behind some of these proposals, I do have some major concerns. The complete ban on hauling manure in February and March would cause my operation some major headaches. I do my best to stay away from sensitive areas during times of frozen ground and rapid thawing conditions. I realize that in a perfect world we would avoid hauling in these conditions. Oftentimes, I end up hauling snow out of my lots immediately after a storm. This snow does contain some manure maybe 5-10%, but is relatively clean. With the new regulations in place, cleaning up after a major blizzard or snowstorm would become much more burdensome. Not only that, but the stockpiles of this would be extremely muddy/wet and difficult to get hauled out by the proposed May 15 deadline with the amount of water these stockpiles would have. The May 15 deadline to haul piles is another potential challenge. In a nice/normal weather year it is a non issue. Last year it would have been a nightmare. We weren't even able to finish planting for the first time till after the 4th of July. 2019 was an extremely challenging year to begin with for agriculture, adding more regulations to comply with would have made a difficult situation much more complicated. I am a big proponent of cover crops, but even I am concerned about mandating there usage in order to summer apply manure. Is it a good idea, yes. Is it always practical and work for every situation, probably not. Please note my and other producers concerns as you and your coworkers work through these difficult issues. I'm not in favor of absolute bans, and one size fits all solutions. I completely understand and share concerns regarding runoff and clean water. I think that there are proactive ways to encourage good stewardship without banning many current practices, along with creating a lot more compliance issues. Regards, Joe Vander Kooi

7/23/20 Email – Justin and Lisa Reeck

To whom it may concern:

I am writing in regards to the proposed changes to the General Permit NPDES. I operate a family dairy

farm in central Minnesota and although the changes would not currently apply to me currently; I hope

to one day expand and then at that time they would. I have briefly looked at some of the highlighted

changes and I understand that the changes were proposed with the best of intentions they may not fit

quite a few situations. My family's farm is a dairy farm so I will address some of the potential problems

with the rule changes from this perspective.

Not Allowing more than 14 months of manure storage:

What cows are being used to determine the 14 months? What diet was the cow being fed, ration can

greatly impact the amount of manure a cow generates. When was the manure production per cow

figured out? Cows just 10 years ago gave drastically less milk than cows today therefore they ate less

and produced less milk. It is not always easy to even get these fundamental assumptions correct to

estimate manure production and higher production cows have a much lower carbon and environmental

impact than cows that give less milk. Also, a cow that is fed a high forage diet may produce more

manure but take less acres and inputs to produce a given amount of milk. What is most efficient and

beneficial to the cows land and environment at one farm may not be the best at another farm and

therefore some managerial latitude given to the producer to do what is best for the location may really

have the best outcomes. Some farms may have fields that are more forgiving for timing of manure

applications whereas other farms need to have conditions just right to not damage the crop. A damaged

stunted crop will not use as many nutrients leaving nutrients more suceptible to leaching later in the

growing season. If a farmer needs to apply manure because he is worried his pit may overflow because

his cows make more manure than the average cows and precipitation is greatly above average it would

seem that having a larger pit that can accommodate waiting till conditions are better following crop

harvest would benefit everyone.

With so much weather volatility it is very hard to be able to get all manure always done at the right time

limiting manure to 14 months of storage storage adds an extra arbitrary restriction that may make it

harder to comply with best management practices and do what is best for the land. For instance not all

cows make the same amount of manure. Higher producing cows generally produce more manure but

they also have a lower carbon and environment impact per unit of production. Allowing manure

storage beyond 14 months would help achieve some of these BMPs. One limitation in Minnesota

guidance is a 14-month limit on manure storage, even when producers aim to have up to 24-months for

flexibility and to obtain more BMPs. With our current 14-month limit enforced by MPCA, our manure

application windows become emergencies, driving up the cost of application and hours required by

applicators to apply manure in an effective manner.

Thank you, Justin and Lisa Reeck

7/23/20 Email – Renee Cardarelle (after 4:30 deadline)

As a resident in a rural community I have long been concerned about the control of pollution from feedlots. Thank you for the continued efforts to increase safe disposal of feedlot manure.

In addition, while old practices die hard, new practices such as the application of cover crops to increase carbon sequestering is important.

