Madison County Record - Sept 11th - Ellen Kreth, Publisher
FARM BUREAU SUPPORT LIFTING BUFFAO RIVER MORATORIUMS
Farm Bureau supports lifting Buffalo River moratoriums
Proposed regulation reduces public notice.
An Arkansas Department of Agriculture proposed regulation has opened the door to the possible lifting of a moratorium of liquid animal waste permits in the Buffalo National River Watershed and proposed less strict public notifications of those permits.
In 2019, as part of an agreement to close C&H Hog Farms in Mt. Judea, a large farm in the watershed, then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson issued a moratorium preventing large-scale swine farms from operating in the protected watershed.
C&H Farms had been in operation since 2012 on the banks of a tributary that feeds into the Buffalo National River.
During the Regular General Assembly in 2023, the Arkansas Legislature passed a bill that transferred the permitting process for liquid animal waste permits from the Arkansas Department of Environment Quality (ADEQ) to the Arkansas Department of Agriculture, which was tasked with reviewing and promulgating rules for liquid animal waste permits.
Liquid animal waste systems include those used for the collection, storage, or distribution of animal manure in liquid form generated by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, which is oftentimes referred to as COFAs.
That bill, along with a companion bill exempting information about nutrient management plans or poultry litter management plans exempt from the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, were sponsored by DeAnn Vaught, R-Horatio. Vaught, who is a hog farmer, did not respond to The Record’s request for comments.
The department of agriculture is now tasked with issuing and modifying permits, approving design plans and site requirements, and promulgating rules for waste management systems.
The new law transferred to the Arkansas Department of Agriculture applications of new permits or modifications of existing ones filed with ADEQ that have not been reviewed for final decision and directed the department to rewrite Regulation 5.
Regulation 5 governs rules for liquid waste management for swine, poultry or dairy farms or other COFAs.
The proposed regulation includes proposing a moratorium for all new swine COFAs in Buffalo National River Watershed, not just large-scale farms, and it struck many public notice requirements regarding such permits.
Evan Teague, Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation Vice President of Environmental Issues, said the transfer of permitting power from ADEQ to the department of agriculture was in part due to the way C&H Farms was treated during its permitting process.
“We felt like the way that C&H Farms was treated through the agency process and review process was not fair,” he said. “A lot of trust was lost over the fact that staff there can administer agricultural related permits fairly and without prejudice.”
Teague said agriculture is the number one contributor to the state’s GDP and, “It just seems like a lot of folks through that process over the last decade have forgotten that.”
According to President of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance Gordon Watkins, the department of agriculture is not properly equipped to enforce permit regulations, and it lacks the staffing to properly conduct inspections.
The alliance was formed in 2013 in response to C&H Farms permit. It has argued that the river is contaminated from the runoff of the farm contaminates and damages the river.
Many of the new components under proposed Regulation 5 are in response to the permitting process around C&H Farms.
In 2012, C&H Farms applied for a permit under ADEQ’s Regulation 6 for a large-scale hog farm near the Buffalo River. Though the farm complied with all regulations and published a legal notice in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazetteas well as having the permit posted on the ADEQ website, many people stated they didn’t know the farm was operating and expressed concerns that the waste from the farm would damage the Buffalo National River water quality.
Regulation 6 required the farm to reapply for a permit every five years.
Proposed Regulation 5 does not have a reapplication process, and unless the permit needs modifying, the permit is perpetual.
In 2017, C&H Farms began operating on an expired but extended permit, before the ADEQ denied a new operating permit in 2018, citing water quality issues and insufficient geological investigations of the farms’ rough karst terrain.
According to the National Park Service, karst terrain is a type of landscape where the dissolving of the bedrock creates sinkholes, sinking streams, caves, springs, and other characteristic features.
Teague said research has shown the farm waste was having no impact on the river.
In 2019, the state paid $6.2 million in a settlement agreement to close C&H Farms and give the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, a part of the Division of Arkansas Heritage, a conservation easement to the property, which is near Big Creek, 6.6 miles from where it flows into the Buffalo National River.
In addition, Hutchinson issued a moratorium banning large-scale swine operations in the watershed.
Even though the legislature never approved the moratorium, it remained in place.
Watkins said no one has applied for a permit since the moratorium was issued so a question remains what the outcome would have been if a permit had been submitted while the moratorium was on the books but not adopted by the General Assembly.
“Our opinion is this moratorium, honestly, never should have been put in place. And, to be honest, we’re not sure that the process that was used met standards and thresholds required by state law,” Teague said.
In response to the proposed Regulation 5, Teague told the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission in public comments, “The ‘right to farm’ is a foundational principal that supports the continuation of agricultural operations without unreasonable interference. This rule not only affects swine production but could also have a lasting impact on the broader farming community and future generation of farmers.
“The proposed moratorium sets a precedent that could potentially lead to further restrictions on various types of farming within the watershed and beyond.”
“Although Arkansas Farm Bureau has always been opposed to the moratorium, one thing that really caught our attention was that they removed the exemption for small farms,” in Regulation 5, Teague said.
That opened the door for the Farm Bureau to say it didn’t want the moratorium at all.
“There’s no need for a moratorium. There’s no need for the government to immediately say, ‘No,’ without some review of the science and the situation,” said Steve Eddington, a spokesperson for Farm Bureau. “So there’s no need to automatically say no before you ever look at any of the facts and that’s what a moratorium would do.”
Watkins supports the moratorium and submitted comments to the Arkansas Division of Livestock and Poultry stating, the “Quality of the river for recreational purposes, including primary contact, is dependent on the quality of the water in its tributaries.
“Due to the karst nature of the watershed, the river is particularly vulnerable to pollutants, such as liquid animal waste, which can penetrate the porous surface and emerge in springs that feed the river,” he said.
Watkins said studies have verified the risk.
