RECEIVED

Recommendations for additions toexisting regulations
AcknowIed~ements
1. Table ofContents
Executive Summary
3: Work~rouo Recommend aticrns

ARRX:~

©~II~~AL

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RECEIVED

CLERcS

OF~1’E

APR

2001

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution

Con

tról

BoOr(1

IN THE MATTER

OF:

AMENDMENTS

TO LIVESTOCK

WASTE REGULATIONS

(35

ILL.

ADM. CODE 506)

)

R01-28

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

)

NOTICE OF

FILING

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

flhnois Pollution Control Board

James R. ThompsonCenter

100 West Randolph Street, Suite.

11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Carol Sudman,

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

600 South Sixth Street,

Suite

402

Springfield, Illinois 62704

AND TEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST

(Via U.

S. Mail)

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE

that I have today filed

with

the

Office of the Clerk of the

Pollution Control

Board the Appearance of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, a Motion to fileTestimony and the

TestimonyofDaniel L. Heacock, a copy of which is herewith served upon you.

DATED: April

23, 2001

Illinois Environmental ProtectionAgency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois

62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

THE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

By:

Connie L. Tonsor

Associate Counsel

Division of Legal Counsel

THIS

FILING

SUBMITTED ON

RECYCLED

PAPER

,,,,,,~“

RECEIVED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

APR

2 4

2001

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

STATE

ILLINOIS

Pollutjo~

Control Board

)

AMENDMENTS

TO LIVESTOCK

)

WASTE

REGULATIONS

)

R01-28

(35

ILL.

ADM.

CODE

506)

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

)

APPEARANCE

The

undersigned,

as one ofits attorneys, hereby enters her Appearance on behalfofthe

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:

(t~~’C74~

Connie L. Tonsor

Associate Counsel

Division ofLegal Counsel

DATED: April 23, 2001

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Post Office Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217)

782-5544

THIS FILING

SUBMiTTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

RECEIVED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

BEFORETHE

APR

2001

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control

Boarr

THE MATTER OF:

AMENDMENTS TO LIVESTOCK

)

WASTE REGULATIONS

)

R01-28

(35 ILL. ADM. CODE 506)

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

MOTION TO FILE

TESTIMONY

Now

comes

the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency (illinois EPA”) by one of its

attorneys,

Connie L. Tonsor and moves that the Illinois Pollution Control

Board (“Board”)

accept the attached

testimony of Daniel

L. Heacock in the above encaptioned matter.

On January 22, 2001, the Illinois Department of Agriculture filed proposed rules concerning the

design and construction of livestock waste handling facilities.

February 21, 2001, the Board set the matter forhearing and established dates for the pre-

filing of testimony.

March 27, 2001, the Hearing Officer set April

30,

2001 as the second hearing date.

The order

set April

23,

2001

as the date for pre-flIed

testimony.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth

above, the Illinois EPA respectfully moves that the Board

accept the attached

testimony of Daniel

Heacock.

Respectfully submitted,

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENT

PROTECTION AGENCY

By:__________

Connie L. Tonso~

Associate Counsel

DATED:

April

23, 2001

1021

North Grand Ave.

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield Illinois 62794-9276

217/782-5544

PRINTED

ON RECYCLED PAPER

RECEIVED

CLERK’S

(~F~

APR

2001

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Boar,i

THE MATTER

OF:

)

AMENDMENTS TO LIVESTOCK

)

WASTE REGULATIONS

)

R0I-28

(35

ILL. ADM.

CODE 506)

)

(Rulemaking-Land)

)

TESTIMONY OF DAN HEACOCK

OUALIFICATIONS

name

Dan

Heacock. I am employed by the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (“Agency”) as the manager of the Facility Evaluation Unit in the Watershed Management

Section ofthe Bureau of Water. The duties

of the Facility Evaluation Unit include reviewing

NPDES applications and

providing technical assistance forthe livestock waste

management

program

administered by the Illinois

EPA. I have been employed-in-the

permit programs-of the

Bureau of Water or Division of Water Pollution Control since

1985. My experiencewith the

livestock waste

management programs of the Agency began with my employment with the

Agency. I have participated in the Livestock Management Advisory Committeemeetings during

the development of the proposed amendmentsto

Part

506

and

the Illinois Department of

Agriculture’s

Part

900 rules. I am a graduate ofthe University ofIllinois

in Agricultural

Engineering. I am a registered professional engineer in Illinois.

INTRODUCTION

The Agency participated in the developmentofthis proposal through the~Livestock

Management Advisory Committee

and

appreciates the opportunity to further that participation by

offering comments

and this testimony concerning the proposed revision of 35

Ill. Adm. Code

506.

My testimony will: (1) discuss

two

areas of substantive concern regarding the detection of

voids and construction in karst areas,

and

the installation and operation ofperimeter drainage

tubing; (2) seek clarification of one area; and

(3) address other matters

that mayrequire

clarificatioq due to typographical errors or other reasons.

REGULATORY REViEW

Section 506.103

The provision for species other than listed in the proposed regulation requires the

Departmentto detennine mature animal weight. Immature livestockshuuldbe included in the

calculation of animal units at a livestock management facility.

Section 506.104

The

ASAE standard for anaerobic lagoons

was

revised in December

1998

and is now

referenced

as ASAE EP 403.3

DEC98. The ASAE standard for manure

storages was revised in

December

1998

and is now referenced

as ASAE EP 393.3 DEC

9-8.

The regulations should

revised to referencethe most current standards for manure lagoons and manure storages.Section

I 3(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Livestock Management Facilities Actrequires use of the updated

standards for manure storages,

Section

506.204

The

ASAE publishes

all of its standards

annually in a single volume, resulting in changes

to -the page numberingof unchanged standards, as new standards are added or modified. The

section numbers of the standards remain the same unless the standard

is revised and issued with a

new standard number. Therefore,

the Agency recommends that references to page numbers, used

the

regulations, be changed to section numbers of the standards to eliminate ambiguity

regarding the standard referenced.

Section

506.2O4(g)(3)

The ASAE EP 403.3 DEC98 “Design of AnaerobicLagoons for Animal

Waste

Management” clarifies the method of determining the totalvolume of the lagoon by

specifically

including runoffand precipitation generated between manure removal events. The proposed

regulations do not specifically list this runoffand precipitation as additional

volumes, although

the runoffand precipitation generated, which are tributary to a lagoon for a storage period of 270

days, should be accounted for in the calculation of the

amount of

waste generated in

the same

270-clay

period. The

illinois EPA- suggests that for clarity, these volumes be listed in the proposed

regulation.

We recommend that Section

506.204(g)(3)(C) be replaced with:

“Runoff and wash

down volumes generated during a 270-day period including all runoffand precipitation from lots,

roofs and other surfaces where collected precipitation is directed into the

lagoon, plus all the

washdown liquids that are directed into the lagoon. In no case shall this volume

less than the

precipitation and runoff

generated by a 25-year, 24-hour

storm

event

and directed to the

lagoon;

and”

Section

506.205(a)

Proposed Section

506.205(a) adds a cross-reference to Section

506.203(d) and deletes a

cross-reference to Section 506.204(d). The Agency proposes removing the deletion of Section

506.204(d). Section

506.203(d) is shown as repealed in the proposed regulations,

and

the stricken

reference, Section

506.204(d), appears to be the correct reference.

Section 506.206(a)

Proposed

Section 506.206(a) adds a cross-reference to Section

506.203(d) and deletes a

cross-reference to Section

506.204(d).

The Agency proposes removing the deletion of Section

506.204(d). Section 506.203(d)

shown as repealed in

the proposed regulations, and the stricken

reference, Section 506.204(d), appears to be the correctreference.

Section

506.207(b)

This provision

requiring rigid construction materials should be appficabletolagoons

constructed on

the

land

surfacenot just to lagoons constructed below the We-construction land

surface in karst areas. A non-rigid lagoon could be constructed on the land surface. Requiring a

rigid structure will provide additional

assurance that a collapse

causing groundwater

contamination will not occur.

Section

506.208(d)

Section 506.208(d) concerns

groundwater-monitoring wells. The referenceto Section

506.205

Liner Standards appears that it should be replaced with a reference-to -Section 506.206

Groundwater Monitoring.

Section

506.303

The last sentence of 506.303(a) should

be revised for clarity to include the term

“volume”

as follows, “In

addition,

the

design volume of livestockwaste storage structuresthat handle the

waste in liquid or semi-solid form shall include the following:”

The regulations do not specifically list as an additional volume~therunoff

and

precipitation generated and

tributary

to the livestock waste

handling facility for a period of 150

days. This runoff

and

precipitation is livestock waste

and

should be included in the calculation of

the livestock waste

volume generated during a period of 150 days

and

listed in the regulations for

th~

calculation of the total volume ofthe livestock waste handling facilities. The Illinois EPA

suggests that for clarity,this volume be added to the list of additional

volumes in the proposed

regulation andrecommends that Section

506.303(a) (1)and (2)be replaced with:

“(1)

Runoffvolumes generated during a 150-day period including all runoff

and

precipitation from lots, roofs and other surfaces where collected precipitation

directed into the storage. In no case shall this volume be

less

than

the precipitation

and runoff generated by a 25-year, 24-hour storm event

and

directed to the livestock

waste handling facility;

and

(2)the volume of all washdown liquids generated during the

150-day period that are

directed

into the livestockwaste handling facility.”

Section

506.304(c)

The Agency recommends that this subsection be revised to include:

•

Specifications for the maximum allowable horizontal separation between the perimeter

drainage tubing and the -livestock waste

handling facility. The drainage tubing must be

located nearthe structure to effectively lower the water

table

-below The livestock waste

handling facility to prevent floatation. The

following language should be added:

“The perimeter drainage tubing must be located at a horizontal distance that

provides sufficientdrainage to maintain the water table elevation below the bottom

of the livestock waste handling facility.”

•

A required sampling port. The drainage tubing mayreceive and transport livestock waste

that has leaked from the nearby livestock waste storage structure. A subsurface drain

discharge may be discovered discharging livestock wastewith several possible sources of

livestock waste upstream. A sampling port located on-site immediately

downstream

the subsurface drain around the livestock waste handling facility, would provide

easy

access for sampling and inspection to determine ifthe particular facility

is or is not

causing the discharge of livestock waste.

Additionally, early detection of such a

discharge

by sampling or

inspection of the sampling port would provide the facility a

better opportunity to initiate actions to contain the livestock waste

or prevent a discharge

to waters ofthe state.

•

A reference to howthe “seasonal high water table” may be determined (this may require

the addition of a definition in Section 506.103). If the water table rises

above the

livestock waste handling facility bottom, the livestock waste handling facility

can be

damaged by floatation, possibly causing a discharge. Therefore,

it is critical to know

accurately the seasonal high water table elevation when no subsurface drainage is

installed.

•

A provision forthe diversion of livestockwaste that may be discharged from the drainage

tubing, away from surface waters, to a field or collection area,

pending collection and

appropriate disposal. Ifthe subsurface drainage tubing receives

livestock waste, a means

to contain the waste and

prevent discharge to waters of the- state-would-need-to be

implemented.

Section 506.310(c)(3)

This Section requires

the certification by the Licensed ProfessionalEngineer of the liners

for livestock facilities locatednear aquifer materials.

Does this provision require certification of

Sections 506.3 10

and

506.304 requirements for liners?

The Agency is uncertain from the

language of the proposal

and

recommends that the certification

by the Licensed Professional

Engineer include both Sections 506.310

and

506.304 requirements because the provisions ofboth

sections are important to the prevention of groundwater-contamination by

livestock waste.

Section

506.3 12(b)

This provision requiring rigid construction materials should be applicable to livestock

waste handling facilities constructed on the land surface not justto livestock-waste handling

facilities constructed below the pre-construction land surface in karst areas. A non-rigid livestock

waste handling facility could be constructed on

the land surface. Requiring a rigid structure will

provide additional assurance that a collapse

causing groundwater contamination will

not occur.

Sections 506. 207

and 506.312

These sections regard

the

construction of lagoons and non-lagoons in karst areas. The

Agency

is concerned that ifa single boring is made to a maximum depth of 20 feet below the

waste handling structure bottom elevation,

is proposed in these new sections of Part 506, a

void maybe present below the proposed livestock waste handling structure

and

still be

undetected.

Agency research has revealed the following:

Jannick, et al., 1992, reported that of 14 wastewater lagoon sites in southeastern

Minnesota located over karstic bedrock and with 30 meters

or less of overburden soil or till

over the bedrock, 2 had failed in the twentyyears preceding

1992.

An interim guidance

document titled “ConstructingNew Manure Storage Systems in the Karst Region”

(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, March 2000), reports that 3 of 22 municipal

wastewater treatmentponds failed in the karst region of southeast Minnesota between 1974

and 1992. The report also

indicates that one manure storage system had manure seepage into

fractured bedrock occurring

so rapidly that the storage system did not ever

need

to be

pumped.

The IDNR- ISGS Illinois Map

“Karst Terrains and Carbonate Rocks of Illinois,”

incorporated by reference in Section

506.

104(a)(3), shows that karst areas with sinkholes exist in

areas with drift over the bedrock of 50

feet or

less.

Small areas of the Salem Plateau and Lincoln

Hills karst areas are shown on the map to have sinkholes in areas where drift thickness is greater

than 50 feet over the bedrock.

In the report “Karst Regions of Illinois” by Panno, et a! (1997) for

the Salem Plateau karst area,

the bedrock is reported to be typically less than

meters (or

approximately 49

feet) belowthe surface, although some areas exceed this depth.

In the Lincoln

Hills karst region the report indicates that many of the sinkholes in this region occur in “relatively

thick bess deposits.”

Most sinkholes form

in driftthickness of less than 20 feet below the

surface in the North Central Karstregion according to the report by Panno. The formation of

sinkholes appears to occur in areas with depth to bedrock up to 50

feet or more in Illinois. Benson

and La Fountain,

1984, state that 1000

borings conducted on agrid would be needed for a 90

probability to detect a void of2.3 meters

in size on a one acre site.

The

Agency concludes, therefore, that ifa single boring is made to a maximum depth of

20 feet below awaste handling structure bottom elevation a void-may be-present below the

proposed structure and still be undetected.

The

Agency recommends a more comprehensive

investigation based on several sources of data.

Such systems are described below from

information on programs in Minnesota and Missouri.

The State ofMinnesota adopted regulations in October,

2000 regarding the location of

manure storage structures in karst areas. The regulations as adopted require that certain facilities:

•

have aminimum separation

from bedrock of twentyto forty feet for earthen liners,

based

on the size of operation

and type

of structures,

•

use rigid structures or

composite

earthen/synthetic liners,

•

limit the size of manure storage structuresto 250,000 gallons,

•

prohibit manure storage structures if

the

bedrock is within

feet of the livestock

waste handling structure bottom, or

•

relocate away from the karst features.

Minnesota also convened a workgroup of engineers that were not state regulatory

personnel to determinewhat should

be required for livestock facilities located in karst areas

(Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2000, Minnesota

Pollution

Control Agency, 2001).

The

report from that workgroup indicates

the following:

•

that in

instances earthen manure storage structures have failed due-to- sinkhole

development in states other than Minnesota,

•

Minnesota

and

other states also have had non-livestockwastewater treatmentponds fail

due to sinkhole development,

•

all cases

the failures have occurred when there is no

liner or the liner is designed to

seep at greater than the Minnesota requirements for earthen soil liners. The seepage rate

requirement is

1156th

inch per day. l/56~’

inch per day

is equivalent to a 2 feet thick

liner

with ahydraulic conductivity of

10~

cm/sec with an operating depth of livestock

waste of 8.6 feet.

The Minnesota workgroup issued the

report

“Recommendations of the Technical

Workgroup-Liquid Manure Storage Structures in the KarstRegion”

December 20, 2000. The

report concludesthat the following be required:

•

no new earthen manure storages located in areas where carbonate bedrock is

less than 5-0

feet from the ground surface and the upper bedrock

is fractured or other geologic strata

where soil collapse or sinkhole formation occurs,

•

construction of manure storage structure is not allowed if voids

are

encountered

the

construction of

the

structure

or soil inspection,

•

minimum bedrock separation of five feet for concrete tanks, dual lined basins, composite

lined

basins

and

above-ground tanks with concrete floors,

•

a secondary liner with a leachate collection system if bedrock separation is less than

feet,

•

soil inspections during construction,

•

diversion of fresh water away from the perimeter of manure storages,

•

annual liner inspections,

•

monitor manure levels,

and

•

emergency response plans.

The

Missouri Department ofNatural Resources regulations~

require that each site for a

earthen wastewater pond, including livestock waste

facilities, be subject to a geological

evaluation. These evaluations are conducted by the Missouri

DepartmentofNatural Resources. If

the facility has severe geological

limitations,the wastewater pond

(i.e., livestock waste lagoon or

holding pond) may be prohibited unless liner technology-and/ormore detailed investigation and

analysis can demonstrate that the proposed pond will not cause groundwater contamination. If the

geological evaluation indicates high collapse

potential, then

the

ponds are generally prohibited

(Missouri Code of State Regulations,

1999).

The Missouri

system provides for the evaluation

and

designation of a score for the

followingeight factors in making an assessment of

the

earthen lagoon collapse potential of a site.

A site

is scored if greater than 50

of the top twenty feet ofbedrock is limestone, dolomite

calcareous sediments and the wastewater pond bottom is underlain by

less than 20 feet of

unconsolidated material

on top of the bedrock. A site is not scored for an assessment of

earthen

lagooncollapse potential ifthe

earthen

lagoon bottom is underlain by 20 feet or more of

unconsolidated material (other than relict bedrock residuum or alluvium). Listed with each

factor

is the conditionthat is scored the highest for potential wastewater pond

collapse as shown below:

Factor

Gaining or losing stream,

Depth to water table

Most Severe Condition

Losing

Greaterthan 50 feet

Thickness

ofrelict bedrock residuum above

consolidated bedrock

Characteristics of upper 20

feet of bedrock

and/or surficial material

Proximity ofnearest sinkhole

Proximity of nearest underground opening

Surface area of wastewater pond

Maximum operating depth of liquid

4Oto

100 feet

Bedrock with significant voids

10 feet below

surface, or unconsolidated material

consisting

of relict bedrock structures or alluvium with

losing conditions associated

with this type of

bedrock

Within 500 feet

Beneath the wastewater pond

Morethan 4 acres

Greater than 20

feet

Section

2.5 of the report “Recommendations of the Technical Workgroup- Liquid Manure

Storage in the Karst Region” provides a summary ofthat workgroup’s reviewof requirements of

manure storage structures located in karst areas often states with karst geology. The factors or

restrictions used

by Florida, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Iowa

and two other unidentified states surveyed included:

•

size-of the manure storage structure,

•

use of rigid materials, above ground storage or impermeable liners,

•

liner permeability requirements,

•

prohibition of earthen liners,

•

setbacks from sinkholes of 150 to 500 feet,

•

site assessment to determinerelative risk, and

•

depth to bedrock

I have attached a chart comparing the Part 506 proposal with the Minnesota and Missouri

regulations and workgroup report.

The presence of voids below the structure presents the greatest threat in karst areas to the

integrity of the waste storage structure. Based on the above information regarding

karst, a single

soil boring to a depth of 20 feet will not be sufficient to reliably detect voids located near the

manure storage structure that can cause failureof manure storage structures. Additional borings

would provide more assurancethat voids are not present. Multiple borings should be conducted to

a depth of at least 50 feet or to the bedrock to detect the presence of voids.

Alternatively, ifa single boring to 20 feet or to bedrock

is used

as proposed, additional

requirements would provide methods to prevent groundwater contamination due to failures of

manure storage structures into fractured bedrock. Examples of these additional

requirements are:

preventing the location of manure storage structures or requiring-the -use ofsecondaryliners with

leachate

collection in areas of shallow soils over bedrock, requiring material and liners based

depth to bedrock, limitations on the

size of manure storage structures, diversion of fresh water

away from manure storage areas, and prohibitions

based

on detection of voids during

construction.

I have used the following materials, which will

be offeredas exhibits in thisproceeding:

‘Benson,

C. andLa Fountain, L. J.,

1984.Evaluation of subsidence or collapse potential dueto

subsurface cavities. Proceedings of the First Multidisciplinary Conference on

Sinkholes. Orlando,

Florida

•Jannick, N. 0.

Alexander, E. C., and Lanherr, L. J.,

1992.

The

Sinkhole Collapse of the

Lewiston, Minnesota Waste Water Treatment Facility Lagoon. Proceedings of the Third

Conference on

Hydrogeology, Ecology, Monitoring and Management of Ground Water in Karst

Terranes, National Groundwater Management Association.

‘Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, March 20, 2000. Constructing Manure Storage Systems in

the Karst Region. Interim Guidance

Document. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Saint Paul,

MN.

•Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, December 20, 2000. Recommendations of the Technical

Workgroup- Liquid Manure Storage in Karst Region To the Minnesota Senate and House

Agriculture and Rural Development Committees. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Saint

Paul, MN.

‘Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, January

17, 2001. Karst Workgroup Recommendations-

Legislative Fact Sheet. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Saint Paul, MN.

‘Missouri Code of State Regulations,

1999. 10

CSR 20-8.200 Division 20-Clean Water

Commission, Secretary of State, State of Missouri.

‘Missouri DepartmentofNatural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey. Waste Water

Treatment Site

Geologic Evaluation. Rolla, Missouri.

‘Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey. Assessment

of Earthen Lagoon Collapse Potential. Rolla, Missouri.

‘Missouri Department ofNatural Resources, Division of Geology and Land Survey, August

15,

1994.

Guidelines for Assessment of Earthen Lagoon Collapse Potential. Rolla, Missouri.

‘Panno, S. V., Weibel,

C. P. and Li, W.

1997. Karst Regions of Illinois, Open File Series

1997-2.

Illinois Department of Natural Resources-Illinois

State Geological Survey.

•Panno,

S. V.

and Weibel,

1997. Karst Terrains and Carbonate Rocks ofIllinois.

Illinois

Department of Natural Resources-Illinois

State Geological-Survey.

‘State of Minnesota. Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/7020/2100.html

This concludes my testimony, I would be happy to answer any questions that you may

have.

By:

Daniel

L. Heacock

April 23, 2001

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield,

Illinois 62794-9276

cqis-Iativg.

FACT~J-S-HEE.T

____

Minnesota Pollution

Control

Agency

Karst

Workgroup

recommendations

Introduction

Due

to its unique karst geology (fractured limestone

bedrock overlaid with shallow soil, often with

sinkholes), much of southeastern Minnesota

represents a sensitive environment for containmation

of ground water and surfacewaters.

One of the

environmental concerns about karst geology is the

potential forsinkholes to form below wastewater- or

manure-storage structures, causing contaminants to be

channeled directly into

the ground water.

Sinkholes

have formed below three poorly lined municipal

wastewater-treatrnent ponds

in Minnesota and at

several poorly lined wastewater and liquid manure

storage areas in other states.

Ground water

contamination problems have also resulted from

chronic seepage of liquid manure into cracks in the

bedrock that are directly connected

to aquifers.

Background

Recognizing the environmental sensitivity of the karst

region, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

(MPCA) recently incorporated into rule (Chapter

7020) several

standards for construction of liquid

manure-storage systems in areas prone to sinkhole

development.

In response to the rule

changes, the

Legislature requested that a workgroup be convened

to review and propose standards relatedto this topic

according

to the requirements in section

13 of 2000

Session Laws, Chapter435.

The MPCA convened a workgroup consisting of 10

engineers, none of whom are employed by state

regulatory agencies, in accordance with the guidelines

set forth by the Legislature, which specified that

engineers in the workgroup be from the private sector.

the requestof the workgroup, two or more

hydrogeologises

experienced in the karst region were

present at each meeting to advise on issues pertaining

to karst geology,

soils andhydrogeology.

The

workgroup met over eight days between August and

November.

The workgroup did not build from

existing MPCA policy,

but rathertook a fresh look at

standards needed for the karst region.

The

workgroup considered areas “susceptible to soil

collapse

or sinkhole formation,” to include all

land

where the depth to carbonatebedrock is less than 50

feet, and the uppermost bedrock

is fractured carbonate

materials or other bedrock where soil collapse

sinkhole formation occurs.

karst Workgroup recommendations

Following considerable study oftechnical information

from Minnesota

and other states, the workgroup

developed

several standards forthese areas.

Location restrictions

•

Maintain a 300-foot setback from sinkholes.

•

Relocate site if subsoil inspections during

excavation indicate soil subsidence

or sinkhole

development.

•

Avoid construction over mapped caves that

become

registered with the state.

Design specifications

Use

dual liners, -concrete liners or above-ground,

glass-fused metal tanks.

•

Limit maximum

capacity

ofa single cell to three

million gallons (no total-capacity limit per

farm

and no restrictions based on

animal-unit

numbers).

Maintain a five-foot minimum separation between

manure and bedrock, with some exceptions.

January17,

2001

Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency,

520 Lafayette

Road

North, Saint Paul, MN

55155-4194

(651) 296-6300,

toll-free (800) 657-3564,

TTY (651)282-5332 or (800) 657-3864

This material

can

made

available

alternative formats

for people with

disabilities.

Printed on recycled

paper containing at least

percent fibers from paper

recycled

by consumers.

Minnesota

Pollution

Control Agency

Convey

roof and site runoff waters away from the

manure-storage area.

Identifying and responding to failures

•

Monitor manure levels regularly and conduct an

annual inspection of the liner.

•

Develop an emergency response plan.

The

workgroup recommended that the proposed

standards replace existing MPCA rules pertaining to

design standards in areas

susceptible

to sinkhole

formation.

It also suggested that

these

recommendations

be reviewed

and refined after

furthersinkhole-formation studies are

completed.

Similarities between recommendations

and existing regulations

Many similarities can be found when comparing

current Minn. R.

ch.

7020

and workgroup

recommendations for

areas susceptible to soil collapse

or sinkhole formation.

For example, both the existing

rules and

workgroup recommendations:

•

establish 300-foot setbacks from sinkholes.

•

include major restrictions foruse of cohesive soil

liners alone.

•

allow for use of concrete-lined, dual-lined and

above-ground storage.

•

establish a similar minimum soil thickness needed

above bedrock foruse of concrete, composite and

above-ground

liners at small to moderate-size

feedlots.

Differences between recommendations

and existing

regulations

•

Current rules forminimum

separation-to-bedrock

restrictions vary from five to

feet for concrete

pits, dual-lined basins and above-ground tanks,

depending on the type of liner and the number of

animal units on the farm.

The workgroup

recommends that separation to bedrock be a

minimum offive

feet, except fortwo types of

designs

where. separation

to bedrock can

be less

than five

feet.

•

MPCA rules allow cohesive soil liners alone

where there is a substantial soil thickness (e.g.,

to 40 feet). between manure and bedrock

The

workgroup recommends that no

cohesive soil

liners be used alone without another liner in areas

with less than 50

feet from ground surface to

Page2

carbonate bedrock until further geologic study

identifies the areas with less than 50

feet to

-bedrock that have a low potential for soil collapse

or sinkhole formation.

•

MPCA rules

set a 250,000-gallon limit per storage

cell in areas where there are four or more

sinkholes within

1,000 feet.

No other storage-

capacity limits

are set in rules.

The workgroup

recommends a three-million-gallon limit in all

areas susceptible to sinkhole formation

Recommendations for additions to

existing regulations

Other recommendations that the workgroup made are

consistent with MPCA policy and past permit

conditions, but

are not currently established in rule for

all new liquid-manure-storage facilities in sinkhole-

prone

areas.

The workgroup proposes that the

following be added to state rules for areas susceptible

to sinkhole formation:

•

inspections of subsoil during construction,

•

diverting freshwater away from the

manure-storage area,

•

annual liner inspections,

•

monitoring of manure levels and

•

emergency response plans.

What’s next?

The

MPCA intends to implement workgroup

recommendations in the following ways:

Study technical information from the workgroup

proposals as a basis for future rule

revisions.

Issue permits with the workgroup standards until

the rule

can be revised (where an equivalent level

of environmental protection is achieved).

Modify MPCA guidelines

to reflect workgroup

proposals.

Discuss with other agencies how and when to

implement recommendations for further study.

For more -information

If you have any questions or would like more

information about the Karst Workgroup’s

recommendations, call David Wall at

(651)

296-8440

or e-mail

him at david.wall@pca.state.mn.us.

Recommendations

of the

Technical Workgroup

Liquid Manure Storage in the Karst Region

To the

Minnesota Senate and House

Agriculture and Rural Development Committees

December 20,

2000

Convened by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Printed

on recycled

paper containing at

least 20

fibers from paperrecycled by consumers.

AcknowIed~ements

We extend our sincere thanks to the dedicated technical workgroup members who gave a

considerable amount of time and effort to attend numerous meetings and review materials.

The

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) gratefully acknowledges private sector engineers

that voluntarily contributed -their time and attention through this unfunded directive.

The

workgroup and MPCA gratefullyacknowledge

the public sector staff from the NaturalResources

Conservation Service, University of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota

Extension Service, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Geological

Survey

andIowa Geological Survey who-participated in this endeavor.

The workgroup would like to

express their sincere thanks to those who traveled great distance to supply information and

testimony to the workgroup.

Table of

Contents

Chapter

Introduction

1.1

Workgroup Charge and Scope

....

1.2

Workgroup Members

1.3

Workgroup process and principles

Chapter 2

Background

2.2

Historical record of failed and successful waste storage systems in karst regions

2.3

Benefits of livestock agriculture in the karst region

2.4

Minnesota policy on liquid manure storage in karst areas

2.5

Other states’ standards for liquid manure storage in karst areas

Chapter 3:

Workgroup Recommendations

3.1

Defining areas susceptibleto soilcollapse or sinkhole formation

3.2

Recommended standards for areas potentially susceptible to soil coJJ.apse orsinkhole

formation

3.2.1

Location restrictions

.~.

...

~l-2

3,2.2 Design

Specifications

3.2.3

Identifying andresponding to failures

Chapter 4:

Comparison of workgroup recommendations with

current Minnesota policy

4.1 Comparison overview

4.2 Workgroup proposed additions to MPCA rules

4.3 Recommended alternative standards to MPCA

rules

~-1

4.3.1

Storage cell capacity limits

153-

4.3.2

separation to bedrock requirements

4.4 Proposals for further study

Chapter 5:

Workgroup Considerations and Justification

5.1

Location Restrictions

5.2

Areas with similar water quality risks as the rest of the state

~22

5.3

LinerTypes

~.23

5.4

Separation to bedrock

5.5

Feedlot size andstorage capacity

5.6

Diverting surface

runoff

5.7

Construction requirements

5.8

Monitoring

5.9

Emergency Response Plan

Chapter 6

Recommendations forfurther study

~1l

Attachment A

—

Information about Workgroup Members

Attachment B

—

Bibliography

Attachment C

—

Minnesota Rules

ch.

7020.2005 and

7020.2100

Attachment D

—

ConstructingNew

Manure Storage Systems

in the

Karst Region

Executive Summary

Much of the karst region of southeastern Minnesota represents a sensitive -environment for

contamination of ground water and surface waters, due largely to:

•

shallow soils

above highly fractured bedrock;

•

rapid transport of water into and through the subsurface;

•

sinkholes and other openings to the fractured bedrock;

•

hydrogeology that is highly variable and difficult to predict; and

•

an interconnected system ofsurface water andground water.

One of the environmental concerns in karst regions

is the potential for sinkholes to form below

wastewater- or manure storage structures, causing contaminants to be directly channeled into the

ground water.

Excessive seepage from liquid impoundments

can cause underlying soil to wash

into bedrock fractures, leading to an eventually soil collapse

or sinkhole formation.

Low

permeability liners reduce the

likelihood of sinkhole formation below liquid storage areas.

Sinkholes have developed under three poorly lined municipal wastewater treatment ponds in the

karst region, draining several million gallons of wastewater into the ground water below.

addition,

several cropland runoffretention ponds establishedfor erosion control have also failed

when sinkholes developed under the ponds.

liners of any sort were used for construction of

these runoff retention ponds.

Sinkhole developmentbelow liquid manure storage systems has

not been known to occur atthe hundreds of structures in southeastern Minnesota, but has

occurred in at least five instances in other states with karst geology.

Other

karst

states have also

had failures ofwastewater treatment ponds into sinkholes.

All failures in Minnesota and other

states have been associated with

earthen

storage ponds having either no liner, or a soil liner

designed to seep more than current Minnesota requirements forcohesive soil liners.

Ground water contamination problems can also result from chronic seepage of liquid manure

moving into fractured bedrock (without sinkhole

formation).

Well water was severely

contaminated at one southeasternMinnesota fa.rmwhen liquidmanure continuously leaked

through a soil liner into

the fractured bedrock immediately below the

earthen basin.

Long-term

chronic seepage into fractured bedrock can add bacteria, viruses

and other potential contaminants

to the uppermost bedrock aquifers.

Recognizing

the potential for both chronic and catastrophic

failure of liquid manure storage

systems in the karst region, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA or Agency)

established guidelines for construction of liquid manure storage systems in areas susceptible to

soil collapse

or sinkhole formation.

The

agency encourages producers and design engineers to

follow these guidelines.

Some ofthe standards in the guidelines were incorporated into MPCA

proposed revisions to Minn. R.

ch. 7020, governing animal feedlots andthe

l1llllfl~E,

lflMlSPOlTllll~R~l

llllLllllillltl

of manure.

Prior to going into effect on October 23, 2000, the revised rule underwent an

extensive public review process involving oversight by an Administrative Law Judge.

The

MPCA made several changes

to the rules in response to comments from the

public and the

Judge.

In addition, the Minnesota Legislature reviewed the proposed rules and passed legislation

requiring changes

to several parts ofthe proposed rules (2000 Session Laws, Chapter

435).

changes were made by the MPCA or the Legislature to proposed rules pertaining to manure

storage in areas susceptible to sinkhole formation.

However, the Legislature requested that a

workgroup be conyened to review and propose standards related to this topic.

The legislation in

section

of2000

Session Laws,

Chapter

435,

states:

“The commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency shall convene a workgroup consisting of

representatives

from Natural Resources Conservation Services andprivate sector licensed

professional engineers, including individuals with expertise in hydraulics, structural systems,

and geology, to review and propose design standards for liquid manure storage facilities in

areas susceptible to soil collapse and sinkhole formation.

This review shall include an

evaluation ofwhether such standards should be volume based or animal unit based.”

The MPCA responded

to the legislationby convening a workgroup consisting often engineers

with collective backgrounds in structural engineering; hydraulics; geology; design and

construction ofliquid manure storage systems in the karst region; assessing seepage through

manure storage system liners; geotechnical evaluation; alternative liners for liquid containment;

and liner reinforcement.

All workgroup recommendations were made by the ten engineers

forming the workgroup, none of whom are employed by

state regulatory agencies.

At the

request of the workgroup,

two or more hydrogeologists experienced in the karst region were

present at each meeting to advise on

issues pertaining to karst geology,

soils and hydrogeology.

The workgroup was specifically asked by the legislature to target standards for liquidmanure

storage in areas “susceptible to soil collapse or sinkhole formation.”

The workgroup

considered

areas “susceptible to soil collapse or sinkhole formation,”

tO include all land where the depth to

carbonate bedrock is less than 50

feet, and the uppermost bedrock is fractured carbonate

materials

or other geologic strata where soil collapse

or sinkhole formation occurs.

In areas not

susceptible to soil collapse or sinkhole formation, the workgroup recommends that the same rules

should apply for liquid manure storage design, construction and operation as throughout the rest

of the state.

A shortcoming noted by the workgroup with existing information is the

lack of geostatistical

analyses indicating the likelihood of soil collapse to occur in a given area.

The Minnesota

Geological Survey, University ofMinnesota andDepartment ofNatural Resources are currently

examining the relationship between the presence of karst features and associated geologic

conditions.

The recommended measures in this report are intended to serve

as interim standards

until the studyis completed and the standards can be revised to more specifically reflect a

geostatistical evaluation of sinkhole formation.

The workgroup did not build from existing MPCA policy, but rather took a fresh look atneeded

standards for the karst region.

ExistingMPCA policy was only briefly considered during the

workgroup process.

Workgroup recommendations made in this report reflect

the best

professionaljudgement of the workgroup members made after considerable study and discussion

of available information on this topic.

The workgroup recommends the followingprotective measures for areas susceptible

to soil

collapse

or sinkhole

formation.

These measures are meant to be used in addition to the existing

protective measures required by the MPCA throughout the state.

These standards pertain to

location restrictions, 2) design, and 3) identifying andresponding to failures.

The standards can

be summarized as follows:

Location restrictions

•

Maintain a 300-foot setback from sinkholes;

•

Relocate site if subsoil inspections during excavation indicate soil subsidence or sinkhole

development;

•

Avoid construction over mapped caves that become registered with the State;

Design spec~flcations

•

Use dual-liners, concrete liners or above ground glass-fused metal

•

Limit maximum capacity of a single cell to three million gallons (no total capacity limit per

farm and no restrictions based on animal unit numbers);

•

Maintain a five-foot minimum separation between manure and bedrock, with some

exceptions;

•

Convey roof and site runoff waters away from the storage area;

Identifying and responding to failures

Monitor manure levels regularly and conductan annual inspection of the liner; and

•

Develop an emergency response plan.

The workgroup recommends that the proposed standards in this report replace existing MPCA

rules pertaining to design standards in areas susceptible to -sinkhole formation.

They also suggest

that these recommendations be reviewed and relmed after completing further study of the

likelihood of sinkhole formation under various geologic conditions.

Many similarities can be foundwhen comparing Minn.

ch.

7020 and workgroup

recommendations for areas susceptible to soil collapse

or sinkhole formation.

For example, both

the rules and the workgroup recommendations:

•

establish setbacks from sinkholes of 300 feet;

•

include

mnajor restrictions on use of cohesive soil liners alone;

•

allow for use of concrete lined, dual-lined and above ground storage; and

•

establish a similar minimum soil thickness needed above bedrock foruse of concrete,

composite and above ground liners at small to moderate-sized feedlots;

Yet, the specific criteria for some of the recommendations

are different.

Current MPCA rules for

separation

to bedrock restrictions vary from five

to fifteen feet for concrete pits, dual-lined basins

and above ground tanks,

depending on the type of liner and the numberof animal units on the

farm.

Whereas, the workgroup recotumends that separation to bedrock be a minimum of five-

feet, except for two types of designs where separation to bedrock can

be less than five feet.

MPCA rules allow cohesive soil liners alone where there is a substantial

soil thickness between

111

~_~:—

manure and bedrock (e.g., 20

to 40 feet).

The workgroup recommends no cohesive soil liners to

be used alone without another liner

in areas with less than-50 feet from ground surface to

carbonate bedrock until further geologic study identifies the areas with less than 50 feet to

bedrock that have a low potential for soil collapse

or sinkhole formation.

Other workgroup recommendations, such

as inspections of subsoil during construction and

diverting freshwater away from the manure storage area,

are not stated in MPCA rules but are

consistent with MPCA guidelines.

The MPCA requires manure storage system designs

include plans forperiodic

inspection of the liner.

This is consistent with, but not as specific

workgroup recommendations

to require regular monitoring of manure

levels and annual liner

inspections.

The workgroup recommended emergency response plan requirements for all new

liquid manure storage systems constructed in areas susceptible to sinkhole formation.

Emergency response plans are currently required by MPCA rules at feedlots with 1000 or more

animalunits.

Another difference between current MPCA policy and workgroup recommendations

relates to

storage capacity limits.

MPCA rules set a250,000 gallon limit per storage cell in areas with four

or more sinkholes within

1000 feet.

No other storage capacity limits

are set in rules; however,

recommended guidelines suggest limits that vary with the

liner type and geologic conditions.

The workgroup recommends a three million gallon limit in all areas susceptible to sinkhole

formation, regardless ofproximity of karst features

(with the exception ofthe 300 foot setback

requirement from sinkholes).

The workgroup emphasized that further work is needed

to:

•

Determine the geostatistical probabilities

of soil collapse in different types of geologic

settings;

•

Study pathogen transport through soils below liquidmanure storage systems in the karst

region;

•

Develop generic emergency response plans that can then be tailored for specific feedlot

operations;

•

Conduct research and demonstration projects on alternative manure management approaches

that do not rely on liquid storage;

•

Conduct regular monitoring and inspections of existing liquid manure storage systems; and

•

Collect, manage, analyze, interpret and map geologic and hydrogeologic information needed

for engineers designing liquid storage basins in karst areas.

Chapter

Introduction

Work~rounChar2e

and

Scone

In December

1999, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) proposed revisions to rules

(Minn.

ch. 7020) governing animal feedlots and the

S!UU(E, 1RfiISP~MflflUII~ilII

~II1IlliTI~

of manure.

The

rule

revision updated the 20-year old rules and modified the approach to permitting feedlots.

The rule

revision also added technical standards for such activities as land application of manure, manure

transportation, open lot discharges, manure storage closure, stockpiling, and construction of

liquid storage systems.

Several new requirements specificallyaddressed construction of liquid

manure storage systems in areas susceptible to sinkhole formation.

Prior to going into effect

on October 23, 2000, the revised rule underwent an extensive public

review process involving oversight by an Administrative Law Judge.

The MPCA made several

changes

to the rules in response to comments

from the public and the Judge.

In addition, the

Minnesota State Legislature reviewed the rules and passed legislation requiring further changes

to the proposed feedlot rules (2000 Session Laws, Chapter

435).

No changes were made to the

rules pertaining to manure storage in areas susceptible to sinkhole formation.

However,

the

legislature requested that a workgroup be convened to review and propose standards related to

this topic.

The legislation in section

of2000

Session Laws, Chapter 435, states:

“The commissioner of the Pollution Control Agency shall convene a workgroup consisting of

representatives from Natural-Resources Conservation Services and private sector licensed

professional engineers, including individuals with expertise in hydraulics, structural systems,

and geology, to review and propose design standards for liquid manure storage facilities in

areas susceptible to soil collapse and sinkhole formation.

This review shall include an

evaluation of whether such standards should be volume

based or animal unit based.

The

commissioner shall submit the fmdings and recommendations

ofthe workgroup

to -the Senate

and House Agriculture and Rural Development Committees by October 31, 2000.”

In response, the MPCA convened a technical workgroup to address the specific issues required in

the legislation.

The workgroup focused

on standards forwater quality protection thatare directly

related to the design and construction of liquid manure storage systems

in areas susceptible to

soil collapse or sinkhole formation.

