DOCSLIB.ORG

Little Sac River Watershed Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Little Sac River Watershed Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load LITTLE SAC RIVER WATERSHED FECAL COLIFORM TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FAPRI-UMC Report #07-05 December 2005 Claire Baffaut Food & Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) University of Missouri Published by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), University of Missouri-Columbia, 2005 http://www.fapri.missouri.edu The Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources has provided partial funding for this project under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act through a grant entitled “Integrated analysis of the Little Sac Watershed”. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri (FAPRI) is charged with providing objective, quantitative analysis to decision makers. Since 1984, this service has been provided to Congress and national trade associations, and has focused on commodity policy issues. In 1995, the unit was asked to expand its focus and begin to bring the same level of effort to environmental issues, that of providing objective, analytical support. The unit spent considerable time examining the problems and determined the area most lacking analysis was at the local level; the farm, the watershed, and the local community. Similar to the extensive peer-review effort the unit goes through on national commodity policy issues, the environmental analysis effort recognizes the strong need for local involvement. If the local people who must live with the analysis have doubts about the way the analysis was developed, then the effort is wasted. Consequently, the process FAPRI brings to the table also incorporates extensive local input with respect to data sources and model calibration. The University of Missouri System is an Equal Opportunity/ Affirmative Action institution and is nondiscriminatory relative to race, religion, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability or status as a Vietnam-era veteran. Any person having inquiries concerning the University of Missouri-Columbia's compliance with implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, or other civil rights laws should contact the Assistant Vice Chancellor, Human Resource Services, University of Missouri-Columbia, 130 Heinkel Building, Columbia, Mo. 65211, (573) 882-4256, or the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. FAPRI – Little Sac River Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load – ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following participated and/or provided support for the Little Sac River Watershed study. Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute, University of Missouri-Columbia Claire Baffaut, Verel Benson, Wendi Rogers Missouri Department of Conservation Brad Jump Missouri Department of Natural Resources Todd Hudson, Gail Wilson, Vicky Kugler Springfield Utilities Charles Parrot (Northwest WWTP), Dave Balou U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service Montie Hawks, Robert Ball, Tom DeWitt, Robert Howe, Mark Green, Will Rhodes, Steve Hefner University of Missouri Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences Patrick Guinan Watershed Committee of the Ozarks Loring Bullard, Dave White, Matt Keener, Adam Coulter (now with NRCS) Watershed Steering Committee Larry Lane, Ralph Brumley, Billy Dryer, Danny Barker, Carl Speight, Diane Crane, Bill Mitchell, Paule Papez, Greg Lenz, Wendell Painter, Kenny Bergman World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Enteric Zoonoses, University of Missouri-Columbia Dr. Charles A. Carson, Helen Yampara, Jessica Christiansen FAPRI – Little Sac River Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load – iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The weekly fecal coliform monitoring at two sites of the Little Sac River show that the water quality standard for whole body contact (swimming and canoing) was violated at both sites during the 2004 recreation season. Both the mean and the geometric mean of fecal coliform concentrations were higher than 200 colonies/100 ml. The bacterial source tracking data show that the highest fecal coliform loads come from unknown sources, geese, and human. At low flow, these loadings mainly come from the springs located in the upper part of the watershed while the load from the wastewater treatment plant represents only 3% of the stream bacterial loading. In a karst environment, the contamination of the springs occurs easily because of the fast pathways between the ground surface and the shallow aquifer: sinkholes, cracks, and loosing streams. During storm flow conditions, the loadings are transported from the landscape and urban areas to the streams by surface runoff. Addressing the contamination of the springs should be a major component of any management aimed at reducing the bacterial loading in the Little Sac River. The contamination from geese proved to be a major issue as well. This problem can be addressed in urban areas through various means from education, to harassment, to eggs destruction. Several scenarios were investigated with the model in order to assess which alternative management practices would lead to stream fecal coliform concentrations that respect the water quality criteria. If the spring contamination is reduced by 85% and the goose population by 30%, it is expected that fecal coliform concentrations in the little Sac River will meet the water quality standard 70% of the time. FAPRI – Little Sac River Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load – iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ v LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii LITTLE SAC RIVER WATERSHED FECAL COLIFORM TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD ...................