SAVE the BUFFALO RIVER - Mgm't Plan input time (DUE AUG 31)

[Mtngal]

Sure would like to hear some feedback from those who have already gone to the meetings. My hubby and I plus a number of others will be in attendance here at the Jasper meeting.

[painterbob]

this is the fact finding mission. to find out what input the park users would like to see happen . they are gathering this input to start this process. and will make the plan in 2014. so make your list! some suggestions were good, some bad. some silly, but if you say it! it will go down on paper.

[Wildernist]

Read what is going on up on the Ozarks National Scenic Riverways to see what will happen to the Buffalo if we do not start monitoring and setting limits now.

Read this newsletter at the bottom of the following site:

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cf ... ntID=27597" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Submit a comment by the end of July.

Thanks, Kirk

[bart]

I've always figured that 'the more rules that you have, the less fun it is'. I'd rather keep it to where if you want to go float the Buffalo, you go float it. Some may be proposing solutions to no problem. The TP may be a reason to raise an eyebrow, but how about first inquiring about water samples being taken to see if any waste is reaching the river and to what level before making a new rule?

If it is at an unsafe level, by all means there need to be corrective actions taken.

[GutIt]

http://www.arkansascanoeclub.com/mb/vie ... 2&start=15

Fifth post down on the page. Posted by Richard.

"Re: Leave No Trace (LNT)
by Richard on Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:08 am

Faron D. Usrey, Aquatic Ecologist for the Buffalo National River told me that one of the big problems they are experiencing is people peeing on the gravel bar in the summer when the water is low. Urine contains large amounts of urea and salt that remains on the gravel. When the rains of fall come it all goes into the river basically at the same time causing damage to aquatic life. If it was just one person doing it, no big deal but when you multiply that by all the users of the Buffalo it adds up to intolerable levels.

We need to be better stewards of the planet. . . both at home and in the wilderness. There are just too many of us to continue doing things the way we use to."

Pretty much sums it for that and the BioHazMat/TP (which is pretty much BHM litter no matter how you slice it) issue as well.

Wouldn't now be a good time for corrective/proactive action? Or do we wait until it is even more out of hand than it already is? The NPS is asking us for input and we have an excellent opportunity to safeguard this Treasure way into the future as close to it's natural state as we can get and still ensure access for all of us. I have no doubt the NPS wants this to happen and that is why they want us to help them make it so.

To me, that is worth a couple of "rules".

[mcmurma]

If thousands upon thousands of gravel bar whizzes create a problem all by themselves, then, I shudder to think what all those TP-fused gravel bar bombs are doing.

I mean, how long does it take a TP-covered turd to stabilize and\or breakdown once deposited into a sandy gravel bar? And what kind of environmental impact does thousands of these guys have? Anyone have any idea?

Also, while we are at it, what about the water quality of the feeder streams coming into the Buffalo? Are there existing or growing concerns in this area?

[Wildernist]

Great comments. I talked to the BNR Superintendent the other night at the open house. He agrees that monitoring has to be done to back up any actions. As part of our responses on the upcoming Buffalo National River Management Plan revision, we need to strongly incourage more monitoring and set carrying capacities. We need to raise the questions of human waste along with a number of other issues. 400 canoes/kayaks a day through Ponca Wilderness may be too much with all the noise, lack of facilities, trash at the bottom of the river and user confilicts. Trail rides of 30 to 40 horses with numerous river crossing may be too much. Day hikes of 40 to 50 people into Hemmed in Hollow may not provide any wilderness experience. We the public have to decide what the limits should be and help promote protection of the resource and not worry so much about our particular form of recreation. Thanks, Kirk Wasson

[drparrothead]

Great conversation...all good points/input. On the poo issue...while the water quality is still considered to be "very good", I'm still concerned about the agricultural practices and runoff in the watershed. Swine, cattle, and chicken poo......the "unseen" poo............yuck.

[mcmurma]

I have sent a couple of emails to the BNR parks folks to see if someone there can provide me with some information on their current water quality testing practices. It's only a been a few days, but so far no response.

You see, when I set about trying to answer my own questions about water quality testing on the BNR the picture just got murkier and murkier. So much so that I am starting to wonder if there is any regular testing done on the Buffalo at all. If there is they don't talk about it much.