Several issues were considered to be beyond the scope of the

workgroup, including in-depth analysis about economics and affordability, extensive

investigation of current water quality throughout southeastern Minnesota, and the socio-political

ramifications of implementing these recommendations

as state law.

Risks associated with

manure application to fields, liquid manure spills and air emissions were also considered to be

beyond the scope and charge of the workgroup (yet these issues are linked to manure storage

techniques).

This document discusses workgroup recommendations made for new liquidmanure storage areas

andmaj or modifications made to existing structures. The workgroup did not address standards

for existing liquid manure storage systems currently operating in the karst region.

The MPCA requested and was

granted an extension of the report deadline from October 31,

2000, to January 4, 2001.

1.2

Workgroup Members

The MPCA convened a workgroup consisting of individuals who collectively, met the

requirements of the legislation.

The group

includes engineers with expertise in the areas of

structural engineering, hydraulics, and geology.

In addition, engineers were

selected who have

experience in the following areas: a) designing and constructing liquid manure storage systems in

the karst region, b) studying seepagethrough manurestorage system liners, c) evaluating

geotechnical information,

and d) using alternative liners and liner reinforcement for liquid

containnient systems.

The

ten engineers in the workgroup are listed below.

Their education, experience,

expertise,

addresses and phone/e-mail

is includedin Attachment A.

Dr. Randal Barnes, P.R.

University of Mintiesota, Department of Civil Engineering

Dr. Chuck Clanton, P.R., P.S.S. (alternate Dr. Kevin Janni, P.R.)

University of Minnesota,

Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engiiieering

Mr. Pete Fryer, P.E.

Joint Powers Board, working in association with NRCS

and SWCDs

Mr. Stephan Gale, P.E.

Gale-Tech Engineering

Mr. Art Kaimnes, P.R.

Polaris Group

Mr. Robert Mensch, P,.E.

Mensch Engineering

Mr. Larry Roehi, P.E.

WHKS & Co.

Mr. Rob-Romocki, P.R.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Mr. Scott Swanberg, P.R.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Mr. Colby Verdegan, P.R.

Chosen Valley Testing

The MPCA understood the intent of the legislation was for the recommendations to be made

the people

from organizations specified in the legislation. All workgroup recommendations

included in this report were made by the ten workgroup engineers.

The recommendations

in this

report were not made by— the state

agency regulatory staff participating in this process.

This is

very different from a rule-making process where state agencies, local government, private

organizations and the public at large provide input into the environmental regulation

development process.

The workgroup engineers requested that hydrogeologists experienced in the karst region be

present at all meetings.

A minimum of two hydrogeologists experienced in the karst region were

present at each meeting to advise on issues pertaining to karst geology, soils-and hydrogeology.

The hydrogeologists included:

Mr. Jeff Green, P.G.

Minnesota Departthentof Natural Resources

Mr. Bruce Olsen, P.G.

Minnesota Department of Health

Mr. Dave Wall, P.S.S., P.G.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

In addition, five

other geologists and hydrogeologists withkarst expertise were invited to attend

one of two meetings held on September

7 and October 2, 2000.

These individuals included:

Dr. Calvin Alexander

University of Minnesota, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics

Mr. Robert Libra

Iowa Geological Survey

Dr. Tony Runkel

Minnesota Geological Survey

Mr.

Robert Tipping

Minnesota Geological Survey

Dr. Mike Trojan

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Mr. Roger Steinberg, Minnesota Extension

Service, assisted with meeting facilitation.

Mr. Dave Wall, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, coordinated workgroup activities and

developed the report

as directed by the workgroup.

1.3

Workgroup process and

~rinciules

The workgroup did not build from existing MPCA policy, but,rather took a fresh look at needed

standards for the karst region.

Existing MPCA policy was

only briefly considered during the

workgroup process.

The workgroup held all-day meetings on eight days between August 10 and November 27, 2000.

Notes

from each meeting were incorporated into written summaries that were reviewed arid

refined by workgroup members following each meeting.

Written resource materials were handed

out to workgroup members as supplemental information forreview and consideration during

development of the recommended standards (see Bibliography in Attachment B).

The following background topics were studied by the workgroup-during the first four meetings:

•

Mechanisms potentially icading to chronic andcatastrophic failure when operating liquid

manure storage systems in the karst region;

•

Environmental consequences of manure storage failures in karst areas;

•

Environmental consequences of unachievable standards;

•

Standards for liquidmanure storage in karst areas outside of Minnesota;

•

Historical record of failed and successful waste storage systems in karst regions;

•

Minnesota’s karst-related standards for other types of contaminant containment;

•

Ground water impacts from liquid manure storage systems;

•

Site characterization techniques; and

•

Perspectives from MPCA, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of

Natural Resources;

Prior to the

development of recommended standards, the workgroup spent considerable time

discussing the criteria and principles to use as a basis for developing the standards.

The

workgroup agreed that the standards should protect the environment from both chronic problems

resulting from seepage out ofthe

liquid manure storage system, and from catastrophic problems

resulting from a soil collapse

below the storage system.

The workgroup decided that the design

Karst conditions represent a sensitive environment forcontamination of the upper aquifers and

surface waters.

Some of the heightened environmental concerns

characteristic—of--karst’ areas

include:

Shallow soils above bedrock

—

reducing the chance for treatmentand attenuation of

contaminants introduced at the land surface;

Highlyfractured bedrock

potentially leading to rapid contaminant transport to other

underground locations or streams, and making

it very difficult to collect, remove arid treat

contaminants after moving into

bedrock;

Soil collapse/sinkhole development

that can lead to failure of liquid impoundment

structures;

Existing Sinkholes and other openings into

the ground—that

can funnel contaminants in

surface runoff directly into

the ground water;

Interconnected system of

suiface and groundwater

—

so that contaminants entering

ground

water can be rapidly transported to surface waters, and visa-versa;

Steeply sloping landscapes

—

accelerating surface runoff and erosion;

Large number ofwells in the uppermost bedrock

aquifer

so that many private domestic

water sources and some public water sources are vulnerable to contamination;

Highly variable and unpredictable geology

—

leading to a lower

level of certainty regarding

contaminant transport.

Several concerns have been raised in recent years regarding the construction and operation of

liquid manure storage systems in Minnesota’s karst region.

Fourpotential water quality risks

associated with liquid manure storage systems in the karat region

are described below.

The

first

and second risks could lead to long-term chronic problems, whereas- the third risk is a

catastrophic failure.

Seepage of contaminants through the storage facility and underlyingsoil to fractured bedrock

and subsequently to ground water;

Soil subsidence below the structure which breaches the integrity of the liner, causing slow

continuous leaking ofmanure from the storage system to ground water; and

A sinkhole forming below a pianure storage system causing either a rapid flow of manure

directly into

ground water, or a collapse in a basin sidewall resulting in arelease of manure

onto the ground surface where it could then flow to streams.

Surface runoff of liquid manure from the storage area to sinkholes, blind valleys, Losing

streams or areas with very thin

soils above bedrock (e.g. resulting from a spill,

overflow, or

sidewall failure).

Manure entering

ground water will threaten drinking water supplies as

it travels toward streams.

Most of the people in southeastern Minnesota rely on ground water for drinking water supplies.

Manure entering

ground water will ultimately discharge

into streams within a period oftime

ranging from hours to decades depending on the site-specific hydrogeology.

The karst region of

Minnesota maintains a large number of high quality trout streams.

A rapid discharge of a large

quantity of manure into a stream will destroy the aquatic life for a stretch of the

stream until the

stream

is rejuvenated.

Ultimately the discharge will

also

increase

contaminant loading into

the

receiving waters of the Mississippi River system.

Manure that travels in the

ground water for a

longer period before

discharging into streams will be more diluted and may not

destroy aquatic

life, but can still contribute to stream pollution upon discharge into -the- stream.

Basin overflows and discharges from manure storage structures have been problems at some

facilities in Minnesota.

Another potential water quality-risk from liquidmanure storage systems

is a failure of earthen basin sidewalls to hold liquid manure.

This type ofrisk appears to be

minimal with systems permitted

in Minnesota, given that sidewall failures are not known to have

occurred in Minnesota at any ofthe over 2500 earthen basin facilitiespermitted by

the MPCA,

2.2

Historical record of failed and successful waste stora2e sYstems

in karst regions-

Hundreds of manure storage systems have beenconstructed in the karat region in Minnesota and

have been in operation for-several years

to several decades.

The Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS)

and Soil and Water ConservationDistricts

(SWCDs), which provided assistance

with the design and construction of many of these systems, is not aware of anycatastrophic

failures of liquid manure storage systems into

sinkholes in Minnesota.

However, the NRCS and

SWCDs are aware of several cropland runoff retentionponds for erosion control that have failed

into sinkholes.

Runoff retention ponds are typically constructedwithout any sort of a liner and

are not designed to minimize seepage.

The MPCA is aware ofone instance

in Fillmore County,

Minnesota, where manure seepage

through a soil liner into fractured bedrock occurred at such arapid rate that the storage system

did not ever need to be pumpedand the farmer’s well was severely contaminated.

During the

original construction of the earthen basin, the soil was reportedly excavated to depths exceeding

those in the approved- design plan.

A new well and installation ofa synthetic liner corrected the

problem for that producer.

There have been few farms -with ongoing monitoring or

documentation ofmanure levels throughout southeastem Minnesota to

gain an understanding of

how frequently excessive seepageproblems occur in areas with shallow soils above bedrock.

The

workgroup

contacted-people in ten other states with karst geology to find-out ifthere have

been any sinkholes forming below liquid manure storage systems

in these-other

states.

Sinkholes

have developed below four earthen hog manure storage systems in Kentucky, as reported in

Crawford,

1998.

In Florida, a sinkhole developed in a new storage system after the basin was.

filled with water to check forproblems.

No other known sinkhole-related manure storage

failures were reported by the other states formanure storage.

Sinkholes have formedbelow municipal wastewater treatment ponds in Minnesota.

Between

1974 and

1992, sinkholes openedbelow three of the twenty-two municipal wastewater treatment

ponds

in Minnesota’s karst region.

Sinkholes developed in Altura’s ponds in 1974 during

construction and in

1976 when it firstfilled to

capacity (Alexander and Book,

1984).

A sinkhole

developed in a Lewiston pond in

1991

after eighteen years ofuse (Jannik et al.,

1992).

Several

sinkholes

developed in a Beilchester pond in 1992

after twenty-two years ofuse (Alexander et

al.,

1993).

The amounts of partiallytreatedwastewater draining into sinkholes at the three

respective sites was

3.7, 2.3, and 7.7 million gallons.

The ponds were

constructed of earthen

materials with a designed seepage-rate not to exceed 3,500 gallons per acre per day(note that the

current minimum design standard formanure storage with soil liners is

500

gal/ac/d and is

50 gal/ac/d forcomposite

liners).

Several sinkholes are -located within-about a mile from all

three sites, yet no sinkholes were mapped within about a quarter of a mile from the sites.

The

environmental consequences of these failures were not thoroughly studied.

Sinkholes have also

formed below municipal wastewater treatment ponds in Missouri (Aley-et al.,

1972) and

Pennsylvania (Bachir et al.,

1999);

These failures clearly demonstrate the potential for sinkholes to develop in southeastern

Minnesota when large quantities of liquids are stored in sinkhole prone areas with minimal

barriers between the liquid and underlying materials.

Similar problems can develop when storing

liquidmanure above permeable liner materials.

It should be noted that allowable design seepage

rates for cohesive-soil lined manure storage systems in Minn. R.

cli. 7020

is -more protective than

the standards used forthe failed municipal wastewater pond construction.

It is also importantto

consider that the contaminant concentrations in manure are often over 100 times greater than

municipal wastewater pond liquids.

Thus, the environmental consequences -ofa catastrophic

manure release will be much worse than a-similar

release from a municipal pond failure.

2.3

Benefits of livestockagriculture in the karst reaion

Livestock agriculture and liquidmanure storage can benefit water quality in the karst region,

helping to offset some ofthe risks to water quality.

For example, manure application to land in

row crop production can enhance

soil properties and reduce soil erosion.

Hayland and

pastureland associated with dairy and beefcattle operations result in little losses ofsediment,

pesticides, phosphorus,

and oxygen demanding substances.

If dairy and beefoperations leave

southeastern Minnesota, then much of the pasture andhay groun4 would be converted to row

crop agriculture.

Erosion rates would be expected to dramatically increase

as land is converted to

row crop agriculture.

The trends to construct new and expanded feedlot facilities and the associatedliquid manure

storage system may potentially result in enhanced protection of surface water quality.

Liquid

manure storage structures increase management

flexibility, making

it easier to apply at proper

rates and to avoid winter-time manure application.

Many of the older feedlot facilities in

southeastern Minnesota are located next to streams and do not have containment ofmanure or

manure-contaminated runoff.

Most facilities with new liquid manure storage structures have

total containment of manure so that there is no manurein rainfall and snowmelt runoff waters

leaving the feedlot area.

2.4

Minnesota policy on

liQuid manure storage in karstareas

Minnesota Rules pertaining to construction of liquid manure storage systems are found in Mimi.

Rules Chapter 7020.2005 and 7020.2 100 (attachment C).

These rules went into effect

October 23, 2000.

The minimum requirements specific to the karat region

are found in the

following sections of Chapter7020.

.7020.2005 subpartl

—

setback from sinkholes

7020.2100 subpart 2, Item A

—

storage capacity limit in high risk-areas

7020.2100 subpart 2, Item B

—

Separation to bedrock and liner designrequirements

7020.2100 subpart 2,

Item

—

Exceptions forfeedlots with less

than 300 animal units

7020.2100 subpart 4,

Item A(3) and (4)

—

soil investigation depth requirements

7020.2100 subpart 4, Item A(7)

—

karst feature identification requirements

The MPCA has also developed interim guidelines that incorporate the minimum standards in the

revised feedlot rules and additional recommended

site

specific evaluations -and measures-to

safeguardwater quality (attachment D).

A comparison of the current MPCA policy with

workgroup recommendations is included in Chapter4 of this report.

- -

The Minnesota Environmental

Quality Board recently modified their rules to- include a provision

for the karst region.

Minn. Rules Chapter4410.4300 subpart 29, requires that an Environmental

AssessmentWorksheet (EAW) be completed whenthere is an expansion ofmore than 500

animal units or a new feedlot is constructed with more than 500 animal units, and a karst feature

exists within

1000 feet of the proposed site.

Karat features specified in the rule include

sinkholes, caves, resurgent springs, disappearing springs, karst windows, blind valleys, or

dry

valleys.

2.5

Other states’

standards for liquid manure stora2e-i-n karst areas

The workgroup reviewed the liquid manure storage system policies of ten other states with karat

geology.

The requirements for other states can be summarized as follows:

•

The requirements vary greatly among the various states;

•

Very few multi-million gallon manure storage systems are being constructed in areas that

have a high degree of karstification.

(Forexample, Florida’s climate and cropping

systems

are such that they can typically apply manure year-round and therefore they do not need large

manure storage systems.

In northern U.S. karst states, most of the farms in the karst regions

are reportedly small.)

Most states rely largely On the design engineers to determine the needed measures for

protection, andmany of the engineers

are recommending concrete, above ground storage or

impermeable liners.

In Florida, Pennsylvania and Indiana, concrete liners are used at most of

the manure storage systems constructe4 in karst areas.

Above-ground manure storage is

typical in Ohio’s karst region.

•

Many states allow cohesive soil liners to be constructed in karat regions if the liner has a

permeability less than either

1X1O-6 cm/sec or 1X1O-7 cm/sec.

Missouri

does not al-low

cohesive-soil liners alone in areas where

a geologic assessmentidentifies severe karst risks

and in some areas of moderate risk.

Iowa’s laws state

that for operations exceeding 200,000

pounds of swine or poultry or 400,000 pounds of bovine (approximately

1333

finishing hogs

or 400 cows), earthen basins (using only a cohesive soil liner) shall not be located on a site

that exhibits karat features such as sinkholes or solution channeling.

•

Kentucky, Missouri,

Wisconsin, and Iowahave-setbacks from sinkholes of

150, 300, 400 and

500 feet, respectively.

•

Missouri, Florida, and Wisconsin

require a site assessment to determine the relative riskof

the site before

determining the needed type of liner system.

•

Depthto bedrock requirements vary.

Some states did not report to have minimum depth to

bedrock standards.

Other states set minimum separation to bedrock from 2 to 4 feet, with

additional separation needed ifusing a cohesive soil liner alone -(i.e.

10 or 20

feet).

For

example, Iowa’s separation to bedrock laws (which apply only to larger feedlots) require four

feet

of soil above bedrock foruse of a composite liner, andten feet where only a soil liner is

used. Iowa does not specify a bedrock separation for concrete.

Chapter

Work~rouo

Recommend aticrns

3.1

Defining areas susceptible to

soil collanse or sinkhole

forin~itimi

The workgroup was asked by the Minnesota State Legislature to propose

standards for “areas

susceptible to soil collapse or sinkhole formation.”

Until further geologic refinements

can be

completed, the areas determined by the workgroup as potentially susceptible to soil collapse and

sinkhole formation include all land where the depth to carbonate bedrock is less tha.n

feet and

the uppermost bedrock is fractured carbonate materials or other geologic strata where soil

collapse or sinkhole formation occurs (e.g. NewRichmond Sandstone or base of the St. Peter

Sandstone).

In addition, land with more than 50

feet to bedrock may also be considered

susceptible to sinkhole formation if karat features existwithin

1000 feet of the proposed site, and

geologic conditions near the karst features are similar to geologic conditions at the proposed site.

Karat features include sinkholes,

blind valleys, mapped caves registered in accordance- with

recommendation B, resurgentsprings, karat windows, blind valleys and dryvalleys.

The

workgroup recognized that there is a wide range of soil collapse risks within

all lands considered

by the workgroup to be “susceptible to soil collapse or sinkhole formation.”

In areas not susceptible to soil collapse

or sinkhole formation, the workgroup recommends that

the same rules should apply for liquid manure storage design, construction

and operation as

throughout the rest of the state.

These low risk areas include land where there is

over 50

feet of

soil,unconsolidated sandstone, and shale above carbonate bedrock and no

karat features exist

within

1000

feet.

The workgroup made the followingrecommendations in regards to defining areas susceptible to

soil collapse

or sinkhole formation:,

Recommendation A

The workgroup recommends

that the Minnesota Geological Survey

complete investigations

to determine areas where there is less than 50

feet of soil above bedrock,

and to -assess the geologic conditions in these areas that indicate susceptibility to soil collapse and

sinkhole formation (please also see related recommendations for further study in Chapter 6).

Recommendation B

The workgroup recommends that where published maps showing areas

with less than 50 feet to consolidated bedrock are not available, that such maps

be developed by

the Minnesota Geological Survey.

3.2

Recommended standards for

areas potentially susceptible

to soil collapse or sinkhole

formation

The workgroup made several recommendations for additional

protective measures in areas

considered to

be potentially susceptible to soil collapse or sinkhole

formation.

The workgroup

suggests that the recommended standards replace existing Minnesota rules pertaining to design

standards in areas susceptible to soil collapse

or sinkhole formation.

The recommendations

are

intended to be in addition to minimum statewide standards-set in Mimi. Rules Chapter 7020.

comparison of workgroup recommendations with existing MPCA policy for karst regions

included in’ Chapter 4.-

A discussion of workgroup considerations andjustification related to

these recommendations

is included in Chapter 5.

The workgroup recommendations

for areas susceptible- to soil--collapse or sinkhole formation

include several standards that should be added to existing statewide minimum requirements.

-These added standards pertain to

1) location restrictions, 2) design specifications, and 3)

identifying and responding to failures, as follows:

3.2.1

Location restrictions

The workgroup agreed on the following three recommendationsconcerning-sites where

construction of liquid manure storage systems should be prohibited.

The workgroup discussion

pertaining to these recommendations is found in section 5.1.

Recommendation

The workgroup recommends that liquid manure storage systems not be

constructed directly over sinkholes or within

300 feet from the outside edge of sinkholes.

For the

purposes of this recommendation, sinkholes referto surface depressions caused by-collapse of

soil or overlying formation above fractured-

or cavernous bedrock, or such depressions that have

-been filled.

Recommendation D

The workgroup recommends requiring

construction inspection -of the

soil subgrade by a licensed

geologist, soil scientist or engineer with education and experience in

karst geology.

An inspection form should be àompleted by an inspector and submitted to the

design engineer so that it can

be part ofthe construction, report.

Construction should not be

allowed in areas where subsoils have moved into fracturedbedrock so as tocause-voi-ds-in the

soil or a downward movement of topsoil.

If the inspector identifies possible

indications of

potential soil subsidence or sinkhole development, including soil voids, piping, channels, or

topsoils found at deeper depths, then the inspector must notify the MPCA and design engineer so

than an evaluation can be made ofwhether the site must be moved to an alternative location.

Recommendation E

The workgroup recommends that the state establish an official registration

process for caves and determine the location of land areas which could affect

the registered

caves.

The workgroup recommends that liquid manure storage systems be prohibited from

being constructed over mapped and registered caves.

Recommendation F

The workgroup recommends that the state complete research of statistical

probabilities of soil collapse in different types of geologic settings.

The topic of location

restrictions should be revisited after obtaining a better understanding of the statistical relationship

between geologic conditions and soil collapse.

3.2.2 Design Specifications

The following protective measures are recommended for areas susceptible to

soil collapse

sinithole formation.

These measures are meant to be used in addition to

the existing protective

measures required by the MPCA throughout the entire state.

Recommendation G

—

The workgroup recommends that the liquid manure storage system

design be one of the following:

(i)

A dual-lined or composite-lined manure storage system consisting of one of the

following combinations of materials:

a)- compacted cohesive soil liner meeting

MPCA

standards over a geomembrane or geosynthetic liner, or

b) two

geomembrane liners separated by enough material

so that a puncture ofone layer is

unlikely to penetrate the other liner.

These designs should include five feet or more

of soil between the manure and bedrock, including any soil used for part of the liner

system.

(ii)

Concrete-lined manure storage area,

and five feet or more ofsoil between the

manure and bedrock

(iii)

Above ground tanks with concrete floors, and five

feet or more of soil between the

top ofthe concrete and bedrock.

(iv)

Concrete lined with a secondary geomembrane liner for leachate

collection.

Leachate, tank leakage andrain water percolating down through backfill, shall be

collected in atile above the plastic liner

and conveyed by non-perforated pipe or tile

to a grassed daylight outlet at least

50 feet from the manure storage area.

A separate

perimeter drainage tile maybe required to control the elevation of the water table or

saturated soils. No minimum separation distance from the-bedrock is established,

except that the plastic liner shall be placed on a cushion of soil or sand with a

thickness determined by the design engineer..

(v)

Above-ground tanks with concrete floors and a secondary geomembrane

liner for

leachate collection.

Any seepage liquids and rain water percolating through

backfill, shall be collected in a tile above the plastic liner and conveyed by non-

perforated pipe or tile to a grassed area at least 50 feet from the manure storage area.

No minimum separation distance from the bedrock is established,

except that the

plastic liner shall be placed on a cushion of soil or sand with a thickness determined

by the design engineer.

Recommendation H —Design plans shall indicate the method for regular measurement of liquid

manure levels in association with Recommendation K(1).

Recommendation

—

The

workgroup recommended that at sites susceptible to soil collapse, a

new or modified liquid manure storage area should be limited to’ a maximum of three million

gallons.

A storage area is considered a single cell that is spaced far enough from adjacent cells

so that a sinkhole forming below one cell will not

affect the integrity of the adjacent cell(s).

cells

are connected by pipes

and designed such that ifone

cell drains the other one will also

drain, then the total capacity of the individual cells

should be no greater than 3

million gallons.

Recommendation

The workgroup recommends that design plans show how barn roof runoff,

rain water percolating through uncompacted backfill, tile line waters, and surface runoff near the

liquid manure storage area will be intercepted, collected and conveyed away from the liquid

manure storage area.

All pipes conveying water must not outlet within 50 feet ofthe manure

storage area andmust discharge onto sloping land such that no ponding of water occurs within

300 feet of the liquid manure storage area.

3.2.3 Identifying and responding to failures

To help ensure that the manure storage areas are operating as intended by the design engineer,

and to minimize the risk of environmental damage from- any failed systems, the workgroup

strongly recommended the following requirements.

Recommendation K

The workgroup recommends that at sites susceptible to soil collapse,

inspections

and monitoring be conducted as

follows:

(I)

An annual visual inspection ofthe storage system should be conducted after pump-down,

except that inspections

should not

be required in confinedspaces

such as

the interior of

earthen basins that have amembrane cover for odor control, concrete pits under slat floor

barns and other covered storage areas; and

(2)

Manure levels should be checked and documented at least weekly within drinking water

supply management areas where the aquifer is vulnerable, and at least monthly for other

areas (preferably weekly at all

sites, where possible).

Recommendation L

The workgroup recommends

that an emergency response plan. be required

at all feedlots

in areas susceptible to

soil collapse.

The plan should include notification

procedures andaction steps for any spill or loss of liquid manure from the structure.

Chapter

Comparison

of work2roun recommendations

with-

4.1

Comparison

overview

current Miiinp~nthpnlh’y

Minnesota- rules pertaining to construction of liquid manure storage systems are found in Mimi.

ch. 7020.2005 (attachmentC).

The

MPCA has also developed interim guidelines that

incorporate the minimum standards in the revised feedlot rules and additional recommended site

specific evaluations and measures‘to

safeguard water quality (attachment D).

The workgroup

understood that the intent of the legislation was forthe workgroup to take a fresh look at needed

standards for the karst region, and thus not focus on existing MPCA policy.

Therefore, existing

MPCA policy was only briefly considered during the workgroup process.

Following the

finalization ofthe workgroup proposals, the MPCA drafted this Chapter4 comparison of current

MPCA policy to workgroup proposals.

The Table below shows a comparison summaryof MPCA requirements in rules,

recommendations

in MPCA guidelines, and how existing policy compares to recommendations

developed by the workgroup.

Issue

MPCA

minimum

requirements for karst

areas as stated in rules

Chapter 7020

MPCA recommended

guidelines

Workgroup

Recommendation for rules

Prohibited Sites for

liquid manure storage

300

feet from sinkholes

(7020.2005 subp. 1)

300

feet from sinkholes

—

300

feet

fromsinkholes

(existing

and

filled)

and

over

registered caves

Areas where rules are

the same as

the rest of

the state.

Areas not susceptible to

soil collapse or sinkhole

formation (no further

definition ofthese areas is

included in the rules)

Same

as rules.

Guidelines

indicate

the

types of

conditions where

there is a low

risk ofsoil

collapse,

Areas

where

there

at least

feetofunconsolidated

materials above carbonate-

bedrock and also no karat

features within

1000

feet.

Maximum storage

capacity-in areas

susceptible

to sinkhole

formation

250,000 gallon limit per

cellwhere

four or

sinkholes exist within-

1,000 feet.

No other

capacity limits.

Some

exceptions for feedlots with

less than

300

animal units

correcting pollution

problems.

Same as rules.

In addition,

one million gallon

limit per

farm is recommended for

areas

with a high

risk of soil

collapse, as defined in

the

guidelines.

Three million

gallons per

storage cell.

Ncrmaximum

limit

per

farm.

Use of cohesive

soil

liners (with no

secondary

liner) in

areas

susceptible

to soil

collapse

Permitted only

areas

with

a separation distance

between manure

and

bedrock of 20, 30

and 40

feet for operations with

300,

300-1000, and

1000

animal

units,

respectively.

Some.

exceptions

if 300

AU.

Same as rules.

addition,

onlyrecommended

for use

where the

risk of soil

collapse

is considered low in

adcordance with

the

guidelines.

Do not allow earthen liners

alone in areas susceptible to

soil collapse

until

further

geologic study

is completed

Issue

MPCA minimum

requirements for karat

areas as stated in

rules

Chapter 7020

MPCA recommended

guidelines

Workgroup

Recommendation for

rules

Use of concrete liners

and composite liners

foot cohesive soil liner

overlain

by a

geomembrane

liner).in

areas susceptible to

soil

collapse

Permitted

in areas

with at

least

feet of

separation to bedrock,

valying

with the

size ofthe

farm (in animal units).

Some exceptions for

feedlots with less

than 300

animal units correcting

pollution problems.

Same as

rules.

In addition,

these

liners

are not

recommended for storage of

more than about 2

million

gallons where the risk ofsoil

collapse is considered high in

accordance

with the

guidelines.

Permit in areas with

at least a

five

foot separation

-bedrock.

Use of concrete liners

over secondary liners in

areas susceptible to soil

collapse

Permitted where separation

to bedrock is

at least

and

10 feet for operations

with

less than

and

more than

1,000 animal units,

respectively.

Some

exceptions for feedlots with

less than 300 animal

units

correcting pollution

problems.

Same

as rules

Permitted as long as

secondary

liner

geomembrane material

and a

ground

surface-outlet is

installed for any drainage

waters.

No minimum

separation to bedrock.

Site Investigation

Soil investigations to

depth that verifies

minimum separation to

bedrock requirements and

karst feature identification

within a half mile of the

proposed

site.

Same as rules.

Site

investigation methods and

analysis are included

in the

guidelines,

Soil investigations to

a depth

that

verifiesseparation to

bedrock requirements will be

met.

Identif~’

all existing

and

filled sinkholes to ensure that

all setbacks

and

other laws

are being met.

Monitoring

‘

Design

plans

must

include

a plan for operation,

periodic inspection and

maintenance of the storage

area.

Specific plans to be

decided

by the design

engineer.

Regular

inspections

for liner

damage, seepage problems, or

soil collapse.

Weekly to

monthly

monitoring of manure levels.

Annual

inspections following

manure removal.

Construction

Requirements

Numerousrequirements for

all areas ofthe state.

specific

requirements for

karat areas,

In addition to

statewide

requirements, inspect subsoil

during

construction

for

possible

karst

features

In addition to statewide

requirements, inspect subsoil

during construction for

possible karat features

Water infiltration near

the storage area

No requirements in rules.

Grading

and

routing water so

that freshwater from roof

runoff

and other collected

precipitation

does not infiltrate

near

the

storage area,

Grading and routing water so

that freshwater from

roof

runoff and

other

precipitation

does not infiltrate near the

storage area.

Emergency

Response

Plan

Notspecific to

karat-

region.

All

feedlots with

over

1,000

animal units

must develop an

emergency response plan.

Not included

in current

guidelines,

Plans-needed

for all

new or

modified liquid storage

areas

susceptible to soil

collapse.

Many of the workgroup recommendations

are generally consistent with MPCA policy.

For

example, both MPCA rules and workgroup recommendations:

•

establish 300 foot setbacks from sinkholes;

•

include major restrictions on use of cohesive soil liner used alone without other liners;

•

allow for use of concrete lined, composite

lined and above ground storage in karst areas;

•

establish a similar degree of separation

to bedrock conditions for use of concrete, composite

and above ground liners

forsmall to moderate-sized feedlots; and

•

include site investigation requirements for soil investigations.

Yet, several ofthe workgroup proposals are found in

MPCA

recommended guidelines, but not in

MPCA rules (mandatory).

The workgroup proposals generally fall into three categories:

Workgroup proposedadditions to MPCA rules

recommendations that are not currently

included in Mimi. Rules Chapter 7020, but that are generally consistent with MPCA

guidelines and past permit requirements;

Recommended alternative standards to MPCA rules

recommendations to replace existing

provisions of

MPCA

rules with new standards; and

Proposalsforfurther study

recommendations for additional research, study or work that

will provide clearerjustification for modifying/refining design standards, and that will better

enable engineers to locate and-design liquid manure storage systems in karst regions.

Each of these three categories are discussed below~

4.2

Workgroup proposed

additions to MPCA

rules

Several workgroup recommendations are not currently included in Mimi. Rules Chapter 7020.

The workgroup recommended

that the following be added to MCPA requirements

for- liquid

manure storage systems in areas susceptible to soil collapse

or sinkhole formation:

Recommendation D

—

Construction inspections of subsoils for karst feathre~

(currdntly in

guidelines, not in rules)

Recommendation J

—

Design and construct to convey surface runoff away from -manure storage

areas (currently in guidelines, not in rules)

Recommendations. H and K

—

Manure level monitoring and inspections and design plans

showing method of manure level monitoring (currently in rules, but not as specific

as workgroup

recommendations)

Recommendation -L

Emergency response plans for all new liquid manure storage constructed

in areas susceptible to soil collapse

or sinkhole formation (currently emergency response plans

are required statewide for 1000

or more animal units).

4.3 Recommended alternative standards to MPCA rules

Two of the workgroup recommendations

are different from existing MPCA policy:

1) storage

cell capacity limits, and 2) separation to bedrock requirements.

The workgroup recommended

that-their proposed standards replace related existing-MPCA rule provisions.

4.3.1 Storage cell capacity limits

Current

MPCA rules

MPCA rules

set a-250,000-gallon limit per storage cell in areas with four

or more sinkholes within

1000 feet (7020.2100, subpart 2, Item A).

No other storage capacity

limits

are set in MPCA rules.

The MPCA allows exceptions to the 250,000-gallon limit, if the

farm has less than 300 animal units andthe

storage system is needed to correct a pollution hazard

(see

7020.2 100 Subpart 2, Item C).

Roughly two to ten percent of land in the counties with karst

geology have sinkhole densities that would trigger the 250,000-gallon limit.

Few liquid manure

storage

systems have been proposed in high sinkhole density areas (e.g., more than4 sinkholes

within

1000

feet) in recent years.

MPCA guidelines recommend storage capacity limits that vary

with the liner type and an assessment of the karst geology conditions.

It should also be noted that a mandatory environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) is required

before an expansion of 500 or more animal units when one or more sinkholes is within

1,000 feet

of a proposed site (Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 29).

A discretionary EAW may be requested by

the MPCA for other sites below the

500 animal unit threshold ifthe agency determines that the

project may have the potential for ~ignificantenvironmental effects (Minn.

R. 4410.5400).

Workgroup recommendation

The workgroup recommends a three million gallon limit in all

areas susceptible

to sinkhole formation (recommendation I).

The workgroup proposes that the

three

million-gallon limit be the only storage capacity requirement at this time.

The three

million-gallon limit for all

areas susceptible to sinkhole formation would replace the MPCA rule

in 7020.2 100, subpart 2, item A.

Workgroup recommendationI could be considered to be more

restrictive than MPCA rules for areas outside of-high sinkhole density zones (e.g.,

million~gallon

cell capacity limit, instead of no limits in the current rules).

However,

recommendation I is less restrictive than MPCA rules for high sinkhole density areas (e.g.,

allowing a three million-gallon cell capacity limit instead of a 250,000 gallon limit).

Both

MPCA rules and workgroup recommendations

prohibit construction

within

300 feet of a

sinkhole.

A comparison of MPCA rules and workgroup proposals for different situations is

included below (Table 4.1).

Table

4.1

Single-cell manure storage capacity limits

Site Conditions

MPCA Policy

Workgroup Proposal

Four or

more sinkholes

w/in

1000

ft.

pollution

hazard

or more than 300

animal units

(AU)

250,000 gallon limit in rule

million-gallons

—

Four or more sinkholes

w/in

1000

ft.

Feedlot has-

less

than 300 AU

and

correcting a pollution

hazard

No limit in rules.

Guidelines suggest total

farmmanure storage

capacity limits based on

liner type and geologic

conditions.

3 million gallons

One

or. more

sinkholes

w/in

1000

ft.

and more

than 500 AU

EAW required.

Guidelines

suggest total

farmmanure storage

capacity limits based on

liner type and geologic

conditions

3 million gallons

Less than four sinkholes

within

1000

ft.

and No

EAW required

limitin rules

Guidelines suggest total

farmmanure storage

capacity limits based on

liner type and geologic

conditions

3 million gallons

4.3.2

separation to bedrock requirements

Current MPCA rules for separation to bedrock restrictions vary from 5 to

15 feet for concrete

pits, dual-lined basins

and- above ground tanks, depending on

the type of liner and the numberof

animal units on the farm.

Whereas,

the workgroup recommends that separation to bedrock be -a

minimum offive

feet for these same types of manure storage systems, except for two types of

designs where no minimum separation to bedrock is necessary.

MPCA rules allow cohesive soil

liners alonewhere there is a substantial soilthickness between manure and bedrock (e.g., 20 to

feet).

The workgroup recommends

cohesive soil liners to be used alone without another

liner in areas with less than

50 feet from

ground surface to carbonate bedrock.

However,

the

workgroup recommended review andpotential revising of this requirement after farther geologic

study identifies the are-as with less than

feet to bedrock that have alow potential for soil

collapse or sinkhole formation.

Amore specific comparison ofMPCA rules and workgroup recommendations related to

separation distances between manure and the underlying bedrock is shown-below (Table 4.2).

-r~

~- -

Table 4.2

Comparison of separation to bedrock restrictions. (all units-in feet)

Composite,

Concrete,

above

ground

tanks

Concrete

w/geomembrane or

above ground tank

with geomembrane

Soil liners only

(assuming basin is

feet below ground

surface)

MPCA

Rules

Work-

group

MPCA

Rules

Work-

Group

MPCA

Rules

Work-

Group

300 AU

Engineer

determines

Soil cushion

5-10

Engineer

determines

Soil cushion

more AU

10-15

Engineer

determines

Soil

cushion

4.4 Proposals

for further study

The remaining workgroup proposals pertain to areas needing further research, study or work,

including:

Recommendation A

Assessing geologic conditions that indicate susceptibilityto soil collapse

andsinkhole formation (use this information for future.revisions to rules).

Recommendation B-

Developing/completingmaps -showing areas with less than 50 feet to

bedrock (tool for engineers, producers, state/local agencies).

Recommendation E

Developing registration and mapping processfor caves

(jointMDNR and

MGS effort).

Recommendation F

Researching statistical probabilities-ofsoil collapse in different geologic

settings (use this information for various policy decisions).

Several other recommendations

for further study are also included in Chapter 6,

including-:

Studying pathogen transport below liquid manure storage areas

Developing template emergency response plans

Exploring and demonstrating alternatives to liquid manure

Conducting inspections of existing liquid manure in karst areas

Collecting, analyzing, interpreting and mapping karst feature information

Chapter

Workgroup Considerations

and Justification

5.1

Location Restrictions

The workgroup considered whether there are sites where liquid -manure storage

systems should

not

be constructed, no

matter how small the storage system is,

or how it

is designed?” Several

potential site restrictions were

discussed, including a) over a known sinkhole, b) in high risk

geographic areas such as sinkhole plains,

c) over known caves,

d) in close proximity to conduits

to ground water,

e) in vulnerable welihead protection areas formunicipal wells, and f) near

private wells.

The workgroup

agreed that the

only criteria that should be used in state rules to prohibit

construction are

a) directly over or within 300 feet of a sinkhole or b) over a registered cave.

There was discussion about the possibilityof building on top of sinkholes- by using void spanning

concrete designs or geogrids to span a distance of twice the depth to bedrock (assuming a slope

greater than 45

degrees on

the sinkhole sidewalls).

However,

the workgroup decided that

manure storage systems can usuallybe moved to be more than 300 feet from sinkholes and there

are uncertainties

about sinkhole diameter andpractical limits

(e.g. 10-20 feet) of void spanning

reinforcement.

Prior to setting the 300 foot setback,

the

workgroup consideredusing a 50-foot setback from

sinkholes

since sinkholes in Minnesota rarely expand to have a diameterof over 50 feet.

addition, the workgroup

did

not have geostatistical evidence indicating

that new sinkholes are

more apt to form 50

feet from an existing sinkhole than 300 feet from an existing sinkhole.

However, the workgroup agreed that a 50-foot setbackdoes

not provide a sufficient margin of

safety.

Several examples

were cited

regarding subsurface conduits that extended well beyond

feet from existing sinkholes.

The workgroup decided that 300 feet provided agreater margin of

safety.

A 300 foot setback from sinkholes exists in current

MPCA

rules for all new feedlots, not

just liquid manure storage construction.

A 300-foot setback is also more consistent with other

states where setbacks range between 150 and 500 feet.

The workgroup discussedwhether construction should be prohibited over known caves,

due to

the potential forbedrock collapses over the cave and the potential for long-term damage

to the

cave ecosystem.

The workgroup agreed that preservation of certain caves is important,

and they

agreed on the concept of prohibiting construction of liquid manure storage directly over large

cavernous

openings directly below the ground.

However, several concerns

were raised about

automaticallyprohibiting construction over known caves.

Some of the concerns

include:

The likelihood of bedrock collapse

is small, particularly if the cave

is deep -wi-thin the

bedrock;

Caves are networks of conduits and it

is too difficult to define the areas where caves are

located.

A manure spill into

one conduit that is not mapped as a cave can lead to a cave;

Defining what should -be considered a cave and where the caves are located is difficult and

subjective, andwould likely result in conflict and disagreement among those who want-the

feedlot and those who do

not want a new manure storage system in a given area; and

Individuals, may know ofcaves, but theydo not tell anybodybecause they do

not

want others

exploring these caves.

The workgroup reviewed the restriction In Kentucky prohibiting construction of liquid manure

storage directly over mapped cave systems associated

with national or state parks. This concept

was generally supported among the workgroup if the caves were clearly mapped and commercial

caves were also included.

The

workgroup recommended that before sites are prohibited due to

the proximity of caves,

the legislature should initiate aprocess to -register and map existingcaves.

Additionally, the workgroup suggested that the state develop recommendations regarding how

these caves should be protected (see also related discussion in Chapter 6).

The workgroup discussed the possible need to define high risk-zones within the general areas

considered to be susceptible to soil collapse

(e.g. in sinkhole plains).

For such high risk areas,

there was discussion ofpossibly using geophysics to identify voids

and

then require void

spanning designs where geophysics indicate anomalies or potential voids in the soils/geology.

The workgroup agreed that there is currently not enough understanding about the

geostatistics

and probability of new sinkhole development to be able to specify zones around karst features

where these additional measures should be required.

The workgroup considered using

geophysics to better define site risks, but concluded that the decision to use geophysics should be

left to the design engineer given that this work does

not provide assurances of a safe

site and can

be quite

costlyl

The workgroup agreed that there should be no special provisions for welihead protection areas,

watersheds with trout streams,

or land near state parks, other than adopting

the

protective

measures for all land susceptible to soil collapse.

