URGENT ACTION NEEDED

Please contact Mr. Tom Lovejoy of the DNR to request that the DNR do a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) rather than the less thorough Environmental Assessment (EA) on the Roth feeder pig CAFO application near Wauzeka in Crawford County. Mr. Lovejoy's email address is Tom.Lovejoy@Wisconsin.gov

Please keep the email short, direct, and respectful. Reasons for the request are listed in the letter below that CSP sent to Mr. Rohland of the DNR. The scientific documentation is summarized in the letter from Dr. Byron Shaw, which follows our letter.

This is a simple action which will greatly increase the recognition that citizens are concerned about potential pollution of valuable resources in the region. Concerns from both local residents and out of area citizens are important.



Robert Rohland
Department of Natural Resources
Black River Falls, WI

Dear Mr. Rohland:

Crawford Stewardship Project would like to raise concerns about the DNR acceptance of the Roth Feeder Pig Operation NMP as complete. We are further respectfully requesting that in addition to the Environmental Assessment currently being done by the Department an Environmental Impact Statement be considered.

The primary concerns identified by our experts remain:

  • Too little land for too much manure: Many fields are already too high in phosphorus. Less than 200 acres for the manure from 1,700 animal units are high by all industry standards for manure applications. Terrain is steep: Run off from surface applied manure is of grave concern. The adjoining Boydtown Creek and Wisconsin River are rated as exceptional, outstanding and/or impaired resource waters of the state, warranting additional restrictions. Major heavy rain events are becoming routine in the area due to shifts in weather patterns. To allow a facility of this type to locate so near to these resources without careful study is to risk irreversible damage.
  • Karst Geology: We recognize that our area’s fractured geology can result in high vulnerability to contamination of our ground water. The geology of the land needs to be thoroughly scrutinized by an independent soil scientist and hydro-geologist before a facility with storage capacity of millions of gallons of liquid waste is located in the area.
  • Neighbor Health: Safe drinking water is the right of our citizens. We are asking the DNR to protect our drinking water. Once polluted, our confined aquifer may be impossible to cleanse. Parts of the Roth farm are located in the atrazine prohibition area along the Wisconsin River known to be more susceptible to groundwater contamination. A well immediately down plume of the Roth Feeder Pig operation is already testing over the limit for nitrates.
  • Engineering: NR 243 clearly states that the DNR will pre-approve engineering design of a facility before construction, but to our knowledge this was not done. Engineering inspections during construction appear to have been inadequate as well. Therefore the public has no assurance the facility does not present the added threat of engineering failure to the environmental concerns listed above.

Due to these vulnerabilities and concerns, we are requesting that a full EIS be done on this application.

Respectfully Submitted

,

Jennifer Nelson, Board Chair
Crawford Stewardship Project

You can download this letter in .doc format (23 KB)



Roth feeder pig environmental concerns and need for an EIS 7-12-09

Dr. Byron Shaw
Emeritus Prof Soil and Water Resources UWSP

For the following reasons I feel there should be an environmental impact statement performed on the potential impacts of the Roth farm before any WPDES permit is issued to this facility.

