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. The watershed Objective #1: Build local understanding of water resources and programs available contains 2,633 miles of streams, 74,892 acres of lakes and 303 Objective #2: Local citizen engagement with community meetings to find local watershed known springs. According to the 2010 census, the largest cities in priorities for the next five years the watershed include: Springfield, with a population of 166,810 Objective #3: Assemble a local Watershed Advisory Committee to rank priorities and people; Republic, with a population of 16,005; Willard, with a develop the next steps population of 5,454; and Stockton, with a population of 1,859. Few Objective #4: Create the Sac River Healthy Watershed Plan changes in land use have occurred from 2001 to 2011. This change comprised less than a one percent difference overall, while there was a slight increase of 0.1 percent of impervious surface area. As declining in some areas of high use. Water conservation efforts by this watershed is largely rural, nonpoint source pollution contrib- groundwater and surface water users can be implemented to help utors are relevant to the overall health of the watershed. Some mitigate impacts of increasing water needs in the area. Missouri counties in the watershed did experience population growth shares water resources with many other states, some of which regu- from 2006 to 2010, as Greene and Polk counties grew by fifteen late water use and have already established their demand for water. percent. It is important for Missouri to document its need for water and to protect the right to that water. Registering major water use, annually, Geology & Groundwater establishes a user’s need for water and helps the state understand Two aquifers lie under the Sac River Watershed. The Ozark the water needs of Missouri citizens. Carbonate bedrock and asso- aquifer is a high-yielding, deep, confined aquifer of generally very ciated karst topography (including abundant losing streams and good quality. It provides for municipal, agricultural and indus- sink areas) in the southern half of the basin make pollution-preven- trial water. The Springfield plateau aquifer is a shallow, uncon- tion measures a priority. Within the basin, stream types transition fined aquifer located from near the surface down to 200–300 from typical clear, gravel bottom streams of the Ozark highlands to feet and is recharged by precipitation. The shallow aquifer was silt- and sand-bottomed prairie-type streams more typical of the generally of fairly good quality and was a major drinking water Osage Plains. Relatively low potential for surface to groundwater supply resource until the mid-1950s. Karst geologic conditions in contamination exists in the northern reaches of the basin due to the the Springfield area can result in contamination to the shallow restrictive permeability of bedrock. aquifer, combined with improper investigation and construction techniques. Contamination of this aquifer has prompted stricter Water Quality regulations for wells, which are now required to be drilled to In the southern portion of the watershed, there are chal- the deep aquifer and cased through the shallow aquifer. Most of lenges regarding bacteria levels in bodies of water, which can the domestic water is now pumped from the deep Ozark aquifer, cause serious public health and recreational safety issues. but the Springfield plateau aquifer still provides agricultural and Nonpoint sources of contamination, such as animal waste and industrial water. contaminants carried by stormwater runoff, can have a serious Groundwater quantity is important to consider as groundwater cumulative impact on surface waters in a largely rural watershed. levels in the predominant aquifer of the area, the Ozark aquifer, are However, agricultural best management practices can significantly

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 3 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION

reduce nonpoint source impacts. Pollution prevention is also crit- ical due to connectivity of surface water and groundwater. Point and nonpoint sources of pollution to bodies of water, or in and around karst features such as sinkholes, can lead to regional contamination of groundwater wells and springs. In the northern portion of the watershed, low dissolved oxygen levels in waterbodies often cause negative impacts to aquatic life and create challenges for the watershed. These low dissolved oxygen levels are often a result of excess organic mate- rials, which consume oxygen, and may be discharged from waste- water treatment system types less effective in removing organics. Other sources of excess organics in bodies of water may include animal waste, nutrient loads (fertilizer) and sedimentation from streambank and erosion. Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act requires each state identify waters that do not meet water quality standards and for which adequate water pollution controls are not in place. These identified waters are considered impaired. Water quality stan- dards protect beneficial uses of water such as making whole-body contact (e.g. swimming), maintaining fish and other aquatic life, and providing drinking water for people, livestock and wildlife. In 1998, the Little Sac River was placed on the 303(d) list for bacterial contamination, for which a TMDL (total maximum daily load) for fecal coliform was approved in 2006. The following lake and streams within the watershed are listed on the state’s 2012 list of impaired waterways and are presented on map in figure 1. Turnback Creek (E. coli), tributary to Goose Creek (E. coli), Horse Creek (aquatic macroinvertebrate assessment), Cedar Creek (aquatic macroinvertebrate assessment), Panther Creek (dissolved oxygen), Brush Creek (dissolved oxygen) and Fellows Lake (atmospheric deposition of mercury). Impairments can be caused by known sources like point or nonpoint source pollution, or may be unknown; however, iden- tifying activities near impaired bodies of water can provide key information in determining the sources of contamination, as well as developing solutions for impaired waters. Examples of point sources of pollution include municipal

Figure 1: Map of water quality impairments in the Sac River watershed from 2012 303(d) list

4 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION

In early spring, anglers The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) float Turnback Creek permit program was created in 1972 by the Clean Water Act and in search of white helps to address water pollution by regulating point sources that bass and walleye. discharge pollutants to waterways. NPDES-permitted facilities, shown in figure 7, have to comply with permit requirements and are inspected regularly by MDNR. Figure 2: Map of land use in the Sac River watershed Nonpoint source pollution sources refer to contaminants that do not come from specific conveyances and may come from multiple sources, such as failing septic systems or contaminants wastewater treatment plants, land disturbance sites, large confined carried in stormwater runoff from rural, urban and agriculture animal operations and treated industrial wastewater discharges. lands. Everyone that lives or works in the watershed contributes Common challenges for wastewater treatment include the limited to nonpoint source pollution. Anything that is on the ground can contaminant removal capacity of certain types of treatment. When get in our waterways, which is why being proactive to protect our facilities experience difficulty in providing the proper level of watershed is cost-effective and essential. Other causes of impair- treatment and contaminant removal, the Missouri Department of ments to bodies of water include natural causes like precipitation, Natural Resources (MDNR) often works with them to improve the climate and drought, which can alter stream flow and channel treatment process and quality of the discharge. In the case that characteristics, leading to changes in water quality. point source emitters are unwilling to improve the quality of their discharge, the department has regulatory authority to ensure that Land Use inappropriate discharges are discontinued in a timely manner. A large portion of the Sac River Watershed is located in the