“Because of the importance of the Buffalo River to the economy of Arkansas, and particularly to those communities within its watershed, it behooves the state to take appropriate steps,” such as the moratorium to preserve and protect the river.
Watkins also stated Regulation 5 allows the agricultural department to modify existing permits and that could affect permits for four facilities in the Buffalo National River Watershed that are “active” but not currently operational. He argues those permits should be voided.
Seeking clarification, he asked the agriculture department whether these four active permits could be reactivated under the proposed regulation if they are not voided.
Teague said he is aware of the four permits but said from his understanding none of them will be reactivated.
He said it’s not uncommon to have active permits but not have an operational farm.
“There are many farmers that used to raise hogs, and they keep their permits active in case they decide they want to try and get back in the business.
“But even if they were to try and do that, they’re going to have to update and upgrade those facilities and they would have to go back through public hearing and update their nutrient management plans,” Teague said.
Watkins disagrees and said the language in proposed Regulation 5 does not make it clear.
The proposed regulation states the department may issue a permit renewal or modification for COFAs in the watershed with an active permit.
“It raises questions about why these permits are still active in the watershed and could they actually be reactivated,” Watkins said.
“Nobody could answer these questions,” Watkins said.
Lessening Public Notice
Proposed Regulation No. 5 would also take public notices out of newspapers as well as doing away with the requirement of sending notices via certified mail to adjoining landowners, county judges, school superintendents and mayors.
The proposed regulation would require notices to only be posted on the Arkansas Department of Agriculture website. Public notice on draft permits will be accepted beginning the day of the notice is posted and will close 30 calendar days after the notice.
The lessening of public notice has drawn the ire of conservation groups.
“The point is we’re about to go from reasonable public notification to none at all. Not even newspapers,” according to Brian Thompson, president of The Ozark Society, a regional conservation organization formed in the 1960s to oppose dams on the Buffalo River.
“They’ve done a remarkable job of keeping this under the radar,” he said.
The proposed regulation is statewide and not just for potential operations near the Buffalo National River.
Changing notification requirements “when it has been routinely provided in the past, suggested a calculated lack of transparency with stakeholders who certainly deserve to be informed regarding an operation that may impact their community,” Thompson wrote in comments to the Livestock and Poultry Division.
“The proposed language is wholly inadequate in terms of transparency and public notice,” according to Watkins.
“I believe in transparency at all levels of government,” said John Tull, attorney for Quattlebaum Grooms and Tull and a FOIA expert and advocate.
Tull is also an attorney for the Madison County Record.
“When you take away specific requirements for public notice, you run the risk of people who should receive notice not actually receiving it,” he said, adding not requiring public notice is “bad government policy.”
When C&H was granted a permit under ADEQ’s Regulation 6, Watkins said in comments made to Cory Seats of the department of livestock and poultry, “The public, including Buffalo River Staff, were unaware of this permit until long after it was issued and the facility was completed and were thus unable to provide public comment when the permit was being reviewed, which presented standing to challenge the permit.”
After a public outcry regarding what people saw as a lack of proper notification regarding C&H Farms, public notification regulations were changed.
The permit for C&H was issued in August 2012, but it was not until late December that the “Park Service caught wind about it, and that one issues there, regardless of how you feel about hog farms, the legislature realized that that public notice requirement was a real problem.”
At a legislative committee hearing in 2014 regarding proposed changes that strengthened notification requirements, “No committee member asked any questions and the proposal was returned to the Ecology Commission for final adoption,” Thompson said.
“The point here is that legislative members clearly recognized that robust public and stakeholder notification was in the best interest of Arkansas citizens while serving to avoid future conflict over transparency,” Thompson said.
Teague said Farm Bureau has not been involved in the public notice section of proposed Regulation 5.
FOIA Exemption
Act 1707 also exempts information regarding nutrient management plans and poultry litter management plans from the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act which means the public will not be able to know if its water is being contaminated by somebody who is not managing their operations properly, Watkins said.
Information regarding the poultry industry has been exempt under FOIA for many years, but his new law expands that exemption to information regarding farm locations, how many animals are on the farm, the amount of litter being produced, and whether it’s being applied or transferred out.
“If we did not have access to that information for C&H, we never would have shut them down,” Watkins said.
Watkins said the public should have access to that information.
He said he has lived for 50 years in Newton County on the Buffalo National River and has his water tested and it’s always come back “fine.”
He said if someone put in a hog farm on the mountain above where he lives the chances are pretty good it’s going to impact his drinking water.
“So if I start getting sick and I check my drinking water and find it’s got elevated E. coli, then where do I go? You know, what’s the source of it?” Watkins said. “With the new FOIA exemption, “At this point, you wouldn’t be able to know.”
Watkins said if the public suspects a violation, they could “call it in” and request someone investigate.
“But you wouldn’t know that because you can’t have access to the (information) under that exemption under FOIA,” he said.
Public comments regarding Regulation 5 close on Sept. 16 at which time, the department must respond the comments submitted before making a determination regarding Regulation 5. That recommendation must then go before the Arkansas Legislative Council for approval.
Arkansas Democrat Gazette
Today at 2:55 a.m.
by Mike Masterson
The responsibility for permitting and acting as watchdog over large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOS) in Arkansas appears on the verge of significant changes in rules, making it more challenging for stakeholders to know when and where a CAFO is planned.
Brian Thompson, president of the environmental watchdog Ozark Society, reminded Arkansans of how the Arkansas Department of Agriculture assumed control over this critical responsibility.
"Those reading during the 2014 era will recall the enormous controversy over our state's former Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) quietly permitting a private interest to establish a large concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) along a tributary of America's first national river, our popular Buffalo in north central Arkansas," he said.
"That issue was ultimately resolved by the state buying out the CAFO. Now the state's oversight for future CAFO proposals and proper operations statewide is transferred to the Arkansas Department of Agriculture (ADA), a friend rather than watchdog to CAFO owners."
