West Fork White River Watershed Conservation Map Summaries Prepared for the Beaver Watershed Alliance By the Watershed Conservation Resource Center November 2014
The Watershed Conservation Resource Center (WCRC) was contracted by the Beaver Watershed Alliance (BWA) to compile the best available conservation data within the West Fork of the White River (WFWR) Watershed and produce mapping products to help guide conservation initiatives. The first step of this process involved researching and gathering information from multiple sources and studies that were relevant to the WFWR Watershed. Once the data was inventoried and reviewed, the WCRC and BWA agreed upon a map set that would provide the most use for conservation planners and practitioners. The WCRC also worked with the BWA s web developer to produce interactive maps to be hosted on the BWA website. Through BWA s request, the WCRC is working directly with the Walton Family Foundation to provide the results of this study to help guide other conservation projects that are currently underway. The purpose of the mapping products and the data used for this project are described in detail in the following paragraphs. Map Summary: The purpose of this map is to show where conservation best management practices (BMPs) are being implemented in the WFWR watershed as of October 2014. Data included: Conservation Easements: Locations where conservation easements exist within the WFWR watershed. Data obtained from the Arkansas Land Trust and the Ozark Land Trust and BWA. Invasive Plant Removal Site: Property owners who are working with BWA and implementing this BMP on their land. Invasive plant removal is defined as the pruning, cutting, or pulling of exotic plants to allow for beneficial native plants to thrive. This practice improves the habitat for wildlife, and improves growing conditions for native plants which provide important ecosystem services in a given region. Data obtained from BWA. No Mow Zone: Property owners who are working with BWA and implementing this BMP on their land. A "no mow zone" is defined as allowing streamside vegetation to grow or increase by stopping mowing activities within a certain distance to the edge of the streambank. This practice reduces surface erosion and runoff, reduces streambank erosion, restores riparian plant communities, and creates riparian habitat for wildlife. Data obtained from BWA. Rain Gardens: Rain gardens that have been constructed within the WFWR watershed. Rain gardens are defined as a landscaped depression that is planted with native vegetation to capture runoff from impervious surfaces, such as rooftops or parking lots, to slow down runoff water and allow it to percolate into the soil. Rain gardens reduce runoff and pollution, while increasing wildlife habitat and groundwater recharge. Data obtained from BWA.
Reforestation: Property owners who are working with BWA and implementing this BMP on their land. Reforestation involves the re-establishment of trees and shrubs on land that has been cleared of forest to create and improve wildlife habitat and reduce negative impacts of land use changes such as surface erosion, runoff, and flooding. Data obtained from BWA. Renovated Pastures: Property owners who have used a pasture aerator on their property. Pasture aeration increases soil porosity, water infiltration, root growth, and forage production, which also improve fertilizer efficiency while decreasing potential nutrient and sediment runoff from fields. Data obtained from BWA. Riparian Buffer Enhancement: Property owners who are working with BWA and implementing this BMP on their land. This BMP involves increasing the amount of vegetation present on a streambank or in floodplain to increase wildlife habitat, pollution filtration, and streambank stability and to decrease streambank erosion. Data obtained from BWA. Riparian Establishment: Property owners who are working with BWA and implementing this BMP on their land. This BMP involves creating a riparian buffer, which is a streamside area with grasses, trees, shrubs, and forbs which separates or buffers a stream from an adjacent land use. Data obtained from BWA. Stream Restorations Complete or In Progress: Stream restorations within the WFWR watershed that have either been completed or are in progress. Data obtained from WCRC. Participating Landowners: Landowners who have been in contact with the BWA and have expressed an interest in conservation through action on their land. Data obtained from BWA. Pasture BMP Priorities Map Summary: This map is intended to be a guide for identifying priority areas for implementing pasture BMPs. It contains priority pastures based on soil type and slope as well as landowners who have already implemented BMPs on their land. Data is from the ADEQ 2004 study.
