DOCSLIB.ORG

West Fork White River Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

West Fork White River Watershed Data Inventory and Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment Prepared by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Preservation Division for the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission December 3, 2004 WEST FORK-WHITE RIVER WATERSHED - DATA INVENTORY AND NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION ASSESSMENT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION DIVISION Final Report FY99 CWA Section 319(h) December 3, 2004 ADEQ Project Team Project Manager and Principal Investigator: Sandi J. Formica Project Engineer: Matt Van Eps Field and Technical Resource: Tony Morris Field and Technical Resource: Jason Beck Engineering and Technical Resource: Amy Cotter Puneet Srivastava – Project Engineer from 01/2000 to 05/2001 West Fork White River Project Partners & Acknowledgements Contributors - the project team would like to thank the contributors for their time, expertise, and the work they performed in the WFWR watershed in cooperation with this project: · Continuous Monitoring Station: Dr. Marc Nelson, AWRC · Biological Assessment Survey: Dr. Art Brown, Andrea Radwell, and Robin Reese · Bank Material Characterization: Dr. Kris Brye Technical Assistance - the project team would like to thank the following people for providing assistance and their expertise on the project: · Allen Clingingpeel of the Ouachita National Forrest Service (ONFS) was invaluable in providing information and guidance on evaluating the roadways in the watershed. Allen provided us with methods developed by ONFS on relevant field data collection and assistance on how to use the WEPP: Roads model. With Allen’s guidance, the data collected along with the modeling effort can be used to develop a maintenance plan and to track improvements. Allen also provided us with his expertise and experience on evaluating sediment on a watershed scale. We would also like to thank Kelly Whitsett of ONFS for training us on collecting the road data needed for the project and helping us to collect the data. Kelly proved to be an excellent instructor with patience and hands-on experience. · Chuck Meyer of the National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory (USDA Agriculture Research Service) donated his expertise on using the WEPP model for predicting soil loss from pastures. Chuck provided us assistance whenever we needed it, we picked his brain, and found him to be our ideal pasture WEPP model mentor for this project. · Lee Silvey of Western Hydrology for his assistance in developing an approach to evaluate the fluvial geomorphology and sediment contributions from stream instability on a watershed basis and his assistance in evaluating the historical flow data. · Julie Speight and Tom Troxel of the University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service for their assistance in evaluating the agricultural activities and estimating cattle numbers in the watershed · Dr. Tommy Daniel of the University of Arkansas for providing assistance in evaluating phosphorus on a watershed basis. Tommy directed us to information in the literature and how it has been developed and used. · Dr. H. Don Scott, Marty Mckinney, and Dr. Ralph Davis of the University of Arkansas for their assistance in the area of land use analyses and locating GIS data. i · Dr. Finnley Edwards and Paul Sturm of the Center for Watershed Protection for their assistance with evaluating construction stormwater quality and BMPs; Martin Maner of ADEQ assisting with the evaluation of the West Fork WWTP; and Tim Kresse of ADEQ for his assistance with the septic tank evaluation. Cooperators - the project team would like to acknowledge the following people for their cooperation on the project: · The landowners who worked with us to conduct the geomorphologic assessment. Several landowners gave us permission to install permanent cross-sections and then access to their land to collect data during the project. The geomorphologic assessment was an important component of the project that could not have been accomplished without landowner participation. · The landowners who volunteered to be interviewed on their perspective of the WFWR watershed and how it had changed over the years. These people provided the unique opportunity to provide a local perspective on the WFWR watershed resources and environmental concerns. Also, Aubrey Shepherd for helping the project team to find people to interview for the project and Ellen McNulty of ADEQ for helping with the summary. · The Beaver Lake Watershed 319 project group which consisted of local conservation districts; local agencies; and the Beaver Lake Watershed Partnership for their input during the course of the project. · Ken Smith, Rob Fisher, and Melissa Terry of Audubon Arkansas for their willingness to partner with us and do public outreach. Their excellent accomplishments in this area during the course of this project have help to keep stakeholders involved and informed. Also, Ellen McNulty of ADEQ in providing her assistance on effective stakeholder involvement and watershed group activities.. · Arkansas Soil & Water Conservation Commission (ASWCC) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for providing funding and support for this project. Bob Morgan, who was at ASWCC at the beginning of the project, provided assistance in initiating the project and developing the workplan. Tony Ramick and Bart Dudley of ASWCC also provided assistance during the course of the project. · Several people spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the draft report and providing us with comments. These people are Martin Maner, Steve Drown, Jim Wise, and Bob Singleton of the ADEQ Water Division; Dick Cassat of ADEQ Technical Services Division; Mary Leath of ADEQ; Allen Clingingpeel and Kelly Whitsett of ONFS; Tom Davenport of US EPA; Tony Ramick of ASWCC; and Chuck Meyer of USDA – ARS. The project team found their comments to be invaluable and helpful in refining the final report. Finally, the project team is very grateful to everyone who participated in this project. The project has been so successful, because of the willingness of all of these partners to work together to understand environmental conditions, problems, and solutions. The project team looks forward to continuing the watershed approach process and contributing to the restoration of the West Fork White River watershed. Also, a big thanks to anyone who helped that we forgot to include on our list. If we accidentally forgot you, we can still include you by changing the electronic file! So let us know! ii Executive Summary The West Fork White River (WFWR) in Northwest Arkansas has the potential to be an outstanding resource for both the watershed residents and those who reside in this Ozark Mountain region. The quality and beauty of the WFWR watershed’s natural environment is one reason that people have been drawn to the area. At the same time, the WFWR watershed is host to a variety of land uses that have the potential to adversely affect local water quality as well as impact the downstream drinking water resources of Beaver Reservoir. Impacts to water quality of the WFWR can affect aesthetics, aquatic biology, water treatment costs, and the recreational opportunities that it provides along with the downstream impoundments. A watershed-based assessment was conducted to evaluate the conditions that have the potential to impact water resources of WFWR. The following activities were conducted: 1) existing water quality and flow data were reviewed, summarized, and evaluated; 2) natural characteristics and land uses of the watershed were evaluated and summarized; 3) land use changes, stream geomorphology, and channel pattern changes were evaluated; 4) Using GIS data, existing data, published coefficients, and field data collected during the project, potential causes and sources of contaminants were identified; and 5) sediment and nutrient loads from potential sources were estimated and BMPs were recommended to reduce sources of contamination. This study provides information, data, and assessment needed for local watershed planning by a WFWR stakeholder group. The results of this study can be used to prioritize critical areas; secure funding for BMP implementation and restoration; and develop long-range strategies for pollution prevention and environmental protection for the WFWR watershed. The following is a summary of highlighted results and recommendations from the study: The WFWR watershed is a 124 square mile area or 79,629 acres. Based on a detailed land use evaluation, the majority of the land in the WFWR watershed is forested (59%) with the remaining portions of the watershed being composed of agricultural (29%) and urban land uses 12%. Results of reviewing historical and recent water quality data included 1) the WFWR is a Arkansas 303 (d) listed stream, because the ADEQ had assessed aquatic life use as “not supported” in 33.4 miles from “high turbidity levels and excessive silt loads;” 2) historically, average turbidity values in the WFWR are higher that other streams in the Upper White River basin; and 3) the fish species have declined since 1963 with an increase in tolerant species and a decline in sensitive species. Urban land-use has increased in the WFWR watershed since 1977. Based on a comparison of land-use data from 1977 to data from 2000, urban areas have increased in the watershed by 22%. Increases in urban land-use area generally results in greater amounts of impervious surface. Impervious surfaces cause changes in local hydrology and have the potential to increase downstream
Recommended publications
  • Upper Mon River Trail