With this change has come a new series of proposed regulation requirements about how those who propose CAFOs must let the public know of them well in advance so interested voices can then be heard.
Gone will be the Department of Environmental Quality's original rule that required publishing a notice of the CAFO proposal in the closest newspaper. Neither will there be the traditionally required letters to adjacent property owners, nor notification of the county judge, or school superintendent, or local mayors within 10 miles of the site. There won't even be a sign posted.
Reportedly, the only requirement will be that such a notice appear on the obscure Department of Agriculture website, which one would have to check regularly to have any hope of being fully informed about such requests. Fat chance. And forget legal action later if you didn't comment on the permit in that period.
The proposed rule will confer on the Agriculture Department the authority to issue and modify permits related to liquid animal-waste management systems and to approve design plans and site requirements or take any other action related to liquid animal-waste management systems. In other words, the whole enchilada.
If you have comments on this proposal, reactions are being received by mail until Sept. 16 at Arkansas Department of Agriculture, Attn: Corey Seats, 1 Natural Resources Drive, Little Rock, AR 72205, or emailed to rule.comments@agriculture.arkansas.gov.
Thompson has thoughts about it that match my own: "Whose idea was this? Those with vested interests in these enormous polluters of streams and rivers? I can't imagine anyone else would want to restrict public knowledge."
Good questions that deserve answers. Exactly which Arkansas group or agency with a specific vested interest in promoting industrial hog farming with thousands of tons of raw waste is behind or supporting this move to obstruct the widest possible transparency?
It has all the earmarks of a ham-handed effort to make it difficult for Arkansans to know when and where a CAFO is being proposed. So, I'm asking all who do learn of such an application (or even the Department of Agriculture) to email me and I'll gladly make that information public for everyone.
Arkansas Times
by Phillip PowellSeptember 6, 2024 7:12 pm
Arkansas environmental groups are sounding the alarm on a new rule proposed by the Arkansas Department of Agriculture that would make it harder for the public to learn about new permit applications for livestock and poultry farms that use liquid animal waste management systems.
Until recently, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) was responsible for regulating liquid animal waste generated by livestock feeding operations. That changed with a law passed by the state Legislature last year that transferred regulatory authority to the Department of Agriculture instead.
Environmental advocates praised one part of the new Department of Agriculture rule, which would place a moratorium on permits for hog farms in the watershed of the Buffalo River. But they said it would also dramatically reduce public transparency surrounding the permitting process and make it more difficult to hold livestock farms accountable for pollution.
Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, told the Arkansas Times that ADEQ provided the public with detailed information permits under “regulation 5,” which governed liquid animal waste.
“At ADEQ, I could go online and look up every permit they ever issued under regulation 5, and I could read the permit application, the nutrient management plans, and the inspection reports,” Watkins said. “I could see annual reports, and all the information about that particular operation. It gave the public the opportunity to see if an operation was following the rules.”
In contrast, under the new proposed rule, the Department of Agriculture would only provide public notice of new permit applications for livestock and poultry farms on the agency’s website.
“There will be no notification of anyone except for a blurb on the website,” said Brian Thompson, president of the Ozark Society, a conservation group focused on protecting the Buffalo River. “So, why is the notification important? If you don’t put a comment in on a permit, you don’t have legal standing to challenge a permit.”
Liquid waste from hog farms can oversaturate land with phosphorus and nitrogen runoff, and can easily pollute waterways.
Environmental advocates aren’t the only ones unhappy about the rule. In public comments, a representative of the Arkansas Farm Bureau, a trade association for farmers, argued against the moratorium on hog farm permits in the Buffalo River watershed. “The right to farm is a foundational principle that supports the continuation of agricultural operations without unreasonable interference,” the Farm Bureau said.
The Farm Bureau’s comments did not mention concerns over public notification of permits.
Hog farms in the Buffalo River watershed have long been controversial. A large-scale operation in the area, C&H Hog Farm, was infamously granted a liquid animal waste permit over a decade ago, sparking environmental concerns and a pressure campaign from conservationists. Under Gov. Asa Hutchinson’s administration, the state eventually struck a deal to close the farm.
A Freedom of Information Act request to the Department of Agriculture revealed dozens of Arkansans supporting the permanent moratorium on permits for swine farms in the Buffalo River watershed.
Link to 214 comments here
In public comments, environmentalists largely advocated in favor of the proposed moratorium and greater transparency, now that regulation has moved to the Department of Agriculture. Farm advocates requested that small farms be exempted from the proposed moratorium in the watershed.
Thompson said that environmental groups were able to hold C&H Hog Farm accountable because of the public information and transparency around its pollution footprint.
As Thompson explained, when ADEQ was in charge of enforcing liquid animal waste regulations, all landowners near any newly proposed livestock farms would be notified by the applicant. A public notice of any proposed permits would be sent to the county judge, mayors of nearby municipalities, the superintendent of the nearby school district, and the local newspaper.
ADEQ also kept a public database available for people to look up permit violations, such as when a farm is disposing of more liquid waste than they are supposed to.
Watkins, of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said the Department of Agriculture does not have a public-facing database that individuals can use to check whether farms in their area have committed permit violations.
Legislators have tried in years past to transfer permitting authority for liquid animal waste away from ADEQ. A bill in 2019 would have shifted regulatory oversight to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, but it was withdrawn at the time. The 2023 legislation that transferred authority from ADEQ to the Department of Agriculture was sponsored by Sen. Blake Johnson (R-Corning) and Rep. DeAnn Vaught (R-Horatio). Vaught and her husband own a dairy and a hog farm in Horatio, according to her campaign website.
All public comments on the new rule must be submitted by Sept. 16.
Phillip Powell writes about agriculture and the environment for Arkansas Times as a Report for America Corps Member.
BRWA comments and background on rule making for changes to Regulation 6.
