Protecting the Buffalo - Updated

[MissEllie]

If you missed this it is a good read. I picked this up from the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance. http://buffaloriveralliance.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Mike Masterson 2nd Editorial Ark Democrat Gazette March 26, 2013
26 Mar 2013 8:43 AM | Anonymous
Hog farm flub
How’d that happen?
By Mike Masterson
This article was published 3/26/13 at 4:21 a.m.

I can’t understand how our state’s Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Services Agency (FSA) would even consider approving the C&H Farms proposal for a commercial hog farm near Big Creek, a tributary of the Buffalo National River.

Yet our government agencies did grant the permit and the FSA even used incomplete and inaccurate information in submitting its environmental assessment report concerning potential pollution to the Buffalo.

That’s the bottom line of growing concern here: The likely seep of potent hog-waste pollution from this farm and its fields along Big Creek into America’s first national river flowing just 26,000 feet downstream.

Wasn’t protecting its purity the very reason for declaring the Buffalo a protected national river? Why does the Department of Environmental Quality even exist if not for such circumstances?

I’m no authority on farm animal waste. Yet all I’ve read about the comparisons between the enormous polluting qualities of swine raised in heavy concentrations shocks even me. These hogs are far more prolific polluters than we people. And we have sewage treatment systems.

The National Institutes of Health says contaminants from swine farm wastes can enter the environment through leakage from poorly constructed manure lagoons, or during major rainfalls that cause the lagoons to overflow. There also is the potential runoff from recent applications of waste to farm fields.

There are many contaminants in swine waste, some of which can damage human health. While lagoons can help destroy or reduce many pathogens, it’s clear to me they’re often not enough to stop seepages that contaminate their surroundings.

As for applying hog waste to fields within a couple hundred feet of the Mount Judea school for up to three months a year, the National Park Service, in rebutting the FSA environmental assessment, said: “We also contend that risking pollution of Big Creek with phosphorus is quite controversial since it flows into America’s First National River.”

The Park Service rebuttal letter also said the nutrient management plan submitted for the farm’s loan won’t protect water quality as written because the hog waste contains too much phosphorus for the amount of land. “How can FSA say there will be no impact to water resources without knowing the baseline conditions?” the Park Service asks.

North Carolina is among the nation’s leaders in industrial swine farms, and its environment is paying a price. A 1995 study by North Carolina State University estimated that more than half the manure lagoons on hog farms there were leaking, adding that even without leaks, manure lagoons are so fragile that major storms often result in overflows.

But the waste is but one part of the problem. There’s also the extremely putrid smell that can cover miles. Farm odors cause stress and negative moods in neighboring residents, according to a 2009 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

I’m equally concerned about the way this proposed corporate farm gained the state permit it needed to acquire the loan from a generous Farm Services Agency. There are lots of questions and red flags flapping over and around this ill-advised project.

For example, in the proposed farm’s Notice of Intent filed with the state’s Department of Environmental Quality, it states that the town of Mount Judea is 1.6 miles from the farm’s barn on local roads.

Yet the map accompanying the notice shows a 2,000-foot circle around the farm’s barn with the farm’s waste-dispersal fields touching the banks of Big Creek (widely considered a border to the community of Mount Judea). Which is it? I suspect any pollution from the farm would be following a crow rather than a road.

This is alarming to me, especially since the Park Service says it wasn’t consulted about this farm until after the permit and loan had been approved. That process required the FSA’s environmental assessment form, which the Park Service said contained 45 specific omissions, contradictions and inaccuracies. Who completed and submitted this document? And which federal official accepted and approved it in this form?

I’m wondering why the loan hasn’t already been rescinded and an inquiry launched into the way it was prepared and submitted. If I’d acquired a loan using information that was afterwards shown to be inaccurate, misleading and/or erroneous, the lending agency would be canceling our agreement post-haste and relevant questions would be asked.

What can we do? First, go to the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance website (buffaloriveralliance.org) for many more relevant details than I can provide here.

Then you might email or phone your local legislators. Then you could contact the governor’s office and the Department of Environmental Quality. The USDA Inspector General’s office can be reached at (202) 690-1622.

Mike Masterson’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mikemasterson10@hotmail.com. Read his blog at mikemastersonsmessenger.com.

[Half Ton]

you don't think its funny that the guy working for the paper does not read it looking for issues he might be upset about ahead of time huh??

To me, this is more whining over not paying attention and is very opinionated and not that well informed by a masterson.