    Upper Mon River Trail

    Upper Monongahela River Water Trail Map and Guide Water trails are recreational waterways on a lake, river, or ocean between specific locations, containing access points and day-use and/or camping sites for the boating public. Water trails emphasize low-impact use and promote stewardship of the resources. Explore this unique West Virginia and Pennsylvania water trail. For your safety and enjoyment: Always wear a life jacket. Obtain proper instruction in boating skills. Know fishing and boating regulations. Be prepared for river hazards. Carry proper equipment. THE MONONGAHELA RIVER The Monongahela River, locally know as “the Mon,” forms at the confluence of the Tygart and West Fork Rivers in Fairmont West Virginia. It flows north 129 miles to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where it joins the Allegheny River to form the Ohio River. The upper section, which is described in this brochure, extends 68 miles from Fairmont to Maxwell Lock and Dam in Pennsylvania. The Monongahela River formed some 20 million years ago. When pioneers first saw the Mon, there were many places where they could walk across it. The Native American named the river “Monongahela,” which is said to mean “river with crumbling or falling banks.” The Mon is a hard-working river. It moves a large amount of water, sediment, and freight. The average flow at Point Marion is 4,300 cubic feet per second. The elevation on the Upper Mon ranges from 891 feet in Fairmont to 763 feet in the Maxwell Pool. PLANNING A TRIP Trips on the Mon may be solitary and silent, or they may provide encounters with motor boats and water skiers or towboats moving barges of coal or limestone.

