Arkansas Canoe Club Forums

Halfton:

Before stating my overall problem with your argument, I'd like to address a couple of issues with your first post on this thread.

First, a CAFO can not be a single horse in a bare lot, and is unlikely to be a single chicken house. While a CAFO is subject to case by case determination, a medium CAFO for those animals are defined as more than 150 horses or 9000 hens. Smaller operations must be shown to be a "a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(c). A small operation like you mentioned isn't going to qualify as such. Also, arguing that CAFOs that are no longer in existence and likely were in existence before permits were even required is a moot point. The issue here is whether the newest and the biggest followed the correct pathways.

Second, I believe that your buffer argument severely undercuts your visitor excrement argument. It's perfectly logical to assume that a large number of park visitors don't do their business directly into the river. As you noted, a ten foot buffer reduces runoff contaminants. So long as you're right about the buffer, the nutrient load on the river from visitors is likely not even close to what you calculated it to be.

This brings me to my biggest issue with your argument. Allowing potentially one of the largest point source dischargers in the watershed to get a pass on getting proper approval because "what's done is done" sets terrible precedence for similar situations in the future. While a holistic approach to pollution control is undoubtedly best moving forward, that needs to start with making sure that the largest new potential polluters obtain plan approval from the NPS. No matter how many BMPs the CAFO is employing, the plans should have been vetted by the NPS. A court ruling requiring them to get proper approval before operations begin would send a clear message that such pathways must be followed because the river is an important resource to so many. That's not even to say that the NPS wouldn't give approval if they are running a tight ship, only that businesses and state agencies must follow the rules or there will be bottom-line hitting consequences. Saying oh well lets focus on something else because what's done is done simply wouldn't send the same message.

James

Guys Please stop replying to John Pennington's (AKA Half Ton) posts he is only trying to stir up trouble and infighting among ourselves. Please stay on task and support stopping the CAFO on Big Creek that will surly pose a danger to the Buffalo and everything around it. To be this active in promotion of C&H farms he is surly being compensated for his actions and determination.

Please support the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance. This is in support of stopping the C&H Hog farm something John is not interested in.

You can find the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance at: buffaloriveralliance.org/. There are many articles to read so you can be up to date on what is happening.

I'm sure he will have something to post in his defense and discredit me like he has everyone else who has posted opposition of C&H farms.

Thank you and please help protect the Buffalo for our Children and Grand Children!

JLEllison wrote:Halfton:

Before stating my overall problem with your argument, I'd like to address a couple of issues with your first post on this thread.

First, a CAFO can not be a single horse in a bare lot, and is unlikely to be a single chicken house. While a CAFO is subject to case by case determination, a medium CAFO for those animals are defined as more than 150 horses or 9000 hens. Smaller operations must be shown to be a "a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the United States.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(c). A small operation like you mentioned isn't going to qualify as such. Also, arguing that CAFOs that are no longer in existence and likely were in existence before permits were even required is a moot point. The issue here is whether the newest and the biggest followed the correct pathways.

Second, I believe that your buffer argument severely undercuts your visitor excrement argument. It's perfectly logical to assume that a large number of park visitors don't do their business directly into the river. As you noted, a ten foot buffer reduces runoff contaminants. So long as you're right about the buffer, the nutrient load on the river from visitors is likely not even close to what you calculated it to be.

This brings me to my biggest issue with your argument. Allowing potentially one of the largest point source dischargers in the watershed to get a pass on getting proper approval because "what's done is done" sets terrible precedence for similar situations in the future. While a holistic approach to pollution control is undoubtedly best moving forward, that needs to start with making sure that the largest new potential polluters obtain plan approval from the NPS. No matter how many BMPs the CAFO is employing, the plans should have been vetted by the NPS. A court ruling requiring them to get proper approval before operations begin would send a clear message that such pathways must be followed because the river is an important resource to so many. That's not even to say that the NPS wouldn't give approval if they are running a tight ship, only that businesses and state agencies must follow the rules or there will be bottom-line hitting consequences. Saying oh well lets focus on something else because what's done is done simply wouldn't send the same message.

James

James, you make some good points and thank you for thinking about the potential pollution source from tourist

BUT here is how a buffer is more than a distance between points a and b when it comes to a buffer:

A vegetative grassed buffer in a pasture that is managed well, like what this farmer has and will use is very different from a gravel bar in a stream.