Since you asked for other than worse info about swine manure.....here you go.

https://www.agronomy.org/publications/j ... ew=article" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; This article talks about alum. Aluminum Chloride. A pre-treatment of manure to make the nutrients and other constituents of concern to the air, water, and wildlife during lagoon storage, and after land application.

I studied my masters research relating to the effects of grazing management on pasture runoff and nutrient transport under the fellow that invented alum, and is one of the worlds foremost experts in agriculture and environmental science...... I have always considered my self as not that smart, but gifted in being able to work with people and following my passion. water quality protection.

I was wanting to learn more about water quality and poultry litter application in the Illinois River, so I studied at the UA in the Crop, Soil, and Environmental Science department. I worked like a dog and missed about 3 years(roughest years on my soul of water EVER!!!) of white water kayaking because I was chasing runoff samples from fields where different rates and types of fertilizer were applied along with a few bmps ( best management practices) or not.

urns out that BMPs like fertilizer setbacks or buffer strips (vegetated areas where not any fertilizer is applied), reduce sediment, nutrients, hormones, and organic matter! really well!!

Check it out here in another highly prestigious scientific journal article https://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp ... redirType=" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; written by my research professor, masters thesis advisor and mentor, co-worker, and other world reknown environmental scientist whose name I only know from extensive research (all of them are world reknown). 3 of the 4 are members of sera-17 (the biggest brains in Phosphorus management with respect to environmental concerns).

anywho, a 10 foot buffer/filter strip reduces a lot of swine manure constituents from runoff, 60 feet - even more!!!! shoot 100 feet is an even better removal rate!!!!! fyi 200kg/ha =183 lb/acre. 6,000 gallon o swine manure has about that much, though it varys......just like all things depend, swine poop nutrients depends on storage, diet, swine type.

you have to admit......buffer strips reduce lots of things in runoff were worried about here, nitrogen, phosphorus, organic matter, and bacteria!

Then you've got your riparian buffer strip along big creek trib, and big creek http://water.rutgers.edu/Research/buffe ... 292010.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Wow, even more removal!

So pretty much there is very minimal loss of swine constituents left by the time the 10% of total runoff from the farm over the whole year.

backing up a tad.......the farmer(s) has a clean record and loves the buffalo river and grew up in and around it and wants his kids and their kids to enjoy the river like he did.

next, he has surpassedtough federal and state regs. Then he has gone above and beyond those.

To me, that is some encouraging research and an environmental steward if I've ever seen good research or a good steward. Instead of being attacked, he should be thanked. that will help you save the buffalo if that's what you really want, missellie. :myday"

shoot, this farmer is using more bmps on his 670 acre farm than most people use on their 1000ft square lawn or 1200 sq foot house.

unaware People are by far the worst polluters and stewards in general. It's not because they don't want to be, it's just that they don't even realize their own impacts or know what best management practices are, why to use them, or how they work.

I've got a research paper of my own with that significant scientific finding in the Illinois river watershed where I work with all stakeholders to manage water quality. That paper is in a real nice peer reviewed journal also, along side somemore world famous researchers. im not much of a bragger so I'll only post that up if you ask.

I happen to know that this cafo is not the first in the state, it's about the ten thousandth one. In the Buffalo River Watershed it's about the 40th one. I'll post that info up for you if you would like to read it also. hmm, with about 40 cafos in the watershed already, why is the river not yet dead, contaminated, and unsafe?

Maybe because all anyone is spouting agains this farm is the most extreme position out there. The one that is going to harm actual beneficial community drivin all-inclusive (stakeholder & watershed wholistic) socially acceptable bought in by ALL watershed management protection? The watershed approach is the way to go. Looking at all sources of pollution with all of the players at the same table is the only best way to go.

Currently that is not what is being done. Those that are against the cafo are endangering the beneficial and voluntary best management of 54% of the watershed land area.

a cafo can be a horse in a bare lot, a cafo can be a chicken house, a hog farm, a beef cattle lot, or other farming operation. attack a cafo=attack most farmers that own 50% of the watershed. it is that simple.

c&H knew they were going to have a bulls-eye on their back, they also know they want to protect the river at all costs, part of why they are pretty bullet proof and the permit will continue.

For all of the reasons listed, I sure hope that you can buy into that because it is not yet to late to quit chasing a dream of shutting down 1 cafo at the detriment of ruining the ability to have AG at the table wanting to help protect the river for them and their families if not for the tourists or enviro newbies (thanks for your efforts on your properties, and in the community! BTW).

You need all the farm bureau and cattlemen to be on board. without them your quest to protect the river will not work out.

