August 2012 – November 2018 Data Report
Prepared by: Angela Danovi Beaver LakeSmart / StreamSmart Coordinator Ozarks Water Watch 1200 W. Walnut Street, Suite 3405 Rogers, AR 72756 Table of Contents Introduction ...... iii Water Quality Parameter Descriptions ...... iii Alkalinity ...... iii Conductivity...... iii pH ...... iv Total Dissolved Solids ...... v Total Nitrogen ...... v Total Phosphorus ...... v Volunteer Impact on StreamSmart ...... vi Acknowledgements...... vi Chapter 1 - Beaver Lake Watershed ...... 1 Chapter 2 - Beaver Reservoir Subwatershed ...... 4 Brush Creek – Site 300 ...... 6 Prairie Creek – Site 306 ...... 8 Chapter 3 - Headwaters-White River-Lake Sequoyah Subwatershed ...... 11 Baldwin Creek near St. Paul – Site 103 ...... 13 White River near St. Paul – Site 104 ...... 15 Chapter 4 - Middle Fork of the White River Subwatershed ...... 18 Middle Fork of the White River Near Harris Rd. – Site 201 ...... 20 Chapter 5 - Richland Creek Subwatershed ...... 23 Site 205 – Hock Creek ...... 25 Chapter 6- War Eagle Subwatershed ...... 28 Tributaries to the War Eagle ...... 30 Ogden Creek – Site 108 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Glade Creek – Site 302 ...... 30 Clear Creek – Site 303 ...... 32 Clifty Creek – Site 304 ...... 35 Holman Creek Upstream of Huntsville – Site 307 ...... 37 Holman Creek Downstream of Huntsville – Site 308 ...... 39 War Eagle Creek Sites ...... 43 War Eagle Creek – Site 107 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. War Eagle Creek at Withrow Springs - Site 301 ...... 43 War Eagle at the Mill – Site 305 ...... 45 Chapter 7 - West Fork of the White River Subwatershed ...... 49 Tributaries to the West Fork ...... 51
i | Page
Ward Slough – Site 200 ...... 51 Town Branch near the White River Ball Fields – Site 210 ...... 53 Spout Spring Branch – Site 206 ...... 56 Mullins Creek at the University of Arkansas – Site 202 ...... 58 West Fork of the White River Sites ...... 61 West Fork near Brentwood Park – Site 102 ...... 61 West Fork near Baptist Ford Bridge – Site 101 ...... 63 References ...... 67 Glossary of Terms ...... 69
ii | Page
Introduction Volunteers are monitoring water quality of local area waterways in Northwest Arkansas’ Beaver Lake Watershed through a project called StreamSmart. This project is part of Ozarks Water Watch’s Volunteer Monitoring Program, which promotes residents doing their part to keep our local waterways safe and clean for everyone to use and enjoy.
Ozarks Water Watch’s goal for StreamSmart is to collect high quality, long-term base flow data by engaging local volunteers in monitoring. During monitoring, volunteers collect a water sample that is analyzed at Arkansas Water Resources Center at the University of Arkansas. Each water sample is analyzed for alkalinity, conductivity, pH, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus. In the field, volunteers take an air temperature reading, a water temperature, and complete the EPA Rapid Bioassessment (Habitat Assessment) each quarter. During May and August monitoring, volunteers will measure stream discharge and complete a benthic macroinvertebrate survey. Data collected during the monitoring periods from August 2012 – November 2016 are presented in tables for each site in this report. The report is laid out in chapters by subwatershed and sites are listed in the report from upstream to downstream within the subwatersheds. Water Quality Parameter Descriptions Alkalinity Alkalinity is the water's capacity to resist changes in pH that would make the water more acidic. Alkalinity refers to the capability of water to neutralize acid. The alkalinity of natural water is determined by the soil and bedrock through which it passes. The main sources for natural alkalinity are rocks which contain carbonate, bicarbonate, and hydroxide compounds. Limestone is rich in carbonates, so waters flowing through limestone regions or bedrock containing carbonates generally have high alkalinity - hence good buffering capacity. Conversely, areas rich in granites and some conglomerates and sandstones may have low alkalinity and, therefore, poor buffering capacity.
Alkalinity is important for fish and aquatic life because it protects or buffers against rapid pH changes. Living organisms, especially aquatic life, function best in a pH range of 6.0 to 9.0. Alkalinity is a measure of how much acid can be added to a liquid without causing a large change in pH. Higher alkalinity levels in surface waters will buffer acid rain and other acid wastes and prevent pH changes that are harmful to aquatic life.
Alkalinity Water Quality Ranges
Alkalinity Concentration Ranges Human drinking maximum 50-100 Poultry drinking water average 100 Poultry drinking water maximum acceptable 300 Aquaculture desirable range 50-150 Aquaculture acceptable range 20-400 Irrigation acceptable or low level of concern 100 or less Irrigation moderate level of concern 100-150 Irrigation high level of concern 150 or more Source: Arkansas Water Resources Center Conductivity Conductivity is a measurement of the ability of an aqueous solution to carry an electrical current. Typically, the units of measure are microhms/cm (uohms/cm) or microsiemens/cm (uS/cm). Conductivity or specific conductance is a measure of the ability of a fluid to carry a charge which is directly related to the concentration of dissolved substances. As the total dissolved substances in the water increases, the conductivity of the water also increases.
iii | Page
Conductivity Water Quality Ranges
Conductivity Concentration Ranges Human drinking maximum 775 Aquaculture desirable range 60-2000 Aquaculture acceptable range 30-5000 Irrigation acceptable or low level of concern 750 or less Irrigation moderate level of concern 750-3000 Irrigation high level of concern 3000 or more Beef cattle maximum 1500 Dairy cattle maximum 1500 Swine maximum 1500 Source: Arkansas Water Resources Center pH pH measurements run on a scale from 0 to 14, with 7.0 considered neutral. Solutions with a pH below 7.0 are considered acids. Solutions with a pH above 7.0, up to 14.0 are considered bases. Living organisms, especially aquatic life, function best in a pH range of 6.0 to 9.0.
The pH scale is logarithmic, so every one-unit change in pH represents a ten-fold change in acidity. In other words, pH 6.0 is ten times more acidic than pH 7.0; pH 5 is one hundred times mores acidic than pH 7.0.
The pH of a body of water is affected by several factors including the bedrock and soil composition through which the water moves. Some rock types such as limestone can, to an extent, neutralize acid. Another factor which affects the pH is the amount of plant growth and organic material within a body of water. When this material decomposes carbon dioxide is released. The carbon dioxide combines with water to form carbonic acid. Although this is a weak acid, large amounts of it will lower the pH. A third factor which determines the pH of a body of water is the dumping of chemicals into the water by individuals, industries, and communities.
Changes in the pH value of water are important to many organisms. Most organisms have adapted to life in water of a specific pH and may die if it changes even slightly. This is especially true of aquatic macroinvertebrates and fish eggs and fry. pH Water Quality Ranges
pH Human drinking maximum 6.5-8.5 Poultry drinking water average 6.5-7.8 Poultry drinking water maximum acceptable 5-8 Aquaculture desirable range 6.5-9 Aquaculture acceptable range 5.5-10 Irrigation acceptable or low level of concern 6.5-8.5 Irrigation moderate level of concern less than 6 or greater than 8.5 Irrigation high level of concern less than 4 or greater than 9 Beef cattle maximum 5.5-8.0 Dairy cattle maximum 6.0-8.0 Swine maximum 6.5-8.5 Source: Arkansas Water Resources Center
iv | Page
Total Dissolved Solids A water quality parameter defining the concentration of dissolved organic and inorganic chemicals in water. After suspended solids are filtered from water and water is evaporated, dissolved solids are the remaining residue. An elevated total dissolved solids concentration does not mean that the water is a health hazard, but it does mean the water may have aesthetic problems, such as taste and odor, or cause nuisance problems.
Total Dissolved Solids Water Quality Ranges
Total Dissolved Solids Human drinking maximum 500 Beef cattle maximum 2500 Dairy cattle maximum 1000 Swine maximum 3000 Source: Arkansas Water Resources Center Total Nitrogen There are three forms of nitrogen that are commonly measured in water bodies: ammonia, nitrates and nitrites. Total nitrogen is the sum of total kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia, organic and reduced nitrogen) and nitrate-nitrite. It can be derived by monitoring for organic nitrogen compounds, free-ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite individually and adding the components together. An acceptable range of total nitrogen is 2 mg/L to 6 mg/L, though variations from this range can occur. We measure total Nitrogen as part of our on-going monitoring of nutrients concentrations in surface water.
Total Nitrogen Water Quality Ranges
Total Nitrogen Threshold for nuisance algae 0.5-1.0 Source: Arkansas Water Resources Center Total Phosphorus Phosphorus occurs naturally in rocks and other mineral deposits. During the natural process of weathering, the rocks gradually release the phosphorus as phosphate ions which are soluble in water and the mineralize phosphate compounds breakdown. Phosphorus is one of the key elements necessary for the growth of plants and animals and in lake ecosystems it tends to be the growth-limiting nutrient.
Total phosphorus is a measure of all the forms of phosphorus in the sample (orthophosphate, condensed phosphate, and organic phosphate). This is accomplished by first "digesting" (heating and acidifying) the sample to convert all the other forms to orthophosphate. Then the orthophosphate is measured by the ascorbic acid method. Because the sample is not filtered, the procedure measures both dissolved and suspended orthophosphate. Monitoring phosphorus is challenging because it involves measuring very low concentrations down to 0.01 milligram per liter (mg/L) or even lower. Even such very low concentrations of phosphorus can have a dramatic impact on streams.
Total Phosphorus Water Quality Ranges
Total Phosphorus Threshold for nuisance algae 0.06-0.10 Source: Arkansas Water Resources Center
v | Page
Volunteer Impact on StreamSmart The StreamSmart monitoring project could not exist without the committed support of many teams of volunteers. The Independent Sector cited the 2014 value of volunteer time in Arkansas at $19.31 per hour. Our volunteers have provided over $40,000 worth of volunteer service to the StreamSmart! Through their efforts, we have expanded monitoring while obtaining high quality data to help us better understand and protect the Beaver Lake Watershed. StreamSmart Volunteers have contributed over $40,000 in service since 2012!
Acknowledgements This program would not be possible without the support of several organizations and partners that provide financial support, connect volunteers, analyze water samples, or provide technical support to this project. Thank you to the following partners:
Ozarks Water Watch Arkansas Water Resources Center Beaver Water District Northwest Arkansas Master Naturalists Beaver Watershed Alliance Association for Beaver Lake Environment
Additionally, we would like to thank the following individuals who have served on the Beaver LakeSmart Advisory Board. Their leadership and input have helped guide this project. Thank you to the following past and current Beaver LakeSmart Advisory Board Members:
Alan Bland, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Beaver Lake Matthew Rich, Beaver Water District Matt Rich, Beaver Water District Angela Danovi, Ozarks Water Watch Ken Leonard, Northwest Arkansas Master Naturalists Dot Neely, Beaver Water District Trish Ouei, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture - Cooperative Extension Service of Benton County Erin Scott, Arkansas Water Resources Center Amy Wilson, Beaver Water District
vi | Page
Chapter 1 - Beaver Lake Watershed The Beaver Lake watershed is in the Ozark Highlands of Northwest Arkansas touching Benton, Carroll, Franklin, Madison, and Washington counties. The watershed covers 1,195 square miles and includes 17 different incorporated municipalities or villages. The headwaters of the White River originate in the Boston Mountains south-southeast of Fayetteville Arkansas at an elevation of 2,497 feet above mean sea level. The White River flows generally northward into the Beaver Lake Reservoir and then discharges from Beaver Dam into the White River at an elevation of 925 feet, forming the upstream waters of Table Rock Lake. The major tributaries within the watershed include the West Fork, Middle Fork, and East Fork of the White River; Richland Creek; Brush Creek; and War Eagle Creek.
