Washington County Conservation District

2898 Point Circle #2

Fayetteville, AR 72704

To contact us:

Phone: (479)442-4160 ext. 3

Fax: (479)444-8726

E-mail: casey.dunigan@ar.nacdnet.net

PROJECT SUMMARY

 

The West Fork of the White River (WFWR) watershed is a major tributary of Beaver Lake, the primary drinking water source for Northwest Arkansas (Formica, et al., 2004).  Both of these drainages are located in the Beaver Reservoir Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 11010001.  The WFWR 10- digit HUC is 1101000104, which contains four 12-digit HUCs (01 through 04).  The WFWR is part of Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality’s (ADEQ’s) planning Segment 4K – Upper White River and Kings River.   As defined by Arkansas Regulation 2, the WFWR is designated for propagation of fish and wildlife, primary and secondary contact recreation, and domestic, agricultural and industrial water supplies.   

 

In 1998, the ADEQ placed the WFWR on Arkansas’ 303 (d) list of impaired streams after determining that aquatic life use is not supported in its 33.4 miles due to increased turbidity and excessive silt loads (ADEQ, 2004).  The probable silt sources were as follows: agricultural land clearing; road construction and maintenance; and gravel removal from stream beds.  This stream also has a reduced fish assemblage, and Brown et al., 2003 recommended corrective actions including replanting of riparian vegetation including trees and shrubs.

 

The Arkansas Soil Nutrient Application and Poultry Litter Utilization Act (#1061 of 2003) designated the White River Watershed a “Nutrient Surplus Area”, and the entire basin is targeted for nitrogen and phosphorus non point source (NPS) pollution reductions through mandatory nutrient management planning for organic (animal) manures.

 

Agriculture is a major contributor to the economy of the WFWR watershed.  The University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service (UA-CES) in 2004 reported the average farm size was 135 acres and there were 79 active poultry houses located throughout the WFWR watershed and each housed between twenty and thirty thousand birds.  The most prevalent farming in the WFWR basin consists of cow/calf operations for the production of beef (UA-CES, 2004).  The UA-CES estimates forage production within the WFWR drainage basin to be approximately 4 tons dry mass/acre/year or approximately 77,652 tons dry mass/year.  This level of forage production is achieved by enhancing soil fertility with both commercial fertilizer and animal waste.  Fertilizers may be land applied year round but are mostly applied during the active growing season. Commercial fertilizers are increasingly relied on, and they too are regulated by state law requiring that they be applied according to UA-CES soil test recommendations, but an approved nutrient management plan is not required to land apply commercial fertilizers . 

 

This Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation project is one of a three-part, Section 319 funded project within the WFWR that included the following components: stream bank restoration performed by the Watershed Conservation Resource Center (WCRC), BMP implementation near the restoration sites (the subject of this report), and stream monitoring both above and below the restoration/BMP areas.  The principal objective of these projects was to reduce NPS pollution resulting from the erosion of particulate matter from stream banks and from runoff of nutrients from land-applied manure.  

 

The WCRC, after surveying the entire WFWR basin, established criteria and assigned a priority ranking of stream reaches where restorations were most likely to have the greatest environmental benefit (i.e., result in the greatest reduction in streambank erosion) (Figure 1).  In this BMP implementation project, we chose to work with landowners within the first three priority reaches (R16, R13 and R24) where the WCRC would be performing streambank restorations.  We further stipulated that we would limit our cost-share contracts to landowners that were installing BMPs on lands that were directly adjacent to these priority reaches.

 

Our project was comprised of six tasks: financial audit, education, technical assistance, cost sharing and implementation of BMPs, BMP demonstration and regular reporting.  We had no irregularities in performing the audit, education, or reporting tasks, but we were less successful with our technical assistance and cost share/demonstration tasks.  

 

We made an extensive education effort in this project to advertise the NMP planning and cost-share components and to educate the public concerning non point source pollution in general.  Our efforts included developing a webpage, providing articles for local newspapers, direct mailing, and presenting PowerPoint/poster presentations.  We provided field trips and laboratory projects for several West Fork High School classes.  We also developed a fact sheet to inform landowners, land managers, and other interested parties concerning this project.  Our posters were displayed and fact sheets were given out at Washington County Conservation District’s (WCCD) booth at the Washington County Fair in 2008. 

 

While we were largely successful in our education tasks, we were only able to identify 25 eligible landowners in the three priority sites and none were poultry producers.  Of these 25 landowners, we were able to recruit eight for nutrient management planning, but only five of these were using poultry litter as fertilizer.  For these five participants we planned 357 acres including 11 acres of buffers.   Our planning provided modest NPS pollution load reduction estimates as follows: 11 Tons sediment/year; 37 Lb Phosphorus/year; and 68 Lb Nitrogen/year.

 

While we had modest success with our technical assistance component, we were completely unsuccessful in recruiting any eligible landowners for either our BMP cost-share or BMP Demonstration site.  The success of our project was hindered primarily because we were working with geographically small areas that had few eligible landowners.  Because of these problems, we were forced to abandon the BMP cost-share components, and since we had already produced as many nutrient management plans as we could, we decided to conclude the project early and return the remaining unused funds to ANRC, where the money would be better spent.

 

While we are disappointed that we were unable to conclude the project as proposed, we are satisfied with our educational efforts in raising awareness of NPS runoff dangers.  Also, our educational efforts will continue in the future because we are now regularly working with the West Fork High School teachers and students to provide education and training concerning water and soil conservation.  Our nutrient management planning efforts will also be sustained as we will continue to work in the watershed updating nutrient management plans and recruiting new landowners including those wishing to implement urban nutrient management.

Implementing Best Management Practices in the West Fork of the White River (WFWR), Washington County, Arkansas

Figure 1.  The WFWR Watershed.

Casey Dunigan, Resource Conservationist

Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District

 

West Fork of the White River Project

An unstable reach of the WFWR north of the city of West Fork.

Project List             West Fork        Ballard Creek             Golf Course           Urban NMP            Beaver Lake