By:

A procedure to prioritize 58 eight-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) watersheds in the state of
Arkansas for updating 2005-2009 Arkansas’ NonPoint Source Management Plan (State
Management Plan) was developed in 2004 through the efforts of Arkansas’ NonPoint Source
Task Force (the Task Force). The Task Force utilized relative risk assessment (RRA) and collaborative learning (CL) procedure to develop priorities for State Management Plan (ANRC,
2005a). After a series of meetings and facilitated discussions, the Task Force selected 11 categories relevant to nonpoint source (NPS) pollution. The appropriate data for each selected category/sub-category were compiled in an ArcView (ESRI, Inc., Redlands, CA) database, assigned a value of 0 to 10 based on the type of impairment and relative importance, and used for obtaining a risk assessment matrix by relating all of the categories/sub-categories on watershed basis. Using a quintile classification approach, watersheds were ranked according to the values assigned by the risk assessment matrix (Morgan and Matlock, 2008). Finally, eight watersheds falling in the top quintile were selected by the Executive Director of Arkansas Natural Resources
Commission (ANRC) as priority watersheds.
In preparation for developing 2010-2014 State Management Plan, the Task Force began deliberations in 2008. Their first recommendation in 2008 NPS Annual Task Force meeting was to revise the risk assessment matrix as shown in Table 1 and also revise scoring criteria for a few categories/sub-categories (discussed later as appropriate).
Table 1. Categories used for Watershed Prioritization
Category selected for 2005-2009 NPS Management
Program Update
1 Water Body Impairment
2 Human Health Impact
3 Biotic Impacts
4 Potential Human Exposure
5 Construction
6 Rural Roads
7 Non-row Crop Agriculture
8 Row Crop Agriculture
9 Urban
10 Forestry
11 Priority of a Bordering State
Category selected for 2010 effort
Water Body Impairment
Designated Use Impact
Biotic Impacts
Potential Human Exposure
Urban Suburban Population
Impervious Surface
Economic Activity
Cropland
Livestock and Pasture
Unpaved Roads
Forestry
Priority of a Bordering State
The data under each category/sub-category has been continuously updated since 2008 based on the biennial water quality inventory published by the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality’s (ADEQ’s) 303(d) list in 2008 and 2010, respectively. This document provides information about criterion included in each category/sub-category, data source used, the assigned values determined by Task Force through discussions during 2008 and 2009 NPS
Annual Task Force meeting, and finally a listing of priority watersheds based on updates to risk

assessment matrix as per 2010 303(d) list and other relevant data updates The formula used for calculating the priority rankings for eight-digit watersheds has remained unchanged since the beginning of this process in 2004 and is as follows:
Value of category 1*Sum of the scores for categories 2 through 12
Similar to the original effort (2005-2009 State Management Plan), individual categories were assigned scores ranging from 0 to 10 by the Task Force and the priority watersheds were selected from among those falling in the top quintiles. Category 1 through 4 and 12 were ranked using values assigned from 0 to 10. For categories 5 through 11, percentile of the criteria of interest in those categories was calculated and multiplied by 10 or 5 (as appropriate for concerned category) to obtain final score for updating the risk assessment matrix. For each category, it was made sure that the total score does not exceed 10. A brief description of each category/sub-category is given below:
An impaired water body (stream and lake) is defined as one that does not support all of its designated uses. This category was assigned a value of 0 to 10 based on the type of impairment for developing 2005-2009 State Management Plan. However, sub-categories and the values assigned to them were revised by the Task Force in 2008 as mentioned later while discussing scoring criteria for risk assessment matrix.
This category includes data listed under category 4a (impaired waterbodies with completed
TMDLs) and category 5 of 303(d) report. However, ADEQ has redefined the sub-categories of category 5 (water quality limited water bodies) by aggregating water bodies into three classes based on priority: high, medium, and low in the 2010 303(d) list (ADEQ 2010, Table 2).
Therefore, six sub-categories within category 5 of 303(d) list that was used in the 2005-2009
State Management Plan and one category added to it in 2008(5g- Waters recommended by EPA as impaired) along with their assigned scores could not be utilized for updating risk assessment matrix during 2010. As the ADEQ’s 2010 303(d) list became available before the 2010 NPS
Annual Task Force meeting, NPS Program Manager at the ANRC was consulted for assigning appropriate values to three classes of category 5 waters.