I love water in almost every way possible, that's why I studied it, that's why I use about 20 bmps at my house, and that's why my only concern is that this cafo goose chase is going to harm the water quality of the river way more over the 50 years than if you all keep trying to stop something that can not be stopped, and in the .000001% chance that it is stopped, still ain't gonna save the watershed that drains into the river.

sorry so long, but I have way more.

yes, there is concern of wq issues, but proper management by stewards and heros makes good management possible and mitigates risk 99.9%

class 5 water is death for certain to some, but proper risk management from realizing concrn makes life sustain

driving a car - concern is deadly crash so....wear seatbelt, follow rules, pay attention....and live!

WE ALL POLLUTE - energy use at home, car emissions, pooping in gravl bars, peeing in streams, going to the bathroom each day.

fyi the BRWA should not be trusted until they get the false comparison of swine waste at c&H being the same as the city of Harrison. That kind of bad info creates distance between the people you need to buy in order to save the watershed. THEY NEED SOME MAJOR TACTIC CHANGES IF PROTECTING THE RIVER IS REALLY WHAT THEY HOPE FOR.....I am hoping for that

the ag community is tight and in charge to large degree, and has circled the wagons. They've got to be on board. period. the river being protected is common though for different reasons. find common ground. work with, not against.

-watershed protection for a living

[Canoe_Codger]

The owners of the proposed CAFO and the permitting agency might have negated a lot of the criticism and scrutiny had they themselves followed the advice to work with rather than against the people of the State with conflicting interests. As it is, we have if not impropriety in trying to circumvent the process, at least the appearance of impropriety.

I am yet to see a reasoned point by point rebuttle of the NPS objections, even a reason or excuse why they were "included out" of notification early in the process when their concerns might have been adequately addressed. Or as to why other local, State and National interests were "included out", if not in an attempt to build the operation under the radar so to speak. From what I have read (after the fact), State law regarding notification of the application was not followed in this matter. This alone would be enough to negate a building permit for general construction of a residence in many areas of the State.

The financial interests and permitting agency should not be surprised by the increasing resistance to the large breeding operation in that location at this stage, imho. Someone is going to lose eventually, proponents or opponents. It is a situation which could have been avoided. I am reminded of the line by Ruby in Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain, "...But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say '****, it's raining!”

[hollohead]

Half Ton, I'm still laughing about how much C&H owners love the river. They wanted to be bullet proof? Are you kidding? This was backdoor, good ole boy at it's finest. These are the same folks who stated at the meeting in Jasper that there used to be more than 6500 hogs in cafo in big creek valley before the formation of the park, a complete and total fabrication. I employ more people from Newton Co. than this big pile will, and the ONLY reason we are here is because of the Buffalo National River. DUMB idea, black eye for tourism, could have been done anywhere else with NO problem. PLease let us know about the 40 cafo already in the watershed, my bet is that combined they don't come close to 6500 animals.

[Cadron Boy]

Mike Masterson? A good read? Never thought I'd see that said... Mike is an "opinion" editor and certainly no expert in environmental issues. Sadly the lay public too often aligns themselves with a xenophobic, homophobic, self-serving opinion editors than those who have spent the grreatest portion of thier lives in the field, in the lab and in the library studying environmental issues.

People need to spend more time examining the facts and studies offered by environmental scientists and agricultural experts and less on "opinion editors".

Tangent: And someone really needs to do the math and calculate the amount of fecal coliforms and other contaminants arising from the butt cracks of over 1 million annual visitors to the Buffalo River who swim, paddle and play its waters - WHICH WE KNOW ACTUALLY EXISTS - as compared to the amount of fecal contamination that MAY arise from the proposed hog farm. Just one soiled diaper, one turd, or one poorly prepared latrine on an isolated gravel bar can have an immense impact on fecal coliform counts. Pools and bathtubs can be cleansed and chlorinated -- not so for the river. Perhaps we should also be arguing for far more restrictive quotas on visitation during high use/high risk periods. Moreover -- given the choice between exposure to swine contaminants and human contaminants -- I'll take swine which on average has far less pathogenic portential.

[Cadron Boy]

And one other thing -- I have to respond to the comment that the proposed CAFE "could have been done anywhere else with NO problem". Absolutely wrong, wrong, wrong and certainly underlies the self-serving biases that arise from those who follow the "not in my backyard" script.

In fact I can think of many places and watersheds in the state where the impact of a hog farm would be far more ecologically disturbing than the site that has been proposed. I understand the value to protect the scenic values and water quality of the Buffalo River but to do so while willingly and callously disregarding the environmental needs of other watersheds within the state doesn't set well with me. This isn't about jobs and serving the needs of tourists -- this is about the environment and how to serve the needs of both producers and consumers in a manner that minimizes environmental impact. All the rivers and streams in the state are faced with the same and similar threats and IMHO to pick and chose what rivers and watersheds we preserve and those that we condemn isn't really a valid and conscientious environmental position.