The population within the watershed is steadily increasing and is expected to grow by more than 80% in the coming decades. Overall, the growth of Northwest Arkansas is projected to reach 1 million people by 2049, with much of the growth occurring in the planned municipal areas.
The Beaver Lake Watershed is 1% 4% 2% dominated by Forest at 71% of the landcover, a feature that helps to Forest protect overall water quality.
22% Agriculture There are approximately 3100 miles of roads and 1,700 stream miles Low Density Urban within the watershed. Development 71% High Density Urban Watershed Area = 1,195 square miles Development or 764,852 acres Water Information obtained from “Beaver Lake and Its Watershed 2010” & “Beaver Lake Watershed Protection Strategy, May 2012 Revision”
Landcover of the Beaver Lake Watershed
Water Quality The water quality of Beaver Lake and its tributaries is generally good. However, natural conditions and other human caused factors result in a few areas of concern. Steep slopes, thin soils, and highly porous karst topography are some of the natural features of this watershed that present special challenges to water quality. Steep slopes naturally equate to increased runoff and potentially greater sediment loads carried to waterways. These natural conditions also make installing traditional septic systems very difficult. According to the Beaver Lake Watershed Protection Strategy, over 78% of the watershed is designated as “very limited” for conventional septic systems.
Other factors that could impact water quality include the expansion of agricultural, urban, and industrial activity in the watershed. Development, improper construction practices, and expansion of impervious surfaces could adversely affect water quality within the Beaver Lake Watershed. Increased point and nonpoint sources of contamination often become more problematic in developed areas. Examples include effluent discharged to the White River from wastewater treatment plants, seepage to ground or surface water from on-site septic disposal systems and stormwater runoff carrying sediment, nutrients, bacteria or trash to local surface waterways.
Sediment and nutrients are the primary water quality concerns throughout the Beaver Lake Watershed. Sediment is a pollutant and is a carrier of pollutants and nutrients from the land and into waterbodies. Beaver Reservoir and West Fork watersheds have been identified as high priority watersheds for sediment reduction. Nutrients, phosphorus and nitrogen, are a concern because in excess concentrations they can stimulate algal growth resulting in degraded water
1 | Page
quality. Phosphorus is the nutrient of highest concern in Beaver Lake Watershed. Soil phosphorus originating from stream channel erosion is the major contributor of phosphorus within the Beaver Lake Watershed. According to the Beaver Lake Protection Strategy, the Beaver Reservoir and the War Eagle subwatersheds are projected to be the largest sources of phosphorus to Beaver Lake.
StreamSmart Monitoring Volunteer teams are monitoring the following sites (Table 1) on a quarterly schedule: February, May, August, and November. Figure 2 shows the site locations within the watershed.
StreamSmart Monitoring Sites in the Beaver Lake Watershed
Site # Site Name Watershed 101 West Fork (Baptist Ford Bridge) West Fork 102 West Fork (Brentwood Park) West Fork 103 Baldwin Creek Near St. Paul Headwaters 104 White River Near St. Paul Headwaters 107 War Eagle War Eagle 108 Ogden Creek War Eagle 200 Ward Slough West Fork 201 Middle Fork of W.R. at Harris Rd Middle Fork 202 College Branch West Fork 205 Hock Creek Richland Creek 206 Spout Spring Branch West Fork 210 Town Branch (White River Ball fields) West Fork 300 Brush Creek Beaver Reservoir 301 War Eagle Creek (Huntsville) War Eagle 302 Glade Creek War Eagle 303 Clear Creek War Eagle 304 Clifty Creek War Eagle 305 War Eagle (Mill) War Eagle 306 Prairie Creek Beaver Reservoir 307 Holman Creek Upstream of Huntsville War Eagle 308 Holman Creek Downstream of Huntsville War Eagle
2 | Page
3 | Page
Chapter 2 - Beaver Reservoir Subwatershed The Beaver Reservoir Watershed is one of the most important watersheds within the Beaver Lake Watershed. The Beaver Reservoir Subwatershed is 203,578 acres and includes Beaver Lake and the land immediately surrounding it, including 487 miles of shoreline and several lakeside communities (Gateway, Lost Bridge Village, Avoca, Prairie Creek). The surface area of the lake covers approximately 44 mi2 and its length is about 50 miles. The mean retention time for water in the reservoir is 1.5 years. Covering 12,000 acres along the shore of Beaver Lake is Hobbs State Park and Conservation Area. Part of the city of Rogers and sections of Bethel Heights, Springdale, Fayetteville and Goshen lie within the watershed. As of the 2000 census, the population of this watershed was 26,986 people, representing an increase of 42.5% over the 1990 census. This growth is projected to continue for the foreseeable future. Recreational opportunities abound in this subwatershed with nearly 13% of the watershed covered with water.
Land Cover of the Beaver Reservoir Subwatershed
The Beaver Reservoir Subwatershed is dominated by Forest, but also has the most water of any subwatershed in the 13% Beaver Lake Watershed. The Forest watershed contains approximately Woody/Herbaceous 1,205 miles of roads and 266 miles of 20% Low Intensity Urban streams. 56% High Intensity Urban
Bare/Barren Soils Pasture/Ag Land Watershed Area: 203,578 Acres 2% 6% Water 1% 2% Information obtained from “Beaver Lake and Its Watershed 2010”
Figure 2-1 Landcover of the Beaver Reservoir
Water Quality Concerns
Sediment is the biggest water quality issue in Beaver Lake. The near-lake drainage area exhibits the highest relaive rate of pollutant delivery to the lake. Currently, the Beaver Lake subwatershed generates about 45% of the total sediment load to the lake. By 2055, residential low density land uses, construction sites, and channel erosion in the near lake area are predicted to generate 102,930 tons per year of sediment Much of that sediment comes from runoff from activities such as residential construction near the lake. Stakeholders on the lake and in this watershed such as Beaver Water District, have identified the following water quality concerns for this subwatershed: total organic carbon, algae, turbidity, taste and odor problems, and pathogenic bacteria. In Beaver Lake, algae growth has been the highest in the southern part of the lake and lowest toward the dam.
Stream Smart Monitoring StreamSmart Teams are currently monitoring two sites in the Beaver Reservoir Subwatershed.
Table 1: StreamSmart Monitoring Sites in the Beaver Reservoir Subwatershed
Site Number Site Name Coordinates 300 Brush Creek 36.131947, -93.947956 306 Prairie Creek 36.341208, -94.096513
4 | Page
Figure 2-2: StreamSmart Monitoring Sites in the Beaver Reservoir Subwatershed
5 | Page
Brush Creek – Site 300 Site 300 Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site Avg 140.3 384.2 7.7 219.2 18.4 3.12 0.029 Sub Watershed Avg 138.0 355.7 7.82 202.3 10.9 2.36 0.024 StreamSmart Avg 95.6 307.1 7.7 174.1 3.9 1.77 0.034
Total Phosphorus Brush Creek - Site 300 0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03 TP (mg/L) TP 0.02
0.01
0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 May-18 May-17 May-15 May-14
Total Nitrogen Brush Creek - Site 300 6
5
4
3
2
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 1
0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 May-18 May-17 May-15 May-14
6 | Page
Total Suspended Solids at Brush Creek 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 TSS (mg/L)TSS 15 10 5 0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 May-18 May-17 May-15 May-14
Brush Creek Macroinvertebrates 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Number of individual species individual of Number 0 Aug-16 May-17 Aug-17 May-18
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Brush Creek – Site 300 August 2016 May 2017 August 2017 May 2018 Macroinvertebrate Index Score 30 11 24 14 Water Quality Excellent Fair Excellent Fair
7 | Page
Habitat Parameter Avg Score Condition Epifaunal Substrate 12.3 Suboptimal Embeddedness 16.4 Optimal Velocity/Depth Regime 15.0 Suboptimal Sediment Deposition 14.1 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 11.3 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 11.2 Suboptimal Frequency of Riffles 10.4 Marginal Bank stability Left 4.3 Marginal Bank stability Right 6.3 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Left 5.9 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Right 5.4 Marginal Riparian Zone Left 3.4 Marginal Riparian Zone Right 3.7 Marginal Total Score 120.0
Brush Creek is in the Beaver Reservoir Subwatershed, draining directly to Beaver Lake. It has higher total dissolved solids and total suspended solids compared with averages found throughout the StreamSmart study area. Higher than average TSS and TDS concentrations can help to explain the higher conductivity found in the waterbody. Average total nitrogen concentrations at the site are higher than the average for the subwatershed and the overall streamsmart area. The average TN concentration is currently above the threshold that would contribute to nuisance algae. Average total phosphorus concentration is about the same as the subwatershed and the overall streamsmart area. The average TP concentration is also below the threshold for nuisance algae. The benthic macroinvertebrate inventory at Brush Creek indicates the creek has high water quality to support benthic macroinvertebrate life.
Prairie Creek – Site 306
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 306 Avg 135.7 327.1 7.9 185.3 3.4 1.60 0.020 Subwatershed Avg 138.0 355.7 7.8 202.3 10.9 2.36 0.024 StreamSmart Avg 95.6 307.1 7.7 174.1 3.9 1.77 0.034
Total Phosphorous at Prairie Creek Below Lake Atalanta Dam (Site 306) 0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020 0.015 TP (mg/L) TP 0.010 0.005
0.000
Jun-13 Feb-17 Feb-18 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-16 May-15 May-14
8 | Page
Total Nitrogen at Prairie Creek Below Lake Atalanta Dam - (Site 306) 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 TN (mg/L) 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Jun-13 Feb-17 Feb-18 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-16 May-15 May-14
Total Suspended Solids at Prairie Creek Below Lake Atalanta Dam (Site 306) 12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
TSS (mg/L)TSS 4.0
2.0
0.0 Jun-13 Feb-17 Feb-18 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-16 May-15 May-14
Total Dissolved Solids at Prairie Creek Below Lake Atalanta Dam (Site 306) 450.0 400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Jun-13 Feb-17 Feb-18 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-16 May-15 May-14
9 | Page
Macroinvertebrates found at Prairie Creek 5
4
3
2
1 Number of Species Identified 0 May-16 Aug-16
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Prairie Creek Site 306 May 2016 August 2016 Macroinvertebrate Index Score 19 14 Water Quality good Fair
Habitat Parameter Avg Score Condition Epifaunal Substrate 13.9 Suboptimal Embeddedness 12.9 Suboptimal Velocity/Depth Regime 13.3 Suboptimal Prairie Creek has generally good water quality as reflected with Sediment Deposition 10.4 Marginal below average stream chemistry results from four years of Channel Flow Status 10.0 Marginal monitoring. Prairie Creek also usually reflects fair to good Channel Alteration 8.9 Marginal water quality in macroinvertebrate surveys. In 2016, Frequency of Riffles 12.7 Suboptimal volunteers scored prairie creek at a 19 (good water quality) in May and a 14 (fair water quality) in August. The creek is a great Bank stability Left 3.4 Marginal site for finding hellgrammites and crayfish. Bank stability Right 4.3 Marginal Vegetative Protection Left 4.7 Marginal Average total nitrogen concentrations at Prairie Creek are Vegetative Protection Right 5.1 Marginal above the threshold considered to contribute to nuisance Riparian Zone Left 6.3 Suboptimal algae. Average total phosphorus concentration is about the Riparian Zone Right 4.3 Marginal same as the streamsmart area. The average TP concentration Total 110.1 is also below the threshold for nuisance algae.
