• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.



Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Proposed Pennsylvania Law...

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Proposed Pennsylvania Law...

    will require an erosion and sediment control plan for horse stables and other livestock farms with "Animal heavy use areas." These are areas of 5000 sf or more that cannot maintain adequate vegetation due to animal traffic. The definition is below;

    "Animal heavy use area--Barnyard, feedlot, loafing area, exercise lot, or other similar area on an agricultural operation where because of the concentration of animals it is not possible to establish and maintain vegetative cover of a density capable of minimizing accelerated erosion and sedimentation by usual planting methods."

    The proposed update to PA Code Chapter 102 can be found at http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/dat...9-35/1610.html

    DEP is accepting public comment through November.
    Last edited by baytraks; Oct. 20, 2009, 10:49 PM.

  • #2
    It probably goes along with the stuff they have been doing over the past year or 2 in regards to fertilizer use and manure disposal on farms with more than x tons of livestock per acre. It all boils down to erosion and runoff issues into the Chesapeake watershed and efforts to clean it up...which is not really a bad thing............
    We got spot checked/inspected and surveyed (twice!) by the Ag department for the above. No problems here though as we have acres per horse and not the horses per acre they are targeting as the problem areas.
    Providence Farm


    • Original Poster

      camohn, you speak with wisdom about the CAFO rules based on animal density, and the importance of protecting the Chesapeake and other creeks and streams from erosion and sedimentation. However, this is a new rulemaking, and there is no correlation to animal density.


      • #4
        CAFO rules are regulated by the EPA, whereas the Nutrient Management Laws and E&S Laws (Erosion and Sediment control) are local/State laws.

        For anyone impacted by any of these regulations/laws- a wealth of information is available at your local ag extension office, county conservation district office, and USDA NRCS office. All listed in the blue pages or on google.

        Here in Delaware, we address a HUA (Heavy Use Area) as part of our Nutrient Management planning and allow livestock to rotate into the HUA area during inclement weather to help protect the other 99% of the property. We are mostly flat as a pancake here and have plenty of buffers and filters strips around our waters (generally speaking). PA may be trying to address the deposition of sediments into the waters by way of vegetating these HUA areas or at least requiring filter strips/buffers, etc between the HUA and the water bodies.

        Just a thought... as I haven't read the PA lawbooks.


        • #5
          I hope someone can help with two concerns I have after reading the explanatory comments that preface the new regs:

          First, to know if my land constitutes an "Animal Heavy Use Area", I need to know what is meant by this language in the definition of that term:

          "vegetative cover of a density capable of minimizing accelerated erosion and sedimentation by usual planting methods."

          Second, while I agree abundant scientific proof exists that a riparian buffer is an effective means of reducing pollutants in waterways adjacent to livestock areas, requiring a buffer 150' wide seems to be a huge change.

          Studies I've read suggest buffers of 35' are effective in reducing pollutants. A 150' buffer will render huge areas of pasture off-limits to grazing. This rule will be especially hard on the smaller farms here in Southeast Pennsylvania. Wouldn't a lesser width be more sensible?

          Thanks for any help!

          Confused in Chester County


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pickering54390 View Post
            First, to know if my land constitutes an "Animal Heavy Use Area", I need to know what is meant by this language in the definition of that term:

            "vegetative cover of a density capable of minimizing accelerated erosion and sedimentation by usual planting methods."
            I don't think there could be a concrete definition there but the way I read it, it means if you've got a paddock that you just can't grow grass on, that qualifies it as a heavy use area. For example, my sacrifice paddock. Grass will never grow in there.

            As far as the 150' buffer, the document said:

            "The rulemaking proposes 150-foot riparian forest buffers for permitted activities along Exceptional Value (EV) streams. Some of the members recommended that riparian forest buffers be mandatory for not only EV, but all waters, while others recommended that riparian forest buffers be used voluntarily."

            So I guess it depends on if you're near an EV stream... as of the current wording although it sounds like they want to make it ANY water.

