HomeMy WebLinkAbout153-02 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 1.53-02•
e
A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT OF THE WILSON
SPRINGS BUSINESS PARK ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville is very appreciative for the concern
and dedication demonstrated by the volunteers of the Wilson Springs Business
Park Assessment Task Force; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville for itself and all the citizens of
Fayetteville expresses its sincere gratitude and thanks to every member of the
Task Force and especially its Chairman, Jeff Collins, who volunteered countless
hours to forge a consensus that included both the partial development and the.
careful preservation of the Wilson Springs acreage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby gratefully accepts the Report of the Wilson Springs Business Park
Assessment Task Force which is attached as Exhibit A, and adopts its
recommendations for both development and preservation of the Wilson Springs
acreage.
Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
hereby requests that the City Staff proceed with the recommendations of the
Task Force.
PASSED and APPROVED this the 2nd day of October, 2002.
ATTEST:
Bv:
•
•Woodruff, City Cle
•
APPROVED:
By:
NAME OF FILE:
CROSS REFERENCE:
Item #
Date
Resolution No. 153-02
Document
1
10/02/02 Resolution 153-02
NOTES:
FAYETTEVItLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
I 'A I A
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO: Dan Coody, Mayor
THRU: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
okFROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: October 3, 2002
RE: Passed Resolution from Special City Council meeting of October
2, 2002
The following Resolution was passed at the Special City Council
meeting and is ready for the mayor's signature
Enclosed is:
1. Wilson Springs: Resolution to accept report of Wilson Springs
Business Park Assessment Task Force
THE WILSON SPRING BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PARK TASK FORCE
The Wilson Spring Business and Technology Park Task Force (TF) was formed to provide
independent analysis and to make a recommendation to the City Council and Mayor's office of
the City of Fayetteville as to the "highest and best" use of the approximately 289 acres owned by
the city and located on Interstate 540. In the course of our examination, three subcommittees
focused on the economic/development, biological, and hydrological issues associated with the
site, gathered information and studied important attributes and/or impacts of various uses of the
property. The TF held two pubic forums for to gamer input from citizens, as well as allowing
statements and questions from various representatives of constituent groups during regularly held
meetings, which began June 20th'
The results of this work, found below, accomplish the following purposes:
1. The formation of a Business and Technology Park sufficient in size to create critical mass
for business development and located to take maximum advantage of potential synergies
with Fayetteville's most unique resource, the University of Arkansas.
2. The increase and enhancement of Fayetteville's tax base and further insurance of the
financial viability of the City of Fayetteville. Developing these lands produces financial
advantages for the City in three ways:
a. It retums acreage to the property tax base critical to the support our schools and
other city and county services.
b. It produces "profit" for the City, with which to fund and support such things as the
development of trails, green space, parks, and parks improvements.
c. It fosters the development of high wage jobs by improving the climate for the
creation of knowledge-based industry.
3 The preservation of at roughly 180 acres of wetlands, floodplain, and floodway, creating a
valuable environmental resource, in perpetuity, for the citizens of Fayetteville.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Note: These acreages referenced in this recommendation are taken from the Development Area plat, as
drawn by McClelland Engineers, showing a wetland impact of 17 acres.
1. Recommendation: Immediately apply for and receive the permit from the Corps of
Engineers for the 17 -acre wetlands impact, with mitigation, as necessary.
2. Recommendation: Approximately 70 acres at the south end of the property be platted
and planned for the Wilson Spring Business and Technology Park Development
3. Recommendation: The 38 acres at the southeast comer (and a part of the above
referenced 70 acres) be developed immediately (Phase 1).
a. Development of these lands would require some or all mitigation be done on the
front end, since some of the 38 acres is in the wetlands impact area. Monies for
the mitigation would provide initial funding for immediate restoration, etc.
(However, per the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, due to the substantial amount of
land being preserved in the recommendations of the Task Force, possible
mitigation acreages could be significantly reduced.)
4. Recommendation: The City of Fayetteville to construct Covenants and Restrictions for
the Business Park:
a. To insure that the Business Park will not include heavy industrial or be dominated
with retail business and will encourage "knowledge based", technology oriented
businesses.
b. To insure that the resulting development will have a campus style environment
with a maximum amount of area in green space.
c. To insure that the wetlands are "developed" to provide the maximum benefit to the
entire surrounding property
d. To insure that all storm water collection systems from development be constructed
to protect the sensitive wetlands
•
•
5. Recommendation: Commence as soon as possible a formal inventory assessment and
evaluation of the lands lying north of Clabber Creek, currently not designated as wetlands
or mitigation areas for wetlands impact, for development potential. These lands to include
the approximately 11 acres lying west of Deane Soloman Road. Such evaluation should
include a thorough needs assessment, potential environmental impact of development,
biological assessment, further wetlands delineation assessment, dispersed recreational
study, storm water runoff assessment and economic impact of development. If such an
evaluation of such lands yields the possibility of development of some kind, the
TF recommends the inclusion of a significant buffer of "not -to -be -disturbed lands" of at
least 600' wide lying north of and parallel to Clabber Creek.
6. Recommendation: That all of the lands lying south of Clabber Creek and north of the
aforementioned 70 acres of commercial development be preserved, in perpetuity, as
delineated wetlands and/or an extension of said delineated wetlands.
•
•
• • • •
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
PROVIDED BY INTERESTED
CITIZENS
•
•
• •
• •
• Task Force, September 12, 2002
The only reason I'm here is due to the fact that our City administration has forgotten about
the 'public interest,' which is, I realize, an outmoded concept.
But for this proposal to make any sense at all, in addition to the 'public interest,' there is a
great deal more that one has to forget about, to ignore. In its zeal as lobbyist for the idea of
development at all costs, which is really what we're talking about, the City has made ordinary
citizens into guarantors of a risky and massive expenditure of public funds. The current estimate for
the full development stands at $8m, which represents 10% of the City's annual budget.
Over the past six months, the City administration and now the Task Force have made
presentations, and not once has the word 'risk' been spoken. This despite the fact that there is ample
public information available which shows that the risks to the City's investment are considerable,
leaving aside the 12 years of fiscal mismanagement by the City and the Chamber of Commerce.
And what about the 'free market? This is another thing we should forget about. If the
demand was so great for what the City proposes, would it not exist already? The problem is, I'm
• afraid that it *does*.
In talking about building an office park, we are supposed to 'forget' that Fayetteville already
has an oversupply problem in the commercial real estate market (I refer you to pp. 56 & 57 of the
City's most recent Appraisal). In this Appraisal, one can read such phrases as " less than ideal
demand situation," "increasing supply of competing tracts,"`speculative office buildings ... are
being absorbed slowly," "a good amount of competing locations should be anticipated in the
coming years...' These are not the utterances of an Alan Greenspan, requiring the hiring of a
psychic to interpret. And yet, one feels they continue to be ignored. In fact, since this Appraisal was
done, another Office Park is slated to be built across from the new Washington Regional Hospital.
But how did we get to talking about an Office Park in the first place? The City had a
proposal for a "Research & Technology" park for a number of years. Based on this concept letters
were sought and received from mayors of nearby municipalities and a grant application was made
to the Economic Development Fund of AR. This grant money was received and it now appears that
these funds will be used to build anything which comes under 'C-2' zoning -which is what the
Appraisal was based upon. I ask you: would this money have been given to the City to fund an
• Office Park?
•
•
• • • •
•
The City should have to rigorously justify putting itself in direct competition with the
private sector by adding to our local oversupply problem. To date, the City has failed to do so
Apparently, the `build it and they will come' belief system requires no justification.
And then there is the idea of jobs.' If I were an outside company looking to relocate here,
what would I be looking for? I'd be looking for an ample supply of well-educated workers, which
we do not have (witness our low unemployment rate). I'd be looking for tax credits, which the City
cannot provide.
In any event, jobs are not 'created' by employers. Demand for workers is itself an
expression of the demand for the goods or services the company is providing to the community.
Constructing buildings does not, by itself, create more demand for goods and services.
What the City does have is the unique ability, unlike a private developer, to give away the
land. This precedent will be set when the deal with Arkansas Game & Fish Commission is settled.
Combined with holding this property for over 12 years, this deal puts the City in a less than ideal
bargaining position m the marketplace.
Under normal conditions, there would be a conversation between the
developer/entrepreneur and the bank. They would analyze the market situation. Citizens now
represent the bank's shareholders, but the 'bank' is not representing our interests. Unlike
shareholders, we do not have the right to force the City to take their scheme down the road to
another bank. As a reluctant 'investor,' I say this is a bad deal (with apologies to Mr. McGuire).
One would like to believe that part of the Mayor's mtent in setting up this Task Force, was
for it not only to appear to be independent, but also to function independently. This means taking a
very sober look at the City's record of ownership as well as the scientific and economic facts. I
hope that you will conclude that the time for forgetting certain facts is long past.
Respectfully submitted,
Stephen Vallus
•
•
•
•
•ECONOMIC IMPACT OF TENNIS ON OVR CO
J�Y
Ertfmated turban re Did of town Owen and spectators that will b. baryht to Columbus In 2002
*Rough tarots tovr.wnisra
•
•
•
Senior Clip
Maybe Plwyar+/.3peaeRMar6
Eearamda Thean per Dar
• TOTAL ECONOIATC IMPACT/DAY
At �1DTALTIAPACTITCM IMENT
Junior Clusopionships
Nunbar Player ononstotent 500
Eamon* boat pon Doi • . LAW
rcra. ECONOAUCTMPACT/DAY $63,000
�, a
TOTAL E�IMPACY/TOURNAMBIT $666P00
+oo
t$ThL
MOD
$300,600
•
to Senior District Championships .oD
Nunn Pw nne/Spee/ataro•
awn* Ilapeet per OpsLAW
TOTAL ECONOMICXMPACT/DAY 1 $1.=6.60D
a as
TOTAL ecoraze IMPACT/TOANrN4Ae1T . $04,400
Junior Deslynafied •
Number MeyarsA eetatars
town Dnpmet per oar
TOTAL ECONOMTCXMPACY/DAY
rr Day tiburnmen t
TOTAL ECOIJOP ATe ntPACTITOUPNAMI NT
Junior Clay Court Championship
Ninnies PlaypraSpanatw
foam* Menet pr bay
TOTAL rtowah=vaACT/DAY
M
TOTAL ECONOAILC IMPACT/TOURNAMENT
Senior Sou1thern Championship
Number Playerallspeetw►eraf
Ewwmle I vsnot Por Dug
TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT/DAY
• Derzfrouragnat
TOTAL ECONOMIC SMRIMCTl7OUANAMB'T •
AL IMPACT' OF THE ABOVE (4) TOVANAMENTS
YOM. SMS PLAYlge;/i tTATON1 100201111 114100
TMTrAL =PAO e. TT ti 6001
•
do0
ASIE
$!33.600
a!
$034,400
no
$41.700
ALA
$1674000
3'!a
• alai
SNAG
: SL
San .0OD
i
a
• •
PO. " ;. • ..•LLkO'ZZS 105 i
•
1
E
1
3NOW B 118HS?NU 11d £E:ZI 31U. ZOOZ-Ll-d3S
121 °S.0 . 675
• 148 L.Fd.2d 576, 69 USLW, 51' 1833, 31 EnvtL L. Rep. 20:382,.
2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 267, 20010 C.A.R. 346, 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 48
(Cite as: 531 ILS. 159, 121 S.Ct. 675)
Supreme Court of the United States
SOLID WASTE AGENCY OF NORTHERN
COOK COUNTY, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS, et al.
No. 99-1178.
Argued Oct 31, 2000.
Decided Jam 9, 2001.
of wamictpalities sued the United States
AIM Corps of Engi ts, challenging CM(
exercise of jurisdiction over abandoned sand and
gravel pit on which consortium planned to develop
disposal she for nonhazardous solid waste and denial
of a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit for that
purpose. The United States District Court for the
Northern District of Mots. George W. Lindberg,
J., 998 F.Supp. 946, granted summary judgment for
Corps oa jmisdicdonal issue, and consortium
voluntarily dismissed remainder of its claims.
Consortium appealed. The Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit, 191 F.3d 845. affirmed. Certiorari
was granted. The Supreme Court,
Chief Justice
Rehnquist, held that Corps' rule extending timid=
of 'navigable waters' under CWA to include
intrastate waters used as habitat by migratory birds
exceeded authority granted to Corps under CWA.
Reversed.
Justice Stevens fled dissenting opinion in which
Jushces Souter. Ginsburg. and Breyer
West Headnotes
(1] Statutes �'+i 217.4
361k217.4
Failed legislative proposals are a particularly
dangerous ground on which to rest an interpretation
of a prier statute.
[2] Statutes €:=
3611220
Serv. 269,
Page 17
For purposes of statutory ioaerpretaeam, subsequent
legislative history is less illuminating than
contemporaneous evidence.
[3] Environmental Law X525
149Ek525
(Formerly 18713.5)
[3) Em3mnmenial Law G'a173
149Ek173
(Formerly 270708)
[3] Environmental Law e 127
149Ek127
(Formerly 270.138)
Army Coxps of Engineers' rule extending definition
of -navigable waters- under Clean Water Act
(CWA) to irecbide intrastate waters used as habitat
by migratory birds exceeded authority gamed to
Corps under CWA, and therefore, abandoned sand
and gravel pit corms ponds used by nig'
birds was not subject to Corps' jurisdiction corder
CWA. Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Ameadmesa of 1972. § 404(a). as amended, 33
U.S.C.A. § 1344(a); 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(4(3).
[4] Statuses @219(6.1)
3611419(6.1)
of
(CWA) to include intrastate waters used ea habitat
by ten birds which cross stat litres was not
en ed to Chevron deference; rule raised significant
Constitutional questions, such as _whether .hep tss
bad ever to re. - such waters under the
mce Mese.4-y1J.S.C.A. Court. Art. 1, § 8,
el. 3; Federal Water Polludon Control Act
Amendments of 1972, § 404(a), as amended. 33
U.S.C.A. § 1344(a); 33 C.F.R. § 328.30(3).
[5] Administrative Law and Precedent 4=0330
15Ak330
Where an administrative imerpretadon of a statute
invokes the outer limits of Congress' power, agency
must establish a clear indication that Congress
intended that result
Copt. 0 West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
121 s.ct. 675
(Cite az 531 U.S. 159, 121 S.Ct. 675)
[6] Adminimative Law and Procedure 4=1330
1SA1330
Concern that agency iutcrpretadon of a statute
exceeds limits of power granted by Congress is
heightened where interpretation alters the federal -
stare framework by permitting federal encroachment
upon a traditional state power.
p) Constitutional Law X4M1)
92148(1)
Where an otherwise acceptable eonsuuction of' a
federal statute would raise serious constitutional
problems, court will construe the statute to avoid
such problems unless such construction is plainly
contrary to the intent of Congress.
"676 Syllabus [P141
Fs The syllabus constitutes no pan of the opinion
of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter
of Decisions for the eonvenlenoe of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber ek Loeber Co.;
200 V.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
959 Petitioner, a consortium of suburban Chicago
municipalities, selected as a solid waste disposal site
an abandoned sand and gravel pit with excavation
trend= that bad evolved into permanent and
seasonal ponds. Because the operation called for
filling in some of the ponds, petitioner contacted
federal respondents, hteluding the Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps). to determine if a landfill permit
was required under § 404(a) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), which authorizes the Corps to issue permits
alto • the discharge of dredged or int material
vi able wawa.% The CWA defines
"navigable waters as the waters of the United
States,' 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). and the Corps'
regulations define such waters to include intrastate
waters, "the use, degradation or destrucden of
which could affect innateor foreign commerce;"
33 CFR § 328.3(a)(3). hi 1986, the Corps
attempted to clari$• its jurisdiction, stating, in what
has been clubbed the "Migratory Bird Rule.' that §
404(a) extends to intrastate waters that, utter alio,
provide habitat for migratory birds. 51 Fcd.Reg.
41217. Asserting jurisdiction Durr the instant site
pursuant to that Rule, the Corps refused to issue a §
404(a) permitWhen petitioner. challenged the
Corps' jurisdiction and the merits of the permit
denial, the District Court granted respondents
• •
Page 18
summary judgment on the jurisdictional issue. The
Seventh Circuit held that Congress bas authority
under the Commerce Clause to regulate intrastate
waters and that the Migratory Bird Rule .is a
reasonable interpretation of the CWA.
Held Title 33 CFR § 328.3(ax3), as clarified and
applied to petitioner's site pursuant to. the Migratory
Bird Rule. exceeds the authority granted to
respondents under § 404(a) of the CWA. Pp.
679484.
(a) In United Stater v. Riverside Bayview Homes,
Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 106 S.Ct. 455, 88 L.E41.2d 419,
this Coat held that the Corps had § '!' a)
over. wedands
a noting that the
'limited import' and that Congress •,..._. its
intent to "regulate at least some waters that would
not be deemed avigailo' er term s
classical understanding„ at 133, 106 S.Ct. 455.
But that holding was based in large measure upon
Congress' =equivocal acquiescence to, and 4160
approval of, the Corps' regulations in the
CWA to cover wetlands adjacent e
See id, at 135-139, 106 S.Ct
expressed no opinion on the question of the
Corps' authority to regulate wetlands not adjacent to
open water, and the statute's text will not allow
extension of the Corps' jurisdiction to such wetlands
here. Pp. 679-681-
(b) The Corps' original interpretation of the CWA
in its 1974 regulations-- which emphasized that a
water body's capability of use by the public for
transportation or commerce determines whether it is
navigable—is inconsistent with that which it espouses
here, yet respondents present no persuasive evidence
that the Corps mistook Congress' intent in 1974.
Respondentscontend that whatever Its original aim,
when Congress amended the CWA in 1977, it
approved the mom expansive definition of
1 �"ijxvtgab waters :%umd in the Corps' 1977
( regulate& SpecificaIy. respond submit that
Congress' failure to pass legislation that would have
overturned the 1977 regulation and the extension of
the Environmental Protection Agency's jurisdiction
in § 404(g) to include waters "other than traditional
"navigable ••677 waxers' indicates that Congress
recognized accepted a broad definition of
5j " rale waters",; that includes no>mavigable,
isolated, intrastate waters. This Court recognizes
Copr. C West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
•
121 S.Ct. 675 • •
((Ste as: 531 U.S. 159, '160, 121 S.Ct. 675, "677)
• congressional acquiescence to administrative
interpretations of a statute with extreme care.
Palled' legislative proposals are a particularly
dangerous ground on wbicb to rest an interpretation
of a prior statute, Cereal Bank of Denver. Nat- Y.
Fiat tuentare Bast of Deriver, N.A., 511 U.S.
164, 187, 114 S.Ct. 1439. 128 L.Ed.2d 119,
bemuse a bid can be proposed or rejected for my
number of reasons. Here, respondents have failed
to maks the necessary showing that Congress
failure to pass legislationdemonstrates acquiescence
to the 1977 regulations or
1986 Migratory Mid
Rule. Section 404(g) is equally , it
' oto
does na conclusively determine the
be PHOS on the use of the term -waters' elsewhere
m the CWA. Riverside Bayview Hones, supra' at
138, n. 11, 106 S.Ct. 455. Pp. 680.683.
(c) Even if § 404(a) were not dear. this Court
would not extend deference to the Migratory Bird
Rule rude Chevron U.S.A. Dec v. Naaaal
Resources Defense Council, Die., 467 U.S. 837, 104
S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.E4.2d 04. Where an
administrative huerpretadoa of a statute would raise
serious constitutional problems, the Court will
• cavoid such problems unless
. the construction is poly country to Congress'
intern. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Calf
Coast Bulking & Constr. fomes Comtdl. 485 U.S.
568, 375. 108 S.Ct 1392, 99 I PA Zd 645. The
grantof authcaity to Congress under the Commace
Clause. though broad. is not unlimited. See, e.g.,
United gates v. Morrison. 529 U.S. 598, 120 S.Ct.
1740. 146 L.Ed.2d 658. '
e.g., that the Migratory BIM Rule falls
within
61
Congress' power to regulate intrastate 1
aetivltles that substantially affect interstate
commerce. raise signify constitudonal questions,
yet there is nothing approaching a clear statement
Eton: Congress thal it intended § 404(a) to reach an
abandoned sand and gravel pit ;adz as dm one at
issue. Pamkling respondents to claim federal
mon over ponds and nmd9ats falling within
the Migratory Bird Rule would also result in a
significant impingerncm of the States' traditional and
primary power ova land and water use. me Court
thus reads the statue as written to avoid such
significant constimional and federalism questions
and rejects the request for admimstnisve deference.
Pp. 682-684.
• 191 F.3d 845, reversed.
• •
Page19
REHNQUIST, C.L. delivered the opinion of the
Court, im which O'CONNOR, SawA,
KENNEDY, and THOMAS, XL, joined.
STEVENS, 3., filed a dissenting opinin in which
SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYEt, 31., joined.
est, p. 684.
TimomY S. Bishop. Chicago, II., for peiuior er.
Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington. DC, for
For U.S. Supreme Court Briefs See:
•
2000 WL. 1369439 (Resp.Brlet
2000 WL 1369440 (Resp./hid)
2000 WL 1532361 (Reply.Brief)
2000 WL 1041190 (PetBrief)
2000 WL 1028522 (Amiau.Brid)
2000 WL 1041205 (Amicus.Briet)
2000 WL 1041206 (Amicus.BriSQ
2000 WL 1052146 (AmicutBrieO
2000 WL 1052154 (Amiens -Brief)
2000 WL 1052157 (Amiws.Briet)
2000 WL 1052159 (Amicus.BrieD
2000 WL 1059641 (Amiccu-Bdd)
2000 WL 1059644 (AmiwsBrief)
2000 WL 1059647 (Amicus -Brief)
2000 WL 1369409 (Amiens -Brief
2000 WL 1369410 (Amicus.Brief)
2000 WL 1369436 (Amicus.Brief)
2000 WL 1369438 (Amicas.BricO
2000 WL 1041204 (Amicus.Btief)
Copt. 0 West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
121 S.Ct. 675
(Cite as: 531 U.S. 159, Ps.Ct. 5)
2000 WL 1041203 (Amicns.BrieQ
2000 WL 1041200 (Amicus.Briet)
2000 WL 1041198 (Amicas.BrjeO)
2000 WL 1041197 (Ani cus Brief)
2000 WL 1041196 (Amieus.Brief)
2000 WI. 1041194 (Amicus.Brief)
2000 WL 1041193 (Amie:m.Briet)
2000 WL 1041192 (Atoicus.Brici)
For Transcript of Oral Argument See:
2000 WL 1669870 (U.S.Oral.Arg.)
•162 Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the
opinion of the Court.
Section 404(0 of the Clean Water Act (CWA or
Act), 86 Stat. 884, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §
1344(x), regulates the discharge of dredged or fill
ii -i Y'navigable waters.",, The United
States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has
interpreted § 404(a) to confer federal authority over
an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois
whkh provides habitat for migratory birds. We are
asked to decide whether the provisions of § 404(a)
may be fairly extended to these waters, and, if so,
whether Congress could exercise such authority
consistent with the Commerc *1%78 Clause, U.S.
Const., Art. 1. § 8. cl. 3_ eanswer the !IIsi--•
tuin in a naat ve and therefore do
the sewn'�iye-., #rz tect4,Q#
Petitioner, the Solid Waste
• • P 20
scattering of permanent and seasonal ponds of
varying size (from under one-tenth of an acne to
several acres) and depth (from several inches to
several feet);
•
The municipalities decided to purchase the site for
disposal of their baled nonhazardous solid waste.
By law, SWANCC was required to file for various
permits from Cook Courcy and the State of Illinois
before it could begin operation of its balefill project.
In addition, because the operation called for the
filling of some of the permanent and seasonal ponds,
SWANCC contacted federal respondents
respondents), including the Corps, to determine if a
federal landfill permit was required under § 404(a).
of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a).
Section 404(a) grants the Corps authority to Issue
permits 'for the discharge of dredged or :fill material
namable w aged disposal sites."
lbfd. The vigable waters" defused under
the Act as waters of the United Stats,
including the territorial seas? § 1362(7). The Corps
has issued regulations defniag the term "wares of
the United States' to include -
isnseeintritteassee4akesrsaann
(inch+d• >•..srmitr..e r 4^..,r
nalsas
smadflats_ wetlands sloughs, prairie potholes. wet
meadows, playa 'lakes, or natural ponds, the use,,
'degradation or destruction of which could affect
interstate or foreign commerce .... S.i Ckll 4
328 ga)(3) (1999). •
'164 In 1986, in an attempt to 'clarify" the reach
of its jurisdiction, the Corps stated that § 404(a)
extends to intrastate waters:
"a. Which are or would be used as habitat by birds
protected by Migratory Bird Treaties; or
Y 'b. Which are or would be used as habitat by other
L f g�y birds which cross state lines; or
,/c. Which are or would be used as habitat for
endangered species; or
"d. Used to irrigate crops sold in interstate
commerce.' 51 Fed.Reg. 41217.
This last promulgation has been dubbed the
"Migratory Bird Rule.' [ENT)
FN1. The Corps issued the 'Migratory Bird Rule"
without following the notice and comment
procedures outlined In the Admluiszradye
Procedure Aa, 5 U.S.C. § 553.
QC4`-
of NGithan
Cook County (SWANCC). is a consorthmi of 23
suburban Chicago •163 cities and villages that
united in an effort to locate and develop a disposal
site for baled nonhazardous solid waste. The
Oilcago Gravel Companytin ... t
municipalities the availability `•
na.rrl gridin2 be IDiaois counh oo t and
and gra
120. Long since abandoned, the old coming site
eventually gave way to a successional stage forest,
with its remnant excavation trenches evolving into a
The Corps initially concluded that it had no
Copr. 0 West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
•
•
121 s.Ct 675
• (Cite as: 531 U.S. 159, •4 L2111.675, "678)
jttriidiction over the site because i<
"wedantls,' or areas which
r itadapted for life
conditions." 33 CFR § 328.3(b) (1999).—owcver,
atter the Illinois Nature Preserves Commission
informed the Corps that a number of migratory bird
species had been observed at the site, the Corps
reconsidered and ultimately asserted jmisdicdon
over the balefif ate pursuant to subpart (b) of the
'Migratory Bird Rule? • me Corps found that
approximately 121 bird species had been observed at
the she, including several known to depend upon
aquatic aavi onments for a significant portion of
dick Bile requirements. Thus, on November 16,
1987, tie Carps formally 'determined that the
seasonally ponded, abandoned gravel mining
depressions located on die project site, '•679 while
not wetlands, did qualify as 'waters of the linked
Stares' ... based upon the following criteria: (1) the
proposed site had been abandoned as a gravel
mining operation; (2) the water areas and spoil piles
bad developed a natural character; and (3) the water
areas 6165 ate used as habitat by migratory bind
fsidahich cross state line.' U.S. Army Corps of
.Fsglaeera, Chicago District, Dept. of Army Permit
Evaluation and Decision Document. Lodging of
petitioner, Tab No. 1, p. 6.
ivn. • [9• w.. 1)1
Durtng the application process, SWANCC made
several proposals to midgate the Wetly displacement
of the migratory birds and to preserve a great blue
beton rookery located on the she. Its balefill
project ultimately received die necessary local and
state approval. By 1993, SWANCC had received a
special use planned development permit from the
Cook County Board of Appeals, a landfill
development permit from the Illinois Enviroamceral
Protection Agency, and approval from the Illinois
Deparunent of Conservation.
Despite SWANCC's seeming the required water
quality certification from the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency, the Craps refused to issue a §
404(at) permit The Corps found that SWANCC
bad not established that its proposal was the 'least
environmentally fig. most practicatde
ahernadve for disposal of nonhazardous solid
waste; that SWANCC's failure to ser aside
sufficient fluids to remediate leaks posed an
'unacceptable risk to the public's drinking water
supply'; and that the impact of the project upon
eve specks was 'tulmitigatable since a
• •
Page21
landfill surface cannot be redeveloped into a forested
habitat." Id.. at 87.
Petitioner Sled suit under the Administrative
Procedure An, 5 U.S.C. § 701 a seq., in die
Northern District of »limas challenging both the
Corps' jurisdiction over the site and the merits of its
denial of the § 404(a) permit. The District Court
granted summary judgment to respondents on the
jurisdictional issue, and petitioner abandoned ' its
challenge to the Corps' permit decision. On appeal
to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,
peddoner renewed its attack on respondents' use of
the 'Migratory Bird Mee to assert jurisdiction over
the site. Petitioner argued that respondents bad
exceeded their statutory a .1:1, In
1 •narmavigab__, �.
jam -tate waters based 1.. , Dresenoe of
Co kackee lite power under the Commerce
Clause to grant
The Court of Appeals began its analysis with the
constitutional quesdon, bolding that Congress has
the authority to regulate such waters based spot the
comuladve impact doctrine, under which a single
activity that itself bas no discernible effect on
int^tate commerce may still be regulated if the
aggregate effect of that class of activity has a
substantial impact on in state wmmette? 191
F.38 845, 850 (C.A.7 1999). The aggregate effect
of the "destruction of the natural habitat of
migratory birds" on hrterstate commercce, the court
held, was substantial became each year millions of
Americans cross state rims and speed over a billion
dollars to hunt and observe migratory birds. [FN2)
Ibid. The Court of Appeals then turned to the
regulatory question. The court held that the CWA
reaches as many waters as the Commerce Chaise
allows and, given its earlier Commerce Clause
ruling, it therefore followed that respondents'
'Migratory "680 Bird Rale was a reasonable
interpretation of the Act See M., at 851-852.
FNZ. Relying upon its earner decision in Elam
Homes, Inc. v. EPA, 999 Fad 256 (C.A.7 1993),
and a report from the United Stares Cercus Bureau,
the Court of Appeab found that in 1996
approximately 3.1 minion Americans spent $1.3
billion to hunt mtgtatozy birds (with 11 percent
crossing sate lines to do so) as another 17.7
million Americans observed migratory birds eolith
9.5 million traveling for the purpose of observing
Copr. ® Wiest 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
121 S.D. 675
(Cite as: S31 U.S. 159, *166, 121 S.Ct. 675,'680)
shorebirds). See 191 F.3d. at 850.
We granted certiorari, 529 U.S. 1129, 120 S.Ct.
2003, 146 L.Ed.2d 954 (2000), and now reverse.
Congress passed the CWA for the stated purpose of
"reswr[mB] and maid:An[mgl the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters.' 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). In so doing,
Congress chose to 'recognize, preserve, and protect
the primary responsibilities and rights of *167 States
to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan
the development and use (inducting restoradon,
preservation, and enhancement) of land and water
resources, and to consult with the Administrator in
the exercise of his authority tinder this chapter.' §
1251(b). Relevant here. § 404(a) authorizes
respondents to regulate the discharge of §B material
sato "Drag* able waters,' 33 U.S.C. § 1344(a),
which the mane defines as 'the waters of the
United States, including the territorial seas,' §
13622(/). Renu have interpreted these words
to cover the abandoned gravel pit at issue here
because it is used as habitat for migratory birds.
We conclude that the 'Migratory Bird Rule is not
fairly supported by the CWA.
This is not the first dine we have been called upon
to evaluate the meaning of § 404(a). In United
Stater v. Riverside Rayview. Homes, Inc., 474 U.S.
held 106 S.he 455,E >1 � 419ltrr icc� over
held that the. Corps
wetlands that actually abutted on a navigable
waterway. In so doing. we noted that the term
'navigable 1s of 'limited import' and that Congress
evidenced its intent to 'regulate at least some wants
that would not be deemed 'navigable' under the
classical understanding of that term.' Id. at 133,
106 S.Ct. 455, But our holding was based in large
measly. upon Congress' tmegnrvacal acquiescence
to, and. approval of, the Corps' regulations
interpreting the CWA to cover wetlands adjacent to
navigable waters. See id., at 135-139, 106 S.Ct.
455. We found that Congress' concern for the
protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems
indicated its intent to regulate wetlands 'inseparably
bound up with the 'waters' of the United States.'
Id, at 134, 106 S.Ct. 455.
It was _the_sign}f4 ,nexu>s between the wetlands
,nexus
informed our reading of
the CWA in Riversi& Bayview Homes. Indeed, we
•
Copr. 0 West 2002 No Claim
• •
• •
did not 'express any opinion' on the "question of
the authority of the Corps to regulate d"twbarges of
fill material into wetlands that ate not adjacent to
bodies of open water ....' Id., at 131-132, '168 n.
8, 106 S.Ct. 455. In order to rule for resp
here, we would have to bold that the jurisdiction of
the Corps extends to ponds that are nor adjacent to
open water. But we conclude that the text of the
statute wit not allow this.
Indeed, the Corps' original interpretation of the
CWA, promulgated two yeats after its enaomabt, is
inconsistent with that which it espouses here. Its
1974 regulations defined § 404(a)'s 'navigable
waters' to mean 'those waters of the United States
which are subject to the ebb and flow of the dde,
and/or are presadly, or have been in the past, or
may be in the future susceptible for use for proposes
of interstate or foreign commerce.' 33 CFR §
209.120(d)(l). The Corps emphasized that '[7r t is
the water body's capability of use by the public for
purposes of transportation or commerce. which is the
determinative factor." § 209.260(.X1).
Respondents put forward no persuasive evidence that
the Corps mistook Congress' intent in 1974. EFN3)
FM. Respondents refer us to portions of the
legislative history that they believe indicate
Congress' intent to expand the definition of
navigable waters." Although the Conference {-
Report includes the ee-dase conferees
intend that the term navigable wags'
the broadest possible uaapremd°° '
S. Coef. Rep. No. 92- 1236, p. 144 (1972),
U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1972 pp. 3668,
3812,, niter this, war anything else in the
legislative history to wbith respondents point
signifies that Congress intended to exert any hhig
more than its commerce power over navigation.
