8 Digit HUC Watershed Prioritization in Arkansas Risk

8 -Digit HUC Watershed Prioritization in Arkansas - Risk Assessment Matrix Approach 2010 Updates Dharmendra Saraswat & Tom Riley ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

Arkansas Approach Arkansas embarked on developing a proactive stakeholder process A comparative risk assessment based collaborative process that integrate scientific analysis and stakeholder deliberation ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

Goal • Select a few watersheds for priority implementation • Priority watersheds eligible for 319(h) incremental funding • Target known water quality impairments • Effectively allocate resources ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

Process 2005 -2009 Plan 2008 Revision Sl# Approved category 1 Water Body impairment 2 Human Health Impact 2. Designated Use Impact 3 Biotic Impacts 3. Biotic Impacts 4 Potential Human Exposure 4. Potential Human Exposure 5 Construction 6 Rural Roads 5. Urban and Suburban Population 7 Non-row Crop Agriculture 8 Row Crop Agriculture 9 Urban 8. Cropland 10 Forestry 9. Livestock and Pasture 11 Priority of a Bordering State 10. Unpaved Roads 1. Water Body Impairment 6. Impervious Surface 7. Economic Activity 11. Forestry 12. Priority of Neighboring State ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

1. Water Body Impairment 2008 2009 Category 5 2008 Definition Category 5 2010 Definition 5 a Truly impaired; develop a TMDL or other corrective action(s) for the listed parameter High Truly impaired; develop a TMDL or other correction action(s) for the listed parameter(s). 5 b Waters currently not attaining standards, but may be de -listed with future revisions to Regulation No. 2, the state water quality standards; Medium 5 c Waters in which the data is questionable because of QA/QC procedures and which require confirmation before a TMDL is scheduled; Waters currently not attaining standards, but may be de-listed with future revisions to Regulation No. 2, the state water quality standards; or Waters which are impaired by point source discharges and future permit restrictions are expected to correct the problem(s). 5 d Waters which need data verification to confirm use impairment (additional sampling, biological assessment) before a TMDL is scheduled; Low 5 e Waters which are impaired by point source discharges and future permits restrictions are expected to correct the problem; 5 f These are waters that are not currently meeting a water quality standard. However, “the basis for not meeting an applicable water quality standard is not caused by a pollutant, but is attributed to other types of pollution” (EPA, 2005). Waters currently not attaining one or more water quality standards, but all designated uses are determined to be supported; or There is insufficient data to make a scientifically defensible decision concerning designated use attainment; or Waters ADEQ assessed as unimpaired, but were added to the list by EPA. 5 g Water bodies added to ADEQ’s list of Impaired Water bodies by EPA. ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

2. Designated Use Impact - implementation Working Definition Score Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4 a & 5 a* not supporting aquatic life 10 Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4 a & 5 a* not supporting primary and secondary contact 9 Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4 a & 5 a* not supporting drinking 8 Watersheds with at least one ESW, available on geostor 5 Watersheds with at least one ERW, available on geostor 4 Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4 a & 5 a* not supporting agricultural/industrial use 2 *Ignore those with source “MP” ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

3. Biotic Impact - implementation Working Definition Score Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4 a & 5 a not supporting aquatic life* 10 Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4 a & 5 a with siltation (SI) listed as the cause* 10 Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4 a & 5 a with dissolved oxygen (DO) listed as the cause* 9 Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4 a & 5 a with nutrients (NU), nitrate (NO 3), or phosphorous (P) listed as the cause* 8 Watersheds with at least one water body in 2008 303(d) list Category 4 a & 5 a with ammonia (AM) listed as the cause* 4 ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

4. Potential Human Exposure Proposed Criteria Score Tributary to a public surface water supply 10 Tributary to or part of a recreational lake 8 Natural & scenic river or urban stream 8 All other waters 2 ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

5. Urban/Suburban Population • Percentile rank of population density of urban and suburban area • Score = Percentile rank x 10 ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

