Menu
Log in


Buffalo River Watershed Alliance

Log in

what's New This Page contains all Media posts

  • 21 May 2014 9:12 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2014/04/27/manure-spraying-under-scrutiny/
    Environment, Health & Welfare
    Manure spraying under scrutiny

    New method of dispersing waste can damage landscape, disrupt lives


    By Ron Seely
    Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism
    Scott Murray did not want to leave the home in rural Juneau County where he and his family had lived for more than 20 years. But with the house surrounded on three sides by manure irrigation systems, life had become a nightmare.
    “It even got into the walls of our home,” Murray said of the liquid manure spray that drifted onto his property from the Central Sands Dairy across the road. “It was an ammonia smell. It hurt so bad even to breathe.”
    In 2011, the Murrays sold their house and moved.
    The buyer?
    Central Sands Dairy.
    “And it’s a good thing,” Murray said, “because my property wasn’t worth a nickel.”
    Life for the Murrays, along with other Wisconsin families, has been disrupted by the relatively rare practice in Wisconsin of using water irrigation systems to spray liquid manure on farm fields.
    Now the issue has taken on new urgency as more large dairy farms consider using the practice. A work group formed by the state Department of Natural Resources and run by the University of Wisconsin-Extension is completing a study and beginning to weigh whether to toughen regulation of manure irrigation. Its initial report is due out by fall. The practice is regulated under current law with restrictions on spraying too close to homes and wells.
    Some research suggests that the plethora of chemicals and pathogens found in liquid manure can have serious health impacts, ranging from respiratory disease to potentially lethal antibiotic resistant infections. Opponents fear wider use of manure irrigation will increase the risk of human illness and drinking water contamination.
    Critics also question the ability of the DNR, relying mostly on citizen complaints and self-reporting by the huge dairies, to adequately regulate a practice that has already been shown to pollute waters and drive people from their homes.
    Such concerns have prompted officials in Wisconsin’s Adams County to pass a moratorium against the practice.
    It is also an issue elsewhere in the country.
    In Minnesota, according to the Wisconsin DNR, 10 counties prohibit manure irrigation.
    “We’re getting more and more requests in the department to use the technology.” – Andrew Craig, a Department of Natural Resources water resources specialist working with the manure irrigation group
    In North Carolina, 95 percent of the swine farms use manure irrigation. Fish kills and pollution prompted state officials to ban the practice on new or expanding CAFOs, and farms now must follow much more restrictive regulations. In Michigan, a company shut down its mega-farms after violations and lawsuits related to the flawed use of manure irrigation.
    Applying liquid manure to fields using pipelines and farm irrigation systems is less expensive than trucking manure and applying it with traditional land-spreading rigs. Proponents also say it is less likely to pollute because it allows for more precise application of manure, which provides necessary nutrients to the soil. And runoff is less likely when manure can be applied when crops are in the field, they say.
    Currently, 14 of the state’s industrial-sized dairy farms, also called Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, use manure irrigation, according to the state DNR.
    That number could rise dramatically. Wisconsin has 258 dairy farms categorized as CAFOs.
    “We’re getting more and more requests in the department to use the technology,” said Andrew Craig, a DNR water resources specialist who is working with the manure irrigation group.
    The issue is tied inextricably to the controversial spread of CAFOs across the Wisconsin landscape. The farms produce overwhelming amounts of manure and have angered and frustrated nearby residents who feel they have little control over the growth and operations of the industrial farms. Cattle on Wisconsin farms produce as much waste each year as the combined populations of Tokyo and Mexico City, according to calculations by Gordon Stevenson, a retired former chief of the DNR’s runoff management section.
    The DNR advisory work group is examining studies of manure irrigation, weighing the still-uncertain science of potential impacts. The group’s role is advisory and carries no legal weight but the panel could eventually recommend best management practices or changes to regulations.
    But, in the meantime, the DNR continues to grant approvals for CAFOs to use manure spraying, once even exempting an applicant from current regulations, according to a legal challenge. Critics doubt the work group will ban the practice, given that the push to expand it is coming from big agricultural interests.
    “I get the feeling that it’s just a matter of how we’re going to do it, not whether it is going to be done,” said Lynn Utesch, a member of the work group who runs a small farm in Kewaunee County and is a vocal opponent of CAFOs.
    Maximize the benefits

    In one of the most controversial permits, the DNR approved the use of manure irrigation by Ebert Dairy Enterprises in Kewaunee County. With a recent expansion, the dairy will generate and spread or spray more than 55 million gallons of liquid manure and wastewater a year on fields.
    “Admittedly, on its face (manure irrigation) sounds like a bad idea. It’s an issue people make up their minds about before they know everything about it.” –Ken Genskow, associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
    According to a legal challenge from 10 Kewaunee County residents, the DNR exempted the operation from safeguards in current law, including a rule that prevents spraying on fields with soils that are too shallow. Craig denied that such exemptions were granted. He argued that soil depths on the fields in question are adequate and that exemptions were not necessary.
    Ken Genskow, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who chairs the work group, said it is focusing closely on the issue of manure irrigation rather than broader CAFO issues. He said the group is committed to a thorough, objective review, weighing benefits and potential health and environmental impacts.
    “The trick with this,” Craig added, “will be to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems.”
    “Admittedly, on its face it sounds like a bad idea,” Genskow said of manure irrigation. “It’s an issue people make up their minds about before they know everything about it.”
    Genskow said he has come to appreciate some of the benefits of the practice, including the ability to better control the application of manure.
    This is actually the second incarnation of the study group. It was reorganized by the DNR last year after critics complained that the first panel was stacked with CAFO operators and other supporters of manure irrigation. The new 18-member panel, which has been meeting since July, includes scientists, public health officials, agronomists, CAFO operators and their critics, such as Utesch.
    The study group includes Kenn Buelow, dairy manager and part owner of Holsum Dairies, two CAFOs in northeastern Wisconsin near Hilbert. Holsum was named a 2012 winner of the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards. Buelow said the farm favors center-pivot manure irrigation because it is cheaper and better for the environment.
    Because manure is piped to the irrigation units, the use of large trucks that damage roads is unnecessary, Buelow said. He also noted that manure can be applied to growing crops during the growing season instead of being spread on bare fields, reducing the chances of excess manure running into streams and seeping into groundwater.
    “I think there are a lot of benefits for water quality,” Buelow said.
    The danger of over spraying

