Arkansas Democrat Gazette
Pollution comments sought Agency preparing list of water bodies needing cleanup By Emily Walkenhorst Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality officials will hear public comments this week about the state's latest proposed list of polluted water bodies that require cleanup under the federal Clean Water Act. Tuesday's meeting is exactly one month before the department is to submit its final list -- called the 303(d) list -- to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Such lists have sometimes languished after being submitted to the EPA, and bodies of water that the department says are newly polluted or no longer polluted go unaddressed. Since 2010, the Department of Environmental Quality has submitted three proposed polluted-streams lists, but the EPA has taken no action on them because the agencies are at odds over what the state's water quality standards are or should be. If the EPA doesn't act on the Department of Environmental Quality's 2016 list, which is up for public discussion through March 11, it would be the fourth list left to idle since the EPA last approved one in 2008. "It does put us in an odd spot," said Sarah Clem, water quality planning branch manager for the Department of Environmental Quality. Being included on the polluted list has an impact on a water body's neighbors, including businesses, utilities and individuals. "It will affect any permits that industry has or wants to have," said Charles Miller, executive director of the Arkansas Environmental Federation, which works with businesses on environmental compliance. "So yeah, there's an impact." Every two years the department is required to produce a new list of streams that are "impaired" or are no longer impaired, on the basis of department testing and reviews. A designation of impaired" can trigger a study on the amount of pollutants a stream can have in it and still meet water-quality standards. That study can result in stricter limits in permits for businesses, utilities or others regarding discharging wastewater into a stream. Likewise, removal from the list can prompt the removal of such limits. Since 2010, the department has suggested adding at least 165 water bodies to the polluted list and removing at least 240 others. Data provided for 2010 don't include a breakdown of which water bodies were added or removed from the list as compared with 2008. Many water bodies are on the lists more than once because some portions of a river or creek may be considered polluted while other portions may not be. According to Stacey Dwyer, the EPA's associate director for national pollutant discharge elimination systems permits and total maximum daily load, the agency has been trying since 2008 to sort out three things with Arkansas: • The variation of pollutants in the state. • The way the state assesses water bodies. • The way the state has changed its standards. "It's just a lot of complex issues," Dwyer said. "We want to make sure we're doing it correctly and working with the state." The Department of Environmental Quality establishes its water quality standards in Regulation 2 with the approval of the department's appellate body, the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. The department then uses those standards to determine stream impairment and sends along its recommendations to the EPA, which oversees the Clean Water Act 303(d) program. The EPA approves the list or recommends changes to it. In recent years, the state has added language to Regulation 2 that has changed or clarified the way the state determines whether a body of water is polluted. Changes include allowing certain water bodies to exceed mineral standards in 25 percent of the tests before being considered polluted, instead of 10 percent; applying standards in lakes at 1-meter depth instead of the surface; and clarifying that mineral levels for certain regions -- known as ecoregion reference stream minerals values -- will be used as guidelines and not standards for water quality. That clarification merely reflects how the department has always used those values, department officials said. Because of Regulation 2's role in making determinations under the Clean Water Act, the EPA must approve any changes made to the language of the regulation. The previous major Regulation 2 changes were approved by the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission two years ago but have not been approved by the EPA. As an example, the EPA has wanted the state to maintain the ecoregion values as standards for water bodies in the state, according to Jane Watson, associate director with the water quality division for the EPA in Dallas. If Arkansas officials remove those ecoregion values, it should replace them with new ones, Watson said. "When a state wants to change an approach to water quality, they can do that," she said. "But from a legal standpoint, we need to have a different set of numbers" or something else. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Director Becky Keogh said ecoregion values would be used as guidelines so as to not unnecessarily hurt cities or industry by using data in a way it wasn't intended. Keogh did not work for the department at the time of the regulation change but said she wants to ensure that standards are not "overreaching or unreasonable." Some stream standards are unnecessary and unreasonably strict, said Allan Gates, an attorney at the Mitchell Williams law firm in Little Rock. Such standards prompt businesses and city utilities to do extensive research on a body of water to determine an easier-to-meet standard that wouldn't negatively impact the environment. Gates has represented many industries and municipalities seeking permit changes related to water standards before the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. His latest cases involved the cities of Harrison and Yellville, which wanted to increase the allowable levels of minerals their wastewater utilities were allowed to discharge into Crooked Creek. The city-funded research reviewed by the commission showed no impact from the change. Gates noted that many people who are concerned about a body of water use the polluted list to get the water body cleaned up. That cleanup likely won't happen until the EPA approves the state list. "We're working very deliberately with the EPA to make sure the state's standards are being applied in an appropriate manner," Keogh said. "It's all protective of the excellent water quality we have in the state of Arkansas." Metro on 02/29/2016 Print Headline: Pollution comments sought
Agency preparing list of water bodies needing cleanup By Emily Walkenhorst Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality officials will hear public comments this week about the state's latest proposed list of polluted water bodies that require cleanup under the federal Clean Water Act. Tuesday's meeting is exactly one month before the department is to submit its final list -- called the 303(d) list -- to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Such lists have sometimes languished after being submitted to the EPA, and bodies of water that the department says are newly polluted or no longer polluted go unaddressed. Since 2010, the Department of Environmental Quality has submitted three proposed polluted-streams lists, but the EPA has taken no action on them because the agencies are at odds over what the state's water quality standards are or should be. If the EPA doesn't act on the Department of Environmental Quality's 2016 list, which is up for public discussion through March 11, it would be the fourth list left to idle since the EPA last approved one in 2008. "It does put us in an odd spot," said Sarah Clem, water quality planning branch manager for the Department of Environmental Quality. Being included on the polluted list has an impact on a water body's neighbors, including businesses, utilities and individuals. "It will affect any permits that industry has or wants to have," said Charles Miller, executive director of the Arkansas Environmental Federation, which works with businesses on environmental compliance. "So yeah, there's an impact." Every two years the department is required to produce a new list of streams that are "impaired" or are no longer impaired, on the basis of department testing and reviews. A designation of impaired" can trigger a study on the amount of pollutants a stream can have in it and still meet water-quality standards. That study can result in stricter limits in permits for businesses, utilities or others regarding discharging wastewater into a stream. Likewise, removal from the list can prompt the removal of such limits. Since 2010, the department has suggested adding at least 165 water bodies to the polluted list and removing at least 240 others. Data provided for 2010 don't include a breakdown of which water bodies were added or removed from the list as compared with 2008. Many water bodies are on