-*\ Smith-Loomans, Sandra J - DNR From: Branco, Daniela H - DNR on behalf of DNR Administrative Rules Comments Sent: Monday, October 7, 2019 2:39 PM To: Smith-Loomans, Sandra J- DNR; Marshall, Melody A- DNR Subject: FW: Submission of Comments for SS-077-19 Sandra: and Melody, I am forwarding this to you both because I am not sure to what rule this comment is related to. Thank you We are committed to service excellence. Visit our survey at http://dnr.wi.gov/customersurvey to evaluate how I did. Daniela H. Branco Phone: (608) 266-7524 [email protected] From: Dave and Donna Swanson <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 7, 2019 7:23AM To: DNR Administrative Rules Comments <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Submission of Comments for SS-077-19 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dave and Donna Swanson <[email protected]> Date: Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 7:16AM Subject: Submission of Comments for SS-077-19 To: <[email protected]> I would appreciate receiving a confirmation that this email has been received and will be included for the public hearing being held at 1 pm on Oct. 8. Thank you. Donna Swanson f3 Comments Statement of Scope Pub Hearing Comments for public hearing related to DNR Statement of Scope SS-77-19, relative to targeted performance standards and prohibitions to abate pollution of groundwater by nitrate in sensitive areas. Donna Swanson, Grant County Rural Stewardship Nearly two years ago, a farming neighbor of ours in Grant County drastically expanded their dairy operation, building a new facility to milk nearly 2000 cows. This facility sits about a mile to the south and another, to the north, is less than a mile and houses several hundred steers. In total, this neighbor is permitted, by the DNR, for 5000 animal units. Our home sits between these two facilities that store millions of gallons of liquid manure that is eventually spread on fields surrounding us for miles. Grant County has a very vulnerable landscape and is highly susceptible to the opportunity for liquid manure to contaminate private, rural wells. We have bedrock aquifers with carbonate rock near the surface. Groundwater moves through the fractured bedrock and karst conduits, such as sinkholes and the flow can be very rapid. During this past two summers in particular we have had multiple, heavy periods of rainfall in which we have received 4-6 inches of rain within 24-hour periods. Rivers of muddy water have been clearly visible running down through the fields of the rugged, hilly terrain in which we live. We, along with other neighbors, became concerned about this threat to our wells and drinking water. In addition to testing our water we have taken steps to educate ourselves about the potential for contamination and to learn more about the geology of our area and the impact on water quality. A year ago, Grant County, along with Iowa and Lafayette Counties undertook a comprehensive study of rural, private well water. The Southwest Wisconsin Groundwater and Geology Study has conducted two rounds of sampling thus far for which result and analysis are available. The results show a concerning level of nitrate and bacteria contamination in our county. While southwestern Wisconsin's geology may not be identical to the eastern part of the state for which the targeted performance standards for abatement of nitrate pollution in groundwater were developed, it is no less a sensitive area. I, along with the other members of our organization, encourage the Board to approve the Statement of Scope and to move forward to adopt the targeted performance standards for all portions of the state which are deemed sensitive areas. Donna Swanson 5940 Stanton Rd. Platteville, WI 53838 608-642-3054 Smith-Loomans, Sandra J - DNR From: DNR Administrative Rules Comments Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 7:11 AM To: Smith-Loomans, Sandra J - DNR Subject: FW: Public comment on SS 077-19 FYI, related to WT-19-19. We are committed to service excellence. Visit our survey at http://dnr.wi.gov/customersurvey to evaluate how I did. Emma G. Esch Phone: (608) 266-1959 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 6:04 PM To: DNR Administrative Rules Comments <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Public comment on SS 077-19 Name: Forest Jahnke Address: 43188 Guthrie Rd, Rolling Ground Wisconsin 54631 Email: [email protected] Organization: Crawford Stewardship Project Comments: 10/28/2019 Comments for public hearing related to DNR Statement of Scope SS-77-19, relative to targeted performance standards and prohibitions to abate pollution of groundwater by nitrate in sensitive areas. To: Brian Weigel, Department of Natural Resources, and the Natural Resources Board Crawford Stewardship Project was relieved to