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

Large Livestock Facilities Ordinance

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

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

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

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

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

• rdinance

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

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

• rdinance for siting
• Staff begin development of:

– Licensing ordinance using WCA model – Local performance standards for groundwater protection

Draft Calumet Large Livestock Facilities Ordinance

• Based on WCA model
• Incorporates all requirements from Wisconsin

regulations

• Incorporates Local Performance standards for

groundwater protection

Large Livestock Facilities Ordinance

• Requires new and existing large livestock
• perations 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Performance Standards

• State law allows a county to develop additional

and/or stricter local standards for their licensing

• rdinance
• 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

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

Groundwater Quality in Calumet County

Most residents get their drinking water from fractured bedrock

Our wells intercept the fractures to get water.

The fractures transmit water and pollutants efficiently and rapidly

• Soils can filter out pollutants before they

reach fractures and groundwater

• Thin soils make poor filters
• Light textured soil make poor filters

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

Latest Well Contamination

Brothertown 2006

Neighbors wells had to be replaced

Nitrates

(1,127 results)

35% Unsafe

(over 10ppm)

33% Elevated

(2-10 ppm)

32% Natural

(less than 2ppm)

State Average – 10% over 10ppm

2002 - 2006 Well Testing Results

Coliform Bacteria

(1,383 results)

33% Unsafe

(bacteria positive)

67% Safe

(bacteria negative)

State average – 15% Unsafe

2002 - 2006 Well Testing Results

• E. coli Bacteria

(1,383 test results)

5.1 % Unsafe

(E.coli positive)

2002 - 2005 Well Testing Results

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

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

• E. Coli Positives Correlate to Thin Soils, Soils

< 50 Feet Deep, and Lighter Textured Soils

Karst Features in These Areas

Bedrock Openings Sinkholes

Karst Features

• 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

Area of Focused Infiltration

Karst Features

Soils With Less Than 5 Feet of Depth to Bedrock

Karst Features

Channels to Karst Features

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.

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

Tools for Improving Our Groundwater

• Information and Education
• Conservation Practices
• Cost Sharing
• Targeting of Sensitive and Problem

Areas

• Use of Programs and Partnerships
• Regulations

Local Performance Standards for Agriculture to Improve and Protect Groundwater Quality

What is a Performance Standard?

Conservation practice or management practice to reduce impacts of a land use to our land and water resources

State Has Established Performance Standards

• Apply State-wide
• Address primarily surface water quality
• Some groundwater protection, but not

adequate in our “swiss cheese landscape”

Why Are Local Standards Needed?

• Health and safety of our families and neighbors

and the economic well being of our dairy farms depend on good water quality

• Local standards will serve as a baseline for

expected land use practices in our problem areas

• Calumet County Task Force on Livestock

Operations recommendation to include protection

• f surface and groundwater quality, especially in

relation to karst features

Proposed Local Performance Standards for Agriculture

• Based on recommendations developed by a regional

panel of experts during past year

– Top groundwater scientists and experts in Wisconsin – Well driller – Custom hauler – Farmers – Crop Consultant – Local and state resource professionals

• Standards are based on current scientific knowledge,

with added professional judgment

Some Things to Think About

• We need to move forward to improve and

protect this vital resource

• Some think that the standards are too strict,
• thers that they are too weak
• The proposed standards are a compromise:

– To preserve agriculture within the County – To improve/protect our groundwater resource

Where Local Standards Would Apply

(State-wide standards apply everywhere)

Use of Local Standards Will Be Promoted With:

• 1. Education
• 2. Cost sharing incentives
• 3. Regulation

Local Standards

• No delivery of waste materials to:

– Groundwater – Wells – Karst features

• Pollution seen entered Karst features will be

presumed to be reaching groundwater

Sinkholes and Bedrock Openings

• No cropping in/on them
• No dumping of waste
• No tile outlets
• No diversion of runoff to them
• Use one best management practice:

– 100 foot wide permanent vegetative strip – 100 foot wide alfalfa/grass strip 4 out of 6 years – Reduced tillage within 100 feet – Divert runoff – Properly close the sinkhole

Animal Lots

Animal Lots and Milking Centers

• On sites susceptible to groundwater contamination

(Near wells and karst features, on thin soils)

– Divert clean water runoff away from them – No discharge of untreated animal waste or milking center waste

• Use conservation practice to capture or filter
• Each site is unique, pick from practices that will treat the waste
• r decrease potential for groundwater pollution
• For new lots, soil borings to 5 feet

Unconfined Manure Piles

Unconfined Manure Piles

• No piles on sites susceptible to groundwater

contamination

– Ordinances, phased in for all but larger

• perations
• Written stacking plan within 3 years
• No piles within 10 years or if have storage
• Piles on other sites must meet NRCS

Technical Standards

Manure Storage Facilities

103 permitted facilities 109 no permit (probably not built to

technical standards)

Manure and Feed Storage Facilities

• Manure storages built before County ordinance

(1989) requiring permit

– Inspected and certified by engineer or engineering practitioner that have structural integrity and no leakage

• Ordinance - all but larger operations can substitute inspection

every 2 years by qualified person

• Storages lacking structural integrity or leaking,

must be fixed or properly closed

• Unused storages must be properly closed

Manure and Feed Storage Facilities

• New manure storages must have a capacity
• f 9 months storage (larger operations only)
• New manure or feed storage facilities must

be setback 400 feet from Karst features

Manure Applications

Land Applications of Manure

• Qualified person map Karst features and thin soils
• Qualified person develop written spill response plan
• No application of manure on soils < 3 feet to bedrock

– Other nutrients without viruses/bacteria allowed

• Manure applications on soils 3 feet to < 5 feet

– Not to exceed 7,000 gal or 17.5 tons per acre or ½ what called for in nutrient management plan per application – Maximum 2 applications/year, separated by > 2 weeks – Alternatives with LWCD approval

Land Applications of Manure

• No manure applications

– Within 100 ft. of Karst features or channels leading to them – Within 100 feet of a private well and 1,000 ft. of a municipal or school well

• Other nutrients without viruses/bacteria allowed

– To saturated soils

Land Applications of Manure

• No applications to frozen, ice covered, or snow

covered ground

– Ordinances - phased in for all but larger operations and operations with at least 5 months storage

• Written spreading plan within 3 years
• No applications of liquid manure within 5 years
• No applications of solid manure within 10 years

Land Applications

• f Manure
• Immediate incorporation after application

– Shallow (<10 inch incorporation) on soils 3 ft – <5 ft. to bedrock – Some allowances for actively growing crops, pasture, and no-till with LWCD approval – Allowance for farms with solid manure and no storage for up to 10 years with approved spreading plan

Nutrient Management Plans

• Karst features and wells must be located on

plan maps by a qualified person

• Plans required by ordinance must be updated

annually

– Copy to LWCD by June 1st each year

NRCS Technical Standards

• Are specifications for construction,
• peration, and maintenance of conservation

practices

• Are updated frequently
• Most current version must be used for

conservation practices

Next Steps

• Public hearing on livestock facilities ordinance and local

standards

– Wednesday, May 2, 7:00pm in Room 025

• Final draft standards
• Consideration by County Board on May 15

– Resolution adopting local standards

• Adoption of local standards does not mean that they are

enforceable

– Would need to include them in separate ordinances to enforce them – Offer of cost sharing may also be needed in some cases

Calumet County Calumet County Land & Water Conservation Department Land & Water Conservation Department 206 Court St 206 Court St Chilton, WI 53014 Chilton, WI 53014 (920) 849 (920) 849-

• 1444 and 989

1444 and 989-

• 2700

2700 mcleod.eugene@co.calumet.wi.us mcleod.eugene@co.calumet.wi.us

Eugene McLeod County Conservationist Mike Haase Project Specialist Marissa Hacker Secretary/Technician Amy Callis Groundwater Specialist