Indeed,. respondents admit that the legislative
bistary is somewhat ambiguous. See Brief for
Federal Respondents 24.
•*681 Respondents next contend that its
original aimcharted
five years la
defmiti
1977
adopted 33 CFR § 323.2(a)(5) (1978). which defined
'waters of the United States' to include "Isolated
wetlands and lakes, intermimeat streams, prairie
potholes, and other waters that ate not part of a
tributary system to interstate waters or to navigable
1
m 1972, Congas course
ter when ed eve
navigable waters found is the Corps'
. the Corps formally
to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
•
•
•
•
•
121 S.0.675
(Cite as: 531 U.S.159> 121S 675, "681)
waters of the United States, the degradation or
destruction of which could affect 6169 interstate
commerce.' Respondents argue that Congress was
aware of this more expansive interpretation during
its 1977 amendments to the CWA. Specifically,
respondents point to a failed Rouse bill, H.R. 3199,
that would have defined 'navigable wafers” as 'all
waters which are presently used, or are susceptible
to use in their natural condition or by reasonable
improvement as a means to transport interstate or
foreign commerce.' 123 Cong. Rec. 10420. 10434
(1977). [PN4] They also point to the passage in §
404/g)(1) that authorizes a State to apply to the
Environmental Protection Agency for permission 'to
administer its own $ndividml and general permit
program for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into the navigable waters (other than those waters
watch are presently used, or are susceptible to use in
their naval conditiaa or by reasonable
iniprovemess as i means to transport intentate or
foreign commerce ..., including wetlands adjacent
thereto) within its jurisdiction .... 33 U.S.C. §
1344(g)(1). The failt¢e to pass legislation that
would have overarmed the Carps' 1977 regulations
and the Gammon of jarisdictian is § 404(g) to
waters borer man' traditional 'navigable waters,'
respondents submit, indite that Congress
recognized and accepted a broad definition of
'navigable waters' that includes nomnavigable,.
isolated, intrastate s
FI44. While rnia WO passed in the House, a
similarly worded amendment to a bill origfmadug m
the Senate, S.1952, faded. See 123 Cong. Rec.
26710, 26728 (1977).
[17fn Although wo have recognized congressional
acquiescence to administrative interpretations of a
stance in some situations, we have done so with
extreme tare. (FNS) '[F]ailed legislative *170
proposals are 'a particularly dangerous ground on
winch to rest an mterpaeat[on of a prior statute.' "
Cenral Bask of Dower, N.A. v. Fun herdsman
Bacot ( Denver, NA., 511 U.S. 164, 187, 114
S.Ct. 1439, 128 LEd.2d 119 (1994) (quoting
Pentton Benefit Guaranty Corponaton v. LTV
Corp.. 496 U.S. 633, 650, 110 S.Ct. 2668, 110
L.Ed.2d 579 (1990)). A bill can be proposed for
any mumbo of rte, and h can be rejected for
just as many others. The relationship between the
actions and inactions of the 95th Congress and the
intent of the 924 "682 Congress hi Being § 404(a)
• •
Page 23
Is also considerably attenuated, Because
'subsequent history is less illuminating than the
contemporaneous evidence," Hager v. Utah, 510
U.S. 399,420, 114 3.Q. 958, 127 L.E1.2d 252
(1994), respondents face' a difficult task in
overcoming the plain ten and import of § 4044) -
FM le Bob .Iona Univ. v. Unfurl Siam 461
US. 574, 595, 600- 601, 103 S.Q. 2017, 76
L.Ed.2d 157 (1983), for example, we upbdd an
Internal Revenue Scrvico Its) Revenue bale
dm revoked the tax-exempt sates of private
scboob practicing racial c isciminadon because the
IRS' imezpreaaon of elle relevant scannas was
'correct': because Conn= had beld Barings on
this precise fie,' making k 'hardly conceivable
that Congress -and in this setting. any Member of
Congress—was not abundantly aware of what was
going me; and became 'no fewer than 13 bills
introduced to ovannn the WS mmpretadnc• bad
faded. Absent such overwhebiling evidence of
acquiesce**, we are loan to replace the plain tea
and original emdersanding of a statute with an
amended agency intexpraadon. See Consumer
Produa Safety Comm'n v. GTE Sylvania, Dna, 447
U.S. 102. 118, n. 13, 100 S.O. 2051, 64 L.F.d.2d
766 (19 80) ( "(Elven when it would otherwise be
useful, subsequent legislative blstoty will rarely
override a reasonable interpretation of a sterane that
can be gleaned from its language and iegisladve
history prior to its marmrem7.
We conclude that respondents have failed to make
the necessary showing that the Patine of the 1977
Rouse ball demonstrates Congress' acquiescence to
the Corps' regulations or the ,".figntary Bhd 1lila,'
which, of course, did not first appear --a f 986.
showing Congress' =opiates of the
assertion of jurisdiction over isolated waters,'
{FN6) as we explained in Riverside Bayview Henna,
TO born Chambers, debate on the proposals to
narrow the definition of navigable waters centered
largely on die issue of wetlands preservation," 474
U.S., at 136. 106 S.Ct. 455. Beyond Congress'
deshe to regulate "171 wetlands adiaoettt 93
respondents point m to no
persuasive evidence that the House bull was
proposed in rsspoase to the Carps' claim of
jurisdiction over twmn'vivat l t ..1 et4
waters or that its failure indicated congressional
acquiescence to such jurfsdicaon.
FN6. Respondents cite. for example, the senate
Report on S.1952, wbfcb referred to the Corps'
Copt. 0 West 2002 No Claim to Ong. U.S. Govt. Worcs
►i
121 S.Ct. 675
• •
(Cite as: S31 U.S.159, nn, 121 S.Ct. 675,'*68)
'isolated water' regulation. See S.Rep. No.
95-370, p. 75 (1977), U.S-Code Cong. &
Admin.News 1977 pp. 4326, 4400. However, the
same report reiterated that '[t]he committee
ameadmeat does not redefine navigable waters."
4
Section 404(g) is
une nlighiening,
Riverside Bayview Ho a we
Congress intended the
wat
deemed
waters ,it,, 1, ., + not be
under the dassieal
understan • • : o •- term.' Id., at 133, 106 S.Ct.
455. But § 404(g) gives no }ndmation of what those
waters p be; it simply refers to than Coder")
other )
Respondents conjecture that
-must incorporate the Corps' 1971
regulations, bit it is also plausible, as petitioner
Congress all
water adjacent _ navigable waters, tech as
nonnavigable Crib and streams. The exact
meaning of § 404(g) is not before us and we express
no opinion on it, but for present purposes it is
student to say, as we did in Riverside Bayview
Homo. that • § 404(g)(1) does not conclusively
determine the construction to be placed on the use of
the term 'waters' elsewhere in the Act (panicularly
in § 502(7), which contains the relevant defrnidoaa of
'navigable waters') ....' Id, at 138, n. 11, 106
S.Ct. 455. (PN7]
FN7. Respondents also mate a passing reference to
Congress' decision in 1977 to exempt certain types
of discharges from § 404(a), including, for
example, 'discharge of dredged or fill material ...
for the purpose of construction or maintenance Of
farm or stock ponds or irrigation ditches. or the
maintenance of drainage ditches.' § 67, 91 Stat.
1600, 33 U.S.G. § 1344(t)(C). As § 404(a) only
regulates dredged or fill material that is discharged
'into navigable visnas,* Congress' decision to
exempt certain types of these diet -barges does not
affect, much -less address, the definition of
"navigable waters? .
C.
[3] We tau &liline respondisswinvitation. to take
what they see as the next ineluctable step after
Riverside Bayview Homer: holding that isolated
'ponds, some only seasonal, wholly located within
tion Illinois counties, fill ander § 404(a)'s definidon
of JnaY]gaht� water' because they cern *172 as
habitat for migratory bads. As counsel for
respondents conceded at oral argument, such . a
•
•. •
Page 24
ruling would assume that 'the use of the word
nnavinble in theme .." o not have any
mdse en�den[ significance." Tr. of Oral Arg. 28.
v�e Cannot agree cher f` ng"�—g`Y- sfinidcga. '
am of rhe pine "warn* of the 7lttirc l Stales"
csuglimMe a sin for rea�_the-.M _ _air ere
emrs We said in 8lversfde
Bayview Homes that the/word 'navigable' in the
**683 statute was of "limited import" and weal on
to hold that .§ 404(a) extended to
wetlands ad'acent to • • waters.
c
at east the import of showmg t s what
tad m mind as its authority for enacting the CNA:
its traditional jurisdiction over waters that were or
shad been navigable in fact or which could
reasonably be <, Tie See, e.g., United Sian v.
Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 311 U.S. 377,
407-408, 61 S.Ct. 291, 85 L.Ed. 243 (1940).
[4] Respondents—relying upon all of the arguments
addressed above—contend that, at the very least, it
must be said that Congress did not address the
precise quad= of § 404(a)'s scope with regard to
, blee-isolated, intrastate waters,. and 812,
therefore, we should give defence to the
'Migratory Bird Rule.' See, e.g., Chevron (1.54.
Inc. v. Neutral Resources Deface. Council, Inc„
467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Fd2d 694
(1984). We find § 404(a) to be clear, but even were
we to agree with respondents, we would not extend
Chewevt deference hem.
[5][6][7] Where an administrative interpretadon of
a statute invokes the outer limits of Congress'.
power, we expect a clear indication that Congress
intended that result. See Edward 1. beBarrolo
Corp. v. Florida Gdf Coact Building & Const:
Trades Comuzl, 485 U.S. 568, 575, 108 S.Ct.
1392, 99 L.Ed.2d 645. (1988). This =gunmen:
stems from our pmdagial desire not to needlessly
reach constitutional issues and err assumpdoa than
Congress does not casually authorize administrative
agencies to interpret a *173 statute to push the limit
of congressional authority. See fMd. This concern
is heightened where the administrative interpraation
alters the federal -state framework by permitting
federal encroachment upon a traditional state power.
See United States v. Ban, 404 U.S. 336, 349, 92
S.Ct. 515, 30 L.E.d_2d 488 (1971) ('[U]nless
Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be
Cope. 0 West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
•
hurl a e—..i
•
a a
((Ste as: 531 U.S. 199, 0173, 121 S.Ct 675, "683)
deemed to have significatab' changed the federal -
sate balance-). Tina, "where an otherwise
acceptable construction of a statute would raise
salons constitutional problems, the Conti will
consume the taamte to avoid such problems unless
such construction is play copy to the intent of
Congress.' De-Ranolo, supra, at 575, 108 &Ct.
1392.
Twice in the past six years we have reaffirmed the
proposition that die grant of authority to Congress
under the rummer a Clause_ ,hough broad, is not
intim* d. See trotted Staa v. Monson. 529 U.S.
598, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000);
linked Stet v. Lopez 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct.
1624, 131 L.E4.26 626 (1995). Fa
that BirdRulefalls •
ower m�ctulate intrastate activities that
:� *ablat . They
note
note that the protec — of mreraton' birds is a
"name= interest of very nearly the fust
magnitude,' Minoan v Hoamrd 252 U.S. 416,
331a'S.Ct. 382, 64 L.Bd 641 (1920), and that,
u the Court of Appeals found. matins of people
spend over a billion dollars annually on recreational
pursuits relatiug to migratory birds. These
• argnmems raise significant consrimtioml questions.
For example, we would have to evaluate the precise
object or activity that, in the aggregate, substantially
affects interstate cummasm. This is not clear, for
although the Corps has claimed jurisdiction over
petitioner's land because it contains water areas used
as habitat by migratory birds, respondents now, Pau
l rem 474 focus upon the fact that the regulated
activity is petition's municipal landfill, which is
'plainly of a commercial nater.' Brief for Federal
Respondents 43.. Brtt ibjs •
•tares m Which the statute by lsie
0174 These are significant constitutional questions
raised by respondents' application 00684 of their
regulations, and yet we find nig approaching a
clear stance from Congress that it intended §
404(a) to reach an abandoned sand and gravel pit
here. Permitting respondents to
infer jurisdiction ova ponds and mudflats
falling within the 'Migratory Bird Rule' world
result in a significant impingement of the States'
traditional and primary power over land and water
we. Sets, e.g., fest v. Pon Authority nuns -
Hudson Corporation, 513 U.S. 30, 44, 115 S.Ct.
121 5.0. 675
•
• •
Page ss
394, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994) ('[Rjegulation of land
use Os) A tmcttoa traditionally performed by local
governments"). Rather than expressing a desire to
readjust the federal- state balance in this matuser.
Congress chose to 'recognize, preserve, a= protect
the primary responsibilities and rights of States ... to
plan the development and me ... of land and water
resources ....' 33 U.S.C. § 12$1(b). We thus read
the stance as written to avoid the significant'
constitutional and federalism quesdons raised by
respondents' itderprctnion, and therefore' reject the
request for administrative deference. [F148]
FNS. Beouse violations of the CWA carry
criminal penaidess. see 33 USX. f 1319(c)(2).
perldoner invokes the sob of lenity as another barb
for relearns the Corps' imeepmatbo a the CWA.
Brief for petitioner 31.32. We need net address
this alternative argamorn. See Haired Stam v.
5habimd, 513 V.S. 10, 17, 115 S.C. 382, 130
L.Ed.2d 225 (1994).
We hold that 33 CFR § 328.3(0)(3) (1999). as
clarified and applied to petitioner's baleSII site
pursuant to the 'Migratory Bird Rule.' 51 Fed -Reg.
41217 (1986), exceeds the authority granted to
respondents aria § 404(a) of the CWA. The
judgment of the Cont of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit is therefore
Reversed.
Justice STEVENS, with
GINSBURG, and
1111 .2 ._
J
Justice SOUTER.
BREYER join.
In 1 the Cuyahoga it Cleveland. Ohio,
coated a slick of ' waste, caught fire.
Congress r 75 to that dramatic event,
and to others le enacting the Federal Water
Pollution Conte • (FWPCA) Amendments of
1972, 136 Stat. 8 , amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1251
et Sat.. •• •• .. •-•e% as the Cham Ware Act
(Clean Water CW or Aa). [PN1j The Aet
proclaimed ambltio goal of ending water
pollution by 985. § 1251.. The Court's past
iatetp s:tad of the have been fhlly
consistent' . that goaL though Congress'
vision of zero pollution =fulfilled, its
pursuit unquestionably the destruction
of the aquatic environment. Our ,''s waters
no longer bum. Today, however, or Court takes
Copt. 4) West 2002 No Clain to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
• OZARK HEADWATERS GROUP
ARKANSAS SIERRA CLUB
Not Blind Opposition to Progress but Opposition to Blind Progress
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS AT
THE PROPOSED WILSON SPRINGS BUSINESS PARK
WHEREAS the described. lowlands constitute an ecologically valuable natural resource
as evidenced by:
• Seasonal and perennial wetlands
• Over 130 documented species of birds
• The Ozark Burrowing Crayfish, endemic to eight counties in Arkansas
• The presence of the largest population of Arkansas Darters in Arkansas
documented to date, a candidate for listing under the Endangered
Species Act
• Tall grass prairie. vegetation, characteristic of the rarest ecosystem in
Arkansas and North America, and
• WHEREAS this parcel provides ecological services to the community including:
Stoim watei detention
• Water quality purification, and
WHEREAS future uses for this property include:
• Multi -use trail corridors
1itf4l*.2?i!ijtJittt1 €dluIhiuur11
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EXECUTIVE COMDH17TTEE OF THE
SIERRA CLUB OZARKS HEADWATERS GROUP:
Supports the preservation of all lowlands, as definedby the southern line of elevation at
which all hydfic soils begin, on the Wilson Springs Business Park property located within
the city limits of Fayetteville, AR
Passed September 5, 2002
S
•
CJ
September 23, 2002
The following is a response to the Guest Commentary written by Gary Coover appearing
on September 22, 2002. 1 respectfully request that you publish my comments.
Gary Coover's guest commentary of September 22 addressed a number of
biological/ecological issues that are largely outside his field of technical expertise, which
is that of hydraulic engineer. As a member of the Mayor's Task Force on Wilson Springs
and its hydrology sub -group, I had expected Mr. Coover to provide some information on
engineering aspects and construction costs of building on seasonal wetlands. Instead, he
provided several misleading comments on biological/ecological issues that may confuse
Times readers.
As a biologist, I have been involved in direct assessment of the Wilson Springs site, and I
have collected substantial scientific information from other scientists and the US Fish and
Wildlife Service concerning a diverse collection of species that inhabit the Wilson
Springs site. Thus, I am concerned about possible misinterpretations of several
statements included in Mr. Coover's commentary.
First, Mr. Coover mentions "obvious wetlands" and "low-grade wetlands" at the Wilson
Springs site. There is an inference that "low-grade wetlands" are of little value.
Ecologists prefer to distinguish between these lands as perennial wetlands (having
standing water on them all year around) and seasonal wetlands (wet during part of the
year — in this case, several months of the year). The seasonal wetlands of the Wilson
Springs site are remnants of mesic (wet) prairie supporting rare and declining species of
plants and animals including the Henslow's Sparrow. Contrary to Coover's comments,
Northwest Arkansas is within the historical range of Henslow's Sparrows. They have
been found throughout the nesting season in the seasonal wetlands at the Wilson Springs
site the past two years.
Additionally, Mr. Coover's superficial analysis of the relationship of the Arkansas Darter
to other species at the site is simply not consistent with biological fact. He suggests that
the Ozark Burrowing Crayfish threatens to eat Arkansas Darter eggs. In fact, it is a
crayfish that lives in the groundwater of the seasonal wetland fields..There'are no fish in
those fields to lay eggs upon which the crayfish could feed — certainly no Arkansas
Darters. The Ozark Burrowing Crayfish is an endemic species to eight Northwest
Arkansas counties, which means it lives in only those eight counties - counties that are
undergoing rapid urbanization. Thus, there is no basis for the statement that the species is
in no danger of decline.
September 23, 2O02
To: Wilson Springs Task Force •
From Andrea Radwell
Follow-up comments related to Status Report dated July 9, 2002
Site Assessment
• Highland and lowland differentiation
• perennial and seasonal wetlands functioning as an ecosystem
• Delineation of wetlands — vegetation issue, "mitigation" areas
• Characteristics of northwest quadrant
• Fragmentation issue
Wetland Legislation — looking beyond short-term gain.
• Biodiversity issue — looking beyond single species (darters, sparrows, crayfish)
Ecological services — EPA Storm water Phase 11
• Irreversibility associated with development
Candidate Conservation Agreement for Arkansas Darter
• US Fish and Wildlife Service — no endorsement of changes in Clabber Creek or
storm water flow
• Sewer project to go through the Wilson Springs site •
• Review of condition of Clabber Creek
Legal aspects of mitigation
• US Army Corps of Engineers — lowest common denominator of environmental
protection — encouragement to take control at the local and regional level.
• EPA and Army corps Memorandum of Agreement, February 1990:
o Avoidance clause — must show that the proposed use cannot occur on
other land... economic hardship is not just cause.
o Minimization clause — impact must be justified —no other option.
• Recommendation of a legal opinion.
How should restoration be accomplished?
• The Nature Conservancy and Audubon offers
• Grant possibilities — strengths of our position
o Preliminary biological assessment — candidate fish species, 130+ bird
• species, endemic crayfish, tall grass prairie species
o Location within a watershed identified to have water quality problems
o Opportunities to study recovering channelization, analyze effectiveness of
wetland in providing water purification, tall grass prairie restoration, etc.
o www.mudwompers.ore - organized body of information.
o People with credentials and commitment
Mr. Coover suggests engineering projects intended to improve Arkansas Darter habitat
• including re-establishing the "sinuosity" of Clabber Creek and diversion of storm water
run-off from I-540. Neither of these costly engineering. proposals has the support of the
US Fish and Wildlife Service, which the City has agreed to work with to establish a
Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Arkansas Darter.
Finally, let me add that I believe the Task Force is making a strong effort to analyze the
scientific facts and best data available to arrive, at a sound multi -disciplinary
recommendation that will be in the best interests of the citizens of Fayetteville. My hope
is that Mr. Coover will contribute some of those facts related to his engineering expertise.
Andrea Radwell .
Research Assistant/PhD. Candidate
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Arkansas
Home address: 2233 Elaine Avenue, Fayetteville
575-3534 (office) no messages — use email aradwell@uark.edu
443.6539 (home) messages may be left at this number
•
CI
5 October 2001 •
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ATTN: CECW-OR
441 G St NW
Washington DC 20314 -1000
Dear Sirs:
We are submitting this letter as an official comment on the Army Corps of Engineers
Proposal to Reissue and Modify Nationwide Permits, the notice of which appeared in
Federal Register, Thursday, August 9, 2001 (Vol 66, No. 154, pp. 42070 - 42100). The
undersigned are senior aquatic scientists with broad knowledge and expertise in stream
ecosystems including their physical structure, chemistry, and biology. Scientists who
have signed this letter include members of the National Academy of Sciences and its
scientific Boards, individuals who have been. president of national scientific
organizations, and leading authors on the ecology, water quality, and biota of streams and
rivers.
According to law, Nationwide Permits are to be used only for activities that have minimal
cumulative adverse effect on the aquatic environment. Because headwater streams
provide valuable ecological goods and services for the public good, their elimination
from stream networks has an adverse impact on riverine ecosystems. The available
scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that the length of headwater streams in the •
landscape has been significantly reduced because of the mining and development
activities that have been permitted under this program. For example, suburban
development around Rock Creek in Maryland reduced the drainage density (m stream
channel / m2 watershed area) by 58% (Leopold 1994); drainage density of urban and
suburban watersheds in the Chattahoochee River basin near Atlanta is one third less than
drainage density in watersheds covered in forest and pasture (Meyer and Wallace 2001).
At least 1450 km of streams were eliminated in the Southern Appalachians from 1986 -
1998 because of mountain -top removal valley -fill coal mining practices (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1998). Untold miles of streams in the midwestern U.S. have been
converted into drainage ditches that route water quickly out of the watershed. Because of
their simplified channel structure, they no longer provide the ecological services of
unchannelized headwater streams (Brookes 1994). This loss of headwater streams has
profoundly altered the structure and function of stream networks, just as eliminating fine
roots from the root structure of a tree would reduce its chances of survival.
The accumulated scientific evidence points to numerous significant consequences when
headwater streams are lost (Meyer and Wallace 2001). For example:
• The loss of the hydrologic retention capacity provided by headwater streams (i.e. the
ability to hold and store water) results in increased frequency and intensity of flooding
downstream as well as lower base flows.(e.g. Dunne and Leopold 1978). •
• • Increased frequency and intensity of flooding results in increased channel erosion
downstream (e.g. Trimble 1997).
• Reduced retention of sediments in headwater channels leads to excess sediment transport
downstream; sediment accumulation in larger streams and rivers can affect fish spawning
success and stream productivity (e.g. Waters 1995).
• The predominance of organic debris dams in headwater streams (e.g. Bilby and Likens
1980) provides sediment retention, important habitat structure, and sites for critical
metabolic activity (e.g. Steinhart et al. 2000). These important functions are eliminated
when headwaters are channelized, piped, or filled.
• Filling of stream valleys by mountain -top removal valley -fill coal mining has resulted in
a greater proportion of fine particles in stream sediments amid an altered flow and
temperature regime downstream of the filled valleys (Wiley et al. 2001). Substrate
particle size, water temperature, and flow regime are physical parameters with
significant impact on the biota of a stream (Allan 1995) .
• The basic chemical. composition of unpolluted streams draining a landscape is largely
established in headwater streams (Gibbs.1970, Likens 1999, Johnson et al.2000).
• Small streams in the network are the sites of the most active uptake and retention of
nutrients (Alexander et al. 2000, Peterson et al. 2001); hence elimination of small streams
from the network results in increased downstream transport of nutrients. Recipient
systems like lakes, estuaries, coastal waters, and ground waters may be sensitive to the
resulting high nutrient concentrations with eutrophication and groundwater contamination
being likely consequences of loss of the nutrient retention capacity afforded by headwater
streams..
Headwater streams are sites for physical and biological processing of inputs of organic
matter from the watershed such as falling leaves (e.g. Wallace et al. 1997) and a source
of energy for downstream. reaches (Kaplan et al. 1980). The dissolved organic matter and
fine particles exported from headwaters are important food resources for ecosystems
downstream (Vannote et al. 1980). Hence the elimination of •small streams from the
landscape can resultin reduced inputs of food resources for downstream ecosystems.
Small, spring -fed headwater streams can serve as thermal refuges for fishes, providing a
refuge from freezing for stream fishes during winter (e.g. Power et al. 1999) and cool
refuges for young -of -the -year during summer (e.g. Curry et al. 1997). Etheostoma
cragini, a federal candidate darter species, uses small first order streams as a summer
time refuge from heat and drought (Radwell 2001),
• In karst regions, small streams contribute to the recharge of subterranean phreatic and
cave aquifers that harbor unique species. For example, small streams in the Ozarks enter
caves that harbor threatened and endangered species of cave fishes, crayfishes,
•
amphipods and other organisms. The water quality and quantity in these small streams is
important to the continued existence of the subterranean fauna (Elliot 2000). •
Headwater streams provide unique habitats for numerous species. Their degradation and
elimination from the landscape increases extinction vulnerability for aquatic invertebrate
(e.g. Morse et al. 1993), amphibian, and fish species (e.g. Etnier 1997). For example,
small headwater streams provide essential breeding habitat for a federally endangered
darter species (Etheostoma boschungi). In addition, some terrestrial species are also
dependent on high quality headwater streams. For example, the Louisiana Waterthrush
(Seiurus motacilla) shows a strong habitat preference for unpolluted headwater streams
(Prosser and Brooks 1998).
Given the strong evidence that alteration of headwater streams has extensive cumulative
adverse effects, we would argue that Nationwide Permits should not be used to allow
filling or piping of stream channels in stream networks where previous development -or
mining has resulted in a reduction of the network drainage density. In those drainage
basins, there has already been a measurable cumulative effect of past permitting actions,
and hence future permitting should require site -specific evaluation with extensive
mitigation. Continued permitting of these activities under a Nationwide Permit without
careful individual site review by personnel that include qualified aquatic biologists will
result in further cumulative effects that can be experienced on site and far downstream.
Furthermore, mitigation should be required for any piping or filling of streams covered
by the Nationwide Permit system. As documented above and discussed in greater detail •
in Meyer and Wallace (2001), the United States has already lost thousands of miles of
headwater streams from the landscape. It is time to recognize the ecological services
provided by these ecosystems, just as we recognize the services provided by wetlands.
Mitigation should be required when even short lengths of these small streams are
destroyed.
We are concerned about the project -specific waiver of the 300 foot prohibition proposed
by the Corps. We question the scientific basis for the argument that a stream that is "a
six-inch wide by one inch deep area running for several thousand feet throughout a grassy
upland field" may provide "few, if any aquatic functions." That type of stream can
support a diverse and sometimes unique community of aquatic organisms. For example,
in western Oregon, the number of invertebrate. taxa in intermittent streams exceeded that
of permanent headwaters, and several undescribed species were associated with
intermittent streams (Dieterich and Anderson 2000). The slackwater darter (Etheostoma
boschungi) breeds in tiny streams, many of which are now small ditches flowing through
pastures (Mettee et al. 1996). The trispot darter (Etheostoma trisella) attaches it eggs to
submerged blades of grass in tiny rivulets that flow from ephemeral ponds in fields (Ryon
1986).
We question the change in General Condition 19 which would waive the requirement of
one -for -one mitigation of wetlands by allowing substitution of vegetated buffers in cases
where the Corps determines that buffers would provide more effective mitigation. •
Vegetated riparian buffers clearly have considerable value, but they do not always
• provide the same benefits as wetlands. For example, the capacity of vegetated buffers to
remove excess nitrogen is dependent on the extent to which the soil is saturated and the
availability of sources of organic carbon (e.g. Hedin et al. 1998). In addition, wetlands
provide habitat for a different suite of biota than would a vegetated riparian buffer.
Without a clear statement of the criteria to be evaluated when deciding if vegetated
buffers could substitute for wetland mitigation, this change could result in decisions that
would be detrimental to the ecosystems it was designed to protect.
: 1 'In''
jg 1 1 1 1' 1 til1 ItiI 1
goods: 1 1 n, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I: 1 : 1'
I
I I 1 1 1goods1 1 n 1 1 1 I'
' 1 1 1 : 1 1 11 1 1 1 :: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 : I I I: I
1 1 1 1 1 11 1 Permitprogram 1 : 1 11 I 41 1 I.'
I I 1 1. 1 1' •
1 I: 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1: 1
' II
L
•
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed changes in Nationwide
Permits.
Dr. Judy L Meyer Dr. J. Bruce Wallace, Professor
Distinguished Research Professor* Dept of Entomology and Institute of
Institute of Ecology Ecology
University of Georgia University of Georgia
Athens GA Athens GA
Dr. Gene Likens
President' and Director
Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Millbrook NY
Dr. Richard W. Merritt
Professor, Departments of
Entomology and Fisheries and Wildlife
Michigan State University
East Lansing MI
Dr. Barbara L Peckarsky
Professor
Entomology Department
Cornell University
Ithaca NY
Dr. Kenneth W. Cummins
Senior Advisory Scientist
California Cooperative Fishery Unit
Humboldt State University
Arcata CA
Dr. David D. Hart
Vice President and Director
Patrick Center for Environmental
Research Academy of Natural Sciences
Philadelphia PA
Dr. Stuart Fisher
Professor
Department of Biology
Arizona State University
Tempe AZ
Dr. Cliff Dahm
Professor
Department of Biology
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque NM
Dr. Stanley V. Gregory
Professor
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR
Dr. Gene Helfman
Professor
Institute of Ecology
University of Georgia
Athens GA
Dr. Robert Naiman
Professor
Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
University of Washington
Seattle WA
Dr. Margaret A. Wilzbach
Assistant Leader
Cooperative Fish Research Unit
Humboldt State University
Arcata CA
Dr. Louis A. Kaplan
Senior Research Scientist
Stroud Water Research Center
Avondale PA
Dr. Margaret A. Palmer •
Professor
Department of Biology
University of Maryland
College Park MD
Dr. Vincent H. Resh
Professor of Entomology
Environmental Science, Policy & Mgmt.
University of California
Berkeley CA
Dr. Gary Lamberti
Professor and Associate Chair
Biological Sciences Department
University of Notre Dame.
Notre Dame IN
Dr. Walter Dodds
Professor
Division of Biology
Kansas State University •
Manhattan KS
Dr. John C. Morse
Professor
Entomology Department
Clemson University
Clemson SC
Dr. Amy D. Rosemond
Assistant Director
Institute of Ecology
University of Georgia
Athens GA
•
U
ci
•
N
ti
y. .
k ,
' �
fl
111 i Vv �4
j \
I �
II 1r,
( II
Under the land sales method, we have:
Property Taxes Attributable to Park (146 Acres with land
value of
Property Tax Distribution
Mills
Property
Tax
Fayetteville Schools
44.00
$127,600
City of Fayetteville
0.80
$2,320
Washington County
7.16
$20,764
General Funds
5.00
$14,500
County Roads
1.16
$3,364
Library
1.00
$2,900
Total
51.96
$150684
Property Taxes Attributable to Park (38 Acres with land
value of
Property Tax Distribution
Mills
Property
Tax
Fayetteville Schools
44.00
$83600
City of Fayetteville
0.80
$1,520
Washington County
7.16
$13,604
General Funds
5.00
$9500
County Roads
1.16
$2,204
LIbrary
1.00
$1,900
Total
51.96
$98,724
Under the cost approach, we have:
Property Taxes Attributable to Park 38 Acres f $1.9M)
Property Tax Distribution
Mills
Property
Tax
Fayetteville Schools
44.00
$83,600
City of Fayetteville
0.80
$1 520
Washington County
7.16
$13,604
General Funds
5.00
$9,500
County Roads
1.16
$2,204
Library
1.00
$1900
Total
51.96
$98,724
•
•
•
n
L
Under the indicated value via cost method, we have:
Property Taxes Attributable to Park 38 Acres I $4.2M)
Property Tax Distribution
Mills
.Property
Tax
Fayetteville Schools
44.00
$184,800
City of Fayetteville
0.80
$3,360
Washington County
7.16
$30,072
General Funds
5.00
$21,000
County Roads
1.16
$4,872
Library
1.00
$4,200
Total
51.96
$218,232
The taxes generated from the property using the market value of the property, under the
subdivision analysis method are:
Property Taxes Attributable to Park 38 Acres I $3.7M)
Property Tax Distribution
Mills
Property Tax
Fayetteville Schools
44.00
$162,800
City of Fayetteville
0.80
$2,960
Washington County
7.16
$26,492..
General Funds
5.00
$18,500
County Roads
1.16
$4292
Library
1.00
$3,700
Total
51.96
$192,252
The taxes generated from the property using the value in -use of the property, under the
subdivision analysis method are:
Property Taxes Attributable .to Park 38 Acres! $5.IM)
Property Tax Distribution
Mills
Property Tax
Fayetteville Schools
44.00
$224,400••
City of Fayetteville
0.80
$4,080
Washington County
7.16
$36,516
General Funds
5.00
$25,500
County Roads
1.16
$5,916
Library
1.00
$5,100
Total
51.96
$264,996
.J.",.'Cl[•\��'•� i�f of�
'Jl l � n J'_
fl
` •I �\ I� -
iLk
'i_,,-xi�^�"-r"Th!J��lL1}F���+'u iTTJ"�'1455_T-
,>. .a �N�.a.�•��si.n 1�,... K_Aw i !1. aKi.