Lake Atalanta Park and Lake Atalanta, upstream from the monitoring area, are still recovering from park renovations that began in the fall of 2015 and continued until the fall of 2016. Above the dam, Prairie Creek was relocated. The lake was dredged and new ecological designs were installed within the park. Additionally, new bike trails and a walking path were installed in the park. At the monitoring reach, the auto and public access has been closed, dramatically reducing the traffic driving over the low water bridge. However, a lot of sediment and rock is still settling near the bridge, requiring dredging to maintain the water level below the bridge. In the spring of 2017, a major flood happened in the park, causing infrastructure damage and had major impact on Prairie Creek upstream of the Lake. We will continue to monitor Prairie Creek for changes, especially as park usage increases.
10 | Page
Chapter 3 - Headwaters-White River-Lake Sequoyah Subwatershed Within this rural watershed lies the origin of the White River. It begins as a typical Ozark Mountain stream, with frequent pools and riffles. Then it flows through land that is surrounded by largely undisturbed forest. The forest is characterized by hardwoods such as oak, hickory and maple. It is not until further downstream that this meandering stream develops into the mighty White River. The origin of the White River, found in this watershed, is a farm pond north of Highway 16 in rural Madison county. The approximate elevation of the source is 2,250 feet above mean sea level. From its source, the White River flows 722 miles to its confluence with the Mississippi River in Desha County, Arkansas. The Headwaters portion of this subwatershed covers 52,206 acres in Madison and Franklin counties. The Lake Sequoyah-White River portion of this subwatershed comprises 70,838 acres. Lake Sequoyah is a 490-acre reservoir at the terminus of this subwatershed constructed by the city of Fayetteville in the 1960’s. As of the 2000 census, 4862 people lived within the combined area of this watershed.
Land Cover of the Lake Sequoyah-White River-Headwaters Subwatershed The Headwaters-White River-Lake 1% Sequoyah Subwatershed is Forested dominated by Forest comprising 1% 13% 81% of the land cover of the 1% Water -1% watershed. 3% Total Woody or Herbacious There are approximately 361 miles Cover Percentage of roads and 258 stream miles in Low Intensity Development the watershed.
Bare/Barren Soils Watershed Area: 123,044 Acres
Pasture/AG 81% Information obtained from Other “Beaver Lake and Its Watershed 2010”
Landcover of the Headwaters-White River-Lake Sequoyah Subwatershed in 2004.
Water Quality Concerns
There are no identified water quality impairments in this subwatershed. However, the subwatershed falls within the area identified by Arkansas Natural Resources Commission as a nutrient suprplus watershed, as are all subwatershed tributaries to Beaver Lake. Therefore nutrient loading of streams within the watershed is a concern. These water quality concerns are related to the increase in housing that depends on on-site septic systems. Additionally, the loading of nutrients caused by runoff from pasture lands can adversely affect water quality.
Stream Smart Monitoring
Table 2: StreamSmart Monitoring Sites in the Headwaters-White River-Lake Sequoyah Subwatershed
Site Number Site Name Coordinates 103 Baldwin Creek Near St. Paul 35.822256, -93.758937 104 White River Near St. Paul 35.818676, -93.779774
11 | Page
StreamSmart Monitoring Sites in the Headwaters-White River-Lake Sequoyah Subwatershed
12 | Page
Baldwin Creek near St. Paul – Site 103
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 103 8.8 30.3 6.80 31.7 1.4 0.20 0.024 Subwatershed Avg 10.2 35.3 6.92 31.0 1.3 0.26 0.021 Full Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus Baldwin Creek in the Headwaters near St. Paul - Site 103 0.050 0.045 0.040 0.035 0.030 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total 0.000
Total Nitrogen Baldwin Creek in the Headwaters near St. Paul - Site 103 2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50 Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
0.00
13 | Page
Total Suspended Solids Baldwin Creek in the headwaters near St. Paul - Site 103 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0
5.0 4.0
TSS (mg/L)TSS 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
Total Dissolved Solids at Baldwin Creek in the Headwaters near St. Paul - Site 103 300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 100.0
50.0
0.0
Macroinvertebrates identified at Baldwin Creek
7 6 5 4
3 2 1 0
Number of Species identified May-16 Aug-16 May-17 Aug-17 May-18
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Baldwin Creek Site 103 May 2016 August 2016 May 2017 August 2017 May 2018 Total Score 17 18 20 23 2
Water Quality Good Good Good Excellent Poor
14 | Page
Habitat Parameter Avg Condition Epifaunal Substrate 14.0 Suboptimal Embeddedness 16.8 Optimal Velocity/Depth Regime 13.1 Suboptimal Sediment Deposition 14.4 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 11.4 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 12.0 Suboptimal Frequency of Riffles 14.0 Suboptimal Bank stability Left 6.6 Suboptimal Bank stability Right 6.6 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Left 7.5 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Right 5.8 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Left 9.5 Optimal Riparian Zone Right 2.6 Poor Total 133.2
Baldwin Creek is located high in the headwaters of the watershed, near St. Paul. Rural areas and agriculture dominates the landscape near the creek. Many unpaved roads also run near the creek. The water chemistry of Baldwin Creek is good, with below average nutrient concentrations and below average concentrations of total suspended solids and total dissolved solids. Stream chemistry also falls within ranges that indicate good water quality. The stream also generally scores well in macroinvertebrate surveys.
White River near St. Paul – Site 104
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 104 11.6 40.3 7.03 30.4 1.2 0.32 0.019 Subwatershed Avg 10.2 35.3 6.92 31.0 1.3 0.26 0.021 Full Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus White River Near St. Paul - Site 104 0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030
0.020
0.010 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total 0.000
15 | Page
Total Nitrogen White River Near St. Paul - Site 104 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 Total Nitrogen (mg/L 0.00
Total Dissolved Solids in White River near St. Paul - Site 104 180.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
Total Suspended Solids White River Near St. Paul - Site 104 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
16 | Page
Macroinvertebrates identified at White River near St. Paul 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Number of species identified Aug-16 May-17 Aug-17 May-18 Aug-18
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
White River near St. Paul – Site 104 August 2016 May 2017 August 2017 May 2018 August 2018 Macroinvertebrate Total Score 11 8 17 8 13 Water Quality Fair Poor Good Poor Fair
Habitat Parameter Avg Condition Epifaunal Substrate 8.2 Marginal Embeddedness 15.2 Suboptimal Velocity/Depth Regime 11.9 Suboptimal Sediment Deposition 14.9 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 11.3 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 9.6 Marginal Frequency of Riffles 11.7 Suboptimal Bank stability Left 6.7 Suboptimal Bank stability Right 5.7 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Left 5.6 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Right 4.9 Marginal Riparian Zone Left 5.3 Marginal Riparian Zone Right 5.8 Suboptimal Total 116.7
The White River near St. Paul is in the headwaters of the watershed. However, the monitoring reach is in an area that has received some human impact. A major highway bridge goes over the stream near the monitoring site. The remains of an old bridge are also present near the monitoring site. The site is also used by residents for recreational swimming, fishing, and hunting. The banks are covered with rocks and the stream channel is highly altered.
The stream chemistry of the White River near St. Paul indicates an overall good quality of water with low average nutrient concentration, low total suspended solids and low total dissolved solids concentrations.
Macroinvertebrate surveys have shifted during the monitoring period, however the August 2017 survey found good water quality.
17 | Page
Chapter 4 - Middle Fork of the White River Subwatershed The Middle Fork of the White River subwatershed covers 48,410 acres that is dominated by forest. Significant urban growth has occurred in the downstream reaches of the watershed near Fayetteville and Elkins while the upstream reaches are predominantly rural. In 2000 the population was estimated at 1,610 people. Population growth is expected to continue within this watershed due to the continued rapid expansion of the Northwest Arkansas urban area.
6% 1% There are approximately 156 miles of roads within the Middle Fork of the 20% White River Subwatershed.
Forest Approximately 99 miles of streams Pasture/Agland flow through this subwatershed. Woody Herbaceous Bare/Barren Soils Watershed Area: 48,410 Acres
73%
Information obtained from “Beaver Lake and its Watershed 2010”
Landcover of the Middle Fork of the White River subwatershed in 2004.
Water Quality Concerns
There have been some recent concerns regarding dissolved oxygen levels on the Middle Fork of the White River. In 2008, the waterbody was listed on the Arkansas 303d list as impaired for aquatic life due to low dissolved oxygen. However, subsequent drafts of the 303d list do not list the stream as impaired. This subwatershed lies within the area identified by the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission as a nutrient surplus watershed, as are all subwatershed tributaries to Beaver Lake. Therefore nutrient loading of the stream is a concern. Potential sources of nutrients are runoff from pasture lands in the area and from the significant number of new homes relying on on-site wastewater disposal.
Stream Smart Monitoring
Site Number Site Name Coordinates 1st Monitoring Period 201 Middle Fork of W.R. at 35.995825, -94.072894 February 2014 Harris Rd
18 | Page
StreamSmart Monitoring Sites in the Middle Fork of the White River Subwatershed
19 | Page
Middle Fork of the White River Near Harris Rd. – Site 201
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 201 44.5 178.2 7.5 87.7 1.6 0.37 0.015 Subwatershed Avg 44.5 178.2 7.5 87.7 1.6 0.37 0.015 Full Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.17 3.98 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus Middle Fork of the White River near Harris Rd. - Site 201 0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total
Total Nitrogen Middle Fork of the White River near Harris Rd - Site 201 1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.00
20 | Page
Total Dissolved Solids at White River near Harris Rd. - Site 201 350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0 TDS (mg/L) TDS 100.0
50.0
0.0
Total Suspended Solids at White River near Harris Rd - Site 201 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
Middle Fork White River - Harris Bridge Rd Macroinvertebrate Data 5 4 3 2 1 0 Aug-18
Number of Species Identified Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Parameter August 2018 Index Value 19 Water Quality Good
21 | Page
Habitat Parameter Avg Score Condition Epifaunal Substrate 13.3 Suboptimal Embeddedness 13.5 Suboptimal Velocity/Depth Regime 14.8 Suboptimal Sediment Deposition 15.2 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 10.8 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 13.0 Suboptimal Frequency of Riffles 9.0 Marginal Bank stability Left 6.8 Suboptimal Bank stability Right 4.5 Marginal Vegetative Protection Left 4.5 Marginal Vegetative Protection Right 3.0 Marginal Riparian Zone Left 5.8 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Right 2.0 Poor Total Score Average 111.7
The White River at Harris Rd monitoring site is in the central part of the watershed. The stream is very wide at this site (> 100 feet), making streamflow measurements difficult. There is a large bridge situated near the site and large debris is captured on the upstream side of the bridge during high flow events. The area immediately surrounding the monitoring site is rural, but the site is very close to commercial development. The stream experiences a lot of impact from high flows. Streambanks are heavily eroded just downstream from the monitoring site. There has also been some indication of vehicles in the stream, during previous surveys. There are often deer carcass found at the site during monitoring.
