 |
Pack and Paddle Fall 1999 |
 |
Fall Program schedule
Den Up For A Devilish Good Time!
The Highlands Chapter has set the stage for an interesting and informative "Ozark Mountain Weekend" Fall Meeting at Devil's Den State Park in Northwest Arkansas, under the guidance of Chapter Chairman Susan Young and Eunice Noland. Here's what to expect:
Friday, Sept. 24
-- arrival and setup in Camp Area E, or your cabin, and socializing.
Saturday, Sept. 25
-- 8:30 a.m., registration will begin in the Playground Pavilion. Coffee and goodies will be available. Our other meeting activities also will be in this pavilion.
10 a.m.
-- General Business Meeting convenes. There will be open discussion of the progress of current Society programs and reviews of individual chapter activities. We will have progress reports on environmental issues, such as the recent recommended changes to the ADEQs Regulation 15 that are intended to stop irresponsible open pit gravel mining practices that damage fisheries resources, and the proposed Bear Creek Dam planned by the Searcy County Regional Water District that threatens the integrity of the Buffalo National River.
Following the General Business Meeting, the Board of Directors will meet before or during lunch.
After lunch on Saturday, one can choose from various afternoon activities:
1:30- 4 p.m.
-- Betty Brown will be in the pavilion with the craft materials and know-how to teach the rest of us how to make bird houses.
1:30 to 2:30
-- Park Interpreter Harry Harnish will share his extensive knowledge of Devil's Den's interesting bat population; gained through 14 years of study.
2:30-4:00
-- Kim Richter, park interpreter, will lead us on a hike through park's unusual terrain, once a favorite hideout of Civil War guerrilla fighters and post-war outlaws.
(Note to parents: Those children too young to attend these programs can enjoy a well equipped playground next to the pavilion; a small nature museum at the visitors' center; and a walk along the park's Woody Plants Trail.)
6:00
-- Hungry? It will be time for our Potluck Supper, in the pavilion. Bring your cup, table service, enough food to share, and your favorite folding chair.
Following the potluck, Meetings Chairman Joe Meyer will lead a caravan to nearby West Fork to attend the "Ole Opry." This country music show is a Saturday Night Happening in this area. Tickets for Society members are $4.00.
For those who choose to stay in the park, an old time evening of story telling is planned. Our stars will be Susan Young, Mary Loots and Lyell Thompson. All have been active in story-telling events sponsored by Shiloh Museum of Springdale.
Sunday, Sept. 26
-- At 9 a.m. you have a choice to make. (1) Jean Crone will lead a hike to Yellow Rock, an area of unusual geographical features and breath-taking vistas. After arriving at Yellow Rock, hikers can return by the trail, or follow Jean through crevices! Wear hiking boots or shoes and bring water and a snack.
(2) A bird watching tour will be led by a staff member from the Ozark Natural Science Center in Madison County. Bring binoculars if you have them. Note: Devil's Den State Park is located in picturesque Lee Creek Valley and offers many fine hiking trails. The magnificent craftsmen of the Civilian Conservation Corps built the park's beautiful wood and stone structures, which are now on the National Register of Historic Places. There is an abundance of nearby opportunities to canoe, or explore the crevices and hike along the bluff overlooks. Come prepared to enjoy them.
We're going to have a great time -- join us!
A reminder: Devil's Den is best accessed by turning west at Exit No. 45 off of the new Interstate 540 that leads from Alma to Fayetteville.
Bear Creek Dam ... again!
By John Heuston
Once again, in a move that brings back scary memories of the early 1960s to many Ozark Society members, the incredibly beautiful and diverse resource that is the Buffalo River is threatened by another unnecessary dam!
This time it's not large federal dams at Lone Rock and Gilbert, or scenery-blighting "pumped storage" project reservoirs perched atop the high bluffs of Newton County, but a 100-acre water supply dam on a major BNR tributary, Bear Creek, that has been proposed by the Searcy County Regional Water District (SCRWD). The district has applied for a Section 404 application ( I.D. No. 13861) with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). The SCRWD hired the Texarkana, AR firm of NRS Consulting Engineers to prepare their official report.
To help Ozark Society members understand the importance of this issue, we are presenting the National Park Service (NPS) position on the SCRVVD permit, as obtained from interviews and official documents submitted to the Corps of Engineers and the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ).
First, it is important to emphasize that nobody, including the NPS, is opposed to obtaining a long-term, healthy, efficient water supply for Searcy County's citizens. Water is a vital resource for sustaining human and animal life and promoting long-range agricultural and economic development within the region. If Searcy County needs additional water, they should have it, and the conservation community will help them get it -- but only if it is done in a responsible manner that does not damage the BNR.