the lists more than once because some portions of a river or creek may be considered polluted while other portions may not be. According to Stacey Dwyer, the EPA's associate director for national pollutant discharge elimination systems permits and total maximum daily load, the agency has been trying since 2008 to sort out three things with Arkansas: • The variation of pollutants in the state. • The way the state assesses water bodies. • The way the state has changed its standards. "It's just a lot of complex issues," Dwyer said. "We want to make sure we're doing it correctly and working with the state." The Department of Environmental Quality establishes its water quality standards in Regulation 2 with the approval of the department's appellate body, the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. The department then uses those standards to determine stream impairment and sends along its recommendations to the EPA, which oversees the Clean Water Act 303(d) program. The EPA approves the list or recommends changes to it. In recent years, the state has added language to Regulation 2 that has changed or clarified the way the state determines whether a body of water is polluted. Changes include allowing certain water bodies to exceed mineral standards in 25 percent of the tests before being considered polluted, instead of 10 percent; applying standards in lakes at 1-meter depth instead of the surface; and clarifying that mineral levels for certain regions -- known as ecoregion reference stream minerals values -- will be used as guidelines and not standards for water quality. That clarification merely reflects how the department has always used those values, department officials said. Because of Regulation 2's role in making determinations under the Clean Water Act, the EPA must approve any changes made to the language of the regulation. The previous major Regulation 2 changes were approved by the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission two years ago but have not been approved by the EPA. As an example, the EPA has wanted the state to maintain the ecoregion values as standards for water bodies in the state, according to Jane Watson, associate director with the water quality division for the EPA in Dallas. If Arkansas officials remove those ecoregion values, it should replace them with new ones, Watson said. "When a state wants to change an approach to water quality, they can do that," she said. "But from a legal standpoint, we need to have a different set of numbers" or something else. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Director Becky Keogh said ecoregion values would be used as guidelines so as to not unnecessarily hurt cities or industry by using data in a way it wasn't intended. Keogh did not work for the department at the time of the regulation change but said she wants to ensure that standards are not "overreaching or unreasonable." Some stream standards are unnecessary and unreasonably strict, said Allan Gates, an attorney at the Mitchell Williams law firm in Little Rock. Such standards prompt businesses and city utilities to do extensive research on a body of water to determine an easier-to-meet standard that wouldn't negatively impact the environment. Gates has represented many industries and municipalities seeking permit changes related to water standards before the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. His latest cases involved the cities of Harrison and Yellville, which wanted to increase the allowable levels of minerals their wastewater utilities were allowed to discharge into Crooked Creek. The city-funded research reviewed by the commission showed no impact from the change. Gates noted that many people who are concerned about a body of water use the polluted list to get the water body cleaned up. That cleanup likely won't happen until the EPA approves the state list. "We're working very deliberately with the EPA to make sure the state's standards are being applied in an appropriate manner," Keogh said. "It's all protective of the excellent water quality we have in the state of Arkansas." Metro on 02/29/2016 Print Headline: Pollution comments sought
By Emily Walkenhorst Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality officials will hear public comments this week about the state's latest proposed list of polluted water bodies that require cleanup under the federal Clean Water Act. Tuesday's meeting is exactly one month before the department is to submit its final list -- called the 303(d) list -- to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Such lists have sometimes languished after being submitted to the EPA, and bodies of water that the department says are newly polluted or no longer polluted go unaddressed. Since 2010, the Department of Environmental Quality has submitted three proposed polluted-streams lists, but the EPA has taken no action on them because the agencies are at odds over what the state's water quality standards are or should be. If the EPA doesn't act on the Department of Environmental Quality's 2016 list, which is up for public discussion through March 11, it would be the fourth list left to idle since the EPA last approved one in 2008. "It does put us in an odd spot," said Sarah Clem, water quality planning branch manager for the Department of Environmental Quality. Being included on the polluted list has an impact on a water body's neighbors, including businesses, utilities and individuals. "It will affect any permits that industry has or wants to have," said Charles Miller, executive director of the Arkansas Environmental Federation, which works with businesses on environmental compliance. "So yeah, there's an impact." Every two years the department is required to produce a new list of streams that are "impaired" or are no longer impaired, on the basis of department testing and reviews. A designation of impaired" can trigger a study on the amount of pollutants a stream can have in it and still meet water-quality standards. That study can result in stricter limits in permits for businesses, utilities or others regarding discharging wastewater into a stream. Likewise, removal from the list can prompt the removal of such limits. Since 2010, the department has suggested adding at least 165 water bodies to the polluted list and removing at least 240 others. Data provided for 2010 don't include a breakdown of which water bodies were added or removed from the list as compared with 2008. Many water bodies are on the lists more than once because some portions of a river or creek may be considered polluted while other portions may not be. According to Stacey Dwyer, the EPA's associate director for national pollutant discharge elimination systems permits and total maximum daily load, the agency has been trying since 2008 to sort out three things with Arkansas: • The variation of pollutants in the state. • The way the state assesses water bodies. • The way the state has changed its standards. "It's just a lot of complex issues," Dwyer said. "We want to make sure we're doing it correctly and working with the state." The Department of Environmental Quality establishes its water quality standards in Regulation 2 with the approval of the department's appellate body, the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. The department then uses those standards to determine stream impairment and sends along its recommendations to the EPA, which oversees the Clean Water Act 303(d) program. The EPA approves the list or recommends changes to it. In recent years, the state has added language to Regulation 2 that has changed or clarified the way the state determines whether a body of water is polluted. Changes include allowing certain water bodies to exceed mineral standards in 25 percent of the tests before being considered polluted, instead of 10 percent; applying standards in lakes at 1-meter depth instead of the surface; and clarifying that mineral levels for certain regions -- known as ecoregion reference stream minerals values -- will be used as guidelines and not standards for water quality. That clarification merely reflects how the department has always used those values, department officials said. Because of Regulation 2's role in making determinations under the Clean Water Act, the EPA must approve any changes made to the language of the regulation. The previous major Regulation 2 changes were approved by the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission two years ago but have not been approved by the EPA. As an example, the EPA has wanted the state to maintain the ecoregion values as standards for water bodies in the state, according to Jane Watson, associate director with the water quality division for the EPA in Dallas. If Arkansas officials remove those ecoregion values, it should replace them with new ones, Watson said. "When a state wants to change an approach to water quality, they can do that," she said. "But from a legal standpoint, we need to have a different set of numbers" or something else. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Director Becky Keogh said ecoregion values would be used as guidelines so as to not unnecessarily hurt cities or industry by using data in a way it wasn't intended. Keogh did not work for the department at the time of the regulation change but said she wants to ensure that standards are not "overreaching or unreasonable." Some stream standards are unnecessary and unreasonably strict, said Allan Gates, an attorney at the Mitchell Williams law firm in Little Rock. Such standards prompt businesses and city utilities to do extensive research on a body of water to determine an easier-to-meet standard that wouldn't negatively impact the environment. Gates has represented many industries and municipalities seeking permit changes related to water standards before the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. His latest cases involved the cities of Harrison and Yellville, which wanted to increase the allowable levels of minerals their wastewater utilities were allowed to discharge into Crooked Creek. The city-funded research reviewed by the commission showed no impact from the change. Gates noted that many people who are concerned about a body of water use the polluted list to get the water body cleaned up. That cleanup likely won't happen until the EPA approves the state list. "We're working very deliberately with the EPA to make sure the state's standards are being applied in an appropriate manner," Keogh said. "It's all protective of the excellent water quality we have in the state of Arkansas." Metro on 02/29/2016 Print Headline: Pollution comments sought
By Emily Walkenhorst
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality officials will hear public comments this week about the state's latest proposed list of polluted water bodies that require cleanup under the federal Clean Water Act. Tuesday's meeting is exactly one month before the department is to submit its final list -- called the 303(d) list -- to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Such lists have sometimes languished after being submitted to the EPA, and bodies of water that the department says are newly polluted or no longer polluted go unaddressed. Since 2010, the Department of Environmental Quality has submitted three proposed polluted-streams lists, but the EPA has taken no action on them because the agencies are at odds over what the state's water quality standards are or should be. If the EPA doesn't act on the Department of Environmental Quality's 2016 list, which is up for public discussion through March 11, it would be the fourth list left to idle since the EPA last approved one in 2008. "It does put us in an odd spot," said Sarah Clem, water quality planning branch manager for the Department of Environmental Quality. Being included on the polluted list has an impact on a water body's neighbors, including businesses, utilities and individuals. "It will affect any permits that industry has or wants to have," said Charles Miller, executive director of the Arkansas Environmental Federation, which works with businesses on environmental compliance. "So yeah, there's an impact." Every two years the department is required to produce a new list of streams that are "impaired" or are no longer impaired, on the basis of department testing and reviews. A designation of impaired" can trigger a study on the amount of pollutants a stream can have in it and still meet water-quality standards. That study can result in stricter limits in permits for businesses, utilities or others regarding discharging wastewater into a stream. Likewise, removal from the list can prompt the removal of such limits. Since 2010, the department has suggested adding at least 165 water bodies to the polluted list and removing at least 240 others. Data provided for 2010 don't include a breakdown of which water bodies were added or removed from the list as compared with 2008. Many water bodies are on the lists more than once because some portions of a river or creek may be considered polluted while other portions may not be. According to Stacey Dwyer, the EPA's associate director for national pollutant discharge elimination systems permits and total maximum daily load, the agency has been trying since 2008 to sort out three things with Arkansas: • The variation of pollutants in the state. • The way the state assesses water bodies. • The way the state has changed its standards. "It's just a lot of complex issues," Dwyer said. "We want to make sure we're doing it correctly and working with the state." The Department of Environmental Quality establishes its water quality standards in Regulation 2 with the approval of the department's appellate body, the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. The department then uses those standards to determine stream impairment and sends along its recommendations to the EPA, which oversees the Clean Water Act 303(d) program. The EPA approves the list or recommends changes to it. In recent years, the state has added language to Regulation 2 that has changed or clarified the way the state determines whether a body of water is polluted. Changes include allowing certain water bodies to exceed mineral standards in 25 percent of the tests before being considered polluted, instead of 10 percent; applying standards in lakes at 1-meter depth instead of the surface; and clarifying that mineral levels for certain regions -- known as ecoregion reference stream minerals values -- will be used as guidelines and not standards for water quality. That clarification merely reflects how the department has always used those values, department officials said. Because of Regulation 2's role in making determinations under the Clean Water Act, the EPA must approve any changes made to the language of the regulation. The previous major Regulation 2 changes were approved by the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission two years ago but have not been approved by the EPA. As an example, the EPA has wanted the state to maintain the ecoregion values as standards for water bodies in the state, according to Jane Watson, associate director with the water quality division for the EPA in Dallas. If Arkansas officials remove those ecoregion values, it should replace them with new ones, Watson said. "When a state wants to change an approach to water quality, they can do that," she said. "But from a legal standpoint, we need to have a different set of numbers" or something else. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Director Becky Keogh said ecoregion values would be used as guidelines so as to not unnecessarily hurt cities or industry by using data in a way it wasn't intended. Keogh did not work for the department at the time of the regulation change but said she wants to ensure that standards are not "overreaching or unreasonable." Some stream standards are unnecessary and unreasonably strict, said Allan Gates, an attorney at the Mitchell Williams law firm in Little Rock. Such standards prompt businesses and city utilities to do extensive research on a body of water to determine an easier-to-meet standard that wouldn't negatively impact the environment. Gates has represented many industries and municipalities seeking permit changes related to water standards before the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. His latest cases involved the cities of Harrison and Yellville, which wanted to increase the allowable levels of minerals their wastewater utilities were allowed to discharge into Crooked Creek. The city-funded research reviewed by the commission showed no impact from the change. Gates noted that many people who are concerned about a body of water use the polluted list to get the water body cleaned up. That cleanup likely won't happen until the EPA approves the state list. "We're working very deliberately with the EPA to make sure the state's standards are being applied in an appropriate manner," Keogh said. "It's all protective of the excellent water quality we have in the state of Arkansas." Metro on 02/29/2016 Print Headline: Pollution comments sought
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality officials will hear public comments this week about the state's latest proposed list of polluted water bodies that require cleanup under the federal Clean Water Act.
Tuesday's meeting is exactly one month before the department is to submit its final list -- called the 303(d) list -- to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Such lists have sometimes languished after being submitted to the EPA, and bodies of water that the department says are newly polluted or no longer polluted go unaddressed.
Since 2010, the Department of Environmental Quality has submitted three proposed polluted-streams lists, but the EPA has taken no action on them because the agencies are at odds over what the state's water quality standards are or should be.