    But critics and even some proponents of manure irrigation say the practice can threaten water supplies. A 2007 report from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension that was generally favorable toward center-pivot systems said this was a major concern.
    “Though most center pivots are capable of applying water at rates similar to land applicators,” the authors found, “the temptation to use the system to supplement rainfall with liquid animal manure could result in over application of manure.”
    Rick Dove, an environmental activist who belongs to a conservation group called the Waterkeeper Alliance, fought the use of manure spraying in North Carolina for years. He said the spray units there were being used by hog farmers even when fields were saturated.
    “It couldn’t be absorbed,” Dove said of the manure. “There was no place for them to spray, yet they were spraying everywhere. We had terrible fish kills.”
    Part of the problem stems from the lake-sized CAFO storage lagoons that are sometimes filled near to overflowing with the liquid manure from thousands of animals. This creates pressure on operators to find uses for the waste. Noted the Nebraska report, “some producers regard manure distribution as a ‘waste disposal’ problem rather than distribution of a valuable resource.”
    The lagoons come with their own problems. A rupture of one such lagoon in North Carolina spilled more than 20 million gallons of liquid manure into the nearby New River, killing millions of fish.
    In Michigan, where manure irrigation is used on both dairy and pig CAFOs, excessive application has been a recurring problem, according to Lynn Henning, an anti-CAFO activist.
    Henning, who was awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her efforts to force more oversight of big farms, spoke to the Wisconsin manure irrigation study group at its April meeting. She said several of Michigan’s large-scale farms have been cited for over application of liquid manure while using manure irrigation.
    In one instance, according to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the Vreba-Hoff dairies were cited in 2008 and 2009, including 707 instances over 128 days where the farms irrigated waste at concentrations more than twice the amount allowed.
    Henning said manure irrigation has caused so much damage that she would advise banning the practice, something Craig said the DNR would prefer not to happen. Henning recommended operator certification, testing of irrigated manure for chemicals and pathogens, and required groundwater and well testing in areas near the irrigation units.
    Buelow, the Wisconsin CAFO operator and work group member, agreed that excessive application can be a problem. “That’s really an operator thing,” he said. “It’s easier to throw a switch and keep applying. That’s probably why it happens.”

    Another form of manure irrigation involves using a single nozzle system such as this one. Courtesy of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
    Managing manure

    For Scott Murray and his family, being surrounded by Central Sands Dairy’s manure irrigation systems proved too much to bear. The smell and the ammonia from the liquid manure was so bad that his son refused to bring Murray’s grandchildren to visit.
    “He said, ‘Dad, I’m not bringing the kids over here anymore,’ “ Murray recalled. “And we had to move because my grandkids are my life.”
    Like Murray, Diane Miller lived across the street from Central Sands Dairy in Juneau County, not far from the city of Nekoosa. Miller and her husband, Ray, lived in the home for years before Central Sands Dairy was built on the site of a former vegetable farm.
    Life changed for the Millers after the arrival of Central Sands in 2007, along with its thousands of cows and large manure storage lagoon. Miller recalled a smell almost too powerful to endure.
    “We had so many flies it was like that scene from ‘The Exorcist,’ ” Miller said. “The dog couldn’t lay out on the porch.”
    The problems mounted. “The manure would cover our mailbox,” Miller said. “I had to cancel our newspaper because I’d go out to get it and it would be wet and discolored. … I like to take walks but you learned how to time your walks. You can’t use your property, can’t hang out clothes. You can’t barbecue.”
    Miller said she spoke with the DNR about the problem but the over spraying continued. Three years ago, she gave up and moved. Like Murray, she sold her home to Central Sands Dairy when the farm offered to buy the house.
    In a Nov. 18, 2011 internal memorandum, Terence Kafka, a DNR water resource specialist, confirmed that the agency had received numerous complaints from 2008 to 2010 about over spraying by Central Sands Dairy. Staff confirmed Central Sands was spraying too close to homes and private wells.
    Craig said Central Sands was not cited for the violations and said the farm has since corrected the problems.
    Jeff Sommers, an owner and general manager with Central Sands and also a member of the manure irrigation work group, declined to comment on the complaints from Murray and Miller about the farm’s manure irrigation practices.
    But Sommers defended the farm’s continued use of manure irrigation. He said it now uses a biodigester that reduces the level of phosphorus and pathogens in the manure. He also said the farm follows a nutrient management plan, required of all CAFOs, that prevents over application.
    “We do a good job of managing our manure,” Sommers said.
    Sommers said manure irrigation allows operators to spread applications over the course of the growing season and “allows us to apply at the right time and in the right amount and with the least impact to the environment.”
    Human health risks