Background
Regulation 6 of the Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission defines the rules for the Arkansas Division of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a program delegated to the state by the federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Reg 6 applies primarily to construction storm water permits, wastewater treatment plant permits, and pesticide applicator permits. Importantly, it also covers liquid animal waste permits, such as the one previously held by C&H Hog Farm, which was cancelled and closed by the State in 2019. C&H was the first and only such animal waste permit issued under Reg 6. (Others previously were and are currently permitted under Reg 5, a separate state permit program now administered by Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC)).
As part of the resolution of the C&H permit, then-Governor Asa Hutchinson directed ADEQ to take steps to establish a permanent moratorium against the issuance of any future swine permits within the watershed of the Buffalo National River to prevent the recurrence of such a threat to the river. The state legislature struck down a previous effort by ADEQ to comply with the Governor’s request.
Comments on Rule Making
This rule making primarily addresses changes necessary to comply with the federal NPDES program and includes such things as updates to federal and state law, clarifications and minor corrections. Of interest to BRWA and our supporters are the changes to Chapter 6, “Specific Watershed Requirements” which establishes a permanent moratorium, stating in part, “ The Director shall not issue a permit pursuant to this rule for a new swine CAFO in the Buffalo National River Watershed” We fully support this language.
However, 6.602(C) says, “This rule does not prohibit the Director from: issuing a new Rule 6 permit for a facility that holds an active Liquid Animal Waste Management Systems permit as of the effective date of this rule.” The section does allow for the issuance of new Reg 6 permits to holders of existing Reg 5 permits in the watershed but does not allow for any increase in the number of animals. BRWA has identified four facilities in the Buffalo River watershed with “Active” permits, although none are currently operational and most have been effectively closed for several years. Although they have not completed the required closure procedures, none have any animals and none have submitted annual reports since 2019 or earlier. We would like clarification from DEQ as to whether any of these facilities could be reactivated to either 1) restock animals and resume previous operations, or 2) accept waste from other facilities for field application, including industrial waste. If these facilities could be reactivated, or they can accept transferred waste, we do not support this language.
While BRWA generally supports this rulemaking we would like clarification regarding existing Reg 5 permits in the watershed and we remain concerned about similar language in Regulation 5 which is where current and future swine permits reside and we will be vigilant for future changes to Reg 5.
Ecology panel approves rule changes
by Ainsley Platt
The Pollution Control and Ecology Commission gave the Department of Energy and Environment the go-ahead to proceed on two proposed changes to its rules during its Friday meeting -- including one that would make the 2015 moratorium preventing issuance of new swine permits in the Buffalo River watershed permanent while also altering the language of the 2015 ban.
The rules -- the other of which is a change being done in tandem with changes to Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission rules -- will now go into the public comment period.
The first of the two rule changes, to Rule 1, will facilitate the transfer of authority over high-volume Class II disposal wells and their associated surface facilities and the surface facilities of Class II commercial disposal wells to the OGC.
The second of the changes, to Rule 6, is being done to comply with new federal regulations, interim Chief Administrator of the Environment Bailey Taylor told the commission. She pointed out that a failure to make state rules comply could affect the state's authority over the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination program, which is delegated from the federal government.
In addition to bringing the rule into line with federal regulations, it also makes modifications to maintain the "status quo" in the Buffalo River watershed, Taylor said, after the state purchased the controversial C&H Hog Farms facility and closed it in 2020.
The proposed rule, on paper, broadens the moratorium to apply to new concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in the watershed, with the proposed language reading "The Director shall not issue a permit pursuant to this rule for a new CAFO in the Buffalo National River Watershed." However, Taylor said in her remarks to the commission that the department wants to add the word "swine" in between "new" and "CAFO" in order to "maintain status quo with the moratorium," which would effectively limit it only to swine operations, though without the specific number and weight restrictions currently in place.
The proposed rules struck language specifying the number and weight of swine necessary to meet the moratorium requirements. Under the current rules, permits won't be issued for facilities with "(1) 750 or more swine weighing 55 pounds or more; or (2) 3,000 or more swine weighing less than 55 pounds."
The proposed changes, if ultimately adopted, would also make it so that the permitted number of swine can't be increased in a "new permit or subsequent permit renewals" issued pursuant to Rule 6.
In 2020, attempts to make a temporary moratorium on medium and large swine farms in the watershed was shot down by the Arkansas Legislative Council.
Despite a stipulation within the temporary moratorium, which went into effect in 2015 with a rule change, that said that the department would either need to lift the moratorium or make it permanent within five years, the department evidently allowed the moratorium to stay on the books after the defeat of its 2020 rule change. This is the first proposed change to Rule 6 since the 2020 attempts, according to the Division of Environmental Quality's website, and the paragraph making the moratorium temporary is struck in the proposed changes.
In addition to the watershed-specific changes, other changes within Rule 6 will streamline reporting by using an online platform.
"The use of the platform is expected to reduce costs as it is a more efficient permitting processing system," E&E spokesperson Carol Booth wrote in an emailed statement. "The Arkansas Department of Energy and Environment expects that Seek will also reduce the department's review timeline. This online process is expected to reduce costs incurred by applicants and reduce the applicant's time-related cost that can be caused by permit-related delays."
Other changes that were part of the proposal put before the commission were part of the department's efforts to bring Rule 6 in line with new state laws as well, and the department expects lower costs to permittees.
"The revised rule implements new statutory requirements for non-municipal domestic sewage treatment works permittees to make trust fund contributions in place of the previous statutory requirement for a financial assurance mechanism for the funds sufficient for a third party to operate the system for five (5) years," Booth wrote. "The required contribution to the trust fund is generally less than the previously required financial assurance mechanism."
Madison County Record
Posted Wednesday, March 6, 2024 9:45 am
By Ellen Kreth, For The Record
The Alliance for the Buffalo National River (ABNR) released results from a poll taken after a town hall meeting regarding re-designating the Buffalo National River as a national park or preserve.