Figure 1. Water body impairments category watershed scores
Table 2. Changes in category 5’s definition
Category 5 2008 Definition
5a Truly impaired; develop a TMDL or other corrective action(s) for the listed parameter
5b Waters currently not attaining standards, but may be de-listed with future revisions to Regulation No. 2, the state water quality standards;
5c Waters in which the data is questionable because of
QA/QC procedures and which require confirmation before a TMDL is scheduled;
5d Waters which need data verification to confirm use impairment (additional sampling, biological assessment) before a TMDL is scheduled;
5e Waters which are impaired by point source discharges and future permits restrictions are expected to correct the problem;
5f 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).
5g Water bodies added to ADEQ’s list of Impaired
Water bodies by EPA.
Category 5 2010 Definition
High Truly impaired; develop a TMDL or other correction action(s) for the listed parameter(s).
Medium 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).
Low 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.

It may be noted that if a watershed contained water bodies that met multiple scoring criteria; the highest score was always selected for populating the risk assessment matrix. An example is shown in Table 3. Beaver Reservoir had at least one instance in NPS category 4a , category 5
(High), category 5 (Medium), and Nutrient Sensitive. Since category 4a was assigned highest score of 10, Beaver Reservoir’s final score used in the matrix for Category 1 was 10.
Table 3. Example of scoring for Category 1
BASIN_NAME HUC8 NPS
Cat 4a
Cat 5
(High)
Cat 5
(Med)
Cat 5
(Low)
Nutrient
Sensitive
Final
Score
Beaver Reservoir 11010001 10 8 6 2 5 10
The scores under this category were assigned as follows:

Score = 10: The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 10 for a watershed having one or more water bodies (streams and lake) with an approved total maximum daily load (TMDL) for NPS pollutant. These water bodies fall in the category 4a in the
ADEQ’s 303(d) list. One exception is mercury which was excluded from scoring.
Morgan and Matlock (2008) observed that there is currently not enough data available to determine the source(s) of mercury when present, so any water bodies that exclusively contained mercury were not scored.

Score = 8: The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 8 for a watershed with truly impaired water bodies and which also required a TMDL or corrective action(s) for the listed parameter. These water bodies are listed as high priority in category 5 of the
ADEQ’s 2010 303(d) list.

Score = 6: The risk matrix was populated with a score of 6 for a watershed containing one or more water bodies that are currently not meeting standards, but may be delisted or if a water body is impaired by point source discharges that are expected to be corrected.
These water bodies are listed as medium priority in category 5 of the ADEQ’s 2010
303(d) list.

Score = 5: The risk matrix was populated with a score of 5 for a watershed which has one or more water bodies that are nutrient sensitive. The Arkansas Natural Resource
Commission’s (2005b) “Nutrient Surplus Area (polygon)” layer provided the information for these water bodies.

Score = 2: The risk matrix was populated with a score of 2 for a watershed which has one or more water bodies that are supporting their designated uses, despite not meeting one or more water quality standards. Also falling under this score are water bodies with insufficient data or water bodies deemed unimpaired by ADEQ but added to the list by
EPA. These water bodies are listed as low priority in category 5 of the ADEQ’s 2010
303(d) list.

Depending on the designated use impairments from the ADEQ’s 2010 303(d) list, rankings were determined for each watershed (Figure 2). Categories 4a and 5 (High Priority) were applicable because they identified water bodies that may be impaired for one or more designated uses.
Figure 2. Designated Use impact category watershed scores
For this category too, if a watershed contained reaches that met multiple scoring criteria; the highest score was used for populating risk assessment matrix. As seen in Table 4, Beaver
Reservoir had at least one instance in the following categories: Aquatic Life, Environmentally
Sensitive Waters, and Extraordinary Resource Waters. Since Aquatic Life was assigned highest score of 10, Beaver Reservoir’s final score used in the matrix for Category 2 was 10.
Table 2. Example of scoring for Category 2
BASIN_NAME HU8
Beaver Reservoir 11010001
Aquatic
Life
10
Primary or
Secondary
Contact
9
Drinking
Water
8
Environ mentally
Sensitive
Waters
5
Extraordin ary
Resource
Waters
4
Agri or
Industri al Use
Final
Score
2 10

The scores under this category were assigned as follows:

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 10 for a watershed that had one or more water bodies where the cause of impairment did not support aquatic life. The term “fisheries (FSH)” replaced “aquatic life (AL)” in the 2010 ADEQ 303(d) list.