A gravel bar in a stream is not a buffer as far as I am concerned, and I am certain research would reflect that as well. Again the study about vegetative filter strips and swine manure constituents: https://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp ... redirType=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now, if those folks go up to the inactive floodplain and do their business a distance from the edge of the bankfull channel or point of incipient flooding..... Then we agree the impact is limited from tourist poop and pee just like with manure fertilizer.

Here is a link to a buffer BMP http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrc ... 143_023568" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AND oh so many people do pee directly in to the stream........as for number 2, I never really considered that an option by any means. One time on a church camp trip I was bass fishing on the lower buffalo casting up into the pool from the riffle area, and a buddy of mine was messing around in the stream, I noticed a squat and thought well he must be peeing into the river. Peeing into the river, was really pooping though!

As to your biggest point of contention, James. Which, I agree with you does not seem like a horse on a half acre could fit, but buddy....I've seen it too many times. Small hog numbers could potentially be viewed the same. Check it out.

CAFO http://www.epa.gov/region6/6en/w/cafo/cafodef.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; this is the short form and this a definition in it
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) means an "animal feeding operation" which meets the criteria in 40 CFR part 122.23(b)(1) or which the Director designates as a significant contributor of pollution pursuant to 40 CFR 122.23(c). Animal feeding operation (AFO) means a lot or facility (other than an aquatic animal production facility) where the following conditions are met:
1. Animals (other than aquatic animals) have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period, and
2. Crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.

So clearly, animals that are stabled, or confined for 45 days or more in a 12 month period, and cover besides dirt is not across the ground.....it’s a CAFO.

Now, clearly not the same as a LARGE or MEDIUM, but still CAFO. So this is the crux of going after 1 big one automatically includes all of the rest....or might as well. This is part of my points which if understood can help us all do what is necessary to protect the watershed from a lot of sources of pollution and not just on potential source.

And this is where the assualt on the entire owning most of the watershed that farms population comes into play (whether intential or not and it's my belief it's not becasue that would just be dumb if you are trying to protect a wateshed that's mostly owned by them) by attacking the CAFO. Like I’ve been saying, hoping someone will understand before it’s too late to pass the point of no return in terms of working with this stakeholder group to protect the watershed.

Allen, obviously since you are not me.....you can't really know what I am up too and you obviously don't get that at this point or maybe you would be more open to many of my very valid points, but since you are so concerned with only looking at one pollution source, and I would like to look at them all.....since you only want to look at one approach to protect a watershed, and I see another angle.....or angles.....

Umm, I'm just gonna have to file that under the emotionally charged, semi-personal attack category

Which by the way, if you have not noticed.....folks like you don't bully me around. And if you try, then so be it but I will not resort to such tactics when a meaningfull and helpful discussion can take place that can actually lead to "wholistic watershed protection using the watershed approach"

Much like http://www.irwp.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The illinois river watershed partnership has done way more to help the Illinois River Wateshed as opposed to let's say some other negative groups that only seem to want to attack people BUT not actually seek meaningful solutions in which everyone has room for improvement and is encouraged to do so.

Even though easter is gone Allen, I would like to let you know that I personally forgive you for your inability to understand my points, and to communicate in a civil fashion. Peace out man.

and just to be Crystal Clear -

I am posting in this forum simply to provide different sources of information to provide balance.

I am posting in this forum to increase thinking about the different ways to protect the watershed.

I am posting these other sources of info so that any given person can make up their own mind however they want to in the most intelligent way through learning more about the watershed, pollution sources, best management practice use, outreach and education, and the watershed apporoach.

watershed approach http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/framework.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In case you are not aware the watershed apporoach is the way to actually protect a watershed, and get the people that live, work, and own property in the watershed to do the same....along with the tourists....like me.

Remember folks, don't feed the trolls!

I agree that there are many influences on water quality in this watershed. But I do not agree (and evidently neither does the National Park Service) that at this point visitor excrement is a substantial factor (this problem has been addressed in other National Parks where it was becoming a problem). However, even if it was, adding the excrement of 6,000 hogs makes no sense whatsoever.

Likewise if there are some small farmer operaions in the watershed that one would stretch their imagination to equate their livestock density and proximity to equal the proposed CAFO, it still makes no sense to add the excrement of 6,000 hogs right on the banks of Big Creek.

Whatever the current load of contaminants in the Buffalo River, from whatever sources, using them as an excuse to allow a potentially very major and possibly catostrophic polluter like the permitted 6,000 hog farm just makes no sense. It wouldn't even make sense to me if Cargill added palm grease (I could use a new truck though and help with medical bills).