5.2

Areas with similar water Quality risks as the rest of the state

The workgroup

consulted karst geologists who have studied SE Minnesota to determine the

geologic conditions where sinkholes

rarely form.

Such areas include land where there -is more

than

feet ofunconsolidated materials above bedrock.

Sinkholes can still form even when

there is over 5.0 feet of cover materials, but the likelihood of soil- collapse

or sinkhole formation

is very low in these areas.

The workgroup decided that areas with over 50 feet to bedrock and

no karst features within

1 ;000 feet should be excluded from restrictions for areas “susceptible to

soil collapse or sinkhole formation.”

The workgroup also suggested that there can be areas with less than 50 feet of unconsolidated

material

above bedrock, and yet still-not be susceptible to soil collapse.

For example, in areas

where there is a substantial thickness of Decorah shale, sinkholes are not likely to form.

However, the workgroup was unsure at this time about the minimum thickness of Decorah shale

to prevent sinkhole formation.

The workgroup recommends that the Minnesota Geological

Survey identify other geologic conditionswhere

sinkholes are not likely to form (in the zones

with less than 50 feet to consolidated bedrock).

:::i~flfl,f,~P~ii

l~~:r~

._._.-

The workgroup highly recommended that maps

be developed to clearly identify areas where the

depth to consolidated bedrock is less than

feet.

A preliminary map (with some missing

counties) was developed showing areas where there is -less than 50 feet of soil cover above

fractured bedrock (see Figure 1).

Larger scale maps should be developed for individual counties

or townships where such maps have not been completed.

The workgroup also agreed that at

sites where it is not certain from- the maps that there is over 50 feet of cover-(i.e.,

fringe areas),

then borings

and/or further geologic analysis should

be conducted to demonstrate the presence of

over 50 feet of unconsolidated materials.

5.3

Liner Types

- -

The workgroup recognized that excessive seepage

through liners

can cause underlying soil to be

washed into fractures in the bedrock, and thus induce sinkhole development.

One of the primary

ways

the workgroup sought to minimize

risk

of catastrophic

failure is

to use liners that- are

durable and have very low seepage rates-.

These liners also have the benefit ofreducing chronic

risks associated

with

bacteria/virus movement into -fractured bedrock.

The workgroup first listedthe main

types of liquid storage systems and ranked these systems

from highest to lowest risk, based mostly on the seepage rate, durability and ease ~iith -which

leaks are visible. The workgroup suggested the following, beginning with highest risk:

Structures

without any type ofa liner

Earthen basins (2 footcohesive soil liner)

Earthen basins (3-4 foot cohesive soil liner), or

Geosynthetic liner with NO underlyingclay -liner

In-ground concrete (cast in-place w/inspections was considered to be better than precast),

HDPE

(high density Polyethylene)

or other plastic-type geomembranes with NO

underlying clay liner

Dual lined

systems

a)-

composite liner

—

geomembrane

underlain

by-cohesive soil liner

concrete

underlain

by a geomembrane

Double-composite

lined systems

—

geomembrane underlainby cohesive

soil liner which is

then underlain by another geomembrane

Systems with very low seepage rates and where major seepage problems are visible:

-Above-ground glass-fused metal tank

Above-ground concrete tank

441ff -1-1

~-,‘-rn

1—iv -i

The workgroup also discussed the use of void

spanning

materials to reinforce geomembrane and

composite types ofliner systems.

Reliable materials have been used and tested extensively for

landfills

that span voids that are between

and 20

feet in diameter.

There are some products

that have not been found to work well and other products that are more -reliable.

Mr. Gale noted

that the most reliable material

is polyester geotextiles or geogrids made by one of three

companies

1) Tensar, 2) Mirafi, and 3) Heusaer, all of which can reportedly be installed for

$15 per square yard.

However, additional excavation costs will

also be incurred since the

geotextile/geogrid must be installed beneath the earthen bermns.

Reinforced concrete can also be

used

to span voids; howeverthe cost of reinforced void spanning concrete makes-it-essentially

not feasible for manure storage systems.

Initially,

the workgroup discussed the possibility of requiring differentliner standards

depending

the geologic

risk

of soil collapse found at the site.

For example, the workgroup could

recommend

clay liners at the moderately low risk sites; composite

and

concrete liners at

moderately high-risk sites

and

the use of void spanning-reinforcement for extremely high risk

situations.

However, the workgroup decided to recommend the same liner requirements in all

areas

considered susceptible to sinkhole formation,

due largely to the lack of clear-cut

scientificallyjustifiable criteria available at this time for assigning different levels of soil collapse

risk.

In addition, substantial

leakage from liquid storage systems has- induced-sinkhole formation

in areas

that

do not have much evidence ofprevious soil collapse.

Another point was made that

many sinkholes have been filled

and

we can not rely entirely on existing sinkholes as indicators

of future collapse at a specific site.

In areas susceptible to sinkhole

formation, the workgroup agreed that standard compacted

cohesive soil liners alone should generallynot be allowed.

While cohesive soil liners can be

more effective in limitingseepage ifthey are installed under optimum conditions, the workgroup

still had concerns about liner durability and seepage rates that-could lead to soil collapsein the

karst

region.

One alternative type of earthen liner design was suggested as a possible

option for

-the karst region.

This alternative design would include seven feet of earthen-materials, including

three feet of compacted cohesive soils (

10-7 cm/see) overlain by four feet of soil.

The four

feet of overlying soil would protect the clay liner from problems of desiccation, freeze/thaw,

roots, and erosion.

Some workgroup -members stated thata spiliway would be needed so that the

basin did not get filled above the elevationof the clay- liner.

Concerns about this spillway were

also expressed.

The workgroup was

doubtful whether this type ofdesign would be preferred by

anyone instead of a composite-lined system.

The workgroup also discussed the- possibility that a cohesive soil liner could be use~F

without-a

geomembrane ifsufficiently thick soils existed below the basin to greatly reduce the seepage

from entering

the fractured bedrock

directly

below the basin.

Some workgroup members

si~ggested-

that sites with less

than

50 feet of soil cover should not necessarily be prohibited for

use of cohesive soil liners alone.

The workgroup seemed to believe that there was

some merit to

considering use of cohesive soil liners alone in areas

with

less -than 50 feet to bedrock.

The

workgroup decided to wait for more geostatistical information to be completed in order to

identify under what soillgeologic conditions soil collapse is unlikely in zones with less than 50

- -

~44Iff

TI II4TT4UI

-4

feet to bedrock (and then to reconsider allowing construction of cohesive soil liners

alone in such

zones).

The workgroup agreed that a dual-lined or composite-lined manure storage area should be

allowed in areas

susceptible to soil collapse ifone of the following combinations of materials is

used:

a) compacted cohesive soil

liner

meeting

MPCA

standards overlain-by a geomembrane

geosynthetic liner, or b) two geomembrane liners separated by enough material so-that a puncture

of the upper layer is unlikely to penetrate the second liner.

These types of liners have very low

seepage rates,

and

if one

liner

is damaged, a secondary liner is in place to retard seepage through

the damaged areas.

The workgroup also agreed that concrete liners

and

glass-fused metal or

concrete tanks should be allowed in areas susceptible to soil collapse or sinkhole formation.

These types of liners are durable

and

have leakage rates-that are

very

low.

The workgroup

estimated that the costs ofconstructing a dual-linerwith clay and geomembranes are

approximately $1 more per square foot.

The workgroup strongly recommended that

further

investigations be conducted to

gain a better

understanding

of the likelihood of soil collapse under different geologià conditions, and that the

recommendations in

this

report be reviewed and adjusted in the future to correspond with the

more specific geologic criteria.

5.4

Separation

to bedrock

The workgroup emphasized that the

types

of liners allowed in areas susceptible to soil collapse

would result in very little seepage, but that there would still be a small amount

of-seepage.

The

primary purpose of separation to bedrock requirements

are to

allow for adsorption ofviruses

and bacteriaonto soil

particles

until they die-off, or 2) slow the time of travel of liquids so that

bacteria

and viruses will likely

die prior to the liquids entering fractured bedrock.

In addition, the

soil separation to bedrock will also allow for some attenuation ofnutrients and other

contaminants associated with manure.

Once contaminants enter fractures in the bedrock, there

will be very little contaminant treatment.

The workgroup generally believed that five

feet of soil

should likely be sufficient to attenuate bacteria from- low, seepage rates ifthere is at least a couple

feet of the underlyingmaterials are unsaturated.

However, the workgroup also recognized that

more research is needed on pathogen transport below manure storage areas

and

that the five-foot

separation should only be usçd until further research better supports different requirements.

The workgroup discussed the difference between saturated

and-unsaturated

soils below the

storage area.

Saturated soils

or seasonallysaturated soils below the basin are characteristic of

low permeability soils~ Bacteria andviruses are less likely to be adsorbed onto soil particles

under saturated conditions; however, the -rate ofwater flow will

be reduced in situations where

there is a perched water table, providing additional time for bacteria

and virus

die-off.

The recommendations

for separation distance to bedrock forthe different liner types were based

on the best professionaljudgement of the workgroup members after considering studies of

pathogen transport, seepage through liners, and the practical issues associated with limited soil

thickness conditions in the karst region.

flIIt,IIV1,ffi,,!~’Pt

The workgroup recommended that construction of certain dual-lined manure storage systems that

collect and drain seepage liquids be allowed directly on top of bedrock.

With this

type of a liner,

the hydraulic pressures on

the secondary liner will be alleviated, and the risks of seepage through

this

secondary liner will therefore be very low.

A blanket of soil is needed to

separate the liner

from bedrock to prevent

punctures and

to allow for differential settlement over uneven bedrock.

The

thickness of

this

soil

-blanket

is to be determined by the

design engineer or manufacturer of

the liner.

5.5

Feedlot size and stora2e

capacity

The workgroup

discussed possible options to factor feedlot size/capacity into making decisions

about design standards.

The workgroup addressed whether design standards should vary with a)

number of

animal units

on the farm, b) numberof animal units contributing to an individual

storage system,

c) total capacity of liquid manure storage at the farm, d) capacityof the

individual storage cell, e) none ofthe above.”

The workgroup agreed that design standards

should vary with capacity of the individual storage cell.

Risk

is related to -the consequence of

failure

and the probability of failure.

As the capacity of the storage system cell increases, the

consequences of a failure -are generally expected to be worse, reasoned the workgroup.

The workgroup considered several issues before deciding on the best alternative.

One

consideration was that by

setting

standards based on cell capacity, we may be encouraging design

and use ofunder-sized manure storage basins,-possibly leading to storage system overflow and/or

winter application ofmanure.

However, the group reasoned that winter application is not

prohibited in state

rules and

more storage cells can-be added if necessary.

The w

rkgroup also

considered that multiple cells with sloping sidewalls will create more surface -area- than-one

individual cell,

thereby, increasing the probability of failure compared to one larger cell.

surface area ofstorage also can create more odor

and

gaseous emissions into the air.

However,

the group still agreed after-considering these issues that

the

capacity ofthe individual cell was the

best variable to use in setting standards.

The group also agreed that to be considered an individual cell,

a certain separation distance

between cells should be maintained.

The needed separation distance should be inversely related

to depth to bedrock,

and

directly related to storage system seepage rates-

and

risks related to the

local geology.

The workgroup also pointed out

that if

two

cells

are connected by pipes and designed such that if

one cell drains the other one will also

drain,

then the capacity of the

two

cells should be added

and considered as one cell.

An overflow pipe

can

be used to. prevent this situation.

After the workgroup decided that standards should vary with cell capacity, the next

question was

should there be a sliding scale of storage cell capacity limits, or would it be best to set one limit

that could be used throughout all

areas susceptible to soil collapse?

They decided that a single

threshold would be best.

They reasoned that the consequences of a large manure release (e.g. 20-

million gallons) would be much greater than the consequences of a small release (e.g. 20,000

gallons).

However,

the workgroup had a difficult time selecting- one threshold number since

there was

a poor understanding of the consequences related to releasing various amounts of

manure into

the ground water or surface waters.

Because the workgroup

did not believe they

couldjustify specific thresholds based solely on

consequences of release alone, the workgroup

decided to base cell capacity limits on storage needs of small to moderate sized farms.

The NRCS compiled liquid manure storage capacity information for manure storage systems

1994 to

1998.

The average capacity -of Dairy

and Beef liquid

manure storage systems was

roughly

1.3 million gallons and th-e maximum was 2.6

million

gallons.

These systems were designed to correct problems associated with manure runoff from

feedlots.

The workgroup also reviewed the annual manure storage needs

for a 300

animal

unit

dairy operation.

The

300 animalunit farmis a commonly used threshold in federal and- state

rules.

The workgroup concluded that about 3 million gallons was needed for a dairy operation

with 300

animal units.

Swine manure storage needs

are

much less per

animal unit than dairy.

Based on the NRCS designs andthe

storage needs fora 300 animal unit -dairy,

the workgroup

suggested two numbers as possible thresholds formaximum storage capacity of asingle cell

—

million gallons and

1.5 million gallons.

Ifthey had to pick one

number, the group agreed that the

better number was

3 million gallons per storage cell. The workgroup agreed that by usingeither

number economic hardship forproducers would be minimized, except possibly-for large dairies-

where multiple cells would be needed.

Overall, the workgroup

did

not have good scientific information to believe -that a 3-million gallon

release was much worse than a 1.5-million gallon release.

Several workgroup members

expressed a desire to keep the maximum cell capacity as low as possible without significant

hardship to producers.

One concern raised about setting small cell capacity limits

is that many

smaller existing dairy and beef

farms

do not have enough space nearthe

barns

to split the storage

systems

into multiple cells (e.g.,

they are adjacent to hills, have shallow depths to bedrock,

or the

barns

are adjacent to other features that limit room forthe storage basins).

The-workgroup

agreed

that multiple cells, when added together, should be allowed to exceed three million

gallons (e.g. no capacity limits per

farm).

The workgroup also debated the merits of requiring the manure storage system to hold at least

seven months ofmanure production.

The reason for this recommendation was to

ensure

that the

producer will have enough -storage capacity to be able to -apply

manure

at a time of year when the

manure could be immediately incorporated, thereby avoiding winter application.

The workgroup

felt

this

was justified for the karst region given the number of conduits to ground water, rapid

contaminant transport, and potentially rapid ground water/surface water interaction.

Two concerns were raised in regards. to the seven-month minimum storage recommendation.

First, many small farmers often-request a smaller storage area to reduce feedlot

runoff

to streams

a way that is affordable.

When small storage systems are used, the

farmers will

still be

applying manure throughout the year, but

manure

runoff to streams can be greatly reduced.

Second, a seven-month capacity minimum was proposed for the purpose of better

manure

spreading practices,

and

consideration ofmanure application practices

was

not

part

ofthe

directive given to the workgroup by the legislature.

The workgroup decided to highly

recommend a seven-month minimum storage

design capacity,

but not to make this

requirement for all feedlots where a manure storage system

is constructed.

5.6

Diverting surface runoff

The-primary goal of requiring liners with very low seepage rates is to limit the possibility of soils

below the manure storage system from being washed into underlying fractures, thereby inducing

soil

collapse.

Infiltration ofprecipitation waters nearthe manure storage system can also

accelerate sinkhole development.

If excessive infiltration of water occurs near the manure

storage system, then a sinkhole could develop below the manure’storage system.

Therefore,

the

workgroup

considered it important to conveyprecipitation falling on the barn roofs and land near

the manure storage system to a location that is not likely to affect sinkhole development nearthe

manure storage system.

The workgroup discussed whether the recommended requirements should specifyhow far from

the manure storage system that freshwater runoff needs to be routed

or diverted

away from the

site.

At many sites, the land is sloped sufficiently to carry freshwater away from the site without

the need for below ground pipes.

The workgroup considered it important that pipes carrying

water discharge at least 50

feet from the manure storage area, and that the site-is planned so that

ponding of waters occurs within 300 feet of the manure storage area.

5.7

Construction requirements

The~workgroup

reviewed the new (Chapter 7020) rules related to statewide standards for

construction of liquid manure storage systems.

The workgroup thought that statewide

requirements for construction, inspections, testing andreporting are fairlycomprehensive, but

recommended that two requirements

should- be added for all manure storage systems constructed

statewide, as follows:

1) for all liner

construction, the installer of the liner should

certify that

the subgrade preparation is acceptable -and that all necessary testing of

the liner was

completed in accordance with the design engineer plans and specifications, and

2) the

manufacturer of liners

should provide certification of material-specifications.

The workgroup also considered what additional

construction standards-may-need-to-be added

specifically for construction in the karst region.

The workgroup concluded the only construction-

related requirement that should be recommended specifically for the karst region

is for

construction inspection of the soil subgrade by a licensed

geologist, soil scientist or engineer with

education and experience in karst soils/geology.

An inspection form should be completedby the

inspector and submitted to the design engineer so that it

can bepart of theconsrniction report.

The purpose for this inspection is

to identify karst features such

as soil piping or other conditions

indicative ofpotential soil subsidence.

If such features are identified, thenthe site would need to

be moved, or potentially void-spanning reinforcement could be added to the design.

5.S

Monitoring

The workgroup considered three types of possible monitoring:

1) visual inspections of the

manure storage area, 2) regular monitoring of-manure levels, and 3) monitoring of ground water

qualitybelow the manure storage systems.

The workgroup agreed that inspections and

monitoring of manure levels were important and should be required.

However, the workgroup

agreed that water quality in the subsurface below liquid manure storage systems should-not-be

monitored more extensively in the karst region than elsewhere in Minnesota (e.g., through-the

use of monitoringwells,

lysimeters, spring sampling andlor perimeter tile

lines).

The workgroup

concluded that the water quality monitoring would often not provide useful information, the

moneyfor monitoring would be better spent on installing highly protective liners, and monitoring

contamination in karst geology can be fairly complicated and costly.

The workgroup believed that routine inspections are important to make sure that-the liner has not

been damaged.

Inspections

are most useful after the m~inurehas been purnped

out of the storage

system.

Several suggestions were made about who should conduct an annual inspection (county

feedlot officer (CFO), MPCA. dairy inspectors, feedlot owner, private party).

One suggestion

was

to have the feedlot owner conduct the inspection andthen mail- the inspection form to the

MPCA or county feedlot officer.

The CFO

or MPCA could follow-up with an inspection

as time

andpriorities allow.

The workgroup agreed that inspection of the interior of concrete pits

coveredby barns should not be required due to the durability of concrete and the human dangers

involved in the inspection process.

The workgroup thought that manure level monitoring anddocumentation should be conducted -to

ensure that the manure storage system

is operating as expected and to detect potential releases of

manure into

the environment (and thus take measures as specified in. an emergency response

plan).

Some possible methods ofchecking levels suggested by the workgroup include a)

measure on the concrete ramp, b) installing a liquid level monitoring pipe, or c) use of pressure

transducers.

Total costs for a pressure transducer and data recorder were reported to be about

$6,000 to $8,000.-

An article was provided by a workgroup engineershowing how a manure-

level monitoringpipe could be installed.

The workgroup agreed that the method of measuring

manure levels should be left up to the design engineer and feedlot owner.

The workgroup also

agreed that the frequency of manure level monitoring should be greater in drinking water supply

management areas forpublic wells where the aquifer is vulnerable to contamination.

The

workgroup had varying opinions about the recommended--frequencyof manure level

measurement.

Some thought that weekly measurements was best, and others believed weekly

measurements were excessive andunnecessary, except in vulnerable drinking water supply

management areas.

5.9

Emergency Response Plan

The workgroup believed that each farmer with liquid manure storage systems in sinkhole prone

areas should be required to develop an emergency response plan-for the farm.

The workgroup

suggested that southeasternMinnesota counties and the state

should work together to develop

generic emergency response plans that can then be individually tailored for specific sites.

The

feedlot owner should develop andsubmit to the MPCA

or delegated county a plan for how the

owner will respond if it appears that manure levels have been decreasing

or there is other

evidence of a manure release.

The emergency response plan should include notification

procedures for infoirning the MPCA, Minnesota Department of Health, local authorities, and

others in the event of a manure release.

Chapter

Recommendations

for

further study

The workgroup recommends

to the legislature that the following additional

work be conducted:

Determine the geostatistical probabilities

of soil collapse

in different types of geologic

settings;

Study pathogen transport through soils below liquid manure storage

systems;

Develop generic emergency response plans that can then be tailored for specific feedlot

operations;

Conduct research and demonstrationprojects on alternative manure management approaches

that do not rely on liquid storage.

Conduct regular monitoring and inspections of existing liquid manure storage systems

constructed in areas

susceptible to sinkhole formation

soil collapse-- to-determine whether

any major seepage problems are occurring at these sites; and

Collect, manage, analyze, interpret and map geologic information needed by engineers

designing liquid storage basins in karst areas.

A more specific description of this

recommendation is included below:

The Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS)

was established in 1872 to serve as the state’s

repository for geological

information,

The MGS is part of the N.H.

Winchell School

of Earth

Sciences at the University of Minnesota and has no

regulatory authorities.

As such, it is in a

unique position to critically evaluate geological information and make unbiased

interpretations regarding the physical geology of an area.

It is appropriate that MGS serve as

the focal point to store

and provide geological information needed by engineers who design

liquidmanure storage basins in sensitive karst areas.

The potential roles

for the MGS

include:

Prepare maps showingdepth to bedrock

—

Depths to bedrock greater than 50 feet are generallyconsidered to greatly reduce the

likelihood that collapse of a liquid storage basin will occur as a-result of the piping of

unconsolidated deposits

into karst bedrock.

Depth to bedrock maps showing areas where there is less than 50 feet Of cover over karst

bedrock have been prepared for Dakota, Fillmore, Goodhue,

Olmsted, Rice, Scott,

Wabasha, and Washington Counties (1/100,000 scale or

1 inch equals about 1.6 miles)

MGS

has the capability to prepare maps showing where there is less

than 50 feet of cover

over karsted bedrock for Blue Earth, Carver, Dodge, Faribault, Freeborn, Houston,

Sueur, Nicollet, Pine, Steele, and Waseca, Winona counties.

MGS needs the resources to evaluate additional

data describing depth to bedrock so that

county depth to bedrock maps can be updated and the data base of subsurface data can

maintained and made accessible

to the public.

Maps

should be made available to the

public through aweb

site.

Karst database

Develop and maintain a data base of karst features that can

be used to determine the

design requirements forliquid manure storagebasins

in sensitive karst areas.

MGS

developing this data base and intends to make it available to the public through a web

site.

The

following items need to be integratedwith this effort to address the data needs

of state feedlot regulations:

•

prepare formal definitions ofkarst features that will be used by state and local

agencies including sinkhole, karstedbedrock, blind valley, resurgent spring, cave, and

karst feature;

•

coordinating the collection, evaluation, and dissemination of informationdescribing a

karst feature;

•

implement a formal procedure for

1) determining and documenting the existence of a

karst feature and 2) updating the karst features data base;

•

educate permitting staffto use karst features data to support decision making;

and

•

maintain the karst features data base on a web

site.

Other Considerations

The

agency responsible for protecting caves needs to be identified.

MGS responsibilities

do not address issues relating to 1) protection of a cave

as a natural resource or 2)

protection of plant and animal communities that populate the

cave. The mission-of the

Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources might be a better match to address these

issues.

However, there are inter-agency issues relating to designating a cave

as being

“protected” that should be considered in any future actions:

•

identify a

lead

agency responsible

for 1) designating a “protected” cave and 2)

integrating cave protection with the land andwater resource protection efforts of other

state and local agencies;

•

designate formal criteria that will be used to

designate a “protected” cave;

•

determine the protocol for mapping a cave so that the cave

can be referenced when

making regulatory decisions;

and

•

make

the area overlying a “registered and protected” cave publicly

available (possibly

using the MGS karst features data base).

Attachment

Information

about Work~rounMembers

Art Kalmes,

P.E.

Polaris Group

8200 Humboldt Avenue South Suite 302

Bloomington, MN

55431

952-881-0878

akalmes@polarisgroupinc.com

Education:

B.S. Agricultural Engineering, Iowa State University

M.S.

Civil Engineering, University ofMissouri

Columbia

Experience:

•

Designed animal waste storage lagoons in southeastern Minnesota

•

Evaluated and designed alternatives for sinkhole treatments

•

Involved in design and construction oflandfill liner leachate

collection and cover system.

•

Grew up

on a farm in southeast Minnesota

Areas of

Expertise:

•

Water resources (storm water management, flood control, hydrology, hydraulics)

•

General civil (system design, plans, specifications, grading, utilities, drainage)

Rob Romocki, P.E.

Natural Resources Conservation Service

330 Elton Hills Dr.

Roche~ter,

MN 55901

507-289-7454

robert.romocki~mn.usda.gov

Education:

B.S. Engineering, Cornell University

—

1977

Master of Engineering, Cornell University

1978

Experience:

•

Twenty-two years working as

an engineerwith the NRCS at several locations in the- state.

••

ThiefRiver Falls,

1978-82

—

Civil Engineerworking in Area 1, northwest Minnesota.

Worked with LO on

waste system, WWAVS, grade stab. str.

•~ Mora,

1982-84

—

Project Engineer for Knife

Lake Dam

Lewiston, 1984-87

—

Civil Engineer for Garvin Brook Watershed

Rochester,

1987-92

—

Project Engineer for SouthZumbro Watershed

•

Licensed P.E. in Minnesota.

Areas ofExpertise:

•

Soil and water conservation practices (design and construction)

•

Flood control structures (design and construction)

•

Animal

waste storage systems (design and construction)

Dr. Chuck Clanton, P.E., P.S.S.

Univ. of Mmmi.

Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering

1390 Eckles Avenue

St.

Paul MN 55108-6005

612-625-9218

clant00l(~umn.edu

Education:

B.S. Agricultural Engineering

—

Nebraska

B.S. Animal Science

—

Nebraska

M.S. Agricultural Engineering

—

Nebraska

Ph.D. Agricultural Engineering

—

Minnesota

Experience:

•

Twenty-one years teaching/research in manure management

Areas ofExpertise:

•

Manure characterization andnutrient management

•

Odor and gases emission and control

•

Soil and concrete sealing by manure

Dr. Randal

J. Barnes, RE.

University of Minnesota

122 Civil Engineering

500 Pillsbury Drive SE

Minneapolis, MN

55455

barne003@tc.umn.edu

Education:

B.S. Civil

Engineering, University ofWashington

M.S. Mining Engineering, Colorado School of Mines

Ph.D. Mining Engineering, Colorado School of Mines

Experience:

•

Two years

—

U.S. Navy ROICC

•

Two years

—

Instructor at Colorado School of Mines

•

Thirteen years

—

Professor

(Assistant

and Associate) at the University of Minnesota,

Department of Civil Engineering

Areas

Expertise:

•

Geotechnical

engineering

•

Ground water modeling

•

Geologic site characterization

Stephan

Gale, P.E.

Gale-Tech Engineering

15500 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 832

Minneapolis, MN

55391

612-473-7193

ga1etec~aol.com

Education:

B.S.C.E. GeotechnicallStructural Engineering, Ohio

State University

M.S.

Geotechnical Engineering, Ohio

State

University

Experience:

•

Twenty-five years consulting

experience

Areas ofExpertise:

•

Linerdesign

—

clay and geosynthetic for individual andpublic facilities

•

Reinforcement design

—

void spanning

•

Soil borings/geophysical site evaluations

Scott

Swanber~

Natural Resources Conservation Service

600 Farm Credit Bldg

375 Jackson St.

St. Paul, MN

55101

65 1-602-7877

s1s(~mn.nrcs.usda.g~y

Education:

B.S. Civil Engineering,

University ofMinnesota

Experience:

•

Eighteen

years with NRCS

—

Project Engineer, Planning Engineer, Design Engineer

Areas of,Expertise:

•

System planning

•

Structural design

•

Soil mechanics

Pete Fryer. P.E.

Agricultural Services

Center

P.O. Box39

Lewiston MN 55952

507-523-2171

prf®mnlewiston.fsc.usda.gov

Education:

B.S. Agricultural Engineering

~—

University of Minnesota

—

specializing in soil and water

Experience:

•

Working with SWCDs

by determining

farmer needs, designing and constructing BMP’s best

suited to sites

•

Engineering consultant business in metro area forwatershed districts.

Surface

water

hydrology/hydraulics

amid water quality protection projects and review.

•

Surface water runoff from project work and erosion controJwater

quality protection

•

Engineer workingin karst area designingmanure storage systems and erosion control

projects.

Areas

of Expertise:

•

Engineering of structures involving

conservation and protection of soil and water resources.

•

Design and construction of various types of manure facilities on existing farmnsteads.

Robert Mensch.

P.E.

MenschEngineering

927 East

10th St.

Fainnont, MN 56031

507-235-9151

FAX: 507-235-2605

Education:

B.S. Agricultural Engineering—

1959

M.S.

Agricultural Engineering

—

1962

Experience:

•

Six years teaching and researching farm

buildings

—

Kansas State University

•

Started consulting office in 1968 working with livestockproducers

•

Six years with UNDP-FAO pig farm

development in Singapore

•

Dairy farm project in Indonesia

•

Extensive work with Minnesota livestock producers manure storage and feedlot permits

Areas of Expertise:

•

Feedlot planning

•

Structural engineering

Larry

Roh1~

P.E.

WHKS & Co.

1412

6th St. SW

P0 Box

1467

Mason City, Iowa 50401

515-423-8271

masoncity©whks.com

Education:

M.S. Agricultural Engineering, North Dakota State University

B.S. Agricultural Engineering, North Dakota State

University

Experience:

•

Design

—

Livestock waste

handling systems

concrete, earthen,

geomembrane, Karst areas

•

Ag. Research, NDSU and TJSMARC,

Clay Center, NE

•

Consulting Engineer P.E. in MN and IA

Dr. Kevin Janni,

RE.

University of Minnesota

Department of Biosystems

and Agricultural Engineering

1390 Eckles Avenue

St. Paul IviN 55108

612-625-9218

kjanni(~iumn.edu

Education:

B.S. Agricultural Engineering, University of Minnesota,

1976

M.S. AgriculturalEngineering, Purdue University,

1977

Ph.D. Agricultural Engineering, Purdue University,

1979

Experience:

•

University ofMinnesota Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering faculty

—

1980 to present.

Areas ofExpertise:

•

Livestock housing systems

•

Ventilation

•

Air quality

•

Biofiltration

Attachment B

Biblioc’ranhv

Aley, T.J., Williams, J.H., and Massello, J.W.

1972.

Groundwater contamination and

sinkhole collapse

induced by leaky impoundments in soluble rock terrain.

Missouri

Department of Natural Resources, Division ofGeology and Land Survey.

30pp.

Alexander E.C., Jr.,

andLively, R.S.

1995.

Karst

Aquifers, Caves and Sinkholes.

Text

Supplement to the

Geologic Atlas Fillmore County, Minnesota.

County Atlas

Series

C-8,

Part Cj edited by R.S. Lively and N.H. Balaban.

Minnesota Geological

Survey.

Pp. 10-33.

Alexander, E.C., Jr., and Milske, J.A.

1986.

Dye tracing studies ofthe Fountain,

Minnesota Sewage System.

In proceedings

of the “Environmental Problems in

KarstTerranes and Their Solutions Conference.”

Published by National Water

Well Association, Dublin, Ohio.

Pp. 249-262.

Alexander,

C.,

Jr., and

Book,

P.R.,

1984.

Altura

Minnesota

lagoon

collapses.

j~-

Beck,

B.F.

(ed.),

Proc.

First Multidisciplinary

Conf

Sinkholes,

Balkema,

Boston.

p.311-318.

Alexander, E.C.,

Jr., Brogerg, J.S., Kehren,

A.R., Graziani, M.M. and Turn, W.L.,

1993.

Bellchester Minnesota lagoon collapse.

in.Beck, B.F.

(ed.), Applied Karst Geology.

Balkema, Rotterdam.

p. 63 to 72.

Bashir, A.M., Azmeh, M.M., Pitts,

M.W.

1999.

The environmental hazards of locating

wastewater

impoundments

karst

terrain.

proceedings

of Hydrogeology

and

Engineering Geology of

Sinkholes

and Karst,

edited by

Beck,

Pettit

and Herring.

Balkemna, Totterdam, ISBN.

Pp. 365-372.

Beck, B.

1991.

On calculating the risk of sinkhole collapse.

Proceedings of Appalachian

Karst Symposium.

Pp.

23 1-236.

Benson. R.C.

andLa Fountain, L.J.

1984.

Evaluation of subsidence

or collapse potential

due to subsurface cavities.

Proceedings

of the first multidisciplinary conference on

Sinkholes.

Orlando.

pp. 201-215.

Crawford,

1998.

Leakage

and

sinkhole

collapses

under

hog

waste

lagoons

Kentucky.

Report prepared for The Honorable Hank Graddy.

Center for Cave and

I(arst Studies, Dept. of Geography and Geology, Western Kentucky University.

Colby Verdegan, P.E.

Chosen Yalley Testing

2130

Broadway, Suite 470

Rochester, MN

55904

507-281-0968

verde~an~iao1.com

Coxon,

1999.

Agriculturally induced impacts.

Chapter 4 in

Karsi Hydrogeology and

Human

Activities

edited

David

Drew

and

Heinz

Hotzl.

A.A.

BalkemalRotterdam/Brookfield.

pp. 37-80.

Gao,

Y.,

Alexander, E.C.,

Jr.,

and Tipping, R.

2000.

Application of GIS Technology to

Study

Karst

Features

of Southeastern

Minnesota.

Draft

report.

University

Minnesota and Minnesota Geological Survey.

Gillieson,

1996.

Caves

processes,

Development,

Management.

Blackwell

Publishers, Maiden, MA.

299 pp.

Jannik, N.O.,

Alexander,

E.C.,

Jr.,

Landherr,

L.J.,

1992.

The

Sinkhole

Collapse

of the

Lewiston, Minnesota Wastewater Treatment Facility Lagoon.

In Proceedings ofthe

Third

Conference

Hydrogeology,

Ecology,

Monitoring,

and

Management

Ground Water

in Karst Terranes.

Dec.

4-6,

1991.

Nashville, Tennesee.

Pp 715-

724.

Magdalene,

and Alexander, E.C.,

Jr.,

1995.

Sinkhole distribution in Winona County

Revisited.

in Beck B.F. (ed.) Karst GeoHazards.

Balkema, Rotterdam.

p. 43-5 1.

1557.7308

OFS

1997—2

c.1

ILL!T~ojS~

JAN

2 ~

~OO7

ILUNCIS

S74T~

KARST

REGIONS

ILLINOIS

Open

File

Series 1997-2

ARC~~~

S.V,

Parino,

C.P.

Weibel,

and W.

Illinois

State

Geological

Survey

615

Peabody Drive

Champaign,

Illinois

61820

KARST

REGIONS

ILLINOIS

Open File

Series

 1997-2

S.V.

Panno,

C.P.

Weibel, and

Illinois

State

Geological

Survey

615

Peabody

Drive

Champaign,

Illinois

61820

1129

00800

850

‘

KARST

REGIONS OF

ILLINOIS

S.V.

Panno,

C.P. Weibel, and

ABSTRACT

Karst occurs

Illinois

where

bedrock exposures

and subcrops

consist

of carbonate

rocks,

Approximately 25

Illinois’ bedrock

carbonate

rock,

and

that

area,

approximately

(equals 9

of the

state)

includes the

state’s

five

karst regions.

The

highest

degree

karstification

occurs

southwest

and

southern

Illinois

where the

Mississippian

limestones

are

predominant.

Karst encountered

Illinois,

as classified

by their

dominant landforms,

included sinkhole karst,

cave

karst,

and

pseudo-sinkhole

and. pseudo-

cave

karst that

resulted

from

human modifications

to the land.

Only

natural

karst terrains are

studied

herein,

and only the

most karstified areas

are

described

in detail.

The

carbonate

bedrock

of Illinois

was

the- focus

our efforts

because

these

rocks are

susceptible

karst development.

Carbonate

bedrock

either exposed

land surface or

covered

relatively

thin

glacial

till

Idiamicton), bess,

and

other unlithified

sediment around

the

margins

the

Illinois

Basin,

and

along the

flanks

structures

within the

basin. Karstic

features

are concentrated

five

regions:

(1) the

Driftless Area

northwest

Illinois,

(2)

north-central

Illinois,

(3) the

Lincoln

Hills

the

western

Illinois, (3) the

Salem

Plateau

southwest

Illinois,

and

(5) the

Shawnee

Hills

southern

Illinois. A few caves

and sinkholes

occur

northeastern

Illinois, and

La Salle

and Douglas

Counties

in carbonate

rocks

associated

with either

the

LaSalle

Anticlinoriurri

or the

northeast

flank

of the

Illinois

Basin

(Kankakee

Arch).

INTRODUCTION

Background

Carbonate

rock comprises approximately 25

the

bedrock

surface

Illinois.

Of the

area

underlain

carbonate rocks,

of that

area

(equals

the

state)

included

the

five

regions that

contain

evidence

numerous

karstic

features at the

band

surface.

The

term

“karst”

defined

Ford

and

Williams

(1989)

“...terrain

with distinctive

hydrology

and Iandforms

arising from

a combination

high

rock

sobubility

and well developed

secondary porosity.”

Features that typify

karst terrain

include

closed

depressions

(sinkholes),

caves,

large springs,

fluted

rock outcrops (Ford

and Williams,

1 989),

blind

valleys

and

swallow

holes

(White,

1988).

Carbonate

rocks generally have low

primary porosity

and permeability;

however,

secondary

porosity

(fractures)

permits

the

rapid transport

of large volumes of water

into

and

through the

rock.

The movement of surface waters

(rainwater

and snowmelt),

through

soil,

and

into

fractures

soluble carbonate

bedrock

responsible

for the development of

karst

terrains.

Because

of the

microbial

generation

carbon

dioxide

in the

soils

overlying

carbonate

rock,

infiltrating

water becomes

acidic

prior to

entering fractures,

joints

and

bedding

planes

in carbonate

rocks.

Small amounts of

calcite

and/or dolomiteithe

dominant

minerals in

carbonate

rock)

dissolve

in accordance

with th-e

following simplified

reactions:

Calcite:

CaCO3

Ca24

-f-

HCO3-

Dolomite:

CaMg(CO~)2÷2H4

Ca24

Mg42

2HCO~—

until

the- water

approaches

saturation with respect

to the

solubility

of these

mineral phases

(White,

1 988).

The

slow dissolution

carbonate

minerals over thousands

hundreds

thousands

years

gradually enlarges

joints,

fractures,

and pathways

along

bedding

planes

through

which water moves.

Some

pathways

become

large conduits

caverns

through

which groundwater flows to

points

discharge

(e.g.,

springs).

Continued

enlargement

of the

conduits

eventually

can

result

in the collapse

overlying

rock and

soil.

Surface erosion

eventually

results

in fragmentation and

finally; destruction

of the

conduit

system

(White,

1988).

The

relatively

Large

interconnected

pores present

in fissured

or karstified

carbonate

rock

allow

rapid movement

water

into

and through the

rock

bodies.

These

rock bodies often

constitute

locally important aquifers

Illinois;

however, fissured

and karst

aquifers

are

very

susceptible to

surface-derived

contamination.

Recharge to karst aquifers

often

rapid

(analogous

to water

movement to

drainage tiles)

and

carries with

materials

(often

macroscopic)

from the land

surface that include

human and animal wastes,

pesticides,

urban

runoff,

and other waste

products

associated with the

human culture

a region.

contrast,

recharge to

non-karst aquifers typically

undergoes

a slow

migration through materials

(e.g.,

thick,

clay-rich

glacial

diamicton) that

generally provide sufficient time and environment for

chemical,

biological,

and physical

degradation

and retardation

pollutants.

Unfortunately,

residents

who

draw groundwater from

karst

aquifers

for domestic

use

risk

ingesting

contaminants.

Rare and

endangered

species that inhabit

underlying caves

are

also at

risk

from

chemical

and bacterial contamination

in groundwater.

In addition,

knowing

where

karst

-terrain

is present

Illinois

is important when conducting

regional

geological

screening

for

citing

facilities such

as waste

disposal

sites

and low-level nuclear waste

repositories.

Thus,

important

to- identify

the

locations

karst terrain

in the state

for water-resource

protection

and regulatory

purposes.

Purpose

The

purpose

of this investigation

was

to prepare

a state-wide

map and

detailed maps

the

karst terrains

Illinois and

describe the

geologic and

hydrogeologic

controls of

karstification. The detailed

karst maps

presented

herein

were

prepared

from

smaller-scale

map of the

state

Illinois

(Weibel and

Panno,

press)

(Figure

1).

METHODOLOGY

Karst

Maps

Karst maps

were constructed

for the state

the

basis

landforms observed

7.5-

minute

(1:24,000)

topographic

maps

and stereo

pairs

U.S. Department of Agriculture

aerial photograph~(1:20,000), bedrock

lithology,

cave

locations,

and

sinkholes

indicated

Natural Resources

Conservation

Service (formerly the

Soil Conservation

Service) county soil

survey maps. Areas mapped as

karst were field

checked

by the

authors.

discussed

above,

carbonate

bedrock is

most

susceptible to

dissolution,

particularly where

occurs at or

near

the

land surface.

The occurrence

caves

in an

area

was used

indicator

of karst

terrain.

A map

of the

cave-s

Illinois

found in carbonate

rock was

constructed

using

confidential inventory

313

caves

(compiled by

J.E.

Gardner of the

Illinois

State

Natural

History

survey

from

his work and

from

a data

base

prepared

the Illinois

State

Museum).

The

term

‘cave”

defined as

“any natural cavity

series

of cavities

beneath the

surface

the

earth.

Such cavities- are

usually classified

as caves

only

if they are

large enough

to permit

entrance

humans”

(Mohr

and

PoIson,

1 966). A literature

also was

conducted

for

karstic

features

observed

within th~state

and neighboring

states.

Karst regions

were

delineated

the

basis

of the

location of

indicator sinkholes,

caves,

and carbonate

rock,

without regard

for the

thickness and nature

Quaternary

overburden. Because

all-carbonate

Sca’e 1:3,000.000

Mi—

i_~

Figure

Map of

 the bedrock geology of

illinois showing sinkholes

and caves (modified from

Weibeland Panno, in press).

Carbonate

Bedrock

Non-carbonate

Bedrock

Sinkhole

Areas

rock

the state

shows some

degree

dissolution

(usually

along

joints

and bedding

planes),

area

described

“karst’ unless

was identified

having a

kars-t

aquifer-with

associated

karstic

features.

