Did I mention---

---that I love comments?

Lots of folks out there know more about the ONSR than I will ever know. You information is so valuable to me.

I am not a park employee--which you can quickly find out by running a Google search. To my memory I have never spoken to a park employee except when one wanted to see my fishing license and when two others stopped to chat when I was looking at the paddlefish at Pin Oak.

If I know anybody who works at the Park, I don't know it. Hell, I'm not even sure who drives the green trucks and who drives the white ones. LOL

I do know that truth to power is effective. Other people care.

Luann

The mysterious ordinary high water mark

I think the Park is going to try to tell the Corps that the sidewalk at Big Spring is above the Ordinary High Water Mark. I doubt that BS is going to fly. And even if they can get that dog to hunt, they still have problems the whole "adjacent wetlands" concept. I am not enough of a whiz to know whether this is a section 10 or section 404 violation, but it is still stupid.

Here are some interesting tidbits. More later.


FAQ from the Corps site

Who should apply for a permit?

A. Any person, firm, or agency (including Federal, state, and local government agencies) planning to work in navigable waters of the United States, or discharge (dump, place, deposit) dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, including wetlands, must first obtain a permit from the Corps of Engineers. Permits, licenses, variances, or similar authorization may also be required by other Federal, state and local statutes.

What will happen if I do work without getting a permit from the Corps?

A. Performing unauthorized work in waters of the United States or failure to comply with the terms of a valid permit can have serious consequences. You would be in violation of federal law and could face stiff penalties, including fines and/or requirements to restore the area. Enforcement is an important part of the Corps regulatory program. Corps surveillance and monitoring activities are often aided by various agencies, groups, and individuals, who report suspected violations. When in doubt as to whether a planned activity needs a permit, contact the nearest district regulatory office. It could save a lot of unnecessary trouble later.


Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899

33 U.S.C. 403

That the creation of any obstruction not affirmatively authorized by Congress, to the navigable capacity of any of the waters of the United States is hereby prohibited; and it shall not be lawful to build or commence the building of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, bulkhead, jetty, or other structures in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or other water of the United States, outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established, except on plans recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War; and it shall not be lawful to excavate or fill, or in any manner to alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or enclosure within the limits of any breakwater, or of the channel of any navigable water of the United States, unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of War prior to beginning the same.

Rare, newly discovered Missouri Jumping Rocks

I have heard of Mexican Jumping Beans, but never Missouri Jumping Rocks. Have you?

You can see on the right side of the picture where a bunch of rocks washed into the Big Spring pool. Note the color difference indicating more recent deposition.

Choice A: These are Missouri Jumping Rocks. They washed down the hillside, jumped over the back retaining wall, hopped across the sidewalk, jumped over the front retaining wall and decided they were hot and needed to cool off.

Choice B: They washed in from the walkway contruction. See previous picture/post.

What exactly is "fill material"

So, uh, do you think building a wall and pouring a bunch of concrete slobber and rock into the Big Spring pool might qualify?

I hope so.

Here is the definition right out of the Federal Register.

Fill material. (1) Except as specified
in paragraph (3) of this definition, the
term fill material means material placed
in waters of the United States where the
material has the effect of:
(i) Replacing any portion of a water of
the United States with dry land; or
(ii) Changing the bottom elevation of
any portion of a water of the United
States.
(2) Examples of such fill material
include, but are not limited to: rock,
sand, soil, clay, plastics, construction
debris, wood chips, overburden from
mining or other excavation activities,
and materials used to create any
structure or infrastructure in the waters
of the United States.
(3) The term fill material does not
include trash or garbage.

http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Documents/cecwo/reg/definfil.pdf

Uncle Sam answers my pleas--sort of

Here is the slightly edited email that I got back from the Corps of Engineers on the 404 compliance issues regarding the Waymeyer ACM boat ramp.

My question:


Thank you so much for this website link.

Here is my annoying question for the day--or for the minute anyway.

The boat ramp at Waymeyer prior to the 2008 flood was a gravel boat ramp. The flood washed away approximately 20 feet of gravel bar. An articulated concrete mattress is clearly a construction improvement.

From the Corps perspective, was this construction improvement properly permitted?

I suspect the answer is "no".

Here is my analysis. Please feel free to educate me where I am wrong.

I can't find an "emergency" exception to any of the compliance regulations. It is going to be a smooth talker who convinces me that there is an emergency need for a boat ramp at Waymeyer. Neither can I find an exemption for "temporary" structures. A "emergency, temporary, improvement" is going to be a tough sell. So is that a ACM is not an improvement over a gravel ramp.

I'm thinking that construction below the OHWM requires permitting and compliance.

Not that it is your concern, but the EA for the horse trails considered long term impacts--that is conspicously absent in the Chilton Creek EA, especially when that part of the river is designated low impact.