The Oct. 26 meeting held at Jasper High School had more than 1400 in attendance and was organized after The Madison County Record published a story detailing efforts by Steuart and Tom Walton — brothers and grandsons of Sam and Helen Walton, founders of Walmart — to consider re-designating the river to a national park.
In 2022, the Waltons quietly approached U.S. Congressman Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., who represents Arkansas’ 4th Congressional District and chairs the Natural Resources Committee, about changing the river’s designation to a national park and preserve. In conjunction with their idea, and acting under the umbrella of The Runway Group, a holding company originated by them, the Waltons also paid for a national survey gauging whether the river should be re-designated.
The Runway Group hired Selzer & Company, who polled 412 voters in Baxter, Madison, Marion, Newton and Searcy counties and produced a flyer touting the results, with most of those survey responding favorably to the re-designation.
However, the results have been attacked by those living along the river as being unfair, many attending the meeting stating the survey’s questions were skewed by leading those polled to believe that changing the river’s designation would be a good thing for the area. They also complained about the number of voters who were surveyed and where they lived in proximity to the Buffalo National River.
Last fall, after the town meeting in Jasper, a grassroots survey was conducted by ABNR of people attending the meeting and those living near the Buffalo watershed.
“After reading The Runway Group’s survey questions and responses, and observing that Baxter County residents were the largest group surveyed by The Runway Group, ABNR wanted a clear set of questions for residents who live in the counties that would be affected by changes that might occur from any type of redesignation of the Buffalo National River,” Misty Langdon said in a statement issued on behalf of ABNR.
The group’s survey showed vastly different results from the one paid for by The Runway Group.
“The feedback we received was in stark contrast to that from The Runway Group’s survey. We also wanted to receive input from a greater number of respondents, as a pool of 400+ didn’t feel sufficient,” the ABNR statement said.
“Our results are from a group of 737 respondents from primarily Newton and Searcy counties. News outlets are still circulating and relying upon The Runway Group survey, despite the obvious flaws in its methodology.”
More than 700 responded to the ABNR survey, with 491 saying they lived in Newton County and 232 noting they lived in other counties, including Madison County.
“ABNR’s survey hopes to provide updated, clear, and concise responses to straightforward questions presented to locals in the counties most affected,” the statement said.
Of those respondents, 705 voted that river remain as it is. Nine people voted to have the land re-designated as a preserve, but not a park.
Twenty-three people or 3% of respondents said they were participating in both surveys, the grassroots one from the town hall meeting and the one paid for by The Runway Group.
The ABNR poll asked people what their biggest concerns were if the land were to be re-designated.
Their top concern — 83% — said they were concerned about government and corporate overreach. Other concerns included the government’s use of eminent domain (82%), park expansion (78%) and increased taxes (75%). People also responded they were concerned with being able to afford land (69%) if the land was re-designated and about gentrification (68%).
Respondents expressed concerns about activities becoming restricted or banned if the land was re-designated. Farming topped the list of concerns with 82% saying they were concerned that if the land changed to a national park or preserve farming would be restricted, 78% were worried that fishing and hunting would be restricted and 64% were concerned that canoeing, kayaking and rafting might be restricted.
Other concerns were having restrictions on horseback riding (54%), hiking (57%), rock climbing (39%), bike riding (36%).
After The Record’s coverage, the Waltons backed off the idea and Westerman said no legislation is currently being proposed to re-designate the land. Westerman told constituents during a live-streamed town hall people that the issue had been overblown and he visited Jasper last fall in an attempt to assure people that he was not currently considering introducing legislation re-designating the river.
Eureka Springs Independent
By
-
The Ozark-St. Francis National Forest Big Piney District Robert’s Gap Project would have many benefits including a “wide variety of needed treatments which would reduce fuel loading, in turn reducing dangers of wildfires, improve forest health, improve wildlife and aquatic habitat, protect private property in the wildland-urban interface and increase species diversity,” District Ranger Tim Jones said.
Jones said this forest and project area was once a fire-dominated ecosystem. Frequent fires eliminated shade-tolerant species from the understory which provided ample forage for many species of wildlife and maintained habitat for pollinators.
“Past forest management practices have caused a reduction in the number of insects (pollinators), small mammals, seed eating birds, deer and wild turkey and have created a condition that could result in a damaging wildfire situation,” Jones said. “Based on monitoring data, the reintroduction of fire has improved conditions within prescribed burn areas on the district. The project area is a fire-adapted ecosystem in which fire has been excluded for many years. These areas could be repeatedly burned for fuel reduction, wildlife habitat improvement, and ecosystem restoration and would move them toward the desired future condition for this management area. Used in conjunction with prescribed burning, these treatments would increase herbaceous plants as well as overall habitat diversity.”
Jones said that to protect the environment and lessen possible negative impacts, protective measures would be used, including best management practices for water quality protection established by the state. The project page link, along with all supporting documentation, can be found at fs.usda.gov.
The non-profit Buffalo River Watershed Alliance (BRWA) has raised objections to the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Robert’s Gap Project to manage a 40,000-acre tract of land including the headwaters of the Buffalo National River, White River, Kings River, Mulberry River and War Eagle Creek—five of Arkansas’ more iconic rivers.
“Clearly this is a special place deserving of enhanced protection,” BRWA President Gordon Watkins said. “It is a unique area with quite a lot of Forest Service land. BRWA has serious concerns about this proposal, and we have submitted comments, and we then submitted objections when our concerns were not adequately addressed by USFS. Others submitted objections as well.”
In 2017 the USFS introduced a far-reaching proposal to manage the Robert’s Gap tract, which includes one of the state’s more visited and photographed areas, Hawksbill Crag. The Forest Service plans call for thinning and harvesting about 11,000 acres, prescribed burning on 11,000 acres of land, 70 miles of road construction for timber removal, 20 miles of dozer lines for firebreaks and 3,000 acres of herbicide treatment.