The NPS Position
The National Park Service opposes the Issuance of this 404 permit because there has been no presentation of alternative sources of water or assessment of potential impacts to the free-flowing nature of the Buffalo National River and other associated resource values.
The NPS has emphasized that the Bear Creek Dam issue is ... important to them because Congress specifically instructed Buffalo National River to preserve the Buffalo River as 'a free-flowing stream' and stated that the Secretary of the Interior must determine if water resource projects would have a 'direct and adverse effect' on the Buffalo National River."
The BNR's enabling legislation (P. L. 92-237), requires that "no department or agency of the United States shall assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any water resource project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the values for which such river was established, as determined by the Secretary (of the Interior)."
The legislation specifically prohibits the licensing of any "dam, water conduit, reservoir, powerhouse, transmission line or other project works ... on or directly affecting the Buffalo National River."
The legislation's intent seems as crystal clear as a Buffalo River riffle, unless you are a person who has trouble understanding what the word "prohibit" means!
The Buffalo National River is classified as an extraordinary resource water body (ERW) in Arkansas, therefore, it also comes under state review and protection.
Bear Creek already suffers from significant water quality impacts and has been listed as a "threatened waterbody" in past 305(b) reports. It is currently included in a watershed improvement/water quality enhancement project funded by the Natural Resources Conservation Service for a total of $3.2 million. Bacteria counts in Bear Creek often exceed state standards by levels as high as 112 times! Total phosphate concentrations in the creek also exceed recommended levels.
NRS Report is flawed
The NPS also has engineers and experienced natural resource specialists on its local and national staff. To put it mildly, they were not impressed with the NRS report.
"The NRS addendum which is being supplied to COE and ADEQ as a pseudo environmental assessment, is both flawed and biased," the NPS commented, backing up this opinion with a detailed analysis of the NRS report, which is often at conflict with statistics compiled by the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Here's a brief summary of NPS objections to the SCRWD's 404 permit application:
(1) Population forecasts and amount of water needed are unrealistic -- SCRWD could get by for the foreseeable future with much less water than NRS states is needed. The reservoir and treatment facilities would have a high cost per user ratio under current and future conditions.
(2) Minimum streamflow release scheme would have major impacts on natural flows -- The release from Bear Creek Dam (which supplies more than 10 percent of the Buffalo's drainage at its confluence) as proposed by NRS would be only 0.2875 cfs regardless of inflow!
(3) Concerns of ADEQ and NPS were not adequately addressed -- The NRS addendum only responded to selected portions of the NPS concerns and showed a total lack of comprehension for the broader environmental consequences of damming Bear Creek.
(4) Cost comparison was unrealistic -- Discussions with water engineers and data from the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission (ASWCC) both indicate that the pipeline (from Clinton along U. S. Highway 65 to Marshall, utilizing water from Greers Ferry Reservoir) could be constructed for $7 million as opposed to the $13 million projected by NRS. This is a considerably lower expense ($4 million) than the NRS estimate of $11 million for Bear Creek Dam.
(5) Ranking procedure was biased -- The arguments presented by NRS which justified their selection of the dam alternative as the best alternative were very narrow in scope and flawed in logic. Only selected portions of the NPS letter were responded to by NRS. The NRS comment that "Searcy County is being destroyed economically because it is prevented and choked by the Buffalo River's protective legislation" reveals quite plainly the bias of the report's author.
Ouch! In it's 7-page report to the COE's Regulatory Branch -- too detailed to recap here -- the NPS dissected the NRS report and catalogued their numerous objections to the Bear Creek Dam alternative in no uncertain terms. "The NPS believes the alternative which recognizes the feasibility of pumping water from Clinton to Marshall deserves a reevaluation under the format of a NEPA Environmental Assessment. The NPS believes this alternative is less controversial and will fulfill Marshall's water needs in a more cost efficient manner."
The conservation community contends that the most serious aspect of Bear Creek Dam is the dangerous precedent it would set for the entire Buffalo National River should dam proponents find a way to get around the Enabling Act. What tributary would be the next regional water supply" target? The Little Buffalo? Water Creek? Big Creek? Leatherwood? Where would it end? The BNR has already fielded one inquiry from a developer about building a dam on Rush Creek outside the BNR boundaries!