It seems that somewhere in all my reading on this topic, that the owners of this permit currently operated a CAFO elsewhere with a permitted 600 head of hogs. And that they had no citations of infractions. I've not read exactly where it is located, what stream it borders, but there must be a reason why they did not expand their current operation in it's current location? Has there actually been any water quality monitoring in the stream adjacent to the existing hog farm?

I know, so many questions and so few answers. Hopefully with the ongoing publicity and meetings, enough light will be shown that some real answers will emerge. As I have stated before, it would be best for all concerned if the permit is rescended before the operation begins. A lot of money would be wasted and the "rehoming in forever homes" of 3,000 spayed sows would be a complicated matter.

Like I said he will only attack and belittle you. So don't open yourself up to his bulling. This is about the Buffalo and not John!

Wow a guy tries to offer a little balance to a thread that begins with a link to Mike Masterson and he is accused of having some type of nefarious, self-serving relationship with the permittee C&H. I don't know Half-Ton personally but I am glad at least one person is willing to stand-up for his convictions and not simply go along with the crowd. Albeit I certainly know many people will simply think and do like they are told, there remains among us many who don't tow the line so easily. We are not all the same and there are those among us who are very scientific and analytical (left brain) and who do not allow their emotionally-tinged biases, dogmas and heuristics to dominate their decision-making. I have found that the big decisions take both type of thinkers and both types of thinkers should be welcomed. People should welcome challenges to their belief systems and not look to exclude them -- that is, unless you simply feel overly threatened due to your own insecurities.

To further help keep things in perspective -

as so noted the million plus visitors to the Buffalo River do not distribute themselves equally across the watershed. Rather they seek out the waterways and spend the bulk of their time within the riparian buffer. Even when they leave the shores of the river they are apt to go hiking along a small stream or peer into a stream-fed cave. Visitors are typically impacting the most vulnerable sites within the watershed and gGiven that a typical person generates 2.5 pounds of excreta per day (urine and feces) these visitors are leaving behind hundreds of tons of human waste behind every year when they head home. And let's not forget before the tourists come to spend their $47/day we already have some 30,000 plus people living in the watershed -- many with horses, cows, chickens, dogs and cats. They too produce a lot of waste -- and perhaps should be asked to leave their homes as well -- you know, expand the boundaries of the park further and give those elk and tourists more room.

I also note that some of the comparative effluent measures are off base --the permit states that this particular CAFE will produce approx. 118,000 cubic feet (882000 gallons) of waste every 180 days when operating at capacity -- or approximately 4900 gallons per day. Big difference between 2 million gallons and 4900 gallons a day! Now obviously if one wishes to sensationalize their perspective -- then indeed make a claim of 2 million gallons per day -- but if you want to be honest then you better work with the figure of 4900 gallons/day or find feeder hogs that weigh at least 20,000 pounds apiece in order to create that much waste.

As to historical, current and future water quality measures -- I agree with Half Ton: more data is needed. But let's look at some of the data that is available. What we find is that the Buffalo and its tributaries exhibit highly variable water quality in both time and location. There are many tributaries that demonstrate excessive levels of cadmium, zinc, lead, arsenic, selenium, aluminium and other metals that is most likely natural in its occurrence. Similarly after many rainfall events the levels of detectable fecal coliforms found in the Buffalo and its tributaries are already at levels not deemed acceptable for primary human contact. Albeit much of this arises from livestock in direct access to the Buffalo and its tributaries there is certainly sewage leachate arising from rural septic lines aka Marble Falls, Gilbert, etc., contaminated surface runoff, and natural fauna who have "mucked" the water. Livestock impact is particularly evident on Tomahawk, Clabber, Mill, Bear and Big Creek --the latter being the stream in closest proximity to the CAFE in concern, although in this instance none of the animals housed in this CAFE will have direct access to any tributaries. As already noted there is a big differenece between direct contact and having a riparian buffer when it comes to livestock impact -- a fact that has already been supported in previous studies within the Buffalo River wayetshed.

Lastly one of the greatest variables impacting water quality is precipitation -- runoff and discharge. As I indicated above -- after a heavy rain -- the Buffalo presents with many sites having levels of faecal coliforms that exceed acceptable levels for primary contact. But low water is just as bad as during periods of drought base flow becomes more anaerobic with leaching of the flood plain with concomitant rise in faecal coliforms and diminished levels of dissolved oxygen -- sometimes reaching levels so low (< 6mg/L) that many fish can't survive as was observed during the "kill" of 1952 when the discharge at Highway 65 bridge dropped to 6cfs and the river was for all practical purposes "dried up". At the other end of the spectrum in 1982 the discharge at Hwy. 65 bridge exceeded 200,000 cfs. Obviously given the magnitude of this variation there is concomitant tremendous variation in water quality over time and season -- far more than would ever arise due to this particular operation. Perhaps if the CORPS had gone ahead with the dam we would be better able to regulate discharge and thus better manage these effluents for those who are so fearful of such contaminants.