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 5 CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION

26 Irrigation Figure 3: Chart showing the annual average preciptation in 26 Wildlife Missouri from 1895 to 2015, overlaid with a five-year mean. 11 Commercial 0 Livestock 0 Electrical 03 Industrial 02 Recreation

92.2% M

Figure 4: Estimated annual major water use in 2013 (data from Missouri Department of Natural Resources)

Ozark Border Major Land Resource Area (MLRA). This area is pasture and land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program part of the northeast and central farming forest region. The Ozark (CRP). Hay and CRP land, which are sometimes considered Border MLRA is comprised of approximately 35 percent forest, cropland, behave more like grassland in terms of runoff, erosion 25 percent pasture (mainly of introduced grasses and legumes) and nutrient loads, and have been left in this class. Urban areas and 40 percent cropland. Feed grains and hay are the main crops. comprise 2.4 percent of the watershed. A high contamination Summer droughts and steep slopes limit the use of the land for potential exists due to the high urban population density and the crop production. Shallow wells, small creeks or springs are often amount of impervious surfaces. Estimates indicate that the most used for livestock needs. Deep wells supply water for drinking and urbanized portion of this watershed has about 25 percent imper- high-volume uses. viousness. This area supports oak-hickory forests. The grassland As this watershed is largely rural, nonpoint source contribu- supports a combination of introduced and native tall-prairie tors are relevant to the overall health of the watershed. The City grasses consisting mainly of Indian grass, little bluestem, big blue- of Springfield and the surrounding urban areas also have a signifi- stem and switch grass. Introduced grasses include fescue, annual cant influence on stream conditions in the watershed due to their crab grasses and Kentucky bluegrass. The pastures are mostly in proximity to the headwaters of the Sac River. fescue grass over-seeded with red clover. The watershed consists mostly of grassland, 67 percent, Climate & Water Availability and forests, 30 percent. The grassland designation includes hay, Missouri precipitation data from 1895 to 2013 shows annual

6 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND & INTRODUCTION

Figure 5: Map of NPDES (national pollutant discharge elimination system) permits in the Sac River watershed

2 Land Disturbance 0 Industrial Stormwater

1 Wastewater

Figure 6: Graph of the type of NPDES permits issued in the 6 Animal Feeding Operations Sac River watershed Other 2 Municipal Stormwater

average statewide precipitation in figure 3. A five-year trend line estimated annual water use as of 2013 is 8.1 billion gallons, of reveals several wet periods have dominated since the early 1980s, which 83 percent is diverted surface water and 17 percent is and this wet pattern has been accompanied by an increase of groundwater. The majority of water diverted is used for municipal heavy precipitation events. Severe drought occurred during 2012, drinking water (92.2 percent). Water reporting is encouraged but but this drought was brief compared to major multiyear droughts not required, so there could be major water users in the water- that occurred in the 1930s and 1950s. Tree ring analysis, which shed that are not reporting data. provides data prior to written records, also shows multiyear There are 110 public drinking water systems serving approx- severe droughts in Missouri’s history. Both data sets indicate imately 235,701 people. Water systems that are required to report multiyear severe droughts are likely to occur in the future. to the department show that approximately 35 million gallons Thirty major water users are registered in the basin. A major of water are consumed per day. There are 82.5 million gallons of water user is defined as the capacity to withdraw more than available drinking water capacity per day for public water use. 70 gallons per minute or 100,000 gallons per day. The reported

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 7 CHAPTER 2 Collaborative Watershed Process

The Sac River Watershed encompasses portions of Cedar, Dade, Lawrence, Greene, Polk, St. Clair, Vernon, Barton, Chris- Figure 7: Sac River Watershed tian and Hickory counties, and includes the towns of Springfield, Advisory Committee Members Republic, Bolivar, Willard, Ash Grove, Greenfield, Stockton and Location in Walnut Grove. In an effort to engage members from all these areas Name Watershed within the watershed, informational community meetings were hosted in three different geographic locations throughout the Michael Cheek Dunnegan watershed. Those community meetings were held on Nov. 17 in Dale Cornelius Dadeville Stockton, Dec. 15 in Greenfield and Jan. 12 in Willard, with a total Dwight Crevelt Walnut Grove of 142 meeting participants. Of those participants, 66 completed Billy Dryer Greenfield and submitted surveys during the meetings with most couples Robin Farmer Greene County submitting one survey together. All the information provided Bob Glenn Everton through the survey was shared by email with all the meeting Casey Groose Walnut Grove attendees that submitted contact information. The survey asked Tom Huff Greene County participants if they are interested in voluntarily serving on the Sac Connie Ian Stockton River Watershed Advisory Committee (WAC). The only require- Frank Johnson Greenfield ment to serve as a WAC member is to be a resident or property Theresa Johnson Greenfield owner in the Sac River Watershed. Thirty-four survey respondents Lynden Kenney Stockton expressed interest in serving on the WAC. Those that expressed Peggy Kenney Stockton interest were contacted, asked if they owned property the Sac Jeanie Mayer Greenfield River Watershed, and if they would like to serve on the committee. Martha Molz El Dorado Springs Twenty-four of those respondents committed to serving on the Clark Montgomery Cedar County WAC. The WAC also received a summary of the community survey Eric helton Springfield results. The complete survey results can be found in Appendix D Todd Wagner Springfield on page 18. Beth Walker To reach people that live and work in the watershed, informa- Holly Welch Bolivar tional flyers and press releases were submitted to local media to Jeff Wilkins Lockwood help publicize the community meetings. Local community leaders Brian Worthington and regional groups in the watershed were notified of meetings by Bob Zwingle Greenfield phone and email, including Missouri Farm Bureau, soil and water districts, city clerks, mayor’s offices, local Stream Teams, Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program, local newspapers and media stations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri Department of Conser- The Cedar County Republican, Cross Country Times (the local vation, county commissioners, state representatives, local green Willard newspaper which includes the Ash Grove Commonwealth teams and Watershed Committee of the Ozarks’ comprehensive newspaper), KSMU, KY3 and the Southwest Missouri Council contact list. of Governments quarterly newsletter published information

