1. Surface Water Availability

2. Surface Water Considerations
Physical Availability
Safe Yield
Excess Surface Water
Allocation During Time of Shortage
Fish and Wildlife Flows
USACE Projects
Interstate Compacts

3. Excess Surface Water
25% of water available on an average, annual basis above that required to meet existing/projected future needs , for non-riparian uses or interbasin transfer.
Existing/Projected Needs:
1. Existing riparian rights
2. Water needs of federal water projects
3. Firm yield of reservoirs
4. Maintenance of instream flows (Fish & Wildlife, WQ, Navigation, and Aquifer Recharge), and
5. Future needs in that basin

4. Excess Surface Water Determination
1990 Plan calculated excess water for 8 areas using 19 gages
2014 Update uses 51 gages to calculate excess water in 9 major river basins and 32 sub-basins
Updated stream flow data and demands
No change assumed if demand decreased

5. Current update includes 9 major river basins and up to 30 sub-basins

6. Excess Water, by River Basin
Excess Water (Million ac-ft/yr)
White River (Cache)
1.7
Arkansas River
3.3
Delta
1.6
Ouachita River
1.0
Red River
1.1

7. Excess Surface Water Availability Results
1990 Statewide total excess surface water ~10.5 million ac-ft
Updated Statewide total ~8.74 million ac-ft
Differences result from updated demand projections, changes in in-stream needs (e.g., White River minimum flows), and basin differences (e.g., 1990 East Arkansas methodology)
Represents annual average, but does not reflect seasonal variations

8. US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Projects
Arkansas Water Plan (AWP) references the annual summary of USACE projects
Current allocation status for each reservoir
Summary of general process required for reallocation

9. USACE Lakes

10. Interstate Compacts
Compact delivery requirements limit available surface water
Arkansas River Compact (AR and OK)
Red River Compact (OK, TX, AR and LA) – includes all areas south of the Arkansas River watershed

11. Fish and Wildlife Flows

12. Fish and Wildlife Flows
Subgroup formed
Technical workshop – March 2013
Reviewed the Arkansas Method, Modified Tennant Method
Reviewed national and southeastern methods for estimating instream flows
Recommended path forward

13. Recommendations
Use the Arkansas Method for estimating fish and wildlife flows and updating excess flow estimates for the 2014 Arkansas Water Plan
Determine flow-ecology relationships and develop an empirical, risk-based method for estimating flow-ecology (e.g., fishery) relationships, based on:
Magnitude
Frequency
Duration
Timing, and
Rate of change of flow
Using the AR Method for planning is fine- but for implementation the permitting should be strengthened to include seasonal compliance with fish & Wildlife thresholds identified in the AR Method. Even riparian users should agree that a non-riparian, unrestricted permit could risk their needs during the low flow seasons.

14. Recommendations (Continued)
Framework for adopting alternative methods for F&W flows into Arkansas Water Plan (i.e., adaptive management), which requires:
Defining how flows were determined (e.g., USGS gauge)
Specifying the applicable stream classes (e.g. extraordinary resource waters)
Documenting the current hydrologic status
Confirming the flow-ecology relationships are scientifically defensible
Documenting the stakeholder process used to refine, if needed, flows to achieve all designated uses
Monitoring and periodically assessing flow-ecology relations
We need to take Farm Bureau’s comments to heart and why this Framework change is needed, e.g. 1) improved site specific criteria, 2) incorporates existing hydrological/biological conditions and alterations into the decision model, 3) enhances local stakeholders making the decisions. Also- can we provide a practical illustration? Likewise- we need to, at least put on the table, that the F&W group is considering strengthening language for ERW streams.

15. Recommendations (Continued)
Propose approaches for reducing the likelihood of declared water shortages and stopping withdrawals
For Illustration Only
No suggestions here- I’ll be curious as to the groups reaction.

16. Surface Water Quality

17. Information Sources Updated information since 1990 Plan
State-wide information sources
ADEQ
USGS
Updated information since 1990 Plan
Selected sources within water resources planning regions
Beaver Water District
Ft. Smith
Central Arkansas Water
ANRC
AR Department of Health

18. Analyses Used existing results for current status
305(b) reports
303(d) lists
Demand water use sectors
Summary by AR WR Planning Regions
WQ Trend analyses at concurrent water supply sites
Flow-adjusted Seasonal Kendall trend analyses
Issues: since 1990 Plan and emerging

19. Current (2008) Water Quality: Impaired Stream Miles, Lake Acreage
Designated use
Water Demand Sector Use
Impaired Stream Miles/% of Total Assessed
Impaired Lake Acres/% of Total Assessed
Fish Consumption
Recreation
363.3/3%
23,637/6%
Aquatic Life
Fish & Wildlife
2,439.9/25%
11,248/3%
Primary Contact
564.8/6%
Secondary Contact
7/0.01%
Domestic Water Supply
Drinking Water
448.3/4%
97,105/27%
Ag & Industrial Water Supply
Agriculture, Industry
967.7/10%
Total miles (acres) impaired
4,086.5/41%
127,520/36%
Total miles (acres) assessed
9,849.7
357,896
11,900 miles of stream in state (basis for assessment)
More detailed mapping, includes ephemerals, results in 87,617 miles of stream in state

20. Causes of Impairment (2008)
Stream Miles
Lake Acres
Siltation/Turbidity
1,156.3
3,235
Organic Enrichment/
Low DO/Nutrients
1,308
4,625
Mercury
319
18,677
Priority Organics
44.8
<10
E. coli
638.8
Chlorides
691.7
Sulfates
511
Total Dissolved Solids
1,021.7
Beryllium
97,105
Copper
335
Unknown
30,485

21. Water Quality Change/Trend Stations
Historic water quality evaluated at/near water availability assessment sites
1990 AWP wq data up to mid 1980’s, around 30 yrs ago
25 sites with wq > 30 yrs
Linear regression of log10 data by year

22. Parameters Analyzed* DO Turbidity Inorganic N TSS TKN Fecal Coliforms
Total P
Turbidity
TSS
Fecal Coliforms
Parameters analyzed related to Aquatic Life designated use support
Fecal coliforms related to Recreation designated uses support
*Parameters analyzed primarily related to aquatic life use
Fecal coliforms related to recreational use

23. Results of Q-adjusted Seasonal Kendall North Planning Region
Stream Name
Water Quality Trends DO
Inorganic N
TKN
Total Phosphorus
Turbidity
TSS
Kings River
None
Black River
< 30 yrs
Strawberry River
Middle Fork Little Red R.
Illinois River
<30 yrs

24. Overall Surface Water Quality Summary
Assessed streams (59%) and lakes (64%) attained uses
No statewide patterns of use impairment or causes, except fish consumption (mercury) since 1990
Declining trends in suspended solids across most water resources planning regions
Potential emerging concern – trace organics known as CECs

25. How to Follow the Arkansas Water Planning Process and Get More Information
Visit the Water Plan Website at: ARWaterPlan.Arkansas.gov
Send an to:
Provide us your address and we
will send periodic updates
Visit the ANRC website to follow Commission activities
anrc.arkansas.gov/