by Brian Wilson
The Star News
January 21, 2010 — For want of a word on the agenda, a proposed 4,000 cow dairy still hangs in limbo, but a proposed compromise could open the door for approval.
County attorney Steve Anderson told members of the Land Conservation committee Tuesday they could not make a decision on the proposed nutrient management plan for North Breeze Dairy because it was posted as a discussion item only.
Instead the committee will have a special meeting on Friday, Feb. 12 to decide if the proposed dairy’s nutrient management plan passes muster. The biggest sticking point for the proposed plan, currently in its third submission to the county, is North Breeze wanting to use manure data from their similar 3,000 Lake Breeze cow operation near Fond Du Lac rather than the so-called “book value” numbers which are generated based on state averages.State regulations allow manure spreading based on the nutrient needs and soil types of the fields and crops to be grown on those fields among other factors. The biggest single factor is area of land available for spreading. According to crop specialist Paul Sturgis, who developed the plan for North Breeze, the proposed plan has enough land designated with signed agreements from property owners to accommodate the spreading needs.
However, that area is based on the actual versus book value numbers. Additional land would be needed to meet the book value numbers. Securing easements to land to spread manure will cost the dairy additional money in rent.
Committee member Chuck Zenner questioned why for the cost of the investment in the project, the dairy developers would have the project be hung up on not wanting to secure more land on which to spread.
In December, the committee decided to table the plan to give committee members and county land conservationist Steve Oberle time to review the proposal.
At Tuesday’s meeting, Oberle said he has not fully reviewed the proposed plan because he does not believe the numbers in it are valid despite a preliminary approval of the plan by both the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection based on the actual versus book values.
“Upon further review, it is apparent that DNR was misguided and premature in their decision to grant preliminary approval to the North Breeze Dairy nutrient management plan based on manure nutrient values derived from the Lake Breeze Dairy facility,” Oberle said reading from a draft review of the plan he had prepared for the committee. He said the argument presented to the DNR by Lake Breeze Dairy is largely based on two premises: 1. the samples collected and assumed average manure nutrient values used at Lake Breeze Dairy are representative of actual Lake Breeze Dairy values, and 2. that the manure management systems between the two facilities should be considered “very similar.”
“Due to inconsistencies and uncertainties connected with the sampling protocol at Lake Breeze Dairy, it would be very difficult to accept the average manure nutrient values presented as scientifically valid and representative of actual Lake Breeze Dairy values. In addition it is largely speculative, and thus premature, to assume that Lake Breeze Dairy and North Breeze Dairy manure management systems are “very similar,” when the initial system plans for North Breeze Dairy were rejected by state and local authorities,” Oberle said.
Brian Gerrits disagreed with Oberle’s assessment noting that while the two dairies will not be identical for the purpose of the nutrient management plan they will be very similar.
“What you put into a cow is what you get out of it,” Gerrits said. He explained the feed mixtures used at the proposed facility will be the same as what is used at their existing Lake Breeze facility. He also explained that the numbers given for the projected spreading are just projections, and the actual amount to be spread would be dependent on the testing done when the facility is in operation. Provided the plans are approved and the plant is built this year, it would be at least fall of 2011 before any manure would be spread from the facility.
Despite the herd size difference between the two dairies, Gerrits explained the major contributing factor for believing the test numbers will be similar is the size of the feed pad required at the North Breeze location. The massive parking-lot size feed pad will be necessary to prevent runoff from the feed from leaching into the groundwater. Water run off from the pad, estimated at about 3 million gallons of water a year based on average rainfall numbers, will go into the the manure storage tanks diluting the manure stored there.
Gerrits also invited Oberle to come and participate in the testing to observe their sampling process. Late in the meeting, when the committee was looking to schedule the meeting where they could actually vote on the issue, committee member Scott Mildbrand asked Gerrits if he would accept a compromise to limit the number of animals to be brought into the dairy to match the amounts that would be allowed if the tests came back at book value versus the amount that Sturgis projected based on Lake Breeze Dairy’s numbers. Gerrits said he would be agreeable to that idea, noting he would have to find additional land to spread the manure on if that was the case. He also explained that even after the facility is built it will take several months to fully populate the facility to the projected level.
Mildbrand said he spoke to representatives from the Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection and the DNR about why they approved the nutrient management plan with the Lake Breeze Dairy numbers and said he was told the numbers in the plan were just that and that any manure spreading in the future would be based on the actual data from the North Breeze Dairy facility if it was ever built.
In a January 6 letter from Mike Murray, the livestock facility siting program manager with the DATCP, to the Town of Little Black in response to the December 31 determination by the town that the nutrient management plan was incomplete, Murray stated: “It is understandable that the town needs nutrient estimates to be accurate, and it appears that the dairy utilized acceptable methodologies for developing their plan. The proposed nutrient credits should be accepted.”
Murray continued: “While you may not agree with the conclusions derived from the manure nutrient analysis completed by North Breeze Dairy, qualified nutrient management planners can estimate manure nutrient credits when samples cannot be taken at a facility. . . . Recently the Department of Natural Resources accepted North Breeze Dairy’s methods during review of materials for the dairy’s Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination system permit. Nutrient credits were determined by a MAP certified laboratory.”
The letter continues: “ North Breeze Dairy is entitled to a fair assessment of their application based on the standards contained in the livestock siting rule ch. ATCP 51 Wis. Admin. Code. The town has not adopted more stringent nutrient management regulation under the livestock siting law or state non-point pollution rules. Therefore, the town is bound to evaluate application material based on the provision of ATCP 51.”
Tuesday’s meeting drew a packed house of more than 60 Little Black residents, members of the Little Black Town Board and people from throughout the region including those living in neighboring counties who felt the issue impacted the region.
Area resident Neil Micke spoke as the spokesperson for the group opposing the concentrated animal feeding operation.
“Oftentimes we hear that CAFOs and other large farms are held to a higher standard, this is not correct, they are being held to the lest minimum standard as set by the State of Wisconsin. North Breeze Dairy is asking Taylor County to accept a 30 percent lower standard than book value according to the statement made by Paul Sturgis, the North Breeze NMP planner,” Micke said reading a statement to the committee.
Micke raised concerns about the track record of both Lake Breeze Dairy and with Bach Farms in regard to applying manure in restricted areas and contamination of wells due to manure application. Bach Farms is expected to furnish land for North Breeze Dairy to spread and will be the operator in charge of the spreading.
“What precautions can be followed to prevent the contamination of our waters? The implementation of a plan and following a plan that recognizes the features of the land, the presence of wells and streams and the property use of date in calculating nutrient application to soils and the uptake of those nutrients from the soil by the growing crops. Prevention must be stronger, so that reaction is not needed. There are no procedures in place that prevent the potential contamination of the waters of Wisconsin as there is in place preventing the contamination of the milk product to the consumers,” Micke said.
“North Breeze does not want to be held to the lowest minimum standard, but wants 30 percent less than that standard. The North Breeze nutrient management plan as submitted will result in insufficient acres for manure disposal, thereby not protecting the waters of Taylor County,” Micke said.
Little Black Town Chairman Dan Hoffman said he was speaking on behalf of 1,100 residents of the Town of Little Black and objected to the plan as presented. He called on Gerrits to be a good neighbor in action not just in saying that he wants to be one. However, Gerrits countered calling attention to a letter sent by the town to all the property owners that North Breeze Dairy had contracts with for manure spreading asking them if they were sure they wanted to have the land part of this project.