8 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS CHAPTER 2: COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROCESS about the community meetings. The first informational commu- nity meeting was held Tuesday, Nov. 17 in Stockton at the Cedar County Health Complex. There were forty people in attendance, which included a diverse group of local community leaders, citi- zens and governmental organizations. DeDe Vest was the meeting facilitator, and presenters included Jennifer Hoggatt with MDNR, Stacey Armstrong with Watershed Committee of the Ozarks, Tony Thorpe with Lakes of Missouri Volunteer Program, and Kara Tvedt and Ben Parnell with Missouri Department of Conservation. Nineteen surveys were collected at the first meeting. The next two community meetings included the same format and informational presentations to allow for communities in different locations in the watershed to receive the same information without having to drive too far. The second community meeting was held Dec. 15 at Greenfield High School with 40 in attendance, and the third was held Jan. 12 at the Willard Community Center with 61 in atten- dance.

Sac River Watershed Advisory Committee The WAC is formed of voluntary landowners that live or work in the Sac River watershed. The committee is a diverse group of indi- viduals that represent different geographic areas in the watershed. A series of meetings were held in different The committee went through a facilitated process that allowed each communities throughout the Sac River Watershed. person to share their thoughts and discuss the resource concerns for the watershed. From that process, the committee created a list of watershed priorities to be the focus for the next five years and listed Figure 8: Sac River Watershed Meetings possible solutions to those problems. A list of committee members Date Location Attendance Format and the locations they represent in the watershed is found in figure 7 on page 8. Nov. 17, 2015 Stockton Health Department 41 Introductory Community The voluntary local WAC was assembled and held their first Community Room Meeting facilitated meeting in Greenfield on Feb. 23. Twenty-six landowners Dec. 15, 2015 Greenfield High School Library 40 Introductory Community participated in the first committee meeting. The public survey Meeting results were presented to the committee and were also shared with Jan. 12, 2016 Willard Community Building 61 Introductory Community every participant of the introductory community meetings. During Meeting the facilitated meeting, committee members broke out into three Feb. 23, 2016 Greenfield High School Library 26 WAC Facilitated Meeting category groups of Agriculture, Water Quality and Recreation, then March 24, 2016 Stockton Dam 15 Educational Tour discussed and created a list of watershed concerns or problems April 19, 2016 Greenfield High School Library 18 Educational Presentations (found in figure 9 on page 10). Watershed Committee of the Ozarks for WAC provided educational materials and field trips based on the topics May 3, 2016 Greenfield High School Library 13 WAC Facilitated Meeting and questions generated. May 17, 2016 Willard Community Building 19 WAC Facilitated Meeting The first educational presentation was by U.S. Army Corps

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 9 CHAPTER 2: COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROCESS

Figure 9: Resource Concern List At the Feb. 23, 2016, meeting, the Sac River Watershed Advisory Committee compiled a list of resource concerns.

Drinking Water/Pollution/Monitoring • What impact does Springfield Landfill have • How many abandoned wells are there and • Potential pollution from recreational • Stream corridor/buffer destruction by land • Wastewater overflow from cities on Sac River Watershed? what can we do to cap them? vehicles owners on all streams. • How many municipal/wastewater and • Why does Springfield allow outsiders to • Sinkhole management and education; get • Trash • Gravel mining private systems are in the watershed? bring trash? How does that work? the word out; where are they? • Non-native wildlife • Fish passage barriers (mill dams, low water • What are municipal standards and how • Erosion problem, especially streambank • Where are abandoned mines? Is lead and • Infringement of trails crossings, culverts, etc.) well are the systems meeting standards? • Trash problem zinc an issue? Are shafts a danger? • Cattle around sinkholes and streams • How do the municipal inputs affect the • Problem educating citizens to prevent • If you are sick, you go to the doctor to Agriculture/Wildlife causing high nutrients and bacteria in overall health and regulations of river erosion, trash, other issues get tests. Are our waters sick, and how do • Regulation — common sense groundwater and surface water and lakes? • Connecting people to available resources you test it? • Remain voluntary • What municipalities use water from • Erosion and sediment from county • Separation of TMDLs (total maximum daily • Promote existing programs Stockton? Surface water in Sac River (unpaved) roads load) between urban-origin streams and • Landfill Watershed? • Confined animal feeding operations, if agriculture-origin streams • City sewer facilities • How are groundwater levels? If declining, they pollute • Construction (especially homes) within • Precision fertilizer it’s a problem • Why are impaired streams impaired —by flood plains. • CAFO-regulation • Use testing to determine source, more what, how is it measured, how can it be • Sinkholes and caves — the protection of • Corps of Engineers information needed helped? those is a BIG issue within this watershed • Poultry • Urban runoff, stormwater, nonpoint • If livestock uses streams and property is because of the potential impacts on • Education Transparency pollution, impact? fenced out, what watering alternatives are drinking water supplies • How do soil types play into water • More testing to identify sources of available from Stockton? movement through the soil? pollution • Potential problem: flood control, especially Recreation/Tourism/Economy • Nutrient pollutant translocation • Is there a problem worthy of action? in urban areas and towns • Education • Stockpiling animal wastes for fertilizer • How much monitoring is done, who does • Is there data on septic systems — where • Boating safety spreading on fields it and where? they are and their impact? • Nutrient loading for fish production • DNA testing on water E. coli