Stream chemistry results indicate water quality with nutrient concentrations, total dissolved solids concentrations and total suspended solids concentrations all below the overall averages found across the StreamSmart monitoring program. Average stream chemistry concentrations also fall below thresholds that would indicate a water quality concern. Additional sites are needed in this watershed to accurate comparisons.
22 | Page
Chapter 5 - Richland Creek Subwatershed Richland Creek Subwatershed of the Beaver Lake watershed is primarily a rural area with farming communities. The watershed is predominantly rural with 70% of the landuse of the watershed being forest or woody/herbaceous plants. Some growth has occurred in the watershed near Goshen. Homes in this subwatershed are serviced by on-site wastewater sewage septic systems. According to Census records, in 2000 the population of the watershed was just over 3500 people, representing a population increase of 26% from the 1990 census.
There are approximately 278 miles of roads and 188 miles of streams in this watershed
28% Forest Watershed Area = 93,333 acres Woody/Herbaceous Low Intensity Urban 1% 6% 64% Bare/Barren Soils Information obtained from “Beaver 1% Pasture/Ag Land Lake and Its Watershed 2010”
Landcover of the Richland Creek Watershed in 2004.
Water Quality Concerns: Two water quality concerns dominate in this watershed, increased nutrients from runoff and impacts from septic system effluent. Most homes in the Richland Creek subwatershed rely on septic systems, meaning there is an elevated risk of effluent seeping from older systems or systems that have not been properly maintained. Effluent carries both bacteria and nutrients that can adversely impact water quality.
The lower part of the watershed has a large percentage of land being used for pasture or converted into subdivisions. Areas of pasture and low density development can have higher nutrient runoff resulting in lower water quality. Best management practices in this area are important to reduce runoff, reduce nutrient loading to a nearby water body, and to protect water quality.
Water Quality Monitoring Currently, there is one site being monitored by StreamSmart in the Richland Creek Watershed. There are two legacy water quality sites and one active USGS gage. USGS gage 07048800 was installed in 1998 to monitor stream flow. In 2001 the USGS began collecting water quality data as well.
Site Number Site Name Coordinates 1st Monitoring Period 205 Hock Creek 36.022522, -93.859674 November 2016
23 | Page
Richland Creek Subwatershed
24 | Page
Site 205 – Hock Creek
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 205 44.0 132.7 7.60 89.3 5.4 0.79 0.015 Subwatershed Avg 44.0 132.7 7.60 89.3 5.4 0.79 0.015 StreamSmart Avg 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total P at Hock Creek (Site 205) 0.025
0.020
0.015
TP (mg/L) TP 0.010
0.005
0.000 Nov-16 Feb-17 May-17 Nov-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
Total N at Hock Creek (Site 205) 2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00 Total N (mg/L)
0.50
0.00 Nov-16 Feb-17 May-17 Nov-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
25 | Page
Total Dissolved Solids at Hock Creek (Site 205) 180.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Nov-16 Feb-17 May-17 Nov-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
Total Suspended Solids at Hock Creek (Site 205) 20.0 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Nov-16 Feb-17 May-17 Nov-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
Site 205 - Hock Creek Macroinvertebrate Assessment
7 6 5 4
3 2 1
0 Number of Species Found Species of Number May-17 May-18 Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Macroinvertebrate Score May 2017 May 2018 Index Score 20 20
Water Quality Good Good
26 | Page
Habitat Parameter Average Score Condition Epifaunal Substrate 16.7 Optimal Embeddedness 14.0 Optimal Velocity/Depth Regime 12.3 Suboptimal Sediment Deposition 11.7 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 11.9 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 13.6 Suboptimal Frequency of Riffles 12.0 Suboptimal Bank stability Left 8.9 Optimal Bank stability Right 8.7 Optimal Vegetative Protection Left 8.3 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Right 8.7 Optimal Riparian Zone Left 7.6 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Right 7.3 Suboptimal Total 141.6
Monitoring began at Hock Creek in November 2016. This is the first site being monitored through StreamSmart in the Richland Creek watershed. The surrounding landscape is dominated by rural and agricultural land. The site is very slick and a film of algae and sediment was noted on rocks and the streambed during the November 2016 monitoring. The streamflow was very slow, almost zero, during the November monitoring. The combination of low flow and settled sediment or organic matter getting stirred up by a volunteer entering the stream to collect a sample could be contributing factors for the high concentration of total suspended solids found in November.
Early stream chemistry results indicate good water quality at this site. The average concentrations are below thresholds that would indicate a water quality concern.
The first macroinvertebrate assessments completed at the site indicate good water quality with five sensitive species found at the site.
27 | Page
Chapter 6- War Eagle Subwatershed
War Eagle Watershed is an Ozarks’ treasure, extending from its headwaters near the town of Red Star in the Boston Mountains to its confluence with Beaver Lake near the town of Nob Hill. The watershed is 215,779 acres in size and has mostly rural land. Huntsville is the largest city within War Eagle subwatershed and it is the largest city that is totally within the Beaver Lake Watershed. Homes in this subwatershed outside of the city of Huntsville are served by on-site sewage systems. According to 2000 census records, 8735 people resided in the War Eagle Watershed, a 25% increase over the 1990 census.
The War Eagle Subwatershed is mostly 1% forest, but there is a significant amount of pasture, especially in the middle reaches around the city of Forest Huntsville. The watershed contains 31% Woody/Herbaceous approximately 664 miles of roads and Low Intensity Urban 468 miles of streams. Bare/Barren Soils 59% Pasture/Ag land Watershed Area: 215,779 Acres 2% Water 1%
6% Information obtained from “Beaver Lake and Its Watershed 2010”
Landcover of the War Eagle Subwatershed in 2004.
Water Quality Concerns Sediment is an important issue in the War Eagle Creek subwatershed. The ADEQ has determined that Holman Creek and upper reach of War Eagle Creek both fail to support the designated uses of drinking, agricultural, and industrial water supply. Excessive Nutrients, Chlorides, Sulfates and Total Dissolved Solids are the pollutants of concern. The identified potential source is municipal point source. Like other subwatershed tributaries to Beaver Lake, the War Eagle Creek is a nutrient sensitive area so excess nutrients from nonpoint sources are also a potential concern.
Stream Smart Monitoring
StreamSmart Monitoring Sites in the War Eagle Watershed
Site Number Site Name Coordinates 1st Monitoring Period 301 War Eagle Creek (Huntsville) 36.149997, -93.740137 August 2012 302 Glade Creek 36.159851, -93.811690 February 2013 303 Clear Creek 36.195153, -93.789276 August 2012 304 Clifty Creek 36.239342, -93.907653 August 2012 305 War Eagle (Mill) 36.267597, -93.943130 November 2012 307 Holman Creek Upstream of Huntsville 36.104418, -93.756750 November 2014 308 Holman Creek Downstream of Huntsville 36.124453, -93.734211 November 2014
28 | Page
StreamSmart Monitoring Sites in the War Eagle Subwatershed
29 | Page
Tributaries to the War Eagle Data from five tributaries of the War Eagle are presented in this report. The tributaries are listed approximately geographically from upstream in the headwaters to the most downstream tributary. Data from each of the tributaries was averaged to determine a War Eagle Tributary Subwatershed Average for each of the parameters. Glade Creek – Site 302
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 302 138.4 361.3 8.06 200.7 2.3 3.45 0.028 War Eagle Trib Average 116.2 349.7 7.72 191.0 1.8 3.22 0.048 StreamSmart Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus at Glade Creek (site 302) 0.070
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030 TP (mg/L) TP 0.020
0.010
0.000 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
Total Nitrogen at Glade Creek (Site 302) 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 TN (mg/L) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
30 | Page
Total Dissolved Solids at Glade Creek (site 302) 300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 100.0
50.0
0.0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
Total Suspended Solids at Glade Creek (site 302) 14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS 4.0
2.0
0.0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
Macroinvertebrates found at Glade Creek 5
4
3
2
1
Number of Species Identified 0 Aug-16 May-17 Aug-17 May-18 Aug-18
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Glade Creek – Site 302 August 2016 May 2017 August 2017 May 2018 August 2018 Macroinvertebrate Index Score 17 9 15 15 12
Water Quality good poor Fair Fair Fair
31 | Page
Habitat Parameter Average Score Condition Epifaunal Substrate 13.5 Suboptimal Embeddedness 12.3 Suboptimal Velocity/Depth Regime 11.1 Suboptimal Sediment Deposition 14.6 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 14.5 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 15.5 Suboptimal Frequency of Riffles 13.6 Suboptimal Bank stability Left 8.0 Suboptimal Bank stability Right 8.1 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Left 8.6 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Right 8.3 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Left 8.5 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Right 8.4 Suboptimal Average Total 143.5 Glade Creek is a tributary to the War Eagle Watershed. It is in a rural area dominated by agriculture. Average total dissolved solids and total suspended solids are higher at the site than the average of all sites monitored in War Eagle Watershed. Average total nitrogen is also higher than the average total nitrogen of all sites in the War Eagle Watershed, and the average TN concentration exceeds the threshold for nuisance algae. Peak total nitrogen was found in February 2013 while subsequent data have indicated total nitrogen levels trend towards average concentrations found in the subwatershed. Average total phosphorus at the site is lower than the average TP of the sub-watershed and is lower the overall Streamsmart average. The average TP concentration is below the threshold for nuisance algae. Peak TP was reached in August, 2016, but readings dropped back to normal in November, 2016. However another peak TP occurred in August of 2017.