I really do appreciate your time and effort. Teaching born again tree huggers may not be your favorite task.

Luann


Here is the Corps answer:

Luann,
I suppose you have a copy of the 4 September 2008 letter to the ONSR (FOIA request). This permitted the removal of approximately 2 cubic yards of gravel from the Waymeyer Boat Access. An articulated concrete boat ramp (constructed above OHW and then relocated), is considered a ‘structure’ rather than ‘fill or dredged’ material, therefore an articulated concrete boat ramp does not require a Section 404 permit from the Corps. If this was located downstream of the old highway 60 bridge there at Van Buren , Missouri , then the Corps would regulate an articulated concrete boat ramp (steps, floating docks, etc.). This is because the old highway 60 bridge is the upper limit of the Section 10 portion of the Current River , and under Section 10 the Corps regulates everything.

Talk to you later.

Of course, I don't know enough about compliance law to know if the Corps answer is horse apples or tastee freeze. I do know that any area of the law is complex and since it is in writing, it is not likely to be total horse apples.

Comments from the peanut gallery welcomed--and all the rest of the born again tree huggers--and those of you who know more about compliance law than I do--which is just about everyone.

Interestingly, I got a response from ONSR about my questions. Of course, I sent the email to the Super and got a reply from Russ.

Here it is in all it helpful glory:

Ms. Holst,I received your e-mail regarding compliance questions relating to severalprojects at Ozark National Scenic Riverways from Superintendent Detring.I would be happy to address your concerns and questions via e-mail if youwould please send them to me.Thank you,Russ RungeDeputy SuperintendentOzark National Scenic Riverways

Thought ya'll would enjoy it. I guess I will go to work setting out the questions. Any contributions welcomed.

Here are some starters

How come the Waymeyer EA doesn't mention that it is in a low impact area of the river? And, how come that EA doesn't consider long term impacts like the horse ones did? The horse ones at least mentioned projected usage/past usage. How come Waymeyer does not?

Is the walkway at Big Spring above or below the OHWM? Where is the OHWM at BS? What about the stupid wall, is it above or below? Was all of that properly permitted? It is clearly below the old Highway 60 bridge, so that dog ain't gonna hunt. Was there any cultural compliance done or needed?

What about the maintenance building at BS? It was a CCC structure. Where is the cultural compliance done on that remodel?

That should do for a start.

Bet 50 cents I get the most fluffy answer of all time.

Don't take that bet.

Luann

Oops

I hate it when I find a typo--"we bring in" how about, "we DID bring in"

You know how it is when everything suddenly goes quiet? Like when you send an email to the ONSR Park Super and don't get a reply?

That sort of email looks alot like this: (it had my real phone number)

Superintendent Detring,

I have several concerns that I would like to address with you regarding ONSR compliance issues.

I can address these in writing via email or we can speak on the phone, whichever you prefer.

I am concerned about the following areas

1) The boat ramp at Waymeyer
2) The walkway and wall at Big Spring
3) The remodel of the maintenance building at Big Spring


Please let me know your preference. My daytime phone is (573) XXX-XXXX or you can return email me at this address.

Sincerely,

Luann Holst

Isn't there some song about the "Sound of Silence"?

Good Evening

I know everyone is enjoying the last few days of spring weather in the Ozarks.

Last Saturday I spent in the best smallmouth fishing place in the world, our very own Current River. This time we went above Doniphan---way above Doniphan. Although I don't count, I have to estimate that the two of us caught somewhere around 80 fish. What a day.

If fishing bores you skip the next paragraph or two.

The smallies are on the beds, but the beds are quite deep--4 to 5 feet of water. They are also just starting to move onto the wood--hanging under suspended logs. We caught fish on 4" straight plastic worms, swim baits and top water baits. Top water is a huge blast. The worms are more productive, but the top waters are more fun. Can't wait to go back. Every fish we caught was nice and fat and slick. Although we bring one in who was missing his whole top lip and was blind in his left eye. The will to live is just incredible. He was about an 18" fish and all of his wounds had healed.

We saw three osprey, one with a yellow sucker in its talons. I think I saw a baby buzzard--something I have been looking for all of my life. We also saw one bald eagle.

It seemed like every place you looked there was a cabin for sale. The economy pinches hard on recreation.

Sadly, we saw a clear 404 violation. Someone had bulldozed a bunch of construction debris into a creek right on the river. Happily, I did not see alot of trash along the river. I did see lots of new construction and "improvements." House way up on the bluff, half ass road, and a bunch of large rip rap. Little by little this adds to the nutrient load, and hence the clouding of the water, growth of algae and moss, changes, more changes and soon it won't be our clear flowing, gravel bottom, haven.

The ONSR is working on the General Management Plan and there will be a series of open meetings in June. You can be sure the access and recreation folks will be there--will you?