of Engineers Water Management Department from Kansas City in Figure 10: Resource Concern Priorities March, which gave a background about Stockton Dam, how flows At the May 3, 2016, meeting, the Sac River Watershed Advisory are calculated and information on the new turbine. The committee Committee developed a ranked list of resource concerns. also went on a tour of Stockton Dam to see the facilities. The second educational meeting was held on April 19 in Greenfield Rank Resource Coccern Points People where presenters provided information about watershed moni- 1 Urban Runoff 18 8 toring, soils, municipal wastewater systems and landfills. The 2 Streambank Erosion 14 7 presenters included: Dick Henderson with Soil Consulting; Trish 3 CAFOs 11 5 Rielly with MDNR’s Monitoring and Assessment Unit; Brian Wirth, 4 Municipal Waste 10 6 superintendent of Clean Water Services with the City of Spring- 5 Animal Waste 7 4 field; and Barbara Lucks, sustainability officer with the City of 6 Nutrients/Stormwater Runoff 5 2 Springfield. 7 Septic Tanks 5 2 The committee’s second facilitated meeting was held May 3 8 Lack of Knowledge 3 1 at the Greenfield High School Library to discuss watershed prior- 9 Sinkholes 2 2 ities. Thirteen committee members were in attendance. Using the 10 Genetic Testing (Bacteria) 2 1 concerns list created during the February meeting as a guide, they 11 Landfill 1 1 wrote down their top three concerns on sticky notes, then placed the sticky notes on the wall and grouped them into categories. The group then received numbered stickers and were asked to

10 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS CHAPTER 2: COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROCESS place the sticker with the highest number on their top priority, the following number on their second priority and so on until they had voted with all of their stickers. The numbers were then added up and the priorities were listed from highest total of points to the lowest. (The “Resource Concern Priorities” list created by the committee is found in figure 9 on page 10.) The committee discussed urban runoff, CAFOs, municipal waste, and nutrients/ stormwater runoff, and also created a list of problems and solu- tions for each resource concern. The committee’s third facilitated meeting was May 17 at the Willard Community Center with 19 members in attendance. The committee discussed the resource concerns not fully covered in the previous meetings, which included animal waste, nutrients/ stormwater runoff, septic tanks and lack of knowledge. The committee voted to decide if they wanted to meet again to discuss the list further. The majority voted that another meeting was not necessary.

Watershed Priorities Figure 10 summarizes the priorities that the WAC identi- fied and discussed. The resource concerns are ranked in order of greatest concern, with one being the top concern. Under each resource concern, the landowners came up with a list of ideas on how to fix these problems. Lack of education was a topic that came up frequently and was connected to many of the solutions. The The Sac River Watershed group agreed that continued educational opportunities for both the quality monitoring. To learn more about Missouri Stream Team, a Advisory Committee committee and citizens in the watershed would help solve water- volunteer partnership coordinated through the Missouri Depart- visits Stockton Dam. shed problems and potentially identify new solutions. Local citizens ment of Conservation, visit: http://www.mostreamteam.org. also need access to information about the resources and cost-share Solution: Educational Materials & Workshops programs available to help make watershed improvements. An extensive list of problems and possible solutions identi- The committee expressed a need for educational informa- fied by the committee can be found in Appendix A on page 13. The tion for county offices to have available for residents within the committee held additional discussion on the following solutions: watershed. The Watershed Committee of the Ozarks is working to update three educational factsheets on sinkholes, springs and Solution: Forming a Stream Team & Stream streams to provide for the counties within the Sac River Water- Team Water Quality Sample Collection shed. Other educational materials currently available — including The WAC decided to work towards forming a Stream Team resources on maintaing on-site wastewater systems and protecting group. The first introductory stream team workshop training private wells — will also be shared with the county offices. opportunity will be in spring 2017. After forming a stream team, The Missouri Department of Conservation offers a free potential projects the committee discussed included storm drain Stream Crossing workshop available for county commissioners stenciling, trash pickup, seedling planting and year-round water and road crew staff. If a county within the watershed is interested

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 11 CHAPTER 2: COLLABORATIVE WATERSHED PROCESS

in these workshops, they can contact their local fisheries manage- ment staff with Missouri Department of Conservation to coordi- nate a program.

Solution: Cost-Share Opportunities

The committee agreed that the local cost-share opportunities and programs currently available need to be easily accessible to the public. Many local landowners are not aware of the programs available. MDNR and Soil and Water Conservation Districts coor- dinate cost-share programs to help create nutrient management plans, soil tests, riparian corridor protection and improvements. You can contact these offices for more information: • SWCD: http://swcd.mo.gov/ (to find your district) • NRCS- USDA: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ • FSA: https://www.fsa.usda.gov/ • MU Extension technical assistance: http://extension.missouri.edu/ • MDC: https://mdc.mo.gov/

Conclusion & Acknowledgements This document and the information gathered during this project will be submitted to MDNR and will be utilized at the state level. It can also act as a guide for local landowners to know which watershed improvements to focus on over the next five years. This plan is meant to be a living, working document. Each year, it can be added to or changed as needed. In about five years, the state plans to re-evaluate the plan to see if all the suggestions have been implemented in the watershed. If the Our Missouri Waters effort and the Sac River Healthy Watershed Plan is found useful, then the same process could be followed for the next five years. The Watershed Committee of the Ozarks would like to thank all of the individuals who participated in the Our Missouri Waters– Sac River Watershed project. A special thank you goes out to the voluntary members of the WAC. Your time is valuable and we appreciate the time and effort that was given to this process to discuss and create a priority list for the watershed. Input from people that live and work in the watershed is critically important to protect and sustain the water resources for generations to come.

