facilities ordinance large livestock early history

Facilities Ordinance Large Livestock Early History In 2000, new - PDF document

Facilities Ordinance Large Livestock Early History In 2000, new large dairy operation was built in County on Irish Road County zoning ordinance - exempted large dairies from conditional use process Some opposition to site

  1. Facilities Ordinance Large Livestock

  2. Early History • In 2000, new large dairy operation was built in County on Irish Road • County zoning ordinance - exempted large dairies from conditional use process • Some opposition to site • Tri-committee started meeting in late 2000 – early 2001

  3. Tri-Committee • Planning and Zoning, Land and Water Conservation, and Ag. and Extension Committees • Met for education, information gathering, and decision making 2000 - 2005 • Recommended forming County task force in 2003

  4. Task Force on Livestock Operations • Met from March 2003 - October 2004 “ to fully evaluate if and how existing, expanding, and new livestock operations should be regulated ” • 17 member diverse, volunteer group • Met 18 times (over 1000 hours) • List of recommendations to County Board

  5. Task Force Recommendations • Regulations apply county wide • Process include neighbor’s rights and meetings • Setbacks - lot lines, roads, natural features, parks, and municipalities • Basic standards to protect surface and ground water for all farms • Update manure storage ordinance and require 12 months storage in Karst areas

  6. History - 2005 • Staff drafted an ordinance • Tri-committee tabled • Ag & Extension dropped out for regulations • Staff met with towns for input • P&Z and L&W Committees directed staff to: – Pursue siting ordinance through zoning – If zoning not feasible, pursue County-wide licensing ordinance

  7. Wisconsin Statutes and Rules 2005 - 2006 • State was moving forward with own regulations at the same time as our County • Established uniform requirements and application process for large livestock operations state-wide – Many of the recommendations of Calumet County Task Force could not be used in a local ordinance • Requirements and process apply only if county had a local ordinance regulating large livestock facilities

  8. History - 2006 • P and Z staff work on siting ordinance through comprehensive planning process • DATCP interpretations of new state regulations made it unfeasible to develop ordinance for siting • Staff begin development of: – Licensing ordinance using WCA model – Local performance standards for groundwater protection

  9. Draft Calumet Large Livestock Facilities Ordinance • Based on WCA model • Incorporates all requirements from Wisconsin regulations • Incorporates Local Performance standards for groundwater protection

  10. Large Livestock Facilities Ordinance • Requires new and existing large livestock operations to get a license from County to build or expand – New • > 500 animal units (au) = 357 dairy cows – Existing • > 500 au and increase by at least 20% • Must meet or agree to meet certain performance standards to get license

  11. Large Livestock Facilities Ordinance • Apply for license using DATCP application forms and worksheets • Forms and worksheet show whether meet performance standard • Additional worksheet for local standards • If application and worksheets complete and accurate, County must approve license • Application fee $1,000 as allowed by state

  12. State Performance Standards • Setbacks for structures – Property line • 100 feet ( <1,000 au) • 200 feet ( 1,000 or > au) • No further encroachment for existing structures – Road right of way • 100 feet (<1,000 au) • 150 feet (1,000 or > au) • No further encroachment for existing structures

  13. State Performance Standards • Setbacks for manure storages – Property line and road row • 350 feet for new • No further encroachment for existing and some new that meet certain requirement • Comply with County wetland, shoreland, and floodplain ordinances • Comply with setbacks in Wisconsin well codes

  14. State Performance Standards • Odor – Must achieve minimum “odor score” – Score dependent on manure storage and handling, separation distance from neighbors, and odor management practices – Exempt • Existing < 1,000 au • > 2,500 feet from nearest neighbor

  15. State Performance Standards • Nutrient management – Manure applied according to a nutrient management plan that meets NRCS Technical Standards – Plan developed by qualified nutrient management planner • Manure storage facilities – New storages built to NRCS Technical Standards – Existing storages certified to be structurally sound, not leaking, and built to previous Technical Standards – Unused storages properly closed to Technical Standards – Storage capacity adequate for nutrient management plan