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 9 for a watershed that had one or more water bodies where the cause of impairment did not support primary (PC) or secondary (SC) contact.

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 8 for a watershed that had one or more water bodies where the cause of impairment did not support drinking water designated use.

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 5 for a watershed that had one or more water bodies designated as environmentally sensitive waters. This information could be obtained from the ADEQ’s (2009) “Ecologically Sensitive Streams” layer.

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 4 for a watershed that had one or more water bodies designated as extraordinary resource waters. This information could be obtained from the ADEQ’s (2009) “Extraordinary Resource Waters Segments” layer.

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 2 for a watershed that had one or more water bodies with designated uses not supported due to agricultural and industrial usage (AI).

Type of impairment and the cause listed in categories 4a and 5 (High Priority) of ADEQ’s 2010
303(d) list was used in ranking potential biotic impacts (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Biotic Impact
Similar to previous two categories, if a watershed contained reaches that met multiple scoring criteria; the highest score was used for populating risk assessment matrix. As seen in Table 5,
Beaver Reservoir had at least one reach in the following categories: Aquatic Life, Sediment, and
Impairment Score. Since Aquatic Life was assigned highest score of 10, Beaver Reservoir’s final score used in the matrix for Category 3 was 10.
Table 5. Example of scoring for Category 3
BASIN_NAME HU8 FSH Sediment Dissolved
Oxygen
Beaver Reservoir 11010001 10 10 9
Priority
Organics
8
Ammonia Final
Score
4 10

The scores under this category were assigned as follows:

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 10 for a watershed that had at least one water body with Fisheries (FSH) listed as a designated use not supported.

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 10 for a watershed that had at least one water body impaired due to Sedimentation (Tb, for Siltation/Turbidity).

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 9 for a watershed that had at least one water body impaired due to Dissolved Oxygen (DO).

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 8 for a watershed that had at least one water body impaired due to Priority Organics (PO).

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 4 for a watershed that had at least one water body impaired due to Ammonia (AM).

The risk of human exposure to environmental pollutants is ranked in this category. Pollutants with a high risk of exposure to humans are given the highest priority (Figure 4).
Similar to previous three categories, if a watershed contained reaches that met multiple scoring criteria; the highest score was used for populating risk assessment matrix.
The scores under this category were assigned as follows:

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 10 for a watershed that had at least one impaired water body serving as tributary to the public water surface supply.

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 8 for a watershed that had at least one impaired water body serving as a tributary to, or part of, a recreational lake.

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 8 for a watershed that had at least one impaired water body which is also a natural and scenic river or urban stream.

The risk assessment matrix was populated with a score of 2 for a watershed that has water body described as “All other waters”.
Figure 4. Potential Human Exposure

NPS pollution can potentially increase with high population density in urban areas compared to less populated rural areas. Because watershed boundaries, in general, covered more than one county, a weighted average was calculated for each watershed based on the percentage area occupied by the watershed in each county. The data was based on 2009 Population estimates obtained from the US Census Bureau’s “American FactFinder” (2010) website. Final score for each watershed was obtained by multiplying the percentile of the density of population by 10
(Figure 5).
Figure 5. Urban Population

Impervious surface in urban areas could become a potential source for NPS pollution.
Impervious surfaces include area under asphalt, concrete, compacted soils, and rooftops. The
2006 Land Use Land Cover (2006 LULC) map prepared by the University of Arkansas’ Center for Advanced Spatial Technology (CAST) (2007) was used to calculate area under urban land use (categories 11, 12, 13, and 14 of 2006 LULC layer) in each of the 58 eight-digit HUC watersheds. The urban land use was used as a surrogate for impervious surface. Final score for each watershed was obtained by multiplying the percentile of the impervious surface by 10
(Figure 6).
Figure 6. Impervious Surface

Economic activity is usually accompanied with urbanization and construction. It could indirectly become a potential source for NPS pollution. This category was evaluated using three subcategories with each of them being assigned scores on watershed basis (Figure 7) as follows:

Construction Activity : Urban watershed acreage was calculated using the 1999 and
2006 LULC layers developed by CAST (2001, 2007). The difference in urban acreage between these two years is used as a surrogate of intensity of construction in each watershed. A percentile rank of the density of urban change is multiplied by 5 to populate the risk assessment matrix.