  1. All of the farm land drains to either exceptional resource waters (ERW), outstanding resource waters (ORW) or Clean Water Act section 303 (d) listed impaired waters. State and Federal law prohibits the discharge of new pollutants to waters already impaired by those pollutants, and also prohibits any lowering of water quality in ORWs or ERWs. The DNR must rigorously examine the potential impacts to these designated waters from manure discharge and assess the need for additional protections in any WPDES permit for the Roth farm.
  2. The Roth farm plans to put the waste water from 1500 + animal units onto less than 195 acres of land 26 of which are unavailable for manure due to greater than 200ppm soil test P this leaves 169 acres for manure disposal not counting waterways that need to be excluded. This gives a land to animal unit ratio of .11 acres per animal unit. Even the Dept of Ag Trade and Consumer Protection recommends 1.0 acres per animal unit in their Work Sheet 3 for livestock Siting
  3. In addition to hog manure there is a herd of 95 cows that are fed on some of the fields during the winter months. Some of these fields are already overloaded with phosphorus. And subject to runoff to the Wisconsin River during snowmelt and spring rains.
  4. None of the manure used on this farm is incorporated making surface water contamination from runoff highly likely.
  5. The only way this operation can fit within the NRCS 590 standard is with the very low manure analysis values obtained over the last year. These values are far below average values for hog manure and with proper sampling are likely to show much higher values in the future making it impossible to meet even the liberal 590 or DNR 243 standard.
  6. There are also unrealistically high yield values used in the nutrient management plan to justify the high manure application rates. Even if these yields are achieved, it further indicates a level of fertility management that will result in both surface and groundwater pollution. Setting yield goals higher than county averages for the soils involved should not be acceptable on soils already having excessive phosphorus concentrations and on the steep slopes that occur on most of this farm.
  7. All of the fields on this farm drain to ravines and or well defined waterways assuring that during runoff events there will be significant nutrient, bacteria and solids loss to the receiving streams. Not all of these areas of concentrated flow are mapped and shown to have the proper manure spreading restrictions.
  8. All of the fields on this farm are well drained making then susceptible to nitrate leaching. Even though they are not listed on the NRCS list of soils with high leaching potential. Nitrate concentrations down gradient of these soil types often exceeding the health standard. This is further reason to only fertilize for crop yields that are averages for the soil types present.
  9. In addition to the well drained nature of the soils there is the potential for Karst features on some of the hill top soils. This makes for an additional likelihood of nitrate and bacteria leaching into the underlying limestone aquifer. The Dubuque soils that occur on the ridge top fields are all described as having less than 60 inches of soil over weathered limestone bedrock. According to the the Northeast Wisconsin Karst Task Force report this would put these soils into the extreme category for relative vulnerability to contamination. For this category of soils the report recommends less than 6000 gallons per year of manure application with no more than 3000 per application. They also recommend immediate incorporation of manure after application.
  10. The 590 standard allows for adding an additional 20% nitrogen over University recommendation when manure or alfalfa credits are the only source of nitrogen. This is not justified if water quality is a concern and assures that on average there will be a 20% over application of nitrogen. This further guarantees groundwater contamination as it only requires leaching of 11 pounds of nitrate nitrogen to reach the 10 mg/l nitrate standard in an area with 5 inches of annual groundwater recharge which is a reasonable number for the soils and topography found on this farm.
  11. The overall level of nutrient management, high density of animals to land area, steep slopes, already overloaded soils with phosphorus, proximity to protected surface water resources, proximity to vulnerable groundwater and unrealistically low manure values all make it highly likely that significant water resource problems will occur if this facility is permitted as proposed.
  12. As DNR is required to prevent further pollution of ORW, ERW and 303b listed waters there is a definite need for a detailed EIS before this facility would be permitted.
  13. I have attached a copy of a Critique of the 590 Standard that further outlines the probability of water resource standard violations even if the 590 standard is met.

You can download this letter in .doc format (34 KB)



Concerned Scientists’ View of The 590 Standard:

It Grows Crops, but Does it Protect Water?

By Dr. Byron Shaw with input from other soil and water scientists
January 2007

The purpose of this paper is to document how the current nutrient management standard and UW recommendations are not adequately protecting water resources in Wisconsin. Suggestions are made for improvements to help overcome this problem without adversely effecting agriculture.

The recently revised (9-05) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 590 nutrient management standard does provide improved guidance to help farmers optimize nutrient management and prevent wasteful over application of nutrients. It also gives guidance on timing of applications to reduce pollutant delivery to surface water or groundwater. Unfortunately the standard is not water quality based and needs improvement if water resources are to be protected. The bases for recommendations in this standard are to maximize crop production. This is not the same as nutrient management that may be needed to prevent pollution of surface or groundwater. Section IV of 590 standard states “Implementation of this standard may not eliminate nutrient losses that could result in a violation of law”.

Nitrogen management concerns
Recommendations in the standard are largely based on university recommendations for crop growth but fail to recognize that following these recommendations may still have serious water quality implications. Research documenting nutrient additions to maximize crop growth is not linked to leaching or runoff research documenting the consequences of such applications. Where such research has been conducted, it is frequently found that the nitrate standard for groundwater is often exceeded when such fertility management programs are followed ( Postle. 2000, Brye et al., 2001, Wasenaar et al., 2006; Kraft et al., 2003). Three groundwater monitoring studies conducted by Jeff Postle of the DATCP found that nitrate concentrations under and down gradient of agricultural fields in both coarse and medium textured soil areas consistently exceeded the health and groundwater enforcement standard of 10 mg/l. He concluded that “nitrate is having a serious impact on shallow groundwater at agricultural fields with a range of soil textures” Postle 2000.

