What is an ERW?

[DMG]

I read this in reference to Lee Creek a while back:

The purpose of this cleanup is for swimmers, whitewater paddlers, bass-anglers, nature enthusiasts, landowners and concerned citizens to take part in keeping a designated Extraordinary Resource Water (ERW) in condition for the designated uses currently listed for the river.

What is an ERW and what protections does it provide?
What agency grants this designation?
What are some of the other ERWs in Arkansas?
Are the designated uses the same for all ERWs or do they vary?
What is the process for having a river declared an ERW?
Is it possible for a river to loose its ERW designation?
If so, what can I do as a boater and club member to help prevent that from happening?

I've asked a bunch of questions here so quick, thumbnail answers are perfect. Just wanted to know what this ERW thing is all about.

Thanks!

Dave

[paddledog]

This might help
http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/water/pdfs/ ... _sheet.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Steph]

If you want all the info available through the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, just go to their website and search for terms extraordinary resource waters and you will find links to the document listed above and others. You can also find the original wording of the legislation through the state of arkansas website.

[DMG]

Thanks both of you! I had not discovered the ADEQ site yet. Looks like it has tons of information on other interesting topics, too.

[DeBo]

Here is an excerpt from my last ERW update. Regulation 2 is the one that deals with all things ERW. You can see a complete copy of it on ADEQ's site. It was recently changed to provide a process to remove and a process to add ERWs. That is the subject of the up date below. Both processes set a very high bar; economic feasibility studies, environmental impact studies etc. The removal process will be attempted on Lee Creek. The Corp of Engineers has received 400k to study the project from the Water Resources Development Act, thanks to Senators Lincoln and Pryor. :roll: We are currently in a holding pattern waiting for the next move. If you want to get involved, write letters and talk to state legislators and other public officials about how you feel.

Get on ADEQ's mailing list for public meetings and stay tuned to this website for updates as they become available.

Thanks, Debbie Doss
ACC Conservation Co-Chair


ERW Update:
EPA recently released their report on ADEQ’s review of regulation 2. The news is good. In their comments on the process to remove the Extraordinary Resource Waters designation from a stream, EPA took no action on revised Reg. 2.310. Reg. 2.310 would allow removal of an ERW designation to construct a dam if the sole purpose for funding and construction is domestic water supply, and there is no feasible alternative. EPA took no action on Reg. 2.310 because it determined that it only provides a process for removing ERWs. EPA reasoned that this procedural change has not actually resulted in a change to any water quality standard since no ERW designation has actually been removed. However, if ADEQ/APC&E actually utilize Reg. 2.310 to remove an ERW designation, EPA will determine at that time whether use of the Reg. 2.310 process violates the Clean Water Act.
Although EPA did not act now, it made clear that it is highly unlikely that it would ever approve the removal of an ERW designation through the Reg. 2.310 process. It is virtually inconceivable that the construction of dam would not cause a “detectable degradation” to the ERW. Second, EPA expressly stated that any future action under Reg. 2.310 to remove an ERW designation must comply with CWA regulations. The Clean Water Act makes it clear that ERW designations that are “existing uses” cannot be removed. The ERW designation is most certainly an “existing use,” on Lee Creek and it is highly unlikely that any other ERW would meet these criteria either.
In short, any attempt to utilize the Reg. 2.310 to remove an ERW designation is almost certainly going to be rejected by EPA, if not ADEQ. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any project proponent would risk its own money to go through the expensive and risky Reg. 2.310 process. Similarly, it is irresponsible for the U.S. Corp of Engineers or any other federal agency to utilize taxpayer dollars to fund studies of such unrealistic projects. This is particularly true for the Pine Mountain Dam, where the dam is not even needed for domestic water supply and there are numerous, cheaper alternatives, including continued use of the Fort Smith Reservoir.