Watkins said BRWA and others started participating in public comments in 2018. But he said the Forest Service largely ignored the concerns.
“A final decision was made to proceed with the project despite numerous comments against the project,” Watkins said. “Between the time between when USFS closed the comment period and issued final decisions, a maternal colony of Indiana bats, which are endangered, was found in the Robert’s Gap area. The Indiana bats have been here forever, and we know they hibernate in caves in the Robert’s Gap area. The thought was that when the bats were ready to have young, they would migrate mostly into Missouri.
“The discovery of this maternal colony was a big deal – the first of its kind in the Ozarks. Rather than put a pause on this project, in their final decision they made a comment they would have a quarter mile set back from the tree where these particular bats were roosting. We thought that was a significant enough finding that the USFS should have taken a step back and taken additional comments on how to do a thorough job of protection. We are asking for a Supplement Assessment or even better, an Environmental Impact Study.”
Watkins said they oppose herbicides being used. They are not opposed to logging or prescribed burning in general, but the way it is being done and the scale.
“Burning has certain benefits but burning thousands of acres at a whack is excessive,” Watkins said. “Smaller burns would have less impact on the local ecology and the people who live in the area. We live 15 to 20 miles as the crow flies, but we got smoke in Little Buffalo Valley from the prescribed fires at Robert’s Gap. People who have asthma have had to take shelter or go somewhere else.”
Watkins said BRWA also prefers single tree selection for logging rather than group selections; single tree selections would create a more diverse forest.
One of the bigger concerns is building more than 70 miles of roads and firebreak on a 40,000-acre track. Fire lines are dozed to protect property owners. After logging is completed, the roads are closed to traffic, but Watkins said they are still a permanent scar on the landscape. It is easy to walk through Ozark forests and see old logging roads a hundred years old still there.
“Roads divert the flow of water, and the runoff from the dirt roads creates erosion and turbidity in the rivers,” Watkins said. “The biggest problem is the stormwater runoff from the practices impact water quality of the Buffalo and these other rivers, as well.”
Some timber removal is to take out dead trees to reduce fuel for wildfires, some is salvage logging, and some is commercial logging. There are also planned wildlife openings. Watkins said the purpose of those is to open the canopy to create a more diverse ecosystem and improve conditions for animal species.
“That is a notable goal, but we have problems with the way they choose to go about it,” Watkins said. “We think it is a little over the top.”
According to the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, rivers all over the state are under stress from improper streambank management including people building homes and cutting trees down to the river’s edge for a view, runoff from dirt roads, and climate change that is creating heavier rainfalls in shorter periods of time. Rivers are filling with gravel and getting wider and shallower, losing many of the deeper pools that are good habitat for game fish.
“I live right on the banks of the Little Buffalo,” Watkins said. “I’ve seen those changes here where the river is wider and shallower. The same is true on the Big Buffalo. Logging, road building and maintenance of unpaved roads are the biggest causes of sedimentation of the river. These plans for logging and road building on a 40,000-acre track immediately upriver from Buffalo River are definitely going to hurt water quality, in our opinion.”
Whitaker Point, the official name for Hawksbill Crag, lies within Robert’s Gap. There is a big project underway to pave part of Cave Mountain Road, the access road to Hawksbill Crag from the Buffalo River. At the peak of the tourism season, hundreds of vehicles are using that narrow, steep county road.
“It has caused such a problem with gravel erosion and runoff into the Buffalo River,” Watkins said. “The cooperative project between the state and counties to pave about 1.5 miles going up the mountain is designed to reduce sedimentation. Then the Forest Service is planning on creating more sedimentation problems just up the road on 40,000 acres.”
On February 21, BRWA, represented by the Earthrise Law Center, and Carney, Bates and Pulliam Law Firm, on behalf of the BRWA, filed a Complaint for Vacatur of Illegal Agency Decision, Declaratory and Injunctive Relief challenging the U. S. Forest Service’s October 27, 2021, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact resulting in approval of the 40,000-acre Robert’s Gap Project. Watkins said progress continues on the lawsuit. If all stays on schedule, briefings and filings should be completed in January.
“To the best of our knowledge, USFS has not yet begun logging or road building activities, although some prescribed burning as well as water sampling has taken place,” Watkin said. “We ask our supporters who visit the area to please let us know if any USFS activity is observed.”
For more information, do an internet search for USFS Robert’s Gap. For more information about BRWA’s take on the project, go to buffaloriveralliance.org/Roberts-Gap-Forest-Plan.
Democrat Gazette
December 10, 2023 at 2:20 a.m.
by Rex Nelson
Tourism is the second-largest sector of the Arkansas economy (behind agriculture), and promises to become even more important to the state during the next several decades. That's because Arkansas finds itself in a sweet spot demographically. Many of those who study population trends believe the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex will pass Chicago by the end of this decade as the nation's third-largest metropolitan area.
Some of the closest mountains (and thus best cycling, hiking, camping, floating and flyfishing opportunities) to that growing DFW population base are in Arkansas. This explosion in the number of potential visitors comes at the same time significant investments are being made in the state's outdoor recreation economy. They're coming from the likes of brothers Tom and Steuart Walton and Bass Pro Shop founder Johnny Morris.
It's the perfect storm. Folks with vision and deep pockets believe Arkansas can be for the central third of the country what Colorado is for the western third.
I wrote a series of columns about social media disinformation that has flowed largely from Newton County in recent months. The disinformation campaign began after a telephone poll to see if people would favor changing the status of the Buffalo National River to a national park-preserve. I don't know if that's the right thing to do. What I do know is that we must have a rational discussion about how to attract more resources from the National Park Service. You can't address that funding problem while villifying well-intentioned people with lies on social media.