6. Impervious Surface • 2006 Land Use/Land Cover • Estimate percentage of pervious surface • Calculate percentile rank • Score = percentile rank x 10 ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

7. Economic Activity Proposed Criteria Score Change in construction activity 1999 -2006 5 Shale development- with atleast one active natural gas permit 4 Other economic activity- atleast one mining activity pemit 2 Change to 1 ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

8. Cropland - implementation • Acreage of harvested area for each county from 2007 USDA agriculture census* • Watershed acreage based on area weighting • Calculate percentile of watershed harvested cropland density • Score = percentile x 10 *http: //www. agcensus. usda. gov/ ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

9. Livestock & Pasture • Percentile rank of density of animal units x 5 • Percentile rank of density of pasture x 5 • Score = Livestock + Pasture ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

10. Unpaved Roads - implementation • Calculate length of un-paved roads for each watershed using the AHTD Roads GIS layer* • Calculate percentile rank of density of unpaved roads for each watershed • Score = Percentile rank x 10 * Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department/Geo. Stor ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

11. Forestry • Density of public, state, and private forest land in each watershed in 2006* 2009 recommendation • Calculate percentile rank for public and private forests • Score = State Forest x 2 + Public Forest x 3 + Private Forest x 5 *CAST/Geo. Stor ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

12. Priority of Neighboring State ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

Arkansas Approach – Steps Used in 2010 Matrix Assign Score for Each Category 3 4 8 10 2 6 8 6 3 10 5 1 3 7 9 10 0 10 10 0 0 10 1. Water Impairment 2. Use Impact 12. Neighboring State Priority 33 44 Overlay 88 10 10 323 4646 88 88 10 10 66 322 3 2333 3 3 323 23 3 3 32 32 33 3 323 3 32 023 3 2 10 3 3 03 3 46 10 10 64 10 77 46 10 7 64 10 76 46 10 7 64 10 7 4 10 6 10 7 0 10 7 88 55 8 599 8 59 10 6 11 10 1610 10 10 16 10 88 95 8 598 88 95 8 59 8 589 8 598 088 59 08 95 05 9 10 16 10 10 6 1 10 01 10 Final Score = 1. Water Impairment ( X 2. Use Impact 3. Biotic Impact 4. Human Exposure 5. Urban/Suburban Population 6. Impervious Surface 7. Economic Activity 8. Cropland 9. Livestock & Pasture 10. Unpaved Roads 11. Forestry ) 12. Neighbor’s Priority 07 09 Force 10 Meeting, September 21, 2010 03 Task ANRC

Priority Map ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

Priority Watersheds Subwatershed Name HUC (8 -digit) Drainage Area (km 2) Majority Land Use Final Risk Matrix Percentile Beaver Reservoir 11010001 5625. 71 Forest (64%) 100 Poteau 11110105 1442. 52 Forest (61%) 98 Bayou Bartholomew 08040205 3976. 38 Forest (59%) 97 Illinois 11110103 1962. 51 Pasture (45%) 95 Ouachita Headwaters 08040101 4007. 36 Forest (77%) 93 Lake Conway-Point Remove 11110203 2961. 08 Forest (54%) 91 Upper Ouachita 08040102 4542. 74 Forest (79%) 90 Upper Saline 08040203 4442. 43 Forest (78%) 88 L Anguille 08020205 2473. 54 Crops (71%) 85 Cache 08020302 5067. 21 Crops (67%) 85 Strawberry 11010012 1971. 50 Forest (58%) 83 Lower Ouachita-Smackover 08040201 4662. 94 Forest (82%) 81 ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