    While farmers such as Sommers tout benefits, others worry about public health risks from airborne manure.
    Those concerns are high on the list of topics on the manure irrigation working group agenda. In fact, the DNR is paying $338,000 for a two-year study of risks related to drifting manure from the irrigation units.
    “We’re putting our money where our mouth is,” Craig said.
    The research is being conducted by Mark Borchardt, a microbiologist with the federal Agricultural Research Service, and Rebecca Larson, a researcher at UW-Madison. Borchardt said researchers are conducting field trials to study the spread of several manure pathogens that can make people sick, including E. coli, salmonella, cryptosporidium and giardia.
    Borchardt said the study has three stages. First, it will measure the levels of pathogens at various distances from the irrigation unit. Second, a computer model will track dispersion of the pathogens, taking into account variables such as wind speed, temperature and sunlight. Finally, the pathogen concentrations will be plugged into another computer model that helps scientists assess the risk to humans.
    The pathogens, Borchardt said, die as they travel away from their source, killed by sunlight and warmer temperatures. Even letting manure sit in a lagoon for a certain period of time kills some pathogens.
    “We’re talking about micro-organisms here, not dust particles,” Borchardt said. “They can die very quickly.”
    The research will be used by the manure irrigation work group to consider whether current rules undefined a restriction on spraying within 500 feet of residences, for example undefined are adequate.
    While the work group will have new and precise science to make decisions related to pathogens and drift, other air quality problems such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide as well as odor are not being dealt with as thoroughly by the panel, according to critics.
    “That’s not the central focus of our work group,” Craig said of air quality issues other than drift and pathogens.
    One problem is that much of the scientific data regarding CAFOs and air quality is inconclusive and incomplete. Borchardt, for example, said the drift and pathogen studies his group is conducting are the first of their kind.
    In a March 27 letter to Kewaunee Cares, an anti-CAFO group, researchers from the John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, wrote that “the relationships between intensive livestock operations, air quality, and the health of rural residents are poorly understood.” The letter cited these “data gaps” as reason for more stringent reporting and monitoring by the industrial farms.
    Some observers also question the DNR’s ability to exert adequate oversight of manure irrigation. They say it lacks the manpower and authority to make sure that manure spreading plans are followed, irrigation units are operated correctly, and setbacks and other restrictions are followed.
    But Craig said the agency’s inspection staff is back to its full force of 11 after months of being down three inspectors. He added, however, that the enforcement process remains largely complaint driven.
    It is a system that arguably failed Diane Miller, whose complaints resulted in minimal enforcement action against Central Sands Dairy. She is happy now to be resettled, far away from the dairy in Nekoosa, though her husband, Ray, has since died of cancer.
    When Miller thinks of him, she thinks of the house in the country where they lived for so many years. She misses the happier days there.
    “It was our home,” she recalled. “It was where I lived with my husband. But it was unpleasant for me to live there anymore.”

    This story is part of Water Watch Wisconsin, a project examining water quantity and quality issues across the state. The nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Television, other news media and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
    All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

    Editor’s note, published April 30, 2014: Christa Westerberg, a Madison attorney who provides legal services to the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, has represented residents challenging the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ handling of manure irrigation. Westerberg provided the Center with publicly available information about the practice. She did not provide the Center with legal services or participate in the writing or editing of this report.



    Water Watch Wisconsin

    This story is part of the Water Watch Wisconsin project. The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Television and The Capital Times are examining the quality and supply of Wisconsin’s water.
    On Television

    Center reporter Ron Seely discusses this story on Wisconsin Public Television’s Here and Now.
    On Radio

    Center reporter Ron Seely discusses this story on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Central Time.
  • 07 May 2014 12:10 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    E. coli levels high in waters near hog farm
    By Ryan McGeeney
    Posted: May 7, 2014 at 4:40 a.m.
     
    The environmental research team tasked with collecting data near a Newton County hog farm released its second quarterly report late last week, noting several temporary elevations in bacterial levels in nearby waterways.

    The Big Creek Research Team, led by Andrew Sharpley, a professor of soils and water quality at the University of Arkansas, is a project of the university's Division of Agriculture. It was devised by several state legislators last year to respond to growing public concern regarding C&H Hog Farms, the first large-scale, swine-concentrated animal-feeding operation to receive a Regulation 6 permit inside the Buffalo National River watershed.

    The farm, which is permitted to house approximately 2,500 sows and as many as 4,000 piglets at a time, is located in Mount Judea near Big Creek, about 6 miles upstream from its confluence with the Buffalo National River.

    The research team began deploying equipment to gather water and soil samples in late 2013. In early February, the team published its first quarterly report, which outlined both its research strategy and its plans for establishing baseline data.

    Sharpley and his team placed monitoring equipment on three of 17 grassland fields surrounding the farm's 40-acre production facility. The 17 fields cover about 630 acres, upon which the farm operators are permitted to spread the millions of gallons of manure produced annually by the hogs inside the facility.

    The team is monitoring soil, surface water and groundwater for the presence of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus; dissolved oxygen; and bacteria such as E. coli, which is associated with pathogens found in animal waste.

    The report features weekly sampling results from both the first and second quarters, collected at four points along Big Creek, both upstream and downstream from the farm and production facilities, and from a spring located approximately half a mile east of Big Creek in Mount Judea.

    Although most of the reported measurements were within state limits established by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, several instances of very high levels of E. coli were detected during weekly sample collections. Environmental Quality Department Regulation 2, which governs water-quality standards throughout the state, sets acceptable levels for minerals, nutrients, bacteria and other substances in surface and groundwaters in Arkansas.

    According to the regulation, levels of E. coli should not exceed 400 colonies per 100 milliliters of water in "primary contact waters," which are waters used for recreational activities such as swimming or canoeing between May 1 and Sept. 30. Limitation guidelines for waters between Oct. 1 and April 30 are considerably higher: 2,000 colonies per 100 milliliters of water, using a single-sample technique.

    On Oct. 1, one sample taken downstream from C&H Hog Farms registered 2,620 colonies per 100 milliliters; on Nov. 6, a sample taken from the spring east of the creek registered more than 8,500 colonies, and another sample taken upstream from the farm registered more than 4,000 colonies.