            My questions are - 1) does the 150' buffer mean you cannot put horses within 150' of the stream, or does it mean you just can't have sacrifice paddocks within 150' of the stream? The latter would seem reasonable to me, while the former seems overly restrictive. And 2) I wonder if you already have pasture up against an EV stream, how do you get a riparian forest to magically appear in that spot? Lastly 3) They are seriously including no-till planting in this? That seems a little over the top to me.


            • #7
              riparian buffers


              Thanks for the reply

              I'm along a perennial stream in the Pickering Creek water shed which has been designated an High Quality Stream so this buffer issue is in my wheelhouse.

              I appreciate your reply and I do agree that an area so trampled that nothing can grow seems to meet the definition of an "Animal Heavy Use Area".

              Still, the definition, to my reading, goes further by stating that the inability to grow a "vegetative cover of a density capable of minimizing accelerated erosion and sedimentation by usual planting methods" may lead to the designation AHUA. This suggests just any vegetative cover will not do.

              Can the Conservation District clarify this or is there some other source that explains what seems to be a subjective standard?



              • #8
                Originally posted by Pickering54390 View Post
                Can the Conservation District clarify this or is there some other source that explains what seems to be a subjective standard?

                They'll be able to clarify some things - but you'll have to be careful because the quality of information you receive will depend largely on who is doing the talking.

                Generally, a vegetative buffer means just that. Think of it as a no man's land. (or no animal's land)

                Unless your area is adopting some new definition, it means no animal may be pastured in the vegetative buffer. Ever.

                Buffers are intended to mitigate the amount of nutrients and sediment entering designated waters.

                Vegetative cover may be defined as warm and cool season grasses, native grasses, or in many cases, grasses combined with native tree plantings. You do not mow it or maintain it - the purpose is to slow water passing through it. It is to be kept wild.

                In other cases, if one goal is to make the buffer more attractive to certain wild animals, conservation plantings can include certain types of native grasses and/or trees, nesting cavities such as wood duck boxes, that sort of thing.

                You also need to find out what they consider to be an animal unit. You'd think it was - one animal unit = one animal.

                But it's not. How your operation is categorized may depend on how many adult animals you have versus young, and what species.

                These types of restrictions and mandatory setbacks/ buffers are becoming more common; and that is both a good thing and bad thing.

                I'd encourage you to start becoming heavily involved in the process or you're going to be run over by regulations you may not have the money to implement.

                There are ways of funding the required improvements but you may or may not qualify, there may or may not be enough money, or there may or may not be tax implications associated with participating in those programs.

                No matter how you slice it your best course of action is to become involved while this is still in the planning/proposal phase. That is when the types of plantings, density of plantings, setbacks, and other specifics are ironed out.
                Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
                Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
                -Rudyard Kipling


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Pickering54390 View Post

                  the definition, to my reading, goes further by stating that the inability to grow a "vegetative cover of a density capable of minimizing accelerated erosion and sedimentation by usual planting methods" may lead to the designation AHUA. This suggests just any vegetative cover will not do.

                  Can the Conservation District clarify this or is there some other source that explains what seems to be a subjective standard?

                  OK I get what you're saying now (sorry, sometimes I'm slow ) And yes it seems that while it would benefit us to know what they consider vegetative cover capable of minimizing erosion, I imagine it would be nearly impossible to list all the possible vegetative covers that could do that. By doing so, they give some OCD inspector too much control over your land, so sometimes less is more in the writing of that.

                  If they consider forest a vegetative buffer (many forests lack substantial ground cover) then certainly any grass cover should be fine.

                  I was thinking about this after my last post, and generally I'm happy to comply with laws to keep our environment safe and sound, but after reading in the paper today about yet another cluster of contaminated wells from gas well fracking, it makes me mad that WE have to worry about complying to keep the water clear downstream from us, but these big gas companies can come in to our backyards, poison us, and then leave. Anyway.... If they consider 150' buffer to include PASTURED horses, that seems a bit over the top and highly restrictive considering all the other activities that are allowed within that zone. If it were just sacrifice lots it would make more sense.


                  • #10
                    I will be commenting to the DEP. We have always been ahead of them with Manure Management, Rotational Grazing, not overstocking, etc. My problem with this particular law is when you have an older farm like mine (est 1850) the barn were built as near as possible to a water source, it just made sense. So for me to have 150' from any animal use area will be impossible. Even my HUA is closer than that, I have NO choice.