Shale Development : A watershed is given a score of 4 if it contains an “Active” permit for extracting natural gas. A score of 0 is assigned to those that do not have an “Active” permit. The permits were obtained from a GIS point layer developed by the Arkansas Oil
& Gas Commission (2010).

Other Economic Activity
: The ADEQ’s Environmental Permitted Sites (2006) is a point
GIS layer on GeoStor which contains all the ADEQ permits. The following “Active” permits were extracted: Mining-Coal, Mining-Explore, Mining-Non-Coal, and Mining-
Quarry. An instance of presence of any one of these permits in a watershed is given a score of 1 and absence a 0.
Figure 7. Economic Activity

Runoff from dry and irrigated croplands could be a potential source for surface and groundwater pollution. The USDA’s 2007 Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009) was used to find out the acreage of harvested cropland in each county. A county-area weighted procedure was used to obtain density of harvested cropland in each watershed. Final score for each watershed was obtained by multiplying the percentile of density of harvested cropland by 10 (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Cropland

Livestock and pasture have been reported to be potential source for surface and ground water pollution. Many livestock operators in Arkansas fall below the minimum animal unit criteria to be covered by the Environmental Protection Agency’ (EPA’) confined livestock feeding operations (CAFOs) criteria (Morgan and Matlock, 2008). These smaller operations are therefore managed as NPS pollution. Morgan and Matlock (2008) have also reported that improper management of poultry and livestock waste and direct access of cattle to stream banks could contribute to NPS pollution.
Due to practical difficulties in finding livestock concentration because of the many different species involved, animal unit criteria was used to normalize different animals. The final score for this category is the aggregate total of the pasture and livestock scores (Figure 9).
The scores under this category were assigned as follows:

Pasture : The CAST’s (2007) 2006 LULC layer was used to calculate the pasture acreage. A county-area weighted procedure was used to obtain density of pasture land use in each watershed. Final score for each watershed was obtained by multiplying the percentile of density of pasture land use by 5.

Livestock : Animal numbers were obtained from the USDA 2007 Census of Agriculture
(USDA, 2009). The following formula, developed by EPA’s CAFO, was used to convert the animal numbers to common “animal units” (Federal Register, 2003):
Dairy Cattle * 1.429 + Beef Cattle * 1
+ Swine (> 55lbs) * 0.4 + Swine (<55lbs) * 0.1 + Horses * 2
+ Sheep or Lambs * 0.1 + Turkeys * .0182 + Broilers * 0.00740
+ Laying Hens * 0.0333
The USDA reports swine numbers as: “breeders” or “others.” Swine are generally bread till they are approximately 55 lbs. The other animal units were more straightforward and are available in the USDA census documents. A county-area weighted procedure was used to obtain animal density in each county. Final score for each watershed was obtained by multiplying animal density by 5.

Figure 3 Livestock and Pasture

Several reports have discussed the potential for sediment loading from unpaved roads. The
Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department’ (AHTDa, 2006) road data was downloaded from GeoStor ( http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Home.html
) and information about length of unpaved roads was extracted. The length of unpaved road in each watershed was divided by watershed area to calculate the density of unpaved roads in the watershed. Final score for each watershed was obtained by multiplying the percentile of density of unpaved roads by 10 (Figure
10).
Figure 10. Unpaved Roads

EPA, State, and local authorities in recent years have realized the impact of forestry activities on
NPS pollution. To account for land use under forest, 2005-2009 State Management Plan used
1999 LULC map and divided forest data in public forest and non-public forest categories. During
2009 NPS Annual Task Force meeting, the Task Force asked for further dividing non-public forest data into state forest and private forest categories. The data set used was AHTD’s
(AHTDb, 2006) “Public Land Boundary" and state/private forest data supplied by the Arkansas
Forestry Commission. Total forest area in the state was obtained from 2006 LULC map. The area under National and State forest was subtracted from Total forest area. Density of forest area in each of the three categories was obtained by dividing their area by watershed area. The ranking of density of forest area under each of the three categories was calculated using percentile criteria. The final score was obtained by multiplying state forest percentile rank by 2, federal forest percentile rank by 3 and the private forest percentile rank by 5 (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Forestry