Data included: Renovated Pastures: Property owners who have used a pasture aerator on their property. Pasture aeration increases soil porosity, water infiltration, root growth, and forage production, which also improve fertilizer efficiency while decreasing potential nutrient and sediment runoff from fields. Data obtained from BWA. Soil Test Completed: Property owners who have worked with the BWA to have the soil tested on their pastures. Obtaining soil samples for analysis helps to determine soil ph and nutrient levels to base fertilizer and lime recommendations on in order to improve forage growth and prevent nutrient and sediment runoff. Data obtained from BWA. Other Pastures (WFWRPastures): Pastures digitized from 2004 aerial photography as a part of a landuse delineation used in the ADEQ Assessment (ADEQ, 2004). Priority Pastures: WFWR Pastures stratified by soil type and slope. The results of a Watershed Erosion Prediction (WEPP) model showed that pastures with Enders soil type on a slope of 8% or greater have the highest sediment and nutrient runoff coefficients and are thus depicted as Priority Pastures in the ADEQ 2004 study. Opportunities Map Summary: This map highlights the conservation interests/concerns of the community that were identified during outreach meetings held in 2013 2014. The map calls out the sites of interest that were mentioned, while general community comments that were not tied to a specific place are listed on page 2. Data obtained from BWA. Data included: Community Sites of Concern: Sites of interest/concern within the WFWR watershed that were identified by the community during the 2013-2014 outreach meetings. Data Obtained from BWA. Participating Landowners: Landowners who have been in contact with the BWA and have expressed an interest in conservation through action on their land. Data Obtained from BWA.
Unpaved Road BMP Map Summary: This map is intended to be a guide for identifying priority areas for implementing unpaved road BMPs. Priority roads were identified as having the highest runoff coefficients based on their surface type and ditch presence. Data obtained from the ADEQ 2004 study. Unpaved road runoff sites were also reporting during the 2013 2014 outreach meetings and are included in the map. Data obtained from BWA. Data included: Wing Ditches: A GPS inventory of wing ditches in the WFWR watershed. Since wing ditches are predominantly used on roads with a steep slope, these are good indicators of priority unpaved roads for BMP implementation (ADEQ, 2004). Unpaved Roads Inventory (Priority Unpaved, Other Unpaved and Non-Urban Paved Roads): A GPS inventory of gravel roads in the WFWR watershed with surface type, width, and ditch presence identified (ADEQ, 2004). Surface type included: gravel, spot (gravel & native mixed), native, and paved. Width was single lane or double land. Ditch was either present or absent. Export coefficients were taken from published data and it was determined that gravel and spot roads with a ditch present had the highest erosion coefficients. These were used in the map as the priority unpaved roads. Data obtained from the ADEQ 2004 study. Reported Road Run-off Issue: Roads reported by the community during the 2013-2014 outreach meetings as problem areas for road run-off. Data obtained from BWA. Participating Landowner: Landowners who have been in contact with the BWA and have expressed an interest in conservation through action on their land. Data is obtained from BWA. Conservation Priorities Maps (North View, Central View, South View and Overview) Summary: The purpose of this map is to identify priority conservation areas within the WFWR watershed. Three prioritization studies have been completed in the WFWR watershed and were used in this map. One was completed for the Fayetteville Planning area and focused on identifying priority parcels for conservation (Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association, 2006). Another study was conducted for the Beaver Reservoir watershed which identified priority catchments for preservation (TNC, 2007). Both of these studies had rankings system based on several weighted variables (Table 1 & 2). Lastly, a stream reach prioritization was included which identified
priority stream reaches for restoration in the WFWR watershed (WCRC, 2010). It should be noted that there are conservation areas that were not a focus of these studies. For instance, sensitive ecosystems such as wet prairies were not identified. Data included: Priority Parcels for Conservation: Parcels with weighted scores for combined terrestrial and aquatic integrity derived from a Conservation Priority Ranking (CPR) Model developed for the Urban Forest Conservation Assessment for Fayetteville Arkansas (Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association, 2006). Weighted variables for both categories are included in Table 1. Data used for priotity parcels is from the Fayetteville Natural Heritag Association 2006 study and was obtained from The Nature Conservancy, who was the contracter that did the work for the Association. Table 1. Variables used in the CPR Model GIS Analysis: The study area for the Urban Forest Conservation Assessment for Fayetteville Arkansas assessment included both the Illinois and White River sub-watersheds and only covered approximately 54% of the WFWR sub-watershed. Since the parcels ranked within Figure 1. Break points defined for the range of combined terrestrial and aquatic values.