The 590 standard allows yield goals, and therefore fertilizer applications, to exceed crop yields by 15 percent. It also does not require the first 20 pounds of starter nitrogen fertilizer to be included in the nutrient budget for corn, and the first 40 pounds for potatoes. Both of these practices lead to significant over application of nitrogen. It only takes 12 pounds of nitrate-N leaching to exceed the health standard in areas with just 5 inches of annual groundwater recharge. If 10 inches of precipitation reaches groundwater, it would take only 25 pounds of nitrate-N leaching to exceed the health standard of 10 mg/l. Neither of these practices is allowed in the August 2006 National 590 standard. (NRCS 2006)

A 2002 report by DATCP estimated that 14.1 percent of private wells statewide exceed the 10 mg/l nitrate standard (DATCP 2002). A number of counties in the state with intensive agricultural land use have nitrate levels in many private wells exceeding the health standard. Dane, Green, Rock and Portage counties all have move than 25 percent of private wells exceeding the health standard. Much of this can be attributed to fertilizer practices on cropland following UW recommendations for corn and other row crops. It is well established that nitrate leaching from standing alfalfa and grassland is minimal and that the greatest potential for leaching is from row crops Brye et al., 2001. The 590 standard does not recognize this problem or make any recommendations for solving this widespread problem, including such logical practices as including legumes such as alfalfa or clover in crop rotations to prevent the leaching that will otherwise occur from continuous row crop land use practices.(Russelle 2003)

In addition to groundwater, surface water which is fed by groundwater is also impacted. Nitrate originating from the Midwest has been linked to the hypoxia problem in the Gulf of Mexico and impacts to stream biota have been documented in the study of Wisconsin Wadeable Streams at concentrations well below the groundwater standard. (Robertson et al 2006). A review of nitrate impacts on aquatic biota recommends a surface water standard of 2 mg/l (Camargo et al. 2003).

To reverse the trend of increasing nitrate in groundwater and surface water will require a number of improvements to the present 590 standard and UW recommendations. Those improvements include the following:

  • Manage nitrogen on soils with high leaching potential (all soils except poorly drained soil series) by requiring a crop rotation that includes low nitrogen-demanding crops such as legumes Prohibit application of manure and fertilizer in the fall until soil temperatures are below 50 degrees. The September 15 date may be too early for many fields.
  • Require the use of yield goals and fertilizer applications that are no higher than the average 5-year yields documented for the field or for similar soils in the county (not 15% higher, as is commonly practiced).
  • Include starter fertilizer, 30 pounds of N per percent organic matter and the amount in rain and irrigation water in the nutrient budget
    • .
  • Base fertilizer recommendations so nitrogen is optimally used, and thus protects the resource, rather than trying to maximize yield, which does not necessarily maximize financial return.

These environmentally optimum utilization values can be obtained from a point on fertilizer vs. yield curves at a point on the curve before it starts to level off. The following curve form R Hoeft shows little yield gain between 130 and 160 pounds per acre of Nitrogen yet the 160 rate is often considered optimum. The extra 30 pounds of N is likely to end up in surface water or groundwater.

Figure 1. N response over 34 environments, 1999–2003.
  (From R.Hoeft UIUC)

graph

 

Current UW recommendations for nitrogen applications in UWEX bulletin A2809 are based on corn prices and fertilizer cost that yield maximum financial return, with no consideration given to the leaching potential. This approach could be catastrophic if corn prices continue to increase with ethanol demand.

