Re: Stop the Bentoville dam project
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:02 pm
The more I look into this situation regarding the restoration of Little Sugar Creek, the more puzzling it becomes. The city council's position that is. The EA submitted for approval is so riddled with errors and outright misinformation that, in my nonexpert opinion, it renders the document useless. Yet the Council paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars to have it written and submitted by a licensed engineering firm from Texas. Fortunately the document is not yet accepted as there is a public comment period yet still open.
A review of the document shows these errors among others:
1: The claim that there are no other recreational lakes in the area. Any of us familiar with the area know better. Almost every watercourse in the area, large and small, has an manmade impoundment including Beaver Lake. In fact, there are at least 20 named lakes and reservoirs in Benton County, Arkansas.
2: A restriction in the deed makes any course besides repair or replacement impossible. A review of the deed and included restrictions shows no such thing.
3: That the impoundment is a valuable recreational asset to the community. However local ordinances make it unlawful to swim in the lake, sedimentation and algae bloom make it inhospitable for aquatic species, as well as an eyesore which makes the adjacent park less hospitable.
4: The claim that the damage to the dam originated with a 2011 flood event, thus coverable by FEMA grants. The dam was documented as failed before that event. And in fact was in poor condition years prior, even to the time when the property was deeded to the city by the Bentonville/Buena Vista Trailblazers Assoc., Inc. in 2006. It is my understanding that the city has done many unprofessional, unengineered repairs on the dam after each overtopping event by simply dumping concrete, rock and other debris into the holes on the downhill face of the dam. This "failure mode maintenance" has been going on for some time. As recent review by concerned professionals has shown, the dam fill is saturated and leaking in several places through the downhill face. Even the city engineer noted the possibility of catastrophic failure of the dam structure.
5. It is noted in the EA that no other viable alternative but replacement of the dam exists. This is not true, as shown by the proposed stream restoration, with or without the improvement features shown in the landscape concept drawing.
6. The report states that there is no karst geology involved in the dam or the impoundment. I am not a geologist, but it is my understanding that karst does underlay the dam and lake.
There are many more points of contention in the EA which need to be explored in detail, and refuted in detail.
It is being reported and accepted as fact that FEMA funding for the replacement of the dam has been approved, but as far as I can determine, that is not the case. Funding has been applied for (the fatally flawed EA is a part of the process), but not yet approved and no funds have been promised or disbursed. Meanwhile the clock is ticking on the failed dam structure.
I do hope that those of you who have interest in this topic, the reclamation and restoration of a free flowing Arkansas stream, will take a few minutes to let your views be known in detail to Alan at the email address previously given. That includes people from surrounding states as you all have a stake in this, even if you never dip a toe or paddle in Little Sugar creek. Many of you have something special to add to this effort. Whether it is technical writing skills, adeptness at deciphering legalese, research abilities, media skills and contacts, or just a love of clean flowing water. Take the time to review the history, all of the documents and form your own opinions.
Please email: Alan.Hermely@fema.dhs.gov
Michael
A review of the document shows these errors among others:
1: The claim that there are no other recreational lakes in the area. Any of us familiar with the area know better. Almost every watercourse in the area, large and small, has an manmade impoundment including Beaver Lake. In fact, there are at least 20 named lakes and reservoirs in Benton County, Arkansas.
2: A restriction in the deed makes any course besides repair or replacement impossible. A review of the deed and included restrictions shows no such thing.
3: That the impoundment is a valuable recreational asset to the community. However local ordinances make it unlawful to swim in the lake, sedimentation and algae bloom make it inhospitable for aquatic species, as well as an eyesore which makes the adjacent park less hospitable.
4: The claim that the damage to the dam originated with a 2011 flood event, thus coverable by FEMA grants. The dam was documented as failed before that event. And in fact was in poor condition years prior, even to the time when the property was deeded to the city by the Bentonville/Buena Vista Trailblazers Assoc., Inc. in 2006. It is my understanding that the city has done many unprofessional, unengineered repairs on the dam after each overtopping event by simply dumping concrete, rock and other debris into the holes on the downhill face of the dam. This "failure mode maintenance" has been going on for some time. As recent review by concerned professionals has shown, the dam fill is saturated and leaking in several places through the downhill face. Even the city engineer noted the possibility of catastrophic failure of the dam structure.
5. It is noted in the EA that no other viable alternative but replacement of the dam exists. This is not true, as shown by the proposed stream restoration, with or without the improvement features shown in the landscape concept drawing.
6. The report states that there is no karst geology involved in the dam or the impoundment. I am not a geologist, but it is my understanding that karst does underlay the dam and lake.
There are many more points of contention in the EA which need to be explored in detail, and refuted in detail.
It is being reported and accepted as fact that FEMA funding for the replacement of the dam has been approved, but as far as I can determine, that is not the case. Funding has been applied for (the fatally flawed EA is a part of the process), but not yet approved and no funds have been promised or disbursed. Meanwhile the clock is ticking on the failed dam structure.
I do hope that those of you who have interest in this topic, the reclamation and restoration of a free flowing Arkansas stream, will take a few minutes to let your views be known in detail to Alan at the email address previously given. That includes people from surrounding states as you all have a stake in this, even if you never dip a toe or paddle in Little Sugar creek. Many of you have something special to add to this effort. Whether it is technical writing skills, adeptness at deciphering legalese, research abilities, media skills and contacts, or just a love of clean flowing water. Take the time to review the history, all of the documents and form your own opinions.
Please email: Alan.Hermely@fema.dhs.gov
Michael