Cross Sections

Cross

sections

of the

areas

containing

carbonate

bedrock

and karstic

features

(Figure

were constructed

examine

relationships

between bedrock

formations

and karstification.

The cross

sections

are schematic

and were based

the

following:

well records

available

at the

Geological

Records

Library of the

Illinois

State

Geological

Survey

(ISGS),

published

references

describing the geology of the

surficial

sediment,

bedrock surface

and- subsurface,

and 3)unpublished

cross

sections from the

ISGS

Map

Library. Formation codes

used

in the

cross

sections are

explained

Figure

DISCUSSION

The

focus

of this

investigation

on the

carbonate

bedrock

of Illinois

because these

are

the

rocks most susceptible

karstic development.

These rocks are

either

exposed

subcrop

at the

bedrock

surface

beneath

glacial

deposits

around

the

margins of the

Illinois

Basin

the

flanks

of the

Kankakee,

Mississippi

River,

Pascola,

and Wisconsin

Arches,

and

the

Ozark Dome,

and,

within the

Illinois

Basin,

the crest of the

LaSalle Anticlinoriurn

east-central

Illinois

(Figure

2).

Karstic features

are concentrated

north-central

Illinois, the

Driftess

Area,

the

Lincoln

Hills,

the

Salem

Plateau,

and

the Shawnee

Hills

(Figures

2).

Sinkholes

and caves

found

Kane,

Kankakee,

Salle, and

Douglas

Counties

are

rare and

generally isolated, and occur

in carbonate

rocks associated

with the

LaSalle

Anticlinorium

and

Kankakee

Arch.

Figure 2.

Map showing locations of cross-sections, karst regions, and major structures

(in italics)

-of the Illinois Basin.

~ea

Scale

1:3,000,000

Mi..

REGIONAL

KARST MAPS

Caves

Predominantly

Noncarbonate Bedrock

~

 PredomInantly

 Carbonate Bedrock

Sinkhole

 Areas

REGiONAL

MAPS AND CROSS-SECTIONS

Q-P

Quaternary. consisting

mostly of Pleistocene

deposits

Penn

Pennsylvanian

Mcu

Mississippian,

upper Chesterian

 (includesVienna, Menard, Clore, Kinkaid)

McI

 Mississippian, lower Chesterian (includes Renault, Ridenhower, Beech

Creek, Glen Dean)

Mvu

 Mississippian, upper Valmeyeran (includes St. Louis, Ste. Genevieve)

Mvm

Mississippian, middle

Valmeyeran

(includes Salem)

Mvl

 Mississippian, lower Valmeyoran (includes Burlington, Keokuk)

Mississippian,

Kinderhookian

Du

Devonian,

Upper

Dm

Devonian, Middle

(includes Grand Tower, Lingle)

Dl

Devonian, Lcwer((ncludes Bailey, Backbone)

S

 Silurian (includes Kankakee,

Sexton

Creek,

Hopkinton

Ou

 Ordovician, Upper

Om

 Ordovician, upper

Middle (includes

Platteville, Galena, Kimmswick)

Oma.

Ordovician, lower Middle

01

Ordovician,

Lower

(includes Shakopee)

Cambrian

Figure 3. Explanation for

symbols, shadings, and abbreviations used

 in cross sections and

regional karst maps.

 Stratigraphic

units are modified from Willman et at. (1967).

Relevant

stratigraphic units mentioned

in the text are contained within parentheses.

the

Illinois

Basin, only

Paleozoic-age rocks

contain carbor~atestrata,

whereas

younger

Mesozoic

and

Cenozoic rocks

lack

carbonate

strata.

Rock units that

are karstified

include

(-from oldest

youngest)

limestones

and dolomites

of the

Lower

and

Middle

Ordovician

and of

the

Silurian Alexandrian

and Niagaran

Series,

limestone

of the

Lower

and

Middle Devonian Series,

limestones

of the

Mississippian Valmeyeran

and

Chesterian

Series,

and the

LaSalle

Limestone

of the

Pennsylvanian

Missourian Series (Figure

4). The most

intensely

karstified

limestones occur

within the

Mississippian-age

strata.

The regions that

contain

numerous

karstic features

(particularly caves

and

~inkhoIes)

are

described

detail.

below.

The

geology

and hydrogeology

of each region

are

also discussed

and formations that

have undergone

karstic

development are

described.

Formation codes,

symbols,

and shadings

used

the

regional

maps

are

explained

Figure

Shawnee

Hills

Karst

Region

Sinkholes and caves

are

abundant

in the

karst of

the

Shawnee

Hills

southern

Illinois.

The

Shawnee

Hills

karst region

(Figures

includes Jackson,

Union,

Johnson,

Pope,

Saline

and Hardin

Counties.

A few

sinkholes and caves

are

associated

with the

Lower

Devonian

Bailey and

Backbone Limestones

and Middle Devonian Grand Tower and

Lingle

Limestones

in the west

part

the

Shawnee

Hills.

Most

sinkholes

and caves

occur

soil

overlying

and

within

Mississippian

Valmeyeran

and

Chesterian

rocks

(Figure

BA);

Sinkholes

are

common to

abundant

areas

where bedrock is

dominated

the

Salem, St.

Louis, Ste.

Genevieve,

Glen

Dean,

and

Menard

Limestones,

and-are found throughout

most of the

Shawnee

Hills.

Sinkholes

also

are commonly

associated

with the

Haney

Limestone

Member

of the

Golconda

Formation

and the

Kinkaid

Limestone

in the west

part

of the

region.

Karstic

features

are

relatively

rare

in the

Renault

Limestone,

Downeys

Bluff

Limestone

Member of

the

EE~EEE~j~E~

(_)

to)

oCD

to).

~2L

to)

—

tO)

—

coo

—

—4

‘-p-ri

-4

coo

0.)

,-o

onto)

CL,

non

0.0

cr9-

‘-4

CT)

(TI

-4~

—no

—p

~‘_

3—

-1)

ii:

I~~I~N•~I

‘3

~C-

i.i

‘3

1/)

coo

“

~j-

-‘

‘4

L/)

I;-

Figure 5.

Index of regional karst maps, outlined by boxes.

Dashed lines

indicate extent of karat

regions.

R3W

R2W

IrnW

RIE

R2E

R4E

JACKSON

WILLIAMSC

R3E

I—

JOHNSON

Figure 6.

Karst map for the west part

of the Shawnee

Hills karat region.

Geology modifed

from

Wiltman et

at. (1967)

and

Devera (1993).

Figure 7.

Karst map for the east part

of the

Shawnee Hilts karst region.

Geology modifed from

Willman

et at. (1967).

Southwest

Northeast

A’

o.p

M~u

-100

5km

Cross-section

of the Shawnee

Hills karst region,

modified from

Weller and Ekblaw

(1940)

and Willman et al.

(1967).

Southwest

Northeast

B’

~Q)

Cross-section

of the Salem Hills

Plateau karst region, modified from Weller and Weller (1939) and

Wlllmaro

et al. (1967).

013

C-

01)

Cross-section of the south

part

the Lincoln Hills

karst

region, modified

from

Baxter

(1965.

1970),

Reinertsen and

Treworgy (1991),

Rubey

(19521, Schultz

(1993), Treworgy

(1979), Whiting and Stevenson (1965) and Wilson and Odom

(1959).

Figure 8.

Cross-sections

A-A’, B-B’, and C-C~

Paint Creek

Formation,

Vienna

Limestone,

and the

Clore

Formation.

most places the

Vienna Limestone

too

thin for the

significant

surface

expression

karat-ic features. Within

the

Clore

Formation,

sinkholes

generally are

found

in the

Ford Station

Limestone

Member,

which

contains

the thickest limestone

the formation.

Sinkholes

in the

Kinkaid

Limestone

are

most commonly within the

Goreville

Limestone Member,

but can

occur

within

the

Negli

Creek

Limestone

Member and,

in the

west part of the

Shawnee

Hills,

within

the

Cave

Hill

Shale

Member where

its

carbonate content

higher.

The Goreville

absent-in

the

east part

the

Shawnee

Hills

area. A few sinkhole~are

associated

with the

Hardinsburg

Sandstone

which probably formed

a result of dissolution of the

underlying Haney Limestone

Member.

In the

west portion

of the-Shawnee

Hills,

some

sinkholes occur where thin

Pennsylvanian

Caseyville

Sandstone

forms the

bedrock

surface.

suggest that these

sinkholes

formed

a result

dissolution

of-the

underlying

Goreville Limestone

Member of

the

Kinkaid

Limestone.

Groundwater

in the-counties

of the

Shawnee

Hills

karst region is

available

from

sources

that include

Silurian and Devonian carbonate

rocks,

Mississippian -Valmoyeran

limestone-a,

and Mississippian

Chesterian

limestones

and sandstones.

Solution-enlarged

crevices

Valmeyeran

limestones,

and faulting

and crevice development

in the

Chesterian

rocks

enhanced

the

permeability

of these

rocks. The

carbonate

rocks

of the

Shawnee

Hills

karst

region

are

used for rural,

municipal

and industrial

water

supplies

(Pryor,

1956).

Salem

Plateau

Karst Region

The

region

adjacent to the

Mississippi River just south

East

St.

Louis

often

referred

as the

“sinkhole

plain”

because

contains

a high density

sinkholes

(Figures

10).

also

part of the

Salem

Plateau

Section

of the

physiographic

provinces

Leighton et al.

Figure 9.

Karst map for the north part

of the Salem

Plateau

karst region. Geology modifed from

Willman et al.

(1967).

Figure

10.

Karst map

for the south part of the Salem Plateau

karst region. Geology modifed from

WilIman

at.

~1967).

(1948). Approximately 10,000

sinkholes, numerous

karst springs,

and the

largest

caves

Illinois

are

found

in this region

(Panno,

1996). The

bedrock

geology of

St.

Clair,

Monroe, and

Randolph

Counties

consists

Mississippian and Pennsylvanian

limestone,

dolomite,

sandstone,

shale,

claystone

and

coal

(Figure 88).

The structural

geology

of the

area

(anticlines),

relatively thin

glacial

drift, and close proximity to the

Mississippi

River are

responsible for the

exposure

of these

rocks in these

counties.- Drift thickness

this area is

typically

less than

1 5

but

may

exceed

5 m

and adjacent to

stream

valleys (Horberg,

-1950).

Caves

and

sinkholes occur

Mississippian- strata

ranging

from the

Valmeyeran Salem

Limestone to the

Chesterian

Kinkaid

Limestone.

Many of the sinkholes

(Weller,

1 939) and

probably

many of the

caves

occur

in the

St.

Loiiis Limestone.

Solution features

the

St.

Louis

are

primarily responsible

for the

widespread karst topography

in the west

part

of the

region.

The trends of

long caves

in this

region are

parallel or sub-parallel to the

axial trend

major structures

in the

area.

Anticlines, synclines and major cave

systems trend

northwest-

southeast

in St.

Clair and

Monroe Counties.

Many caves

in this area

formed

as surface

waters

entered

bedding

planes

at outcrops

and through fissures

nea?—surface bedrock.

Dominant

routes for the waters

migrating

along

bedding planes

eventually

formed small

conduits

(typically

about

1 0

cm in -diameter) that down

cut

over time to

form

large solution

cavities.

The remnants

of these

initial

conduits

are

visible

in parts

Illinois

Caverns

and

Foglepole

Cave

Monroe

County.

These caves

are relatively large

diameter

greater),

and extensive

(several- have more than

traversable

passages).

They

are

typical

of the

‘branchwork” type

(per classification

scheme

Palmer,

1 991),

and form

solution tributaries

along

bedding

planes

the

limestone bedrock; thus,

their passages

are

characteristically sinuous

plan

view.

~—.r1,mflTr

Sinkholes

also are

abundant

areas

underlain

the

Salem

and Ste.

Genevieve

Limestones

and are often

connected

underlying cave

systems. Sinkholes

are rarely

associated

with the

Downeys

Bluff

Limestone

Member of the

Paint Creek

Formation,

Beech

Creek

Limestone Members

(and

perhaps

the

overlying

Fraileys

Shale

Member) of the

Golconda Formation,

and

Vienna Limestone. The

few sinkholes

~sso~iated

with the

Cypress

Sandstone

probably formed

by dissolution

and collapse

of the underlying

Ridenhower Member

the

Paint Creek

Formation.

Groundwater

resoUrces

in these

counties

occur in the Valmeyeran strata that include

the

St.

Louis

Limestone and the

overlying

Aux Vases

Sandstone.

Springs and wells

in the

St.

Louis

are sources of groundwater for domestic

and rural

supplies

in the west part of the karst

region. The Aux Vases

Sandstone underlies part of this region,

and

in the east, forms the

bedrock

surface

below thin

gtacial

drift. This sandstone

is also

a reliable source

groundwater

in this- region. The thin glacial

drift, however,

does

not offer

much protection for

shallow

groundwater supplies

in this area.- Wells

drilled through the

overlying

Chesterian karst

aquifer

and into the

underlying

Aux Vases

Sandstone typically

are

not

cased through the

karstic

zone and localized contaminatiOn

may occur by this route

(Panno et at., 1996).

Lincoln

Hills

Karst

Region

Karstic features

in the

Lincoln

Hills

karst region

(Figures

5,- 11,

occur

in Adams,

Pike,

Calhoun,

Greene, Jersey,

and

Madison Counties

Middle Ordovician

Kimrnswick

Limestone,

Silurian (Alexandrian

Series)

Sexton Creek

Limestone,

and

Mississippian

(Valmeyeran

Series)

Burlington,

Salem,

St. Louis,

and Ste.

Genevieve

Lirnestones

(Lamar,

1928; Rubey,

1952) (Figure

BC,

13A).

Rubey (1952) and

Baxter (1965) described the

lithologies

of the

carbonate

strata of the

region. The Kimmswick Limestone dominantly

MI..

E03a,.a.~.

GREEI

JERS

Figure

11.

Karst map for the south

part

of the Lincoln

Hills

karst region. Geology modifed from

~Mllm~n

at. (1967).

Figure 12.

Karst map for the north part of the

Lincoln

Hills

karst region. Geology modifed from

‘Mllman et

at. (1967).

0A~

:-:“°~:°~

200

Cross-section of

Urn

north part of

tim

Lincoln

Hills

karst region, modified

from

Harvey

(1964), Hinds (1917).

Krey (1924),

Morse and Kay (1915). Wante~s

(195?),

and Whiting

and

Stevenson (1965).

NorThoasl

E’

300

5km

~~::

Cross-section

of the

Driftiess Area karet

region, modified From Wiliman at

at. (1987).

Soulhwesl

igure

13.

Cross-sections

D—D’ and

E-E’.

consists

fine- to

coarse-grained,

massive

limestone.

The

Sexton

Creek

Limestone

ranges

from

a fine-grained

limestone in

the

north

part of the

area to

a porous

dolomite

in the

south

part. The

Burlington is

a cherty,

coarse-grained,

crinoidal

limestone. The

overlying

Keokuk

Limestone is

lithologically similar and

difficult

distinguish

many places.

The

Keokuk

probably

contains

karstic features,

although this

investigation

has not verified

such

occurrences.

The

Salem consists

a coarse-grained limestone that

locally contains dolomite.

The

overlying

St.

Louis

Limestone

is- dominated by fine- to very fine-grained,

cherty

limestone,

but

also contains

variable

amounts of

dolomite,

conglomeratic limestone,

and

arenaceous

and ootitic

limestone. The

Ste. Genevieve

Limestone

consists

very

fine- to

medium-grained

limestone that

locally varies

from

being

argillaceous,

to arenaceous,

and to

oolitic.

Most of the

sinkholes

the west part

of the

Lincoln

Hills

karst region

occur

either

the

Kimmswick or

St.

Louis

Limestones

(Rubey,

1 952). The sinkholes

in the

east

part

of the

region,

in and near Alton, are

associated

primarily with the

St.

Louis

and Ste.

Genevieve

Limestones

(Figures

11);

Many

of the

sinkholes occur

relatively thick

bess

deposits that

overly the

limestones

and appear

to have formed

stoping

of the bess

into

voids

in the

limestone.

Some

of these

sinkholes,

particularly

in southernmost

Calhoun

County,

contain

thin

layer of

Pennsylvanian

strata between

the

underlying

limestone and the

overl~’ingbess

(Rubey,

1 952). Sinkholes

in this

region

are

typically

shallow, bowl-shaped

depressions,

many

which contain trees

are filled

with water

and surrounded

trees.

Sand

and gravel,

dolomite, limestone,

and sandstone

aquifers

are

used

the

Lincoln

Hills karst

region for domestic water supplies.

Wells

and springs

in- the

Mississippian

Burlington

and Keokuk

Limestones

are

the

main

sources of

domestic water from

bedrock.

Wells

also have been

drilled

into

Devonian

and

Silurian rocks,

but these

are

not

productive.

Driftiess Area

Karst

Region

Near-surface

and

exposed

carbonate bedrock

in the

Drifttess Area

of northwest

Illinois

(Jo

Daviess and northwest

Carroll

Counties)

are of

Middle Ordovician

Silurian age

(Figures

138,

14).

The Middle Ordovician

Pbatteville -Group

is composed

of very fine-grained

limestone

mottled

with dolomite. The Galena

Group

overlies the

Platteville

Group

and consists of

limes-tone

and dolomite, except-for

a basal

shaley limestone-and

dolomite

interval

(Willrnan et

al.,

1 975). Karstic features

also occur in Silurian (Alexandrian

and

Niagaran

Series)

bedrock.

The Silurian

is divided into

the Mosalem,

Tete des

Marts,

Blanding,

and

H-opkinton

Formations

(Willman,

1 973;

Bunker et al.,

1 985). These

rocks are

medium- to

coarse-grained,

locally

cherty dolomite’(Heyl et at.,

1959).

Most,-

if not

all,

of the

sinkholes

in this area

occur in the

Niagaran

Hopkinton

Formation -(Brian Witzke,

Iowa Geological -Survey,

personal

communication).

Both caves

and

sinkholes

are indicators

of karst terrain

the

DriFtless Area;

however,

caves

are the dominant feature

in this

region

(Figures

14)

Illinois.

Most of the

caves

occur

in the

Galena

Group

(Trowbridge and Shaw,

1916;

Heyl et at.,

1959;

Brown and

Whicbow,

1 960). Bretz and

Harris

(1 961) described

a cave

Carroll

County in

Silurian

dolomite,

probably

strata younger than the

Hopkinton

Formation.

The caves are

predominantly solutionally-widened joints,

according

to descriptions

Brett

and

Harris

(1961),

and Webbet

al. (1994). Caves of

this type are referred to as

“network”

caves

(Palmer,

1991), are fracture-controlled,

and often

follow solution features

along

near-vertical

fracture

planes.

The

Salem-St.

Louis limestone

interval

Jersey

County

sufficiently

thick

and creviced

serve

supply for rural wells

(Bergstrom

and Zeizel,

1 957).

ç~

C.ai*t.tt

•1

Figure 14.

Karat map for the Driftless Area karat region of northwest Illinois. Geology modifed

from Willman et at. (1967) and

Kotata

and Buschbach

(1976).

Few sinkholes

this area

are

evident

topographic

maps

and

aerial photos~However,

both

Trowbridge and Shaw

(1916) and

Heyl

et at. (1959)

reported

sinkholes to

locally

common

Silurian rocks. We

observed several

sinkholes

of this diameter

and

smaller sizes

in regolith

underlain

Hopkinton dolomite.

Heyl

et al.

(1959) noted that sinkholes

are

larger

(averaging

about

in diameter)

and more abundant

the

Silurian dolomite than

in the

Ordovician

Galena

Group.

did

not study any sinkholes

in the

Ordovician strata

in this

area.

The

number of

sinkholes associated

with Ordovician

rocks drastically

increases towards

the

northwest

into

Iowa where these

strata

are

less

dolomitic

(Heyl et at.,

1 959; Hallberg

and

Hoyer,

1 982). The relationship between

soils

type and thickness

(from stack

unit maps by

Berg

and Kempton,

1 988), and the

locations

of sinkholes shown

our maps

indicates that

sinkholes

mostly occur

areas-dominated by

bess,

silt and

diamicton

of the

Quaternary

Glasford

Formation; They are most

comm-on

areas

where these

materials

are less than

6 m

thick,

and

within one to two

kilometers

a stream

valley.

In the

Dri-ftless Area,

sinkholes

are

most

common adjacent to the

Mississippi

River valley.

Sinkholes commonly occur

near

stream

valleys because

the gradual lowering-of the

piezometric surface

(i.e., the

water-

table)

near

(ow-lying areas

by surface erosion

and the

associated

collapse

of formerly water-

saturated

sediments

(cover-collapse

sinkholes)

into

solution-enlarged

fissures.

This

mechanism was proposed

Ford

(1 964) for sinkhole formation

in the

Mendip

Hills

Britain.

The

limestones

and dolamites

of the

Platteville

and

Galena

Groups,

where they are not

overlain

by shale

of the

Maquoketa

Group,

are

important source

groundwater

northwest

Illinois,

and

in most of

the

northern third

of the state.

Groundwater

occurs

joints,

fractures,

and

solution cavities.

Groundwater

also

occurs

Silurian dolomite

ridges

where

it is

perched

underlying

Maquoketa

shale.

This dolomite

similarly contains

crevices

and

solution features that

provide groundwater for farm and domestic

supplies

(Hackett

and

Bergstrom,

1956).

North-Central

Karst

Region

An area that straddles

the

Rock River in

Ogle

and

Lee Counties in

north-central

Illinois

comprises the

North-Central

karst region

(Figures

1 5). Carbonate bedrock

units

in north-

central

Illinois

consist

the

Lower Ordovician Shakopee

Dolomite of the

Prairie

Chien

Group

and the

Middle Ordovician

Pbattevible

and Galena

Groups

(Figure

1 6A). Because of the

north-south

trending Wisconsin

Arch, these

rocks are

exposed

along the

tributaries

of the

Rock

River from near Rockford(Winnebago

County) to near

Dixon

(Ogle County)

(Wiliman et

al.,

1967). The rocks

are also

exposed

road cuts and quarries

the

south side of

Rockford,

and

road cuts

north

of Fre~port(Stephenson

County).

Knappen

(1 926) first

described

the

lithology

of these strata

near

Dixon.

The

Shakopee

Dolomite isa

fine-grained,

porous,

argillaceous dolomite

which locally contains

shale

and sandstone.

The

Galena

Group

consists

a porous, cherty,

very fine-grained to very coarse-grained dolomite. The

Platteville

Group

consists-of

a very fine- to

coarse-grained,

in-te-rbedded dolomite

and limestone that

locally contains

argillaceous

intervals.

Th-e Galena-Platteville

interval has

average

thickness

approximately

11 5

(Foster,

1 956).

Sinkholes are the principle

evidence

for karstic development in the

Byron-Dixon

area

and

occur

mostly in near-surface

or exposed

carbonate bedrock

(Bretz,

1 923; Knappen,

1 926). A few

sinkholes alsooccur

soils

overlying the

St.

Peter Sandstone,

but we suggest

that

these

are due to

dissolution

of the -underlying

Shakop~eeDolomite

and collapse

both

the

overlying

sandstone

and

soil. Knappen reported that over 75

of the

sinkholes

occur

v~herelimestone

the

Platteville

Group

is overlain

bess and

silt,

and diamicton

the

27

Chapter 2

Back2round

2.1 Environmental concerns of liquid manure

stor~gein k~irct

Much of Southeastern Minnesota is considered a “karst” landscape (Figure

1).

Karst is a

geologic term for a landscape area created over soluble rock with efficient drainage.

The

underlying carbonate’

bedrock in karst regions dissolves over long periods of geologic time to

produce solution enlargedjoints

and

cracks.

These features can result in rapid transmission of

contaminants from the land’s surface to the ground water below.

Kar~t

areas often have features

such as sinkholes,2 caves,

springs, andblind valleys.3

However,

the lack of these features does

not mean that an area does

not have “karst”

geology.

The-extent of karst feature development

varies

tremendously across southeastern Minnesota,

and

often changes abruptly within a scale of

hundreds of feet.

Carbonate

bedrock

—

typically

dolostone or limestone.

Sinkhole— surface depression caused -by collapse of soil or

overlying

formation above fractured or cavernous

bedrock,

or such depressions that have been filled.

~Blind valley

—

valleys

that have

no surface o~.itlet

and water from the stream or. intermittent stream enters the

ground.

Minnesota Karst Lands

Aree

u,kkrluin i~’

seh,bf,~

b~druc*

con:

jiuing

kur~i

aqeikr~.

ri~i~

Depth

buclruck

~J0

but 100

II.

Ar~*s

b~çu,

mapp~L

Figure

Minnesota

KarstLands

Most karst features are found

in areas

with less

than 50 feet of

sedimentary cover over bedrock (from Gao

et al.,

2000

in draft)

standards needed to be developed in conjunction with standards for construction,

operation and

monitoring.

Workgroup discussions about risk management

led to the conclusion that no

matter how a system

is engineered, there will

still be a potential for environmental failure.

The workgroup suggested

that the

goal should not be to develop standards that preventall risk of pollution, but that the

standards should be developed to greatly reduce the potential for environmental problems.

The

workgroup, sought to develop standards that will minimize risks to water quality to the maximum

extent practical, while considering the following criteria:

Maintain the level ofenvironmental risk at or nearthe level, of risk as for other non-karst

areas of Minnesota ~articular1y as it pertains to chronic seepage effects on water quality).

Prevent acceleration of soil collapse-below a manure storage system (compared to conditions

prior to construction) that could result-from seepage out of the storage system or poor surface

water drainage conditions on the landsurface near’ the manure storage system.

Allow for construction activities that would provide a greater level of environmental

protection than existing operating conditions, or the “next best alternative” that would exist if

there was to be no construction (e.g. to allow for new liquidmanure

storage

systems that will

replace

old unlined basins or to correct a serious manure runoffproblem to

surface waters).

Do not construct storage systems in areas or in ways likely to

lead to failure,-based on

understanding of the processes that can

lead to failure.

Use best available technologywhen the best available technology is needed to meet the above

objectives and is

considered feasible.

Develop standards that will not preclude the continued operation of animal agriculture

throughout much of the karst region (e.g. maintain standards that are within economic

reason).

The recommendations

in this

report reflect the best professional judgement of workgroup

members made after considerable study and discussion of existingresources related

this topic.

As required by Minnesota Statutes Section

3.197, the cost to convene the workgroup, develop the

recommendatioiis and write, print and distribute the report, including all public and private sector

contribution

of time, is

$48,956

($21;356 MPCA and 27,600 non-MPCA).

Figure 15.

Karst map for the North-Central karst region. Geology modifed from WilIman et al.

(1967

and Kolata

et-al. (1978).

—

-200

100

Cross-section of the North-Central karst

region, modified

from l3retz (1923), Kolata at al. (19781,

Knappen (1926), Reinertsan (1990), and Iempteton

and

Wiliruan

(19521.

Nonheaul

Cross-section

of northeastern Iflinois, modified from Bratz (~939.1955). Buschbaah and Helm 11972), Culver(1923),

Fisher

(1925), and Savage (1925).

200

-tOO

-0

Figure

16.

Cross-sections F-F’ and G-G’.

Quaternary

Glasford

Formation.

Comparison of

the

karst

maps

of this paper with stack-unit

maps

developed

Berg

and Kempton

(1 988)

indicates that

sinkholes

commonly occur in

-areas

where the

bedrock

dominated

by this stratigraphic sequence,

where the

overlying

Quaternary

cover is

less than

rn thick,

and are

located

within several

kilometers

of stream

valleys

associated with the

Rock

River. The proximity of

sinkholes to the

stream

valleys

may

be the result of reactivation of paleokarstic features. The gradual lowering

of the piezometric

surface

(i.e.,

the water table) as

stream

valleys

erode

downward

and the

associated

collapse

of formerly water-saturated

sediments

(cover-collapse

sinkholes)

into

solution-enlarged

fissures

may also

be a factor

in this

area.

There

are

no verified

cave

entrances

in the

North-Central karst region;

however,

quarrying operations

reportedly

destroyed

a cave

limestone of the

Platteville

Group

northeast

Dixon(Knappen,

1926).

observed a

sediment-fill-ed cave

opening

in the

Gregory-Ander~on

Co.

quarry on -the south

edge of Rockford.

At the

northeastern

edge

of the

region,

Bretz

(1 923) referred to

unverified

cave

reportedly

located south

Rockford near’

the Winnebago-Ogle county

border.

Bretz also reported several

occurrences

open

cavities

(probably solution

features)

in the

limestone that

were encountered

during the

drilling

water wells.

Solution-enlarged fissures

are

common in the

road cuts and

quarries

near Rockford

and

Freeport.- They range

width from 0.26

in road cuts

along Interstate

39 to

wide

the

Gregory-Anderson

Co.

quarry.

Despite the common occurrence

of fissures

in this region,

we only mapped sinkholes

in the

Byron-Dixon area

(Figure

-1 5).

Groundwater

in north-central

Illinois

available in the

Galena-Platteville

dolomite

where

joints,

fractures,

and solution

cavities

are present and interconnected

over a relatively

large

area) extent.

Mills et al.

(1993) reported that groundwater flow

in the

Galena-Platteville

aquifer

was

primarily through

“...subvertical fractures

and

subhorizontal

zones

solution,”

the

latter

which

are

probably

stratigraphic breaks.

They noted that -hydraulically connected

subhorizontal

solution features

have

been identified that

extend

laterally for at least

1 .2

km.

The

availability

water from these

strata

adequate

for domestic,

farm,

municipal,

and

industrial

use (Foster,

1 966);

however, water-producing

zones

are distributed

irregularly

(vertically

and horizontally) du~to the

irregular nature

and

distribution

of the

cavities

(Csallany

and Walton,

1963).

Other areas

containing

karstic features

Karstic features

have been documented

carbon-ate

bedrock

areas

outside of

the

five- karst

regions.

These

areas are-mostly covered with unlithifled

Quaternary

deposits.

addition, some

of the features

occur in carbonate bedrock

in areas

where the

bedrock is

overall

predorhinantly

noncarbonate.

Northeast

Illinois

The

bedrock

northeast

Illinois

contains

a few,

widely dispersed

karstic

features. This

area

most covered

with- regolith

and outcrops

are few

number

and size.

The

paucity

karstic

features

a relatively large

area

(from

Lake to

Kankakee

Counties) and definite.

evidence

widespread

extant karstification

processes

are the

reason

for not

referring to this

area

karst region.

Silurian (Alexandrian

and

Niagaran Series)

rocks

comprise most of

the

bedrock

surface

in this area.

These

rocks are

on the

northeast flank of the’ Karikakee

Arch, tl~eaxis of which

plunges

to the southeast

and separates the

Illinois

Basin

from the

Michigan

Basin

(Visocky et

a).,

1 985). These

rocks are

typically buried under

30 mor more

of clayey

diamicton

and

lake

sediments

(Figure

6B),

this area, the

Alexandrian Series

(lowermost Silurian)

is divided

into

the WiIheImi,

Elwood, and Kankakee Formations

which are

chiefly

composed

dolomite

(Willman,

1 973). The Wilhelrni Formation is

argillaceous

dolomite with coarse

silt,

fine

sand

and

shale

partings

near its

base. The

Elwood

Formation is an

abUndantly cherty,

pure to

slightly

argillaceous

dolomite. The

Kankakee

Formation is

relatively pure

dolomite that also

contains

shale

partings.

The-younger Niagaran

Series

(middle Silurian)

divided

into the

Joliet,

Sugar

Run

and Racine

Formations. The

lithology of these

formations ranges from

pure

dolomite

silty, argillaceous and cherty dolomite

containing some thin

shale

beds.

Reefs

occur

locally in the

Racine

Formation

(Willman, 1973). The

upper surface

of’the Niagaran

Series dolomite

erosional

surface

(Willman, et a).,

1 975) and

creviced

outcrop.

Otto (1963)

and Buschbach

and Helm

(1972)

interpreted

the

buried

SilUrian dolomite

northeast

Illinois

karstic

surface

the

basis

seismic

refraction,

borehole,

and outcrop

data.

The latter study covered over 2000 square

kilometers

of the

greater Chicago

area,

most

Cook County,

east

Page County,

and part of

northern

Will

County.

BUschbach and

Heim described

the

bedrock

“...a dissected

surface with

numerous hills,

northeast-

southwest to east-west trending

valleys

that slope

to the east,

and enclosed

depressions.”

Rare

and typically small caves

occur in

Kane

and Kankakee

Counties where

Silurian dolomite

expQsed

a-long

stream

v~1leys.Zeizel at al.

(1 962)

stated that

“enlargement

of joints,

fractures,

and

bedding planes

by solution

has taken

place”

typically at or

ne-ar the

bedrock

surface.

Otto

(1 963) prepared

a.detailed map

of the

bedrock

surface

near Joliet where

abundant

karstic

features

had been exposed

a deep excavation

for

a power

plant site.

Conversely,

in the

younger

Niagaran dolomite, Bloom (1978)

described only minor karstic

features found

along

and

interpreted to

be controlled

by joints

and bedding

planes.

During

our field

work,

we found solutionally widened fractures

and caves

exposed

quarries,

excavations,

and

a few

natural

bedrock

exposures. These

caves and fractures

are

typically

filled

with

very fine-grained

material

that renders these features

ineffective

conduits.

However,

exhumation and

flushing- of

fill materials

could

result in the

rejuvenation

a conduit

system.

Solutionally-widened fractures,

sinkholes,

solution features

(i.e.,

horizontal

grooves),

and caves were

observed

Lehigh

Quarry, Kankakee

River State

Park

(Kankakee

County).

Active

sinkholes

and

sinking

ephemeral streams occur

near the

lilinois

River

Will County.

Sediment

some

karstic features

in the

Racine

Formation in the

Lehigh

Quarry

describe

(Bretz,

1 940)

contained

early to middle Pennsylvanian

spores.

Much of

the

buried

bedrock surface

in northeast

Illinois maybe

classified

paleokarst

(per

classification

scheme of White,

1988).

Karstic features such

as those

along

Rock Creek

in’

Kankakee

County

in the

Kankakee Formation may have been exposed

erosion

and

classified

exhumed

karst.

The

active

sinkholes

Will

County may be

classified

as sinkhole

karst.

Th-e

Silurian dolomite

aquifer

in northeast

Illinois is

the most productive

aquifer of the

Upper

Bedrock Aquigroup

(which

also includes the Ordovician

Galena-Platteville

interval and

the

Ancell

aquifer).

Specific yields for this aquifer are dependent

on the

distribution

end

intensity

of crevicing,

and the sizeof

the fracture

openings.

Consequently,

specific yields

from this

aquifer are

extremely variable

(Visocky et al.,

1985). The most

productive

part of

the

Silurian dolomite

aquifer is the

upper

1 5 -m where solution-enlarged fractures

are

prevalent

(Zeizel eta).,

1962).

Douglas

County

A cave entrance

abandoned

barrow pit

and dissolution features

active

quarry

are

indicators

karst

near the

village of Tuscola

Douglas

County.

During

excavation

a barrow pit

for material

used

in the

construction

of the

adjacent

interstate

highway,

a small cave

was

encountered. This

pit is

just east

of Tuscola

and the

cave

was

the

floor,

which

consisted

Devonian limestone.

The

cave

was

relatively

small

but

was

not

filled

with sediment,

suggesting that

karstification

processes

are

active.

nearby quarry,

about

1 .6

east,

solution-ally widened joints

occur

Devonian limestone

but

appear to

filled with

sediment. These

karstic

features occur

in an

isolated

outcrop/subcrop

limestone,

surrounded by

predominantly noncarbonate

bedrock,

at the

axis

the

LaSalle

Anticlinorium.

Further study is

required to determine

additional

details

these

karstic

features and

karst aquifer is present.

La Salle

County

Several

sinkholes and

a cave

are

indicators

karst

a small area

near the

villages

Salle

and Oglesby

Salle County.

A few

sinkholes

occur in the

Late

Pennsylvanian

LaSalle

Limestone

southeast

Oglesby.

The

LaSalle

Limestone

the

thickest

limestone

the

otherwise

noncarbonate

dominated

Pennsylvanian

strata

of Illinois. This limestone

rarely used

a source for groundwater

and only for domestic

use

(R.

Brower,

ISGS,

personal

communication).

The

cave

occurs in

the

Lower Ordovician

Shakopee

Dolomite and

about

1 .5

east

Salle.

this area,

the

Shakopee

a more

widespread bedrock

than the

LaSalle

Limestone,

but

only

locally

utilized

a groundwater source.

Most deep

wells obtain

water

from

sandstone strata

above

and

below this dolomite. Where

either

the

LaSalle or

the

Shakopee

are

used

aquifers, joints/fractures

provide the

porosity

and

they may be

solutionally

enlarged.

 PSEIJDO-KARST1C FEATURES

Karst-like or

pseudo-karstic

features

similar to

sinkholes

occur

in areas

where the

collapse

abandoned

underground

mine tunnels have resulted

pit subsidence

and

associated

piping

soil.

Soil

piping

may also-take-place

where

drainage in

poorly

consolidated materials

such

as bess and sand

intersects

underground

cavities

end

progressively erodes

materials

along its

flow

path. Mine

collapse

and

soil

piping

often form

pit

Cubsidence that

may

indistinguishablefrom sinkholes

in true ka~sticareas.

Underground

mines

(Figure

17), that act as drains far infiltrating

surface water and

groundwater, -have been

responsible for

the

formation

of sinkholes

and

other

subsidence

phenomena

Illinois.

shallow

(less

than 60

room

and pillar

mines

collapse~

concomitant

collapse

overlying

poorly consolidated

materials,

and/or

soil

piping

into these

cavities

may form

sinkholes

overlying terrains

(e.g.,

Bauer et

a).,

1993).

The mines-also

may be

responsible

for groundwater and surface water contamination

due to their

efficiency

in transporting

surface-derived

contaminants to groundwater

and surface

waters.

Underground

mines -are- located

Ordovician rOcks

in Jo

Daviess County,

zinc

and lead

ores

were

extracted,

Mississippian

rocks in -Pope and

Hardin’ Counties, -where

fluorspar was

extracted,

and

in the

predominantly noncarbonate

Pennsylvanian

rocks,

where

coal -was

extracted.

Coal mining is

responsible for most of the mined out areas-in

Illirtois.’The locations

~f these

areas

are

discussed

Treworgy eta).

(1989)

and Damberger eta).

(1984).

Soil piping occurs

a result

of surface water draining

rapidly through

the

soil into an

open space

(e.g.,

mine openings, fissures

associated

with mine-collapse).

the- pressure of

the

infiltrating

water

increases

in the

soil, the soil fails and collapses

into the

openings.

Eventually,

cavities

are

formed at depth along the

flow

path

the

soils

collapse

or stope

Figure

17.

Map showing mined-out areas

where psudo-karst features are likely to occur.

~--

,,,,,‘~

upward

into the

overlying materials.- Continuous

upward stoping

of soil eventually results

the

formation

a sinkhole

at the

surface (e.g.,

White,

1 988).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 25

of the

bedrock

surface

Illinois

carbonate

rock,

and

approximately 9

includes the

five

karst regions.

In these

regions,

which

are

the margins

of the

Illinois

Basin and

along structures

within the

basin, carbonate

bedrock is either

exposed

subcrops

beneath glacial

diamicton, bess,

and-other

sediments.

Karstic features

are concentrated

in the

Driftless Area

in northwest

Illinois, north-central

Illinois, the

Lincoln

Hills

of the

west

part

of the state,

the Salem Plateau

of southwest

Illinois,

and the

Shawnee

Hills

southern

Illinois. A few

caves

and sinkholes are found

in northeast

Illinois, and

Salle

and

Douglas Counties, and

are

associated

either with carbonate

rocks

along the

LaSalle

An-ticlinorium

or the

northeast flank

of the

Illinois

Basin

(Kankakee

Arch).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This

work

was funded through

a grant

from the

Illinois

Groundwater

Consortium,

and

with state

funds from the

Illinois

State

Geological -Survey,

Illinois

Department of

Natural

Resources.

REFERENCES

Bauer,

R.A.,

Trent,

B.A. and DuMontelle, P.B.,

1 993.

Mine subsidence

in Illinois:

Facts

for

the

homeowner.

Illinois State

Geological Survey Envfronmental Geology,

1 6 p.

Baxter,

J.W.,

1966.

Limestone resources

of Madison

County,

Illinois.

Illinois State

Geological

Survey

Circular

390,

39 p.

Bell,

H.,

Oros,

and J.

Van

Den

Berg,

1 961. Petroleum

Industry in

Illinois,

1960.

Illinois

State

Geological Survey Illinois Petroleum

75,

1 21

Bergstrom,

R.E.

and

Zeizel,

A.J.,

1 967. Groundwater geology

in western

Illinois,

south part.

Ill/no/s

Sta to

Geological Survey Circular

232,

Bloom, A.L.,

1 978.

Geomorphology:

A Systematic Analysis of Late Cenozoic Landforms.

Prentice-Hall,

Inc.,

New Jersey,

510

Bradbury,

J.C.,

1963.

Limestone

Resources of the

Lower

Kaskaskia

Valley.

Illinois State

Geological Survey Circular

346,

22 p.

Bretz, J

H.,

1 923. Geology

and mineral resources of the

Kings

Quadrangle.

illinois State

Geological Survey Bulletin

43, p.

206-304.

Bretz,

H.,

1 939. Geology of the

Chicago region, Part

general.

ifinois State

Geological

Survey Bulletin

65, -1-18 p.

Bretz, J

H.,

1 940. Solution

cavities

in the Joliet Limestone

northeastern

Illinois.

Journal of

Geology,

48,

p. 337~384.

Bretz, J

H.,

1 955. Geology

of the

Chicago

region,

part

the Pleistocene.

Illinois State

Geological Survey Bulletin

65,

1 32 p.

Bretz,

H.,

1 955. Chicago area geologic maps.

Supplement

to iilnois

State

Geological

Survey Bulletin

65.

Bretz, J

H.,

and Harris,

S.E., Jr.,

1961. Caves

Illinois.

Illinois State

Geological Survey

Reportof/nvestigatior7s

 215,87 p.

Brown,

C.E.,

and Whitbow, J.W.,

1960.

Geology of the

Dubuque

South

Quadrangle,

Iowa-

Illinois.

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin

11 23A, p.