12 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS APPENDIX A Advisory Committee’s Problems & Solutions

Urban Runoff (developed areas) CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) Problems Solutions Fertilizer on lawns Soil tests, lawn service providers, no Problems Solutions fertilizer sales in spring/education Overspreading of litter, arsenic Soil test before spreading, spreading in floodplains, litter test to determine Pesticides and chemicals Licensed applications/education amount Parking lots, roofs, driveways, roads Greenways, buffers, absorption fields Regulations on decomposing birds/ Tighter regulations on litter (impervious surfaces) disease? spreading, state laws? Pet waste Skip Heavy metals in litter Nutrient management plans through Illicit discharges (oil) Education, fines, storm drain Soil and Water Districts stenciling HSUS facilities tied to CAFO regulations Wildlife in parks and golf courses Geese, no mowing, changing through litter ordinances Stockpiling litter Better regulations on stockpiling animal wastes Streambank Erosion Problems Solutions Municipal Waste U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Streamline the permitting process Problems Solutions Southwest Power Administration Find a different way to moderate the Old pipes and stormwater Grants for upgrading old flow infrastructure Power target needs to be adjusted Get documentation from MDC, DNR Cracks in manholes Flow needs to be moderated Get visible documentation with Overflows during storms, aging witnesses and notarized infrastructure Removing riparian corridor upstream Much of the streambank erosion is Effluent not to the stream, use the from the dam or washed out caused by winter freeze/thaw nutrients Improper gravel mining Proper gravel mining Biosolids spreading Stream buffers Pharmaceutical pollutants left in New sewage treatment Education about available programs sewage treatment discharges technologies

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 13 APPENDIX A: PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS

Animal Waste Septic Tanks

Problems Solutions Problems Solutions Chronic wasting disease/dead deer, Grazing systems Installed too close to watershed/ Education so people understand how blue tongue waterway they work and placement

Cattle in streams Education on proper management Breakout system overloaded with Education on maintenance and programs available rainwater

Animal feeding operations (not CAFOs) Twelve-month testing on impaired Placement on shallow soils or karst Information streams, no water = no fish areas

Ducks, geese/wildlife Document rainfall amounts Improper maintenance Info pamphlets at courthouse, city halls and extension offices People at the lake Do not decrease deer harvest Old systems not installed correctly Financial assistance for replacing and Boating and recreation Dumping stations at lake might need maintaining systems to be increased How many? Where? When last pumped? Kassinger Basin Proper disposal of dead animals Some don’t even have septic tanks Loan/grant program

Lateral lines not installed correctly Keep track of contaminated wells and Nutrients/Stormwater Runoff areas they come from

Problems Solutions Shallow to bedrock Improper application of chemicals or Education Only the old ones fertilizer Unpermitted installation or regulations Improper storage of chemicals or Bank stabilization fertilizer Flushing hazardous or unwanted things

Private landfills Precision application

Eroding streambanks or no buffers Cost-share practices are available Lack of Knowledge

Leaves in street or storm drains Use more cover crops with crop Problems Solutions farming Lack of knowledge Establish “official” watershed coalition for the Sac River

14 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS APPENDIX B Community Meeting Survey

This is the text of the Background: The Watershed Committee of the Ozarks is part- survey distributed nering with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources on at the community The Sac River Healthy Watershed Project. This project will gather meetings held in the local input on water resource priorities and form a local watershed Sac River watershed. advisory committee to identify and develop resources to achieve Graphs illustrating the those priorities. As local citizen in the community your input on summarized responses the following questions will help make this project a success. are found in Appendix C, starting on the next page. 1. What is your general perception of the Sac River and associated Complete responses are streams and lakes in your community? Please list local water found in Appendix D, bodies that are important to your community. starting on page 18. 2. How do you and/or your community use the local streams, rivers and lakes?

3. What are the primary challenges with these water bodies?

4. What are the primary benefits of the water bodies here? For example: recreation, open space, economy, ecological benefits, etc.

5. What are the significant water uses in your community? How do these uses impact your community?

6. Do you feel there are any activities occurring upstream or downstream that impact your use of the river?

7. What would you like to see as a priority for the Sac River water- shed in the next 5 years? Priority #1: Priority #2: Priority #3:

8. Would you be willing to serve on a Watershed Advisory Committee for the Sac River watershed? If yes, please provide name and email.

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 15 APPENDIX C Survey Response Graphs

1. What is your general perception of the Sac River and 2. How do you and/or your community use the These are the summarized associated streams and lakes in your community? local streams, rivers and lakes? responses to the survey distributed at the Recreation community meetings. Complete responses are Agriculture Good found in Appendix D, Drinking Water starting on page 18. Economy Bad Power Generation

Endangered Species

No reply ood

lood Control

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

3. What are the primary challenges 4. What are the primary benefits of 5. What are the significant water with these water bodies? the water bodies here? uses in your community?

Drinking Water/ Pollution Protection

Education/Monitoring/ Codes & Regulations

Agriculture/Soil Health/Wildlife

Recreation/ Tourism/Economy

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

16 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESPONSE GRAPHS

6. Do you feel there are any activities occurring upstream or downstream that impact your use of the river?

Yes General

Power Generation/ Landfill/Wastewater

Agriculture/ Wildlife

Drinking Water/ Pollution

Education/ Monitoring

No/nsure

0 5 10 15 20

7. What would you like to see as a priority for the Sac River watershed in the next 5 years? Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3

Drinking Water/ Pollution Protection

Education/Monitoring/ Codes & Regulations

Agriculture/Soil Health/Wildlife

Recreation/ Tourism/Economy

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 17 APPENDIX D Complete Survey Responses

Meeting 1: Nov. 17, 2015, at Stockton – 41 attendees, 19 survey respondents Upstream/ Downstream General Perception Waterbody Use Primary Challenges Primary Benefits Community Uses Activities Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3

Good overall Stockton Lake, Sac Recreation, drinking Livestock access, Recreation, economy, Recreation, drinking No Water quality Invasive species River, Little Sac, Bear water, livestock pollution runoff drinking water water monitoring monitoring Creek, Cedar Creek, Horse Creek

Stockton Lake is key Recreation, sailing Make sure there are Tourism, to keep lake Fishing, which brings Not sure; however, it Chemicals need to be Regular animal waste Work with city of to our community that (lake is top 10 sailing no pollutants clean to promote new tournaments to is important for me to Stockton on their feeds into the lake lake in four states) business community which know and how we can wastewater must be monitored brings people to connect purchase local products

Sac is muddier praire Fishing, swimming, Keeing water clean Rivers that only occur Drinking water Crop prices have Soil health practices to Stream bank Education outreach soil watershed vs. canoeing, boating enough for swimming driven more producers mitigate lack of stabilization project, through get by people (lower clarity) James/ WBC to clean up creek riparian buffer out of enjoy local Ozark chert/gravel banks to plant more waters watershed (higher corn (high sediment clarity) and nutrients)