♦F �.\`
..ri 1..n
fl
l .vC�'
•.... .
',
wr
iu -i.0 ;4,.t,
*. .r. tl si \T/1•
\\ i
iT
• ti
ll�SP;
.__a_/-_._N.—_�fW.�
]; -.fl .Biel lr•
j�• i
ll
• �.
•11 • • •11 • 1 •:
Finally, what are the tax implications to the City of Fayetteville of non -development of
the property where the Park is to be located?
EJ
First, if the City of Fayetteville owns the property, no property taxes are generated •
from the land.
Fayetteville School Millage = 44 mills. Fayetteville City Millage = 0.80 mills.
County Millage = 7.16 (5.0 to general funds, 1.16 to county roads, 1.0 to the
library) Total = 51.96 mills Changes in November.
Taxes = Total Assessed Value * (0.001 * Millage)
Source: Washington County Assessor's Office
The Real Estate Consultants conducted an appraisal of the property. They appraised 38
acres of the property using the land sales method and the cost method, the indicated value
via the cost method, the market value using a subdivision approach, and the value in -use
using a subdivision approach. The following tables show the property taxes generated by
the I-540 business park under these conditions.
•
•
Based on the sales tax study conducted by the Center for Business and Economic
• Research for the City of Fayetteville, we estimate the that consumer units with incomes
between $30,000 and $39,999 spend 37.4 percent of their income on taxable expenditures
(see Table 11 of Sales Tax Study). Multiplying this by the city's sales tax rate of 1.75
percent, we estimate the sales tax burden for this income group to be 0.65 percent.
Likewise, for consumer units with incomes between $40,000 and $49,999, we estimate
they spend 36.5 percent of their income on taxable expenditures.. Therefore, we estimate
the sales tax burden for this income group to be 0.64 percent.
Based on these estimates, we can make an estimate of the sales tax revenues for the City
of Fayetteville, shown below.
Annual Fayetteville Sales Tax Revenue Generated from
Incomes of Park Workers
15%
107
•
H -:
LI
•
SOC
Mean
Code
Annual
Standard
• Occupation Grouping
Number
Salary
Error
Low
111 b
• Management
11-0000
$56,960
2.3%
$53,585
$60,335
• Business and Financial
• Operations
13-0000
$36,030 .
2.5%
$33,710
$38,350
• Computer and Mathematical
• Occupations
15-0000
$45,410
5.0%
$39,561
$51,259
Architecture and Engineering
Occupations
17-0000
$42,570
3.5%
$38,732
$46,408
Security Guards
33-9032
$19260
8.3%
$15142
$23,378
Building and Grounds Cleaning
• and Maintenance
37-0000
$17,050
2.0%
$16,172
$17,928
Sales Representatives,
Wholesale and Manufacturing,
Technical and Scientific
• Products
41-4011
$31,080
8.5%
$24,275
$37,885
• Sales Representatives,
-
Wholesale and Manufacturing,
.Except Technical and Scientific
products
41-4012
$45,610
7.7%
$36,563
$54,657
Office and Administrative
• Support Occupations
43-0000
$20,900
1.0%
$20,362
$21,438
Average Salary oil -MO
Business and Technology Park -
Worker
$37630
$33,296
$41,965
Source: U.S. Commerce Department, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics,
Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area, Year 2000
• Office
• A combination of office and retail
• Technology office
The following table presents a list of categories of potential occupations at the Wilson
Spring Business and Technology Park. We feel that one.in ten workers at the park will
be a security guard, building/grounds worker, cleaning person, or maintenance worker.
The, salaries have been weighted according to this assumption to yield an average annual
salary for a worker at the Park. The remaining occupations have been weighted evenly.
•
•
Appendix
• The following tables detail the method used to estimate the economic impacts from
• various levels of development. The first table indicates the total acreage that would be
covered by non -parking structures under each scenario. The ratio of building to total
space is estimated at 15 percent. This is a conservative estimate. Source: UACDC..
Net Acreage Developed
Phase
I
A
B
C
15%
Density
9.5
15.5
18.3
21.2
The figures in the preceding table can be translated to square -feet (1 acre = 43,560
square -feet) to estimate the amount of office space will be available in a two-story
buildings based on the density assumptions.
Office Space (Square Feet) - 2 stoiyBuilding
Phase I
A
B
C
15%
Density
824,970
1,346 004
1,594 296
1,842 588
For an office environment, the building should allow for 200 to 400 square -feet of space
per employee (includes hallways, restrooms, etc.). Source: UACDC
Number of Employees at Park
Phase
I
A
B
C
• 15%
Density
4 124.
6,730
7,971
9,213
•
Assumption: I worker per 200 square feet of space
Number of Employees
at Park
Phase
I
•A
B
C
15%
Density
2,062
3,365
3,986
4606
Assumption: 1 worker per
400 square feet
of space
We assume that the buildings at the site will be predominately office space. We can not,
ex ante determine what percentage would be related to technology versus other uses,
however, even non -technology companies employee significant numbers of technical
employees such as IT professionals. _To estimate the economic impact of the employees
working at the site we first assume they work within the following defined job categories:
• s Admittedly, the two-story assumption is just that, an assumption Per our discussions with developers,
this is a conservative estimate.
A question from the audience asked whether other land that the City had in possession •
could be utilized for soccer fields. Several individual pieces of property were discussed
but each had its own obstacles. The Wilson Spring site was considered preferable to
others discussed.
This report does not attempt to ascertain the need for a soccer complex; however, in any
development scenario, the section desired by the Parks Department would probably be
the last to develop and, due to a suspected high water table and soil type, could well be
the most expensive on which to install the infrastructure as well as develop a specific
project. Notwithstanding these factors, the potential benefit to the city of developing and
selling these sections rather than utilizing the acreage for Parks is estimated gross
proceeds of approximately $6,000,000*.
*This figure was derived using a sales rate of $2.75 per square foot for 50 acres of land.
•
•
•
and start construction by the first quarter of 2003. Construction is estimated to be
• complete within 18 months.
The Northwest Regional Office of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission would
employee a full-time staff of ten with additional resources including field staff and
enforcement that would increase the number of people that impact this area from 30 to
40. This facility would serve six counties through enforcement, administration and
education.
Outreach and education from this facility will be a main focus. Hunting and Boating
Safety courses will be held, along with in -class programs for the area schools and in-
house training for the area teachers. They will be "Training the Trainer".
Should Game and Fish choose to provide expertise and oversight to protect and enhance
the wetlands, this would constitute a significant benefit to the city. Other partners to
consider would be the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon
Society.
A potential second benefit would be the long-term relationship the Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission have with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They lend credibility to
the project and can help expedite the process.
Don Nelms presented a request to the Task Force to consider leasing 300 acres for the
• Audubon Society to manage. Their goal would be to build an Audubon Nature Center at
the site and partner with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Their plans would
include trails through the natural wildlife habitat area. Although they will not consider
.building if the available land is less than 300 acres, the Audubon Society is willing to
assist the City of Fayetteville with evaluation at the site.
The conclusions drawn by the sub -group regarding the aforementioned proposal is as
follows. Partnership with Arkansas Game and Fish provides several benefits.. First, an
initial tenant with plans to create the type of structure desired at the site. Second, they
provide expertise to assist in the management of the wetlands area. The benefit of such
collaboration would have significant additional non -monetary value. Further, the center
provides an outlet for study of the eco-system, enhancing its value to the citizens of
Fayetteville: Given the nature of the environmental amenity, lack of use as an
opportunity to educate and inform citizens significantly reduces the value of the site to
the City of Fayetteville
City of Fayetteville Parks Department
Kyle Cook, representing the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, presented the Task
Force with a proposal to utilize 50 acres. on the north end of the acreage to be used for a
community park that included soccer fields and walking trails. Questions from the Task.
Force included the use of herbicides and fertilizers on the site. This site was preferred by
the parks department due to the visibility from I-540, easy access off I-540 and the land
• being level.
0 •
Please note that the property tax calculations are based only on land value. We have not •
estimated the value of whatever improvements would be made to the property after sale.
Therefore, these estimates should be viewed as conservative. The estimate for land value
is based upon $3-$4 per square foot per the market analysis.
Finally, several comments have been made regarding the potential economic impact of
preservation. These would accrue from the following potential sources:
0 Grants to study the site
0 Grants/gifts for preservation
0 Tourism by birders/others
0 Increased property values from.preservation of green space
0 Recreation through use of trails
It is all but impossible to do more than list potential granting sources that might be
interested in the site. In addition to the site characteristics, the potential to generate
dollars is a direct function of the quality of the researchers seeking funding, the quality of
the proposed study, the interests at any given point in time of the funding group, and the
availability of funds in any given year. With regard to tourism, this is a potential source
of revenue from hotel visits, restaurant meals, etc. The impact is a direct function of the
number of visits to the city from birders outside the community. Also, to directly impact
the economy of Fayetteville, the meals and hotel stays would have to be consumed in
Fayetteville. •
Finally, the value of green space is inversely related to the quantity at any given point in
time. The greater the density of the development in the area, the more the preserved area
will be worth. To ascertain the non -market value of preservation of the site or some part
of the site, we would have to survey the population of Fayetteville as to the value they
ascribe to the site. Inference from value estimation studies of green space in other
locations is a dubious path at best.
Arkansas Game. and Fish, Audubon and Parks
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission approached the Task Force with a desire to
build their Northwest Regional Office at the Wilson Springs Business and Technology
Park. Their desireis to build a 7,500 sq. ft. to 8,000 sq. ft. structure on 5 acres with a
plan design that can be expanded upon to serve the population growth for the next 15 to
25 years.
The 2002-2003 budget for the Arkansas Game and Fish allocated $100,000 for the
architectural design and the commissioners have committed up to one million dollars for
building the facility.
As a signature site, they are looking for a design that blends with the natural beauty of the •
surroundings. Their.goal would be to have a design ready by the end of January 2003
Summary Table of Economic Impacts from Development
0
kW
p
sa
a.
�4 b
ap
M
N
Lc
{
'fL4
N
U.a
R
In G
fl
V
t4
O
O
1001W
OD
>"
NW
W
;Oc
DWI
M.+
WZa'yj
t,
:1{JQ
O
OD ,p),
000
LL
N
c')
N
O)
iD
M
5,
O
LLOD
y M
awn
f/Ql at144"."
ci
r
OD
LL V
2
? F
w
w
Q
v
o
allo
Z
on
00
V
w
OO_-CN-W
r
r
r
O
Q
U)
O
O
O
3
N
M
C1
0
C
C
8
Ii.
CD -
tow
to�
8r'
c
V
w m r C
1111
•,
O O 1 'OW )
o n a 0
O N
d
E E v V
co
8 . C W
m m
NO •5
c c W 2
E
fl
''U
O
C
00z3
z 3
j.
� N M V •
Z
•
i
•
''The "net profit" for the 38 acre tract was derived as follows:
Estimated Discounted Net Proceeds $ 5,100,000
Less:
Infrastructure Costs $ 1,220,000
Current Land Value 1,900,000
3,120,000
"Net Profit" $ 1,980,000
Revenue Projections
The table found below compares the potential revenue from each of the three options proposed
by McClelland Engineers for development of the property. The estimated infrastructure costs are
from the McClelland report, and the gross revenue estimates are taken from the appraisal by
"The Real Estate Consultants."
No projections are made for.
1. The timing and phasing of the land sales
2. The (infrastructure) development of the project in phases
3. Any future appreciation of the land values
146 acres of developed lands
127 acres of developed lands
100 acres of developed lands
$ 17,000,000.
$ 14,000,000
$ 13,700,000
6 Note: The 146 acre development option includes $425,000 for mitigation costs & the 127 acre
development option includes $12,500 for mitigation costs
Phasine Development
Per our research, the wisest course of action for the development of the project would be to plan
for the entire development, including the amount of lands in the wetlands areas, the mitigation
plan, if any, the Corps of Engineers permits, and the overall development plan of the project.
Then, commence the project infrastructure in phases, moving forward from one phase to the next
based on the logical extension of the infrastructure and on demand by purchasers.
Financial Evaluation of 38 -Acre (Phase 1).
The appraisal by The Real Estate Consultants, completed in June, 2002, contains information and
value indications concerning the development of a 38 acre tract of the project's lands. These
lands lie at the southeast comer of the property adjacent to the I-540 freeway and Moore Lane.
The following is a summary of the projections and value indications, for that 38 acre tract, found
in that appraisal.
Estimated Absorption (or sell out) Period
- 5 years
Total Estimated Gross Proceeds (not discounted to present value) - $ 6,480,000
Total Estimated Net Proceeds (not discounted to present value) - $ 5,832,000
Total Estimated Net Proceeds (discounted to present value at 5%) - $ 5,100,000
Estimated Cost of Infrastructure
- $ 1,220,000•
Estimated "net profit" - $1.980.000**
Notes:
1. The appraisal indicates that the current Market Value of this 38 acre portion of the site, is
$1,900,000.
2. The appraisal also indicates that the current Market Value of the 146 acres of the site, that
being the portion that has presumed development potential, is $2,900,000.
* This number was derived using the estimate of $1,900,000 from the appraisal less grant monies
the City has already received for infrastructure costs, in the amount of $679,200.
•
•
• haul networks between cities NOT the high-speed connections linking businesses and homes to
the network. Even the over -supply of long -haul fiber may be overstated.3
Cost of Construction of Buildings and other Improvements
During the course of several task force meetings, it was suggested that the cost of construction of
developing buildings and sites in a future development would be very costly and, possibly,
prohibitive. No specific information of actual construction costs has been offered and, therefore,
we cannot make any substantive comment on this matter. However, it should be pointed out that
other major developments in the area have been accomplished, on similar types of lands, and
appear to have been economically viable.
Competitors
In addition to the comments regarding the cost of development at the site, several comments
have been made that question why anyone would build on a site with the associated difficulties
of the Wilson Spring site when other parcels are available in the region. It is true there are other
lands in the region that offer some of the convenience advantages and could be competitors to
the proposed development. However, those developments are, generally, priced considerably
higher than the prices projected for Wilson Springs. These other sites are primarily retail
oriented sites, which do not lend themselves to a business park climate, or nodes at major
interchanges on Interstate 540.°
• In Fayetteville, the primary site for this type of development is the CMN Business Park, located
south of the Northwest Arkansas Mall. Recent tenants in this development include Kohl's,
Target, Party City, and an Olive Garden Restaurant, which is under construction. Current
offering prices for land in this area average approximately $7.00-7.50 per square foot,
5
depending on the parcel size.
Market Demand
Because of a unique combination of location, access to major transportation route -Interstate 540,
physical beauty, and technology infrastructure, Wilson Springs Business and Technology Park
would little direct competition in the region. The site offers the potential for an upscale, high
profile, campus style development.
3 According to an article in ebn by Bruce Gain and Darrell Dunn, a small but growing number of analysts say the
world's telecommunications diet needs more fiber despite the massive layoffs, inventory write -downs, and lack of
visibility that have plagued the sector. The article continues with Neil Dunay, analyst at RIM Corp., Providence,
RI., remarking, "To say there's a glut is to overstate it" he said. "Instead, I would say the (telcos) were future -
proofing their networks. The original business plan was not to light every fiber optic cable that was in the ground."
A March 2002 article in the USA Today asked the question "Is the market really facing an oversupply of network
capacity? In a word, no." says a report from research firm TeleChoice. The report adds that 63% of busy routes -
those between big cities - are running at or near capacity.
4 Developments such as CMN have very high costs per square foot These high costs usually preclude office space
because the economics do not justify paying the premium
• 'Thu is roughly double the projected price for the Wilson Spring site.
Market Factors Influencing Development of the Wilson Spring Business and •
Technoloey Park
The objective of this section of the report is to project the viability of developing the lands as a
Business and Technology Park. Included in the section are the following topics:
0 Site description
0 Area and regional influences, including competition and general economic status
of Northwest Arkansas
0 Possible phasing options of developing the project
0 A comparison of potential revenues of the development based on the information
from the Appraisal completed by The Real Estate Consultants in June, 2002, and
the estimates of infrastructure costs developed by McClelland Engineers in May,
2002, and revised in August, 2002.
General Site Description
The project contains approximately 289 acres of land. It contains significant frontage on Shiloh
Drive, which is the frontage road for Interstate 540, Deane Soloman Road, and Moore Lane. All
utilities, except sewer are to the property, including a major city water line that runs east to west,
south of Clabber Creek and a looped fiber optic telephone cable (redundancy) that runs through
the property. Sewer service will be served on the north side of Clabber Creek by a new 48" •
gravity line that will connect to the new west side sewer plant and south of Clabber Creek by a
lift system to exiting sewer service in Moore Land and Deane Soloman Road.
Fiber Optic Network
Two separate routes of fiber optics serve the Wilson Spring Business and Technology Park,
connecting the park and SBC Southwestern Bell's digital central office. This provides a state of
the art telecommunications network from the Park to the network, which connects to the global
telecommunications network. The presence of fiber at the site enhances its attractiveness to
potential tenants. .
The digital fiber optic -based information infrastructure provided is capable of transporting voice,
data and video at extremely high bit rates, at the highest quality. The redundant routes to the
central office are uncommon. Redundancy guards against service interruptions, an attribute
information -intensive companies find desirable.
Business -parks with this level of infrastructure were once unique, now they are almost a
necessity to be competitive for business location. Various cities are marketing fiber parks with
success. For example we point to a partnership between St. Louis and St. Charles, Missouri.
During the task force meetings, the question was raised as to the perception of a fiber glut in our
nation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 attempted to increase competition, thus driving
demand and traffic for high -bandwidth services. The result has been a glut of fiber in the lonr` •
• amount of wetland that is being preserved undisturbed, credits may be negotiated to reduce the
amount mitigation required.
•
C1
0
established a classification system (Cowardin System) as a basis for identifying, classifying and •
mapping wetlands and other special aquatic sites.
The EPA and the Corps use the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual to define
wetlands for the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program. The 1987 manual organizes
environmental characteristics of a potential wetland into three categories: soils, vegetation, and
hydrology. The manual contains criteria for each category. With this approach, an area that
meets all three criteria is considered a wetland
Utilizing the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation procedures, EGIS Environmental
Consultants delineated 84.37 acres of jurisdictional wetlands in August 1999. The resulting
wetland map was subsequently submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for review and
verification.
Project activities resulting in greater than 0.5 -acre impact on jurisdictional wetlands (or greater
than 300 lineal feet of stream) require an individual permit from the USACE before construction
can commence. The basic premise of the program is that no discharge of dredged or fill material
can he permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic
environment or if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. In other words, when you
apply for a permit, you must show that you have:
0 taken steps to avoid wetland impacts where practicable,
p minimized potential impacts to wetlands, •
0 provided compensation for any remaining, unavoidable impacts through activities
to restore or create wetlands.
Selecting the 146 -acre development option results in a concomitant 17 -acre impact to isolated
pockets of forested and emergent wetlands and emergent marsh thereby necessitating an
application for an individual permit. Typically, the permitting process requires a public notice
followed by a 15 to 30 public comment period. However, because of the public involvement
surrounding this project, these requirements have already been fulfilled. What remains, however
is the development of a well -reasoned mitigation plan to "compensate" for the unavoidable
impact to wetlands. It is assumed that this plan can be developed within two months of receiving
notification of the preferred development option. Upon receiving the application, the USACE
will evaluate the application, based on comments received from cooperating agencies and from
internal review and conduct an internal environmental assessment before issuing a Statement of
Finding, a publicly available document explaining how the permitting decision was reached.
While the details of the mitigation plan are not known at this time, site analysis has shown that
there are excellent opportunities to mitigate the impacts on -site. In fact, mitigating the loss
adjacent to the forested wetland and bottomland hardwoods associated with Wilson Spring will
result in one large contiguous wetland preserve, which greatly facilitate its management,
maintenance and value as a educational resource. It is anticipated that the cost of mitigation will
be from $10,000 to $25,000 per acre. Assuming a full one-to-one mitigation is required that
would result in $170,000 to $425,000 in additional project cost. However, because of the . •
• County is probable. The creation of a strong retailing base to the north will undoubtedly have
significant impact on the tax base of Fayetteville. This, in turn, will significantly affect the
ability of Fayetteville to make the types of investments necessary to accommodate demands for
amenities by current/future residents, develop/improve infrastructure to accommodate growth of
existing businesses, or attract new businesses to the city.
The city of Fayetteville faces the distinct possibility that new retail development, driven by the
disparate growth of population and income between Bentonville/Rogers and Fayetteville, will
diminish the available tax base relative to that of Bentonville/Rogers. This reduction will reduce.
the ability of the city to foster, through strategic investment in infrastructure, growth of
knowledge -based industry within city limits.
Fayetteville has no control over the growth and increased purchasing power in Benton County;
however it does have the capacity to engage in activities that build on the assets that we do have
in place, the most visible and most valuable to this effort beipg the University of Arkansas. The
development of the Wilson Spring Business and Technology Park improves the tax base,
providing funds that can directly be used to fund infrastructure investment to build on our current
assets like the University of Arkansas2. Preservation of the Wilson Spring site provides an
environmental amenity.
Whether or not technology based industry chooses to locate at the Wilson Spring site, the city of
Fayetteville's ability to make strategic infrastructure investments is in direct relation to the tax
• base. Removing acreage form the tax base reduces the ability of the city to compete for high
wage jobs. Failure to compete for high wage jobs reduces the attractiveness of Fayetteville as a
location for retailing, further eroding our tax base and our ability to foster knowledge -based
industry. Careless development of the site erodes the set of environmental amenities which are
critical to attracting skilled professionals.
The focal point of the discussion must be the optimal mix of preservation and development.
Section 404 Permit
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredge or
fill material into the waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters of the
United States that are regulated by this program include fills for development.
In common language, wetlands are areas where the frequent and prolonged presence of water at
or near the soil surface drives the natural system meaning the kind of soils that form, the plants
that grow, and the fish and/or wildlife communities that use the habitat. Swamps, marshes, and
bogs are well -recognized types of wetlands. However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have
2 For example, creating the climate for knowledge based industry through assisting to provide infrastructure for die
• Arkansas Research and Technology Park.
In addition, an important issue currently being discussed by a wide range of groups is the type of •
growth we as a set of communities would like to see. The region has depended heavily on the
growth of Wal-Mart and Tyson to lead the way. Indeed, growth in these and other large area
businesses has facilitated rapid expansion.of both employment and the tax base. Unfortunately
the economic base of Northwest Arkansas does not include adequate employment opportunities
for graduates from area institutions of higher education. That is, employment opportunities for
individuals with high levels of educational attainment are extremely limited.
The type of growth we choose to pursue dictates what investments local municipalities will need
to make in the coming years. Public discussions regarding what type of growth residents of the
region would like to occur overwhelmingly supports the development of high -wage jobs
correlated with high levels of educational attainment and clean industries. Development and/or
recruitment of this type of industry would accomplish several goals.
• 0 Diversify the regions economy.
0 Improve the tax base, directly improving financing for education, and other
services.
0 Improve the tax base and facilitate the development of amenities, both cultural
and environmental.
0 Provide employment opportunities for graduates of area institutions of higher
education.
0 Maintain our high qualityof life.
Unfortunately, our ability to attract this type of industry has been severely hampered by the lack •
of an educated workforce. Conversely, we have great difficulty retaining the best and brightest
graduates of the state's research institution, the University of Arkansas. This is essentially a
chicken and the egg problem. The solution from a public perspective is investment in critical
infrastructure, which improves our ability to attract both knowledge -based industry and the
employees it depends upon. Growth of knowledge -based industry implies both continued
immigration of talented professionals from other states, AND a reduction in the emigration of
bright talented Arkansans to benefit the economies of other states. However, public investment
requires funding sources.
The City ofFayetteville-
Fayetteville has both been influenced by and contributed to the rapid growth of the region.
Fayetteville continues to benefit relative to its neighbors from unique set of attributes such as
location, recreational, cultural, and educational amenities, the growth of the University of
Arkansas, and its retail base. Growth has significantly increased the demands for publicly
provided services and the ability of Fayetteville to fund those demands. Initially, this would
seem to imply that the city is in prime position to compete for knowledge -based industry.
Unfortunately, Benton County's near -term growth, both in terms of population and relative
income levels could soon have a substantial impact on retailing in Fayetteville and subsequently,
the tax base of the city. As the differential growth rate occurs, development of new retail
establishments, as well as the potential for relocation of existing retail establishments to Benton •
• WILSON SPRING TASK FORCE ECONOMICIDEVELOPMENT REPORT-
• JEFF COLLINS, GEORGE FAUCETTE, CATHY FORAKER, JOHN LEWIS,
AND PHIL STAFFORD
Introduction
This document represents the findings to date of the sub -group for economics and development
of the Wilson Spring Business and Technology. The sub -group report details the synthesis of
our research, experience, and expertise in determining the value to the city of Fayetteville of
development of the Wilson's Spring Business and Technology Park. .
The report is divided into six (6) sections. These are:
• 0 Appraisal and Market Analysis
0 Wetlands and 404 Permitting
0 Economic Impact Analysis
.0 Trade-offs
0 Arkansas Game and Fish, Audubon, and City of Fayetteville Parks
0 Economics of Preservation
• This report represents the collaborative effort of the members of the economic and development
sub -group: Jeff Collins, George Faucette, Cathy Foraker, John Lewis, and Phil Stafford.
Fayetteville
Regional Challenges -
Northwest Arkansas has experienced incredible economic activity and population growth over
the last decade. However, future growth in the region is not assured according to conclusions
from a recent report sponsored by the Northwest Arkansas Council. The report indicates that
serious concerns exist as to whether growth can be sustained in the mid to long term in the
region without implementing a specific strategy targeted at developing/supplementing key
infrastructure (cultural, environmental, educational, economic, etc.).
Therefore, despite significant past growth along the entire north -south corridor, from Fayetteville
to Bella Vista, future growth driven by the relatively narrow economic baser of Northwest
Arkansas is in doubt.
The report by the Northwest Arkansas Council points out that much of the growth in the area has been driven by
the growth of Wal-Mart, Tyson, etc., and resulting growth of the vendor community. It is further noted that these
• firms are unlikely to continue to increase their employee population at a pace approximating that experienced over
the last decade.
1 '. {))V �p�i 5. i. � .�_ms x'`•\ �-• V f i�''gqTc�- r
f'!�T i aT �+16Sn .o ,w�� yI- ♦ •� W _
�ryiY mgrs,- c�..dG 39 e. .pY -d ---
--F
tSQ•T y
C':.
• yi• v
Y •c ��S i•cl• .^l t '-
�^ Z t✓."'
{���'� �.^"-'-!. ` .ors+. ,. Fa• � Ste• _.�n� -
a•. ter•. oy�5 �. rt �yy� • � ,.-A 'Lx'v.at -a- �"`La' ��°��a .w. . Ems . '�'.:
fl
BIRD LIST AS OF JUNE 1, 2002
FOR THE WILSON SPRINGS FIELDS & FOREST
(Site of Proposed B/T Park)
• Sp = Spring, Su = Summer, F= Fall,' W = Winter
■ BOLD = Partners -In -Flight SPECIES OF CONCERN in Central Hardwoods region
nesting or probably nesting in the park
* = annual rate of decline at least 1.5 % range wide in USGS North American Breeding
Bird Survey 1966-1999
• This is a list -in -progress. Species and seasons will change as more data is collected. For
more information, contact Mike Mlodinow 443-2663.
Pied -billed Grebe Sp.
'American Bittern Sp
Great Blue Heron Sp, Su
Green Heron Sp. Su
• Black-cr. Night -heron Sp -
Turkey Vulture Sp, S14 F, W
Black -Vulture S)p
Canada goose .5),
Wood Duck Sp, & F
Gadwall Sp, F W
American Wigeon W
Mallaid Sp. S14 F, W
Blue -Winged Teal Sp, F
Northern Shoveler W
Green -Winged Teal Sp, F, W
Coops Hawk Sp. F
Red -shouldered Hawk Sp
Red -t Hawk Sp, Su, F. W
American Kestrel Sp
'Northern Bobwhite Sp,Su
Sora Sp
Killdeer Sp
Spotted Sandpiper Sp.
Rock Dove Sp
Mourning Dove Sp.Su
'Black -billed Cuckoo Sp
'Yellow -b. Cuckoo Sp,Su
Great Homed Owl Sp
Common Nighthawk Sp
Barred Owl Sp.
'Chimney Swift Sp
Ruby-th. Hummingbird Sp
'Belted Kingfisher @Su
Red -bellied Woodpecker Sp
Downy Woodpecker Sp,Su
'Northern Flicker Sp
'Olive -sided Flycatcher Sp
'E. Wood -Pewee Sp
Scissor -t. Flycatcher Sp.Su
'L. Shrike (season?)
White -eyed Vireo Sp,Sri'
'Bell's Vireo Sp, Si,
Blue -headed Vireo Sp
Warbling vireo Sp
Red -eyed Vito Sp
Blue Jay SpSu
American Crow SASu
Fish Crow Sp
Purple Martin Sp
Tree Swallow Sp'
No. R. -w. Swallow SpSu.
• Barn Swallow Sp,SL
Carolina Chickadee Spsu
Tufted Titmouse %,$'iWhite-breasted Nuthatch Sp
Carolina Wren Sp,Su
House Wren Sp
Sedge Wren Sp, F, IV..
Marsh Wren Sp, F, W
Rubx-crowned Kinglet Sp'
Blue -g. Gnatcatcher Sp.Su
• Eastern Bluebird Sp •. .. •
Swainson's Thrush Sp
American Robin Sp
• Gray Catb rd Sp
Northern Mockingbird Sp,Su
'Brown Thrasher Sp
European Starling Sp
Cedar Waxwing Sp, Su
Tennessee Warbler Sp
Orange -crowned Warbler Sp
Nashville Warbles Sp
Yellow Warbler Sp
-Magnolia WarWersp
Yellow-ru. Warbler Sp, F. W
Black-th. Green Warbler Sp
Yellow-tb. Warbler Sp
• Mourning Warbler Sp
Com.Yellowtliroat Sp, S14 F
Wilson's Warbler SP .
'Yellow-br. Chat Sp, Sp
Summer Tanager Sprn 'EasteTowhee Sp
Cbpp+ng Sparrow Sp .
Clay -colored Sparrow
'Field Sparrow Sp, Su
'Lark Sparrow Sp
Savannah Sparrow Sp
'Grasshopper Sparrow Sp
F 'Henslow's Sparrow Sp, Sit
Le Conte's Sparrow Sp, W
• Fox Sparrow Sp, W
Song Sparrow Sp, F W
Lincoln's Sparrow Sp
• Swamp Sparrow Sp, F W
White-tb. Sparrow Sp, F, W
'White -crowned Sparrow Sp
Dark -eyed Junco Sp
No. Cardinal Sp, SuF W
Rose -breasted Grosbeak Sp
- • Blue Grosbeak.Sp,Su- ...
Indigo Bunting Sp, Si,
'Painted Bunting Sp, Su
'Dickclssel Sp, Si,
Red-Wnged Blackbird Sp,Su
'East Meadowlark Sp, So
'Common Grackle Spsu
Br. -headed Cowbird Sp,Su
'Orchard Oriole Sp
Baltimore Oriole Sp
House Finch Sp
American Goldfinch Sp,Su
Alder Flycatcher Sp
Willow Flycatcher Sp, Su
Least Flycatcher Sp
Eastern Phoebe Sp
Great Cr. Flycatcher Sp
Eastern Kingbird Sp
F,
Pt t$4r),
•
We encourage the City of Fayetteville to seek grants for wetland restoration, research, and
education. Such funding is available, and the unique nature of the site (the presence of a
rare fish species) greatly improves the prospects for procuring these funds.
C. Position
• Loss of suitable habitat and degradation of habitat are the primary causes for the
imperiled status of Arkansas darter populations. It is therefore the position of the
University of Arkansas Student Subchapter of the American Fisheries Society that
concerted effort to protect and restore habitat should be the highest priority in efforts to
• maintain the viability of the Arkansas darter population in Fayetteville.
. Wilson Springs lies within an approximately 285 -acre parcel that was purchased by the City of •
Fayetteville in 1990. Wetland delineation has revealed approximately 85 acres of wetland and
another 55 acres of Clabber Creek floodplain that has a water table near the land surface most
of the year. Additional acres have been described as having emergent wetland properties.
Wilson Springs lies near the north end of the parcel surrounded by wetland and the Clabber
Creek floodplain. Portions of the south and southwest comer of the property (approximately
100 acres) lie outside the wetland or floodplain designation.
Proposed development of a business/technology park by the City of Fayetteville poses an
imminent threat to the Arkansas darter population. However, City officals have voiced their
commitment to an environmentally responsible development that would provide protection to the
Arkansas darter population. Hence, this position paper is intended to provide recommendations
that would assure long-term protection of Wilson Springs and the adjoining habitat that is
essential for the survival of the Arkansas darter population at this site.
B. Recommended Actions
• Development plans should maximize preservation of Wilson Springs, adjoining wetlands,
and the portion of Clabber Creek and its tributaries in the development area Development
should be restricted to south and southwest areas outside the designated wetland and
Clabber Creek floodplain.
• Every effort should be made to avoid mitigation of wetlands. While mitigation is intended to
compensate for loss of wetlands, the wetlands in this situation support habitat for the
. Arkansas darter population. Compensation under these circumstances is problematic. •
'I• Development plans for dry areas of the parcel should consider the physical, chemical, and
biological impacts on adjoining wetlands.