Macroinvertebrate inventory from Glade Creek indicates good water quality with 2-4 sensitive species being found during each of the monitoring periods. Clear Creek – Site 303
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 303 105.6 266.0 7.51 149.8 0.4 4.01 0.022 War Eagle Trib Average 116.2 349.7 7.72 191.0 1.8 3.22 0.048 StreamSmart Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus Clear Creek (Site 303) 0.04 0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02
TP (mg/L) TP 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
32 | Page
Total Nitrogen Clear Creek (Site 303) 18 16 14 12 10 8 TN (mg/L) 6 4 2 0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
Total Dissolved Solids at Clear Creek (Site 303) 300
250
200
150
TDS (mg/L) TDS 100
50
0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
Total Suspended Solids at Clear Creek (Site 303) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 TSS (mg/L)TSS 3 2 1 0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
33 | Page
Macroinvertebrates found at Clear Creek 5
4
3
2
1
Number of Individual Species Individual of Number 0 May-16 Aug-16 May-17 Aug-17 May-18 Aug-18
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Clear Creek – Site 303 May 2016 August 2016 May 2017 August 2017 May 2018 August 2018 Macroinvertebrate Index Score 9 14 15 12 13 22 Water Quality Poor Fair Fair Fair Fair Good
Habitat Parameter Avg Score Condition Epifaunal Substrate 11.8 Suboptimal Embeddedness 15.2 Suboptimal Velocity/Depth Regime 13.8 Suboptimal Sediment Deposition 12.6 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 12.9 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 12.2 Suboptimal Frequency of Riffles 13.0 Suboptimal Bank stability Left 6.6 Suboptimal Bank stability Right 5.8 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Left 6.3 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Right 3.8 Marginal Riparian Zone Left 5.8 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Right 3.5 Marginal Total 123.0
Clear Creek is in the central portion of the War Eagle Subwatershed and is a tributary of War Eagle Creek. The area is rural and dominated by agricultural land use. Clear Creek generally runs clear. Water chemistry from clear creek indicate the stream has overall good water quality. Average total dissolved solid concentrations are equal to average total dissolved solid concentrations found throughout the StreamSmart study area and are lower than average concentrations found in the War Eagle subwatershed. Average total suspended solid concentrations are extremely low. Total nitrogen concentrations are high at Clear Creek compared to concentrations found within War Eagle Watershed and concentrations found throughout the StreamSmart study area. Total nitrogen concentrations exceed the threshold for nuisance algae. A peak in total nitrogen was in August 2013. Total Phosphorus concentrations remain low and are approximately half of the average concentration found in the War Eagle watershed. A peak total phosphorus concentration was in August 2017. In November, total P returned to the average concentration. The macroinvertebrate inventory indicates fair water quality. Although there is diversity found at the site, the low numbers of species found indicate the macroinvertebrate population could be impacted by degraded water quality.
34 | Page
Clifty Creek – Site 304
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 304 145.5 361.9 7.44 200.0 2.3 4.15 0.028 War Eagle Trib Average 116.2 349.7 7.72 191.0 1.8 3.22 0.048 StreamSmart Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
TP (mg/L) at Clifty Creek (site 304) 0.120
0.100
0.080
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.000 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-14 Feb-15 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-14 Aug-15 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-14 May-15
TN (mg/L) at Clifty Creek (Site 304) 14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00 TN (mg/L) 4.00
2.00
0.00 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-14 Feb-15 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-14 Aug-15 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-14 May-15
35 | Page
TDS (mg/L) at Clifty Creek (site 304) 300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-14 Feb-15 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-14 Aug-15 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-14 May-15
TSS (mg/L) 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0
TSS (mg/L)TSS 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-14 Feb-15 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-14 Aug-15 Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-14 May-15
Macroinvertebrates identified at Clifty Creek
5
4
3
2
1
0 Number of Species Identified May-16 Aug-16 May-17 Aug-17 May-18 Aug-18 Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Clifty Creek – Site 304 May 2016 August 2016 May 2017 August 2017 May 2018 August 2018 Index Score 9 12 9 6 10 11 Water Quality Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Poor
36 | Page
Habitat Parameter Avg Score Condition Epifaunal Substrate 12.9 Suboptimal Embeddedness 15.3 Suboptimal Velocity/Depth Regime 16.3 Optimal Sediment Deposition 13.7 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 12.1 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 14.5 Suboptimal Frequency of Riffles 13.1 Suboptimal Bank stability Left 7.5 Suboptimal Bank stability Right 5.7 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Left 7.7 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Right 6.5 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Left 8.6 optimal Riparian Zone Right 8.2 Suboptimal Total 142.1
Clifty Creek is in the central portion of the War Eagle Watershed and is a tributary of War Eagle Creek. The landuse is dominated by agriculture. The creek has overall good to moderate water quality. Stream chemistry analysis show higher than average total dissolved solid concentrations. Concentrations of total suspended solid concentrations are slightly above the War Eagle subwatershed average but below the overall StreamSmart study average. Total nitrogen concentrations trend higher than average at this site compared with both the average of the War Eagle subwatershed and the overall StreamSmart study. Average total nitrogen concentration exceeds the threshold for nuisance algae. Total Phosphorus concentrations are below both the average for the War Eagle Watershed and the overall StreamSmart study.
Macroinvertebrate surveys taken at Clifty Creek indicate water quality is fair or poor in supporting aquatic macroinvertebrate life. Although sensitive species have been regularly identified at the creek, overall diversity remains low. Holman Creek Upstream of Huntsville – Site 307
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 307 88.2 240.1 7.67 122.9 1.4 0.64 0.021 War Eagle Trib Average 116.2 349.7 7.72 191.0 1.8 3.22 0.048 StreamSmart Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus Holman Creek: Upstream of Huntsville - Site 307 0.045 0.040 0.035 0.030 0.025 0.020
TP (mg/L) TP 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000
37 | Page
Total Nitrogen at Holman Creek upstream of the City of Huntsville (Site 307) 1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80 TN (mg/L) 0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Total Dissolved Solids at Holman Creek Upstream of Huntsville (Site 307) 180.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
Total Suspended Solids at Holman Creek Upstream of Huntsville (Site 307) 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
38 | Page
Habitat Parameter Average Condition Holman Creek located in the central portion of War Eagle Epifaunal Substrate 14.8 Suboptimal Watershed near Withrow Springs State Park and is a tributary to Embeddedness 11.8 Suboptimal War Eagle Creek. Landuse around Holman Creek is rural in the Velocity/Depth Regime 10.3 Marginal upstream portion. However, Holman Creek flows through the Sediment Deposition 10.3 Marginal town of Huntsville and receives urban impacts from stormwater Channel Flow Status 8.3 Marginal and from wastewater discharge. Grab sample monitoring Channel Alteration 13.5 Suboptimal occurs on Holman Creek upstream and downstream of Frequency of Riffles 12.5 Suboptimal Huntsville. Stream chemistry at the upstream monitoring site Bank stability Left 7.5 Suboptimal (site 307) indicates the stream has overall good water quality. Bank stability Right 7.3 Suboptimal Total dissolved solid concentrations are about average, Vegetative Protection Left 7.8 Suboptimal compared to the War Eagle watershed and the overall Vegetative Protection Right 7.0 Suboptimal StreamSmart study. Total suspended solid concentrations Riparian Zone Left 5.5 Suboptimal below average compared to the War Eagle subwatershed and the overall StreamSmart study. Total nitrogen concentrations Riparian Zone Right 5.3 Marginal are below average while total P concentrations are below the Total 121.5 War Eagle subwatershed average while being slightly above the overall StreamSmart average. Neither average concentrations for total nitrogen nor total phosphorus indicate potential problems.
Macroinvertebrate sampling and habitat assessments have not been completed on Holman Creek.
Holman Creek Downstream of Huntsville – Site 308 Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 308 103.4 519.4 7.91 281.7 2.3 3.85 0.140 War Eagle Trib Average 116.2 349.7 7.72 191.0 1.8 3.22 0.048 StreamSmart Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus Holman Creek: Downstream of Huntsville - Site 308 0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
TP (mg/L) TP 0.200
0.100
0.000
39 | Page
Total Nitrogen at Holman Creek Downstream of Huntsville (Site 308) 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00
TN (mg/L) 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00
Total Dissolved Solids at Holman Creek Downstream of Huntsville (Site 308) 600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 200.0
100.0
0.0
Total Suspended Solids at Holman Creek Downstream of Huntsville (site 308) 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS 2.0 1.0 0.0
40 | Page
Habitat Parameter Average Condition Monitoring data from Holman Creek downstream of the town Epifaunal Substrate 14.4 Suboptimal of Huntsville indicates there may be some water quality Embeddedness 11.6 Suboptimal problems. The site has higher than average conductivity and Velocity/Depth Regime 13.8 Suboptimal higher than average total dissolved solids. This condition is Sediment Deposition 13.2 Suboptimal often found downstream of wastewater treatment plants. Channel Flow Status 12.8 Suboptimal Total suspended solid concentrations are higher than the War Channel Alteration 13.2 Suboptimal Eagle subwatershed average but lower than the overall Frequency of Riffles 12.0 Suboptimal Streamsmart average. Total Nitrogen concentrations are Bank stability Left 6.2 Suboptimal higher than both the War Eagle subwatershed average and the Bank stability Right 6.2 Suboptimal StreamSmart overall average. Average total nitrogen Vegetative Protection Left 6.8 Suboptimal concentrations exceed the threshold for nuisance algae. There Vegetative Protection Right 6.0 Suboptimal has been a trend of a peak in total nitrogen concentrations to Riparian Zone Left 4.2 Marginal be recorded annually in November, with 4 out of the top 5 highest readings happening in each of the November Riparian Zone Right 5.2 Marginal monitoring periods Total phosphorus concentrations at the site Total 125.6 are the highest found within the the StreamSmart study and the average total phosphorus concentration exceeds the threshold for the development of nuisance algae.. Biological monitoring and habitat monitoring are not completed at this time on Holman Creek.
Holman Creek Upstream and Downstream of Huntsville
Total Nitrogen Holman Creek Upstream and Downstream of Huntsville 8.00 7.50 7.00 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 TN (mg/L) 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00
Site 307 TN (mg/L) Site 308 TN (mg/L)
41 | Page
Total Phosphorus on Holman Creek Upstream and Downstream of Huntsville 0.550 0.500 0.450 0.400 0.350 0.300 0.250 TP (mg/L) TP 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000
Site 307 TP (mg/L) Site 308 TP (mg/L)
Total Dissolved Solids on Holman Creek Upstream and Downstream of Huntsville 600.0
500.0
400.0
300.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 200.0
100.0
0.0
Site 307 TDS (mg/L Site 308 TDS (mg/L)
Samples are collected on Holman Creek sites, upstream and downstream of the city of Huntsville, quarterly and within the same hour on the same day. Currently, biological surveys, habitat assessments, and streamflow are not being completed at the sites due to lack of available volunteers.
Analysis of the data upstream and downstream of the town of Huntsville on Holman Creek indicates water quality being negatively impacted on the creek. Concentrations of total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total dissolved solids consistently show an increase from the site upstream of Huntsville to the site downstream of Huntsville. ADEQ has determined that Holman Creek fails to support the designated uses of drinking, agricultural, and industrial water supply. The agency identified the potential source of water quality pollution source as municipal wastewater point source.
42 | Page
War Eagle Creek Sites Three sites are included on the main channel of War Eagle Creek. Sites are presented upstream to downstream and data from each site is used to determine the average of each parameter in the main channel of War Eagle Creek.
War Eagle Creek at Withrow Springs - Site 301 Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 301 80.6 278.2 7.76 143.7 4.4 1.45 0.045 War Eagle Creek Average 86.0 266.3 7.77 142.2 4.8 1.60 0.035 StreamSmart Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus War Eagle near Withrow Springs in Huntsville 0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100 TP (mg/L) TP
0.050
0.000 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-13 Feb-14 Feb-15 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-13 Aug-15 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-12 Nov-14 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15
Total Nitrogen War Eagle Creek near Withrow Springs in Huntsville 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00
TN (mg/L) 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-13 Feb-14 Feb-15 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-13 Aug-15 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-12 Nov-14 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15
43 | Page
Total Dissolved Solids in War Eagle Creek near Withrow Springs 450.0 400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-13 Feb-14 Feb-15 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-13 Aug-15 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-12 Nov-14 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15
Total Suspended Solids at War Eagle Creek near Withrow Springs 14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS 4.0
2.0
0.0 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-13 Feb-14 Feb-15 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-13 Aug-15 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-12 Nov-14 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15
Macroinvertebrates found at War Eagle near Withrow Springs 6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Number of Species Identified Aug-16
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
War Eagle Withrow – Site 301 August 2016 Index Score 20 Water Quality Good
44 | Page
Habitat Parameter Average Condition Epifaunal Substrate 14.8 Suboptimal Embeddedness 13.7 Suboptimal Velocity/Depth Regime 15.0 Suboptimal Sediment Deposition 15.2 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 14.8 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 15.5 Suboptimal Frequency of Riffles 14.3 Suboptimal Bank stability Left 4.3 Marginal Bank stability Right 5.3 Marginal Vegetative Protection Left 5.5 Marginal Vegetative Protection Right 6.7 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Left 6.5 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Right 7.7 Suboptimal Total 139.3
War Eagle Creek at Withrow Springs (Site 301) is in the central portion of the watershed. The site is popular for recreational usage including floating, paddling, swimming, and fishing.