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Background Information ................................................................................................................. 2 Geography ................................................................................................................................... 2 Area characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 3 Defining the problem .................................................................................................................. 3 Public involvement related to the study ...................................................................................... 4 Source Assessment...................................................................................................................... 4 Livestock ................................................................................................................................. 4 Horses ..................................................................................................................................... 5 Septic tanks ............................................................................................................................. 5 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................... 5 Permitted facilities .................................................................................................................. 6 Storm runoff from urban areas ................................................................................................ 6 Water Quality Data ..................................................................................................................... 7 Fecal coliform concentrations ................................................................................................. 7 Bacterial Source Tracking ....................................................................................................... 9 Description of the Applicable Water Quality Standards and Numeric Water Quality Targets .... 12 Beneficial uses of Little Sac ..................................................................................................... 12 Use that is impaired .................................................................................................................. 12 Standards that apply .................................................................................................................. 12 Anti-degradation Policy ............................................................................................................ 12 Target Determination ................................................................................................................ 13 Calculation of Load Capacity
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2015 Cedar County Financial Statement
    2015 Cedar County Financial Statement PART A - COUNTY FUNDS SUB-TOTAL 490.00 REVENUES GENERAL ROAD & ASSESSMENT LAW ELECTION TOTAL 24,658.53 REVENUE BRIDGE ENFORCEMENT SALES TAX BUILDING & GROUNDS DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND ATIS ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS LLC ANNUAL BOILER PRESSURE TEST 120.00 FUND BALANCE 01/01/2015 541,621.53 10,519.89 59,649.96 9,198.79 ATLAS SECURITY SERVICE INC PARTS/LABOR ELEVATOR CAMERA COMPLIANCE 1,073.00 RECEIPTS CARD SERVICES SUPPLIES/PARTS 174.45 PROPERTY TAX 393,968.21 182,798.42 0.00 0.00 CITY OF STOCKTON UTILITIES 954.58 SALES TAX 511,994.78 0.00 0.00 561,501.66 DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION SUPPLIES 25.00 INTERGOVERNMENTAL 75,028.66 597,552.23 152,403.28 273,322.68 EMPIRE DISTRICT ELECTRIC UTILITIES 15,132.42 SERVICES 157,031.23 0.00 0.00 71,474.18 FLEETWOOD SERVICES LLC PEST CONTROL 96.00 INTEREST 1,829.23 287.12 219.12 35.74 GOLD MECHANICAL BOILER REPAIR 819.00 OTHER REVENUES 50,237.14 1,077.24 10,270.65 7,438.14 HARRY COOPER SUPPLY PLUMBING PARTS/SUPPLIES 56.64 TRANSFERS IN 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 5,000.00 KENCO FIRE EQUIPMENT INC EXTINGUISHER INSPECTIONS, TESTING & SUPPLIES 40.00 SUBTOTAL 1,191,089.25 781,715.01 162,893.05 918,772.40 KT’S LUNCH BOX MEETING 40.95 LAKESIDE CARPET INTERIORS PAINT SUPPLIES 150.42 TOTAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE 1,732,710.78 792,234.90 222,543.01 927,971.19 LIGHT BULB DEPOT LIGHT BULBS 57.00 EXPENDITURES -1,642,014.37 -654,977.66 -175,570.18 -864,174.62 ME-SHY LOCKSMITH LLC DOOR LOCK PARTS/LABOR 127.86 ADJUSTMENTS 92.30 0.00 0.00 -92.30 MEEK’S - EL DORADO SPRINGS GROUNDS SUPPLIES 56.45 FUND BALANCE
    [Show full text]
  • Sac River Basin Watershed Summary 111315