Some water quality concerns, especially turbidity and fecal coliforms, may be highly correlated to the number of users and the type of use of park waterbodies. Sadly these studies have not yet been pursued albeit it is a goal of the NPS as denoted in their Master Plan to " maintain a base funded water quality-monitoring program, which encompasses physical, chemical and biological characteristics to determine baseline conditions and natural variability, detect trends, and enable the development of water quality standards specific to the area". But sadly such goals and promises are not always fulfilled (and I wonder if they were, would they be shared with the ADEQ). For example I remember when the NPS acquired the land for the park the people in the area were informed that the park "was not an attempt to justify government control of private lands and that any activities outside of the park boundaries would be strictly voluntary. No new regulations would be forced upon area residents, no limitations on economic development would be implemented, and private property values would be respected and protected."

Yeah, sure. Times change and make liars of us all. And sometimes you don't even have to wait for the passage of time.

P.S. Half-Ton, I concur: a gravel bar is a "piss-pour" buffer. Which in part feeds into my primary concern regarding this particular project. To me the crux of this permit is 1) the integrity and capacity of the holding ponds and 2) the site geology and meterological conditions at play when the sludge is dispersed. However I believe it is possible to have both a CAFE and clean water given adequate safeguards and BMPs -- in Europe I have visited far larger operations in much closer proximity to environmental sensitive regions -- even homes and schools -- where there is nary a trace of contaminant or odor. Moreover, I think people don't realize what happens with their crap once they flush -- and that this CAFE is using the same type of waste management that is used to process crap from coast to coast -- similar effluents, similar holding ponds and similar crap sludge (biosolids). And just like at Vender or Mt. Judea or wherever the material elsewhere and here in Little Rock is applied to fields and pastures (many times in much closer access to a waterway than is proposed at C&H). Opponents eem to be either of the "not in my backyard" variety or are so clouded by "ties of emotion" and cognitive dissonance in their support of the "pristine Buffalo River myth" that any attempts to offer any balance to this discourse will be met with considerable resistence -- nevertheless it has been an informative exercise.

Whoa - let me close my eyes and plug my ears to any opinion not of my own. Very mature. Very instructional.

But I'd rather comment on requiring "the largest new potential polluters obtain plan approval from the NPS. No matter how many BMPs the CAFO is employing, the plans should have been vetted by the NPS. A court ruling requiring them to get proper approval before operations begin would send a clear message that such pathways must be followed"

No! We don't need the NPS hiring a bunch of lawyers and analytical chemists to do the job of the EPA and ADEQ -- that is not the NPS's area of expertise nor is it even their core mission. The NPS specifically designates to and refers to the ADEQ (and subsequently the EPA) with regard to water quality issues on the Buffalo River. Yes it may have been prudent to allow the NPS to "vet" the project but that isn't the NPS's job and to initate legislative action to rewrite or amend their authorization so as to "send a clear message" is a costly, ludicrous and redundant endeavor. Why is it everyone always wants to go to court -- I can only assume you are a lawyer. It seems like that has become the mantra around here: sue, sue, sue.

Welcome back Cadron Boy!

Glad to see you back posting, been way too relaxed while you were gone!

dave

Wow.

I just looked and the fecal coliform bacteria entering the Buffalo around Gilbert (found in Gilbert Spring) was traced (by the NPS) not to septic systems at Gilbert but to dairy and cattle farms upstream on Dry Creek.

I just hope people get this fired up when one is proposed on Richland, cossatot, caddo, or cadron.

Amen! It is great seeing people so passionate with regard to preservation of the Buffalo but as Steve said let's never forget those streams that lie in our backyard. They too are worthy of protection.