A score of 10 was given to water bodies leaving Arkansas that did meet the adjacent state’s NPS pollution priorities. The water bodies that fell under this category were obtained from Morgan and Matlock (2008) (Figure 12).
Figure 12. Adjacent State Priority

As reported in the introduction, the formula used for calculating the final ranking was as follows:
Value of category 1*Sum of the scores for categories 2 through 12
Based on the watersheds’ final percentile scores, the water bodies were divided into the following quintiles: 0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, and 81-100%. Those that fall within the highest quintile have been considered watersheds of high priority (Morgan and Matlock, 2008). Table 6 lists the twelve watersheds that were determined high priority through this method. Among these twelve, nine of the watersheds had scores of 10 in category 1 - a primary reason for their high rankings. The remaining three watersheds (Lake Conway, Illinois, and Upper Saline) had scores of 8 in category 1 and consistently high scores in the remaining categories, particularly category
4 in which they each received a 10. LCPRW has TMDLs established for two water bodies but the source is reported as municipal point sources. Illinois does not have any water body designated for TMDL due to NPS. Upper Saline has a TMDL established but the source of its impairment is unknown. Both unknown and point sources are not considered in the risk matrix.
Strawberry, Upper Ouachita, Cache, Lower Ouachita-Smackover, and Ouachita Headwaters are new additions to the priority list. All five water bodies scored a ten in category 1, the major factor contributing to their addition to the list. Also leading to their new rankings are consistent high marks in categories 2 and 3. Each new priority watershed scored a perfect ten in category 3, and three of the new water bodies (Strawberry, Lower Ouachita-Smackover, Upper Ouachita) scored a perfect ten in category 2. Except for Strawberry and Cache, high marks were received in category 4 as well. Table 7 gives a full summary of the priority watersheds’ individual scores in each category and Table 8 provides a list of impairments in the priority watersheds.

Figure 13. Final Priority

Table 6. Watersheds with final ranking of 81-100 percentile
Subwatershed Name
Beaver Reservoir
Poteau
Bayou Bartholomew
Illinois
Ouachita Headwaters
Lake Conway-Point Remove
Upper Ouachita
Upper Saline
L Anguille
Cache
Strawberry
Lower Ouachita-Smackover
HUC (8digit)
Drainage
Area (km 2 )
11010001 5625.71
11110105 1442.52
08040205 3976.38
11110103 1962.51
08040101 4007.36
11110203 2961.08
08040102 4542.74
08040203 4442.43
08020205 2473.54
08020302 5067.21
11010012 1971.50
08040201 4662.94
Majority Land
Use
Final Risk Matrix
Percentile
Forest (64%)
Forest (61%)
100
98
Forest (59%) 97
Pasture (45%) 95
Forest (77%)
Forest (54%)
Forest (79%)
93
91
90
Forest (78%)
Crops (71%)
Crops (67%)
Forest (58%)
Forest (82%)
88
85
85
83
81
Table 7. Risk matrix summary and total score
Watershed
Beaver Reservoir
Poteau
Bayou Bartholomew
Illinois
Ouachita Headwaters
HUC 8 digit C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12 Total
11010001 10 10 10 10 8.28 5.69 7.93 4.14 8.79 2.76 6.31 10 838.97
11110105 10
11110103 8
8040101 10
0 10 10 8.62 8.62 9.22 2.41 4.31 5.86 3.45
8040205 10 10 10
5
5
0
10
8
10
10
4.14 3.62 2.47 6.72 4.05 4.31
9.31 9.66 9.91
7.41
5.34 8.10 8.45 5.52
7.24 8.28 5.14 0.86 3.19 8.79 5.57
10 725.00
10 707.24
10 650.34
0 640.69
Lake Conway-Point Remove
Upper Ouachita
Upper Saline
Cache
L Anguille
Strawberry
11110203
8040102
8020205
11010012
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
7.93 9.14 9.48 5.17 6.55 3.62 5.69
3.97 6.03 4.53 0.69 1.72 7.93 6.78
8040203 8 10 10 10 8.10 8.45 5.31 1.72 1.90 9.31 5.97
8020302 10 4 10 2 5.86 3.79 6.90 8.97 2.16 7.59 5.17
2 4.83 5.00 3.07 9.14 1.38 7.41 3.60
2 3.28 5.17 3.45 5.00 3.45 8.28 4.91
0
0
0
0
620.69
616.55
566.07
564.31
0 564.31
0 555.34
Lower Ouachita-Smackover 8040201 10 10 10 8 2.07 3.28 6.29 0.34 1.90 5.69 7.12 0 546.90
*C1 = Water body impairment, C2 = Designated usage, C3 = Biotic impact, C4 = Potential human impact, C5 = Urban suburban population, C6 = Impervious surface, C7 = Economic activity, C8 = Cropland, C9 = Livestock and pasture, C10 = Unpaved roads, C11 = Forestry, C12 = Adjacent state priority