If the EPA doesn't act on the Department of Environmental Quality's 2016 list, which is up for public discussion through March 11, it would be the fourth list left to idle since the EPA last approved one in 2008.
"It does put us in an odd spot," said Sarah Clem, water quality planning branch manager for the Department of Environmental Quality.
Being included on the polluted list has an impact on a water body's neighbors, including businesses, utilities and individuals.
"It will affect any permits that industry has or wants to have," said Charles Miller, executive director of the Arkansas Environmental Federation, which works with businesses on environmental compliance. "So yeah, there's an impact."
Every two years the department is required to produce a new list of streams that are "impaired" or are no longer impaired, on the basis of department testing and reviews.
A designation of impaired" can trigger a study on the amount of pollutants a stream can have in it and still meet water-quality standards. That study can result in stricter limits in permits for businesses, utilities or others regarding discharging wastewater into a stream. Likewise, removal from the list can prompt the removal of such limits.
Since 2010, the department has suggested adding at least 165 water bodies to the polluted list and removing at least 240 others. Data provided for 2010 don't include a breakdown of which water bodies were added or removed from the list as compared with 2008. Many water bodies are on the lists more than once because some portions of a river or creek may be considered polluted while other portions may not be.
According to Stacey Dwyer, the EPA's associate director for national pollutant discharge elimination systems permits and total maximum daily load, the agency has been trying since 2008 to sort out three things with Arkansas:
• The variation of pollutants in the state.
• The way the state assesses water bodies.
• The way the state has changed its standards.
"It's just a lot of complex issues," Dwyer said. "We want to make sure we're doing it correctly and working with the state."
The Department of Environmental Quality establishes its water quality standards in Regulation 2 with the approval of the department's appellate body, the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. The department then uses those standards to determine stream impairment and sends along its recommendations to the EPA, which oversees the Clean Water Act 303(d) program. The EPA approves the list or recommends changes to it.
In recent years, the state has added language to Regulation 2 that has changed or clarified the way the state determines whether a body of water is polluted. Changes include allowing certain water bodies to exceed mineral standards in 25 percent of the tests before being considered polluted, instead of 10 percent; applying standards in lakes at 1-meter depth instead of the surface; and clarifying that mineral levels for certain regions -- known as ecoregion reference stream minerals values -- will be used as guidelines and not standards for water quality. That clarification merely reflects how the department has always used those values, department officials said.
Because of Regulation 2's role in making determinations under the Clean Water Act, the EPA must approve any changes made to the language of the regulation. The previous major Regulation 2 changes were approved by the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission two years ago but have not been approved by the EPA.
As an example, the EPA has wanted the state to maintain the ecoregion values as standards for water bodies in the state, according to Jane Watson, associate director with the water quality division for the EPA in Dallas. If Arkansas officials remove those ecoregion values, it should replace them with new ones, Watson said.
"When a state wants to change an approach to water quality, they can do that," she said. "But from a legal standpoint, we need to have a different set of numbers" or something else.
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Director Becky Keogh said ecoregion values would be used as guidelines so as to not unnecessarily hurt cities or industry by using data in a way it wasn't intended. Keogh did not work for the department at the time of the regulation change but said she wants to ensure that standards are not "overreaching or unreasonable."
Some stream standards are unnecessary and unreasonably strict, said Allan Gates, an attorney at the Mitchell Williams law firm in Little Rock. Such standards prompt businesses and city utilities to do extensive research on a body of water to determine an easier-to-meet standard that wouldn't negatively impact the environment.
Gates has represented many industries and municipalities seeking permit changes related to water standards before the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. His latest cases involved the cities of Harrison and Yellville, which wanted to increase the allowable levels of minerals their wastewater utilities were allowed to discharge into Crooked Creek. The city-funded research reviewed by the commission showed no impact from the change.
Gates noted that many people who are concerned about a body of water use the polluted list to get the water body cleaned up. That cleanup likely won't happen until the EPA approves the state list.
"We're working very deliberately with the EPA to make sure the state's standards are being applied in an appropriate manner," Keogh said. "It's all protective of the excellent water quality we have in the state of Arkansas."
Metro on 02/29/2016
Print Headline: Pollution comments sought
The Missouri Clean Water Commission yesterday made official, it's decision to overturn an operating permit for Trenton Farms Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation proposed for the Hickory area of rural Grundy County.
The commission last Wednesday voted four to two, over-ruling the Department of Natural Resources decision in granting the permit. That followed a two-hour plushearing in Jefferson City regarding an appeal filed by a local organization called Hickory Neighbors United which expressed opposition to the proposed hog farm.
In its summary available online at the Missouri Clean Water Commission website, the final decision determined DNR failed to meet its burden of proving the operating permit was issued in accordance with current law. Concerns were cited regarding the target area being in a 100 year flood plain and questioning the state regulation whether a permanent organization exists that serves as quote “continuing authority” for the operation, maintenance, and modernization of the facility (CAFO) for which the application was made.
Last August, Hickory Neighbors filed an appeal, challenging the DNR issued permit. That appeal was the subject of an Administrative Hearing Commission meeting in October. And then that organization, in December, made a recommendation for the Clean Water Commission to sustain the permit.
The website also includes video of last weeks' Clean Water Commission meeting including presentations and testimony from three attorneys.
Tim Dugan represented the attorney generals' office after being assigned to defend the DNR decision once the appeal was made. Steven Jeffrey spoke on behalf of Hickory Neighbors United. And Robert Brundage represented Trenton Farms.
Brundage was once assistant general counsel for environmental affairs for the company previously-known as Premium Standard Farms.
At the end of the presentations, questions and answers, a motion was made for the Clean Water Commission to sustain the state permit for Trenton Farms.
But four members voted “no.” One of the Clean Water Commission members voting against Trenton Farms was Buddy Bennett – a former director of Trenton
Municipal Utilities. It was a roll call vote. The count stood two in favor and three opposed when Bennett cast the fourth and final “nay” vote. Other Clean Water Commissioners voting no were Todd Parnell of Springfield, Dennis Wood of Kimberling City, and Wallis Warren of Beaufort.
Voting in favor of sustaining the permit were Ashley McCarty of Novinger and John Cowheard of Mount Vernon. The seventh member of the commission, Samuel Leake of Perry, was absent.
Buddy Bennett, now of Oak Grove, was elected chairman of the clean water commission. He received the state appointment in 2012. Now retired, his background includes experience with municipal utilities and waste water systems.