Alkalinity and conductivity at the site are higher than the average of the sites monitored on the War Eagle, but remain lower than the average of all StreamSmart sites. Concentrations of total dissolved solids and total suspended solids are approximately the same as the average of all StreamSmart sites. Total nitrogen concentrations are elevated compared to the average of all War Eagle sites but are approximately equal to the average of all StreamSmart sites. However, the average total nitrogen concentration meets the threshold for nuisance algae, meaning total nitrogen concentrations are a concern for at least part of the year. Concentrations of total phosphorus are higher at this site than other sites monitored on the main channel of War Eagle Creek. This increased phosphorus concentrations could be a result of Holman Creek flowing into the main channel of War Eagle Creek upstream of this monitoring site. War Eagle at the Mill – Site 305
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 305 89.9 253.0 7.77 137.8 4.2 1.72 0.025 War Eagle Creek Average 86.0 266.3 7.77 142.2 4.8 1.60 0.035 StreamSmart Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus at War Eagle Creek at War Eagle Mill (Site 305) 0.070
0.060
0.050
0.040
0.030 TP (mg/L) TP 0.020
0.010
0.000 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
45 | Page
Total Nitrogen at War Eagle Creek at War Eagle Mill (Site 305) 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00
TN (mg/L) 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
Total Dissolved Solids at War Eagle Creek at War Eagle Mill (Site 305) 250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0 TDS (mg/L) TDS
50.0
0.0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
Total Suspended Solids at War Eagle Creek at War Eagle Mill (Site 305) 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0
TSS (mg/L)TSS 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-14 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 Aug-15 Aug-14 Aug-13 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-13 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-16 May-15 May-14
46 | Page
Macroinvertebrates found at War Eagle below the Mill in 2016 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Number of Species Identified Aug-16 Aug-17 Aug-18
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
War Eagle Mill – Site 305 August 2016 August 2017 August 2018 Macroinvertebrate Index Score 26 14 20 Water Quality Excellent Fair Good
Habitat Parameter Average Condition Epifaunal Substrate 13.8 Suboptimal Embeddedness 14.4 Suboptimal Velocity/Depth Regime 15.4 Suboptimal Sediment Deposition 13.6 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 13.4 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 14.6 Suboptimal Frequency of Riffles 12.7 Suboptimal Bank stability Left 7.7 Suboptimal Bank stability Right 7.7 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Left 6.9 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Right 7.1 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Left 6.3 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Right 5.4 Marginal Total 139.0
War Eagle at the Mill (site 305) is the most downstream site monitored on War Eagle Creek. Monitoring occurs below the dam and bridge in shallow water where volunteers can safely wade into the water. The site is popular for recreational swimming and fishing during spring and summer months. Visitors to the site are often seen with pet dogs in the water. Parking is available in the riparian zone for visitors to access the mill and surrounding grounds.
Alkalinity and conductivity at the site are approximately the same as the overall StreamSmart average, but are elevated compared to the average found at sites on the main channel of War Eagle Creek. Concentrations of total dissolved solids and total suspended solids are also approximately the same as the StreamSmart average concentrations. However, TDS and TSS concentrations at the site are slightly elevated compared to the average found at sites on the main channel of War Eagle Creek. Average total nitrogen concentrations are approximately the same as the StreamSmart average but are elevated compared to the War Eagle main channel average. Total phosphorus concentrations are below average compared to both the War Eagle main channel and the overall StreamSmart average. Macroinvertebrate surveys indicate fair to good water quality.
47 | Page
Comparison of data of War Eagle at Withrow Springs and the Mill A comparison of monitoring data Total Nitrogen on War Eagle at Withrow Springs and Mill from the two sites currently 5.00 monitored on the main stem of 4.50 4.00 War Eagle Creek indicate some 3.50 changes in water quality 3.00 parameters between the two 2.50 sites. Total nitrogen tends to be 2.00 TN (mg/L) 1.50 elevated downstream at War 1.00 Eagle Mill compared with 0.50 concentrations found upstream at
0.00 Withrow Springs. Total phosphorus concentrations indicate an opposite trend with
Site 301 TN (mg/L) Site 305 TN (mg/L) higher concentrations upstream at Withrow Springs and lower at the downstream site near the mill. The increased phosphorus Total P at on War Eagle at Withrow Springs and Mill concentrations at Withrow Springs 0.070 followed by lower concentrations 0.060 at the mill could be a result of Holman Creek flowing into the 0.050 War Eagle just upstream of 0.040 Withrow Springs followed by 0.030
TP (mg/L) TP downstream dilution of total
0.020 phosphorus without any other 0.010 major inputs. However, TDS 0.000 concentrations tend to be the same or increase slightly from the Withrow Springs site to the mill site. Site 301 TP (mg/L) Site 305 TP (mg/L)
Total Dissolved Solids on War Eagle at Withrow Springs and War Eagle Mill 250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0 TDS (mg/L_ TDS 50.0
0.0
Site 301 TDS (mg/L) Site 305 TDS (mg/L)
48 | Page
Chapter 7 - West Fork of the White River Subwatershed The West Fork of the White River subwatershed lies to the far west within the Beaver Lake Watershed. The West Fork begins near the intersection of US highways 71 and 74 and flows north into Fayetteville where it converges with the White River just downstream of Lake Sequoyah. The West Fork of the White River subwatershed is 80,708 acres in size and includes the tributaries of Town Branch, Cato Springs, and Rock Springs. Part of the city of Fayetteville and all of the cities of Greenland and West Fork fall within the subwatershed. According to the 2000 Census records, the population of the watershed had increased by 21% over 10 years to 25,517 people.
The West Fork of the White River Forest Cover subwatershed is dominated by forest, covering over 2/3 of the area. Within the 1% 17% Woody/Herbaceous watershed are 438 miles of roads and 195 1% miles of streams. 4% Low Intensity Urban Development 6% High Intensity Urban Development Watershed Area: 80,708 Acres 71% Bare/Barren Soils Information obtained from “Beaver Lake And Its Watershed 2010” Pasture/Agland
Landcover in the West Fork-White River subwatershed in 2004.
Water Quality Concerns in the West Fork Watershed
Sediment is an important issue in the West Fork Watershed. The watershed has been named a high priority area for sediment control in the Beaver Lake Watershed Protection Strategy (2012). The ADEQ has determined that sections of the West Fork of the White River do not support the designated uses of aquatic life and water supply for agricultural and industrial uses. Excessive turbidity and sedimentation are the identified causes for both impairments. Surface erosion has been identified as the most likely source of the pollutants. The West Fork has Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) sediment allocations requiring significant reductions from existing levels. The West Fork is a nutrient sensitive area, so excess nutrients from nonpoint sources are a potential concern. With the large and increasing population of the watershed, urban runoff is also a potential concern.
Monitoring in the West Fork Watershed
StreamSmart volunteer teams are currently monitoring six sites in the West Fork of the White River.
StreamSmart Monitoring Sites in West Fork of the White River Subwatershed
Site Number Site Name Coordinates First Monitoring Period Site 101 West Fork (Baptist Ford Bridge) 35.982714, -94.173129 November 2014 Site 102 West Fork (Brentwood Park) 35.865723, -94.117257 May 2014 Site 200 Ward Slough 35.997184, -94.173949 August 2016 Site 202 College Branch 36.059383, -94.178594 November 2016 Site 206 Spout Spring Branch 36.055019, -94.161107 Aug 2012 Site 210 Town Branch (White River Ball fields) 36.043179, -94.135852 May 2014
49 | Page
Monitoring Sites in the West Fork of the White River Sub-watershed of the Beaver Lake Watershed
50 | Page
Tributaries to the West Fork Data from four tributaries monitored in the West Fork of the White River subwatershed are presented in this report. Tributary data is presented geographically from upstream to downstream in the watershed. Data from each of the tributaries were averaged to determine a West Fork Tributary Subwatershed Average for each parameter. Ward Slough – Site 200
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 200 154.0 629.8 7.88 379.3 8.6 0.24 0.025 West Fork Trib Average 140.7 526.9 7.89 308.2 6.1 1.63 0.064 StreamSmart Avg 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus at Ward Slough - Site 200 0.040
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
TP (mg/L) TP 0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000 Aug-16 Nov-16 Feb-17 Nov-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
Total Nitrogen at Ward Slough - Site 200 0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30 TN (mg/L) 0.20
0.10
0.00 Aug-16 Nov-16 Feb-17 Nov-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
51 | Page
Total Dissolved Solids at Ward Slough - Site 200 450.0 400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 TDS (mg/L) TDS 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Aug-16 Nov-16 Feb-17 Nov-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
Total Suspended Solids at Ward Slough - Site 200 18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 Aug-16 Nov-16 Feb-17 Nov-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
Macroinvertebrates found at Ward Slough 5
4
3
2
1
Number of Species Idnentified 0 Aug-16 Aug-18
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Ward Slough – Site 200 August 2016 August 2018 Macroinvertebrate Index Score 18 17 Water Quality Good Good
52 | Page
Habitat Parameter Average Condition Monitoring on Ward Slough began in August 2016. Therefore, Epifaunal Substrate 14.3 Suboptimal data is only available from August and November 2016. Ward Embeddedness 10.3 Marginal Slough is in the central portion of the watershed in Greenland. Velocity/Depth Regime 9.4 Marginal Landuse around the stream is dominated by a conversion from Sediment Deposition 14.0 Suboptimal rural to urban with parking lots from city hall, the nearby Channel Flow Status 14.3 Suboptimal schools, and a nearby private airport. Flow at Ward Slough is Channel Alteration 13.4 Suboptimal very slow and small particles of bottom sediments can become Frequency of Riffles 7.0 Marginal suspended during monitoring, which could contribute to the Bank stability Left 6.6 Suboptimal high TSS values. Bank stability Right 5.9 Suboptimal Conductivity at Ward Slough is much higher than the Vegetative Protection Left 6.7 Suboptimal StreamSmart average and higher than the average of all Vegetative Protection Right 5.4 Marginal tributaries in the West Fork. However, concentrations do not Riparian Zone Left 5.7 Suboptimal indicate a water quality concern. Concentrations of total Riparian Zone Right 2.3 Poor dissolved solids and total suspended solids are also higher than Total 115.3 the averages of the tributaries in the West Fork and the overall StreamSmart average. Concentrations for total nitrogen and total phosphorus were lower than the average of other West Fork tributary concentrations and lower than the StreamSmart average.