  • District 1 Fishing Guide

    TROUT STOCKING – Rivers and Streams Code No. Stockings ............Period Code No. Stockings ............Period Code No. Stockings ............Period Trout Stocking River or Stream: County SR = state Route Q One .................................... 1st week of March One ......................................................... February CR Varies .............................................................Varies Code: Area CR = county Route FR = USFS Road One ............................................................January BW M One each month ................February-May One every two weeks ...........March-May Tygart Lake (Tailwaters) Tygart Valley River: W Two ......................................................... February MJ One each month ..................January-April Taylor M-F: below Tygart Dam in Grafton City Park. One ............................................................January One each week ..........................March-May Y One ...................................................................April BA BW: Lower – from Wheeling Hospital upstream to I-470; X After April 1 or area is open to public One ............................................................... March F Once/week .....Columbus Day week & next week Wheeling Creek: Marshall and Ohio Middle – from Ohio County line upstream along CR 5 to 1 mile below Burches Run Lake; Upper – from Pennsylvania line 3 miles downstream along CR 15 and 15/1 to mouth of Wolf Run. Whiteday Creek: Marion and Monongalia BW: Lower – from 0.5 mile above CR 73 bridge upstream for 2 miles along CR 73/1; Trout Stocking Upper – from CR 79/12 bridge upstream 1 mile to 0.25 mile below the CR 33/7 bridge. River or Stream: County SR = state Route Code: Area CR = county Route FR = USFS Road BW: from Bruceton Mills upstream to Clifton Mills along CR 8; also at CR 4/2 State Line Bridge near Big Sandy Creek: Preston the Pennsylvania state line. W-F: from Davis upstream 4 miles along the Camp 70 Road; also a 3-mile section at the SR 32 Blackwater River: Tucker bridge.
  • Water Quality Sampling, Analysis and Annual Load Determinations

    Water Quality Sampling, Analysis and Annual Load Determinations

    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Technical Reports Arkansas Water Resources Center 6-1-2005 Water Quality Sampling, Analysis and Annual Load Determinations for Nutrients and Sediment at the Arkansas Highway 45 Bridge on the White River Just Above Beaver Lake Marc Nelson L. Wade Cash Keith Trost Jennifer Purtle Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/awrctr Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Nelson, Marc; Cash, L. Wade; Trost, Keith; and Purtle, Jennifer. 2005. Water Quality Sampling, Analysis and Annual Load Determinations for Nutrients and Sediment at the Arkansas Highway 45 Bridge on the White River Just Above Beaver Lake. Arkansas Water Resources Center, Fayetteville, AR. MSC328. 9 This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Arkansas Water Resources Center at ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Reports by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Arkansas Water Resources Center WATER SAMPLING, ANALYSIS AND ANNUAL LOAD DETERMINATIONS FOR NUTRIENTS AND SEDIMENT AT THE ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 45 BRIDGE ON THE WHITE RIVER JUST ABOVE BEAVER LAKE Submitted to the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission By Marc A. Nelson, Ph.D., P.E. L. Wade Cash, Research Specialist Keith Trost, Research Associate And Jennifer Purtle, Research Assistant Arkansas Water Resource Center Water Quality Lab
  • Revised Bedrock Geology of War Eagle Quadrangle, Benton County, Arkansas Robert A

    Revised Bedrock Geology of War Eagle Quadrangle, Benton County, Arkansas Robert A

    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 56 Article 27 2002 Revised Bedrock Geology of War Eagle Quadrangle, Benton County, Arkansas Robert A. Sullivan University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Stephen K. Boss University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Geographic Information Sciences Commons, and the Stratigraphy Commons Recommended Citation Sullivan, Robert A. and Boss, Stephen K. (2002) "Revised Bedrock Geology of War Eagle Quadrangle, Benton County, Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 56 , Article 27. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol56/iss1/27 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 56 [2002], Art. 27 Revised Bedrock Geology of War Eagle Quadrangle, Benton County, Arkansas Robert A. Sullivan and Stephen K.Boss* Department of Geosciences 113 Ozark Hall University of Arkansas Fayetteville, AR 72701 ¦"Corresponding Author Abstract A digital geologic map of War Eagle quadrangle (WEQ) was produced at the 1:24000 scale using the geographic information system (GIS) software ArcView® by digitizing geological contacts onto the United States Geological Survey (USGS) digital raster graphic (DRG).
  • Gazetteer of West Virginia