1-93.

Bunker,

J.,

Ludvigson,

A.,

and Witzke,

J.,

1 985. The

Plum

River Fault

Zone

and the

Structural

and Stratigraphic

Framework

of Eastern Iowa.

Iowa

Geological Survey,

Technical Information Series

No.

13,

126

Buschbach,

T.C. and

Helm,

G.E.,

1 972. Preliminary geologic investigations

rock tunnel

sites

for flood

and pollution control

in the greater Chicago

area.

Illinois

State

Geological

Survey Environmental Geology Notes

52,

35 p.

Csallany,

S. andWalton,

W.C.,

1963. Yields

of shallow dolomite

wells

northern

Illinois.

Illinois

State

Water Survey Report of investigations

46, 43

Culver,

H.E.,

1923.

Geology and mineral resources of

the

Morris Quadrangle.

Illinois State

Geological Survey Bulletin

43,

95-204.

Damberger,

H.H.,

Subhash,

B.B., Treworgy,

J.D.,

Berggren, D.J.,

Bargh,

M.H.

and

Sampson,

l.E.

1 984.

Coal industry

Illinois.

Illinois

Stare

Geological Survey Coal Resources

Map,

1:500,000.

Devera,

J.A-.,

1 993.

Geologic

Map of the

Wolf Lake Quadrangle,

Jackson and

Union

Counties,

Illinois.

Illinois State

Geological Survey

IGQ-1 3.

Ferguson,V.R.,

Krothe,

N.C. and

Fleming,

A.H.,

1991. Ground-water recharge through

glaciai

deposits,

northeastern

Indiana (Abstract.

Program and Abstracts,

36th Annual

Midwest

Ground

Water

Conference,

64.

Fisher,

D.J.,

1 925. Geology and mineral resources

the

Joliet Quadrangle.

Illinois

State

Geological Survey Bulletin

51,

1 60 p.

Ford,

D.C.,

1 964. Origin

closed

depressions

in the central

Mendip

Hills

Abstrac’tl,

International Geographical Congress,

20th,

London, England,

105-106.

Ford,

D.C.

and Williams,

P.W.,

1 989.

Karst

Geomorphology and Hydrology.

Unwin

Hyman

•

Ltd.,

LOndon.

601

Foster,

J.W.,

1 956.

Groundwater geology of

Lee

and Whiteside

Counties,

Illinois.

Illinois

State

Geological Survey Report of Investigations

1 94,

Hackett,

J.E.

and

Bergstrom, R.E.,

1 956,

Groundwater in northwestern

Illinois.

Illinois State

Geological Survey CIrcular

20.7, 24

Hallberg,

G.R.,

and Hoyer,

B.E.r

1 982. Sinkholes,

hydrogeology,

and ground-water

quality in

northeast

Iowa.

Iowa

Geological Survey contract Report

#81-5500—04, 120

Harvey,

R.D.,

1 964.

Mississippian

limestone resources

Fulton,

McDonough,

and

Schuyber

Counties,

lllinois.

Illinois

State

Geological Survey Circular

370,

Heyl,

A.V.,

Jr.,

Agnew,

A.F.,

Lyons

E.J.,

Behre,

C.H., Jr.,

and

Flint,

A.E..,

1 959. The

Geology

of the

Upper -Mississippi Valley

Zinc-Lead

District.

U.S. Geological Survey

Professional

Paper3O9,310p.

Hinds,

H.,

1917. Geology and economic

resources of

Colchester and Macomb

Quadrangles.

lllinoi8 State

Geological Survey Bulletin

30, p. 75-108.

Horberg,

L.,

1950.

Bedrock topography, of

Illinois.

Illinois Geological Survey Bulletin

73, 111

Kolata,

D.R., and T.C. Buschbach,

1 976.

Plum

River Fault

Zone

of Northwestern

Illinois.

Illinois

State

Geological Survey Circular

491,

20 p.

39

Kolata,

D.R.,

Buséhbach,

T.C.,

and Treworgy,

J.D.,

1 978. The

Sandwich Fault

Zone

northern

Illinois,

illinois State

Geological Survey Circular

605,

Krey,

F.,

1 924.

Structural reconnaissance

of the

Mississippi

Valley Area from

Old

Monroe,

Missouri, to

Nauvoo,

Illinois,

Illinois State

Geological Survey

Bulletin

45,

Knappen,

R.S.,

1 926.

Geology and -Mineral

Resources

of the

Dixon

Quadrangle.

-Illinois State

Geological

Survey

Bulletin

49,

141

Lamar, J.E.,

1 928.

Karst Topography and Sanitary

Engineering at Al-ton,

Illinois.

Illinois

Academy

of Science

Transactions

20,

261-264.

Leighton,

M.M.,

Ekblaw,

G.E~and

Horberg,

L.,

1 948. Physiograp-hic

divisions of

Illinois.

Journal of

Geology,

v. 56, no. 1, p. 16-33.

Mills,

P.C.,

Howard, J.M.,

Yeskis, D.J. and

Kay,

R.T.

1 993. A preliminary conceptual

hydrogeologic

model of the

Galena-PIatteville

aquifer

in northern

Illinois

(Abstract.

Program

and Abstracts,

38th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference,

p.65..

Mohr,

C.E. and Poison,

T.L.,

1 966.

The Life of

the

Cave.

 McGraw-Hill Book Co., NY. 232 -p.

Morse, W.C.

and

Kay,.

F.H.,

1915. The

Colmar

Oil

Field

 a restudy.

Illinois State

Geological

SurveyBulletin3l,p.37-55.

Otto,

G.H,

1 963. Engineering geology of the

Chicago

area.

Foundation

Engineering

in -the

Chicago

Area.

Proceedings of Lecture Series, American Society of Civil Engineers,

Department of

Civil

Engineering,

Illinois

Institute of Technology,

Chicago,

Illinois, p.

3.1-3.24,

Palmer,

N.,

1991. Origin

and

Morphology

Limestone

Caves.

Geological Society of

AmericaBulletin,v.

103,p.

1-21.

Panno,

S.V.,

-1 996. Water

quality

in karst terrane.

The Kerst Window,

2-4.

Panrio,

S.V.,

Krapac,

l.G.,

and Weibel,

C.P.,

1 994.

Effects of

karst terrain

agrichemical

contamination

Illinois:

investigation

in the

southwestern

Illinois

sinkhole

plain.

Final Report to

the Illinois Groundwater

Consortium, Subcontract SIUC 92-04,

30

Panno,

S.V.,

Krapac,

I.G., Weibel,-C.P.,

and

Bade,

J.D.,

1 996. Groundwater

contamination

karst terrain

of southwestern

Illinois.

illinois State

Geological Survey-Environmenta/

Geology

151, 43

Pryor,

W.A.,

1 956. Groundwater geology

in southern

Illinois.

Illinois

State

Geological Survey

Circular2l2,

25 p.

Ray,

J.A.

and

O’dell, P.W.,

993.

DIVERSITY:

A new

method

for evaluating

sensitivity

groundwater to

Contamination.

Environmental Geology,

22,

p..

235-35-2.

Reinertsen,

D.L.,

1 990. Guide to the

geology of the

Oregon area,

Ogle

County.

illinois State

Geological Survey Field

Tri’p

Guide Leaflet

1 990C,

47 p.

Reinertsen,

D.L.

and Treworgy, J.D.,

1991. Guide td the geology

the

Pere

Marquette

State

Park area, Jersey County.

Illinois State

Geological Survey Field Trip

Guide Leaflet

1 991-

D, 34 p.

Rubey,

W.W.,

1952. Geology and

Mineral Resources

of the

Hardin and Brussels Quadrangles

(in

Illinois).

U.S.

Geological Survey Professional Paper

218,

179 p.

Savage,

T.E.,

1925. Correlation

of the

Maquoketa

and

Richmond rocks

Iowa andIllinois.

Illinois Academy of Science

Transactions

(1924), v.

17, p.

233-247.

Schultz, A.P.,

1 993. Map

showing surficial

geology

of the

St. Louis

X 60 minute

Quadrangle.

United State

Geological Survey Open

File Report

OF 93-0288,

p.

Templeton,

J.S. and

Willman,

H.B.,

1952. Central

Northern

Illinois.

-illino/s

State

Geological

Survey Guidebook Series

 2, 47 p.

Treworgy, J.D.,

1 979. Structure

and Paleozoic stratigraphy

the Cap au

Gras

Faulted

Flexure

in western

Illinois.

Illinois State

Geological Survey Guidebook

Series

14,

35.

Treworgy, J.D., Hindman, C.A., Pan, L. and

Baxter,

J.W.,

 1 989.Evaluation of the potential

damage

from subsidence

of underground

mines

illinois.

illinois State

Geological

Survey Open File SeriesOFS

1989-2, 246

Trowbridge,

A.C.,.. and

Shaw, E.W.,

1 91 6. Geology and

Geography of

the

Galena

and

Elizabeth Quadrangles.

illinois State

Geological Survey Bulletin

27,

Visocky, A.P., Sherrill, M.G. and

Cartwright,

K.,

1 985. Geology,

hydrology,

and water quality

of the

Cambrian

and

Ordovician Systems

in northern

Illinois.

Illinois

State

Geological

and Water Survey Cooperative

Groundwater Report

10,

136 p.

Wanless,

H.R.,

1 957. Geology and mineral resources

of the

Beardstown,

Glasford,

and

Vermont Quadrangles.

Illinois State

Geological Survey Bulletin

82,

233

Webb,

D.W.,

Taylor,

S.J.

and

Krejca,

J.K., 1

994. The biological

resources

IIli~oiscaves

and

other subterranean

environments.

Illinois Natural History Survey Center for

Biodiversity Technical Report

1 993

(8),

1 57 p.

1~i~

~rri~rwrfrr~

Minii’esota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

7020.0100

ERepealed,

6343

Current

11/01/00

7020.0200

SCOPZ.

Thi~chapter governs the

 storage,

 transportation, disposal,

-and utilization of animal manure and process wastewaters and the

application for and

issuance

 of permits

 for construction and

operation of animal manure management and disposal

or

J~agelo.

http ://www.revisor.Ieg .state.mn.uslcgi-binigetrulechap.pl

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

Page

of53

MinnesotaRules, Chapter 7020.

7020.0100

Repealed,

834

Current

11/01/00

7020.0200

SCOPE.

This chapter governs the storage,

 transportation,

 disposal,

and utilization of animal manure and process wastewaters and the

application for and issuance

 of permits for construction and

operation of animal manure management and disposal or

utilization systems for the protection of the environment.

 This

chapter does not address wastes from fish.

 This chapter

 does

not preempt the adoption or enforcement of zoning ordinances

or.

plans by counties,

 townships,

 or cities.

STAT AUTH:

MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

HIST:

 25 SR 834

Current

11/01/00

7020.0205

 INCORPORATION BY

REFERENCE.

For the purposes of parts 7001.0020 and 7020.0200

to

7020.2225,

 the documents

 in items A to L are incorporated by

reference.

 These documents are not subject-to frequent change.

A.

 Annual Book of American Society for Testing and

Materials

 (ASTM),

 Part

 4, ASTM

 D 1557, Test Methods for

Moisture—Density Relations

 of Soils and Soil—Aggregate Mixtures

Using 10—Ib’ (4.54—kg)

 Rammer and 18—in.

 (457-mm)

 Drop.

1978

Edition.

 This publication is available through the Minitex

interlibrary

 loan system.

B.

 Annual Book of American Society for Testing and

Materials

 (ASTM),

 Part. 4,

 ASTM D 4318,

 Test Method for Liquid

Limit,

 and Plasticity Index of Soils.

 1984 Edition.

 This

publication is available through the Minitex interlibrary loan

system.

C.

 Annual Book

 of American Society for Testing and

Materials

 (ASTM),

 Part

 4, ASTM D 422,

 Method for Particle—Size

Analysis

 of Soils.

 1972 Edition.

 This publication is available

through the Minitex interlibrary loan system.

0.

 Annual Book of American Society for Testing and

Materials

 (ASTM),

 Part

 4, ASTM

0

 698,

 Test

Methods

for

Moisture-Density Relations of

 Soils and-Soil-Aggregate Mixtures

Using 5.5-lb

 (2.49—kg)

 Rammer

 arid. 12—in.

 (304.8—mm)

 Drop.

1978

Edition.

 This publication

 is available through the Minitex

interlibrary loan system.

F..

 Code of Federal Regulations,

 title

40,

 part

 412,

Feedlots Point Source Category.

 This publication is available

through the &linitex interlibrary loan system.

F.

 Code of Federal Regulations,

 title

 40, section

122.23, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.

 This

publication is available-through the t4initex interlibrary

 loan

system.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-binlgetrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter7020.

~Page

2 of

G.

 Protected Waters and Wetlands Maps,

 1999.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,

 Division of Waters.

These maps -are available through the Minnesota Bookstore,

117

University Ave.,

St.

 Paul,

MN

 55-155.

 These maps are available

for

 viewing at

 the County Auditor’s offices, County Soil and

 Water Conservation District offices, Watershed District offices,

Minnesota Department

 of Natural

Resources offices,

 and through

the Minitex iriterlibrary loan System

at the Minnesota Department

of Natural Resources Internet site at the following address:

http: //www.dnr.state.ntn.us/waters/wetlands/pwi/index.html.

H.

 United States Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps,

7.5— and 15—minute maps, United States Department of

the

Interior Geological Survey,

 1999.

 These maps are available

through the Minitex interlibrary loan-system from the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency library.

 They are available for

viewing at the Minnesota Department of Administration and county

offices,

 and may be ordered from the United States Geological

Survey Internet site at

 the following address:

http:/Jmappings. usgs. gov/mac/findmaps

html.

Minnesota

Natural

 Resources Conservation Service

Practice Standard,

 Waste Storage Pond

 (Code

No.

 425),

 November

1991,

or

Waste

Storage

Facility

(Code

No.

313),

January

1998.

This publication

 is available through the Minitex system.

J.

 Feedlot Inventory Guidebook, Minnesota Board of

Water and Soil Resources,

 June -1991.

 This publication is

available through -the Minitex interlibrary loan system.

K.

 Annual Bc~okof American Society for Testing

Materials

 (ASTM),

 part

4,

 ASTM D

 2922,

 Test Method for Density

of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in Place by Nuclear Methods

(Shallow

Depth)

 1996 Edition.

 This publication

 is available through

the Minitex interlibrary loan system.

L.

 An Evaluation System to Rate Feedlot Pollution

Potential,

 United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Research Service,

 April 1982.-

 This publication is available

through

the

Minitex interlibrary

 loan system.

STAT AUTH

MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

HIST:

 25 SR

834

Current as of

11/01/00

7020.0250

 STJSMITTALS AND RECORDS.

Subpart

1.

 Accuracy

submittals.

An

owner

who

fails

submit relevant facts or who has submitted -incorrect information

in a submittal

 shall,

 upon becoming aware of the failure or

incorrect

 information,

 promptly submit to the commissioner or

county feedlot pollution control officer the supplementary facts

or corrected infdrmation.

Subp.

Record

retention,

access

records,

and

inspections.

A.

 A person required to

 keep records under this

chapter shall maintain at the animal feed~.otor.manure storage

area,

or

 at the person’s business address,

 for three years from

the date the record was made, unless otherwise specified,

all

information required to be recorded under applicable- state and

federal

 rules.

 The person shall make these records available

httt, ://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-binlgetrulechan.nl

16/2001

Minnesota Rules,

Chapter 7020.

 Page3 of 53

for examination and copying upon request

 of the commissioner,

county feedlot pollution control

 officer,

 or agent of the

commissioner and shall,

 upon request,

 submit these records to

the commissioner,

 county feedlot pollution control officer,

or

agent of the commissioner within

30

 days.

B.

 A person storing,

 transporting, disposing,

or

utilizing -animal manure or process wastewaters shall provide the

commissioner,

 county feedlot pollution control

 officer,

 or agent

of

 the commissioner access to the animal feedlot,

 the animal

holding area,

 the manure storage area,

 or other areas where

manure or process wastewaters are

 stored,

 in transport,

or

utilized,

 including allowing the collection of samples,

and

records

to

 the extent provided under Minnesota Stat-utes,

 section

115.04,

 or other law, upon presentation of credentials.

C.

 Nothing in this subpart limits the commissioner’s

or agency’s

authority

 under-Minnesota Statutes, section

 115.04,

or other

 law.

STAT AUTH:

MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

HIST:

 25 SR

834

Current

11/01/00-

7020.

0300

DEFINITIONS.

Subpart

1.

 Scope.

 All terms employed in this chapter for

which- definitions are given

 in Minnesota Statutes,

 sections

115.01 and 116.06,

 have the meanings given

 in those sections.

For the purposes of this chapter, the

terms

specified.

 in this

part

have

the

meanings

ascribed

 them.

Subp.

1a~.

 A~ovegrouxid

manure

storage

area.

“Aboveground

manure storage area” means

 a manure storage area for

which

all

portions of the liner are located at or above the elevation of

the

natural

ground

level.

Subp.

2.

 Agency.

 “Agency” means the Minnesota Pollution

Control Agency as established in Minnesota Statutes,

 chapter

 116.

Subp.

3.

 Animal

~eed.lot. “Animal

 feedlot” means a

 lot or

building or combination

 of. lots and buildings intended-for the

confined feeding, breeding,

 raising,

 or holding of animals and

specifically designed as

 a confinement area

 in which manure may

accumulate, orwhere the concentration of animals

 is such that

a

vegetative cover--cannot be maintained within the enclosure.

For

purposes

 of these parts,

 open lots used for

 the feeding and

rearing of poultry (poultry ranges)-

 shall be considered to be

animal feedlots.

 Pastures shall not be considered -animal

feedlots under these parts.

 Subp.

4.

 Animal manure or manure.

 “Animal manure” or

“manure” means poultry,

 livestock,

 or other animal excreta or

a

mixture of excreta with feed,

 bedding,

 precipitation,

 or other

materials.

Subp.

5.

 Animal

unit.

 “Animal unit” means

 a unit Cf

measure used to compare differences

 in the production of-animal

manure that employs as

 a standard the amount of manure produced

on

 .a regular basis by a slaughter steer

 or heifer for an animal

feedlot or

 a manure storage

 area,

 calculated by -multiplying the

number

of animals of each

type in items -A to I by the respective

multiplication factor and summing the resulting-values for the

http ://www.revisor.leg,state.mn,us/cgi-binJgetrulechap~pl

4/16/2001

Minnesota

Rules,

Chapter 7020.

:iPage4 of

total

number

of animal units.

 For purposes of this chapter,

the

following multiplication factors

 shall

 apply:

A.

 dairy cattle:

(1)

 one mature cow

 (whether milked or dry);

(a)

 over 1,000

 pounds,-

 1.4 animal

 unit;

or

(b)

 under

 1,000 poundS,

 1.0 animal unit;

(2)

 one heifer,

0.7

 animal unit; and

(3)

 one calf,

 0.2 animal unit;

B.

 beef cattle:

(1)

 one~slaughtersteer or stock cow,

 1.0 animal

unit;

(2)

 one feeder cattle (stocker or backgrounding)

or-heifer,

 0.7 animal unit;

(3)

 one cow arid calf pair,

 1.2- animal unit;

and

(4)

 one calf,

 0.2 animal

 unit;

C.

 one head of

 swine:

(1)

 over 300 pounds,

 0.4 animal unit;

(2)

 between 55 pounds and

 300 pounds,

 0.3 animal

unit;

and

(3)

 under 55 pounds,

 0.05 animal

 unit;-

D.

 one horse,

 1.0 animal unit;

E.

 one sheep or

 lamb,

 0.1 animal-unit;

F.

 chickens:

(1)

 one laying hen or broiler,

 if the facility

has

 a liquid manure system,

 0.033 animal unit;

or

(2)

 one chicken

if

the facility has

 a dry manure

system:

(a)

 over five pounds,

 0.005 animal unit; or

(b)

 under five pounds,

 0.003 animal unit;

G.

 one turkey:

(1)

 over

 five pounds,

 0.018 animal unit;

or

(2)

 under five pounds,

 0.005 animal unit;

H.

 one duck,

 0.01 animal unit;

and

I.

 for animals notlisted in items A to

H,

 the number

of animal units

 is the average weight

 of the animal in pounds

divided by 1,000 pounds.

httn://wwwxevisor. le~.state.rnnus/c~i

-hin/~etrulec-han

4/16/2001

Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

Subp.

5a.

Concentrated

animal

feeding

operation

 CAFO.

“Concentrated animal feeding operation” or “CAFO” means animal

feedlots meeting the definition of

 a CAFO in Code of Federal

Regulations,

 title

40,

 section 122.23.

Subp~ 6.

 Certificate

 of compliance.

 “Certificate

of.

compliance”

means

letter

 from the commissioner or the county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

the

owner

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

stating

that

the

feediot

manure storage area meets agency requirements.

Subp.

6a.

Commencement

construction.

“Commencement

of

construction”

 means to begin or cause to begin,

 as part of a

continuous program, -the-placement,

 assembly,

 or installation

of.

facilities

 or equipment;

or

 to conduct significant site

preparation work,

 including clearing,

 excavation,

 -or removal

of

existing buildings,

 structures,

or

 facilities, necessary for the

placement,

assembly,

installation

facilities

equipment

at:

A.

 a new or expanded animal

 feedlot;

or

B.

 a new, modified,

 or expanded manure storage

 area.

Subp.

7.

 (Repealed,

 25 SR 834

Subp.

7a.

 Commissioner.

 “Commissioner” means the

commissioner of

 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency whose

duties are defined in Minnesota Statutes,

 section 116.03.

Subp.

7b.

 Composite liner.

 “Composite liner” means a

manure storage area liner which

 is designed to achieve a

theoretical seepage rate of

 1/560 inch per day or

 less and

consists ofa

 geomextibrane liner~ geosyrithetic clay liner,

or

other comparable material,

 laid over

 a constructed cohesive -soil

liner

having

thickness

two

feet

greater.

Subp.

7c.

Compost.

“Compost”

means

humus-like

 product

derived from the controlled microbial degradation of organic

material.

Only manure

that

has completed the compàsting-

processes described in part 7020.2150,

 subpart

2,

 is compost.

Subp.

Corrective

protective

measure.

“Corrective

protective measure” means

 a practice,

 structure,

 condition,

or

combination thereof which prevents or reduces

 the discharge of

pollutants from an

 animal- feedlot

 or manure storage area to a

level

 in conformity with agency rules.

Subp.

8a.-

Construction

short-form

permit.

“Construction

short—form permit” means

 a permit issued for an animal feedlot

manure

storage

area

according

parts

7020.0505

and

7020.0535.

Subp.

 County

feedlot pollution control officer.

“County feedlot pollution control officer” means an employee or

officer of

 a delegated county who

 is knowledgeable

in

agriculture

and

who

designated

the

county

board

perform

the duties under part 7020.1600.

Subp.

9a.

 Delegated county.

 “Delegated county” means a

county that has applied -for

 and received authorization pursuant

to part 7020.1600,

 subpart-

3a,

 item C,

 to implement an animal

feedlot program.

rage

53-

http://w-ww.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap-.pl

 4/16/2001

Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

Subp.

9b.

Design

engineer.

 “Design engineer” means a

professional engineer licensed in

 the state of Minnesota or

a

Natural Resources Conservation Service

 (NRCS)

 staff person

having NRCS approval authority for the

project.

Subp.

9c.

Discharge.

“Discharge”

means

the

addition

pollutant

waters

of

the

state,

including

 a release of animal

manure,

 manure—contaminated runoff or process wastewater from an

animal

 feedlot,

 a manure

 storage area,

 or an animal manure land

application site by leaking, pumping,

 pouring,

 emitting,

emptying,

 dumping,

 escaping,

 seeping,

 leaching,

 or any other

means.

 Discharge includes both point source and nonpoint source

discharges.

Subp.

10.

 (Repealed by amendment,

 1.. 1987

 c 186 s

15

Subp.-

11.

Domestic

fertilizer.

“Domestic

fertilizer”

means:

::Page

6 of

animal

manure

that

put

injected

into

the

soil

 to improve the quality or quantity of plant growth;

or

animal

manure

that

used

compost,

soil

conditioners,

 or specialized plant beds.

Subp.

ha.

 Expansion or

expanded.

 “Expansion”

or

“expanded”

means

construction

any

activity

that

has

resulted

may

result

 an increase

 in the

number

animal

units

that

an animal feedlot is capable of holding or an increase in

storage capacity of

 a manure- storage area.

Subp.

12.

 Floodplain.

 “Floodplain” means the areas

adjoining a watercourse -which have been or hereafter may be

covered by ~ large flood

 known to have occurred generally

in

Minnesota and reasonably characteristic

 of what can be expected

to occur on an average frequency in the magnitude

 of the 100

year recurrence interval.

Subp.

 12a.

 Flow distance.

 “Flow distance” means the

distance runoff travels from the source of

 the runoff to waters

of

 the state.

Subp.

13.

 Interim- permit.

 “Interim permit” means a permit

issued by the commissioner or the county feedlot pollution

control officer in accordance-with parts 7020.0505 and 7020.0535.

Subp.

 13a.

 Intermittent

streams.

 “Intermittent streams”

 means

 a-il water courses identified as intermittent streams

on

United States Geological Survey quadrangle maps.

Subp.

 l3b.

 Manure—contaminated runoff.-

“Manure—contaminated runoff” means

 a liquid that has come into

contact with animal manure and drains over land from any animal

feedlot, manure storage area,

 or animal manure land application

site.

Subp.

14.

 Mak~ure

storage

 area.

 “Manure

 storage- area”

means

 an area where animal manure or process wastewaters are

 stored or processed.

 Short—term and permanent stockpile

 sites

and composting

 sites are manure storage areas.

 Animal manure

packs

 or mounding within the animal holding area

of

 an animal

feedlot that are managed according to part 7020.2000,

 subpart

3,

are not manure storage areas.

ht1~r,

f/’,,r,zru,

l~rr

et~t~

n-i,,

i,c./,-.r,

1-,,,/r

trnl,.,-4,.,-.,

,.1

it/i

AI’)flfli

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

 .Page 7 of

Subp.

15.

New

 animal

feedlot.

 “New

animal

feedlot”

means

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area:

constructed,

established,

operated

a~a

site

where

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

existed

previously;

or

that

existed

previously

and

has

been

unused

for

five

years

more.

Subp.

 15a.

 New taubnology.

“New

technology”

means

alternative construction or operating method-to those provided.

parts

7020.2000

 tO 7020.2225.

 New technology construction or

operating

methods

must

achieve

equivalent

environmental

results

the

requirements

parts

7020.2000

7020.2225.

Subp.

16..

National

Pollutant

Discharge

 Elimination System

permit

NPDES

permit.

“National

Pollutant

Discharge

Elimination

System

permit”

“NPDES

permit”

means

permit

issued

the

agency

for

the

purpose

regulating

the

discharge

of pollutants from point sources including concentrated animal

feeding

operations

 (CAFO5).

Subp.

17.

 Owner.

 “Owner” means all persons having

possession,

 control,

 or title

 to an animal feedlot or manure

storage

area.

Subp.

18.

Pastures.

-!‘Pastures”

means

areas

where

grass

other

growing

plants

are

used

for

grazing

and

where

the

concentration of animals

 is such that

 a vegetation cover

is

maintained during the growing season except in

 the immediate

vicinity

temporary

supplemental

feeding

watering

devices.

Subp.

 18à.

 Permanent

stockpiling

site.

“Permanent

stockpiling

 s-ito” means

 a manure storage area where manure

is

stored or processed -that does not meet the requirements of part

7020.2125,

subpart

2.

Subp.

19.

 Permit.

 “Permit”

means

document

issued

the

agency

county

animal

 feedlot pollution control officer which

may

contain

requirements,

 conditions,

 or schedules

 for achieving

compliance with the discharge standards and requirements for

management

animal

 manure construction or operation of animal

holding

areas

manure

storage

areas-.

 Permits issued under

this chapter are NPDES,

 state disposal system,

 interim,

and

construction short-form permits.

Subp.

 19a.

 Pollution

hazard.

“Pollution

hazard”

means

animal

feedlot

o~manure

storage

area

 that:

A.

 does not comply with the requirements of parts

7020.2000

7020.2225

and

has

not

been

issued

 SDS or NPDES

permit

 establishingan alternative construction or operating

method;

B.

presents

potential

immediate

source

pollution

waters

the

state

determined

by inspection by

a

 county feedlot pollution control- officer or agency staff

taking into consideration the following-:

(1)

the

size

 the animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area;

(2)

 the amount of pollutants reaching or that may

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi~bin/getru1echap.pI

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

reach waters of the state;

(3)

 the location of the animal feedlot or manure

storage area relative to waters of

 the state;

(4)

 the means of conveyance

 of animal manure or

process wastewater into waters of the state;

and

(5)

the

 slope,

 vegetation,

 rainfall,

 and other

factors

affecting

 the likelihood or frequency of discharge of

animal manure or process waStewater into waters-of the state.

Subp.

19b.

Process

wastewaters.

“Process

wastewaters”

means waters and/or precipitation,

 including rain or

 sn-ow,

 which

conies

into

contact

with

manure,

litter,

bedding,

other

raw

material

intermediate

final

material

product

used

resulting from the production of animals,

 poultry,

 or direct

products,

 such

 as milk or

 eggs.

Subp.

20.

 (Repealed,

 25 SR 834

Subp.

 20a.

 Separation distance to bedrock-.

 “Separat-ion

distance to bedrock” means the distance between stored manure

and fractured bedrock.

Subp.

21.

 Shoreland.

 “Shoreland” means

 land,

 as defined

in Minnesota Statutes,

 section 103F.205,

 subdivision

4,

 located

within the following distances from the ordinary high water

elevation of public waters:

A.

 land within 1,000

 feet from the normal high water

mark of

 a lake, pond,

or

 flowage;

and

latid within 300 feet

of

 a river

 or stream or -the

side

 of floodplain delineated by ordinance on such

a

stream,

 whichever is greater.

Subp.

 21a.

 Short-term stockpiling

 site-.

 “Short-term

stockpiling site” means a manurestorage area where manure is

stored or processed according to part 7020.2125,

 subparts

1

to

3.

Subp.

22.

 Sinkhole.

 “Sinkhole” means

 a surface depression

caused by

 a collapse of soil or overlying formation above

fractured or-cavernous bedrock.

Subp.

23.

 Special protection area.

 “Special protection

area” means land within 300

 feet of all:

A.

 protected -waters and protected wetlands

as

identified on Department of Natural Resources protected

 wat-ers

and wetlands maps; and

B.

 intermittent streams and ditches identified on

United States Geological Survey quadrangle maps,

 excluding

drainage

 ditches with berms. and segments Qf intermittent streams

which are grassed waterways.-

Subp.

24.

 State disposal-system permit or SDS permit.

“State disposal system permit”

 or “SDS permit”-means- a state

permit that may be processed in accordance with parts 7001.0040;

-7001.0050;

 7001.0100,

 subparts

 4 and

5;

 and 7001.0110.

Subp.

25.

 Unpermitted or noricertified

liquid manure-

storage area,

 “Unpermitted or noncertified liquid manure

~Page 8 of53

landward

river

or

httD ://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechac.ol

 4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

storage area” means

 a liquid manure storage area

that is

in

operation and:

the

owner

does

not

have

agency

delegated

county permit or certificate

 of compliance for the manure

storage area and was required to apply for and obtain

 a permit

or certificate of compliance prior to the construction or

operation

the

manure

storage

area;

B.

 the owner

has

 not complied with the preoperational

requirements of part 7020.2100

or.

permit requirements,

if

applicable.

Subp.

26.

 Waters of

the

 state.

 “Waters

 of the state”

means

 all streams, -lakes,

 ponds,

 marshes,

 watercourses,

waterways,

wells,

springs,

reservoirs,

aquifers,

irrigation

systems,

drainage

systems,

and all

other

bodies

accumulations

water,

surface

underground,

natural

artificial,

public

 private,

 which are contained within, flow through,

 or border

upon

the

state

any

portions

the

state.

STAT AUTH:

MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;- 122.23

.Page

9 of 53

HIST:

 1 1987

 c 186

s

15;

 25 SR 834

Current as

 11/01/00

7020.0350 REGISTRATION REQUIREHENTS FOR ANIMAL FEEDLOTS AND

MANURE STORAGE AREAS.

Subpart

1.

 Registration data.

 After January

1,

 2002,

the

agency and all delegated counties shall maintain registration

data for animal feedlots and manure storage areas.

The

registration data must include the information required in

a

Level II feèdlot inventory as described

 in- the Feedlot Inventory

Guidebook and must contain the following:

A.

 date the registration form was completed;

B.

 name and address of all owners of the animal

feedlot, manure stora~earea,

 or pasture;

C.

 facility location according to township,

 county,

section,

 and quarter section;

D.

 permit or certificate number for owners who have

been issued an agency or delegated- county feedlot permit or

certificate of compliance;

E.

 types of animal holding areas including pastures,

confinement barns,

 and open lots;

F.

 numbe’r

and types of animals in the areas listed in

item E;

G.

 identity of surface waters within 1,000

 feet of

the facility;

H.

 presence and type of manure storage areas;

I.

 shortest distance from an animal holding area

or

manure storage area to

 a well; and

J.

 the name

 of the person that completed the

registration form.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.-pl

 4/16/2001

Minnesota-Rules, Chapter 7020.

~age

10 of 5-3

Subp.

2.

 Owners

required to register.

Owners

the

following

facilities

are

required

register with- the commissioner

 or delegated county,

 except

as

provided

item

B:

(1)

animal

feedlot

capable

holding

animal

units,

manure

storage

area

capable

holding.

the manure produced by 50 or more animal units;

and

(2)

animal

feedlot

capable

holding

ten

and

fewer

than

 animal

units,

manure

storage

area

capable

-holding

the

manure

produced

ten

and

fewer

than

 50. animal units,

 that-is located within shoreland.

B.

 An owner of

 a livestock facility located on county

fairgrounds is not required to register,

 in accordance

 with- Laws

2000,

 chapter 435,

 section 10, paragraph

 (c), clause

 (6).

Subp.

3.

 Initial registration

schedule and. requirements.

Owners required to register under subpart

 2 shall comply with at

least one of

 the following by January

1,

 2002:

A.

 the owner shall submit the information in subpart

1,

 on a form provided by the commissioner,

 to the commissioner

or delegated county feedlot pollution control officer;

B.

the

owner

shall submit

 a permit

 ap-plication to

the

commissioner

 or delegated county after October 23,

 2000;

or

C.

 the owner shall

 be listed on a feedlot inventory

that:

(1)

 is a Level

 II or Level III inventory as

described in the Feedlot Inventory Guidebook that contains the

information under subpart

1,

 items ~ and E to

3;

(2)

 is current

 as of October

1,

 1997;

(3)

 contains the information required under

subpart

1,

 items B to

 D; and

(4)

 -has been submitted to

 the commissioner.

Subp.

4.

 Registration requirements after

January

1,

 2002.

Owners of animal feedlots and manure storage areas who are

required to register under subpart 2 shall comply with items A

and

B,

 as applicable.

A.

 Owners of facilities not in operation prior to

January

1,

 2002,

 shall register with the commissioner

or

delegated county prior to

 or upon commencement of operation.

Owners

 shall comply with

 at least one of the following:

(1)

 the owner shall submit the information in

subpart

1,

on

 a form provided by the commissioner;

or

(2)

 the owner shall submit a permit application

to

 the commissioner or delegated county.

B.

 Owners shall update their registrations prior to

the -registration update deadlines which shall be established by

adding four-year increments

 to the initial registration deadline

httn://www.revisorJe~,state.mn.us/c~i-binJgetrulechao.o1

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

of January

1,

 2002.

 Owners shall register at least once during

each of the

 four—year registration update intervals by meeting

one of the following:

(1)

 the owner shall comply with item

A,.

 subitem

(1)

or

 (2);

or

(2)

 the owner

 shall be listed on a feedlot

inventory that:

(a)

Level

 II or Level III inventory as

described in the Feedlot Inventory Guidebook that contains the

information under subpart

 1, items A and E to

3;

(b)

has been updated within the applicable

four—year registration -interval;

Cc)

 contains the information required under

subpart

1,

 items

 B to

 D and K;

and

Cd)

 in its updated form has been submitted

to the commissioner,

 including the information

 in unit

 (C).

Subp.

5.

 Notification;

 The agency or delegated county

shall:

P-age 11 of 53

A.

 notify owners at

 least

 90 days prior to the

scheduled

registration

update

deadlines

about

 reregistration;

and

B.

 send a receipt of registration

 to owners within

30

days

receipt

the

registration

the

agency

the

delegated county.

STAT AUTH:

MS

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

HIST:

 25 SR 834

Current

11/01/00

7020.0355

 PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES ISSUED

PRIOR

OCTOBER

23,

2000.

Subpart

1.

 SWApermits.

 All owners with SW-A permits

shall comply with the permitting requirements

 in parts 7020.0355

to 7020.0535.

 Upon application for a permit under parts

7020.0405

 to 7020.0535,

 the SW—A permit must be reconsidered

pursuant to this chapter and chapter 7001.

Any

SW—A permit

terms and conditions that are inconsistent with the requirements

of parts 7020.2000 to-7020.2225

 are superseded as of October

23,

2000.

Subp.

2.

 Certificates of compliance.

 All owners with

certificates of compliance

 shall

comply

with

the

permitting

requirements in parts

 7020.0355 to 7020.0535.

Subp.

3.

 Interim A

and

interim B permits.

 An owner with

an Interim A or’Interim B permit that has not

expired

October

23,

 2000,

shall

comply

with

items

 A and

B.

A.

If

 the requirements-for which an Interim A permit

was issued are not complete on October

23,

 2000,

the

owner

shall

apply,

 prior to the expiration date of the Interim A permit,

for

a construction short-form,

 SDS, or NPDES permit as-required

under part 7020.0405.

http

://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

4/16/200 1

Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

B.

 If the

requirements

 for which an Interim

B permit

was

issued

are

not

complete

the

expiration

date

the

Interim

B

permit,

the

owner

shall

comply

with

part

7020.0535.

subpart

except

that

the

owner

shall

complete

the

notification

 requirement prior to the expiration date of the Interim-B permit-.

Subp.

 NPDES and

SDS

permits.

N-PDES

and

SDS

permits

issued

prior

October

23,

2000,

remain

effect

the

extent

provided

the

issued

permit

terms

and

conditions.

P-age 12 of53

STAT

AUTH:

115.03;

116.07;

122.23

51ST:

834

 NOTE:

 This part

was

originally

adopted

834

*7020,0400.

was

renumbered

editorially.

Current

11/01/00

7020.0405 PERMIT

REQUIREMENTS.

Subpart

1.

 Permit required.

 Four types of permits are

issued under this chapter and chapter 7001:-

 interim

permits,

construction short—form permits,

 SDS permits,

 -and NPDES

permits.

 The owner shall apply for a permit as follows:

A.

 an NPDES permit

 for the construction and op&ration

animal

feedlot

that

meets

the

criteria

for

 CAFO;

B.

 unless

required

apply

for

permit

under

item

SDS

permit

under

the

following

conditions:

(1)

 the construction and operation of an-animal

feedlot

or

 ?tianure storage area that has been demonstrated not to

meet the criteria for CAFO and iscapable of holding 1,000 or

animal

units

the

manure

produced

1,000

animal

units;

(2)

 the facility does not comply with all

applicable requirements of parts 7020.2000 to 7020.2225 and the

pollution

hazard

cannot

be,

has

not

been,

corrected

under

the

conditions

 in part 7020.0535 applicable

interim

permits;

(3)

the

owner

proposing

construct

operate a new technology.

 An SOS permit is required for new

technology operational methods while these operational methods

are employed;

or

(4)

 the facility is one for which conditions or

requirements other than those in parts

 -7020.2-00-0

 to 7020.2225

were assumed:

(a)

as

 a mitigation measure

 in an

environmental impact statement;

or

(b)

 in obtaining a negative declaration in

an environmental assessment worksheet;

unless

required

obtain

permit

under

it-ems

and

B,

 an interim permit

 for:

(1)

 facilities identified as a pollution hazard;

httD ://www.revisor.1ea.state.mn.us/c~i-bin/Hetrulechan

.r,1

4/16/2001

MinnesotaRules, Chapter 7020.

 Page 13 of53

(2)

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

with

 a capacity of 300 or more

animal units prior to applying

manure

process

wastewater:

(a)

land

where

the

soil

phosphorus

test

levels exceed the levels

 in part 7020.2225,

 subpart

3,

 item C;

(b)

 on land in spedial protection areas with

—

slopes

exceeding

six

percent;

Cc)

drinking

water

supply

management

area

 where

the

aquifer

 is designated vulnerable under chapter

4720;

unless

required

obtain

permit

under

items

A

construction

short--form

permit

fo~an

animal

feedlot

manure storage area proposing to construct

 or expand

 to a

capacity

300

animal

units

more,

the

manure

produced

300 animal units

 or more.

 -However,

facility

determined

to be

 a pollution hazard and the owner is proposing to expand to

capacity

300

animal

-units

more,

the

manure

produced

by 300 animal units

 or more,

 the owner shall apply

 for an

interim

permit

under

item

C.

—

.Subp.- 2.

 Expansion

and.

stocking

limitations.

Prior-to

expansion,

owner

required

apply

for

construction

operating permit under subpart

 1 shall have obtained the permit,

permit

modification,

applicable.

An

owner

issued

interim permit that authorizes

 construction- for an expansion

shall

not

stock

 the expansion prior to the fulfillment

 of all

permit conditions related

 to the correction of the pollution

hazard

for

 which the interim permit was issued.

Subp.

 3.’

permit required.

 The owner of an animal

feedlot or manure storage area is not required to apply

for

a

permit for:

feedlot

manure

storage

area

that

meets

the

requirements

part

7020.2003,

subparts

B.

 a short—term

stockpile

compost

-site

 if -the

owner

 is not

an

owner

of

 an anifl~al--feedlotor manure storage

area other than

 a short—term stockpile or composting

 sit-e;

C.

 a livestock facility located on county

fairgrounds;

or

0.

 a change in

 an existing facility that consists

solely of a change

in

ownership of the building,

 grounds,

or

feedlot.

Subp.

4.

Change

ownership.

