To: Duane Popple, Wastewater Specialist

Protect Lake Superior! Request an Environmental Impact Statement from the Wisconsin DNR

Victory! The creator of this petition declared the campaign a success. You can still sign the petition to show support.

We are formally requesting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in order to afford the affected citizens of Bayfield County, as well as the general public, the ability to consider, participate in and comment on the anticipated impacts of the proposed Badgerwood LLC Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO). Specifically, we request that DNR conduct an EIS that fully complies with the environmental analysis and review procedures contained in the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, Wis. Admin. Code ยง NR 150 et seq.

Why is this important?

Badgerwood LLC submitted an application to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to operate a 26,000 hog factory farm in Eileen Township. The proposed factory farm is sited in the Fish Creek Watershed, a watershed that contains outstanding, exceptional resource waters and is less than 8 miles upstream from Lake Superior. The Ashland Municipal Water Utility, tasked with providing clean drinking water to City of Ashland residents, is 3 nautical miles from the junction of Fish Creek and Lake Superior. Given the quantity of manure that the proposed CAFO will produce and the self-regulating nature of the CAFO industry, it's likely that Fish Creek, the Chequamegon Bay and Lake Superior will see increased nutrients, pathogens and agricultural run-off in the water.

A complete EIS will include the following information:

NR 150 (2) EIS Content

(a) A description of the proposed project that includes all the following:

1. Project location.
2. Type of facilities.
3. Time schedules.
4. Maps and diagrams.
5. Other information that the department deems necessary.

(b) A description of the purpose and need of the proposed project.

(c) A list of known state, federal, tribal, and local approvals required for the proposed project.

(d) A summary of the process used to identify major issues and the issues identified for detailed analysis.

(e) A list of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, particularly those that might avoid all or some of the adverse environmental effects of the project, including a description of proposed preventive and mitigating measures and an explanation of the criteria used to discard certain alternatives from additional study.

(f) A description of the human environment that will likely be affected by the proposed project and alternatives to the proposed project.

(g) An evaluation of the probable positive and negative direct, secondary and cumulative effects of the proposed project, and alternatives to the proposed project, on the human environment, including all the following:

1. Effects on scarce resources such as: archeological, historic or cultural resources, scenic and recreational resources, prime farm lands, threatened or endangered species, and ecologically critical areas.
2. A summary of the adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided.
3. Consistency with plans or policies of local, state, federal, or tribal governments.
4. The relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources.
5. The potential to establish a precedent for future actions or to foreclose future options.
6. The degree of risk or uncertainty in predicting environmental effects or effectively controlling potential deleterious environmental impacts, including those relating to public health or safety.
7. The degree of controversy over the effects on the quality of the human environment.

(h) Identification of information that is incomplete or unavailable and a description of the relevance of such information.

(i) Sources of information or verbiage.