Post Views: 445
By Mike Masterson
Posted: February 28, 2016 at 1:42 a.m.
Here we go again, circling the same wagons accomplishing nothing while avoiding robust discussion over the real potential for environmental calamity in our precious Buffalo National River watershed.
And for what, I continue to wonder? To defend at all costs one family in Newton County who teamed with Minnesota's Cargill Inc. to convince our state's Department of Environmental Quality (cough) it was a fine idea to approve the first hog factory in the state's most ecologically fragile region?
It's become a relevant question in light of the state's continuing public expense and political lobbying involved in keeping this misplaced factory running.
It was no surprise the two federal agencies, which guaranteed the loans for the C&H Hog Farms, released their findings the other day. They claim there's "no significant impact" to the first national river as a result of the millions of gallons of raw hog waste held in two lagoons when not being regularly sprayed across fields near Big Creek, a major tributary of the Buffalo flowing less than seven miles downstream. Don't worry, Arkansas! Be happy!
This latest environmental assessment follows the initial version filed by the Small Business Administration and the USDA's Farm Service Agency. U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall on Dec. 2, 2014, found it to be woefully lacking in facts and legally inadequate. Marshall ordered the agencies to redo a complete assessment that documented the potential environmental effects from this factory's location.
So did the U.S. agencies take the apolitical, mature approach and reach out to the Buffalo River Coalition that opposes this factory's location? Did they offer to work with the coalition to address serious and scientifically documented concerns? Did either agency perhaps perform dye testings and other groundwater assessments, since the watershed lies atop cracked limestone that rapidly transports water?
Nope. It seems instead they've tried to save face by piecemealing what little reported science they could locate to reinforce their original inadequate assessment. Is this a great example of science or what?
Meanwhile, the coalition, comprised of five groups opposing the factory's location and represented by Earthjustice attorney Hannah Chang, was unimpressed.
The group said it made sure to alert the two agencies to the known potential adverse environmental and economic impacts to the Buffalo watershed. Yet the agencies' finding of "no significant impact" ignored their science-based data and water-quality studies altogether.
"Perhaps the biggest flaw in the no impact finding is the conclusion that the water quality of the Buffalo River will not be significantly affected," Chang said. "The federal agencies based this conclusion on inaccurate information and analysis that the swine facility site does not exhibit karst hydrogeology, turning a blind eye to the overwhelming scientific consensus and the comments of the National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey to the contrary."
The coalition said it also alerted the agencies that the Oklahoma State University study that they misinterpreted as supporting their faulty determination had actually found a "major fracture and movement of waste" beneath the site. The finding of no impact overlooks this critical information.
Instead, the agencies' finding rehashes their denial of the hog factory's potential impacts on water and air quality, the quality of life in the community, public health, the health of the children who attend school near C&H, any endangered or threatened species, and the pollution from hog waste in the Buffalo National River, the coalition contends.
"The conclusion C&H is not located on karst and that groundwater and surface-water contamination is not imminent is absolutely based on flawed science," said karst expert and UA geoscience professor emeritus Dr. John Van Brahana, who with fellow volunteers has studied water quality around the factory since it opened in 2012. "The data collected over the past two years by my team and submitted to the agencies puts the likelihood of swine waste from C&H Hog Farms finding its way into the Buffalo National River at 95 percent.
"These data were completely ignored, as were similar comments from noted hydrologist Thomas Aley and the opinions of the National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey. We have all concluded that the C&H swine operation may have significant adverse impacts, which requires that a full Environmental Impact Statement be prepared."
Chang added: "With this [finding], the agencies have failed to meet their obligations under the law. The likelihood of significant environmental harm to America's first national river mandates a full environmental impact statement, not a finding of no impact that ignores clear data and hard science."
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at mmasterson@arkansasonline.com.
Two federal agencies' "finding of no significant impact" report on the environment from C&H Hog Farms near the Buffalo River has been signed, effectively ending a lawsuit that sought to curtail the farm's operations in the area.
In a three-page statement signed Feb. 18 and posted online Wednesday, the U.S. Small Business Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Services Agency finalized the findings of an environmental assessment drafted in August and completed in December.
The 81-page report concluded that permanent damage to the environment is unlikely from C&H Hog Farms. The farm, permitted to have up to 2,503 sows and 4,000 piglets, is on Big Creek 6.8 miles from where the creek meets the Buffalo River.
"The construction and ongoing operation of the C&H Hog Farm did not and is not expected to result in any irreversible or irretrievable resource commitments," the report said.
A lawsuit filed in 2013 by the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the Arkansas Canoe Club, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Ozark Society said the federal agencies failed to adequately consider the hog farm's impact on the environment in their initial assessment. That led to a second assessment being ordered by a federal judge.
"Essentially they reached the same conclusion as the faulty environmental assessment," said Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance. "We think they ignored sound science, and they cherry-picked data that suited preconceived notions of what their conclusions would be."
Watkins' group wanted the assessment to call for more research in the area, such as that being done by University of Arkansas at Fayetteville geosciences professor John Van Brahana. Brahana has said data collected over the past two years put the likelihood of swine waste from the hog farm reaching the Buffalo River at 95 percent.
The Buffalo River is the nation's first national river. More than 1.3 million people visited the river in 2014 and spent about $56.5 million at area businesses, according to National Park Service data.
Jason Henson, co-owner of C&H Hog Farms, didn't return a phone call Wednesday afternoon seeking comment.
Henson has previously said the federal agencies' August "finding of no significant impact" was good news for the next farmer who wants a loan or loan guarantees from either federal agency.
The four groups that filed the lawsuit and Earthjustice, a national nonprofit law group, could file a new complaint based on the finding of no significant impact, but Watkins said that seems unlikely at the moment.
"We just think at this point it's probably not a wise use of resources," Watkins said, of pursuing additional litigation.
Watkins said his group will now focus on complaints at the state level, such as two filed since September that accuse C&H Hog Farms of violating its permit.
The Small Business Administration and the USDA Farm Services Agency conducted their first study on the farm's environmental impact in 2012.
The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the Ozark Society, the Arkansas Canoe Club and the National Parks Conservation Association sued the federal agencies in 2013 after the agencies had agreed to back loans made to C&H that allowed the farm to open.
Because the farm didn't have sufficient collateral for its loan from Farm Credit Services of Western Arkansas, it had to get loan guarantees from the two federal agencies. The loan guarantees required the original environmental assessment.
