DOCSLIB.ORG

Elk River Watershed and Inventory Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Elk River Watershed and Inventory Assessment Elk River Watershed and Inventory Assessment Rick Horton, Fisheries Biologist. Missouri Department of Conservation, Springfield, Missouri 2630 N. Mayfair Springfield, MO 65803 Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4 Location ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Geology....................................................................................................................................................... 13 Physiographic Region............................................................................................................................. 13 Geology and Soils................................................................................................................................... 13 Watershed Area ...................................................................................................................................... 14 Stream Order........................................................................................................................................... 14 Channel Gradient.................................................................................................................................... 14 Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................... 17 Historic and Recent Land Use ................................................................................................................ 17 Public Areas............................................................................................................................................ 18 Corps of Engineers 404 Jurisdiction....................................................................................................... 18 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................................... 24 Precipitation............................................................................................................................................ 24 Gauging Stations..................................................................................................................................... 24 Permanent/Intermittent Streams ............................................................................................................. 24 Stream Flow/7-Day Q2 and Q10 Low Flow........................................................................................... 24 Dam and Hydropower Influences........................................................................................................... 25 Water Quality and Use................................................................................................................................ 33 Beneficial Use Attainment...................................................................................................................... 33 Chemical Quality of Streams.................................................................................................................. 33 Contaminants, Fish Kills, and Health Advisories................................................................................... 34 Water Use ............................................................................................................................................... 34 Point Source Pollution ............................................................................................................................ 35 Non-Point Source Pollution.................................................................................................................... 35 Erosion.................................................................................................................................................... 37 Urbanization ........................................................................................................................................... 37 Mining..................................................................................................................................................... 37 Habitat Conditions ...................................................................................................................................... 56 Aquatic Community Classification......................................................................................................... 56 Channel Alterations ................................................................................................................................ 56 Unique Habitats ...................................................................................................................................... 56 Improvement Projects............................................................................................................................. 56 Public Lands ........................................................................................................................................... 57 Private Lands .......................................................................................................................................... 57 2 Stream Habitat Assessment .................................................................................................................... 57 Big Sugar Creek ...................................................................................................................................... 58 Buffalo Creek .......................................................................................................................................... 58 Butler Creek ............................................................................................................................................ 58 Elk River ................................................................................................................................................. 59 Indian Creek ............................................................................................................................................ 59 Little Sugar Creek ................................................................................................................................... 59 Biotic Community ....................................................................................................................................... 61 Fish Community Data ............................................................................................................................. 61 Aquatic Invertebrates .............................................................................................................................. 61 Amphibians and Reptiles ........................................................................................................................ 62 Species of Conservation Concern ........................................................................................................... 62 Fish Stocking .......................................................................................................................................... 62 Angler Survey ......................................................................................................................................... 62 Fishing Regulations ................................................................................................................................ 62 Management Problems and Opportunities .................................................................................................. 76 Goal I: Improve water quality and maintain or improve water quantity in the Elk River Watershed so all streams are capable of supporting high quality aquatic ommunities. ................................................ 76 Goal II: Improve riparian and aquatic habitat conditions in the Elk River watershed to meet the needs of aquatic species while accommodating demands for water and agricultural production. ................... 77 Goal III: Maintain diverse and abundant populations of aquatic organisms while accommodating angler demands for quality fishing. ................................................................................................................... 78 Goal IV: Improve the public’s appreciation for stream resources and increase recreational use of streams in the Elk River watershed.. ...................................................................................................... 78 Objective IV.2: Increase the general public's awareness of stream recreational opportunities, local stream resources, and good watershed and stream management practices. ........................................... 79 Angler Guide ............................................................................................................................................... 80 Elk River (Southwest Region) ................................................................................................................ 80 Glossary ...................................................................................................................................................... 81 Literature Cited ..........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Monett Plant • Poultry Equipment & Supply Monett, Mo