    The State of Our Missouri Waters Sac River Watershed The Missouri Department of Natural Resources seeks to improve the availability of water resource information to communities where impact to these water resources is felt most. The information presented in this summary is intended to increase awareness of how activities on land and in water have an influence on water resource quality and quantity. The department greatly values local input and engagement regarding the mission of ensuring safe and ample water resources, and will continue to seek local guidance to further focus department efforts and funding strategies for the betterment of Our Missouri Waters. HUC-8: 10290106 September 2015 Sac River Watershed The State of Our Missouri Waters Key Points In the northern portion of the watershed, low dissolved oxygen levels in water bodies often Importance of cause negative impacts to aquatic life and create challenges for the watershed. These low dis- Water Quantity solved oxygen levels are often a result of excess organic materials, which consume oxygen, and may be discharged from wastewater treatment system types less effective in removing and Quality organics. Other sources of excess organics in water bodies may include excess animal waste, excess nutrient loads (fertilizer) and excess sedimentation from stream bank and erosion. Water shortages can have severe and expensive In the southern portion of the watershed, there are challenges regarding bacteria levels in wa- consequences. Adequate ter bodies, which can cause serious public health and recreational safety issues. Nonpoint water supplies are vital not sources of contamination, such as animal waste and contaminants carried by stormwater run- only to human health and off, can have a serious cumulative impact on surface waters in a largely rural watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Dade Countycounty Missourimissouri States...And It Territories...For the Protection of Life and Property
    National Weather Service “To provide weather and flood Natural Hazard Risk Assessment warnings, public forecasts and Information For: advisories for all of the United DadeDade CountyCounty MissouriMissouri States...and it territories...for the protection of life and property. Information Provided By WFO Springfield, Mo National Weather Service 2009 Update Includes data and information through December 2008 5808 W Hwy EE Springfield, Mo. 65802 Phone: 417-864-8535 Email: [email protected] [email protected] National Weather Service Table of Contents Local Climatology Averages and records for Lockwood, Missouri in Dade County Overview of Weather Hazards in Southwest Missouri 2 Normal Normal Normal Normal Record Record Record Record Historical information for Dade County Missouri 3 High Low Precip. Snow High Low Precip. Snow Tornado Information 4 Jan 42 22 1.95 5.5 76 -22 8.67 21.8 Severe Hail, Lightning, Wind and Winter Weather 5 Feb 49 27 2.30 3.8 84 -29 7.11 16.5 Flooding 6 Mar 59 36 3.68 3.0 92 -4 10.06 26.6 Heat , Drought, and Wildfires 7 Apr 69 45 4.22 0.1 91 17 11.28 8.0 Dam Failure 8 Historic Weather in Southwest Missouri 9 May 77 54 4.95 0 98 29 14.30 0 Local Climatology 10 Jun 85 63 5.16 0 104 44 11.67 0 Jul 90 68 4.14 0 116 47 17.89 0 Aug 90 66 3.84 0 108 45 11.13 0 Sept 82 58 4.96 0 108 31 16.23 0 Oct 71 47 3.96 0 95 17 12.53 0.5 Nov 57 36 4.25 0.9 87 1 9.98 20.5 Dec 46 26 2.89 3.2 78 -17 6.74 15.0 Links for Climate information www.crh.noaa.gov/sgf/ www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ www4.ncdc.noaa.gov This document is intended to provide general information on severe weather that has affected Dade County and the communities with in the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Basin: Chance of Reaching Flood Stage in 2021 As Compared to Historical
    MISSOURI BASIN: CHANCE OF REACHING FLOOD STAGE IN 2021 AS COMPARED TO HISTORICAL 31 percent decrease in chance to reach flood stage during next 3 months NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Building a Weather-Ready Nation // 1 MISSOURI BASIN: Mountain Snowpack As of 10 February 2021 Mountain snowpack running near average in the north to well below average south. NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Building a Weather-Ready Nation // 2 MISSOURI BASIN: Mountain Runoff Volume April-September Mountain runoff volume projected to be below normal • Upper Missouri abv Ft. Peck: 86% • Yellowstone: 80% • North Platte: 60% • South Platte: 66% NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Building a Weather-Ready Nation // 3 MISSOURI BASIN: Plains Snowpack as of 11 February 2021 NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Building a Weather-Ready Nation // 4 MISSOURI BASIN: River Ice Conditions….and a new unfolding threat Photo courtesy Patrick Lonergan NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Building a Weather-Ready Nation // 5 MISSOURI BASIN: Flood Potential Outlook Nebraska Wahoo Creek: minor NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Building a Weather-Ready Nation // 6 MISSOURI BASIN: Flood Potential Outlook Iowa Little Sioux River: minor Big Sioux River: minor NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Building a Weather-Ready Nation // 7 MISSOURI BASIN: Flood Potential Outlook Kansas Big Blue River: minor Black Vermillion: minor Stranger Creek: moderate Little Osage R: moderate Marais des Cygnes: minor NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Building a Weather-Ready Nation // 8 MISSOURI BASIN: Flood Potential Outlook Missouri Tarkio River: moderate Chariton River: minor Grand River: moderate Wakenda Creek: minor Crooked River: moderate Moniteau Creek: minor Blackwater R: moderate Moreau River: minor Lamine River: moderate Marmaton R: minor Petite Saline Ck: moderate Big Piney River: minor Sac River: moderate Gasconade River: minor South Grand R: moderate Little Osage R: minor Big Creek: moderate Osage River: minor Platte River: minor NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE Building a Weather-Ready Nation // 9 MISSOURI BASIN: Flood Potential Outlook: Missouri River Below Gavins to St.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Sac River Bacteria TMDL