                    But I'm not going to get too excited, they have had liquid manure regs on the books for years now that they don't bother to enforce (yes, I know this personally) and as Oldpony66 noted, the gas companies are pretty much doing whatever they want as well. I did get an e-mail from the DEP saying they fined the Gas Co that fouled those wells, which is just a drop in the bucket for them. I sincerely hope they are now being much more attentive to the runoff and contamination from them.

                    It is easy to come down on a small individual operation. I'd be much more impressed if they cleaned up the major things first, giving us small (tiny) operations more time to voluntarily do what we can.
                    Facta non verba


                    • #11
                      Some clarifications on buffer widths and what we do (this is a big part of my job in stream biology):

                      A small buffer does very little -- 30' to 70' (which is usually only one or two trees) will remove about 80% total nitrogen and phosphorus loads from runoff, if runoff is entering the buffer in sheet flow (another issue). However, it will not be adequate to maintain aquatic life in the stream, neotropical migrant birds, and it will not be able to deal with other pollutants.

                      You have to get up to about 200' of buffer to remove 80% of your total suspended solids, which are doing the most damage to aquatic habitats and water quality in the US. These are your sediment particles. Our agency recommends a 100' minimum forested buffer (which isn't really enough but it was the best we could get signed off on), increasing it to 200' if there are listed aquatic species there (which there often are, about 75% of freshwater mussel species are imperiled).

                      If you are serious about protecting wildlife, that buffer needs to be anywhere from 300' to 1000' for mammals, amphibians, and forest birds.

                      These don't have to be "no touch" buffers, we just need the forest to stay intact. And of course, the type and density of activity outside of the buffer needs to come into consideration too. If the uplands have intact vegetative cover and low animal density and the streambanks are in good shape, than we would give it a low priority. Operations with livestock access to streams, little or no vegetative cover to land, and higher animal densities get a much higher priority.

                      Just wanted to offer a little information from the biology side of the bench and how a resource agency goes about it. Of course, rulemakers routinely ignore out science and recommendations and come up with their own ridiculous things, which unfortunately, is out of our hands. Enforcement is terrible and water quality continues to degrade.

                      Yes, there are other impacts out there. Aquatic life is suffering a death by a thousand cuts and it's never the "fault" of only one thing. Every bit does help and remember, it's not just about the animals, it's also about your drinking water, because everyone is downstream from someone. :-)
                      Life doesn't have perfect footing.

                      Bloggily entertain yourself with our adventures (and disasters):
                      We Are Flying Solo


                      • #12
                        Thank you for that Wildlifer, it is always good to hear from those who actually work in the field in question. Very interesting stuff!

                        As much as we all might like to do everything we can to help wildlife, 300' to 1000' will be next to impossible for most of the mini farms out there, and very old established farms like mine. We actually have a spring under our house. It used to be you could access the water from the 'cold room'. We have closed that off, both for safety, and so the water stays uncontaminated, but I certainly can't move it.

                        We have been planting trees since the day we moved here, mostly along the fencelines to give wildlife a place to hide, and 'strain' the runoff from my pastures. I really don't think there is a lot of runoff from my undergrazed pastures, but we do live in a hollow.

                        Not to pick on just the Amish, but they do tend to either pasture, or garden every inch of their properties. A very nice Amish family just purchased twenty acres of woods across the street from us, and are busy ripping up every tree, to plant pasture and garden. They also planned on pasturing the right of way, because it currently is in grass. Thankfully, it was pointed out they were not the only owners of said right of way. At least that ROW will be a bit of a buffer for the homes and farms downhill from them. I'm just hoping they don't have too many large animals, even tho they are in a ag zoned district, and technically can have a CAFO.

                        My DH could actually make money off of this proposed law, as he can do E & S plans as part of his business. I'm all for it, as long as it is a reasonable, fair law, that is enforced evenly for Everybody.

                        As you said Wildlifer, someone always lives downstream from you.
                        Facta non verba