Residents weigh in on state environmental regulators' waters proposal

Status of Buffalo a main concern

By Emily Walkenhorst

Posted: September 30, 2018 at 4:30 a.m.
Updated: September 30, 2018 at 3:49 a.m.

State environmental regulators' draft list of impaired-water bodies doesn't provide justification for not listing certain waters and won't protect certain waters from continued pollution, dozens of people wrote to regulators this month.

Several others urged the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to remove some waters from the list, citing inadequate data and fears over the economic consequences of declaring those waters polluted.

The bulk of the more than 460 public comments on the department's draft list concern the department's decision to list a portion of the Buffalo National River and a tributary, Big Creek, as impaired.

In July, the department declared that a 14.3-mile stretch of the Buffalo River and a 15-mile stretch of Big Creek were impaired because of E. coli. Another 3.7-mile stretch of Big Creek, just before it enters the Buffalo, is listed as impaired because of a lack of dissolved oxygen.

The portion of the Buffalo considered impaired runs above and below the confluence with Big Creek. The department said the source of impairment was unknown, but it stated in other documents this month that C&H Hog Farms, near Big Creek, is a possible source.

The declarations are draft decisions. The department still must consider public comments, respond to each one and then make a final list. That list needs to be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The lists are compiled every two years. Last summer the EPA approved for the first time Arkansas' lists dating back to 2010.

The most commented-on point of contention was that the state's listing of the Buffalo River and Big Creek exempts the waters from requiring new mandatory pollution-reducing activities. Instead of listing the waters under Category 5, which would have required new plans for pollution-reducing activities, the department listed the waters under Category 4b, which requires pollution-control activities through existing initiatives.

In this case, the department stated that the voluntary Buffalo River Watershed Management Plan and the non-regulatory Beautiful Buffalo River Action Committee were sufficient for the 4b requirements, but many conservationists disagreed.

"Aspirational goals or unimplemented future plans do not qualify," attorney Ross Noland wrote on behalf of himself and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel.

A 2007 EPA examination of alternatives used by other states in Category 4b cases says that a water is Category 4b when a total maximum daily load study "is not needed because other pollution control requirements are expected to result in the attainment of an applicable water quality standard (WQS) in a reasonable period of time."

A total maximum daily load study is what is created under Category 5 to examine potential pollution-reducing activities.

A 2006 report from the EPA cited by some commenters outlines six elements for 4b listings, including a description of pollution control and a timeline on completing the elements. Commenters stated that the department's listing doesn't include a timeline for such controls.

In the department's explanation of its 4b listing, officials stated that stakeholders and action committee partners were needed to successfully implement strategy and develop milestones for the Buffalo River.

"ADEQ and [Beautiful Buffalo River Action Committee] are committed to revising the strategy as necessary to achieve ultimate attainment of water-quality standards in the Buffalo River," the explanation reads.

The department will respond to comments at a later date.

Colene Gaston, an attorney for the Beaver Water District, also noted that three parts of Beaver Lake were listed in Category 4b without accompanying regulatory actions.

The department also cited a watershed management plan in its listing of eight segments or tributaries of the Illinois River. Comments concerning the Illinois asked for regulatory requirements based off of a total maximum daily load study.

John Bailey, director of environmental and regulatory affairs for the Arkansas Farm Bureau, had other comments about the listings for the Buffalo River and Big Creek.

Big Creek should be broken into more segments, Bailey said, because of the concentration of E. coli exceedances farther upstream in the creek. The department should have used a geometric mean for measuring E. coli, and much of the data used were collected by opponents of C&H Hog Farms who know how to game the system to get worse test results, Bailey said. All data showing dissolved oxygen impairment was from 2013, Bailey said, and it's unclear if the department has done any monitoring since then.

Others also criticized the source of some of the data, which the department has to vet to accept, and argued that reliable data do not actually show impairment.

Two Newton County leaders urged the department not to list any streams in the county at all.

"We are one of the poorest counties in the state and to hamper the ability of this counties [sic] citizens to make a living is going to further impoverish our county," wrote County Judge Warren Campbell, a relative of one of the C&H owners.

County Assessor Janet Lager echoed Campbell.

"Please consider the impact this would have on all farmers, property owners, cabin and kayak rentals, loggers, utilities, and county trash/maintenance departments," she wrote.