• In view of the aforementioned lack of research studieb on most aspects of the Arkansas
darter population and the hydrological features of Wilson Springs, we recommend a
conservative approach to management. Because Wilson Springs Is presently sustaining a
viable Arkansas darter population, no changes in the spring run are recommended. No
hydrological changes should be made without appropriate study of recharge zones and
storm water discharge. The City should recognize that obtaining such information wiU
require time. _
The City of Fayetteville should work cooperatively, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
develop a Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Arkansas darter and to receive
restoration and management recommendations. The City should support long term
monitoring of the biological, physical, and chemical attributes of Wilson Springs and the
wetlands. The University of Arkansas AFS Student Subchapter can play a continuing role in
stewardship.
• Restoration efforts should focus on returning the Clabber Creek flood plain to its original
wetland state. This will require removal of pasture grass and revegetation of wetland
species.
• We encourage the City of Fayetteville to seek a conservation easement for Wilson Springs
and the adjoining wetlands from a conservation organization that can provide protection in •
perpetuity
L
i
•
•
•
•
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
STUDENT SUBCHAPTER OF THE AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY
POSITION ON ARKANSAS DARTER (Etheostoma cragin►) HABITAT PRESERVATION
WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE WILSON SPRINGS/FAYETTEVILLE POPULATION
A. Issue Definition and Background
The Arkansas darter (Etheostoma cragint) is named for its association with the Arkansas River
drainage. The American Fisheries Society has assigned a status of vulnerable' to the species
because of its dependence on spring -fed, vegetated headwaters and creeks that are plagued
with environmental problems. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reported that the
Arkansas darter is in jeopardy across its range due to decline in groundwater that replenishes
spring -fed habitats. In October 1999, the Arkansas. darter was designated a. candidate species
for listing under the Endangered Species Act
In Arkansas, 5 populations of Arkansas darter were known in 1985, all in headwater tributaries
of the Illinois River in the northwest corner of the state. Currently, the existence of only 3 of
those populations has been confirmed. Two populations are found in Benton County, and a
third is found within the City of Fayetteville, Washington County. The Fayetteville population
was first discovered during the planning of the US. Highway 71 bypass (now Interstate 540)
around Fayetteville in 1979. The former director of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,
Steve Wilson, found the population prior to construction. Completion of the highway actually
resulted in the main springhead being covered by the highway, and a culvert system was built to
extend the spring flow beneath the highway and offramp to its current outflow. The City adopted.
the name Wilson Springs for the spring run, and the University of Arkansas AFS Student
Subchapter has provided stewardship of Wilson Springs since 1994.
The Wilson Spring run consists of two perennial springs that flow into Clabber Creek
Numerous small springs and seeps are evident in wetlands surrounding the spring run.
Sampling of Arkansas darters by the AFS Student Subchapter members during winter spawning
(February 2000) indicated seasonal migration into Clabber Creek Channefization of Clabber
Creek In 1990 has resulted in an unstable channel structure that is constrained by a buried
waterline on one side. Change toward a natural meandering pattern is evident along some
sections, but much of channel remains unstable. Small tributaries are less impacted by
-structural change than the main channel but are subject to multiple problems associated with
the urban environment These small tributaries may provide Arkansas darter habitat during
cold, high flow periods in the winter. The Wilson Spring run is the essential refuge in summer
when Clabber Creek and its tributaries become intermittent.
While Wilson Springs is recognized as critical habitat for the Arkansas darter, no formal studies
have been undertaken to describe the life history of the darter population including its migratory
patterns. The recharge zones for the springs have not been delineated, and no hydrological
data is available on the discharge of storm water from the Interstate 540/Highway 112
interchange into Wilson Springs. Toxic spills from vehicles present a potential threat to the
recharge zone of the springs, and storm water discharge could carry toxic materials Into the
spring. It can be speculated that the large volume of water that flows into the springs during
storms is sufficiently dilute to have allowed the darter population to survive these conditions for
over 20 years, but no monitoring of water quality has been done. Studies to address these
issues are greatly needed. .
I
Lance -leaved Coreopsis Coreopsis lanceolata
• False nettle Boehmeda cylinddca •
Goldenrod Solidago pelicans
Lady thumb Pologonum persicaria
Horse nettle I Bull nettle Sdanum carofinense
Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium
Purple thistle Cirsium carolnianum
Watercress • Nasturtium of Idnale
Chickweed Stellirfa sp.
Queen Ann's Lace
Moss
Corn Salad
Wild Iris
Dandelion
Bedstrain
Dead Nettle
French Mulberry
Unidentified Afium
Unidentified Umbelliferae
Rosacea
Sismybrium sp.
Ranunculus abortiuus
Vibemum prurriolium
fl
TREES AND SHRUBS
•
Honey Locust
Gleoftsia biacanthos
Smooth Adler
Alnus serrulata
Greenbrier
Smilax bona-nox
Red Cedar
Juniperus virginiana
Wlnterberry
flex vertidllate
Hackberry
Celds occidentalis
Red Mulberry
Morus tubra
American Elm
Ulmus ameticana .
Persimmon
Diospyras virginiana
Black Locust
Robinia pseudo -acacia
Common Privet
U'gustnrm vulgate
Black Oak
Quercus velutina
Black Cherry
Prunus serobna
Post Oak
Quercus stellate
Blacyack Oak
Quercus marflandrea
Sycamore
Plantanus oc identalis
Bittemut Hickory
Carya cos nbnnls
Red Hickory
Carya oveNs
Shagbark Hickory
Carya ovate
Black Hickory
Carya texana
White Hickory
Carya tomentosa
White Ash
Frardnus americana
Green Ash
•
Fraxinus pennsylvanica •
Blue Ash
Fraranus quadrangulata
Wilson Springs Biological Inventory 5
American Fisheries Society Student Subchapter
Northern Bobwhite
Mourning. Dove
Yellow -billed Cuckoo
Ruby -throated Hummingbird
Downy Woodpecker
Pileated Woodpecker
Red -bellied Woodpecker
Eastern Wood -pewee
Acadian Flycatcher
Blue Jay
American Crow
Tufted Titmouse
Carolina Chickadee
White -breasted Nuthatch
Carolina Wren
American Robbin
Blue -gray Gnatcatcher
European Starling
Red -eyed Vireo
Yellow -throated Vireo
White -eyed Vireo
Northern Parula
Ovenbird
Red -winged Blackbird
Northern Cardinal
Indigo Bunting
Scarlet Tanager
Summer Tanager
FUNGI
Lichens
PLANTS (60 species)
Herbs/Weeds/Grasses
Gooseberry
Arrow weed
Common chicory
Plantain
White Heath Aster
Japanese Honeysuckle
Common Ragweed
Great Ragweed
New England Aster
Pokeweed
Poison Ivy
Broad-leaved Arrowhead
Colinus virginianus
Zenaida macroura
Coccyzus amedcanus
Archilochus colubris
Pica/des pubescens
• Dryocopus pileatus
• Melanerpes carolinus
Contopus vixens
Empidonax vinscens
Cyanocitta cristata
Corvus brachyrhynchos
Baelophus bicolor
Poedle canvlinensis
Sitta carolinensis
Thryothonis ludoridanus
Turdus migratodus
Poliopila caerulea
Stumus vulgaris
Vireo olivaceus
Vireo flavfions
Vireo griseus
Panda americans
Lymnothlypsis aurocapillus
Agelalus phoeniceus
CarcUnalic card/nails
Passerine cyanea
Piranga olivacea
Piranga nib►a
Rubes missouriends.
Sagittaiia let/foils
Chicodum intybus
Plantago major
Aster pilosus
Lonicera japonica
Ambrosia millefolium
Ambrosia trifida
Aster novae-angiae
Pytolacca americana
Toxicodendron red/cans
Sagittaria latifdia
Wilson Springs Biological Inventory
American Fisheries Society Student Subchapter
Iv
•
I•
ARACHNIDA
Spider
Mite
Harvestmen
Pseudoscorpion
VERTEBRATES (56 species)
AMIPHIBIANS
American Toad
Spring Peeper
Southern Leopard Frog
Bullfrog
Spotted salamander
REPTILES
Three toed box turtle
Common snapping turtle
Five -fined skink
Ribbon snake
Blotched waters flake
Pack Rat snake
Speddedlingsnake
FISH
Mosquito fish
Green Sunfish
Arkansas Darter
MAMMALS
Virginia Opossum
Eastern Mole
Eastern Cottontail
Grey Squirrel
House mice
Red fox
Racoon
Striped skunk
White-tailed deer
Nine- banded Armadillo
L
Sri
Oribatldae
Opiliones
Pseudoscorpiones
Bufo americans
Hyla crucifer
Rana utdculada
Rana totes beinana
Ambystoma maculatum
Terrapene carolna
Chelydra serpentine
Eumeces fasclatus
Thaminophis proximus
Nevada eiyfhmgaster transverse
Elaphe obsolete •
Lampropettis geltda
Gambusia aflinls
Lepomis cyaneflus
Etheostoma cragini
Didelphus virginiana
Ste !opus aquatacus
Syhvilagus floridanus
Sdunrs carofonensis
Mus musadus
Vulpes vulpes
Procyon Jo toe
Mephitis meph/6s
Odocoileus virginianus
Desypus novemdnclus
Canis Iabans
Fells catus
.Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis •
Wilson Springs Biological Inventory 3
American Fisheries Society Student Subchapter
0.
• ARACHNIDA
• Spider Aransas
CRUSTACEA
• Crayfish Orconectes sp.
• Isopod (aquatic sow bugs) Lirceus sp.
• Isopod (groundwater -adapted) Caecidotea sp.
MOLLUSCA
• Snail Physidae
ROUNDWORMS
• Nematode
• CHILOPODA
Millipede
INSECTA
• Beetles Carabidae.
• Curculionidae
• Psephenidae
•• Staphilinidae
Coilembda Entomobryidae
Poduridae.
Sminthuridae
Diptera . Ceratopogonidae
• Chironomidae (2 sp.)
Forcipomyiinae
• Psychodidae
Micropeyidae
Tipulidae
Homoptera Cleadellidae
•Cicadellidae
• Hymenoptera Formiddae
Termites.
Lepidoptera Cosmopterigidae
Pyralidae
Tortriddae
• Phthiraptera
Psocoptera
ura
Diplipluran
Thysanoptera Phlaeothripidae
Wilson Springs Biological Inventory
American Fisheries Society Student Subchapter
2
• PROTISTS - AQUATIC •
Diatoms (16 species)
Cocconeis sp.
Cymatopleura so/ea
Cymatopleura ellipilca
Cymbella ehrenbergfl
Cymbella sp. 2
Cymbella sp. 3
Fragillarfa sp.
Gomphonema acuminatumm var. coronata
Gy►osigma sp.
Melosirs vadens
Navicula radosa
Navicrda sp. 2
Navicula sp. 3
Stanionefs sp.
Surirells mbusta vat. splendda .
Synedra sp.
Green Algae (2 species)
• Mougeotia sp..
Clostedum sp. •
Other (3 species)
cyclopoid copepods (and nauplil)
ostracods
dadocerans
INVERTEBRATES — AQUATIC
(17 species)
INSECTS
Mayfly
Baetis sp.
Water striders
Guems sp.
Trelobates sp.
Broad- shouldered water striders
Mrcmvelle sp.
Mosquitoe
Anopheles sp.
Midges
Bryophaenocladus sp.
Dbra.sp.
Crane fly
Alderfly
Sialis sp.
Rove beetles
Stems sp.
Dragonfly
Odonata
Damselfly
Hetaedne sp.
I..
Wilson Springs Biological Inventory
American Fisheries Society Student Subchapter
• . •
Because of its low elevation relative to the rest of the area, the Wilson Springs
site is acting as a natural detention area for storm water. The lowlands of the
• area are providing ecological services by retaining and purifying water.
Development in the area in the last few years has increased the need for these
services.
According to City officials, developers will be required to build in such a way
as to minimally affect the hydrology of the site including the use of permeable
pavement, grass swales, no curbs, etc. The question has been raised as to.
whether such measures can reasonably be expected to mitigate for the
hydrological changes that may likely occur in association with development of
the lowlands of the parcel,
• ECONOMIC ISSUES
• The goals for development are unclear to the public, and the present demand
for business real estate development has been called into question. Over the
past 12 years, the stated purpose of development at the site has changed
several times. Those changes are reflected in the series of names — North
Industrial Park, Arkansas Research and Technology Park, Arkansas Business
• and Technology Park, and the most recent suggestion — Wilson Springs
Business Park.
• • Basic economic information is lacking — the City finally received an appraisal
of the property five months after the development was proposed.- Citizens
have posed numerous questions regarding the economics of the project that
remain unanswered.
• Estimated mitigation costs have been reported to be from $12,000 to $25,000
per acre, This is a very large investment of taxpayer dollars. The value of this
investment has been called into question.
Attachments:
• . Map!- site with COE wetland delineation
• Map 2- development proposal favored by City Administration
• American Fisheries Society Student Subchapter Biological Inventory
• American Fisheries Society Student Subchapter Statement of Position on the
Arkansas Darter
• Bird List for Wilson Springs Fields and Forests by Joe Neal and Mille MIodinow
• • Page 27 of Wilson Springs site appraisal completed by The Real Estate
Consultants, June 21, 2002.
•
WILSON SPRINGS Site Status Report . 6
• • The recharge area for Wilson Springs has not been delineated. Development
could adversely affect the quality and quantity of ground water that maintains
the springs.
• Observations indicate that the Arkansas darter has a migratory pattern, but no
formal study has been done. Hence, the impact of bridges over Clabber Creek
and its tributaries on the life history of the Arkansas darter is unknown.
• The proposed bridge over the tributary flowing northwest into Clabber Creek
and the bridge over Clabber Creek are passing through an area that exhibits
wetland characteristics. The City has suggested preservation of an
approximately 3 -acre parcel in that area, but construction of two bridges is
included in the development plan. Construction of these bridges may be
complicated by wetland conditions. A test pit in that area retained water at or
near the land surface during the observation period from March through May.
• The Corps delineation was based on meeting the requirements of wetland
hydrology, hydric soils, and presence of hydrophilic plants. It appears that
portions of the lowlands covered in pasture grasses were not designated as.
wetlands because of the lack of hydrophilic plants. It is difficult to
differentiate ecological function between designated and non -designated areas
on this site. Hence, there is little assurance that building in the pasture grass
areas will not adversely affect the lowland ecosystem as a whole. •
• Earlier this year, the City Administration suggested changing storm water
patterns at the main Wilson spring head and modifying the Clabber Creek
channel as part of a Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Arkansas
• darter. Neither of these ideas presently has the support of the US Fish and
• Wildlife Service, and no new ideas have been offered. It is the position of the
• American Fisheries Society Student Subchapter and US Fish and Wildlife
Service that habitat preservation should be the most important component of
an agreement. This requires consideration of. all risks associated with roads,
bridges, and other structures.
• The, plan includes extensive development of lowland areas not formally
designated as wetlands. Observations suggest that seasonal wetlands are far
more extensive than reflected in the official wetland designation of 85 acres.
These lowlands are utilized by numerous birds and crayfish, as well as species
yet to be identified.
• Areas that were designated as "mitigation areas" appear to have wetland
• characteristics. The status of these areas needs to be determined. The use of
these lands for mitigation has been called into question. It appears that
I. mitigation of these lands will not compensate for loss of other wetland acres, •
and will therefore result in a net loss of wetlands at the site.
WILSON SPRINGS Site Status Report 5
• Presence of crayfish burrows throughout lowland grassy areas indicates thigh
• water table. Ground water is supporting crayfish and organisms upon with
they depend.
• Wetlands have been delineated on the parcel adjacent and north of the Wilson
Springs site. During storms, water flowed from the adjacent parcel onto the
northwest quadrant of the site.t t+ 4c,(',L' .-c.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - ISSUES AND CURRENT CONCERNS
The Fayetteville City Administration has proposed development on the Wilson Springs
site. They have formulated 3 options, but they have indicated that they favor the option
shown on Map 2 that is enclosed. It impacts 17 acres of the 85 acres of designated
wetlands and will require mitigation for loss of these acres. Infrastructure shown on
Map 2 suggests that the plan would have large-scale impacts on the grassy lowlands that
were not designated as wetlands. It includes 3 bridges — one over Clabber Creek and two
over Clabber Creek tributaries. The following issues and concerns have emerged since
early 2002:
• Page 27 is enclosed from Appraisal Report, City of Fayetteville, I-540
Business and Technology Park, Fayetteville, AR, by The Real Estate
Consultants, 118 N. East Avenue, Fayetteville, AR 72701. This page
summarizes information provided by McClelland Engineering that is relevant
to the suitability of the site for development. This information raises serious
questions about the whether the City should promote the sale and
development of lowlands with "wetness a severe hazard" in some areas and
"an extreme hazard" in others. It indicates the necessity for "drilled pier
systems" and "above average ground preparation" to "offset potential
problems with standing water" for a good portion of the acreage. These
• problems suggest that avoiding major hydrological impacts on the area from
development would be an extremely challenging task and probably an
unrealistic expectation. .
• The area is known to have unique geological features that may complicate
development particularly in the lowlands. Local residents have reported such
problems in the Clabber Creek corridor. Developers who choose to build in
the lowlands have no assurances that they will not encounter costly problems
associated with soil types not supportive of development, high ground water,
and long-term problems associated with ground faults.
WILSON SPRINGS Site Status Report 4
S
current status is unknown. Species is endemic to area that has undergone
urbanization over the past 14 years.
• Plants: rare grass species have been identified on the site by Dr. Chuck West,
agronomist, University of Arkansas.
HYDROLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS
• Wilson Springs maintains perennial flow. It receives large amounts of storm
water from the I-540 and Hwy 112 interchange. Last water quality sampling
was done in April 2001— showed some impairment (described as typical of
water from an urban area). .
• Clabber Creek was channelized in 1990. The stream banks are now stable in
terms of sediment load — there is no obvious stream bank erosion. Parts of the
channel are filled with marsh plants and signs of development of a new
sinuous channel are apparent.
• Observations made this year suggest that the wetlands in the 500 year flood
plain of Clabber Creek are more developed than they were five years ago.
Increased discharge into Clabber Creek as a result of large-scale development
in the headwaters may account for progressive wetland development along
Clabber Creek,
Observations made on at least 7 trips to the property from mid February to
early June revealed all lowlands indicated on Map 1 to be inundated with
water regardless of whether land was classified by the US Army Corps of
Engineers as wetlands or not.
Lowland areas consist of a mosaic of wooded wetlands designated as such by
the Corps of Engineers and non -designated areas planted in pasture grass. All
lowlands (as described on Map 1) appear to be functioning as a contiguous
seasonal wetland.
s, c°• All test pits (3-4 feet deep) on designated wetlands as well as non -designated
ti. s• j v� r° grasslands retained water at or near the land surface, during the observation
V '` ` period from mid February to early June 2001
• Dr. Van Brahma hydrogeologist, Department of Geoscien U v of
it
ces m etstty
Arkansas has indicated that the area has unique geological features
responsible for wetlands. Fault lines run through the area and continue down
the Clabber Creek corridor. Clay soils do not wholly account for standing
water in the lowlands. Test pits indicate a high water table.
•
•
•
3
•
•
BIOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONS
General Biological Inventory: See enclosed Wilson Springs Biological
Inventory of protists, invertebrates, vertebrates, fungi, and plants compiled by
students at the University Arkansas in conjunction with the American
Fisheries Student Subchapter.
Arkansas darter (Etheosroma cragim): a study completed by Chad Hargrave
in 1998 (Coop Unit Publication No. 30 - Arkansas Cooperative Fish and
Wildlife Research Unit, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville) estimated the
Arkansas darter population in the Wilson Springs run to be. the largest of the
three known populations in the state.
Sampling of Clabber Creek and the tributary from the north during spawning
season (early 2000) suggested migratory patterns that require further study.
The smaller tributary flowing from the south may also be seasonal habitat
See American Fisheries Society Student Subchapter Statement of Position for
additional background information.
Status: Candidate for listing under Endangered Species Act since October
1999. One of three known populations in Arkansas. The species has
protective status in all states in which it occurs.
Birds: 125 species identified on site by ornithologists Joe Neal and Mike
Mlodinow. Includes wetland species and some species dependent on
grasslands. See Bird List for the Wilson Springs Fields & Forests. Joe Neal
has indicated that he does not consider the list complete — he expects other
species to be identified.
Status: Information from Partners -In -Flight Species of Concerns and USGS
Bird Survey of birds in decline is included on the Bird List
Crayfish: Ozark burrowing crayfish (Procambarus liberorum) from the
northwest quadrant identified by. Dr. Art Brown and Mike Slay, Department
of Biological Sciences, University of Arkansas. Burrows throughout grassy
lowlands suggest it is widespread on the site and may playa major role in the
food web supporting a wide range of species in the lowland areas of the
parcel.
States: Endemic to only 8 counties of northwest Arkansas. Description of
status dates back to 1988 - shown as abundant and stable at that, time, but
WILSON SPRINGS Site Status Report 2
I.
WILSON SPRINGS SITE
STATUS REPORT
July 9, 2002
SITE DESCRIPTION (see Map 1)
• 289 -acre parcel located near 1-540 and Hwy 112 owned by City of
Fayetteville since 1990
• South end — elevated, dry land with an approximately 8 -acre woodland —
remainder of the parcel is lowland — see approximate line on Map 1 that
distinguishes between high and lowland areas
• Lowland area includes designated wooded wetlands, land planted with
pasture grass, Clabber Creek flood plain, and Wilson Springs
• Elevation difference - 1270 ft at south end —1200 feet near Wilson
Springs
• 85 acres of wetlands designated by US Corps of Engineers shown in cross-
hatched area of Map 1— designated on basis of hydrology, hydrophilic
plants, and hydric soil
MAJOR PHYSICAL FEATURES
In. .lL u: .c :.. sm : . L.
L 11kk.
...:.
.I:.
WILSON SPRINGS Site Status Report
•
•
July 9,
Ta
Members of the Task Fo ssessing the Wilson Springs site •
.L.JDepartment• • • • L K 1 • •I • .1
w't ii
II FILl)
7.• • '4 .'L• 1
1 liii
C u
1 - L • 1• • 1accumulation •: 11 • I • I • 1 , " Wilson •' 1 ' V 1 " q • 1 1: I 1 " :11 • C
11 : 1 • " • • • 1 111 • " • 1 • 1 •' 1 P: ' • >. 1 O 1 - • 1 1 . ` •- ' 1 1 • - 1.
identification •: population •I 1 ' 1 on • 1 1the • 1: 1 • • - die11 ✓. 1 t'iFisheries• • L1• • 1 - •' 11 1 •' ,Y. 1 ' became11 - • •: :.M 1 1
immediateM •: •' ' r • • ' 11 . • 1 'J: . 1 1 • 1 11Students Y: v, • w • 11 • 1 • • 1 41 1
:I r • . "1' 1 •' �: much . •: 1." •: 1• -1 • 11 r- 1 n l: •"
1 I L a• 1 1 •, " •' 1 1 - 1' 1 1 N 1•" •• 1• d 11 - 1• 1• 1 • 1 •\ 1 -,
• •' L Y•1. ' 111' 1- • •••. �• 1," •'1'11-1
ii.,t- • 1 • • K 1 •• 111 1 ✓. YI •I Lct 11 11 - providing • L f 11 •.,,,;!,r..I11
• • I ✓. 1 • I/1 11 • 1 • •1 11 ••' •'I1. •: ry.: 11 • 11 1 •'1
11 1 K • L 1 •"• 1. 1 1- 1 1 •+ V• 1 1 I• 1- ✓ •' Y 1• Y •' 1 1: M 11 1 11 1 q
I:k• I I 1 • 1 4. 1 •. • 11 . 11 •: 1 11 " 11 • ' • • Y I 'l: : l • ' 11 • : !
11 •il ll Id • •: informationee 1 . 1 '• : 11 . 1 • I N 1.• •LI Y' • wl Y. I w: • 11 1• '
• • 1 ' • 1 • 1 • !,r - , 11 L 1 • 1•y s Y • • y ✓. 11':11
• • a1•• LI -• 4.i • 1 1 : II • - 1 • • •;1 I 11 •1 1• a• • I •. •, 1 [J:
11 1• •1 1 •: 1/ • r: •Ir, I LI IJ 1••• 1 1 11 1 wY• •V ✓.••
• - •'•: 1 " 11 highly • I • 1 •. 11 - • : 11 • 11 •; . 1 • 11 '• 1 eII • •; •1 IiiL• : 4" • • • •J Il • •� ` •' •I 4Y" "1 •." • • 11 1 1 ••.1 • .wetness •I 11� - 11 • 1 '
N 11' • •' :1 •' ••24: 'y •usobst. y • I •'•11 1 1 •.. both .Ieconomic1 • I II1 ' • 1 11 1 Y, • u • L M 1 1 - • 1 • •. • 1 • offer1 1 1 1 • • • 1"
1 1 •,1<rra 1 JjIV • . ✓. 1 . 1 I d • • - 1 • 11 1 1 . • Y • • • •
: 1 •' 1 K : Y Isupport11 • • 1 • 1
11 11 IV. 1-• 11•.11:••.1
IE1.ujljI.,,-
Fb1II€.t;:,
as
1II •1�
P.
cc: Mayor^oody
• Members of the Fayetteville City Council
C
Dr. E. Fred Benfield
• Professor
Department of Biology
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg VA
Dr. Leonard A. Smock
Professor and Chairman
Department of Biology
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond VA
Dr. Arthur Benke
Professor
Department of Biology
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa AL
Dr. Ronald A. Hellenthal
Professor and Assistant Chairman
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame IN
Dr. Darold Batzer
Associate Professor
Entomology Department
University of Georgia
Athens GA
Dr. Peter H. Adler
Professor
Department of Entomology
Clemson University
Clemson SC
Dr. Kirk 0. Winemiller Dr. Keller Suberkropp
Associate Professor Professor
Dept, of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Department of Biological Sciences
Texas A&M University University of Alabama
College Station TX Tuscaloosa AL
• Dr. Stuart Findlay
Research Scientist
Institute of Ecosystem Studies
Millbrook NY
Dr. Jennifer Tank
Galla Assistant Professor
Departnietit of Biological Sciences
University of Notre Dame
Notre Dame IN
Dr. Seth Reice
Associate Professor
Department of Biology
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill NC
Dr. Carl Richards
Professor
Biology Department
University of Minnesota
Duluth MN
I.
Dr. Peter Vila
Assistant Professor
Institute for Environmental Studies
Shepherd College
Shepherdstown WV
Dr. Lucinda B. Johnson
Research Ecologist
Natural Resources Research Institute
University of Minnesota
Duluth MN
Dr. Nancy B. Grimm
Professor
Biology Department
Arizona State University
Tempe AZ
Dr. Jackson R Webster
Professor of Ecology
Biology Department
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg VA
Sf rig ti
Dr. John R Cannon
Conservation Biologist
Biology Department
University of Maryland
College Park MD
Dr. Patrick J. Mulholland
Senior Research Staff Member
Environmental Sciences Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge TN
Dr. Arthur V. Brown
Associate Professor
Biological Sciences Department
University of Arkansas
Fayetteville AR
(A copy of each journal article or book chapter cited is included with this letter.)
Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology. Kluwer Academic Publishers,Boston.
Alexander, RD., R.A. Smith, and G.E. Schwarz. 2000. Effect of stream channel size on
the delivery of nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. Nature 403:758-761.
Bilby, RE. and G.E. Likens. 1980. Importance of organic debris dams in the structure
and function of stream ecosystems. Ecology 61: 1107-1113.
Brookes, A. 1994. River channel change. pp. 55 — 75 In P. Calow and G.E. Pelts (eds.)
The River Handbook Vol. 2. Blackwell Science.
Curry, R.A., C. Brady, D.L.G. Noakes and R.G. Danzmann. 1997. Use of small streams
by young brook trout spawned in a lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 126: 77-83.
Dieterich, M. and N.H. Anderson. 2000. The invertebrate fauna of summer -dry streams in
western Oregon. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 147: 273 - 295.
n
L
CJ
• Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W. H. Freeman
and Company, New York.
Elliott, W. 2000. Conservation of the North American cave and karst biota. pp.671-695.
In H. Wilkins, D. Culver, and W. Humphreys (eds.) Subterranean Ecosystems.
Elsevier, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Etnier, D.A. 1997. Jeopardized southeastern freshwater fishes: a search for causes. In:
Aquatic Fauna in Peril: The Southeastern Perspective (eds. (LW. Benz & D.E.
Collins) Special Publication 1, Southeastern Aquatic Research Institute. pp. 87-104.
Lenz Design and Communications, Decatur, Georgia.
Gibbs, RJ. 1970. Mechanisms controlling world water chemistry. Science 170: 1088 -
1090.
Hedin, L.O., J.C. von Fischer, N.E. Ostrom, B.P Kennedy, M.G. Brown, and G. Philip
Robertson. 1998. Thermodynamic constraints on nitrogen transformations and other
biogeochemical processes at soil -stream interfaces. Ecology 79: 684-703.
Johnson, C.E., C.T. Driscoll, T.G. Siccama and G.E. Likens. 2000. Element fluxes and
landscape position in a northern hardwood forest watershed ecosystem. Ecosystems
3:159-184.
• Kaplan, LA., R.A. Larson and T.L. Bolt 1980. Patterns of dissolved organic carbon in
transport. Limnology and Oceanography 25: 1034 -1043.
Leopold, LB. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge MA.
Likens, G.E. 1999. The science of nature, the nature of science: Long-term ecological
studies at Hubbard Brook. Proc. American Philosophical Society 143: 558-572.
Mettee, M.F, P.E. O'Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama. Oxmoor House.
Birmingham, Alabama.
Meyer, J.L and J.B. Wallace. 2001. Lost linkages and lotic ecology: rediscovering small
streams. Pp. 295 — 317 in M.C. Press, NJ. Huntly, and S. Levin (eds.). Ecology:
Achievement and Challenge. Blackwell Science.
Morse, J. C., B.P. Stark, and W.P. McCafferty. 1993. Southern Appalachian streams at
risk: Implications for mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, and other aquatic biotaAquatic
Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 3:293-303.
Peterson, BJ., W.M. Wolheim, PJ. Mulholland, J.R. Webster, IL Meyer, J.L Tank, E.
Mari, W.B. Bowden, H.M. Valets, A.E. Hershey, W.H. McDowell, W.K. Dodds,
C
S.K. Hamilton, S. Gregory, and D. D. Morrall. 2001. Control of nitrogen export from •
watersheds by headwater streams. Science 292: 86-90.
Power, G., R.S. Brown, and J.G. Imhof. 1999. Groundwater and fish — insights from
northern North America. Hydrological Processes 13: 401-422.
Prosser, D.J. and R.P. Brooks. 1998. A verified habitat suitability index for the Louisiana
Waterthrush. Journal of Field Ornithology 69: 288 —298.
Radwell, A. 2001. Efforts to protect critical fish habitat has heuristic value for student
subunit Fisheries 26 (3): 28.
Ryon, M.G. 1986. The life history and ecology of Etheostoma trisella (Pisces: Percidae).
American Midland Naturalist 115: 73-86.
Steinhart, G.S., G.E. Likens and P.M. Groffman. 2000. Denitrification in stream
sediments in five northeastern (USA) streams. Verh. Internat. Verein. LimnoL 27:
1331-1336.
Trimble, S.W. 1997. Contribution of stream channel erosion to sediment yield from an
urbanizing watershed. Science 278: 1442 -1444.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Permitted stream losses due to valley •
filling in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia: A partial inventory.
Pennsylvania Ecological Services Field Office, State College PA.
Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The
river continuum concept Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 37:
130-137.
Wallace,
J. B., S.L. Eggert, J.L.
Meyer, and J.R. Webster.
1997. Multiple trophic levels of
a stream
linked
to terrestrial
litter inputs. Science 277:
102-104.
Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects and Control.
American Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Bethesda, Maryland.
Wiley, J.B., RD. Evaldi, J.H. Eychaner, and D.B. Chambers. 2001. Reconnaissance of
stream geomorphology, low streamfiow, and stream temperature in the mountaintop
coal -mining region, southern West Virginia, 1999-2000. Water Resources
Investigations Report 01-4092.U. S. Geological Survey.
n
From: Andrea Radwell [aradwell®uark.edul
Sent Tuesday, September 24, 2002 2:14 PM
�
o: Collins, Jeffery
Subject: To the Task Force
Jeff -
A A message to you and the Task Force - please forward to the members -
To the Wilson Springs Task Force
All the members of the Task Force are to be commended for their willingness to give time and energy to produce a set of
recommendations on the Wilson Springs site. I am particularly impressed with the degree of respect shown for the diverse
points of view that have been expressed the past few months. You had the hard job - I had only to advocate for my
position, while all of you had to mull over those diverse points of view and arrive at a consensus. You did an exemplary Job
of handling that responsibility.
Thank you for your consideration of the written comment that I provided to the Task Force and for the opportunity to
address you last night. Your consideration is very much appreciated.