Table 8. Priority watershed impairments listed in 2010 303(d) category 4a and 5 list
Name
L Anguille
HUC 8
Digit
Name of impaired streams/segments
8020205 L Anguille River
Causes for impairment* Source
AG
Bear Creek
Tb, PA, DO, Cl, SO4,
TDS
UN UN
MP
Ouachita Headwaters
Caney Creek
Second Creek
Prairie Creek
TDS
DO
Cl, SO4, TDS
AG
AG
NO T SPECIFIED
UN
Upper Ouachita
8040101 Marzam Creek
Little Marzam
Creek
Prairie Creek pH pH
8040102 Cove Creek
Chamberlain Creek
Lucinda Creek
DO, Cu, Tb pH, SO4, TDS pH, SO4, TDS, Cu, Zn,
Cd pH, SO4, Zn
SE
RE , UN
RE
D.C. Creek
Caddo River
Ouachita River
Deceiper Creek
Zn
Tb, Zn
Zn pH
RE
RE
RE
UN
UN
Bayou Bartholomew
UN
UN
UN
UN
RE
AG , UN
Beaver Reservoir
Freeo Creek
White Oak Creek
Tulip Creek
Cypress Creek
S. Fork Caddo
8040205 Bayou
Bartholomew
Bearhouse Creek
Deep Bayou
Melton's Creek
Harding Creek
Deep Bayou
Cutoff Creek
Cross Bayou pH pH pH pH
Cu, Zn
Tb, Cl, Hg, SO4, TDS,
DO, Pb
PA
Tb, DO, Pb
PA
PA, Cu, Pb, Zn
PA
Tb, Hg, DO
PA
Chemin-A-Haut Cr. PA, DO
Main Street Ditch DO, Cu, Pb
Bayou Imbeau
Able's Creek
DO, Pb
Tb
Wolf Creek
Overflow Creek
11010001 Holman Creek
Kings River
DO
Tb, Cl
Cl, TDS, Tb
DO, TDS
UN
UN
UN
AG , UR
SE , UN
UN
UN
UN
UR
UR
UN
UN
UN
SE , MP
UN

White River
West Fork
Cl, SO4, TDS, Tb,
SO4, TDS
Leatherwood Creek DO
SE
UN
UN
Illinois
Beaver Lake
11110103 Illinois River
Clear Creek
Muddy Fork
Illinois
Sager Creek
Swepco Lake
Tb, PA
PA, Tb
PA
PA
NO3
UN
SE
AG
UR
, SE not specified
MP
UN
11110105 Poteau River Tb, Cu, Zn, TP, DO, TDS SE, IP, MP
11110203 Stone Dam Creek AM, NO3, Tb MP, SE
Poteau
Lake Conway-Point
Remove
Upper Saline
Cache
Strawberry
Lower Ouachita-
Smackover
11010012
8040201
Whig Creek
Arkansas River
White Oak Creek
8040203 Saline River
Winona
Big Creek
8020302 Cache River
Frierson Lake
Old Town
Bayou DeView
Lost Creek Ditch
Strawberry River
Moro Creek
NO3, Cu
DO
Tb
Hg, Tb, TDS
Hg
Tb
TDS, Pb, Tb
Sl, Cu
NU
Cl, TDS, Pb
Cl
Tb, PA
Cu, Pb, Tb, Hg
MP
HP
UN
UN, SE
UN
SE , UN
AG
UN
UN
IP, MP,
UN
SE
UN, SE
AG
Ouachita River
L. Champagnolle
Cr.
Champagnolle
Elcc Tributary
Flat Creek
Salt Creek
Prairie Creek
Cu, Zn, Hg
Hg
Hg
Cu, Zn, NO3, Cl, SO4,
TDS, AM
Cu, Zn, Cl, SO4, TDS pH, Cu, Cl, TDS
Tb
UN
UN
UN
IP
RE , IP
RE , IP
SE
Smackover Creek
Jug Creek
DO, Zn
Cu
UN
MP
*Tb = Siltation/Turbidity; AM = Ammonia; NO3 = Nitrogen; TP = Total Phosphorus; DO = Dissolved Oxygen; PA
= Pathogen Indicators (bacteria); Cl = Chlorides; SO4 = Sulfates; TDS = Total Dissolved Solids; Zn = Zinc; Cu =
Copper; Pb = Lead; Hg = Mercury
# Point Source : IP (industrial point sources), MP (municipal point sources), HP (hydropower); Non-Point Sources:
AG (agriculture), SE (surface erosion), UR (urban runoff), RE (resource extraction). Others: UN (Unknown sources)