A wonderful set of Fishing, boat (kayak Minimizing pollution Recreation and Recreational and Concerned about any Clean water (allow Water conservation Riparian corridor resources. Stockton and fishing) and (chemical, physical), ecological water for farms and activities that pollute recreation as well as maintenance Lake is the main water monitor water quality providing adequate livestock impacts or contaminate the for aquatic organism resource we use on Stockton Lake usage oppourtunites are economic and waters health) for a variety of intrests emotional

Seemed to be fairly Stockton Lake, Sac Recreational, cultural The risk of having to Recreation, economic Recreational, they Unknown Keep our water/lake Community/ Impact positive to our clean bodies of water River provide water to other provide a great deal of clean and clear landowner impact economy sources in Springfield; revenue we wouldn't Stockton Lake has lots have otherwise of traffic/recreational

All are important Fishing, farming needs, Too much government The natural needs, Farming Springfield landfill Agriculture Recreation other recreational uses control farming and recreation

Stockton Lake, Cedar Recreation That they be there Economy Recreation and No Creek economy

Water quality is still All tributaries to Fishing, trapping, Future population Recreation, open Drinking water mostly Nonpoint sources, Water quality study Identify actual sources Impairments, long very good. Some signs Stockton Lake need to water recreation growth and its space, livestock and from wells, water unidentified sources of of pollutants causing standing advisory of degradation can be be protected associated pressure wildlife watering table impacts unidentified pollutants committee formed and observed from time on W.A. maintained to time.

We are fortunate to Water resource for Management All of the above Irrigation, drinking No Manage for Volunteer planning for Cooperation have the resources city; lake provides water sustainablity the future we have food (irrigation), recreation (fishing)

Cedar Creek, Sac River Drain region, fishing, Irrigation Inconsistent water floating release of Stockton Dam

18 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS APPENDIX D: COMPLETE SURVEY RESPONSES

Upstream/ Downstream General Perception Waterbody Use Primary Challenges Primary Benefits Community Uses Activities Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3

Positive, good water Fellows Lake Source for drinking Monitor water Water source for Drinking water source Residental runoff in No mandates, all source water and livestock source and maintain people with animals, for people with minicipalites voluntary programs water and recreation landowner property recreation and tourism animals, recreation rights (boating/fishing)

Heavily impacted. Turnback Creek Recreation Poor land-use Recreation, open Livestock watering. Poor farming practices Farmer education Expansion of grant High nutrient load practices space, ecological Poorly leading to erosion, programs benefits nutrient loading, stinky streams

That they are clean Stockton Lake, Sac Water recreation, Having clean and safe Recreation, economy, Recreation and cattle NA Lake Stockton Access to Sac River Having a clean, safe River, Bear Creek, economic driver, cattle water, bank erosion ecological benefits watering reserved for storage water for Stockton and watershed Spring Creek watering for Stockton and Cedar farmers County

Sac River, Stockton Fishing, trapping and River access Water generation Lake hunting

Major contributor Stockton Lake Recreation, some Keep them clean, All of the above, Boating, fishing, Do not know any More education of Promotion of activities Promotion of activities to lake electricity generation sustaining the health ecological impact on swimming, very specific examples but general public to preserve or enhance to conserve water although from and wellness of water wildlife important to local highly likely example: water quality resources my understanding businesses and pollution into streams, Stockton does not homeowners downstream use of obtain electric power large quantities of from the lake, flood water control

Being destroyed by Recreation and farms Erosion from the Fauna Power generation Shut down power Protect archaeological the U.S. Army Corps of US Army Corps of generation on the sites Engineers Engineers power Sac River releases

Okay, concerned algae Stockton Lake Recreation and power Alage growth, NPS Power generation, Same as 4, drinking Fertilizer runoff, in my Reduce nonpoint Increase recreation Wildlife protection growth on lake generation, fishing for fertilizer runoff recreation, wildlife water opinion, causing algae source fertilizer runoff oppoutunity on river consumption support bloom below dam, bike trails

Never hear anything My farm pond Fishing, boating, Nonpoint source Beauty, recycles water, Drinking, residential, Yes Monitor water Reduce agricultural about condition of drinking water pollution sport boating/fishing, fishing, boating, condition all along the and power plant Sac River. Suspect fish food source clean water improves drainage area pollutants it and Stockton are community polluted from excess fertilizer, herbicide and insecticide

I have been around Recreational canoeing, Keep farm animals Green environments, It brings people, Continued monitoring Maintaining the Keeping our record the country and the kayaking, livestock from destroying water native habitat, resources and revenue of industrial safegaurds to keep our of not ever having cleanliness is much quality and habitat recreation and feeding to our region runoff does help waters clean to close the beach higher than the through broken fences livestock tremendously because of E. coli and majority of waterways contaminants in the country

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 19 APPENDIX D: COMPLETE SURVEY RESPONSES

Meeting 2: Dec. 15, 2015, at Greenfield – 40 attendees, 23 survey respondents Upstream/ Downstream General Perception Waterbody Use Primary Challenges Primary Benefits Community Uses Activities Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3

Generally good water Stockton Lake Fishing, livestock, Agriculture Various, all the above Drinking water Not that I am aware of Nutirents Sediments in streams Groundwater recharge quality, sediment and recreation nutrients

A biologically Stockton Lake Conservation of The operation of All the above, For biology Continuing abuse of Consultation by significant watershed, endangered species Stockton Dam, archaeological department at MSU, the river downstream USFWS with USACE strongly affected by especially freshwater nitrogen pollution, resources, biodiversity study oppourtunites of Stockton Dam (endangered species) Stockton Dam mussels flow fluctuations, education for students and by peaking flows erosion faculty from hydropower generation

Sac River is polluted Sac River We don't live here Cattle, poultry, abuse Cattle, poultry, abuse Control of pollution of sinkholes, sludge of sinkholes, sludge sources disposition disposition

Generally clean Sons Creek Fishing, run to Sons Probably water Recreation brings Recreation, improve Tourism and fertilizer Water quality, improve but has pollution Creek almost daily quality, pollution from visitors that improves economy pollution tourism from tourism and recreation fertilizer and tourists economy agricultural use