A federal judge ruled in October 2014 that the initial study was faulty because it did not address the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act.
The finalized assessment studied surface water, groundwater and soils in the surrounding area, among other things. It determined that no action is needed in any of those areas to avert negative consequences on the environment.
Several passages in the assessment acknowledged that any heavy rain that produces 50-year or 100-year flood levels could lead to accidental discharges from farm waste lagoons that would have a "short-term" impact on nearby surface water.
The three-page summary of the final assessment was signed Feb. 18 by Farm Service Agency administrator Val Dolcini and John A. Miller, deputy associate administrator with the Small Business Administration office of capital access.
Metro on 02/25/2016
Perhaps the biggest flaw in the no impact finding is the conclusion that the water quality of the Buffalo River will not be significantly affected. The federal agencies based this conclusion on inaccurate information and analysis that the swine facility site does not exhibit karst hydrogeology, turning a blind eye to the overwhelming scientific consensus and the comments of the National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to the contrary. In fact, the Coalition alerted the federal agencies that the authors of an Oklahoma State University study, which the agencies misinterpret as supporting their faulty determination, have in fact found a “major fracture and movement of waste” underneath the site. But the final no impact finding entirely overlooks this critical information. The final FONSI rehashes the federal agencies’ long-standing and untenable denial of the facility’s potential impacts on water and air quality, public health and the health of the children who attend school next to C&H’s operations, endangered or threatened species, the general quality of life of local communities, and the almost certain pollution of the nearby Buffalo National River. “The conclusion that C&H is not located on karst and that groundwater and surface water contamination is not imminent is absolutely based on flawed science,” said nationally recognized karst expert Dr. John Van Brahana. “The data collected over the past two years by my team and submitted to the agencies puts the likelihood of swine waste from C&H Hog Farms finding its way into the Buffalo National River at 95 percent. These data were completely ignored, as were similar comments from noted hydrologist Thomas Aley and the opinions of the National Park Service and U.S. Geological Survey. We have all concluded that the C&H swine operation may have significant adverse impacts, which requires that a full Environmental Impact Statement be prepared.” The swine facility could devastate the tourism industry that is the lifeblood of Newton County and the surrounding area. The Buffalo National River relies on clear waters and a pristine environment to attract tourists to enjoy recreational activities such as swimming, kayaking, and blue-ribbon fishing. In fact, over 1.3 million people visited the Buffalo National River in 2014 and contributed $65 million to the local economy. By disputing that seepage of swine waste collected in C&H’s two waste storage ponds and sprayed onto fields will enter a karst system and ultimately flow into the Buffalo National River, the final FONSI erroneously downplays the potential impact of C&H on Arkansas’s tourism economy. “People swim, fish, and paddle in the Buffalo River, and may be subject to contact with untreated swine waste. The well water that people drink may become affected,” said Dane Schumacher, Buffalo River Watershed Alliance Board member. “By denying the scientific evidence of karst beneath the C&H operations, SBA and FSA have opened the doors for a wide range of water quality issues likely to be ahead of us. Our coalition remains very concerned about the unprecedented number of pigs, and the amount of pig waste, that has entered the Buffalo River Watershed.” “With this FONSI, the agencies have failed to meet their obligations under the law,” said Hannah Chang, attorney with Earthjustice, the public interest environmental law firm that represented the Coalition in court and on the comments. “The likelihood of significant environmental harm to America’s first national river mandates a full Environmental Impact Statement, not a finding of no impact that ignores clear data and hard science. With so much at risk, we are compelled to consider our next options for legal action.”
This article was published today at 2:08 a.m.
Meanwhile, back along the majestic Buffalo National River, one of our state's brightest jewels for recreation and tourism.
Kevin Cheri, superintendent of the Buffalo River National Park Service office at Harrison, in October sent a letter to Becky Keogh, the latest director of our state's Department of Environmental Quality (cough) asking that agency to place three tributaries of the Buffalo on its annual list of "impaired waterbodies."
Such a designation falls under requirements cited in the federal Clean Water Act.
Cheri's request included his agency's documentation of sustained fecal E. coli contamination in Mill Creek, as well as significantly low levels of dissolved oxygen in Bear Creek and Big Creek, the stream that flows alongside C&H Hog Farms at Mount Judea.
Did our agency for preserving water quality, which allowed the hog factory to set up shop on the Buffalo watershed, agree with Cheri and include these three creeks with obvious environmental problems?
Why, of course not. These streams won't even be considered for inclusion on the list until 2018. It seems folks at the Buffalo National River didn't make the March 31, 2015, deadline for inclusion in its latest list. And heaven forbid our state's official environmental watchdogs add three contaminated streams to their official list (despite documentation) after their deadline.
How could the Park Service possibly have met the deadline since its summer-long study didn't even begin until four months after the deadline had passed?
Cheri's letter cited findings of this contamination was documented over the summer primarily by the agency's aquatic ecologist Faron Usrey.
The water-quality studies showed E. coli levels in Mill Creek were significantly elevated during July, August and September to the point where Cheri said the pollution was likely to place the Buffalo River "out of compliance for primary contact recreation."
Other summer studies showed the levels of dissolved oxygen in Bear and Big Creeks had reached levels well below acceptable standards for maintaining healthy aquatic life. Bear Creek does continue to be listed, as it has for years, because of the inordinate amount of "total dissolved solids" contained in its flow.
The U.S. Geological Survey says: "The oxygen dissolved in lakes, rivers and oceans is crucial for the organisms and creatures living in it. As the amount of dissolved oxygen drops below normal levels ... the water quality is harmed and creatures begin to die off ... a process called eutrophication."
Rapidly moving water as in Ozark streams tends to contain a lot of dissolved oxygen; stagnant water contains less, the agency says. "Bacteria in water can consume oxygen as organic matter decays. Thus, excess organic material can cause eutrophic conditions, which is an oxygen-deficient situation that can cause a water body 'to die.' Aquatic life can have a hard time in stagnant water that contains a lot of rotting, organic material in it, especially in summer (the concentration of dissolved oxygen is inversely related to water temperature), when dissolved-oxygen levels are at a seasonal low."
In Cheri's letter to Keogh advocating adding the streams to the Impaired Waterbodies list, he noted that species such as freshwater mussels "are part of the suite of scenic and scientific resources Congress expected to be conserved when the Buffalo National River was established. [The National Park Service] needs the assistance of [the Department of Environmental Quality] in determining the sources of low dissolved oxygen and reducing or eliminating these sources."