    Sharpley said most of the elevated readings were attributable to high rainfall and flooding events, when runoff across an entire area sweeps large amounts of matter into waterways. Although much of the public criticism aimed at the farm has focused on concerns that such rain events would ultimately flush manure byproducts into the Buffalo National River no matter how well-executed the farm's nutrient-management plan, Sharpley said that because high levels of E. coli were detected both upstream and downstream of the farm, it was impossible to pinpoint a single source of the bacteria.

    Chuck Bitting, the natural resource program manager for the Buffalo National River, said water samples he has collected from Big Creek and below the creek's confluence with the river over the past several months also have shown periodic increases in E. coli that have been much higher than samples taken from other comparable streams in the area during the same time period.

    "A real high number [of E. coli bacteria] doesn't bother us," Bitting said, noting that what concerned him about some of the recent samples was that they presented high bacteria counts with very low levels of dissolved oxygen.

    "That indicates to us that there's a lot of biological oxygen demand, probably a lot of biological activity, like algae."

    Bitting said the low dissolved-oxygen rates were unusual because the samples were taken during and after rain events, when high levels of turbulence in water typically results in higher-than-average levels of dissolved oxygen.

    According to the quarterly report, the Big Creek Research Team is not yet monitoring for dissolved oxygen in waterways but plans to begin installing the necessary monitoring equipment this quarter.

    According to Regulation 2, at least 25 percent of eight or more samples taken between May 1 and September 30 must exceed the state's E. coli standards before a waterway is considered "impaired" by bacteria.

    Sharpley said the research team will begin working with the U.S. Geological Society to analyze stream and groundwater data this quarter, as well as beginning "dye trace" studies, something critics of the farm have pushed for in the past year. Because much of Newton County, including the Mount Judea area, sits on a karst geology, any contaminants that infiltrate groundwater in the area may move very fast and in unpredictable directions.

    Dye trace studies are sometimes used to identify the path of groundwater in a particular area by introducing a small amount of dye with a unique radiological signature into a well, sinkhole, or other portal to groundwater, and reporting on where the dye reappears in other water bodies.

    Although several environmental-activist organizations that have spoken out against the Environmental Quality Department's decision to issue a permit to C&H Hog Farms have asked that dye trace studies be conducted through the hog farm's slurry ponds -- the two open-air lagoons that contain hog waste before it is applied to the surrounding grasslands -- Sharpley declined to say exactly where the researchers might insert the dye.

    "If I give you answers, they'll be immediately criticized by someone else, so I think we better decide amongst ourselves," Sharpley said.

    The report also addresses the need for long-term funding for the study to be effective. Although the state Legislature appropriated more than $340,000 from the Arkansas Rainy Day Fund to initiate the study and to fund the research through its first year, the report says that "additional funds" will be needed to pay for sample collection and analysis for a full five years, which is considered the minimum amount of time needed to determine the long-term effects on waterways in the area.

    The quarterly report can be viewed and downloaded at http://arkansasagnews.uark.edu/CH_Quarterly_Report_Jan-March_2014.pdf.