    LITTLE SAC RIVER WATERSHED FECAL COLIFORM TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD FAPRI-UMC Report #11-06 June 2006 Claire Baffaut Food & Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) University of Missouri Published by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), University of Missouri-Columbia, 2005 http://www.fapri.missouri.edu The Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 through the Missouri Department of Natural Resources has provided partial funding for this project under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act through a grant entitled “Integrated analysis of the Little Sac Watershed”. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri (FAPRI) is charged with providing objective, quantitative analysis to decision makers. Since 1984, this service has been provided to Congress and national trade associations, and has focused on commodity policy issues. In 1995, the unit was asked to expand its focus and begin to bring the same level of effort to environmental issues, that of providing objective, analytical support. The unit spent considerable time examining the problems and determined the area most lacking analysis was at the local level; the farm, the watershed, and the local community. Similar to the extensive peer-review effort the unit goes through on national commodity policy issues, the environmental analysis effort recognizes the strong need for local involvement. If the local people who must live with the analysis have doubts about the way the analysis was developed, then the effort is wasted.
    [Show full text]
  • County Location for Dade County
    Dade County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Part 2: Community Profile Part 2: Community Profile Dade County Location Dade County is located in Southwest Missouri. Counties that border Dade are Barton and Jasper to the west, Cedar to the north, Polk and Greene to the east, and Lawrence to the south. The county covers 506.25 square miles, including 490.01 square miles of land and 16.24 square miles of surface water. Incorporated communities include the villages of Arcola, Dadeville and South Greenfield and the cities of Everton, Greenfield, and Lockwood. Unincorporated settlement areas include Bona in the northeastern corner of the county and Pennsboro is the south central section. Greenfield is the county seat. June 2014 – FEMA Approved Final Draft 2-1 Dade County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Part 2: Community Profile Historical Overview The Dade County area was part of the area claimed by France until purchased by the United States in 1803 as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The area was first inhabited by the Sac, Delaware and Osage Indians; the Osage ceded the territory in 1808. The first settlers arriving in the early 1830s from Kentucky and Tennessee found fertile prairie soils, walnut timber, wild game, and rivers and creeks which provided drinking water for their animals. Dade County was created on January 29, 1841 from Barry County territory and was named after Major Francis L. Dade who was killed in the Seminole Wars; Greenfield was named the county seat (Aldrich, Dade County Soil Survey, p. 10). Growth of the cities was stimulated by railroad construction in 1881.
    [Show full text]
  • Little Sac River Watershed
    LITTLE SAC RIVER WATERSHED BACTERIAL SOURCE TRACKING ANALYSIS FAPRI-UMC Report #06-05 May 2005 Dr. Claire Baffaut, Dr. Charles A. Carson, and Wendi Rogers 101 Park DeVille Drive, Suite E Columbia MO 65203 (573) 882-3576 www.fapri.missouri.edu Published by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), University of Missouri-Columbia, 2005 http://www.fapri.missouri.edu This material is based upon work supported by the Environmental Protection Agency, region VII through a grant entitled “DNA Source Tracking of Fecal E. Coli in the Little Sac River, Missouri,” (grant X7-98740401-0). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at the University of Missouri (FAPRI) is charged with providing objective, quantitative analysis to decision makers. Since 1984, this service has been provided to Congress and national trade associations, and has focused on commodity policy issues. In 1995, the unit was asked to expand its focus and begin to bring the same level of effort to environmental issues, that of providing objective, analytical support. The unit spent considerable time examining the problems and determined the area most lacking analysis was at the local level; the farm, the watershed, and the local community. Similar to the extensive peer-review effort the unit goes through on national commodity policy issues, the environmental analysis effort recognizes the strong need for local involvement. If the local people who must live with the analysis have doubts about the way the analysis was developed, then the effort is wasted.