    MISSOURI’S BEST SMALL-TOWN WEEKLY NEWSPAPER 75¢ Three-time Gold Cup winner, Missouri Press Association, 2015, 2016 and 2017 PURDY ROAD DISTRICT TACKLES WINTER DAMAGE — PAGE 2 <<< SOARING INTO COLLEGE SIGNING Purdy’s Keeling inks with MSSU for hoops. — PAGE 3 CASSVILLE emocrat DJUNE 13, 2018 | CASSVILLE-DEMOCRAT.COM BURGLARIES IN GOLDEN Where: Golden Discount Center and Battery Outfitters Who: Barry County candidates Trevor Gundlach, 18, of Exeter; Hunter Williams, 19, of Golden; and Kevin Newman, 19, of Exeter What: Are each charged with burglary, stealing and property vie for votes at forum damage Aug. 7 primary election made sultant for Marck Enterprises Candidate: ‘I hope FORUM a case for why they should be Recycling in Cassville, told the that the citizens get Who: Barry County candidates elected. audience that his strengths in What: Held a public, meet-and- In the run for presiding com- financing and the small busi- 3 charged out and vote’ greet forum for voters missioner, Cherry Warren, cur- ness sector, along with bringing Where: Seligman Event Center rent six-term commissioner, is new ideas to the table, qualified When: BY JULIA KILMER Thursday, June 7 challenged by six-term County him for the position. in pair of [email protected] Clerk Gary Youngblood, and “I feel like we need to do About 20 Barry County res- at the Seligman Event Center John Hendricks. more to help these small com- idents attended a get-to-know- Thursday, where 10 candidates Hendricks, previous owner munities,” he said. Golden your-candidate-style forum vying for county offices in the of Jersey’s and current con- CONTINUED ON PAGE 5 burglaries MUTTON BUSTING Cash, property stolen from Golden A FAVORITE AT Discount Center, Battery Outfitters ROTARY RODEO BY KYLE TROUTMAN [email protected] Three teenagers have been arrested in connection to a pair of business burglaries in Golden, where cash and prop- erty were allegedly stolen from Golden Discount Center and Battery Outfitters.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Missouri Water Quality Improvement Project (Wqip) Elk River Basin Water Quality Gap
    SOUTHWEST MISSOURI WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (WQIP) ELK RIVER BASIN WATER QUALITY GAP November 2008 PREPARED FOR: Environmental Resources Coalition 3118 Emerald Lane Jefferson City, Missouri 65109 PREPARED BY: MEC Water Resources, Inc. 1123 Wilkes Boulevard, Suite 400 Columbia, Missouri 65201 Ozarks Environmental Water Resources Institute, Missouri State University Temple Hall 328 901 South National Avenue Springfield, Missouri 65897 (page intentionally left blank) Southwest Missouri Water Quality Improvement Project Missouri State University Elk River Basin Water Quality Gap Analysis MEC Water Resources, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................................................vii I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................................................1 II. STUDY AREA ................................................................................................................................................................3 2.1. Basin Characteristics..................................................................................................3 2.2. Population and Land Use............................................................................................3 2.3. Permitted Point Source Discharges ..........................................................................7 2.4. Geology and Soils .....................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration and Maintenance of the Access to the Neosho River at Jacobs Creek-John Redmond Reservoir)
    FEASIBILITY STUDY (RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE ACCESS TO THE NEOSHO RIVER AT JACOBS CREEK-JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR) 2008 Prepared for Kansas Water Office 901 South Kansas Topeka, KS 66612 Prepared by Watershed Institute, Inc. 1200 SW Executive Dr. Topeka, KS 66615 www.watershedinstitute.biz Cover Page Photo: Neosho River Logjam from Jacobs Landing FEASIBILITY STUDY — NEOSHO RIVER LOGJAM ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION...........................................................................................................2 PROJECT SETTING ...............................................................................................................................2 Neosho River Logjam..........................................................................................................................4 NEOSHO RIVER RESEARCH...............................................................................................................4 Natural and Regulated Flows/Historical Droughts ............................................................................4 High-Flow Frequency/Channel Geometry..........................................................................................5 Geomorphic Effects/Overflow Dams...................................................................................................5 Channel Stability Downstream from John Redmond Dam
    [Show full text]
  • Stream Restoration of Tanyard Creek in the Little Sugar Creek Watershed B
    1. Cover Page: 2012 State Wildlife Grant Pre-Proposal a. Title of Project: Stream Restoration of Tanyard Creek in the Little Sugar Creek Watershed b. Project Summary: A 2,500 foot section of Tanyard Creek will be enhanced and restored. Unstable streambanks and excessive woody debris are compromising the aquatic and terrestrial habitat of this Karst area, and accelerated streambank erosion is contributing approximately 1,600,000 lbs/yr of sediment and 200 lbs/yr of total phosphorus to the Little Sugar Creek basin. Aquatic habit is limited from severe sedimentation which has diminished riffle/pool features and from stream instability resulting in degradation of the riparian area. A natural channel design approach will be used to restore and enhance the channel in a manner that reduces streambank erosion, transports sediment efficiently, and improves the riparian area and aquatic habitat for 13 SGCNs. c. Project Leader: Sandi Formica, Executive Director Watershed Conservation Resource Center 380 West Rock, Fayetteville, AR 72701 [email protected], 501-352-5252 d. Project Partners: Darrell Bowman, Lake Ecology/Fisheries Manager, Bella Vista Village Property Owners Association (Bella Vista POA); [email protected], (479) 855-5068 Drew Holts, Executive Director, Elk River Watershed Improvement Association (Elk River WIA), [email protected], (417) 223-3414 Steve Filipek, Assistant Chief Special Programs, Arkansas Game & Fish Commission (AG&FC), [email protected], 501- 223-6369 David Casaletto, President, Ozark Water Watch and Multi-Basin Regional Water Council, [email protected], (417) 739-4100 e. Project Budget: Amount of SWG Funds Requested: $70,000 (37%) Total Matching Funds Provided: $121,000 (63%) Total Project Cost: $191,000 1 2.