The pipeline alternative
From the standpoint of both conservation and common sense, the most logical and least costly alternative would appear to be the pipeline from Clinton to Marshall, utilizing the virtually inexhaustible supply of high-quality water from Greers Ferry Reservoir.
Here's how the deal works, according to interviews with COE sources. Today, the chief of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to reallocate up to 50,000 acre-feet of stored water in Greers Ferry Reservoir from other uses ( hydro power, flood control) to municipal water supply -- without congressional approval. This has been done at Greers Ferry Reservoir, and could be done again, if and when the Chief believes the need warrants it.
As Corps spokesman P. J. Spaul explained, "The Corps doesn't sell water; it sells storage space."
At present, the Corps has 16,100 acre-feet of Greers Ferry reservoir storage contracted out for water supply purposes under six contracts: three to the Community Water System at Higden (which supplies water all the way to Faulkner County and northern Lonoke County); the City of Clinton; the City of Heber Springs; and the Red Apple Inn. All 16,100 acre-feet of this contracted storage is in use, which leaves about 34,000 acre-feet of the 50,000 acrefoot reallocation at Greers Ferry in reserve for future use.
A Corps spokesman said Clinton already exceeds the 700,000 gallons per day that its 900-acre feet of storage will provide, and is now drawing up to 2 MGD. Clinton is working with the Corps to obtain more storage capacity.
Obviously, Greers Ferry has an ample supply of already allocated water not yet under contract that could be used to create an economic development water corridor along U. S. Highway 65 from Clinton to Marshall that would be the envy of any region in Arkansas! And they could get more.
For many years now, Little Rock has been paying approximately $150,000 annually for the "right of first refusal" on 120 MGD of storage at Lake DeGray, anticipating that someday the growing city will need more water and that a pipeline corridor from Lake DeGray to Little Rock is the best way to get it.
Christmas: Think Ozark Society Books!
One of the most timeless Christmas gifts you can wrap for those relatives or friends who wonder why you are never home on weekends is a book or books that capture the essence of the Ozark Society outdoor experience.
As an Ozark Society member, you have a varied selection of such informative reading available to you through the Ozark Society Foundation's "Ozark Society" Books, P. 0. Box 3503, Little Rock, AR 72203. Telephone 501-847-3738.
And remember, members receive a 10 percent discount off the retail price!
Mrs. Isabelle Roach, head of Ozark Society Supplies & Publications, reminds that the newest addition to our selection is a paperback reprint of Dr. Neil Compton's "The High Ozarks: A Vision of Eden," which was first published in 1982 and has been out of print for several years.
"Neil always considered the 'High Ozarks' to be his best book," says freelance writer-photographer Kenneth L. Smith of Fayetteville, who helps Mrs. Roach promote the Society's publications to booksellers through "Books for Outdoor People. "This expanded book contains much factual information about the natural and human history of the Ozark Mountains of northern Arkansas that inspired so much of the late Dr. Compton's beautiful writing and photography. He became one of Arkansas' best-known and most honored conservationists and this book is an example of why he earned such nationwide respect."
The 105-page, 9xl2, softbound book's nine chapters provide a comprehensive view of the Ozarks' mountains and valleys, rivers and creeks, forests and glades, geologic formations and pioneer lifeways. The book is illustrated with 80 black-and-white photographs and 64 more in full color. The new edition has an added introduction by Ozark Society President Stewart Noland and contains several photographs never before published. The book retails for $25 but, with the Society member discount, is $22.50, including S & H.
For a complete list of Ozark Society books, including numerous river and trail guides, contact Mrs. Roach at the above address. Please make your check or money order payable to Ozark Society Books. She also handles Ozark Society decals, T-shirts and maps.
Long Range Planning for the Buffalo National River
Editor's note: We are going to be healing a lot about the Water Resource Management Plan for the Buffalo National River, a plan mandated by Congress, that was first aired on Nov. 9 last year at a public meeting in Marshall, AR., The purpose of the meeting was to discuss water related issues and current efforts to protect the water resources of the BNR and the surrounding watershed. Local governments, private groups, and the public were invited to attend.
Unfortunately, the anti-BNR "black helicopter" bunch is attempting to portray this important public-private sector cooperative water resources study as just a "back door" attempt to reinstate the much-maligned Man and the Biosphere program that they consider to be the prelude to a United Nation's takeover of the U.S. that will ultimately end in Ozark citizens being locked away in concentration camps ... etc., ad nauseam. The same old idiotic nonsense.
Here are the facts of the proposal as outlined by the Buffalo National River, National Park Service, and the U. S. Department of the Interior.