    Gazetteer of West Virginia

    Bulletin No. 233 Series F, Geography, 41 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIKECTOU A GAZETTEER OF WEST VIRGINIA I-IEISTRY G-AN3STETT WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1904 A» cl O a 3. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTEKIOR, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Washington, D. C. , March 9, 190Jh SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for publication as a bulletin, a gazetteer of West Virginia! Very respectfully, HENRY GANNETT, Geogwvpher. Hon. CHARLES D. WALCOTT, Director United States Geological Survey. 3 A GAZETTEER OF WEST VIRGINIA. HENRY GANNETT. DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE. The State of West Virginia was cut off from Virginia during the civil war and was admitted to the Union on June 19, 1863. As orig­ inally constituted it consisted of 48 counties; subsequently, in 1866, it was enlarged by the addition -of two counties, Berkeley and Jeffer­ son, which were also detached from Virginia. The boundaries of the State are in the highest degree irregular. Starting at Potomac River at Harpers Ferry,' the line follows the south bank of the Potomac to the Fairfax Stone, which was set to mark the headwaters of the North Branch of Potomac River; from this stone the line runs due north to Mason and Dixon's line, i. e., the southern boundary of Pennsylvania; thence it follows this line west to the southwest corner of that State, in approximate latitude 39° 43i' and longitude 80° 31', and from that corner north along the western boundary of Pennsylvania until the line intersects Ohio River; from this point the boundary runs southwest down the Ohio, on the northwestern bank, to the mouth of Big Sandy River.
  • West Virginia News

    West Virginia News

    Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Northeast Region West Virginia News Western Maryland home school group on an overnight on the Cheat River PROJECTS AND PARTNERS 2014 Water Trail. Photo: Crede Calhoun Recent Successes Cheat River Water Trail opens! National Trails Day 2013 was a celebration on the water! On June 1, the Upper Cheat River Water Trail officially opened for public use with the release of its first map and guide. The water trail committee of Friends of the Cheat held a fun day-long ceremony in St. George West Virginia, on the banks of the “The NPS has been NPS Unit river at Blackwater Outdoor by our side every State Capital Adventures’ river outpost. Elected officials and guests step of the way, took turns paddling out on this flat section of the Cheat River providing support CURRENT PROJECTS using a variety of crafts from and direction, 1. Cacapon Valley Regional Conservation Priorities traditional canoes to stand-up from the initial Cacapon and Lost Rivers Land Trust paddleboards. 2. Dunkard Creek Water Trail The project, which began development Greene County Watershed Alliance in 2012, quickly progressed 3. Upper Cheat River Water Trail concept right with an active committee Friends of the Cheat that successfully obtained through opening 4. West Fork River Water Trail local donations totaling over Guardians of the West Fork River day.” $10,000. Two of the nine - Dave Cassell, Chairman, Cheat Find out more about each project starting on page 2. public access sites involved River Water Trail agreements acquired in cooperation with the West Virginia-Department of Natural Resources, using private properties.
  • Center for Excellence in Disabilities at West Virginia University, Robert C

    Center for Excellence in Disabilities at West Virginia University, Robert C

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This publication was made possible by the support of the following organizations and individuals: Center for Excellence in Disabilities at West Virginia University, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center West Virginia Assistive Technology System (WVATS) West Virginia Division of Natural Resources West Virginia Division of Tourism Partnerships in Assistive Technologies, Inc. (PATHS) Special thanks to Stephen K. Hardesty and Brittany Valdez for their enthusiasm while working on this Guide. 1 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .......................................................... 3 • How to Use This Guide ......................................... 4 • ADA Sites .............................................................. 5 • Types of Fish ......................................................... 7 • Traveling in West Virginia ...................................... 15 COUNTY INDEX .......................................................... 19 ACTIVITY LISTS • Public Access Sites ............................................... 43 • Lakes ..................................................................... 53 • Trout Fishing ......................................................... 61 • River Float Trips .................................................... 69 SITE INDEX ................................................................. 75 SITE DESCRIPTIONS .................................................. 83 APPENDICES A. Recreation Organizations ......................................207 B. Trout Stocking Schedule .......................................209
  • Beaver Watershed Alliance Food Sources, and Holistic Community Quality USDA NRCS to Manage Vegetation (Nrcs.Usda

