Agencies: ‘No significant impact’ found

Jan. 18 last day to comment on study regarding hog farm near Buffalo River

Two federal agencies again issued a finding of “no significant impact” for a Mount Judea hog farm near the Buffalo National River.

The farm sits along Big Creek, 6.8 miles from where it flows into the Buffalo National River. It is the first large-scale hog farm in the watershed — the area that drains into the river.

C&H Hog Farms is permitted to have 2,500 sows and 4,000 piglets. It has been criticized by nearby residents and environmental groups upset about the perceived risk of pollution from hog waste.

In a report released last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Services Agency and the U.S. Small Business Administration cited current data and the restrictions of C&H Hog Farms’ permit as reasons why the farm would have no significant impact on the surrounding natural area.

People interested in the matter have until Jan. 18 to comment on the final study. Comments can be sent to CHHogFarmComments@cardnogs.com or to C&H Hog Farm Comments c/o Cardno, 501 Butler Farm Road, Suite H, Hampton, Va., 23666.

In September, the agencies requested that their Dec. 2 deadline for issuing a final assessment be extended to March 1. They cited an “unexpectedly high volume” of comments to respond to: 1,858.

A spokesman for the Farm Services Agency did not get

It is the first largescale hog farm in the watershed — the area that drains into the Buffalo National River.

back to an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reporter Friday about why the assessment was released so much earlier than March 1.

On Dec. 2, 2014, U.S. District Judge D. Price Marshall Jr. ordered the final assessment shortly after finding fault with the original assessment done by the agencies.

Marshall ordered a new study that would take the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act into account and would work with other relevant agencies.

That order stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, the Arkansas Canoe Club, the National Parks Conservation Association and the Ozark Society over loan guarantees that the agencies made that allowed C& H Hog Farms to secure loans from Farm Credit Services of Western Arkansas and go into operation in the spring of 2013.

Gordon Watkins, president of the Buffalo River Watershed Alliance, said his group was not anticipating a final assessment until much closer to March 1, and he was surprised to see it issued just before Christmas.

Watkins’ alliance was created in response to the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality’s approval of C&H’s permit for operating in late 2012.

He said the alliance didn’t have an official comment yet about the final assessment but would issue one opposing it before the Jan. 18 deadline.

“We’re really disappointed in the environmental assessment,” he said Friday.

Jason Henson, co-owner of C&H Hog Farms, did not respond to a voice mail left for him Friday.

Officials with the agencies have declined to release public comments submitted on the assessment. An official with the Farm Services Agency told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that the agencies would attach public comments received as an appendix to the final environmental assessment when it is completed.

In the final assessment released Wednesday, the agency summarized some comments, without specifying their sources, and then responded to them.

The newspaper obtained copies of the comments on the draft assessment, released in August, made by the plaintiffs and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality.

In a three-page comment, Ellen Carpenter — chief of the Water Division of the Environmental Quality Department — offered mostly clarifications on the environmental assessment, which included pointing out that the department does not have numeric standards for nutrients in streams and rivers.

“To date, ADEQ does not have sufficient data to assess for nutrient impairment on Big Creek or the Buffalo River,” Carpenter wrote.

In the plaintiffs’ 40-page comment, they again argued that the assessment was incomplete. The comment also includes research and opinions from science professors at universities in the South that raise concerns.

The plaintiffs’ comment also argues that the assessment is inaccurate about whether C&H is located on karst terrain, doesn’t include relevant data being collected by various researchers and ignores findings of impairment in Big Creek, among other things.

They argue that the federal agencies did not consider the socioeconomic costs of the farm, given the potential harm to property owners and tourism in poorer-than-average Newton County. In 2014, the Buffalo National River — the country’s first national river — had more than 1.3 million visitors who spent about $56.5 million at area businesses, according to National Park Service data.

In the final assessment released last week, the agencies incorporated National Park Service data to go with the previously used Big Creek Research and Extension Team data. The Big Creek team is conducting a fiveyear study by the University of Arkansas System’s Division of Agriculture. Previous comments had lamented that the draft assessment did not take into consideration the National Park Service’s data or other research that has been conducted in the area.

The agencies argued that the data used from the National Park Service indicated that the levels of nitrates in the water around the farm were acceptable.No increases in nitrate levels had been perceptibly measured since the farm started operating, the report said.

Additionally, the agencies said, “There would be no disproportionate effects to low-income populations because the operation of C&H Hog Farms [ is] within the terms of its NPDES [National Pollution Discharge Elimination System] General Permit and other environmental regulations to protect public health and welfare effectively prevent significant impacts.”

Further, they said, C&H Hog Farms has a “relatively small beneficial socioeconomic effect to the region,” consisting of nine jobs and $7,000 in property taxes.

The agencies also studied the potential impact on several bat species found in Newton County.

“Significant changes in water quality could adversely affect macroinvertebrate populations occurring in Big Creek, which indirectly could affect bat species through a reduction in prey base. However, no measureable [sic] adverse impacts to surface water quality in Big Creek have been identified based on the BCRET [Big Creek Research and Extension Team] and NPS [National Park System] water quality monitoring data,” the report reads.