Buffalo River Watershed Alliance
Not going swimming
I read with interest the comment of Jack Boles of Hasty. Like Mr. Boles, I have enjoyed the beauty and tranquility of the Buffalo River for many years (60+). I also appreciate any efforts of Governor Hutchinson to protect the river; but there must be more!
It is clear to me and, I think, to anyone who chooses to spend even a short time thinking about it, that the hog farm, and the hog **** it generates has and is damaging the river and will continue to do so.
There is already evidence of changes which will continue, and "extensive testing" would prove the continuing damage if it were allowed. And those changes which have taken literally months to develop cannot be corrected in our lifetimes.
I may take my grandchildren to see the beauty of the mountains, forest, etc., but I will not let them swim in the river as I did 65 years ago.
BLAINE A. JACKSON
Bentonville
By Mike Masterson
Posted: April 29, 2017 at 2:08 a.m.
NWAOnline
John Ikerd, an internationally respected respected University of Missouri professor emeritus of agricultural economics, has significant points to make about the realities of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). I call them corporate-supported meat factories such as the one that continues to generate intense controversy in our Buffalo National River watershed.
In his exhaustive study on the consequences of CAFOs, Ikerd said these factories originally were welcomed into Missouri. And within 10 years, 90 percent of Missouri's independent hog producers were forced out of business by their competition.
In decades since, Ikerd has worked with groups in 16 states and four Canadian provinces. He's also reviewed countless studies on CAFOs prepared by highly reputable research institutions. He cited one 2006 review of 56 socioeconomoic studies by the North Dakota Attorney General's Office that concluded:
"Based on the evidence ... we conclude that public concern about detrimental community impacts of industrialized farming is warranted. In brief, this conclusion rests on five decades of government and academic concern with this topic, a concern that has ... grown more intense in recent years, as the social and environmental problems associated with [large CAFOs] have become widely recognized."
Ikerd also writes that a 2008 Pew Charitable Trust funded study determined: "The current industrial farm animal production system often poses unacceptable risks to public health, the environment and the welfare of the animals. The negative effects are too great and the scientific evidence is too strong to ignore."
Ikerd found serious consequences from CAFOs are inevitable. "A particular individual CAFO may be designed and operated in such [a] way as to avoid these consequences for some specified period of time. However, the economic, ecological, and social consequences are inevitable for any significant group of CAFOs at any point in time and for any individual CAFO over a significant period of time."
Ikerd said between 1980 and 2008, federal data indicates traditional family hog farms declined by 90 percent. Between 1992 and 2004 alone, the number fell more than 70 percent.
On water pollution, he said the EPA found waste generated by large-scale hog and other CAFOs had polluted over 35,000 miles of river and contaminated groundwater in 17 states. Large "dead zones" have been created in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere by CAFOs and the industrial corn and soybean operations that provide their feed. "The environmental regulation of CAFOs has been far less stringent, and far less effective, than for other industries because CAFO supporters have been able to convince lawmakers that CAFOs are agricultural, not industrial, operations. Farming is exempted from many environmental regulations," he writes.
This expert in sustainable agriculture writes that negative effects on water quality are a consequence of waste from too many animals in areas too small to effectively assimilate it. When waste is over-applied, potentially useful nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus become pollutants, exceeding the ability of natural ecosystems to neutralize them. "Excessive nitrogen and phosphorus, along with residual antibiotics, pesticides, and heavy metals are flushed into streams and leached into groundwater," he added. "Thousands of miles of streams in the U.S. have been polluted by CAFOs following approved manure management plans."
CAFOs should be regulated like any industrial operation, he wrote, and animal waste should be regulated much like human waste to protect public health. These regulations "should reflect the same basic logic and principles as municipal waste treatment regulations, with appropriate adjustment for differences in health risks ... . Any confinement animal feeding operation over a specific size, for example 250 animal units, should be treated as an animal municipality, rather than a farming operation. Such operations should be required to have full-scale, multi-stage waste treatment facilities as deemed appropriate to protect public health."
