The State of Missouri's Streams
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The State of Missouri’s Streams Summary of Invertebrate Data 1993-2010 The State of Missouri’s Streams Report summarizes water quality in Missouri’s streams and rivers using biological data collected by trained citizen volun- teers through the Missouri Stream Team Program. This report was assembled by the Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition with the goal of describ- ing water quality across Missouri, providing feed- back to volunteers and educating citizens. Acknowledgements The Missouri Stream Team Watershed Coalition also like to thank the staff of the Missouri Stream would like to thank Dan Obrecht and Tony Thor- Team Program at Missouri Department of Con- pe, University of Missouri Senior Research Asso- servation and Missouri Department of Natural ciates, for compilation and interpretation of the Resources for their guidance and assistance in Stream Team volunteer data and creation of this this process. Appreciation is also given to Stream report. Their expertise in working with volunteer Team volunteers who have dedicated their time to data was instrumental in creating a publication monitoring our states streams and playing an ac- that truly showcases volunteer efforts while de- tive role in protecting our state’s water resources. scribing water quality across the state. We would Pat Jones on right. Photo by Dave Marner A special thanks to Mrs. Pat Jones for providing funding for this publication. Mrs. Jones is a long- time supporter of the Missouri Stream Team Pro- gram. Pat and her late husband Ted have provided many conservation legacies that make Missouri better for its people and its natural resources. Table of Contents Introduction Invertebrates as Indicators of Water Quality 2 Description of the Data 2 Sources of Data Variation 3 Water Quality Assessments Statewide Water Quality 4 Regional Reports 5-16 Each regional report contains a select analysis using regional data. Below is a list of the analyses and the page on which they can be found. Comparison of water quality in two streams with different watershed land use 5 Variations in water quality at four sites on a stream within a State Park 6 Variation of water quality in an urban stream 7 Comparison of water quality in urban and rural streams sites 8 Influence of stream size on water quality scores 9 Water quality scores along a 50+ mile stretch of the Big Piney River 10 Comparison of water quality at two nearby sites sampled on the same days 11 Investigation of seasonality in water quality in a well-monitored stream 12 Comparison of four sites on a single stream with urban and mining influences 13 Longitudinal shifts in water quality in three streams 14 Year-to-year variation of water quality scores at a single site 15 Comparison of three sites on a single river with urban influence 16 Contact information for the Missouri Stream Team Associations 17 The Bourbeuse River in Missouri’s Meramec Region Invertebrates as Indicators of Water Quality ne of the challenges in monitoring water qual- makes this possible is the fact that many inverte- Oity in streams and rivers is that conditions brates have life cycles that last a year or more. If a within waterways change quickly. Short-term pol- pollution event eliminates sensitive invertebrates lution events can occur and have a negative effect from a stream, a delay would be expected before the on aquatic life, but may not be accounted for in wa- lost species return to the stream. If a stream or river ter sampling unless the sample collection is timed is affected by a chronic pollution issue, we would ex- perfectly. Chronic pollution may remain at fairly pect the aquatic community to always be disturbed. low concentrations which might not gain notice, yet Another benefit of monitoring invertebrates is they negatively affect aquatic life. There are also changes have differing tolerances to pollution. Some types in habitat (ex. sedimentation, channelization) that of invertebrates are capable of living in streams with are more difficult to measure. Monitoring inverte- very low levels of water quality, while others can brates allows us to gauge water quality not only at only survive in the cleanest of water. By looking at the time of the sample collection, but also evaluate the numbers and types of invertebrates found dur- water quality prior to the sample collection. What ing a sampling event, we can assess water quality. The Data rained Stream Team volun- by adding the values from each of the catego- Tteers collect invertebrates ries with at least one individual. from their streams according to The data used in this report represent aver- program guidelines. Stream Team age values from sites that were monitored for volunteers identify invertebrates at least four years. Depending on the time of to the level of Order. Although year and the location