hear that the state plans "to establish agricultural non-point source performance standards targeted to abate pollution of nitrate ... in sensitive areas". After this proposal went through all the levels of Conservation Congress, receiving overwhelming support in 70 of 72 counties a year and a half ago, we were wondering when we would see movement on this, knowing this would only be the beginning of a multi-year process. The scoping statement notes that the target is areas, "with highly permeable soils that are susceptible to groundwater contamination", but as bedrock was the key driver of new protections in Eastern Wisconsin, and it is not only shallow soils, but fractured and extremely permeable bedrock that is a cause of concern in Southwest Wisconsin, we assume that this will be a primary consideration as well. Four years ago, when I was asking those involved in moving groundwater protections forward in Kewaunee and Eastern Wisconsin what it would take to get Southwest Wisconsin the same kind of attention, study, and perhaps even protections from the state, I was told (to my utter shock and disappointment) that our karst geology was different, that we had to prove that we were in the middle of a drinking water health crisis, and that we must show that the current standards and best management practices were not sufficient by getting 90% or so of ag land under nutrient management plans (NMP). As I suspect these arguments will again arise as a case to quash the proposed actions to study and protect additional sensitive areas of Wisconsin, I will address each excuse specifically. First and foremost, it is not our local responsibility to prove that the mess created by the one-size-fits-all state regulatory policies (which have preempted local control and allowed for unchecked consolidation of the ag industry) are contaminating our water. However, we have been taking the necessary first steps to begin getting the basic data needed to see what the regional groundwater quality is, and hope the state will put its money where its mouth is and chip in to the effort. Second, yes, the layers of Platteville/Galena limestone, St. Peter sandstone, Prairie du Chien dolomite, and Jordan and older sandstones that we live on are indeed different than the Silurian dolomite and underlying shale of Eastern Wisconsin. While much less studied, we do know that our bedrock is considerably older, and the carbonate layers (as well as parts of the sandstone) tend to have larger and more developed karst features. In Crawford County, we drink largely from sandstone aquifers, naturally some of the best in the world, and the contamination levels seen in Eastern Wisconsin will not be noted so suddenly, but once polluted, the contamination will persist for more generations of humans than are likely to exist. Consider it forever. At that point, and I will repeat that we don't even know where we are now, the only option to provide our people potable water will be costly fixes at the tap by affected residents, or expensive ultra-deep wells that tap into water stored thousands of years ago. We will not accept this for our area. If anything, these differences would intuitively imply increased risks of contamination, and the urgent need to protect our resources before they are compromised. To the third excuse for lack of state action, I will point out that Crawford County has made major progress in the last few years getting land under nutrient management plans ... and have just passed 10%. Between the rugged topography which generally dictates much smaller farms, and lack of capacity in our county conservation departments, we are unlikely ever to achieve 90% of acres under NMPs. I have spoken with a neighboring county conservationist who has over twice the staff of Crawford county, yet tells me that it would take five more staff to fully implement even the existing NR 151 regulations. If we are not already in a health crisis, this is just waiting to happen, as the agencies and our laws continue to permit every single CAFO proposed for our region, regardless of the size or sensitivity of the landscape and watersheds, without so much as an Environmental Impact Statement. To compound our issues, major changes are at hand in weather and precipitation patterns, with flash-flooding testing the resilience of our landscapes exponentially more than in past, and our municipalities, counties, and the state are woefully unprepared to handle them. We applaud the state efforts recently to include public hearings on Livestock Siting Law rule changes and legislative ground water hearings. However, actions to protect our water need attention now. Economics is a realistic part of this effort. In Crawford County agriculture, tourism, and real estate values must be kept in balance, each requiring clean water and air.