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