•
CI
Urban Aquatic Ecosystem Models
and Wetland Funding Options
From Melissa Terry
http://www.brec.org/nature/swamy.htm
Background papers on
Wetland Values and Functions
http://www.ramsar.org/values intro e.htm •
sTq Funding Wetlands
http://www.epa. gov/owow/wetlands/facts/funding.ndf
a
4LAROO4, Economic Benefits of Wetlands
http://www.epa. gov/owow/wetlands/facts/fact4.html
FY03 Wetland Program Development
Grants Guidelines
http://www.gpa. ovg /fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/2002/Au ug st/Day-26/W21670.ht 1 •
(this proposal is due nov. 1)
Five -Star Restoration Program
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/restore/5 star/O2factsheet.html
vEPA Wa, �
Office of Water P"�°�•
t i.LRIgY.I ••
• Community -Based Restoration Program
http://www.epa. gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/fund/based.html
• .=. North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants
• http•//www epa gov/owow/watershed/wacademy/fund/nawetlands.html
Private Organization Wetland Funding
hLtp://www.epa. jzov/owow/wetlands/restore/privlinks.html
Other misc. information:
hUp://www.cwmb. sa.gov.aulkwc/sect1on5/5-04.htm
htty://www. conservation. state.mo.us/nathis/lifeweb/wetland.htm
To: Wilson Springs` Business Park Task Force •
From: Environmental Concerns Committee of the City of Fayetteville
Date: August 23, 2002
Subject: Recommendations regarding the 290 -acre parcel located at the I-540 Bypass
and Highway 112 (proposed Wilson Springs Business Park)
The Environmental Concerns Committee recommends that a thorough, coordinated
environmental assessment be performed on this land, involving species inventory, surface,
hydrology, subsurface hydrogeology, and fault analysis, before any decision is made as to
the preferred use of the site.
We understand that the cost of such an assessment could be a deterring factor and
recommend that resources at the University of Arkansas be explored to possibly reduce
the costs of these studies.
•
I
I
WILSON SPRINGS TASK FORCE BIOLOGY REPORT=
JON JOHNSON, PETE HEINZELMANN, AND TOM MCKINNEY
The Wilson Springs property, located north of Shilo Road and I-540 in Fayetteville, is a
mixture of wetland hardwood forest, remnant wet tall grass prairie and planted fescue
pasture that is gradually being inundated by the return of native grasses and trees. The
290 acres included within the boundaries of the site are underlain by a series of soils that
play a large part in determining the biology of the area. The entire northwest, central and
south central portion of the property is underlain by Toloka Complex mounded soils
which consist of layers of silt loam underlain by a layer of clay. The soil stays wet for
extended periods of time after heavy rains and runoff is slow. Extended wetness is
classified as an extreme hazard.
The north central portion of the property is underlain by Summit Complex mounded soils
consisting of sticky silty clays underlain by a layer of plastic or silty clay. The soil stays
wet for long periods of time after moderate to heavy rainfall. Runoff is very slow, or
ponded, with wetness being classified as an extreme hazard.
The southern portion of the property is underlain by Baxter cherty silt loam soils which
are found on small ridges and hillsides. Runoff is medium with some erosion hazard.
We mention the soil topography because that is what determines and drives the biology
and the wildlife on this property. The Toloka and Summit soils trap water near the
• surface allowing for wetland species to establish themselves and survive. The better -
drained Baxter soils do not maintain such saturation levels and are, thus, not as rich
biologically as, the Taloka and Summit soils.
As part of the task of making a recommendation on the use of the Wilson Springs
property the biology subcommittee has collected information from numerous sources,
including professional biologists who have considerable on -site experience. Committee
members have also visited the property in the company of experts, including biologists,
herpetologists and landscape architects from the University of Arkansas. While no
formal studies of the ecosystems on the property have been conducted, sufficient
information does exist to draw preliminary conclusions about the impact of the
development of significant portions. Many questions remain, however, about the nature
of specific elements of the ecosystem, and about the environmental consequences of
•
developing several tracts of the property.
There is little uncertainty regarding the southern 40-50 acres of the site adjoining Moore
Lane (area A on the map), which contains a sloped area and Cherty soils that does not
possess unique biological value for the city or the region. This includes a wooded section
in the southeast comer of the property that may be amenable to development if done in an
environmentally sensitive way. However, before this could be done we would
recommend that a woody plant survey be conducted not only of this portion of the
property but of entire site, to document significant trees or biological communities.
Special attention should be given to protecting the lower wetlands on the property.
There is little uncertainty about the biological value of the east -central sections of the site
(B on the map underlain by the Taloka and Summit Complex soils), which is very high. •
This area, which is a designated wetland, is covered with vegetation typical of wetland
prairie and lowland hardwood vegetation, and is capable of supporting fully functional
wetland ecosystems. A representative list of wetlands plants is included in the supporting
documents. Wilson Springs, also located in this section, is the habitat of the Arkansas
Darter (Etheostoma cragini), a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species
Act, and care should be taken to protect the drainage surrounding the spring. (A related
issue is the highway drainage pipe near the source of the spring on the eastern border of
the property. Runoff from the highway during periods of heavy rain could prove a
potential hazard to the spring, though such runoff has not to date caused any serious
problems. The threat of a chemical spill could, however, pose a serious danger to the
spring.) The designated wetlands also contain a substantial population of Ozark
Burrowing Crawfish or crawdads (Procambarus liberorum), a species that exists in only
nine counties of northern Arkansas. The area also contains nesting populations of
numerous birds.
In fact, the whole of the Wilson Springs property is a valuable resource for resident and
migrating birds; 125 species of birds have been documented on the property by
volunteers, a much larger number of species than is usually found within the city limits of
a medium sized community. (A list of birds seen on the property is included in the
supporting documents.) The Wilson Springs property is also the only known nesting site
in Arkansas for the Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowii) which has been
designated as a species of concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because its
population is declining throughout its range. It should be noted that these and other
sensitive species of flora and fauna have been documented in inventories created by
volunteers. A formal, systematic study may very well identify additional species
deserving of protection.
The subcommittee is very concerned with the segments of land adjoining the designated
wetlands to the west and south of Clabber Creek (C on the map also underlain by
Taloca and Summit Complex soils). The primary vegetation there is different, or
atypical, from that found on the designated wetlands areas only because it has been
planted in Fescue and cut over on a regular basis. This area also contains lands that
might be classified as seasonal wetlands that are wet only part of the year and are
associated with low "prairie mounds" that cover the area. Though delineated wetlands
have legal protections, seasonal wetlands do not and they constitute the single most
endangered habitat type in northwest Arkansas. These wetlands are deceptively dry
during periods of low rainfall but, because of the high water table in the area, it takes
only modest amounts of rainfall to nurture shallow, seasonally wet habitats, with their
associated plants and animals.
•
• •
Seasonal wetlands can be identified in a number of ways, some being:
• 0 Numerous and widespread mud chimneys of the Ozark Burrowing
Crayfish.
• 0 Hydrophilic plants such as Prairie Cord grass are present as well as
Buttonbush and Swamp Dogwood.
0 Stands of various semi -aquatic plants are common, especially sedges, that
require water and dryness during part of their life cycle.
0 Wet prairie species such as Sawtooth Sunflower are present and form
extensive stands.
0 Marshland birds such as the small rail, Sora and larger species like
American bittern.
In seasonal wetlands there is a strong positive correlation between biodiversity and the
presence of water. The Wilson Springs property supports a high biodiversity as a result
of the high water table and presence of water on the surface for much of the year.
Typical seasonal and delineated wetland vegetation has naturally begun to recolonize
much of this area, and the soil and hydrology of the section is nearly identical to that of
the designated wetlands. Ozark Burrowing Crayfish chimneys are located throughout the
area, as well as nesting sites for Henslow Sparrows.
There is every reason to expect that, if left unmolested, this area would develop into a
sustained tall grass prairie, delineated wetland and seasonal wetland ecosystem.
• Development of this section would destroy this habitat, and the subcommittee members
are concerned that it would disrupt the adjoining designated wetlands as well.
The greatest uncertainty involves the lowland property to the north of Clabber Creek (D
on the map also underlain by Taloca and Summit Complex soils). As with other lowland
areas of the property, these sections are characterized by soils and hydrological features
typical of delineated and seasonal wetlands, and the same characteristic plants (e.g.,
Prairie Cord grass, Buttonbush, Swamp Dogwood) and animals (e.&, Ozark Burrowing
Crayfish, nesting Henslow Sparrows) are found in these areas.
Development of these tracts will have obvious implications for the less mobile species of
• animals located there, but it is unclear what impact development of the perimeter of the
property will have on bird populations.
Contiguous tracts of unmolested land are necessary for many nesting birds to inhabit a
site, and we cannot say with any degree of certainty what impact development of the
northern sections will have on the bird populations for the whole of the property. This
uncertainty is exacerbated by our ignorance of the actual species that exist on the site,
insofar as no comprehensive survey of species has been conducted. When habitat shrinks
those species associated with it can be forced out and their survival is not assured. These
species need not just good quality Jtabitat, in this case delineated and seasonal wetlands
and prairie, but they also need a certain quantity to assure survival.
r
In light of these findings, the biology subcommittee does not feel that it would be
appropriate to develop the northern sections of the property without first commissioning a •
formal inventory and environmental assessment of the development of this area.
C
•
• BIOLOGY SUB -GROUP
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
•
•
The. • •
Pictures from Wilson Springs Narrative
• If you are a PC user, an easy way to view these pictures is to save the CD contents
to a file in "My Pictures" on your hard drive (you can just delete them when you want),
then use the "slide show" feature to click through them. If you don't want to go to this
trouble, just double click each individual picture on the CD.
These photographs were the volunteer effort of Fayetteville resident, Joseph C.
Neal, on the 289 acres of publicly owned land, between late March and early September
2002. The only exception is the picture of the Arkansas Darter that dates to 1990, but was
also taken at Wilson Springs.
If you have questions about these pictures, call Joe at 521-1858, or
joecnealQ2iuno.com. Thanks for your interest in the fixture of this property.
• 1 1 . F 1.: I- 1.: 1 1 1 1 • 1 .
ii
11.
\ 1 .�1 \ 11 11:\ 1 I • : 11 1 1 : 1 .•: : 1.1 \ e I 1 dl "r: 1.
1 : adapted 1 L . I : I.1 • IL1 I1 1. 1
•
ill 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 `I 1: 11 1.:1 y_• 11 :I • 9 R 11 1: 111.
prairie1 1' . . 11 11'.\ 1 1 1. .• 1 1 1 1 1 :. ..f
fr
1 1 _L : 1 1 1 1: .- 1 \ 1 11. • I\ 1
1 1: . �1 11.: I plants,1 1 : 1 1 1 n \ 1• �1 • :11..
1 1 1 •. V • 11..j.1. • 1 .�
II
1 \ 11 : . 1 1 1conical1. 1 : 1 1 . 1 • i1 1 \ 1
• : 1 •4L
Ii
1 1: 1 .: 1 1 . , L 1• • 1
.
11 1 1 .. 1 .: •J 1 11.1 original 1 : lu
jj
• : I 1111b"
:
•: I . 1 1 1 1 1: 1 :1
• \11c1 : 1 1 1 : 1 1 1 1. Il 1 . . 1 i1 • 11 i . 1 1" :I "
1 \ 1 • 1 : 1 habitats,. • prairies.I 1. I 1 • 1.:1 11 : . 1
1: I 1\ I 1 1\ 1 it; 1 1 11 : 1 : places• 1 .1 X11 1
ri • 1: • 1. Y- 1 \ 1• 1 1 1• 11 11 H I \ 1 . 1"Ii the11 1- 11
I 1 1 1 \ • 1 1 11 11 M: L. 1 1 (MI fi 1 1 " 11 • ..'
tf 11.41
Prairiei r.ti 1 I 1 I , • ':
1
•
. : 1 1 : 1 1 prairie11.1 I 1 : 1 . 1.: 1 • • • I e . P.S.
11
1 I r• .1 . 1 :1 1 ti• 1 1 ♦• .s 1 ti� .: 1
f1. .
1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ' through 11 1 1 1 : 1 • 1' V: I .
• • .1,1'. 11 . 11 1 1the 1 �+ 1 male1 1 1 1 •J 1 L�1 :I P. 1 •
11 , e': 1 1 11.1 1
fr
11:1 I: 1 11 1' 1 •1: 1 'J 11 1.:1 Mild .r III'i11 1.
1 1 1• .• 11 1 . 1 1
This.11 1 1 1 • I �: F 1 11"1 1� :•1 1111 I.1 1• 11
1990, 4' during \ 1. . 1. V •
LI
• II' :- \'1:I 1 •1 1:I 1\attempt1 II11
1' 1 \ 1 1 1• 1- r 1- perennial11 . 1
11 IS'
1- - 1111 1' 1 1 11111 \\.� 1! j: "•
• 1 11. •- i. 0 1 1• 1 11 I 11 along I- Wilson r l l•
1 1- 1 1 : I r- :-
1 bird •' 1- I' 1 1
tr
1 - i•
\ 1 L 11 a:l : \ 1
1 •J 1 1 1! 1 r l-
:I. • 11 :1 almostr- :-1 11! :Ira
• I. 1.kJ,
1 1 11 : 1 , 1 1'- \ 1
1 r1 1 1r" 1' 11. 1 1: 1 1: 11 1- 1 1!� : W
1 11 -\ : 1 r 1 grading 1 1 1- 1- 1
- \ 1 - \ 1 111 1 1 1 • r 1 - :" 1 11 f' 1 - - 1 1 rI
11 : Lti
\ 1'
frP 1- I. 1- 1 on 1- 2O - - dominated 1 \ I 111 LIris i
HI I
1 1 • L I 1 \ r 1 \ 1' IJ • 1 1 1 1 1
\ r I I and 1 11 1 11 : I : :+ IJ :1 1 . 11
1 1 1 \ 1 1 1• 1. •1: 11 1 1 1 1
1' 11 1 1 1 1.1 bone 1 \ I
11.E
1- 1• 1 1- - 11 11 1' i t 1 1' 1 1 1 1 lii ' 1 \�- I\ 1 1 x 1\ 1 :1apparently1 1 1 ll 1 1 \ 1 1 1 • I \ 11 1conditions \ 1, 11 -
111- 11' 1" :1- 111:1 \ 1-11 1: 1- 1 11 ii
':1•' 11-:11 11
: • I : 1 1 _1 1 11.1
/ 1 1 1 1\ - I ,1 r\ - 1' I• 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 I: I , 1 %I :•:
• 1 , 1 • 1 • 1 1 1' 1- 1 1 \ 1• I-
III I Y.1 1 1 i 1 1 I-
: . i - 11 J r: 1 1- 9 • I • I
1- 1 1 1 :• 1 1 1 1 :- 11 1\ 1 1 1 1 1 1
_ _
1: I"' 1 •• ! 1 1 i\ 1' 1- \•and 1- greatr :: 1 I I I
' 1 1 1 1 I I 1. 1' 1 1 1 1 r w 11 1 1 1 I Y I 1 1-
:1 :1 f,..
11 1 1 1. L 1 'M1 :•. \ :1
• i 111 1 1 1•'I: IS 11' • IL1 outII 1. 1' fr )F trig., - 1 .: 211
\ - �I 1 ! . 1 1 11 1 .
I �- II 1 11 1 ❑:- \ 1 •- 1 1 11 1- w 1\ 1.
:I •• fit
1: 1 1! I: 1: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 :• . •'''J
y: 11 1 1 1 1 r 1 I: 1 11 : 1 1n'Erfields1 1 1. -south J.
1 •IM
•
"I =\ 1 \ i• � 1 = 1 11 '
• ' 1\ I 1 1 1 11 V: • I 1 1 11,1 I.Y' 1' 11 1• �•
jH-
1\ / \ Y I 1 I. 1 :I 1. 1 1 •. KI
1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 \ 1' L' 1! 1. 1 I L• :I
1 a :• 1 1 1 1 1
1 1• II I- 1 - 1
•
•
=1 T'r''
111 1Itr,
I 1- 1I Y I- 1/ : 1 1 1 1 I :I - 11 I
- 1' I-
1 1 1 1 r 1 11 11.1 I
1 11 11' •11 \ 1 1 �- 11 I I 1 :1 • I• 1 1 1111 1- 1 1
LS
\ 1.- \ ill 1 1 1:1 - 1 ' IJ • 1 : 1 1 \ 1 - It 1 1 11 ! 1
1 1 II 111 •: • I 1 1 III
1:1I' •\1'•1 11 1111111 11 1." _•!- 1 :ItJ
1- •1 I • I =1 1 I- 1• -• 1' w 11 I �' I 1- ,• 1 ujjH I 1 ' 11 :' 1 1 1' r': •.
• ' 1 :• : • 1 • 1 r • - 1 . , I I • ' 1 1 •
\ 1 ' , • I 1 1 u.1 1 , : I 1.1 \ 1 L" - I - • L- 1 1 • ' _
.a •r I n •11 IJ11=1 I 1 1 1 - 1 ��
I 1 ' 1
1 ,k7L I- I I- 1 I 1 I= 1_ • 1• 1 1• 1 n
•ua 1 • 1 -n I• •I. I 1 1!u •r 1 -.Ii
ti 1hj
I ¶i:jriIT
11'1 1.- 1-1•-1 1w IIwY • u II .1Ir
is I jjl•!II.,
•I 1 -' : 1. • 1 I• 1 ' 1: • 11 01) 1 1 I 1 J I I L" 1•. I 1- I I.I 11
I I I I• I,
nil
"nY
1 - \ • \ - 1 • • • u- I \ 1 I 1 • u I � L- i1 I ! I I =
1 - 1r 1 1 11 1 - I : 11 1 : • : ti till ''- •¢ L• 'k t f •U: 't •j,L .fl4tJ1
r I'A I I I I- 1 1 1 r I- I I I• I.11!:.
I I1:i' 'hI• II 1.1 _. i 1 Y1 L41111111 111 11 :I I= • 1 w.Yll =: I
• 1 I ".t
• 1• 11 : \ 11 111 1
1 i - • I\ 1 1 : 1 1• • 1= I- 1- I i 1' 11 1 1 1- ji •. • 11 11.1 1 1 1 1 1 111D1 r 1 I •J 1' 1.: 1 11
1 1 u I• 1- 1 1 1 r." 1 • 1• u
/e\T" j f!"7\�-{t `�``•riiiC F y�3f!_ti t.\,\:'
��� ��lfJ �{ alln iI .•� ft�i•. �.}'♦ f YI e'".
4 i L J Yj� l\ iL rrp¢�
''a 'f •1 :mot {f ,M .J{to I` .�vy ;i
T ten_ I • ,.f.
r \! - 1
• F Yf ,. \�� ��.i .p r. �(n S - (��
i .}e f f:�r Li 13 tf .�"a ry. `�Y{< -}$ �/}'_, R'`k Ft`�� i.. /��`il; � L� ^
1 r 01 i
py \ 4 y q _ ♦ _
}-` l \.. 1\.\ �r8 eL 1 ♦:��I�l li .'P-+]/ .. t<i%•fT :li i4Y CYi I(♦3'/na ! 1 _
``ll 5 ,. e- _ . 7121 - J -�
a'♦ P�Tt�'l-ti f��, �r a tip°, 1.! ).(J {ri / �• /
l i - e • � T�1� 1I F ]fir 'i l is a T e\ 4 . li \ \ i r
,!l r / fL 1. _ �� .. �yti N T.itr I Ci \{ i / f ✓: i ✓_ 4 a• (n •er`u It /•,y f � � s-
/I I (l r / � e h. / r It G l • x h 4' p v� � \
"rf .I F/� ��_ � Y li1Li 1.1 S�V/ `/•Y �.'Q.r by d�<''" (' ` � e.' i
1 { 11�� 1 � 1 "Y ip t , •
L� F ' \�i �\� �v�,� j,•}� tI. -.• C{ e r .. i. 1,i3:'�� <-� _{e 1�^ 3 'xl rt
{ \ � I t tl � a.. ` `lT'ti/' tE {\ �i air. 'li p ..•I �s�T/a � \' / 1\:
\[ �\ `!V�{ 1� by V3� ti�e.1 -ay_ Ill r' �`T 1 ..�a�f l .' �I i� .{ ../V `r4y4y . •� !
Ali {1 .aY l'\• i+l •Y ^ t�fi.3° 1tF an-. �,�1 � .. .
1.
- a\ _ ^T c .: rFP r11M # 1 X.t\: \l, tJ•"` i 1 S•1'A,^�i i� 1 1 1/ '
i t t z f1 R. c i., Y •;, iy tt.° .11 ,. '. rT
ti r I � / , frl � • ni .r f ~\i is \ n ° I rpt � A � i a', , 11 � f
\^r `�J I11 � \ ` � �`�-` �I) � 'iY t .^ � �!f ~�t 1CJ ~ J' /•r- Y t �C' i{,� `[ i 'f .. Jy' y\ _�
i [ `� 1 \ ♦ ��• �b♦r }t1 J'�Tva _ 1� s �<. T fFF _r c [ __
1\'.��-af• 'J- ft �e%. •tv u 'i( `�L T'(.,A KnT�e R�^'`.gl 56! .I: JJ,i.' C / .1 \ '.\.
k
_ T v^�c
r
'((
-. 1 V
r♦
\1 11 .yt1 x�
f f r tT<a tl.' tr ♦ P. i.
_ ll,ri .�.'1\r
a ! r1 TII ` 'ayF{ 1 >df!IS1 v I tlIra1 ~'\/
44 f ler 9tltS r I ♦
S rlJJ '!; tf�--�1 hi Imo} 1 \{♦l i�, 4 � ,. C. 1
-rrrKi • Lin •T'1111• (. i ~4 Yx yfl/t\��'•11v4.TT ` %a
r 1 ♦ y 1 l ,�.a11
•} SdsiS .. ^atr t t �,.-,�i.rt"er `•. ♦. �
c3.♦.� � .[.✓ ry r�yl tL . lP- r C 1
•
:. O s Y a
- � r'♦\;: Ye} sr' '.. r. .eke o .. .� � _.
.'
". _ �.! • r .. 1 ��C5Rjn�Y!.•MlY.4'. C'abf.<.tiv \' . ._.-
. l • n .. r' Y -
r.
1 1 c - ir c - _
r a r �..•_.r P e�w.L! r• �IIV'•; j:iTV •a./•o r i .Z.Pi ivn `l:. r a _.
: ' 4: •a t
a I . eet .a " Tfg •v r, lZe J+/'•.!' f'/
i -urrlrt `.iv ,5 r \t r Yn 1 ,'
L v: /n♦ f - r2[�1' �R 1♦ Ya I14 i:+ a i .
• '.r /r • �♦ i 1 iji t iv'e ir. iI '-I r / A \r' s I' I
r'f rt f•r.' r 1 a )- r tN �4♦ i.�.!.' ^ •`c`Sa •fvl '.i'1
r lr I...i r e • e IY` l.a t:e ♦ 11 la r Ir I.
`I . I a � t C rrl. /3 [ r .� r
ri iI n I. Vi r rr r 3 .i iI 1r r \ frY`4Jl4/l F4er� I4-i.r- i a[ w..a •'`"a♦ rI)1r ',l r L i ♦ 1 I ,r> i. i) � .. ''r ✓i r i Y {I i
♦., r 1 l- ..f 1
P �
[ .r' , > sea Ti ♦ 1'S`.t
v i Ywi�' V., g
\ �S nl e sva T�.
-Y+'--t- cro i. v"♦ Y\ �ay^'v1 'y-3 i'a11
v a
T; -
.t ..s:.s .,.
s �ry Y
r ae_•x. �fxl'a_ "4,4 M w 1`�n
.
iRa ✓ `
♦ rs c Y
to: .
a S )e rFtt.c>
�4♦ v :��1i S "• aY v.:t
! •-. af'iiji i ���I
nt �q/f vTC.ri.�f'ay rl
Y
a _ f � `g f � z
l i - .M art
-/.
tY✓"}_� '
[4r.
4 f a . -/ I.j
i I ' Z i'f2%
•c 5.. 1.s -�'�. _ _ a ,� _
' z f
/• M r4YW. • ru_
t, 1 .5•'S:
' >• /. •..C, a i• i
e F ' • 'i. )I 1
l 11.'f l 7 •.I fir -s---'f
> a w v - l r I �a:
-t r e ♦ f ! L
r.i ) r♦ r[F IiF ` Aei.i♦ "•.
ler � !I' j `il. 3 •[ t[ S s ten `i Pr ♦• f O c i yR. ti.. ♦.:
4 '• ♦x i• I Oiw ,_;;_'. - Y 1)• ht ♦ y
1 isc,10i1 . .. r:5• „�Z\'[ Ar rrjl rh ' �'s3.a ,;
' i 1 ;11 0. • F;_.. { ♦r-
yyi ',t J •{ jve, s. -_r`i ql " ., w. a.
' ' r .'F � /♦ f ra"G'Y iif .l ti rat i4 • p ` i ;74rr 1• F S I F ♦ i 6 Y h t f,l'I a"
1 I
r 1 r t 1 p n l .. ' r• ♦ r f 1 ..
`• I4{J: e 9 ♦ f+. rr, >.„�'Ifr ,r j F1 tr!. fi •
I t• i t I lI\ 4 l,t lei r i, {�:l: rI 1 •`. •F 1 .4I r ,
r} �1 n l 1 Y r t i ' A .1 ♦ /r• : r 1
u :ti r ? .! j rr rt 7ln(r (, tsi "•y � a
r - !1 J i1 • '�', , -i
I 1 r ' •b 11 l .ii t T YalUl -� J !).} rr, J )t 11 •'r ..
� � i I `.J i 1 �SI 1 i •rii I r.1 A J •f ,♦
rU • i ! ♦ i ' J, i'¢ rl, Y [tl Ir+T+'Y l , I r! f r A I ( r
♦♦� (:I. rV , 1[rl ylli. lr :5')�l,i�i)(r '11 tc LSl rr 1`Jy , \L'S �: .1r,w
`rrl'ril ��1 ''.1 •. fir'. 'r t •^'r}r i 1 I r J 'i
f rn
`f�1't I: £
J -
y s
r
j. i l
1'- Lr,n It.,'a.
5
R i
I r - 91 tvi • i r • I<_ .. . - it ' 1` ` 'r_ —
iJ `'Pm
4 � I n I � ' T T
/'I 'r[ S T I L r .• J
�
5'I'FI% ��� ` �♦fit a./>f..in 1'Y
t. 1 _ '/
r6 , _ g. vl .. YI/ � L
taL , n F w Y.� ^ \ f r
i•r R Nis `i V �♦.+1 T( 0 (a '_.
pKV♦u e ? { , ..
,S. • ' m ��ii T�- f .. 1..1 `' c . • : T -
jf r '!�'. II L[F.� •�r ff ti yi'• �,/,qF t •My •.TrT ""_x
r
t( n r 1 b N } •\IT �. r: r. >. t T .• w r yy✓..A I�,P�'.�I` [ a
• . • 1 -mot- ��,.•. & E
b
• (1 �lii rl`Y�H .Ii3r♦�"^L Yin v Lfi•\34 cvi.� L '.v�r
3 � y' ,i l • •)` ilvt � • n • - r• # i v w� �
lr.. >�C 1�1 n.. • . :. .�. A ..,\, F 1D4 v. f.�j$•♦.. ,
r Y♦r -.ui. • •• 1A�' F'i •.i ♦•V il i.:.e�1] r\ t r�" r • ` g. 4`
\ IaTli SS r N S
L t \n: a '. [♦ilt V ♦ T .•t ` it ii'r ./ I^r x.�' •h la T:P( lv♦ .1 [ Y .♦ is SI F 1' f A
", yxx y�.i, rt y 1 ..I (4. i'd' C♦ lT• w♦t�i r (�" 1r�1111 �\i J7�• 1-i T♦ ♦� w iil % r • '
ipv f..� •Y Jaw t L�i _ .t j' .fit �..{~ •���ie• �i. �•tr -i ��e `i.♦.+; ?L
ea` 44 1 } 4v"v. Y .I'i e+.l{ E. l�`•1{t. ^i•t,x1�j�^ {i, $r 'i`I ��..ii `,M^-1t;bl; �r+]Sr:�.� lt{1f •• Ii f a~-� • ': •F
.j1 :. i•- ♦11 / 1•{ C�tir _I rJI i``�$.j 1, ...-. •'`iM• 1 I[I• c ifv[
{ iiDv ♦1 .' 'Yvl •Vj i t• 1 L• 7 �q• c ♦� /f 'A^" S.`yy+. �. • r
•' r 1 • f ry 4 ix{ I t \w - s \ •i \ I ♦f1 N e C `?\w Yn \t a J. eti.�:� _ �4 • v • x
ai • .\ (S ( v r 4.. • '1.l 1 1, r a 1 H • 4 e' Tt�•v ♦ _ w.
e-.. v r SiaL 1 �.l ♦� Fl♦ .• `' { I �t. \S• ` .C .11♦.' f air. TT� \4 „t ♦!4. '1 •Y [ '•h
•. [' ry \. t. 1:• • r ♦ it 1 �1't011;{{. i �.� )'l[.�\ t\iv.3 �}e it`� '\: •i ••i Ic .. -t
�. • .t •'l.wY�6•'. .1 �S'f`"1 (��V4 4y l LnY i • `�- 1
f -i i•' hY,4 i�14-4tR� "f:a i 1 •'e1f r_�Y?Y�"' rt Y it[ !t I -i • r r .f-S.t• Y. ..Y Y -C _. }". 1 i+ 1, {_ a�� rNw� �Y. a\ \'"% �:' S.` T•1 'iwtl�ti\ r, of '�~ • 1�` •/' ^ \ ''° w
p..-Yy.'+ v :'♦ s -V ��a. .2♦ \ •n \.3 A e Y� v >`/e J[ �♦ L, .. • .1..
� a/ �I A4 n � f C � ! ta-. r • i i
. na`.s_—r LL.r-C-a J.vv •.t ..� �� .�...♦a� .�.=rn ):..a "L Y1(h. r. ti 4•Yv�-.,)i ^•I T41 ^. .. ! r '' S ..
r .n.. K .nor' + w �.. ..•S.h1Yt "S\ IV4. lr .'1. tiv ♦•1' fi\\.a �1, rtti . "i • ` -l-
_ 4
.r- lJ. Ji �. �. ..`r. T I \ K, r. a A• a -I
fr n I43 !
�r� t• J f •1 l� wyC •� ( V4
( F-. i}♦. �lrr♦ •J�^• Y V.� •�\` �\AI 1(F •r ♦ Y
cc ')P • • 1 1� TY1
�iY--a ✓h�.rT L...
a ` v 1 • e f1.1.µ /� l i�.'•� \ �Y i.. w• v ♦ @\ter
�r1^ wP.: •.¢.-Ct+J .�� . rw l'�..Jwr 4 ` Ir�. T [4 c.Ii 1 1v3 •, sf fyy:��5�\.
fvi . ...I )..ter ^ � '•JY4PN.C'L'x+(.f TJ♦t)qM•�-- �
�•�'a : �• Y�Tvw -� 7P �Ja�rRJ•�-iF+� LDnai _ �•" tF+'^'CJIL•
I _ Y \ i { Y-'!�-.rw � � w �Z.ra�eS�: ��.?.,.�s•fy'T'.Pz�'-w l����"" �al�
L [ • .. Jam_ _. Y�.�Y J y J �.� �_.�.. YCT. _
i. l ..I1rr4. it • ! I _
'C r J... ..
A
`•�,�i'r •� '\:Y. � IN L•• « .•
'F:nrS 3[1J f .,;,.n1.;-, "'i'• 7r I n i.
Yl•,31r1 f I�ll•r r •/BAs l�le Ys, it '/ ` 1�
YfPit T. }}. fl lr Y t i ♦'
1, Fy \i
St
'.i 7.hj-
! I a 1
Y.. ten: rr : l
t llstd '♦IJ� l r♦'.
fi
r(� �1♦ III 1Y4
/ i \ 1 � i iLC .• # r .
La 1fn/
si.t•Y•( rr a` \j 5j rr/ F
! / y
/ y ' it.. "� 'r .. rnfr•—`� ( \ 'L' Sy. '.
p j�
1 Fx �..V4i1 fig Tr VP 5
tea t: .v(� .17r`Vi�{J�
11 �tl� t�<d'\
E y(:..: •'
yr �l
lf )Vf
r, ♦
! ) bar. rya.^ y Y✓.Cr-4✓T a♦ `G�
I. t s- " 1 ..3 v �.;' ."£aC.P N1.r L6 a a L �! P N�rl v/. 1ya�,yVai;v..4 o. _ -
s ♦.sl 5} ll.Jyt ri'xi T Y• a
r a'Il .e.�p�4llal •p <1 B,.E•T e
+- • ��I,-5"b`.,"SCai1r:.T r m'Is..s•'ye e ,
♦`-s _
pis t11. T ♦ - • • / 5 ., 4 :
J 1. i.l _ "a a
• � Th 1• i J Ee{ \:J
• I •r r x .il it 1 \ I • q1. $ wYGJ I• g xy' F
Iv 1, ,I . v , f Ix( IN • i nr 11!!"11 +A .
!\ I i,f/Y/ r J1 f I 1 •el "I •rfl .vn w -afac wLtl1 f
e.J t -e f r 11 1/, t� 1 , J I t y..
r �1 •� • n -e:' I _Y y F.r c a •'� I a `. Yr �
)•1 fr •r• yrl•r-1. v I/ rll -'M1. '�'j ,1 3_
.l 1 r t lr ✓ D r ) f! I4 er '1 a I♦ ♦ a`r . i ar yd ♦ <f u i'
•{ y k it • ,i r s3 •rte i
11 r r ` 1 1 Ir l 1] / t l } • . f e. S a. x, G
Ja 1 a• Y 1 r } J )
•
Y •1 1t f 111 �I 1� I♦♦ E �1 yn •a i .+ -&_ _ r 3 n T'J ., a. 1 1 i1•.f
1 1 I n l y.- 5 ' ^ �Frfi rr��...� p 1 f �r ) l I i I l l yr ly' I �1 I l
J / /4y/ • 1 1 I /1 1 r 1ai J/! • lwllllllw ` t ` r . L.Iu:r'•r'�".•`- f + G a`
/ u1'If S •a 1; r rl �, ir i i.I:al1 a.I ��Y �:.-a
/ I�fY �ili +11ir! 1ilfl V I
IH Y' LV ( •r/ Bali rT� 1f1• 1 n li ♦r �T �tr\4 i l��l •, a� �^ I f
r tl� r'v` 1 f I'1 u .1.11 t ♦1 ! 4 aPPI 5 1( f. i..
