| |
|
Statement
concerning the proposed Confined Animal Feeding Operation in Martell
Township of Pierce County, WI. :
Kiap-TU-Wish
Chapter of Trout Unlimited
Public
Hearing Statement
Proposed
Julimar Dairy in Martell TWP, Pierce County, WI
Brent
Sittlow, President
Mark
Waschek, Member
March
18th, 1999
Introduction
On behalf of
the Kiap-TU-Wish Chapter of Trout Unlimited, I’d like to offer
the following statement concerning the proposed Confined Animal
Feeding Operation in Martell Township of Pierce County, WI.
Recognition
of CAFO’s in Wisconsin
Our Chapter
recognizes that Confined Animal Feeding Operations and large-scale
dairy operations are undoubtedly the future of Wisconsin agriculture.
Large producers in today’s agricultural marketplace have the
capitol, resources, and technology to efficiently maximize the production
of their operations. Additionally, through safe operation and effective
management, these large-scale dairy operations can benefit the local
communities through employment, taxation, and crop marketing opportunities.
Having visited the Julimar Dairy in Rush River Township, it is apparent
that their existing operation is very efficient and productive as
a milking operation.
Limitations
of the Site
However, is
the particular site chosen for this new operation in the best interest
of Martell, the cold water resources flowing on, beneath, and beside
this site, or even Julimar Dairy themselves? Our organization believes
that the site chosen for the new Julimar Dairy possesses not only
severe physical limitations, but also the potential for catastrophic
and destructive events that can destroy the fresh water resources
that this community, county, and state enjoys.
Value and
Delicacy of Cold Water Resources
It is no secret
that the Rush River is a very high quality cold water fishery. To
many anglers, it is the choice destination for trout fishing in
Wisconsin and the entire Midwest. Like all cold water resources,
the Rush enjoys and relies on a delicate balance of habitat and
water quality to thrive like it currently does. But as the pressures
and threats from various sources in the watershed mount, the delicate
balance is easily thrown off.
Confined
Dairy Barn Site
The site of
the proposed dairy operation and the 5 million-gallon manure storage
lagoons tips this delicate balance. The site will lie in, or very
near an intermittent stream that flows directly to the Rush River
only 0.5 miles away. It is obvious that the landscapes and slopes
of this particular parcel contribute to the funneling and run-off
of melting snow and storm water during wet seasons. Adding in 800
or 1000 dairy cows, driveways, cement slaps, roof tops, and heavy
equipment would turn this site into an unnatural bottle neck for
storm water to concentrate and flow through. Such a site begs the
question of whether or not a 5 million-gallon manure storage lagoon
can safely withstand the test of time and certain flood events.
Nutrient
Application
Understanding
that a nutrient application and management plan is very important
and necessary for operations greater than 1000 animal units, our
chapter feels that there still is certain potential for disaster
during application periods. In eight years of operation at their
current location, Julimar Dairy has indicated that three spills
have occurred. As this data points out, the fact that having a nutrient
management plan and good intentions of safe handling cannot completely
guard against mechanical failure or human error. And with the volumes
of manure at 5 million gallons or more, the stakes become even higher
when application failures, whether it be human or machine, occurs.
Recent
Regional Data
On a regional
level, data from the Iowa DNR indicates that in 1998 alone, there
were 39 reported fish kills in that state. Of those 39 reported
fish kills, 31 of those were manure related. In Wisconsin in 1998,
reported manure related fish kills have happened in Weedens Creek
(Sheboygan County), Fischer Creek (Manitowoc County), and in Parker
Creek / Kinnickinnic River (St. Croix County). In the locally well
publicized Parker Creek case, the guidelines and practices that
are acceptable in this state were not broken. Granted, the operator
involved in that case did not have a nutrient management plan and
had some bad luck thrown in, but an essentially "legal"
application for his operation resulted in estimates as high at 10,000
trout dead. How can a "legal" application in Wisconsin
result in such a serious fish and invertebrate kill? Are our nutrient
management plans and accepted practices for crop production accounting
for the impacts on our wet lands and cold water resources? It’s
not clear to our chapter that they are.
Conclusion
To conclude,
our chapter realizes some benefits of large scale dairy’s on
the Wisconsin agricultural scene, but the site proposed in this
situation is totally inappropriate considering the potential for
disaster and the valuable resources that would be in its path. We
hope that the land use decision-makers of this case realize the
dangerous threats of this site are knocking at the door of an ecological
disaster.
|
|