Those who think that keeping things as they are will hold down visitor numbers are deluding themselves. The aforementioned demographic trends mean that more people are coming regardless of whether the Buffalo is a national river or national park. Additional resources--more rangers, parking lots and restrooms--will be required regardless of status.
A prolonged discussion on how to obtain more federal resources must take place. We should be thankful it has started. And we must hope that the six members of Arkansas' congressional delegation become more engaged in seeking those resources.
Newton County saw its population fall from 11,199 to 7,255 in the century between 1920 and 2020. We finally have a chance to pump funds into the county's economy without clear-cutting its woods, mining gravel from its streams and adding commercial hog farms. It will be done with environmentally sensitive development on private lands, an issue that's separate from the Buffalo debate.
Residents shouldn't worry about becoming an overcrowded Branson or Gatlinburg. Newton County is too isolated for that (as the failure of Dogpatch USA proved). The visitors who come here will be high-income cycling, hiking and rock climbing enthusiasts who want the land to stay pristine. It's in everyone's best interest to welcome these people with open arms.
Suspicion of outsiders runs deep, though, as the past few months have shown. Certain natives don't like folks who come from "off," though Native Americans might suggest a more nuanced sense of history. After all, the Osage claimed this region until 1808. From 1818-28, it was part of a Cherokee reservation.
"The area was part of Carroll County when that county was created in 1833, and white settlers quickly moved in," C.J. Miller and David Sesser write for the Central Arkansas Library System's Encyclopedia of Arkansas. "A block of marble taken from a hillside near present-day Marble Falls was used to build the Washington Monument. Although Jasper appeared on maps in 1840, it wasn't incorporated until 1896.
"The Legislature created Newton County on Dec. 14, 1842, naming it after U.S. marshal Thomas Willoughby Newton. After beginning his career as a mail carrier and serving as U.S. marshal, Newton was elected to Congress after the resignation of Archibald Yell. John Belleh's house on Shop Creek was designated the county seat until the designation was given to Jasper in 1843. The county had 10 post offices by 1856. The terrain made the area unattractive to land speculators, which was encouraging to people who couldn't afford land in other parts of the state."
The 1850 census showed there were 51 slaves in the county. That number dropped to 24 (along with 3,369 white residents) by 1860.
"While neighboring Carroll, Boone, Madison and Searcy counties saw a decrease in population and livestock in the Civil War years, the isolation of Newton County resulted in an increase in both at the start of the war," Miller and Sesser write. "Neighbors and families split as loyalties were divided between the Union and Confederacy. Guerrilla warfare and skirmishes between Union and Confederate troops caused turmoil. Some residents lived in caves, while others fled.
"John Cecil, a former sheriff, led a guerrilla band, operating against Union forces. Union soldiers destroyed Confederate saltpeter works at Boxley, and Jasper was burned. Engagements included three skirmishes in April 1864 at Whiteley's Mills, Richland Creek and Limestone Valley."
After the war, people continued to live on small farms that grew corn, wheat, rye, oats, tobacco, potatoes, apples and peaches. Some cotton was grown along the Buffalo River.
"A legend was born as Beaver Jim Villines became known for his trapping ability," Miller and Sesser write. "Visitors went to Marble Falls and Tom Thumb Spring for the water's supposed healing power. The 1900s brought increased population as outsiders moved to the county. ... Lead and zinc mining increased briefly to support World War I efforts."
By the 1930 census, no Black residents lived in the county. One-room schools began consolidating after 1930. The rough terrain, lack of a railroad and bad roads prevented growth. The county's population tumbled from 10,881 in 1940 to 5,963 in 1960.
"Change came slowly," Miller and Sesser write. "Newton County resident Ted Richmond opened the first library, a private endeavor called Wilderness Library. Jay Smith opened the first airports, one at Piercetown in 1946 and the other in neighboring Boone County in 1951. Also in 1951, Newton County got its first paved road when Arkansas 7 was paved from Jasper to Harrison. The 1960s and 1970s saw residents arrive with the back-to-the-land movement.
"Santuario Arco Iris, an intentional land community founded by Maria Christian DeColores Moroles, served as a refuge for women and children, especially those of color. The popularity of the comic strip Li'l Abner created interest in an amusement park. Dogpatch USA opened in 1968 and employed residents of Boone and Newton counties, both in the construction of the park and as employees.
"When the comic strip ceased publication, free publicity disappeared, and the park's isolated location failed to draw the anticipated traffic. Financial problems brought changes in ownership. After several attempts to revive the park, it closed in 1993. At the request of residents, Dogpatch again became Marble Falls."
Morris is turning the Dogpatch site into a nature center. The federal Economic Development Administration recently awarded a $1 million grant, which will be matched by $1.9 million in state funds, to the Marble Falls Sewer Improvement District for wastewater improvements. Morris estimated in the application that there will be $40 million in private investment at the site and 166 jobs. It's the largest private investment in the county's history.
While Morris attracts those who like nature centers (and caves, since he's excavating underground pockets beneath the property), expect the Waltons to attract well-heeled mountain bikers, hikers and rock climbers. None of these people will further crowd the Buffalo. They instead will be using the county's other outdoor recreational attributes.
Given that the future of Newton County relies on tourism, it's incumbent on residents to make these visitors feel welcome.
Rex Nelson is a senior editor at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
BY Debra Hale-Shelton ON December 3, 2023
It was a town hall fit for the movies. On Oct. 26, more than 1,000 people turned out for a community meeting at the school cafeteria in Jasper, an Ozarks town and home to about 500 residents. Almost 2,000 more watched the meeting online. But the big names of the night were absent: two grandsons of Walmart founder Sam Walton and the Arkansas governor’s husband, Bryan Sanders.
