Buffalo Watershed Plan

Comments on Watershed Plan: Excerpts from Other Organization’s Responses to NRCS

The NRCS plan gives the impression that the “ruggedness” of the area somehow protects cultural resources and there has been little disturbance in the past. That is not true. I have yet to see a bluff shelter in the Ozarks which has not been severely disturbed by indiscriminate digging by people looking for arrowheads and other relics. Any clearing of the land disturbs sites, and timbering, mining, and farming of the past 150 years have all taken their toll.

The NRCS says “Significant cultural resources [will be] preserved in place to the fullest practical extent.” Wonderful. I must presume that this is a commitment by NRCS to seeing that professional archeologists will conduct surveys PRIOR to implementation of conservation measures. What the assessment document does NOT mention is the fact that very few surveys have been conducted except in selected areas, and the fact that few “significant” cultural resources have been identified so far has nothing to do with what is probably out there waiting to be found. The statement that most sites are located along the major waterways is misleading. Historic farmsteads are most often NOT found along the waterways; some of the earliest sites in the Ozarks have been found on the hill tops. With 10,000 years of human history, sites are everywhere.

The NRCS effort to include protection of cultural resources in conservation measures is to be lauded, and we welcome the opportunity to work with you to find the best ways to reach ends which benefit both present and past use of the land.

The recommended plan for the Buffalo Watershed includes treatment land measures, pasture improvements, filter strips and stream bank stabilization. The plan would improve water quality in the Buffalo River and its tributaries. As a result of improved water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, including habitat for the gray bat, an endangered species, would be improved. Therefore, the Fish and Wildlife Service has no objections to the recommended plan and concurs with your finding of no significant impact.

We concur with the findings and recommendations presented in the NRCS plan. Specifically, “prior to installing any measures which are ground disturbing, the area to be affected will be examined to see if cultural resources are present... in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer.” Completion of this identification and evaluation effort and mitigating any adverse effects on historic properties will fulfill your agency’s responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act.

Water quality deterioration in the middle section of the Buffalo River watershed has been a concern to us since water quality monitoring data indicated times when the Buffalo River exceeds standards set to protect its designated uses. Additionally, because of the extreme importance of this resource to the people in Arkansas and the Nation, we feel that an anti-degradation policy should be enforced. Efforts must begin now to counter the impacts of increased land use.

Buffer Strip Width: The Plan mentions using a 45-feet wide buffer strip. Actual field conditions may require a wider buffer. Research indicates that acceptable buffers should be between 50 and 100 feet wide.

Risk and Uncertainty: Area farmers may save over two million dollars in cross-fencing, reseeding, watering, and other pasture improvement measures. Might these farmers use the money saved to purchase additional cattle and graze them on the new grass utilizing the new water sources? There may be a risk that cattle populations could actually increase faster as a result of this project than has been forecast without the project. Does pasture improvement actually result in an increase in water quality or does it merely benefit farmers operating in the area and result in more intensively grazed land (even though the land is better managed)?

It would be much less risky to spend more money on easements. The plan calls for less than 8% of the total dollars to go toward easements while 80% are directed toward Land Treatment. In our opinion, the easement program should be expanded and become at least an equal recipient of money, time, and resources as the land improvement measures. We are prepared to assist the NRCS in any way possible to expand the scope of a voluntary easement program.

Recommended Plan: NRCS states “a minimum width of 45 feet must be maintained in grass.” This gives the impression that a grassed stream buffer is acceptable under this plan. We do not believe that easements should be purchased for areas managed for any other purpose than forestry. We will not support streamside buffers consisting only of grass.

Livestock Exclusion: Cattle have access to over 78 miles of tributary corridors and streams according to previous statements in the Plan. It appears that a lot more opportunity exists for securing easements.

Pasture Management: We are especially supportive of the riparian easement program as these efforts will provide water quality improvement in perpetuity. We commend your staff for the extra effort required to initiate this farsighted approach. As in the past, we will continue to monitor the water quality in the project area and will provide your agency with all relative information.