    Beaver Watershed Alliance Food Sources, and Holistic Community Quality USDA NRCS to Manage Vegetation (Nrcs.Usda

    Sugar 62 Loaf Panorama 187 Bella L Point 72 Elkhorn Williams Devil’s Eye Brow BB EE AAVista VV EE RR Natural Area LL AA KK EE Pea Ridge National Henry Trimble Round Military Indian Lake Pea Park Creek 187 Leatherwood WATERSHEDS Glasscock Gentry WATERSHEDS BENTON Ridge CARROL Watersheds are separated BEAVER LAKE WATERSHED Garfield Dam Site River Park by topographic divides off Source water from 7 sub-watersheds Rich Dam Site North Park which water flows to one side flows into Beaver Lake/White River. or the other. Beaver Lake- Indian Creek Park USACE/Beaver Dam 187 White River WS 62 Humphery Dam Site Lake Park Lake Sequoyah-WR WS Pond Beaver Dam Middle Fork-WR WS 94 Carroll-Boone Water District War Eagle Lost Bridge Public Rolloff West Fork-WR WS Creek WS Avoca Lost Miles Richland Creek Use Area Creek WS “Two Ton” Benton/Washington Bridge Hollow Sugar Headwaters of Posy Regional Public Ford WR WS Water Authority Village Starkey Public Use Area 62 Coose Little Flock Hollow Like stacking bowls, a watershed W may be part of one that is larger and W Grindstone also have any number of smaller Prairie Creek Ventris “SUB-WATERSHEDS” inside it. Beaver Lake Park Pond The WHITE RIVER flows 722 miles from Project Office North its HEADWATERS near Boston, Arkansas in Larue the Beaver Lake Watershed, Clifty northward into Missouri, then Prairie 23 Creek south to the lowest point in Lake Creek 3D21 Buck its watershed where it joins Atalanta Rocky Branch the Arkansas RIver, ultimately Former 12 Park draining into the MISSISSIPPI Water Supply RIVER.
  • Snow Melt and Its Effect on Flood Runoff of the Ohio River at Pittsburgh, Pa

    Snow Melt and Its Effect on Flood Runoff of the Ohio River at Pittsburgh, Pa

    Snow Melt and Its Effect on Flood Runoff of the Ohio River at Pittsburgh, Pa. R. J. MACCONNELL U. S. Weather Bureau, Pittsburgh, Pa. URING THE 1944-45 winter season, a and 80 miles wide. (See FIG. 1.) The range D near record accumulation of snow was in elevation above mean sea level in the present in the Ohio River drainage Allegheny is from 750 to about 3,000 feet above Pittsburgh, Pa. Similar snow accu- mulations existed in the 1909-10 and 1935-36 seasons. However, there is a wide divergence in the maximum flood peaks reached in the Ohio River at Pittsburgh fol- lowing the melting of the snow cover during these 3 seasons; namely, 26.0 feet in 1910, 46.0 feet in 1936, and 33.4 feet in 1945. This paper is presented to show the part snow melt plays in floods in the Ohio Basin at and above Pittsburgh. Snow melt, as a factor of flood runoff, is generally of sec- ondary importance in this area. The snow normally begins to accumulate in December and continues until March. There are inter- mittent periods of freezing and thawing with a subsequent increase and depletion in the snow cover and runoff. PHYSICAL FACTORS The watershed above Pittsburgh is com- posed of the Allegheny and Monongahela Rivers which have drainage areas of 11,733 and 7,384 square miles, respectively. The Allegheny River extends from approximately latitude 40°30' to 42°30' and the Mononga- hela from 38°30' to 40°30'. The Allegheny Basin is 160 miles long and 130 miles wide.
  • Illinois River 1998 Nutrient and Suspended Sediment Loads at Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge Marc A

    Illinois River 1998 Nutrient and Suspended Sediment Loads at Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge Marc A