The topic was the Buffalo National River, where folks have been swimming, fishing and canoeing longer than anyone can remember. Outdoor enthusiasts Steuart and Tom Walton, co-founders of the investment firm Runway Group LLC, want the beloved river preserved — but also changed. For at least 1 1/2 years, they’ve been promoting the idea of asking Congress to redesignate the area as a national park and preserve.
But those plans only became public knowledge in September, when residents of five north Arkansas counties began getting phone surveys asking them about a possible change. Runway posted survey results online, saying nearly 64% of the 412 voters polled were in favor of the idea. Critics said the survey’s questions seemed designed to encourage participants to give just such a response.
The public outcry was so loud that Runway later told legislators it was backing off. Still, residents remain suspicious about the company’s goals.
“I don’t think this issue is going away,” said state Sen. Bryan King (R-Green Forest), whose district includes some of the Buffalo region. King said he fears Runway’s retreat is only a delay, especially considering the more than 6,000 acres Walton Enterprises owns in Madison County after a property buying spree.
Darryl Treat, executive director of the Greater Searcy County Chamber of Commerce, agreed. He cited recent newspaper editorials in support of the change and the fact that we’ve heard no definitive rejection of the idea from Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders or Arkansas’s congressional delegation and the governor’s office.
What exactly would the change from a “national river” to a “national park and preserve” mean for the Buffalo? It’s not fully clear.
The current “national river” designation allows folks to fish and hunt along the 150-mile river. National parks generally don’t allow hunting, but national preserves may have less stringent land use rules. Activities such as mining and drilling may be allowed on preserves.
If the Buffalo were a “national park and preserve,” the arrangement might resemble the New River Gorge national park and preserve in West Virginia. The public lands at New River Gorge include a core 7,000-acre national park and a much larger, 65,000-acre preserve.
Regardless of the name, the specific activities allowed in a particular National Park Service-administered territory are spelled out by Congress. The law authorizing the Buffalo National River specifically allows hunting and fishing and prohibits the establishment of hydropower projects.
Tina Boehle, a National Park Service spokeswoman, said mining and drilling “would currently not be allowed” in or along the Buffalo.
“Nothing in the enabling legislation of Buffalo National River explicitly mentions mining/drilling, but any activity such as that would ‘unreasonably diminish the scenic, recreational, and fish and wildlife values present in the area,’” Boehle said, referring to a phrase contained in the enabling legislation.
Asked whether mining and drilling could take place in a national park and preserve, Boehle said, “It centers on whether there is a valid pre-existing mineral right and the various laws and regulations that apply to the exercise of that right.”
If Congress were to change the Buffalo’s designation, it is possible that it could make other changes to land use restrictions.
Runway has said it does not support the idea of mining or drilling along the Buffalo. The Madison County Record recently reported that gubernatorial spokeswoman Alexa Henning said Bryan Sanders “does not support nor has he even discussed the idea of drilling or mining in the Buffalo National River.”
Even if mineral exploration is not in the cards, though, many residents fear the proposed change could overwhelm the region with tourists, infrastructure and additional federal regulation. And regardless of the details, the secretive nature of the planning has many people in north Arkansas feeling suspicious of the planners’ motives.
King, Treat and state Sen. Missy Irvin (R-Mountain View) indicated residents were frustrated that neither Runway nor Bryan Sanders sought residents’ input before the September phone poll.
“It seems elementary to never try to push a major change without first engaging with the people it affects most and maintaining transparency. A lot can be accomplished with open dialog,” Treat said. “We heard the siren song of economic prosperity 51 years ago when the Buffalo became a National River. The economic claims did not come close to being realized. The local people are very wise to not trust anyone’s promises today without seeing detailed plans which we have been told do not exist.”
King said an early discussion with residents would have been tough because of lingering unhappiness with the designation of the Buffalo National River back in 1972, which displaced some people living in the area.
Still, he said “that route, even being difficult, would have been far better than the Bryan Sanders route.” As things stand now, “Any trust factor has been blown out of the water.”
Rumors of the first gentleman’s involvement surfaced months ago, though he, his chief of staff and the governor’s spokeswoman have not responded to requests for comment from the Arkansas Times.
Sanders is a friend of the Walton brothers, a fellow cycling enthusiast and the chairman of the Natural State Advisory Council, on which Tom Walton serves.
Irvin said Sanders contacted her in May about the Buffalo.
“I told him he needed to meet directly with my constituents,” she wrote on Facebook. “At which point I reached out to … the Searcy County Chamber of Commerce director who was ready to meet. Then we never heard back from the first gentleman’s office and no meeting ever occurred.”
In an online statement, Irvin wrote, “I stand with my constituents in opposing a change in the designation of the Buffalo National River.
“It is critically important to respect the people who have forged their lives from these mountains & who continue to live with the pain of losing their homesteads, their heritage,” she added.
Runway said it approached U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, now chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, in July 2022 about the idea of designating the river as a national park and preserve.
The Arkansas Republican has acknowledged the river discussion but said, “There has not been any legislation drafted or introduced in … Congress to change the current designation. Currently, my top priority is hearing the thoughts of my constituents on the matter and collecting as much feedback as possible.”
Westerman said he supports “the rights of private property owners, and I do not support any forced sale of privately held lands.”
Treat, who said his family settled in Searcy County before Arkansas was a state, called it “disrespectful and paternalistic behavior” to discuss making major changes to the area without consulting local leaders. “After all, we live here and we are the reason there is infrastructure here and our tax money maintains the very roads that many people use to access the Buffalo National River.”
Treat said he believes “the vast majority of people who live here, whether from founding families or recent newcomers, are against the change.”
Runway has been publicly quiet about the proposal since the Oct. 26 town hall. A flier at the meeting said Runway representatives, the governor and her husband were all invited to the meeting but did not attend, the Arkansas Advocate reported.
Shortly before the town hall, Runway released a statement indicating it was backing off. “A designation change for the Buffalo National River is not our decision to make, but we believe it’s an idea worth exploring,” the company said.