For this reason I am writing in support of 14.5 in the draft permit which requires the use of cover crops.

Sincerely,

Renee Cardarelle

7/23/20 Email – Krist Wollum (after 4:30 deadline)

Changing the rules and regulations in a time of economic crisis is a decision that can only hurt our livestock industry. It is troubling to know that the agency you work for has very little consideration to the well being of the industry that keeps a large number of their employees working. We have gone above and beyond most other groups in our attempt to minimize pollution.

Please leave well enough alone.

Krist Wollum

7/23/20 Email – Sandy Engen (after 4:30 deadline)

Dear Mr. Schwint,

I am writing to you in opposition of the proposed changes to the MN NPDES permit draft. We are 4th generation farmers and cattle producers. I am against “a one rule that covers every situation” tone of the proposed regulation regarding manure management. Minnesota is a diverse state with many variables in each field, feedlot and management practices. I urge you to allow us to work with our manure management plan as it takes into consideration the variables in our fields and our solid manure nutrient tests. Please listen to the industry leaders, researchers, and comments made by producers. My husband teases that we have our college degrees so that we can haul manure. If you are ever in the Lamberton area, we invite you to stop in at our home and feedlot for a tour.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concerns.

Sandy Engen

7/23/20 Email – Mark Pankonin (after 4:30 deadline)

I will refrain from dwelling on any specific rules within the proposal but would rather speak to the process.

I thought we covered the initial draft nicely when we met for coffee in Sleepy Eye in mid-

February. You allowed us as representatives of the cattle industry as well as other production groups to share and discuss our concerns with the draft, actively seeking input and sharing perspectives from both sides of the table. The dialogue was good, and our time spent together was productive.

When 2021 feedlot rule was released to producers and public, I felt our input and ideas were

completely disregarded, frankly, it was disheartening and I feel that the lack of regard for input from the producer side is a serious flaw in the rule making process. This needs to be revisited by your staff and the governing bodies above you.

For weeks I have studied over the proposed changes trying to further understand the basis for

such changes, one would assume they were necessary based on complaint and/or violations of the current rule, thus putting the water supply and environment at risk. However, after searching the internet and taking with local feedlot offices, I discovered odor complaints to be the only significant or frequent occurrence.

It is my opinion that the proposed changes to the 2021 General Permit are mis-directed. They

will result in little or no environmental benefit while further jeopardizing the sustainability of the Minnesota Livestock Production Industry.

To qualify my opinion statement, I will refer to the order for prohibition of solid manure

application during February and March. Who thought this would be a good idea? Especially without

considering and offering some type of application parameters rather than an across the board abolition.

Such as, consideration for snow cover, slope rating, tillage practice, crop residue, previous, current, and

forecasted weather and temperature conditions, and finally the added cost incurred with added

handling of the manure in April and the collateral damage to transport roads and the fields that the

nutrients are destined for. Generally speaking, this part of the proposal has not been well thought out

and furthermore discredit the minds of the individuals and the agency they represent to even suggest

implementations.

I submit to you these comments with a sincere appreciation for the land, livestock, and environment that I have been entrusted with but a descending respect for the agency that think they can do it better.

Mark Pankonin

7/23/20 Email – Dennis Sleiter (after 4:30 deadline)

Dear Mr. George Schwint

Please take under consideration my comments on the NPDES permit allowance.

One concern is the application of snow/manure mix removal after snow fall to keep a healthy environment for cattle from mud and wet conditions .

To have restriction on application would allow a greater problem at later time.

The second concern is the cover crop requirement in late fall due to weather maybe challenging and soil preparation. Maybe a problem to get established.

Third concern is application of manure in February and March in some years could be done with minium risk to runoff concerns.

Please consider the financial cost and restriction to operate a sustainable business

Thank you.