Katherine Benenati, Department of Environmental Quality spokesperson, explained her department's response this way: The three creeks mentioned in the National Park Service's letter have not been listed on the most current proposed draft list.
"The period of record reviewed for the 2016 list ended March 31, 2015. ADEQ staff is currently reviewing the data and it will also be considered as part of the data record which will be evaluated for the next cycle occurring in 2018," she continued.
"Our staff has had an ongoing dialogue with the National Park Service. ADEQ employees reached out to NPS staffers via phone after the most recent letter to address their concerns and have had several conversations. We have a very open line of communication with the National Park Service and will continue such discussions."
I asked Cheri about any response or conversations he's had with Keogh or others at the agency in response to his letter. He said he'd heard nothing as of last week, but one of his staffers might have indeed communicated with someone there about the three streams.
The department has scheduled a public hearing for March 1 at its office in North Little Rock where the state's 2016 list of impaired waterbodies is expected to be be discussed. Those interested best not miss that deadline.
Editorial on 02/07/2016
Environmental and community groups worried about the impact of C&H Hog Farm, a 6,500 hog operation near the Big Creek tributary to the Buffalo National River, are raising concerns about what they say is a serious oversight by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. Officials from the National Park Service recommended to ADEQ that Big Creek and two other tributaries of the Buffalo be declared “impaired waters” under the Clean Water Act. ADEQ's recently released draft list of impaired water bodies failed to include Big Creek or the other streams, however. ADEQ will have a public hearing on March 1 at 2 pm to take public comments on the draft. Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance said that Big Creek is having environmental problems that may be related to the hog farm. Watkins got in touch by email:
Back in October, the National Park Service/ Buffalo National River sent a letter to ADEQ recommending that Big Creek and two other tributaries of the Buffalo be declared “impaired waters” and asking that they be included on the 2016 303(d) Clean Water Act List Of Impaired Waters in Arkansas. Buffalo River Watershed Alliance received a copy of the letter via a FOIA request to ADEQ. According to USGS data, Big Creek has been chronically below the ADEQ minimum allowable limit for dissolved oxygen. Low dissolved oxygen is a result of excessive algae growth due to high nutrient levels and can have a serious negative impact on aquatic life and overall water quality. High nutrient levels can come from many sources but it’s a pretty safe bet, and common sense suggests, that a 6,500 head hog factory in the watershed may be a contributing factor. However, ADEQ recently released their Draft 2016 Impaired Waterbodies List and neither Big Creek, nor the other two streams recommended by NPS are included. To our knowledge, ADEQ has provided no explanation for disregarding the advice of NPS, the accepted and most respected stewards of the Buffalo. For streams on the 303(d) list, measures must be taken to identify the sources of impairment and steps must be taken to reduce their impact. The 303(d) list is prepared every 2 years and ADEQ is having a public hearing on March 1 at 2 pm to discuss the draft 2016 303(d) list. We think the public should be made aware of this oversight by ADEQ and that citizens concerned with preserving the extraordinary waters of the Buffalo should attend this hearing and submit their comments for the record.
NEWS RELEASE: January 29, 2016
CONTACTS:
, Senior Hydrogeologist, (417) 785-4289, taley@ozarkundergroundlab.com (for supporting comments on science)
LINK TO ONLINE PRESS RELEASE & BUFFALO RIVER COALITION COMMENTS ON THE FSA/SBA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
http://earthjustice.org/news/press/2016/comment-period-ends-on-environmental-assessment-for-industrial-hog-facility-near-buffalo-river
Comment Period Ends on Environmental Assessment For Industrial Hog Facility Near Buffalo River
Coalition opposes conclusions of “no impact” made by federal agencies
Little Rock, Arkansas -- The public comment period for a hotly contested environmental assessment of an industrial hog facility in the Buffalo River watershed ended today. This assessment prepared by two federal agencies—the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Small Business Administration (SBA)--was required by a federal judge who found in a lawsuit filed by the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, Arkansas Canoe Club, National Parks Conservation Association, and the Ozark Society (the Buffalo River Coalition), that the agencies had failed to adequately consider C&H Hog Farm’s impacts on the environment. The agencies’ reevaluation, however, repeats the initial “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI) about C&H’s impacts.
Contrary to the agencies’ conclusions, the facts and best available science show that the unprecedented 6,500-swine C&H operation located in the watershed of the Buffalo National River may indeed have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in the agencies’ analysis is the unsupported conclusion that the industrial hog facility will have no adverse impacts on water quality—a conclusion that is grounded in the scientifically inaccurate supposition that C&H is not situated on karst. That claim has been thoroughly discredited by experts in the field and the National Park Service, and flies in the face of the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Karst is characterized by porous underground geology and drainage systems that enable rapid subsurface water movement. The likelihood of swine waste collected in C&H’s two waste storage ponds and sprayed onto fields finding its way in a karst system into the groundwater and ultimately the Buffalo National River is 95 percent, according to nationally recognized hydrogeologist and karst expert Dr. John Van Brahana.
“The failure by the federal agencies to consider karst and the related water impacts is a fatal flaw in their scientific analysis and discredits most of the findings in the Environmental Assessment and FONSI,” said Dr. Brahana. “The conclusion that there are no impacts on the Buffalo National River or on public health, is predicated on erroneous assumptions. The science shows that this swine operation may have significant adverse impacts, which requires that a full Environmental Impact Statement be prepared.”
Both the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, which have more direct and relevant expertise than the Farm Service Agency and the Small Business Administration on the geology and hydrogeology of the Ozark region, concur with the statements of scientific experts that C&H is located in a karst system dominated by closely interconnected groundwater and surface water flow.
“A ‘Finding of No Significant Impact’ ignores the considered wisdom of more than a few credible scientists,” said Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance. “The Buffalo River Coalition believes there is sufficient risk that environmental damage may or will occur at C&H Hog Farms, that the agencies have dismissed sound science to make a no impact finding, and should be made to produce a full Environmental Impact Statement. A full Environmental Impact Statement is necessary to fully consider the potential significant impacts the agencies have chosen to overlook.”