Other county residents and outsiders urged a higher-priority listing in a plea to improve the river and recreation there.

Alice Andrews, a frequent attendee of public meetings concerning C&H Hog Farms or the Buffalo River, called the department's listing a "Band-Aid" approach.

"Volunteer effort translates to a long wait before, or if, any significant project is born. Simply put, it's unrealistic," she said.

The listing is a way to avoid addressing C&H Hog Farms, wrote Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance. The watershed management plan is not allowed to address regulated facilities such as C&H, he said.

The decision, Watkins said, "absolved ADEQ of responsibility for directly addressing a known threat to our state's most treasured stream, relying instead on private citizens and non-profit organizations to shoulder the burden while placing C&H off limits. This is unacceptable."

Dozens of comments also concerned Fourche Creek, a 20-mile-long waterway that cuts through Little Rock. The secluded creek is often loaded with trash from storm drains and dirt eroded from channelized portions of the creek.

Conservation groups have touted its potential for recreation for years, and state and local governments have tried to promote the creek, designating it as the state's first Urban Water Trail last year.

The department placed part of the creek on the list under Category 5, but commenters requested that priority for the creek within that category be raised from "low" to "high," given the level of pollution and the water's use as a recreational destination.

At the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission's meeting Friday, Dan Scheiman, bird conservation director at Audubon Arkansas, said the higher-priority designation would help his organization apply for funding to do a watershed management plan, which once created would help the organization apply for more funding to clean up the creek.

Several other comments stated that the department's list was insufficient because it did not list any waters as not meeting anti-degradation requirements.

Under anti-degradation, extraordinary resource waters, such as the Buffalo River, are not to degrade at all. Under the Clean Water Act, states are supposed to implement plans for determining whether a proposed wastewater permit would contribute to nonpermissible degradation.

Arkansas is one of only two states without an EPA-approved anti-degradation implementation plan.

Many comments were related to the department's process for issuing the 303(d) list.

Gaston asked that the department post its supporting data and other documents online.

Ed Brocksmith, a founder of Save the Illinois River, also asked that the department explain why other tributaries were removed from previous lists.

Several commenters noted that explanations for delistings were lacking.

Others requested that the department draft the required integrated report for the public to examine during the comment period, as well.

State Desk on 09/30/2018

MASTERSON ONLINE: One toxic ‘soup’

By Mike Masterson

Posted: September 29, 2018 at 2:27 a.m.

If veteran North Carolina environmental writer Elizabeth Ouzts wanted to know the latest developments on the C&H Hog Farms operation in our Buffalo National River watershed, I could help bring her up to speed.

I’ve equally relied on her work to learn how the record-setting flooding from Hurricane Florence affected that state’s 2,100 similar large swine factories and 3,700 massive open-air waste lagoons.

Judging from Ouzts’ recent account in Environmental Health News, it’s been a troubled history with North Carolina’s “broken factory farm system” that has grown increasingly serious with repeated floods and storms.

In her article published Sept. 21, she wrote that Florence caused structural damage or flooded many hog waste pits, sending untold tons of toxic raw waste mixed with floodwaters into surrounding environments.

The full face of the storm’s damage remains unseen, as waste from these factories (and other pollutants such as coal ash) continued to rise at that time in what swelled into the largest East Coast deluge ever recorded north of Florida.

Previous calamities, she wrote, involved leakages and failures from those enormous lagoons of animal feces that are periodically reduced by spraying excess raw waste onto crop fields. It’s a practice that doesn’t work in hurricanes and tropical storms. (I’d add C&H’s unsuitable location here in our Buffalo watershed atop fractured karst terrain.)

In a changing climate, large rain events are becoming more frequent and severe in North Carolina, she writes, “and clean-water advocates say it’s more urgent than ever to shut down waste pits in areas most likely to flood and to phase out the antiquated systems altogether.”

Before Florence made landfall, she reports, nonprofit Waterkeeper Alliance members observed various hog operations by plane. They reportedly witnessed seven owners illegally spraying waste onto fields that would soon be inundated by heavy rain.

Her story says many state farmers with lagoons on the verge of overflowing faced a difficult choice between violating permits by spraying their contents on fields, thereby harming rivers and creeks in the longer term, or directly discharging waste from the pits.

The group also noted problems that tracked with state regulators’ running tally of pit failures based on the factories’ reports. After two days, more than 100 pits had been affected by the storm. Matt Butler, program director at Sound Rivers, a member of the Waterkeeper Alliance, told Ouzts that after Hurricane Matthew in 2016, and now with Florence, the state keeps repeating the same mistakes.

Ouzts writes that until this year the program to reform the old methods hadn’t received new funding in more than a decade, although some 60 factory hog farms are still in the 100-year floodplain. It was too early to tell at the time of her reporting just how many facilities were overflowing. Yet state officials, the pork industry, and environmental advocates agreed that investing more in the program should be a priority.

Ouzts reports that most experts say focusing only on the so-called 100-year floodplain is a mistake since heavy rains are expected to become the new normal. For instance, she says, Florence was considered a 1,000-year-storm while Matthew, just two years ago, was considered a 500-year storm.

This was even more reason advocates of water quality have long argued all hog factories should phase out the older open-air waste pit version and convert to more sustainable systems now used in other states and countries, her story says.

Such solutions are easier said than done, Ouzts wrote, since that state’s Department of Environmental Quality is understaffed and underfunded by more than 40 percent since 2012. Regulators have faced pressure to protect the state’s largest industry.

Imagine that, continually lobbied politicos more involved in appeasing financial supporters and mega-corporations than ensuring disease-free water for North Carolinians when both seem feasible.

State agricultural officials initially estimated Florence claimed at least 5,500 hogs and 3.4 million poultry, most trapped in flooded barns, Ouzts writes, adding that Waterkeepers say “the real culprits are the giant corporate conglomerates that take no responsibility for the waste their hogs produce.”

Crystal Coast Waterkeeper Larry Baldwin was quoted saying he felt bad for those who have invested their entire lives into growing hogs under the state’s system, and that it should be up to the corporate backers to determine how they might use some of their profits to find a better system. “We’re not even through hurricane season yet,” he told Ouzts.

Ouzts said all new factory-scale farms with spray waste ponds (as with C&H here) have been banned in North Carolina for more than two decades, as factories slowly adapt to more sustainable methods. But the older, grandfathered factories continue to be re-permitted.

With nine million hogs, North Carolina is a top national pork producer. The industry—primarily multinational corporations that contract with local farmers—is concentrated in North Carolina’s low-lying southeastern coastal plain, which is precisely where Florence crushed rainfall records.

Odor and pathogens wafting from animal barns, waste pits, and spray fields can affect and sicken neighbors even in the best weather. That led three juries this year to award hundreds of millions in damages to plaintiffs in suits against Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork producer, with more lawsuits reportedly in the pipeline.

A recent Duke University study only reinforced such concerns, Ouzts writes, “citing low life expectancy in communities near confined animal feeding operations, even after adjusting for socioeconomic factors known to affect health and lifespan.”

Such threats are amplified after heavy rains, Ouzts writes. “Fields saturated with rainwater can’t absorb nutrients from waste pits; excess nitrogen and [phosphorus] instead appear in rivers and streams, at worst causing algae blooms and fish kills.

Manure pits can burst or overflow, sending sludge, microbes, and potentially antibiotic-resistant bacteria into floodwaters, heightening their risk to public health.”

Ryke Longest, director of Duke University’s environmental law clinic, told Ouzts, “You’re releasing all of that and making this soup of eastern North Carolina.”

Mike Masterson is a longtime Arkansas journalist. Email him at mmasterson@arkansasonline.com.

An environmental lesson from hurricane country

I guess it doesn’t matter that South Carolina and North Carolina are drowning in pig after the hurricane roared through. We don’t live there, so why should we worry about it? It’s just another saga of money-grubbing pig crap lovers vs. the natural beauty pig crap despisers.

We in Arkansas need to be aware of all the toxins that can be released in large amounts by flooding the environment, whether it be here or elsewhere. Water is the great conveyor. No one and nobody can escape the [pungent] smell or disease and destruction of these concentrated animal feeding operations.

Does it matter that grillers want their Sunday ribs or workers want their Saturday bacon? Our river, the Buffalo, is worth us sacrificing a little bit until things change on the home front. Even my beloved ham has lost its appeal since this fiasco. Now, when I see pork in the grocery store, it sickens me.

All of you who created this mess need to quit thinking of your pocketbooks. Do the right thing, no matter what. Learn from what is happening to two unfortunate states in the aftermath of ill-thought-out choices.

Nothing is worth how you will be thought of, if more harm comes to the awe-inspiring, life sustaining Buffalo River.

VICKI MOORE

Greenwood

Eurekas Springs Independent

ADEQ acknowledging impact of hogs on Buffalo

MASTERSON ONLINE: More Buffalo science

By Mike Masterson

Posted: September 22, 2018 at 2:32 a.m.

A highly respected aquatic biologist and water-quality hydrologist who spent his distinguished career studying Ozark streams for the U.S. Geological Survey, examined four years of data collected by the research team monitoring C&H Hog Farms.

And, as with other geoscientists, he's concerned over what's been learned and reported.

Jim Petersen is a cautious scientist who speaks carefully so as not to overstate or unintentionally mislead. In a report prepared for the Ozark Society, he arrived at a number of troublesome conclusions when it came to the effect C&H is having on the Buffalo River and Big Creek, a major tributary, where swine waste for some five years has regularly been spread on surrounding fields, as well as seeping into the fractured karst subsurface that permeates the river's watershed.

Petersen's analysis of water-quality data collected by the tax-supported Big Creek Research and Extension Team, focused on base-flow conditions, which occur when the stream flow is dominated by input from groundwater. Unfortunately, the Big Creek team is not accurately monitoring storm flow conditions when most of the waste continuously generated by the 6,500 swine at C&H can be expected to enter Big Creek.

The big picture appears as bleak as many geoscientists and others have expected since 2013. He said results from various team monitoring sites, including those intended to monitor leakage from two waste holding lagoons, as well as the application fields where raw waste is spread, indicate "the [factory hog farm] is having a negative effect on the water quality of Big Creek during base flow."

In other words, Big Creek, which has been classified as "impaired" (meaning not meeting water-quality standards for low dissolved oxygen and pathogens) since Petersen completed his review, appears to be receiving enough waste to show negative effects. Big Creek flows six miles downstream from C&H to join the Buffalo, portions of which now also are deemed impaired beneath their confluence for hazardous pathogens within massive overgrowths of algae.

Petersen's reports also states, "the frequency and seasonal persistence of dissolved oxygen concentrations of Big Creek at Carver that are often substantially below the state standard may be causing detrimental effects on aquatic species and fish and macroinvertebrate (aquatic insects, etc.) communities of Big Creek and the Buffalo River. The proximity to the Buffalo River and anti-degradation policy concerns are another immediate concern."

And that, valued readers, was determined months ago.

There was more to concern Petersen. He said increasing trends in some nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, and E. coli in samples from Big Creek's monitoring site 4 (ephemeral stream) indicate inputs of these constituents to Big Creek are increasing and potentially affecting water quality of Big Creek near the hog farm and downstream.

"If concentrations are increasing in base flow samples it is likely that concentrations in storm water also are increasing--and concentrations are almost certainly higher in the storm water than in base flow."

At the risk of becoming overladen with scientific jargon, I'll take a stab anyway. Petersen explained that comparing concentrations of total nitrogen and total phosphorus (present in animal waste) at the Big Creek team's monitoring site downstream of the factory with biological thresholds for nutrients (fertilizers) in other comparable Ozark streams indicates existing concentrations are approaching (in the case of total nitrogen), or exceeding (regarding phosphorus) levels that affect aquatic life such as algae, insects and fish.

Petersen found increasing trends in concentrations of three nitrogen constituents in samples from the Big Creek team's House Well site indicate contamination of the shallow groundwater aquifer. The steadily increasing pattern observed for several parameters indicates a constant input to the local aquifer feeding the well. Results at BC7 (the downstream site) also indicate a strong correlation between increasing nitrate concentrations during low-flow periods characterized by increased groundwater discharge.

The scientist expressed particular concern over the lack of adequate storm-flow monitoring data at C&H. And if he is finding these disturbing results when there is no heavy rainfall, what's happening both atop and beneath the surface to these waste products during storms and sustained downpours?

Trenches the Big Creek team dug below the waste ponds to monitor leakage also drew Petersen's attention. "Water quality from a trench downslope from the two waste holding ponds indicates that the contents from both ponds are seeping into the downslope trench," he wrote. In other words, the waste ponds show leakage.

I keep hearing those who defend this badly misplaced hog factory complaining that supporters of the Buffalo River are basically irrational environmentalists with no science to support their concerns. I've seen a lot of late. Plus we all know that's just a crude attempt to vaguely smear the justified concerns of Arkansans and others nationwide who don't want to see this treasure spoiled today and for coming generations.

An abundance of science is readily available. Petersen is but one of many respected geoscientists who have taken a look at the data and determined there is considerable and mounting evidence the hog factory is increasingly affecting Big Creek as its next million gallons of raw waste is regularly spread across pastures around and along this stream.

Time is now

The official period has opened for the public to comment on the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality's wise decision to deny the hog factory a Regulation 5 permit. Mine is submitted. It took four minutes. I continue to urge every Arkansan who cares about saving our now impaired national river to speak out until Oct. 17 on the department website at tinyurl.com/natriver, or by email at Water-Draft-Permit-Comment@adeq.state.ar.us.

Those preferring to send a letter can address to: Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Attn: C&H Draft Denial, 5301 Northshore Drive, North Little Rock, 72118.

Channel 5 News

Algae Concerns On The Buffalo River Addressed In Meeting

POSTED 11:01 PM, SEPTEMBER 20, 2018, BY MEAGAN JOHNSON

Fayetteville (KFSM) -- Some environmentalists worry that the Buffalo River could soon be taken over by algae. The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance held a meeting Thursday (Sept. 20) to discuss the concern about algae growth on the river.

"It has gone from twenty miles of coverage which we thought was pretty high already, to seventy miles this year," said Martie Olesen with the Buffalo Watershed Alliance.

Gordon Selckmann is an algae expert who has recently studied the Buffalo River. Selckmann said he has identified 2 types of algae growing on the Buffalo River. He says one type doesn't pose health concerns, but the other type could.

Olesen said some people who have recently floated the river have reported minor health issues.

"There have been skin rashes, fever. It's anecdotal, we don't have actual data on it but people have reported that to us," Olesen told 5NEWS.

Selckmann said an increase of nutrients is often the cause for these specific algae buildups.

"If you have a lot of animals in a small area and you have the right water to push those nutrients into the river you can see blooms from that."

The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance said they have an idea of what is causing the miles of green, the C&H Hog Farm.

The hog farm is on Big Creek, 6 miles from where it meets the Buffalo River.

''The problem it was placed in a karst location that is full of cracks that allow water, and whatever is in the water, on the fields to quickly transport into the creek and into the river,'' said Olesen.

Monday (Sept. 17) state environmental regulators issued a public notice of a draft decision that would deny a permit for a large hog farm in the Buffalo River watershed.

The public can write letters to state legislators with their thoughts about the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality denying the operating permit to C&H Hog Farm.

C&H Hog Farm is now operating under an expired permit and houses about 6500 hogs.

Desecration of river

After reading your article on the front page of the Arkansas section Tuesday, "State notice on hog farm issued," I am confused. More information is needed. We, the ones who need to comment, need the email address, phone number and address of the meeting!

I am very opposed to such a disgrace as this hog farm even within 100 miles of our beloved national river. Honestly, there is really not a place where the waste from 6,000 hogs will be safe.

Good people of Arkansas, please speak out against even a slight desecration of the Buffalo River.

BRENDA NORSWORTHY

Pine Bluff

Read the full article on this recent peer-reviewed study by Duke University   in the North Carolina Medical Journal

Mortality and Health Outcomes in North Carolina Communities Located in Close Proximity to Hog Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Shut down hog farm

I would like to express my strong opposition to continued operation of the C&H CAFO adjacent to Big Creek. Several geologists and experts agree that nutrients from the hog waste of this operation will reach our beautiful Buffalo River through the karst geology of this region that allows drainage to pass through its porous makeup.

We are blessed to live in a beautiful state with so many God-made wonders to behold. It is incumbent on our citizens to protect and preserve these wonders. All who love and enjoy this beautiful state please join me in asking the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality to deny C&H's request for renewal of their permit to continue operation. Don't forget to let our governor know how you feel. Write letters to the editor, or mail letters to the Department of Environmental Quality at 5301 Lakeshore Drive, North Little Rock, 72118.

