Large Livestock Facilities Ordinance

1
Large Livestock Facilities Ordinance
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 neighbors 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
• PZ and LW 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
• gt 500 animal units (au) 357 dairy cows
• Existing
• gt 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 ( lt1,000 au)
• 200 feet ( 1,000 or gt au)
• No further encroachment for existing structures
• Road right of way
• 100 feet (lt1,000 au)
• 150 feet (1,000 or gt 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 lt 1,000 au
• gt 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, 700pm 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 dont 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 lt 50 Feet Deep, and Lighter Textured Soils
32
E. Coli Positives Correlate to Thin Soils,
Soilslt 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

43
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 of surface
  and groundwater quality, especially in relation
  to karst features

44
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

45
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,
  others that they are too weak
• The proposed standards are a compromise
• To preserve agriculture within the County
• To improve/protect our groundwater resource

46
Where Local Standards Would Apply(State-wide
standards apply everywhere)
47
Use of Local Standards Will Be Promoted With

• Education
• Cost sharing incentives
• Regulation

48
Local Standards

• No delivery of waste materials to
• Groundwater
• Wells
• Karst features
• Pollution seen entered Karst features will be
  presumed to be reaching groundwater

49
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

50
Animal Lots
51
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 or decrease potential for
  groundwater pollution
• For new lots, soil borings to 5 feet

52
Unconfined Manure Piles
53
Unconfined Manure Piles

• No piles on sites susceptible to groundwater
  contamination
• Ordinances, phased in for all but larger
  operations
• Written stacking plan within 3 years
• No piles within 10 years or if have storage
• Piles on other sites must meet NRCS Technical
  Standards

54
Manure Storage Facilities
103 permitted facilities 109 no permit (probably
not built to technical standards)
55
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

56
Manure and Feed Storage Facilities

• New manure storages must have a capacity of 9
  months storage (larger operations only)
• New manure or feed storage facilities must be
  setback 400 feet from Karst features

57
Manure Applications
58
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 lt 3 feet to
  bedrock
• Other nutrients without viruses/bacteria allowed
• Manure applications on soils 3 feet to lt 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 gt 2
  weeks
• Alternatives with LWCD approval

59
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

60
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

61
Land Applications of Manure

• Immediate incorporation after application
• Shallow (lt10 inch incorporation) on soils 3 ft
  lt5 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

62
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

63
NRCS Technical Standards

• Are specifications for construction, operation,
  and maintenance of conservation practices
• Are updated frequently
• Most current version must be used for
  conservation practices

64
Next Steps

• Public hearing on livestock facilities ordinance
  and local standards
• Wednesday, May 2, 700pm 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

65
Calumet County Land Water Conservation
Department 206 Court St Chilton, WI 53014 (920)
849-1444 and 989-2700 mcleod.eugene_at_co.calumet.wi.
us
Marissa Hacker Secretary/Technician Amy
Callis Groundwater Specialist
Eugene McLeod County Conservationist Mike
Haase Project Specialist