Phosphorus Management issues.
Phosphorus has been found to be the primary cause of excessive weed and algae growth in lakes and streams since the 1940’s (Sawyer 1947). Due to over application, soil phosphorus concentrations have been steadily increasing over the past 30 years (Peters 2005). A number of studies have linked increased concentrations of soluble phosphorus in runoff to increasing soil test levels. (Andraske et al 2003,Daverede et al 2003); UW soil test fertilizer recommendations indicate the optimum soil test level for phosphorus is between 6 and 24 ppm, values between 11 and 30 are listed as high and values above 20 to 30 are listed as excessively high for most widely grown crops in Wisconsin. Soil test recommendations published in UWEX 2809 clearly indicate that for any soil test above high for any crop, the phosphorus fertilizer recommendation is zero pounds per acre. For animal waste and other bio-solids the 590 standard does not follow this soil test recommendation. Rather, it allows phosphorus additions above crop removal up to soil test levels of 50 ppm (50 ppm is well above the excessive level), and allows phosphorus addition equal to crop removal if the soil test is between 50 and 100. In other words, in all cases it allows additions well in excess of what is justifiable based on crop needs and water quality. Allowing soil tests to increase to 50 before any reduction in phosphorus loading will guarantee degradation of water quality throughout Wisconsin and is an unjustifiable throwing away of valuable fertilizer.

graph

Fig. 1. Relationship between soil test P level (Bray P1, 0–15 cm) and dissolved P concentration in runoff for no-till and chisel plow systems without recent manure additions on well-drained silt loam soils at Lancaster and Arlington and on a poorly drained silty clay loam soil at Fond du Lac.(From Andraske and Bundy 2003)

Manure Management Issues
The animal waste portion of the 590 standard is largely designed to maximize manure disposal on land without adequate concern for water quality consequences. The 590 standard also allows manure to be applied on frozen/snow-covered ground on slopes up to 9%, outside of soil and water quality management areas (SWQMAs).. With more dairy operations in Wisconsin converting to freestall housing, more liquid manure is being applied on fields in the winter. Wisconsin has also recently experienced rapid snowmelt in late winter and early spring. Many counties have documented liquid manure running off into surface water during these periods, outside of SWQMA’s, on slopes as flat as 4%. A number of private drinking water wells have also been contaminated by liquid manure during snowmelt periods. (DNR 2006)

Protecting surface water from phosphorus should focus on the needs of the resource and crops, not on how much waste one can dispose of on land. University recommendations for fertilizer indicate that if a soil test is above optimum, no additional phosphorus fertilizer should be added. This should also be true for organic fertilizers (i.e. manure and sludge) -- if soil tests are at optimum amounts they should not exceed crop removal amounts. Following any other guidance will result in increasing soil test levels, which will result in degrading surface and groundwater water quality. For soils above optimum levels and where no other land is available, applications of one-third of crop removal rates could be allowed until crop removal lowers soil test levels back to optimum levels.

Now that the 590 standard has been adopted as fertilizer gospel in Wisconsin, state and federal agencies have touted it as the fertilizer gold standard for crop production. Some state officials have claimed that surface and groundwater would be adequately protected by 590. They also contend that a loss of 6 pounds of phosphorus per acre per year is an acceptable nutrient loss when following the 590 standard.

This amount of phosphorus loss in 8 inches of runoff water would amount to an average concentration of 3.3 mg/L. It has long been recognized that phosphorus is the main cause of excessive weed and algae growth in lakes and rivers. Values over .01 mg/L of reactive phosphorus is all that is needed to support an algae bloom (Shaw et al, 1996). US Environmental Protection Agency has a recommended standard for streams and rivers in eco region 7 of 0.029 mg/L (EPA, 2000). A recent US Geological Survey report, professional paper 1722 titled Nutrient Concentrations and their Relationships to the Biotic Integrity of Wadeable Streams in Wisconsin, by Robertson et. al 2006 found that all of the biotic indices studied were impacted when total phosphorus concentrations increased to between 0.02 to 0.08 mg/L . These concentrations indicate when land use activities will begin to cause environmental degradation and are at far lower concentrations (by a factor of 1000) than what agricultural experts suggest should be allowed using the 590 standard.

Following a standard that is designed for maximum short term economic gain by agriculture is not in the best interest of soil health, surface and groundwater quality and farmers’ own economic viability and, therefore, both short term and long term human and environmental health.

The current lack of surface water standards for phosphorus and nitrate and the lack of any enforcement of the groundwater enforcement standard for nitrate leave these resources at risk for further degradation unless some action is taken to remedy the issues identified above.
I suggest the following actions

  1. DNR complete as soon as possible nutrient standards for surface water. (Committees have met and provided input for over 10 years still no standards exist.
  2. An interagency committee with significant representation from both environmental and agricultural interests should be convened to develop an environmentally sound nutrient management standard.
  3. DATCP and DNR need to officially recognize that current 590 standards do not adequately protect water resources.
  4. UWEX and the UW System needs to incorporate research on environmental consequences in all nutrient management research. Recommendations based on such research need to balance environmental consequences with agricultural production.

