Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
CAMPGROUND CHANGES REGULATIONS CAFOs Air pollution from manure Airborne ammonia is a respiratory irritant and can combine with other air pollutants to form ne particulate matter that can cause respiratory disease. And because ammonia is also re-deposited onto the ground mostly within the region from which it originates ammonia nitrogen deposited on soils that have evolved under low-nitrogen conditions may reduce biodiversity and nd its way into water sources. Ammonium ion deposition also contributes to the acidication of some forest soils. Animal agriculture is the major contributor of ammonia to the atmosphere andthesubstantialmajorityofthisammonialikelycomesfromconnementopera- tions since manure deposited by livestock on pasture contributes proportionately much less ammonia to the atmosphere than manure from CAFOs. Up to 70 per- cent of the nitrogen in CAFO manure can be lost to the atmosphere depending on manure storage and eld application measures. Over the past several decades the amount of airborne ammonia deposition in many areas of the United States with large numbers of CAFOs has been rising dramatically and may often exceed the capacity of forests and other environments to utilize it without harm. The USDA has estimated the total U.S. cost of controlling air and water pollution through manure distribution onto farmlandin quantities that comply with the Clean WaterActat 1.16 billion per year under high manure acceptance rates. However the standard applied in this calculation would only reduce airborne ammonia pollution from CAFOs by about 40 percent.And if lower more realistic manure acceptance rates were used the manure would have to be transported unacceptable distances.Therefore proper manure disposal from CAFOs at current farmer acceptance rates would in all likelihood exceed these values considerably. Harm to rural communities CAFOs are sited in rural communities that bear the brunt of the harm caused by CAFOs. This harm includes the frequent presence of foul odors and water contaminated by nitrogen and pathogens as well as higher rates of respiratory and other diseases compared with rural areas that are not located near CAFOs. One study determined that each CAFO in Missouri has lowered property values in its surrounding communities by an average total of 2.68 million. It is not possible to accurately extrapolate this value nationally due to the many differ- ences between localities but as a very rough indication of the magnitude of these costs multiplying by 9900 the total number of U.S. CAFOs as dened for this report would yield a loss of about 26 billion. Antibiotic-resistant pathogens Estimates have suggested that considerably greater amounts of antibiotics are used for livestock production than for the treatment of human disease in the United States. The massive use of antibiotics in CAFOs especially for non-therapeutic purposes such as growth promotion contributes to the development of antibiotic- resistant pathogens that are more difficult to treat. Many of the bacteria found on livestock such as Salmonella Escherichia coli and Campylobacter can cause food-borne diseases in humans. Furthermore recent evidence strongly suggests that some methicillin-resistant Staphylococ- cus aureus MRSA and uropathogenic E. coli infections may also be caused by animal sources. These pathogens collectively cause tens of millions of infections and many thousands of hospitalizations and deaths every year. Conclusions and recommendations The costs we pay as a society to support CAFOsin the form of taxpayer subsidies pollution harm to rural communities and poorer public healthis much too high. For example conservative estimates of grain subsidies and manure distribution alone suggest that CAFOs would have incurred at least 5 billion in extra production costs per year if these expenses were not shifted onto the public. The gure would undoubtedly be much higher if truly adequate manure distribu- tion was required. TechnologicalsolutionstospecicCAFOproblemshavebeenproposedsuch as feed formulations that would reduce manure nitrogen lagoon covers that would reduce atmospheric ammonia and biogas capture and production that would reduce methane emissions from manure but these are only partial solutions and would generally add to the cost of production. None of these technologies solve antibiotic resistance loss of rural income or the ethical treatment of animals. By comparisonsophisticatedCAFOalternativescanprovideplentifulanimalproducts at similar prices but with much fewer of the problems caused by CAFOs. The bottom line is that society is currently propping up an undesirable form of animal agriculture with enormous subsidies and a lack of accountability for its externalizedcosts.Onceweappreciatetherolethesesubsidiesalongwithgovern- ment policiesplay in shaping the way our food animals are raised we can also see the environmental health and economic benets to be gained from redirect- ing agriculture toward smart pasture operations and other desirable alternatives. Public policies that support CAFOs at the expense of such alternatives should be eliminated and policies that support these alternatives should be implemented. Needed actions include Strict and vigorous enforcement of anti-trust and anti-competitive practice laws under the Packers and StockyardsAct which cover captive supply transpar- ency of contracts and access to open markets StrongenforcementoftheCleanWaterActasitpertainstoCAFOsincluding improved oversight at the state level or the takeover of responsibilities currently delegated to the states for approving and monitoring and enforcement