The "WRMP" What it is
Buffalo National River, National Park Service, and the Department of the Interior, initiated development of a Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) for the national river with a public press release in June 1998. Numerous water resources management plans have been developed for national parks with significant water resources, and the Buffalo National River's plan will follow the general format of these previous plans. As with any effective planning, participation from other interested parties is critical.
Here's a summary of the need for the plan:
(1) The Buffalo River is one of the last free-flowing, relatively unpolluted, large river systems remaining in the midwestern and southeastern portion of the United States. Designated as America's first "National River" in 1971, the Buffalo National River (BNR) now draws more than one million visitors each year, and provides $39 million in gross tourism dollars and 550 tourism-related jobs to the economically depressed counties of the watershed.
The BNR is also designated an Extraordinary Resource Water by the State of Arkansas, which includes and antidegradation policy and recognizes the "intangible social value" of this resource. A plan is needed to define how the Buffalo River's outstanding water resources will be protected for present and future generations.
(2) Water quality monitoring and related studies have indicated nonpoint source pollution as the primary cause of the river's water quality problems. Nonpoint source pollution has traditionally involved national programs implemented on the local level through voluntary programs. A plan is needed to identify and explain the nonpoint source issues of concern and identify all potential programs and studies which could address/mitigate these issues before they become severe. The plan should also inform outside parties and seek their involvement in instituting voluntary solutions.
(3) The 60 percent of the Buffalo River watershed in private ownership represents a critical area. Land management by private individuals on these lands will ultimately define the downstream water qualify of the Buffalo River. A plan is needed to insure that t watershed landowners fully understand the basic principals of responsible land management and their importance as "principal-partners" in maintaining the water quality of the Buffalo River and its tributaries. The plan should also reveal all existing sources of cost-share implementation of Best Management Practices on watershed lands, and develop new sources where feasible.
(4) Water resource issues can be extremely complex and subject to a wide array of viewpoints. The plan should effectively evaluate all identified issues in a scientifically based manner and make this information available to a general audience. An advisory group should be convened to insure that recommended courses of action are based on he widest possible common ground and common-sense approach.
The WRMP: What it isn't
(1) This plan is not an attempt to justify government control of private lands. Buffalo National River has discrete boundaries defined by Congressional law in 1972. A new act of Congress would be required for any park expansion. There is no significant justification based on water quality or any other issue which could be brought before Congress in an attempt to expand the park or its authority. Therefore, land acquisition, zoning, new regulations, or infringement on private property rights will not be considered in the development of this plan.
(2) This plan is not a waste of time and tax dollars. The fate of the Buffalo River has national significance. The river's fate is even more important locally, at the watershed scale. Agriculture and tourism re the two most important sectors of the economies of Newton, Searcy, and Marion counties. Therefore, both agriculture and tourism must remain viable over the long-term. These counties have a long history of self-sufficient individualism, little fettered by government regulation. Responsible land management by watershed residents is critical to maintaining this freedom. Poor land management has the potential to degrade the river's water quality to a point where other measures might be considered.
The NPS emphasizes that no land acquisition, zoning, new regulations, or infringement on private property rights will be considered in the development of this plan. The water quality of the Buffalo River remains the highest in the state of Arkansas. Efforts are being sought to preserve this high water quality through existing voluntary programs and the development and funding of new voluntary programs where the will be most effective. Working cooperatively, we can protect the rights of watershed residents and the economic and social values of the natural state's greatest natural resource.
The Uneasy Chair
Alas, the uneasy quotient is unusually high this quarter, with conservation skirmishes garnering headlines all over the state.
We can forgive BNR Park Superintendent Jack Linahan if he requests a transfer to Kosovo as a peace negotiator -it's probably a lot quieter over there. Consider this agenda:
The proposed Bear Creek Dam threatens the integrity of the Buffalo National River; the BNR's federally-mandated Water Resource Development Plan ( P), a voluntary, mutually beneficial citizen-government cooperative effort to find ways to curb nonpoint pollution in the Buffalo River watershed and improve water quality, is already under attack.
As if that's not enough to contend with, on Aug. I the Ozark Highlands Trail Association issued a newsletter fanning the flames of the on-going debate over extending the OHT, possibly through the wilderness, to St. Louis via the Trans-Ozark Trail. In the letter, the OHT claimed, "And now the government says that hikers don't want the trail completed, and so they are going to stop the project... The (USFS and NPS) want to stop the completion of this great scenic trail."
Linahan sharply denies these accusations.