Risk Matrix Summary Watershed HUC 8 digit Beaver Reservoir 11010001 Poteau 11110105 Bayou Bartholomew Illinois Ouachita Headwaters Lake Conway-Point Remove C 2 C 3 C 4 C 5 C 6 C 7 C 8 C 9 C 10 C 11 C 12 Total 10 10 8. 28 5. 69 7. 93 4. 14 8. 79 2. 76 6. 31 10 838. 97 10 0 10 10 8. 62 9. 22 2. 41 4. 31 5. 86 3. 45 10 725. 00 10 10 10 8 4. 14 3. 62 2. 47 6. 72 4. 05 4. 31 7. 41 10 707. 24 8 5 0 10 9. 31 9. 66 9. 91 5. 34 8. 10 8. 45 5. 52 10 650. 34 10 5 10 10 7. 24 8. 28 5. 14 0. 86 3. 19 8. 79 5. 57 0 640. 69 8 10 10 10 7. 93 9. 14 9. 48 5. 17 6. 55 3. 62 5. 69 0 620. 69 10 10 3. 97 6. 03 4. 53 0. 69 1. 72 7. 93 6. 78 0 616. 55 8 10 10 10 8. 45 5. 31 1. 72 1. 90 9. 31 5. 97 0 566. 07 10 4 10 2 5. 86 3. 79 6. 90 8. 97 2. 16 7. 59 5. 17 0 564. 31 10 10 10 2 4. 83 5. 00 3. 07 9. 14 1. 38 7. 41 3. 60 0 564. 31 10 10 10 2 3. 28 5. 17 3. 45 5. 00 3. 45 8. 28 4. 91 0 555. 34 10 10 10 8 2. 07 3. 28 6. 29 0. 34 1. 90 5. 69 7. 12 0 546. 90 8040205 11110103 8040101 11110203 Upper Ouachita 8040102 Upper Saline 8040203 Cache 8020302 L Anguille 8020205 Strawberry 11010012 Lower Ouachita-Smackover C 1 8040201 *C 1 = Water body impairment, C 2 = Designated usage, C 3 = Biotic impact, C 4 = Potential human impact, C 5 = Urban suburban population, C 6 = Impervious surface, C 7 = Economic activity, C 8 = Cropland, C 9 = Livestock and pasture, C 10 = Unpaved roads, C 11 = Forestry, C 12 = Adjacent state priority ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

Selected Priority Watersheds Name Ouachita Headwaters Upper Ouachita HUC 8 Digit 8040101 8040102 Name of impaired streams/segments Causes for impairment* Source Marzam Creek p. H NO T SPECIFIED Little Marzam Creek p. H UN Prairie Creek DO, Cu, Tb SE Cove Creek p. H, SO 4, TDS RE, UN Chamberlain Creek p. H, SO 4, TDS, Cu, Zn, Cd RE Lucinda Creek p. H, SO 4, Zn RE D. C. Creek Zn RE Caddo River Tb, Zn RE Ouachita River Zn UN Deceiper Creek p. H UN Freeo Creek p. H UN White Oak Creek p. H UN Tulip Creek p. H UN Cypress Creek p. H UN S. Fork Caddo Cu, Zn RE ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

Selected Priority Watersheds Name Cache HUC 8 Digit 8020302 Name of impaired streams/segments Causes for impairment* Source Cache River TDS, Pb, Tb AG Frierson Lake Sl, Cu UN Old Town NU UN Bayou De. View Cl, TDS, Pb IP, MP, AG Lost Creek Ditch Cl UN Strawberry 11010012 Strawberry River Tb, PA SE Lower Ouachita. Smackover 8040201 Moro Creek Cu, Pb, Tb, Hg UN, SE Ouachita River Cu, Zn, Hg UN L. Champagnolle Cr. Hg UN Champagnolle Hg UN Elcc Tributary Cu, Zn, NO 3, Cl, SO 4, TDS, AM IP Flat Creek Cu, Zn, Cl, SO 4, TDS RE, IP Salt Creek p. H, Cu, Cl, TDS RE, IP Prairie Creek Tb SE Smackover Creek DO, Zn UN Jug Creek Cu MP ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010

Questions/Discussions ANRC Task Force Meeting, September 21, 2010