• 2007 Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group Roundtable Discussion
• 2005 Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group Roundtable Discussion
• 2003 Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group Roundtable Discussion
  
• 2002 Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group Roundtable Discussion
• 2001 Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group Roundtable Discussion

Windows Media Player is required to view this 7 minute news clip
about pharmaceuticals in our freshwater lakes and streams.

http://wm.kare.gannett.edgestreams.net/news/news/110606_138149_fisheggs_kare.wmv?213436524624&MSWMExt=.asf

---

2003 Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group Roundtable Discussion Summary

Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group Roundtable Discussion Summary "Breaking the Concrete Barriers: Urban Management Practices" December 4, 2003 Pulaski County Quorum Court, Little Rock Start Time 9:30 A.M. End Time 2:30 P.M.

Curbing Development in Fourche Creek Watershed

Rob Fisher and Daniel DeVun, both of Audubon Arkansas, presented information about the Fourche Creek Watershed. Education and awareness are the main focus of the Fourche Creek Project. The watershed consists of 109,000 acres in Pulaski and Saline counties. The watershed drains to the Arkansas River. Rock Creek is a major tributary. Rock Creek and Fourche Creek drains the Little Rock area and both creeks have many restoration challenges. More public access is needed for Fourche Creek. There are many concerns about Fourche Creek including: metals leaching from old landfill, gravel mining, stream diversions, outdated dredging practices, ignoring rules and regulations pertaining to construction, contaminants from impervious surface, stream modification, increased flow regime, erosion, wetland destruction, illegal landfills, and no stormwater retention in some sites. Flow regime problems are increased by city mowing and maintenance crews.

New Storm Water Requirements for Construction Activities

PDF

Kim Fuller, Arkansas Dept. of Environmental Quality, is the lead engineer for the Stormwater Program. Permits have been required for construction sites of > 5 acres since 1992 when the NPDES stormwater program began. Phase II of the NPDES program went into effect in March of 2003. Kim reported that Arkansas, along with most other states, were behind in implementing Phase II. A general permit was issued in September and went into effect on Nov. 1, 2003. A general permit is not facility specific and includes all sites > 1 acre.
Small site is 1-5 acres. A medium-large site is >10 acres in the flatlands and >20 acres in highlands.

A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan should be submitted before breaking ground. The Water Division will try to work with people to bring a project into compliance. BMPs should be implemented to reduce runoff and site inspections performed and controls documented. The permit is for disturbed acreage. An example would be a 5 acre plot with a 2700 square foot house is not more than 1 acre of disturbed land unless a large area was razed with a bulldozer. A question was asked about how permits will be enforced. Kim Fuller commented that inspectors are present in 13 districts, but they have other responsibilities other than enforcing permitting. Most inspections are instigated by complaints from private citizens. Developers will be contacted first if a violation occurs. Federal and State regulations state that owner/operator is responsible. The EPA website has Federal regulations listed. ADEQ links to EPA website.

Small sites have automatic permit coverage because there is a lack of manpower. No application of Notice of Intent (NOI) is submitted to ADEQ, but must post NOI on site and the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan should be kept on site.
Medium and large sites must submit application of NOI to ADEQ two weeks in advance. The cost is $200.00. The Stormwater permit certificate must be posted on site along with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. A Notice of Termination (NOT) should be submitted to ADEQ when construction is complete.
The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan components include:

• Describe site location activity
• Area of disturbance
• Drainage slope
• Surface water
• Stormwater discharge location
• Outline erosion controls
• BMP's
  

2002 Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group Roundtable
Discussion Summary

Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group
Roundtable Discussion Summary
"Sustainable Development"

October 3, 2002
Doubletree Hotel, Little Rock
Start Time 9:00 A.M..
End Time 2:30 P.M.

The Roundtable Discussion was an action item resulting from the Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group's (AWAG) goal statement II "to improve communication concerning watershed resources." The AWAG sponsors an annual Roundtable Discussion that promotes improved communications between government agencies and organizations. The AWAG decided on sustainable development as this year's topic, and The Center for Watershed Protection was asked to give several presentations that would promote networking and discussion among the different agencies and organizations attending the Roundtable Discussion. The AWAG also decided that they would invite a variety of officials and leaders from local governments from across the State to participate in hopes of new ideas being taken back to their communities.