"We are not opposed to and have never stated that we are in opposition to an extension of the Ozark Highlands Trail. Our main concern is the completion of an adequate Environmental Assessment that considers a range of viable options and a preferred alternative resulting in the least environmental impact to the resource.
"We must consider the trail extension in light of other management obligations which require the parks' commitment of time and funds. The park lacks the resources to initiate and complete the clearances ( i.e. botanical, archeological, etc.) for an Environmental Assessment of this magnitude at this time. We lack a trail coordinator position and trail crew to provide oversight for such a project.
"We are beginning dialog with the Ozark National Forest, which shares our concern over one popular alternative which will directly impact both wilderness areas. They have suggested, and we have agreed, to a process called an Opportunity Analysis which will be part of a decision process regarding the trail extension. Additionally, a trail coordinator position is being sought for the fiscal year 2000 at Buffalo National River."
Curiously, the OHT letter made no mention of the real issue in this little dustup -- should the Trans-Ozark trail be built through the Lower Buffalo and/or Leatherwood wilderness areas? Wilderness, you remember, is a place where man accepts the wilderness on its own terms (minus trails, signs, and other man-made intrusions) and is a "visitor who does not remain."
The Ozark Society position
This trail thing is an issue even among Ozark Society members -- where even friends can disagree. So, here is our official position on this issue.
President Stewart Noland, and Recording Secretary Brenda Crites, inform me that we support the completion of the Trans-Ozark Trail to St. Louis. However, the Society has not endorsed any specific route. The board did authorize Duane Woltjen of Fayetteville to investigate some possible trail routes. That's all. No decisions have been made.
The OHT position has been well publicized. What is not well known is the position of those Society members who worked to achieve the Wilderness Act of 1984, and those who are deeply involved in wilderness issues today. It's time they were heard.
Wilderness buffs wonder: Why, if some people absolutely must hike or jog through federally-designated wilderness to reach St. Louis, MO, don't they just break out their compasses, topo maps, and/or GPS units and navigate through the wilderness to reconnect with the main trail? No developed trail is necessary.
There are numerous pre-wilderness pioneer roads and game trails in both Leatherwood and Lower Buffalo that can be when the Feds can't get enough funds or volunteers now to maintain the trails we already have on nonwilderness public lands?
In Arkansas' comparatively small "walk-through" wilderness areas, if there is a log across the trail, you step over it, you don't move it. If the route is too steep, you find another. If you encounter rattlesnakes or bears, it's their home and you are the guest. Behave accordingly. They have the right-of-way. If you can't meet the demands of the wilderness experience, then don't lessen it, just find someplace else to recreate. The non-wilderness forest needs trail workers.
Wasson on wilderness
Ozark Society Member Kirk Wasson of North Little Rock, one of those great volunteers that makes our Buffalo River Float Trips run smoothly, has been involved in wilderness hiking and preservation efforts for 17 years, serving for seven years as Chairman of the Arkansas Wilderness Steering Committee. He represents the "no-trail" philosophy on this issue. Here are pertinent excerpts of his views on wilderness and the Trans-Ozark Trail, as expressed in a letter to Congressman Marion Berry:
"This trail does not serve any wilderness management directive nor is it needed to relieve any resource degradation. The Forest Plan for the Ozark National Forest states that one of the virtues of wilderness is its "dispersed use." Trails concentrate use. It would take a modification of the Forest Plan to allow this trail. It can and will lead to more use and overuse of the Leatherwood/Lower Buffalo Wilderness areas. It is not planned for in the Limits of Acceptable Change (IAC) process document for the Lower Buffalo Wilderness. The Ozark National Forest Leatherwood Wilderness Plan calls for no trails in the wilderness.
"Contrary to what the trail builders are saying, the Buffalo River Backcountry Management plan does not call for a trail through the wilderness. There were no guarantees or promises made. They were not at the meeting. I attended all six meetings on the management plan. The trail was never discussed.
"Leatherwood Wilderness has seen a cut back in patrols and monitoring of wilderness conditions. ... besides, this project would never pass the criteria of the NEPA process.
"Facts are that Missouri is having major right-of-way problems. Many miles of the trail would have to be (routed) on private land or roadsides."
Wasson touches on an issue there that greatly concerns our wilderness-oriented members: what if we sacrifice Arkansas' wilderness areas to build this trail -only to discover that hikers on the Missouri leg wind up trekking alongside the highways for miles anyway because public land access is denied them? Missouri might even abandon the whole project if too much opposition arises!
Opposing viewpoints are welcomed, and will be printed in this space. -- JHeu