Macroinvertebrate survey in August 2016 indicated good water quality for supporting macroinvertebrate life. Seven species of macroinvertebrates were identified, four were sensitive species and three were somewhat sensitive species.
Town Branch near the White River Ball Fields – Site 210
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 210 133.4 472.2 7.88 260.9 5.6 1.35 0.130 West Fork Trib Average 140.7 526.9 7.89 308.2 6.1 1.63 0.064 StreamSmart Avg 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus Town Branch near the White River Ball Fields - Site 210 0.100 0.090 0.080 0.070 0.060 0.050 0.040 TP (mg/L) TP 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000
53 | Page
Total Nitrogen Town Branch near the White River Ball Fields - Site 210 5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00 Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
0.00
Total Dissolved Solids at Town Branch at S. Armstrong Rd. (Site 210) 450.0 400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0
Total Suspended Solids at Town Branch at S. Armstrong Rd. (Site 210) 25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS
5.0
0.0
54 | Page
Macroinvertebrates found at Town Branch 5
4
3
2
1
Number of Species Identified 0 May-17 Aug-17 May-18
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Parameter May 2017 August 2017 May 2018 Water Quality Index 1 8 7 Water Quality Poor Poor Poor
Habitat Parameter Average Condition Town Branch at S. Armstrong Road (Site 210) is in the lower Epifaunal Substrate 3.1 Poor portion of the watershed. The area is dominated by suburban Embeddedness 6.3 Marginal and urban land use and the monitoring site is located near a Velocity/Depth Regime 9.0 Marginal recreational park and ball fields. Sediment Deposition 11.6 Suboptimal In February 2017, a spill was identified on Town Branch, Channel Flow Status 8.8 Marginal causing spikes in TN, TP, TSS, & TDS. This has skewed the Channel Alteration 10.0 Marginal average data higher than it otherwise would be both for the Frequency of Riffles 8.6 Marginal site and the subwatershed. The spill was addressed, and no Bank stability Left 5.7 Suboptimal further problems have been identified at the site. Bank stability Right 5.8 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Left 5.9 Suboptimal Alkalinity and conductivity are elevated compared to the Vegetative Protection Right 5.6 Suboptimal overall StreamSmart averages. Concentration of total Riparian Zone Left 4.7 Marginal dissolved solids is elevated compared to the overall StreamSmart average. Average nutrient concentrations of total Riparian Zone Right 2.7 Marginal Total 87.6 phosphorus and total nitrogen are below average concentrations found within across all StreamSmart sites. With the exception of the monitoring period in February, 2017, they remain below thresholds that would indicate a water quality concern.
The macroinvertebrate surveys indicate a potential water quality concern. No sensitive species have been recorded and only five or fewer species have been found during previous surveys.
55 | Page
Spout Spring Branch – Site 206
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 206 143.3 492.0 8.01 282.1 7.1 3.81 0.058 West Fork Trib Average 140.7 526.9 7.89 308.2 6.1 1.63 0.064 StreamSmart Avg 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus Spout Spring Branch - Site 206 0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total 0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 15-Aug Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-15
Total Nitrogen Spout Spring Branch - Site 206 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 1 0
56 | Page
Total Dissolved Solids at Spout Spring Branch - Site 206 400 350 300 250 200
TDS (mg/L) TDS 150 100 50 0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 15-Aug Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-15
Total Suspended Solids at Spout Spring Branch - Site 206 80 70 60 50 40
TSS (mg/L)TSS 30 20 10 0 Jun-13 Feb-18 Feb-17 Feb-16 Feb-15 Feb-13 Aug-18 Aug-17 Aug-16 15-Aug Aug-13 Aug-12 Nov-18 Nov-17 Nov-16 Nov-15 Nov-14 Nov-12 May-18 May-17 May-15
Macroinvertebrates found at Spout Spring Branch 5
4
3
2
1
Number of Species Identified 0 Aug-16 May-17 Aug-17 Aug-18
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Spout Spring Branch – Site 206 August 2016 May 2017 August 2017 August 2018 Macroinvertebrate Index Score 6 4 5 2
Water Quality Poor poor poor poor
57 | Page
Habitat Parameter Average Condition Spout Spring Branch (site 206) is a tributary to the West Fork The Epifaunal Substrate 8.8 Marginal site is situated in the downstream portion of the watershed in Embeddedness 7.7 Marginal Walker Park in the city limits of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Velocity/Depth Regime 9.2 Marginal Urbanization dominates the landuse in the watershed. Alkalinity Sediment Deposition 12.6 Suboptimal and conductivity are slightly below average levels found in Channel Flow Status 10.3 Marginal tributaries in the watershed, but levels are elevated compared Channel Alteration 14.1 Suboptimal to averages across all StreamSmart sites. Total dissolved Frequency of Riffles 9.9 Marginal concentrations are also below the West Fork tributary averages Bank stability Left 4.0 Marginal but elevated compared to the overall StreamSmart average. Bank stability Right 3.9 Marginal Average total suspended solids concentrations are elevated Vegetative Protection Left 3.2 Marginal compared to both the average of the West Fork tributaries and Vegetative Protection Right 3.7 Marginal the overall StreamSmart average. However, August 2012 (20.6 Riparian Zone Left 4.1 Marginal mg/L) and June 2013 (73.2 mg/L) concentrations are skewing the overall average concentration of TSS at the site. Other TSS data Riparian Zone Right 4.3 Marginal at the site have been below 10 mg/L. Nutrient concentrations of Total 95.8 total nitrogen and total phosphorus at the site are elevated. Average total nitrogen concentration at the site exceeds twice the averages of the tributaries of the West Fork and the overall average of total nitrogen concentrations across all StreamSmart sites. The average total phosphorus concentration at the site is elevated and is twice the average of the total phosphorus concentration of the tributaries of the West Fork and exceeds twice the average of all StreamSmart sites. Macroinvertebrate surveys indicate poor water quality at the site with only one species identified, in each category.
Mullins Creek at the University of Arkansas – Site 202
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 202 132.0 513.5 7.80 310.7 3.3 1.12 0.042 West Fork Trib Average 140.7 526.9 7.89 308.2 6.1 1.63 0.064 StreamSmart Avg 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total P at Mullins Creek - Site 202 0.100 0.090 0.080 0.070 0.060 0.050 0.040 Total P (mg/L) 0.030 0.020 0.010 0.000 Nov-16 May-17 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
58 | Page
Total N at Mullins Creek- Site 202 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00
Total N (mg/L) 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Nov-16 May-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
Total Dissolved Solids at Mullins Creek Site 202 450.0 400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0 Nov-16 May-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
Total Suspended Solids at Mullins Creek Site 202 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Nov-16 May-17 Feb-18 May-18 Aug-18 Nov-18
59 | Page
Mullins Creek Macroinvertebrate Data 5
4
3
2
1
Number of Species Identified 0 May-18 Aug-18 Oct-18
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
Parameter May 2018 August 2018 October 2018 Index Value 14 10 9 Water Quality Fair Poor Poor
Habitat Parameter Avg Score Condition Epifaunal Substrate 14.4 Suboptimal Embeddedness 12.6 Suboptimal Velocity/Depth Regime 14.0 Suboptimal Sediment Deposition 12.4 Suboptimal Channel Flow Status 12.0 Suboptimal Channel Alteration 11.8 Suboptimal Frequency of Riffles 14.8 Suboptimal Bank stability Left 7.0 Suboptimal Bank stability Right 7.6 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Left 7.8 Suboptimal Vegetative Protection Right 7.0 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Left 6.0 Suboptimal Riparian Zone Right 5.6 Suboptimal Total 138.5
Monitoring began on Mullins Creek on the campus of the University of Arkansas in November 2016. The site is situated in the downstream portion of the watershed in the city limits of Fayetteville, Arkansas. Urbanization dominates the landuse in the watershed. Alkalinity, conductivity, and total dissolved solid concentrations are elevated compared to the overall StreamSmart averages. Concentrations of total suspended solids, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus fell below the overall StreamSmart average. Continued monitoring data will help determine baseline data at the site.
60 | Page
West Fork of the White River Sites Two sites are currently being monitored on the main stem of the West Fork of the White River. Brentwood Park (site 102) is the most upstream site and the site located near Baptist Ford Bridge (site 101) is the downstream on the West Fork. Data from the sites is presented from upstream to downstream and data from the two sites are compared to assess changes in water quality. West Fork near Brentwood Park – Site 102 Upstream of the Town of West Fork
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 102 39.6 111.8 7.78 61.0 2.2 0.35 0.015 West Fork Average 52.6 154.8 7.78 80.6 2.3 0.32 0.016 StreamSmart Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus Readings West Fork of the White River at Brentwood Park - Site 102 0.035 0.030 0.025 0.020 0.015 0.010 Total P in mg/L 0.005 0.000
Total Nitrogen West Fork of the White River at Brentwood Park - Site 102 1.40 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.20 0.00
61 | Page
Total Dissolved Solids at West Fork at Brentwood Park West Fork at Brentwood Park, Site 102, is situated in the 250.0 upstream portion of the watershed between the towns 200.0 of Winslow and West Fork. 150.0 Currently, it is the most upstream monitoring site in 100.0 the West Fork subwatershed. TDS (mg/L) TDS The land around the 50.0 monitoring site is rural with some agricultural landuse. 0.0 Water chemistry at the site indicates there is good water quality. However, a peak in nutrient concentrations in Total Suspended Solids at West Fork at Brentwood Park February, 2017 is noted. All stream chemistry parameters 10.0 9.0 fall below overall StreamSmart 8.0 averages. A 7.0 macroinvertebrate survey 6.0 completed in May 2016 5.0 indicated lower water quality 4.0 because only five species were TSS (mg/L)TSS 3.0 identified with three sensitive, 2.0 one somewhat sensitive, and 1.0 one tolerant. 0.0
West Fork at Brentwood Park (Site 102) Macroinvertebrate Inventory 4
3
2
1
0 May-16
Sensitive Somewhat sensitive Tolerant
West Fork at Brentwood Park – Site 102 May 2016 Total Score 13 Water Quality Fair
62 | Page
West Fork near Baptist Ford Bridge – Site 101
Alkalinity Conductivity pH (lab) TDS TSS (mg/L) TN (mg/L) TP (mg/L) Site 101 65.5 197.8 7.78 100.2 2.4 0.30 0.017 West Fork Average 52.6 154.8 7.78 80.6 2.3 0.32 0.016 StreamSmart Average 88.3 281.5 7.60 160.2 4.0 1.62 0.036
Total Phosphorus West Fork of the White River Near Baptist Ford - Site 101 0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Phosphorus Total 0.005
0.000
Total Nitrogen West Fork of the White River Near Baptist Ford - Site 101 0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
Total Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.10
0.00
63 | Page
Total Suspended Solids West Fork of the White River Near Baptist Ford - Site 101 10.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 TSS (mg/L)TSS 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
Total Dissolved Solids West Fork of the White River Near Baptist Ford - Site 101 180.0 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0
TDS (mg/L) TDS 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0
West Fork of the White River at Baptist Ford (Site 101) is the most downstream site currently monitored on the main stem of the West Fork. The site is situated downstream of the town of West Fork and just south of Greenland. At this site, the West Fork of the White River has flowed through the town of West Fork, receiving both rural and urban inputs. Water chemistry data from the site indicates overall good water quality. Average alkalinity, conductivity, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, total nitrogen and total phosphorus at the site are below overall StreamSmart averages. Macroinvertebrate surveys are not currently collected at this site.