    NW News on 05/07/2014

  • 06 May 2014 7:25 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    NOTICE OF TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN PERMITS
    The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APC&EC), pursuant to its authority under Arkansas Code Annotated, Sec. 8-4-202, et seq., has imposed a temporary moratorium on the issuance by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality of any new permits or coverage for medium or large confined animal operations (CAOs) and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for swine in the Buffalo River Watershed (BRW). The action was taken at the APC&EC’s regular meeting April 25, 2014. The APC&EC minute order adopting the moratorium takes note of the historic importance of the Buffalo River, as well as its location in a region with sensitive geologic and hydrologic issues, and includes a finding that the proliferation of large and medium CAOs and CAFOs in the BRW “...will pose an unnecessary risk to the public health, safety and welfare....” The moratorium may remain in force for up to 180 days from the date of the APC&EC’s action. While the moratorium is in effect, the APC&EC’s rulemaking process also will be underway for proposed revisions to APC&EC Regulations 5 and 6 to impose a permanent ban on new medium and large CAOs and CAFOs in the BRW. In a separate action at the April 25, 2014, meeting, the APC&EC voted to initiate its rulemaking process for a third-party proposal to amend Regulations 5 and 6 to establish ban on new medium and large CAOs and CAFOs in the BRW. For the purposes of the moratorium, a medium or large CAO or CAFO is considered to be one with either 750 or more swine weighing 55 pounds or more, or 3,000 or more swine weighing less than 55 pounds. The BRW is considered to be the area within the United States Geologic Service’s Hydrologic Unit Code 11010005. The moratorium does not prohibit the ADEQ from issuing permit renewals or permit modifications for medium or large CAOs and CAFOs in the BRW that have an active permit as of the date of the moratorium’s adoption. Nor does the moratorium prohibit the ADEQ from issuing a new or modified permit for any medium or large CAO or CAFO in the BRW with an active permit as of the date of the moratorium’s adoption as long as the approval would not increase the number of swine currently permitted in the BRW. The moratorium will expire on October 22, 2014. Final actions of the APC&EC may be appealed in accordance with provisions in APC&EC Regulation 8. Copies of various documents associated with the adoption of the moratorium, the third- party rulemaking proposals to amend APC&EC Regulations 5 and 6, and the current version of APC&EC Regulation 8 can be found on the APC&EC/ADEQ website at: www.adeq.state.ar.us.
    Published April 30, 2014 Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission
    ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL Medium and Large Swine AND ECOLOGY COMMISSION CAFO/CAO - Moratorium
    MINUTE ORDER NO. 14
    -~
    PAGE 1 OF '1.
    The one-hundred and fifty (150) mile Buffalo River flows through the Ozarks in northwestern Arkansas. The upper 15.8 miles of the Buffalo River are part of the Nation's wild and scenic river system under the federal Wild and Scenic River Act, 16 U.S.c. § 1274(a)(135). The lower one-hundred and thirty-five (135) miles of the Buffalo River, including the River's back waters, riparian zone, and adjacent wetlands, are included in the national park system administered by the National Park Service. 16 U.S.c. § 460m-8 to 460m-14. The entire one-hundred and fifty (150) mile length of the Buffalo River is listed in the National Park Service's Nationwide Rivers Inventory that potentially qualify as wild, scenic, or recreational river areas.
    The Buffalo River's watershed is located in a karst region. Karst geology is comprised of an abundance of limestone. Limestone is typically porous rock that can form pathways resulting in rapid discharges into nearby ground and surface water resources.
    The Buffalo River's watershed provides habitat for numerous species of trees, plants, birds, game, and aquatic life. It is estimated that more than seven-hundred and fifty-thousand (750,000) people visit the Buffalo River, and the Buffalo National River Park area, to fish , float, swim , hike, camp, and engage in other recreational activities.
    On November I, 20 II, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") issued National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit ARG590000. General Permit ARG590000 applies to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO 's) that are located in the State of Arkansas. General Permit ARG590000 covers any operation that meets the definition of a CAFO. The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission also permits confined animal operations pursuant to Commission Regulation No.5.
    Swine CAFOs and swine confined animal operations have a propensity to produce large amounts of manure and wastewater annu ally. The manure and wastewater from a swine CAFO and swine confined animal operations are typically land applied. Because General Permit ARG590000 does not distinguish between karst regions and other regions of the State, and because Commission Regulation No.5 and General Permit ARG590000 do not expressly limit swine CAFOs and swine confined animal operations from being established in the Buffalo River's watershed, the Commission finds that a proliferation of medium and large swine CAFOs and swine confined animal operations in the Buffalo River's watershed will pose an unnecessary risk to the public health, safety and welfare which requires a change in existing rules and an immediate moratorium on the establishment of any new medium and large swine CAFOs and medium and large swine confined animal operations in the Buffalo River's watershed over the next one-hundred and eighty (180) days. This moratorium will allow for the initiation, and potential adoption, of rule changes that will prohibit future medium and large swine CAFOs under Regulation No. 6 and medium and large swine confined animal operations under Regulation No.5 from being established in the Buffalo River's watershed.
    ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL Medium and Large Swine AND ECOLOGY COMMISSION CAFO/CAO - Moratorium

    MINUTE ORDER NO. 14
    -~
    PAGE 1 OF "1
    For the purposes of this moratorium, a medium or large swine CAFO or confined animal operation is a CAFO or confined animal operation with either seven-hundred and fifty (750) or more swine weighing fifty-five (55) pounds or more; or three thousand (3000) or more swine weighing less than fifty-five (55) pounds. For the purposes of this moratorium the Buffalo River's watershed is the area within the United States Geologic Service Hydrologic Unit Code 11010005. The Commission enacts this moratorium pursuant to its authority found at Ark. Code. Ann. § 8-4-202 et seq., and the Director of ADEQ shall not issue any new permits or provide coverage under Regulation No. 5 or Regulation No. 6 for medium or large swine confined animal operations or CAFOs for the next one-hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of the adoption of this minute order.
    This moratorium does not prohibit the Director from issuing a permit renewal or permit modification for a medium or large swine CAFO or confined animal operation with an active permit as of the date of the adoption of this minute order. This moratorium shall also not prohibit the Director from issuing a new permit or permit modification under Regulation No.5 or Regulation No.6 for a medium or large swine CAFO or confined animal operation active as of the adoption date of this minute order, as long as any new permits or permit modifications will not increase the number of swine currently permitted in the Buffalo River's watershed.

  • 06 May 2014 7:23 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Factory Farms Under Fire for "Manure Spraying"
    By Lindsay Abrams, Salon

    02 May 14

    o here’s what factory farms are up to these days: They’re using commercial sprinklers to spray animal manure over fields. That’s right undefined they are literally spewing a bunch of shit into the air.

    The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism reports <http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2014/04/27/manure-spraying-under-scrutiny/> on the growing (yes, it’s growing) practice:
    Life for the Murrays, along with other Wisconsin families, has been disrupted by the relatively rare practice in Wisconsin of using water irrigation systems to spray liquid manure on farm fields.

    Now the issue has taken on new urgency as more large dairy farms consider using the practice. A work group formed by the state Department of Natural Resources and run by the University of Wisconsin-Extension is completing a study and beginning to weigh whether to toughen regulation of manure irrigation. Its initial report is due out by fall. The practice is regulated under current law with restrictions on spraying too close to homes and wells.

    Some research suggests that the plethora of chemicals and pathogens found in liquid manure can have serious health impacts, ranging from respiratory disease to potentially lethal antibiotic resistant infections. Opponents fear wider use of manure irrigation will increase the risk of human illness and drinking water contamination.

    Critics also question the ability of the DNR, relying mostly on citizen complaints and self-reporting by the huge dairies, to adequately regulate a practice that has already been shown to pollute waters and drive people from their homes.
    “Admittedly, on its face it sounds like a bad idea,” Ken Genskow, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said. “It’s an issue people make up their minds about before they know everything about it.” Genskow and others argue that spraying manure is both cheaper and better for the environment. But in North Carolina, where 95 percent of hog farms subscribe to the practice, state officials were compelled to step in and impose bans and stricter regulations after it led to fish kills and other pollution problems.

