The purpose of this plan is to protect water quality in the Buffalo River and to promote agricultural practices in the Buffalo Watershed which achieve that goal.
The Watershed Plan-Environmental Assessment addresses both existing and potential water quality problems in the middle segment of the Buffalo River and in six tributaries that flow into the middle portion of the Buffalo River. The sponsors are requesting technical and financial assistance to protect and improve water quality in the Buffalo River, a $38.7 million tourism industry in Arkansas.
Water sampling has indicated a decline in water quality over the past few years. A 1991 report by an Arkansas water quality agency listed a segment of the River in the project as impaired for body-contact and recreational use. Measures are needed in the watershed to reduce agricultural-related nonpoint source pollution. A segment of the River and Bear Creek, one of the tributaries, have histories of being impaired for primary contact recreation use. The source of the impairment is animal waste generated by dairy and beef cattle.
An estimated $350,000 in annual net income from dairy and beef cattle production could be gained by improving pasture management on 33,000 acres of pasture in the watershed. Recommended solutions, opportunities, and environmental impacts are included in this document. Land Treatment measures and conservation easements are included in these recommendations. Additional alternatives are outlined.
The BRSF commented on the Draft Watershed Plan (attached article), and the NRCS responded. The footnotes in the BRSF article refer to the NRCS responses here.
1 The statement of purpose has been added to the Abstract, Summary, and Introduction. NRCS must also state the purpose as defined by Public Law 83-566. Public Law 83-566 funds can be expended for specific purposes only.
2 A statement to that effect is already in the Agreement. Also, a similar statement is already in the “Recommended Plan section,” under “Measures To Be Installed.”
3 For land under contract, your assumptions are correct. Because the project is a voluntary program, it will not directly impact land uses by non-participating land users.
4 Your assumptions are correct; however, chicken litter is not a problem and is not addressed in the plan.
5 The list of actions are already included in the “Recommended Plan” section. The purpose of the plan was the basis for formulating the Recommended Plan.
6
NRCS does not agree that newly planted trees are an effective filter strip. NRCS prefers a suitable filter strip of vegetation that will provide faster results.Our recommendations follow NRCS standards which were developed in cooperation with other Federal and State agencies as well as universities. Unfortunately, meetings with farmers suggest that if we require the entire 820 acres to be in forest, the farmer participation rate will be nil. The entire 100 foot strip must be fenced. We reiterate that this is a voluntary program.
7 We do not agree that grass strips are unlikely to succeed. The 45 foot wide filter strip vegetation will be determined by NRCS, experts, landowners, and sponsors. Forested areas are definitely good for wildlife and nutrient uptake. However, it takes years for trees to act as filters. Also, uniform sheet flow will not occur over the easement areas. Actually, in many cases, flow is concentrated in specific areas such as side drains and low areas in bottomlands before it enters the tributaries and River; therefore, pasture improvement will help serve as a filter over the entire area. The Recommended Plan, Alternative 3, requires that trees be planted or preserved in the 55 foot wide zone on the tributary streambanks.
9 The definition of filter strip is taken from the NRCS Technical Guides. NCRS is required to apply practices in accordance with the Technical Guides.
10 You are referring to Alternative 2 which is not recommended. The Recommended Plan, Alternative 3, has a 100 foot wide buffer strip which is expected to achieve the desired results. Improved pasture will filter nutrient and organic matter as well. Existing and forecasted erosion rates were estimated by using the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE). The condition of the land cover was considered in all cases.
11 A greater reduction will be achieved due to the addition of the 55 foot wide tree zone along the streambanks.
12 We have changed the Soils section to read: Slopes over 15% should not be cleared for pasture.
The following statement is in the Recommended Plan section:
Any land cleared after the date this plan is signed will not be eligible for Federal cost sharing on the land cleared. In order to be eligible for cost sharing on the rest of his/her operation, the landowner must agree to manage the land previously cleared in accordance with NRCS Technical Standards. Contracts will require that land with slopes over 15 percent either remain in forestland or be planted to trees.
14 Alternative 3 is the selected plan. It is described in the Recommended Plan Section.
15 We would like to emphasize that there are no restrictions on the amount of conservation easements in the plan. We are required to show the costs and benefits based on anticipated participation rates. Easements passed the cost-effectiveness test, therefore, the number of acres are not limited. The purpose of the plan is to define the type of practices needed and an estimte of the cost to achieve plan objectives.
17 Detailed NRCS studies, based on past trends, indicate that 22,000 acres of forest will be converted to pasture in the next 25 years without the project. Federal funds will improve the pasture so that runoff does not deteriorate water quality. Farmers under contract will be required to hold cattle stocking rates to acceptable levels. It is very important that we sell farmers on the project and that they be encouraged to sign up. No funds will be used to “create new pastures.” The plan specifies that only grassland in existence at the time of the signing of the project agreement will be eligible for cost-share. Pasture under contract on steep slopes will be restored to forest.
18 Federal law does not permit NRCS to discriminate during program delivery. If we limit funding to “good stewards”, the water quality objectives would be impossible to achieve. NRCS believes an attempt should be made to make “good stewards” of all landusers by providing technical assistance and cost-sharing through Public Law 83-566 funding.
19 NRCS as well as all Federal water resource planning agencies are required to follow the Water Resource Council’s “Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water Related Land Resources Implementation Studies.” In addition, NRCS must follow its own planning policy in the “National Watersheds Manual.”
20 Your offer is added to the Recommended Plan section under “financing.” NRCS welcomes your support and recommends that you contact the sponsors and the conservation district offices in the project counties.
21 NRCS accepts your offer to participate in the Council. An NRCS resprsentative has attended several meetings.
Thomas H. Wehri, State Conservationist, is responsible for the content of the NRCS Watershed Plan. He is based in Little Rock.
| BRSF Home | Steward Index | Joining BRSF | WebMerchants Index | Next Article |