Dennis Sleiter

7/23/20 Email – Keith Engen (after 4:30 deadline) Dear Mr. George Schwint, I am writing in opposition of the proposed changes to the MN NDPES permit. I am disappointed that the MPCA feels the need to impose rules that lump all manure together and all farms together. Both manure and each acre of land posses their own unique characteristics. Farmers don’t just guess on the specific makeup of the manure or the soil. Science is used to determine the nutrient base of the manure and the nutrient make up of the soil. Please remove the restrictions on when manure can be applied. Take into consideration that our creeks and water ditches all have grass buffers to prevent leaching. March is the month that manure packs in our monoslope barns are hauled out before the fields melt to prevent compaction. Winter hauled manure is spread on level fields using a spreader with a scale and auto steer to correctly place the nutrients. Corn stalk bedding is added to the pens and become part of the manure. Please remove the cover crop restriction for fall applied manure. When our summer temporary stockpile is spread on the soybean stubble, it is immediately chisel plowed into the ground to preserve the nutrients and prevent erosion. It is usually getting cool enough weather that a cover crop would not grow. I urge you to utilize the existing Manure Management Plans and not change the existing rules. Keith Engen, cattle producer

7/24/20 Email – Duane Schlieman (after 7/23 deadline)

A few comments ...

I strongly agree with Brent in terms of "what is the basis for these decisions?".

Suggesting proposals without acknowledging the agronomic and ROI impacts on current cropping systems leads us to believe (1) these practices are not validated, (2) unrealistic, and (3) implies the grower is not responsible when it comes to nutrient management in regards to protecting the environment - their own environment in which they live. Producers are "willing & able" and have become naturally proactive. They directly invest (financially & responsibly) when it comes to managing practical nutrient applications. Conservatively, the average producer lays out around $20 per/acre/year in technology, consulting, and data management to make good decisions. This is a commodity with value and producers are NOT position to misuse or waste this resource.

That said, rules & regulations are not solutions. Producers prefer to ground truth efficiency, productivity, and ROI on their own farms as well as collaboration with local research. Sudden changes, new rules, and questionable regulations are very disruptive to current cropping systems, because there is already a lot of time and money vested. There should be kickback to any proposed rules & regulations that are without an agronomic footprint ... it's not how todays growers have been taught when making sustainable decisions. They learned the value of local credible research and data interpretation.

It's not whether cover crops, stabilizing agents, delayed applications, split applications, and spring applications are good or bad. If they are credible options, they are likely being utilized already. There needs to be a more responsible approach out ahead of imposing changes to help determine whether or not these guidelines are realistic, agronomically sustainable, and cost effective.

Suggestion: I ask the MPCA to "Seek to understand Before being understood". If there are rules and regulations that the MPCA would like to consider imposing, allow 3 years minimum for local research and experimentation with current cropping systems. Use the information to help determine the environmental benefits, impacts on management, and measurable ROI. This should be a partnership - not a mandate.

Sincerely, Duane Schlieman

7/28/20 Letter by mail – Ron Huseth (received after 7/23 deadline) Dear Mr. Schwint:

My comments in are response to the proposed feedlot rules the MPCA somehow feels necessary at a time when MN Family agriculture is at a permitting and economic disadvantage to our friends and neighbors in other states throughout the country.

1. Cover crops shouldn't be required for Sept manure applications. While cover crops are being

adopted, there is not enough information or systems in place to create a desired outcome across

large number of acres quickly.

• You have failed to include the 2005 Literature Review your agency completed showing how

manure improves soil tilth and reduces run off.

• We still need technology to tell us when cover crops can be helpful in reducing erosion and

improving water quality.

• As family dairy farmers you are not giving us any credit for our Legume alfalfa in crop

rotations.

2. Add Direct Injection to BMP's. Nearly everyone is doing it now because technology has caught up

and makes the process efficient. It limits compaction, reduces run-off and preserves organic

matter, reduces N loss and reduces Oder.

3. Your October BMP's are not possible. We already have a narrow hawest and application range

and what you are proposing will eliminate Family farms. There is not enough infrastructure that

can be purchased or hired to do this. Furthermore 50 F is not a magic number. Below 60 F could

be just as or more beneficial.

4. Winter applications can be effectively managed with following field conditions. There is nothing

scientific about a calendar.

5. Maybe your 14 month manure storage limit isn't enough. Friends in other states are allowed

larger and strategically located manure storage, such as satellite pits.

Please take into consideration the lively hoods of your clients/customers. We are already trying to complete in a playing field that is not in and advantaged position. Listen to our family farmers. Regards,

Ron Huseth