    [Show full text]
  • CHECK out OTHER FISHING INFORMATION at OUR WEBSITE: Kansas Fishing: We’Ve Come a Long Way, Baby!
    Details Back Cover CHECK OUT OTHER FISHING INFORMATION AT OUR WEBSITE: www.kdwp.state.ks.us Kansas fishing: We’ve come a long way, baby! hat's right. Kansas fishing isn't what it used to be. It's much more. Oh, we still have some of the best channel, Tflathead, and blue catfishing to be found, but today Kansas anglers have great variety. If you're an old-school angler and still want to catch the whiskered fish native to our streams and rivers, you have more opportunities today than ever. Channel catfish are found in nearly every stream, river, pond, lake, and reservoir in the state. They remain one of the most popular angling species. To keep up with demand, state fish hatcheries produce mil- lions of channel cats each year. Some are stocked into lakes as fry, but more are fed and grown to catchable size, then stocked into one of many state and community lakes around the state. Our reservoirs hold amazing numbers of channel catfish, and for the most part, the reservoir cats are overlooked by anglers fishing for other species. Fisheries biologists consider channel cats an underutilized resource in most large reservoirs. For sheer excitement, the flathead catfish is still king. Monster flatheads weighing 60, 70 and even 80 pounds are caught each owned, but some reaches are leased by the department through summer. Most of the truly large flatheads come from the larger the Fishing Impoundments and Stream Habitats (F.I.S.H) rivers in the eastern half of the state, where setting limb and trot Program, while other reaches are in public ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • The 1951 Kansas - Missouri Floods
    The 1951 Kansas - Missouri Floods ... Have We Forgotten? Introduction - This report was originally written as NWS Technical Attachment 81-11 in 1981, the thirtieth anniversary of this devastating flood. The co-authors of the original report were Robert Cox, Ernest Kary, Lee Larson, Billy Olsen, and Craig Warren, all hydrologists at the Missouri Basin River Forecast Center at that time. Although most of the original report remains accurate today, Robert Cox has updated portions of the report in light of occurrences over the past twenty years. Comparisons of the 1951 flood to the events of 1993 as well as many other parenthetic remarks are examples of these revisions. The Storms of 1951 - Fifty years ago, the stage was being set for one of the greatest natural disasters ever to hit the Midwest. May, June and July of 1951 saw record rainfalls over most of Kansas and Missouri, resulting in record flooding on the Kansas, Osage, Neosho, Verdigris and Missouri Rivers. Twenty-eight lives were lost and damage totaled nearly 1 billion dollars. (Please note that monetary damages mentioned in this report are in 1951 dollars, unless otherwise stated. 1951 dollars can be equated to 2001 dollars using a factor of 6.83. The total damage would be $6.4 billion today.) More than 150 communities were devastated by the floods including two state capitals, Topeka and Jefferson City, as well as both Kansas Cities. Most of Kansas and Missouri as well as large portions of Nebraska and Oklahoma had monthly precipitation totaling 200 percent of normal in May, 300 percent in June, and 400 percent in July of 1951.