Prior

the

change

the

 ownership or control of an animal feedlot or manure storage area

issued

permit

under

 this chapter,

 the new owner shall submit

to the commissioner or county feedlot pollution control officer

the information required

 in item A

or-

B,

 as applicable.

 If the

commissioner or county feedlot pollution control officer

determines

that

the

new

owner

meets

the

requirements

for

obtaining the permit, then the commissioner or the -county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

shall-issue

the

permit

the

new

owner.

The

new

owner

~h-all

submit:

A.

 a request for permit modification according to

part 7001.0190 for facilities covered under an

 SDS or NPDES

4/16/2001

httD://www.revisor.leg.state.nm.us/cgi-binJ~etru1echat.o1

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

permit;

B.

 a change of

ownership

form

provided

the

commissioner.

STAT AUTH:

MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

Page 14 of 53

HIST:

 SR 834

Current as-of 11/01/00

7020.0500

(Repealed,

834

Current as of 11/01/00

7020.. 0505

 PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND PROCESSING PROCEDURES.

Subpart

 Submittals.

 Permit applications must be

submitted

according

items-

A and

B.

 An application is

complete when all applicable information

 in subpart

 4 and

application

fees

under

parts

7002.0250

and

7002.0310

have

been

received by the commissioner or the county feedlot pollution

control officer,

 as appropriate.

 Incomplete permit applications

must not be processed by the commissioner

 or delegated county

feedlot pollution control officer.

A.

NPDES and SDS permit applications must be

submitted to the agency in accordance with

 this part and chapter

7001,

 with a copy submitted to the delegated county.

B.

 Interim permit and construction short-form permit

applications must be submitted to

 the agency or delegated county

in accordance with this part and part 7020.0535.

Subp.

2.

 Permit application submittal schedule.

 An owner

of an animaL feedlot or

 a manure storage

 area required to apply

for, a permit under part 7020.0405,

 subpart

1,

 shall apply in

accordance with the following schedule:

A.

 the following facilities that are in existence

on

before

October

23,

2000,

must

submit

permit

application

by

June

 1, -2001:

Cl)

 a CAFO;

and

(2)

 an animal feedlOt capable

of holding

1,000

animal

-units

 or more or

 a manure storage

area

capable of holding

th~manure produced by 1,000 animal units

 or more for which the

owner

has

demonstrated

that

the

facility

does

not

meet

the

 CAFO

criteria;

B.

 a CAFO as determined through the case-by-case

determination

process

under

Code

Federal

Regulations,

title

40,

section

122.23(c),

shall

submit

permit

application

the

submittal

deadline

established

the

commissioner’s

 written

request.

The

owner

has

least

days

 submit the permit

application;

C.

 an animal feedlot or a manure

 storage area that

is

new or expands after October

 -23,

 2000,

 and required to apply ~or

an

SOS

or

NPDES permit,

 shall submit

 a permit application at

least

 180 days prior

 to the planned date of commencement of

construction or expansion;

0.

 an animal feedlot or

 a manure storage area that

is

new or expanding after October

23,

 2000,

 and is required to

httn://www.revisor. le~.state.mn.

us/-c~i-binJ~etrulechan.pl

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

 Page15of53

apply

-for

a

construction

short-form

permit,

shall

submit

permit

application

least

 days

prior to the planned

date

of

commencement

construction

expansion;

and

 a facility determined to

pollution

hazard

shall submit

 a permit application ~y the submittal deadline

established

the

commissioner

 the county feedlot pollution

control

officer’s

written

request.

The

owner

has

least

days to submit the permit applicati~on.

Subp.

3.

 Permit

application format.

 A permit application

for

NPDES,

SOS,

interim,

con$truction

short-form

permit

must

form

provided

the

~oitiiflissioner

the

county

feedlot pollution control officer.

Subp.

4.

 Content of permit app~.ication.

A.

application

for

peritd.t

must

contain

the

following:

(1)

the

names

and

address-es

the

owners

and

the

signature

least

one

the

owners;

(2)

the

legal

name

and

business

address

the

facility,

 if different than the owper;

(3)

 the location of the facility by county,

township,

 section,

 and quartersection;

(4)

 a list of

 all animal types,

 and the maximum

number

animals

 of each animal type that can be confined

within each lot, building,

or

 area; at the animal feedlot;

(5)

 A list of

 all existing ~nd proposed manure

storage

areas,

including

plans

and;

specifications

required

part 7020.21QQ

 for proposed liqui~manure storage

 areas- and part

7020.2125

 for permanent stockpile altes;

(6)

the

total

number

ani~aalunits

the

facilities

listed

subitems

(4)

and

(5)

will

capable

of

holding

after

completing

construction

expansion;

(7)

 the soil

type

texture

and

depth

saturated soils

 at the facility a~identified in the USDA Soil

Survey Manual or

 a site-specific soils investigation.

If

applicable,

submittal

 the soil~investigation information

required in parts 7020.2100

 to 7020.2225 meets

 this requirement;

(8)

 an aerial photograph showing the location of

all

wells,

buildings,

surface

tile

intakes,

lakes,

rivers,

and

watercourses within 1,000

 feet of~theproposed facility;

(9)

 the number of acres available for land

application

manure;

(10)

if

applying

for

 an SOS or NPDES permit or

interim -permit under part 7020.04~5,-subpart

1,

 item

C-,

 subitem

(2),

 a manure management plan that meets the requirements under

 part 7020.222.~, subpart

4;

(11)

 if applicable,

a

description of all

conditions that make the

 fac-ility

 a pollution hazard and

a

description

 the corrective and~protective measures proposed

to correct the pollution hazard;

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-binJ~etru1echap.pi

4/16/2001

Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

Rage

(12)

applying

for

~IPDESpermit,

supplemental

 federal application form.

B.

 In addition

 to the requirements of item

A,

a

permit

 application for an animal feedlot capable of holding

1,000 animal units

 or more or

manure

storage

area

capable

holding the manure produced by 1,000 animal units or more must

 contain:

(1)

air

emission

plan

that

includes:

(a)

methods

and

practices

that

will

used

to minimize air emissions resulting from animal feedlot or

manure

storage

area

 operations including manure storage area

start—up practices,

 loading,

 and manure removal;

(b)

 measures to

 be used to mitigate air

emissionsin the event of

 an exceedance-of the state ambient

hydrogen

 sulfide standard; and

Cc)

 a complaint response protocol-- describing

the procedures the owner will use-to respond to

complaints

directed

the

facility,

including:-

-i.

 a list of each potential odor

source

 at the facility;

ii.

 a determination-of

the

odor

sources

most

likely

 to generate significant amounts of odors;

and

iii.

 a list:of anticipated odor

control strategies for addressing each

 of the significant odor

sources;

and

(2)

emergency

response

plan

that

includes

description of

 the procedures that will:

(a)

contain,

minimize,

and

manage

unauthorized discharge;

(b)

 provide notification to the proper

authorities;

and

(c)

mitigate

any

adverse

effects

unauthorized discharge.

C.

 In addition to

 the requirements of items A and

B,

owner

proposing

 construct

 or expand an animal

 feedlot or

a

 manure storage area shall

 also submit, on a

form-

provided

 by the

commissioner,- certification and documentation that the

 owner- has

notified the local zonir~g-authority,

as

required

under

 part

7020.2000,

subpart

the

proposed

new

expanded

animal

feedlot or manure storage area,

 or that no such local zoning

controls

 exist.

addition

the

requirements

items

an owner proposing to construct or expand an animal feedlot with

the capacity of

 500 animal units or more or

 a manure storage

area with the capacity to hold

the

manure

produced

500

animal

units

shall

also

certify

and

document,

forms

provided

by the commissioner,

 that the notification requirements

 under

part 7020.2000,

 subpart

4,

 hare been met.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

Minr~esota

Rules, Chapter

7020.

Page

17 of 53

 The owner of

an

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

shall

submit

additional

information

relating

the

facility

design,.

construction,

operation

requested

the

commissioner or county feedlot pollution control officer to

evaluate compliance with applicable federal and state rules.

Subp.

5.

 Application processing.

 Permit applications must

be-processed according to

 items A to

C.

A.

 NPDES and SDS permits must be processed according

to the procedures under this part and part 7001.0020,

 item

F.

B.

 The agency and delegated county shall issue,

reissue,

 revoke and reissue,

 or modify a permit according to

part 7001.0140 and other applicable agency rules.

C.

 -Construction short-form and interim permit-

applications- must be processed in accordance with parts

7020.0505 and 7020.0535.

 County feedlot pollution control

officers shall also process permit applications according to

part 7020.1600,

 subpart

4a.

Subp.

6.

 Application for

variance.

 Any person may

apply

for

 a variance from any requirement of parts 7020.2000 to

7020.2225

in

 o-rder

 to avoid undue hardship.

 A variance must be

applied for

 and acted upon by the agency according to Minnesota

 Statutes,

 section 116.07,

 subdivision

5,

and

other applicable

statutes and rules.

STAT AUTH:

MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

51ST:

 25 SR 834

Current

o~ 11/01/00

7020.0535 CONSTRUCTION SHORT-FORM AND

 INTERIM- PERMITS.

Subpart

1.

 Applicability.

 This part applies tà owners who

apply for construction short-form and interim permits required

under part 7020,0405.

Subp.

2.

 Permit applications submitted.prior~

-to

October

23,

 2000.

 If an owner has submitted a complete permit

application for construction of an

animal

feedlot or a manure

storage area prior to October

23,

 2000,

 a-nd iseligible for

a

construction -short—form permit,

 the owner may request to have

the original application voided,

 returned,

 or, upon-receipt

 of a

construction

short—form

permit

application

the

 commissioner

or county feedlot pollution control officer,

 to have the

original

application

submittals

 incorporated into- the

construction short—form permit application.

 Complete

construction short—form permit applications-submitted under this

subpart must be considered received by the commissioner or

county

feed.lot

pollution

control

officer

the

date

the

original completed permit application for an-agency permit

was

received.

Subp.

3.-

Delegated

county

procedures

for

 denial

and

revocation.

A.

In

the

case

denial

permit

application

by

the

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer,

the

applicant

must

informed

writing

 by the county of the reasons

 for denial

and

must

informed

appeal

procedures

under

chapter

7001.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-binlgetrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules,

Chapter 7020.

 Page 18 of 53

The

applicant

shall

retain

all

rights

fundamental

fairness

afforded by law and the applicant may make an appeal

 to the

agency to review the county’s action.

 The denial by

 a county

shall be without prejudice to-the applicant’s right

 to an

appearance before the agency to request a public hearing or to

file

 a further application after revisions are made

 to meet

objections

specified

reasons

for

denial.

B.

 In order

 for a delegated county to revoke

a

permit,

 a copy

 of the permit together with

 a written

justification

 for revocation must be submitted to

the

commissioner for review.

 The commission-er shall,

 after receipt

the

justification

for

revocation

from

the

county,

review

the

matter within

 60 days to determine compliance with applicable

agency

rules.

 The county must receive written approval of the

permit revocation from the commissioner before taking action.

If a revocation has been approved by the commissioner,

the

applicant must be informed in writing by- the county of the

reasons

 for revocation and the applicant shall retain all rights

appeal

afforded

under

chapter

7001.

Revocation

without

reissuance of

 the permit must follow the requirements under part

7001.0180.

Subp.

4.

circumvention.

 An owner who obtains

a

 construction short-form or interim permit

 is subject

to

enforcement action for construction or operation without a

permit if

 the commissioner or county feedlo-t pollution control

officer

later

determines

 that the animal feedlot or a manure

storage

area

does

not

qualify

for

the

construction

short-form

interim permit that -was issued and that

 -the owner is required to

apply for and obtain an

 SDS or NPDES permit.

Subp.

5.

Duration

cons truction

short-form

and

interim

permits.

All

construction

short~-forxnand

interim

permits

expire

within

 months of

 the date of issuance.

If-- the work for which

a construction short-form permit

was

issued

not

complete

upon

expiration

the

permit,

the

expiration

-date

the

permit

may

be extended by no more than

 24 months if the owner complies with

items A and

B.

If

 the pollution hazard for which an interim

permit

was

issued

not

corrected

upon

expiration

the

permit,

the

expiration

 date

may

extended

no-more

than

days

if:

A.

 the facility is currently eligible for the same

permit; and

B.

the

owner notifies the commissioner or county

feedlot pollution control officer at least

 90 days prior to

the

expiration

the

permit.-

The

notificat-ion

shall

include:

(1)

the

name

the

owner,

and

the

name

the

facility if different from the owner;

(2) the permit number;

(3)

the

reason

the

work

may

not

completed

prior

expiration

the

permit;

(4)

the

estimated

amount

time

required

complete

the

work;

and

(5)

 if the animal feedlot

under

construction

expansion

will

capable

holding

500-

animal

units

more,

or

 the manure storage area under construction or expansion will

http ://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-binlgetrulechap.pl.

4/16/2001

~rPflmF~T

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

capable

holding

 the manure produced

500

animal

units

when

completed,

the

notification

requirements

under

part

7020.2000,-subpart

4,

form provided

the

 commissioner,

submitted

the

commissioner

 or delegated county feedlot

pollution

control

officer.

In

addition

the

information

required-under part 7020.2000,

 subpart

4,

 the notification must

include the date on which the original permit was issuedand the

new

proposed

completion

date.

Subp.

Construction

short-form

permit

content.

A

construction

short-form

permit

issued

the

commissioner

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

must

state:

“The

permittee

shall

comply

with

Minnesota

Rules,

parts

7020.2000

7020.2225,-

and

all

applicable

requirements.”

The

permit

must

also identify at least

the

following

information:

A.

 the permit number;

B.

the

owners’

names-and

addresses;

the

legal

name

the

animal

feedlot,

manure

storage

area

different

from

that

the

owner;

D.

 the location of

the

facility

county,

township,

section,

and

quarter

section;

the

existing

and

proposed

animal

types

and

types

animal

holding

areas;

F.

the

maximum

number

animal

units

authorized

the

facility

after

construction

expansion

-complete;

and

G.

the

types

existing

and

proposed

manure

storage

areas.

Design-plans

and

specifications

for

proposed

manure

storage

 areas

shall

incorporated

 by reference into the permit.

 The general

conditions

part

 7001.0150. excluding subpart-

item

must

incorporated

reference

all

constructiçn

short-form permits.

An interim permit issued

pollution

control

officer

subpart

and

the

A.

the

corrective

and

protective

measures

required

bring

the

facility

into

compliance

with

parts

7020.2000

7020.2225

B.

the

schedule

under

which

 the corrective and

protective

measures

must

completed;

and

C.

 additional requirements related to the-specific

site

 or. operation

-as

determined

necessary

ensure

compliance

with applicable rules and requirements.

Subp.

 Expansion

stocd.ng

J.imitations.

owner

issued

interim

permit

that

authorizes-construction

for

expansion

shall

not

stock

the

expansion

prior

the

fulfillment

all

permit

conditions

the

correction

the

pollution

hazard

for

which

the

interim

permit

was

issued.

STAT

AUTH:

MS

~j5~03;

116.07;

122.23

Page 19 of53

Subp.

7.

Interim

permit content.

 the commissioner or county feedlot

must include at least the information

following:

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

 Page 20 of 53

51ST:

 25 SR

834

Current as of 11/01/00

7020.0600

(Repealed,

834)

Current as of 11/01/00

7020.0700

(Repealed,

834

Current as of 11/01/00

7020.0800

(Repealed,

834

Current as of 11/01/00-

7020.0900

 (Repealed,

 25 SR 834

Current

as of 11/01/00

7020.1500 SCOPE.

Any

Minnesota

county

board

may,

resolution,

assume

responsibility for processing applications

 for animal feedlot

permits as authorized by Minnesota Statutes,

 section

 116.07,

subdivision-7.

The

provisions

parts

7020.1500

to

7020.1900

shall

govern

the

exercise

approval

and

supervising

authority

the

agency

with

respect

the

processing

animal

feedlot

permit

applications

county.

STAT

AUTH:

116.07

subd

7

Current

as

of 11/01/00

7020.1600

 AUTHORITIES AND REQUIPE~NTS

FOR

 DELEGATED COUNTIES.

Subpart

1.

 Scope.

 A county delegation process consists of

the following:

A.

 the county board resolution;

B.

 commissioner authorization;

C.

 a delegation agreement signed by the county board

and commissioner;

D.

 periodic review of

 the delegation agreement;

and

5.

 when applicable,

 withdrawal from the program by

the county board or revocation of authorization to administer

the program by -the commissioner.

Subp.

 County feedlot

pollution

control

officer

requirements.

 A delegated

county

animal

feedlot

program

shall

require

the

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

to:

A.

 administer

animal

feedlots

and

manure

storage

areas

registration

programs

according

part

7020.035Th

B.

locate

and

all

animal

feedlots

and

manure

storage

areas

that

remain

unregistered

the

date

required

under

part

7020.0350

C.

distribute

permit

application

and

registration

forms

 to owners required to make

application

for

permit.

Permit

application

forms

must

contain

the

information

 required

part

7020.0505,

subpart

review

permit

-applications

and

issue

construction

short—form

and

interim

permits

accordance

with

part

htt~~:IIwww.revisor.

!e~.state.

mn.us/cth-binlgetrulechao .ol

4/1.6/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

7020.0535

and

in

the

approved

delegation

agreement;

 inspect all animal feedlots and manure storage

areas

accordance

 with

the

approved

delegation

agreement;

F.

 review

and

process

complaints;

provide

assistance

owners

completing

permit

applications;

H.

 maintain

 a record of all correspondence and

material

relating

permit

applications,

inspections,

and

complaints;

maintain

a-record

all

notifications

received

from

livestock

production

facility

operators

claiming

the

hydrogen

sulfide

ambient

air

quality

standard

exemption,

including

the-

days

the

exemption

was

claimed

and

the

cumulative

days

used,

as

provided

in-

Minnesota

Stat-utes,

section

116.0713,

paragraphs

(b)

and

(c);

J.

submit

annual

report

the

commissioner

-by

April

each

year,

format

requested

the-

commissioner,

that

includes

the

following:

(1)

all

newly

acquired

and

updated

registration

information required under part 7020.0350

(2)

inspection

summary

information

from

the

previOus

 year;

(3)

permitting

 summary information from the

year,

including

information

regarding

permits

facilities -with fewer than 1,000

animal units that are

under

 Code of Federal Regulations,

 title

40,

part-

122,

8(b);

(4)

 complaint and complaint response

summary

information from the previous-year;

(5)

 outreach and education summary information

from

the

year;

and-

(6)

summary

of

the

progress

toward

achieving

the

goals identified

 in the approved delegation agreement

 arid,

if

applicable, proposed adjustments to the goals

 or plans to meet

the

goals

the

approved

delegation

agreement;

complete

the

required

county

feedlot

pollution

control officer training necessary to perform the duties

described under

 this part assigned to the county feedlot

 pollution control officer; and

L.

 forward to the commissioner all permit

applications,

 inspection reports,

arid

all

other

 applicable

documents for the facilities identified in subpart

item

Subp.

Repealed,

834

Subp.

3a.

Resolutions

and

delegation agreements.

To

assume

responsibility

for

a-dministering

the

delegated

county

feedlot program under this part,

 a Minnesota county board shall

complete the requirements in items A to D.

 Counties that have

received delegation authorization from the -commissioner prior

to

Page

21 of~

for

CAFOs

appendix

http://www.revisor.leg.state.rrin.us/cgi-binlgetrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

~Page22 of 53

October 23,

 2000,

 may administer the delegated county feedlot

program provided that the requirements of item B are completed

June

2001.

Delegation

agreements

must

reviewed

and

revised

 by the commissioner

 and the-county annually

 to determine

if the requirements of item B are being fulfilled and

to

establish new

 go-ala.

A.

 Submit to the commissioner

 a resolution duly

adopted by the county board requesting permission to administer

the animal feedlot program in the county.

B.

 Submit

 to the commissioner;

 for review and

approval,

delegation

agreement

that

contains:

(1)

inspection

goals

for

facilities

capable

o-f

holding fewer than 300

 animal units or the manure produced by

fewer than 300 animal units:

(a)

existing

facilities

for

the

purposes

of identifying. pollution hazards;

(b)

 at new and expanding facilities

for

which construction activities have commenced; and

(c)

for

determining

compliance

 with

discharge standards and schedules for existing open lot

facilities eligible under part 7020.2003,

 subparts

 3 to

6;

(2)

inspections

conducted

 at facilities capable

holding

300

999

animal

units

the

manure

produced

300

999

animal

units

for

the

facilities

meeting

the

conditions

under

subitem

(1),

units

(a)

and

(b);

(3)

permitting

goals;

(4)

 registration goals,

 including locating and

registering

facilities

that

remain

unregistered

after

the

date

required under part 7020.0350

(5)

 scheduled compliance goals,

 coordinated with

county

local

 water plans,

 for bringing feedlot operations

 into

compliance with the applicable standards under parts- 7020.2000

to 7020.2225,

 including the compliance dates of part 7020.2003,

subparts

 5, item

 B, and

6,

 -item A, considering the following:

(a)

 type and extent of the pollution hazard

at feedlot operations;

(b)

availability

private

and

public

financial resources for cost—share grants and low—interest

loans;

and

(c)

availability

private

and

public

technical

and

administrative

assistance;

(6)

complaint

response

and

resolution

goals;

(7)

 owner assistance goals; and

(8)

staffing

levels

available

achieve

the

stated

goals.

Receive

written

authorization

from

the

commissioner

administer

the

program

identified

subpart

htrn://ww.revisor.le~.State.mn.Us/C~i-hin/~etrU1eChan

iii

4/16/2001.

Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

i~a~e

of 53

D.

 Designate a county feedlot pollution control

officer as having

 the primary responsibility for the animal

feedlot

permit

program

and

charge

the

person

with

the

duties

subpart

2.

Subp.

4.

 Repeal~d,

 25 SR

834

Subp.

4a.

Permit

application

processing

procedures.

The

processing

permit

applications

delegated

county

shall

conducted according to the procedures in items A to

D.

A.

 The county feedlot pollution control officer shall

process

permit

applications

and

issue

Construction

short-form

and

interim

permits

according

this

part

and

part

7020.0535,

except

directed

 item

B.

The

county

feedlot

 pollution control officer shall

forward to

the

 comxnissior.er for issuance all permit applications

and all other applicable documents,

 comments, and

recommendations

for

the

following:

(1)

all

facilities

that

are

required

apply

for

permit

under

part

7020.0405,

subpart

item

(2)

all

facilities

where

all

animal

manure

not

used

domestic

fertilizer;

(3)

all

facilities

capable

holding

500

animal units or the manure produced by 500 or more animal units

-that are proposing liquid

-manure

storage

areas

within--1,000

feet

open

filled

sinkhole,

known

cave,

resurgent

spring,

a disappearing stream,

 a karst window,

or

 a blind valley;

(4)

all

facilities

with

500

animal

units

that are within

 a vulnerable drinking water supply management

area,

 as described on

 a Minnesota Department of Health approved

welihead protection plan;

and

(5)

all

facilities

for

which

application

for

variance under

part

7020.0505,

subpart

submitted.

—

The

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

may

forward to

 the commissioner -any permit application when

technical assistance or permit issuance by the commissioner

is

desired with

 a statement of the action desired from the agency.

The

commissioner

shall

process

all

complete

permit

applications

forwarded

the

county

with

request

-to

issue

permit,

and

shall

notify

the

county

the

status

 the review and of

any

 intended action.

The

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

shall

forward to the commissioner permit applications for-facilities

that are eligible for the exemption under part 7020.2100,

subpart

2,

 item C,

 for review and approval before

 a permit can

 be Issued by the county feedlot pollution control officer.

Subp.

5.

Repealed,

834)

Subp.

6.

 Withdrawal by county from review process.

A

delegated county no longer wishing to have delegation authority

shall submit

 a resolution to the commissioner stating

its

reasons for withdrawal and the effective date of withdrawal.

http ://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi—binlgetrulechap.pl

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

Subp.

7.

 Revocation

county

review

authority.

 If the

 agency finds that

 a county program is

 riot meeting the

requirements of this

 chapter,

 the agency may,

 after giving the

county

written

notice

and

opportunity

respond,

revoke

its

 approval

the

county’s

delegation.

STAT AUTH:

MS

115.03;

116.07;

122.23

:Page

24 of 53

51ST:

1987

186

s

15;

17

1279;

834

 NOTE:

 Subparts

3a

and

4a-were

originally

adopted

*834

subparts

 3 and

4.

 They were renumbered editorially.

Current as of -11/01/00

7020.1700

 PROCEDURAL RULES AND APPEALS.

All

requests

for

hearings,

appeals,

and

other

procedural

matters

not

specifically

provided

for

herein

shall

governed

the

agency

rules

procedure,

-the

rules

the

Office

Administrative

Hearings,

and

other

applicable

statutes

and

rules.

STAT

AUTH:

 116.07 subd

7

Current

11/01/00

7020.

1800

 SEVERABILITY.

any

provision

-parts

7020.1500

7-020.1900

the

application

thereof

any

person

circumstances

held

invalid,

 such invalidity shall not affect other provisions

of

parts 7020.1500 to 7020.1900 or application of any other part

which can be given effect

 without, application of the- invalid

provision.

 To this end theprovisions of all parts and subparts

herein

and

the

various

 applications thereof are declared to be

severable.

STAT

AUTH:

MS

116.07

subd

Current

of

 11/01/00

7020.1900

VARIANCES.

Any

person

may

apply

for

variance

from

any

requirements

of parts

 7020.1500 to 7020.1900.

 Such variances- shall be

applied for and acted upon by

 the agency in accordance with

Minnesota

Statutes,

section

116.07,

subdivision

and

other

applicable

statutes

and

rules.

STAT

AUTH:

116.07

subd7

Current as of 11/01/00

7020.2000 OVERVIEW.

Subpart

1.

general.

owner

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area,

and

any

person

storing,

transporting,

disposing,

utilizing

animal-

manure,

process

wastewaters,

shall

comply

with

parts

7020.2000

7020.2225.

Subp..

2.

 Animal manure

and

wastewaters

not

used

domestic fertilizer.

 Animal manure or process wastewaters

not

used as domestic fertilizer must be treated or disposed

 of in

accordance with applicable rules.

 An owner

 riot usi~igmanure or

process

wastewaters

domestic

fertilizer

shall

apply

for

permit

according

part

7020.0405,

subpart

item

Subp.

3.

Manure

 packs and mounding.

 Manure

-accumulations

httn://www.revisor.le~.state.

mn.us/c~i-hirik~etn

ilechan

 4/16/200 1.

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

 Page25 of 53

created

manure

packs

mouriding

must

managed

such

that

pollution

hazard

 -not created or

maintained,

land

application

must

accordance

 with part 7020.2225.

Subp.

Notification

proposed

construction

expansion.

 An owner of an

 animal feedlot or manure

storage

area

proposing

construct

expand

animal

feedlot

capable

holding

500

animal

units,

manure

storage

area

capable of holding the manure produced by 500 or more animal

units,

shall

later

than

ten

business

days

after

the

application

submitted

t-he

agency

delegated

county,

provide

notice

each

resident

and

each

owner

real

property

within 5,000

 feet

 the perimeter of the proposed feedlot by:

A.

 publishing in-a newspaper of

general

circulation

within

the

affected

are-a

notification-

containing

the

following

information:

(1)

the

names

the

 owners or the legal

name

of

the

facility;

(2)

 the location of the

facility

county,

township,,

section,

and

quarter

section;

(3)

species

livestock

and total

animal

 units;

(4)

types

of

confinement

buildings,

lots,

and

areas at the animal feedlot; and

(5)

the

types

manure

storage

areas;

sending

written

notice

them

containing

the

information

item

subitems

(1)

(5),

delivered

first--

class

mail

person;

providing

equal

greater

notification

required

-part

obtaining

county

conditional

use

permit.

Subp.

 Goverr~ment

notifications of proposed donstruction

expansion.

owner

proposing

construct

expand

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

shall

notify

the

government authorities listed in -items A and

B.

Notification

must be on

 a form provided by the commissioner

 and- include, the

information in subpart

4,

 item

subitents

(1)

(5j

A.

 The commissioner,

or

in

delegated

county

the

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer,

least

days

prior

to commencement

 of construction of a new animal feedlot

or

manure storage area

 or an expansion of an existing animal

feedlot capable of holding fewer than

300

animal-units

manure storage area capable of holding the manure produced-by

fewer

than

300

animal

units

after

construction.

Notification

under

this

item

complete

the

owner

proposing

construction

modification

liquid

manure

storage

area

and

has submitted plans and specifications in accordance with part

7020.2100,

subpart

All

local

zoning

authorities,

including

county,

town, and city zoning authorities,

 of the-proposed construction

or expansion

 at least

 30 days prior

 to commencement

of

construction of

 a new feedlot or manure storage area or an

expansion of

 an existing animal feedlot

 or- manure storage area.

Subp.

6.

 Record of livestock owners

 arid manure

 sources.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mii.usThgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

 Page26 of 53

Owners

 of animal feedlots

 or manure storage areas that raise

livestock

 that are not owned by them or store manure not

produced at their facilities must record and retain

 on file the

names of

 the livestock or manure source owners for at least the

most recent three

 years.

STAT AUTH:

MS

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

51ST:

 25 SR

834

Currentas of 11/01/00

7020.2002 .ANSIENT

AIR

QUALITY STANIDAR~

APPLICABILITY.

The

owner

animal

feedlot

exempt

from

the

 state

ambient

air

quality

 standards during the removal of-manure from

barns

 or manure storage

 facilities pursuant

 to- the limitations

in Minnesota Statutes,

 section 116.0713,

 paragraphs

(b)

and

(C)

 Nothing in this part limits the emergency powers authority

of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in Minnesota Statutes,

section 116.11.

The operator of

 a livestock production facility that claims

exemption

 from the state ambient air quality standards shall

notify

 the commissioner or county feedlot pollution control

officer.

 Notification must include:

A.

 the-names

 of the owners or

 the legal name of the

facility;

the

location

the

facility

county,

township,

section,

and

quarter

section;

the

facility’s

permit

 number,

applicable;

and

the

anticipated

start

date

and

the-

anticipated

number

days

removal

manure

from

barns

manure

storage

facilities.

STAT AUTH:

MS

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

HIS?:

 25 SR 834

Current

 as of 11/01/00

7020.2003

WATER

QUALITY DISCHARGE

STANDARDS.

Subpart

 Animal

 feedlots and manure storage areas.

Animal

manure,

manure—contaminated

runoff,

process

was-tewater

from

any

animal

feedlot,

including

CAFOs,

manure storage area

is prohibited from flowing into

 a sinkhole,

 fractured bedrock,

well,

 surface tile intake,

 mine,

or

 quarry.

Subp.

 CAPOs and

facilities with 1,000

animal

units or

more.

 An owner of an animal feedlot that

 is a CAFO or is

capable of holding 1,000 animal units

 or more,

 or a manure

storage area capable

 of holding the manure produced by 1,000

animal units or more,

 shall comply with the effluent limitation

requirements of Code

 of Federal Regulations,

 title

40,

 part

 412.

‘Subp.

3.

 Other facilities.

 An owner of an animal feedlot

or

 a manure storage area shall comply with the effluent

limitations

 in part 7050.0215 unless the animal feedlot or the

manure storage area

 is subject to the effluent limitation

requirements

 in subpart

 2 or

 if the owner of the animal

 feedlot

is subject to and meets all

 of the requirements-in subpart

4.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn. us/cgi-bin/getrulechap,pl

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

Subp.

4.

 Eligible open lot feed.lots capable of holding

fewer than 300 animal

 units.

 Owners of animal feedlots capable

of holding fewer than 300 animal units and having open lots

meeting the eligibility requirements

 in items A to

 D, shall

comply with subparts

 5 and

6.

 If the facility expands

to

a

capacity of

 300 or more animal units,

 the facility is not

eligible under this subpart.

 This subpart applies only to open

lots that existed on October 23,

 2000;

 discharges from other

parts

of

the

animal

 feedlot,

 including manure storage areas,

must comply with the effluent limitations in part 7050.0215 and

 other applicable federal and

 s-tate requirements.

A.

 The animal feedlot is not

 a new animal feedlot.

The animal feedlot has manure-contaminated runoff

or more

 open’ lots -that discharge to waters of the state

(1)

 the manure—contaminated-runoff does not

create or maintain an immediate threat to human health

 or the

environment;

and

(2)

 the facility has not been designated- a CAFO.

C.

 The owner has registered the animal feedlot

in

accordance with part 7020.0350.

D.

 The owner has submitted a certification,

on

 a form

provided by the commissioner,

 agreeing to comply with subparts

-5

and

6.

 The certification form shall contain a provision for

-a

conditional waiver of civil penalties for past violations

of

part 7050.0215 caused solely by passive manure—contaminated

runoff

 from’ open lots and

 for failure to apply far a permit

provided the owner maintains compliance with subparts

 S and

6.

Subp.

5.

 Interim corrective measures for eligible open

lots.

 An owner meeting the

eligibility-requirements

 of subpart

shall:

operate

and

manage

the

animal

feedlot

minimize

discharges

from

eligible

open

lots

all

times;

and

B.

 comply with the following by October

1,

 2005:

(1)

install

and

 have operational:

(a)

diversions

that

prevent

precipitation

and

snowmelt

from

building

roofs

and

upslope

land

from

flowing

onto

through

the

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

-area;

and

(b)

vegetated

buffer

areas

filter

strips

that

have

100

feet

nonchannelized

flow

through-

perennial grasses

 or forages for all runoff from the

 op-en lots;

(2)

install

and

have

operational

 interim

corrective and protective measures that have been- demonstrated,

through completion of

 “An Evaluation System To Rate Feedlot

Pollution

potential”

(the

model)

person

who

has

completed

training

use

the

model,

achieve

percent

greater

reduction

discharges

phosphorus

and

biochemical

oxygen

demand loading.

 The percent- reduction in discharges must be

based

comparison

the

corrective

and

protective

measures

Page 27 of 53

from

one

and:

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-binlgetrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

~LI1.LI

Minn’esota Rules, Chapter 7020.

 Page 28 of 53

~operation

the

facility

October

23,

2000,

and

the

proposed

interim

corrective

and

protective

measures

and

practices.

 The owner

 shall maintain records of

 the model

results

until

completing

the

requirements

subpart

and

make

the model results available

 -to the commissioner or county

feedlot pollution control officer upon request.

Subp.

6.

 Final corrective measures for eligible open

lots.

 An owner meeting the requirements

 of subpart

4

 shall:

A.

 except as

 required in item

 B, comply with part

7050.0215

 for all eligible open lots by October

1,

 2010;

and

B.

if

the owner is proposing an expansion, comply

with subpart

 2 or

3,

as

 applicable,

 prior to an increase

 in the

number of animal units

 at the animal

 feedlot.

STAT AUTH:

MS

s

 113.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

51ST:

 25 55 834

Current

 as Of 11/01/00

7020.2005

 LOCATION RESTRICTIONS AND EXPANSION L~ITATIONS.

Subpart

1.

 Location restrictions.

 Except as provided in

items

and

new

animal

feedlot

-manure

storage

area

must

not

constructed

within

shoreland,

floodplain,

300

feet

sinkhole,

100

feet

private

well,

1,000

feet

community

water

supply

well

other

wells

serving

public

school

defined

under

Minnesota

Statutes,

section

120A.05,

private

school

excluding

home

school

 sites, or

licensed

child

care

center

where

the

well

vulnerable

according

part

4720.5550,

 subpart

2.

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

located

in shoreland meeting the requirements of part 7020.0300.,

 subpart

15,

 item B:

(1)

that

has

been

unused

for

less

than

ten

years

is

 a pollution hazard and may resume operation after applying

for and obtaining an interim permit under part 7020.0405,

 subpart

1,

 item C;

or

(2)

that

has

been

unused

for

ten

years

must

not

resume

operation.

new

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

may

constructed

within

1,000

feet

-community

water

supply

well

other

well

serving

public

school

defined

under

Minnesota

Statutes,

section

120A.05,

private

school

excluding

home

school

 sites,

 or a licensed child care center

 if the following

three conditions are met:

(1)

 the Minnesota Depart~entof Health has

approved

 a drinking water supply management area for the well

under part 4720.5360

(2)

the

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

not

within

the

drinking

water

supply

management

area;-

and

(3)

the

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

not

within

 200 feet

 of the

 well.

Subp.

2.

 Shoreland expansion limitations.

 An existing

I/wwv..,

revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

4/16/2001

j,,

4U.~4L~

Minz~esotaRules, Chapter

7020.

Page 29 of 53

animal feedlot or manure storage area located

 in shoreland may

not expand to

a

 capacity, of

 1,000 animal units or more or the

manure

produced

1,000

animal

units

more.

existing

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

expanding

shoreland

shall

not

locate

any

portion

the

expanded

animal

feedlot

the

manure

storage

area

closer

the

ordinary

high

water

mark

than

any

existing

portion

the

animal

feedlot

the

manure

storage

area.

Subp.

Floodplain

expansion

limitations.

existing

animal feedlot or a manure storage area located in

 a floodplain

may

not

expand.

STAT

 AtJTH:

MS

 115.Oa;

 116.07;

 122.23

MIST:

 25 SR 834

Current as of 11/01/00

7020.2010

 TRANSPORTATION OF MANURE.

Animal, manure hauled on federal,

 state,

 or local highways,

roads,

streets

must

hauled

such

way

 to prevent

manure from leaking,

 spilling,

 or otherwise being deposited in

the

right-of-way.

Manure

deposited

public-

roadway

must

removed

and

properly

disposed

the

hauler

the

manure.

STAT

AUTH:

115.03;

116.07;

122.23

MIST:

834

Current

 as of 11/01/00

7020.2015 LIVESTOCK ACCESS TO

 WATERS

 RESTRICTION.

Subpart

‘1.

 CAFOs and

facilities

capable

holding

1,000

more

 animal

 units.

 Animals of a CAFO or of a facility

capable of holding

 1,000 or more animal units must-not be

allowed

enter

waters

the

state.

Subp.

 Non-CAFO animal

feed.lots.

Except

required

subpart

1,

 by October

1,

2001,

animals

non—CAFO animal

feedlot

must

fenced

prohibit

entry

to,

and

must

not

allowed

enter,

lake

classified

the

Minnesota

Department

Natural

Resources

 natural environment lake,

 recreational

development

 lake,

or

 a general development lake,

 as defined-in

part 6120.3000.

STAT AUTH:

MS

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122,23

MIST:

834

Current as of 11/01/00

7020.2025

 ANINAL FEEDLOT OR MANURE STORAGE AREA CLOSURE.

The

owner

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

responsible

for

closure

and

shall:

within

one

year

ceasing

operation,

remove

and

land

apply

manure

and

manure-contaminated

soils

from

manure

storage

areas

and

animal

holding

areas

accordance

 with part

7020.2225

B.

 as soon as practicable after completing the

requirements

item

reduce

soil

nitrogen

growing

alfalfa,

grasses,

other

perennial

forage

for

least

five

years;

and

http ://www.revisor.Ieg.state.mn.us/cgi-binlgetruleehap.pl

 4/16/2001

Minn~sotaRules, Chapter 7020.

Page 30 of 53

within

days

after

final

closure,

submit

certified letter to

 the commissioner or county feedlot pollution

control officer stating

 that the

 animal

 feedlot or the manure

storage area has been closed according to the requirements

in

this part.

 The letter must identify the location of the animal

feedlot or the manure storage area by county,

 township,

 section,

and quarter section.

STAT

AIJTM:

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

MIST:

834

Current as of 11/01/00

7020.2100

 LIQUID MANURE STORAGE ARE.AS.

Subpart

1.

 General.

 This part describes site restrictions

and requirements

 for design, construction, maintenance,

and

operation

liquid

manure

storage

areas.

 An owner shall submit

a permit application,

as

 applicable,

 under part

 7020-. 0405,

subparts

 1 and

2.

 Except

 as required in subpart

2-,

all

liquid

manure storage areas must be designed,

 constructed,

 and operated

accordance

with

subparts

owner

liquid

manure

storage

area

that

has

been

unused

for

period

three

years

shall,

prior

using

the

structure

for

storing

manure

process

wastewaters,

have

design

engineer

evaluate

and

prepare

a

report

the

condition

the

liner

and

include

this

report

with

 a permit application submitted-according to part 7020.0405.

Subp.

Site

restrictions.

Except

provided

item

the

construction

expansion

liquid

manure

storage

area

prohibited

the

areas

identified

under

part

7020.2005

and

items

and

A.

 A manure storage

area

 with

 a capacity of more than

250, 000 gallons in

 an area where geologic’ conditions are

suitable

for

sinkhole

development

and

where

four

sinkholes

exist

within

1,000

feet

the

proposed

site.

areas

which

are

susceptible

soil

collapse

sinkhole formation,

the

minimum

separation

distance

bedrock

and

the

manure

storage

area

liner

design

standards,under

subpart

item

and

prohibitions

must

accordance

with

subitems

(1)

to

 (3).

(1), Animal feedlots capable

 of holding fewer than

300

animal

units

manure

storage

areas

capable

holding

manure

produced

fewer

than

300

animal

units

that

contribute

liquid

manure

storage

areas

the

facility

must

comply

with

the

following:

(a)

where

the

separation

distance

bedrock

is less than five

 feet,

 construction of a liquid manure storage

area

prohibited;

and

(b) where the separation distance to bedrock

five

feet

and

less

than

feet,

the

manure

storage

area

liner

must

concrete—lined,

aboveground,

composite-lined according to subpart

3,

 item B,

 subitem

(2)

or

(3)

(2)

 Animal

feedlots

capable

holding

300

and

fewer

than

1,000

animal

units

and

manure

storage

areas

capable of holding the manure produced by 300 or more and fewer

htttr/Iwww

r~vicnr1e~o

~t~te

mn

n~/rcy~-hinIcre~trn1prh~n

iii

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

 Page31 of53

than 1,000 animal

 units that contribute to liquid manure storage

areas-

at the

facility shall comply with

the

following;

(a)

 except as provided in unit

 (c), where

the separation distance

 to bedrock is less than ten feet,

construction of a liquid manure storage area is prohibited;

(b) where the separation distance to bedrock

is ten feet or more and less than

30

 feet,

 the manure storage

area liner must be concrete-lined,

 aboveground,

or

composite-lined according to subpart

 3, item B,

 subitem- (2)

or

(3); and

(C)

 where the separation distance to bedrock

is

 five feet or more and less than ten feet,

 the manure storage

area must be:

i.

 an aboveground manure storage area;

ii.

 concrete—lined with

 a secondary

liner consisting of

 a synthetic liner,

 HDPE’ liner,

 or one foot

or greater cohesive soil liner;

or

iii.

 composite—lined with at least-a

three—foot compacted cohesive soil-liner under the synthetic

liner.