    The above-mentioned Murrays, it should be noted, made up their minds because the liquid manure spray was entering their home. “It hurt so bad even to breathe,” Scott Murray told Wisconsin Watch.
  • 06 May 2014 7:19 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    In The Bull's Eye - Our Environment in Cross Hairs Teresa Turk Guest Writer letter in Arkansas Democrat Gazette
  • 28 Apr 2014 7:31 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    Report presented by Carol Bitting to APC&E Commission, April 25, 2014

    Preliminary results of the dye tracing test on Big Creek are these; we initially injected dye into a dug well across the county road from C & H Hog Farm at 9:30 am Tuesday morning, April 22. We recovered the dye and visually observed it in three springs on the banks and beneath Big Creek. We also had a visual confirmation in a water sample from a nearby well, with a first observation at about 27 hours after injection, about 12:30 pm on Wednesday. The first observation of dye at land surface was noted and photographed at about 30.5 hours after injection in the three springs previously mentioned.

    Our preliminary calculation of groundwater velocity of these proven point-to-point locations on the groundwater flowline, assuming a straight-line determination, ranges from 1500 to 1700 feet per day in the subsurface, which is definitely a fast-flow karst system. The estimate of surface water velocity in the stream channel is about 50 times the groundwater velocity, around 3500 to 3600 feet per hour. This is consistent with rapid flux of waste, nutrients, and pathogens to Big Creek, and from there to the Buffalo National River. It is also consistent with increasing biofilm and bacterial growth on the streambed, and the high values of pathogens that Chuck Bitting of the National Park Service measured in the Buffalo National River about two weeks ago, and that Mike Masterson reported in the Arkansas Gazette on Saturday, April 19, 2014 on page 7B.


  • 28 Apr 2014 7:22 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Panel halts new pig-farm permits in watershed

     

    By Ryan McGeeney

    This article was published April 26, 2014 at 4:38 a.m.

    ·        


    The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission issued a 180-day moratorium Friday on the issuance of permits for medium- and large-scale, swine animal-feeding operations and concentrated animal-feeding operations within the Buffalo National River watershed.

    The moratorium - drafted and submitted by Charles Moulton, the commission’s administrative law judge - mirrors the narrow scope of proposed changes to Arkansas environmental Regulations 5 and 6, which govern liquid animal-waste systems and the administration of the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, respectively.

    The proposal to change those regulations, known as a “petition to initiate third-party rule making,” was initially filed April 11 by the Ozark Society, a nonprofit environmental organization, and the Arkansas Public Policy Panel, a nonprofit corporation that describes its purpose as organizing residents “to advocate in the public’s interest.”

    The petition seeks to prevent Teresa Marks, the director of the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, from issuing operational permits to any new medium- or large-scale swine operations inside the watershed, a geographic area that covers about three-quarters of both Newton and Searcy counties, and about one-quarter of Marion County.

    Bob Cross, president of the Ozark Society, said the attempt to amend the state environmental regulations is part of a multipronged effort to halt the growth and continued operation of large-scale, concentrated animal-feeding operations within the watershed, sparked by the issuance of the state’s first Regulation 6 permit in late 2012 to C&H Hog Farms in Mount Judea.

    “We’ve had two main objectives since we learned about [C&H Hog Farms],” Cross said. “First, prevent it from happening again. And second, to do something about C&H.”

    Public outcry over C&H Hog Farms began to mount in early 2013, after Buffalo National River Superintendent Kevin Cheri publicly denounced the Farm Service Agency, a unit of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that produced an environmental assessment of the proposed farm, for failing to consult with the National Park Service or other agencies before issuing a “finding of no significant impact.”

    Several environmental-activist organizations have voiced concern that animal waste from the farm, which abuts Big Creek 6 miles from its confluence with the Buffalo National River, could pollute both groundwater and surface water with excessive nutrients and pathogens associated with animal waste, including E. coli.

    The Ozark Society is also party to an ongoing lawsuit against several federal and state agencies, charging that the Farm Service Agency’s environmental assessment was faulty, and, therefore, the agency should not have issued the loan guarantees that helped finance the construction of C&H Hog Farms.

    Ross Noland, one of two lawyers with the Arkansas Public Policy Panel who helped file the petition, said he felt the proposal ultimately would be successful because of its intentionally narrow scope.

    “We think we’ve designed a narrow and focused rule-making petition - we’re not casting a wide net here,” Noland said. “I think we’ve designed this for success.”

    More than a dozen members of the public addressed the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission during the public comment portion of Friday’s meeting in North Little Rock. Although several members of the watershed alliance encouraged the commissioners to adopt the petition, the vast majority of speakers voiced opposition.

    Most of those who opposed the petition identified themselves as farmers and repeatedly pleaded with the commission to adhere to scientific data, rather than emotional appeals. Many speakers also voiced concerns that banning swine operations from the watershed would set a dangerous precedent.

    Arkansas state Rep. Dan Douglas, R-Bentonville, emphasized that Arkansas farmers already must follow a stringent series of regulations and must submit a thorough nutrient-management plan to the state, outlining how animal waste will be handled.

    “By placing moratoriums and other restrictions, we are devaluing people’s private property,” Douglas said. “When does it end? Is it a moratorium on hog farms, then poultry farms, cattle farms, dairy, whatever? We need to be very careful. Tread softly.”

    Gordon Watkins, president of the watershed alliance , said he agreed that the commissioners should follow scientific data and noted a recent spike in E. coli levels found in water samples taken near the confluence of the Buffalo National River and Big Creek earlier in April.

    A medium-scale, swine animal-feeding operation is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as one housing between 750 and 2,499 swine weighing 55 pounds or more, or 3,000 to 9,999 swine weighing less than 55 pounds. A large-scale swine operation is defined as housing 2,500 or more swine weighing 55 pounds or more, or 10,000 or more swine weighing less than 55 pounds.