    [Show full text]
  • 417-858-6527 417-847-3200 417-858-3200 P.O.•• Box 231 • Shell Knob, Mo
    MISSOURI’S BEST SMALL-TOWN WEEKLY NEWSPAPER 75¢ Three-time Gold Cup winner, Missouri Press Association, 2015, 2016 and 2017 PURDY MAN CHARGED WITH DOMESTIC ASSAULT — PAGE 8 BROWN IN RUNNING FOR AWARD >>> Purdy senior earns spot on coveted prep list. — PAGE 3 CASSVILLE emocrat DJUNE 6, 2018 | CASSVILLE-DEMOCRAT.COM COMMUNITY ACTION Who: OACAC’s Barry County Neighborhood Center What: Hosted Open House event Clark Center opens new with focus on community action When: May 23 Where: 700 E. Highway 248 in Cassville building in Cassville stance abuse services to more four years, and in Monett for CEO: ‘We’re CLARK CENTER people. eight. OACAC Who: becoming physically Clark Center CEO Brad “It means increased access to The Center’s roots date back Ridenour services,” said Brad Ridenour,” to 1971, and since July 2017, it What: health-focused in our Opened new building in CEO for the Clark Center. has served over 700 individuals celebrates Cassville to increase access to in south Barry County. treatment’ behavioral health and substance “We are firmly convinced that BY JULIA KILMER abuse services for Cassville area no one should have to drive “We’re close to the 2,500 figure when you take into con- [email protected] residents to Springfield or Joplin to get community The Clark Center recently When: May good, quality behavioral health sideration all of the counties,” celebrated the opening of its Where: 1701 N. Townsend, care; our goal is to bring those Ridenour said. “I want to bring new building in Cassville with a Cassville services to Cassville.” awareness that behavior prob- action ribbon-cutting.
    [Show full text]
  • Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis Rafinesqueana)
    Species Biological Report Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) Cover photo: Dr. Chris Barnhart (Missouri State University) Prepared by: The Neosho Mucket Recovery Team This species biological report informs the Draft Recovery Plan for the Neosho Mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017). The Species Biological Report is a comprehensive biological status review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for the Neosho Mucket and provides an account of species overall viability. A Recovery Implementation Strategy, which provides the expanded narrative for the recovery activities and the implementation schedule, is available at https://www.fws.gov/arkansas-es/. The Recovery Implementation Strategy and Species Biological Report are finalized separately from the Recovery Plan and will be updated on a routine basis. Executive Summary The Neosho Mucket is a freshwater mussel endemic to the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. It is associated with shallow riffles and runs comprising gravel substrate and moderate to swift currents, but prefers near-shore areas or areas out of the main current in Shoal Creek and Illinois River. It does not occur in reservoirs lacking riverine characteristics. The life-history traits and habitat requirements of the Neosho Mucket make it extremely susceptible to environmental change (e.g., droughts, sedimentation, chemical contaminants). Mechanisms leading to the decline of Neosho Mucket range from local (e.g., riparian clearing, chemical contaminants, etc.), to regional influences (e.g., altered flow regimes, channelization, etc.), to global climate change. The synergistic (interaction of two or more components) effects of threats are often complex in aquatic environments, making it difficult to predict changes in mussel and fish host(s) distribution, abundance, and habitat availability that may result from these effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Influence of Water Flow on Neosho Madtom
    Am. Midl. Nat. 156:305–318 Influence of Water Flow on Neosho madtom (Noturus placidus) Reproductive Behavior JANICE L. BRYAN1 Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 MARK L. WILDHABER U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia Environmental Research Center, Columbia, Missouri 65201 AND DOUGLAS B. NOLTIE Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, The School of Natural Resources, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211 ABSTRACT.—The Neosho madtom is a small, short-lived catfish species endemic to gravel bars of the Neosho River in Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, U.S.A. It spawns during summer in nesting cavities excavated in gravel. Although the species has survived dam construction within the Neosho River basin, its declining numbers resulted in it being added to the federal threatened species list in 1991. To test how water flow affects the reproductive behavior of Neosho madtoms, we compared activities of male-female pairs in static versus flowing-water aquaria. Using a behavioral catalog, we recorded their behavior sequences during randomly selected 5-min nighttime periods. For males and females, Jostle and Embrace were the most performed reproductive behaviors and the Jostle-Embrace-Carousel was the most performed reproductive behavior sequence. Water flow decreased the mean frequency of occurrence, percentage of time spent and mean event duration of male Nest Building. Because Neosho madtom courtship, reproduction and parental care is a complex and extended process, disturbances such as heightened river flows during the species’ spawning season may negatively affect nest quality and reproductive success. INTRODUCTION Many environmental cues trigger spawning in temperate fish species, including food abundance, photoperiod, temperature, flooding, lunar cycles and social interaction (Bye, 1984; Munro et al., 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • Neosho River (Chanute) Water Quality Impairment: Copper