  16. State Performance Standards • Runoff Management – Animal lots • New and altered - meet Technical Standards for filtering runoff • Existing lots - maximum lbs. Phosphorus runoff • No discharge to conduits to groundwater – Feed storage • Divert surface runoff • Collection, storage, and treatment of leachate

  17. State Performance Standards • Divert runoff away from manure piles, manure and feed storages, and animal lots 300 feet from streams, 1,000 feet from lakes • No unconfined manure piles 300 feet from streams and 1,000 feet from lakes • No overflow of manure storages • No unlimited access by livestock to lakes and streams

  18. Local Performance Standards • State law allows a county to develop additional and/or stricter local standards for their licensing ordinance • Local standards must be adopted as scientific and defensible findings of fact that they are necessary to protect public health or safety • Draft ordinance contains local standards to improve and protect groundwater

  19. Next Steps • Public hearing on ordinance and local standards – Wednesday, May 2, 7:00pm in Room 025 • Final drafts of ordinance and standards • Consideration by County Board on May 15 – Resolution adopting local standards – Resolution adopting ordinance

  20. Groundwater Quality in Calumet County

  21. Most residents get their drinking water from fractured bedrock

  22. Our wells intercept the fractures to get water.

  23. The fractures transmit water and pollutants efficiently and rapidly

  24. • Soils can filter out pollutants before they reach fractures and groundwater • Thin soils make poor filters • Light textured soil make poor filters

  25. Brown water events • Been going on for many years in Calumet County • Brown, sometimes manure smelling well water • At least 5 reports each year • Many residents don’t report it and have learned to live with it

  26. Latest Well Contamination Brothertown 2006 Neighbors wells had to be replaced

  27. 2002 - 2006 Well Testing Results Nitrates (1,127 results) 35% Unsafe (over 10ppm) 33% Elevated (2-10 ppm) 32% Natural (less than 2ppm) State Average – 10% over 10ppm

  28. 2002 - 2006 Well Testing Results Coliform Bacteria (1,383 results) 33% Unsafe (bacteria positive) 67% Safe (bacteria negative) State average – 15% Unsafe

  29. 2002 - 2005 Well Testing Results E. coli Bacteria (1,383 test results) 5.1 % Unsafe (E.coli positive)

  30. The Bottom Line 47% of tested wells 2002-2006 were unsafe due to nitrates and/or bacteria In some neighborhoods with thin soils, over 80% were unsafe

  31. High Nitrate Results Correlate to Thin Soils, Soils < 50 Feet Deep, and Lighter Textured Soils

  32. E. Coli Positives Correlate to Thin Soils, Soils < 50 Feet Deep, and Lighter Textured Soils

  33. Karst Features in These Areas Sinkholes Bedrock Openings

  34. Karst Features Area of Focused Infiltration • Occur in sunken or low lying areas that have no surface drainage outlet • Ponded water disappears rapidly • Infiltrates through thin soil unfiltered into the bedrock

  35. Karst Features Soils With Less Than 5 Feet of Depth to Bedrock

  36. Karst Features Channels to Karst Features

  37. Our Land Use Activities Impact Groundwater • Land use primarily agricultural • Most fields receive manure • Manure storages and animal lots East Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. Data not yet official.

  38. Manure Quantities and Nutrients • 1 dairy cow/heifer = 120 lbs. manure/day • 1 calf = 60 lbs./day • Calumet County – 24,000 dairy cows and 24,000 heifer and calves • Waste from 1 cow = waste from 20 - 40 people (EPA) • Nitrogen from 1 septic system serving 4 people = nitrogen in manure from 1 cow

  39. Tools for Improving Our Groundwater • Information and Education • Conservation Practices • Cost Sharing • Targeting of Sensitive and Problem Areas • Use of Programs and Partnerships • Regulations

  40. Local Performance Standards for Agriculture to Improve and Protect Groundwater Quality

  41. What is a Performance Standard? Conservation practice or management practice to reduce impacts of a land use to our land and water resources

  42. State Has Established Performance Standards • Apply State-wide • Address primarily surface water quality • Some groundwater protection, but not adequate in our “swiss cheese landscape”


More recommend