IDEM FARM ID
#6957
IDEM Mission
and Tri-Lakes
We appreciate, and
rely on IDEM’s
mission to protect
our water systems
and ecosystems.
We deem IDEM to
be one of our
greatest advocates.
Shriner Lake Sunrise 2017
Concerned Lake
Citizens
of Whitley County
Concerned residents of the
Tri-Lakes and surrounding
lakes in Whitley County.
Our mission is to protect the
waterways and the scenic
beauty in our community.
Photo credit Booth#18 Big Cedar 2007
What We are Doing
■ We are writing letters.
■ We are testing our water.
– Since the integrity of our waterways may be
threatened, we are in the process of testing wells
, lakes and watersheds for contaminants in order
to establish a current baseline of water quality.
■ We are gathering evidence and data in hopes of
relocating CFO’s to areas that are less populated
and less susceptible to water quality issues
Objectives
■ To voice 4 particular concerns regarding
permit application
■ To share the implications of a water feasibility study.
■ To express concerns regarding acreage, terrain, and
proximity of the CFO and manure fields to water
systems
■ To convince IDEM to make a multi-site visit to the
area impacted by the CFO
Concerns
 The consumption of water for cleaning and
maintenance of facilities
 The location of the CFO directly over our aquifer
 The effect of composted animal carcasses on soil and water
 No manure calculations or mortality calculations contained in
permit application
The consumption of water for drinking, and
cleaning and maintenance of facilities
Google Images
Water Feasibility Study
Tri-Lakes commissioned
a Watershed Feasibility
Study June , 1992 in
cooperation with TriLakes Property Owners
Association
Submitted by: Gensic &
Associates & Thomas L.
Crisman, PH.D
The Watershed Feasibility Study had 3
Objectives:
1. Map drainage & subwatersheds
2. Map land highly erodible soils and
establish baseline
3. Provide information for future
recommendations
Water Study 1992
Water Quality at Risk
Our waterbodies provide suitable habitat for survival
and reproduction of
■ Desirable Fish
■ Shellfish
■ Other Aquatic Organisms
■ Wildlife
■ State and Federal endangered species
Google Image
Objective 3
■ To demonstrate that the acreage cannot
sustain the volume of CFO waste without
catastrophic impact on the environment and
water systems
So much manure, so little land
Average Manure
Production*
1 Beef cow @ 1,250 lbs.
 per day: 75 lbs. of
manure
 per year: 27,375 lbs. or
 13.7 tons of manure
1300 Beef Cows
 Per day: 97,500 lbs. or
 487 tons of manure
 Per year: 35,587, 000
lbs. or 18,000 tons
15 tons per acre per year, where’s it go?
It has to go somewhere
Ditch at 1900 East Linker Road Big Cedar at Trilakes May 2 2017
Permit Says…
“Crop production land available for land application of manure and
wastewater generated from this proposed CFO includes 1,243.1 acres
of spreadable land that we included with this application…”
In Fact…
HI45 removed from application
-53.97 acres
HI20 and HI21 mapped acreage and signed
agreement don’t match
-11.02 acres
No signed agreement for HI26 and HI28
-77 acres
Total
-149.99 acres
Final Answer:
Spreadable land available is 1,101.11 acres
What happens when there is more animal
waste than the soil can utilize for crop growth?
Manure
application rates
exceed the
capacity of the
land to assimilate
nutrients
Repeated
applications lead
to a buildup of
nutrients in the
soil
Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, Animal Residuals
Management 2000, pp. 18-157(140
Nutrients move
from the field
through leaching
and runoff,
polluting ground
and surface water
Indiana Distressed
Waterways
To the right is a map
showing distressed
waterways in Indiana.
The distressed
waterways are marked
in red.
Indiana’s Draft 2016 of Impaired Waters
From Attachment 7, Category 5: Waters
The Current State
of Waterways
In Whitley County,
43 Lakes, Rivers,
Branches, Creeks
or Ditches are listed
as Impaired
Upper Wabash River Basin
31 with Impaired Biotic
communities (IBCs)
12 with E. coli
7 with Phosphorus
4 with Dissolved oxygen
2 with Nutrients
1 with PCBA (fish tissue)
Of the lakes near the proposed CFO:
Shriner, Troy Cedar, and Little Cedar
have High Phosphorus content
* Many have multiple issues and not singular ones
Proposed Manure fields near or on
identified distressed water areas
Field
ID
Acreage
Water
Source
Distressed Water
Classification
HI16
44.93
Blue River
IBCs*, E. coli
HI28N
HI28S
30.90
46.10
Blue Babe Branch
Blue Babe Branch
IBCs
IBCs
HI32
30.89
Blue Babe Branch
IBCs
HI42
67.24
Eel River
HI52
64.92
Cole Ditch
*Impaired Biotic Components
IBCs, E. coli,
PCBS (fish tissue)
IBCs
Manure Fields
Many of these areas
directly encroach upon
impaired or distressed
waterways.
The following views are
taken directly from the
application by Hinen Farms
for a permit for a CAFO
https://bridgehunter.com/in/whitley/big-map/
Manure Fields HI 6, 7, 20, 21, 34 Section 14 and 15
Cole Ditch
Status: Distressed
IBCs*, E. coli
This topographical map shows proximity to
watersheds, and several areas with significant
slope toward them.
Manure Fields HI 12, 13, 15, 19, 36, 49, 50, 51 Section 22 and 23
Cole Ditch
Status: Distressed
IBCs*, E. coli
This topographical map shows proximity to watersheds
and several areas of slope toward them.
Manure Fields HI 16, 37, 38, 52 Section 26 and 27
Cole Ditch
HI 16
Blue River
Status: Distressed
IBCs*, E. coli
HI 52
Cole Ditch
Status: Impaired
IBCs, E. coli,
PCBS (fish tissue)
Blue River
Manure Fields HI 14, 45 Section 22 and 23
o
Red oval indicates steep slope toward Catfish
lake, which runs into Shriner Lake
This set of photos
shows the movement
of water from HI14
down the hill via
drainage ditches,
conduits and gravity
Manure Fields HI 26,
28, 32 Section 8
Blue Babe Branch
Blue Babe Branch
Status: Impaired
IBCs*, E. coli
Note proximity and moderate grade of proposed manure field
to Blue Babe Branch watershed, a distressed waterway.
Manure Fields HI33, 48, 55
Section 4 and 5
Manure Fields HI 29, 31 Section 25
Manure Fields HI 40, 41, 43, 44 Section 1 and 6
Miller Ditch
Manure Field HI 42
Eel River
Status: Impaired
IBCs, E. coli,
PCBS (fish tissue)
Section 8
Final Words
■
The manure fields are dangerously close to watersheds and pose a
threat to ground and surface waters, especially because the Hinen
farm sits directly on top of our aquifer
■
The acreage of manure fields is not enough to accommodate the
staggering quantities of animal waste.
■
If the proposed manure fields in question are eliminated, then
there is an even larger deficit of land to accommodate waste
material
A message to IDEM
■ As our greatest advocate in maintaining the safety of our water
systems, we implore IDEM to take our concerns into account.
■ Come visit the sites and see for yourselves.
■ We would like to tour the sites with you so we can show you our
concerns in person
Degradation & Comparisons
Manure application rates may
exceed the capacity of the land to
assimilate nutrients, repeated
applications can lead to a buildup
of nutrients in the soil.
This proliferation increases the
potential for nutrients to move
from the field through leaching
and runoff and to pollute ground
and surface water.
Source: Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, Animal
Residuals Management 2000, pp. 18-157(140
Property East Bair Road
Shriner Lake May 3, 2017