Glad you responded CC -- that lower case "wow" seemed out of place for a gentlemen who is quoted as saying "hyperbole doesn't accomplish a lot. At least not if one wishes to have their opinions taken seriously." And I do take you seriously. Your thoughtfulness -- both here and in other threadds -- is in part why I elected to participate in this discussion. You are to blame! :)

And yes I agree the Gilbert Spring was found to be contaminated by the sinking segment of Dry Creek and thus includes contamination from adjoining farmlands, i.e. livestock, BUT there was also considerable effluent from rural septic systems running right into the recharge basin -- not only are there many septic fields lying directly above the spring but we were also able to identify at least one broken sewage line (by its smell and the overlying "bog") that was directly contributing to the spring's discharge (note my avoidance of the word "recharge" in this instance). And not far away there was also a septic line that fed into a well from which outflow could be readily measured. And if you walk through the community and adjoining forest land you'll find that there are alluvial sinks everywhere. I don't know where you got your information regarding the source of contaminants in Gilbert Spring but it is incorrect -- there was, and is, most certainly contribution from rural sewage systems. Moreover, with the proper technology I am sure we could uncover other rural septic systems beyond the immediate vicinity that have contributed to contamination of Gilbert Spring and other Buffalo River tributaries -- even Dry Creek itself is not immune to such problems.

Lastly to my knowledge neither the ADEQ or NPS has embarked on any program of DNA "fingerprinting" to ascertan the specific source of fecal coliforms in the Buffalo River on anything but a selective basis whether cow, pig, chicken or human. To attain the sample, culture the organism, acquire the appropriate DNA probe and then do it in sufficient numbers to acquire a statistically meaningful sample over a long period of time is a very extensive proposition. If it has been done on the Buffalo -- that information hasn't come across my desk. And if it has been done I hope someone will share the data with me.

Again, just want to make sure we are all working with the same information. It is alright if our intrepretation of the data varies but common courtesy (integrity) in such a discourse (discovery) is to share all information with all parties.

Thanks Dave.

I have big shoulders, Dave. I'll carry the blame.

The "wow" was in response to your hyperbole above. I figured that was less confrontational that a point-by-point rebuttle, or even retaliatory remarks. I have been told I am ate up with tact (Justin WIlson reference).

As I said, I agree that there are many factors involved in the current water quality of the Buffalo River. Some can be corrected, some can be minimized. Adding an immense load will certainly not help the situation. Just as NPS closing all those restrooms won't help. My info on the Gilbert Spring situation came from the Ozark Society newsletter June 2011.

http://www.ozarksociety.net/wp-content/ ... r_2011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; page 4 article by VP Laura Timby.

But it was on the internet so it has to be true. So since you are familiar with the situation, was the broken pipe in that system fixed? And the other system that emptied into the well? Those problems were identified, and thus fixable. What other steps were taken to lower the fecal coliform count?

I am glad you chose to participate in the discussion Dave.

ETA: If all information had been shared with all of the parties during the application phase, we would not find ourselves having these discussions now!

John, I'm confused as someone who has done so much for the Club, water quality and arranging the cleanup of many rivers in our state not to mention some of the other great things you have done for the state of Arkansas. How can you support the C&H hog farm that you know will eventually contaminate the Buffalo.

Accidents happen and when an accident like the one this has potential for, there is nothing you can do to stop it once it is in motion. And it’s not that something could happen it’s about the consequences of an accidental spill into Big Creek, It’s about the possibility that run off could wash more contaminates into the Buffalo. We are not infallible humans cause accident and that is a fact. Even with the best laid plan. Over the weekend there was an accident at the Nuclear plant and I’m sure they take measures to run that place like a fine watch. It’s about the consequences and they are great if and when an accident occurs.

And I understand the Buffalo already has it’s issues but why can’t we hammer a stake in the ground and say that’s it. Instead of possibly adding to the problem.

I'm not trying to push your buttons but it seems like you are against stopping the farm on Big Creek. Please help me with this.I want to understand but I also want the hog farm stopped as do a lot of others.

Regards, Allen

Cadron Boy, you mean you don't think the Buffalo is special?, that it doesn't rate a special layer of protection and love from the public? Sorry brother, but to say that this was the best place for this operation disqualifies your opinion from consideration. You seem to be saying that the Buffalo is not any more special than our other streams in the state, and of course I love them all, but let's be serious. It is the BUFFALO NATIONAL RIVER, THE CROWN JEWEL OF ARKANSAS. To not confront these opinions is silly PC crap, I don't know about the dog you have in the hunt, but the intensity of Cadron Boy and Half Tons defense of this huge pile makes me very suspicious. It doesn't take a genius to know that this was a dumb idea from the start, it doesn't take a PR expert to know that this is a black eye for the state, and it doesn't take a water quality expert to tell me that it's not about economics. To C&H farms, it is all about economics. And Cadron Boy, the Osage is my backyard, and if this was built on the Osage I would be disappointed, but would not say a word. Plainly spoken " it's all about the Buffalo".