    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Technical Reports Arkansas Water Resources Center 9-1-1999 Illinois River 1998 Nutrient and Suspended Sediment Loads at Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge Marc A. Nelson University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Thomas S. Soerens University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/awrctr Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Nelson, Marc A. and Soerens, Thomas S.. 1999. Illinois River 1998 Nutrient and Suspended Sediment Loads at Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge. Arkansas Water Resources Center, Fayetteville, AR. MSC 277. 17 This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Arkansas Water Resources Center at ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Reports by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Arkansas Water Resources Center ILLINOIS RIVER 1998 NUTRIENT AND SUSPENDED SEDIMENT LOADS AT ARKANSASHIGHWAY 59 BRIDGE Submitted to the Arkansas-Oklahoma ArkansasRvier Compact Commission By Marc A. Nelson Ph.D. P.E. ArkansasWater Resources Center Thomas S. SoerensPh.D., P.E. Department of Civil Engineering Publication No. MSC-277 Arkansas Water Resources Center 112 Ozark Hall University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 ILLINOIS RIVER 1998 NUTRIENT AND SUSPENDED SEDIMENT LOADS AT ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 59 BRIDGE Submitted to the Arkansas - Oklahoma Arkansas River Compact Commission By Marc A. Nelson Ph.D., P.E. Arkansas Water Resources Center Thomas S. Soerens Ph.D., P.E. Department of Civil Engineering University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas September, 1999 SUMMARY Results forIllinois River at AR59 forCalendar Year 1998.
  • ILLINOIS RIVER 2005 POLLUTANT LOADS at Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge

    ILLINOIS RIVER 2005 POLLUTANT LOADS at Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge

    ILLINOIS RIVER 2005 POLLUTANT LOADS At Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge Submitted to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission By Marc A. Nelson Ph.D., P.E. Wade Cash Keith Trost Jennifer Purtle Arkansas Water Resource Center Water Quality Lab University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas June 2006 SUMMARY Results for Illinois River at AR59 for calendar year 2005. Pollutant Total Discharge Total Load Average Mean (m3/yr) (kg/yr) Discharge Concentrations (m3/s) (mg/l) 390,894,159 12.3 NO3-N 1,018,744 2.61 T-P 106,979 0.27 NH4 20,602 0.05 TN 1,170,851 3.00 PO4 44,213 0.11 TSS 33,560,475 85.86 2005 Loads and Concentrations during storm and base-flows. Storm Loads Base Loads Storm Base (kg) (kg) Concentrations Concentrations (mg/l) (mg/l) Discharge (M3) 155,440,681 233,952,444 NO3-N 417,016 601,703 2.68 2.57 T-P 83,998 22,980 0.54 0.10 NH4 11,943 8,659 0.08 0.04 TN 541,306 629,539 3.48 2.69 PO4 26,859 17,353 0.17 0.07 TSS 31,627,581 1,932,864 203.47 8.26 INTRODUCTION Automatic water sampler and a U. S. Geological Survey gauging station were established in 1995 on the main stem of the Illinois River at the Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge. Since that time, continuous stage and discharge measurements and water quality sampling have been used to determine pollutant concentrations and loads in the Arkansas portion of the Illinois River.
  • Illinois River 2002 Pollutant Loads at Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge Marc A

    Illinois River 2002 Pollutant Loads at Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge Marc A

    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Technical Reports Arkansas Water Resources Center 9-1-2003 Illinois River 2002 Pollutant Loads at Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge Marc A. Nelson University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Wade Cash University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/awrctr Part of the Fresh Water Studies Commons, and the Water Resource Management Commons Recommended Citation Nelson, Marc A. and Cash, Wade. 2003. Illinois River 2002 Pollutant Loads at Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge. Arkansas Water Resources Center, Fayetteville, AR. MSC308. 14 This Technical Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Arkansas Water Resources Center at ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Technical Reports by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Arkansas Water Resources Center ILLINOIS RIVER 2002 POLLUTANT LOADS AT ARKANSAS HIGHWAY 59 BRIDGE Submitted to the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the Arkansas-Oklahoma Arkansas River Compact Commission By Marc A. Nelson, Ph.D., P.E. Wade Cash, Research Specialist Arkansas Water Resource Center Water Quality Lab University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas September 2003 Publication No. MSC-308 Arkansas Water Resources Center 112 Ozark Hall University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 ILLINOIS RIVER 2002 POLLUTANT LOADS At Arkansas Highway 59 Bridge Submitted to the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission and the Arkansas – Oklahoma Arkansas River Compact Commission By Marc A. Nelson Ph.D., P.E. Arkansas Water Resource Center Water Quality Lab Wade Cash Arkansas Water Resource Center Water Quality Lab University of Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas September 2003 1 SUMMARY Results for Illinois River at AR59 for calendar year 2002.