[Half Ton]

Half Ton, I'm still laughing about how much C&H owners love the river. They wanted to be bullet proof? Are you kidding? This was backdoor, good ole boy at it's finest. These are the same folks who stated at the meeting in Jasper that there used to be more than 6500 hogs in cafo in big creek valley before the formation of the park, a complete and total fabrication. I employ more people from Newton Co. than this big pile will, and the ONLY reason we are here is because of the Buffalo National River. DUMB idea, black eye for tourism, could have been done anywhere else with NO problem. PLease let us know about the 40 cafo already in the watershed, my bet is that combined they don't come close to 6500 animals.

Hey, hollowhead here you go http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/home/pdssql/pds.asp#Display" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Go to media type, select water psb-ag and scroll to the newton county pages.
Then, check out Searcy county.

You might be surprised.

@ codger - fair 'nuff. Gimme some time I'll do it for sake of devils advocate till I get tired. It's a lot of work and rains are here.

@ cadron for all visitors I am going to make a poop and pee calculation of day trippers and overnighters that don't practice leave no trace and will also try to calculate coliforms. Thanks also for making some good devils advocate points. It's difficult to do so all by my lonesome on order to achieve a level of balance to the issue. FYI - I'm glad your back !! This place has been pretty dull without ya around.

FYI- I've got several friends that have contracted giardia from the buffalo even several years ago.

Lunch time's over, back to the grind for now.

[marmoss]

I followed detailed instructions from post above.

Using this link:

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/home/pdssql/pds.asp#display" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Selected:

"media type" -Water- spb - ag
"county" Newton and Searcy
"permit status" - active

Found 4 facilities in Newton County and 3 facilities in Searcy County.

[Half Ton]

Hmm, how about that?

Did you happen to add up all the ones from the past as well? The older ones for which there is no permit available are very numerous. You can't obtain all of the older ones from that search, but without double counting the swine and dairy CAFOs (confined/concentrated animal feeding operations) from the inactive permits you still get a very surprising total.

Add the active ones in and the total is even more.

How about that? Large manure supplies have been stored and land applied for decades and the river is still "pristine" according to some.

What if 10% of 10% of the 1.1 million people that float the river pooped or peed into the river or gravel bar 1 time on each trip? And does any one want to know? Just curious.

[Canoe_Codger]

What if 10% of 10% of the 1.1 million people that float the river pooped or peed into the river or gravel bar 1 time on each trip?

Where does the figure of 1.1 million people floating the river come from? I thought that was an extrapolated visitor figure, not an actual number of floaters. Hyperbole doesn't accomplish a lot. At least not if one wishes to have their opinions taken seriously.

Are you saying that there are a large number of non-permitted CAFOs operating on the banks of tributaries in the watershed? Some with up to 6,000 head of swine?

[Half Ton]

Sorry codger. Meant to say 10% of 10% of 1.1 million or about 11,000 people. urinating or pooping in river directly or on/in gravel bar/ floodplain about 1 time each.

Hogs and dairy manure applied to land from confined animals in water shed over time is the other point. It's been happening. So this one here is not the first.....by far.

Thank you so much for your attentiveness to detail!

7 Miles from the river or 13 or 20 is still an input. It still matters. 7 miles for a certain potential load is much more questionable than a certain number of certain more or less direct inputs of nutrients and organic matter for a given year. Please ask more detailed questions.

If you will notice, my numbers add up and are research based from numerous scientific peer reviewed journals. Whereas other sources of information do not offer the same attentiveness to detail.

By the way, most of the 45 ea points of contention were just for show, typical of a majority of ea's and off point. Only, a few months late.

I'm just sayin.

[Canoe_Codger]

Sorry, but your numbers don't add up. On one hand you say a 100 foot buffer is generous and then you say a hog farm 7 or 20 miles away has a measurable influence on water quality. Now you seem to be saying that 11,000 user days spread out over 150 square miles (95,730 acres) and includes 135 miles of river, has as much of an impact as 6,000 confined hogs times 365 days a year (you do the math on hog-user-days here).

The critique of the EA was pretty well spot on from my reading. They did not meet the required standards. Someone pencil-whipped it and checked off boxes without doing the required legwork.

I do look for this permit to be pulled, regardless of the economic impact on the owners and the financing agency and Cargill's wants. And I expect this incident to increase vigilance on the part of interested parties, most of whom found out about the permit after the fact this time.