` • 1 ��, Ida 4y \ \ `A! t D✓: ! {1 /is
A , -:� Y -- /�
[u L ✓. tAr1 _�.•-.� 1 4 4 k'_�.y!`--�. T d
La • i <♦ t'._ • S s y e / ayc•��] I:rr fE IT
� i I I • i Fi
- _ Sr •-. „t. v i a'S ' � L' $ !S` i [ /'
- f •. _ iI // .iJ1
1 (l `(< T _ ^ i K , i q s .J / S S 5.2,.,T�-• •' 1 a1 } yr i�v ( At
�.
x Yyl rt1 4e �y .}A ti/ a w r S iJ.N -aX `f _ . • \_ ♦ rf £ t �. i lrl� t i
n - \y j. - � x`yy/
+N5 i . r E -• P'✓ . f SX.a ` "E! v S kR. �k. �r _ y ...'+k f
4t
'k(.T`V.s� • /.e+ i r""r'i - Spa•. C1 9 r' -
! V Sl I � ✓
' r. t4nv� .r .L y.1" r 6 .,i .: <N'.S tf
i. IY. I 11 t 4 J /I•/r([{< a t ` S T�1� -/ y1 1 \ `Y ✓ .. •- X et 1 1- • 1'1'h'11C<•- [L• J ' - `�j s\'E_ a .? �v /(+�T /^ r _' / 5r ilG1
r f'Y r 4 ♦ a tFiu N-5, Iti f { u F r //. \'\` v t-` l" `` ,Y; ••/J
5J i• •; ••x '4o )yF �[p1 �i rx'• . ,5♦ar_ iil 1�e a C! ' r
4. Fyy ,v 34 "5-`_ I>. tEFir tr .I i -s.✓ - • ! e. l h . ei __
-• �.4 t- /I . S.y� { 'A J /
L-7#- lye ��Gt uR•!L ya. fi)a ' _♦-- (+T {1r /� 1 .F
y -1 ♦ 1zC T� a ♦ ac Y`n vr KKKd}}}JJJ .�'-
• r f �. r• Q n at ••• Y a n t i Ca- l 4i f 4 • J L a i 4 p
y 'r r i� 1•T /f 4 d N K l r S ! l F♦ if J %< .gl
, •' �ayu� a1f{'•� /ll l^ aR. -, d' a t F-i!' � --. \ � �wT /2 .f 1� r 'l:
y. is /'- • !t 'E yc-' �-fa\ {"(y. 1:' ) _ C „T ` j. • ice. F a
• fi A i � � _s' •Tys pYa 'a y ^I_ ' • { `♦t ! •`Qe- 1 _ -
ry Ji -yyY• Y A 1 • 1
S 1 1 , fi\ F r
(SC 1
r •'L'tr•�•��iil r.-P'Aj S i 1. i1M i �"' e} a+•FS'.i •,t VIYF-t
•4 ra fi ir. •j � _
nOtl a
^Yr +.-. ) •iV/ui li, i` 5 •,n 1' H airy ..�1 ''If b x ^in
v ✓e tni ,.f r{ 1.-,{[1!.-fb fp { i7 a l:M+ .a.•
-F'N52i y"l .I ♦ P wiffl JS 3 'r t[ w v 1 _,• i :p Y' i\_�•y x♦•! .r i • 1.
i�Yr 1 ) Y�.1r ii f t.r { 5 �`Ya"�+ { s>iv i ♦ f ? 3X/v''( �-'r a\
b )[-\ r l a.'1-.JrJI w, a.� aY•ly, p`h f a ♦r ,✓�-a ata•J' nk. ra \
a i0{�_r f� \ aA _{ ( ,f . l} i1f. 1•r K5�r < t 1 �� I•J'wa )r:. A. la} '[i•
1++Tr%fll Ka•♦ �! ivi a ..\
+r. •r. t' f�i 15 e4w LLip{ 1 ♦.CISv 1 :.f. . if' -tt ,1 t).:. 1.[ +w j \
•t ••J 4. & r is FI♦✓[ •5 '•- • 1 a1� i•ig �. • _ w
\(•• }/ ){t ♦rF sarl♦ �! r 5• ♦jl[Jii s-` 11 -L� r
i>ry a/ i11�.y1 tl \�M1i. 4��'"d4 x{;-i,'I V�fi{a r. y]l)a itla�`V ♦ro':• 1:eJ •a •'
1 l f/- AII 41 ria."•a r -/f/ 4i } 4 •. 1 \� ``I )) \ ! //ti� r i )•f Y! y i
y l^ T \ T P� Y { .f hV rr P3 1 l)lr'.p(�r • I1 rf ri♦ (Cr-/i V, 1 al 1 1 ♦ 1 ♦ r
4 -0im♦ �) if-w?'R PG [F <♦ <ti"fG .YL C.'ti ♦ / 'w/le ny .' ..
r • � f>✓'r 'C- • r • rt r 11 t u w'5' Y 4: fc ri ry .y �P�
5 PY S yi fP/ir I i ia-lasari •Zl�fi a�i/In t\.1 J— •Y fi r- %1 l ~_
1 1 1 _`, ♦ 9 <X `L�4 nrV 6L Ja \`{" I ��,dd'.rj��1i •r rr _ \ �•ryrS `,-�JV5\RPi*t •+ 1
bra { i. W.
al iw'rftl r' tom; i.! • aA/?r )1'\•?j^t t/r�. �5\
1, a ii ♦s♦ fNP .�. 11:y (wlr ♦uf\V r♦ •( f){a• ``S {CI [ 6'P R 'r�l stl{
≥`< ') • i {f it)` t* t; aP .l t • •i V ¢\_•� ^I r•it 9 • irk*
\
} 14 ••rPY JYG iJ �f r rt IL a1`a'J j�3 L- ♦1
/i )3 p. 4 +•• i! biL. f 1 •,.a rr•( \ f • f 1 a r ♦ 11
+/+ I i as nV • •-f i L y 111{� rvir llA'• ! t }r tr)�w •e� .L +� .-
�•.{ riV T'r; j�•k A,0. �'t(.•F J? YG {�.�i•<Jff)• 4'--\r ,I1 / fh cw !LzI .Yry / ri
']. {� • v.< r4' i1 1 {+i♦<.i li p r\ r •�ia ;. i
✓♦ v 71 -t\ts 1 ar \rv.a 11-lr�l , TfI 5I .r 1 i' •♦••\.
1} !♦^III Li�F .i lla `e'yr Y. \sfi ��w/y, :5. 5)"a. _.
< i t • f ; A. S ♦ ( 15 iti1 .. `i . 1' /. .e.. • 1 �•
�a (.S+• <Ket ./+i i�kl4 y�f- li e r !r . -
1lr) lrfla(.�[rt wq •(r/ l,f r.•yr)y r\I ,'♦ •,\joa♦} Vr •i ti•I Y xl
a irr�iJ//..'arJl/ Ya\l ii \t�i}Ya iAf♦b(i �Z f\ C��a Y5^.l ai' 5r N ♦ Z){`i i..
•al{iA-a.}{)rrq i'J\ J•IViI 111jiia K(•1 �'{.%.r l , as ) Nu`R avY/\ i', •i Lhi` Y •t _{ h% .
i•1 '�{ S Ai). i a fR CY 4-P/R• 5,.•q i a f ( .1r it n 13 aY it ♦.
0. -•
e-,3'?fib �-�['•.�`
fi`?` E,_ �
ms.st
I •':••* -i'.r
a
t.
ICJ
i,_
--\'mo°w �
-
a
.1e S x.+:�
Kam- ♦ i_ ,.
- . �e.i 6' T•CC_#
- L
1•V• e
.. -.�.` 1 4 sc
4
II ..%7
" t eta /
r//r r ! _.
1
v '� . Vie. i1�
• J•.a
f G' :I . is T -.
♦ . .�
:q
` .
£+ r ' I
1 �4 -•--
S : aI 11
\ a
♦ —:--'
a '
r 1 `i J ..•'--
. 5•� �lit•:.N's1'i::. _ • 1'.
b i I P
Y! ( %.rl/"rte r
n ♦tiR mJl4 /'f ��i:. �4.1. [)y 2 ,a 1 iYr` r Y1�r�9 ,I :� `s W' '2 I,,b i ^,,:v 1 3 ♦! r� v♦.!
Y1 J a 4Y's..fi lriissY� � In: a P'V A :iL w .J. .i • _
♦ .\: i �. l' t •S ^TI 1. R� ♦ rsi i,�4� Ce.Y .1 6w �.
tY {1.)/ }i ♦,3 ll.I (ui� 1�+1I ' 11/'i Mlasl )VL S..
.} M1 • 1l I t'Y` IYIY /_� O f' I ! T a r-,2---
r t1 -�� / r ♦
'' £h� / ll ♦ati" 1{ h/ /,si �.r Y. ( t re r/♦•. F w I
• i • •
f .' • r' t .GA .< ..rl
•. A� t'A e t• t
ey v s ` •` z .yam 1
'` .t o x.f. e i.' t
�'e''. ^` Liryry l./i+(C G 1 r y L ` }p^ {s
♦ 9W• • A i �'�':S T v� C •,'.'. t4-
-w ) ' ` `4tl.i` .•L 1 S. Y 1
� T [ J n l�
QarC-'t4�iie. ,+♦t'♦�'AI M1L� wn,n u ••' s : ] r / : "�• .S-.: ` ..�., .ak
fC: @�•��..� f9r'iy. y . + 4a YVC _ ♦f . -mf- r`
,. . F^- ; 'r `>'/'YzYktCL v x • `F:r: r rJ'. v y! -} -
a• ♦Cl ♦�' \ ` Cd ).: n w1 ll �l�•r a ' iii !�`
y i\r [�` Y.�s, vPC\ M�'•F!• S i`u'4nav �: R _v -ay
♦Y�. (� i�~4 • 4�.,• -. l `6 ) -._G} .r 7
EI } ' a r
r Aa a of Yf •f4 �+y Li4 2 ff' L F de i- •i'.
C J^/ "11111 i6 k�a. Y I! +4 J+n , - .� 1 a w. .ar .-?
; K"gi4 t.t:4 •¢':
l 1f«t !}1 �rSLV.�l i�.�M1^�to aJ♦eS a~wj iF[,aaifa M1yri q `
.j-) /1' 1 r f ' +?a y..` f L .wY'.`n . , -- _
e ♦ {,�N�e. arj 4r [il. •I2 4 �
F<" c
+ 1 -'- - ^'r ,;-'c
♦ ..` IC
i
Li
�7 V
4 �♦
,
L 1 - n ah s:
ar t`}
.111
: i
•
I
BSLIST AS OF JUNE 1, 2002 0
FOR THE WILSON SPRINGS FIELDS & FOREST
(Site of Proposed BIT Park)
■ Sp = Spring, Su = Summer, F= Fall, W = Winter.
. BOLD = Partners-Jn-Flight SPECIES OF CONCERN in Central Hardwoods region
nesting or probably nesting in the park
■ * = annual rate of decline at least 1.5 % range wide in USGS North American Breeding
Bird Survey 1966-1999
. This is a list -in -progress. Species andsa_sons will change as more data is collected. For
more information, contact Mike Mlodinow 443-2663.
Pied -billed Grebe Sp
*American Bittern Sp
Great Blue Heron Sp, Su
Green Heron Sp, Su
Black-cr: Night -heron Sp
Turkey Vulture Sp, Su, F, W
Black Vulture Sp
Canada goose Sp
Wood Duck Sp, Su, F
Gadwall Sp, F, W
American Wigeon W
Mallard Sp, Su, F, W
Blue -Winged Teal Sp, F
Northern Shoveler W
Green -Winged Teal Sp, F, W
Bald Eagle W
.Cooper's Hawk Sp, F
Red -shouldered Hawk Sp
Red -t Hawk Sp, Su, F, W
American Kestrel Sp
*Northern Bobwhite Sp,Su
Sora Sp
Killdeer Sp
Spotted Sandpiper Sp
Rock Dove Sp
Mourning Dove Sp,Su
*Black -billed Cuckoo Sp
*Yellow -b. Cuckoo Sp,Su
Great Homed Owl Sp
*Common Nighthawk Sp
Barred Owl Sp
*Chimney Swift Sp
Ruby-th. Hummingbird Sp
*Belted Kingfisher Sp,Su
Red -bellied Woodpecker Sp
Downy Woodpecker Sp,Su
*Northern Flicker Sp
*Olive -sided Flycatcher Sp
Scissor -t. Flycatcher Sp,Su
*L. Shrike (season?)
White -eyed Vireo Sp,Su
*Bell's Vireo Sp, Su
Blue -headed Vireo Sp
Warbling vireo Sp
Red -eyed Vireo Sp
Blue Jay Sp,Su
American Crow Sp,Su
Fish Crow Sp
Purple Martin Sp -
Tree Swallow Sp
No. R. -w. Swallow Sp,Su, F
Barn Swallow Sp,Su
Carolina Chickadee Sp,Su
Tufted Titmouse Sp,Su
White -breasted Nuthatch Sp
Carolina Wren Sp,Su
House Wren Sp
Sedge Wren Sp, F, W
Marsh Wren Sp, F, W
Ruby -crowned Kinglet Sp
Blue -g. Gnatcatcher Sp,Su
Eastern Bluebird Sp
Swainson's Thrush Sp
American Robin Sp
Gray Catbird Sp
Northern Mockingbird Sp,Su
*Brown Thrasher Sp
European Starling Sp
Cedar Waxwing Sp, Su
Tennessee Warbler Sp
Orange -crowned Warbler Sp
Nashville Warbler Sp
Yellow Warbler Sp
Magnolia Warbler Sp
Yellow-ru. Warbler Sp, F, W
Black-th. Green Warbler Sp
Mourning Warbler Sp
Com.Yellowthroat Sp, Sri, F
Wilson's Warbler Sp
Yellow-br. Chat Sp, Su
Summer Tanager Sp
*Eastern Towhee Sp
Chipping Sparrow Sp
Clay -colored Sparrow Sp
*Field Sparrow Sp, Su.
*Lark Sparrow Sp
Savannah Sparrow Sp
*Grasshopper Sparrow Sp
*Henslowrs Sparrow Sp, Su
Le conte'S"Sparrow Sp, W
Fox Sparrow Sp, W
Song Sparrow Sp, F, .W
Lincoln's Sparrow Sp
Swamp Sparrow Sp, F, W
White-th. Sparrow Sp, F, W
*White -crowned Sparrow Sp
Dark -eyed Junco Sp
No. Cardinal Sp, SuF, W
Rose -breasted Grosbeak Sp
Blue Grosbeak Sp,Su
Indigo Bunting.Sp, Su
*Painted Bunting Sp, Su
*Dickcissel Sp, Su
Red -Winged Blackbird Sp,Su
*East. Meadowlark Sp, Sit
*Common Grackle Sp,Su
Br. -headed Cowbird Sp,Su
*Orchard Oriole Sp
Baltimore Oriole Sp
House Finch Sp
American Goldfinch Sp,Su
httn://nw-ar.com/mudwotnnerrPubnaTk/btnaTk bird list.html 9/18/02
Bird List for Wilson Jpnngs news of roresi
*E. Wood -Pewee Sp Yellow-th. Warbler Sp
Alder Flycatcher Sp Pine. W arbler Sp
Willow Flycatcher Sp, Su Palm Warbler Sp
Least Flycatcher.Sp Bl: and-Wh. Warbler Sp,Su
Eastem.Phoebe Sp American Redstart Sp
Great Cr. Flycatcher Sp Ovenbird Sp
Eastern Kingbird Sp Northern Waterthrush Sp
Back I Home
httn://nw-ar.com/mudwomnerc/htnark/btnark bird list.html
9/18/02
• 1
•
0
WILSON SPRINGS BIOLOGICAL ISSUES
• . Biologically speaking, the 289 acres at Wilson Springs were originally a prairie with
distinctive upland and lowland characteristics. Relatively dry terrestrial habitat occupies a small
portion of the southern uplands along Moore Lane, with elevations similar to those along the 1-
540 bypass. Most of the remainder of the apparently terrestrial habitat is a seasonal wetland at the
lower elevations associated with Clabber Creek and its tributaries. This seasonal wetland has been
converted to fescue pasture, but it retains ecological indicators different than those of typical
upland terrestrial habitats.
WETLANDS
Perennial wetlands are associated with Wilson Springs, Clabber Creek, and its
tributaries. Wilson Springs supports a population of the rare Arkansas Darter (Etheostoma
cragint). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reported that this darter is in jeopardy across its
range due to decline in groundwater that replenishes spring -fed habitats. In October 1999 it was
designated a candidate species for listing.under the Endangered Species Act.
• Seasonal wetlands are associated with grassy fields that are wet during part of the year.
Perennial wetlands have certain legal protections, but seasonal wetlands have little or none; they
constitute the single most endangered habitat type in northwest Arkansas.
Both wetland types are associated with prairie habitat that was once widespread in
northwest Arkansas. The grasslands at Wilson Springs'were part of the region's original prairies.,
• These fields are marked by low "prairie mounds." These grasslands are deceptively dry during
low rainfall periods. However, the water table in the area is high; it takes only modest amounts of
rainfall to nurture shallow, seasonally wet habitat (with its associated plants and animals).
Seasonal wetlands form on clay -rich soils in the saucer -like depressions between these
• roughly conical mounds. These mounds have been greatly reduced through years of plowing, but
are still visible in the fields and in aerial photographs.
Biologically -speaking, the seasonal 'wetlands can be delineated in a number of ways. The
• following conditions have been documented in the old prairie grasslands at Wilson Springs:
a Numerous, widespread mud chimneys of the endemic Ozark Burrowing Crayfish
(Procambarus liberorum) that withstands dry periods by burrowing into the water
table just below the surface.
o Hydrophilic plants like Prairie Cordgrass (Spartina pectinatq) are present, though
much reduced because of aggressive drainage and conversion to non-native fescue
grasses. Also present are shrubs like Buttonbush (Cephalanthtis occidentalis) and
Swamp Dogwood (Corms obliqua).
a Stands of various semi -aquatic plants are common, especially Sedges (Cyperus
species) that require water and dryness during part of their annual life cycle.
a Damp prairie species like Sawtooth Sunflower (Helianthus grosseserratus) are
present and form extensive stands.
a Marshland birds —such as the small rail, Sora (Porzana carolina) and larger species
like American Bittern (Botaurus lendginosus)-are present during migration and are
included among more than 125 bird species documented by volunteers.
In summary, there is a strong positive correlation between biodiversity and presence of
water. Wilson Springs supports a high biodiversity as a result of the high water table and presence
of water on the surface much of the year.
CI
Wilson Springs also provides economically valuable ecological services by. acting like a
natural detention area to slow the return of rainwater from the adjoining impervious surfaces such
as businesses along 1-540, plus I-540 itself and associated roads. Both wetland types also serve as
purifiers of storm water runoff coming from these impervious surfaces.
Fayetteville is under mandate of the EPA Phase II storm water regulations that require the
City to undertake positive actions to improve water quality by addressing the fate of storm water.
Preserving the critical ecological values of both types of wetlands at Wilson Springs could allow
the City to obtain credit for taking positive actions to preserve both seasonal and perennial
wetlands —essentially, all of the lowlands -within the 289 acres.
PRISTINE ISSUE
Critics of preservation efforts have stated that Wilson Springs isn't pristine; that is, it has
little in common with places like the Buffalo National River that have been little altered from the
natural state. However, no one favoring preservation has made the claim that Wilson Springs is
pristine.
Support for preservation rests on unique biological assets that have survived even after
fundamental land use changes including long term farming, ditching Clabber Creek, and
converting native grasslands to fescue. Some botanical remnants of the original prairie ecosystem,
such as Big Bluestein Grass (Andropogon Gerard:) have survived and could form a core for a
future habitat restoration. A relatively large group of grassland bird species that are declining
range -wide in North America occur within the 289 acres. Notable among them is the rare
Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowi:) whose only known Arkansas nesting site is in
these seasonally wet fields. The 289 acres aren't pristine, but they are diverse.
The area isn't pristine in terms of noise levels,either because of its location along 1-540.
There is a lot of traffic noise at times, but at other times the noise level is no worse than it is in
much of Fayetteville along I-540, College Avenue, Crossover/265, etc. The noise and lack of
being pristine has not deterred joggers, walkers, golfers (on adjoining Razorback Country Club),
and birders. Nor has it discouraged occupation of private homes, churches, and small businesses
along Dean Solomon Road. It hasn't deterred Audubon Arkansas from offering to join Arkansas
Game & Fish Commission and establish a nature center on the site.
WHAT'S AT STAKE, BIOLOGICALLY -SPEAKING
As far as we know, the seasonal wetlands and associated grasslands at Wilson Springs
constitute the single largest remaining block of such habitat in the region that is under public
ownership, and can therefore be managed for public (as opposed to private) purposes.
(The approximately 300 acres acquired by Fayetteville for its proposed west wastewater
treatment plant also features prairie mounds and seasonally wet habitat. It may therefore provide
a second opportunity to protect this habitat type.)
While the number of acres is still relatively small, its situation adjacent the University of
Arkansas and within a community of citizens with a more than average interest in biology and
ecology provides an opportunity to study, preserve, restore, and last but not least, educate
students and private citizens about a biologically important heritage that deserves our support and
protection.
Prepared by biologists Joseph C. Neal (ioecneal@iuno.com) and Andrea Radwell
(aradwell@uark.edu) —Draft of August 28, 2002
Wetlands Key to a Healthy Economy
America's wetlands provide something for everyone --they
protect. our communities from flooding, filter dangerous
pollutants from our drinking.. water and. provide life -sustaining
habitat to. Irreplaceable fish and wildlife. The benefits of
wettands.are incalculable., both for oureconomy-and our
environment, yet: more than 120;00O acres of wetlands
continue to be destroyed every year. (U.S. Fist ant Wildlife
Service; Wetland Stattsand Trends Report, 1997). More
than half of the :wetlands4wthe lower 48 states that'were
present when European settlers arrived have already been
Wetlands protect Our Families From Floods
Wetlands can be the first line of defense against flooding. Justask Loulsville, Ky., .
schoolteacher Doris Wilson, who hadn't been flooded after 20 years In her home -- until last
year. The summer after a neighboring, developer destroyed a nearby wetland, her yard
flooded,even though It wasn't raining. When It.did rain, three feet of water forced her from
her home for two months.
Like sponges, wetlands•soak up rain and store excess floodwater runoff, thew slowly release
flood waters back Into streams, lakes, and groundwater.
• One acre of wetlands stores up to 1.5 million gallons -of flood. water. Those states.that.have
lost 80 percent or more of their wetlands -- Ohlo, Kentucky, California, and Missouri — have
experienced the most severe flooding over the past four years.
Wetlands Purify Water
Wetlands come in many forts --swamps, bogs, estuaries, prairie potholes -- but all dean our
water.
people living near South Carolina's Congaree Bottomland Swamp don't take that for granted.
Without the wetland, which acts as a natural iilter.removing sediment and toxic substances,
the community would have to build a. 5 -million -dollar water treatment facility.
And relying on chemicals and treatment plants, to dean our water doesn't always work. In
1995,k the largest waterborne disease outbreak In modem U. S. History sickened more than
900.000 people In Milwaukee and killed 104. Less than a year later, the same dicer killed 19
people in. Las Vegas.
One Solution? Preserve more.wetlands to shield. our drinking, water sources.
• Wetlands are Home to Fish, Shellfish, and Wildlife
btln.//www.sierraclub.rnQ/wetlandc/facbcheets/value.asn 9/9/02
Many fish and waterfowl species are born in wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Service
estimates that up to 43% of America's threatened and endangered species need wetlands for
their survival. For many animals, such as the wood duck, alligator, and heron, wetlands are •
primary habitat for part of the year.
The destruction of wetlands threatens the viability of America's $45 billion commercial fishing
Industry. The National Marine Fisheries Service scientists estimate that nearly 70% of the
annual commercial fish catch depends upon Inshore -wetland habitats.
Wetlands Provide a Wealth of Recreational Opportunities
According to the EPA, poor water quality threatens America's $380 billion
recreational/tourism Industry. Beaches, lakes; and rivers are the most popular destinations.
Americans count on wetlands for many other popular activities such as fishing, hunting,
hiking, boating, birdwatching, and. wildlife viewing_ A.1995 study by the..EPA shows that 50
million people spend $10 billion each year observing and photographing wetlands -dependent
bUds..And. roughly 3 milion waterfowl over$600.migbn•annually In pursuit of
wetlands -dependent birds.
Wetlands are Worth More Protected than Destroyed
Currently, our laws offer limited protection for wetlands under the Clean Water Act. We must
strengthen wetlands protections to safeguard these precious places, •
Photo courtesy Join and Karen Hollngsworth, USFWS
bttn://www.cierraclub.are/wetlanda/factaheeta/valu&am, 9/9/02
I
C�
. . . . - . I
- ..: �. . ec •ti .-
of I. I. • . • • n i I • I J • . .- • I • I 'J.
•p •q I •a• • • • •- • . .s
u-
Wetlands help prevent flooding.
Although the true value of wetlands. cannot be. put lath a dollar figure, Americans should be
aware of the societal and economic benefits of wetlands. Wetlands are crucial for clean water,
servingas a natural filter absorbing water -borne pollutants and damaging nutrients before
the water enters our rivers, takes, and streams. Clean water is Important to Americans. For
example,'when choosing a.place to live, Money Magazine readers ranked "Clean Water+'as
the top concern In .all but. one year.since 1990. Wetlands.also. protectus.fmmfioodingeACILAs
nurseries for fish, shellfish, provide homes for wildlife, and create recreational opportunities
for allof us.
Wetlands protect our families and our property from flooding
• Wetlands act like sponges, soaking up rain and storing floodwater runoff. Wetlands
• slowly release flood waters back into streams, lakes, and groundwater; making
• flooding impacts less damaging. One acre of wetlands can store more than 360,000
gallons of water if flooded to a. depth of one. foot. States that have lost 80% or more of
thetr'wetlands, (Ohio, Kentucky, California, and Missouri, for example), have
experienced the worst flooding -lathe last four years.
Wetlands save billions of dollars In property damage by absorbing flood waters and
serving as buffers during coastal stomis_.The. National. Weather Service estimates
annual flooding costs are up to $3.1 billion per year. Flood damage has tripled In
constant dollars since- 1950.
• Destroying wetlands and converting the land to agriculture Increases water runoff from
fields by 200 to 400 percent. Conversion to roads and pavement Increases runoff even
more (Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team, 1994). Wetlands removapolutants
from runoff and keep clean waters dean.
• Studies have shown that natural wetlands filter out pollution and remove sediment
from surface water.
Wetlands act as nurseries for fish, shellfish, and provide homes for wildlife
• Most fish and waterfowl species are born In wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service estimates that up to 43% of the threatened and endangered species need
wetlands for their survival. For many other animals, such as the wood duck, alligator,
• and heron, wetlands are primary habitats. For others, (more than half of the nation's
migratory birds), wetlands provide Important seasonal habitats where food, water, and
cover are plentiful (Academy of Natural Sciences).
htbn://www.s ierraclub.ors/wetlandn/factaheetc/nmtect.alat • 9/9/02
L�
• Fishing Is big business In this country. The destruction of wetlands threatens the
viability of the $45 billion commercial fishing industry. The National Marine Fisheries
Service scientists estimate. that nearly 70% of the annual commercial fish catch
depends upon Inshore -wetland habitats.
• Nowhere in the nation is the link between wetland habitatand fish production more
obvious than in the Gulf of Mexico, where National Marine Fisheries Service scientists
estimate that 98% of the harvest comes from. inshore, wetlands -dependent fish and
shellfish. Gulf shrimp head the list of the region's wetland dependent species according
to the EPA.
• Nearly one. out of every three shellfish beds were closed or restricted during 1994
(EPA, 1996) due to pollution and habitat destruction.
Wetlands create recreational opportunities for wildlife watching, fishing, canoeing,
and hunting
• Wetlands are nature's efficient pollution fighters, helping keep our waters dean.
Because of their position between water and land, wetlands provide a buffer zone that
Intercepts polluted runoff before it contaminates lakes, rivers, and coastal waters.
• Poor water quality threatens the $380 billion recreational/tourism industry, whose
most popular destinations are beaches, lakes, and rivers (EPA, 1996). In 1995, coastal
and Great Lakes beaches were closed or had advisories posted warning against
swimming on more than 3,522 occasions (NRDC, 1996). [Wetlands for clean Water,
3].
• Wetlandsarecritically important to maintaining healthy fisheries. Fishing has always •
been a favorite outdoor recreational pastime for Americans. Over 49 million Americans
spend $24 billion a year on sportfishing, for striped bass, flounder, trout and other
species.,
• Wetlands -provide opportunities. for popular activities such as hiking, fishing, and
boating. For example,. an estimated 50 million people spend approximately $10 billion
e yftar observing and photographing wetlands -dependent birds (EPA, 1995).
., .. •"bucks and other birds that depend on clean water and wetlands also generate
economic activity for the'recreation.and tourism industry. Roughly -3 million waterfowl
hunters spend over $600 million annually In pursuit of wetlands -dependent birds (EPA,
1995)•
Currently,.congress offers limited protection.for.wetlands under. the Clean Water Act.
However, a 1997 survey by. the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports:that•roughly 3,30,-000
acres of wetlands are being destroyed annually. Thus, it is clear that..Congress must'
strengthen clean water and wetlands protection programs in order to preserve and protect
our•vaiva6le remaining wetlands.
C1
httn://www.cierraclub.nra/wettandsthctckeetc/nratecta.qn . 9/9/02
•
• Supreme Court Removes Wetlands Protections
•On January 9, 2001 the United States Supreme Court dealt a heavy blow to the nation's
• wetlands protection program with its decision In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County
(SWANCC).v..U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Court ruled that the Army Corps had
improperly denied the waste authorities' proposal to build a landfill in a system of ponds that
provided habitat for migrating birds. The Court held that the Corps lacks authority to assert
.jurisdiction over isolated waters based on their. use by migratory birds. In addition, the Court
held that Congress had not Intended. the Corps' Clean Water Act authority to apply to the
breadth of Isolated waters as defined In the Corps' regulations.
The Sierra Club strongly disagrees with the Court's decision, and concurs with Justice
Stevens' view that the majority of Justices Ignored both legal precedent and the Intentot
Congress to provide protection of all Isolated wetlands. As a result of the ruling, the northern
Illinois solid waste authoritles.a nd.their supporters to the litigation -- the National Association
of Homebuilders, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the Defenders of Property Rights,
and the Pacific Legal Foundation - have managed to sabotage the nation's wetlands
protections by severely undermining the federal governments ability to protect valuable
prairie potholes, vernal pools, swamps and bogs from being turned Into waste pits and
parking lots.
Not only does this decision seriously compromise the protection of migratory bird, habitat,. but
it handicaps local efforts to safeguard wetlands In order to restore water quality, prevent
fboding.and protect other critical habitat. The ruling.couid also compromise other federal
water quality programs. The ruling certainly will place a new burden on the states, which- rely
to varying degrees on federal wetlands protections to help purify waterquality, retain
floodwaters and provide habitat protection functions that benefit their citizens. Developers
wilt be arguing that much as 50%.of our nation's valuable wetlands can now be destroyed
without even getting a permit. The full impact on the ground will vary widely from state to
•state and wilt largiey be determined by future court, cases, but some early estimates of the
Impact in the state of Wisconsin range as high as 80% of their wetlands are no longer
protected. '
EPA and Army Corps Interpretation
The Sierra Club concurs with the legal interpretation that the EPA and the Army Corps Issued,
on January 22, 2001. We believe that their conclusions as to which "waters of the United
States' remain subject to the permitting requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
is soundly reasone4. In summary, the agencieshave-fbund.that all navigable andinterstate
waters, all tribufar)es of those waters, all Impoundments that are not isolated, and all
wetlands adjacent to those waters, remain protected under the Ad:. Other waters which may
no longer be protected Include: Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (Including Intermittent
streams), mudflats, saadflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows,. playalakes,
or natural ponds.
The agencies have determined, however, that only those isolated waters listed above that
only ailed Interstate commerce by virtue of.their-use as habitat by migratory birds are -
certainly no longer considered.'waters of.the United -States'. Theagencles left room.for case -
by -case determination that isolated wetlands continue to be protected if their use,
degradation, or destruction could affect other 'waters of the United States' or if they support
other activities that have an interstate commerce connection, including recreation, fishing
and Industrial use.
Now What?
The Sierra Club Is promoting both immediate and longer -term steps to confront the new
• challenges created by the SWANCC decision.
hftn://www.seITaCh1b.0TQ/hth1Q0l .aa 9/9/02
Short-term damage control
• Section 404 program: The Sierra.. Club urges full application of CWA protections to •
wetlands provided under the EPA and Army Corps' legal interpretation. We encourage
our members to communicate with the.Army Corps Districts to develop and apply
guidance fully consistent with the interpretation, and to ensure that case.by-case
discretion is property applied.