(3)

 Animal feedlots capable of holding

 1,00-0 or

more animal units or manure storage areas capable of holding the

manure produced by- 1,000

 or more animal units that contribute t~o

liquid manure storage areas at the facility shall comply with

the following:

(a~ except

 as provided in unit

 Cc), where

the separation distance to bedrock is less than

15

 feet,

construction of

 a liquid manure storage-area

 is prohibited;

(b)

 where the separation distance

 to bedrock

-is

15

 feet

 or more and less than 40

 feet,

 the manure storage

area liner must be concrete—lined,

 aboveground,

or

composite—lined according ~tbsubpart

3,

 item B,

 subitem

(2)

or

(3); and

(C)

 where the separation distance to bedrock

is ten feet or more and less than 15

 feet,

 the manure storage

area must be:

i.

 an aboveground manure storage area;

ii.

 concrete—lined with

 a secondary

liner consisting of

 a synthetic liner,

 HDPE liner,

 or one foot

or greater cohesive soil liner;

or

iii.

 composite—lined with at least

a

three—foot compacted cohesive soil liner under the synthetic

liner.

C.

 Where construction or modification is required

to

cortect a pollution hazard

 at an existing animal feedlot capable

of holding fewer than

 300 animal units,

 construction -or

modification

not

prohibited.

Construction

modification

under

this

item

must

not

result

expansion

the

animal

feedJ.ot

capacity

hold

than

300

animal

units

the

-manure

storage

area

capacity

hold

the

manure

-produced

300

th~//’~w

revi ~nr Ieq,state~mn

ns/ccii~hi

n/~etrulechan,n1

4/16/2001

MinnesotaRules, Chapter 7020.

 -Page 32 of 53

animal units

 or greater.

Subp.

3.

 Design

standards.

A.

 A new or modified liquid

manure

storage

area

an

animal feedlot capable of holding

 1,000 animal units or more or

the

manure

storage

area

capable

holding

the

manure

produced

by 1,000 animal units

 or more must be designed

 to provide

a.

minimum of nine months

 of storage capacity.

B.

-Liquid

manure

storagearea

liners

must

comply

with

the

following:

(1)

 non-concrete—lined manure storage areas must

be designed and constructed to achi-eve

 a maximum theoretical

seepage

rate

not

than

 1/56 inch per day throughout the

design

life

the

manure

 storage ‘area;

(2)

 concrete—lined manure storage areas must be

designed and constructed with:-

 water stops or

joint

sealant

materials

all

 construction joints;

 sealing of all cracks

which

may

extend

through

the

concrete

liner

with

 appropriate

sealing -materials;

and

 a floor having

 a concrete thickness

of

not

less

than

five

inche.s.

The

floors

must

have:

(a)

 steel reinforcing based on subgrade drag

theory

 in American Concrete Institute,

 Slabs on Grade,

 ACI-360;

or

(b)

 fiber reinforcing,

for-

which

the

design

engineer

must

specify

the

type

fibers

and

the

-dosage

rate

subpart

4,

 item

F;

(3) tomposite—lined or aboveground manure storage

areas must be designed and constructed to achieve a maximum

theoretical seepage rate of

 n-ot more than 1/560 inch per day

throughout

 the design life of the manure storage area;

and

(4)

 aboveground manure storage areas located in

areas

not

subject

the

site

restrictions

 under subpart

 2,- may

be designed and constructed according to seepage standards under

 subitem

(1)

or

 (2),

applicable.

Water

supply

 systems,

 fuellines,

 electrical

conduit,

other

equipment

not

solely

functioning

part

the manure handling or transfer system-must not be designed or

constructed to penetra-te t-heliner

of

 a liquid manure storage

area.

 Piping and equipment function~.nga-s part

 of the manure

handling

 or transfer system which penetrates the liner

 of a

liquid manure storage area must

identified

the

design

plans and specifications.

 The design plans and specifications

must include details on the location and purpose of the

penetrations1 dimensions of the penetrations,

 and the methods

and materials used to provide a seal between each penetration

and

the

liner.

 Subp.

4.

 Design plans

 and- specifications.

 The owner shall

prepare and submit to

 the commissioner or county feedlot

pollution control officer design plans

 and specifications

meeting the requirements of items A to

 N with

 a permit

application or at least

90

 days prior to the-commencement of

construction.

 Design plans and specifications,

 except plans and

specifications

for

concrete-lined

manure

storage

areas-

having

capacity

 of 20,000 gallons or less,

 must be prepared and signed

httn~//www

revi~nr1e statemns/c~i-hin/~etriili~nh~in

iii

4/16/2001

Mmnn~sotaRules, Chapter 7020.

 Page33 of 53

by

 a design engineer.

A.

 Results and interpretation

site

and

soils

investigation that includes the information and requirements in

subitems

(1)

to

 (10)

(1) An analysis of foundation soils for

suitability for the proposed manure storage

 area including

conditions that may lead to failure of constructed dikes

or

walls.

(2)

 Soil profile information in subitem

(5)

 that

must be obtained and recorded

at

a minimum of two locations

within the boundaries of the proposed manure storage area for

the first one-half acre of surface area.

 A minimum of

one

additional location is required

 for each-additional one acre of

 sur-face area for the manure storage

 area.

Sufficient

 soil records must be obtained to represent the range

soIl

conditions

 throughout the proposed manure -storage area

site.

(3)

Except

required

subitem

(4)

the

information in subitem

 (5) must be recorded to

 a depth

 of at

least

 five feet below the bottom of the proposed liquid manure

storage area and to a depth that allows verification of

separation to bedrock requirements

 in accordance with- subpart- 2,

item B.

 Each borehole completed under this item must be sealed

throughout

 the entire depth by a method that will ensure that

the borehole does not become

 a preferential flow path for

vertical groundwater transport.

(4)

 In areas

that

are

susceptible

soil-

collapse

or’ sinkhole

formation,

the

information

subitem

(5)

must be recorded to

 a depth of

 at least ten feet below

the

bottom

the

proposed

liquid

manure

storage

area,

until

bedrock

 encountered.

(5)

 Each soils record must identify the

 soil

texture, depth to

 the regional water table,

 and depth to the

seasonal high water table.

(6) The soil profile information must be obtained

by a method that can identify abrupt changes

in

soil

texture

and

sand lenses throughout the

 soil profile-.

(7)

 In areas susceptible to

 soil collapse or

sinkhole

formation,

map

the

proposed

site

showing

the

location

all

open

and

filled

sinkholes,

--depression

areas

in-

the

landscape,

known

caves,

resurgent

springs,

disappearing

streams,

karst

windows,

and

blind

valleys

within

one-half

mile

the

 proposed site location.

(8) An evaluation of potential

 for groundwater

intrusion and damage to the storage area liner.

(9) Where

 a perimeter drainage tile system is

required

control

the

 elevation of the water table

or

saturated soils in accordance with item J,

 the design plans and

specifications

for

the

drain

tile

system

must

include

provisions

to:

(a)

 lower the elevation

 of the water table

or saturated-soils to below the bottom of the manure storage

http

://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter

7020.

Page 34 of 53

area liner;

(b)

locate

the

drainage

tile

horizontal

distance of at least one

 foot outside the footing of

a

concrete—lined manure

 storage area;

(c)

 install a dedicated drain tile system

for each manure storage area; and

Cd)

 install

 a dedicated tile

 riser, manhole,

or other access which allows collection of tile—water samples

for each dedicated drain tile system.

(10)

 Additional information relating to the

proposed manure storage area as requested by the commissioner to

evaluate compliance with

 fe-deral and state rules.

B.

The

following

information

the

proposed

manure

storage area is located in

 a Minnesota Department of Health

approved drinking

water

supply

management

area

delineated

according to chapter

 4720:

(1)

 the location of the animal feedlot,

 manure

storage

 area,

 and land application

 sites on

 a map of

the

Minnesota Department

Health

approved

 drinking water supply

management area;

(2)

 a copy of

 the vulnerability assessment of

the

drinking water supply management area from an approved wellhead

protection plan according to part 4720.5210,

 subparts

 2 and

3;

(3)

 description

 of the vulnerability of

the

specific sites for manure storage areas and land application as

described in the vulnerability assessment; and

(4)

a

copy

all

parts

the

drinking

water

supply management area plan which pertain to animal feedlots,

manure storage areas,

 and land application of manure.

C.

 The estimated storage capacity by volume and time

period based on the volume of

 ñtanure, manure—contaminated

runoff,

 and process wastewaterS generated.

D.

 In addition to the designed storage volume

 in item

allowance

for

the

greater

capacity

the

following

for

manure

storage

areas

open

precipitation

subject

discharge

runoff

into

the

manure

storage

area:

(1)

volume

capacity

for

precipitation

and

runoff without overflow for

 a 25—year,

 24-hour or greater

precipitation or rainfall event;

or

(2)

freeboard

depth

not

 less than

one

 foot.

E.

 A plan for

 a preconstruction conference that

includes the design engineer,

 contractors,

 the owner, and the

inspector

required

under

subpart

Specifications

for

the

liquid

manure

storage

area

liner

according

the

applicable

liner

design

 standard

identified under subparts

 2 and 3.

When

soil

used

liner

material,

location

and

volume

liner

soil

available,

testing

protocol,

and

httn://www.revisor.le~.state.mn.usfcgi-bin/getrulechap.Ul

4/16/2001

Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

predesign test

 results for soil plasticity

 index,

 sieve

analysis,

 and optimal moisture content.

H.

 A site plan that identifies the locations

of

predesign

soil

investigations

conducted

under

item

relative

the proposed manure storage area.

I.

 Plan details and specifications

 for all liner

penetrations according to subpart

3,

 item C.

soils

J.

 Measures for control of water table or saturated

Page,35

of 53

quality

assurance

and

quality

control

plan

that

includes specifications

 for inspections

 and ASTM testing methods

and

frequencies.

1.

 Specifications

 for liner material protection from

damage

during

 construction or subsequent facility operation

resulting from the following:

(1)

 drying and cracking during and-after liner

construction;

(2)

manure

agitation

and

pumping;

(3)

freezing

and

thawing;

(4)

 hot and cold weather construction;

(5)

 erosion;

and

(6)

other

physical

damage.

Special

site

considerations

A

plan

for

operation,

periodic

inspection,

and

maintenance

the

manure

storage

area

including

schedules

and

descriptions

of:

(1)

 routine

inspections,

maintenance,

and

recordkeeping

completed

 to identify and document damage to

the

liner

from

the

factors

listed

item

liner;

(2)

methods

 be used to repair areas of damaged

(3)

methods

used

monitor

the

 liquid level in

the basin to evaluate proper operation and adequate available

storage capacity;

and

(4)

 routine inspections

 of perimeter tile line

outlets

and

inspection

manholes

ensure

proper

operations

the

system.

Subp.

5.

 Construction-

and

notification

requirements.

The

owner

shall

construct

the

manure

storage

area

according to the design plans and specifications submitted to

the

commissioner

the

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer.

Proposed engineering changes

 or modifications to the design

-plans

 and specifications,

 related

 to the liner

 specifications.,

location,

 depth,

 or separation distance

 to bedrock,

 must be

submitted to

 the commissioner or county feedlot pollution

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

control officer prior

 to commencement of construction related to

the

proposed

change.

B.

 An owner shall notify the commissioner or county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

and

the

 design engineer

of

intent

con~truct

 a minimum of three business days prior to

commencement of construction.

 Notification must be completed by

letter,

 telephone,

 or facsimile and include:

(1)

the

permit-number,

applicable;

(2)

 the owner’s name,

 and the

 name -of the

facility

different

than

the

owner;

(3)

the

site

location

county,

township,

section,

and

quarter

section;

(4)

the

design

engineer’s

name;

and

(5)

the

name

the

contractor

responsible

for

installing

the

liner.

owner

shall

notify

the

commissioner

county

feedlot pollution control officer within three business days

following completion

Of

construction- of the manure storage area

liner.

 Notification for vertical concrete—lined walls-under

this item must be completed before backfilling the walls.

Notification information must meet the

requirements

item

D.

 The owner shall submit

 a construction report to

the

commissioner

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

-within 60 days of the completion of any new-or modified manure

storage

area.

The

report

must

 be prepared and signed by the

design

~ngi’neer

and

 must contain an

assessment

whether-

the

completed manure storage area conforms to the design plans and

specifications

submitted

the

commissioner

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer.

The’

 commissioner may require manure

-removal

from

the

manure

storage

area

-and

corrective

actions

the

construction

report

indicates

that

the

completed

manure

storage

area

does

not

conform

the

design

plans

and

specifications.

Subp.

Inspections

liquid

manure, storage

areas.

owner constructing a liquid manure storage area,

 except

 for a

concrete—lined-manure storage

 area with

 a capacity of 20,000

gallons or

 less,

 shall have inspections completed during the

construction process which comply with items A to

0.

The

inspector

must

one

the

following:

(1)

 a professional engineer licensed in

 the state

Minnesota

person

working

under

the

professional

engineer’s direct supervision;

(2)

qualified

Natural

Resources

Conservation

Services staff person;

or

(3)

the

manure

storage

area

has

concrete

liner,

American

Concrete

Institute

Minnesota

Department

Transportation

concrete

field

testing

technician

grade/level

I

certified and concrete field inspector level

 II certified.

B.

 During construction of each manure storage area

under-this

subpart,

the

inspector

shall

record

form

~Page36

of 53

http ://www.revisor.1eg.state.rnn.us/cgi-binJgetrulecha~.pI

-4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter

7020.

provided

the

commissioner,

observations

conformance

the

design

plans

and

specifications

and

construction standards

 of the

 following:

(1)

 subgrade conditions prior to liner placement

including-soil

texture,

strength

 and moisture content, and

presence

any

frozen

soils;

(2)

location

and

proper

functioning

the

perimeter drainage tile system,

 if required,

and

inspection/monitoring access;

(3)

for

 all- concrete—lined manure storage areas:

(a)

 reinforcing steel size,

 grade,

 spacing,

and

that

steel

free

loose

rust,

oil,

other

(b)

concrete

quality

including

air

entrainment,

 temperature,

 and strength;

(c)

handling,

placement,

consolidation,

and

finishing

concrete;

(d)

curing

and

protection

concrete

after’

placement,

 including hot and cold weather protective measures;

Ce)

 location,

forming,

and

surface

preparation

 of constructi-on,

 contraction,

 and expansion joints;

(f)

placement

flexible

waterstop

materials

joints;

and

(g.)

application

surface

applied

injected

crack

and

joint

sealant

materials;

(4)

repair

construction

defects;

and

(5)

 conformance to the liner penetration

prohibitions

under

subpart

item

C.

 The contractor responsible

 for installation of

the

liner shall certify on a form provided by

the

commissioner

that

the manure storage

 area- was constructed

 in conformance with the

design plans and specifications and construction standards for

all

applicable

stages

 of construction in item B.

The

owner

shall

ensure

that

the

following

information

submitted

 the design engineer

for

incorporation

into

the

construction

report

required

subpart

item

(1)

 the name and qualifications

 of the inspector;

(2)

the

inspection

form

required in item B; and

(3)

the

liner

contractor’s

certification

form

required in item C.

Subp.

-7.

 Operation

and

maintenance.

 The owner

 of a manure

storage

 area shall operate and maintain the manure storage area

according to the operation and maintenance plan submitted in

accordance with subpart

4,

 item N.

Page 37

of 53

cover,

debris;

http ://www.revisor. leg.state.mn.us/cgi-binlgetrulechap’.pl

4/16/2001

Minr~esota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

STAT

 AtJTH:

MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

~age38 of53

HIST:

 25 SR

834

Current as

 of 11/01/00

7020.2110

UNP~PMITTED OP.

~ONCERTIFIEDLIQUID MANURE

STORAGE

AREAS.

Subpart

1.

 Schedule for facilities capable of holding

1,000

animal

units

 or more or construction after June

3,

1991.

owner

who

has

facility

capable

of’ holding

1,000

animal

 units

and

who

uses

unpermitted

 or noncertified liquid

manure storage

 area,

 or who uses

 an unpermitted dr noncertified

liquid

manure

storage

area

for

which

construction

commenced

after June

3,

 1991,

 shall, by October

1,

 2001:

reconstruct

the.

manure

storage

area

according

part 7020.2100

B.

 complete closure of the manure storage area

according to part 7020.2025 and notify the commissioner or

county feedlot pollution

control

 officer

 at least three days

prior to

the

date

when

the-manure

storage

area

will

closed.

Notification must be -completed by’letter, telephone,

or

facsimile and include;

(1)

 the permit number,

 if applicable;

(2)

the

owner’s

name,

and

the

name

the

facility

different

than

the

owner;

(3)

the

site

location

county,

township,

section,

and

quarter

section;

and

(4)

the

dates

when

closure

will

take

place;

except

provided

 item

D,

 submit

 a copy ofthe

original design plans and specifications for the manure storage.

area

that

were

prepared

design

engineer

prior

the

actual

time

construction

and

 a construction certification report

signed

design

engineer

that

certifies

that

the

liquid

manure

storage

area

was

designed

and

constructed

according

applicable rules and regulations and standard engineering

principles

and

practices

the

 time

of construction;

if

the

original

plans

 and specifications for

a

Natural Resources Conservation Service

 (NRCS) or Soil

Conservation Service

 (SCS)

 designed liquid manure storage area

are no longer available,

 the owner must submit

 a certification

by the manager of

 the NRCS office which was responsible

for

the

design and oversight of the project,

 that the project was

constructed according to

 the NRCS or SCS design plans and

specifications-and constri,iction oversight;

or

E.

 conduct and submit the results of

 a water balance

test that demonstrate the manure storage area is properly sealed

to achieve

 a seepage rate of

 1/56 inch per day or less.

Subp.

2.

 Schedule for facilities with capacity to hold

fewer

than

1,000

animal

units.

Except

required

subpart

provided

subpart-

owner

who

uses

unpermitted

noncertified liquid manure storage area with the capacity to

hold fewer than 1,000 animal units or the manure produced by

fewer

than

 1,000 animal units

 shall,

 by October

1,

 2005;

http ://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin!getrulechap.pl

4/16/2001

 MinnesotaRules, Chapter 7020.

A.

 complete one

 of the provisions under subpart

1,

items

 A to

C;

or

have

design

engineer

 or professional soil

scientist

 licensed

 in the state

 of Minnesota conduct

 a soils

investigation

and

submit

 soils investigation report to the

commissioner

county

feedl-ot

pollution

control

officer

that

complies

with

the

following:

(1)

the

soils

report

 must demonstrate that the

liquid manure storage area meets Minnesota Natural Resources

Conservation Service Practice Standard,

 Code No.

 425, November

1991,

 or Code No.

 313,, January 1998,

 design and construction

criteria

for:

(a)

sealing

and

lining

waste

storage

ponds;.

(b)

-vertical

separation

groundwater;

and

Cc)

vertical

separation

bedrock;

(2)

the

soil

profile

information

subitem

(5)

must be obtained and recorded for

 at least- two equally spaced

locations

around

the

perimeter

the

liquid

 manure storage area

for

each

quarter

acre

manure

storage

surface

area

portion

thereof,

and

within

 a horizontal distance of not more than 50

feet

outside

the

top

of

the

manure

 storage area sidewall;

(3)

except

required

subitem

(4),

the

information in subitem

 (5) must be recorded to

 a depth

 of at

least

 five feet below the bottom of the liquid manure storage

area;

(4)

areas

that

are

susceptible

soil

collapse

or-

sinkhole

formation,

the

information

subitem

(5)

must

 be recorded to -a depth

 of at least ten

 feet below the

bottom

the

liquid

manure

storage

area,

until

bedrock

encountered;

(5)

 each soils record must identify the soil

texture,

 depth

 to the regional water table,

 and depth to the

seasonal

high

water

table;

and

(6)

the

soil

profile

‘information

must

obtained

a

method

that

can

identify

abrupt

changes

soil

 texture

 a-nd

sand

lenses

one—half

inch

greater

throughout

the

soil

profile.

Subp.

3.

 Schedule for open lot feedlots with fewer than

300

 animal

units.

Owners

meeting

the

eligibility

requirements

under

part

7020.2003.

subpart

that

must

complete

closure

reconstruction

the

manure

storage

area

according

subpart

1,

 item A orB,

 shall comply with items A and-B.

October

 2005,

 the owner shall notify the

commissioner

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

that

the

manure

storage

area

will

closed

reconstructed

October

2010.

Notification

must

completed

letter,

telephone,

 or facsimile and also include:

(1)

the

owner’s

name,

and

the

name

the

facility

different

than

the

owner;

and

-‘

of 53

http://www.revisor. leg.state.mn.us/cgi-binlgetrulec-hap.pl

 4/16/2001

Minnesota

Rules,

Chapter 7020.

 P-age 40 of 53

(2)

 the site location

county,

township,

section,’

and

quarter

section.

B.

 By October

1,

 2010,

 the owner shall complete

closure

 or reconstruction.

STAT

AtJTH:

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

HIST:

 25 SR

834

Current

21/01/00

7020.2120

POULTRY

BARN

 FLOORS.

Subpart

General.

This

part

describes

the-requirements

for

construction

and

recordkeeping

for--poultry

barn

floors.

Owners

poultry

barns

which

abandonment

the

facility

exposes

the

barn

floor

shall

remove

and

land

apply

all

manure

and

manure—contaminated

soil

according

to part

7020.2225.

Subp.

2.

 Construction requirements

for

 concrete—lined or

asphalt-lined

 floors.

 All new concrete-lined or asphalt-lined

poultry

barn

floors

must

constructed

and

maintained

according

the

following:

the

floor

thickness-

must

ad,nimum

3.5

inches

for

concrete

and

minimum

two

inches

for

asphalt;

the

floors

must

inspected

the

owner

operator after each cleaning of the poultry barn floors;

and

cracks

and

joints,

which

may

extend

through

the

concrete—lined

asphalt—lined

floor,

must

sealed.-

Subp.

3.’

Construction

requirements

for

soil—lined

floors.’

All new soil—lined poultry barn floors must be constructed and

maintained

according

items

The

completed

thickness

the

constructed

soil

liner must

be:

(1)

 12 inches or more of compacted soil;

or

(2)

eight

inches

of

compacted

soil

placed

over

uriderlayment

that

consists

of:

(a)

three

inches

sand

consisting

least

percent

particles

passing

number

sieve,

less

than

ten

percent

particles

passing

number

200

 sieve,

and

no

particles

greater

than

one

inch.

Particle

 size analyses must be

performed according to ASTM

 0—42-2;

or

(b)

geo—textile

fabric

that

weighs

least

 ounces per square yard and has

 a minimum hydraulic

conductivity of 0.30 cm/sec.

B.

 Soils used for construction of the floor must meet

the following requirements:

(1)

have

least

percent

particles

passing

number

200

sieve,

less

than

percent

retained

number

-4

sieve’,

and

rocks

greater

than

three

inches

diameter.

Particle size analyses must be performed

according

 ASTM

0—4 22;

httlD ://www.revisor.1e~,state.mn.us/cgi-,bin/getru1echao.o1

 4/16/2001

Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

(2)

have

plasticity

index

greater

than

seven

percent

according

ASTM

D—4318;

-‘

(3)

 be placed in a-minimum of two lifts,

 each

lift being

 a minimum of four inches of in—place thickness;

(4)

 be maintained- at

 a moisture content of

 zero

to

five

percent

above

optimum

determined

ASTM

D—698

ASTM

0-1557

during

construction;

and

(5)

compacted:

(a)

with

least

three

passes

sheepsfoot

 padfoot—type

compaction

equipment

with

-feet

that

extend

through

the

loose

lift

soil

into

 the previous

 lift;

or

(b)

 until achievement of

 90 percent of

standard

proctor

density.

The

density

must

verified

according

ASTM

2922,

frequency

one

sample

pe,r

3,000

square

 feet.

C.

The

poultry

barn

floor

must

placed

least

three feet above bedrock or

 the water table.

0.

 The soil liner must be refurbished with at least

a

-two—inch

lift

 of soils meeting the requirements of item B, prior

the

floor

thickness

,being

diminishe.d

two

inches

from

the

thickness

required

item

Cracks

that

may

extend

through

the

floor

must

repaired.

F.

 The floor must not be saturated at any time during

the service’ life of the floor.

Subp.

4.

 Construction

requirements

for

polyvinyl

chloride

(PVC)

 lined floors.

seamless

factory

seamed

 PVC liner having

a

thickness

not

 less than 30 mils

must

placed

depth

at least six inches below the

 final elevation of the poultry

barn

floor.

The

upper

six

inches

the

floor

must

constructed of protective material that meets manufacturer’s

recommendations

and

provides

adequate

protection

the

PVC

liner.

This

protective

layer

must

not

consist

any

particles

that

will

inflict

damage

the

l-iner.

Subp.

Recordkeeping.

The

owner

shall

record

and

retain

permanent

file

the

results

 of all testing required in subpart

and

make

these

records

available

the

commissioner

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

upon

request.

Subp.

Notifications

construction.

owner

s)-iall

notify

the

commissioner

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

intent

to-construct

minimum

three

business

days

prior

commencement

construction

and

within

three

busine&s

days following completion of construction.

 Notification must

be,

completed

 letter,

 telephone, or facsimile and include:

the

permit

number,

applicable;

the

owner’s

name,

and

the

name

the

facility

Page41 of53

http

://www.revisor.leg

.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

Page 42 of 53

different than the owner;

C.

 the site location by county,

 township,

 section,

and

quarter

section;

and

 the name of

 the contractor responsible for

installing the floor.

STAT AUTH:

MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

HIST:

25

 SR 834

Current

 of 11/01/00

7020.2125 MANURE STOCKPILING SITES.

Subpart

1.

 General.

 This part describes requirements for

permitting,

 design,

 construction,

 location,

 operatioh,

and

maintenance

short-term

and

permanent

stockpiling

sites.

Stockpiling sites must comply with part 7020.2005 and items A to-

A.

 Manure stockpiling sites must be located and

constructed

such

that

manure—contaminated

runoff

from

the

site

does not discharge

 to waters of

 the state.

B.

 Manure must not

 be placed on a stockpiling

 site

unless

 a three-to-one horizontal—to—vertical ratio can be

maintained

 or- the manure

 has,

at

 least,

 a 15 percent solids

content.

C.

 The use of rock quarries,

 gravel or sand pits,

bedrock,

 and any mining excavation

 sites for stockpiling manure

is prohibited.

The

size

short-term

stockpile

must

not

exceed

volume based on agronomic needs of the crops on

320

acres

of

fields and must not exceed the agronomic needs of the crops on

the tract of land on which the stockpile is to be applied.

The

agronomic needs of the crops must comply -with the application

rates

 in part 7020.2225.

Subp.

2.

 Additional requirements for short-term

stockpiling.

 By October

1,

2001,

all

short-term

stockpile

sites

must:

A.

 have the manure removed from the site and land

-applied

accordance

with

part

7020.2225,

within

one

year

the

date

when

the

stockpile

was

initially

established;

B.

 have a vegetative cover established on the site

for

at

 least one gull growing season prior

 to reuse as

a

short—term

stockpiling

site

except

for

the

following:

(1)

 sites located within the confines of

a

hoofed-animal

open

lot

 at a facility having the

 capac-ity to hold

fewer than 100 animal units; and

(2)

 sites where manure

is

 stockpiled for fewer

than

ten

consecutive

days

and

than

six times

per

calendar year;

not

located

within:

(1)

300

feet

flow

distance

and

least

htto ://www.revisor. le~.state

.mn.us/c~i-binIgetrulechao

.ol

4/16/2001

MinnesotaRules, Chapter 7020.

 -Page 43 of 53

feet horizontal distance,

 to waters

 of the

 state,

 sinkholes,

-rock outcroppings,

 open tile intakes, and any uncultivated

wetlands which are not seeded to annual farm crops or crop

rotations involving perennial grasses or forages;

(2)

300

feet

flow

distance

any

road

ditch

that flows to the

 features identified in subitem

(1)

or

 50 feet

of

 any road ditch where subitem

(1)

 does not apply;

(3)

 100 feet of

 any private water supply or

unused and unsealed well and 200 feet from any private well with

less -than

50

 feet of watertight casing and that

 is not cased

through

confining

layer

least

ten

feet

thick;

and

(4)

100

feet

from

field

drain

tile

that

three-

feet

less

from

 the soil surface;

 maintain a minimum distance of two feet between

the base of

 the stockpile and the seasonal high water table or

saturated soils,

 as identified in the most recent (JSDA/NRCS soil

survey

manual

based

site—specific

soils

investigation;

and

prohibited:

(1)

land

with

greater

than

six

percent

slope;

(2)

land

with

slopes

between

two

and

six

percent,

 except where

 clean water diversions and erosion control

practices are installed;

and

(3)

 on soils where the soil texture to a depth of

five feet is coarser than a sandy

loam

identified

the

most

recent USDAVNRCS soil survey manual or based on

 a site—specific

soils investigation.

Subp.

3.

 Recordkeeping for short-term stockpile

sites.

The

 owner of the short-term- stockpile

site

shall

maintain

records

 for each stockpile site containing the information in

items A to

E.

 Records must be kept on file

 for at least three

years for all short—-term. stockpiling by the owner of

 the animal

feedlot

 at which the -manure

 wa.s produced and be made available

the

commissioner

county

feedlot

pollution

control

officer

upon

request.

The

records

must

include:

A.

 the location of the stockpile;

B.

 the date on which each stockpile was established;

the

volume

manure

stockpiled;

D.

 the nutrient analysis

 of the manure; and

when

the

stockpiled

manure

was

land

applied.

Subp.

4.

 Additional requirements for permanent stockpile

sites.

 By October

1,

 2.001,

 all permanent stockpile sites must

comply

with

this

part.

The

owner

shall

also

install

liquid

manure

storage

area

according

part

7020.2100

collect

and

contain manure—contaminated runoff,

 if necessary to comply with

the

requirements

part

7020.2003.

owner

shall

submit

permit

application,’

 applicable, under part 7020.QkQi,

 subpart

1.

http ://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

‘__~--~,:“—

MinnesotaRules, Chapter 7020.

 Page 44 of 53

A.

 The owner shall comply with part 7020.2005.

B.

 The stockpile site liner must:

(1)

 have

 a completed thickness of at least two

feet and be constructed of soils having

 a hydraulic conductivity

of

 1 x 10~cm/sec

less

 upon completion of construction;

or

(2)

have

other

liner

materials

which

achieve

hydraulic conductivity less than

 1 x ~

 cm/sec.

C.

The

 site must be constructed using diversion

structures,

 elevated platform construction, or

other

devices

prevent

surface

waters

from

entering

and

passing

through

the

stockpile site.

 Where upgrad.ient slopes are greater than two

percent,

clean

 water diversions must be constructed that

surround

 at least the three upgradient sides of the stockpile

site.

 Diversions must be of sufficient height to prevent

-outside -water from passing over them during snowmelt or rainfall

events less than the 25-year,

 24-hour

 storm event.

D.

 A permanent stockpile- site must be operated and

ma-intained in a manner so as to protect the integrity and

structural reliability of the manure storage

 area.

E.

 An owner shall notify the commissioner or county

feedlot

pollution

control

‘officer

intent

 to construct

-a

minimum of three days prior to commencement of construction and

within three days following completion of construction.

Notification must be completed by letter,

 telephone,

or

facsimile and include:

(1)

the

permit

number,

 applicable;

‘(2)

 the owner’s name,

 and the name of the

• facility

if

different than the owner;

(3)

the

site

location

county,

township,

section,

 and quarter section;

and

(4)

 the name

of

 the contractor responsible

for

installing

the

permanent

stockpile

liner.

F.

 The owner shall comply with subpart

2,

 item

0.

STAT AUTH;

MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

HIST:

 25 SR

834

Current

 of 11/01/00

7020.2150

MANURE COMPOST SITES.

Subpart

1.

 General.

 An owner composti-ng only manure

at

a

manure compost site- shall comply with subparts

 2 and

3.

An

owner composting manure and solid wastes shall comply with part

7035.2836,

subparts

7.

 An owner composting dead animals

shall comply with part

 1719.4000.

Subp.

2.

 Operational requirements.

 An owner-of

 a manure

compost

 site meeting

 the requirements

 of subpart

 1 shall comply

with items A to

C.

A.

 The owner shall comply with part 7020.2125.

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-binlgetrulechap.pI

4/16/2001

 Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

B.

 If operating

 a compost site under part 7020.2j~5,

subparts

 1 to

3,

 the owner shall comply with-part

 fu~u.4i,~5,

subpart

4,

 item

C.

__________

C.

 The owner shall produce finished compost by a

process

further

 reduce pathogens

 (PFRP).

The temperature and

retention time for the material being composted must be

monitored and recorded each ,day.

 The owner shall comply with

one

the

PFRP

methods

subitems

(1)

(3).

(1)

The

windrow

method

for

reducing

pathogens

consists of

 an unconfined composting process involving periodic

aeration and mixing.

 Aerobic conditions- must be maintained

during the compost process.

 A temperature of

 55 degrees Celsius

must be maintained in the windrow for at least three weeks.

The

windrow must be turned at least once every three to five days.

(2)

The

static

aerated

pile

method

for

reducing

pathogens consists of an unconfine’d composting process involving

mechanical aeration ofinsulated compost piles.

 Aerobic

conditions must

 be maintained’duririg

the

compost

process

The

temperature -of the compost pile must be maintained at

 55 degrees

Celsius for at least seven

 days-.

(3)

 The enclosed vessel method

 for reducing

pathogens

consists

of

 a confined compost process involving

mechanical

mixing

 compost under controlled environmental

conditions.

 The retention time in the vessel must be at least

24

 hours with the temperature maintained at

 55 degrees Celsius.

A stabilization period of at least seven days must follow the

enclosed vessel retention period.

 Temperature in the compost

pile

must

maintained

least

degrees

Celsius

for

three

days during the stabilization period.

Recordkeeping

and

 reporting requirements.

An

a manure compost site that

 is required to apply for and

permit

under

part

7020.0405,

subpart

item

analyze

mature

manure

compost

and

maintain

records

of the results-for:

(1)

pH;

(2)

 moisture content;

(3)

 particle size;

(4)

NPI(

ratio;

and

(5)

 soluble salt content;

and

B.

 if the owner’s NPDES or SDS permit requires

submittal of

 an annual report,

 include the following information

in

 the annual report:

(1)

 the quantities and sources of manure and

bulking

 agents delivered to

 the facility;

(2)

 temperature and retention time data for all

compost produced;

and

(3)

 the information recorded under item A.

Page 45 of53

Subp.

owner

of

obtain

a

must:

http ://www.revisor.Ieg.state.rnn.us/cgi-binlgetrulechap.pI

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

 p:age 46 of53

STAT AUTH:

MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

HIST:

 25 SR 834

Current as of 11/01/00

7020.2225 LAND APPLICATION OF MANURE.

Subpart

general.

Manure

and

process

wastewater

 must

 not be applied

land

manner that

wilit

(1)

 result

 in a dischargeto waters

 of the state

during

the

application

process,

except

that

manure

and

process

wastewater

application

is

allowed

onto

seasonally

saturated

soils

 that are seeded to annual farm crops or crop’ rotations of

perennial grasses

or

legumes;

(2)

cause

pollution

waters

 the state

due

manure—contaminated runoff.

Manure

and

process

wastewater

application

into

road ditches is prohibited.

All

 manure and process wastewater applications to

land must meet the requirements of this part except where

specifically exempted.

D.

 When ownership of manure or process wastewater

is

transferred from an animal feedlot with capacity of

 300 or more

animal

 Units or

 a manure storage area capable

 -of holding

the

manure produced by

300

 or more animal units

 for application to

land not owned or leased by the

owner

 of the

animal

feedlot

the manure ~torage area,

 any person receiving the manure or the

process

wastewater

shall:

(1)

comply

with

the

manure

managementplan

completed by ,the owner of the animal feedlot where the manure or

process

wastewater

was

produced;

and

(2)

 complete the manure management plan

requirements in subpart

4,

 item

D,

 except for provisions that

were completed by the owner of the animal feedlot where the

manure

process

wastewater

was

produced.

Subp.

Manure

nutrient tasting req~iirements.- Manure

from all

manure

storage

areas

‘storing

manur,e

produced

from

than 100 animal units must be tested by the owner

 of the animal

feedlot for nitrogen and phosphorus content in accordance with

items

except

 that item A is not required for manure

storage areas storing manure produced by fewer than 300 animal

units.

For

manure

storage

areas

storing

manure

from

300

animal

units,

the

manure

must

initially

tested

once

per year for at least three years.

B.

 Manure must be retested following changes in

conditions affecting manure nutrient content including unusual

climatic conditions,

 or changes

 in manure storage and handling,

livestock types,

 or livestock feed.

Ongoing

testing

must

continue

least

once

every

four years unless more frequent testing is required under item B

tt’n’//’..nin,,

røi,;c,nr

Ian

rl-nta

fir,

,.c,/i—.-.;

~~I’~AA1

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

Page 47 of 53

permit.

 The nutrient analysis must be conducted using

a

laboratory certified by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture

or commissioner-approved on-farm sampling and analysis.

5.

 Sampling must be conducted so that

a

representative

sample

 is obtained in accordance with Uni4iersity

Minnesota

Extension

Service

recommendations.

Subp.

Nutrient

application

rate

standards.

 Items A and

B apply to all manure and process wastewater application

 sites.

Item C applies only to animal feedlots with a capacity of

 300 or

more animal units and manure storage

 areas capable of holding

the manure produced by 300 or more animal units.

Manure

and

process

wastewater

application

rates

must be limitedas described in subitems

(1)

to

(3)

 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.

(1)

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

-or

another

land

grant

college

contiguous

state.

(2)

 Estimated plant available nitrogen from

 organic nitrogen sources,

 including manure,

 may deviate up to

20

percent

from

University

MinnesOta

Extension

Service,

another

land

grant

college

contiguous

state,

estimates

where

 site nutrient management history, -soil conditions,

 or cool

weather

warrant

additional

nitrogen

application.

When-

crop

nitrogen deficiencies are visible or m~asured,remedial nitrogen

applications above the 20 percent deviation can -be made.

(3)

Nitrogen

sources

include

commercial

fertilizer

nitrogen,

soil

-organic

matter,

irrigation

-water,

legumes grown during previous

 years,

 bioso-lids,

 process

wastewater,

and

 manure’- applied for

 the current year and previous-

years.

8.

 Nutrient application rate standards

 for land in

special protection areas must meet the requirements in subpart

item

subitem

(2),

applicable.

For-

land

receiving

manure

process

wastewater

from animal

 feedlots capable of holding 300 or more animal units

manure

storage

areas

capable

 of holding the manure produced

300

animal

units,

soil-

samples-

from

the-

upper

six

inches must be collected at

 a minimum frequency of once every

four years and analyzed for phosphorus

 using the Bray

 P1 or

Olsen

test.

 If soil

phosphorus

levels

exceed

the

levels

subitems

(1)

and

 (2),

 then the owner must complete

 a manure

management

plan

accordance

with

subpart

item

and

submit

it with

 a permit application to the agency or delegated county

for- review in accordance with subpart

4,

 item B,

 subitem

(1)

(1)

 Fields in special protection areas

 or within

300

feet

 of open tile intakes that have an average soil

phosphorus

test

level

exceeding

ppm

using

the

Bray

test

60 ppm using the Olsen test.

httn

//www

r~v~cnr.

1e~.state

rnn

,ns/~i-hin/~etriiiec’~h~n

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

 P.age48 of53

(2)

Fields

outside

the

special

 protection areas

and more

than

300

feet

from

open

tile

intakes

that

have

average

soil

phosphorus

test

level

exceeding

150

ppm

using

the

Bray P1 test

120

ppm

using

the

Olsen

test.

Subp.

 Manure management plan requirements.

 Item A

indicates

who

must

prepare

manure

management

plan

and

when

the

plan

must

prepared.

Item

lists

when

manure

management

plans

must

submitted

the

agency

delegated

county

for

review.

Item

describes

when

the

manure

management

plan

must

reviewed

and

revised.

Item

lists

the

required

elements

manure

management

plan.

Item

describes

exceptions

manure

management

plans

when

manure

ownership

transferred.

owner

operator

animal

feedlot

shall

prepare

and

retain

file

manure

management

plan

-that

complies

with

item

according

the

following

schedule:

(1)

upon

application

for

N?DES,

SOS,

interim,

construction

short-form

permit

for

facility

capable

 holding

100

animal

units;

(2)

owner

animal

feedlot

capable

holding

300

animal

units

that

no,t

required

obtain

NPDES,

SDS,

interim,

construction

short—form

-permit

shall

prepare

update

manure

management

plan

prior

January

2005,

when

manure

management

plan

does

not

meet

the

requirements

this

part

reflect

current

operations

and

the

manure

applied

someone

other

than

commercial

animal

waste-

technician

certified

private

 manure applicator;

and

(3’)

once

manure

management

plan

required

for

facility,

plan

that

meets

the

requirements

under

this

subpart

must

retained

file

the

animal

feedlot

manure

storage area.

manure

management

plan

that

complies

with

the

requirements

 of item

must

submitted

the

commissioner

delegated county when any one of the following conditions

applies:

(1)

‘when

owner

submits

 ~ permit application to

the commissioner for an

 NPDES,’ SDS,

 or an interim permit

under

part 7020.0405,

 subpart

1,

 item C,

 subitem

 (2);

or

(2)

 the manure management plan is requested by

the commissioner or county feedlot pollution control officer.

C.

 The manure management plan must be reviewed by the

owner each year and adjusted

 for any changes in-the amount of

manure

production,

manure

nutrient

test

results,

fields

available

for

receiving

manure,

crop

rotations,

other

practices

which

affect

the

available

nutrient

amounts

crop

nutrient needs -on fields receiving manure.