    [Show full text]
  • Enhanced Enterprise Zone
    Enhanced Enterprise Zone Stockton and Cedar County, Missouri Creating and retaining new jobs is a priority for Cedar County and its economic development partners, the Cedar County Commissioners, Stockton Area Chamber of Commerce and City of Stockton. The Enhanced Enterprise Zone is a key component of the program for encouraging investment and job creation. The zone allows for local real property tax abatement and can provide state tax credits. Y OF IT C N KTO STOC Cedar County Courthose City of Stockton 113 South St., Stockton, 65785 Stockton Area Chamber of Commerce, Box 410, No. 23 1424 South St., Stockton, 65785 Public Square, Stockton, 65785 Enhanced Enterprise Zone Overview The Cedar County/City of Stockton Enhanced Enterprise Zone officially was designated by the Missouri Department of Economic Development Wednesday, July 16, 2014. The zone encompasses all of Stockton and all of Cedar County (the City of El Dorado Springs, which has its own EEZ) except a small portion in the northwest corner of the county north of El Dorado Springs. See the attached map. The Cedar County/City of Stockton EEZ encompasses available and commercial industrial property, some with a full range of public services including highways, air transportation and tele-communications. Authority for the Enhanced Enterprise Zone is contained in Chapter 135 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri. The Act authorizes state tax credits and local property tax abatements. To qualify, a sole proprietorship, partnership or corporation must meet all the requiements of the Enhanced Enterprise Zone. Program Requirements To be eligible for Enhanced Enterprise Zone benefits, a business must meet certain requirements based on the type of business, amount of investment and the location of the facility.
    [Show full text]
  • Sac River – 10290106
    Sac River – 10290106 8 – Digit Hydrologic Unit Profile and Resource Assessment Matrix Sac River - 10290106 8 – Digit Hydrologic Unit Profile and Resource Assessment Matrix Profile Contents Page Summary 3 Introduction 4 Relief Map 6 Karst Features 7 Geologic Features 9 Common Resource Areas 11 Major Land Resource Areas 13 Average Annual Precipitation 17 Land Ownership 18 Land Slope 19 Land Use / Land Cover 21 Riparian Corridors 24 Highly Erodible Lands 26 Prime Farmlands 27 Census Data 29 CAFOs 33 Solid Waste and Wastewater Facilities 36 Drinking Water 38 Resource Concerns 39 Rapid Watershed Assessments - Matrix 54 Footnotes / Bibliography 65 This Project was supported by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service through the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative, the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, and the University of Missouri Extension. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).
    [Show full text]
  • Cedar Countycounty Missourimissouri States...And It Territories...For the Protection of Life and Property
    National Weather Service “To provide weather and flood Natural Hazard Risk Assessment warnings, public forecasts and Information For: advisories for all of the United CedarCedar CountyCounty MissouriMissouri States...and it territories...for the protection of life and property. Information Provided By WFO Springfield, Mo National Weather Service 2009 Update Includes data and information through December 2008 5808 W Hwy EE Springfield, Mo. 65802 Phone: 417-864-8535 Email: [email protected] [email protected] National Weather Service Table of Contents Local Climatology Averages and records for Stockton, Missouri in Cedar County Overview of Weather Hazards in Southwest Missouri 2 Normal Normal Normal Normal Record Record Record Record Historical information for Cedar County Missouri 3 High Low Precip. Snow High Low Precip. Snow Tornado Information 4 Jan 40 21 1.74 2.8 70 -16 4.27 15.0 Severe Hail, Lightning, Wind and Winter Weather 5 Feb 46 25 2.25 2.1 80 -14 6.43 15.5 Flooding 6 Mar 57 34 3.46 1.3 87 -1 8.87 14.0 Heat , Drought, and Wildfires 7 Apr 67 44 3.93 0 91 19 10.49 0.5 Dam Failure 8 Historic Weather in Southwest Missouri 9 May 76 54 5.13 0 93 30 11.67 0 Local Climatology 10 Jun 84 64 4.84 0 104 42 13.85 0 Jul 90 69 3.83 0 108 47 15.46 0 Aug 90 67 3.92 0 107 47 7.97 0 Sept 81 59 4.40 0 106 29 15.45 0 Oct 70 47 4.12 0 92 19 11.41 0 Nov 56 36 3.72 0.8 83 5 10.59 9.0 Dec 44 26 2.70 1.4 75 -18 6.51 14.7 Links for Climate information www.crh.noaa.gov/sgf/ www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ www4.ncdc.noaa.gov This document is intended to provide general information on severe weather that has affected Cedar County and the communities with in the county.