    C&H Hog Farms is the first and only holder of a Regulation 6 permit in the state of Arkansas. There are more than 160 active Regulation 5 permits for animal-feeding operations that include the standard industrial classification for swine. Only about a half-dozen such permitted facilities exist inside the watershed, according to geological mapping data provided by the Environmental Quality Department. Four of those farms are in Newton County, and a fifth is in neighboring Searcy County.

    Neither the moratorium nor the proposed regulation changes will retroactively affect C&H Hog Farms, Marks said.

    Within the next week, a public announcement of the proposed regulation changes will be published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and other newspapers, initiating a 45-day public comment period. The Pollution Control and Ecology Commission will hold a public meeting at 6 p.m. June 17 at the Durand Conference Center in Harrison. The deadline for public comment regarding the proposed amendments is 4:30 p.m. July 1.

    Once the public comment period closes, the petitioners will be required to address all comments in written form. The petitioners then will report back to the commission, which will seek legislative review of the issue before issuing a decision. Noland said he expects the entire process to take between four and six months.

    If the petition fails, the moratorium issued Friday will expire in six months, and the Environmental Quality Department again will have the authority to issue Regulation 5 and 6 permits inside the watershed.

    Information for this article was contributed by David Smith of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

    Front Section, Pages 5 on 04/26/2014

    Print Headline: Panel halts new pig-farm permits in watershed

  • 26 Apr 2014 7:13 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Ozark Society and Arkansas Public Policy Panel pushing rule to ban new large swine farms in Buffalo River watershed

    Posted by David Ramsey on Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:01 PM

    The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission today granted petitions to begin the rulemaking process to prohibit new controlled animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the Buffalo National River Watershed. The petitions were brought by the Arkansas Public Policy Panel and the Ozark Society, and would prohibit the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality from issuing new permits to swine operations in the watershed with 750 or more swine weighing 55 pounds or more, or 3,000 or more swine weighing less than 55 pounds.

    The proposed rules would only impact permitting for new operations, not C&H Hog Farm, the 6,500-hog facility near Big Creek, one of the largest tributaries of the Buffalo National River. The Ozark Society is part of a coalition of groups that have raised concerns about environmental risks to the watershed and the impact on the surrounding community and is suing the federal agencies that approved C&H's loan application over what they allege was an inadequate environmental assessment.

    "We had two objectives," said Robert Cross, president of the Ozark Society. "One was to do something about C&H, to get the farm moved out of the watershed. The other was to accomplish something so that future farms like that couldn't be built in the watershed."

    Normally, ADEQ initiates the rulemaking process but it is possible for a third party to do so. Now that the APCE Commission has granted the petition, the Public Policy Panel and the Ozark Society will put their proposed rules up for public comment after a public hearing scheduled for June 17 in Harrison. The petitioners and ADEQ will then have to respond to any comments, and if the Commission approves the rules, they'll go before the legislature. If the legislature approves, it then goes back to the Commission for final approval. Ross Noland, attorney for the petitioners, said that if everything went smoothly, the rules could potentially go into effect by late August, but expects that the process could be longer.

    The rules have to get through the Public Health committee, the Rules and Regulations committee and finally Legislative Council, which won't be easy.

    ADEQ Director Teresa Marks said the department did not have a position on the proposed rules one way or the other:

    The department will enforce the rule if the Commision adopts it. We're happy that the people of Arkansas are getting to weigh in on this issue and we will be happy to enforce any rule that is adopted. It's a third-party rulemaking so we're not advocating or opposing. Now if it was something we thought would create environmental harm we certainly would oppose that. But we don't see that this is going to create any environmental harm, so we're not opposing it.

  • 20 Apr 2014 8:17 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    http://mikemastersonsmessenger.com/dangerous-e-coli-soars-along-big-creek/

    By Mike Masterson
    Posted: April 19, 2014 at 2:52 a.m.
    "E. coli soars in Big Creek By Mike Masterson Posted: April 19, 2014 at 2:52 a.m. National Park Service water-quality tests conducted earlier this month along Big Creek near where it converges with the Buffalo National River showed harmful E. coli bacteria colonies soaring to about 30 times the number ordinarily found in that tributary of the country’s first national river. That’s what Chuck Bitting, the natural resources program manager for the Buffalo National River, told me this week. Bitting also was concerned by the low level of dissolved oxygen measured in this stream that flows alongside the state-permitted hog factory six miles upstream at Mount Judea. He was quick to say that while the reading of 4,880 E. coli colonies per 100 milliliters of water represented an unexpectedly big number, the sample was taken when the creek was coming up, when bacterial counts are expected to be greatest. By comparison, the 64 previous tests conducted over the past year showed levels in the creek have ranged between a mean of 63 colonies per 100 milliliters during regular (base) flows to a mean of 229 colonies when high waters were falling. The latest was the only test taken as waters were rising, Bitting explained. E. coli (Escherichia coli) in streams is released in waste from digestive systems of warm-blooded organisms. It’s the cause behind a number of infections in humans. The Park Service hasn’t determined the source of the contamination. Other streams tested nearby were also much higher than normal, yet had about half of the E. coli of Big Creek, and dissolved oxygen in normal ranges. “The Big Creek E. coli result was a large anomalous number from what we are used to seeing,” said Bitting. He said the agency began testing Big Creek about 13 months ago, as the Cargill supplied and supported hog factory housing up to 6,500 swine began operating. “We knew we needed a better baseline to detect contamination over time,” he said. “This sample drawn about a quarter-mile from where Big Creek enters the Buffalo is by far the highest we’ve seen yet.” Bitting said that result came following heavy rainfall that drained from surrounding forests and fields, making it difficult to determine the source of so much E. coli. He also said it’s common for those levels to rise throughout the Buffalo River watershed with the spring rains each year. “Still, I was somewhat concerned to see such a high number last week,” he said. Asked if he suspected that so many hogs arriving in the watershed then spraying their waste across some 500-plus acres of fields near Big Creek is behind the huge elevation of contamination through runoff, Bitting said: “I hope the answer is no.” More Park Service water tests are scheduled, which could help determine just how “anamolous” this early April reading proves to be and hopefully pinpoint the cause of all that bacteria. Being employed by the National Park Service, Bitting understandably must speak guardedly about his work on behalf of that agency. I, however, am not thusly constrained. And my opinion: I’m not the least surprised to see this unacceptable test result. Neither are many others, I suspect. I’m not saying all this elevated E. coli is draining from the hog-farm fields. But even the head of our state Department of Environmental Quality (cough) Teresa Marks, who somehow retains her gubernatorial-appointed position, has been quoted saying she won’t be surprised if it does pollute in these mountains underlain by porous limestone karst. After all, my friends, in wrongheadedly approving the permit allowing a hog concentrated animal feeding operation into this wholly inappropriate location, the state actually allows this factory to leak thousands of gallons a day of untreated hog waste into the Buffalo River watershed. Strikes me that privately owned Cargill also finds itself in a most precarious public relations position if it’s shown that the factory it helped create before fully supplying and supporting it is in fact responsible for these highly elevated bacteria readings, or any other contamination flowing into the Buffalo. Perhaps testing can distinguish between the types of contamination from different animals, or perhaps compare E. coli readings in Big Creek from above and below the factory."
  • 12 Apr 2014 9:10 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)
    A Letter to Cargill Northwest Arkansas Times