the WFWR sub-watershed were only a sub-set of the total study, and were normalized with the entire range, the WFWR sub-watershed parcels were selected out and normalized independently. In order to obtain an overall conservation value for the WFWR parcels, the normalized Terrestrial and Aquatic integrity scores were combined by using the arithmetic mean. The map displays the results in 5 categories from low to high combined terrestrial and aquatic integrity. The break points for these 5 classes were developed by using equal interval break points (Figure 1). Sub-Watershed Preservation Priorities: Catchments within the WFWR watershed which were ranked based on their priority for preservation. This data was provided by TNC and was the result of a Urban Forest Conservation Assessment for the Watershed of Beaver Reservoir (TNC, 2007). Catchments were ranked based on water quality and habitat with weighted variables in each of these categories. Weighted variables for both categories are included in Table 2. The study area for this assessment was the Beaver Reservoir watershed. As a part of this study catchments were stratified based on 12 digit Hydrologic Units (HUC) sub-watersheds. Because of this the data was not manipulated and can be related back to the original study. The map displays results by showing a ranking from 1-10 (low to high preservation value) for each catchment. The break points for these rankings were developed by using equal interval break points (Figure 2). Figure 2. Break points defined for catchment preservation ranking.
Water Quality Riparian: Upland: Benefit Weight Benefit Weight Stream Length 0.5 Upland Area 0.5 Riparian Zone 1 Soil Types 1 Water Bodies 1 Ground Water Sensitivity 2 Flow Accumulation 0.5 Park/Preserve 2 Park/Preserve 2 Forest Cover 2 Ground Water sensitivity 2 Distance to the Headwaters 1 Impact % Riparian Zone Forested 2 Grazing Extent 1 Confined Animal Operations 1 Impact Grazing Extent Riparian Zone 1 Urban and Industrial Development 2 Confined Animal Operations 2 Road Density 1 Urban and Industrial Development 2 Bare Ground 2 Road Density 1 NPDES Point Source 0.5 Road Crossing in Riparian Zone 2 Habitat Aquatic: Terrestrial: Benefit Weight Benefit: Weight Stream Length 2 Upland Area 0.5 Riparian Zone 2 Park/Preserve 2 Water Bodies 1 Habitat Connectivity 2 Flow Accumulation 0.5 Topographic Diversity 2 Park/Preserve 2 Soil Diversity 0.5 Ground Water Sensitivity 1 Total Forest Cover 2 Distance to the Headwaters 1 Diversity of Forest Types 1 Riparian Zone Forested 2 Size of Forest Patches 2 Length of Forested Stream Reaches 2 Number of Forest Patches 1 Predicted Species Diversity 2 Predicted Vertebrate Species Divers 1 Impact Grazing Extent Riparian Zone 1 Impact Confined Animal Operations 1 Grazing Extent 1 Urban and Industrial Development 2 Confined Animal Operations 1 Road Density 1 Urban and Industrial Development 2 NPDES Point Source 2 Road Density 1 Table 2. Weighted Variables used in determining priority catchments. Priority Stream Restoration Sites: Stream reaches within the WFWR watershed were identified as having accelerated streambank erosion and good candidates for restoration (WCRC, 2010). The data was obtained from the WCRC. Priority Stream Restoration Sites: WFWR stream reaches identified as priorities for restoration based on multiple factors including: accelerated streambank erosion, grade controls, head cuts, vegetation type, and land ownership (WCRC, 2010). The data was obtained from the WCRC.
Stream/River Restoration Complete or In Progress: Stream restorations within the WFWR watershed that have either been completed or are in progress. The data was obtained from the WCRC. Private Land with Community Interest in Conservation: Privately owned properties identified by the community during the 2013-2014 outreach meetings as properties that should be conserved. The data was obtained from BWA. Private Land with Potential for Conservation: Private landowners who have been in contact with the BWA and have expressed interest in conserving their land. The data was obtained from BWA. Participating Landowners: Landowners who have been in contact with the BWA and have expressed an interest in conservation through action on their land. The data was obtained from BWA. City Parks: Parks that are owned and managed by a municipality within the WFWR watershed. Data obtained from BWA. Conservation Easement: Conservation easement boundaries in the WFWR watershed. Data obtained from the Arkansas Land Trust and the Ozark Land Trust and BWA. Parcel: Land ownership boundaries. Data obtained from the Washington County Assessor s Office.
References Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Preservation Division. West Fork - White River Watershed - Data Inventory and Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment (Draft). 2004. Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association. Urban Forest Conservation Assessment for Fayetteville Arkansas. 2006. The Nature Conservancy. Urban Forest Conservation Assessment for the Watershed of Beaver Reservoir The Upper White River Basin, Arkansas. 2007. Watershed Conservation Resource Center. USDA NRCS Conservation Partnership Initiative West Fork White River Watershed Restoration of Priority Stream Reaches Project Plan. 2010.
Appendix 1 GIS Metadata
Geodatabase: WFWR_BWA_Assessment_Final Feature Dataset: ADEQ_WFWR_WatershedAssessment Map Contains data layers used from the West Fork White River (WFWR) Watershed Inventory & Non-Point Source Pollution Assessment (ADEQ, 2004) Layers: WFWRPastures: Pastures digitized from 2004 aerial photography as a part of a landuse deliniation used in the ADEQ Assessment. PriorityPastures: WFWRPastures stratified by soil type and slope. The results of a Watershed Erosion Prediction (WEPP) model showed that pastures with Enders soil type on a slope of 8% or greater have the highest sediment and nutrient runoff coeffecients and are thus depicted as Priority Pastures. Pasture Map UnpavedRoadsInventory: Unpaved Roads Map A GPS inventory of gravel roads in the WFWR watershed with surface type, width, and ditch presence identified. Surface type included: gravel, spot (gravel & native mixed), native, and paved. Width was single lane or double land. Ditch was either present or absent. Export coefficients were taken from published data and it was determined that gravel and spot roads with a ditch present had the highest erosion coefficents. These were used in the map as the priority unpaved roads. WingDitches: A GPS inventory of wing ditches in the WFWR watershed. Since wing ditches are predominantly used on roads with a steep slope, these are good indicaters of priority unpaved roads for BMP implementation. Unpaved Roads Map Feature Dataset: BaseLayers Contains layers used for spatial context. Layers: MajorRoads: All Maps State and Federal Highways. This is a subset of the Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department's roads layer. NHD Streams: Streams with a stream order of 4 or lower. This is a subset of the USGS National Hydrography Dataset containing rivers and streams. All Maps Parcel: Washington county land ownership boundaries. All Maps WFWR_MainBranch: All Maps
The WFWR main branch. This is a subset of the USGS National Hydrography Dataset containing rivers and streams. WFWR_Watershed: The WFWR Watershed. This is a subset of the USGS National Hydrography Dataset containing Hydrologic Units(HUC) for the Watershed Boundary dataset. All Maps Feature Dataset: BWD_Subwatershed_Study Contains data used from the Urban Forest Conservation Assessment for the Watershed of Beaver Reservoir, The Upper White River Basin, Arkansas (TNC, 2007). Layers: PreservationSubWatershedPriorities: Conservation Priorities Beaver Reservoir Watershed Catchments as defined by the USGS National Hydrography Plus Dataset ranked based on multiple variables that contribute to its priority for preservation. Feature Dataset: FHNA_Parcel_Conservation_Study Contains data used from the Urban Forest Conservation Assessment for Fayetteville Arkansas (Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association, 2006). Layers: FHNA_Parcels_Aquatic_Terrestrial_Combined: Conservation Priorities This is a subset of the land ownership boundaries (parcels) that fall within 12-digit HUCs that intersect the Fayetteville Planning Area ranked based on a set of variables that contribute to their terrestrial and aquatic integrity and overall conservation value. The data was subset for the WFWR watershed and weighted values for Aquatic and Terrestrial Integrity were normalized and combined to assign an overall conservation value to each parcel within the WFWR watershed. Feature Dataset: WCRC_CPI_Study Conservation Priorities Contains data used from the USDA NRCS Conservation Partnership Initiative West Fork White River Watershed Restoration of Priority Stream Reaches Project Plan (WCRC, 2010). Layers: Priority Reaches: WFWR stream reaches identified as priorities for restoration based on multiple factors including: accelerated erosion, grade controls, head cuts, vegetation type, and land ownership. Root Directory: Contains layers and annotation created specifically for this project. Layers: Cities (annotation): All except Conservation Priorities N, Central, S View City labels throughout the WFWR watershed. Cities_Small (annotation): City labels throughout the WFWR watershed used for the larger scale maps. Conservation Priorities N, Central, S View