BACKGROUND
On August 6, 2013, the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, Arkansas Canoe Club, National Parks Conservation Association, and The Ozark Society in Arkansas represented by nonprofit law organization Earthjustice, Earthrise Law Center, and attorney Hank Bates filed a lawsuit against the USDA and SBA challenging the validity of loan guarantees made in 2012 to C&H Hog Farm, an industrial hog facility in the Buffalo National River Watershed. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled on December 2, 2014 that the loan guarantees to C&H were issued without an adequate environmental assessment, violated both the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, and ordered the agencies to take a second look at C&H’s environmental impacts. In August 2015, the two federal agencies released their revised environmental assessment and arrived at the same conclusion that they had arrived at unlawfully in 2012. The public comment period for the final environmental assessment and draft FONSI ends January 29, 2016.
The pristine waters of the Buffalo River, Arkansas’ crown jewel, meander for 150 miles through the Arkansas Ozarks. The economic importance of the river to the region cannot be overstated. Approximately 1.3 million visitors visit the river each year according to the National Park Service, spending more than $50 million in the surrounding communities.
# # #
Earthjustice is a non-profit public interest law organization dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth, and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. Earthjustice.org
Arkansas Times
The latest from the ongoing battle over the C&H Hog Farm in Mt. Judea, near the Big Creek tributary to the Buffalo National River: The public comment period ended today for a controversial environmental assessment of the 6,500-hog operation. The assessment came about because of a lawsuit filed by a coalition of environmental and community organizations; a federal judge found that two federal agencies had failed to adequately assess C&H's environmental impact when they approved the operation in 2013. The agencies re-evaluation again found "no significant impact." “A ‘Finding of No Significant Impact’ ignores the considered wisdom of more than a few credible scientists,” said Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, in a press release. “The Buffalo River Coalition believes there is sufficient risk that environmental damage may or will occur at C&H Hog Farms, that the agencies have dismissed sound science to make a no impact finding, and should be made to produce a full Environmental Impact Statement. A full Environmental Impact Statement is necessary to fully consider the potential significant impacts the agencies have chosen to overlook.” Watkins and others in the coalition raising concerns about C&H argue that the potential for problems is magnified because of the unique karst geology of this region in the Ozarks, with its irregular limestone formations. Karst areas are unusually porous and can have caves or sinkholes in unexpected places. Water often disappears underground; it's extremely unpredictable where that water will reappear. Dr. John Van Brahana, a recently retired University of Arkansas geology professor and a renowned karst expert, has been sounding the alarms about C&H Hog Farm for several years and has been doing ongoing pollution testing in the area. From the press release:
“The failure by the federal agencies to consider karst and the related water impacts is a fatal flaw in their scientific analysis and discredits most of the findings in the Environmental Assessment and Finding Of No Significant Impact,” said Dr. Brahana. “The conclusion that there are no impacts on the Buffalo National River or on public health, is predicated on erroneous assumptions. The science shows that this swine operation may have significant adverse impacts, which requires that a full Environmental Impact Statement be prepared.”
NEWS RELEASE: January 29, 2016 Comment Period Ends on Environmental Assessment For Industrial Hog Facility Near Buffalo River Coalition opposes conclusions of “no impact” made by federal agencies Little Rock, Arkansas — The public comment period for a hotly contested environmental assessment of an industrial hog facility in the Buffalo River watershed ended today. This assessment prepared by two federal agencies—the USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the Small Business Administration (SBA)—was required by a federal judge who found in a lawsuit filed by the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, Arkansas Canoe Club, National Parks Conservation Association, and the Ozark Society (the Buffalo River Coalition), that the agencies had failed to adequately consider C&H Hog Farm’s impacts on the environment. The agencies’ reevaluation, however, repeats the initial “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI) about C&H’s impacts. Contrary to the agencies’ conclusions, the facts and best available science show that the unprecedented 6,500-swine C&H operation located in the watershed of the Buffalo National River may indeed have a significant adverse impact on the environment. Perhaps the biggest flaw in the agencies’ analysis is the unsupported conclusion that the industrial hog facility will have no adverse impacts on water quality—a conclusion that is grounded in the scientifically inaccurate supposition that C&H is not situated on karst. That claim has been thoroughly discredited by experts in the field and the National Park Service, and flies in the face of the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. Karst is characterized by porous underground geology and drainage systems that enable rapid subsurface water movement. The likelihood of swine waste collected in C&H’s two waste storage ponds and sprayed onto fields finding its way in a karst system into the groundwater and ultimately the Buffalo National River is 95 percent, according to nationally recognized hydrogeologist and karst expert Dr. John Van Brahana. “The failure by the federal agencies to consider karst and the related water impacts is a fatal flaw in their scientific analysis and discredits most of the findings in the Environmental Assessment and FONSI,” said Dr. Brahana. “The conclusion that there are no impacts on the Buffalo National River or on public health, is predicated on erroneous assumptions. The science shows that this swine operation may have significant adverse impacts, which requires that a full Environmental Impact Statement be prepared.” Both the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey, which have more direct and relevant expertise than the Farm Service Agency and the Small Business Administration on the geology and hydrogeology of the Ozark region, concur with the statements of scientific experts that C&H is located in a karst system dominated by closely interconnected groundwater and surface water flow. “A ‘Finding of No Significant Impact’ ignores the considered wisdom of more than a few credible scientists,” said Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance. “The Buffalo River Coalition believes there is sufficient risk that environmental damage may or will occur at C&H Hog Farms, that the agencies have dismissed sound science to make a no impact finding, and should be made to produce a full Environmental Impact Statement. A full Environmental Impact Statement is necessary to fully consider the potential significant impacts the agencies have chosen to overlook.” BACKGROUND On August 6, 2013, the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, Arkansas Canoe Club, National Parks Conservation Association, and The Ozark Society in Arkansas represented by nonprofit law organization Earthjustice, Earthrise Law Center, and attorney Hank Bates filed a lawsuit against the USDA and SBA challenging the validity of loan guarantees made in 2012 to C&H Hog Farm, an industrial hog facility in the Buffalo National River Watershed. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas ruled on December 2, 2014 that the loan guarantees to C&H were issued without an adequate environmental assessment, violated both the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, and ordered the agencies to take a second look at C&H’s environmental impacts. In August 2015, the two federal agencies released their revised environmental assessment and arrived at the same conclusion that they had arrived at unlawfully in 2012. The public comment period for the final environmental assessment and draft FONSI ends January 29, 2016. The pristine waters of the Buffalo River, Arkansas’ crown jewel, meander for 150 miles through the Arkansas Ozarks. The economic importance of the river to the region cannot be overstated. Approximately 1.3 million visitors visit the river each year according to the National Park Service, spending more than $50 million in the surrounding communities.