    By Mike Masterson
    Posted: April 12, 2014 at 2:41 a.m.

    While a single voice raised in the court of public opinion can prompt change, I’ve found even greater power from voices lifted in unison.

    Many outcries lifted in harmony can carry enormous influence when getting the attention of those elected to lead in a democratic republic. Sometimes a sufficient outcry also will move morally astute decision-makers in private commerce to reform their own honest misjudgments and errors.

    Carol Bitting of Newton County obviously shares my beliefs.

    She recently sent a letter containing her opinions to Michael Martin, the director of communications for the privately owned Minnesota-based food supplier Cargill Inc. That’s the multinational food giant that decided to support the nationally controversial hog factory our state permitted to operate, thereby regularly spreading tons of swine waste across pastures near the banks of Big Creek. That’s a major tributary that enters the Buffalo National River six miles downstream.

    As readers likely know, I have no problem, whenever I feel it’s warranted, sharing what readers express in common with my own beliefs. This woefully misplaced hog factory falls whole hog (sorry) into that category.

    Read what Ms. Bitting had to opine to Mr. Martin in her April 1 message, then decide if you might have thoughts to share with the man who communicates to the world on behalf of Cargill and its decisions at michael_martin@cargill.com. I’m sure Mike would enjoy hearing from every Arkansan and others with an opinion about the factory’s incredibly misplaced location. Imagine the potential PR nightmare that company will face should hog waste leak into our country’s first national river.

    Ms. Bitting’s letter (edited for space): “Mr. Martin, it’s been a while since we have communicated ... there is a real problem in the sensitive Big Creek area in which Cargill has up to 6,500 hogs at C&H Hog Farms.

    “The CAFO listed above is sitting in one of Arkansas’ most sensitive and scenic locations. It’s an area visited by motorcyclist[s], scenic drivers, rockclimbers, hikers, fishermen, etc. This area is surrounded by the Arkansas Game and Fish Wildlife Area, National Forest, National Park Service and private property owners. Those of us fortunate enough to own property in this incredibly beautiful scenic area of the Buffalo National River Watershed are realizing that C&H and Cargill Inc. [are] destroying our scenic beauty and our way of life.

    “The putrid smell of hog waste permeates the air and when you want to take a deep breath and share it with the visual of the area, you reel with anger. The smell makes my nose, eyes and throat burn, not to mention the almost immediate head ache.

    “You have hogs in this barn and you may have been approached by [the factory’s owner/operators] to contract [with them], but as a corporation known for swine production you knew the destruction that this community would experience.

    “When does … compassion prevail? This swine CAFO is not sustainable. Destroying the waters, soil and air quality of the hundreds of people who live nearby and those who seek a living here for a company that already boasts incredible profits is unsustainable to local mankind.

    “Mt. Judea school is located just one-half air mile from your hogs. The daily exposure to the noxious odors is overpowering to the students and teachers. I know it is because I’ve been in the area during lunch when the students are outside for the few moments of sunshine and fresh air break they get. Are you doing something for these children? Do you consider their health? They are our country’s future, do you want their bodies weakened before they are developed? I can’t take a deep breath when the air is so heavy with hog odors, they are more susceptible than I. Think on that and consider what you are doing to those 300-plus students and teachers.

    “You are destroying a very unique lifestyle, one that is treasured by all who have sacrificed to have it and many who wish they could, not to mention, the quality of life, and economic income to the rest of Arkansans and our scenic beauty. Do you ignore this impact? … Is that your normal practice?

    “I ask that you remove these hogs from … the 23 acres C&H purchased in 2012 and if you wish to continue business with these owners do so in a matter that is sustainable to the location … outside the Buffalo National River watershed. Anyplace that is not sustainable is not appropriate and should not be considered by the company and anyone involved.”

    So, how do you suppose Ms. Bitting really feels about all those hogs ensconced around Big Creek at Mount Judea? And you?

Buffalo River Watershed Alliance is a non profit 501(c)(3) organization

Copyright @ 2019


Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software