of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permits improvements could include more inspectors and inspections better monitoring of manure-handling practices and measurement of pollution prevention practices Development of new regulations under the CleanAirAct that would reduce emissionsofammoniaandotherairpollutantsfromCAFOsandensurethatCAFO operators cannot avoid such regulations by encouraging ammonia volatilization Continuedmonitoringandreportingofammoniaandhydrogensuldeemis- sionsasrequiredundertheComprehensiveEnvironmentalResponseCompensation andLiabilityActandtheEmergencyPlanningandCommunityRight-to-KnowAct Replacement of farm bill commodity crop subsidies with subsidies that strengthenconservationprogramsandsupportpriceswhensuppliesarehighrather than allowing prices to fall below the cost of production Reduction of the current 450000 EQIP project cap to levels appropriate to smaller farms with a focus on support for sound animal farming practices Revisionofslaughterhouseregulationstofacilitatelargernumbersofsmaller processors including the elimination of requirements not appropriate to smaller facilities combined with public health measures such as providing adequate num- bers of federal inspectors or empowering and training state inspectors Substantial funding for research to improve alternative animal production methods especially pasture-based that are benecial to the environment public health and rural communities CAFOs uncovered The untold costsContinued from page 16 Attention Campers GLIFWC member tribes exercising their treaty rights may camp for free on most campgrounds in the Chequamegon-Nicolet Ottawa Hiawatha and Huron-Manistee National Forests. Permits are issued through the NativeAmeri- can Game Fish Applications NAGFA. There is currently no camping agreement for Michigan state prop- erties Wisconsin state properties Minnesota state properties or county properties so your tribal camping permit issued through the NAGFA system is valid ONLY for the above four National Forest campgrounds. It is your responsibility to know the ownership of the campground where youplantostay.IfyouhavequestionswiththispleasecontactAlexandraWrobel at GLIFWC at 715-682-6619. Prior to camping You must obtain a tribal camping permit through your tribal registration station or GLIFWC. You will be issued a paper permit similar to previous years.This permit will include a tribal camping permit number that you will use to fill out the envelope at the campground. If you will be using other areas of the National Forest that require a park- ing permit you can also obtain this from your registration clerk or GLIFWC. The parking permits are hung from the rear view mirror and have the GLIFWC logo on them. These do not expire and can be used beyond this sea- son. The number that is on your parking permit is a number unique to you in the NAGFA system. You can find this number at the top of your paper permit next to NAGFA ID . This is different than the number you will use for the camping envelope. Arriving at the campground Follow the camping registration procedures at the campground. Generally thisinvolvesprovidinginformationrequestedonaregistrationformorenvelope. You do not need to place anything inside the envelope. During your stay You are required to follow all posted campground rules and regulations and note that some rules may differ between campgrounds. 2015 campground changes TheChequamegon-NicoletNationalForestisfacingchallengeswithcontinu- ing the current level of services provided at developed recreational sites. Due to increased operational costs and constrained funding the Forest has made some changes to stay within their 2015 budget. While the majority of campgrounds trails boat launches and other recreational sites will remain unaffected a small proportion of them roughly 11 percent will have reduced service levels and some willbeclosed.TheForesthascontinuedtomaintainservicelevelsdespitefinancial troubles during the last several years but this practice is no longer sustainable. Sites were selected based on various factors including history of tribal use. From Forest Supervisor Paul Strong I respectfully request that tribal members refrain from using the closed campgrounds or campground loops this summer while we conduct consultation and evaluate the budget situation in regard to future permanent action. I am sensitive to tribal treaty rights on the National Forest and the negative effect that closures may have on some tribal members. I believe that the other recreation sites on the Forest many of which are close to sites with reduced service levels may provide suitable alternatives for tribal members. There may be ways for minor adjustments to be made to accommodate tribal needs or desires which cannot be satisfied by use of other sites. The TribalForest Service MOU states that Tribes can request permits from the Forest Service for use of campgrounds closed to public use. Thesechangesarefor2015onlyandwillbereevaluatedforfutureyearsbased on funding levels consultation with tribes and input from other stakeholders and users. For a complete listing of recreation sites that will be affected please visit www.fs.usda.govcnnf and select Changes to Summer Recreation Opportunities. GLIFWC will also be maintaining a list of campground changes that can be found at data.glifwc.orgcamping. The Forest welcomes your feedback and has established an online interac- tive map where comments can be entered and also has comment cards available online at httpwww.fs.usda.govrecmaincnnfrecreation. You can also find a list of available recreation sites on that page. By Alex Wrobel GLIFWC Forest Ecologist MAZINAIGAN PAGE 22 SUMMER 2015