Does anyone else feel that regular water quality testing should be standard operating procedure? I certainly do.

[drparrothead]

Most data that is easily accessible seems to be from the 90's and was provided by the USDA in response to the proposed new swine farm at the time. I haven't found the answer to the "regular" testing question either.

[Noel M]

The park service has been monitoring water quality for more than 15 years. Quarterly samples are taken of tributaries with a drainage area of greater than 10 square miles, the main stem of the Buffalo is also being sampled at the mouth on a quarterly basis. Three major springs along the river are also sampled on the same schedule. These samples are tested for conductivity, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, and turbidity at a small water quality lab at Buffalo River. Nutrient samples are also taken and analyzed by the lab at ADEQ.
Recently, within the past year, ammonia samples are being taken at frequently used area along the river.

[mcmurma]

Thx Noel,

That is some good information.

[prophet]

The park service has been monitoring water quality for more than 15 years. Quarterly samples are taken of tributaries with a drainage area of greater than 10 square miles, the main stem of the Buffalo is also being sampled at the mouth on a quarterly basis. Three major springs along the river are also sampled on the same schedule. These samples are tested for conductivity, pH, Dissolved Oxygen, fecal coliform bacteria, and turbidity at a small water quality lab at Buffalo River. Nutrient samples are also taken and analyzed by the lab at ADEQ.
Recently, within the past year, ammonia samples are being taken at frequently used area along the river.

do you know of any problem results?

[Noel M]

I am not really qualified to answer the question as I’m not helping with water quality anymore. I will say that there are no major concerns that I am aware of but you need to get a more definitive answer from somebody in the know. I know that they are sampling highly used gravel bars for ammonia levels which could be a threat to aquatic life especially native mussels. This could possibly be a major concern related to overuse of some areas of the river but once again, talk to somebody in the know about this.
Something that I feel the park needs is a carrying capacity study. I know that they have had canoe counters on the river but I don’t know how accurate the counts were as they relate to carrying capacity. I know that the canoe rentals along the river are required to report monthly use and canoe counts to the park so they can track use. The other major user group of the river which are not accounted for are the private canoes and kayaks who do not use a BNR canoe rental for their trips.
I see that some folks are talking about a river permitting system similar to those on western rivers; I personally don’t see the need for that kind of permit system.
I’m going to throw this out there and see what kind of comments it receives. What about a FOR FREE permit system. The system that I am thinking of is one similar to the backcountry camping permits at Great Smoky Mountains. This system would not limit the number of users of the river, you would not have to call the park to get a permit. Permitting stations would be set up at each river access. When you begin your trip, you would simply fill out a permit with name, address, vehicle info, and trip itinerary. At each permit station, rules and regulations would be posted, as well as on the back of each permit. This would also take care of some of the regulation education problems I have seen posted on this board in the past. This is a voluntary system so we would not get everybody to fill out the permits but I think that most people would take the time to fill out a permit before getting on the river. This would enable the park to get a better idea of the river use from private boaters and use on the different sections of river. Hopefully this would also enable the park in prepare for overcrowding issues at popular accesses and possibly resource issues related to river use. This is just my idea and I would like to know what other users think of a system like this, who knows what will happen in the future but we all need to be working with the park to protect the river for years to come.

[mcmurma]

I tend to agree that a paid permit system to limit access is not really necessary at this point. The upper river in the springtime is such a circus, though, that limiting the number of boats there may not be a bad idea at all... if only on the weekends. But of course, how in the world would that work? Would the park service count boats at Ponca and Steel Creek until the limit was reached... then when the Johnson's from Kansas City showed up with their party of 12, would they simply turn them away, telling them they could not launch, with the parting suggestion to try launching further down river below Kyles? It sounds harsh, but may be the reality of things one day.

The free permit thing sounds like a great idea for the middle and lower river access points where they may actually be used, and they sure could provide some great info if folks were inclined to use them. I suppose the same kind of thing might work on the upper river... but probably not as well, if at all, during the high-volume weekends.

The usage varies so much along the river that any limitations or restrictions are going to tough to manage across the board.

I also agree that carrying capacity\impact studies are needed. In fact, they are the only way to answer so many questions that they are probably overdue.