• Existing state programs that protect isolated wetlands: The Sierra Club is supporting
states' efforts to shoulder the full regulatory burden to protect Isolated wetlands.
Members of Congress should be urged to providenew funding to enable the.states fo
handle these new responsibilities.
• We are encouraging state legislators to adopt new wetlands protection programs where
they are currently lacking, and to seek federal funding to support the development of
those programs.
Long-term solutions
The Sierra Club strongly believes that Congress can no longer ignore the need for
comprehensive Clean Water Act protection of wetlands. Even before the SWANCC decision
curtailed the Section 404 program, we have urged Congress to clarify That Clean Water Act
protections of wetlands should apply to all activities that would damage.or degrade all .
wetlands. Now, more than ever, it is necessary for Congress to act to make clear that the
nation Is.committed.to comprehensive wetlands protection.
Some have hailed the recently released U.S. Fish and Wlldllfe.Service figures showing a
decline. over the 1986 to 1997 period..to an.average_annual loss of only about 60,000 acres.
The Sierra Club does not see that number as cause for celebration, when President George
Bush Senior committed, over 10 years ago, to halting the net loss of wetlands and achieving
net restoration! -
•
httn:/lwww:cievnclukom/vetlandslnewclan4 01.arn ... 9/9102
• PV
�i.
American Bird Conservany. `s_' -
8816 Mariehester, suite 135,• ?tom
Brentwood, Missouri 63144
jRtzgemldtBobcbIrds.arg
JAF coordinates blionse
d ervatian p
adrvrhes is th Genial Hardwoods g( r...`>s,,:.;
and wake witth teehnical staff across Ilie'i `'.'`
region to strengthen the biological foundo-
Lion upon which good conservation eRDrts P •=
are based. She served as the MidwesYa
Partners in Flight Coordinator for Ave ''ye`ois. 7,.;
$North American Bird Conservation Initiative
Coordinator:' . . ;
Division of Bird Habitat Coraervalla 't T:....
USFWS . .
4401 N. Fairfax Dr.
krlington, Virginia 22203 "Wildlife Biologist
Robenf_Ford@hys.gov • USDA Forest Service, Ouachita National
IPF is a Wildlife Biologist for the Division of Forest
lird Habitat Conservation with the US Fish • P.O. Box 2255
rndSMldliM Service in Arlington Virginia Waldron, Arkansas 72958
I Is primarily as staff for the North jnealGfs.fed.us
can Bird Conservation Initiative .. JCN is an Arkansas native, coauthor of
4ABCI) and provides technical assistance to Arkansas Birds (University of Arkansas Press,
rint Vensures and for the North American 1986), and a wildlife biologist for the USDA
letlands Conservation Ad.Forest Service, Ouachita National Forest.
ervation
A�w
regions
al Hardwoods
:eph C. Neal**
MISSL`UW
KANNL
a
V.
Of
84�v�(vrt»,a
Xe/CIL
The Central Hardwoods Bird
Conservation Region (BCR)
contains over 15 percent of
the world's Eastern Wood -Pewees,
Acadian Flycatchers, Blue -gray
Gnatcatchers, Blue -winged
Warblers, Yellow -throated Warblers,
Prairie Warblers. Louisiana
Waterthrushes, and Summer
Tanagers: approximately 20 percent
of the world's population of Worm -
eating Warblers and Field Sparrows:
28 percent of Kentucky Warblers;
and a whopping 35 percent of the
U
U
global population of Whip -poor -
wills. Many species reach their
breeding -range center of abundance
in the Central Hardwoods. This BC
straddles the Mississippi River
about midway between the
Canadian border and the Gulf of
Mexico, where it marks a transition
zone between the grasslands of the
Midwest and the forests of the
Southeast. Prairies, shrub -prairies,
glades, barrens, savannas, wetlands,
and forest occur here. Historically,
the varied habitats supported an
avifauna that included Greater
Prairie -Chickens and Carolina
Parakeets. Today, species like
Henslow's Sparrow, Prairie Warbler,
and Cerulean Warbler are regular,
albeit uncommon, breeding birds.
Furthermore, important habitat for
migratory shorebirds, waterfowl,
and other wetland -associated
species can be found in habitats
related to the Mississippi, Missouri,
Tennessee, and Ohio River systems.
Ecology
Two ecologically similar physio-
graphic areas comprise this BCR:
the Ozark Highlands:to the west of
the Mississippi River and the
Interior Low Plateaus'to the east. A
shallow sea covered this BCR during.
the Paleozoic Era, but a series of
uplifts and subsequent erosion have,
over time, produced a topography
that is gently rolling in some places
and mountainous in others.
• Grasslands, oak -hickory, and oak -
hickory -pine forests slowly devel-
oped after the retreat of the last ice
age, roughly 8,000 to 10,000 years
ago. The composition of native
plant communities was largely the
product of soils and bedrock, topog-
raphy, and exposure to sun and
wind in hilly and mountainous
areas. Prairies, pine savannas;
• glades, and barrens (grassy areas
with shrubs and scattered small
• trees) typically occurred on less
steep terrain and on drier, west- and
• southwest -facing slopes where a
lack of moisture limited tree
growth. Fires of both human and
natural origin were a somewhat
common occurrence in the BCR.
Variations in both frequency and
intensity of fires, and differences in
the time of year when forests
burned, greatly impacted the struc-
ture of the vegetation across large
landscapes, and influenced the bird
communities accordingly.
Upland -forest types vary according
to aspect and topography; oak -hicko-
ry forests and savannas cover drier
uplands, Shortleaf Pine is found on
more xeric sites with thin and sandy
soils, and beech -maple -magnolia
forests persist in the more mesic
ravines of Arkansas' Boston
Mountains. The largest expanses of
upland forest in the mid-continent
are found in the Central Hardwoods
and host several forest, species of
conservation concern, such as
Cerulean and Worm -eating Warblers.
The large floodplains of the
Mississippi.. Ohio, Missouri, and
Tennessee Rivers support a variety
of wetland communities that
include wet meadows, shrub
swamp, and bottomland hardwood
forests. Although these habitats
EI
have been significantly reduced
since European settlement, these
floodplains still provide important
habitat for breeding and migratory
shorebirds, waders, and waterfowl.
The region's smaller rivers often are
partly spring -fed, typically have
steeper gradients than the region's
major rivers, and are characterized
by strings of riffles and pools with
rocky substrates. Water levels can
rise and fail rapidly, with the rush-
ing water scouring out vegetation in
their relatively narrow floodplains.
Habitat for early -successional forest
birds like Yellow -breasted .Chat and•
White -eyed Vireo is created as a
result. Cane thickets were once a
common component of the stream -
side vegetation, and where they are
still extant on the Ozark side of the
BCR, they continue to provide habi-
tat for the now rare Swainson's
Warbler.
Conservation Issues
and Actions
By the early 1900s, virtually all of
the original forest in the Central
Hardwoods had been logged.
Although much of the forest eventu-
ally regenerated and most of the
species of trees and understory
plants are the same as those found
here decades ago, the structure of
the forests has changed. Many sites
have experienced repeated harvest,
and marketable tree species have
been removed without planned
regeneration. Fire suppression has
resulted in a loss of savanna and •
open woodland habitats, and it is
implicated in problems with oak
CENTRAL HARDWOODS BCR
155
Speciesqpf Concern 4;
In the early 1990s, Partners in Flight (PIF) began Swainson's Warbler***
to develop a species -assessment process that Prairie Warbler*
ranks each species of North American breeding Wood Thrush**
and wintering birds based upon seven measures 'Bell's Vireo
of their "vulnerability" to extinction. The process Keny!
assumes that species with relatively small global .).ouisiana"
populations, small breeding and non -breeding 'Whip -pool
ranges, serious threats to their habitat in breeding field S • an
or non -breeding areas, and declining populations Yellow=thri
are more susceptible than relatively abundant \.A Acadian Fl
species whose populations are more widespread American t
and whose habitat -needs are less demanding. See'' . Brown-hea
<wwwpartnersirt i ht.o for more information.
regarding the species -assessment proms
. '
The species -assessment process has helped to'" .�
identify species of conservation concern for each
Cu
dcock** I
Nuthatch* (extirpated) Be//'f 1/a
P
rothonotary Warbler** F
White -e edViieo
Y ow-breaste ha
' -j
BCR and PIF planning unit in North America.;' Tier 11
Species are then divided into tiers: Tier I species Brown:j
are those that rank relatively high in terms oft , Chimne
their vulnerability and can be found in a BCR or _ „Easton
other planning unit in manageable numbers;, er.. .:Grass`ho
'II species are those of moderate concern, with 1. INoither
subset IIA including those that have population T4�llgw_'t,
centers of.abundance in the BCR and whpge.poa 4 Blue,"
ulation trends have declined or not been ade-, Easteth
quately measured; IIB denotes species j'th larg4WGr4#C3_
percentages of their populations breed' g,.itt'the 1Be1' It
BCR; and IIC includes species not meett,g the East ..
criteria for the other tier designations, burv+ith
threats to their populations or habitats` erg.
In addition to regional lists, the spede3 assess—^ h
merit ranks also have been used to develop.a*;
national WatchList of North American buds of * '
global conservation concern. Several Watchlist Chuck -v
species are among the species of conservation. Yellow -ti
concern in the Central Hardwoods region. Those Summer
That rank as species of extremely high priority on
the Watchlist are indicated with ***; those of Tier IIC species: . 4
modeately high priority with **; and those of Bewickts Wren (note: if sub -populations were
moderate priority with *. 4 n assessed in the same manner as full species,
Tier I species: ,
Greater Prairie- Chicken*** (extirpated)
Red -cockaded Woodpecker*** (extirpated)
Swallow-tailed Kite*** (extirpated)
Cerulean Warbler*'*
Worm -eating Warbler"*
Bachman§ Sparrow***
Blue -winged Warbler*
Henslow's Sparrow"**
the eastern subspecies of Bewick§ Wren would
classify under.Tier I for the Central Hardwoods
and would rank as extremely high priority on
the national Watchligt.)
Dickrdssel
Painted Bunting
Sedge Wren
Upland Sandpiper
Bobolink
PHOTO BY CLAYTON FERRELL• USFWS.
C
bird conservation: regions
•
Greater Prairie -Chicken, a species
once common in the northwestern
subregions of the Ozarks and
Interior Low Plateaus, has long
since vanished, and species like
Prairie Warbler, Field Sparrow, and
Northern Bobwhite have experi-
enced steep and significant declines.
Fairly large expanses of glade -
savanna -forest mosaics still persist
in the White River region of south-
western Missouri and northwestern
Arkansas, but the region is urbaniz-
ing rapidly (a result, for example, of
the growth in popularity of
Branson; Missouri, as a tourist and
retirement destination). This is the
only region of the BCR consistently
inhabited by Greater Roadrunner
and Painted Bunting. '
The large rivers that pass through
the Central Hardwoods'BCR (i.e.,
the Missouri, Mississippi, Ohio, and
Tennessee) have all been impound -
Prairie Warblers, which depend on glades, barrens, and other disturbance -dependent
habitats, have declined significantly across the BCR. This photo is From the Cheatham
County Wildlife Management Area in Tennessee in May 1993.
ed, and the diverse wetlands of their
bottomlands are inundated or
altered as a result. However, several
projects that have enhanced and,
restored existing wetland habitats
have been enacted by local conser-
vation partnerships, many of which
arose under the auspices of the
North American Waterfowl
Management Plan. Managed wet-
lands, where water levels can be
manipulated mechanically, now play
an important role in the provision
of sufficient habitat for migrating
shorebirds and waterfowl.
Increasingly, land managers are.
recognizing the need to coordinate
flooding and drawdowns with the
migration chronology of the wet-.
land birds dependent upon them.
Organized efforts to promote
awareness of bird conservation
issues and to gamer support for
conservation effort's are now under-
way. Specific sites or geographic
areas within the BCR that harbor
large concentrations of wetland
birds or relatively large populations
of birds of national or global con-
servation concern have now, been
identified by American Bird
Conservancy through the Important
Bird Areas (IBA) program. It is
hoped that local constituencies of
birders will adopt these sites and
speak up for their protection.
Personnel from both national and
state Audubon offices also are work-
ing to promote the IBA program and
foster this pride -of -ownership
approach to conservation. More on
the IBA program can be found at
both organizations' web sites;
avu•w.abcbirds.org> and
<www atidubon.org>.
BCR-wide, the bird conservation
community is becoming more
focused and coordinated than ever
hcfore. A Steering Committee corn -
prised of representatives from feder-
al and state land -managing agencies
Gc ^ Aft•l ..i./Y; 1 L.ra
r • Y
< • :k �.
A•4^•Fa."^'--T�.�711ti'a L.. t�'i.l. K'aY^0. m%.i `,c. - •'^.. .
a: +. ^! w. w �..�.'.'•al'.=" va `' motif \ .• � l
�NJFsT•..-�e's t s" , . � •�J-a 1 r•a �,;,. • ' A : s4 �"
'..LY�°'y�—wf ,
i_. L�C•l; wj•!`l.i �_.�•�YT� •n •� ''Y ..L-.•-a-� /�•�n:
✓. n{ F :YJ•S'v,}l Il • ••.. •1- a •
\ vii. !/.l\ Y •.':vk\ w Y r - w. ♦ I{. - • l'
.-�"�R�.T6t1�.•4• � ��//l ( /lam I
a a� P%ptFre .f r3f• ,.4 .�� . , Ft _ tf`.
•FiY� Za.�Y �� •,�e//♦• rf•Cf. �1 �R, ,.'J ,i � �•. I a a�
. r. `, i'• Y �b�L"'�•"r`r4Ya^ �L,!'v .r � Y \V�� n L �. •
a=• r D > �
•4i�ai4 /F'/ Ra�^1 r.JYsy `� I`k • •l ••[.. � 1 fi i, Y
•..I •-
'-'.... yw� .ir .vany f1 ��a�al s.'-'
Y i•vC� �. yl =• K 1` ,}I
aYO t. a l'Li -
y 111 � ftM •R33Y.--
..ice _F J •.^ a .. jt/•/Z/Z+ •
y' .L' .K_.�`'�L� _ �� .k• YF ejYS _ice �ILC `_`.�e' , ��.a
• wry. _ _ f
4 • 4/ Cr♦ ♦ i
'L!w+['(i r vj i r•
• : : va n
.
Sn Yn r♦ 1 c♦ 1j
I t
[
..
ww :
•
y
• -
it
-s A
Y•.-
f
v
v
}\=Ptie?!4".- sn:v.!\i.a.. ^. •.:'
.-
ii
. ,: L' IA:,'.
14.
]FLnslow's Sparrow (Amnuxlranws
uslutvil) is receiving increased
utiny despite its unobtrusive
plumage and modest song. Recent popu-
lation declines and significant ongoing
changes in distribution have called spe-
cial attention to this species, while grass-
land birds as a group have entered the
collective conservation consciousness.
This sparrow was discovered in
Kentucky by John James Audubon in
1820, and was later named for '
Cambridge University botany professor
Reverend John Stevens Henslow. But
even 164 years after its discovery the
"whys and wherefores of population
fluctuation, or perhaps more accurately
the long-term gradual but consistent
population decline in the Henslows
Sparrow throughout its range, are very
poorly understood, and the species
.remains somewhat of an enigma'
(Knapton 1984). Today. another 18 years
have passed and much more is known
about both the breeding and wintering
biology of the species, but questions
remain as to its overall population trend
and the meaning of observed distribu-
tion changes.
One of the Ammodramus group of
seven sparrows distinguished by large
heads, short tails, and generally drab but
,intricately -patterned plumages, the
Henslowl; Sparrow has much in com-
mon with its congeners Grasshopper.
Bairdk, and Le Conte?; Sparrows. A
*George M. Sutton Avian Research
Center
P.O. Box 2007
Bartlesville, OK 74005-2007
dreinking@ou.edu
DLR has been conducting bonding and
inventory projects and research on grass-
land birds. He is the coordinator of the
Oklahoma Breeding Bird Atlas, serves on
the Oklahoma Bird Records Committee,
and is the president•elect of the
Oklahoma Ornithological Society.
Sort, spiky tail, upperparts streaked
with browns and rufous, a bully wash
and dark streaking on the breast, and a
large, flat head are all characteristics
shared to some extent by these species.
Henslowrs Sparrows show more rufous
on the upperparts and wings than the
other species and have an olive-green
head and nape. The song of this sparrow
is at once easy to miss and yet easy to
hear after it is learned because of the
persistence with which it is given. A dry,
insect-like, two -syllable is -UK is repeat-
edly broadcast from the tops of tail
grasses or forbs throughout the day and
even during the nighttime hours of the
breeding season, when most other
species are rather quiet (Walk et aL
2000).
Taxonomy and Distribution
Three subspecies of. Henslow Sparrow
have been proposed. The nominate
form, sometimes called the western
Henslow § Sparrow was recorded as
breeding from eastern South Dakota
through the upper Midwest and south
through central Kansas, central
Missouri, northern Kentucky and north
eastern Texas (American Ornithologists'1
Union 1957). The eastern form, A. It.
susurrans, was said to breed from central
New York south to North Carolina
(American Ornithologists' Union 1957).
Bull (1974) did not consider this eastern
form as separate from the nominate
form; regardless, it exists only in small
numbers (Rosenbutg and Wells 1995,
Wells and Rosenberg 1999). A third pro-
posed subspecies, A h. houstonensis, was
later described from a small population
in Houston, Texas, but has been rejected
as a separate subspecies and is now
extirpated (Arnold 1983, Pruitt 1996).
Students of the Henslow k Sparrow
have long commented on their uncer-
tainty of its distribution. A. Sidney Hyde
(1939) wrote, "Its susceptibility to alter-
ations in the environment, its apparently
innate tendency toward irregularity in
occurrence, and its great seclusiveness
•bine to make impossible the full
interpretation of the historical record.
Hyde goes on to note that the first
authenticated breeding records in the
Northeast and Midwest. generally
occurred earliest in states with extensive
coastal marshes and prairies, and
occurred later in states that were at one
time almost entirely forested. Clearing of
these extensive forests created habitat
for Henslowb.. Sparrows In the nine-
teenth century. Broad patterns of habitat
change undoubtedly continue to influ- .
ence Henslow § Sparrow distribution
The map on page i't* snows tree
approximate current distribution of
Henslow >; Sparrow The northwestern
and eastern portions of the breeding.
range have contracted in recent years
(American Ondthologfsts' Union 1998).
No recent evidence of nesting in South
Dakota exists (South Dakota
Ornithologists' Union 1991, Peterson
1995), and nesting reports from
Minnesota have become scarce in recent
years (Hanson 1994). Hensoowk
Sparrow is extirpated from much of New
England (Smith 1992, Pruitt 1996).
Other states within its historic breeding
range also have shown declines in distri
button and population (e.g., Illinois; see
Population Trends).
mn r=Re of
•Usually shy and hard to see, a Henslow's Sparrow is much more visible with its head thrown back, proclaiming its territory with an
insect.like song. This bird was at the Taberville Prairie Wildlife Area In southwestern Missouri in June 1996.
•
A CLOSER LOOK: HENSLOW'S SPARROW 147
0
� winter runga
fl
This map for Henslow's Sparrow includes breeding and wintering ranges; as well as
areas where the species has been extirpated. From data taken from the Breeding Sir
Survey (1966.1999), Henslow's Sparrow is extirpated from much of New England a
is apparently declining in much of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Yoi
Populations, however, may be increasing in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, Kans
and Oklahoma (Sauer et al. 2000).
Oklahoma during the 1990s. Recent
breeding season reports from southeast -
em Nebraska have pushed westward the
known breeding range of this species
(Grzybowski 1998, 1999).
HenslowSparrows winter primarily
in coastal states from South Carolina to
Texas. Winier distribution of the spar-
row has been less well studied than
breeding -season distribution, but recent
.(forts have provided insights. Banding
returns in Alabama indicate that individ-
ials are site -faithful within a winter sea-
• son, but that they may not return to th
same area in subsequent winters
• (Plentovich et al. 1998). Numbers of
Henslow§ Sparrows wintering in South
Carolina have declined substantially
since the period 70 to.115 years ago
(McNair and Post 2000), perhaps paral-
leling the decline of breeding.popule-
tions in the Northeast that may have
wintered in South Carolina. Even within
the known breeding and wintering range
of Henslow'; Sparrow, distribution may
be localized and fluid from one year to
the next because of this species' particu-
lar habitat requirements.
HEgg
nd Mona emRenslows
is titatof the
Sparrow has been described as weedy or
grassy fields and meadows (Hyde 1939).
Numerous studies have called attention
to several important habitat characteris-
tics. including tall, dense grass, a well-
developed litter layer, standing dead veg-
etation, and relatively little woody vege-
tauon (Wiens 1969, Robins 1971,
Zimmerman 1988, Herkert 1994 and
1998, Herkert and Glass 1999, Winter et
al. 2000. Reinking et al. 2000). This
favored vegetation -structure usually
results from two or more years of idle
management after a disturbance such as
fire or grazing. Relatively large areas of
suitable habitat also are needed for an
area to be occupied, a phenomenon
known as area sensitivity (Herkert 1994,
Winter and Faaborg 1999).
Although Henslowls Sparrows may
occasionally be found in small habitat
patches, the minimum size of an area
needed to consistently support
Henslowl; Sparrows has been variously
tenoned to be_ fmm 7� 140 to more
than 2-50 a andmay vary with the
make-up of the surrounding landscape.
In western portions of the HenslovA
Sparrow range, such as the Flint Hills of
Kansas and northeastern Oklahoma,
extensive native grasslands remain
unplowed. In such areas, it is possible
that smaller patches of suitable habitat
may be occupied because the area sur-
rounding the patch is still grassland;
even if it is not of the minimum height
and density needed to support nesting
Henslowk Sparrows. In isolated prairies
such as those found in Illinois, where
the surrounding landscape consists of
unsuitable habitat such as agricultural
fields planted in cam or soybeans, larger
Lsatches of suitable habitat `r1 ≤T or an c ) may be ncc c
area fibionsistcntly occupied
(Hcrkcn 1998). Several studies have
noted greater Henslow's Sparrow density
[1
•
.
•.•-
:. 1 ..
..
.. :'
I
,..
';..
•
I.;:.r:.•
.I -
.I
. .i
4
..
1• i
I
i.
•.a
- 1..
•
,�,� O�L'f- fffrrp�,trsfa>Cy f�, IG{r�iG
A Henslow's Sparrow nest islusuolly situated by the base of a thick clump of gross.
Three to five eggs are incubated by the female for about 11 days. After hatching,
young are tended by both adults for nine to 10 days until fledging. These Henslow's
Sparrows, nearly ready to fledge at the Tallgrass Prairie Preserve; in Oklahoma, were
being monitored and banded by researchers.
studies, respectively.
Evidence of active nests during the
period of May through early August sug-
gests the likelihood of double brooding,
but studies of marked individuals are
needed to confirm this probability. Nest
parasitism of Henslowls Sparrows by
Brown -headed Cowbirds has been noted
in a handful of cases (Friedmann 1963,
Friedmann and Kiff 1985), but occurred
in fewer than 10 percent of 22 nests
monitored in Oklahoma (Reinking et al.
2000) and in five percent of 59 nests
monitored in Missouri (Winter 1999).
Population Trends
The specific habitat requirements of
Henslows, Sparrows, together with the
dynamic nature of their preferred habi-
tat, results in highly localized and vari-
able distribution of this species from
year to year..Population estimation and
systematic monitoring of Henslowrs .
Sparrows on a regional or range -wide .
scale is therefore problematic. Most
available data come from the Nonh
American Breeding Bird Survey
(Peterjohn 1994), an annual, continent -
wide effort to survey about 3,500 road-
side mutes for birds during the breeding
season. As mentioned above, dramatic
changes took place in the habitat of east-
ern North America during the nine-
teenth century, probably increasing the
Henslow's Sparrow population. By the
time the Breeding Bird Survey began in
1966, populations had fallen well below
this historic high, due once again to .
large-scale changes in habitat during the.
twentieth century (Pruitt 1996). Since
1966, the localized nature of Henslow�
Sparrow populations and the resulting
small number of survey routes which
contain this species have made accurate
population -trend estimation difficult.
During the period 1966 through 1999,
Breeding Bird Survey data for Henslow>;
Sparrows have shown an average annual
decline of about eight percent per year
survey -wide (Sauer et al. 2000).
Henslow's Sparrow is extirpated from
much of New England, and is apparent-
ly declining in much of Wisconsin,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New
mow§ Sparrow been relatively
well studied in Illinois, where habitat
changes have clearly affected its popula-
tion. During the eighteenth century,
Henslowa Sparrow was considered
abundant in Illinois (Herkert 1991,
1994). As recently as the 1950s, it was
considered common in northeastern
Illinois (Ford 1956).. Surveys conducted
between 1957 and 1979 suggested a 94
percent decline in the Illinois Henslow�s
Sparrow population (Herkert 1994).
Grassland habitat in Illinois declined 65
percent to 75 percent during this same
time -period. Results from the Illinois
Spring Bird Count (a standardized annu-
al survey in each of Illinois' counties)
show a 78 percent decline in the
Henslowa Sparrow population from
1975-1995 (Herken 1997). Henslow's
Sparrows now occur locally and some-
what sporadically in Illinois, and gener-
ally only in grasslands larger than 250
acres, even though apparently suitable.
habitat is present in smaller grasslands
(Herkert 1994). Some recent increases
in the Illinois population appear to be
the result of land being enrolled in the
Conservation Reserve Program (Herkert
1997).
Farther west, Henslow's Sparrow pop-
ulations appear to be stable or increas-
ing in Kansas and Oklahoma.
Substantial populations exist in Kansas
on Konza Prairie Research Natural Area
and on Fort Riley Military Reservation,
both near Manhattan (Pruitt 1996). The
Nature Conservancy's Tallgrass Prairie
Preserve near Pawhuska is home to the
largest and most stable population in
Oklahoma. Although the Henslow';
Sparrow population here may be only
recently established, as was the preserve
(in 1989), habitat management in this
37,000 -acre conservation area favors
Hcnslow§.Sparrows, and promises the
potential for maintaining substantial
numbers of this species in Oklahoma.
Additional breeding -season sightings
recorded during surveys in 1996
CI
0
0
showed Henslow§ Sparrows to be pres-
ent in six counties in northeastern
Oklahoma (Reinking et a).. 2000).
The widespread and substantial
decline of Henslowt Sparrows across
much of its range resulted in a petition
being submitted to list the species under
the Endangered Species Act, which
prompted Pruites (1996) status-aSsess-
-
men of the species. Due to evidence of
•increasing'populadons in several parts
of the Henslows Sparrow range (such as
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, and
Oklahoma), the petition request was
found to be unwarranted (Department
of the Interior 1998). one of
HenslowW Sparrow only
many species whose range and popula-.
don dynamics are not well enough
understood. continued participation by
alders in projects such as the Breeding
_
iuvey and breeding bird atlas
efforts is critical to our understanding of
the whys and whenfores of population
Jluctuadon? and will help to determine
whether or not future generations of
birders will enjoy the same diversity of
• bird life that we often take for granted
today.
Acknowledgments
Numerous field personnel over many
years have painstakingly collected data
on nesting Henslowes Sparrows, and
birders have contributed greatly to our
understanding of this species through
participation in the Breeding Bird
Survey and other projects. I thank my
uncle, Kee Hollings, for introducing me
to binding, and for later showing me my
lust Henslowk Sparrow on 6 July 1985
at Mora'Prairie in MISSOUrI. David
improve the manu-
script.
helped '
script
Literature Cited
.merican Ornithologists' Union. 1957.
The A.O.U. Check -list of North
American Birds. The American
Ornithologists' Union. The Lord
Baltimore Press, inc., Baltimore, MD.
691 pp.
—. 1998. The A.O.U. Check -list of
North American Birds. The American
Ornithologists' Union, Washington,
D.C. 829 pp.
Arnold, K A. 1983. A new subspecies of
He sslowk Sparrow (Ammodramus
hetsslowii). Auk 100:504-505.
Bull, J. 1974. Birds of New York State.
Doubleday/Natural History Press,
Garden Cit)c NY.
Department of the Interior. 1998.
Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants; 90 -day finding for a ped-
don to list the Hensloww Sparrow as
threatened. Federal Register 63:48162-
48164.
Ford, E. R. 1956. Birds of the Chicago
region. Chicago Acad Sci., Special
Pub. No. 12, Chicago.
Friedmann, H. 1963. Host relations of
the parasitic cowbirds. U. S. Nat Mus.
Bull. 233. Washington, D.C. 276 pp.
Friedmann. H., and L F. Kill. 1985. The
parasitic cowbirds and their hosts.
Prot. Western Found. of Wit ZooL
2(4). 304 pp.
Goard, D. M. 1974. Henslowk Sparrow
in Oklahoma. Bull. Oklahoma
Ornithol. Soc. 12:57-60.
Grrybowsld, J. A. 1998. Southern Great
Plains region Field Notes 52:474.
• 1999. Southern Great Plains
region North American Birds 53:405.
Hanson, L G. 1994. The Henslow's
Sparrow (Ammodramus hcnslowfi) of
Minnesota population status and
breeding habitat analysis. MS. Thesis,
Central Michigan Univ, Mount
Pleasant 39 pp.
Herkert,J. R. 1991. Prairie birds of
Illinois: population response to two
centuries of habitat change. Illinois
Nat Mist. Sum Bull. 34:393-399.
1994. Status and habitat selection
of the Henslowk Sparrow' in Illinois.
• Wilson Bulletin. 106:35-45.
1997. Population trends of the
Henslowk Sparrow in relation to the
Conservation Reserve Program in
Illinois, 1975-1995.J. Field. Ontitltal.
68:235-244.
• . 1998. Effects of management prac-
tices on grassland birds: HenslovA
Sparrow Northern Prairie Wildlife
Research Center, Jamestown, ND.
Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie
Wildlife Research Center Home Page.
<http://ivwwnpwrc.usgs.gov/TtSm1t fl1t-
eratr/grasbitdlhenslows/henslaws. htrnu
(Version 17 Feb 2000).
and W.D. Glass. 1999 Henslow>:
Sparrow response to prescribed fire in
an Illinois prairie remnant Studies in
Avian Biology 19: 160-164.
Hyde, A. 5. 1939. The life history of
Henslow's Sparrow, Passe herbulus
hetssloivii (Audubon). Mus. of Zool.
Misc. Pub!. No. 41. University. of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Knapton, R. W. 1984. The Henslowb
Sparrow in Ontario: a historical per-
spective. Ontario Binds 2:70-74.
McNair, D. B. and W. Post. 2000.
Historical winter status of three
upland Ammodramus sparrows in
South Carolina Studies in Avian Blol.
2132-38.
Petetjohn, B. G. 1994. The North
American Breeding Bird Survey.
Binding 26:386-398.
Peterson. Richard A. 1995. The South
Dakota Breeding Bird Atlas. South
Dakota Ornithologists' Union. 276pp.
Plentovieh, S. M., N. R. Holler, and G. E.
Hill. 1998. Site fidelity of wintering
Henslowk Sparrows. J. Field Ornithol.
69:486-490.
Pruitt, L 1996. Henslowt Sparrow status
assessment U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Fort Snelling, MN. 113 pp.
Reinking, D. L, and D. P. Hendricks.
1993. Occurrence and nesting of
Hcnslows Sparrow in Oklahoma. Bull.
Oklahoma Ornithol. Soc. 26:33-36.
D. A. Wiedenfeld, D. H. Wolfe, and
R.W. Rolrrbough, Jr. 2000: Distribution,
habitat use, and nesting success of
Henslow's Sparrow in Oklahoma.
Prairie Naturalist. 32:219-232.
Rcrhins, J. D. 1971. A study of Henslowt
Sparrow in.Michigan. Wilson Bulletin.
83:39-48.
Rnscnhurg, K. V., and J. V. Wclls. 1995.
Imporiancc of geographic arras to
r , 1
Tours ap,• 200.E
neouupieal migrant birds in the ••8 • g •
Northeast. Report submitted to U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Region 5.
Hadley, Massachusetts. Apr 27 to May. 11 - Wales & Norfolk
Sauer, J. R, J. E. Hines,!. Thomas, J. Bird die mtwnaus o(W" the plains SMuslim d Nmf*
Fallon, and G. Gough. 2000. The l-566
g r, CCelticBBird Than, rd (44)•1165664545 709; (Iud+@celdtrounm8uk
North American Breeding Bird Survey, May 19 to Jun 1 - Finland & North Norway
Results and Analysis 1966 - 1999. km 50 tdBoo breeding rain dpi In the Lod ofthe MWr* Soo
Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife a 11 iMal guide; warnt"a yc
Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. . � a rt (800)3t Hat; (415)7884000;
Smith, C. R 1992. Henslow•s Sparrow, .` May 20 to 26 - Presqu'lle, Ontario
Ammodramus ltenslowii. Pages 315-330 A trip tin newt bedma with aetarn bader a m
in K. J. Schneider and D. M. Pence, WgMy a se habitat of this pcni'°W'r part 150 B1*
eds. Migratory nongame binds ofman-Nature 1aitl L Holidays, (BBB) 305-3955; (613) 531 4105;
agement concern in the Northeast. U.S. Aug 4 to 18 - Cruise Alaska to Siberia
Dept. Inter., Fish and Wildl. Sere, . , _ ]Wd the nibUOBs, die Akmim cub Bering W
aM AMK ind and
Newton Comer, Massachusetts. tt¢wfassantdarin pmmmm aryat AeA taddes
Swengel, S. R. 1996. Management Clipper C�>�e. (800) 814.9393, x441#,apenyomtsxam
Oct 6 to
responses of.three species of declining w 12 Brazil Special to
ribalgExpedition
ha
sparrows in tallgrass prairie. Birz! am io 1996. madam a p-• ' me.