Sandi Formica opened the Roundtable Discussion with a welcome and introductions. Twenty-four representatives of the Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group attended the Roundtable Discussion. Invited participants included: Jim Welch, City of Rogers; Brian Day, City of Little Rock; Jim Larson, City of Little Rock; Gerald Cound, Heifer International; Len Pardee, US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6; Ken Wasson, Arkansas Municipal League; Brenda Price and Paul Simms, Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department; Randal Looney, Federal Highway Administration; Larry Williams (Garland County) and Jack Jones (Jefferson County), County Judges' Association of Arkansas. A total of 37 people attended.

Paul Sturm, Center for Watershed Protection (CWP), gave a presentation on "Better Site Design Techniques." The discussion that followed focused on problems in Arkansas including development in the floodplain. Major problems pointed out during the discussion included flooding, erosion, and elevated peak discharge. It was also noted that 1) many areas are seeing flooding occur outside the flood plain area because of fill; 2) development of forested area is causing a concern of fires; and 3) forested areas around housing areas should be managed and use of conservation easements would help manage green areas.

Tom Schueler, CWP, gave a presentation on "New Advances in Stormwater Treatment." After the presentation the need for more detention to treat stormwater was discussed because cities are growing and constructing more highways. It was pointed out that several states have installed stormwater retention sites. Ken Smith, executive director of Audubon Arkansas, suggested that a demonstration site would be helpful and that Heifer International is designing one. Bill Layher said that the new Wal-Mart Super Center site in Pine Bluff will have stormwater retention ponds. Some of the property will be donated to the city and will be developed as green space with a riparian buffer zone along Bayou Bartholomew. The Bayou Bartholomew Alliance will help manage the area. Judge Jack Jones of Jefferson County would like detention ponds designed using recycled tires and aquatic plants to filter pollutants that are washed into Lake Pine Bluff during heavy rainfall. Sand filters, passive filters with a bio-organic layer on top were discussed. Tom Schueler said that drying is not a problem, but they do clog. The city of Houston uses sand filter but promotes wet ponds to filter pollutants from stormwater.

The Center of Watershed Protection gave two more presentations, "Changing Development Rules in Your Community" and "Resources: To Make Things Happen Locally." Jim Welch, City of Rogers, gave a lunch presentation titled "City of Rogers Greenway Development" to give others an idea of what is already being accomplished in the State. The three presentations gave Roundtable participants plenty of discussion material. Tom Schueler, CWP, led the discussion and some of the comments are listed below:

Judge Jack Jones, County Judges Association: Changing development rules will work in areas where new development is occurring - trying to redevelop old areas that are not growing will be more difficult.

Jim Welch, City of Rogers: Progressive community ordinances and policies must be implemented. We all must change and adapt to more environmentally sound ways to do things.

Bill Layher, Bayou Bartholomew Alliance: The Delta has only floodplain ordinances and no one is willing to enforce regulations. People living outside city limits do not want to be forced to follow rules. Many say that is why they moved to the country.

Judge Jack Jones: We don't have the money or resources to enforce rules. We are focusing on trying to educate young people.

Paul Sturm, CWP: Use education techniques. There is a minority of vocal people who are opposed to regulations. They do not reflect the majority of the people.

Brian Day, City of Little Rock: The city (Little Rock) is experiencing expansion. Many people are opposed. Five acre subdivisions present major ordinance problems.

Anne Miners, Beaver Lake Watershed Partnership: Send letters to officials to have action taken.

Tom Schueler, CWP: attend meetings at the county level. A simple approach to handling development is to enforce existing codes, and get people who influence developers together change bad codes.

Judge Jack Jones: Some counties are unable to enforce the FEMA floodplain plan.

Tom Schueler: There are plenty of paper ordinances, but we need checks and balances to enforce the ordinances. Some things that seem radical now will be accepted 3 or 4 years down the road because of public outreach and education.

Sandi Formica, Chief of Environmental Preservation, Arkansas Dept. of Environmental Quality, closed the Roundtable Discussion by encouraging participants to take the information and ideas from the presentations and discussions back to their communities.