sampled, seasonal dif- this provides valuable base- ferences in the invertebrate community and line information, the results are patchy invertebrate distribution can lead to more limited than with more underestimation of water quality. To avoid extensive identification and can this, the maximum annual value was used (as result in an overestimation of opposed to the annual average) at sites where water quality. multiple samples were collected within a year. After identification, invertebrates are Use of maximum values instead of averages placed into one of twenty-four groups. still allow for identifying streams with water The groups are divided into three cat- quality issues due to chronic pollution/habitat egories based on sensitivity to pollution. problems. The most sensitive invertebrates are worth Because sites are chosen by volunteer prefer- three points while tolerant invertebrates are ence rather than random selection, sites may worth one point. Those invertebrates that are be skewed toward easily accessible or popu- semi-tolerant are worth two points. Once lar locations. Ideally, multiple sites would be all of the invertebrates have been counted monitored on each stream to provide the most and categorized a point total is calculated accurate assessment of water quality. Dragonfly nymphs are somewhat pollution tolerant and feed on other invertebrates on the stream 2 bottom. Dragonfly nymphs can propel themselves quickly by squirting water out of their posterior. Sources of Data Variation here are many reasons that the year and immature inverte- Twater quality scores at a single brates remain in the stream for the Stream Team 2108 site might differ from one another. majority of their lives before they One reason is the natural patchy emerge as short-lived adults. In- distribution of invertebrates with- cubation time of invertebrate eggs in the stream. Not all invertebrates ranges from a few days to a few have the same habitat require- months. If a sample is collected ments. Dissolved oxygen levels are right after a species emerges, that higher in some areas (riffles) and invertebrate group is less likely to some stream bottoms are more be represented in the sample. stable than others. Finally, actual shifts in water qual- Another source of variation in the ity may cause a change in the in- data is the seasonality of the inver- vertebrate community. A loss of tebrate community. Many of the invertebrates can happen quickly invertebrates have lifecycles that if water quality declines. Improve- are predictable. For example, eggs ments in water quality will eventu- are laid during a certain period of ally lead to an increase in the num- bers and diversity of invertebrates. Stream Team 26 With flight speeds of over 30 mph, adult dragonflies are the fastest insects in the world. Adults, like the nymphs, are predatory and feed on mosquitoes and other small insects. 3 Northwest Statewide Meramec 1 Water Quality 7 Northeast Upper Mississippi 1 2 - Cahokia 2 8 3 4 Kansas City - Osage 8 Ozark - Neosho 5 7 3 6 9 9 10 11 12 Lower Missouri White River here were a total of 270 sites across the state that were sampled Toften enough for assessment. Within each of the 12 regions the 4 number of assessed sites ranges from eight in the St. Francis/Bootheel 10 Region to 39 in the White River Region. Overall, 40% of sites across the state were assessed as having “Excellent” water quality (averaging Lake of the Ozarks a score of 23 or greater) and another 39% were categorized as “Good” - Pomme de Terre (score of 17-23). Sites assessed as “Fair” (score of 12-17) and “Poor” Scenic Rivers (score <12) accounted for 14% and 7%, respectively. Sites with poor water quality were only identified in four of the 12 regions. Most of the sites with “Poor” water quality are located within urban areas. Six 5 of the 20 sites with “Poor” water quality were lo- 11 cated within a single urban stream. GOOD Sites are chosen by volunteer preference rather than randomly selected and there- St. Francis - Gasconade fore may not be entirely representative of Bootheel POOR stream conditions. EXCELLENT FAIR The pie charts show Blue = “Excellent” 6 the general distribution Green = “Good” 12 of water quality scores Yellow = “Fair” in each region. Red = “Poor” Sowbugs are somewhat pollution tolerant and feed on detritus on the stream bottom. The 4 sowbug is very closely related to the “roly poly” or pill bug. Northwest Region his region encompasses the western and central Tportions of northern Missouri. River drainages in the region include the Nodaway, Platte, Grand, Thomp- son, Chariton and Long Branch rivers. The western part of this region is heavily agricultural, becoming a mix of agriculture, pasture/grassland with small slivers of forest toward the eastern portion of the region. Invertebrate identification at Otoe Creek EXCELLENT POORFAIRGOOD Fifteen sites met the four-year requirement for inclusion in this report.