Consery internal. 6:241-253. Siemer Iliad 'Btcom
Ve(800) 451.321; (415) 788.4000;
ttd®a�
Wiser, D. W. 1990. Henslow•s Sparrow in Octnortheast Oklahoma. Bull Oklahoma On14 i 28 - Costa Rica Survey
•'F Join field otNtholom at gi7bmtgttmo research stationfor"° mta-oermg
Ornithol. Soc. 23:9-12. - • , dun climb Imo toMhOls Hod high irmwim fm fubumus fdtdlot•
Holbrook1are
Walk, J. W., E. L Kershner, and R. E. t*.. t �p hoibroomwtd...-- 451-1111,1,
Warner. 2000. Nocturnal singing in � _ October & November - Two Trips to Australia . •
grassland birds. Wiilson.Bulletiri.TWoaHoreable15•dur.mpsOfferV"meetpmiemIn
112:289-292. - "�,;, coe dwodd's mot fowesdng bbdiog desbxd m.
. 1999•Nature 7Fard Holidays, (888) 305-3955; (613) 531410
Wells, J.V., and K.V. Rosenberg . 5;
lofo®aanaeaatd.xm .
Grassland bird conservation in north- Oct 30 to Nov 15 - New Zealand
eastern North America. Studies in - R. SeeudgwaWetc+sotdweddlghdulWexexpertlodgvWeS
'
Avian Biology 19: 72-80. :lath bat °a"rt"s Wdudfng pdtglc U1%
Wiens, J. A 1969. An approach to the mot" to (7o7) 795-7547, CostaSorsRica
oYW=x
study of ecological relationships Dec S to 14 - Cruise Rica & Panama Canal
f9 ps Bird Dadmfiv*and and tegmo, MarawN Cam VIM Rd 'a.
among grassland birds. Ornithol. aaraaodabmapw sxessdtbsntaaaawfJbgmft®y
. i 6amponropat
Winter, M. 1999. Nesting biology of 3 : clipper CruiseIlse, (800) 8149393, x441#, aperry®mal oom
Monogr. No. 8.93 pp
dickcisseis and Henslows sparrows t
southeastern Missouri prairie frag- Dry Tortugas - 4 trips in April and May
tents. Wilson Bulletin. 111:515-527. pt NatureTotal, ( 36}1360 fm0gdf oet
Pacific Northwest Pelagic Trips and J. Faaborg. 1999. Patterns of
area sensitivity in grassland -nesting the Bird 6tdde,Y50) s44W6; fl d c=
birds. Consent Bioi. 13:1424-1436. Ne fouCO, dl a dNand Br. Columbia,
Newfoundland Nova Scotia
—., D. H. Johnson, and J. Faaborg. ' , ,. .. oases loan, The. (615) 292.2739; chm*96ioLeam
2000. Evidence for edge effects on Hawaii - The Big Island •
multiple levels in tallgtass prairie. Hawatlpoien & 'tralk (800) 4641993,thk@ wafl•fonscorn
Condor 102:256-266. D(iiIII)
r Central Oregon 8 scheduled trips
t paradise BlrNoy (p41) 408-1753:
Zimmerman, J.L .1988. Breeding season
.≥,_ -` FkmoomaWwmepmydbm*fir io_rmdm
habitat selection by the Henslow's rv„r„s s "y�ryutiam wdidmtl[y)aartelfamABA member
Sparrow (Amrnodramas heuslawll) in atrd&e arw.wae :c tr TourcompaWmpayABna tw_Mhsl hreKh ABA puddpa t
Kansas Wilson Bulletin 100:17-24. hriaiii r r r •
WWW. AMER I CANB I RD ING.ORG - 153
SW
WILSON SPRING TASK FORCE HYDROLOGY REPORT-
' DUANE WOLTJEN
The delineated wetland (DW) receives critical water supply from Wilson Springs, other
groundwater (water table), and surface water from surrounding land draining to the DW.
The surface water is runoff from atmospheric precipitation. It flows on the surface and
through the top -soil and vegetation. Small amounts percolate through the clay sub -soils
to the water table.
Groundwater migrates downhill toward the DW, Clabber Creek, and Wilson Springs,
etc., but the recharging area for Wilson Springs and the DW are not defined by any
research done to date. Higher ground to the southeast is off of the tract, but it is very
likely the source of groundwater charging the springs and contributing to the wetlands
supply. The future supply and quality of this water is not assured regardless of
measures taken on the tract
Groundwater is usually found in the water table generally below the top -soils, generally
at the greatest depth below the surface on hill tops. It exits to the surface, at stream level,
•springs and seeps, etc. The depth below the surface fluctuates over time, rising in wet
• periods and dropping in dry periods. Twelve test pits dug with a backhoe by Grubbs,
Hoskyn, Barton, and Wyatt, Inc. in proposed street rights -of -way in March of 2000, and
April and July of 1999, indicate the water. table is at a depth of 2 to more than 7 feet
• below the surface at the pits.
Top -soils and vegetation may or may not have been soggy at the time these pits were
dug, but no note was made of this in the field logs. "Observations made on at least 7 trips
to the property from mid February to early June (of 2002) revealed all lowlands indicated
on Map 1 to inundated with water regardless of whether land was classified by the US
Army Corps of Engineers as wetlands or not."(Appendix, Radwell, page 3). Soil types in
the lowlands suggest surface water "perches" on the low permeability clay sub -soils.
Runoff distribution patterns remain generally consistent over time as runoff moves down
hill unless the path is modified. Therefore, any particular portion of the DW receives a
more or less consistent portion of the runoff from all precipitation events. The DW has
developed as a function of these water distribution patterns. To protect and sustain the
DW, It is necessary to avoid significant alteration of distribution patterns, or
diversion of water to or away from the DW.
Structures built in the watershed can disrupt the established distribution of rung thereby
modifying the degree of wetness of affected portions of the wetland. Roads and
•
0
x„
buildings, ditches or swales, surface topography or soil compaction can change the runoff
pattern. •
These structures can cause harmful changes in the DW unless corrective measures
are taken.
Structure variations such as pervious paving, curb -less streets, soil/aggregate filtration
beds, and vegetated swales, etc., have been suggested as means to lessen changes to the
runoff patterns. Pervious pavement, usually'used to provide surface water and nutrients
to individual trees, is probably too expensive and difficult to maintain to look like a real
street (weeds). Also, it's capacity to carry the loads imposed on motor vehicle streets or
parking lots needs affirmation.
Streets and Drainage
•The street sub -grade investigations for street design, done by Grubbs, Hoskyn, Barton &
Wyatt, Inc„ for the City, were reviewed by Duane Woltjen with Mr. John Hoskyn on.
September 5, 2002.
The reports shows the use of compacted "hillside fill" (a select clay and gravel mix) to a
depth of 2.0 to 2.5 feet below top -soils in the sub -grade is necessary to support the
pavement to achieve design load capacity because the native soil is too plastic and
lacking in bearing strength. The existing sub -grade soils are replaced with the hillside
fill. This is called an undercut sub -grade. It is a common technique in the region. •
Compacted fill will be much less permeable than the native non -compacted soils.
Therefore, the undercut sub -grade can be expected to impede permeable flow of water
moving through the sub -soil when the fill is within the water table. As another
alternative, the "hillside" fill could be replaced by 3"to 4" crushed rock, but it will
eventually become clogged and fail as a conduit for water.
Without corrective measures, even curbless grade level streets are a barrier to
surface flow because the crown of the pavement is nearly 6 inches high for a 24 foot
wide pavement The aggregate below the pavement contains much fine material. It is
highly compacted and contiguous to the compacted sub -grade material.
With preventing changes to the DW from concentrated or diverted runoff and
maintaining existing flow to the DW as the goals, several wide-ranging ideas were
explored by Mr. Hoskyn and. myself. We agreed the most simple, probably lowest cost,
most reliable, and always maintainable design would have ditching on both sides of
roads, culverts at frequent intervals to carry water to the downhill side of the road, and a
filtering catch basins below each.culvert.
These basins would be elongated along a contour line and have a level out -flow lip in
order to redistribute the water flow transversely across the hillside. These simple,
•
0
0
economical catch basins would be in the open where they can be easily monitored,
• corrected and maintained.
Mr. Hoskyn did not foresee any need to modify their reports because of the projected
changes in drainage structures and street designs discussed. Mr. Hoskyn very
generously spent two hours of his professional time. without charge, and offered to
contribute more if needed.
Buildings
Large buildings will require the use of foundation piers especially in the lowlands, and
removal of top -soil for poured concrete floors at ground level. Similarly to street undercut
sub -grades, the removal of top -soil and replacement/compaction of the soil as well as
footing walls will disrupt the natural flow of runoff through the top -soil and focus flows
as they go around buildings. Piers
will not have a significant impact in this regard on surface or groundwater because they
are relatively small in size and relatively widely spaced.
Focused runoff needs to be re -distributed the same as for roads and parking lots. Catch
basins as suggested for the streets could be a good solution.
I-540 Drainage
• Some drainage from I-540, Shiloh Drive, and AR 112 enters the tract. The quality of this
water is never pristine, and it is always subject to hazardous material spills of great
magnitude. The Wilson Springs Branch is clearly critical habitat for the protected
Arkansas Darter.
Some drainage from I-540 enters the property through a 40 inch culvert
immediately adjacent (8 feet to the south) to the 24 inch pipe carrying Wilson
Springs flow from a source under Shiloh Drive. The water from the spring turns
immediately toward and empties into the plunge basin at the outlet of the drainage
culvert. It follows that a hazardous spill on the highway or Shiloh could be introduced
into the spring branch at the immediate upstream end of the branch. Arkansas Darter
would have no refuge in such an event.
Fisheries biologists fear any modification to divert road drainage from the upper portions
of the spring branch could impair the welfare of the Arkansas Darter and modify the DW.
However, they realize that if nothing is done, sooner or later the practically inevitable
disaster spill will happen, and the Arkansas Darter in this location (one of three known in
Arkansas) could be history. The Arkansas Darter is also found in Colorado, Kansas,
Missouri and Oklahoma
I recommend prompt action to get control ingress of I-540 runoff into the DW, and
particularly the Wilson Springs Branch. HazMat Teams should be made aware now of
the need to protect the Wilson Spring Branch with appropriate priority. In some cases,
I
0
their action could be as simple as blocking the inlets to the drainage culvert until the
material is recovered. A permanent solution is virtually mandatory.
Delineation of Wetlands
The Wilson Springs tract lowlands are mostly fescue hay fields at present. Previously,
soybeans were cultivated as long as twenty years ago according to observers. Prior to
that some individuals believe it was mostly wheat fields. The land has been grazed by
cattle in recent times. The presence of prairie mounds, certain hydrophytic prairie flora
and fauna, and hydric soils are indicators of the pre -cultivation state. Such lands are
called mesic-wet prairie or seasonal wetland (Terrestrial Natural Communities of
Missouri, MDNR, 1985). Seismically inactive faults are known on the site. The site host,
candidate rare and endangered species including the Arkansas Darter and Henslow's
Sparrow, as well as many bird species with declining populations. (See Appendix, Joseph
Neal.) An extensive inventory of flora and fauna has not been completed ,
The delineated wetlands were defined using procedures and criteria developed by the
U.S: Army Corps of Engineers respective to enforcement of provisions of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) including Section 404 which authorizes
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to issue permits for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the United States, including
wetlands. These procedures are found in the Corp's 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual
and updates.
Some states and communities use standards accepted by the Corps, which have broader
definitions of wetlands than the Corps.
According to the Corps, a wetland is present when hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil,
and wetland hydrology, all three, are present. The absence of one or more indicators
under normal circumstances precludes the presence of a wetland for the Corps purposes.
The Corps prescribes methods of determination for Atypical (non -normal) Situations in
Part IV, Section F. In case of an Atypical Situation, the manual prescribes procedures to
find clues determining the true conditions for each element of determination. For
example, an atypical situation is present when the site has been recently modified in a
way that redirects runoff, beavers build a dam, vegetation is removed, etc. "Recently" is
not defined, but the advent of sod -busting agriculture in Arkansas is a very recent event
in terms of natural history.
Hydric soils are produced when water saturates the top -soil for extensive periods
(approximately 30 days or more) sufficient to produce an anaerobic condition and
accompanying chemical reactions such as the formation of iron or manganese
concretions..
S •
• When such saturation occurs for sufficient time during the growing season, plants that
adapt or are at home in this environment thrive. Those that do not tend to perish. Such
• thriving plants are hydric vegetation.
When water inundation present, the "hydrology" is obvious and certain. Otherwise the
determination of hydrology is based on the presence of indicators of graded reliability.
To delineate the wetland per the Corps manual, EGIS dug 75 test pits 12" diameter and
16" deep in locations dispersed effectively all over the entire tract. There is no location
shown on the report map for holes 74 and 75.
Their report states, "Approximately 75% of the site contains soils which are hydric or
could contain hydric inclusions." Hydric soils are reported In the logs at all holes
except 11,22,38,39,40, and 42, or 80% of the holes indicated hydric soils.
A long edge of the delineated wetland is a straight line running north and south directly
downhill parallel to and just a few feet east of the fiber optics line. Test pits on the east
side of the fiber optic line were positive for all three indicators, but holes just west of the
line and approximately lateral to the positive pits were lacking in one determinant,
hydrology. The presence of "hydrology" was determined by the presence or absence of
"oxidizing rhizospheres" in most pits. "Oxidizing rhizospheres", i.e., roots of hydrophilic
plants that emit oxygen into surrounding soil, were absent from pits west of the line. It is
important to know that the pits west of the line are in the fescue cultivated plantation. It
Is Illogical to accept this line as the true boundary of the DW.
How is it that (80%) of the logs report hydric soils if the hydrology does not exist under
normal circumstances?
Should remnants of hydric vegetation be logically expected in fields that have been
cultivated for 20+ years?
The test pits were dug in late August of 2000. Would surface saturation be expected?
Many of the pits are located in cultivated areas, but there is no report of applying
Atypical Situation procedures.
I interviewed Manuel Bame, and Jon Drew Holt, signor of the field logs, of EGIS about
this situation and other aspects of their work. Manual Bame did not state Atypical
Situation procedures had been used, and he agreed to re -read Section F of Part IV.
According to a chronology provided by interested citizens, on March 7, 1990, at a public
meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission for rezoning the tract, Bob Waldren, a
resident living near the site commented "— there is a flooding problem in the area of the
of the proposed new industrial park". Jim Simon, another resident who lived near the
site, stated, "— the subject property isn't fit for an industrial park because it is swampy".
Ed Fedolkey, who lived north of the proposed rezoning mentioned, "—there are flooding
0
problems,—. Their reports are corroborated by the presence of hydric soils all over
the lowlands, and hydrophytic vegetation dispersed in the fescue fields. •
Research
More information should be obtained by additional field research, but enough critical
information is already published and presented to determine the development or
preservation decisions for this tract. It is well understood that very important lowland
habitat is at stake. The Arkansas Darter is heavily weighted for consideration in all
development plans, but the Darter as well as many other species may be adversely
affected by development.
An excellent opportunity should be offered to students of the environment to study the
effects of development if it proceeds, or restoration of the natural ecology if it does not.
The site should be thoroughly inventoried before development begins and monitored for
changes. The recharge area for Wilson Springs should be determined by experienced
experts such as Mr. Tom Aley of Protein, Missouri.
Dr. Van Brahana, hydrogeologist, University of Arkansas, has suggested this could be an
excellent field laboratory for.0 of A students, and he would be willing to work with the
city to devise a plan for cooperation. Various student research projects are in progress on
the tract.
Without the excellent detailed contributions of dedicated students and teachers of the
natural sciences, Fayetteville would surely have taken action oblivious to the
environmental consequences. Now it is well understood there will certainly be negative
environmental consequences if construction is done in the lowlands.
Recommendations
Recognize that wetlands under the Corps definition could logically exist well beyond
the delineated wetlands shown in the EGIS report in view of 80% of test holes
reporting "hydric soils", the disparity of "hydrology" reported between test holes
east and west of the fiber optic line, and the atypical conditions caused by persistent
cultivation.
If construction occurs in the lowlands, unusually high construction costs and
difficulties because of excessive wetness should be anticipated by the City and
disclosed to buyers.
Only the southern high ground should be developed. Drainage designs protective of
the lowlands should be utilized.
The recommended use of the lowlands north and south of Clabber Creek is habitat
conservation areas. They should be restored to the natural prairie state. These re -
naturalized areas will partly mitigate loss of habitat on adjacent lands where
developments such as a sports complex, housing, or commerce/industry are
anticipated. They provide high quality runoff to dilute poor quality runoff in the
critical Illinois River watershed. Since no delineated wetlands would be impacted,
no mitigation would be necessary.
Development of a sports complex including the lowlands north of Clabber Creek is
feasible, but not recommendable. Potentially, wetness, drainage, mitigation, and
runoff water quality would be among very significant cost issues in addition to the
loss of habitat
Clabber Creek should be allowed to simply revert to the natural state without
further manipulation. Wilson Spring branch should be closely monitored to be sure
changes in
water quality, flow, and erosion do not adversely affect the Arkansas Darter.
Wilson Springs Branch should be protected from hazardous I-540 drainage after
delineation of the recharge area and evaluation of several means.
If any land is sold, it should be with covenants protecting delineated wetlands and
lowlands within the 289 acre tract.
All developers should be bonded to assure compliance with development regulations
protecting this site.
Research on the tract site should be encouraged to record the hydrological outcome
of development decisions for future guidance.
Future issues similar to this one deserve professional environmental studies as well
as professional engineering studies.
Respectfully submitted, September 18, 2002
Duane W. Woltjen
•
Appendix Contents
Wilson Springs Biological Issues, Joseph C. Neal and Andrea Radwell
Wilson Springs Site Status Report, Andrea Radwell, July 9, 2002
References
Arkansas Research and Technology Park, Wetland Delineation, EGIS Consulting, Job
#1350 Manuel Barne
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., Job #
FY903405 Jerry Jansma, March 1990
Street Sub -grade Investigations by Grubbs, Hoskyn, Barton & Wyatt, Inc.
Job No. 99-196 Research and Technology Boulevard June, 1999
Job No. 99-262 Technology Drive August,1999
Job No. 00-073 Research and Technology Streets. April, 2000
The Terrestrial Natural Communities of Missouri, 1985, Paul W. Nelson, Missouri
Department of Natural Resources.
Wetlands Delineation Manual, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1987
C
• WILSON SPRING TASK FORCE HYDROLOGY REPORT=
GARY COOVER
This report is based on a thorough review of existing published information plus
numerous conversations with local hydrological and geological professionals. It also
contains a brief overview of wetland delineation requirements and methodology, a
thorough review of the EGIS Environment Engineering and Construction wetland
delineation for the Wilson Springs Business Park site, plus conclusions and
recommendations based on a professional review of the available information.
Wetlands
The federal regulations implementing Section 404 of the Clean Water Act define
wetlands as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water (hydrology) at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation (hydrophytes) typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions (hydric soils). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas (40 CPR 232.2(r)).
Jurisdictional wetlands those that are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
under Section 404 must exhibit all three characteristics: hydrology, hydrophytes, and
hydric soils (USACE 1987).
The accepted scientific methodology for examining all three characteristics is presented
in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) "Wetlands Delineation Manual" dated
1987. The procedures outlined in this manual were utilized by EGIS Environment
Consulting in their September 1999 report of their investigations of 75 sampling areas on
site. Although the site has been physically altered in the past by farming, grazing, etc.,
these alterations took place before the implementation date of the Clean Water Act and
therefore do not require any sort of "atypical" wetland delineation methodology. The
EGIS report has been approved by the USACE.
llvdroloav
From the 1987 USACE Wetlands Delineation Manual: "The term "wetland hydrology"
encompasses all hydrologic characteristics of areas that are periodically inundated or
have soils saturated to the surface at some time during the growing season. Areas with
evident characteristics of wetland.hydrology are those where the presence of water has an
overriding influence on characteristics of vegetation and soils due to anaerobic and
reducing conditions, respectively."
The "growing season" is officially defined as that portion of the year when the soil
temperature 20 inches below the surface is 41 degrees Fahrenheit. According to the
National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), the growing season for the Fayetteville •
area is from late March to early November, for a length of approximately 230 days.
The frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation are important characteristics
in separating wetlands from non -wetlands. An area is considered to have wetland
hydrology if it is inundated or saturated to the surface continuously for at least 5% of the
growing season in most years (50% probability of recurrence). These areas are
"wetlands" if they also meet hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil requirements.
The indicators of wetland hydrology are further subdivided into primary and secondary
categories. The primaryindicators of wetland hydrology are:
0
Inundated
0
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
0
Water Marks
0
Drift Lines
0
Sediment Deposits
0
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Only 16 of the 75 sampling locations had primary indicators. In 12 of the sites only one
indicator was present, 4 sites had two indicators, none had more than two. At least one
indicator must be present to indicate wetland hydrology.
The secondary indicators of wetland hydrology are:
0 Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
0 Water -Stained Leaves
0 Local Soil Survey Data
0 FAC-Neutral Test (a measurement of hydrophytic plants)
59 sites showed evidence of secondary indicators. One site had 3 indicators, 18 had two
indicators, and 40 showed evidence of only one indicator. By far and away the most
common indicator was "oxidized root channels in the upper 12 inches". Two indicators
are required to indicate wetland hydrology. In several instances, the presence of FAC
(facultative) biological species was used to provide the additional secondary indicator.
None of the 75 data sampling points were located within obviously inundated areas,
however, test pits were dug by EGIS to determine the depth to groundwater or depth to
saturated soil. None of the 75 sample pits dug 18 inches deep showed any evidence of
groundwater or saturated soils. This is perhaps due to the fact that these pits were dug
during the fairly dry August of 1999. Soil boring logs from geotechnical investigations
by McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., and Grubbs Hoskyn Barton & Wyatt, Inc., at
various times of the year in 1990, 2000, and 2001 indicate a groundwater elevation of
approximately three feet below the surface for much of the site.
The hydrology of the site is mostly characterized as flow -through riverine as opposed to 40
depression outflow. The hydrology originates from a high water table, direct
• precipitation, runoff, and possibly occasional overbank flow from Clabber Creek and the
two tributaries on site. The Wilson Springs tributary is fed by the Wilson Springs
headwaters located approximately 100 feet to the east of the property (and underneath the
Shiloh Drive/Interstate 540 interchange), and by runoff from I-540 and its surrounding
drainage area. The recharge zone for Wilson Springs has not been determined but is most
likely located offsite to the east of the subject property.
Bydric Soils
The third component of wetland determination, after hydrology and hydrophytic
vegetation, is the presence (or not) of hydric soils. Hydric soils are defined as soils that
are saturated, flooded or ponded long enough during the growing season at some point in
their history to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. These soils typically
support hydrophytic vegetation.
For a soil to be considered saturated, it must either be inundated or the groundwater must
be within the root zone, typically 12 inches from the surface.
However, not all areas having hydric soils will qualify as wetlands. Only when a hydric
soil supports hydrophytic vegetation and the area has indicators of wetland hydrology
may the soil be referred to as a "wetland" soil."
• Soils from the 75 test pits dug by EGIS were examined for the following hydric soil
indicators:
0 Histosol
0 Histic Epipedon
0 Sulfide Odor
0 Aquic Moisture Regime
0 Reducing Conditions
0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
0 Concretions
0 High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
0 Organic Streaking. in Sandy Soils
0 Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Of the soils tested on site, 6 of the 75 samples showed no hydric indicators whatsoever.
57 samples showed only one indicator (gleyed or low -chrome colors), 1 sample showed
evidence of reducing conditions, 8 samples had two indicators (color, odor, or
concretions), and 3 samples had three indicators (color, odor, and concretions). No
sample showed evidence of more than 3 hydric indicators.
Prolonged anaerobic soil conditions cause a chemical reduction of some soil components,
• mainly iron oxides and manganese oxides. This can be measured with Munsell Soil
Color Charts to determine the extent of "gleying" the segregation or removal of reduced
iron and manganese from the soil. Additionally, mineral soils that are alternately
saturated and aerated during the year will exhibit spots or blotches called "mottles". The
abundance and size of these mottles usually reflect the duration of the saturation period
and indicate whether or not the soil is hydric. The EGIS Report lists the soil color and
characteristics for each of the 75 sampling locations.
Faults
The potential existence of ground faults on this site has been raised by certain members
of the public. Based on conversations with Wayne Jones, P.E., of McClelland Consulting
Engineers, Inc., and Dr. Van Brahana, Geosciences Department, University of Arkansas,
there are no active faults within this area; and any faults that do exist were created at the
time of the Ozark Uplift several million years ago. These ancient faults'have shown no•
recent movement whatsoever, even during the massive New Madrid earthquake of 1811.
No fault study is indicated, and there should be no fault -related impediments to building
or construction on this site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Wetlands Delineation •
The EGIS report was performed per USACE specifications and represents a rigorous on -
site wetlands detemvnation. As far as'5urisdictional wetlands" are concerned, this report
should stand as approved by the USACE. Due to the fact that many of the wetland areas
are considered very low grade, and many sample points just barely met the criteria for
wetlands, these areas could be considered for potential development as long as USACE-
approved mitigation is performed elsewhere within the property;
Wilson Springs
The drainage of I-540 into the Wilson Springs tributary presents a very real opportunity
for habitat -damaging pollution. Since re-routing this drainage would be difficult at best,
it is recommended that a small constructed wetland be established between the I-540
outfall .pipe and the Wilson Springs tributary to act as a buffer and cleanser for most of
the harmful pollutants that could come from I-540.
Business Park Development
Except for low-grade wetland that could be replaced with mitigation, the majority of the
wetland areas should probably remain untouched. As long as existing drainage patterns
are substantially maintained, and flows are not concentrated into collection basins and
storm sewers, the rest of the site hydrology should remain relatively unchanged. Efforts
building foundations as little as possible. BMP's (best management practices) from the
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) should be applied to all
developed rung regardless of tract size.
The proposed park development within the area north of Clabber Creek should have
minimal hydrologic impact, since playing fields are mostly pervious surfaces. Care
should be taken to not concentrate runoff in a way that would have a detrimental effect on
the receiving wetland areas.
The development plan that proposes impacting 17 acres of delineated "marginal" wetland
would provide the best scenario for property development, and the mitigation
subsequently improves and creates much better wetland areas elsewhere on the property.
Future Research
Dr. Van Brahana at the Geosciences Department of the University of Arkansas has
expressed genuine interest in developing a program to monitor the development process
in order to have quantifiable data about the potential effects of urbanization on the
wetland environment. This would provide an excellent opportunity for the City of
Fayetteville to work closely with the University of Arkansas to develop future guidelines
for eco-sensitive development.
•
C
SOURCES:
Wetland Assessment Report, EGIS Environmental Consulting & Construction, Inc.,
September 1999
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1990
Street Sub -grade Investigations by Grubbs, Hoskyn, Barton & Wyatt, Inc., June, 1999,
August 1999, April, 2000
Conversations with:
Manual Barnes and Drew Holt, EGIS Environmental Consulting & Construction, Inc.
Wayne Jones, P.E., McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Jim Beavers, City Engineer, City of Fayetteville
NRCS local office
Bruce Manchon, hydrologeologist, Janeil Environmental Solutions
Dr. Van Brahana, Department of Geosciences, University of Arkansas
CJ
C
• . .
HYDROLOGY SUB -GROUP
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Ll
•
• WILSON SPRINGS BIOLOGICAL ISSUES
• .• Biologically speaking, the 289 acres at Wilson Springs were originally a prairie with
• distinctive upland and lowland characteristics. Relatively dry terrestrial habitat occupies a small
portion of the southern uplands along Moore Lane, with elevations similar to those along the 1-
540 bypass. Most of the'remainder of the apparently terrestrial habitat is a seasonal wetland at the
• lower elevations associated with Clabber Creek and its tributaries. This seasonal wetland has been
converted to fescue pasture, but it retains ecological indicators different than those of typical
• upland terrestrial habitats.
WETLANDS
Perennial wetlands are associated with Wilson Springs, Clabber Creek, and its
tributaries. Wilson Springs supports a population of the rare Arkansas Darter (Etheostoma
cragini). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reported that this darter is in jeopardy across its
• range due to decline in groundwater that replenishes spring -fed habitats. In October 1999 it was
designated a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act.
Seasonal wetlands are associated with grassy fields that. are wet during part of the year.
Perennial wetlands have certain legal protections, but seasonal wetlands have little or none; they
constitute the single most endangered habitat type in northwest Arkansas.
Both wetland types are associated with prairie habitat that was once widespread in
northwest Arkansas. The grasslands at Wilson Springs were part of the region's original prairies.
These fields are marked by low "prairie mounds." These grasslands are deceptively dry during
low rainfall periods. However, the water table in the area is high; it takes only modest amounts of
rainfall to nurture shallow, seasonally wet habitat (with its associated plants and animals).
• Seasonal wetlands form on clay -rich soils in the saucer -like depressions between these
roughly conical mounds. These mounds have been greatly reduced through years of plowing, but
are still visible in the.fnelds and in aerial photographs.
Biologically -speaking, the seasonal wetlands can be delineated in a number of ways. The
following conditions have been documented in the old prairie grasslands at Wilson Springs:
a Numerous, widespread mud chimneys of the endemic Ozark Burrowing' Crayfish
(Procambarus liberorum) that withstands dry periods by burrowing into the water
table just below the surface.
o Hydrophilic plants like Prairie Cordgrass (Spartinapectinata) are present, though
much reduced because of aggressive drainage and conversion to non-native fescue
grasses. Also present are shrubs like Buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and
Swamp Dogwood (Cornus obliqua), .
o Stands of various semi -aquatic plants are common, especially Sedges (Cyperus _
species) that require water and dryness during part of their annual life cycle.
o Damp prairie species like Sawtooth Sunflower (Heliannhus grasseserratus) are
present and. form extensive stands.
o Marshland birds —such as the small rail, Sora (Porzana carolina) and larger species
like American Bittern (Boraurus lentiginosus)—are present during migration and are
included among more than 125 bird species documented by volunteers.
In summary, there is a strong positive correlation between biodiversity and presence of
water. Wilson Springs supports a high biodiversity as a result of the high water table and presence
of water on the surface much of the year..
•
Wilson Springs also provides economically valuable ecological services by acting like a ! '
. natural detention area to slow the return of rainwater from the adjoining impervious surfaces such
as businesses along 1-540, plus 1-540 itself and associated roads. Both wetland types also serve as
purifiers of storm water runoff coming from these impervious surfaces.
Fayetteville is under mandate of the EPA Phase 11 storm water regulations that require the
City to undertake positive actions to improve water quality by addressing the fate of storm water.
• Preserving the critical ecological values of both types of wetlands at Wilson Springs could allow
the City to obtain credit for taking positive actions to preserve both seasonal and perennial
wetlands —essentially, all of the lowlands within the 289 acres.
PRISTINE ISSUE
Critics of preservation efforts have stated that Wilson Springs isn't pristine; that is, it has
little in common with places like the Buffalo National River that have been little altered from the
natural state. However, no one favoring preservation has made the claim that Wilson Springs is
pristine
Support for preservation. rests on unique biological assets that have survived even after
fundamental land use changes including long term farming, ditching Clabber Creek, and
converting native grasslands to fescue. Some botanical 'remnants of the original prairie ecosystem,
such as Big Bluestein Grass (Andropogon Gerard!) have survived and could form a core for a
future habitat restoration. A relatively large group of grassland bird species that are declining
range -wide in North America occur within the 289 acres. Notable among them is the rare
Henslow's Sparrow (Ammodramus henslowir) whose only known Arkansas nesting site is in
these seasonally wet fields. The 289 acres aren't pristine, but they are diverse.
The area isn't pristine in terms of noise levels, either because of its location along I-540.
There is a lot of traffic noise at times, but at other times the noise level is no worse than it is in
much of Fayetteville along 1-540, College Avenue, Crossover/265, etc. The noise and lack of
being pristine has not deterred joggers, walkers, golfers (on adjoining Razorback Country Club), •
and birders. Nor has it discouraged occupation of private homes, churches, and small businesses
along Dean Solomon Road. It hasn't deterred Audubon Arkansas from offering to join Arkansas
Game & Fish Commission and establish a nature center on the site.
WHAT'S AT STAKE, BIOLOGICALLY -SPEAKING
As far as we know, the seasonal wetlands and associated grasslands at Wilson Springs
constitute the single largest remaining block of such habitat in the region that is under. public
ownership, and can therefore be managed for public (as opposed to private) purposes.
(The approximately 300 acres acquired by Fayetteville for its proposed west wastewater
treatment plant also features prairie mounds and seasonally wet habitat It may therefore provide
a second opportunity to protect this habitat type.)
While the number of acres is still relatively small, its situation adjacent the University of
Arkansas and within a community of citizens with a more than average interest in biology and
ecology provides an opportunity to study, preserve, restore, and last but not least, educate
students and private citizens about a biologically important heritage that deserves our support and
protection.
Prepared by biologists Joseph C. Neal (ioecneal(Wiuno.com) and Andrea Radwell
(aradwell(@uark.edu) —Draft of August 28, 2002
•
FAYETTEVII!LE 40
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Gary Dumas, General Services Director
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: October 8, 2002
Attached is a copy of the resolution accepting a report of the Wilson Springs Tasks force.
The original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk.