arkansas natural resources commission 2018-2023 nonpoint ... · nonpoint source (nps) management....

101 East Capitol Avenue, Suite 350Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

i

James Neal AndersonCommissioner

Lonoke

Will BrewerCommissioner

Paragould

Ann CashCommissioner

Lake Village

Fred FowlkesChairman

Vilonia

Sloan HamptonCommissioner

Stuttgart

Jerry HuntonVice-ChairmanPrairie Grove

Bruce LeggittCommissionerGreenbrier

Bill PoynterCommissionerTexarkana

Roy ReavesCommissionerRussellville

Bruce HollandExecutive Director

Ryan BenefieldDeputy Director

The 2018-2023 Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan was created in cooperation withthe University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture’s Public Policy Center and

Crop, Soil and Environmental Science staff.

For additional information on Arkansas’ NPS Pollution Management Planand other water issues, visit www.arkansaswater.org

April 2018

University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension ServiceCommunications and Marketing and Printing Services

Arkansas Natural Resources Commission Ed Swaim, Water Resources Division Manager

Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program Staff

Tony Ramick, Fiscal/Program Manager Allen Brown, Program Coordinator Steve Stake, Program Coordinator

Kevin McGaughey, Program Coordinator Robbie Alberson, Program Coordinator

www.anrc.arkansas.gov

ii

Effective Date: October 1, 2018

Section One – Introduction ................................................................................................... 1

Section Two – Program Description....................................................................................... 16

Section Three – Cooperating Entities ..................................................................................... 22

Section Four – Agriculture Statewide Programs..................................................................... 44

Section Five – Silviculture Statewide Programs ..................................................................... 55

Section Six – Surface Erosion Statewide Programs ................................................................ 59

Section Seven – Urban Runoff Statewide Programs............................................................... 70

Section Eight – Developing Issues.......................................................................................... 72

Section Nine – Common Best Management Practices ........................................................... 78

Section Ten – Common Nonpoint Source Pollutants.............................................................. 102

Section Eleven – Bayou Bartholomew Priority Watershed ..................................................... 108

Section Twelve – Beaver Reservoir Priority Watershed .......................................................... 115

Section Thirteen – Cache River Priority Watershed................................................................ 124

Section Fourteen – Illinois River Priority Watershed .............................................................. 130

Section Fifteen – Lake Conway-Point Remove Priority Watershed ......................................... 138

Section Sixteen – L’Anguille River Priority Watershed ........................................................... 144

Section Seventeen – Lower Little River Priority Watershed ................................................... 150

Section Eighteen – Lower Ouachita-Smackover Priority Watershed ...................................... 156

Section Nineteen – Poteau River Priority Watershed ............................................................. 162

Section Twenty – Strawberry River Priority Watershed.......................................................... 168

Section Twenty-One – Upper Saline River Priority Watershed............................................... 174

Appendix A – Watershed-Based Implementation .................................................................. 181

Appendix B – SWAT Model Description ................................................................................ 187

Appendix C – Description of Public Participation ................................................................. 194

Appendix D – Short-Term NPS Pollution Management Program Milestones ......................... 195

iii

The purpose of this document is twofold. First, itprovides a historical perspective of the ArkansasNonpoint Source Pollution Management Program’sbeginning, development process, function, purpose,management processes, objectives and overall goals.Secondly, it serves as a resource to state and federalagencies, stakeholders and those interested inNonpoint Source (NPS) Management.

The reader may interpret this document as the NPSManagement Program or the NPS Management Planand both, or either, would be correct. The document(Plan) describes the process of how the NPS Programwill be managed from 2018-2023. It is important tounderstand how some facets and functions of the Planare basic elements of the Program. The Plan, Programand its administrative development and function aresubject to federal, state, agency or commission codes,rules, regulations and laws, and are incorporated intothis document.

In January of 1990, in a letter to the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Gov. BillClinton designated the Arkansas Soil and WaterConservation Commission (ASWCC) as the lead agencyfor agriculture nonpoint source pollution managementin the state. This designation was for a period of threeyears. Prior to the governor’s designation, the ArkansasDepartment of Pollution Control and Ecology(ADPC&E) was beginning to develop a NPS Manage-ment Program. Due to constraints in the capability ofauditing local in-kind and generating the matchrequired to secure Clean Water Act 319 funding, theADPC&E asked ASWCC (what is now the ArkansasNatural Resources Commission) to be designated thelead agency for agricultural NPS management.

Subsequently, after the governor’s designation,ASWCC and EPA developed a work plan for grantfunding under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Thisgrant allowed ASWCC to prepare and implement anagricultural NPS Management Program.

In 1993, the state re-evaluated the NPSManagement Program. Gov. Jim Guy Tucker extendedASWCC’s responsibility for agriculture NPS Manage -ment another three years. In 1996, Tucker ultimatelydesignated Arkansas Natural Resources Commission,ASWCC’s successor, as the lead agency for agricultureNPS Management in the state after evaluation anddetermining substantial progress in implementing theNPS Management Program had been made.

In September 1996, the Arkansas Natural ResourcesCommission (ANRC) submitted a holistic draft of aNPS Management Program. Upon concurrence withthe EPA, Gov. Mike Huckabee gave ANRC the respon-sibility of coordinating the NPS Management Programfor all categories of NPS pollution.

ANRC developed a holistic NPS ManagementProgram, using the same management process as usedwith agriculture: a non-regulatory voluntary approach.Activities, programs and initiatives that require apermit or are regulated by a state or federal agency arenot under the purview of the NPS ManagementProgram. Some specific exceptions are made thatinclude the following examples.

Examples of exceptions include but are not limited to:

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permits forstreambank stabilization or restoration

• Arkansas Department of Environmental QualityShort-Term Authorization permits

• Nutrient Management Plans in Nutrients SurplusAreas

Therefore, activities, programs and initiatives thatare regulated by state or federal agencies are not eligi-ble for CWA 319 grant funding or the Arkansas NaturalResources Commission Title X Agricultural Cost ShareProgram through the NPS Management Program.

The Arkansas 2018-2023 Nonpoint SourceManagement Plan is intended to serve as a statewidereference. The NPS Pollution Management Plan is to beused in conjunction with the most current List ofImpaired Waterbodies (303(d) report) and WaterQuality Assessment Report (305(b) report) preparedevery other year by the Arkansas Department ofEnvironmental Quality (ADEQ). The plan’s purpose isto provide an over-arching guide to develop, coordinateand implement Watershed Management Plans,programs and projects, to reduce, manage, control orabate NPS pollution. This NPS Plan provides a focalpoint for public agencies, nonprofit organizations,interest groups and citizens to discuss and addressNPS pollution together. The plan provides the basis(a decision support matrix) that allows stakeholders toperiodically evaluate, add to and rank risk factors influencing the potential outcome of alternative NPSmanagement and investment strategies. The product isa consensus-built, science-based priority ranking ofwatersheds in which investment and decision strategies

1

2


developed hold the greatest promise for results. Theprocess is agile and reactive to the changing circum-stance of available resources, demonstrated need,capacity to deliver and measures of new knowledge.

The planning process builds on the most currentversion of the plan and continues the concept ofaddressing changing conditions in the state and adapt-ing the plan to best serve identified needs. Examples ofchanging circumstances range from the creation of newwatershed-based organizations and partnerships to theimplementation of new federal and state initiatives.

The plan’s core components and stakeholderinvolvement methodologies are strategic in theirdesign. They provide for a systematic analysis ofprogram objectives and the scientific basis for prioritiz-ing limited resources. Stakeholders participate in thepriority-setting process and anticipate the managementplan will continue to evolve as nonpoint source effectsoccur on the changing landscape.

Arkansas’ current method of the NPS Planningprocess began in 2005 and covered the period 2006through 2011. An amendment was prepared in 2002that provided interim guidance for 2003-2004. TheArkansas Natural Resources Commission undertook amajor review and update of the NPS Plan. This updateoccurred after reviewing the significant changes inpolicy, process, technology and needs that developedafter the initial 1997 plan, as well as changes in stateand regional perceptions of NPS issues. That reviewand the subsequent creation of a direct stakeholderparticipation process and a watershed prioritizationmatrix resulted in the current and continuing adaptivemanagement plan.

Significant policy and regulatory changes occurredduring the 2006-2010 and the 2011-2016 plan such as:

• EPA accelerated implementation of the totalmaximum daily load (TMDL) program nationwide.

• The presence of USDA-Natural ResourcesConservation Service’s Mississippi River BasinInitiative, National Water Quality Initiative andthe Regional Conservation Partnership Program.

• The Arkansas General Assembly’s modified statutory language enabling ANRC to createNutrient Surplus Area designations in the state,register poultry production operations, requirenutrient management planning in NutrientSurplus Areas and train nutrient managementplanners and nutrient applicators. Figure 10.1shows areas designated as nutrient surplus areas.

• Arkansas combined several agencies – theArkansas State Plant Board, the ArkansasForestry Commission, the Arkansas Livestock and

Poultry Commission, the Arkansas AquacultureDivision and the Arkansas State Land Surveyor –to form the Arkansas Agriculture Departmentduring the 2005 legislative session.

• The update of the Arkansas State Water Plan.

In addition to regulatory changes, a wide range ofprograms have been implemented to promote voluntary use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).

• The Arkansas Forestry Commission (AFC) hasdeveloped guidelines for silviculture BMPs. AFCmonitors and reports implementation of theseBMPs every other year. Implementation hasremained positive and steadily defensible sincemonitoring began.

• The University of Arkansas Center for AdvancedSpatial Technologies’ (CAST) and the ArkansasGeographic Information Office’s (AGIO) supportin the development and use of GeographicInformation System (GIS) data has aided in bothwatershed delineation and the certification of newwatershed data sets for Arkansas.

• Expansion of the Arkansas Discovery Farmnetwork.

Arkansas’ landscape, through land use, land coverconversion and dominant usage, has undergone signifi-cant changes since the current plan was last updated.Some NPS management measures and BMPs haveimproved as well, especially those related to soil healthand Low Impact Development. Taken together, thesechanges point to a need to review and update Arkansas’NPS Pollution Management Plan.

Arkansas’ NPS pollution landscape is changingrapidly.

• Land use evolves with changing population andeconomic conditions. Figure 1.1 shows land usesin 2011.

• Population continues to grow rapidly inNorthwest Arkansas while declining in the Deltaand many other rural counties of the state.Figure 1.2 shows population change from2010-2016.

• Construction continues to be strong in NorthwestArkansas (Arvest, 2017).

• Figure 4.1b shows row crop agriculture areas ofArkansas as of 2011.

• Marginal croplands in the Mississippi AlluvialPlain are being placed in conservation programsand easements at an increasing pace.

3

• The number of Arkansas farms raising all types ofpoultry declined from 6,089 in 2007 to 5,895,according to the 2012 Agriculture Census, whichwas conducted before an increase in poultryoperations in northeast Arkansas. The state stillranked third in the nation in the number of broil-ers produced (National Agricultural StatisticsService, 2016). Census data showed that BentonCounty had the largest one-day broiler inventorywith 17.8 million birds, followed by WashingtonCounty with 14.7 million birds. Figure 4.1a shows

the distribution and concentration of poultryproduction by watershed, while Figure 4.1c showssimilar information about cattle.

• Some industrial forests are being sold to investorgroups and private landowners, creating growingland fragmentation. Figure 1.3 shows public landsin Arkansas.

A series of maps provide a snapshot of the changinglandscape in which NPS pollution management planwill be implemented.


Figure 1.1

Source: 2011 National Land CoverData Source: Multi-Resolution LandCharacteristic Consortium

Figure 1.2

Source: United States Census BureauMap Created: June 2017


4

Figure 1.3

Source: Arkansas Highway andTransportation DepartmentData Source: GeoStorMap Created: April 2017

Figure 1.4

Source: Arkansas Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 2016Data Source: GeoStorMap Created: November 2017

±UTM

NAD 83Zone 15N

0 30 6015 Miles

8 Digit HUCS

Category 4a Streams

Category 5 Streams

Category 4a Lakes

Category 5 Lakes

The 2018-2023 NPS Management Plan is closelyaligned with Arkansas’ List of Impaired Waterbodies,Water Quality and the 305(b) report. ANRC is respon-sible for the NPS Management Plan, and ADEQ isresponsible for developing water quality standards,monitoring water quality, and developing the biennialList of Impaired Waterbodies.

Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)requires states to identify waters that do not meet or

are not expected to meet applicable water qualitystandards. These waterbodies are compiled in even-numbered years into a document known as the Listof Impaired Waterbodies prepared pursuant toSections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Federal WaterPollution Control Act. The regulation (40 CFR 130.7)requires that each 303(d) list be prioritized andidentify waters targeted for TMDL development.Figure 1.4 shows streams identified as impaired in the2016 List of Impaired Waterbodies.

The 2016 List of Impaired Waterbodies can beaccessed at www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/ planning/integrated/303d/list.aspx.


5

Source: Arkansas Department ofEnvironmental QualityData Source: GeoStorMap Created: April 2017

1. Extraordinary Resource Waters: Some 16 percent of Arkansas’ total stream miles have been designatedas Extraordinary Resource Waters (ERW). ERW are characterized by scenic beauty, aesthetics, scientificvalues, broad scope recreation potential and intangible social values. The ERW designation gives ADEQthe responsibility of providing extra protection to those waters. Figure 1.5 shows ERW waters.

2. Ecologically Sensitive Waterbodies: Ecologically Sensitive Waters (ESW) include segments known toprovide habitat within the existing range of threatened, endangered, or endemic species of aquatic orsemi-aquatic life forms. Figure 1.6 shows streams designated as ESW.

3. Natural and Scenic Waterways: Arkansas has designated parts of five rivers as Natural and ScenicRivers – Cossatot River, Little Missouri River, Saline River, and the Strawberry River in addition to thefederally designated Natural and Scenic Rivers, which include Big Piney Creek, Buffalo River, CossatotRiver, Hurricane Creek, Little Missouri River, Mulberry River, North Sylamore Creek and RichlandCreek. Figure. 1.7 shows Natural and Scenic Waterways.

4. Primary Contact Recreation: Suitable for swimming.5. Secondary Contact Recreation: Suitable for wading.6. Fisheries: Suitable for fishing.7. Domestic Water Supply8. Industrial Water Supply9. Agricultural Water Supply


6

Arkansas’ surface waters are managed throughRegulation 2 – Arkansas’ Surface Water QualityStandards. The standards include designation of usesfor all waters of the state, narrative or numeric criteriadesigned to prevent impairment of those designateduses, and a policy to prohibit degradation of waters ofthe state (anti-degradation policy). The water qualitystandards are ecoregion-based; waters within each ofthe six ecoregions of the state have standards that weredeveloped from data from least-disturbed streams

within each ecoregion. The data was developed duringan intensive, statewide study of the physical, chemicaland biological characteristics of least-disturbed streamsduring 1983-1986.

Designations 4 through 9 are federally mandateddesignations. Virtually all of the waters of the stateare designated for uses 4 through 9. Waterways incategories 1 through 3 are considered worthy of thehighest level of protection by the state because of theirbeauty, value or beneficial use.

Figure 1.7


Figure 1.6



7

Arkansas’ groundwater quality programs are administered by ADEQ’s Ground Water ProtectionProgram. The responsibilities of the program includebudgeting and grant administration, groundwaterquality planning, water quality monitoring andaddressing gaps in groundwater protection throughthe development of guidelines and regulations. TheGround Water Protection Program conducts waterquality monitoring, including ambient andresearch-oriented monitoring.

The ambient groundwater monitoring program wasdeveloped in order to document existing groundwaterquality in various aquifers throughout the state on athree-year rotating schedule. Because each area of thestate is sampled every three years, the data is used todocument trends and changes in water quality overtime. Ambient groundwater monitoring in Arkansashas traditionally been performed by four organiza-tions – the United States Geological Survey (USGS),ADEQ, the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH)and ANRC.

In cooperation with ANRC, USGS monitors 25master wells (or springs) in 14 aquifers throughout thestate. These wells are monitored for a variety ofconstituents, including nutrients, metals, radioactivity,organics, and selected primary and secondary drinkingwater constituents. Specific conductance analysis isalso performed in certain years for the alluvial andSparta aquifers. ANRC also monitors ambient water-quality conditions from a network of springs and51 dedicated monitoring wells. These wells aremonitored based on available funding.

ADEQ maintains the Arkansas Ambient GroundWater Quality Program, which was initiated in 1986.The monitoring program currently consists of 195 welland spring sites in nine different monitoring areaswithin the state. A full suite of inorganic parameters isanalyzed for the samples, including all major cationsand anions and trace metals. In addition, in areaswhere industry, landfills and other facilities that store,manufacture or dispose of organic chemicals, semi-volatile and volatile organic analyses are performedon the samples. Areas with row crop agriculturecommonly include pesticide analyses. ADH monitorspublic water supply wells (treated water only) inArkansas. Analyses by ADH include bacteriological,nitrate and other basic water quality parameters.Published reports for each area of the state areproduced following each sampling event.

Examples of targeted research-oriented monitoringinclude the investigation of pesticides in groundwaterin eastern Arkansas, nutrient and bacteria transportin shallow aquifer systems in northwestern Arkansasand salt-water intrusion into shallow aquifers in

southeastern Arkansas. Nonpoint sources of pollutants,although regional in scope, generally result in low levelcontamination below established health standards.Point source or site-specific sources result in higherlevels of contamination but are restricted to smallerareas (commonly onsite boundaries). Program person-nel work together with other ADEQ divisions and otheragencies in crafting guidelines and regulations toaddress both point-source and nonpoint sources ofpollution. Although the state does not have a formal setof groundwater standards, ADEQ’s Water Divisionuses federal standards and health advisory limits toestablish cleanup levels at contaminated sites.

Congress amended the Clean Water Act in 1987 tofocus greater national efforts on nonpoint sources.Congress enacted Section 319 of CWA, establishing anational program to control nonpoint sources of waterpollution. Under Section 319, states address NPS pollu-tion by assessing NPS pollution problems and causeswithin the state, adopting management programs andstrategies to control the NPS pollution, and implement-ing those identified. Section 319 (h) directs states todevelop NPS management programs. It also authorizesthe EPA to issue grants to states to assist them inimplementing those management programs and strategies approved by the EPA.

The EPA issued guidance for Section 319(h) inMay 1996. Arkansas developed the NPS PollutionManagement Plan based on that guidance. In October2003, the EPA published an updated guidance forimplementing Section 319(h). That guidance provideddirection for NPS management plans, which mustaddress Nine Key Elements. In April 2013, theguidance was again updated (U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 2013). Some of the key changes inthe 2013 guidance included:

• A limited amount of 319(h) funding can be usedto develop watershed-based plans

• A limited amount of funding can be used toprotect unimpaired, high-quality waters whenprotection is cited in the state’s NPS ManagementProgram

• States should update their NPS ManagementPrograms every five years

• Increased coordination with USDA Farm Billprograms

• Revised the amount of program funds that couldbe used for monitoring

8


• Revised funding language from “Base funds” to“NPS Program funds” and “Incremental funds” to“Watershed Project funds”

Other recommendations included:

• NPS Management Program evaluation by theregional office using nationwide uniform process

• Annual satisfactory progress determination by theregional office

• Submission of success stories with an average ofone accepted per year

The elements that are required to be addressed in anEPA-accepted Watershed Management Plan arediscussed below.

Explicit short- and long-term goals, objectives andstrategies to protect surface and groundwater.

The ultimate long-term goal of the NPSManagement Plan is to restore designated uses towaterbodies identified as impaired by ADEQ and toprevent waterbodies that are threatened due to chang-ing or intensifying land uses from becoming impaired.

Arkansas has made substantial progress to protectwater quality. Many point sources have been or arebeing addressed. However, NPS pollution remains aspecial concern because it is often difficult and expensiveto determine specific sources and causes, managementmeasures are voluntary and funding and other resourcesare insufficient to address problems holistically.

1. Pollution Prevention and Source Reduction:NPS pollution is a contributor to the impairment ofArkansas’ waterbodies. It represents the dominantfraction of surface water pollution to lakes, streams,and rivers. Reducing NPS pollution is complex andinvolves a large number of stakeholders representingimportant sectors of the economy taking voluntary,coordinated action to implement BMPs over asustained period of time. Moreover, the amount anddistribution of NPS pollution are also highly variablein both time and space as land use patterns andshifts in population result in increasing and chang-ing nonpoint source pollution stressors upon limitednatural resources and land.

As a result, Arkansas’ NPS management measuresand programs will focus primarily on pollutionprevention or source reduction. Regardless of thepollution source (e.g., agriculture, silviculture,surface erosion or urban runoff) or the cause (e.g.,

sediment, nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, etc.), theArkansas NPS Management Plan will focus on cost-effective and environmentally protective manage-ment practices that efficiently address the targetedNPS pollutant.

2. Watershed-Based Implementation:Limited funds make it impossible to effectivelymanage all causes of NPS pollution from all sourcesin all watersheds of the state. Arkansas will focus onpriority 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) water-sheds where there are known impairments or signifi-cant threats to water quality from present and futureactivities and have an EPA-accepted Nine ElementPlan. A watershed’s HUC designation is a uniqueidentification code describing where that watershedis in relation to other watersheds. The longer theHUC, the more a specific location is being identified(e.g. 8-digit versus 12-digit).

Only watersheds selected as priority watersheds withEPA-accepted Nine Element Watershed Manage mentPlans will be eligible for Section 319(h) funding fromEPA “watershed project funds.” In addition, ANRCwill encourage other state agencies to target theirefforts toward these same watersheds. To furtherfocus limited resources to achieve measurable results,Arkansas may give preference to implementationprojects that focus on sub- watersheds within identified priority watersheds.

3. A Voluntary Plan:Arkansas’ NPS Management Plan promotes voluntary action to improve water quality. Unlikepoint source pollution, which may be relativelyeasily identified, collected and treated, Arkansasprimarily addresses NPS pollution through citizeneducation and outreach coupled with voluntaryadoption of practical and cost-effective BMPs. BMPsare generally designed to allow for the continuationof everyday activities while reducing or preventingNPS pollution.

Alternatives, optional management strategies andBMPs are often found as lists of choices andmanagement options as part of the voluntary NPSmenu available to land and water managers.However, they are constantly changing. New tech-nologies, understanding, science, etc. informs achanging road map of strategies. Attention to thesechanges and new opportunities and a willingness toadapt is now a basic component of Arkansas’ plan.

4. Building Local Capacity to Address Local Concerns:Since the program’s inception, local watershedgroups, organizations, conservation districts andother stakeholders have been the greatest asset to


9

watershed management. These entities’ motivation,concern and willingness to be watershed stewardsgenerate action. They are typically the mostmotivated to develop and implement watershedmanagement plans, resolve issues and cooperativelycollaborate to improve watershed conditions andwater quality.

The NPS Management Program recognizes theassets of stakeholders. Through the NPS Program,ANRC works cooperatively with state and federalagencies, academic institutions, conservationdistricts, groups and organizations to promotewatershed stewardship, specifically in relationship towater quality.

Since NPS pollution is primarily a “people problem,”the NPS Management Program advocates buildinglocal capacity to effect changes by providing manyand varied opportunities for volunteer involvementat the local level. When NPS pollution problems dooccur, it is generally because of a lack of knowledgeor a perception problem. Although it is difficult attimes to measure or quantify management programimplementation “successes,” especially in the short-term (1 to 5 years), citizen education, outreach andinvolvement are and continue to be primary tools forNPS Management in Arkansas.

The short-term objectives below apply to the overallNPS Management Plan.

• As resources allow, continue to make availablecompetitive grants on an annual basis forstatewide programs and watershed-based imple-mentation projects, giving emphasis to prioritywatersheds that are consistent with goals andobjectives in this plan.

• Give preference to implementation projects thatdefensibly target sub-watersheds, thus improv-ing the opportunity to achieve measurableimprovements in the timeframe of this plan.

• Continue to focus on increasing implementationof BMPs and other related behavioral changesthat have the cumulative effect of improvingwater quality.

• Continue to improve mechanisms for tracking,measuring, and reporting implementationof BMPs.

• Continue to strengthen education, outreach andinvolvement activities to move individuals andbusinesses from awareness to advocacy.

• Update the Qualitative Risk Assessment Matrix asappropriate or within six months after ADEQpublishes a draft List of Impaired Waterbodies.

• Continue to review ADEQ’s draft List of ImpairedWaterbodies to determine the potential todevelop EPA success stories.

• Continue to develop local capacity of watershedgroups to effect behavioral change, giving emphasis to priority watersheds.

• Continue to promote the development ofWatershed Management Plans and update andrefine existing ones as appropriate.

• Strengthen existing and develop new workingpartnerships among cooperating entities in orderto better leverage limited resources available toimprove water quality.

• Foster improved sharing of data, GIS layers,assessments, research and other analytic toolsthat will enable improved targeting of NPSresources by all cooperating entities.

• Promote and support strengthened cooperation atthe state and local levels to more effectively andefficiently target and coordinate resources toimprove water quality.

• Work within the framework of the ArkansasWater Plan to enhance the NPS ManagementProgram and seek to obtain increased nonfederalfunding.

A balanced approach that emphasizes bothstatewide NPS programs and on-the-groundmanagement of individual watersheds wherewaters are impaired and threatened.

Watershed-based implementation has been a goal ofthe nation’s NPS Pollution Management Plan from itsinception. Section 319 of CWA mandates that “A stateshall, to the maximum extent practicable, develop andimplement a management program under this subsec-tion on a watershed-by-watershed basis…” In 1997,EPA increased its commitment to watershed imple-mentation with publication of Picking up the Pace,which established policy to target risk by enhancing theTMDL program and improving identification of waterimpaired by nonpoint sources. Supplemental programguidance encourages states to use a balanced approachthat emphasizes both statewide NPS programs andon-the-ground management of individual watershedswhere waters are impaired or threatened.

To achieve this, the guidance places top priority onimplementing on-the-ground measures and practicesthat will reduce pollutant loads and contribute to therestoration of impaired waters. The approachesdescribed below strive to balance between statewideprograms and watershed-based implementation proj-ects. They also address CWA objectives by directing the

10


use of Section 319 watershed project funds for thedevelopment and implementation of EPA-acceptedNine Element Watershed Management Plans. Theseplans are designed to restore waters that ADEQ lists asimpaired under Section 303(d) of CWA or maintainwater quality and promote water quality in unimpairedwatersheds.

Arkansas’ 2018-2023 NPS Pollution ManagementPlan balances statewide programs focused on specificland uses with watershed-based projects that seek torestore designated uses or prevent waters from becom-ing impaired. Table 1.1 lists activities most commonlyassociated with nonpoint source pollution and identi-fies the section in this document where the activitydescription can be found.

Statewide programs have been redefined for the2018-2023 NPS Management Plan in discussion withADEQ, the Arkansas Department of Health and AFC tomore effectively integrate program responsibilitiesbetween the lead agencies. Table 1.2 identifies the leadagencies for each statewide program.

Arkansas has emphasized watershed-based manage-ment in its NPS Management Plan since 1998.

Arkansas will continue, as appropriate, to treat allwatersheds with NPS TMDLs, excluding phosphorusfrom unknown sources and mercury only TMDLs, aspriority waters for 319(h) funding.

A list of TMDL’s can be found on the ArkansasDepartment of Environmental Quality’s website atwww.adeq.state.ar.us/water/planning/integrated/tmdl/.

To identify additional priority watersheds for the2018-2023 plan, the NPS Management Programcontinues to update and employ a qualitative riskassessment matrix to select 8-digit watersheds eligiblefor watershed project funds. While the analysisincludes all watersheds in the state, watersheds withreaches on the state’s 303(d) List of Impaired Water-bodies are given the most weight. Over time, stake -holders have identified 13 parameters to be consideredand a scoring system for each parameter. Based on theresulting scores, watersheds were grouped intoquintiles. Appendix A describes the qualitative riskassessment matrix in more detail.

In 2017, ANRC designated 11 priority 8-digit HUCwatersheds from the top quintile. The selected watersheds are listed below. Table 1.3 lists the prioritywatersheds. Figure 1.8a and 1.8b shows the location ofpriority watersheds.

Agr

icul

ture

Silv

icul

ture

Surf

ace

Eros

ion

Urb

an R

unof

f

Arkansas NaturalResources Commission

Lead Lead

Arkansas Department ofEnvironmental Quality

Co-Lead

Arkansas ForestryCommission

Lead

Arkansas Department ofHealth

Co-Lead

Section Priority Watersheds Planning Segment11 Bayou Bartholomew (2B)12 Beaver Reservoir (Upper White River) (4K)13 Cache River (4B)14 Illinois River (3J)15 Lake Conway-Point Remove (3F)16 L’Anguille River (5B)17 Lower Little River (1C)18 Lower Ouachita-Smackover (2D)19 Poteau River (3I)20 Strawberry River (4G)21 Upper Saline River (2C)

SectionActivities Commonly Associated

With NPS4 Agriculture5 Silviculture6 Surface Erosion7 Urban Runoff


11

Water quality protection efforts can be bettertargeted using inclusive stakeholder-developed plansand strategies to achieve shared goals and objectives.However, development and adoption of well-designedwatershed management plans continue to be challeng-ing tasks in state and local efforts to protect waterquality. Limited availability of staff and other resourcesare program constraints. Substantial efforts andresources will be expended to develop and implement

Nine Element Plans for these priority watersheds withclearly stated, achievable and measurable goals andobjectives. Table 2.1 in the program description showsthe status of development of Nine Element Plans.

Funding through EPA and other programs is notlikely to be sufficient to fully treat any 8-digit HUCwatershed. As appropriate, as watershed resources areavailable and as groups have the capacity, the state willtarget its efforts toward sub-watersheds within identi-fied priority 8-digit HUC watersheds with EPA-accepted nine element plans. Only those watersheds

Figure 1.8b

Source: Arkansas Natural ResourcesCommissionData Source: USDA NRCS GeospatialData GatewayMap Created: April 2017

Figure 1.8a

Source: Arkansas Natural ResourcesCommissionData Source: USDA NRCS GeospatialData GatewayMap Created: April 2017

12


will be eligible for Section 319(h) funding from EPAwatershed project funds. In addition, ANRC willencourage other state and federal agencies andnonprofit environmental interest groups to target theirefforts towards these same watersheds.

Implementation projects that focus on sub- watersheds where there is demonstrated potential formeasurable results in the short run may be given prefer-ence for watershed implementation grants. The programdescription in Section Two includes a detailed descrip-tion of how sub-watershed priorities will be reviewed.

Watersheds not designated as priority watershedsare not excluded from funding under the 319(h) grantprogram. They will continue to compete for NPSProgram funds. However, those watersheds listed asNPS priorities will be given the first consideration.Watersheds having EPA-accepted Nine Element Planswill have second consideration. As funds allow, otherwatersheds may receive consideration.

Strong working partnerships with appropriate state,tribal, regional, and local entities, private sectorgroups, citizens groups and federal agencies.

ANRC has been the lead agency responsible forArkansas’ NPS Management Plan since 1990. Theagency has made it a priority to develop strong workingpartnerships with appropriate state and federalagencies, regional and local entities, nonprofit organi-zations and watershed groups. In addition, ANRCworks closely with industry associations and otherprivate sector groups to promote implementation ofvoluntary BMPs.

State, federal and local agencies along with state,regional and local associations, nonprofit organizationsand watershed groups will cooperate to provide educa-tion, outreach, technical assistance, cost-share, andother programs targeted to one or more sources orpollutants. More than 100 cooperating entities havesome responsibility for addressing NPS pollutionin Arkansas.

The process of preparing this 2018-2023 NPSPollution Management Plan reflects a continuedcommitment to cooperation and substantive planningand implementation involvement by NPS stakeholders.The plan provides a mechanism for regular review andupdates. Two examples of this stakeholder reviewshould be noted.

Stakeholders attending the annual NPS meeting in2014 approved studying how endangered speciesshould be included as a category in the watershedprioritization risk matrix. Following several committee

meetings, stakeholders at the annual 2015 NPSmeeting approved adding the 13th category, with it totake effect in the 2018-2023 NPS Plan. The updatedwatershed prioritization risk matrix identified theLower Little River as a new priority watershed for the2018-2023 NPS Plan.

Stakeholders also served on committees to reviewthe language of the 2011-2016 NPS Plan for potentialupdates. In 2016, ANRC and the Public Policy Center atthe University of Arkansas System Division ofAgriculture invited stakeholders attending the 2016NPS meeting to participate in the review. The invita-tion was also shared at other water-related meetings,with signup sheets posted for people to volunteer.

A total of 45 people signed up to participate in theupdate of the six chapters. Cooperative ExtensionService and ANRC staff also identified an extensive listof other stakeholders who should be contacted andasked if they were interested in participating in chapterupdates when they were ready. A total of 131 stake -holders were identified. The six committees reviewedthese chapters: Agriculture, Silviculture, ResourceExtraction, Surface Erosion, Road Construction andMaintenance, and Urban Runoff.

Committee members provided suggestions on potential updates, and their suggestions were reviewedby Cooperative Extension Service and ANRC staff.(During the next editing stage, ANRC staff recom-mended removing several chapters that included activities that were already regulated and not undertheir purview.) This cooperative process continues tobuild the participation network. Data sharing, projectplanning and cooperative project development areall examples of the stronger collaborative basis forNPS efforts.

New initiatives ranging from Regional ConservationProject Partnership, National Water Quality Initiativeproject proposals, Discovery Farm investments to theArkansas Soil Health Alliance and cover crop use,promotion and management projects are examples ofthe growing network. The GeoStor data resource andcooperation with the state’s Geographic InformationOffice provide opportunities to explore new modelingand mapping efforts, with a goal of improved targetingof resources. The challenge for resource agencies,policy makers and citizens is to cooperatively imple-ment NPS management tools and techniques withmeasurable success. At the same time this cooperativeeffort must find ways to integrate new, unique oremerging needs into the update and employ the mosteffective and efficient tools.

Section Three, Cooperating Entities, describesentities that are working together to manage NPS


13

pollution in Arkansas. Appendix C describes in moredetail how the NPS Management Plan StakeholderGroup was created and its role in the planning process.The adaptive management discussion below describeshow the NPS Management Plan Stakeholder Group willbe used for review and update of this plan.

The state plan (a) abates water quality impairmentsfrom existing sources and (b) prevents significantthreats to water quality from present and futureactivities.

ADEQ is responsible for monitoring and assessingwater quality. The Arkansas NPS PollutionManagement Plan administered by ANRC utilizes the305(b) report and List of Impaired Waterbodies(303(d)) as the basis for information to determine ifwaterbodies are affected by NPS pollution. Both evalua-tive and monitored data have historically been utilizedto assist in making this determination.

The NPS Management Plan is directed at abatementof known water quality problems as identified in thesection 305(b) report and List of Impaired Waterbodiesand significant threats to water quality from presentand future activities. Statewide programs are developedto prevent and address the different causes of impair-ment and their sources for abatement activities. Thestate NPS Management Plan is reviewed periodically bythe NPS Management Plan Stakeholder Group and canbe modified to address new problems as they arise.

An identification of waters and watershedsimpaired or threatened by NPS pollution and aprocess to progressively address these waters.

ADEQ’s List of Impaired Waterbodies includeswaters not supporting all designated uses and identifiesthe most likely source of pollution and causes for theimpairment. The inventory is based on monitoring andevaluative data collected by ADEQ as well as data fromother sources if the data meets EPA specifications. Thestate’s NPS Management Plan uses this assessmentreport as a guide in developing action plans forstatewide programs and for identifying priority water-sheds for special assistance.

Once a watershed is identified as a priority watershed for the purposes of the NPS ManagementPlan, it is identified for further assessment work anddevelopment of a Nine Element Plan involving localwatershed groups with support from state and federalagencies and other cooperating entities. As appropriate,SWAT modeling or other watershed analysis of

nonpoint sources is initiated and action plans aredeveloped for addressing water quality conservationneeds of the watershed. BMP implementation in priority watersheds will be monitored to the extentpossible given confidentiality requirements enacted byCongress in the Farm Bill. Best Management Practicemonitoring, together with ongoing water quality andenvironmental monitoring, can be used to determinethe effectiveness of the watershed plans. Evaluation andrevision of the plans will be conducted by local plan-ning and technical support partners on a regular basis.

The state reviews, upgrades, and implements allprogram components required by Section 319 ofthe Clean Water Act, and establishes flexible, tar -geted, iterative approaches to achieve and maintainbeneficial uses of water as expeditiously as practica-ble. The state programs include: (a) a mix of waterquality-based and/or technology-based programsdesigned to achieve and maintain beneficial uses ofwater; and (b) a mix of regulatory, non-regulatory,financial and technical assistance as needed toachieve and maintain beneficial uses of water asexpeditiously as practicable.

Arkansas’ NPS Management Plan utilizes a voluntary approach to achieve and maintain designateduses. To promote voluntary effort, the NPS PollutionManagement Plan makes available competitive grantsto eligible public agencies, universities, and nonprofitorganizations on an annual basis for statewideprograms and watershed-based implementationprojects. The grants program is described in SectionTwo of this plan.

As the lead agency, ANRC prepares an annual reportthat documents the state’s implementation of the NPSManagement Plan. The annual reporting process isdescribed in Section Two of this plan. In addition tomeeting CWA reporting requirements, the annualreport is used to communicate program status to theNPS Management Plan Stakeholder Group, thusenabling them to participate in evaluating programsand recommending mid-course corrections to the NPSManagement Plan on an ongoing basis.

Arkansas will continue to employ an adaptivemanagement approach to keep the NPS ManagementPlan current. The role of the NPS Management PlanStakeholder Group in the adaptive managementprocess is described in Section 2. For all statewide andpriority watershed programs, the overall program strat-egy is to promote voluntary BMPs using a cooperativeprocess whereby federal and state programs cooperate

14


in priority areas of the state where water qualityproblems have been identified. As long as voluntaryimplementation of BMPs and cooperative processesresult in the incremental reduction of nonpoint sourcepollutant loads, it will be viewed as successful.However, if the voluntary, cooperative process does notresult in the incremental reduction of NPS pollutionand/or water quality improvements, then state andlocal entities will need to investigate additional cost-effective steps needed to enable waterbodies to meettheir designated uses over the long term.

Efficient and effective management and implementation of the state’s NPS plan,including necessary financial management.

Efficiency and effectiveness are achieved in thefollowing ways:

• The NPS Management Plan Stakeholder Groupwill review the plan periodically. Through reviewof the program, progress toward achievingmilestones reported in annual reports, ANRC willprovide assurance that NPS Management Planfunds are used effectively, are targeted towardstate priorities, and truly address NPS issuesaffecting the waters of Arkansas.

• Many agencies represented in the StakeholderGroup are also represented on various other stateand federal committees and task forces, such asthe NRCS State Technical Committee or theMulti-Agency Wetlands Planning Team. Thiscross representation promotes greater coordina-tion and leveraging of limited funds to moreadequately meet the needs of the NPSManagement Plan.

• ANRC provides technical assistance to theagency, university, or nonprofit organization thatsubmits a proposal to develop a detailed workplan that meets the needs of the proposing entity,the NPS Pollution Management Plan and therequirements set by the CWA. This process helpsshape projects so they are more likely to achievethe intended results efficiently and effectively.

• ANRC follows Generally Accepted AccountingPrinciples (GAAP) guidelines issued by the

Governmental Accounting Standards Board andundergoes an annual audit consistent withgovernment audit standards laid out in variousOffice of Management and Budget and Govern-ment Accountability Office guidance. Entitiesthat expend Section 319(h) funds are subject toaudit requirements that assure compliance withstate and federal laws and regulations. This financial oversight provides both EPA and thepublic with confidence in the integrity of ANRC’sfinancial management.

Identification of federal lands and objectives,which are not managed consistently with stateprogram objectives.

A list of federal lands in the state is included in theupdate along with the agency responsible. ANRC willprovide copies of this 2018-2023 Arkansas NPSManagement Plan to the director of each federalagency. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) manages morefederal lands in Arkansas than any other federalagency. AFC monitors and reports implementation ofBMPs on USFS lands through a biennial survey.

A feedback loop whereby the state reviews, evaluates, and revises its NPS assessment and itsmanagement plan at least every five years.

Arkansas’ NPS Management Plan was developed in1998 and updated in 2002, 2005 and 2011. Experiencehas shown that the plan needs to be updated on aregular basis in order to integrate new, unique oremerging needs and programs. The NPS ManagementPlan Stakeholder Group was formed to develop the2006-2011 NPS Pollution Management Plan and the2011-2016 plan, and stakeholders continue to provideinput on the development of the 2018-2023 plan. Thecontinuing goal is an incrementally updated plan,adapting to the changing opportunity, knowledge andneeds of the state. This adaptive management processacts as a scoping mechanism that keeps the planrelevant and open to the state’s changing NPS pollutioncircumstance. It also helps avoid the need for majorupdates that are time-consuming and disruptive toongoing effort.


15

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. (2016). Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report.Retrieved from www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/planning/integrated/303d/pdfs/2016/integrated-report.pdf

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. (n.d.) Arkansas Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). Retrieved fromwww.adeq.state.ar.us/water/planning/integrated/tmdl/

Arvest. (2017). Skyline Report Shows Active, Balanced Residential Market in Northwest Arkansas. Retrieved fromwww.arvest.com/about/arvest-newsroom/skyline-report-active-residential-market-northwest-arkansas

U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2016). Arkansas Poultry Highlights 2014-2015.Retrieved from www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Arkansas/Publications/Livestock_Releases/Special_Livestock_Releases/arpoultry16.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). 319 Grant: Current Guidance. Retrieved from www.epa.gov/nps/319-grant-current-guidance

16

The Arkansas Natural Resource Commission(ANRC) is the lead agency responsible for Arkansas’Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program. Thisplan provides a broad framework and aspirationalobjectives and is updated every five years.

Arkansas’ NPS Pollution Management Programincludes two major components: a statewide programconsisting of statewide issues of concern and a selectgroup of priority watersheds identified by a matrixcreated with input from stakeholders.

Statewide programs focus prevention and, to a lesserextent, abatement activities on a particular land use orgroup of land and water uses. Typical activities mayinclude identification and/or development of appropri-ate Best Management Practices (BMPs), BMP monitor-ing, water quality monitoring, demonstration projects,training, and outreach.

The priority watershed program focuses on priority8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds wherethere are known impairments or significant threatsto water quality from present and potential future activi-ties. Waterbodies with an approved total maximum dailyload (TMDL) may be considered a priority watershed,except in cases in which the TMDL does not have anNPS component or the source cannot be identified (e.g.,TMDLs for phosphorus or mercury only).

Typical priority watershed program activities mayinclude assessments to identify target sub-watersheds,development of a Nine Element Plan and implementa-tion projects. ANRC will give preference to implementa-tion of NPS program projects that target sub-watershedswhere measurable water quality improvements can beexpected in a specified time-frame. Arkansas’ NPSProgram recognizes that water quality improvementsmost often occur where there are active and effectivelocal watershed groups involved.

Table 2.1 shows the status of local institutional capacity and planning in each of the identified prioritywatersheds as well where in this plan they are described.

Section Priority Watershed Active Watershed Groups Nine Element Plan

11 Bayou Bartholomew Yes12 Beaver Reservoir Association for Beaver Lake Environment (ABLE)

Beaver Watershed AllianceOzarks Water WatchKings River Watershed Partnership

Yes

13 Cache River Yes

14 Illinois River Illinois River Watershed Partnership Yes

15 Lake Conway-Point Remove Incomplete Draft

16 L’Anguille River Yes

17 Lower Little River Yes

18 Lower Ouachita-Smackover No

19 Poteau River No

20 Strawberry River Yes

21 Upper Saline River Yes


17

Watershed projects promote understanding of thefull range of stressors in a watershed – physical, chemi-cal, and biological – that may be affecting aquatic lifeand human health. When all significant sources andstressors are understood, the program and subsequentprojects are better able to focus on those controls thatare more likely to produce measurable improvementsin ecosystem health.

Administratively, watershed projects are highlyefficient. They encourage local and statewide cooperat-ing entities to focus staff and financial resources onprioritized geographic locations and facilitate coordina-tion of resources among interested parties. Also, theyprovide local agencies with an opportunity to takeleadership roles in ecosystem protection. Individualwatershed projects provide a statewide proving groundfor innovative approaches as new models are developedand new watershed-level management approachesare tried.

Finally, watershed projects encourage local agenciesand citizen groups to get involved either by participat-ing in state or federal projects or by starting their ownwatershed projects. Projects create a sense of owner-ship within the project area and engender enthusiasmthat will carry forward to new initiatives.

The elements of an effective watershed project are:

•Developing effective institutional arrangementsand ownership of the project by stakeholders.

•Developing an inventory of the watershed and itsproblems and conducting baseline monitoring.

•Developing project goals, a list of managementmeasures and a detailed plan for their implemen-tation.

•Obtaining funding, securing commitments andinstalling controls.

•Documenting success in meeting goals, monitor-ing, changing management measures as needed,and ensuring project continuity.

The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission(ANRC) receives funding through an AssistanceAgreement from the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) for the purpose of enacting and maintaining theNonpoint Source Pollution Management Program(NPS Program). Funds are received from EPA yearly,and the EPA allocation varies but is generally between$2 to $3 million. EPA funding is contingent uponANRC providing or securing a 40 percent match.

The NPS Program and associated staff are fundedthrough the Assistance Agreement with the exceptionof one staff position. In an effort to secure the non-federal match requirement, a minimum surcharge ofthree percent is added to the match requirement forprojects. Additional non-federal match may be securedthrough state funds or state-funded programs or activi-ties directly associated with NPS pollution abatement,reduction or control. Examples of state-fundedprograms may include, but are not limited to:

•WQTs are funded for multiple county conserva-tion districts using state dollars for the purpose ofdeveloping Nutrient Management orConservation Plans.

•

Individuals may borrow up to $250,000 foragriculture equipment or services for the implicitand expressed purpose to abate, reduce or controlNPS pollution. Payments made by the borrowermay be counted as non-federal match.

•NPS projects totally funded with non-federaldollars by other state agencies, groups or organi-zations. Fiscal expenditure tracking and verifica-tion is documented and submitted to ANRC anddedicated to the NPS Program solely.

In an effort to secure and maintain staff and theconsistency of the NPS Program, once every four tofive years, the total annual funding allocation fromEPA is dedicated to the administrative function of theprogram. The periodic funding ensures adequatestaffing, ongoing program enhancements and updatesand overall program consistency and efficiency.


18

As described further in this chapter, Arkansas willfocus watershed NPS Project funding on the priority8-digit HUC watershed scale where impairments orsignificant threats to water quality exist due to NPSactivities and where certain criteria are met. Whenapplicable, ANRC will encourage other state agenciesto target their efforts in watersheds where NPSProgram projects are taking place.

The annual EPA allocation and subsequentAssistance Agreement award to ANRC is dividedequally between the two funding “pools” and is a com-petitive process. NPS projects are selected basedon watershed location and other criteria (i.e., beingdesignated an NPS priority watershed and having anEPA-accepted Nine Element Plan). The two pools offunding are:

•Priority watersheds identified through the useof the Risk Matrix Tool that have an EPA-accepted Nine Element Plan are eligible forSection 319(h) funding from the EPA WatershedProject Funds. In the event that these funds areexhausted, projects meeting the criteria forWatershed Project Funds may be paid for byNPS Program Funds.

•Non-priority watersheds are only eligible for NPSProgram Funds. These funds can be used toaddress a proactive approach to protect waterquality, non-priority watershed projects orprojects in watersheds without an EPA-acceptedNine Element Plan.

To further focus limited resources to achieve measurable results, Arkansas will give preference toimplementation projects that focus defensibly on sub-watersheds within identified priority watersheds andeffectively leverage limited available resources.Implementation projects are defined as projects withactivities that primarily include installing or implement-ing “on the ground” best management practices (BMPs)that directly abate, reduce or control NPS pollution.

Project proposals for implementation of sub-watershed projects will adhere to the same criteriaas 8-digit HUC watersheds but will include a descrip-

tion of the data and the analytic methodology used toprioritize the sub-watershed(s). The prioritizationmethodology will be reviewed by ANRC’s NPS staff ona number of criteria including, but not limited to:

• What data were used (quantitative analyses willbe given preference, analyses that providecomparative rankings of sub-watersheds will begiven preference).

• Methodology used to analyze the data (e.g., landuse change from Geographic Information System(GIS), Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)models, Water Erosion Prediction Project(WEPP), etc.

• Validation methodology and assumptions used insetting modeling parameters.

• How the data were collected (rigorous methods ofdata collection will be given preference).

• How complete and up-to-date the data used are.• Whether there is meta-data (GIS) or a data

dictionary (databases) that enable the data to beshared with other analysts/researchers (data thatcan be shared will be given preference).

• Degree to which the data/analysis has been orcan be verified through analytic methods orthrough other objective means.

ANRC will review the prioritization methodologyused before a proposal is accepted for consideration. Ifthe prioritization methodology is determined to beinadequate, the proposal will not receive furtherconsideration from ANRC.

Recognizing that agriculture is consistently listed asthe most frequent nonpoint source of impairment toArkansas waterbodies on the state’s 303(d) List ofImpaired Waterbodies, watershed-based implementa-tion projects may include cost-sharing to encourageagricultural producers to implement and maintainspecific BMPs as one component of a project proposal.

Proposals that include cost-sharing for other typesof entities will not be considered. BMPs eligible forcost-sharing are selected and approved by the NPSStaff on a project-by-project basis.

ANRC works with cooperating entities to identifyappropriate and economical BMPs that producers willbe able and willing to implement. Projects that includecost sharing are targeted at a single watershed.


19

Where practical, U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) initiatives and programs such as the EnvironmentalQuality Incentive Program (EQIP), the ConservationReserve Program (CRP), the Conservation ReserveEnhancement Program (CREP), the Wildlife HabitatImprovement Program (WHIP), the Wetland ReserveProgram (WRP), Mississippi River Basin Initiative(MRBI), National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) andother state and local cost-share are coordinated withANRC’s Title X Rules Governing Agriculture CostShare and can be a component of an NPS Programproject. However, many of the NRCS programs do notoperate on the watershed level but rather the countylevel. Only initiatives within the NPS Program projectarea may be used to augment the project.

Projects are selected through a competitive process.ANRC issues a Call for Work Plans in November orearly December. Eligible entities are invited to submitproposals to ANRC’s NPS Management Program.Proposals are reviewed through a structured process,and projects are selected for funding as appropriateand as funds allow. NPS Program staff work withpotential grantees on a continuous basis to encourage apool of proposals that address the most critical needsof the NPS Pollution Management Program, as identi-fied by ANRC. The following is a narrative descriptionof the competitive grant process.

Entities eligible to receive Section 319(h) grantsinclude state and local government agencies, 501(c)(3)nonprofit organizations, and universities. Otherentities are not eligible. ANRC may at its discretionwaive eligibility requirements on a case-by-case basiswhen it is in the best interests of the Arkansas NPSPollution Management Program.

NPS Program staff issue a call for work plans on anannual basis. Staff maintain an active list of interestedstakeholders (both entities and individuals areincluded). Any eligible entity may request to be addedto the email distribution list to receive the Call forWork Plans. The Call for Work Plans provides a formatfor proposal submission and a due date for proposals.ANRC may at its discretion solicit additional project

work plans during the course of the year or acceptunsolicited project work plans for consideration if it isin the best interests of the Arkansas NPS PollutionManagement Program.

Work plans must pass through a multi-stage review.ANRC staff review submitted work plans for eligibilityand completeness. Staff may return incomplete workplans for additional work or reject incomplete workplans. Rejected work plans may or may not receivefurther consideration based on the merits of the workplan and the needs of the NPS Program.

Completed work plans are forwarded to a peer reviewteam for evaluation. However, the peer review processmay not be used when not enough work plans have beensubmitted to utilize the total annual allocation.

When the peer review process is used, the teamincludes representatives of current or past Section 319grant recipients selected by ANRC. No grant recipientmay have more than one representative on the peerreview team. Members of the peer review teamindependently rank all proposals as high, medium orlow priority. NPS Program staff also independentlyreview and rank work plans.

After all rankings are submitted, the peer reviewteam and NPS Program staff meet as a group to discussthe strengths and weaknesses of work plans relative tothe NPS Management Program objectives. This groupmay recommend changes to the project design in orderto strengthen project outcomes.

The NPS Program staff then reviews all rankings aswell as other input to make funding recommendationsto ANRC management. ANRC management staffreview recommendations and assist in making the final determination for project funding.

Entities with projects selected for funding will benotified and asked to develop a detailed work plan ifapplicable. ANRC may at its discretion ask for projectmodifications in order to strengthen project outcomes.

Project leaders (also known as project investigatorsor PIs) are required to submit quarterly reports thatdescribe the project’s progress, task activities, task


20

completion, expenditures and match generated. Theyalso submit annual reports that provide implementa-tion data to estimate load reduction as well as a discus-sion of successes and failures and mid-courseadjustments to the scope of work. All projects arerequired to submit a final report.

To provide input into the adaptive managementprocess, sponsors of active projects participate in theannual Nonpoint Source Pollution Stakeholder andProject Review Meeting as appropriate or requested.Project leaders present information and respond toquestions about their project from peers and NPSProgram staff. In addition, all participants in the peerreview process work together to identify lessonslearned or potential adaptations that would strengthenthe project or similar projects in the future.

As the lead agency, ANRC prepares an annual reportthat documents the state’s implementation of the NPSManagement Plan. The Clean Water Act details therequirements for the Annual Report. Specifically:

Section 319(h) (11) Reporting and OtherRequirements. Each State shall report to theAdministrator on an annual basis concerning:

a. Its progress in meeting the schedule ofmilestones submitted pursuant to subsec-tion (b)(2)(C) of this section; and

b. To the extent that appropriate informationis available, reductions in nonpoint sourcepollutant loading and improvements inwater quality for those navigable watersor watersheds within the State which wereidentified pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A)of this section resulting from the imple-mentation of the management program.

In Arkansas, responsibility for (a) and (b) above aredivided between two state agencies.

a. ANRC administers the NPS Management Planand reports on progress toward meeting theschedule of milestones; and

b. The Arkansas Department of EnvironmentalQuality (ADEQ) is responsible for monitoring andassessing the waters of the state “to the extentthat appropriate information is available.” ADEQissues two major reports on a roughly biennialbasis: the Water Quality Inventory Report (alsocalled the 305(b) report) and the List of Impaired

Waterbodies (also called the 303(d) report).ADEQ has responsibility for assessing the watersof the state.

In addition to ADEQ’s monitoring activities, ANRCmaintains a limited long-term supplemental monitor-ing program that is included in the annual report.ANRC’s long-term monitoring stations supplement butdo not duplicate ADEQ monitoring.

On the project level, ANRC estimates load reductionsutilizing the Region 5, STEPL and RUSLE models, whichare entered into the Grants Reporting and TrackingSystem (GRTS). When project monitoring is included asa component of a funded project, it is typically done forthe purpose of BMP demonstration efficiency. Thesedata are only useful and available at the completion ofthe project.

The 2018-2023 NPS Management Plan will continueto use an adaptive management approach as appropri-ate. The NPS Management Plan Stakeholder Group willmeet when necessary to review the NPS ManagementPlan for needed updates, information, upcoming activi-ties and trends, and to suggest potential changes to theNPS Management Program. Stakeholders includeindividuals and organizations that have an interest inidentifying and solving nonpoint source water qualityproblems and in monitoring the effectiveness of thesesolutions over time. Entities represented in theStakeholder Group in the past include but are notlimited to:

• Alliance for an Improved Middle Fork• Arkansas Association of Conservation District

Employees• Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts• Arkansas Canoe Club• Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality• Arkansas Department of Health• Arkansas Department of Heritage• Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism• Arkansas Department of Transportation• Arkansas Environmental Federation• Arkansas Farm Bureau• Arkansas Forestry Association• Arkansas Forestry Commission• Arkansas Game and Fish Commission• Arkansas Homebuyers Association• Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Association• Arkansas Municipal League


21

• Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission• Arkansas Natural Resources Commission• Arkansas Office of the Governor• Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission• Arkansas Pork Producers Association• Arkansas Poultry Federation• Arkansas Public Policy Panel• Arkansas River Valley RC&D Council• Arkansas Rural Water Association• Arkansas State Plant Board• Arkansas State University• Arkansas Tech University• Arkansas Water Resources Center• Associated General Contractors of Arkansas• Association of Arkansas Counties• Audubon Arkansas• Baxter County Conservation District• Bayou Bartholomew Alliance• Beaver Watershed Alliance• Beaver Water District• Boone County Conservation District• Buffalo River Watershed Alliance• Cattails Environmental, LLC• Central Arkansas Water• City of Fort Smith• City of Little Rock• Crooked Creek Conservation District• Cross County Conservation District• East Arkansas Planning and Development

District• Equilibrium• Friends of North Fork/White River• Friends of Fourche Creek• Friends of the Ouachita Trail• FTN Associates• Fulton County Conservation District• GBMc & Associates• Illinois River Watershed Partnership• Kings River Watershed Group• Lake Conway Homeowners Association• Lake Conway Point Remove Watershed Alliance• Lake Fayetteville Watershed Partnership• L’Anguille River Keepers• L’Anguille River Watershed Coalition• Leatherwood Creek Watershed• League of Women Voters of Arkansas• Little Red River Action Team• Lower Little River Watershed Coalition• McGeorge Construction• National Park Service• National Weather Service• Northwest Arkansas RC&D Council• Ouachita Watch League• Ozark Foothills RC&D Council

• Ozarks Water Watch• Plum Creek Timber Company • Scott County Organization to Protect the

Environment• Southwest Arkansas Planning and Development

District• Southwest Arkansas RC&D Council• Springdale Water Utilities • St. Francis County Conservation District• Streamworks Mitigation Services• The Agricultural Council of Arkansas• The Nature Conservancy• The Ozark Society• University of Arkansas• University of Arkansas at Little Rock• University of Arkansas at Monticello• University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff• University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences• University of Arkansas System Division of

Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service• University of Arkansas System Division of

Agriculture Public Policy Center• University of Arkansas System Division of

Agriculture Research Stations• University of Arkansas Watershed Research and

Education Center• University of Central Arkansas• Upper White River Basin Foundation• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service

Agency• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service• U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural

Resources Conservation Service• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service• U.S. Geological Survey• Watershed Conservation Resource Center• West Center Arkansas Planning and Development

District• West Fork-White River Watershed• Western Arkansas Planning and Development

District• White County Conservation District• White River Planning and Development District

22

The Arkansas Nonpoint Source (NPS) PollutionManagement Plan is implemented through workingpartnerships with state and federal agencies, educa-tional institutions, municipalities, counties, conserva-tion districts, regional planning commissions,nonprofit organizations and others. These partners areinvited to participate in an annual NPS PollutionStakeholder and Project Review meeting to discusscurrent issues impacting nonpoint source pollution,share information about efforts to address nonpointsource pollution, and provide input to the ArkansasNatural Resources Commission (ANRC) regarding theManagement Plan and its implementation.

ANRC works collaboratively with several agenciesthat provide leadership for statewide programsincluded in this plan. Table 3.1 indicates the leadagencies for each statewide program.

This section summarizes major efforts of thesepartners as well as other cooperating entities thatcontribute directly or indirectly to Arkansas’ NPSManagement Plan. Table 3.2 (end of this section)identifies the statewide programs to which the cooper-ating entities may contribute directly or indirectly overthe course of the 2018-2023 NPS PollutionManagement Plan.

ANRC manages and protects water and landresources for the health, safety and economic benefit ofthe State of Arkansas. A nine-member commissionappointed by the governor provides direction for ANRC.The governor also appoints the ANRC executive direc-tor. ANRC is divided into three operating divisions: theConservation Division, the Water Management Divisionand the Water Development Division.

Since 1990, ANRC has been the lead agency forplanning, coordinating and implementing the NPSPollution Management Plan, including the develop-ment and maintenance of the plan’s updates, submit-ted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)for approval every five years. In addition, ANRCmanages wide-ranging programs that address NPSpollution both directly and indirectly across its threedivisions. A few of those programs are highlighted.

ANRC offers competitive grants, funded throughSection 319(h) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), tosupport statewide programs and implementationprojects on an annual cycle. Special emphasis is givento watersheds prioritized by the NPS PollutionManagement Plan Stakeholder Group. ANRC providesassistance to eligible entities on preparation of grantapplications, including conceptual project design,development of a work plan, and budget preparation.ANRC accepts work plans for projects to manage,reduce, or abate NPS pollution. Projects are funded forone to four years.

ANRC provides significant support for Arkansas’ 75conservation districts in collaboration with the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS). The purpose of theArkansas Association of Conservation Districts is tohelp conservation districts increase their capacity toeffectively and efficiently conserve soil and water.Conservation districts are political subdivisions of the

StatewideProgram Lead Agency

Agriculture Arkansas Natural ResourcesCommission

Silviculture Arkansas Forestry Commission

SurfaceErosion

Arkansas Natural ResourcesCommission

Urban Runoff Arkansas Department of EnvironmentalQuality and the Arkansas Departmentof Health


23

State of Arkansas. They are a creation by popular voteof resident landowners for the purpose of conservingland and water resources as authorized by Act No. 197of the Arkansas General Assembly of 1937, the nation’sfirst conservation district law. ANRC appoints twomembers of each local conservation district while threemembers are elected locally.

ANRC, the Arkansas Department of EnvironmentalQuality (ADEQ), the Arkansas Forestry Commission(AFC), the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission(AGFC), NRCS and other entities may provide techni-cal assistance to conservation districts through theirstaffs of professional engineers, geologists, and/orbiologists in the design and implementation of BestManagement Practices (BMPs) for the purpose ofimproving or maintaining water quality.

ANRC provides state funding to some local conser-vation districts for water quality technicians. Thetechnicians provide assistance to landowners in theimplementation of farm management plans and in theimplementation of water quality and conservationplans. ANRC, in cooperation with NRCS, overseesongoing training of technicians on managementtechniques and practices. NRCS provides daily super -vision for conservation district technicians.

Poultry feeding operations, in which 2,500 or morepoultry are housed or confined on any given day, mustregister annually in accordance with the ArkansasPoultry Feeding Operations Registration Act.

While confined animal feeding operations (CAFO)regulations at a national level are being developed, inArkansas, CAFOs under the General Permit No.ARG590000 that have no discharge other thanstormwater and which does not propose to dischargeare not required to seek permit coverage.

Along with Poultry Registration, ANRC becameresponsible for other programs authorized by theArkansas General Assembly in 2003. Implementationbegan in 2005, and with amendments continuedthrough 2010. They are:

•

These rules govern ANRC’s NutrientManagement Planner Certification Program forindividuals who prepare nutrient managementplans. Planners prepare nutrient managementplans to indicate how nutrients should be appliedto fields and other land for crop production whileprotecting groundwater and surface water from

excessive nutrient enrichment. Plans containoperating procedures based on expected croptype, existing nutrient levels in the soil, organicresiduals, optimum timing and placement ofnutrients, environmental resource protection,and agronomic practices such as liming, tillageand crop rotation. ANRC certifies the competenceof individuals to prepare these plans, and deter-mines information to be contained in nutrientmanagement plans.

•

These rules govern ANRC’s NutrientManagement Applicator Certification Programfor individuals who apply nutrients to land.ANRC certifies the competence of individuals toapply nutrients and provides training relating tonutrient application. The training must, at aminimum, meet the NRCS conservation practicestandards for Arkansas. To maintain certification,nutrient planners must develop plans consistentwith certified nutrient planner training. ANRCmay issue distinct classifications of certification.Persons making nutrient application to NutrientSurplus Areas (NSAs) on or after the effectivedate of Title 22, Rules Governing the ArkansasSoil Nutrient and Poultry Litter Application andManagement Program, must become certified.Persons making nutrient application outsideNSAs are not required to become certified.

•

This program encourages prudent practicesregarding the application and management of soilnutrients and poultry litter to protect andenhance the state’s surface water quality whileallowing for optimum soil fertility and properplant growth. The program’s primary goal is tomaintain the benefits derived from the wise use ofpoultry litter, commercial fertilizers, and othersoil nutrients while avoiding unwanted effectsfrom excess nutrient applications on the waterswithin the state. To further this goal, the programprovides requirements applicable to NSAs, nutri-ent management plans, and poultry littermanagement plans.

This program, created by the Arkansas PrivateWetland Riparian Zone Creation and RestorationIncentive Act of 1995, allows a credit against the tax


24

imposed by the Arkansas Income Tax Act for anytaxpayer engaged in the development or restoration ofwetlands and riparian zones. The program is designedto encourage private landowners to restore andenhance existing wetlands and riparian zones and,when possible, create new wetlands and riparian zonesbecause the state continues to experience significantloss of wetlands and most lands suitable for wetlandsare privately owned. This program benefits thelandowners through tax credits and the state byincreasing wetlands and riparian zones, which provideflood control, water quality enhancement, fish andwildlife habitat, recreation, and groundwater recharge.

The Arkansas Wetland Mitigation Bank Program is astate-sponsored initiative to re-establish wetlandhydrology and vegetation with compensatory fundsfrom Section 404 permit recipients for impacts ofapproved wetland projects in selected areas that meetprogram criteria. Within these areas, site selectiontakes into consideration current and potential contri-butions to groundwater quality and other factors.

ANRC is responsible for state level planning,management and protection of groundwater resources.This is accomplished through monitoring aquifer waterlevels and NPS-related water quality concerns, imple-mentation of BMPs, conservation, enforcement of theproper construction of water wells and education.These goals are accomplished through a strong work-ing relationship with the public and with other agen-cies. ANRC works closely with other state and federalagencies to monitor a water well network of more than1,200 sites for water level and water quality informa-tion. Pursuant to the Arkansas Ground Water Protec-tion and Management Act of 1991, ANRC produces anannual groundwater report on the condition of thestate’s groundwater resources, makes recommenda-tions on critical areas, participates in the ArkansasConservation Partnership and enforces Water WellConstruction Commission rules and regulations.

In 1969, the Arkansas General Assembly passedAct 217 making ANRC responsible for water planningat the state level and the development of the firstArkansas Water Plan. Since its completion and publica-tion in 1975, the plan has served as a guide for efficientdevelopment of land and water resources. In 1985, theArkansas General Assembly enacted Act 1051 directing

ANRC to update the plan so it will remain a valid andreliable document addressing current issues. The mostrecent data and research provide the basis for meetingplanning objectives and finding potential solutions.The Arkansas Water Plan, in accordance with Acts 217of 1969 and 1051 of 1985, consists of 12 basin reports.Each basin report includes a land resource inventory(land use and soil resources), identifies quantity andquality problems for surface and groundwater andprovides solutions and recommendations.

Arkansas Act 469 of 1989, A.C.A. 15-22-503(e)(1)provides that water development projects in Arkansasare implemented consistent with the Arkansas WaterPlan. The statute states: “No political subdivision oragency of the state shall spend any state funds on orengage in any water development project…until apreliminary survey and report therefore which setsforth the purpose of the project, the benefits to beexpected, the general nature of the works of improve-ment, the geographic area to be served by the project,the necessity, feasibility, and the estimated cost thereofis filed with the commission and is approved by thecommission to be in compliance with the plan.” ANRCprovides the structure for which water plan compliancecan be achieved.

Arkansas currently operates under the 2014Arkansas Water Plan Update that became effective onFeb. 1, 2016.

The Arkansas General Assembly authorized ANRCto create seven financial assistance programs that usethe state’s bonding authority to assist local units ofgovernment to finance water-related facilities andprojects including the:

• Water Development Fund• Water, Sewer and Solid Waste Fund• Water Resources Cost-share Revolving Fund• Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund• Water, Waste Disposal and Pollution Abatement

Facilities General Obligation Bond Program• Water Plan Compliance• Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund Program

ADEQ’s mission statement states its goal is to“protect, enhance, and restore the natural environmentfor the well-being of all Arkansans.” A 13-member


25

commission provides oversight. The governor appointsseven of the members and six agencies are representedby their director or a designee. The agencies are the:

• Arkansas Department of Health (ADH)• Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC)• Arkansas Forestry Commission• Arkansas Natural Resources Commission• Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission (AOGC)• Arkansas Geology Survey (AGS)

The governor appoints the ADEQ director whooversees five operating Offices. Two Offices are par -ticularly related to the NPS Pollution ManagementPlan: the Office of Water Quality and Office of LandResources-Mining Program and Land ResourcesAdministration. ADEQ develops, monitors, and deter-mines both long- and short-term impacts of land usemanagement practices on water quality standards forsurface and groundwater, and also develops waste loadallocations. Among other responsibilities, ADEQ ischarged with:

• Protecting, enhancing and restoring the naturalenvironment for the well-being of all Arkansans;

• Maintaining a network of ambient water qualitymonitoring stations, roving monitoring sites anda program for biological monitoring;

• Producing special studies and mandated reports,including the 303(d) List of ImpairedWaterbodies and the 305(b) Integrated WaterQuality Monitoring and Assessment Report;

• Issuing permits under the National PollutionDischarge Elimination System (NPDES) includ-ing pretreatment, individual and stormwaterpermits for water discharge of any sort within thestate of Arkansas;

• Issuing permits relating to “no-discharge” wastedisposal systems (those that do not dischargedirectly in to waters of the state), and saltwaterdisposal systems including industrial septic tanksystems and animal waste facilities such as hogfarms and chicken operations with wet wastedisposal systems;

• Managing the Underground Injection Control(UIC) Program;

• Issuing 401 Water Quality Certifications for anywater project requiring a federal permit orlicense;

• Enforcing compliance with permits describedabove through district field office inspectors andsupervisors including: • Conducting permit compliance evaluation

inspections for NPDES facilities permittedfor surface water discharges, primarily

municipal wastewater treatment plants andindustrial discharges for process wastewaterand for subsurface or no discharge facilities,including industrial septic tank systems,animal waste facilities such as hog farmsand chicken operations with wet wastedisposal systems, and oil- and gas-relatedinspections that address deep well injectionof brine from oil production;

• Conducting stormwater inspections whichaddress stormwater runoff from construc-tion and industrial sites;

• Investigating citizen complaints againstmunicipalities, industries, other citizens, oragricultural facilities;

• Responding to spills of materials fromindustries, transportations, and municipali-ties to assure protection of the environment;

• Investigating fish kills related to environ-mental causes; and collecting routine watersamples from a network of samplingstations to monitor ambient water quality ofwaters of Arkansas; and

• Regulating surface mining and reclamation,which includes two programs. • Non-Coal Program: Act 827 of 1991, as

amended, deals with the reclamation of landaffected by the mining of non-coal mineralssuch as bauxite, clay, sand, and gravel usingopen cut mining methods. An amendmentto the law, passed in 1995, authorized theregulation of the practice of removing sandand gravel from the beds of streams withinArkansas. A 1999 amendment authorizedthe regulation of soil and shale pits withsome exemptions based on the size of thepit and the distance from adjacent propertylines. Regulation 15, the Arkansas Open CutMining and Land Reclamation, set perform-ance standards that must be followedduring mining and during the process ofreclaiming land to a beneficial use. Act 1166of 1997 provided a regulatory framework forthe operation, reclamation and safe closureof new stone quarries and any landpurchased or leased for a quarry.

• Coal Program: Active coal mines mustcomply with Rule 20, the Arkansas SurfaceCoal Mining and Reclamation Code(ASCMRC). Active coal mining sites areinspected on a monthly basis for compliance.

• Providing technical, administrative and profes-sional assistance to citizen groups and state andfederal agencies.


26

AFC promotes forest resource health, conservation,and stewardship of forests. The governor appoints thenine-member AFC Board of Commissioners and alsoselects the state forester, who oversees day-to-dayoperations. The following is a partial list of AFCprograms that relate to silvicultural NPS pollutionmanagement.

AFC develops and maintains BMPs, a set of voluntary techniques and practices that forest man-agers can use to control nonpoint sources of pollutionat a given site.

AFC collects and analyzes survey data on the implementation of recommended forestry BMPs inArkansas’ nonpoint water source silvicultural program.AFC collaborates with forest industry associations andthe University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture,Cooperative Extension Service to provide training andtechnical assistance to help loggers, landowners andforest managers implement recommended silviculturalBMPs to control nonpoint sources of pollution.

Through a Memorandum of Understanding, ADEQrefers citizen complaints about pollution from silvicul-tural activities to AFC for investigation and voluntaryresolution before taking enforcement action.

AFC helps landowners apply for federal cost-shareassistance for improving management of their forest-land, including the Environmental Quality IncentivesProgram (EQIP), the Conservation Reserve Program(CRP), and other related programs administered byNRCS and the Farm Service Agency (FSA).

The stewardship program recognizes and rewardslandowners who are managing their forestlandsaccording to a multiple-use concept. Landowners haveaccess to resource professionals who assist them inobtaining a written forest management plan addressingmultiple-use management.

The legacy program uses conservation easementsand fee-simple acquisitions to protect environmentallyimportant, privately owned forest areas that are threatened by conversion to non-forest uses.

AFC, in cooperation with the USDA Forest ServiceSouthern Research Station, is responsible for collectingscientific data from permanently established plotslocated all over the state. The plots, each representing5,937 acres, are strategically located on a three-mile bythree-mile grid. Natural resource managers use thedata to make management decisions. The inventoryplots have been generating data since they were estab-lished in the 1950s. The forest survey allows resourcemanagers to monitor Arkansas’ natural resource trendsthrough time.

AFC provides technical assistance and grants forurban forestry through a cooperative agreement withthe USDA Forest Service. Communities, non-federalgovernment agencies, educational institutions and501(c)3 nonprofit organizations may apply for thesecompetitive grants.

As it relates to NPS pollution, ADH protects thehealth of all Arkansas citizens by providing technicalassistance, analytical services, training, regulation, andpublic education related to public and private water,waste disposal and other systems. The 22-memberBoard of Health provides policy oversight and isappointed by the governor. The governor also appointsthe director of the Department of Health.

ADH regulates and provides oversight of public watersystems throughout the state. This program consists ofplan review of new water system facility construction,inspection of water system facilities, troubleshootingwater treatment and distribution problems, investigat-ing complaints and collecting and analyzing samples todetermine water quality. ADH also performs related


27

functions such as review of new sewer system construction plans, inspection of proposed cemeterysites, and provision of water system operator trainingand certification. ADH promulgates rules to ensurepublic water systems adhere to EPA regulations.

This program is a pollution prevention and management program used to protect undergroundsources of drinking water. The federal Safe DrinkingWater Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1986 specified thatcertain program activities, such as delineation, contam-inant source inventory, and source management, beincorporated into state Wellhead Protection Programs,which are approved by EPA prior to implementation.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendmentsof 1996 required states to develop and implementSource Water Assessment Programs (SWAP) to analyzeexisting and potential threats to the quality of thepublic drinking water sources throughout the state.States were given considerable flexibility in the designof their programs. A state SWAP includes delineatingthe source water assessment areas, conductingcontami nant source inventories, determining thesusceptibility of each public water supply source tocontamination from the inventoried sources andreleasing the results of the assessments to the public.

ADH approves and inspects individual disposalsystems including alternate and experimental sewagesystem applications and subdivisions. ADH alsoissues annual licenses for septic tank manufacturers,installers and pumpers and provides training forprofessional staff and industry personnel as well aseducation materials for rural homeowners.

ADH consults with developers on proper sewagedisposal plans for proposed subdivisions, providesinformation on soil suitability determinations,which may determine lot size and the number of lots,and reviews plans for drinking water supply andsewage disposal.

Septic tank cleaners are required to pass a test andpay an annual fee for each vehicle in order to be

licensed. ADH conducts an annual inspection of allpumping vehicles and monitors documentation of thelegal sites where tank cleaners dispose of septage waste.

ADH consults with the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, the U.S. Forest Service, the ArkansasDepartment of Parks and Tourism and private individu-als concerning the development and operation of swimbeaches. ADH monitors bacteriological water qualitythroughout the swimming season. ADH administersregulations in compliance with EPA recommendations.

ADH responds to environmental complaints involving vectors, marine sanitation, garbage, sewageand other basic sanitation regulations.

Through its Environmental Division, ARDOTprovides multidisciplinary review and analysis ofproject development and operations to ensure compli-ance with environmental laws, regulations and policies.Federal environmental legislation includes theNational Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CWA, theEndangered Species Act, the National Historic Preser-vation Act and others. ARDOT is committed toenvironmental stewardship and mitigation of environ-mental and cultural impacts. The partial list ofprograms below describes how ARDOT participatesdirectly and indirectly in the NPS PollutionManagement Plan.

The 1969 environmental legislation establishedprocedures that all federal agencies are required toimplement to make environmental consideration anecessary part of their decision-making processesincluding approval and construction of federallyfunded highway projects. To this end, ARDOTproduces environmental documentation for all feder-ally funded construction projects for the FederalHighway Administration’s review and approval. Fulldisclosure of environmental issues includes scopingwith resource agencies and a public engagementprocess that consists of early public involvement


28

meetings and public hearings. NPS-related activitiesroutinely undertaken include geographic informationsystems analysis, wetland impact assessments andstormwater permitting. In addition, the EnvironmentalDivision monitors water quality and implementswetland mitigation property management strategies.

ARDOT has a statewide Small Municipal SeparateStorm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES permit. The agencyworks under a Stormwater Management Plan thataddresses minimum control measures including publiceducation and outreach, public participation/involve-ment, illicit discharge detection and elimination,construction site runoff control, post-constructionrunoff control and pollution prevention/good house-keeping. The Environmental Division provides trainingto ARDOT personnel on stormwater management andpermit requirements. In February 2010, ARDOT insti-tuted an erosion and sediment control training andcertification course through the University of ArkansasCenter for Training Transportation Professionals(CTTP) to train and certify construction and mainte-nance personnel. This certified training program hasbeen offered to ARDOT contractors on a voluntarybasis but will be required beginning in October 2018.

ARDOT obtains all required environmental permitsfor state and federally funded highway projects including filing Notices of Intent, preparing permitapplications and obtaining permits.

ARDOT maintains an Erosion and Sediment Controlmanual of BMPs for construction stormwater manage-ment and provides training to its contractors and staffon BMPs. The CTTP training program is provided toARDOT construction and maintenance personnel andwill be required of ARDOT contractors beginning inOctober 2018.

This program is responsible for assisting cities andcounties with obtaining information and training ontransportation-related technology. While the programfocuses on construction and maintenance, materials,administration and computer programs, cities andcounties have also benefited from training on storm-water BMPs. The Arkansas Technology Transfer

Program is a cooperative effort of ARDOT, the FederalHighway Administration’s Local Technical AssistanceProgram (LTAP) and the University of Arkansasat Fayetteville.

AGFC controls, manages, restores, conserves andregulates bird, fish, game and wildlife resources of thestate, including acquiring and establishing hatcheries,sanctuaries, refuges, reservations and all property nowowned or used for these purposes under the auspices ofa seven-member commission appointed by the gover-nor for seven-year terms. Some of the AGFC programsrelated directly and indirectly to the NPS PollutionManagement Program are listed.

AGFC coordinates with federal, state, and otherinterests to protect fish and wildlife resources onprivate and public lands associated with federal waterdevelopment activities including:

• reviewing and evaluating federally permittedprojects such as Section 404 Permits (CWA) andSection 10 Permits (Rivers and Harbors Act)administered by the U. S. Army Corps ofEngineers;

• identifying and recommending opportunities forfish and wildlife restoration and enhancementfeatures associated with planning of federal andstate water development projects; and

• coordinating with federal assistance programs(Section 1135, Section 206 and Section 22programs) administered by the U. S. Army Corpsof Engineers.

Stream Teams are voluntary groups of citizens interested in working on water conservation effortssponsored by a coalition of agencies and privategroups, including the AGFC, Keep Arkansas Beautiful,ADEQ, Audubon Arkansas, NRCS, the Arkansas BassAssociation, ANRC, the Arkansas Cattlemen’sAssociation, the Arkansas Department of Parks andTourism, the Arkansas Chapter of the Sierra Club andapproximately two dozen other agencies and groups.Stream Teams help control litter, work on streambankstabilization projects, improve fish habitat and monitorwater quality. Approximately 500 Stream Teams areactive in Arkansas.


29

In cooperation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS), AGFC has developed and maintains conser-vation programs for resident federally listed threatenedand endangered species.

AGFC offers competitive grants to public agencies,universities and nonprofit organizations to conservenon-game species of concern and their habitats including aquatic species and habitats.

The Governor Mike Huckabee Delta Rivers NatureCenter located in Pine Bluff opened in 2001, followedby the Forrest L. Wood Crowley’s Ridge Nature Centerin Jonesboro. The Janet Huckabee Arkansas RiverValley Nature Center opened in Fort Smith in 2005.The final center, the Witt Stephens Jr. CentralArkansas Nature Center, is located in Little Rock andopened in 2008. A new nature center to be built inSpringdale is expected to be completed in 2020. Thesenature centers offer an opportunity to expand waterquality education for the general public; for example,the Pine Bluff center focuses on wetlands education.

AGFC manages more than 100 lakes and wildlifemanagement areas spanning thousands of acres inArkansas.

ASPB is primarily responsible for regulating pesticides and other agricultural chemicals used inArkansas. ASPB has primacy under the federalInsecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)and the authority to regulate the proper labeling, distri-bution, storage, transportation, use, application anddisposal of pesticides within the state. Some of theASPB programs that directly or indirectly relate to theNPS Pollution Management Plan, particularly theagricultural statewide program, are listed.

The goal of the Arkansas State Plant Board’'sgroundwater monitoring program is to prevent thestate’s groundwater from being polluted by agriculturalchemicals and, if pollution is found, to respond appro-priately. The Plant Board monitors groundwater inareas that may be considered vulnerable to agriculturalpesticide contamination based on area use patternsand the concentration of agricultural production landin the vicinity. The Plant Board has been monitoringgroundwater since 2004 using an EPA-approvedPesticide Management Plan, which allows the agencyto work with the Arkansas Department of Health todetermine actions to be taken in the event pesticidecontamination is confirmed. The groundwater programis a voluntary program that offers quality lab testing ofgroundwater samples from agricultural wells to helpensure that producers and applicators are safely usingpesticides in accordance with label directions to protectand preserve groundwater. The Plant Board’s ground-water monitoring program targets both point sourceand nonpoint source contamination by investigatingpossible causes of contamination when a pesticide isdetected in a groundwater sample. The best way toavoid groundwater contamination is to implement bestmanagement practices for pesticide use. This does notguarantee that contamination will not occur, but takingthese steps is a preventative method to protect thegroundwater resources of Arkansas.

Before a pesticide can be sold in Arkansas, it mustfirst be registered with ASPB in accordance with theArkansas Pesticide Control Act and Regulations. Thisallows ASPB to confirm that the product meets all stateand federal requirements to provide for both humanand environmental protection. Each year ASPB registersapproximately 10,000 pesticides for use in the state.

Dealers who wish to sell or distribute pesticidesdesignated by EPA as restricted use pesticides mustfirst obtain a license from ASPB to do so in accordancewith the Arkansas Pesticide Use Regulations. ASPBprocesses more than 400 dealer applications annually.


30

Both users and applicators of restricted use pesticides must be trained in the proper handling ofsuch pesticides and then licensed by ASPB in accor-dance with the Arkansas Pesticide Use and ApplicationAct and Regulations. Those applicators who will applypesticides commercially must also be tested before alicense can be issued. Each year ASPB issues approxi-mately 15,000 private applicator licenses, 900 com-mercial applicator licenses, 2,000 non-commercialapplicator licenses, 500 commercial firm licenses(ground and air) and 250 custom applicator licenses.

ASPB is also responsible for taking enforcementaction against persons and businesses who fail to com-ply with pesticide laws and regulations. Penalties canrange from a warning letter to a monetary assessmentof up to $1,000 and license revocation.

The ASPB Pesticide Division is responsible forenforcement of the worker protection standard inArkansas as it applies to the use of pesticides.

ALPC was created by Act 87 of 1963 and has authority for the control, suppression and eradicationof livestock and poultry diseases and pests, and super-vision of sanitation related to livestock and poultryproduction. In addition, ALPC is responsible forpromoting development of Arkansas livestock andpoultry industries and administering regulationspertaining to livestock and poultry production. Withrespect to the NPS Pollution Management Plan, ALPCis responsible for regulation of carcass disposal. ALPCregulates carcass disposal under two sets of regula-tions: Carcass Disposal – Poultry (Act 87 of 1963, Act150 of 1985, Act 168 of 1985, and Act 20 of 1989) andRegulation for the Disposal of Large Animal Carcasses,Excluding Dogs and Cats (Act 87 of 1963 – ArkansasCode Annotated 2-33-101 and Act 150 of 1985 –Arkansas Code Annotated 19-6-448).

Dating back to 1857, the AGS mission is to developand provide knowledge of the geology and hydrogeol-ogy of the state, to stimulate orderly development, andto encourage effective management and utilization ofthe state’s mineral, fossil-fuel and water resources,while protecting the environment. This is accomplishedthrough services that include consultation on waterwell and septic tank inquiries and water well construc-tion records. AGS has on file more than 152,800 waterwell construction records dating from the early 1970sfiled by county and township/range.

Other services include geologic mapping on areas ofthe state where the State Mapping Advisory Committeedetermines need. AGS also provides topographic mapsand interpretation as well as many publications.Mineral occurrences are developed to the benefit of thestate and nation while keeping economic developmentto the benefit of Arkansas’ citizens. Service is providedto mineral and fossil fuel companies through geologicinterpretation of the state. Natural hazards are identi-fied and noted where protection can be developed andinstituted. Access to the Arkansas Geological Survey’sinformation can be found on the agency website atgeology.arkansas.gov.

AOGC’s mission is the regulation of the Arkansas oil,gas and brine industries to prevent waste, encourageconservation and protect the correlative rights ofmineral ownership associated with the production ofoil, natural gas, brine and associated products. AOGChas issued more than 38,000 permits to drill oil, gasand brine wells since its creation in 1939. AOGCmaintains well-specific permitting, drilling, pluggingand abandonment, and production records for thesewells. A nine-member commission appointed by thegovernor provides oversight.

As indicated in its mission statement, ADPT iscommitted to enhancing the quality of life for allcitizens by providing facilities and skilled leadershipfor the development and safeguarding of natural


31

resources. Conservation of valuable state resourcesthrough ADPT policy plays an indirect role in themanagement of NPS pollution in the following ways.

The planning and development (P&D) section ofArkansas State Parks designs and reviews designs ofprofessional architectural/engineering consultants forrenovations and new construction within the state parksystem. P&D also cooperates with regulatory agencies(i.e., ADEQ, ADH, the Arkansas Building Authority, theInternational Building Council and others) for compli-ance with environmental laws, rule, and regulations.Some of the regulations considered are the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969, the Clean Air Act,CWA, Executive Order 115114, Protection andEnhancement of Environmental Quality, ExecutiveOrder 11288 Concerning Prevention, Control andAbatement of Water Pollution, the Wild and ScenicRivers Act of 1968, Executive Order 11990, Protection ofWetlands and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.

The Outdoor Recreation Grants section of ADPTprepares the Statewide Comprehensive OutdoorRecreation Plan (SCORP) that identifies outdoor recre-ation concerns and goals. ADPT seeks the input of allinterested federal and state agencies when updatingthe SCORP. A section of the plan is dedicated to theconservation of natural and cultural resources. Specialconsideration is given to wetlands, consistent withthe Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986,Section 303. The Arkansas Multi-Agency WetlandPlanning Team (MAWPT) has contributed valuablewetland information for publication in the SCORP.Applicants seeking grant monies to assist in the devel-opment of parks and trails address SCORP issues.

Staff members of the Outdoor Recreation GrantsProgram (ORGP) administer grants for the develop-ment of local parks and trails. ORGP coordinates grantprojects with the statewide clearing house by requiringMatching Grant Applicants to submit an environmen-tal review with their applications. Any proposed parkor trail development project near a lake, stream orother water resource must contact the AGFC’s StreamTeam for environmental examination before consideration for a grant award.

Throughout the state, projects subject to environmental review are examined by ADPT forconsideration and commentary. Projects impactingparks, streams and wetlands raise concern. Onsite visitsare conducted when concerns warrant them. Commentsand recommendations are sent to project applicantsand the Arkansas Technical Review Committee.

The University of Arkansas System Division ofAgriculture consists of two units: the CooperativeExtension Service and the Agricultural ResearchStation. The Cooperative Extension Service developsresearch-based education and training programs anddelivers programs through county faculty located inevery county of the state. The Agricultural ResearchStation supports research, including highly applieddemonstration projects with direct application to NPSpollution management.

Faculty members are located on five universitycampuses, seven research stations, five research andextension centers and 81 county extension officesaround the state. Many faculty with joint Research andExtension responsibilities contribute to the NPSPollution Management Plan. Working closely withANRC and the Arkansas Conservation Partnership(ACP), the University of Arkansas System Division ofAgriculture conducts applied research on new andinnovative agricultural BMPs, provides soil testingservices to the state’s land users and works with stateagencies in the development of effective policy for themanagement of agricultural NPS pollution.

Specific to the 2018-2023 NPS Management PlanStatewide Agricultural Program, the University ofArkansas System Division of Agriculture, CooperativeExtension Service is the primary agency for develop-ment and delivery of agricultural education and train-ing programs, including NPS management. Withrespect to the NPS Management Plan, some of theUniversity of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture,Cooperative Extension Service’s education and trainingprograms include:

• In-service training for multi-agency personnel;• Program planning and leadership for community

and natural resource leaders;


32

• Water quality awareness curriculum for schoolchildren;

• Training on BMPs, regulatory frameworks and therelationship between production/biological pro-cesses that impact water quality for agriculturalproducers;

• Farm*A*Syst, Urban*A*Syst and Home*A*Systprograms help agricultural producers as well asurban and rural dwellers identify and reducesources of NPS pollution in their environments;

• Urban stormwater management education;• Certification programs for pesticide applicators,

nutrient applicators, etc.;• Regulatory requirements and required training

mandated in regulation (e.g., Regulation Fiverequires training for permitted liquid animalwaste management systems);

• Sources of cost-share and other financial assistance;

• BMP training for landowner and logger educationfor private non-industrial forestlands; and

• Discovery Farm and Farm Production Verifica-tion Program Demonstrations as on-farmexamples of BMP implementation and results.

Extension also maintains an extensive library ofresearch-based fact sheets, applied research publica-tions and BMP manuals and guidelines. Content ofthese educational materials is carefully coordinatedwith ANRC, NRCS AFC and other members of ACP.

The University of Arkansas System Division ofAgriculture’s Research Stations maintain research anddemonstration farms in all the major agricultural areasof the state, where farmers learn about the most recentinformation available to them on production and envi-ronmental methods. Arkansas’ NPS Pollution Manage-ment Program works with the University of ArkansasSystem Division of Agriculture to utilize these researchand demonstration farms to evaluate the effectivenessof BMPs and to educate farmers and landowners abouthow BMPs can be beneficial in reducing the loss ofsediment, nutrients and organic material from theirfarms.

In addition, faculty is involved in modeling watersheds, evaluating alternative products andmarkets to utilize poultry litter, designing streambankrestoration projects, geomorphological assessment,evaluating technologies to improve stormwatermanagement and other critical projects.

AWRC, part of the University of Arkansas System, isone of 54 water research institutes in the United Statesestablished through the Water Resources Research Actof 1964. The AWRC’s mission is to:

• Plan and conduct water resource research,cooperating closely with colleges, universities andother institutes in Arkansas to address the state’swater and land-related problems;

• Promote the dissemination and application ofresearch results;

• Provide for the training of scientists in waterresources;

• Formulate a research program that is responsiveto state water issues; and

• Work closely with state and federal agencies.

For more information about the water center – seehttp://arkansas-water-center.uark.edu/index.php.

AWRC has contributed substantially to Arkansas’water resources via research and educational outreachactivities through established partnerships withfederal, state and local entities. The AWRC alsoprovides one of the primary mechanisms in the statefor information transfer, including publishing technicalreports, making available raw water-quality data on theweb, archiving information in a digital library, main-taining an active social media presence and hosting anannual water research conference. Please seehttp://arkansas-water-center.uark.edu/publications/index.php.

The AWRC manages a federal grant program, whichuses its funding through the U.S. Geological Survey(i.e., USGS 104 Base Program) to address water issuesspecific to Arkansas. The program funds universityfaculty, research and students, and the funded projectsare selected in consultation with a technical advisorycommittee. This committee is composed of state andfederal agencies, university faculty specializing in waterresources, non-governmental organizations andmunicipalities. The committee is broad in nature andexpertise to ensure that the funded research addressesArkansas’ needs.

The AWRC has trained a large pool of students whoeventually move into the workforce that targets waterresource concerns throughout Arkansas. These trainingefforts come in two forms; that is, direct internshipswith the water center and student-sponsored researchthrough the USGS 104B Base Program. The center


33

helps students get experience in various aspects fromcommunication to social sciences and even complexengineering design.

AWRC’s Water Quality Lab provides analytical, fieldand technical support to the water quality community,which includes university researchers, state agencies,federal agencies and private groups or individuals. TheWater Quality Lab is accredited for analysis of watersamples by the Arkansas Department of EnvironmentalQuality. The certification includes general physico-chemical parameters, nutrients, sediment, traceelements and bacteria – see http://arkansas-water-center.uark.edu/water-quality-lab.php. This lab isavailable for use by anyone in the state of Arkansas.

Through these collaborative partnerships, AWRCprovides effective coordination between the universityresearch community and watershed-based implemen-tation projects by providing technical assistance thatis delivered throughout the state, especially withinpriority watersheds.

Faculty at nearly every public and private universityin Arkansas are involved in activities that directly andindirectly improve the results of the NPS PollutionManagement Plan, including education and training ofprofessionals, applied research, project design andmanagement and public outreach. Universities that arerepresented on the NPS Management Plan StakeholderGroup include:

• Arkansas Tech University• University of Arkansas at Monticello• Arkansas State University• University of Arkansas at Little Rock• University of Central Arkansas• University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff• Southern Arkansas University

NRCS helps landowners and communities conserve,maintain and improve the state’s natural resources andenvironment. NRCS coordinates with its partnersthrough the State Technical Committee. The StateTechnical Committee is composed of individuals whorepresent a variety of natural resource sciences andoccupations, including soil, water, plants, wetlands and

wildlife. NRCS employees provide information andtechnical assistance to private landowners and landusers. In addition, NRCS provides financial assistanceto landowners to implement conservation measures onagricultural lands and non-industrial private forestlandthrough the following programs authorized in theAgricultural Act of 2014, also known as the 2014 FarmBill, or via congressional appropriations.

CSP is a voluntary program that provides financialand technical assistance to producers who maintainand improve their existing conservation systems andadopt additional conservation activities to address pri-ority resource concerns. The program provides finan-cial and technical assistance to conserve and enhancesoil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life and otherconservation purposes on private agricultural andforest lands. Participants earn CSP payments for con-servation performance; the higher the performance, thehigher the payment. In fiscal year (FY) 2016, 719 newcontracts were developed enrolling 679,889.9 acres.These contracts will provide more than $17 million infinancial assistance to participants over the five-yearcontract agreements. Total CSP payments for existingcontracts in Arkansas were more than $75.1 million.

EQIP is a voluntary program that provides financialand technical assistance to eligible agricultural pro -ducers to plan and implement conservation practicesthat improve soil, water, plant, animal, air and relatednatural resources on agricultural land and nonindus-trial private forestland. EQIP may also help producersmeet federal, state, tribal and local environmentalregulations. Financial assistance payments throughEQIP are made to eligible producers to implementapproved conservation practices on eligible or to helpproducers develop Conservation Activity Plans toaddress specific land use issues. Historically under-served producers (limited resource farmers/ranchers,beginning farmers/ranchers, socially disadvantagedproducers, Native American tribes and veteranfarmers/ranchers) who self-certify that they meet therequired criteria are eligible for a higher practicepayment rate to support implementation of contractedconservation practices and activities. EQIP alsoincludes the National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI).Through this initiative, NRCS offers financial andtechnical assistance to farmers, ranchers and forest


34

landowners interested in improving water quality andaquatic habitats in priority watersheds with impairedstreams. Currently, the priority watersheds are CousartBayou-Little Cypress Bayou, Upper Deep Bayou andLower Deep Bayou located in Jefferson and Lincolncounties. Through the NWQI Edge of Field WaterQuality Monitoring funding, NRCS provides financialassistance to help install edge-of-field stations thatmonitor water quality as it leaves their fields, providingdata to evaluate the success of various conservationefforts. In order to measure the water quality outcomeof given conservation practices, NRCS works withpartners like universities and nongovernmental organi-zations to monitor the amount of nutrients andsediment in water leaving two similar fields after rainor irrigation. NWQI Edge of Field Monitoring occurson eligible agricultural land located in priority water-sheds throughout the state.

This voluntary program provides financial andtechnical assistance to help conserve agricultural landsand wetlands and their related benefits. ACEP includesthe following two easement components: WetlandsReserve Easements (WRE) and Agricultural LandEasements (ALE), which are described.

•This program, formerly known as the WetlandReserve Program (WRP), helps to restore,protect, and enhance wetlands through thepurchase of a wetland reserve easement thatinclude the following enrollment options on eligi-ble land: a permanent easement; a 30-yeareasement that expires after 30 years; and a termeasement that are for the maximum durationallowed under applicable state laws. Anadditional enrollment option of a 30-yearcontract is only available to enroll acreage ownedby Indian tribes. NRCS pays 100 percent of theeasement value for the purchase of the easementand 75 to 100 percent of the restoration costs forpermanent easements. For the other easementenrollment options, NRCS pays 50 to 70 percentof the easement value for the purchase of theeasement and 50 to 75 percent of the restorationcosts. Eligible land includes farmed or convertedwetlands that can be successfully and cost-effec-tively restored. Arkansas is ranked third nation-wide in enrolled WREs; there are 655 easementstotaling 250,842 acres. In FY 2016, Arkansasenrolled 18 easements totaling 4,827.2 acres of

wetlands for $11.4 million. In FY 2017, 27easements have been selected for acquisitiontotaling 11,820 acres for $33.7 million.

•This program, formerly known as the GrasslandReserve Program (GRP), protects long-termviability of the nation’s food supply by preventingconversion of productive working lands to non-agricultural uses. NRCS provides financial assis-tance to eligible partners for purchasing ALEsthat protect the agricultural use and conservationvalues of eligible land. In the case of workingfarms, the program helps farmers and rancherskeep their land in agriculture. The program alsoprotects grazing uses and related conservationvalues by conserving grassland, including range-land, pastureland, and shrubland. Eligiblepartners include Indian tribes, state and localgovernments and nongovernmental organizationsthat have farmland or grassland protectionprograms. NRCS may contribute up to 50 percentof the fair market value of the agricultural landeasement. NRCS may contribute up to 75 percentof the fair market values of the agri cultural landeasement for grasslands that NRCS has deter-mined are of special environmental significancethat will be protected.

•This program helps landowners restore, enhance,and protect forestland resources on private landsthrough easements and financial assistance.HFRP provides landowners with 10-year restora-tion agreements and 30-year or permanenteasements for specific conservation actions. Foracreage owned by an Indian tribe, there is anadditional enrollment option of a 30-yearcontract. Land enrolled in HFRP easements mustpromote the recovery of endangered or threat-ened species, improve plant and animal biodiver-sity, and enhance carbon sequestration.

•

The objective of this program is for NRCS tocooperate with state and local agencies to carryout works of improvement for soil conservationand other purposes, including flood prevention,conservation, development, rehabilitation ofexisting structures, utilization and disposal ofwater, and conservation and proper utilization ofthe land.


35

•This program, which is funded through congres-sional appropriations, is a recovery effort aimedat relieving imminent hazards to life and propertycaused by floods, fires, windstorms, and othernatural occurrences. All projects must have aproject sponsor except for the purchase of flood-plain easements (see next item). Through EWP,NRCS provides funding to project sponsors forwork such as clearing debris from clogged water-ways, restoring vegetation, and stabilizing riverbanks. The measures that are taken must beenvironmentally and economically sound andgenerally benefit more than one property owner.NRCS provides up to 75 percent of the construc-tion cost of emergency measures; the funding isup to 90 percent within limited resource areas asidentified by the US Census data. The remainingcosts must come from local sources and can beprovided by cash or in-kind services.

•

This program, which is part of EWP, includes thepurchase of floodplain easements. The goal of thisprogram is to reduce the recurring cost of flooddamage in areas prone to flooding while restoringor protecting fish and wildlife habitat, especiallywetland habitat. The program accomplishes thisby acquiring perpetual easements from interestedlandowners and, where necessary, restoring thehydrology and vegetation of the floodplain.

•NRCS and partners work with producers andlandowners to implement conservation practicesthat improve water quality, restore wetlands,enhance wildlife habitat and sustain agriculturalprofitability in the Mississippi River basin. This13-state initiative builds on the cooperative workof NRCS and its conservation partners in thebasin and offers agricultural producers in prioritywatersheds the opportunity for voluntary techni-cal and financial assistance. Currently, there are 7active MRBI projects including Willow Ditch andPodo Creek-Cache River, Middle StrawberryRiver, Tupelo Bayou-Beaverdam Creek, UpperBayou Macon, Caney Creek, Strawberry River,and the Upper Cache River.

•

Through this program, NRCS and its partnershelp producers install and maintain conservationactivities in selected project areas to increase the

restoration and sustainable use of soil, water,wildlife and related natural resources on regionalor watershed scales. NRCS provides assistancethrough partnership agreements and Farm Billprograms. Eligible partners include agricultural orsilvicultural producer associations, farmer cooper-atives or other groups of producers, state or localgovernments, Native American tribes, municipalwater and irrigation districts, conservation-drivennongovernmental organizations, and institutionsof higher education. Partners are responsible forcontributing to the cost of the project, conductingoutreach and education to eligible producers forpotential participation in the project and forconducting an assessment of the project’s effects.Eligible participants include eligible producers andlandowners of agricultural land and non-industrialprivate forestland. Since 2015, Arkansas hasentered into partnership agreements for ten RCPPproject areas.

FSA is dedicated to achieving an economically andenvironmentally sound future for American agricul-ture. In the 1930s, Congress set up a unique systemunder which federal farm programs are administeredlocally. Farmers eligible to participate elect a three- tofive-person county committee, which reviews countyoffice operations and makes decisions on how to applythe programs. This grassroots approach gives farmers asay in how federal actions affect their communities andtheir individual operations. After more than 60 years, itremains a cornerstone of FSA’s efforts to preserve andpromote American agriculture. FSA administers fourconservation programs authorized in the AgriculturalAct of 2014, also known as the 2014 Farm Bill.

This is a voluntary program for agriculturallandowners. Through CRP, producers can receiveannual rental payments and cost-share assistance toestablish long-term, resource-conserving land cover oneligible farmland. CRP is administered by theCommodity Credit Corporation (CCC) through FSA.Program support is provided by NRCS, the Universityof Arkansas Division of Agriculture CooperativeExtension Service, state forestry agencies, and localconservation districts.


36

FSA and Arkansas launched a $10 million CREPprogram to improve water quality of the Bayou Metowatershed and wildlife habitat in five central Arkansascounties in 2001. Producers enrolled in CREP removelands from agricultural production and plant nativegrasses, trees and other vegetation to improve waterquality, soil and wildlife habitat under voluntary 10 to15-year contracts. The Arkansas CREP is targeting4,700 acres to establish tree buffers around streamsand rivers in the Bayou Meto watershed.

This program provides emergency funding andtechnical assistance for farmers and ranchers torehabilitate farmland damaged by natural disasters.

The Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP)provides payments to eligible owners of nonindustrialprivate forest (NIPF) land in order to carry outemergency measures to restore land and trees damagedby a natural disaster. Available funding for EFRP isdetermined annually by Congress.

The mission of USFS is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests andgrasslands to meet the needs of present and futuregenerations. In addition to managing national forestsand grasslands, USFS is also among the largest forestryresearch organizations in the world, and providestechnical and financial assistance to state and privateforestry agencies.

The Ouachita National Forest covers 1.8 millionacres in central Arkansas and southeastern Oklahoma.The Ouachita National Forest includes land in threepriority watersheds for the 2018-2023 NPS Manage-ment Program, including the Poteau River watershed,the Upper Saline River watershed and the LowerLittle watershed.

The Ozark-St. Francis National Forest is actuallytwo distinct forests. The Ozark National Forest covers1.2 million acres, mostly in the Ozark Mountains of

northern Arkansas. This National Forest has land inthe Lake Conway-Point Remove, the Beaver Reservoir,and the Illinois River watersheds, which are both 2018-2023 NPS Management Program priority watersheds.The St. Francis National Forest covers 22,600 acres ineastern Arkansas, one of the smallest and most diverseforests in the country. Some of the USFS programsare listed.

Each forest in the National Forest System operatesunder a Forest Plan. The Revised Land and ResourceManagement Plan for the Ouachita National Forestwas signed in September 2005. The current plan forthe Ozark-St. Francis National Forests was signed inSeptember 2005. These plans are typically updatedevery 10-15 years and include participation from avariety of local, state, and federal groups to encourageconsistency.

Scientists carry out basic and applied research tostudy biological, physical and social sciences related todiverse forests and rangelands. USFS researchpromotes ecologically sound management of nationalforest lands as well as private forest lands. Examples ofrelevant research products include:

• Forest inventory and analysis reports on statusand trends in forest area and location. Theprogram is managed in cooperation with stateand private forestry and National Forest System.

• Fish and water research that enhances under-standing of organisms, populations, ecosystems,and ecological processes that are essential formanaging forests and rangelands to sustain waterquality and biological diversity. This research iscrucial to the agency's ability to comply withrequirements of key environmental statutes,including CWA.

• Ozark-Ouachita Highlands Assessment of AquaticConditions provides an inter-disciplinary com-parative assessment of 73 watersheds in portionsof three states that make up the Ozark-OuachitaHighlands.

USGS is the principal federal agency for generatinghydrologic information and appraising the nation’swater resources. The water resources of Arkansas


37

consist of numerous streams, springs, lakes and aquifersystems. USGS collects stream flow, groundwaterlevels, and water quality data throughout the state.These hydrologic data and other data are used inresearch and hydrologic studies to describe the quan-tity, quality, and location of Arkansas’ water resources.The collection, analysis, and interpretation of thesedata are done in cooperation with other federal, state,and local agencies, universities, and research centers.The USGS Little Rock and Fayetteville offices of theLower Mississippi Gulf Water Science Center's websiteat www.usgs.gov/centers/lmg-water/ provides a wealthof data and links to research publications.

USFWS’s mission is to conserve, protect andenhance fish and wildlife and their habitats throughconsultation, cooperation, and communication for thecontinuing benefit of the American people. In partner-ship with the state, USFWS provides a range ofenvironmental services programs to protect endan-gered and threatened species, conserve habitat andreduce environmental contaminants. In cooperationwith USFWS, AGFC has developed and maintainsconservation programs for resident federally-listedthreatened and endangered species.

This act requires all federal agencies to conservethreatened and endangered species. While managingfederal lands or engaging in other federal business thatcould affect listed species, agencies must first consultwith USFWS to ensure that their actions will not harma listed species or damage or destroy its habitat. Theseactions include the issuing of federal permits, licensesgranting approval to certain private activities, or feder-ally funded actions. In the relatively few cases whereUSFWS determines a proposed action will harm aspecies, the agency suggests ways for landowners tomodify their proposals to conserve listed species.USFWS also works with agencies to minimize potentialharm to protected species, allowing projects tocontinue. Private landowners who develop and imple-ment an approved habitat conservation plan providingfor conservation of threatened or endangered speciescan receive an “incidental take permit” that allows thedevelopment project to go forward.

These programs are responsible for providing infor-mation and consultative services for the protection andconservation of fish and wildlife species and theirhabitats to a widely diverse audience including federal,state, and local governments, businesses and privateindividuals. Consultations include:

• Mapping of wetlands • Habitat restoration and management • Contaminant risk assessment, restoration, and

remediation • Public outreach and education

The programs provide USFWS with internal andexternal review to ensure compliance with a variety offederal environmental and resource laws.

USFWS evaluates federally constructed, licensed orpermitted water resource development projects andprovides recommendations to reduce impacts to fishand wildlife resources. Under the provisions of the Fishand Wildlife Coordination Act, CWA, and other legisla-tion, federal agencies permitting or constructing theseprojects must consult with USFWS during the planningof projects. USFWS provides technical support to theagencies in the planning process, providing fish andwildlife resources information and analyses whilerecommending measures to mitigate impacts.

The NWI prepares and distributes maps showingthe location and types of wetlands found throughoutthe region. It also provides technical assistance inwetland delineation, wetland soils, wetland plants,wetland hydrology, wetland trends, and wetland valuesto individuals, other USFWS programs, and otherfederal and state agencies.

This program provides financial and technical assis-tance to restore, improve, and protect fish and wildlifehabitat on private lands through partnerships withprivate landowners and other organizations whileleaving the land in private ownership.


38

USFWS manages 10 national wildlife refuges, threenational fish hatcheries, two ecological service offices, alaw enforcement office and a migratory bird fieldstation in Arkansas.

The mission of USACE is to provide quality, responsive engineering services to the nation forplanning, designing, building, and operating waterresources and other civil works projects for navigation,flood control, environmental protection, and disasterresponse as well as providing engineering support forthe armed forces and federal agencies. Its workforceincludes biologists, engineers, geologists, hydrologists,natural resource managers and other professionals.Through its centers of expertise, USACE providesenvironmental consulting services to federal, state,local, and private entities. In granting or denyingpermits to developers, USACE strives to preventenvironmental damage. Evaluating public interest,regulatory experts balance the need of economic devel-opment with environmental considerations. USACEforms numerous partnerships with other agencies,state and federal governments, environmental groupsand private citizens to help solve ecological problems.The following are a few of USACE programs that relateto the NPS Pollution Management Plan.

Passage of CWA in 1972 greatly broadened this roleby giving USACE authority over filling and dredging inthe waters of the United States, including manywetlands. A major aspect of the regulatory program isdetermining which areas qualify for protection aswetlands. In reaching these decisions, USACE uses its1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Working toward anational goal of no net loss of wetlands, the Civil Worksprogram is undertaking projects to restore existingwetlands or to create new ones.

Since passage of the National Environmental PolicyAct in 1969, environmental protection has been animportant component of the civil works planningprocess. Legislation passed in 1990 established envi-ronmental protection as one of the primary missions of

water resources projects along with navigation andflood control. Over the last 10 years, small ecosystemrestoration projects have grown increasingly popularthroughout the country. This new direction has allowedUSACE to expand its traditional environmental activi-ties and enhance or restore natural resources as part ofUSACE projects.

USACE carries out environmental and naturalresource management programs through its projects,managing forest and wildlife habitat, monitoring waterquality at its dams and operating fish hatcheries incooperation with AGFC.

Statewide, regional and local nonprofit organiza-tions are key partners in the 2018-2023 NPS PollutionManagement Plan. Examples of these organizationsinclude, but are not limited to:

The mission of TNC is to preserve the plants,animals and natural communities that represent thediversity of life on earth by protecting the lands andwaters they need to survive. The Arkansas Chapter ofTNC has field offices in Northwest and east Arkansas.This chapter has been actively providing assistance tothe NPS Pollution Management Plan by providingtraining to local professionals in stream geomorphol-ogy assessment and restoration practices. The NatureConservancy works collaboratively with state, federal,and local agencies to achieve its mission and is provid-ing staff support for planning and implementation ofNPS management assessments, Nine Element Plansand projects in the Upper Saline River, the StrawberryRiver, the Spring River, and other rivers. Priority riversinclude the Strawberry River, the Kings River, theMulberry River, the Little Red River, Spavinaw Creek,the Buffalo River, the Eleven Point River, and theSpring River.

Audubon’s national mission is “to conserve andrestore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, otherwildlife and their habitats for the benefit of humanityand the earth’s biological diversity.” AudubonArkansas’ vision is “to inspire and lead environmentaleducation, resource management, habitat restoration,bird conservation, and enlightened advocacy.”


39

Audubon Arkansas is providing staff leadership forplanning and implementation of NPS pollutionmanagement programs in two watersheds – the WestFork of the White River in Northwest Arkansas and theFourche River in and around Little Rock.

Nonprofit watershed organizations exist in somewatersheds. Those that exist are in different stages ofdevelopment and maturation. New groups form evenas existing groups cease to exist. The NPS PollutionManagement Plan will support the development ofeffective and sustainable watershed groups where thereis local leadership and potential for effective imple-mentation of Nine Element Plans in priority water-sheds. The following is a partial list of watershedgroups. Groups working in priority watersheds arenoted with an asterisk.

• Association for Beaver Lake Environment*• Bayou Bartholomew Alliance*• Beaver Watershed Alliance*• Cache River Watershed Partnership*• Alliance for an Improved Middle Fork*• Friends of the North Fork and White River*• Friends of Fourche Creek• Kings River Watershed Partnership*• L’Anguille River Watershed Coalition*• Lake Conway-Point Remove Watershed Alliance*• Lake Fayetteville Watershed Partnership*• Leatherwood Creek Watershed Group• Little Red River Action Team• Lower Little River Watershed Coalition*• Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee• Lower White River Watershed Group• Ozarks Water Watch*• Strawberry River Watershed Group*• Save Our Spring River• Upper White River Basin Foundation*• West Fork of the White River Watershed*• Illinois River Watershed Partnership*

Local government including municipalities, countiesand conservation districts as well as the entities thatserve them are key partners in the 2018-2023 NPSPollution Management Plan. Examples of local government partners include, but are not limited to:

Phase I Municipal Stormwater Program and municipal NPDES permits cover and regulate munici-palities with populations over 100,000 people, drainagesystems interconnected with these municipalities’systems or municipalities determined to be significantcontributors of pollutants. In Arkansas, Little Rock wasthe only “large” MS4 permitted under Phase I. Phase IIof the Stormwater Program regulates municipalitieswith populations less than 100,000 people, includingurbanized areas (typically areas with a population of10,000 or greater and density greater than 1,000 peopleper square mile), cities and county areas designated bythe state based on site-specific criteria, and various stateand federal facilities (e.g., universities, state highwaysystem, Pine Bluff Arsenal, etc). Municipalities worktogether to develop education programs, modelordinances, and obtain technical assistance through theArkansas Municipal League. Counties work together in asimilar fashion through membership in the Associationof Arkansas Counties.

Local government and other facilities required toobtain permits for municipal separate storm sewersystems (MS4) are finding it beneficial to worktogether in collaborative efforts in order to reduce thecost and increase the effectiveness of their educationand outreach programs. Regional planning commis-sions, working in cooperation with the University ofArkansas System Division of Agriculture CooperativeExtension Service, are at the forefront of pullingtogether these innovative partnerships.

•

This commission coordinates a regional education effort among the 19 small MS4s inBenton and Washington counties affected by EPAPhase II Stormwater regulations. By contractingwith the University of Arkansas System Divisionof Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service todevelop and conduct stormwater public educationand involvement efforts, the Northwest Arkansaspartnership benefits from a comprehensive, cost-effective outreach program that will improvewater quality on a watershed-scale. Cooperatingentities include, among others, the cities ofBentonville, Bethel Heights, Elkins, Elm Springs,Farmington, Fayetteville, Greenland, Johnson,Little Flock, Lowell, Springdale and Rogers alongwith Benton and Washington counties and theUniversity of Arkansas.


40

•

With initial leadership and coordination from theSoutheast Arkansas Regional Planning Commis-sion, the University of Arkansas Division ofAgriculture Cooperative Extension Service hasentered into an agreement with Pine Bluff, WhiteHall, the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff anda portion of Jefferson County that have beenidentified as small municipal separate storm sewersystems (MS4s) under the EPA Phase II storm -water regulations. The University of ArkansasSystem Division of Agriculture, CooperativeExtension Service provides public education andoutreach, encourages public involvement andparticipation and trains municipal employees inpollution prevention and good housekeeping.

Conservation districts are the front line for technicalassistance to agricultural producers when it comes toimplementation of BMPs on their farms. They arepolitical subdivisions of the State of Arkansas, createdby a popular vote of resident landowners for thepurpose of conserving land and water resources asauthorized by Act 197 of the Arkansas GeneralAssembly of 1937; The act was the nation's first conser-vation district law. A five-person board of directorsgoverns each district. ANRC appoints two directorswhile resident landowners elect three directors.Arkansas’ 75 conservation districts establish naturalresource priorities at the local level and providesupport and input into how soil and water conservationprograms are implemented at the local level, workingcooperatively with landowners and federal and stategovernment agencies. Conservation districts coordi-nate at the state level through membership in theAssociation of Arkansas Conservation Districts.Conservation district employees coordinate at the statelevel through involvement in the Arkansas Associationof Conservation District Employees.

Municipalities and counties also rely on otherorganizations for education, information and technicalassistance, including but not limited to:

• Planning and development districts• Arkansas Municipal League• Association of Arkansas Counties• Association of Conservation Districts• Association of Conservation District Employees

Industry associations and farm groups can beimportant partners in the 2018-2023 NPS Manage-ment Plan. These associations and organizations are ina unique position to pull together audiences of theirmembers, help deliver education and trainingprograms through their meetings, newsletters andwebsites; participate in the development of BMPswhere appropriate; promote increased implementationof BMPs and assist in the monitoring of BMP imple-mentation and evaluation of BMP effectiveness.

Examples of associations and organizations thathave been involved in the NPS Management Plandevelopment process include:

• Arkansas Farm Bureau• Arkansas Poultry Federation• Arkansas Environmental Federation• Arkansas Homebuilders Association• Arkansas General Contractors• Arkansas Forestry Association• Arkansas Pork Producers Association

Water districts and associations are also partners inimplementing the 2018-2023 NPS Pollution Manage-ment Plan. Examples of their involvement include butare not limited to:

The Arkansas Rural Water Association is workingwith a watershed organization in the Upper SalineWatershed to develop strategies to reduce sedimentation.

The water district provides, treats and sells drinkingwater to five municipal customers. The district has adirector of environmental quality and a director ofpublic affairs, who provides education and works withland users in the watersheds of Beaver Reservoir toimprove water quality.

The water district is a regional water supplier for400,000 people in the central Arkansas region. Thedistrict has taken a comprehensive approach to pro-tecting Lake Maumelle, one of its sources of drinkingwater. The utility adopted a comprehensive Watershed


41

Management Plan in 2007. The intent of the plan is toprotect the lake from increased pollution that resultsfrom development and other land disturbances,provide for the equitable sharing of costs and benefitsassociated with the protection, and minimize land-userestrictions on long-time land owners surrounding thewater source.

The utility is a regional water supplier for 200,000people in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma.The utility has an extensive watershed monitoring pro-gram and partners with multiple entities to researchwater quality related topics. The utility’s watershedmanagement efforts are key components of assuringthe effective and long-term protection of importantdrinking water sources. Watershed management activi-ties include land purchases, resource management,watershed easements, water education programs andshoreline cleanup events for the protection of waterquality in the Frog Bayou and Lee Creek watersheds.

Southwest Arkansas Water District’s mission is toprovide up to 256 million gallons per day of high-quality raw water at reasonable prices to municipal,rural, agricultural, commercial and industrialcustomers in a five-county area (Little River, Miller,Hempstead, Lafayette and Columbia) from the lowerLittle River Basin through Millwood Lake.

There are a number of inter-agency teams and workgroups that bring together not only different agenciesbut also teams of scientists and practitioners fromdifferent disciplines.

Efforts will be made to develop effective workingpartnerships among these groups to gain efficiencies.For example, the Multi-Agency Wetland PlanningTeam (MAWPT) is in the process of posting criticalwetlands data to the Internet and making it available tothe public. Much of this geographically referenced datawould also be useful to watershed groups.

The Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy SteeringCommittee is assessing habitat threats to non-gamespecies of concern. There may be mutual benefit insharing data. Coordination can be strengthenedbetween the NRCS Technical Committee and the NPSPollution Management Plan Stakeholder Group (e.g.,meetings could be held back-to-back and agendas

coordinated). Six examples of groups created topromote interagency cooperation are briefly described.

The NPS Pollution Management Plan StakeholderGroup expands and builds on previous collaborativeplanning. Organized in July 2004, the group met fourtimes in preparation of the 2011-2016 NPS PollutionManagement Plan. Since that time, stakeholders havemet annually to review progress, assess and discusspossible changes to the plan and identify ways toimprove coordination of implementation activitieswithin statewide programs and between priority water-sheds and statewide programs. In preparing the 2018-2023 NPS Pollution Management Plan, additionalemail and phone communications between subsets ofthe group have been utilized to make revisions to theprevious plan.

NRCS coordinates with its partners through theState Technical Committee. The State TechnicalCommittee is composed of individuals who represent avariety of natural resource sciences and occupations,including soil, water, plants, wetlands and wildlife. TheState Technical Committee includes representatives offederal, state and local agencies as well as nonprofitorganizations and others.

A formal relationship known as the ACP was formedin 1992 between key local partners and state andfederal agencies with a statewide focus. The ACPincludes ANRC, the Arkansas Association of Conserva-tion Districts (AACD), the Arkansas Association ofConservation District Employees (AACDE), NRCS, theUniversity of Arkansas System Division of AgricultureCooperative Extension Service, the University ofArkansas at Pine Bluff, AFC and the Arkansas ResourceConservation and Development Council, Inc.

The partnership is committed to locally-led conservation of natural resources by providing aunique combination of coordinated educational, finan-cial and technical assistance to landowners. While eachpartner offers unique services, the partnership is com-mitted to teamwork, consensus, joint decision-makingand sharing of successes and failures. The partnershipstrives to break down interagency barriers, eliminateduplication of effort and improve communication so


42

that landowners are better served. Partners in the ACPalso work closely with ADEQ, ARWC and other entitieswithin the University of Arkansas System Division ofAgriculture (e.g., the research station at Arkansas StateUniversity).

The Arkansas MAWPT is comprised of state agencyrepresentatives promoting wetland conservationthrough implementation of goals and objectives con-tained in the Arkansas Wetland Strategy. The ArkansasMAWPT, formed through the governor’s office, hasdeveloped statewide and watershed-level strategiesthat encourage voluntary, incentive-based conservationinitiatives and consistent planning efforts. The hydro-geomorphic classification and assessment of wetlands,Geographical Information Systems (GIS) watershedanalyses, restoration and protection of unique wetlandsand educational outreach are key components tosuccessful conservation and management of thewetland resources of Arkansas.

An interagency, multidisciplinary team of professionals representing public agencies and privateorganizations are contributing to the development of a

strategy for conserving Arkansas non-game wildlife.The interagency team will identify species of concern;identify the habitats where these species are located;assess habitat conditions; and identify managementpractices and financial assistance programs to protectthose species and habitats, including aquatic life andhabitats. Guidance for developing the strategy isprovided by USFWS. This interagency team includesbiologists, hydrologists, land use managers and others.Agencies represented include AGFC, USFS, USFWS,Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission (ANHC),Audubon Arkansas and TNC.

These teams are made up of voluntary groups ofcitizens interested in working on water conservationefforts sponsored by a coalition of agencies and privategroups, including AGFC, Keep Arkansas Beautiful,ADEQ, Audubon Arkansas, NRCS, the Arkansas BassAssociation, ANRC, the Arkansas Cattlemen’sAssociation, ADPT, the Arkansas Chapter of the SierraClub and approximately two dozen other agencies andgroups. Stream teams help control litter, work onstreambank stabilization projects, improve fish habitatand monitor water quality. Approximately 500 streamteams are active in Arkansas.

Agr

icul

ture

Silv

icul

ture

Surf

ace

Eros

ion

Urb

an R

un-o

ff

State AgenciesArkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC) × × × ×Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) × ×Arkansas Forestry Commission (AFC) × × × ×Arkansas Department of Health × × × ×Arkansas Department of Transportation × × ×Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) × × ×Arkansas State Plant Board × ×Arkansas Livestock Commission × ×Arkansas Geological Commission ×Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission ×Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism × × ×


43

(continued)

Agr

icul

ture

Silv

icul

ture

Surf

ace

Eros

ion

Urb

an R

un-o

ff

Universities University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture Research and Extension × × × ×University of Arkansas - Arkansas Water Resources Center × × × ×Other public and private universities (e.g., Arkansas Tech, UCA, Ouachita Baptist) × × ×Federal AgenciesUSDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) × × ×USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) × × ×USDA Forest Service × × ×U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) × ×U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) × × ×U.S. Corps of Engineers × ×Local Governments and Entities That Serve ThemMunicipalities × ×Counties × ×Conservation Districts and related associations × × × ×Regional Planning Commissions ×Planning and Development Districts × ×Associations (e.g., Municipal League, Association of Counties) × × × ×Others (e.g., Arkansas Chapter, American Public Works Association) × × ×Organizations (IRS 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Status)Statewide (e.g., The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Arkansas) × × ×Watershed groups × × × ×Resource Conservation and Development Councils (RC&D) × × × ×Membership Associations and OrganizationsArkansas Farm Bureau × × × ×Arkansas Poultry Federation × × ×Arkansas Environmental Federation ×Arkansas Homebuilders Association ×Arkansas General Contractors × ×Arkansas Forestry Association × ×Arkansas Pork Producers Association × ×Water Districts and Related AssociationsWater Districts × × × ×Arkansas Rural Water Association × × × ×Others (e.g., professional organizations) × × × ×Interagency Coordination TeamsNPS Management Program Task Force × × × ×NRCS State Technical Committee × × ×Arkansas Conservation Partnership × × × ×ADEQ Watershed Outreach × × × ×Multiagency Wetlands Planning Team × × ×Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Steering Committee × × ×

44

Aggregate agriculture, including crop, animal, andforestry production and processing and industriessupporting those sectors, is a major industry inArkansas. Collectively, aggregate agriculture accountsfor $20.1 billion of value added to the Arkansas econ-omy in 2012 (English, Popp and Miller, 2014). Thereare 43,000 farm operations cultivating 13.7 millionacres throughout the state (United States Departmentof Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service,2016). Arkansas farmers provide jobs and produce foodand fiber for domestic and international markets.In addition, agricultural lands provide environmentalbenefits of value to wildlife and all citizens of the state.

Agricultural activities can also result in pollutedrunoff entering waterbodies. Potential nonpoint sourcepollutants include sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding organic matter and pesticides. Figures 4.1a-4.1c demonstrate the estimated distribution andconcentration of poultry, row crop agriculture andcattle across the state.

Arkansas’ most current List of Impaired Waterbodies,also known as the 303(d) List, identifies streams in

which agriculture is identified as a source of pollution(Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, 2016).Agriculture is one of five potential sources specificallyidentified on the 303(d) list. The list shows agricultureas a source of impairment for 96 stream segments.These specific segments are characterized as Category 5Waters, which indicates the waterbody is impaired forone or more water quality standards.

Another 57 stream segments not meeting standardsdue to agricultural sources are characterized asCategory 4a Waters. The Category 4a Waters labelindicates water quality standards are not attained forone or more designated uses and a Total MaximumDaily Load (TMDL) calculation has been completed.

In its 2016 List of Impaired Waterbodies, theArkansas Department of Environmental Quality(ADEQ) identified waters of the state that are not fullysupporting of designated uses and in which the majorsource of the pollutant causing the impairment tothe use is agriculture (Arkansas Department ofEnvironmental Quality, 2016).

Figure 4.1a

Source: Arkansas Natural ResourcesCommission, 2016


45

The ultimate long-term goal of the agriculturestatewide program is for agriculture not to be identifiedas contributing to impairment of Arkansas waters. Thiscan be achieved through targeted awareness, BMPtraining and implementation, monitoring and othervoluntary programs.

More specifically, long-term goals that can beachieved within 15 to 20 years include:

• Managing animal wastes applications in floodplains.

• Managing aerial application of chemicals in floodplains, riparian areas and on-farm storagereservoirs.

• Agriculture will not contribute sediment, nutrientsor other pollutants to streams in such amounts asto cause impairment of the waters of the state.

• Pesticides will not be found in the waters of thestate in concentrations that cause impairment tothe designated use of the waters. This can becontinued through effective application of pesticidetraining and certification programs and continueddevelopment of BMPs for pesticide management.

Figure 4.1c

Source: National Agricultural StatisticsService (NASS), 2012Data Source: National AgriculturalStatistics Service (NASS), 2012

Figure 4.1b

Source: 2011 National Land CoverData Source: Multi-Resolution LandCharacteristics Consortium


46

• Pesticides, including herbicides and fungicides,will not be detected in groundwater in concentra-tions higher than those set by the EPA as MCLsand HALs.

Short-term measurable goals for the next five yearsinclude:

• Utilize U.S. Department of Agriculture NaturalResources Conservation Service (NRCS) landmanagement practices on highly erodible land.

• Have 90 percent of poultry and livestock growersoperate within the conditions of a nutrientmanagement plan (NMP) prepared by a certifiednutrient planner.

• Establish a detectable trend toward reducednutrient loading for selected streams within NSAsas a result of implementation of NMPs.

• Develop effective BMPs for management ofidentified chemical-resistant weeds or pests andthe use of chemicals for control.

• Promote soil health and cover crops in animaland row crop agriculture.

ANRC is the lead agency for implementation of theagriculture statewide program. The overall programstrategy is to continue the voluntary process wherebyfederal and state programs cooperate in priority areasof the state where water quality problems have beenidentified. As long as this cooperative process results inimproved implementation of BMPs and reductions innonpoint source pollutant loads, it will be viewed assuccessful. If the cooperative process does not result innonpoint source reductions and water quality improve-ments, state and local entities will investigateadditional steps. These steps will be developed using anadaptive management approach described in the intro-duction to this section to ensure waterbodies meettheir designated uses.

Specific ongoing objectives for Agriculture include:

4.1. Continue to encourage and provide technical assistance for the development of conservation plans,nutrient management plans and comprehensive nutri-ent management plans and implementation of BMPsthrough wide-ranging education and outreach pro-grams. Continue to recruit and train more technicalservice providers in an effort to meet the demand fortechnical assistance and to develop conservationplans, nutrient management plans and comprehensivenutrient management plans.

4.2. Identify measures and analyze factors that influence behavior change to effectively target educa-tion and outreach programs as well as other incentives.

4.3. Develop tools that enable measurement of thecombined effects of implementing multiple waterquality BMPs in farming systems and assess their effectiveness at a watershed or sub-watershed level.

4.4. Utilize and potentially expand on the USDAassessment tool for use by agricultural producers fordecision making on management systems related towater quality protection.

4.5. Identify additional sources of funding forprojects that demonstrate systematic approaches thatenable farmers to achieve multiple goals (e.g., conservewater supply and protect water quality while achievingprofitability goals).

4.6. Improve the availability and access to information on land uses at the watershed andsub-watershed levels to better identify areas for poten-tial implementation projects. While maintainingmandated confidentiality, make available informationon the types, extent and distribution of land uses,BMPs in use, riparian buffers, and total acres enrolledin conservation programs.

4.7. Seek additional sources of funding to increaseand improve the effectiveness of technical assistancefor planning resource management and for the implementation of BMPs, with emphasis on NSAs.

4.8. Coordinate conservation planning to take fulladvantage of financial incentives, incentives or assis-tance programs from state, federal and private entities.Examples include riparian habitat improvement, Agri-cultural Conservation Easement Program’s WetlandsReserve Easement Program, Conservation ReserveProgram (CRP), Wetland and Riparian Zone Tax CreditProgram (through ANRC) and other programs.

4.9. Continue to focus on BMP implementation toimprove conservation practices for erosion control,sediment retention, irrigation management, and nutri-ent management on agriculture lands and farm forests.As appropriate, direct technical assistance to landown-ers, giving emphasis to developing new conservationplans and riparian areas, especially those that connect,enhance or expand established riparian corridors.

4.10. Continue to provide and improve outreach,education and training promoting BMP implementationthrough the use of demonstrations, workshops, conferences, on-site visits and one-on-one consultationsas appropriate and resources allow.


47

4.11. Continue to provide technical assistance andmake available financial assistance to agriculturaloperations where cost-share is a component ofapproved Section 319(h) implementation projects.

4.12. Work with major integrators and farm workersas well as landowners to encourage input from andcooperation with nutrient management planning andimplementation.

4.13. Promote nutrient planning for farms that arebelow the threshold for classification as a ConfinedAnimal Feeding Operation with dry manure.

4.14. Expand education for poultry producers witha special focus on the role that the producer plays inthe big picture of NPS pollution management (e.g.,the relationship between biological processes andagricultural production processes as they relate towater quality).

4.15. Provide educational and technical assistance tosupport full implementation of nutrient applicationrules promulgated by ANRC.

4.16. Continue to promote positive relationshipsbetween state and federal agencies and agriculturalproducers in order to cultivate open communicationand an environment of trust.

The agricultural nonpoint source management plancan be tracked and evaluated on three levels: short-term inputs, intermediate processes and long-termoutcomes. Tracking and evaluation will be based uponprogram activities, behavioral change and delisting ofstreams from the ADEQ List of Impaired Waterbodies.

The first measure of the program is trackingprogram activities (e.g., what activities are imple-mented, how many farmers participated, how manyfact sheets were developed, how many newspaperarticles were published, how many dollars wereexpended to address a particular issue, etc.). Theseinput measures track effort expended, which is a firstand necessary step toward effecting change.

The second measure of the program focuses onwhether program activities result in behavioralchanges. To assist in identifying changes in behavior,BMP implementation data must be collected.Historically, data on BMP implementation has been

compiled into Arkansas’ NPS Pollution ManagementAnnual Report published by ANRC. Congressionally-mandated confidentiality requirements can make itdifficult to obtain the data needed to analyze andreport BMP implementation. Strategies will need tobe identified and developed in order to comply withthese requirements while tracking and reportingBMP implementation.

The ultimate measure of the program is whetherstreams impacted by pollutants from agriculturalsources are improved to the point that they can beremoved from Arkansas’ 303(d) List of ImpairedWaterbodies. Sources of data for tracking interimwater quality improvements are ADEQ’s ambientmonitoring network and synoptic surveys, UnitedStates Geological Survey (USGS) monitoring sites,Arkansas Water Resources Center (AWRC) dedicatedmonitoring sites, and research by the University ofArkansas and others. Ultimately, this data is compiledinto the state’s 305(b) report, which is published byADEQ every other year.

The 2018-2023 NPS Pollution Management Planwill support voluntary efforts by wide-ranging part-ners. Partners include federal, state, and local agencies,which provide funding through cost-share assistance,expertise through technical assistance, and educationthrough outreach programs to farmers as well as stateregulatory agencies through administration of existingand proposed rules and regulations. Commoditygroups, farm organizations, and nonprofit organiza-tions also participate in the planning and targeting ofthis statewide agricultural program through participa-tion in the NPS Pollution Management Plan Stake-holder Group and also through participation andsupport for local NPS implementation projects.

Key partners for implementation of this statewideagricultural program include local agencies such asconservation districts, University of Arkansas SystemDivision of Agriculture faculty and local nonprofitorganizations. These key local players provide a coordi-nated and organized process for disseminatingoutreach, education and technical assistance related toimplementing BMPs to reduce erosion and managepesticides and fertilizer use on agricultural lands. Thesepartners reside in the watershed where farmers andlandowners live. They have both the expertise and


48

experience that is crucial to give farmers sound adviceand technical assistance related to land managementdecisions. The trust built over the past 50 years betweenthese partners and landowners is the foundation thatmakes the implementation process work smoothly.They provide day-to-day advice on conservation tillagepractices, pesticide and fertilizer management, record-keeping and animal waste management plans.

A formal relationship known as the ArkansasConservation Partnership (ACP) has been formedamong these key local partners and state and federalagencies with a statewide focus. The ACP includesANRC, the Arkansas Association of ConservationDistricts (AACD), AACD Employees (AACDE), NRCS,the University of Arkansas System Division ofAgriculture Cooperative Extension Service, theUniversity of Arkansas at Pine Bluff and the ArkansasForestry Commission. The partnership is committed tolocally-led conservation of natural resources by provid-ing a unique combination of coordinated educational,financial and technical assistance to landowners. Whileeach partner offers unique services, the partnership iscommitted to teamwork, consensus, joint decision-making and sharing of successes and failures. Thepartnership strives to break down interagency barriers,eliminate duplication of efforts and improve communi-cation so that landowners are better served.

Partners in ACP also work closely with ADEQ,Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC), AWRCand other entities within the University of ArkansasSystem Division of Agriculture, such as the researchstation at Arkansas State University.

Some examples of conservation partnershipprograms are discussed below.

The Arkansas Discovery Farm (ADF) program usesa unique approach based on agriculture producers,scientists, and natural resource managers workingjointly to identify issues and potential solutions. Itstrives to collect economic and environmental data tobetter define sustainability issues and find solutions thatpromote agricultural profitability and natural resourceprotection. The University of Arkansas System Divisionof Agriculture provides leadership and expertise toensure that data is collected in a scientifically rigorousand valid manner. The program is led by the ADFStakeholder Committee. The committee consists ofmembers of agricultural, nongovernmental and ruralentities within Arkansas. It is supported by the

Technical Advisory Committee, which is comprisedof members of state and federal organizations andagencies involved with agriculture in Arkansas. Moreinformation about Discovery Farms can be found athttp://discoveryfarms.uark.edu/index.htm.

The Discovery Farm program uses extensive state-of-the-art water quality monitoring systemsequipment and protocol installed on real, workingfarms to document environmental and naturalresource impact and to investigate solutions to reduceoff-farm impacts. The overall goal of the program is todocument sustainable and viable farming systems thatremain cost-effective and environmentally sound.The following objectives are applied to each farm:

• Assess the need for and effectiveness of adoptingappropriate Best Management Practices to reducenutrient and sediment loss and conserve waterfor major agricultural systems.

• Provide on-farm verification of nutrient andsediment loss reductions and water conservation.

• Mitigate nutrient and sediment losses that mayprevent state waters from attaining designateduses.

• Deliver outreach programs to producers inachieving production and environmental goals.

• Provide information in support of the ArkansasState Water Plan.

This program and its partnerships have the potentialto affect millions of agricultural acres across the state.In 2016, the program consisted of 11 farms spreadacross the state targeting dominant farming systems(Figure 4.2). The following is a brief description ofthose locations.

This farm is a poultry and beef grazing operation in the Beaver Lake-Upper WhiteRiver Watershed. There are 10 poultry houses,with 1,200 acres of pasture and about 1,000acres of woodland. This effort focuses on mon-itoring nutrient runoff from four poultryhouses that flow into a three-acre pond andfrom two poultry houses where runoff flowsthrough a pasture into an ephemeral creekconnected to the White River. Monitoringstations will quantify nutrient and sedimentloadings captured by the pond and pasturebefore reaching the creek. The data will be usedto determine quantities of nutrients andsediment that may be lost from around the


49

poultry houses and to quantify the nutrientand sediment trapping efficiencies of the pondand pasture.

This farm is a beef rotational grazing operationin the Illinois River Watershed, where they areassessing the benefits of rotational grazing onsoil health and the effect of reestablishing ariparian corridor along a stream on the farm tomitigate nutrient transport. Costs of BMPimplementation will be estimated and evaluatedin terms of economic feasibility and efficiency.

This is a poultry farm that is increasing thenumber of poultry houses on the farm locatedin the Illinois River Watershed. The effortfocuses on developing four new houses with areduced environmental footprint compared totraditional house structure and operation. Theprogram seeks to use a low nutrient footprintand install BMPs such as house gutters, reten-tion pond, grassed waterways, larger concretepads at the house entrance, and drainsbackfilled with by-product materials that willsorb large amounts of phosphorus. Monitoringand a cost analysis of each BMP will allow for adetermination of the effectiveness of eachpractice, in term of dollars per pound of nutrient decrease.

This is a newly constructed dairy operation inthe Lower Neosho Watershed on 240 acres,which also includes beef cows. On this farm,the focus is working with the farmer to estab-lish legumes into the pastures in an attempt todecrease nitrogen fertilizer needs. The plan isto divide pastures into 11 paddocks androtationally graze them. A grassed walkway willbe established through the middle of thepastures to decrease the distance cows willhave to walk to get to the milking parlor. Therewill be monitoring of soil nutrient status andsoil health over a period of five years to deter-mine the long-term benefits of rotationalgrazing on soil productivity. Additionally, therewill be passive monitoring of nutrient flows inthe leach field that treats liquid waste materialfrom the milking parlor.

This 940-acre row-crop farm is in the MRBI-focus watershed of Lake Conway-PointRemove. There are approximately 200 acres ofwheat, 240 acres of rice, 200 acres of corn and400 acres of soybean. This project focuses onassessing the benefits of a winter cover crop tonutrient and sediment runoff reduction.Monitoring focuses on runoff from three fieldsthat have management ranging from covercrop, no cover crop, conservation tillage, andconventional tillage under a rotation of cornand soybean.

.

This farm consists of 2,700 acres of rice andsoybean with conservation tillage. Situatednear the L’Anguille River, this farm is in aCritical Groundwater Area. A 120-acre fieldwas divided in half where irrigation water wasapplied to soybeans by furrow with poly pipe.Each irrigation system was designed by PipePlanner software. Irrigation to the eastern halfof the field utilized a surge valve to alternatebetween furrows to demonstrate the effect onrunoff volume and nutrient losses.

This 1,500-acre farm in the Bayou MetoWatershed has been in a Critical GroundwaterArea for more than a decade. The farm nolonger has active irrigation wells in the shallowalluvial aquifer. It does have one well in thedeeper (> 600 ft) Sparta aquifer but pumpingcosts render it for emergency-use only. Theentire farm is irrigated using an onsite reser-voir, and all water draining from the leveledfarm is captured via tail-water recoverysystems and returned to the reservoir. Thisfarm represents a unique opportunity tohighlight reuse of water, an issue of nationalprominence across all sectors of society acrossthe nation. The focus of this project is waterconservation, harvesting and crop rotations toassess water use efficiency, while at the sametime decreasing nutrient and sediment runoff.


50

This farm is a 1,500-acre row-crop operationin the Bayou Macon Watershed concentratingon cotton and corn. This project focuses onevaluating the benefits of conservation tillageon nutrient and sediment runoff.

This row crop operation with rice, corn andsoybeans will be implementing cover crops inthe rotation on the farm in the BayouBartholomew Watershed to see what effectcover crops have on water quality. Threesubwatersheds are in the National WaterQuality Initiative project area. Two watermonitoring stations have been set up onopposite sides of the field where the waterdrains off the field. This will allow the waterleaving the field to be collected and analyzedfor sediment and nutrient concentrations.Approximately 40 acres of the field will beplanted in cover crops. The rest will serve as acontrol by not having any cover crops planted.

This row crop operation in the BayouBartholomew Watershed concentrates on rice,

corn and soybean rotations with cover crops.The farm is located within the National WaterQuality Initiative project area. A 12-acre fieldwill be treated with cover crops and the 18-acrefield across the road will be used as a controlwithout cover crops. Both of these fields havewater monitoring stations where the waterdrains off the fields. The results will be used toevaluate the effect that cover crops have onwater quality.

This row crop operation in the L’Anguille RiverWatershed concentrates on rice, corn andsoybean rotation with cover crops. The leveledfield is in the Mississippi River Basin HealthyWatersheds Initiative project area.Approximately 80 acres are being managedwith cover crops planted on half of the fieldand no cover crops as a control on the otherhalf. The field has two drainage pipes andassociated sampling sites: one for each half ofthe field. This allows for a comparison ofsediment and nutrient runoff between twosections, with and without cover crops.

Figure 4.2

Source: Dr. Michael Daniels, University ofArkansas System Division of Agriculture


51

To improve the health of the Mississippi River Basin,including water quality and wildlife habitat, NRCS haslaunched the Mississippi River Basin HealthyWatersheds Initiative (MRBI). Through the MRBIprogram, NRCS provides assistance to producers indeveloping conservation plans to meet producer’s objec-tives and implement a suite of practices that will reducethe impacts of nutrients and sediment leaving agricul-tural fields. Key conservation practices include nutrientmanagement, conservation crop rotation and residueand tillage management. Farmers and landowners canuse other conservation practices such as restoringwetlands, planting trees along streams to filter nutrientsout of water draining off the farm, and water manage-ment. Financial assistance is also available to installedge-of-field monitoring systems in specific locationswithin the selected watersheds.

The initiative builds on the past efforts of producers,NRCS, partners, and other state and federal agencies inthe 12-state initiative area, including Arkansas, toaddress nutrient loading in the Mississippi River Basin.Nutrient loading contributes to both local water qualityproblems and the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico.The MRBI will be implemented by NRCS throughvarious programs.

In 2015, NRCS invested $10 million in 27 high-priority watersheds in Arkansas and 13 existingprojects to improve water quality and strengthenagricultural operations. The investment is part of a$100 million commitment over four years to addresswater quality concerns, according to USDA NRCS.

Arkansas’ active MRBI projects provide financial andtechnical assistance to agricultural producers foraddressing water quality concerns. The projects include:

This program area includes Lower Crocked Creek,King Bayou-Bayou Meto, Upper Mill Bayou, KingBayou, Hurricane Bayou, Kaney Bayou-Bayou Meto,Middle Mill Bayou, Rodgers-Bayou Meto, Lower MillBayou, Bayou Meto Outlet and Bills Bayou. This projectcovers 238,106 acres in Arkansas, Jefferson andLonoke counties. Goals are to improve water quality,reduce sediment and nutrient loads entering the watershed, enhance wetlands, improve fish andwildlife habitat benefits and improve the biologicalhealth of the streams. Water quality and water quantitywill be enhanced through conservation practices in the

project area to improve water quality and reduceground water mining of the aquifer.

This program area includes White Oak Branch-Bayou Two Prairie, Skinners Branch-Bayou TwoPrairie, Upper Big Ditch-Bayou Meto, Bayou TwoPrairie Outlet, Middle Big Ditch-Bayou Meto andLower Big Ditch-Bayou Meto. Funding is available forlandowners in portions of Arkansas, Jefferson, Lonokeand Prairie counties. The project area covers 249,349acres. The goals of the project are to improve waterquality by reducing nitrogen, phosphorous, andsediment levels in the watershed; enhance wetlands;improve fish and wildlife habitat benefits; andmaintain agricultural productivity by utilizing a combi-nation of conservation practices. Water quality andwater quantity will be enhanced through conservationpractices in the project area to improve water qualityand reduce ground water mining of the aquifer.

This project addresses water quality concerns in theBig Watershed that includes Coffee Creek, North Creek-Big Creek, Outlet Lick Creek, Hurricane Ditch, BeaverBayou and Johnson Bayou Ditch-Big Creek. Funding isavailable for landowners in a portion of Phillips County.The project area covers 125,846 acres. The goals of theproject are to improve water quality, reduce sedimentand nutrient loads entering the Big Watershed, enhancewetlands, improve fish and wild-life habitat benefits,and maintain agricultural productivity by utilizing acombination of conservation practices.

This program area involves Caney Creek-L’AnguilleRiver Watershed in a portion of Cross County. Theproject area covers 22,231 acres. The project seeks toreduce soil loss in the watershed in a segment of theL’Anguille River, voluntarily implement conservationspractices to reduce nutrient and sediment, and workwith Arkansas State University to document improvedsoil organic matter through BMPs.

The L’Anguille River has been designated as animpaired watershed by EPA due to excessive siltationand turbidity from agricultural sources. The projectarea covers 90,301 acres and funding is available for


52

landowners in portions of Cross and St. Franciscounties. The voluntary program provides financialand technical assistance to agricultural producers foraddressing water quality concerns in the L’AnguilleRiver that includes Lick Creek, Big Tellico Creek,Spybuck Creek, Unnamed Creek and Coffee Creek.

Funding is available for landowners in portions ofArkansas, Lonoke, Prairie and Monroe counties. Theproject area covers 174,564 acres. The goals of theproject are to improve water quality by reducing nitro-gen, phosphorous, and sediment levels in the water-shed; enhance wetlands; improve fish and wildlifehabitat benefits; and maintain agricultural productivityby utilizing a combination of conservation practices.Water quality and water quantity will be enhancedthrough conservation practices in the project area toimprove water quality and reduce ground water miningof the aquifer.

This program addresses water quality concerns inthe Lower Arkansas (Upper) River Watersheds thatincludes Snow Brake-Upper Indian Bayou, BakersBayou-Upper Indian Bayou, Upper Indian Bayou,Caney Creek-Salt Bayou and Mile Branch-Salt Bayou.Funding is available for landowners in portions ofJefferson, Lonoke and Pulaski counties. The projectarea covers 131,522 acres. The goals of the project areto improve water quality by reducing nitrogen,phosphorous and sediment levels in the watershed byutilizing a combination of conservation practices;enhance wetlands; improve fish and wildlife habitatbenefits; and maintain agricultural productivity. Waterquality and water quantity will be enhanced throughconservation practices in the project area to improvewater quality and reduce ground water mining ofthe aquifer.

This program addresses water quality concerns inthe Middle Cache River Watershed that includes SkilletDitch-Overcup Ditch, Browns Creek-Overcup Ditch,Cyprus Creek-Overcup Ditch, Overcup Slough-OvercupDitch and Town of Gourd-Overcup Ditch. Funding isavailable for landowners in portions of Craighead,Jackson, Poinsett and Woodruff counties. The projectarea covers 121,583 acres. The goals of the project areto improve water quality, reduce sediment and nutrientloads entering the watershed and the Cache River

National Wildlife Refuge, enhance wetlands, improvefish and wildlife habitat benefits. Water quantity will beenhanced through conservation practices in the projectarea and reduce ground water mining of the aquifer.

This program provides assistance in the LittleStrawberry River and Philadelphia Creek-Piney Forkwatersheds in portions of Fulton and Izard counties.The project area covers 43,821 acres. The project seeksto reduce sediment loss within the watersheds,increase public interest in water quality and soil healthby conducting educational workshops and field days,and develop a demonstration farm to promote soilhealth practices that reduce soil erosion and sedimentation in the river.

Funding is available for landowners in portions ofMississippi and Poinsett counties. The project areacovers 228,611 acres. The goals of the project are toimprove water quality, reduce sediment and nutrientloads entering the Tyronza watershed, enhancewetlands, and improve fish and wildlife habitatbenefits. Water quantity and instream water qualitywill be enhanced through implementation of theapproved conservation practices listed.

This program provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers for addressingwater quality concerns in the Petersburg Ditch-CacheRiver watersheds in portions of Clay, Greene andLawrence counties. The project covers 54,025 acresand seeks to reduce soil loss in the watershed, volun-tarily implement conservation practices to reducenutrient and sediment, and document water savings forbasic irrigation water management practices.

The Wapanocca Lake Watershed includes BellHammer Slough and Ditch No. 9-Fifteen Mile Bayou.Funding is available for landowners in a portion ofCrittenden County in the Wapanocca Lake Watershed.The project area covers 51,012 acres. The goals of theproject are to improve water quality by reducing nitro-gen, phosphorous and sediment loads entering theWapanocca Lake Watershed. Water quality will beenhanced through conservation practices in theproject area.


53

This is a voluntary land retirement program thathelps agricultural producers protect environmentallysensitive land, decrease erosion, restore wildlife habitatand safeguard ground and surface water. Farmers andranchers are paid an annual rental rate along withother federal and state incentives in exchange forremoving environmentally sensitive land from produc-tion and establishing permanent “resource conserving”plant species, according to the program’s website.

The program is a partnership among producers,tribal, state, and federal governments and, in somecases, private groups. CREP is a part of the country’slargest private-lands environmental improvementprogram – the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) –and is administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency.

CREP addresses high-priority conservation issues ofboth local and national significance, such as impacts towater supplies, loss of critical habitat for threatenedand endangered wildlife species, soil erosion andreduced habitat for fish populations such as salmon.CREP is a community-based, results-oriented effortcentered around local participation and leadership.

In 2017, Arkansas has CREP projects in the BayouMeto, Cache River/Bayou DeView and IllinoisRiver watersheds.

SPARROW is a watershed modeling techniquedeveloped by USGS for relating water-quality measurements made at a series of monitoring stationsto attributes of the watersheds, such as contaminantsources and environmental factors that affect rates ofdelivery to streams and in-stream processing.

SPARROW stands for SPAtially ReferencedRegressions On Watershed. As stated on the USGSwebsite describing SPARROW, the core of the modelconsists of a nonlinear regression equation describingthe non-conservative transport of contaminants frompoint and nonpoint (or “diffuse”) sources on land torivers and through the stream and river network.

USGS scientists developed SPARROW to do thefollowing:

• Utilize monitoring data and watershed information to better explain the factors thataffect water quality.

• Examine the statistical significance of contaminant sources, environmental factorsand transport processes in explaining predictedcontaminant loads.

• Provide a statistical basis for estimating streamloads in unmonitored locations.

The model builds on actual stream monitoring byusing comprehensive geospatial data in a calibratedSPARROW model to predict water quality conditions atunmonitored stream locations. The geospatial data setsdescribe fertilizer and manure applications, atmos-pheric deposition to the land surface and urban sources.

There are several geospatial data sets used todevelop explanatory variables in SPARROW models.

Contaminant Source Data SetsAgriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service,Permit Compliance System, Sewered Population,Atmospheric Deposition, National ResourcesInventory, Census, Land area.

Contaminant Delivery Data SetsSSURGO, State Soil Geographic or STATSCO,National Soil Survey, PRISM, National ClimaticData Center.

For more information about SPARROW and theparameters included in the model, visithttps://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow.

While the science and measurement of soil healthwill eventually emerge and advance, early-adopterfarmers in Arkansas are not waiting on the science befully developed before they implement conservationpractices that promote soil health. In 2017, a group ofearly-adopter row-crop farmers approached theArkansas Conservation Partnership about helpingthem form a Soil Health Network and to help thempromote the benefits of soil health in addressingclimate change and water resources. The ArkansasAssociation of Conservation Districts was able toobtain a State NRCS Conservation Innovation Grant tohelp organize a group of farmers into the Arkansas SoilHealth Alliance.

The Alliance has elected a Board of Directors andofficers, is developing bylaws and seeking nonprofitstatus. This network is farmer-led and is activelydocumenting and promoting the benefits of soil healthpractices and experiences so that it can lead otherfarmers to adopt and protect soil health. The AACD,ANRC, NRCS and the University of Arkansas Division


54

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. (2016). Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report.Retrieved from www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/planning/integrated/303d/pdfs/2016/integrated-report.pdf

English, L., Popp J., and Miller, W. (2014). Research Report 994: Economic Contribution of the Agricultural Sector to theArkansas Economy in 2012. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas System Division ofAgriculture. Retrieved from https://arkansas-ag-news.uark.edu/pdf/994.pdf

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Farm Service Agency. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. Retrieved fromhttps://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/conservation-programs/conservation-reserve-enhancement/

U.S. Department of Agriculture-Natural Resources Conservation Service. (2015). MRBI Fiscal 2015 Investments. Retrievedfrom www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ar/programs/landscape/?cid=nrcs142p2_034795

U.S. Department of Agriculture-National Agricultural Statistics Service. (2016). 2016 State Agriculture Overview. Retrievedfrom www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats/Ag_Overview/stateOverview.php?state=ARKANSAS

U.S. Geological Survey. (2010). SPARROW Surface Water-Quality Modeling. Retrieved fromhttps://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/FAQs/faq.html

University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture. The Arkansas Discovery Farm Program. Retrieved from http://discoveryfarms.uark.edu/index.htm

of Agriculture is supporting their effort with education,outreach and technical assistance. The alliance heldtheir first annual field day on March 31, 2017, in CottonPlant, Arkansas, which was attended by 180 farmersand consultants.

At the federal level, the Water Quality InformationCenter is a USDA working group on water resources.It is composed of representatives from USDA agencies

involved with various water issues. The group fosterscommunication and collaboration among USDAagencies and other organizations on water-relatedtopics. Offices at the federal level communicate andwork with state, regional and county offices to planand implement water quality projects and programsthroughout the United States. In Arkansas, USDAagencies, state agencies, educational institutions,private groups, organizations and foundations worktogether to implement water quality programs inthe state.

More than 56 percent of Arkansas’ land area isforested, according to the Arkansas ForestryCommission (AFC). Private landowners, includingfarmers, ranchers and other individuals, own morethan 69 percent of the forest land in the state and manyactively manage their forest lands. National forestsaccount for 13 percent of Arkansas’ total forestedacreage. Forest resource companies own or lease12 percent of the state’s forest land. The remaining6 percent is classified as “other public” in the 2015Forest Survey (Arkansas Forestry Commission, 2015).

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality’s(ADEQ) 2016 List of Impaired Waterbodies does notidentify silviculture as a primary or secondary source ofimpairment for any Arkansas waterbodies. However,silviculture is included in Arkansas’ Nonpoint SourcePollution Management Plan because forestry opera-tions have the potential to degrade several waterquality characteristics in waterbodies receivingdrainage from forestlands when voluntary BestManagement Practices (BMPs) are not followed.

Timber is a major resource harvested in the GulfCoastal Ecoregion of southern Arkansas, according to

ADEQ’s 2016 305(b) report, but no large-scale impairments from silviculture activities have beenidentified in this region.

In the Ouachita Mountain Ecoregion, the predomi-nant land use is silviculture, both in private timbercompanies and National Forest holdings. Concernshave been voiced by various groups and organizationsregarding potential erosion and siltation as a result ofmanagement practices used in timber harvest. Periodicwater quality monitoring data have not indicatedsignificant impairments to the streams within thisregion. Occasional elevated turbidity values have beenobserved during periods of significant rainfall.

In the Boston Mountain Ecoregion, the dominantland use is silviculture and much of the region islocated within the Ozark National Forest. One of themajor concerns about potential water quality degrada-tion is even-aged timber management. Currentmonitoring data from within this region continue toreflect high quality water. Periodic elevated levels ofturbidity are noted in some waters in this region. Oneof the contributors of turbidity problems is secondaryand tertiary road construction and maintenance.

Impacts to aquatic habitats, biota and water qualityby silviculture in southeastern United States streams,

Figure 5.1

Source: 2011 National Land CoverDatabaseData Source: Multi-Resolution LandCharacteristics Consortium (MRLC)

55


including Arkansas, have been itemized and describedin an American Fisheries Society publication (Filipek,1993).

The AFC, which is the lead agency for implementingsilviculture programs in the state, offers guidelines forsilvicultural Best Management Practices in the publica-tion Best Management Practices for Water QualityProtection (Arkansas Forestry Commission, 2002).

Although the use of silvicultural BMPs is voluntaryin Arkansas, AFC performs a biennial statewide assess-ment of the implementation of BMPs. Direct compari-son between the latest survey and those done prior to2005 is not possible because of changes in the monitor-ing instrument and protocol since BMP implementa-tion surveys began in 1998. In 2002, a new surveyinstrument was adopted to conform to the updatedBMP guidelines. Likewise, in 2005, aerial reconnais-sance was adopted as the new method for identifyingpotential tracts to be included in the survey.

The most recent survey was published in 2011, withthe statewide BMP implementation rate being89 percent, 3 percentage points higher than the ratedetermined in the 2008 survey (Arkansas ForestryCommission, 2011). Private non-industrial forestlandsaveraged 83 percent, a significantly lower implementa-tion rate than any other ownership group. Federallands averaged 97 percent BMP implementation, whilestate lands scored 87 percent and industrial landsscored 95 percent. The 2011 survey grouped silvicultureBMPs into four major categories:

• Harvesting (95 percent)• Regeneration (95 percent)• Roads (86 percent)• Streamside Management Zones or SMZ

(82 percent)

By physiographic region, the Delta scored86 percent; the Ozark region scored 89 percent; theOuachita region scored 90 percent, and the Southwestregion or Gulf Costal Plain scored 86 percent forBMP implementation.

The 2011 Implementation Survey noted commondeficiencies in BMP implementation, including

• Absence of an effective Streamside ManagementZones

• Mechanical site preparation in ephemeral streamchannels

• Lack of water bars on skid trails, fire lanes andinactive roads

• Inadequate stabilization of stream crossings(road and skid trail)

• Poor utilization of seeding and mulch to stabilizeloose soil

Arkansas’ 2016 List of Impaired Waterbodies, alsoknown as the 303(d) List, notes that the state does notfully support all designated uses (Arkansas Departmentof Environmental Quality, 2016). Siltation/turbidity ofreservoirs and streams has been identified as thelargest source of NPS pollution. While silviculture isnot currently identified as a source of these pollutantsin the waters of the state, activities associated withsilviculture may contribute to sediment and otherpollutant loads, particularly in small, high-qualityheadwater streams.

The ultimate goal of the silviculture statewideprogram is that through targeted awareness, BMPtraining, monitoring and other voluntary programs,silviculture will never be identified as contributing toimpairment of the waters of the state.

The AFC is the lead agency for implementation ofthe silviculture statewide program. For silviculture, theoverall strategy is to continue the voluntary processwhereby federal and state programs cooperate in prior-ity areas of the state where water quality problems havebeen identified. As long as this cooperative processresults in improved implementation of BMPs andreductions in NPS pollutant loads, it will be viewedas successful.

5.1. Continue to strengthen outreach and trainingprograms in BMP implementation for landowners andloggers by:

• Developing additional mechanisms for deliveringBMP implementation training targeted at privatenon-industrial landowners (e.g., educationalworkshops, expanded local partnerships in areaswhere there are high concentrations of privatenon-industrial landowners and increasingemphasis on woodland management in farmplanning).

• Placing BMP outreach and training programsaimed at private non-industrial forestland ownersin the broader economic context on the assump-tion that landowners will better manage aresource they value.

56


5.2. Continue to partner with the Arkansas ForestryAssociation and its Forest Practices Committee as wellas the Arkansas Timber Producers Association todeliver and evaluate the effectiveness of BMP trainingto effect behavioral change as measured by BMP implementation, trainings and technologies.

5.3. Continue to promote incentives for landownersand/or loggers to increase voluntary BMP implementa-tion. Review options to increase landowner incentivesto adopt BMPs.

5.4. Continue to improve the quality of BMP implementation monitoring (e.g., increasing the samplesize to improve the validity of subgroup results, identify-ing sites in riparian areas, and investigating alternativesto better identify the universe of harvest sites).

5.5. Continue assessing the effectiveness of silviculture BMPs to protect Arkansas water quality(e.g., reduce sedimentation), building on ongoingevaluation and recognizing that such assessment is along-term, ongoing process. Consider conductingspecial assessments of high-quality headwaterstreams using synoptic surveys or other methods asresources allow.

5.6. Continue to review new research as it becomesavailable to re-evaluate AFC silviculture BMP guide-lines, involving both scientists and stakeholders in thedialogue, and update BMP guidelines as appropriate.

5.7. The state will participate in and supportregional forest conferences, workshops or outreachtrainings when appropriate.

5.8. Provide or support specialized technical assistance, outreach, supplies and equipment whenneeded to address NPS issues related to silviculturalactivities and deemed appropriate by AFC and ANRC.Request for “specialized” services or equipment will beevaluated by AFC and ANRC on a case-by-case basis.

5.9. During or after catastrophic events, appropriateassessment will be conducted as to how water qualityhas been affected. BMP implementation(s) will beprioritized when appropriate to maintain water quality.

The statewide silviculture program can be trackedand evaluated on three levels.

Agencies and organizations involved in implementingobjectives will track program activities (e.g., how many

landowners, loggers, foresters or purchasers participatedin education and training programs; how many factsheets were developed; how many newspaper articleswere published, etc.). These input measures track effortexpended, which is a first and necessary step towardeffecting change. As part of training programs, it isimportant to incorporate surveys and tests in workshopsfor forestry professionals and landowners to assessparticipants’ efforts to prevent silviculture fromcontributing to the pollution of waterbodies.

The second level of program tracking and evaluationfocuses on whether program activities result in behav-ioral changes (i.e., BMP implementation). AFC willcontinue to monitor BMP implementation and istaking steps to improve the effectiveness of its monitor-ing. Results are published in a biennial report availableon the AFC website.

The final level of evaluation is to measure whetherstreams are removed from the 303(d) List of ImpairedWaters. The state’s 303d list needs to be continuallyreviewed, and trends of BMP implementation shouldbe analyzed. The most current List of Impaired Water-bodies did not identify silviculture as a primary orsecondary source contributing to impairment(Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality,2016). The desired evaluation outcome is that silvicul-ture will not be listed as a primary or secondary contrib-uting source in future List of Impaired Waterbodies.

The Arkansas Forestry Commission is the leadagency for the implementation of the statewide silvi-culture program in the NPS Pollution ManagementPlan. The commission seeks to reduce sedimentconcentrations and loading in priority watersheds andstatewide through proper and consistent voluntaryimplementation of silvicultural BMPs on private andpublic forest lands.

AFC began providing a BMP training and educationprogram for non-industrial forestland owners in1998-99, with training continuing. The ArkansasTimber Producers Association and the BestManagement Practices Committee of the ArkansasForestry Association launched a logger BMP educationprogram in 1995. Training continues to be made avail-able to logging contractor employees and procurementforesters through these organizations.

57


In 1996, AFC adopted a BMP implementationmonitoring framework protocol as recommended bythe BMP Monitoring Task Force for the SouthernGroup of State Foresters. Additional modifications tothe survey were made in 2002 and 2005; in 2002 thesurvey instrument was amended to comply withupdated AFC BMP guidelines, and in 2005, aerialreconnaissance became the method of selecting tractsfor the survey. The AFC monitors and reports silvi -culture BMP implementation every two to three years.

AFC completed the first survey in May 1998.Additional surveys were completed in July 1999,2001/02, 2004, 2005/06 and 2007/08. The mostrecent published survey was in 2011. The eighthsurvey began in October 2015 and is expected to becompleted by September 2018. Survey results canbe found on the AFC BMP Program website athttp://www.aad.arkansas.gov/best-management-practices-water-quality.

Through a Memorandum of Understanding,ADEQ refers citizen complaints about pollution fromsilvi cultural activities to AFC for investigation and

voluntary resolution before taking enforcement action.

In addition, AFC assists landowners in obtainingfinancial assistance through several programs, includ-ing the Environmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP), the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) andthe Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) formanaging their forest land. The Forest StewardshipProgram recognizes and rewards landowners whomanage their forest lands for multiple uses andprovides professionals to assist them in obtaining awritten forest management plan. The Forest LegacyProgram (FLP) uses conservation easements andfee-simple acquisitions to protect environmentallyimportant privately owned forest lands that are threatened by conversion to non-forest uses.

AFC published its Arkansas Forestry BestManagement Practices for Water Quality Protectionin March 2002 after two years of reviewing the avail-able research and discussion among wide-rangingstake holders. The guide can be found athttp://www.aad.arkansas.gov/Websites/aad/files/Content/5944986/BMPs.pdf.

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. (2016). Integrated Water Quality Monitoring Assessment Report.Retrieved from www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/planning/integrated/303d/pdfs/2016/integrated-report.pdf

Arkansas Forestry Commission. (2002). Best Management Practices for Water Quality Protection. Retrieved fromwww.aad.arkansas.gov/Websites/aad/files/Content/5944986/BMPs.pdf

Arkansas Forestry Commission. (2011). Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices for WaterQuality Protection in Arkansas: Results of the 2010-2011 BMP Implementation Survey. Retrieved fromwww.aad.arkansas.gov/Websites/aad/files/Content/5944990/2010-11_BMP_Imp._Report_CORRECTED.pdf

Arkansas Forestry Commission. (2015). Arkansas’s Forest Facts. Retrieved from:www.aad.arkansas.gov/Websites/aad/files/Content/5945006/Forest_Inventory_Fact_Sheet,_2015.pdf

Filipek, S.P. (1993). Timber Harvest. In Bryan and D.A. Rutherford (Eds.), Impacts on Warmwater Streams:Guidelines for Evaluation (pp. 227-238). Bethesda, MD: Southern Division, American Fisheries Society.

Homer, C.G., Dewitz, J.A., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G., Coulston, J., Herold, N.D., Wickham, J.D., andMegown, K. (2015). Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for the conterminous United States-Representing a decade of land cover change information. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 81(5),345-354.

Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium. (2011). National Land Cover Database. Retrieved fromwww.mrlc.gov/

58

Surface erosion is one of the categories forsources of pollution used by the Arkansas Depart -ment of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to identifywaterbodies that are not meeting water quality turbid-ity criteria. This category includes erosion from agri -culture activities, construction activities, unpavedroad surfaces and instream erosion mainly from unstable streambanks.

Surface erosion resulting from agricultural and silvicultural practices is addressed in Sections 4 and 5of this update. This section addresses some issuesassociated with paved and unpaved roads includingforestry roads; construction at sites that do not requirea National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit, such as construction sites of less thanone acre and not part of a common plan; and hydro-modification. Additional components may be added asthe need arises.

Arkansas’ 2016 List of Impaired Waterbodies, alsoknown as the 303(d) list, identifies 28 stream segmentstotaling 458 miles and 2 waterbodies covering 4,410acres that are impaired because of siltation/turbiditywhere surface erosion is identified as the source.There are 24 stream segments listed in Category 5and 56 stream segment listed in Category 4a as notattaining the turbidity (silt) water quality criteria.

The source of the turbidity, in most cases, is identified as either surface erosion or agriculturalactivities. In addition, there are two lakes listed inCategory 5 and one lake listed in Category 4a as notattaining the turbidity water quality criteria.

Category 5 streams are those that are not attainingone or more water quality standards. Category 4astreams are those that are not attaining one or morewater quality standards and have a total maximumdaily load established. Note that under the “Causes”descriptions on the List of Impaired Waterbodies,waters impaired by siltation/turbidity are designatedby “Tb,” and under the “Sources” description surfaceerosion is listed as “SE” or “AG” agriculture (ArkansasDepartment of Environmental Quality, 2016).

Roads, highways and bridges are sources of significant contributions of pollutants to our nation’swaters. Contaminants from vehicles and activitiesassociated with road construction and maintenance arewashed from roads and roadsides when it rains orsnow melts. Because of this, road construction, roadmaintenance, recreational vehicle road and trail useand heavy equipment use of rural roads have beenidentified as potential threats to water quality.

The ADEQ 2016 List of Impaired Waterbodiesdoes not indicate any stream segments or watersidentified with road construction as the cause.However, there were several segments of waterwayslisted with turbidity as the cause or impairment withthe source being unknown.

The local impact of sediment on water quality fromtimber harvesting and unregulated road constructioncan be significant when Best Management Practices(BMPs) are not followed, especially in smaller head-water streams. Gravel, dirt and other types of roads areconsidered to be the major source of erosion fromforested lands, contributing up to 90 percent of thetotal sediment production from forestry operations,according to studies (Rothwell, 1983; Appelboom,et al., 2002).

These effects are of greatest concern where forestryactivity occurs in high-quality watershed areas thatprovide municipal water supplies or support fisheries.Use of rural roads by heavy trucks involved in resourceextraction take a toll on roadway integrity, resulting insignificant potential for erosion and sediment impactson receiving streams. Roads constructed and main-tained without use of recommended BMPs, especiallythose with steep gradients, deep cut-and-fill sections,poor drainage, erodible soils and poorly or improperlyconstructed road-stream crossings, contribute to mostof this sediment load with roads with stream crossingsbeing the most direct source of erosion and sediment.

Improperly installed or undersized culvertsincrease energy in stormwater delivered to receiving

59


streams and may result in increased headcutting andstreambank destabilization. This adds significantsediment loads, especially in flashy upland headwaterstream circumstances.

Road construction and maintenance activities thatare not required to follow or do not adequately followappropriate design standards, BMPs or NPDES permit-ting requirements may cause a further substantialdischarge of pollutants into waterbodies.

On Aug. 7, 2012, the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) issued a memorandum to allstates requiring them, beginning on June 15, 2014, todevelop an inventory of all public roads (paved andunpaved) through a Linear Referencing System (LRS)(Federal Highway Administration, 2014). The FHWAaimed to stop the use of multiple sources and differentformats of road data in an effort to create one nation-wide LRS to serve assessment and planning needs. Theresponsibility to complete this requirement belongs toeach state’s Department of Transportation.

While Arkansas already had an LRS that coveredthe state highway system, the Arkansas LRS did notinclude all public roads (Arkansas Geographic Infor-mation System, 2017). In 2014, what was then called theArkansas Highway and Transportation Departmententered into an agreement with the ArkansasGeographic Information System (AGIS) Office to accomplish the FHWA requirement by combining thecurrent 911 centerline file with the Arkansas statehighway system LRS data. The end product will meetand exceed the FHWA requirement and serves as aresource for surface erosion assessment. This project isknown as the All Road Network of Linear ReferencedData (ARNOLD). The ARNOLD project is well underwaywith a projected completion date for all counties in 2017.

The work to complete the data for each countystarted with communicating with local authorities abouttheir current road network. This included explaining therequirement and detailing needed attributes such asdual carriageway (two centerlines for divided routes), apaved/unpaved attribute, ownership information(federal, state, county, city, levee, etc.) and road design(dual carriageway, ramp, frontage, traffic circle, etc.).From there, each county’s road data was worked onindividually by AGIS and what is now called theArkansas Department of Transportation (ARDOT) tomeet the requirements. The roads data is then deliveredto the county so that everyone will be working from thesame information. Once complete, the maintenance ofeach county’s information for new roads or otherchanges will be communicated and completed similarly.

Arkansas’ highway system totals 16,418 miles(Arkansas Department of Transportation, 2015). Pavedcounty and municipal roads are currently being inven-toried through the ARNOLD project and affect largeareas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) stated that nonpoint source (NPS) pollutionproblems are increased in urban and suburban areasbecause paved surfaces cause runoff to occur at highervelocities and in greater quantities (U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 2015). Paved roads and highways,bridges and other transportation infrastructure can besources of heavy metals, oils, other toxins and debris.In addition, they alter hydrologic regimes by increasingthe area of impervious surfaces and modified drainagestructures. Finally, pesticides and fertilizers used alongroad rights-of-way can pollute surface waters throughrunoff, application drift or attachment to soil that isthen blown into surface waters.

Pollutant Source

Sedimentation Particulates Pavement wear, vehicles, not being maintained, atmosphere and maintenanceactivities

Nutrients Nitrogen andphosphorus

Atmosphere, sediment adsorption and fertilizer application

Heavy Metals Lead Leaded gasoline from auto exhausts and tire wear, lead wheel weights

Zinc Tire wear, motor oil and grease, individual galvanized highway fixtures

Iron Auto body rust, steel highway structures such as bridges and guardrails, andmoving engine parts

60


The EPA defines unpaved roads as any road, equipment path or driveway that is not paved, andwhich is open to public access and owned or operatedby any federal, state, county, municipal or othergovernmental or quasi-governmental agencies (U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, 1995). In Arkansas,approximately 85 percent of rural roads are unpaved(The Nature Conservancy, 2014). The main pollutantassociated with unpaved roads is sediment. Sedimen-tation can originate from both maintenance activitiesand the lack thereof; however, BMPs, including waterdiversion and retention devices, can reduce thesediment load entering our streams, rivers and lakes. The majority of unpaved roads in the state aremanaged by county judges, whose road foremen areresponsible for implementation of maintenance activi-ties. They are in a particularly critical position topositively affect water quality. Typical unpaved roadmaintenance involves using a road grader to smoothout the road, which makes for a smoother ride, but italso serves to disaggregate the road surface into uncon-solidated material that has a higher potential to becarried into our waterways. The resultant sedimenta-tion from this necessary maintenance can be limited bythe inclusion of low-cost BMPs – broad-based dips,wing-ditches, proper culvert installation, sedimentretention basins and other BMPs used to divert andretain runoff. Implementation of these practicesultimately improves water quality. Water velocity is the

most critical factor when considering runoff onunpaved roads. Fast-moving water has the potential toscour surfaces and carry more sediment than relativelyslower-moving water. Implementation of these BMPsgenerally serves to decrease water velocity, whichallows sediment to fall out before it reaches our water-ways. The Arkansas Forestry Commission’s BestManagement Practices for Water Quality Protectiondetails these practices at www.aad.arkansas.gov/Websites/aad/files/Content/5944986/BMPs.pdf.

Stream crossings can also cause alterations to streamhydrology and habitat. In a study of the West ForkWhite River, unpaved roads accounted for an estimated4,500 tons per year of sediment from a 124 square milearea, making it the second highest source of sedimentafter streambank erosion (Formica et al., 2004). Thisarea has an average density of unpaved roads whencompared to other parts of the state.

In early 2013, the Arkansas Association of Counties,The Nature Conservancy, various state agencies andmany public and private partner organizations workedto establish the Arkansas Unpaved Roads Program.The program aimed to create an incentive-basedunpaved roads management program to encourage theutilization of best management practices on rural,unpaved roads to reduce erosion, improve waterquality and support county finances.

In 2015, the Arkansas Legislature created Act 898,the Arkansas Unpaved Roads Program Fund. The

Pollutant Source

Heavy Metals(cont.)

Copper Metal plating, bearing and brushing wear, moving engine parts, brake liningwear, fungicides and insecticides

Cadmium Tire wear and insecticide application

Chromium Metal plating, moving engine parts and brake lining wear

Nickel Diesel fuel and gasoline, lubricating oil, metal plating, bushing wear, brakelining wear and asphalt paving

Manganese Moving engine parts

Cyanide Anti-caking compounds used to keep de-icing salt granular

Sodium, calciumand chloride

De-icing salts

Sulphates Roadway beds, fuel and de-icing salts

Hydrocarbons Petroleum Spills, leaks, antifreeze and hydraulic fluids and asphalt surface leachate

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1995

61


program will use a public-private partnership arrange-ment to assist counties in funding unpaved road projectssuch as demonstrations, training, promotion and use ofbest management practices in construction and mainte-nance of roads that may directly impact lakes, rivers orstreams. Public entities that own and maintain publicroads in Arkansas that are open to public vehicle travelat least eight consecutive weeks a year are eligible toapply for grants. Starting in fiscal year 2017, counties areeligible for program funding after completing a trainingprogram and submitting an application.

Erosion can come from many sources on anunpaved road including, but not limited to, construc-tion activity and routine maintenance of road surface,ditches, culverts and bank slopes. In addition, unpavedshoulders and informal conveyances such as skid trails,utilities easements, horse trails, all-terrain vehicle(ATV) trails and fire lanes can be sources of sediments.These surfaces may be very similar to unpaved roads,except they are often not planned in the traditionalengineering sense and are, more than likely, immediately adjacent to the stream.

Instream erosion of streambanks or beds resultsfrom structures, activities and land uses that affectnatural stream flow. These activities may be designedand planned or can be unintended, as a result of

various land-use activities. Direct hydromodificationsthat affect stream flow include channel alterations,high-flow cutoff devices, instream construction, waterwithdrawal, dredging, instream mining, locks anddams, levees, spillways, bridges and culverts, impound-ments and other water control structures. Indirecthydromodification is often associated with land usechanges in a watershed, such as resource extraction,urbanization and some silvicultural practices. Forexample, conversion of mixed deciduous forests to pinethrough clear cutting and reseeding has the potential todecrease stream flow and groundwater recharge in theaffected watershed due to higher evapotranspirationrates of pines (Swank and Douglass, 1974). Infilling ofthe floodplain for development and other purposes canalter the hydrology of a system dramatically as well.

Accelerated lateral erosion of streambanks fromintroduced river channel instability results in excessiveamounts of sediment entering the system and loss ofriparian zone vegetation. Additional nutrients can becontributed to the system when pasture lands are beingeroded. Siltation/turbidity, typically associated withsedimentation, is the greatest cause of impairment tostreams in Arkansas. This erosion, coupled withresource extraction such as gravel mining, disturbs thenatural flows and increases turbidity levels causinggreater impairment.

Accelerated streambank erosion is symptomatic ofriver or stream channel instability. The cause of stream

I

All Road Linear Referencing (ARNOLD)

Surface Type

UnpavedPaved

11-17-2017

0 5025 Miles

Figure 6.1

Source: Arkansas Department ofTransportation, 2017

62


instability is complex and can result from the cumula-tive effect of direct and indirect hydromodificationsover a period of time. Causes include:

• Change in the flow regime due to an overallchange in infiltration rates and increase insurface runoff from forest conversion to pasture;construction of roads (includes filling in headwater streams with fill material); andcreation of urban environments (includespaving, filling in headwater streams andwetlands, forest removal, building construction).

• Changes in channel pattern and profile fromresource extraction and/or straighteningof stream.

• Increases of sediment load from other sources ofsediment in the watershed, such as unpavedroads, ditches, gullies, construction sites and filldisposal sites.

• Cross channel obstruction. • Grazing practices that impact riparian areas and

indiscriminate cattle stream access.

Resource extraction of gravel from within thebankfull channel and floodplains of streams can alsocontribute to stream instability and turbidity. Theseparation of fines from the gravel aggregate as well assedimentation from destabilized streambanks mayresult in limiting fish passage along stream segmentsand aquatic ecological degradation.

Routine dredging, a direct hydromodification, bythe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) isperformed at a number of sites within Arkansas for thepurpose of flood control and navigation. The numberand duration of high flow periods, the intended use ofthe dredged waterway and other factors determinedredging frequency. Dredging typically increasesturbidity in the waterbody by disturbing bottomsediments. Resuspended sediments, other accumulatedmaterials, benthic sediments often results in theorganic material being suspended within the watercolumn, potentially adding to the oxygen depletion ofthe river or stream. Dredging spoils may reenter thestream if not properly placed or removed from thestream or ditch banks. Floodgate pulsing and flowregime changes associated with hydroelectric powergeneration are also a source of hydrologic modification.

Changing channel configurations has the potentialto introduce streambank instability. Channel modifica-tions occur through various methods such as:

• Clearing and snagging

• Physical modification • New channel excavation

These practices are used as a way to initiallyimprove the hydraulic conveyance of the stream.Unless sediment conveyance of the stream also isaccounted for, the same practices may result in unstable channels and increased surface erosion.

Hydraulic modification that is designed andplanned can introduce potential problems to fluvialsystems. However, it is often the case that unpermittedfacilities, or facilities not following their permit, creategreater disturbances than those designed and planned.The types of water quality problems associated withthese activities include disturbances to vegetationand soil during construction, channel scour due toincreased water velocities and increased water temp-erature if overhanging riparian vegetation is removed.

Construction is an important economic activityin Arkansas. The U.S. Department of Commerce’sBureau of Economic Analysis estimated that 2014Gross Domestic Product in the state’s constructionindustry totaled $4.2 billion (Bureau of EconomicAnalysis, 2017). Major construction activities includethe development of residential, commercial and indus-trial facilities as well as highways, streets and otherinfrastructure. Construction sites greater than oneacre, including smaller sites that are part of a largercommon plan of development that disturbs more thanone acre, are regulated through ADEQ’s NPDESstormwater program.

Beginning in 2008, ADEQ included new buffer zonerequirements in its Stormwater Construction GeneralPermit. The following is an excerpt of the language as itappears in the ADEQ document:

“A natural buffer zone as stated below shall bemaintained at all times. Exceptions from this require-ment for areas, such as water crossings, limited wateraccess, and restoration of the buffer are allowed if thepermittee fully documents in the SWPPP [StormwaterPollution Prevention Plan] the circumstances andreasons for the buffer zone encroachment. Addition-ally, this requirement is not intended to interfere withany other ordinance, rule or regulation, statute or otherprovision of law.

A. For construction projects where clearing andgrading activities will occur, the SWPPP must

63


provide at least twenty-five (25) feet of naturalbuffer zone, as measured horizontally from thetop of the bank to the disturbed area, from anynamed or unnamed streams, creeks, rivers,lakes or other waterbodies. The 25-foot bufferzone needs to be vegetated and/or capable ofreducing and filtering sediment laden flows.

B. The Department may also require up to fifty (50)feet of buffer zone, as measured from the top ofthe bank to the disturbed area, from establishedTMDL waterbodies, streams listed on the303(d)-list, an Extraordinary Resource Water(ERW), Ecologically Sensitive Waterbody(ESW), Natural and Scenic Waterway (NSW), orany other uses at the discretion of the Director

C. Linear projects will be evaluated individually bythe Department to determine natural bufferzone setbacks.”

Construction sites can generate NPS pollution thatthreatens water quality if proper BMPs are not used.Pollutants associated with construction activities are solocalized, compared to agricultural or forest produc-tion, that it is often difficult to correlate constructionactivity with water quality for a watershed. At a morelocal level, however, the amount of pollutant loadingthat can be delivered to a waterbody from a singleconstruction site can be significant and clearlymeasured. Therefore, this program component willfocus on developing and delivering education on BMPsand installation and maintenance at construction sitesof all sizes. Its aim is reducing the amount of NPSpollution leaving construction sites, thereby reducingthe pollutants that could potentially enter the waters ofthe state.

ADEQ uses assessment criteria to determine “designated use impairment” from long-term, frequentexceedance of the water quality standards that may belinked to discernible and correctable sources (ArkansasDepartment of Environmental Quality, 2008). Silta-tion/turbidity of reservoirs and streams has been iden-tified as the largest cause of NPS pollution. ADEQhas identified surface erosion as a source of siltationor turbidity.

The ultimate goal is to reduce surface erosion andsedimentation from rural roads, recreational trails,construction activities not covered by NPDES permits,land use activities and instream erosion or hydro -modification through public awareness, education,

training and other voluntary programs. Successfulimplementation will help maintain or improve waterquality and the possibility of waters being impaired dueto sediment.

Road construction and maintenance are not listedas specific sources of NPS pollution in the state’s List ofImpaired Waterbodies, but activities associated withthese activities may contribute to sediment and otherpollutants entering waterways.

Runoff controls are essential to preventing pollutedrunoff from reaching surface waters. Construction andmaintenance project activities that do not install oradhere to proper BMPs, erosion control during andafter construction of roads, highways and bridges cancontribute large amounts of sediment and silt to runoffwaters. This sediment can deteriorate water qualityand lead to fish kills and other ecological problems.Heavy metals, oils, toxic substances and debris fromconstruction traffic and spillage can be absorbed by soilat poorly maintained construction sites and carried offin runoff water to lakes, rivers and other waterbodies.

Runoff control measures can be installed beforeconstruction starts to reduce runoff pollution bothduring and after construction. Such measures caneffectively limit the entry of pollutants into surfacewaters and ground waters, thereby protecting theirquality, fish habitats and public health. Pesticides andfertilizers used along rights-of-way and adjoining landcan pollute surface waters and ground water when theyfilter into the soil or are blown by wind from the areawhere they are applied.

The Arkansas Natural Resources Commission(ANRC), in collaboration with ADEQ, is the leadagency for implementation of efforts to address surfaceerosion across Arkansas. For all statewide programs,the overall strategy is to continue the voluntary processwhereby federal and state programs cooperate in prior-ity areas of the state where water quality problems havebeen identified. As long as this cooperative processresults in improved implementation of BMPs andreductions in NPS pollutant loads, it will be viewed assuccessful. However, if the cooperative process doesnot result in nonpoint source reductions and waterquality improvements, then state and local entities willinvestigate additional steps needed to enable water-bodies to meet their designated uses by using anadaptive management approach described in the introduction to this update.

64


6.1. Partner with various local and watershedentities to compile and analyze current road conditionsand usage, providing information on the number ofmiles of unpaved roads, surface materials, streamcrossings and road density using analysis of existingdata, survey of county officials and other methods.

6.2. Review available construction and maintenanceBMP manuals for low-volume and unpaved roads.Update and modify manuals as necessary and makeavailable to county road crews and others upon request.

6.3. Use construction and maintenance BMPmanual for low-volume and unpaved roads for targetededucation programs for county judges, quorum courts,maintenance workers and other interested county/citypersonnel on pollution prevention for rural roads.

6.4. Continue to collaborate with the AHTD toensure compliance with environmental laws, regulations and policies.

6.5. Continue to collaborate with AHTD, whichmaintains a manual of BMPs for construction storm-water management and provides training to its contractors and staff on BMPs.

6.6. Continue to ensure the most current List ofImpaired Waterbodies does not indicate any streamsegments or waters identified with Road Construction(RC) as the cause.

6.7. Continue to revise, as necessary, BMP manualsto address prevention, management and maintenanceof runoff from surface erosion, including construction.

6.8. Deliver Arkansas Rural Services and the NatureConservancy ongoing programs to disseminate surfaceerosion BMPs and information through a variety ofmeans (such as distribution of the surface erosionmanual, training workshops, website content anddemonstration projects).

6.9. Seek new sources of funding, leverage existingfunding and promote increased cooperation aimedat shifting focus from bank stabilization to reachrestoration.

6.10. Continue to implement a watershed-basedassessment protocol and BMPs for streambank erosionas funds allow.

6.11. Prioritize stream reaches and sites for restoration within priority watersheds as funds allow.

6.12. Develop and promote education programs forlandowners concerning streamside and lakeside prop-erty management to reduce sources of NPS pollution.

6.13. Develop and promote education programs forlandowners and developers concerning proper streamcorridor management and for professionals concerningstream corridor restoration practices.

6.14. Promote tax credits, cost-share and otherincentive programs that are available for riparianzone and stream corridor restoration projects andconservation easements.

6.15. Improve coordination of existing data amongcooperating entities. Current data available to help withunderstanding and addressing this problem includegauging stations/flow data for many streams; ADEQWest Fork White River Watershed Assessment Report,which provides local erosion prediction curves forstreambanks; area rainfall data; Geographical Informa-tion Systems data; U.S. Forest Service (USFS) hydro-logical data; The Nature Conservancy flow model;regional discharge curves for the Ozark and Ouachitamountain areas; and ADEQ and Nature Conservancyecoregional assessments.

6.16. As funds allow, develop data and conductanalysis to fill information gaps. Examples include(1) geological survey of groundwater, (2) fish andmacroinvertebrate data and changes over time,(3) regional erosion prediction curves and streambankerosion potential data, (4) regional discharge curves forthe Delta, Arkansas River Valley and Coastal Plainsareas, (5) evaluation of riparian areas within criticalwatersheds, (6) change in stream length over time and(7) sediment transport data throughout the state.

The ultimate measure of the program is whether ornot streams are removed from ADEQ’s List of ImpairedWaterbodies. The desired evaluation outcome is thatsurface erosion will not be listed as a primary orsecondary source contributing to impairment in futureimpaired waterbodies lists.

65


Through the five-year period of this plan, surfaceerosion education and outreach can be tracked onmultiple levels. First, program activities such as thenumber of participants in education and training pro-grams, number of fact sheets developed, and numberof newspaper articles, brochures or other materialsthat are distributed can be documented. In addition,the program can maintain an informal inventory ofassessments and restoration projects in planning,underway and completed among cooperating entities.These input measures track effort expended, which is afirst and necessary step toward affecting change.

The second level of evaluation focuses on whetherprogram activities result in human behavioral changes(i.e., BMP implementation). Currently, there are nosystematic mechanisms for measuring human behavioral change. Given the wide-ranging sources ofsurface erosion, measuring behavioral change will needto be project specific. For example, to evaluate behav-ioral change after training county road crews to reduceerosion from unpaved roads, a survey could beconducted to determine the miles of roads paved withalternate materials and the miles of ditch maintainedby alternative methods as a result of the training.Similar follow-up surveys could be constructed as acomponent of training for construction contractors.Where practical and cost effective, ANRC will requiregrantees to describe how they will attempt to measurebehavioral change in their project requests.

Modeling may be used to estimate sediment reduction from restoration projects. The success ofhydromodification projects in restoring fisheries can bemeasured through documenting changes in biologicalcommunities with various biological assessment proto-cols and matrices. The extent of intact riparian zonevegetation can be interpreted by GIS analysis land useand hydrography. Arkansas updates land use coverageapproximately every five years, which creates theopportunity for periodic evaluation of riparian zones inpriority watersheds.

For any of the goals to be achieved, agencies andorganizations must cooperate and dedicate resources.Volunteers are also needed, as is the support ofresidents and environmental/natural resource groups.The state of the economy, program funding for educa-tion and monitoring and changes in federal or stateregulations are external factors that could affect theprogram’s outcome.

County judges and their respective road maintenance departments are responsible for construc-tion and maintenance of roads in unincorporated areasof their counties. The USFS maintains BMPs for con-struction of forestry roads in national forests. AFC hasdeveloped voluntary BMP guidelines for private andindustry use, including construction of forest harvestroads, and monitors and reports on compliance withthose guidelines every other year. Arkansas RuralService, The Nature Conservancy, Arkansas Conserva-tion Partnership and the University of Arkansas havecooperated to develop and deliver rural road mainte-nance training programs in some regions of the state.

ADEQ regulates construction sites of one acre orgreater and smaller construction sites that are a part ofa common plan (e.g., a subdivision). In collaborationwith regional planning commissions, the University ofArkansas System Division of Agriculture, CooperativeExtension Service is working with communities subjectto Phase II small municipal separate storm sewer sys -tems (MS4s) NPDES permit requirements to helpconduct construction education and technical assis-tance programs in Northwest Arkansas and the PineBluff area.

Stream restoration and design has become anincreasingly important activity in both the public andprivate sectors for minimizing NPS pollution. Non -profit organizations, higher education institutions andmunicipalities provide technical assistance and helpsecure funding for surface erosion assessment, restora-tion and education opportunities. Instream gravelmining is regulated by ADEQ under Regulation No. 15.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates directchanges of a stream channel. Section 404 of theFederal Water Pollution Control Act establishes apermit program, administered by the Secretary of theArmy, acting through the Chief of Engineers. USACEhas the authority to review project plans and issuepermits for altering stream channels. ADEQ alsoreviews project plans and must issue certification

66


short-term activity authorization permits beforeUSACE can issue a Section 404 permit. Project man-agers and permit seekers who plan to modify streamchannels must work with both USACE and ADEQ toensure that stream geomorphology and long-termwater quality is not negatively altered or impacted.

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission implemented a Stream Teams Program in 1996. StreamTeams are groups of people who form or join a teamand adopt a stream or other waterbody in the state forthe purpose of keeping it clean and healthy. There arenow more than 500 Stream Teams statewide that carryout a variety of activities including litter pickups, repairof eroding streambanks on willing owners’ land andtree plantings to restore degraded riparian areas. Theyalso work with local leaders to better manage theirwatersheds and a variety of other activities aimed atconserving the natural resource.

To the extent possible, coordinators incorporatenatural channel design techniques to maximize aquaticand terrestrial habitat restoration. AGFC assists withimplementation costs through their Stream Teammini-grants. Along with private landowners, groupsthat have provided funding include the Multi-AgencyWetlands Planning Team, Conservation Districts,the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS), USFS, ANRC and municipalities.

ADEQ has provided assessment data, project reviewand technical assistance in the area of stream stabilityand restoration designs. ADEQ developed erosionprediction curves for the West Fork White River andused assessment methodologies to estimate sedimentloading rates from lateral streambank erosion. ADEQhas also used assessment data to prioritize sites forrestoration. ADEQ collected geomorphological data atseveral United States Geological Survey gauge stationsites to develop Ozark regional discharge curves andcollected reference reach data to develop referencereach geometry curves.

NRCS has provided technical assistance andcost-share, through its EQIP program, for stream stabilization projects. The national NRCS office alsoprovides technical assistance in the area of naturalchannel design for stream restoration.

Regulatory oversight exists for road construction inmany instances. State highway construction projects

are regulated under both the National EnvironmentalProtection Act and the NPDES Construction Storm-water Permit program administered by ADEQ. How-ever, there are several other types of road constructionthat are exempt from stormwater protection regula-tions and are a significant source of water qualitydegradation concern. When road construction mayaffect the quality of a waterbody, Section 404 and 401permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers andADEQ may need to be obtained.

Through its Environmental Division, the ArkansasDepartment of Transportation provides multidiscipli-nary review and analysis of project development andoperations to ensure compliance with environmentallaws, regulations and policies. ARDOT provides training to its contractors and staff on BMPs forconstruction stormwater management. NPS-relatedactivities routinely undertaken include geographicinformation systems analysis, wetland impact assess-ments and stormwater permitting. In addition, thedivision monitors water quality and implementswetland mitigation property management strategies.The highway department also offers its employeeserosion and sediment control training and has severalresources available, including a 2016 Erosion andSediment Control Design and Construction Manualavailable at www.arkansashighways.com/stormwater/erosion_sediment_manual.aspx.

To learn more about ARDOT’s stormwater manage-ment efforts, visit www.arkansashighways.com/stormwater/statewide_swmp.aspx. More informationabout AHTD’s role in NPS reduction and abatement isin the road construction and maintenance section ofthe plan.

ANRC provides technical assistance and mayprovide financial assistance for streambank stabiliza-tion, sediment reduction projects and prevention initiatives. Periodically ANRC provides training opportunities in the state on stream restoration.

Several nonprofit organizations provide technicalassistance and help secure funding for assessment,restoration and education opportunities. Watershedassessment projects that were conducted resulted inerosion prediction curves for sub-watersheds of theIllinois River and Upper Saline River. Also, a regionaleducation program, Mid-South Watershed TrainingProgram, was started. The program, funded by EPA’snational office, includes training for environmentalprofessionals and watershed coordinators in the area ofapplied fluvial geomorphology, watershed assessment

67


and natural channel design for reach restoration. TheNature Conservancy, Audubon Arkansas and the UpperWhite River Foundation have all partnered in supportof the training program. The Nature Conservancy

conducted a watershed assessment in northeasternArkansas, with the assessment resulting in erosionprediction curves in the Delta.

Appelboom, T., Chescheir, G., Skaggs, R., Hesterberg, D. (2002). Management practices for sediment reduction fromforest roads in the coastal plains. Transaction of the ASABE, 45(2), 337-344. doi: 10.13031/2013.8529

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2011). Center for Environmental Excellence byAASHTO Stormwater Management Community of Practice (CoP), State-of-the-Practice Report: Source Control.Retrieved from http://environment.transportation.org/pdf/communities_of_practice/final_report_sourcecontrol_stormwatercop.pdf

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. (2008). 2008 List of Impaired Waterbodies (303(d) List). Retrievedfrom www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/planning/pdfs/2008_303d_list.pdf

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. (2016). Most Recent Draft-Post Public Comments-ImpairedWaterbodies List (303(d) by ADEQ Planning Segment. Retrieved fromwww.adeq.state.ar.us/water/planning/integrated/303d/list.aspx

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. (2016). Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Under the NationalPollutant Discharge Elimination System and the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act. Retrieved fromwww.adeq.state.ar.us/water/permits/npdes/stormwater/pdfs/construction/arr150000_permit.pdf

Arkansas Department of Transportation. (2015). Annual Report of the Arkansas Highway and TransportationDepartment. Retrieved from www.arkansashighways.com/annual_report/AnnualReport2015.pdf

Arkansas Forestry Commission. (2002). Best Management Practices for Water Quality Protection. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aad.arkansas.gov/Websites/aad/files/Content/5944986/BMPs.pdf

Arkansas Forestry Commission. (2011). Voluntary Implementation of Forestry Best Management Practices for WaterQuality Protection in Arkansas: Results of the 2010-2011 BMP Implementation Survey. Retrieved fromwww.aad.arkansas.gov/Websites/aad/files/Content/5944990/2010-11_BMP_Imp._Report_CORRECTED.pdf

Arkansas Geographic Information System Office. (2017). Highway Linear Referencing System (line). Retrieved fromhttps://gis.arkansas.gov/product/highway-linear-referencing-system-line/

Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. (2001). The Massachusetts Unpaved Roads BMP Manual: A Guidebook onHow to Improve Water Quality While Addressing Common Problems. Retrieved from the Official Website of theCommonwealth of Massachusetts: www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/water/resources/a-thru-m/dirtroad.pdf

Federal Highway Administration. (2014). All Public Roads Geospatial Representation Study, ARNOLD ReferenceManual. Retrieved fromwww.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/documents/arnold_reference_manual_2014.pdf

Formica, S.J., Van Epps, M.A., Nelson, M.A., Cotter, A.S., Morris, T.L. & Beck, J.M. (2004). West Fork White RiverWatershed-Sediment Source Inventory and Evaluation. Retrieved fromhttps://elibrary.asabe.org/abstract.asp?aid=17387

Rothwell, R.L. (1983). Erosion and Sediment Production at Road-stream crossings. Forestry Chronicle 23:62-66.Retrieved from http://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdf/10.5558/tfc59062-2

Swank, W.T., & Douglass, J.E. (1974). Streamflow Greatly Reduced by Converting Deciduous Hardwood Stands to Pine.Science 185(4154), 857-859. Retrieved http://science.sciencemag.org/content/185/4154/857

68


The Nature Conservancy. (2014). Better Unpaved Roads for Nature and People. Retrieved fromwww.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/arkansas/arkansas-roads-brochure-2014.pdf?redirect=https-301

U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2017). Interactive Data Application. Retrieved fromwww.bea.gov

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995). Erosion, Sediment and Runoff Control for Roads and Highways(EPA-841-F-95-008d). Retrieved from https://nepis.epa.gov

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Nonpoint Source: Urban Areas. Retrieved fromwww.epa.gov/nps/nonpoint-source-urban-areas

69

70

Arkansas’ landscape is changing. Urban areasare spreading rapidly in some parts of the state. Asurbanization of the landscape increases, stormwatermanagement problems increase. The water flows offimpervious surfaces, such as driveways, rooftops andsidewalks, into storm drains. These openings alongroads and in parking lots connect to pipes that carrythe water and pollutants directly to local streams orlakes. Because water cannot soak or percolate throughimpervious surfaces, there’s more stormwater runofffrom cities than in forests and fields.

The last National Water Quality Inventory report toCongress listed Urban Runoff in the top 10 sources ofimpairment of surveyed estuaries and surveyed lakes(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2009). TheArkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)identifies Urban Runoff as a source of contamination inits 2016 draft Impaired Waterbodies List.

The Urban Runoff Statewide Program focuses onpollutants that can be generated by households,businesses and municipalities not required to obtainNational Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permits, regardless if they are located in ruralor urban counties.

Arkansas’ Impaired Waterbodies List, commonlycalled the 303(d) List, identified urban runoff as asource of impairment for three waterways in JeffersonCounty. The presence of lead, pathogens and dissolvedoxygen were noted issues for some of those segments.

ADEQ has identified Arkansas waterways that arenot fully supporting their designated uses in theagency’s most recent List of Impaired Waterbodies.Urban runoff is listed as a potential source of impairment on that list.

Activities that take place in and around urban households and businesses may contribute in variousforms to water quality impairment.

The ultimate goal of the urban runoff pollutionprevention program is household and business sourcesof NPS pollution will never be identified as contributingto impairment of the waters of the state. Componentsof the program include, but are not limited to, increas-ing public awareness through education, training andother voluntary programs.

7.1. Work with ADH to increase awareness offunding sources available for repairing malfunctioningor improperly installed septic systems.

7.2. As resources allow, cooperatively assist otherstate and federal agencies, groups or organizations toassess the impact of household and business use offertilizers, pesticides, and other common products thatdo not require permits but can affect water quality.Knowledge gained may be utilized to develop informa-tion materials, target outreach and awarenessprograms and promote the use of appropriate BMPs.

7.3. Encourage cooperating entities like solid wastedistricts to work together to maintain a shared libraryof BMPs that is readily accessible to households,municipalities, employers and others for the use,handling, storage and disposal of chemicals, oils andgrease, cleaning agents, adhesives, lawn products, etc.

7.4. As resources allow, continue to develop and implement targeted education programs for specificproducts and high-impact audiences (e.g., fertilizer andpesticide use, storage, handling, and disposal for streetand road crews, public utilities, golf course managersand independent lawn maintenance crews).

7.5. Promote broad-based education programsaimed at increasing awareness and disseminatingBMPs to urban and rural households and businesses(e.g., HOME*A*SYST, URBAN*A*SYST).

7.6. Encourage the development or modificationof applicable programs to implement a householdand business hazardous waste and chemical collectionprogram.


71

For the urban runoff statewide program, the desiredevaluation outcome is that households and businessesare not contributing to impairment of Arkansas water-ways through urban runoff. This is ultimately moni-tored through Arkansas’ Impaired Waterbodies List, or303(d) List. The program objectives represent inter-ventions the state has identified as key to this goal.

Educational programs concerning runoff frombusiness and household chemicals and fertilizers can beevaluated by the agencies conducting the educationprograms through attendance logs, attendee post-program evaluations and document behavior change.Hazardous waste collection programs can be evaluatedby the volume or mass of hazardous waste collected.

Management of household chemical and pesticideNPS pollution can best be achieved by an effectiveinformation, education, public awareness and collection programs. Local hazardous chemical pickupand disposal programs have been successful in elimi-nating hazardous chemicals ending up in the environ-ment. Promotion, continuation and development ofnew programs are necessary for the successful preven-tion of water quality degradation resulting from household chemicals and fertilizers.

Some local cities have ordinances directing whatshould happen with pet and yard waste disposal andswimming pool drainage. Fayetteville has enacted astreamside ordinance. The city recognizes that stream-side buffer areas improve water quality by reducingnutrients and protecting streambanks from erosion,thereby reducing the amount of sediments enteringthe stream.

Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality. (2016). Arkansas’ Final/Draft Impaired Waterbodies – 303(d) Listby Year. Retrieved from www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/planning/integrated/303d/list.aspx

City of Fayetteville. (2011). Streamside Protection Ordinance. Retrieved from www.fayetteville-ar.gov/1214/Streamside-Protection

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). 2004 National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress(EPA 841-R-08-001). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/2009_01_22_305b_2004report_2004_305breport.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Nonpoint Source: Urban Areas. Retrieved fromwww.epa.gov/nps/nonpoint-source-urban-areas

72

A basic premise of the Arkansas Nonpoint Source(NPS) Management Plan is found in its adaptivemanagement design. The annual review process alongwith attention to new knowledge and experiences ofstakeholders and new technical capabilities are allcomponents of the current philosophy of having a flexible plan – a plan that is adaptive to change andsensitive to the developments taking place in the stateand nationally.

The 2018-2023 NPS Management Plan identifies anumber of issues and needs, but it is not inclusive ofthe full range of possible projects important to asuccessful statewide NPS management effort. Given thedynamics of the social, political and economic situa-tion, this plan aims to strategically address the issuesand needs that fit within the current capacity of thestate program.

Stakeholders and the Arkansas Natural ResourcesCommission (ANRC) management team meet on aregular basis to discuss issues, review the available NPSmodeling data and plan for activities and projects thataddress NPS pollution reduction.

Strengths of the NPS Planning Process:

• Strong relationships across agencies, organizationsand other stakeholders

• Development of nine element plans• New and emerging technologies • Adoption of Best Management Practices (BMP)

Issues that need greater attention with the NPSPlanning Process:

• The changing nature of NPS policy• Public and private investments in the state • The full potential of cross-program fund

leveraging• New and emerging technologies• New organizational development and support• New data and interpretation of data

• Educational opportunities associated with theprogram

• Nontraditional partnership opportunities

The plan should be an adaptive document focusedon the future, changing as appropriate to represent theArkansas circumstance, investment and priority needs.

The dynamic elements found in the Arkansas NPSManagement Plan include:

• Activities of local conservation districts, watershedgroups, and partners in implementation, educa-tion and outreach have expanded greatly over thepast five years.

• Advanced technologies continue to play a majorrole in NPS planning, modeling, detection andremediation.

• Political and legal hurdles encountered in pursuitof new policies, such as Low Impact Development(LID) and Riparian Buffer Ordinances.

• The expanded role of regional water supplysystems in source water protection.

Furthermore, new design strategies, understandingof stream geomorphology and adaptations of BMPsintroduce the state to new management options. Onesuch management strategy, Low Impact Development(LID), encourages systematic understanding ofstormwater as an effective component of the landscape,both as an important resource and as a risk to thedownstream ecosystem.

New knowledge of stream geomorphology andlandscape design features allows the use of the land-scape and natural system-emulating remediation tools toenhance water quality. These tools mimic naturalsystems and employ naturally occurring plant materialsand geophysical features. This approach steps back fromthe human-centric system control designs of the pastand works to employ the processes of natural landscapesand bioremediation to reduce the natural energy ofstormwater and thereby capture and reduce the NPSpollution impact. These are a few of the innovationshelping the state adapt to the natural world.


73

The NPS Management Plan may include investmentsof public utilities, municipalities and private organiza-tions for NPS management efforts. Activities andinvestments by these organizations include:

• Establishing riparian forest buffers.• Forest management schemes and reforestation

complementary to the USDA conservationprograms.

• Land acquisition, easements and ordinances initiated by public utilities and municipalitiesfor the purpose of water quality improvementand enhancement.

These developments further strengthen theargument for the 2018-2023 NPS Management Planto be flexible, constantly adapting to changing circumstances.

ANRC and its partners must have the potential tocapture and quantify these and other activities takingplace in the state. For the plan to be truly adaptive, itmust be able to respond to new opportunities,resources, investments and priorities as they arise.To do this, ANRC must continue to collaborate withmunicipalities, public and private organizations, localwatershed groups, nontraditional partners and othersto address NPS management in Arkansas. Continuedengagement by these partners requires a process thatremains relevant to their perceived needs and benefits,adapting to their changing knowledge and situations.

The intent of this section is to give voice to the truenature of Arkansas’ adaptive NPS Management Plan,making clear the planners’ purpose of constant vigi-lance and attention to the immediate and future poten-tial of NPS program needs. ANRC, as the lead agency,will remain in constant search of opportunities forstrategic investment and partnerships, working incollaboration with stakeholders. The agency will seekthe best possible science, data, public policy, educationand economic tools to support and form its manage-ment decisions while taking public perceptioninto consideration.

The program and policy landscape is ever changing,and several issues have developed in recent years thatwill impact NPS and the NPS planning process. Thoseissues are described.

An unpaved road is any road, equipment path orautomotive transportation corridor that is not paved, is

open to public access and owned/operated by anyfederal, state, county, municipal or other governmentalor quasi-governmental agencies. The main pollutantassociated with unpaved roads is sediment. Sedimen-tation can originate from both maintenance activitiesand the lack thereof; however, best management prac-tices (BMPs) including water diversion and retentiondevices can reduce the sediment load entering ourstreams, rivers and lakes. Given that approximately85 percent of rural roads in Arkansas are unpaved(The Nature Conservancy, 2014), this is a majorNPS issue.

As discussed in the Surface Erosion section, Arkansashas established an Unpaved Roads Program and Fundthrough Act 898 of 2015. The act aimed to create anincentive-based unpaved roads management program toencourage the utilization of best management practiceson rural, unpaved roads to reduce erosion, improvewater quality and support county finances.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)issued a memorandum in 2012 to all states requiringthem to develop an inventory of all public roads (pavedand unpaved) through a Linear Referencing System(LRS) (FHWA, 2014). FHWA aimed to stop the use ofmultiple sources and different formats of road datain an effort to have one nationwide LRS to serve assessment and planning needs.

Conservation practices that improve soil health areseen as key strategies to address agriculturally relatedenvironmental concerns with water and pollution.Conservation funds through the Natural ResourcesConservation Service (NRCS) are available to eligibleagricultural producers to use best managementpractices for conservation; one leading practice is theuse of cover crops. Research has shown that covercrops support water conservation, soil fertility, soilbuilding, enhancement of organic matter, weed/pestcontrol and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Clark,2008). Research suggests that improvement in soilhealth helps to address the excess nutrient loads suchas those con tributing to the Gulf Hypoxia issue(Clark, 2008). The NRCS, Arkansas Association ofConservation Districts, ANRC and the newly formedfarmer led group, the Arkansas Soil Health Allianceis actively working to promote soil health andcover cropping.


74

Harmful algal blooms, or HABs, are an increasingconcern for water resource managers.

HABs are occurring with increasing frequency andall around the country. The U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) and states are starting to takeaction. For example, the EPA recently issued healthadvisories related to HABs. Algae are important for thehealth of lakes and streams because they form the baseof the food web, but sometimes these algae grow out ofcontrol and have detrimental effects.

Most harmful algal blooms happen in slow-moving,warm waters subjected to a lot of sunlight. High levelsof nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus also stimulatethe growth of algae to the point of a harmful bloom.

The majority of HABs are caused by a type of algaecalled cyanobacteria. Cyanobacteria can producecompounds that cause taste and odor problems. Theycan also produce toxins that may cause nausea, vomit-ing and liver damage if ingested by humans, and skincontact with the toxins can cause rashes and irritation.Cyanobacteria toxins have even been known to be fatalfor pets and livestock that drink contaminated water.

Cyanobacteria blooms can be particularly devastatingin lakes and rivers used for drinking water supply andrecreation. Taste and odor compounds and toxins canbe very difficult and costly for drinking water utilities toadequately treat. Contact advisories and beach closurescan cause significant economic losses for tourism andrecreation too.

In an effort to understand HABs in Arkansas, amulti-interest workgroup was formed in November2015 to begin discussing complex issues regardingHABs. The Arkansas HAB Workgroup has beenseparated into Recreation and Source Water Subcom-mittees. Each subcommittee has worked to communi-cate ongoing HAB monitoring and is working todevelop recommendations for future monitoring andresponse protocols.

Available funding to support stream gauging inArkansas is expected to decline in coming years, requir-ing more collaboration from non-governmental agen-cies to meet the need for streamflow measurement. TheArkansas Natural Resources Commission currentlyfunds a large portion of stream gauging work done inthe state by the U.S. Geological Survey, spending nearly$364,000 in 2017 on the cooperative agreement.

Amaranthus palmeri, better known as “pigweed” orPalmer amaranth, has created significant problems forArkansas farmers. This persistent weed is difficult tomanage, having developed resistance to some herbicidesand, with its large number of seeds, is extremely prolific.

A significant portion of soybeans and cotton plantedin Arkansas contains a trait making the crops resistantto several herbicides, including dicamba. In 2017, theState Plant Board allowed in-crop use of an herbicidecontaining dicamba for use in fields planted with cropsbred for dicamba tolerance. Previously, dicamba usein agriculture was limited to pasture and rangeland.Unmodified crops such as soybeans, peanuts and somehorticultural crops are extremely sensitive to dicambaand can be damaged if the herbicide moves away fromits intended targets.

Through the 2017 growing season, nearly 1,000complaints alleging misuse of dicamba were filed withthe Arkansas State Plant Board. In July 2017, a ruleestablishing a ban on the sale and use of dicamba inArkansas went into effect for 120 days.

The governor appointed a taskforce in August 2017 toreview the issue. The task force recommendations wereaccepted by the Pesticide Committee of the State PlantBoard. The Arkansas State Plant Board eventuallyadopted new regulations on pesticides that contain theactive ingredient dicamba, limiting the time of yearwhen dicamba can be applied for agricultural uses. Theregulations went into effect Feb. 1, 2018. Conversationsregarding dicamba are likely to continue into the future.

If farmers turn to tillage for weed control, in theory,there is the potential for erosion and sediment enteringwaterways through runoff water. This type of scenariotypically leads to turbidity in streams. However, thereare several factors that might prevent tillage from beingused, such as a lack of skilled farm labor and lack ofequipment. Tillage has been used primarily for seedbedpreparation and for furrow irrigation.

Thousands of natural gas wells have been drilledin the Fayetteville Shale area over the past decade,prompting concern about the potential of the hydraulicfracturing process to pollute local waterbodies andgroundwater.

In 2012, the U.S. Geological Survey issued a reportsaying scientists found no significant effects on groundwater quality from shale gas developing in the


75

two-county area they sampled (Kress, et al.). Sincethen, natural gas exploration has come to a near stop asoversupply and low prices led companies to movingtheir drilling rigs and operations elsewhere. Thisdecline in drilling has reduced the threat of impairmentfor the time being.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released areport in December 2016 saying the EPA found scientificevidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impactdrinking water resources under some circumstances,such as spills or inadequately treated hydraulic fractur-ing wastewater. Parts of the Lake Conway-Point RemoveWatershed fall within the Shale area. The threat ofimpairment will return should natural gas explorationand production resume in Arkansas.

An extensive group of stakeholders that includedsignificant public participation and interagency coope ration developed the Arkansas Water Plan (AWP)through detailed technical evaluations and stakeholderinput. The plan recognizes that while we continue tostruggle with known water issues, the recommenda-tions in this plan, when implemented, can meet thewater demands of the citizens of Arkansas (State)through 2050. The NPS Program is one component ofthe larger AWP. Recommendations were made foraddressing the issue of nonpoint source pollution in theState, shown below:

Issue: Water quality is affected by nonpoint sources ofpollutants and nonpoint source management projectsneed State funding in addition to federal funding.

Recommendations for improving water quality include:

1. Propose legislation to designate funding specificallyfor financing NPS management programs and imple-menting NPS management practices.

2. ANRC will collaborate with ADEQ and AGFC throughthe biennial Clean Water Act (CWA) water qualityreview processes, and the water quality criteriareview to determine attainment or nonattainmentof water quality standards in streams and identifythe sources and causes of nonattainment:a. Streams impaired because of NPS pollution will

be considered as priority streams for restorationthrough the NPS management program.

b. Streams currently attaining water qualitystandards in priority watersheds will be considered for protection through the NPSmanagement program.

3. Study whether nutrient management plans should berequired outside current nutrient surplus areas.

4. Leverage funding from multiple sources such asSource Water Protection under the Safe DrinkingWater Act, administered through the ADH, toaddress NPS pollution in watersheds with drinkingwater sources.

The current plan lists state and federal agencies,nonprofit organizations and local government entitiesas key partners in the updating of the NPS Manage-ment Plan. The goal of this section is to encourage suchorganizations to expand their roles from simply beingvoices in the planning process to that of active partnersin broader program implementation. Implementationis more than conservation projects. It may also includesuch activities as:

• Surveys• Education• Outreach• Public policy initiatives• Planning and organizational development• Monitoring• Implementation• Other projects

The NPS Management Program will actively identifypartners, strive to quantify the investments beingmade, assess needs and outcomes and encouragecontinued investments.

It is not possible to know every group and/orindividual engaged to some degree in nonpoint sourcemanagement. It is also difficult to anticipate the municipal policy preference best suited to improvewater quality and mitigate NPS pollution.

Other variables include the emerging federal administrative changes that influence policy andfunding that may impact the state NPS program andsustainability. In addition, state budget concerns maylimit total program capacity from traditional sourceswhile an expanding role by nonprofit organizationscould completely change local investment and the


76

ultimate outcome of NPS programs. The challenge is tostay engaged with networks and stakeholders alreadyworking with ANRC to identify work being done andapplication of new knowledge and technologies inArkansas while encouraging new involvement andinvestment by stakeholders.

This section will fulfill the original objective ofmaintaining the adaptability of the plan and focusingattention on the needs of the state and the plan as itrelates to those needs. It is the intent of the section tomore accurately capture the myriad of actions takingplace in Arkansas that have a direct or indirect impacton the NPS management of the state.

Following are examples of Arkansas investments inNPS pollution management that have not beenaccounted for in previous NPS Management Plans.

• Conservation Districts provided technical assistance to thousands of landowners acrossthe state and developed conservation plans inwhich conservation practices were applied.Many of the prescribed conservation practicesand BMPs were implemented with private funds.

• Various groups such as the Friends of FourcheCreek and its partners removed more than25 tons of trash over four cleanups, distributed1,400 drain markers, initiated 17 drain muralsin Central Arkansas and secured Marine FuelTax funds for a new boat ramp at a park inLittle Rock.

• Streamside landowners received erosion assessment and education in the BeaverWatershed from the Beaver WatershedAlliance and in the Middle Fork Saline Riverarea by the Arkansas Natural HeritageCommission.

• Northwest Arkansas Regional PlanningCommission contracts with the University ofArkansas System Division of Agriculture,Cooperative Extension Service to provide18 cities, Benton and Washington countiesand the University of Arkansas regionalurban stormwater education and outreach opportunities. Extension also provides storm -water education training for employees ofthose governments.

Federally-funded activities outside the realm of theSection 319 program are not identified or countedagainst the state’s NPS effort. It is not the intent of thissection to in any way account for federal investmentoutside that of EPA. However, federal funding fromsources such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, theU.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Department of AgricultureNatural Resources Conservation Service and the U.S.Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency hasbeen significant in recent years.

It would be a mistake to say that these fundingsources and projects have not influenced the state’s319 management program. It would also be a mistakefor the planning process to ignore these investments asthe stakeholders review and direct the plan’s imple-mentation. These federal investments support andcomplement the NPS Management Plan. Most, if not allof the federal programs, require supplementary invest-ments from both the public and private sectors andANRC often plays a role in helping identify additionalfunding opportunities or partners.

Examples of collaborative federal activities in recentyears that supplement ANRC’s 319 efforts include:

• Use of the Regional Conservation PartnershipProgram in the Red River Watershed, the IllinoisRiver Watershed and the Bayou Meto-LowerArkansas Watershed. The voluntary programprovides financial and technical assistance toagricultural producers for addressing resourceconcerns such as water quality, water quantityand wildlife. This initiative received majorsupport from the Environmental Quality Incen-tives Program or EQIP and from the RegionalConservation Partnership Program or RCPP.

• Use of the Rice Stewardship Partnership toSustain the Future of Rice program by DucksUnlimited. Landowners in this projects supportedby the Regional Conservation PartnershipProgram applied a systems approach usingapproved conservation practices for the purposeof addressing resource concerns to conservewater. The project area covered 30 rice-growingcounties in Arkansas.

• Use of the Mississippi River Basin HealthyWatershed Initiative in the Strawberry Watershedand Caney Creek to target a new area in theimpaired watershed where accelerated conserva-tion funding has never been used. Conservationpractices implemented aid in improving waterquality and water quantity.


77

Barber, T., Norsworthy, J., Scott, B., Ross, J., and Hightower, M. (2017). Dicamba in Arkansas Frequently AskedQuestions (FSA2182). Retrieved from www.uaex.edu/publications/pdf/FSA-2181.pdf

Clark, A. (2008). Managing Cover Crops Profitably, 3rd Edition. College Park, MD: Sustainable Agriculture Network.

Federal Highway Administration. (2014). All Public Roads Geospatial Representation Study, ARNOLD ReferenceManual. Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/documents/arnold_reference_manual_2014.pdf

Kresse, T.M., Warner, N.R., Hays, P.D., Down, A., Vengosh, A., and Jackson, R.B. (2012). Shallow groundwater qualityand geochemistry in the Fayetteville Shale gas-production area, north-central Arkansas, 2011. U.S. GeologicalSurvey Scientific Investigations Report 2012–5273. Retrieved from https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5273/

The Nature Conservancy. (2014). Better Unpaved Roads for Nature and People. Retrieved from https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/arkansas/arkansas-roads-brochure-2014.pdf?redirect=https-301

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1995). Erosion, Sediment and Runoff Control for Roads and Highways(EPA-841-F-95-008d). Retrieved from https://nepis.epa.gov

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from the HydraulicFracturing Water Cycle on Drinking Water Resources in the United States (Final Report) (EPA/600/R-16/236F).Retrieved from https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/hfstudy/recordisplay.cfm?deid=332990

Many of the activities described earlier in this Plancontribute to the impairment of Arkansas waterways.However, that does not always need to be the case.Landowners and managers can take steps to prevent orreduce nonpoint source pollution (NPS) through theuse of best management practices (BMPs). Thesepractices, or strategies, can prevent or reduce themovement of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and otherpollutants from the land to surface or ground water.

BMPs are designed to protect water quality frompotential adverse effects of land management practicesfrom all locations within a watershed. They can be usedby homeowners, municipalities, farmers, industries,counties, state and federal government agencies oranyone who manages or owns lands. While BMPs aretailored to a particular land management situation andgeographical location, they are implemented for thesame basic goal of protecting our water sources.

The following pages provide an overview of commonbest management practices used to prevent or addressnonpoint source pollution in a variety of settings. Thisis not an exhaustive list of BMPs but is meant toprovide an initial idea of what steps can be taken toprotect water quality. Consult with governmentagencies or organizations working within your field formore suggestions.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has longidentified six management measures for controllingagricultural NPS (U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, 2003). They are:

1. Nutrient management2. Pesticide management3. Erosion and sediment control4. Animal feeding operations5. Grazing management6. Irrigation water management

These practices are discussed using examples fromthe Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).The majority of management practices utilized in theNPS program for agriculture are identified by theNatural Resources Conservation Service in theirNational Conservation Practice Standards and theState Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG), which isregularly updated and can be found online.

Other NRCS-approved practices may be used inArkansas’ NPS Pollution Management Program,provided those practices are part of an overall farmplan developed by or under the direction of NRCS. Inaddition, Arkansas continues the process of imple-menting regulations on the application of nutrients andpoultry litter and for certification and training of nutrient applicators.

The following is a summary of managementmeasures and practices to be utilized by the statewideagricultural NPS Pollution Management Program.

The goal of this management measure is tominimize nutrient loss from agricultural lands occur-ring by edge-of-field runoff and by leaching. The focusof nutrient management is the increased efficiency withwhich applied nutrients are used by crops, therebyreducing the amount available to be transported toboth surface and ground waters.

Develop, implement and periodically update a nutrient management plan to (1) apply nutrients atrates necessary to achieve realistic crop yields,(2) improve the timing of nutrient application and(3) use agronomic crop production technology toincrease nutrient use efficiency. When the source of thenutrients is something other than commercial fertil-izer, determine the nutrient value and the rate of avail-ability of the nutrients. Determine and credit thenitrogen contribution of any legume crop. Soil andplant tissue testing should be used routinely. Refer toNRCS Technical List and apply BMPs as appropriate.

For row crop farmers who do not use animal manureas a fertilizer, soil testing is critical to determiningproper fertilizer application rates. The University ofArkansas System Division of Agriculture offers free

78


79

soil testing to the public. The testing is funded by aspecial fee that the state levies on fertilizer purchases.These tests produce fertilizer and lime recommenda-tions that assist in efforts to reduce application of excessive nutrients.

Programs to implement nutrient managementinclude:

•

Arkansas Natural Resources Commission (ANRC)shall certify the competence of individuals toapply nutrients and provide training relating tonutrient application. The training shall, at aminimum, allow individuals to meet all require-ments of the NRCS conservation practicestandards for waste utilization and relatedpractices for Arkansas as listed in the NRCS FieldOffice Technical Guide. All persons making nutri-ent application in Nutrient Surplus Areas asdefined by the Arkansas General Assembly mustbe certified.

•

ANRC has implemented a program to train andcertify people who prepare nutrient managementplans. Nutrient management plans will indicatehow nutrients should be applied to fields andother land for crop production while protectingground and surface water from excessive nutrientenrichment.

•

ANRC will encourage prudent practices regardingthe application and management of soil nutrientsand poultry litter to protect and enhance thestate’s surface water quality while allowing foroptimum soil fertility and proper plant growth.The primary goal is to maintain the benefitsderived from the wise use of poultry litter,commercial fertilizers and other soil nutrientswhile avoiding unwanted effects from excessnutrient applications on the waters of the state. Infurtherance of this goal, these rules providerequirements applicable to NSAs. These rules aredesigned to protect the waters within the statefrom adverse effects of excess nutrients whileallowing for maximum soil fertility and properplant growth.

In 2010, ANRC adopted revisions to the ArkansasPhosphorus Index or P-Index, which is used to assess

the risk of phosphorus runoff from pastures andhayland as part of a farm nutrient management planin NSAs.

The major changes included expanding the index toinclude liquid swine and poultry litter and biosolidsfrom wastewater treatment plants. Changes alsoinclude better accounting for the soluble phosphorus inapplied manure/biosolids and mineralization of theorganic phosphorus fraction. Transport changesincluded improved handling of pasture condition andgrazing. The biggest changes were giving credit forphosphorus reduction from implementing severalNRCS-approved conservation practices (Sharpleyet al., 2010).

The goal of this management measure is to reducecontamination of ground and surface water from pesti-cides. The basic concept, according to EPA’s PesticideManagement Measures for Nonpoint Source Pollution,is to foster effective and safe use of pesticides withoutcausing degradation to the environment.

To reduce contamination of ground and surfacewater from pesticides, consider the following series ofsteps or thought processes:

1. List pest problems, previous pest controlmeasures, and cropping history.

2. Evaluate the soil and physical characteristics ofthe site including mixing, loading, and storageareas for potential leaching or runoff of pesticides.

3. Use integrated pest management strategies thatapply pesticides only when an economic benefitto the producer will be achieved (i.e., applicationsbased on economic thresholds) and apply pesti-cides efficiently and at times when runoff lossesare least likely.

4. When pesticide applications are necessary and achoice of registered materials exists, consider thepersistence, toxicity, runoff potential, and leach-ing potential of products in making a selection.

5. Periodically calibrate pesticide application equipment.

6. Use anti-backflow devices on the water supplyhose in addition to other safe mixing and loadingpractices, such as a solid pad for mixing and load-ing and various new technologies for reducingmixing and loading risks.

Refer to NRCS Technical List and apply BMPs asappropriate.


80

Apply the erosion component of a ResourceManagement System as defined in the Field OfficeTechnical Guide of NRCS to minimize the delivery ofsediment from agricultural lands to surface waters, ordesign and install a combination of management andphysical practices to settle the settleable solids andassociated pollutants in runoff delivered from thecontributing area for storms of up to and including a10-year, 24-hour frequency.

Soil erosion can be avoided by maintaining a protective cover on the soil and modifying the land-scape to control runoff amounts and rates. To avoidand/or minimize water erosion, include high-residue,perennial and sod crops in the cropping system, growcover crops, manage crop residues and shorten thelength and steepness of slopes. To avoid and/or mini-mize wind erosion, keep soil covered with plants orresidue, plant windbreaks, use stripcropping, increasesurface roughness, cultivate on the contour and main-tain soil aggregates at a size less likely to be carriedby wind.

There has been increased interest in growing covercrops on row crop lands. Cover crops are non-cashcrops used to conserve soil and water and to promotesoil health. Cover crops are planted in the fall and areoften chemically terminated in the spring before plant-ing cash crops. To help promote cover crops and soilhealth, a group of early-adopter farmers have created anonprofit called Arkansas Soil Health Alliance.

With increased concerns over both food productionand natural resource sustainability, soil health is anemerging practice and science. Soil health is defined byNRCS as the continued capacity of soil to function as avital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals andhumans. Soil health may be thought of as the integratedeffect of physical, chemical and biological properties andprocesses on soil. Better soil health is thought to protectwater quality by reducing runoff and increasing water-holding capacity of the soil, improve infiltration,promote nutrient cycling, increase organic matter,improve structure and ultimately reduce irrigation andfertilizer needs.

While it is generally accepted that conservationpractices such as nutrient management, cover crops,reduced-tillage, residue management, etc., can improvesoil health, the questions remain: What is soil health?How is it measured? What kind of metrics are neces-sary to document the benefit of these practices on soilhealth? Additionally, how does soil health affect water

quality and help farmers deal more effectively withclimate change and weather extremes? Integrated soilhealth measurements, such as the Haney Test or SoilHealth Test, provide an indexing approach to soilhealth that provides a relative comparison, but it islargely untested in Arkansas.

Animal feeding operations (AFOs) should bemanaged to minimize impacts on water quality andpublic health. To meet this goal, management of AFOsshould address the following eight components:

1. Divert clean water. Siting or managementpractices should divert clean water (run-on fromuplands, water from roofs) from contact withfeedlots and holding pens, animal manure, ormanure storage systems.

2. Prevent seepage. Buildings, collection systems,conveyance systems, and storage facilities shouldbe designed and maintained to prevent seepage toground and surface water.

3. Provide adequate storage. Liquid manure storagesystems should be:

• Designed to safely store the quantity andcontents of animal manure and wastewaterproduced, contaminated runoff from the facilityand rainfall from the 25-year, 24-hour storm.

• Consistent with planned utilization or utilization practices and schedule. Dry manure,such as that produced in certain poultry andbeef operations, should be stored in productionbuildings, storage facilities or otherwise coveredto prevent precipitation from coming into directcontact with the manure.

4. Apply manure in accordance with a nutrientmanagement plan that meets the performanceexpectations of the nutrient management measure.

5. Address lands receiving wastes. Areas receivingmanure should be managed in accordance withthe erosion and sediment control, irrigation andgrazing management measures as applicable,including practices such as crop and grazingmanagement to minimize movement of nutrientand organic materials applied and vegetatedbuffers or other management practices to trap,store and process materials that might moveduring precipitation events.


81

6. Recordkeeping. AFO operators should keeprecords that indicate the quantity of manureproduced and its utilization or disposal method,including land application.

7. Mortality management. Dead animals should bemanaged in a way that does not adversely affectground or surface water.

8. Consider the full range of environmentalconstraints and requirements. When citing a newor expanding facility, consideration should begiven to the proximity of the facility to:

• Surface waters• Extraordinary Resource Waters• Areas of high leaching potential• Areas of shallow groundwater• Sink holes, karst geology or other sensitive

areas

Additional factors to consider include siting tominimize off-site odor drift and the land baseavailable for utilization of animal manure in accor-dance with the nutrient management measure.Manure should be used or disposed of in ways thatreduce the risk of environmental degradation,including air quality and wildlife impacts, andcomply with federal, state and local law.

Programs and practices to be utilized in implementation of animal feeding operations andmanagement include:

•

•

•

•

Those who own or operate poultry feedingoperations where 2,500 or more poultry arehoused or confined on any given day arerequired to register annually their localconservation district. Such registration willinclude the following:• The number and type of birds housed or

maintained by the operation• The location of the operation by latitude

and longitude and county, township,range and section

• The business address of the owner ofthe facility

• The address of the facility if differentfrom the owner’s business address

• The type of waste handling system• The type of litter management system

and the amount of litter stored• The method used for carcass disposal• The acreage owned, controlled or used by

the poultry feeding operation and usedfor landlord application of litter

• Tons of litter produced, removed, trans-ferred or otherwise used by the poultryfeeding operation and the type of transferor usage.

• The poultry integrator or integrators withwhich the poultry feeding operation hascontracted to provide poultry litter.

• Any other relevant information deemednecessary by ANRC.

•

Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission(ALPC) regulations specify acceptabledisposal methods that address disease controlconcerns as well as environmental concerns.These regulations can be found atwww.aad.arkansas.gov/regulationsand include:

•Carcasses may be buried at a site at least100 yards away from a well and in a placewhere a stream cannot be contaminated.Anthrax carcasses are to be covered withone inch of lime. Other carcasses may becovered with lime, particularly to controlodors. All carcasses are to be coveredwith at least two feet of dirt. Carcassesare not to be buried in a landfill withoutprior approval of the state veterinarian.

•

Disposal of on-farm die-off of poultry maybe through any method approved by ALPCincluding incineration, composting, extru-sion, rendering, cooking for swine feed oron-farm freezing. All handling andmovement of carcasses must be in confor-mance with the regulations of ALPC.

In the event of a major die-off, renderingwill be the method of choice for disposal,


82

except when death is caused by a diseaseentity. Alternately, a ditch may be usedwhen dug two to four feet deep andcovered by at least two feet of dirt. Limemay be used to control odor if needed.Commercial services may collect,process, and dispose of animal carcasses,provided that all applicable rules andregulations of the ALPC are followed.

In addition, NRCS and the University ofArkansas System Division of Agriculture,Cooperative Extension Service maintainrecommendations for proper mortalitydisposal, including information aboutcomposting livestock. Refer to NRCSTechnical List and apply BMPs as appropriate.

Manage rangeland, pasture and other grazing landsto protect water quality and aquatic and riparianhabitat by:

1. Improving or maintaining the health and vigor ofselected forage or cover crops and maintaining astable and desired plant community while, at thesame time, maintaining or improving waterquality and quantity, reducing accelerated soilerosion, and maintaining or improving soil condi-tion for sustainability of the resource. Theseobjectives should be met through the use of oneor more of the following practices:

• Maintain enough vegetative cover toprevent accelerated soil erosion due to windand water.

• Manipulate the intensity, frequency,duration and season of grazing in such amanner that the impacts to riparian vegeta-tion and water quality will be minimal.

• Ensure optimum water infiltration bymanaging to minimize soil compaction orother detrimental effects.

• Maintain or improve riparian and uplandarea vegetation.

• Protect streambanks from erosion.• Manage for deposition of fecal material away

from waterbodies and to enhance nutrientcycling through better manure distributionand increased rate of decomposition.

• Promote ecological and stable plantcommunities on both upland and bottomland sites.

2. Excluding livestock, where appropriate, and/orcontrolling livestock access to and use of sensitiveareas, such as streambanks, wetlands, estuaries,ponds, lake shores, soils prone to erosion andriparian zones, through the use of one or more ofthe following practices:

• Use of improved grazing managementsystems (e.g., herding) to reduce physicaldisturbance of soil and vegetation andminimize direct loading of animal wasteand sediment to sensitive areas.

• Installation of alternative drinking watersources.

• Installation of hardened access points fordrinking water consumption where alternatives are not feasible.

• Placement of salt and additional shade,including artificial shelters, at locations anddistances adequate to protect sensitive areas.

• Where necessary, provide stream crossingsin areas selected to minimize the impacts ofthe crossings on water quality and habitat.

• Use of exclusionary practices, such asfencing (conventional and electric),hedgerows, moats and other practices asappropriate.

3. Achieving either of the following on all rangeland,pasture, and other grazing lands not addressedabove:

• Apply the planning approach to implementthe grazing land components in accordancewith one or more of the following fromNRCS: a Grazing Land ResourceManagement System; National Range andPasture Handbook (U.S. Department ofAgriculture-Natural ResourcesConservation Service, 1997); and NRCSField Office Technical Guide, includingNRCS Prescribed Grazing 528A.

• Maintain or improve grazing lands in accordance with activity plans or grazingpermit requirements established by theBureau of Land Management, the NationalPark Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs ofthe U.S. Department of Interior, the USDAForest Service or other federal landmanagers.



83

To reduce NPS pollution of ground and surfacewaters caused by irrigation:

1. Operate the irrigation system so that the timingand amount of irrigation water applied matchcrop water needs. This will require as a minimum:(a) the accurate measurement of soil-water deple-tion volume and the volume of irrigation waterapplied, and (b) uniform application of water.

2. When applying pesticides through an irrigationsystem, include backflow prevention device(s) forwells; minimize the harmful amounts of chemi-gated waters that discharge from the edge of thefield and control deep percolation. In cases wherechemigation is performed with furrow irrigationsystems, a tail water management system maybe needed.

The following limitations and special conditionsapply.

• In some locations, irrigation return flowsare subject to other water rights or arerequired to maintain stream flow. In thesespecial cases, onsite reuse could beprecluded and would not be considered partof the management measure for suchlocations. In these locations, improvementsto irrigation systems and their managementshould still occur.

• By increasing the water use efficiency, thedischarge volume from the system willusually be reduced. While the total pollutantload may be reduced somewhat, there is thepotential for an increase in the concentra-tion of pollutants in the discharge. In thesespecial cases, where living resources orhuman health may be adversely affected andwhere other management measures (nutri-ents and pesticides) do not reduce concen-trations in the discharge, increasing wateruse efficiency would not be considered partof the management measure.

• In some irrigation districts, the time intervalbetween the order for and the delivery ofirrigation water to the farm may limit theirrigator’s ability to achieve the maximumon-farm application efficiencies that areotherwise possible.

• In some locations, leaching is necessary tocontrol salt in the soil profile. Leaching forsalt control should be limited to the leachingrequirement for the root zone.

• Where leakage from delivery systems orreturn flows supports wetlands or wildliferefuges, it may be preferable to modify thesystem to achieve a high level of efficiencyand then divert the saved water to thewetland or wildlife refuge. This will improvethe quality of water delivered to wetlands orwildlife refuges by preventing the introduc-tion of pollutants from irrigated lands tosuch diverted water.

• In some locations, sprinkler irrigation isused for frost or freeze protection, or forcrop cooling. In these special cases, applica-tions should be limited to the amount neces-sary for crop protection and applied watershould remain onsite.


The Arkansas Forestry Commission (AFC) is the leadagency for interpreting, monitoring and updatingforestry BMPs and management measures in Arkansas.In 2002, AFC completed a major update of their BMPguidelines after extensive public input and comment.

These management measures closely resemble EPA’sNational Management Measures to Control NonpointSource Pollution from Forestry (U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 2005). The measures and practicesbelow are excerpted from AFC’s Best ManagementPractice for Water Quality Protection. The publicationcan be found at http://www.aad.arkansas.gov/Websites/aad/files/Content/5944986/BMPs.pdf.

Pesticides/herbicides and fertilizers are forestchemicals. The following guidelines for the handlingand application of forest chemicals will help preventtheir translocation to open water sources.

If any hazardous chemical of reportable quantity isaccidentally spilled during normal working hours,notify ADEQ. Outside of normal working hours, notifythe Arkansas Department of Emergency Managementat 1-800-322-4012. Take immediate measures tocontain all chemical spills. Communicate spills toappropriate supervisors, landowners and authorities.


84

Follow label instructions. Do not aerially apply forestchemicals to Streamside Management Zones (SMZs)unless labeled for open water application or during aforest health emergency (e.g., gypsy moth). Chemicalsshould not be allowed to leak from equipment or con-tainers. Do not service equipment near streams or otherwater sources. Properly dispose of empty containers.Minimize the use of streams, lakes, ponds or rivers aswater sources. When this water is used to mix chemi-cals, do not contaminate water source. Chemicalsshould not be applied when water contamination islikely to occur from physical spray drift. Chemicalsshould not be applied immediately before precipitationor after a rain if there still is runoff. Consider upcomingstorm predictions to time chemical application. Labelcontainers according to state and federal regulations.Apply fertilizer at appropriate rates. Seek professionaladvice on application rates. Applicators should be prop-erly licensed and trained and/or certified if applicable.

Harvesting timber is more inclusive than cuttingtrees. It includes layout and construction of accessroads, skid trails for moving logs and strategic locationof landings for transporting products out of the woods.Timber harvesting activities should be conducted tominimize the effects on soil and water. Special careshould be taken on steeper slopes and near bodies ofwater. If possible, schedule harvests during periods ofdry weather to reduce sediment runoff.

•Plan harvest size, skid trails and landinglocations to reduce the area of grounddisturbed. For areas subject to excessiveerosion, plan harvest activities to encouragerevegetation efforts during times of the yearthat favor successful revegetation. Sites shouldbe inspected frequently during harvesting toidentify soil movement into waterbodies. Iferosion is occurring, promptly implementcorrective BMPs. When harvesting iscompleted, disperse water from landings andskid trails using water bars, logging slash orvegetative cover. Be prepared to control andlimit off-site soil movement. If revegetation orstabilization is needed, this work should occuras soon as possible after harvesting iscomplete. Compacted soils may need to bedisked or scarified to improve water infiltrationand create a suitable seedbed. Construct water

bars on skid trails and firelines as needed.Pay attention to slope and soil type as itpertains to type of structure and spacingrequirements. Where skid trails cross streams,install water bars or turnouts to divert allrunoff away from stream channel. All areas tobe seeded and/or mulched should be stable.Install traffic barriers to prevent off-roadvehicle damage to recently stabilized areas.

•Mechanical site preparation involves the use ofground contact equipment to manipulatevegetation and soil conditions before reforesta-tion. Methods most commonly used are shear-ing, raking, subsoiling, disking, chopping,windrow/piling, and bedding. Shearing,raking, windrow/piling, bedding, and diskingare high intensity methods of mechanical sitepreparation that expose a greater percentage ofthe soil on the treated site. Subsoiling andchopping are lower intensity methods. Erosionpotential increases with the higher intensitymethods, especially in areas with steep slopes.

Choose a site preparation method that exposesand disturbs the minimum mineral soil neces-sary to meet the desired reforestation objec-tive. The boundaries of all SMZs should bedefined before site preparation begins. Do notconduct mechanical site preparation in SMZs.Minimize crossing streams. If crossings arenecessary, they should be kept to a minimumand made at right angles to the stream. Avoidintensive site preparation on soils NRCS hasidentified as highly erodible. Do not damagewater control devices (i.e., culverts, wingditches). When damage occurs, repair orreplace the device promptly. Avoid heavyequipment operations in wet soil conditions.Intensive site preparation should always followcontour of land.

•Log landings or log decks are areas of concentrated equipment use and traffic. Well-planned and managed log landings will protectwater quality. Take precautions to reducerutting, soil compaction, and/or interferencewith water flow in order to reduce erosion. Forexample, if soils are wet, use special techniquessuch as logging mats and mulch. Locate land-ings to avoid or reduce stream crossings.Locate landings as part of planning the roadsystem. Minimize the size and number of log


85

landings. Locate landings on dry sites sonatural drainage disperses water onto theforest floor but not into a stream.

•Fell trees away from a stream and keep debrisout of the stream when-ever possible. If a treeis felled into a stream, protect the streambanksduring tree removal. Fell trees so the butts facethe direction of skid whenever possible.Promptly remove significant logging debrisfrom streams. Significant debris can alter theflow of water and scour banks. However, somewoody debris left in streams can be beneficialsince it acts as a macroinvertebrate coloniza-tion medium and provides fish cover, sobalance needs to be found on an individualsite basis.

•Skid trails serve as transport routes for equipment moving trees, logs or other materialfrom the place of felling to a log landing ordeck where they are stored or loaded for trans-port. Because heavy equipment is usually usedin skidding, soil disturbance may occur. Planskid trail layout to protect water quality. Followthe contour to the greatest extent possible.Timber should be skidded uphill either to acontour skid trail or more level ground. Onslopes of 20 percent or greater, skid uphill.Skid trails on slopes should have occasionalbreaks in grade or logging slash that dispersewater. Where stream crossings are planned,use portable crossing structures, culverts, polesor natural fords with firm bottoms, stablebanks and gentle slopes. Do not use soil as atemporary fill material when water is in thestream. If a ford or crossing will cause exces-sive rutting or turbidity, then bridges, culverts,concrete slabs or other constructed fordsshould be used. Minimize the number ofstream crossings. Skid across a stream only atstable locations identified during harvestplanning. Upon completion of skidding,remove all temporary fill material from streambeds. If the banks are crushed or if soil iseroding, stabilize the streambanks. Do not usestream channels as skid trails.

•Avoid logging in excessively wet areas orduring excessively wet weather. If skidding inwet weather, take the following precautions toprotect water quality: Stabilize bare areas

during any temporary shut-downs in loggingoperation if needed to protect water quality;minimize skid trail construction at gradesgreater than 30 percent. With grades greaterthan 30 percent, install frequent rolling dipsand follow contours. Stabilize these skid trails.If off-site soil movement occurs, control it withrolling dips, and prompt re-vegetation.Minimize straight runs of 300 feet or more atgrades greater than 20 percent.

•To ensure proper implementation of BMPs, ahelpful final step is an onsite examination ofthe harvest area. This procedure is referred toas a “walkout.” Review contracts or otherdocuments that set-out BMPs required for theharvest area. Stabilize roads, skid trails, andlog landings by using revegetation techniques ifneeded. Clean up spills. Haul litter, such as oilcans, grease containers, crankcase oil filters,old tires, and used fluids to a proper disposalfacility. Remove significant logging debris fromstreams. Significant debris can alter the flow ofthe water and scour banks. Scatter woodydebris above the high water mark of stream.Perform closeout erosion control on erodibleareas before equipment is moved off the site.

Careful planning is an essential first step to environmentally sound forest management. Seekingprofessional assistance during planning can be criticalin protecting water quality. The selection of silviculturaloperators such as loggers, site preparation contractors,foresters and others who have received BMP trainingcan help ensure that BMP plans are prepared andunderstood before starting silvicultural activities.

• Use available topographic maps, aerial

photographs and site visits to locate and planprotection for the following:

• Streams, drainage and crossings • Critical areas subject to rutting and/or

erosion • Existing roads and trails • Proposed haul roads and skid trails • Log landing locations • Buffer zones for streams

• Determination of the best time of year for

specific forestry activities.


86

• Inclusion of requirements for proper BMP

implementation, installation, and maintenancein the timber harvest contract.

•

Identification of environmentally sensitiveareas and provision to avoid impact fromforestry activities on these areas.

Reforestation should be completed as soon as practical after harvesting. Seek professional advice onreforestation options.

Machine plant along the contour of the land. Repairand stabilize any damage from machine planting thatmay cause erosion. Machine planting equipmentshould avoid crossing or turning around in roads, roadditches, wing ditches and waterbodies. Use existingaccess and stream crossing areas when planting.Preserve and replace all BMP harvesting or site preparation installations.

If a fire becomes “too hot,” the entire humus layercan be consumed, exposing the underlying mineral soilto erosion. Arkansas Forestry Commission BMPImplementation Surveys (Arkansas Forestry Commis-sion, 2011) have found that the erosion potential fromsites burned too hot increases as slope increases.Extreme caution should be used when burning onslopes exceeding 20 percent.

•Before ignition, moisture levels within the soil,forest fuels and the air should be sufficient toprevent major exposure or damage to themineral soil, especially on moderate to severelyerosive soils. Install firelines parallel tostreams outside the SMZ. Do not plow firelinesthrough the SMZ. Firelines within the SMZshould be constructed by hand. On finalharvest cuts, when slopes of the site exceed20 percent, individual fire strips should notexceed 300 feet in width between ignition andburnout. Buffers or breaks are recommendedon slopes exceeding 20 percent.

•During wildfire emergencies, firefighting activities are not restricted by BMPs. Potential

erosion problems should be corrected as soonas a wildfire is suppressed. Actively erodinggullies should be stabilized as part of wildfirereclamation. Inspect fire lines periodicallyand stabilize as needed to minimize runoffentering streams.

•Control practices can be implemented duringfireline construction to prevent erosion.Periodic inspection and proper maintenancecan prevent erosion on established firelines.Use barriers such as roads, rights of way, andplowed fields as firelines. Install firelines onthe contour as much as possible. Use bladed orharrowed firelines instead of plowed firelineswhenever possible. On slopes exceeding5 percent, and at approaches to streams androads, install water bars with water turnouts infirelines according to the BMP recommenda-tions for skid trails. Use hand tools or backblade firelines away from the edge of gullies,streams, or roads.

•Mowing or disking, rather than blading,should∞be used to maintain firelines to reduceexposing mineral soil.

Proper road construction and maintenance protectswater quality during and after silvicultural activities.BMP Implementation Surveys conducted by AFCindicate that practitioners should focus more attentionon implementing forest road BMPs.

•Use soil surveys, topographic maps, aerialphotographs or site visits to plan roadlocations to protect water quality. Design roadsto minimize stream crossings. Where streamcrossings are required, cross at right angles tothe stream, locate roads along the contour oralong the crest of long ridges and maintainsufficient distance between the road and theSMZ to allow right-of-way maintenance.

•Use at least the minimum design standard thatprovides a road sufficient to carry the antici-pated traffic load with minimum environmen-tal damage. Remove timber from rights-of-wayand deck it outside SMZs. Design roads no


87

wider than necessary. Balance cuts and fills tominimize excess excavated material. Placesidecast or fill material above the ordinaryhighwater mark of any stream except wherenecessary to stabilize stream crossings. Planand conduct work so water quality is protectedduring heavy rain. When needed, use seedingand mulch-ing in a timely manner to reduceerosion. Implement appropriate BMPs duringroad construction.

•Ensure good road drainage with a combinationof properly constructed and spaced wingditches, broad-based dips, rolling dips,culverts, and bridges. Wing ditches should beconstructed so water will be dispersed and notcut channels across the SMZ. At cross drains(culverts or dips) install rip-rap or otherdevices at the outlets to absorb and spreadwater. Use brush barriers or check dams alongroad fill areas or other sensitive areas.

• Install ditches, culverts, cross drains, andwing ditches at low points in the road.Use crowning, ditching, culverts, and/orout-sloping to drain roads naturally.Provide cross drainage on temporaryroads. Provide out-fall protection if crossdrains, relief culverts, and wing ditchesdischarge onto erodible soils or overerodible fill slopes. Use diversion or wingditches wherever possible to carry roaddrainage water onto the undisturbedforest floor. Use adequate sized culvertsto carry the anticipated flow of water

• A road grade of less than 10 percent ispreferred. Changing grade frequently,with rolling or broad-based dips, protectswater quality better than by using long,straight, continuous grades. On highlyerodible soils, grades should not exceed

percent. Grades exceeding 8 percent for150 feet may be acceptable as long asappropriate BMPs are implemented.Graveling the road surface can helpmaintain stability. Install water turnouts,broad-based dips or rolling dips before astream crossing to direct road runoffwater into undisturbed areas of the SMZ.With the exception of stream crossings,roads should be located outside the SMZ.

• Out-slope the entire width of the roadwhere road gradient and soil type permit.Use cross drainage on in-sloped orcrowned roads to limit travel distance ofrunoff water. Where roads are in-slopedor crowned, and gradients begin to exceed2 percent for more than 200 feet, broad-based dips or rolling dips should be placedwithin the first 25 feet of the upgrade.

• Road bank cuts normally should notexceed five feet in height, should besloped, and the soil stabilized to preventerosion. Cuts may need to be fertilized,limed, seeded, and mulched to establishcover.

•Crown or out-slope the road surface todisperse surface runoff and minimize erosionof the roadbed. Keep wing ditches free ofblockages and keep culverts open and clean toallow unrestricted passage of water.Revegetate or stabilize erodible areas wherenatural vegetation is not sufficient to stabilizethe soil. Minimize traffic on roads during wetconditions. Consider using geomat or rock toreduce road damage. Periodically inspect roadsto see if BMPs remain effective. Re-establishvegetation as needed. Minimize traffic follow-ing maintenance work on sensitive roadsections to allow them to stabilize. Keep roadsfree of obstructions to allow free flow of waterfrom the road to the forest floor. Rework roadsif road conditions deteriorate and may harmwater quality.

•Cross streams only if the harvest site cannotreasonably be accessed otherwise. Removetemporary crossing structures after use.Stabilize and restore the streambanks.Permanent stream crossing should usebridges, culverts, shelf-rock fords, geoweb,concrete slabs, or other materials. Low waterfords may be used if excessive turbidity isnot created.

• Design bridges to protect stream- crossing approaches from erosion. Thestreambank, stream channel and adjacentSMZ should have minimum disturbance.Construct stream crossings during periodsof dry weather when stream flow is low


88

and the chance of erosion is minimal.Concrete slabs should be excavated so thatthe surface is level with the stream bottomand at the same slope. Concrete slabapproaches should extend beyond thestream channel to prevent scour aroundthe ends of the slab.

• Streambanks should be stable and streambottoms should be hard. If not naturallystable, use materials such as geotextiles ortemporary bridges. Use planking, geoweb,rock or other non-erosive material toreduce disturbance to unstablestreambeds and streambed approaches.

• Remove from streams excess materialand woody debris generated during roadconstruction. Deposit this material abovethe ordinary high water mark. Stabilizethe material. Use head walls, wing walls,rip-rap, or geomat if necessary.

• Inspect stream crossings frequentlyduring operations to determine if erosionis being controlled. Streambanks shouldbe stable and soil movement into thestream should be minimal. Correcterosion problems by implementingthe BMPs.

• Except for crossings, equipment shouldstay out of streambeds.

•Broad-based dips are recommended for roadswith less than 10 percent grade. Installationshould take place after basic clearing andgrading for roadbed construction. An energyabsorber such as rip-rap and, in some cases, alevel area where the water can spread, can beinstalled at the out-fall of the dip to reducewater velocity. On some soils the dip andreverse grade section may require beddingwith crushed stone to avoid rutting the roadsurface. Broad-based dips should be placedcross the road in the direction of water flow.Broad-based dips are not recommended forconstantly flowing water.

•Rolling dips are a cross between water barsand broad-based dips. Like broad-based dips,they have a reverse grade (except it is shorter)and they tip water off the road. Like water

bars, they may also rely on a mound of soil atthe downhill side. Rolling dips can be used onhaul roads having a slope of 10 percent andgreater.

• Rolling dips can be used after basic clear-ing and grading for roadbed constructionafter logging is completed. A 10- to 15-foot long, 3 to 8 percent reverse grade isconstructed into the roadbed by cuttingfrom upgrade to the dip location and thenusing cut material to build the mound forthe reverse grade. In hills, locate rollingdips to fit the terrain as much as possible.They should be spaced according to theslope of the planned roadbed.

• Rolling dips are not suitable forconstantly flowing water.

•Wing ditches collect and direct road surfacerunoff from one or both sides of the road awayfrom the roadway and into undisturbed areas.Wing ditches move water from roadsideditches and disperse it onto undisturbed areasadjacent to the road.

•Road and stream crossing culverts collect andtransmit water safely from side ditches, seeps,natural drains, or streams under haul roadsand skid trails without eroding the drainagesystem or road surface.

• The pipe should be long enough so bothends extend at least one foot beyond theside slope of fill material. Culverts shouldbe designed to carry the anticipated flow.The culvert should be placed with a 1 to 2percent downgrade to prevent clogging.Lay the bottom of the culvert as close aspossible to the natural grade of theground or drain. Provide erosion protec-tion for culverts. Lay aggregate or othersuitable material on approaches to fords,bridges, and culvert crossings if neededto ensure a stable roadbed approach andreduce sediment in the stream. Fill fortemporary culverts can be washed rock.Washed rock may remain in the channelwhen the culvert is removed. Removeculverts, bridges, and fill material otherthan washed rock from temporary streamcrossings upon completion of operations


89

and return the crossing as close as possible to its original condition. Installerosion protection measures at theculvert outlet as needed to minimizedownstream erosion.

• On larger streams and/or streams havingsubstantial fisheries, box culverts utiliz-ing the natural substrate as the culvertsbottom may be a good substitute for pipeculverts since the stream substrate makesup the bottom of the culvert. This allowsfor migration of fish above and below theculvert due to stream velocity refugiabeing provided by the natural substrate.Using box culverts with a naturalsubstrate bottom also alleviates anyproblem caused by high drops at thedownstream end of the culvert (outlet).

•Waterbars are recommended for stabilizinginactive roads, firelines, and trails. Loggingslash may also be effective. They act to divertside ditch and surface runoff, which minimizeserosion, and provides conditions suitable forrevegetation.

•Covering bare soil is the first line of defense inpreventing erosion. Revegetation is recom-mended for bare soil. Schedule revegetationwhen soil and weather conditions promoterapid germination of seeds and development ofthe plants. Plant seed to the proper depth,fertilize where needed, and use adequateseeding rates. Periodically inspect areas ofrevegetation to ensure successful reestablish-ment of the intended ground cover.

•Waterbars are essential to controlling soilerosion due to excessive water volume andvelocity of road’s runoff. Successful stabiliza-tion depends upon water control. Block vehicular traffic at entrances and exits ofretired roads, firebreaks, and trails wherevehicular traffic is expected. Use gating,large earthen berms, ditching, fencing, andsimilar barricades.

•

Restrict fueling and equipment maintenancework to designated areas of landings. Do not

do this work near streams. Properly store fuel,oil, coolants and other products.

Vegetation and soils adjacent to waterbodies arecritical for maintaining healthy aquatic systems. SMZsare buffer areas, strips of land immediately adjacent towaterbodies where timber management activities arespecifically designed to protect water quality. SMZs areestablished on both sides of streams.

Streamside Management Zones:

1. Slow and spread the flow of water2. Serve as a filter, which reduces movement of

sediment and nutrients into waterbodies 3. Stabilize streambanks4. Minimize logging debris from reaching a

waterbody5. Act as a buffer strip6. Maintain cooler stream water temperatures

and can cool down elevated temperatures7. Provide an allochthonous energy source for

aquatic biota and flora in the associated stream

AFC categorizes streams as ephemeral, non-ephemeral, braided, lakes and ponds. Standards forSMZs for each category are given as BMPs, exceptephemeral streams which do not require SMZs.

In all SMZs, the following activities are discouraged:

1. Harvesting trees growing directly on banks oroverhanging a waterbody

2. Prescribed fires that burn to mineral soil. Lightcool burns are permitted

3. Locating portable sawmills or log decks inSMZs

4. Creating excessive rutting, especially whereruts run perpendicular to a stream

5. Leaving logging debris in front of caveentrances and in sinkholes if the effect is tochange the natural flow of water

•SMZ width is based on percent of the adjacentslope of the forest area:

• Slope < 7 percent - minimum SMZ35 feet

• 7 percent < Slope < 20 percent -minimum SMZ 50 feet

• Slope > 20 percent - minimum SMZ80 feet


90

Retain a minimum of 50 square footbasal area per acre. Trees should beevenly spaced throughout the SMZ tomaintain bank stability and protect waterquality. Fell trees away from the streamexcept where safety is a concern.

•Maintain an overstory of vegetation or trees ifpossible, if not, then maintain lower lyingvegetation and intact forest floor. Mechanicalsite preparation should not disrupt theephemeral stream channel. No SMZ required.

•Consider multiple channels as one stream.The SMZ includes all land between thechannels as well as the prescribed SMZ widthadjacent to the most exterior channels. Followother applicable SMZ guidelines fornon-ephemeral streams.

•Minimum SMZ is 35 feet measured beginningat the break in slope at the top of the shoreline.Follow SMZ guidelines for non-ephemeralstreams.

Erosion occurs when individual soil particles arecarried away from the road surface, ditch or road baseby water, wind, ice or gravity. These soil particles areoften transported by runoff to streams, ponds andlakes where they can alter the water chemistry, affect-ing the quality of water and fish habitat. Sediments canimpact surface water ecosystems by adding excessnutrients that deplete oxygen supplies. This can lead tosmothering of spawning and the feeding habitat of fishand contaminating drinking water supplies.

Sources of erosion include paved and unpavedroads, construction and hydromodification. By usingappropriate BMPs and following accepted guidelines,erosion from roadways and construction projects canbe controlled. The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency developed a list of general maintenance BMPsin the 1990s to help control erosion and polluted runoffat construction sites. More recently, the AmericanAssociation of State Highway and TransportationOfficials created the Construction Stormwater Field

Guide to help departments of transportation stay incompliance with federal and state storm water regula-tions. Several BMPs from those publications are listed.

•Sediment retention basins can be used in concertwith proper ditching to create a basin where high-velocity, sediment-laden water has the opportu-nity to slow down and drop its sediment load.Although highly effective at sediment control, siteselection for these basins must account for theincoming water volume so that the basin may bebuilt large enough to handle the anticipatedflows. Additionally, access must be provided forthe routine maintenance of the basin.

• :Bank stabilization is the vegetative or structuralmeans used to reduce or prevent erosion orfailure of any slope. Erosion occurs when soilparticles at the bank's surface are carried away bywind, water, ice or gravity. It can also be causedby stream currents and waves, obstacles in astream, overbank drainage, heavy rainfall onunprotected land, freeze-thaw and dry cycles,seepage, and changes in land use. Bank failureoccurs when an entire section of the bank slidesto the toe of the slope. It can be caused by anincrease of load on top of the bank, swelling ofclays due to absorption of water, pressure ofgroundwater from within the bank, minormovements of the soil, and changes in streamchannel shape.

Stabilization of banks along roads and streamswill prevent erosion and failure, both of whichmay contribute considerable amounts ofsediment to surface waters. Preventing erosionand bank failure can also alleviate the need forexpensive road repairs. Because such work mayinvolve anything from vegetative plantings tocomplex construction of stonewalls and riprapslopes, it may be necessary for an on-site visit bemade. Based upon the conditions noted at the sitevisit one or more BMPs or options may be avail-able. Care should be taken when choosing amethod. There are a number of trained biologists,hydrologists, and engineers in public and privateagencies that can provide technical assistance onbank stabilization in Arkansas, including ANRC,ADEQ, NRCS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,


91

the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, TheNature Conservancy, the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService and others.

•Outlet protection is important for controllingerosion at the outlet of a channel or culvert.Outlet protection works by reducing the velocityof water and dissipating the energy. Protectionsshould be installed at every pipe, culvert, swale,diversions or other water conveyances where thevelocity of flow may cause erosion at the pipeoutlet and in the receiving channel. There are anumber of outlet structures that can be used in avariety of situations. Outlet structures reduce thevelocity of water carried by road ditches andculverts, therefore helping to control erosion andlimit sedimentation. After passing through anoutlet structure, water should outlet to areas withmoderate slopes and vegetative filter zone beforeentering surface waters. This type of outlet, oftenreferred to as daylighting, will allow for most ofthe sediments and other pollutants to be removedbefore runoff enters surface waters.

Construction activities normally result in soil disturbances on construction sites because of activitiessuch as grading and clearing. BMPs should be used tocontain sediment and prevent it from being trans-ported off site. The following are techniques that canbe used:

• Straw bale and waddle barriers should be bound,entrenched if applicable, and securely anchoredto prevent deterioration. These barriers slowsrunoff flow and creates a pond behind the barrierwhere sediment can settle out. Straw bale andwaddle barriers are most effective for filtering lowstorm flows, where structural strength is notrequired.

• Filter fabrics are engineering fabrics designed toretain sediment particles larger than a certain sizeand allow water to pass through. Filter fabrics canbe used in silt fences or erosion control mats.Erosion control mats protect soil and seed fromerosion and can be designed to allow vegetationto grow through the material.

• Silt fences are vertical fences of filter fabric thatare entrenched and stretched across and attachedto support poles. The fabric retains sediment onthe construction site and allows relatively

sediment-free water to pass through. Silt fencesare placed to protect streams and surroundingproperty from sediment-laden runoff.

• Sediment basins are ponds created by excavationor the construction of a dam or barrier. Sedimentbasins primarily serve to retain or detain runoffto allow excessive sediment to settle out duringconstruction. Sediment basins can be convertedinto permanent detention ponds or wetlands afterconstruction.

• Stabilized entrances/exits reduce the amount ofsediment carried off a construction site byvehicles. These entrances are designed to includestabilized pads of aggregate underlain with a filterfabric. Stabilized construction site entrancesshould be located at any point in the constructionzone where vehicles enter and leave. Mud anddebris should be adequately removed formwheels by washing or scraping before leaving asite if a stabilized entrance is not available.

• Stabilize upstream drainage areas before theconstruction of infiltration, bioretention or mediafilter BMPs.

Inspection and maintenance of erosion- andsediment-control BMPs, both during and afterconstruction, is important to ensure that BMPs areoperating properly and effectively.

• Prepare and adhere to a schedule of regularmaintenance for temporary erosion and runoffcontrol BMPs. Maintenance operations should beperformed regularly to maintain effectivenessinclude cleaning out accumulated sediment andreplacing worn-out or deteriorated materials.Maintenance can include dredging and reshapingsediment basins and revegetating the slopes ofgrassed swales.

• Remove temporary BMPs from constructionareas when they are no longer needed and replacethem, where appropriate, with permanent BMPs.

• Schedule and periodically inspect and maintainpermanent erosion and runoff controls. Thisshould include a periodic visual inspection ofpermanent BMPs during runoff conditions toensure that the controls are operating properly.

• Clean, repair, and replace permanent erosion andrunoff control BMPs when necessary.


92

• Seeding and fertilizing promotes strong growthand provides long-term stabilization of exposedsurfaces. Disturbed areas can be seeded duringconstruction and after construction is completed.Sufficient watering and potentially refertilizingmay be needed 30 to 40 days after the seedsgerminate help establish dense growth. Fertilizershould be applied after the seeds germinate toallow for maximum uptake of available nutrients.This may reduce the risk of excess nutrientsentering the adjacent streams.

• Overlaying cleared or freshly seeded areas withmulch or mats will assist to stabilize the area.Types of mulches include organic materials,straw, wood chips, bark or other wood fibers, ordecomposed granite and gravel. Mats are made ofnatural or synthetic material and are used totemporarily or permanently stabilize soil.

• Wildflower cover has been successfully used bymany state and county highway departments toprovide attractive vegetation along roadways anderosion control. Careful consideration must begiven to visibility, access, soil condition, climate,required maintenance and seed species whenchoosing sites for wildflower cover.

• Sodding with established grass blankets onprepared soil provides a quick vegetative coverto lessen erosion. Proper watering and fertilizingare important to ensure the vitality of newlyplaced sod.

• Grassed swales are shallow, channeled grasseddepressions through which runoff is conveyed.The grass slows the flow of runoff water, whichallows sediment to settle out and water to infil-trate into the soil. Grassed swales can removesmall amounts of pollutants such as nutrients andheavy metals. Check dams can be added tograssed swales to further reduce flow velocity andpromote infiltration and pollutant removal.

• Filter strips are wide strips of vegetation locatedto intercept overland sheet flows of runoff. Theycan remove organic material, sediment, andheavy metals from runoff. Filter strips can consist

of any type of dense vegetation from woods tograss but they cannot effectively treat high- velocity flows. They are therefore best suited tolow-density developments.

• Terracing breaks a long slope into many flatsurfaces where vegetation can become estab-lished. Small furrows are often placed at the edgeof each terraced step to prevent runoff fromeroding the edge. Terracing reduces runoff velocity and increases infiltration.

• Check dams are small temporary dams made ofrock, logs, brush, limbs, or another durablematerial placed across a swale or drainage ditch.By reducing the velocity of storm flows, sedimentin runoff can settle out and erosion in the swaleor ditch is reduced.

• Detention ponds or basins temporarily storerunoff from a site and release it at a controlledrate to minimize downstream flooding. Well-designed basins are highly effective pollutantremoval tools. Effectiveness is greatest forsuspended sediments (80 percent or moreremoval) and related pollutants such asheavy metals.

• Infiltration trenches are shallow, 3- to 8-feet deep(.91 to 2.44 m) excavated trenches that arebackfilled with stone to create undergroundreservoirs. Runoff is diverted into the trenches,from which it percolates into the subsoil. Properlydesigned infiltration trenches effectively removesediment from runoff and can remove some otherrunoff pollutants.

• Infiltration basins are relatively large, opendepressions produced by either natural sitetopography or excavation. When runoff enters aninfiltration basin, the water percolates throughthe bottom or the sides and the sediment istrapped in the basin. The soil where an infiltra-tion basin is built must be permeable enough toprovide adequate infiltration. Some pollutants,other than sediment, are also removed in infiltration basins.

• Constructed wetlands are areas inundated bywater for a sufficient time to support vegetationadapted for life in saturated soil conditions.Wetlands effectively filter sediment, nutrients,and some heavy metals from runoff waters.


93

Addressing unintended hydromodification resultingfrom land use changes and stream alteration requires aholistic approach. Entire reaches of stream instabilityshould evaluated and restoration designs developedthat will address not only streambank erosion, butaggradation or degradation. Habitat restoration shouldalso be considered when developing a reach restorationdesign. Restoration designs include a multitude offactors and contain specified BMPs. In general, restora-tion designs should be based on an assessment of thestream’s ability to transport its flow and sediment,while maintaining its dimension, pattern and profile.Reach restoration BMPs may include installation ofgrade control structures and rock veins, development ofbankfull benches and re-establishing riparian areas.

Other approaches that could foster interest inrestoration include:

• Encouraging the development of riparian bufferconservation easements through nonprofit organizations and local source water protectionprograms.

• Encouraging government agencies and nonprofitorganizations to include streambank and otherstream restoration techniques as elements of theirconservation easement programs.

• Conducting an evaluation of stream restorationprojects that have been implemented in the stateand report on successes and failures.

• Using ANRC’s wetland and riparian zone taxcredit program to help finance streambankrestoration projects. At this time, these programsare not funded and cannot finance restoration.

Urbanization increases the variety and amount ofpollutants carried into our nation’s waters. In urbanand suburban areas, much of the land surface iscovered by buildings, pavement and compacted land-scapes. These surfaces do not allow rain and snow meltto soak into the ground, which greatly increases thevolume and velocity of stormwater runoff.

Stormwater gathers dust, debris, litter, animal wasteand toxic substances as it flows across the ground andinto storm drains. Residents and businesses can use

BMPs to prevent polluted stormwater and therebyprotect the water quality of streams, rivers, lakes andground water. Oftentimes, a good best managementpractice at home can be a good practice for places ofbusiness, or vice versa. Business and residentialpractices are discussed in further detail.

Business owners and managers should take the timeto educate employees about appropriate BMPs so theyare aware of their impact on water quality and prevent-ing pollution. Employees are often the first line ofdefense, especially when it comes to a spill. Theyshould be aware of who to report an issue to, be keptinformed of where BMP equipment or materials arekept and know how to effectively implement a BMP.

The following practices are geared toward thebusiness place.

•Many common vehicle maintenance and washingroutines contribute to environmental pollution.Washing a vehicle in an area where water can flowinto a storm drain or pouring used auto fluids intoa gutter or storm drain pollutes the receivingstream or environment. Runoff from streets,parking lots and driveways may contain orcontribute petroleum, petroleum products,chemicals, organic compounds, metals andasbestos to runoff. These chemicals, compoundsor metals may drain into surface waters anddisturb aquatic ecosystems or harm aquatic life.

• Cleaning/degreasing engines and equipment,auto and truck drive trains and airplanes(including landing gear): Washwater shouldnot be disposed of in storm drains. Typicallythis washwater requires treatment beforedischarge into the sanitary sewer system.Cleaning should take place on a wash pad,with or without soap. It would be best todiscuss runoff needs with the facility operator.

• Truck trailer and boat cleaning (exterioronly – food related): Sweep, collect anddispose of debris. Use dry cleaning methodsas much as possible. Food residue must bedisposed of as garbage or sent to the sani-tary sewer. Avoid hosing down trailer.Washwater should not be discharged to thestorm drain; it should be pumped to thesanitary sewer.


94

• Truck trailer cleaning (interior only –where toxic substances may be encoun-tered): If toxic materials have been shippedin the trailer and there has been a spill, donot hose down the spill. Take immediateaction to prevent the spread of the materialand protect nearby storm drains.

• Fleet vehicle washing (exterior only removing mainly soil – with soap): Usewash pads that capture the washwater anddischarge it to the sanitary sewer. Solidsseparation is required before disposal.Ideally, a separate wash area that captureswashwater should be established. Use oftemporary wash pads that can be drained tothe sanitary sewer is also acceptable.

• Taking caution near storm drains: In areasnear storm drains and an increased likeli-hood of wastewater entering the drains,washwater should be collected and pumpedor otherwise discharged as follows:

▫ Pumped or directed into sanitarysewer system clean-out opening orsink, or into an onsite private sanitarysewer manhole. Verify wastewater isnot pumped or directed to a stormdrain system.

▫ Implement and completed solidsseparation before disposal.

▫ Washwater may be discharged into anappropriate sized and approved vege-tated area or landscaped area. Com-pounds contained in the wastewatermay adversely affect the disposal area.

Repetitive use or excessive wash volume tothe same area may require permitting orapproval from state and federal agencies.Discuss this practice with the property orfacility owner. If proper or approved dis-posal is not possible, contact the appropriatestate or federal agency for information.

• Mobile auto detailing and cleaning boat(infrequent, light cleaning, rarely at samelocation; removing mainly soil, withminimum water volume) – with Soap:Minimal runoff may remain on pavedsurfaces to evaporate. If there is sufficientwater volume to reach the storm drain, sealthe storm drain and pump the water to thesanitary sewer. For landscaped or soil areas,discharge should be directed to an area

sufficient to contain the water. Discuss thispractice with the property owner. Acceptablefor minimal discharge flows. Repetitive useof the same area or excessive wash volumeto the same area may be regulated.

• Boat cleaning (where paint chips are beingremoved in preparation for painting):Filtered washwater must be discharged tosanitary sewer. Contact the local wastewatertreatment plant for more information.Dispose of paint particles appropriatelyaccording to paint type (e.g., if paint is lead-based, copper-based or contains tributyltinor PCBs, consult the local wastewater treat-ment plant and hazardous waste for infor-mation on disposal of hazardous waste). Ifnon-hazardous, material may be disposed ofas solid waste after filtered paint particleshave dried. This BMP is not intended toaddress the disposal of paint waste.

•

Do not hose down shop floor into streets orparking lots. It is best to dry sweep regularly.Use nontoxic cleaning products. Baking sodapaste works well on battery heads, cable clampsand chrome. Mix the baking soda with a mild bio -degradable dishwashing soap to clean wheels andtires. For windows, mix white vinegar or lemonjuice with water. To reduce or eliminate thegeneration of waste, fix sources of drips or leakswhere possible. Routinely inspect the enginecompartment and regularly replace worn sealson equipment.

Do the following to avoid or control spillsand leaks:

1. Prepare and use easy-to-find spill containment and cleanup kits. Includesafety equipment and cleanup materialsappropriate to the type and quantity ofmaterials that could spill.

2. Pour clay-based cat litter, sawdust,cornmeal or other absorbents on spills.

3. Change fluids carefully. Use a drip pan toavoid spills. Prevent fluid leaks from storedvehicles. Drain fluids such as unused gas,transmission and hydraulic oil, brake andradiator fluid from vehicles or parts kept instorage. Implement simple work practicesto reduce the chance of spills.

arkansas natural resources commission 2018-2023 nonpoint ... · nonpoint source (nps) management....

Documents