ADEQ. 2006. Environmental Permitted Site (point). Little Rock, Ar.: Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality. Available at: http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Home.html? id=71f65a0b07ce4f887be12f8eed4f2e75. Accessed 19 August 2010.
ADEQ. 2008. Arkansas 303(d) List – 2008 Report. Little Rock, Ar.: Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality. Available at: http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/reports_data.htm.
Accessed 13 August 2010.
ADEQ. 2009. Ecologically Sensitive Streams (line). Little Rock, Ar.: Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality. Available at: http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Home.html? id=e1079a76c1a8815a0632522a3f42abdd. Accessed 18 August 2010.
ADEQ. 2009. Extraordinary Resource Waters Segments (line). Little Rock, Ar.: Arkansas
Department of Environmental Quality. Available at: http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/
G6/Home.html?id=6483aae34ec56cd898f2d8dea6852a89. Accessed 18 August 2010.
ADEQ. 2010. Arkansas 303(d) List – 2010 Report. Little Rock, Ar.: Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality. Available at: http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/reports_data.htm.
Accessed 13 August 2010.
AHTDa. 2006. Roads All (line). Little Rock, Ar.: Arkansas Highway and Transportation
Department. Available at: http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Home.html? id=dc2912e4d02132440f90072737d569b6. Accessed 18 August 2010.
AHTDb. 2006. Public Land Boundary (polygon). Little Rock, Ar.: Arkansas Highway and
Transportation Department. Available at: http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/
Home.html?id=07ea223a5c3e2ffa5a2c9eb2e5c39cdb. Accessed 19 August 2010.
ANRC. 2005a. 2005-2009 nonpoint source pollution management program. Submission Draft.
Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, Little Rock, AR.
ANRC. 2005b. Nutrient Surplus Area (polygon). Little Rock, Ar.: AR Natural Resource
Commission. Available at: http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Home.html?id=
74060a24e9b538d305810e9ad6afebe8. Accessed 18 August 2010.
AOGC. 2010. Oil Gas Well (point). El Dorado, Ar.: AR Oil and Gas Commission. Available at: http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Home.html?id=ca83fdf34cb779a5bd0aa4124b560f1
4. Accessed 19 August 2010.
CAST. 2001. Land Use Land Cover Fall 1999 (raster). Fayetteville, Ar.: Center for Advanced
Spatial Technologies. Available at: http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Home.html? id=610b7d8128fee0743a716a3947485210. Accessed 18 August 2010.

CAST. 2007. Land Use Land Cover Fall 2006 (raster). Fayetteville, Ar.: Center for Advanced
Spatial Technologies. Available at: http://www.geostor.arkansas.gov/G6/Home.html? id=31a09ad7c9e178278cf2378c550ee18d. Accessed 18 August 2010.
Federal Register. 2003. Rules and regulations. National Archives and Records Administration
68(29).
Morgan, R. and M. Matlock. 2008. A collaborative learning matrix for combing science with stakeholder involvement to prioritize watershed implementation in Arkansas’ nonpoint source state management plan.
Management 10(3): 307-331.
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Available at: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/index.asp. Accessed 18 August
2010.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American Factfinder. US Census Bureau, Population Estimates
Program. Available at: http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed 12 August 2010.