Luann

Let's talk about a different kind of access

Let' talk about a different kind of access. Handicapped access. Ooooo--another hot topic.

Specifically, let's talk about the stone walkway and retaining wall at Big Spring. Did anybody see a public comment period? I didn't. Did anybody see an analysis between safety and access? I didn't. I know that at Old Faithful and many of the other boardwalk accessible thermal features at Yellowstone most of the walkways have about a 2 inch lip or curb. Other than that, the view remains unobstructed. I feel safe to guess that Yellowstone has more opportunities for accidents than Big Spring. Visitors per linear foot times hazardous features. I estimate it is about 10 gazillion to one.

Purportedly in the name of safety, OSNR builds a retaining wall around Big Spring. The problem with that is--you guessed--if you are in a wheelchair--you can't see the spring. Doesn't that sorta miss the point of going to, say, Big Spring????

I didn't see a cultural analysis either. Was some of that work CCC work that should have been preserved?

When I last looked, last night, the EA from maybe 2006 for the horse stuff was still on the ONSR website, but other than Chilton Creek, I don't see a more recent EA. I know that walkway and stone wall are more recent than 2006--well, at least I would bet on paycheck that they are.

I continue to work on my 404 compliance issues. My current interests are allegations of county roads being bulldozed in the park, watershed disturbance, Big Spring construction, and that stupid concrete boat ramp at Waymeyer.

Please help me. If you have specific information on 404 violations, I want to know.

On to Horsepower

Horsepower can be the inflammatory subject of the day.

I despise ATV's. I know that makes me a weirdo. I hate the noise. I know they are extremely dangerous. It seems when people get on them, they suddenly feel invincible. I hate them.

OK--now that is out of my system.

My plan for the ONSR is no ATV's of any kind, of any size, for any use, for any reason. Even when responsibly used, they are very, very destructive. The public parks are under no obligation to provide every type of recreation for every conceivable user or member of the public. Note--when is the last time you saw a movie theater running commercial films at a park? Lots of people watch movies. We don't feel obligated to provide a drive-in at Carlsbad Caverns. There is not a golf course on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. Lots of people play golf.

If, and I mean, IF, there is a public obligation to provide recreational opportunities for ATV's riders--and the concessionaires who want to rent them--let's do it is some place less fragile than the ONSR.

Of Horsepower and Horse apples

I don't know which topic is more likely to start a flame war--ATV's or Horses in the ONSR. I'm going to guess it would be the Horses.

I think I can take a guess at the horse owner/rider position. We love our horses, we don't make alot of noise, we don't get in trouble for throwing rocks at law enforcement, this is our opportunity to enjoy nature and our like minded friends, people urinate and defecate in the river--how is my horse any different. And like so many thorny problems--they have a point.

The "tree huggers" have a point also. One horse is one thing, even one trail ride is one thing, but legions of horses are another. And their urinating and defecating owners. And the noxious weed seeds in the hay. And the additional silt in the river from ground and plant disturbance. And the additional access to areas that large numbers of people would never walk. And staging areas.

The difficulty for the NPS is that the horses have a foot in the door, so to speak. Which is why I think the Horse discussion will cause more of an uproar than a ATV discussion.

Here is where I am on this issue. Permits. That screaming sound you hear is an incoming nuclear warhead. No one dare mention the word permits. And, first come first serve limits. Horrors.

Hunters deal with it all the time. Want to duck hunt on Duck Creek. Be there well before 4am--for the drawing--for a permit--to hunt. Same thing at Otter Slough. Oh, and bring your non lead shot--that is not exactly cheap. Dove hunting? Same thing, just you can get there a little later. If you think owning a horse is expensive--get into hunting. I have friends who drive 200 miles to duck hunt. Not duck kill, duck hunt. It is the same amount of gas, if you limit out by 8am or stand there all day and never see a bird.

Here is the perfect (ha, ha, ha) permit system. Horse permits AND tuber permits. It is a free flowing river, not a mobile cess pool. More horse permits during the "shoulder" seasons, spring and fall, fewer during summer. Tuber permits limited to summer and limited in number. The idea being to balance the e coli load--or any other indicator organism--something we can all count out loud--together. Number of permits limited to 80% of current estimated use. Round numbers--that would be about 20K tubers and I don't know how many horses. If you want to stay at Roosevelt lodge in Yellowstone--you make your reservations well in advance. Want to raft the Grand Canyon--plan on reservations.

The ONSR is just as important to future generations as the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem or the Grand Canyon.

This reminds me of a saying--an expert is a guy 50 miles from home carrying a briefcase. Why do we accept that simply because it is easily accessible we shouldn't preserve it?