Better condition than Recreation Trash Recreation Irrigation Organic fertilizer Clean up streams others like Table Rock and Lake of the Ozarks

Waters are good Stockton Lake Recreation, power Pollution Recreation is good for Recreation, power Keep streams and generation local economy supply creeks clean

Good but room for Recreation, study of Riparian zones, Ecological benefits, Drinking water, Dam changing water Smaller releases Repair riparian Comprehensive improvement aqautic organisms, surrounding land use economy, recreation recreation—you wont patterns from the dam, more corridors, limit ecological assesments drinking water appreciate it if you are regulated, natural sedimentation not out in it flows

Fairly clean Stockton Lake Lake recreation, Soil erosion Recreation fishing, Drinking water, Yes, sewage Less erosion No two-stroke boat Reclaim used oil drinking water boating, power source recreation fertilization motors on lake

Stockton Lake, Sac Stockton Lake every Keeping them clean, Love its not Recreation, many I believe most Keeing it clean if Have places for River weekend during farmer protected land commercialized and people enjoy our landowners do a good places like Springfield families to go summer for recreation from causing trouble not too crowded water and come from job in protecting our need drinking water other places resources

Our streams and rivers Rivers and streams in Fish, swim, just enjoy Excess nutrient and All the above Domestic use/industry No in southwest Missouri southwest Missouri them siltation/sediment, are great better than 30 years ago

Worried about Sac River and Little Sac Recreation, livestock Keeping livestock out All above and clean Cropland in western Landfill leakage Monitoring of streams, Closer monitoring of Continued pollution from watering of local rivers. Making drinking water part of watershed used in Greene County, Sac/Little Sac and CAFOs communication with Springfield landfill use of sludge from for beans and corn. dumping of sludge Turnback Creek DNR, Watershed and sewage treatment Springfield treatment Drinking water near creeks, have Committee and MDC affecting Sac River plants are not dumped heard of incidents quality in Dade County and upstream on Turnback watershed Creek in last couple of years

Bald eagle habitat, Turnback Creek, Sons Water cattle, camping, Paying to use areas as Recreation, Gigging and fishing- Downstream water for Maintain clean water Public use More information animals, deer and Creek, Sac River, fishing, boating, crops local residents agricultural Turnback, Sac springfield regarding sinkholes beaver Little Sac River and boating and how to map swimming, camping sinkhole areas Stockton

20 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS APPENDIX D: COMPLETE SURVEY RESPONSES

Upstream/ Downstream General Perception Waterbody Use Primary Challenges Primary Benefits Community Uses Activities Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3

Impaired but has Sac River I use local waterbodies Maintain biodiversity The Sac River largely Municipal I believe that improper More run of river dam Better riparian-zone Find ways to address lots of room for and streams for through proper provides ecological management of water management management by nonpoint source improvement recreation, floating management of water benefits with added outflow from Stockton landowners inputs, septic, nutrient and fishing flowing through the bonus of recreation/ affects my use of input, sedimentation watershed from lake economy the river and others to Sac by affecting aquatic organisims

Ozark streams are Rereation hunting, Nutrient-input Recreation and Clean drinking water Pollution, land use, Ecologically sound Riparian-zone integrity Whole system vital component of fishing is very management, flow economic benefits sedimentation, river flows from nonpoint source the region's identity of important regimen from Stockton linked to integrity of overharvesting of river Stockton pollution management outdoors recreation, ecological systems fauna (nutrients/ hunting fishing. Most sedimenation) streams fit the image but some are losing this quality

Sac River, Stockton Recreation, drinking Nonpoint source Recreation, open Same as 4, drinking Agricultural pollution Soil stabilization Maintain water Encourage reporting of Lake water pollution space, ecological water use of herbicides, quality/biodiversity required information benefits (wildlife) pesticides and make sure drinking water businesses/individuals conform to existing legislation

Overall healthy but Stockton Lake, Primarily recreation, Yes, all of these Municipal and I would like to be Protection of water Wetland maintenance Continued public fragile Turnback Creek some agricultural uses especially enjoy the agricultural made aware of quality involvement in tcok and irrigation wildlife and birding negative activities protection and monitoring

Stockton Lake, Sac Hunt, fish, swim People All the above Irrigation, potable No Educate Tributeries wells

Mmostly clean, some Turnback Creek Drinking and Maintain steady, do Home use, economic Recreational Yes Control of pollution Maintain water quality trouble with Turnback other home use, not increase pollutants use, recreation from CAFO operations Creek recreational, animals

Mostly in good shape Fishing, floating, Nonpoint source All above plus home Recreation provides Removal of riparian CAFOS Water quality Education for general but does have a lot hiking, swimming, pollution, human use revenue corridor, nonpoint population on how of turbidity due to drinking development, pollution, CAFOs their activities affect riparian removal groundwater watershed and water protection quality

Some are clean and Lake recreation Erosion Recreation and open Drinking water and Preserving Perserving quality of Working with some are not, building space recreation groundwater quality Stockton Lake landowners and restrictions on lake private groups are good

Very clean compared Turnback and Stockton Mainly agriculture, Public opinion, Agriculture Agriculture, drinking Public wastwater Stream bank erosion Wastewater Help for the to Kansas Lake recreation at lake and public use, potential water facilities, dumping control monitoring from cities landowners in the drinking water nonpoint source lagoons watershed district pollution and (financial and legal) wastewater in future

We have an Sac River, Little Sac Water use for Potential overuse, Recreation (lake) Agriculture, recreation I am not sure Stockton Lake Maintain current water Balance use of land abundance of clean and Stockton Lake agriculture, recreation too many people, economy protection quality and improve for all users water but it can be agriculture, septic areas of concern improved quality-wise systems

Sons Creek Water cattle, hunt Wildlife and cattle Drinking water Mostly runoff from Keeping it clean Runoff Sinkholes and fish farms and factors

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 21 APPENDIX D: COMPLETE SURVEY RESPONSES

Meeting 3: Jan. 12, 2016, at Willard – 61 attendees, 24 survey respondents Upstream/ Downstream General Perception Waterbody Use Primary Challenges Primary Benefits Community Uses Activities Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3