    NEOSHO BASIN TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD Water Body/Assessment Unit: Neosho River (Chanute) Water Quality Impairment: Copper 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Subbasin: Upper Neosho Counties: Coffey, Anderson, Woodson, Allen, and Neosho HUC 8: 11070204 HUC 11 (HUC 14s): 050 (010, 020, 050) Drainage Area: 448 square miles (Station 560 only) Main Stem Segments: 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 starting near confluence with Crooked Creek in southeastern Coffey County and traveling downstream through Woodson and Allen Counties to northwest Neosho County at monitoring station #560 and confluence with Sutton Creek (Figure 1). Tributary Segments: Sutton Creek (35), Slack Creek (30), Charles Branch Creek (27), Onion Creek (24), Elm Creek (1050), Rock Creek (7), Spring Creek (46), Indian Creek (924), Little Indian Creek (939), Martin Creek (49), Crooked Creek (44) Designated Uses: Special Aquatic Life Support, Primary Contact Recreation; Domestic Water Supply; Food Procurement; Ground Water Recharge; Industrial Water Supply Use; Irrigation Use; Livestock Watering Use for Main Stem Segments in HUC 11070204. Impaired Use: Expected Aquatic Life Support Water Quality Standard: Acute Criterion = WER[EXP[(0.9422*(LN(hardness)))-1.700]] Hardness-dependent criteria (KAR 28-16-28e(c)(2)(F)(ii)). Aquatic Life (AL) Support formulae are: (where Water Effects Ratio (WER) is 1.0 and hardness is in mg/L). 2. CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITION AND DESIRED ENDPOINT Level of Support for Designated Use under 2002 303(d): Not Supporting Aquatic Life Monitoring Site: Station 560 near Chanute Period of Record Used for Monitoring and Modeling: 1985 - 2001 for Station 560. Generalized Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) modeling period for soil data is 1998 – 2002.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mississippi River-Brainerd Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report
    Watershed health May 2019 Upper Mississippi River-Brainerd Watershed Monitoring and Assessment Report Authors Chad R. Anderson, Joe Hadash, Cadie Olsen, Sophia Vaughan, Anthony J. Dingmann, Mike Bourdaghs, Bruce Monson Contributors/acknowledgements Citizen Stream Monitoring Program Volunteers Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Department of Health Minnesota Department of Agriculture Aitkin County SWCD Crow Wing SWCD Central Lakes College - Natural Resources Program The MPCA is reducing printing and mailing costs by using the Internet to distribute reports and information to wider audience. Visit our website for more information. MPCA reports are printed on 100% post-consumer recycled content paper manufactured without chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Project dollars provided by the Clean Water Fund (from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North | Saint Paul, MN 55155-4194 | 651-296-6300 | 800-657-3864 | Or use your preferred relay service. | [email protected] This report is available in alternative formats upon request, and online at www.pca.state.mn.us. Document number: wq-ws3-07010104b Table of contents List of acronyms .............................................................................................................................. viii Executive summary ............................................................................................................................1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Mcdonald 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 McDonaldMcDonald 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 Anderson, Missouri in McDonald County Overview of Weather Hazards in Southwest Missouri 2 Normal Normal Normal Normal Record Record Record Record Historical information for McDonald County Missouri 3 High Low Precip. Snow High Low Precip. Snow Tornado Information 4 Jan 45 22 2.00 4.4 78 -21 5.63 23.0 Severe Hail, Lightning, Wind and Winter Weather 5 Feb 51 27 2.01 3.0 86 -21 6.41 16.6 Flooding 6 Mar 61 36 3.75 2.1 90 -4 10.79 24.0 Heat , Drought and Wildfires 7 Apr 70 44 4.14 0 93 6 9.09 4.0 Dam Failure 8 Historic Weather in Southwest Missouri 9 May 76 53 4.75 0 93 27 16.07 0 Local Climatology 10 Jun 84 62 4.58 0 100 39 10.96 0 Jul 89 66 3.21 0 112 44 11.30 0 Aug 88 64 3.50 0 108 42 8.26 0 Sept 80 57 4.76 0 104 27 12.18 0 Oct 71 45 3.48 0 96 13 9.11 0.5 Nov 58 35 4.41 1.1 86 0 9.09 8.0 Dec 48 26 3.01 2.7 80 -18 6.89 14.3 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 McDonald County and the communities with in the county.
    [Show full text]