Here are my comments

I am opposed to any construction as proposed in this EA. I select the option to "do nothing." There are many reasons why I oppose any construction in the Chilton Creek area. First, it is a designated low impact area of the river. Increasing access will increase impact. Second, the EA does not address the number or even the approximate number of boats that currently use or have historically used the boat access at Waymeyer. Without that information it is impossible to determine if there is a need for additional access. The purported benefit of seperating the boats from the tubers is not based in fact. If a boat owner wants to access the river away from the tubers, they can put in at either Watercress Park or the Van Buren access and motor a very short distance DOWNSTREAM--magic--no tubers. Furthermore, even at maximum use, 10 boats isn't going to make that much difference on the 4th of July. Additionally, for a boat launch at either Waymeyer or Pin Oak to be meaningfully useful there will have to be improvements to the "county road" that is the access road to the area. Very few people would pull a boat to Pin Oak without significant road improvement. This need and the attendent destruction of the forest and wildlife habitat is not addressed in the EA. Also, the reality is that people will park on the side of the road, and cause more destruction, rather than pull a boat all the way back to Van Buren. Side of the road destruction is already a problem at Waymeyer. The mission of the NPS is to preserve the national treasures, not to give 10 boats access to another beautiful stretch of the river.

404 Permits

It's Sunday, and in my little patch of the woods, the weather is glorious. Sunshine, cool, light breeze. Aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Do you know what a 404 Permit is? Me neither, not really. As I understand it, if the NPS is going to do construction work, under the Ordinary High Water Mark, in protected areas, they have to get a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers. So, say the park decides to build a walkway at Big Spring, you know, just exactly like the one that is there---they are required to get a 404 permit.

Did they? I don't know, but me and my friend, the Freedom of Information Act, have asked to Corps of Engineers to provide a copy of every 404 permit issued to the OSNR in FY07, FY08, and FY09. Should be very interesting to see what kind of response I get. I am going to guess, the answer from the Corps is going to be zero, but, hopefully I am wrong.

I will keep you updated.

Luann

Who wants a boat ramp?

Who would want to put an improved boat ramp in a designated low impact area of the river? Well, I have the answer. 89 citizens and the NPS. I got the copy of the petition through a FOIA request. The NPS Environmental Assessment (EA) tells that the preferred option is to not put in a boat ramp at Waymeyer but to put one in just below Pin Oak. The EA is rather deceptively named "ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR CHILTON CREEK AREA BOAT RAMP AND PARKING". Since there are 3-4 Chilton areas in the park, Waymeyer and Pin Oak are not the first two places that come to mind.

The good news is the public comment period is open. Go to cool links. Click and Comment.

The bad news is endless.

The park plan is to stop boat launching at Waymeyer and move it UPSTREAM to the Pin Oak Campground. The justification is that some how this will seperate the boats from the tubers on busy summer weekends. What a joke. First the plan is for something like 10 parking spaces.

I'm not too good at math, but I am thinking 10 fewer boats on the Fourth of July weekend isn't going to amount to a spit in the river. Furthermore, the last time I tried to drive to Pin Oak the road is was so bad I turned around--even though I have a 4 wheel drive truck. Sure, I believe that people are going to trailer their boats to Pin Oak--just like they do Gum Hollow (Bay Nothing). I have never seen a boat trailer at Gum Hollow.

Unless, of course, the county road gets "improved". Which opens a whole new can of worms.

This is not about seperating the boats from the tubers, nor is it about public safety. This is all about giving a few people access to the most beautiful part of the river. There is nothing to stop the tubers from deciding that now there is a great boat ramp, good parking, and an improved road to start putting in at Pin Oak--to get away from the congestion at Waymeyer.

I am working on figuring out the best way to make the petition public. You should know.

Luann

Love this quote

"A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives."
James Madison

We have liftoff

Here we go--my first of I hope many, many posts. And I hope the beginning of a meaningful discussion on the preservation of the Current and Jack's Fork Rivers in Southeast Missouri.

The rivers mean something different to all of us, and the National Park Service is charged with the duty to preserve and protect the rivers, while at the same time allowing access for enjoyment. Tough job.

And, honestly, one I am not so sure they are doing well.

I first became concerned when I saw what looked like a bunch of concrete pavers, maybe 8 feet wide by 80 feet long leading down to the river at the Waymayer area. Picture coming soon.

So, began my adventure with the National Park Service and the Freedom of Information Act.

The NPS has a really slick FOIA request process online. Fill out the form and magic all kinds of email starts to flow. Some federal Agencies, like the VA require a signature, but NPS does not. By the way, the Corps of Engineers, requires a signature only if there is a privacy concern.

As I continue to do FOIA requests I will post them for all to see. As I get information from NPS, I will post that also. Just as soon as I learn how anyway :-).

I will also (just as soon as I learn how) post interesting links.

Let's all learn about this process and the NPS and what they do for the ONSR together.

Luann