    [Show full text]
  • Sac River Healthy Watershed Plan
    SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN Sac River Healthy Watershed Plan Executive Summary Page 2 Chapter 1: Background & Introduction Page 3 Chapter 2: Collaborative Watershed Process DATE OF REPORT Page 8 OCTOBER 2016 Appendix A: Advisory Committee’s REPORT CREATED FOR Problems & Solutions Page 13 Appendix B: Community Meeting Survey Page 15 Appendix C: Survey Response Graphs Page 16 REPORT CREATED BY Appendix D: Complete Survey Results Page 18 SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 1 Executive Summary On May 1, 2015, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources awarded the Our Missouri Waters Collaborative project for the Sac River watershed to the Watershed Committee of the Ozarks. The goal of this project was to gather local input and identify water resource priorities through community meetings. Community meetings were held to reach citizens living and working in the Sac River water- shed, asking them to voluntarily serve on an advisory committee to identify and develop resources to achieve those priorities. Citizens, community leaders and elected officials in the watershed were invited to participate in this process to share how they use water and what is needed to continue protecting and enhancing the Sac River watershed. The summary and recommendations of the process are outlined in this document, the Sac River Healthy Watershed Plan. This plan will be a living, working document to help maximize resources and focus watershed priorities over the next five years. To learn more about the Our Missouri Waters statewide initiative, visit http://dnr.mo.gov/omw/. 2 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS CHAPTER 1 Background & Introduction Watershed Characteristics The Sac River watershed covers 1,981 square miles and Objectives includes Stockton, Fellows and McDaniel Lakes.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Regional Condition 7 Sensitive Aquatic Species Waters
    Sensitive Aquatic Species Waters Regional Condition 7 Sensitive Aquatic Species: Includes all mussel and hellbender species with a Federal status, including Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered (published in Federal Register). Curtis Pearlymussel (E) Pink mucket (E) Higgins Eye (E) Scaleshell (E) Fat pocketbook (E) Winged mapleleaf (E) Spectaclecase (E) Sheepnose (E) Snuffbox (E) Neosho mucket (E) Rabbitsfoot (E) Ozark Hellbender (E) 1. Belle Fountain/State Line Ditch – from the Route NN Bridge on the border of Pemiscot and Dunklin Counties, to the Missouri (Dunklin County)-Arkansas (Mississippi County) border, including all portions of the waterbody that make up the border between Missouri and Arkansas. 2. Big Piney River – from the confluence of Arthur Creek in Texas County to its confluence with the Gasconade River in Pulaski County. 3. Big River – from confluence of Belews Creek in Jefferson County to its confluence with the Meramec River in Jefferson/St. Louis Counties. 4. Black River – from the point of discharge from Clearwater Dam in Wayne County to the Missouri (Butler County)-Arkansas (Clay County) border in Butler County. 5. Bourbeuse River – from the confluence of Clear Creek in Phelps County to its confluence with the Meramec River in Franklin County. 6. Bryant Creek – from the confluence of Planer Branch in Douglas County to its confluence with the North Fork of the White River in Ozark County. 7. Cane Creek – from the confluence of Kenner Spring Branch in Butler County to the confluence of Harviell Ditch in Butler County. 8. Castor River – from the confluence of Pond Creek in Bollinger County including all unchannelized reaches to the Castor River Diversion Channel in Bollinger County.
    [Show full text]