Except

provided

item

the

manure

management

plan

must

contain:

(1)

description

the

manure

storage/handling

system and the expected annual amount of manure and nutrients

which

will

need

land

applied;

(2)

 application methods,

 equipment,

and

calibration procedures;

http://www.revisor. leg.state.mn.us/cgi-binlgetrulechap.pl

4/16/2001

Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

(3)

 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

process

was?ewater

application;

(4)

 a description of nutrient testing methods and

frequency and the expected nutrient content of

 the manure to be

applied;

(5) planned manure application rates and

assumptions used to determine these rates,

 ‘including assumptions

 crop nitrogen and phosphorus needs and nitrogen and

phosphorus supplied from all manure and nonmanure sources;

(6)

 total nitrogen and phosphorus amounts from

manure and nonmanure sources to be applied per -acre on each

field and for each crop in

 the rotation when applied in

accordance with the planned manure

 or process wastewater

application rates established under subitem

 (5);

(7)

 expected first and second year plant

available nutrients-from the manure and process wastewater;

(8)

 expected months of application;

(9)

 a description of protective measures

to

minimize the risk of surface water and groundwater contamination-

when applying manure or process wastewater

in

 a floodplain,

special protection area,

 soils with less than three feet above

limestone bedrock,

 drinking water supply management areas where

the aquifer

 is designated vulnerable under chapter

 4720,

and

land within 300

 feet of all surface tile intakes,

 sinkholes

without constructed diversions,

 and uncultivated wetlands.

Protective measures include,

 but are not limited- to,

 soil and

water conservation measures, timing of application, methods

of

application, manure application rates,

 and frequency of-

application

(10)

 for application onto frozen or snow—covered

soil,

 the following information about the- fields that may

receive

the

manure or process wastewater:

field;

and

(a)

field

location;

(b)

land

slopes;

Cc)

proximity

fields

surface

waters;

(d)

 expected months of application for each

Page49 of 53

(e)

 tillage and other conservation measures

used

minimize

risk

 of manure—contaminated runoff;

(11)

 a description of how phosphorus from manure

is to be managed to minimize phosphorus transport

 to surface

waters resulting from soil phosphorus build-up to levels

described in subpart

3,

 item C;

(12)

plans

for

soil

nitrate

testing

accordance

with University of Minnesota Extension Service recommendations;

and

‘

http ://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

4/16/2001

Minnesota

Rules, Chapter 7020.

(13)

type

 of cower 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.

 When ownership of manure from an

 animal feedlôt

capable of holding

 300 or more animal units- or

 a manure storage

area capable or holding the manure produced by 300 or more

animal

 units

 is to be transferred for application to fields not

owned or leased by the owner of the animal

 feedlot or manure

storage area,

 the owner of

 the animal

 feedlot where the manure

was produced need not include the requirements

in

 i-tern

D,

subitems

 (3),

(5)

to

 (7),- and

 (10)

 in the owner’s-manure

management plan.

Any

person receiving the manure shall comply

with subpart

1,

 item

C.

Subp.

5.

 Racordkeeping.

 Item A establishes the length of

time that records- must be kept.

 Items B and C

 indic-ate the

in-formation needed in records depending on

 -the- size and location

of

 the facility.

A.

 Any person applying or receiving manure or process

wastewater

from

facility,

capable

holding

-100

animal

units

 shall maintain records of

 -the amount of manure

 or- process

wastewater application on file:

(1)

 for the most recent six years

 for manure

or

process

wastewater

application

within

special

protection

areas;

and

(2)

for

-the

most

recent

three

years

land

not

covered

under

subitem

(1).

B.

 For an

animal

feedlot

capable

holding

300

more animal units

or

 a manure storage area capable of holding

the manure produced by 300 or more animal units,

 or where manure

or process wastewater

 is applied from an animal feedlot capable

of holding 100

 or more animal units or a manure

storage

area

capable

 of holding the manure produced by 100 or more-animal

units

in

 a drinking water supply management area where the

aquifer

designated

vulnerable

under

chapter

4720,

records

kept

 in accordance with item A must-contain the following

information:

(1)

 field locations and cropland acreage

 ‘s.~here

manure is applied;

field;

(2)

volume

tonnage

manure

applied

each

Page 50 of53

(3)

manure

test

nitrogen

and

phosphorus

content,

required

subpart

(4)

dates

application;

(5)

 dates

 of manure incorporation when

incorporating-within ten days;

(6)

expected

plant—available

amounts

nitrogen

and phosphorus released from manure and commercial fertilizers

each

field

where

manure

applied;

(7)

a’

description

changes

the

manure

management plan,

 including documentation of the justification

httn

://wwwrevisor.1e~.state.mn.us/c~i-hin/~etrulech~mn

4/16/2001

MinnesotaRules, Chapter 7020.

-‘

 -Page 51 of 53

for any remedial nitrogen applications

 that exceed the nitrogen

rate standard in subpart

 3; and

(8)

 soil nutrient test results.

For

animal

feedlot

manure

storage

area

with

 ‘a capacity

 of 100

 or more animal

 units and fewer than 300

animal units,

 where manure or process wastewater will not be

applied in

 a drinking water supply management

 area, in which

the

aquifer

 is designated- vulnerable under chapter

 4720,

 records

kept

 in. accordance with item A must contain-the following:

(1)

 information necessary

credit

-the

nitrogen

available for crop growth that is supplied by manure-and process

wastewater applications;

 and-

(2)

manure

and process

wastewater

test

 results

for nitrogen and phosphorus

 content,

 if required in subpart

2.

Where

manure

process

wastewaterfrom

animal

feedlots

 or manure storage areas with

 a, ,capacity of 300 or more

animal units

 is transferred for application to fields not owned

or leased by

 the, owner of the animal feedlot which produced the

manure,

 the owner of

 the, animal feedlot or the manure storage

area from which

 the manure is produced must meet the following

requirements:

(1)

 the manure and

process

wastewater

records

for

the most recent three years must be kept on -file

 and- must

contain

the

following

information:

(a)

the

volume

tonnage

manure

process wastewater delivered;

(b)

the

nutrient

content

the

manure--or

process

wastewater

delivered;

Cc)

the

name

and, address

any

commercial-

hauler

applicator

who

received

the

manure

or

process

wastewater;

and

Cd)- the location where the manure or process

wastewater

was

applied

and

rate

application;

and

(2)

commercial

applicators-spreading

manure-

process

wastewater

onto-land

not

owned

 or leased by the owner of

the animal feedlot or

 the manure storage area from which the

manure or process wastewater

is

produced

shall

keep

records,

accordance with subitem

 (1).

 A copy of these records must

be

submitted to the owner

 of the animal feedlot or the manure

storage

area

from

which

the

manure

process

wastewater

produced no later than 60 days following land application.

 Subp.

6.

 Manure and

process

wastewater

application

requirements

special

protection

areas.

A.

 Manure

process

wastewater

 must not be applied

to frozen or snow—covered soils in special protection areas.

B.

 Manure or process wastewater applied to unfrozen

soils

 in special protection areas must comply with subitem

 (1),

(2),

(3).

(1)

 A vegetative buffer must be maintained that:

hvtp://www.revisor.leg.State.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

MinnesotaRules, Chapter 7020.

 P-age 52 of 53

(a)

 consists

 of perennial grasse.~or

forages;

(b)

minimum

100

feet-

wide

along

lakes and perennial streams and

50

 feet wide

 in other special

protection areas;

and

Cc)

 does not receive manure applications

from any animal feedlot or manure storage area.

(2)

 The following practices must be complied with:

—

(a)

application

within

feet

the

protected water,

 protected wetland,

 intermittent stream,

or

drainage ditch in

 the special protection area;

(b)

 inject or incorporate within 24-hours

and prior to rainfall;

and

(c)

apply

rate

and/or

frequency

which

will

not

allow

soil

phosphorus

levels

increase-over

any

,six—year

period

with

the

following

 exception:

 soil phosphorus

-may

increased

ppm

(Bray

P1)

ppm

(Olsen)

when

soil

testing indicates soil phosphorus test concentrations are less

than these values.

(3’)

Other’agency-approved

practices

must

implemented

that

have

been

demonstrated

through

research

land

 grant college to provide

an-

equal

degree

water

quality

protection as

 the measures in subitems

(1)

and

 (2).

Manure,and

process

wastewater

-application-by

traveling gun,

 center pivot,

 or other irrigation equipment that

allows liquid application of manure to

 travel more than 50 feet

in

 the air

 is prohibited in special protection areas.

Subp.

7.

 Manure

and

 process

wastewater application for

land within

 300 feet of open tile intakes.

Manure

and

process

wastewater applied within 300

 feet- of open tile intakes,

and

where manure—contaminated runoff may flow into the open tile

intake,

 must be injected or incorporated within

 24 hours of

application according

 t,o the schedule in items A and B unless-

other agency-approved water quality protection management

practices

 are implemented

 in accordance with item C.

A.

 All liquid manure

 and process wastewater applied

within 300 feet of open tile intakes must be injected or

incorporated within 24 hours

 of application beginning October

23,

 2000.

B.

 All manure and

process

wastewater

 applied within

300 feet of open tile intakes must be injected or incorporated

within

 24 hours of application when

applied

after

October

2005.

C.

 Other agency-approved practices must -be

 implemented that have been demonstrated through research by

a

land grant

college

provide

a-n

equal

degree

water

quality

protection as injection or incorporation within

 24 hours.

Subp.

 Manure

and

process

wastewater

application

 near

sinkholes, mines, quarries,

and

wells.

‘

http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

4/16/2001

Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7020.

Manure

and

process

wastewater

 must

 not be applied

to land within

50

 feet

of

an

 active or inactive water supply

well,

 sinkhole,

 mine,

or

 quarry.

B.

 Manure and process wastewater must be incorporated-

within

hours

surface

application

when

applied

‘land

that

slopes toward

 a sinkhole and

is

 less than

 300 feet from the

sinkhole except that no setback incorporation

 is necessary -where

diversions prevent manure—contaminated runoff from entering the

sinkhole.

‘

STAT ALJTH: MS

s

 115.03;

 116.07;

 122.23

51ST:

 -25 SR 834

Current as of 11/01/00

Page

53 of 53

http:I/www.revisor.

leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getrulechap.pl

 4/16/2001

-,~-~-1w

r’~

-1

~--~

THE

 SINKHOLE

 COLLAPSE O~ TEE

LEWISTON,

MINNESOTA

WASTE

WATER

TREATMENT

FACILITY

LAGOON

Nancy

 0. Jannik,

 E. Calvin Alexander,

Jr,

 and Lawrence J. Land?ierr

Department of Geology,

 Winona State University

-Winoria,

 MN 55987—5838

Department of

Geology

 and Geophysics, University

o-f

Minnesota

Minneapolis, MN 55455—0219

Minnesota Pollution-Control Agency, Regional Director

Rochester, MM 55904

ABSTRACT

On February 20,

 1991,

 city workers discovered a sinkhole collapse

in

the

Lewistoll,

 MN waste water treatment facility

 (WWTF)

 lagoons. The collapse

apparently occurred during-the preceding few days and drained

art

estimated

7.7 million gallons

 of partially treated effluent into the local ground

water system. A temporary -dike was constructed to isolate the sinkhole

from the rest of the

 lagoon. Subsequent,

 ad hoc testing for coliform

bacteria and nitrates did. not detect evidence of effluent from the lagoon

in nearby residential wells.

 Fo~.-lowing~ shallow

 (20 foot penetration)

geophysical

investigation using ground penetrating radar and an

electromagnetic survey,

 the city decided to fill the sinkhole and to erect

a dike around the collapse. The collapse was repaired in May, 1991 and the

lagoon returned to full

operation.

The

 1991 Lewiston collapse follows the nearby,

 1974-

arid

 1976 collapses

of

the

 Altura,

 Minnesota

 WWTF

 lagoon

 (Liesch,

 1977;

 Alexander

and

 Book,

1984)

Two

of

the

7

to

 3,OWWTF

 lagoons

 constructed on the

 Ordovician

Prairie

du

 Chien

 Group

 carbonates

in

the

 southeastern

 Minnesota

 karat

terrain

 have

 catastrophically

 failed

in

 less

 than

20

 years.

 That

corresponds to a -failure rate of over 20

 for these milliondollar

WWTFs

so far.

The

 federal

programs

 -that cost—shared the bulk of the construction

expenses for these

WWTFs

 no longer exist.

 The cost

 of potential damages,

rentediation,

 and/or replacement

 of these

WWTFs

falls directly

 on- the state

and local units of government.

715

INTRODUCTION

Southeastern

Minnesota

active

karat

area.

Geomotphic

features

associated

with

the

karat

include

sinkholes,

enlarged

joints,

numerous

springs’,

disappearing

streams,

cave

systems,

and

dry

 valleys.

 There

are

problems

with

ground-water

quality

ranging

from

occasional

high

levels

of,

selected parameters

to

 chronic

sub—standard

drinking

water

conditions

the h’ydrogeologi~I2~(~nsitive-’area.-

—

The region

is

 characterized by

 farms,

 small towns,

 arid a few moderate-

sized

 ‘cities.

 Marty

of

 the’

 community

 centers

 have

 waste

 treatment

facilities

 that

 consist

of

a

 series

of

 settling

 ponds,

or

 lagoons.

Lewiston,

 Minnesota

 is one of the

small

 towns

 located within

 this’ karat

region.

 This paper documents

 the failure of one of Lewiston’s

 ponds

due

to the instantaneous collapse of

 a sinkhole.

Topography

Lewiston is located in southeast Minnesota,

 in Winona County

 (‘Figure

1).

The region surrounding Lewiston is

 characterized by gently’ rolling hills

and

swales with local relief

 of- about

20

at

(Figure

1).

 Sinkholes and dry

valleys

are

 evident

at

the

 surface.

A

 very

 thin

 soil,

 ranging

in

thickness

from

 0 to

 about l~.._m.~versthe bedrock.

 The ‘source material

fä~E1~~oil,

both

residuum

and/or

giac~YEiIi~and be-as.

Figure

Portion

of

the

topographic

map

the

vicinity

Lewistort,

Lewiston,

Minnesota

Quadrangle.

PHYSICAL

SETTING

1’-

QUADRANGLE

LOCATION

-7

Climate

At

 present,

the

 area

has

a

 temperate

 climate,

 with

a

 mean

 annual

temperature

of

 7.60,

 and an annual precipitation

of

75

cm

 (NOAA,

 1978)

This

region

has

experienced

climatic

changes,

most

recently,

the

changes

that resulted in Pleistocene glaciation.

Geology

The

region

underlain

by

a

 series

of

 lower Ordovician

 and Cambrian

sandstone

 and carbonate units

 (Figure

2)

The

 units

 we-re

 deposited in

neárshore to shallow—sea environments,

 and exhibit typical

 vertical

 arid

lateral ‘facies changes associated with sedimentation during Transgression

and regression of the shallow sea.

 The strata

dip

gently to the southwest

towards the center of the Mollandale

 Enzbayutent

 (Mossler and Book,

 1984).

The

 units

 of most

 concern

are

the

 Jordan

 Sandstone

and

the

 Orteota

Dolomite.

Ooht~

Qlaucomte

)rofl ~n

Phospbaf~peflee

se-omatoIite~

Fossilifemus

Generalized

.stratigraphic

section

the

Lewiston,

Minnesota

area.

 Adopted

from

Mossler

and

Book

(1984)

~th

ain,~ss~s

and ~

b.~.

SasaL

flit

fl~.-~~ansd

qu~e

~tons.

Lo,~rid

~,‘

Bala~~

,‘oi~

180

Tfl~s~sd

mm~vs

dclon~s.Soma

—~v

doáoi,~W

to b~

fir.

IBid

~Mth

coin

co~

uppit

psi~

thir

no~

Uppit pitt

—

too

120

Pitt

m~an. to

oiini.91EWd ~uitoiss

~tcinanitd

and ~co,

Classop.

Bint 35

40 ts~

,~i

tni.gatnid rindnoi

~id

dofl~

Itoton~

thaN

—

~baddid.

4oOr~.oisnanrid

ga~Iux

nn,~,na.

V,,y

an.

an.

—

Ccothns ~toot dcfl~W

bits and

pattotgi to

‘a

120

titnit

P~ly-iniid.s~ty.en..

nth,’~gatoi4quaa~rinthitn.

—

Ggtittoftc

Fin.,

tomsthim’grimid.

aittid

—

midston.

125

‘J,’y flit

ftns.grirnsd ,ancflton.

and

~fliL

Son,. I

gfaUCOiIOC.

Intitbiddid

MT.

S04ON~

SA1IDSTONE

290

350

Paw. toas,y

coin.

gramond.

pocift,

comitand

,.ndston,.

Corrimna p.bbtit to

bint

f.it.-5an~tons

gitaitidy

ais~sorid.

Gianatott.gay

that. mctbid waN trsvnkt4sd

In banat

ihld c~

tonnaüon. Bitat conmo maioi

Figure

~-1

 U?’iESTONE

__________

 QOLOMr~E

SANDSTONE

tine to vei’j

tine

717

The Jordan Sandstone is Cambrian in

age

 arid averages

30

 in thickness.

The

 Jordan

is

 a massive,

 upward-grading,

 fine—

 to coarse—grained

 friable-

sandstone.

 Upward

in

the

 unit,

 it becomes progressively more

 indurated

with carbonate

and

siliceous

cements,

first-

 forming -lenses

 and. cortoretiorts

and then well-bedded, highly bithified strata.

The- Ordoviciari

 Prairie- du Chien Group conformably- overlies the

 Jordan

(Figure

2).

The

 Prairie -du Chien -is composed- of. the Oneota

Dolomite and

upper Shakopee Formation.

The

Oneota Dolomite is about

60

 thic~”and’i’a

fine— to medium—grained,

 thick— to thin-bedded- to massive,

 with calcite-

filled vugs in the upper portion,

 and minor chert nodules throughout

the

unit

 (Mossier and Book,

 19-84).

 -Both

drill

 cores

and outcrops reveal

that

the dolomite ‘is highly jointed and has undergone extensive- solution.

The

dolomite

is

vuggy

to cavernous particularly

itt

the upper portion.

The

 Shakopee

 Formation

 is’

 subdivided

 into

 the -lower

New

 Richmond

Sandstone

member and the upper Willow River Dolomite member.

The

 latter

is not present in the area and is not discussed further.

 The New Richmond

Sandstone of the Shakopee Formation is a ‘fine— to medium—grained quartzose

sandstone

with

infrequent

interbedded

niedium—grained

arenaceous

carbonate,

beds.

 This

 sandstone

unit

 averages

 about

6 m

itt

 thickness,

is

 friable,

extensively

jointed,

easily

eroded,

and does

not

form

many

 outcrops.

Bydrobogy

‘

Surface

 flow is in small head.water channels

 of the Whitewater

 arid Root

Rivers.

The

 channels

are

characterized

 meander development and- easily

erodible banks.

 Some

 surface

run

off

 flows

 into

 sinkholes.

 Regional

ground—water flow

 is east—northeast toward the MissisSippi River.

 Local

ground—water flow is toward discharge points such as

 small tributaries

or

springs.

Joints

are

common

throughout

the

Jordan

S~-ndstone and

springs

the

well—lithified

portions

 tend.

to

 discharge directly

 from joints.

 In the

more

friable

lower

part,

springs

are

often

combination

discrete

flow

from joints and diffuse flow from numerous seeps.

 The-Jordan is

a

major

source

 of water for wells

 in the area.

Only

a

few

 springs,

 confined

 to discharge from well—developed

 joints,

have

been

mapped

in

 the Oneota.

 Few wells

in

the

area

rely

solely

 on the

Oneota

 water

 supply.

 Iowever,

 many

 older

 wells

are

 open

 holes

through

the

 Oneota.

The

New Richmond Sandstone

 member

of

the

 Shakopee

Formation

has

a

few

 springs

 which emerge

 form

the New

 ?.iclutiond/Ozleota

-contact.

The

 New Richmond

not

significant aquifer in the area.

I-—-

—

718

Karat

 Features

Numerous

karat

features

such

 as sinkholes, enlarged joints,

 springs,

 dry’

valleys,

and

small

caves

have

formed

the

Oneota

Formation

the

Prairie

du

Chieri

Group

(Figure

3).

Sediment-filled

solution

cavities

are

common

features

outcrops

and.

quarry

walls

that

expose

the

Oneota

Dolomite.

 ‘The

 karstification

of

the

 Orteota

 probably

 began

 during -the

Ordovician--and

has-continue&i~termit~n~ly~unti1the

present.

The

 region

would

 classified

as

fluviokarst

according

the

scheme

uzed

Sweeting

 (1973)

 because

both

 karat

 arid f2.uvial

 processes have contributed

to the

 development

 of the

 features that

are

 evident,

 or that

 ‘are being

exhumed.

Sinkholes

are

far

the

most

dominant

karat

feature.

Historically,

the

holes

are

left

 in the

 natural

 state,

 they

a~re

either

fenced—in

and

left

 to be naturally vegetated,

 or several have-been used

as

 backyard

landfills.

In

the

 past,

 several have been filled with

 debris

 and soil and

then- used

 farm band.

 Many

 of the sinkholes

 in the area have developed

catastrophically, often in the spring of the year in response to unusually

wet conditions.

It

 appears

 that

th~

sinkhole

 ~ebop. through

 the New

Richmond

 Sandstone in~E~~ie

 underlyin~

 ceat~obomite.

—.--

Figur,e

Block

diagram

karat

landforms

southeast

Minnesota

(Dabgleish and Alexander,

 198,4).

Typical

relationships

Winona

County -between karst

and

topography

719

Lewiston,

and

the

immediate

vicinity,

were

classified

high

probability

sinkhole

development

Dalgleiah

and

Alexander

(1984)

The

classification

was

based

the

observed

density

sinkholes,

together

with

information

the

bedrock

 geology,

surf icial

geology,

and

hyd.rogeolagy.

Dalgleish

and

Alexander

(1984)

conclude

that

the

carbonate

bedrock

 i~.~._pr±mazy

 -control on sinkhole

 formation.

 Sô~i~~ry

‘iricI~~E~e

type

 and thickness

of

the

overb~

 n,ane

 d~th of

thee

 water t~Ie

 ~ra-s

 ~i eEE~~neotaDo~x3~

 overlain by the sandstone

 nienibérof

 the ‘Shakàpee

 Formation,

 such

as

in

 the vicinity

of-

 Lewiston,

are

the

 most

 susceptible

to

 sinkhole

 development.

 Fractures

in

the

noncabcareous

 sandstone

act

 as conduits

 to preferentially direct

 surface

water into the Oneota.

TEE

 SINKEOLE

 COLLAPSE

OF

THE

 LEWISTON

WASTE

WATER

TREATMENT

FACILITT

 LAGOON

‘

Background

The Waste Water-Treatment Facility at Lewiston,

 (population -1300)

is

constructed in an area that overlies the New Richmond Sandstone

 xrtexuber

of

the Shakopee Formation and the Oneota Dolomite,

 and has less than 30

 an of

regolith.

 The Waste

 Water

 Treatment Facility

 consists

of

a

 series-

 of’

settling ponds or lagoons which is commonly

known

“natural”

treatment

system

 (Figure

4).

These

types

systems

are

common

southeast

-Minnesota.

The

one

Lewiston

about

years

old.

Exposure

the

waste

water

allows

 oxygen

 and. sunlight,

 together with microorganism

to

“treat”

the

 effluent

 after- initial

 screening

for

 large—sized

 solids.

Machines or chemicals

 are not used.

 The treated water

 is then discharged

‘to

a

 surface—water

 channel.

 This

 natural

 purification

 takes

 about-

6

months.

,~n,

720

Figure

Schematic

the

According to

 the superintendent

the

Lewiston’s

sewer

and

water

system

Lewiston had wanted a mechanical system

 20 years

 ago,

but

was

 denied the

request

by

the

Minnesota

Pollution

Control

 Agency.

Supposedly,

the

decision was based

 on’ the consensus that small towns could not afford the

upkeep and the

 operating expenses

of

 a mechanical

 plant

 (Rochester

 Post’

and

 Bulletin; February 27,

 1991).

 Today,

 that opinion

is

not

 held by any

state government agency.

 The change of opinion

 is based

not

 on a town’s

ew—found’

ability

affcxd~a

plant-~-but--because

of--the-

ground-wa-t-e-r--

quality

problems

associated

with

karat

terrain,

and

the

documented

failure of

 a similar

 lagoon system in

 Altura,

Minnesota

(Alexander

and

Book, 1984),

 which is about

 10 km northwest of Lewiston.

Sinkhole

 collapse

On February 20,

 1991,

 was discovered that

 a sinkhole had opened on

the

edge

sewage

lagoon

Number

2

 (Figure-4)- at

the

Waste

Water

Treatment

Facility at

Lewiston,

Minnesota.

The

sinkhole

collapse

caused

break

the

dike

enclosing

the

lagoon.

The

collapse

left

hole

that

was

approximately 12

diameter

and 2-4

depth

(Figure

5).

—,~-~-—--———-~

‘,~

—

~-~-~_fr

—

—~--~--.,-~

-.—.

—.-‘~--~

—

—~---

~--~

—

____

Figure

Photo

dike—side

sinkhole,

 February 20,

 1991. View is

northwest.

Photo

courtesy

 R. Dunsmoor,

 Winona County.

721

It

estimated

 that

the

 collapse occurred.cn

 or about

 February

14,

1991.

According

the

records

 of city workers,

 approximately

P7.7

million

gallons

semi-treated

sewage

effluent

were

lost

from

Lagoon

Number

The

 bose

 occurred

 over

 several

hours

perhaps

day.

The

effluent

entered.

the

ground

through

conduit

the

bottom

the

sinkhole.

The

waste

water

had

been

the

lagoon

only

about

two

months,

and

probably

still

contained

bacteria

and/or

 viruses

because

was

covered

with

ice

~hinh

would

prevent--sunlight

and--heat-from.

destroying,

them.

The

sinkhole

collapse

Lewiston

has

striking

similarity

the

collapse

the

Altura

Waste

Water

Treatment

Facility

documented

Alexander’ and

Book

~(1984).

Both

collapses

formed

the

Oneota

Dolomite

where

was

overlain

with

the

basal

sandstone

member

the

Shakopee

Formation.

At

both

locations,

sinkhole

collapse

was

catastrophic.

One

major-

differences

i~ -Ehat

the

faili~re of

the

Altura

lagoon

was

due

several

sinkholes

the

bottom

the

lagoon,

whereas,

the

failure

the

Lewiston

lagoon

was

due

to

single

sinkhole

collapse

near

the

edge

the

lagoon

which

led

breaching

the

dike.

Response

the

problem

The

water

level

 Lagoon

Number

was

was

lowered

and.

continued

monitored

that

further

semi-treated,

 water

did

not

spill

over

into

the

sinkhole.

A

dam

was

built

around

the

sinkhole

order

prevent

surface

run

off

 from

entering

the

hole.

Water—quality tests were performed

the

city

wells

and

private

wells

in

the

 area.

 The- results did

 not detect

 contamination from the

effluent.

Residents

were

advised

drink

water

 from hot water heaters

that

 had been cooled,

 until they could have their well tested.

 They were

further

advised

chlorinate

their

wells,

and.

drink

bottled

water

they

had

any

concerns.

Remediation

of

the

 problem

The

city

 hired a consulting firm in early

March

to

determine

the

size

the

sinkhOle

and

propose

short

term

remediation.

A

 shallow

(6

m

penetration)

geophysical

investigation

used

ground-penetrating

radar

 arid.

an electromagnetic survey

determine

the

limits

the

observed

sinkhole

and possible fractures

in

the

 vicinity.

 An independex~t proposal to

run

a

dye.

trace

form

the

 sinkhole

in

 order

to

 determine

 ground—water

 flow

patterns was not

adopted

the

city.

This

was

due

part

the

concern

liability.

mid

May

1991,

was

decided

city

employees

that

the

best

response

the

sinkhole

collapse

was

repair

the

dike

and

seal

the

sinkhole.

Beginning May

21,

 1991,

the

site

was

cleaned-up,

arid

new

dike

was

created

about

from

t~ie

surface

 expression

the

sinkhole.

According

city

employees,

 the sinkhole was excavated to within

1 m

bedrock.

The

hole

was

then

filled.

and

sealed.

May

24,

1991.

-I-

722

POTENTIAL

 FAILURE

 O~’ OTHER

 WASTE

 WATER

 TREATMENT

 FACILITIES

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

 has compiled a list

of

towns

in

southeast Minnesota

with

waste-water

pond

facilities

similar

to

 that

at

 Lewiston.

The

 screening for

the

li-st

included.

those

sites

which

are

situated

over

karstic

bedrock

and

had

less

than

30

soil

or-

till

above

the

bedrock.

The initial list,

 which is being refined.

this

time,

includes

14

 sites.

Ô’fi~è~e ‘14T”

I0afe

bonsidered

 ‘have--’h±g-h--

potential for failure,

and

4,

low

 potential.

 Of the

 10 that have high

potential

for

 failure,

2

 have had

 failures within the past

20

 years.

This

 corresponds to

 a failure rate of about 20.-

Costs

 for potential damages,

 repair and/or remediation for the3e Waste

Water

 Treatment Facilities

 now the responsibility of the local units of

government.

The

 Federal

 programs

 that. cost—shared

the

 bulk

of

the

 original construction costs have been severely reduced or phased. out.

It

recognized

that

the

use

of

 a lagoon system

 karst region can lead

to catastrophic

 failures

 and potential

 health

 concerns.

 However,,

the

sealing

 of the sinkholes not only

in,

 or next to,

 sewage ponds,

but

in

other sensitive

 areas,

is

 often

the

 remedial method

 of, choice

due

to

economics.

 A new

 sewage treatment

 plant would cost

 about

 1.5 million

dollars which

is

 an exorbitant

 financial burden for

 a small town.

 These

small

 towns

are

 forced.

 either

to

 spend. millions

of

 dollars

on

 new-

construction or risk potential. liability suits.

 Neither choice is

good.

REFERENCES

Braun

 Iritertec

 Environmental,

 Inc.

 1991.

 Hydrogeologic investigation of

the

 sinkhole

at

the

City

 of Lewi~tonWaste Water

Treatment

Facility.

Project No. BCBX—91—033A.

Dalgleish,

,J.B.

and

E.C.

Alexander,

~3r.

1984.

 Geologic

Atlas

Winona

County,

Minnesota,

Plate

In:

N.H.

Balaban

and

B.N.

Olsen

feds.),

County

Atlas Series C—2,

 Minnesota Geological Survey. University of Minnesota.

Liesch,

 B.A.

 1977.

 Hydrogeologic

 Investigation

of

the

 Altura

 area

for

Altura, Minnesota.

 Report dated November 1974.

 18 p.

Mossier,

 Y.H.,

 arid.

 P.R.

 Book.

 1984.

 Geologic

 Atlas

of

 Winona

 County,

Minnesota,

 Plate

2.

In:

 N.R.

 Ealaban

 and. B.M.

 Olsen

 (eds.),

 County Atlas

Series C-2, Minnesota Geological Survey.

 University. of Minnesota.

Sweeting,

 M.M.

 1973. Karst Landform~.

Columbia

Press,

 New York.

 362 p.

723

BIOGRAPHICAL

 SKETCHES

Nancy

IL.

J~nnik

Associate

Professor

the

Department

Geology

at

Winona

State

University.

She

has

3.S.

geology

(1976)

 from the College

William

and.

Mary,

M.S.

geology

(1980)

from

Rutgers

University,

and

Ph.D.

geosciences/hydrology

(1988)

from

the

New

Mexico

Institute

Mining~and

Technology. Her current

 research involves determining aquifer

characteristics,

 aquifer

interactions;

arxth

the -inter—relationships

between

surface and ground water in the karst terrain

 of southeastern Minnesota.

Her

full

 address

 is as follows.

Department

Geology

Winona

State

University

Winona,

 MN 55987—5838

(507)

457—5267

Calvin

Alexander.

i~ a

Professor

the

Department

Geology

arid

Geophysics

at

the

 University

 of Minnesota.

E~e

has

S.S.

chemistry

(1966)

from

 Qçlahoma

State

University

and

Ph.D.

chemistry

(1970)

from

the

University

Missouri-

 RoUa.

The

 central theme

his

current

research

the

rate

movement

fluids

hydrogeology.

He

 and. his

research

group

are

utilizing

variety

methods

measure

flow

and

residence times,

 which can range from hours to ten of thousands of years.

His

full

address

follows.

Department of Geology

 and. Geophysics

University

Minnesota

Minneapolis, ~

 55455—0219

(612)

624—3517

Lawrence

Laridherr

the

Regional

Director

the

Minnesota

Pollution

Control

agency

 (M?CA)

-Southeast

Region.

has

B.S.

biology

(1967)

from the University

 of Minnesota.

He

has

 24 -years

working

experience

environmental

programs

the

karst

southeastern’Minnesota.

 H-is- current

responsibilities

 involve

managing

the

activities

the

eight

 person staff

involved

all

program

areas

the

MPCA.

His ‘full

address

follows.

MPCA Regional

Director

2116

Campus

Dr.

 S.E.

Rochester,

 MN 55904

(507)

285—7343

724

~-~‘~‘I~

ttr ~

CONSTRUCTING NEW MANURE STORAGE SYSTEMS IN THE KARST

REGION

Interim Guidance Document

last revised 3-20-00

 Minnesota PollutionControl Agency

PURPOSE

OF THESE GUIDELINES

These guidelines are

established by

the Minnesota Pollution. Control Agency

(MPCA) to define

the measures and considerations generally needed to ensure that, to the maximum

extent practicable,

grnund water

protected -when

new

liquid

manure

storage systems

are

constructed

the

karst

 region.

 Minnesota

rules

7060.0500

state that

is the

“policy of the

Minnesota- Pollution

Control

Agency to control wastes as may be necessary to

ensure that to

the maximum practicable extent.the

underground waters of the

state- are

maintained at

their natural

 quality.”

 Maintaining high quality

ground

water supplies

is challenging in the

karst region of southeastern Minnesota due to the

rapid’

transport

of contaminants from the land surface to ground water in

this unique

geologic

setting.

These guidelines

are

also intended to provide greater consistency during MPCA

staff and County

Feedlot Officers permittingdecisions in

the

karstregiOn.

This

document

incorporates minimum standards

proposed in

the revised

feedlot rules

 (chapter

7020) and additional

site-specific evaluations and

measures needed to

safeguard ground water in the

karst region.

The

proposed feedlot rules for chapter 7020

will establish the minimum standards for

depth

to be~.rock

and

define

areas

adjacent to

sinkholes

that

are

not

suitable

for

construction

liquid manure storage systems.

However,

the proposed feedlot rules

are not intended to define all

‘considerations

and

measures

needed

protect

ground

water

from

construction

of new

liquid

manure

storage

systems in

this

region.

A site-specific review process in this document defines

what

information

must be considered in the case-by-case analyses to evaluate

the water quality protection

measures needed for specific site locations in the karst

region.

important

for

livestock

producers

arid

their

technical

advisors

understand

karst

risk

considerations

early in the planning and site

selection process.

Some questions addressed in these

guidelines include:

 1) why are additional

precautionary

measures needed in the karst- region? 2)

what

are the minimum

depth

bedrock and sinkhole setback-restrictions?

 3):what site conditions

pose

the highest risk

offailure? 4)

what

type

ofmanure storage system designs

are needed to protect

ground

water quality? and

what

investigations

and

evaluations

must

conducted

prior

obtaining

a feedlot permit application for construction of a liquid manure storage system in the karst

region?

This document will be used

as “interim” guidance until

the proposed feedlot rules

are finalized,

pending legislation

is resolved, and-any resulting modifications

are

incorporated.

The

State

Senate

currently

proposing

legislation

directing

the

MPCA

convene

workgroup

consisting

representatives from

the

Natural Resources

Conservation

Service and

private

sector engineers

to

review and propose design standards for liquid manure storage facilities in areas susceptible to soil

 collapse and sinkhole

formation.

BACKGROUND

KARST REGION OF MINNESOTA

Much of Southeastern

Minnesota

considered

“karst”

landscape

(Figure

1).

Karst

geologic

term

for

landscape-

area

created

over

soluble

rock

with

efficient

drainage.

The

underlying

carbonate

bedrock

karst region

dissolves

over

time

produce

solution

enlarged

joints

and cracks.

These features

can result

in rapid transmission of contaminants

from the

land

surface

the

ground

water

below.

Karst

 areas are characterized

sinkholes,

caves,

springs,

losing

streams,

and

blind

valleys.

Sinkholes

are

surface

depressions

the

earth

formed

collapse of soil or bedrock; losing streams lose some of their flow into the ground;

and blind valleys

are valleys

that have no surface

Outlet and the runoff

waters enter the ground. The extent of

karst

feature development varies tremendously across- southeastern Minnesota, and often changes abruptly

within a few hundred feet.

Figure

Minnesota Karst Lands.

These guidelines pertain to much of the

land in the

dark shaded

areas (from Alexander, E.C. Jr., University of Minnesota).

BENEFITS OF LIVESTOCK AND MANURE STORAGE STRUCTURES

~-i

Livestock agriculture

can benefit water

quality

in the

karst region, helping to offset some ofthe

risks to water

quality.

 For example,

manure

applied to land

in row crop production can reduce soil

erosion.

 Hay land and

pastures

associated with cattle operations result in very little soil erosion and

pesticide transport on the steeply sloping soils common in the karst region.

The

trends to construct new and expanded feedlot

facilities with

liquid manure

storage systems

can

 potentially

further- enhance

 protection of

surface

water quality.

Manure

storage

structures

increase

management flexibility, making

 it easier to apply at proper rates and to avoid winter-time

manure application.

Many of

the older feedlot facilities

are

located adjacent to streams and do not

have

containment

 of manure or manure-contaminated

runoff.

Most

facilities

with

new

liquid

manure storage

structures

have total containment of

manure

so that there is -no

manure in rainfall

and

snowrnelt

runoff waters

-leaving the

feedlot

area.

Also,

the

liquid

manure in

containment

structures

is usually injected below the

soil surface and

is less subject to surface

runoff compared to

the soil

surface spreading

practices ofmany feedlot facilities without liquid

manure

storage.

RISKS

OFMANURE STORAGESYSTEMS

IN KARST REGIONS

While

liquid

manure

 storage systems

can

 benefit water

quality,

 they

can

 also pose several

heightened

risks.

Three potential water quality risks associated with liquid

manure

storage systems

in the karst

region are described below.

Two of the risk factors

could lead to long-term

(chronic)

problems,

whereas

the

third risk

factor is

associated

with

catastrophic

failure.

The water

quality

risks include:

1)

 seepage

 of contaminants

through

the

 liner and

underlying

 soil

 to fractured bedrock

and

subsequently to

ground

water;

gradual

soil- subsidence

formation

of a

shallow

sinkhole

below

the

 storage structure that

breaches

the

integrity

of the

liner,

causing

slow

and

perhaps

undetectable

leaking

of manure

from the

 storage system to ground water,

and

a larger sinkhole forming below a manure storage system

leading to a rapid flowofmanure

into

ground wateror causing a collapse in

a basin sidewall and a

release of

manure onto the. ground

surface.

Conditions stated in 2

and

 3 above

 are referred to in

this

document

“soil

collapses.”

general, the potential for soil collapse increases as the seepage rate through the storage system liner

increases.

With high

seepage rates,

the

seepage

liquids

can

wash or

erode

underlying soils

into

fractures

in the

bedrock.

more soil moves down

the

fractures,

the

soil

may either

gradually

subside

or suddenly-collapse.

In some

cases, the underlying bedrock can dissolve to the degree that

-suddenly collapses, causing the soil above

to also collapse.

Soil

collapses can also

form

some

areas with very low seepage rates due to

natural

processes occurring over

the past centuries or

from-

changes in water infiltration rates near themanure storage system.

Manure

entering ground water

will discharge into-streams within’a

period of time ranging from

hours

decades

depending

the

 site-specific hydrogeology.

The

karst

region of Minnesota

maintains

a large number of high -quality trout

streams.

A rapid

discharge

of a

large quantity

of

manure

into

stream

will

destroy the

aquatic

 life for a stretch of the

stream and

also result in

increased

nutrient

loading into the receiving waters of

the Mississippi

River system.

Manure that

travels

in the ground water for

a longer period

before discharging into streams will

more diluted

and may

no.t destroy aquatic

life, but

will

threaten drinking

water supplies as

 it travels toward the

stream, and then still contribute to stream pollution upon discharge.

Using

liners with very low seepage- rates can reduce

the probability of a soil collapse below a

manure storage

system.

Risks of failure

can also be reduced by such measures as

proper siting of

the

storage

facility

the

landscape;

minimizing

the

manure

storage

capacity,

preventing

excess

infiltration of runoff waters around

the storage facility

and maintaining

a certain separation distance

between the manure and

fractured bedrock.

Basin overflows and intentional discharges from

manure

 storage structures

have beenproblems

at some facilities in Minnesota.

Enforcement of intentional manure

overflows

and direct

discharges

to waters

has increased- during recent years -in

an effort to curb blatant violations. Another potential-

 water quality risk from liquid-manure storage systems is failure of

manure storage. system sidewalls

to hold liquid manure. Sidewall failures

are

not

known

to have

occurred in

Minnesota,

possibly -due

to engineering review and

regulation ofconstruction

activities.

SOIL

SUBSIDENCE

AND

SINKHOLEDEVELOPMENT

‘Learning experiences

from sin

Itholes

forming under municipal wastewater

treatment

ponds

Between 1974

and

1992, sinkholes

opened below

three

ofthe twenty-two municipal wastewater

treatment

ponds in

Minnesota’s

karst

region.

 Sinkholes developed in

Altura’s

ponds

1974

during

construction and

in 1976 when

it first filled to capacity (Alexander and

Book.

 19-84). A

sinkhole

developed ih a Lewiston pond in 1991

after

eighteen years

use (Jannik

et al.,

 1992).

 Several

sinkholes

developed

in a Belichester pond

1992

after twenty-two years

of use

(Alexander et

al.,

1993).

The

amount

partially treated wastewater draining into sinkholes at the

three

respective

sites was 3.7, 2.3,

and

7.7 million gallons. The ponds were constructed of

earthen materials

with a

designed seepage rate not

exceed 3500

gallons per

acre per

day.

Several sinkholes

are

located

within

about a mile

from all three sites,

yet no

sinkholes

havebeen identified within

a-

quarter-of a

mile from the sites.

These

 failures

 clearly demonstrate

the

 potential

for

sinkholes

develop

southeastern

Minnesota when large quantities of liquids are

stored in

sinkhole

prone areas with

minimal bathers

between

the

Jiquid

and

underlying

materials.