64 | Page
West Fork Sites Upstream and Downstream Total Phosphorus in West Fork of the White River Comparison of the data on the Upstream and Downstream of town of West Fork West Fork from upstream at Brentwood Park to downstream 0.16 near the Baptist Ford Bridge 0.14 0.12 indicates minimal changes in 0.1 water quality. Total phosphorus 0.08 has a slight increase upstream to 0.06
TP (mg/L) TP downstream. However, 0.04 downstream concentrations of 0.02 0 total phosphorus remain well below average total phosphorus concentrations found across all StreamSmart monitoring sites. TP Brentwood Park TP Baptist Ford Total nitrogen concentrations
show no trend from upstream to Total Nitrogen in West Fork of the White River Upstream downstream indicating there is and Downstream of town of West Fork not a concern or reduction in water quality pertaining to total 1.4 nitrogen concentration. Total 1.2 dissolved solids concentrations 1 0.8 show the strongest trends of 0.6 downstream impacts. However,
TN (mg/L) 0.4 individual data and the TDS 0.2 average of downstream 0 concentrations remain well below the overall StreamSmart average. Overall, water quality conditions in the West Fork of the TN Brentwood Park TN Baptist Ford White River at Brentwood Park and at Baptist Ford Bridge appear TDS in the West Fork of the White River Upstream & stable and better than the Downstream of town of West Fork average of other sites monitored through StreamSmart. 250
200
150
100 TDS (mg/L) TDS 50
0
TDS Brentwood Park TDS Baptist Ford
65 | Page
TSS in the West Fork of the White River Upstream & Downstream of town of West Fork 10 9 8 7 6 5 4
TSS (mg/L)TSS 3 2 1 0
TSS Brentwood Park TSS Baptist Ford
66 | Page
References
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, 2008. 2008 List of Impaired Waterbodies (303(d) List). Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Water Division: Little Rock, AR. Web document accessed January 15, 2016. http://www2.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branch_planning/pdfs/303d_list_2008.pdf
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, 2014. 2014 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Water Division: Little Rock, AR. Web document accessed January 15, 2016. Web document accessed January 15, 2016. http://www2.adeq.state.ar.us/water/branch_planning/303d/pdfs/integrated_wqmar_20140401.pdf
Arkansas Natural Resources Commission. 2012. 2011-2016 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan. Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, Little Rock, AR.
Arkansas Water Resources Center. https://arkansas-water-center.uark.edu/publications/factsheets.php
Beaver Water District, 2009. Northwest Arkansas’ Middle Fork, Lake Sequoyah and Headwaters-White River Watersheds [map]. Beaver Water District, Lowell, AR. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ru2gsyc9qd9mdu0/Headwaters-Watershed- Map.pdf?dl=1
Beaver Water District. 2010. Beaver Lake and Its Watershed 2010. Web document accessed January 15, 2016. http://www.bwdh2o.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2010-FINAL-Beaver-Lake-Watershed-Report.pdf
Beaver Water District, 2010. Northwest Arkansas’ Beaver Lake Watershed [map]. Beaver Water District, Lowell, AR. https://www.dropbox.com/s/xrww79e7bks5pf4/Lakeside-Watershed-Map.pdf?dl=1
Beaver Water District, 2010. Northwest Arkansas’ Richland Creek Watershed [map]. Beaver Water District, Lowell, AR. https://www.dropbox.com/s/lmohnmmomjk4x5a/Richland-Creek-Watershed-Map.pdf?dl=1
Beaver Water District, 2011. Northwest Arkansas’ Lakeside Area Beaver Lake-White River Watersheds [map]. Beaver Water District, Lowell, AR.
Beaver Water District. Beaver Lake Watershed Map. Web document accessed July 7, 2017. http://www.bwdh2o.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2016-BLWS-MAP-FRONT.pdf
Beaver Water District. Northwest Arkansas’ War Eagle Creek Watershed [map]. Lowell, AR.: Beaver Water District. https://www.dropbox.com/s/8sejbbyuurg77yr/War-Eagle-Creek-Watershed-Map.pdf?dl=1
Beaver Water District. Northwest Arkansas’ West Fork-White River Watershed [map]. Lowell, AR.: Beaver Water District. https://www.dropbox.com/s/18n8bhi1yhw4nka/West-Fork-Watershed-Map.pdf?dl=1
Beaver Watershed Alliance. 2012. Beaver Lake Watershed Protection Strategy: May 2012 Revision. Beaver Watershed Alliance, Springdale, AR.
Independent Sector. The Value of Volunteer Time. The Independent Sector. Accessed January 15, 2016. https://www.independentsector.org/volunteer_time
Water Research Center. Drinking Water Testing and Conductivity of Water. Web document accessed January 10, 2017. http://www.water-research.net/index.php/drinking-water-testing-and-conductivity-of-water
Water Research Center. pH in the Environment. Web document accessed January 10, 2017. http://www.water- research.net/index.php/ph-in-the-environment
67 | Page
Water Research Center. The Role of Alkalinity Citizen Monitoring. Web document accessed January 10, 2017. http://www.water-research.net/index.php/the-role-of-alkalinity-citizen-monitoring
Water Research Center. Total Dissolved Solids and Water Quality. Web document accessed January 10, 2017. http://www.water-research.net/index.php/water-treatment/tools/total-dissolved-solids
68 | Page
Glossary of Terms Algae: A large and diverse group of simple plant-like organisms, ranging from unicellular to multicellular forms. Algae reduces the aesthetic value of a body of water; adds organic carbon; and depletes dissolved oxygen when it dies. Some algae release taste and odor causing compounds into the water.
Alkalinity: a measure of the capacity of water to neutralize acids. Alkaline compounds in the water such as bicarbonates (baking soda is one type), carbonates, and hydroxides remove H+ ions and lower the acidity of the water (which means increased pH). They usually do this by combining with the H+ ions to make new compounds. Without this acid- neutralizing capacity, any acid added to a stream would cause an immediate change in the pH. Measuring alkalinity is important in determining a stream's ability to neutralize acidic pollution from rainfall or wastewater. It's one of the best measures of the sensitivity of the stream to acid inputs. Alkalinity in streams is influenced by rocks and soils, salts, certain plant activities, and certain industrial wastewater discharges. Total alkalinity is measured by measuring the amount of acid (e.g., sulfuric acid) needed to bring the sample to a pH of 4.2. At this pH all the alkaline compounds in the sample are "used up." The result is reported as milligrams per liter of calcium carbonate (mg/L CaCO3).
Conductivity: is a measure of water’s ability to pass an electrical current. Conductivity is affected by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, sodium, calcium, etc. and these ions carry either a positive or negative charge. Conductivity is also affected by temperature: the warmer the water, the higher the conductivity. For this reason, conductivity is reported as conductivity at 24 25 degrees Celsius (25 C). Conductivity in streams is often affected by the geology of the area, but discharges into streams can also influence conductivity. For examples, a wastewater discharge could increase stream conductivity because of the presence of chloride, phosphate and nitrate. Conductivity is usually measured in microsiemens per centimeter (µs/cm). Distilled water has a conductivity ranging from 0.5 to 3 µs/cm. Conductivity in streams varies from 50 to 1500 µs/cm but conductivity higher than 500 µs/cm can have negative impacts on sensitive aquatic species.
Nutrients: elements essential for the growth of organisms. In aquatic systems, the primary nutrients are nitrogen and phosphorus. Surplus nutrients may lead to excessive algae growth and dissolved oxygen depletion of water bodies.
pH: a term used to indicate the alkalinity or acidity of a substance as ranked on a scale from 1.0 to 14.0. Acidity increases as the pH gets lower. pH affects many chemical and biological processes in the water. For example, different organisms flourish within different ranges of pH. Most aquatic animals prefer a range of 6.5-8.0. pH outside this range reduces the diversity in the stream because it stresses the physiological systems of most organisms and can reduce reproduction. Low pH can also allow toxic elements and compounds to become mobile and "available" for uptake by aquatic plants and animals. This can produce conditions that are toxic to aquatic life, particularly to sensitive species like rainbow trout. Changes in acidity can be caused by atmospheric deposition (acid rain), surrounding rock, and certain wastewater discharges. The pH scale measures the logarithmic concentration of hydrogen (H+) and hydroxide (OH-) ions, which make up water (H+ + OH- = H2O). When both types of ions are in equal concentration, the pH is 7.0 or neutral. Below 7.0, the water is acidic (there are more hydrogen ions than hydroxide ions). When the pH is above 7.0, the water is alkaline, or basic (there are more hydroxide ions than hydrogen ions). Since the scale is logarithmic, a drop in the pH by 1.0 unit is equivalent to a 10-fold increase in acidity. So, a water sample with a pH of 5.0 is 10 times as acidic as one with a pH of 6.0, and pH 4.0 is 100 times as acidic as pH 6.0
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): Those particles in the water column that exist in the dissolved form and typically do not settle out at the bottom of a stream. Water high in TDS may contain ions in concentrations exceeding Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Standards. The concentration of total dissolved solids affects the water balance in the cells of aquatic organisms. An organism placed in water with a very low level of solids, such as distilled water, will swell up because water will tend to move into its cells, which have a higher concentration of solids. An organism placed in water with a high concentration of solids will shrink somewhat because the water in its cells will tend to move out. This will in turn affect the organism's ability to maintain the proper cell density, making it difficult to keep its position in the water column. It might float up or sink down to a depth to which it is not adapted, and it might not survive.
69 | Page
Total Nitrogen: There are three forms of nitrogen that are commonly measured in water bodies: ammonia, nitrates and nitrites. Total nitrogen is the sum of total kjeldahl nitrogen (ammonia, organic and reduced nitrogen) and nitrate-nitrite. It can be derived by monitoring for organic nitrogen compounds, free-ammonia, and nitrate-nitrite individually and adding the components together. An acceptable range of total nitrogen is 2 mg/L to 6 mg/L, though variations from this range can occur. It is recommended to check tribal, state, or federal standards for an adequate comparison of your data.
Total Organic Carbon: The amount of carbon that originates from organic matter only.
Total Phosphorus: measures all the forms of phosphorus in the sample (orthophosphate, condensed phosphate, and organic phosphate). This is accomplished by first "digesting" (heating and acidifying) the sample to convert all the other forms to orthophosphate. Then the orthophosphate is measured by the ascorbic acid method. Because the sample is not filtered, the procedure measures both dissolved and suspended orthophosphate. Monitoring phosphorus is challenging because it involves measuring very low concentrations down to 0.01 milligram per liter (mg/L) or even lower. Even such very low concentrations of phosphorus can have a dramatic impact on streams
Total Suspended Solids (TSS): indicate the amount of solids suspended in the water whether soil particles or organic matter. TSS measures the actual weight of material per volume of water whereas turbidity measures the amount of light scatter. TSS is reported as mg/L. TSS in streams in northwest Arkansas usually range from 0.1 to 20 mg/L but can get as high as 500 mg/L during storm flows because the faster water moves the more sediment it can carry and the more force it has to cause erosion of the stream banks and channel.
70 | Page