It takes only about 280 feeder pigs to produce as much total solid biological waste as 1,000 humans, Ikert wrote, so 2,800 feeder pigs produce as much biological waste as a human community of 10,000. Pig waste is 39 times more concentrated than human waste, "so animal waste can quite logically be thought of as a form of toxic waste.
"Regulations remain lax because the corporations that control CAFOs have the economic and political power to prevent effective regulation. The people of rural communities simply cannot afford to wait until regulators are overwhelmed with mountains of scientific evidence documenting the negative effects of CAFOs. There are inevitable economic, social, ecological, and human health effects inherent in the industrial organizational structure of CAFOs. They are designed and operated to maximize profits, not minimize or even mitigate ecological, social, or human health risks."
Those who express scientifically justifiable concerns over the inevitable environmental effects of a CAFO located in an ecologically sensitive watershed are labeled by those behind CAFOs as emotional over-reactors and "radical, idealistic environmentalists who just don't understand modern agriculture," Ikerd wrote.
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mmasterson@arkansasonline.com.
Cows, chickens taint Shenandoah River with E. coli
By SARAH RANKIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS
RICHMOND, Va. — Apr 26, 2017
Excessive livestock manure from millions of turkeys, chickens and cows in Virginia is making its way into the Shenandoah River, polluting the scenic waterway with unsafe levels of E. coli, according to a new report from an environmental advocacy group.
The Environmental Integrity Project analyzed hundreds of state records for the report released Wednesday. In addition to E. coli, which can sicken the swimmers, fishermen and tubers who flock to the river, the report also found elevated levels of phosphorous, which contributes to the growth of algae blooms and low-oxygen "dead zones."
"The Shenandoah Valley is a place of incomparable beauty and cultural value, but its continued health is at risk," says the report, which suggests the state's manure management system isn't adequately protecting human health or water quality and is undermining Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts.
The Virginia Farm Bureau Federation, which has some 3,500 members, pushed back against the report, calling it "an opinion piece" that aims to paint agriculture in a bad light.
The report focuses on four counties in the bucolic Shenandoah Valley watershed that are also home to a large-scale farming industry.
Together, farmers in Augusta, Page, Rockingham and Shenandoah counties raise more than 172 million chicken and turkeys a year and more than half a million dairy and beef cows, the report says. Those animals generate more than 410,000 tons of poultry litter and about 1 billion gallons (3.8 billion liters) of liquid manure a year.
Most of that is spread on surrounding farmland, the report found. But pollution management plans, also called nutrient management plans, are only required for large livestock operations, which account for only 12.5 percent of the farmland in those counties, the report says.
The report found that more than 90 percent of the water quality monitoring stations where the state regularly samples the river and its tributaries detected E. coli at levels unsafe for human contact over the past two years.
Furthermore, the state's manure control system allows manure containing far more phosphorous to be applied than the crops need, according to the report. That manure can leak into groundwater or wash into surrounding streams when it rains, eventually making it to the Shenandoah, which joins the Potomac that empties into the Chesapeake Bay.
Herschel Finch, a fisher, kayaker and the conservation chairman of the Potomac River Smallmouth Club, said when he moved to the Shenandoah Valley in 1977, the fishing was fantastic.
But in the past 15 years or so, he began to see fish die-offs and excessive algae growth.
"There are sections where it's just completely unproductive to go fish anymore because the algae is taking up all the oxygen and the fish just can't survive," he said Wednesday in a conference call with reporters.
When the fish aren't there, fishermen stay away too, and Finch said he's seen tourism-related businesses shut down.
When it comes to E. coli, Virginia should do a better job of issuing public advisories about the elevated levels, the report advises.
"The state issues public advisories warning beachgoers to stay out of the ocean when bacteria levels do not meet the recreational standard. But the state provides no such notice when the Shenandoah Valley and other rivers and streams are contaminated, even when E. coli levels are more than 100 times the recreational limit," it says.