Recreation, drinking Keeping them clean All of the above Drinking, livestock, Improper management Improving and Stop contamination Advanced planning water and changing old recreation of wastewater systems maintaining an to meet water needs mindsets about water in area towns of poor improved water (another lake) management systems which are quality outdated or in need of repair. Improper waste management on farms, in particular poultry farms

That Greene County Low taxbase Agriculture, recreation Drinking water, septic Illegal dumping, Safe drinking water Notifying the above has more oppourtunity and uneducated impact is old lines mostly past some for all especially mentioned as soon with the James River community leaders that contaminate present chronically ill and as water test reveals than Sac River groundwater infants bacteria

Urban sprawl Erosion

Little Sac Livestock water People throwing out All of the above Livestock, recreation Only people throwing Keeping waters open trash out trash for livestock owners

Some land erosion but Sac and Turkey Creek Livestock water, Are any Recreation We are farmers, so City pollution Not use my taxes Do not use my taxes Clean up the overall seems healthy recreation community is different wisely as pre-empt for power pollutants from than what it seems cities and towns like like these questions cigarettes are geared

My community loves Sac River and Stockton Fishing, boating, Flooding, drought Recreation, ecological Fishing, farming No and cares for Stockton Lake farming, hunting benefits Lake and the Sac River. Most of the people in my area utilize them

Streams are trashy Sac and Little Sac Cattle water, fishing Clean them up Open space Stock water, garden No Keep the chicken and water turkeys houses away from them

Generally good water Little Sac and Turkey Recreation Bank erosion, flood Recreation, perserving Personal and livestock Yes Upstream pollution quality especially Creek waters for next generation solutions, landfill, Turkey Creek, not so wastewater plan much Little Sac

It is directly connected Fellows and McDaniel Drinking water Quality is good but a Drinking water, quality See #4 Yes, always Sustain/protect for to our water sources Lake challenge to maintain; of life, economic drinking water small watersheds, prerequisite, recreation quantity can be an issue

Livestock water

Fishing, boating Keeping them clean Recreation, green Debris floating down Education of the Better building codes space public to keep it clean to help with runoff

Turkey Creek Livestock water Erosion Economy Livestock water and drinking water

22 · WATERSHED COMMITTEE OF THE OZARKS APPENDIX D: COMPLETE SURVEY RESPONSES

Upstream/ Downstream General Perception Waterbody Use Primary Challenges Primary Benefits Community Uses Activities Priority #1 Priority #2 Priority #3

Accessible contributor Sac, Fellows, Canoeing, fishing, Pollution Recreation Private, community Pollution cleanup Education conservation to the quality of life McDaniel, Stockton hiking, boating pool Lake

Sac River and Little Sac Cattle, fishing, boating Being clean Recreation Fishing, recreation for Chicken farms Less poultry farms canoeing furture generations

Stockton Lake and Wildlife stability, Excessive flooding at Open space, ecological Provide stability of Erosion Provide guidelines for Ease access to funding branches horses and cattle least 4 times annually benefits well-water levels, big business which for use of water provides recreation impose penalties feeders vs. use of and lake living waterways by livestock for drinking water

Sac, Stockton Lake, Fishing, swimming, Pollution Recreational Drinking from Farming, raising cattle, Better stormwater Clear Creek boating groundwater stormwater runoff management in cities from towns and city

Good Asher Creek Enjoyment, Livestock and wildlife Residential none as No growing trees along water source city willard sanitary streambank, talking goes to Springfield walks and also have pasture as buffer

The condition of Sac Sac River As a water resource Agriculture, Recreation, Potable water, Yes Enhance protection of Financial support, promotion of best River is fair to poor. stormwater and septic economic, drinking groundwater Stockton Lake incentive programs for management practices There is too much tank effluent runoff water, floodwater resources, agriculture sustainable ag for land use and direct contact to the management useage development waterway from cattle

More education Cedar County, Cedar Livestock, recreation, Keep it clean, useable All of the above and Answered in above All Available Clean harvested education/ Creek life itself and controled more demonstration

Overall in good health Sac River and Irrigation, swimming, River bank erosion, Benefit is defined Farm is not located Erosion of River/stream bank Flood control maintain rights of the tributaries fishing, water for flood control by the individual near community individual rights by erosion individual landowner livestock landowner governmental agencies

Large urban areas Recreation, fishing, Water supply for Good drinking water, Residential and None in my area Springfield landfill Regular input from municipal sewer getting polluted good source of Springfield affects recreation business use, runoff particularly landowners/business systems that are not revenue from trouism/ us all agriculture, recreation, disposal of those new handiling capacity recreation dams make our mercury lightbulbs electricity

Drinking water supply Sac River Recreation Erosion, excess Industry and jobs, Drinking water, I previously lived Monitor residental Look for creative and health related to runoff, nonpoint recreation, economy, industry, overall health downstream from watering systems, drainage solutions waterborn pollutants pollutants due to karst health of forests and quality of life for development of the runoff agricultural, such as rain gardens and contaminants topography related to economy citizens. Everyone James River Freeway. chemical and permeable and erosion control drinks water There was exessive parking surfaces and drinking water flooding into Lake Springfield causing

General perception Flint Hill Branch Wade in creek on my Increased bacteria Recreation, ecological Recreation, drinking Better protection of Incentive program is good property at South Dry loading probably from benefits, drinking water, agricultural sinkhole and streams to improve septic Sac along trail septics/livestock water from livestock systems

As stewards of the Sac River, Clear Creek, Recreation, economic Keeping them Fishing, swimming, Potable water, Wastewater discharge Increased monitoring Increased fines for increased education, natural resources, all Asher Creek, Stockton development, to help clean, ensuring their boating, agricultural, mining, agriculture, and money for illegal dumping public awareness, waters are important Lake recharge aquifers existence in the future wildlife, power survival, economic programs to repair and of trash, tires, TVs, stiffer design criteria to protect and as water use increases generation development maintain wastewater couches for sewage disposal preserve with population systems systems

SAC RIVER HEALTHY WATERSHED PLAN · 23