[Half Ton]

Codger, now you are trying to twist my words. I am saying that the original argument is, "we don't want any cafo pig farms in the watershed". Well guess what, they've been there for decades

Next argument this pig farm will "kill the river". Umm 40 confinement operations have not done that yet.... so the argument of stop this one to stop the others is flawed. They are already here and have been for a long time.

Then, 10000 user pee and poop day is a base that I am going to use for further calculation here in a bit. Like now. 27,000 lbs of poop and pee over let's say one week in may. Then 4 weeks, then 3 months. All of a sudden the numbers are much bigger and again these are direct inputs into the river.

The hog manure runoff constituents ,if there is any, to make it to the buffalo are trivial compared to the human direct inputs into the river each year.

[Canoe_Codger]

Apologies, but it is not my intent to twist your words, only understand your logic. Would 10,000 humans in one day (or spread over the usual river user season) produce 2,000,000 gallons of effluent? Not on my worst upset stomach and too much coffee days would I produce more than a half gallon, a quart at most being more usual. And as I previously mentioned, I believe, the hypothetical human waste would be spread over 150 square miles, more than 100 river miles IF all 10,000 used the river and watershed within park boundaries as a toilet.

IF the human waste in the river is not trivial at this point, what water quality studies confirm this? What is the average fecal coliform bacteria count over this past user season? Ammonia and nitrogen levels? Are there noticable increases in May over a December/January/February baseline?

And as to "CAFOs already in the watershed", you do repeat the number "40" as already being there. I ask again, are any of the magnitude and proximity of the permitted operation? Have baseline studies of stream quality and contamination been done of the area of Big Creek adjacent to and downstream of the planned operation? It would seem to me, a non-credentialed layman, that having that information would be of utmost importance to detecting an increase in contamination BEFORE it became catastrophic to the flora and fauna of the creek and river.

I had ham on my breakfast biscuits and plan to have bacon and tomato sandwiches for lunch so I guess I do my part to support American swine producers.

[Half Ton]

I continually appreciate your ear, and counter points mr. Canoe Codger!

Sadly, I am not certain of many water quality parameters within the river. Increasingly, I keep having thoughts of further study though- contrary of my goals for never going back to school for a phd. I will research more, using different methods in order to come up with more referenced / vetted facts since it is somewhat fascinating regardless.

There is a big gaping hole when it comes to having all of the info we would all like available, and that's sad. Especially for the first ever national river. But then again, there are only so many dollars for research, and so few people to do it. Even less motivated. All of this discussion could certainly help change that though.

In my previous calculation, I was using a number from wikepedia that indicated a human produces 1 liter of urine a day. Most of this is urea. Urea is 46% nitrogen. I think it's fair to say some people go more than once and on average maybe 250 - 500 millimeters per flow. With reference to # 2 depending on beverage intake, hydration level, and trip length. Now for # 2 I've heard some can hold it for days, but on average an overnighter would go once perhaps. So there's about 10 oz with all its glorious constituents.

Honest answer, which may be flawed, is I am just talking about 120,000 visitors on the trails and the river without facilities. That might be kind of high, but look what we've got to work with, right? Not much, so I really would like some good river and trail use numbers rather than making assumptions.

I'm not counting the 2 permitted NPS RV waste water discharges into the river each day, the marble falls, Marshall, or Jasper discharges either just yet.

OR the horses and mules down on the river trails.

Overall, these sources of inputs have, and will continue to provide some of the most dangerous challenges to the WQ of the buffalo. To me, WE ALL could have as much concern about our own crap as opposed to just a little more than a square mile of land where an agronomic and environmentally designated rate will be applied to make some grass grow?

Surely, these 670 acres have been fertilized in the past on a recurring basis with commercial fertilizer or manure of the same type.

Therefore, the number of pigs in one place and the storage of it all in one spot is the only thing different from the past regarding this swine farm. Yet today the standards are so much more stringent than in the past. These guys have surpassed and will continue to meet and surpass these standards as we go through time.

To me, if PEACE can be made then ALL of US can move forward in harmony to strategically address all watershed concerns for the foreseeable next century in an all inclusive, wholistic, watershed wide way. Why not for today anyway since it is Easter.

I had 4 slices of bacon with my breakfast today, and was appreciative of the declining population of farmers, who are in their near 60's on average, with less land to farm on than in the past, with increasing prices on all sides, trying to feed a rapidly growing population, for as economic as possible.

This is a great time to accept the things we cannot change, but to change the things we can, and to know the difference between the two.

Shalom