Contrubutors to this document
Dr. Ronald Hensler Prof Soils UWSP
Dr. Ron Stieglitz Emeritus Prof. UWGB
Dr. George Kraft Prof Water resources UWSP
Steve Bradley Portage County LCD
Nancy Turyk Water Resource Scientists UWSP
Denny Caneff Executive director River Alliance of WI
Randy Slagg Portage County LCD

===================

References Cited

Adaraske T. W., L. G. Bundy, and K. C. Kilian. 2003. Manure History and Long-Term Tillage Effects on Soil Properties and Phosphorus Losses in Runoff. J. Environ. Qual 32:1782-1789

Andraski, T.W., and L.G. Bundy. 2003. Relationship between phosphorus levels in soil and in runoff from corn production systems. J. Environ. Qual. 32:310–316

Brye, K.R., J.M. Norman, L.G. Bundy, and S.T. Gower. 2001. Nitrogen and carbon leaching in agroecosystems and their role in denitrification potential. J. Environ. Qual. 30:58-70

Camargo A. Julio, Alvaro Alonso and Annabella Salamanca. 2005 Nitrate Toxicity to aquatic animals: a review with new data for freshwater invertebrates. Chemosphere 58 (2005) 1255-1267

Daverede I. C., A. N. Kravchenko, R.G. Hoeft, E.D. Nafziger, D.G. Bullock, J.J. Warren, and L.C. Gonzine. 2003. Phosphorus Runoff: Effect of Tillage and Soil Phosphorus Levels. J. Environ. Qual. 32:1436-1444

Robert G. Hoeft. 2005. How much Nitrogen do you need? Is 1.2 right for you. Univ. of Illinois 2005 corn and Soybean Classic.

Kraft, G.J. and W. Stites. 2003. Nitrate impacts on groundwater from irrigated vegetable systems in a humid north-central US sand plain. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 100:63-74.

Leonard I. Wassenaar, M. Jim Hendry, and Nikki Harrington. 2006 Decadal Geochemical and Isotopic Trends for Nitrate in a Transboundary Aquifer and Implications for Agricultural Beneficial Management Practices Environ. Sci. Technol., 40 (15), 4626 –4632

Natural Resource Conservation Service 2006 Conservation Paractice Standard NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT August 2006.

Peters J. 2005. Wisconsin Soil Test P Trends: 1964-2004. 2005 Area Fertilizer Dealers Meeting

Postle Jeffrey K. 2000 Some new Findings on Nitrate in Wisconsin Groundwater. Proceedings of the Wisconsin Fertilizer, Aglime and Pesticide Management Conference. 5pp.

D.M. Robertson, D.J. Graczyk, P.J. Garrison, L. Wang, G. LaLiberte, and R. Bannerman, 2006, Nutrient Concentrations and Their Relations to the Biotic Integrity of Wadeable Streams in Wisconsin: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1722, 156 p.

Russelle, Michael P.2003. Nutrient Management in alfalfa-corn Silage Rotations. Proceedings Four-State Forage Conference.MWPS-4SD15.p.13-19

Sawyer C. N. 1947. Fertilization opf lakes by agricultural and urban drainage. N. Engl water Works Assoc 61:109-127

Shaw B, C. Mechenich and L. Klessig 1996 Understanding Lake Data UWEX Publication G3582 University of Wisconsin-Extension Publication A2809 Soil Test Recommendations for Field, Vegetable and Fruit Crops, revised 2006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2000. Ambient water quality criteria recommendations: rivers and streams in nutrient ecoregion VII, Office of water, EPA-822-B-00-018

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 2006. Agricultural Runoff, 2006 Water Quality Report to Congress

You can download this paper in .doc format (76.5 KB)



You can download a map of the Roth farm in .pdf format (1.5 MB)


"While CAFOs clearly are profitable, they are only profitable because so much of the cost and damage is externalized onto the environment, neighbors and wildlife. The monitoring, supervision, clean-up, restitution, fines are not happening, thus the true cost of CAFOs never find the way onto the balance books." Talking point from the CAFO Conference.