DEAN HALEY

Benton

State notice on Arkansas hog farm issued

Agency draft of permit denial opens public comment period

By Emily Walkenhorst

Posted: September 18, 2018 at 4:30 a.m.

Arkansas environmental regulators issued Monday their public notice of a draft decision to deny a new operating permit to a large hog farm in the Buffalo River's watershed.

The draft notice -- issued after a judge determined a final decision on C&H Hog Farms had been issued prematurely -- opens a public comment period on the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality's decision that will end at 4:30 p.m. Oct. 17. A public hearing will be held at department headquarters at 5 p.m. Oct. 9. 

The department accepted public comments in 2017 on its draft decision to grant C&H the permit and took several months to go through more than 19,000 comments, respond to them and ultimately issue the final decision that denied it. A judge and the department's appellate body ruled later that the department needed to issue a draft decision to deny the permit.

C&H is operating under an expired Regulation 6 general permit. That regulatory program itself also expired, which prompted the Newton County facility to apply for a Regulation 5 individual permit, which does not expire and is tailored to the facility's operation.

In its statement of basis denying the permit, the Department of Environmental Quality determined that the hog farm's location on rocky, permeable karst terrain necessitated a geologic investigation to determine groundwater flow on the property and manure pond liner construction quality assurance, among other things.

John Bailey, director of environmental and regulatory affairs at the Arkansas Farm Bureau, said other counties have more karst than Newton County, including heavily populated Washington County.

"Are they not allowed to have permits now because of karst?" Bailey said.

In January, the department's statement of basis totaled three pages. The statement issued Monday was three times as long, expanding on the department's initial argument and addressing new information on surrounding water quality.

C&H Hog Farms sits on Big Creek, about 6 miles from where it meets the Buffalo River. It is permitted to house 6,503 hogs.

The department discussed its recent findings that Big Creek and the Buffalo River are both impaired in parts for pathogens or dissolved oxygen. The pathogen tested is E. coli. C&H may be contributing to that impairment, the department wrote in the statement of basis.

The Big Creek Research and Extension Team, formed in 2013 to assess Big Creek and C&H, has found elevated nitrate near the facility, the department wrote. That includes statistically significant increases of nitrate in the ephemeral stream and the house well since 2014. An ephemeral stream is a stream that flows only during and a little after rainfall.

Bailey said Monday that he had not thoroughly studied issues on the ephemeral stream but said that the house well had previously been measured from a cistern instead. That cistern, which received water pumped from the well, also picked up wash from other farm facilities that led to high nitrates, Bailey said. Measurements from the actual well in recent months have not showed elevated nitrate levels, he said.

Bailey also has argued that most of the high-E. coli tests came from upstream of Big Creek. Opponents of C&H have contended, as well, that groundwater can travel in under karst terrain, and contaminated water can originate farther down a stream than where it may later be found.

Opponents of C&H have said they plan to resubmit their comments and more.

"There is a possibility they could change that decision as they have before," attorney Richard Mays said. "Very few people anticipated that they would deny the granting of the permit as they did back in January of this year."

Mays has represented the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance and the Arkansas Canoe Club as intervenors in C&H's appeal of its permit denial.

Both dockets have closed at the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, which denied one and dismissed the other as moot when they ordered the permit denial be a draft decision.

C&H filed notices of appeal in its two cases in Newton County Circuit Court earlier this month. On Sept. 7, the day the notice was filed in the Regulation 5 case, C&H requested that the judge grant a stay of the commission's order pending appeal. It was unclear Monday whether documents filed with the notice of appeal intended to constitute the actual appeal.

Bailey said he was surprised the department went ahead with its draft permit denial without waiting for a judge to decide on the stay. If the stay were granted, he said, what would that mean for any public comments submitted?

A department spokesman said Monday that officials were aware of the appeal but noted that the department was not a party to it.

Mays said his groups would support the department's draft denial of the permit. Comments from the alliance referred to required guidance documents later used by the department to argue in part what the alliance had -- that the permit application was insufficient in its study of its location and providing an emergency action plan.

"I know there's going to be a major effort on the part of C&H and others to overturn it," Mays said. "Everything that happens in it is going to be highly controversial."

Metro on 09/18/2018