Additional Information below

2001 Arkansas Watershed Advisory Group Roundtable
Discussion Summary

Inn of the Ozarks
Eureka Springs, AR
March 9, 2001

Morning Session - Presentations from invited speakers on Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), Septic Tanks, and Phosphorus Index:
The Roundtable Discussion was scheduled to meet the established AWAG goals, specifically, Goal Statement II, "To improve communication concerning watershed resources." The purpose of holding the Roundtable was to help improve communications between resource agencies. The agenda for the Roundtable is attached and contains a list of presentations and speakers. Anne Hazlet was not able give her presentation "TMDL-Legal Aspects," but John Harbison, professor at the University of Arkansas Law School, was available to answer the group's legal questions concerning TMDLs. Each speaker was introduced and then gave their presentation. All of the speakers gave informative and excellent presentations on their topics. Some questions were entertained between presentations, but most questions were saved for the afternoon discussion

Afternoon Session - Discussion on Presentations and BMP Implementation Planning:
The group began their topics discussion during lunch and continued through the first half of the afternoon session. The group asked all of the presenters many questions concerning their topics, and overall an excellent and informative discussion occurred between participants.

Discussion of TMDLs focused heavily on the need for additional data in order to correctly prioritize potential sources of concern. Concerns discussed included the quality of the data used during the TMDL generation process, concerns about whether the data would be defensible, and if the data represented what is going on in the field. It was noted that data quality is under scrutiny for TMDLs in other states.

Although there may be shortcomings in the data, the group discussed that the process of TMDL development and implementation efforts would result in water quality improvement and voluntary, phased implementation of BMPs is a process in which water quality improvements can be made.

One participant noted that water quality standards are based on point sources, which have the greatest impact during low flow conditions and that there may be some need to define a set of standards for NPS contamination, which occurs at higher flows. It was also suggested that source identification could be accomplished based on the observations of local landowners. It was discussed, not necessarily agreed upon, that source identification should be built into the TMDL process.

There was a short discussion of septic tank systems. The Arkansas Health Department has estimated that there is a 90% failure rate of anaerobic septic systems. It was pointed out that improving septic systems should be considered a BMP for areas with high nutrient loads and should be considered when evaluating and prioritizing potential sources. It was stated that there were more failures of septic tanks in areas with high seasonal water tables and flat soils, primarily South and East Arkansas.

There was also a short discussion on the Phosphorus Index. During the discussion it was mentioned that there was a need for implementation monitoring. The Phosphorus index is being utilized for the development of nutrient management plans. Incorporation of manure into the soil structure is difficult. When incorporation is possible, there is a concern of increasing sediment transport. The pasture renovation project, an ADEQ/UofA project funded through an ASWCC 319 grant will look at the effect of pasture aeration on phosphorus and sediment transport from pastures receiving this BMP.

BMP Implementation Plan for the L'Anguille River: Bob Morgan led the second half of the afternoon session. Copies of the L'Anguille River TMDL report by FTN Associates had been available to attendees for review during the day.

Bob Morgan began this session by giving all attendees a list of items that a BMP Implementation Plan should include:

• List of actions needed to reduce pollutant loadings
  
• A timeline for implementing actions
• Reasonable assurances of implementation
  
• Legal authorities
  
• Estimate of time to meet standards
  
• Monitoring or modeling plan
  
• Milestones for measuring progress
  
• Evaluation plan

Bob Morgan then asked for the group's input on what should go into the L'Anguille River BMP Implementation Plan. A lot of discussion followed as individuals gave their input on what should be in a BMP Implementation Plan, the purpose of a TMDL, and what approaches should be taken when developing an BMP Implementation Plan. Input from the group on the development of the L'Anguille River BMP Implementation Plan included:

• Collect Data on sources, biological quality, water quality and hydrological data
  
• Characterize the basin
  
• Start local watershed group
  
• Detailed data on land use (soils, slopes, BMPs in place, eroding banks, etc.)
  
• Technical advisors
  
• Make citizens aware of the issue
  
• Stress that the plan belongs to the local group
  
• 319 grant to specifically identify every source visually
  
• Select BMPs
  
• Determine agency point group
  
• Evaluation of Implemented BMPs in improving water quality
  

1. Land
   
   1. Number of BMPs in place
      
   2. Evaluate implementation of BMPs by reduction of soil loss
      
2. Water
3. Biological
4. Income

Additional Information below

Some of the information offered on this site requires Adobe Acrobat Reader. You can download it for FREE! Just Click on the link above or on the icon below.