Bill Hayden, a spokesman for the Department of Environmental Quality, said the state health department is responsible for deciding when and where to notify the public about water quality. The health department didn't respond to requests for comment about the state's policies.
Hayden said no one at the agency had reviewed the report yet, so he couldn't comment on the specifics.
He said there's always room for improvement in the state's nutrient management program, but Virginia has seen an overall improvement in bacterial contamination in the Shenandoah River basin.
Wilmer Stoneman, director of commodities and marketing for the Farm Bureau Federation, said farmers face stringent regulations and are doing more than ever to improve conservation overall.
"This is an opinion piece that tries to paint agriculture in a bad light," said Stoneman, who has been the federation's point person on water quality and environmental issues for 22 years. "It's springtime, so let's do a bad agriculture story."
Waste-water treatment, residential runoff and wildlife also impact water quality, he said.
"We understand farming is part of the Shenandoah heritage and way of life ... But the public has the right to know when that water isn't safe to enjoy," said Eric Schaeffer, executive director of the Environmental Integrity Project.
Schaeffer was formerly the director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's office of civil enforcement. He founded the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Integrity Project, which advocates for effective enforcement of environmental laws.
Suggestions for Asa
Governor Hutchinson: If you intend to allow C&H to remain near the Buffalo National River, I have a few suggestions that might save the state some money.
First off, let's fire the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality staff geologists. They apparently weren't needed when the agency processed the original permit. If a major swine operation sited in the karst geology of a national river doesn't require attention from these guys, for what other reason would we ever possibly need them?
Also, Governor, what about the department bypassing the construction permit for C&H? Some folks are saying that it wasn't legal, but since everything seemed to work out OK, let's just dissolve the Department of Environmental Quality altogether. We could sell that nice office building to someone who could get some good out of it. And in regard to the Big Creek Research and Extension Team study, I'll bet we could just hand that off to Farm Bureau. It seems those guys are calling the shots anyway. I suspect they will run it for free, plus I'm thinking that Farm Bureau will likely meet your personal "sound science" standards.
We're saving lots of money here, Governor, but those nasty algae blooms certainly aren't going to improve any. We need to rebrand those things so maybe the tourists won't catch on. Perhaps something less emotional. How about "Asa Blooms"?
BRIAN THOMPSON
Fayetteville
By Scott Carroll
This article was published today at 2:53 a.m.
Johnny Sain spent his childhood listening to the song of the whippoorwill, learning the difference between harmless and venomous snakes and examining "critters" that his grandfather caught for him and kept in a jar.
He didn't have a college degree or a white coat. Just his curiosity.
"I was an observer," Sain said. "Of course, I had no credentials. But I was, by the most basic definition, a scientist."
Sain, a conservationist and interim executive director of the Arkansas Wildlife Federation, joined many actual scientists at the Arkansas Capitol on Saturday afternoon as part of a global rally to promote science and reason. Outdoorsmen, engineers and medical researchers were among more than 1,000 people who participated in Little Rock.
Many were protesting the policies of President Donald Trump, who has called global warming a hoax and proposed cutting the budgets of the federal Environmental Protection Agency by 31 percent and the National Institutes of Health by 18 percent. The president has proposed cuts to most federal agencies, even eliminating some, to offset an increase in defense spending and to promote private enterprise in the public sector.
Dozens of rally attendees carried signs that were critical of the Trump administration. One said "Make America Think Again," a play on Trump's campaign slogan. Another sign called for "evidence, not alternative facts."
Nora Simmons of Conway was among those who said Trump's policies on science and the environment were concerning.
"We believe in science, and without science everything around us doesn't exist," she said. "It's important that our government understands that we don't want science funding cut and we want our environment protected."
Rally participants chanted "science not silence" as they marched west on Capitol Avenue in Little Rock.
Researchers from UAMS Medical Center and Arkansas State University at Jonesboro were among those who spoke to attendees Saturday.
The Arkansas Sierra Club, a chapter of a national conservation group, organized the march.
"Yes, science matters," said Glen Hooks, director of the Arkansas Sierra Club. "But I'm not seeing that it matters enough to our elected officials and our decision makers. I'm seeing our elected leaders actively ignoring science and governing by anecdote instead of using facts and data. I've seen our elected officials actively deny that our human activities are causing the climate to warm, even though virtually every climate scientist on earth says that's what happening."
For Simmons, the march was more than political. It was personal.
She said her son was born with omphalocele, a birth defect in which a child's liver, intestines or other organs develop outside the abdominal wall.
It's a rare condition that's often fatal. But he survived.
"Without medical science," Simmons said, "he would not be alive."
Metro on 04/23/2017
Print Headline: Rally at Capitol promotes science
By Gordon Watkins Special to the Democrat-Gazette
Posted: April 22, 2017 at 2:18 a.m
Governor Hutchinson: We appreciated your letter of April 14 regarding the C&H operation. We agree with your sentiments regarding the value of the Buffalo National River as well as the importance of sound science for informing good decisions, but we respectfully contend that the sources of your scientific information are inadequate and politically tainted.
Consider the Department of Environmental Quality, which serves as the state's nonpartisan source for reliable environmental science. Regrettably, its reputation was harmed by the mere act of issuing the C&H permit, especially without public notice or the requisite construction permit. As a result, the standard geological review by a staff geologist was bypassed. If a permit for a large industrial CAFO in a geologically sensitive watershed, which flows into our national river, is not significant enough to require review by a staff geologist, what permit would trigger such review?
Further, engineering guidance provided by the Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook, a key regulatory document, was ignored when the permit was first reviewed.
The agency has irreparably discredited itself scientifically.
Consider the Big Creek Research and Extension Team, whose role you emphasized as being of key importance in assessing the impact of the hog farm. Gov. Mike Beebe enlisted the UA School of Agriculture, which then created the Big Creek team, to monitor the environmental impact of the hog farm. Later the Cooperative Extension Service joined the team. The service primarily assists farmers, which creates an unavoidable conflict of interest for the team between its original mandate to monitor versus now, the role to help C&H succeed.
Early on, the Big Creek study was reviewed by an independent panel of experts who noted a number of shortcomings, including that the team was not sampling Big Creek during storm events, times which typically result in nutrients and pathogens being washed from the fields into the streams. The panel pointed out that the team was conducting tests under conditions that were less likely to reveal a problem. This and other panel recommendations were discounted. Most egregious however was the team's withholding of the controversial taxpayer-funded electrical resistivity imaging pond data for over a year until our organization stumbled upon it and made it public.
The team's credibility was severely damaged and its priorities are now in doubt.
In response to that scandal, the Department of Environmental Quality hired Harbor Environmental to drill a single hole near the C&H ponds. It ignored numerous credible scientists, including the project's own independent geologist, who advised them that a single hole was inadequate to determine much of anything. M.D. Smolen, Ph.D., with 35 years of experience in water quality management said: "Although leakage from the ponds has not been confirmed to date, any seepage or direct leakage from the ponds would be transmitted to groundwater and ultimately to the Buffalo River. The fact that Harbor Environmental did not confirm any ground water contamination is not conclusive because they only drilled one hole." When its report was completed, the department forbade direct communication between Harbor and the scientific community or the public. Whether Harbor did good work or not, the results were tainted by the way the department controlled the process, which further solidified its deteriorating scientific credibility.
Governor, you have characterized the public as "emotional," but two to three million gallons of raw hog waste disposed of on fields upstream of our national river is certainly going to elicit a strong public response. Threats to treasured wild places do that. But the fact is that real science is validating the public's concerns. The National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey agree that Big Creek is now impaired for dissolved oxygen, a sign of nutrient overloading. The Big Creek team's own data shows elevated nitrate levels. Dr. JoAnn Burkholder, a William Neal Reynolds distinguished professor, says: "The data clearly indicate that the C&H CAFO is contributing swine waste pollution to adjacent public trust waters. The nitrate levels downstream from this CAFO commonly are levels that have been shown in other research to be toxic to sensitive aquatic life."
The data also show elevated levels of E. coli, which as you know has human health implications. Dr. Burkholder notes: "These data indicate that the C&H CAFO is discharging E. coli bacteria which are contributing to the pollution of Big Creek in the CAFO area and downstream waters."
Governor, we simply don't have the space here to show you all of the real science. We recently submitted nearly 100 pages of comments to the Department of Environmental Quality. Our scientific sources are well-credentialed, reliable, and nonpartisan. Your current sources are pandering to special interests and are insufficient to properly inform your decisions. For the sake of our national river, its ecology, and the powerful tourism economy that it supports, please don't gamble. Look beyond your current sources for truly "sound science."
Gordon Watkins is president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance.
Editorial on 04/22/2017
Arkansas Matters
Buffalo National River Tourism Boosts Local Economies
Posted: Apr 21, 2017
HARRISON, Ark. (News release) – A new National Park Service (NPS) report shows that 1,785,358 visitors to Buffalo National River in 2016 spent $77,556,600 in communities near the park. That spending supported 1,200 jobs in the local area and had a cumulative benefit to the local economy of $90,199,700.
“Buffalo National River welcomes visitors from across the country and around the world,” said Superintendent Kevin Cheri. “We are delighted to share the story of this place and the experiences it provides. We also feature the park as a way to introduce our visitors to this part of the country and all that it offers. National park tourism is a significant driver in the national economy, returning more than $10 for every $1 invested in the National Park Service, and it’s a big factor in our local economy as well. We appreciate the partnership and support of our neighbors and are glad to be able to give back by helping to sustain local communities.”
The peer-reviewed visitor spending analysis was conducted by economists Catherine Cullinane Thomas of the U.S. Geological Survey and Lynne Koontz of the National Park Service. The report shows $18.4 billion of direct spending by 331 million park visitors in communities within 60 miles of a national park. This spending supported 318,000 jobs nationally; 271,544 of those jobs are found in these gateway communities. The cumulative benefit to the U.S. economy was $34.9 billion.
According to the 2016 report, most park visitor spending was for lodging (31.2 percent) followed by food and beverages (27.2 percent), gas and oil (11.7 percent), admissions and fees (10.2 percent), souvenirs and other expenses (9.7 percent), local transportation (7.4 percent), and camping fees (2.5%). Report authors this year produced an interactive tool. Users can explore current year visitor spending, jobs, labor income, value added, and output effects by sector for national, state, and local economies. Users can also view year-by-year trend data. The interactive tool and report are available at the NPS Social Science Program webpage: go.nps.gov/vse.
The report includes information for visitor spending at individual parks and by state.
To learn more about national parks in Arkansas and how the National Park Service works with Arkansas communities to help preserve local history, conserve the environment, and provide outdoor recreation, go to www.nps.gov/arkansas.
Watch broadcast here: NWAHomepage.com
By: Scott Brewster
Northern Arkansas--- The Buffalo National River spans 153 miles through the heart of Northern Arkansas.
A National Park Service Report shows that visitors to the Buffalo River
spent over $77 million last year in communities near the national park.
That money supported 1,200 jobs in the area, and boosted the local
economy by over $90 million.
That flow of tourism money could soon dry up if things don't change with the Buffalo River.
It's beginning to have a new, tarnished reputation.
The Buffalo National River is a hot bed for outdoor lovers, but now it's in
the national spotlight for something else.
"I've probably had as many letters about the Buffalo River since I've been governor as any topic, and that says a lot," Governor Asa Hutchinson said.
The American Rivers Association just released it's annual list of the most endangered rivers in the United States.
Cracking the top ten, The Buffalo River sits at number 9.
"There's really two factors," Brian Haggard said. "One is the C and H Hog Farm that we've all heard a lot about that's been in the press and newspapers and the other reason is the potential cuts to the Department of the Interior in the National Park Service."
Brian Haggard is the Director for the Arkansas Water Resource Center and he says President Trump's recent proposed cuts to the EPA could make the matter worse.
"Something's going to have to give and a lot of times that might be data collection or land management or who knows what impact it might have on the Buffalo River," Haggard said.
Haggard says the biggest risk for those on the water especially those using a kayak or canoe is the potential risk of them coming into contact with hog waste.
"From a human health perspective what we'd be concerned with would be bacteria in particular e-coli," Haggard said.
C and H Hog Farm produces about 80,000 hogs a year, which is equivalent to the waste produced by about 30,000 people.
that waste is causing the water quality to decline due to runoff.
KNWA has been following this story for years, and we previously spoke with the owner of the hog farm, who says he's been following all state regulations.
"These fields that we have have been fertilized for years and years," Jason Henson, Co-Owner of C&H Hog Farm said. "We have rules and regulations on how much we can put out and when we can put it out, and how we can put it out."
Regardless of what's causing the river to be endangered, Haggard says we have to always be aware of what we're doing when it comes to protecting the environment.
"We have to realize that anything that we do as humans in the landscape, it's going to have an impact on our water resources," Haggard said.
How committed to Buffalo River is the governor?
Gov. Hutchinson’s guest column in the Democrat-Gazette on April 14, declares his allegiance to the protection of the Buffalo River. There are some major holes in this commitment.
The establishment of the Beautiful Buffalo River Action Committee and the Buffalo River Water Management Plan are clearly limited in scope as said entities do not appear to address the very real concerns of hog factory farming in the sensitive karst terrain of the Buffalo River watershed.
While the Buffalo River Management Plan is a welcome opportunity for people to collaborate on many levels, the facilitators of the Buffalo Water Management Plan clearly stated at both of the public meetings held Dec. 9 and March 30 that hog factory farming is beyond the developing water management’s plan scope. Hog factory farming will not be addressed by the water management plan.
Yet it is clear that committee and management plan would not have been created had it not been for the hog farm controversy and numerous public expressions. The National Park Service and the United States Geological Survey have submitted substantial and credible data to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality that indicates likely impairment on Big Creek where the current hog factory farm sits. Yet the committee and management plan have not addressed this data, which was a large part of the impetus for forming these entities.
Perhaps the governor does wish to protect this remarkable natural resource and the tourism industry resulting from the Buffalo River. To sincerely show his commitment he would look at all the science and direct the Department of Environmental Quality to deny the Regulation 5 permit for C&H hog factory and create a permanent moratorium on large-scale hog factory farming in the Buffalo River watershed.
GINNY MASULLO
Our governor admits that his passion for the Buffalo River colors his response to the available science. First he says, "Science, not emotion, must drive our approach to protecting the Buffalo National River." A bit later he says, "My love for our state and my passion to protect our water compels me to ensure that the studies are scientific and impartial."
Unfortunately for the river, love and passion are not the measures by which science is ensured. Unbiased rigorous study design and adherence to set protocols are the basis of true science. Despite assurances from the Department of Environmental Quality and Big Creek Research and Extension Team reports, the U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service, Karst Hydrogeology of the Buffalo National River, and Arkansas Game and Fish all beg to differ in their reports of impairment.
If wishes were fishes, the river would be swimming with healthy organisms and species. Instead, the USGS shows the tributary next to the C&H CAFO is alarmingly low in dissolved oxygen that allows smallmouth bass to breathe and flourish. The Department of Environmental Quality ignores the data, claiming it's too much information to process. Although the Big Creek research team reported high nitrate levels and peaks in phosphorus that promote stringy algae blooms that obscure the clear waters downstream, it continues to repeat that the water is okay.
We applaud our governor's love for the Buffalo, but ask him to keep an eye on the science, read the Regulation 5 comments on the Department of Environmental Quality's website from the Buffalo National River superintendent, the Ozark Society, Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, noted geologists, and former Environmental Quality employees.
Sometimes, Governor, your closest advisers are not your most objective sources of impartial information.
MARTI OLESEN
Ponca
Editorial on 04/18/2017
Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization
Copyright @ 2019
Contact Us