CommunitySitesOfConcern: Sites of interest/concern within the WFWR watershed that were identified by the community during the 2013-2014 outreach meetings. Opportunities ConservationEasementPts: Locations where conservation easements exist within the WFWR watershed from the Northwest Arkansas Land Trust and the Ozark Land Trust. Highways (annotation): State and Federal highway labels. All except Conservation Priorities N, Central, S View Highways small (annotation): State and Federal highway labels used for the larger scale maps. Conservation Priorities N, Central, S View Invasive Plant Removal: Property owners who are working with Beaver Watershed Alliance (BWA) and implementing this BMP on their land. National Forest: USDA National Forest within the WFWR Watershed. Conservation Priorities NoMowZone: Property owners who are working with BWA and implementing this BMP on their land. A "no mow zone" is defined as allowing streamside vegetation to grow or increase by stopping mowing activities within a certain distance to the edge of the streambank. This practice reduces surface erosion and runoff, reduces streambank erosion, restores riparian plant communities, and creates riparian habitat for wildlife. Opportunities (annotation): Labels of sites of interest/concern within the WFWR watershed that were identified by the community during the 2013-2014 outreach meetings. Opportunities ParcelsofConservationInterest: Privately owned properties identified by the community during the 2013-2014 outreach meetings as properties that should be conserved. Opportunities Participating Landowers: Landowners who have been in contact with the BWA and have expressed an interest in conservation through action on their land. All Maps except Pasture Map Raingardens:
Rain gardens that have been constructed within the WFWR watershed. Rain gardens are defined as a landscaped depression that is planted with native vegetation to capture runoff from impervious surfaces, such as rooftops or parking lots, to slow down runoff water and allow it to percolate into the soil. Rain gardens reduce runoff and pollution, while increasing wildlife habitat and groundwater recharge. Reforestation: Property owners who are working with BWA and implementing this BMP on their land. Reforestation involves the re-establishment of trees and shrubs on land that has been cleared of forest to create and improve wildlife habitat and reduce negative impacts of land use changes such as surface erosion, runoff, and flooding. RenovatedPastures: Property owners who have used a pasture aerator on their property. Pasture aeration increases soil porosity, water infiltration, root growth, and forage production, which also improve fertilizer efficiency while decreasing potential nutrient and sediment runoff from fields. Pasture Map Reported Road Runoff: Roads reported by the community during the 2013-2014 outreach meetings as problem areas for road run-off. Unpaved Roads RiparianBufferEnhancement: Property owners who are working with BWA and implementing this BMP on their land. This BMP involves increasing the amount of vegetation present on a streambank or in floodplain to increase wildlife habitat, pollution filtration, and streambank stability and to decrease streambank erosion. RiparianEstablishment: Property owners who are working with BWA and implementing this BMP on their land. This BMP involves creating a riparian buffer, which is a streamside area with grasses, trees, shrubs, and forbs which separates or buffers a stream from an adjacent land use. SoilTestCompleted: Property owners who have worked with the BWA to have the soil tested on their pastures. Obtaining soil samples for analysis helps to determine soil ph and nutrient levels to base fertilizer and lime recommendations on in order to improve forage growth and prevent nutrient and sediment runoff. StreamLocations (annotation) General places of interest along the WFWR that provide context to the maps Pasture Map and StreamRestorations_Complete_InProgress Stream restorations within the WFWR watershed that have either been completed or are in progress., Conservation Priorities
Streams (annotation) Labels for named streams within the WFWR watershed. All except Conservation Priorities N, Central, S View StreamsSmall_All (annotation) Labels for named streams within the WFWR watershed used for the larger scale maps. Conservation Priorities N, Central, S View Watershed_Outline_For_Clip Used as a clip feature to exlude data that extends out beyond the WFWR watershed boundary. All Maps Raster Data: USGS Hillshade Digital Raster Graphics All except all Conservation Priority Maps A digital raster graphic (DRG) is a scanned image of a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) standard series topographic map, including all map collar information. The image inside the map neatline is georeferenced to the surface of the earth and fit to the Universal Transverse Mercator projection. The horizontal positional accuracy and datum of the DRG matches the accuracy and datum of the source map. The map is scanned at a minimum resolution of 250 dots per inch. A hillshade derived from the USGS National Elevation Dataset was combined with the standard DRG to provide a shaded relief version of the traditional topographic maps. Raster Data: 2013 True Color Aerial Photography - Washington County Conservation Priority Maps Imagery collected by Pictometry for Washington County in the Fall and Winter of 2013-2014. The resolution is 1 foot.